The Letters of Cassiodorus Part 15

August _Thorbecke's_ 'Ca.s.siodorus Senator' (Heidelberg, 1867);

[Sidenote: Franz.]

Adolph _Franz's_ 'M. Aurelius Ca.s.siodorius 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 Ca.s.siodorus. 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 Ca.s.siodorus.

_Dahn_, in the third section of his 'Konige der Germanen' (Wurzburg, 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 a.s.sistance.

_Kopke_, in his 'Anfange des Konigthums bei den Gothen' (Berlin, 1859), has condensed into a small compa.s.s a large amount of useful disquisition on Ca.s.siodorus 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 Ca.s.siodorum 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'

(Stra.s.sburg, 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 Konigreichs' (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 Ca.s.siodorus Senator' (Vol.

viii. of the 'Abhandlungen der Koniglich Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften;' Leipzig, 1861), has said all that is to be said concerning the unfortunate 'Chronicon' of Ca.s.siodorus, 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 Ca.s.siodorus 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.

Pa.s.sing 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. Ca.s.siodorus 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 Ca.s.siodorus 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 Ca.s.siodorus I have, for convenience sake, a.s.sumed 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 Consuls.h.i.+ps, at any rate through the greater part of the life of Ca.s.siodorus, I have inserted the Consular Fasti for the period in question. It will be seen that several names of correspondents of Ca.s.siodorus 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 Ca.s.siodorus, in his 'Chronicon,' a.s.signs the year to 'Avienus et Pompeius.' Pompeius was a n.o.bleman 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 Ca.s.siodorus 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 a.s.sume 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 a.s.sessment 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 a.s.signed 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 t.i.thes 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 (Romische 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 Consuls.h.i.+p 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 a.s.signs 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 Consuls.h.i.+p 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 Ca.s.siodorus 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 Ca.s.siodorus 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 c.u.mbrous, 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 a.s.sa.s.sination ODOVACAR SIMPLICIUS ZENO Junior. Aurelius of Nepos, (from 476). (from 468). (from 474).

Ca.s.siodorus 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.