CASSIODORUS' CHRONICA

TEXT, CHRONOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Michael Klaassen A DISSERTATION in Classical Studies Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2010 SupefvTsfor of Dissertation

Ji\'j)

Richard W. Burgess/Trofessor of Classics and Religious Studies, University of Ottawa Graduate Group Chairperson

JM

Dissertation Committee Jeremy Mclnerney, Professor of Classical Studies Campbell Grey, Assistant Professor of Classical Studies

UMI Number: 3414225

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3414225 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

uest
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Cassiodorus' Chronica: Text, Chronography, and Sources COPYRIGHT 2010 Michael Walter Klaassen

iii ABSTRACT CASSIODORUS' CHRONICA: TEXT, CHRONOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Michael Klaassen Supervisor: Richard W. Burgess A new text of Cassiodorus' Chronica is followed by the first analysis in any language of Cassiodorus' chronographic methods and sources. To construct his consular list Cassiodorus used a now-lost consularia extracted from Livy and Aufidius Bassus from 509 BCE to 27 CE, the Cursuspaschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine (from 28 to 457), and a now-lost extension of Victorius' work (from 458 to 519). An examination and comparison of the Livian and Aufidian consular names with the surviving witnesses to the same Livian consularia, the Liber prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 668, demonstrates that the original consularia was a much larger document which included material drawn from sources other than Livy. A similar comparison of the consuls of Victorius of Aquitaine and Cassiodorus reveals a few adjustments and alterations of consular names, but it is unclear whether they were made by Cassiodorus or were present in his source. A comparison of Cassiodorus' list from 458 with the other consular lists from fifth and sixth century Italy, shows that Cassiodorus, whose list is almost perfect, worked hard to make sure that his list contained both the eastern and the western consuls for the year. Cassiodorus drew historical notes from Jerome, Prosper of Aquitaine and Eutropius which he inserted into his consular list with limited success, content to place them relative to imperial reigns, but not to the consular list. He epitomized his sources

iv and passed over ecclesiastical details, concentrating rather on secular history. A comparison of Cassiodorus' historical notes from 458 to 500 with other consularia from the same time-period shows that Cassiodorus used a recension of the consularia Italica as a source, closely related to a similar text used by Paul the Deacon in the ninth century. Cassiodorus' work, often described as a panegyric of the ruling Ostrogothic family in Italy, is not successful as a panegyric, but should be seen rather, in the context of Cassiodorus' whole corpus, as the author's attempt to present the history of the world succinctly and accurately.

Introduction
On 1 January 519 CE, Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator delivered a panegyric before a meeting of the senate in Rome, praising the consul for the year, Eutharic Cilliga, husband of the eldest daughter of King Theoderic the Great, and heir apparent to Theoderic's throne. The celebrations, Cassiodorus tells us, were so extraordinary that even the legate from the eastern court was amazed. The people of Rome were so enamoured of their new consul that they longed for him even after he went back to Ravenna, where he put on another round of games in the same lavish style.1 Shortly thereafter the panegyrist presented the consul with another document: a chronicle from the creation of the world to his consulship. We do not know exactly when or how the work was delivered to Eutharic, nor is there any evidence that anyone in the ancient world used this particular chronicle after its composition. Cassiodorus himself does not mention it again.2 At the end of the chronicle proper is appended a list of consuls which carries the work forward to 559, so it is fair to assume that the last ancient hand to deal with the document added these names at some point shortly after 559. The Chronica has survived in two manuscripts only, both copies of the same archetype which was the basis for Johannes Cuspinianus' work, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii, published posthumously in 1553. But between 559 and when it shows up in Cuspinianus' library in the sixteenth century there are few hints of its existence.
1 2 Chron. 1364. There are two places where he might have mentioned it: Institutiones 1.17.2, where he discusses chronicles, but limits himself to explicitly Christian works, and the preface to the de Orthographic/, where he gives a list of his works, but only those after his conversion. He makes no reference to it in the Variae.

vi Mommsen published the Chronica twice, once in 1861 in Abhandlungen der Saechsichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften3 and later, in 1894, in the second of the Chronica Minora volumes of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi series.4 Apart from Mommsen's brief introductions, the work has received no major study unlike the Gallic chronicle of 452, and the chronicles of Prosper, Hydatius, and Marcellinus and has been used, like most late antique chronicles, merely as a source for the investigation of other subjects, notably the Livian epitome that Cassiodorus used as a source for his work and the well-chewed issue of its relationship to Cassiodorus' lost Gothic History.5 More recently, J. J. O'Donnell devoted seven pages to it, but the Chronica normally only appears in footnotes in larger works on Ostrogothic Italy, and typically does not attract much attention for itself. Most authors lay stress on the work as panegyric and as a piece of propaganda for the Ostrogothic regime and Theoderic's ruling Amal family.6 To be sure it is a spare work which superficially presents little that is unique or valuable to the study either of the chronicle genre or late antiquity, and as such it is a little intractable, so it is not to be wondered at that scholars have found little to say about it. Still, I believe my efforts in this direction have been repaid in the following study. I have followed an introductory chapter on Cassiodorus and the genre in which he wrote with a new text of the Chronica in chapter two. Mommsen's text in Chronica Minora is, on the whole, a good piece of work, and there are no cruces in the textual
3 4 5 6 Mommsen 1861. The introduction was republished in Mommsen, T. Gesammelte Schriften, 1909, vol. 9, 668-690. Mommsen 1894. Livian epitome: Sanders 1905, Schmidt 1968; the Gothic History: Croke 1987, Heather 1989. E.g. O'Donnell 1979, 38ff., Moorhead 1992, 175, Amory 1997, 66-68.

vii tradition of any weight. But Mommsen tidied up the orthography in the manuscripts, as was the style in the nineteenth century, and furthermore the Chronica Minora editions are cluttered with extra material and can be difficult to use. I have followed a fairly conservative approach and have kept marginalia to a minimum. I retained Mommsen's numbering system for ease of reference, since there are no serious reasons for changing it. Cassiodorus himself divides the study of his document into two parts when he discusses his reasons for writing it in his introduction. First, he notes that his addressee, Eutharic, has himself directed Cassiodorus to restore to the fasti "the dignity of their ageold truth." The production of an accurate consular list, then, is the primary goal, generously portrayed as the desire of the new consul. The secondary goal, to include historical notes in the chronicle, is also mentioned in the introduction: Cassiodorus has produced a work so that Eutharic's mind "delighted by glorious events, might run through the very long age of the world in pleasing brevity." Accordingly, the third chapter of this study will focus on the consular list and Cassiodorus' chronological method, the fourth chapter will focus on the historical details, and the fifth will assess Cassiodorus' work both as panegyric and as a work of chronography. The third chapter investigates Cassiodorus' sources for setting up his chronological framework: Jerome, a combined epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, some material from Eutropius, and the Easter calendar of Victurius of Aquitaine. Each of these presents its own set of problems. Cassiodorus used Jerome as his over-arching chronological framework, but this approach created problems for him as he tried to fit his

viii other sources, especially the consular list, into Jerome's framework. The epitome of Livy which Cassiodorus used is related to that found on P. Oxy. 668 as well as the Prodigiorum Liber of Julius Obsequens. While it appears likely that Cassiodorus copied the list of consuls he found there unchanged, he added material from Eutropius to make the number of years in the Livian consular list match the total he found in Jerome. The Easter calendar of Victurius of Aquitaine, Cassiodorus' primary source for the consuls of the imperial period, presents its own set of problems. Victurius produced the calendar in 457, but calculated the dates of Easter as far as 559, leaving space for individuals to write in the consular names as they learned them year by year. Thus, Cassiodorus is a good witness to Victurius' list to 457, but the consuls from 458 to 519 derive in all likelihood from a continuation of Victurius' list which Cassiodorus had to hand. Several continuations of Victurius' list, all by different people, survive, but none was the source for Cassiodorus. My study of Victurius also gives rise to some tangential questions about the list in the manuscript designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch, and the relationship (or lack thereof) among the surviving three continuations of Victurius. Both of these issues are dealt with in appendices. The shape of Cassiodorus' chronographical sources having been established, the final section of chapter three investigates Cassiodorus' chronographic method, in particular his attempt, as Prosper of Aquitaine had done almost one hundred years before, to align the lengths of imperial reigns which he found in Jerome with the consular list of Victurius. His method, marginally more successful than Prosper's, and the reasons for

some of the decisions he made, can be deduced from the final product.

ix

Chapter three leaves many questions broached but unanswered, particularly as regards Cassiodorus' historical sources. Accordingly, the fourth chapter examines more carefully the historical material apart from the chronological framework. Despite what seems at first a haphazard jumble of events with no internal consistency, Cassiodorus shows himself to have chosen and adapted his historical notes carefully. We can make some further generalizations about the epitome of Livy which he used and the way he epitomized the material he found he Jerome, Eutropius and Prosper. Perhaps most important, however, the material after 378 shows Cassiodorus' use of a lost source with which he made additions to Prosper, and a branch of the Italian consularia, which shares many similarities with the much later Historia Romana of Paul the Deacon. In the fifth and final chapter I discuss the two sides of the chronicle, the panegyrical and the chronographic. Viewed as a work of panegyric or propaganda for the Ostrogothic court, the work comes up short, which suggests that Cassiodorus did not intend it to be read primarily in that light. More important to the author was the shape the Chronica gave to Roman history. The Chronica fits neatly into the larger scheme of Cassiodorus' political and religious output. His chief aim was to set the consular list in order, and this desire to organize and make good information available to his readers is one of the driving forces of his whole output, particularly seen in the Variae, the Expositio Psalmorum, and the Institutiones. Appendix 1 demonstrates that the consular list known to Mommsen and Krusch as

X.

"Q" was not extracted from a copy of Victurius' Easter calendar, but is an independently maintained list which was supplemented at some point after 491 by consuls taken from a copy of Victurius' list. Appendix 2, on the three extensions of Victurius of Aquitaine's consular list, outlines their relationship with one another and demonstrates that they all come from independent traditions after 475. This dissertation is the product of the work of many people, but only a few can be named. Gratitude of the first order goes to Richard Burgess of the University of Ottawa. When I first met him over 25 years ago in the lounge at 14 Hart House Circle at the University of Toronto, I had no idea that our paths would cross again with such great benefit to myself. There are few people in this world who find consular lists as exciting as I do, and I could not have asked for a more attentive or exacting supervisor. All of my teachers over the last forty years deserve credit as well, but two, T.D. Barnes and J.J. O'Donnell, who have also read and commented on portions of this work, must be singled out for the influence they have exerted over my scholarship: grato animo optimis magistris. Michael Maas read some of my early chapters, and commented extensively on them; I have been, and continue to be, grateful to him for his advice, guidance, and friendship. My parents, Ruth and Walter Klaassen, my brothers Frank and Philip Klaassen and their partners, Sharon Wright and Stephanie Klaassen, devoted themselves generously to the support of my efforts, and I am deeply indebted to their encouragement and exertions on my behalf. Stephanie Lawrence has given me her time, her wisdom, and

xi her love, and maintains a calm confidence in my ability that, more often than she knows, shores me up when my own wavers. Finally, all I have done here is dedicated to my children. When I first turned my attention to Cassiodorus in 1992, Peter, Judy and Timothy lived only in my daydreams. When I returned to my unfinished work in the summer of 2007, however, their very real and joyful presence, as well as their enthusiastic encouragement, gave me much of the impetus I needed to complete what I had begun. This work has been in many ways their effort, and to them I will always be grateful.

xiii

Table of Contents

Abstract

iv

Introduction

vi

Chapter 1: Cassiodorus and the Chronica

Chapter 2: The Text

26

Chapter 3: Chronology and Consuls

Ill

Chapter 4: Historiography

215

Chapter 5: Panegyric and Chronology

306

Appendix 1: The Fasti Parisini

322

Appendix 2: Manuscripts G, L, S and A of Victorius

341

Bibliography

345

Chapter 1: Cassiodorus and the Chronica

Cassiodorus: Life and Works Cassiodorus was born of a wealthy southern Italian family which had probably come west from the eastern empire, perhaps near the beginning of the fifth century; he mentions that his family is famous in both east and west.1 His great-grandfather and grandfather we know only from Variae 1.4, a letter from Theoderic to the senate appointing his father to the patriciate, which our Cassiodorus himself wrote. He tells us that his great-grandfather had been an illustris and had defended Bruttium and Sicily from the attacks of the Vandals, though in what capacity he acted we are not told.2 Cassiodorus says that his grandfather had been "tribunus et notarius" under Valentinian III and had retired to Bruttium after serving on an embassy to Attila.3 The political fortunes of the Cassiodori rose considerably under Cassiodorus' father. Again, we know this chiefly from Variae 1.4, but also from other letters in the Variae, as well as the Ordo generis Cassiodororum, sometimes also called the Libellus or the Anecdoton Holderi.4 Like his son, the elder Cassiodorus was born in Bruttium and rose to prominence under barbarian rule in Italy, but, unlike his son, he rose to distinction in the financial administration, serving Odovacar both as comes reiprivatae and as comes sacrarum largitionum. During the years of conflict between Theoderic and Odovacar he kept Sicily stable and secure, and sometime thereafter, but certainly before 506, he was corrector
1 2 3 4 Variae 1.4.15. Variae 1.4.14. The defense of Sicily referred to is perhaps the attacks on the island by the Vandals immediately after their capture of Carthage in 439. Variae 1.4.10-13. Edited by O'Donnell 1979, 259-266 and more recently by Alain Galonnier, 1996.

Bruttii et Lucaniae. He was appointed praetorian prefect of Italy sometime between 503 and 507, though we do not know how long he served. The patriciate was conferred on him in 507.5 There is no record of his death. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, the last in his family that we know of to hold public office, was born in Bruttium (he calls it his patria), probably between 485 and 490.6 We can estimate his date of birth because he says that he served as consiliarius to his father during the latter's prefecture while he was still a "iuvenis, "7 and because he says he was "primaevus" when became quaestor, an inexact word which could indicate at age anywhere between sixteen and twenty-three. O'Donnell, in his discussion, seems to favour the higher end of the age range. Thus a birthdate of 485 would make him twentytwo in 507, the earliest certain date for his quaestorship, as testified by dateable letters from the Variae? He had come to the attention of Theoderic when he delivered a panegyric on the king and was appointed quaestor palatii on the strength of his performance.9 As quaestor, his duties involved drafting letters on behalf of Theoderic, and the first four books of the Variae all comprise letters which date from this period. He was certainly still in office in 511, but no letters from the first four books of the Variae can be dated later than that year.10 We know nothing of the next three years of Cassiodorus' life. In 514, however, we
5 6 7 8 9 10 Variae 1.3 and 1.4 . Variae 11.39.5. For a full discussion of Cassiodorus' birth date, see O'Donnell 1979, 20-23, whom I follow. See Mommsen, MGH AA 12 xxvii ff.. A. van der Vyver suggested that he may have been quaestor already in 506, 1937 and 1938. Ordo generis 15-17: "iuvenis adeo dum patris Cassiodori patricii et praefecti praetorii consiliarius fieret laudes Theodorici regis Gothorum facundissime recitasset ab eo quaestor est factus." See Mommsen, MGH AA 12 xxvii ff..

3 know from the surviving fasti that he held the consulship alone, a date confirmed by several different sources.11 Though it was an extraordinary honour, it was certainly normal at this time for a young man in his twenties to hold the consulship, often bankrolled by his father. It is possible, as Mommsen suggested, that Cassiodorus was corrector Lucaniae et Bruttiorum between his quaestorship and his consulship, but the passage on which he based his conjecture is not decisive.12 Between the end of his consulship and the beginning of his term as magister offwiorum he seems to have held no other office and to have devoted himself to some study and writing. Since he had been consul in 514 it seems likely that he was living in Rome at least part of the time, or dividing his time among Rome, Ravenna and the family estates in the south of Italy.13 But he was not intellectually or academically idle. During these years he seems to have made the acquaintance of Dionyius Exiguus, the Scythian monk whose Easter calendar, dated from the birth of Christ, was eventually accepted across Europe. Cassiodorus says in his Institutiones that Dionysius "mecum dialecticam legit'V'read dialectic with me."14 In 518 he compiled his Chronica, the subject of this study, in honour of the consul of the following year, Eutharic Cilliga, the son-in-law of

11

From CLRE, inscriptions. ICUR n.s. 8.20836 = ILCV1650; ICUR .s.s 7.17609; CIL 6.9613 = ICUR n.s. 2.5018; ICUR 1.945 = ILCV3109B; CIL 11.4337 = ILCV4681; CIL 9.5021 = ILCV 3166; CIL 12.1692 = ILCV 1432; papyri: P. Cair. Masp. 1 67001.2; P. Flor. 3.280.1; a letter from Pope Symmachus to Caesarius of Aries, Coll. Avell. 109; Liber Pontifwalis 1.269. 12 Mommsen, MGH AA 12: x, who cites a passage from Variae 11.39.5: "senserunt me iudicem suum et quibus privatus ab avis atavisque praefui, vivacius nicus sum in meis fascibus adiuvare" "they perceived me to be their judge, and in the matters in which I profited from my grandfather and greatgrandfathers, I endeavoured to help more actively when I myself had authority." Mommsen's suggestion is followed by PLRE, ad loc. If Cassiodorus did serve as corrector, he may not have done so in this period, since the letter dates from his own praetorian prefecture and the time he refers to is unclear. 13 0'Donnelll979,25. 14 Inst. 1.23.2.

Theoderic, and also delivered a panegyric of the new consul before the senate.15 Perhaps most important for Cassiodorus, however, was his work on the Gothic History. We do not know when the history was published, but several dates have been put forward, along with arguments for several versions, Most scholars place the publication of the work between 519 and 526.16 No matter what the date of its completion, it is certainly possible that he began work on the Gothic History during these years between his consulship and his next office, around the same time as the composition of the Chronica. We know Cassiodorus served as magister offwiorum from his official titles in the headings of the Variae and the Chronica, as well as from the Ordo generis. Once again, the Variae set the limits for his tenure of the position, roughly 523 to 527.17 He entered the post under Theoderic and ended it under Theoderic's grandson and successor, Athalaric. As magister offwiorum Cassiodorus was largely responsible for the functioning of the palace bureaucracy, but he also seems to have taken on some of the duties of the quaestors, as the letters of Athalaric appointing Cassiodorus to the praetorian prefecture note.18 His stint as magister officiorum also brought with it a brief military command under Athalaric, though the details of it are very sketchy.19 Most scholars, as well, put the

The fragments of Cassiodorus' panegyrics were edited by Ludwig Traube, and included in Mommsen's edition of the Variae, MGH AA 12: 459-484. 16 O'Donnell 1979, 43-47, favours an early date of 519, and at the very least demonstrates that such an early date is possible. See Barnish 1984 and Luiselli 1980. Both favour a date between 523 and 526. 17 Mommsen , MGH AA 12 xxvii ff, O'Donnell 1979, 26. 18 Variae 9.24.6 "Quo loco positus semper quaestoribus affuisti. nam cum opus esset eloquio defaecato, causa tuo protinus credebatur ingenio" "in this position you were always available to the quaestors. For when there was a need for refined language, the matter was immediately entrusted to your talent," and Variae 9.25.8 "Reperimus eum quidem magistrum, sed implevit nobis quaestoris officium..." "We found him, of course, as magister, but he fulfilled the duty of quaestor for us..." 19 Variae 9.25.8: "Nam dum curae litorum regias cogitationes incesserent, subito a litterarum penetralibus eiectus par suis maioribus ducatum sumpsit intrepidus..." "For when concerns for the shores afflicted kingly thoughts, immediately from the depths of his letters he catapulted forth, fearless and equal to his ancestors he took up leadership..."

15

5 completion of the Gothic History sometime in this period.20 We again have no information about what Cassiodorus did during the time between 527 and his appointment as praetorian prefect. We have a firm date for the appointment, 1 September 1 533, since Cassiodorus wrote his own appointment letters (presumably after the fact) and included them in the Variae.21 It was a grim time to take on the oversight of the Italian peninsula. Athalaric died in 534, certainly no more than eighteen years old and possibly younger,22 and his mother Amalasuintha supported Theodahad, the nephew of Theoderic, as the new king. Theodahad, however, soon had Amalasuintha put to death or murdered.23 The eastern emperor Justinian, who had already destroyed the Vandal kingdom in Africa in 533, used the murder of Amalasuintha as a pretext for invading Sicily in 535 and then the Italian mainland in 536.24 Theodahad was murdered and replaced by Witigis late in 536. We do not know when Cassiodorus ceased to be praetorian prefect. Five letters in the Variae were written by Cassiodorus for Witigis (10.31-35), but none can be dated later than 536, and the last dateable letters from the Variae are from late 537 or early 538.25 The superscriptions on the Variae and the Chronica both list him as praetorian prefect, which suggests that, despite the war, Cassiodorus found the time to compile or
20 21 See note 16 above. Variae 9.24 and 25. For the date, Variae 9.25.12: "Huic ergo, patres conscripti, deo auspice a duodecima indictione praefecturae praetorianae regendam tribuimus dignitatem..." "Therefore to this man, conscript fathers, with God's oversight, we commit the control of the office of the praetorian prefecture from the twelfth indiction." The twelfth year of this indiction cycle began on 1 September 533. It is not clear when Athalaric was born. We have two different dates from Jordanes. In the Getica he says that at the time of Theoderic's death Athalaric was "vix decennem" "scarcely ten years old" {Get. 304), but in the Romana (367) he says that Athalaric was 8 in 526, as does Procopius BG 1.2.1. Perhaps the younger age is to be preferred. Procopius BG 1.2.1 - 1.4.27 and Jordanes Getica 306. Procopius BG 1.5.1. 0'Donnelll979,31.

22

23 24 25

6 complete the compilation of the Variae and perhaps make a fresh copy of the Chronica before he gave up his post.26 During this time as well, between mid-535 and April of 536 he began making plans with Pope Agapetus for the establishment of a Christian school in Rome, on the model of a similar school at Nisibis.27 Books were gathered together, but the school itself was never founded. There is reason to believe that the remains of the library of Pope Agapetus, which was to have been the library for the school, are still to be seen today on the Clivo di Scauro in Rome.28 Most scholars place his elevation to the patriciate during these years since none of the letters in the Variae mention the title. Still, the Ordo generis clearly says that he was made patricius by Theoderic: "ab eo quaestor est factus, patricius et consul ordinarius, postmodum dehinc magister officiorum'V'he was made quaestor by him, patricius, ordinary consul and afterwards magister officiorum." Since the other three offices are in order, we must take seriously the possibility that he was raised to the patriciate after his quaestorship, and perhaps on the death of his father.29 The Variae must have been completed sometime in 538, and the scholarly consensus is that he ceased to perform the duties of praetorian prefect around this time.30 At the same time as he was completing the Variae he was also engaged in writing his first strictly Christian work, the De anima, which he mentions in the preface to the eleventh
26 Mommsen suggests, in his preface to the Variae, that the Chronica was at one point attached to the Variae and that a scribe copied the titles from the Variae to the Chronica. 27 Inst, praef. 1. Agapetus was pope for only eleven months between 13 May 335 and 22 April 336. 28 41 53'10.56" N 12 29'29.09" E 29 See Vanderspoel 1990. 30 There is no evidence for when or why Cassiodorus stopped being praetorian prefect. O'Donnell 1979, 104 gives several suggestions: he was dismissed, he resigned in order to retire, or his duties were no longer performable in wartime. The normal time to leave office would have been the end of the indiction year, but it appears that no one replaced him, so there is no compelling reason to date the end of his tenure to 1 Sept. 537, as does PLRE. In early 537 Belisarius had a prefect, Fidelis, serving under him in Rome (Procopius BG 1.20.19-20; PLRE 2 "Fidelis").

7 book of the Variae.31 At this time as well, he wrote (and presumably delivered) an oration celebrating the marriage of the king Witigis and Theoderic's grand-daughter Matasuentha.32 Cassiodorus' famous "conversion," when he turned away from his political life toward a religious one, is to be dated to this time as well. We noted above that Cassiodorus had attempted to found a Christian school in Rome with the help of Pope Agapetus. The composition of the De anima, a philosophical work backed up by scriptural texts, may also be seen as part of Cassiodorus' process of directing his efforts to ecclesiastical affairs.33 The preface to his Expositio psalmorum also dates his conversion to the time he spent in Ravenna after he had ceased to be praetorian prefect.34 Between the end of the 530s and 550, we know almost nothing. It seems most likely, however, that Cassiodorus remained in Ravenna until its fall to Belisarius in 540, at which point he went to Constantinople with Witigis and Matasuentha either willingly or under duress.35 We have fairly firm confirmation that Cassiodorus was in Constantinople during 550 and 551. First, a letter of Pope Vigilius dated to 550 names him specifically as being among a group of bishops and friends that were with him in
31 Variae 11 praef. 7: "Sed postquam duodecim libris opusculum nostrum desiderata fine concluseram, de animae substantia vel de virtutibus eius amici me disserere coegerunt..." "But after I had completed my little work in twelve books with a proper conclusion, my friends forced me to write about the substance or the virtues of the soul..." See Traube's edition of the fragments of Cassiodorus' orations at the end of Mommsen's MGH edition of the Variae, p. 463. O'Donnell 1979, 108-109. Expositio psalmorum praef. 1-5: "Repulsis aliquando in Ravennati urbe sollicitudinibus dignitatum et curis saecularibus noxio sapore conditis, cum paslaterii caelestis animarum mella gustassem, id quod solent desiderantes efficere, avidus me perscrutator immersi, ut dicta salutaria suaviter imbiberem post amarissimas actiones" "In the past in the city of Ravenna, after I had set aside the worries of my offices and the cares of the world with their poisonous smell, when I had had a taste of the heavenly psalter, the honey for souls, just as those who desire are accustomed to do, I immersed myself, an eager student, so that I might drink sweetly their health-bringing words after my very bitter actions." See also O'Donnell 1979,105. See O'Donnell 1979, 104-16, Sundwall 1919, 154-156, Cappuyns 1949 and van de Vyver 1931.

32 33 34

35

8 Constantinople.36 Second, Jordanes, in the preface to his Getica, says that he borrowed Cassiodorus' Gothic History from the latter's steward for three days. The presence of the steward in Constantinople strongly suggests the presence of Cassiodorus as well. Jordanes completed his work after the death of Germanus, the cousin of Justinian and husband of Theoderic's granddaughter Matasuentha, in 551 and probably before the war in Italy came to its final end in 553 with the final defeat of Teias and the remnant of the Ostrogoths at Mons Lactarius near Cumae.37 It is likely that the Expositio psalmorum was completed while Cassiodorus was still in Constantinople.38 From this point on we rely exclusively on Cassiodorus' own writings for information about his life. With the imposition of the Pragmatic Sanction, the eastern emperor Justinian's reorganization of Italy under Byzantine rule, it seems that Cassiodorus returned to his family's estates in southern Italy at about age sixty-five. He never returned to public life and instead founded a kind of monastery which he calls Vivarium.39 There he devoted himself to a religious life and, in his writing, to largely biblical pursuits. The preface to his De orthographia, written when he was ninety-three years old, lists his works dating from after his conversion: the commentary on the psalms, the Institutiones, a commentary on Romans, a book on the Artes of Donatus, a book on etymologies, a book of Sacerdos on schemata, or forms of words, a book of tituli for the scriptures, a book of complexiones, a literal paraphrase of the New Testament without the
36 PL 69.49 A-B "religiosum virum item filium nostrum Senatorem." 37 See also O'Donnell 1979, 132-136. 38 O'Donnell 1979, 131-176. 39 Inst. 1.29. The site of the Vivarium was established by Pierre Courcelle, MEFR 55 (1938) 259-307. A sarcophagus, possibly that of Cassiodorus himself, was discovered there in 1952. See Courcelle 1957. See also O'Donnell 1979, 194-198.

9 gospels, and the De orthographia itself.40 None of these works shows original thinking, but instead a desire to organize and distill more complicated and disparate material. At Vivarium he also commissioned translations of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and a translation of the compiled church histories of Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, known as the Historia Tripartita. Cassiodorus does not mention the Computus paschalis, which is transmitted along with the manuscript of the Institutiones, and was probably also by Cassiodorus. It is a short document, written in 562, which gives instructions on how to calculate the number of years since the crucifixion when the indiction year is known.41 Cassiodorus died at Vivarium sometime after 580, when he was more than ninety-three years old. Cassiodorus was not a man of original intellect except insofar as he recognized disorder and sought to correct it. His skills, reflected or developed by his public service, were organizational and bureaucratic. His works, both from before and after his conversion, in the main demonstrate a desire to teach and organize rather than to dispute and convince, and Momigliano, in his memorable essay "Cassiodorus and Italian culture of his time," places him among the men "who did not disdain the task of elementary teaching when elementary teaching was needed."42

Cassiodorus' Chronica: historical setting and genre Cassiodorus' Chronica comes to us as a work written for Eutharic Cilliga, the
40 41 42 De orth. praef. Keil, p. 144. See O'Donnell 1979, 223-238. Of these works we have only the Expositio psalmorum, the Complexiones in epistulas, the Institutiones and the De orthographia. See Lehmann, P. 1959. Momigliano, A. 1955, 245.

10 western consul for the year 519, who was both husband of Amalasuintha (the daughter of Theoderic, the Ostrogothic king of Italy) and the apparent heir to the throne. In what follows I will put the work briefly into its historical context and into the context of Cassiodorus' public life before turning my attention to a discussion of the nature of the work and its generic background. In 518 Eutharic Cilliga was designated consul for the coming year, along with Justin, the new eastern emperor. Justin had acceded to the throne on 10 July 518, the day after the death of Anastasius, and it was normal for the new Augustus to hold the consulship in the first full year of his reign.43 That Eutharic, the son-in-law of Theoderic, the Ostrogothic king in Italy, should have been accepted as his colleague must have indicated Justin's intentions to maintain, or improve, relations between Constantinople and Ravenna. Eutharic was the first Goth to hold the consulship since his father-in-law had held it thirty-five years before in 484, so this was a mark of some distinction and comparatively rare. What is more, Cassiodorus tells us in a letter written on behalf of Athanaric, Theoderic's grandson and successor, that Justin had made Eutharic, Athanaric's father, his "son at arms," at what appears to be the same time that he was raised to the consulship.44 Morehead notes that, since Cassiodorus does not mention Justin's naming Eutharic as his son at arms in his Chronica, it is difficult for us to estimate "the role of the

43 44

CLRE, 23. It is strange that Anastasius' death and Justin's accession are not noted by Cassiodorus, though he clearly knows that Justin is emperor. Presumably he did not know the date of Anastasius' death and Justin's accession. Cassiodorus, Variae, 8.1.3: "Vos [Justin] genitorem meum in Italia palmatae claritate decorastis. desiderio quoque concordiae factus est per arma filius, qui annis vobis paene videbatur aequaevus;" "You adorned my father in Italy with the renown of the [consul's] embroidered dress, and in your desire for concord he was made your son at arms, who seemed to you almost equal in years"; cf. Procopius de Bello Persico 1.11.22.

11 emperor in Eutharic's becoming consul."45 But given the very different purposes of the two documents the Chronica designed, as we will see, for an Italian audience and the letter from Athanaric to Justin intended as an assurance to the emperor of the new regime's policy of renewing good relations with the eastern court46 there is no reason to doubt that Justin was eager that Eutharic be his colleague. It is difficult not to see Justin's choice of Eutharic in 518 as conciliatory to Theoderic's regime. The Acacian schism, initiated by the refusal of the Roman church to countenance the formulas drafted by Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and put forward by the emperor Zeno's Henotikon, had been bubbling away since 482 and had been an unpleasant back-drop to Theoderic's entire reign in Italy. Both courts apparently wanted the division ended. After the death of Pope Symmachus in 514, the emperor Justin's predecessor Anastasius and the new pope, Hormisdas, had made some attempts to settle the situation, but Hormisdas, supported by Theoderic and by the senate (on the king's instructions), was not prepared to give ground.47 The new emperor's intentions may have been to conciliate Theoderic (or Eutharic, since Theoderic was getting old and Eutharic was his successor) and thus gain some traction in his negotiations with the pope.48 The fact that the name of the Eastern consul, even though he was the emperor, appears in no Western inscriptions is not surprising. It was normal during the last years of the fifth and beginning of the sixth century for contemporary Western inscriptions to

45 46 47 48

Moorhead 1992, 201-202. Wolfram 1988, 334. Moorhead 1992, 194-200. Wolfram 1988, 328-329.

12 record only the western consul.49 Likewise, in the east, Eutharic's name appears only in two laws, an inscription and in a letter of John, the bishop of Constantinople.50 The failure of either name to appear regularly in the other's part of the empire is not due to hostility, or even lack of cooperation, but either to the collapse of the system of promulgation of consular names, or, perhaps more likely, to the practical realization by the populace that two names were unnecessary and unwieldy for dating years. On 1 January 519 Eutharic took up his consulship in Rome. Cassiodorus is lyrical in his assessment: Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis, stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare quern Romae celebraverat consulatum (Chron. 1364). In this year Rome saw many marvels in individual exhibitions, even Symmachus, the legate from the East, was amazed at the riches granted to Goths and Romans. He [Eutharic] gave honours to the senate. In shows in the amphitheatres he displayed wild beasts of various sorts which the present age marvelled at for their novelty. And for his spectacles, Africa in its devotion sent over the choicest of delights as well. And so, everywhere was filled with his high praise, and he was so firmly fixed in such a great love of the Roman citizens that when he returned to the sight of his glorious father at Ravenna, they still desired his presence. And there, with the exhibitions repeated, he showered such great gifts on Goths and Romans that he alone was able to surpass the consulship which he had celebrated at Rome. Cassiodorus may have delivered an oration in praise of Eutharic before the senate on the
49 According to CLRE only two eastern consuls (out of a possible twenty-three years with eastern consuls) appear in inscriptions outside of Gaul in the thirty years between 489 and 519: emperor Anastasius in 492, CIL 9.3568 = 7ZCF3162A and P. Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei secoli VI-VII-VIII esistenti in Italia 7F(1978) #58, and, probably, a post-consular date in 518 recording the eastern consul of the year before, Anastasius, the great-nephew of the emperor, CIL Suppl. Ital. 1.863. Laws: CJ5.27.9 and 2.7.25; inscription: SEG 29.642; letter: Coll. Avell. 159.

50

13 occasion of his consulship, although it is not clear precisely when it happened.51 At some point before 1 January 519, however, Cassiodorus also completed his chronicle of world history, encompassing the years from creation to 519. There is no doubt the document was intended to be presented to Eutharic. The preface, couched in the standard strains of panegyric, attributes the genesis of the work to Eutharic's orders: Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis pristine dignitatem (Chron. 1). In your princely wisdom, through which you always think over great matters, you directed me to set the consuls in order so that you, who had adorned the year with your glorious name, might restore to the fasti the dignity of their ancient truth. Furthermore, the final entry in the work lists the number of years covered by the whole work: "ac sic torus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum colligitur annis VDCCXXF7 "and thus the entire count of the ages up to your consulship comes to 5721 years." Cassiodorus reversed the consular names for the year 519, placing Eutharic's name first and the emperor Justin's second, contrary to his usual practice in years when an emperor held the consulship.52 We do not know whether the Chronica was actually presented to Eutharic or not. Cassiodorus mentions it nowhere in any of his other
51 See Variae 9.25.3, where Cassiodorus, writing about himself to the senate on behalf of Athalaric, clearly says that he spoke in Eutharic's praise before the senate: "Patrem quoque clementiae nostrae in ipsa curia Libertatis qua disertitudine devotus asseruit!" "with what eloquence he [Cassiodorus] devotedly names the father of our Clemency in the very senate-house of Liberty!" There is some disagreement about the occasion of the first fragmentary speech, edited by Traube at the end of Mommsen's edition of the Variae, 465-472. Traube himself believed that it was delivered in 518 or 519, on the occasion of Eutharic's consulship (p. 463, esp. note 1), and he is followed by Wolfram 1988, 329 and Morehead 1992, 202. Others believe that the speech was delivered on the occasion of Eutharic's elevation as heir apparent, cf. O'Donnell 1979, 33.1 am inclined to follow Traube, noting Traube's own reservations. It may be that the fragmentary speech we have is a speech in praise of Eutharic, but not the one which Cassiodorus delivered before the senate. See below, p. 188.

52

14 writings, which may mean it was never properly "published."53 The authorial attribution at the beginning of the work requires some explanation, since it clearly post-dates the production of the work itself by at least fourteen years, and possibly even more. The title reads, "In chronica magni aurelii cassiodori senatoris vc et inl ex quaestore sacri palatii ex cons ord ex mag off ppo atque patricii praefatio'V'the preface to the chronicle of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, vir clarissimus and inlustris, ex-quaestor of the sacred palace, ex-consul, ex-magister officiorum, praetorian prefect and patrician." Mommsen notes in the preface to his edition that these titles, since they indicate that he had been praetorian prefect, are suitable for 537, but not for 519 when Cassiodorus had not yet even taken up the post of magister officiorum.5* Mommsen suggests, perhaps correctly, that a scribe transferred the title from a copy of the Variae, where they correctly reflect Cassiodorus' position at the time of their publication, to the Chronica, which may be the case. But whatever the reason for the misapplication of Cassiodorus' offices, the specific title of the work itself, "Chronica,'''' must then come into question, since it may well post-date composition. However, since Cassiodorus does not mention the work anywhere else or refer to its name anywhere within the document, we can go no further than expressing doubt and we will have to be content with calling the work his Chronica, with the proviso that the name may not originate with Cassiodorus.

53

54

The work is not mentioned by anyone until the eleventh century, when it was used and noted, either directly or second-hand, by Hermannus Contractus at Reichenau (MGH.SS 5.83-86 esp. p. 86) in 1054. Mommsen 1894, 118, suggests that Hermannus and the anonymous author of an eleventh century universal history (MGH.SS 13. 61-72) were both dependent on an earlier, larger chronicle, which is now lost. Mommsen 1894, 111.

15 What Kind of Document is It? From the very beginning, Cassiodorus identifies the fasti as being the primary focus of his work. His introduction indicates his clear direction when, as we have seen above, he claims to be writing at Eutharic's behest to restore to the fasti their ancient truthfulness. He goes on: "Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum varietate detersa operi fidem historicae auctoritatis inpressi'VI have willingly obeyed your orders and, with the mistakes of the booksellers cleansed away, I have stamped upon the work the trustworthiness of historical authority." He is claiming nothing less than to provide a complete, authoritative, and accurate consular list with none of the mistakes found among those produced by the booksellers or rather by their copyists. It is only as an afterthought that he concludes his introduction: "quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem"/"so that your mind, delighted by famous events, may run through the very long age of the world in a pleasing abridgement." In concentrating on an accurate consular list as his chief aim, he thus invites comparison of his work with other consular lists which were in circulation in the late fifth and early sixth centuries.

The Chronica as Consularia The works which Cassiodorus was striving to correct are the anonymous fasti and consularia (so named by Mommsen) which seem to have been produced by booksellers and copyists in late antiquity.55 We must be careful, then, not to compare his work with that of Eusebius/Jerome, Hydatius or the Gallic Chronicle of 452, none of which include
55 Burgess 1993, 179-181.

16 consular years, or even Prosper of Aquitaine or Marcellinus comes, both of whom did date by consular years. All of these produced chronicles very different from what Cassiodorus was consciously attempting to write. Our chief points of comparison will be with the anonymous Latin consularia which have survived, sometimes only in bits and pieces, from late antiquity. There are several good examples: the Fasti Vindobonenses priores and posterlores, the Excerpta Sangallensia,56 the Descriptio consilium,57 and the Consularia Ravennatia Several texts which are very similar to consularia could also be added to this list: the Paschale Campanum, an easter list with historical notes added,59 and the first part of the chronicle of Marius of Avenches.60 Burgess has outlined briefly the difference between what we call chronicles and what we call consularia. While recognizing that clear-cut distinctions are not always possible, Burgess notes four specific charateristics of consularia: 1) the consular list occupies the attention of the author particularly and historical notes are unevenly distributed through the years, with some clumps of events spanning a few years followed by long stretches with no events at all, 2) the use of precise dating terminology, sometimes wtih specific days or months, and with the frequent use of the terms "hoc consule" or "his consulibus" at the beginning of each historical entry, 3) a concentration on the deeds of the emperor in particular and with the state more generally, 4) an
56 57 58 59 60 Both Chron. Min. I 274-336. Burgess 1993; and Chron. Min. I 197-247. Bischoff, B. and Koehler, W. 1939. Chron. Min. I 306-320 and 745-749. Chron. Min. II 232-236. I would also add the fragmentary epitome of Livy found in P. Oxy. 668 which dates to the third century. Although it is not strictly speaking consularia, since the information was extracted from Livy, it also has many of the characteristics of consularia.

17 avoidance of ecclesiastical material, and 5) a distinctive, neutral grammatical style.61 He adds a fifth characteristic later on: that the consularia tend to concentrate on events local to where they were produced, kept up or used.621 will demonstrate in what follows that all of these characteristics are present in Cassiodorus' work, though his Chronica also contains elements of what we normally regard as characteristic of the chronicle-style exemplified by Eusebius/Jerome. As I noted above when discussing the introduction to the Chronica, Cassiodorus underscores his intention to restore to the fasti the "veritatis pristine dignitatem " and certainly the consular list was at the heart of his efforts. Apart from a few pages taken from Jerome at the beginning of his work (to which I will return below), most of the Chronica focuses on the consular list. Cassiodorus worked hard, as we will see, to make Jerome's regnal years correspond with the consular years, and also devoted a great deal of energy to making sure the consular list after 458 was as complete as it could be. Finally, his list of sources at the end of his work focusses on his sources for the consular list and chronology: Livy, Aufidius Bassus and Victorius of Aquitaine for the consuls and Jerome for chronology,63 but leaves out those to whom he went only for historical information, Eutropius, Prosper and an unnamed consularia or chronicle. Thus, his assertion in his introduction that he had "stamped onto the work the trustworthiness of historical authority" refers specifically to the sources which he names at the end of the work. Those sources were primarily for consuls and chronology, and not for historical data. Burgess notes the scattered nature of historical entries in the consularia, and on a
61 62 63 Burgess 1993, 178-179 and Mosaics, forthcoming. Burgess 1993, 181. Chron. 1365-1370.

18 first read-through of the Chronica, Cassiodorus' choice, arrangement and distribution of historical notes appears haphazard at best. The Republican years, for which an epitome of Livy was his source, are scarcely more than a consular list, with only thirty-seven historical notes from 509 BCE, the year of the first consuls, to 44 BCE, the assassination of Julius Caesar. As we might expect, though, the number of historical notes in Cassiodorus increases in the years devoted to the late Republic and the early imperial years up to the year of the crucifixion. Where Jerome was Cassiodorus' chief source, his historical notes are more frequent, but even so stretches of five or six years (and a few even longer) where he records no events are not uncommon. Even during Cassiodorus' own lifetime and the reign of Theoderic there are two long stretches where there are no historical events (494-499 and 509-513). While the lack or availability of historical material in Cassiodorus' sources may explain the differences between the Republican years and the imperial ones, Cassiodorus must have made a deliberate choice to leave out many historical events of his own time. Burgess' second characteristic of consularia is the use of precise dates, the use of "hoc consule" or "his consulibus" before each entry, and the use of "eo anno" or "eodem anno" to join together two historical events in a single year. This is a strongly marked stylistic characteristic which one does not see in Prosper, Marcellinus or Victor of Tunnuna, all of whom dated their chronicles by consular years, whereas it does occur in Marius of Avenches and the anonymous consularia in Chronica Minora I. By omitting terms an author can give the effect of a narrative that hangs together. By including them, the focus turns to the dating of single events to single years. Cassiodorus is not given to

19 using precise dates in his entry, but he almost unfailingly begins each entry with "hoc consule" or "his consulibus." These terms do not occur in either P. Oxy. 668 or Obsequens, two witnesses to the Livian epitome Cassiodorus used, nor does Jerome use them. Therefore, Cassiodorus either found the expressions in the consularia he likely used for his historical entries after Prosper ran out in 455 or the expressions were so closely attached to the genre that he used them without much reflection. Burgess' third and fourth points are closely related: the consularia pay attention to the business of the emperor in particular (to which I would add matters pertaining more generally to the Roman state) and almost entirely avoid reference to matters of ecclesiastical politics and doctrine. This is markedly true in Cassiodorus' work as well, despite his heavy use of Jerome and Prosper, whose interest in ecclesiastical matters stands out: both regularly record councils, doctrinal disputes, and the elevation of bishops and patriarchs, and neither hesitates to draw explicit links between secular affairs with the will of God.64 Cassiodorus does almost none of this and concentrates almost exclusively on the deaths, accessions and deeds of emperors, along with the successes and growth of the Roman state and the foundation of cities. Cassiodorus' concentration on these particular things is brought out very clearly in a more detailed comparison with Jerome and Prosper. It is possible to divide Jerome's entries into six broad categories: secular history, ecclesiastical history, notes on famous
64 Cassiodorus himself discusses chronicles by Christian authors at Institutiones 1.17.2. He mentions the chronicles of Jerome, Marcellinus and Prosper, but does not include his own. This would appear, at least, to suggest that he did not regard his own work as a chronicle, in the technical use of the term, but there are several other reasons why he might not have included it. The Institutiones appears to contain only works which he had in his library at Squillace, and it is possible that his own Chronica was not there. Furthermore, Cassiodorus' own list of his works in the de Orthographia includes only his work from the Expositio Psalmorum on, and it is possible that he only considered those things he wrote after his conversion to be worth mentioning. See O'Donnell 1979, 113-114.

20 authors and teachers, portents and natural events, and notes on the city of Rome.65 If we choose as a time frame the period from the crucifixion to 378 CE, when Cassiodorus used Jerome most heavily, we find 580 separate lemmata by Helm's divisions. If we divide those 580 entries up according to the above categories, we get 284 entries, or 49% of the total, on secular history;186 entries, or 32% of the total, on ecclesiastical history; 53 entries, or 9% of the total, on famous authors and teachers; 28 entries, or 5% of the total, on portents or natural events; and 27 notes, or 5% of the total, on the city of Rome.66 Turning to Cassiodorus and dividing his entries, almost all of which were taken from Jerome, into the same categories, we come up with the following: of 143 entries between the crucifixion and 378, 100, or 60% of the total, relate to secular history; 9, or 6% of the total, are ecclesiastical history; 13, or 9% of the total, are about authors and teachers; 5, or 3% of the total, are portents or natural events; and 17, or 12% of the total, are about the city of Rome. Two points are immediately obvious. The close comparison of Jerome and Cassiodorus fully supports placing the Chronica in the category of consularia, as discussed above. Cassiodorus almost completely avoids ecclesiastical matters: his work is resolutely secular in design and outlook. What is more, of his nine notes on ecclesiastical history, seven could just as well belong to other categories since three are directly related to the city of Rome and the presence there of Peter and Paul (651, 671, 689), three are
65 These divisions ae necessarily a little arbitrary and they are, I confess, at least in part dictated with a view to Cassiodorus' own historical entries. Sometimes it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between, for instance secular and ecclesiastical history, or ecclesiastical history and famous authors. But on the whole it holds up well. Although in what follows I calculate percentages, which gives the impression of precision, in fact it is not possible to come to any firm statistical conclusions: the sample is too small and the material too slippery. The numbers I use are only rough guides. There are two notes on chronology which I have left out of the count.

66

21 famous Christian authors: Tertullian (889), Origen (891), and Cyprian (964), and one details Valerian's capture and servitude in Parthia (966), and links it, following Jerome, with his persecution of the Christians. Of the remaining two, one is the crucifixion itself (635), which is a chronological keystone, and the other, strangely, notes the rise of the Manichaean heresy (1001). The second point is the one already noted by Mommsen: Cassiodorus devotes a great deal of space to notes on the city of Rome.67 While just 5% of Jerome's entries relate to the buildings and infrastructure of the city, Cassiodorus devotes fully 12% to the city itself. A large number of these entries describe the construction of buildings. As Burgess noted, one of the characteristics of the consularia is that they often concentrate on local events. Cassiodorus' work is decidedly Romanocentric. What else can be said of the comparison between Cassiodorus and Jerome? The amount of space given over to famous authors and to natural events and portents is sufficiently similar in both authors as not to provoke further comment, but more could be said about the notes on secular history. If Cassiodorus avoided ecclesiastical history it stands to reason that the percentage of secular events would rise proportionately, but we can go further by dividing the historical events he chooses into sub-groupings. In Cassiodorus, as in Jerome, many of the historical notes relate the deaths and accessions of emperors and pretenders : 10% in Jerome, but fully 34% in Cassiodorus. But Cassiodorus was deeply concerned with making his consular list dovetail with the regnal years of emperors, so it should come as no surprise that he would need to include all the

67

Mommsen 1894,113.

22 accessions and lengths of reigns he found in Jerome.68 But even a casual reading of Cassiodorus' work shows that he gives particular attention to the expansion of the empire and the battles won by Roman armies. Of fifty-seven entries which I classify as "secular history," twenty-two are devoted to the growth of empire.69 The deeds of the emperor stand out in Cassiodorus' work. Cassiodorus' selection of material from Prosper roughly mirrors his use of Jerome, with a few provisos. Prosper, more focused than Jerome, was concerned almost exclusively with political and ecclesiastical history. Whereas Jerome has a large number of entries devoted to secular authors, the city of Rome and natural disasters and portents, Prosper has virtually none in the period from 379 to 455, the history of which he wrote himself. As he had done when Jerome was his source, however, Cassiodorus includes very few of Prosper's entries on ecclesiastical history, and the four he does include deal with famous men: three of them the most famous Christian leaders in the Latin-speaking world: Ambrose (380), Martin of Tours (381), Jerome (385) and Augustine (395). None of Prosper's numerous and often lengthy notes on the accessions of the bishops of Rome, heresies and church councils made the cut. There is less attention given to the deeds of emperors, but considering the dire events for the western empire in the first half of the fifth century, Prosper's notes on secular history, as one would expect, deal primarily with the movements of barbarian armies, particularly Goths, Vandals and Huns, as well as a handful of Roman usurpers and the actions of Aetius. Still, the "action" is heavily focused
68 69 See my detailed discussion below, pp. 207ff.. Three of these notes are about Judaea, a subject which naturally occupies a great deal of space in Jerome's work. Of Jerome's 26 entries on Judaea, Cassiodorus has chosen three, the capture of Jerusalem, and the refounding of Jerusalem and Emmaus under the empire which demonstrate the establishment of Roman authority in that region.

23 on the western empire, Italy and the actions of individual rulers and commanders. We can see, then, that in the details Cassiodorus chose from Jerome, he had specific generic goals: secular, political history set into a strict chronological structure. The inclusion of these sorts of details is characteristic not only of the anonymous consularia we have, but also of the inscriptionalyasfr' from the early empire, many of which were certainly still visible in many town centres in Italy.70 The fifth characteristic noted by Burgess is that they frequently record events of strictly local interest. He attributes this chiefly to the chronological nature of the documents. As he says, "Few Romans...would remember what they were doing when X and Y were consuls, but if they were asked what they were doing when the ground in the Forum of Peace rumbled for seven days...they would have an easier time of it."71 He goes on to note, though, that as these events receded into the past, they were only of antiquarian interest, and were copied and re-copied along with the consular list for no practical reason. There are, in fact, few events such as Burgess describes in Cassiodorus' work. He includes a handful of strange occurances and natural disasters, but none of those relating directly to Rome occurred even in the fifth century, much less the sixth. But Cassiodorus does devote a great deal of attention to the city itself, its buildings and celebrations, from very early on in his work. Mommsen noted this characteristic in his edition, and therefore suggested that the Chronica, which he calls a "commentarius," was "scriptus in usum plebis urbanae (nam dominantur in eo quoque ludi et aedificia urbis Romae), "written for the use of the urban population (for games and buildings are also

70 71

See, for instance, the Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Ostienses, Degrassi 1947. Burgess 1993, 181.

24 predominant in it)."72 This suggestion overreaches the evidence we have, but there is no doubt that the Chronica exhibits strong local interest in the city of Rome. One oddity about the work, which may well strengthen the view that its very urban and Roman flavour was a deliberate compositional decision, stands out: Cassiodorus transferred the consular names into the nominative case, when his sources and all the other manuscript fasti and consularia use the ablative. It is virtually certain that he did this himself, but there is no clear reason for it. It is possible that, since the normal practice in the inscriptional fasti was to list the consular names in the nominative, Cassiodorus' change had its roots in his antiquarianism or, as I will suggest below, was a deliberate attempt to connect his own list with the monumental lists of an earlier time still on display.73 We do not know when the arch of Augustus, to which the Capitoline fasti were attached, was destroyed, and there is no reason to think that it was not still in the forum for all to see in 519. Many other cities in Italy had inscribed fasti as well. If it is true that Cassiodorus was deliberately attempting to mimic the practice of these inscriptions, we can take this as further encouragement to read his Chronica as consularia rather than a chronicle. Of course things are not as black and white as this. The Chronica also has several elements which we tend to think of as belonging to the genre of the chronicle, exemplified particularly by Eusebius/Jerome and their continuators. The early pages of Cassiodorus' work draw almost exclusively on Jerome and begin with the creation of the world and with Adam, as Eusebius had done, whereas no consularia which we have do
72 73 Mommsen 1894, 113. Despite the availability of inscriptional lists, Cassiodorus used manuscript fasti to compile his own list for the Republic and early empire.

25 this. Cassiodorus follows the biblical chronology he found in Jerome and then moves to the Assyrian, Latin and Roman kings, also from Jerome. At the end of his work, moveover, he includes a supputatio in the style of Eusebius and Jerome, where he adds up all the years which have passed since the creation of the world - again, not characteristic of consularia. But even through this material, Cassiodorus' focus is resolutely on chronology and on secular rulers, and the historical material he includes matches the characteristics of the consularia outlined above.

26

Chapter 2: The Text

The Manuscripts Only two manuscripts of Cassiodorus' Chronica survive, Parisinus Latinus 4860 in the Bibliotheque Nationale and Monacensis 14613 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Parisinus Latinus 4860 is a tenth-century manuscript, copied between 939 and 954 at the library of the monastery of St. Stephan in Mainz.74 It contains many works by a variety of authors, almost all relating to chronography and chronology. The codex is almost certainly a copy of a codex which was at the monastery at Reichenau in the middle of the ninth century. It is described by Reginbertus, who was the librarian there between 835 and 842. He wrote: In tertio libro habentur chronica Eusebii Caesariensis episcopi et Hieronymi presbyteri et Prosperi. Et chronica Cassiodori Senatoris, et chronica Iordanis episcopi et chronica Melliti. Et chronica Bedae presb. et chronica excerpta Isidori episcopi et chronica brevis. Deinde notarum Plinii Secundi lib. I et notarum Isidori ep. lib. I et notarum de naturis rerum Bedae presb. liber excerptus ex diversis lib. I et epistolae Victoris et Dionysii de ratione cycli paschalis. Et de cyclis decennovalibus cycli XXVIII. Et versus diversi de septem diebus et mensibus et XII signis vocabulis. Et martyrologium per anni circulum.75 Contained in the third book are the chronicles of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and the presbyter Jerome and of Prosper, the chronicles of Cassiodorus Senator, the chronicles of the bishop Jordanes and the chronicles of Mellitus. Also the chronicles of the presbyter Bede and the excerpted chronicles of bishop Isidorus and a short chronicle. Then one book of the notes of Plinius Secundus and one book of the notes of Bishop Isidorus and a book of notes on the nature of things by the presbyter Bede
74 75 Mommsen dates the manuscript convincingly and describes its contents in detail, 1894, 363-365. Lehmann,P. 1918, 258.

27

excerpted from various sources and the letters of Victor and Dionysius on the calculation of the Easter cycle. And about the nineteen cycles of twenty-eight. And a variety of verses about the seven days, and the months and the twelve word-signs. And an annual martyrology. Apart from a few insertions and a few things left out by Reginbertus, this list matches almost perfectly the list of works in Par. Lat. 4860.76 The latter must be a copy of the former. Reginbertus does not mention the poem of Victorius Scholasticus to the bishop Jordanes which follows Cassiodorus' Chronica, but it only occupies a single page and is easily missed. The codex was brought to Paris from Mainz by Jean-Baptiste Colbert in the seventeenth century and was subsequently moved to the Bibliotheque Nationale.77 Monacensis 14613 was originally part of the library at the monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, but is now in Munich.78 It was written in the eleventh century and includes the chronicles of Hermannus Contractus (who lived at Reichenau and seems to have used Cassiodorus) and Cassiodorus, followed immediately by the same poem from Victorius Scholasticus to Jordanes which appears after Cassiodorus' Chronica in the Paris manuscript. In copying Cassiodorus' Chronica the scribe deliberately omitted many consular names, presumably because he believed the historical events to be the most interesting and worthy of recording. Pertz noted in his introduction that the chronicle of Hermannus shows similar abbreviation, but also includes information not in other copies of Hermannus.79 Hermannus' chronicle ends in 1054 and the Monacensis is a very early copy of Hermannus. Cassiodorus was one of Hermannus' sources for his work, and therefore Pertz suggested that the Monacensis contained a copy of Hermannus' autograph
76 77 78 79 Itemized by Mommsen 1892, 364-365. Mommsen, 1892, 363. The codex is described by Pertz in MGH SS 5, 1894, 72-73 and is discussed briefly by Mommsen 1894,118. Pertz 1894, 72.

28 with his source Cassiodorus thrown in for good measure. Based, then, on Pertz's argument, Mommsen suggested that the Monacensis was a copy of the same manuscript at Reichenau from which the Paris codex was copied. If the two manuscripts were not copied from the same archetype, they are certainly very closely related. While M has many omissions which makes a complete comparison impossible, both share a number of copyists' errors which must go back to a common source, e.g. "L Papirius iun" for "L Papirius IIII" (239) and "Iullo sanctionibus" for "Iullus Antonius" (585). P has a number of divergences from M, which Mommsen (correctly, I think) attributed to the scribe of the manuscript rather than the archetype. The scribe corrected Cassiodorus' work through reference to Jerome's chronicle which precedes Cassiodorus in the codex. At 32 and 43 he adjusted the regnal years of the Assyrian kings to match those in Jerome, and appears to have done the same at 527, where he gives Jerome's number of four years and six months for Julius Caesar's reign, whereas M has four years and seven months. He also corrected the name of the Assyrian king "Molechus" to "Bolechus" (15), which is closer to what he found in Jerome, and restored the missing king Panias, presumably because the tally of regnal years of the kings at the end of the list (43) did not add up in the manuscript he was copying from. Mommsen believed that the scribe of P had also dropped the consuls of 297 CE in order to make the number of consular years correspond with the number of Diocletian's regnal years, but I suspect that those consuls were missing from the archetype of P and M, as I explain below.80 The third major witness to the text of the Chronica is Johannes Cuspinianus'
80 See below, p. 120ff..

29 posthumously published work, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii. The work is a transcription by Cuspinianus, probably of the Reichenau archetype of Cassiodorus' Chronica with an extensive commentary by Cuspinianus himself. Cuspinianus used a great many authors to supplement Cassiodorus, including Livy, Jerome, Tacitus and the Fasti Vindobonenses priores (which used to be called the Anonymus Cuspiniani). He also corrected particularly the praenomina of consuls freely based on his other sources. His readings of Cassiodorus are thus untrustworthy since he often does not say that he has corrected Cassiodorus with reference to another author when it is clear he has. For instance, at Chronica 464 Cuspinianus switched the praenomen of Lutatius from L (which appears in both manuscripts) to Q only on the basis of Julius Obsequens, the single edition of whose work, printed by Manutius in 1508, was a text fraught with errors.81 On the subject of altering what he found in his manuscript of Cassiodorus he says of the consuls of Chronica 666, Tiberius III et Antonius, which he knew to be incorrect, "Sic in Cassiodori exemplo unico inveni. Quanquam de Claudii Tiberii consulatibus abunde iam scripserim, nolui tamen quicquam in Cassiodoro frivole, ne quis temeritatis me accusaret, immutare'V'This is the way I found it in the single copy of Cassiodorus. Although I have already written fully about the consulships of Tiberius Claudius, I nevertheless did not wish to change anything in Cassiodorus frivolously, lest someone accuse me of being over-bold."82 On the other hand, at Chronica 488, where both manuscripts list the consuls of 81 BCE as "M Tullius et Cn Dolabella," Cuspinianus changed the consul prior to "M Sylvius Decola," seemingly on the basis of Appian alone,

81 82

The single manuscript from which the print edition was copied is now lost. Cuspinianus, p. 389. The correct consuls for the year are Torquatus and Antoninus.

30 without even remarking on it. Mommsen believed that Cuspinianus had the archetype from Reichenau, and this may be correct, but Mommsen's argument is based solely on circumstantial evidence. Cuspinianus only says that the codex was given to him by Johannes Stabius, the cartographer, but we do not know where Stabius acquired it. Mommsen reasoned that since the two existing manuscripts come from the same archetype at Reichenau and since the copy Cuspinianus had was better than either of them, he must have had the Reichenau archetype itself. But the manuscript which Cuspinianus used is lost and he often "corrected" its readings without indicating he had done so, so we may never know what manuscript he used or what its value is.83 The Text Mommsen's text is quite good, with only a few mistakes, and the reader will find few substantial differences between the text presented here and his. I have kept his numbering system for ease of reference, but I have eliminated many of his notes which I found rather more confusing than helpful: for instance, the AUC dates, the crossreferences to Cassiodorus' sources, and the numerous references in his critical apparatus to Jerome, Prosper and Victorius. The traditions of those three authors are very uncertain, too, and including their readings seems to me to be valueless and to introduce more confusion and uncertainty in matters where uncertainty cannot be overcome. Where I disagree with Mommsen in a reading or a restoration, I have noted it in the critical apparatus.
83 Mommsen cites a 1597 inventory of Conrad Peutinger's library (Monacensis 402Id) which lists the "cronica Aurelii Cassiodori manu scripta," and he suggests that it is a copy of the work that Cuspinianus had. It is also not impossible that Peutinger himself acquired Cuspinianus' own copy after Cuspinianus' death. But it is unknown where this manuscript went.

31 P is slightly more trustworthy than M, if only because the scribe copied out the entire chronicle, whereas M omits many pairs of consular names. In editing the text I have taken a very conservative approach, to the extent of tolerating differences in the spelling of names (like Caesar, Cesar) if the two manuscripts agree. Where the manuscripts disagree and one is supported by Cuspinianus, I have sometimes followed the reading of Cuspinianus, though carefully since, as I have noted, he used many other sources in his work and emended freely, based both on them and on his own notions of orthography. I have included Cuspinianus in the critical apparatus more fully in the years for which Livy does not survive, and particularly where he cites no other sources for names, but I have never chosen his reading over a reading in the manuscripts. In general I have made decisions as follows. In a handful of cases I have not been consistent, but I have tried to be as transparent in the apparatus as possible. 1. Each decision is to be made individually. 2. Cuspinianus must be treated carefully and should generally only be followed when one of his readings agrees with one of the manuscripts. 3. When P and M agree, I have printed what they read. 4. In the orthography of all but proper nouns, when P and M do not agree and one of them is correct, I have tended to follow the "correct" reading, reasoning that it is more likely to have been correct originally than to have been made correct by accident. 5. On the other hand, on the few occasions in which Cuspinianus and one of the two manuscripts agree in an "incorrect" spelling, I have printed the incorrect one. 6. In the matter of proper nouns, particularly consular names, when the two

32 manuscripts do not agree and neither is "correct," I have generally printed the reading of the manuscript which agrees with Cuspinianus. 8.1 have avoided, wherever I could, making a decision on a reading based on what we know is the "correct" answer. When M, P and Cuspinianus each have different readings, and neither M nor P is "correct," I have chosen the reading from P since it is slightly more reliable than M. 9. Similarly, where M is lacking, as it frequently is in consular names, I have tended to print P no matter what the reading of Cuspinianus is. Dating the Consulships I have included dates for the consular years in the right-hand margins where it is possible to do so. For the standard list of Republican consular dates to 31 BCE, I follow Broughton (1951); for consular dates from 31 BCE to 519 CE, I follow Degrassi (1952). Cassiodorus' Republican list is generally a fairly accurate representative of the work of Livy and Aufidius Bassus from the 509 BCE up to 29 CE, which has made assigning dates fairly straightforward. From 161 CE to 519 as well, his list, based mostly on Victorius of Aquitaine, is quite complete, and does not pose many difficulties in assigning years to consular pairs. The years between 30 CE and 160 CE, however, are notoriously bad in all our manuscript sources, in some cases including consular pairs which clearly have no basis in reality. For years when both consuls can be assigned to the same year, I have assigned a year, which goes for both. When one consul can be assigned to that year, I have shown it thus (47/) with the year before the slash indicating the dateable consul, and vice versa. Sometimes years overlap in which case I have dated it thus (76/77), again

33 indicating consul prior and posterior in Cassiodorus' list. Where no dating is possible, I have assigned either "" or "/."

Copying Consular Names by Columns At 862 and 894 the manuscripts read "duo et Silani" and "duo et Aspri" respectively. Mommsen appears to have believed that Cassiodorus made a mistake in making these names nominatives from the ablative forms which he found in his source, Victorius of Aquitaine, who has "duobus Silanis" and "duobus Aspris" for these years,84 and Mommsen's text reproduces the error. However, this is clearly a copyist's error. Rather than writing out the list of consular pairs line by line, the copyist seems to have made it his practice, for the Republican consuls, to write a column of the praenomina, then the gentilicia, then a column of the word "et" and then the same process for the second names. For the imperial consuls, where typically only the cognomina are recorded, he wrote a column of cognomina, then a column of the word "et" and then a second column of cognomina. Faster, probably, but the two consular pairs who shared the same name got caught up in the columns and an "et" was added in between by mistake. Furthermore, there are other examples of the same practice. At 584 P reads "P Aulus Fabius et Q Aelius," where the correct reading (corrected by both Mommsen and Cuspinianus) is "Paulus Fabius et Q Aelius." M omits this consular pair, but it appears that in the archetype the initial "P" of "Paulus" was regarded as the praenomen, and Aulus a second name. At 354 and 355, the praenomina of the first consul in each pair are "M" and "Cn." The same praenomina occur immediately afterwards in the same place at
84 Mommsen 1894, 112. At 824, however, both manuscripts read "duo Augusti conss," which is correct.

34 356 and 357. The copyist, writing by columns, skipped the second "M" and "Cn." As a result, the next ten consular pairs have incorrect praenomina for the first consul since the whole list was bumped two spaces up. Whether this practice of copying down the columns was the work of the scribe of the Reichenau archetype or some earlier version cannot be said.85

85

The name of the sole consul of 399, Mallius Theodoras, is written in both manuscripts as "Manlius et Theodoras." Since this mistake appears in some of the manuscripts of Victorius, Cassiodorus' source, it is likely that he took it from Victorius and that it was not a copyist's error in Cassiodorus, at any rate.

35

Sigla: P Parisinus Latinus 4860 saec. X M Monacensis 14613 saec. XI Cusp. Johannes Cuspinianus, De consulibus Romanorum commentarii, ex optimis vetustissimisque auctoribus collecti (Basel, 1553).

36 In chronica magni aurelii cassiodori senatoris vc et inl ex questore sacri palatii ex cons ord ex mag offppo atque patricii praefatio.

Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis pristine dignitatem. Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum varietate detersa operi fidem historicae auctoritatis inpressi, quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem.

Ab Adam primo homine usque ad diluvium quod factum est sub noe colliguntur anni 11 CC XL II. Diluvium autem factum est propter gigantum nimiam feritatem. Qui corporis magnitudine parique animi sevitia pervalentes humanitatis ius omne confuderant.

Et a diluvio usque ad ninum qui primus omnium apud assyrios regnavit ann. D CCC XC Villi.

REGES ASSYRII

5 6 7

Ninus itaque regnavit apud Assyrios annos LII. Huius imperii anno XLHI natus est Abraham. is etiam condidit Nineven.

incipitMP in Cusp. palaciiM EPO P PP Cusp. praefacioM 1 reuoluistis Cusp. degerere M consuistis P ornaveritis Cusp, rederetis M factis MP, emend. Panvinius lubens Cusp, hystoricae P impressi Cusp, etatem M 3 pimus M aput M 4 Assurii M 5 aput M 7 ninneven M Niniven Cusp.

37 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Samiramis uxor Nini regnavit annos XLII. Haec Babiloniae muros instaurasse memoratur. Ninyas filius Nini et Samiramidis regnavit annos XXXVIII Arivis regnavit annos XXX. Arelius regnavit annos XL. Xerxes qui et Balaeus regnavit annos XXX. Armametres regnavit annos XXXVIII. Molechus regnavit annos XXXV. Baleus regnavit annos LII. Althadas regnavit annos XXXII. Huius temporibus fuit Prometheus vir sapiens. Mamythus regnavit annos XXX. Magchaleus regnavit annos XXX. Huius temporibus Atlans frater Promethei praecipuus astrologus habetur. 22 23 24 25 26 27 Sfereus regnavit annos XX. Mamylus regnavit annos XXX. Sparaethus regnavit annos XL. Huius temporibus a Cecrope rege Athenae sunt conditae. Ascatadis regnavit annos XL. Huius temporibus Moyses in monte Sina divinam suscepit legem. 28 Amyntes regnavit annos XLV

9 H e c M 12 annis Cusp. 13 Paleus M: Baleus Cusp. 15 Bolechus P : Belochus Cusp., ex Hier. sedadd. "a quibusdam hie Molochus scribitur. " 16 Baleus] MCusp. : Balaeus P 17 Alchadas M: Altadas Cusp. 19 Mamithus M: Mamyntus Cusp. 20 Magebateus M: Magehaleus Cusp. 21 precipuus P 22 Sereus M: Sphaereus Cusp. annis Cusp. 23 Mamylus] P Cusp. : Mamilus M annis Cusp. 24 Sparathus M: Sparetus Cusp. 25 Athene M 28 Amyntes] P Cusp. : AmintisM annis Cusp.

38 29 Huius temporibus Iesus successor Moysi terram palestinorum Iudeae genti distribuit. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Belochus regnavit annos XXV. Bellepares regnavit annos XXX. Lamprides regnavit annos XXXII. Sosares regnavit annos XX. Huius temporibus equus velocissimus Pegasus invenitur. Lampares regnavit annos XXX. Panias regnavit annos XLV. Sosarmus regnavit annos XVIIII. Huius temporibus Argonautarum navigatio et Orfeus Trax musicus opinabilis habetur. Mithreus regnavit annos XXVII. Huius temporibus Hercules athla exercuit et Priamus apud Ilium regnat. Per hos igitur reges Assiriorum colliguntur anni DCCCLII.

44

REGES LATINI

45 46 47

Latinus regnavit annos XXXII. a quo Latini sunt appellati. Huius imperii anno XXV Troia capta est. ad quern Aeneas profugus venit factusque gener eius ei successit in regnum.

48

Aeneas post VIII annos Troiae captae regnavit in Italia annos III.

29 succensor M iudex M 32 XXXIIIM: "triginta duos: alias, triginta tres " Cusp. 33 annis Cusp. 36 sic P, opinatur Mommsen ex Hieronymo xviiii M Pannias regnavit annos decern et novem Cusp., addens "Eusebius vero et Iornandes scribunt, hunc annis quadraginta quinque gubernasse. Vereor numerum hie corruptum Cassiodori. " 37 om.M 42 aputM regatM* 43 DCCCLIII M 44 Regis M 46 apellati M 47 quern] Cusp. : quam MP 48 Aneas M annis tribus Cusp.

39
49 50 51 52 53 54 Ascanius filius eius regnavit annos XXXVIII qui Albanum condidit. Silvius Aenee filius de Lavinia regnavit annos XXVIIII. Huius temporibus Homerus poeta fuisse memoratur. Aeneas Silvius regnavit annos XXXI. Huius temporibus Hebreorum rex David Hierosolimis regnat. 55 56 57 58 Latinus Silvius regnavit annos L. Huius temporibus Amazones Asiam vastaverunt. Cartago condita est a carcedone tyrio ut quidam dicunt. Salomon quoque filius David regnans Hierosolimis templum famosissimum condit. 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Alba Silvius regnavit annos XXXVIIII. Aegyptus Silvius regnavit annos XXIIII. Capys Silvius regnavit annos XXVIII. Carpentus Silvius regnavit annos XIII. Tiberinus Silvius regnavit annos VIII. Agrippa silvius regnavit annos XL. Aremulus silvius regnavit annos XVIIII. Huius temporibus Lycurcus apud Lacedemonas iura composuit. 67 68 69 70 Aventinus Silvius regnavit annos XXXVII. A quo mons Romanus quia ibi sepultus est nomen accepit. Procas silvius regnavit annos XXIII. Amulius Silvius regnavit annos XLIII.

51 om. M Sylvius Cusp. Aeneae Cusp, ex Lavinia Cusp. 53 AneasM 54 reg. M 55 annis Cusp. 58 David filius M 60 XXIII M 62 arpentus M: Calpetus Cusp, annis Cusp. 63 annis Cusp. 66 Licurcus aput M 68 Romanos Ma : Romanus Cusp. : Romanorum P 69 annis Cusp, xxviii M 70 Amulius] P Cusp. : Aemulius M

40 71 Qui fratrem suum Numitorem regno expulit cuius tempora isti sunt adplicita.

72

REGES ROMANI

73 74 75 76 77

Romulus regnavit annos XXXVIII. a quo Roma condita est. et ex Latinis Romani sunt nuncupati. Hie primum centum constituit senatores. Huius temporibus Syracusa et Cantina in Sicilia conditae sunt.

78 79

N u m a Pompilius regnavit annos XLI. Qui duos menses anno addidit Ianuarium et Februarium cum ante hunc decern tantum menses apud Romanos fuissent.

80

Capitolium quoque a fundamentis construxit.

81
82 83 84

Cuius etiam temporibus sibylla in Samo insignis habita est.

Tullus Hostilius regnavit annos XXXII. qui primus apud Romanos purpura usus est. Cuius temporibus Calcedon conditur et Bizantium quae nunc Constantinopolis appellatur.

85 86 87 88 89 90

Ancus Martius regnavit annos XXIII. Qui sexto decimo miliario ab urbe Roma Ostia condidit. Tarquinius Priscus regnavit annos XXXVII. Huius temporibus Massilia in Galliis condita est. Servius Tullus regnavit annos XXXIIII. Qui primus censum instituit civium Romanorum.

75 sunt conditi P : nucupati Ma 11 Cantina] P: C a n t i l a M : Catinia Cusp. Sicila Ma a a 79 a p u t M fuissetM 81 s y b i l l a M 82 Tullus M Tullius M> 83 a p u t M 84 que M apellatur M 85 Martius] P Cusp. : Marcius M annis Cusp. 87 X X X V I I I I M

41
91 92 93 His temporibus apud Persas Cyrus primum regnare coepit. Tarquinius Superbus regnavit annos XXXV. Huius temporibus Pytagoras physicus philosophus clarus habetur. 94 Expulso autem urbe Tarquinio bini consules coeperunt pro uno rege annis singulis administrare rem publicam.

95

HINC CONSULES

96 97

Iunius Brutus et L Tarquinius Hi annum integrum minime tenuerunt. Ad peragendum tempus aliis subrogatis, id est, L. Valerio Sp. Lucretio et Horatio Pulvillo.

509

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Valerius II et Titus Lucretius Spurius Largus et Titus Herannius Valerius III et P Postumius Valerius IIII et Titus Lucretius II Agrippa Menenius et P Postumius Opiter Virginius et Sp Cassius Postumus Cominius et T Largus His consulibus dictator primus T Largus et magister equitum Spurius Cassius ordinantur.

508 506 505 504 503 502 501

106 107

Servius Sulpicius et M Tullius T Ebutius et L Vetusius

500 499

91 a p u t M c e p i t M 92 SupebisM" SuperbisA/ 6 94 Tranquinio M sigulisM a plulicam M 99 Sp. Largius et T. Herminius Cusp, addens "ita in Cassiodori exemplo unico, quodhabui, hi coss. scribuntur: licet alter T. Heramnius perperam scriptus sit. " 100 II M 101 IIII] quartus M 102 Postumus M: Posthumius Cusp. 103 Opiter] P Cusp. : Opitus M Virginus P : Verginius Cusp. 105 His...Largus om. M Largius Cusp. Sp. Cassius Cusp.

42
108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

Q Cloelius et T Largius A Simphronius et M Minicius A Postumius et T Verginius App Claudius et T Servilius A Verginius et T Vetusius Sp Cassius et Post Cominius T Geganius et P Minutius M Minutius et A Simphronius Sp Nautius et Sex Furius T Siccius et C Aquilius Sp Cassius et Procul Virginius Ser Cornelius et Q Fabius L Aemilius et C Fabius M Fabius et L Valerius Q Fabius et C Iulius K Fabius et Sp Furius M Fabius et Cn Mallius K Fabius et T Verginius L Aemilius et E Servilius C Horatius et T Menenius A Verginius et Sp Servilius C Nautius et P Valerius L Furius et C Manilius L Aemilius et Opiter Verginius L Pinnarius et P Furius Ap Claudius et T Quintius L Valerius et T Aemilius

498 497 496 495 494 493 492 491 488 487 486 485 484 483 482 481 480 479 478 477 476 475 474 473/? 472 471 470

108 Largius] MCusp. : Largus P 114 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 115 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 125 Verginius] P Cusp. :VirgineusM 127 Menenius] MCusp. : Minenius P 130 L] P Cusp. : I M

43 135 136 137 138 139 140 HI 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 T Numicius et A Verginius T Quintius II et Q Servilius T Aemilius II et Q Fabius Q Servius et Sp Postumius Q Fabius II et T Quintius III A Postumius Albus et Sp Furius L Aebutius et P Servilius L Lucretius Tricipitinus et T Veturius P Volumnius et Ser Sulpicius P Claudius et P Valerius Q Fabius et L Cornelius L Minutius et L Nautius Q Minucius et M Horatius M Valerius et Sp Verginius C Veturius et T Nomilius SpTarpeius etAAternius His conss legati Athenas missi ad leges describendas. P Curiacius et Sex Quintius T Menenius et P Sestius Hoc tempore a consulibus ad decemviros translatum imperium est, per quos quadraginta annis administrata res publica est. Atque iterum consules creati sunt. 155 156 157 158 L Valerius et M Horatius L Herminius et T Verginius M Geganius et C Iulius T Quintius IIII et Agrippa Furius 449 448 447 446 453 452 469 468 467 466 465 464 463 462 461 460 459 458 457 456 455 454

142 L] P Cusp. :\M Tricipitinis M 146 Minucius M NauciusM 147 Horatius] P Cusp. : Honoratius M 150 Tarpeius] P Cusp. : Tarpeus M 153 T om.P Menenius M Cusp. :MemeniusP 154 puplicaM 157 GaniusM

44
159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

M Ginutius et T Curiacius L Papirius et L Semphronus M Geganius et P Quintius M Fabius et Post Aebutius C Furius Tacitus et M Papirius Proculus Geganius et L Menenius T Quintius V et Agrip Manlius M Geganius et L Servius L Papirius cons C Iulius et L Verginius C Iulius II et L Verginius II T Quintius VI et Cn Iulius L Papirius et L Iulius Iulius L Servius II et Hostus Lucretius Cossus Cornelius et T Quintius P Servilius et L Papirius C Semphronius et Q Fabius M Cornelius et L Furius Q Fabius et C Furius M Papirius et C Nautius M Aemilius et C Valerius Cn Cornelius et L Furius L Lucretius et Ser Sulpicius L Valerius et M Manlius

445 444 443 442 441 440 439 437 436 435 434 431 430 429 428 427 423 413 412 411 410 409 393 392

160 L Papirius] P Cusp. : I Papirius M Simphronius M: Sempronius Cusp. 163 G Fyrius M 167 conss. M 170 VII M Cusp, fortasse ex archetypo, sed lectio Parisini certe recta est. 171 L Iulius P I Iulius M 172 I Servilius M: L Sergius Cusp. 178 NatiusMa 181 I Lucretius M 182 I Valerius M

45
183 His conss post urbem captam redeuntes Gallos dux Romanus nomine Camillus extinxit. De quibus triumphans in urbe quasi et ipse patriae conditor Romulus meruit nuncupari. 184 Tunc dignitates mutatae sunt et in loco consulum per annos XVII tribuni militares fuerunt. 185 Quibus ob insolentiam remotis per annos IIII potestas consulum tribunorumque cessavit. 186 Deinde rursus tribus annis per tribunos militares est administrata res publica. Post annos vero XXIIII reversa est dignitas consularis. 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 L Sestius de plebe et T Aemilius Mamercus patricius L Genucius et Q Servilius C Sulpicius Peticus et C Licinius C Genucius et L Aemilius Mamercus Q Servilius et L Genucius C Sulpicius et C Licinius C Poetilius et M Fabius M Papirius et Cy Manlius C Plaucius et C Fabius L Marcius et Cn Manlius Q Fabius et M Popillius C Sulpicius Peticus et M Valerius M Fabius et T Quintius C Sulpicius et M Valerius P Valerius et C Marcius C Sulpicius et T Quintius 366 365 364 363 362 361 360 359 358 357 356 355 354 353 352 351

183 urbe] P : orbe M : urbem Cusp, nucupari Ma 184 mutate M 185 qui his M 186 p u p l i c a M i * 187 Aemilius] P Cusp. : E m i l i u s M 189 Peeticus M 195 Plaucius] M Cusp. : Plautius P 198 Peticis M

46
203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

M Popilius et P Scipio L Furius et App Claudius M Valerius et M Popilius T Manlius et C Plaucius M Valerius et P Poetilius M Fabius et Ser Sulpicius C Marcius et T Manlius M Valerius et A Cornelius C Marcius et Q Servilius C Plautius et L Aemilius T Manlius et P Decius T Aemilius et Q Publilius L Furius et C Menius His consulibus rostra navium de Antiatibus in foro fixa sunt. C Sulpicius etPAelius L Papirius et K Duillius M Valerius et M Atilius T Veturius et Sp Postumius A Cornelius et Cn Domitius His conss pax cum Alexandra rege Epiri facta est. M Marcellus et C Valerius L Papirius et C Plaustius L Aemilius et C Plautius C Plautius et P Cornelius

350 349 348 347 346 345 344 343 342 341 340 339 338

217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226

337 336 335 334 332

331 330 329 328

203 Scipo M 206 Plaucius] Cusp. : Placius M: Plautius P 207 Poetilius] P Cusp. : PoeteliusM 212 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M 214 Publicius M: Cusp. om. nomen 218 Duillius] P Cusp. :DailliusM 219 om. M 225 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M 226 Plautius] P Cusp. : Plaucius M

47
227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 L Cornelius et Q Publilius C Poetelius III et L Papirius His conss Alexandria in Aegypto condita. L Furius et D Iunius C Sulpicius et Q Aelius Q Fabius et L Fulvius T Veturius et Sp Postumius Q Papirius et L Publilius L Papirius et Q Aulius M Folius et L Plautius C Iunius et Q Aemilius Sp Nautius et M Popillius L Papirius IIII et Q Puplius M Poetilius et C Sulpicius L Papirius et C Iunius M Valerius et P Decius His conss per Appium Claudium censorem via facta et aqua inducta est, quae ipsius nomine nuncupantur. 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 C Iunius et Q Aemilius Q Fabius et C Marcius Q Fabius et P Decius Ap Claudius et L Volumnius P Cornelius et Q Martius His consulibus viae per agros publicae factae. L Postumius et T Minutius 305 311 310 308 307 306 325 323 322 321 320 319 318 317 316 315 314 313 312 327 326

234 PbliliusM a 236 Plautius] P Cusp. : P l a u c i u s M 238 Nautius] P Cusp. : Naucius M Pupillius M: Popilius Cusp. 239 IIII] iun MP emendavi Puplius] MCusp. : P u b l i u s P 247 Claudius] P Cusp. : Cladius M 248 Martius] P Cusp. : Marcius M 249 facte M 250 Minutius] MCusp. : M i n u c i u s P

48
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270

P Sulpicius et P Sempronius L Genutius et Ser Cornelius M Libius et L Aemilius M Valerius et Q Apuleius M Fulvius et T Manlius L Scipio et Cn Fulvius Q Maximus et P Decius L Volumnius et App Claudius Q Fabius et P Decius L Postumius et M Atilius L Papirius Cursor et Sp Carvilius Q Fabius et D Brutus L Postumius et C Iunius P Cornelius et M Curius M Valerius et Q Caeditius Q Marcius et P Cornelius M Marcellus et C Nautius M Valerius et C Aelius C Claudius et M Aemilius C Servilius et L Caelius

304 303 302 300 299 298 297 296 295 294 293 292 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 284

252 Genutius] P Cusp. : Genucius M 253 Lybius P : Livius Cusp. 254 Apuleius] P Cusp. : Aputeius M 260 Postumius] P Cusp. : Postumus M 262 T Brutus M: om. Cusp, praenomen 265 Caeditius] P Cusp. : Caedicius M 267 Nautius] P Cusp. : Naucius M

49
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

P Cornelius Dolabella et Cn Domitius C Fabricius et Q Aemilius L Aemilius et Q Marcius P Valerius et T Coruncanius P Ulpicius et P Decius C Fabricius et Q Aemilius P Cornelius et C Iunius Q Fabius et C Genucius M Curius et L Lentulus Ser Cornelius et M Curius C Fabius et C Claudius L Papirius Cursor et Sp Carvilius K Quintius et L Genutius C Genutius et Cn Cornelius Q Ogulnius et C Fabius P Sempronius et App Claudius M Atilius et L Iulius Libo D Iunius et N Fasius Q Fabius et L Manlius App Claudius et Q Fulvius M Valerius et M Otacilius L Postumius et Q Mamilius L Valerius et L Otacicilius Cn Cornelius et C Duilius C Aquilius et L Cornelius

283 282 281 280 279 278 277 276 275 274 273 272 271 270 269 268 267 266 265 264 263 262 261 260 259

271 Domitius] P Cusp. : Domicius M 273-27'4 om. M 273 Martius Cusp. 274 Coruncanus Cusp. 285 Hos consules om. C, sed rest. Mommsen, recte credo. Adsunt in Cuspiniani libro, sed Me eos ex Eutropio se sustulisse testatur. 286 Sempronius] M Cusp. : Semphronius P 288 M Fasius M: Cn Fabius Cusp. 289 om. P Manulius Cusp. 292 Postumus M: Posthumius Cusp. 293 om. M Octacilius Cusp.

50 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 AAtilius Calatinus et C Sulpicius Cn Cornelius et C Atilius Erranus Q Caedicius et L Manlius M Aemilius Paulus et Ser Fulvius Nobilior Cn Cornelius et A Atilius Cn Servilius et C Sempronius C Aurelius Cotta et P Servilius L Caecilius Metellus et C Furius C Atilius Regulus et L Manlius P Claudius et L Iunius P Servilius et C Aurelius L Caecilius et N Fabius M Fabius et M Otacilius M Fabius et C Atilius A Manlius et C Sempronius C Fundanius et C Sulpicius C Lutatius Cerconius et A Postumius Q Lutatius Catulus et A Manlius C Claudius Cento et M Sempronius C Manlius et Q Valerius His conss ludis Romanis primum tragoedia et comoedia a Lucio Livio ad scenam data. T Sempronius et P Cornelius L Cornelius et Q Fulvius C Licinius et P Cornelius T Manlius Torquatus et C Atilius 238/237 236 235 258 257 256 255 254 253 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 242 241 240 239

297 om.M 298 Manlius] Erranus Mcf. 297 supra. 299 Fulvius] P Cusp. : Fulcius M 300 et om.M 301 om. M 302 Aurelius] P Cusp. : Cornelius M 304 om. M 306 om.M 307 Caecilius] P Cusp. : Cecilius M 308-310 om. M 310 Manilius Cusp. 312 Lutacius M: Luctatius Cusp. 313 Lutatius om. M: Luctatius Cusp. 316 comaediaP

51
321 322 323 324 325 326 L Postumius et Sp Carvilius Q Fabius et M Pomponius M Lepidus et M Oblicius C Papirius et M Pomponius M Aemilius et M Iunius His conss Hamilcar Hannibalis pater in Hispania bellum Romanis parans occisus est. Hie solitus dicere quattuor filios contra populum Romanum velut catulos leoninos se educare. 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 L Postumius et Cn Fulvius Q Fabius et Sp Carvilius P Valerius et M Atilius L Apustius et M Valerius C Atilius et L Aemilius T Marcius et Q Fulvius II C Flamminius et P Furius Pilo M Marcellus et Cn Cornelius P Cornelius et M Minutius L Veturius et C Lutatius His conss via Flamina munita et circus factus qui Flaminius appellate. 338 339 M L i v i u s e t L Aemilius His conss Hannibal Hamilcaris filius in Hispania bellum molitur. 340 P Cornelius et T Sempronius 218 219 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 234 233 232 231 230

324-325 C Papirius et M Emilius Msed alios conss. om. : C Papyrius Cusp. 326 se add. Cusp, et Mommsen 329 om. M 331 om. M 332 Marcus M: Manlius Cusp. 335 Minutius] P Cusp. : Minucius M 337 Flamina] P M: Flaminia Cusp Flaminus a M a p e l l a t e M 338-339 om. M

52
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 Cn Servilius Geminus et C Flamminius L Paulus et C Terentius Barro T Sempronius et Q Maximus Q Fabius Maximus et M Marcellus P Maximus et T Gracchus Q Fulvius Flaccus III et App Claudius Fulvius Centumalus et P Sulpicius M Marcellus et M Valerius Q Fabius V et Q Fulvius Flaccus IIII M Marcellus et T Quintius C Claudius Nero et M Livius Salinator L Veturius et Q Caecilius Metellus P Scipio et P Crassus M Cornelius et T Sempronius Cn Servilius et C Servilius M Servilius et T Claudius Nero Cn Cornelius Lentulus et C Aelius Paeto P Sulpicius et C Aurelius L Cornelius et P Villius Sex Aelius Paeto et T Quintius C Cornelius et Q Minutius 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197

342 Terentius] P Cusp. : Terrentius M 346 III et] P : et III M 348 et om. M 349350 om.M 351 G Claudius M 352 om.M 353 C r a s s o M 354-356 om. M 356 P Servilius P, sed quia hocpraenomen et quod sequitur sunt eadem quae reperiuntur ad 354 et 355 in hoc ms. prior a praenomina 358-364 ad 356-362 et 366-370 ad 364-368 male applicantur quia librarius, scribens omnia praenomina in columna prima, deinde altera nomina in columna altera, etc., erraverat. 357 L Cornelius P P o e t a M 358 Sex Sulpicius P et om. M 359 C Cornelius P 360 L Aelius P Poeto M: Paetus Cusp. 361 L Cornelius P Minutius] P Cusp. Minucius M

53
362 363 364 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 L Furius et M Marcellus L Valerius Flaccus et M Cato P Scipio II et T Sempronius L Quintius et Cn Domitius P Scipio Nasica et M Acilius L Scipio et C Laelius M Fulvius et Cn Manlius M Messala et C Livius Salinator M Lepidus et C Flaminius Sp Postumius et Q Marcius His conss athletarum certamina primum a Fulvio edita. App Claudius et M Sempronius P Claudius et L Porcius Licinius M Claudius et Q Fabius Labeon His conss Hannibal apud Prusian veneno periit. L Paulus et Cn Baebius P Lentulus et M Baebius A Postumius et C Tarpurnius Q Fulvius et L Manlius M Iunius et Cn Manlius T Sempronius et C Claudius Cn Cornelius et Q Petillius M Lepidus et Q Mucius Sp Postumius et Q Mucius 182 ?/i8i 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 185 184 183 196 195 194 192 191 190 189 188 187 186

362 P Furius P Marcellus] P Cusp. : Marcellius M 363 om. M 365 Consules huius anni "L Cornelius et Q Minucius " voluit Mommsen restituere. Cuspinianus habet, sedex Livio. credo Cassiodorum hos non habuisse.367 M Scipio P 368 M Scipio P Laelius] P Cusp. : Lelius M 370-371 om. M 373 FlvioM" 3 374 M Sempronius Labeon Mmale applicavit. 376 Labeon om. M, sedvide 374, supra. 383 om. M 385 om. M

54
387 388 389 L Postumius Albinus et M Popillius C Popillius et P Aelius P Licinius et C Cassius 173 172 171

390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409

A Hostilius Mancinus et A Atilius

L Marcius Philippus et Q Servilius L Paulus II et C Licinius Q Aelius Paeto et M Iunius M Mamercus et C Sulpicius Cn Octavius et T Manlius A Manlius et Q Cassius T Sempronius et M Iuvencius P Scipio Nasica et C Marcius M Messala et C Fannius L Anicius et M Cornelius Cn Cornelius Dolabella et M Fulvius M Aemilius et C Popillius His conss metalla in Macedonia instituta. Sex Iulius et L Aurelius L Lentulus et C Marcius P Scipio et M Claudius L Postumius et Q Opimius Q Fulvius et T Annius Hi primi consules Kalendis Ianuariis magistratum inierunt propter subitum Celtiberiae bellum.

no
169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158

157 156 155 154 153

4io

M Marcellus et L Valerius

152

387 Potumius Abinus M: Posthumius Albinus Cusp. 388 om. M 390 et A Atilius om. M 392 om. M 393 Poeto M: Paetus Cusp. 394 Marcus Msedvide infra 398 : Marcellus Cusp., sed add. "in Cassiodoro scribebatur M. Mamercus." 395 Octavius] P Cusp. : Octavus M 396 om. M 397 Iuvencius] MCusp. : I u v e n t i u s P 398 Marcius] P : Martius Cusp. : Mamercus M 401 et om. M 402 Aemilius] P Cusp. : Aemelius M 407 om. M 409 Celtiberie M

55

411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434

L Lucullus et A Postumius T Quintius et M Acilius L Marcius et M Manlius Sp Postumius et L Piso P Africanus et C Livius Cn Cornelius et L Mummius Q Fabius Maximus et L Hostilius Ser Calba et L Aurelius App Claudius et Q Metellus L Metellus et Q Maximus Cn Cepio et Q Pompeius Q Cepio et C Laelius Cn Piso et M Popilius P Scipio et D Brutus M Aemilius et C Hostilius Mancinus P Furio et Sex Atilius Serranus Ser Fulvius et Q Carpurnius His conss Aemilianus Scipio ob Numantinum bellum cum candidatus non esset consul creatur. P Africanus et C Fulgius Flaccus C Mucius et L Carpurnius P Popilius et P Sulpicius P Crassus et L Valerius Flaccus App Claudius et M Perpenna C Sempronius et M Aquilius

151 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 HI 140 139 138 137 136 135

134 133 132/131 130 129

415 Africanus] P Cusp. :AffricanusM 416 Mummius] MCusp. : N u m m i u s . P 417 et om. M 419 et om. M 420 om. M 421 et Q Pompeius om. M, sedvide 422, infra. 422 Laelius] P Cusp. : et O Lelius M 423 Popilius] M Cusp. : Pompilius P 424 Brutus] M Cusp. : Prutus P 425-426 om. M 426 Furius Cusp. 429 P Africanus] Cusp. : A Africanus P : P Affricanus M 431 om. M

56
435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 Cn Octavius et T Annius L Cassius et L Cinna M Aemilius et L Aurelius M Plautius et M Fulvius C Cassius Longinus et C Sextius Q Caecilius et T Quintius Cn Domitius et C Fannius His conss C Sextius oppidum aedificavit in quo Aquae Sextiae in Galliis. 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 L Opimius et Q Maximus P Manlius et C Papirius L Caecilius et L Aurelius M Cato et Q Marcius L Caecilius et Q Mutius C Linicius Geta et Q Maximus M Metellus et M Scaurius His conss L Metellus et Cn Domitius censores artem ludicram ex urbe removerunt preter Latinum tibicinem cum cantore et ludum talarium. 451 452 453 454 455 456 M Acilius Balbus et C Cato C Caecilius et C Papirius M Livius Drusus et L Piso P Scipio et L Carpurnius Bestia Sp Postumius et M Minutius Q Metellus et M Silanus M>1 om. M 438 M Plaucius et M Aurelius M, 114 113 112 111 110 109 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 128 127 126 125 124 123 122

435 Octavius] P Cusp. : Octavus M

vide 437, supra. 439-441 om. M 442 Hi M C Sextius] MCusp. C om. P edificavit M 443 Opimius] P Cusp. : Optimius M 447 om. M 448 Geta om. M 450 HiM CnMiciusM ludricamP talanumM calanum Cusp. 451 om. M 452 Caecilius] MCusp. : Cecilius P 453 om. M 455 et om. M Minutius] MCusp : Minucius P 456 om. M

57
457 458 459 460 Ser Galba et M Scaurus L Cassius et C Marius Q Servilius et C Atilius Erranus His conss per Servilium Coepionem consulem iudicia equitibus et senatoribus communicata. 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 P Rutilius Rufus et C Manlius C Marius II et C Fl Fimbrius C Marius III et L Aurelius Orestes C Marius IIII et L Lutatius C Marius V et M Aquilius C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus M Antonius et A Postumius Q Metellus et T Didius Cn Lentulus et P Crassus Cn Domicius et C Cassus His conss Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 P Crassus et Q Scaevola C Coelius et L Domitius C Valerius Flaccus et M Herennius C Claudius et M Pulcher Perperna L Marcius et Sex Iulius L Caesar et C Rutilius Lupus Cn Pompeius et L Porcius Cato 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 108 107 106

457 Scaurus] MCusp. : Scaurius P 458-459 om. M 459 Attilius Cusp. 461 Manlius] MCusp : Manilius P A&l C Maurius et C Finbrius M 463-466 om. M 464 Q Luctatius Cusp. 470 om. M Cn Domitius et C Cassius Cusp. 471 Ptolomaeus Aegipti M A12> om. M Caelius Cusp. 475 om. M 477 om. M 478 Pompeius] P Cusp. : Pompeus M

58
479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 L Sylla et Q Pompeius L Cinna et Cn Octavius L Cinna II et C Marius VII L Cinna III et Cn Papirius L Cinna IIII et Cn Papirius II His conss Asiam in XLIIII regiones Sylla distribuit. L Scipio et C Norbanus His conss capitolium custodum neglegentia concrematur. Cn Carbo III et C Marius M Tullius et Cn Dolabella L Sylla II et Q Metellus P Servilius et App Claudius M Lepidus et Q Catulus M a m Aemilius et D Brutus Cn Octavius et C Curio L Octavius et C Cotta L Licinius Lucullus et M Cotta M Lucullus et C Cassius L Gellius et Cn Lentulus Cn Aufidius et P Lentulus M Crassus et Cn Pompeius Q Metellus et Q Hortensius His conss a Q Catulo reparatum dedicatumque capitolium est. 502 L Metellus et Q Marcius 68 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 83 88 87 86 85 84

479 et ow. M 480-481 om. M 482 III om. M 483 om. M 484 XL M 486 negligentia M 488 C Dolabella M 489-496 om. M 499 Crassus] P Cusp. : Grassus M 500 et Q Quintius M 501 aq Catulo P : atque Catulo M 502 om. M

59
503 504 506 507 508 509 510 C Piso et M Glabrio An Lepidus et L Tarquatus L Caesar et Q Marcius M Cicero et C Antonius D Silanus et L Murena M Pupius et M Valerius His conss Catilina in agro Pistoriensi a C Antonio bello peremptus est. 511 512 513 514 515 516 Q Metellus et L Afranius C Caesar et M Bibulus L Piso et A Gabinius His conss Clodii rogatione Cicero in exilium est profectus. P Lentulus et Q Metellus His conss propter civiles dissensiones per SC de exilio Cicero revocatur. 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 Cn Lentulus et L Philippus Cn Pompeius et M Crassus App Claudius et L Domicius Cn Domicius et M Messala Cn Pompeius et Q Metellus M Marcellus et Ser Sulpicius L Paulus et M Marcellus L Lentulus et C Marcellus 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 57 60 59 58 67 66/65 64 63 62 61

504-505 Man Lepidus et [L Volcacius L Cotta et] L Torquatus rest. Mommsen. Hi consules absunt cum a Cuspiniano turn ab archetypo. Num adfuerint in epitome Liviana est ignotum. 506 Caesar] P Cusp. : Cesar M 509 Pupius] P Cusp. : Puppius M 510 Pistoriensis M p e r e m p t i s M 512 Caesar] P Cusp. : Cesar M 513 A Gabinius] P Cusp. : M Valerius M 514 r o g a c i o n e M 515 P Lentulus] P Cusp. : L Lentulus M 516 Cicero] P Cusp. : C e r o M 517 om. M 520-521 om. M 524 om. M

60
525 His conss perniciosae in curia conflantur de Pompeio Cesareque discordiae. 526 Sed Gaius Iulius Caesar de Galliis veniens Pompeium fugavit Italia. Aurum atque argentum Romae de aerario sustulit. 527 Ac primus Romanorum singulare optinuit imperium. a quo Caesares Romani principes appellati. imperavit autem annos IIII menses VI sub quo hi consules fuerunt. 528 IMPERATORES R O M A N I I 529 530 531 C Iulius Caesar II et P Servilius Q Fusius et P Ciaticanus His conss Caesar Pompeium Farsalico proelio superavit. Pompeius fugiens in Aegyptum occisus est. 532 533 534 535 536 C Iulius Caesar III et M Lepidus C Iulius Caesar IIII et Fab Maximus His conss C Iulius Caesar per quadruum triumphavit. C Iulius Caesar V et M Antonius His consulibus M Antonius Lupercalibus sella aurea sedenti Caesari diadema rennuenti imposuit. Atque Idibus Martiis Caesar in Pompeia curia occisus est. 537 Cui successit Octavianus Caesar qui regnavit annis LVI mensibus VI. Per quae tempora hi consules extiterunt. II 538 C Pansa et A Hirtius 43 44 46 45 48 47/?

525 P o m e i o M a C e s a r a q u e M 526 Caesar] MCusp. : Cesar P Italia] Cusp, fortasse emend. : Italiam P M 527 A primus M Caesares] MCusp. : Cesares P VI] P : septem M 528 Imperatores I Romani P M 529 et P] P : P et M 530 Fusius] M Cusp : Fuvius P Ciaticanus Cusp M: Vaticanus P 531 Falsalico M: Pharsalico Cusp. Egyptum M 532 Lepidis M 534 quadruum] P M quadriduum emend. Mommsen, fortasse recte 536 Cesari P M a r c i i s M impompeia M: in Pompeiana Cusp. 537 extiterunt] M Cusp exstiterunt P

61
539 His conss Caesar Octavianus Antonius et Lepidus amicitiae foedus inierunt. 540 M Cicero Caiete per Popilium militem occisus est annorum LX trium. 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 Caesar Octavianus forum Augustum aedificavit. M Lepidus et L Plancus P Servilius II et L Antonius Cn Domicius et C Asinius L Censorinus et C Calvisius App Claudius et C Norbanus M Agrippa et L Caninius His conss lacus Lucrinus in portum conversus est. L Gellius et M Cocceius Sex Pompeius et L Cornificius L Scribonius et L Atratinus C Caesar et L Vulcatius Cn Domitius et C Sossius C Caesar II et M Messela His conss apud Actium M Antonius a Cesare superatur. C Caesar III et M Crassus His conss Nicopolim Caesar construit. ludos Actiacos instituit. 558 Antonius a Caesare proelio peremptus Alexandriae in mausoleo cum Cleopatra reconditur. 559 C Caesar IIH et Sex Apuleius 29 30 36 35 34 33 32 31 42 41 40 39 38 37

539 a m i c i c i a e M 541 Cesar P 545-546 om.M 548 conversum P 549 Gellius] P Cusp. : Genlius M Cocceius] P Cusp. : Cocceus M 550 Cornificius] P Cusp. Cernificius M 551 om.M 553 Domitius] P Cusp. : Domicius M 554 om.M Messela] P Messala Cusp. 555 a p u t M 557 Actiacus Pa 558 Cesare M conditur M

62
560 561 562 563 C Caesar V et M Agrippa II His conss Parthorum dissensiones per Caesarem sedatae. C Caesar VI et M Agrippa III Caesar leges protulit, iudices ordinavit, provincias disposuit et ideo Augustus cognominatus est. 564 565 566 567 Cuius temporibus floruerunt Vergilius, Horatius et Livius. C Augustus Caesar VII et T Statilius C Augustus Caesar VIII et M Silanus His conss Cantabros, Germanos, Salassos Cesar perdomuit. C Augustus Caesar V i l l i et C Norbanus 568 569 His conss Astures et Cantabri per Lucium Lanium perdomiti. C Augustus Caesar X et Cn Piso 570 571 572 573 574 M Marcellus et L Arruntius M Lollius et Q Lepidus M Apuleius et P Silius His conss aquilas et signa Crassiana de Parthis Caesar recepit. C Sentius et Q Lucretius 575 576 His conss Caesari ex provintiis redeunti currus cum corona aurea decretus est quo ascendere noluit. Cn Lentulus et P Lentulus 577 578 579
580

28

27

26 25

24

23 22 21 20

19

T Furnius et C Silanus L Domitius et P Scipio M Drusus et L Piso

18 17 16
15

560 Cesar P 563 Cesar M p r o v i n t i a s P 564 Virgilius Aft Cusp. 565 Cesar M a 566 Cesar M 567 Cantabos M 568 Cesar M N o r b a n i s M 569 A s t o r e s M perdomiti] emend. Mommsen : perdomuit C Cusp. 570 Cesar P 571-572 om. M 571 Aruncius Cusp. 573 Apulleius M P Silius] P : P Sillius Cusp. : P Arruntius M 574 decepit M 577 om. M

63
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 Cn Lentulus et M Crassus Ti Nero et P Quintilius M Messala et P Sulpicius P Fabius et Q Aelius Iullus Antonius et Affricanus Fabius Drusus Nero et L Quintius His conss apud Lingonum gentem templum Caesari Drusus sacravit. 588 589 C Asinius et C Martius His conss inter Albim et Rhenum Germani omnes Tiberio Neroni dediti. 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 Per Sextum Apuleium Pannonii subacti. Ti Nero et Cn Piso D Laelius et C Antistius Augustus Caesar XI et L Sylla C Calvisius et L Passienus C Lentus et M Messula His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus filius dei in Bethleem nascitur anno imperii Augusti XLI. 597 598 599 600 C Augustus Caesar XII et M Plaucius Cossus Lentulus et L Piso C Augustus Caesar XIII et L Paulus C Vinicius et P Alfenus 2 1 1 2 7 6 5 4 3 8 14 13 12 11 10 9

583-586 om. M 584 Paulus Fabius P Cusp., fortasse PAulus. Sed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. 585 Iullo sanctionibus P : Iulius Antonius Cusp.

587 aputM CesariP 588 Martius] MCusp. : MarciusP 589TiberoP 591 om. M 592 Laelius] P Cusp. : Lelius M 595 om. M 596 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethlehem M 597 Plaucius] MCusp. : Plautius P 598-600 om. M

64
601 602 603 604 M Servilius et L Lamia Sex Aelius et C Sentius Cn Cinna et L Valerius His conss per dies octo Tiberis impetu miseranda clades hominum domorumque fuit. 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 M Lepidus et L Arruntius Q Cecilius et ALinicius M Furius et Sex Nonius Q Sulpicius et C Poppaeus P Dolabella et C Silanus M Lepidus et T Statilius Ger Caesar et C Fonteius L Plancus et C Silius Sex Pompeius et Sex Apuleius His conss imperator Augustus obiit septuagesimo sexto anno aetatis suae, imperii autem quinquagesimo sexto semis. Huic successit imperium Tiberius Caesar qui imperavit annos XXIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt. Ill 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 Drusus Cesar et C Norbanus Sisenna Statilius et L Scribonius His conss matematici urbe pelluntur. L Pomponius et C Cecilius Ti Caesar et Germanicus Caesar M Silanus et C Norbanus His conss Germanicus Caesar in Suria mortuus est. n 18 19 15 16 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 3 4 5

606 Cecilius] MCusp. : Caecilius P 607-608 om. M 610 Statilius] P Cusp. : Stadius M 611 om. M 614 septuagessmo M in om. M i n p e r i u m M Cesar M inperavit M hi] hie M 616 Scribonius] P Cusp. : Scribonus M 618 Cecilius] MCusp. : Caecilius P 619 Ti et Germanias Cesar M 621 Cesar M est om.P

65
622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 634a 635 M Valerius et M Aurelius Ti Caesar et Drusus Caesar D Haterius et C Sulpicius C Asinius et C Antistius His conss Drusus Caesar publice funeratur. Ser Cornelius et L Visellius M Asinius et Cossus Cornelius C Calvisius et Cn Getulicus L Piso et M Crassus App Silanus et P Silius C Rubellius et C Fufius M Vinicius et L Cassius Ti Caesar V conss duo Gemini His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus passus est VIII kal. Aprilis et defectio solis facta est qualis ante vel postmodum numquam fuit. 636 637 638 639 640 Vinicius et Longinus Sulpicius et Sylla Priscus et Vitellus Gallus et Nonianus His conss Persius Flaccus satyricus poeta Volaterris nascitur. 641 Gallienus et Plautianus 36 30 33 34 35 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 20 21 22 23

623 Drusus Caesar] Caesar om. M 625 om. M 626 Cesar P puplice M 628-629 om. M 631-633 om. M 634a Neque habentmss neque Cuspinianus, sedego restitui. 637 Sylla] P Cusp. : Silla M 638 Vitellius Cusp., addens "ita in Cassiodori opusculo leguntur coss. " 639 om. M 640 satyricus] atyricus P : atyraus M: om. Cusp.

66
642 His conss Tiberius imperator in Campania moritur. Cui successit C Caesar cognomento Caligula qui regnavit annis tribus et mensibus XI. Sub quo hi consules extiterunt. IIII 643 644 645 646 Proculus et Nicrinus Iulianus et Asprenas Publicula et Nerva His conss Pilatus in multas incidens calamitates propria se manu interfecit. 647 648 Caesar et Iulianus His conss C Caesar cognomento Caligula in protectoribus suis occiditur in palatio anno aetatis XXIIII. Cui successit Claudius qui imperavit annis XIII mensibus VIII diebus XXVIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt. V 649 650 651 Caesar II et Saturninus Saturninus II et Venustus His conss Petrus apostolus Romam mittitur ubi evangelium praedicans X X V annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat. 652 653 654 Tiberius et Gallius Crispinus et Taurus His conss Claudius de Brittannis triumphavit et Orcadas insulas Romano adiecit imperio. 655 656 Vinicius et Cornelius His conss inter Theram et Therasiam exorta est insula habens stadia XXX. 642 XI] MCusp. :XP III M 648 in protectoribus] PM a protectoribus Hier. Cusp. palacioM etatis M 649 Saturninus] P Cusp. : Saturnius M 651 PetusM a 653 ThaurusM 654 PrittannisM 655 VinciusM a 656 studiaP 45/42 44 41 41/40/37 38 -/-

67
657 658 Asiaticus et Cornelius His conss descriptio Romae facta est et inventa sunt civium Romanorum centena milia et XLIIII. 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 Trachia hucusque regnata in provinciam redigitur. Tiberius II et Vitellus Vitellius II et Publicola Veranus et Gallus Vetus et Nervilianus Claudius et Orfitus Silvanus et Silvius Tiberius III et Antoninus Silanus et Otho His conss Claudius moritur in palatio anno aetatis LXIIII. Huic successit Nero qui regnavit annis XIII mensibus VII diebus XXVIII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt. VI 669 670 671 Silanus II et Antonius II Marcellinus et Aviola His conss sanctus Paulus apostolus Romam vinctus a Felice preside destinatur. 672 Probus etiam eruditissimus grammaticus Romae cognoscitur. 673 674 675 Ursulus Tolosensis celeberrime in Gallia rethoricam docet. Nero et Vetus Nero II et Piso 55 57 53 54 47 48 49 50 51 52 51/53 53/52 46/-

657 Victorius "Asiaticus et Silanus" habet. Itaque "Cornelius" in hoc loco fortasse scriptum est a quodam librario per dittographiam. 658 Rome M et XLIIII] et om. M 659 regnata] emend. Cusp, et Momm. : regnat P M provintiam P 660 om. M Vitellius Cusp. 661 Vitellius] MCusp. : Vitellus P 662-663 om. M 666 om. M Antonius Cusp, scribens "Sic in Cassiodori exemplo unico invent. " 668 palacio M etatis M 669 om. M 672 Rome M 612, retholicam P 675-678 om. M

68
676 677 678 679 680 681 Nero III et Messala Nero IIII et Cornelius Pius et Turpilianus Macrinus et Gallus Crassus et Bassus His conss thermae a Nerone aedificatae quas Neronianas appellavit. cuius odio, mutato vocabulo, nunc Alexandrinae nominantur. 682 683 Silvanus et Paulinus His conss Nero ut similitudinem Troiae ardentis inspiceret plurimam partem Romanae urbis incendit. 684 685 Censinus et Apuleius His conss duae provinciae factae sunt Pontus Polemoniacus et Alpes Cottiae Cottio rege defuncto. 686 687 688 689 Capita et Rufus Italicus et Turpilianus Silvanus et Otho His conss Romae sanctus Petrus et Paulus apostolus trucidati sunt a Nerone. 690 Qui turpiter vivens cum a senatu quaereretur ad poenam e palatio fugiens ad IIII urbis miliarium in suburbano Numentana via sese interfecit anno aetatis XXXII. 691 692 Cui successit Galba, qui regnavit mensibus VII. Post hunc Otho mensibus tribus diebus quinque. 67 68 69 -/65/66 58 60 -/6i 62 64

680 om. M 681 t h e r m e M edificataeM n e r o n i a s M vobulo P alexandrinae] P Cusp. : alexandrianae M 685 provintiae M cottie M 687 om. M 689 apostolus] M Cusp. : apostoli P Nerore P 690 quereretur M penam M palacio M IIII] quattuor P : quatuor M: quartum Cusp. e t a t i s M 691 s u c c e n s i t M 692 om. M

69
693 Post Vitellius regnavit mensibus VIII die uno. Qui omnes infra scriptos duos consules tenuerunt. 694 695 696 Vespasianus et Titus Vespasianus II et Titus II His conss Vespasianus suscepit imperium qui regnavit annis Villi mensibus XI diebus XXII. Sub quo hi consules fuerunt. VII 697 698 699 Vespasianus III et Nerva Vespasianus MI et Titus III His conss Titus filius Vespasiani Iudaea capta, praeter quos gladio interfecit, C milia captivorum publice venundavit. 700 701 702 703 Vespasianus V et Titus MI Vespasianus VI et Titus V Vespasianus VII et Titus VI His conss Vespasianus incensum Capitolium aedificare orsus est. 704 705 706 Commodus et Rufus Vespasianus VIII et Titus VII His conss colossus erectus est habens altitudinis pedes CVII. 707 708 709 Vespasianus VIM et Titus VIII Silvanus et Verus Domitianus et Messalianus 699 Iudea M 80 81 82/85 preter M 78 79 75 76 77 71 74 70 73

693 Vitellus Ma 695 om. M 698 Vespasianus MI om. M 700-706 om. M 707 Titus VIM M

70

710

His conss Vespasianus est mortuus profluvio ventris in villa propria circa Sabinos. cui Titus filius eius succedens in utraque lingua dissertissimus regnavit annis duobus mensibus duobus. sub quo hi consules exstiterunt. VIII

711 712

Domitianus II et Rufus II His conss Titus amphitheatrum Romae aedificavit et in dedicatione eius V milia ferarum occidit.

83

713 714

Domitianus III et Sabinus His conss Titus morbo periit in eadem villa qua pater eius anno aetatis XLII. qui ob insignem mansuetudinem deliciae humani generis appellatus est. cui successit Domitianus frater Titi iunior crudelissimus. qui imperavit annis XV mensibus V. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. Villi

84

715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722

Domitianus 1111 et Rufus III His conss Domitianus eunuchos fieri prohibuit. Domitianus V et Dolabella Domitianus VI et Rufus IIII Flavius et Traianus Domitianus VII et Nerva Traianus II et Gabrio His conss primus Domitianus dominum et deum se appellari iussit.

85/-

86 88 89 90 91

723

Domitianus VIII et Saturninus

710 dissertissimus sic P M extiteruntM 712 edificavitM 713 Domitianus] M Cusp. : Domitianus P 714 insignem] Cusp emend, signem P M delicias P M, emend. Cusp, etMommsen s u c c e n s i t M cludelissimus P conies M a 717 V I M 718 om.M 720-721 om.M 722 appellare P Cusp : apellare M 723 om. M

71
724 725 Silvanus et Priscus His conss Quintillianus ex Hispania primus Romae scholam publicam et salarium e fisco accepit et claruit. 726 727 Asprenas et Clemens His conss multa moenia et celeberrima Romae facta sunt. Id est Capitolium, forum transitorium, divorum porticus, Iseum, Serapium, stadium, horrea piperataria, Vespasiani templum, Minerva Chalcedica, odion. 728 729 Domitianus V i l l i et Clemens II His conss insignissima Romae facta sunt, id est forum Traiani, thermae Traianae et Titianae, senatus, ludus matutinus, mica aurea, meta sudans et pantheus. 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 Nerva II et Rufus Fulvius et Vetus Sabinus et Antoninus Nerva III et Traianus III Senecio et Palma Traianus IIII et Fronto His conss Apollonius Tyaneus philosophus insignis habetur. 737 Domitianus occisus in palatio anno aetatis XXXV. cui Nerva succedens regnat annum I mensibus IIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. X 738 Traianus V et Orfitus 101/110 97 -96 -/98 99 100 95 94/95 92/93

725 s c o l a m M 727 factae P : facte M Serapium] MCusp : Saerapium P Calcedica Pa 728 Domitianus IIII M 729 facte M 730-731 om. M 733 om. M 735 om. M 736 Apollonius] P Cusp. : Appollonius M Tyaneus om. M 111 palacio M anno bis Pa e t a t i s M X X X I I I I M succensitM 2 annum P M Cusp. 738 I I M

72
739 740 Senecio II et Sura His conss Nerva morbo periit in hortis Sallustianis anno aetatis LXXII, cum iam Traianum adoptasset in filium. cui succedens imperavit annis XVIIII mensibus VI diebus XV. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XI 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 Traianus VI et Maximus Senecio III et Sura II Urbanus et Marcellus Candidus et Quadratus His conss Traianus de Dacis et Scythis triumphavit. Commodus et Caerealis His conss Traianus Hiberos Sauromatas Hosroenos Arabas Bosphoranus Colchos in foedus accepit. Seleuciam Etesifontem Babylonem occupavit et tenuit. 748 749 Senecio IIII et Sura III His conss Traianus in mari rubro classem instituit ut per earn Indiae fines vastaret. 750 751 752 753 754 755 Gallus et Bradua Africanus et Crispinus Crispinus II et Solenus Piso et Rusticus Traianus VII et Affricanus Celsus et Crispinus 108 -/110/111 112 113 107 106 103 -/104 105 -7102

739 Senecio] P Cusp. : Senetio M Traianus M1 in paginae margine 740 e t a t i s M Cum iam...XI om. M 741 -742 om. M 744 Quadatus M 747 faedus P Seuleuciam M etesifontem P M: etsesifontem Ma 751-752 om. M 752 Bolenus Cusp. 754-755 om. M

73

756

His conss Plinius Secundus Novocomensis orator et historicus insignis habetur. cuius ingenii plurima opera extant.

757

AstaetPiso

114/-

758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766

Messala et Pedon Aemilius et Verus Niger et Apronianus His conss Traianus Armeniam Assyriam et Mesopotamiam provintias fecit. Clarus et Alexander Hadrianus et Salinator Hadrianus II et Rusticus Servilius et Fulvius His conss Traianus apud Seleuciam Hisauriae profluvio ventris extinctus est anno aetatis LXIII. cuius ossa in urna aurea conlocata sub columna fori quod eius nomine vocitatur recondita sunt, cuius columnae altitudo in CXL pedes erigitur. huic successit Hadrianus utraque lingua peritissimus, Italicae natus ex consobrina Traiani, qui regnavit annis XX mensibus X diebus XXVIIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XII

115 116 in

-/118 119 120

767 768 769

Verus et Augur His conss Hadrianus Alexandriam a Romanis subversam publicis instauravit expensis. Aviola et Pansa

121

122

756 Plenius P Ma 757 om. M 759 om. M Aemilius] P : Aemilianus Cusp. 760 Apronianus] MCusp. : Aproniamus P 761 AssyrriamM 763-764 om. M 766 aput M Seleutiam M etatis M L X I I M collocata M calumna P M diebus XXVIIII] om. M 768-769 om. M

74

770

His conss Hadrianus reliqua tributorum urbibus relaxavit, chartis publicis incensis. plurimos etiam ipsis tributis liberos fecit.

771 772 773 774

Paternus et Torquatus His conss Plutarchus philosophus insignis habetur. Gabrio et Apronianus His conss Nicomedia et Nicenae urbis plurimis terrae motu conlapsis Hadrianus ad instaurationem earum publicas largitur expensas.

123/124 124/123

775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788

Asiaticus et Quintus Verus et Ambiguus His conss Atheniensibus leges petentibus Hadrianus ex Draconis et Solonis reliquorumque libris iura composuit. Gallicanus et Titianus His conss iuxta Eleusinam civitatem Cefiso fluvio Hadrianus pontem constravit. Torquatus et Libo Celsus et Marcellinus Pontianus et Rufus Augurinus et Sergianus Tiberius et Silanus His conss Hadrianus a Christianorum persecutione cessavit, et pater patriae est appellatus. Sergius II et Verus Pompeianus et Atilianus

125/126

127

128 129 131 132 133/

134 135

770 adrianus M 112-113 om. M 113 Apronianus] M Cusp. : Aproniamus P 11A N i c e t a e M 776 om. M 111 reliquarumM 781-783 om. M 786 apellatus M 787 om. M Sergianus Cusp.

75
789 His conss templum Romae et Veneris factum est quod nunc urbis appellatur. 790 791 Pompeianus II et Commodus His conss Hadrianus, cum insignes et plurimas aedes Athenis fecisset, agonem edidit bibliothecamque miri 792 793 794 795 796 797 operis exstruxit. Laelius et Albinus Camerinus et Niger Antoninus et Praesens Antoninus II et Praesens II Severus et Silvanus His conss Aelia civitas id est Hierusalem ab Aelio Hadriano condita est. et in fronte eius portae qua Bethleem egredimur sus scaltus in marmore significans Romanae 798 799 potestati subiacere Iudaeos. Rufinus et Torquatus His conss Hadrianus morbo intercutis aquae apud Baias moritur maior sexagenario. cui successit Antoninus Pius qui regnavit annis XXI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. 800 801 802 803 804 Torquatus II et Herodes Aviola et Maximus Antoninus III et Aurelius Gratus et Seleucus His conss Iustinus philosophus librum pro Christiano religione scriptum tradidit Antonino. 788 Pompeius et atilianis M 789 apellatur M Sergianus Cusp., sedquare mutaverit non liquet. sus scaltus] P : sclatus (om. sus) M potestatis P 802-803 om. M 792-795 om. M Laelius] P : 797 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethelem M Iudeos M 799 aput M succensit M XIII 143 144 140 221 142/143 137 138 139 140/139 141/136

76
805 806 807 808 809 8io 811 812 813 814 Antoninus IIII et Aurelius II Largus et Messalianus Torquatus III et Iulianus Orfitus et Priscus Gabrio et Vetus Gordianus et Maximus Gabrio II et Romulus Praesens et Rufus Commodus et Lateranus His conss Apollonius stoicus natione Chalcedicus et Basilides Scytopolitanus philosophi inlustres habentur qui Caesaris quoque praeceptores fuerunt. 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 Verus et Sabinus Silvanus et Augurinus Barbarus et Regulus Tertullus et Sacerdos Quintillus et Priscus Verus II et Bradua Antoninus V et Aurelius III pc Antonini V et Aureli III Hoc tempore Antoninus Pius apud Lorium villam suam duodecimo ab urbe miliario moritur anno vitae LXXVII. Usque ad hoc tempus singuli Augusti fuerunt. cui successerunt filii sui, id est Marcus Antoninus Verus et 805 IIII] MCusp. Cusp. : Basylides quoque] M Cusp. et Aureli IIII P : H I P AuliusM* 807-812 om. M 814 n a c i o n e M Basilides] M P Scytopolitanus] P : om. M : Syropolitanus Cusp cesaris M : om. P 817 Barbatus Cusp. 818-821 om. M 822 pc Antonini VI 823 aput M d u o d e c i m a M LXXVII] P Cusp. : LXXIII M fili M 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 145 147 148 149 -/150 151 152 153 154

77
Lucius Annius Antoninus Severus, qui regnaverunt annis XVIIII. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XIIH 824 825 826 duo Augusti conss Rusticus et Aquilinus His conss Lucio Caesari Athenis sacrificanti ignis in caelo ab occidente in orientem ferri visus est. 827 828 829 Laelianus et Pastor Macrinus et Celsus His conss Fronto orator insignis habetur qui Marcum Antoninum Latinis litteris erudivit. 830 831 Orfitus et Pudens His conss Lucius Caesar de Parthis cum fratre Antonino triumphavit. 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 Pudens II et Pollio Verus III et Quadratus Apronianus et Paulus Priscus etApollinaris Cethecus et Clarus Severus et Herennianus His conss Lucius Annius Antoninus Severus anno regni undecimo inter Concordiam et Altinum apoplexi extinctus est sedens cum fratre in vehiculo. 839 840 Orfitus et Maximus Severus II et Pompeianus 172 173 166 167 168 169 no 171 165 163 164 161 162

XVIIII] P Cusp. : X V I I M XIIII om. M 826 ferri] Cusp. : terri P : om. M Laelianus] P Cusp. : Lelianus M 829 Latinis] P Cusp. : insignis M Uteris M 831 Cesar M 833-836 om. M 836 Cethegus Cusp. 839 Annius] M Cusp. : Annus P 839-840 om. M

78

841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848

Gallus et Flaccus Piso et Iulianus PollioetAper Commodus et Quintillus His conss Marcus Antoninus Verus imperator Commodum filium suum consortem regni facit. Orfitus et Rufus His conss imperatores de hostibus triumphant, et pecuniam quae fisco debebatur provinciis concedentes tabulas debitorum in medio Romanae urbis foro incendio concremarunt. Ac nequid bonitatis deesset severiores quasque leges novis constitutionibus temperarunt.

174 175 176 177

178

849 850 851

Commodus II et Verus II His conss Antoninus Verus adeo in editione munerum magnificus fuit ut centum simul leones exhibuerit. Qui post in Pannonia morbo periit. Commodus filius eius a senatu Augustus est appellatus, qui regnavit annis XIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XV

179

852 853 854 855 856 857

Praesens et Gordianus Commodus III et Byrrus Mamertinus et Rufus Commodus IIII et Victorinus Marullus et Haelianus His conss thermae Commodianae Romae factae sunt.

180 181 182 183 184

843-844 om.M 848 provintiisM 850 e d i c i o n e M 851 annis] Cusp. : an. P : anno M fuerunt] om. M 852 Presens et Cordianus M: Praesens II et Gordianus Cusp. 853 om.M 855 om.M 856 Marullus] P Cusp. : Marcillus M 857 therme Commodiane Rome M

79
858 859 860 861 862 863 Maternus et Bradua Commodus V et Gabrio Crispinus et Haelianus Fuscianus et Silanus duo Silani His conss Commodus imperator colossi capite sublato suae imaginis caput iussit inponi. 864 865 866 867 Commodus VI et Septimianus Apronianus et Bradua Commodus VII et Pertinax His conss Commodus strangulatur in domo Vestiliani. cui successit Pertinax, qui regnavit mensibus VI. XVI 868 869 Falco et Clarus His conss Pertinax occiditur in palatio maior septuagenario. cui successit Severus provintia Tripolitana natus oppido Lepti, solusque Afer imperator Romanus fuit, qui regnavit annis XVIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XVII 870 871 872 873 874 875 Severus et Albinus Tertullus et Clemens Dexter et Priscus Lateranus et Rufinus Scoturninus et Gallus Anulinus et Fronto 194 195 196 197 198 199 193 190 191 192 185 186 187 188 189

859-560 om. M Glabrio Cusp. 860 Aelianus Cusp. 862 Duo et Silani PMsed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. 863 s u e M 864 om. M 865 Apronianus] P Cusp. : Ambronianus M Bradua II Cusp. 866 VII] P Cusp. : om. M 867 Pertinax Pa M : Helvius Pertinax Ph : Aelius Pertinax Cusp. 869 aper M 871 om. M 873-874 om. M Ruffinus Cusp. 874 Saturninus Cusp.

80
876 His conss Severus Parthos et Adiabenos superavit, Arabasque interiores ita cecidit ut regionem eorum Romanam provintiam faceret. 877 878 879 Severus II et Victorinus Fabianus et Mutianus His conss thermae Severianae apud Antiochiam et Romae factae, et septezodium instructum est. 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 Severus III et Antoninus Geta et Plautianus Chilo et Libo Antoninus II et Geta II Albinus et Aelianus Aper et Maximus His conss Severus in Brittannos bellum movit, ubi, ut receptas provincias ab incursione barbarica faceret securiores vallum per CXXXII passuum milia a mari ad mare duxit. 887 888 889 Antoninus III et Geta III Pompeianus et Avitus His conss Tertullianus Afer Christianorum scriptor celeberrimus habetur. 890 891 892 Faustinus et Rufus His conss Origenis scriptor Alexandriae studiis eruditur. Gentianus et Bassus 211 210 208 209 202 203 204 205 206 207 200 201

876 R o m a m M 878 Mutianus] M Cusp. : Mucianus P 879 therne Severiane M a p u t M Anthiochiam P R o m e M facte M 881 om. M 883 om. M Geta II] P ; om. II Cusp. 884 Haelianus P a 886 provintias P 887 om. M 890 om. M Rufus] Cusp, scribit exemplar Cassiodori Faustinus et Ruffus habere.

81
893 His conss Severus imperator Eboraci in Brittannia moritur. cui successit Antoninus Caracalla Severi filius, qui regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XVIII 894 895 896 897 Duo Aspri Antoninus et Balbinus Messala et Sabinus His conss Antoninus Caracalla cognominatur propter genus vestis quod Romae erogaverat. 898 899 900 Laetus et Caerealis Sabinus II et Venustus His conss Antoninus Romae thermas sui nominis aedificavit. 901 902 903 Praesens et Extricatus Antoninus et Adventus His conss Antoninus interficitur inter Edessam et Carras anno aetatis XLIII. cui successit Macrinus praefecturam praetorianam gerens. regnavit autem anno I. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XVIIII 904 905 Antoninus II et Sacerdos His conss Macrinus occiditur in Archelaidae. cui successit M Aurelius Antoninus, qui regnavit annis M I . sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XX 906 Antoninus III et Comazon 220 219 217 218 215 216/212 213 214

893 Brittania P 894 Duo et Aspri P : Duo et Aspiri M sed opinor librarium per columnas scribentem erravisse. : Aspari Cusp. 895 om. M Antoninus M I Cusp. 897-902 om. M 898 Cerealis Cusp. 903 praetoriam M 905 Marinus P M

82
907 908 909 910 Gratus et Seleucus His coss Haeliogabalum templum Romae aedificatur. Alexander et Augustus His conss in Palestina Nicopolis quae prius Emmaus vocabatur urbs condita est. 911 912 Maximus et Helianus His conss M Aurelius Antoninus Romae occiditur tumultu militari. cui successit Alexander Mamae filius, qui regnavit annis XIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXI 913 914 915 916 917 918 Iulianus et Crispinus His conss Alexander Xerxem regem Persarum vicit. Fuscus et Dexter Alexander II et Marcellus Annianus et Maximus His conss Ulpianus iuris consultus adsessor Alexandri insignissimus habetur. 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 Albinus et Maximus His conss Neronianae thermae Alexandrianae vocatae sunt. Modestus et Probus Alexander III et Dio Gratus et Seleucus His conss Origenis Alexandriae clarus habetur. Pompeianus et Felicianus Lupus et Maximus 231 232 228 229 221 227 225 226 -/227 224 223 222 221

907 Seleucius P a 910 pius M 912 Antoninus] P Cusp. : A n t o n i u s M quo om. Ma 916 om. M 918 adsesser Alexander M 920 thermae Alexandrianae om. P 922 om. M 923 Seleucus] P Cusp. : Seleucius M 925 om. M

927

His conss Alexander in matrem Mammeam unice pius fuit et ob hoc cunctis amabilis.

928 929 930 931

Maximus et Paternus Maximus II et Urbanus Severus et Quintianus His conss Alexander occiditur Magontiaci tumultu militari. Cui successit Maximinus regnans annis tribus, primus ex corpore militari imperator electus. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXII

233 234 235

932 933 934 935

Maximinus et Affricanus Perpetuus et Cornelianus Pius et Proculus His conss Maximinus Aquileiae occiditur. cui successit Gordianus, qui regnavit annis VI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXIII 236 237 238

936 937 938

Gordianus et Aviola Sabinus et Venustus His conss Gordiano Romae ingresso Pupienus et Albinus, qui imperium arripuerant in palatio occisi sunt.

239 240

939 940 941 942

Gordianus II et Pompeianus Atticus et Praetextatus Arrianus et Pappus Peregrinus et Aemilianus

241 242 243 244

927-930 om. M et om. Cusp. 930 Quintilianus Cusp. 932 om. M 935 Maximinus] Cusp. : Maximus M: om. P 937 om. M 939-940 om. M

942 om.

84
943 His conss Gordianus admodum adulescens Parthorum natione superata, cum victor reverteretur ad patriam, fraude Philippi ppo haud longe a Romano solo intefectus est. Gordiano milites tumulum aedificant supra Eufraten, ossibus eius Roman revectis. cui successit Philippus, qui regnavit annis VII. qui mox Philippum filium suum consortem regni facit, primusque omnium ex Romanis imperatoribus Christianus fuit. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXIIII 944 945 946 947 948 949 Philippus et Titianus Praesens et Albinus Philippus II et Philippus Philippus III et Philippus II Aemilianus et Aquilinus His conss millesimus annus urbis romae expletus est. ob quam sollemnitatem innumerabiles Philippus cum filio suo bestias in circo magno interfecit. Ludosque in campo Martio theatrales tribus diebus ac noctibus populo pervigilante celebravit. Quadraginta etiam missus natali romanae urbis cucurrerunt. et agon mille annorum actus. 950 951 952 Philippus urbem nominis sui in Trachia construxit. Decius et Grates Decius II et Rusticus 250 251 245 246 247 248 249

943 nacione M ppro P tumultum P" edificant M refectis M VII] septem Cusp. : VI P : XVII M primum qui P 945-947 om. M 949 in circo] P : icirco M Marcio M missus] emend. Cusp. : missos P M 952 Decius II om. M

85
953 His conss Philippus senior Veronae, Romae vero iunior, occiditur. His successit Decius qui regnavit anno I mensibus tribus. quantum ad consules autem annum I. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXV 954 955 Gallus et Volusianus His conss Decius lavacra publica aedificavit, quae suo nomine appellari iussit. Decius cum filio suo in Abritio 956 Traciae loco a Gothis occiditur. cui successit Gallus cum Volusiano filio, qui regnaverunt annis II et mensibus IIII. quantum ad consulatum autem annis tantum duobus. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XXVI 957 958 959 960 Volusianus II et Maximus His conss Novatianus apparuit. Valerianus et Gallienus His conss Gallus et Volusianus Teramnae interfecti sunt, quibussuccesserunt Valerianus et Gallienus, qui regnaverunt annis XV. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XXVII 961 962 963 964 Valerianus II et Gallienus II Maximus II et Gabrio Valerianus III et Gallienus III His conss Cyprianus primum rethor deinde presbyter ad extremum Carthaginiensis episcopus martyrio coronatur. 965 Tuscus et Bassus XXV om. P 954 Gallus] MCusp. : Callus P 955 p u p l i c a M 258 255 256 257 254 253 252

953 s u c c e s i t M

edificavitM queM 956TracieP locaM consolatum PM quibus] P : quo M 957-958 om. M 960 Terrammae M: Interamnae Cusp. XV] P Cusp. : VI M 961 om. M 962 llom.M 963 om. M 964 Cyprianus] P Cusp. :CiprianusM Cartharginiensis M 965-970 om. M

86
966 His consulibus Valerianus, in Christianos persecutione commota, statim a Sapore Persarum rege capitur ibique servitute miserabili consenescit. 967 968 969 970 971 972 Aemilianus et Bassus Secularis et Donatus Gallienus IIII et Gentianus Gallienus V et Victorinus Albinus et Maximus His conss Graecia Macedonia Pontus Asia depopulata per Gothos aliasque provintias barbarorum quassavit inruptio. 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 Gallienus VI et Saturninus Valerius et Lucillus Gallienus VII et Sabinillus Paternus et Archisilaus Paternus II et Marinus Claudius et Paternus Hie conss Gallienus Mediolano occiditur. cui successit Claudius, qui regnavit annum I mensibus Villi, sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXVIII 980 981 982 983 Antiochianus et Orphitus Valerianus et Bassus His conss Claudius barbaros vastantes repellit et Sirmi moritur. huic successit Quintillus Claudii frater a senatu Augustus appellatus, qui XVII imperii sui die Aquileiae occiditur. 972 Grecia M barbarorumque quassavit M 973 VI om. M 914-911 Archesilanus Cusp. 979 Mediolanio P 980 om. M 983 Cladii M om. M 976 270 271 264 265 266 267 268 269 259 260 261/262/263

87 984 post quern Aurelianus factus est imperator, qui regnavit annis V mensibus VI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXVIIII 985 986 987 988 Quietus et Voldumianus Tacitus et Placidianus Aurelianus et Capitolinus His conss Aurelianum Romae triumphantem captivi Tetricus et Zenobia praecesserunt. 989 990 Aurelianus II et Marcellus His conss Aurelianus templum soli aedificavit. Romam firmioribus muris vallat. 991 992 993 Probus et Paulinus Probus II et Paternus II His conss inter Constantinopolim et Heracliam Aurelianus occiditur. cui successit Tacitus qui regnavit mensibus VI. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXX 994 995 Probus III et Paternus His conss Tacitus in Ponto occisus est et optinuit Florianus imperium diebus LXXXVIII. 996 Hoc quoque apud Tarsim interfecto Probus factus est imperator, qui regnavit annis VI mensibus III. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXXI 997 Messala et Gratus 280 279/278 277 278/279 275 272 273 274

986-988 om. M 989 Aurelianus II] P : Aurelius {om. II) M: Aurelianus I Cusp. 992 om. M 993 Aurelianus] P Cusp. : Aurelius M 994 III] P Cusp. : II] M Paternus] M Cusp. : Paternus III P 995 LXXXVIII] P : LXXVIII M : octoginanovem Cusp. 996

aputM

88
998 999
IOOO

His conss Galliae quae fuerant a barbaris occupatae a Probo Romano restituuntur imperio. Probus IIII et Tiberianus Probus V et Victorinus His conss insana Manicheorum haeresis exorta est. Cams et Carinus Carus II et Numerianus Diocletianus et Aristobolus His conss Probus apud Sirmium tumultu militari in turre quae vocatur ferrata occiditur. Cui successit Carus cum filiis suis Carino et Numeriano, qui regnaverunt annis duobus. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. 283 284 285 281 282

IOOI 1002 1003 1004 1005

1006 1007 Maximus et Aquilinus

XXXII 286

His conss cum Carus devictis Parthis castra supra Tigridem 1008 1009 posuisset fulmine ictus interiit. Diocletianus II et Maximianus His conss Numerianus occiditur. Carinus apud Margum proelio victus interiit. Post quos Diocletianus Dalmata suscepit imperium, qui regnavit annis XX. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXXIII IOIO ion 1012 Maximianus II et Ianuarius Bassus et Quintianus His conss Diocletianus in consortium regni Herculium Maximianum adsumit. 998 Galliae] P Cusp. : Gratus M 999 om. M 1003 Carus II et] P : om. M: Carinus II Cusp. M 1007 T r i g i d e m M 1008 Dioclitianus M 1012 Dioclitianus M 1001 haeresis] P Cusp. : heresis M 1004 Diocletianus om. M 1005 aput 1009 a p u t M Dioclitianus M 288 289 287

89
ion 1014 1015 1016 ion 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 Diocletianus III et Maximianus III Tiberianus et Dio Annibalianus et Asclepiodotus Diocletianus IIII et Maximianus IIII Constantius et Maximus Tuscus et Anulinus Diocletianus V et Constantius II Maximianus V et Maximus II Faustus et Gallus His conss primus Diocletianus adorari se iussit ut deum et gemmas vestibus calciamentisque conseruit, cum ante eum omnes imperatores in modum iudicum salutarentur et clamydem tantum purpuream a privato habitu plus haberent. 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1013 om. M Dioclecianus VI et Maximinus VI Constantius III et Maximus III Titianus et Nepotianus Constantius IIII et Maximus IIII His conss LX milia Alamannorum caesa sunt. Diocletianus VII et Maximianus VII Diocletianus VIII et Maximianus VIII Constantius V et Maximus V Constantius VI et Maximus VI Dioclecianus P 1015-1019 om. M 1015 Anniballianus Cusp. 303 304 305 306 1016 299 300 301 302 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298

Dioclecianus P 1020 om.MetP. Cusp, habet, sed opinor ex fastis Vindobonesibus prioribus, quos in hoc loco, p. 482, citavit. Mommsen tamen recte restituit. Vide p. . 1022 Dioclitianus M clamydem tantum purpuream] Cusp, tantum clamydem purpureum P clamidem tantum purpoream M habito P 1023 om. M Maximianus Cusp. 1026 om. M 1028 Dicletianus Pa Maximianus VII] Maximinus P : om. VII M 1029 om. M Dioclecianus P 1031 om. M

90
1032 His conss Diocletianus et Maximianus Augusti insigni pompa Romae triumphaverunt ante cedentibus currum eorum Narsei coniuge sororibus liberis et omni pompa qua Parthos expoliaverant. 1033 1034 1035 Diocletianus V i l l i et Constantinus Diocletianus X et Maximus VII His conss Diocletianus Nicomediae Maximianus Mediolani purpuram deposuerunt ob aetatis defectum et creati sunt Constantius et Galerius. sed Constantius tantum Augusti dignitate contentus cum esset otiosus, anni ipsius adscribuntur filio eius Constantino qui natus dicitur ex Helena concubina, qui regnavit annis X X X mensibus X. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XXXIIII 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 pc Diocletiani X et Maximi VII II pc Diocletiani X et Maximi VII Maximus VIII et Licinius Constantinus II et Licinius II Constantinus III et Licinius III Volusianus et Annianus Constantinus IIII et Licinius IIII Sabinus et Rufinus Gallicanus et Bassus Licinius V et Crispus Constantinus V et Licinius caes 309 310 311/310 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 -/307 308

1032 expoliaverant] Cusp. Mb : expoliaverantur P : expoliaverunt Ma 1034 Dioclecianus P Diocletianus X om. M 1035 Dioclecianus P effectumM 1036 Diocletiani P VII om. M 1037 h p c M Diocletiani P Maximi X P 10381042 om. M 1040 Licinius III] Cusp. : Licinius (om. Ill) P 1043 Rufinus] P : Rufus M: Ruffinus Cusp. 1044-1048 om. M Gallienus Cusp.

91
1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 Constantinus VI et Constantius caes Crispus II et Constantius caes II Probianus et Iulianus Severus et Rufinus Crispus III et Constantius III Paulinus et Iulianus Constantinus VII et Constantius III Constantius V et Maximus Ianuarius et Iustus His conss vicennalia Constantini Nicomediae acta et sequenti anno Romae edita. 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 Constantinus VIII et Constantius VI Constantius VII et Symmachus Bassus et Ablabius Pacatianus et Hilarianus His conss civitas quae prius Bizantium dicta est mutato nomine a Constantino Constantinopolis dedicatur. 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 Dalmatius et Zenophilus Optatus et Paulinus Constantius et Albinus Nepotianus et Facundus Felicianus et Titianus 333 334 335 336 337 329 ?/330 331 332 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328

1047 Constantius caes] P : Constantinus caes Cusp. 1048 Constantius caes II] P : Constantinus caes II Cusp. 1050-1051 om. M 1050 Ruffinus Cusp. 1051 Constantius caes III] P : Constantinus caes III Cusp. 1052 Iulianus] P Cusp. : Constantius M, vide 1053, infra. 1053-1054 om. M 1053 et Constantius III] P : et Constantius caes Cusp. 1054 Constantius V] Contantius V P : Constantius (om. V) Cusp. 1055 Ianuarius] MCusp. : Ianuarinus P 1056 a e d i t a P 1057-1061 om. M Contantinus VIII P Constantius VI] P Constantinus IIII Cusp. 1066 Felicianus] P Cusp. : Felicius M

92
1067 1068 1069 Ursus et Polemius Constantius II et Constans His conss Constantinus imperator dum bellum pararet in Persas in Acyrone villa publica iuxta Nicomediam moritur anno aetatis LXVI. post quern tres liberi eius, id est Constantinus Constantius et Constans, qui regnaverunt annis XXIIII mensibus V diebus XXIII. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XXXV 1070 1071 1072 1073 Acyndinus et Proculus Marcellinus et Probinus Constantius III et Constans II His conss Constantinus bellum fratri Constantio inferens iuxta Aquileiam Alsae occiditur. 1074 1075 1076 Placidus et Romulus Leontius et Salustius His conss Franci a Constante perdomiti in pacem recepti sunt. 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 Constantius HII et Constans III Amantius et Albinus pc Amantii et Albini Rufinus et Eusebius His conss magnis rei publicae expensis in Seleucia Syriae portus efficitur. 1082 1083 Philippus et Sallia His conss solis facta defectio. 348 346 345 346 347 343 344 340 341 342 338 339

1068 Constantius II om. M 1069 pellum M Acyrone] P : Acyne M: Acirone Cusp i u s t a M anno aetatis LXVI] P Cusp. : annis L X V I I M 1072 om. M 1075 Leontius]

MCusp. : Leoneius f 1083 om.M

1076 reptisuntM

1077 om. M

1081 publiceM Syrie M

93
1084 1085 1086 Limenius et Catulinus Sergius et Nigridianus His conss Constans haud longe ab Hispania in castro cui Helenae nomen est interficitur anno aetatis X X X et Constantius remansit in regno. 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 pc Sergii et Nigridiani Constantius V et Constans caes Constantius VI et Constans caes II Constantius VII et Constans caes III Arbitrio et Lollianus His conss Victorinus rethor et Donatus grammaticus Romae insignes habentur. 1093 1094 1095 Constantius VIII et Iulianus caes Constantius V i l l i et Iulianus caes II His conss magnae Alamannorum copiae apud Argentoratum oppidum Galliarum deletae sunt. 1096 1097 1098 1099 Titianus et Caerealis Eusebius et Hypatius Constantius X et Iulianus caes HI His conss Honoratus nomine primus Constantinopoli praefectus urbi esse coepit. noo noi Taurus et Florentius Mamertinus et Nevitta 361 362 358 359 360 356 357 351 352 353 354 355 349 350

1085 Nigridianus] P Cusp. : Nigridiannus M 1086 H i s p a n n i a M e t a t i s M 1087 Nigriniani M : Nigrianus Cusp. 1088 ConstntiusM* V om. M 1089-1090 om. M 1089 Constans caes II] P : Constantius caes II Cusp. 1090 Constans caes III] P : Constantius III Cusp. 1093 VIII om. M 1094 om. M 1095 a p u t M d e l e c t e M 1097 Hypatius] P Cusp. : H i p a t i u s M 1098 Constatius P a III om. M 1099 prim Ma : primo hft

94 1102 His conss Constantius Mopsocrenis inter Ciliciam Cappadociamque moritur anno aetatis XLVI. cui successit Iulianus, qui regnavit annum I. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. 1103 1104 Iulianus IIII et Salustius His conss Iulianus per victoriam apud Persas occiditur anno aetatis X X X I I . Post quern sequenti die Iovianus ex primicerio domesticorum factus est imperator, qui regnavit mensibus VIII sub quo hi consules fuerunt. 1105 1106 Iovianus et Varronianus His conss Iovianus imperator moritur anno aetatis XXXIIII. Post quern Valentinianus tribunus scutariorum apud Nicaeam Augustus appellatus, fratrem Valentem Constantinopoli in c o m m u n i o n e m adsumit imperii, qui regnavit annis XIIII mensibus V. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. 1107 1108 1109 mo Valentinianus et Valens Gratianus et Gadalaifus Lubicinus et Iovinus His conss Gratianus Valentiniani filius Ambianis imperator mi 1112 factus est. Apud Atrabatas lana caelo pluviae mixta defluxit. Valentinianus II et Valens II 1102 Cilitiam P etatis P XLVI] P M: 43 Cusp, annum] P : annis M: anno Cusp. 1103 Salustius] M Cusp. : Sallustius P 1104 aput M XXXII] P Cusp. : XXXIII M 1105 Varronianus] P Cusp. : Varonianus M 1106 XXXIIII] P M: tricesimotertio Cusp. scrutariorum P aputM NiceamM apellatusM fratemM" communioM 1107 Valentinianus] P Cusp. : Valentinus M 1111 aput M 368 XXXVIII 365 366 367 XXXVII 364 XXXVI 363

95
1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 Valentinianus np et Victor Valentinianus III et Valens III Gratianus II et Probus Modestus et Arintheus Valentinianus IIII et Valens IIII His conss Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum Burgundiorum LXXX fere milia quot numquam antea ad Rhenum descenderunt. 1120 Clearcus praefectus urbi Constantinopoli necessariam aquam et quam diu civitas optabat induxit. 1121 1122 1123 1124 Gratianus III et Equitius pc Gratiani III et Equitii Valens V et Valentinianus His conss Valentinianus apoplexi Brigitione moritur. Post quern Gratianus adsumpto imperio Valentiniano fratre cum patruo Valente regnat. 1125 1126 Gratianus IIII et Merobaudes His conss Alamannorum circiter X X X milia apud Argentariam oppidum Galliarum caesa. 1127 1128 1129 Gothi diffunduntur in Tracia. Valens VI et Valentinianus II His conss a Gothis in Tracia Valentis trucidatur exercitus. Ipse quoque imperator incensa domo ubi se occultaverat igne combustus est. 1113-1114 om. M 1117 om. M 1118 caeso M Francorum] M Cusp. : Franchorum P 1119 Burgundiorum] P Cusp. : Burgundionum M quod P M 1120 Constantinopoli] M Cusp. : Constantinopolim P et om. M 1126 Alemannorum M : Alemanorum Cusp. 378 377 374 375 376 369 370 371 372 373

aputM

1128 etom.M

llom.M

1129 a rest. Mommsen trucidatusM

96
1130 Cui successit in Oriente Theodosius Theodosii filius, quern sibi in consortium Gratianus ascivit. 1131 Gratianus itaque cum iam XIIII regnaret annis cum Theodosio regnat annis VI. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XXXVIIII 1132 1133 1134 Ausonius et Olybrius Gratianus V et Theodosius His conss Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit. 1135 1136 Siagrius et Eucherius His conss Martinus episcopus Turonum Galliae civitatis clarus habetur. 1137 1138 Antonius et Siagrius His conss Athanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinopolim venit ibique vitam exegit. 1139 1140 Merobaudes II et Saturninus His conss Arcadius Theodosii imperatoris filius Augustus appellatur. 1141 1142 1143 Ricimer et Glearchus His conss Gratianus apud Lugdunum captus occiditur. Residui Valentinianus et Theodosius regnant annis VIII. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XL 1144 1145 Arcadius et Bauto His conss Hieronimus presbyter in Bethleem positus toto mundo mirabilis habetur. 1131 iam om. P XIIII] P : X X X I M VI] P: III M quibus] P quo M 1134 scribiturP 1135 Eucherius] P Cusp. : Eutherius M 1136 c l a u r u s M Glearcus P a 1142 aput M 1145 Bethleem] P Cusp. : Bethlehem M 385 384 383 382 381 379 380

1141

97
1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 Honorius np et Euhodius Valentinianus III et Eutropius Theodosius II et Cynegius Timasius et Promotus Valentinianus IIII et Neoterius Titianus et Symmachus Arcadius II et Rufinus His conss Valentinianus vitae taedio apud Viennam laqueo periit. 1154 Theodosius cum iam per XIIII annos regnaret cum Arcadio et Honorio regnat annis tribus, sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XLI 1155 1156 1157 Theodosius III et Abundantius Arcadius III et Honorius II His conss Iohannes monachus gratia divina praeditus Theodosium consulentem de eventu belli quod adversum Eugenium movebat victorem fore pronuntiat. 1158 1159 Olybrius et Probus His conss Theodosius Eugenium tyrannum vincit et perimit. 1160 Augustinus beati Ambrosii discipulus multa facundia doctrinaque excellens Yppone regio in Africa episcopus ordinatur. 1161 1162 Hoc tempore Claudianus poeta insignis habetur. Theodosius imperator Mediolani moritur. 395 393 394 386 387 388 389 390 391 392

1150 om.M 1151 Titianus] P Cusp. : Ticianus M 1153 a p u t M V e n n a m M 1154 annis] MCusp. : annos P duob\xs\ PM, tribus emend. Mommsen sequentem Prosperum 1156 Arcadius] P Cusp. : A r c h a d i u s M 1157 g r a c i a M divina] M Cusp. : om. P perditus P 1158 Olybrius] P Cusp. : Olibrius M Probius M: Probinus Cusp. 1159 t y r r a n n u m M 1160 discipulisP

98
1163 Post quern Arcadius cum iam regnasset annis XII cum fratre Honorio regnat annis XIII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XLII 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Arcadius IIII et Honorius II Caesarius et Atticus Honorius IIII et Eutychianus Manlius et Theodorus Stilicho et Aurelianus His conss Gothi Halarico et Radagaiso regibus ingrediuntur Italiam. 1170 1171 1172 Vincentius et Fravita Arcadius V et Honorius V His conss Pollentiae Stiliconem cum exercitu Romano Gothi victum acie fugaverunt. 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 Theodosius Augustus I et Rumoridus Honorius VI et Aristenetus Stilico II et Anthemius Arcadius VI et Probus His conss Vandali et Alani transiecto Reno Gallias intraverunt. 1178 1179 1180 Honorius VII et Theodosius II Bassus et Philippus His conss Arcadius imperator Constantinopoli moritur. 407 408 403 404 405 406 401 402 396 397 398 399 400

1181

Honorius cum Theodosio fratris filio regnat annis XV. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt.

1163 quern] quam M 1165 Caesarius et Atticus] P Cusp. : Cesarius et Aticus M 1166 Eutychianus] P Cusp. : Eutichianus M 1169 Ragadaiso P : Rhadagiso Cusp. 1172 HosM aiceM 1175 Stilico] P Cusp. : Stilicho M 1176ArcadusM VI om. M 1181 sub quibus] P Cusp. : sub quo M

99
XLIH 1182 1183 1184 1185 Honorius VIII et Theodosius III His conss Vandali Hispanias occupaverunt. Varan et Tertul lus His conss Roma a Gothis Halarico duce capta est ubi clementer usi victoria sunt. 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 Theodosius Aug IIII cons Honorius V i l l i et Theodosius V His conss Gothi rege Ataulpho Gallias intraverunt. Lucius vc cons His conss Burgundiones partem Galliae Rheno tenuere coniunctam. 1191 1192 1193 1194 Constantius et Constans Honorius X et Theodosius VI Theodosius VII et Pallidius His conss Gothi placati Constantio Placidiam reddiderunt cuius nuptias promeretur. 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 Honorius XI et Constantius II Honorius XII et Theodosius VIII Monaxius et Plinta Theodosius V i l l i et Constantius III His conss Constantius ab Honorio in societatem regni recipitur. 1200 1201 1202 Agricola et Eustachius His conss Constantius imperator moritur. Honorius XIII et Theodosius X 422 421 417 418 419 420 414 415 416 413 411 412 41 o 409

1183 Hispanias] P Cusp. : Hispannias M 1186 conss P M 1188 Ataulpho] P Cusp. : Ataupho M 1189 conss P 1196 Horius P 1199 Constantius om. M: add. post recipitur Cusp. 1200 Eustachius] MCusp. : Eustathius P

1203

His conss exercitus ad Hispamas contra Vandalos missus est.

1204 1205

Marinianus etAsclepiodotus His conss Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio ob suspicionem invitatorum hostium cum Honorio et Valentiniano filiis ad orientem mittitur.

423

1206 1207

Honorius moritur. et solus Theodosius Romanum imperium tenet annis XXVII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XLIIII

1208 1209

Castinus et Victor His conss Theodosius Valentinianum consobrinum Caesarem facit et cum Augusta matre ad recipiendum occidentale mittit imperium.

424

1210 1211

Theodosius XI et Valentinianus caes His conss Iohannem tyrannum Valentinianus imperator extinxit. Hunosque qui in Italia erant Iohanni praesidio per Aetium mira felicitate dimovit.

425

1212 1213 1214

Theodosius XII et Valentinianus II Hierius et Ardabures His conss Bonifacio Africam tenenti infauste bellum ingeritur.

426 427

1215

Gens Vandalorum a Gothis exclusa de Hispaniis ad Africam transit.

1216 1217

Felix et Taurus His conss Aetius multis Francis caesis quam occupaverant propinquam Rheno partem recipit Galliarum.

428

1203 ad Hispanias] P Cusp. : ab Hispannia M v v a n d a l o s M 1211 t i r a n n u m M extincxitP presidio M EtiumM

1209 C e s a r e m M

101
1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 Florentius et Dyonisius Theodosius XIII et Valentinianus III Bassus et Antiochus Aetius et Valerius Theodosius XIIII et Maximus Aspar et Ariovindus Theodosius X V et Valentinianus IIII His conss pax facta cum Vandalis data eis ad habitandum Africae portione. 1226 Gundicharium Burgundionum regem Aetius bello subegit pacemque ei reddidit supplicanti, quern non multo post Hunni peremerunt. 1227 1228 1229 Hisidorus et Senator Aetius II et Sigisvultus His conss Valentinianus Augustus ad Theodosium principem Constantinopolim proficiscitur filiamque eius in matrimonium accipit. 1230 1231 1232 Theodosius XVI et Faustus Theodosius XVII et Festus His conss bellum adversus Gothos Hunnis auxiliaribus geritur et Litorius dux Romanus ab eis capitur. 1233 Ginsericus de cuius amicitia nihil metuebatur Carthaginem dolo pacis invadit. 1234 1235 Valentinianus Aug V et Anatolius His conss Ginsericus Siciliam graviter affligit. 440 438 439 436 437 429 430 431 432 433 434 435

1218 D i o n i s i u s M : Dionysius Cusp. 1224 Theosius Pa ValerianusM 1225 Africe M 1226 Gundicharium] MCusp. : Cundicharium P Burgundionum] Burigundionum P : Burgundionem M subplicantiM m u l t i M 1229 Valentinianus Augustus] M Cusp. : Aug Valentinianus P 1232 a d v e r i u s M auxiliatribus M 1233 a m i c i c i a M 1234 Anatolius] P Cusp. : Anatholius M

102
1236 1237 Cyrus vc cons His conss Theodosius imperator bellum contra Vandalos inefficaciter movit. 1238 1239 Dioscorus et Eudoxius His conss Hunni Thracias et Hillyricum saeva populatione vastarunt. 1240 Cum Ginserico ab Augusto Valentiniano pax confirmata et certis spatiis Africa inter utrosque divisa est. 1241 1242 1243 Maximus II et Paternus Theodosius XVIII et Albinus His conss Attila rex Hunnorum Bledam fratrem et consortem in regno suo perimit eiusque populos sibi parere compellit. 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 Valentinianus VI et Nomus Aetius III et Symmachus Callepius et Ardabures Postumianus et Zeno Asturius et Protogenes Valentinianus VII et Avienus His conss Theodosius moritur. Post quern Marcianus adscitur imperio qui regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XLV 1252 Marcianus Aug et Adelphius 451 445 446 447 448 449 450 443 444 442 441

1236 conss P 1237 V a n d a l a s M 1239 T r a c i a s M 1240 AffricaP 1243 fratrem] P Cusp. : om. M peremit M populos] emend. Cusp. : populo P M parare M 1251 Marcianus] P Cusp. : Martianus M i m p e r i u m P 1252 Marcianus] P Cusp. : Martianus M

103
1253 His conss Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit. 1254 1255 Herculanus et Asporacius His conss Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit. 1256 Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa Leo directus pacem fecit. 1257 1258 1259 1260 Opilio et Vincomalus His conss Attila in sedibus suis moritur. Aetius et Studius His conss Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio amicus eius circumstantium gladiis interemptus. 1261 1262 Valentinianus VIII et Anthemius His conss in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. post quern Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. 1263 Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est. 1264 1265 1266 1267 Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium. Iohannes et Varan His conss Placentiae deposuit Avitus imperium. Constantinus et Rufus abcessitM 1255 Aquilegiam P 1257 Opilio] MCusp. 457 : Opio 456 455 454 453 452

1253 auxiliatribus M

P VincomaliusM 1258 moribusM 1260 palacioM ValentianiM amimusM circumstantiis interemptus P : circumstantium gladiis interemptis M: circumstantium gladiis peremptus Cusp. 1262 invadit] M Cusp. : invasit P 1267 Constantius M

1268

His conss Marciano defuncto Leo orientis Maiorianus Italiae suscepit imperium. sub quibus hi consules fuerunt. XLVI

1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274

Leo Aug et Maiorianus Aug His conss Maiorianus in Africam movit procinctum. Ricimer patricius Magnus et Apollonius Severinus et Dagalaifus His conss Maiorianus inmissione Ricimeris extinguitur. cui Severum natione Lucanum Ravennae succedere fecit in regnum.

458

459 460 461

1275 1276 1277 1278

Leo Aug II et Severus Aug Basilius et Vivianus Rusticius et Olybrius His conss rex Halanorum Beorgor apud Pergamum a patricio Ricimere peremptus est.

462 463 464

1279 1280

Arminerichus et Basiliscus His conss ut dicitur Ricimeris fraude Severus Romae in palatio veneno peremptus est.

465

1281 1282 1283

Leo Aug III cons Puseus et Iohannes His conss Anthemius a Leone imperatore ad Italiam mittitur, qui tertio ab urbe miliario in loco Brontotas suscepit imperium.

466 467

1284

Anthemius Aug II cons

468

1268 Marciano] P Cusp. : Martiano M post fuerunt ins. XLVI P 1270 Affricam P 1271 PaticiusM a et Patricius P 1272 Apollonius] P Cusp. : A p p o l l o n i u s M 1273 Severinus] P Cusp. : Severus M 1274 M a i o r a n u s M R a v e n n e P 1277 Rusticius] P Cusp. : Rusticus M 1278 aput Perganum M Ricimere] MCusp. :

RicimireP 1279 Arminerichus] MCusp. : Arminericus P conss P 1283 tercioM militarioM 1284 conss P

1280fraudoM

1281

105
1285 1286 1287 Hoc consule in Sicilia Marcellinus occiditur. Marcianus et Zeno His conss Arabundus imperium temptans iussu Anthemii exilio deportatur. 1288 1289 Severus et Iordanes His conss Romanus patricius affectans imperium capitaliter est punitus. 1290 1291 Leo Aug IIII et Probianus His conss Constantinopoli affectator tyrannidis a Leone principe Aspar occiditur. 1292 1293 Festus et Marcianus His conss patricius Ricimer Romae facto imperatore Olybrio Anthemium contra reverentiam principis et ius adfinitatis cum gravi clade civitatis extinguit. qui non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est. Olybrius autem VII imperii mense vitam peregit. 1294 1295 Leo Aug V cons His conss Gundibado hortante Glycerius Ravennae sumpsit imperium. 1296 Eodem anno Leo nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit imperio. 1297 1298 Leo iunior Aug cons Hoc consule imperator Leo senior defunctus est, cui Zeno successit imperio, qui regnavit annis XVII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. 1299 Eo etiam anno Romae Glycerio Nepus successit in regno. 475 474 473 472 471 470 469

1287 A t h e m i i M 1288 Iordanes] M Cusp. : Iordannes P 1291 affectator tyrannidis] emend. Mommsen : affectata tyrandis Ma : affectata tyrranidis P : affectata tyrranide Cusp. 1294 conss P 1295 imperio P 1297 conss P 1298 hoc consule] M Cusp. : hoc conss P

106
1300 1301 pc Leonis Aug iun Eodem anno Orestes Nepote in Dalmatias fugato filio suo Augustulo dedit imperium. 1302 1303 Basiliscus II et Armatus His conss ab Odovacre Orestes et frater eius Paulus extincti sunt, nomenque regis Odovacar adsumpsit, cum tamen nee purpura nee regalibus uteretur insignibus. 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 pc Basilisci II et Armati E11US VC COnS Zeno Aug II cons Basilius vc iun cons Placidus vc cons His conss Odovacar in Dalmatiis Odivam vine it et perimit. Severinus vc cons Faustus vc cons dn Theodericus et Venantius Symmachus vc cons Decius et Longinus Boetius vc cons Hoc cons Odovacar Foeba rege Rugorum victo captoque potitus est. 1317 1318 Dynamius et Sifidius Probinus et Eusebius 488 489 482 483 484 485 486 487 477 478 479 480 481 476 475

1300 pc om. M iun. om. M XLVII ins. Ppost iun. 1303 O d i o v a c a r M 1305 conss P 1306 Aug II cons om. M conss. P 1307 et Basilius M conss P 1308 om. M conss P 1309 Odiovacar M: Odoacer Cusp. Dalmatiis] P Cusp. : Dalmaciis M Odivam] P : Odiciam M: Custodiam Cusp. 1310 conss P 1311 conss P 1312 d c M Theodericus] M Cusp. : Theoderichus P Venantius] P Cusp. : Venatius M 1313 Symmachus] P Cusp. : Simachus M conss P 1314-1315 ponit M post 1316 1315 conss P 1316 ponit M ante 1314 His conss P : Hoc conss M potius M

107
1319 His conss felicissimus atque fortissimus dn rex Theodericus intravit Italiam. 1320 Cui Odovacar ad Isontium pugnam parans victus cum tota gente fugatus est. 1321 1322 1323 Eodem anno repetito conflictu Veronae vincitur Odovacar. Faustus iun cons His conss ad Adduam fluvium Odovacrem dn Theoderichus rex tertio certamine superavit. 1324 1325 1326 Qui Ravennam fugiens obsidetur inclusus. Olybrius iun cons Hoc consule Odovacar cum Erulis egressus Ravennam nocturnis horis ad pontem Candidiani a dn nostro rege Theoderico memorabili certamine superatur. 1327 Tunc etiam Vandali pace suppliciter postulata a Siciliae solita depredatione cessarunt. 1328 Eodem anno Zeno occubuit, cui Anastasius in orientali successit imperio. 1329 1330 1331 Anastasius Aug et Rufus Albinus vc cons Hoc cons dn rex Theodericus Ravennam ingressus Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit. 1332 1333 1334 1319 1321 Cusp. 1325 Cusp. Cusp. Asterius et Praesidius Viator vc cons Paulus vc cons 494 495 496 492 493 491 490

Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theoderichus M 1320 Odovacar] P Cusp. : Odavacar M V e r o n e P post Odovacar ins. P XLVIII 1322 conss P 1323 ad Adduam] M : adducam P Theoderichus P : Theodoricus M: Theodericus Cusp. conss. P 1326 Erulis] M: Erudis P : Herulis Cusp. Rav P M Theoderico] P : Theodoricho M 1328 AnatasiusM" 1330 conss P 1331 Theodericus] P : Theodorichus M 1333 conss P 1334 conss P 1335 conss P

108
1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 Anastasius Aug II cons Paulinus et Iohannes Iohannes vc cons Patricius et Hypatius Hoc anno dn rex Theodericus Romam cunctorum votis expetitus advenit et senatum suum mira affabilitate tractans Romanae plebi donavit annonas. atque admirandis moeniis deputata per singulos annos maxima pecuniae quantitate subvenit. sub cuius felici imperio plurimae renovantur urbes, munitissima castella conduntur. Consurgunt admiranda palatia magnisque eius operibus antiqua miracula superantur. 1340 1341 1342 Avienus et Pompeius Avienus iun et Probus His conss dn rex Theodericus aquam Ravennam perduxit, cuius formam sumptu proprio instauravit quae longis ante fuerat ad solum reducta temporibus. 1342a 1343 1344 Volusianus et Dexicrates Caetheus vc cons Hoc cons virtute dn regis Theoderici victis Vulgaribus Sirmium recepit Italia. 1345 1346 1347 Theodorus et Sabinianus Messala et Ariovinna Anastasius Aug HI et Venantius 505 506 507 503 504 501 502 497 498 499 500

1337 conss P 1338 Hypatius] P Cusp. : Hypatias A/6 patias Ma 1339 Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theodorichus M singulos annos] M Cusp, annos singulos P plurime P cartella M 1342 forma P M: forinas Cusp, quae] P Cusp. : que M 1342a om. P M et Cusp, sed opinor hos consules restituendos esse. 1344 conss P 1347 I I M

1348 1349

Venantius mn et Celer His conss contra Francos a domno nostro destinatur exercitus qui Gallias Francorum depredatione confusas victis hostibus ac fugatis suo adquisivit imperio.

508

1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356

Importunus vc cons Boetius vc cons Felix et Secundinus Paulus et Muschianus Probus et Clementinus Senator vc cons Me etiam consule in vestrorum laude temporum adunato clero ut populo Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia.

509 5io 511 512 513 514

1357 1358

Florentius et Anthemius His consulibus dn rex Theodericus filiam suam domnam Amalasuintam gloriosi viri dn Eutharici matrimonio deo auspice copulavit.

515

1359 1360 1361 1362

Petrus vc cons Anastasius et Acapitus Magnus vc cons Eo anno dn Eutharicus Cillica mirabili gratia senatus et plebis ad edendum exceptus est feliciter consulatum.

516 517 518

1363 1349 1351 1358 1360

dn Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug

519

Francorum] M Cusp. : Franchorum P hostilibus M3 hostibus Ma 1350 conss P conss P 1355 conss P 1356 consule] MCusp : conss P c o r c o r d i a P Theodericus] P Cusp. : Theoderichus M 1359 conss P 1360-1361 om.P Agapitus Cusp. 1362 s e n e t u s M

1364

Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis stupente etiam Symmacho orientis legato, divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare quern Romae celebraverat consulatum.

1365

Igitur ut effusam annorum seriem auctorum testificatione digestam sub brevitatis compendio redigamus, ab Adam usque ad diluvium sicut ex chronicis Eusebii Hieronimi collegimus anni sunt IICCXLII.

1366

A diluvio usque ad Ninum Assyriorum regem anni sunt DCCCXCVIIII.

1367 1368 1369

A Nino usque ad Latinum regem anni sunt DCCCLII. A Latino rege usque ad Romulum anni sunt CCCCLVH. A Romulo usque ad Brutum et Tarquinium primos consules anni sunt CCXL.

1370

A Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum sicut ex Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum auctoritate firmato collegimus anni sunt MXXXI.

1371

Ac sic totus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum coll igitur annis VDCCXXI.

1364 cuisM" devocioneM

presentiamM aspectas P itaeratis edicionibus M

1366 ab diluio P Assiriorum P : virorum clarorum Pa 1371 seculorum M

1365 Eusebii] P Cusp. : Eusebei M 1370 clarorum virorum] Pb MCusp.

Chapter 3: Chronology and Consuls

Cassiodorus' Count of the Years Cassiodorus, in his preface, where he claims to be restoring the fasti, and in his concluding paragraph, in which he adds up the years from Creation to 519, lays heavy emphasis on the chronology of his work, so it makes sense to start with his chronological sources and the chronological structure of his work. Cassiodorus had to construct an over-arching chronology of the world from creation to his day, and he had set himself the further task of incorporating the consular list from the first consuls through to 519 into that chronology. There is no other extant Latin work from late antiquity which does quite the same thing. In this chapter I will first discuss how he arrived at the number of years he cites in his supputatio, including the restoration of four consular pairs. I will then treat individually the consular lists which he used in constructing his consular list, the first, an epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, and the second, Victorius of Aquitaine's Cursus Paschalis. In the last section, I will attempt to explain how Cassiodorus reconciled the consular list of Victorius with the imperial reigns he found in Jerome so that he could then assign the historical notes which he took from Jerome to particular consular pairs. As I have noted above, Cassiodorus concluded his Chronica with a supputatio. Igitur ut effusam annorum seriem auctorum testificatione digestam sub brevitatis compendio redigamus, ab Adam usque ad diluvium, sicut ex chronicis Eusebii Hieronymii collegimus, anni sunt IICCXLII. a diluvio usque ad Ninum Assyriorum regem anni sunt DCCCXCVIIII. a Nino usque ad Latinum regem

112 anni sunt DCCCLII. a Latino rege usque ad Romulum anni sunt CCCCLVII. a Romulo usque ad Brutum et Tarquinium primos consules anni sunt CCXL. a Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum, sicut ex Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum auctoritate firmato collegimus, anni sunt MXXXI. ac sic totus ordo saeculorum usque ad consulatum vestrum colligitur annis VDCCXXI. Therefore, in order that we might very briefly bring together the vast order of the years, set in order through the witness of authors, from Adam to the flood, as we gather from Jerome's chronicle of Eusebius, there are 1242 years. From the flood to Ninus, the king of the Assyrians, there are 899 years. From Ninus to king Latinus there are 852 years. From king Latinus to Romulus there are 457 years. From Romulus to Brutus and Tarquinius, the first consuls, there are 240 years. From Brutus and Tarquinius to your consulship, as we gather from Titus Livius and Aufidius Bassus and an Easter calendar supported by the authority of famous men, there are 1031 years. And thus the whole order of the ages up to your consulship adds up to 5721 years. The total, 5721, is a correct addition of the numbers he provides. In simpler form the addition is as follows: From Adam to the flood: From the flood to Ninus: From Ninus to Latinus: From Latinus to Romulus: From Romulus to Brutus: From Brutus to Eutharic: Total: The first five numbers are fairly easily dealt with, since they all derive, in one form or another, from Jerome, as Cassiodorus states. The 2,242 years from Adam to the flood can be found in Jerome's supputationes to his translation of Eusebius.86 2242 899 852 457 240 1031 5721

The Assyrian Kings Cassiodorus counts from the flood to the beginning of Ninus' reign as 899 years.
86 Helm, 174 and 250.

113
Jerome counted from the flood to the birth of Abraham as being 942 years,87 but he also gave the year of Ninus' reign in which Abraham was born: the forty-third.88 Cassiodorus merely subtracted 43 from 942 and came up with 899. He chose the beginning of Ninus' reign as more suitable to his secular purpose, since Ninus was the first king of the first of Eusebius' four world empires. Cassiodorus then lists the Assyrian kings from Ninus to Mithreus and the length of their reigns, taken from Jerome, with a total number of 852 years, as follows, with Jerome's alongside for comparison. Cassiodorus Ninus Samiramis Ninyas Arivis Arelius Xerxes Armametres Molechus Balaeus Althadas Mamithus Magchaleus Sfereus Mamylus Sparaethus Ascatadis Amyntes Belochus Bellepares Lamprides Sosares Lampares Panias Sosarmus Mithreus
87 88 89

Jerome

52 42 38 30 40 30 38 35 52 32 30 30 20 30 40 40 45 25 30 32 20 30
45 89

19 27

Ninus Semiramis Ninyas Arius Aralius Xerxes Armamitres Belochus Balaeus Altadas Mamynthus Magchaleus Sfaerus Mamylus Sparaethus Ascatades Amynthes Belochus Bellepares Lamprides Sosares Lampares Pannias Sosarmus Mithraeus

52 42 38 25 40 30 38 35 52 32 30 30 20 30 40 40 45 25 30 32 20 30 45 19 27

Helm, 15, 174 and 250. Helm, 20a. The length of Panias' reign and the next name, Sosarmus, are missing in our manuscripts, but the total of the years of Assyrian kings indicates that both require restoration to the text.

Total Latinus

852 32 Tautanes

852 32

Aside from some differences in the spelling of the names, the numbers are identical. But Cassiodorus ascribed the same length of reign to Latinus as Jerome had to Tautanes, thirty-two years.90 It appears that Cassiodorus simply replaced Tautanes' name with Latinus' name. No other ancient author attests to the length of thirty-two years for Latinus' reign.91 Jerome, however, in a short note, says that "ante Aeneam Ianus, Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus in Italia regnarunt ann. circiter CL" / "before Aeneas Ianus, Saturnus, Picus, Faunus and Latinus ruled in Italy for around 150 years."92 Vergil suggests that Latinus had ruled in Italy for a long time before the arrival of Aeneas and the Trojans.93 Unless Cassiodorus had some other source (which is unlikely), it is possible that he simply settled on the thirty-two years for Latinus as a not unreasonable number. This weak explanation does not excuse him from the charge of arbitrarily making the beginning of Latinus' reign dovetail with the beginning of Tautanes'. The problem is further complicated by the date chosen by Cassiodorus for the length of Aeneas' wanderings. Cassiodorus diverges from Jerome in regard to the length of time he assigns to Aeneas' travels before his arrival in Italy. Jerome/Eusebius reports two versions of the length of the journey: "post III annum captivitatis Troiae sive, ut quidam volunt, post annum VIII regnavit Aeneas ann. Ill" / "after the third year from the capture of Troy, or, as some say, after the eighth year, Aeneas ruled for three years."94
90 91 92 93 94 Helm 59a 10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says he reigned for thirty-five years (1.34.3). Syncellus, p. 200, says he reigned for thirty-six years and that Aeneas arrived in the thirty-third year. Helm 62a, c. Vergil, Aeneid 7.45-46: "rex arva Latinus et urbes / iam senior longa placidas in pace regebat. " Helm 62b.

115 Jerome follows the first version in his dating scheme, but Cassiodorus deliberately chose to give Aeneas eight years, presumably because Vergil had said that Aeneas had been wandering for at least seven years after the fall of Troy.95 Jerome says that Troy fell in the twenty-fifth year of Tautanes' reign. Cassiodorus accordingly reports that Troy fell in the twenty-fifth year of Latinus' reign. It followed that Aeneas had to wander for eight years before taking up the kingship in Italy. Since Eusebius/Jerome had given Aeneas only three years of wandering, and not eight, they put the first year of Aeneas' reign, not in the year after Tautanes' death, but rather in the twenty-ninth year. Cassiodorus' deliberate choice to give Aeneas eight years of wandering thus adds four years to Jerome's chronology.96 The lengths of the reigns of the Latin kings of Alba Longa from Aeneas to Amulius Silvius are likewise drawn from Jerome. The reign of Amulius Silvius, the last king of Alba Longa, is given by Cassiodorus as forty-three years, while Jerome counted forty-four years.97 However, several of the most important manuscripts of Jerome have forty-three, as does Prosper.98 The final tally of years shows the correct addition of his own list (from Latinus to Amulius), rather than a number taken from elsewhere. Cassiodorus simply accepted the reading of his text of Jerome without actually counting the individual years of each reign in Jerome. The reigns of the kings from Romulus to
95 septima post Troiae excidium iam uertitur aestas, cum freta, cum terras omnis, tot inhospita saxa sideraque emensae ferimur, dum per mare magnum Italiam sequimur fugientem et uoluimur undis. (Vergil, Aeneid 5.626-629) We could be critical of Cassiodorus because he chose an eight year journey for Aeneas, but really only gave him seven years. Latinus' reign was thirty-two years and Troy was destroyed in the twenty-fifth year. That only leaves Aeneas room for seven years of wandering. But if Cassiodorus was counting inclusively, he can just squeak by. Cassiodorus was faithful enough to his source that he did not want to give a number (seven years) that was not attested by Jerome. Helm, 84b and 88b. Chron. Min. I, 144.

96

97 98

116 Tarquinius Superbus are taken directly from Jerome and add up to 240 years without any alterations or variations. The 1031 years from the first consuls to 519 are much harder to deal with because Cassiodorus did not depend on a single surviving source - he used an epitome of Livy, Victorius, and a continuation of Victorius - but also because the manuscripts of Cassiodorus do not have enough consular pairs to make up the total, and it is to this problem that I now turn before we treat each of his sources.

Restoring Four Consular Pairs to the Text In his supputatio at the end of the Chronica, Cassiodorus counted 1031 years from Brutus and Tarquinius, the first consuls, to Eutharic's consulship in 519 CE, which is correct since the first year of the Republic in Jerome (and therefore Cassiodorus) is 512 BC." But in the text of Cassiodorus as found in the manuscripts there are only 1027 years accounted for: 963 by consular pairs, forty by decemviral rule (154), twenty by the rule of military tribunes and four by the anarchy (183-186). This means that either Cassiodorus miscounted or four pairs of consuls have fallen out.100 In the text I have restored four consular pairs in order to make the number of years in Cassiodorus' final total match the number of years accounted for by consular pairs. Mommsen's restorations were different from mine, in part because he miscounted the
99 See Mommsen 1861 and 1894 and Sanders 1903. Cassiodorus' consular list from the Republic has received a great deal of attention, particularly at the turn of the twentieth century, because of its value as an offspring of the Livian epitome. I will discuss the Livian epitome extensively in chapter 3. What follows is only a discussion of the number of years and the restoration of the text. 100 There are only 1028 years from 509 BC (the Varronian date of the first consuls) to AD 519, so there was bound to be some trouble fitting even a correct consular list into 1031 years. In addition, Victorius, Cassiodorus' source for most of the imperial period, has one year too many - the Easternpromulgated consuls of 346 which he put between 344 and 345.

number of years in his text of Cassiodorus, and in part because he overlooked some key pieces of evidence which help to restore three consular pairs in the imperial period. I have tried to use only evidence internal to Cassiodorus' Chronica for determining which names require restoration. We can never be sure, of course, that Cassiodorus did not himself miscount the years; Mommsen, after all, himself miscounted the consular pairs in his own edition.101 However, as we shall see, Cassiodorus approached his work with deliberation and care, and so we must proceed on the assumption that his count was correct. Still, even if we make the assumption that his count was correct, there is no guarantee that the consular pairs which I am about to discuss fell out after he published the Chronica. There was, presumably, at least one rough draft, and probably more, and consular pairs could have fallen out at any time before or after the number 1031 was arrived at. What follows, then, is necessarily to be treated as uncertain. Before we discuss the particulars, we must treat the issue of how Cassiodorus counted his years. It seems obvious that he would count years when there were consuls by consular pairs, but during the empire he also took pains to make his consular list match the imperial reigns, not altogether successfully.102 Mommsen believed that Cassiodorus was careful to make his count of years for individual reigns match his count of consular years within each reign (and as a result excluded the consuls of 503 CE from his list).103 But the evidence suggests that he counted by consular year alone, and only
101 Mommsen 1894, 115, counted 1028 years, which is incorrect. He counted one consulship too many for the Republican period. 102 Cassiodorus' synchronization of imperial reigns with his consular years will be discussed below, pp. 207ff. 103 Mommsen 1894, 116. See below, p. 119ff.

118 after the consular list was drawn up did he add the historical notices and imperial reigns. Cassiodorus' consular list is not by any means an accurate one. The fasti for the early imperial period are, in all our manuscript sources, sadly inaccurate. However, there are only seven consular pairs which appear in Cassiodorus' sourcesan epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, and Victorius of Aquitaineand are also are missing from his text. It is to these which we must look for the four pairs to be restored. They are listed here in the order in which they will be treated below: 1) the consuls of 503 CE, Fl. Dexicrates and Fl. Volusianus; 2) the consuls of 297 CE, Maximianus V and Maximus II; 3) the consuls of 29 CE, C. Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus;104 4) the consuls of 193 BCE, L. Cornelius and Q. Minucius; 5) the second consul of 66, L. Volcacius, and the first from 65 BCE, L. Cotta (these two years have been compressed, by a haplography, into a single year which reads "Man. Lepidus et L. Torquatus"); 6) the consuls of 269 BCE, Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius and 7) the consuls of 421 BCE, Cn. Fabius and T. Quinctius. The restoration of four consular pairs is by no means an easy matter. We must decide for or against any given consular pair using evidence which does not come from the manuscripts. I have tried in my deliberations to make decisions based on the internal evidence offered by the Chronica itself and by the evidence it offers for Cassiodorus' chronographic method. I have not resorted to outside sources or numbers which Cassiodorus does not explicitly say he used. In this I have departed both from Mommsen and Sanders, both of whom used Eutropius' tally of 1118 years from the first consuls to the end of Valentinian's reign at 10.18.3 of the Breviarium as a target. But, though

104 These names were present in Aufidius Bassus and Victorius.

Cassiodorus used Eutropius, he used him very haphazardly and there is no evidence that he aimed for this number of years. Quite the contrary, since he explicitly said in his preface that his intent in the Chronica was to restore historicafidesto the fasti, and at least part of this claim is due to the fact that Cassiodorus can name the sources he used for his time-line, and he does not name Eutropius as a source for his chronography. We would expect him to follow only the evidence of his named sources. We have something of a mid-point from which to begin. During the reign of Philip the one thousandth anniversary of the founding of the city was celebrated. Cassiodorus took his entry about the anniversary from Jerome, and, in Helm's edition, the event is placed in the second year of Philip's reign, but some manuscripts place it in the first year, and others authors who used Jerome, place it in the third year.105 Cassiodorus, however, shifts the event to the fifth year. In the many manuscripts of Jerome's chronicle, the ascription of an historical event to a given year varies from copy to copy, but the shift is normally not more than one, or occasionally two, years.106 A shift of three or four years invites suspicion of a deliberate act. The count of consular pairs in Cassiodorus' Chronica as it stands in the manuscripts from the first consuls to the year in which he placed the anniversary is 694. Add that to the 240 years from Romulus' founding of the city to the first consuls (a number Cassiodorus got from Jerome), the forty years of decemviral rule, and the twenty-four years of military tribunes and anarchy, and the total is 998. Cassiodorus evidently counted the number of years from the beginning of Romulus' reign to the anniversary, and displaced the anniversary to make a total of 1000 years. This

105 Helm, 217. Mss A and B place the event in the first year, while Orosius places it in the third (7.20). 106 See below, p. 216ff.

seems to me good evidence that Cassiodorus counted his consular years by hand at least once, and further suggests that of the four pairs of consuls who are to be restored, two should come from the five missing consular pairs noted by his sources which precede Philip's reign in Cassiodorus' text. Of the seven consular pairs found in Cassiodorus' sources and missing from his chronicle, only two follow the reign of Philip, those of 503 and 297. In the case of the consuls of 503 it is simply a matter of whether we believe that Cassiodorus could forget the consuls sixteen years prior to the composition of his work. He did not include the number of years of Anastasius' reign (1328) with the result that we cannot compare the number of consuls with the number of regnal years. Mommsen believed that he either forgot the consuls or, having included them, miscounted; Sanders believed that they ought to be restored.107 In accordance with my arguments above, however, I believe that they ought to be restored. Cassiodorus' source for the imperial consuls, Victorius of Aquitaine's Easter calendar, ended in 457 and, although Cassiodorus indicates that the text he had was continued by others,108 it is impossible to know just how far his Easter calendar went. Still, as I will argue below, Cassiodorus, like many others, had a copy of Victorius' list which was maintained by others or even by himself, from year to year, and must have included the consuls of 503. Cassiodorus' list of consuls from 457 to 519 is excellent in other respects, and it is almost unbelievable that he could have omitted these consuls.109
107 Mommsen 1861, 567, and 1894, 116; Sanders 1905, 9. 108 In his epilogue he talks of the "clarorum virorum auctoritate'V'the authority of famous men," which would appear to indicate that he meant not only Victorius, but also his continuators, who may well have been anonymous. 109 The western consul for the year, Volusianus, is not well known, but there is no reason to suspect that he was deliberately omitted from the consular lists. See Variae 4.22f, where Volusianus is called

The consuls of 297 are not in the manuscripts of the Chronica. Cuspinianus has them, but he regularly supplemented the information he drew from Cassiodorus with other sources.110 Since both Maximianus and Maximus went on to hold further consulships, Cuspinianus must have seen the omission of Maximianus' fifth and Maximus' second consulships, and re-inserted them, probably through reference to the Codex Calendar of 354, of which he had a copy, and to which he refers regularly through these years.111 The difficulty with restoring them lies with the fact that Diocletian is given a reign of only twenty years, whereas, with the consuls of 297 restored, we get twentyone consular pairs. This goes against Cassiodorus' normal procedure of matching consular pairs with imperial years. However, I accept Mommsen's argument for their inclusion in Cassiodorus' original text.112 He argues that Jerome does not mention the one year of Galerius' reign between the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus, but assigns an empty year there before the accession of Constantine. Jerome clearly assigns Diocletian's and Maximianus' abdication to the twentieth year of Diocletian's reign. This is counted not by regnal years, the customary manner in Jerome, but by years of persecution. The third year of Diocletian's persecution is reserved for Constantius and Galerius, but their reigns are not "counted" as such.113 Perhaps to get some clarification on Jerome's chronology, Cassiodorus referred to Eutropius for further information about Constantius and Galerius. He remarks, "sed Constantius tantum Augusti dignitate contentus cum esset otiosus, anni ipsius adscribuntur filio eius Constantino" / "but since
patricius, CLRE for the year in question, and Moorhead (1992), 149. 110 For instance, Cuspinianus substitutes, correctly, the name "Constantius" for Cassiodorus1 "Constans" in the years 352, 353 and 354. 111 Cuspinianus refers to the document as the "auctor ignotus." 112 Mommsen 1894, 116, n. 1. 113 Helm 228. See Burgess 1997.

122 Constantius was free from public duties and satisfied with the rank of Augustus alone, his years are assigned to those of his son, Constantine."114 The remark is difficult to understand because no extra years are added to Constantine's reign, and Jerome seems clear enough that Constantius died the year of, or the year after Diocletian's resignation.115 Furthermore, the historical events which Cassiodorus takes from Jerome show that he included the consuls of 297 in his original list. The note about Diocletian's order that he be worshiped as a god comes in the eleventh year in Jerome's list. It comes in Diocletian's eleventh year as well only if the consuls of 297 are restored. The same is true of the notes on the defeat of the Alamanni and the triumph of Diocletian and Maximianus, in the fifteenth and nineteenth years of Diocletian's reign. It is possible that the consular names fell out early in the textual tradition due to a scribal error. In 296 Diocletian held his fifth consulship and Constantius his second. The similarity of the numbers of consulships between the two years may have caused the omission. Finally, it seems unlikely that Cassiodorus should omit a pair of consuls whose omission would stand out because of the missing iteration numbers. It is more likely that they dropped out in the later manuscript tradition than during Cassiodorus' work on the Chronica.116 The explanation would seem to be homoeoteleuton, since both the consuls of 296 and 297 end with "-us II."

114 Eutropius 10.2, "Constantius tamen, contentus dignitate Augusti, Italiae atque Africae administrandae sollicitudinem recusavit..." / "But Constantius, satisfied with the rank of Augustus, refused the responsibility of the administration of Italy and Africa." 115 It is also possible that he was led astray by the rapid and confusing course of events which followed Diocletian's resignation. Cassiodorus was perhaps not sure when Constantius died amidst the turmoil. 116 Cassiodorus' source, Victorius of Aquitaine, was very particular about iteration numbers, as will be demonstrated below, which further suggests that Cassiodorus at least had them in front of him when he was preparing his work.

123 If the consuls of 503 and 297 are to be restored, two more consular pairs need restoration from before the one thousandth anniversary of the founding of Rome to make up the total of 1031 years from 509 BCE to 519 CE. To recap, there are five consulships which appear in Cassiodorus' sources, but not in the manuscripts: the consuls of 29 CE, C. Fufius Geminus and L. Rubellius Geminus; the consuls of 193 BCE, L. Cornelius and Q. Minucius; the second consul of 66, L. Volcacius, and the first from 65 BCE, L. Cotta; the consuls of 269 BCE, Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius; the consuls of 421 BCE, Cn. Fabius and T. Quinctius. Only two of these can be chosen, and I believe they must be the consuls of 29 CE and those of 421 BCE. When Cassiodorus combined the consular list of Victorius with the regnal years of Jerome, he was very careful to assign to each imperial reign the correct corresponding number of consuls. That is, when he says that Commodus reigned for thirteen years, he assigns thirteen consular pairs to the reign; when he says that Trajan reigned for nineteen years, six months and fifteen days, he assigns twenty consular pairs to the reign.117 The sole exception in the manuscripts is the reign of Tiberius, where twenty-three regnal years are given only twenty-two consular pairs, which suggests that a pair of consuls has dropped out. Cassiodorus' source, Victorius of Aquitaine's Cursus Paschalis, lists the first consuls after the crucifixion as "duobus Geminis" and Prosper, the source of Victor, has "Fufio Gemino et Rubellio Gemino consulibus" as the year of the crucifixion.118 The manuscripts of the Chronica, however, appear to put the crucifixion in the fifth
117 I deal with Cassiodorus' combination of his consular list with the regnal years of Jerome in much more detail below, pp. 207ff. 118 Ms. S of Victorius does not list the consuls of the year 29 as "duobus Geminis," but gives their gentilicia instead: "Ruffio et Rubellio" (a mistake for "Fufio et Rubellio"). But in the line above the start of Victorius list there has been added "Crucifixio Christi consulibus duobus Geminis."

124 consulship of Tiberius.1191 believe that "duo Gemini" needs to be restored to the text immediately before the report of the crucifixion, and I have done so in my new edition. Dating the crucifixion to the year when the two Gemini were consuls was widespread in antiquity; it was a very famous date, and appears in many of the late antique lists.120 It is difficult to imagine that Cassiodorus did not know this date, and the consuls were the first pair in his primary source, Victorius. Cuspinianus was distressed by the evidence of some authors that Jesus was crucified in the consulship of the "two Gemini," in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign,121 while others put the crucifixion in the eighteenth year. He moves on, however, confessing that he cannot resolve the problem, but returns to it when he comes to the crucifixion in the Chronica. Cassiodorus' note on the crucifixion in both in the surviving manuscripts, and in the manuscript that Cuspinianus had, is placed under the fifth consulship of Tiberius, which, officially, he held alone since his colleague for the year, Seianus, had undergone the damnatio memoriae. The note is taken largely from Jerome and reads: "His conss dominus noster Iesus Christus passus est VIII k. Apr. et defectio solis facta est, qualis ante vel postmodum numquam fuit'V'Under these consuls our lord Jesus Christ suffered on the eighth day before the kalends of April and there was an eclipse of the sun
119 Chron. 634. 120 The following list is quoted from Burgess (2002), 276, n. 67: "Simply listing those in Mommsen's Chron. Min. volumes, we have the preface to the Liberian catalogue of Roman bishops contained in the Chron. 354 (1: 73.2), the Computatio a. 452, 69 (1: 153.13); Prosper 388 (1: 409-10); Victorius of Aquitaine, Cursus Paschalis (1: 683.22, 686), and the Prologus Paschae ad Vitalem (1: 737.32). See also Lactantius, de mortibus persecutorum 2.1 and Div. Inst. 4.10.18; Augustine, de ciuitate dei 18.54 (ed. Dombart-Kalb, p. 344.3); and the Anonymi Libellus de computo Paschali, PL 59: 553 A and D (of the mid-fifth century), as well a third century reference from Ulpian in Mosaicarum et Romanorum legum collatio 8.7.3, in Paul Krueger, Theodor Mommsen, and Wilhelm Studemund (eds.), Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani 3, Berlin 1890, 166.15." To this list can be added Tertullian Adversus Iudaeos 8.17. 121 Cuspinianus, pp. 369-371.

125 such as never was either before or since." Cuspinianus notes reasonably that "Si enim sub quinto Tiberii consulatu passionem Christi voluisset denotare, dixisset Hoc cos, non His conss'V'If he had wanted to note the passion of Christ under the fifth consulship of Tiberius, he would have said, "under this consul" not "under these consuls." Furthermore, though it is difficult to assess, Cuspinianus says that there is a blank space in his text: "cum itaque in exemplari unico, quod habui, in hoc loco vacuum reperissem spacium, mox deesse Consules duos conieci, quos diligenter undique disquirens, tandem reperi in quinto libro Taciti, quos subscribam fideliter et opem hanc autori nostro afferam corrupto et manco'V'since, therefore, in the single copy which I had, I had found an empty space in this spot, I conjectured that two consuls were missing, which, looking everywhere carefully, I at last found in the fifth book of Tacitus. I will add them just as they are and will bring this help to our corrupt and defective author." Cuspinianus thus restores the consuls of 32, Gnaeus Domitius and Camillus Scribonianus to the spot immediately before the note on the crucifixion. I believe, however, that the consular pair "duo Gemini" ought to be restored to the text. These consuls are present in Cassiodorus' list in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign as C. Rubellius and C. Fufius, and perhaps their presence there prevented their restoration by Cuspinianus, Mommsen and others.122 But Cassiodorus has the consuls of 30 listed twice as well, as M. Vinicius and L. Cassius in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, and as Vinicius and Longinus in the eighteenth year. The reason for the duplication is the change in source, as Cassiodorus abandoned the epitome of Aufidius Bassus, his source for the
122 Mommsen makes no mention of it at all. Cuspinianus knew that the consuls C. Rubellius and C. Fufius were the two Gemini, but did not know that Cassiodorus' change in sources was responsible for the doubling up of consular pairs.

126 consuls between 9 BCE and 31 CE, in favour of Victorius, his source for the imperial consuls down to 457 (and a continuation for the rest). The names appeared differently in both texts, and thus appear twice in Cassiodorus. The fact that the Gemini appear in Tiberius' fifteenth year is therefore no impediment to their appearing in the eighteenth year as well. Finally, Cassiodorus took his note on the birth of the poet Persius from Jerome. Jerome has the note in the twenty-second year of Tiberius. If we restore the two Gemini to Cassiodorus' text, his note will also appear in Tiberius' twenty-second year, but only the twenty-first without it - further evidence that the manuscript reading as we have it is missing a year.123 Given Cuspinianus' testimony that there was an empty space, and the words of Cassiodorus himself, which imply that there were two consuls in the year of the crucifixion, not one, the overwhelming evidence in the ancient sources that the crucifixion was in the consulship of the two Gemini, and the extra consulship required for Tiberius reign, the restoration of "duo Gemini" seems justified.124 Only one year remains to be restored to make the total of 1031 years which Cassiodorus supplies. Of the four remaining contenders, 66/65, 193, 269 and 421 BCE, the last, Cn. Fabius et T. Quinctius, must be restored. Though Mommsen believed that the
123 As will be demonstrated below, Cassiodorus appears always to have placed historical events in his work by counting years from the beginning of imperial reigns, not from the end. 124 On the other hand, Cuspinianus may well be correct in his restoration. Cassiodorus' normal practice would have been to construct a consular list and then enter the historical details. If for some reason Cassiodorus knew that the consuls of the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign were, in fact, the two Gemini, then he may well have opted for using Aufidius Bassus all the way to the eighteenth year of Tiberius' reign, following Eusebius/Jerome, and putting the crucifixion there, ignoring the first consular pair of Victorius since he trusted Bassus more. The correct consular pair might then have been excised in the middle ages by a copyist who believed that the crucifixion took place during the consulship of the Gemini.

consular pair did not appear in Cassiodorus, I assert, with Sanders and Schmidt, that they must have appeared in the original work.125 Without them cannot be explained the peculiar ascription of forty years of reign to the decemvirs who entered into office in 303. In fact, as we find in both Livy and Eutropius, the decemvirate in question lasted for only two years, so Cassiodorus' forty years needs considerable explanation. When Cassiodorus added his historical entries for the early Republic, he made use of Eutropius on one occasion only: the defeat of the Gauls by Camillus in 392 BCE and the years of military tribunates and anarchy which followed his dictatorship. Cassiodorus says: His conss. post urbem captam redeuntes Gallos dux Romanus nomine Camillus extinxit, de quibus triumphans in urbe quasi et ipse patriae conditor Romulus meruit nuncupari. Tunc dignitates mutatae sunt et in loco consulum per annos XVII tribuni militares fuerunt. Quibus ob insolentiam remotis per annos IIII potestas consulum tribunorumque cessavit. Deinde rursus tribus annis per tribunos militares est administrata res publica. post annos vero XXIIII reversa est dignitas consularis. While these men were consuls a Roman leader by the name of Camillus defeated the Gauls as they were returning home after the capture of the city. In triumphing over them in the city, he earned the name of "Romulus," as though he was himself the founder of his country. Then the political offices were changed an in place of the consuls there were military tribunes for seventeen years. When they were removed for four years because of their unruliness, the power of the consuls and tribunes ceased. Then, again, for three years the republic was administered by military tribunes. After twentyfour years, the consular office was reinstated. The passages from Eutropius (in part) are as follows: Statim Galli Senones ad urbem venerunt et...etiam urbem occupaverunt...sed secutus eos Camillus ita cecidit, ut et aurum, quod his
125 Mommsen 1861, 555-556 and 1894, 115 and 125, Sanders 1905, 11. The consular pair is in Cuspinianus, 135, but he had a copy of Livy to hand with which he supplemented the material he found in Cassiodorus, so they need not have appeared in the archetype.

128 datum fuerat, et omnia, quae ceperant, militaria signa revocaret. ita tertio triumphans urbem ingressus est et appellatus secundus Romulus, quasi et ipse patriae conditor. Anno trecentesimo sexagesimo quinto ab urbe condita, post captam autem primo, dignitates mutatae sunt, et pro duobus consulibus facti tribuni militares consulari potestate... Verum dignitas tribunorum militarium non diu perseveravit. nam post aliquantum nullos placuit fieri et quadrennium in urbe ita fluxit, ut potestates ibi maiores non essent. praesumpserunt tamen tribuni militares consulari potestate iterum dignitatem et triennio perseveraverunt. rursus consules facti. (Eutropius, 1.20.3-2.3) At once the Gallic Senones came to the city and...even occupied the city...but Camillus followed them and so cut them down that he recovered both the gold which had been given to them and all the military standards which they had captured, thus triumphing for the third time he entered the city and was named a second Romulus, as if he himself was the founder of his country. In the three hundred and sixty-fifth year from the founding of the city, the first after it was captured, the political offices were changed, and instead of two consuls, military tribunes with consular power were elected...But the office of the military tribunes did not last long, for after a while no one was pleased with them and for four years in the city there was such confusion that there were no office holders. However, the military tribunes again took office with consular power and lasted for three years. Consuls were elected again. The debt to Eutropius is clear enough from Cassiodorus' language. More important for our purposes, though, is that Cassiodorus must have discovered in this passage from Eutropius that the military tribunate which followed Camillus' dictatorship began in the 365th year from the founding of the city. Sanders suggested that Cassiodorus counted the years he had, and came up with 325. He had to include forty more years somewhere, and the rule of the decemviri seemed to him the logical place to put the forty years.125
126 Sanders 1903, 10 was the first to make this argument and he is followed on the whole by Schmidt (209-212), though they both make more of the problem than need be. Sanders insists that Cassiodorus knew from Eutropius that the number of years from the founding of the city to the consulships of Jovian and Varronianus (364) was 1117 years and that, with the added years to 519 (154 with the consulships of 297 excised, as Sanders wants), he got the number 1271. Subtracting the 240 years of regal rule, he came up with 1031 years of consuls. The difficulty, as Schmidt points out (212) is that Cassiodorus must have understood Eutropius to mean that the consulships of 364 encompassed the 1117th year. This is absurd, since Eutropius clearly states that they mark the 1118th year. In any case,

129 Sanders' explanation for the forty years is no doubt correct, but the difficulty with it is that Eutropius is reasonably clear that the decemvirate at this point lasted only two years.127 Either Cassiodorus did not read Eutropius on the decemviri - not impossible, but difficult to imagine, since it comes only one Teubner page before Eutropius' discussion of Camillus, - or he found the forty years of decemviral rule in his source for the consular list, an epitome of Livy. Any or all of the above are possible.128 In any case, it is only with the restoration of the consuls of 421 BCE that we can account for the additional forty years of decemviral rule, since without them Cassiodorus would have had to make the decemviral rule one of forty-one years, since there would be only 324 years between the foundation and his date for Camillus without these consuls. There remains the difficulty of the seventeen years of military tribunes recorded by Cassiodorus. Where does the number come from? That Cassiodorus, who otherwise uses only the Livian epitome for the Republican period, should turn to Eutropius at this point only points to a serious lack of information in his primary source which he
by my count, the year 364 would have been Cassiodorus' 1116th year. There is no evidence that he followed Eutropius in this matter, and the attempt to make the figures fit is doomed to failure. In addition, Sanders' explanation provides the simplest solution: Cassiodorus did not need to have any information about what his numbers ought to have been; he could work out the length of the decemvirate with Eutropius' numbers alone. 127 Eutropius 1.18.1-2: "Anno trecentesimo et altera ab urbe condita imperium consulare cessavit et pro duobus consulibus decern facti sunt, qui summam potestatem haberent, decemviri nominati. sed, cum primo anno bene egissent, secundo unus ex his...filiam virginem corrumpere voluit; quam pater occidit, ne stuprum a decemviro sustineret, et regressus ad milites movit tumultum. sublata est decemviris potestas ipsique damnati sunt'V'In the three hundred and second year after the founding of the city consular rule ceased and, instead of two consuls, ten men were elected who had the highest authority, named decemviri. But, though they ruled well in the first year, in the second year, on of them...wished to rape a virgin daughter. Her father killed her lest she suffer shame from the decemvir, and having gone back to his soldiers he began an uprising. Power was taken away from the decemviri and they themselves were condemned." 128 As I will demonstrate below, Cassiodorus made haphazard use of Eutropius, sometimes using him to correct the lengths of imperial reigns, and sometimes not, so it is not impossible that he only consulted Eutropius when he found something he could not explain in his main source. If this is so, though, it will not explain why he did not consult Eutropius in the matter of the decemvirate.

130 recognized. Jerome was unhelpful, and Eutropius was, as in the imperial portion of the chronicle, his third choice. The lack of information in his primary source had to do with the years of military tribunes and anarchy which followed Camillus' dictatorship. His source, the Livian epitome, gave him only the number of years of rule without consuls, which in Livy is twenty four.129 Unsatisfied for some reason with this figure, he discovered from Eutropius that there were four years of anarchy and then three more years of military tribunes. Subtraction left him with seventeen years for the initial period of tribunician rule.130 Both Mommsen and Sanders wished to restore the consulships of 66/65, 193 and 269 BC. none of which appears in our manuscripts. Cuspinianus has all three, but he has used other means and sources to correct the manuscripts he had. He notes that the first, 66/65, is contradicted by his other sources. He does not explicitly say he is correcting Cassiodorus, but adds a spurious pair of consuls for the year 65. Cuspinianus includes the consuls of 193, L. Cornelius and Q. Minucius, but, as Mommsen noted, Cuspinianus actually cites Livy, whose work survives for this period, when he includes them, so he likely got them from there.131 Cuspinianus also has the consuls of 269, Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius,132 but he cites Eutropius, who has them, thus demonstrating that they were in the Livian epitomes, and, in turn, almost certainly in Livy.133 None of these consular pairs
129 Livy, however, has a different combination of numbers: 15, 4 and 5, rather than 17, 4 and 3. 130 This calculation is suggested by Schmidt 1969, 211-212, who also notes the possibility that Cassiodorus believed, from calculation from Eutropius presumably, that the Republic lasted 462 years. Schmidt, however, accepts Mommsen's restoration of the consuls of 485 and 688/89. In any case, it is unlikely that Cassiodorus would have made such a calculation, since he does not follow Eutropius' numbers anywhere else in the chronicle. 131 Mommsen 1894, 129. Cuspinianus, 236. Cuspinianus mentions Livy frequently through these years and clearly had his copy of Livy's fourth decade open beside him when he covered these years in Cassiodorus. 132 Although Mommsen 1894, 127 in his apparatus, says he does not. 133 They appear in Eutropius, 2.16.

necessarily dropped out after Cassiodorus composed his chronicle. They could just as easily have been omitted at any point during the epitomization of Livy, Cassiodorus' source for the Republican consuls, or during the transmission of that lost document. The epitome of Livy which Cassiodorus used was a very spare document, a consular list with a few historical notes, and it is easy to see how a consular pair could drop out even before the document came into Cassiodorus' hands. It is possible, then, to reconcile the number of years in Cassiodorus' supputatio with the number of years which can be counted by hand in the Chronica itself, but only by restoring four consular pairs to the list. Still, we can also see the care that Cassiodorus showed in constructing his time-line. He evidently counted the years by hand since he appears to have deliberately displaced the one thousandth anniversary of the city from where he found it in his source. Not only his preface, but also the list of sources at the end of the work, which omit the sources for his historical notes, show clearly that he regarded accurate chronology as the most important part of his work. The preface, however, states very clearly that the focus of his work was to restore trustworthiness to the fasti. In the sections which follow I will treat each of his sources for his consular list, a Livian consularia134 and the Cursus paschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine, individually. Each source gives rise to its own set of questions, but Cassiodorus' use of them can shed considerable light on the history of the two sources, one of which, the Livian consularia, is lost, the other of which is extant in several forms.

134 I have named this chapter "the Livian Consularia" because, as I will demonstrate, the epitome which Cassiodorus used as his source for consuls to 28 CE was at its heart a consular list with few historical notes.

The Fasti From the Republic and well into the sixth century CE the Roman world named their years after the two consuls for each year. This system of dating, while fine for those who were able to "name the year," was terribly impractical for all sorts of reasons. Chief among them was that in order to know how long ago something happened, one needed either to memorize the list back in time, or have a list to hand of the consuls for the previous years. In the early empire, these lists were maintained publicly and could be found inscribed on stone panels in fora in a variety of places.135 The inscribed fasti tail off in the middle of the third century, and were replaced by manuscript lists of which we have many examples from antiquity in both Greek and Latin. The documents had a practical value, and were no doubt something that many people had: lawyers, money-lenders, bureaucrats, church functionaries would all have had reason to use them in their day-today business. They also served as the raw material for history, since many of these lists also had historical details, particularly relating to the emperors and their activities. The fasti were "living" documents. They were anonymous and were frequently updated, corrected, re-copied and circulated. In the late empire, when the names of the consuls for each year were not always known early in the year - and sometimes not even until the next year or not at all - the lists were regularly altered as bits of information became known. However, because these texts were sub-literary, copyists were not always as careful as they would be if they had been copying a literary work with an author's name attached to it. Names were added; names were reversed; names were changed.
135 The Fasti Capitolini and the Fasti Ostienses (Degrassi, 1947) are the best examples.

133 "Corrections" were made which might or might not have been correct. In the pages that follow, I will investigate some of this "raw material" which Cassiodorus used in constructing his consular list. In the sections which follow I will 1) investigate the nature of Cassiodorus' source for his Republican consuls, now lost, 2) discuss the reasons for the differences between his consular list and that of Victorius of Aquitaine, his source for the consuls between 29 CE and 457, 3) compare his list with surviving lists from the last half of the fifth and the first quarter of the sixth century, and 4) briefly discuss the extension to Cassiodorus' consular list which appears at the end of both manuscripts and runs all the way to 559. These are four rather different tasks, but all require looking at the consular lists in the same way, and discussing characteristics peculiar to the manuscript consular list. Not unlike the study of epigraphy, then, my discussion will sometimes be very technical. Consular lists of the same period, even one "copied" from another, can be quite different from each other. Since they are not literary documents, the standards used to copy, correct, and update them are different from those we see with literary texts, which preserve the integrity impressed on them by the authorial hand. Since the consular list has no author, only raw historical detail, the only thing holding it together is historical integrity, and what that means will vary from individual to individual. Because copyists felt at liberty to alter and correct consular lists, even different manuscripts of the same list by the same author, like those of Prosper and Victorius, can vary the one from the other. An entry of a name in a consular list will include the name itself, but can also include an iteration (if that person had been consul more than once), and any of several

abbreviations which, in late antiquity, typically identified a person's status ("aug" for "Augustus" or "vc" for "vir clarissimus"), but might also be used to distinguish one person from another (e.g. "iun" for "iunior"). The name of the consul and how it appeared differed between the Republic and the empire. Republican consuls typically were identified by praenomen and nomen gentilicium, thus: "C. Iulio." Sometimes, however, the list gives the praenomen and cognomen, thus: "C. Caesare." And sometimes all three names were used: "C. Iulio Caesare." Under the empire, the written lists normally listed only the cognomen, thus: "Vero et Ambiguo." Each year there was a consul prior, that is, under the Republic the name who received the most votes. Under the empire there were fairly clear-cut rules about who was consul prior, outlined by the editors of CLRE: "(1) Augusti and Caesars took precedence over all subjects; (2) Augusti took precedence over Caesars and senior over junior Augusti; between subjects (3) former consuls (suffect consulate not counting) took precedence; otherwise (4) the senior emperor would decide whose name would be entered first in the fasti."136 After the division of the empire in 411, however, western lists and inscriptions record the western consul first, and eastern the eastern first no matter who was consul prior, unless one was the emperor.I37 Occasionally a pair of names a pair of names is switched from the order one would normally expect (depending on the geographical location, time period, and/or archetypal document). This happens comparatively rarely, but often enough to be considered an interesting and noteworthy phenomenon to those comparing one or more

136 CLRE,p.22. 137 CLRE, p. 22.

135 lists. Furthermore, we will see several instances where names were evidently carelessly copied - at much higher rate of mistakes than we would see in a literary history. These mistakes are generally confusions of similarly spelled names (Constantius / Constans / Constantinus), but also of less similar names (Marcellus / Mamercus). Unfamiliar names, especially non-Latin names in the late empire, were a regular source of difficulty to copyists and can appear with very different spellings (Asporacius / Sporacius; Dagalaifus / Gadalaifus). The iterations are the numerals which normally would appear after a consul's name if he had been consul more than one time. Recording iterations had been normal in the inscribed lists where, for instance, the consulship of Tiberius and Germanicus in 18 CE might be recorded as "Ti. Caesar Augustus III Germanicus T. Aug. f. Caesar II." For those copying manuscript fasti, however, iterations were a difficulty. First, they were not always considered necessary, and so they were frequently omitted. Second, the chance of errors creeping in is extremely high, as it is wherever Roman numerals are copied in any manuscript. Third, the similarity of names among office holders meant that "corrections" were often made to the lists, and people who were not multiple office holders were sometimes given iterations. Cassiodorus has some iterations in his work, but they are not uniformly recorded every time they should be recorded, and they are frequently incorrect. The abbreviations used after the consular names in the manuscript lists appear to have been taken over from the inscribed lists. Typically they only appear in imperial consuls, where the most common are "aug," the designation for the Augustus when he was consul, and "vc," "vir clarissimus." In the late imperial lists the designation "vc" can

be used of anyone who was consul, except for the emperor. Oddly, it typically only appears in the manuscript lists after a single name. The plural (common in inscriptions) "vvcc" occurs only very rarely, and usually only in the fifth and sixth centuries. I will treat other abbreviations as they appear in each discussion. Finally, in years when either there were no consuls designated for the year, or when the names of the consuls were not known, the year was designated "pc," "post consulatum," with the name or names of the previous year's consuls in the genitive, thus: pc Amantii et Albini, that is "after the consulship of Amantius and Albinus." As we will see, post-consular years show considerable variety and more frequency towards the sixth century when the names of the consuls were not as well known as in earlier centuries.138 The Livian Consularia Despite its shortcomings, Cassiodorus' list of Republican consuls is one of the best and most complete lists to have survived from antiquity. Copied from an epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, there are only seven missing consular pairs.139 As we saw above, either Cassiodorus' source did not treat either the decemviri or the military tribunates in a clear way or Cassiodorus himself had no idea how often there were no consuls, since Cassiodorus records the two years of the decemviri (451-450 BCE) as a period of forty years and only notes the last lengthy rule by military tribunes and the anarchy between 391 and 367 BCE, despite the considerable number of earlier years of military tribunates (444, 438, 433-432, 426-424, 422, 420-414 and 408-394 BCE).
138 The editors of CLRE discuss abbreviations and points of nomenclature only with reference to inscriptions (36-40, 63-66), but not with reference to the manuscript lists, which is unfortunate. 139 Missing are the consuls for 507, 490, 489, 451, 421, 193 and the second consul of 66 combined with the first of 65. The consuls for 507, 490 and 489 were not in Livy, so they were likely not in Cassiodorus' source. As I discussed above, pp. 126ff, I have restored the consuls of 421 only.

137 The consular names in the Chronica for the most part appear in the typical Republican format, with a praenomen and a single name following it: usually the gentilicium, but sometimes the cognomen, and more rarely both gentilicium and cognomen. Curiously, the years from 509 to 218 show a very high proportion of consular pairs in which the praenomen and gentilicium are recorded for both consuls, thus "L Valerius et M Horatius": 195 out of 225 pairs.140 From 217 BCE to 29 CE, however, that proportion drops considerably, with much more variation in which name or names are recorded: only 81 out of 244 pairs appear in the form praenomen gentilicium + praenomen gentilicium, and all the other possible variations are represented, with the praenomen present in all cases.141 If there is a reason for this change, I have not been able to determine what it is. As we will see below, there is reason to think that the epitomator of Livy recorded the "tria nomina" in the original list where he could, but successive copyists cut the names back without regularity, sometimes dropping one name, sometimes the other, and sometimes neither. To get a better understanding of why Cassiodorus' list takes the form it does, we must go back to his sources. In what follows I will first compare Cassiodorus' list to the surviving names in Livy and then to the two surviving witnesses to the consularia which Cassiodorus used, the Liber Prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus
140 Of 225 consular pairs between 509 and 218, 195 appear as gentilicium + gentilicium, sixteen as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium, six as cognomen + gentilicium, four as gentilicium + gentilicium cognomen, three as gentilicium + cognomen and one as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium cognomen. 141 Of 244 consular pairs between 217 BCE and 29 CE, eighty-one appear as gentilicium + gentilicium, eighteen as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium, fifty-five as cognomen + gentilicium, twelve as gentilicium + gentilicium cognomen, twenty-one 1 as gentilicium + cognomen, three as gentilicium cognomen + gentilicium cognomen, thirty-nine as cognomen + cognomen, nine as gentilicium cognomen + cognomen, five as cognomen + gentilicium cognomen and one as gentilicium + two cognomina. These last four categories are not represented in the group from 509 to 218.

138 668. What will emerge is not only a clearer picture of Cassiodorus' immediate source, but also a clearer picture of a portion of the history of the Livian epitome. As he said in his introduction, Cassiodorus was motivated by a desire to correct the consular fasti. He states in his postscript that Livy was one of his sources, and we should expect such a choice for a source. Cassiodorus' production of and search for authoritative texts is one of the underpinnings of much of his scholarly effort.142 He needed, therefore, to choose a source for his Republican consuls which inspired confidence through its authority. Neither of the other two manuscript Latin lists of Republican consuls which have survived from antiquity (the Descriptio Consilium, called the Consularia Constantinopolitana by Mommsen, and the list in the Codex-Calendar of 354) provides information about its source, though it is clear that the two are related to the Fasti Capitolini or their source.143 Though it is pure speculation to suggest, it is at least possible that Cassiodorus, on comparing the Livian with the other lists, chose the one with a famous name attached to it. Cassiodorus, however, did not copy his consuls directly from the full text of Livy, which was no doubt hard to come by in the sixth century, but from an epitome. Mommsen was the first to recognize that the full text of Livy cannot have been Cassiodorus' source - the mistakes in historical detail alone,144 as well as Cassiodorus' recourse to Eutropius for historical material on the military tribunes and anarchy, preclude the possibility. Mommsen only gave a very brief description of the document
142 The aim of the first book of the Institutiones reflects this desire not only for authoritative texts, but for a full range of material. 143 Editions by Burgess 1993 and Mommsen 1894. 144 In 506 Livy has an extra year of consuls which Cassiodorus does not have, and in 315 Livy does not know the consuls, but Cassiodorus has them.

139 that Cassiodorus used in constructing his list of consuls: "...einen kurz das Thatsachliche Jahr fur Jahr, unter Voranstellung der Consulnamen im Ablativ, zusammenfassenden Abriss" / "a brief summary, bringing together factual material year by year under the headings of consular names in the ablative." As proof of his assertion Mommsen further points to evidence that Cassiodorus had a work with consuls listed in the ablative, since he uses the name Labeon rather than Labeo and has Paeto for Paetus; to the similarities of language between Cassiodorus and Obsequens, which do not derive from Livy and therefore point to an intermediate source; and to the error of assigning four years to the anarchy of 375-71, to which Livy assigns five years.145

Cassiodorus and Livy If we compare Livy's surviving list with Cassiodorus', we can then draw some conclusions about the Livian epitome by working back from Cassiodorus. The consular list is the best point of comparison between the two works not only because the consular names comprise the bulk of the Republican period in Cassiodorus' Chronica, but also because we can expect a high degree of accuracy in their transmission from the full text of Livy to the epitome to Cassiodorus: apart from the omission of the nomen or the cognomen for reasons of space, there is little room for deliberate alteration of names, and still less reason for it. I discuss the historical entries in chapter four, below.146 We have Livy's consuls from his surviving books for the years 509-292 and 219166, and there are 203 entries for consular pairs which are common to both authors. The

145 Mommsen 1861,552. 146 Pp. 215ff.

natural place to look in Livy for such a list is in the record of the consular elections, typically recorded in Livy's narrative at the end of the year in which the consuls were elected.147 There is very close agreement between Cassiodorus' list of consuls and Livy's as one would expect. Most of the variations that do exist between Cassiodorus and Livy are impossible to attribute exclusively either to our author or his source, but there is additional accurate material which is not in Livy, but must have been in Cassiodorus' source, introduced either by the epitomator himself or by someone working between the production of the epitome and the list which Cassiodorus had. It seems most economical to attribute this material to the epitomator himself, and I believe we can find here evidence which sketches a picture of the epitomator's work. This material suggests that the epitomator was a moderately sophisticated and careful reader of Livy who took pains to produce a consular list with accurate praenomina, gentilicia and cognomina and at least some consular iterations, and who hunted down variants between Livy's fasti and the more generally accepted fasti of the Republican consuls as it was accepted during the empire. There is further evidence that someone, possibly Cassiodorus himself, but more likely an earlier librarius, made changes to the copy of the epitome of Livy which he had. There are, as one might expect in a document of this kind, many differences between the readings of the Livian manuscripts - even those that are very old - and those of Cassiodorus. There are also many orthographical variants and many minor omissions.148 Whether these variants are to be attributed to the text of Livy, the epitomator, the text of the epitome, Cassiodorus himself, the tradition of the manuscript
147 But as we will see, the epitomator often had to hunt through the text of Livy for fuller information about the consuls names where the actual report of their election gives only a partial name. 148 Omissions: Cassiodorus omits the praenomina in 508, 504, and 211. M. Cornelius, consul for 436 is omitted by Cassiodorus.

141 of the Chronica or a combination of them all is as a rule impossible to tell. As a result, I will not discuss mistakes and easily explained orthographical variants of the sort one would find in any group of related manuscripts: these include minor differences in gentilicia and cognomina,149 the great many differences among praenomina,150 and the reversal of names in a consular pair.151 These could all be problems of transmission and as a result cannot tell us anything certain about the epitomator or the transmission of the epitome. I will discuss two specific types of differences between Cassiodorus' Chronica and Livy which are noteworthy: a) differences in consular iterations (i.e., second, third, fourth consulship etc. of a particular man), and b) additions of details by Cassiodorus'
149 487: "Siccius" for "Sicinus," 455: "Nomilius" for "Romilius," 453: "Quintius" for "Quinctilius," 445: "Ginutius" and "Curiacius" for "Genucius" and "Curtius" (here, the Livian name "Curtius" has many variants among the MSS, so the error need not be Cassiodorus' or even his immediate source's), 439: "Manlius" for "Menenius," 437 and 429: "Servius" for "Sergius," 330: "Plaustius" for "Plautius," 323: "Aelius" for "Aemilius" (here, Livy notes that some sources name him "Aulius," 8.37.2-3), 166: "Mamercus" for "Marcellus." I have left out the smaller variations and common copyists errors, like 429: "Hostus" for "Hostius," 428: "Quintius" for "Quinctius," and 302: "Libius" for "Livius." There are also a few places where modern editions of Livy reject the evidence of the MSS. For 360, for example, most Livian MSS have "Poetilius," which is what Cassiodorus also has, whereas the correct spelling of the name is "Poetelius." But these differences could easily have come about independently. 150 There are 23 instances where Cassiodorus has a different praenomen from Livy. 499: "L" for "C Vetusius," 495: "T" for "P Servilius," 460: "P" for "C Claudius," 458: "L" for "C Nautius," 452: "T" for "C Menenius," 448: "L" for "Sp Herminius," 445: "T" for "C Curtius," 443: "P" for "T Quinctius," 427: "P" for "C Servilius," 413: "M" for "A Cornelius," 363: "C" for "Cn Genucio" (although, in this case, the Livian mss read C, but have been emended through reference to Diodorus, who reads "Cn"), 357: "L" for "C Marcius," 356: "Q" for "M Fabius," 350: "P" for "L Scipio," 346: "P" for "C Poetelius," 330: "C" for "L Plautius," 328: "C" for "P Plautius," 320: "Q Papirius" and "L Publilius" for "L Papirius" and "Q Publilius," 302: "L" for "M Aemilius," 213: "P" for "Q Fabius," 204: "T" for "P Sempronius," 201: "C" for "P Aelius," 178: "Cn" for "A Manlius," 169: "L" for "Q Marcius." A good example of how praenomina can be confused is in the manuscript tradition of the Chronica itself, where numerous praenomina have been displaced due to the method the copyist of the archetype used. See above, pp. 33ff.. 151 I will, however, discuss reversals of consular pairs below, when comparing Cassiodorus to Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. 455: Cass, "C Veturius et T Nomilius" Livy, "T Romilio C Veturio," 358: Cass., "C Plautius et C Fabius" Livy, "C Fabius et C Plautius," 320: Cass., "Q Papirius et L Publilius" Livy, "Q Publilium Philonem et L Papirium Cursorem," 209: Cass. "Q Fabius V et Q Fulvius Flaccus IIII," Livy, "Q Fulvium et Q. Fabium," 182: Cass., "L Paulus et Cn Baebius" Livy, "Cn Baebium Tamphilum etL Aemilium Paullum," 177: Cass., "T Sempronius et C Claudius" Livy, "C Claudius Pulcher Ti Sempronius Gracchus."

source which are not in Livy. Consular Iterations Iterations are part of the consular name. As will be seen, Cassiodorus' work contains some evidence that the Livian consularia he used was once a much fuller document than the one we have now, probably containing the full "tria nomina" for all the consuls. Thus, investigating the iterations is part of investigating the larger issue of how the names were originally extracted from Livy. In investigating the iterations of consulships in Cassiodorus, we can divide the instances of comparison into four groups: a) where Livy records the number, but Cassiodorus does not, b) where Livy and Cassiodorus agree, c) where both Livy and Cassiodorus have a number, but disagree, and d) where Cassiodorus has a number, but Livy does not. Of the 203 consular pairs common to both authors, there are twenty-six instances where Livy records a consular iteration and Cassiodorus does not.152 This is by far the largest group, but there is no way of telling whether the epitomator noted all of them or not. As I will demonstrate, he probably noted some. There are seven instances where Livy and Cassiodorus have numbers and agree;153 there are two instances where Livy and Cassiodorus have numbers but disagree;154 finally, there are seven occasions where Cassiodorus records a consular iteration while Livy does not.155 Clearly, the last two groups are the most interesting. The presence of nine instances where Cassiodorus has material either not in Livy
152 The years 459, 443, 437, 435, 363, 356, 355, 354, 353, 348, 346, 344, 343, 341, 340, 332, 330, 327, 325, 320, 313, 311, 215, 214, 213 and 169. 153 The years 508, 504, 446, 429, 212 and 168. 154 The years 439 and 434. 155 The years 505, 468, 467, 465, 431, 326 and 209.

(505, 468, 467, 465, 431, 326 and 209) or which disagrees with Livy (439 and 434) suggests the work of the epitomator, of a librarius, or of Cassiodorus himself. Furthermore, there are nine consular pairs which show iterations in both Cassiodorus and Livy, while Cassiodorus has iterations for seven where Livy has none. If a copyist or Cassiodorus had added the numbers himself, we would expect that they would correspond with Livy in some places and not in others, which is, in fact, the case. The possibility therefore suggests itself that all such numbers in Cassiodorus' list were inserted after the original list was extracted from Livy. For this to be true, however, it must have been possible for a copyist or Cassiodorus to insert the iterations through recourse to the list itself, that is, simply through numbering recurring names in the consular list. In what follows, I will demonstrate that this scenario is possible in most cases, and may have occurred by mistake, even though Cassiodorus agrees with Livy.156 Below is a table of the years for which Cassiodorus includes a consular iteration, including the years for which we have no corresponding text of Livy. The Livian passages for years for which we have a corresponding text are in the right-hand column. The years in which both Livy and Cassiodorus have an iteration and agree are marked with an asterisk; the years in which both have an iteration and disagree are marked with an obelus. Cassiodorus
*508 505 Valerius II et Titus Lucretius Valerius III et P Postumius

Livy
P Valerius iterum TLucretius M Valerius P Postumius

156 The cases of the consuls of 326 and 82 (discussed below, pp. 147-148 and 149) indicate that we can discount the possibility that a copyist of Cassiodorus' work inserted the iterations rather than his source.

*504 468 467 465 *446 |439 f435 f 434 431 *429 326 224 * 212 209 * 194 * 168 104 103 102 101 100 86 85 84

Valerius HII et Titus Lucretius II T Quintius II et Q Servilius TAemilius II et Q Fabius Q Fabius II et T Quintius III T Quintius HII et Agrippa Furius T Quintius V et Agrip Manlius C Iulius et L Verginius C Iulius II et L Verginius II T Quintius VI et Cn Iulius L Servius II et Hostus Lucretius C Poetelius III et L Papirius T Marcius et Q Fulvius II Q Fulvius Flaccus III et App Claudius Q Fabius VetQ Fulvius Flaccus HII P Scipio II et T Sempronius L Paulus II et C Licinius C Marius II et C Fl Fimbria C Marius III et LA urelius Orestes C Marius HII et L Luctatius C Marius Vet MAquilius C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus L Cinna II et C Marius VII L Cinna III et Cn Papirius L Cinna IIII et Cn Papirius II

P Valerius quartum TLucretius iterum (2.16.2) T Quinctius Q Servilius (2.64.1) TAemilius et Q Fabius (3.1.1) Q Fabio et TQuinctio (3.2.2) T Quinctius Capitolinus quartum et Agrippa Furius (3.66.1) sextum...TQuinctius Capitolinus...Agrippa Menenius (4.13.6) C Iulio iterum et L Verginio (4.21.6) Iulium tertium, Verginium iterum (4.23.1-2) T Quinctius...et Cn Iulius Mento (4.26.2) L Sergius Fidenas iterum Hostius Lucretius (4.30.4) C Poetelium L Poetelium Mugillanum (8.23.17)

Quintus Fulvius Flaccus tertium et Ap Claudius (25.3.1) Q Fulvium et Q Fabium (27.6.3) P Cornelium Scipionem Africanum iterum et T Sempronium Longum (34.42.3) LAemilius Paulus iterum...et C Licinius Crassus (44.17.4)

145
82 48 46 45 44 41 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 Cn Carbo III et C Marius C Iulius Caesar II et P Servilius C Iulius Caesar III et M Lepidus C Iulius Caesar IIII et Fabius Maximus CIulius Caesar Vet MAntonius P Servilius IletLA ntonius C Caesar II et M Messala C Caesar III et M Crassus C Caesar IIII et Sex Apuleius C Caesar V et MAgrippa II C Caesar VI et MAgrippa HI C Augustus Caesar VII et TStatilius C Augustus Caesar VIII et MSilanus C Augustus Caesar Villi et C Norbanus C A ugustus Caesar XetCn Piso

There are forty-one years with consular iterations, but the number of different men who are identified as having multiple consulships is quite limited: L. Valerius, T. Lucretius, T. Aemilius, Q. Fabius, L. Verginius, T. Quintius, L. Servius, C. Poetelius, Q. Fabius, Q. Fulvius Flaccus, P. Scipio, L. Paullus, C. Marius, L. Cinna, Cn. Papirius Carbo, C. Julius Caesar, P. Servilius, M. Agrippa, and Augustus - nineteen in all. The years with iterations are not evenly distributed, though. Of the forty-one, eleven are in the first eighty years of the Republic and twenty-three are from the last hundred years of the Republic. The bulk of these final twenty-three years are the consulships of Marius, Cinna, Caesar and Augustus - names bound to attract attention and easy to number since they come in rapid succession. The large percentage of iterations in the early years, however,

suggests either that the epitomator began copying iterations and then stopped, that a copyist began transcribing iterations, but then stopped, or, as I will argue, that someone began to try to include iterations in a list where there were none, or very few, but gave up after the first hundred years or so. The practice of "correcting" the consular iterations in manuscript lists was very common.157 There are several individual cases which deserve comment, particularly those where the numbers are different from those which appear in Livy. These cases, with their concomitant errors, tend to support the suggestion that the numbers were inserted after the list was extracted from Livy since the numbers themselves could not have been copied from Livy. The iterations for the years 439 and 431 must be treated together since they contain errors which are related. The situation is complicated, but explicable. In the year 439, Cassiodorus give the consuls as "T. Quintius V et Agrip. Manlius," while Livy reads "sextum...T. Quinctius Capitolinus...Agrippa Menenius" (4.13.6). Livy is correct. Capitolinus had been consul in 471, 468, 465, 446 and 443. Cassiodorus or his source was led astray by an incorrect praenomen in 443, where Cassiodorus' text now has as "P. Quintius" rather than "T. Quintius." It would seem that the different praenomen resulted in the disassociation of the consular name of 443 from those of 471, 468, 465, 446, and 439. If we assume that the iterations were inserted before Cassiodorus compiled his chronicle, the incorrect letter for the praenomen must be a very old error indeed, going back at least to Cassiodorus' immediate source and maybe farther.158
157 For a good example, see Burgess 2000, pp. 270-271 and 288. 158 It is not impossible that the iterations were originally correct, and there followed a change in praenomen, and then a hypercorrection to remove his iteration and the correction of the iteration in

One of the consuls of 431, also a T. Quintius, is incorrectly ascribed a sixth consulship on the assumption that he was the same individual as the T. Quintius in 439 who had a fifth iteration. He is, however, different: T. Quinctius Cincinnatus rather than T. Quinctius Capitolinus.159 With the same name occurring only eight years apart (439 and 431), it is an understandable mistake to treat the second name as the same person as the first and the incorrect iteration is readily explained by the insertion of the iteration into the list simply on the basis of the similarity and proximity of the names. In 434, Cassiodorus has "C. Iulius II et L. Verginius II," whereas C. Iulius was in fact serving as consul for the third time, having been consul in 447 and 435: Iulius's first consulship was in 447, where he is consul posterior, and both Iulius and Verginius were consuls in 435. It seems clear that a copyist or reader, seeing the same names in two consecutive years, simply inserted iterations when they appeared the second time, unaware of Iulius' first appearance in 447, twelve years earlier. In 326, Cassiodorus' entry is "C. Poetelius III et L. Papirius." The iteration is correct. Livy reads "C. Poetelium L. Papirium Mugillanum" (8.23.17), so the number does not come from there. Poetelius was consul in 346 and 360.160 If we read back up Cassiodorus' list of consuls we find "P. Poetilius" in the 346 slot, and "C. Poetilius" in 360. We have already seen the praenomina copied incorrectly. The iteration for 326 cannot have come from Livy, and must have been inserted before the name in 346 suffered a change in its praenomen. In this case, it is possible that before the praenomen was changed, the iteration "II" was in place, but was omitted by a copyist who saw no
439. This might then lead to the sixth iteration being bumped to 431. 159 Broughton 1952, pp. 56, 63. 160 Broughton, p. 146.

prior consulship for "P. Poetilius." Such a process would have taken several steps, of course: the insertion of the iteration, the change of the praenomen, and the omission of the iteration. There is no telling where this process of miscopying and omission took place, before Cassiodorus used the Livian list, while Cassiodorus compiled his Chronica, or during the copying of Cassiodorus' Chronica subsequent to its composition, but it remains a possibility that at some stage in the life of Cassiodorus' source, the iterations for C. Poetilius were added. The final two examples of iterations in Cassiodorus which are not in Livy (the consuls of 209 and 82) pose similar problems and can be solved in similar ways. The consuls for the year 209 in Cassiodorus are "Q. Fabius V et Q. Fulvius Flaccus IIII." The corresponding entry in Livy has no numbers ("Q. Fulvium et Q. Fabium," 27.6.3), so the iteration cannot have come from there. Yet here a different sort of problem arises which is not like those above. None of Fabius' other consulships is numbered in Cassiodorus, but he is not always identified the same way. In 233, 228 and 215, he is named "Q. Maximus" and in 214, he is named "Q. Fabius Maximus." Without the full name "Q. Fabius Maximus," no copyist or epitomator would have been able to insert iterations since he would have no reason for thinking that the "Q. Maximus" of 233 was the same man as the "Q. Fabius" of 209, unless he knew his history very well indeed. There is no telling why only the fifth consulship is numbered, while the others are not, but it is reasonably certain that no mediaeval copyist could have put this iteration into the text. It goes back either all the way to the epitomator, or at least as far back as a stage when the list existed with fuller names than it does now.

149 In 82 Cassiodorus' list has "Cn. Carbo III et C. Marius." Cn. Papirius Carbo's earlier consulships, in 84 and 85, are noted, but he is named "Cn. Papirius" in both earlier years. He has an iteration for his second consulship in Cassiodorus, but since the name "Carbo" does not appear in either of the earlier years, a copyist would be unable to identify him as the same man, and so would not include an iteration for 82. Again, the iteration goes back either to the epitomator himself, or to a stage when the list had fuller names.161 Broadly speaking, then, there are four possible scenarios: 1) the original extractor included the iterations and they fell away gradually in transmission, primarily through the truncation of fuller names, 2) the original extractor included only some of the numbers, 3) the original extractor included no numbers and they were added later, or 4) a combination of the above in which the original extractor included some iterations, including two that are not in Livy, they fell away in transmission, largely due to the truncating of names for reasons of space, and another copyist attempted, at the beginning of the Republican consular list, to put them back in, but stopped when the difficulties and pitfalls of the process became apparent and too many.

Details in Cassiodorus' Source which are not in Livy The second major set of differences between Cassiodorus and Livy is in the order
161 Further proof that the original epitome had fuller names than its descendants can be found, as we will see below, pp. 154ff., in a comparison of the consular lists of Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. Though Cassiodorus, Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 may agree as to the consuls for the year, they do not always have the same forms of the name, or the same order of names. Cassiodorus is the only one of the three to include consular iterations, which further suggests that they were added to the list which he had, after the originals had dropped out. The alteration and insertion of consular iterations is a process we see also in other late antique lists, and is described in detail by Burgess 2000, esp. 270ff.

150 of the names of the consular pairs. Of the 203 pairs of consuls common to Livy and Cassiodorus, we find a different order of names from the way they appear in Livy just seven times: 455, 428, 358, 320, 209, 182162 and 177,163 or 3.4% of the time.164 It is not clear how or why these reversals occur, but it happens frequently in manuscripts and inscriptions. The second group of differences between Cassiodorus' and Livy's consular lists is a disparate group comprising all the cases in which Cassiodorus includes material which is not in Livy. This group of differences can be divided roughly into two categories: names (praenomina, gentilicia and cognomina) which are not found in Livy at the record of the elections but which are found elsewhere in Livy's text, and names which Cassiodorus' source must have found outside of Livy. The whole group of differences supports the idea that a careful epitomator compiled as good a consular list as possible, attempting to find and include all three names wherever he could. As I noted above,165 Cassiodorus' source tended to begin with the names as listed in Livy's record of the elections. There are several occasions, however, where Cassiodorus' source searched beyond the election record to find fuller names: 339, 319, 308, and 206.1 treat them individually in what follows.166 For the year 339, Livy records
162 The consuls of 182 are reversed in Cassiodorus, Obsequens and the papyrus, noted above as one of the errors which link the three documents. 163 Livy's epitomator followed Livy's record of elections, or the consuls' first appearance in his text, closely and to have written the names down in the order in which they appeared in Livy, regardless of who the consul prior was. 164 A comparison of the 23 pairs of consuls common to Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, shows just one reversal of names, in 143, or 4.3%. A comparison of the 63 consular pairs common to Cassiodorus and Obsequens, however, shows reversals of 4 pairs, in 154, 119, 75, and 54, or 6.3%. In the case of the consuls of 154, the praenomina are in the same order, but the cognomina are different: Cassiodorus has "L. Postumius et Q. Opimius," while Obsequens has "L. Opimio Quinto Posthumio." 165 P. 136. 166 I make the assumption that the Livian MSS are not corrupt at these points. This will clearly not always be the case, since it is quite easy for a praenomen, for instance, to drop out of the textual tradition.

the consuls as "Ti. Aemilius Mamercinus, Publilius Philo" (8.12.4-5), while Cassiodorus has "T. Aemilius et Q. Publilius," recording Publilius' praenomen where Livy does not. The possibility is distinct that the praenomen has simply dropped out of Livy's text, but Livy records Publilius' praenomen when he records his second consulship in 327 "L. Cornelio Lentulo, Q. Publilio Philone iterum (8.22.8) so the epitomator could have found the cognomen here and supplemented it in Publilius's first consulship.167 Livy's names for the consuls of 319 are "Cursor Papirius...cum Q. Aulio Cerretano" (9.15.11). Cassiodorus records Papirius' praenomen, Lucius: "L. Papirius et Q. Aulius." But Livy supplies Papirius' praenomen at 8.29.9, 9.7.15, and 9.15.9 - easily accessible to the epitomator. For 308 Livy records simply "Fabio...Decio" (9.41.1), while Cassiodorus includes the praenomina "Q. Fabius et P. Decius." But Livy had no need to identify the two consuls for that year any more carefully than he did because they had played major roles in the years prior, Decius being consul in 312, and Fabius in 310. Fabius' praenomen is given by Livy at 9.33.1, the record of the consular elections of 310. Decius' name is actually given by Livy right before his election to the consulship for the second time (9.40.21). In 206, Livy records the consuls elected as "L. Veturius Q. Caecilius" (28.10.2), whereas Cassiodorus has "L. Veturius et Q. Caecilius Metellus." But several paragraphs on in Livy from the record of the elections Caecilius' cognomen is found (28.10.8). In the above four cases, assuming our text of Livy is accurate, the epitomator did not find the full name as he would like it listed for the consular elections, but did find
Lacking evidence to the contrary, however, and relying on the sheer number of cases where Cassiodorus and Livy are different, I assume that what is preserved in the MSS of Livy is what the epitomator worked with. 167 This particular case could also be put rather with the cases of consular iterations above. A copyist, or Cassiodorus himself, noted the second consulship of the man, and supplemented his praenomen in the first.

152 it elsewhere in the text of Livy. There are four years in which Cassiodorus has consular names or pairs of names which are not in Livy: 430, 325, 207 and 315. In the year 430, Cassiodorus' text lists the name "L. Iulius Iullus." The cognomen "Iullus" does not appear anywhere else for this man, though it may well be correct.168 The presence of the name here, though, suggests that the epitomator was using other information, or that the information was added to the original list at some point. In 325 Cassiodorus records the consuls as "L. Furius et D. Iunius," while Livy has "L. Furio Camillo iterum Iunio Bruto Scaevae" (8.29.2). Livy nowhere records Brutus' praenomen. Diodorus Siculus is the only other source to provide the praenomen. He gives the full name as: AEKIOV Iouviov (18.2.1). Diodorus wrote too early to have used Livy as a source. Either the epitomator, Cassiodorus or a copyist somewhere along the line found and added the praenomen. But it is possible that the epitomator had access to another consular list. In 207 Cassiodorus records M. Livius' cognomen as "Salinator." The first time that cognomen occurs in Livy is at 29.37.4, where Livy describes the origins of the name "Salinator," which he places in the year 204, during Livius' censorship. The first consul in Livy with that name is in 182. The addition is correct,169 since the censor of 204 is the same man as the consul of 207, but according to Livy, he did not have that name when he was consul. Someone, again, presumably the epitomator, knew that it was the same man, and to make it clear who it was, he added the cognomen. The cognomen is not in
168 Broughton 1952 included it on the strength of its presence in Cassiodorus. There are certainly other Iulii Iulli attested. See RE ad loc. 169 See Broughton ad loc.

153 Cassiodorus for Livius' first consulship in 219, however, but it could have fallen out or have been removed, or the epitomator did not realize it was the same man. The most striking addition in Cassiodorus's fasti is the correct names of the consuls for 315, "L. Papirius iun. et Q. Publilius," which Livy omits. Livy notes that the new consuls came into office but does not name them (9.22.1), nor does he name them anywhere else.170 The addition of the abbreviation "iun" to the name is anachronistic: the use of the term "iunior" to imply "the younger" of two family members with the same name or the second appearance of the same name in fasti does not come into the language until late antiquity,171 and it occurs seven times in Cassiodorus' consular list, but not before 474 CE. I believe it is an error, and the original reading was not "iun" but an iteration, "IIII." Cuspinianus makes no mention of this, but his consuls read "L. Papyrius IIII Q. Popilius II" because he followed Diodorus Siculus, whom he mentions at this point.172 The supplement of the names of these consuls is almost certainly the work of the careful epitomator, who, as we have seen, had access to another consular list and sought out the names there when he noticed that they were lacking in Livy, but the term "iunior" suggests an error made in late antiquity, when Livy's list was already old, and when the term, being in common use, could have been mistakenly added. The comparison of Cassiodorus' consuls with Livy's allows us see an epitomator who was not satisfied merely with the names as given in Livy's record of elections. He seems to have looked more carefully to find all three names (or more) where he could. He supplemented his list of Livy's consuls in at least two places where his information was
170 Mommsen 1894, 126, incorrectly includes this reference to Livy, implying that the names are there. 171 CLRE 40-46 172 Cuspinianus, 180-181.

not as good as he would have liked: he found the praenomen of the consul of 325, Decimus Brutus Scaeva somewhere else, and he gave the names of the consuls of 315, Lucius Papirius et Quintus Publilius, though they were not in Livy. The evidence from the iterations of consulships suggests that the epitomator included them as well, even where Livy did not, but that they, too, fell away along with a gentilicium or a cognomen. Some remain in place, but a copyist attempted to restore others, particularly those in the early years of the republic.

Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and P. Oxyrhynchus 668 But we can say more about this particular epitome by comparing Cassiodorus' list of consuls with the two surviving witnesses to the same, or similar, epitome: Julius Obsequens' Liber Prodigiorum, a book of prodigies dated by consular year which covers the years 190 to 11 BCE, and Oxyrhynchus papyrus 668, a fragmentary epitome of Livy dated to the third century CE, which covers the years 190 to 179 BCE and 150 to 137
BCE.173

It was recognized by Mommsen and is universally agreed that Julius Obsequens

and Cassiodorus are closely related because of the striking similarities of language between the two.174 The publication of the Oxyrhynchus epitome of Livy in 1904 made up a trio of related texts.175 Reinhold, Kornemann, Sanders, Moore and Klotz all believed that the three were related, but how they were so was a matter of some dispute.176 Reinhold, followed by Kornemann, believed that Eutropius, Obsequens,
173 For the texts of both Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 I use Rossbach 1910. 174 See Mommsen 1894, where he notes the parallels with Obsequens in his edition of Cassiodorus, pp. 129-135, and Schmidt 1968. 175 Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1904. 176 Reinhold, G. 1898; Kornemann, E. 1904; Sanders, H.A. 1905 and 1904; Moore, C.H. 1904; Klotz, A. 1913 and 1936.

155 Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus epitome all derived from an extensive chronicle which was compiled from a lost epitome of Livy. Sanders rejected the notion that Eutropius belonged to the group and contested the existence of a chronicle which was the common source for them all. He posited a second epitome, derived from an initial epitome and claimed that it was the source for the three. Klotz was the first to posit two separate Inhaltsverzeichnisse of Livy, one rhetorical, a collection of exempla, and the other chronological, fasti with added historical notices. From these were derived two largely discrete traditions. In 1968, Peter Schmidt argued carefully and forcefully, largely following Sanders and Klotz, that the epitome, of which Oxyrhynchus 668 is a fragment, was the direct source for both Cassiodorus and Obsequens.177 This epitome, he suggested, was compiled directly from the full text of Livy and not from an intervening epitome. It could therefore not be a part of the tradition of the lost epitome (and its descendants) whose users are represented by Eutropius, Orosius, Jerome.178 My discussion below supports Schmidt's conclusion that Cassiodorus' source was compiled directly from the full text of Livy and not from another epitome. However, I think that his conclusion - that Oxyrhynchus 668 is a fragment of that very epitome - must accept a few qualifications. Schmidt argues, successfully on the whole, that the Oxyrhynchus epitome was the source for both Cassiodorus and Obsequens. His most convincing argument for this is that, in the years in which Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus epitome and Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus epitome overlap, all the historical notices in Cassiodorus and
177 Schmidt, P. L. 1968. Bessone 1982 has argued against him on the subject. 178 Although I will contest Schmidt's thesis that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome is the source for Cassiodorus and Obsequens, I accept his arguments for an independent strand of epitomization, separate from that of Orosius, Eutropius, Festus and the rest.

156 Obsequens appear in the epitome.179 It is hard to be absolutely sure of this since the papyrus has many gaps and requires frequent restoration, but it holds up fairly well. While Cassiodorus' entries tend to reproduce those in the epitome word for word, Obsequens varied his wording and on occasion adds material to his source. Schmidt argues that where Obsequens diverges from his source in historical data180 (largely geographical, prosopographical and chronological), he did so through reference to the full text of Livy, from which he had drawn his portents and prodigies. Schmidt further notes that Obsequens went about his work either haphazardly, or from memory alone, or both; he was careful to check and correct some notices, but he did not correct all of them,181 and he made some mistakes of his own which are at variance with the Oxyrhynchus epitome.182 A comparison of the three works is not easy. The Oxyrhynchus papyrus is badly mutilated in many places, and the restorations at times cannot reasonably form the basis for good argument. Furthermore, the modern text of Obsequens is based on the editio princeps, which was printed from a single manuscript that is now lost, and consular names in particular, crucial in any comparison of works dated eponymously, frequently require restoration.183 As well, Schmidt has argued well that in at least one place Obsequens shows signs of having resorted to the full text of Livy to correct the
179 Schmidt 1969,187. 180 As he frequently does: e.g. Obs. 2, P. Oxy. 668 6ff, where Obsequens knows that the Lusitani are from Spain; Obs.3, P. Oxy. 668.44ff., where he knows that the Gauls came over the Alps; Obs. 4, P. Oxy. 668. 63ff., where he knows that the Celtiberi specifically were subdued in Spain, and many other places. 181 E.g. Obs. 3, P. Oxy. 668.44ff., the compression of events of two years into one. 182 E.g. Obs. 2, P. Oxy. 668. 6ff., where Obsequens places a Roman victory in Spain a year late; Obs. 23, P. Oxy. 668. 185ff, where the Oxyrhynchus epitome records Fabius Maximus as being defeated by Viriathus, but Obsequens says "Viriatho victo." 183 Obsequens was first printed in an Aldine collection in 1508.

information he found in the epitome. We have Cassiodorus' source for the imperial period, Victorius, and we can see that he copied Victorius' consuls almost verbatim with no, or only minor, changes. It seems likely that he would follow the same pattern when using the Livian epitome, and so I am inclined to believe that the Republican list of consuls preserved in Cassiodorus is a very nearly exact copy of what he had in front of him. Yet, as I noted above, the comparison of Cassiodorus' work with Livy's points to an epitome which passed through several stages between its initial extraction from Livy's full text to its use by Cassiodorus: changes, errors, and additions crept in over time which may be tracked. The fact that both Obsequens' Liber Prodigiorum and Oxyrhynchus 668 show different changes from those in Cassiodorus suggest that they are not all copied from the same source. That said, we must be very careful of making confident assertions about lost sources for consular lists. While it seems clear that in late antiquity there were at least three strains for the Republican consuls - those represented by the Descriptio consulum, by the Chronicle of 354, and by Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus -1 believe there were likely many copies of these lists in circulation in antiquity, but of varying reliability and completeness. As we will see below from a comparison of Cassiodorus with Livy, Julius Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 668, while each demonstrably descended from the same epitome of Livy, there are sufficient differences in each to show that they came by separate paths.185 Epitomes, and particularly consular lists, were not treated in the same way as literary documents. Copyists did not feel the
184 Obsequens' use of the Livian consularia [explain] is a good example of how these skeletal chronologies might provide a framework for the composition of a longer historical work. 185 See Burgess 2000, 265-266 where he lays out some sensible guidelines and cautions for assessing the relationships between different versions of the fasti.

same requirements of accuracy when reproducing a list: names were truncated, altered, omitted or inserted, consular iterations were omitted, corrected or restored haphazardly. In many ways, it seems the possession of the list was the important thing, not the quality of the list. As I said in my introduction, this lack of concern for completeness among the copyists was at least part of Cassiodorus' motivation in compiling a new list. I will begin with a detailed comparison of Cassiodorus' consular list with those of Obsequens and the papyrus. There are many similarities, both in the historical notes and the consular fasti, which indisputably connect Cassiodorus, Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, many of which will be demonstrated below and which a cursory comparison of all three documents immediately reveals.186 There are three conjunctive errors among them, which prove their connection. The first, the most commonly adduced error, is the mistaken identification of Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene and son of Ptolemy VIII, as the king of Egypt: Cass. 471: Obs. 49: Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. Urbe lustrata Ptolemaeus, rex Aegypti, Cyrenis mortuus SPQ Romanum heredem reliquit.

The second is the reversal of a pair of consuls from the order they are given in Livy: Livy: Cass: Obs. P. Oxy: Cn Baebium Tamphilum et L Aemilium Paullum (39.56.4) L Paulus et Cn Baebius L Aemilio Paulo Cn Baebio Tamphilo LA N Berio187

The third is the praenomen of the second consul of 178, which in Livy is "A."(Aulus;
186 See the compared list of consuls from Cassiodorus, Obsequens and P. Oxy. 668 which follows. 187 The reading in the papyrus "Berio" seems certain, but it is easy to see how "Baebio" might be corrupted into "Berio."

40.59.4), but in Cassiodorus and Obsequens is "Cn." (Gnaeus). These three works must be compared in detail to demonstrate clearly not only how different several lists which are clearly dependent ultimately on the same source can be, but also the ways in which changes can be made to the lists. The comparison will further demonstrate that, in all likelihood, no one of these documents came from the other, and further that even a common single source among them all is difficult to see. There must have been dozens, if not more, different versions of the same Livian list in circulation in late antiquity, each largely the same, but each showing differences which will be demonstrated below. This comparison will further serve to explain why Cassiodorus' Republican list shows some of the characteristics it does. When I say that one or more documents "agree" in the case of a given consular pair, I mean that the names are in the same order and that the gentilicia and the cognomina agree. There are too many mistakes in the praenomina in the consular lists to attach any weight to differences in them from one list to the next, so I have largely ignored them, even in the cases where they are omitted altogether. Similarly, differences in spelling are widespread, and I have passed over even variations such as Cassiodorus' "Mamercus" in 166 for Obsequens' correct "Metellus" as possible copyist's errors and have treated them as the same name. I have also left consular iterations out of consideration because the only ones common to Cassiodorus and the other two authors are those of Marius and Julius Caesar, and there is evidence, as I discussed above, to suggest that these iterations were added later.189 Neither Obsequens nor the Oxyrhynchus
188 Rossbach corrected the "Cn" of the first printed edition of Obsequens to "A," but the reading should stand based on the same in Cassiodorus. 189 Pp. 138ff..

fragment have iterations. Instances of "possible agreement" are so designated where, because of the poor state of the papyrus, or the text of Obsequens, it is impossible to be sure. Even where the space available on the papyrus might permit or not permit a given restoration, I have adopted a cautious approach and have refrained for the most part in treating a restoration as certain. "Disagreement" between pairs of consuls means that the two names are reversed, or that at least one of the two names in the consular pair in question appears with a gentilicium or cognomen which the other list does not have. These include instances where both lists record the gentilicium but one has a cognomen in addition, as in 142, where Cassiodorus has "L. Metellus et Q. Maximus," while Obsequens has "L. Metello Q. Fabio Maximo," and also instances where one list records the gentilicium and the other the cognomen, as in 138, where Cassiodorus has "P. Scipio et D. Brutus," while the papyrus has "P. Scipione D. Iunio." Cassiodorus, of course, has a full set of Republican consuls. Julius Obsequens covers the period from 190 to 11 BCE, while the Oxyrhynchus fragment covers the period from 189 to 137 BCE with a break of twenty-eight years from 178 to
151BCE. Neither

Obsequens nor the papyrus records all the years within their respective periods. The following list includes all the comparable consular pairs for all three authors between 190 and 11 BCE with no restorations.
Cassiodorus 190 189 188 187 L Scipio et C Laelius M Fulvius et Cn Manlius M Messala et C Livius Salinator M Lepidus et C Flaminius M Messala C Livio Julius Obsequens L Scipione C Laelio ]cn manlio Julio calinatore Jaminio P Oxy 668

186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 167 166 165 163 162 156 154 152 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139

Sp Postumius et Q Marcius App Claudius et M Sempronius P Claudius et L Porcius Licinius M Claudius et Q Fabius Labeon L Paulus et Cn Baebius P Lentulus et M Baebius A Postumius et C Calpurnius Q Fulvius et L Manlius M Iunius et Cn Manlius T Sempronius et C Claudius Cn Cornelius et Q Petillius M Lepidus et Q Mucius Q Aelius Paeto et M Iunius M Mamercus et C Sulpicius Cn Octavius et T Manlius T Sempronius et M Iuventius P Scipio Nasica et C Marcius L Lentulus et C Marcius L Postumius et Q Opimius M Marcellus et L Valerius L Marcius et M Manlius Sp Postumius et L Piso P Africanus et C Livius Cn Cornelius et L Mummius Q Fabius Maximus et L Hostilius SerGalbaetLAurelius App Claudius et Q Metellus L Metellus et Q Maximus Cn Caepio et Q Pompeius Q Caepio et C Laelius Cn Piso et M Popilius Gn Caepione C Laelio Appio Claudio P Metello L Metello Q Fabio Maximo Spurio Postumio L Pisone P Africano C Laelio Q Fulvio L Manlio M Iunio Cn Manlio"0 C Claudio Lucio Petellio"1 M Lepido Q Mucio Q Aemylio Paeto M Iulio M Marcello P Sulpicio Cn Octavio T Manlio T Graccho M Iuventio P Scipione Nasi Gn Martio L Lentulo C Marcio L Opimio Quinto Posthumio M Claudio Marcello L Valerio Flacco M Claudio Q Fabio Labeone L Aemilio Paulo Cn Baebio Tamphilo

sppostumo[ app oclaud p claudio pulchr m claudio marcello[ 1a nberio o cinio

p lentulo m paebio a postumio c q fulvio 1 manlio

1 marcio censorino m manilio

cn cornel[ q fabio max[ ser galba 1[ q metello [

]caepione q pompeio .. ]pione laelio salasso cn pisone c polli

190 Rossbach makes the correction of "A. Manlio for Gn. Manlio," which I do not accept. 191 In the first printed edition of Obsequens, the consuls of 177 and 176 appear as a pair: "C. Claudio Q. Petellio."

162
138 137 136 135 134 130 126 125 124 122 121 119 118 117 114 113 111 108 106 105 104 102 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 88 P Scipio et D Brutus M Aemilius et C Hostilius Mancinus P Furius et Sex Atilius Serranus Ser Fulvius et Q Calpurnius P Africanus et C Fulvius Flaccus App Claudius et M Perperna M Aemilius et L Aurelius M Plautius et M Fulvius C Cassius Longinus et C Sextius Cn Domitius et C Fannius L Opimius et Q Maximus LCaecilius etL Aurelius M Cato et Q Marcius L Caecilius et Q Mucius M Acilius Balbus et C Cato C Caecilius et C Papirius P Scipio et L Calpurnius Bestia Ser Galba et M Scaurus Q Servilius et C Atilius Serranus P Rutilius Rufus et C Manhus C Marius II et C Fl Fimbria C Marius IIII et Q Lutatius C Marius VI et L Valerius Flaccus M Antonius et A Postumius Q Metellus et T Didius Cn Lentulus et P Crassus Cn Domitius et C Cassius P Crassus et Q Scaevola C Coelius et L Domitius C Valerius Flaccus et M Herennius C Claudius Pulcher et M Perpema L Marcius et Sex Iulius L Caesar etC Rutilius Lupus L Sylla et Q Pompeius M Aemilio C Hostilio Mancino L Furio Atilio Sarrano Ser Flacco Q Calpurmo P Africano C Fulvio Appio Claudio M Perperna M Aemilio L Aurelio P Plautio M Fulvio C Cassio Longino C Sextilio Cn Domitio C Fannio L Opimio Q Fabio Maximo L Aurelio et L Caecilio M Catone Quintio Marcio L Caecilio L Aurelio M Acilio C Porcio C Caecilio Cn Papirio P Scipione L Calpurnio Sergio Galba M Scauro Q Servilio Caepione Atilio Sarrano P Atilio et Cornelio Manilio C Mario C Flacc C Mario Q Lutatio C Mario L Valerio M Antonio A Postumio Q Metello Tullio Didio Cn Cornelio Lentulo P Licinio Cn Domitio C Cassio P Crasso Q Scaevola C Laelio L Domitio C Valerio M Herennio C Claudio M Perpenna L Marcio Sex Iulio L Iulio Caesare P Rutilio L Sylla Q Pompeio p sc.pione d iunio m aemilio c hostilio m.cino

83 77 76 75 63 60 54 50 46 45 44

L Scipio et C Norbanus Mam Aemilius et D Brutus Cn Octavius et C Curio L Octavius et C Cotta M Cicero et C Antonius Q Metellus et L Afranius App Claudius et L Domitius L Paulus et M Marcellus C lulius Caesar III et M Lepidus C lulius Caesar MI et Fabius Maximus C lulius Caesar V et M Antonius

L Scipione C Norbano Marco Aemilio D Bruto Cn Octavio C Scribonio Lucio Aurelio L Octavio M Cesone C Antonio Quinto Metello L Afranio Gneo Domitio Appio Claudio L Paulo C Marcello C Caesare M Lepido

C Caesare M Antonio

43 42 17 11

C Pansa et A Hirtius M Lepidus et L Plancus T Furnius et C Silanus Paulus Fabius et Q Aelius

C Pansa Hirtio M Lepido Munatio Planco C Furnio C Syllano Paulo Fabio Q Aelio

A quick glance through the three lists shows that, broadly speaking, the lists agree more than they disagree, which we would expect. But what do the differences mixed in with the similarities suggest? Both tell a part of the story of the Livian consularia. As we saw above in the comparison of Cassiodorus' consular names with the surviving portions of Livy the original epitome was probably a much fuller work than what Cassiodorus had, with the full names of all the consuls recorded where it was possible. The names, however, had evidently been shortened by copyists who omitted either gentilicium or cognomen and probably most of the iterations. The comparison of the differences among the descendants of the Livian consularia tell the same story: different copyists included and omitted different pieces of the consular names. Of the seven years in which all three lists record consuls, only two have the same

164 names (179 and 137), and five have at least one disagreement among them (188, 183, 182, 143 and 140).192 The consuls of 182 BCE are noteworthy. The names recorded by Cassiodorus are "L. Paulus et Gn. Baebius," by Obsequens "L. Aemilio Paulo Gn. Baebio Tamphilo," and by the Oxyrhynchus epitome, "L. A[emilio C]n. Baebio [coss.]" The fact that both Cassiodorus and Obsequens give L. Aemilius Paulus' cognomen indicates that it appeared in the original epitome, but it does not appear in the papyrus. Of the twenty-two consular pairs which can be compared in Cassiodorus and the papyrus, five are certainly the same (181, 179, 141, 139 and 137), ten possibly agree (189, 188, 187, 186, 185, 180, 148, 146, 145 and 144), and seven show differences in at least one of the two names in each pair (184, 183, 182, 149, 143, 140 and 138). Of the sixty-nine consular pairs which can be compared in Cassiodorus and Obsequens, forty-one pairs are the same (190, 183, 179, 178, 175, 167, 166, 165, 162, 156, 148, 147, 143, 140, 137, 136, 130, 126, 125, 124, 122, 118, 113, 108, 106, 102, 99, 96, 95, 94,193 91, 88, 83, 77, 63, 60, 50, 43, 17 and 11). There are three pairs which are conflated in the text of Obsequens and which may not have been so in the original work, but we cannot tell (177, 176, 117). Cassiodorus records at least one name differently from Obsequens in twenty-six years (188, 182, 163, 154, 152, 142, 135, 134, 121, 119, 117, 114, 111, 105, 104, 100, 98, 97, 93, 92, 90, 76, 75, 54, 46, 44 and 42). Of the differences between Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus fragment (184, 183, 182, 149, 143, 140 and 138), the fragment has a cognomen that Cassiodorus does not
192 These five pairs are also included in the comparisons below of Cassiodorus with the papyrus and Cassiodorus with Obsequens. 193 In this year Cassiodorus has "C. Coelius et L. Domitius," while Obsequens has "C. Laelio L. Domitio. " The correct names for the year are "C. Coelius Caldus and L. Domitius Ahenobarbus." The name in Obsequens has been corrupted.

165 have in 184, 183, 149 and 140. In 182 and 139, Cassiodorus records the cognomen, while the papyrus records the gentilicium, and in 143 the names are evidently reversed. The fact that the papyrus has been dated through handwriting to the end of the third century or beginning of the fourth, 200 years before Cassiodorus produced his Chronica, is no guarantee, of course, that it went through fewer copyings and therefore fewer alterations than the copy used by Cassiodorus did, but the fact that the papyrus has more instances of the full name than does Cassiodorus makes it likely. Of the twenty-six years where Cassiodorus disagrees with Julius Obsequens (188, 182, 163, 154, 152, 142, 135, 134, 121, 119, 117, 114, 111, 105, 104, 100, 98, 97, 93, 92, 90, 76, 75, 54, 46, 44 and 42), three are simple reversals of names (154, 119 and 54). In twelve cases, Cassiodorus has a gentilicium or a cognomen that Obsequens does not have (188, 134, 114, 105,194104, 100, 93, 92, 90, 46 and 44). In eight cases Obsequens has a gentilicium or cognomen that Cassiodorus does not (182 both names, 152 both names, 142, 121, 106, 97, 90 and 42). In six cases, one records the cognomen and the other the gentilicium (163, 135, 114, 97, 76 and 75). Obsequens has more corruptions of names (105, 98, 94, 77) than does Cassiodorus for the same period, and more mistakes and conflations of consular pairs (177, 176, 117), but since the first printed edition is the only witness to the lost, singular manuscript of Obsequens, it is difficult to assess these divergences. But these mistakes, and the fact that Cassiodorus has fuller names in twelve cases and Obsequens in eight at least suggests that the version of the fasti that Cassiodorus used had been less altered and shortened than Obsequens'.

194 For 105 Cassiodorus records "P. Rutilius Rufus et C Manlius," while Obsequens has "P. Atilio Cornelio Manilio." Obsequens' "P. Atilio" is a corruption of Cassiodorus' correct "P. Rutilius."

But along with all the differences, what are we to make of the similarities, particularly where they can be identified securely, as they can between Cassiodorus and Obsequens? It is possible that they go all the way back to the original epitome, but in every case but four names where we can compare Livy's record of the consular elections (190, 189, 187, 173) Livy records all three names, and we have seen that it was likely the epitomator's method to record all three. It is more likely, then, that all three lists which descend from the Livian consularia come from an intermediate version in which the process of stripping away either the gentilicium or the cognomen along with the consular iterations, had already begun. Copies were made of this intermediate version which retained some names and eliminated others according to the whim of the copyists. These copies of the intermediate version also included the historical notices which occur in all three representatives. It is then these copies which our representatives used, though it is possible that the papyrus is a copy of the intermediate version which I have posited. But it is possible that such speculation cuts the evidence too thin. The transmission of the consular lists cannot be treated with the tools of the textual critic, who relies on the intent of the copyist to make an accurate copy of his original. The consular lists suffered changes and abbreviation because what mattered only was that list preserved an accurate number of years (i.e. consular pairs) and an accurate list of names, but not that the entire name was preserved. The focus of our particular epitomator was in all likelihood not Livy's historical detail so much as his consular list. As the list was copied and re-copied, variations and changes were introduced which produced a web of Livian recensions to which the three existing lists belong. We can say

167 with certainty that Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens and the author of P. Oxy. 668 used very similar lists when creating their own, but that is all. A correct stemma would look like number 1 below, rather than number 2.

1.

Livy

2.

Livy

Epitome

Epitome

Rec 1

Rec 2

Rec 3

Cassiodorus

Obsequens

R Oxy. 668

Rec la

Rec 2a

Rec 3a

Cassiodorus

Obsequens

R Oxy. 668

Aufidius Bassus As Cassiodorus says in his supputatio, he used Aufidius Bassus after Livy and before Victorius. Unfortunately we know very little about Aufidius: we do not know when he began his histories, and we do not know where they ended.195 Some have used Cassiodorus' work as an indication of where he might have ended, but as we will see, there is no reason to believe that Cassiodorus recorded all of Bassus' consuls to the end of Bassus' history. The earliest subject we know he treated was the death of Cicero,196 but

195 The best discussion of Aufidius Bassus remains Syme's 1958, vol 2, 697-700. 196 Seneca the Elder, Suas. 6.18ff. See Peter, HRRII. 110-112.

168 Syme and others express doubts that this was part of his history. However that may be, the death of Cicero must be the starting point for those who are trying to find Aufidius Bassus in the pages of Cassiodorus. There can be little doubt where Cassiodorus stopped using him. Upon Cassiodorus' adoption of Victorius in the eighteenth year of Tiberius' reign, the form of the consular names changes from the "praenomen + gentilicium" or "praenomen + cognomen" to the simple cognomen. All the historical notes after that point come from Jerome alone (with a few additions from Eutropius) until 378 CE. There is, however, no noticeable change at all from the material that is certainly Livian, before the death of Cicero, and that which is certainly from Bassus, after 9 BCE, where Livy finished. The consular names are recorded in the same manner; the historical notes are delivered in the same, crisp, paratactic style as the Livian notes. The uniformity of the treatment of the extracts from Livy and from Aufidius suggest that the same person had done the work, and that the epitome which Cassiodorus copied his consuls from contained both authors. In fact, some of the same issues crop up with the consular list from Bassus as was seen above with the Livian consuls. In 31 CE Tiberius held his fifth consulship with Sejanus and it is marked as his fifth in Cassiodorus (though without Sejanus, who suffered damnatio memoriae and so his name was removed from the fasti): "Ti. Caesar V conss." None of Tiberius' previous four consulships gets an iteration. In the first, 13 BCE, he is identified in Cassiodorus merely as T. Nero, rather than by his full name, Tiberius Claudius Nero. The gentilicium "Claudius" has been dropped. In his second consulship in 7 BCE, beyond the range of Livy's histories and so certainly from Bassus' list, he is again

identified as "T. Nero." Here we see the name treated in the same way, despite the passage from one author, Livy, to the next, Bassus. His three remaining consulships, all held after his formal adoption by Augustus in 4 BCE and after he became emperor, in 18, 21, and 31 CE, all identify him as "Ti. Caesar." Only the last has an iteration, however. Again we see one of the two names dropped along with the iteration, but one iteration being retained, possibly because he was the only consul of record for the year. It is not conceivable that a copyist could have recognized that the Nero of twenty-five years before was the same as the emperor of 18 CE. The iterations attached to Augustus' consulships, however, are late additions, again either to the Chronicle itself or to Cassiodorus' source. I am treating these iterations here rather than above with those from the Livian portion because they cross the divide between Livy and Bassus and suggest that Cassiodorus used a single epitome which included both authors. In all later official lists, and surely in Aufidius Bassus' work itself, Octavian's suffect consulship in 43 is treated as his first consulship (as indeed it was), his consulship in 33 is then his second, and so on. This is the numbering that we see in the fasti of the Chronograph of 354 and the Descriptio consilium, even though neither text preserves a record of Augustus' first suffect consulship. In Cassiodorus, however, the consulship of 33 is numbered "I" and the numbering continues to Augustus' eleventh and twelfth (really his twelfth and thirteenth) in 5 and 2 BCE respectively. What is more, the consulship of Gaius Caesar in 1 CE is mistakenly attributed to Augustus as his thirteenth consulship. Again, given that Cassiodorus tends to copy his source without changes, it seems likely that these numbers are what he found in his source. If that is so, the epitome

which he had was a single work which included both Livy and Aufidius Bassus. I have treated the missing consulship of the two Gemini as a textual issue above.197 Clearly, though, Cassiodorus did not use the consularia he had to their end, or at least, if he did, it is a remarkable coincidence that it ended exactly where Victorius' list picks up. Mommsen's suggestion that Bassus' work ended with the fall of Sejanus is unsupportable. Cassiodorus had begun using Jerome again when he mentioned Julius Caesar as the first emperor. He also takes Jerome's words for the accession of Augustus,198 the birth of Jesus,199 the death of Augustus and the succession of Tiberius,200 and the crucifixion of Jesus.201 But the remaining historical notes, between the end of Livy in 9 BCE and the beginning of Victorius in 28 CE must be from Aufidius Bassus since they do not derive from Jerome or witnesses to Livy. However, after he switches to Victorius for his consuls, he drops Aufidius and switches completely to Jerome for historical notes, though it is not clear why. It would certainly be more difficult to place historical notes from Jerome into Victorius' framework. Let me sum up, then, the sections on the Livian epitome and Aufidius Bassus. Cassiodorus used an epitome of Livy which was extended with an epitome of Aufidius Bassus. This epitome perhaps began with Livy's consuls of 509 BCE and extended certainly to 28 CE, but likely further. It included sparse historical notes. The same person epitomized both works and seems to have been careful to include all three names of each consul, sometimes even looking outside the pages of Livy for more information. Over the
197 198 199 200 201 See above, pp. 123ff.. Helm 156a. Helm 169c. Helm 171d,e. Helm 174d.

years, the epitomized Livy was further shortened by copyists and the consular names were reduced as was the growing trend both privately and officially. P. Oxy. 668 and the documents used by Julius Obsequens and Cassiodorus are examples of these epitomized epitomes. It seems likely that Cassiodorus, who managed his sources conservatively and points to their authority rather than his own, did not himself alter the names that he found in the epitome he used.

Victorius of Aquitaine Having taken the bulk of his Republican consuls and a few imperial ones from Livy and Aufidius Bassus whose authority, even in epitome, was (as he thought) unassailable, Cassiodorus turned to the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine to complete his fasti down to his own day.202 Victorius' list was a relatively new product in the early sixth century, produced in 457 and so just over sixty years old in 519, but it was very well known. Cassiodorus is at pains to assure his reader that his consular list comes from an impeccable source: he says that it came "ex...paschali virorum clarorum auctoritate firmato'V'from an Easter cycle, made trustworthy by the authority of famous men," but

202 It has long been recognized that Victorius was the source for the consuls from the crucifixion at least as far as 457, see Mommsen 113. In what follows I have used Krusch's 1938 text of Victorius for consular names to 457. For consular names from 458 to 519 I refer to the three manuscripts of Victorius which contain consular names: Gotha 75 fol. 70ff (G), Leiden Seal. 28 (L) and Bodley 309 (S). This last was thought by Krusch and Mommsen to have been lost, and they reconstructed its readings from the print editions of Petavius (1627) and Bucherius (1634). However, the real readings of S are very different from those of Petavius and Bucherius (who seem to have corrected them with reference to Cassiodorus), and so are also very different from those of Krusch, Mommsen and, unfortunately, of the CLRE. The readings presented here are from the manuscript itself. New editions of the consular lists of all three manuscripts from 458 to 559 are necessary.

he does not give the name of the author. However, a comparison of Victorius' consuls with Cassiodorus' demonstrates immediately that the latter is dependent on the former, though it has perhaps been corrected in places. More on this later. First, we must address the question of why Cassiodorus did not name the author of the consular list which he used. The history of Victorius' Easter tables in Italy is reasonably well attested.203 In the years leading up to the Easter of 455 Rome and the eastern churches had been at odds over the date of Easter. After long opposition Pope Leo eventually gave way and celebrated Easter with the eastern churches, believing that universal harmony was more important the actual correctness (or otherwise) of the date. But in 456 we find his archdeacon Hilary, later pope, engaging Victorius of Aquitaine to draw up a new authoritative calculation for the date of Easter and to investigate the causes of the dispute.204 Victorius responded in 457 with a 532-year cycle (twenty-eight cycles of nineteen years each)205 which he calculated backwards from 457 to the consulship of the two Gemini and the traditional date of the crucifixion (which should have been 29 but was actually assigned to the Easter of 28 since his consular list was one year too long), and he extended it 102 years into the future (to 559). His calendar took the form of six columns: the 'year from the crucifixion', counting 29 (or rather 28) as year one; a consular list from 29 to 457 CE; the ferial, i.e. the day of the week on which the kalends of January fell; the epact, the age
203 The essential bibliography to the following discussion is Krusch 1884 and 1938 and Jones 1934. 204 Epistula Hilari ad Victorium; references to Victorius' work are to Krusch's 1938 edition. 205 The Metonic cyclethe period when a particular phase of the moon will reappear on the same day of the yearis nineteen years long. In order to calculate the date of Easter for any given year (since on account of its origins with Passover Easter is calculated according to a lunar calendar) one then multiplies nineteen by seven, which accounts for the different days of the week, and then by four, which accounts for the four years of the intercalary cycle of leap years: 1 9 x 7 x 4 = 532.

of the moon on the kalends of January; the date of Easter; and the epact for Easter. A seventh column contained alternate dates for celebrating Easter, each labelled "Graeci," "Latini" or "Romani" depending on which calendar or calculation they were derived from.206 Victorius' cycle was thus in many ways useless, since it did not serve to establish the authoritative method of calculation that was required (indeed, given the fundamental disagreements involved in the calculation between East and West, it could not have) and only served to mark when controversy was likely to arise. It is well outside the scope of this work to discuss Victor's method of calculating the date of Easter or indeed to discuss the modern controversies arising from his methods of calculation.207 Suffice it to say that, as Jones has stated, Victorius' Easter calendar was not used as an authoritative document, but rather was a reference tool for the western church designed to give them some leverage in dealing with the more astronomically inclined Alexandrians. As such, Victorius' calendar did not solve any problems, but neither did it give rise to any which did not already exist. Cassiodorus does not mention Victorius by name, which is strange considering his desire to use authoritative sources for his consular list. His reference to famous men, however, suggests that he knew who the author was, and possibly that his readers would, also.208 Both Krusch and Mommsen addressed the issue of who the "clari viri" are to whom Cassiodorus referred. Krusch appears to have favoured the view that the list was
206 "Latini" refers to the western church, "Romani" to the city of Rome, which had its own rules about when Easter should fall. These were originally mistaken for marginal, historical notes, written after the fact. They were, however, original with the document and presumably were included to give warning over potential controversy. Where such notations occur, Victorius appears to have favoured the first date, in the fifth column. 207 The best discussion of the history and calculation of Easter is in Jones 1943. 208 None of the surviving manuscripts of Victorius is without the two introductory letters of Hilary and Victorius.

accepted by the church formally,

and that the "famous men" referred to the decision of

the Roman church, though he altered his opinion slightly later.210 Mommsen suggested that the "clari viri" referred to are Hilary and Victorius, and added further that the tables were used in Italy "communi consensu," rather than due to any official decision.211 The point is, however, irrelevant to the present discussion. But there is evidence that Victorius' Easter cycle was bound up in the Laurentian schism at the beginning of the sixth century, and Cassiodorus' reticence to name his source may find its roots there. This schism came to a head with the election of two popes after the death of Pope Anastasius in 498 and was not resolved until the death of Pope Symmachus in 514. As Moorhead and others have suggested, the schism centred around differing opinions among the bishops of Italy as to the conciliatory approach that Pope Anastasius had taken with his counterparts in Constantinople and Alexandria with regard to the Acacian controversy.212 The followers of Laurentius supported Anastasius' approach, while those of Symmachus favoured a more aggressive stance which asserted the authority of the Roman see. In the spring of 501 Pope Symmachus came under fire for celebrating Easter "non cum universitate. "213 Krusch argues convincingly that what is meant here is that Symmachus celebrated Easter according to the old Roman Easter calendar, which was based on an eighty-four year lunar cycle (not a 532-year cycle) and

209 Krusch 1884, 103: "durch die Autoritat beriihmter Manner bestatigt, also sicher von der Kirche recipiert...." 210 Krusch 1937, 5. 211 Chron.Min.2. 113. 212 The Acacian controversy was a temporary schism (482-519) between the eastern and western churches which began when the Pope refused to agree to the emperor Zeno's Henotikon, a document designed to reconcile the differences of the Monophysite controversy. See Moorhead 1992, 134-135. 213 Fragmentum Laurentianum, 44.

survives in fragmented form, and which dated the Easter of 501 to 25 March.2 The reckonings both of Victorius and the eastern church gave a date of 22 April, on which date Symmachus' rival Laurentius and his followers, possibly most of the churches in Rome, celebrated Easter. The matter, along with several other charges, was serious enough that Symmachus was summoned to Ravenna to explain himself to Theoderic, but Symmachus returned to Rome before he had seen the king and closed himself up in St. Peter's.213 A council called by Theoderic and held at the church of Santa Croce in Ierusalem in Rome on 1 September 501, not far from the Lateran basilica, ultimately refused to pass judgment on Symmachus and in doing so restored him to his position.216 However, much of the Roman church remained in a state of schism with Symmachus until his death in 514.217 During this time, a pro-Symmachan partisan wrote a pamphlet under the name of Pope Silvester (314-335), now generally entitled the Constitutum Sylvestri}1* In it one "Victorinus," the author of an Easter calendar, who has been convincingly identified as Victorius, is criticized and anathematized in the mouth of the emperor Constantine.219 Another letter purported to be from Pope Sylvester to the council
214 Krusch (1884) 104-106. 215 Fragmentum Laurentianum, 44. 216 MGH AA 12.426-432. The records of this council and others held under the Ostrogothic kings were edited by Mommsen at the end of his MGH volume of Cassiodorus' Variae. 217 Moorhead (1992) 125-126. 218 PL 8.829-840; Maassen, 537-39; 557-59. 219 Duchesne, L. Le Liber Pontificalis, 1886-1892; Krusch 1884, 105-106. Sc. Victorinus "qui in sua ferocitate, quidquid vellet, affirmabat hominibus, et cyclos paschae pronuntiabat fallaces, ut hoc quod constituit decimo kalendas Maii custodiri, vestro sermone, sicut Veritas habet, cassetur, et vestro indicio condemnetur, et filiorum nostrorum Augustorum praecurrat auctoritas ad condemnandum Victorinum episcopum. Damnavit autem ... et Victorinum episcopum, qui ignorans lunae rationem, sub arbitrio sui tenacitate derumpebat veritatem, et praesentiae episcoporum supra dictorum et presbyterorum damnabit Hyppolytum, Victorinum, Calixtum, et dedit eis anathema, et damnavit eos extra urbes suas"/"...who in his madness affirmed for men whatever he wished and pronounced false Easter cycles, such as this, which he decided was to be kept on the tenth day before the kalends of May, let him be brought to nothing by your speech, just as truth has it, and let him be condemned by your judgement and let the authority of my sons the Augusti race to condemn the bishop Victorinus. And he condemned also Victorinus the bishop who, without knowledge of the movement of the moon,

176 of Nicaea, but identified by Duchesne as the same as the author of the Constitutum Sylvestri, makes a similar assault on a "Victorinus."220 Victorius' list is thus associated by name with a schism in the Roman church which would have been fresh in everyone's memory in 519, particularly since Cassiodorus mentions it explicitly in the year of his own consulship, 514, as a disagreement which troubled both the clergy and the people of the city: "Me etiam consule in vestorum laude temporum adunato clero vel populo Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia'VAlso, while I was consul, in the praise of your times the hoped-for peace returned to the Roman church with the clergy and, in fact, the people united." The senatorial families of Rome appear to have become embroiled and to have taken sides in the schism. The Fragmentum Laurentianum and the Liber Pontificalis both identify the patrician and ex-consul Rufius Postumius Festus, who had been consul in 472 and was caput senatus, as a supporter of Laurentius. The Liber Pontificalis adds the consul of 489, Petronius Probinus, son of the consul of 481 and father of the consul of 504. Symmachus was supported by Anicius Probus Faustus niger, consul for 490, son of the consul of 450 and father of the consuls of 502 and 506.221 Moorhead attempts to determine where other senators stood in the conflict, but confesses that it is impossible to

demolished the truth under the will of his own willfulness and in the presence of the aforementioned bishops and presbyters he will condemn Hippolytus, Victorinus, Callixtus and he anathematized them and exiled them from their cities" (833). 220 PL 8.823: "Atque in gremio vestrae synodi parva propter disciplinam ecclesiae alligabo praecepta propter Victorinum, qui arbitrio suo quidquid vellet affirmabat et cyclos paschae pronunciat fallaces, et cum episcopis totius urbis Italiae examinatam universitas vestri sancti consilii dignetur accipere veritatem'V'And in the heart of your synod I will add a few suggestions for the sake of obedience because of Victorius, who of his own will affirmed whatever he wished and he pronounces false Easter cycles and with the bishops of every city of Italy let the whole of your sacred council be considered worthy to accept the examined truth " (1823). 221 Lib.pont. 260.10, 13, 19f., 261.7 f.. See Moorhead (1992) 130-131.

determine where Cassiodorus' own opinions lay.

Still, Cassiodorus' failure to mention

Victorius by name need not suggest that his feelings lay with Symmachus and his partisans, who had taken issue with his Easter calendar. As we will see later, Cassiodorus in his Chronica is at pains not so much to push forward the claims or views of a particular group as to avoid ruffling anyone's feathers. In order to get around the possibility that a reader would reject his work list out of hand merely because of the sources he used, Cassiodorus determined to name no source, but instead to assure his readers that the consular list was an authoritative one and leave it at that. Whereas the name Livy had given his Republican list the stamp of historical accuracy, in this case vagueness accomplished the same thing.223 It is also probable that Cassiodorus did not name the authors of his consular list because he did not know them. Cassiodorus' list extended to 519, and, as I will argue below, he almost certainly drew his consuls from 458 to ca. 519 from a continuation of Victorius' list. It is not unreasonable to imagine a list which was housed in Cassiodorus' own family library and which was begun by his grandfather and kept up by his father and then by himself. Lacking a personal copy, he could easily have acquired one from a bookseller. If Cassiodorus had not inherited a copy of Victorius' Easter calendar, there are many other reasons why such a list could land in his hands. The list had a fairly wide distribution in Italy and western Europe and was certainly a popular document in Italy before the work of Dionysius Exiguus in 525. Victor of Capua was critical of it in 550,
222 Moorhead (1992) 131-133. 223 Perhaps he is also referring to the authority of Prosper of Aquitaine, since Victorius says in his preface that he used Prosper's consular list.

which suggests that it was still regarded by some as authoritative very late.

The Roman

senatorial class was deeply interested in the affairs of the Roman see and its relationship with the eastern churches. Since the final, official, setting of the date of Easter was done on a yearly basis, each year could potentially be a "problem year" with the added possibility of disagreement and resulting schism. Victorius' list, in addition to proposing its own dates for Easter, noted in its sixth column alternate dates for "Graeci," "Latini" and "Romani" so that anyone using the list would know in advance when there might be a disagreement about the date for the festival. In addition to these general matters which will have been on everyone's mind, Cassiodorus, who may have been in Rome for some or all of the time between the end of his quaestorship in 511 and the beginning of his tenure as magister militum in 523, had made the acquaintance of Dionysius Exiguus, either in the capacity of pupil or friend.225 By 519 Dionysius must have been interested in the calculation of the date of Easter. Cassiodorus also displayed interest, albeit later in life, in chronographic calculation, writing his own computuspaschalis in 562.226 The calculus uses the reckoning of Dionysius Exiguus as one might expect, since by this time in Italy at least, the usefulness of Victorius' tables had been discredited.227 The tenor of the times, Cassiodorus' academic acquaintances and his own predilections all point to the likelihood that he would have acquired Victorius' tables.
224 Victor of Capua, quoted in Bede, de ratione temporum, 50. For all of the fragments of Victor's work, see PL 68 1097-1098. 225 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.2, where he speaks of Dionysius, "qui mecum dialecticam legit." See O'Donnell, 24-25, 42. 226 For more detailed discussion of the computus paschalis see P. Lehmann 1959 vol. 2, 49-54 including critical edition, and O'Donnell, 217. 227 The last we hear of Victorius' tables in Italy is an entry in the Excerpta Sangallensia for 567 which indicates that Victorius was wrong: "in caelo luna XVI non comparuit II kl. Ian.." Victorius' tables have "lunaXVir for the kalends of January 568. This is also the only indication from Italy that Victorius' 532-year cycle was being used from the beginning again.

When it came to using Victorius' work for his Chronica, however, Cassiodorus had no use for the Easter tables. And he was not alone in putting the tables to other uses. There are three other examples of Victor's calendar being used for its consular dates as much as for its Easter list. The so-called Paschale Campanum is, in part, a copy of Victorius' list from 464-560 with historical notes added, originally copied around 512.228 It lists the consuls regularly only until 543 (skipping all the post consulates of Basilius down to the twenty-fifth in 566), but the Easter list until 560. From there on it is continued haphazardly and in various hands to 613, where the text breaks off. After 512 there is only one historical entry (relating a triumph of Tiberius in 576) and the earlier ones are thought to have been taken from one of the lost Italian consular lists.229 The second example is from the manuscripts of Cassiodorus' Chronica itself. Though the original work ended in 519, it has a continuation to 559, also taken from Victorius' Easter tables as the final date suggests.230 This continuation of Cassiodorus' work with the same source which gave him most of his imperial consuls is unlikely to have been a coincidence. It suggests at the very least the proximity of Victorius' list with Cassiodorus' Chronica in a library, perhaps the one left behind by him in Rome, perhaps the one he had at Cassiciacum. At some point his Chronica was brought up to date by means of a copy Victor's list which had been kept up in the forty years that had passed since the

228 Edited by Mommsen in Chron. Min I, 744-750 (the full text) and 305-334 (the historical entries only). It survives in a single seventh century manuscript (Vat. Reg. 2077, f.96-98) which also includes a full text of Prosper's Chronicle. 229 Mommsen edited the historical entries from the Paschale Campanum alongside of the other Italian consular lists which are thought to be related to one another. 230 This continuation, like Q, is edited as X in Mommsen's edition of Victorius, cited above, though the consular lists have nothing to do with one another, since Victorius' Easter table allowed for the addition of consuls after 457 by whoever owned the copy.

completion of the Chronica. The third example of Victorius' consular list being used apart from his Easter table is the consular list designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch and edited along with Victorius on the belief that it came from Victorius' list. As I demonstrate in Appendix 1, however, the early part of Q is a consular list unrelated to Victorius, but someone copied the later consuls from a continuation of Victorius which went up to the year 558. A rapid comparison of the lists of Victorius and Cassiodorus shows the latter's dependence on the former: the list is very like Prosper's, which was the source for Victorius' list, and clearly comes from the strain outlined by Burgess which includes the Fasti VindobonensesP1 A few variants and errors common to both Cassiodorus and Victorius, but not to the other two lists, Prosper's and the Fasti Vindobonenses, establish that Victorius is the source. Mommsen notes the consistent spelling of the name "Gabrio" in both Cassiodorus and Victorius in the years 91, 124, 150, 186 and 256, whereas Prosper always has (correctly) "Glabrio;" the omission by Cassiodorus and Victorius of the consuls of 130; their common identification of one of the consuls of 358 as "Titianus" rather than the correct "Datianus," which is what Prosper reads; and the consuls of 222, which Victorius and Cassiodorus list as "Alexandra et Augusto" and "Alexander et Augustus" respectively, whereas Prosper includes only "Alexandre "233 Also to be
231 This could also explain the full list of Cassiodorus' title at the beginning of the work, which Mommsen explained as being due to the transmission of the Chronica with the Variae early on. Whoever made the new copy of the work, taking it up to 559, might well also have added the full name and title of the author. It may have been completed by Cassiodorus himself, though Mommsen thought this unlikely. 232 Burgess 2000. 233 Mommsen includes these in a longer list of examples from his editions of 1861 and 1894 which show that Cassiodorus used Victorius and not Prosper. However, some of his examples are incorrect, and, as we will see below, there remains a possibility that Cassiodorus or the version of Victorius that he used, had been corrected in places with direct reference to Prosper.

included are the consuls of 410, where the manuscripts of Prosper read "Varane vc cons.' For this year, Victorius and Cassiodorus all have the western consul as well, Tertullus, though with a sign that they were added after the entry had been copied from Prosper. Manuscript G of Victorius reads "Varane vc et Tertullo" and L reads "Varione et Tertulo vc." The presence of the abbreviation "vc," which tends to be used only when there is a single consul for the years, suggests that Victorius copied Prosper's entry and then added Tertullus' name after.234 A more detailed comparison of Cassiodorus with Victorius is necessary to determine whether Cassiodorus changed or updated Victorius' list in any way, but such a comparison requires some preliminary discussion of the comparanda: Prosper and the different manuscripts of Victorius. It is not enough merely to compare Cassiodorus' work with the published editions of either Prosper or Victorius because already by 519 when Cassiodorus wrote his Chronica there were many different versions of both Prosper and Victorius in circulation, with different readings and spellings of names. Often what look like differences between Cassiodorus and Victorius must be dealt with by looking at all the relevant readings of the manuscripts of both Victorius and Prosper. There is no one surviving manuscript which is clearly the version which Cassiodorus used. Of the eleven manuscripts of Victorius used by Krusch in his 1938 edition, only four include the consular list or a part of it. G, L and S include the complete list of consuls from 29 to 457, as well as extensions of the consular list, with G going down to 542, L to 522 and S to 559, the end of Victorius' calendar. Manuscript A has the consuls

234 Tertullus' name appears only in Hydatius and in a single inscription. See CLRE ad loc.

only from 29 as far as 182 with a significant gap from 151 to 171. The extensions of the list beyond 457, which were probably produced by private individuals or booksellers who kept up the lists from year to year as they learned the names of the consuls, can be used to date within a decade when the individual manuscript strands certainly have departed from one another. Common mistakes in L and S in the pre-457 part show clearly that they are related, but all three manuscripts, G, S and L, diverged from one another at least by the late 470's, and probably earlier. Therefore we must consider the readings of all the manuscripts in the Victurian part of these lists, particularly of G and S, when making comparisons with Cassiodorus, since we do not know exactly what reading he had in his own copy. We will also need to consider Cassiodorus' and Victorius' relationship to Prosper of Aquitaine's consular list. To that end, a short digression on Victorius and Prosper is necessary here. Victorius took his consular list from Prosper, whose chronicle he mentions in his prologue.236 But Prosper's consular list varies among the different versions which he produced, particularly near the end where he was able to include some eastern consuls in 455 which he had missed 10 years earlier.237 Victorius tells us which
235 The manuscript designated Q by Mommsen and Krusch is only a consular list without an Easter calendar. It is attached to the end of a copy of Jerome's chronicle in Par. Lat. 4859, and runs from 379 to 558. However, despite Kaufmann's article of 1876 which demonstrated that Q's consular list to 457 is not Victorius', Mommsen and Krusch edited it along with the others. Kaufmann believed that the consular list of Q had been inserted into Victorius' Easter calendar and then extracted at a later date. However, as I demonstrate in Appendix 1, Q does not belong to the tradition of Victorius at all, and must be considered as an independently produced list. The sixth century consuls in Q probably come from a relative of the Victorius manuscript S, which explains why Q ends where Victorius' Easter calendar ended. 236 Victorius, prologue, 7: "Cuius (sc. Eusebii) tenorem vir venerabilis Prosper secutus, hisdem chronicis haec eadem egregia brevitate praeposuit, ut eorum initium a mundi incoaretur exordium." "And following his course, the venerable man Prosper substituted these same (totals) at the beginning of his chronica with outstanding brevity, so that the beginning of his work might coincide with the beginning of the world" (Prologus victorii, 7 = Krusch 1937, 22) It seems from earlier on in the same paragraph that Victorius had Prosper's work both as a continuation of Jerome and as his stand-alone chronicle. 237 What is more, Prosper's list was changed by later copyists, so that no consular list in any of the

183 version of Prosper's chronicle he used in his preface: in discussing the number of years from the beginning of the world in the prefatory letter to his calendar, he mentions Prosper, along with the consulship in which he ended his chronicle, the eighth consulship of the emperor Valentinian and Anthemius, or 45 5.238 We need, therefore, to compare Victorius' consuls with the version of Prosper represented by manuscripts M and Y, since these are the manuscripts which contain the full text of Prosper's version of 455.239 M omits the consuls of 130, Catulinus and Aper, as do the manuscripts of Victorius and Cassiodorus. In 442, M reads "Dioscoro et Eudoxio," as do Victorius and Cassiodorus, whereas many manuscripts of Prosper have only "Dioscoro." In 453, M reads "Opilione et Vincomalo," along with Victorius and Cassiodorus, whereas many manuscripts of Prosper have only "Opilione. " The identification of Victorius' version of Prosper with M, however, is not so clear cut. The years 404, 410, 414 and 452 all have different readings in Victorius and in manuscript M of Prosper.240 In 404, a number of manuscripts of Prosper (ZXFPRHV) and all those of Victorius have both consuls, Honorius VI and Aristaenetus, whereas some (MYAO) have only Honorius VI.241 In 414, a few manuscripts of Prosper (RHV) list Constans as the second consul of the year with Constantius, and all the manuscripts of Victorius do as well. Finally, in 452, a number of manuscripts of Prosper (MYV) give the
manuscripts is exactly like any other. 238 "Porro ab Abraham usque in sextum Valentis consolatum et Valentiniani secundum duo milia CCCXCV, ac deinde ab Auxonio Olibrioque consulibus, qui secuntur, usque octavum Valentiniani augusti consolatum et Anthemi VII et LXX'Y'Furthermore, from Abraham up to the sixth consulship of Valens and the second of Valentinian (there are) 2395 (years), and then from the time when Ausonius and Olybrius, who follow, were consuls up to the eighth consulship of Valentinian and Anthemius (there are) 77 (years)" (Prologus victorii, 7 = Krusch 1937, 23). 239 See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time, forthcoming. 240 The consuls for the year 410 are dealt with above, p. 181. 241 Ms S of Victorius reads "Honorio V."

eastern consul for the year, Sporacius, as well as the western, Herculanus. Manuscripts G, L and S of Victorius, however, have only the western consul. G reads "Herculanio vc cons," L reads "Hircolano vv cc," and S reads "Ergulano." Cassiodorus has "Asporacius" for the easterner, while the manuscripts of Prosper have "Asphoracio" (V)/"Asparaucio" (H, an addition)/"Sporatio" (MY)." Victorius must originally have had "Herculano vc cons" or something similar here: the name of the eastern consul, Sporacius, was added later to Prosper and to the version of Victorius which Cassiodorus used. By 452, of course, we are very close to both 455 and 457, the respective ends of Prosper's chronicle and Victorius' calendar, and could expect that individuals who were adding consuls yearby-year to their copies of Victorius, and those who were correcting Prosper, would be able to remember the consuls for five or even ten years earlier well enough to make their own additions or corrections, or might have learned late the name of the eastern consul for 452. In any case, the plural abbreviation in L in 452, "vv cc," may suggest that a name dropped out, or the copyist knew somehow that there was another consul but did not know his name.242 The identification of M with the version of Prosper Victorius used is not certain, but the lack of the consuls of 130 in both M and Victorius is strong evidence that the two are related.243 Victorius himself could have added the consuls of 404 and 414. There are, however, a number of consular pairs where Cassiodorus has readings which are different from any of the manuscripts of Victorius and which are correct where Victorius is wrong. In 61, where Cassiodorus has "Pius et Turpilianus" and the
242 Although the abbreviation "vc" is quite common in the manuscript fasti, the abbreviation " w cc," common in inscriptions, occurs only rarely in the manuscript fasti. 243 Although someone restored an incorrect consular pair, "Vetere et Valente consules" to fill out the missing year 130 in ms S of Victorius.

185 manuscripts of Victorius have "Pio et Corpiliano" or "Pio et Carpiliano;" in 97 where Cassiodorus has "Fulvius et Vetus" and the manuscripts of Victorius have "Flavio et Vetere;" in 236 where Cassiodorus has "Maximinus et Africanus" and the manuscripts of Victorius read, variously "Maximiano (G) / Maximo III (L) / Maximo (S) et Africano"; and in 259, where Cassiodorus has "Aemilianus et Bassus" and Victorius, with a range of odd readings, has "Marcelliano (G) / Narcello (L) / Marcello (S) et Basso."244 In all four of these cases, Cassiodorus' readings agree with Prosper and are not attested in any of the manuscripts of Victorius. The simplest explanation for these variants is that Cassiodorus is a witness to a good tradition of Victorius, who copied the names correctly from Prosper, in which case a new edition of Victorius will take Cassiodorus' readings more seriously. However, all three of the manuscripts of Victorius with extensions of the consular list descend from versions made before the 470's, and so these variant readings in Victorius go back very far indeed. A more complicated explanation would posit corrections by Cassiodorus based on Prosper or corrections made to a copy of Victorius' list which Cassiodorus then used. But it would be difficult to explain why corrections would be made through reference to some of Prosper's readings (or those from other fasti), but not all. There are further differences between Cassiodorus and Victorius which are not attested to in Prosper, and which must therefore be attributed either to Cassiodorus' particular copy of Victorius or to Cassiodorus' own corrections. In 311 all the manuscripts

244 In 46 Cassiodorus reads Asiaticus et Cornelius instead of Asiaticus et Silanus, but I believe this to be a copyist's error, a dittography, since the second consul of the year before in Cassiodorus (and Victorius) is Cornelius. The readings of L and S for this year (among others) tie the two manuscripts together as stemming from the same original.

of Victorius - G, L, S - and Prosper read "Maximiano VIII et Licinio.

The first consul

is Galerius Valerius Maximianus, Augustus from 305 to 311, not the colleague of Diocletian who retired in 305. Cassiodorus, however, reads "Maximo VIII." While there is frequently confusion in the consular lists among names like Maximianus, Maximinus, and Maximus, this looks like a correction by Cassiodorus or his source. Maximianus is named Maximus from his first consulship in 294 regularly in Victorius and Cassiodorus, and sometimes in some manuscripts of Prosper. He is thus, in Victorius and Cassiodorus, never confused with Maximianus the colleague of Diocletian, and naming him Maximus seems to be a way of distinguishing the two men. In 311, however, he has his proper name in Victorius and Prosper, "Maximiano." While Cassiodorus' reading of "Maximus" could be a copying accident, it is also possible that Cassiodorus changed the name deliberately. Prosper, in 310, one year too early, had noted the death of Maximianus, and this may have encouraged Cassiodorus (or his source) to change the name "Maximiano" to "Maximo," both to make it match up with the previous consular years, and because the author of the change correctly thought it impossible that Galerius Maximianus could hold a consulship after he died. Between 320 and 330 we see a similar regularization of consular iterations, seemingly in defiance of Victorius' and Prosper's lists. In 320 Cassiodorus reads "Constantinus VI et Constantius caes," which is what manuscript G of Victorius has, though S and Prosper read, correctly, "Constantino VI et Constantino."246 A similar
245 S here reads "Lucinio." "Licinio" is incorrect. He had been consul for the first time in the east, though not recognized in the west, in 309. His name perhaps crept into Prosper's source in this year to explain his second consulship in 312, which is marked by an iteration in all the manuscripts of Victorius and Prosper. His name does not appear in this year in the Fasti Vindobonenses. 246 The confusion of "Constantinus," "Constantius," and even "Constans" in the written fasti is common.

187 situation prevails for the following year, where Cassiodorus reads "Crispus II et Constantius caes II" (G reads "Crispo II et Constantio caes"), while S reads "Crispo et Constantio" and Prosper reads "Crispo II et Constantino II." In 324, likewise, Cassiodorus has "Crispus III et Constantius III" while Prosper and and L read "Crispo III et Constantino III" and S reads "Crispo IIII et Constantino III."247 In 326 Cassiodorus has "Constantinus VII et Constantius IIII." Cassiodorus' iterations are internally consistent, but incorrect. None of the manuscripts of Victorius or Prosper has the iteration "IIII" because, of course, this was the first consulship of Constantius the son of Constantine and his name ought not to have been appearing in the fasti at all to this point. Manuscript S of Victorius has the correct reading from Prosper, though without iterations, "Constantino et Constantio." The following year is a difficult one: Flavius Constantius (no relation to the imperial family) and Valerius Maximus were consuls and Cassiodorus has "Constantius V et Maximus," confusing the consul for the year with the son of Constantine, and continuing to regularize the iterations incorrectly. Prosper has "Constantino II et Maximo" and is followed by S which reads "Constantino II et Maximo." G reads "Constantio II et Maximo," getting the iteration from Prosper right, and the correct name, though probably by accident. L reads "Constantio V et Maximo," which would appear to support Cassiodorus, but the copyist of L is not to be trusted, and the confusion of "II" for "V" in iterations (and vice versa) is a common one. Mommsen and Krusch print "Constantio V et Maximo" here as the reading of Victorius, but this cannot be right. If anything, it was "Constantio II et Maximo." Cassiodorus (or his source) has here, as

247 The iterations in S are a mess, with many corrections, additions and erasures. One wonders whether it has been corrected through recourse to a copy of Prosper.

before, regularized the iterations to make the list tidy. The regularization of iterations continues in 329 and 330. In 329 Cassiodorus reads "Constantinus VIII et Constantius VI," whereas the correct consuls were Constantinus VIII and Constantius IV, which is what Prosper has. G has the correct iteration but the wrong name, "Constantio HII." None of the manuscripts of Victorius or of Prosper has the iteration VI for Constantius in this year, which, again, shows deliberate regularization. In 330 Cassiodorus reads "Constantius VII et Symmachus," which is completely different from Prosper, the manuscripts of Victorius, or the real consuls for the year, who were Gallicanus and Symmachus: Prosper: G: L: S: "Constantino III et Symmacho" "Constantio III et Simmaco" "Constan VI" "Constantio et Simacho"

Here again, with no authority, the iterations have been tidied up.248 To recap, Cassiodorus took Victorius' list from 29 CE to 457 CE almost exactly as he found it. While there are a few very minor differences, noted above particularly in the regularization of consular iterations and the corresponding confusion of similar names, these are impossible to attribute to Cassiodorus with any certainty since they could just as easily have been found in his copy of Victorius, whose different surviving copies vary from one to the other. There must have been many more copies in the late fifth and early sixth century, with as many different readings and orthographical variants. As well,
248 In 290 Prosper and, according to Krusch's edition, all the manuscripts of Victorius read "Diocletiano III et Maximiano II," (S, which I have checked, reads "Diocletiano III et Maximo II," though both iterations have been struck through), whereas Cassiodorus has "Diocletianus III et Maximianus III," which is correct. Mommsen's edition of Victorius, however, has "Maximiano III" for all the manuscripts of Victorius. If Krusch's reading is correct, this is another example of Cassiodorus, or his copy of Victorius, tidying up the consular iterations.

Cassiodorus' own manuscript could have been altered by scribes intent on "correcting" the list. It is easy to see why Cassiodorus chose an Easter calendar for his consular list. An Easter calendar at the very least has two different dating systems: the date of Easter and the consular name.249 Thus it is more difficult for a name to drop out than from a simple list, and this may well have appealed to the methodical Cassiodorus. Why he did not simply use Prosper's consuls we cannot say. He must have known from Victorius' preface that the consuls were Prosper's, but there is no evidence that he had Prosper's epitome of Jerome, and, as I will discuss below, it seems likely that he only had Prosper's work from 379 to 455, attached to a copy of Jerome's chronicle, and not Prosper's reworking of Jerome from the crucifixion to 378. Furthermore, as we will see, it is likely that Cassiodorus' version of Victorius continued its consular list beyond 457. In the same way that Cassiodorus used Livy's consuls and then the attached list of Aufidius Bassus, he may well have been determined to use the more reliable Easter calendar from 29 CE as far as it would take him into the fifth century and beyond. Speaking more generally about Victorius, we must note here the variety of the record of the consular names, even in the section prepared by Victorius himself, and even in the very few manuscripts of Victorius which we have. Given that there must have been hundreds of copies in circulation in Italy in the sixth century, we can assume that the number of variants was large. We have seen how similar names are confused, iterations
249 Ms S of Victorius, in fact, has in its margins indiction years, AUC dates, imperial reigns, and dates from the incarnation, making it the most complete chronological compendium from the late Roman world we have.

are corrected (something we saw also in the Livian consulana), and how pairs are inexplicably left out and replaced. A bureaucrat, and later a scholar, as careful as Cassiodorus, and as concerned with precision in the smallest matters, would have torn his hair out when he surveyed the mess, and we can understand Cassiodorus' desire to "cleanse" the errors from the list.

After Victorius: Cassiodorus' Consuls from 458 to 519 Up to 457 Cassiodorus had constructed what he believed to be an accurate list of consuls largely by relying on well-established and (as he thought) authoritative sources. As he moved closer to his own time, however, it is perhaps possible that Cassiodorus himself took more care with recording the consular names. The last sixty years of his consular list show more clearly than the earlier years how seriously he took his assertion in his preface that the "irregularity of the copyists" had been cleansed from his work. As I suggested above, it seems reasonable to assume that Cassiodorus took his consular list after 457 from a continuation of Victorius' Easter calendar. We would expect, then, that Cassiodorus' list from 458 to 519 would exhibit some of the characteristics of all the other continuations of Victorius, which are solidly western in their outlook, often omitting eastern consuls, and frequently show signs at certain points that they were maintained year by year. But this is not the case. Cassiodorus' list is very complete - the most complete western consular list we have for the fifth and early sixth centuries. This completeness would suggest considerable effort on the author's part in working back over the years to make sure that his information was complete. The

191 manuscripts of the continuations of Victorius, however, were clearly kept up year-by-year and, on the whole, not corrected after the names were entered the first time. The signs which suggest year-by-year, or close to year-by-year maintenance are 1) the listing of the western consul only, even when the name of the eastern consul can be shown to have been known elsewhere in Italy, 2) the use of post-consular dates even when, again, the (eastern) consuls became known in Italy later in the year, or even the following year, 3) the occasional abbreviation "vc"(uir clarissimus) after the first of the two names, followed by the eastern consul, which indicates that the western name was written first as a single name, then the eastern was added when it became known later, since "vc" is only employed with the name of a single consul, and 4) the occasional post-consular notation followed by the actual consul for that year in the ablative, which suggests that the "pc" was written into the list, and when the consul or consuls for the year became known, the name or names were written beside it without the erasure of the post consulate. All the continuations of Victorius, as well as the Fasti Parisini, the Paschale Campanum and the Fasti Augustani show at least one of these signs before 484. Cassiodorus' list, however, shows no such signs. It does, however, show several signs of revision and correction. From 458 to 519, the abbreviation "Aug" is used every time an emperor is consul, in 458, 462, 466, 471, 473, 474, 475, 479, 492, 497, 507 and 519. Before 457, where Cassiodorus was relying on Victorius, the abbreviation occurs only five times, in 403, 411, 426, 440 and 451. The abbreviation seems in all sources to be rather more common in the fifth century than in the fourth, but no other list is as regular as Cassiodorus' in including it. The regularity suggests that the author himself went back over the years to

458 and inserted it, though it is not impossible that it was in his source. Two individual years also show the deliberate hand of the author. In 519, the emperor Justin, who was consul with Eutharic Cilliga, Theoderic's son-in-law, ought by Cassiodorus' own standards, to come first in the record, but Cassiodorus puts the name of his addressee and patron in the primary spot, including the abbreviation "D N," "Dominus Noster." Similarly, in 484, though Theoderic occupies the second spot in most of the western lists, Cassiodorus swapped the names and gave Theoderic top billing.250 In addition to the more obvious signs of care taken by Cassiodorus, we must also consider the undeniable fact that his list is by far the most complete source for consular names in Latin or Greek between 458 and 519.251 Over the course of sixty-one years he has all the western consuls, and misses only four eastern consuls, in 475, 482, 490 and 493. Cassiodorus can be forgiven not including the name of the emperor Zeno, who was removed from his consulship of 475 after his exile in January by the usurper Basiliscus. Many lists show confusion in 479 as to whether it was Zeno's second or third consulship (he had been consul first in 469). The other three eastern consuls that Cassiodorus missed, however, are all attested one way or another in the west and all three deserve comment. The eastern consul for 482, Appalius Trocondes Illus, was known in the west in the year he was consul. His name occurs in an inscription from Rome from October of that year252 and appears in one of the continuations of Victorius (L) as "Traundio." Still,

250 One of the continuations of Victorius, G, also puts Theoderic first, which suggests that a new recension of it was produced between 492 and 526 in which the copyist, like Cassiodorus, put Theoderic first in this year. 251 As noted in CLRE, p. 52, though the first two years in which the authors claim Cassiodorus has no eastern consul are incorrect. The correct years are 475, 482, 490 and 493. 252 7Cf//?n.s.II4983.

193 he was clearly not well known in the west.253 Similarly in 490, the eastern consul, Longinus, consul for the first time in 486, appears in three continuations of Victorius and the Fasti Veronenses, but not in any contemporary inscriptions, though two post-consular dates, "pc Longini II et Fausti vv cc" from Italy date from either the following year or from 492.254 Longinus was clearly not entirely unknown in Italy. In 493, the eastern consul Eusebius is only testified in the west in the Paschale Campanum, where the entry "Albinus vc cons et Eusebius" indicates that his name was added sometime later. The missing consul for 482, then, is simply an example of how difficult it might be for even someone as resourceful as Cassiodorus to lay his hands on a good, complete list of consuls or to get access to the names of consuls who had been disseminated officially or unofficially in the west. In 490 and in 493, however, we might expect official propagation of the consular names to have been difficult, if not completely unattempted, with all hands and eyes in Italy occupied with the war between Odovacar and Theoderic. After 493, however, Cassiodorus' list becomes impeccable, and its reliability is displayed most clearly in the years from 496 to 519, where, in every year, Cassiodorus' list is the only one of the written fasti, and occasionally of all the existing evidence from the western or eastern empires, to record both consuls consistently.255 Below is a list of all the western fasti which record all the years from 496 to 519: Cassiodorus; the three continuations of Victorius: G, S and L, the Fasti Parisini (otherwise known as the Q manuscript of Victorius); the Paschale Campanum; Marius of Avenches; the Fasti

253 Pope Simplicius' letters from that year list only Severinus as consul, Coll. Avell. 68-69. 254 CILV 5210* and CILV 5656*. 255 The consuls of 503 do not appear in the manuscripts of Cassiodorus, but I believe they must be restored to the text. See above, pp. 119ff.

Vindobonenses posteriores; and the Consularia hafniensia. A cursory look shows how much better Cassiodorus' list is than the rest. Of the years between 496 and 519, the eastern consul was not promulgated in the west in most of these years (496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 508, 511, 512, 513, 517, 518, 519). In 504, 509, 510, 514 and 516 the sole consul was a westerner. In 507 and 515, there is some evidence of dissemination of the eastern consul.257

496 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 497 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 498 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

Paulus v.c. cons. pc Viatoris Viatore Eusebio v.c. cs pc pc Viatoris pc Viatoris Paulo pc Viatoris vc consulis Anastasius Aug. II cons. it pc Viatoris Viator Paulo v.c. cs. II pc it pc Viatoris Viatoris Anastasio Aug II iterum pc Viatoris vc consulis

499 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 500 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 501 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

Iohannes v.c. cons. pc Paulini Paulino Iohanne v.c. cs pc pc Paulini pc Paulini pc vc cons Paulini pc Paulino vc consule Patricius et Hypatius Patricio et Ypatio Patriluicio et Ipado iter v.c. cs Patricio et Ypatio iter, pc Paulini Patricio et Hypatio item pc Paulini item tertio Paulino vc consule

Paulinus et Iohannes Paulino vie cons Paulino Paulino v.c. cons Paulino Paulino Paulino Paulino vc cons Paulino vc consule

Avienus et Pompeius Avieno iuniore v.c. et Albileno Avieno v.c. cs Abieno Avieno Avieno et Pompeio Avieno et Pompeio

256 Paschale Campanum, Chron. min. 1: 274-339 and 745-750; Marius of Avenches, Chron. min. 2: 232239; Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores, Chron. min. 1: 274-339, the Consularia Hafniensia, Chron. min. 1:274-339. 257 See CLRE for all these years.

Haf. 502 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 503 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 504 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 505 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 506 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini

Avieno vc consule Avienus iun. et Probus Avieno iuniore v. cl. cons. Abieno et Probo vc Albino v.c. cons Abieno Probo v.c. Avieno iuniore Avieno iuniore et Probo Abieno iun et Probo conss Avieno alio iun vc consule Volusianus et Dexicrates (restored) Volusiano v.c. cons Volusiano Volusiano v.c. cons Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano Volusiano vc consule Caetheus v.ccons Cetthe v.c. cons Cato Citheo Ceteo Cithego Cetheo Cettego Ceteo vc consule Theodorus et Sabinianus Thedoro v.c. cons Theodoro Theodora v.c. cons Theodoro Theodoro Sabiniano et Theudoro Theodoro Theudoro vc consule Messala et Ariovinna Messala v.c. cons Thodoro Mesalla v.c. cons Messale

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 507 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 508 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 509 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 510 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 511 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S

Messala Messala et Ariobinda Messala Messala vc consule Anastasius Aug. Ill et Venantius Venantio v.c. cons Venado Venencio v.c. cons Venantio Venantio Venantio et Celere Venantio Venantio iun vc cons Venantius iun. et Celer [omitted] Venantio II Venanti v.c. cons Venantio Basilio iuniore Basilio Venantio iuniore Venanti Inportuno alio Venantio vc consul Importunus v.c. cons. Inportuno v.c. c Bassilio Inportuno v cos Inportuno Anastasio Inportuno Inportuno [omitted] Importuno vc consule Boetius v.c. cons. Boetio vie. c Inportuno Boethio v.c. cs Boetio Boetio v.c. cs Boetio Boetio Boetio iun vc consule Felix et Secundinus Felice vie. c Boetio

Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 512 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 513 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 514 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 515 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent.

Felice v.c. cs Felice Felice v.c. cs Felice et Secundino Felice Felice vc consule Paulus et Muschianus Paulo et Musciano Felice Felices v.c. cs pc pc Felicis Paulo et Musciano [omitted] pc Felice vc consule Probus et Clementinus Probo et Clementino Probo Probo Senatore v.c cs Probo Probo Clementino et Probo Probo Probo vc consule Senator v.c. cons. Senatore v.c. cons Senatore Senatore v.c. cons Senatore Senatore Senatore Senatore Senatore vc consule Florentius et Anthemius Florentio et Antemio Florantio Florencio v.c. cs Florentio Florentio Florentio et Anthemio

FVpost. Haf. 516 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 517 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 518 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf. 519 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. Haf.

Florencio Florentio vc cons Petrus v.c. cons. Petro v.c. cons pc Petro v.c. cons Petro Petro Petro Petro Petro vc cons Anastasius et Acapitus Agapito v.c. cons Petro Acapito v.c. cons Agapito Agapito Anastasio et Agapito Agapito Agapito vc cons Magnus v.c. cons. post c Agapiti Agapio Agapiti pc pc Agapiti Magno et Apollonare pc Agapiti pc Agapiti dn. Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug. Iustino Aug. pc Iustino Aug. Euterico et Rusticiano Eutaricus Cillica Iustino et Euterio Eutarco Cilliga Fl. Eutharico Celica vc cons

Of the twenty-four years covered between 496 to 519 there are three years, 498,

507 and 508, where Cassiodorus includes both consuls, western and eastern, and no other western list does;258 there are nine years, 496, 497, 499, 505, 506, 513 517, 518 and 519, in which Cassiodorus and only one of the other lists have both consuls, and in five of these cases, 505, 506, 517, 518 and 519, the other complete list is that of Marius of Avenches, who wrote his chronicle over sixty years later. There are two years, 513 and 515 in which Cassiodorus has both consuls along with only two other lists. This completeness testifies to careful work on the part of the compiler in making sure the list was not only correct, but complete. The next question naturally is where and how Cassiodorus got his good information. The authors of CLRE suggest, not unreasonably, that Cassiodorus' access to official sources during his career as quaestor under Theoderic would have made the compilation of his list easy enough.259 There is no reason to doubt this in principle, but Cassiodorus, as far as we can tell, was not in Ravenna between 511, the end of his quaestorship, and 523, when he was appointed magister officiorum. It is more likely that he got the information privately by resorting to private individuals and a variety of consular lists.260 The incompleteness and multiplicity of different entries in the fasti which we see in the other western lists which have survived may well be examples of the "varietate librariorum" which Cassiodorus complains of in the preface to his work, particularly if he had also managed to acquire a Greek Eastern list, which would have omitted most western consuls. We have compared Cassiodorus' list to the other examples of the list of

258 Marius of Avenches has the consuls for 508, Venantius and Celer, but his source confused them with the consul of 507, and so he has the two consular years switched, as does Victor of Tunnuna. 259 CLRE, 52. 260 See Burgess 1989, 151-153.

198 Victorius, as well as to the surviving consuls from Livy, and have found that there are few noteworthy differences. However, as we have seen, most of the differences between his fasti and other fasti occur in the twenty-five or so years immediately preceding the composition of the Chronica. It makes sense that these years, roughly the dates of Cassiodorus' own public life, were the ones which he felt a need to, and was in a position to, correct. He would certainly not have had the resources to correct consuls before that time. Cassiodorus himself was able to find the information about the eastern consuls, and it must have been available to others as well. The two halves of the empire continued to nominate one consul each through Theoderic's reign, so there must have been consultation between the courts: it is clear that Eutharic, for instance, was granted the consulship only with the eastern emperor Justin's assent.261 While it seems fairly clear that the court at Ravenna had stopped promulgating the names of both consuls, it is also clear that the public and the librarii stopped being interested in who the eastern consul was since it was not necessary information. In the century before the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the manuscript fasti more regularly include both consuls than the inscriptional record because the written fasti can be updated and corrected, whereas inscriptions, papyri and letters cannot. There is no time limit on corrections to the written fasti if new information comes along and there is a great deal of evidence from all centuries of the empire for random corrections and changes to individual years. The inclusion only of the western consuls of the western lists, then, could be due both to the failure of the central administration to proclaim and
261 VariaelA.

disseminate the names of the eastern consuls (and sometimes the western ones, too), and to the fact that it was unnecessary on the whole for the keepers of the lists, whether private individuals, clerics or booksellers, to update the lists as new information became available.262 However this may be, given the state of the other lists which have survived from the same time, Cassiodorus is to be commended for his evident efforts to compile a list which included both consuls for each year.

The Continuation of Cassiodorus' List The surviving manuscripts of the Chronica contain continuations of Cassiodorus' consuls to 559. The end date suggests that this continuation was extracted from Victorius' Cursus paschalis, which ended in 559, and appended to the manuscript of the Chronica}^ Mommsen did not believe that the continuation was by Cassiodorus himself, and that is likely the case, but the list shows similarities with Cassiodorus' work in the last part of his Chronica. First, the continuation was clearly meant to function as a continuation of Cassiodorus' work, since the consuls are all recorded in the nominative. The continuation is extraordinary in regularly including the names of both western and eastern consuls. Of the twenty-two years between 520 and 541, the last years for which consuls were named (I omit the years from 542 to 559 because they are all post-consular dates counted from Basilius' last consulship in 541), the continuation of Cassiodorus' Chronica has both
262 Even Theoderic's own letters testify to a lack of knowledge of the eastern consul. A letter of Theoderic to the senate dated to March 11 of either 507 or 508 (not in CLRE) records only "Venantio vc consule." There were western consuls named Venantius in both years, but in 507 the eastern consul was the emperor Anastasius, and in 508 the magister officiorum Celer. Celer appears to have been proclaimed late even in the east, however, so perhaps this letter is best dated to 508 rather than 507. 263 As is the case with the Fasti Parisini. See Appendix 1.

consuls right almost every time. The other western lists (the three continuations of Victorius, G, S and L, of which L breaks off after 522; the Fasti Parisini; the Paschale Campanum; Marius of Avenches; and the Fasti Vindobonensesposteriores, which become spotty after 534) generally have the western consuls correctly recorded, which is normal. Below is a list of the continuation of Cassiodorus along with the western lists mentioned above.

520 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 521 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 522 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Victorius L Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 523 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.

Rusticius et Vitali augg conss Rusticiano et Vitaliano [omitted] Rusticiano et Vitalio [omitted] Rusticio Rusticio et Vitaliano Rustico Valerius et Iustinianus wcc Valerio Valeriano Valerio Valerio Valerio Iustino II et Valerio Valerio Symmachus et Boetius vv cc Symmacho et Boetio Simacho et Boetio Symacho et Boethio vv cc Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Symmacho et Boetio Maximus vc Maximo vc pc Maximo II et Paterio Maximo

Marius Avent. FVpost. 524 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 525 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 526 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 527 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp.

Maximo Maximo Opilio et Iustinus augg vv cc Opilione vc cons Maximo Opilione Opilione Iustino et Opilione Opilione et Filoximo Probus et Filoxenus vv cc Probo iuniore vc c Probo iuniore Probo iuniore Probo iuniore Probo iuniore et Philoxeno Probo et Iustiniano aug Olybrius vc Olybrio iuniore vc c Olibrio Olybrio Olybrio iuniore Olibrio Olybrio et Hilaro Maburtius vc Mavortio vc c Mauritio Mavortio Mavortio

Manus Avent. FVpost. 528 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 529 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 530 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 531 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 532 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 533 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini

Mavurtio Maburtio et Vittelliano Iustinianus aug II vc pc Mavorti Mauritio pc Mavortio pc Mavorti Iustino pc Maburti et Iustiniano II Decius vc Decio iun vc cons Decia Decio Decio iun Decio iun Decio iun et Vitelliani Lampadius et Orestis vv cc Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Horeste pc Lampadi et Orestis vv cc pc Lampadi Lampadio II et Oreste pc Lampadio et Oreste pc supra scriptorum pc Lampadi et Orestis pc Lampadi et Horestis it pc Lampadi et Orestis vv cc it pc Lampadi Lampadio III Lampadio III et Oreste III pc supra scriptorum item pc Lampadi et Orestis item pc Lampadi et Horestis Iustinianus aug III cons tertio pc Lampadi Lampadio IIII Lampadio IIII et Oreste IIII

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 534 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 535 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 536 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 537 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 538 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 539

et iterum pc supra scriptorum Iustiniano aug III et iterum pc superiorum Iustinianus aug IIII et Paulinus conss Paulino vc cons Paulino Paulino iuniore Paulino iuniore Paulino iun Paulino Bilisarius vc pc Paulini Paulino II et Basillar Paulino II et Bilisario I pc Paulini Belesario pc Paulini [between 538 and 539] pc Bilisari vc iterum pc Paulini Paulino III et Basillar Paulino III et Bilisario II iterum pc Paulini quod est consulatu Vilisari pc Belesari [omitted] it pc Bilisari vc tertio pc Paulini Paulino IIII et Basillar III Paulino IV et Bilisario III pc Belisari item pc Belesari [omitted] Iohannis vc Iohanne vc cons Paulino V et Iohanne Paulino IIII et ioanne paulino V ioanne II Iohanne Iohanne et Iohanne

Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 540 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini

Appius vc post cons Iohannis Paulino VI et Apione Paulino VI et Appione Appione vc cons Appione et Apione Iustinus iun vc bis it cons Iohannis Paulino VII et Apione Paulino VII et Apione II

Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost. 541 Cassiodorus Victorius G Victorius S Fasti Parisini Pasch. Camp. Marius Avent. FVpost.

Iustino Iustino [omitted] Basilius vc tertio pc Iohannis Basilio Basilio Basilio iuniore Basilio [omitted]

For the eight years 522, 523, 526, 527, and 529-532, when the only consuls were westerners, there is uniformity among all the western lists. But for the remaining fourteen years when there were eastern consuls, the picture is the same as in the years following the accession of Theoderic - a haphazard record of eastern consuls in all the lists except Cassiodorus'. Of the fourteen years, the continuation of Cassiodorus alone has the correct consuls for two, 521 and 534. For six years, 524, 525, 533, 535, 536, and 537, only the continuation of Cassiodorus and Marius of Avenches have the correct consuls. The continuation of Cassiodorus shows the same attention to abbreviations and titles as before, but with some differences, and these differences suggest that the work was not Cassiodorus' since they are at variance with his usual practice. There are careful notations of "aug" where appropriate, and of "vc" in the case of single consular names. In contrast to the pre-519 names, however, those from 520 on almost all the double names have "vv cc." As well, the abbreviation "cons" is omitted from single names, whereas it appears in the single names in Cassiodorus' list before 519. There are several oddities as well, which could not be the work of Cassiodorus. In the record for 524 "Opilio et Iustinus augg vv cc," the emperor Justin is not first in the pair, though Cassiodorus was very careful in the material between 458 and 519 always to place the

203 emperor in the primary spot, except in the case of his addressee. This would suggest that his name was added late, though clearly by someone who knew he was the emperor. Furthermore, the abbreviation "augg vv cc" implies that both men were Augusti and viri clarissimi, but only Opilio was a vir clarissimus, and only Justin was Augustus. The compiler of the continuation does not seem to have known what the abbreviations meant. Similarly, in 520, the abbreviations "augg vv cc" follow the two names, when neither was an Augustus.264 In 528, Justinian is listed as vir clarissimus as well, which is not an appropriate designation for the emperor. The evident care for accuracy which went into preparing the continuation, and the consistency in the recording of the names testify to a bureaucratic mind with access to good information, or at least with the will to find out the information, but the differences in abbreviations indicate that the continuation was not by Cassiodorus.265 The fact that this list, like the lists in Victorius' Cursuspaschalis, ended in 559 shows that his list was updated at least in part through reference to one of the many copies and continuations of Victorius which circulated in the west during this period.

Overview of Cassiodorus' Sources for the Fasti The previous four sections on Cassiodorus' sources for his fasti have dealt with a disparate set of issues and problems stemming from the different sources which he used to construct his own fasti. Despite the different focus each source requires, several things deserve to be underscored which are common to all. First, fasti were clearly not treated in
264 I wonder whether "Vitali augg" is a misreading of "Vitalianus," the correct second consul for the year, but the other mistakes in the abbreviations suggests otherwise. 265 Kaufmann (1876) 395-397.

204 antiquity the way literary texts were treated. The lists saw many different uses across a wide cross-section of public and private spheres, and not everyone who used or copied a list was concerned with recording the list exactly as it appeared in the original. The popularity of Victorius' list stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that there was another chronological scheme, the date of Easter, built into it which could be used as a check on the consular list: new consuls could be written into a space prepared for them. Cassiodorus worked hard to draw up a list which was complete for the twenty-five years before the end of his work, and presumably believed that by attaching authoritative names to the list (including his own, no doubt), he could go some way to solving the problem of the differences among all the lists, or at the very least of averting criticism for the quality of the list from the mid-fifth century and before. It is possible to see that he worked carefully in the years of the last half of the fifth century and early sixth to make sure his list was as complete as it could be, under the circumstances. In arranging imperial reigns alongside the consular list, as we will see he did in the section which follows, he established a second firm dating system to work hand-inhand with the first, and he continued to line up the imperial reigns beside the consular names until the reign of Anastasius. In being alert to Cassiodorus' care for chronology, we can see through the panegyric of the preface and the last few pages of the book, and understand Cassiodorus' work as an attempt to establish a chronological framework which would allow his readers to visualize and comprehend the length of the history of the world, and in particular the Roman empire.

205

Assigning Jerome's Imperial Reigns and Events to Consular Years Cassiodorus' sources for the Republic and the years after 457 included events dated by consular year. For this reason, dating the events was not an issue for him; he could simply follow his source. But this was not the case with Jerome, who dated his chronicle for the imperial period by imperial reign. Cassiodorus used Jerome extensively for historical notes between Creation and the first consuls, and later, after he ceased to use the epitome of Livy and Aufidius Bassus, for historical notes between the crucifixion and the end of Jerome's chronicle in 378.266 Cassiodorus had used Victorius' list as his chronological framework for this period, however, and was then faced with the task of adapting Jerome's historical entries, including Jerome's dating system of imperial years, to his consular list. Cassiodorus inserted those which he found in Jerome into the list of consuls which he had prepared from Victorius. It is this dovetailing of the two chronological frameworks which I will discuss in what follows.267 As we have seen, Cassiodorus began drawing on Jerome from 49 B.C., the year of Pompey's flight from Italy and the year before the first year of Julius Caesar's reign.268 He then inserted imperial reigns and the events within them into his consular list. His precise procedure is unclear: he may have inserted the imperial reigns first before returning to his starting point to insert the more diverse historical notices, or he may have done both as he went through the years. The mistakes that he made point to the latter possibility, but the fact that his consuls for the year 378 C.E., the end of Jerome's chronicle and the
266 Though he did use Jerome for regnal years from Julius Caesar forward. 267 The same task had been undertaken by Prosper, and is also evident in the margins of manuscript S of Victorius, where someone has adapted imperial reigns drawn from Jerome to Victorius' consular list. 268 Jerome had, as was not unusual, considered him the first emperor and had numbered him accordingly.

206 beginning of Prosper's, match perfectly with each other, points to at least some planning before the final copy was produced. What is clear, as we will see, is that Cassiodorus combined the two dating schemes systematically, if a little hastily. I will treat Cassiodorus' method of inserting the imperial reigns and of inserting the other notices from Jerome separately because the two processes are more easily comprehended discretely.

A Note on the Text of Jerome's Chronicle Before discussing Cassiodorus' inclusion of historical notices into his list, a note must be made about the text of Jerome. All references in this work to Jerome are made to Helm's text, a necessary but slightly artificial practice, since we have no idea what sort of text of Jerome Cassiodorus himself had. Jerome's lengthy and difficult chronicle lent itself to frequent errors in copying. Thus we find that, depending on the manuscript, almost every event in Jerome's chronicle can be found in at least two different years.269 Therefore, if Cassiodorus is off by one year, or even two, in his dating within a reign, there is no way of telling whether he or the manuscript that he used was at fault. So, for instance, in Hadrian's reign, Helm's text has the building of the temple of Rome and Venus and the construction of many buildings in Athens in the fifteenth and sixteenth years of Hadrian's reign, respectively (200d, 200g). Cassiodorus places them in the fourteenth and fifteenth years (789, 791). However, three of Helm's manuscripts (A, P, N) show the events placed in the years in which they are found in Cassiodorus. The renaming of Jerusalem, however, is placed by Cassiodorus (797), Helm's text (201e) and
269 See almost any page from Helm's text.

207 the above three manuscripts in the twentieth year of Hadrian's reign. There is no one manuscript which Helm uses that corresponds in all cases to the dates that appear in Cassiodorus work.270 In only two cases are Cassiodorus' events off by two years or more from Helm's text. Lucius Verus' death is placed in the eleventh year of his and Marcus' reign (838), whereas Jerome put it in the ninth. But Jerome says specifically that "quidam putant XI'7 "some believe in the eleventh year."271 The Gallic Chronicle of 511 also used Jerome and also put Verus' death in the eleventh year.272 While it is not impossible that Cassiodorus' manuscript of Jerome had this entry opposite the eleventh year, there is no manuscript of Jerome that has it there. Eutropius, whom Cassiodorus used occasionally to correct Jerome, places Verus' death in the eleventh year of his reign as well (8.10.4), and Cassiodorus may have followed him in this case. The second case is the dating of the celebration of the thousandth birthday of Rome in Philip's reign (949) where Cassiodorus puts the event three years later than does Helm's text.273

The Consular List and Imperial Reigns Cassiodorus drew primarily on Jerome for the length of imperial reigns, and in the vast majority of cases his numbers are exactly the same as those of Jerome. For instance, in his note on Claudius' accession, Jerome says that Claudius reigned for thirteen years, eight months and twenty-eight days, and he assigns him fourteen regnal years.
270 Mommsen 1892, 368, suggests that Cassiodorus used a manuscript very similar to Leidensis Scaligeri 14, Helm's F, but that manuscript is different in many ways from Cassiodorus' work. 271 Helm 205k. 272 MGH: AA 9: 632-666. 273 Discussed above, pp. 118ff.

208 Cassiodorus follows Jerome exactly: in his note on Claudius' accession, he records the length of Claudius' reign from Jerome and assigns fourteen consular pairs to his reign. When he does depart from Jerome, he does so in three different ways: 1) when he found fuller or better information in Eutropius, he sometimes substituted Eutropius' numbers for Jerome's; 2) on several occasions, even though the number is the same as Jerome's in the note on the imperial accession, he assigned a different number of consular years from Jerome, 3) on two occasions he deliberately shortened imperial reigns in order to make his imperial years coincide with his consular list and 4) in two cases, for the reigns of Augustus and Aurelian, Cassiodorus counted a half year as a whole year, whereas Jerome had not.274 There are also some numbers at variance with Jerome which stem either from copyists' errors during the recopying of Cassiodorus' work or from the copy of Jerome he was using. It seems best in what follows to adopt a chronological approach, beginning with Cassiodorus' initial adoption of Jerome and following his procedure through to 378. This approach demonstrates most clearly Cassiodorus' methods, the measures he took to correct himself, and, for whatever reason, his failure to revise his work even after it was obvious that he had made mistakes. The synchronization of Jerome's imperial reigns with the consular years was a procedure teeming with difficulties and potential for error. The following chart lists Jerome's imperial years, as well as Cassiodorus' imperial years and the number of consuls he assigned to each emperor. I have noted with bold type the places where Cassiodorus is at variance with Jerome.
274 Mommsen's chart (1894, 116) counts nine places where Cassiodorus counts a different number of years from Jerome, but he includes Tiberius, since he did not restore the consuls in the year of the crucifixion. He also includes Valentinian/Valens on the basis of a faulty edition of Jerome: Jerome gives them fourteen years, not fifteen, and so there is no discrepancy with Cassiodorus.

209

Emperor

Julius Caesar Augustus Tiberius Caligula Claudius Nero Galba Otho Vitellius Vespasian Titus Domitian Nerva Trajan Hadrian Antoninus Pius M. Aurelius Commodus Pertinax Severus Caracal la Macrinus Elagabalus Alexander Maxim inus Gordianus Philip Decius Gallus and Volusianus Valerianus and Gallienus Claudius Aurelianus Tacitus Probus Cams Diocletian Constantine Sons of Constantine Julian

Cassiodorus: Regnal Years y/m/d 4/7 56/6 23 3/10 13/8/28 13/7/28 -/3/5 -/8/1 9/11/22 2/2 15/5 1/4 19/6/15276 20/10/29277 21 19 13 -/6 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1/3 2/4 15 1/9 5/6 -/6 6/3 2 20 30/10 24/5/23 1

Cassiodorus: Consuls 5 57
23275

4 14 14 2 10 2 16 2 20 21 21 19 13 1 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1 2 15 2 6 1 6 2 21 31 24 1

-n

Jerome: Regnal Years y/m/d 4/7 56/6 23 3/10 13/8/28 13/7/28 -7 -3 9/11/22 2/2 15/5 1/4 19/6 21 22/3 19/1 13 -16 18 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1/3 2/4 15 1/9 5/6 -16 6/4 2 20 30/10 24/5/13 1/8

Jerome: Years assigned 5 56 23 4 14 14 10 2 16 1 19 21 23 19 13 1 17 7 1 4 13 3 6 7 1 2 15 2 5 1 6 2 21 31 24 2

275 With the consulship of the two Gemini restored. See above, pp. 123ff.. 276 Cassiodorus took the more precise number for the length of Trajan's reign from Eutropius, 8.5.2. 277 As with Trajan, immediately above, Cassiodorus took the more precise number for the length of Hadrian's reign from Eutropius, 8.7.3.

210
Jovian Valentinian -/8 14/5 1 14 -/8 14/5 1 14

Since the beginnings and ends of imperial reigns do not coincide with the beginnings of consular years, Cassiodorus had to adjust and guess as best he could. His method was to assign one pair of consuls for every regnal year, and sometimes to assign one pair to a fraction of a year. Thus, for instance, Augustus, who reigned for fifty-six years and six months, gets fifty-seven pairs of consuls, whereas Jerome had assigned him only fifty-six years. With the exception of Titus, Cassiodorus counted every partial year as a full year up to the reign of Decius, and this led him into serious difficulties which could have been avoided had he simply followed Jerome's actual regnal years. Cassiodorus found 211 consular pairs in his fasti from the beginning of Julius Caesar's reign to 161 ;278 Jerome's imperial years add up to 208 years. The difference was inevitably going to cause problems, and in the end he had to truncate Antoninus Pius' reign by two years in order to make the consulship of the "duo Augusti" coincide with 161 CE, the beginning of Marcus Aurelius' and Verus' reigns. Cassiodorus knew from Eutropius that the elevation of two equal Augusti did not occur before the death of Antoninus Pius, but was an innovation of the subsequent regime. He includes that information in his note on the succession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius: "usque ad hoc tempus singuli Augusti fuerunt" / "up to this time there were individual Augusti. "279 He was therefore compelled to put the end of Antoninus Pius' life in his fifth consulship
278 The year 161 is a crucial year, the consulship of the "duo Augusti," Marcus Aurelius and Verus. At that point the regnal years and the consular years had to match up. 279 "Tumque primum Romana res publica duobus aequo iure imperium administrantibus paruit, cum usque ad eum singulos semper habuisset Augustos " / "Then for the first time the Roman state submitted to two Augusti wielding power with equal authority, though up to him [Marcus Aurelius], it had always had individual Augusti" (Eutropius 8.9.2).

before the two Augusti were consuls. To make the 208 regnal years fit the 211 pairs of consuls, Cassiodorus counted Augustus' extra six months as a full year, and added two more full years by giving Galba, Otho and Vitellius two pairs of consuls.280 If he had stopped there, his count would have worked out, but he assigned two years to Nerva instead of one as Jerome had done, to cover the one year and four months of Nerva's reign, and he assigned twenty years to Trajan, instead of nineteen as Jerome had done, to account for the nineteen years, six months and fifteen days of Trajan's reign. His consistency in assigning an extra pair of consuls for each fractional year caused him to have to truncate Antoninus Pius' reign by two years to make the consular list fit with the accession of Marcus Aurelius and Verus. But Cassiodorus' mistakes were worse than merely the lengthening and truncation of imperial reigns. Victorius' fasti have many omissions and additions in the years before 161, and Cassiodorus was forced to ignore the fact, which he must have known, that an imperial consulship had to come in the year of accession, the only reliable guide for linking the two dating systems. So the quality of his list resulted in the consular years getting serious out of sync with the regnal years.281 We first see this when Caligula is
280 In Jerome, the reigns of Galba and Otho come under the fourteenth year of Nero's reign. Jerome gives the lengths of Galba's and Otho's reigns as seven months and three months, respectively. He gives no number for Vitellius, nor does he even indicate that he had been emperor. Cassiodorus consulted Eutropius on this question and discovered not only that Otho had, in fact, reigned for ninety-five days, which he converts to three months and five days, but that Vitellius reigned for eight months and one day.He quite rightly judged that Jerome was in error, and that the events of eighteen months could not be squeezed into one year. He therefore indicated that he intended the reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius to be considered as taking place under the first and second consulships of Vespasian and Titus. Referring to the three short-lived emperors, he writes "Qui omnes infra scriptos duos cons<ulatus?> tenuerunt" / "All of whom held the two consular years written below" (693). The two consular years he means are Vespasian and Titus and Vespasian II and Titus II. Vespasian and Titus held only one consulship together at this time, Vespasian's second and Titus' first (70). The result was the displacement of the beginning of Vespasian's reign into the following year, two years too late. 281 It is impossible to speak here meaningfully of historical accuracy. Victorius' consular list (and Prosper's which was the basis of Victorius') is so execrable that discussing Cassiodorus success or lack

212 consul for the second time in the year after his death (649). Then, in the reign of Vespasian, Cassiodorus has placed the note on Vespasian's accession two years following his consulship with Titus, three years too late, in part because he had given Galba, Otho and Vitellius two consular pairs. Over the course of the reigns of Domitian and Nerva, Cassiodorus' consular list loses ground to the imperial reigns. Domitian, as the chart shows, is given sixteen consular pairs for his fifteen years and five months of rule. At this point, as noted above, if Cassiodorus had followed Jerome's regnal years, he would have hit his target of 161 without further problems. But Nerva, though he reigned for only one year and four months, is given two consular pairs.282 Two extra consular pairs in his list over the course of Trajan's reign, "Senecio et Sura" after the consuls of 103 and "Clarus et Alexander" as well as the extra year given to Trajan, confuse things further. By the time of Hadrian's succession Cassiodorus' imperial years are badly out of step with his consular list, with Hadrian coming to the throne two years after his first consulship, when in fact he entered into his first consulship on the January after he succeeded Trajan in 117.283 Hadrian reigned for almost exactly 21 years, and gets 21 consular pairs, but Cassiodorus falls four years out of step because his
thereof by a simple match of historically accurate consular years with the accession dates of emperors is a pointless exercise. From the consulship of the two Gemini to that of the two Augusti, when the list becomes much better, Cassiodorus should have 129 consular years, whereas he in fact has 132, which is remarkably low given the number of errors in the list. 282 If we look at this problem in terms of actual consulships, the situation seems worse than it is. Cassiodorus' list from Victorius leaves out the consuls of 80 and 87, and although there is an additional consular pair, "Sabinus et Antoninus" right before the consuls of 98, the result is that in actual terms, Cassiodorus' imperial years are four years ahead of his consular list, with Trajan succeeding Nerva the year before his fifth consulship, when in fact he succeeded him during his second. 283 The consuls at Hadrian's succession in Cassiodorus are "Servilius et Fulvius," a slightly altered version of the real consuls for that year, L. Catilius Severus Iulianus Claudius Reginus II and T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus.

list lacked the consuls of 130. In the reign of Antoninus, only three interpolated consular pairs save Cassiodorus from complete disaster. The consuls of 221, "Gratus et Seleucus" for some reason follow those of 145, and at the very end, two fake consulships, "Antoninus V et Aurelius III" and "pc Antonini V et Aureli III" give him some extra space. But he was still one or two consular pairs short of what he needed. Cassiodorus resolved this problem by arbitrarily shortening Jerome's record of the reign of Antoninus, from 22 years, 3 months to 21 years. There was nothing in his consular list, Jerome or Eutropius that could have prevented him from reorganizing his work when he realized any mistakes he had made. He might have gone back and assigned one less consular pair to any two of Nerva, Trajan or Domitian, or eliminated the extra regnal years of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. But for Cassiodorus, as I discussed above, the important part of his chronicle was the consular list, not the imperial reigns, so perhaps his stated concern for historical authority extended only as far as the consular names. Given the choice between the consuls and Jerome's regnal years something had to give and he decided to stick with the consular list, which was in fact the wrong choice. Perhaps the fact that consuls work better and are easier for numbering years than regnal years caused him to make this choice. After 160, Victorius' list becomes much better, but Cassiodorus, apparently either recognizing his mistakes in the years before 160, or realizing that the number of imperial reigns simply could not be fit into the number of consuls he had, also shows himself

284 As I noted above, p. 184, Cassiodorus is missing the consuls of 130 because both Prosper and Victorius left them out.

prepared to forgo assigning a consular pair to a partial imperial year. The inexact fit between the regnal years and consuls before 161 forced him to search out ways of accounting for that disagreement. Once the fasti became more accurate he could follow regnal years and consuls exactly but now had to explain why his method differed from before. We see this in the reigns of Decius (953), and of Gallus and Volusianus (956). Jerome assigned them one year, three months and two years, four months respectively, but only one and two years of historical notations. Although, as we have seen above, Cassiodorus' tendency had been to assign a consular pair to a partial imperial year, sometimes contradicting Jerome, here he not only followed Jerome, but explained himself both times: "his successit Decius, qui regnavit anno I mensibus tribus, quantum ad consules autem annum I" / "Decius succeeded these emperors and reigned for one year and three months, but as far as consuls are concerned, only one year" (953) and "cui successit Gallus cum Volusianus filio, qui regnaverunt annis II et mensibus IIII, quantum ad consulatum autem annis tantum duobus" / "Gallus succeeded Decius with Volusianus his son and they reigned for two years and four months, but as far as the consulship is concerned, only two years" (956). Apart from the reign of Pertinax, who reigned for six months and is given one consular pair (as he is in Jerome as well), these are the first reigns after Antoninus Pius' reign which include partial years. It seems that the mistake he made earlier prompted him to follow Jerome more carefully. Between 161 and 378 (inclusive) Cassiodorus found 219 consular pairs,285 and Jerome has 218 regnal years (counting the divided year twenty of Diocletian as two years). It ought to have been possible for Cassiodorus to successfully integrate the two
285 With the consuls of 297 restored. See above, p. 120ff..

215 lists without running into too much trouble, but again, we see him truncating a reign, this time Julian's. Jerome had given Julian 1 year and 8 months of rule, and had assigned him two years. If Cassiodorus had given Julian two consulships, the result would have been that the single consulship of the emperor Jovian would have preceded his reign, and the following first consulship of Valentinian and Valens would have preceded their first year in power. Part of his difficulties lay in the fact that he added an extra year to Severus' reign since he did not realize that Jerome started counting Severus' regnal years from year two, not year one, and he gave Aurelian six years instead of following Jerome's five. Still, the two sets of dates fit together much better in these years for several reasons: Cassiodorus' consular list is much better, with only two interpolated consular pairs, one incorrect pair, and one missing pair,286 and so he is never off by more than two years. Three other differences between Jerome's and Cassiodorus' regnal years should be mentioned in closing. Jerome gives Marcus Aurelius nineteen years and one month, whereas Cassiodorus gives him only nineteen years. The reign of Probus is shortened by one month from six years and four months in Jerome to six years and three months in Cassiodorus. And that of the sons of Constantine is increased by ten days, from twentyfour years, five months and thirteen days in Jerome to twenty-four years, five months and twenty-three days in Cassiodorus. There is no existing source from which Cassiodorus could have adopted any of these changes, and even if they were deliberate changes, they make no difference to how Cassiodorus would have treated the reigns if he had not changed them. The changes are more likely a result of scribal error in Cassiodorus' copy
286 Interpolated: "Annianus et Maximus," after the consuls of 226, "Constantius IIII et Constans III," after the consuls of 344. Incorrect: "Gratus et Seleucus," taking the place of the consuls of 230 (one of three appearances of this pair in the list). Missing: "Tacitus and Aemilianus," the consuls of 276.

of Jerome or in the tradition of his chronicle. In adapting Jerome's imperial years and historical events to Victorius' consular list, Cassiodorus was nothing if not dogged. His practice of assigning partial regnal years a full consular year caused difficulties. Still, when he changed his procedure, as he did when assigning fewer consular pairs than years reigned, he alerted his reader. At Antoninus Pius' and Julian's reigns, Cassiodorus came upon points where he had to alter Jerome's information in order to squeeze the fasti and the regnal years together. As I noted above, though he clearly noticed the errors he had made, he did not go back to correct them. It is not possible to explain this away, except to say that it underscores Cassiodorus' stated purpose in his preface of providing a good consular list. The list took precedence over the lengths of imperial reigns. Perhaps, for Cassiodorus, doing a perfect job with a secondary chronological scheme was unnecessary.

Placing Historical Events relative to Imperial Reigns and Consular Years After he had inserted the imperial reigns into the consular list, Cassiodorus inserted the events which he found in Jerome's chronicle, supplemented with a few from Eutropius (681, 714, 955, 1061). He placed the events relative to the beginning of each reign, and not relative to the whole time-line or to the consular dates (since he did not know the consular dates of the events he included). Thus, for instance, within Trajan's reign all the events are spaced as they are in Jerome. Jerome says that Trajan triumphed over the Dacians and Scythians in his fourth year and Cassiodorus puts the event in his fourth year (745); Jerome puts the stationing of a fleet in the Red Sea in Trajan's sixth

217 year and so does Cassiodorus, and so on. On the occasions when Cassiodorus gives an emperor more consular years than Jerome did regnal years, he counted the extra year at the end of each reign so as not to disturb the order of events within the reign. Conclusion Cassiodorus' achievement was considerable and, though Prosper had done it in the mid-fourth century, comparatively rare. He hunted out different sources that allowed him to put together a new consular list and did an extremely good job of the fifth and sixth century consuls, at a time when good information cannot have been easy to get. He then added, alongside, a secondary chronological scheme of imperial years from Julius Caesar to his day. Of the consularia we have, nothing on this scale had been attempted before. The fact that in many cases we can determine the reasons why Cassiodorus dated a particular event to a particular year are a testament to his dogged, if a bit ham-handed, approach. But the consular list was clearly not the only part of his work upon which Cassiodorus spent his time and care. The following chapter turns to Cassiodorus' sources for his historical entries, sources which he does not mention by name. Some of them are easy to identify, while others must be teased out from the Chronica itself.

Chapter 4: Historiography
Introduction As I noted above, Cassiodorus in his supputatio points only to the authority of the chronological sources on which he drew in his work. But we can assume that most readers in his own time (as well as in ours) were more interested in the historical lemmata. Cassiodorus was well aware of this and says in his preface that he has obeyed Eutharic's orders and drawn up trustworthy fasti "quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem" / "so that your mind, taking delight in the famous events, may run through the very long age of the world in pleasing brevity" (1). Eutharic is meant to read the events recorded in the Chronica, but no one expects him to dwell on the names of the consuls. That said, Cassiodorus mentions nowhere that for his historical notes he used the Livian-Aufidian consularia for the Republic, that he used Jerome from the beginning of the world to 510 BCE and again between 49 BCE and 378 CE, or Prosper between 379 and 455, that he drew on Italian consularia after 455, or that he used Eutropius for the whole period between the foundation of the Republic through to the reign of Diocletian. For Cassiodorus, as he makes clear in his preface, the events were subordinate to his list, but, since chronology was his chief concern, he was careful in his treatment of the strictly historical material. We have seen in the above chapter that he adapted Jerome's historical notes to his consular list between 49 BCE and 378 CE. We will see in what follows that Cassiodorus displayed a conservative approach when adapting historical material to his

consular list. For him, maintaining the integrity of his consular list was the most important thing, but careful attention to his use of very few historical sources remained characteristic of his method. The chapter which follows therefore deals with the more technical aspects of Cassiodorus' use of his historical sources: his methods of epitomization where we can compare his work with a surviving source; the nature of the source he used when that source no longer exists; and any problems or issues specific to each source. Comparison of Cassiodorus' Chronica with existing sources Jerome, Prosper and Eutropius can both help us to make some educated guesses about how he treated those which no longer exist: the Livian Epitome and the particular version of the Italian consularia which he used. As one might expect, each source poses its own particular questions and problems. In many ways the sources which Cassiodorus does not mention have exercised recent scholarship more than those he does mention. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a flurry of attempts to trace a common source for all the Italian consularia of the fifth and sixth centuries, as well as the Anonymus Valesianus.2*1 Since there has been a great deal of interest recently in the Ostrogothic kingdom and in particular in the interchange between the Gothic and Roman communities in Italy, much of the recent discussion of the Chronica has centred around Cassiodorus' "Gothic" source and the changes that he made to his primary sources, Jerome and Prosper. Since no systematic study of Cassiodorus' sources has ever been undertaken, these discussions are naturally not only somewhat tentative, but, in their brevity, slightly misleading when they appear in discussions about what kind of document the Chronica is, or was intended to
287 Waitz 1865, Holder-Egger 1876, Oeschli 1873, and Cessi 1912.

220 be. J. J. O'Donnell, whose thirty-year old book still has the longest discussion in English of the Chronica, puts his finger on some difficult passages which require explanation, but is aware that we lack sufficient knowledge of Cassiodorus' sources to say much about them. Still, he asserts that Cassiodorus' statement at 423 that Theodosius ruled the empire alone after Honorius' death is a reference to the supremacy of the eastern empire over the western. As I have demonstrated above, however, Cassiodorus' chief concern is to establish a clear chronological time-line. What is more, Cassiodorus simply copied the statement from Prosper (1283), and added the word "solus" / "alone." Without careful study of the sources and Cassiodorus' methods we can hardly make judgements about the material which he does or does not include. Lastly, O'Donnell rightly notes the panegyrical nature of the Chronica, but puts too much emphasis on that aspect of it. Read as a whole, it is not a particularly successful panegyric either of Theoderic or the addressee, Eutharic. This, likewise, is a problem which must be addressed only after a full discussion of the sources and Cassiodorus' method. In a similar vein, Arne Soby Christensen has devoted a number of pages of a larger study to the Chronica? He attempts to answer questions about whether the Chronica is dependent on Gothic stories and comes up with a negative answer (which I believe is correct), but his analysis is necessarily haphazard and lacks the firm grounding of the required scholarship to justify the conclusion. He asserts, for instance, that Cassiodorus' mention of the Amazons in the earlier part of the Chronica is proof that Jordanes took his information about the Amazons from Cassiodorus' Gothic History. But
288 Christensen 2002, 57-67.

Christensen is merely speculating from a high place. He says further that in the material which Cassiodorus draws from Prosper there is no sign of "an independent Gothic tradition," which is, again, correct, but is merely the result of a careful reading of the Chronica. Before we can talk about why Cassiodorus included particular pieces of information in his work, or what his intentions were, we need to build a clear picture of his sources and his historiographical method. This picture, combined with what I have written about in chapter three on chronology, will provide more secure structures upon which to address broader political and cultural issues. Cassiodorus Epitomizes Jerome Cassiodorus made extensive use of Jerome and Prosper, as I discussed above, but he does not always copy out his source word for word. By looking carefully at his treatment of Jerome, and in particular what he copied, what he changed, and what he omitted, we can gain some insight into how Cassiodorus treated those sources which no longer survive. Cassiodorus frequently quotes Jerome verbatim with no, or only with very minor, changes. For instance, his note on the birth of the satirist Persius is Jerome verbatim: "Persius Flaccus satyricus poeta Volaterris nascitur" (640; Jerome 176e).289 Occasionally he adds the implied 'est'/'sunt' to Jerome's perfect participle passives or achieves the same result by changing the tense, as in 1110, where he has "factus est" for Jerome's "factus," or 1081, where "efficitur" replaces Jerome's "effectus." At times he makes very
289 Other examples of the same verbatim reproduction, with few alterations, are: 29, 79, 646, 654, 656, 659, 672, 673, 683, 706, 712, 716, 722, 725, 727, 729, 736, 740, 745, 749, 756, 761, 768, 770, 774, 777, 786, 791, 797, 799, 814, 826, 829, 831, 838, 848, 850, 857, 863, 867, 876, 879, 891, 900, 908, 918, 924, 927, 938, 943, 949, 950, 964, 966, 983, 990, 995, 996, 1012, 1022, 1032, 1056, 1069, 1081, 1092, 1095, 1110, 1111, 1119, 1120, 1124, 1126.

222 minor changes of single words with no appreciable change of meaning. For instance, at 1099 he has "esse coepit" for Jerome's "factus" (24le), and at 1095 "deletae sunt" for Jerome's "oppressae" (240g).290 Occasionally Cassiodorus must alter a word because his epitomization demands it. At 886 he writes, "Severus in Brittannos bellum mouit," whereas Jerome has "Clodio Albino, qui se in Gallia Caesarem fecerat, aput Lugdunum interfecto Severus in Brittanos bellum transfert" (212i). Cassiodorus had to use "mouit" rather than "transfert" because he omitted the detail of Severus' initial conflict in Gaul with Clodius Albinus. Despite his general tendency to stay fairly close to Jerome's wording, Cassiodorus does not shy away from epitomizing Jerome's entries when he feels the need to, even very short ones. When he does so, his chief aim appears to be a desire to extract the salient historical details and to omit material not strictly relevant to the historical event. For instance, at 651 Cassiodorus writes, "Petrus apostolus Romam mittitur ubi evangel ium praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat" / "the apostle Peter is sent to Rome where he continues steadfastly as bishop of that city for twenty-five years preaching the good news." Jerome's note, which Cassiodorus epitomized, reads, "Petrus apostolus cum primus Antiochenam ecclesiam fundasset, Romam mittitur, ubi evangelium praedicans XXV annis eiusdem urbis episcopus perseverat" / "though he had first founded the church at Antioch, the apostle Peter is sent to Rome where he continues steadfastly as bishop of that city for twenty-five years preaching the good news" (179b). Cassiodorus left out the detail of the founding of the church at Antioch since it could be
290 Other examples of this are 727, where Cassiodorus has "moenia" for Jerome's "opera" (191a), 1032 where Cassiodorus has "pompa" for Jerome's "praeda" (227m), and 927, where Cassiodorus has "ob hoc cunctis" for Jerome's "ob id omnibus" (215i).

omitted without compromising the particular fact of Peter's journey to and residence in Rome. When Cassiodorus does not copy Jerome's note entirely, or with only a few changes, this is the most frequent method of epitomization he uses.291 Less frequently, Cassiodorus rewrites parts of Jerome's entries, again with a view to a brevity that does not compromise the historical detail. His notes on the deaths of Peter and Paul are good examples: "Romae sanctus Petrus et Paulus apostolus trucidati sunt a Nerone" / "At Rome saint Peter and the apostle Paul were slaughtered by Nero" (689). Jerome's notes on the same events are more detailed: "Nero super omnia scelera sua etiam persecutionem in Christianos facit, in qua Petrus et Paulus gloriose Romae occubuerunt" / "Nero, in addition to all his crimes, also directed a persecution against the Christians, during which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome" (185c). Cassiodorus wished only to note the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome at the hands of Nero, and so had to change the neutral word "occubuerunt" to the powerful "trucidati sunt," which gets across the detail of the persecution without noting that it was the first persecution of Christians.292 On a very few occasions Cassidorus rewrote Jerome's note almost entirely for the sake of compressing it, though he does not do this very often (as he does with Prosper, whose notes can be much more verbose and thus longer) since Jerome's notes tended to be brief. Still, even when Cassiodorus does this, he retains the basic vocabulary Jerome uses. In 779, for example, Cassiodorus writes "Iuxta Eleusinam civitatem Cefiso fluvio Hadrianus pontem constravit" / "Near the city of Eleusis, Hadrian built a bridge over the Cephisus river." Jerome had written "Cefisus fluvius Eleusinam inundavit, quern
291 Other, though certainly not all, examples of this are 651, 690, 737, 747, 766, 772, 886, 910 and 914. 292 This note highlights the different preoccupations of Cassiodorus and Jerome. Cassiodorus fixes his sight almost resolutely on the city of Rome, whereas Jerome was deeply interested in the history of the church and the persecution of Christians.

Hadnanus ponte coniugens Athenis hiemem exegit" / "The Cephisus river flooded Eleusis; Hadrian, having spanned the river with a bridge, spent the winter at Athens" (198i). Cassiodorus cuts the note back to the bare facts of who built the bridge and where.293 There are a handful of places (703, 766, 789, 797, 823, 845, 956, 988, 1061, 1073 and 1086) where Cassiodorus inserted additional material into Jerome's entries, generally either for reasons of clarity for the reader or to make the historical note relevant in his own day. For instance, at 703 Cassiodorus writes, "Vespasianus incensum Capitolium aedificare orsus est" / "Vespasian began to build the Capitolium after it had burned down." Jerome has "Vespasianus Capitolium aedificare orsus" / "Vespasian began to build the Capitolium" (188a). The addition is actually taken from an earlier note in Jerome, who had already noted that the Capitolium had been burned during the war with Vitellius (186i, where Jerome actually uses the word "incensum"), whereas Cassiodorus had not, but needed to make it clear to his reader why Vespasian rebuilt the Capitolium. At 797, where Jerome had written "Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano condita" / "Aelia was founded by Aelius Hadrianus" (201a), Cassiodorus upgraded the note to read "Aelia civitas, id est Hierusalem, ab Aelio Hadriano condita est" / "the city of Aelia, that is Jerusalem, was founded by Aelius Hadrianus," noting for his reader the more commonly used name of the city in the sixth century.294
293 Other examples of this kind of revision of notes are found at 7, 9, 18, 25, 27, 41, 68, 671, 689, 699, 785, 869 and 972. 294 Other examples of this kind of clarification are 58 (cf. Jerome 70a2-4), where Cassiodorus makes it clear that Solomon was the son of David; 845 (cf. Jerome 207d), where Cassiodorus gives the full name of the emperor M. Antoninus Verus to avoid confusion; 988 (cf. Jerome 222g) where Cassiodorus makes it clear that Zenobia and Tetricus were captives; 1073 (cf. Jerome 235a) where he makes it clear which brother the emperor Constantine II attacked near Aquileia; 1086 (cf. Jerome 236c) where Cassiodorus notes that Constantius remained emperor after the death of Constans.

225 At 956, following a note drawn entirely from Eutropius on the Decian baths,295 Cassiodorus relates the death of Decius and his son at Abrittus: "Decius cum filio suo in Abritio Traciae loco a Gothis occiditur" / "Decius was killed with his son in Abrittus, a place in Thrace, by the Goths." Decius' death is noted by Jerome, but Jerome does not say that Abritus was in Thrace (218h). Cassiodorus either knew this tid-bit of information, or he found it somewhere else.296 On two occasions Cassiodorus actually corrects Jerome. The first example deals with the assassination of Caligula. Jerome says that he was killed "a protectoribus" (178179), whereas Cassiodorus states, more correctly, that he was killed "in protectoribus." Josephus is very clear in his detailed account of the assassination that Caligula was killed in a hallway crowded with his attendants and some bodyguards.297 Although Cassius Chaerea was a commander of the praetorians, Caligula's assassins could not strictly be described as "protectores." None of the manuscripts of Jerome read "in protectoribus" at this place. We know that later in his life Cassiodorus commissioned a Latin translation of the Antiquitates,19* but it cannot be determined whether he knew the story of the assassination from there or not. The detail is not in Suetonius. The second occasion has to do with the baths built by Nero in 64, and which were rebuilt and rededicated by Severus Alexander in 221. Both Jerome and Cassiodorus treat them in two separate notes, but Jerome's notes make them sound like two separate bath complexes: "Thermae a Nerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit" / "Baths were built by Nero, which he named 'Neronian'" (183d) and "Thermae Alexandrianae Romae
295 296 297 298 See below, p. 234. He did not get it from Eutropius. Josephus AJ 19.14.15. Inst. 1.17.1

226 aedificatae" / "The Alexandrian baths were built at Rome" (215d). Cassiodorus, however, makes it clear in both of his notes that the bath complexes were the same, merely renamed: "Thermae aNerone aedificatae, quas Neronianas appellavit, cuius odio, mutato vocabulo, nunc Alexandrinae nominantur" / "Baths were built by Nero, which he named 'Neronian', and because of the hatred of him, the name having been changed, are now called 'Alexandrian'" (681) and "Neronianae thermae Alexandrianae vocatae sunt" / "The Neronian baths were named 'Alexandrian'" (920). Cassiodorus got his extra information from Eutropius, whom I will discuss below,299 who clearly says that "Is [Nero] aedificavit Romae thermas, quae ante Neronianae dictae, nunc Alexandrianae appellantur" / "He [Nero] built baths at Rome, which, though named 'Neronian' earlier, are now called "Alexandrian" (7.15). There are, in addition, a handful of odd notes or changes made by Cassiodorus which point to his sensitivity to the political situation under which he wrote and the status of his addressee.300 But I will treat these situations in the next chapter, along with similar alterations Cassiodorus made to his source for the years 379 to 455, Prosper of Aquitaine.

The Livian Epitome Again: Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens, and P. Oxy. 668

We can now turn to a comparison of the historical entries with those in Livy, Julius Obsequens and Oxyrhynchus 668. In my earlier discussion of the Republican consular list, I came to the conclusion that the original epitome of Livy's consuls had

299 Pp. 232ff. 300 These are 804, 956, 998, 1022 and 1076.

been a much fuller work than the one which Cassiodorus used, and that, despite the similarities between P. Oxy. 668 and Cassiodorus, Cassiodorus' epitome was related to, but not the same as P. Oxy. 668. The following discussion of the historical notes reveals the same situation. As was noted above, the fragments of the Oxyrhynchus epitome cover the years 190 to 179 BCE and 150 to 137 BCE, and Obsequens' Liberprodigiorum covers the years 190 to 11 BCE, but with entries for only eighty years.301 Since Cassiodorus does not have historical entries for all his years, since Obsequens does not cover all the years in his compass, and since the papyrus is mutilated and short, there are a limited number of opportunities for comparison among them. In what follows I will examine the single entry common to all three authors, then proceed to comparisons of Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus Epitome and then Cassiodorus and Obsequens. Only one historical notice is recorded by all three authors - about Hannibal's death. Straightaway we confront the sad state of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which is here given with Rossbach's restoration: Cass. 377: Obs. 4: Oxy. 64-65: His conss. Hannibal apud Prusian veneno periit. Hannibal in Bithynia veneno periit. Han[nibal apud Prusiam re] ge[m per] le[gatos Romanos expetitus veneno pe]rit.

But very little survives of the entry on the papyrus. Of the ten letters which Rossbach saw, he was only certain of eight of them, the "g" and the "1" being difficult to make out. han ge....le
301 Obsequens has two entries for the year 44, one headed by the consuls Caesar and Antony, the other by Antony and the suffect for the year, Dolabella.

228

rit Grenfell and Hunt (1904) noted that the passage must be a reference to Hannibal's death (103),302 but they read the letters on the papyrus differently from Rossbach, and do not attempt more than a few modest restorations: Han[nibal 12 letters ]uhe[ 19 letters l[ib(er) xxxx. The restoration of "Hannibal" seems certain and, given the year the entry appears, it is undoubtedly a reference to Hannibal's death. But as for the remainder, although Rossbach's restoration of the text is attractive and plausible, there is no basis here for constructing an argument based on similarity of language.303 Cassiodorus differs from Obsequens in one major detail. He has placed Hannibal's death specifically at the home of King Prusias rather than simply in Bithynia. The difference would seem to be the result of each author choosing different details from a common source which, as we will see below, was probably not the Oxyrhynchus epitome, though something very close to it.304 The similarity of Cassiodorus and Obsequens, however, is proof enough that a sentence very like this one appeared in their source. Clearly, though, the entry in the papyrus is longer than either that of Cassiodorus or
302 Grenfell and Hunt 1904, 103. 303 As does Schmidt, 184. 304 Schmidt contends that Obsequens exhibits a tendency to record the place where events occurred if it is at all possible (p. 168). Arguing from the basis of Rossbach's restoration, he suggests that Obsequens referred to the whole of Livy to discover that Prusias was king of Bithynia. Since Obsequens referred to the whole of Livy for his portents and prodigies, this would not be difficult. But recourse to Livy is frequently Schmidt's explanation for differences between the Oxyrhynchus Epitome and Obsequens, e.g. for the detail of Hasdrubal's behaviour at Carthage (Ox. 132 ff. and 138 ff, Obs. 20) and for the detail that the Gauls who invaded Italy in 186 had crossed over the Alps. Such a familiarity with Livy and careful reference to him on the part of Obsequens allows for a good deal of contamination at best, and at worst puts heavy strains on Schmidt's theory that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome was Obsequens' source.

fl[

Obsequens, which suggests that perhaps the document from which Cassiodorus took his material also had a longer entry and that Cassiodorus himself trimmed it, as we saw he sometimes did with Jerome. There is one entry which occurs in both Cassiodorus and the Oxyrhynchus epitome: Cass. 373: Ox. 42-43: His conss. athletarum certamina primum a Fulvio edita. at[hletarum cerfjamina primum a Fu[lvio Nobilior]e edita. The restoration of the papyrus here is fairly certain and the similarity of the two entries is obvious, the only difference being that Fulvius' cognomen is not in Cassiodorus. It also does not appear in the record of Nobilior's consulship in 189 (565).305 A comparison of the historical entries of Cassiodorus and Obsequens shows considerable similarity between the two works, but also a good deal of variation within entries recording the same event and with respect to the consular year under which similar entries are placed. Cass. 460: per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia equitibus et senatoribus communicata. Obs. 41: Per Caepionem consulem senatorum et equitum iudicia communicata. Here the form of the source is varied slightly by one of the authors, but the same short sentence and truncated verb testifies to a similarly brief and paratactic form in the source. Cass. 471: Obs. 49: Ptolemaeus Aegypti rex populum Romanum heredem reliquit. Ptolemaeus, rex Aegypti, Cyrenis mortuus SPQ Romanum heredem reliquit.306

305 Rossbach follows Grenfell and Hunt in their restoration of this passage. 306 This entry is often used to illustrate the independence of Cassiodorus and Obsequens from the mainstream of users of the Livian epitome. Witnesses to the epitome, Periochae 70 and Jerome 149e, both include this entry and correctly identify Ptolemy as king of Cyrene, not Egypt. See Sanders, 186187 and Schmidt, 193.

230

and Cass. 486: Obs. 57: Capitolium custodum neglegentia concrematur. <fraude? neglegentia?> aeditui Capitolium una nocte conflagravit.

Again, the form of the entry of each is slightly different, but the two clearly derive from the same source and each appears in the same year. In both cases, Cassiodorus' entry is shorter than Obsequens', which may suggest that he omitted unnecessary details, as we have seen he did with Jerome. Cass. 510: Catilina in agro Pistoriensi a C. Antonio bello peremptus est. Obs. 61a: C. Antonius cum in agro Pistoriensi Catilinam devicisset laureatos fasces in provinciam tulit. ibi a Dardanis oppressus amisso exercitu profugit. apparuit eum hostibus portendisse victoriam, cum ad eos laurum victricem tulerit, quam in Capitolio debuerat deponere. Cassiodorus puts the event in 61 BCE, in the consulship of M. Pupius and M. Valerius, which is wrong, since the defeat of Catiline and his army was in early January of 62. The whole passage from Obsequens, as well as the previous one with the consular names from 63, is appended to the year 60 , which is clearly a displacement, and is moved by most editors.307 Thus these events appear to be attached to 63 in Obsequens, rather than 61, as they are in Cassiodorus. But Rossbach restores the consuls of 62, "D. Iunio L. Murena coss.," as the heading for this section, which must be right. According to Schmidt, there were times when Obsequens preferred to avoid the paratactic style of his source and employ subordination through, for instance, ablatives absolute and temporal clauses. In doing so he compressed the events of more than one year into a single entry.308 Still, this does not explain why Cassiodorus' date is off by a year, and it may be that the
307 See Rossbach 1910, p. 175. 308 Schmidt, 190ff. in which he discusses Obsequens 20 and the compression of the siege and destruction of Carthage into one year, while the Oxyrhynchus epitome, a better witness to Obsequens' source, divides the events into two years.

correct consular pair to restore to Obsequens is not "D. Iunio L. Murena coss.," but "M. Pupio M. Valerio coss.," the consuls of 61. But no more can be said about this. Cass. 531: Obs. 65a: Caesar Pompeium Farsalico proelio superavit. Pompeius fugiens in Aegyptum occisus est. Mox acie [Pompeius] victus in Aegypto occisus.

In this pair the events are the same, but they are recorded in very different language and also under different years (47 and 48, respectively), if we are to accept the restoration in Obsequens of the consular heading, again by Oudendorp, of "C. Caesare P. Servilio coss.." The reason for the difference in date is unclear. As will be seen below, there is reason to believe that Obsequens resorted to the full text of Livy on occasion, and corrected his source. It may therefore be that Obsequens preserves the original and that Cassiodorus is in error, but it is perhaps more likely that he corrected an error which is preserved by Cassiodorus. The paratactic style of Cassiodorus' entry, as we have seen, probably preserves the original, while Obsequens compressed his source.309 We see another alteration of style by Obsequens in what follows, though with stylistically better results: Cass. 539: Obs. 69: Caesar Octavianus, Antonius et Lepidus amicitiae foedus inierunt. Reconciliatione inter Caesarem, Antonium, Lepidum facta foeda principum fuit proscriptio.310

Recording the death of Caesar, the different entries of the two authors require a new explanation:
309 Obsequens wrote a "set piece" about Pompey, complete with portents which foretold his death (65a). As in the case of C. Antonius above, he has used better style in the interest of pathos and a more interesting narrative. 310 Not only is the syntax different, but the use of the different meanings offoedus points, counterintuitively, to a common source. Cassiodorus has the more natural one given the context, with foedus meaning "treaty," whereas Obsequens has used the other meaning, "foul" and used the adjective to modify proscriptio.

Cass. 536: Obs. 67:

...Idibus Martiis Caesar in Pompeia curia occisus est. ipse Caesar viginti tribus vulneribus in curia Pompeiana a coniuratis confossus.

Here, it would appear that Obsequens rather than Cassiodorus provides the reading of their source, since at this place in Jerome's chronicle we find: "Idibus Martiis C. Iulius Caesar in curia occiditur." Cassiodorus had begun to use Jerome as a source again for the Roman emperors, and found the entry there. He inserted the name of the curia, which he found in the source he shared with Obsequens.3" We have seen, in the section on Cassiodorus' epitomization of Jerome, that he occasionally combined notes or used information from two sources in a single note.312 With very few points of comparison between Cassiodorus and the other two witnesses to the source he used, there is very little to say of a general nature. Although, as we have seen, the notices in the Republican years in Cassiodorus fall in well with Cassiodorus' larger programme, these years stand out for the paucity of historical notices we see there. The document has broad stretches where only consular names are recorded. Furthermore, a few of the historical notices seem oddly out of place, such as the record of Hamilcar's statement that he was raising his four sons like lion cubs against the Roman people (326), or the establishment of mines in Macedonia (403), and more obviously important events are left out, like the battle of Zama and the destruction of Carthage. Given the large number of events which Cassiodorus lists before and after the Republic, when he was using Jerome as his historical source, it is fair to assume that he copied all
311 Just how far Obsequens deviated from his source is once more unclear. Here too, as with Pompey, the death is the climax of the preceding portents, and so is carefully arranged. The language is very similar to Suetonius (Div. Iul. 82) "tribus et uiginti plagis confossus est" / "he was stabbed with twenty-three strokes." On this entry, see Schmidt, 195, n. 1, for a discussion of the entire epitome tradition. 312 See above, pp 221 ff..

the historical notes from the Livian consularia he had, and would have included more if he could have. Why he did not make more use of Eutropius, whom he used once as a chronological guide (183-186), is unclear. Eutropius has many consular dates which would have provided him with many more events to include.

Cassiodorus and Eutropius Cassiodorus had a copy of Eutropius' Breviarium close to hand through the entire composition of his Chronica, but he (almost) never used him as a primary source. On every occasion but one he referred to Eutropius only to provide additional information to what Jerome offers.313 We can see in his use of the Breviarium two subjects in particular which were important to him: chronology and the city of Rome. Most often the information is chronological. I discussed at length above how he used Eutropius' chronological information to establish (incorrectly) the length of the rule of military tribunes in the Republic.314 In addition, as I noted above in my comparison of Jerome's and Cassiodorus' imperial reigns,315 he took more precise lengths of Otho's, Trajan's and Hadrian's reigns, as well as the length of Vitellius' reign, from Eutropius. Of the remaining five items which Cassiodorus took from Eutropius, three relate directly to structures in the city of Rome: 681/ 920, 766 and 955.1 discussed Cassiodorus'

313 He made use of Eutropius at 183, 681/920, 692, 693, 714, 740, 766, 823, 955, and 1035. Mommsen, in his edition, suggests that Cassiodorus used Eutropius at 1061, where Cassiodorus notes that Byzantium was rededicated by Constantine as Constantinople. But Cassiodorus would not have needed Eutropius to give him this information, and there are no verbal parallels between the two authors, as there are in all the other cases. 314 See above, pp. 126ff.. 315 See above, p. 211, n. 280.

correction of Jerome on the rebuilding and rededication of the baths of Nero above. 766, Cassiodorus oddly includes the height of Trajan's column, drawn from Eutropius (8.5.2), in his note on Trajan's death, the rest of which is taken from Jerome (197a).

At

Finally, in the only note drawn solely from Eutropius, Cassiodorus dates the construction of the baths of Decius to 252, the second year of Decius' reign. Both of these notes, deliberately drawn from Eutropius, not Cassiodorus' primary source, demonstrate his interest in the physical city of Rome, as I will discuss in more detail below. Finally, two additions to notes on emperors were drawn from Eutropius. The first, a note on the death of the emperor Titus, that "ob insignem mansuetudinem deliciae humani generis appellatus est" / "because of his remarkable affability he was named the delight of the human race" (714) is drawn from Eutropius description of Titus: "amor et deliciae humani generis diceretur" / "he was said to be the love and delight of the human race" (7.21.1). Finally, as I noted above, Cassiodorus used Eutropius in his note on the resignation of Diocletian and the accession of Constantius.317 This use of Eutropius may well come under the heading of chronology, since Cassiodorus was clearly confused at this spot about the number of years to be assigned to Diocletian and Constantius, and may have referred to Eutropius for clarification. Though Cassiodorus used Eutropius for correction and clarification on some points of chronology, he certainly did not use him everywhere he could have. Book eight of Eutropius seems to have been problematic for him and contains some information which Cassiodorus used and some which he seems to have ignored, or could not use.

316 See above, p. 226. 317 See above, p. 121.

Eutropius begins book eight with some very precise chronological information, including the AUC date and a consular date for the first year of Nerva's reign (96): "Anno octingentesimo et quinquagesimo ab urbe condita, Vetere et Valente consulibus" / "in the eight-hundred and fiftieth year year from the founding of the city, when Vetus and Valens were consuls" (8.1.1). By the time Cassiodorus got to the beginning of Nerva's reign he had only counted 847 years from the founding of the city, and the consular list he drew from Victorius had no consulship of Vetus and Valens (Victorius has 'Flauio et Vetere' (opposite the Easter for 91, not 96), an error for Prosper's 'Fuluio et Vetere', which Cassiodorus reports, while the consulship was actually that of Valens and Vetus). But the only indications that he tried to reconcile Eutropius with Jerome and his own work are his alterations of the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Eutropius gives a very precise length for Nerva's reign (one year, four months and eight days, 8.1.2), but Cassiodorus only includes the year and the months, as does Jerome, though for Trajan and Hadrian Cassiodorus added the number of days, while Jerome did not. Similarly, he disregards Eutropius' length of Antoninus Pius' reign of twenty-three years (8.8.4), as he had done with Jerome's for the same emperor of twenty-two years, four months. It is possible that he began to consult Eutropius more carefully during Trajan's and Hadrian's reigns because, as I noted above in my discussion of Cassiodorus' combination of his consular list with Jerome's imperial reigns, he knew that he was getting into difficulty and was looking for a way out. In general, we can see in Cassiodorus' use of Eutropius his care for the chronological structure of his work, his use of a source only to add material to a primary

source which had a more sure chronological structure itself and his interest in the buildings and monuments in the city of Rome.

Cassiodorus and Prosper of Aquitaine Prosper of Aquitaine lived in Marseilles in the 420s and was a strong supporter of St. Augustine during the semi-Pelagian controversy. He wrote a number of letters and hexameter verses, and, more important for our purposes, he composed a chronicle in 433. The work included an epitome of Jerome from creation, but Prosper included consular years from 28 CE, the year of the crucifixion, and extended the time-line to his own day. He produced two revisions of his work in 445 and 455.318 His work survives in a variety of forms: both as a stand-alone chronicle from the beginning of time to the fifth century, but also as a continuation of Jerome's full chronicle. As we have seen, Victorius of Aquitaine used Prosper's consular list as the chronological basis for his Cursus Paschalis. Prosper, of course, dated his chronicle from the crucifixion to his own day by consuls, but Cassiodorus did not use Prosper's consular list, but Victorius'. However, if he had Victorius' introduction to the Cursus Paschalis, he knew from the introduction that Victorius had taken his consular list from Prosper. As I have suggested above, it seems likely that Cassiodorus trusted Victorius' Easter table, which would have included a complete list of consuls from 28 CE down to Cassiodorus' own day. It is further not impossible, and perhaps even likely, that Cassiodorus only had Prosper's extension of Jerome after 378, and not Prosper's full epitome of Jerome with

318 Burgess and Kulikowski, forthcoming.

consular dates added. Cassiodorus does not say that he used Prosper, but a cursory comparison of his historical entries with those of Prosper for the years between 379 and 445 make it abundantly clear that he did.320 As I noted above, Cassiodorus lists at the end of the Chronica only those sources which he used for constructing his chronology, not those which he used for historical notes. Jerome himself is only mentioned because Cassiodorus used his chronological framework for the early years from creation to the establishment of the consulship, but he does not note him for the extensive use which he made of him between the crucifixion and 378. It is not surprising, then, that Prosper should go unnamed. Mommsen, in Chronica Minora I, suggested that Cassiodorus had used the version of Prosper's chronicle which extended to 455, and that he had supplemented it with other material from the consularia he used for his historical notes from 445 on.321 But, with the publication of Cassiodorus' Chronica in Chronica Minora II, two years later, he changed his mind and suggested that both men had used similar consularia as their sources for those ten years.322 He further posited that Cassiodorus may well have

319 It is not impossible that Cassiodorus, in attempting to bring together Jerome's historical entries with a consular list, was consciously correcting Prosper, but I see no evidence that this was the case. 320 E.g. s.a. 380 Prosper: "Ambrosius episcopus multa pro Catholica fide sublimiter scribit;" Cassiodorus: "Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit," and s.a. 381 Prosper: "Martinus episcopus Turinorum Galliae civitatis multis clarus habetur;" Cassiodorus: "Martinus episcopus Turonum Galliae civitatis clarus habetur." 321 Mommsen 1892, 368 and 374. Cassiodorus certainly knew of the full version of Prosper when he published his Institutiones in 562, since he recommends Prosper to his readers: "Sanctus quoque Prosper chronica ab Adam ad Gensirici tempora et urbis depredationem usque perduxit'V'the holy Prosper also wrote a chronicle from Adam to the time of Geiseric and the sacking of the city" (Inst. 1.17.2). But, of course, his knowledge of Prosper's work in 562 is no reason to suppose that he knew of it, or had it, forty-three years earlier. 322 Mommsen 1894,113.

had a copy of Jerome which had Prosper's continuation appended.

Mommsen does not

anywhere lay out clearly all his reasons for his suggestions, so the question needs to be addressed methodically and carefully. Cassiodorus has only six historical entries for the period between 446 and 455, and a quick comparison between his entries and Prosper's suggests at the very least some ruthless epitomization on Cassiodorus' part: Prosper's entries are rather long, Cassiodorus' typically short. More important, however, are several pieces of information in Cassiodorus' entries which he did not get from Prosper's chronicle.324 Since Cassiodorus' methods of epitomization and adaptation of Prosper's entries are at the heart of this question, we must carefully compare the entries which Cassiodorus clearly took from Prosper between the years 379 and 445 with Prosper's work, before we deal with the entries between 446 and 455. We will then be able to address the years 446 to 455 with some foundation for making historiographical judgements. Cassiodorus treated the historical entries he found in Prosper in much the same way as he did those he found in Jerome: his aim was to capture relevant historical detail in as brief a manner as possible. If his source's entries were short enough already, he copied them verbatim; if he could omit detail without compromising the record of the event, he did; sometimes, however, he found it necessary either to add material or rewrite his source. As is the case with the entries from Jerome, for the most part Cassiodorus copied entire entries from Prosper almost verbatim, with an occasional switch of verb tense or

323 Codex Leidenensis Scaligeri 14 is an extant example of just such a work. 324 See below, pp. 240ff.

voice. For example, at 1190 Cassiodorus notes the capture of land in Gaul by the Burgundians: "Burgundiones partem Galliae Rheno tenuere coniunctam" / "The Burgundians held the part of Gaul beside the Rhine." Prosper's note is only slightly different: "Burgundiones partem Galliae propinquam Rheno optinuerunt" / "The Burgundians held the part of Gaul close to the Rhine."325 Cassiodorus often left out what he regarded as detail unnecessary for his spare narrative, sometimes a few words, sometimes more, but at the same time quoting the key words at the heart of Prosper's entry. For example, at 1142 Cassiodorus relates the death of Gratian in a few words: "Gratianus apud Lugdunum captus occiditur" / "Gratian was captured and killed at Lyon," whereas Prosper's entry is much longer: "In Brittania per seditionem militum Maximus imperator est factus. quo mox ad Gallias transfretante Gratianus Parisiis Merobaudis magistri militum proditione superatus et fugiens Lugduni captus atque occisus est" / "Maximus was made emperor in Britain through the treachery of the soldiers. Soon after he crossed into Gaul and Gratian was defeated at Paris through the betrayal of Merobaudes, his magister militum. He then fled to Lyon, where he was captured and killed." Although he has omitted a great deal of Prosper's note, Cassiodorus retains Prosper's words and the essential information in his own work.326 As he had done with Jerome, on a very few occasions Cassiodorus found that the entry in Prosper needed considerable rewriting to compress it. A good example is 1211, which relates the defeat of John by Valentinian and of the Huns by Aetius: "Iohannem
325 The following entries are taken almost entirely from Prosper, occasionally with one or two words omitted, or the tense or mood of the verb changed: 1134, 1136, 1140, 1157, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1169, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1183, 1188, 1190, 1199, 1207, 1209, 1226, 1229, 1233, 1240, and 1243. 326 Other examples are 1143, 1153, 1225, 1226, 1235, 1237, 1239, 1250 and 1251.

tyrannum Valentinianus imperator extinxit Hunosque qui in Italia erant Iohanni praesidio per Aetium mira felicitate dimovit" / "The emperor Valentinian crushed the usurper John and with miraculous good fortune through Aetius he repelled the Huns who were in Italy as a protection to John." Prosper's note is rather different: "Placidia Augusta et Valentinianus Caesar mira felicitate Iohannem tyrannum opprimunt et regnum victores recipiunt. Data venia Aetio eo quod Chuni, quos per ipsum Iohannes acciverat, eiusdem studio ad propria reversi sunt" / "Placidia Augusta and Valentinian Caesar suppressed John with miraculous good fortune and victoriously retook the empire; Aetius was pardoned because it was through his exertions that the Huns, whom John had summoned on his own account, were turned back to their own lands" (1288). Oddly, Cassiodorus transposed the phrase "mira felicitate" / "with miraculous good fortune" to Aetius' defeat of the Huns, whereas Prosper used it to modify Placidia and Valentinian's defeat of John. Still, it is easy to see that Cassiodorus used only Prosper's words in his own note and had no recourse to another source.327 There are, however, nine notes over the years between 379 and 445 which contain information not found in Prosper: 1134, 1138, 1169, 1172, 1185, 1194, 1205, 1215 and 1217. In each case Cassiodorus has expanded Prosper's note with information from elsewhere. In two cases (1134 and 1169), Cassiodorus need not have made use of an external source. But in the remaining seven he must have used information from a written source. As we will see, we can make some guesses about where the extra information came from, but we cannot be sure. Cassiodorus' note at 1134 has been the subject of frequent comment by those who
327 Other examples of Cassiodorus' rewriting of Prosper's notes are 1145, 1206, 1214 and 1232.

241 discuss the Chronica: "Ambrosius episcopus de Christiana fide multa sublimiter scribit" / "Bishop Ambrose wrote many uplifting works about the Christian faith." Cassiodorus was here reproducing Prosper's very similar note: "Ambrosius episcopus de catholica fide multa sublimiter scribit" / "Bishop Ambrose wrote many uplifting things about the Catholic faith" (1173). One does not need to look far for the reason for Cassiodorus' alteration: he did not wish to insult his address, an Arian, by mentioning orthodoxy and drawing attention to the religious differences between the Romans and the Goths.328 But Cassiodorus would have no need of an outside source to make this change. Similarly, at 1169, Cassiodorus wrote: "Gothi Halarico et Radagaiso regibus ingrediuntur Italiam" / "The Goths entered Italy under their kings Alaric and Radagaisus" - almost exactly the same as Prosper, who has "ducibus" ("leaders") for "regibus" (1218). Again, Cassiodorus did not require an outside source to make this change, upgrading the Gothic commanders' status.329 The remaining seven instances where Cassiodorus has information different from Prosper indicate that he had an additional source or sources, which he used alongside Prosper. After discussing each one, I will make some suggestions about what those sources may have been and what they may have looked like. Cassiodorus' note at 1194 presents a slightly more complicated problem which raises a number of issues including Cassiodorus' method of epitomization and which version of Prosper's chronicle he used. Cassiodorus' note is as follows: "Gothi placati Constantio Placidiam reddiderunt cuius nuptias promeretur" / "The Goths, pacified,
328 Mommsen 1894, 114, O'Donnell 1979, 39, Moorhead 1992, 91. 329 On the other hand, Cassiodorus does not call Alaric "rex," but "dux" in his note on the sack of Rome at 1185. Orosius, whom Cassiodorus may have been reading alongside Prosper, calls both Alaric and Radagaisus "reges" (7.37.2 and 7.37.15, respectively), but never "duces."

returned Placidia to Constantius and won the right to marry her." Prosper has two different notes from his versions of 445 and 455.330 Prosper's initial, and longer, note of 445 had been, "Placidiam Theodosii imperatoris filiam, quam Romae Gothi ceperant quamque Athaulfus coniugem habuerat, Wallia pacem Honorii expetens reddit eiusque nuptias Constantius promeretur" / "Wallia, seeking peace from Honorius, returned Placidia the daughter of the emperor Theodosius, whom the Goths had captured at Rome and whom Athaulf had married, and Constantius earned her marriage" (1259). His later note, considerably trimmed back, reads, "Wallia Placidiam reddit, cuius nuptias Constantius promeretur" / "Wallia returned Placidia and Constantius earned her marriage."331 The change of "Wallia" (the king of the Visigoths) to "Gothi" would not require another source, and is perhaps an example of Cassiodorus using a more general term for a reader or readers who would not recognize the name "Wallia.332 But Cassiodorus' move of Constantius' name from the subordinate clause to the primary clause is noteworthy. The story of Placidia's physical return to Constantius himself is reported by Jordanes in his Getica. Jordanes claims to have used Cassiodorus' lost Gothic History as the primary source for his Getica. Thus, whether or not the story is true, it would appear that it was in Cassiodorus' Gothic History as well.333 Finally, the word "placati" suggests that the Romans had done something to make

330 On the different versions of Prosper as represented by the different manuscripts, see Burgess, Mosaics, forthcoming. 331 The close similarity of the phrasing of Cassiodorus with that of Prosper's note of 455 strongly suggests that the version of Prosper which Cassiodorus used was that of 455. See below, pp. 248ff. 332 Although Cassiodorus had not mentioned Placidia before this (neither had Prosper), and so perhaps assumes knowledge of who she was. See above, p. 239. 333 The Gothic History was probably not completed until the late 520's at least (see Barnish 1984), but the Chronica may be used carefully as a guide for some, but not all, of what may have been in it. See Croke 1987, 129-134.

243 the Goths less hostile, and as part of that bargain, Placidia was returned. Prosper's note of 445 indicates that it was Wallia who was seeking peace and who agreed to hand Placidia to ensure that he got it. The other sources vary a little as to the exact bargain and the reasons for it. Jordanes, who, as we have mentioned, used Cassiodorus for this story, indicates that Honorius made the first move, but also that the Romans and Goths, when they met, were evenly matched.334 Orosius describes a settlement much in the Romans' favour, with Wallia handing over hostages.335 Olympiodorus, whose account is perhaps more detailed than anyone else's, notes that Euplutius the agens in rebus was sent to negotiate with Wallia, who returned Placidia after 600,000 modii of grain were given to the Goths - grain which had perhaps been promised to his predecessor Athaulf in return for Placidia.336 But for the fact that the name "Constantius" is transposed in the sentence, it would not be impossible that Cassiodorus had used Prosper's version of 445 and had rewritten the report that Wallia was "expetens pacem" / "seeking peace," using the word "pacati" to make the Goths seem slightly stronger in their dealings with the Romans. Though it is not easy to tell, it would appear, then, on balance, that Cassiodorus had another source with which he corrected Prosper's account at this point. The fact that Jordanes' account of the actual handing over of Placidia to Constantius (as opposed to someone else, or someone unnamed) more or less agrees with Cassidorus' broad outlines at this point further suggests that Cassiodorus' changes here were deliberate and that he repeated the story in the Gothic History seven or eight years later.
334 Jordanes Get. 32.164-165. 335 Orosius 43.11-12. 336 Olympiodorus frg. 26 Blockley = Philostorgius 12.4-5.

244 The remaining six historical entries show clearer cases of Cassiodorus resorting to another source or sources. Details from four of these entries (1138, 1172, 1185 and 1215) are recorded in Jordanes' Getica as well. At 1138 Cassiodorus notes that Athanaric died at Constantinople: "Athanaricus rex Gothorum Constantinopolim venit ibique vitam exegit" / "Athanaric the king of the Goths came to Constantinople and died there." Prosper, however, had noted that Athanaric had been murdered: "Aithanaricus rex Gothorum apud Constantinopolim quinto decimo die quam fuerat susceptus occiditur" / "Athanaric the king of the Goths is killed on the fifteenth day from when he had been received (there)" (1177). It has been suggested that Cassiodorus was deliberately changing the record at this point,337 but several other sources merely say that Athanaric died there.338 It is not impossible that Cassiodorus avoided reproducing Prosper's note, but he did not make up his own. Cassiodorus' note on the battle of Pollentia shows some of the most noteworthy differences between Cassiodorus and Prosper. At 1172, Cassiodorus says, "Pollentiae Stiliconem cum exercitu Romano Gothi victum acie fugaverunt" / "At Pollentia the Goths defeated Stilicho with the Roman army in battle and put him to flight." Prosper is much less definitive about the winner: Pollentiae adversum Gothos vehementer utriusque partis clade pugnatum" / "At Pollentia there was a fierce battle against the Goths with great loss on both sides." There seems to be no doubt that Stilicho won the battle,339 though his victory was not overwhelming.340 Still, it is not at all clear where Cassiodorus took his
337 0'Donnelll979,38. 338 The Descriptio Consilium s.a. 381, Ammianus 27.5.10, Marcellinus s.a. 381, Orosius 7.34.6-7, Hydatius s.a. 381, Zosimus 4.34, Socrates 5.10 and Jordanes 28.144. 339 Orosius 7.37.2, Claudian de Cons. Hon. VI, 223ff. 340 Demougeot 1951,270.

information from.

Many have said that Cassiodorus was simply altering the historical

record at this point, to boost the reputation of his addressee's heritage,342 and this may well be the case. At 1185 Cassiodorus notes that "Roma a Gothis Halarico duce capta est ubi clementer usi victoria sunt" / "Rome was captured by the Goths under their leader Alaric, where they enjoyed their victory with compassion." The first sentence of Prosper's note, "Roma a Gothis Alarico duce capta" / "Rome was captured by the Goths under their leader Alaric" (1240), has been copied verbatim, but Cassiodorus has added a note on the Goths' behaviour. The fact that the Goths stayed in Rome for only three days, that many lives were spared and that churches and church property were untouched was noted by ancient authors, particularly by Orosius and Augustine,343 and was well-known in antiquity. It is not impossible, then, that Cassiodorus added this detail from his own memory to smooth over the fact that a Gothic army had invaded and sacked the city. At 1205 Cassiodorus notes that Galla Placidia was sent to Constantinople: "Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio ob suspicionem invitatorum hostium cum Honorio et Valentiniano filiis ad orientem mittitur" / "Placidia Augusta, because she was suspected of inviting enemies, was sent to the east by her brother Honorius with her sons Honorius and Valentinian." Prosper, again, is clearly the basic source for this note: "Placidia Augusta a fratre Honorio pulsa Orientem cum Honorio et Valentiniano filiis petit" / "Placidia Augusta was driven out by her brother Honorius and went to the east with her

341 Jordanes follows Cassiodorus on the battle of Pollentia, ascribing victory to the Goths, which again suggests that he found his information in Cassiodorus. 342 E.g. O'Donnell 1979, 38-39. 343 Augustine de civ. Dei 1.1, Orosius 7.39.1 and 7.39.15.

sons Honorius and Valentinian" (1280).

Cassiodorus, however, added Honorius'

reasons for sending her away. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 also notes that "Placidia cum insidias fratri tendere deprehensa esset, Romam exilio relegata" / "Placidia, after she was caught plotting against her brother, was sent to Rome in exile,"345 but the charges against her are even less specific than those in Cassiodorus. Olympiodorus gives much more information about Placidia's move to Constantinople. He describes a close relationship between Honorius and Placidia, his sister, that quickly went sour after her return from her captivity and the death of Constantius. He notes that there were brawls in Ravenna between the supporters of Honorius and Placidia, and that "nepifjv Y&P K&KlPr|

nAfi0oc; Pappdpwv

EK xfiq

npog ASaoOAcpou avjixxcpeiac; KOCI EK xfic; npoc;

KtovrjT&UTlOP au^UY^ a ^" / "f r Placidia was surrounded by a host of barbarians because of her marriages to Ataulf and Constantius."346 Here barbarians are mentioned as supporting Placidia, but even if these are the "hostes" mentioned by Cassiodorus there is no suggestion of treason in Olympiodorus' narrative. The accusation of "inuitati hostes" against Placidia sounds suspiciously like the charges laid against Boniface, who was accused of having allowed the Vandals to cross over into Africa in 429, and against Eudoxia, Valentinian's wife and Placidia's daughterin-law, who was accused of calling the Vandals into Italy in 455.347 As such, it may be a doublet, particularly since Boniface was a close ally of Placidia, and since Placidia's exile and the charges against Boniface were so close in time. But whether the accusation in
344 Placidia, in fact, had a son, Valentinian, and a daughter, Honoria. Some of the manuscripts of Prosper record this error (ZRHB), and the others do not. 345 Gallic Chronicle of 452, s.a. 423. Placidia went first to Rome, and then to Constantinople. 346 Olympiodorus frg. 38, trans. Blockley. 347 Malchus366.

247

Cassiodorus is a report of some genuine occurrence, or a mistake in his source or in his reading of his source, it is clear that he had a source other than Prosper. At 1215 Cassiodorus remarks on the migration of the Vandals into Africa: "Gens Vandalorum a Gothis exclusa de Hispaniis ad Africam transit" / "The tribe of the Vandals, driven out of Spain by the Goths, crossed over into Africa." Prosper's corresponding note, "Gens Wandalorum ab Hispania ad Africam transit" / "The tribe of the Vandals crosses over into Africa from Spain" (1294), is, again, clearly the basic source, but Cassiodorus added "a Gothis exclusa" / "driven out by the Goths." Jordanes' note at this point tells the same story in slightly more detail, even dated to the same consuls, again suggesting that Jordanes took this information from Cassiodorus' Gothic History.34* Jordanes goes on to say that Geiseric had already been invited into Africa by Boniface,349 which corresponds to the story told by Procopius, who only says that Boniface invited the Vandals in from Spain.350 Hydatius records battles between the Vandals and the Visigoths under Wallia, presumably conducted at the request of Ravenna after the return of Placidia, and also battles between the Vandals and the Sueves.351 But these events are dated to 418 and 419, well before the Vandal passage into Africa. According to Prosper, Wallia and his Visigoths were then resettled in Aquitania in 419 (1271). Prosper also says that Castinus
348 "Videns Valia Vandalos in suis finibus, id est Spaniae solum, audaci temeritate ab interioribus partibus Galliciae, ubi eos fugaverat dudum Atauulfus, egressos et cuncta in praedas vastare, eo fere tempore, quo Hierius et Ardabures consules processissent, nee mora mox contra eos movit exercitum" / "Wallia, seeing the Vandals in his territory, that is the land of Spain, and that they, with brazen temerity, had come out of interior parts of Gallicia, where Ataulf had driven them long before, and that they were taking everything as spoils, at around the time when Hieries and Ardabures had become consuls, without delay moved his army against them" (Get. 32.166). 349 Get. 32.167. 350 Procopius 3.3.24-26. 351 Hydatius 67, and 71.

248 was sent to Spain to fight the Vandals in 422, and Hydatius further notes that his army included Gothic auxiliaries.352 It is, then, unclear again where Cassiodorus took his information from. One might imagine Cassiodorus using a very spare and compressed narrative which related Wallia's battles with the Vandals and was followed immediately by the Vandal passage into Africa. Or, if the expedition under Castinus with Gothic auxiliaries is the source for Cassiodorus' claim that the Vandals were shut out of Spain by the Goths, we may well compare this entry to another, that of 451, where Cassiodorus attributes the Roman victory over Attila at the Catalaunian plains to the Gothic auxiliaries of Aetius. It is also possible, though perhaps less likely, that he has added something from his own memory, simply on the basis of the fact that he knew the Visigoths had been in Spain around these years. Again, a Gothic action against the Vandals would bolster the reputation of the Ostrogothic kingdom. Finally, at 1215, Cassiodorus notes that "Aetius multis Francis caesis quam occupaverant propinquam Rheno partem recipit Galliarum" / "Aetius slaughtered many Franks and recaptured that part of Gaul next to the Rhine, which they had occupied." The note is, again, clearly taken from Prosper, except that Cassiodorus has added the report of enemy casualties: "Pars Galliarum propinqua Rheno, quam Franci possidendam occupaverant, Aetii [comitis] armis recepta" / "The part of Gaul next to the Rhine, which the Franks had occupied in order to settle it, was recaptured through the arms of the comes Aetius" (1298). Aetius' battles with the Franks at this time are not well attested,

352 Prosper, Hydatius s.a. 422.

noted here and also by Hydatius, who dates them to 432. Clearly then, Cassiodorus added information to some of Prosper's entries, but there is no one extant source which could be the source of all the information. Having examined both Cassiodorus' techniques of epitomization and the additional details he adds to Prosper's notes between 379 and 445, we can now turn to the problem first addressed by Mommsen: which version of Prosper Cassiodorus used, and whether the additional material in Cassiodorus' Chronica is due to his use of a source in addition to Prosper or a source upon which Prosper also drew. Cassiodorus includes historical material in his years between 446 and 455 which Prosper does not have, but the verbal similarities between those years are difficult to explain by other means than a use of Prosper by Cassiodorus. As I will show, it may well be best to account for both the extra material in Cassiodorus and the verbal similarities with Prosper by assuming that Cassiodorus combined Prosper and another source or sources, in exactly the same way has he did for the years between 379 and 445. Mommsen decided that Cassiodorus had used Prosper's version of 445, and that he drew on a source in common with Prosper for the years 446 to 455 because of the additional information Cassiodorus has, and which Prosper does not, combined with the similarities the two exhibit. The following chart shows the parallel entries in Cassiodorus' and Prosper's chronicles between 450 and 455, with Cassiodorus' additional material in italics and the verbal similarities in bold. As was the case for the years between 379 and 445, Cassiodorus has no entries which are not matched by something relating the same

353 Hydatius. s.a432.

event in Prosper.

There follows below a chart with all of Cassiodorus's historical notes

between 446 and 455 with their parallel entries in Prosper. I will treat each pair in chronological order. Cassiodorus His conss Theodosius moritur. Post quern Marcianus adscitur imperio qui regnavit annis VII. sub quo hi consules fuerunt. XLV Year Prosper

450 Theodosio imperatore defuncto et Chrysafio praeposito, qui amicitia principis male usus fuerat, interempto Marcianus consensione totius exercitus suscepit regnum, vir gravissimus et non solum rei publicae, sed etiam ecclesiae pernecessarius. 451 Attila post necem fratris auctus opibus interempti multa vicinarum sibi gentium milia cogit in bellum, quod Gothis tantum se inferre tamquam custos Romanae amicitiae denuntiabat. sed cum transito Rheno saevissimos eius impetus multae Gallicanae urbes experirentur, cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis exercitibus repugnaretur, tantaque patricii Aetii providentia fuit, ut raptim congregatis undique bellatoribus viris adversae multitudini non impar occurreret, in quo conflictu quamvis neutris cedentibus inaestimabiles strages commorientium factae sint, Chunos tamen eo constat victos fuisse, quod amissa proeliandi fiducia qui superfuerant ad propria reverterunt. 452 Attila redintegratis viribus, quas in Gallia amiserat, Italiam ingredi per Pannonias intendit, nihil duce nostro

His conss Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit.

His conss Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit. Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa

354 Cassiodorus has no historical entries for the years 445 to 449, and Prosper has only an ecclesiastical note for 448, which Cassiodorus would not include in his own work because he generally avoided ecclesiastical issues. But the fact that neither author has events for these years suggests that either Cassiodorus was using Prosper or an epitome of Prosper, rather than that both were drawing on the same source.

251 Leo directus pacem fecit. Aetio secundum prioris belli opera prospiciente, ita ut ne clusuris quidem Alpium, quibus hostes prohiberi poterant, uteretur, hoc solum spebus suis superesse existimans, si ab omni Italia cum imperatore discederet. sed cum hoc plenum dedecoris et periculi videretur, continuit verecundia metum, et tot nobilium provinciarum latissima eversione credita est saevitia et cupiditas hostilis explenda, nihilque inter omnia consilia principis ac senatus populique Romani salubrius visum est, quam ut per legatos pax truculentissimi regis expeteretur. suscepit hoc negotium cum viro consulari Avieno et viro praefectorio Trygetio beatissimus papa Leo auxilio dei fretus, quern sciret numquam piorum laboribus defuisse. nee aliud secutum est quam praesumpserat fides, nam tota legatione dignanter accepta ita summi sacerdotis praesentia rex gavisus est, ut et bello abstinere praeciperet et ultra Danuvium promissa pace discederet.

His conss Attila in sedibus suis moritur. 453 Attila in sedibus suis mortuo magna primum certamina de optinendo regno exorta sunt, deinde aliquot gentium, quae Chunis parebant, defectus secuti causas et occasiones bellis dederunt, quibus ferocissimi populi mutuis incursibus contererentur. 454 [origins of hatred between Aetius and His conss Aetius patricius in palatio Valentinian] unde Aetius imperatoris manu Valentiniani imperatoris extinctus manu et circumstantium gladiis est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio intra palatii penetralia crudeliter amicus eius circumstantium gladiis confectus est, Boetio praetorii interemptus. praefecto simul perempto, qui eidem multa amicitia copulabatur His conss in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. post quern 455 Mortem Aetii mors Valentiniani non longo post tempore consecuta est, tarn

252 Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est. Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium. imprudenter non declinata, ut interfector Aetii amicos armigerosque eius sibimet consociaret. qui concepti facinoris opportunitatem dissimulanter aucupantes egressum extra urbem principem et ludo gestationis intentum inopinatis ictibus confoderunt, Heraclio simul, ut erat proximus, interempto et nullo ex multitudine regia ad ultionem tanti sceleris accenso. ut autem hoc parricidium perpetratum et, Maximus vir gemini consulatus et patriciae dignitatis sumpsit imperium. qui cum periclitanti rei publicae profuturus per omnia crederetur, non sero documento, quid animi haberet, provabit, si quidem interfectores Valentiniani non solum non plecterit, sed etiam in amicitiam receperit uxoremque eius Augustam amissionem viri lugere prohibitam intra paucissimos dies in coniugium suum transire coegerit. sed hac incontinentia non diu potitus est. nam post alterum mensem nuntiato ex Africa Gisirici regis adventu multisque nobilibus ac popularibus ex urbe fugientibus cum ipse quoque data cunctis abeundi licentia trepide vellet abscedere a famulis regiis dilaniatus est et membratim deiectus in Tiberim sepultura quoque caruit. post hunc Maximi exitum confestim secuta est multis digna lacrimis Romana captivitas et urbem omni praesidio vacuam Gisiricus optinuit, occurrente sibi extra portas sancto Leone episcopo, cuius supplicatio ita cum deo agente lenivit, ut, cum omnia potestati ipsius essent tradita, ab igni tamen et caede atque suppliciis abstineretur. per quattuordecim igitur dies secura et libera scrutatione

253

omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est multaque milia captivorum, prout quique aut aetate aut arte placuerunt, cum regina et filiabus eius Cartaginem abducta sunt.

In 450, the death of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian is noted. Cassiodorus gives the length of his reign, seven years, whereas Prosper does not. This need not mean that Cassiodorus took the information from another source; he could easily have counted the years himself, and there is reason to believe that the version of the consularia which he used did not include regnal years.355 In 451, Cassiodorus notes "Romani Aetio duce Gothis auxiliaribus contra Attilam in campos Catalaunicos pugnaverunt. qui virtute Gothorum superatus abscessit," / "The Romans, under the leadership of Aetius, with Gothic auxiliaries, fought on the Catalaunian plains against Attila, who was overcome by the strength of the Goths and departed." Prosper's note is much longer, and, though the Goths are mentioned, his statement that "cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis exercitibus repugnaretur," / "quickly it seemed good both to our people and the Goths, that the madness of the proud enemies by repelled our allied armies" suggests an equality between the Roman and Gothic forces which Cassiodorus' does not. Cassiodorus, however, gives the place, the Catalaunian plains, which Prosper does not, and notes that Attila was defeated due to the valour of the Goths, whereas Prosper clearly states that, though Attila did withdraw afterwards, neither side was a clear winner.356
355 See below, p. 260. 356 Jordanes, like Cassiodorus, gives the place, the Catalaunian plains (191, 197). Jordanes' narrative of the battle is long, and he notes that the Ostrogoths fought on the side of Attila. Though he does not explicitly attribute Aetius' victory to his Visigothic allies, he does give them pride of place in his

In 452, Cassiodorus includes the note about Attila's attack on Aquileia, which Prosper leaves out: "Attila...Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit" / "Attila, fighting with great violence, entered Aquileia." The capture of Aquileia is recorded in several other western sources, including one manuscript of Prosper.357 The note on the murder of Aetius is noteworthy for the use of the same phrases, but, if Cassiodorus used Prosper directly at this point, he either miscopied or altered his source. Whereas Cassiodorus says, "Aetius patricius in palatio manu Valentiniani imperatoris extinctus est. Boetius vero praefectus pretorio amicus eius circumstantium gladiis interemptus," / "Aetius the patrician was killed in the palace by the hand of the emperor Valentinian. And Boethius the praetorian prefect, his friend, was murdered by the swords of those standing around him," Prosper, using very similar language, says, "Aetius imperatoris manu et circumstantium gladiis intra palatii penetralia crudeliter confectus est, Boetio praetorii praefecto simul perempto, qui eidem multa amicitia copulabatur," / "Aetius was killed by the hand of the emperor and the swords of those standing around him in the heart of the palace, and Boethius the praetorian prefect was murdered at the same time, who was bound to him by great friendship." The details (the assassins, the place, the victims, their friendship) are the same, but Cassiodorus attributes Aetius' death to Valentinian alone, and Boethius' to others, whereas Prosper says that both were cut down by more than one man.358 It is not like Cassiodorus to change details without reason, so it seems likely that this is what he read in his source.
narrative (209-210). 357 The Haf. s.a. 452, Agnellus 32, Marcellinus sa. 452, Ann. Rav. s.a. 452 (p. 129), Jordanes Get. 42 (from Priscus). 358 To this shift of the phrase "circumstantium gladiis" we may compare the shift of the phrase "mira felicitate" at 1211, which I discussed above.

Finally, in 455 Cassiodorus notes that "in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. post quern Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. Eodem anno per Ginsericum omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est," / "Valentinian was killed in the campus Martius by the friends of Aetius. Maximus took power after his death, but within two months he was killed by the soldiers and thrown into the Tiber. In the same year, Rome was emptied of all her treasures by Geiseric." Prosper has almost all the information in a much longer note, except that he does not include the detail "in campo Martio," writing instead the less specific, but perhaps more dramatic "egressum extra urbem principem et ludo gestationis intentum," / "the emperor, having gone out of the city and intent on the pleasure of being carried in a litter." The "campus Martius" referred to is a campus by the imperial villa Ad duas lauros, which other authors mention by name. Prosper knows the event happened outside the city, but his details are hazy. In the same note, Cassiodorus says that Maximus was killed within two months, whereas Prosper says he was killed "after the second month," a time which corresponds to our other sources for this event, which give the length of Maximus' reign as somewhere over seventy days.359 And yet there are several clear verbal similarities between Prosper and Cassiodorus which point to the use of Prosper by Cassiodorus. For the year 452, Cassiodorus and Prosper introduce their historical notes with the same ablative absolute "Attila, redintegratis viribus" / "Attila, with his strength renewed." In 453 Cassiodorus'

359 FVpr, Gallic Chronicle of 511, Marcellinus, and Victor of Tunnuna, all s.a. 455. Paul the Deacon, discussed below, also records the length of Maximus' reign as under two months (14.16).

"Attila in sedibus suis moritur" / "Attila died in his own home" corresponds almost exactly with Prosper's "Attila in sedibus suis mortuo" / "when Attila had died in his own home," and is similar to Cassiodorus' practice in epitomizing Jerome of changing a participle (mortuo) to a finite verb (moritur).3601 have noted above the similarities in the description of the assassination of Aetius and Boethius. Finally, in 455, the phrase "omnibus opibus suis Roma vacuata est" is exactly the same in Prosper. The simplest way to explain these close similarities to Prosper is to say that Cassiodorus was, at this point, still using Prosper, but was epitomizing drastically and adding a few notes from his other sources. We have seen in the discussions above of Cassiodorus' compression of historical entries both from Jerome and from the section of Prosper from 379 to 445 that Cassiodorus often shortened both Jerome and Prosper's entries, but for the most part tends not to render the information he gets from his sources into his own words. He does, however, as we have also seen, not only occasionally engage in considerable rewriting, but also blends additional material into his primary source, Prosper. Prosper's individual notes for the years 446 to 455 required more compression than those between 379 and 445. They are much longer and contain a great deal of information because they were written by a contemporary. Cassiodorus' methods then, for the years 379 to 445 and from 445 to 455, appear to be the same. Noteworthy as well is the fact that, as with the years 379 to 445, Cassiodorus wrote no entries for the years 446 to 455 which do not have a corresponding

360 E.g. Jerome 236g "effectus," Cassiodorus 1081 "efficitur"; Jerome 2231 "exorta," Cassiodorus 1001 "exorta est" and many others.

entry in Prosper. Despite the fact that Cassiodorus appears to have made a change in historical detail when he slightly altered the story of the assassination of Aetius and Boethius, it seems safest to say that he used Prosper's version of 455, and continued to use other sources for the extra details, as he had done from at least 380. What then, can we say about the source of the extra material which Cassiodorus added to Prosper's entries? Some of it, as I have noted, is clearly from Cassiodorus' own pen. For the rest, it is not at all certain they are even from the same source. If the notes are all from the same work we might imagine a pro-Gothic source, given the number of notes which stress Gothic prowess, and which correct elements of Gothic history, but it could also simply be the case that Cassiodorus chose specifically Gothic material from his secondary source to indulge his audience. The fact that Cassiodorus only updates notes in Prosper, and does not include entire notes which have no parallel entry in Prosper, might suggest that this source was not dated by consuls, so Cassiodorus could only accurately date events which matched those he found in Prosper. This kind of dating could account for note 1214, which seems to attribute to the Goths the Vandal departure from Spain. We know he used Eutropius alongside Jerome, and we could easily imagine a now-lost extension of Eutropius which Cassiodorus used after Eutropius had ended. On the other hand, as will be made clear in what follows, Cassiodorus had a version of the Italian consularia which he used from 456 to at least 493 for his historical events. There is nothing to suggest that that document did not start a good deal earlier than the end of Prosper's chronicle, and every reason to think that it probably did. The

additional material which he added to Prosper could easily have come from there.

Cassiodorus and the Italian Consularia Mommsen was surely right when he suggested that Cassiodorus must have used a version of the Italian consularia as his source for historical events from 456 to 519, the years following the end of his copy of Prosper.361 The Consularia Italica, a now-lost document covering events primarily related to Italy in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, including material related to the empire as a whole, was originally begun and maintained at Ravenna from near the end of the fourth century. The document spread to other parts of the empire and was copied, shortened, added to, translated and used by a wide variety of authors as raw source material and a chronological framework for historical writing. The use of the document, or some form of it, can be seen through certain touch-stone events which are described in the same way (such as Attila's destruction of Aquileia and the death of Marcellinus in Sicily), through very specific dates which are given in a variety of authors, through common errors, through words and phrases common to several documents, and through the broad similarities of selection of detail. The existence of the document was first posited by Mommsen and Holder-Egger in the nineteenth century, and has been the subject of extensive research recently by Richard Burgess.362 As we have seen, Cassiodorus would naturally use a source which at least was carefully dated, so that he could assign events to consulships with relative ease. Holder361 Mommsen 1894, p. 113. 362 In what follows I am deeply indebted to Burgess' work, in particular unpublished sections of Mosaics of Time, forthcoming, and especially for a list of events from the fourth century, cross-referenced with the authors from the consularia tradition who record them.

Egger, in his seminal article on the "Ravenna Annals," assembled and discussed at great length the work which he (and others) believed lay behind many of our sources for the fifth and sixth centuries - consularia written and maintained by someone living in Ravenna between the middle of the fifth century and on into the sixth which HolderEgger named "Ravenna Annals," but which I refer to here as the Consularia Italica, following Mommsen's name for them.363 Based on his comparison of Cassiodorus' material with the FVpr, Paul the Deacon and the Anonymus Valesianus, he concluded that Cassiodorus had used an early version of these Ravenna Annals, but also another consularia which had information particularly about Rome and Roman events.364 Holder-Egger posited several different recensions of the Ravenna Annals which helped to explain the large number of differences and similarities among the various authors who used them. Cassiodorus, he maintained, used a version which ended around 493, like that of the FVpr. For the events after 493 Cassiodorus relied on his own knowledge of contemporary events. In what follows I will map out carefully the evidence for Cassiodorus' use of a version of the Italian consularia, which Holder-Egger called the "Ravenna Annals." The sheer number of different consularia which have come down to us makes it likely that Cassiodorus would have had some choice about which one he used. On the assumption that any historical note dating from the time of Cassiodorus' public service or after could have been added to the Chronica by Cassiodorus himself from his own experience and memory, I will discuss in what follows only the historical entries from
363 Holder-Egger 1876. The term "Ravenna Annals" should not be confused with the so-called Merseburg fragment, published by Bischoffand Koehler in 1939. See bibliography. 364 Holder-Egger 1876, p. 250.

260 452 to the beginning of the sixth century to establish a picture of the source which lies behind Cassiodorus' entries for the last years of his Chronica. First, the consular list. Cassiodorus' introduction says clearly that his main intention was to restore "historica fides" / "historical trustworthiness" to the fasti. But he chose as his trustworthy source for a consular list the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius. I suggested above that he did so because he knew how much variety there was in the consular lists circulating in his day, variety he attributed to the "librarii" or booksellers. It is therefore possible that the consularia he used for his historical notes was deficient in its consular list. That said, there is only one historical note in his own work (which can be verified elsewhere) which he misdates,365 so his version of the consularia must have had at least the western consuls, if not a full list of eastern ones, which made it possible for him to place the historical notes correctly in his consular list. Although Cassiodorus had followed Jerome's practice of numbering the emperors, his source does not appear to have done so, since the numbers tail off towards the end. Leo is given his number, forty-sixth, after the death of Marcian (1268), but neither Zeno nor Anastasius are assigned numbers. Since Cassiodorus, like Prosper, numbered the senior Augustus, none of the western emperors after Honorius is numbered either.366 Cassiodorus' work lacks the precise dating to the day which many of the consularia have, though it is not without precision in a few spots. We are told that Maximus was killed "intra duos menses" / "within two months" of his usurpation after
365 The death of Ovida in Dalmatia (1309), which he dates to 481 instead of 482. 366 Zeno is given the correct number of years of his reign (1298). Anastasius is not given any number. See above, p. 10. Zeno was incorrectly assigned a number by the copyist of the Paris manuscript, see the critical apparatus to the text of the Chronica, 1300. Theodosius II is, oddly, numbered as the fortyfourth emperor, though he had been numbered, along with his uncle Honorius, as the forty-third as well. Cassiodorus is clearly counting different regnal combinations, not individual emperors.

261 the murder of Valentinian (1260). We are clearly told that Ricimer died forty days after the murder of Anthemius (1293), though we are not told the precise date of either death.367 We are told that Olybrius died in the seventh month of his reign (1293), but we are given no precise date for either the beginning or the end.368 Particularly the FVpr, the Paschale Campanum and, to a lesser degree, the continuations of Prosper, give specific dates, but Cassiodorus does not. It may be that his source did not either, but it is more likely that he excised the particulars in order to make his work homogenous from beginning to end, since his sources before the fifth century do not include specific dates. Cassiodorus, as we have seen, strove for a very brief and bland style, cutting back Jerome's and Prosper's longer historical notes, and - usually - leaving out their editorial comments on historical events. Thus the picture painted of Ricimer, the strong-man behind the imperial throne of several emperors between 456 and 472, seems a little odd. He is blamed not only for the deaths of Majorian and Anthemius (1274, 1293) - charges with which our other sources agree - but also for the death of Severus by poison (1280), a charge which no one else makes.369 Furthermore, after the murder of Anthemius, Ricimer is reported "non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus'V'not to have rejoiced in his crime for very long" before he died - an editorial comment on Ricimer's character if ever there was one. As I will demonstrate below when I discuss Paul the Deacon, Cassiodorus adopted this negative portrayal of Ricimer from his source.

367 We are given precise, though different, dates by both the FVpr (607) and the Paschale Campanum (sa. 472). 368 The FVpr (609) and the Paschale Campanum (sa. 472) again give conflicting dates. Jordanes says that Olybrius died in the eighth month of his reign (Get. 239). 369 Sidonius Appolinaris (Pan. 11.317-318) explicitly says that Severus died of natural causes, which some have interpreted as a deliberately ironic swipe at Ricimer. See Oost, 1970, and MacGeorge, 2002,231-233.

In other respects there is very little in terms of style or political outlook to distinguish Cassiodorus' Chronica, and, by extension, his source, from the other consularia of the period. He gives a small handful of details which no other source does,370 but he notes the major events in Italian history in the last half of the fifth century just as the others do, often without drawing clear connections among them, causal or otherwise.371 Cassiodorus' chronology of the invasion of Italy by Theoderic is, as one would expect, better than that of the other Italian consularia. He dates the entrance of Theoderic into Italy and the skirmish at the Isonzo river to the consulship of Probinus and Eusebius, which is correct.372 Cassiodorus alone gives us the correct time-structure for the entire campaign against Odovacar. Holder-Egger, who was the first to compare the Chronica with the Fasti Vindobonenses Priores. He argued that the FVpr are the most representative of the Consularia Italica, and this document is regularly the one he compares other sources with. But we must remember that the FVpr, like all the other representatives of the consularia tradition, are a single offshoot of a multi-branched tradition. Holder-Egger concluded that Cassiodorus had used, if not the FVpr themselves, a document very like them, and had supplemented the material he found there with information from Roman consularia and from his own knowledge. But only a full comparison of Cassiodorus' material with all the other surviving
370 Majorian's expedition against Africa; the attribution of Severus' death to poisoning by Ricimer; the place where Anthemius was named emperor, Brontodas, otherwise unknown; the place of the battle between Odovacar and Theoderic as "ad pontem Candidiani"; the cessation of hostilities in Sicily by the Vandals after Theoderic's victory; and many details on Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500. 371 See Burgess, Mosaics for more on the interconnection among the various versions of the Italian consularia. 372 The FVpr and the Consularia Hafniensia date it to 490. Marcellinus and Marius of Avenches have the correct date as well.

263 witnesses of the consularia tradition in Italy will provide any secure footing for where Cassiodorus fits into the tradition. In what follows I will investigate each historical note in Cassiodorus and its parallels in the other authors.373 The different representatives of the tradition have different characteristics. The Fasti Vindobonenses, the Consularia Hafniensia, the Gallic Chronicle, and the Paschale Campanum, for instance, are typically terse, brief, and display only very simple grammatical constructions. These three are also more likely to include specific dates than the others. Those with names attached to them, like Cassiodorus, Marcellinus, Marius of Avenches and Victor of Tunnuna are of higher literary quality, and are less likely to give specific dates. Others, like the Anonymus Valesianus and Paul the Deacon's Historia Romana, are prose histories which may draw on several different sources to stitch together a narrative. As will be seen, there are a handful of notes in Cassiodorus which demonstrate his use of a document in the Consularia Italica tradition, either through similarity of wording or through similarity of detail with others who drew on the same tradition, though not necessarily the same document. There are also many differences or omissions of specific detail. On the whole, however, it seems likely to me that Cassiodorus used only a single source for his historical material from 456 (the first year after Prosper's work ended) to around 500, when he seems to begin to draw on his own memory. This particular

373 Burgess, Mosaics, identifies twenty-one authors and documents which stem from the tradition of the Consularia Italica, not all of which are relevant to my study. The ones I refer to are, in alphabetical order, Agnellus (Agn.), the Anonymus Valesianus (AV), the Gallic Chronicle of 511 (GC511), the Consularia Ravennatia (Cons.Rav.), the Fasti Vindobonensesposteriores (FVpost), the Fasti Vindobonenses priores (FVpr), the Histories of Gregory of Tours (GregT), the Consularia Hafniensia (Haf.), Marius of Avenches (MarA), Marcellinus comes (Marc), the Paschale Campanum (PC), Paul the Deacon (PD), Theophanes (Theoph.), the Vatican epitome of Prosper (Vat.Epit.), the Vatican continuation ofProsper (Vat. Auct.), and Victor of Tunnuna (Vict.). In the examples I use, I always place Cassiodorus' note first.

representative of the consulana tradition, however, began in at least 452. In the year 452 and Cassiodorus notes the destruction of Aquileia. There, as we saw in the section on Prosper, whose chronicle ended in 455, Cassiodorus inserted an additional note which was not drawn from Prosper, but which shares similarity with several other authors in the consularia tradition: Cass. Attila redintegratis viribus Aquileiam magna vi dimicans introivit. Cum quo a Valentiniano imperatore papa Leo directus pacem fecit. (1255) Agn: CG511: ConsRav: GregT: Marc: Theoph: Vat. Epit.: Haf: PD: et capta et fracta est Aquileia ab Hunis. (42) Regrediens Attila Aquileiam frangit. Aquileia fracta est XV kal Aug. Attila vero cum paucis reversus est, nee multo post Aquileia a Chunis capta, incensa atque deruta. (2.7) Aquileia civitas ab Attila Hunnorum rege excisa est. Touxu) TW ETEI...KGCI ATTIAOCC; EKOCUCTE xf)v AKUAIOCV noAiv. (107) Aquileia fracta est. Aquileia et Mediolanum et nonnullae aliae urbes ab Attilane subversae. ac primum Aquileiam civitatem in ipso Italiae sitam principio expugnare adgressus est; quam continuo triennio obsidens [mostly from Jordanes except the length of the siege] As can been seen from the examples, the destruction of Aquileia is an extremely common note to find in the histories of this period. Cassiodorus' note about the intervention of Leo is taken partly from Prosper, though the detail that Leo was sent by Valentinian is not, and there is no parallel for it.

Cassiodorus next note (1258), on the death of Attila, is taken from Prosper, as is the note on the killing of Aetius and Boethius by Valentinian (1260) I have noted above the changes Cassiodorus made to Prosper's wording, but there is no witness to those changes to be found in the consularia tradition. The notes on the death of Valentinian and varied and interesting: Cass.: Agn: CG511: FVpost: GregT: in campo Martio ab amicis Aetii Valentinianus occiditur. (1262) qui triginta et unum annis in imperio durans Romae occisus est in loco qui vocatur ad Laurum. Valentinianus occiditur foris Romae. (623) XV374 Ipse postmodum Augustus dum in campo Martio pro tribunali resedens concionaretur ad populum, Occila, buccellarius Aeti, ex adverso veniens, eum gladio perfodit. (2.8) Haf: [Egressum extra] portam [principem] et in campo Martio pro tribunali in sexto ad duos lauros residentem [et ludo gestationis intentum] veniente ex adverso Accilane Aetii bucillario simulque veniente Trasilane genero Aetii insperatis et [inopinatis ictibus confoderunt].375 Marc: Valentinianus princeps dolo Maximi patricii, cuius etiam fraude Aetius perierat, in campo Martio per Optilam et Thraustilam Aetii satellites iam percusso Heraclio spadone truncatus est. PD: Vict: nam et ipse anno sequenti a Transila Aetii milite cum triginta annis imperium gessisset, confossus interiit. (14.15) Valentinianus imp Romae campo Martio dolis Maximi patricii et Heraclii praepositi perimitur.

374 Only the date is given by the FVpost. 375 The material in square brackets indicates Prosper's entry, which was expanded on in the Consularia Hafniensia.

I have already noted how Prosper knew that the assassination was outside the city, but only in the consularia tradition do we find the real place: a "campus Martius" at the imperial villa Ad duos Lauros, outside the city. Here for the second time we have a possible tie between Cassiodorus and the consularia tradition. The Consularia Hafniensia, Marcellinus, Victor of Tunnuna and Gregory of Tours all place the killing "in campo Martio," as does Cassiodorus. The accession and death of Maximus, which occurred in the same year as the murder of Valentinian shows similar congruence of detail, but also some differences. Cass: CG511: FVpr: Haf: Marc: PD: Vat.Auct.: Vict: post quern [Valentinian] Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur. post quern Maximus diebus LXX adeptus imperium: nam terrore Wandalorum tumultu vulgi occisus est. (623) et levatus est Maximus imp. XVI kl. April, et occisus est prid. idus Iun. [Maximus vir gemini consulatus et patriciae dignitatis] alia die XIIII k. April, [sumpsit imperium.] Idem Maximus invasit imperium tertioque tyrannidis suae mense membratim Romae a Romanis discerptus est. Mortuo Valentiniano regni iura Maximus apud urbem invadens nee dum duobus expletis mensibus a Romanis peremptus est. (14.16) XVI kl April prid kl Iun idemque Maximus exconsule ac patricius sumit imperium diebus LXXVII...occisus membratimque concisus in Tiberim fluvium proiectus est. Theoph: Ti^Epixou
6E

axoAtp UEY&ACO EKnAeuaavxoQ eiq 'Pwunv, (108)

M&^iuoq (poPr)0i<; (pvyf\ sxpfiaaxo- oi 6e OVVOVTEC; OCUTCQ

OCPEIAOV OCUTOV paaiXEuaavxa ETOC; EV.

267

The dates here are varied, and almost all are different from each other. The FVpr put Maximus' accession on 17 March and his death on 12 June, which makes eighty-eight days. The Vatican continuation of Prosper has the same accession date, but puts his death on 31 May, which makes seventy-five days. The Hafniensia only give the accession date, March 19, but give no end date and no length of his reign. The Gallic Chronicle of 511 gives seventy days, and Victor of Tunnuna seventy-seven days. Marcellinus only says "in the third month." Cassiodorus and Paul the Deacon both give the length of Maximus' reign as under two months, which cannot be correct given that our precise dates and Marcellinus give him around three months. The common error of Cassiodorus and Paul is noteworthy, and suggests that they used a similar source. In the same set of notes, Victor, Marcellinus and Cassiodorus all agree that Maximus was thrown into the river. On the other hand, Marcellinus and Paul say that he was killed "a Romanis" and the Gallic Chronicle that he was killed "tumultu vulgi," whereas Cassiodorus alone says that he was killed "a militibus." Cassiodorus' next note, on the sack of Rome by Geiseric, was taken from Prosper, though it is frequently noted in the consularia tradition. Cassiodorus' note on the accession of Avitus is a very common one in our sources: Cass.: CG511: Fvpost: FVpr: Haf: Post Maximum Avitus in Gallias sumit imperium. et post Avitus imperator. (623) et 1. e. in Galliis A. imp. et levatus est imp. in Gallis Avitus VI idus Iulias. Post Maximi caedem Avitus in Galliis apud Arelas imperium sumpsit VII id. Iulias.

268 MarA: PD: VatAuct: Vict: Theoph: levatus est Avitus imperator in Gallias. Recedente igitur ab urbe Geiserico Romani sequenti mense exinanitae rei publicae imperatorem Habitum praeficiunt. (14.19) Nam Avitus in Galliis imperator efficitur. huius captivitatis (Romae) LXXV die Avitus vir totius simplicitatis in Galliis imperium sumit.
KCU UET& <XI)TOV>

Aprixoq xf)i> xfjc; 'PcauriQ PaaiXsiav EKpaxricrsv

emauxouq P'. (109) Of all the sources, only Paul the Deacon and - oddly - the Gallic Chronicle of 511 do not add the detail "in Galliis" or "in Gallias." Avitus' deposition in the following year at Placentia is also frequently noted: Cass.: MarA: FVpr: His conss Placentiae deposuit Avitus imperium. His consulibus deiectus est Avitus imperator a Maioriano et Recemere Placentia et factus est episcopus in civitate. (sa. 456) His cons occisus est Remistus patricius in palatio Classis XV kl Octob et captivus est imp Placentia a magis. mil Ricimere et occisus est Messiam patricius eius XVI kl Nov CG511: Haf: et Avitus occisus est a Maioriano comite domesticorum Placentiae. imperator Avitus Placentiam cum sociorum robore ingressens, quern cum magna vi exercitus magis ter militum Recimer excepit. commisso proelio Avitus cum magna suorum caede terga vertit, quern vitae reservatum Eusebius episcopus ex imperatore episcopum facit. interfectus in eo proelio Missianus patricius Aviti XV k. Novemb. GregT: Avitus enim unus ex senatoribus et - valde manefestum est - civis Arvernus, cum Romanum ambisset imperium, luxoriosae agere volens, a senatoribus proiectus, apud Placentiam urbem episcopus ordenatur. (2.11)

269 Theoph: VatAuct: Vict: Koti UE6' finepaQ K0' eviKr|0r| AUITOC; uno 'PEUIKOU KOU YEYOVEV Eiq noAiv nAaKEimoa* eiq TaAAiaq. (109) Avitus privatur imperio. Ricimirus patricius Avitum superat, cuius innocentiae parcens Placentiae civitatis episcopum facit.

In the above entries the FVpr and the Hafniensia are clearly related in some way: both give specific dates and the detail of Messianus' death. All the remaining entries but one give the place of Avitus' deposition, Placentia. Cassiodorus, however, only notes that "Avitus relinquished imperial power at Placentia" (1266), whereas the FVpr, the Cons. Haf., Marius of Avenches and the Chron. Gall. 511 all clearly state that he was removed by Ricimer. Considering the very negative picture of Ricimer in what follows in Cassiodorus' work, the omission is notable. Holder-Egger suggests that Cassiodorus' note is simply an example of Cassiodorus compressing his source,376 but we have seen in the study of Jerome that Cassiodorus was, on the whole, careful to include the important details. It is likely that Ricimer's role in Avitus' deposition was not in Cassiodorus' source. The next entry, on the accessions of Majorian and Leo, appears in fewer representatives of the consularia tradition. Cass.: Marciano defuncto Leo orientis Maiorianus Italiae suscepit imperium. FVpr: CG511: levatus est imp. d.n. Maiorianus kald. April in miliario VI in campo ad columellas. Leo Constantinopoli ann XXI Maiorianus Romae cum Leone regnavit ann III m VI
376 Holder-Egger 1876, pp. 248-249.

270

Vict: PD:

Maiorianus Romae imperium sumit. [but dated to the following year] Maiorianus apud Ravennam invadit imperium. (15.1)

Cassiodorus' entry is too general to link it with any of the other notes on the two accessions, but it is more than likely that he took it from his consularia source, and not, for example, from a list of imperial reigns. Similarly, as we will see, three other pieces of information about the eastern empire - the death of Aspar in Constantinople in 471 (1291), Leo's granting to his nephew the status of colleague in 473 (1296), and the death of Leo and the accession of Zeno in 474 (1298) - also appear in some of the documents in the consularia tradition. In 458 Majorian began organizing an expedition against the Vandals, but it failed while he was gathering his navy in Spain. The expedition is only recorded in three sources, and only fully in one. Cass.: CG511: Maiorianus in Africa movit procinctum. Maiorianus ingressus Arelatem qui volens Africam proficisci naves eius in Hispaniis a Wandalis captae sunt iuxta Carthaginem Spartariam. MarA: Maiorianus imperator profectus est ad Hispanias.

Still, it would be typical of Cassiodorus' method to cut back a note like that in the Gallic Chronicle to a simpler form which transmitted the salient information without the details of place. The next note in Cassiodorus, on the death of Majorian and the accession of Severus, is a common one in the tradition.

271 Cass.: FVpr: Maiorianus inmissione Ricimeris extinguitur. cui Severum natione Lucanum Ravennae succedere fecit in regnum. his cons, depositus est Maiorianus imp. a patricio Ricimere Dertona III non. Aug et occisus est ad fluvium Ira VII idus Aug. et levatus est imp. do. n. Severus XIII kal. Decembr. MarA: His consulibus deiectus est Maiorianus de imperio in civitate Dertona a Recemere patricio, et interfectus est super Ira fluvio: et levatus est Severus imperator Ravenna. Marc. CG511: Maiorianus Caesar apud Dertonam iuxta fluvium, qui Hira dicitur interemptus, locum eius Severus invasit. Profectus autem ex Arelate ad Italiam a patricio Recimere acciditur Dertona. et levatus est Severus de Lucaniis imperator simul et consul. PD: quod cum prope quattuor annis obtinuisset, haud procul a Dertonensi civitate iuxta Hiriam flumen occisus est statimque Severus apud Ravennam imperator efficitur atque Augustus appellatur. (15.1) Theoph: Touxu) TW Ti srjcp&Yri Ma'iopipoc; eiq Tapxicoua uno
'PEUIKIOU

naxpiKiou, Kai &nr|p6r| sic; PaaiAsa Esufjpoq

KOCI

ZspnevTioc; vwvaiq 'IouXiaiq. (112) Vict: Maiorianus Romae occiditur et Severus imperium non. Iul. sumit.

Once again, the entries are fairly clearly related in some way. The FVpr, Marius, Marcellinus, the Gallic Chronicle, and Paul all give the place, Dertona, and the same documents, excepting the Gallic Chronicle, give the specific place on the river Ira. Again, Cassiodorus has a shorter note with few specifics. He includes, rather oddly, a note about Severus, the new emperor, being a Lucanian, which is paralleled by the entry in the Gallic Chronicle which states the same thing. It is perhaps worth noting the similarities between the Gallic Chronicle and Cassiodorus at this point. This entry and the two

272 previous are quite similar in both authors, and the note on Majorian's expedition to Africa and Severus' origins are not attested elsewhere. In 464, Ricimer fought a battle against the Alans at Bergamo, which is reported in the consularia tradition: Cass.: rex Halanorum Beorgor apud Pergamum a patricio Ricimere peremptus est. FVpr: Marc: PD: his cons occisus est Beorgor rex Alanorum Bergamo ad pede montis VIII idus Februarias. Beorgor rex Halanorum a Ricimere rege occiditur. Tertio huius anno imperii Biorgor rex Alanorum cum exercitu adveniens occurrente patricio Ricimere superatus non longe a Pergamo civitate Venetiae atque extinctus est. (15.1) Again, characteristically, the FVpr give a specific date, while the others do not, but they are all still remarkably similar. The death of Severus in 465 is noteworthy because Cassiodorus is the only author to say that he was poisoned by Ricimer, though even Cassiodorus or his source appears to be aware that it is only a rumour. Cass: ut dicitur Ricimeris fraude Severus Romae in palatio veneno peremptus est. FVpr: PC: Marc: CG511: PD: his cons, defunctus est imp. Severus Rome XVIII kal. Septembris. Defunctus est Severus. Severus, qui Occidentis arripuit principatum, Romae interiit. Obiit Severus imperator. Severus vero cum quattuor annis imperasset. mortem propriam apud urbem occubuit. (15.1)

Four of the six which report Severus' death, including Cassiodorus, place it at Rome, but only the FVpr give the precise date. In 467 Anthemius was sent by Leo to Rome to become the western emperor, and he was proclaimed so just outside the city: Cass.: FVpr: PC: MarA: Marc: CG511: PD: Theoph: Anthemius a Leone imperatore ad Italiam mittitur, qui tertio ab urbe miliario in loco Brontotas suscepit imperium. levatus est imp. do. n. Anthemius Romae prid idus Aprilis. Antemius imperator efficitur. levatus est Anthemius imperator. Leo imperator Anthemium patricium Romam misit imperatoremque constituit. et levatus est Anthemius Romae ann V. Dehinc totius consensu militiae post Severi mortem iura imperii Anthemius suscepit. (15.2) Tip 6' OCUTCO ETEI Kara npsaPeiav xfjc; auyKAfiTOu 'Pcouric; dnsaxsiAe AECOP 6 PaaiAeuc; Av0iuiou, ibv yauPpov MapKiauou xou npoPaaiAEuaauxoq, (iacxiAea iv 'Poour), apSpa xpioTiaviKGOTaTov Koci EuasPwq if\v PaaiAeiav iGuvovxa xr) <;. (115) Vict: Anthemius Romae imperium sumpsit.

In an odd twist from the normal state of affairs, in which Cassiodorus' notes are simple and lack specifics, he is the only author to give the specific place, Brontodas, presumably an imperial villa three miles from Rome, whereas the FVpr, Marcellinus, the Gallic Chronicle and Victor say only that he was elevated at Rome. We have seen, though, that Cassiodorus is particularly interested in Roman landmarks,377 and this may be the reason
377 See above, p. 21.

that he chose to include this piece of information from his source. Marcellinus' death in Sicily in 468 is noted by four representatives of the consularia tradition: Cass.: FVpr: PC: Marc: in Sicilia Marcellinus occiditur. occisus est Marcellinus in Sicilia mense Aug. Marcellinus occiditur Sicilia. Marcellinus Occidentis patricius idemque paganus dum Romanis contra Vandalos apud Carthaginem pugnantibus opem auxiliumque fert, ab iisdem dolo confoditur, pro quibus palam venerat pugnaturus.

Here Marcellinus has a great deal of information that the others do not have, or do not include. Cassiodorus' next two notes, on the trials and punishments of Arvandus and Romanus, in 469 and 470 respectively (1287, 1289), are only noted by Paul, and will be treated in the section which follows. The murder of Aspar at Constantinople is an eastern event which appeared in the consularia in the west. Cass.: Marc: Constantinopoli affectator tyrannidis a Leone principe Aspar occiditur. Aspar primus patriciorum cum Ardabure et Patriciolo filiis, illo quidem olim patricio, hoc autem Caesare generoque Leonis principis appellate, Arrianus cum Arriana prole spadonum ensibus in palatio vulneratus interiit. Theoph: unorrroc; y^p, cor; npoetpnu, YEVOUEPOC; TW POXJIAEI 6 Aanap
KOCI

noXAf]i> nspiKeiuEvoc; SUPOCUIP 66ACO napd xou PaaiAscoq

TOIC; CCUTOU naiaiu,

(povEUExai UETOC Ppaxi) uvv

KOCI naxpiKico, OP

Ap6aPoupico

Kaiaapa 6 PaaiXeuq nenoir|Ke npoxepov,

IPCC xf)p

Aanapog suuoiav exil- (117)

Vict: PD:

Aspar et duo filii eius Patricius Caesar et Ardaburius Constantinopoli praecepto Leonis Augusti occiduntur. At vero in Orientis partibus Aspar patricius Leoni Augusto insidias moliens suum filium Caesarem effecit. Leo victorem exercitum statim ex Sicilia evocans Asparem patricium cum novello Caesare filio alioque eius germano digno vitae multavit excidio. (15.2)

Cassiodorus, Paul and Theophanes all report that Aspar was plotting against Leo, giving a reason for his murder, whereas Marcellinus has other information, preferring to focus on Aspar's heresy than treachery, if it was in his source. The civil war between Ricimer and Anthemius, the elevation of Olybrius, the death of Anthemius, and the subsequent deaths of Ricimer and Olybrius, all occurred in the same year, 473, and the chronology for the different events is confused and difficult, and shows that there were different versions of the story in circulation. Cassiodorus first remarks on the civil war, the elevation of Olybrius, and the death of Anthemius, who was killed when he was found hiding in the church of S. Chrysogono in Trastevere:378 Cass.: patricius Ricimer Romae facto imperatore Olybrio Anthemium contra reverentiam principis et ius adfinitatis cum gravi clade civitatis extinguit. FVpr: his cons bellum civile gestum est Romae inter Anthemium imperatorem et Ricimere Patricio: et levatus est imp. Olybrius Romae: et occisus est imp. Anthemius V idus Iulias. PC: Marc: Bellum civile inter Antemium et Recimerem. occiditur Antemius V id. Iul. levatur Olybrius. Anthemius imperator Romae a Recimero genero suo occiditur.
378 Malalas, 374-374; John of Antioch frag. 209.1.

276 CG511: Theoph: Anthemius imperator acto intra urbem civili bello a Ricimere genero suo vel Gundebado extinctus est.
EV 'IxaAia 6E 'PEKIUEP

6 crxpaxriYOc;, ou Kai npconv uPr|CT0ni>, xou suasPcoq ev 'Pwuri PacriAEuaavxoc;,

YauPpoq

6E AV0EUIOU,

Enapiaraxai xto 16ico Kr|6crxfi. Kai IIOAEUOU Kpaxouuxoq TT\V Xwpau, Aiuooxxouoav ouxcoc; ai xou PaaiAEooc; 6uvduic;, wc; Kai fJupaoov Kai aAAaiu dr|0cop a\|/aa0ai fJpooudxcov, auxov 6E xov fSaaiAea AI>0EUIOV EfSGouov EXOC; eixovxa xf\q dpxfic; dvaip0fii>ai. xo xr|i>iKauxa AEOOV 6id xouc; EXI auvEcxxcdxac;
EP 'PWUTI

0opu[Souc; OAufJpiov, xbv xfjc; IlAaKi6iac; au^uyou,

EKriEuriEi xfj 'Pconn Kai dvayopEUEi xoOxou auxoKpdxopa. (118) PD: Hoc denique ipso in tempore inter Anthemium principem eiusque generum Ricimerem patricium qui tunc Mediolani positus praeerat Liguriae, magnus discordiarum fomes exortus est...deinde barbarica perfidia foedus Ricimer inrumpens - erat Gothus prosapia - cum manu mox valida urbem contendit atque apud Anicionis pontem castra composuit. divisa itaque Roma est et quidam favebant Anthemio, quidam vero Ricimeris perfidiam sequebantur. Inter haec Olibrius a Leone Augusto missus ad urbem venit vivoque adhuc Anthemio regiam adeptus est potestatem....victor Ricimer urbem invadens quarto iam anno agentem iura imperii Anthemium gladio trucidavit. praeter famis denique morbique penuriam, quibus eo tempore Roma affligebatur, insuper etiam gravissime depraedata est et excepto duabus regionibus, in quibus Ricimer cum suis manebat, cetera omnia praedatorum sunt aviditate vastata. (15.3-5) Cassiodorus, the FVpr and Paul correctly state that Olybrius was elevated before the death of Anthemius, whereas the Paschale Campanum, Marcellinus and the Gallic

277 Chronicle all put Olybrius' elevation after Anthemius' death. In Cassiodorus, the very negative portrayal of Ricimer, which is uncharacteristic of Cassiodorus' style, is only paralleled in the tradition by that seen in Paul. Apart from Cassiodorus and Paul, only Marcellinus and the Gallic Chronicle note that Ricimer was Anthemius' son-in-law. Both Cassiodorus and Paul remark on the serious damage done to the city, Paul at some length. The deaths of Ricimer and Olybrius are recorded next in Cassiodorus, but I have divided them up in what follows because the other sources for the information are not the same for both events. Cass.: FVpr: PC: PD: Theoph: qui non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est. et defunctus est Ricimer XV kl. Septemb. moritur Recimer XIIII kal. Septemb. sed non diutius de perfidia laetatus est Ricimer. nam post mensem tertium excruciatus languoribus et ipse interiit. (15.5) 6 6E 'PsKiusp
UETOC

xf)v AV6EUIOU acpayiiu xpsic; ufjvac; (118)

(IOVOUC;

Gia^riaaq voaw

TEAEUTO.,

Cassiodorus' states that Ricimer died "post XL dies" / "after forty days" from the death of Anthemius, a rare case of a fairly specific time-period in the Chronica. The FVpr says that he died on 18 August, 39 days after the death of Anthemius on 11 July. Cassiodorus might be counting inclusively here, but the Paschale Campanum says that he died on 19 August, 40 days after, so a tradition of a forty-day period has entered one of the strands of the tradition, and Cassiodorus is drawing upon it. Olybrius' death exhibits a fairly regular tradition, however. Cass.: FVpr: Olybrius autem VII imperii mense vitam peregit. et defunctus est imp. Olybrius Romae X kl. Novemb.

PC: Marc: PD: Theoph:

et Olybrius montur IIII non Novemb. loco eius Olybrius substitutus septimo mense imperii sui vita defunctus est. Olibrius quoque dum septem menses imperium gessisset, morte propria Romae defunctus est. (15.5) auvociiEAGovTOc; auxw OAu[Jpiou dppcoaxia aGouaTiKfi. (118)

Cassiodorus, Paul and Marcellinus all give Olybrius a seven month reign, while the FVpr and the Paschale Campanum all give the date of his death (different in each case) rather than the length of his reign, though neither had given the date of his elevation. In the following year, 473, Glycerius was made emperor at Ravenna. Cass.: FVpr: PC: MarA: Marc: Theoph: PD: Gundibado hortante Glycerius Ravennae sumpsit imperium. (1295) hoc consule levatus est imp. Glicerius Ravena III non. Martias. Licerius imperator levatus est V non. Mart. Hoc consule levatus est Licerius imperator Ravenna. Glycerius apud Ravennam plus praesumptione quam electione Caesar factus est. TAuKEpioq 'IxaAiaq dvayopEUETai paaiXEuq, 6u>f)p OUK
&66KIUOC;. (119)

post huius funus Licerius domesticus a Gundibaro patricio, totius etiam voluntate exercitus, apud Ravennam imperator efficitur. (15.5)

Characteristically, the FVpr and the Paschale Campanum give a specific date, but Cassiodorus and the others do not. Only Cassiodorus and Paul give the detail that Gundobad was behind the elevation, but all except the Paschale Campanum say that it occurred at Ravenna. In the same year Cassiodorus places the final eastern event in his work which is

not the death or elevation of an emperor. Cass.: Marcel 1: Vict. Tonn. Haf: Eodem anno Leo nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit imperio. Leo senior imperator Leone iuniore a se iam Caesare constituto. [but dated to the following year] Leo Aug. Leonem nepotem suum, Zenonis uxoris, filiae suae filium Caesarem facit et imperat ann. II. E Leo iunior imperium apud Constantinopolim consulatusque dignitatem sibi praesenti anno decernens cum Augusti nomine vindicavit. Theoph:
TOUTCO TU) Ti Aecop

6 PctaiAsuc; Aeouxa,

TOP

Zfjpoopoc;

UIOP

Kod ApedSuriq xf\q i.6iaQ QuyaTpoq, TOP SOLUTOU YYOV>a, oreii/ac; PaaiAea apriYopEuaEP. (119) PD: qui [Leo] deinceps sequenti tempore Leonem suum filium imperii consortem effecit. (15.1) Once again, the event, seemingly unimportant for western history, particularly since the younger Leo was pushed aside by Zeno, must have been present in the tradition, and so very likely in a single source that Cassiodorus used for his historical notes at this period The same is true of the note for 474, the death of Leo and the accession of Zeno. Cass.: imperator Leo senior defunctus est, cui Zeno successit imperio, qui regnavit annis XVII. AV: Haf: Marc: Zeno vero cum filio iam regnans anno uno, imperavit annos XIIII, Isauriae nobilissimus (39) sub consulatu Leonis iunioris Leo maior defunctus est XV k. Febr. et levatus est imperator Zenon IIII k. Febr. Leo senior...morbo periit, tam sui imperii annis quam huius Leonis regni mensibus computatis annis decern et septem mensibus sex. Zenonem Leo iunior imperator idemque filius principem regni

constituit. CG511: PD: Zeno Augustus ann XIII Leo igitur Augustus postquam Orientale decern et septem annis rexit imperium, diem clausit extremum. mortuo Leone Zeno continuo Augustalem nactus est dignitatem. (15.7) Cassiodorus could easily have taken the material from a version of the consularia. The deposition of Glycerius by Nepos is variously reported, with differences in the tradition about where exactly Nepos was elevated. Cass.: FVpr: PC: AV: Eo etiam anno Romae Glycerio Nepus successit in regno. [text missing] de imperio Glicerius in Portu urbis Romae. eo anno levatus est d n Iulius Nepos VIII kald. Iulias. deponitur Licerius. levatur Nepos. igitur imperante Zenone Augusto Constantinopoli superveniens Nepos patricus at Portum urbis Romae deposuit de imperio Glycerium et factus est episcopus et Nepos factus imperator Romae. (7.36) Haf: Glycerius de imperio deiectus a Nepote patricio in Portu urbis Romae episcopus ordinatur. Nepos patricius in Portu urbis Romae imperii iura suscepit. MarA: Marcell: Hoc consule depositus est Licerius de imperio, et levatus est Nepus imperator. Glycerius Caesar Romae imperium tenens a Nepote Marcellini quondam patricii sororis filio imperio expulsus in Portu urbis Romae ex Caesare episcopus ordinatus est et obiit. [dated to 474] Nepos, qui Glycerium regno pepulerat, Romae elevatus est imperator. [dated to 475] PD: Anno deinde sequenti inopinate Nepos patricius cum exercitu veniens Licerium regia exuit potestate eumque apud Salonas

281 Dalmatiarum urbem episcopum ordinavit. (15.5) Theoph: bv [Glycerius] e [if\v(X(; KpaxriCTavxa NEnoxiavoq AaAuaTnc;
EKP&AAEI

Tf\q dpxfiq Kai

POCQIAEUEI

Kai auxoq xpovov oAiyov.

(119) The FVpr, the PC, Marius and Paul give no place for Nepos' elevation. The Hafniensia identifies the place as Portus, which was the place of Glycerius' deposition as well. But Cassiodorus, the Anonymus Valesianus and Marcellinus all record Rome as the place where Nepos was elevated, and the same authors also all state (and none of the others do) that Glycerius was ordained a bishop. Nepos' deposition by Orestes in 475 also receives many notes. Cass: FVpr: Eodem anno Orestes Nepote in Dalmatias fugato filio suo Augustulo dedit imperium. his cons, introivit Ravennam patricius Orestes cum exercitu et fugavit imp. Nepos ad Dalmatias V kl. Septemb.. eo anno Augustulus imp levatus est Raven a patricio Oreste patre suo prid. kl. Novembres. PC: AV: Fugavit Orestis Nepotem. Et levatur Augustulus. mox veniens [Nepos] Ravennam: quern persequens Orestes patricus cum exercitu, metuens Nepos adventum Orestis, ascendens navem fugam petit ad Salonam et ibi mansit per annos quinque: postea vero a suis occiditur. Mox eo egresso factus imperator Augustulus. Augustulus imperavit annos X. Augustulus, qui ante regnum Romulus a parentibus vocabatur, a patre Oreste patricio factus est imperator. (36-37) HafPr: Nepote apud urbem residente Orestes patricus cum robore exercitus contra eum mittitur. sed cum desperatae rei negotium resistendo sumere non auderet, ad Dalmatias navigiis fugit. Cum Nepos fugiens

Italiam ac urbem rehquisset, Orestes primatum omnemque sibi vindicans dignitatem Augustulum filium suum apud Ravennam positus imperatorem facit, ipse vero omnem ruam externorum praesidiorum gerit. Levatur Augustulus in imperio pridie K. Novemb.379 HafPo: Nepos cum ab Oreste patricio cum exercitu persequeretur, fugiens ad Dalmatias usque navigavit. Orestes vero patricius post fugam Nepotis Augustulum filium suum Ravennae imperatorem facit II K. Novemb. HafPoM: Postquam dum sibi victoriae decore prosperoque eventu pollere nequaquam causam caute usurpationis dicare sentiret praeveniente vanitatis stimulo. sequenti anno post consulatum Leonis iunioris Orestes patricius cum robore exercitus contra Nepotem Roma mittitur. Qui cum desperatae rei negotium resistendo sumere non auderet, ad Dalmatias navigans fugit V k. Septemb....Post cuius fugam Orestes elatus quamquam sibi vota damnandae temeritatis augere non auderet, Augustulum filium suum penes Ravennam urbem imperatorem fecit pridie K. Novembris. Marcell: PD: Theoph: Nepote Orestes protinus effugato Augustulum filium suum in imperium conlocavit. (sa. 475) Ipso denique anno Augustulus apud Italiam adversus Nepotem cum exercitu veniens effugato eo imperii regimen invasit. (15.7) Opsorou xivoc; K[$aA6vxoc; auxov [Nepos], bv OIKEIOC; notic; 'Pco^uAoq, eniKAr|v AUYOUCFXOUAOC;, 6iot6?;<xui>oc; KCCI 6uo
(JODOUC; dp^aq

smauxouc; auxoKpaxoop xfjq ei> 'IxaAia

PaaiAeiaq Ka6iaxaxai. (119) Cassiodorus' note here uncharacteristically begins not with "hoc consule," but with
379 The three separate narratives of the Hafniensia are the results of an author attempting to work the bare events of a version of the consularia into a longer narrative, similar to that of the Anonymus Valesianus. Though much of what is in the three different versions is repetetive and untrustworthy, I have included them all for the sake of completeness. See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics.

"eodem anno." This suggests either that something has dropped out of the text of the Chronica, that there was an event in his source that he omitted, or that he simply made a mistake. If an event has dropped out, or if he omitted something, it is difficult even to guess at what it was. Cassiodorus' note relates briefly that Orestes forced Nepos to flee to Dalmatia and installed his son Augustulus on the throne. Marcellinus and Paul do not have the detail about Dalmatia, and the PC includes neither Dalmatia, nor the involvement of Orestes. Paul, curiously, suggests that Augustulus, and not his father Orestes was responsible for Nepos' flight. Theophanes, who reports here the Augustulus reigned for two years, is wrong, but is clearly still working from a list with a chronological framework. In 476, Odovacar killed Orestes and his brother Paul, and deposed the young Augustulus. Cass: ab Odovacre Orestes et frater eius Paulus extincti sunt, nomenque regis Odovacar adsumpsit, cum tamen nee purpura nee regalibus uteretur insignibus. (1303) FVpr: levatus est Odoacar rex X kl. Septembris. eo anno occisus est Orestes patricius Placentia V kl. Septembris. eo anno occisus est Paulus frater eius Ravenna in pinita prid. non. Sept. (619-620) PC: AV: Odoacar levatur X k. Septb. Superveniens autem Odoachar cum gente Scirorum occidit Orestem patricium in Placentia et fratrem eius Paulum ad Pinetam foris Classem Ravennae. Ingrediens autem Ravennam deposuit Augustulum de regno, cuius infantiae misertus concessit ei sanguinem, et quia pulcher erat, etiam donans ei reditum sex milia solidos, misit eum intra Campaniam cum parentibus suis libere vivere. (37-38)

Odoacar vero, cuius supra fecimus mentionem, mox deposito Augustulo de imperio, factus est rex mansitque in regno annos XIII. (45) HafPr: Intra Italiam Eruli, qui Romano iuri suberant, regem creant nomine Odoacrem X k. Sept....qui Orestem patricium apud Placentiam residentem oppressit atque devicit fratremque eius nomine Paulum penes Ravennam positum interfecit. HafPo: MarA: Marc: Odoachar ab exercitu suo rex levatur X k. Sept. Orestes patricius Placentia et Paulus frater eius Ravenna occiduntur. levatus est Odovacer rex. Odoacar rex Gothorum Romam optinuit. Orestem Odoacar ilico trucidavit. Augustulum filium Orestis Odoacar in Lucullano Campaniae castello exilii poena damnavit. PD: Odovacer itaque prosperos sibi cernens successus adcrescere statim regiam arripuit dignitatem. Augustulus siquidem, qui imperii praesumpserat potestatem. cernens universam Italiam Odovacris viribus subdi inopinabili metu perterritus sponte miserabilis purpuram abiciens, cum vix undecim mensibus rem publicam obtinuisset, imperialem deposuit maiestatem. (15.10) Theoph: '06o&Kpou Aoinov
TOTGOU UEV TO YE^OC;, EI> 'IxaAiot

6e

xpacpeuTOQ, XEipGoaauEvou 6uvdui PappapiKfj TT\V dp/ip- bq xf\v xou pTyyoc; eauxcp nspiSsuEvoq npoariYopiav naaai> dpxf)u Kocxd xov ndxpiov
POUOV

xolq 'Pwuaioic;

npoxeipicrduEPOQ sni i' xpoi^ouq xfjq dp^fic; Kpdxr|rjv. COKEI 6E EU 'PaPvv>r| xfj noAsi xf\q 'IxaAiaq napd xiiv GdAaaaau Eu6ai|iOva ouaav Kai KtxAr|t>. (119) As usual, the FVpr, the PC and the Hafniensia have specific dates, but the detail about the deaths of Orestes and his brother Paul are recorded by Cassiodorus, the FVpr, the AV, and the Hafniensia. The FVpr, the AV, the Hafniensia, and Marius all clearly state that

285 Odovacar was elevated to the kingship. Cassiodorus, with slightly different wording, says that Odovacar "took the name of king," wording which occurs in Theophanes as well, though Theophanes says that Odovacar ruled in Italy for ten years, whereas Cassiodorus' Chronica shows that he ruled for thirteen as does the AV. The additional detail in Cassiodorus that Odovacar did not wear the purple nor the royal insignia is likely a note added by Cassiodorus himself, presumably to distinguish Odovacar from Theoderic.380 Odovacar's thirteen years as king in Italy were relatively peaceful, and none of the sources has much to say. Still, Cassiodorus appears still to be relying on the consularia during this period. His next note relates Odovacar's attack against Ovida in Dalmatia, which others note also. Cassiodorus or his source misdates this event to 481, whereas the FVpr and the Hafniensia both date it to 482. Cass.: FVpr: HafPr: Odovacar in Dalmatiis Odivam vincit et perimit. occisus est [one line is missing here] VII idus Octobris. Odoachar rex in Dalmatiis proficiscitur, cui cum obsistere cum exercitu Ovida conaretur, ab Odoachre oppressus interiit V id. Decemb. Odoachar devicto Ovida atque interfecto regnum late proeliis et ferro extendit. HafPo: Odoachar rex in Dalmatiis pugnans Ovidam cepit atque occidit.

Despite Cassiodorus' incorrect date, the similarity between his note and that of the Hafniensia is noteworthy. Cassiodorus' next note on Odovacar's defeat of the Rugii is similarly brief and likewise mimicked in the other representatives of the consularia tradition.
380 Whether the "insignia regalia" to which Cassidorus refers here are the same as the "ornamenta palatii" which the emperor Anastasius sent back to Theoderic (AV64), confirming him in his seat in Italy, is unclear.

Cass.: FVpr:

Odovacar Foeba rege Rugorum victo captoque potitus est. hoc cons, pugna facta est inter Odoacrem regem et Fevvanum regem Rugorum et vicit Odoacar et adduxit captivum Fevvanum regem sub die XVII kal. Decemb.

HafPr:

Fevva rex Rugorum adversum regem Erulorum Odoachrem bellum movet. collectis copiis ab utroque exercitu supra Danubium amnem pugna initur. multa utriusque exercitus cadaverum stages caede coacervata: sed cum iam ab utroque rege anceps victoria expectaretur, Fevva devictus tandem et vivus captus ac Odoachri oblatus, quern vitae reservatum Odoachar in Italiam secum vinctum pertrahit. pugnatum est supra Danubium cum Fevva et Rugis XV k. Ian.

HafPo:

His consulibus Odoachar rex Herulorum Fevvanem regem Rugorum proelio devictum supra Danuvium cepit atque secum intra Italiam vinctum pertrahit.

AV:

Igitur Odoacar rex gessit bellum adversus Rugos, quos in secundo vicit, et funditus delevit. (48)

From the arrival of Theoderic in Italy in 489 to the death of Odovacar in 493, we come into muddy territory. In the major narratives we have for these years, Cassiodorus, the FVpr, the Hafniensia, the AVand Paul the Deacon, the events are in the correct order, but the date of Theoderic's entry into Italy differs, and each narrative offers pieces of information which the others do not.381 The interconnections of the documents at this point are fairly clear, but it is the selection of detail rather than clear verbal connections which prove their interdependence. Still, connections between the Chronica and the second part of the Anonymus
381 The FVpr date Theoderic's arrival to 490, as do the Hafniensia. A small note in the Fasti Parisini dates the event to 491.

Valesianus have been suggested by several scholars and must be addressed. The AV, whose author is unknown, was written in Italy in the middle of the sixth century, though the exact date is still controversial.382 It provides the chief Latin narrative of Theoderic's reign in Italy. The work appears to present two distinct pictures of Theoderic: the first, from section 36 up to about section 73, which corresponds roughly with the period from the beginning of Theoderic's career to 519, is panegyrical, while the second part details the worsening relationship between Theoderic and his subjects. The earlier portion appears to be more firmly grounded in chronology, and includes two consular dates. Cessi, in his 1912 edition, argued that the difference in presentation was due to the author's clumsy stitching together of two sources, one positive, one negative, and he has been followed by many.383 Barnish has recently argued well for single authorship, but allows for the possibility that the author made use of several sources, the earlier of which clearly had a firmer chronological basis.384 Many have noted the similarities between Cassiodorus' Chronica and the AV, and opinions have varied as to the reasons. Cessi suggested that the source for the early sections on Theoderic was Cassiodorus' Gothic History, and he has been followed recently by Massimiliano Vitiello, who expanded on Cessi's suggestion by finding verbal similarities between the language of the AVand the Variae.38' However, as we will see, the similarities between the two documents seem best to attribute to the use of similar documents in the consularia tradition.
382 See Konig 1997, 56-63 and Barnish 1983 577-578 for a brief overview. 383 Cessi 1912 pp. cxix-cxxvi and clxv-clxviii, followed by Ensslin 1947, p. 279 and 311 and Vassiliev 1950, p 214. 384 Barnish 1983, especially page 594. 385 Cessi 1913, Vitiello 2000.

Cassiodorus has only four entries on Theoderic's campaign in Italy. I will treat them, along with the other authors and documents which partake of the same tradition, in order. Cass.: felicissimus atque fortissimus dn rex Theodericus intravit Italiam. Cui Odovacar ad Isontium pugnam parans victus cum tota gente fugatus est. Eodem anno repetito conflictu Veronae vincitur Odovacar. FVpr: ingressus est rex Theodericus in fossato pontis Sontis V kl Septembris et fugit Odoacar rex de fossato et abiit in Beronam. [but dated to the following year] AV: Cui [Theoderico] occurrit venienti Odoacar ad fluvium Sontium, et ibi pugnans cum eodem, victus fugit et abiit in Veronam et fixit fossatum in campo minore Veronense V kalendas Octobres. Ibique persecutus est eum Theodericus, et pugna facta, ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte; tamen superatus Odoacar fugit Ravennam pridie kalendas Octobres. (50) Haf: Hoc consule Theudoricus rex Gothorum ingressus est fossatum ponte Sontis adversum Odoachar regem. Quern cum ingenti copia hostium munitum et insolentis animi cerneret non posse eum vi superare, timore perculsus aufugit ac se Veronensi oppido cum exercitu recepit. quern cum rex Theudoricus fugisse se coram comperit...ad Veronam usque persecutus est. quern cum Odoachar adventasse ad sui obsidionem cerneret, taedio victus collectis bellatorum copiis se in campo Veronensi minore obvium obiecit. ubi cum magnae strages ab utroque exercitu fierent, dum unum desperatae rei necessitas cogeret, alterum, ne coeptae victoriae gloriam fuga macularet, diu utrisque pugnantibus tandem victus Odoachar fugit et Ravennam cum exercitu fugiens pervenit. [but dated to the following coss.]

289 MarA.: ingressus est Theudoricus rex Gothorum in Italia ponte Isonti.

All four give the details of the initial battle at the Isonzo river in 489. Cassiodorus, the FVpr, the AV, and the Hafniensia all have the additional detail of Odovacar's flight to Verona and the subsequent battle there in the same year. The following year saw a third battle at the river Addua, which is not reported by the FVpr or Marius. Cass.: AV: ad Adduam fluvium Odovacrem dn Theoderichus rex tertio certamine superavit. Qui Ravennam fugiens obsidetur inclusus. Tunc venerunt Wisigothae in adiutorium Theoderici, et facta est pugna super fluvium Adduam, et ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte et occisus est Pierius comes domesticorum III idus Augustas. (53) Haf: Odoachar rex ab Ravenna Mediolanium rediit atque contractis copiis cum Theudorico bellum init super fluvio Adda: sed ut rei desperatae magis adimi quam augeri vires solent, Odoachar terga vertens interfecto Pierio comite, qui bellicis rebus praeerat, Ravennam iterum aufugit. [but dated to the following year]

Again, we see the different narratives offering different details. All record the name of the river, but only Cassiodorus and the Hafniensia say that Odovacar retreated to Ravenna. Both the AVand the Hafniensia say that the comes Pierius was killed in the battle, whereas Cassiodorus does not. Cassiodorus' next note is on a night-time sortie by Odovacar and his troops while they were under siege at Ravenna by Theoderic. Cass.: Odovacar cum Erulis egressus Ravennam nocturnis horis ad pontem

Candidiani a dn nostra rege Theodenco memorabih certamine superatur. FVpr: eo anno ingressus est Odoacar rex in fossatum Erulis in pinita et occisus est Libila mag. mil. et ceciderunt populi ab utrque parte et clausit se Ravenn Odoacar rex VI idus Iul... AV: exiit Odoacar rex de Ravenna nocte, cum Herulis ingressus in Pinetam in fossatum patrici Theoderici, et ceciderunt ab utraque parte exercitus, et fugiens Levila, magister militum Odoacris, occisus est in fluvio Bedente; et victus Odoacar fugit Ravennam id. Iul. (54) Haf: fossato ac munitione late patente in Pineta exercitum vallavit. quern cum securum intra fossatum sedere Odoachar conspiceret, clam noctu cum Erulis intra fossatum in Pineta erupit, ubi, cum diu pugnatum esset et utriusque exercitus magnae copiae cecidissent, interfecto Libilane magistro militiae intra Ravennam sese rex Odoachar reclusit. Agnell: cum...iuxta Strovilia Peucodis non longe ab urbe Ravenna applicitus Theodoricus fuisset cum hostibus sui in campo qui vocatur Candiani, postquam duabus vicibus Odovacer superavit, qui illo tempore regnum Ravennae obtinebat, tunc exiit Odovacer ad praedictum campum cum exercitu suo et superatus est tertio et ante faciem Theodorici terga dedit et infra civitatem clausit. All the narratives save that of Agnellus relate that Odovacar's sortie took place at night and that Odovacar was accompanied by his Herulian troops. The narratives of the AVand the FVpr are closely related at this point. Cassiodorus and Agnellus give a similar detail, when Cassiodorus records the place "ad pontem Candidiani," and Agnellus says that Theoderic was attacked "in campo qui vocatur Candiani." The other narratives, which

291 tend to speak of the attack on Theoderic's camp in the Pineta, lack this precision. After two brief notes (which I will address later) Cassiodorus records the death of Odovacar in 493, an event which marked the end of the Italian campaign. Cass.: FVpr: PC: AV: dn rex Theodericus Ravennam ingressus Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit. ingressus est Ravenam rex Theodoricus III non Mar. et occisus est Odoacar rex a rege Theodorico in palatio cum commilitibus suis. Ravennae Theodoricus ingressus. Sic ingressus est Theodericus et post aliquot dies, dum ei Odoacer insidiaretur, detectus ante ab eo praeventus in palatio, manu sua Theodericus eum in Lauretum pervenientem gladio interemit. Cuius exercitus in eadem die iussu Theoderici omnes interfecti sunt, quivis ubi potuit reperiri, cum omni stirpe sua. (55-56) Haf: Agnell: MarA: Ac deinde ingressus est Ravennam. pacis specie Odoachrem interfecit cum collegas omnes, qui regni praesidium amministrabant. et subiit Ravennam III non. Martias. post paucos dies occidit Odovacrem rex in palatio in Lauro cum comitibus suis. occisus est Odovacer rex a rege Theuderico in Laureto. [dated to the previous year, but Marius lacks the consuls of 493]

The FVpr, the AV, Agnellus and Marius all give the place where Odovacar was killed: the palace ad Lauretum in Ravenna. The FVpr, the AV, the Hafniensia, and Agnellus all give the detail that Odovacar was killed with his soldiers. Only Cassiodorus and the AV suggest that Odovacar was plotting against Theoderic, and the Hafniensia seems to suggest that the treachery was on Theoderic's side ("specie pacis" / "under the guise of peace").

In the passages I have covered which deal with Theoderic's campaigns in Italy, it will be noticed that the narratives of Cassiodorus and the A Voften agree. They follow the same time-line, and the ,4Fprovides almost all the information that Cassiodorus does. The AVs narrative of Theoderic's invasion of Italy is almost certainly from the consularia. The only precise dates giving month and day in the entire work date from the years between 489 and 491, and there are quite a few: we are given the precise date for the battle at Verona (50), for Odovacar's flight to Ravenna (50), the date of Tufa's appointment to Odovacar's circle of optimates (51), the notation "eo anno" / "in that year" - which is very common in consularia - for Tufa's expedition against Odovacar at Ravenna (51), a consular date for the year 490, "Fausto et Longino" (53); the date of the battle near the Addua river (53), the consular date for 491, "Olybrio vc cons," the date of Odovacar's nocturnal attack on Theoderic's camp (54). The AV, however, seems to lose track of the chronology after 491, since the next recorded event, the death of Odovacar two years later, is not dated at all. The consular dates in the A V along with the events in each year correspond with Cassidorus' dates. Both documents clearly date the entry of Theoderic into Italy to 489. Almost all the events recorded by Cassidorus for these years are recorded in the AV, which is much longer and more detailed, and in most cases Cassiodorus' details are included in the A Fas well. A battle at the Isonzo river is recorded by both, along with Odovacar's flight (1319-1320 and 50), though the FVpr and the Hafniensia say only that Odovacar fled on Theoderic's arrival, not that there was a battle. Both record Theoderic's march to Verona and the battle there (1321 and 50). Both record the third battle at the

293 river Addua (1323 and 53).386 Both record Theoderic's siege of Ravenna which began in 490 (1324 and 53). Both record Odovacar's nocturnal sortie from Ravenna with his Herulian troops and the battle which he lost (1326 and 54). But the only verbal similarities between the two works occur between the death of Odovacar and 502 - not a particularly long time-period. Despite the fact that the date of Odovacar's death is not recorded in the AV, as it is in Cassiodorus, the details given by both authors and the words used are very similar. Cassiodorus writes, "Theodericus Ravennam ingressus Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit" / "Theoderic entered Ravenna and killed Odovacar, who was plotting against him" (1331). The AV have, "ingressus est Theodericus et post aliquot dies, dum ei Odoacar insidiaretur...manu sua Theodericus eum in Lauretum pervenientem gladio interemit" / "Theoderic went in, and after a few days, since Odovacar was plotting against him...Theoderic killed him with a sword with his own hand as he came into the Lauretum" (55). Both Jordanes and Procopius record the possibility that Theoderic was acting in pre-emptively in self-defense, but none of the Italian sources do.387 All this points to some sort of common source behind the narrative of the AVand the notes of Cassiodorus. Though each records details that the other does not, there are no contradictions of event or date to rule out a common source. The fact that the AV records the correct consuls for the year 490, Faustus and Longinus, whereas Cassiodorus omits the easterner Longinus, is noteworthy, since, as we have seen, Cassiodorus was on the whole very careful with his consular list at the end of the fifth century. But it seems likely

386 As does the Cow. Hqf. s.a. 491. 387 Jordanes Rom. 349; Procopius BG 1.1.25.

that the version of the consularia which the A Fused had a corrected version of the consuls for the year. Finally, Cassiodorus includes two notes between the battle at the pons Candidiani and the death of Odovacar. The first is noteworthy since it has no parallel in any of our sources: "Tunc etiam Vandali pace suppliciter postulata a Siciliae solita depredatione cessarunt" / "The also the Vandals humbly asked for peace and ceased their customary attacks on Sicily" (1327). This note is dated to 491 is one of the very few historical details which only Cassiodorus records and, though it does not add a great deal to our knowledge of the period, may have been included by the author to demonstrate the effect Theoderic's success in Italy had on the neighbouring kingdom. There is no reason to think that this detail was not in the version of the consularia which Cassiodorus used, however. The second note, dated to the same year, simply marks the death of Zeno and the accession of Anastasius at Constantinople, which I have discussed above. The note, of course, has parallels in the consularia tradition: Cass.: eodem anno Zeno occubuit, cui Anastasius in orientali successit imperio. PC: AV: Marcell: Zeno defunctus est, levatus Anastasius. Et moritur Constantinopolim Zeno imperator, et factus est imperator Anastasius. (57) Zenon Augustus vita decessit tarn sui imperii annis quam Basilisci tyrannidis mensibus conputatis anno XVII mense sexto. Anastasius ex silentario imperator creatus est. While it is not easy to nail down clear connections between the documents which make up the consularia tradition, in the case of Cassiodorus it is not impossible. In the

295 comparisons above, I have alluded to several similarities between Cassiodorus' work and the Historia Romana of Paul the Deacon. A careful comparison of both documents bears some fruit.

Cassiodorus and Paul the Deacon There are strong correspondences between book fifteen of Paul the Deacon's Historia Romana, written in the eighth century, and the matching years in Cassiodorus' Chronica, which suggest that the two used a very similar document, though, as will be seen, probably not the same version. Paul the Deacon (c. 720- c. 800) was a Benedictine monk who lived at Monte Cassino from sometime before 782 and died before 800. There he composed, among other works, his Historia Gentis Langobardorum, our chief source for the history of the Lombard kingdom in Italy, but also his Historia Romana, a continuation of Eutropius' Breviarum from 364 to 553, and one of the most popular histories of Rome in the Middle Ages.388 One of Paul's main sources for the period between 379 and 455 was Prosper, and he quotes him extensively, but after 455 he turned to a different source, which may well have been a continuation of the copy of Prosper which he had.389 Paul does not date his years by consuls, but the frequency with which he notes the

388 SeeBrunholzl 1975-1992,257-258. 389 Paul used and rewrote Jordanes and Prosper extensively for the campaigns of Attila, but also had other sources, sometimes noted by Droysen in his edition of Paul. For instance, Paul says that Attila besieged Aquileia over three years "continuo triennio," which is virtually impossible since the battle of the Catalaunian fields was in 451 and Attila's death in 453. But it at least suggests that Paul had a source which provided him with chronological information. In his account of Geiseric's sack of Rome, Paul says that he was supported "praesidio Maurorum" "by a guard of Moors," information which is not in Prosper, though it is in the FVpr. This suggests that Paul had a version of the consularia, in addition to Prosper, which dealt with the events of 455.

296 change of years indicates clearly that he must have been using a document dated by years - and therefore certainly by consular years. He does not give specific dates, as we might expect from someone using one of the consularia, but he frequently notes the number of months which separate events within a year. The consularia which he used seem to have run out between 476 and 489, since he gives very little attention to the years of Odovacar's reign (though he knows the length of his reign), and when he turns to Theoderic's march on Italy his information is very detailed indeed, and, as we will see below, much of it comes from a rewriting of Jordanes' Getica and pieces of Ennodius' Vita Epiphanii, though he also had a narrative source which he drew on as well. It is not impossible that his version of Prosper had a continuation, dated by consuls, which went from 446 to 476 and then ended. But it had certainly ended by 489, the date of the arrival of Theoderic into Italy. There are a handful of correspondences between Cassiodorus and Paul in book fifteen that prove their use of a similar source, particularly over the years between 455 and 476. The first is an error common to both authors. I noted above that both Cassiodorus and Paul say that Maximus, after the murder of Valentinian, spent less than two months on the throne before he was killed. Cassiodorus says, "post quern [Valentinian] Maximus invadit imperium, qui intra duos menses a militibus extinctus in Tiberim proicitur" / "after whom Maximus siezed the throne and was killed by his soldiers and thrown into the Tiber within two months" (1262). Paul writes, "Mortuo Valentiniano regni iura Maximus apud urbem invadens nee dum duobus expletis mensibus a Romanis peremptus est" / "After Valentinian's death, Maximus siezed power

at Rome, but was killed by the Romans before two months were out" (14.16). The other sources all give the correct time of something over seventy days. In 15.1, Paul notes Leo's accession and adds that he "deinceps sequenti tempore Leonem suum filium imperii consortem effecit" / "afterwards, at a later time, made his son Leo his colleague in power." Cassiodorus has almost exactly the same note, though he places it in Leo's fifth consulship, the sixteenth year of his reign: "eodem anno Leo nepotem suum Leonem consortem facit imperio" / "in the same year Leo made his grandson a colleague in power." Paul is incorrect in identifying the younger Leo as the son of the elder, but the verbal similarity is clear.390 In 15.2 Paul notes that Anthemius took the throne "consensu militiae" "with the agreement of the army." Cassiodorus says that Anthemius "tertio ab urbe miliario in loco Brontotas suscepit imperium" / "took up power at the third milestone from the city in the place Brontotas" (1283). We do not know where or what Brontodas was, but it seems reasonable to assume it was an imperial villa not far from the city, and that Anthemius was proclaimed emperor by the army there. Paul and Cassiodorus are the only two to note anything different what the other witnesses to the tradition of the Italian consularia note, typically that Anthemius was sent by Leo and that he was elevated at Rome.391 Two successive notes in successive years in Cassiodorus are particularly worth mentioning (similarities in wording are italicized): "Arabundus imperium temptans iussu Anthemii exilio deportatur" / "Arabundus tried to usurp imperial power and was exiled on
390 Victor of Tunnuna provides a possible reason for Paul's mistake when he writes, "Leo Aug. nepotem suum, Zenonis uxoris, filiae suae filium Caesarem facit" "Leo made his grandson, the son of his daughter, the wife of Zeno, Caesar." The slightly awkward wording might lead a sloppy reader or copyist to record only "filium" and pass over "nepotem." 391 See above, p. 273.

the orders of Anthemius" (1287), and "Romanus patricius affectans imperium capitaliter punitus est" / "the patrician Romanus aspired to imperial power and was executed" (1289). These are matched by two successive notes in Paul: "Sequenti anno Servandus Galliarum praefectus imperium temptans invadere iussu Anthemii principis in exilium trusus est. Rursus annali emenso spatio Romanus patricius imperatoriam fraudulenter satagens arripere dignitatem praecipiente Anthemio capite caesus est" / "In the following year Servandus, the prefect of the Gauls, tried to usurp imperial power and was exiled on the orders of Anthemius. And again, a year later, the patrician Romanus worked deceitfully to take the position of the emperor and was executed on the command of Anthemius" (15.2). The first man accused of treason, misnamed Arabundus by Cassiodorus and Servandus by Paul, is Arvandus, the prefect of Gaul, who was tried under Anthemius and exiled in 469.392 There are sufficient similarities in wording (italicized above) between the two documents to indicate their common source. The second man, the patrician Romanus, is almost unknown, mentioned only in these two passages and a fragment in John of Antioch (207), which says he was punished (though we are not told how) for making Anthemius sick through magic. The fact that this note follows immediately on the note about Arvandus, along with a clear date placing the two events in successive years, points to a common source.393 Again in paragraph 15.2, Paul notes the execution of Aspar and his sons, highlighting the suggestion that Aspar was "insidias moliens" / "plotting" against the emperor Leo. This note does not show up in the other Italian sources, but does in
392 Atrial memorably related by Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 1.7. 393 Holder-Egger 1876 suggested that Paul had been using a copy of Cassiodorus' Chronica and another consularia which had a great deal of information on the city of Rome (302), but it is simpler to posit a similar source for both Paul and Cassiodorus.

299 Cassiodorus, who notes the death of Aspar, an "affectator tyrannidis," a "usurper" (1291).394 In 15.3 we see in Paul the very negative portrayal of Ricimer which we do not see in the other consularia, but which, as I noted above, we do see in Cassiodorus. Of the brief civil war between Ricimer and Anthemius at Rome, Paul says, "deinde barbarica perfidia foedus Ricimer inrumpens - erat Gothus prosapia - cum manu mox valida urbem contendit atque apud Anicionis pontem castra composuit. divisa itaque Roma est et quidam favebant Anthemio, quidam vero Ricimeris perfidiam sequebantur" / "then, through his barbarian perfidy - he was a Goth by race - Ricimer, breaking his agreements, hastened to the city with an armed band and pitched camp at the pons Anicionis.395 Therefore Rome was divided and some sided with Anthemius, but others followed the perfidy of Ricimer." Cassiodorus, as we noted, had already recorded Ricimer's involvement in the death of Severus, not suggested by anyone else, and at this point in his work he disparages Ricimer as well, saying that Anthemius was killed "contra reverentiam principis et ius adfinitatis cum gravi clade civitatis" / "contrary to the reverence due to an emperor and the obligations of their relationship by marriage which resulted in serious damage to the city" (1293). Paul says nothing about Ricimer's marriage to Anthemius' daughter, but, like Cassiodorus, notes the damage to the people of Rome because of the conflict (15.5). After Anthemius' death, Paul says of Ricimer that "non diutius de perfidia laetatus est Ricimer. nam post mensem tertium excruciatus languoribus et ipse interiit" / "Ricimer

394 See above, p. 274. 395 The bridge is otherwise unknown. See MacGeorge 2003, 254.

did not rejoice long because of his perfidy, since after the third month, tormented by weakness, he, too, died" (15.5), a remark very similar to Cassiodorus' comment: "non diutius peracto scelere gloriatus post XL dies defunctus est" "he did not glory for long after the commission of his crime, but died forty days later." The time between the Anthemius' death and Ricimer's given by the two authors is different, but the verbal similarities between them are unmistakeable.396 Paul relates the accession of Glycerius (whom he names Licerius), which he attributes to Gundobad (whom he names Gundibarus): "post huius funus Licerius domesticus a Gundibaro patricio, totius etiam voluntate exercitus, apud Ravennam imperator efficitur" "After his [Olybrius'] death, Licerius, his bodyguard, was made emperor at Ravenna by the patrician Gundibarus, also with the agreement of the whole army" (15.5). Cassiodorus is the only other Latin author to attribute Glycerius' accession to Gundobad, though he only says that Glycerius took power "Gundibado hortante" "at Gundobad's urging" (1295).397 At this point the similarities between Cassiodorus and Paul begin to break down. Whereas from the beginning of book fifteen parallels appear in the same order as they appear in Cassiodorus,398 the events both authors list for the year 474, the death of Leo and the coup of Nepos, are reversed in Paul, with Nepos' coup coming before Leo's death. Furthermore, he clearly places the accession of Augustulus in the same year as the death
396 The FVpr and the Paschale Campanum both give precise dates for the two deaths: Anthemius was killed on 11 July 472, and Ricimer died either on 18 or 19 August, the former date given by FVpr, the latter by the Paschale Campanum. Cassiodorus thus agrees perfectly with the Paschale Campanum, and Paul is wrong, but a mistaken reading of "XC dies" for "XL dies" is easy to imagine. 397 But see also John of Antioch fr. 209,2 = Priscus Exc. de Ins. 93 398 Apart from the note on Leo making his grandson Caesar, which Paul clearly says happened later. See above, p. 297.

of Leo: "ipso denique anno Augustulus apud Italiam adversus Nepotem cum exercitu veniens effugato eo imperii regimen invasit" / "then, in that year, Augustulus came with his army against Nepos in Italy and when he had put him to flight, he siezed control of the imperial power" (15.7). Cassiodorus, on the other hand, is very clear (and correct) that the driving force behind Nepos' deposition was Augustulus' father, Orestes (1301). The dates for and the order of events provided by Paul, though not dated by consuls, match (apart from one) with those in Cassiodorus. Paul places the defeat of Beorgor in the third year of Leo's reign (15.1), as does Cassiodorus (1278). Both give Severus a reign of four years (15.1 and 1280). Both say that Olybrius' reigned for seven months (15.5 and 1293).3" The single discrepancy in chronology between the two authors in book fifteen of the Historia Romana is the date of Arvandus' trial and exile, which Paul puts "sequenti anno'V'in the following year" after the death of Severus and the acclamation of Anthemius. Cassiodorus, correctly, has a year in between the two

After the accession of Glycerius in 472 there are no clear links between the sources of Cassiodorus and Paul, and several clear indications that they were not using the same material. Paul says that Augustulus came into Italy and put Nepos to flight in
399 Marcellinus (s.a. 472) gives seven months, too. Jordanes {Get. 239) gives eight months, while FVpr and the Paschale Campanum both give the date of his death (different in each case), but not the date of his accession. There is also some confusion in the sources over the date of Olybrius' accession. Cassiodorus, Paul and the FVpr all clearly indicate that Olybrius' elevation preceded Anthemius' murder; Marcellinus, Jordanes and the Paschale Campanum all put Olybrius' elevation incorrectly after Anthemius' death. 400 Paul, unlike so many of the other witnesses to the consularia tradition, does not have the death of Marcellinus in this year. It is possible that the year had fallen out of his source, or, not having any context for Marcellinus, left him out and omitted the year by mistake. In fact, the number of years Paul counts by AUC dating from the accession of Leo, 1211, to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, 1229 (assuming the manuscript of 1209 is a mistake, as it must be: Droysen's ms H corrects 1209 to 1229 in a second hand, p. 211) is one year short of what it should be, 18 instead of 19 years, it is not impossible that this year had fallen out of his source.

the year of Leo's death, but, as I noted above, Cassiodorus has the correct version that Orestes was the real actor. Paul is, however, still using a consular list since he clearly dates his events year by year at this point. But after the deposition of Augustulus, Paul backtracks and gives the history of Odovacar's rise to power, which he takes from Epiphanius' Vita Severini, and skillfully weaves Odovacar's conquest of Italy into the narrative where he knows it must go. But he still seems to have some precise dates to hand, though it is no longer clear that they came from consularia: Paul says that Augustulus reigned "vix undecim mensibus" / "scarcely eleven months," and in the same paragraph says that Odovacar ruled for fourteen years "nullo inquietante" "with no one to bother him." Furthermore, Paul has put here a kind of supputatio, with dates according to three different systems: ab urbe condita, from the accession of Julius Caesar, and ab incarnatione. Although Jordanes, Paul's main source, gives a similar supputatio at the same place in his narrative, which he took from Marcellinus, the supputatio in Paul is not from any known source. The presence of a supputatio in this place at least suggests that he had a carefully dated document to hand. Certainly after this point there are no clear connections with Cassiodorus and no more indications that Paul was using consularia for his dates or his historical events.401
401 In fact, Paul's sources for his narrative from 476 to 493 can be almost completely teased out and identified. He used Epiphanius' Vita Severini for Odovacar's invasion, then uses Jordanes almost exclusively to detail the rise of the Ostrogoths and Theoderic. Theoderic's march into Italy gives few details not in Jordanes which must be from somewhere else: the defeat of Trapstila, king of the Gepids, and Busan, the king of the Bulgars (15.15), as well as the detail that he had left for Italy from Misia. Large sections of Paul's narrative of Theoderic's invasion of Italy are not from a known source, and he has several details which no one else has, including Theoderic's occupation of Verona, Odovacar's journey to Rome and the refusal of its inhabitants to let him in, Odovacar's fortification of Ravenna against Theoderic, and Theoderic's stop in Milan, where a great multitude of soldiers and people came to him (15.16). Paul takes a great deal of information also from Ennodius' Vita Epiphanii, and possible also from his panegyric of Theoderic, though this is harder to ascertain. The Vita Epiphanii, the panegyric and Eugippius' Vita Severini are all noted by Droysen in his edition of Paul as sources. The single possible point of connection between Paul and Cassiodorus is Paul's record of

303

Somewhere between the victory of Odovacar in 476 and the accession of Anastasius in 491, Paul's consularia source either ended or, perhaps more likely, is different from Cassiodorus'. Paul says that Odovacar reigned for fourteen years (15.10), which should mean 476 to 489 inclusive.402 Cassiodorus, however, whose dating is correct, has only thirteen years between Odovacar's coup and Theoderic's entry into Italy in 489.403 Paul, however, as I noted above, had placed Nepos' accession in the same year as the death of Leo, in 474 instead of 475. His count to 489, then, would be fourteen years instead of the correct thirteen. Holder-Egger believed that Paul had used Cassiodorus' Chronica and that he, like Cassiodorus, had supplemented his source with information about Rome.404 But Paul has information that Cassiodorus does not, and the suggestion that they both used something very similar is a tidier solution to explain their similarities. To sum up, then, a comparison of Cassiodorus' material with that of Paul the Deacon suggests that Cassiodorus made use of an extension of an Italian consularia which ran at least from 452 (the destruction of Aquileia) through to the death of Odovacar. The document contained eastern material, as the note on Aspar shows. Paul made use of a close relative of the document which Cassiodorus used. However, Paul's
the donation of 120,000 modii of wheat every year to the people of Rome (15.18), which Cassiodorus (1339) and the AV(67) report as well. Paul's note uses very similar language to the AV, but the details of how much the annona was and who received it are different in each author, so a common source seems unlikely here. 402 Paul or his source could, of course, have been counting inclusively, but there is considerable disagreement among our sources about the date of Theoderic's arrival in Italy. See above, pp. 288ff.. 403 Both Jordanes and the Anonymus Valesianus (which may stand in some relation to Paul at this point) say that Odovacar reigned for thirteen years. Paul goes against his major sources for a reason here, and it may be that he counted the years between the fall of Augustulus and the entry of Theoderic into Italy incorrectly as fourteen years because he felt he had a more reliable source, that is, a consular list. He may simply have found the few events of Odovacar's reign recorded there not worthy of note. 404 Holder-Egger 1876, p. 301.

304 lack of detail on the reign of Odovacar and his differences in chronology with Cassiodorus' material from that point on suggests either that the closely related source which Paul used ran out around 476, with the deposition of Augustulus, or he departed from that source and turned elsewhere for better information about Theoderic's arrival in Italy and his subsequent reign. The agreement on the length of Maximus' reign between Cassiodorus and Paul, as opposed to Prosper's note, which I discussed above, points to the possibility that Cassiodorus' version of the consularia began before Prosper's ended. It is, then, as I suggested at the end of the section on Prosper, certainly one of the sources, if not the only source, for the extra material in Cassiodorus' work which does not come from Prosper between 379 and 455. The lengthy comparison above of almost all the passages from Cassiodorus between 452 and 493 demonstrates the interwoven nature of the documents which depend on the Consularia Italica. It must be underscored again that the Consularia Italica is not a single document, but a large tree of similar documents, all stemming from a single source from the fourth century. Not a literary document and not attributable to any specific author, as it spread it was added to and brought up to date in a great variety of ways by many different people. Connections between specific documents are difficult to nail down, but the overall picture is of a single, if not coherent tradition. We could imagine a bookseller in 484 who already has a copy of the consularia which he has himself brought up to date. He acquires, over the next three years, four other versions with different enddates, and brings them all up to date using the single version he has. He then sells all

305 three documents, and they make their way to different households or booksellers, and are then copied, corrected, and extended in turn by different hands. The consularia are not histories, but rather documents which give the raw material for history and, perhaps more importantly for individuals, keep track of the passage of time.

The Years between 493 and 500 After the death of Odovacar, there follows a period of six years without historical events until 500 CE. Between 500 and 519 there are eight historical notes in the Chronica, opposite the years 500, 502, 504, 508, 514, 515, 518 and 519. Since these are all years which cover events in Cassiodorus' own lifetime, and presumably his memory since he was so close to the major players, Quellenforschung yields unsatisfactory results, particularly in the years after 502, where there are no direct verbal links between Cassiodorus and anyone else. Moreover, these are years in which his attention necessarily turned from a simple recounting of events drawn from historical sources to explicit praise of the addressee and his family. Still, a few things can be noted. In 500 CE, a long note records Theoderic's visit to Rome: "dn rex Theodericus Romam cunctorum votis expetitus advenit et senatum suum mira affabilitate tractans Romanae plebi donavit annonas. atque admirandis moeniis deputata per singulos annos maxima pecuniae quantitate subvenit. sub cuius felici imperio plurimae renovantur urbes, munitissima castella conduntur. consurgunt admiranda palatia magnisque eius operibus antiqua miracula superantur" / "our master the king Theoderic was requested by the prayers of all and came. He treated his senate with marvellous courtesy and gave

306 distributions of food to the Roman people. He gave aid to admirable buildings by alloting a great quantity of money every year to them. And under his happy reign many cities were renewed and heavily fortified castles were built. Admirable palaces arose and the ancient marvels were surpassed by his great works" (1339). The passage can be divided into two parts, the first deals specifically with the events of Theoderic's visit to Rome, the latter part with his reign. The AV exhibits a similar order in its presentation of the material: the visit to Rome followed shortly by a description of Theoderic's building in Italy. The AVis more detailed than Cassiodorus: "Post facta pace in urbe ecclesiae ambulavit rex Theodericus Romam, et occurrit Beato Petro devotissimus ac si catholicus. Cui papa Symmachus et cunctus senatus vel populus Romanus cum omni gaudio extra urbem occurrentes. Deinde veniens ingressus urbem, venit ad senatum, et ad Palmam populo allocutus, se omnia, deo iuvante, quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt inviolabiliter servaturum promittit. Per tricennalem triumphans populo ingressus palatium, exhibens Romanis ludos circensium. Donavit populo Romano et pauperibus annonas singulis annis, centum viginti milia modios, et ad restaurationem palatii, seu ad recuperationem moeniae civitatis singulis annis libras ducentas de area vinaria dari praecepit" / "After the peace of the church had been made in the city, Theoderic went to Rome and he visited Saint Peter very devotedly, as if he were a Catholic. And Pope Symmachus and the whole senate and Roman people met him outside the city with great joy. Then he entered the city and came to the senate; he addressed the people "ad Palmam" and promised that he, with God's help, would firmly preserve what the Roman emperors had ordained in the past.

Triumphing on his tricennalia before the people he entered the palace and displayed circus games for the Romans. He gave to the Roman people and to the poor a subsidy every year of one hundred and twenty thousand modii and he ordered that two hundred pounds be given each year from the area vinaria for the restoration of the palace and the rebuilding of the city wall" (65-67). Following the discussion of Theoderic's stay in Rome, the AV remarks on Theoderic's building programme, mentioning construction of a palace (presumably at Rome), a palace, baths, an aqueduct and walls at Verona, and the restoration of the aquaeduct at Ravenna, which will be treated below. Thus, the two passages from Cassiodorus and the AVnot only record similar details, but also in the same order, moving from the specifics of the visit to Rome, to the more general discussion of Theoderic's building programme. Paul the Deacon, in two passages, seems to echo what Cassiodorus says for this year. Immediately after the death of Odovacar, Paul writes that Theoderic "nee multo post Romam profectus a Romanis magno gaudio susceptus est, quibus ille singulis tritici ad subsidium annis centum viginti milia modiorum concessit" / "and not long after he went to Rome and was received with great joy by the Romans, to whom he gave twentythousand modii of grain every year as a subsidy" (15.18). But Theoderic's visit to Rome took place six years after the death of Odovacar, and so can scarcely be described as "not long after." In book sixteen Paul notes that "Theodericus vero dum per idem tempus pacifice apud Italiam regnaret per singula quaeque celebriora loca regia sibi habitacula construxit" / "And Theoderic, while he reigned in Italy peacefully through the same period, built royal residences for himself in every famous place" (16.4). Paul separates

his description of the visit to Rome from his comment on Theoderic's building in the same way as the two are separated in Cassiodorus' note. There are no doubt similarities of detail in the three narratives. All three note Theoderic's arrival in Rome, the joy of the people, and the subsidies which the king bestowed on the people. Cassiodorus and the AVboth mention money reserved for restoration of structures, and Paul and the AVhoih a specific amount of grain to be given each year to the people, though they differ in amount. Both Cassiodorus and the A V record the restoration of the aqueduct at Ravenna. Cassiodorus dates the project to 502, saying, "dn rex Theodericus aquam Ravennam perduxit, cuius formam sumptu proprio instauravit quae longis ante fuerat ad solum reducta temporibus" / "our master the king Theoderic completed the aqueduct to Ravenna, whose structure, which had for a long time been reduced to ground level, he restored at his own expense" (1342). The A Vnotes that "aquae ductum Ravennae restauravit, quern princeps Traianus fecerat, et post multa tempora aquam introduxit" / "he restored the aqueduct at Ravenna, which the emperor Trajan had built, and he brought in water after a long time" (70). Both documents mention that the aqueduct had not been functioning for a long time. Again, similarity of detail, if not so much of language, might suggest a connection, but only a distant one. Over the last six years Massimiliano Vitiello has written extensively on Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500.405 In his 2006 article in Chiron he carefully outlined out stylistic similarities and connections of language and detail among Cassiodorus, Paul the Deacon and the AV, concluding at the end that the Gothic History was behind the
405 Vitiello 2004, 2005, and 2006.

narratives of both the Chronica and the AV. Vitiello's suggestion requires that Cassiodorus reworked his material from the Chronica and added a great deal of detail, since the Gothic History almost certainly post-dates the Chronica by at least six years.406 The fact that the material does not appear in Jordanes is an impediment to his hypothesis, but not necessarily a serious one. It is also possible that a panegyric by Cassiodorus or something like it was the source for the AV, perhaps removed by one or two stages from both Cassiodorus and Paul. One way or another, Vitiello's analysis makes Cassiodorus himself the source for the information on Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500. But given that the similarities - however tenuous - among Cassiodorus, the AV and Paul the Deacon actually begin earlier than 500, and extend much farther back in the case of Paul, and at least to the invasion of Italy by Theoderic in the case of the AV, it seems slightly more likely that they shared a source or material that came to each by slightly different paths - distantly related, perhaps, but not the same. The remaining few historical entries are part of Cassiodorus' panegyrical treatment of the reign of Theoderic in Italy, and will be dealt with in the following chapter.

406 Barnish 1984.

Chapter 5: Panegyric and Chronology

In the previous four chapters I have tried to set forth the underpinnings of the Chronica, and my approach has been traditional, making use of old techniques of Quellenforschung and philology to dissect Cassiodorus' work and to construct a picture of how he went about putting everything together. I have shown how the author constructed a chronological framework by carefully preparing a consular list, especially from the fifth and sixth centuries, and placed historical notes opposite the consular years as best he could. One of the reasons Cassiodorus' work yields so well to research into its author's method is because it is such a derivative work. We have many of his sources and we have the "siblings" of the sources we lack, such as P. Oxy. 668 and the many representatives of the consularia tradition. Unfortunately, this means that Cassiodorus' work has very little direct historical value. There are only a very few notes which he has which are not attested in other authors or sources. The only material which Cassiodorus offers us which others do not are the explicit statement that Severus was poisoned by Ricimer (1280); the name of the villa, Brontodas, at which Anthemius was made emperor in 467 (1283); the Vandal request for peace in 491 (1327); that the battle between Theoderic and Odovacar in Pineta in 491 took place near the "pons Candidiani" (1326); that the aqueduct in Ravenna was restored by Theoderic in 502 (1342); that the marriage of Eutharic and Amalasuintha took place in 515 (1358); and the details of the celebrations in Rome in honour of Eutharic's consulship (1364). In all, seven notes. Clearly we need to look elsewhere for some greater value in this document.

311 The Chronica is commonly regarded as a piece of panegyrical propaganda written by a Roman supporter of the new Ostrogothic regime.407 And there is no doubt, as I noted above, that in some places Cassiodorus appears to have altered his sources either to avoid giving offense to the Arian Goths (such as at 1134), or to increase the prestige of Gothic military prowess (such as at 1172). But these views take into account only the last few hundred years of a very long chronicle. The last few historical entries in the Chronica are openly panegyrical, both of Theoderic and the addressee, Eutharic Cilliga. We know surprisingly little about Eutharic - only what we are told about him by Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the second part of the Anonymus Valesianus. Jordanes tells us that Theoderic found Eutharic in Spain and that he was descended from the same stock, the Amali, as Theoderic himself, and that he brought him to Italy as a husband for his daughter, Amalasuintha.408 He describes him as "iuvenili aetate prudentia et virtute corporisque integritate pollentem" / "of youthful age, strong in wisdom and courage and physical health." He does not give us a date for his death. The Anonymus Valesianus adds colour to this bland man, who is described as "nimis asper fuit et contra fidem catholicam inimicus" / "extremely harsh and an enemy to the Catholic faith."409 We do not know how old he was when he married Amalasuintha, but Cassiodorus describes him as "paene...aequaevus" with the emperor Justin, when he was made Justin's son-at-arms after his consulship.410 Justin, however, was at least sixtyfive at this time, which means that Eutharic cannot have been a young man. He was
407 408 409 410 O'Donnell 1979, 42 and Amory 1997, 66-68 provide the basics. Jordanes Getica 79, 250, 298. AVM. Variae%.\3.

312 certainly dead by the time Theoderic died in 526, though we cannot be sure exactly when he died.411 Eutharic was not destined to play any great role in Theoderic's Italy nor had he done anything noted by any of our sources before his marriage to Amalasuintha in 515. This lack of activity does not make him an easy topic for a panegyrist, but Cassiodorus does his best. Apart from the preface, the first place the reader meets Eutharic is not, as might be expected, near the very end, but rather, very close to the beginning of Roman history. I noted in chapter three, as others have done, that Cassiodorus, in making a transition from the time-line of the Assyrian kings to the Latin kings in Italy, replaces Tautanes' reign with Latinus' reign, and ascribes Latinus the same number of years as Tautanes. Cassiodorus' peculiar switch at this point asserts a length of reign for Latinus which cannot be attributed to any surviving source. I propose that Cassiodorus, in bringing Latinus into his work so crudely, did so with an eye to comparing Latinus with Theoderic, and, more important, to comparing Aeneas to Eutharic. The whole passage is as follows: "Latinus reg. ann. XXXII, a quo Latini sunt appellati. huius imperii anno XXV Troia capta est. ad quern Aeneas profugus venit factusque gener eius ei successit in regnum'V'Latinus, after whom the Latins are named, ruled for thirty-two years. In the twenty-fifth year of his reign Troy was captured. Aeneas came to him as a fugitive, became his son-in-law and succeeded him in the kingship." Almost the whole passage, the length of Latinus' reign, the note on the origin of the Latin name, and the sentence about the arrival of Aeneas, with its Vergilian echo "profugus,"

411 Getica 304, Procopius BG 1.2.2, BV 1.14.6. See also Schmidt 1934, 353, who suggests a date around 522, and Moorhead 1992, 213.

313 was written by Cassiodorus. It is not merely a reworking of Jerome. Caution is required. But it is tempting to read the arrival of Aeneas in Italy and his marriage to Lavinia, the daughter of the king, as a parallel to Eutharic, who also came to Italy and married the daughter of the king. As I discussed above, we know very little about Eutharic, and there certainly is no evidence that he came to Italy "(fato) profugus." It would be easy and irresponsible to push the interpretation of this parallel between Aeneas and Eutharic too far, but it certainly seems possible that Cassiodorus is suggesting at this point that Eutharic's marriage with Amalasuintha presaged a great empire to come, as did Aeneas' marriage to Lavinia.412 But we need to wait until the very end of the work before we meet Eutharic again. The Chronica's last four entries are all noteworthy because they are out of the ordinary. They close out the work as a panegyric to Eutharic by setting him into the political landscape. The language and the syntax of these entries is different from the sparse and simple phrasing of the earlier consularia material. Cassiodorus uses the vocabulary of panegyric and more complicated sentence structure. The first entry, that of 514, is the only place in the work where Cassiodorus himself puts in an appearance. In the year of his own consulship he notes the restoration of unity to the church at Rome following the Laurentian schism which I discussed above.413 Cassiodorus does not say that Symmachus died that year, but comes close to attributing the reconciliation to his addressee's influence: "me etiam consule in vestrorum
412 Heather 1989 notes that Cassiodorus, in his Gothic History, likely constructed a list of seventeen ancient Gothic kings to match the list of seventeen Roman kings between Aeneas and Romulus. He also draws attention to Cassiodorus' insertion of a forty-year interregnum to fill in a blank space in his chronology, a tactic which he also seems to have employed at Chronica 154. See above, p. 116ff.. 413 See above, p. 174ff.

laude temporum adunato clero ut populo Romanae ecclesiae rednt optata concordia" / "during my consulship, in the praise of your times, the clergy and people were united and the hoped-for unity returned to the Roman church" (1356). We do not know exactly when Eutharic Cilliga came from Spain to Ravenna, but Jordanes says that he was brought specifically to marry Amalasuintha,414 which he did in 515 (1358). The term "vestra tempora" / "your times" cannot refer to anyone but Eutharic. Perhaps he arrived in Italy in 514, and this is Cassiodorus' way of bringing him into the narrative. The syntax and words of this entry mark it as different from the earlier entries in the Chronica. The subject "optata concordia" / "hoped-for unity" stands at the end of the sentence. This is the first time the first and second person are used in the actual body of the Chronica. The third to last entry, for 515, notes the marriage of Eutharic to Amalasuintha: "Dominus noster rex Theodericus filiam suam domnam Amalasuintam gloriosi viri domini nostri Eutharici matrimonio deo auspice copulavit" / "Our Lord King Theoderic joined his own daughter, Lady Amalasuintha, in marriage to the glorious man, Our Lord Eutharic, with God's favour" (1358). Though Jordanes mentions the marriage,415 Cassiodorus is the only source to give us a date. Again, the language is that of panegyric. The adjective he uses to describe Eutharic, "gloriosi," is unparalleled in the rest of the work and the phrase "deo auspice," fairly common in the Variae, is not used anywhere else in the Chronica?16 The second to last entry, for 518, notes Eutharic's designation as consul for the
414 Get. 298. 415 Get. 298. 416 Variae 4.49.1, 8.10.11, 8.18.11, 8.19.7, 9.9.1, 9.22.4, 9.25.12, 10.3.2. This last use of the phrase is in a letter of Amalasuintha to the senate informing them of her marriage to Theodahad: "Elegimus deo auspice consortem regni nostri felicissimum Theodahadum" / "I have chosen, with God's favour, the most fortunate Theodahad as a colleague of my reign."

following year: "Dominus noster Euthancus Cillica mirabili gratia senatus et plebis ad edendum exceptus est feliciter consulatum" / "Our Lord Eutharic Cillica was happily received by the wonderful thanks of the senate and people to fill the office of consul." The note introduces the senate and the people of Rome as part of the world Cassiodorus wishes to draw attention to. The interlocking word order of the sentence is typical of Cassiodorus' prose, but not of the simple language of consularia, either Cassiodorus' or others. The final note stresses the lavish gifts and games given to the Romans by Eutharic, and their love for him. It is not the sort of note we are accustomed to from Cassiodorus' otherwise fairly sober work. Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis, stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. dignitates cessit in curiam, muneribus amphiteatralibus diversi generis feras quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est ut solus potuerit superare quern Romae celebraverat consulatum. (1364) In this year Rome saw many marvels in individual exhibitions, even Symmachus, the legate from the East, was amazed at the riches granted to Goths and Romans. He [Eutharic] gave honours to the senate. In shows in the amphitheatres he displayed wild beasts of various sorts which the present age marvelled at for their novelty. And for his spectacles, Africa in its devotion sent over the choicest of delights as well. And so, everywhere was filled with his high praise, and he was so firmly fixed in such a great love of the Roman citizens that when he returned to the sight of his glorious father at Ravenna, they still desired his presence. And there, with the exhibitions repeated, he showered such great gifts on Goths and Romans that he alone was able to surpass the consulship which he had celebrated at Rome. There is clearly meant to be some sort of comparison here between the description

of Theoderic's visit to Rome in 500 (1339) and the celebrations of Euthanc's consulship. Both entries are very long, both relate to celebratory events at Rome. But since Eutharic had not actually done anything particularly worthy of praise, the comparison comes off a little flat. Still, the language here is clearly that of panegyric and not of plain historical lemmata, and the note is very different in its presentation than that which detailed Theoderic's visit to Rome. In that passage, Cassiodorus gives a simple list of all the things the king had done on his visit and the things he did for the city. Here, we see only the lavish games put on by the new consul and the praise and love showered on him by his adoring people. The amazement of the eastern legate, Symmachus, is singled out for comment by Cassiodorus and introduces another player in this small panegyric: the eastern empire. Conspicuously lacking in these final notes is the emperor Justin himself. We have noted that Cassiodorus seems not to have known when Anastasius died and when Justin became emperor,417 but he did know that Justin was Eutharic's colleague in the consulship and had adopted Eutharic as his son-at-arms.418 It seems best to explain this omission with reference to the audience for the Chronica, which is resolutely Italian. Cassiodorus made efforts to include the eastern consuls wherever he could in his work, and his secondary time-line, after the consular list, follows the eastern emperors, but there is very little eastern information in the Chronica. By this time the name of the eastern consul was almost never used in the western empire and Justin's role in making Eutharic consul could be easily swept under the carpet in favour of other, more immediately important

417 See above, p. 10. 418 Variae, 8.1.3. See also Moorhead 1992, 200-202.

players. The reference to the eastern envoy Symmachus underlines the height to which the Ostrogothic dynasty had risen, even in comparison with Constantinople. Symmachus serves in this context merely as the foil to the greatness of the addressee, a familiar ploy in panegyric. The figure of Theoderic, however, looms large over all of these events, to the point that it is difficult not to see the work as a panegyric of Theoderic rather than Eutharic. From 489 on he is the major character in almost every note in the Chronica, with his name occurring eight times, six times in the nominative case. The few fragments of the panegyric of Eutharic delivered by Cassiodorus in January of 519 reflect the same state of affairs. The speech is clearly addressed to Eutharic and Theoderic, both of whom are present.419 But the glory of achievement goes to Theoderic, who is addressed as "infatigabilis triumphator" (466,14) and who is given credit for restoring Gaul to the empire (466,17ff), and then later on for the general happiness of the age (467,15-20). The vocative "regum prudentissime" must also refer to Theoderic (471,11) before the fragment breaks off. In the small piece of the panegyric which we have, Theoderic gets the lion's share of the praise. Again, this is not surprising, since Eutharic was in the unenviable position of being praised before he had done anything more interesting than marry the king's daughter and then be named consul. The last few entries in Chronica are thus not merely a work in praise of Eutharic, but of the household of Theoderic. These last notes, then, are meant to act as the panegyrical climax to the Chronica,
419 "Principes viri" 466, 2. Later on in the speech (470,10-11) Cassiodorus addresses Eutharic, asking him to advise Theoderic well: "sed tu, domine, prudentissimo principi maiestatis tuae praesta consilia" / "but you, lord, give the counsel of your majesty to our most sensible ruler." A few lines later (470,18) he addresses Theoderic: "clementissime regum." References are to Traube by page number and line number.

318 and they fit seamlessly into the rest of the work. Their subject matter, if not their language, is in line with the information Cassiodorus had chosen for his historical lemmata in the earlier years: buildings (1339, 1342), victories with expansion of territory (1344 and 1349), important events at Rome (1356, 13,62, 1364), and an event in the royal house (1358). The continuity of, not just imperial activity, but Roman activity, is displayed from the beginning of the Chronica down through to Eutharic's consulship. In addition to showing how the actions of Theoderic's household were completely in keeping with the actions of earlier emperors, Cassiodorus is implicitly identifying Theoderic as an emperor, something which, as has been noted elsewhere, we can see in the larger picture both of Cassiodorus' Variae and in the whole tenor of Theoderic's
420

reign. But the paucity of historical notes for Theoderic's reign seems a little strange. We might expect (as we see with Prosper's chronicle and the regular consularia) that the years closest to the author's own day would be full of events, particularly since they appear to be designed to praise the ruling household. In the whole period from 494 to 519, there are historical notes for only seven years. Two of them (500 and 519) are long for Cassiodorus to be sure, but for a chronicle whose addressee was the heir apparent to the Gothic throne in Italy, we might have expected more information about the deeds of Theoderic. It is not possible that Cassiodorus simply had no events he could accurately date. It might be the case that, in deference to Eutharic's comparative lack of achievement, Cassiodorus felt he had to show some restraint in outlining the successes of Theoderic. But Cassiodorus' sense of proportion may also have played a role. He aimed for
420 See Moorhead 1992, 44-51 and Amory 1997, 66-67.

319 balance in his presentation: too much information at the end would seem uneven compared with what had gone before. Even for Trajan's reign, Cassiodorus had only six events, and for Hadrian's, eleven. To have twelve for Theoderic (beginning with 489) is just about right compared with his predecessors. This attention to balance especially in the imperial period could be an attempt by Cassiodorus to stress the continuity of Roman history, and precisely to avoid the bunching up of events in the contemporary period. He had said, after all, in his preface that he had written the work so that Eutharic "blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem" / "might run through the very long age of the world in a pleasing abridgement" (1). The whole work, being largely a consular list, stresses the movement of the chronology, year-by-year, until it arrives at Eutharic's year. Cassiodorus does indeed praise the Ostrogothic masters and presents them as suitable replacements for Roman emperors, and, as I noted above, he altered historical notes from Prosper, but these specific changes are few in the much larger scope of the Chronica, and to make too much of them results in ignoring most of the work before the late fourth century. It seems better to look for the value of Cassiodorus' work by revisiting his preface, where he outlines his programme. Sapientia principali qua semper magna revolvitis in ordinem me consules digerere censuistis ut qui annum ornaveratis glorioso nomine redderetis fastis veritatis pristine dignitatem. Parui libens praeceptis et librariorum varietate detersa operi fidem historicae auctoritatis inpressi. quatenus vester animus per inlustres delectatus eventus blando compendio longissimam mundi percurrat aetatem. (1) In your princely wisdom, through which you always think over great matters, you directed me to set the consuls in order so that you, who had adorned the year with your glorious name, might restore to the fasti the

dignity of their ancient truth. I have willingly obeyed your orders and, with the mistakes of the booksellers cleansed away, I have stamped upon the work the trustworthiness of historical authority so that your mind, delighted by famous events, may run through the very long age of the world in a pleasant abridgement. He lays heavy emphasis first on the fasti, referring to them three times, first when he recalls Eutharic's order that he "set the consuls in order," second when he reminds Eutharic that his name adorns the year and third when he says that Eutharic is restoring "the dignity of ancient truth" to the fasti. He goes on to speak of two things that he has done: he has cleaned up the mistakes of the copyists and he has stamped the work with the "trustworthiness of historical authority." His concerns are clear: not just to draw up an accurate and complete consular list, but to do so through reference to reputable sources. None of the consularia which have survived from this period can be attributed to an author, apart from Cassiodorus'. The consularia are a sub-literary genre and their very nature means that they may be extended by whoever owns the particular document. But we can see by comparing the documents that their consular lists almost never provide both consuls from west and east, particularly in the fifth and sixth centuries. For Cassiodorus, then, the value of his work lay in the authority behind it: Jerome, Livy, Victorius, and himself. The historical notes were not as important. They, too, make it into Cassiodorus' preface, but almost as an afterthought. The purpose clause introduced by "quatenus" is only loosely tied to the main clause: there is no compelling reason why Eutharic should be more entertained by reading accurately dated historical events than inaccurately dated ones. Still, Cassiodorus clearly took care with his historical notes. We saw in the

comparison between Cassiodorus and Prosper's notes that he often deliberately shortened and simplified his sources' notes. Tempting as it is to read this simplification as the "dumbing-down" of the material for the illiterate Gothic addressee, it seems clear that Cassiodorus was attempting to mimic a particular style in his work: the consularia-style, for lack of a better term. He passed over almost all the ecclesiastical material and trimmed a great many longer notes to make his work conform to the consularia style: brief, paratactic and simple. His language is of slightly higher quality than that of the Fasti Vindobonenses priores, for instance, but only marginally. And this from one of the most skilled Latin stylists of late antiquity. But the final clause, with its interlocking word-order and its deliberate juxtaposition of "compendio" with "longissimam" goes some way to pointing at a larger aim Cassiodorus may have had: to get a grip on the long passage of time, record it and present his work to a larger audience than just the new consul. The Chronica is the first of Cassiodorus' public works (if we do not count the letters from the Variae which were written while he was quaestor, but published in 538), and it falls into place with much of his written output for the rest of his life, work which was characterised by practical epitomization and distillation, and the organization of more complicated material to make it available to the student. The Chronica is a work that serves at least those straightforward purposes: it is superficially a panegyric, but is at its heart a very simple historical document- a list of consuls, the only time-measuring system used from the beginning of the Republic to Cassiodorus' day - drawn together from at least four different sources and neatly laid out with three of those sources listed at

the end. Cassiodorus' reason for making sure the consular list was as complete as he could make it is a practical one: a consular list like his is a useful tool for history. Where he could, Cassiodorus added a second time-counting scheme, imperial reigns - another way of hammering home the simple chronology. But the days of numbering years by consul in either east or west were coming to a close. Cassiodorus' work was the last attempt we know of to set out a complete record of the consuls. His efforts with the consular list can be compared to his other scholarly and literary pursuits. The Variae, like the Chronica, served a double function, both to praise the Ostrogothic regime, but also as a practical guide to those writing letters in the imperial chancery: books six and seven are made up offormulae - template letters of appointment to various offices without actual addressees. In his Expositio Psalmorum Cassiodorus shows a practical desire to boil down Augustine's Ennarationes in Psalmos into a more manageable, teachable form.421 Reminiscent of his statement in the preface to the Chronica that Eutharic will be able to peruse the long history of the world in pleasant brevity, he says in his introduction to the Expositio that "mare ipsius quorumdam psalmorum fontibus profusum, divina misericordia largiente, in rivulos vadosos compendiosa brevitate deduxi: uno codice tarn diffusa complectens, quae ille in decadas quindecim mirabiliter explicavit" / "I drew his sea, flowing from the springs of the psalms themselves, into shallow streams, condensed and brief, embracing in one volume so copious an amount which he set out amazingly in one hundred and fifty chapters" (pref. 10-13). Furthermore, Cassiodorus added marginal symbols in the Expositio, as an aid to students, "singling out rhetorical figures, etymologies...necessary dogmas and
421 See O'Donnell 1979, 139-143.

(most common) idiomata, that is, uniquely scriptural figures of speech."

As in the

Chronica, he regards the epitomization of the larger work as being his contribution. Near the end of his life he wrote the Complexiones which were short summaries of the non-evangelical books of the New Testament, again presumably as an aid to the student. In his preface he once again speaks of making large works small, that his work "summas rerum in parvitate complectens, non cuncta verba discutiens, sed ad intentiones suas summatim dicta perducens" / "embracing the fullness of matters in the small, not discussing all the words, but drawing out the words briefly with a view to their purpose."423 Again, Cassiodorus regards the epitomization as a valuable and useful contribution to the study of scripture. Cassiodorus' Institutiones, possibly his most well-known work, served a pedagogical function as well, directing students to good commentaries on scripture and to other works by reputable authors. Cassiodorus' methods and ideas, which he outlines in the preface to the Institutiones, also find parallels in the Chronica. He writes that he has written introductory books "per quos...et scripturarum divinarum series et saecularium litterarum compendiosa notitia domini munere panderetur" / "through which both an unbroken line of the divine scriptures and an abridged knowledge of secular letters are made available through the Lord's gift."424 He goes on to say that in these books "non propriam doctrinam sed priscorum dicta commendo" / "I do not favour my own knowledge, but the words of ancient writers."425 Cassiodorus in this work was intent on providing for his readers in the first book recommended commentaries for all the books
422 423 424 425 O'Donnell 1979, 160. Complexiones (PL 70.1321), preface. Institutiones, preface, 1. Institutiones, preface, 1.

324 of the Bible and in the second a brief outline of secular topics. His aim was to cover all the basics completely and briefly. In this effort, he directed his readers not to his own knowledge, but to that of others. In the Chronica, too, he aimed at a complete coverage of the fasti inside world history, and he depended on authoritative texts for his work. All this would suggest that Cassiodorus regarded brevity and completeness as complementary virtues in a written work. There has been a tendency to regard chronicles and consularia not only as a sub-literary form of historical writing (which they are), but also as a sub-standard form of historical writing, suitable only for the simple or the ignorant. But, like it or not, the consular list was still the only way the Romans had of getting a grip on the chronology of their history. The fifteen-year indiction cycle, a tax cycle employed in the East and in places in Gaul and Spain as a chronological system, was practical for day-to-day business, but really only useful for measuring fifteen years into the past. For good historical understanding one needed at least a consular list and an emperor list, and Cassiodorus provided both. I have suggested above that Cassiodorus himself may have filled out the consular list after 519, since a full list up to 559 appears in both our manuscripts. The title at the top of the manuscripts, which is suitable for the end of Cassiodorus' career, but not the stage he was at in 519, at least indicates that the work was brought up to date at some later point for wider circulation. The very few historical notes about Theoderic at the end of the work points further to a desire in the author to mimic the consularia style, since the next person to continue it could do so seamlessly. Cassiodorus' Chronica is thus a document which looks forward, not so much to a glorious reign for Theoderic, but to a

325 historiographical future in which the consular names and the brief historical notes are the only real objects of praise.

Appendix 1: the Fasti Parisini

In 1892 Mommsen published the first critical edition of the Easter calendar of Victorius in the first of his three-volume Chronica Minora, part of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi series.426 Of the edition's many shortcomings, one of the most glaring is the inclusion of the consular names from 457 to 559. These are all the work of later, independent individuals and are unrelated to one another other except in so far as they record the same or similar information from year to year. Mommsen was aware of this, of course, but his presentation of the material is difficult to untangle and suffers from many errors. The continuations of Victorius from 457 to 559 need a separate edition each, since they are the work of different people. Forty-six years later, in 1938, Bruno Krusch published his own edition of Victorius. Krusch left out the consuls from 457 to 559, but his edition, though slightly better than Mommsen's, is hampered by being much more difficult to read and use.427 For their editions Mommsen and Krusch relied on five major manuscripts, named G, L, S, A and Q.428 Only mss G, L and S include the complete list of consuls from 29 to 457, as well as extensions of the consular list, with G going down to 542, L to 522 and S to 559, the end of Victorius' calendar. Manuscript A has the consuls only from 29 to 182
426 MG//yi4 volume 9, pp. 667-735. 427 For instance, Krusch included three columns of year designations, the numbering of Victorius' years in Roman numerals (which are not actually in Victorius' work), the CE dates in square brackets, and the AUC dates, both in Arabic numerals. But his apparatus uses Arabic numerals to refer to Victorius' years which are in Roman numerals. 428 G: Ms Gotha 75, fol. 70 ff.; L: Leiden, Seal. 28; S, which both Mommsen and Krusch believed lost, but which was identified by C.W. Jones as Oxford Bodl. 309 (Jones 1937). Mommsen and Krusch both relied on the readings of Petavius (De Doctrina Temporum, Paris, 1627) and Bucherius {Doctrina Temporum Commentarius in Victorium Aquitanum, Antwerp, 1634) who both used Sirmond's manuscript; A: Mailand, Ambrosiana H 150; Q: Par. Lat. 4859.

with a significant gap between 151 and 171. But the manuscript designated Q, a plain consular list from 379 to 558 with none of Victurius' tables of Easter dates does not belong to the tradition of Victorius at all. It is, in fact, just what it seems: a consular list maintained independently from ca. 399 to ca. 491. From some point after 491 the consular list is a copy of one of the continuations of Victorius. Both Mommsen and Krusch used Q because they erroneously believed it to be a badly copied version of Victorius' consular list. Mommsen could have avoided this mistake. In an 1876 Philologus article Georg Kaufmann suggested that the consuls in Q between 379 and 457 were not the work of Victorius.429 Kaufmann believed that the consular list of Q had been inserted into Victorius' Easter calendar, and then extracted again, and Mommsen cites him to that effect.430 In doing so, he either missed or rejected Kaufmann's correct assertion that the early consuls were not Victorius' and instead latched on to Kaufmann's incorrect suggestion that the consuls had been inserted into an Easter calendar that had no consuls. Parisinus Latinus 4859, the manuscript which contains this consular list, begins with a copy of Jerome's translation and continuation of Eusebius' Chronici Canones. After Jerome, there are three folios which contain an abstract of Jerome, counting the years from Adam to 378 CE, the sixth consulship of Valens and the second of Valentinian, which is the final year of Jerome's work. After a short list of the rulers of the Israelites from Moses to Sedechias, extracted from Sulpicius Severus, the consular list, which I call the Fasti Parisini, begins. It is not clear whether the epitome of Jerome is to be taken

429 Kaufmann, 1876. 430 Chronica Minora I, p. 675.

328 with the consular list, but that is the natural assumption, since the list appears to be a continuation of the epitome. Both the epitome of Jerome and the FP were written in two columns. The FP are demonstrably not Victorius' list from 399 to 457 and for this reason should not have been edited with Victorius as they were. The fact that the FP's consular list is similar to that in the manuscripts of Victorius should come as no surprise, since the fasti from 379 to the middle of the fifth century are well attested and the names of the consuls were for the most part efficiently promulgated in both parts of the empire. But of the 78 pairs of consuls between 379 and 457, nine in the FP's list (399, 400, 408, 410, 424, 440, 442, 451 and 453; see below) are clearly not taken from Victorius' nor from any other extant list. These nine years, and thus the whole period from 399 to 453, show a list not compiled at a later date, but maintained contemporaneously year by year as the information on the new consuls for each year became available. Once those nine years are taken into consideration, a number of further minor discrepancies between the FP and the manuscripts of Victorius can be included as further evidence that the two lists are unrelated. In 399, the FP list the single consul for the year in the west as "Theudoro vc"; the manuscripts of Victorius have "Mallio Theodoro vc" (G), which is correct, and "Mallio et Teodoro" (S, L). Every other western list uses both names, though sometimes with the "et" in between as though there were two different men. The FP are alone in using only the single name "Theudoro."431

431 The eastern consul for 399, Eutropius, was never recognized in the west, and suffered damnatio memoriae in the east after August. See CLRE, 333.

329 In 400, the FP has only "Stelicone vc," whereas the manuscripts of Victorius all read "Stil(l)ichone et Aureliano." In 400 contemporary inscriptions in the western empire as well as the contemporary records of Sulpicius Severus and the acts of the First Council of Toledo, in addition to other lists do not include the eastern consul, Aurelian, which suggests that the FP's consular list was a contemporary compilation, while Victorius, whose consuls were from Prosper, had over fifty years of hindsight and the opportunity to include the eastern consul's name. In 408 the FP reads "Basso vc et Philippo," whereas the manuscripts of Victorius read "Basso et Philippo." The use of the abbreviation "vc" is common in inscriptions (along with the plural counterpart "vvcc"), but is almost always used in manuscript fasti only after a single name, that is, when only one consul is given for the year. The fact that the abbreviation occurs here after Bassus' name indicates that the list originally had only Bassus' name, and that the name of the eastern consul was added only later.432 This again shows a contemporary, private, compilation of the list. The authors of CLRE assigned all the inscriptions with only the single consular name "Bassus" to 431, when another Bassus (presumably the son of the consul of 408) held the office.433 But the evidence of the FP that a contemporary initially listed only the western consul calls that decision into question and suggests that at least some of those inscriptions must belong to 408. In 410, the FP reads "Varone vc," the sole eastern consul, whereas the manuscripts of Victorius have, variously, "Varane vc et Tertullo" (G), "Varione et Tertulo vc" (L), and "Varane et Tertulo" (S). Manuscript G, which is the best witness to Victorius,
432 The reading of manuscript G of Victorius for 410, discussed below, is a good example of the same phenomenon. 433 CLRE, 351 and 395.

is the entry which originally stood in Victorius. The abbreviation "vc" stands after "Varane" because Victorius copied the entry from Prosper, who has "Varane vc consule." But Victorius himself discovered the name of the second consul for the year and updated the entry. Tertullus was the consular nominee of the puppet emperor Priscus Attalus, who was put on the throne by Alaric after his sack of Rome. Prosper notes on this year that "Roma a Gothis Alarico duce capta et ob hoc solus fuit Orientalium partium consul'VRome was captured by the Goths under their leader Alaric and because of this the only consul was from the east."434 The western inscriptions for this year show a postconsulate from the previous year, but still, the presence of Varanes' name alone in the FP suggests a contemporary listing even though it must have been added later in the year.435 For the next fourteen years, 411 to 423, there is general agreement in all our sources concerning the consuls for each year. In 424, however, the FP lists "Castino vc consl," whereas the manuscripts of Victorius have "Castino et Victore" (G, S) or "Constantino et Victore" (L). John had usurped the throne with the aid of Castinus the year before, following the death of Honorius,436 and Castinus was his nominee for the year.437 Theodosius in the east never accepted Castinus, and John in the west never accepted Victor. But Prosper, who compiled his list two decades later, includes Victor for this year as well, which is what Victorius copied. The FP, however, were being maintained year-by-year and Victor's name was never added. In 440 FP lists the consuls of the year as "Valentiniano V et Placido." Victorius' manuscripts have variously "Valentiniano aug et Anatolio" (G), "Valentiniano aug V et
434 435 436 437 Chron. Min. 1466. SeeCLRs.a.410. Prosper, Chron. Min. 1470. See CLRE, 383. which includes relevant bibliography on this difficult year.

Anatono" (L) and "Valentino et Anatoho" (S). The archetype of the FP, however, must have originally read "Placido Valentiniano V," but at some early date a copyist mistook Valentinian's name "Placidus" for the name of the eastern consul and moved it after the emperor's name. There is no evidence that the name of the eastern consul Anatolius was promulgated late in the west for this year, but none of the dateable inscriptions can be certainly placed earlier than June.438 The evidence of the FP would suggest that there was some uncertainty early in the year. In 442 the FP read "Dioscoro vc csl," while the manuscripts of Victorius read "Dioscoro et Eudosio" (G), "Dioscoro et Teodosio" (S) and "Dioscoro et Theodosio" (L).439 The version of Prosper's chronicle published in 455, which is what Victorius used, reads "Dioscoro et Eudoxio," as do Cassiodorus, the Fasti Veronenses, and the Consularia Ravennatia. It is clear from the evidence that Eudoxius' name was promulgated very late in the West.440 The reading of the FP once again shows itself to be a contemporary addition to a list being kept up over time.441
438 See CLRE, 415. 439 The Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores (FVpost) also read "Dioscoro et Theodosio" for this year. This is a strange variant in a year when the eastern consul, Eudoxius, only occurs once in the west, according to CLRE and only infrequently in the east. Perhaps early in the year it was believed in the west that Theodosius II would be Dioscorus' colleague for the year, or perhaps this is an error of a copyist who mistook "et eudoxio" for the very similar-sounding "et theodosio" - an error which could easily be made independently by different copyists. Manuscript L of Victorius also shows other signs of departure from Victorius' consular list before 457. 440 See also Burgess, 1989, 154. 441 The abbreviation "vc csl" after a single name might also be a clue to a single hand at work maintaining the list over time. The normal abbreviation is "vc cons" and, while "vc csl" is attested elsewhere (e.g. ms L of Victorius, s.a. 486), it is not common. It occurs in the FP first in 441, then recurs in the next four years in which there is only a single consul, 442, 451, 452 and 453. It seems reasonable to suggest that the same person kept up the list at least between 441 and 453. Before 441 there are a variety of abbreviations after a single consul. "Vc" only in 399, 400, 408 and 410, "vc cnsl" in 413, "vc consl" in 424 and no abbreviation after the fourth consulship of Theodosius in 411, which is normal for an emperor. After 453, an abbreviation after a sole consul for the year occurs only in 502, "Abieno Probo vc" (a mistake, of course, because Avienus and Probus were two different people, consuls for the west and east respectively).

In 451 the FP reads "Adelfio vc csl" for the year, whereas the manuscripts of Victorius read "Marciano et Adelfio" or something very close to it. The readings of Victorius, Prosper, and the other lists which include Marcian are clearly later updates to the western lists since Marcian's consulship was not recognized in the west in 451. Valentinian did not recognize Marcian as the new eastern emperor until March 30 of 452, almost two years after his accession. Again, the FP records the contemporary situation, and the western compiled lists include Marcian's name. Finally, for 453 the FP again have the contemporary listing, "Opilione vc csl," whereas two manuscripts of Victorius and Prosper (edition of 455 = mss MYCD), from only a few years later, have "Opilione et Vincomalo" (G, Prosper) and "Opiniano et Vinculomalo" (L).442 Again, Vincomalus never appears in contemporary western evidence (not even in a post-consular dating), where Opilio is always listed as the sole consul. The FP to this point are a strongly western list, maintained by someone who does not appear to have attempted to find out the name of the eastern consul when it was not readily available in the west early in the year. As we will see, however, the years 475 to 493 show a high number of eastern consuls, despite the fact that during those years the names of eastern consuls were not widely available in the west. A number of smaller differences between the FP and Victorius also exist which acquire more weight in light of the major differences above. In 382, they have "Antonio et Siagrio" whereas Victorius has "Antonino et Siagrio," in 386 "Honorio et Euodio" instead of "Honorio np et Euodio," and in 390 "Valentiniano IIII et Eutero" instead of "Valentiniano IIII et Neotero." In 395, they list the consuls incorrectly as "Olibrio et
442 Victurius S here reads, oddly, "Oprione vc," which looks like a correction to Victorius by a scribe.

Rufino," but the manuscripts of Victonus have "Olybrio / Ohbrio et Probino," which is correct. The FP's "Rufino," however, may be a mistake by a copyist, a dittography from the consul of 392. There are still further differences, but they fall under the categories of spelling errors and variations in consular iterations, which can occur even in related manuscripts. Kaufmann argued that the FP was part of the tradition of Victorius chiefly because it ended in 559.443 In fact, however, the last consulship listed in the FP is "XVII pc," the seventeenth year after Basilius' consulship, which is 558, not 559. He says, incorrectly, that the consuls of 534 are listed twice. They are not. The consuls of 538, Paulinus and Iohannes, are incorrectly listed twice with increasing iterations, thus: "Paulino IIII et Iohanne, Paulino V et Iohanne II." But the extra consulship looks like a correction, an attempt to make the iterations come out properly, since the year 539 shows Paulinus' sixth consulship. Kaufmann also argues that there are three years with missing consuls, 439, 479 and 520 and three years which are made up to correct the missing years, which suggests that the author or copyist was attempting to fit the consular list into another chronological scheme, namely Victorius' Easter calendar. But his proof that the three years were made up is unconvincing. Kaufmann suggests that the missing consular pair of 439 was made up by inserting the consuls of 450 in between the consuls of 448 and 449 and then repeating them in 450. But this seems a very strange way of correcting an error, and the duplicated consuls of 450 seem more reasonably explained by a copyist's slip: the second consul of 448 is "Zenone" and the second consul of 449 is "Protogene." The copyist's eyes could
443 Kaufmann, 387.

334 have drifted from 'Zenone' (448) to 'Progene' (449) and he continued copying again from the consuls of 450 and it was only afterwards that he realized his mistake. Kaufmann argues that the missing consular pair of 479 is made up by adding a nameless post-consulate year after the consuls of 490 thus: "Fausto et Longino, pc, Olybrio." But the post-consulate abbreviation can be more easily explained by someone keeping up the list year-by-year. Olybrius, the sole consul of 491 and an easterner, shows up in very few inscriptions, which almost all list "pc Longini et Fausti" or something similar. The only contemporary attestation of his name in the west is an inscription from Narbonensis from September of 491.444 His name was disseminated very late. The compiler of the FP wrote "pc" into the blank year, but then he, or someone else, added the name of the consul when he learned it later on. This doubling of a post-consulate date with a consular name can be seen in other lists, too, for instance, in the Paschale Campanum under year 475, where the entry for the year is "post cons Leonis aug Zenone aug bis,"445 presumably updated after the author realized that Zeno had been consul at the very beginning of that year; in the Fasti Augustani in 413: "pc id est Teracliano et Lucio," and in 436: "pc id est Isidoro et Senatore;"446 and in the continuation of Prosper in the Codex Alcobaciensis under the year 454: "post consulatum Opilionis vc Aetio et Studio."447 Finally, Kaufmann notes that in the FP the consuls of 519 and 520 are coupled to make one year: "Euterico et Rusticiano," though Eutharic was the consul for 519 and Rusticius for 520. He suggests that the resulting drop of a year is made up through a post
444 445 446 447 CIL 12.2384 = ILCV1734. Chron. Min. I, 746. Chron. Min. III. 385. Chron. Min. I. 487

consular year between 522 and 523. Maximus was a westerner, and his name is attested in the inscriptional record early in the year in Italy.448 However, as usual there are postconsular dates given for this year as late as February in Aosta in Narbonensis,449 so it is not impossible that we are seeing here the same error we saw for the year 491, that is, someone who wrote "pc" early in the year and then "Maximo" after he discovered the name of the consul for the year, but he wrote the name on the next line down despite the fact that he (or someone else) had already written "pc."450 Manuscript S of Victorius places a "pc" immediately before Maximus' name as well, a common error to which I will return below. Kaufmann's suggestion that a consular list was inserted into a copy of Victorius' Easter calendar which lacked consuls, and was subsequently extracted, is cumbersome and ill-conceived. I propose a simpler scenario. At some point after 559, someone had both the plain consular list and a copy of Victorius1 Easter calendar related to manuscript S. He then added the consular names that he did not have from the copy of Victorius to the plain consular list. This was perhaps the same person who had epitomized Jerome so as to make a complete count of years from Adam to 559. That an extension of Victorius was the source for the consuls of the the FP from at least 523 on can be demonstrated through a comparison of the the FP with the consular list in manuscript S of Victorius.451 From 523 the two lists are very alike and share some
448 AE 1947 68 = AE 1993 808, dated to January 15 449 CIL 12. 2404 = ILCV32&1, from Aosta, and also a papyrus, CPR 10 [15] 1 (21.i) 450 In any case, this appears to be a shared error which points to the dependence of the FP on a copy of Victorius closely related to manuscript S. 451 The manuscript designated S by both Mommsen and Krusch was not used directly by either of them in their editions of Victorius. Both used the print editions of Petavius (De doctrina temporum, 1627) and Bucherius {De doctrina temporum commentarius in Victorium Aquitanum, 1634). The "lost" manuscript was identified by C.W. Jones, 1937.

errors and peculiarities which are not found in other lists. First, the post-consular date in 523 which I discussed briefly above. None of the other lists show a post-consular date for this year, and it is out of the ordinary for the western lists to have a post-consular date for a year when there was a western consul nominated. This suggests a connection between the the FP and manuscript S of Victorius. Second, from 530 to 541 the entries in both lists are very similar and unlike any other extant lists. In the chart that follows I have included the consuls from Victorius manuscript G for comparison. Victorius S
530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio II et Oreste II Lampadio III Lampadio IIII Paulino Paulino II et Basillar Paulino III et Basillar II Paulino IV et Basillar III Paulino V et Ioanne

Fasti Parisini
Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio et Oreste Lampadio III et Oreste III Lampadio IIII et Oreste IIII Paulino iuniore Paulino I et Bilisario I Paulino II et Bilisario II Paulino III et Bilisario III Paulino IIII et ioanne Paulino V et ioanne II

Victorius G
Lampadio et Oreste pc Lampadi it pc Lampadi tertio pc Lampadi Paulino vc cons pc Paulini iterum pc Paulini tertio pc Paulini Iohanne vc cons

539 540 541

Paulino VI et Apione Paulino VII et Apione Basilio

Paulino VI et Appione Paulino VII et Appione II Basilio

post cons Iohannis bis it cons Iohannis tertio pc Iohannis

The list on the right side, from ms G, is a typical western list, showing western postconsular dates and only two eastern consuls, Orestes in 530 and John in 538, 529 and

540. The western post-consular dates are expressed as iterations in Victorius S and the the FP. This method of recording post-consular dates is not unprecedented, but the curious mixture of the post-consular dates of Paulinus along with the post-consular dates of Belisarius, John and Apion from 535 to 540 does not appear in any other list with these dates. It is also unusual for a list to record a post-consular western date along with the eastern consul for the year. Because the confusions are so idiosyncratic, the natural conclusion is either that the FP were copied from a close relative of the extension of Victorius in manuscript S. The date at which the compiler began to copy consuls from Victorius into the plain fasti he had is harder to determine. All of the versions of Victorius show signs of year-by-year maintenance after 457, and mere differences from the other manuscripts of Victorius are no proof that the names in the FP were not taken from Victorius - they could easily be from a version which we do not have. Thus, the only date we can argue for with any certainty is the last year in which the FP are in disagreement with the pre457 part of Victorius, which is 453. Having established that the FP are certainly not taken from Victorius' Cursus Paschalis before 457, and are only from 523 certainly a copy of a continuation of Victorius in some way related to manuscript S, it remains to consider carefully the years between 458 and 522 to further investigate the character of the list. As I will demonstrate, the list was probably maintained year-by-year until at least 470, but between 471 and 493 (or thereabouts) was likely a copy of a compiled list. The consular list of the FP between 458 and at least 470 continues to show the

338 signs of year-by-year maintenance, independence from other lists, and not later compilation. In 463, the FP alone of all written western fasti show only the western consul, Basilius. The western inscriptions for that year, as well as the single law and letter from that year, from pope Hilarius, dated to 10 October, also show only the western consul. The years 464 and 465 are curious years, not only for the FP, but for the western fasti in general. The consuls for both years were easterners, and there appears to have been confusion in the west in both years about which name came first.452 In 464, the consulship of Rusticius and Olybrius, the Consularia Hafniensia as well as the extensions of Victorius, the Paschale Campanum and Marius of Avenches all give Olybrius as consul prior, whereas the Fasti Vindobonenses priores, Cassiodorus, the Fasti Veronenses and the Fasti Augustani all place Rusticius first. The FP, however, has Olybrius alone. Olybrius had been resident in Rome until 455, and was to return in 472, so it is at least possible that the confusion in the year arises from the fact that he was known to be a westerner. Why his name occurs in the FP without Rusticius is inexplicable.453 The order of the names of the consuls of 465, Hermenericus and Basiliscus, shows

452 While it would be tidy to find a single explanation for the confusion in both these years, I confess to being unable to provide one. The editors of CLRE note the reversals and, for 464, say that they occurred "no doubt out of habit" (463). Presumably they mean the habit of westerners to switch the order of the names officially promulgated by Constantinople. But we know too little about the promulgation of consular names in the fifth century to speak of "habit," and in any case, three years later the consuls of 467, Pusaeus and Iohannes, both easterners, appear in the west in the correct order each time they appear in the fasti and the inscriptional record. The most recent year before 464 when there had been two eastern consuls was 436, a full generation earlier, and, despite the fact that one inscription from Rome (ICUR n.s. 1 733 = ILCV3U5A) has the names reversed, the editors of CLRE note "since both were easterners, the order is the same in both parts of the empire" (407). 453 The editors of CLRE include a number of inscriptions in 526, when an Olybrius, apparently a westerner, was sole consul, and suggest that some may belong to 491, when Olybrius the son of Areobindus and an easterner, was sole consul. But given that the FP list Olybrius alone for this year, some of those inscriptions may belong to 464.

339 the same confusion in the West as the year before, though the lists which reverse the names in 464 are not the same as the ones which reverse the names in 465. The Consularia Hafniensia, the Fasti Augustani and the FP, along with two inscriptions,454 all place Basiliscus first, whereas the other western lists and inscriptions put Hermenericus first. Whatever the reason for the reversal of the names in the west in these two years, the entries in the FP demonstrate their independence from all other lists. The consuls for the year 470 were Severus and Jordanes. As the editors of CLRE note for 470, the situation in this year was "fairly normal: Iordanes is disseminated in the West rather late." The fasti all have both names, but the FP show only Severus. Likewise, some inscriptions in Rome, Italy and elsewhere show both consuls, but some only the western consul.455 Between at least 475 and 493, the FP give more eastern information than the other western fasti and inscriptions, which is a marked change from the years before this. Of the twelve years between these dates when there was an eastern consul, the FP have eleven easterners - more than any other western list.456 The author was likely not in the east because the names of the consuls continue to be given in the western order. In 475, the emperor Zeno was consul for the second time for the first 9 days of January before being driven out by Basiliscus, who annulled his consulship.457 Thus all western fasti with
454 Both inscriptions (ICUR 1 17585 and ICUR 1 19990) are from Rome. CLRE notes incorrectly that all the inscriptions place Hermenericus before Basiliscus (465). 455 Both consuls: ICUR n.x. 11.4955; ICUR nc VIII 20828; AE 1951, 89; CIL XIII 2362 = ILCV 2830; CIL XII1497 - ILCV 1927. Severus alone: ICUR nc II 4954; ICUR ns I 2118 = ILCV 4370A; ICUR ns I 3211= ILCV 300; ICUR ns I 90; ICUR ns II 6085 456 The twelve years with eastern consuls are 475, 476, 478, 479, 482, 484, 486, 489, 490, 491, 492 and 493, but I have not discussed all of these years in what follows. The FP are missing the eastern consul for 482, Trocondes. The other western lists with the most eastern consuls during these years are the ms. L continuation of Victorius, with ten, and the Paschale Campanum with nine. 457 His first consulship had been in 469.

the exception of ms S (which has Zeno added to the pc) record "pc Leonis mn Aug" or something similar. However, the FP record Zeno as sole consul, which suggests either a very early entry of his name into the list (possibly before the year even began), or a late, retroactive addition, after Zeno's restoration to the throne in 476. There were no consuls appointed in 477, and both east and west resorted to a postconsular date: "pc Basilisci II et Armati." The FP's entry for 477, "Zenone III" appears, therefore, at first glance to be misplaced, since Zeno's third consulship occurred in 479, and the FP are missing that year.458 While it is at least possible that "Zenone III" is a mistake for a post-consular date, it seems unlikely.459 More probable is that "Zenone III" is a retroactive correction, placed into a blank year, or inserted when the list was brought up to date at some point after this year. In 484, when Venantius and Theoderic were consuls, the FP have "Vaenantio et Theudorico," while no western inscriptions have Theoderic's name.460 In 486, when Decius and Longinus were consuls, only four other western lists have Longinus' name, and two of those, Cassiodorus and Marius, compiled their lists long after this year.461 Longinus' name appears in only one western inscription from this year, from Gallia Narbonensis.462 In 489, the FP gives both consuls for the year, Probinus and Eusebius, along with most of the fasti. As in 486, Eusebius, the eastern consul's name, appears in

458 See above, pp. 8-9 459 This possibility is rendered still more unlikely since for 469, the year of Zeno's first consulship, the FP read "Martiano et Leone," which is presumably a mistake for "Martiano et Zenone," though Marius of Avenches has the same names for that year. 460 The western lists are the Fasti Vindobonensespriores and the ms. S continuation of Victorius. 461 The others are ms G of Victorius and the Consularia Hafniensia. 462 ILGN 606 = AE 1928, 00083: "Decio Longino cons" where Decius and Longinus are clearly thought to be one man.

one western inscription only, from Gaul.

Finally, in 493, the consulship of Albinus and

Eusebius, Eusebius' name occurs nowhere in the western inscriptional record, and of the written lists only the FP and the Paschale Campanum have both names. In the years following 493, the FP ceases to have such good eastern information. None of the eastern consuls from 496 to 499, for instance, appear. How, then, to explain the large number of easterners between 475 and 493 - large enough to make the FP one of the most complete western lists from the last quarter of the fifth century? Two possibilities present themselves. First, whoever maintained the list between 475 and 493 may simply have had close personal contacts with the east, or may have lived somewhere (southern Gaul, for instance) where the names of the eastern consuls frequently appear when they do not elsewhere in the west.464 Second, perhaps the list ceased to be maintained year-by-year sometime around 475, and was updated around 20 years later through recourse to a compiled list. Or both. As I noted above, the incorrect placement of Zeno's third consulship suggests a mistake made well after 479. The years between 494 and 522 show a solidly western list with very few eastern consuls, but with no clear indicators of yearly maintenance as in the period before 470. Certainly, these years do not belong to the tradition of our ms S of Victorius since they show very different entries. Of the twenty-nine years between 494 and 522, eastern consuls were appointed for twenty-two.465 The FP has only two of them (500 and 502), and one for one of those years the name is listed as "Abieno Probo vc," where the author clearly thought a single man was consul instead of two, Avienus and Probus.
463 C7L XII 487 = /LCT 446A 464 See CLRE, 35. 465 496-503, 505-508, 511-513, 515, 517-521.

To sum up, the Fasti Parisini is a consular list independent of all other lists until at least 523, from which date they are related to the consular list in ms S of Victorius. From at least 399 to 470 they show signs of year-by-year maintenance by a number of people. Between 475 and 493, the completeness of the list suggests that year-by-year maintenance had ended and the list was retroactively researched and brought up to date sometime after 493, probably in southern Gaul. Between 494 and 522, the list resembles other western lists in its resolutely western recording of the consuls, but it is not clearly related to any other list we have. It is not impossible that it was maintained regularly by an individual, but there are no clear signs of it. There is no indication of what the Fasti Parisini was used for, and they must have changed hands many times times over the years, or were copied and distributed by people who needed them. They are exactly the kind of list we would expect to find in the hands of someone who needed a regularly maintained consular list. Possibly, it belonged to a family which kept it up generation after generation. It could have passed through offices and work-places in which people needed the information for professional reasons: lawyers, businessmen, civil servants, members of local and imperial government, church officials, money-lenders, and monument carvers. The fact that the FP was misidentified by Mommsen and Krusch should not surprise us, and it is perhaps too easy for us to be hard on them. A century ago the need for editions was great, and careful study of the lists could only come after the lists were made widely available. Only in the last two decades has it been made possible, particularly through the CLRE (for all its shortcomings) and the work of Richard

343 Burgess,466 to study the promulgation and recording of consular names in any satisfactory way with all their peculiarities, errors and differences. A great deal of careful work still needs to be done, particularly on the continuations of Victorius of Aquitaine.

466 Especially Burgess 1989 and 2000.

Bibliography
I. Primary Sources. Additamenta ad Prosperum, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 486499. Agnellus, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 297-321. Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 30628. Aufidius Bassus, ed. H. Peter in Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae, 1914-16 (repr. 1967 and 1993). Cassiodorus, Anecdoton Holderi, ed. A. Galonnier uAnecdoton Holderi ou Generis Cassiodororum. Introduction, edition, traduction et commentaire" Antiquite tardive 4 (1996) 299-312. Chronica, all references are to my own edition. Complexiones in Epistulas, PL 70.1309-1422, a reprint of the edition of Scipio Maffei (Florence, 1721). Institutiones, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, 1937. Orationumfragmenta,ed. L. Traube, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 12, 1894,464-485. Variae, ed. A. J. Fridh, CCSL 96, 1973. Expositio Psalmorum, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 97-98, 1958. Collectio Avellana, ed. O. Guenther, CSEL 35. Constitutum Sylvestri, PL 8.829-840. Consularia Hafniensia, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 486-93. Consularia Ravennatia, edd. Bischoff, B. and Koehler, W. "Eine illustrierte Ausgabe der

345 spatantiken ravennater Annalen" Studies in Memory ofKingsley Porter, vol. 1 (1939)125-138. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 1853-2003. Descriptio Consulum, ed. R.W. Burgess in The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, Oxford, 1993, 175-245. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dionysii Halicarnasei antiquitatum Romanarum quae supersunt, 4 vols., ed. Jacoby, K, 1885-1905, Repr. 1967. Ennodius, Opera, ed. F. Vogel, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 7, 1885. Eugippius, Vita Sancti Severini, ed. H. Sauppe, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 1.2, 1877. Eutropius, Breviarum ah urbe condita, ed. C. Santini, 1979. Excerpta Sangallensia, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 298-336. Fasti Vindobonenses, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 9, (also referred to as Chronica Minora I) 1892, 274-334. Fragmentum Laurentianum in the Liber pontificalis ed. L. Duchesne and C. Vogel, 18861892, repr. 1957. Gallic Chronicle of 511, ed. R.W. Burgess, 'The Gallic Chronicle of 511: A New Critical Edition with a Brief Introduction' in R.W. Mathisen and D. Schanzer edd. Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul. Revisiting the Sources, 2001, pp. 85-100. Gregory of Tours, Opera, ed. B. Krusch et al., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingiarum, vol. 1. Hydatius, ed. R.W. Burgess in The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, Oxford, 1993. Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, ed. Ioannes Bapt. de Rossi, 1857-1888. Jerome, Chronica, ed. R. Helm, in Eusebius Werke, vol. 7, 1956. John of Antioch, Fragments, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising

historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and

346 Malchus, 2 vols. 1981-1983. Jordanes, De origine actibusque getarum, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 5, 1882. Julius Obsequens, Prodigiorum Liber, ed. O. Rossbach in T. Livi Periochae Omnium Librorum Fragmenta Oxyrhynchi Reperta. Iulii Obsequentis Prodigiorum Liber, 1910. Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf, 1831. Marcellinus, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 11, (also referred to as Chronica Minora II) 1894, 60-108. Marius of Avenches, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 11, (also referred to as Chronica Minora II) 1894, 232-9. Olympiodorus, Fragments, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising

historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, 2 vols. 1981-1983. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 668, ed. O. Rossbach in T. Livi Periochae Omnium Librorum Fragmenta Oxyrhynchi Reperta. Iulii Obsequentis Prodigiorum Liber, 1910. edd. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S., Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 4 (1904)90-116. Paschale Campanum, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 9 (also referred to as Chronica Minora I), 1892, 305-34, 74450. Paul the Deacon, Historia Romana, ed. H. Droysen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 3, 1878, 185-224. Priscus, Fragments, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire : Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, 2 vols. 1981-1983. Procopius, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, 1914-1940. Prosper, Epitoma Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 9 (also referred to as Chronica Minora I), 1892, pp. 341-499.

347

Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica, ed. Mosshammer, 1984. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols., 1883. Victor of Tunnuna, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi vol. 11, (also referred to as Chronica Minora II) 1894, 178-206. Victorius of Aquitaine, Cursus Paschalis, ed. B. Krusch, Abhandlungen der Preufiischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 8, 1938.

II. Select List of Secondary Works. Amory, P. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 1997. Bagnall, R.S., Alan Cameron, Seth R. Schwartz, K.A. Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, 1987. Barnish, S. "The Anonymus Valesianus II as a Source for the Last Years of Theoderic" Latomus 42 (1983) 572-596. Barnish, S.'The Genesis and Completion of Cassiodorus' Gothic History" Latomus 43 (1984)336-361. Barnish, S. uCuncta Italiae Membra Componere: Political Relations in Ostrogothic Italy" in Barnish and Marazzi, 2007, 317-337 Barnish, S. and Marazzi, F. edd. The Ostrogothsfromthe Migration Period to the Sixth Century, 2007. Begbie, CM. "The Epitome of Livy" CQ ns 17 (1967) 332-338. Bessone, L. "La tradizione epitomatoria liviana in eta imperiale" v4M?Wni.30.2 (1982) 1230-1263. Broughton, T.R.S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols., 1951. Brunholzl, F. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 2 vols., 1975-1992. Brunt, P.A. "On Historical Fragments and Epitomes" CQ 30 (1980) 477-494 Burgess, R.W. '"Non Duo Antonini sed Duo Augusti': the Consuls of 161 and the Origins and Traditions of the Latin Consular Fasti of the Roman Empire" ZPE 132 (2000) 259-289.

The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia Oxford, 1993.

Constantinopolitana,

'The Dates and Editions of Eusebius' Chronici canones and Historia ecclesiastica', JTS n.s. 48 (1997), 471-504. "Consuls and Consular Dating in the Later Roman Empire" Phoenix 43 (1989)143-157. Burgess, R.W. and Kulikowski, M. Mosaics of Time: The Origins and Development of the Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD forthcoming. Cappuyns, M. J. "Cassiodore" DHGE 11 (1949) 1349-1402. Carile, A. ed. Teodorico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna, 1995. Cessi, Roberto Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio in Rerum Italicum Scriptores Vol. 24, part 4, 1913. Christensen, A. S. Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth, 2002. Christie, N. From Constantine to Charlemagne: an Archaeology of Italy AD 300-800, Aldershot, 2006. Croke, B. "Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes" CP 82.2 (April 1987) 117-134. "A.D. 476: The Manufacture of a Turning Point" Chiron 13 (1983) 81-119. Cuspinianus, J. Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris Chronicon, sive de Consulibus Romanorum Libellus, Basel, 1553. Degrassi, A. Ifasti consolari dell'Impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo, 1952. Inscriptiones Italiae, vol.XIII, fasc.l (Rome, 1947). Demougeot, E. De I'Unite a la division de I'Empire romain 395-410: Essai sur le gouvernement imperial, 1951. Duchesne, L. Le Liber Pontificalis: texte, introduction, commentaire, Paris, 1886-1892. Ensslin, W. Theoderich der Grosse, 1959. Goffart, W. Barbarian Tides, 2006. Halsall, G. Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568, Cambridge, 2007.

349 Heather, P. "Gens and Regnum among the Ostrogoths" in Hans-Werner Goetz, Jorg Jarnut and Walter Pohl, edd. Regna and Gentes: the Relationship between Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, 2003. "Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals: Genealogy and the Goths under Hun Domination" JRS 79 (1989) 103-128. Holder-Egger, O. "Untersuchungen uber einige annalistische Quellen zur Geschichte des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts" NA 1 (1876) 213-368. Jones, C.W. "The 'Lost' Sirmond Manuscript of Bede's 'Computus' EHS 52 no. 206 (April 1937)204-219. "The Victorian and Dionysiac Paschal Tables in the West" Speculum 9.4 (October 1934)408-421. Jones, L.W. An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings (translation of Cassiodorus' Institutiones) 1966. Kaufmann, G. "Zu den handschriften des Canon paschale des Victorius und zu Mommsen VIII" Philologus 34 (1876) 385-398. Klotz, A. "Die Epitoma des Livius" Hermes 48 (1913) 542-557. "Zu den Periochae des Livius" Philologus 91 (1936) 67-94. Konig, Ingemar Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Grossen: Einleitun, Text, Ubersetzung und Kommentar einer anonymen Quelle, Darmstadt, 1997. Kornemann, E. Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus, Text und Untersuchungen, Klio, Beiheft 2, 1904. Krautschick, S. Cassiodor und die Politik seiner Zeit, Bonn, 1983 Krusch, B. "Die Einfuhrung des griechischen Paschalritus im Abendlande" NE 9 (1884) 99-169. "Uber eine Handschrift des Victurius" NE 9 (1884) 272-281. Lehmann, P. Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, vol. I, 1918, reprinted 1969. Lehmann, P. Erforschung des Mittelalters, 2 vols., 1959.

350

Luiselli, B. ""Cassiodoro e la storia dei Goti," in Passagio dal mondo antico al medio evo da Teodosio a San Gregorio Magno, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 45 (1980), 225253. Maassen, F. ed. Geschichte der Quellen und der Literature des canonischen Rechts in Abendlande bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, 1870. MacGeorge, P. Late Roman Warlords, 2002. Marazzi, F. "The Last Rome: from the End of the Fifth to the End of the Sixth Century" in Barnish and Marazzi, 2007, 279-302. McCormick, M. Eternal Victory: Triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium and the early medieval West, Cambridge, 1990. Momigliano, A. "Cassiodorus and Italian culture of his time" Proceedings of the British Academy (1955) 207-245, reprinted in Momigliano, A. Studies in Historiography, 1966, 181-210. Mommsen, Th. "Consularia" Hermes 32.3 (1897) 538-553. Moore, C.H. "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy in Relation to Obsequens and Cassiodorus" AJP 25 (1904) 241-255. Moorhead, J. "Cassiodorus on the Goths in Ostrogothic Italy" RomanoBarbarica 16 (1999)241-259. Theoderic in Italy, 1992. O'Donnell, J.J. Cassiodorus, 1979. Oeschli, L. Uber die Historia Miscella L. XII-XVIII und den Anonymus Valesianus II, 1873. Oost, S. I., "D.N. Libius Severus P.F. Aug.," CP 65 (1970) 228-240. Reinhold, G. Das Geschichtswerk des Livius als Quelle spaterer Historiker, Berlin, 1898. Reydellet, M. "Theodoric et la civilitas" in Carile, A. (1995) 285-296 Sanders, H.A. "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy and Reinhold's Lost Chronicon" TAPA 36 (1905) 5-31. "The Lost Epitome of Livy" in Roman Historical Sources and Institutions, vol. 1, New York, 1904, 149-260. Schmidt, P. L. Iulius Obsequens und das Problem der Livius-Epitome, Wiesbaden, 1968.

Sundwall, J. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Romertums, 1919. Swan, M. (1967) "The Consular Fasti of 23 B.C. and the Conspiracy of Varro Murena" HSCP1X (1967)235-247. Syme, R. Tacitus, 1958. Vanderspoel, J. "Cassiodorus as Patricius and Ex Patricio" Historia 39 .4 (1990) 499-503. van der Vyver, A. "L'unique victoire contre les Alamans et la conversion de Clovis en 506" Revue beige dephilologie et d'histoire 16 (1938) 793-802. "La victoire contre les Alamans et la conversion de Clovis" Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire 16 (1937) 45-64. "Cassiodore et son oeuvre" Speculum 6 (1931) 244-292. Vitiello, M. "Cassiodoriana: Gli Excerpta Valesiana, Yadventus e le laudes del principe Teodorico" Chiron 36 (2006) 113-133. Momenti di Roma ostrogota: adventus,feste, politica, 2005. "Teoderico a Roma. Politica, amministrazione e propaganda nell' adventus dell' anno 500" Historia 53.1 (2004) 73-120. Waitz, G. "Das ravennatischen Annalen als Hauptquelle fur die Geschichte des Odovakar" in Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1865,88-123. Ward-Perkins, B. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy, AD 300-850, Oxford, 1984 Wharton, A.J. Refiguring the Post-Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna, Cambridge, 1995 Wolfram, H. History of the Goths trans. Thomas J. Dunlap, 2nd edition, 1988