Front Page Titles (by Subject) 2.: AUTHORITIES — ( C. XXXVI . sqq. ) - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 6
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
2.: AUTHORITIES — ( C. XXXVI . sqq. ) - Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 6 
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury with an Introduction by W.E.H. Lecky (New York: Fred de Fau and Co., 1906), in 12 vols. Vol. 6.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
AUTHORITIES — (C. XXXVI. sqq.)
The history of the reign of Leo I. and Zeno (in three Books) was written by Candidus the Isaurian. He held the post of clerk or secretary to influential Isaurians; such is the vague phrase of Photius, who in the Bibliotheca (cod. 79) gives a short notice of the writer and a summary of the contents of his work. He was an orthodox Christian. Besides the account in Photius (Müller, F.H.G. iv. p. 135), we have probably three fragments in the Lexicon of Suidas: (α) sub χειρίζω (Müller, ib. 137); (β) the first part of the article Ἁρμάτος (assigned by Niebuhr to Malchus but) vindicated for Candidus by Toup and Shestakov; (γ) the first part of the article Βασιλίσκος plausibly assigned to Candidus by Shestakov (β and γ are printed under Malchus in Müller, ib. p. 116, 117). But the work of Candidus can be further traced in the chronicles of later writers, who made use (directly or indirectly) of his history. This has been shown by Shestakov in his paper Candid Isavriski (Lietopis ist.-phil. obschestva, Odessa, 1894, Viz. Otd. 2, p. 124-149), of which he promises a continuation. This is the most important study of Candidus that has yet appeared. Shestakov analyses the account of the great fire in Leo’s reign given by our authorities, and shows that, while Evagrius drew (through Eustathius) from Priscus, Zonaras and Cedrenus drew from Candidus (who probably made use of Priscus too); and he applies the same method to the stories of Aspar’s fall and the expedition of Basiliscus. It had already been recognised that the fragments of John of Antioch numbered 210 and 211 in Müller (F.H.G. iv. 618 sqq.) depended on Candidus; this is also probably true of the Escurial fragment of the same writer, 214 C in Müller (ib. v., cp. Shestakov, p. 125). Shestakov traces Candidus in Zonaras, Cedrenus, Nicephorus Callistus, and makes it probable that his history was consulted by Procopius1 and Theodore Lector.
Pamprepius, the philosopher, a friend of the general Illus who revolted against Zeno, also wrote a book on Isaurian history; and the same subject was treated by Capito the Lycian, who translated the history of Eutropius into Greek. See Muller, F.H.G. iv. p. 123. It may be added that a notice bearing on the chronology of the revolt of Verina and Illus has been recently discovered in a curious work by a contemporary astrologer named Palchus. An account of this work is given by M. F. Cumont in the Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique, 1897, vol. xl. p. 1. It contains a horoscope of the coronation of Leontius, the puppet emperor whom the rebels set up in Syria, and who was crowned at Tarsus, 483. The date given is the 24th of Epiphi = 19th July, whereas Theophanes gives 27th June.
Malchus of Philadelphia wrote, under Anastasius, a continuation of the history of Priscus, covering the years 474 to 480. (So Photius. Bib. Cod. 78; but Suidas gives the work a wider extent — from Constantine I. to Anastasius). He was indifferent to religion, like Priscus and Procopius, but did not attack Christianity, so that Photius charitably regarded him as within the pale of Christendom. He censured the vices of Zeno with great severity. [Fragments (preserved in the Excerpta de legationibus of Constantine Porph., and in Suidas) in Müller’s F.H.G. iv. p. 111 sqq. Also in Dindorf’s Hist. Græc. minores.]
Eustathius of Epiphania wrote, under Anastasius, a history from the earliest times to the 12th year of Anastasius; he died in that year ( 502). He is known through Evagrius, who used him largely, and through Malalas (p. 398-9, ed. Bonn). For the fifth century he used the work of Priscus. [Müller, F.H.G. iv. p. 138 sqq.]
A Panegyric on the Emperor Anastasius by the rhetor Procopius of Gaza is printed in the same vol. of the Bonn. Script. Byzant., as Dexippus, Eunapius, Malchus, &c. Here will also be found a poetical encomium in Latin on the same Emperor by Priscian. Both these panegyrics laud the financial relief which the government of Anastasius gave to the Empire.
Hesychius illustris, of Miletus, wrote under Justinian: (1) a universal history coming down to the death of Anastasius ( 518), of which almost nothing has been preserved but a long fragment relating to the early history of Byzantium (πάτρια Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, in Codinus, ed. Bonn, p. 16 sqq.); (2) a history of the reign of Justin and the first years of Justinian; nothing of this survives, a loss deeply to be regretted; (3) a lexicon of famous literary people; some fragments of this are preserved in Photius and Suidas. The short biographical dictionary ascribed to Hesychius is not genuine, but a much later compilation. This pseudo-Hesychius was edited by J. Flach, 1880, and is included in Müller’s ed. of the Fragments (F.H.G. iv. 143 sqq.).
Theodoros Anagnostes (Lector) wrote, under Justin and in the early years of Justinian, (1) a Historia tripartita, founded on Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, coming down to 439; and (2) a continuation of this, Historia ecclesiastica, to the beginning of Justinian’s reign. Neither work is extant. Some fragments from (1) are contained in a Paris MS., and have been published by Cramer, Anecd. Paris. ii. p. 87 sqq.; but these fragments were derived not from the original work, but from a Collection of excerpts which was used by the chronographer Theophanes. Other fragments have been found in an Oxford MS. (Barocc. 142) and were used by de Boor for his edition of Theophanes. Of (2), fragments have been edited by Valois (at end of his ed. of Theodoret, Evagrius, and Philostorgius, p. 551 sqq., 1673), Cramer (ib.), Müller (Revue Archéologique, nouv. série, 1873, t. 26, 396 sqq.), and some others have been found in Codinus and the Anonymous Banduri by V. Sarrazin, whose monograph, De Theodoro Lectore (in the Commentationes Philol. Jenenses, 1881, vol. 1), is the most important study of Theodorus, especially as a source of Theophanes. Sarrazin has shown (p. 193 sqq.) that some of the fragments of Valois and Cramer are not from Theodore but from John Diacrinomenos, who was one of the sources of Theodore. He has also given reasons for holding that Theophanes used a Collection of Excerpts in the case of this work too; that the Müller fragments are remains of that Collection; and that the Cramer and Valois fragments represent Excerpts from that Collection, not from the original work.
A treatise on the civil service (περι αρχω̂ν, De magistratibus), written by an official, John of Philadelphia, generally described as “the Lydian” (Lydus), was first published in 1812 by Hase (reprinted in Bonn ed.). His work, which gives a history of the Prætorian prefecture under Anastasius, Justin, and Justinian, is of immense importance for the study of the administration in the sixth century. He bitterly complains of the decline of the service and the reduction of its emoluments. Of Justinian he always speaks in terms of the highest praise; but his account of the career of John of Cappadocia, on whom he throws most of the blame for the degradation of the civil service, bears out the representations of Procopius. But Lydus carefully and repeatedly warns his readers that Justinian was ignorant of the Prefect’s misdeeds. At the end of forty years’ work, having passed successively through the grades of notary, chartulary, augustalis, and finally that of cornicularius ( 551) — his promotion being facilitated by his knowledge of the Latin language, which was supposed to be exceptional, but was really very slight, — John retired to literary leisure, honoured but impoverished. His other extant works are de Ostentis (ed. Wachsmuth) and de Mensibus. But he was employed by Justinian to write a Panegyric on that Emperor and a history of the Persian war (cp. de Mag. iii. 28); these and his poems have been lost.
To the account which Gibbon has given of the career of Procopius of Cæsarea little need be added except on a few doubtful points. There is no record of the date of his birth, but it must have been before the end of the fifth century (c. 490, Dahn suggests); he was probably in the fifties when he began to write his history. The political sympathies apparent in his writings (noticed by Dahn, and elucidated more fully by Panchenko) suggest that he belonged to the official aristocracy; and there is plausibility in the hypothesis of Haury that his father may have been the Procopius of Edessa,2 whom he mentions himself in his Edifices (p. 236, ed. Bonn) as governor of the First Palestine in the reign of Anastasius; this receives some support from the interest manifested by Procopius in Edessene affairs.
The exact nature of the post which Procopius occupied in regard to Belisarius has been questioned. Three questions have been raised: (1) in 527 was Procopius appointed an assessor or consiliarius by Belisarius himself or by the Emperor? (2) did he occupy in the African and Italian Wars the same official post which he held in the Persian War? (3) are we right in supposing that he was officially a legal adviser to Belisarius at any time? Though the third question has been raised last, it comes logically first. In a recent study on the historian M. Brückner has pointed out3 (a) that Procopius never displays legal knowledge, and avoids juristic questions, (b) that his contemporary Agathias calls him not ξύμβουλος, but ῥήτωρ (Suidas calls him ὑπογραϕεύς, ῥήτωρ, σοϕιστής, ἀκόλουθος Βελισαρίου), (c) that, if the father of Procopius was an Edessene as Haury suggests, the law that no one could be assessor in his native land would have prevented Procopius from being chosen to that post when Belisarius was general in Mesopotamia, for the law could hardly have been evaded by the accidental birth of Procopius in Cæsarea. Hence he doubts whether Procopius was an official assessor of Belisarius. The second argument does not carry much weight, and the third depends on a hypothesis — a plausible hypothesis, no doubt. Procopius himself states that when Belisarius was appointed commander of the regiments of Daras in 527 he was chosen as his ξύμβουλος (B.P. i. 12); and he describes himself as πήρεδρος of Belisarius on his Vandalic expedition (B.V. i. 14). It is usually assumed that both words designate the same official position, ξύμβουλος corresponding to consiliarius and πάρεδρος to assessor. There can, I think, be no question that πάρεδρος is intended to designate an official post (elsewhere Procopius explains it as quæstor); and, if Brückner were right, Procopius would have made a distinctly false statement about his own position. It is otherwise with ξύμβουλος, which need not imply an official post. The right inference may be that on the first occasion (in the Persian War) Procopius accompanied Belisarius as his private secretary and adviser on civil matters; but that on the second occasion (for the Vandal War) he was appointed official assessor by the Emperor at the wish of Belisarius. It has been well pointed out by Dahn that Procopius is not given to varying his phrases and seeking synonyms, but rather to using the same stereotyped expressions for the same things; and therefore (in absence of other knowledge) the presumption is that ξύμβουλος does not express the same position as πάρεδρος. I may be met by the objection that the passive ἡρέθη in B.P. i. 12 (τότε δὴ αὐτον̂ ξύμβουλος ἡρέθη Προκόπιος) suggests an official appointment independent of Belisarius (cp. Dahn, op. cit. p. 16); but this is sufficiently explained by the impersonal tone which Procopius affects, in imitation of Thucydides. Brückner seems to be far from hitting the point when he says that Procopius “is not wont to hide his light under a bushel”; on the contrary, Procopius imitates the personal reserve of Thucydides. It is impossible, therefore, to attach importance to the negative argument “dass Prokop so ausserordentlich wenig rechtswissenschaftliche Kenntnisse entwickelt,” or that he tells nothing of his own activity as legal assessor. I see no good ground for doubting that in the African and Gothic Wars Procopius was assessor of Belisarius in the full official sense of the term.
The dates of the composition of the historian’s works have undergone an important revision by the investigation of J. Haury. This scholar has proved from two passages4 that the greatest part of the Military History, Bks. i.-vii., was written in 545, the year which offered a suitable terminus for the Persian and the Vandalic Wars.5 The work was not published till 550, in which year a few additions were made,6 but no alterations.7
The Secret History, Haury has shown, was written in 550, not, as usually supposed, in 558-9. Had it been written in 558-9 it is impossible to see why none of the events between 550 and 558 are used to support the author’s indictment of Justinian’s government. The reason for supposing it to have been composed in 558-9 was the explicit statement that thirty-two years had elapsed since Justinian undertook the administration (ἐξ ὅτου ἀνὴρ ὅδε διῳκήσατο τὴν πολιτείαν). Haury has shown that the author counts not from the accession of Justinian but from that of Justin ( 518), on the principle that Justin was a cipher, and completely in the hands of his nephew.8
The eighth book of the Military History, usually counted as the fourth of the Gothic War, was written in 553-4. The last work, the Edifices, was not published before 560; for it mentions the construction of the bridge over the Sangarius (vol. iii. p. 315), the date of which we know from Theophanes to have been 559-60 (under the circumstances, 560).9 It is gratuitous to suppose that this is an interpolation. There is, however, another passage in the Edifices on which Dahn confidently based his view that the Secret History was composed after the Edifices. In mentioning the inundation of Edessa by the river Skirtos, Procopius (Secret Hist. p. 111) refers to his description in his earlier works. Now there is no such description in the Military History, but there is in the Edifices. Haury, however, has pointed to a passage in the Bell. Pers. (vol. i. p. 209) where there is clearly a considerable gap in our text,10 and plausibly argues that the description referred to in the Secret History occupied this gap. In any case, Dahn’s argument from the Skirtos is met by the counter argument from the Sangarios.11
It was probably after the publication of Bk. viii. of the Military History ( 554) that Justinian became conscious of the existence of the great historian, and engaged him to write the work on the Edifices. There can be no doubt that Procopius wrote it ironically, “with his tongue in his cheek”; the smiles of the court had not altered his political hostility to the government. The very hyperbole of his praise was a mockery. As he invariably in the Edifices cites his Military History as οἱ ὑπὲρ τω̂ν πολέμων λόγοι, it is reasonable to assume that, when he says in the Proœmium that he has related Justinian’s other doings ἐν ὲτέροις λόγοις, he is secretly alluding to the unpublished work, whose publication would have cost him his head. It is probable that Procopius was rewarded for his memorial of Justinian’s Buildings by the office of Prefecture of the City. At all events two years after its publication, in 562, a Procopius was made Prefect of Constantinople.12
The chronology of the career of Procopius, so far as can be determined, would be as follows: —
This is not the place to speak of the literary character of the works of Procopius except so far as it concerns their historical criticism. Procopius is an imitator of both Herodotus and Thucydides. How largely he used these ancient historians has been shown in two special monographs by H. Braun.13 In geographical and ethnographical digressions, descriptions of strange incidents, dreams, &c., the influence of Herodotus is apparent; and the Herodotean conception of the supernatural, the power of fortune or fate, the envy of the gods, is adopted by Procopius. In the prefaces to his works, in speeches and letters, in descriptions of sieges, naval battles, plagues, Procopius takes Thucydides as his model.14 It is curious to find not only John, the son of Vitalian, but Moors and other Barbarians, spouting Thucydidean phrases. When we find incidents at the siege of Amida reproduced from the siege of Platæa, we have reason to doubt whether Procopius confined himself to adapting merely the words of his models.
It was recognised by Gibbon, and has been confirmed by later investigations, that in the history of events previous to his own time Procopius is untrustworthy; he was quite careless in selecting and using sources, and has been convicted of numerous errors.15 It is hardly too strong to say, as has been said by Brückner, that he shows want both of historical sense and of conscientiousness.
The politics of Procopius are marked by four prominent features: (1) Patriotism, based on the idea of the Roman world embodying a civilisation inaccessible to the Barbarians; (2) Constitutional sm, a worship of law and order; and, closely connected with this, (3) Conservatism, devotion to the old traditional customs of the Empire, and dislike of innovation as such; (4) Class sympathies with the aristocracy (aristocracy, of course, of wealth, not birth). This analysis of the political view of Procopius, which can be clearly traced in his Public History, is due to Panchenko;16 the two last features had been well developed by Dahn.
As to religion, the historian generally uses the language of a sceptic and fatalist, regarding Christianity as an outsider with tolerant indifference, but never committing himself to any utterance against it. He wrote in fact (as Alemanni observed) as a politicus. But he was intensely superstitious; as diligent a seeker after oracles and dreams as Herodotus himself. I cannot resist the suspicion that the indifference of Procopius was to some extent an affectation, due to his admiration for the old classical writers and the pre-Christian Empire. Certainly in judging his fatalistic utterances we must take into account his imitation of Herodotus.
The must disputed question as to the genuineness of the Secret History has been set at rest by the researches of Dahn and Haury. Dahn’s investigation (op. cit.) into the diction of this work, as compared with the undoubted writings of Procopius, has received greater significance in the light of the elaborate study of B. Panchenko (O tainoi istorii Prokopiia),17 which contains an exhaustive analysis of the work. The matter was clinched by J. Haury’s (op. cit.) determination of the chronology of the Procopian writings. His argument has been stated briefly above in the Introduction to vol. i. (p. lxv.).
In regard to the distinct question as to the credibility of the Secret History, it is important to observe that there is no fundamental opposition between it and the Public History. The political attitude of the writer (as described above) is the same in both documents. The result of that political attitude was bitter hostility to the reigning dynasty as (1) barbarian; (2) tyrannical, trampling on the constitution; (3) innovating; (4) oppressing the aristocracy. In the Public History criticisms on the Government had necessarily to be confined within certain limits, but they are often expressed freely enough. Procopius often puts his criticisms dexterously into the mouth of enemies; thus Totila censures the administration of Justinian in Italy. It is noticeable that Procopius never praises Justinian in the Military History; in the only passage in which he approaches commendation the commendation is of an ambiguous kind, and is interpreted as blame in the Secret History.18 Procopius admired and regretted the government of Anastasius, as we know from the Secret History; and in his account of the Nika Sedition in the Vandalica it is not difficult to read between the lines his veiled sympathy with the nephews of Anastasius.
The first five chapters of the Secret History, relating to Belisarius and Antonina, form a sort of appendix to the Military History, and are distinguished by a relatively large number of references to the Military History. We must assume that between 545 and 550 events had occurred which prevented Procopius from any longer seeing in Belisarius a possible leader of a successful opposition to Justinian. The rest of the work deals with the family, the court, and the domestic administration of Justinian; it is a Civil, in contrast with the Military, History. It falls into two parts, of which the first is personal, dealing with the private life of the sovran and his consort (cc. 6-17),19 while the second treats his political administration. These parts are separated by a lacuna. In the last sentence of cap. 17 Theodora is the subject; in the first sentence of cap. 18 Justinian is the subject. It seems more probable that this break is due to the fact that the work was never revised by the author for publication than to an accidental loss in the course of its transmission.20 It looks as if Procopius, when he finished c. 17, had started on a new plan, and had never welded the two parts together. It should be observed that there is no literary evidence as to the existence of the Secret History before Suidas (tenth century). There is no proof that it was used by Evagrius (notwithstanding Jeep’s observations),21 much less that it was known to Agathias.
The publication of the Secret History raised in arms the Jurists who revered the memory of Justinian, and the work was described as Vaticana venena. When it is recognised that there is no essential opposition between the point of view of the Military and that of the Secret History, that the hostility to the government, outspoken in the one, is present and, though veiled, constantly peers out in the other, the argument that the author’s evidence is damaged by inconsistency and contradictions falls to the ground. When we make allowance for the bitter acrimony of the writer, and for his gross superstition, the fact remains that most of his statements as to the administration of Justinian and Theodora are perfectly credible. Many of them are directly supported by the notices of other contemporary writers; and others are indirectly supported by parallels or analogies found in contemporary sources. It is the great merit of the Russian scholar, B. Panchenko, to have examined22 in detail the statements of the Secret History in the light of the contemporary evidence as to Justinian’s reign; and the general credibility of the objective statements of the Procopian work has strikingly emerged. Of course, Procopius can be frequently convicted of unfairness; he always attributes the worst motives. His description of the profligacy of Theodora only proves his familiarity with the pornography of the stews of Constantinople; but it rests on the solid fact that the youth of Theodora was disreputable. We can appeal to the testimony of John of Ephesus (comment. de beatis orientalibus, ed. van Douwen and Land, p. 68): Stephanum virum egregium duxit ad Theodoram τὴν ἐκ τον̂ πορνείου, quæ illo tempore patricia eral.
[Literature: J. Eichel, Ανέκδοτα seu historia arcana Procopii . . . convicta, 1654; W. S. Teuffel, Procopius (in Studien und Charakteristiken, 1871); Reinkens, Anecdota sintne scripta a Procopio Caesariensi inquiritur, 1858; H. Eckhardt, De Anecdotis Procop. Caes., 1860; Ueber Procop und Agathias als Quellenschriftsteller fur den Gothenkrieg in Italian, 1864; W. Gundlach, Quaestiones Procopianae, 1861; F. Dahn, op. cit.; A. Schulz, Procopius de Bello Vandalico, 1871; A. Auler, De fide Proc. Caes. in secundo bello Persico, &c., 1876; Ranke, Procopius von Cäsarea, in Weltgeschichte, iv. 2, p. 285 sqq.; Débidour, L’impératrice Théodore, 1885; Mallet, the Empress Theodora, in Eng. Hist. Review, 1887, Jan.; Kirchner, Bemerkungen zu Prokops Darstellung der Perserkriege des Anastasius, Justin und Justinian, 1887; H. Braun, opp. citt.; J. Haury, opp. citt.; J. Scheftlein, De praepositionum usu Procopiano, 1893; M. Bruckner, op. cit.; B. Panchenko, op. cit.; M. Krasheninnikov, O rukopisnom predanii Istorii Prokopiia, in Viz. Vrem. ii. p. 416 sqq.; art. on Procopius in Krumbacher’s Gesch. der byz. Litteratur (ed. 2, 1896).
Editions. The Bonn ed. by Dindorf (1833-8) is not much better than the Paris ed. by Maltretus, which Gibbon used. These texts are founded on inferior MSS. Isambert’s separate ed. of the Anecdota is poor (1856). A new much-needed complete ed. is promised by J. Haury, but the first three books of the Gothic War (based on the best MSS., and accompanied by an excellent Italian translation) by D. Comparetti have been issued in the series of Fonti per la storia d’Italia (1895-6).]
Agathias of Myrina ( 536-582) practised as an advocate (scholastikos) at Constantinople, and combined law with literature. In his earlier years he wrote poems and epigrams; after the death of Justinian he devoted himself to history and continued the work of Procopius. His history “On the Reign of Justinian” embraces in five Books the years 552-558, and would have been continued if he had lived. Gibbon well characterises his work and contrasts him with Procopius (see vol. vii. p. 275), and notes the information on Persian affairs which he derived from his friend Sergius (vol. i. c. 8). He seems in general to have depended on oral sources for his narrative; he names most of the old writers whom he used for his digressions. [Ed. in the Bonn series by Niebuhr; in the Hist. Græc. Minores, vol. ii., by L. Dindorf. H. Eckhardt, Agathias und Prokop als Quellenschriftsteller für den Gothenkrieg, 1864; W. S. Teuffel, in Philologus, 1846, Bd. 1, 495 sqq.]
The history of the advocate Agathias was continued by an imperial guardsman, Menanderprotector. He had, however, the training of a jurist, as he tells us in his very interesting preface, where he describes the wild and idle life of his youth, which he reformed under the beneficent influence of the Emperor Maurice. His work covers the years 558-582; we possess very important fragments of it in the Constantinian excerpts de legationibus and de sententiis, and a few in Suidas. Evagrius drew from Menander (probably directly) for his fifth book. He was also used by Theophylactus Simocatta (for an excursus in Bk. iii. on the Persian wars of Justin II. and Tiberius. See below, vol. viii. Appendix 1). [Müller, F.H.G. iv. p. 200 sqq.; L. Dindorf, Hist. Græc. Min. vol. ii.]
Johannes Rhetor, or Malalas (the Syriac equivalent of Rhetor),23 of Antioch, published between 528 and 540 a chronicle beginning with the Creation and ending with the first months of 528 (Bks. 1-17). The work was re-edited and brought down (Bk. 18) to the death of Justinian24 ( 565). Neither the first edition, which was used by Evagrius (who cites it under the name of Johannes rhetor) nor the second (used by the Paschal Chronist, Theophanes, &c.) has come down to us; but we have materials sufficient for an almost complete restoration of the second edition. (1) The chief of these materials is the abridgment of the whole work; which is preserved in an Oxford MS. of the eleventh century (Barocc. 182). The first pages of the MS., with the title, are lost; and the work was identified by some passages verbally identical with passages which John of Damascus quotes from “John Malalas.” (2) Next best to recovering the original second edition would be the recovery of the Slavonic translation made by the Bulgarian presbyter Gregory (c. 900).25 Luckily, large parts of this, in Russian form, are preserved. (3) Numerous excerpts and fragments have been identified, and enable us to supplement the Oxford text. (a) Four Tusculan fragments, published in Mai’s Spicil. Rom. vol. ii. part 3, and identified by Patzig. (b) Excerpts from an anonymous Chronicler (end of ninth century) who copied Malalas, published in Cramer’s Anecd. Par. 2, p. 165 sqq. (c) Constantinian excerpts περὶ ἐπιβουλω̂ν published from an Escurial MS. by Mommsen in Hermes 6, 366 sqq. (d) The preface of Malalas, with the beginning of Bk. 1, in Cod. Par. 682 (tenth century), publ. by A. Wirth, Chronographische Späne, p. 3 sqq. (1894). (e) Excerpts in Cod. Par. 1336 (Cramer, Anecd. Par. 2, p. 231 sqq.). (4) The Paschal Chronicle (seventh century) and the Chronography of Theophanes (beginning of ninth century) extracted their material largely from Malalas, generally adhering verbally to the original. They are therefore very important for the restoration. (5) Other writers who used Malalas have also to be taken into consideration: John of Ephesus, Evagrius, John of Antioch (see below), John of Nikiu, John of Damascus, George Monachus, Cedrenus (indirectly).
The chronicle of Malalas gives the impression that it was compiled not by a rhetor but by a monk whose abysses of ignorance it would be hard to fathom. But though in itself a pitiable performance, it is, as Prof. Krumbacher observes, enormously important for the history of literature. It is the earliest example of the Byzantine monastic chronicle, not appealing to educated people, but written down to the level of the masses. There is no sense of proportion. The fall of an empire and the juggling of a mountebank are related with the same seriousness. Pages and pages are occupied with minute descriptions of the personal appearance of the hereos of the Trojan war. All manner of trivial gossip is introduced. The blunders are appalling; e.g., Herodotus is placed subsequent to Polybius. The last Books, from Zeno forward, are important, because they are written by a contemporary, and Bk. 18 is one of our chief sources for the reign of Justinian. In this chronicle the conventional style of historic prose is deserted; popular idioms, words, and grammatical forms are used without scruple. Thus it is “the first monument of popular Greek, of any size, that we possess” (Krumbacher). It should be observed, however, that this style is not evenly preserved; in many places Malalas has preserved the better style of his sources. In Bks. 1-17 prominence is always given to events connected with his native city, Antioch.
Malalas-problems. When it was shown that the eighteenth Book of Malalas was added subsequently to the publication of the first seventeen26 (see Mr. E. W. Brooks, Eng. Hist. Rev., 1892, vol. vii. p. 291 sqq.; cp. S. Shestakov, in the fifth part of the Zapiski of the University of Kazan, 1890), the question arose whether the work was thus revised and continued by Johannes himself or by another. If we adopt the former alternative, we are asked to suppose that Johannes migrated to Constantinople; for part of Bk. 18 appears to have been composed there, not at Antioch, though part of it shows Antiochene influence. The second alternative seems more likely, and, if it be adopted, the question arises whether the editor and continuator may not to a large extent be responsible for the style. He may be certainly considered responsible for obliterating (though not completely) indications of the monophysitic leanings of the original author. For this question see C. E. Gleye’s important article Zur Johannes-frage, in Byz. Ztschrift., 1895, p. 422 sqq.
Bibliography. A full list of the numerous works dealing with the numerous Malalas questions will be found in Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt. (ed. 2) p. 332-4. Only a few need be mentioned here. (1) Editio princeps, Chilmead-Hody, Oxford, 1691, reproduced in the Bonn Corpus, 1831. The text contains many errors from which the MS. is free and is otherwise inaccurate; see J. B. Bury, Collation of the Codex Baroccianus, Byz. Ztschrift., 1896, Bd. 6, Heft 2. A new edition, based on all the extant material, is expected from Dr. C. E. Gleye. (2) G. Sotiriadis, Zur Kritik von Johannes von Antiochia, 1888. E. Patzig, Unerkannt und unbekannt gebliebene Malalas-fragmente, 1891, and Johannes Antiochenus und Johannes Malalas, 1892. S. Shestakov, op. cit., and a paper on the importance of the Slavonic translation for the Greek text in Viz. Vremennik, 1, p. 503 sqq. E. W. Brooks, op. cit. C. E. Gleye, op. cit., and a paper on the Slavonic Malalas in the Archiv für Slav. Philologie, 16, p. 578 sqq. There is also much on Malalas in Gelzer’s Sextus Julius Africanus (1880-5).
Quite distinct from the John of Antioch who was distinguished as Malalas is another John of Antioch, to whom a large number of excerpts preserved in various MSS. are ascribed. His existence is confirmed by Tzetzes, but the questions of his date and his literary property are surrounded with the greatest difficulties. It is quite clear that his name covers two distinct chroniclers, of whom the earlier probably lived in the seventh century and the later in the tenth. But it is still a matter of controversy which is which. The matter is of considerable importance indirectly; it has even some bearings on historical questions (cp. above, vol. v. Appendix 14); but the question is much too complicated to be discussed here, and no solution has been reached yet.27 It will be enough to indicate the fragments in question. (1) The Constantinian fragments (excerpta de virtutibus and de insidiis), of which the last refer to the reign of Phocas; (2) fragments in Cod. Paris, 1630; (3) the “Salmasian” fragments of Cod. Par., 1763, of which the latest refer to Valentinian iii.; (4) fragments of the part relating to the Trojan War preserved in Codex Vindobonensis 99 (historicus), under the name of Johannes Sikeliotes. The first three groups were published by Müller, F.H.G. iv. p. 535 sqq., and v. pp. 27, 28, while (4) is partly published in a gymnasial programme of Graz by A. Heinrich, 1892, p. 2-10. The two chronicles, represented by these fragments, may be distinguished as C and S; and the question is whether C, from which the Constantinian fragments, or S, from which the Salmasian fragments are derived, is the earlier work. S was a chronicle of the same style as that of Malalas or Theophanes, Christian and Byzantine; C was a work of “hellenistic” character and dealt with the Roman republic, which the true monkish chronographer always neglected. Cp. Patzig, Joannes Antiochenus, &c., especially p. 22, who upholds the view that S is the older, and that C was compiled in the ninth or tenth century. (Cp. the works of Sotiriadis, Patzig, Gleye, Gelzer, cited in connection with John Malalas, and C. de Boor Hermes, 1884, B. 19, 123 sqq.; ib. 1885, B. 20, 321 sqq.; Byz. Ztsch., 1893, B. 2, 195 sqq.)28
For the Persian wars in the reign of Anastasius we have the valuable Syriac history of Josua Stylites, known to Gibbon through the abridged Latin translation of Assemani (Bibl. Orient. i. 262-283). The work is entitled “A history of the time of affliction at Edessa and Amida and throughout all Mesopotamia,” and was composed in 506-7, the last date mentioned being 28 Nov., 506, but was probably not published till after the death of Anastasius. It contains a very graphic diary of the events at Edessa during a period of great distress. The narrative of the Persian invasion begins in c. xlviii. The original text was first published by the Abbé Martin (with French transl.) in Abh. of the Deutsche Morgenl. Gesellschaft, 6, 1 (1876); but this has been superseded by the edition of W. Wright, with an English version, 1882. The position of Josua in regard to the theological controversies of the day is treated by H. Gelzer in a paper in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, i. p. 34 sqq. (1892). Josua was one of the sources of the Chronicle of Edessa ( 201-540); see L. Hallier, in Texte und Untersuchungen, ix. 1, 1892.
The ecclesiastical history of Zacharias Rhetor, bishop of Mytilene, composed about 518, throws little light on the political history which is the subject of the volume. But it was translated from Greek into Syriac and incorporated in a Syriac work, which was compiled about fifty years later, and goes generally by the name of Zacharias. The genuine Zacharias corresponds to Bks. 3-6 of the compilation, which consisted of twelve Books (Bk. 11 and part of 10 and 12 are lost). The pseudo-Zacharias has records of considerable value on the Persian wars and the founding of Daras, a curious notice on the Nika riot, &c. Fragments of the work, preserved in the Vatican, were published and translated by Mai (Scr. Vet. Coll. vol. x.), but the work in its more complete form was not known till 1870, when it was published by Land from a MS. in the British Museum. (The genuine Zacharias has been translated by Rev. F. J. Hamilton, 1892, printed privately.) An English translation of “The Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mytilene,” by Dr. F. J. Hamilton and Mr. E. W. Brooks, has appeared, and likewise a German translation of the same work by Dr. K. Ahrens and Professor G. Kruger, 1899.
C. Sollius Modestus Apollinaris Sidonius was born about 430-433 He belonged to a good Lyonese family; his father was Prætorian prefect of Gaul in 449, a post which his father had held before him. Sidonius married Papianilla of Arverni, daughter of Avitus. His relations with that emperor and with his successors Majorian and Anthemius are noticed by Gibbon (c. xxxvi.). In 469 or 470 Sidonius became bishop of Arverni; he died, before he reached the age of fifty, in 479. The years of his episcopate were troubled, owing to the hostilities between the Visigoths and the Empire. Arverni in Aquitania Prima still, but alone, held out against the Goths, till 475, when Sidonius and Ecdicius his brother-in-law were captured by King Euric, and the bishop was compelled to live for some time in exile from his see, at Tolosa and Burdigala. His literary works consist of a collection of twenty-four poems, and of nine Books of Epistles. These epistles were written evidently with the intention of being published, and each Book appeared separately (Book i. published in 469, ii. in 472, v. in 474-5, vii. in 475 (?)). In many of the Letters original poems are inserted. Books iii. v. vii. and viii. contain letters of great importance for the history of the Visigoths. Sidonius had ceased to write longer poems before 469, — that is, before he began to publish letters and before his ecclesiastical career began. It may be convenient to arrange here the most important (most of which are mentioned by Gibbon) chronologically: —
The poetical talent of Sidonius, like that of Claudian and of Merobaudes, was publicly recognised at Rome by a statue in the Forum of Trajan.
The authoritative edition of his works is that of C. Luetjohann (in the Mon. Germ. Hist.), 1887, to which Mommsen has contributed a short biography of the poet. Mr. Hodgkin (Italy and her Invaders, vol. ii.) has an interesting chapter on Sidonius, with some prose and verse translations from his works.
The state of Noricum in the days of the last Emperors of the West is graphically described in the Life of Saint Severinus by an eye-witness, Eugippius, who was with the saint in Noricum when it was at the mercy of the Rugians and their fellow-barbarians. Severinus was buried in the Lucullan Castle near Naples, by the bounty of the lady Barbaria, and a monastery was established in the same place. Eugippius became its abbot, and wrote the biography of his master in 511. [Edition by H. Sauppe, 1877, in the Mon. Germ. Hist.]
The fragment of an Italian (Ravennate) chronicle, known as Anonymus Valesh, Part ii., and recording the reigns of Odovacar and Theodoric, has been noticed already in vol. iv. Appendix 5, p. 353, in connection with the Chronica Italica. The chronicler made use of the Vita Severini of Eugippius. He writes from an Imperial point of view, speaks loyally of Zeno, and constantly describes Theodoric by the title Patricius, which keeps in mind that king’s theoretical dependence on the Roman Empire. The language is full of barbarisms, and there seems very little probability in the conjecture of Waitz that the author is no other than Bishop Maximian of Ravenna, whose portrait has been immortalised in mosaics in the Church of San Vitale. The fragment is perhaps not continuous, but a number of extracts, bearing on Odovacar and Theodoric, strung together from the original chronicle (cp. Cipolla, op. cit. infra, p. 80 sqq.). It seems likely that the anonymous author wrote during the civil wars which followed the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom.29 Recently a very complete study, especially of the MSS., has appeared by C. Cipolla, in the Bullettino dell’ Instituto storico italiano, No. ii. (1892, p. 7-98). Cp. especially sect. iv. p. 80 sqq. [For editions see above, vol. iv. p. 353. References to various monographs will be found in the article of Cipolla.]
Ennodius, the son of Gallic parents, was born 474, in Liguria, died 521. He may have been grandson of Ennodius, proconsul of Africa under Honorius and Theodosius II. His father’s name may have been Firminus. He had a secular education in the Latin classics, and was consecrated by Epiphanius of Ticinum (whose life he wrote) before 496. He went to Milan, to fill a clerical post, before 499, and from Milan most of his letters are written. The life of Epiphanius was composed between 501 and 504 (see Vogel’s preface to his ed. p. xviii.-xix.). All the works of Ennodius are included in the large edition of Vogel in the Mon. Germ. Hist., 1885. They form a very valuable supplement to Cassiodorus for the history of Italy under Theodoric. [Monograph: Fertig, Ennodius und seine Zeit, 1858.]
Cassiodorus has had the misfortune of being called out of his name. His full name was Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, and in accordance with the custom of the time he was always known by the last name, Senator. We do not find him called Cassiodorus till the eighth century (by Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. i. 25); and even the name has been corrupted, modern scholars following Maffei in writing Cassiodorius. But Mommsen, who at first approved, has now condemned, this fashion, and adopts the true form in his edition of the works of Cassiodorus. This name points to the derivation of the writer’s family from Syria. They settled at Scyllace and by the middle of the fifth century had become the most influential people in Bruttii. The father of Senator filled financial offices under Odovacar, administered Sicily, and embraced the cause of Theodoric, who rewarded him by the less distinguished post of corrector of Bruttii and Lucania. The inferiority of this post to the posts which he had already occupied may have been compensated for by the circumstance that the appointment was an exception to the rule that no man should be governor of his native province. But he was soon raised to be Prætorian prefect (after 500). The son was born c. 490. At an early age (twelve or thirteen?) he became consiliarius to his father, and he became quæstor between the years 507 and 511 (cp. Mommsen, Proœm. p. x.) and drew up state papers for the king. Then, like his father, he was appointed corrector of his native province; became consul ord. in 514; and was promoted to be magister officiorum before 526. In 533 Amalasuentha created him Prætorian prefect, a post which he retained under Theodahat and Witigis. The dates of his chief works are: Chronicle, 519; Gothic History in twelve Books, between 526 and 533 (so Mommsen; Usener put it earlier, 518-21); publication of his Variæ, 537. He also wrote various theological works (including a compilation of Church History from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, entitled Historia tripartita; in this work he had a collaborator, Epiphanius). He survived 573. He had thrown himself thoroughly into the Gothic interest, and both the official and private correspondence contained in his Variæ (epistolæ) are a most valuable mine for the history of the Ostrogothic kingdom. His weak point was inordinate literary vanity, and the tumid pomposity of his style, tricked out with far-fetched metaphors and conceits, renders it often a task of considerable difficulty to elicit the sense. Mr. Hodgkin observes that, next to Rhetoric, “Natural History had the highest place in his affections. He never misses an opportunity of pointing a moral lesson by an allusion to the animal creation, especially to the habits of birds.” A short extract found in a MS. of the Institutiones humanarum rerum of Cassiodorus, at Carlsruhe, and known as the Anecdoton Holderi, was edited with a commentary by H. Usener in 1877. It threw new light on some points connected with the statesman’s biography. The Variæ have been edited in a splendid edition by Mommsen (in Mon. Germ. Hist., 1894). A large volume of selected translations has been published by Mr. Hodgkin.
The Chronicle (or Consularia) of Cassiodorus was drawn up in 519, on the occasion of the consulship of Theodoric’s son-in-law, Eutharic Cillica. The sources which he used were: (1) The Chronicle of Jerome; (2) the Chronicle of Prosper, in the edition published in 445 (cp. above, vol. iv. Appendix 5, p. 353), for the years subsequent to the end of Jerome’s Chron.; (3) an epitome of Livy; (4) the history of Aufidius Bassus; (5) Eutropius; (6) the Paschale of Victorius; (7) Consularia Italica (see above, vol. iv. Appendix 5). “Written for the use of the city populace,” as Mommsen remarks, it contains many entries relating to games and the buildings in Rome, and it is marked by some interesting blunders in grammatical form. Finding in his source, for instance, Varane et Tertullo conss. ( 410), Cassiodorus translating this into the nominative case gives Varan et Tertullus. See Mommsen, Chron. Min. ii. p. 112. In the later part of the work he has made several slight additions and changes of his own in the notices which he copies from his authorities, out of regard for Gothic feelings. Thus Prosper recorded that Ambrose of Milan wrote “in defence of the Catholic faith.” But the Goths were Arians; and so Cassiodorus modifies the phrase to “concerning the Christian faith.” Again Prosper simply states that “Rome was taken by the Goths under Alaric”; Cassiodorus adds that “they used their victory with clemency.” The best edition is Mommsen’s in Chron. Min. ii. p. 120 sqq.
Flavius Cresconius Corippus, a native of Africa, seems to have held the office of a tribune or a notary, in that branch of the civil service of which the quæstor of the Sacred Palace was the chief.30 He was an old man at the death of Justinian.31 He wrote two poems relating to contemporary history, both of the greatest interest and importance. (1) The Johannid celebrates the Moorish wars of Johannes, who was appointed Magister Militum in 546 (see below, vol. vii. Appendix 10). It was unknown to Gibbon and was published for the first time by Mazzucchelli (librarian of the Ambrosian library) from the Codex Trivultianus, the only MS. now known to exist. (Other MSS. known in the Middle Ages and as late as the sixteenth century have disappeared.) The poem contains eight Books; the end of the eighth Book is missing, and there are other lacunæ.32 Corippus introduces a sketch of the events in Africa which preceded the arrival of John (3, 54-4, 246); describing the career of Antala, the wars of Solomon and Areobindus. The poem must have been composed soon after the decisive victory of John in 548. The respect shown for Athanasius, the Prætorian prefect, suggests that he was still in office when Corippus wrote. (2) Towards the end of Justinian’s reign Corippus went to Constantinople, where he was present at the coronation of Justin II. In connection with this Emperor’s accession he wrote his In laudem Justini Augusti minoris, hoping that the sovereign would help him in his need. For he seems to have lost his property in the troubles which broke out in Africa a few years before (see vol. vii. App. 10). Compare Præfatio, 43, nudatus propriis. This poem consists of a preface, a short panegyric on Anastasius the quæstor (who probably undertook to introduce Corippus to the Emperor) and four Books. It has been repeatedly edited, and has been well elucidated by Fogginius (1777). For its contents see Gibbon, c. xlv. The critical edition of Joseph Partsch (in the Mon. Germ. Hist.), 1879, has superseded all previous works. Corippus, it may be observed, though a poor poet compared with Claudian, is far more satisfactory to the historian. He has no scruples about introducing barbarous names into his verse, and is consequently less allusive. His account of the Moorish nations is of great importance for the geography of North Africa. We meet such names as Silcadenit, Naffur, Silvaizan; such a line as,
Astuces, Anacutasur, Celianus, Imaclas.
Count Marcellinus was of Illyrian birth and Latin was his native tongue. He was cancellarius of Justinian, before Justinian ascended the throne and probably when he held the post of magister equitum et peditum in præsenti. Some years later, before the death of Justin, he wrote and edited a chronicle, beginning with the accession of Theodosius I., where Jerome stopped, and coming down to the death of Anastasius; afterwards he continued it to 534. (Another contemporary but anonymous author subsequently brought it down to 548.) The sources of Marcellinus were Orosius, the Consularia of Constantinople (see above vol. ii. Appendix 10), the Consularia Italica, Gennadius’ continuation of Jerome’s de Viris illustribus, and one or two ecclesiastical works (for instance a life of Chrysostom, similar to that of Palladius). See preface to Mommsen’s edition in Chron. Min. vol. ii. p. 39 sqq. Marcellinus contains some important notices of events in Illyricum; and for Anastasius, Justin, and Justinian, his statements — always provokingly brief — have a very high value.
Victor Tonnennensis,33 an African bishop, wrote under Justinian and Justin II. a chronicle from the Creation to the year 566. We possess the most important part of it from 444 forward. For Victor’s life we have some notices in his own chronicle and a notice in Isidore’s De viris illustribus, c. 49, 50. He took part with the western churchmen against Justinian in the Three Chapter Controversy, and was banished, first to the Balearic islands (a certain emendation of Mommsen in Victor, sub ann. 555) and after other changes of exile, to Egypt; finally in 564-5 he was removed to Constantinople. He wrote his work during his exile. Mommsen has shown that he made use of Western Consularia from 444 to 457; of Eastern Consularia from 458 to 500 (except for 460, 464, 465); but of Western again from 501-563. In 563 he suddenly and unaccountably ceases to date by consulships, and begins to date by the years of Justinian’s reign. It is to be observed that in marking the years after Basil’s consulate 540 he departs from the usual practice; he calls 541 not the first but the second year post consulatum Basilii. It is very curious that he makes a mistake about the year of Justinian’s death, which he places in Ind. 15 and the fortieth year of his reign, though it really took place in Ind. 14, ann. regn. 39. [Edition: Mommsen, Chron. Min. 2, p. 178 sqq.]
The chronicle of Victor was continued by a Visigoth, John of Biclarum. He too, like Victor, suffered persecution for his religious opinions. He had gone to Constantinople in his childhood, learned Latin and Greek, and had been brought up in the Catholic faith. At the age of seventeen he returned to Spain, c. 576, and was banished to Barcino by the Arian king Leovigild on account of his religious opinions. Exiled for ten years (till 586), he was released by Leovigild’s Catholic successor Reccared, and founded the monastery of Biclarum (site unknown). Afterwards he became bishop of Gerunda, and there is evidence that he was still alive in 610. His chronicle differs from most others in that it can be studied by itself without any reference to sources. For he derived his knowledge from his own experience and the verbal communications of friends (ex parte quod oculata fide pervidimus et ex parte quæ ex relatu fidelium didicimus). He professes to be the continuator of Eusebius, Jerome, Prosper, and Victor. At the outset he falls into the mistake which, as we saw, Victor made as to the date of Justinian, and places it in the fifteenth indiction. This led to a misdating of the years of Justin II., and he commits other serious chronological blunders. Mommsen, Chron. Min. ii. p. 209. His chronicle ends with the year 590. It is worthy of note that John always speaks with the highest appreciation of the Gothic king Leovigild, who banished him. [Ed. Mommsen, Chron. Min. ii. p. 207 sqq.]
Fragments of the Chronicle of Maximus of Cæsaraugusta have been preserved in the margin of MSS. of Victor and John of Biclarum, extending over the years 450 to 568 (perhaps to 580). Mommsen, Chron. Min. ii. p. 221-3.
Marius (c. 530-594), bishop of Aventicum (Avenches), wrote a chronicle extending from 455 to 581. Mommsen has shown that he made use of the Consularia Italica and the Chronica Gallica (cp. above, vol. iv. Appendix 5, p. 352). [Editions: Arndt, ed. maior, 1875, ed. minor, 1878; Mommsen, Chron. Min. ii. p. 227 sqq.]
Isidorus Junior became bishop of Hispalis (Seville) c. 600-3, and died in the year 636. He wrote a History of the Goths, Vandals, and Sueves, coming down to the year 624. It is preserved in two recensions, in one of which the original form has been abbreviated, in the other augmented. The sources of Isidore were Orosius, Jerome, Prosper (ed. of 553), Idatius, Maximus of Saragossa, John of Biclarum. He used the Spanish era (= Christian era + 38); Mommsen has drawn up a most convenient comparative table of the dates (Chron. Min. ii. p. 246-251). Isidore is our main source for the Spanish history of the last hundred years with which he deals. [Ed. Mommsen, Chron. Min. ii. 241 sqq., to which are appended various Additamenta and Continuations. Monograph: H. Hertzberg, Die Historien und die Chroniken des Isidorus von Seville, 1874; Hertzberg’s conclusions have been modified by Mommsen.]
Gregory of Tours in his Historia Francorum (best edition by Arndt and Krusch in the M.G.H.), although he wrote in the last quarter of the sixth century, throws some light on the great Hunnic invasion of Gaul and the career of Aetius, especially by his citations from a lost writer, Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus. For the reigns of the Frank kings Childeric and Chlodwig he is our main guide. The sources of his history have been carefully analysed and its value tested by M. Monod (in his Etudes Critiques sur les sources de l’histoire mérovingienne, 1872) and G.W. Junghans, whose history of the reigns of Childeric and Chlodwig has been translated into French by M. Monod, with additional notes. Gregory’s narrative of these reigns is based in a small part on written documents, — consular annals, — and to a great extent on popular and ecclesiastical traditions. To the first class belong bk. ii. chaps. 18 and 19, on Childeric; the account of the Burgundian war, 500, in chaps. 31 and 33; and a few other facts and dates. Such a notice, for instance, as —
Chlodovechus rex cum Alarico rege Gothorum in campo Vogladense decimo ab urbe Pictava miliario convenit —
clearly comes from a chronicle. On the other hand the story of Childeric’s flight to Thuringia and marriage with Basina is clearly from an oral source and has undergone the influence of popular imagination. The Annals which Gregory used in chaps. 18 and 19 are conjectured to have been composed in Angers.
The determination of the chronology of Chlodwig ’s reign would be impossible from Gregory’s data alone; it depends on certain data of his contemporary, Marius of Aventicum, who made use of the lost South-Gallic Annals (see above). Thus Marius gives 548 for the death of Theudebert and 561 for the death of Chlotachar. We know from Gregory (a) that thirty-seven years elapsed between the death of Chlodwig and that of Theudebert, and (b) that Chlotachar died in the fifty-first year of his reign. These data combined point to 510 or 511 as the year of Chlodwig’s death. The date subscribed to the acts of the Council of Orleans (July 10, 511), held when Chlodwig was still alive, proves that the latter is the true date.
Modern Works. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vol. ii. for the last western emperors, vol. iii. for Odovacar, Theodoric, and events in Africa and Italy up to 535, vol. iv. for the Imperial Restoration. Ranke, Weltgeschichte, vol. iv. J. C. Manso, Geschichte des ost-gothischen Reiches in Italien (1824). Dahn, Könige der Germanen. R. Kopke, Die Anfänge des Königthums bei den Gothen. Papencordt, Geschichte der Vandalen. For the overthrow of the Vandals and Imperial settlement of Africa: C. Diehl, L’Afrique Byzantine (1896). For Oriental affairs: Rawlinson, Seventh Oriental Monarchy. For the economic state of the empire under Justinian: Finlay, Hist. of Greece, vol. i.
Monographs: Lord Mahon (afterwards Earl Stanhope), Life of Belisarius; Hodgkin, Theodoric the Goth, 1891; Bryce, Justinian (in the Dictionary of Christian Biography); A. Debidour, L’impératrice Théodora (1885); A. Rose, Anastasius I. (1882). On the military establishment of the Empire in Justinian’s reign, C. Benjamin, De Iustiniani imp. aetate quaestiones militares, 1892. Many others are referred to elsewhere in this volume.
[1 ]Cp. especially p. 148-9. But Shestakov makes one inaccurate statement. Our sole authority for the place to which Basiliscus, on his return from Africa, was removed, namely, Heraclea (Perinthus), is Nicephorus Callistus (p. 80 C). Shestakov states that we find him there afterwards, in Theodore Lector, p. 180 A (Migne), and in John Ant. fr. 210; and (p. 149) ascribes to John of Antioch the statement that Basiliscus is at Heraclea, where he has an interview with Illus and conspires with him against Zeno. The place is mentioned by Theodore (and Theophanes) but not by John. The name Heraclea or Perinthus does not occur in the fragment.
[2 ]Procopiana (1st Progr.), p. 35-37.
[3 ]Zur Beurteilung des Geschichtschreibers Prokopius von C., p. 42-3.
[4 ]The date of the imprisonment of John the Cappadocian, vol. i. p. 136, ed. Bonn, and the incident of the spear wound of Trajan, vol. ii. p. 167.
[5 ]By the five years’ truce with Chosroes, vol. i. p. 281, and the murder of Gontharis, ib. p. 552. A speedy conclusion of the Gothic War was also looked for.
[6 ]To the Persica, vol. i. p. 281, 21, to end of bk. ii.; in the Vandalica, ib. p. 532, 533; in the Gothica, probably (vol. ii.) p. 340, 4, to end of bk. iii.
[7 ]Perhaps because it had been already privately published by recitation in a small circle of friends.
[8 ]I have briefly indicated Haury’s argument, above, vol. i. Introduction, p. lxv. note. The events related from p. 44 to 67 (vol. iii., ed. Bonn) fall into the time of Justin, and the βασιλεύς in this section is Justin, not Justinian. This is especially clear on p. 65, where the βασιλεύς and Justinian act in a contrary sense in regard to Theodotus.
[9 ]Haury, Procopiana, i. p. 28.
[10 ]There is actually external evidence for the gap in MSS. cited by Haury in his second programme (Procopiana, ii. p. 1).
[11 ]The other argument that the Edifices cannot have been written after May 7, 559, on which day the dome of St. Sophia fell in (Theoph. a.m. 6051), because Procopius could not have omitted to mention this incident, can be met by the reasonable assumption that Bk. i. (in which St. Sophia is described) was written earlier, and that Procopius did not feel himself obliged to insert before publication a disaster which did not redound to the greater glory of Justinian.
[12 ]Theophanes, a.m. 6054. See Dahn, Prokopius, p. 452; Haury, Procopiana, i. p. 34. Suidas describes Procopius as an illustris.
[13 ]Procopius Cæs. quatenus imitatus sit Thucydidem, 1885 (Erlangen); Die Nachahmung Herodots durch Prokop, 1894 (Nürnberg).
[14 ]Brückner, op. cit. p. 8 sqq., gives a good summary.
[15 ]See the very full criticism of Brückner, op. cit. p. 19 sqq. Cp. Ranke, Weltgeschichte, iv. 279. Also see above, vol. v. Appendix 14.
[16 ]Viz. Vrem. 2, 355-366. There are some good remarks here on the use of Ῥωμαɩ̂ος and τυραννεɩ̂ν.
[17 ]Viz. Vrem. ii. p. 24 sqq., 340 sqq.; iii. 96 sqq., 300 sqq., 461 sqq.
[18 ]Vand. i. 9, p. 353, ἐπινοη̂σαί τε ὀξὺς καὶ ἄοκνος τὰ βεβουλευμένα ἐπιτελέσαι. Hist. Arcan. c. 8, p. 57, ἐπινοη̂σαι μὲν τὰ ϕαν̂λα καὶ ἐπιτελέσαι ὀξύς. Cp. Brückner, op. cit. p. 47.
[19 ]Cc. 6-8, early life of Justinian; cc. 9-10, early life of Theodora, and how she ascended the throne; 11-14, Justinian; 15-17, Theodora. C. 17 ends with the story of John the Cappadocian, the point where the Persica also ends. Cp. Panchenko, op cit. ii. p. 343-4.
[20 ]Panchenko conjectures that this lacuna might be connected with the notable omission of any account of the conspiracy of Artabanus which is recorded in bk. iii. of the Gothic War. But is it meant that such an account may have fallen out or that Procopius intended to insert it here, and never did so? See Panchenko op. cit. ii. p. 55, cp. p. 345. Panchenko makes it probable that there was no final redaction of the Secret History (346-7).
[21 ]Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Historikern, p. 161. Cp. the remarks of Panchenko, ib. p. 48-9.
[22 ]Op. cit. Viz. Vrem. vol. iii.
[23 ]Μαλάλας, not Μαλαλα̂ς.
[24 ]Or, some think, to the ninth year of Justin, 574; because a Latin Laterculus of Emperors, taken from Malalas, comes down to that year. This document (compiled in the eighth century) is edited by Mommsen in Chron. Min. iii. p. 424 sqq. It seems to me more probable that the last entry was added, on his own account, by the author of an earlier Latin epitome which the eighth-century compiler used.
[25 ]Krumbacher, on the authority of A. S. Chachanov, states that there is a MS. of a Gregorian translation of Malalas at Tiflis (p. 329).
[26 ]More precisely: the first paragraphs of Bk. 18 belonged to the first edition.
[27 ]Prof. Krumbacher gives an excellent summary of the facts (§ 141) in his History of Byzantine Literature.
[28 ]Gelzer has conjectured that John of Antioch may be the same as John. Patriarch of Antioch, 631-649. The work would then have been composed before 631, as the author of the Constantinian excerpta de virtutibus is styled “John the monk.” But I question whether it would have been forgotten that the author was Patriarch.
[29 ]Mommsen, Chron. Min. i. 261.
[30 ]See Panegyr. in laudem Anastas. 46-48.
[31 ]Ib. 48.
[32 ]In the ed. princeps and the greatly improved Bonn ed. by Bekker, it is divided into seven Books, as if the whole eight were missing. But G. Loewe has shown that Books 4 and 5 were wrongly thrown into one, so that 5, 6, 7 should be 6, 7, 8; and so it appears in Partsch’s ed.
[33 ]He was bishop of the ecclesia Tonnennensis (or Tonnonnensis, or Tunnunensis) in the prov. Carthaginiensis. I follow the spelling adopted by Mommsen, which depends on a very probable conjectural restoration in an inscription (C.I.L. 8, suppl. 12, 552). The termination of the local name from which the adjective is formed seems to be unknown.