Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:33:17.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principes cum Tyrannis: Two Studies on the Kaisergeschichte and its Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. W. Burgess
R. W. Burgess
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Kaisergeschichte (KG) was a set of short imperial biographies extending from Augustus to the death of Constantine, probably written between 337 and c. 340. It no longer exists but its existence can be deduced from other surviving works. Amongst the histories of the fourth century – Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Festus, Jerome's Chronici canones, the Historia Augusta, the Epitome de Caesaribus, and, in places, even Ammianus Marcellinus and perhaps the Origo Constantini imperatoris (Anonymi Valesiani pars prior) – there is a common selection of facts and errors, and common wording and phrasing in their narratives between Augustus and the death of Constantine, especially in their accounts of the third century. A natural assumption is that later historians copied earlier ones, yet later historians include information not contained in earlier ones, and historians who could not have known each other's work share similarities. For example, it looks as though Aurelius Victor was copying Eutropius, yet Victor wrote before Eutropius, and Eutropius contains information not in Victor and does not reproduce Victor's peculiar style or personal biases, things which he could hardly have avoided. Therefore Eutropius cannot be copying Victor. Since neither could have copied the other, there must therefore have been a common source. In his Chronici canones Jerome appears at first to be simply copying Eutropius. Yet when he deviates from Eutropius, his deviations usually mirror other histories, such as Suetonius, Victor, Festus, even the Epitome and the Historia Augusta, two works that had not even been written when Jerome compiled his chronicle and that did not use, and would never have used, the Christian chronicle as a source. Jerome was hurriedly dictating to his secretary, he had no time to peruse four or five works at a time for his brief notices. There must have been a single source that contained both the Eutropian material and the deviations common to Jerome and the other works. That source was the KG. It is the purpose of this paper to add to the above list of authors who relied upon the KG two other writers whose work can be shown to have derived, either at first hand or later, from the KG: Polemius Silvius and Ausonius.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 491 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1993

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 The bibliography for the KG is large; the reader is directed to Herzog, Reinhart and Schmidt, P. L. (eds.), Handbuch der Lateinischen Literatur (Munich, 1989), pp. 196–8, §536Google Scholar: ‘Die sogenannte Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte’. I shall cite here only the following: Enmann, Alexander, ‘Eine verlorene Geschichte der romischen Kaiser und das Buch De viris illustribus urbis Romae’, Philologus Suppl. 4 (1884), 337–501Google Scholar; Barnes, T. D., ‘The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition’, Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1968/1969. Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beitrage zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung, Band 7 (Bonn, 1970), 13–43Google Scholar (reprinted in idem, Early Christianity and the Roman Empire (London, 1984), paper IV); idem, ‘The Epitome de Caesaribus and its ces’, CP 71 (1976), 258–68 (reprinted in Early Christianity and the Roman Empire, paper XIII); idem, The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels, 1978), pp. 90–97; R. W. Burgess, ‘Jerome and the Kaisergeschichte’, Historia (forthcoming); Matthews, John, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London, 1989), pp. 29–30, 244–5,457Google Scholar; Bird, H. W., ‘A Strange Aggregate of Errors for A.D. 193’, CB 65 (1989), 95–8Google Scholar. Barnes denies any connection between the KG and the Origo: cf. BHAC (above), 24–7, and ‘Jerome and the Origo Constantini imperatoris’, Phoenix 43 (1989), 159–61Google Scholar. I hope to examine the obvious, but minor, connection between these two works in a future paper. For a terminal date of 357 for the KG, see Bird, H. W., ‘Further Observations on the Dating of Enmann's Kaisergeschichte’, CQ 23 (1973), 375–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The seven surviving sections were edited by Mommsen, Th. in Chronica minora i. 518–551Google Scholar. The calendar itself is to be found in Inscriptions Italiae 13.2, pp. 264–75.

3 For these terms, and the other changes Polemius made to the calendar, see his preface (Chron. min. i. 518–19) and Salzman, Michele Renee, On Roman Time (Berkeley, 1990), pp. 242–4Google Scholar.

4 See Salzman, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 245.

5 Chron. min. i. 520–23. The text is rather corrupt now and Polemius' exemplar may have been as well.

6 Cf. his preface (p. 518). There is no way of knowing how old the list was from which he compiled his laterculus.

7 This explains why so many fourth-century Latin authors all over the empire were forced to use it; cf. Barnes, , BHAC (cit. n. 1), 41Google Scholar, and Syme, Ronald, Emperors and Biography (Oxford, 1971), pp. 90, 195, and 231Google Scholar. It was used by Aurelius Victor in Sirmium, Eutropius and Festus in the East (?Constantinople or Marcianopolis), Jerome in Constantinople, and the HA (and Ammianus?) in Rome. As we shall see below, it may also have been used by Ausonius in Bordeaux.

8 Note also that three obscure Caesars listed by Polemius otherwise appear only in works deriving from the KG or in the Origo (which appears to be linked to the KG): Marcellus: PS 31; Epit. 23.4 (see n. 30, below); Valens: PS 62; Epit. 40.2.9; Origo 5.17–18; and Martinianus: PS 62; Victor 41.9; Epit. 41.6–7; Origo 5.26, 28–9. Compare also the Origo's unusual ‘Licinius Martinianum sibi Caesarem fecit’ (5.26) with Polemius' ‘Licinius … Martinianum et Valentem Caesares sibifecerat’ (62).

9 See Syme, Ronald, Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford, 1983), pp. 48 and 49Google Scholar.

10 Both Victor and Eutropius (33.9 and 9.9.2) call Marius an ‘opifex’ (Victor adds ‘ferri’). The KG therefore probably called him an ‘opifex ex fabro ferrario’.

11 The text is Mommsen's. The manuscript has ‘haberi’, which fits better with ‘Gallis’; if ‘habere’ is accepted, ‘Gallos’ should probably be read.

12 Victor and the HA mention it as well (37.3 and Probus 18.8) but with different wording.

13 In his edition of the laterculus, Mommsen has supplied from the Origo an approximation of what has fallen out of the text. The sentence ‘de quo nati sunt Gallus et Iulianus qui imperauit’ was added to the basic entry some time after 360, of course, but it is incorrect, for Gallus and Julian were half-brothers by Julius Constantius, half-brother of Constantine, and brother of Dalmatius, pere.

14 Victor 26–7, Eutropius 9.2.1; cf. HA Gord. tres 2.1 (attacking both the KG and Victor) and Epit. 26–7.

15 See Mommsen's, apparatus criticus, bottom of p. 521Google Scholar at line 34.

16 Victor 31.1–3, Eutropius 9.5–6, Jerome 219f, Epit. 31.1–3. It should be noted that a Latin tradition independent of the KG, represented by the Chronica urbis Romae (compiled c. 325; ed. Mommsen, , Chron. min. i. 147–8Google Scholar; on which and the KG, see Barnes, , BHAC (cit. n. 1), 23–4)Google Scholar, includes both three Gordians and Aemilianus as a legitimate emperor. It would seem that Polemius' laterculus or its source was altered by someone with access to this tradition.

17 Among such errors or emendations I would include the dislocation of three usurpers: Cassius (under Pius instead of Marcus Aurelius; copying error), Victorinus (under Aurelian instead of Gallienus; erroneous emendation), and Julianus (under Numerian instead of Carinus; compilation error).

18 These are numbered 22 and 23 in the monumental new edition and commentary of Green, R. P. H. (The Works of Ausonius, Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar. However, Green is rather confused over the nature of the Fasti, thinking that it was written completely in verse and included accounts of the early kings of Rome and the emperors (p. 555). The evidence of the four surviving poems and the description of the work in Mansionario's list (see next note) – ‘concordie libri fastorum cum libris consularibus liber unus’ – indicates that it was an example of a genre that was becoming very popular at the time: annotated consular lists, like the Consularia Constantinopolitana (on which, see Burgess, R. W., The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana (Oxford, 1993), pp. 175–209)Google Scholar.

19 On this list, see Weiss, R., ‘Ausonius in the Fourteenth Century’ in Bolgar, R. R. (ed.), Classical Influences on European Culture A.D. 500–1500 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 67–72Google Scholar; Reeve, M. D., ‘Some Manuscripts of Ausonius’, Prometheus 3 (1977), 112–20Google Scholar; and Green, , Ausonius, p. 720Google Scholar.

20 Green, is incorrect in thinking that the chronicle referred to here was ‘possibly based on Nepos’ (Ausonius, p. 720)Google Scholar. A chronicle that begins with the creation of the world is unlikely to derive from Nepos, or any other pagan historian. I think it far more probable that it was a chronicle inspired by and perhaps derived from that of Jerome, which became extremely popular in the West after its appearance in 382.

21 Green, (‘Marius Maximus and Ausonius', Caesares’, CQ 31 (1981), 230, and Ausonius, p. 319)CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that he may have been a distant relative of Ausonius' (= Eusebius 2, PLRE i. 301). It is not impossible; but see below.

22 Reeve, op. cit. (n. 19), 120, and Green, , CQ, 229–30Google Scholar.

23 Green suggests that Ausonius changed metres halfway through the poem to better deal with the more awkward third-century names. This is not, as he claims, analogous to such changes of verse in the Parentalia and the Professores, since there Ausonius switches metre only for a very few individuals, no t for half of an entire work, as would be the case with a single Caesares / Tyranni. This also implies that Mansionario was mistaken in regarding the Caesares / Tyranni as two separate works. The detail and care revealed elsewhere in the list belies this (cf. Weiss, op. cit. n. 19, pp. 68–9).

24 In his Works of Ausonius Green deviates even further from the evidence by suggesting that the Tyranni covered the period from Alexander Severus to Ausonius' own time (pp. 557–8).

25 Cf., for example, the use of the phrase by Eutropius (10.4.4), of Maximinus (already a legitimate emperor) rebelling against Licinius (another legitimate emperor), and by Jerome (170h), of the Athenians rebelling against Rome.

26 The last major usurper under Diocletian, Achilleus, was defeated in March 298, but two other minor usurpers appeared in 303 (see Barnes, T. D., The New Empire of Constantine and Diocletian (Harvard, Mass., 1982), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Green, , Ausonius, p. 558Google Scholar, for the date of the Caesares; the Tyranni was probably written at the same time.

27 Green, , CQ (cit. n. 21), p. 230Google Scholar, and Sivan, Hagith, ‘The Historian Eusebius (of Nantes)’, JHS 112 (1992), 158–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar (which appeared after the present paper had been accepted for publication and I had no prior knowledge of its existence). Eusebius is mentioned by Evagrius HE v. 24 (cf. PLRE i. 01, s.v. Eusebius 1). This identification was also accepted by J.-P. Callu in the preface to Vol. 1.1 of his new edition and translation of the Historia Augusta (Paris, 1992), pp. xxxiv n. 82, li–lii and nn. 142–8, and lxvGoogle Scholar.

28 Sivan, is aware of this contradiction, but calls it ‘a slight and insignificant discrepancy’ (p. 162 n. 36)Google Scholar.

29 Neither Victor nor Eutropius treats Gordian I as a legitimate emperor, but they do not explicitly call him a usurper either. The Epitome considers him a usurper, but is relying on Greek sources at this point. Polemius considers him a usurper, but as can be seen below in the Appendix, on three other occasions (Odenatus, Felicissimus, and Faustinus) he identifies nonusurpers as usurpers.

30 Iotapianus is placed under Philip by Polemius and Decius by Victor. The former would appear to be correct (cf. Kienast, Dietmar, Römische Kaisertabelle: Gnmdzüge einer romischen Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt, 1990), pp. 200–201)Google Scholar, but Victor closely links the Decian usurpers Priscus and Valens with Iotapianus and states that Iotapianus' head was brought to Decius. It must have been, therefore, that the KG overlapped Iotapianus' usurpation with the reigns of Philip and Decius (perhaps correctly), and that Polemius' source noted Iotapianus' accession under Philip, while Victor and Ausonius his defeat under Decius. A similar situation may underlie the discrepancy regarding Taurinus, who is placed under Elagabalus by Polemius and Severus Alexander by the Epitome. Both agree on the unique but erroneous reference to ‘Marcellus’ as Caesar under Elagabalus (= Alexander; cf. PIR 2 M 192), which certainly indicates a common source (the KG), but Taurinus was an Eastern usurper and it would seem that the Epitome owes its other information not to the KG but to a Greek source (cf. Barnes, , CP 71 (cit. n. 1), 264Google Scholar, and Schlumberger, Jörg, Die Epitome de Caesaribus: Untersuchungen zur heidnischen Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Vestigia 18 (Munich, 1974), pp. 135–6)Google Scholar. In both cases, however, Polemius' list ma y simply b e in error (see above, n. 17).

31 Herodian VI.4.7, Di o 80.3.1, Zosimus 1.12, an d Syncellus (674 an d 675, Bonn).

32 Others are mentioned by Dio 79.7.2–4.

33 For these, see Kienast (n. 30), pp. 175–6, 181–2, 186–7, 196, 200–201.

34 Eutropius 9.5, 9.9.1; Jerome 219f (and later at 233g, also from the KG, but not included by Ausonius); Victor 29.1 (‘tentans noua’). The corollary of this hypothesis, of course, is that Ausonius may have used the KG for the Caesares as well.

35 I should like to thank Hagith Sivan for first asking me about Eusebius Nanneticus (but she did not wait for my reply!), and Tim Barnes, Harry Bird, and an anonymous referee for CQ for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. A very short version of part two was delivered to the Classical Association of Canada's Annual Conference, at Charlottetown, P. E. I., in May 1992.

36 PS: Polemius Silvius; Victor: Aurelius Victor; Eutr.: Eutropius; Jer.: Jerome, Chronici canones; Epit.: Epitome de Caesaribus. This list does not include the following: Amandu s (Victor 39.17; Eutr. 9.20.3 {Maximian; 272}), who was a usurper but was not recognized as such by the KG; Julianus (Victor 39.22; Epit. 39.3–4 {Maximian; 273}), who was regarded as a usurper by the KG bu t was omitted by or has dropped ou t of Polemius' list; Aemilianus (PS 42; Victor 31.1–3; Eutr. 9.5; Jer. 219 f, g; Epit. 31.1–3 {210}), who was regarded as a usurper by the KG, but is not so recognized in Polemius' list (see above, p. 6); and Valens, (HA Gall. 2.2–4Google Scholar, Tyr. trig. 19; Epit. 32.4 {224}), Aemilianus, (HA Tyr. trig. 22Google Scholar, Gall. 4.1–2;Epit. 32.4 {224}), and Septimius, (Epit. 35.3 {234})Google Scholar, usurpers under Gallienus who appear to derive from Greek sources.

37 No usurper by this name is known to any historical tradition. The HA mentions a usurper called Macrianus with whom Sallustius is probably correctly identified (Alex. Sev. 49.3–4), but the Greek historian Dexippus is cited as the source for this information.