Geschichte und Geographie); R. Pallmann, Geschichte der Völkerwanderung, 1863-4; E. von Wietersheim, Geschichte der Völkerwanderung (ed. 2 by Dahn, 1880-1); R. Köpke, Die Anfänge des Königthums bei den Gothen, 1859. There are also special histories of the chief German invaders: I. Aschbach, Geschichte der Westgothen, 1827; F. Papencordt, Geschichte der vandalischen Herrschaft in Afrika, 1837; L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Vandalen, 1901; P. Martroye, Genseric: La conquête vandale en Afrique et la destruction de l'Empire d'Occident, 1907; C. Binding, Geschichte des burgundisch-romanischen Königreichs, 1868; A. Jahn, Die Geschichte der Burgundionen und Burgendens, bis zum Ende der 1. Dynastie, 2 vols. 1874. See also J. Jung, Römer und Romanen in den Donauländern, ed. 2, 1887. The work of Zeuss : Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, 1837, is a most valuable storehouse of references. On the Huns see below, Appendix 6. The period of ecclesiastical history which Gibbon deals with in ec. xxvii. and xxviii. has been treated annalistically in the valuable work of G. Rauschen, Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen, Versuch einer Erneuerung der annales ecclesiastici des Baronius für die Jahre 378-395, 1897. L. Duchesne's Histoire ancienne de l'église, vol. ii., 1907, deals with the fourth century (vol. i., 1906, covers the history of the first three centuries). On the religious cults in the Roman Empire the first instalment has appeared of a large work by J. Toutain, Les cultes paiens dans l'empire romain, Part 1, Les provinces latines, vol. i., 1907. To the works on Africa mentioned vol. i. p. 29 note, add: Pallu de Lessert, Fastes des provinces africaines, vol. i. 1896, vol. ii. (Bas-Empire) 1901. The same writer's Vicaires et comtes d'Afrique (de Dioclétien à l'invasion vandale) 1892 (published at Constantine) is also useful. Special Monographs: on Stilicho (cp. above, under Claudian): R. Keller, Stilicho, 1884; Rosenstein, Alarich und Stilicho, in Forsch. zur deutschen Geschichte, vol. 3, 1863; Vogt, Die politischen Bestrebungen Stilichos, 1870; on Ambrose: Th. Förster, Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand, 1884; on Chrysostom: F. Ludwig, Der heilige Johannes Chrys. in seinem Verhältniss zum byzantinischen Hof, 1883, and Rev. W. R. W. Stephens, Saint Chrysostom, his life and times, ed. 3, 1883. (Others are referred to in the footnotes.) 2. PICTS AND SCOTS (P. 43, 44) "Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day painted themselves with a dye extracted from wood; by the time, however, of British independence under Carausius and Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word Picti, Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the Northern Wall, and the people on the Solway were probably included under the same name, though they also went by the separate denomination of Atecotti. Now all these Picts were natives of Britain, and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first time in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They came from Ireland, and to distinguish these two sets of painted foes from one another Latin historians left the painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before, and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained, untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (of nearly the same) meaning, namely Scotti. Neither the Picts nor the Scotti probably owned these names, the former of which is to be traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a national name, which described them as painted or tattooed men. . . . This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally to the painted people of both Islands." The portion of Ireland best known to history as Pictish was 8 pretty well defined district consisting of the present county of Antrim and most of that of Down." (Professor Rhys, Early Britain, p. 235 sqq.) But Professor Rhys now takes another view of Picti, which he regards not as Latin, but as native and connected with the Gallic Pictones. See Scottish Review, July, 1891. 64 Ammianus (278) divided the inhabitants of the North of Britain (the Picts) into two nations, the Dicalidona and Verturiones. "Under the former name, which seems to mean the people of the two Caledonias, we appear to have to do with the Caledonias proper while in later times the word Verturiones yielded in Goidelic the well-known name of the Brythons of the kingdom of Fortrenn; they were possibly the people previously called Boresti, but that is by no means certain." (Rhys, ib. p. 93.) The Atecotti seem to have occupied part of the land between the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus, where the Maeatae dwelled (see Mr. Haverfield's map of Roman Britain, in Poole's Historical Atlas of Modern Europe). Prof. Rhys proposes to identify them with the earlier Genunians (revovvía μoipa of Pausanias, 8, 43) and the later Picts of Galloway (ib. p. 89, 90). 3. THE DEATH OF COUNT THEODOSIUS—(P. 53) The cause of the sudden execution of Theodosius at Carthage in 396 A.D. is obscure. We can only suppose that he had powerful enemies-friends of the governor Romanus. H. Richter (das weströmische Reich, p. 401) imputes the responsibility to Merobaudes. But Merobaudes was the minister of Gratian in Gaul, and not of Justina and Valentinian in Mediolanum (as Mr. Hodgkin observes). Mr. Hodgkin conjectures that the blow came not from Mediolanum but from Antioch. The name of Theodosius began with the four fatal letters eod, "and it seems therefore allowable to suppose that the incantation scene at Antioch four years previously-the laurel tripod, the person in linen mantle and with linen socks, who shook the magic cauldron and made the ring dance up and down among the twenty-four letters of the alphabet-were links in the chain of causation which led the blameless veteran to his doom" (Italy and her Invaders, i. p. 292). And certainly we can well imagine that the superstitious Valens watched with apprehension the career of every eminent officer whose name began with those four letters, and observing the distinguished services of the Count of Africa used influence at Milan to procure his fall. 4. MELLOBAUDES-(P. 53, 71) Gibbon has confused Mellobaudes with the more eminent Merobaudes in two places (p. 53 and 71). Mellobaudes (or Mallobaudes: the Mss. of Ammian vary) was a Frank king and held the post of comes domesticorum under Gratian. See Ammian, 30, 3, 7, and 31, 10, 6; and cp. above, p. 112. This Mellobaudes must also be distinguished from another less important Mellobaudes (or Mallobaudes), a Frank who was tribunus armaturarum under Constantius; see Ammian, 14, 11, 21, and 15, 5, 6. These namesakes are confounded in the index of Gardthausen's ed. of Ammianus. See Richter, Das weströ mische Reich, p. 283. Merobaudes deserves prominence as the first of a series of men of barbarian origin who rose to power in the Imperial service; Merobaudes, Arbogast, Stilicho, Aetius, Ricimer. He married into the family of Valentinian (Victor, Epit. 45), and was consul in A.D. 377. 5. LIST OF KINGS OF PERSIA, FROM SAPOR II. TO KOBAD—(P. 58) Pērōz came to the throne in 459, but counted from the first year of Hormizd, whom he deposed. Balash succeeds A.D. 484, July 23. Kobad (Kavādh) succeeds A.D. 488, July 22; died Sept. 13, A.D. 531. The dates given are those of the beginning of the Persian year in which the king succeeded and from which he counted, not the actual days of accession; and are taken from Nöldeke, Excurs i. to his Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden. Thus Bahram v. did not actually possess the throne till 421 (spring). 6. THE ORIGIN OF THE HUNS—(C. XXVI.) Hiung-Nu ("common slaves") was a name given by the Chinese to all the nomads north of the Hoang-Ho, including Manchus, Mongols and Turks; and, using the term in this non-ethnical sense, the Huns of Attila were certainly HiungNu. It is true that the Turks were Hiung-Nu; it is not true that the Hiung-Nu were Turks. See L. Cahun, Introduction à l'histoire de l'Asie, 46-7. This writer shows that about the end of the first century A.D. there was a general westward movement of the Hiung-Nu, directed and organized by the Chinese. He thinks that the advance guard of this movement consisted of those who, having settled between the Ural and Volga and come into contact with the Fins, successively invaded Europe under the names of Huns, Avars and Magyars, while the larger masses behind included the Patzinaks (who appeared in South Russia in the ninth century), the Cumans, and the Turcomans (p. 96). The Huns of Attila, he thinks, included other ethnical elements as well as Turkish.1 Light has been thrown on the particular history of the Huns by F. Hirth (Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy, Phil.-hist. Klasse, ii. 245 sqq., 1899), who makes use of a Chinese document of the sixth century to show that the Huns were Hiung-Nu. A passage in this document (a History by Wei-Shu), based upon the report of an embassy about the middle of the fifth century, records that the Hiung-Nu, three generations before the reign of their king Hut-ngai-ssi, invaded the land of Suktak, the ancient An-ts'ai, near a large lake, having subdued the people of that land. Hirth identifies, from other evidence, An-ts'ai with the land of the Alans, and conjectures that the Hunnish king, who flourished about the middle of the fifth century, is Hernac, son of Attila. In any case, the date for the reduction of the Alans, taking three generations a hundred years, agrees closely enough with the information of Priscus (cp. Jordanes, Getica, 24); it would have happened not long after the middle of the fourth century. In the second century A.D. the Huns were already near Lake Aral, in contact with the Alans, and within the horizon of Greek geographers. They are, perhaps, mentioned by Dionysius,2 the traveller of Hadrian's time (Orbis descr. 730, Obvyoi), as in that region; and by Ptolemy (Geogr. 3, 5, 10, Xouvoi) as near the Dnieper between the Bastarnae and Roxalani, which shows that some tribes had already advanced into Europe. In "A Thousand Years of the Tartars," p. 99, Mr. E. H. Parker (to whose work reference has been made in the footnotes of chap. xxvi.) puts it thus: The Northern Hiung-Nu, unable to maintain their ground against various enemies, "disappeared far away to the North, many of them no doubt finding their way by the upper waters of the Selinga and the Irtysh to Issekul, the Aral, and the Caspian, struggling with the Bashkirs, the Alans, and the unknown tribes then occupying Russia into Europe". In an article on "The Origin of the Turks" in the English Hist. Review, July, 1896, p. 434, he defends the view that "the Hiung-Nu were in fact the Huns, who afterwards appeared as the Hunni in Europe"; it would be more correct to say that the Hunni were a small portion of the Hiung-Nu. 1 For translations of the Chinese records bearing on the history of the Hiung-Nu see Wylie's papers on the History of the Hiung-Nu in their relations with China, translated from the Tseen-Han-Shoo, in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, iii. 401 sqq. (1874) and v. 41 sqq. (1875); and Parker's papers on The Turco-Scythian Tribes, in the China Review, vols. xx. and xxi. 2 In the Geographi Graeci Minores, vol. i. p. 42: πρῶτοι μὲν Σκύθαι εἰσὶν ὅσοι Κρονίης ἁλὸς ἄγχι On this evidence see Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Stämme I. 2, p. 104 Knaack, in his article on Dionysius in Pauly-Wissowa's Encyklopädie, adopts the reading Ouros. The close connexion of the Huns and Avars seems clear. Professor Vámbéry in his A Magyarok Eredete (1882), p. 415 sqq., has collected the Hun and Avar words and names that can be gleaned from literature, and attempted to interpret them by the help of Turkish. His list however is not complete. 7. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PACIFICATION OF THE GOTHS, The account given in our sources of the warfare in Thrace and Illyricum during the years 379-80 and the subjugation of the Goths is very confused, and Gibbon has made no attempt to distinguish the events of the two years. With the help of laws in the Codex Theod. (of which the dates however cannot be implicitly trusted) Ifland has extracted with some pains the following chronology from Zosimus, Jordanes, and the ecclesiastical historians, with an occasional indication from Ambrose (Der Kaiser Theodosius, p. 65-86). 379, Spring: Theodosius with Gratian at Sirmium. before middle of June: Theodosius at Thessalonica (c. Th. x. 1, 12); Embassy of senate of Constantinople greets Theodosius there; Themistius delivers his panegyric, written for the occasion, some weeks later (Or. 14). Having organized his army Theodosius divides his forces. One part he leads northward to act against the Goths in Dacia and Moesia; the other under Modares is to operate in Thrace. Aug. Theodosius at Vicus Augusti (on the Danube ?), c. Th. xii. 13, 4. fœdus made with the Goths, who give hostages (Sozomen, vii. 4); Nov. 17 proclamation of Roman victories over Goths, Alans and Huns (Idatius Fasti, ad ann.). 380, January: Theodosius again in Thessalonica (c. Th. ix. 27, 1). February illness of Theodosius (Feb. 27, his intolerant edict, C. Th. xvi. Goths begin new hostilities; two movements distinguished: (1) West Second half of year: Fritigern disappears; Athanaric crosses the Danube 17 August: Theodosius at Hadrianople; 8 September, at Sirmium. 14 or 24 November: Theodosius enters Constantinople in triumph (cp. above p. 154, n. 37). 8. THEOLOGY IN THE MARKET-PLACES OF CONSTANTINOPLE-(P. 150) The humorous description of the interest taken in theological subtleties by the mechanics and slaves of Constantinople is quoted by Gibbon on the authority of Jortin, but Gibbon acknowledges that he does not know where it comes from, and implies that Jortin does not state his source. A striking instance of the slumbers of Homer. Jortin indeed omits to give the reference, but he expressly ascribes the passage to "Gregory," that is, Gregory of Nyssa, with whom he is dealing in the context. It would seem from Gibbon's note that he took Gregory to be the Nazianzen. The passage occurs in Gregory Nyssen's Oratio de deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti (Migne, Patr. Gr., 46, p. 557) and runs as follows: εἰ δὲ, ἐὰν περὶ τῶν ὀβολῶν ἐρωτήσῃς ὁ δέ σοι περὶ γεννητοῦ καὶ ἀγεννήτου ἐφιλοσόφησε καν περὶ τιμήματος ἄρτου πύθοιο, Μείζων ὁ πατὴρ, ἀποκρίνεται, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὑποχείριος. Τὸ λουτρὸν ἐπιτήδειόν ἐστιν, εἴποις, ὁ δὲ ἐξ οὐκ τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι διωρίσατο. 9. DID THEODOSIUS I. VISIT ROME IN A.D. 394 ?—(P. 194) According to Zosimus (iv. 59 and v. 30), Theodosius went to Rome after the battle of the Frigidus. This is likewise attested by Prudentius (against Symm., i.), and is implied in Theodoret's statement, in reference to the visit of A.D. 389, χρόνου δὲ συχνοῦ διελθόντος εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἀφικόμενος πάλιν ὁ βασιλεύς. This eridence has been accepted by Jeep, but the objections urged by Tillemont against it Beem quite decisive, and it is rejected by Clinton and most authorities. It is a case of a confusion between the suppression of Maximus and the suppression of Eugenius; the visit to Rome after the second war is merely a duplicate of the visit after the first war. Güldenpenning thinks that Theodosius sent a message to the senate signifying his will that Pagan worship should cease (Der Kaiser Theodosius, p. 229-30). 10. THE LIBRARIES OF ALEXANDRIA-(P. 210, 211) "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed." That is, the lesser library in the Serapeum, which was situated in the Rhacôtis quarter of the city (see Mahaffy, Egypt under the Ptolemies, p. 167). Gibbon has failed to distinguish it from the great Library of the Brucheum, of which Zenodotus, Callimachus, and other famous scholars were librarians. This Library is said to have been burnt down B.C. 48 when Caesar was in Alexandria; Plutarch, Caes. 49; Seneca, De tranq. an. 9; Dion, 42, 38; Amm. Marc. 22, 16. Strabo who visited Alexandria shortly afterwards is silent. Cp. Mahaffy, op. cit., p. 99 and p. 454. For the distinction of the two libraries see Epiphanius, de mensuris et ponderibus, 168 (Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. 43, p. 256): ěti de votepov kal érépa éyéveto βιβλιοθήκη ἐν τῷ Σεραπίῳ [sic] μικροτέρα τῆς πρώτης, ἥτις καὶ θυγατὴρ ὠνομάσθη αὐτῆς. For the first or mother library, see ib. 166 (Migne, p. 249). For other references see Susemihl, Geschichte der alexandrinischen Litteratur, i. p. 336. But is it an attested fact that the lesser or daughter library was destroyed in A.D. 391? The sanctuary of Serapis was demolished, but does that imply the demolition of all the buildings connected with the Serapeum? The only evidence on which Gibbon's statement rests is the sentence which he quotes from Orosius (p. 211, n. 53). But Orosius does not mention the Serapeum or speak of a large library. He merely says that he had seen bookcases in temples (which he does not name); and that, since then, he had been informed that the temples had been pillaged and the bookcases emptied. It seems to me highly improbable that Orosius is thinking either of the mother library or of the Serapeum. Mr. Frederick I. Teggart, in the Nation, July 17, 1898, however, and Mr. A. J. Butler in his full dis cussion of the question (Arab Conquest of Egypt, c. xxv.), have made out a good case for believing that the Serapeum library was destroyed in 391.2 Mr. Butler's arguments confirm the scepticism of Gibbon and Susemihl as to the later destruction of an Alexandrian library by the Saracens in the seventh century. 11. SOME INSCRIPTIONS ON STILICHO-(P. 238, 250, 271) The inscription celebrating the rescue of Africa by Stilicho, referred to by Gibbon, p. 238 (note 20) and p. 250 (note 57), will be found in C. I. L. vi. 1730. It runs as follows: 1 The statement of Eunapius in the Vita Aedesii, 77: κal тd Zapameîov ¡epòv dicoke δάννυτο οὐχ ἡ θεραπεία μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ οἰκοδομήματα, cannot be pressed to mean more than that not only was the worship suppressed but the temple itself was demolished. See also Rufinus, Hist. ecc. 2, 23; Socrates, Hist. ecc. 5, 16; Theodoret, Hist. ecc. 5, 22. 2 The strongest point depends on the interpretation of a passage of the rhetor Aphthonius (who wrote while the library still existed), Progymnasmata xii. p. 107. |