« НазадПродовжити »
mianus, 16, 4, 3). In the reign of Valentinian i. there were magistri equitum in Gaul and illyricum. From these secondary commanders, the palatine magister equitum was distinguished by the description in praesenti or praesentalis. But the authority of the magister equitum in Gaul or Illyricum could not be confined like that of the mag. eq. praesentalis to cavalry alone; be commanded infantry as well; hence he came to be called not only by the original official title mag. eq., but also more appropriately magister equitum et peditum or utriusque militiae.
Theodosius i, introduced a change (which Mommsen dates between 386 and 391) in the Eastern division of the Empire. Retaining the three district commanders (i.e., the magistri equitum et peditum, per Orientem, per Thracias and per Illyricum), he co-ordinated in rank the two magistri in praesenti, and divided the troops of both kinds between them. Thus there were no longer a mag. ped. and a mag. eq. of lower rank in the East, but two co-ordinate magistri equitum et peditum in praesenti. See Notit. Dign. Occ.
In the West Theodosius allowed the old arrangement to remain: and we find in the Notit. Dign. Occ. the magister peditum praesentalis and the magister equitum praesentalis. But it is important to note that the position of the single district commander in the West (magister equitum per Gallias) is different from that of those in the East. The magistri of the Orient, Thrace, and Illyricum have each his own troops as well as his own bureau (officium); the magister of Gaul has his own bureau but not his own troops; the troops in Gaul belong to the troops under the magistri praesentales. This is made quite clear in Not. Dign. Occ., c. 7.
A very important innovation was introduced in the West towards the end of the fourth century, a change which had political causes and grave political consequences. This was the conjunction of the magisterium peditum and the magisterium equitum in the hands of one man. The experiment had been tried by Jovian in favour of his father-in-law Lucilian (Ammianus, 25, 8, 9 and 10), but it was the devolution of the purple on minors that led to the adoption of the practice. According to Mommsen, Arbogastes was the first of these powerful commanders-inchief. The case of Stilicho is quite clear. The statement of Zosimus (4, 59) shows that Theodosius before his death combined the two commands in the hands of Stilicho, when we take that statement in connexion with the fact that in the Imperial rescripts he bears the title of magister equitum et peditum or utriusque militiae (rescripts ranging from 398 to 407).
What arrangement was made immediately after the death of Stilicho is not quite clear, but we presently find Valens as mag. utriusque militiae (Olympiodorus, fr. 13), and this supreme command was subsequently held by Constantius (C. I. L. 6, 1719, 1720), Felix, Aetius, Boniface, Ricimer, and by the Ostrogothic king, Theodorio.
The title of rank which accompanied the magisterium was that of comes, and we sometimes find the magister referred to as simply comes (op. Ammianus, 21, 9, 5).
The later magistri utriusque militiae were regularly patricii, but the patriciate was not in itself connected with the magisterium.
The foregoing account is a summary of the discussion of Mommsen in Hermes, 36, 531 899.
The statement of Gibbon as to the friends of Stilicho who were murdered before his assassination is not quite accurate. “Two masters general, of the cavalry and infantry" cannot be right, as there was no magister peditum except Stilicho himself who was mag. utriusque militiae. The source is Zosimus, v. 32, and the list is as follows: Limenius, praet. prefect of Gaul; Longinianus, praet. prefect of Italy; Chariobaudes, mag. equitum of Gaul; Vincentius and Salvius, comites domesticorum equitum et peditum (Mommsen, loc. cit. 538, n. 2); Naemorius, mag, off.; Patroinus, comes sacrarum largitionum ; (Ursicinus ? see Mendelssohn ad loc.), comes rerum privatarum; Salvius, quaestor.
2 It is impossible to say how far the districts were defined at first. “Vermuthlich haben sie erst im Laufe der Zeit, sovie sie später auftreten, sich fixirt."
3 Mommsen questions the statement of Zosimus, 6, 36.
24. PROCOPIAN LEGENDS—(P. 432, 506) (1) BONIFACE AND AETIUS; (2) VALENTINIAN AND MAXIMUS In his Italy and her Invaders, vol. ii. (p. 206 sqq., ed. 2) Mr. Hodgkin baa discussed and rejected the romantic story connected with the death of Valentinian, the elevation of Maximus and his marriage with Eudoxia. The story is told by Procopius (de B. V. i. 4); and, in accordance with Gibbon's criticism that “ Procopius is a fabulous writer for the events which precede his own memory,” Mr. Hodgkin relegates it to "the fables of Procopius”.
In the English Historical Review, July, 1887 (p. 417-465), Mr. Freeman published a long criticism of the historical material for the careers of Aetins and Boniface. He held the account of Procopius (B. V. i. 3) to be “legend of the sixth century and not trustworthy history of the fifth," and tried to “recover the true story as it may be put together from the annalists, the writings of St. Augustine, and other more trustworthy authorities ". In this case Mr. Hodgkin takes a completely different view and argues (ib., vol. i. p. 889 sqq., ed. 2) that the Procopian legend " has still a reasonable claim to be accepted as history," while admitting that in some points it has been shaken by Mr. Freeman.
Now, while the two stories need not stand on the same footing so far as historical credibility is concerned, while it may be possible to follow Mr. Hodgkin in rejecting the one and accepting the main part of the other, there is a prelimin ary question which must be discussed before we attempt to decide the ultimate question of historical fact. Procopius is not the only authority for these stories. They are also found in the Salmasian Excerpts, which were first printed by Cramer in his Anecdota Parisina, ii. 383 sqq., and afterwards included among the fragments of John of Antioch by C. Müller, in the Fragmenta Hist. Græc., vol. iv. p. 535 89. The fragments in question are 196 and 200. It was a serious flaw in Mr. Freeman's essay that he was not aware either of the Salmasian Excerpt 196, or of the Con. stantinian Excerpt 201, which also bears on the question of Aetius and Bonitace. Mr. Hodgkin refers to fr. 196, which (with Müller) he ascribes to Joannes Antiochenus, and says: “ Though a comparatively late author (he probably lived in the seventh century) and though he certainly used Procopius freely in his compilation, he had also some good contemporary authorities before him, especially Prisous, and there seems some probability, though I would not state it more strongly than this, that he may have found the story in one of them as well as in Procopius".
But Mr. Hodgkin, while he takes account of fr. 196 in defending one “ Procopian legend," takes no account of fr. 200 in rejecting the other * Procopian legend,” though fr. 200 bears to the latter the same relation which fr. 196 bears to the former.
Now in the first place it must be clearly understood that the author of the work from which the Salmasian Excerpts are derived cannot have been the same as the author of the work from which the Constantinian Excerpts are derived. There is no question about this, and it could be proved merely by comparing the two (Salmasian fragments under consideration (frags. 196 and 200) with (the Constantinian) frag. ment 201. If then we accept the Constantinian Excerpts under the name Joe Dee of Antioch, we must be ca reful not to ascribe the Salmasian Excerpts to that writer Which is the true Joannes, is a question still sub judice. (See below, vol. iv. Appendix 1.)
The vital question then is whether Procopius was the source of 8. (28 we may designate the author of these Excerpts) for these fragments or not. For if he was, 8. adds no weight to the authority of Procopius and may be disregarded ; if he was not, the statements of S. have to be reckoned with too. From a careful comparima of the passages, I find myself in complete agreement with C. de Boor (who has desit with the question in Byz. Ztsch. ii. 204 899.) that Procopius was not the source of S. but that the accounts of both authors were derived from a common source.! The proof in the case of fr. 200 is very complete; because we happen to bave is
Cp. further E. Gleye in Byz. Ztsch. v. 460 899., where some other of the Excerpts (esp. fr. 12) are treated in their relation to Procopius, with the same result.
Suidas sub voce edadlas (see Müller ad loc.) a fragment of what was evidently that
The inference, for historical purposes, is important. We cannot speak with Mr. Freeman of “Procopian legend” or “ legend of the sixth century". Procopius cannot be described in these cases as setting down “the received tale that he heard". He was using a literary source; and there is not the slightest proof that this literary source belonged to the sixth century. It seems more probable that it was a fifth century source. It may have been Prisous or it may not.
These two episodes therefore depend on the authority of a writer (who has so far not been identified) earlier than Procopius and distinct from John of Antioch. They may for all we know have very early authority, and they cannot be waived away as “ Procopian legend". Each must be judged on its own merits.
It seems to me that there was probably a certain foundation of truth in both stories, but that they have been dressed out with fictitious details (like the story of the Empress Eudocia and Paulinus). I do not feel prepared to reject the main facte implied, that Aetius intrigued against Bonifacius and that Valentinian seduced the wile of Maximus.
The story of the single combat of Aetius and Boniface is derived from Marcellinus (like Procopius, a writer of the sixth century). But rightly interpreted it contains nothing improbable. It does not imply a duel; but a single combat in a battle It is however important to observe that “ John of Antioch" (fr. 201, Müller, p. 615) says nothing of Boniface's wound but states that he was out-generalled by Aetius and that he died of diseases due to depression and chagrin :
τον δε Βονιφάτιον συν πολλη διαβάντα χειρί από της Λιβύης κατεστρατήγησεν, ώστε εκείνον μέν υπό φροντίδων νόσο τελευτήσαι. Compare Mommsen, in Hermes 36, 521.
It remains to be added that the essay of Mr. Freeman throws much light on the career of Boniface in Africa and the doings of Castinus, Felix, and Sigisvult.
For arguments against the alleged invitation of the Vandals by Boniface, which is not mentioned by contemporary writers (at least clearly, op. Prosper) nor by Victor Vitensis, but bas generally been accepted from Procopius, see L. Schmidt in By. zantinische Zeitschrift, 12, 601-2, 1903.
25. THE BATTLE OF MAURICA, COMMONLY CALLED THE BATTLE
OF CHÂLONS—(P. 488) The scene of the battle by which the invasion of Attila was checked has been the subject of some perplexity. The statements which have to be considered are the following:
1. Idatius : in campis Catalaunicis haud longe de civitate quam effregerant Mettis.
2. An insertion in the text of Prosper, found in the Codex Havniensis, and doubtless representing an entry in the Chronica Italica. Mommsen, Chron. Min., i., p. 302 and 481 : pugnatum est in quinto milliario de Trecas, loco numoupato Maurica in Campania.
3. Chron. A.D. 511 (see above, App. 1), Mommsen, Chron. Min., i., p. 663 : Tricaksis pugnat loco Mauriacos.
4a. Jordanes 0. 36 : convenitur itaque in campos Catalaunicos, qui et Mauriaci nominantur, centum leuvas ut Galli vocant in longum tenentes et septuaginta in latum. (A gallio leuva or league = 11 Roman miles.)
46. Gregory of Tours, 2, 7: Mauriacum campum adiens se præcingit ad bellum (Attila). The accounts of the episode in Jordanes and Gregory are not independent; cp. Mommsen, Pref. to Jordanes, p. xxxvi.
The traditional view that the battle was fought near Duro-Catalaunum or Chalons on Marne is not borne out by the data. That town is not mentioned, and the notice of Jordanes shows that its proximity is not implied by the name “ Catalaunian Plains," for Maurica might have been the other extremity. Setting aside Idatius, whose statement is discredited by the words “not far from Metz,” we find the other notices agreeing in the designation of the battle
VOL. III.--34 *
field as the Mauriac Plain, or a place named Maurica, and one of them gives the precise distance from Troyes. The name Maurica, Mauriac, bas beso identified with great plausibility with Mery (on Seine), about twenty miles fra Troyes. There seems therefore a likelihood that the battle was fought between Troyes and Mery, and the solution, for which Mr. Hodgkin well argues (Italy, p. 143-5), is confirmed, as he observes, by the strategical importance of Troyes, which was at the centre of many roads.
An interesting discovery was made in 1842 at the village of Pouan, about 10 miles from Mery-on-Seine. A skeleton was found with a two-edged sword and a cutlass, both adorned with gold, and a number of gold ornaments, one of them & ring with the inscription HEVA. They are the subject of a memoir by Y. Peigné Delacourt (1860) who claimed the grave as the tomb of the Visigothie king Theodoric. See Hodgkin (ib. p. 140). In any case the remains may well be connected with the great battle. Traces of the march of Attils into Gaul are preserved in numismatic “finds"; see Blanchet, Les trésors de monnaies romaines et les invasions germaniques en Gaule, 66 (1900).
The investigations of their editor, B. Krusch, have shown that the Lives of tbe Saints (Anianus, Lupus, Genovefa, Memorius), to which Gibbon makes referens (cp. p. 484, n. 34, and p. 485), are of no historical value. See his edition, Mon. Germ. Hist., Sor. rer. Mer. vol. iii. Thus the siege and partial occupation of Orleans by the Huns, which Gibbon accepts from the life of Anianus, most be rejected. Orleans was already protected by the Romans and Goths, and the intended treachery of Sangiban frustrated, before Attila arrived (Jordanes, Get 195). Our main source for the campaign is Jordanes = Cassiodorus, wbose source was Priscus. The account in Gregory of Tours was derived chiefly from Jordanes. The notices in the Latin chronicles are independent.
26. THE FOUNDATION OF VENICE—(P. 496) The association of the founding of the Venetian State with the invasion of Attila has no real historical evidence. There were settlements in the lagoons both in prehistoric and in Roman times. The invasions of the fifth century from Attila onwards led to a considerable migration from the country of the mainland to the lagoons, as the cities ceased to afford a sure protection; and Grado especially became more thickly populated. At the beginning of the sixth century we find in this quarter of Venetia settlements of strong and self-reliant people (see the letter of Cassiodorus, above, p. 496, n. 58), subject to the Ostrogothic monarchy and governed by tribuni maritimorum (see Mommsen, Nenes Archiv, 14, 496). After the fall of the Ostrogoths the lagoon regions passed with the rest of Italy to the Roman Empire, and, when the Lombards came down and destroyed the cities of North-eastern Italy in 568, became the great refuge for the inhabitants, both rich and poor, of the adjacent lands. Grado then became of immense importance; thither the Patriarch Paulinus fed from Aquileia with the treasures of his Church In the course of the following century the other islands were largely populated.
See H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, I. 16-19 (1905). He observes that A.D. 568 is the only year which can in any way claim to be called the birth iss of Venice.
The earliest record of the popular tradition which made Attila the cause of the settlement of Venice is in Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De administrando inperia, p. 123, ed. Bonn. The Chronicon Venetum, of which the oldest part in its original form goes back to the early tenth century, represents the gradual settlement of the islands as one single act caused by the barbarians. (This chronicle is edited by Simonsfeld in the Scriptores of the M. G. H. vol. xiv.) The chronicle of Johann Diaconus (beginning of the eleventh century: ed. by Pertz in the Scriptores of the M. G. H. vol. vii., and by Monticolo, in the Chronache Veneziane antichissime, vol. 1 connects the settlement specially with the Lombards. In Martin de Canal: Cronique des Veniciens (thirteenth century) the date A.D. 421 for the foundation of Venice appears for the first time in & historical work; then we find the legend in a more fully developed form in Andrea Dandolo's chronicle in the following century On the forged decree of the Senate of Patavium and the supposed foundation of a
church of St. James on the Rialto in 421, see Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, ii.
For the criticism of the Chronicon Venetum, see Simonsfeld, Venezianische Studien I., Das Chronicon Altinate, 1878; on Johannes Diaconus, Monticolo, I manoscritti e le fonti della cronaca del Diacono Giovanni, in Bull. dell'istituto storico Italiano, vol. ix.; on Andrea Dandolo, Simonsfeld, Andrea Dandolo und seine Geschichtswerke, 1876, and cp. Lenel, Zur Kritik Andrea Dandolos, 1897. Cp. also the papers of Cipolla (Ricerche sulle tradizioni intorno alle immigrazioni nelle lagune) in the Archivio Veneto, vols. xxviii., xxix., xxxi.
For the topography of the lagoons, see the literature cited in Kretschmayr's valuable work, 414-6.