Cassiodorus's Chronica

CASSIODORUS' CHRONICA TEXT, CHRONOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Michael Klaassen

A DISSERTATION

in

Classical Studies

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania

in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2010

SupefvTsfor of Dissertation / Ji\'j) ]JM

Richard W. Burgess/Trofessor of Classics and Religious Studies, University of Ottawa

Graduate Group Chairperson

Dissertation Committee

Jeremy Mclnerney, Professor of Classical Studies Campbell Grey, Assistant Professor of Classical Studies

UMI Number: 3414225

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3414225 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

uest ProQuest LLC

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Cassiodorus' Chronica: Text, Chronography, and Sources

COPYRIGHT

2010

Michael Walter Klaassen

iii

ABSTRACT

CASSIODORUS' CHRONICA: TEXT, CHRONOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Michael Klaassen

Supervisor: Richard W. Burgess

A new text of Cassiodorus' Chronica is followed by the first analysis in any

language of Cassiodorus' chronographic methods and sources. To construct his consular

list Cassiodorus used a now-lost consularia extracted from Livy and Aufidius Bassus

from 509 BCE to 27 CE, the Cursuspaschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine (from 28 to 457),

and a now-lost extension of Victorius' work (from 458 to 519). An examination and

comparison of the Livian and Aufidian consular names with the surviving witnesses to

the same Livian consularia, the Liber prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus

Papyrus 668, demonstrates that the original consularia was a much larger document

which included material drawn from sources other than Livy. A similar comparison of the

consuls of Victorius of Aquitaine and Cassiodorus reveals a few adjustments and

alterations of consular names, but it is unclear whether they were made by Cassiodorus or

were present in his source. A comparison of Cassiodorus' list from 458 with the other

consular lists from fifth and sixth century Italy, shows that Cassiodorus, whose list is

almost perfect, worked hard to make sure that his list contained both the eastern and the

western consuls for the year.

Cassiodorus drew historical notes from Jerome, Prosper of Aquitaine and

Eutropius which he inserted into his consular list with limited success, content to place

them relative to imperial reigns, but not to the consular list. He epitomized his sources

iv

and passed over ecclesiastical details, concentrating rather on secular history. A

comparison of Cassiodorus' historical notes from 458 to 500 with other consularia from

the same time-period shows that Cassiodorus used a recension of the consularia Italica as

a source, closely related to a similar text used by Paul the Deacon in the ninth century.

Cassiodorus' work, often described as a panegyric of the ruling Ostrogothic family

in Italy, is not successful as a panegyric, but should be seen rather, in the context of

Cassiodorus' whole corpus, as the author's attempt to present the history of the world

succinctly and accurately.

V

Introduction

On 1 January 519 CE, Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator delivered a

panegyric before a meeting of the senate in Rome, praising the consul for the year,

Eutharic Cilliga, husband of the eldest daughter of King Theoderic the Great, and heir

apparent to Theoderic's throne. The celebrations, Cassiodorus tells us, were so

extraordinary that even the legate from the eastern court was amazed. The people of

Rome were so enamoured of their new consul that they longed for him even after he went

back to Ravenna, where he put on another round of games in the same lavish style.1

Shortly thereafter the panegyrist presented the consul with another document: a

chronicle from the creation of the world to his consulship. We do not know exactly when

or how the work was delivered to Eutharic, nor is there any evidence that anyone in the

ancient world used this particular chronicle after its composition. Cassiodorus himself

does not mention it again.2 At the end of the chronicle proper is appended a list of consuls

which carries the work forward to 559, so it is fair to assume that the last ancient hand to

deal with the document added these names at some point shortly after 559. The Chronica

has survived in two manuscripts only, both copies of the same archetype which was the

basis for Johannes Cuspinianus' work, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii,

published posthumously in 1553. But between 559 and when it shows up in Cuspinianus'

library in the sixteenth century there are few hints of its existence.

1 Chron. 1364. 2 There are two places where he might have mentioned it: Institutiones 1.17.2, where he discusses

chronicles, but limits himself to explicitly Christian works, and the preface to the de Orthographic/, where he gives a list of his works, but only those after his conversion. He makes no reference to it in the Variae.

vi

Mommsen published the Chronica twice, once in 1861 in Abhandlungen der

Saechsichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften3 and later, in 1894, in the second of the

Chronica Minora volumes of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores

Antiquissimi series.4 Apart from Mommsen's brief introductions, the work has received

no major study — unlike the Gallic chronicle of 452, and the chronicles of Prosper,

Hydatius, and Marcellinus — and has been used, like most late antique chronicles,

merely as a source for the investigation of other subjects, notably the Livian epitome that

Cassiodorus used as a source for his work and the well-chewed issue of its relationship to

Cassiodorus' lost Gothic History.5 More recently, J. J. O'Donnell devoted seven pages to

it, but the Chronica normally only appears in footnotes in larger works on Ostrogothic

Italy, and typically does not attract much attention for itself. Most authors lay stress on

the work as panegyric and as a piece of propaganda for the Ostrogothic regime and

Theoderic's ruling Amal family.6

To be sure it is a spare work which superficially presents little that is unique or

valuable to the study either of the chronicle genre or late antiquity, and as such it is a little

intractable, so it is not to be wondered at that scholars have found little to say about it.

Still, I believe my efforts in this direction have been repaid in the following study.

I have followed an introductory chapter on Cassiodorus and the genre in which he

wrote with a new text of the Chronica in chapter two. Mommsen's text in Chronica

Minora is, on the whole, a good piece of work, and there are no cruces in the textual

3 Mommsen 1861. The introduction was republished in Mommsen, T. Gesammelte Schriften, 1909, vol. 9, 668-690.

4 Mommsen 1894. 5 Livian epitome: Sanders 1905, Schmidt 1968; the Gothic History: Croke 1987, Heather 1989. 6 E.g. O'Donnell 1979, 38ff., Moorhead 1992, 175, Amory 1997, 66-68.

vii

tradition of any weight. But Mommsen tidied up the orthography in the manuscripts, as

was the style in the nineteenth century, and furthermore the Chronica Minora editions are

cluttered with extra material and can be difficult to use. I have followed a fairly

conservative approach and have kept marginalia to a minimum. I retained Mommsen's

numbering system for ease of reference, since there are no serious reasons for changing

it.

Cassiodorus himself divides the study of his document into two parts when he

discusses his reasons for writing it in his introduction. First, he notes that his addressee,

Eutharic, has himself directed Cassiodorus to restore to the fasti "the dignity of their age-

old truth." The production of an accurate consular list, then, is the primary goal,

generously portrayed as the desire of the new consul. The secondary goal, to include

historical notes in the chronicle, is also mentioned in the introduction: Cassiodorus has

produced a work so that Eutharic's mind "delighted by glorious events, might run through

the very long age of the world in pleasing brevity." Accordingly, the third chapter of this

study will focus on the consular list and Cassiodorus' chronological method, the fourth

chapter will focus on the historical details, and the fifth will assess Cassiodorus' work

both as panegyric and as a work of chronography.

The third chapter investigates Cassiodorus' sources for setting up his

chronological framework: Jerome, a combined epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus,

some material from Eutropius, and the Easter calendar of Victurius of Aquitaine. Each of

these presents its own set of problems. Cassiodorus used Jerome as his over-arching

chronological framework, but this approach created problems for him as he tried to fit his

viii other sources, especially the consular list, into Jerome's framework.

The epitome of Livy which Cassiodorus used is related to that found on P. Oxy.

668 as well as the Prodigiorum Liber of Julius Obsequens. While it appears likely that

Cassiodorus copied the list of consuls he found there unchanged, he added material from

Eutropius to make the number of years in the Livian consular list match the total he found

in Jerome.

The Easter calendar of Victurius of Aquitaine, Cassiodorus' primary source for the

consuls of the imperial period, presents its own set of problems. Victurius produced the

calendar in 457, but calculated the dates of Easter as far as 559, leaving space for

individuals to write in the consular names as they learned them year by year. Thus,

Cassiodorus is a good witness to Victurius' list to 457, but the consuls from 458 to 519

derive in all likelihood from a continuation of Victurius' list which Cassiodorus had to

hand. Several continuations of Victurius' list, all by different people, survive, but none

was the source for Cassiodorus. My study of Victurius also gives rise to some tangential

questions about the list in the manuscript designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch, and the

relationship (or lack thereof) among the surviving three continuations of Victurius. Both

of these issues are dealt with in appendices.

The shape of Cassiodorus' chronographical sources having been established, the

final section of chapter three investigates Cassiodorus' chronographic method, in

particular his attempt, as Prosper of Aquitaine had done almost one hundred years before,

to align the lengths of imperial reigns which he found in Jerome with the consular list of

Victurius. His method, marginally more successful than Prosper's, and the reasons for

ix some of the decisions he made, can be deduced from the final product.

Chapter three leaves many questions broached but unanswered, particularly as

regards Cassiodorus' historical sources. Accordingly, the fourth chapter examines more

carefully the historical material apart from the chronological framework. Despite what

seems at first a haphazard jumble of events with no internal consistency, Cassiodorus

shows himself to have chosen and adapted his historical notes carefully. We can make

some further generalizations about the epitome of Livy which he used and the way he

epitomized the material he found he Jerome, Eutropius and Prosper. Perhaps most

important, however, the material after 378 shows Cassiodorus' use of a lost source with

which he made additions to Prosper, and a branch of the Italian consularia, which shares

many similarities with the much later Historia Romana of Paul the Deacon.

In the fifth and final chapter I discuss the two sides of the chronicle, the

panegyrical and the chronographic. Viewed as a work of panegyric or propaganda for the

Ostrogothic court, the work comes up short, which suggests that Cassiodorus did not

intend it to be read primarily in that light. More important to the author was the shape the

Chronica gave to Roman history.

The Chronica fits neatly into the larger scheme of Cassiodorus' political and

religious output. His chief aim was to set the consular list in order, and this desire to

organize and make good information available to his readers is one of the driving forces

of his whole output, particularly seen in the Variae, the Expositio Psalmorum, and the

Institutiones.

Appendix 1 demonstrates that the consular list known to Mommsen and Krusch as

X.

"Q" was not extracted from a copy of Victurius' Easter calendar, but is an independently

maintained list which was supplemented at some point after 491 by consuls taken from a

copy of Victurius' list.

Appendix 2, on the three extensions of Victurius of Aquitaine's consular list,

outlines their relationship with one another and demonstrates that they all come from

independent traditions after 475.

This dissertation is the product of the work of many people, but only a few can be

named. Gratitude of the first order goes to Richard Burgess of the University of Ottawa.

When I first met him over 25 years ago in the lounge at 14 Hart House Circle at the

University of Toronto, I had no idea that our paths would cross again with such great

benefit to myself. There are few people in this world who find consular lists as exciting as

I do, and I could not have asked for a more attentive or exacting supervisor. All of my

teachers over the last forty years deserve credit as well, but two, T.D. Barnes and J.J.

O'Donnell, who have also read and commented on portions of this work, must be singled

out for the influence they have exerted over my scholarship: grato animo optimis

magistris. Michael Maas read some of my early chapters, and commented extensively on

them; I have been, and continue to be, grateful to him for his advice, guidance, and

friendship.

My parents, Ruth and Walter Klaassen, my brothers Frank and Philip Klaassen

and their partners, Sharon Wright and Stephanie Klaassen, devoted themselves

generously to the support of my efforts, and I am deeply indebted to their encouragement

and exertions on my behalf. Stephanie Lawrence has given me her time, her wisdom, and

xi

her love, and maintains a calm confidence in my ability that, more often than she knows,

shores me up when my own wavers.

Finally, all I have done here is dedicated to my children. When I first turned my

attention to Cassiodorus in 1992, Peter, Judy and Timothy lived only in my daydreams.

When I returned to my unfinished work in the summer of 2007, however, their very real

and joyful presence, as well as their enthusiastic encouragement, gave me much of the

impetus I needed to complete what I had begun. This work has been in many ways their

effort, and to them I will always be grateful.

xiii

Table of Contents

Abstract iv

Introduction vi

Chapter 1: Cassiodorus and the Chronica 1

Chapter 2: The Text 26

Chapter 3: Chronology and Consuls I l l

Chapter 4: Historiography 215

Chapter 5: Panegyric and Chronology 306

Appendix 1: The Fasti Parisini 322

Appendix 2: Manuscripts G, L, S and A of Victorius 341

Bibliography 345

1

Chapter 1: Cassiodorus and the Chronica

Cassiodorus: Life and Works

Cassiodorus was born of a wealthy southern Italian family which had probably

come west from the eastern empire, perhaps near the beginning of the fifth century; he

mentions that his family is famous in both east and west.1 His great-grandfather and

grandfather we know only from Variae 1.4, a letter from Theoderic to the senate

appointing his father to the patriciate, which our Cassiodorus himself wrote. He tells us

that his great-grandfather had been an illustris and had defended Bruttium and Sicily

from the attacks of the Vandals, though in what capacity he acted we are not told.2

Cassiodorus says that his grandfather had been "tribunus et notarius" under Valentinian

III and had retired to Bruttium after serving on an embassy to Attila.3 The political

fortunes of the Cassiodori rose considerably under Cassiodorus' father. Again, we know

this chiefly from Variae 1.4, but also from other letters in the Variae, as well as the Ordo

generis Cassiodororum, sometimes also called the Libellus or the Anecdoton Holderi.4

Like his son, the elder Cassiodorus was born in Bruttium and rose to prominence under

barbarian rule in Italy, but, unlike his son, he rose to distinction in the financial

administration, serving Odovacar both as comes reiprivatae and as comes sacrarum

largitionum. During the years of conflict between Theoderic and Odovacar he kept Sicily

stable and secure, and sometime thereafter, but certainly before 506, he was corrector

1 Variae 1.4.15. 2 Variae 1.4.14. The defense of Sicily referred to is perhaps the attacks on the island by the Vandals

immediately after their capture of Carthage in 439. 3 Variae 1.4.10-13. 4 Edited by O'Donnell 1979, 259-266 and more recently by Alain Galonnier, 1996.

Bruttii et Lucaniae. He was appointed praetorian prefect of Italy sometime between 503

and 507, though we do not know how long he served. The patriciate was conferred on

him in 507.5 There is no record of his death.

Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, the last in his family that we know of to

hold public office, was born in Bruttium (he calls it his patria), probably between 485

and 490.6 We can estimate his date of birth because he says that he served as consiliarius

to his father during the latter's prefecture while he was still a "iuvenis, "7 and because he

says he was "primaevus" when became quaestor, an inexact word which could indicate at

age anywhere between sixteen and twenty-three. O'Donnell, in his discussion, seems to

favour the higher end of the age range. Thus a birthdate of 485 would make him twenty-

two in 507, the earliest certain date for his quaestorship, as testified by dateable letters

from the Variae?

He had come to the attention of Theoderic when he delivered a panegyric on the

king and was appointed quaestor palatii on the strength of his performance.9 As quaestor,

his duties involved drafting letters on behalf of Theoderic, and the first four books of the

Variae all comprise letters which date from this period. He was certainly still in office in

511, but no letters from the first four books of the Variae can be dated later than that

year.10

We know nothing of the next three years of Cassiodorus' life. In 514, however, we

5 Variae 1.3 and 1.4 . 6 Variae 11.39.5. 7 For a full discussion of Cassiodorus' birth date, see O'Donnell 1979, 20-23, whom I follow. 8 See Mommsen, MGH AA 12 xxvii ff.. A. van der Vyver suggested that he may have been quaestor

already in 506, 1937 and 1938. 9 Ordo generis 15-17: "iuvenis adeo dum patris Cassiodori patricii et praefecti praetorii consiliarius

fieret laudes Theodorici regis Gothorum facundissime recitasset ab eo quaestor est factus." 10 See Mommsen, MGH AA 12 xxvii ff..

3

know from the surviving fasti that he held the consulship alone, a date confirmed by

several different sources.11 Though it was an extraordinary honour, it was certainly

normal at this time for a young man in his twenties to hold the consulship, often

bankrolled by his father. It is possible, as Mommsen suggested, that Cassiodorus was

corrector Lucaniae et Bruttiorum between his quaestorship and his consulship, but the

passage on which he based his conjecture is not decisive.12

Between the end of his consulship and the beginning of his term as magister

offwiorum he seems to have held no other office and to have devoted himself to some

study and writing. Since he had been consul in 514 it seems likely that he was living in

Rome at least part of the time, or dividing his time among Rome, Ravenna and the family

estates in the south of Italy.13 But he was not intellectually or academically idle. During

these years he seems to have made the acquaintance of Dionyius Exiguus, the Scythian

monk whose Easter calendar, dated from the birth of Christ, was eventually accepted

across Europe. Cassiodorus says in his Institutiones that Dionysius "mecum dialecticam

legit'V'read dialectic with me."14 In 518 he compiled his Chronica, the subject of this

study, in honour of the consul of the following year, Eutharic Cilliga, the son-in-law of

11 From CLRE, inscriptions. ICUR n.s. 8.20836 = ILCV1650; ICUR .s.s 7.17609; CIL 6.9613 = ICUR n.s. 2.5018; ICUR 1.945 = ILCV3109B; CIL 11.4337 = ILCV4681; CIL 9.5021 = ILCV 3166; CIL 12.1692 = ILCV 1432; papyri: P. Cair. Masp. 1 67001.2; P. Flor. 3.280.1; a letter from Pope Symmachus to Caesarius of Aries, Coll. Avell. 109; Liber Pontifwalis 1.269.

12 Mommsen, MGH AA 12: x, who cites a passage from Variae 11.39.5: "senserunt me iudicem suum et quibus privatus ab avis atavisque praefui, vivacius nicus sum in meis fascibus adiuvare" "they perceived me to be their judge, and in the matters in which I profited from my grandfather and great­grandfathers, I endeavoured to help more actively when I myself had authority." Mommsen's suggestion is followed by PLRE, ad loc. If Cassiodorus did serve as corrector, he may not have done so in this period, since the letter dates from his own praetorian prefecture and the time he refers to is unclear.

13 0'Donnelll979,25. 14 Inst. 1.23.2.

4

Theoderic, and also delivered a panegyric of the new consul before the senate.15 Perhaps

most important for Cassiodorus, however, was his work on the Gothic History. We do not

know when the history was published, but several dates have been put forward, along

with arguments for several versions, Most scholars place the publication of the work

between 519 and 526.16 No matter what the date of its completion, it is certainly possible

that he began work on the Gothic History during these years between his consulship and

his next office, around the same time as the composition of the Chronica.

We know Cassiodorus served as magister offwiorum from his official titles in the

headings of the Variae and the Chronica, as well as from the Ordo generis. Once again,

the Variae set the limits for his tenure of the position, roughly 523 to 527.17 He entered

the post under Theoderic and ended it under Theoderic's grandson and successor,

Athalaric. As magister offwiorum Cassiodorus was largely responsible for the functioning

of the palace bureaucracy, but he also seems to have taken on some of the duties of the

quaestors, as the letters of Athalaric appointing Cassiodorus to the praetorian prefecture

note.18 His stint as magister officiorum also brought with it a brief military command

under Athalaric, though the details of it are very sketchy.19 Most scholars, as well, put the

15 The fragments of Cassiodorus' panegyrics were edited by Ludwig Traube, and included in Mommsen's edition of the Variae, MGH AA 12: 459-484.

16 O'Donnell 1979, 43-47, favours an early date of 519, and at the very least demonstrates that such an early date is possible. See Barnish 1984 and Luiselli 1980. Both favour a date between 523 and 526.

17 Mommsen , MGH AA 12 xxvii ff, O'Donnell 1979, 26. 18 Variae 9.24.6 "Quo loco positus semper quaestoribus affuisti. nam cum opus esset eloquio defaecato,

causa tuo protinus credebatur ingenio" "in this position you were always available to the quaestors. For when there was a need for refined language, the matter was immediately entrusted to your talent," and Variae 9.25.8 "Reperimus eum quidem magistrum, sed implevit nobis quaestoris officium..." "We found him, of course, as magister, but he fulfilled the duty of quaestor for us..."

19 Variae 9.25.8: "Nam dum curae litorum regias cogitationes incesserent, subito a litterarum penetralibus eiectus par suis maioribus ducatum sumpsit intrepidus..." "For when concerns for the shores afflicted kingly thoughts, immediately from the depths of his letters he catapulted forth, fearless and equal to his ancestors he took up leadership..."

5

completion of the Gothic History sometime in this period.20

We again have no information about what Cassiodorus did during the time

between 527 and his appointment as praetorian prefect. We have a firm date for the

appointment, 1 September 1 533, since Cassiodorus wrote his own appointment letters

(presumably after the fact) and included them in the Variae.21 It was a grim time to take

on the oversight of the Italian peninsula. Athalaric died in 534, certainly no more than

eighteen years old and possibly younger,22 and his mother Amalasuintha supported

Theodahad, the nephew of Theoderic, as the new king. Theodahad, however, soon had

Amalasuintha put to death or murdered.23 The eastern emperor Justinian, who had already

destroyed the Vandal kingdom in Africa in 533, used the murder of Amalasuintha as a

pretext for invading Sicily in 535 and then the Italian mainland in 536.24 Theodahad was

murdered and replaced by Witigis late in 536.

We do not know when Cassiodorus ceased to be praetorian prefect. Five letters in

the Variae were written by Cassiodorus for Witigis (10.31-35), but none can be dated

later than 536, and the last dateable letters from the Variae are from late 537 or early

538.25 The superscriptions on the Variae and the Chronica both list him as praetorian

prefect, which suggests that, despite the war, Cassiodorus found the time to compile or

20 See note 16 above. 21 Variae 9.24 and 25. For the date, Variae 9.25.12: "Huic ergo, patres conscripti, deo auspice a

duodecima indictione praefecturae praetorianae regendam tribuimus dignitatem..." "Therefore to this man, conscript fathers, with God's oversight, we commit the control of the office of the praetorian prefecture from the twelfth indiction." The twelfth year of this indiction cycle began on 1 September 533.

22 It is not clear when Athalaric was born. We have two different dates from Jordanes. In the Getica he says that at the time of Theoderic's death Athalaric was "vix decennem" "scarcely ten years old" {Get. 304), but in the Romana (367) he says that Athalaric was 8 in 526, as does Procopius BG 1.2.1. Perhaps the younger age is to be preferred.

23 Procopius BG 1.2.1 - 1.4.27 and Jordanes Getica 306. 24 Procopius BG 1.5.1. 25 0'Donnelll979,31.

6

complete the compilation of the Variae and perhaps make a fresh copy of the Chronica

before he gave up his post.26

During this time as well, between mid-535 and April of 536 he began making

plans with Pope Agapetus for the establishment of a Christian school in Rome, on the

model of a similar school at Nisibis.27 Books were gathered together, but the school itself

was never founded. There is reason to believe that the remains of the library of Pope

Agapetus, which was to have been the library for the school, are still to be seen today on

the Clivo di Scauro in Rome.28 Most scholars place his elevation to the patriciate during

these years since none of the letters in the Variae mention the title. Still, the Ordo generis

clearly says that he was made patricius by Theoderic: "ab eo quaestor est factus, patricius

et consul ordinarius, postmodum dehinc magister officiorum'V'he was made quaestor by

him, patricius, ordinary consul and afterwards magister officiorum." Since the other three

offices are in order, we must take seriously the possibility that he was raised to the

patriciate after his quaestorship, and perhaps on the death of his father.29

The Variae must have been completed sometime in 538, and the scholarly

consensus is that he ceased to perform the duties of praetorian prefect around this time.30

At the same time as he was completing the Variae he was also engaged in writing his first

strictly Christian work, the De anima, which he mentions in the preface to the eleventh

26 Mommsen suggests, in his preface to the Variae, that the Chronica was at one point attached to the Variae and that a scribe copied the titles from the Variae to the Chronica.

27 Inst, praef. 1. Agapetus was pope for only eleven months between 13 May 335 and 22 April 336. 28 41° 53'10.56" N 12° 29'29.09" E 29 See Vanderspoel 1990. 30 There is no evidence for when or why Cassiodorus stopped being praetorian prefect. O'Donnell 1979,

104 gives several suggestions: he was dismissed, he resigned in order to retire, or his duties were no longer performable in wartime. The normal time to leave office would have been the end of the indiction year, but it appears that no one replaced him, so there is no compelling reason to date the end of his tenure to 1 Sept. 537, as does PLRE. In early 537 Belisarius had a prefect, Fidelis, serving under him in Rome (Procopius BG 1.20.19-20; PLRE 2 "Fidelis").

7

book of the Variae.31 At this time as well, he wrote (and presumably delivered) an oration

celebrating the marriage of the king Witigis and Theoderic's grand-daughter

Matasuentha.32

Cassiodorus' famous "conversion," when he turned away from his political life

toward a religious one, is to be dated to this time as well. We noted above that

Cassiodorus had attempted to found a Christian school in Rome with the help of Pope

Agapetus. The composition of the De anima, a philosophical work backed up by

scriptural texts, may also be seen as part of Cassiodorus' process of directing his efforts to

ecclesiastical affairs.33 The preface to his Expositio psalmorum also dates his conversion

to the time he spent in Ravenna after he had ceased to be praetorian prefect.34

Between the end of the 530s and 550, we know almost nothing. It seems most

likely, however, that Cassiodorus remained in Ravenna until its fall to Belisarius in 540,

at which point he went to Constantinople with Witigis and Matasuentha either willingly

or under duress.35 We have fairly firm confirmation that Cassiodorus was in

Constantinople during 550 and 551. First, a letter of Pope Vigilius dated to 550 names

him specifically as being among a group of bishops and friends that were with him in

31 Variae 11 praef. 7: "Sed postquam duodecim libris opusculum nostrum desiderata fine concluseram, de animae substantia vel de virtutibus eius amici me disserere coegerunt..." "But after I had completed my little work in twelve books with a proper conclusion, my friends forced me to write about the substance or the virtues of the soul..."

32 See Traube's edition of the fragments of Cassiodorus' orations at the end of Mommsen's MGH edition of the Variae, p. 463.

33 O'Donnell 1979, 108-109. 34 Expositio psalmorum praef. 1-5: "Repulsis aliquando in Ravennati urbe sollicitudinibus dignitatum et

curis saecularibus noxio sapore conditis, cum paslaterii caelestis animarum mella gustassem, id quod solent desiderantes efficere, avidus me perscrutator immersi, ut dicta salutaria suaviter imbiberem post amarissimas actiones" "In the past in the city of Ravenna, after I had set aside the worries of my offices and the cares of the world with their poisonous smell, when I had had a taste of the heavenly psalter, the honey for souls, just as those who desire are accustomed to do, I immersed myself, an eager student, so that I might drink sweetly their health-bringing words after my very bitter actions." See also O'Donnell 1979,105.

35 See O'Donnell 1979, 104-16, Sundwall 1919, 154-156, Cappuyns 1949 and van de Vyver 1931.

8

Constantinople.36 Second, Jordanes, in the preface to his Getica, says that he borrowed

Cassiodorus' Gothic History from the latter's steward for three days. The presence of the

steward in Constantinople strongly suggests the presence of Cassiodorus as well.

Jordanes completed his work after the death of Germanus, the cousin of Justinian and

husband of Theoderic's granddaughter Matasuentha, in 551 and probably before the war

in Italy came to its final end in 553 with the final defeat of Teias and the remnant of the

Ostrogoths at Mons Lactarius near Cumae.37 It is likely that the Expositio psalmorum was

completed while Cassiodorus was still in Constantinople.38

From this point on we rely exclusively on Cassiodorus' own writings for

information about his life. With the imposition of the Pragmatic Sanction, the eastern

emperor Justinian's reorganization of Italy under Byzantine rule, it seems that

Cassiodorus returned to his family's estates in southern Italy at about age sixty-five. He

never returned to public life and instead founded a kind of monastery which he calls

Vivarium.39

There he devoted himself to a religious life and, in his writing, to largely biblical

pursuits. The preface to his De orthographia, written when he was ninety-three years old,

lists his works dating from after his conversion: the commentary on the psalms, the

Institutiones, a commentary on Romans, a book on the Artes of Donatus, a book on

etymologies, a book of Sacerdos on schemata, or forms of words, a book of tituli for the

scriptures, a book of complexiones, a literal paraphrase of the New Testament without the

36 PL 69.49 A-B "religiosum virum item filium nostrum Senatorem." 37 See also O'Donnell 1979, 132-136. 38 O'Donnell 1979, 131-176. 39 Inst. 1.29. The site of the Vivarium was established by Pierre Courcelle, MEFR 55 (1938) 259-307. A

sarcophagus, possibly that of Cassiodorus himself, was discovered there in 1952. See Courcelle 1957. See also O'Donnell 1979, 194-198.

9

gospels, and the De orthographia itself.40 None of these works shows original thinking,

but instead a desire to organize and distill more complicated and disparate material. At

Vivarium he also commissioned translations of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and a

translation of the compiled church histories of Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, known

as the Historia Tripartita.

Cassiodorus does not mention the Computus paschalis, which is transmitted along

with the manuscript of the Institutiones, and was probably also by Cassiodorus. It is a

short document, written in 562, which gives instructions on how to calculate the number

of years since the crucifixion when the indiction year is known.41 Cassiodorus died at

Vivarium sometime after 580, when he was more than ninety-three years old.

Cassiodorus was not a man of original intellect except insofar as he recognized

disorder and sought to correct it. His skills, reflected or developed by his public service,

were organizational and bureaucratic. His works, both from before and after his

conversion, in the main demonstrate a desire to teach and organize rather than to dispute

and convince, and Momigliano, in his memorable essay "Cassiodorus and Italian culture

of his time," places him among the men "who did not disdain the task of elementary

teaching when elementary teaching was needed."42

Cassiodorus' Chronica: historical setting and genre

Cassiodorus' Chronica comes to us as a work written for Eutharic Cilliga, the

40 De orth. praef. Keil, p. 144. See O'Donnell 1979, 223-238. Of these works we have only the Expositio psalmorum, the Complexiones in epistulas, the Institutiones and the De orthographia.

41 See Lehmann, P. 1959. 42 Momigliano, A. 1955, 245.

10

western consul for the year 519, who was both husband of Amalasuintha (the daughter of

Theoderic, the Ostrogothic king of Italy) and the apparent heir to the throne. In what

follows I will put the work briefly into its historical context and into the context of

Cassiodorus' public life before turning my attention to a discussion of the nature of the

work and its generic background.

In 518 Eutharic Cilliga was designated consul for the coming year, along with

Justin, the new eastern emperor. Justin had acceded to the throne on 10 July 518, the day

after the death of Anastasius, and it was normal for the new Augustus to hold the

consulship in the first full year of his reign.43 That Eutharic, the son-in-law of Theoderic,

the Ostrogothic king in Italy, should have been accepted as his colleague must have

indicated Justin's intentions to maintain, or improve, relations between Constantinople

and Ravenna. Eutharic was the first Goth to hold the consulship since his father-in-law

had held it thirty-five years before in 484, so this was a mark of some distinction and

comparatively rare. What is more, Cassiodorus tells us in a letter written on behalf of

Athanaric, Theoderic's grandson and successor, that Justin had made Eutharic, Athanaric's

father, his "son at arms," at what appears to be the same time that he was raised to the

consulship.44 Morehead notes that, since Cassiodorus does not mention Justin's naming

Eutharic as his son at arms in his Chronica, it is difficult for us to estimate "the role of the

43 CLRE, 23. It is strange that Anastasius' death and Justin's accession are not noted by Cassiodorus, though he clearly knows that Justin is emperor. Presumably he did not know the date of Anastasius' death and Justin's accession.

44 Cassiodorus, Variae, 8.1.3: "Vos [Justin] genitorem meum in Italia palmatae claritate decorastis. desiderio quoque concordiae factus est per arma filius, qui annis vobis paene videbatur aequaevus;" "You adorned my father in Italy with the renown of the [consul's] embroidered dress, and in your desire for concord he was made your son at arms, who seemed to you almost equal in years"; cf. Procopius de Bello Persico 1.11.22.

11

emperor in Eutharic's becoming consul."45 But given the very different purposes of the

two documents — the Chronica designed, as we will see, for an Italian audience and the

letter from Athanaric to Justin intended as an assurance to the emperor of the new

regime's policy of renewing good relations with the eastern court46— there is no reason

to doubt that Justin was eager that Eutharic be his colleague.

It is difficult not to see Justin's choice of Eutharic in 518 as conciliatory to

Theoderic's regime. The Acacian schism, initiated by the refusal of the Roman church to

countenance the formulas drafted by Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and put

forward by the emperor Zeno's Henotikon, had been bubbling away since 482 and had

been an unpleasant back-drop to Theoderic's entire reign in Italy. Both courts apparently

wanted the division ended. After the death of Pope Symmachus in 514, the emperor

Justin's predecessor Anastasius and the new pope, Hormisdas, had made some attempts to

settle the situation, but Hormisdas, supported by Theoderic and by the senate (on the

king's instructions), was not prepared to give ground.47 The new emperor's intentions may

have been to conciliate Theoderic (or Eutharic, since Theoderic was getting old and

Eutharic was his successor) and thus gain some traction in his negotiations with the

pope.48

The fact that the name of the Eastern consul, even though he was the emperor,

appears in no Western inscriptions is not surprising. It was normal during the last years of

the fifth and beginning of the sixth century for contemporary Western inscriptions to

45 Moorhead 1992, 201-202. 46 Wolfram 1988, 334. 47 Moorhead 1992, 194-200. 48 Wolfram 1988, 328-329.

12

record only the western consul.49 Likewise, in the east, Eutharic's name appears only in

two laws, an inscription and in a letter of John, the bishop of Constantinople.50 The failure

of either name to appear regularly in the other's part of the empire is not due to hostility,

or even lack of cooperation, but either to the collapse of the system of promulgation of

consular names, or, perhaps more likely, to the practical realization by the populace that

two names were unnecessary and unwieldy for dating years.

On 1 January 519 Eutharic took up his consulship in Rome. Cassiodorus is lyrical

in his assessment:

Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis, stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare quern Romae celebraverat consulatum (Chron. 1364).

In this year Rome saw many marvels in individual exhibitions, even Symmachus, the legate from the East, was amazed at the riches granted to Goths and Romans. He [Eutharic] gave honours to the senate. In shows in the amphitheatres he displayed wild beasts of various sorts which the present age marvelled at for their novelty. And for his spectacles, Africa in its devotion sent over the choicest of delights as well. And so, everywhere was filled with his high praise, and he was so firmly fixed in such a great love of the Roman citizens that when he returned to the sight of his glorious father at Ravenna, they still desired his presence. And there, with the exhibitions repeated, he showered such great gifts on Goths and Romans that he alone was able to surpass the consulship which he had celebrated at Rome.

Cassiodorus may have delivered an oration in praise of Eutharic before the senate on the

49 According to CLRE only two eastern consuls (out of a possible twenty-three years with eastern consuls) appear in inscriptions outside of Gaul in the thirty years between 489 and 519: emperor Anastasius in 492, CIL 9.3568 = 7ZCF3162A and P. Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei secoli VI-VII-VIII esistenti in Italia 7F(1978) #58, and, probably, a post-consular date in 518 recording the eastern consul of the year before, Anastasius, the great-nephew of the emperor, CIL Suppl. Ital. 1.863.

50 Laws: CJ5.27.9 and 2.7.25; inscription: SEG 29.642; letter: Coll. Avell. 159.

13

occasion of his consulship, although it is not clear precisely when it happened.51 At some

point before 1 January 519, however, Cassiodorus also completed his chronicle of world

history, encompassing the years from creation to 519.

There is no doubt the document was intended to be presented to Eutharic. The

preface, couched in the standard strains of panegyric, attributes the genesis of the work to

Eutharic's orders:

Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis pristine dignitatem (Chron. 1).

In your princely wisdom, through which you always think over great matters, you directed me to set the consuls in order so that you, who had adorned the year with your glorious name, might restore to the fasti the dignity of their ancient truth.

Furthermore, the final entry in the work lists the number of years covered by the whole

work: "ac sic torus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum colligitur annis

VDCCXXF7 "and thus the entire count of the ages up to your consulship comes to 5721

years." Cassiodorus reversed the consular names for the year 519, placing Eutharic's

name first and the emperor Justin's second, contrary to his usual practice in years when

an emperor held the consulship.52 We do not know whether the Chronica was actually

presented to Eutharic or not. Cassiodorus mentions it nowhere in any of his other

51 See Variae 9.25.3, where Cassiodorus, writing about himself to the senate on behalf of Athalaric, clearly says that he spoke in Eutharic's praise before the senate: "Patrem quoque clementiae nostrae in ipsa curia Libertatis qua disertitudine devotus asseruit!" "with what eloquence he [Cassiodorus] devotedly names the father of our Clemency in the very senate-house of Liberty!" There is some disagreement about the occasion of the first fragmentary speech, edited by Traube at the end of Mommsen's edition of the Variae, 465-472. Traube himself believed that it was delivered in 518 or 519, on the occasion of Eutharic's consulship (p. 463, esp. note 1), and he is followed by Wolfram 1988, 329 and Morehead 1992, 202. Others believe that the speech was delivered on the occasion of Eutharic's elevation as heir apparent, cf. O'Donnell 1979, 33.1 am inclined to follow Traube, noting Traube's own reservations. It may be that the fragmentary speech we have is a speech in praise of Eutharic, but not the one which Cassiodorus delivered before the senate.

52 See below, p. 188.

14

writings, which may mean it was never properly "published."53

The authorial attribution at the beginning of the work requires some explanation,

since it clearly post-dates the production of the work itself by at least fourteen years, and

possibly even more. The title reads, "In chronica magni aurelii cassiodori senatoris vc et

inl ex quaestore sacri palatii ex cons ord ex mag off ppo atque patricii praefatio'V'the

preface to the chronicle of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, vir clarissimus and

inlustris, ex-quaestor of the sacred palace, ex-consul, ex-magister officiorum, praetorian

prefect and patrician." Mommsen notes in the preface to his edition that these titles, since

they indicate that he had been praetorian prefect, are suitable for 537, but not for 519

when Cassiodorus had not yet even taken up the post of magister officiorum.5* Mommsen

suggests, perhaps correctly, that a scribe transferred the title from a copy of the Variae,

where they correctly reflect Cassiodorus' position at the time of their publication, to the

Chronica, which may be the case. But whatever the reason for the misapplication of

Cassiodorus' offices, the specific title of the work itself, "Chronica,'''' must then come into

question, since it may well post-date composition. However, since Cassiodorus does not

mention the work anywhere else or refer to its name anywhere within the document, we

can go no further than expressing doubt and we will have to be content with calling the

work his Chronica, with the proviso that the name may not originate with Cassiodorus.

53 The work is not mentioned by anyone until the eleventh century, when it was used and noted, either directly or second-hand, by Hermannus Contractus at Reichenau (MGH.SS 5.83-86 esp. p. 86) in 1054. Mommsen 1894, 118, suggests that Hermannus and the anonymous author of an eleventh century universal history (MGH.SS 13. 61-72) were both dependent on an earlier, larger chronicle, which is now lost.

54 Mommsen 1894, 111.

15

What Kind of Document is It?

From the very beginning, Cassiodorus identifies the fasti as being the primary

focus of his work. His introduction indicates his clear direction when, as we have seen

above, he claims to be writing at Eutharic's behest to restore to the fasti their ancient

truthfulness. He goes on: "Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum varietate detersa operi

fidem historicae auctoritatis inpressi'VI have willingly obeyed your orders and, with the

mistakes of the booksellers cleansed away, I have stamped upon the work the

trustworthiness of historical authority." He is claiming nothing less than to provide a

complete, authoritative, and accurate consular list with none of the mistakes found among

those produced by the booksellers or rather by their copyists. It is only as an afterthought

that he concludes his introduction: "quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus

eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem"/"so that your mind,

delighted by famous events, may run through the very long age of the world in a pleasing

abridgement." In concentrating on an accurate consular list as his chief aim, he thus

invites comparison of his work with other consular lists which were in circulation in the

late fifth and early sixth centuries.

The Chronica as Consularia

The works which Cassiodorus was striving to correct are the anonymous fasti and

consularia (so named by Mommsen) which seem to have been produced by booksellers

and copyists in late antiquity.55 We must be careful, then, not to compare his work with

that of Eusebius/Jerome, Hydatius or the Gallic Chronicle of 452, none of which include

55 Burgess 1993, 179-181.

16

consular years, or even Prosper of Aquitaine or Marcellinus comes, both of whom did

date by consular years. All of these produced chronicles very different from what

Cassiodorus was consciously attempting to write.

Our chief points of comparison will be with the anonymous Latin consularia

which have survived, sometimes only in bits and pieces, from late antiquity. There are

several good examples: the Fasti Vindobonenses priores and posterlores, the Excerpta

Sangallensia,56 the Descriptio consilium,57 and the Consularia Ravennatia™ Several texts

which are very similar to consularia could also be added to this list: the Paschale

Campanum, an easter list with historical notes added,59 and the first part of the chronicle

of Marius of Avenches.60

Burgess has outlined briefly the difference between what we call chronicles and

what we call consularia. While recognizing that clear-cut distinctions are not always

possible, Burgess notes four specific charateristics of consularia: 1) the consular list

occupies the attention of the author particularly and historical notes are unevenly

distributed through the years, with some clumps of events spanning a few years followed

by long stretches with no events at all, 2) the use of precise dating terminology,

sometimes wtih specific days or months, and with the frequent use of the terms "hoc

consule" or "his consulibus" at the beginning of each historical entry, 3) a concentration

on the deeds of the emperor in particular and with the state more generally, 4) an

56 Both Chron. Min. I 274-336. 57 Burgess 1993; and Chron. Min. I 197-247. 58 Bischoff, B. and Koehler, W. 1939. 59 Chron. Min. I 306-320 and 745-749. 60 Chron. Min. II 232-236. I would also add the fragmentary epitome of Livy found in P. Oxy. 668

which dates to the third century. Although it is not strictly speaking consularia, since the information was extracted from Livy, it also has many of the characteristics of consularia.

17

avoidance of ecclesiastical material, and 5) a distinctive, neutral grammatical style.61 He

adds a fifth characteristic later on: that the consularia tend to concentrate on events local

to where they were produced, kept up or used.621 will demonstrate in what follows that

all of these characteristics are present in Cassiodorus' work, though his Chronica also

contains elements of what we normally regard as characteristic of the chronicle-style

exemplified by Eusebius/Jerome.

As I noted above when discussing the introduction to the Chronica, Cassiodorus

underscores his intention to restore to the fasti the "veritatis pristine dignitatem " and

certainly the consular list was at the heart of his efforts. Apart from a few pages taken

from Jerome at the beginning of his work (to which I will return below), most of the

Chronica focuses on the consular list. Cassiodorus worked hard, as we will see, to make

Jerome's regnal years correspond with the consular years, and also devoted a great deal of

energy to making sure the consular list after 458 was as complete as it could be. Finally,

his list of sources at the end of his work focusses on his sources for the consular list and

chronology: Livy, Aufidius Bassus and Victorius of Aquitaine for the consuls and Jerome

for chronology,63 but leaves out those to whom he went only for historical information,

Eutropius, Prosper and an unnamed consularia or chronicle. Thus, his assertion in his

introduction that he had "stamped onto the work the trustworthiness of historical

authority" refers specifically to the sources which he names at the end of the work. Those

sources were primarily for consuls and chronology, and not for historical data.

Burgess notes the scattered nature of historical entries in the consularia, and on a

61 Burgess 1993, 178-179 and Mosaics, forthcoming. 62 Burgess 1993, 181. 63 Chron. 1365-1370.

18

first read-through of the Chronica, Cassiodorus' choice, arrangement and distribution of

historical notes appears haphazard at best. The Republican years, for which an epitome of

Livy was his source, are scarcely more than a consular list, with only thirty-seven

historical notes from 509 BCE, the year of the first consuls, to 44 BCE, the assassination of

Julius Caesar. As we might expect, though, the number of historical notes in Cassiodorus

increases in the years devoted to the late Republic and the early imperial years up to the

year of the crucifixion. Where Jerome was Cassiodorus' chief source, his historical notes

are more frequent, but even so stretches of five or six years (and a few even longer)

where he records no events are not uncommon. Even during Cassiodorus' own lifetime

and the reign of Theoderic there are two long stretches where there are no historical

events (494-499 and 509-513). While the lack or availability of historical material in

Cassiodorus' sources may explain the differences between the Republican years and the

imperial ones, Cassiodorus must have made a deliberate choice to leave out many

historical events of his own time.

Burgess' second characteristic of consularia is the use of precise dates, the use of

"hoc consule" or "his consulibus" before each entry, and the use of "eo anno" or "eodem

anno" to join together two historical events in a single year. This is a strongly marked

stylistic characteristic which one does not see in Prosper, Marcellinus or Victor of

Tunnuna, all of whom dated their chronicles by consular years, whereas it does occur in

Marius of Avenches and the anonymous consularia in Chronica Minora I. By omitting

terms an author can give the effect of a narrative that hangs together. By including them,

the focus turns to the dating of single events to single years. Cassiodorus is not given to

19

using precise dates in his entry, but he almost unfailingly begins each entry with "hoc

consule" or "his consulibus." These terms do not occur in either P. Oxy. 668 or

Obsequens, two witnesses to the Livian epitome Cassiodorus used, nor does Jerome use

them. Therefore, Cassiodorus either found the expressions in the consularia he likely used

for his historical entries after Prosper ran out in 455 or the expressions were so closely

attached to the genre that he used them without much reflection.

Burgess' third and fourth points are closely related: the consularia pay attention to

the business of the emperor in particular (to which I would add matters pertaining more

generally to the Roman state) and almost entirely avoid reference to matters of

ecclesiastical politics and doctrine. This is markedly true in Cassiodorus' work as well,

despite his heavy use of Jerome and Prosper, whose interest in ecclesiastical matters

stands out: both regularly record councils, doctrinal disputes, and the elevation of bishops

and patriarchs, and neither hesitates to draw explicit links between secular affairs with the

will of God.64 Cassiodorus does almost none of this and concentrates almost exclusively

on the deaths, accessions and deeds of emperors, along with the successes and growth of

the Roman state and the foundation of cities.

Cassiodorus' concentration on these particular things is brought out very clearly in

a more detailed comparison with Jerome and Prosper. It is possible to divide Jerome's

entries into six broad categories: secular history, ecclesiastical history, notes on famous

64 Cassiodorus himself discusses chronicles by Christian authors at Institutiones 1.17.2. He mentions the chronicles of Jerome, Marcellinus and Prosper, but does not include his own. This would appear, at least, to suggest that he did not regard his own work as a chronicle, in the technical use of the term, but there are several other reasons why he might not have included it. The Institutiones appears to contain only works which he had in his library at Squillace, and it is possible that his own Chronica was not there. Furthermore, Cassiodorus' own list of his works in the de Orthographia includes only his work from the Expositio Psalmorum on, and it is possible that he only considered those things he wrote after his conversion to be worth mentioning. See O'Donnell 1979, 113-114.

20

authors and teachers, portents and natural events, and notes on the city of Rome.65 If we

choose as a time frame the period from the crucifixion to 378 CE, when Cassiodorus used

Jerome most heavily, we find 580 separate lemmata by Helm's divisions.

If we divide those 580 entries up according to the above categories, we get 284

entries, or 49% of the total, on secular history;186 entries, or 32% of the total, on

ecclesiastical history; 53 entries, or 9% of the total, on famous authors and teachers; 28

entries, or 5% of the total, on portents or natural events; and 27 notes, or 5% of the total,

on the city of Rome.66 Turning to Cassiodorus and dividing his entries, almost all of

which were taken from Jerome, into the same categories, we come up with the following:

of 143 entries between the crucifixion and 378, 100, or 60% of the total, relate to secular

history; 9, or 6% of the total, are ecclesiastical history; 13, or 9% of the total, are about

authors and teachers; 5, or 3% of the total, are portents or natural events; and 17, or 12%

of the total, are about the city of Rome.

Two points are immediately obvious. The close comparison of Jerome and

Cassiodorus fully supports placing the Chronica in the category of consularia, as

discussed above. Cassiodorus almost completely avoids ecclesiastical matters: his work is

resolutely secular in design and outlook. What is more, of his nine notes on ecclesiastical

history, seven could just as well belong to other categories since three are directly related

to the city of Rome and the presence there of Peter and Paul (651, 671, 689), three are

65 These divisions ae necessarily a little arbitrary and they are, I confess, at least in part dictated with a view to Cassiodorus' own historical entries. Sometimes it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between, for instance secular and ecclesiastical history, or ecclesiastical history and famous authors. But on the whole it holds up well. Although in what follows I calculate percentages, which gives the impression of precision, in fact it is not possible to come to any firm statistical conclusions: the sample is too small and the material too slippery. The numbers I use are only rough guides.

66 There are two notes on chronology which I have left out of the count.

21

famous Christian authors: Tertullian (889), Origen (891), and Cyprian (964), and one

details Valerian's capture and servitude in Parthia (966), and links it, following Jerome,

with his persecution of the Christians. Of the remaining two, one is the crucifixion itself

(635), which is a chronological keystone, and the other, strangely, notes the rise of the

Manichaean heresy (1001).

The second point is the one already noted by Mommsen: Cassiodorus devotes a

great deal of space to notes on the city of Rome.67 While just 5% of Jerome's entries

relate to the buildings and infrastructure of the city, Cassiodorus devotes fully 12% to the

city itself. A large number of these entries describe the construction of buildings. As

Burgess noted, one of the characteristics of the consularia is that they often concentrate

on local events. Cassiodorus' work is decidedly Romanocentric.

What else can be said of the comparison between Cassiodorus and Jerome? The

amount of space given over to famous authors and to natural events and portents is

sufficiently similar in both authors as not to provoke further comment, but more could be

said about the notes on secular history. If Cassiodorus avoided ecclesiastical history it

stands to reason that the percentage of secular events would rise proportionately, but we

can go further by dividing the historical events he chooses into sub-groupings. In

Cassiodorus, as in Jerome, many of the historical notes relate the deaths and accessions

of emperors and pretenders : 10% in Jerome, but fully 34% in Cassiodorus. But

Cassiodorus was deeply concerned with making his consular list dovetail with the regnal

years of emperors, so it should come as no surprise that he would need to include all the

67 Mommsen 1894,113.

22

accessions and lengths of reigns he found in Jerome.68 But even a casual reading of

Cassiodorus' work shows that he gives particular attention to the expansion of the empire

and the battles won by Roman armies. Of fifty-seven entries which I classify as "secular

history," twenty-two are devoted to the growth of empire.69 The deeds of the emperor

stand out in Cassiodorus' work.

Cassiodorus' selection of material from Prosper roughly mirrors his use of Jerome,

with a few provisos. Prosper, more focused than Jerome, was concerned almost

exclusively with political and ecclesiastical history. Whereas Jerome has a large number

of entries devoted to secular authors, the city of Rome and natural disasters and portents,

Prosper has virtually none in the period from 379 to 455, the history of which he wrote

himself. As he had done when Jerome was his source, however, Cassiodorus includes

very few of Prosper's entries on ecclesiastical history, and the four he does include deal

with famous men: three of them the most famous Christian leaders in the Latin-speaking

world: Ambrose (380), Martin of Tours (381), Jerome (385) and Augustine (395). None

of Prosper's numerous and often lengthy notes on the accessions of the bishops of Rome,

heresies and church councils made the cut. There is less attention given to the deeds of

emperors, but considering the dire events for the western empire in the first half of the

fifth century, Prosper's notes on secular history, as one would expect, deal primarily with

the movements of barbarian armies, particularly Goths, Vandals and Huns, as well as a

handful of Roman usurpers and the actions of Aetius. Still, the "action" is heavily focused

68 See my detailed discussion below, pp. 207ff.. 69 Three of these notes are about Judaea, a subject which naturally occupies a great deal of space in

Jerome's work. Of Jerome's 26 entries on Judaea, Cassiodorus has chosen three, the capture of Jerusalem, and the refounding of Jerusalem and Emmaus under the empire which demonstrate the establishment of Roman authority in that region.

23

on the western empire, Italy and the actions of individual rulers and commanders.

We can see, then, that in the details Cassiodorus chose from Jerome, he had

specific generic goals: secular, political history set into a strict chronological structure.

The inclusion of these sorts of details is characteristic not only of the anonymous

consularia we have, but also of the inscriptionalyasfr' from the early empire, many of

which were certainly still visible in many town centres in Italy.70

The fifth characteristic noted by Burgess is that they frequently record events of

strictly local interest. He attributes this chiefly to the chronological nature of the

documents. As he says, "Few Romans...would remember what they were doing when X

and Y were consuls, but if they were asked what they were doing when the ground in the

Forum of Peace rumbled for seven days...they would have an easier time of it."71 He goes

on to note, though, that as these events receded into the past, they were only of

antiquarian interest, and were copied and re-copied along with the consular list for no

practical reason. There are, in fact, few events such as Burgess describes in Cassiodorus'

work. He includes a handful of strange occurances and natural disasters, but none of

those relating directly to Rome occurred even in the fifth century, much less the sixth.

But Cassiodorus does devote a great deal of attention to the city itself, its buildings and

celebrations, from very early on in his work. Mommsen noted this characteristic in his

edition, and therefore suggested that the Chronica, which he calls a "commentarius," was

"scriptus in usum plebis urbanae (nam dominantur in eo quoque ludi et aedificia urbis

Romae), "written for the use of the urban population (for games and buildings are also

70 See, for instance, the Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Ostienses, Degrassi 1947. 71 Burgess 1993, 181.

24

predominant in it)."72 This suggestion overreaches the evidence we have, but there is no

doubt that the Chronica exhibits strong local interest in the city of Rome.

One oddity about the work, which may well strengthen the view that its very

urban and Roman flavour was a deliberate compositional decision, stands out:

Cassiodorus transferred the consular names into the nominative case, when his sources

and all the other manuscript fasti and consularia use the ablative. It is virtually certain

that he did this himself, but there is no clear reason for it. It is possible that, since the

normal practice in the inscriptional fasti was to list the consular names in the nominative,

Cassiodorus' change had its roots in his antiquarianism or, as I will suggest below, was a

deliberate attempt to connect his own list with the monumental lists of an earlier time still

on display.73 We do not know when the arch of Augustus, to which the Capitoline fasti

were attached, was destroyed, and there is no reason to think that it was not still in the

forum for all to see in 519. Many other cities in Italy had inscribed fasti as well. If it is

true that Cassiodorus was deliberately attempting to mimic the practice of these

inscriptions, we can take this as further encouragement to read his Chronica as consularia

rather than a chronicle.

Of course things are not as black and white as this. The Chronica also has several

elements which we tend to think of as belonging to the genre of the chronicle,

exemplified particularly by Eusebius/Jerome and their continuators. The early pages of

Cassiodorus' work draw almost exclusively on Jerome and begin with the creation of the

world and with Adam, as Eusebius had done, whereas no consularia which we have do

72 Mommsen 1894, 113. 73 Despite the availability of inscriptional lists, Cassiodorus used manuscript fasti to compile his own list

for the Republic and early empire.

25

this. Cassiodorus follows the biblical chronology he found in Jerome and then moves to

the Assyrian, Latin and Roman kings, also from Jerome. At the end of his work,

moveover, he includes a supputatio in the style of Eusebius and Jerome, where he adds

up all the years which have passed since the creation of the world - again, not

characteristic of consularia. But even through this material, Cassiodorus' focus is

resolutely on chronology and on secular rulers, and the historical material he includes

matches the characteristics of the consularia outlined above.

26

Chapter 2: The Text

The Manuscripts

Only two manuscripts of Cassiodorus' Chronica survive, Parisinus Latinus 4860

in the Bibliotheque Nationale and Monacensis 14613 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

Parisinus Latinus 4860 is a tenth-century manuscript, copied between 939 and 954 at the

library of the monastery of St. Stephan in Mainz.74 It contains many works by a variety of

authors, almost all relating to chronography and chronology. The codex is almost

certainly a copy of a codex which was at the monastery at Reichenau in the middle of the

ninth century. It is described by Reginbertus, who was the librarian there between 835

and 842. He wrote:

In tertio libro habentur chronica Eusebii Caesariensis episcopi et Hieronymi presbyteri et Prosperi. Et chronica Cassiodori Senatoris, et chronica Iordanis episcopi et chronica Melliti. Et chronica Bedae presb. et chronica excerpta Isidori episcopi et chronica brevis. Deinde notarum Plinii Secundi lib. I et notarum Isidori ep. lib. I et notarum de naturis rerum Bedae presb. liber excerptus ex diversis lib. I et epistolae Victoris et Dionysii de ratione cycli paschalis. Et de cyclis decennovalibus cycli XXVIII. Et versus diversi de septem diebus et mensibus et XII signis vocabulis. Et martyrologium per anni circulum.75

Contained in the third book are the chronicles of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and the presbyter Jerome and of Prosper, the chronicles of Cassiodorus Senator, the chronicles of the bishop Jordanes and the chronicles of Mellitus. Also the chronicles of the presbyter Bede and the excerpted chronicles of bishop Isidorus and a short chronicle. Then one book of the notes of Plinius Secundus and one book of the notes of Bishop Isidorus and a book of notes on the nature of things by the presbyter Bede

74 Mommsen dates the manuscript convincingly and describes its contents in detail, 1894, 363-365. 75 Lehmann,P. 1918, 258.

27

excerpted from various sources and the letters of Victor and Dionysius on the calculation of the Easter cycle. And about the nineteen cycles of twenty-eight. And a variety of verses about the seven days, and the months and the twelve word-signs. And an annual martyrology.

Apart from a few insertions and a few things left out by Reginbertus, this list matches

almost perfectly the list of works in Par. Lat. 4860.76 The latter must be a copy of the

former. Reginbertus does not mention the poem of Victorius Scholasticus to the bishop

Jordanes which follows Cassiodorus' Chronica, but it only occupies a single page and is

easily missed. The codex was brought to Paris from Mainz by Jean-Baptiste Colbert in

the seventeenth century and was subsequently moved to the Bibliotheque Nationale.77

Monacensis 14613 was originally part of the library at the monastery of St.

Emmeram at Regensburg, but is now in Munich.78 It was written in the eleventh century

and includes the chronicles of Hermannus Contractus (who lived at Reichenau and seems

to have used Cassiodorus) and Cassiodorus, followed immediately by the same poem

from Victorius Scholasticus to Jordanes which appears after Cassiodorus' Chronica in the

Paris manuscript. In copying Cassiodorus' Chronica the scribe deliberately omitted many

consular names, presumably because he believed the historical events to be the most

interesting and worthy of recording. Pertz noted in his introduction that the chronicle of

Hermannus shows similar abbreviation, but also includes information not in other copies

of Hermannus.79 Hermannus' chronicle ends in 1054 and the Monacensis is a very early

copy of Hermannus. Cassiodorus was one of Hermannus' sources for his work, and

therefore Pertz suggested that the Monacensis contained a copy of Hermannus' autograph

76 Itemized by Mommsen 1892, 364-365. 77 Mommsen, 1892, 363. 78 The codex is described by Pertz in MGH SS 5, 1894, 72-73 and is discussed briefly by Mommsen

1894,118. 79 Pertz 1894, 72.

28

with his source Cassiodorus thrown in for good measure. Based, then, on Pertz's

argument, Mommsen suggested that the Monacensis was a copy of the same manuscript

at Reichenau from which the Paris codex was copied.

If the two manuscripts were not copied from the same archetype, they are

certainly very closely related. While M has many omissions which makes a complete

comparison impossible, both share a number of copyists' errors which must go back to a

common source, e.g. "L Papirius iun" for "L Papirius IIII" (239) and "Iullo sanctionibus"

for "Iullus Antonius" (585). P has a number of divergences from M, which Mommsen

(correctly, I think) attributed to the scribe of the manuscript rather than the archetype. The

scribe corrected Cassiodorus' work through reference to Jerome's chronicle which

precedes Cassiodorus in the codex. At 32 and 43 he adjusted the regnal years of the

Assyrian kings to match those in Jerome, and appears to have done the same at 527,

where he gives Jerome's number of four years and six months for Julius Caesar's reign,

whereas M has four years and seven months. He also corrected the name of the Assyrian

king "Molechus" to "Bolechus" (15), which is closer to what he found in Jerome, and

restored the missing king Panias, presumably because the tally of regnal years of the

kings at the end of the list (43) did not add up in the manuscript he was copying from.

Mommsen believed that the scribe of P had also dropped the consuls of 297 CE in order to

make the number of consular years correspond with the number of Diocletian's regnal

years, but I suspect that those consuls were missing from the archetype of P and M, as I

explain below.80

The third major witness to the text of the Chronica is Johannes Cuspinianus'

80 See below, p. 120ff..

29

posthumously published work, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii. The work is a

transcription by Cuspinianus, probably of the Reichenau archetype of Cassiodorus'

Chronica with an extensive commentary by Cuspinianus himself. Cuspinianus used a

great many authors to supplement Cassiodorus, including Livy, Jerome, Tacitus and the

Fasti Vindobonenses priores (which used to be called the Anonymus Cuspiniani). He also

corrected particularly the praenomina of consuls freely based on his other sources. His

readings of Cassiodorus are thus untrustworthy since he often does not say that he has

corrected Cassiodorus with reference to another author when it is clear he has. For

instance, at Chronica 464 Cuspinianus switched the praenomen of Lutatius from L

(which appears in both manuscripts) to Q only on the basis of Julius Obsequens, the

single edition of whose work, printed by Manutius in 1508, was a text fraught with

errors.81 On the subject of altering what he found in his manuscript of Cassiodorus he

says of the consuls of Chronica 666, Tiberius III et Antonius, which he knew to be

incorrect, "Sic in Cassiodori exemplo unico inveni. Quanquam de Claudii Tiberii

consulatibus abunde iam scripserim, nolui tamen quicquam in Cassiodoro frivole, ne quis

temeritatis me accusaret, immutare'V'This is the way I found it in the single copy of

Cassiodorus. Although I have already written fully about the consulships of Tiberius

Claudius, I nevertheless did not wish to change anything in Cassiodorus frivolously, lest

someone accuse me of being over-bold."82 On the other hand, at Chronica 488, where

both manuscripts list the consuls of 81 BCE as "M Tullius et Cn Dolabella," Cuspinianus

changed the consul prior to "M Sylvius Decola," seemingly on the basis of Appian alone,

81 The single manuscript from which the print edition was copied is now lost. 82 Cuspinianus, p. 389. The correct consuls for the year are Torquatus and Antoninus.

30

without even remarking on it.

Mommsen believed that Cuspinianus had the archetype from Reichenau, and this

may be correct, but Mommsen's argument is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Cuspinianus only says that the codex was given to him by Johannes Stabius, the

cartographer, but we do not know where Stabius acquired it. Mommsen reasoned that

since the two existing manuscripts come from the same archetype at Reichenau and since

the copy Cuspinianus had was better than either of them, he must have had the Reichenau

archetype itself. But the manuscript which Cuspinianus used is lost and he often

"corrected" its readings without indicating he had done so, so we may never know what

manuscript he used or what its value is.83

The Text

Mommsen's text is quite good, with only a few mistakes, and the reader will find

few substantial differences between the text presented here and his. I have kept his

numbering system for ease of reference, but I have eliminated many of his notes which I

found rather more confusing than helpful: for instance, the AUC dates, the cross-

references to Cassiodorus' sources, and the numerous references in his critical apparatus

to Jerome, Prosper and Victorius. The traditions of those three authors are very uncertain,

too, and including their readings seems to me to be valueless and to introduce more

confusion and uncertainty in matters where uncertainty cannot be overcome. Where I

disagree with Mommsen in a reading or a restoration, I have noted it in the critical

apparatus.

83 Mommsen cites a 1597 inventory of Conrad Peutinger's library (Monacensis 402Id) which lists the "cronica Aurelii Cassiodori manu scripta," and he suggests that it is a copy of the work that Cuspinianus had. It is also not impossible that Peutinger himself acquired Cuspinianus' own copy after Cuspinianus' death. But it is unknown where this manuscript went.

31

P is slightly more trustworthy than M, if only because the scribe copied out the

entire chronicle, whereas M omits many pairs of consular names. In editing the text I

have taken a very conservative approach, to the extent of tolerating differences in the

spelling of names (like Caesar, Cesar) if the two manuscripts agree. Where the

manuscripts disagree and one is supported by Cuspinianus, I have sometimes followed

the reading of Cuspinianus, though carefully since, as I have noted, he used many other

sources in his work and emended freely, based both on them and on his own notions of

orthography. I have included Cuspinianus in the critical apparatus more fully in the years

for which Livy does not survive, and particularly where he cites no other sources for

names, but I have never chosen his reading over a reading in the manuscripts.

In general I have made decisions as follows. In a handful of cases I have not been

consistent, but I have tried to be as transparent in the apparatus as possible.

1. Each decision is to be made individually.

2. Cuspinianus must be treated carefully and should generally only be followed

when one of his readings agrees with one of the manuscripts.

3. When P and M agree, I have printed what they read.

4. In the orthography of all but proper nouns, when P and M do not agree and one

of them is correct, I have tended to follow the "correct" reading, reasoning that it is more

likely to have been correct originally than to have been made correct by accident.

5. On the other hand, on the few occasions in which Cuspinianus and one of the

two manuscripts agree in an "incorrect" spelling, I have printed the incorrect one.

6. In the matter of proper nouns, particularly consular names, when the two

32

manuscripts do not agree and neither is "correct," I have generally printed the reading of

the manuscript which agrees with Cuspinianus.

8.1 have avoided, wherever I could, making a decision on a reading based on what

we know is the "correct" answer. When M, P and Cuspinianus each have different

readings, and neither M nor P is "correct," I have chosen the reading from P since it is

slightly more reliable than M.

9. Similarly, where M is lacking, as it frequently is in consular names, I have tended

to print P no matter what the reading of Cuspinianus is.

Dating the Consulships

I have included dates for the consular years in the right-hand margins where it is

possible to do so. For the standard list of Republican consular dates to 31 BCE, I follow

Broughton (1951); for consular dates from 31 BCE to 519 CE, I follow Degrassi (1952).

Cassiodorus' Republican list is generally a fairly accurate representative of the work of

Livy and Aufidius Bassus from the 509 BCE up to 29 CE, which has made assigning dates

fairly straightforward. From 161 CE to 519 as well, his list, based mostly on Victorius of

Aquitaine, is quite complete, and does not pose many difficulties in assigning years to

consular pairs. The years between 30 CE and 160 CE, however, are notoriously bad in all

our manuscript sources, in some cases including consular pairs which clearly have no

basis in reality. For years when both consuls can be assigned to the same year, I have

assigned a year, which goes for both. When one consul can be assigned to that year, I

have shown it thus (47/—) with the year before the slash indicating the dateable consul,

and vice versa. Sometimes years overlap in which case I have dated it thus (76/77), again

33

indicating consul prior and posterior in Cassiodorus' list. Where no dating is possible, I

have assigned either "—" or "—/—."

Copying Consular Names by Columns

At 862 and 894 the manuscripts read "duo et Silani" and "duo et Aspri"

respectively. Mommsen appears to have believed that Cassiodorus made a mistake in

making these names nominatives from the ablative forms which he found in his source,

Victorius of Aquitaine, who has "duobus Silanis" and "duobus Aspris" for these years,84

and Mommsen's text reproduces the error. However, this is clearly a copyist's error.

Rather than writing out the list of consular pairs line by line, the copyist seems to have

made it his practice, for the Republican consuls, to write a column of the praenomina,

then the gentilicia, then a column of the word "et" and then the same process for the

second names. For the imperial consuls, where typically only the cognomina are

recorded, he wrote a column of cognomina, then a column of the word "et" and then a

second column of cognomina. Faster, probably, but the two consular pairs who shared the

same name got caught up in the columns and an "et" was added in between by mistake.

Furthermore, there are other examples of the same practice. At 584 P reads "P Aulus

Fabius et Q Aelius," where the correct reading (corrected by both Mommsen and

Cuspinianus) is "Paulus Fabius et Q Aelius." M omits this consular pair, but it appears

that in the archetype the initial "P" of "Paulus" was regarded as the praenomen, and

Aulus a second name. At 354 and 355, the praenomina of the first consul in each pair are

"M" and "Cn." The same praenomina occur immediately afterwards in the same place at

84 Mommsen 1894, 112. At 824, however, both manuscripts read "duo Augusti conss," which is correct.

34

356 and 357. The copyist, writing by columns, skipped the second "M" and "Cn." As a

result, the next ten consular pairs have incorrect praenomina for the first consul since the

whole list was bumped two spaces up. Whether this practice of copying down the

columns was the work of the scribe of the Reichenau archetype or some earlier version

cannot be said.85

85 The name of the sole consul of 399, Mallius Theodoras, is written in both manuscripts as "Manlius et Theodoras." Since this mistake appears in some of the manuscripts of Victorius, Cassiodorus' source, it is likely that he took it from Victorius and that it was not a copyist's error in Cassiodorus, at any rate.

35

Sigla:

P Parisinus Latinus 4860 saec. X M Monacensis 14613 saec. XI Cusp. Johannes Cuspinianus, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii, ex

optimis vetustissimisque auctoribus collecti (Basel, 1553).

36

In chronica magni aurelii cassiodori senatoris vc et inl ex

questore sacri palatii ex cons ord ex mag offppo atque

patricii praefatio.

1 Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in

ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum

ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis

pristine dignitatem. Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum

varietate detersa operi fidem historicae auctoritatis

inpressi, quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus

eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat

aetatem.

2 Ab Adam primo homine usque ad diluvium quod factum

est sub noe colliguntur anni 11 CC XL II. Diluvium autem

factum est propter gigantum nimiam feritatem. Qui

corporis magnitudine parique animi sevitia pervalentes

humanitatis ius omne confuderant.

3 Et a diluvio usque ad ninum qui primus omnium apud

assyrios regnavit ann. D CCC XC Villi.

4 REGES ASSYRII

5 Ninus itaque regnavit apud Assyrios annos LII.

6 Huius imperii anno XLHI natus est Abraham.

7 is etiam condidit Nineven.

incipitMP in Cusp. palaciiM EPO P PP Cusp. praefacioM 1 reuoluistis Cusp. degerere M consuistis P ornaveritis Cusp, rederetis M factis MP, emend. Panvinius lubens Cusp, hystoricae P impressi Cusp, etatem M 3 pimus M aput M 4 Assurii M 5 aput M 7 ninneven M Niniven Cusp.

37

8 Samiramis uxor Nini regnavit annos XLII.

9 Haec Babiloniae muros instaurasse memoratur.

10 Ninyas filius Nini et Samiramidis regnavit annos XXXVIII

n Arivis regnavit annos XXX.

12 Arelius regnavit annos XL.

13 Xerxes qui et Balaeus regnavit annos XXX.

14 Armametres regnavit annos XXXVIII.

15 Molechus regnavit annos XXXV.

16 Baleus regnavit annos LII.

17 Althadas regnavit annos XXXII.

18 Huius temporibus fuit Prometheus vir sapiens.

19 Mamythus regnavit annos XXX.

20 Magchaleus regnavit annos XXX.

21 Huius temporibus Atlans frater Promethei praecipuus

astrologus habetur.

22 Sfereus regnavit annos XX.

23 Mamylus regnavit annos XXX.

24 Sparaethus regnavit annos XL.

25 Huius temporibus a Cecrope rege Athenae sunt conditae.

26 Ascatadis regnavit annos XL.

27 Huius temporibus Moyses in monte Sina divinam suscepit

legem.

28 Amyntes regnavit annos XLV

9 HecM 12 annis Cusp. 13 Paleus M: Baleus Cusp. 15 Bolechus P : Belochus Cusp., ex Hier. sedadd. "a quibusdam hie Molochus scribitur. " 16 Baleus] MCusp. : Balaeus P 17 Alchadas M: Altadas Cusp. 19 Mamithus M: Mamyntus Cusp. 20 Magebateus M: Magehaleus Cusp. 21 precipuus P 22 Sereus M: Sphaereus Cusp. annis Cusp. 23 Mamylus] P Cusp. : Mamilus M annis Cusp. 24 Sparathus M: Sparetus Cusp. 25 Athene M 28 Amyntes] P Cusp. : AmintisM annis Cusp.

38

29 Huius temporibus Iesus successor Moysi terram

palestinorum Iudeae genti distribuit.

30 Belochus regnavit annos XXV.

31 Bellepares regnavit annos XXX.

32 Lamprides regnavit annos XXXII.

33 Sosares regnavit annos XX.

34 Huius temporibus equus velocissimus Pegasus invenitur.

35 Lampares regnavit annos XXX.

36 Panias regnavit annos XLV.

37 Sosarmus regnavit annos XVIIII.

38 Huius temporibus Argonautarum navigatio

39 et Orfeus Trax musicus opinabilis habetur.

40 Mithreus regnavit annos XXVII.

41 Huius temporibus Hercules athla exercuit

42 et Priamus apud Ilium regnat.

43 Per hos igitur reges Assiriorum colliguntur anni DCCCLII.

44 REGES LATINI

45 Latinus regnavit annos XXXII.

46 a quo Latini sunt appellati.

47 Huius imperii anno XXV Troia capta est. ad quern Aeneas

profugus venit factusque gener eius ei successit in regnum.

48 Aeneas post VIII annos Troiae captae regnavit in Italia

annos III.

29 succensor M iudex M 32 XXXIIIM: "triginta duos: alias, triginta tres " Cusp. 33 annis Cusp. 36 sic P, opinatur Mommsen ex Hieronymo xviiii M Pannias regnavit annos decern et novem Cusp., addens "Eusebius vero et Iornandes scribunt, hunc annis quadraginta quinque gubernasse. Vereor numerum hie corruptum Cassiodori. " 37 om.M 42 aputM regatM* 43 DCCCLIIIM 44 Regis M 46 apellati M 47 quern] Cusp. : quam MP 48 Aneas M annis tribus Cusp.

39

49 Ascanius filius eius regnavit annos XXXVIII

50 qui Albanum condidit.

51 Silvius Aenee filius de Lavinia regnavit annos XXVIIII.

52 Huius temporibus Homerus poeta fuisse memoratur.

53 Aeneas Silvius regnavit annos XXXI.

54 Huius temporibus Hebreorum rex David Hierosolimis

regnat.

55 Latinus Silvius regnavit annos L.

56 Huius temporibus Amazones Asiam vastaverunt.

57 Cartago condita est a carcedone tyrio ut quidam dicunt.

58 Salomon quoque filius David regnans Hierosolimis

templum famosissimum condit.

59 Alba Silvius regnavit annos XXXVIIII.

60 Aegyptus Silvius regnavit annos XXIIII.

61 Capys Silvius regnavit annos XXVIII.

62 Carpentus Silvius regnavit annos XIII.

63 Tiberinus Silvius regnavit annos VIII.

64 Agrippa silvius regnavit annos XL.

65 Aremulus silvius regnavit annos XVIIII.

66 Huius temporibus Lycurcus apud Lacedemonas iura

composuit.

67 Aventinus Silvius regnavit annos XXXVII.

68 A quo mons Romanus quia ibi sepultus est nomen accepit.

69 Procas silvius regnavit annos XXIII.

70 Amulius Silvius regnavit annos XLIII.

51 om. M Sylvius Cusp. Aeneae Cusp, ex Lavinia Cusp. 53 AneasM 54 reg. M 55 annis Cusp. 58 David filius M 60 XXIIIM 62 arpentus M: Calpetus Cusp, annis Cusp. 63 annis Cusp. 66 Licurcus aput M 68 Romanos Ma : Romanus Cusp. : Romanorum P 69 annis Cusp, xxviii M 70 Amulius] P Cusp. : Aemulius M

40

71 Qui fratrem suum Numitorem regno expulit cuius tempora

isti sunt adplicita.

72 REGES ROMANI

73 Romulus regnavit annos XXXVIII.

74 a quo Roma condita est.

75 et ex Latinis Romani sunt nuncupati.

76 Hie primum centum constituit senatores.

77 Huius temporibus Syracusa et Cantina in Sicilia conditae

sunt.

78 Numa Pompilius regnavit annos XLI.

79 Qui duos menses anno addidit Ianuarium et Februarium

cum ante hunc decern tantum menses apud Romanos

fuissent.

80 Capitolium quoque a fundamentis construxit.

81 Cuius etiam temporibus sibylla in Samo insignis habita est.

82 Tullus Hostilius regnavit annos XXXII.

83 qui primus apud Romanos purpura usus est.

84 Cuius temporibus Calcedon conditur et Bizantium quae

nunc Constantinopolis appellatur.

85 Ancus Martius regnavit annos XXIII.

86 Qui sexto decimo miliario ab urbe Roma Ostia condidit.

87 Tarquinius Priscus regnavit annos XXXVII.

88 Huius temporibus Massilia in Galliis condita est.

89 Servius Tullus regnavit annos XXXIIII.

90 Qui primus censum instituit civium Romanorum.

75 sunt conditi P : nucupati Ma 11 Cantina] P: Can t i l aM: Catinia Cusp. Sicila Ma

79 a p u t M fuissetM a 81 syb i l l aM 82 Tullus Ma Tullius M> 83 a p u t M 84 que M apellatur M 85 Martius] P Cusp. : Marcius M annis Cusp. 87 XXXVII I IM

41

91 His temporibus apud Persas Cyrus primum regnare coepit.

92 Tarquinius Superbus regnavit annos XXXV.

93 Huius temporibus Pytagoras physicus philosophus clarus

habetur.

94 Expulso autem urbe Tarquinio bini consules coeperunt pro

uno rege annis singulis administrare rem publicam.

95 HINC CONSULES

96 Iunius Brutus et L Tarquinius 509

97 Hi annum integrum minime tenuerunt. Ad peragendum

tempus aliis subrogatis, id est, L. Valerio Sp. Lucretio et

Horatio Pulvillo.

98 Valerius II et Titus Lucretius 508

99 Spurius Largus et Titus Herannius 506

100 Valerius III et P Postumius 505

101 Valerius IIII et Titus Lucretius II 504

102 Agrippa Menenius et P Postumius 503

103 Opiter Virginius et Sp Cassius 502

104 Postumus Cominius et T Largus 501

105 His consulibus dictator primus T Largus et magister

equitum Spurius Cassius ordinantur.

106 Servius Sulpicius et M Tullius 500

107 T Ebutius et L Vetusius 499

91 a p u t M c e p i t M 92 SupebisM" SuperbisA/6 94 Tranquinio M s igul isM a

plulicam M 99 Sp. Largius et T. Herminius Cusp, addens "ita in Cassiodori exemplo unico, quodhabui, hi coss. scribuntur: licet alter T. Heramnius perperam scriptus sit. " 100 II M 101 IIII] quartus M 102 Postumus M: Posthumius Cusp. 103 Opiter] P Cusp. : Opitus M Virginus P : Verginius Cusp. 105 His...Largus om. M Largius Cusp. Sp. Cassius Cusp.

42

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Q Cloelius et T Largius

A Simphronius et M Minicius

A Postumius et T Verginius

App Claudius et T Servilius

A Verginius et T Vetusius

Sp Cassius et Post Cominius

T Geganius et P Minutius

M Minutius et A Simphronius

Sp Nautius et Sex Furius

T Siccius et C Aquilius

Sp Cassius et Procul Virginius

Ser Cornelius et Q Fabius

L Aemilius et C Fabius

M Fabius et L Valerius

Q Fabius et C Iulius

K Fabius et Sp Furius

M Fabius et Cn Mallius

K Fabius et T Verginius

L Aemilius et E Servilius

C Horatius et T Menenius

A Verginius et Sp Servilius

C Nautius et P Valerius

L Furius et C Manilius

L Aemilius et Opiter Verginius

L Pinnarius et P Furius

Ap Claudius et T Quintius

L Valerius et T Aemilius

498

497

496

495

494

493

492

491

488

487

486

485

484

483

482

481

480

479

478

477

476

475

474

473/?

472

471

470

108 Largius] MCusp. : Largus P 114 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 115 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 125 Verginius] P Cusp. :VirgineusM 127 Menenius] MCusp. : Minenius P 130 L] P Cusp. : IM

43

135 T Numic ius et A Verginius 469

136 T Quintius II et Q Servilius 468

137 T Aemil ius II et Q Fabius 467

138 Q Servius et Sp Postumius 466

139 Q Fabius II et T Quintius III 465

140 A Postumius Albus et Sp Furius 464

HI L Aebutius et P Servilius 463

142 L Lucretius Tricipitinus et T Veturius 462

143 P Volumnius et Ser Sulpicius 461

144 P Claudius et P Valerius 460

145 Q Fabius et L Cornelius 459

146 L Minut ius et L Naut ius 458

147 Q Minucius et M Horat ius 457

148 M Valerius et Sp Verginius 456

149 C Veturius et T Nomi l ius 455

150 SpTarpeius etAAternius 454

151 His conss legati Athenas missi ad leges describendas.

152 P Curiacius et Sex Quintius 453

153 T Menenius et P Sestius 452

154 Hoc tempore a consulibus ad decemviros translatum

imperium est, per quos quadraginta annis administrata res

publica est. Atque iterum consules creati sunt.

155 L Valerius et M Horat ius 449

156 L Herminius et T Verginius 448

157 M Geganius et C Iulius 447

158 T Quintius IIII et Agr ippa Furius 446

142 L] P Cusp. :\M Tricipitinis M 146 Minucius M NauciusM 147 Horatius] P Cusp. : Honoratius M 150 Tarpeius] P Cusp. : Tarpeus M 153 T om.P Menenius M Cusp. :MemeniusP 154 puplicaM 157 GaniusM

44

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

M Ginutius et T Curiacius

L Papirius et L Semphronus

M Geganius et P Quintius

M Fabius et Post Aebutius

C Furius Tacitus et M Papirius

Proculus Geganius et L Menenius

T Quintius V et Agrip Manlius

M Geganius et L Servius

L Papirius cons

C Iulius et L Verginius

C Iulius II et L Verginius II

T Quintius VI et Cn Iulius

L Papirius et L Iulius Iulius

L Servius II et Hostus Lucretius

Cossus Cornelius et T Quintius

P Servilius et L Papirius

C Semphronius et Q Fabius

M Cornelius et L Furius

Q Fabius et C Furius

M Papirius et C Nautius

M Aemilius et C Valerius

Cn Cornelius et L Furius

L Lucretius et Ser Sulpicius

L Valerius et M Manlius

445

444

443

442

441

440

439

437

436

435

434

431

430

429

428

427

423

413

412

411

410

409

393

392

160 L Papirius] P Cusp. : I Papirius M Simphronius M: Sempronius Cusp. 163 G Fyrius M 167 conss. M 170 VII M Cusp, fortasse ex archetypo, sed lectio Parisini certe recta est. 171 L Iulius P I Iulius M 172 I Servilius M: L Sergius Cusp. 178 NatiusMa 181 I Lucretius M 182 I Valerius M

45

183 His conss post urbem captam redeuntes Gallos dux

Romanus nomine Camillus extinxit. De quibus triumphans

in urbe quasi et ipse patriae conditor Romulus meruit

nuncupari.

184 Tunc dignitates mutatae sunt et in loco consulum per annos

XVII tribuni militares fuerunt.

185 Quibus ob insolentiam remotis per annos IIII potestas

consulum tribunorumque cessavit.

186 Deinde rursus tribus annis per tribunos militares est

administrata res publica. Post annos vero XXIIII reversa

est dignitas consularis.

187 L Sestius de plebe et T Aemilius Mamercus patricius 366

188 L Genucius et Q Servilius 365

189 C Sulpicius Peticus et C Licinius 364

190 C Genucius et L Aemilius Mamercus 363

191 Q Servilius et L Genucius 362

192 C Sulpicius et C Licinius 361

193 C Poetilius et M Fabius 360

194 M Papirius et Cy Manlius 359

195 C Plaucius et C Fabius 358

196 L Marcius et Cn Manlius 357

197 Q Fabius et M Popillius 356

198 C Sulpicius Peticus et M Valerius 355

199 M Fabius et T Quintius 354

200 C Sulpicius et M Valerius 353

201 P Valerius et C Marcius 352

202 C Sulpicius et T Quintius 351

183 urbe] P : orbe M : urbem Cusp, nucupari Ma 184 mutate M 185 qui his M 186 pup l i caMi* 187 Aemilius] P Cusp. : E m i l i u s M 189 Peeticus M 195 Plaucius] M Cusp. : Plautius P 198 Peticis M

46

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

M Popilius et P Scipio

L Furius et App Claudius

M Valerius et M Popilius

T Manlius et C Plaucius

M Valerius et P Poetilius

M Fabius et Ser Sulpicius

C Marcius et T Manlius

M Valerius et A Cornelius

C Marcius et Q Servilius

C Plautius et L Aemilius

T Manlius et P Decius

T Aemilius et Q Publilius

L Furius et C Menius

His consulibus rostra navium de Antiatibus in foro fixa

sunt.

C Sulpicius etPAelius

L Papirius et K Duillius

M Valerius et M Atilius

T Veturius et Sp Postumius

A Cornelius et Cn Domitius

His conss pax cum Alexandra rege Epiri facta est.

M Marcellus et C Valerius

L Papirius et C Plaustius

L Aemilius et C Plautius

C Plautius et P Cornelius

350

349

348

347

346

345

344

343

342

341

340

339

338

337

336

335

334

332

331

330

329

328

203 Scipo M 206 Plaucius] Cusp. : Placius M: Plautius P 207 Poetilius] P Cusp. : PoeteliusM 212 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M 214 Publicius M: Cusp. om. nomen 218 Duillius] P Cusp. :DailliusM 219 om. M 225 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M 226 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M

47

227 L Cornelius et Q Publilius 327

228 C Poetelius III et L Papirius 326

229 His conss Alexandria in Aegypto condita.

230 L Furius et D Iunius 325

231 C Sulpicius et Q Aelius 323

232 Q Fabius et L Fulvius 322

233 T Veturius et Sp Postumius 321

234 Q Papirius et L Publilius 320

235 L Papirius et Q Aulius 319

236 M Folius et L Plautius 318

237 C Iunius et Q Aemilius 317

238 Sp Nautius et M Popillius 316

239 L Papirius IIII et Q Puplius 315

240 M Poetilius et C Sulpicius 314

241 L Papirius et C Iunius 313

242 M Valerius et P Decius 312

243 His conss per Appium Claudium censorem via facta et

aqua inducta est, quae ipsius nomine nuncupantur.

244 C Iunius et Q Aemilius 311

245 Q Fabius et C Marcius 310

246 Q Fabius et P Decius 308

247 Ap Claudius et L Volumnius 307

248 P Cornelius et Q Martius 306

249 His consulibus viae per agros publicae factae.

250 L Postumius et T Minutius 305

234 Pbli l iusM a 236 Plautius] P Cusp. : P l a u c i u s M 238 Nautius] P Cusp. : Naucius M Pupillius M: Popilius Cusp. 239 IIII] iun MP emendavi Puplius] MCusp. : P u b l i u s P 247 Claudius] P Cusp. : Cladius M 248 Martius] P Cusp. : Marcius M 249 facte M 250 Minutius] MCusp. : Minuc iusP

48

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

P Sulpicius et P Sempronius

L Genutius et Ser Cornelius

M Libius et L Aemilius

M Valerius et Q Apuleius

M Fulvius et T Manlius

L Scipio et Cn Fulvius

Q Maximus et P Decius

L Volumnius et App Claudius

Q Fabius et P Decius

L Postumius et M Atilius

L Papirius Cursor et Sp Carvilius

Q Fabius et D Brutus

L Postumius et C Iunius

P Cornelius et M Curius

M Valerius et Q Caeditius

Q Marcius et P Cornelius

M Marcellus et C Nautius

M Valerius et C Aelius

C Claudius et M Aemilius

C Servilius et L Caelius

304

303

302

300

299

298

297

296

295

294

293

292

291

290

289

288

287

286

285

284

252 Genutius] P Cusp. : Genucius M 253 Lybius P : Livius Cusp. 254 Apuleius] P Cusp. : Aputeius M 260 Postumius] P Cusp. : Postumus M 262 T Brutus M: om. Cusp, praenomen 265 Caeditius] P Cusp. : Caedicius M 267 Nautius] P Cusp. : Naucius M

49

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

P Cornelius Dolabella et Cn Domitius

C Fabricius et Q Aemilius

L Aemilius et Q Marcius

P Valerius et T Coruncanius

P Ulpicius et P Decius

C Fabricius et Q Aemilius

P Cornelius et C Iunius

Q Fabius et C Genucius

M Curius et L Lentulus

Ser Cornelius et M Curius

C Fabius et C Claudius

L Papirius Cursor et Sp Carvilius

K Quintius et L Genutius

C Genutius et Cn Cornelius

Q Ogulnius et C Fabius

P Sempronius et App Claudius

M Atilius et L Iulius Libo

D Iunius et N Fasius

Q Fabius et L Manlius

App Claudius et Q Fulvius

M Valerius et M Otacilius

L Postumius et Q Mamilius

L Valerius et L Otacicilius

Cn Cornelius et C Duilius

C Aquilius et L Cornelius

283

282

281

280

279

278

277

276

275

274

273

272

271

270

269

268

267

266

265

264

263

262

261

260

259

271 Domitius] P Cusp. : Domicius M 273-27'4 om. M 273 Martius Cusp. 274 Coruncanus Cusp. 285 Hos consules om. C, sed rest. Mommsen, recte credo. Adsunt in Cuspiniani libro, sed Me eos ex Eutropio se sustulisse testatur. 286 Sempronius] M Cusp. : Semphronius P 288 M Fasius M: Cn Fabius Cusp. 289 om. P Manulius Cusp. 292 Postumus M: Posthumius Cusp. 293 om. M Octacilius Cusp.

50

296 AAti l ius Calatinus et C Sulpicius 258

297 Cn Cornelius et C Atilius Erranus 257

298 Q Caedicius et L Manlius 256

299 M Aemilius Paulus et Ser Fulvius Nobilior 255

300 Cn Cornelius et A Atilius 254

301 Cn Servilius et C Sempronius 253

302 C Aurelius Cotta et P Servilius 252

303 L Caecilius Metellus et C Furius 251

304 C Atilius Regulus et L Manlius 250

305 P Claudius et L Iunius 249

306 P Servilius et C Aurelius 248

307 L Caecilius et N Fabius 247

308 M Fabius et M Otacilius 246

309 M Fabius et C Atilius 245

310 A Manlius et C Sempronius 244

311 C Fundanius et C Sulpicius 243

312 C Lutatius Cerconius et A Postumius 242

313 Q Lutatius Catulus et A Manlius 241

314 C Claudius Cento et M Sempronius 240

315 C Manlius et Q Valerius 239

316 His conss ludis Romanis primum tragoedia et comoedia a

Lucio Livio ad scenam data.

317 T Sempronius et P Cornelius 238/-

318 L Cornelius et Q Fulvius 237

319 C Licinius et P Cornelius 236

320 T Manlius Torquatus et C Atilius 235

297 om.M 298 Manlius] Erranus Mcf. 297 supra. 299 Fulvius] P Cusp. : Fulcius M 300 et om.M 301 om. M 302 Aurelius] P Cusp. : Cornelius M 304 om. M 306 om.M 307 Caecilius] P Cusp. : Cecilius M 308-310 om. M 310 Manilius Cusp. 312 Lutacius M: Luctatius Cusp. 313 Lutatius om. M: Luctatius Cusp. 316 comaediaP

51

321 L Postumius et Sp Carvilius 234

322 Q Fabius et M Pomponius 233

323 M Lepidus et M Oblicius 232

324 C Papirius et M Pomponius 231

325 M Aemilius et M Iunius 230

326 His conss Hamilcar Hannibalis pater in Hispania bellum

Romanis parans occisus est. Hie solitus dicere quattuor

filios contra populum Romanum velut catulos leoninos se

educare.

327 L Postumius et Cn Fulvius 229

328 Q Fabius et Sp Carvilius 228

329 P Valerius et M Atilius 227

330 L Apustius et M Valerius 226

331 C Atilius et L Aemilius 225

332 T Marcius et Q Fulvius II 224

333 C Flamminius et P Furius Pilo 223

334 M Marcellus et Cn Cornelius 222

335 P Cornelius et M Minutius 221

336 L Veturius et C Lutatius 220

337 His conss via Flamina munita et circus factus qui

Flaminius appel la te .

338 MLiv ius e t L Aemilius 219

339 His conss Hannibal Hamilcaris filius in Hispania bellum

molitur.

340 P Cornelius et T Sempronius 218

324-325 C Papirius et M Emilius Msed alios conss. om. : C Papyrius Cusp. 326 se add. Cusp, et Mommsen 329 om. M 331 om. M 332 Marcus M: Manlius Cusp. 335 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 337 Flamina] P M: Flaminia Cusp Flaminus Ma ape l l a t e M 338-339 om. M

52

341 Cn Servilius Geminus et C Flamminius 217

342 L Paulus et C Terentius Barro 216

343 T Sempronius et Q Maximus 215

344 Q Fabius Maximus et M Marcellus 214

345 P Maximus et T Gracchus 213

346 Q Fulvius Flaccus III et App Claudius 212

347 Fulvius Centumalus et P Sulpicius 211

348 M Marcellus et M Valerius 210

349 Q Fabius V et Q Fulvius Flaccus IIII 209

350 M Marcellus et T Quintius 208

351 C Claudius Nero et M Livius Salinator 207

352 L Veturius et Q Caecilius Metellus 206

353 P Scipio et P Crassus 205

354 M Cornelius et T Sempronius 204

355 Cn Servilius et C Servilius 203

356 M Servilius et T Claudius Nero 202

357 Cn Cornelius Lentulus et C Aelius Paeto 201

358 P Sulpicius et C Aurelius 200

359 L Cornelius et P Villius 199

360 Sex Aelius Paeto et T Quintius 198

361 C Cornelius et Q Minutius 197

342 Terentius] P Cusp. : Terrentius M 346 III et] P : et III M 348 et om. M 349-350 om.M 351 G Claudius M 352 om.M 353 C r a s s o M 354-356 om. M 356 P Servilius P, sed quia hocpraenomen et quod sequitur sunt eadem quae reperiuntur ad 354 et 355 in hoc ms. prior a praenomina 358-364 ad 356-362 et 366-370 ad 364-368 male applicantur quia librarius, scribens omnia praenomina in columna prima, deinde altera nomina in columna altera, etc., erraverat. 357 L Cornelius P P o e t a M 358 Sex Sulpicius P et om. M 359 C Cornelius P 360 L Aelius P Poeto M: Paetus Cusp. 361 L Cornelius P Minutius] P Cusp. Minucius M

53

362 L Furius et M Marcellus 196

363 L Valerius Flaccus et M Cato 195

364 P Scipio II et T Sempronius 194

366 L Quintius et Cn Domitius 192

367 P Scipio Nasica et M Acilius 191

368 L Scipio et C Laelius 190

369 M Fulvius et Cn Manlius 189

370 M Messala et C Livius Salinator 188

371 M Lepidus et C Flaminius 187

372 Sp Postumius et Q Marcius 186

373 His conss athletarum certamina primum a Fulvio edita.

374 App Claudius et M Sempronius 185

375 P Claudius et L Porcius Licinius 184

376 M Claudius et Q Fabius Labeon 183

377 His conss Hannibal apud Prusian veneno periit.

378 L Paulus et Cn Baebius 182

379 P Lentulus et M Baebius ?/i8i

380 A Postumius et C Tarpurnius 180

381 Q Fulvius et L Manlius 179

382 M Iunius et Cn Manlius 178

383 T Sempronius et C Claudius 177

384 Cn Cornelius et Q Petillius 176

385 M Lepidus et Q Mucius 175

386 Sp Postumius et Q Mucius 174

362 P Furius P Marcellus] P Cusp. : Marcellius M 363 om. M 365 Consules huius anni "L Cornelius et Q Minucius " voluit Mommsen restituere. Cuspinianus habet, sedex Livio. credo Cassiodorum hos non habuisse.367 M Scipio P 368 M Scipio P Laelius] P Cusp. : Lelius M 370-371 om. M 373 FlvioM"3 374 M Sempronius Labeon Mmale applicavit. 376 Labeon om. M, sedvide 374, supra. 383 om. M 385 om. M

54

387 L Postumius Albinus et M Popillius 173

388 C Popillius et P Aelius 172

389 P Licinius et C Cassius 171

390 A Hostilius Mancinus et A Atilius no

391 L Marcius Philippus et Q Servilius 169

392 L Paulus II et C Licinius 168

393 Q Aelius Paeto et M Iunius 167

394 M Mamercus et C Sulpicius 166

395 Cn Octavius et T Manlius 165

396 A Manlius et Q Cassius 164

397 T Sempronius et M Iuvencius 163

398 P Scipio Nasica et C Marcius 162

399 M Messala et C Fannius 161

400 L Anicius et M Cornelius 160

401 Cn Cornelius Dolabella et M Fulvius 159

402 M Aemilius et C Popillius 158

403 His conss metalla in Macedonia instituta.

404 Sex Iulius et L Aurelius 157

405 L Lentulus et C Marcius 156

406 P Scipio et M Claudius 155

407 L Postumius et Q Opimius 154

408 Q Fulvius et T Annius 153

409 Hi primi consules Kalendis Ianuariis magistratum inierunt

propter subitum Celtiberiae bellum.

4io M Marcellus et L Valerius 152

387 Potumius Abinus M: Posthumius Albinus Cusp. 388 om. M 390 et A Atilius om. M 392 om. M 393 Poeto M: Paetus Cusp. 394 Marcus Msedvide infra 398 : Marcellus Cusp., sed add. "in Cassiodoro scribebatur M. Mamercus." 395 Octavius] P Cusp. : Octavus M 396 om. M 397 Iuvencius] MCusp. : Iuvent iusP 398 Marcius] P : Martius Cusp. : Mamercus M 401 et om. M 402 Aemilius] P Cusp. : Aemelius M 407 om. M 409 Celtiberie M

55

411 L Lucullus et A Postumius 151

412 T Quintius et M Acilius 150

413 L Marcius et M Manlius 149

414 Sp Postumius et L Piso 148

415 P Africanus et C Livius 147

416 Cn Cornelius et L Mummius 146

417 Q Fabius Maximus et L Hostilius 145

418 Ser Calba et L Aurelius 144

419 App Claudius et Q Metellus 143

420 L Metellus et Q Maximus 142

421 Cn Cepio et Q Pompeius HI

422 Q Cepio et C Laelius 140

423 Cn Piso et M Popilius 139

424 P Scipio et D Brutus 138

425 M Aemilius et C Hostilius Mancinus 137

426 P Furio et Sex Atilius Serranus 136

427 Ser Fulvius et Q Carpurnius 135

428 His conss Aemilianus Scipio ob Numantinum bellum cum

candidatus non esset consul creatur.

429 P Africanus et C Fulgius Flaccus 134

430 C Mucius et L Carpurnius 133

431 P Popilius et P Sulpicius 132/-

432 P Crassus et L Valerius Flaccus 131

433 App Claudius et M Perpenna 130

434 C Sempronius et M Aquilius 129

415 Africanus] P Cusp. :Af f r i canusM 416 Mummius] MCusp. : N u m m i u s . P 417 et om. M 419 et om. M 420 om. M 421 et Q Pompeius om. M, sedvide 422, infra. 422 Laelius] P Cusp. : et O Lelius M 423 Popilius] M Cusp. : Pompilius P 424 Brutus] M Cusp. : Prutus P 425-426 om. M 426 Furius Cusp. 429 P Africanus] Cusp. : A Africanus P : P Affricanus M 431 om. M

56

435 Cn Octavius et T Annius 128

436 L Cassius et L Cinna 127

437 M Aemilius et L Aurelius 126

438 M Plautius et M Fulvius 125

439 C Cassius Longinus et C Sextius 124

440 Q Caecilius et T Quintius 123

441 Cn Domitius et C Fannius 122

442 His conss C Sextius oppidum aedificavit in quo Aquae

Sextiae in Galliis.

443 L Opimius et Q Maximus 121

444 P Manlius et C Papirius 120

445 L Caecilius et L Aurelius 119

446 M Cato et Q Marcius 118

447 L Caecilius et Q Mutius 117

448 C Linicius Geta et Q Maximus 116

449 M Metellus et M Scaurius 115

450 His conss L Metellus et Cn Domitius censores artem

ludicram ex urbe removerunt preter Latinum tibicinem

cum cantore et ludum talarium.

451 M Acilius Balbus et C Cato 114

452 C Caecilius et C Papirius 113

453 M Livius Drusus et L Piso 112

454 P Scipio et L Carpurnius Bestia 111

455 Sp Postumius et M Minutius 110

456 Q Metellus et M Silanus 109

435 Octavius] P Cusp. : Octavus M M>1 om. M 438 M Plaucius et M Aurelius M, vide 437, supra. 439-441 om. M 442 Hi M C Sextius] MCusp. C om. P edificavit M 443 Opimius] P Cusp. : Optimius M 447 om. M 448 Geta om. M 450 HiM CnMiciusM ludricamP talanumM calanum Cusp. 451 om. M 452 Caecilius] MCusp. : Cecilius P 453 om. M 455 et om. M Minutius] MCusp : Minucius P 456 om. M

57

457 Ser Galba et M Scaurus 108

458 L Cassius et C Marius 107

459 Q Servilius et C Atilius Erranus 106

460 His conss per Servilium Coepionem consulem iudicia

equitibus et senatoribus communicata.

461 P Rutilius Rufus et C Manlius 105

462 C Marius II et C Fl Fimbrius 104

463 C Marius III et L Aurelius Orestes 103

464 C Marius IIII et L Lutatius 102

465 C Marius V et M Aquilius 101

466 C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus 100

467 M Antonius et A Postumius 99

468 Q Metellus et T Didius 98

469 Cn Lentulus et P Crassus 97

470 Cn Domicius et C Cassus 96

471 His conss Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum

heredem reliquit.

472 P Crassus et Q Scaevola 95

473 C Coelius et L Domitius 94

474 C Valerius Flaccus et M Herennius 93

475 C Claudius et M Pulcher Perperna 92

476 L Marcius et Sex Iulius 91

477 L Caesar et C Rutilius Lupus 90

478 Cn Pompeius et L Porcius Cato 89

457 Scaurus] MCusp. : Scaurius P 458-459 om. M 459 Attilius Cusp. 461 Manlius] MCusp : Manilius P A&l C Maurius et C Finbrius M 463-466 om. M 464 Q Luctatius Cusp. 470 om. M Cn Domitius et C Cassius Cusp. 471 Ptolomaeus Aegipti M A12> om. M Caelius Cusp. 475 om. M 477 om. M 478 Pompeius] P Cusp. : Pompeus M

58

479 L Sylla et Q Pompeius 88

480 L Cinna et Cn Octavius 87

481 L Cinna II et C Marius VII 86

482 L Cinna III et Cn Papirius 85

483 L Cinna IIII et Cn Papirius II 84

484 His conss Asiam in XLIIII regiones Sylla distribuit.

485 L Scipio et C Norbanus 83

486 His conss capitolium custodum neglegentia concrematur.

487 Cn Carbo III et C Marius 82

488 M Tullius et Cn Dolabella 81

489 L Sylla II et Q Metellus 80

490 P Servilius et App Claudius 79

491 M Lepidus et Q Catulus 78

492 Mam Aemilius et D Brutus 77

493 Cn Octavius et C Curio 76

494 L Octavius et C Cotta 75

495 L Licinius Lucullus et M Cotta 74

496 M Lucullus et C Cassius 73

497 L Gellius et Cn Lentulus 72

498 Cn Aufidius et P Lentulus 71

499 M Crassus et Cn Pompeius 70

500 Q Metellus et Q Hortensius 69

501 His conss a Q Catulo reparatum dedicatumque capitolium

est.

502 L Metellus et Q Marcius 68

479 et ow. M 480-481 om. M 482 III om. M 483 om. M 484 XL M 486 negligentia M 488 C Dolabella M 489-496 om. M 499 Crassus] P Cusp. : Grassus M 500 et Q Quintius M 501 aq Catulo P : atque Catulo M 502 om. M

59

503 C Piso et M Glabrio 67

504 An Lepidus et L Tarquatus 66/65

506 L Caesar et Q Marcius 64

507 M Cicero et C Antonius 63

508 D Silanus et L Murena 62

509 M Pupius et M Valerius 61

510 His conss Catilina in agro Pistoriensi a C Antonio bello

peremptus est.

511 Q Metellus et L Afranius 60

512 C Caesar et M Bibulus 59

513 L Piso et A Gabinius 58

514 His conss Clodii rogatione Cicero in exilium est profectus.

515 P Lentulus et Q Metellus 57

516 His conss propter civiles dissensiones per SC de exilio

Cicero revocatur.

517 Cn Lentulus et L Philippus 56

518 Cn Pompeius et M Crassus 55

519 App Claudius et L Domicius 54

520 Cn Domicius et M Messala 53

521 Cn Pompeius et Q Metellus 52

522 M Marcellus et Ser Sulpicius 51

523 L Paulus et M Marcellus 50

524 L Lentulus et C Marcellus 49

504-505 Man Lepidus et [L Volcacius L Cotta et] L Torquatus rest. Mommsen. Hi consules absunt cum a Cuspiniano turn ab archetypo. Num adfuerint in epitome Liviana est ignotum. 506 Caesar] P Cusp. : Cesar M 509 Pupius] P Cusp. : Puppius M 510 Pistoriensis M pe rempt i sM 512 Caesar] P Cusp. : Cesar M 513 A Gabinius] P Cusp. : M Valerius M 514 rogac ioneM 515 P Lentulus] P Cusp. : L Lentulus M 516 Cicero] P Cusp. : C e r o M 517 om. M 520-521 om. M 524 om. M

60

525 His conss perniciosae in curia conflantur de Pompeio

Cesareque discordiae.

526 Sed Gaius Iulius Caesar de Galliis veniens Pompeium

fugavit Italia. Aurum atque argentum Romae de aerario

sustulit.

527 Ac primus Romanorum singulare optinuit imperium. a quo

Caesares Romani principes appellati. imperavit autem

annos IIII menses VI sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

528 IMPERATORES ROMANI

I

529 C Iulius Caesar II et P Servilius 48

530 Q Fusius et P Ciaticanus 47/?

531 His conss Caesar Pompeium Farsalico proelio superavit.

Pompeius fugiens in Aegyptum occisus est.

532 C Iulius Caesar III et M Lepidus 46

533 C Iulius Caesar IIII et Fab Maximus 45

534 His conss C Iulius Caesar per quadruum triumphavit.

535 C Iulius Caesar V et M Antonius 44

536 His consulibus M Antonius Lupercalibus sella aurea

sedenti Caesari diadema rennuenti imposuit. Atque Idibus

Martiis Caesar in Pompeia curia occisus est.

537 Cui successit Octavianus Caesar qui regnavit annis LVI

mensibus VI. Per quae tempora hi consules extiterunt.

II

538 C Pansa et A Hirtius 43

525 Pome ioM a CesaraqueM 526 Caesar] MCusp. : Cesar P Italia] Cusp, fortasse emend. : Italiam P M 527 A primus M Caesares] MCusp. : Cesares P VI] P : septem M 528 Imperatores I Romani P M 529 et P] P : P et M 530 Fusius] M Cusp : Fuvius P Ciaticanus Cusp M: Vaticanus P 531 Falsalico M: Pharsalico Cusp. Egyptum M 532 Lepidis M 534 quadruum] P M quadriduum emend. Mommsen, fortasse recte 536 Cesari P M a r c i i s M impompeia M: in Pompeiana Cusp. 537 extiterunt] M Cusp exstiterunt P

61

539 His conss Caesar Octavianus Antonius et Lepidus amicitiae

foedus inierunt.

540 M Cicero Caiete per Popilium militem occisus est annorum

LX trium.

541 Caesar Octavianus forum Augustum aedificavit.

542 M Lepidus et L Plancus 42

543 P Servilius II et L Antonius 41

544 Cn Domicius et C Asinius 40

545 L Censorinus et C Calvisius 39

546 App Claudius et C Norbanus 38

547 M Agrippa et L Caninius 37

548 His conss lacus Lucrinus in portum conversus est.

549 L Gellius et M Cocceius 36

550 Sex Pompeius et L Cornificius 35

551 L Scribonius et L Atratinus 34

552 C Caesar et L Vulcatius 33

553 Cn Domitius et C Sossius 32

554 C Caesar II et M Messela 31

555 His conss apud Actium M Antonius a Cesare superatur.

556 C Caesar III et M Crassus 30

557 His conss Nicopolim Caesar construit. ludos Actiacos

instituit.

558 Antonius a Caesare proelio peremptus Alexandriae in

mausoleo cum Cleopatra reconditur.

559 C Caesar IIH et Sex Apuleius 29

539 amic ic iaeM 541 Cesar P 545-546 om.M 548 conversum P 549 Gellius] P Cusp. : Genlius M Cocceius] P Cusp. : Cocceus M 550 Cornificius] P Cusp. Cernificius M 551 om.M 553 Domitius] P Cusp. : Domicius M 554 om.M Messela] P Messala Cusp. 555 a p u t M 557 Actiacus Pa 558 Cesare M conditur M

62

560 C Caesar V et M Agrippa II 28

561 His conss Parthorum dissensiones per Caesarem sedatae.

562 C Caesar VI et M Agrippa III 27

563 Caesar leges protulit, iudices ordinavit, provincias

disposuit et ideo Augustus cognominatus est.

564 Cuius temporibus floruerunt Vergilius, Horatius et Livius.

565 C Augustus Caesar VII et T Statilius 26

566 C Augustus Caesar VIII et M Silanus 25

567 His conss Cantabros, Germanos, Salassos Cesar perdomuit.

C Augustus Caesar Vi l l i et C Norbanus

568 His conss Astures et Cantabri per Lucium Lanium 24

569 perdomiti.

C Augustus Caesar X et Cn Piso

570 M Marcellus et L Arruntius 23

571 M Lollius et Q Lepidus 22

572 M Apuleius et P Silius 21

573 His conss aquilas et signa Crassiana de Parthis Caesar 20

574 recepit.

C Sentius et Q Lucretius

575 His conss Caesari ex provintiis redeunti currus cum corona 19

576 aurea decretus est quo ascendere noluit.

Cn Lentulus et P Lentulus

577 T Furnius et C Silanus 18

578 L Domitius et P Scipio 17

579 M Drusus et L Piso 16

580 15

560 Cesar P 563 Cesar M provint iasP 564 Virgilius Aft Cusp. 565 Cesar M 566 Cesar M 567 Cantabos Ma 568 Cesar M No rban i sM 569 As to r e sM perdomiti] emend. Mommsen : perdomuit C Cusp. 570 Cesar P 571-572 om. M 571 Aruncius Cusp. 573 Apulleius M P Silius] P : P Sillius Cusp. : P Arruntius M 574 decepit M 577 om. M

63

581 Cn Lentulus et M Crassus 14

582 Ti Nero et P Quintilius 13

583 M Messala et P Sulpicius 12

584 P Fabius et Q Aelius 11

585 Iullus Antonius et Affricanus Fabius 10

586 Drusus Nero et L Quintius 9

587 His conss apud Lingonum gentem templum Caesari Drusus

sacravit.

588 C Asinius et C Martius 8

589 His conss inter Albim et Rhenum Germani omnes Tiberio

Neroni dediti.

590 Per Sextum Apuleium Pannonii subacti.

591 Ti Nero et Cn Piso 7

592 D Laelius et C Antistius 6

593 Augustus Caesar XI et L Sylla 5

594 C Calvisius et L Passienus 4

595 C Lentus et M Messula 3

596 His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus filius dei in

Bethleem nascitur anno imperii Augusti XLI.

597 C Augustus Caesar XII et M Plaucius 2

598 Cossus Lentulus et L Piso 1

599 C Augustus Caesar XIII et L Paulus 1

600 C Vinicius et P Alfenus 2

583-586 om. M 584 Paulus Fabius P Cusp., fortasse PAulus. Sed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. 585 Iullo sanctionibus P : Iulius Antonius Cusp. 587 aputM CesariP 588 Martius] MCusp. : MarciusP 589TiberoP 591 om. M 592 Laelius] P Cusp. : Lelius M 595 om. M 596 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethlehem M 597 Plaucius] MCusp. : Plautius P 598-600 om. M

64

601 M Servilius et L Lamia 3

602 Sex Aelius et C Sentius 4

603 Cn Cinna et L Valerius 5

604 His conss per dies octo Tiberis impetu miseranda clades

hominum domorumque fuit.

605 M Lepidus et L Arruntius 6

606 Q Cecilius et ALinicius 7

607 M Furius et Sex Nonius 8

608 Q Sulpicius et C Poppaeus 9

609 P Dolabella et C Silanus 10

610 M Lepidus et T Statilius n

611 Ger Caesar et C Fonteius 12

612 L Plancus et C Silius 13

613 Sex Pompeius et Sex Apuleius 14

614 His conss imperator Augustus obiit septuagesimo sexto

anno aetatis suae, imperii autem quinquagesimo sexto

semis. Huic successit imperium Tiberius Caesar qui

imperavit annos XXIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

Ill

615 Drusus Cesar et C Norbanus 15

616 Sisenna Statilius et L Scribonius 16

617 His conss matematici urbe pelluntur.

618 L Pomponius et C Cecilius n

619 Ti Caesar et Germanicus Caesar 18

620 M Silanus et C Norbanus 19

621 His conss Germanicus Caesar in Suria mortuus est.

606 Cecilius] MCusp. : Caecilius P 607-608 om. M 610 Statilius] P Cusp. : Stadius M 611 om. M 614 septuagessmo M in om. M inper iumM Cesar M inperavit M hi] hie M 616 Scribonius] P Cusp. : Scribonus M 618 Cecilius] MCusp. : Caecilius P 619 Ti et Germanias Cesar M 621 Cesar M est om.P

65

622 M Valerius et M Aurelius 20

623 Ti Caesar et Drusus Caesar 21

624 D Haterius et C Sulpicius 22

625 C Asinius et C Antistius 23

626 His conss Drusus Caesar publice funeratur.

627 Ser Cornelius et L Visellius 24

628 M Asinius et Cossus Cornelius 25

629 C Calvisius et Cn Getulicus 26

630 L Piso et M Crassus 27

631 App Silanus et P Silius 28

632 C Rubellius et C Fufius 29

633 M Vinicius et L Cassius 30

634 Ti Caesar V conss 31

634a duo Gemini 29

635 His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus passus est VIII

kal. Aprilis et defectio solis facta est qualis ante vel

postmodum numquam fuit.

636 Vinicius et Longinus 30

637 Sulpicius et Sylla 33

638 Priscus et Vitellus 34

639 Gallus et Nonianus 35

640 His conss Persius Flaccus satyricus poeta Volaterris

nascitur.

641 Gallienus et Plautianus 36

623 Drusus Caesar] Caesar om. M 625 om. M 626 Cesar P puplice M 628-629 om. M 631-633 om. M 634a Neque habentmss neque Cuspinianus, sedego restitui. 637 Sylla] P Cusp. : Silla M 638 Vitellius Cusp., addens "ita in Cassiodori opusculo leguntur coss. " 639 om. M 640 satyricus] atyricus P : atyraus M: om. Cusp.

66

642 His conss Tiberius imperator in Campania moritur. Cui

successit C Caesar cognomento Caligula qui regnavit annis

tribus et mensibus XI. Sub quo hi consules extiterunt.

IIII

643 Proculus et Nicrinus 37

644 Iulianus et Asprenas 38

645 Publicula et Nerva -/-

646 His conss Pilatus in multas incidens calamitates propria se

manu interfecit.

647 Caesar et Iulianus 40/-

648 His conss C Caesar cognomento Caligula in protectoribus

suis occiditur in palatio anno aetatis XXIIII. Cui successit

Claudius qui imperavit annis XIII mensibus VIII diebus

XXVIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

V

649 Caesar II et Saturninus 41

650 Saturninus II et Venustus 41/-

651 His conss Petrus apostolus Romam mittitur ubi evangelium

praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat.

652 Tiberius et Gallius 42

653 Crispinus et Taurus 44

654 His conss Claudius de Brittannis triumphavit et Orcadas

insulas Romano adiecit imperio.

655 Vinicius et Cornelius 45/-

656 His conss inter Theram et Therasiam exorta est insula

habens stadia XXX.

642 XI] MCusp. :XP III M 648 in protectoribus] PM a protectoribus Hier. Cusp. palacioM etatis M 649 Saturninus] P Cusp. : Saturnius M 651 PetusMa 653 ThaurusM 654 PrittannisM 655 VinciusMa 656 studiaP

67

657 Asiaticus et Cornelius 46/-

658 His conss descriptio Romae facta est et inventa sunt civium

Romanorum centena milia et XLIIII.

659 Trachia hucusque regnata in provinciam redigitur.

660 Tiberius II et Vitellus 47

661 Vitellius II et Publicola 48

662 Veranus et Gallus 49

663 Vetus et Nervilianus 50

664 Claudius et Orfitus 51

665 Silvanus et Silvius 52

666 Tiberius III et Antoninus 51/53

667 Silanus et Otho 53/52

668 His conss Claudius moritur in palatio anno aetatis LXIIII.

Huic successit Nero qui regnavit annis XIII mensibus VII

diebus XXVIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

VI

669 Silanus II et Antonius II 53

670 Marcellinus et Aviola 54

671 His conss sanctus Paulus apostolus Romam vinctus a

Felice preside destinatur.

672 Probus etiam eruditissimus grammaticus Romae

cognoscitur.

673 Ursulus Tolosensis celeberrime in Gallia rethoricam docet.

674 Nero et Vetus 55

675 Nero II et Piso 57

657 Victorius "Asiaticus et Silanus" habet. Itaque "Cornelius" in hoc loco fortasse scriptum est a quodam librario per dittographiam. 658 Rome M et XLIIII] et om. M 659 regnata] emend. Cusp, et Momm. : regnat P M provintiam P 660 om. M Vitellius Cusp. 661 Vitellius] MCusp. : Vitellus P 662-663 om. M 666 om. M Antonius Cusp, scribens "Sic in Cassiodori exemplo unico invent. " 668 palacio M etatis M 669 om. M 672 Rome M 612, retholicam P 675-678 om. M

68

676 Nero III et Messala 58

677 Nero IIII et Cornelius 60

678 Pius et Turpilianus -/6i

679 Macrinus et Gallus 62

680 Crassus et Bassus 64

681 His conss thermae a Nerone aedificatae quas Neronianas

appellavit. cuius odio, mutato vocabulo, nunc Alexandrinae

nominantur.

682 Silvanus et Paulinus 65/66

683 His conss Nero ut similitudinem Troiae ardentis inspiceret

plurimam partem Romanae urbis incendit.

684 Censinus et Apuleius -/-

685 His conss duae provinciae factae sunt Pontus

Polemoniacus et Alpes Cottiae Cottio rege defuncto.

686 Capita et Rufus 67

687 Italicus et Turpilianus 68

688 Silvanus et Otho 69

689 His conss Romae sanctus Petrus et Paulus apostolus

trucidati sunt a Nerone.

690 Qui turpiter vivens cum a senatu quaereretur ad poenam e

palatio fugiens ad IIII urbis miliarium in suburbano

Numentana via sese interfecit anno aetatis XXXII.

691 Cui successit Galba, qui regnavit mensibus VII.

692 Post hunc Otho mensibus tribus diebus quinque.

680 om. M 681 t h e r m e M edif icataeM ne ron iasM vobulo P alexandrinae] P Cusp. : alexandrianae M 685 provintiae M cottie M 687 om. M 689 apostolus] M Cusp. : apostoli P Nerore P 690 quereretur M penam M palacio M IIII] quattuor P : quatuor M: quartum Cusp. e t a t i sM 691 succens i tM 692 om. M

69

693 Post Vitellius regnavit mensibus VIII die uno. Qui omnes

infra scriptos duos consules tenuerunt.

694 Vespasianus et Titus 70

695 Vespasianus II et Titus II 73

696 His conss Vespasianus suscepit imperium qui regnavit

annis Villi mensibus XI diebus XXII. Sub quo hi consules

fuerunt.

VII

697 Vespasianus III et Nerva 71

698 Vespasianus MI et Titus III 74

699 His conss Titus filius Vespasiani Iudaea capta, praeter quos

gladio interfecit, C milia captivorum publice venundavit.

700 Vespasianus V et Titus MI 75

701 Vespasianus VI et Titus V 76

702 Vespasianus VII et Titus VI 77

703 His conss Vespasianus incensum Capitolium aedificare

orsus est.

704 Commodus et Rufus 78

705 Vespasianus VIII et Titus VII 79

706 His conss colossus erectus est habens altitudinis pedes

CVII.

707 Vespasianus VIM et Titus VIII 80

708 Silvanus et Verus 81

709 Domitianus et Messalianus 82/85

693 Vitellus Ma 695 om. M 698 Vespasianus MI om. M 699 Iudea M preter M 700-706 om. M 707 Titus VIM M

70

710 His conss Vespasianus est mortuus profluvio ventris in

villa propria circa Sabinos. cui Titus filius eius succedens

in utraque lingua dissertissimus regnavit annis duobus

mensibus duobus. sub quo hi consules exstiterunt.

VIII

711 Domitianus II et Rufus II 83

712 His conss Titus amphitheatrum Romae aedificavit et in

dedicatione eius V milia ferarum occidit.

713 Domitianus III et Sabinus 84

714 His conss Titus morbo periit in eadem villa qua pater eius

anno aetatis XLII. qui ob insignem mansuetudinem

deliciae humani generis appellatus est. cui successit

Domitianus frater Titi iunior crudelissimus. qui imperavit

annis XV mensibus V. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

Villi

715 Domitianus 1111 et Rufus III 85/-

716 His conss Domitianus eunuchos fieri prohibuit.

717 Domitianus V et Dolabella 86

718 Domitianus VI et Rufus IIII 88

719 Flavius et Traianus 89

720 Domitianus VII et Nerva 90

721 Traianus II et Gabrio 91

722 His conss primus Domitianus dominum et deum se

appellari iussit.

723 Domitianus VIII et Saturninus

710 dissertissimus sic P M ext i teruntM 712 edificavitM 713 Domitianus] M Cusp. : Domitianus P 714 insignem] Cusp emend, signem P M delicias P M, emend. Cusp, etMommsen succensi tM cludelissimusP coniesMa 717 V I M 718 om.M 720-721 om.M 722 appellare P Cusp : apellare M 723 om. M

71

724 Silvanus et Priscus 92/93

725 His conss Quintillianus ex Hispania primus Romae

scholam publicam et salarium e fisco accepit et claruit.

726 Asprenas et Clemens 94/95

727 His conss multa moenia et celeberrima Romae facta sunt.

Id est Capitolium, forum transitorium, divorum porticus,

Iseum, Serapium, stadium, horrea piperataria, Vespasiani

templum, Minerva Chalcedica, odion.

728 Domitianus Vi l l i et Clemens II 95

729 His conss insignissima Romae facta sunt, id est forum

Traiani, thermae Traianae et Titianae, senatus, ludus

matutinus, mica aurea, meta sudans et pantheus.

730 Nerva II et Rufus 97

731 Fulvius et Vetus -96

732 Sabinus et Antoninus -/-

733 Nerva III et Traianus III 98

734 Senecio et Palma 99

735 Traianus IIII et Fronto 100

736 His conss Apollonius Tyaneus philosophus insignis

habetur.

737 Domitianus occisus in palatio anno aetatis XXXV. cui

Nerva succedens regnat annum I mensibus IIII. sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

X

738 Traianus V et Orfitus 101/110

725 s c o l a m M 727 factae P : facte M Serapium] MCusp : Saerapium P Calcedica Pa 728 Domitianus IIII M 729 facte M 730-731 om. M 733 om. M 735 om. M 736 Apollonius] P Cusp. : Appollonius M Tyaneus om. M 111 palacio M anno bis Pa e t a t i sM X X X I I I I M succensitM2 annum P M Cusp. 738 I I M

72

739 Senecio II et Sura -7102

740 His conss Nerva morbo periit in hortis Sallustianis anno

aetatis LXXII, cum iam Traianum adoptasset in filium. cui

succedens imperavit annis XVIIII mensibus VI diebus XV.

sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XI

741 Traianus VI et Maximus 103

742 Senecio III et Sura II -/-

743 Urbanus et Marcellus 104

744 Candidus et Quadratus 105

745 His conss Traianus de Dacis et Scythis triumphavit.

746 Commodus et Caerealis 106

747 His conss Traianus Hiberos Sauromatas Hosroenos Arabas

Bosphoranus Colchos in foedus accepit. Seleuciam

Etesifontem Babylonem occupavit et tenuit.

748 Senecio IIII et Sura III 107

749 His conss Traianus in mari rubro classem instituit ut per

earn Indiae fines vastaret.

750 Gallus et Bradua 108

751 Africanus et Crispinus -/-

752 Crispinus II et Solenus 110/-

753 Piso et Rusticus 111

754 Traianus VII et Affricanus 112

755 Celsus et Crispinus 113

739 Senecio] P Cusp. : Senetio M Traianus M1 in paginae margine 740 e t a t i sM Cum iam...XI om. M 741 -742 om. M 744 Quadatus M° 747 faedus P Seuleuciam M etesifontem P M: etsesifontem Ma 751-752 om. M 752 Bolenus Cusp. 754-755 om. M

73

756 His conss Plinius Secundus Novocomensis orator et

historicus insignis habetur. cuius ingenii plurima opera

extant.

757 AstaetPiso 114/-

758 Messala et Pedon 115

759 Aemilius et Verus 116

760 Niger et Apronianus in

761 His conss Traianus Armeniam Assyriam et Mesopotamiam

provintias fecit.

762 Clarus et Alexander -/-

763 Hadrianus et Salinator 118

764 Hadrianus II et Rusticus 119

765 Servilius et Fulvius 120

766 His conss Traianus apud Seleuciam Hisauriae profluvio

ventris extinctus est anno aetatis LXIII. cuius ossa in urna

aurea conlocata sub columna fori quod eius nomine

vocitatur recondita sunt, cuius columnae altitudo in CXL

pedes erigitur. huic successit Hadrianus utraque lingua

peritissimus, Italicae natus ex consobrina Traiani, qui

regnavit annis XX mensibus X diebus XXVIIII. sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

XII

767 Verus et Augur 121

768 His conss Hadrianus Alexandriam a Romanis subversam

publicis instauravit expensis.

769 Aviola et Pansa 122

756 Plenius P Ma 757 om. M 759 om. M Aemilius] P : Aemilianus Cusp. 760 Apronianus] MCusp. : Aproniamus P 761 Assyr r iamM 763-764 om. M 766 aput M Seleutiam M etatis M L X I I M collocata M calumna P M diebus XXVIIII] om. M 768-769 om. M

74

770 His conss Hadrianus reliqua tributorum urbibus relaxavit,

chartis publicis incensis. plurimos etiam ipsis tributis

liberos fecit.

771 Paternus et Torquatus 123/124

772 His conss Plutarchus philosophus insignis habetur.

773 Gabrio et Apronianus 124/123

774 His conss Nicomedia et Nicenae urbis plurimis terrae motu

conlapsis Hadrianus ad instaurationem earum publicas

largitur expensas.

775 Asiaticus et Quintus 125/-

776 Verus et Ambiguus 126

777 His conss Atheniensibus leges petentibus Hadrianus ex

Draconis et Solonis reliquorumque libris iura composuit.

778 Gallicanus et Titianus 127

779 His conss iuxta Eleusinam civitatem Cefiso fluvio

Hadrianus pontem constravit.

780 Torquatus et Libo 128

781 Celsus et Marcellinus 129

782 Pontianus et Rufus 131

783 Augurinus et Sergianus 132

784 Tiberius et Silanus 133/—

785 His conss Hadrianus a Christianorum persecutione

cessavit,

786 et pater patriae est appellatus.

787 Sergius II et Verus 134

788 Pompeianus et Atilianus 135

770 adrianus M 112-113 om. M 113 Apronianus] M Cusp. : Aproniamus P 11A N i c e t a e M 776 om. M 111 r e l iquarumM 781-783 om. M 786 apellatus M 787 om. M Sergianus Cusp.

75

789 His conss templum Romae et Veneris factum est quod nunc

urbis appellatur.

790 Pompeianus II et Commodus 136

791 His conss Hadrianus, cum insignes et plurimas aedes

Athenis fecisset, agonem edidit bibliothecamque miri

792 operis exstruxit.

793 Laelius et Albinus 137

794 Camerinus et Niger 138

795 Antoninus et Praesens 139

796 Antoninus II et Praesens II 140/139

797 Severus et Silvanus 141/-

His conss Aelia civitas id est Hierusalem ab Aelio

Hadriano condita est. et in fronte eius portae qua Bethleem

egredimur sus scaltus in marmore significans Romanae

798 potestati subiacere Iudaeos.

799 Rufinus et Torquatus 142/143

His conss Hadrianus morbo intercutis aquae apud Baias

moritur maior sexagenario. cui successit Antoninus Pius

qui regnavit annis XXI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

800 XIII

801 Torquatus II et Herodes 143

802 Aviola et Maximus 144

803 Antoninus III et Aurelius 140

804 Gratus et Seleucus 221

His conss Iustinus philosophus librum pro Christiano

religione scriptum tradidit Antonino.

788 Pompeius et atilianis M 789 apellatur M 792-795 om. M Laelius] P : Sergianus Cusp., sedquare mutaverit non liquet. 797 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethelem M sus scaltus] P : sclatus (om. sus) M potestatis P Iudeos M 799 aput M succensit M 802-803 om. M

76

805 Antoninus IIII et Aurelius II 145

806 Largus et Messalianus 147

807 Torquatus III et Iulianus 148

808 Orfitus et Priscus 149

809 Gabrio et Vetus -/150

8io Gordianus et Maximus 151

811 Gabrio II et Romulus 152

812 Praesens et Rufus 153

813 Commodus et Lateranus 154

814 His conss Apollonius stoicus natione Chalcedicus et

Basilides Scytopolitanus philosophi inlustres habentur qui

Caesaris quoque praeceptores fuerunt.

815 Verus et Sabinus 155

816 Silvanus et Augurinus 156

817 Barbarus et Regulus 157

818 Tertullus et Sacerdos 158

819 Quintillus et Priscus 159

820 Verus II et Bradua 160

821 Antoninus V et Aurelius III 161

822 pc Antonini V et Aureli III

823 Hoc tempore Antoninus Pius apud Lorium villam suam

duodecimo ab urbe miliario moritur anno vitae LXXVII.

Usque ad hoc tempus singuli Augusti fuerunt. cui

successerunt filii sui, id est Marcus Antoninus Verus et

805 IIII] MCusp. : H I P AuliusM* 807-812 om. M 814 n a c i o n e M Basilides] M Cusp. : Basylides P Scytopolitanus] P : om. M : Syropolitanus Cusp cesaris M quoque] M Cusp. : om. P 817 Barbatus Cusp. 818-821 om. M 822 pc Antonini VI et Aureli IIII P 823 aput M duodec imaM LXXVII] P Cusp. : LXXIII M fili M

77

Lucius Annius Antoninus Severus, qui regnaverunt annis

XVIIII. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

XIIH

824 duo Augusti conss 161

825 Rusticus et Aquilinus 162

826 His conss Lucio Caesari Athenis sacrificanti ignis in caelo

ab occidente in orientem ferri visus est.

827 Laelianus et Pastor 163

828 Macrinus et Celsus 164

829 His conss Fronto orator insignis habetur qui Marcum

Antoninum Latinis litteris erudivit.

830 Orfitus et Pudens 165

831 His conss Lucius Caesar de Parthis cum fratre Antonino

triumphavit.

832 Pudens II et Pollio 166

833 Verus III et Quadratus 167

834 Apronianus et Paulus 168

835 Priscus etApollinaris 169

836 Cethecus et Clarus no

837 Severus et Herennianus 171

838 His conss Lucius Annius Antoninus Severus anno regni

undecimo inter Concordiam et Altinum apoplexi extinctus

est sedens cum fratre in vehiculo.

839 Orfitus et Maximus 172

840 Severus II et Pompeianus 173

XVIIII] P Cusp. : X V I I M XIIII om. M 826 ferri] Cusp. : terri P : om. M Laelianus] P Cusp. : Lelianus M 829 Latinis] P Cusp. : insignis M Uteris M 831 Cesar M 833-836 om. M 836 Cethegus Cusp. 839 Annius] M Cusp. : Annus P 839-840 om. M

78

841 Gallus et Flaccus 174

842 Piso et Iulianus 175

843 Poll ioetAper 176

844 Commodus et Quintillus 177

845 His conss Marcus Antoninus Verus imperator Commodum

filium suum consortem regni facit.

846 Orfitus et Rufus 178

847 His conss imperatores de hostibus triumphant,

848 et pecuniam quae fisco debebatur provinciis concedentes

tabulas debitorum in medio Romanae urbis foro incendio

concremarunt. Ac nequid bonitatis deesset severiores

quasque leges novis constitutionibus temperarunt.

849 Commodus II et Verus II 179

850 His conss Antoninus Verus adeo in editione munerum

magnificus fuit ut centum simul leones exhibuerit.

851 Qui post in Pannonia morbo periit. Commodus filius eius a

senatu Augustus est appellatus, qui regnavit annis XIII. sub

quo hi consules fuerunt.

XV

852 Praesens et Gordianus 180

853 Commodus III et Byrrus 181

854 Mamertinus et Rufus 182

855 Commodus IIII et Victorinus 183

856 Marullus et Haelianus 184

857 His conss thermae Commodianae Romae factae sunt.

843-844 om.M 848 p rov in t i i sM 850 e d i c i o n e M 851 annis] Cusp. : an. P : anno M fuerunt] om. M 852 Presens et Cordianus M: Praesens II et Gordianus Cusp. 853 om.M 855 om.M 856 Marullus] P Cusp. : Marcillus M 857 therme Commodiane Rome M

79

858 Maternus et Bradua 185

859 Commodus V et Gabrio 186

860 Crispinus et Haelianus 187

861 Fuscianus et Silanus 188

862 duo Silani 189

863 His conss Commodus imperator colossi capite sublato suae

imaginis caput iussit inponi.

864 Commodus VI et Septimianus 190

865 Apronianus et Bradua 191

866 Commodus VII et Pertinax 192

867 His conss Commodus strangulatur in domo Vestiliani. cui

successit Pertinax, qui regnavit mensibus VI.

XVI

868 Falco et Clarus 193

869 His conss Pertinax occiditur in palatio maior

septuagenario. cui successit Severus provintia Tripolitana

natus oppido Lepti, solusque Afer imperator Romanus fuit,

qui regnavit annis XVIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XVII

870 Severus et Albinus 194

871 Tertullus et Clemens 195

872 Dexter et Priscus 196

873 Lateranus et Rufinus 197

874 Scoturninus et Gallus 198

875 Anulinus et Fronto 199

859-560 om. M Glabrio Cusp. 860 Aelianus Cusp. 862 Duo et Silani PMsed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. 863 s u e M 864 om. M 865 Apronianus] P Cusp. : Ambronianus M Bradua II Cusp. 866 VII] P Cusp. : om. M 867 Pertinax Pa M : Helvius Pertinax Ph : Aelius Pertinax Cusp. 869 aper M 871 om. M 873-874 om. M Ruffinus Cusp. 874 Saturninus Cusp.

80

876 His conss Severus Parthos et Adiabenos superavit,

Arabasque interiores ita cecidit ut regionem eorum

Romanam provintiam faceret.

877 Severus II et Victorinus 200

878 Fabianus et Mutianus 201

879 His conss thermae Severianae apud Antiochiam et Romae

factae, et septezodium instructum est.

880 Severus III et Antoninus 202

881 Geta et Plautianus 203

882 Chilo et Libo 204

883 Antoninus II et Geta II 205

884 Albinus et Aelianus 206

885 Aper et Maximus 207

886 His conss Severus in Brittannos bellum movit, ubi, ut

receptas provincias ab incursione barbarica faceret

securiores vallum per CXXXII passuum milia a mari ad

mare duxit.

887 Antoninus III et Geta III 208

888 Pompeianus et Avitus 209

889 His conss Tertullianus Afer Christianorum scriptor

celeberrimus habetur.

890 Faustinus et Rufus 210

891 His conss Origenis scriptor Alexandriae studiis eruditur.

892 Gentianus et Bassus 211

876 R o m a m M 878 Mutianus] M Cusp. : Mucianus P 879 therne Severiane M a p u t M Anthiochiam P R o m e M facte M 881 om. M 883 om. M Geta II] P ; om. II Cusp. 884 Haelianus P a 886 provintias P 887 om. M 890 om. M Rufus] Cusp, scribit exemplar Cassiodori Faustinus et Ruffus habere.

81

893 His conss Severus imperator Eboraci in Brittannia moritur.

cui successit Antoninus Caracalla Severi filius, qui

regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XVIII

894 Duo Aspri 212

895 Antoninus et Balbinus 213

896 Messala et Sabinus 214

897 His conss Antoninus Caracalla cognominatur propter genus

vestis quod Romae erogaverat.

898 Laetus et Caerealis 215

899 Sabinus II et Venustus 216/-

900 His conss Antoninus Romae thermas sui nominis

aedificavit.

901 Praesens et Extricatus 217

902 Antoninus et Adventus 218

903 His conss Antoninus interficitur inter Edessam et Carras

anno aetatis XLIII. cui successit Macrinus praefecturam

praetorianam gerens. regnavit autem anno I. sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

XVIIII

904 Antoninus II et Sacerdos 219

905 His conss Macrinus occiditur in Archelaidae. cui successit

M Aurelius Antoninus, qui regnavit annis M I . sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

XX

906 Antoninus III et Comazon 220

893 Brittania P 894 Duo et Aspri P : Duo et Aspiri M sed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. : Aspari Cusp. 895 om. M Antoninus M I Cusp. 897-902 om. M 898 Cerealis Cusp. 903 praetoriam M 905 Marinus P M

82

907 Gratus et Seleucus 221

908 His coss Haeliogabalum templum Romae aedificatur.

909 Alexander et Augustus 222

910 His conss in Palestina Nicopolis quae prius Emmaus

vocabatur urbs condita est.

911 Maximus et Helianus 223

912 His conss M Aurelius Antoninus Romae occiditur tumultu

militari. cui successit Alexander Mamae filius, qui regnavit

annis XIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XXI

913 Iulianus et Crispinus 224

914 His conss Alexander Xerxem regem Persarum vicit.

915 Fuscus et Dexter 225

916 Alexander II et Marcellus 226

917 Annianus et Maximus -/227

918 His conss Ulpianus iuris consultus adsessor Alexandri

insignissimus habetur.

919 Albinus et Maximus 227

920 His conss Neronianae thermae Alexandrianae vocatae sunt.

921 Modestus et Probus 228

922 Alexander III et Dio 229

923 Gratus et Seleucus 221

924 His conss Origenis Alexandriae clarus habetur.

925 Pompeianus et Felicianus 231

926 Lupus et Maximus 232

907 Seleucius P a 910 pius M 912 Antoninus] P Cusp. : A n t o n i u s M quo om. Ma

916 om. M 918 adsesser Alexander M 920 thermae Alexandrianae om. P 922 om. M 923 Seleucus] P Cusp. : Seleucius M 925 om. M

927 His conss Alexander in matrem Mammeam unice pius fuit

et ob hoc cunctis amabilis.

928 Maximus et Paternus 233

929 Maximus II et Urbanus 234

930 Severus et Quintianus 235

931 His conss Alexander occiditur Magontiaci tumultu militari.

Cui successit Maximinus regnans annis tribus, primus ex

corpore militari imperator electus. sub quo hi consules

fuerunt.

XXII

932 Maximinus et Affricanus

933 Perpetuus et Cornelianus 236

934 Pius et Proculus 237

935 His conss Maximinus Aquileiae occiditur. cui successit 238

Gordianus, qui regnavit annis VI. sub quo hi consules

fuerunt.

XXIII

936 Gordianus et Aviola 239

937 Sabinus et Venustus 240

938 His conss Gordiano Romae ingresso Pupienus et Albinus,

qui imperium arripuerant in palatio occisi sunt.

939 Gordianus II et Pompeianus 241

940 Atticus et Praetextatus 242

941 Arrianus et Pappus 243

942 Peregrinus et Aemilianus 244

927-930 om. M et om. Cusp. 930 Quintilianus Cusp. 932 om. M 935 Maximinus] Cusp. : Maximus M: om. P 937 om. M 939-940 om. M 942 om.

84

943 His conss Gordianus admodum adulescens Parthorum

natione superata, cum victor reverteretur ad patriam, fraude

Philippi ppo haud longe a Romano solo intefectus est.

Gordiano milites tumulum aedificant supra Eufraten,

ossibus eius Roman revectis. cui successit Philippus, qui

regnavit annis VII. qui mox Philippum filium suum

consortem regni facit, primusque omnium ex Romanis

imperatoribus Christianus fuit. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XXIIII

944 Philippus et Titianus 245

945 Praesens et Albinus 246

946 Philippus II et Philippus 247

947 Philippus III et Philippus II 248

948 Aemilianus et Aquilinus 249

949 His conss millesimus annus urbis romae expletus est. ob

quam sollemnitatem innumerabiles Philippus cum filio suo

bestias in circo magno interfecit. Ludosque in campo

Martio theatrales tribus diebus ac noctibus populo

pervigilante celebravit. Quadraginta etiam missus natali

romanae urbis cucurrerunt. et agon mille annorum

actus.

950 Philippus urbem nominis sui in Trachia construxit.

951 Decius et Grates 250

952 Decius II et Rusticus 251

943 nacione M ppro P tumultum P" edificant M refectis M VII] septem Cusp. : VI P : XVII M primum qui P 945-947 om. M 949 in circo] P : icirco M Marcio M missus] emend. Cusp. : missos P M 952 Decius II om. M

85

953 His conss Philippus senior Veronae, Romae vero iunior,

occiditur. His successit Decius qui regnavit anno I

mensibus tribus. quantum ad consules autem annum I. sub

quo hi consules fuerunt.

XXV

954 Gallus et Volusianus 252

955 His conss Decius lavacra publica aedificavit, quae suo

nomine appellari iussit. Decius cum filio suo in Abritio

956 Traciae loco a Gothis occiditur. cui successit Gallus cum

Volusiano filio, qui regnaverunt annis II et mensibus IIII.

quantum ad consulatum autem annis tantum duobus. sub

quibus hi consules fuerunt.

XXVI

957 Volusianus II et Maximus 253

958 His conss Novatianus apparuit.

959 Valerianus et Gallienus 254

960 His conss Gallus et Volusianus Teramnae interfecti sunt,

quibussuccesserunt Valerianus et Gallienus, qui

regnaverunt annis XV. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

XXVII

961 Valerianus II et Gallienus II 255

962 Maximus II et Gabrio 256

963 Valerianus III et Gallienus III 257

964 His conss Cyprianus primum rethor deinde presbyter ad

extremum Carthaginiensis episcopus martyrio coronatur.

965 Tuscus et Bassus 258

953 succes i tM XXV om. P 954 Gallus] MCusp. : Callus P 955 p u p l i c a M edificavitM queM 956TracieP locaM consolatum PM quibus] P : quo M 957-958 om. M 960 Terrammae M: Interamnae Cusp. XV] P Cusp. : VIM 961 om. M 962 llom.M 963 om. M 964 Cyprianus] P Cusp. :CiprianusM Cartharginiensis M 965-970 om. M

86

966 His consulibus Valerianus, in Christianos persecutione

commota, statim a Sapore Persarum rege capitur ibique

servitute miserabili consenescit.

967 Aemilianus et Bassus 259

968 Secularis et Donatus 260

969 Gallienus IIII et Gentianus 261/-

970 Gallienus V et Victorinus 262/-

971 Albinus et Maximus 263

972 His conss Graecia Macedonia Pontus Asia depopulata per

Gothos aliasque provintias barbarorum quassavit inruptio.

973 Gallienus VI et Saturninus 264

974 Valerius et Lucillus 265

975 Gallienus VII et Sabinillus 266

976 Paternus et Archisilaus 267

977 Paternus II et Marinus 268

978 Claudius et Paternus 269

979 Hie conss Gallienus Mediolano occiditur. cui successit

Claudius, qui regnavit annum I mensibus Vil l i , sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

XXVIII

980 Antiochianus et Orphitus 270

981 Valerianus et Bassus 271

982 His conss Claudius barbaros vastantes repellit

983 et Sirmi moritur. huic successit Quintillus Claudii frater a

senatu Augustus appellatus, qui XVII imperii sui die

Aquileiae occiditur.

972 Grecia M barbarorumque quassavit M 973 VI om. M 914-911 om. M 976 Archesilanus Cusp. 979 Mediolanio P 980 om. M 983 Cladii M

87

984 post quern Aurelianus factus est imperator, qui regnavit

annis V mensibus VI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XXVIIII

985 Quietus et Voldumianus 272

986 Tacitus et Placidianus 273

987 Aurelianus et Capitolinus 274

988 His conss Aurelianum Romae triumphantem captivi

Tetricus et Zenobia praecesserunt.

989 Aurelianus II et Marcellus 275

990 His conss Aurelianus templum soli aedificavit. Romam

firmioribus muris vallat.

991 Probus et Paulinus 277

992 Probus II et Paternus II 278/279

993 His conss inter Constantinopolim et Heracliam Aurelianus

occiditur. cui successit Tacitus qui regnavit mensibus VI.

sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XXX

994 Probus III et Paternus 279/278

995 His conss Tacitus in Ponto occisus est et optinuit Florianus

imperium diebus LXXXVIII.

996 Hoc quoque apud Tarsim interfecto Probus factus est

imperator, qui regnavit annis VI mensibus III. sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

XXXI

997 Messala et Gratus 280

986-988 om. M 989 Aurelianus II] P : Aurelius {om. II) M: Aurelianus I Cusp. 992 om. M 993 Aurelianus] P Cusp. : Aurelius M 994 III] P Cusp. : II] M Paternus] M Cusp. : Paternus III P 995 LXXXVIII] P : LXXVIIIM: octoginanovem Cusp. 996 aputM

88

998 His conss Galliae quae fuerant a barbaris occupatae a

999 Probo Romano restituuntur imperio.

IOOO Probus IIII et Tiberianus 281

IOOI Probus V et Victorinus 282

1002 His conss insana Manicheorum haeresis exorta est.

1003 Cams et Carinus 283

1004 Carus II et Numerianus 284

1005 Diocletianus et Aristobolus 285

His conss Probus apud Sirmium tumultu militari in turre

quae vocatur ferrata occiditur. Cui successit Carus cum

filiis suis Carino et Numeriano, qui regnaverunt annis

duobus. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

1006 XXXII

1007 Maximus et Aquilinus 286

His conss cum Carus devictis Parthis castra supra Tigridem

1008 posuisset fulmine ictus interiit.

1009 Diocletianus II et Maximianus 287

His conss Numerianus occiditur. Carinus apud Margum

proelio victus interiit. Post quos Diocletianus Dalmata

suscepit imperium, qui regnavit annis XX. sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

XXXIII

IOIO Maximianus II et Ianuarius 288

ion Bassus et Quintianus 289

1012 His conss Diocletianus in consortium regni Herculium

Maximianum adsumit.

998 Galliae] P Cusp. : Gratus M 999 om. M 1001 haeresis] P Cusp. : heresis M 1003 Carus II et] P : om. M: Carinus II Cusp. 1004 Diocletianus om. M 1005 aput M 1007 Tr ig idemM 1008 Dioclitianus M 1009 a p u t M Dioclitianus M 1012 Dioclitianus M

89

ion Diocletianus III et Maximianus III 290

1014 Tiberianus et Dio 291

1015 Annibalianus et Asclepiodotus 292

1016 Diocletianus IIII et Maximianus IIII 293

ion Constantius et Maximus 294

1018 Tuscus et Anulinus 295

1019 Diocletianus V et Constantius II 296

1020 Maximianus V et Maximus II 297

1021 Faustus et Gallus 298

1022 His conss primus Diocletianus adorari se iussit ut deum et

gemmas vestibus calciamentisque conseruit, cum ante eum

omnes imperatores in modum iudicum salutarentur et

clamydem tantum purpuream a privato habitu plus

haberent.

1023 Dioclecianus VI et Maximinus VI 299

1024 Constantius III et Maximus III 300

1025 Titianus et Nepotianus 301

1026 Constantius IIII et Maximus IIII 302

1027 His conss LX milia Alamannorum caesa sunt.

1028 Diocletianus VII et Maximianus VII 303

1029 Diocletianus VIII et Maximianus VIII 304

1030 Constantius V et Maximus V 305

1031 Constantius VI et Maximus VI 306

1013 om. M Dioclecianus P 1015-1019 om. M 1015 Anniballianus Cusp. 1016 Dioclecianus P 1020 om.MetP. Cusp, habet, sed opinor ex fastis Vindobonesibus prioribus, quos in hoc loco, p. 482, citavit. Mommsen tamen recte restituit. Vide p. . 1022 Dioclitianus M clamydem tantum purpuream] Cusp, tantum clamydem purpureum P clamidem tantum purpoream M habito P 1023 om. M Maximianus Cusp. 1026 om. M 1028 Dicletianus Pa Maximianus VII] Maximinus P : om. VII M 1029 om. M Dioclecianus P 1031 om. M

90

1032 His conss Diocletianus et Maximianus Augusti insigni

pompa Romae triumphaverunt ante cedentibus currum

eorum Narsei coniuge sororibus liberis et omni pompa qua

Parthos expoliaverant.

1033 Diocletianus Vi l l i et Constantinus -/307

1034 Diocletianus X et Maximus VII 308

1035 His conss Diocletianus Nicomediae Maximianus

Mediolani purpuram deposuerunt ob aetatis defectum et

creati sunt Constantius et Galerius. sed Constantius tantum

Augusti dignitate contentus cum esset otiosus, anni ipsius

adscribuntur filio eius Constantino qui natus dicitur ex

Helena concubina, qui regnavit annis XXX mensibus X.

sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XXXIIII

1036 pc Diocletiani X et Maximi VII 309

1037 II pc Diocletiani X et Maximi VII 310

1038 Maximus VIII et Licinius 311/310

1039 Constantinus II et Licinius II 312

1040 Constantinus III et Licinius III 313

1041 Volusianus et Annianus 314

1042 Constantinus IIII et Licinius IIII 315

1043 Sabinus et Rufinus 316

1044 Gallicanus et Bassus 317

1045 Licinius V et Crispus 318

1046 Constantinus V et Licinius caes 319

1032 expoliaverant] Cusp. Mb : expoliaverantur P : expoliaverunt Ma

1034 Dioclecianus P Diocletianus X om. M 1035 Dioclecianus P e f fectumM 1036 Diocletiani P VII om. M 1037 h p c M Diocletiani P Maximi X P 1038-1042 om. M 1040 Licinius III] Cusp. : Licinius (om. Ill) P 1043 Rufinus] P : Rufus M: Ruffinus Cusp. 1044-1048 om. M Gallienus Cusp.

91

1047 Constantinus VI et Constantius caes 320

1048 Crispus II et Constantius caes II 321

1049 Probianus et Iulianus 322

1050 Severus et Rufinus 323

1051 Crispus III et Constantius III 324

1052 Paulinus et Iulianus 325

1053 Constantinus VII et Constantius III 326

1054 Constantius V et Maximus 327

1055 Ianuarius et Iustus 328

1056 His conss vicennalia Constantini Nicomediae acta et

sequenti anno Romae edita.

1057 Constantinus VIII et Constantius VI 329

1058 Constantius VII et Symmachus ?/330

1059 Bassus et Ablabius 331

1060 Pacatianus et Hilarianus 332

1061 His conss civitas quae prius Bizantium dicta est mutato

nomine a Constantino Constantinopolis dedicatur.

1062 Dalmatius et Zenophilus 333

1063 Optatus et Paulinus 334

1064 Constantius et Albinus 335

1065 Nepotianus et Facundus 336

1066 Felicianus et Titianus 337

1047 Constantius caes] P : Constantinus caes Cusp. 1048 Constantius caes II] P : Constantinus caes II Cusp. 1050-1051 om. M 1050 Ruffinus Cusp. 1051 Constantius caes III] P : Constantinus caes III Cusp. 1052 Iulianus] P Cusp. : Constantius M, vide 1053, infra. 1053-1054 om. M 1053 et Constantius III] P : et Constantius caes Cusp. 1054 Constantius V] Contantius V P : Constantius (om. V) Cusp. 1055 Ianuarius] MCusp. : Ianuarinus P 1056 aed i t aP 1057-1061 om. M Contantinus VIII P Constantius VI] P Constantinus IIII Cusp. 1066 Felicianus] P Cusp. : Felicius M

92

1067 Ursus et Polemius 338

1068 Constantius II et Constans 339

1069 His conss Constantinus imperator dum bellum pararet in

Persas in Acyrone villa publica iuxta Nicomediam moritur

anno aetatis LXVI. post quern tres liberi eius, id est

Constantinus Constantius et Constans, qui regnaverunt

annis XXIIII mensibus V diebus XXIII. sub quibus hi

consules fuerunt.

XXXV

1070 Acyndinus et Proculus 340

1071 Marcellinus et Probinus 341

1072 Constantius III et Constans II 342

1073 His conss Constantinus bellum fratri Constantio inferens

iuxta Aquileiam Alsae occiditur.

1074 Placidus et Romulus 343

1075 Leontius et Salustius 344

1076 His conss Franci a Constante perdomiti in pacem recepti

sunt.

1077 Constantius HII et Constans III 346

1078 Amantius et Albinus 345

1079 pc Amantii et Albini 346

1080 Rufinus et Eusebius 347

1081 His conss magnis rei publicae expensis in Seleucia Syriae

portus efficitur.

1082 Philippus et Sallia 348

1083 His conss solis facta defectio.

1068 Constantius II om. M 1069 pellum M Acyrone] P : Acyne M: Acirone Cusp i u s t a M anno aetatis LXVI] P Cusp. : annis L X V I I M 1072 om. M 1075 Leontius] MCusp. : Leoneius f 1076 reptisuntM 1077 om. M 1081 publiceM Syrie M 1083 om.M

93

1084 Limenius et Catulinus 349

1085 Sergius et Nigridianus 350

1086 His conss Constans haud longe ab Hispania in castro cui

Helenae nomen est interficitur anno aetatis XXX et

Constantius remansit in regno.

1087 pc Sergii et Nigridiani 351

1088 Constantius V et Constans caes 352

1089 Constantius VI et Constans caes II 353

1090 Constantius VII et Constans caes III 354

1091 Arbitrio et Lollianus 355

1092 His conss Victorinus rethor et Donatus grammaticus

Romae insignes habentur.

1093 Constantius VIII et Iulianus caes 356

1094 Constantius Vi l l i et Iulianus caes II 357

1095 His conss magnae Alamannorum copiae apud

Argentoratum oppidum Galliarum deletae sunt.

1096 Titianus et Caerealis 358

1097 Eusebius et Hypatius 359

1098 Constantius X et Iulianus caes HI 360

1099 His conss Honoratus nomine primus Constantinopoli

praefectus urbi esse coepit.

noo Taurus et Florentius 361

noi Mamertinus et Nevitta 362

1085 Nigridianus] P Cusp. : Nigridiannus M 1086 Hispann iaM e ta t i sM 1087 Nigriniani M : Nigrianus Cusp. 1088 ConstntiusM* V om. M 1089-1090 om. M 1089 Constans caes II] P : Constantius caes II Cusp. 1090 Constans caes III] P : Constantius III Cusp. 1093 VIII om. M 1094 om. M 1095 a p u t M de lec teM 1097 Hypatius] P Cusp. : H i p a t i u s M 1098 Constatius P a III om. M 1099 prim Ma : primo hft

94

1102 His conss Constantius Mopsocrenis inter Cil iciam

Cappadociamque moritur anno aetatis XLVI. cui successit

Iulianus, qui regnavit annum I. sub quo hi consules

fuerunt.

1103 X X X V I 363

1104 Iulianus IIII et Salustius

His conss Iulianus per victoriam apud Persas occiditur

anno aetatis XXXII . Post quern sequenti die Iovianus ex

primicerio domest icorum factus est imperator, qui regnavit

mens ibus VIII sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

1105 X X X V I I 364

1106 Iovianus et Varronianus

His conss Iovianus imperator mori tur anno aetatis

XXXIII I . Post quern Valentinianus tr ibunus scutariorum

apud Nicaeam Augustus appellatus, fratrem Valentem

Constantinopoli in communionem adsumit imperii , qui

regnavit annis XIIII mens ibus V. sub quo hi consules

fuerunt.

1107 X X X V I I I 365

1108 Valentinianus et Valens 366

1109 Grat ianus et Gadalaifus 367

m o Lubicinus et Iovinus

His conss Gratianus Valentiniani filius Ambianis imperator

m i factus est.

1112 Apud Atrabatas lana caelo pluviae mixta defluxit. 368

Valentinianus II et Valens II

1102 Cilitiam P etatis P XLVI] P M: 43 Cusp, annum] P : annis M: anno Cusp. 1103 Salustius] M Cusp. : Sallustius P 1104 aput M XXXII] P Cusp. : XXXIII M 1105 Varronianus] P Cusp. : Varonianus M 1106 XXXIIII] P M: tricesimotertio Cusp. scrutariorum P aputM NiceamM apellatusM fratemM" communioM 1107 Valentinianus] P Cusp. : Valentinus M 1111 aput M

95

1113 Valentinianus np et Victor 369

1114 Valentinianus III et Valens III 370

1115 Gratianus II et Probus 371

1116 Modestus et Arintheus 372

1117 Valentinianus IIII et Valens IIII 373

1118 His conss Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum

1119 Burgundiorum LXXX fere milia quot numquam antea ad

Rhenum descenderunt.

1120 Clearcus praefectus urbi Constantinopoli necessariam

aquam et quam diu civitas optabat induxit.

1121 Gratianus III et Equitius 374

1122 pc Gratiani III et Equitii 375

1123 Valens V et Valentinianus 376

1124 His conss Valentinianus apoplexi Brigitione moritur. Post

quern Gratianus adsumpto imperio Valentiniano fratre cum

patruo Valente regnat.

1125 Gratianus IIII et Merobaudes 377

1126 His conss Alamannorum circiter XXX milia apud

Argentariam oppidum Galliarum caesa.

1127 Gothi diffunduntur in Tracia.

1128 Valens VI et Valentinianus II 378

1129 His conss a Gothis in Tracia Valentis trucidatur exercitus.

Ipse quoque imperator incensa domo ubi se occultaverat

igne combustus est.

1113-1114 om. M 1117 om. M 1118 caeso M Francorum] M Cusp. : Franchorum P 1119 Burgundiorum] P Cusp. : Burgundionum M quod P M 1120 Constantinopoli] M Cusp. : Constantinopolim P et om. M 1126 Alemannorum M : Alemanorum Cusp. aputM 1128 etom.M llom.M 1129 a rest. Mommsen trucidatusM

96

1130 Cui successit in Oriente Theodosius Theodosii filius, quern

sibi in consortium Gratianus ascivit.

1131 Gratianus itaque cum iam XIIII regnaret annis cum

Theodosio regnat annis VI. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

XXXVIIII

1132 Ausonius et Olybrius 379

1133 Gratianus V et Theodosius 380

1134 His conss Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa

sublimiter scribit.

1135 Siagrius et Eucherius 381

1136 His conss Martinus episcopus Turonum Galliae civitatis

clarus habetur.

1137 Antonius et Siagrius 382

1138 His conss Athanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinopolim

venit ibique vitam exegit.

1139 Merobaudes II et Saturninus 383

1140 His conss Arcadius Theodosii imperatoris filius Augustus

appellatur.

1141 Ricimer et Glearchus 384

1142 His conss Gratianus apud Lugdunum captus occiditur.

1143 Residui Valentinianus et Theodosius regnant annis VIII.

sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

XL

1144 Arcadius et Bauto 385

1145 His conss Hieronimus presbyter in Bethleem positus toto

mundo mirabilis habetur.

1131 iam om. P XIIII] P : X X X I M VI] P: III M quibus] P quo M 1134 scribi turP 1135 Eucherius] P Cusp. : Eutherius M 1136 c lau rusM 1141 Glearcus P a 1142 aput M 1145 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethlehem M

97

1146 Honorius np et Euhodius 386

1147 Valentinianus III et Eutropius 387

1148 Theodosius II et Cynegius 388

1149 Timasius et Promotus 389

1150 Valentinianus IIII et Neoterius 390

1151 Titianus et Symmachus 391

1152 Arcadius II et Rufinus 392

1153 His conss Valentinianus vitae taedio apud Viennam laqueo

periit.

1154 Theodosius cum iam per XIIII annos regnaret cum Arcadio

et Honorio regnat annis tribus, sub quibus hi consules

fuerunt.

XLI

1155 Theodosius III et Abundantius 393

1156 Arcadius III et Honorius II 394

1157 His conss Iohannes monachus gratia divina praeditus

Theodosium consulentem de eventu belli quod adversum

Eugenium movebat victorem fore pronuntiat.

1158 Olybrius et Probus 395

1159 His conss Theodosius Eugenium tyrannum vincit et

perimit.

1160 Augustinus beati Ambrosii discipulus multa facundia

doctrinaque excellens Yppone regio in Africa episcopus

ordinatur.

1161 Hoc tempore Claudianus poeta insignis habetur.

1162 Theodosius imperator Mediolani moritur.

1150 om.M 1151 Titianus] P Cusp. : Ticianus M 1153 a p u t M V e n n a m M 1154 annis] MCusp. : annos P duob\xs\ PM, tribus emend. Mommsen sequentem Prosperum 1156 Arcadius] P Cusp. :Archad iusM 1157 g r a c i a M divina] M Cusp. : om. P perditus P 1158 Olybrius] P Cusp. : Olibrius M Probius M: Probinus Cusp. 1159 ty r rannumM 1160 discipulisP

98

1163 Post quern Arcadius cum iam regnasset annis XII cum

fratre Honorio regnat annis XIII. sub quo hi consules

fuerunt.

XLII

1164 Arcadius IIII et Honorius II 396

1165 Caesarius et Atticus 397

1166 Honorius IIII et Eutychianus 398

1167 Manlius et Theodorus 399

1168 Stilicho et Aurelianus 400

1169 His conss Gothi Halarico et Radagaiso regibus

ingrediuntur Italiam.

1170 Vincentius et Fravita 401

1171 Arcadius V et Honorius V 402

1172 His conss Pollentiae Stiliconem cum exercitu Romano

Gothi victum acie fugaverunt.

1173 Theodosius Augustus I et Rumoridus 403

1174 Honorius VI et Aristenetus 404

1175 Stilico II et Anthemius 405

1176 Arcadius VI et Probus 406

1177 His conss Vandali et Alani transiecto Reno Gallias

intraverunt.

1178 Honorius VII et Theodosius II 407

1179 Bassus et Philippus 408

1180 His conss Arcadius imperator Constantinopoli moritur.

1181 Honorius cum Theodosio fratris filio regnat annis XV. sub

quibus hi consules fuerunt.

1163 quern] quam M 1165 Caesarius et Atticus] P Cusp. : Cesarius et Aticus M 1166 Eutychianus] P Cusp. : Eutichianus M 1169 Ragadaiso P : Rhadagiso Cusp. 1172 HosM aiceM 1175 Stilico] P Cusp. : Stilicho M 1176ArcadusM VI om. M 1181 sub quibus] P Cusp. : sub quo M

99

XLIH

1182 Honorius VIII et Theodosius III 409

1183 His conss Vandali Hispanias occupaverunt.

1184 Varan et Tertul lus 41 o

1185 His conss Roma a Gothis Halarico duce capta est ubi

clementer usi victoria sunt.

1186 Theodosius Aug IIII cons 411

1187 Honorius Vi l l i et Theodosius V 412

1188 His conss Gothi rege Ataulpho Gallias intraverunt.

1189 Lucius vc cons 413

1190 His conss Burgundiones partem Galliae Rheno tenuere

coniunctam.

1191 Constantius et Constans 414

1192 Honorius X et Theodosius VI 415

1193 Theodosius VII et Pallidius 416

1194 His conss Gothi placati Constantio Placidiam reddiderunt

cuius nuptias promeretur.

1195 Honorius XI et Constantius II 417

1196 Honorius XII et Theodosius VIII 418

1197 Monaxius et Plinta 419

1198 Theodosius Vi l l i et Constantius III 420

1199 His conss Constantius ab Honorio in societatem regni

recipitur.

1200 Agricola et Eustachius 421

1201 His conss Constantius imperator moritur.

1202 Honorius XIII et Theodosius X 422

1183 Hispanias] P Cusp. : Hispannias M 1186 conss P M 1188 Ataulpho] P Cusp. : Ataupho M 1189 conss P 1196 Horius P 1199 Constantius om. M: add. post recipitur Cusp. 1200 Eustachius] MCusp. : Eustathius P

1203 His conss exercitus ad Hispamas contra Vandalos missus

est.

1204 Marinianus etAsclepiodotus 423

1205 His conss Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio ob

suspicionem invitatorum hostium cum Honorio et

Valentiniano filiis ad orientem mittitur.

1206 Honorius moritur.

1207 et solus Theodosius Romanum imperium tenet annis

XXVII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XLIIII

1208 Castinus et Victor 424

1209 His conss Theodosius Valentinianum consobrinum

Caesarem facit et cum Augusta matre ad recipiendum

occidentale mittit imperium.

1210 Theodosius XI et Valentinianus caes 425

1211 His conss Iohannem tyrannum Valentinianus imperator

extinxit. Hunosque qui in Italia erant Iohanni praesidio per

Aetium mira felicitate dimovit.

1212 Theodosius XII et Valentinianus II 426

1213 Hierius et Ardabures 427

1214 His conss Bonifacio Africam tenenti infauste bellum

ingeritur.

1215 Gens Vandalorum a Gothis exclusa de Hispaniis ad

Africam transit.

1216 Felix et Taurus 428

1217 His conss Aetius multis Francis caesis quam occupaverant

propinquam Rheno partem recipit Galliarum.

1203 ad Hispanias] P Cusp. : ab Hispannia M vvanda losM 1209 C e s a r e m M 1211 t i r annumM ext incxi tP presidio M E t i u m M

101

1218 Florentius et Dyonisius 429

1219 Theodosius XIII et Valentinianus III 430

1220 Bassus et Antiochus 431

1221 Aetius et Valerius 432

1222 Theodosius XIIII et Maximus 433

1223 Aspar et Ariovindus 434

1224 Theodosius XV et Valentinianus IIII 435

1225 His conss pax facta cum Vandalis data eis ad habitandum

Africae portione.

1226 Gundicharium Burgundionum regem Aetius bello subegit

pacemque ei reddidit supplicanti, quern non multo post

Hunni peremerunt.

1227 Hisidorus et Senator 436

1228 Aetius II et Sigisvultus 437

1229 His conss Valentinianus Augustus ad Theodosium

principem Constantinopolim proficiscitur filiamque eius in

matrimonium accipit.

1230 Theodosius XVI et Faustus 438

1231 Theodosius XVII et Festus 439

1232 His conss bellum adversus Gothos Hunnis auxiliaribus

geritur et Litorius dux Romanus ab eis capitur.

1233 Ginsericus de cuius amicitia nihil metuebatur Carthaginem

dolo pacis invadit.

1234 Valentinianus Aug V et Anatolius 440

1235 His conss Ginsericus Siciliam graviter affligit.

1218 Dion i s iu sM: Dionysius Cusp. 1224 Theosius Pa Valer ianusM 1225 Africe M 1226 Gundicharium] MCusp. : Cundicharium P Burgundionum] Burigundionum P : Burgundionem M subpl icant iM m u l t i M 1229 Valentinianus Augustus] M Cusp. : Aug Valentinianus P 1232 adver iusM auxiliatribus M 1233 amic ic iaM 1234 Anatolius] P Cusp. : Anatholius M

102

1236 Cyrus vc cons 441

1237 His conss Theodosius imperator bellum contra Vandalos

inefficaciter movit.

1238 Dioscorus et Eudoxius 442

1239 His conss Hunni Thracias et Hillyricum saeva populatione

vastarunt.

1240 Cum Ginserico ab Augusto Valentiniano pax confirmata et

certis spatiis Africa inter utrosque divisa est.

1241 Maximus II et Paternus 443

1242 Theodosius XVIII et Albinus 444

1243 His conss Attila rex Hunnorum Bledam fratrem et

consortem in regno suo perimit eiusque populos sibi parere

compellit.

1244 Valentinianus VI et Nomus 445

1245 Aetius III et Symmachus 446

1246 Callepius et Ardabures 447

1247 Postumianus et Zeno 448

1248 Asturius et Protogenes 449

1249 Valentinianus VII et Avienus 450

1250 His conss Theodosius moritur.

1251 Post quern Marcianus adscitur imperio qui regnavit annis

VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt.

XLV

1252 Marcianus Aug et Adelphius 451

1236 conss P 1237 VandalasM 1239 Trac iasM 1240 AffricaP 1243 fratrem] P Cusp. : om. M peremit M populos] emend. Cusp. : populo P M parare M 1251 Marcianus] P Cusp. : Martianus M imper iumP 1252 Marcianus] P Cusp. : Martianus M

103

1253 His conss Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra

Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute

Gothorum superatus abscessit.

1254 Herculanus et Asporacius 452

1255 His conss Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi

dimicans introivit.

1256 Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa Leo directus

pacem fecit.

1257 Opilio et Vincomalus 453

1258 His conss Attila in sedibus suis moritur.

1259 Aetius et Studius 454

1260 His conss Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani

imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio

amicus eius circumstantium gladiis interemptus.

1261 Valentinianus VIII et Anthemius 455

1262 His conss in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus

occiditur. post quern Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra

duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur.

1263 Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma

vacuata est.

1264 Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium.

1265 Iohannes et Varan 456

1266 His conss Placentiae deposuit Avitus imperium.

1267 Constantinus et Rufus 457

1253 auxiliatribus M abcess i tM 1255 Aquilegiam P 1257 Opilio] MCusp. : Opio P VincomaliusM 1258 moribusM 1260 palacioM ValentianiM amimusM circumstantiis interemptus P : circumstantium gladiis interemptis M: circumstantium gladiis peremptus Cusp. 1262 invadit] M Cusp. : invasit P 1267 Constantius M

1268 His conss Marciano defuncto Leo orientis Maiorianus

Italiae suscepit imperium. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

XLVI

1269 Leo Aug et Maiorianus Aug 458

1270 His conss Maiorianus in Africam movit procinctum.

1271 Ricimer patricius 459

1272 Magnus et Apollonius 460

1273 Severinus et Dagalaifus 461

1274 His conss Maiorianus inmissione Ricimeris extinguitur. cui

Severum natione Lucanum Ravennae succedere fecit in

regnum.

1275 Leo Aug II et Severus Aug 462

1276 Basilius et Vivianus 463

1277 Rusticius et Olybrius 464

1278 His conss rex Halanorum Beorgor apud Pergamum a

patricio Ricimere peremptus est.

1279 Arminerichus et Basiliscus 465

1280 His conss ut dicitur Ricimeris fraude Severus Romae in

palatio veneno peremptus est.

1281 Leo Aug III cons 466

1282 Puseus et Iohannes 467

1283 His conss Anthemius a Leone imperatore ad Italiam

mittitur, qui tertio ab urbe miliario in loco Brontotas

suscepit imperium.

1284 Anthemius Aug II cons 468

1268 Marciano] P Cusp. : Martiano M post fuerunt ins. XLVI P 1270 Affricam P 1271 Pat iciusM a et Patricius P 1272 Apollonius] P Cusp. : Appol lon iusM 1273 Severinus] P Cusp. : Severus M 1274 Maio ranusM R a v e n n e P 1277 Rusticius] P Cusp. : Rusticus M 1278 aput Perganum M Ricimere] MCusp. : RicimireP 1279 Arminerichus] MCusp. : Arminericus P 1280fraudoM 1281 conss P 1283 tercioM militarioM 1284 conss P

105

1285 Hoc consule in Sicilia Marcellinus occiditur.

1286 Marcianus et Zeno 469

1287 His conss Arabundus imperium temptans iussu Anthemii

exilio deportatur.

1288 Severus et Iordanes 470

1289 His conss Romanus patricius affectans imperium capitaliter

est punitus.

1290 Leo Aug IIII et Probianus 471

1291 His conss Constantinopoli affectator tyrannidis a Leone

principe Aspar occiditur.

1292 Festus et Marcianus 472

1293 His conss patricius Ricimer Romae facto imperatore

Olybrio Anthemium contra reverentiam principis et ius

adfinitatis cum gravi clade civitatis extinguit. qui non

diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est.

Olybrius autem VII imperii mense vitam peregit.

1294 Leo Aug V cons 473

1295 His conss Gundibado hortante Glycerius Ravennae sumpsit

imperium.

1296 Eodem anno Leo nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit

imperio.

1297 Leo iunior Aug cons 474

1298 Hoc consule imperator Leo senior defunctus est, cui Zeno

successit imperio, qui regnavit annis XVII. sub quo hi

consules fuerunt.

1299 Eo etiam anno Romae Glycerio Nepus successit in regno. 475

1287 A t h e m i i M 1288 Iordanes] M Cusp. : Iordannes P 1291 affectator tyrannidis] emend. Mommsen : affectata tyrandis Ma : affectata tyrranidis P : affectata tyrranide Cusp. 1294 conss P 1295 imperio P 1297 conss P 1298 hoc consule] M Cusp. : hoc conss P

106

1300 pc Leonis Aug iun 475

1301 Eodem anno Orestes Nepote in Dalmatias fugato filio suo

Augustulo dedit imperium. 476

1302 Basiliscus II et Armatus

1303 His conss ab Odovacre Orestes et frater eius Paulus

extincti sunt, nomenque regis Odovacar adsumpsit, cum

tamen nee purpura nee regalibus uteretur insignibus.

1304 pc Basilisci II et Armati 477

1305 E11US VC COnS 478

1306 Zeno Aug II cons 479

1307 Basilius vc iun cons 480

1308 Placidus vc cons 481

1309 His conss Odovacar in Dalmatiis Odivam vine it et perimit.

1310 Severinus vc cons 482

1311 Faustus vc cons 483

1312 dn Theodericus et Venantius 484

1313 Symmachus vc cons 485

1314 Decius et Longinus 486

1315 Boetius vc cons 487

1316 Hoc cons Odovacar Foeba rege Rugorum victo captoque

potitus est.

1317 Dynamius et Sifidius 488

1318 Probinus et Eusebius 489

1300 pc om. M iun. om. M XLVII ins. Ppost iun. 1303 OdiovacarM 1305 conss P 1306 Aug II cons om. M conss. P 1307 et Basilius M conss P 1308 om. M conss P 1309 Odiovacar M: Odoacer Cusp. Dalmatiis] P Cusp. : Dalmaciis M Odivam] P : Odiciam M: Custodiam Cusp. 1310 conss P 1311 conss P 1312 d c M Theodericus] M Cusp. : Theoderichus P Venantius] P Cusp. : Venatius M 1313 Symmachus] P Cusp. : Simachus M conss P 1314-1315 ponit M post 1316 1315 conss P 1316 ponit M ante 1314 His conss P : Hoc conss M potius M

107

1319 His conss felicissimus atque fortissimus dn rex

Theodericus intravit Italiam.

1320 Cui Odovacar ad Isontium pugnam parans victus cum tota

gente fugatus est.

1321 Eodem anno repetito conflictu Veronae vincitur Odovacar.

1322 Faustus iun cons 490

1323 His conss ad Adduam fluvium Odovacrem dn

Theoderichus rex tertio certamine superavit.

1324 Qui Ravennam fugiens obsidetur inclusus.

1325 Olybrius iun cons 491

1326 Hoc consule Odovacar cum Erulis egressus Ravennam

nocturnis horis ad pontem Candidiani a dn nostro rege

Theoderico memorabili certamine superatur.

1327 Tunc etiam Vandali pace suppliciter postulata a Siciliae

solita depredatione cessarunt.

1328 Eodem anno Zeno occubuit, cui Anastasius in orientali

successit imperio.

1329 Anastasius Aug et Rufus 492

1330 Albinus vc cons 493

1331 Hoc cons dn rex Theodericus Ravennam ingressus

Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit.

1332 Asterius et Praesidius 494

1333 Viator vc cons 495

1334 Paulus vc cons 496

1319 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theoderichus M 1320 Odovacar] P Cusp. : Odavacar M 1321 VeroneP post Odovacar ins. P XLVIII 1322 conss P 1323 ad Adduam] M Cusp. : adducam P Theoderichus P : Theodoricus M: Theodericus Cusp. 1325 conss. P 1326 Erulis] M: Erudis P : Herulis Cusp. Rav P M Theoderico] P Cusp. : Theodoricho M 1328 AnatasiusM" 1330 conss P 1331 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theodorichus M 1333 conss P 1334 conss P 1335 conss P

108

1335 Anastasius Aug II cons 497

1336 Paulinus et Iohannes 498

1337 Iohannes vc cons 499

1338 Patricius et Hypatius 500

1339 Hoc anno dn rex Theodericus Romam cunctorum votis

expetitus advenit et senatum suum mira affabilitate tractans

Romanae plebi donavit annonas. atque admirandis moeniis

deputata per singulos annos maxima pecuniae quantitate

subvenit. sub cuius felici imperio plurimae renovantur

urbes, munitissima castella conduntur. Consurgunt

admiranda palatia magnisque eius operibus antiqua

miracula superantur.

1340 Avienus et Pompeius 501

1341 Avienus iun et Probus 502

1342 His conss dn rex Theodericus aquam Ravennam perduxit,

cuius formam sumptu proprio instauravit quae longis ante

fuerat ad solum reducta temporibus.

1342a Volusianus et Dexicrates 503

1343 Caetheus vc cons 504

1344 Hoc cons virtute dn regis Theoderici victis Vulgaribus

Sirmium recepit Italia.

1345 Theodorus et Sabinianus 505

1346 Messala et Ariovinna 506

1347 Anastasius Aug HI et Venantius 507

1337 conss P 1338 Hypatius] P Cusp. : Hypatias A/6 patias Ma 1339 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theodorichus M singulos annos] M Cusp, annos singulos P plurime P cartella M 1342 forma P M: forinas Cusp, quae] P Cusp. : que M 1342a om. P M et Cusp, sed opinor hos consules restituendos esse. 1344 conss P 1347 I I M

1348 Venantius mn et Celer 508

1349 His conss contra Francos a domno nostro destinatur

exercitus qui Gallias Francorum depredatione confusas

victis hostibus ac fugatis suo adquisivit imperio.

1350 Importunus vc cons 509

1351 Boetius vc cons 5io

1352 Felix et Secundinus 511

1353 Paulus et Muschianus 512

1354 Probus et Clementinus 513

1355 Senator vc cons 514

1356 Me etiam consule in vestrorum laude temporum adunato

clero ut populo Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia.

1357 Florentius et Anthemius 515

1358 His consulibus dn rex Theodericus filiam suam domnam

Amalasuintam gloriosi viri dn Eutharici matrimonio deo

auspice copulavit.

1359 Petrus vc cons 516

1360 Anastasius et Acapitus 517

1361 Magnus vc cons 518

1362 Eo anno dn Eutharicus Cillica mirabili gratia senatus et

plebis ad edendum exceptus est feliciter consulatum.

1363 dn Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug 519

1349 Francorum] M Cusp. : Franchorum P hostilibus M3 hostibus Ma 1350 conss P 1351 conss P 1355 conss P 1356 consule] MCusp : conss P corcordiaP 1358 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theoderichus M 1359 conss P 1360-1361 om.P 1360 Agapitus Cusp. 1362 sene tusM

1364 Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis

stupente etiam Symmacho orientis legato, divitias Gothis

Romanisque donatas dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus

amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas

pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis

voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione

transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto

amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc

praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris

remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis

Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare

quern Romae celebraverat consulatum.

1365 Igitur ut effusam annorum seriem auctorum testificatione

digestam sub brevitatis compendio redigamus, ab Adam

usque ad diluvium sicut ex chronicis Eusebii Hieronimi

collegimus anni sunt IICCXLII.

1366 A diluvio usque ad Ninum Assyriorum regem anni sunt

DCCCXCVIIII.

1367 A Nino usque ad Latinum regem anni sunt DCCCLII.

1368 A Latino rege usque ad Romulum anni sunt CCCCLVH.

1369 A Romulo usque ad Brutum et Tarquinium primos consules

anni sunt CCXL.

1370 A Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum sicut ex

Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum

auctoritate firmato collegimus anni sunt MXXXI.

1371 Ac sic totus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum

coll igitur annis VDCCXXI.

1364 cuisM" devocioneM presentiamM aspectas P itaeratis edicionibus M 1365 Eusebii] P Cusp. : Eusebei M 1366 ab diluio P Assiriorum P 1370 clarorum virorum] Pb MCusp. : virorum clarorum Pa 1371 seculorum M

Chapter 3: Chronology and Consuls

Cassiodorus' Count of the Years

Cassiodorus, in his preface, where he claims to be restoring the fasti, and in his

concluding paragraph, in which he adds up the years from Creation to 519, lays heavy

emphasis on the chronology of his work, so it makes sense to start with his chronological

sources and the chronological structure of his work. Cassiodorus had to construct an

over-arching chronology of the world from creation to his day, and he had set himself the

further task of incorporating the consular list from the first consuls through to 519 into

that chronology. There is no other extant Latin work from late antiquity which does quite

the same thing.

In this chapter I will first discuss how he arrived at the number of years he cites in

his supputatio, including the restoration of four consular pairs. I will then treat

individually the consular lists which he used in constructing his consular list, the first, an

epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, and the second, Victorius of Aquitaine's Cursus

Paschalis. In the last section, I will attempt to explain how Cassiodorus reconciled the

consular list of Victorius with the imperial reigns he found in Jerome so that he could

then assign the historical notes which he took from Jerome to particular consular pairs.

As I have noted above, Cassiodorus concluded his Chronica with a supputatio.

Igitur ut effusam annorum seriem auctorum testificatione digestam sub brevitatis compendio redigamus, ab Adam usque ad diluvium, sicut ex chronicis Eusebii Hieronymii collegimus, anni sunt IICCXLII. a diluvio usque ad Ninum Assyriorum regem anni sunt DCCCXCVIIII. a Nino usque ad Latinum regem

112

anni sunt DCCCLII. a Latino rege usque ad Romulum anni sunt CCCCLVII. a Romulo usque ad Brutum et Tarquinium primos consules anni sunt CCXL. a Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum, sicut ex Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum auctoritate firmato collegimus, anni sunt MXXXI. ac sic totus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum colligitur annis VDCCXXI.

Therefore, in order that we might very briefly bring together the vast order of the years, set in order through the witness of authors, from Adam to the flood, as we gather from Jerome's chronicle of Eusebius, there are 1242 years. From the flood to Ninus, the king of the Assyrians, there are 899 years. From Ninus to king Latinus there are 852 years. From king Latinus to Romulus there are 457 years. From Romulus to Brutus and Tarquinius, the first consuls, there are 240 years. From Brutus and Tarquinius to your consulship, as we gather from Titus Livius and Aufidius Bassus and an Easter calendar supported by the authority of famous men, there are 1031 years. And thus the whole order of the ages up to your consulship adds up to 5721 years.

The total, 5721, is a correct addition of the numbers he provides. In simpler form the

addition is as follows:

From Adam to the flood: 2242 From the flood to Ninus: 899 From Ninus to Latinus: 852 From Latinus to Romulus: 457 From Romulus to Brutus: 240 From Brutus to Eutharic: 1031

Total: 5721

The first five numbers are fairly easily dealt with, since they all derive, in one

form or another, from Jerome, as Cassiodorus states. The 2,242 years from Adam to the

flood can be found in Jerome's supputationes to his translation of Eusebius.86

The Assyrian Kings

Cassiodorus counts from the flood to the beginning of Ninus' reign as 899 years.

86 Helm, 174 and 250.

113

Jerome counted from the flood to the birth of Abraham as being 942 years,87 but he also

gave the year of Ninus' reign in which Abraham was born: the forty-third.88 Cassiodorus

merely subtracted 43 from 942 and came up with 899. He chose the beginning of Ninus'

reign as more suitable to his secular purpose, since Ninus was the first king of the first of

Eusebius' four world empires. Cassiodorus then lists the Assyrian kings from Ninus to

Mithreus and the length of their reigns, taken from Jerome, with a total number of 852

years, as follows, with Jerome's alongside for comparison.

Cassiodorus

Ninus Samiramis Ninyas Arivis Arelius Xerxes Armametres Molechus Balaeus Althadas Mamithus Magchaleus Sfereus Mamylus Sparaethus Ascatadis Amyntes Belochus Bellepares Lamprides Sosares Lampares Panias Sosarmus Mithreus

52 42 38 30 40 30 38 35 52 32 30 30 20 30 40 40 45 25 30 32 20 30 4589

19 27

Jerome

Ninus Semiramis Ninyas Arius Aralius Xerxes Armamitres Belochus Balaeus Altadas Mamynthus Magchaleus Sfaerus Mamylus Sparaethus Ascatades Amynthes Belochus Bellepares Lamprides Sosares Lampares Pannias Sosarmus Mithraeus

52 42 38 25 40 30 38 35 52 32 30 30 20 30 40 40 45 25 30 32 20 30 45 19 27

87 Helm, 15, 174 and 250. 88 Helm, 20a. 89 The length of Panias' reign and the next name, Sosarmus, are missing in our manuscripts, but the total

of the years of Assyrian kings indicates that both require restoration to the text.

Total 852 852

Latinus 32 Tautanes 32

Aside from some differences in the spelling of the names, the numbers are

identical. But Cassiodorus ascribed the same length of reign to Latinus as Jerome had to

Tautanes, thirty-two years.90 It appears that Cassiodorus simply replaced Tautanes' name

with Latinus' name. No other ancient author attests to the length of thirty-two years for

Latinus' reign.91 Jerome, however, in a short note, says that "ante Aeneam Ianus,

Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus in Italia regnarunt ann. circiter CL" / "before Aeneas

Ianus, Saturnus, Picus, Faunus and Latinus ruled in Italy for around 150 years."92 Vergil

suggests that Latinus had ruled in Italy for a long time before the arrival of Aeneas and

the Trojans.93 Unless Cassiodorus had some other source (which is unlikely), it is possible

that he simply settled on the thirty-two years for Latinus as a not unreasonable number.

This weak explanation does not excuse him from the charge of arbitrarily making the

beginning of Latinus' reign dovetail with the beginning of Tautanes'.

The problem is further complicated by the date chosen by Cassiodorus for the

length of Aeneas' wanderings. Cassiodorus diverges from Jerome in regard to the length

of time he assigns to Aeneas' travels before his arrival in Italy. Jerome/Eusebius reports

two versions of the length of the journey: "post III annum captivitatis Troiae sive, ut

quidam volunt, post annum VIII regnavit Aeneas ann. Ill" / "after the third year from the

capture of Troy, or, as some say, after the eighth year, Aeneas ruled for three years."94

90 Helm 59a 10. 91 Dionysius of Halicarnassus says he reigned for thirty-five years (1.34.3). Syncellus, p. 200, says he

reigned for thirty-six years and that Aeneas arrived in the thirty-third year. 92 Helm 62a, c. 93 Vergil, Aeneid 7.45-46: "rex arva Latinus et urbes / iam senior longa placidas in pace regebat. " 94 Helm 62b.

115

Jerome follows the first version in his dating scheme, but Cassiodorus deliberately chose

to give Aeneas eight years, presumably because Vergil had said that Aeneas had been

wandering for at least seven years after the fall of Troy.95 Jerome says that Troy fell in the

twenty-fifth year of Tautanes' reign. Cassiodorus accordingly reports that Troy fell in the

twenty-fifth year of Latinus' reign. It followed that Aeneas had to wander for eight years

before taking up the kingship in Italy. Since Eusebius/Jerome had given Aeneas only

three years of wandering, and not eight, they put the first year of Aeneas' reign, not in the

year after Tautanes' death, but rather in the twenty-ninth year. Cassiodorus' deliberate

choice to give Aeneas eight years of wandering thus adds four years to Jerome's

chronology.96

The lengths of the reigns of the Latin kings of Alba Longa from Aeneas to

Amulius Silvius are likewise drawn from Jerome. The reign of Amulius Silvius, the last

king of Alba Longa, is given by Cassiodorus as forty-three years, while Jerome counted

forty-four years.97 However, several of the most important manuscripts of Jerome have

forty-three, as does Prosper.98 The final tally of years shows the correct addition of his

own list (from Latinus to Amulius), rather than a number taken from elsewhere.

Cassiodorus simply accepted the reading of his text of Jerome without actually counting

the individual years of each reign in Jerome. The reigns of the kings from Romulus to

95 septima post Troiae excidium iam uertitur aestas, cum freta, cum terras omnis, tot inhospita saxa sideraque emensae ferimur, dum per mare magnum Italiam sequimur fugientem et uoluimur undis. (Vergil, Aeneid 5.626-629)

96 We could be critical of Cassiodorus because he chose an eight year journey for Aeneas, but really only gave him seven years. Latinus' reign was thirty-two years and Troy was destroyed in the twenty-fifth year. That only leaves Aeneas room for seven years of wandering. But if Cassiodorus was counting inclusively, he can just squeak by. Cassiodorus was faithful enough to his source that he did not want to give a number (seven years) that was not attested by Jerome.

97 Helm, 84b and 88b. 98 Chron. Min. I, 144.

116

Tarquinius Superbus are taken directly from Jerome and add up to 240 years without any

alterations or variations.

The 1031 years from the first consuls to 519 are much harder to deal with because

Cassiodorus did not depend on a single surviving source - he used an epitome of Livy,

Victorius, and a continuation of Victorius - but also because the manuscripts of

Cassiodorus do not have enough consular pairs to make up the total, and it is to this

problem that I now turn before we treat each of his sources.

Restoring Four Consular Pairs to the Text

In his supputatio at the end of the Chronica, Cassiodorus counted 1031 years from

Brutus and Tarquinius, the first consuls, to Eutharic's consulship in 519 CE, which is

correct since the first year of the Republic in Jerome (and therefore Cassiodorus) is 512

BC." But in the text of Cassiodorus as found in the manuscripts there are only 1027 years

accounted for: 963 by consular pairs, forty by decemviral rule (154), twenty by the rule

of military tribunes and four by the anarchy (183-186). This means that either

Cassiodorus miscounted or four pairs of consuls have fallen out.100

In the text I have restored four consular pairs in order to make the number of years

in Cassiodorus' final total match the number of years accounted for by consular pairs.

Mommsen's restorations were different from mine, in part because he miscounted the

99 See Mommsen 1861 and 1894 and Sanders 1903. Cassiodorus' consular list from the Republic has received a great deal of attention, particularly at the turn of the twentieth century, because of its value as an offspring of the Livian epitome. I will discuss the Livian epitome extensively in chapter 3. What follows is only a discussion of the number of years and the restoration of the text.

100 There are only 1028 years from 509 BC (the Varronian date of the first consuls) to AD 519, so there was bound to be some trouble fitting even a correct consular list into 1031 years. In addition, Victorius, Cassiodorus' source for most of the imperial period, has one year too many - the Eastern-promulgated consuls of 346 which he put between 344 and 345.

number of years in his text of Cassiodorus, and in part because he overlooked some key

pieces of evidence which help to restore three consular pairs in the imperial period. I have

tried to use only evidence internal to Cassiodorus' Chronica for determining which names

require restoration.

We can never be sure, of course, that Cassiodorus did not himself miscount the

years; Mommsen, after all, himself miscounted the consular pairs in his own edition.101

However, as we shall see, Cassiodorus approached his work with deliberation and care,

and so we must proceed on the assumption that his count was correct. Still, even if we

make the assumption that his count was correct, there is no guarantee that the consular

pairs which I am about to discuss fell out after he published the Chronica. There was,

presumably, at least one rough draft, and probably more, and consular pairs could have

fallen out at any time before or after the number 1031 was arrived at. What follows, then,

is necessarily to be treated as uncertain.

Before we discuss the particulars, we must treat the issue of how Cassiodorus

counted his years. It seems obvious that he would count years when there were consuls

by consular pairs, but during the empire he also took pains to make his consular list

match the imperial reigns, not altogether successfully.102 Mommsen believed that

Cassiodorus was careful to make his count of years for individual reigns match his count

of consular years within each reign (and as a result excluded the consuls of 503 CE from

his list).103 But the evidence suggests that he counted by consular year alone, and only

101 Mommsen 1894, 115, counted 1028 years, which is incorrect. He counted one consulship too many for the Republican period.

102 Cassiodorus' synchronization of imperial reigns with his consular years will be discussed below, pp. 207ff.

103 Mommsen 1894, 116. See below, p. 119ff.

118

after the consular list was drawn up did he add the historical notices and imperial reigns.

Cassiodorus' consular list is not by any means an accurate one. The fasti for the

early imperial period are, in all our manuscript sources, sadly inaccurate. However, there

are only seven consular pairs which appear in Cassiodorus' sources—an epitome of Livy

and Aufidius Bassus, and Victorius of Aquitaine—and are also are missing from his text.

It is to these which we must look for the four pairs to be restored. They are listed here in

the order in which they will be treated below: 1) the consuls of 503 CE, Fl. Dexicrates and

Fl. Volusianus; 2) the consuls of 297 CE, Maximianus V and Maximus II; 3) the consuls of

29 CE, C. Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus;104 4) the consuls of 193 BCE, L.

Cornelius and Q. Minucius; 5) the second consul of 66, L. Volcacius, and the first from

65 BCE, L. Cotta (these two years have been compressed, by a haplography, into a single

year which reads "Man. Lepidus et L. Torquatus"); 6) the consuls of 269 BCE, Q. Ogulnius

and C. Fabius and 7) the consuls of 421 BCE, Cn. Fabius and T. Quinctius.

The restoration of four consular pairs is by no means an easy matter. We must

decide for or against any given consular pair using evidence which does not come from

the manuscripts. I have tried in my deliberations to make decisions based on the internal

evidence offered by the Chronica itself and by the evidence it offers for Cassiodorus'

chronographic method. I have not resorted to outside sources or numbers which

Cassiodorus does not explicitly say he used. In this I have departed both from Mommsen

and Sanders, both of whom used Eutropius' tally of 1118 years from the first consuls to

the end of Valentinian's reign at 10.18.3 of the Breviarium as a target. But, though

104 These names were present in Aufidius Bassus and Victorius.

Cassiodorus used Eutropius, he used him very haphazardly and there is no evidence that

he aimed for this number of years. Quite the contrary, since he explicitly said in his

preface that his intent in the Chronica was to restore historica fides to the fasti, and at

least part of this claim is due to the fact that Cassiodorus can name the sources he used

for his time-line, and he does not name Eutropius as a source for his chronography. We

would expect him to follow only the evidence of his named sources.

We have something of a mid-point from which to begin. During the reign of

Philip the one thousandth anniversary of the founding of the city was celebrated.

Cassiodorus took his entry about the anniversary from Jerome, and, in Helm's edition, the

event is placed in the second year of Philip's reign, but some manuscripts place it in the

first year, and others authors who used Jerome, place it in the third year.105 Cassiodorus,

however, shifts the event to the fifth year. In the many manuscripts of Jerome's chronicle,

the ascription of an historical event to a given year varies from copy to copy, but the shift

is normally not more than one, or occasionally two, years.106 A shift of three or four years

invites suspicion of a deliberate act. The count of consular pairs in Cassiodorus' Chronica

as it stands in the manuscripts from the first consuls to the year in which he placed the

anniversary is 694. Add that to the 240 years from Romulus' founding of the city to the

first consuls (a number Cassiodorus got from Jerome), the forty years of decemviral rule,

and the twenty-four years of military tribunes and anarchy, and the total is 998.

Cassiodorus evidently counted the number of years from the beginning of Romulus' reign

to the anniversary, and displaced the anniversary to make a total of 1000 years. This

105 Helm, 217. Mss A and B place the event in the first year, while Orosius places it in the third (7.20). 106 See below, p. 216ff.

seems to me good evidence that Cassiodorus counted his consular years by hand at least

once, and further suggests that of the four pairs of consuls who are to be restored, two

should come from the five missing consular pairs noted by his sources which precede

Philip's reign in Cassiodorus' text.

Of the seven consular pairs found in Cassiodorus' sources and missing from his

chronicle, only two follow the reign of Philip, those of 503 and 297. In the case of the

consuls of 503 it is simply a matter of whether we believe that Cassiodorus could forget

the consuls sixteen years prior to the composition of his work. He did not include the

number of years of Anastasius' reign (1328) with the result that we cannot compare the

number of consuls with the number of regnal years. Mommsen believed that he either

forgot the consuls or, having included them, miscounted; Sanders believed that they

ought to be restored.107 In accordance with my arguments above, however, I believe that

they ought to be restored. Cassiodorus' source for the imperial consuls, Victorius of

Aquitaine's Easter calendar, ended in 457 and, although Cassiodorus indicates that the

text he had was continued by others,108 it is impossible to know just how far his Easter

calendar went. Still, as I will argue below, Cassiodorus, like many others, had a copy of

Victorius' list which was maintained by others or even by himself, from year to year, and

must have included the consuls of 503. Cassiodorus' list of consuls from 457 to 519 is

excellent in other respects, and it is almost unbelievable that he could have omitted these

consuls.109

107 Mommsen 1861, 567, and 1894, 116; Sanders 1905, 9. 108 In his epilogue he talks of the "clarorum virorum auctoritate'V'the authority of famous men," which

would appear to indicate that he meant not only Victorius, but also his continuators, who may well have been anonymous.

109 The western consul for the year, Volusianus, is not well known, but there is no reason to suspect that he was deliberately omitted from the consular lists. See Variae 4.22f, where Volusianus is called

The consuls of 297 are not in the manuscripts of the Chronica. Cuspinianus has

them, but he regularly supplemented the information he drew from Cassiodorus with

other sources.110 Since both Maximianus and Maximus went on to hold further

consulships, Cuspinianus must have seen the omission of Maximianus' fifth and

Maximus' second consulships, and re-inserted them, probably through reference to the

Codex Calendar of 354, of which he had a copy, and to which he refers regularly through

these years.111 The difficulty with restoring them lies with the fact that Diocletian is given

a reign of only twenty years, whereas, with the consuls of 297 restored, we get twenty-

one consular pairs. This goes against Cassiodorus' normal procedure of matching

consular pairs with imperial years. However, I accept Mommsen's argument for their

inclusion in Cassiodorus' original text.112 He argues that Jerome does not mention the one

year of Galerius' reign between the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus, but assigns

an empty year there before the accession of Constantine. Jerome clearly assigns

Diocletian's and Maximianus' abdication to the twentieth year of Diocletian's reign. This

is counted not by regnal years, the customary manner in Jerome, but by years of

persecution. The third year of Diocletian's persecution is reserved for Constantius and

Galerius, but their reigns are not "counted" as such.113 Perhaps to get some clarification

on Jerome's chronology, Cassiodorus referred to Eutropius for further information about

Constantius and Galerius. He remarks, "sed Constantius tantum Augusti dignitate

contentus cum esset otiosus, anni ipsius adscribuntur filio eius Constantino" / "but since

patricius, CLRE for the year in question, and Moorhead (1992), 149. 110 For instance, Cuspinianus substitutes, correctly, the name "Constantius" for Cassiodorus1 "Constans"

in the years 352, 353 and 354. 111 Cuspinianus refers to the document as the "auctor ignotus." 112 Mommsen 1894, 116, n. 1. 113 Helm 228. See Burgess 1997.

122

Constantius was free from public duties and satisfied with the rank of Augustus alone, his

years are assigned to those of his son, Constantine."114 The remark is difficult to

understand because no extra years are added to Constantine's reign, and Jerome seems

clear enough that Constantius died the year of, or the year after Diocletian's resignation.115

Furthermore, the historical events which Cassiodorus takes from Jerome show

that he included the consuls of 297 in his original list. The note about Diocletian's order

that he be worshiped as a god comes in the eleventh year in Jerome's list. It comes in

Diocletian's eleventh year as well only if the consuls of 297 are restored. The same is true

of the notes on the defeat of the Alamanni and the triumph of Diocletian and

Maximianus, in the fifteenth and nineteenth years of Diocletian's reign. It is possible that

the consular names fell out early in the textual tradition due to a scribal error. In 296

Diocletian held his fifth consulship and Constantius his second. The similarity of the

numbers of consulships between the two years may have caused the omission.

Finally, it seems unlikely that Cassiodorus should omit a pair of consuls whose

omission would stand out because of the missing iteration numbers. It is more likely that

they dropped out in the later manuscript tradition than during Cassiodorus' work on the

Chronica.116 The explanation would seem to be homoeoteleuton, since both the consuls of

296 and 297 end with "-us II."

114 Eutropius 10.2, "Constantius tamen, contentus dignitate Augusti, Italiae atque Africae administrandae sollicitudinem recusavit..." / "But Constantius, satisfied with the rank of Augustus, refused the responsibility of the administration of Italy and Africa."

115 It is also possible that he was led astray by the rapid and confusing course of events which followed Diocletian's resignation. Cassiodorus was perhaps not sure when Constantius died amidst the turmoil.

116 Cassiodorus' source, Victorius of Aquitaine, was very particular about iteration numbers, as will be demonstrated below, which further suggests that Cassiodorus at least had them in front of him when he was preparing his work.

123

If the consuls of 503 and 297 are to be restored, two more consular pairs need

restoration from before the one thousandth anniversary of the founding of Rome to make

up the total of 1031 years from 509 BCE to 519 CE. To recap, there are five consulships

which appear in Cassiodorus' sources, but not in the manuscripts: the consuls of 29 CE, C.

Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus; the consuls of 193 BCE, L. Cornelius and Q.

Minucius; the second consul of 66, L. Volcacius, and the first from 65 BCE, L. Cotta; the

consuls of 269 BCE, Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius; the consuls of 421 BCE, Cn. Fabius and T.

Quinctius. Only two of these can be chosen, and I believe they must be the consuls of 29

CE and those of 421 BCE.

When Cassiodorus combined the consular list of Victorius with the regnal years of

Jerome, he was very careful to assign to each imperial reign the correct corresponding

number of consuls. That is, when he says that Commodus reigned for thirteen years, he

assigns thirteen consular pairs to the reign; when he says that Trajan reigned for nineteen

years, six months and fifteen days, he assigns twenty consular pairs to the reign.117 The

sole exception in the manuscripts is the reign of Tiberius, where twenty-three regnal years

are given only twenty-two consular pairs, which suggests that a pair of consuls has

dropped out. Cassiodorus' source, Victorius of Aquitaine's Cursus Paschalis, lists the first

consuls after the crucifixion as "duobus Geminis" and Prosper, the source of Victor, has

"Fufio Gemino et Rubellio Gemino consulibus" as the year of the crucifixion.118 The

manuscripts of the Chronica, however, appear to put the crucifixion in the fifth

117 I deal with Cassiodorus' combination of his consular list with the regnal years of Jerome in much more detail below, pp. 207ff.

118 Ms. S of Victorius does not list the consuls of the year 29 as "duobus Geminis," but gives their gentilicia instead: "Ruffio et Rubellio" (a mistake for "Fufio et Rubellio"). But in the line above the start of Victorius list there has been added "Crucifixio Christi consulibus duobus Geminis."

124

consulship of Tiberius.1191 believe that "duo Gemini" needs to be restored to the text

immediately before the report of the crucifixion, and I have done so in my new edition.

Dating the crucifixion to the year when the two Gemini were consuls was

widespread in antiquity; it was a very famous date, and appears in many of the late

antique lists.120 It is difficult to imagine that Cassiodorus did not know this date, and the

consuls were the first pair in his primary source, Victorius.

Cuspinianus was distressed by the evidence of some authors that Jesus was

crucified in the consulship of the "two Gemini," in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign,121

while others put the crucifixion in the eighteenth year. He moves on, however, confessing

that he cannot resolve the problem, but returns to it when he comes to the crucifixion in

the Chronica. Cassiodorus' note on the crucifixion in both in the surviving manuscripts,

and in the manuscript that Cuspinianus had, is placed under the fifth consulship of

Tiberius, which, officially, he held alone since his colleague for the year, Seianus, had

undergone the damnatio memoriae. The note is taken largely from Jerome and reads:

"His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus passus est VIII k. Apr. et defectio solis facta

est, qualis ante vel postmodum numquam fuit'V'Under these consuls our lord Jesus Christ

suffered on the eighth day before the kalends of April and there was an eclipse of the sun

119 Chron. 634. 120 The following list is quoted from Burgess (2002), 276, n. 67: "Simply listing those in Mommsen's

Chron. Min. volumes, we have the preface to the Liberian catalogue of Roman bishops contained in the Chron. 354 (1: 73.2), the Computatio a. 452, 69 (1: 153.13); Prosper § 388 (1: 409-10); Victorius of Aquitaine, Cursus Paschalis (1: 683.22, 686), and the Prologus Paschae ad Vitalem (1: 737.32). See also Lactantius, de mortibus persecutorum 2.1 and Div. Inst. 4.10.18; Augustine, de ciuitate dei 18.54 (ed. Dombart-Kalb, p. 344.3); and the Anonymi Libellus de computo Paschali, PL 59: 553 A and D (of the mid-fifth century), as well a third century reference from Ulpian in Mosaicarum et Romanorum legum collatio 8.7.3, in Paul Krueger, Theodor Mommsen, and Wilhelm Studemund (eds.), Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani 3, Berlin 1890, 166.15." To this list can be added Tertullian Adversus Iudaeos 8.17.

121 Cuspinianus, pp. 369-371.

125

such as never was either before or since." Cuspinianus notes reasonably that "Si enim sub

quinto Tiberii consulatu passionem Christi voluisset denotare, dixisset Hoc cos, non His

conss'V'If he had wanted to note the passion of Christ under the fifth consulship of

Tiberius, he would have said, "under this consul" not "under these consuls." Furthermore,

though it is difficult to assess, Cuspinianus says that there is a blank space in his text:

"cum itaque in exemplari unico, quod habui, in hoc loco vacuum reperissem spacium,

mox deesse Consules duos conieci, quos diligenter undique disquirens, tandem reperi in

quinto libro Taciti, quos subscribam fideliter et opem hanc autori nostro afferam corrupto

et manco'V'since, therefore, in the single copy which I had, I had found an empty space

in this spot, I conjectured that two consuls were missing, which, looking everywhere

carefully, I at last found in the fifth book of Tacitus. I will add them just as they are and

will bring this help to our corrupt and defective author." Cuspinianus thus restores the

consuls of 32, Gnaeus Domitius and Camillus Scribonianus to the spot immediately

before the note on the crucifixion.

I believe, however, that the consular pair "duo Gemini" ought to be restored to the

text. These consuls are present in Cassiodorus' list in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign

as C. Rubellius and C. Fufius, and perhaps their presence there prevented their restoration

by Cuspinianus, Mommsen and others.122 But Cassiodorus has the consuls of 30 listed

twice as well, as M. Vinicius and L. Cassius in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, and as

Vinicius and Longinus in the eighteenth year. The reason for the duplication is the change

in source, as Cassiodorus abandoned the epitome of Aufidius Bassus, his source for the

122 Mommsen makes no mention of it at all. Cuspinianus knew that the consuls C. Rubellius and C. Fufius were the two Gemini, but did not know that Cassiodorus' change in sources was responsible for the doubling up of consular pairs.

126

consuls between 9 BCE and 31 CE, in favour of Victorius, his source for the imperial

consuls down to 457 (and a continuation for the rest). The names appeared differently in

both texts, and thus appear twice in Cassiodorus. The fact that the Gemini appear in

Tiberius' fifteenth year is therefore no impediment to their appearing in the eighteenth

year as well.

Finally, Cassiodorus took his note on the birth of the poet Persius from Jerome.

Jerome has the note in the twenty-second year of Tiberius. If we restore the two Gemini

to Cassiodorus' text, his note will also appear in Tiberius' twenty-second year, but only

the twenty-first without it - further evidence that the manuscript reading as we have it is

missing a year.123

Given Cuspinianus' testimony that there was an empty space, and the words of

Cassiodorus himself, which imply that there were two consuls in the year of the

crucifixion, not one, the overwhelming evidence in the ancient sources that the

crucifixion was in the consulship of the two Gemini, and the extra consulship required for

Tiberius reign, the restoration of "duo Gemini" seems justified.124

Only one year remains to be restored to make the total of 1031 years which

Cassiodorus supplies. Of the four remaining contenders, 66/65, 193, 269 and 421 BCE, the

last, Cn. Fabius et T. Quinctius, must be restored. Though Mommsen believed that the

123 As will be demonstrated below, Cassiodorus appears always to have placed historical events in his work by counting years from the beginning of imperial reigns, not from the end.

124 On the other hand, Cuspinianus may well be correct in his restoration. Cassiodorus' normal practice would have been to construct a consular list and then enter the historical details. If for some reason Cassiodorus knew that the consuls of the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign were, in fact, the two Gemini, then he may well have opted for using Aufidius Bassus all the way to the eighteenth year of Tiberius' reign, following Eusebius/Jerome, and putting the crucifixion there, ignoring the first consular pair of Victorius since he trusted Bassus more. The correct consular pair might then have been excised in the middle ages by a copyist who believed that the crucifixion took place during the consulship of the Gemini.

consular pair did not appear in Cassiodorus, I assert, with Sanders and Schmidt, that they

must have appeared in the original work.125 Without them cannot be explained the

peculiar ascription of forty years of reign to the decemvirs who entered into office in 303.

In fact, as we find in both Livy and Eutropius, the decemvirate in question lasted for only

two years, so Cassiodorus' forty years needs considerable explanation.

When Cassiodorus added his historical entries for the early Republic, he made use

of Eutropius on one occasion only: the defeat of the Gauls by Camillus in 392 BCE and the

years of military tribunates and anarchy which followed his dictatorship. Cassiodorus

says:

His conss. post urbem captam redeuntes Gallos dux Romanus nomine Camillus extinxit, de quibus triumphans in urbe quasi et ipse patriae conditor Romulus meruit nuncupari. Tunc dignitates mutatae sunt et in loco consulum per annos XVII tribuni militares fuerunt. Quibus ob insolentiam remotis per annos IIII potestas consulum tribunorumque cessavit. Deinde rursus tribus annis per tribunos militares est administrata res publica. post annos vero XXIIII reversa est dignitas consularis.

While these men were consuls a Roman leader by the name of Camillus defeated the Gauls as they were returning home after the capture of the city. In triumphing over them in the city, he earned the name of "Romulus," as though he was himself the founder of his country. Then the political offices were changed an in place of the consuls there were military tribunes for seventeen years. When they were removed for four years because of their unruliness, the power of the consuls and tribunes ceased. Then, again, for three years the republic was administered by military tribunes. After twenty-four years, the consular office was reinstated.

The passages from Eutropius (in part) are as follows:

Statim Galli Senones ad urbem venerunt et...etiam urbem occupaverunt...sed secutus eos Camillus ita cecidit, ut et aurum, quod his

125 Mommsen 1861, 555-556 and 1894, 115 and 125, Sanders 1905, 11. The consular pair is in Cuspinianus, 135, but he had a copy of Livy to hand with which he supplemented the material he found in Cassiodorus, so they need not have appeared in the archetype.

128

datum fuerat, et omnia, quae ceperant, militaria signa revocaret. ita tertio triumphans urbem ingressus est et appellatus secundus Romulus, quasi et ipse patriae conditor.

Anno trecentesimo sexagesimo quinto ab urbe condita, post captam autem primo, dignitates mutatae sunt, et pro duobus consulibus facti tribuni militares consulari potestate... Verum dignitas tribunorum militarium non diu perseveravit. nam post aliquantum nullos placuit fieri et quadrennium in urbe ita fluxit, ut potestates ibi maiores non essent. praesumpserunt tamen tribuni militares consulari potestate iterum dignitatem et triennio perseveraverunt. rursus consules facti. (Eutropius, 1.20.3-2.3)

At once the Gallic Senones came to the city and...even occupied the city...but Camillus followed them and so cut them down that he recovered both the gold which had been given to them and all the military standards which they had captured, thus triumphing for the third time he entered the city and was named a second Romulus, as if he himself was the founder of his country.

In the three hundred and sixty-fifth year from the founding of the city, the first after it was captured, the political offices were changed, and instead of two consuls, military tribunes with consular power were elected...But the office of the military tribunes did not last long, for after a while no one was pleased with them and for four years in the city there was such confusion that there were no office holders. However, the military tribunes again took office with consular power and lasted for three years. Consuls were elected again.

The debt to Eutropius is clear enough from Cassiodorus' language. More important

for our purposes, though, is that Cassiodorus must have discovered in this passage from

Eutropius that the military tribunate which followed Camillus' dictatorship began in the

365th year from the founding of the city. Sanders suggested that Cassiodorus counted the

years he had, and came up with 325. He had to include forty more years somewhere, and

the rule of the decemviri seemed to him the logical place to put the forty years.125

126 Sanders 1903, 10 was the first to make this argument and he is followed on the whole by Schmidt (209-212), though they both make more of the problem than need be. Sanders insists that Cassiodorus knew from Eutropius that the number of years from the founding of the city to the consulships of Jovian and Varronianus (364) was 1117 years and that, with the added years to 519 (154 with the consulships of 297 excised, as Sanders wants), he got the number 1271. Subtracting the 240 years of regal rule, he came up with 1031 years of consuls. The difficulty, as Schmidt points out (212) is that Cassiodorus must have understood Eutropius to mean that the consulships of 364 encompassed the 1117th year. This is absurd, since Eutropius clearly states that they mark the 1118th year. In any case,

129

Sanders' explanation for the forty years is no doubt correct, but the difficulty with

it is that Eutropius is reasonably clear that the decemvirate at this point lasted only two

years.127 Either Cassiodorus did not read Eutropius on the decemviri - not impossible, but

difficult to imagine, since it comes only one Teubner page before Eutropius' discussion of

Camillus, - or he found the forty years of decemviral rule in his source for the consular

list, an epitome of Livy. Any or all of the above are possible.128

In any case, it is only with the restoration of the consuls of 421 BCE that we can

account for the additional forty years of decemviral rule, since without them Cassiodorus

would have had to make the decemviral rule one of forty-one years, since there would be

only 324 years between the foundation and his date for Camillus without these consuls.

There remains the difficulty of the seventeen years of military tribunes recorded

by Cassiodorus. Where does the number come from? That Cassiodorus, who otherwise

uses only the Livian epitome for the Republican period, should turn to Eutropius at this

point only points to a serious lack of information in his primary source which he

by my count, the year 364 would have been Cassiodorus' 1116th year. There is no evidence that he followed Eutropius in this matter, and the attempt to make the figures fit is doomed to failure. In addition, Sanders' explanation provides the simplest solution: Cassiodorus did not need to have any information about what his numbers ought to have been; he could work out the length of the decemvirate with Eutropius' numbers alone.

127 Eutropius 1.18.1-2: "Anno trecentesimo et altera ab urbe condita imperium consulare cessavit et pro duobus consulibus decern facti sunt, qui summam potestatem haberent, decemviri nominati. sed, cum primo anno bene egissent, secundo unus ex his...filiam virginem corrumpere voluit; quam pater occidit, ne stuprum a decemviro sustineret, et regressus ad milites movit tumultum. sublata est decemviris potestas ipsique damnati sunt'V'In the three hundred and second year after the founding of the city consular rule ceased and, instead of two consuls, ten men were elected who had the highest authority, named decemviri. But, though they ruled well in the first year, in the second year, on of them...wished to rape a virgin daughter. Her father killed her lest she suffer shame from the decemvir, and having gone back to his soldiers he began an uprising. Power was taken away from the decemviri and they themselves were condemned."

128 As I will demonstrate below, Cassiodorus made haphazard use of Eutropius, sometimes using him to correct the lengths of imperial reigns, and sometimes not, so it is not impossible that he only consulted Eutropius when he found something he could not explain in his main source. If this is so, though, it will not explain why he did not consult Eutropius in the matter of the decemvirate.

130

recognized. Jerome was unhelpful, and Eutropius was, as in the imperial portion of the

chronicle, his third choice. The lack of information in his primary source had to do with

the years of military tribunes and anarchy which followed Camillus' dictatorship. His

source, the Livian epitome, gave him only the number of years of rule without consuls,

which in Livy is twenty four.129 Unsatisfied for some reason with this figure, he

discovered from Eutropius that there were four years of anarchy and then three more

years of military tribunes. Subtraction left him with seventeen years for the initial period

of tribunician rule.130

Both Mommsen and Sanders wished to restore the consulships of 66/65, 193 and

269 BC. none of which appears in our manuscripts. Cuspinianus has all three, but he has

used other means and sources to correct the manuscripts he had. He notes that the first,

66/65, is contradicted by his other sources. He does not explicitly say he is correcting

Cassiodorus, but adds a spurious pair of consuls for the year 65. Cuspinianus includes the

consuls of 193, L. Cornelius and Q. Minucius, but, as Mommsen noted, Cuspinianus

actually cites Livy, whose work survives for this period, when he includes them, so he

likely got them from there.131 Cuspinianus also has the consuls of 269, Q. Ogulnius and

C. Fabius,132 but he cites Eutropius, who has them, thus demonstrating that they were in

the Livian epitomes, and, in turn, almost certainly in Livy.133 None of these consular pairs

129 Livy, however, has a different combination of numbers: 15, 4 and 5, rather than 17, 4 and 3. 130 This calculation is suggested by Schmidt 1969, 211-212, who also notes the possibility that

Cassiodorus believed, from calculation from Eutropius presumably, that the Republic lasted 462 years. Schmidt, however, accepts Mommsen's restoration of the consuls of 485 and 688/89. In any case, it is unlikely that Cassiodorus would have made such a calculation, since he does not follow Eutropius' numbers anywhere else in the chronicle.

131 Mommsen 1894, 129. Cuspinianus, 236. Cuspinianus mentions Livy frequently through these years and clearly had his copy of Livy's fourth decade open beside him when he covered these years in Cassiodorus.

132 Although Mommsen 1894, 127 in his apparatus, says he does not. 133 They appear in Eutropius, 2.16.

necessarily dropped out after Cassiodorus composed his chronicle. They could just as

easily have been omitted at any point during the epitomization of Livy, Cassiodorus'

source for the Republican consuls, or during the transmission of that lost document. The

epitome of Livy which Cassiodorus used was a very spare document, a consular list with

a few historical notes, and it is easy to see how a consular pair could drop out even before

the document came into Cassiodorus' hands.

It is possible, then, to reconcile the number of years in Cassiodorus' supputatio

with the number of years which can be counted by hand in the Chronica itself, but only

by restoring four consular pairs to the list. Still, we can also see the care that Cassiodorus

showed in constructing his time-line. He evidently counted the years by hand since he

appears to have deliberately displaced the one thousandth anniversary of the city from

where he found it in his source. Not only his preface, but also the list of sources at the

end of the work, which omit the sources for his historical notes, show clearly that he

regarded accurate chronology as the most important part of his work.

The preface, however, states very clearly that the focus of his work was to restore

trustworthiness to the fasti. In the sections which follow I will treat each of his sources

for his consular list, a Livian consularia134 and the Cursus paschalis of Victorius of

Aquitaine, individually. Each source gives rise to its own set of questions, but

Cassiodorus' use of them can shed considerable light on the history of the two sources,

one of which, the Livian consularia, is lost, the other of which is extant in several forms.

134 I have named this chapter "the Livian Consularia" because, as I will demonstrate, the epitome which Cassiodorus used as his source for consuls to 28 CE was at its heart a consular list with few historical notes.

The Fasti

From the Republic and well into the sixth century CE the Roman world named

their years after the two consuls for each year. This system of dating, while fine for those

who were able to "name the year," was terribly impractical for all sorts of reasons. Chief

among them was that in order to know how long ago something happened, one needed

either to memorize the list back in time, or have a list to hand of the consuls for the

previous years.

In the early empire, these lists were maintained publicly and could be found

inscribed on stone panels in fora in a variety of places.135 The inscribed fasti tail off in the

middle of the third century, and were replaced by manuscript lists of which we have

many examples from antiquity in both Greek and Latin. The documents had a practical

value, and were no doubt something that many people had: lawyers, money-lenders,

bureaucrats, church functionaries would all have had reason to use them in their day-to­

day business. They also served as the raw material for history, since many of these lists

also had historical details, particularly relating to the emperors and their activities.

The fasti were "living" documents. They were anonymous and were frequently

updated, corrected, re-copied and circulated. In the late empire, when the names of the

consuls for each year were not always known early in the year - and sometimes not even

until the next year or not at all - the lists were regularly altered as bits of information

became known. However, because these texts were sub-literary, copyists were not always

as careful as they would be if they had been copying a literary work with an author's

name attached to it. Names were added; names were reversed; names were changed.

135 The Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Ostienses (Degrassi, 1947) are the best examples.

133

"Corrections" were made which might or might not have been correct. In the pages that

follow, I will investigate some of this "raw material" which Cassiodorus used in

constructing his consular list.

In the sections which follow I will 1) investigate the nature of Cassiodorus' source

for his Republican consuls, now lost, 2) discuss the reasons for the differences between

his consular list and that of Victorius of Aquitaine, his source for the consuls between 29

CE and 457, 3) compare his list with surviving lists from the last half of the fifth and the

first quarter of the sixth century, and 4) briefly discuss the extension to Cassiodorus'

consular list which appears at the end of both manuscripts and runs all the way to 559.

These are four rather different tasks, but all require looking at the consular lists in the

same way, and discussing characteristics peculiar to the manuscript consular list. Not

unlike the study of epigraphy, then, my discussion will sometimes be very technical.

Consular lists of the same period, even one "copied" from another, can be quite

different from each other. Since they are not literary documents, the standards used to

copy, correct, and update them are different from those we see with literary texts, which

preserve the integrity impressed on them by the authorial hand. Since the consular list has

no author, only raw historical detail, the only thing holding it together is historical

integrity, and what that means will vary from individual to individual. Because copyists

felt at liberty to alter and correct consular lists, even different manuscripts of the same list

by the same author, like those of Prosper and Victorius, can vary the one from the other.

An entry of a name in a consular list will include the name itself, but can also

include an iteration (if that person had been consul more than once), and any of several

abbreviations which, in late antiquity, typically identified a person's status ("aug" for

"Augustus" or "vc" for "vir clarissimus"), but might also be used to distinguish one

person from another (e.g. "iun" for "iunior").

The name of the consul and how it appeared differed between the Republic and

the empire. Republican consuls typically were identified by praenomen and nomen

gentilicium, thus: "C. Iulio." Sometimes, however, the list gives the praenomen and

cognomen, thus: "C. Caesare." And sometimes all three names were used: "C. Iulio

Caesare." Under the empire, the written lists normally listed only the cognomen, thus:

"Vero et Ambiguo." Each year there was a consul prior, that is, under the Republic the

name who received the most votes. Under the empire there were fairly clear-cut rules

about who was consul prior, outlined by the editors of CLRE: "(1) Augusti and Caesars

took precedence over all subjects; (2) Augusti took precedence over Caesars and senior

over junior Augusti; between subjects (3) former consuls (suffect consulate not counting)

took precedence; otherwise (4) the senior emperor would decide whose name would be

entered first in the fasti."136 After the division of the empire in 411, however, western lists

and inscriptions record the western consul first, and eastern the eastern first no matter

who was consul prior, unless one was the emperor.I37

Occasionally a pair of names a pair of names is switched from the order one

would normally expect (depending on the geographical location, time period, and/or

archetypal document). This happens comparatively rarely, but often enough to be

considered an interesting and noteworthy phenomenon to those comparing one or more

136 CLRE,p.22. 137 CLRE, p. 22.

135

lists. Furthermore, we will see several instances where names were evidently carelessly

copied - at much higher rate of mistakes than we would see in a literary history. These

mistakes are generally confusions of similarly spelled names (Constantius / Constans /

Constantinus), but also of less similar names (Marcellus / Mamercus). Unfamiliar names,

especially non-Latin names in the late empire, were a regular source of difficulty to

copyists and can appear with very different spellings (Asporacius / Sporacius;

Dagalaifus / Gadalaifus).

The iterations are the numerals which normally would appear after a consul's

name if he had been consul more than one time. Recording iterations had been normal in

the inscribed lists where, for instance, the consulship of Tiberius and Germanicus in 18 CE

might be recorded as "Ti. Caesar Augustus III Germanicus T. Aug. f. Caesar II." For

those copying manuscript fasti, however, iterations were a difficulty. First, they were not

always considered necessary, and so they were frequently omitted. Second, the chance of

errors creeping in is extremely high, as it is wherever Roman numerals are copied in any

manuscript. Third, the similarity of names among office holders meant that "corrections"

were often made to the lists, and people who were not multiple office holders were

sometimes given iterations. Cassiodorus has some iterations in his work, but they are not

uniformly recorded every time they should be recorded, and they are frequently incorrect.

The abbreviations used after the consular names in the manuscript lists appear to

have been taken over from the inscribed lists. Typically they only appear in imperial

consuls, where the most common are "aug," the designation for the Augustus when he

was consul, and "vc," "vir clarissimus." In the late imperial lists the designation "vc" can

be used of anyone who was consul, except for the emperor. Oddly, it typically only

appears in the manuscript lists after a single name. The plural (common in inscriptions)

"vvcc" occurs only very rarely, and usually only in the fifth and sixth centuries. I will

treat other abbreviations as they appear in each discussion.

Finally, in years when either there were no consuls designated for the year, or

when the names of the consuls were not known, the year was designated "pc," "post

consulatum," with the name or names of the previous year's consuls in the genitive, thus:

pc Amantii et Albini, that is "after the consulship of Amantius and Albinus." As we will

see, post-consular years show considerable variety and more frequency towards the sixth

century when the names of the consuls were not as well known as in earlier centuries.138

The Livian Consularia

Despite its shortcomings, Cassiodorus' list of Republican consuls is one of the

best and most complete lists to have survived from antiquity. Copied from an epitome of

Livy and Aufidius Bassus, there are only seven missing consular pairs.139 As we saw

above, either Cassiodorus' source did not treat either the decemviri or the military

tribunates in a clear way or Cassiodorus himself had no idea how often there were no

consuls, since Cassiodorus records the two years of the decemviri (451-450 BCE) as a

period of forty years and only notes the last lengthy rule by military tribunes and the

anarchy between 391 and 367 BCE, despite the considerable number of earlier years of

military tribunates (444, 438, 433-432, 426-424, 422, 420-414 and 408-394 BCE).

138 The editors of CLRE discuss abbreviations and points of nomenclature only with reference to inscriptions (36-40, 63-66), but not with reference to the manuscript lists, which is unfortunate.

139 Missing are the consuls for 507, 490, 489, 451, 421, 193 and the second consul of 66 combined with the first of 65. The consuls for 507, 490 and 489 were not in Livy, so they were likely not in Cassiodorus' source. As I discussed above, pp. 126ff, I have restored the consuls of 421 only.

137

The consular names in the Chronica for the most part appear in the typical

Republican format, with a praenomen and a single name following it: usually the

gentilicium, but sometimes the cognomen, and more rarely both gentilicium and

cognomen. Curiously, the years from 509 to 218 show a very high proportion of consular

pairs in which the praenomen and gentilicium are recorded for both consuls, thus "L

Valerius et M Horatius": 195 out of 225 pairs.140 From 217 BCE to 29 CE, however, that

proportion drops considerably, with much more variation in which name or names are

recorded: only 81 out of 244 pairs appear in the form praenomen gentilicium +

praenomen gentilicium, and all the other possible variations are represented, with the

praenomen present in all cases.141 If there is a reason for this change, I have not been able

to determine what it is. As we will see below, there is reason to think that the epitomator

of Livy recorded the "tria nomina" in the original list where he could, but successive

copyists cut the names back without regularity, sometimes dropping one name,

sometimes the other, and sometimes neither.

To get a better understanding of why Cassiodorus' list takes the form it does, we

must go back to his sources. In what follows I will first compare Cassiodorus' list to the

surviving names in Livy and then to the two surviving witnesses to the consularia which

Cassiodorus used, the Liber Prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus

140 Of 225 consular pairs between 509 and 218, 195 appear as gentilicium + gentilicium, sixteen as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium, six as cognomen + gentilicium, four as gentilicium + gentilicium cognomen, three as gentilicium + cognomen and one as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium cognomen.

141 Of 244 consular pairs between 217 BCE and 29 CE, eighty-one appear as gentilicium + gentilicium, eighteen as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium, fifty-five as cognomen + gentilicium, twelve as gentilicium + gentilicium cognomen, twenty-one 1 as gentilicium + cognomen, three as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium cognomen, thirty-nine as cognomen + cognomen, nine as gentilicium cognomen + cognomen, five as cognomen + gentilicium cognomen and one as gentilicium + two cognomina. These last four categories are not represented in the group from 509 to 218.

138

668. What will emerge is not only a clearer picture of Cassiodorus' immediate source, but

also a clearer picture of a portion of the history of the Livian epitome.

As he said in his introduction, Cassiodorus was motivated by a desire to correct

the consular fasti. He states in his postscript that Livy was one of his sources, and we

should expect such a choice for a source. Cassiodorus' production of and search for

authoritative texts is one of the underpinnings of much of his scholarly effort.142 He

needed, therefore, to choose a source for his Republican consuls which inspired

confidence through its authority. Neither of the other two manuscript Latin lists of

Republican consuls which have survived from antiquity (the Descriptio Consilium, called

the Consularia Constantinopolitana by Mommsen, and the list in the Codex-Calendar of

354) provides information about its source, though it is clear that the two are related to

the Fasti Capitolini or their source.143 Though it is pure speculation to suggest, it is at

least possible that Cassiodorus, on comparing the Livian with the other lists, chose the

one with a famous name attached to it.

Cassiodorus, however, did not copy his consuls directly from the full text of Livy,

which was no doubt hard to come by in the sixth century, but from an epitome.

Mommsen was the first to recognize that the full text of Livy cannot have been

Cassiodorus' source - the mistakes in historical detail alone,144 as well as Cassiodorus'

recourse to Eutropius for historical material on the military tribunes and anarchy,

preclude the possibility. Mommsen only gave a very brief description of the document

142 The aim of the first book of the Institutiones reflects this desire not only for authoritative texts, but for a full range of material.

143 Editions by Burgess 1993 and Mommsen 1894. 144 In 506 Livy has an extra year of consuls which Cassiodorus does not have, and in 315 Livy does not

know the consuls, but Cassiodorus has them.

139

that Cassiodorus used in constructing his list of consuls: "...einen kurz das Thatsachliche

Jahr fur Jahr, unter Voranstellung der Consulnamen im Ablativ, zusammenfassenden

Abriss" / "a brief summary, bringing together factual material year by year under the

headings of consular names in the ablative." As proof of his assertion Mommsen further

points to evidence that Cassiodorus had a work with consuls listed in the ablative, since

he uses the name Labeon rather than Labeo and has Paeto for Paetus; to the similarities of

language between Cassiodorus and Obsequens, which do not derive from Livy and

therefore point to an intermediate source; and to the error of assigning four years to the

anarchy of 375-71, to which Livy assigns five years.145

Cassiodorus and Livy

If we compare Livy's surviving list with Cassiodorus', we can then draw some

conclusions about the Livian epitome by working back from Cassiodorus. The consular

list is the best point of comparison between the two works not only because the consular

names comprise the bulk of the Republican period in Cassiodorus' Chronica, but also

because we can expect a high degree of accuracy in their transmission from the full text

of Livy to the epitome to Cassiodorus: apart from the omission of the nomen or the

cognomen for reasons of space, there is little room for deliberate alteration of names, and

still less reason for it. I discuss the historical entries in chapter four, below.146

We have Livy's consuls from his surviving books for the years 509-292 and 219-

166, and there are 203 entries for consular pairs which are common to both authors. The

145 Mommsen 1861,552. 146 Pp. 215ff.

natural place to look in Livy for such a list is in the record of the consular elections,

typically recorded in Livy's narrative at the end of the year in which the consuls were

elected.147 There is very close agreement between Cassiodorus' list of consuls and Livy's

as one would expect. Most of the variations that do exist between Cassiodorus and Livy

are impossible to attribute exclusively either to our author or his source, but there is

additional accurate material which is not in Livy, but must have been in Cassiodorus'

source, introduced either by the epitomator himself or by someone working between the

production of the epitome and the list which Cassiodorus had. It seems most economical

to attribute this material to the epitomator himself, and I believe we can find here

evidence which sketches a picture of the epitomator's work. This material suggests that

the epitomator was a moderately sophisticated and careful reader of Livy who took pains

to produce a consular list with accurate praenomina, gentilicia and cognomina and at least

some consular iterations, and who hunted down variants between Livy's fasti and the

more generally accepted fasti of the Republican consuls as it was accepted during the

empire. There is further evidence that someone, possibly Cassiodorus himself, but more

likely an earlier librarius, made changes to the copy of the epitome of Livy which he had.

There are, as one might expect in a document of this kind, many differences

between the readings of the Livian manuscripts - even those that are very old - and those

of Cassiodorus. There are also many orthographical variants and many minor

omissions.148 Whether these variants are to be attributed to the text of Livy, the

epitomator, the text of the epitome, Cassiodorus himself, the tradition of the manuscript

147 But as we will see, the epitomator often had to hunt through the text of Livy for fuller information about the consuls names where the actual report of their election gives only a partial name.

148 Omissions: Cassiodorus omits the praenomina in 508, 504, and 211. M. Cornelius, consul for 436 is omitted by Cassiodorus.

141

of the Chronica or a combination of them all is as a rule impossible to tell. As a result, I

will not discuss mistakes and easily explained orthographical variants of the sort one

would find in any group of related manuscripts: these include minor differences in

gentilicia and cognomina,149 the great many differences among praenomina,150 and the

reversal of names in a consular pair.151 These could all be problems of transmission and as

a result cannot tell us anything certain about the epitomator or the transmission of the

epitome.

I will discuss two specific types of differences between Cassiodorus' Chronica

and Livy which are noteworthy: a) differences in consular iterations (i.e., second, third,

fourth consulship etc. of a particular man), and b) additions of details by Cassiodorus'

149 487: "Siccius" for "Sicinus," 455: "Nomilius" for "Romilius," 453: "Quintius" for "Quinctilius," 445: "Ginutius" and "Curiacius" for "Genucius" and "Curtius" (here, the Livian name "Curtius" has many variants among the MSS, so the error need not be Cassiodorus' or even his immediate source's), 439: "Manlius" for "Menenius," 437 and 429: "Servius" for "Sergius," 330: "Plaustius" for "Plautius," 323: "Aelius" for "Aemilius" (here, Livy notes that some sources name him "Aulius," 8.37.2-3), 166: "Mamercus" for "Marcellus." I have left out the smaller variations and common copyists errors, like 429: "Hostus" for "Hostius," 428: "Quintius" for "Quinctius," and 302: "Libius" for "Livius." There are also a few places where modern editions of Livy reject the evidence of the MSS. For 360, for example, most Livian MSS have "Poetilius," which is what Cassiodorus also has, whereas the correct spelling of the name is "Poetelius." But these differences could easily have come about independently.

150 There are 23 instances where Cassiodorus has a different praenomen from Livy. 499: "L" for "C Vetusius," 495: "T" for "P Servilius," 460: "P" for "C Claudius," 458: "L" for "C Nautius," 452: "T" for "C Menenius," 448: "L" for "Sp Herminius," 445: "T" for "C Curtius," 443: "P" for "T Quinctius," 427: "P" for "C Servilius," 413: "M" for "A Cornelius," 363: "C" for "Cn Genucio" (although, in this case, the Livian mss read C, but have been emended through reference to Diodorus, who reads "Cn"), 357: "L" for "C Marcius," 356: "Q" for "M Fabius," 350: "P" for "L Scipio," 346: "P" for "C Poetelius," 330: "C" for "L Plautius," 328: "C" for "P Plautius," 320: "Q Papirius" and "L Publilius" for "L Papirius" and "Q Publilius," 302: "L" for "M Aemilius," 213: "P" for "Q Fabius," 204: "T" for "P Sempronius," 201: "C" for "P Aelius," 178: "Cn" for "A Manlius," 169: "L" for "Q Marcius." A good example of how praenomina can be confused is in the manuscript tradition of the Chronica itself, where numerous praenomina have been displaced due to the method the copyist of the archetype used. See above, pp. 33ff..

151 I will, however, discuss reversals of consular pairs below, when comparing Cassiodorus to Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. 455: Cass, "C Veturius et T Nomilius" Livy, "T Romilio C Veturio," 358: Cass., "C Plautius et C Fabius" Livy, "C Fabius et C Plautius," 320: Cass., "Q Papirius et L Publilius" Livy, "Q Publilium Philonem et L Papirium Cursorem," 209: Cass. "Q Fabius V et Q Fulvius Flaccus IIII," Livy, "Q Fulvium et Q. Fabium," 182: Cass., "L Paulus et Cn Baebius" Livy, "Cn Baebium Tamphilum etL Aemilium Paullum," 177: Cass., "T Sempronius et C Claudius" Livy, "C Claudius Pulcher Ti Sempronius Gracchus."

source which are not in Livy.

Consular Iterations

Iterations are part of the consular name. As will be seen, Cassiodorus' work

contains some evidence that the Livian consularia he used was once a much fuller

document than the one we have now, probably containing the full "tria nomina" for all

the consuls. Thus, investigating the iterations is part of investigating the larger issue of

how the names were originally extracted from Livy.

In investigating the iterations of consulships in Cassiodorus, we can divide the

instances of comparison into four groups: a) where Livy records the number, but

Cassiodorus does not, b) where Livy and Cassiodorus agree, c) where both Livy and

Cassiodorus have a number, but disagree, and d) where Cassiodorus has a number, but

Livy does not. Of the 203 consular pairs common to both authors, there are twenty-six

instances where Livy records a consular iteration and Cassiodorus does not.152 This is by

far the largest group, but there is no way of telling whether the epitomator noted all of

them or not. As I will demonstrate, he probably noted some. There are seven instances

where Livy and Cassiodorus have numbers and agree;153 there are two instances where

Livy and Cassiodorus have numbers but disagree;154 finally, there are seven occasions

where Cassiodorus records a consular iteration while Livy does not.155 Clearly, the last

two groups are the most interesting.

The presence of nine instances where Cassiodorus has material either not in Livy

152 The years 459, 443, 437, 435, 363, 356, 355, 354, 353, 348, 346, 344, 343, 341, 340, 332, 330, 327, 325, 320, 313, 311, 215, 214, 213 and 169.

153 The years 508, 504, 446, 429, 212 and 168. 154 The years 439 and 434. 155 The years 505, 468, 467, 465, 431, 326 and 209.

(505, 468, 467, 465, 431, 326 and 209) or which disagrees with Livy (439 and 434)

suggests the work of the epitomator, of a librarius, or of Cassiodorus himself.

Furthermore, there are nine consular pairs which show iterations in both Cassiodorus and

Livy, while Cassiodorus has iterations for seven where Livy has none. If a copyist or

Cassiodorus had added the numbers himself, we would expect that they would

correspond with Livy in some places and not in others, which is, in fact, the case. The

possibility therefore suggests itself that all such numbers in Cassiodorus' list were

inserted after the original list was extracted from Livy. For this to be true, however, it

must have been possible for a copyist or Cassiodorus to insert the iterations through

recourse to the list itself, that is, simply through numbering recurring names in the

consular list. In what follows, I will demonstrate that this scenario is possible in most

cases, and may have occurred by mistake, even though Cassiodorus agrees with Livy.156

Below is a table of the years for which Cassiodorus includes a consular iteration,

including the years for which we have no corresponding text of Livy. The Livian

passages for years for which we have a corresponding text are in the right-hand column.

The years in which both Livy and Cassiodorus have an iteration and agree are marked

with an asterisk; the years in which both have an iteration and disagree are marked with

an obelus.

Cassiodorus Livy

*508 Valerius II et Titus Lucretius P Valerius iterum TLucretius

505 Valerius III et P Postumius M Valerius P Postumius

156 The cases of the consuls of 326 and 82 (discussed below, pp. 147-148 and 149) indicate that we can discount the possibility that a copyist of Cassiodorus' work inserted the iterations rather than his source.

*504 Valerius HII et Titus Lucretius II

468 T Quintius II et Q Servilius

467 TAemilius II et Q Fabius

465 Q Fabius II et T Quintius III

*446 T Quintius HII et Agrippa Furius

|439 T Quintius V et Agrip Manlius

f435 C Iulius et L Verginius

f 434 C Iulius II et L Verginius II

431 T Quintius VI et Cn Iulius

*429 L Servius II et Hostus Lucretius

326 C Poetelius III et L Papirius

224 T Marcius et Q Fulvius II

* 212 Q Fulvius Flaccus III et App Claudius

209 Q Fabius VetQ Fulvius Flaccus HII

* 194 P Scipio II et T Sempronius

* 168 L Paulus II et C Licinius

104 C Marius II et C Fl Fimbria

103 C Marius III et LA urelius Orestes

102 C Marius HII et L Luctatius

101 C Marius Vet MAquilius

100 C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus

86 L Cinna II et C Marius VII

85 L Cinna III et Cn Papirius

84 L Cinna IIII et Cn Papirius II

P Valerius quartum TLucretius iterum (2.16.2)

T Quinctius Q Servilius (2.64.1)

TAemilius et Q Fabius (3.1.1)

Q Fabio et TQuinctio (3.2.2)

T Quinctius Capitolinus quartum et Agrippa Furius (3.66.1)

sextum...TQuinctius Capitolinus...Agrippa Menenius (4.13.6)

C Iulio iterum et L Verginio (4.21.6)

Iulium tertium, Verginium iterum (4.23.1-2)

T Quinctius...et Cn Iulius Mento (4.26.2)

L Sergius Fidenas iterum Hostius Lucretius (4.30.4)

C Poetelium L Poetelium Mugillanum (8.23.17)

Quintus Fulvius Flaccus tertium et Ap Claudius (25.3.1)

Q Fulvium et Q Fabium (27.6.3)

P Cornelium Scipionem Africanum iterum et T Sempronium Longum (34.42.3)

LAemilius Paulus iterum...et C Licinius Crassus (44.17.4)

145

82 Cn Carbo III et C Marius

48 C Iulius Caesar II et P Servilius

46 C Iulius Caesar III et M Lepidus

45 C Iulius Caesar IIII et Fabius Maximus

44 CIulius Caesar Vet MAntonius

41 P Servilius IletLA ntonius

31 C Caesar II et M Messala

30 C Caesar III et M Crassus

29 C Caesar IIII et Sex Apuleius

28 C Caesar V et MAgrippa II

27 C Caesar VI et MAgrippa HI

26 C Augustus Caesar VII et TStatilius

25 C Augustus Caesar VIII et MSilanus

24 C Augustus Caesar Villi et C Norbanus

23 C A ugustus Caesar XetCn Piso

There are forty-one years with consular iterations, but the number of different

men who are identified as having multiple consulships is quite limited: L. Valerius, T.

Lucretius, T. Aemilius, Q. Fabius, L. Verginius, T. Quintius, L. Servius, C. Poetelius, Q.

Fabius, Q. Fulvius Flaccus, P. Scipio, L. Paullus, C. Marius, L. Cinna, Cn. Papirius

Carbo, C. Julius Caesar, P. Servilius, M. Agrippa, and Augustus - nineteen in all. The

years with iterations are not evenly distributed, though. Of the forty-one, eleven are in the

first eighty years of the Republic and twenty-three are from the last hundred years of the

Republic. The bulk of these final twenty-three years are the consulships of Marius, Cinna,

Caesar and Augustus - names bound to attract attention and easy to number since they

come in rapid succession. The large percentage of iterations in the early years, however,

suggests either that the epitomator began copying iterations and then stopped, that a

copyist began transcribing iterations, but then stopped, or, as I will argue, that someone

began to try to include iterations in a list where there were none, or very few, but gave up

after the first hundred years or so. The practice of "correcting" the consular iterations in

manuscript lists was very common.157

There are several individual cases which deserve comment, particularly those

where the numbers are different from those which appear in Livy. These cases, with their

concomitant errors, tend to support the suggestion that the numbers were inserted after

the list was extracted from Livy since the numbers themselves could not have been

copied from Livy.

The iterations for the years 439 and 431 must be treated together since they

contain errors which are related. The situation is complicated, but explicable. In the year

439, Cassiodorus give the consuls as "T. Quintius V et Agrip. Manlius," while Livy reads

"sextum...T. Quinctius Capitolinus...Agrippa Menenius" (4.13.6). Livy is correct.

Capitolinus had been consul in 471, 468, 465, 446 and 443. Cassiodorus or his source

was led astray by an incorrect praenomen in 443, where Cassiodorus' text now has as "P.

Quintius" rather than "T. Quintius." It would seem that the different praenomen resulted

in the disassociation of the consular name of 443 from those of 471, 468, 465, 446, and

439. If we assume that the iterations were inserted before Cassiodorus compiled his

chronicle, the incorrect letter for the praenomen must be a very old error indeed, going

back at least to Cassiodorus' immediate source and maybe farther.158

157 For a good example, see Burgess 2000, pp. 270-271 and 288. 158 It is not impossible that the iterations were originally correct, and there followed a change in

praenomen, and then a hypercorrection to remove his iteration and the correction of the iteration in

One of the consuls of 431, also a T. Quintius, is incorrectly ascribed a sixth

consulship on the assumption that he was the same individual as the T. Quintius in 439

who had a fifth iteration. He is, however, different: T. Quinctius Cincinnatus rather than

T. Quinctius Capitolinus.159 With the same name occurring only eight years apart (439

and 431), it is an understandable mistake to treat the second name as the same person as

the first and the incorrect iteration is readily explained by the insertion of the iteration

into the list simply on the basis of the similarity and proximity of the names.

In 434, Cassiodorus has "C. Iulius II et L. Verginius II," whereas C. Iulius was in

fact serving as consul for the third time, having been consul in 447 and 435: Iulius's first

consulship was in 447, where he is consul posterior, and both Iulius and Verginius were

consuls in 435. It seems clear that a copyist or reader, seeing the same names in two

consecutive years, simply inserted iterations when they appeared the second time,

unaware of Iulius' first appearance in 447, twelve years earlier.

In 326, Cassiodorus' entry is "C. Poetelius III et L. Papirius." The iteration is

correct. Livy reads "C. Poetelium L. Papirium Mugillanum" (8.23.17), so the number

does not come from there. Poetelius was consul in 346 and 360.160 If we read back up

Cassiodorus' list of consuls we find "P. Poetilius" in the 346 slot, and "C. Poetilius" in

360. We have already seen the praenomina copied incorrectly. The iteration for 326

cannot have come from Livy, and must have been inserted before the name in 346

suffered a change in its praenomen. In this case, it is possible that before the praenomen

was changed, the iteration "II" was in place, but was omitted by a copyist who saw no

439. This might then lead to the sixth iteration being bumped to 431. 159 Broughton 1952, pp. 56, 63. 160 Broughton, p. 146.

prior consulship for "P. Poetilius." Such a process would have taken several steps, of

course: the insertion of the iteration, the change of the praenomen, and the omission of

the iteration. There is no telling where this process of miscopying and omission took

place, before Cassiodorus used the Livian list, while Cassiodorus compiled his Chronica,

or during the copying of Cassiodorus' Chronica subsequent to its composition, but it

remains a possibility that at some stage in the life of Cassiodorus' source, the iterations

for C. Poetilius were added.

The final two examples of iterations in Cassiodorus which are not in Livy (the

consuls of 209 and 82) pose similar problems and can be solved in similar ways. The

consuls for the year 209 in Cassiodorus are "Q. Fabius V et Q. Fulvius Flaccus IIII." The

corresponding entry in Livy has no numbers ("Q. Fulvium et Q. Fabium," 27.6.3), so the

iteration cannot have come from there. Yet here a different sort of problem arises which is

not like those above. None of Fabius' other consulships is numbered in Cassiodorus, but

he is not always identified the same way. In 233, 228 and 215, he is named "Q.

Maximus" and in 214, he is named "Q. Fabius Maximus." Without the full name "Q.

Fabius Maximus," no copyist or epitomator would have been able to insert iterations

since he would have no reason for thinking that the "Q. Maximus" of 233 was the same

man as the "Q. Fabius" of 209, unless he knew his history very well indeed. There is no

telling why only the fifth consulship is numbered, while the others are not, but it is

reasonably certain that no mediaeval copyist could have put this iteration into the text. It

goes back either all the way to the epitomator, or at least as far back as a stage when the

list existed with fuller names than it does now.

149

In 82 Cassiodorus' list has "Cn. Carbo III et C. Marius." Cn. Papirius Carbo's

earlier consulships, in 84 and 85, are noted, but he is named "Cn. Papirius" in both earlier

years. He has an iteration for his second consulship in Cassiodorus, but since the name

"Carbo" does not appear in either of the earlier years, a copyist would be unable to

identify him as the same man, and so would not include an iteration for 82. Again, the

iteration goes back either to the epitomator himself, or to a stage when the list had fuller

names.161

Broadly speaking, then, there are four possible scenarios: 1) the original extractor

included the iterations and they fell away gradually in transmission, primarily through the

truncation of fuller names, 2) the original extractor included only some of the numbers, 3)

the original extractor included no numbers and they were added later, or 4) a combination

of the above in which the original extractor included some iterations, including two that

are not in Livy, they fell away in transmission, largely due to the truncating of names for

reasons of space, and another copyist attempted, at the beginning of the Republican

consular list, to put them back in, but stopped when the difficulties and pitfalls of the

process became apparent and too many.

Details in Cassiodorus' Source which are not in Livy

The second major set of differences between Cassiodorus and Livy is in the order

161 Further proof that the original epitome had fuller names than its descendants can be found, as we will see below, pp. 154ff., in a comparison of the consular lists of Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. Though Cassiodorus, Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 may agree as to the consuls for the year, they do not always have the same forms of the name, or the same order of names. Cassiodorus is the only one of the three to include consular iterations, which further suggests that they were added to the list which he had, after the originals had dropped out. The alteration and insertion of consular iterations is a process we see also in other late antique lists, and is described in detail by Burgess 2000, esp. 270ff.

150

of the names of the consular pairs. Of the 203 pairs of consuls common to Livy and

Cassiodorus, we find a different order of names from the way they appear in Livy just

seven times: 455, 428, 358, 320, 209, 182162 and 177,163 or 3.4% of the time.164 It is not

clear how or why these reversals occur, but it happens frequently in manuscripts and

inscriptions.

The second group of differences between Cassiodorus' and Livy's consular lists is

a disparate group comprising all the cases in which Cassiodorus includes material which

is not in Livy. This group of differences can be divided roughly into two categories:

names (praenomina, gentilicia and cognomina) which are not found in Livy at the record

of the elections but which are found elsewhere in Livy's text, and names which

Cassiodorus' source must have found outside of Livy. The whole group of differences

supports the idea that a careful epitomator compiled as good a consular list as possible,

attempting to find and include all three names wherever he could.

As I noted above,165 Cassiodorus' source tended to begin with the names as listed

in Livy's record of the elections. There are several occasions, however, where

Cassiodorus' source searched beyond the election record to find fuller names: 339, 319,

308, and 206.1 treat them individually in what follows.166 For the year 339, Livy records

162 The consuls of 182 are reversed in Cassiodorus, Obsequens and the papyrus, noted above as one of the errors which link the three documents.

163 Livy's epitomator followed Livy's record of elections, or the consuls' first appearance in his text, closely and to have written the names down in the order in which they appeared in Livy, regardless of who the consul prior was.

164 A comparison of the 23 pairs of consuls common to Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, shows just one reversal of names, in 143, or 4.3%. A comparison of the 63 consular pairs common to Cassiodorus and Obsequens, however, shows reversals of 4 pairs, in 154, 119, 75, and 54, or 6.3%. In the case of the consuls of 154, the praenomina are in the same order, but the cognomina are different: Cassiodorus has "L. Postumius et Q. Opimius," while Obsequens has "L. Opimio Quinto Posthumio."

165 P. 136. 166 I make the assumption that the Livian MSS are not corrupt at these points. This will clearly not always

be the case, since it is quite easy for a praenomen, for instance, to drop out of the textual tradition.

the consuls as "Ti. Aemilius Mamercinus, Publilius Philo" (8.12.4-5), while Cassiodorus

has "T. Aemilius et Q. Publilius," recording Publilius' praenomen where Livy does not.

The possibility is distinct that the praenomen has simply dropped out of Livy's text, but

Livy records Publilius' praenomen when he records his second consulship in 327 — "L.

Cornelio Lentulo, Q. Publilio Philone iterum (8.22.8) — so the epitomator could have

found the cognomen here and supplemented it in Publilius's first consulship.167 Livy's

names for the consuls of 319 are "Cursor Papirius...cum Q. Aulio Cerretano" (9.15.11).

Cassiodorus records Papirius' praenomen, Lucius: "L. Papirius et Q. Aulius." But Livy

supplies Papirius' praenomen at 8.29.9, 9.7.15, and 9.15.9 - easily accessible to the

epitomator. For 308 Livy records simply "Fabio...Decio" (9.41.1), while Cassiodorus

includes the praenomina "Q. Fabius et P. Decius." But Livy had no need to identify the

two consuls for that year any more carefully than he did because they had played major

roles in the years prior, Decius being consul in 312, and Fabius in 310. Fabius'

praenomen is given by Livy at 9.33.1, the record of the consular elections of 310. Decius'

name is actually given by Livy right before his election to the consulship for the second

time (9.40.21). In 206, Livy records the consuls elected as "L. Veturius Q. Caecilius"

(28.10.2), whereas Cassiodorus has "L. Veturius et Q. Caecilius Metellus." But several

paragraphs on in Livy from the record of the elections Caecilius' cognomen is found

(28.10.8). In the above four cases, assuming our text of Livy is accurate, the epitomator

did not find the full name as he would like it listed for the consular elections, but did find

Lacking evidence to the contrary, however, and relying on the sheer number of cases where Cassiodorus and Livy are different, I assume that what is preserved in the MSS of Livy is what the epitomator worked with.

167 This particular case could also be put rather with the cases of consular iterations above. A copyist, or Cassiodorus himself, noted the second consulship of the man, and supplemented his praenomen in the first.

152

it elsewhere in the text of Livy.

There are four years in which Cassiodorus has consular names or pairs of names

which are not in Livy: 430, 325, 207 and 315. In the year 430, Cassiodorus' text lists the

name "L. Iulius Iullus." The cognomen "Iullus" does not appear anywhere else for this

man, though it may well be correct.168 The presence of the name here, though, suggests

that the epitomator was using other information, or that the information was added to the

original list at some point.

In 325 Cassiodorus records the consuls as "L. Furius et D. Iunius," while Livy has

"L. Furio Camillo iterum Iunio Bruto Scaevae" (8.29.2). Livy nowhere records Brutus'

praenomen. Diodorus Siculus is the only other source to provide the praenomen. He gives

the full name as: AEKIOV Iouviov (18.2.1). Diodorus wrote too early to have used Livy

as a source. Either the epitomator, Cassiodorus or a copyist somewhere along the line

found and added the praenomen. But it is possible that the epitomator had access to

another consular list.

In 207 Cassiodorus records M. Livius' cognomen as "Salinator." The first time

that cognomen occurs in Livy is at 29.37.4, where Livy describes the origins of the name

"Salinator," which he places in the year 204, during Livius' censorship. The first consul in

Livy with that name is in 182. The addition is correct,169 since the censor of 204 is the

same man as the consul of 207, but according to Livy, he did not have that name when he

was consul. Someone, again, presumably the epitomator, knew that it was the same man,

and to make it clear who it was, he added the cognomen. The cognomen is not in

168 Broughton 1952 included it on the strength of its presence in Cassiodorus. There are certainly other Iulii Iulli attested. See RE ad loc.

169 See Broughton ad loc.

153

Cassiodorus for Livius' first consulship in 219, however, but it could have fallen out or

have been removed, or the epitomator did not realize it was the same man.

The most striking addition in Cassiodorus's fasti is the correct names of the

consuls for 315, "L. Papirius iun. et Q. Publilius," which Livy omits. Livy notes that the

new consuls came into office but does not name them (9.22.1), nor does he name them

anywhere else.170 The addition of the abbreviation "iun" to the name is anachronistic: the

use of the term "iunior" to imply "the younger" of two family members with the same

name or the second appearance of the same name in fasti does not come into the language

until late antiquity,171 and it occurs seven times in Cassiodorus' consular list, but not

before 474 CE. I believe it is an error, and the original reading was not "iun" but an

iteration, "IIII." Cuspinianus makes no mention of this, but his consuls read "L. Papyrius

IIII Q. Popilius II" because he followed Diodorus Siculus, whom he mentions at this

point.172 The supplement of the names of these consuls is almost certainly the work of the

careful epitomator, who, as we have seen, had access to another consular list and sought

out the names there when he noticed that they were lacking in Livy, but the term "iunior"

suggests an error made in late antiquity, when Livy's list was already old, and when the

term, being in common use, could have been mistakenly added.

The comparison of Cassiodorus' consuls with Livy's allows us see an epitomator

who was not satisfied merely with the names as given in Livy's record of elections. He

seems to have looked more carefully to find all three names (or more) where he could. He

supplemented his list of Livy's consuls in at least two places where his information was

170 Mommsen 1894, 126, incorrectly includes this reference to Livy, implying that the names are there. 171 CLRE 40-46 172 Cuspinianus, 180-181.

not as good as he would have liked: he found the praenomen of the consul of 325,

Decimus Brutus Scaeva somewhere else, and he gave the names of the consuls of 315,

Lucius Papirius et Quintus Publilius, though they were not in Livy. The evidence from

the iterations of consulships suggests that the epitomator included them as well, even

where Livy did not, but that they, too, fell away along with a gentilicium or a cognomen.

Some remain in place, but a copyist attempted to restore others, particularly those in the

early years of the republic.

Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and P. Oxyrhynchus 668

But we can say more about this particular epitome by comparing Cassiodorus' list

of consuls with the two surviving witnesses to the same, or similar, epitome: Julius

Obsequens' Liber Prodigiorum, a book of prodigies dated by consular year which covers

the years 190 to 11 BCE, and Oxyrhynchus papyrus 668, a fragmentary epitome of Livy

dated to the third century CE, which covers the years 190 to 179 BCE and 150 to 137

BCE.173 It was recognized by Mommsen and is universally agreed that Julius Obsequens

and Cassiodorus are closely related because of the striking similarities of language

between the two.174 The publication of the Oxyrhynchus epitome of Livy in 1904 made

up a trio of related texts.175 Reinhold, Kornemann, Sanders, Moore and Klotz all believed

that the three were related, but how they were so was a matter of some dispute.176

Reinhold, followed by Kornemann, believed that Eutropius, Obsequens,

173 For the texts of both Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 I use Rossbach 1910. 174 See Mommsen 1894, where he notes the parallels with Obsequens in his edition of Cassiodorus, pp.

129-135, and Schmidt 1968. 175 Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1904. 176 Reinhold, G. 1898; Kornemann, E. 1904; Sanders, H.A. 1905 and 1904; Moore, C.H. 1904; Klotz, A.

1913 and 1936.

155

Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus epitome all derived from an extensive chronicle which

was compiled from a lost epitome of Livy. Sanders rejected the notion that Eutropius

belonged to the group and contested the existence of a chronicle which was the common

source for them all. He posited a second epitome, derived from an initial epitome and

claimed that it was the source for the three. Klotz was the first to posit two separate

Inhaltsverzeichnisse of Livy, one rhetorical, a collection of exempla, and the other

chronological, fasti with added historical notices. From these were derived two largely

discrete traditions.

In 1968, Peter Schmidt argued carefully and forcefully, largely following Sanders

and Klotz, that the epitome, of which Oxyrhynchus 668 is a fragment, was the direct

source for both Cassiodorus and Obsequens.177 This epitome, he suggested, was compiled

directly from the full text of Livy and not from an intervening epitome. It could therefore

not be a part of the tradition of the lost epitome (and its descendants) whose users are

represented by Eutropius, Orosius, Jerome.178 My discussion below supports Schmidt's

conclusion that Cassiodorus' source was compiled directly from the full text of Livy and

not from another epitome. However, I think that his conclusion - that Oxyrhynchus 668 is

a fragment of that very epitome - must accept a few qualifications.

Schmidt argues, successfully on the whole, that the Oxyrhynchus epitome was the

source for both Cassiodorus and Obsequens. His most convincing argument for this is

that, in the years in which Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus epitome and Cassiodorus and

the Oxyrhynchus epitome overlap, all the historical notices in Cassiodorus and

177 Schmidt, P. L. 1968. Bessone 1982 has argued against him on the subject. 178 Although I will contest Schmidt's thesis that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome is the source for Cassiodorus

and Obsequens, I accept his arguments for an independent strand of epitomization, separate from that of Orosius, Eutropius, Festus and the rest.

156

Obsequens appear in the epitome.179 It is hard to be absolutely sure of this since the

papyrus has many gaps and requires frequent restoration, but it holds up fairly well.

While Cassiodorus' entries tend to reproduce those in the epitome word for word,

Obsequens varied his wording and on occasion adds material to his source. Schmidt

argues that where Obsequens diverges from his source in historical data180 (largely

geographical, prosopographical and chronological), he did so through reference to the full

text of Livy, from which he had drawn his portents and prodigies. Schmidt further notes

that Obsequens went about his work either haphazardly, or from memory alone, or both;

he was careful to check and correct some notices, but he did not correct all of them,181 and

he made some mistakes of his own which are at variance with the Oxyrhynchus

epitome.182

A comparison of the three works is not easy. The Oxyrhynchus papyrus is badly

mutilated in many places, and the restorations at times cannot reasonably form the basis

for good argument. Furthermore, the modern text of Obsequens is based on the editio

princeps, which was printed from a single manuscript that is now lost, and consular

names in particular, crucial in any comparison of works dated eponymously, frequently

require restoration.183 As well, Schmidt has argued well that in at least one place

Obsequens shows signs of having resorted to the full text of Livy to correct the

179 Schmidt 1969,187. 180 As he frequently does: e.g. Obs. 2, P. Oxy. 668 6ff, where Obsequens knows that the Lusitani are

from Spain; Obs.3, P. Oxy. 668.44ff., where he knows that the Gauls came over the Alps; Obs. 4, P. Oxy. 668. 63ff., where he knows that the Celtiberi specifically were subdued in Spain, and many other places.

181 E.g. Obs. 3, P. Oxy. 668.44ff., the compression of events of two years into one. 182 E.g. Obs. 2, P. Oxy. 668. 6ff., where Obsequens places a Roman victory in Spain a year late; Obs. 23,

P. Oxy. 668. 185ff, where the Oxyrhynchus epitome records Fabius Maximus as being defeated by Viriathus, but Obsequens says "Viriatho victo."

183 Obsequens was first printed in an Aldine collection in 1508.

information he found in the epitome.

We have Cassiodorus' source for the imperial period, Victorius, and we can see

that he copied Victorius' consuls almost verbatim with no, or only minor, changes. It

seems likely that he would follow the same pattern when using the Livian epitome, and

so I am inclined to believe that the Republican list of consuls preserved in Cassiodorus is

a very nearly exact copy of what he had in front of him. Yet, as I noted above, the

comparison of Cassiodorus' work with Livy's points to an epitome which passed through

several stages between its initial extraction from Livy's full text to its use by Cassiodorus:

changes, errors, and additions crept in over time which may be tracked. The fact that both

Obsequens' Liber Prodigiorum and Oxyrhynchus 668 show different changes from those

in Cassiodorus suggest that they are not all copied from the same source.

That said, we must be very careful of making confident assertions about lost

sources for consular lists. While it seems clear that in late antiquity there were at least

three strains for the Republican consuls - those represented by the Descriptio consulum,

by the Chronicle of 354, and by Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus

papyrus -1 believe there were likely many copies of these lists in circulation in antiquity,

but of varying reliability and completeness. As we will see below from a comparison of

Cassiodorus with Livy, Julius Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 668, while each

demonstrably descended from the same epitome of Livy, there are sufficient differences

in each to show that they came by separate paths.185 Epitomes, and particularly consular

lists, were not treated in the same way as literary documents. Copyists did not feel the

184 Obsequens' use of the Livian consularia [explain] is a good example of how these skeletal chronologies might provide a framework for the composition of a longer historical work.

185 See Burgess 2000, 265-266 where he lays out some sensible guidelines and cautions for assessing the relationships between different versions of the fasti.

same requirements of accuracy when reproducing a list: names were truncated, altered,

omitted or inserted, consular iterations were omitted, corrected or restored haphazardly.

In many ways, it seems the possession of the list was the important thing, not the quality

of the list. As I said in my introduction, this lack of concern for completeness among the

copyists was at least part of Cassiodorus' motivation in compiling a new list.

I will begin with a detailed comparison of Cassiodorus' consular list with those of

Obsequens and the papyrus. There are many similarities, both in the historical notes and

the consular fasti, which indisputably connect Cassiodorus, Obsequens and the

Oxyrhynchus papyrus, many of which will be demonstrated below and which a cursory

comparison of all three documents immediately reveals.186 There are three conjunctive

errors among them, which prove their connection. The first, the most commonly adduced

error, is the mistaken identification of Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene and son of Ptolemy

VIII, as the king of Egypt:

Cass. 471: Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. Obs. 49: Urbe lustrata Ptolemaeus, rex Aegypti, Cyrenis mortuus SPQ

Romanum heredem reliquit.

The second is the reversal of a pair of consuls from the order they are given in Livy:

Livy: Cn Baebium Tamphilum et L Aemilium Paullum (39.56.4) Cass: L Paulus et Cn Baebius Obs. L Aemilio Paulo Cn Baebio Tamphilo P. Oxy: LA N Berio187

The third is the praenomen of the second consul of 178, which in Livy is "A."(Aulus;

186 See the compared list of consuls from Cassiodorus, Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 which follows. 187 The reading in the papyrus "Berio" seems certain, but it is easy to see how "Baebio" might be

corrupted into "Berio."

40.59.4), but in Cassiodorus and Obsequens is "Cn." (Gnaeus).

These three works must be compared in detail to demonstrate clearly not only

how different several lists which are clearly dependent ultimately on the same source can

be, but also the ways in which changes can be made to the lists. The comparison will

further demonstrate that, in all likelihood, no one of these documents came from the

other, and further that even a common single source among them all is difficult to see.

There must have been dozens, if not more, different versions of the same Livian list in

circulation in late antiquity, each largely the same, but each showing differences which

will be demonstrated below. This comparison will further serve to explain why

Cassiodorus' Republican list shows some of the characteristics it does.

When I say that one or more documents "agree" in the case of a given consular

pair, I mean that the names are in the same order and that the gentilicia and the

cognomina agree. There are too many mistakes in the praenomina in the consular lists to

attach any weight to differences in them from one list to the next, so I have largely

ignored them, even in the cases where they are omitted altogether. Similarly, differences

in spelling are widespread, and I have passed over even variations such as Cassiodorus'

"Mamercus" in 166 for Obsequens' correct "Metellus" as possible copyist's errors and

have treated them as the same name. I have also left consular iterations out of

consideration because the only ones common to Cassiodorus and the other two authors

are those of Marius and Julius Caesar, and there is evidence, as I discussed above, to

suggest that these iterations were added later.189 Neither Obsequens nor the Oxyrhynchus

188 Rossbach corrected the "Cn" of the first printed edition of Obsequens to "A," but the reading should stand based on the same in Cassiodorus.

189 Pp. 138ff..

fragment have iterations. Instances of "possible agreement" are so designated where,

because of the poor state of the papyrus, or the text of Obsequens, it is impossible to be

sure. Even where the space available on the papyrus might permit or not permit a given

restoration, I have adopted a cautious approach and have refrained for the most part in

treating a restoration as certain.

"Disagreement" between pairs of consuls means that the two names are reversed,

or that at least one of the two names in the consular pair in question appears with a

gentilicium or cognomen which the other list does not have. These include instances

where both lists record the gentilicium but one has a cognomen in addition, as in 142,

where Cassiodorus has "L. Metellus et Q. Maximus," while Obsequens has "L. Metello

Q. Fabio Maximo," and also instances where one list records the gentilicium and the

other the cognomen, as in 138, where Cassiodorus has "P. Scipio et D. Brutus," while the

papyrus has "P. Scipione D. Iunio."

Cassiodorus, of course, has a full set of Republican consuls. Julius Obsequens

covers the period from 190 to 11 BCE, while the Oxyrhynchus fragment covers the period

from 189 to 137 BCE with a break of twenty-eight years from 178 to 151BCE. Neither

Obsequens nor the papyrus records all the years within their respective periods. The

following list includes all the comparable consular pairs for all three authors between 190

and 11 BCE with no restorations.

Cassiodorus Julius Obsequens P Oxy 668

190 L Scipio et C Laelius L Scipione C Laelio

189 M Fulvius et Cn Manlius ]cn manlio

188 M Messala et C Livius Salinator M Messala C Livio Julio calinatore

187 M Lepidus et C Flaminius Jaminio

186 Sp Postumius et Q Marcius

185 App Claudius et M Sempronius

184 P Claudius et L Porcius Licinius

183 M Claudius et Q Fabius Labeon

182 L Paulus et Cn Baebius

181 P Lentulus et M Baebius

180 A Postumius et C Calpurnius

179 Q Fulvius et L Manlius

178 M Iunius et Cn Manlius

177 T Sempronius et C Claudius

176 Cn Cornelius et Q Petillius

175 M Lepidus et Q Mucius

167 Q Aelius Paeto et M Iunius

166 M Mamercus et C Sulpicius

165 Cn Octavius et T Manlius

163 T Sempronius et M Iuventius

162 P Scipio Nasica et C Marcius

156 L Lentulus et C Marcius

154 L Postumius et Q Opimius

152 M Marcellus et L Valerius

149 L Marcius et M Manlius

148 Sp Postumius et L Piso

147 P Africanus et C Livius

146 Cn Cornelius et L Mummius

145 Q Fabius Maximus et L Hostilius

144 SerGalbaetLAurelius

143 App Claudius et Q Metellus

142 L Metellus et Q Maximus

141 Cn Caepio et Q Pompeius

140 Q Caepio et C Laelius

139 Cn Piso et M Popilius

M Claudio Q Fabio Labeone

L Aemilio Paulo Cn Baebio Tamphilo

Q Fulvio L Manlio

M Iunio Cn Manlio"0

C Claudio

Lucio Petellio"1

M Lepido Q Mucio

Q Aemylio Paeto M Iulio

M Marcello P Sulpicio

Cn Octavio T Manlio

T Graccho M Iuventio

P Scipione Nasi Gn Martio

L Lentulo C Marcio

L Opimio Quinto Posthumio

M Claudio Marcello L Valerio Flacco

Spurio Postumio L Pisone

P Africano C Laelio

Appio Claudio P Metello

L Metello Q Fabio Maximo

Gn Caepione C Laelio

sppostumo[

app oclaud o

p claudio pulchr cinio

m claudio marcello[

1 a nberio

p lentulo m paebio

a postumio c

q fulvio 1 manlio

1 marcio censorino m manilio

cn cornel[

q fabio max[

ser galba 1[

q metello [

]caepione q pompeio

.. ]pione laelio salasso

cn pisone c polli

190 Rossbach makes the correction of "A. Manlio for Gn. Manlio," which I do not accept. 191 In the first printed edition of Obsequens, the consuls of 177 and 176 appear as a pair: "C. Claudio Q.

Petellio."

162

138 P Scipio et D Brutus

137 M Aemilius et C Hostilius Mancinus

136 P Furius et Sex Atilius Serranus

135 Ser Fulvius et Q Calpurnius

134 P Africanus et C Fulvius Flaccus

130 App Claudius et M Perperna

126 M Aemilius et L Aurelius

125 M Plautius et M Fulvius

124 C Cassius Longinus et C Sextius

122 Cn Domitius et C Fannius

121 L Opimius et Q Maximus

119 LCaecilius etL Aurelius

118 M Cato et Q Marcius

117 L Caecilius et Q Mucius

114 M Acilius Balbus et C Cato

113 C Caecilius et C Papirius

111 P Scipio et L Calpurnius Bestia

108 Ser Galba et M Scaurus

106 Q Servilius et C Atilius Serranus

105 P Rutilius Rufus et C Manhus

104 C Marius II et C Fl Fimbria

102 C Marius IIII et Q Lutatius

100 C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus

99 M Antonius et A Postumius

98 Q Metellus et T Didius

97 Cn Lentulus et P Crassus

96 Cn Domitius et C Cassius

95 P Crassus et Q Scaevola

94 C Coelius et L Domitius

93 C Valerius Flaccus et M Herennius

92 C Claudius Pulcher et M Perpema

91 L Marcius et Sex Iulius

90 L Caesar etC Rutilius Lupus

88 L Sylla et Q Pompeius

M Aemilio C Hostilio Mancino

L Furio Atilio Sarrano

Ser Flacco Q Calpurmo

P Africano C Fulvio

Appio Claudio M Perperna

M Aemilio L Aurelio

P Plautio M Fulvio

C Cassio Longino C Sextilio

Cn Domitio C Fannio

L Opimio Q Fabio Maximo

L Aurelio et L Caecilio

M Catone Quintio Marcio

L Caecilio L Aurelio

M Acilio C Porcio

C Caecilio Cn Papirio

P Scipione L Calpurnio

Sergio Galba M Scauro

Q Servilio Caepione Atilio Sarrano

P Atilio et Cornelio Manilio

C Mario C Flacc

C Mario Q Lutatio

C Mario L Valerio

M Antonio A Postumio

Q Metello Tullio Didio

Cn Cornelio Lentulo P Licinio

Cn Domitio C Cassio

P Crasso Q Scaevola

C Laelio L Domitio

C Valerio M Herennio

C Claudio M Perpenna

L Marcio Sex Iulio

L Iulio Caesare P Rutilio

L Sylla Q Pompeio

p sc.pione d iunio

m aemilio c hostilio m.cino

83

77

76

75

63

60

54

50

46

45

44

L Scipio et C Norbanus

Mam Aemilius et D Brutus

Cn Octavius et C Curio

L Octavius et C Cotta

M Cicero et C Antonius

Q Metellus et L Afranius

App Claudius et L Domitius

L Paulus et M Marcellus

C lulius Caesar III et M Lepidus

C lulius Caesar MI et Fabius Maximus

C lulius Caesar V et M Antonius

L Scipione C Norbano

Marco Aemilio D Bruto

Cn Octavio C Scribonio

Lucio Aurelio L Octavio

M Cesone C Antonio

Quinto Metello L Afranio

Gneo Domitio Appio Claudio

L Paulo C Marcello

C Caesare M Lepido

C Caesare M Antonio

43 C Pansa et A Hirtius C Pansa Hirtio

42 M Lepidus et L Plancus M Lepido Munatio Planco

17 T Furnius et C Silanus C Furnio C Syllano

11 Paulus Fabius et Q Aelius Paulo Fabio Q Aelio

A quick glance through the three lists shows that, broadly speaking, the lists agree

more than they disagree, which we would expect. But what do the differences mixed in

with the similarities suggest? Both tell a part of the story of the Livian consularia. As we

saw above in the comparison of Cassiodorus' consular names with the surviving portions

of Livy the original epitome was probably a much fuller work than what Cassiodorus

had, with the full names of all the consuls recorded where it was possible. The names,

however, had evidently been shortened by copyists who omitted either gentilicium or

cognomen and probably most of the iterations. The comparison of the differences among

the descendants of the Livian consularia tell the same story: different copyists included

and omitted different pieces of the consular names.

Of the seven years in which all three lists record consuls, only two have the same

164

names (179 and 137), and five have at least one disagreement among them (188, 183,

182, 143 and 140).192 The consuls of 182 BCE are noteworthy. The names recorded by

Cassiodorus are "L. Paulus et Gn. Baebius," by Obsequens "L. Aemilio Paulo Gn. Baebio

Tamphilo," and by the Oxyrhynchus epitome, "L. A[emilio C]n. Baebio [coss.]" The fact

that both Cassiodorus and Obsequens give L. Aemilius Paulus' cognomen indicates that it

appeared in the original epitome, but it does not appear in the papyrus.

Of the twenty-two consular pairs which can be compared in Cassiodorus and the

papyrus, five are certainly the same (181, 179, 141, 139 and 137), ten possibly agree

(189, 188, 187, 186, 185, 180, 148, 146, 145 and 144), and seven show differences in at

least one of the two names in each pair (184, 183, 182, 149, 143, 140 and 138).

Of the sixty-nine consular pairs which can be compared in Cassiodorus and

Obsequens, forty-one pairs are the same (190, 183, 179, 178, 175, 167, 166, 165, 162,

156, 148, 147, 143, 140, 137, 136, 130, 126, 125, 124, 122, 118, 113, 108, 106, 102, 99,

96, 95, 94,193 91, 88, 83, 77, 63, 60, 50, 43, 17 and 11). There are three pairs which are

conflated in the text of Obsequens and which may not have been so in the original work,

but we cannot tell (177, 176, 117). Cassiodorus records at least one name differently from

Obsequens in twenty-six years (188, 182, 163, 154, 152, 142, 135, 134, 121, 119, 117,

114, 111, 105, 104, 100, 98, 97, 93, 92, 90, 76, 75, 54, 46, 44 and 42).

Of the differences between Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus fragment (184, 183,

182, 149, 143, 140 and 138), the fragment has a cognomen that Cassiodorus does not

192 These five pairs are also included in the comparisons below of Cassiodorus with the papyrus and Cassiodorus with Obsequens.

193 In this year Cassiodorus has "C. Coelius et L. Domitius," while Obsequens has "C. Laelio L. Domitio. " The correct names for the year are "C. Coelius Caldus and L. Domitius Ahenobarbus." The name in Obsequens has been corrupted.

165

have in 184, 183, 149 and 140. In 182 and 139, Cassiodorus records the cognomen, while

the papyrus records the gentilicium, and in 143 the names are evidently reversed. The fact

that the papyrus has been dated through handwriting to the end of the third century or

beginning of the fourth, 200 years before Cassiodorus produced his Chronica, is no

guarantee, of course, that it went through fewer copyings and therefore fewer alterations

than the copy used by Cassiodorus did, but the fact that the papyrus has more instances of

the full name than does Cassiodorus makes it likely.

Of the twenty-six years where Cassiodorus disagrees with Julius Obsequens (188,

182, 163, 154, 152, 142, 135, 134, 121, 119, 117, 114, 111, 105, 104, 100, 98, 97, 93, 92,

90, 76, 75, 54, 46, 44 and 42), three are simple reversals of names (154, 119 and 54). In

twelve cases, Cassiodorus has a gentilicium or a cognomen that Obsequens does not have

(188, 134, 114, 105,194104, 100, 93, 92, 90, 46 and 44). In eight cases Obsequens has a

gentilicium or cognomen that Cassiodorus does not (182 both names, 152 both names,

142, 121, 106, 97, 90 and 42). In six cases, one records the cognomen and the other the

gentilicium (163, 135, 114, 97, 76 and 75). Obsequens has more corruptions of names

(105, 98, 94, 77) than does Cassiodorus for the same period, and more mistakes and

conflations of consular pairs (177, 176, 117), but since the first printed edition is the only

witness to the lost, singular manuscript of Obsequens, it is difficult to assess these

divergences. But these mistakes, and the fact that Cassiodorus has fuller names in twelve

cases and Obsequens in eight at least suggests that the version of the fasti that

Cassiodorus used had been less altered and shortened than Obsequens'.

194 For 105 Cassiodorus records "P. Rutilius Rufus et C Manlius," while Obsequens has "P. Atilio Cornelio Manilio." Obsequens' "P. Atilio" is a corruption of Cassiodorus' correct "P. Rutilius."

But along with all the differences, what are we to make of the similarities,

particularly where they can be identified securely, as they can between Cassiodorus and

Obsequens? It is possible that they go all the way back to the original epitome, but in

every case but four names where we can compare Livy's record of the consular elections

(190, 189, 187, 173) Livy records all three names, and we have seen that it was likely the

epitomator's method to record all three. It is more likely, then, that all three lists which

descend from the Livian consularia come from an intermediate version in which the

process of stripping away either the gentilicium or the cognomen along with the consular

iterations, had already begun. Copies were made of this intermediate version which

retained some names and eliminated others according to the whim of the copyists. These

copies of the intermediate version also included the historical notices which occur in all

three representatives. It is then these copies which our representatives used, though it is

possible that the papyrus is a copy of the intermediate version which I have posited. But

it is possible that such speculation cuts the evidence too thin.

The transmission of the consular lists cannot be treated with the tools of the

textual critic, who relies on the intent of the copyist to make an accurate copy of his

original. The consular lists suffered changes and abbreviation because what mattered only

was that list preserved an accurate number of years (i.e. consular pairs) and an accurate

list of names, but not that the entire name was preserved. The focus of our particular

epitomator was in all likelihood not Livy's historical detail so much as his consular list.

As the list was copied and re-copied, variations and changes were introduced which

produced a web of Livian recensions to which the three existing lists belong. We can say

167

with certainty that Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and the author of P. Oxy. 668 used very

similar lists when creating their own, but that is all. A correct stemma would look like

number 1 below, rather than number 2.

1. Livy 2. Livy

Epitome Epitome

Rec 1 Rec 2 Rec 3 Cassiodorus Obsequens R Oxy. 668

Rec la Rec 2a Rec 3a

Cassiodorus Obsequens R Oxy. 668

Aufidius Bassus

As Cassiodorus says in his supputatio, he used Aufidius Bassus after Livy and

before Victorius. Unfortunately we know very little about Aufidius: we do not know

when he began his histories, and we do not know where they ended.195 Some have used

Cassiodorus' work as an indication of where he might have ended, but as we will see,

there is no reason to believe that Cassiodorus recorded all of Bassus' consuls to the end of

Bassus' history. The earliest subject we know he treated was the death of Cicero,196 but

195 The best discussion of Aufidius Bassus remains Syme's 1958, vol 2, 697-700. 196 Seneca the Elder, Suas. 6.18ff. See Peter, HRRII. 110-112.

168

Syme and others express doubts that this was part of his history. However that may be,

the death of Cicero must be the starting point for those who are trying to find Aufidius

Bassus in the pages of Cassiodorus. There can be little doubt where Cassiodorus stopped

using him. Upon Cassiodorus' adoption of Victorius in the eighteenth year of Tiberius'

reign, the form of the consular names changes from the "praenomen + gentilicium" or

"praenomen + cognomen" to the simple cognomen. All the historical notes after that

point come from Jerome alone (with a few additions from Eutropius) until 378 CE.

There is, however, no noticeable change at all from the material that is certainly

Livian, before the death of Cicero, and that which is certainly from Bassus, after 9 BCE,

where Livy finished. The consular names are recorded in the same manner; the historical

notes are delivered in the same, crisp, paratactic style as the Livian notes. The uniformity

of the treatment of the extracts from Livy and from Aufidius suggest that the same person

had done the work, and that the epitome which Cassiodorus copied his consuls from

contained both authors.

In fact, some of the same issues crop up with the consular list from Bassus as was

seen above with the Livian consuls. In 31 CE Tiberius held his fifth consulship with

Sejanus and it is marked as his fifth in Cassiodorus (though without Sejanus, who

suffered damnatio memoriae and so his name was removed from the fasti): "Ti. Caesar V

conss." None of Tiberius' previous four consulships gets an iteration. In the first, 13 BCE,

he is identified in Cassiodorus merely as T. Nero, rather than by his full name, Tiberius

Claudius Nero. The gentilicium "Claudius" has been dropped. In his second consulship in

7 BCE, beyond the range of Livy's histories and so certainly from Bassus' list, he is again

identified as "T. Nero." Here we see the name treated in the same way, despite the

passage from one author, Livy, to the next, Bassus. His three remaining consulships, all

held after his formal adoption by Augustus in 4 BCE and after he became emperor, in 18,

21, and 31 CE, all identify him as "Ti. Caesar." Only the last has an iteration, however.

Again we see one of the two names dropped along with the iteration, but one iteration

being retained, possibly because he was the only consul of record for the year. It is not

conceivable that a copyist could have recognized that the Nero of twenty-five years

before was the same as the emperor of 18 CE.

The iterations attached to Augustus' consulships, however, are late additions,

again either to the Chronicle itself or to Cassiodorus' source. I am treating these iterations

here rather than above with those from the Livian portion because they cross the divide

between Livy and Bassus and suggest that Cassiodorus used a single epitome which

included both authors. In all later official lists, and surely in Aufidius Bassus' work itself,

Octavian's suffect consulship in 43 is treated as his first consulship (as indeed it was), his

consulship in 33 is then his second, and so on. This is the numbering that we see in the

fasti of the Chronograph of 354 and the Descriptio consilium, even though neither text

preserves a record of Augustus' first suffect consulship. In Cassiodorus, however, the

consulship of 33 is numbered "I" and the numbering continues to Augustus' eleventh and

twelfth (really his twelfth and thirteenth) in 5 and 2 BCE respectively. What is more, the

consulship of Gaius Caesar in 1 CE is mistakenly attributed to Augustus as his thirteenth

consulship. Again, given that Cassiodorus tends to copy his source without changes, it

seems likely that these numbers are what he found in his source. If that is so, the epitome

which he had was a single work which included both Livy and Aufidius Bassus.

I have treated the missing consulship of the two Gemini as a textual issue

above.197 Clearly, though, Cassiodorus did not use the consularia he had to their end, or at

least, if he did, it is a remarkable coincidence that it ended exactly where Victorius' list

picks up. Mommsen's suggestion that Bassus' work ended with the fall of Sejanus is

unsupportable. Cassiodorus had begun using Jerome again when he mentioned Julius

Caesar as the first emperor. He also takes Jerome's words for the accession of

Augustus,198 the birth of Jesus,199 the death of Augustus and the succession of Tiberius,200

and the crucifixion of Jesus.201 But the remaining historical notes, between the end of

Livy in 9 BCE and the beginning of Victorius in 28 CE must be from Aufidius Bassus since

they do not derive from Jerome or witnesses to Livy. However, after he switches to

Victorius for his consuls, he drops Aufidius and switches completely to Jerome for

historical notes, though it is not clear why. It would certainly be more difficult to place

historical notes from Jerome into Victorius' framework.

Let me sum up, then, the sections on the Livian epitome and Aufidius Bassus.

Cassiodorus used an epitome of Livy which was extended with an epitome of Aufidius

Bassus. This epitome perhaps began with Livy's consuls of 509 BCE and extended

certainly to 28 CE, but likely further. It included sparse historical notes. The same person

epitomized both works and seems to have been careful to include all three names of each

consul, sometimes even looking outside the pages of Livy for more information. Over the

197 See above, pp. 123ff.. 198 Helm 156a. 199 Helm 169c. 200 Helm 171d,e. 201 Helm 174d.

years, the epitomized Livy was further shortened by copyists and the consular names

were reduced as was the growing trend both privately and officially. P. Oxy. 668 and the

documents used by Julius Obsequens and Cassiodorus are examples of these epitomized

epitomes. It seems likely that Cassiodorus, who managed his sources conservatively and

points to their authority rather than his own, did not himself alter the names that he found

in the epitome he used.

Victorius of Aquitaine

Having taken the bulk of his Republican consuls and a few imperial ones from

Livy and Aufidius Bassus whose authority, even in epitome, was (as he thought)

unassailable, Cassiodorus turned to the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine to

complete his fasti down to his own day.202 Victorius' list was a relatively new product in

the early sixth century, produced in 457 and so just over sixty years old in 519, but it was

very well known.

Cassiodorus is at pains to assure his reader that his consular list comes from an

impeccable source: he says that it came "ex...paschali virorum clarorum auctoritate

firmato'V'from an Easter cycle, made trustworthy by the authority of famous men," but

202 It has long been recognized that Victorius was the source for the consuls from the crucifixion at least as far as 457, see Mommsen 113. In what follows I have used Krusch's 1938 text of Victorius for consular names to 457. For consular names from 458 to 519 I refer to the three manuscripts of Victorius which contain consular names: Gotha 75 fol. 70ff (G), Leiden Seal. 28 (L) and Bodley 309 (S). This last was thought by Krusch and Mommsen to have been lost, and they reconstructed its readings from the print editions of Petavius (1627) and Bucherius (1634). However, the real readings of S are very different from those of Petavius and Bucherius (who seem to have corrected them with reference to Cassiodorus), and so are also very different from those of Krusch, Mommsen and, unfortunately, of the CLRE. The readings presented here are from the manuscript itself. New editions of the consular lists of all three manuscripts from 458 to 559 are necessary.

he does not give the name of the author. However, a comparison of Victorius' consuls

with Cassiodorus' demonstrates immediately that the latter is dependent on the former,

though it has perhaps been corrected in places. More on this later. First, we must address

the question of why Cassiodorus did not name the author of the consular list which he

used.

The history of Victorius' Easter tables in Italy is reasonably well attested.203 In the

years leading up to the Easter of 455 Rome and the eastern churches had been at odds

over the date of Easter. After long opposition Pope Leo eventually gave way and

celebrated Easter with the eastern churches, believing that universal harmony was more

important the actual correctness (or otherwise) of the date. But in 456 we find his arch­

deacon Hilary, later pope, engaging Victorius of Aquitaine to draw up a new authoritative

calculation for the date of Easter and to investigate the causes of the dispute.204 Victorius

responded in 457 with a 532-year cycle (twenty-eight cycles of nineteen years each)205

which he calculated backwards from 457 to the consulship of the two Gemini and the

traditional date of the crucifixion (which should have been 29 but was actually assigned

to the Easter of 28 since his consular list was one year too long), and he extended it 102

years into the future (to 559). His calendar took the form of six columns: the 'year from

the crucifixion', counting 29 (or rather 28) as year one; a consular list from 29 to 457 CE;

the ferial, i.e. the day of the week on which the kalends of January fell; the epact, the age

203 The essential bibliography to the following discussion is Krusch 1884 and 1938 and Jones 1934. 204 Epistula Hilari ad Victorium; references to Victorius' work are to Krusch's 1938 edition. 205 The Metonic cycle—the period when a particular phase of the moon will reappear on the same day of

the year—is nineteen years long. In order to calculate the date of Easter for any given year (since on account of its origins with Passover Easter is calculated according to a lunar calendar) one then multiplies nineteen by seven, which accounts for the different days of the week, and then by four, which accounts for the four years of the intercalary cycle of leap years: 1 9 x 7 x 4 = 532.

of the moon on the kalends of January; the date of Easter; and the epact for Easter. A

seventh column contained alternate dates for celebrating Easter, each labelled "Graeci,"

"Latini" or "Romani" depending on which calendar or calculation they were derived

from.206 Victorius' cycle was thus in many ways useless, since it did not serve to establish

the authoritative method of calculation that was required (indeed, given the fundamental

disagreements involved in the calculation between East and West, it could not have) and

only served to mark when controversy was likely to arise. It is well outside the scope of

this work to discuss Victor's method of calculating the date of Easter or indeed to discuss

the modern controversies arising from his methods of calculation.207 Suffice it to say that,

as Jones has stated, Victorius' Easter calendar was not used as an authoritative document,

but rather was a reference tool for the western church designed to give them some

leverage in dealing with the more astronomically inclined Alexandrians. As such,

Victorius' calendar did not solve any problems, but neither did it give rise to any which

did not already exist.

Cassiodorus does not mention Victorius by name, which is strange considering his

desire to use authoritative sources for his consular list. His reference to famous men,

however, suggests that he knew who the author was, and possibly that his readers would,

also.208 Both Krusch and Mommsen addressed the issue of who the "clari viri" are to

whom Cassiodorus referred. Krusch appears to have favoured the view that the list was

206 "Latini" refers to the western church, "Romani" to the city of Rome, which had its own rules about when Easter should fall. These were originally mistaken for marginal, historical notes, written after the fact. They were, however, original with the document and presumably were included to give warning over potential controversy. Where such notations occur, Victorius appears to have favoured the first date, in the fifth column.

207 The best discussion of the history and calculation of Easter is in Jones 1943. 208 None of the surviving manuscripts of Victorius is without the two introductory letters of Hilary and

Victorius.

accepted by the church formally, and that the "famous men" referred to the decision of

the Roman church, though he altered his opinion slightly later.210 Mommsen suggested

that the "clari viri" referred to are Hilary and Victorius, and added further that the tables

were used in Italy "communi consensu," rather than due to any official decision.211 The

point is, however, irrelevant to the present discussion.

But there is evidence that Victorius' Easter cycle was bound up in the Laurentian

schism at the beginning of the sixth century, and Cassiodorus' reticence to name his

source may find its roots there. This schism came to a head with the election of two popes

after the death of Pope Anastasius in 498 and was not resolved until the death of Pope

Symmachus in 514. As Moorhead and others have suggested, the schism centred around

differing opinions among the bishops of Italy as to the conciliatory approach that Pope

Anastasius had taken with his counterparts in Constantinople and Alexandria with regard

to the Acacian controversy.212 The followers of Laurentius supported Anastasius'

approach, while those of Symmachus favoured a more aggressive stance which asserted

the authority of the Roman see. In the spring of 501 Pope Symmachus came under fire

for celebrating Easter "non cum universitate. "213 Krusch argues convincingly that what is

meant here is that Symmachus celebrated Easter according to the old Roman Easter

calendar, which was based on an eighty-four year lunar cycle (not a 532-year cycle) and

209 Krusch 1884, 103: "durch die Autoritat beriihmter Manner bestatigt, also sicher von der Kirche recipiert...."

210 Krusch 1937, 5. 211 Chron.Min.2. 113. 212 The Acacian controversy was a temporary schism (482-519) between the eastern and western

churches which began when the Pope refused to agree to the emperor Zeno's Henotikon, a document designed to reconcile the differences of the Monophysite controversy. See Moorhead 1992, 134-135.

213 Fragmentum Laurentianum, 44.

survives in fragmented form, and which dated the Easter of 501 to 25 March.2 The

reckonings both of Victorius and the eastern church gave a date of 22 April, on which

date Symmachus' rival Laurentius and his followers, possibly most of the churches in

Rome, celebrated Easter. The matter, along with several other charges, was serious

enough that Symmachus was summoned to Ravenna to explain himself to Theoderic, but

Symmachus returned to Rome before he had seen the king and closed himself up in St.

Peter's.213 A council called by Theoderic and held at the church of Santa Croce in

Ierusalem in Rome on 1 September 501, not far from the Lateran basilica, ultimately

refused to pass judgment on Symmachus and in doing so restored him to his position.216

However, much of the Roman church remained in a state of schism with Symmachus

until his death in 514.217 During this time, a pro-Symmachan partisan wrote a pamphlet

under the name of Pope Silvester (314-335), now generally entitled the Constitutum

Sylvestri}1* In it one "Victorinus," the author of an Easter calendar, who has been

convincingly identified as Victorius, is criticized and anathematized in the mouth of the

emperor Constantine.219 Another letter purported to be from Pope Sylvester to the council

214 Krusch (1884) 104-106. 215 Fragmentum Laurentianum, 44. 216 MGH AA 12.426-432. The records of this council and others held under the Ostrogothic kings were

edited by Mommsen at the end of his MGH volume of Cassiodorus' Variae. 217 Moorhead (1992) 125-126. 218 PL 8.829-840; Maassen, 537-39; 557-59. 219 Duchesne, L. Le Liber Pontificalis, 1886-1892; Krusch 1884, 105-106. Sc. Victorinus "qui in sua

ferocitate, quidquid vellet, affirmabat hominibus, et cyclos paschae pronuntiabat fallaces, ut hoc quod constituit decimo kalendas Maii custodiri, vestro sermone, sicut Veritas habet, cassetur, et vestro indicio condemnetur, et filiorum nostrorum Augustorum praecurrat auctoritas ad condemnandum Victorinum episcopum. Damnavit autem ... et Victorinum episcopum, qui ignorans lunae rationem, sub arbitrio sui tenacitate derumpebat veritatem, et praesentiae episcoporum supra dictorum et presbyterorum damnabit Hyppolytum, Victorinum, Calixtum, et dedit eis anathema, et damnavit eos extra urbes suas"/"...who in his madness affirmed for men whatever he wished and pronounced false Easter cycles, such as this, which he decided was to be kept on the tenth day before the kalends of May, let him be brought to nothing by your speech, just as truth has it, and let him be condemned by your judgement and let the authority of my sons the Augusti race to condemn the bishop Victorinus. And he condemned also Victorinus the bishop who, without knowledge of the movement of the moon,

176

of Nicaea, but identified by Duchesne as the same as the author of the Constitutum

Sylvestri, makes a similar assault on a "Victorinus."220 Victorius' list is thus associated by

name with a schism in the Roman church which would have been fresh in everyone's

memory in 519, particularly since Cassiodorus mentions it explicitly in the year of his

own consulship, 514, as a disagreement which troubled both the clergy and the people of

the city: "Me etiam consule in vestorum laude temporum adunato clero vel populo

Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia'VAlso, while I was consul, in the praise of

your times the hoped-for peace returned to the Roman church with the clergy and, in fact,

the people united."

The senatorial families of Rome appear to have become embroiled and to have

taken sides in the schism. The Fragmentum Laurentianum and the Liber Pontificalis both

identify the patrician and ex-consul Rufius Postumius Festus, who had been consul in 472

and was caput senatus, as a supporter of Laurentius. The Liber Pontificalis adds the

consul of 489, Petronius Probinus, son of the consul of 481 and father of the consul of

504. Symmachus was supported by Anicius Probus Faustus niger, consul for 490, son of

the consul of 450 and father of the consuls of 502 and 506.221 Moorhead attempts to

determine where other senators stood in the conflict, but confesses that it is impossible to

demolished the truth under the will of his own willfulness and in the presence of the aforementioned bishops and presbyters he will condemn Hippolytus, Victorinus, Callixtus and he anathematized them and exiled them from their cities" (833).

220 PL 8.823: "Atque in gremio vestrae synodi parva propter disciplinam ecclesiae alligabo praecepta propter Victorinum, qui arbitrio suo quidquid vellet affirmabat et cyclos paschae pronunciat fallaces, et cum episcopis totius urbis Italiae examinatam universitas vestri sancti consilii dignetur accipere veritatem'V'And in the heart of your synod I will add a few suggestions for the sake of obedience because of Victorius, who of his own will affirmed whatever he wished and he pronounces false Easter cycles and with the bishops of every city of Italy let the whole of your sacred council be considered worthy to accept the examined truth " (1823).

221 Lib.pont. 260.10, 13, 19f., 261.7 f.. See Moorhead (1992) 130-131.

determine where Cassiodorus' own opinions lay. Still, Cassiodorus' failure to mention

Victorius by name need not suggest that his feelings lay with Symmachus and his

partisans, who had taken issue with his Easter calendar. As we will see later, Cassiodorus

in his Chronica is at pains not so much to push forward the claims or views of a

particular group as to avoid ruffling anyone's feathers. In order to get around the

possibility that a reader would reject his work list out of hand merely because of the

sources he used, Cassiodorus determined to name no source, but instead to assure his

readers that the consular list was an authoritative one and leave it at that. Whereas the

name Livy had given his Republican list the stamp of historical accuracy, in this case

vagueness accomplished the same thing.223

It is also probable that Cassiodorus did not name the authors of his consular list

because he did not know them. Cassiodorus' list extended to 519, and, as I will argue

below, he almost certainly drew his consuls from 458 to ca. 519 from a continuation of

Victorius' list. It is not unreasonable to imagine a list which was housed in Cassiodorus'

own family library and which was begun by his grandfather and kept up by his father and

then by himself. Lacking a personal copy, he could easily have acquired one from a

bookseller.

If Cassiodorus had not inherited a copy of Victorius' Easter calendar, there are

many other reasons why such a list could land in his hands. The list had a fairly wide

distribution in Italy and western Europe and was certainly a popular document in Italy

before the work of Dionysius Exiguus in 525. Victor of Capua was critical of it in 550,

222 Moorhead (1992) 131-133. 223 Perhaps he is also referring to the authority of Prosper of Aquitaine, since Victorius says in his preface

that he used Prosper's consular list.

which suggests that it was still regarded by some as authoritative very late. The Roman

senatorial class was deeply interested in the affairs of the Roman see and its relationship

with the eastern churches. Since the final, official, setting of the date of Easter was done

on a yearly basis, each year could potentially be a "problem year" with the added

possibility of disagreement and resulting schism. Victorius' list, in addition to proposing

its own dates for Easter, noted in its sixth column alternate dates for "Graeci," "Latini"

and "Romani" so that anyone using the list would know in advance when there might be

a disagreement about the date for the festival. In addition to these general matters which

will have been on everyone's mind, Cassiodorus, who may have been in Rome for some

or all of the time between the end of his quaestorship in 511 and the beginning of his

tenure as magister militum in 523, had made the acquaintance of Dionysius Exiguus,

either in the capacity of pupil or friend.225 By 519 Dionysius must have been interested in

the calculation of the date of Easter. Cassiodorus also displayed interest, albeit later in

life, in chronographic calculation, writing his own computuspaschalis in 562.226 The

calculus uses the reckoning of Dionysius Exiguus as one might expect, since by this time

in Italy at least, the usefulness of Victorius' tables had been discredited.227 The tenor of

the times, Cassiodorus' academic acquaintances and his own predilections all point to the

likelihood that he would have acquired Victorius' tables.

224 Victor of Capua, quoted in Bede, de ratione temporum, 50. For all of the fragments of Victor's work, see PL 68 1097-1098.

225 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.2, where he speaks of Dionysius, "qui mecum dialecticam legit." See O'Donnell, 24-25, 42.

226 For more detailed discussion of the computus paschalis see P. Lehmann 1959 vol. 2, 49-54 including critical edition, and O'Donnell, 217.

227 The last we hear of Victorius' tables in Italy is an entry in the Excerpta Sangallensia for 567 which indicates that Victorius was wrong: "in caelo luna XVI non comparuit II kl. Ian.." Victorius' tables have "lunaXVir for the kalends of January 568. This is also the only indication from Italy that Victorius' 532-year cycle was being used from the beginning again.

When it came to using Victorius' work for his Chronica, however, Cassiodorus

had no use for the Easter tables. And he was not alone in putting the tables to other uses.

There are three other examples of Victor's calendar being used for its consular dates as

much as for its Easter list. The so-called Paschale Campanum is, in part, a copy of

Victorius' list from 464-560 with historical notes added, originally copied around 512.228

It lists the consuls regularly only until 543 (skipping all the post consulates of Basilius

down to the twenty-fifth in 566), but the Easter list until 560. From there on it is

continued haphazardly and in various hands to 613, where the text breaks off. After 512

there is only one historical entry (relating a triumph of Tiberius in 576) and the earlier

ones are thought to have been taken from one of the lost Italian consular lists.229 The

second example is from the manuscripts of Cassiodorus' Chronica itself. Though the

original work ended in 519, it has a continuation to 559, also taken from Victorius' Easter

tables as the final date suggests.230 This continuation of Cassiodorus' work with the same

source which gave him most of his imperial consuls is unlikely to have been a

coincidence. It suggests at the very least the proximity of Victorius' list with Cassiodorus'

Chronica in a library, perhaps the one left behind by him in Rome, perhaps the one he

had at Cassiciacum. At some point his Chronica was brought up to date by means of a

copy Victor's list which had been kept up in the forty years that had passed since the

228 Edited by Mommsen in Chron. Min I, 744-750 (the full text) and 305-334 (the historical entries only). It survives in a single seventh century manuscript (Vat. Reg. 2077, f.96-98) which also includes a full text of Prosper's Chronicle.

229 Mommsen edited the historical entries from the Paschale Campanum alongside of the other Italian consular lists which are thought to be related to one another.

230 This continuation, like Q, is edited as X in Mommsen's edition of Victorius, cited above, though the consular lists have nothing to do with one another, since Victorius' Easter table allowed for the addition of consuls after 457 by whoever owned the copy.

completion of the Chronica. The third example of Victorius' consular list being used

apart from his Easter table is the consular list designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch and

edited along with Victorius on the belief that it came from Victorius' list. As I

demonstrate in Appendix 1, however, the early part of Q is a consular list unrelated to

Victorius, but someone copied the later consuls from a continuation of Victorius which

went up to the year 558.

A rapid comparison of the lists of Victorius and Cassiodorus shows the latter's

dependence on the former: the list is very like Prosper's, which was the source for

Victorius' list, and clearly comes from the strain outlined by Burgess which includes the

Fasti VindobonensesP1 A few variants and errors common to both Cassiodorus and

Victorius, but not to the other two lists, Prosper's and the Fasti Vindobonenses, establish

that Victorius is the source. Mommsen notes the consistent spelling of the name "Gabrio"

in both Cassiodorus and Victorius in the years 91, 124, 150, 186 and 256, whereas

Prosper always has (correctly) "Glabrio;" the omission by Cassiodorus and Victorius of

the consuls of 130; their common identification of one of the consuls of 358 as "Titianus"

rather than the correct "Datianus," which is what Prosper reads; and the consuls of 222,

which Victorius and Cassiodorus list as "Alexandra et Augusto" and "Alexander et

Augustus" respectively, whereas Prosper includes only "Alexandre "233 Also to be

231 This could also explain the full list of Cassiodorus' title at the beginning of the work, which Mommsen explained as being due to the transmission of the Chronica with the Variae early on. Whoever made the new copy of the work, taking it up to 559, might well also have added the full name and title of the author. It may have been completed by Cassiodorus himself, though Mommsen thought this unlikely.

232 Burgess 2000. 233 Mommsen includes these in a longer list of examples from his editions of 1861 and 1894 which show

that Cassiodorus used Victorius and not Prosper. However, some of his examples are incorrect, and, as we will see below, there remains a possibility that Cassiodorus or the version of Victorius that he used, had been corrected in places with direct reference to Prosper.

included are the consuls of 410, where the manuscripts of Prosper read "Varane vc cons.'

For this year, Victorius and Cassiodorus all have the western consul as well, Tertullus,

though with a sign that they were added after the entry had been copied from Prosper.

Manuscript G of Victorius reads "Varane vc et Tertullo" and L reads "Varione et Tertulo

vc." The presence of the abbreviation "vc," which tends to be used only when there is a

single consul for the years, suggests that Victorius copied Prosper's entry and then added

Tertullus' name after.234

A more detailed comparison of Cassiodorus with Victorius is necessary to

determine whether Cassiodorus changed or updated Victorius' list in any way, but such a

comparison requires some preliminary discussion of the comparanda: Prosper and the

different manuscripts of Victorius. It is not enough merely to compare Cassiodorus' work

with the published editions of either Prosper or Victorius because already by 519 when

Cassiodorus wrote his Chronica there were many different versions of both Prosper and

Victorius in circulation, with different readings and spellings of names. Often what look

like differences between Cassiodorus and Victorius must be dealt with by looking at all

the relevant readings of the manuscripts of both Victorius and Prosper. There is no one

surviving manuscript which is clearly the version which Cassiodorus used.

Of the eleven manuscripts of Victorius used by Krusch in his 1938 edition, only

four include the consular list or a part of it. G, L and S include the complete list of

consuls from 29 to 457, as well as extensions of the consular list, with G going down to

542, L to 522 and S to 559, the end of Victorius' calendar. Manuscript A has the consuls

234 Tertullus' name appears only in Hydatius and in a single inscription. See CLRE ad loc.

only from 29 as far as 182 with a significant gap from 151 to 171. The extensions of

the list beyond 457, which were probably produced by private individuals or booksellers

who kept up the lists from year to year as they learned the names of the consuls, can be

used to date within a decade when the individual manuscript strands certainly have

departed from one another. Common mistakes in L and S in the pre-457 part show clearly

that they are related, but all three manuscripts, G, S and L, diverged from one another at

least by the late 470's, and probably earlier. Therefore we must consider the readings of

all the manuscripts in the Victurian part of these lists, particularly of G and S, when

making comparisons with Cassiodorus, since we do not know exactly what reading he

had in his own copy.

We will also need to consider Cassiodorus' and Victorius' relationship to Prosper

of Aquitaine's consular list. To that end, a short digression on Victorius and Prosper is

necessary here. Victorius took his consular list from Prosper, whose chronicle he

mentions in his prologue.236 But Prosper's consular list varies among the different

versions which he produced, particularly near the end where he was able to include some

eastern consuls in 455 which he had missed 10 years earlier.237 Victorius tells us which

235 The manuscript designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch is only a consular list without an Easter calendar. It is attached to the end of a copy of Jerome's chronicle in Par. Lat. 4859, and runs from 379 to 558. However, despite Kaufmann's article of 1876 which demonstrated that Q's consular list to 457 is not Victorius', Mommsen and Krusch edited it along with the others. Kaufmann believed that the consular list of Q had been inserted into Victorius' Easter calendar and then extracted at a later date. However, as I demonstrate in Appendix 1, Q does not belong to the tradition of Victorius at all, and must be considered as an independently produced list. The sixth century consuls in Q probably come from a relative of the Victorius manuscript S, which explains why Q ends where Victorius' Easter calendar ended.

236 Victorius, prologue, 7: "Cuius (sc. Eusebii) tenorem vir venerabilis Prosper secutus, hisdem chronicis haec eadem egregia brevitate praeposuit, ut eorum initium a mundi incoaretur exordium." "And following his course, the venerable man Prosper substituted these same (totals) at the beginning of his chronica with outstanding brevity, so that the beginning of his work might coincide with the beginning of the world" (Prologus victorii, 7 = Krusch 1937, 22) It seems from earlier on in the same paragraph that Victorius had Prosper's work both as a continuation of Jerome and as his stand-alone chronicle.

237 What is more, Prosper's list was changed by later copyists, so that no consular list in any of the

183

version of Prosper's chronicle he used in his preface: in discussing the number of years

from the beginning of the world in the prefatory letter to his calendar, he mentions

Prosper, along with the consulship in which he ended his chronicle, the eighth consulship

of the emperor Valentinian and Anthemius, or 45 5.238 We need, therefore, to compare

Victorius' consuls with the version of Prosper represented by manuscripts M and Y, since

these are the manuscripts which contain the full text of Prosper's version of 455.239 M

omits the consuls of 130, Catulinus and Aper, as do the manuscripts of Victorius and

Cassiodorus. In 442, M reads "Dioscoro et Eudoxio," as do Victorius and Cassiodorus,

whereas many manuscripts of Prosper have only "Dioscoro." In 453, M reads "Opilione

et Vincomalo," along with Victorius and Cassiodorus, whereas many manuscripts of

Prosper have only "Opilione. "

The identification of Victorius' version of Prosper with M, however, is not so clear

cut. The years 404, 410, 414 and 452 all have different readings in Victorius and in

manuscript M of Prosper.240 In 404, a number of manuscripts of Prosper (ZXFPRHV) and

all those of Victorius have both consuls, Honorius VI and Aristaenetus, whereas some

(MYAO) have only Honorius VI.241 In 414, a few manuscripts of Prosper (RHV) list

Constans as the second consul of the year with Constantius, and all the manuscripts of

Victorius do as well. Finally, in 452, a number of manuscripts of Prosper (MYV) give the

manuscripts is exactly like any other. 238 "Porro ab Abraham usque in sextum Valentis consolatum et Valentiniani secundum duo milia

CCCXCV, ac deinde ab Auxonio Olibrioque consulibus, qui secuntur, usque octavum Valentiniani augusti consolatum et Anthemi VII et LXX'Y'Furthermore, from Abraham up to the sixth consulship of Valens and the second of Valentinian (there are) 2395 (years), and then from the time when Ausonius and Olybrius, who follow, were consuls up to the eighth consulship of Valentinian and Anthemius (there are) 77 (years)" (Prologus victorii, 7 = Krusch 1937, 23).

239 See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time, forthcoming. 240 The consuls for the year 410 are dealt with above, p. 181. 241 Ms S of Victorius reads "Honorio V."

eastern consul for the year, Sporacius, as well as the western, Herculanus. Manuscripts G,

L and S of Victorius, however, have only the western consul. G reads "Herculanio vc

cons," L reads "Hircolano vv cc," and S reads "Ergulano." Cassiodorus has "Asporacius"

for the easterner, while the manuscripts of Prosper have "Asphoracio" (V)/"Asparaucio"

(H, an addition)/"Sporatio" (MY)." Victorius must originally have had "Herculano vc

cons" or something similar here: the name of the eastern consul, Sporacius, was added

later to Prosper and to the version of Victorius which Cassiodorus used. By 452, of

course, we are very close to both 455 and 457, the respective ends of Prosper's chronicle

and Victorius' calendar, and could expect that individuals who were adding consuls year-

by-year to their copies of Victorius, and those who were correcting Prosper, would be

able to remember the consuls for five or even ten years earlier well enough to make their

own additions or corrections, or might have learned late the name of the eastern consul

for 452. In any case, the plural abbreviation in L in 452, "vv cc," may suggest that a name

dropped out, or the copyist knew somehow that there was another consul but did not

know his name.242

The identification of M with the version of Prosper Victorius used is not certain,

but the lack of the consuls of 130 in both M and Victorius is strong evidence that the two

are related.243 Victorius himself could have added the consuls of 404 and 414.

There are, however, a number of consular pairs where Cassiodorus has readings

which are different from any of the manuscripts of Victorius and which are correct where

Victorius is wrong. In 61, where Cassiodorus has "Pius et Turpilianus" and the

242 Although the abbreviation "vc" is quite common in the manuscript fasti, the abbreviation "w cc," common in inscriptions, occurs only rarely in the manuscript fasti.

243 Although someone restored an incorrect consular pair, "Vetere et Valente consules" to fill out the missing year 130 in ms S of Victorius.

185

manuscripts of Victorius have "Pio et Corpiliano" or "Pio et Carpiliano;" in 97 where

Cassiodorus has "Fulvius et Vetus" and the manuscripts of Victorius have "Flavio et

Vetere;" in 236 where Cassiodorus has "Maximinus et Africanus" and the manuscripts of

Victorius read, variously "Maximiano (G) / Maximo III (L) / Maximo (S) et Africano";

and in 259, where Cassiodorus has "Aemilianus et Bassus" and Victorius, with a range of

odd readings, has "Marcelliano (G) / Narcello (L) / Marcello (S) et Basso."244 In all four

of these cases, Cassiodorus' readings agree with Prosper and are not attested in any of the

manuscripts of Victorius. The simplest explanation for these variants is that Cassiodorus

is a witness to a good tradition of Victorius, who copied the names correctly from

Prosper, in which case a new edition of Victorius will take Cassiodorus' readings more

seriously. However, all three of the manuscripts of Victorius with extensions of the

consular list descend from versions made before the 470's, and so these variant readings

in Victorius go back very far indeed.

A more complicated explanation would posit corrections by Cassiodorus based on

Prosper or corrections made to a copy of Victorius' list which Cassiodorus then used. But

it would be difficult to explain why corrections would be made through reference to some

of Prosper's readings (or those from other fasti), but not all.

There are further differences between Cassiodorus and Victorius which are not

attested to in Prosper, and which must therefore be attributed either to Cassiodorus'

particular copy of Victorius or to Cassiodorus' own corrections. In 311 all the manuscripts

244 In 46 Cassiodorus reads Asiaticus et Cornelius instead of Asiaticus et Silanus, but I believe this to be a copyist's error, a dittography, since the second consul of the year before in Cassiodorus (and Victorius) is Cornelius. The readings of L and S for this year (among others) tie the two manuscripts together as stemming from the same original.

of Victorius - G, L, S - and Prosper read "Maximiano VIII et Licinio. The first consul

is Galerius Valerius Maximianus, Augustus from 305 to 311, not the colleague of

Diocletian who retired in 305. Cassiodorus, however, reads "Maximo VIII." While there

is frequently confusion in the consular lists among names like Maximianus, Maximinus,

and Maximus, this looks like a correction by Cassiodorus or his source. Maximianus is

named Maximus from his first consulship in 294 regularly in Victorius and Cassiodorus,

and sometimes in some manuscripts of Prosper. He is thus, in Victorius and Cassiodorus,

never confused with Maximianus the colleague of Diocletian, and naming him Maximus

seems to be a way of distinguishing the two men. In 311, however, he has his proper

name in Victorius and Prosper, "Maximiano." While Cassiodorus' reading of "Maximus"

could be a copying accident, it is also possible that Cassiodorus changed the name

deliberately. Prosper, in 310, one year too early, had noted the death of Maximianus, and

this may have encouraged Cassiodorus (or his source) to change the name "Maximiano"

to "Maximo," both to make it match up with the previous consular years, and because the

author of the change correctly thought it impossible that Galerius Maximianus could hold

a consulship after he died.

Between 320 and 330 we see a similar regularization of consular iterations,

seemingly in defiance of Victorius' and Prosper's lists. In 320 Cassiodorus reads

"Constantinus VI et Constantius caes," which is what manuscript G of Victorius has,

though S and Prosper read, correctly, "Constantino VI et Constantino."246 A similar

245 S here reads "Lucinio." "Licinio" is incorrect. He had been consul for the first time in the east, though not recognized in the west, in 309. His name perhaps crept into Prosper's source in this year to explain his second consulship in 312, which is marked by an iteration in all the manuscripts of Victorius and Prosper. His name does not appear in this year in the Fasti Vindobonenses.

246 The confusion of "Constantinus," "Constantius," and even "Constans" in the written fasti is common.

187

situation prevails for the following year, where Cassiodorus reads "Crispus II et

Constantius caes II" (G reads "Crispo II et Constantio caes"), while S reads "Crispo et

Constantio" and Prosper reads "Crispo II et Constantino II." In 324, likewise,

Cassiodorus has "Crispus III et Constantius III" while Prosper and and L read "Crispo III

et Constantino III" and S reads "Crispo IIII et Constantino III."247 In 326 Cassiodorus has

"Constantinus VII et Constantius IIII." Cassiodorus' iterations are internally consistent,

but incorrect. None of the manuscripts of Victorius or Prosper has the iteration "IIII"

because, of course, this was the first consulship of Constantius the son of Constantine and

his name ought not to have been appearing in the fasti at all to this point. Manuscript S of

Victorius has the correct reading from Prosper, though without iterations, "Constantino et

Constantio." The following year is a difficult one: Flavius Constantius (no relation to the

imperial family) and Valerius Maximus were consuls and Cassiodorus has "Constantius V

et Maximus," confusing the consul for the year with the son of Constantine, and

continuing to regularize the iterations incorrectly. Prosper has "Constantino II et

Maximo" and is followed by S which reads "Constantino II et Maximo." G reads

"Constantio II et Maximo," getting the iteration from Prosper right, and the correct name,

though probably by accident. L reads "Constantio V et Maximo," which would appear to

support Cassiodorus, but the copyist of L is not to be trusted, and the confusion of "II" for

"V" in iterations (and vice versa) is a common one. Mommsen and Krusch print

"Constantio V et Maximo" here as the reading of Victorius, but this cannot be right. If

anything, it was "Constantio II et Maximo." Cassiodorus (or his source) has here, as

247 The iterations in S are a mess, with many corrections, additions and erasures. One wonders whether it has been corrected through recourse to a copy of Prosper.

before, regularized the iterations to make the list tidy.

The regularization of iterations continues in 329 and 330. In 329 Cassiodorus

reads "Constantinus VIII et Constantius VI," whereas the correct consuls were

Constantinus VIII and Constantius IV, which is what Prosper has. G has the correct

iteration but the wrong name, "Constantio HII." None of the manuscripts of Victorius or

of Prosper has the iteration VI for Constantius in this year, which, again, shows deliberate

regularization. In 330 Cassiodorus reads "Constantius VII et Symmachus," which is

completely different from Prosper, the manuscripts of Victorius, or the real consuls for

the year, who were Gallicanus and Symmachus:

Prosper: "Constantino III et Symmacho" G: "Constantio III et Simmaco" L: "Constan VI" S: "Constantio et Simacho"

Here again, with no authority, the iterations have been tidied up.248

To recap, Cassiodorus took Victorius' list from 29 CE to 457 CE almost exactly as

he found it. While there are a few very minor differences, noted above particularly in the

regularization of consular iterations and the corresponding confusion of similar names,

these are impossible to attribute to Cassiodorus with any certainty since they could just as

easily have been found in his copy of Victorius, whose different surviving copies vary

from one to the other. There must have been many more copies in the late fifth and early

sixth century, with as many different readings and orthographical variants. As well,

248 In 290 Prosper and, according to Krusch's edition, all the manuscripts of Victorius read "Diocletiano III et Maximiano II," (S, which I have checked, reads "Diocletiano III et Maximo II," though both iterations have been struck through), whereas Cassiodorus has "Diocletianus III et Maximianus III," which is correct. Mommsen's edition of Victorius, however, has "Maximiano III" for all the manuscripts of Victorius. If Krusch's reading is correct, this is another example of Cassiodorus, or his copy of Victorius, tidying up the consular iterations.

Cassiodorus' own manuscript could have been altered by scribes intent on "correcting"

the list.

It is easy to see why Cassiodorus chose an Easter calendar for his consular list. An

Easter calendar at the very least has two different dating systems: the date of Easter and

the consular name.249 Thus it is more difficult for a name to drop out than from a simple

list, and this may well have appealed to the methodical Cassiodorus. Why he did not

simply use Prosper's consuls we cannot say. He must have known from Victorius' preface

that the consuls were Prosper's, but there is no evidence that he had Prosper's epitome of

Jerome, and, as I will discuss below, it seems likely that he only had Prosper's work from

379 to 455, attached to a copy of Jerome's chronicle, and not Prosper's reworking of

Jerome from the crucifixion to 378.

Furthermore, as we will see, it is likely that Cassiodorus' version of Victorius

continued its consular list beyond 457. In the same way that Cassiodorus used Livy's

consuls and then the attached list of Aufidius Bassus, he may well have been determined

to use the more reliable Easter calendar from 29 CE as far as it would take him into the

fifth century and beyond.

Speaking more generally about Victorius, we must note here the variety of the

record of the consular names, even in the section prepared by Victorius himself, and even

in the very few manuscripts of Victorius which we have. Given that there must have been

hundreds of copies in circulation in Italy in the sixth century, we can assume that the

number of variants was large. We have seen how similar names are confused, iterations

249 Ms S of Victorius, in fact, has in its margins indiction years, AUC dates, imperial reigns, and dates from the incarnation, making it the most complete chronological compendium from the late Roman world we have.

are corrected (something we saw also in the Livian consulana), and how pairs are

inexplicably left out and replaced. A bureaucrat, and later a scholar, as careful as

Cassiodorus, and as concerned with precision in the smallest matters, would have torn his

hair out when he surveyed the mess, and we can understand Cassiodorus' desire to

"cleanse" the errors from the list.

After Victorius: Cassiodorus' Consuls from 458 to 519

Up to 457 Cassiodorus had constructed what he believed to be an accurate list of

consuls largely by relying on well-established and (as he thought) authoritative sources.

As he moved closer to his own time, however, it is perhaps possible that Cassiodorus

himself took more care with recording the consular names. The last sixty years of his

consular list show more clearly than the earlier years how seriously he took his assertion

in his preface that the "irregularity of the copyists" had been cleansed from his work.

As I suggested above, it seems reasonable to assume that Cassiodorus took his

consular list after 457 from a continuation of Victorius' Easter calendar. We would expect,

then, that Cassiodorus' list from 458 to 519 would exhibit some of the characteristics of

all the other continuations of Victorius, which are solidly western in their outlook, often

omitting eastern consuls, and frequently show signs at certain points that they were

maintained year by year. But this is not the case. Cassiodorus' list is very complete - the

most complete western consular list we have for the fifth and early sixth centuries.

This completeness would suggest considerable effort on the author's part in

working back over the years to make sure that his information was complete. The

191

manuscripts of the continuations of Victorius, however, were clearly kept up year-by-year

and, on the whole, not corrected after the names were entered the first time. The signs

which suggest year-by-year, or close to year-by-year maintenance are 1) the listing of the

western consul only, even when the name of the eastern consul can be shown to have

been known elsewhere in Italy, 2) the use of post-consular dates even when, again, the

(eastern) consuls became known in Italy later in the year, or even the following year, 3)

the occasional abbreviation "vc"(uir clarissimus) after the first of the two names,

followed by the eastern consul, which indicates that the western name was written first as

a single name, then the eastern was added when it became known later, since "vc" is only

employed with the name of a single consul, and 4) the occasional post-consular notation

followed by the actual consul for that year in the ablative, which suggests that the "pc"

was written into the list, and when the consul or consuls for the year became known, the

name or names were written beside it without the erasure of the post consulate. All the

continuations of Victorius, as well as the Fasti Parisini, the Paschale Campanum and the

Fasti Augustani show at least one of these signs before 484. Cassiodorus' list, however,

shows no such signs. It does, however, show several signs of revision and correction.

From 458 to 519, the abbreviation "Aug" is used every time an emperor is consul,

in 458, 462, 466, 471, 473, 474, 475, 479, 492, 497, 507 and 519. Before 457, where

Cassiodorus was relying on Victorius, the abbreviation occurs only five times, in 403,

411, 426, 440 and 451. The abbreviation seems in all sources to be rather more common

in the fifth century than in the fourth, but no other list is as regular as Cassiodorus' in

including it. The regularity suggests that the author himself went back over the years to

458 and inserted it, though it is not impossible that it was in his source.

Two individual years also show the deliberate hand of the author. In 519, the

emperor Justin, who was consul with Eutharic Cilliga, Theoderic's son-in-law, ought by

Cassiodorus' own standards, to come first in the record, but Cassiodorus puts the name of

his addressee and patron in the primary spot, including the abbreviation "D N,"

"Dominus Noster." Similarly, in 484, though Theoderic occupies the second spot in most

of the western lists, Cassiodorus swapped the names and gave Theoderic top billing.250

In addition to the more obvious signs of care taken by Cassiodorus, we must also

consider the undeniable fact that his list is by far the most complete source for consular

names in Latin or Greek between 458 and 519.251 Over the course of sixty-one years he

has all the western consuls, and misses only four eastern consuls, in 475, 482, 490 and

493. Cassiodorus can be forgiven not including the name of the emperor Zeno, who was

removed from his consulship of 475 after his exile in January by the usurper Basiliscus.

Many lists show confusion in 479 as to whether it was Zeno's second or third consulship

(he had been consul first in 469). The other three eastern consuls that Cassiodorus

missed, however, are all attested one way or another in the west and all three deserve

comment. The eastern consul for 482, Appalius Trocondes Illus, was known in the west

in the year he was consul. His name occurs in an inscription from Rome from October of

that year252 and appears in one of the continuations of Victorius (L) as "Traundio." Still,

250 One of the continuations of Victorius, G, also puts Theoderic first, which suggests that a new recension of it was produced between 492 and 526 in which the copyist, like Cassiodorus, put Theoderic first in this year.

251 As noted in CLRE, p. 52, though the first two years in which the authors claim Cassiodorus has no eastern consul are incorrect. The correct years are 475, 482, 490 and 493.

252 7Cf//?n.s.II4983.

193

he was clearly not well known in the west.253 Similarly in 490, the eastern consul,

Longinus, consul for the first time in 486, appears in three continuations of Victorius and

the Fasti Veronenses, but not in any contemporary inscriptions, though two post-consular

dates, "pc Longini II et Fausti vv cc" from Italy date from either the following year or

from 492.254 Longinus was clearly not entirely unknown in Italy. In 493, the eastern

consul Eusebius is only testified in the west in the Paschale Campanum, where the entry

"Albinus vc cons et Eusebius" indicates that his name was added sometime later. The

missing consul for 482, then, is simply an example of how difficult it might be for even

someone as resourceful as Cassiodorus to lay his hands on a good, complete list of

consuls or to get access to the names of consuls who had been disseminated officially or

unofficially in the west. In 490 and in 493, however, we might expect official propagation

of the consular names to have been difficult, if not completely unattempted, with all

hands and eyes in Italy occupied with the war between Odovacar and Theoderic.

After 493, however, Cassiodorus' list becomes impeccable, and its reliability is

displayed most clearly in the years from 496 to 519, where, in every year, Cassiodorus'

list is the only one of the written fasti, and occasionally of all the existing evidence from

the western or eastern empires, to record both consuls consistently.255 Below is a list of all

the western fasti which record all the years from 496 to 519: Cassiodorus; the three

continuations of Victorius: G, S and L, the Fasti Parisini (otherwise known as the Q

manuscript of Victorius); the Paschale Campanum; Marius of Avenches; the Fasti

253 Pope Simplicius' letters from that year list only Severinus as consul, Coll. Avell. 68-69. 254 CILV 5210* and CILV 5656*. 255 The consuls of 503 do not appear in the manuscripts of Cassiodorus, but I believe they must be

restored to the text. See above, pp. 119ff.

Vindobonenses posteriores; and the Consularia hafniensia. A cursory look shows how

much better Cassiodorus' list is than the rest. Of the years between 496 and 519, the

eastern consul was not promulgated in the west in most of these years (496, 497, 498,

499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 508, 511, 512, 513, 517, 518, 519). In 504, 509, 510,

514 and 516 the sole consul was a westerner. In 507 and 515, there is some evidence of

dissemination of the eastern consul.257

496 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

497 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

498 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

Paulus v.c. cons. pc Viatoris Viatore Eusebio v.c. cs pc pc Viatoris pc Viatoris Paulo pc Viatoris vc consulis

Anastasius Aug. II cons. it pc Viatoris Viator Paulo v.c. cs. II pc it pc Viatoris Viatoris Anastasio Aug II iterum pc Viatoris vc consulis

Paulinus et Iohannes Paulino vie cons Paulino Paulino v.c. cons Paulino Paulino Paulino Paulino vc cons Paulino vc consule

499 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

500 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

501 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

Iohannes v.c. cons. pc Paulini Paulino Iohanne v.c. cs pc pc Paulini pc Paulini pc vc cons Paulini pc Paulino vc consule

Patricius et Hypatius Patricio et Ypatio Patriluicio et Ipado iter v.c. cs Patricio et Ypatio iter, pc Paulini Patricio et Hypatio item pc Paulini item tertio Paulino vc consule

Avienus et Pompeius Avieno iuniore v.c. et Albileno Avieno v.c. cs Abieno Avieno Avieno et Pompeio Avieno et Pompeio

256 Paschale Campanum, Chron. min. 1: 274-339 and 745-750; Marius of Avenches, Chron. min. 2: 232-239; Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores, Chron. min. 1: 274-339, the Consularia Hafniensia, Chron. min. 1:274-339.

257 See CLRE for all these years.

Haf.

502 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

503 Cassiodorus

Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

504 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

505 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

506 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini

Avieno vc consule

Avienus iun. et Probus Avieno iuniore v. cl. cons. Abieno et Probo vc Albino v.c. cons Abieno Probo v.c. Avieno iuniore Avieno iuniore et Probo Abieno iun et Probo conss Avieno alio iun vc consule

Volusianus et Dexicrates (restored) Volusiano v.c. cons Volusiano Volusiano v.c. cons Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano vc consule

Caetheus v.ccons Cetthe v.c. cons Cato Citheo Ceteo Cithego Cetheo Cettego Ceteo vc consule

Theodorus et Sabinianus Thedoro v.c. cons Theodoro Theodora v.c. cons Theodoro Theodoro Sabiniano et Theudoro Theodoro Theudoro vc consule

Messala et Ariovinna Messala v.c. cons Thodoro Mesalla v.c. cons Messale

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

507 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

508 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

509 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

510 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

511 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S

Messala Messala et Ariobinda Messala Messala vc consule

Anastasius Aug. Ill et Venantius Venantio v.c. cons Venado Venencio v.c. cons Venantio Venantio Venantio et Celere Venantio Venantio iun vc cons

Venantius iun. et Celer [omitted] Venantio II Venanti v.c. cons Venantio Basilio iuniore Basilio Venantio iuniore Venanti Inportuno alio Venantio vc consul

Importunus v.c. cons. Inportuno v.c. c Bassilio Inportuno v cos Inportuno Anastasio Inportuno Inportuno [omitted] Importuno vc consule

Boetius v.c. cons. Boetio vie. c Inportuno Boethio v.c. cs Boetio Boetio v.c. cs Boetio Boetio Boetio iun vc consule

Felix et Secundinus Felice vie. c Boetio

Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

512 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

513 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

514 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

515 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent.

Felice v.c. cs Felice Felice v.c. cs Felice et Secundino Felice Felice vc consule

Paulus et Muschianus Paulo et Musciano Felice Felices v.c. cs pc pc Felicis Paulo et Musciano [omitted] pc Felice vc consule

Probus et Clementinus Probo et Clementino Probo Probo Senatore v.c cs Probo Probo Clementino et Probo Probo Probo vc consule

Senator v.c. cons. Senatore v.c. cons Senatore Senatore v.c. cons Senatore Senatore Senatore Senatore Senatore vc consule

Florentius et Anthemius Florentio et Antemio Florantio Florencio v.c. cs Florentio Florentio Florentio et Anthemio

FVpost. Haf.

516 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

517 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

518 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

519 Cassiodorus

Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

Florencio Florentio vc cons

Petrus v.c. cons. Petro v.c. cons pc Petro v.c. cons Petro Petro Petro Petro Petro vc cons

Anastasius et Acapitus Agapito v.c. cons Petro Acapito v.c. cons Agapito Agapito Anastasio et Agapito Agapito Agapito vc cons

Magnus v.c. cons. post c Agapiti Agapio Agapiti pc pc Agapiti Magno et Apollonare pc Agapiti pc Agapiti

dn. Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug. Iustino Aug. pc Iustino Aug. Euterico et Rusticiano Eutaricus Cillica Iustino et Euterio Eutarco Cilliga Fl. Eutharico Celica vc cons

Of the twenty-four years covered between 496 to 519 there are three years, 498,

507 and 508, where Cassiodorus includes both consuls, western and eastern, and no other

western list does;258 there are nine years, 496, 497, 499, 505, 506, 513 517, 518 and 519,

in which Cassiodorus and only one of the other lists have both consuls, and in five of

these cases, 505, 506, 517, 518 and 519, the other complete list is that of Marius of

Avenches, who wrote his chronicle over sixty years later. There are two years, 513 and

515 in which Cassiodorus has both consuls along with only two other lists.

This completeness testifies to careful work on the part of the compiler in making

sure the list was not only correct, but complete. The next question naturally is where and

how Cassiodorus got his good information. The authors of CLRE suggest, not

unreasonably, that Cassiodorus' access to official sources during his career as quaestor

under Theoderic would have made the compilation of his list easy enough.259 There is no

reason to doubt this in principle, but Cassiodorus, as far as we can tell, was not in

Ravenna between 511, the end of his quaestorship, and 523, when he was appointed

magister officiorum. It is more likely that he got the information privately by resorting to

private individuals and a variety of consular lists.260

The incompleteness and multiplicity of different entries in the fasti which we see

in the other western lists which have survived may well be examples of the "varietate

librariorum" which Cassiodorus complains of in the preface to his work, particularly if he

had also managed to acquire a Greek Eastern list, which would have omitted most

western consuls. We have compared Cassiodorus' list to the other examples of the list of

258 Marius of Avenches has the consuls for 508, Venantius and Celer, but his source confused them with the consul of 507, and so he has the two consular years switched, as does Victor of Tunnuna.

259 CLRE, 52. 260 See Burgess 1989, 151-153.

198

Victorius, as well as to the surviving consuls from Livy, and have found that there are few

noteworthy differences. However, as we have seen, most of the differences between his

fasti and other fasti occur in the twenty-five or so years immediately preceding the

composition of the Chronica. It makes sense that these years, roughly the dates of

Cassiodorus' own public life, were the ones which he felt a need to, and was in a position

to, correct. He would certainly not have had the resources to correct consuls before that

time.

Cassiodorus himself was able to find the information about the eastern consuls,

and it must have been available to others as well. The two halves of the empire continued

to nominate one consul each through Theoderic's reign, so there must have been

consultation between the courts: it is clear that Eutharic, for instance, was granted the

consulship only with the eastern emperor Justin's assent.261 While it seems fairly clear that

the court at Ravenna had stopped promulgating the names of both consuls, it is also clear

that the public and the librarii stopped being interested in who the eastern consul was

since it was not necessary information.

In the century before the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the manuscript fasti

more regularly include both consuls than the inscriptional record because the written fasti

can be updated and corrected, whereas inscriptions, papyri and letters cannot. There is no

time limit on corrections to the written fasti if new information comes along and there is a

great deal of evidence from all centuries of the empire for random corrections and

changes to individual years. The inclusion only of the western consuls of the western

lists, then, could be due both to the failure of the central administration to proclaim and

261 VariaelA.

disseminate the names of the eastern consuls (and sometimes the western ones, too), and

to the fact that it was unnecessary on the whole for the keepers of the lists, whether

private individuals, clerics or booksellers, to update the lists as new information became

available.262 However this may be, given the state of the other lists which have survived

from the same time, Cassiodorus is to be commended for his evident efforts to compile a

list which included both consuls for each year.

The Continuation of Cassiodorus' List

The surviving manuscripts of the Chronica contain continuations of Cassiodorus'

consuls to 559. The end date suggests that this continuation was extracted from Victorius'

Cursus paschalis, which ended in 559, and appended to the manuscript of the

Chronica}^ Mommsen did not believe that the continuation was by Cassiodorus himself,

and that is likely the case, but the list shows similarities with Cassiodorus' work in the

last part of his Chronica.

First, the continuation was clearly meant to function as a continuation of

Cassiodorus' work, since the consuls are all recorded in the nominative. The continuation

is extraordinary in regularly including the names of both western and eastern consuls. Of

the twenty-two years between 520 and 541, the last years for which consuls were named

(I omit the years from 542 to 559 because they are all post-consular dates counted from

Basilius' last consulship in 541), the continuation of Cassiodorus' Chronica has both

262 Even Theoderic's own letters testify to a lack of knowledge of the eastern consul. A letter of Theoderic to the senate dated to March 11 of either 507 or 508 (not in CLRE) records only "Venantio vc consule." There were western consuls named Venantius in both years, but in 507 the eastern consul was the emperor Anastasius, and in 508 the magister officiorum Celer. Celer appears to have been proclaimed late even in the east, however, so perhaps this letter is best dated to 508 rather than 507.

263 As is the case with the Fasti Parisini. See Appendix 1.

consuls right almost every time. The other western lists (the three continuations of

Victorius, G, S and L, of which L breaks off after 522; the Fasti Parisini; the Paschale

Campanum; Marius of Avenches; and the Fasti Vindobonensesposteriores, which

become spotty after 534) generally have the western consuls correctly recorded, which is

normal. Below is a list of the continuation of Cassiodorus along with the western lists

mentioned above.

520 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

521 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

522 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

523 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.

Rusticius et Vitali augg conss Rusticiano et Vitaliano [omitted] Rusticiano et Vitalio [omitted] Rusticio Rusticio et Vitaliano Rustico

Valerius et Iustinianus wcc Valerio Valeriano Valerio Valerio Valerio Iustino II et Valerio Valerio

Symmachus et Boetius vv cc Symmacho et Boetio Simacho et Boetio Symacho et Boethio vv cc Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio

Maximus vc Maximo vc pc Maximo II et Paterio Maximo

Marius Avent. FVpost.

524 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

525 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

526 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

527 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.

Maximo Maximo

Opilio et Iustinus augg vv cc Opilione vc cons Maximo Opilione Opilione Iustino et Opilione Opilione et Filoximo

Probus et Filoxenus vv cc Probo iuniore vc c Probo iuniore Probo iuniore Probo iuniore Probo iuniore et Philoxeno Probo et Iustiniano aug

Olybrius vc Olybrio iuniore vc c Olibrio Olybrio Olybrio iuniore Olibrio Olybrio et Hilaro

Maburtius vc Mavortio vc c Mauritio Mavortio Mavortio

Manus Avent. FVpost.

528 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

529 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

530 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

531 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

532 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

533 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini

Mavurtio Maburtio et Vittelliano

Iustinianus aug II vc pc Mavorti Mauritio pc Mavortio pc Mavorti Iustino pc Maburti et Iustiniano II

Decius vc Decio iun vc cons Decia Decio Decio iun Decio iun Decio iun et Vitelliani

Lampadius et Orestis vv cc Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Horeste

pc Lampadi et Orestis vv cc pc Lampadi Lampadio II et Oreste pc Lampadio et Oreste pc supra scriptorum pc Lampadi et Orestis pc Lampadi et Horestis

it pc Lampadi et Orestis vv cc it pc Lampadi Lampadio III Lampadio III et Oreste III pc supra scriptorum item pc Lampadi et Orestis item pc Lampadi et Horestis

Iustinianus aug III cons tertio pc Lampadi Lampadio IIII Lampadio IIII et Oreste IIII

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

534 Cassiodorus

Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

535 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

536 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.

Marius Avent. FVpost.

537 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

538 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

539

et iterum pc supra scriptorum Iustiniano aug III et iterum pc superiorum

Iustinianus aug IIII et Paulinus conss Paulino vc cons Paulino Paulino iuniore Paulino iuniore Paulino iun Paulino

Bilisarius vc pc Paulini Paulino II et Basillar Paulino II et Bilisario I pc Paulini Belesario pc Paulini [between 538 and 539]

pc Bilisari vc iterum pc Paulini Paulino III et Basillar Paulino III et Bilisario II iterum pc Paulini quod est consulatu Vilisari pc Belesari [omitted]

it pc Bilisari vc tertio pc Paulini Paulino IIII et Basillar III Paulino IV et Bilisario III pc Belisari item pc Belesari [omitted]

Iohannis vc Iohanne vc cons Paulino V et Iohanne Paulino IIII et ioanne paulino V ioanne II Iohanne Iohanne et Iohanne

Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

540 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini

Appius vc post cons Iohannis Paulino VI et Apione Paulino VI et Appione Appione vc cons Appione et Apione

Iustinus iun vc bis it cons Iohannis Paulino VII et Apione Paulino VII et Apione II

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

541 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

Iustino Iustino [omitted]

Basilius vc tertio pc Iohannis Basilio Basilio Basilio iuniore Basilio [omitted]

For the eight years 522, 523, 526, 527, and 529-532, when the only consuls were

westerners, there is uniformity among all the western lists. But for the remaining fourteen

years when there were eastern consuls, the picture is the same as in the years following

the accession of Theoderic - a haphazard record of eastern consuls in all the lists except

Cassiodorus'. Of the fourteen years, the continuation of Cassiodorus alone has the correct

consuls for two, 521 and 534. For six years, 524, 525, 533, 535, 536, and 537, only the

continuation of Cassiodorus and Marius of Avenches have the correct consuls.

The continuation of Cassiodorus shows the same attention to abbreviations and

titles as before, but with some differences, and these differences suggest that the work

was not Cassiodorus' since they are at variance with his usual practice. There are careful

notations of "aug" where appropriate, and of "vc" in the case of single consular names.

In contrast to the pre-519 names, however, those from 520 on almost all the double

names have "vv cc." As well, the abbreviation "cons" is omitted from single names,

whereas it appears in the single names in Cassiodorus' list before 519. There are several

oddities as well, which could not be the work of Cassiodorus. In the record for 524

"Opilio et Iustinus augg vv cc," the emperor Justin is not first in the pair, though

Cassiodorus was very careful in the material between 458 and 519 always to place the

203

emperor in the primary spot, except in the case of his addressee. This would suggest that

his name was added late, though clearly by someone who knew he was the emperor.

Furthermore, the abbreviation "augg vv cc" implies that both men were Augusti and viri

clarissimi, but only Opilio was a vir clarissimus, and only Justin was Augustus. The

compiler of the continuation does not seem to have known what the abbreviations meant.

Similarly, in 520, the abbreviations "augg vv cc" follow the two names, when neither was

an Augustus.264 In 528, Justinian is listed as vir clarissimus as well, which is not an

appropriate designation for the emperor.

The evident care for accuracy which went into preparing the continuation, and the

consistency in the recording of the names testify to a bureaucratic mind with access to

good information, or at least with the will to find out the information, but the differences

in abbreviations indicate that the continuation was not by Cassiodorus.265 The fact that

this list, like the lists in Victorius' Cursuspaschalis, ended in 559 shows that his list was

updated at least in part through reference to one of the many copies and continuations of

Victorius which circulated in the west during this period.

Overview of Cassiodorus' Sources for the Fasti

The previous four sections on Cassiodorus' sources for his fasti have dealt with a

disparate set of issues and problems stemming from the different sources which he used

to construct his own fasti. Despite the different focus each source requires, several things

deserve to be underscored which are common to all. First, fasti were clearly not treated in

264 I wonder whether "Vitali augg" is a misreading of "Vitalianus," the correct second consul for the year, but the other mistakes in the abbreviations suggests otherwise.

265 Kaufmann (1876) 395-397.

204

antiquity the way literary texts were treated. The lists saw many different uses across a

wide cross-section of public and private spheres, and not everyone who used or copied a

list was concerned with recording the list exactly as it appeared in the original.

The popularity of Victorius' list stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that there

was another chronological scheme, the date of Easter, built into it which could be used as

a check on the consular list: new consuls could be written into a space prepared for them.

Cassiodorus worked hard to draw up a list which was complete for the twenty-five years

before the end of his work, and presumably believed that by attaching authoritative

names to the list (including his own, no doubt), he could go some way to solving the

problem of the differences among all the lists, or at the very least of averting criticism for

the quality of the list from the mid-fifth century and before. It is possible to see that he

worked carefully in the years of the last half of the fifth century and early sixth to make

sure his list was as complete as it could be, under the circumstances.

In arranging imperial reigns alongside the consular list, as we will see he did in

the section which follows, he established a second firm dating system to work hand-in-

hand with the first, and he continued to line up the imperial reigns beside the consular

names until the reign of Anastasius. In being alert to Cassiodorus' care for chronology, we

can see through the panegyric of the preface and the last few pages of the book, and

understand Cassiodorus' work as an attempt to establish a chronological framework

which would allow his readers to visualize and comprehend the length of the history of

the world, and in particular the Roman empire.

205

Assigning Jerome's Imperial Reigns and Events to Consular Years

Cassiodorus' sources for the Republic and the years after 457 included events

dated by consular year. For this reason, dating the events was not an issue for him; he

could simply follow his source. But this was not the case with Jerome, who dated his

chronicle for the imperial period by imperial reign. Cassiodorus used Jerome extensively

for historical notes between Creation and the first consuls, and later, after he ceased to

use the epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, for historical notes between the crucifixion

and the end of Jerome's chronicle in 378.266 Cassiodorus had used Victorius' list as his

chronological framework for this period, however, and was then faced with the task of

adapting Jerome's historical entries, including Jerome's dating system of imperial years,

to his consular list. Cassiodorus inserted those which he found in Jerome into the list of

consuls which he had prepared from Victorius. It is this dovetailing of the two

chronological frameworks which I will discuss in what follows.267

As we have seen, Cassiodorus began drawing on Jerome from 49 B.C., the year of

Pompey's flight from Italy and the year before the first year of Julius Caesar's reign.268 He

then inserted imperial reigns and the events within them into his consular list. His precise

procedure is unclear: he may have inserted the imperial reigns first before returning to his

starting point to insert the more diverse historical notices, or he may have done both as he

went through the years. The mistakes that he made point to the latter possibility, but the

fact that his consuls for the year 378 C.E., the end of Jerome's chronicle and the

266 Though he did use Jerome for regnal years from Julius Caesar forward. 267 The same task had been undertaken by Prosper, and is also evident in the margins of manuscript S of

Victorius, where someone has adapted imperial reigns drawn from Jerome to Victorius' consular list. 268 Jerome had, as was not unusual, considered him the first emperor and had numbered him accordingly.

206

beginning of Prosper's, match perfectly with each other, points to at least some planning

before the final copy was produced.

What is clear, as we will see, is that Cassiodorus combined the two dating

schemes systematically, if a little hastily. I will treat Cassiodorus' method of inserting the

imperial reigns and of inserting the other notices from Jerome separately because the two

processes are more easily comprehended discretely.

A Note on the Text of Jerome's Chronicle

Before discussing Cassiodorus' inclusion of historical notices into his list, a note

must be made about the text of Jerome. All references in this work to Jerome are made to

Helm's text, a necessary but slightly artificial practice, since we have no idea what sort of

text of Jerome Cassiodorus himself had. Jerome's lengthy and difficult chronicle lent

itself to frequent errors in copying. Thus we find that, depending on the manuscript,

almost every event in Jerome's chronicle can be found in at least two different years.269

Therefore, if Cassiodorus is off by one year, or even two, in his dating within a reign,

there is no way of telling whether he or the manuscript that he used was at fault. So, for

instance, in Hadrian's reign, Helm's text has the building of the temple of Rome and

Venus and the construction of many buildings in Athens in the fifteenth and sixteenth

years of Hadrian's reign, respectively (200d, 200g). Cassiodorus places them in the

fourteenth and fifteenth years (789, 791). However, three of Helm's manuscripts (A, P, N)

show the events placed in the years in which they are found in Cassiodorus. The

renaming of Jerusalem, however, is placed by Cassiodorus (797), Helm's text (201e) and

269 See almost any page from Helm's text.

207

the above three manuscripts in the twentieth year of Hadrian's reign. There is no one

manuscript which Helm uses that corresponds in all cases to the dates that appear in

Cassiodorus work.270

In only two cases are Cassiodorus' events off by two years or more from Helm's

text. Lucius Verus' death is placed in the eleventh year of his and Marcus' reign (838),

whereas Jerome put it in the ninth. But Jerome says specifically that "quidam putant XI'7

"some believe in the eleventh year."271 The Gallic Chronicle of 511 also used Jerome and

also put Verus' death in the eleventh year.272 While it is not impossible that Cassiodorus'

manuscript of Jerome had this entry opposite the eleventh year, there is no manuscript of

Jerome that has it there. Eutropius, whom Cassiodorus used occasionally to correct

Jerome, places Verus' death in the eleventh year of his reign as well (8.10.4), and

Cassiodorus may have followed him in this case. The second case is the dating of the

celebration of the thousandth birthday of Rome in Philip's reign (949) where Cassiodorus

puts the event three years later than does Helm's text.273

The Consular List and Imperial Reigns

Cassiodorus drew primarily on Jerome for the length of imperial reigns, and in the

vast majority of cases his numbers are exactly the same as those of Jerome. For instance,

in his note on Claudius' accession, Jerome says that Claudius reigned for thirteen years,

eight months and twenty-eight days, and he assigns him fourteen regnal years.

270 Mommsen 1892, 368, suggests that Cassiodorus used a manuscript very similar to Leidensis Scaligeri 14, Helm's F, but that manuscript is different in many ways from Cassiodorus' work.

271 Helm 205k. 272 MGH: AA 9: 632-666. 273 Discussed above, pp. 118ff.

208

Cassiodorus follows Jerome exactly: in his note on Claudius' accession, he records the

length of Claudius' reign from Jerome and assigns fourteen consular pairs to his reign.

When he does depart from Jerome, he does so in three different ways: 1) when he found

fuller or better information in Eutropius, he sometimes substituted Eutropius' numbers for

Jerome's; 2) on several occasions, even though the number is the same as Jerome's in the

note on the imperial accession, he assigned a different number of consular years from

Jerome, 3) on two occasions he deliberately shortened imperial reigns in order to make

his imperial years coincide with his consular list and 4) in two cases, for the reigns of

Augustus and Aurelian, Cassiodorus counted a half year as a whole year, whereas Jerome

had not.274 There are also some numbers at variance with Jerome which stem either from

copyists' errors during the recopying of Cassiodorus' work or from the copy of Jerome he

was using. It seems best in what follows to adopt a chronological approach, beginning

with Cassiodorus' initial adoption of Jerome and following his procedure through to 378.

This approach demonstrates most clearly Cassiodorus' methods, the measures he took to

correct himself, and, for whatever reason, his failure to revise his work even after it was

obvious that he had made mistakes.

The synchronization of Jerome's imperial reigns with the consular years was a

procedure teeming with difficulties and potential for error. The following chart lists

Jerome's imperial years, as well as Cassiodorus' imperial years and the number of consuls

he assigned to each emperor. I have noted with bold type the places where Cassiodorus is

at variance with Jerome.

274 Mommsen's chart (1894, 116) counts nine places where Cassiodorus counts a different number of years from Jerome, but he includes Tiberius, since he did not restore the consuls in the year of the crucifixion. He also includes Valentinian/Valens on the basis of a faulty edition of Jerome: Jerome gives them fourteen years, not fifteen, and so there is no discrepancy with Cassiodorus.

209

Emperor

Julius Caesar Augustus Tiberius Caligula Claudius Nero Galba Otho Vitellius Vespasian Titus Domitian Nerva Trajan Hadrian Antoninus Pius M. Aurelius Commodus Pertinax Severus Caracal la Macrinus Elagabalus Alexander Maxim inus Gordianus Philip Decius Gallus and Volusianus Valerianus and Gallienus Claudius Aurelianus Tacitus Probus Cams Diocletian Constantine Sons of Constantine Julian

Cassiodorus: Regnal Years

y/m/d 4/7 56/6 23 3/10 13/8/28 13/7/28

-n -/3/5 -/8/1 9/11/22 2/2 15/5 1/4 19/6/15276

20/10/29277

21 19 13 -/6 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1/3 2/4 15 1/9 5/6 -/6 6/3 2 20 30/10 24/5/23 1

Cassiodorus: Consuls

5 57 2 3 2 7 5

4 14 14

2

10 2 16 2 20 21 21 19 13 1 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1 2 15 2 6 1 6 2 21 31 24 1

Jerome: Regnal Years

y/m/d 4/7 56/6 23 3/10 13/8/28 13/7/28 -7 -3 -9/11/22 2/2 15/5 1/4 19/6 21 22/3 19/1 13 -16 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1/3 2/4 15 1/9 5/6 -16 6/4 2 20 30/10 24/5/13 1/8

Jerome: Years assigned

5 56 23 4 14 14

-

10 2 16 1 19 21 23 19 13 1 17 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1 2 15 2 5 1 6 2 21 31 24 2

275 With the consulship of the two Gemini restored. See above, pp. 123ff.. 276 Cassiodorus took the more precise number for the length of Trajan's reign from Eutropius, 8.5.2. 277 As with Trajan, immediately above, Cassiodorus took the more precise number for the length of

Hadrian's reign from Eutropius, 8.7.3.

210

Jovian Valentinian

-/8 14/5

1 14

-/8 14/5

1 14

Since the beginnings and ends of imperial reigns do not coincide with the

beginnings of consular years, Cassiodorus had to adjust and guess as best he could. His

method was to assign one pair of consuls for every regnal year, and sometimes to assign

one pair to a fraction of a year. Thus, for instance, Augustus, who reigned for fifty-six

years and six months, gets fifty-seven pairs of consuls, whereas Jerome had assigned him

only fifty-six years. With the exception of Titus, Cassiodorus counted every partial year

as a full year up to the reign of Decius, and this led him into serious difficulties which

could have been avoided had he simply followed Jerome's actual regnal years.

Cassiodorus found 211 consular pairs in his fasti from the beginning of Julius Caesar's

reign to 161 ;278 Jerome's imperial years add up to 208 years. The difference was

inevitably going to cause problems, and in the end he had to truncate Antoninus Pius'

reign by two years in order to make the consulship of the "duo Augusti" coincide with

161 CE, the beginning of Marcus Aurelius' and Verus' reigns. Cassiodorus knew from

Eutropius that the elevation of two equal Augusti did not occur before the death of

Antoninus Pius, but was an innovation of the subsequent regime. He includes that

information in his note on the succession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius: "usque ad hoc

tempus singuli Augusti fuerunt" / "up to this time there were individual Augusti. "279 He

was therefore compelled to put the end of Antoninus Pius' life in his fifth consulship

278 The year 161 is a crucial year, the consulship of the "duo Augusti," Marcus Aurelius and Verus. At that point the regnal years and the consular years had to match up.

279 "Tumque primum Romana res publica duobus aequo iure imperium administrantibus paruit, cum usque ad eum singulos semper habuisset Augustos " / "Then for the first time the Roman state submitted to two Augusti wielding power with equal authority, though up to him [Marcus Aurelius], it had always had individual Augusti" (Eutropius 8.9.2).

before the two Augusti were consuls.

To make the 208 regnal years fit the 211 pairs of consuls, Cassiodorus counted

Augustus' extra six months as a full year, and added two more full years by giving Galba,

Otho and Vitellius two pairs of consuls.280 If he had stopped there, his count would have

worked out, but he assigned two years to Nerva instead of one as Jerome had done, to

cover the one year and four months of Nerva's reign, and he assigned twenty years to

Trajan, instead of nineteen as Jerome had done, to account for the nineteen years, six

months and fifteen days of Trajan's reign. His consistency in assigning an extra pair of

consuls for each fractional year caused him to have to truncate Antoninus Pius' reign by

two years to make the consular list fit with the accession of Marcus Aurelius and Verus.

But Cassiodorus' mistakes were worse than merely the lengthening and truncation

of imperial reigns. Victorius' fasti have many omissions and additions in the years before

161, and Cassiodorus was forced to ignore the fact, which he must have known, that an

imperial consulship had to come in the year of accession, the only reliable guide for

linking the two dating systems. So the quality of his list resulted in the consular years

getting serious out of sync with the regnal years.281 We first see this when Caligula is

280 In Jerome, the reigns of Galba and Otho come under the fourteenth year of Nero's reign. Jerome gives the lengths of Galba's and Otho's reigns as seven months and three months, respectively. He gives no number for Vitellius, nor does he even indicate that he had been emperor. Cassiodorus consulted Eutropius on this question and discovered not only that Otho had, in fact, reigned for ninety-five days, which he converts to three months and five days, but that Vitellius reigned for eight months and one day.He quite rightly judged that Jerome was in error, and that the events of eighteen months could not be squeezed into one year. He therefore indicated that he intended the reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius to be considered as taking place under the first and second consulships of Vespasian and Titus. Referring to the three short-lived emperors, he writes "Qui omnes infra scriptos duos cons<ulatus?> tenuerunt" / "All of whom held the two consular years written below" (693). The two consular years he means are Vespasian and Titus and Vespasian II and Titus II. Vespasian and Titus held only one consulship together at this time, Vespasian's second and Titus' first (70). The result was the displacement of the beginning of Vespasian's reign into the following year, two years too late.

281 It is impossible to speak here meaningfully of historical accuracy. Victorius' consular list (and Prosper's which was the basis of Victorius') is so execrable that discussing Cassiodorus success or lack

212

consul for the second time in the year after his death (649). Then, in the reign of

Vespasian, Cassiodorus has placed the note on Vespasian's accession two years following

his consulship with Titus, three years too late, in part because he had given Galba, Otho

and Vitellius two consular pairs.

Over the course of the reigns of Domitian and Nerva, Cassiodorus' consular list

loses ground to the imperial reigns. Domitian, as the chart shows, is given sixteen

consular pairs for his fifteen years and five months of rule. At this point, as noted above,

if Cassiodorus had followed Jerome's regnal years, he would have hit his target of 161

without further problems. But Nerva, though he reigned for only one year and four

months, is given two consular pairs.282

Two extra consular pairs in his list over the course of Trajan's reign, "Senecio et

Sura" after the consuls of 103 and "Clarus et Alexander" as well as the extra year given

to Trajan, confuse things further. By the time of Hadrian's succession Cassiodorus'

imperial years are badly out of step with his consular list, with Hadrian coming to the

throne two years after his first consulship, when in fact he entered into his first consulship

on the January after he succeeded Trajan in 117.283 Hadrian reigned for almost exactly 21

years, and gets 21 consular pairs, but Cassiodorus falls four years out of step because his

thereof by a simple match of historically accurate consular years with the accession dates of emperors is a pointless exercise. From the consulship of the two Gemini to that of the two Augusti, when the list becomes much better, Cassiodorus should have 129 consular years, whereas he in fact has 132, which is remarkably low given the number of errors in the list.

282 If we look at this problem in terms of actual consulships, the situation seems worse than it is. Cassiodorus' list from Victorius leaves out the consuls of 80 and 87, and although there is an additional consular pair, "Sabinus et Antoninus" right before the consuls of 98, the result is that in actual terms, Cassiodorus' imperial years are four years ahead of his consular list, with Trajan succeeding Nerva the year before his fifth consulship, when in fact he succeeded him during his second.

283 The consuls at Hadrian's succession in Cassiodorus are "Servilius et Fulvius," a slightly altered version of the real consuls for that year, L. Catilius Severus Iulianus Claudius Reginus II and T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus.

list lacked the consuls of 130.

In the reign of Antoninus, only three interpolated consular pairs save Cassiodorus

from complete disaster. The consuls of 221, "Gratus et Seleucus" for some reason follow

those of 145, and at the very end, two fake consulships, "Antoninus V et Aurelius III"

and "pc Antonini V et Aureli III" give him some extra space. But he was still one or two

consular pairs short of what he needed. Cassiodorus resolved this problem by arbitrarily

shortening Jerome's record of the reign of Antoninus, from 22 years, 3 months to 21

years.

There was nothing in his consular list, Jerome or Eutropius that could have

prevented him from reorganizing his work when he realized any mistakes he had made.

He might have gone back and assigned one less consular pair to any two of Nerva, Trajan

or Domitian, or eliminated the extra regnal years of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. But for

Cassiodorus, as I discussed above, the important part of his chronicle was the consular

list, not the imperial reigns, so perhaps his stated concern for historical authority

extended only as far as the consular names. Given the choice between the consuls and

Jerome's regnal years something had to give and he decided to stick with the consular

list, which was in fact the wrong choice. Perhaps the fact that consuls work better and are

easier for numbering years than regnal years caused him to make this choice.

After 160, Victorius' list becomes much better, but Cassiodorus, apparently either

recognizing his mistakes in the years before 160, or realizing that the number of imperial

reigns simply could not be fit into the number of consuls he had, also shows himself

284 As I noted above, p. 184, Cassiodorus is missing the consuls of 130 because both Prosper and Victorius left them out.

prepared to forgo assigning a consular pair to a partial imperial year. The inexact fit

between the regnal years and consuls before 161 forced him to search out ways of

accounting for that disagreement. Once the fasti became more accurate he could follow

regnal years and consuls exactly but now had to explain why his method differed from

before. We see this in the reigns of Decius (953), and of Gallus and Volusianus (956).

Jerome assigned them one year, three months and two years, four months respectively,

but only one and two years of historical notations. Although, as we have seen above,

Cassiodorus' tendency had been to assign a consular pair to a partial imperial year,

sometimes contradicting Jerome, here he not only followed Jerome, but explained

himself both times: "his successit Decius, qui regnavit anno I mensibus tribus, quantum

ad consules autem annum I" / "Decius succeeded these emperors and reigned for one year

and three months, but as far as consuls are concerned, only one year" (953) and "cui

successit Gallus cum Volusianus filio, qui regnaverunt annis II et mensibus IIII, quantum

ad consulatum autem annis tantum duobus" / "Gallus succeeded Decius with Volusianus

his son and they reigned for two years and four months, but as far as the consulship is

concerned, only two years" (956). Apart from the reign of Pertinax, who reigned for six

months and is given one consular pair (as he is in Jerome as well), these are the first

reigns after Antoninus Pius' reign which include partial years. It seems that the mistake

he made earlier prompted him to follow Jerome more carefully.

Between 161 and 378 (inclusive) Cassiodorus found 219 consular pairs,285 and

Jerome has 218 regnal years (counting the divided year twenty of Diocletian as two

years). It ought to have been possible for Cassiodorus to successfully integrate the two

285 With the consuls of 297 restored. See above, p. 120ff..

215

lists without running into too much trouble, but again, we see him truncating a reign, this

time Julian's. Jerome had given Julian 1 year and 8 months of rule, and had assigned him

two years. If Cassiodorus had given Julian two consulships, the result would have been

that the single consulship of the emperor Jovian would have preceded his reign, and the

following first consulship of Valentinian and Valens would have preceded their first year

in power. Part of his difficulties lay in the fact that he added an extra year to Severus'

reign since he did not realize that Jerome started counting Severus' regnal years from year

two, not year one, and he gave Aurelian six years instead of following Jerome's five. Still,

the two sets of dates fit together much better in these years for several reasons:

Cassiodorus' consular list is much better, with only two interpolated consular pairs, one

incorrect pair, and one missing pair,286 and so he is never off by more than two years.

Three other differences between Jerome's and Cassiodorus' regnal years should be

mentioned in closing. Jerome gives Marcus Aurelius nineteen years and one month,

whereas Cassiodorus gives him only nineteen years. The reign of Probus is shortened by

one month from six years and four months in Jerome to six years and three months in

Cassiodorus. And that of the sons of Constantine is increased by ten days, from twenty-

four years, five months and thirteen days in Jerome to twenty-four years, five months and

twenty-three days in Cassiodorus. There is no existing source from which Cassiodorus

could have adopted any of these changes, and even if they were deliberate changes, they

make no difference to how Cassiodorus would have treated the reigns if he had not

changed them. The changes are more likely a result of scribal error in Cassiodorus' copy

286 Interpolated: "Annianus et Maximus," after the consuls of 226, "Constantius IIII et Constans III," after the consuls of 344. Incorrect: "Gratus et Seleucus," taking the place of the consuls of 230 (one of three appearances of this pair in the list). Missing: "Tacitus and Aemilianus," the consuls of 276.

of Jerome or in the tradition of his chronicle.

In adapting Jerome's imperial years and historical events to Victorius' consular

list, Cassiodorus was nothing if not dogged. His practice of assigning partial regnal years

a full consular year caused difficulties. Still, when he changed his procedure, as he did

when assigning fewer consular pairs than years reigned, he alerted his reader. At

Antoninus Pius' and Julian's reigns, Cassiodorus came upon points where he had to alter

Jerome's information in order to squeeze the fasti and the regnal years together. As I

noted above, though he clearly noticed the errors he had made, he did not go back to

correct them. It is not possible to explain this away, except to say that it underscores

Cassiodorus' stated purpose in his preface of providing a good consular list. The list took

precedence over the lengths of imperial reigns. Perhaps, for Cassiodorus, doing a perfect

job with a secondary chronological scheme was unnecessary.

Placing Historical Events relative to Imperial Reigns and Consular Years

After he had inserted the imperial reigns into the consular list, Cassiodorus

inserted the events which he found in Jerome's chronicle, supplemented with a few from

Eutropius (681, 714, 955, 1061). He placed the events relative to the beginning of each

reign, and not relative to the whole time-line or to the consular dates (since he did not

know the consular dates of the events he included). Thus, for instance, within Trajan's

reign all the events are spaced as they are in Jerome. Jerome says that Trajan triumphed

over the Dacians and Scythians in his fourth year and Cassiodorus puts the event in his

fourth year (745); Jerome puts the stationing of a fleet in the Red Sea in Trajan's sixth

217

year and so does Cassiodorus, and so on. On the occasions when Cassiodorus gives an

emperor more consular years than Jerome did regnal years, he counted the extra year at

the end of each reign so as not to disturb the order of events within the reign.

Conclusion

Cassiodorus' achievement was considerable and, though Prosper had done it in the

mid-fourth century, comparatively rare. He hunted out different sources that allowed him

to put together a new consular list and did an extremely good job of the fifth and sixth

century consuls, at a time when good information cannot have been easy to get. He then

added, alongside, a secondary chronological scheme of imperial years from Julius Caesar

to his day. Of the consularia we have, nothing on this scale had been attempted before.

The fact that in many cases we can determine the reasons why Cassiodorus dated a

particular event to a particular year are a testament to his dogged, if a bit ham-handed,

approach. But the consular list was clearly not the only part of his work upon which

Cassiodorus spent his time and care. The following chapter turns to Cassiodorus' sources

for his historical entries, sources which he does not mention by name. Some of them are

easy to identify, while others must be teased out from the Chronica itself.

Chapter 4: Historiography

Introduction

As I noted above, Cassiodorus in his supputatio points only to the authority of the

chronological sources on which he drew in his work. But we can assume that most

readers in his own time (as well as in ours) were more interested in the historical

lemmata. Cassiodorus was well aware of this and says in his preface that he has obeyed

Eutharic's orders and drawn up trustworthy fasti "quatenus vester animus per inlustres

delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem" / "so that

your mind, taking delight in the famous events, may run through the very long age of the

world in pleasing brevity" (1). Eutharic is meant to read the events recorded in the

Chronica, but no one expects him to dwell on the names of the consuls.

That said, Cassiodorus mentions nowhere that for his historical notes he used the

Livian-Aufidian consularia for the Republic, that he used Jerome from the beginning of

the world to 510 BCE and again between 49 BCE and 378 CE, or Prosper between 379 and

455, that he drew on Italian consularia after 455, or that he used Eutropius for the whole

period between the foundation of the Republic through to the reign of Diocletian. For

Cassiodorus, as he makes clear in his preface, the events were subordinate to his list, but,

since chronology was his chief concern, he was careful in his treatment of the strictly

historical material. We have seen in the above chapter that he adapted Jerome's historical

notes to his consular list between 49 BCE and 378 CE. We will see in what follows that

Cassiodorus displayed a conservative approach when adapting historical material to his

consular list. For him, maintaining the integrity of his consular list was the most

important thing, but careful attention to his use of very few historical sources remained

characteristic of his method.

The chapter which follows therefore deals with the more technical aspects of

Cassiodorus' use of his historical sources: his methods of epitomization where we can

compare his work with a surviving source; the nature of the source he used when that

source no longer exists; and any problems or issues specific to each source. Comparison

of Cassiodorus' Chronica with existing sources — Jerome, Prosper and Eutropius — can

both help us to make some educated guesses about how he treated those which no longer

exist: the Livian Epitome and the particular version of the Italian consularia which he

used. As one might expect, each source poses its own particular questions and problems.

In many ways the sources which Cassiodorus does not mention have exercised

recent scholarship more than those he does mention. The late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries saw a flurry of attempts to trace a common source for all the Italian

consularia of the fifth and sixth centuries, as well as the Anonymus Valesianus.2*1 Since

there has been a great deal of interest recently in the Ostrogothic kingdom and in

particular in the interchange between the Gothic and Roman communities in Italy, much

of the recent discussion of the Chronica has centred around Cassiodorus' "Gothic" source

and the changes that he made to his primary sources, Jerome and Prosper. Since no

systematic study of Cassiodorus' sources has ever been undertaken, these discussions are

naturally not only somewhat tentative, but, in their brevity, slightly misleading when they

appear in discussions about what kind of document the Chronica is, or was intended to

287 Waitz 1865, Holder-Egger 1876, Oeschli 1873, and Cessi 1912.

220

be.

J. J. O'Donnell, whose thirty-year old book still has the longest discussion in

English of the Chronica, puts his finger on some difficult passages which require

explanation, but is aware that we lack sufficient knowledge of Cassiodorus' sources to say

much about them. Still, he asserts that Cassiodorus' statement at 423 that Theodosius

ruled the empire alone after Honorius' death is a reference to the supremacy of the eastern

empire over the western. As I have demonstrated above, however, Cassiodorus' chief

concern is to establish a clear chronological time-line. What is more, Cassiodorus simply

copied the statement from Prosper (1283), and added the word "solus" / "alone." Without

careful study of the sources and Cassiodorus' methods we can hardly make judgements

about the material which he does or does not include. Lastly, O'Donnell rightly notes the

panegyrical nature of the Chronica, but puts too much emphasis on that aspect of it.

Read as a whole, it is not a particularly successful panegyric either of Theoderic or the

addressee, Eutharic. This, likewise, is a problem which must be addressed only after a

full discussion of the sources and Cassiodorus' method.

In a similar vein, Arne Soby Christensen has devoted a number of pages of a

larger study to the Chronica?™ He attempts to answer questions about whether the

Chronica is dependent on Gothic stories and comes up with a negative answer (which I

believe is correct), but his analysis is necessarily haphazard and lacks the firm grounding

of the required scholarship to justify the conclusion. He asserts, for instance, that

Cassiodorus' mention of the Amazons in the earlier part of the Chronica is proof that

Jordanes took his information about the Amazons from Cassiodorus' Gothic History. But

288 Christensen 2002, 57-67.

Christensen is merely speculating from a high place. He says further that in the material

which Cassiodorus draws from Prosper there is no sign of "an independent Gothic

tradition," which is, again, correct, but is merely the result of a careful reading of the

Chronica. Before we can talk about why Cassiodorus included particular pieces of

information in his work, or what his intentions were, we need to build a clear picture of

his sources and his historiographical method. This picture, combined with what I have

written about in chapter three on chronology, will provide more secure structures upon

which to address broader political and cultural issues.

Cassiodorus Epitomizes Jerome

Cassiodorus made extensive use of Jerome and Prosper, as I discussed above, but

he does not always copy out his source word for word. By looking carefully at his

treatment of Jerome, and in particular what he copied, what he changed, and what he

omitted, we can gain some insight into how Cassiodorus treated those sources which no

longer survive.

Cassiodorus frequently quotes Jerome verbatim with no, or only with very minor,

changes. For instance, his note on the birth of the satirist Persius is Jerome verbatim:

"Persius Flaccus satyricus poeta Volaterris nascitur" (640; Jerome 176e).289 Occasionally

he adds the implied 'est'/'sunt' to Jerome's perfect participle passives or achieves the

same result by changing the tense, as in 1110, where he has "factus est" for Jerome's

"factus," or 1081, where "efficitur" replaces Jerome's "effectus." At times he makes very

289 Other examples of the same verbatim reproduction, with few alterations, are: 29, 79, 646, 654, 656, 659, 672, 673, 683, 706, 712, 716, 722, 725, 727, 729, 736, 740, 745, 749, 756, 761, 768, 770, 774, 777, 786, 791, 797, 799, 814, 826, 829, 831, 838, 848, 850, 857, 863, 867, 876, 879, 891, 900, 908, 918, 924, 927, 938, 943, 949, 950, 964, 966, 983, 990, 995, 996, 1012, 1022, 1032, 1056, 1069, 1081, 1092, 1095, 1110, 1111, 1119, 1120, 1124, 1126.

222

minor changes of single words with no appreciable change of meaning. For instance, at

1099 he has "esse coepit" for Jerome's "factus" (24le), and at 1095 "deletae sunt" for

Jerome's "oppressae" (240g).290

Occasionally Cassiodorus must alter a word because his epitomization demands it.

At 886 he writes, "Severus in Brittannos bellum mouit," whereas Jerome has "Clodio

Albino, qui se in Gallia Caesarem fecerat, aput Lugdunum interfecto Severus in Brittanos

bellum transfert" (212i). Cassiodorus had to use "mouit" rather than "transfert" because

he omitted the detail of Severus' initial conflict in Gaul with Clodius Albinus.

Despite his general tendency to stay fairly close to Jerome's wording, Cassiodorus

does not shy away from epitomizing Jerome's entries when he feels the need to, even

very short ones. When he does so, his chief aim appears to be a desire to extract the

salient historical details and to omit material not strictly relevant to the historical event.

For instance, at 651 Cassiodorus writes, "Petrus apostolus Romam mittitur ubi

evangel ium praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat" / "the apostle

Peter is sent to Rome where he continues steadfastly as bishop of that city for twenty-five

years preaching the good news." Jerome's note, which Cassiodorus epitomized, reads,

"Petrus apostolus cum primus Antiochenam ecclesiam fundasset, Romam mittitur, ubi

evangelium praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat" / "though he had

first founded the church at Antioch, the apostle Peter is sent to Rome where he continues

steadfastly as bishop of that city for twenty-five years preaching the good news" (179b).

Cassiodorus left out the detail of the founding of the church at Antioch since it could be

290 Other examples of this are 727, where Cassiodorus has "moenia" for Jerome's "opera" (191a), 1032 where Cassiodorus has "pompa" for Jerome's "praeda" (227m), and 927, where Cassiodorus has "ob hoc cunctis" for Jerome's "ob id omnibus" (215i).

omitted without compromising the particular fact of Peter's journey to and residence in

Rome. When Cassiodorus does not copy Jerome's note entirely, or with only a few

changes, this is the most frequent method of epitomization he uses.291

Less frequently, Cassiodorus rewrites parts of Jerome's entries, again with a view

to a brevity that does not compromise the historical detail. His notes on the deaths of

Peter and Paul are good examples: "Romae sanctus Petrus et Paulus apostolus trucidati

sunt a Nerone" / "At Rome saint Peter and the apostle Paul were slaughtered by Nero"

(689). Jerome's notes on the same events are more detailed: "Nero super omnia scelera

sua etiam persecutionem in Christianos facit, in qua Petrus et Paulus gloriose Romae

occubuerunt" / "Nero, in addition to all his crimes, also directed a persecution against the

Christians, during which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome" (185c). Cassiodorus

wished only to note the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome at the hands of Nero, and so had

to change the neutral word "occubuerunt" to the powerful "trucidati sunt," which gets

across the detail of the persecution without noting that it was the first persecution of

Christians.292 On a very few occasions Cassidorus rewrote Jerome's note almost entirely

for the sake of compressing it, though he does not do this very often (as he does with

Prosper, whose notes can be much more verbose and thus longer) since Jerome's notes

tended to be brief. Still, even when Cassiodorus does this, he retains the basic vocabulary

Jerome uses. In 779, for example, Cassiodorus writes "Iuxta Eleusinam civitatem Cefiso

fluvio Hadrianus pontem constravit" / "Near the city of Eleusis, Hadrian built a bridge

over the Cephisus river." Jerome had written "Cefisus fluvius Eleusinam inundavit, quern

291 Other, though certainly not all, examples of this are 651, 690, 737, 747, 766, 772, 886, 910 and 914. 292 This note highlights the different preoccupations of Cassiodorus and Jerome. Cassiodorus fixes his

sight almost resolutely on the city of Rome, whereas Jerome was deeply interested in the history of the church and the persecution of Christians.

Hadnanus ponte coniugens Athenis hiemem exegit" / "The Cephisus river flooded

Eleusis; Hadrian, having spanned the river with a bridge, spent the winter at Athens"

(198i). Cassiodorus cuts the note back to the bare facts of who built the bridge and

where.293

There are a handful of places (703, 766, 789, 797, 823, 845, 956, 988, 1061, 1073

and 1086) where Cassiodorus inserted additional material into Jerome's entries, generally

either for reasons of clarity for the reader or to make the historical note relevant in his

own day. For instance, at 703 Cassiodorus writes, "Vespasianus incensum Capitolium

aedificare orsus est" / "Vespasian began to build the Capitolium after it had burned

down." Jerome has "Vespasianus Capitolium aedificare orsus" / "Vespasian began to

build the Capitolium" (188a). The addition is actually taken from an earlier note in

Jerome, who had already noted that the Capitolium had been burned during the war with

Vitellius (186i, where Jerome actually uses the word "incensum"), whereas Cassiodorus

had not, but needed to make it clear to his reader why Vespasian rebuilt the Capitolium.

At 797, where Jerome had written "Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano condita" / "Aelia was

founded by Aelius Hadrianus" (201a), Cassiodorus upgraded the note to read "Aelia

civitas, id est Hierusalem, ab Aelio Hadriano condita est" / "the city of Aelia, that is

Jerusalem, was founded by Aelius Hadrianus," noting for his reader the more commonly

used name of the city in the sixth century.294

293 Other examples of this kind of revision of notes are found at 7, 9, 18, 25, 27, 41, 68, 671, 689, 699, 785, 869 and 972.

294 Other examples of this kind of clarification are 58 (cf. Jerome 70a2-4), where Cassiodorus makes it clear that Solomon was the son of David; 845 (cf. Jerome 207d), where Cassiodorus gives the full name of the emperor M. Antoninus Verus to avoid confusion; 988 (cf. Jerome 222g) where Cassiodorus makes it clear that Zenobia and Tetricus were captives; 1073 (cf. Jerome 235a) where he makes it clear which brother the emperor Constantine II attacked near Aquileia; 1086 (cf. Jerome 236c) where Cassiodorus notes that Constantius remained emperor after the death of Constans.

225

At 956, following a note drawn entirely from Eutropius on the Decian baths,295

Cassiodorus relates the death of Decius and his son at Abrittus: "Decius cum filio suo in

Abritio Traciae loco a Gothis occiditur" / "Decius was killed with his son in Abrittus, a

place in Thrace, by the Goths." Decius' death is noted by Jerome, but Jerome does not say

that Abritus was in Thrace (218h). Cassiodorus either knew this tid-bit of information, or

he found it somewhere else.296

On two occasions Cassiodorus actually corrects Jerome. The first example deals

with the assassination of Caligula. Jerome says that he was killed "a protectoribus" (178-

179), whereas Cassiodorus states, more correctly, that he was killed "in protectoribus."

Josephus is very clear in his detailed account of the assassination that Caligula was killed

in a hallway crowded with his attendants and some bodyguards.297 Although Cassius

Chaerea was a commander of the praetorians, Caligula's assassins could not strictly be

described as "protectores." None of the manuscripts of Jerome read "in protectoribus" at

this place. We know that later in his life Cassiodorus commissioned a Latin translation of

the Antiquitates,19* but it cannot be determined whether he knew the story of the

assassination from there or not. The detail is not in Suetonius.

The second occasion has to do with the baths built by Nero in 64, and which were

rebuilt and rededicated by Severus Alexander in 221. Both Jerome and Cassiodorus treat

them in two separate notes, but Jerome's notes make them sound like two separate bath

complexes: "Thermae a Nerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit" / "Baths were

built by Nero, which he named 'Neronian'" (183d) and "Thermae Alexandrianae Romae

295 See below, p. 234. 296 He did not get it from Eutropius. 297 Josephus AJ 19.14.15. 298 Inst. 1.17.1

226

aedificatae" / "The Alexandrian baths were built at Rome" (215d). Cassiodorus, however,

makes it clear in both of his notes that the bath complexes were the same, merely

renamed: "Thermae aNerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit, cuius odio, mutato

vocabulo, nunc Alexandrinae nominantur" / "Baths were built by Nero, which he named

'Neronian', and because of the hatred of him, the name having been changed, are now

called 'Alexandrian'" (681) and "Neronianae thermae Alexandrianae vocatae sunt" / "The

Neronian baths were named 'Alexandrian'" (920). Cassiodorus got his extra information

from Eutropius, whom I will discuss below,299 who clearly says that "Is [Nero] aedificavit

Romae thermas, quae ante Neronianae dictae, nunc Alexandrianae appellantur" / "He

[Nero] built baths at Rome, which, though named 'Neronian' earlier, are now called

"Alexandrian" (7.15).

There are, in addition, a handful of odd notes or changes made by Cassiodorus

which point to his sensitivity to the political situation under which he wrote and the status

of his addressee.300 But I will treat these situations in the next chapter, along with similar

alterations Cassiodorus made to his source for the years 379 to 455, Prosper of Aquitaine.

The Livian Epitome Again: Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens, and P. Oxy. 668

We can now turn to a comparison of the historical entries with those in Livy,

Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. In my earlier discussion of the Republican

consular list, I came to the conclusion that the original epitome of Livy's consuls had

299 Pp. 232ff. 300 These are 804, 956, 998, 1022 and 1076.

been a much fuller work than the one which Cassiodorus used, and that, despite the

similarities between P. Oxy. 668 and Cassiodorus, Cassiodorus' epitome was related to,

but not the same as P. Oxy. 668. The following discussion of the historical notes reveals

the same situation.

As was noted above, the fragments of the Oxyrhynchus epitome cover the years

190 to 179 BCE and 150 to 137 BCE, and Obsequens' Liberprodigiorum covers the years

190 to 11 BCE, but with entries for only eighty years.301 Since Cassiodorus does not have

historical entries for all his years, since Obsequens does not cover all the years in his

compass, and since the papyrus is mutilated and short, there are a limited number of

opportunities for comparison among them. In what follows I will examine the single

entry common to all three authors, then proceed to comparisons of Cassiodorus and the

Oxyrhynchus Epitome and then Cassiodorus and Obsequens.

Only one historical notice is recorded by all three authors - about Hannibal's

death. Straightaway we confront the sad state of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which is here

given with Rossbach's restoration:

Cass. 377: His conss. Hannibal apud Prusian veneno periit. Obs. 4: Hannibal in Bithynia veneno periit. Oxy. 64-65: Han[nibal apud Prusiam re]

ge[m per] le[gatos Romanos expetitus veneno pe]rit.

But very little survives of the entry on the papyrus. Of the ten letters which Rossbach

saw, he was only certain of eight of them, the "g" and the "1" being difficult to make out.

han ge....le

301 Obsequens has two entries for the year 44, one headed by the consuls Caesar and Antony, the other by Antony and the suffect for the year, Dolabella.

228

rit

Grenfell and Hunt (1904) noted that the passage must be a reference to Hannibal's death

(103),302 but they read the letters on the papyrus differently from Rossbach, and do not

attempt more than a few modest restorations:

Han[nibal 12 letters fl[ ]uhe[ 19 letters

l[ib(er) xxxx.

The restoration of "Hannibal" seems certain and, given the year the entry appears, it is

undoubtedly a reference to Hannibal's death. But as for the remainder, although

Rossbach's restoration of the text is attractive and plausible, there is no basis here for

constructing an argument based on similarity of language.303

Cassiodorus differs from Obsequens in one major detail. He has placed Hannibal's

death specifically at the home of King Prusias rather than simply in Bithynia. The

difference would seem to be the result of each author choosing different details from a

common source which, as we will see below, was probably not the Oxyrhynchus epitome,

though something very close to it.304 The similarity of Cassiodorus and Obsequens,

however, is proof enough that a sentence very like this one appeared in their source.

Clearly, though, the entry in the papyrus is longer than either that of Cassiodorus or

302 Grenfell and Hunt 1904, 103. 303 As does Schmidt, 184. 304 Schmidt contends that Obsequens exhibits a tendency to record the place where events occurred if it is

at all possible (p. 168). Arguing from the basis of Rossbach's restoration, he suggests that Obsequens referred to the whole of Livy to discover that Prusias was king of Bithynia. Since Obsequens referred to the whole of Livy for his portents and prodigies, this would not be difficult. But recourse to Livy is frequently Schmidt's explanation for differences between the Oxyrhynchus Epitome and Obsequens, e.g. for the detail of Hasdrubal's behaviour at Carthage (Ox. 132 ff. and 138 ff, Obs. 20) and for the detail that the Gauls who invaded Italy in 186 had crossed over the Alps. Such a familiarity with Livy and careful reference to him on the part of Obsequens allows for a good deal of contamination at best, and at worst puts heavy strains on Schmidt's theory that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome was Obsequens' source.

Obsequens, which suggests that perhaps the document from which Cassiodorus took his

material also had a longer entry and that Cassiodorus himself trimmed it, as we saw he

sometimes did with Jerome.

There is one entry which occurs in both Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus

epitome:

Cass. 373: His conss. athletarum certamina primum a Fulvio edita. Ox. 42-43: at[hletarum cerfjamina

primum a Fu[lvio Nobilior]e edita.

The restoration of the papyrus here is fairly certain and the similarity of the two entries is

obvious, the only difference being that Fulvius' cognomen is not in Cassiodorus. It also

does not appear in the record of Nobilior's consulship in 189 (565).305

A comparison of the historical entries of Cassiodorus and Obsequens shows

considerable similarity between the two works, but also a good deal of variation within

entries recording the same event and with respect to the consular year under which

similar entries are placed. Cass. 460: per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia equitibus et

senatoribus communicata. Obs. 41: Per Caepionem consulem senatorum et equitum iudicia

communicata.

Here the form of the source is varied slightly by one of the authors, but the same short

sentence and truncated verb testifies to a similarly brief and paratactic form in the source.

Cass. 471: Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. Obs. 49: Ptolemaeus, rex Aegypti, Cyrenis mortuus SPQ Romanum

heredem reliquit.306

305 Rossbach follows Grenfell and Hunt in their restoration of this passage. 306 This entry is often used to illustrate the independence of Cassiodorus and Obsequens from the

mainstream of users of the Livian epitome. Witnesses to the epitome, Periochae 70 and Jerome 149e, both include this entry and correctly identify Ptolemy as king of Cyrene, not Egypt. See Sanders, 186-187 and Schmidt, 193.

230

and

Cass. 486: Capitolium custodum neglegentia concrematur.

Obs. 57: <fraude? neglegentia?> aeditui Capitolium una nocte conflagravit.

Again, the form of the entry of each is slightly different, but the two clearly derive from

the same source and each appears in the same year. In both cases, Cassiodorus' entry is

shorter than Obsequens', which may suggest that he omitted unnecessary details, as we

have seen he did with Jerome. Cass. 510: Catilina in agro Pistoriensi a C. Antonio bello peremptus est. Obs. 61a: C. Antonius cum in agro Pistoriensi Catilinam devicisset laureatos

fasces in provinciam tulit. ibi a Dardanis oppressus amisso exercitu profugit. apparuit eum hostibus portendisse victoriam, cum ad eos laurum victricem tulerit, quam in Capitolio debuerat deponere.

Cassiodorus puts the event in 61 BCE, in the consulship of M. Pupius and M. Valerius,

which is wrong, since the defeat of Catiline and his army was in early January of 62. The

whole passage from Obsequens, as well as the previous one with the consular names

from 63, is appended to the year 60 , which is clearly a displacement, and is moved by

most editors.307 Thus these events appear to be attached to 63 in Obsequens, rather than

61, as they are in Cassiodorus. But Rossbach restores the consuls of 62, "D. Iunio L.

Murena coss.," as the heading for this section, which must be right. According to

Schmidt, there were times when Obsequens preferred to avoid the paratactic style of his

source and employ subordination through, for instance, ablatives absolute and temporal

clauses. In doing so he compressed the events of more than one year into a single entry.308

Still, this does not explain why Cassiodorus' date is off by a year, and it may be that the

307 See Rossbach 1910, p. 175. 308 Schmidt, 190ff. in which he discusses Obsequens 20 and the compression of the siege and destruction

of Carthage into one year, while the Oxyrhynchus epitome, a better witness to Obsequens' source, divides the events into two years.

correct consular pair to restore to Obsequens is not "D. Iunio L. Murena coss.," but "M.

Pupio M. Valerio coss.," the consuls of 61. But no more can be said about this.

Cass. 531: Caesar Pompeium Farsalico proelio superavit. Pompeius fugiens in Aegyptum occisus est.

Obs. 65a: Mox acie [Pompeius] victus in Aegypto occisus.

In this pair the events are the same, but they are recorded in very different language and

also under different years (47 and 48, respectively), if we are to accept the restoration in

Obsequens of the consular heading, again by Oudendorp, of "C. Caesare P. Servilio

coss.." The reason for the difference in date is unclear. As will be seen below, there is

reason to believe that Obsequens resorted to the full text of Livy on occasion, and

corrected his source. It may therefore be that Obsequens preserves the original and that

Cassiodorus is in error, but it is perhaps more likely that he corrected an error which is

preserved by Cassiodorus. The paratactic style of Cassiodorus' entry, as we have seen,

probably preserves the original, while Obsequens compressed his source.309

We see another alteration of style by Obsequens in what follows, though with

stylistically better results:

Cass. 539: Caesar Octavianus, Antonius et Lepidus amicitiae foedus inierunt. Obs. 69: Reconciliatione inter Caesarem, Antonium, Lepidum facta foeda

principum fuit proscriptio.310

Recording the death of Caesar, the different entries of the two authors require a

new explanation:

309 Obsequens wrote a "set piece" about Pompey, complete with portents which foretold his death (65a). As in the case of C. Antonius above, he has used better style in the interest of pathos and a more interesting narrative.

310 Not only is the syntax different, but the use of the different meanings of foedus points, counterintuitively, to a common source. Cassiodorus has the more natural one given the context, with foedus meaning "treaty," whereas Obsequens has used the other meaning, "foul" and used the adjective to modify proscriptio.

Cass. 536: ...Idibus Martiis Caesar in Pompeia curia occisus est. Obs. 67: ipse Caesar viginti tribus vulneribus in curia Pompeiana a

coniuratis confossus.

Here, it would appear that Obsequens rather than Cassiodorus provides the reading of

their source, since at this place in Jerome's chronicle we find: "Idibus Martiis C. Iulius

Caesar in curia occiditur." Cassiodorus had begun to use Jerome as a source again for the

Roman emperors, and found the entry there. He inserted the name of the curia, which he

found in the source he shared with Obsequens.3" We have seen, in the section on

Cassiodorus' epitomization of Jerome, that he occasionally combined notes or used

information from two sources in a single note.312

With very few points of comparison between Cassiodorus and the other two

witnesses to the source he used, there is very little to say of a general nature. Although, as

we have seen, the notices in the Republican years in Cassiodorus fall in well with

Cassiodorus' larger programme, these years stand out for the paucity of historical notices

we see there. The document has broad stretches where only consular names are recorded.

Furthermore, a few of the historical notices seem oddly out of place, such as the record of

Hamilcar's statement that he was raising his four sons like lion cubs against the Roman

people (326), or the establishment of mines in Macedonia (403), and more obviously

important events are left out, like the battle of Zama and the destruction of Carthage.

Given the large number of events which Cassiodorus lists before and after the Republic,

when he was using Jerome as his historical source, it is fair to assume that he copied all

311 Just how far Obsequens deviated from his source is once more unclear. Here too, as with Pompey, the death is the climax of the preceding portents, and so is carefully arranged. The language is very similar to Suetonius (Div. Iul. 82) "tribus et uiginti plagis confossus est" / "he was stabbed with twenty-three strokes." On this entry, see Schmidt, 195, n. 1, for a discussion of the entire epitome tradition.

312 See above, pp 221 ff..

the historical notes from the Livian consularia he had, and would have included more if

he could have. Why he did not make more use of Eutropius, whom he used once as a

chronological guide (183-186), is unclear. Eutropius has many consular dates which

would have provided him with many more events to include.

Cassiodorus and Eutropius

Cassiodorus had a copy of Eutropius' Breviarium close to hand through the entire

composition of his Chronica, but he (almost) never used him as a primary source. On

every occasion but one he referred to Eutropius only to provide additional information to

what Jerome offers.313 We can see in his use of the Breviarium two subjects in particular

which were important to him: chronology and the city of Rome. Most often the

information is chronological. I discussed at length above how he used Eutropius'

chronological information to establish (incorrectly) the length of the rule of military

tribunes in the Republic.314 In addition, as I noted above in my comparison of Jerome's

and Cassiodorus' imperial reigns,315 he took more precise lengths of Otho's, Trajan's and

Hadrian's reigns, as well as the length of Vitellius' reign, from Eutropius.

Of the remaining five items which Cassiodorus took from Eutropius, three relate

directly to structures in the city of Rome: 681/ 920, 766 and 955.1 discussed Cassiodorus'

313 He made use of Eutropius at 183, 681/920, 692, 693, 714, 740, 766, 823, 955, and 1035. Mommsen, in his edition, suggests that Cassiodorus used Eutropius at 1061, where Cassiodorus notes that Byzantium was rededicated by Constantine as Constantinople. But Cassiodorus would not have needed Eutropius to give him this information, and there are no verbal parallels between the two authors, as there are in all the other cases.

314 See above, pp. 126ff.. 315 See above, p. 211, n. 280.

correction of Jerome on the rebuilding and rededication of the baths of Nero above. At

766, Cassiodorus oddly includes the height of Trajan's column, drawn from Eutropius

(8.5.2), in his note on Trajan's death, the rest of which is taken from Jerome (197a).

Finally, in the only note drawn solely from Eutropius, Cassiodorus dates the construction

of the baths of Decius to 252, the second year of Decius' reign. Both of these notes,

deliberately drawn from Eutropius, not Cassiodorus' primary source, demonstrate his

interest in the physical city of Rome, as I will discuss in more detail below.

Finally, two additions to notes on emperors were drawn from Eutropius. The first,

a note on the death of the emperor Titus, that "ob insignem mansuetudinem deliciae

humani generis appellatus est" / "because of his remarkable affability he was named the

delight of the human race" (714) is drawn from Eutropius description of Titus: "amor et

deliciae humani generis diceretur" / "he was said to be the love and delight of the human

race" (7.21.1). Finally, as I noted above, Cassiodorus used Eutropius in his note on the

resignation of Diocletian and the accession of Constantius.317 This use of Eutropius may

well come under the heading of chronology, since Cassiodorus was clearly confused at

this spot about the number of years to be assigned to Diocletian and Constantius, and may

have referred to Eutropius for clarification.

Though Cassiodorus used Eutropius for correction and clarification on some

points of chronology, he certainly did not use him everywhere he could have. Book eight

of Eutropius seems to have been problematic for him and contains some information

which Cassiodorus used and some which he seems to have ignored, or could not use.

316 See above, p. 226. 317 See above, p. 121.

Eutropius begins book eight with some very precise chronological information, including

the AUC date and a consular date for the first year of Nerva's reign (96): "Anno

octingentesimo et quinquagesimo ab urbe condita, Vetere et Valente consulibus" / "in the

eight-hundred and fiftieth year year from the founding of the city, when Vetus and Valens

were consuls" (8.1.1). By the time Cassiodorus got to the beginning of Nerva's reign he

had only counted 847 years from the founding of the city, and the consular list he drew

from Victorius had no consulship of Vetus and Valens (Victorius has 'Flauio et Vetere'

(opposite the Easter for 91, not 96), an error for Prosper's 'Fuluio et Vetere', which

Cassiodorus reports, while the consulship was actually that of Valens and Vetus). But the

only indications that he tried to reconcile Eutropius with Jerome and his own work are his

alterations of the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Eutropius gives a very precise length for

Nerva's reign (one year, four months and eight days, 8.1.2), but Cassiodorus only

includes the year and the months, as does Jerome, though for Trajan and Hadrian

Cassiodorus added the number of days, while Jerome did not. Similarly, he disregards

Eutropius' length of Antoninus Pius' reign of twenty-three years (8.8.4), as he had done

with Jerome's for the same emperor of twenty-two years, four months. It is possible that

he began to consult Eutropius more carefully during Trajan's and Hadrian's reigns

because, as I noted above in my discussion of Cassiodorus' combination of his consular

list with Jerome's imperial reigns, he knew that he was getting into difficulty and was

looking for a way out.

In general, we can see in Cassiodorus' use of Eutropius his care for the

chronological structure of his work, his use of a source only to add material to a primary

source which had a more sure chronological structure itself and his interest in the

buildings and monuments in the city of Rome.

Cassiodorus and Prosper of Aquitaine

Prosper of Aquitaine lived in Marseilles in the 420s and was a strong supporter of

St. Augustine during the semi-Pelagian controversy. He wrote a number of letters and

hexameter verses, and, more important for our purposes, he composed a chronicle in 433.

The work included an epitome of Jerome from creation, but Prosper included consular

years from 28 CE, the year of the crucifixion, and extended the time-line to his own day.

He produced two revisions of his work in 445 and 455.318 His work survives in a variety

of forms: both as a stand-alone chronicle from the beginning of time to the fifth century,

but also as a continuation of Jerome's full chronicle.

As we have seen, Victorius of Aquitaine used Prosper's consular list as the

chronological basis for his Cursus Paschalis. Prosper, of course, dated his chronicle from

the crucifixion to his own day by consuls, but Cassiodorus did not use Prosper's consular

list, but Victorius'. However, if he had Victorius' introduction to the Cursus Paschalis, he

knew from the introduction that Victorius had taken his consular list from Prosper. As I

have suggested above, it seems likely that Cassiodorus trusted Victorius' Easter table,

which would have included a complete list of consuls from 28 CE down to Cassiodorus'

own day. It is further not impossible, and perhaps even likely, that Cassiodorus only had

Prosper's extension of Jerome after 378, and not Prosper's full epitome of Jerome with

318 Burgess and Kulikowski, forthcoming.

consular dates added.

Cassiodorus does not say that he used Prosper, but a cursory comparison of his

historical entries with those of Prosper for the years between 379 and 445 make it

abundantly clear that he did.320 As I noted above, Cassiodorus lists at the end of the

Chronica only those sources which he used for constructing his chronology, not those

which he used for historical notes. Jerome himself is only mentioned because

Cassiodorus used his chronological framework for the early years from creation to the

establishment of the consulship, but he does not note him for the extensive use which he

made of him between the crucifixion and 378. It is not surprising, then, that Prosper

should go unnamed.

Mommsen, in Chronica Minora I, suggested that Cassiodorus had used the

version of Prosper's chronicle which extended to 455, and that he had supplemented it

with other material from the consularia he used for his historical notes from 445 on.321

But, with the publication of Cassiodorus' Chronica in Chronica Minora II, two years

later, he changed his mind and suggested that both men had used similar consularia as

their sources for those ten years.322 He further posited that Cassiodorus may well have

319 It is not impossible that Cassiodorus, in attempting to bring together Jerome's historical entries with a consular list, was consciously correcting Prosper, but I see no evidence that this was the case.

320 E.g. s.a. 380 Prosper: "Ambrosius episcopus multa pro Catholica fide sublimiter scribit;" Cassiodorus: "Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit," and s.a. 381 Prosper: "Martinus episcopus Turinorum Galliae civitatis multis clarus habetur;" Cassiodorus: "Martinus episcopus Turonum Galliae civitatis clarus habetur."

321 Mommsen 1892, 368 and 374. Cassiodorus certainly knew of the full version of Prosper when he published his Institutiones in 562, since he recommends Prosper to his readers: "Sanctus quoque Prosper chronica ab Adam ad Gensirici tempora et urbis depredationem usque perduxit'V'the holy Prosper also wrote a chronicle from Adam to the time of Geiseric and the sacking of the city" (Inst. 1.17.2). But, of course, his knowledge of Prosper's work in 562 is no reason to suppose that he knew of it, or had it, forty-three years earlier.

322 Mommsen 1894,113.

had a copy of Jerome which had Prosper's continuation appended. Mommsen does not

anywhere lay out clearly all his reasons for his suggestions, so the question needs to be

addressed methodically and carefully.

Cassiodorus has only six historical entries for the period between 446 and 455,

and a quick comparison between his entries and Prosper's suggests at the very least some

ruthless epitomization on Cassiodorus' part: Prosper's entries are rather long, Cassiodorus'

typically short. More important, however, are several pieces of information in

Cassiodorus' entries which he did not get from Prosper's chronicle.324 Since Cassiodorus'

methods of epitomization and adaptation of Prosper's entries are at the heart of this

question, we must carefully compare the entries which Cassiodorus clearly took from

Prosper between the years 379 and 445 with Prosper's work, before we deal with the

entries between 446 and 455. We will then be able to address the years 446 to 455 with

some foundation for making historiographical judgements.

Cassiodorus treated the historical entries he found in Prosper in much the same

way as he did those he found in Jerome: his aim was to capture relevant historical detail

in as brief a manner as possible. If his source's entries were short enough already, he

copied them verbatim; if he could omit detail without compromising the record of the

event, he did; sometimes, however, he found it necessary either to add material or rewrite

his source.

As is the case with the entries from Jerome, for the most part Cassiodorus copied

entire entries from Prosper almost verbatim, with an occasional switch of verb tense or

323 Codex Leidenensis Scaligeri 14 is an extant example of just such a work. 324 See below, pp. 240ff.

voice. For example, at 1190 Cassiodorus notes the capture of land in Gaul by the

Burgundians: "Burgundiones partem Galliae Rheno tenuere coniunctam" / "The

Burgundians held the part of Gaul beside the Rhine." Prosper's note is only slightly

different: "Burgundiones partem Galliae propinquam Rheno optinuerunt" / "The

Burgundians held the part of Gaul close to the Rhine."325

Cassiodorus often left out what he regarded as detail unnecessary for his spare

narrative, sometimes a few words, sometimes more, but at the same time quoting the key

words at the heart of Prosper's entry. For example, at 1142 Cassiodorus relates the death

of Gratian in a few words: "Gratianus apud Lugdunum captus occiditur" / "Gratian was

captured and killed at Lyon," whereas Prosper's entry is much longer: "In Brittania per

seditionem militum Maximus imperator est factus. quo mox ad Gallias transfretante

Gratianus Parisiis Merobaudis magistri militum proditione superatus et fugiens Lugduni

captus atque occisus est" / "Maximus was made emperor in Britain through the treachery

of the soldiers. Soon after he crossed into Gaul and Gratian was defeated at Paris through

the betrayal of Merobaudes, his magister militum. He then fled to Lyon, where he was

captured and killed." Although he has omitted a great deal of Prosper's note, Cassiodorus

retains Prosper's words and the essential information in his own work.326

As he had done with Jerome, on a very few occasions Cassiodorus found that the

entry in Prosper needed considerable rewriting to compress it. A good example is 1211,

which relates the defeat of John by Valentinian and of the Huns by Aetius: "Iohannem

325 The following entries are taken almost entirely from Prosper, occasionally with one or two words omitted, or the tense or mood of the verb changed: 1134, 1136, 1140, 1157, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1169, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1183, 1188, 1190, 1199, 1207, 1209, 1226, 1229, 1233, 1240, and 1243.

326 Other examples are 1143, 1153, 1225, 1226, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1250 and 1251.

tyrannum Valentinianus imperator extinxit Hunosque qui in Italia erant Iohanni praesidio

per Aetium mira felicitate dimovit" / "The emperor Valentinian crushed the usurper John

and with miraculous good fortune through Aetius he repelled the Huns who were in Italy

as a protection to John." Prosper's note is rather different: "Placidia Augusta et

Valentinianus Caesar mira felicitate Iohannem tyrannum opprimunt et regnum victores

recipiunt. Data venia Aetio eo quod Chuni, quos per ipsum Iohannes acciverat, eiusdem

studio ad propria reversi sunt" / "Placidia Augusta and Valentinian Caesar suppressed

John with miraculous good fortune and victoriously retook the empire; Aetius was

pardoned because it was through his exertions that the Huns, whom John had summoned

on his own account, were turned back to their own lands" (1288). Oddly, Cassiodorus

transposed the phrase "mira felicitate" / "with miraculous good fortune" to Aetius' defeat

of the Huns, whereas Prosper used it to modify Placidia and Valentinian's defeat of John.

Still, it is easy to see that Cassiodorus used only Prosper's words in his own note and had

no recourse to another source.327

There are, however, nine notes over the years between 379 and 445 which contain

information not found in Prosper: 1134, 1138, 1169, 1172, 1185, 1194, 1205, 1215 and

1217. In each case Cassiodorus has expanded Prosper's note with information from

elsewhere. In two cases (1134 and 1169), Cassiodorus need not have made use of an

external source. But in the remaining seven he must have used information from a written

source. As we will see, we can make some guesses about where the extra information

came from, but we cannot be sure.

Cassiodorus' note at 1134 has been the subject of frequent comment by those who

327 Other examples of Cassiodorus' rewriting of Prosper's notes are 1145, 1206, 1214 and 1232.

241

discuss the Chronica: "Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit" /

"Bishop Ambrose wrote many uplifting works about the Christian faith." Cassiodorus

was here reproducing Prosper's very similar note: "Ambrosius episcopus de catholica fide

multa sublimiter scribit" / "Bishop Ambrose wrote many uplifting things about the

Catholic faith" (1173). One does not need to look far for the reason for Cassiodorus'

alteration: he did not wish to insult his address, an Arian, by mentioning orthodoxy and

drawing attention to the religious differences between the Romans and the Goths.328 But

Cassiodorus would have no need of an outside source to make this change.

Similarly, at 1169, Cassiodorus wrote: "Gothi Halarico et Radagaiso regibus

ingrediuntur Italiam" / "The Goths entered Italy under their kings Alaric and Radagaisus"

- almost exactly the same as Prosper, who has "ducibus" ("leaders") for "regibus" (1218).

Again, Cassiodorus did not require an outside source to make this change, upgrading the

Gothic commanders' status.329

The remaining seven instances where Cassiodorus has information different from

Prosper indicate that he had an additional source or sources, which he used alongside

Prosper. After discussing each one, I will make some suggestions about what those

sources may have been and what they may have looked like.

Cassiodorus' note at 1194 presents a slightly more complicated problem which

raises a number of issues including Cassiodorus' method of epitomization and which

version of Prosper's chronicle he used. Cassiodorus' note is as follows: "Gothi placati

Constantio Placidiam reddiderunt cuius nuptias promeretur" / "The Goths, pacified,

328 Mommsen 1894, 114, O'Donnell 1979, 39, Moorhead 1992, 91. 329 On the other hand, Cassiodorus does not call Alaric "rex," but "dux" in his note on the sack of Rome

at 1185. Orosius, whom Cassiodorus may have been reading alongside Prosper, calls both Alaric and Radagaisus "reges" (7.37.2 and 7.37.15, respectively), but never "duces."

returned Placidia to Constantius and won the right to marry her." Prosper has two

different notes from his versions of 445 and 455.330 Prosper's initial, and longer, note of

445 had been, "Placidiam Theodosii imperatoris filiam, quam Romae Gothi ceperant

quamque Athaulfus coniugem habuerat, Wallia pacem Honorii expetens reddit eiusque

nuptias Constantius promeretur" / "Wallia, seeking peace from Honorius, returned

Placidia the daughter of the emperor Theodosius, whom the Goths had captured at Rome

and whom Athaulf had married, and Constantius earned her marriage" (1259). His later

note, considerably trimmed back, reads, "Wallia Placidiam reddit, cuius nuptias

Constantius promeretur" / "Wallia returned Placidia and Constantius earned her

marriage."331 The change of "Wallia" (the king of the Visigoths) to "Gothi" would not

require another source, and is perhaps an example of Cassiodorus using a more general

term for a reader or readers who would not recognize the name "Wallia.332 But

Cassiodorus' move of Constantius' name from the subordinate clause to the primary

clause is noteworthy. The story of Placidia's physical return to Constantius himself is

reported by Jordanes in his Getica. Jordanes claims to have used Cassiodorus' lost Gothic

History as the primary source for his Getica. Thus, whether or not the story is true, it

would appear that it was in Cassiodorus' Gothic History as well.333

Finally, the word "placati" suggests that the Romans had done something to make

330 On the different versions of Prosper as represented by the different manuscripts, see Burgess, Mosaics, forthcoming.

331 The close similarity of the phrasing of Cassiodorus with that of Prosper's note of 455 strongly suggests that the version of Prosper which Cassiodorus used was that of 455. See below, pp. 248ff.

332 Although Cassiodorus had not mentioned Placidia before this (neither had Prosper), and so perhaps assumes knowledge of who she was. See above, p. 239.

333 The Gothic History was probably not completed until the late 520's at least (see Barnish 1984), but the Chronica may be used carefully as a guide for some, but not all, of what may have been in it. See Croke 1987, 129-134.

243

the Goths less hostile, and as part of that bargain, Placidia was returned. Prosper's note of

445 indicates that it was Wallia who was seeking peace and who agreed to hand Placidia

to ensure that he got it. The other sources vary a little as to the exact bargain and the

reasons for it. Jordanes, who, as we have mentioned, used Cassiodorus for this story,

indicates that Honorius made the first move, but also that the Romans and Goths, when

they met, were evenly matched.334 Orosius describes a settlement much in the Romans'

favour, with Wallia handing over hostages.335 Olympiodorus, whose account is perhaps

more detailed than anyone else's, notes that Euplutius the agens in rebus was sent to

negotiate with Wallia, who returned Placidia after 600,000 modii of grain were given to

the Goths - grain which had perhaps been promised to his predecessor Athaulf in return

for Placidia.336

But for the fact that the name "Constantius" is transposed in the sentence, it would

not be impossible that Cassiodorus had used Prosper's version of 445 and had rewritten

the report that Wallia was "expetens pacem" / "seeking peace," using the word "pacati" to

make the Goths seem slightly stronger in their dealings with the Romans. Though it is not

easy to tell, it would appear, then, on balance, that Cassiodorus had another source with

which he corrected Prosper's account at this point. The fact that Jordanes' account of the

actual handing over of Placidia to Constantius (as opposed to someone else, or someone

unnamed) more or less agrees with Cassidorus' broad outlines at this point further

suggests that Cassiodorus' changes here were deliberate and that he repeated the story in

the Gothic History seven or eight years later.

334 Jordanes Get. 32.164-165. 335 Orosius 43.11-12. 336 Olympiodorus frg. 26 Blockley = Philostorgius 12.4-5.

244

The remaining six historical entries show clearer cases of Cassiodorus resorting to

another source or sources. Details from four of these entries (1138, 1172, 1185 and 1215)

are recorded in Jordanes' Getica as well. At 1138 Cassiodorus notes that Athanaric died at

Constantinople: "Athanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinopolim venit ibique vitam exegit"

/ "Athanaric the king of the Goths came to Constantinople and died there." Prosper,

however, had noted that Athanaric had been murdered: "Aithanaricus rex Gothorum apud

Constantinopolim quinto decimo die quam fuerat susceptus occiditur" / "Athanaric the

king of the Goths is killed on the fifteenth day from when he had been received (there)"

(1177). It has been suggested that Cassiodorus was deliberately changing the record at

this point,337 but several other sources merely say that Athanaric died there.338 It is not

impossible that Cassiodorus avoided reproducing Prosper's note, but he did not make up

his own.

Cassiodorus' note on the battle of Pollentia shows some of the most noteworthy

differences between Cassiodorus and Prosper. At 1172, Cassiodorus says, "Pollentiae

Stiliconem cum exercitu Romano Gothi victum acie fugaverunt" / "At Pollentia the Goths

defeated Stilicho with the Roman army in battle and put him to flight." Prosper is much

less definitive about the winner: Pollentiae adversum Gothos vehementer utriusque partis

clade pugnatum" / "At Pollentia there was a fierce battle against the Goths with great loss

on both sides." There seems to be no doubt that Stilicho won the battle,339 though his

victory was not overwhelming.340 Still, it is not at all clear where Cassiodorus took his

337 0'Donnelll979,38. 338 The Descriptio Consilium s.a. 381, Ammianus 27.5.10, Marcellinus s.a. 381, Orosius 7.34.6-7,

Hydatius s.a. 381, Zosimus 4.34, Socrates 5.10 and Jordanes 28.144. 339 Orosius 7.37.2, Claudian de Cons. Hon. VI, 223ff. 340 Demougeot 1951,270.

information from. Many have said that Cassiodorus was simply altering the historical

record at this point, to boost the reputation of his addressee's heritage,342 and this may

well be the case.

At 1185 Cassiodorus notes that "Roma a Gothis Halarico duce capta est ubi

clementer usi victoria sunt" / "Rome was captured by the Goths under their leader Alaric,

where they enjoyed their victory with compassion." The first sentence of Prosper's note,

"Roma a Gothis Alarico duce capta" / "Rome was captured by the Goths under their

leader Alaric" (1240), has been copied verbatim, but Cassiodorus has added a note on the

Goths' behaviour. The fact that the Goths stayed in Rome for only three days, that many

lives were spared and that churches and church property were untouched was noted by

ancient authors, particularly by Orosius and Augustine,343 and was well-known in

antiquity. It is not impossible, then, that Cassiodorus added this detail from his own

memory to smooth over the fact that a Gothic army had invaded and sacked the city.

At 1205 Cassiodorus notes that Galla Placidia was sent to Constantinople:

"Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio ob suspicionem invitatorum hostium cum Honorio et

Valentiniano filiis ad orientem mittitur" / "Placidia Augusta, because she was suspected

of inviting enemies, was sent to the east by her brother Honorius with her sons Honorius

and Valentinian." Prosper, again, is clearly the basic source for this note: "Placidia

Augusta a fratre Honorio pulsa Orientem cum Honorio et Valentiniano filiis petit" /

"Placidia Augusta was driven out by her brother Honorius and went to the east with her

341 Jordanes follows Cassiodorus on the battle of Pollentia, ascribing victory to the Goths, which again suggests that he found his information in Cassiodorus.

342 E.g. O'Donnell 1979, 38-39. 343 Augustine de civ. Dei 1.1, Orosius 7.39.1 and 7.39.15.

sons Honorius and Valentinian" (1280). Cassiodorus, however, added Honorius'

reasons for sending her away. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 also notes that "Placidia cum

insidias fratri tendere deprehensa esset, Romam exilio relegata" / "Placidia, after she was

caught plotting against her brother, was sent to Rome in exile,"345 but the charges against

her are even less specific than those in Cassiodorus. Olympiodorus gives much more

information about Placidia's move to Constantinople. He describes a close relationship

between Honorius and Placidia, his sister, that quickly went sour after her return from her

captivity and the death of Constantius. He notes that there were brawls in Ravenna

between the supporters of Honorius and Placidia, and that "nepifjv Y&P K&K£lPr|

nAfi0oc; Pappdpwv EK xfiq npog ASaoOAcpou avjixxcpeiac; KOCI EK xfic; npoc;

KtovrjT&UTlOP au^UY^a^" / "f°r Placidia was surrounded by a host of barbarians

because of her marriages to Ataulf and Constantius."346 Here barbarians are mentioned as

supporting Placidia, but even if these are the "hostes" mentioned by Cassiodorus there is

no suggestion of treason in Olympiodorus' narrative.

The accusation of "inuitati hostes" against Placidia sounds suspiciously like the

charges laid against Boniface, who was accused of having allowed the Vandals to cross

over into Africa in 429, and against Eudoxia, Valentinian's wife and Placidia's daughter-

in-law, who was accused of calling the Vandals into Italy in 455.347 As such, it may be a

doublet, particularly since Boniface was a close ally of Placidia, and since Placidia's exile

and the charges against Boniface were so close in time. But whether the accusation in

344 Placidia, in fact, had a son, Valentinian, and a daughter, Honoria. Some of the manuscripts of Prosper record this error (ZRHB), and the others do not.

345 Gallic Chronicle of 452, s.a. 423. Placidia went first to Rome, and then to Constantinople. 346 Olympiodorus frg. 38, trans. Blockley. 347 Malchus366.

247

Cassiodorus is a report of some genuine occurrence, or a mistake in his source or in his

reading of his source, it is clear that he had a source other than Prosper.

At 1215 Cassiodorus remarks on the migration of the Vandals into Africa: "Gens

Vandalorum a Gothis exclusa de Hispaniis ad Africam transit" / "The tribe of the Vandals,

driven out of Spain by the Goths, crossed over into Africa." Prosper's corresponding

note, "Gens Wandalorum ab Hispania ad Africam transit" / "The tribe of the Vandals

crosses over into Africa from Spain" (1294), is, again, clearly the basic source, but

Cassiodorus added "a Gothis exclusa" / "driven out by the Goths." Jordanes' note at this

point tells the same story in slightly more detail, even dated to the same consuls, again

suggesting that Jordanes took this information from Cassiodorus' Gothic History.34*

Jordanes goes on to say that Geiseric had already been invited into Africa by Boniface,349

which corresponds to the story told by Procopius, who only says that Boniface invited the

Vandals in from Spain.350

Hydatius records battles between the Vandals and the Visigoths under Wallia,

presumably conducted at the request of Ravenna after the return of Placidia, and also

battles between the Vandals and the Sueves.351 But these events are dated to 418 and 419,

well before the Vandal passage into Africa. According to Prosper, Wallia and his

Visigoths were then resettled in Aquitania in 419 (1271). Prosper also says that Castinus

348 "Videns Valia Vandalos in suis finibus, id est Spaniae solum, audaci temeritate ab interioribus partibus Galliciae, ubi eos fugaverat dudum Atauulfus, egressos et cuncta in praedas vastare, eo fere tempore, quo Hierius et Ardabures consules processissent, nee mora mox contra eos movit exercitum" / "Wallia, seeing the Vandals in his territory, that is the land of Spain, and that they, with brazen temerity, had come out of interior parts of Gallicia, where Ataulf had driven them long before, and that they were taking everything as spoils, at around the time when Hieries and Ardabures had become consuls, without delay moved his army against them" (Get. 32.166).

349 Get. 32.167. 350 Procopius 3.3.24-26. 351 Hydatius 67, and 71.

248

was sent to Spain to fight the Vandals in 422, and Hydatius further notes that his army

included Gothic auxiliaries.352

It is, then, unclear again where Cassiodorus took his information from. One might

imagine Cassiodorus using a very spare and compressed narrative which related Wallia's

battles with the Vandals and was followed immediately by the Vandal passage into Africa.

Or, if the expedition under Castinus with Gothic auxiliaries is the source for Cassiodorus'

claim that the Vandals were shut out of Spain by the Goths, we may well compare this

entry to another, that of 451, where Cassiodorus attributes the Roman victory over Attila

at the Catalaunian plains to the Gothic auxiliaries of Aetius. It is also possible, though

perhaps less likely, that he has added something from his own memory, simply on the

basis of the fact that he knew the Visigoths had been in Spain around these years. Again,

a Gothic action against the Vandals would bolster the reputation of the Ostrogothic

kingdom.

Finally, at 1215, Cassiodorus notes that "Aetius multis Francis caesis quam

occupaverant propinquam Rheno partem recipit Galliarum" / "Aetius slaughtered many

Franks and recaptured that part of Gaul next to the Rhine, which they had occupied." The

note is, again, clearly taken from Prosper, except that Cassiodorus has added the report of

enemy casualties: "Pars Galliarum propinqua Rheno, quam Franci possidendam

occupaverant, Aetii [comitis] armis recepta" / "The part of Gaul next to the Rhine, which

the Franks had occupied in order to settle it, was recaptured through the arms of the

comes Aetius" (1298). Aetius' battles with the Franks at this time are not well attested,

352 Prosper, Hydatius s.a. 422.

noted here and also by Hydatius, who dates them to 432.

Clearly then, Cassiodorus added information to some of Prosper's entries, but

there is no one extant source which could be the source of all the information. Having

examined both Cassiodorus' techniques of epitomization and the additional details he

adds to Prosper's notes between 379 and 445, we can now turn to the problem first

addressed by Mommsen: which version of Prosper Cassiodorus used, and whether the

additional material in Cassiodorus' Chronica is due to his use of a source in addition to

Prosper or a source upon which Prosper also drew.

Cassiodorus includes historical material in his years between 446 and 455 which

Prosper does not have, but the verbal similarities between those years are difficult to

explain by other means than a use of Prosper by Cassiodorus. As I will show, it may well

be best to account for both the extra material in Cassiodorus and the verbal similarities

with Prosper by assuming that Cassiodorus combined Prosper and another source or

sources, in exactly the same way has he did for the years between 379 and 445.

Mommsen decided that Cassiodorus had used Prosper's version of 445, and that

he drew on a source in common with Prosper for the years 446 to 455 because of the

additional information Cassiodorus has, and which Prosper does not, combined with the

similarities the two exhibit. The following chart shows the parallel entries in Cassiodorus'

and Prosper's chronicles between 450 and 455, with Cassiodorus' additional material in

italics and the verbal similarities in bold. As was the case for the years between 379 and

445, Cassiodorus has no entries which are not matched by something relating the same

353 Hydatius. s.a432.

event in Prosper. There follows below a chart with all of Cassiodorus's historical notes

between 446 and 455 with their parallel entries in Prosper. I will treat each pair in

chronological order.

Cassiodorus

His conss Theodosius moritur. Post quern Marcianus adscitur imperio qui regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XLV

His conss Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit.

His conss Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit. Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa

Year

450

451

452

Prosper

Theodosio imperatore defuncto et Chrysafio praeposito, qui amicitia principis male usus fuerat, interempto Marcianus consensione totius exercitus suscepit regnum, vir gravissimus et non solum rei publicae, sed etiam ecclesiae pernecessarius.

Attila post necem fratris auctus opibus interempti multa vicinarum sibi gentium milia cogit in bellum, quod Gothis tantum se inferre tamquam custos Romanae amicitiae denuntiabat. sed cum transito Rheno saevissimos eius impetus multae Gallicanae urbes experirentur, cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis exercitibus repugnaretur, tantaque patricii Aetii providentia fuit, ut raptim congregatis undique bellatoribus viris adversae multitudini non impar occurreret, in quo conflictu quamvis neutris cedentibus inaestimabiles strages commorientium factae sint, Chunos tamen eo constat victos fuisse, quod amissa proeliandi fiducia qui superfuerant ad propria reverterunt.

Attila redintegratis viribus, quas in Gallia amiserat, Italiam ingredi per Pannonias intendit, nihil duce nostro

354 Cassiodorus has no historical entries for the years 445 to 449, and Prosper has only an ecclesiastical note for 448, which Cassiodorus would not include in his own work because he generally avoided ecclesiastical issues. But the fact that neither author has events for these years suggests that either Cassiodorus was using Prosper or an epitome of Prosper, rather than that both were drawing on the same source.

251

Leo directus pacem fecit.

His conss Attila in sedibus suis moritur.

His conss Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio amicus eius circumstantium gladiis interemptus.

His conss in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. post quern

453

454

455

Aetio secundum prioris belli opera prospiciente, ita ut ne clusuris quidem Alpium, quibus hostes prohiberi poterant, uteretur, hoc solum spebus suis superesse existimans, si ab omni Italia cum imperatore discederet. sed cum hoc plenum dedecoris et periculi videretur, continuit verecundia metum, et tot nobilium provinciarum latissima eversione credita est saevitia et cupiditas hostilis explenda, nihilque inter omnia consilia principis ac senatus populique Romani salubrius visum est, quam ut per legatos pax truculentissimi regis expeteretur. suscepit hoc negotium cum viro consulari Avieno et viro praefectorio Trygetio beatissimus papa Leo auxilio dei fretus, quern sciret numquam piorum laboribus defuisse. nee aliud secutum est quam praesumpserat fides, nam tota legatione dignanter accepta ita summi sacerdotis praesentia rex gavisus est, ut et bello abstinere praeciperet et ultra Danuvium promissa pace discederet.

Attila in sedibus suis mortuo magna primum certamina de optinendo regno exorta sunt, deinde aliquot gentium, quae Chunis parebant, defectus secuti causas et occasiones bellis dederunt, quibus ferocissimi populi mutuis incursibus contererentur.

[origins of hatred between Aetius and Valentinian] unde Aetius imperatoris manu et circumstantium gladiis intra palatii penetralia crudeliter confectus est, Boetio praetorii praefecto simul perempto, qui eidem multa amicitia copulabatur

Mortem Aetii mors Valentiniani non longo post tempore consecuta est, tarn

252

Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est. Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium.

imprudenter non declinata, ut interfector Aetii amicos armigerosque eius sibimet consociaret. qui concepti facinoris opportunitatem dissimulanter aucupantes egressum extra urbem principem et ludo gestationis intentum inopinatis ictibus confoderunt, Heraclio simul, ut erat proximus, interempto et nullo ex multitudine regia ad ultionem tanti sceleris accenso. ut autem hoc parricidium perpetratum et, Maximus vir gemini consulatus et patriciae dignitatis sumpsit imperium. qui cum periclitanti rei publicae profuturus per omnia crederetur, non sero documento, quid animi haberet, provabit, si quidem interfectores Valentiniani non solum non plecterit, sed etiam in amicitiam receperit uxoremque eius Augustam amissionem viri lugere prohibitam intra paucissimos dies in coniugium suum transire coegerit. sed hac incontinentia non diu potitus est. nam post alterum mensem nuntiato ex Africa Gisirici regis adventu multisque nobilibus ac popularibus ex urbe fugientibus cum ipse quoque data cunctis abeundi licentia trepide vellet abscedere a famulis regiis dilaniatus est et membratim deiectus in Tiberim sepultura quoque caruit. post hunc Maximi exitum confestim secuta est multis digna lacrimis Romana captivitas et urbem omni praesidio vacuam Gisiricus optinuit, occurrente sibi extra portas sancto Leone episcopo, cuius supplicatio ita cum deo agente lenivit, ut, cum omnia potestati ipsius essent tradita, ab igni tamen et caede atque suppliciis abstineretur. per quattuordecim igitur dies secura et libera scrutatione

253

omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est multaque milia captivorum, prout quique aut aetate aut arte placuerunt, cum regina et filiabus eius Cartaginem abducta sunt.

In 450, the death of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian is noted.

Cassiodorus gives the length of his reign, seven years, whereas Prosper does not. This

need not mean that Cassiodorus took the information from another source; he could

easily have counted the years himself, and there is reason to believe that the version of

the consularia which he used did not include regnal years.355

In 451, Cassiodorus notes "Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam

in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit," / "The

Romans, under the leadership of Aetius, with Gothic auxiliaries, fought on the

Catalaunian plains against Attila, who was overcome by the strength of the Goths and

departed." Prosper's note is much longer, and, though the Goths are mentioned, his

statement that "cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis

exercitibus repugnaretur," / "quickly it seemed good both to our people and the Goths,

that the madness of the proud enemies by repelled our allied armies" suggests an equality

between the Roman and Gothic forces which Cassiodorus' does not. Cassiodorus,

however, gives the place, the Catalaunian plains, which Prosper does not, and notes that

Attila was defeated due to the valour of the Goths, whereas Prosper clearly states that,

though Attila did withdraw afterwards, neither side was a clear winner.356

355 See below, p. 260.

356 Jordanes, like Cassiodorus, gives the place, the Catalaunian plains (191, 197). Jordanes' narrative of the battle is long, and he notes that the Ostrogoths fought on the side of Attila. Though he does not explicitly attribute Aetius' victory to his Visigothic allies, he does give them pride of place in his

In 452, Cassiodorus includes the note about Attila's attack on Aquileia, which

Prosper leaves out: "Attila...Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit" / "Attila, fighting

with great violence, entered Aquileia." The capture of Aquileia is recorded in several

other western sources, including one manuscript of Prosper.357

The note on the murder of Aetius is noteworthy for the use of the same phrases,

but, if Cassiodorus used Prosper directly at this point, he either miscopied or altered his

source. Whereas Cassiodorus says, "Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani

imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio amicus eius circumstantium

gladiis interemptus," / "Aetius the patrician was killed in the palace by the hand of the

emperor Valentinian. And Boethius the praetorian prefect, his friend, was murdered by

the swords of those standing around him," Prosper, using very similar language, says,

"Aetius imperatoris manu et circumstantium gladiis intra palatii penetralia crudeliter

confectus est, Boetio praetorii praefecto simul perempto, qui eidem multa amicitia

copulabatur," / "Aetius was killed by the hand of the emperor and the swords of those

standing around him in the heart of the palace, and Boethius the praetorian prefect was

murdered at the same time, who was bound to him by great friendship." The details (the

assassins, the place, the victims, their friendship) are the same, but Cassiodorus attributes

Aetius' death to Valentinian alone, and Boethius' to others, whereas Prosper says that both

were cut down by more than one man.358 It is not like Cassiodorus to change details

without reason, so it seems likely that this is what he read in his source.

narrative (209-210). 357 The Haf. s.a. 452, Agnellus 32, Marcellinus sa. 452, Ann. Rav. s.a. 452 (p. 129), Jordanes Get. 42

(from Priscus). 358 To this shift of the phrase "circumstantium gladiis" we may compare the shift of the phrase "mira

felicitate" at 1211, which I discussed above.

Finally, in 455 Cassiodorus notes that "in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii

Valentinianus occiditur. post quern Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a

militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis

Roma vacuata est," / "Valentinian was killed in the campus Martius by the friends of

Aetius. Maximus took power after his death, but within two months he was killed by the

soldiers and thrown into the Tiber. In the same year, Rome was emptied of all her

treasures by Geiseric." Prosper has almost all the information in a much longer note,

except that he does not include the detail "in campo Martio," writing instead the less

specific, but perhaps more dramatic "egressum extra urbem principem et ludo gestationis

intentum," / "the emperor, having gone out of the city and intent on the pleasure of being

carried in a litter." The "campus Martius" referred to is a campus by the imperial villa Ad

duas lauros, which other authors mention by name. Prosper knows the event happened

outside the city, but his details are hazy.

In the same note, Cassiodorus says that Maximus was killed within two months,

whereas Prosper says he was killed "after the second month," a time which corresponds

to our other sources for this event, which give the length of Maximus' reign as

somewhere over seventy days.359

And yet there are several clear verbal similarities between Prosper and

Cassiodorus which point to the use of Prosper by Cassiodorus. For the year 452,

Cassiodorus and Prosper introduce their historical notes with the same ablative absolute

"Attila, redintegratis viribus" / "Attila, with his strength renewed." In 453 Cassiodorus'

359 FVpr, Gallic Chronicle of 511, Marcellinus, and Victor of Tunnuna, all s.a. 455. Paul the Deacon, discussed below, also records the length of Maximus' reign as under two months (14.16).

"Attila in sedibus suis moritur" / "Attila died in his own home" corresponds almost

exactly with Prosper's "Attila in sedibus suis mortuo" / "when Attila had died in his own

home," and is similar to Cassiodorus' practice in epitomizing Jerome of changing a

participle (mortuo) to a finite verb (moritur).3601 have noted above the similarities in the

description of the assassination of Aetius and Boethius. Finally, in 455, the phrase

"omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est" is exactly the same in Prosper. The simplest way

to explain these close similarities to Prosper is to say that Cassiodorus was, at this point,

still using Prosper, but was epitomizing drastically and adding a few notes from his other

sources.

We have seen in the discussions above of Cassiodorus' compression of historical

entries both from Jerome and from the section of Prosper from 379 to 445 that

Cassiodorus often shortened both Jerome and Prosper's entries, but for the most part

tends not to render the information he gets from his sources into his own words. He does,

however, as we have also seen, not only occasionally engage in considerable rewriting,

but also blends additional material into his primary source, Prosper. Prosper's individual

notes for the years 446 to 455 required more compression than those between 379 and

445. They are much longer and contain a great deal of information because they were

written by a contemporary.

Cassiodorus' methods then, for the years 379 to 445 and from 445 to 455, appear

to be the same. Noteworthy as well is the fact that, as with the years 379 to 445,

Cassiodorus wrote no entries for the years 446 to 455 which do not have a corresponding

360 E.g. Jerome 236g "effectus," Cassiodorus 1081 "efficitur"; Jerome 2231 "exorta," Cassiodorus 1001 "exorta est" and many others.

entry in Prosper. Despite the fact that Cassiodorus appears to have made a change in

historical detail when he slightly altered the story of the assassination of Aetius and

Boethius, it seems safest to say that he used Prosper's version of 455, and continued to

use other sources for the extra details, as he had done from at least 380.

What then, can we say about the source of the extra material which Cassiodorus

added to Prosper's entries? Some of it, as I have noted, is clearly from Cassiodorus' own

pen. For the rest, it is not at all certain they are even from the same source. If the notes

are all from the same work we might imagine a pro-Gothic source, given the number of

notes which stress Gothic prowess, and which correct elements of Gothic history, but it

could also simply be the case that Cassiodorus chose specifically Gothic material from

his secondary source to indulge his audience.

The fact that Cassiodorus only updates notes in Prosper, and does not include

entire notes which have no parallel entry in Prosper, might suggest that this source was

not dated by consuls, so Cassiodorus could only accurately date events which matched

those he found in Prosper. This kind of dating could account for note 1214, which seems

to attribute to the Goths the Vandal departure from Spain. We know he used Eutropius

alongside Jerome, and we could easily imagine a now-lost extension of Eutropius which

Cassiodorus used after Eutropius had ended.

On the other hand, as will be made clear in what follows, Cassiodorus had a

version of the Italian consularia which he used from 456 to at least 493 for his historical

events. There is nothing to suggest that that document did not start a good deal earlier

than the end of Prosper's chronicle, and every reason to think that it probably did. The

additional material which he added to Prosper could easily have come from there.

Cassiodorus and the Italian Consularia

Mommsen was surely right when he suggested that Cassiodorus must have used a

version of the Italian consularia as his source for historical events from 456 to 519, the

years following the end of his copy of Prosper.361 The Consularia Italica, a now-lost

document covering events primarily related to Italy in the late fourth and early fifth

centuries, including material related to the empire as a whole, was originally begun and

maintained at Ravenna from near the end of the fourth century. The document spread to

other parts of the empire and was copied, shortened, added to, translated and used by a

wide variety of authors as raw source material and a chronological framework for

historical writing. The use of the document, or some form of it, can be seen through

certain touch-stone events which are described in the same way (such as Attila's

destruction of Aquileia and the death of Marcellinus in Sicily), through very specific

dates which are given in a variety of authors, through common errors, through words and

phrases common to several documents, and through the broad similarities of selection of

detail. The existence of the document was first posited by Mommsen and Holder-Egger

in the nineteenth century, and has been the subject of extensive research recently by

Richard Burgess.362

As we have seen, Cassiodorus would naturally use a source which at least was

carefully dated, so that he could assign events to consulships with relative ease. Holder-

361 Mommsen 1894, p. 113. 362 In what follows I am deeply indebted to Burgess' work, in particular unpublished sections of Mosaics

of Time, forthcoming, and especially for a list of events from the fourth century, cross-referenced with the authors from the consularia tradition who record them.

Egger, in his seminal article on the "Ravenna Annals," assembled and discussed at great

length the work which he (and others) believed lay behind many of our sources for the

fifth and sixth centuries - consularia written and maintained by someone living in

Ravenna between the middle of the fifth century and on into the sixth which Holder-

Egger named "Ravenna Annals," but which I refer to here as the Consularia Italica,

following Mommsen's name for them.363 Based on his comparison of Cassiodorus'

material with the FVpr, Paul the Deacon and the Anonymus Valesianus, he concluded that

Cassiodorus had used an early version of these Ravenna Annals, but also another

consularia which had information particularly about Rome and Roman events.364

Holder-Egger posited several different recensions of the Ravenna Annals which

helped to explain the large number of differences and similarities among the various

authors who used them. Cassiodorus, he maintained, used a version which ended around

493, like that of the FVpr. For the events after 493 Cassiodorus relied on his own

knowledge of contemporary events. In what follows I will map out carefully the evidence

for Cassiodorus' use of a version of the Italian consularia, which Holder-Egger called the

"Ravenna Annals."

The sheer number of different consularia which have come down to us makes it

likely that Cassiodorus would have had some choice about which one he used. On the

assumption that any historical note dating from the time of Cassiodorus' public service or

after could have been added to the Chronica by Cassiodorus himself from his own

experience and memory, I will discuss in what follows only the historical entries from

363 Holder-Egger 1876. The term "Ravenna Annals" should not be confused with the so-called Merseburg fragment, published by Bischoffand Koehler in 1939. See bibliography.

364 Holder-Egger 1876, p. 250.

260

452 to the beginning of the sixth century to establish a picture of the source which lies

behind Cassiodorus' entries for the last years of his Chronica.

First, the consular list. Cassiodorus' introduction says clearly that his main

intention was to restore "historica fides" / "historical trustworthiness" to the fasti. But he

chose as his trustworthy source for a consular list the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius. I

suggested above that he did so because he knew how much variety there was in the

consular lists circulating in his day, variety he attributed to the "librarii" or booksellers. It

is therefore possible that the consularia he used for his historical notes was deficient in its

consular list. That said, there is only one historical note in his own work (which can be

verified elsewhere) which he misdates,365 so his version of the consularia must have had

at least the western consuls, if not a full list of eastern ones, which made it possible for

him to place the historical notes correctly in his consular list.

Although Cassiodorus had followed Jerome's practice of numbering the emperors,

his source does not appear to have done so, since the numbers tail off towards the end.

Leo is given his number, forty-sixth, after the death of Marcian (1268), but neither Zeno

nor Anastasius are assigned numbers. Since Cassiodorus, like Prosper, numbered the

senior Augustus, none of the western emperors after Honorius is numbered either.366

Cassiodorus' work lacks the precise dating to the day which many of the

consularia have, though it is not without precision in a few spots. We are told that

Maximus was killed "intra duos menses" / "within two months" of his usurpation after

365 The death of Ovida in Dalmatia (1309), which he dates to 481 instead of 482. 366 Zeno is given the correct number of years of his reign (1298). Anastasius is not given any number. See

above, p. 10. Zeno was incorrectly assigned a number by the copyist of the Paris manuscript, see the critical apparatus to the text of the Chronica, 1300. Theodosius II is, oddly, numbered as the forty-fourth emperor, though he had been numbered, along with his uncle Honorius, as the forty-third as well. Cassiodorus is clearly counting different regnal combinations, not individual emperors.

261

the murder of Valentinian (1260). We are clearly told that Ricimer died forty days after

the murder of Anthemius (1293), though we are not told the precise date of either

death.367 We are told that Olybrius died in the seventh month of his reign (1293), but we

are given no precise date for either the beginning or the end.368 Particularly the FVpr, the

Paschale Campanum and, to a lesser degree, the continuations of Prosper, give specific

dates, but Cassiodorus does not. It may be that his source did not either, but it is more

likely that he excised the particulars in order to make his work homogenous from

beginning to end, since his sources before the fifth century do not include specific dates.

Cassiodorus, as we have seen, strove for a very brief and bland style, cutting back

Jerome's and Prosper's longer historical notes, and - usually - leaving out their editorial

comments on historical events. Thus the picture painted of Ricimer, the strong-man

behind the imperial throne of several emperors between 456 and 472, seems a little odd.

He is blamed not only for the deaths of Majorian and Anthemius (1274, 1293) - charges

with which our other sources agree - but also for the death of Severus by poison (1280), a

charge which no one else makes.369 Furthermore, after the murder of Anthemius, Ricimer

is reported "non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus'V'not to have rejoiced in his crime for

very long" before he died - an editorial comment on Ricimer's character if ever there was

one. As I will demonstrate below when I discuss Paul the Deacon, Cassiodorus adopted

this negative portrayal of Ricimer from his source.

367 We are given precise, though different, dates by both the FVpr (607) and the Paschale Campanum (sa. 472).

368 The FVpr (609) and the Paschale Campanum (sa. 472) again give conflicting dates. Jordanes says that Olybrius died in the eighth month of his reign (Get. 239).

369 Sidonius Appolinaris (Pan. 11.317-318) explicitly says that Severus died of natural causes, which some have interpreted as a deliberately ironic swipe at Ricimer. See Oost, 1970, and MacGeorge, 2002,231-233.

In other respects there is very little in terms of style or political outlook to

distinguish Cassiodorus' Chronica, and, by extension, his source, from the other

consularia of the period. He gives a small handful of details which no other source

does,370 but he notes the major events in Italian history in the last half of the fifth century

just as the others do, often without drawing clear connections among them, causal or

otherwise.371 Cassiodorus' chronology of the invasion of Italy by Theoderic is, as one

would expect, better than that of the other Italian consularia. He dates the entrance of

Theoderic into Italy and the skirmish at the Isonzo river to the consulship of Probinus and

Eusebius, which is correct.372 Cassiodorus alone gives us the correct time-structure for the

entire campaign against Odovacar.

Holder-Egger, who was the first to compare the Chronica with the Fasti

Vindobonenses Priores. He argued that the FVpr are the most representative of the

Consularia Italica, and this document is regularly the one he compares other sources

with. But we must remember that the FVpr, like all the other representatives of the

consularia tradition, are a single offshoot of a multi-branched tradition. Holder-Egger

concluded that Cassiodorus had used, if not the FVpr themselves, a document very like

them, and had supplemented the material he found there with information from Roman

consularia and from his own knowledge.

But only a full comparison of Cassiodorus' material with all the other surviving

370 Majorian's expedition against Africa; the attribution of Severus' death to poisoning by Ricimer; the place where Anthemius was named emperor, Brontodas, otherwise unknown; the place of the battle between Odovacar and Theoderic as "ad pontem Candidiani"; the cessation of hostilities in Sicily by the Vandals after Theoderic's victory; and many details on Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500.

371 See Burgess, Mosaics for more on the interconnection among the various versions of the Italian consularia.

372 The FVpr and the Consularia Hafniensia date it to 490. Marcellinus and Marius of Avenches have the correct date as well.

263

witnesses of the consularia tradition in Italy will provide any secure footing for where

Cassiodorus fits into the tradition. In what follows I will investigate each historical note

in Cassiodorus and its parallels in the other authors.373 The different representatives of the

tradition have different characteristics. The Fasti Vindobonenses, the Consularia

Hafniensia, the Gallic Chronicle, and the Paschale Campanum, for instance, are typically

terse, brief, and display only very simple grammatical constructions. These three are also

more likely to include specific dates than the others. Those with names attached to them,

like Cassiodorus, Marcellinus, Marius of Avenches and Victor of Tunnuna are of higher

literary quality, and are less likely to give specific dates. Others, like the Anonymus

Valesianus and Paul the Deacon's Historia Romana, are prose histories which may draw

on several different sources to stitch together a narrative.

As will be seen, there are a handful of notes in Cassiodorus which demonstrate his

use of a document in the Consularia Italica tradition, either through similarity of wording

or through similarity of detail with others who drew on the same tradition, though not

necessarily the same document. There are also many differences or omissions of specific

detail. On the whole, however, it seems likely to me that Cassiodorus used only a single

source for his historical material from 456 (the first year after Prosper's work ended) to

around 500, when he seems to begin to draw on his own memory. This particular

373 Burgess, Mosaics, identifies twenty-one authors and documents which stem from the tradition of the Consularia Italica, not all of which are relevant to my study. The ones I refer to are, in alphabetical order, Agnellus (Agn.), the Anonymus Valesianus (AV), the Gallic Chronicle of 511 (GC511), the Consularia Ravennatia (Cons.Rav.), the Fasti Vindobonensesposteriores (FVpost), the Fasti Vindobonenses priores (FVpr), the Histories of Gregory of Tours (GregT), the Consularia Hafniensia (Haf.), Marius of Avenches (MarA), Marcellinus comes (Marc), the Paschale Campanum (PC), Paul the Deacon (PD), Theophanes (Theoph.), the Vatican epitome of Prosper (Vat.Epit.), the Vatican continuation of Prosper (Vat. Auct.), and Victor of Tunnuna (Vict.). In the examples I use, I always place Cassiodorus' note first.

representative of the consulana tradition, however, began in at least 452.

In the year 452 and Cassiodorus notes the destruction of Aquileia. There, as we

saw in the section on Prosper, whose chronicle ended in 455, Cassiodorus inserted an

additional note which was not drawn from Prosper, but which shares similarity with

several other authors in the consularia tradition:

Cass. Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit.

Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa Leo directus pacem fecit.

(1255)

Agn: et capta et fracta est Aquileia ab Hunis. (42)

CG511: Regrediens Attila Aquileiam frangit.

ConsRav: Aquileia fracta est XV kal Aug.

GregT: Attila vero cum paucis reversus est, nee multo post Aquileia a

Chunis capta, incensa atque deruta. (2.7)

Marc: Aquileia civitas ab Attila Hunnorum rege excisa est.

Theoph: Touxu) TW ETEI...KGCI ATTIAOCC; EKOCUCTE xf)v AKUAIOCV noAiv.

(107)

Vat. Epit.: Aquileia fracta est.

Haf: Aquileia et Mediolanum et nonnullae aliae urbes ab Attilane

subversae.

PD: ac primum Aquileiam civitatem in ipso Italiae sitam principio

expugnare adgressus est; quam continuo triennio obsidens [mostly

from Jordanes except the length of the siege]

As can been seen from the examples, the destruction of Aquileia is an extremely

common note to find in the histories of this period. Cassiodorus' note about the

intervention of Leo is taken partly from Prosper, though the detail that Leo was sent by

Valentinian is not, and there is no parallel for it.

Cassiodorus next note (1258), on the death of Attila, is taken from Prosper, as is

the note on the killing of Aetius and Boethius by Valentinian (1260) I have noted above

the changes Cassiodorus made to Prosper's wording, but there is no witness to those

changes to be found in the consularia tradition.

The notes on the death of Valentinian and varied and interesting:

Cass.: in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. (1262)

Agn: qui triginta et unum annis in imperio durans Romae occisus est in

loco qui vocatur ad Laurum.

CG511: Valentinianus occiditur foris Romae. (623)

FVpost: XV374

GregT: Ipse postmodum Augustus dum in campo Martio pro tribunali

resedens concionaretur ad populum, Occila, buccellarius Aeti, ex

adverso veniens, eum gladio perfodit. (2.8)

Haf: [Egressum extra] portam [principem] et in campo Martio pro

tribunali in sexto ad duos lauros residentem [et ludo gestationis

intentum] veniente ex adverso Accilane Aetii bucillario simulque

veniente Trasilane genero Aetii insperatis et [inopinatis ictibus

confoderunt].375

Marc: Valentinianus princeps dolo Maximi patricii, cuius etiam fraude

Aetius perierat, in campo Martio per Optilam et Thraustilam Aetii

satellites iam percusso Heraclio spadone truncatus est.

PD: nam et ipse anno sequenti a Transila Aetii milite cum triginta annis

imperium gessisset, confossus interiit. (14.15)

Vict: Valentinianus imp Romae campo Martio dolis Maximi patricii et

Heraclii praepositi perimitur.

374 Only the date is given by the FVpost. 375 The material in square brackets indicates Prosper's entry, which was expanded on in the Consularia

Hafniensia.

I have already noted how Prosper knew that the assassination was outside the city,

but only in the consularia tradition do we find the real place: a "campus Martius" at the

imperial villa Ad duos Lauros, outside the city. Here for the second time we have a

possible tie between Cassiodorus and the consularia tradition. The Consularia

Hafniensia, Marcellinus, Victor of Tunnuna and Gregory of Tours all place the killing "in

campo Martio," as does Cassiodorus.

The accession and death of Maximus, which occurred in the same year as the

murder of Valentinian shows similar congruence of detail, but also some differences.

Cass: post quern [Valentinian] Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos

menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur.

CG511: post quern Maximus diebus LXX adeptus imperium: nam terrore

Wandalorum tumultu vulgi occisus est. (623)

FVpr: et levatus est Maximus imp. XVI kl. April, et occisus est prid. idus

Iun.

Haf: [Maximus vir gemini consulatus et patriciae dignitatis] alia die XIIII

k. April, [sumpsit imperium.]

Marc: Idem Maximus invasit imperium tertioque tyrannidis suae mense

membratim Romae a Romanis discerptus est.

PD: Mortuo Valentiniano regni iura Maximus apud urbem invadens nee

dum duobus expletis mensibus a Romanis peremptus est. (14.16)

Vat.Auct.: XVI kl April prid kl Iun

Vict: idemque Maximus exconsule ac patricius sumit imperium diebus

LXXVII...occisus membratimque concisus in Tiberim fluvium

proiectus est.

Theoph: Ti^Epixou 6E axoAtp UEY&ACO EKnAeuaavxoQ eiq 'Pwunv,

M&^iuoq (poPr)0£i<; (pvyf\ sxpfiaaxo- oi 6e OVVOVTEC; OCUTCQ

OCPEIAOV OCUTOV paaiXEuaavxa ETOC; EV. (108)

267

The dates here are varied, and almost all are different from each other. The FVpr

put Maximus' accession on 17 March and his death on 12 June, which makes eighty-eight

days. The Vatican continuation of Prosper has the same accession date, but puts his death

on 31 May, which makes seventy-five days. The Hafniensia only give the accession date,

March 19, but give no end date and no length of his reign. The Gallic Chronicle of 511

gives seventy days, and Victor of Tunnuna seventy-seven days. Marcellinus only says "in

the third month." Cassiodorus and Paul the Deacon both give the length of Maximus'

reign as under two months, which cannot be correct given that our precise dates and

Marcellinus give him around three months. The common error of Cassiodorus and Paul is

noteworthy, and suggests that they used a similar source.

In the same set of notes, Victor, Marcellinus and Cassiodorus all agree that

Maximus was thrown into the river. On the other hand, Marcellinus and Paul say that he

was killed "a Romanis" and the Gallic Chronicle that he was killed "tumultu vulgi,"

whereas Cassiodorus alone says that he was killed "a militibus."

Cassiodorus' next note, on the sack of Rome by Geiseric, was taken from Prosper,

though it is frequently noted in the consularia tradition. Cassiodorus' note on the

accession of Avitus is a very common one in our sources:

Cass.: Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium.

CG511: et post Avitus imperator. (623)

Fvpost: et 1. e. in Galliis A. imp.

FVpr: et levatus est imp. in Gallis Avitus VI idus Iulias.

Haf: Post Maximi caedem Avitus in Galliis apud Arelas imperium sumpsit

VII id. Iulias.

268

MarA: levatus est Avitus imperator in Gallias.

PD: Recedente igitur ab urbe Geiserico Romani sequenti mense

exinanitae rei publicae imperatorem Habitum praeficiunt. (14.19)

VatAuct: Nam Avitus in Galliis imperator efficitur.

Vict: huius captivitatis (Romae) LXXV die Avitus vir totius simplicitatis

in Galliis imperium sumit.

Theoph: KCU UET& <XI)TOV> Aprixoq xf)i> xfjc; 'PcauriQ PaaiXsiav EKpaxricrsv

emauxouq P'. (109)

Of all the sources, only Paul the Deacon and - oddly - the Gallic Chronicle of

511 do not add the detail "in Galliis" or "in Gallias." Avitus' deposition in the following

year at Placentia is also frequently noted:

Cass.: His conss Placentiae deposuit Avitus imperium.

MarA: His consulibus deiectus est Avitus imperator a Maioriano et

Recemere Placentia et factus est episcopus in civitate. (sa. 456)

FVpr: His cons occisus est Remistus patricius in palatio Classis XV kl

Octob et captivus est imp Placentia a magis. mil Ricimere et occisus

est Messiam patricius eius XVI kl Nov

CG511: et Avitus occisus est a Maioriano comite domesticorum Placentiae.

Haf: imperator Avitus Placentiam cum sociorum robore ingressens, quern