Flavio Stilichoni inlustrissimo viro, magistro equitum peditumque et regiæ adfinitatis evecto, progenero Divi Theodosi, comiti For inscriptions referring to the restoration of the "walls, gates and towers" of Rome, undertaken through Stilicho's influence before Alaric's first invasion of Italy, see C. I. L. vi, 1188-1190. Another inscription records Stilicho's victory over Radagaisus: C. I. L. 6, 1196. Gibbon (after Mascou) refers it to the Gothic war of 402-3, and expresses surprise at the description of Alaric's defeat as the total extinction of the Gothic nation (p. 271, note 56). Pallmann took the same view (Völkerwand. p. 243); but the title is rightly referred in the Corpus (loc. cit.) to the events of 405. Imppp. clementissimis felicissimis toto orbe victoribus DDD NNn arcum simulacris eorum tropæisq decoratum S.P.Q.R. totius operis splendore. 12. THE TWO EASTERN EXPEDITIONS OF STILICHO AND HIS ILLYRIC POLICY (P. 240, 258) An unwary reader of Gibbon might fail to realise that on two separate occasions Stilicho led an army to the Illyric peninsula. As there has been a difficulty about the dates, and as Zosimus inverts the order of events, it is important to grasp this clearly. On the first occasion (A.D. 395) Stilicho started from Italy in spring (Claudian, in Rufin. 2, 101), came up with Alaric in Thessaly, and was then commanded to return, before he had accomplished anything, by an order of Arcadius. Gainas and the Eastern troops went to Constantinople, and Rufinus met his fate; while Stilicho returned to Italy. Again in A.D. 397, when Alaric was in Southern Greece, Stilicho came to help the realm of Arcadius, landed at Corinth, blockaded Alaric in Pholoe, and allowed him to escape. (Zosimus, v. 7, places the blockade of Pholoe before the death of Rufinus. The charge of Zosimus that Stilicho indulged in debauchery in Elis cannot safely be pressed; for the phrase he uses is borrowed from Julian's Misopogon. See Mendelssohn ad loc.) A.D. 395. Claudian represents Alaric as shutting himself up in a fortified camp on the news of Stilicho's approach (in Ruf. 2, 124-9). Stilicho arrives in Thessaly (implet Thessaliam ferri nitor, 1. 179) and prepares to attack the enemy. If he had been permitted to do so, the invasion of Greece would have been averted (186 sqq.), but alas! regia mandata arrive from Arcadius, and he has to sacrifice the "publica commoda" to the duty of obedience. This must have been about the beginning of November, if Rufinus was slain on 27th November (as Socrates states, vi. 1; cp. Chron. Pasch. ad ann.). Thus the advance of Stilicho from Italy to Thessaly would have occupied more than six months. What was the cause of this delay? It is significant that the charge brought against Rufinus by Claudian of having incited the Visigoths to the invasion of Greece is uttered only as a suspicion by Socrates (loc. cit., dótav elxev és K. T. λ. "was supposed to have," &c.); in the following century the suspicion has developed into a positive statement in the chronicle of Count Marcellinus ad ann. (Alaricum infestum reipublicae fecit et in Graeciam misit). A.D. 397. (This date is more probable than 396; see Birt, Preface to Claudian, p. xxxi, and Mommsen in Hermes, xxxviii. 108.) Stilicho started in spring (De cons., Stil. i. 174 sqq.), landed at the Isthmus (Zosimus, 5, 7), and is said to have had Alaric at his mercy at Pholoe. Three views have been held as to the escape of Alaric (1) he outwitted Stilicho, who was culpably negligent (cp. Zosimus); (2) the suggestion of Claudian (B. G. 516) that Arcadius and his ministers, jealous of Stilicho's intervention, treated with Alaric and secured his retreat, might be sup ported by the circumstance that Arcadius created him Master of Soldiers in Illy. ricum soon afterwards; (3) Stilicho is supposed to have made a secret treaty with Alaric, and permitted his retreat, for purposes of his own. Perhaps all three views contain portions of the truth. Stilicho's military success may have been very small; the government of Constantinople may have supported Alaric; and Stilicho, who seems to have been more of a diplomatist than a general, may have come to terms with Alaric, in view of his own projects. There is no doubt that an understanding had existed between Stilicho and Alaric before A.D. 401, and it may have been ar ranged on this occasion (cp. Claudian, Bell. Goth. 469). See Mommsen, Stilicho und Alarich, Hermes xxxviii. 108-9, 1903. It is certain that Stilicho's assertion of the unity of the Empire by appearing with armed forces in the Praefecture of Illyricum was viewed with suspicion and distrust at Constantinople. The feeling at the court of Arcadius is aptly expressed in words which Claudian has put into the mouth of Rufinus (in Ruf. 2, 161): Deserat (sc. Stilicho) Illyrici fines, Eoa remittat agmina, fraternas ex aequo dividat hastas. It can hardly be doubted that it was the aim of Stilicho in his Illyrian expeditions both of 395 and of 397 to detach Eastern Illyricum from the realm of Arcadius, and revert to the division which had existed before A.D. 379. According to Stilicho, it was the wish of Theodosius the Great that Illyricum should belong to the division of Honorius: Olympiodorus, fr. 2; Mommsen, op. cit. 102-3. Both expeditions (this is Mommsen's view) were "in erster Reihe darauf gerichtet, das östliche Illyricum dem Westreich anzuschliessen". That this was Stilicho's object at a later period is stated in so many words by Zosimus, v. 26. So too Jung (Romer and Romanen, p. 188: ich sehe darin vielmehr die consequente Verfolgung der durch Stilicho von Anfang an beabsichtigten Politik), who has some good remarks on the geographical importance of Illyricum; the unsatisfactoriness of the line of division of 395 which cut off Dalmatia from the rest of the Balkan peninsula (p. 186); and the circumstance that all northern Illyricum belonged to the Latinspeaking part of the Empire. Stilicho intended to use the help of Alaric for this purpose, and established him on the borders of the territory on which he had designs; but the execution of the plan was continually deferred, on account of other events which claimed the care of Stilicho. After the events in Greece (397) he was hindered from resuming it by the revolt of Gildo, who was in correspondence with the government of Arcadius (Bell. Gild. 256); and in A.D. 407, when he was preparing for a third Illyrio expedi tion (op. Sozomen, 8, 25), the rebellion of Constantine in Britain and Gaul intervened. Alaric during this time was playing his own game, between the courts of Ravenna and Constantinople. His object was to obtain permanently Dalmatia, Noricum, Istria and Venetia, with a regular grant of money from the Empire. This was what he asked in 410 (Zos. v. 48), and his aim throughout was doubtless a settlement of this kind. While Stilicho aimed at annexing Eastern Illyricum, the court of Constanti. nople aimed at the acquisition of Dalmatia. Olympiodorus says that Stilicho employed Alaric to defend it (fr. 3). The object was pursued in the reign of Theodosius ii. and was finally attained at the marriage of Eudoxia with Valentinian iii., when the boundary was changed to the advantage of the East. Compare Cassiodorus, Var. ep. 1; Güldenpenning, das oström. Reich, p. 310. But even as early as A.D. 414-15 there is epigraphic evidence suggesting the conclusion that at that time Salonae was under the government of Constantinople. See Jung, op. cit. p. 187 note. Keller (Stilicho, p. 27) regards Stilicho's special Illyric policy and his relations with Alaric as part of a larger policy which had two chief aims: to maintain the unity of the Empire, under two emperors, and to infuse new blood into it by absorbing barbarians. This is probably going too far. But Stilicho certainly wished to maintain the double system of Valentinian, and had no thought of trying to take into his own hands the government of the whole Empire. The main aim of his 1 When Stilicho is described (as by Olympiodorus, fr. 2) as guardian of Honorins, it is important to remember that this has no legal significance. The relation of guardian and ward had no existence in constitutional law (see Gibbon's remark, p. 239, note 26). policy was to appropriate Eastern Illyricum to the Western realm. Mommsen attributes to him statesmanlike qualities, but emphasizes the point that he achieved no military successes which would warrant us to consider him a general. Though no record tells that Alaric burnt down the Temple of Eleusis, it is certain that the invasion of the Goths was coincident with the end of the Eleusinian mysteries. The sanctuary of the two goddesses must have already suffered much under Jovian and Theodosius. The cult, restored by Julian, was suppressed by Jovian, but renewed again under Valentinian through the intervention of Praetextatus, proconsul of Achaia. It must have been affected by the intolerant edicts of Theodosius; certainly the demonstration of the Christian section of the Athenian community forced the last Eumolpid high priest to resign. Subsequently-probably on the death of Theodosius-the pagan party felt themselves strong enough to appoint, as hierophant, a priest of Mithras from Thespiae, and he presided at Eleusis at the time of Alaric's invasion. See Gregorovius, Hat Alarich die Nationalgötter Griechenlands zerstört ? (Kleine Schriften, vol. i.), and Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, i. p. 35 sqq. As for Athens, there is no doubt that it capitulated and was spared by Alaric, and that the Goths did not destroy or rob its art treasures. Athens suffered, as Gregorovius remarks, less in the invasion of Alaric than in the invasion in the time of Dexippus. There were of course acts of cruelty; some are recorded in the Vita Prisci of Eunapius. But we must not press the words of Claudian (in Rufin. ii. 189) nec fera Cecropiae traxissent vincula matres, further than at the most to interpret it of the rural inhabitants of Attica. Gregorovius observes that in the other passages where the devastation of Greece is mentioned (iv. Cons. Hon. 471, Eutrop. 2, 199, cons. Stil. i. 180), there is not a word about Athens. As to the Zeus-temple of Olympia, it is supposed that the Phidiac statue of Zeus had been removed about two years before the Gothic invasion (in A.D. 394, when Theodosius suppressed the Olympic games) to Constantinople and was afterwards burned in the Palace of Lausus. Cp. Cedrenus, i. p. 364 (Gregorovius i. p. 43). The temple of Olympia was burnt down in the reign of Theodosius ii. The general conclusion of Gregorovius is that it is a gross exaggeration to ascribe to the Goths the deliberate destruction of the temples and sanctuaries of Greece. It has been also shown by L. Schmidt (Geschichte der deutschen Stämme, i. 217-9) that the accounts in ecclesiastical writers of the Gothic devastation of Rome in A.D. 410 are gross exaggerations. 14. ALARIC'S FIRST INVASION OF ITALY-(P. 262, 266 sqq.) That the battle of Pollentia was fought in 402 is now universally agreed by all competent historians; there is no conflict of evidence on the matter, and there is nothing to be said for 403. But there is still room for difference of opinion as to the date of Alaric's entry into Italy, and possibly as to the date of the battle of Verona. (1) We have to set the statements of two chronicles against each other. On one hand Prosper, sub ann. 400: Gothi Italiam. . . ingressi (see next Appendix). On the other, the Fasti Vindobonenses (Chronica Italica; see above, App. 1) have, sub anno 401, the more precise notice: et intravit Alaricus in Italiam, xiv. kl. December.2 Theodosius commended both his sons, on account of their youth, to the husband of his niece; see Ambrose, de ob. Theod. 5. Mommsen, op. cit. 101. "The date 403 seems to have originally obtained currency from a simple mistake on the part of Baronius, a mistake fully acknowledged by Tillemont (v. 804)." Hodgkin, i. p. 736. 2 The Additamenta to Prosper in the Cod. Havn. give the date; x. kal. Sept. (Mommsen, Chron, Min,, i, p. 299). Pallmann (followed by Hodgkin) accepts the date of Prosper. Tillemont, also accepting Prosper, but putting (in spite of Prosper) the battle of Pollentia in 403, found himself driven to assume that Alaric having invaded Italy in 400 was driven out of it in 401 and returned in 402-in fact a double invasion. 3 As there is little or nothing to choose between Prosper and the Fasti Vindobonenses-both being equally prone to error-we may be disposed to allow the argument of Seeck (approved by Birt) to determine us in preferring the date of the Fasti Vindobonenses. In describing the entry of the Goths Claudian speaks of constant eclipses of the moon among the terrors which preyed upon men's minds: territat adsiduus lunæ labor atraque Phoebe These data (cp. adsiduus) are satisfied by the two lunar eclipses which took place on June 21 and December 6, A.D. 401. After Pollentia, there must have been another engagement at Asta (vi. cona. Hon., 203). Keller thinks that this took place before that of Pollentia. In any case Gibbon is wrong in supposing that Asta was the town in which Honorius was shut up, till delivered by Stilicho. Honorius was in Milan, as is clear from Claudian's description (ib. 456 sqq.). To reach Asta Stilicho would have had to cross not only the Addua (488), but the Padus (which is not mentioned). (2) That the battle of Verona did not take place later than A.D. 403 is proved by the fact that it is celebrated in the Panegyric composed by Claudian before the end of that year for the sixth consulate of Honorius, which began on Jan. 1, A.D. 404. That it took place in summer is proved by a line of that poem (our only source for the battle): sustinet accensos aestivo pulvere soles (vi. cons., 215). Those therefore who like Tillemont and Gibbon set Pollentia in spring 403 were obliged to set Verona in the summer of the same year. The question therefore arises whether, when we have moved Pollentia a year back, we are to move Verona along with it. Pallmann leaves Verona where it was in 403, and he is followed hesitatingly by Mr. Hodgkin. That the victory of Verona was won in 403, and that more than a year elapsed between the two battles, has, I think, been proved convincingly by Birt (Preface to ed. of Claudian, liv.-v.). The argument is that, if Verona had been fought in 402, the long interval of sixteen months would have stultified the whole tone of Claudian's poem, which breathes the triumph of a recent victory. Such a line as et sextas Getica praevelans fronde secures (647) is inconceivable on any save the first First of January following the victory. Cp. also lines 406, 580, 653. The transition in 1. 201 is suggestive of a considerable interval between the two battles: te quoque non parvum Getico, Verona, triumpho contulit Ausoniis aut moenia vindicis Hastae. The resulting chronology is : A.D. 401. Alaric enters Italy (Venetia) in November; at the same time Radagai sus (see next Appendix) invades Raetia. Stilicho advances against Radagaisus. A.D. 402. Battle of Pollentia on Easter Day. A.D. 402-403. Alaric in Istria. A.D. 403, Summer. Alaric again moves westward; Battle of Verona. Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, 24, p. 182 sqq. (1884). 15. RADAGAISUS-(P. 278) Radagaisus (probably of Ostrogothic origin) invaded Italy in 405 A.D., at the head of an army of barbarians. He was defeated by Stilicho on the hills of Faesulae. There is no doubt about these facts, in which our Western authorities agree, Orosius (vii. 37), Prosper (ad ann. 405), and Paulinus (Vita Ambrosii, c. 50). Prosper's notice is: Radagaisus in Tuscia multis Gothorum milibus cæsis, ducente exercitum Stilichone, superatus et captus est. But Zosimus (v. 26) places the defeat of Radagaisus on the Ister. "A strange error," Gibbon remarks, "which is awkwardly and imperfectly cured by reading "Αρνον for Ἴστρον.” Awkwardly and contrariwise to every principle of criticism. It is an emendation of Leunclavius and Reitemeier's 'Hodavdy is no better. But Zosimus knew where the Danube was and the critic has to explain his mistake. From Gibbon's narrative one would draw the conclusion that this invasion of Italy in 405 (406 Gibbon incorrectly; see Clinton, ad ann.) was the first occasion on which Radagaisus appeared on the stage of Imperial events. But he appeared before. A notice of Prosper, which there is not the smallest cause to question, represents him as co-operating with Alaric, when Alaric invaded Italy. Under the year 400 (there may be reason for questioning the year; see last Appendix) in his Chronicle we find the record: Gothi Italiam Alarico et Radagaiso ducibus ingressi. It is perfectly arbitrary to assume that the notice of the action of Radagaisus on this occasion is a mere erroneous duplication of his action, which is separately and distinctly recorded under the year 405. Pallmann emphasized the importance of the earlier notice of Prosper, and made a suggestion which has been adopted and developed by Mr. Hodgkin (i. p. 711, 716, 736), that Alaric and Radagaisus combined to attack Italia, Alaric operating in Venetia and his confederate in Raetia in A.D. 400-1, and that the winter campaign of Stilicho in Raetia in A.D. 401-2, of which Claudian speaks, was directed against Radagaisus. This combination has much to recommend it. The passages in Claudian are as follows: Bell. Goth, 279 sqq. Non si perfidia nacti penetrabile tempus 329 sqq. 363 sqq. 414, 5. inrupere Getae, nostras dum Raetia vires sublimis in Arcton prominet Hercyniae confinis Raetia silvae quae se Danuvii iactat Rhenique parentem exuerant Latiique audita clade feroces Vindelicos saltus et Norica rura tenebant, &c. Leaving aside the question whether (as Birt thinks) the barbarians whom Radagaisus headed in Raetia were the Vandals and Alans who invaded Gaul in 406, we may without hesitation accept the conclusion that in 401 Radagaisus was at the head of Vandals and other barbarians in Raetia. Birt points out the statement that Radagaisus had intended to cross into Italy (εἰς τὴν Ἰταλιαν ὥρμητο Baß vai), with which Zosimus introduces his account of the overthrow of Radagaisus by Stilicho; and proposes to refer that statement not to the campaign of 405 but to that of 401. It was satisfactory to find that Birt had already taken a step in a direction in which I had been led before I read his Preface to Claudian. The fact is that Zosimus really recounts the campaign of 401, as if it were the campaign of 405. His story is that Radagaisus prepared to invade Italy. The news created great terror, and Stilicho broke up with the army from Ticinum, and with as many Alans and Huns as he could muster, without waiting for the attack, crossed the Ister, and assailing the barbarians unexpectedly, utterly destroyed their host. This is the campaign of the winter of 401-2, of which we know from Claudian's Gothic VOL. III.-34 |