Зображення сторінки

War; only that (1) Zosimus, placing it in 405, has added one feature of the actual campaign in 405, namely the all but total annihilation of the army of Rada gaisus, and that (2) Zosimus, in placing the final action beyond the Danube, differs from Claudian, who places it in Noricum or Vindelicia 1.365, cited above) and does not mention that Stilicho crossed the river. But the winter campaign was in Danubian regions; and the main difficulty, the appearance of the Danube in the narrative of Zosimus, seems to be satisfactorily accounted for by the assumption of this confusion between the two Radagaisus episodes, a confusion which must be ascribed to Zosimus himself rather than to his source Olympiodorus.

16. THE SECOND CARAUSIUS—(P. 287) A new tyrant in Britain at the beginning of the fifth century was discovered by Mr. Arthur Evans through a coin found at Richborough (Rutupiae). See Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd ser. vol. vii. p. 191 899., 1887. The obverse of this bronze coin “presents a head modelled in a somewhat barbarous fashion on that of a fourth century Emperor, diademed and with the bust draped in the paladamen. tum". The legend is: DOMINO CARAVS 10 CES. “The reverse presents a familiar bronze type of Constans or Constantius ii. The Emperor holding phoeniı and la barum standard stands at the prow of a vessel, the rudder of which is beid by Victory. In the present case, however, in place of the usual legend that accompanies this reverse-FEL. TEMP. REPARĀTIO—appears the strange and unparalleled inscription :

DOMIN . . . CONTA . . . NO" This coin cannot be ascribed to the well-known Carausius of Diocletian's reign; for the type of the reverse is never found before the middle of the fourth century. The DOMINO (without a pronoun-nostro) on the obverse is quite unexampled on a Roman coin. Mr. Evans conjectures that CONSTANTINO is to be read on the reverse and makes it probable that this obscure Carausius was colleague of Constan. tine iii., left behind by him, with the title of Caesar, to hold the island while he was himself absent in Gaul; and would refer the issue of the coin to A.D. 409. " The memory of the brave Carausius, who first raised Britain to a position of maritime supremacy, may have influenced the choice of this obscure Caesar, at s moment when the Romano-British population was about to assert as it had never done before its independence of Continental Empire.” Whether chosen by Constan. tine or not the coin may at least be taken as evidence that the new Caesar stood forth as the representative of the interests of the Constantinian dynasty in the island as against the faction of the rebel Gerontius and his barbarian allies".

53 sqq.

17. THE TYRANT CONSTANTINE—(P. 287) The best account of the rise, reign, and fall of the tyrant Constantine, ruler of Britain, Gaul and Spain, will be found in Mr. Freeman's article, “ Tyrants of Britain, Gaul and Spain,” in English Historical Review, vol. i. (1886) P.

At first, in 407, Constantine's Gallic dominions "must have consisted of a long and narrow strip of eastern Gaul, from the Channel to the Mediterranean, which could not have differed very widely from the earliest and most extended of the many uses of the word Lotharingia ". That he was acknowledged in Trier is proved by the evidence of coins (Eckhel, 8, 176). Then he moves down to the land between Rhone and Alps, which becomes the chief theatre of operations, and Arelate becomes his capital. His son Constans he creates Caesar, and a younger son Julian nobilissimus. Early in 408 Sarus is sent against him by Stilicho. Sarus gains & victory over Constantine's officer (Justinian); and lays siege to

1 Mr. Rushforth has pointed out (in Eng. Historical Review, xiii. p. 182, 1898) that the statement of Zosimus that the threatened invasion of Radagaisus caused a panic at Rome, taken in connexion with the restoration of the walls of Rome in 402 (which Gibbon omits to mention), is a confirmation of the view which I have tried to establish that Zosimus is really relating the campaign of 401.


Valentia in which Constantine seoured himself. But he raises the siege on the seventh day, on account of the approach of Constantine's able general Gerontius, from whom he with difficulty escapes (by coming to an understanding with the Bagaudae, who appear to act as a sort of national militia) into Italy.

Constantine's next step is to extend his rule over the rest of the Gallic prefecture,Spain. We are left quite in the dark as to his relations with the Barbarians who in these years (407-9) were ravaging Gaul. Spain at first submitted to those whom Constantine sent; but very soon the influential Theodosian family organized a revolt against it. The main part of the resistance came from Lusi. tania, where the four Theodosian brothers had most influence. The rustic army that was collected was set to guard the Pyrenees. To put down the rising, Constantine sent troops a second time into Spain—this time under the Caesar Constans, who was accompanied by Gerontius and by Apollinaris (grandfather of the poet Sidonius), who accepted the office of Praetorian Prefect from Constantine. The Theodosian revolt was suppressed; Constans set up his court in Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), but soon returned to Gaul, leaving Gerontius to defend Spain.

The sources for this story are Orosius, Sozomen, and Zosimus. For the Spanish events we have no fragments of Olympiodorus. “On the other hand the local knowledge of Orosius goes for something, and Sozomen seems to have gained, from some quarter or other, a singular knowledge of detail of some parts of the story” (Freeman, p. 65). It is practically certain that Sozomen's source (as well as that of Zosimus) was Olympiodorus (op. above, vol. ii., Appendix 1).

Thus master of the West, Constantine forces Honorius, then (A.D. 409) too weak to resist, to acknowledge him as his colleague and legitimate Augustus. Later in the year he enters Italy with an army, avowedly to help Honorius against Alaric (so Olympiodorus), his real motive being to annex Italy to his own realm (Soz. ix. 12). At this time he probably raised Constans to the rank of Augustus. It appears that Constantine was in league with Allobich, the general of Honorius, to compass his treasonable designs. They were discovered, Allobich was cut down, and then Constantine, who had not yet reached Ravenna, turned back,

Meanwhile the revolt of Gerontius in Spain had broken out, and Constans went to put it down. Gibbon's account of the revolt is inadequate, in so far as he does not point out its connexion with the invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans. There is no doubt that Gerontius and Maximus invited them to cross the Pyrenees. (Cp. Olymp. ; Oros. 7, 28; Sozom. ix. 113; Zob. 6, 5; Renatus, in Gregory of Tours, 2, 9; Freeman, p. 74: "The evidence seems to go for direct dealings between Gerontius and the invaders, and his treaty with them is more likely to have followed the proclamation of Maximus than to have gone before it".) The dominion of Maximus was practically confined to the north. western corner; the seat of his rule was Tarraco. As for the relation of Maximus to Gerontius, it is very doubtful whether raida in Olympiodorus is to be interpreted son and not rather servant or retainer.

The rest of the episode of Constantine's reign-the sieges of Vienna (which, some have suspected, is a mistake for Narbo) and Arelate-have been well told by Gibbon. These events must be placed in the year 411 ; for Constantine's bead arrived at Ravenna on 18th September (Idatius ad ann.), and it was in the fourth month of the siege of Arelate that Edobich's troops came on the scene (Renatus ap. Greg. Tur. ii. 9).

Mr. Freeman thus contrasts the position of Constantine with that of contemporary tyrants :

“Constantine and Maximus clearly leagued themselves with the barbarians ; but they were not mere puppets of the barbarians; they were not even set up by barbarian help. Each was set up by a movement in an army which passed for Roman. But the tyrants who appear in Gaul in the following year, Jovinus, Sebastian and Attalus-Attalus, already known in Italy, is fresh in Gaul-are far more closely connected with the invaders of the provinces. Attalus was a mere puppet of the Goths, set up and put down at pleasure; his story is merely a part of the marches of Atault in Gaul and Spain. Jovinus was set up by Bargundian and Alan help; his elevation to the Empire and the earliest Bur. gundian settlement in Gaul are simply two sides of one event. Even Maximus was not in this way the mere creature of the invaders of Spain, thougb be found it convenient at least to connive at their invasion."

18. THE DEATH OF MAXIMUS--(P. 360) The chronicle of Count Marcellinus states that the tyrants Maximus and Jovinus were brought in chains from Spain (to Ravenna) and executed in the year 422, on the occasion of the tricennalia of Honorius (sub ann. 422, p. 75, ed. Mommsen, Chron. Min, vol. ii.). This, like some other unique notices in Marcellinus, was doubtless taken by him from the Consularia Italica (see above, Appendix 1), which have come down in a mutilated condition (cp. Mommsen, id. p. 46). It is borne out by Orosius, who, writing in 417, says (vii. 425): Maximus exutus purpura destitutusque & militibus Gallicanis-punc' inter barbaros in Hispania egens exulat; which alone is of sufficient authority to refute the statements of the Eastern writers followed by Gibbon.

19. SEPTIMANIA-(P. 376) An error prevails in to the name Septimania. It first occurs id Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. iii., 1, 4, where it is said of the Goths of the kingdom of Tolosa : Septimaniam suam fastidiunt vel refundunt, modo invidiosi huics anguli (that is, Arverni) etiam desolata proprietate potiantur. In his Index Locorum to Luetjohann's ed. of Sidonius, Mommsen points out that Septimania is not derived from septem (the etymon is septimus) and therefore did nos signify either the Seven Provinces of the Viennese Diocese, or seven cities granted to the Goths (Greg. Tur., 2, 20). It means the coast line from the Pyrenees to the Rhone, in Sidonius as well as in Gregory of Tours end later writers; Sidonius means that the Goths declared themselves ready to exchange this coast district (including towns of Narbo, Tolosa, Bæterre, Nema usus, Luteva) for Arverni. Bæterre was a town of the Septimani; hence Septimania.

20. RATE OF TRAVELLING BY SEA-(P. 379) In connexion with Gibbon’s note on the length of journeys by ses in the reign of Arcadius, I have found some contemporary data in the Life of Porphyry of Gaza by the deacon Marcus. (1) From Ascalon, in Palestine, to Thessalonica : 13 days, p. 6, ed. Teubner. (2) Back from Thessalonica to Ascalon: 12 days, p. 7. (3) From Gaza to Constantinople : 20 days, p. 24. (4) Back trum Constantinople to Gaza : 10 days, p. 25. (5) From Cæsarea (Palæst.) to Rhodes: 10 days in winter, p. 30. (6) From Rhodes to Constantinople : 10 days, winter, p. 33. (7) From Constantinople (starting 18th April) to Rhodes : 5 days, p. 47. It must be remembered that we are not informed about intermediate stoppages. These references may be added to those in Friedländer's Sitiengeschichte, ii. 13-17. With a good wind one could sail 11 or 12 hundred stadia in 24 hours.

21. THE “EGYPTIAN” OF SYNESIUS—(P. 392) The interpretation of the Egyptian allegory of Synesius has caused a good deal of trouble, owing to the fact that our other sources supply such meagre material 16 to the details of the political transactions at Constantinople in the reign of Arcadine. It had long been recognized that Egypt stood for the Empire, and Thebes for Constantinople ; and the Praetorian Praefect Aurelian had been detected under the veil of Osiris. But no likely conjecture had been made as to the identity of Typbos. the wicked brother of Osiris. It was partly in consequence of this lacung that the able attempt of Güldenpenning

to reconstruct the history of the years a.b. 399 and 400 on the basis of the work of Synesius (op. my Later Roman Empire, i. p. 79 899.) did not carry complete conviction. But o. Seeck has recently made out a good cs.se for the identity of Typhos and interpreted the allegory more fully (Philologus, 52, p. 442 sqq., 1894). His results must be briefly noted.

1. Taurus.-Synesius states in the Preface that the name of the father of Osiris and Typhos was Taurus. There can be no question that he is the Taurus who appears in the Consular Fasti of A.D. 361. He was quaestor in 353, and be. came praetorian prefect in 355. He held this office (the peykan åpxń of Synes. 6. 2, p. 1213, ed. Migne) till 361. He was appointed to decide a theological disputation (Epiphanius, de Haer. 71, 1); and presided at the Council of Ariminum (359). He was an author as well as an official. The arguments of Borghesi and Seeck establish his identity with Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, the author of 14 Books De re rustica. Taurus had a son named Harmonius who was killed by Arbogastes 392 (John Ant., fr. 187).

2. Aurelian.—He appears first about 383 as builder of a Church (Acta Sanctorum, 6th May, p. 610). In 393 we find him (C. Th. 2, 8, 23, &c.) Prefect of Constantinople before Rufinus held that office. Then after the fall of Eutropius, he appears as Praetorian Prefect of the East (399-400). In 400 the revolt of Gainas causes his fall (see above, p. 393). But he was to rise again and become Prefect a third time (402-404), as Seeck has shown from two letters of Synesius (31 and 38: cp. Cod. Th. 4, 2, 1, and 5, 1, 5, where the false dates have to be amended). He is therein described as Tpuoérapxov," thrice Praefect," in an epigram (Anth. Plan. 4, 73) on a gilt statue dedicated to him by the senate. His son's name was Taurus (Synes., epist., 31), which confirms the identification.

Osiris (i. c. 3, p. 1217) held a post which is described as ALOTÁTNS dopupópwv γενόμενος και ακοάς πιστευθείs, explained by Seeck to be that of magister officiorum; he was then Prefect of the city (Tolsapxhoas, ib.); he was consul (ii. 4, p. 1272), and he twice held the peydan åpxh or praetorian prefecture,--the second time uera Tuvohuatos melcovos (ib.), which means the Patriciate. What happened to Osiris on his fall corresponds even more strikingly to that which happened to Aurelian. The leader of the foreign mercenaries is on the other side of a stream (like Gainas), Aurelian crosses it (p. 1252) and is spared. His companions in misfortune (Saturninus and Johannes) are alluded to, p. 1268.

3. Arcadius.-The insignificance of Arcadius is reflected in the myth by the fact that he is never mentioned except in one passage (p. 1268) where he appears as the High Priest. The person who through his influence over the Emperor had the real power appears in the myth as holding the kingly office—e.g. Osiris while he was in power.

4. Caesarius (?).-In the allegory Typhos is in close alliance with the barbarian mercenaries, and instigates their attack on Thebes in order to overthrow his brother Osiris. When Osiris surrenders himself to the barbarian leader, Typhos urges that he should be put to death. Typhos then receives the kingdom and administers it tyrannically; nor is his position shaken by the fall of the barbarian leader. Before the first rise of Osiris to power · he had filled a post which gave him patronage in distributing offices, the power of oppressing towns (p. 1217), and the duty of regulating measures in connexion with the payment of taxes in kind (p. 1219). These hints taken along with the mention (ib.) of torch-bearing attendants suggest that the office was no less than that of Praetorian Prefect. It would follow that Typhos was Praetorian Prefect before 399, and again in 400.

Eutropius had endeavoured to reduce the power of Praetorian Prefect of the East by making it a collegial office ; and Eutychianus appears as holding that office (1) along with Caesarius while Eutropius was in power ; (2) along with Aurelian, 399-400; (3) along with Aurelian when he was restored 402. It may be assumed that he also held it between 400 and 402.

It would follow that Caesarius, whom we find Praetorian Prefect from 396-398, and again in 400 and 401, was the prototype of Typhos, the son of Taurus and the brother of Aurelian. Some other points may confirm the conjecture. The tendency to Arianism, of which Typhos is accused, is illustrated by C. Th. 16, 5, 25, and the passion of Typhos for his wife by a notice in Sozomen, 9, 2. If Typhos is not meant for Caesarius, it would seem that he must be purely fictitious.

1 He also held a financial post :-Seeck conjectures that of a rationalis of a diocese.

The great political object of Aurelian was to break the power of the Germans in the army and at the court—the policy for which Synesius pleaded in his De regno. The question arises : What was the attitude of the Empress Eudoxia to this policy? The fall of Eutropius which she brought about (Phil. 11, 6) led to the rise of Aurelian, and when Aurelian fell, her intimate friend-scandal said, her lover-Count John, fell with him. Further, Seeck makes it probable that the second Praetorian Prefecture of Aurelian ended, and Anthemias succeeded to that post, about end of 404; and it was on 6th October, 404, that the Empress died. We are thus led to infer & close political union between Eudoxia and Aurelian ; and, if the inference is right, it is noteworthy that the Empress of German origin, the daughter of the Frank Bauto, should have allied herself with a statesman whose policy was anti-German.

22. ARMENIAN AFFAIRS—(P. 414, 415) Gibbon wrongly places the division of the Armenian kingdom into Roman and Persian Armenia in the fifth century. This division was arranged between Theodosius the Great and the Persian King. See Saint Martin, Mémoires, p. 316. Persarmenia was at least two-thirds of the whole kingdom. Arsaces, who had already reigned 5 years over all Armenia, continued after the division to rule over Roman Armenia for 24 years; while Chosrov (a Christian) was appointed by Persia as king of Persian Armenia. On the death of Arsaces, Theodosius committed the rule of the Roman part to a native general, who was induced to recognize the authority of Chosrov ; while Chosrov, in order to secure his position in Roman Armenia, acknowledged the suzerainty of the Roman Empire. This did not please Persia, and Yezdegerd, son of the Persiap king, overthrew him, after he had reigned 5 years. Yezdegerd then gave Armenis to Chosrov's brother; but Chosrov was subsequently restored through the influ. ence of the archbishop Isaac, and reigned about a year. He was succeeded by Sapor, a royal prince of Persia, who made himself hated and attempted to proselytize the Armenians. On his father's death he returned to Persia, endeavoured to win the crown, failed, and perished. After an interval Ardashir (Gibbon's Artasires) was appointed—the last of the Armenian kings. His deposition is described by Gibbon. The government was then placed in the hands of Persian marabans.

Among the works on the criticism of the sources for Armenian history) mentioned in vol. ii., Appendix 17, should have been included : G. Chalatiants, Armianski Epos v istorii Armenii Moiseia Chorenskago, 1896.


CENTURIES Under the system of Constantine the military command which had belonged to the Pruetorian Prefects was transferred to commanders who were commonly described as magistri militum, though this was not a strictly official title. The Imperial troops (comitatenses and palatini ; op. above, vol. ii., Appendix 11) were placed under two generals, of whom one, magister peditum, commanded the infantry, and the other, magister equitum, the cavalry. They were not co-ordinate in dignity: the magister peditum was higher in rank than the magister equitum (see Ammianus, 18, 3, 6, cp. 14, 11, 24; and Notit. Dign. Occ.). When the Empire was divided such court had its own pair of magistri.

As the seat of the court might be anywhere, the sphere of the magisterium was not geographically limited; but before the end of the reign of Constantius the idea of a geographical province was connected with it. In 355 Arbetio was magister equitum ; but there was a second magister equitum in Gaul (Marcellus, see Am.

2 Further : Castricia, wife of Saturninus, who was banished with Aurelian, had itfluence with Eudoxia, as we know from Palladius, Life of Chrysostom.

1 It is used not only in literature, but also in the Imperial rescripts; but never in Inscriptions till after the period of Justinian.

« НазадПродовжити »