[Footnote 105: Chiefly derived from the Paraenesis of Ennodius (Opusc. vi.).]

[Footnote 106: In the Paraenesis.]

[Footnote 107: Usener's suggestion (pp. 38, 39) that he obtained this honour in consequence of having filled the place of Comes Sacrarum Largitionum seems to me only to land us in the further difficulty caused by the entire omission of all allusion to this fact both in the Paraenesis and in the Anecdoton Holderi.]

[Footnote 108: See Var. i. 10 and 45; ii. 40.]

[Sidenote: His theological treatises.]

So far, then, we have in the 'Anecdoton Holderi' only a somewhat meagre reiteration of facts already known to us. But when we come to the statement of the literary labours of Boethius the case is entirely altered. It is well known that in the Middle Ages certain treatises on disputed points of Christian theology were attributed to him as their author. They are:—

1. A treatise 'De Sancta Trinitate.'

2. 'Ad Johannem Diaconum: Utrum Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus de Divinitate substantialiter praedicentur.'

3. 'Ad eundem: Quomodo substantiae in eo quod sint bonae sint cum non sint substantialia bona.'

4. 'De Fide Catholica.'

5. 'Contra Eutychen et Nestorium.'

It may be said at once that in the earlier MSS. the fourth treatise is not attributed to Boethius. It seems to have been included with the others by some mistake, and I shall therefore in the following remarks assume that it is not his, and shall confine my attention to the first three and the fifth.

[Sidenote: Difficulty as to religious position of Boethius.]

Even as to these, notwithstanding the nearly unanimous voice of the early Middle Ages (as represented by MSS. of the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Centuries) assigning them to Boethius as their author, scholars, especially recent scholars, have felt the gravest possible doubts of their being really his, doubts which have of late ripened into an almost complete certainty that he was not their author. The difficulty does not arise from anything in the diction or in the theology which points to a later age as the time of their composition, but from the startling contrast which they present to the religious atmosphere of the 'Consolation of Philosophy.' Here, in these theological treatises, we have the author entering cheerfully into the most abstruse points of the controversy concerning the Nature of Christ, without apparently one wavering thought as to the Deity of the Son of Mary. There, in the 'Consolation,' a book written in prison and in disgrace, with death at the executioner's hands impending over him—a book in which above all others we should have expected a man possessing the Christian faith to dwell upon the promises of Christianity—the name of Christ is never once mentioned, the tone, though religious and reverential, is that of a Theist only; and from beginning to end, except one or two sentences in which an obscure allusion may possibly be detected to the Christian revelation, there is nothing which might not have been written by a Greek philosopher ignorant of the very name of Christianity. Of the various attempts which have been made to solve this riddle perhaps the most ingenious is that of M. Charles Jourdain, who, in a monograph devoted to the subject[109], seeks to prove that the author of the theological treatises referred to was a certain Boethus, an African Bishop of the Byzacene Province, who was banished to Sardinia about the year 504 by the Vandal King Thrasamond.

[Footnote 109: De l'Origine des Traditions sur le Christianisme de Boece (Paris, 1861.)]

Not thus, however, as it now appears, is the knot to be cut. And after all, M. Jourdain, in arguing, as he seems disposed to argue, against any external profession of Christianity on the part of Boethius, introduces contradictions greater than any that his theory would remove. To any person acquainted with the thoughts and words of the little coterie of Roman nobles to which Boethius belonged, it will seem absolutely impossible that the son-in-law of Symmachus, the receiver of the praises of Ennodius and Cassiodorus, should have been a professed votary of the old Paganism. It is not the theological treatises coming from a man in his position which are hard to account for; it is the apparently non-Christian tone of the 'Consolation.'

The fragment now before us shows that the old-fashioned belief in Boethius as a theologian was well founded. 'He wrote a book concerning the Holy Trinity, and certain dogmatic chapters, and a book against Nestorius.' That is a sufficiently accurate resume of the four theological treatises enumerated above. Here Usener also observes—and I am inclined to agree with him—that there is a certain resemblance between the style of thought of these treatises and that of the 'Consolation' itself. They are, after all, philosophical rather than religious; one of the earliest samples of that kind of logical discussion of theological dogmas which the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages so delighted to indulge in. The young philosopher, hearing at his father-in-law's table the discussions between Chalcedonian and Monophysite with which all Rome resounded, on account of the prolonged strife with the Church of Constantinople, set himself down to discuss the same topics which they were wrangling over by the light—to him so clear and precious—of the Greek philosophy. There was perhaps in this employment neither reverence nor irreverence. He had not St. Augustine's intense and almost passionate conviction of the truth of Christianity; but he was quite willing to accept it and to discourse upon it, as he discoursed on Arithmetic, Music, and Geometry.

But when premature old age, solitude, and the loss of liberty befell him, it was not to the highly elaborated Christian theology of the Sixth Century that he turned for support and consolation. Probably enough the very fact that he knew some of the pitfalls in the way deterred him from that dangerous journey, where the slightest deviation on either side landed him in some detested heresy, the heresy of Nestorius or of Eutyches. 'On revient toujours a ses premiers amours;' and even so Boethius, though undoubtedly professing himself a Christian, and about to die in full communion with the Catholic Church, turned for comfort in his dungeon to the philosophical studies of his youth, especially to the ethical writings of Plato and Aristotle.

After all, the title of the treatise is 'Philosophiae Consolatio;' and however vigorous a literature of philosophy may in the course of centuries have grown up in the Christian domain, in the sixth century the remembrance of the old opposition between Christianity and Philosophy was perhaps still too strong for a writer to do anything more than stand neutral as to the distinctive claims of Christianity, when he had for the time donned the cloak of the philosopher.

[Sidenote: The Bucolic Poem of Boethius.]

We learn from the fragment before us that Boethius also wrote a 'Bucolic Poem.' This is an interesting fact, and helps to explain the facility with which he breaks into song in the midst of the 'Consolation.' It may have been to this effort of the imagination that he alluded when he said at the beginning of that work—

'Carmina qui quondam studio florente peregi Flebilis, heu, moestos cogor inire modos.'

We would gladly know something more of this 'Bucolic Poem' indited by the universal genius, Boethius.

[Sidenote: Cassiodorus.]

III. As for Cassiodorus himself, the additional information furnished by this fragment has been already discussed in the foregoing chapter. That he was Consilarius to his father during his Praefecture, and that in that capacity he recited an eloquent panegyric on Theodoric, which was rewarded by his promotion to the high office of the Quaestorship, are facts which we learn from this fragment only; and they are of high importance, not only for the life of Cassiodorus but for the history of Europe at the beginning of the Sixth Century, because they make it impossible to assign to any letter in the 'Variae' an earlier date than 500.



CHAPTER III.

THE GRADATIONS OF OFFICIAL RANK IN THE LATER EMPIRE.

[Sidenote: Official Hierarchy introduced by Diocletian.]

It is well known that Diocletian introduced and Constantine perfected an elaborate system of administration under which the titles, functions, order of precedence, and number of attendants of the various officers of the Civil Service as well as of the Imperial army were minutely and punctiliously regulated. This system, which, as forming the pattern upon which the nobility of mediaeval Europe was to a great extent modelled, perhaps deserves even more careful study than it has yet received, is admirably illustrated by the letters of Cassiodorus. The Notitia Utriusque Imperii, our copies of which must have been compiled in the early years of the Fifth Century, furnishes us with a picture of official life which, after we have made allowance for the fact that the Empire of the West has shrunk into the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy (with the addition of Dalmatia and some other portions of Illyricum), is almost precisely reproduced in the pages of the 'Various Letters.' In order that the student may understand the full significance of many passages in those letters, and especially of the superscriptions by which each letter is prefaced, it will be well to give a brief outline of the system which existed alike under Theodosius and Theodoric.

[Sidenote: Nobilissimi.]

In the first place, then, we come to what is rather a family than a class, the persons bearing the title Nobilissimus[110]. These were the nearest relatives of the reigning Emperor; his brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. The title therefore is not unlike that of Royal or Imperial Highness in modern monarchies. I am not sure whether any trace can be found of the survival of this title in the Ostrogothic Court. Theodahad, nephew of Theodoric, is addressed simply as 'Vir Senator[111],' and he is spoken of as 'praecelsus et amplissimus vir[112].' It is not so, however, in respect of the three great official classes which follow—the Illustres, Spectabiles, and Clarissimi—whose titles were rendered as punctiliously in the Italy of Theodoric as ever they were in the Italy of Diocletian and Constantine.

[Footnote 110: The existence of this title is proved not only by the language of Arcadius in the Theodosian Code x. 25. 1, concerning 'Nobilissimae puellae, filiae meae,' but also by Zosimus (ii. 39), who says that Constantine bestowed the dignity of Nobilissimus on his brother Constantius and his nephew Hannibalianus ([Greek: tes tou legomenou nobelissimou par' autou Konstantinou tuchontes axias aidoi tes syngeneias]); and by Marcellinus Comes, s. a. 527, who says: 'Justinus Imperator Justinianum ex sorore sua nepotem, jamdudum a se Nobilissimum designatum, participem quoque regni ani, successoremque creavit.' It is evident that the title did not come by right of birth, but that some sort of declaration of it was necessary.]

[Footnote 111: Var. iii. 15.]

[Footnote 112: Var. viii. 23.]

[Sidenote: Illustres.]

I. The Illustres were a small and select circle of men, the chief depositaries of power after the Sovereign, and they may with some truth be compared to the Cabinet Ministers of our own political system. The 'Notitia' mentions thirteen of them as bearing rule in the Western Empire. They are:

1. The Praetorian Praefect of Italy.

2. The Praetorian Praefect of the Gauls.

3. The Praefect of the City of Rome.

4. The Master of the Foot Guards (Magister Peditum in Praesenti).

5. The Master of the Horse Guards (Magister Equitum in Praesenti).

6. The Master of the Horse for the Gauls (per Gallias).

7. The Grand Chamberlain (Praepositus Sacri Cubiculi).

8. The Master of the Offices.

9. The Quaestor.

10. The Count of Sacred Largesses.

11. The Count of the Private Domains (Comes Rerum Privatarum).

12. The Count of the Household Cavalry (Comes Domesticorum Equitum).

13. The Count of the Household Infantry (Comes Domesticorum Peditum).

Substantially these same titles were borne by the Illustres to whom Cassiodorus (himself one of them) addressed his 'Various Letters.' The second and the sixth (the Praetorian Praefect of the Gauls, and the Master of the Horse for the Gauls) may possibly have disappeared; and yet, in view of the fact that Theodoric was during the greater part of his reign ruler of a portion of Gaul, it is not necessary to assume even this change. Into the question of the military officers I will not enter, as I confess that I do not understand the relations (whether co-ordinate or subordinated one to another) of the two pairs of officers, Nos. 4 and 5 and Nos. 12 and 13.

The rank and duties of the Praetorian Praefect of Italy, the Master of the Offices, and the Quaestor have already been described in the first chapter. It will be well to say a few words as to the four remaining civil dignitaries, the Praefect of the City, the Grand Chamberlain, the Count of Sacred Largesses, and the Count of the Private Domains.

[Sidenote: Praefect of the City.]

(a) The Praefectus Urbis Romae was by virtue of his office head of the Senate. He had the care of the Annona or corn-largesses to the people, the command of the City-watch, and the duty of keeping the aqueducts in proper repair. The shores and channel of the Tiber, the vast cloacae which carried off the refuse of the City, the quays and warehouses of Portus at the river's mouth were also under his authority. The officer who was charged with taking the census, the officers charged with levying the duties on wine, the masters of the markets, the superintendents of the granaries, the curators of the statues, baths, theatres, and the other public buildings with which the City was adorned, all owned the supreme control of the Urban Praefect. At the beginning of the Fifth Century the Vicarius Urbis (whom it is difficult not to think of as in some sort subject to the Praefectus Urbis), had jurisdiction over all central and southern Italy and Sicily. But if this was the arrangement then, it must have been altered before the time of Cassiodorus, who certainly appears as Praetorian Praefect to have wielded authority over the greater part of Italy. He states, however[113], that the Urban Praefect had, by an ancient law, jurisdiction, not only over Rome itself, but over all the district within 100 miles of the capital.

[Footnote 113: Var. vi. 4.]

[Sidenote: Grand Chamberlain.]

(b) The Praepositus Sacri Cubiculi had under his orders the large staff of Grooms of the Bedchamber, at whose head stood the Primicerius Cubiculariorum, an officer of 'respectable' rank. The Castrensis, Butler or Seneschal, with his army of lacqueys and pages who attended to the spreading and serving of the royal table; the Comes Sacrae Vestis, who with similar assistance took charge of the royal wardrobe; the Comes Domorum, who perhaps superintended the needful repairs of the royal palace, all took their orders in the last resort from the Grand Chamberlain. So, too, did the three Decurions, officers with a splendid career of advancement before them, who marshalled the thirty brilliantly armed Silentiarii, that paced backwards and forwards before the purple veil guarding the slumbers of the Sovereign.

[Sidenote: Count of Sacred Largesses.]

(c) The Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, theoretically only the Grand Almoner of the Sovereign, discharged in practice many of the duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The mines, the mint, the Imperial linen factories, the receipt of the tribute of the Provinces, and many other departments of the public revenue were originally under the care of this functionary, whose office however, as we are expressly told by Cassiodorus, had lost part of its lustre, probably by a transfer of some of these duties to the Count of the Private Domains.

[Sidenote: Count of Private Domains.]

(d) This Minister, the Comes Rerum Privatarum, had the superintendence of the Imperial estates in Italy and the Provinces. Confiscations and the absorption by the State of the properties of defaulting tax-payers were probably always tending to increase the extent of these estates, and to make the office of Count of the Domain more important. The collection of the land-tax, far the most important item of the Imperial revenue, was also made subject to his authority. Finally, in order, as Cassiodorus quaintly observes[114], that his jurisdiction should not be exercised only over slaves (the cultivators of the State domains), some authority was given to him within the City, and by a curious division of labour all charges of incestuous crime, or of the spoliation of graves, were brought before the tribunal of the Comes Privatarum.

[Footnote 114: Var. vi. 8.]

Besides the thirteen persons who, as acting Ministers of the highest class, were entitled to the designation of Illustris, there were also those whom we may call honorary members of the class: the persons who had received the dignity of the Patriciate—a dignity which was frequently bestowed on those who had filled the office of Consul, and which, unlike the others of which we have been speaking, was held for life.

It is a question on which I think we need further information, whether a person who had once filled an Illustrious office lost the right to be so addressed on vacating it. I am not sure that we have any clear case in the following collection of an ex-official holding this courtesy-rank; but it seems probable that such would be the case.

Considering also the great show of honour with which the Consulate, though now destitute of all real power, was still greeted, it seems probable that the Consuls for the year would rank as Illustres; but here, too, we seem to require fuller details.

[Sidenote: Spectabiles.]

II. We now come to the Second Class, the Spectabiles, which consists chiefly of the lieutenants and deputies of the Illustres.

For instance, every Praetorian Praefect had immediately under him a certain number of Vicarii, each of whom was a Spectabilis. The Praefecture included an extent of territory equivalent to two or three countries of Modern Europe (for instance, the Praefecture of the Gauls embraced Britain, Gaul, a considerable slice of Germany, Spain, and Morocco). This was divided into Dioceses (in the instance above referred to Britain formed one Diocese, Gaul another, and Spain with its attendant portion of Africa a third), and the Diocese was again divided into Provinces. The title of the ruler of the Diocese, who in his restricted but still ample domain wielded a similar authority to that of the Illustrious Praefect, was Spectabilis Vicarius.

But the Praefect and the Vicar controlled only the civil government of the territories over which they respectively bore sway. The military command of the Diocese was vested in a Spectabilis Comes, who was under the orders of the Illustrious Magister Militum. Subordinate in some way to the Comes was the Dux, who was also a Spectabilis, but whose precise relation to his superior the Comes is, to me at least, not yet clear[115].

[Footnote 115: I think the usual account of the matter is that which I have given elsewhere (Italy and her Invaders, i. 227), that the Comes had military command in the Diocese and the Dux in the Province. But on closer examination I cannot find that the Notitia altogether bears out this view. It gives us for the Western Empire eight Comites and twelve Duces. The former pretty nearly correspond to the Dioceses, but the latter are far too few for the Provinces, which number forty-two, excluding all the Provinces of Italy. Besides, in some cases the jurisdiction appears to be the same. Thus we have both a Dux and a Comes Britanniarum, and the Dux Mauritaniae Caesariensis must, one would think, have held command in a region as large or larger than the Comes Tingitaniae. Again, we have a Comes Argentoratensis and a Dux Moguntiacensis, two officers whose power, one would think, was pretty nearly equal. The same may perhaps be said of the Comes Litoris Saxonici in Britain and the Dux Tractus Armoricani et Nervicani in Gaul. While recognising a general inferiority of the Dux to the Comes, I do not think we can, with the Notitia before us, assert that the Provincial Duces were regularly subordinated to the Diocesan Comes, as the Provincial Consulares were to the Diocesan Vicarius. And the fact that both Comes and Dux were addressed as Spectabilis rather confirms this view.]

Besides these three classes of dignitaries, the Castrensis, who was a kind of head steward in the Imperial household, and most of the Heads of Departments in the great administrative offices, such as the Primicerius Notariorum and the Magistri Scriniorum[116], bore the title of Spectabilis. We have perhaps hardly sufficient data for an exact calculation, but I conjecture that there would be as many as fifty or sixty Spectabiles in the Kingdom of Theodoric.

[Footnote 116: Probably, from the order in which they are mentioned by the Notitia.]

It appears to me that the epithet Sublimis (which is almost unknown to the Theodosian Code), when it occurs in the 'Variae' is used as synonymous with Spectabilis[117].

[Footnote 117: Sublimis occurs in the superscription of the following letters: i. 2; iv. 17; v. 25, 30, and 36; ix. 11 and 14; xii. 5.]

[Sidenote: Clarissimi.]

III. The Clarissimi were the third rank in the official hierarchy. To our minds it may appear strange that the 'most renowned' should come below 'the respectable,' but such was the Imperial pleasure. The title 'Clarissimus' had moreover its own value, for from the time of Constantine onwards it was conferred on all the members of the Senate, and was in fact identical with Senator[118]; and this was doubtless, as Usener points out[119], the reason why the letters Cl. were still appended to a Roman nobleman's name after he had risen higher in the official scale and was entitled to be called Spectabilis or Illustris. The Consulares or Correctores, who administered the Provinces under the Vicarii, were called Clarissimi; and we shall observe in the collection before us many other cases in which the title is given to men in high, but not the highest, positions in the Civil Service of the State.

[Footnote 118: See Emil Kuehn's Verfassung des Roemischen Reichs i. 182, and the passages quoted there.]

[Footnote 119: p. 31.]

Besides the three classes above enumerated there were also:—

[Sidenote: Perfectissimi.]

IV. The Perfectissimi, to which some of the smaller provincial governors belonged, as well as some of the clerks in the Revenue Offices (Numerarii) who had seen long service, and even some veteran Decurions.

Below these again were:—

[Sidenote: Egregii.]

V. The Egregii, who were also Decurions who had earned a right to promotion, or even what we should call veteran non-commissioned officers in the army (Primipilares).

But of these two classes slight mention is made in the Theodosian Code, and none at all (I believe) in the 'Notitia' or the 'Letters of Cassiodorus.'



CHAPTER IV.

ON THE OFFICIUM OF THE PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO[120].

[Footnote 120: To illustrate the Eleventh Book of the Variae, Letters 18 to 35.]

[Sidenote: Military character of the Roman Civil Service.]

The official staff that served under the Roman governors of high rank was an elaborately organised body, with a carefully arranged system of promotion, and liberal superannuation allowances for those of its members who had attained a certain position in the office.

Although, in consequence of the changes introduced by Diocletian and Constantine, the civil and military functions had been for the most part divided from one another, and it was now unusual to see the same magistrate riding at the head of armies and hearing causes in the Praetorium, in theory the officers of the Courts of Justice were still military officers. Their service was spoken of as a militia; the type of their office was the cingulum, or military belt; and one of the leading officers of the court, as we shall see, was styled Cornicularius, or trumpeter.

The Praetorian Praefect, whose office had been at first a purely military one, had now for centuries been chiefly concerned in civil administration, and as Judge over the highest court of appeal in the Empire. His Officium (or staff of subordinates) was, at any rate in the Fifth Century, still the most complete and highly developed that served under any great functionary; and probably the career which it offered to its members was more brilliant than any that they could look for elsewhere. Accordingly, in studying the composition of this body we shall familiarise ourselves with the type to which all the other officia throughout the Empire more or less closely approximated.

NOTITIA. CASSIODORUS LYDUS (xi.). (iii. 3 and ii. 18.).

Princeps. Cornicularius. Cornicularius. Cornicularius. Adjutor. Primiscrinius. II Primiscrinii. Commentariensis. Scriniarius Actorum. Ab Actis. Cura Epistolarum. IV Numerarii. Scriniarius Curae Militaris. Subadjuva. Primicerius Exceptorum. Cura Epistolarum. Sextus Scholarius. Regerendarius. Praerogativarius. Exceptores. Commentariensis. II Commentarisii. Adjutores. Regendarius. II Regendarii. Singularii. Primicerius Deputatorum. II Curae Epistolarum Ponticae. Primicerius Augustalium. Primicerius Singulariorum. Singularii.

Lydus calls all the officers down to the Curae Ep. Ponticae [Greek: Hai Logikai Leitourgiai] (Officium Litteratum).

[Sidenote: Sources of information as to the Officium.]

Our chief information as to this elaborate official hierarchy is derived from three sources[121]:—

[Footnote 121: See Table, p. 94.]

(1) The Notitia Dignitatum, the great Official Gazetteer of the Empire[122], which in its existing shape appears to date from the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, early in the Fifth Century.

[Footnote 122: To use a modern illustration, we might perhaps say that the Notitia Dignitatum = Whitaker's Almanac + the Army List.]

(2) The De Magistratibus of Joannes Lydus, composed by a civil servant of the Eastern Empire in the middle of the Sixth Century.

(3) The Variae Epistolae of Cassiodorus, the composition of which ranges from about 504 to 540.

The first of these authorities relates to the Eastern and Western Empires, the second to the Eastern alone, the third to the Western Empire as represented by the Ostrogothic Kingdom founded by Theodoric.

Much light is also thrown on the subject by the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian.

Godefroy's Commentary on the Theodosian Code, and Bethmann Hollweg's 'Gerichtsverfassung des sinkenden Roemischen Reichs,' are the chief modern works which have treated of the subject.

[Sidenote: The Officium as described in the Notitia.]

We will follow the order in which the various offices are arranged by the 'Notitia,' which is most likely to correspond with that of official precedence.

In the second chapter of the 'Notitia Orientis,' after an enumeration of the five Dioceses and forty-six Provinces which are 'sub dispositione viri illustris Praefecti Praetorio per Orientem,' we have this list, 'Officium viri illustris Praefecti Praetorio Orientis:'

Princeps. Cornicularius. Adjutor. Commentariensis. Ab actis. Numerarii. Subadjuvae. Cura Epistolarum. Regerendarius. Exceptores. Adjutores. Singularii.

The lists of the officia of all the other Praetorian Praefects in the 'Notitia' are exactly the same as this, except that under the head 'Praefectus Praetorio per Illyricum' we have, instead of the simple entry 'Numerarii,'

'Numerarii quatuor: in his auri unus, operum alter;'

and the 'Praefectus Urbis Romae' had under his Numerarii, a

'Primiscrinius,'

and between the 'Adjutores' and 'Singularii,'

Censuales and Nomenculatores.

We will go through the offices enumerated above in order:

[Sidenote: Princeps.]

(1) The PRINCEPS was the head of the whole official staff. In the case of the officium of the Praetorian Praefect, however, this officer seems, after the compilation of the 'Notitia,' to have disappeared, and his rights and privileges became vested in the Cornicularius. It will be observed that in the letters of Cassiodorus to the members of his staff there is none addressed to the Princeps; and similarly there is no mention of a Princeps as serving under the Praetorian Praefect in the treatise of Lydus. This elimination of the Princeps, however, was not universally applicable to all the officia. Cassiodorus (xi. 35) mentions a Princeps Augustorum, who was, perhaps, Princeps of the Agentes in Rebus; and Lydus more distinctly ('De Mag.' iii. 24) speaks of a bargain made between the Cornicularius of the Praetorian Praefect and the [Greek: Prinkips ton magistrianon], who must be supposed to be Princeps in the officium of the Magister Officiorum, though no such officer appears in the 'Notitia[123].'

[Footnote 123: See also Var. vii. 24 and 28.]

Speaking generally, however, we may perhaps say that the greater part of what we are about to hear concerning the rights and endowments of the Cornicularius in the Praefect's office might be truly asserted of the Princeps at the time when the 'Notitia' was compiled, before the two offices had been amalgamated.

[Sidenote: Cornicularius.]

(2) The Cornicularius. As to this officer we have a good many details in the pages of Joannes Lydus. The antiquarian and etymological part of his information must generally be received with caution; but as to the actual privileges of the office in the days of Justinian we may very safely speak after him, since it was an office which he himself held, and whose curtailed gains and privileges caused him bitter disappointment.

'The foremost in rank,' says he[124], 'of the Emperor's assistants (Adjutores) is even to this day called Cornicularius, that is to say horned ([Greek: keraites]), or fighting in the front rank. For the place of the monarch or the Caesar was in the middle of the army, where he alone might direct the stress of battle. This being the Emperor's place, according to Frontinus, on the left wing was posted the Praefect or Master of the Horse, and on the right the Praetors or Legati, the latter being the officers left in charge of the army when their year of office was drawing to a close, to hold the command till the new Consul should come out to take it from them.

[Footnote 124: De Mag. iii. 3, 4.]

'Of the whole Legion then, amounting to 6,000 men, exclusive of cavalry and auxiliaries, as I before said, the Cornicularius took the foremost place; and for that reason he still presides over the whole [civil] service, now that the Praefect, for reasons before stated, no longer goes forth to battle.

'Since, then, all the rest of the staff are called assistants (Adjutores), the Praefect gives an intimation under his own hand to him who is entering the service in what department ([Greek: katalogos]) he is ordered to take up his station[125]. And the following are the names of all the departments of the service. First the Cornicularius, resplendent in all the dignity of a so-called Count ([Greek: komes]; comes; companion), but having not yet laid aside his belt of office, nor received the honour of admission to the palace, or what they call brevet-rank (codicilli vacantes), which honour at the end of his term of service is given to him, and to none of the other chiefs of departments[126].

[Footnote 125: Lydus here gives the Formula for the admission of assistants, 'et colloca eum in legione prima adjutrice nostra,' which he proceeds to translate into Greek for the benefit of his readers ([Greek: kai taxeias auton en to proto tagmati to boethounti hemin]).]

[Footnote 126: I have slightly expanded a sentence here, but this is evidently the author's meaning.]

'And after the Cornicularius follow:—

'2 Primiscrinii, '2 Commentarisii, '2 Regendarii, '2 Curae Epistolarum, '15 Scholae of Exceptores,

and then the "unlearned service" of the Singularii[127].'

[Footnote 127: Condensed from Lydus, De Mag. iii. 4-7.]

Again, further on[128], Lydus, who delights to 'magnify his office,' gives us this further information as to the rank and functions of the Cornicularius:

[Footnote 128: Ib. iii. 22-24.]

'Now that, if I am not mistaken, we have described all the various official grades, it is meet to set forth the history of the Cornicularius, the venerable head of the Civil Service, the man who, as beginning and ending, sums up in himself the complete history of the whole official order. The mere antiquity of his office is sufficient to establish his credit, seeing that he was the leader of his troop for 1,300 years, and made his appearance in the world at the same time with the sacred City of Rome itself: for the Cornicularius was, from the first, attendant on the Master of the Horse, and the Master of the Horse on the King, and thus the Cornicularius, if he retained nothing of his office but the name, would still be connected with the very beginnings of the Roman State.

'But from the time when Domitian appointed Fuscus to the office of Praefect of the Praetorians (an office which had been instituted by Augustus), and abolished the rank of Master of the Horse, taking upon himself the command of the army[129], everything was changed. Henceforward, therefore, all affairs that were transacted in the office of the Praefect were arranged by the Cornicularius alone, and he received the revenues arising from them for his own refreshment. This usage, which prevailed from the days of Domitian to our own Theodosius, was then changed, on account of the usurpation of Rufinus. For the Emperor Arcadius, fearing the overgrown power of the Praefectoral office, passed a law that the Princeps of the Magister [Officiorum]'s staff[130] ... should appear in the highest courts, and should busy himself with part of the Praefect's duties, and especially should enquire into the principle upon which orders for the Imperial post-horses ([Greek: synthemata]; evectiones) were granted[131].... This order of Arcadius was inscribed in the earlier editions of the Theodosian Code, but has been omitted in the later as superfluous.

[Footnote 129: This seems to be the meaning of Lydus, but it is not clearly expressed.]

[Footnote 130: There is something wanting in the text here.]

[Footnote 131: See Cod. Theod. vi. 29. 8, which looks rather like the law alluded to by Lydus, notwithstanding his remark about its omission.]

'Thus, then, the Princeps of the Magistriani, being introduced into the highest courts, but possessing nothing there beyond his mere empty dignity, made a bargain with the Cornicularius of the day, the object of which was to open up to him some portion of the business; and, having come to terms, the Princeps agreed to hand over to the Cornicularius one pound's weight of gold [L40] monthly, and to give instant gratuities to all his subordinates according to their rank in the service. In consequence of this compact the Cornicularius then in office, after receiving his 12 lbs. weight of gold without any abatement, with every show of honour conceded to his superior[132] (?) the preferential right of introducing "one-membered" cases ([Greek: ten ton monomeron entuchion eisagogen]), having reserved to himself, beside the fees paid for promotion in the office[133], and other sources of gain, especially the sole right of subscribing the Acta of the court, and thus provided for himself a yearly revenue of not less than 1,000 aurei [L600].'

[Footnote 132: [Greek: to kreittoni].]

[Footnote 133: [Greek: ek tou bathmou].]

I have endeavoured to translate as clearly as possible the obscure words of Lydus as to this bargain between the two court-officers. The complaint of Lydus appears to be that the Cornicularius of the day, by taking the money of the Princeps Magistrianorum, and conceding to him in return the preferential claim to manage 'one-membered' cases (or unopposed business), made a purse for himself, but prepared the way for the ruin of his successors. The monthly payment was, I think, to be made for twelve months only, and thus the whole amount which the Cornicularius received from this source was only L480, but from other sources—chiefly the sums paid for promotion by the subordinate members of the officium, and the fees charged by him for affixing his subscription to the acta of the court—he still remained in receipt of a yearly revenue of L600.

[Sidenote: Jealousy between the Officia of the Praefect and the Magister.]

The jealousy between the Officia of the Praetorian Praefect and the Magister Officiorum was intense. Almost every line in the treatise of Lydus testifies to it, and shows that the former office, in which he had the misfortune to serve, was being roughly shouldered out of the way by its younger and more unscrupulous competitor.

Lydus continues[134]: 'Now, what followed, like the Peleus of Euripides, I can never describe without tears. For on account of all these sources of revenue having been dried up, I myself have had to bear my part in the general misery of our time, since, though I have reached the highest grade of promotion in the service, I have derived nothing from it but the bare name. I do not blush to call Justice herself as a witness to the truth of what I say, when I affirm that I am not conscious of having received one obol from the Princeps, nor from the Letters Patent for promotions in the office[135]. For indeed whence should I have derived it, since it was the ancient custom that those who in any way appeared in the highest courts should pay to the officium seven and thirty aurei [L22] for a "one-membered" suit; but ever after this bargain was made there has been given only a very moderate sum of copper—not gold—in a beggarly way, as if one were buying a flask of oil, and that not regularly? Or how compel the Princeps to pay the ancient covenanted sum to the Cornicularius of the day, when he now scarcely remembered the bare name of that officer, as he never condescended to be present in the court when promotions were made from a lower grade to a higher? Bitterly do I regret that I was so late in coming to perceive for what a paltry price I was rendering my long services as assistant in the courts, receiving in fact nothing therefrom as my own solatium. It serves me right, however, for having chosen that line of employment, as I will explain, if the reader will allow me to recount to him my career from its commencement to the present time.'

[Footnote 134: De Mag. iii. 25.]

[Footnote 135: [Greek: apo ton legomenon kompleusimon], apparently the same source of revenue as the promotion-money ([Greek: ten ek tou bathmou pronomian]).]

Lydus then goes on to describe his arrival at Constantinople (A.D. 511), his intention to enter the Scrinium Memoriae (in which he would have served under the Magister Officiorum), and his abandonment of this intention upon the pressing entreaties of his countryman Zoticus, who was at the time Praefectus Praetorio. This step Lydus looks upon as the fatal mistake of his life, though the consequences of it to him were in some degree mitigated by the marriage which Zoticus enabled him to make with a lady possessed of a fortune of 100 pounds' weight of gold (L4,000). Her property, her virtues (for 'she was superior to all women who have ever been admired for their moral excellence'), and the consolations of Philosophy and Literature, did much to soothe the disappointment of Lydus, who nevertheless felt, when he retired to his books after forty years of service, in which he had reached the unrewarded post of Cornicularius, that his official life had been a failure.

It has seemed worth while to give this sketch of the actual career of a Byzantine official, as it may illustrate in some points the lives of the functionaries to whom so many of the letters of Cassiodorus are addressed; though I know not whether we have any indications of such a rivalry at Ravenna as that which prevailed at Constantinople between the officium of the Praefect and that of the Magister. We now pass on to

[Sidenote: Adjutor.]

[Sidenote: Primiscrinius.]

(3) The Adjutor. Some of the uses of this term are very perplexing. It seems clear (from Lydus, 'De Mag.' iii. 3) that all the members of the officium were known by the generic name Adjutores. Here however we may perhaps safely assume that Adjutor means simply an assistant to the officer next above him, as we find, lower down in the list of the 'Notitia,' the Exceptores followed by their Adjutores. We may find a parallel to Adjutor in the word Lieutenant, which, for the same reason is applied to officers of such different rank as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a Lieutenant-General, a Lieutenant-Colonel, and a simple Lieutenant in the Army or Navy. In the lists of Cassiodorus and Lydus we find no mention of an officer bearing the special name of Adjutor, but we meet instead with a Primiscrinius, of whom, according to Lydus, there were two. He says[136], 'After the Cornicularius are two Primiscrinii, whom the Greeks call first of the service[137].' And later on[138], when he is describing the course of business in the secretum of the Praefect, as it used to be in the good old days, he informs us that after judgment had been given, and the Secretarii had read to the litigant the decree prepared by the Assessors and carefully copied by one of the Cancellarii, and after an accurate digest of the case had been prepared in the Latin language by a Secretarius, in order to guard against future error or misrepresentation, the successful litigant passed on with the decree in his hand to the Primiscrinii, who appointed an officer to execute the judgment of the Court[139]. These men then put the decree into its final shape by means of the persons appointed to assist them[140] (men who could puzzle even the professors themselves in logical discussions), and endorsed it on the litigant's petition in characters which at once struck awe into the reader, and which seemed actually swollen with official importance[141]. The name and titles of the 'completing' officer were then subscribed.

[Footnote 136: De Mag. iii. 4.]

[Footnote 137: [Greek: meta de ton kornikoularion primiskrinioi duo, ous Hellenes protous tes taxeos kalousi].]

[Footnote 138: De Mag. iii. 11.]

[Footnote 139: [Greek: pareei pros tous primiskrinious taxantas ekbibasten tois apopephasmenois]. Probably we should read [Greek: taxontas] for [Greek: taxantas].]

[Footnote 140: [Greek: epleroun dia ton boethein autois tetagmenon] (? Adjutores).]

[Footnote 141: [Greek: epi tou notou tes entuchias grammasin aidous autothen apases kai exousias onko sesobemenois].]

If the suggestion that the Primiscrinii were considered as in some sense substitutes (Adjutores) for the Cornicularius be correct, we may perhaps account for there being two of them in the days of Lydus by the disappearance of the Princeps. The office of Cornicularius had swallowed up that of Princeps, and accordingly the single Adjutor, who was sufficient at the compilation of the 'Notitia,' had to be multiplied by two.

[Sidenote: Commentariensis, or Commentarisius.]

(4) The Commentariensis. Here we come again to an officer who is mentioned by all our three authorities, though in Cassiodorus he seems to be degraded some steps below his proper rank (but this may only be from an accidental transposition of the order of the letters), and though Lydus again gives us two of the name instead of one. The last-named authority inserts next after the Primiscrinii 'two Commentarisii—so the law calls those who are appointed to attend to the drawing up of indictments[142].'

[Footnote 142: [Greek: kommentarisioi duo (houto de tous epi ton hypomnematon graphe tattomenous ho nomos kalei)] (iii. 4). I accept the necessary emendation of the text proposed in the Bonn edition.]

The Commentariensis (or Commentarisius, as Lydus calls him[143]) was evidently the chief assistant of the Judge in all matters of criminal jurisdiction[144]. We have a remarkably full, and in the main clear account of his functions in the pages of Lydus (iii. 16-18), from which it appears that he was promoted from the ranks of the Exceptores (shorthand writers), and had six of his former colleagues serving under him as Adjutores[145]. Great was the power, and high the position in the Civil Service, of the Commentariensis. The whole tribe of process-servers, gaolers, lictors[146]—all that we now understand by the police force—waited subserviently on his nod. It rested with him, says Lydus, to establish the authority of the Court of Justice by means of the wholesome fear inspired by iron chains and scourges and the whole apparatus of torture[147]. Nay, not only did the subordinate magistrates execute their sentences by his agency, he had even the honour of being chosen by the Emperor himself to be the minister of vengeance against the persons who had incurred his anger or his suspicion. 'I myself remember,' says Lydus, 'when I was serving as Chartularius in the office of the Commentariensis, under the praefecture of Leontius (a man of the highest legal eminence), and when the wrath of Anastasius was kindled against Apion, a person of the most exalted rank, and one who had assisted in his elevation to the throne[148], at the same time when Kobad, King of Persia, blazed out into fury[149], that then all the confiscations and banishments which were ordered by the enraged Emperor were entrusted to no one else but to the Commentarienses serving under the Praefect. In this service they acquitted themselves so well, with such vigour, such harmonious energy, such entire clean-handedness and absence of all dishonest gain, as to move the admiration of the Emperor, who made use of them on all similar occasions that presented themselves in the remainder of his reign. They had even the honour of being employed against Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, when that prelate had provoked the Emperor by suspending all intercourse with him as a heretic; and that, although Celer, one of the most intimate friends of Anastasius, was at that very time holding the rank of Magister Officiorum.'

[Footnote 143: To avoid confusion I will use the term 'Commentariensis' throughout.]

[Footnote 144: So Bethmann Hollweg (p. 179), 'Diess ist der Gehuelfe des Magistrats bei Verwaltung der Criminaljustiz.' I compare him in the following translation of Cassiodorus to a 'magistrate's clerk.']

[Footnote 145: See iii. 9 (p. 203, ed. Bonn), and combine with iii. 16. The Augustales referred to in the latter passage were a higher class of Exceptores.]

[Footnote 146: Applicitarii, Clavicularii, Lictores.]

[Footnote 147: [Greek: sidereois desmois kai poinaion organon kai plektron poikilia saleuonton to phobo to dikasterion] (iii. 16).]

[Footnote 148: [Greek: kai koinonesantos auto tes basileias].]

[Footnote 149: [Greek: hote Koades ho Perses ephlegmaine]. The whole passage is mysterious, but we seem to have here an allusion to the outbreak of the Persian War (A.D. 502).]

An officer who was thus privileged to lay hands on Patriarch and Patrician in the name of Augustus was looked up to with awful reverence by all the lower members of the official hierarchy; and Lydus, with one graphic touch, brings before us the glow of gratified self-love with which, when he was a subordinate Scriniarius, he found himself honoured by the familiar conversation of so great a person as the Commentariensis[150]: 'I too am struck with somewhat of my old awe, recurring in memory to those who were then holders of the office. I remember what fear of the Commentarisii fell upon all who at all took the lead in the Officium, but especially on the Scriniarii; and how greatly he who was favoured with a chat with a Commentarisius passing by valued himself on the honour.' Lydus also describes to us how the Commentariensis, instructed by the Praefect, or perhaps even by the Emperor himself, would take with him one of his faithful servants, the Chartularii, would visit the abode of the suspected person (who might, as we have seen, be one of the very highest officers of the State), and would then in his presence dictate in solemn Latin words the indictment which was to be laid against him, the mere hearing of which sometimes brought the criminal to confess his guilt and throw himself on the mercy of the Emperor.

[Footnote 150: iii. 17 (p. 210).]

It was from this commentum, the equivalent of a French acte d'accusation, that the Commentariensis derived his title.

[Sidenote: Ab Actis (Scriniarius Actorum?).]

(5) The Ab Actis. The officer who bore this title (which is perhaps the same as the Scriniarius Actorum of Cassiodorus[151]) seems to have been exclusively concerned with civil cases, and perhaps held the same place in reference to them that the Commentarienses held in criminal matters[152]. Practically, his office appears to have been very much what we understand by that of Chief Registrar of the Court. He (or they, for in Lydus' time there were two Ab Actis as well as two Commentarienses[153]) was chosen from the select body of shorthand writers who were known as Augustales, and was assisted by six men of the same class, 'men of high character and intelligence and still in the vigour of their years[154].' His chief business—and in this he was served by the Nomenclatores, who shouted out in a loud voice the names of the litigants—was to introduce the plaintiff and defendant into the Court, or to make a brief statement of the nature of the case to the presiding magistrate. He then had to watch the course of the pleadings and listen to the Judge's decision, so as to be able to prepare a full statement of the case for the Registers or Journals[155] of the Court. These Registers—at least in the flourishing days of Roman jurisprudence—were most fully and accurately kept. Even the Dies Nefasti were marked upon them, and the reason for their being observed as legal holidays duly noted. Elaborate indices, prepared by the Chartularii, made search an easy matter to those who wished to ascertain what was the decision of the law upon every point; and the marginal notes, or personalia, prepared in Latin[156] by the Ab Actis or his assistants, were so excellent and so full that sometimes when the original entry in the Registers had been lost the whole case could be sufficiently reconstructed from them alone.

[Footnote 151: Var. xi. 22.]

[Footnote 152: This seems to be Bethmann Hollweg's view (p. 181).]

[Footnote 153: This we learn from iii. 20. They are not mentioned in iii. 4, where we should have expected to find them.]

[Footnote 154: [Greek: hex andres erastoi kai nounechestatoi kai sphrigontes eti] (Lydus iii. 20).]

[Footnote 155: [Greek: rhegeston e kottidianon (anti tou ephemeron)].]

[Footnote 156: [Greek: Italisti]. Of course the emphasis laid on this point proceeds from the Greek nationality of our present authority.]

The question was already mooted at Constantinople in the sixth century whence the Ab Actis derived his somewhat elliptical name; and our archaeology-loving scribe was able to inform his readers that as the officer of the household who was called A Pigmentis had the care of the aromatic ointments of the Court; as the A Sabanis[157] had charge of the bathing towels of the baths; as the A Secretis (who was called Ad Secretis by vulgar Byzantines, ignorant of the niceties of Latin grammar) was concerned in keeping the secret counsels of his Sovereign: so the Ab Actis derived his title from the Acts of the Court which it was his duty to keep duly posted up and properly indexed.

[Footnote 157: [Greek: sabanon] = a towel.]

[Sidenote: Numerarii.]

(6) The Numerarii (whose exact number is not stated in the 'Notitia'[158]) were the cashiers of the Praefect's office. Though frequently mentioned in the Theodosian Code, and though persons exercising this function must always have existed in a great Court of Justice like the Praefect's, we hear but little of them from Cassiodorus[159]; and Lydus' notices of the [Greek: diapsephistai], who seem to correspond to the Numerarii[160], are scanty and imperfect. Our German commentator has collected the passages of the Theodosian Code which relate to this class of officers, and has shown that on account of their rapacity and extortion their office was subjected to a continual process of degradation. All the Numerarii, except those of the two highest classes of judges[161], were degraded into Tabularii, a name which had previously indicated the cashiers of a municipality as distinguished from those in the Imperial service; and the Numerarii, even of the Praetorian Praefect himself, were made subject to examination by torture. This was not only to be dreaded on account of the bodily suffering which it inflicted, but was also a mark of the humble condition of those to whom it was applied.

[Footnote 158: Except, as before stated, those in the office of the Praetorian Praefect for Illyricum. These were four in number, and one of them had charge of 'gold,' another of '[public] works.' Further information is requisite to enable us to explain these entries.]

[Footnote 159: They are alluded to in Var. xii. 13. The Canonicarii (Tax-collectors) had plundered the Churches of Bruttii and Lucania in the name of 'sedis nostrae Numerarii;' but the Numerarii with holy horror declared that they had received no part of the spoils.]

[Footnote 160: See Bethmann Hollweg, 184.]

[Footnote 161: Illustres and Spectabiles.]

[Sidenote: Scriniarius Curae Militaris.]

We may perhaps see in the Scriniarius Curae Militaris of Cassiodorus[162] one of these Numerarii detailed for service as paymaster to the soldiers who waited upon the orders of the Praefect.

[Footnote 162: xi. 24.]

[Sidenote: Subadjuvae.]

(7) The Subadjuvae. This is probably a somewhat vague term, like Adjutores, and indicates a second and lower class of cashiers who acted as deputies for the regular Numerarii.

[Sidenote: Cura Epistolarum.]

(8) Cura Epistolarum. The officer who bore this title appears to have had the duty of copying out all letters relating to fiscal matters[163]. This theory as to his office is confirmed by the words of Cassiodorus (Var. xi. 23): 'Let Constantinian on his promotion receive the care of the letters relating to the land-tax' (Hic itaque epistolarum canonicarum curam provectus accipiat).

[Footnote 163: This is Bethmann Hollweg's interpretation of the words of Lydus, [Greek: hoi tas men epi tois demosiois phoitosas psephous graphousi monon, to loipon kataphronoumenoi] (iii. 21). In another passage (iii. 4, 5) Lydus appears to assign a reason for the fact that the Praefectus Urbis Constantinopolitanae, the Magister Militum, and the Magister Officiorum had no Cura Epistolarum on their staff; but the paragraph is to me hopelessly obscure. Curiously enough, too, while he avers that every department of the State (perhaps every diocese) had, as a rule, its own Curae Epistolarum, he limits the two in the Praetorian Praefect's office to the diocese of Pontica ([Greek: koura epistolaroum Pontikes duo]).]

[Sidenote: Regerendarius, or Regendarius.]

(9) Regerendarius, or Regendarius[164]. This officer had the charge of all contracts relating to the very important department of the Cursus Publicus, or Imperial Mail Service. At the time of the compilation of the 'Notitia' only one person appears to have acted in this capacity under each Praefect. When Lydus wrote, there were two Regendarii in each Praefecture, but, owing to the increasing influence of the Magister Officiorum over the Cursus Publicus[165], their office had become apparently little more than an ill-paid sinecure. As we hear nothing of similar changes in the West, the Cursus Publicus was probably a part of the public service which was directly under the control of Cassiodorus when Praetorian Praefect, and was administered at his bidding by one or more Regendarii.

[Footnote 164: The first form of the name is found in the Notitia, the second in Lydus and Cassiodorus.]

[Footnote 165: It is not easy to make out exactly what Lydus wishes us to understand about the Cursus Publicus; but I think his statements amount to this, that it was taken by Arcadius from the Praetorian Praefect and given to the Magister Officiorum, was afterwards restored to the Praefect, and finally was in effect destroyed by the corrupt administration of John of Cappadocia. (See ii. 10; iii. 21, 61.)]

[Sidenote: Exceptores.]

(10) We now come to the Exceptores, or shorthand writers[166], a large and fluctuating body who stood on the lowest step of the official ladder[167] and formed the raw material out of which all its higher functionaries were fashioned in the regular order of promotion.

[Footnote 166: The [Greek: tachygraphoi] of Lydus.]

[Footnote 167: In making this statement I consider the Adjutores to be virtually another class of Exceptores, and I purposely omit the Singularii as not belonging to the Militia Litterata, which alone I am now considering.]

[Sidenote: Augustales.]

[Sidenote: Deputati.]

We are informed by Lydus[168], that in his time the Exceptores in the Eastern Empire were divided into two corps, the higher one called Augustales, who were limited in number to thirty, and the lower, of indefinite number and composing the rank and file of the profession. The Augustales only could aspire to the rank of Cornicularius; but in order that some prizes might still be left of possible attainment by the larger class, the rank of Primiscrinius was tenable by those who remained 'on the rolls of the Exceptores.' The reason for this change was that the unchecked application of the principle of seniority to so large a body of public servants was throwing all the more important offices in the Courts of Justice into the hands of old men. The principle of 'seniority tempered by selection' was therefore introduced, and the ablest and most learned members of the class of Exceptores were drafted off into this favoured section of Augustales, fifteen of the most experienced of whom were appropriated to the special service of the Emperor, while the other fifteen filled the higher offices (with the exception of the Primiscriniate) in the Praefectoral Courts[169]. The first fifteen were called Deputati[170], the others were apparently known simply as Augustales.

[Footnote 168: iii. 6, 9.]

[Footnote 169: I think this is a fair summary of Lydus iii. 9 and 10, but these paragraphs are very difficult and obscure.]

[Footnote 170: We should certainly have expected that the Augustales would be those writers who were specially appropriated to the Emperor's service, but the other conclusion necessarily follows from the language of Lydus (iii. 10): [Greek: hoste kai pentekaideka ex auton ton pepanoteron peira te kai to chrono kreittonon pros hypographen tois basileusin aphoristhenai, ous eti kai nun depoutatous kalousin, hoi tou tagmatos ton Augoustalion proteuousin].]

The change thus described by Lydus appears to have been made in the West as well as in the East, since we hear in the 'Variae' of Cassiodorus (xi. 30) of the appointment of a certain Ursus to be Primicerius of the Deputati, and of Beatus to take the same place among the Augustales[171].

[Footnote 171: The form of the word must I think prevent us from applying the Princeps Augustorum of xi. 35 to the same class of officers.]

[Sidenote: Adjutores.]

(11) The Adjutores of the 'Notitia' were probably a lower class of Exceptores, who may very likely have disappeared when the Augustales were formed out of them by the process of differentiation which has been described above.

We have now gone through the whole of what was termed the 'Learned Service[172]' mentioned in the 'Notitia,' with one exception—the title of an officer, in himself humble and obscure, who has given his name to the highest functionaries of mediaeval and modern Europe.

[Footnote 172: [Greek: tous epi tais logikais tetagmenous leitourgiais] (Lydus iii. 7). [Greek: Peras men hode ton logikon tes taxeos systematon] (iii. 21). The 'Learned Service' may be taken as corresponding to 'a post fit for a gentleman,' in modern phraseology. In our present Official Directories the members of the [Greek: logike taxis] appear to be all dignified with the title 'Esq.;' the others have only 'Mr.']

[Sidenote: Cancellarius.]

(12) The Cancellarius appears in the 'Notitia' only once[173], and then in connection not with the Praetorian Praefect, but with the Master of the Offices. At the very end of the Officium of this dignitary, after the six Scholae and four Scrinia of his subordinates, and after the Admissionales, whom we must look upon as the Ushers of the Court, comes the entry,

Cancellarii:

their very number not stated, the office being too obscure to make a few less or more a matter of importance.

[Footnote 173: Occidentis ix. 15.]

After the compilation of the 'Notitia' the office of Cancellarius apparently rose somewhat in importance, and was introduced into other departments besides that of the Master of the Offices.

One Cancellarius appears attached to the Court of Cassiodorus as Praetorian Praefect, and from the admonitions addressed to him by his master[174], we see that he had it in his power considerably to aid the administration of justice by his integrity, or to hinder it by showing himself accessible to bribes.

[Footnote 174: In Var. xi. 6, which see.]

In describing the Cancellarius, as in almost every other part of his treatise, Lydus has to tell a dismal story of ruin and decay[175]:

[Footnote 175: iii. 36, 37.]

'Now the Scriniarii [subordinates of the Magister Officiorum] are made Cancellarii and Logothetes and purveyors of the Imperial table, whereas in old time the Cancellarius was chosen only from the ranks of Augustales and Exceptores who had served with credit. In those days the Judgment Hall [of the Praefect] recognised only two Cancellarii, who received an aureus apiece[176] per day from the Treasury. There was aforetime in the Court of Justice a fence separating the Magistrate from his subordinates, and this fence, being made of long splinters of wood placed diagonally, was called cancellus, from its likeness to network, the regular Latin word for a net being casses, and the diminutive cancellus[177]. At this latticed barrier then stood two Cancellarii, by whom, since no one was allowed to approach the judgment-seat, paper was brought to the members of the staff and needful messages were delivered. But now that the office owing to the number of its holders[178] has fallen into disrepute, and that the Treasury no longer makes a special provision for their maintenance, almost all the hangers-on of the Courts of Law call themselves Cancellarii; and, not only in the capital but in the Provinces, they give themselves this title in order that they may be able more effectually to plunder the wealthy.'

[Footnote 176: About twelve shillings.]

[Footnote 177: This derivation from casses is, of course, absurd.]

[Footnote 178: Can this be the meaning of [Greek: eis plethos]?]

This description by Lydus, while it aptly illustrates Cassiodorus' exhortations to his Cancellarii to keep their hands clean from bribes, shows how lowly their office was still considered; and indeed, but for his statement that it used to be filled by veteran Augustales, we might almost have doubted whether it is rightly classed among the 'Learned Services' at all.

[Sidenote: End of the Militia Literata.]

Now at any rate we leave the ranks of the gentlemen of the Civil Service behind us, and come to the 'Militia Illiterata,' of whom the 'Notitia' enumerates only

[Sidenote: Militia Illiterata: Singularii.]

(13) The Singularii, a class of men of whose useful services Lydus speaks in terms of high praise, contrasting their modest efficiency with the pompous verbosity[179] of the Magistriani (servants of the Master of the Offices) by whom they were being generally superseded in his day. They travelled through the Provinces, carrying the Praefect's orders, and riding in a post-chaise drawn by a single horse (veredus), from which circumstance, according to Lydus, they derived their name Singularii[180].

[Footnote 179: [Greek: Kompophakellorremosyne] = Pomp-bundle-wordiness, an Aristophanic word.]

[Footnote 180: De Dignitatibus iii. 7.]

We observe that the letter of Cassiodorus[181] addressed to the retiring chief (Primicerius) of the Singularii informs him that he is promoted to a place among the King's Body-guard (Domestici et Protectores), a suitable reward for one who had not been a member of the 'Learned Services.'

[Footnote 181: Var. xi. 31.]

After the Singularii Lydus mentions the Mancipes, the men who were either actually slaves or were at any rate engaged in servile occupations; as, for instance, the bakers at the public bakeries, the Rationalii, who distributed the rations to the receivers of the annona[182], the Applicitarii (officers of arrest), and Clavicularii (gaolers), who, as we before heard, obeyed the mandate of the Commentariensis. The Lictors, I think, are not mentioned by him. A corresponding class of men would probably be the Apparitores, who in the 'Notitia' appear almost exclusively attached to the service of the great Ministers of War[183].

[Footnote 182: This seems a probable explanation of a rather obscure passage.]

[Footnote 183: See the following sections of the Notitia: Magister Militum Praesentatis (Oriens v. 74, vi. 77; Occidens v. 281, vi. 93); M.M. per Orientem (Or. vii. 67); M.M. per Thracias (Or. viii. 61); M.M. per Illyricum (Or. ix. 56); Magister Equitum per Gallias (Occ. vii. 117). The only civil officer who has Apparitores is the Proconsul Achaiae (Oriens xxi. 14).]

Thus, it will be seen, from the well-paid and often highly-connected Princeps, who, no doubt, discussed the business of the court with the Praetorian Praefect on terms of friendly though respectful familiarity, down to the gaoler and the lictor and the lowest of the half-servile mancipes, there was a regular gradation of rank, which still preserved, in the staff of the highest court of justice in the land, all the traditions of subordination and discipline which had once characterised the military organisation out of which it originally sprang.



CHAPTER V.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

[Sidenote: Editiones Principes.]

The Ecclesiastical History ('Historia Tripartita') seems to have been the first of the works of Cassiodorus to attract the notice of printers at the revival of learning. The Editio Princeps of this book (folio) was printed by Johann Schuszler, at Augsburg, in 1472[184].

[Footnote 184: This edition is described by Dibdin (Bibliotheca Spenceriana iii. 244-5).]

The Editio Princeps of the 'Chronicon' is contained in a collection of Chronicles published at Basel in 1529 by Joannes Sichardus (printer, Henricus Petrus). The contribution of Cassiodorus is prefaced by an appropriate Epistle Dedicatory to Sir Thos. More, in which a parallel is suggested between the lives of these two literary statesmen.

Next followed the Editio Princeps of the 'Variae,' published at Augsburg in 1533, by Mariangelus Accurtius.

In 1553, Joannes Cuspinianus, a counsellor of the Emperor Maximilian, published at Basel a series of Chronicles with which he interwove the Chronicle of Cassiodorus, and to which he prefixed a short life of our author.

[Sidenote: Edition of Nivellius.]

The Editio Princeps of the collected works of Cassiodorus was published at Paris in 1579 by Sebastianus Nivellius; and other editions by the same publisher followed in 1584 and 1589. This edition does not contain the Tripartite History, the Exposition of the Psalter, or the 'Complexiones' on the Epistles. Some notes, not without merit, are added, which were compiled in 1578 by 'Gulielmus Fornerius, Parisiensis, Regius apud Aurelianenses Consiliarius et Antecessor.' The annotator says[185] that these notes had gradually accumulated on the margin of his copy of Cassiodorus, an author who had been a favourite of his from youth, and whom he had often quoted in his forensic speeches.

[Footnote 185: p. 492.]

The edition of Nivellius, which is evidently prepared with a view to aid the historical rather than the theological study of the writings of Cassiodorus, contains also the Gothic history of Jordanus (sic), the 'Edictum Theoderici,' the letter of Sidonius describing the Court of Theodoric II the Visigoth (453-466), and the Panegyric of Ennodius on Theodoric the Great. The letter of Sidonius is evidently inserted owing to a confusion between the two Theodorics; and this error has led many later commentators astray. But the reprint of the 'Edictum Theoderici' is of great interest and value, because the MS. from which it was taken has since disappeared, and none other is known to be in existence. A letter is prefixed to the 'Edictum,' written by Pierre Pithou to Edouard Mole, Dec. 31, 1578, and describing his reasons for sending this document to the publisher who was printing the works of Cassiodorus. At the same time, 'that the West might not have cause to envy the East,' he sent a MS. of the 'Leges Wisigothorum,' with illustrative extracts from Isidore and Procopius, which is printed at the end of Nivellius' edition.

I express no opinion about the text of this edition; but it possesses the advantage of an Index to the 'Variae' only, which will be found at the end of the Panegyric of Ennodius. Garet's Index, which is in itself not so full, has the additional disadvantage of being muddled up with the utterly alien matter of the Tripartite History.

In 1588 appeared an edition in 4to. of the works of Cassiodorus (still excluding the Tripartite History and the Biblical Commentaries), published at Paris by Marc Orry. This was republished in 1600 in two volumes 12mo.

The 'Variae' and 'Chronicon' only, in 12mo. were published at Lyons by Jacques Chouet in 1595, and again by Pierre and Jacques Chouet at Geneva in 1609, and by their successors in 1650. These editions contain the notes of Pierre Brosse, Jurisconsult, as well as those of Fornerius.

[Sidenote: Edition of Garet.]

In 1679 appeared, in two volumes folio, the great Rouen edition by Francois Jean Garet (of the Congregation of S. Maur), which has ever since been the standard edition of the works of Cassiodorus. Garet speaks of collating several MSS. of various ages for the text of this edition, especially mentioning 'Codex S. Audoeni' (deficient for Books 5, 6, and 7 of the 'Variae'), 'et antiquissimae membranae S. Remigii Remensis' (containing only the first four books of the same collection). A codex which once belonged to the jurist Cujacius, and which had been collated with Accurtius' text in 1575 by a certain Claude Grulart, seems to have given Garet some valuable readings by means of Grulart's notes, though the codex itself had disappeared. Garet's edition was re-issued at Venice in 1729, and more recently in Migne's 'Patrologia' (Paris, 1865), of which it forms vols. 69 and 70.

[Sidenote: Forthcoming Edition by Meyer.]

There can be little doubt, however, that all these editions will be rendered obsolete by the new edition which is expected to appear as a volume of the 'Auctores Antiquissimi' in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The editor is Professor Wilhelm Meyer, of Munich. The work has been for some years announced as near completion, but I have not been able to ascertain how soon it may be expected to appear.

[Sidenote: Supposed fragment of orations.]

Finally, I must not omit to notice the fragments of an oration published by Baudi de Vesme in the Transactions of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Turin (1846). Those fragments, which were found in a palimpsest MS. of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, were first published in 1822 by Angelo Mai, who was then disposed to attribute them to Symmachus (the elder), and to assign them to the early part of the fifth century. On reflection, however, he came to the conclusion that they were probably the work of Cassiodorus, and formed part of a panegyric addressed to Theodoric. This theory appears now to meet with general approval. The style is certainly very similar to that of Cassiodorus; but, as will be inferred from the doubt as to their origin, there is little or nothing in these scanty fragments which adds anything to our knowledge of the history of Theodoric.

[Sidenote: Life by Garet.]

To the literature relating to Cassiodorus the most important contribution till recent times was the life by Garet prefixed to his edition of 1679. I cannot speak of this from a very minute investigation, but it seems to be a creditable performance, the work of one who had carefully studied the 'Variae,' but unfortunately quite misleading as to the whole framework of the life of Cassiodorus, from the confusion which it makes between him and his father, an error which Garet has probably done more than any other author to perpetuate.

[Sidenote: Life by St. Marthe.]

The life by Garet was paraphrased in French by Denys de Ste. Marthe ('Vie de Cassiodore,' Paris, 1695), whose work has enjoyed a reputation to which it was not entitled on the ground either of originality or accuracy, but which was probably due to the fact that the handy octavo volume written in French was accessible to a wider circle of readers than Garet's unwieldy folio in Latin. A more original performance was that of Count Buat (in the 'Abhandlungen der Kurfuerstlichen Bairischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,' Munich, 1763); but this author, though he pointed out the cardinal error of Garet, his confusion between Senator and his father, introduced some further gratuitous entanglements of his own into the family history of the Cassiodori.

[Sidenote: Modern monographs.]

All these works, however, are rendered entirely obsolete by three excellent monographs which have recently been published in Germany on the life and writings of Cassiodorus. These are—

[Sidenote: Thorbecke.]

August Thorbecke's 'Cassiodorus Senator' (Heidelberg, 1867);

[Sidenote: Franz.]

Adolph Franz's 'M. Aurelius Cassiodorius Senator' (Breslau, 1872); and

[Sidenote: Usener.]

Hermann Usener's 'Anecdoton Holderi' (Bonn, 1877), described in the second chapter of this introduction.

Thorbecke discusses the political, and Franz the religious and literary aspects of the life of their common hero, and between them they leave no point of importance in obscurity. Usener, as we have already seen, brings an important contribution to our knowledge of the subject in presenting us with Holder's fragment; and his Commentary (of eighty pages) on this fragment is a model of patient and exhaustive research. It seems probable that these three authors have really said pretty nearly the last word about the life and writings of Cassiodorus. In addition to these authors many writers of historical works in Germany have of late years incidentally contributed to a more accurate understanding of the life and times of Cassiodorus.

Dahn, in the third section of his 'Koenige der Germanen' (Wuerzburg, 1866), has written a treatise on the political system of the Ostrogoths which is almost a continuous commentary on the 'Variae,' and from which I have derived the greatest possible assistance.

Koepke, in his 'Anfaenge des Koenigthums bei den Gothen' (Berlin, 1859), has condensed into a small compass a large amount of useful disquisition on Cassiodorus and his copyist Jordanes. The relation between these two writers was also elaborately discussed by von Sybel in his thesis 'De Fontibus Libri Jordanis' (Berlin, 1838), and by Schirren, in his monograph 'De Ratione quae inter Jordanem et Cassiodorum intercedat' (Dorpat, 1885). The latter, though upon the whole a creditable performance, is disfigured by one or two strange blunders, and not improved by some displays of irrelevant learning.

Von Schubert, in his 'Unterwerfung der Alamannen unter die Franken' (Strassburg, 1884), throws some useful light on the question of the date of the early letters in the 'Variae;' and Binding, in his 'Geschichte des Burgundisch-Romanischen Koenigreichs' (Leipzig, 1868), discusses the relations between Theodoric and the Sovereigns of Gaul, as disclosed by the same collection of letters, in a manner which I must admit to be forcible, though I do not accept all his conclusions.

Mommsen, in his paper 'Die Chronik des Cassiodorus Senator' (Vol. viii. of the 'Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Saechsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften;' Leipzig, 1861), has said all that is to be said concerning the unfortunate 'Chronicon' of Cassiodorus, which he handles with merciless severity.

To say that Ebert, in his 'Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters im Abendlande' (Leipzig, 1874), and Wattenbach, in his 'Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter,' tell us with fullness and accuracy just what the student ought to wish to know concerning Cassiodorus as an author, is only to say that they are Ebert and Wattenbach. Every one who has had occasion to refer to these two books knows their merits.

Passing from German literature, I regret that I am prevented by ignorance of the Dutch language from forming an opinion as to the work of Thijm ('Iets over M.A. Cassiodorus en zijne eeuw;' Amsterdam, 1857), which is frequently quoted by my German authorities.

Gibbon of course quotes from the 'Variae,' and though he did not know them intimately, he has with his usual sagacity apprehended the true character of the book and of its author. But the best account of the 'Various Letters' in English, as far as I know, is unfortunately entombed in the pages of a periodical, being an article by Dean Church, contributed in July, 1880, to the 'Church Quarterly Review.' There is also a very good though necessarily brief notice of Cassiodorus in Ugo Balzani's little volume on the 'Early Chroniclers of Italy,' published by the Christian Knowledge Society in 1883.



CHAPTER VI.

CHRONOLOGY.

In the following chronological table of the life of Cassiodorus I have, for convenience sake, assumed 480 as the year of his birth, and 575 as that of his death. It is now, I think, sufficiently proved that if these dates are not absolutely correct, they cannot be more than a year or two wrong in one direction or the other.

[Sidenote: Consular Fasti.]

As dates were still reckoned by Consulships, at any rate through the greater part of the life of Cassiodorus, I have inserted the Consular Fasti for the period in question. It will be seen that several names of correspondents of Cassiodorus figure in this list. As a general though not universal practice, one of the two Consuls at this time was chosen from out of the Senate of Rome and the other from that of Constantinople. We can almost always tell whether a chronicler belongs to the Eastern or Western Empire by observing whether he puts the Eastern or Western Consul first. Thus, for A.D. 501, Marcellinus Comes, who was an official of the Eastern Empire, gives us 'Pompeius et Avienus, Coss.;' while Cassiodorus, in his 'Chronicon,' assigns the year to 'Avienus et Pompeius.' Pompeius was a nobleman of Constantinople, nephew of the Emperor Anastasius; while Avienus was a Roman Senator[186]. Again, in A.D. 490, Marcellinus gives the names of Longinus and Faustus, which Cassiodorus quotes as Faustus and Longinus. Longinus was a brother of the Emperor Zeno, and Faustus was for many years Praetorian Praefect under Theodoric, and was the receiver of many letters in the following collection.

[Footnote 186: See Usener, p. 32.]

I have endeavoured to give the priority always to the Western Consul in the list before us, except in those cases where an Emperor (who was of course an Eastern) condescended to assume the Consular trabea.

[Sidenote: Indictions.]

Another mode of reckoning the dates which the reader will continually meet with in the following pages is by Indictions. The Indiction, as is well known, was a cycle of fifteen years, during which, as we have reason to believe, the assessment for the taxes remained undisturbed, a fresh valuation being made all round when the cycle was ended. Traces of this quindecennial period may be found in the third century, but the formal adoption of the Indiction is generally assigned to the Emperor Constantine, and to the year 312[187]. The Indiction itself, and every one of the years composing it, began on the 1st of September of the calendar year. The reason for this period being chosen probably was that the harvests of the year being then gathered in, the collection of the tithes of the produce, which formed an important part of the Imperial revenue, could be at once proceeded with. What gives an especial importance to this method of dating by Indictions, for the reader of the following letters is, that most of the great offices of State changed hands at the beginning of the year of the Indiction (Sept. 1), not at the beginning of the Calendar year.

[Footnote 187: Compare Marquardt (Roemische Staatsverwaltung ii. 237). He remarks that the Indiction seems to have been first adopted in Egypt, and did not come into universal use all over the Empire till the end of the Fourth Century.]

To make such a mode of dating the year at all satisfactory, it would seem to us necessary that the number of the cycle itself, as well as of the year in the cycle, should be given; for instance, that A.D. 313 should be called the first year of the first Indiction, and A.D. 351 the ninth year of the third Indiction. This practice, however, was not adopted till far on into the Middle Ages[188]. At the time we are speaking of, the word Indiction seems generally to have been given not to the cycle itself, but to the year in the cycle. Thus, 313 was the first Indiction, 314 the second Indiction, 315 the third Indiction, and so on. And thus we find a year, which from other sources we know to be 313, called the first Indiction, 351 the ninth Indiction, 537 the fifteenth Indiction, without any clue being given to guide us to the important point in what cycles these years held respectively the first, the ninth, and the fifteenth places.

[Footnote 188: The Twelfth Century, according to Marquardt.]

As the Indiction began on the 1st of September a question arises whether the calendar year is to be named after the number of the Indiction which belongs to its beginning or its end; whether, to go back to the beginning, A.D. 312 or A.D. 313 is to be accounted the first Indiction. The practice of the chroniclers and of most writers on chronology appears to be in favour of the latter method, which is natural, inasmuch as nine months of the Indiction belong to the later date and only three to the earlier. Thus, for instance, Marcellinus Comes calls the year of the Consulship of Belisarius, which was undoubtedly 535, 'Indictio XIII:' the thirteenth Indiction of that cycle having begun Sept. 1, 534, and ended August 31, 535. But it is well that the student should be warned that our greatest English authority, Mr. Fynes Clinton, adopts the other method. In the very useful table of comparative chronology which he gives in his Fasti Romani[189] he assigns the Indiction to that year of the Christian era in which it had its beginning, and accordingly 534, not 535, is identified with the thirteenth Indiction.

[Footnote 189: Vol. ii. pp. 214-216. See his remarks, p. 210: 'The Indictions in Marcellinus and in the Tables of Du Fresnoy are compared with the Consulship and the Julian year in which they end. In the following Table they are compared with the year in which they begin, because the years of the Christian era are here made the measure of the rest, and contain the beginnings of all the other epochs.']

In order to translate years of Indiction into years of the Christian era it is necessary first to add some multiple of 15 (what multiple our knowledge of history must inform us) to 312. On the 1st of September of the year so obtained the Indiction cycle began; and for any other year of the same cycle we must of course add its own number minus one. Thus, when we find Cassiodorus as Praetorian Praefect writing a letter[190] informing Joannes of his appointment to the office of Cancellarius 'for the twelfth Indiction,' as we know within a little what date is wanted, we first of all add 14 x 15 (= 210) to 312, and so obtain 522. The first Indiction in that cycle ran from September 1, 522, to August 31, 523. The twelfth Indiction was therefore from September 1, 533, to August 31, 534, and that is the date we require.

[Footnote 190: Var. xi. 6.]

On the other hand, when we find a letter written by Cassiodorus as Praetorian Praefect to the Provincials of Istria[191] as to the payment of tribute for the first Indiction, we know that we must now have entered upon a new cycle. We therefore add 15 x 15 (= 225) to 312, and get 537. As it happens to be the first Indiction that we require, our calculation ends here: September 1, 537, to August 31, 538, is the answer required.

[Footnote 191: Var. xii. 22.]

If anyone objects that such a system of chronology is cumbrous, uncertain, and utterly unscientific, I can only say that I entirely agree with him, and that the system is worthy of the perverted ingenuity which produced the Nones and Ides of the Roman Calendar.

In the following tables I have not attempted to mark the years of the Indiction, on account of the confusion caused by the fact that two calendar years require the same number. But I have denoted by the abbreviation 'Ind.' the years in which each cycle of the Indictions began. These years are 492, 507, 522, 537, 552, and 567.

Chronological Tables.

Private Public Rulers of A.D. Consuls. Events. Events. Italy. Popes. Emperors. —————————————————————————————————————————- 480 Basilius Magnus Assassination ODOVACAR SIMPLICIUS ZENO Junior. Aurelius of Nepos, (from 476). (from 468). (from 474). Cassiodorus formerly Senator, Emperor of born at the West. Scyllacium (?). —————————————————————————————————————————- 481 Placidus. Odovacar avenges the murder of Nepos. Death of Theodoricus Triarii. —————————————————————————————————————————- 482 Trocondus Accession of and Clovis. Severinus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 483 Faustus. Zeno issues FELIX II the Henoticon. (or III). —————————————————————————————————————————- 484 Theodoricus Illus revolts and against Zeno. Venantius. Schism between Eastern and Western Churches. —————————————————————————————————————————- 485 Q. Aurelius Memmius Symmachus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 486 Decius and Longinus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 487 Boethius War between (Father of Odovacar and the great the Rugians. Boethius). —————————————————————————————————————————- 488 Dyanamius Theodoric and starts for Sifidius. Italy. Death of Illus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 489 Anicius Theodoric Probinus descends into and Italy. Battles Eusebius. of the Isonzo and Verona. —————————————————————————————————————————- 490 Flavius Battle of the Faustus Adda. Junior and Longinus (II). —————————————————————————————————————————- 491 Olybrius Battle of ANASTASIUS. Junior. Ravenna. —————————————————————————————————————————- 492 Flavius GELASIUS. (Ind.) ANASTASIUS Augustus and Rufus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 493 Eusebius Surrender of THEODORIC. (II) and Ravenna. Albinus. Death of Odovacar. —————————————————————————————————————————- 494 Turcius Rufus Apronianus Asterius and Praesidius. —————————————————————————————————————————- 495 Flavius Viator. —————————————————————————————————————————- 496 Paulus. Clovis ANASTASIUS. defeats the Alamanni. His conversion. —————————————————————————————————————————- 497 Flavius SYMMACHUS ANASTASIUS (Antipope Aug. (II). Laurentius). —————————————————————————————————————————- 498 Paulinus and Joannes Scytha. —————————————————————————————————————————- 499 Joannes Gibbus.

—————————————————————————————————————————- 500 Patricius Cassiodorus War between and Senior, Gundobad and Hypatius. Patrician, Clovis. Praefect. Theodoric's His son visit to becomes his Rome. Consili- Conspiracy of arius. Odoin. —————————————————————————————————————————- 501 Rufius About this Synodus Magnus time Palmaris at Faustus Cassiodorus Rome. Avienus pronounces Symmachus and his confirmed in Flavius panegyric the Pompeius. on Pontificate. Theodoric, and is rewarded by being appointed Quaestor. —————————————————————————————————————————- 502 Flavius Avienus Junior and Probus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 503 Dexicrates and Volusianus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 504 Cethegus. War of Sirmium. —————————————————————————————————————————- 505 Theodorus War between and Theodoric and Sabinianus. Anastasius (affair of Mundo). Battle of Horrea Margi. —————————————————————————————————————————- 506 Messala and Areobinda. —————————————————————————————————————————- 507 Flavius Clovis (Ind.) ANASTASIUS defeats Aug. (III) Alaric II at and Campus Venantius. Vogladensis. —————————————————————————————————————————- 508 Venantius Tulum and Celer. endeavours to raise siege of Arles. Byzantine raid on Apulia. —————————————————————————————————————————- 509 Importunus. Mammo invades Burgundy. —————————————————————————————————————————- 510 Anicius Ibbus defeats Manlius Franks and Severinus Burgundians. Boethius (Author of the 'Consolation'). —————————————————————————————————————————- 511 Felix and Death of Secundinus. Clovis. —————————————————————————————————————————- 512 Paulus and Muschianus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 513 Probus and Clementinus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 514 Senator, Cassiodorus HORMISDAS. solus as Consul Consul restores (Cassio- harmony dorus). between clergy and people of Rome. —————————————————————————————————————————- 515 Florentius Cassiodorus Marriage of and receives Eutharic and Anthemius. the Amalasuentha. Patriciate (?). —————————————————————————————————————————- 516 Petrus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 517 Agapitus and Flavius Anastasius (nephew of the Emperor).

—————————————————————————————————————————- 518 Magnus. JUSTIN I. —————————————————————————————————————————- 519 JUSTINUS Composition End of schism Augustus of the between and 'Chroni- Eastern and Eutharicus con,' Western Cillica. dedicated Churches. to Eutharic. —————————————————————————————————————————- 520 Rusticus Composition and of the Vitalianus. Gothic History (?). —————————————————————————————————————————- 521 Valerius and Flavius Justinianus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 522 Symmachus (Ind.) and Boethius (sons of the great Boethius). —————————————————————————————————————————- 523 Flavius Franks invade JOHN I. Anicius Burgundy. Maximus. Imprisonment of Boethius. —————————————————————————————————————————- 524 Flavius Death of JUSTINUS Boethius. Aug. (II) and Opilio. —————————————————————————————————————————- 525 Anicius Death of Probus Symmachus. Junior and Pope John's Flavius Mission to Theodorus Constantinople. Philoxenus. —————————————————————————————————————————- 526 Olybrius. Cassiodorus Pope John ATHALARIC. FELIX III Master of dies in (or IV). the prison (May Offices. 25). Death of Theodoric (Aug. 30). —————————————————————————————————————————- 527 Vettius Death of JUSTINIAN. Agorius Amalafrida, Basilius Queen-dowager Mavortius. of the Vandals. —————————————————————————————————————————- 528 Flavius JUSTINIANUS Aug. (II). —————————————————————————————————————————- 529 Decius BONIFACE II. Junior. —————————————————————————————————————————- 530 Flavius Lampadius and Orestes. —————————————————————————————————————————- 531 Post Consulatum Lampadii et Orestis. —————————————————————————————————————————- 532 Post Final invasion Consulatum of Burgundy by Lampadii et the Franks. Orestis. Anno II. —————————————————————————————————————————- 533 Flavius Cassiodorus The Vandal War JOHN III. JUSTINIANUS Praetorian of Justinian Aug. (III). Praefect (June, 533- (Sept. 1), March, 534). which office he holds till he retires from public life. —————————————————————————————————————————- 534 Flavius Death of AMALASUENTHA. JUSTINIANUS Athalaric THEODAHAD. Aug. (IV) (Oct. 2). and Flavius Association of Theodorus Theodahad with Paulinus Amalasuentha. Junior. —————————————————————————————————————————- 535 Flavius Death of AGAPETUS. Belisarius. Amalasuentha. The Gothic War begins.