Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:25:18.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Murdered Gallienus?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Randall T. Saunders
Randall T. Saunders*
Affiliation:
Cincinnati, Ohio
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are several ancient and Byzantine accounts of the assassination of the emperor Gallienus (253-68), who was murdered while besieging a rebellious general, Aureolus, at Milan in early September 268. But few of these accounts agree fully on those who were responsible for the killing, and some are openly contradictory. Modern scholars, in turn, have not been in accord on the members of the conspiracy. A close examination of these sources demonstrates that only three men are reliably attested to have been involved: Heraclianus, Gallienus’ praetorian prefect; Claudius II Gothicus, emperor in 268-70; and Aurelian, emperor in 270-75. In addition, the investigation provides further insights into the development of the historical traditions pertaining to this period of Roman history.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 26 , November 1992 , pp. 80 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the date of Gallienus’ death see Peachin, M., Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284 (Amsterdam 1990) 40 Google Scholar. The best modern account of the murder of Gallienus is Damerau, P., Kaiser Claudius II. Gothicus (Leipzig 1934) 44–47 Google Scholar.

2 There is, however, broad agreement that it was a conspiracy of the Danubian officers in Gallienus’ general staff who were eager to have one of their own as emperor, e.g., Homo, L., Essai sur le règne de l'empereur Aurélien (Paris 1904) 35–36 Google Scholar; Alfòldi, A., ‘The Crisis of the Empire (A.D. 249-270)’, CAH 1 12.189-90Google Scholar; Bersanetti, G.M., ‘Eracliano, prefetto del pretorio de Gallieno’, Epigraphica 4 (1942) 175 Google Scholar; Parker, H.M.D. and Warmington, B.H., A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138 to 3372 (New York 1958) 178 Google Scholar; and Syme, R., Emperors and Biography (Oxford 1971) 210-11Google Scholar. But cf. Manni, E., L'Impero de Gallieno (Rome 1949) 72–73 n.3Google Scholar, who downplayed IUyrian nationalism as a motive in the murder.

3 Groag, E., ‘Domitius 36’, RE 5.1 (1903) 1353-54Google Scholar and Alföldi, ‘Crisis’ 189-90 also singled out these same three men in passing, but their superficial remarks show no recognition of the complex problems posed by the sources.

4 On the date of the composition and publication of the Caesares cf. Bird, H.W., Sextus Aurelius Victor: a Historiographical Study (Liverpool 1984) 10 Google Scholar and Nixon, C.E.V., ‘Aurelius Victor and Julian’, CP 86 (1991) 119-22Google Scholar.

5 Schlumberger, J., Die Epitome de Caesaribus (Munich 1974) 152, 154 Google Scholar.

6 For this date, first proposed by Dessau, H., ‘Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der Scriptores historiae Augustae’, Hermes 24 (1889) 337-92Google Scholar, see, for example, Chastagnol, A., ‘Le problème de l'histoire Auguste: État de la question’, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium (hereafter BHAC) 1963 (Bonn 1964) 52–64 Google Scholar; Syme, Emperors 285-88; and Honoré, T., ‘Scriptor Historiae Augustae’, JRS 77 (1987) 156-76Google Scholar. Earlier dates for the HA have been defended (e.g., Momigliano, A., ‘An Unsolved Problem of Historical Forgery’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 17 (1954) 22–46 Google Scholar [= Studies in Historiography (London 1966) 143-80])Google Scholar, but even if valid they would have no bearing on the present discussion. For later dates see below n.21.

7 On the date of Zosimus’ floruit cf. Cameron, A., ‘The Date of Zosimus’ New History’, Philologus 113 (1969) 106-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Paschoud, F., Zosime: Histoire Nouvelle 1 (Paris 1971) xii–xvii and 3.2 (Paris 1989) 80–81 Google Scholar.

8 Text: С. Sathas, , Bibliotheca graeca medii aevi 7 (Paris 1894)Google Scholar. On the Synopsis Sathas see Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner 1 (Munich 1978) 477-78Google Scholar.

9 On the praetorian prefect as a military commander at this time see Howe, L.L., The Pretorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (A.D. 180-305) (Rome 1966 Google Scholar; reprint of 1942 ed.) 26-29, 55-58 and Osier, J.F., ‘The Rise of the Ordo Equester in the Third Century of the Roman Empire’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan 1974) 110-11, 114-16Google Scholar.

10 E.g., Macrinus against Caracalla in 217 (Dio 79.4-5; Herodian 4.12-13; HA Caracolla 6.6); Philip against Gordian III in 244 (Victor 27.8; HA Gordian 29-30; Zosimus 1.18.2-19.1); Carus against Probus in 282 (HA Carus 5.4-6.1); and Aper against Numerian in 284 (Victor 38.6; HA Carus 12.1-13.2). But scholars have disputed or at least expressed hesitation about the culpability of these figures: Mattingly, H., ‘The Reign of Macrinus’, in Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson 2, ed. by Mylonas, G.E. and Raymond, D. (St. Louis 1953) 963-65 (Macrinus)Google Scholar; Hartmann, F., Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise (Frankfurt am Main 1982) 76–79 (Philip)Google Scholar; Howe 60 and Meloni, P., II regno di Caro Numeriano e Carino (Cagliari 1949) 46–52 (Carus)Google Scholar; and Howe 59-60 (Aper).

11 E.g., Wickert, L., ‘Licinius 84’, RE 13.1 (1926) 361 Google Scholar; Damerau 44-45; Besnier, M., L'Empire romain de l'avènement des Sévères au Concile de Nicée (Paris 1937) 185, 226 Google Scholar; Alföldi, , ‘Crisis’ 189-90Google Scholar; Bersanetti 173; Manni 71-72 n.3; Gerov, B., ‘La carriera militare di Marciano generale du Gallieno’, Athenaeum 43 (1965) 349-51Google Scholar.

12 Scholars who have accepted Claudius’ complicity include Groag 1354; Alföldi, , ‘Crisis’ 190 Google Scholar; and Barbieri, G., ‘Morte e consacrazione de Gallieno’, SIFC 11 (1934) 334 Google Scholar. Those who have accepted both Claudius and Homo, Marcianus include, Essai 36 Google Scholar; Wickert 361; Bersanetti 173-74; Manni 71-72 n.3; Bird, H.W., ‘Aurelius Victor and the Accession of Claudius 1’, CJ 66 (1971) 252 Google Scholar; and Syme, , Emperors 210 Google Scholar.

13 Gerov 350 n.61. On the fabricated connection between Constantine and Claudius see Syme, R., ‘The Ancestry of Constantine’, BHAC 1971 (Bonn 1974) 240-49Google Scholar.

14 Gerov 350-52. Cf. Besnier 226, who spoke of Claudius only as ‘au courant de ce qui se préparait’, and Parker and Warmington 178, who said that Claudius and Aurelian were only ‘privy’ to the plot, which had been ‘hatched’ by Heraclianus, Marcianus, and Cecropius.

15 For a detailed discussion of the inscription and Marcianus’ cursus see Gerov 333-49, 352-53. Bird, ‘Aurelius Victor’ 252 suggested that Marcianus may also have been a praetorian prefect, but AE 1965 no. 114 calls him a tribune of the praetorians.

16 The extent and chronology of the great Gothic invasion of the late 260s remain uncertain; for recent discussions see Demougeot, E., La formation de l'Europe et les invasions barbares 1 (Paris 1969) 422-28Google Scholar; Salamon, M., ‘The Chronology of Gothic Incursions into Asia Minor in the IIIrd Century A.D.’, Eos 59 (1971) 136-37Google Scholar; Burian, J., ‘Der Gotenkrieg unter Claudius II.’, Eirene 20 (1983) 87–94 Google Scholar; and Wolfram, H., History of the Goths (Berkeley 1988) 52–55 Google Scholar.

17 Damerau 9, 43, 45 n.4. On the HA's fondness for Claudius see Syme, Emperors 104, 205-206,210-11.

18 Gerov 350 n.64.

19 Campbell, J.B., The Emperor and the Roman Army (Oxford 1984) 186-98Google Scholar.

20 Barbieri 334; Damerau 45; Marini 71-72 n.3.

21 Some attempts have been made to date the HA to the fifth century (e.g., Alföldy, G., ‘Barbareinfälle und religiöse Krisen in Italien’, BHAC 1964/65 [Bonn 1966] 18–19 Google Scholar and Birley, E., ‘The Dating of Vegetius and the Historia Augusta’, BHAC 1982/83 [Bonn 1985] 57–67)Google Scholar, but the only date which could be reconciled with Zosimus’ invention of Claudius’ participation is the long-discredited sixth-century date proposed by A. von Domaszewski (on which see Chastagnol 62 n.66).

22 On 270 as the starting date of Eunapius’ history see Barnes, T.D., The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels 1978) 114 Google Scholar and Blockley, R.C., The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire 1 (Liverpool 1981) 1–3 Google Scholar, following Eunapius, FHG 4.13 fr. 1 Google Scholar. Baldini, A., Ricerche sulla Storia di Eunapio di Sardi (Bologna 1984) 179–230 Google Scholar did suggest that the first edition of Eunapius’ history also covered the period prior to 270 as far back as Augustus, but for criticisms of this opinion see Paschoud, F., 'Sur Eunape de Sardes’, REG 98 (1985) 397 Google Scholar.

23 E.g., Groag 1353; Damerau 8-10; Manni 72 n.3, 96; Bird, H.W., ‘Sextus Aurelius Victor liber de Caesaribus: An Historical Commentary on Chapters XVIII to XLII’ (Ph.D. diss., Toronto 1972) 139-40Google Scholar; Barnes, , Sources 73, 109-11Google Scholar. On the importance of Dexippus in the Greek/Byzantine historical tradition for this period see also FGrH 100 F 1–5 (commentary)Google Scholar. On Dexippus generally see Millar, F., ‘P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions’, JRS 59 (1969) 12–29 Google Scholar.

24 Barbieri 334-37; cf. Magie, D., The Scriptores Historiae Augustae 3 (Cambridge, Mass. 1932) 46–47 Google Scholar n.2. Bird, ‘Commentary’ 143 did accept as factual that Claudius was at Ticinum at the time of the murder, but only as a ploy to absolve him of any guilt in the deed.

25 Groag 1354; Damerau 89-90. For papyrological evidence that Aurelian attempted to link himself closely with Claudius, see Rea, J.R., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 40 (London 1972) 25 Google Scholar.

26 For discussions of the Dalmatian cavalry see, for example, Ritterling, E., ‘Zum römischen Heerwesen des ausgehenden dritten Jahrhunderts’, in Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechzigstem Geburtstage (Berlin 1903) 345-47Google Scholar; Hoffmann, D., Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum 1 (Düsseldorf 1969) 247-48Google Scholar; and Speidel, M.P., ‘The Rise of Ethnic Units in the Roman Imperial Army’, ANRW 2.3 (1975) 225-26Google Scholar.

27 Cecropius is accepted by, for example, Homo, , Essai 37 n.2 Google Scholar; Wickert 361; Bersanetti 174-75; Damerau 45; and Bird, ‘Aurelius Victor’ 252, but see Straub, J., Studien zur Historia Augusta (Bern 1952) 73 Google Scholar, who referred to ‘der—wohl erfundene—Ceronius sive Cecropius’.

28 E.g., Groag 1353-54; Wickert 361; Bersanetti 174; Damerau 45; Alföldi, ‘Crisis’ 190; Manni 72 n.3; Gerov 349-52; Bird, ‘Commentary’ 139.

29 Homo, Essai 37 n.2; Besnier 185 (cf. Bird, ‘Commentary’ 140); Parker and Warmington 178.

30 Syme, Emperors 1-16.

31 Syme, Emperors 210 and nn.4 and 6, 214 followed by Barnes, T.D., ‘Some Persons in the Historia Augusta’, Phoenix 26 (1972) 153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sources 68.

32 Barnes, , ‘Some Persons’ 145 and Sources 75 Google Scholar. In both of these cases the HA Aurelian seems to be following a reliable Greek source, perhaps Eunapius ( Pearson, M., ‘An Analysis of the Sources of the “Vita Aureliani” of the Historia Augusta’ [M.A. thesis, University of Cincinnati 1976] 67–69 Google Scholar; Barnes, , Sources 75, 112-13, 117Google Scholar; cf. Fisher, W.H., “The Augustan Vita Aureliani’, JRS 19 [1929] 139)Google Scholar.

33 Cecropius: one example (PIR 2 C594 = Jones, A.H.M, Martindale, J R., and Morris, J., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire [hereafter PLRE] 1 [Cambridge 1971] 189 Google Scholar = Martindale, J.R., PLRE 2 [Cambridge 1980] 274 Google Scholar). one example ( Pape, W. and Benseier, G.E., Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen3 1 [Braunschweig 1863] 642)Google Scholar. three examples (Pape and Benseier 1.642), one of which is an emendation, not generally accepted, by earlier editors of the name in Zosimus 1.38.1 (cf. the apparatus criticus in Paschoud, Zosime 1 ad loc.).

34 Pape and Benseier 1.642; OLD, ‘Cecropius’ 2.

35 On Gallienus’ effeminate and generally poor reputation among Latin writers see, for example, Homo, L., ‘L'empereur Gallien et la crise de l'empire romain au IIIe siècle’, RH 113 (1913) 1–12, 263-67Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., ‘Zur Kenntnis der Zeit der römischen Soldatenkaiser. II. Das Problem des “verweiblichten” Kaisers Gallienus’ (= ZN 28 [1928] 156–203)Google Scholar in Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Darmstadt 1967) 16–31 Google Scholar; and Blois, L. de, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden 1976) 78–80 Google Scholar. On Roman attitudes towards the cult of the Magna Mater/Cybele and the dies sanguinis see Showerman, G., ‘The Great Mother of the Gods’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin 1901) 277-78Google Scholar and Vermaseren, M.J., Cybele and Attis (London 1977) 96–97, 115Google Scholar.

36 Cf. HA Aurelian 18.1, which says that Aurelian was the supreme cavalry commander under Claudius. This has usually been interpreted to mean that Aurelian was , the commander of the field cavalry (of which the Dalmatian cavalry was a part) in the new mobile army believed to have been created by Gallienus (Homo, Essai 38; Groag 1354; Hoffman 1.247). It is tempting to surmise that Aurelian was promoted from the command of the équités Dalmatae to that of the entire field cavalry as his reward for the murder of Gallienus, but Simon, H.-G. (‘Die Reform der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien’, in Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte, ed. by Eck, W., Galsterer, H. and Wolff, H. [Cologne 1980] 435-52)Google Scholar and Springer, M. (‘Die angebliche Heeresreform des Kaisers Gallienus’, in Krise-Krisenbewußtsein-Krisenbewältigung, ed. by Oppermann, M. [Halle 1988] 97–100)Google Scholar have independently called into question the existence of the field army.

37 Bersanetti 175; Bird, ‘Commentary’ 139.

38 Cf. PLRE 1.417, which says that Heraclianus is ‘wrongly called “Aurelianus”’ at Victor 33.21, with the implication that Victor made the mistake, as Dufraigne, P., Aurelius Victor: livre des Césars [Paris 1975] 164 Google Scholar n.26 also believed; but Anna, daughter of the seventeenth century editor Tanaquil Faber (and a scholar in her own right), suggested in Samuel Pitiscus’ 1696 edition that Aureliani was a textual corruption for Heracliani (see the apparatus criticus of Pichlmayr's 1911 edition, ad loc.).

39 On Zonaras’ use of Peter the Patrician see Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantin-ischen Litteratur1 (Munich 1897) 372-73Google Scholar; Moravcsik, G., Byzantinoturcica 1 (Berlin 1958) 345 Google Scholar; and Ziegler, K., ‘Zonaras’, RE 10.A.1 (1972) 729 Google Scholar. Krumbacher 373, 389 and Hunger 1.477 spoke of the Synopsis Sathas having a source in common with Zonaras, though they did not name it. Damerau 9 n.5 seems to have thought that Zonaras was dependent on the Synopsis Sathas, the latter on Zosimus, but in fact Zonaras predates the Synopsis Sathas by more than a century. On Peter's use of Dexippus see Krumbacher 238, Hunger 1.301 and below, n.54.

40 Krumbacher 334-35 suggested that Peter was one of John of Antioch's sources; in the present case such a use would be possible if Peter explicitly called Heraclianus the commander of the Dalmatian cavalry, but that neither Zonaras nor the Synopsis Sathas record this post speaks against Peter's having mentioned it. On John's use of Zosimus see Moravcsik 1.313 (followed by Hunger 1.327) and Blockley, Historians 1.98-99.

41 On the contrary, Gerov 350 believed that the standard Latin version was the one which preserved the involvement of Marcianus.

42 On the collapse of Latin historiography in this period see, for example, Barnes, T.D., ‘The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition’, BHAC 1968/69 [Bonn 1970] 13–43 Google Scholar and Browning, R., ‘Later Principate: History’, in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. 2. Latin Literature, ed. by Kenney, E.J. (Cambridge 1982) 735 Google Scholar. 43 The loss of Ammianus Marcellinus for the third century may not be as regrettable as Syme, Emperors 195 believed; see Nixon, C.E.V., ‘An Historiographical Study of the Caesares of Sextus Aurelius Victor’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan 1971) 257 Google Scholar and Matthews, J., The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London 1989) 27–30 Google Scholar.

43 Chronica urbis Romae (ed. Mommsen, T., Chronica minora 1 [Monumenta Germaniae histórica (auctores antiquissimi) 9] [Berlin 1892]) 148 Google Scholar; Victor 33.19; Eutropius 9.11.1; Epit. 33.2; HA Gallienus 14.9. John of Antioch, FHG 4.599 fr. 152.3 also mentions Milan, but his information was derived presumably from a Greek translation of Eutropius made by Capito in the sixth century (on Capito and John of Antioch see, for example, Droysen, H., Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita [Monumenta Germaniae histórica (auctores antiquissimi) 2] [Berlin 1879] xxv Google Scholar; Krumbacher 334-35; and Hunger 1.327).

44 Eusebius’ Chronicle, it is true, does seem to have preserved Milan as well (Jerome Chronicle [ed. Helm, R., Die Chronik des Hieronymus2 (Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 47) (Berlin 1956)] 221hGoogle Scholar; Schoene, A., Eusebi Chronicorum Libri Duo 2 [Berlin 1866] 182)Google Scholar, but Eusebius is somewhat anomalous in that he was working outside the mainstream pagan historiographie tradition ( Momigliano, A., ‘Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.’, in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. by Momigliano, A. [Oxford 1963] 79–99)Google Scholar. A similar split between Latin and Greek sources is evident concerning the location of Aurelian's murder in 275; see Saunders, R.T., ‘A Biography of the Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 270-275)’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati 1991) 273-74Google Scholar.

45 On the HA's use of Victor and his Latin source, usually called after Enmann the Kaisergeschichte or KG, see Barnes, , Sources 90–97, 125 Google Scholar.

46 Schmidt, W.A., ‘Ueber die Quellen des Zonaras’, Zeitschrift für die Alterthums-wissenschaft 6 (1839) 284 Google Scholar (= Dindorf, L., loannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum 6 [Leipzig 1875] lviii)Google Scholar. Schmidt 281-83 (= Dindorf lv-lvi) also noted that Zonaras seemed to have used a source related to Eutropius. On Zonaras’ knowledge of Latin see also II, M. DiMaio, ‘Zonaras’ Account of the Neo-Flavian Emperors: a Commentary’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri-Columbia 1977) 473-74Google Scholar.

47 Bird, ‘Aurelius Victor’ 252-53; Dufraigne 163 n.26. Dufraigne 163 n.25 said that Eutropius 9.11.1 also related that Gallienus was killed fraude Aureoli, but this phrase seems to be from Paul the Deacon's version of Eutropius and not from Eutropius himself (see Droysen 156, subtext of Paulus ad loc.). Manni 72 n.3 mistakenly gave Aureolus a more active role as an accomplice of Heraclianus, apparently based on the erroneous Latin translation of Zonaras 12.25 in Pinder, M., loannis Zonarae Annales 2 (= Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, 30) (Bonn 1844) ad loc.Google Scholar, as also noted by Barbieri 336.

48 Bird, ‘Aurelius Victor’ 253 seems to have believed that Victor himself was responsible for shifting the blame from Claudius to Aurelian out of regard for Constantius II, but cf. ‘Commentary’ 140, where the KG is given responsibility for the tradition of Aurelian's complicity.

49 For Aurelian's career under Claudius and his accession see Homo, , Essai 37–41 and Groag 1354-55Google Scholar, but compare the more cautious evaluations of the relevant sources in Fisher 130-31 and Pearson 47-49. Homo, , Essai 36–37 Google Scholar (apparently followed by Parker and Warmington 186-87 and Besnier 226) thought that Aurelian was so prominent at the time of Gallienus’ death that the choice of a new emperor was between him and Claudius; there is, however, no evidence to show that Aurelian was in contention for the principale at that time.

50 Cf. Groag 1354.

51 Paschoud, F., Zosime 1.140 Google Scholar n.38 claimed that Zosimus 1.14 was evidence that Zosimus did not use Dexippus, because on the chronology of the vigintiviri and on the role of Valerian he contradicted HA Maximinus 32.3 and HA Gordian 9.7 just where the latter two explicitly claimed to be following Dexippus. But Zosimus is capable of making chronological errors ( Ridley, R.T., ‘Zosimus the Historian’, ByzZ 65 [1972] 290-91, 297-99)Google Scholar; and it is by no means clear if either Zosimus or the HA Gordian has Valerian's part in the events of 238 correct ( Whittaker, CR., Herodian 2 [Cambridge, Mass. 1970] 194 n.1Google Scholar; Loriot, X., ‘Les premières années de la grande crise du IIIe siècle: De l'avènement de Maximin le Thrace [235] à la mort de Gordien III [244]’, ANRW 2.2 [Berlin 1975] 690 n.265)Google Scholar. On this particular historiographical problem also compare Baker, A.E., ‘Eunapius and Zosimus. Problems of Chronology and Composition’ (Ph.D. diss., Brown University 1987) 61–63 Google Scholar.

52 On the Chronica and Scythica see FGrH 100 F 1-7 (commentary) and Millar 22-24.

53 FGrH 100 F 6-7 (commentary) offered as a possibility that the Scythica covered Aurelian's reign up to his triumph in 274.

54 The use of Dexippus’ Scythica by Peter, is also clearly shown by comparing Dexippus, FGrH 100 F 7.1 Google Scholar with Peter, , FHG 4.188 fr. 12 Google Scholar on Aurelian's peace with the Vandals in 271.

55 Baker 59-60 also maintained that Zosimus used the Chronica; cf. Damerau 8-10. Zosimus’ sources for the period prior to 270, however, have always been a matter of some dispute: cf. the various theories proposed and assessed in L., Mendelssohn, Zosimi historia nova (Leipzig 1887) xxxiii-xxxiv Google Scholar; Paschoud, , Zosime 1 xxxvii-xl Google Scholar; R.C., Blockley, ‘Was the First Book of Zosimus’ New History Based on More Than Two Sources?’, Byzantion 50 (1980) 393—402 Google Scholar; Baldini 179-230; F., Paschoud, ‘Eunapiana’, BHAC 1982/83 (1985) 244—53 Google Scholar; and Baker 59-74.

56 The standard opinion, for the period including the reign of Gallienus, seems to be that the HA followed the Chronica (e.g., Barnes, , Sources 109-11Google Scholar; Baker 59-60: cf. Damerau 8-10), but in support of the HA's use of the Scythica one may also note that G., Kerler, Die Außenpolitik in der Historia Augusta (Bonn 1970) 222 Google Scholar (cf. Barnes. Sources 112) suggested that the Scythica was a source of the HA Aurelian for Aurelian's Danubian wars of 270/71, though here the issue is complicated by the possibility that Eunapius was an intermediary for this information (see Barnes, Sources 112-23, but cf. Paschoud, F., ‘Quand parut la première edition de l'Histoire d'Eunape?’, BHAC 1977/78 [Bonn 1980] 149—69)Google Scholar.

57 Bird, ‘Commentary’ 140-41. On the wanton character of the author of the HA see Syme, Emperors 248-80.

58 Claudius’ official position at the time of the assassination is not clear. A reference to him as in an anecdote from Zonaras 12.26 has led many scholars to believe that he succeeded Aureolus as the commander of the cavalry in Gallienus’ new mobile field army (e.g., Damerau 43-44; Hoffmann 1.247), but the existence of this army is in doubt (above, n.36). Other scholars, following Victor 33.28, have suggested that Claudius was the tribūnus maior of the protectores domestici, an early manifestation of the scholae palatinae, or imperial bodyguards, of the late empire ( Frank, R.I.. Scholae Palatinae [Rome 1969] 41–42, followed by BirdGoogle Scholar. ‘Commentary’ 144 and Hartmann 139 n.3). But Victor's reliability in the matter of Claudius’ accession is questionable, as already seen (also cf. Bird, ‘Aurelius Victor’ 252 n.3). Another possibility is raised by the suggestion of Simon 439-40, 443 that Aureolus held a special command over forces in Raetia as a dux at the time of his revolt; perhaps Claudius too held a similar position, or was even brought to Milan to assume Aureolus’ duties. In any case, that Claudius (Zosimus 1.40.2), and that he had even been chosen in advance of the assassination to succeed Gallienus (Zosimus 1.41), suggest that he was a military figure of some importance.