THE REIGN OF THE EMPEROR PROBUS BY THE SAME AUTHOR CLAUDIAN AS AN HISTORICAL AUTHORITY The Thirlwall Prize Essay, 1907. Cambridge Press, 4s. 6d. " students of the history of Ancient Greece and Rome who know the ' Cambridge Historical Essays," will need no further recommendation of this new volume of this scholarly set of books than that it is well worthy of its place in the series. . . . This Essay, the work of Mr. J. H. E. Crees, was awarded the Thirlwall Prize two years ago. It is a studious, closely reasoned estimate of the value of Claudian's Latin poems as historical authorities for the events of the closing years of the fifth century."— r/ie Scotsman, Dec. 10, 1908. "The result is a pleasantly written book of its kind, and one worth reading.''— TAe Tablet, Feb. 6, 1909. "Dr. Crees here attempts, with no small measure of success, to estimate the value of Claudian's poems as historical authorities. . . . The essay is an unusual piece of work, being sound, penetrating and suggestive." — The Publishers' Circular, Jan. 23, 1909. THE REIGN OF THE EMPEROR PROBUS BY J. H. E. CREES, M.A. Camb., D.Lit. Lond. LATE SCHOLAR OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE ; THIRLWALL PRIZEMAN AND MEDALLIST, I907 ; HEAD MASTER OF THE CRYPT GRAMMAR SCHOOL, GLOUCESTER Xoubon: XHnivetstt^ ot Xonbon press PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD. BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, E.G. 1911 \ e_> HODDER AND STOUGHTON PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS PREFACE This essay deals chiefly with the Reign of the Emperor Probus. But the essential preliminary to an investigation of the reign of any emperor who ruled between a.d. 117 and 285 is an exam- ination of the Augustan History, and therefore considerable space has necessarily been devoted to a discussion of the views which have been put forward, from time to time, by so many scholars. The controversy as to the date and authenticity of the Augustan History has been maintained chiefly by German, Italian and French scholars, and, so far as I am aware, no monograph dealing with the subject has yet appeared in England. Miss Orma Fitch Butler, of the Oxford College for Women (Ohio), in Studies in the Life of Helioga- halus has recently discussed the question of the authorship of the Augustan History. The conclu- sions to which I have come were arrived at before I had had the advantage of seeing her work. The following books have been consulted : — Ancient Authors — Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Peter). Zosimus. Historia Nova (Mendelssohn). Aurelius Victor. Eutropius. Breviarium. Orosius. Zonaras. 250751 vi PREFACE Ancient Authors (continued) — Chronica Minora, Mommsen's edition, Monumenta Ger- mania£ historica. Miiller. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Vol. iv. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Dessau, Selected Inscrip- tions, and Ephemeris epigraphica. Cohen. Coins of the Roman Empire. Poole. The Alexandrian Coins in the British Museum. Klein. Fasti consulares. Modern Works. General — Peter. Scriptores Historiae Augusiae. Lessing. Lexicon to the Augustan History. Lecrivain. JStudes da^is VHistoire Auguste. Teuffel. History of Roman Literature. Gibbon. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited by Professor Bury, vol. i. Stuart Jones. The Roman Empire. Mommsen. The Roman Provinces, and Roman Coinage. W. T. Arnold. Roman Provincial Administration. Leo. Die griechisch-romische Biographic. Clinton. Fasti Romani. Klebs, etc. Prosopographia Imperii Romani. The Encyclopaedias of Pauly-Wissowa and Daremberg- Saglio. Special Monographs, Articles, etc. Bernhardy. Prooemium de Scriptoribus Historiae Augustae, 1842. Boehm. De M. Aurelio Probo. Briinner. *' Vopiscus's Biographies critically examined " (in Budinger, Untersuchungen zur romischen Kaiser- Geschichte). Czwalina. De Epistolarum Actorumque, quae a Scriptoribus Historiae Augustae proferuntur, fide et auctoritate. Dessau. Hermes, 1888, 1889, 1892. Enmann. Philologus, 1884. Giri. In qual tempo abbia scritto Vopisco. Homo. De Claudio Gothico. Aurelien. Hopkins. Alexander Severus. PREFACE vii Special Monographs, Articles, etc. (continued) — Klebs. Philologus, 1889. Rheinisches Museum, 1890, 1892. Historische Zeitschrift LXI. The Dynastic Element in the Historians of the Empire. Kornemann. The Emperor Hadrian, and the last great historian of Rome, 1904. Lepaulle. ^tude historique sur Probus d'apres la numis- matique du regne de cet empereur. Lyons, 1884. Linsenbarth. Flavius Vopiscus. Mommsen. Hermes, 1890. Miiller. Marius Maximus as source of the Augustan History. Peter. Philologus, vol. 43. Plew. De diver sitate scriptorum Historiae Augustae. Flew. Marius Maximus as source of the Augustan History. Rtihl. Rheinisches Museum, 1888. Sadee, E. De Imperatorum Romanorum III. post. Chr. saeculi temporibus constituendis. Bonn, 1891. Sallet. The dates of the Alexandrian Coins. Sanctis, De. Rivista de Storia Antica, 1895. Schulz. Beitr'dge zur Kritik unserer liter arischen Ueber- lieferung ficr a.d. 192-209. 1903. Schulz. Life of Hadrian, 1904. Seeck. Neues Jahrbuch fur Paedagogik, 1890. Rheinisches Museum XLIX. Tropea, T. Rivista di Storia Antica, 1897. Vermaat. De aetate qua conscripta est Historia Augusta. Von Winterfeld. Satzschlussstudien zur Hist. Aug. Rhein. Mus. LVII. The Jahresbericht of 1906 contains an article by Peter on recent works (1893-1905) and a full bibliography. Lecrivain also gives a bibliography, which does not come down to quite so recent a date. Gloucester, September 1911. THE REIGN OF PROBUS CHAPTER I Empires, like individuals, have their vicissitudes. The ship of state rides now on the crest of the billows, now sinks deep in the trough. Rome, if any state, had experienced both the smiles of fortune and the tribulation of adversity. Vopiscus,^ in one of those few passages which have any pretensions to literary merit, elaborates this thesis, and traces Rome's chequered fortunes from the earliest dawn of its history down to his own day. Rome had been well-nigh overwhelmed by the Gallic cataclysm, yet a new city rose, phoenix- like, from the ruins of the old. The varied for- tune of the Punic wars was followed by a long 1 Vopiscus, Cams, 1. 1, seq. " fato rem publicam regi, eamque nunc ad summum evehi, nunc ad minima retrahi Probi mors satis prodidit, nam cum ducta per tempora variis vel erecta motibus, vel afflicta, nunc tempestate aliqua nunc felicitate variata . . . videbatur post diversitatem malorum iam secura continuata felicitatis mensura . . . adolevit deinde usque ad tempora Gallicani belli sed quasi quodam mersa naufragio, capta praeter arcem urbe plus paene mali sensit quam tunc boni habuerat . . . longum est quae sequuntur universa connectere. invidet Claudio longinquitatem imperii, amans varietatum prope et semper inimica f ortuna iustitiae, sic enim Aurelianus occisus est, et sic Tacitus absumptus, sic Probus caesus, ut appareat nihil tam gratum esse fortunae quam ut ea quae sunt in publicis actibus, event uum varietate mutentur." B 1 2 THE REIGN OF PROBUS spell of stagnation, a time of superficial prosperity,^ in which the destruction of the republic was being prepared, and, again, the reigns of terror under the earlier Emperors were followed by those halcyon days of the Antonines which Gibbon justly celebrates.^ The period, however, between the death of Marcus Aurelius and the accession of Diocletian is the most miserable and the most inglorious century in Roman history. An evil destiny dogged Rome. The Roman spirit and the Roman virtues seemed buried in an unnatural slumber. Routine doubt- less accomplished its daily round, stolidly indifferent to the horrors and calamities which encompassed it, but this squalid and unhappy period seems, like some ghastly nightmare, to interrupt the even tenor of the Roman rule, an episode unrelated either to the peaceful epoch of the Antonines, or to the order and stern restraint of the age of Diocletian and Constantine. It is a time rather of internal strife than of external troubles. The soldiery, like children wearied of their toys, set up an interminable succession of puppet-emperors. The Emperor was a despot, but a despot helpless in the hands of his janissaries. Some there were who, in this time of turbulence and anarchy, strove to restore the elements of good government, and some, like Severus, were partly successful. But the annals of the time contain chiefly a record of a succession of rulers, stained by the vilest vices, and profitless stewards of the imperial resources, or ^ Mommsen, History of Rome, ii. 36. 2 Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (the first paragraph). THE REIGN OF PROBUS 3 well-intentioned men honourably endeavouring to restore Rome's prestige, but foredoomed to failure, since the soldiery had lost, with all their other virtues, the special military virtue of " modestia." Thus, the characters which appear before us are pitiless, mistrustful, and reckless, or virtuously futile. Never might the Furies, pointing to the world, have with greater exultation bidden Justice abandon humanity and seek the stars. ^ Yet Rome began slowly and painfully to recover from its century-long malady. In the latter half of the third century the barbarians began again to press upon the frontiers more insistently and to better purpose, and under the chastening influence of adversity, the necessity of order and discipline became apparent even to the most turbulent legionary. Gradually, not without many difficul- ties and checks, the Emperors reasserted their ancient prestige. This tendency, which is seen at work under Aurelian, Probus and Tacitus, triumphs at length under Diocletian and his successors, nor was imperial authority again de- graded to its former level. The difference between the treatment of Probus by his troops, and that of Honorius, an incomparably weaker personality, marks another stage in the history of the Empire. The sanctity of the Emperor, the immeasurable difference between him and his subjects, and, as a corollary, the assertion of the hereditary principle against the principle of election by the Senate, or selection at the caprice of tumultuous legions, are 1 Cf . Claudian, In Rufinum, i. 363. " linque homines, sortemque meam, pete sidera." B 2 4 THE REIGN OF PROBUS the consequences of the new spirit which pervades Roman affairs. The sterile annals of the age between the death of Antoninus Pius and the accession of Diocletian are a proof that History can occasionally approxi- mate to the Newgate Calendar. It was the golden age of the desperado and the cut-throat, and the imperial succession was handed down from one Jack Sheppard to another, whose only merit was the shortness of his rule. There is a certain spaciousness about the Roman Empire which distinguishes it from all others, and even this century of chaos and misrule, which seems to have neither an ancestral connection with the palmy days of the Antonines, nor a sequel in the strict and orderly government of Diocletian, viewed in its true perspective appears but as a troublous episode in Rome's history. Yet in spite of the appalling phantasmagoria of anarchy and crime, ^ which is almost all that has been handed down for us to perceive, the Roman Empire contrived to preserve its existence and its continuity, and historians have with reason refused entirely to abandon their researches into the history of this age, but have turned from superficial things to the inner hidden life of the Roman Empire as revealed in inscriptions and other records. Even during these years the Roman Empire was developing, and tendencies previously originated were marching ^ Hopkins, Alexander Severus. " A bid for empire, the acclamation of the soldiery, a meteoric Imperial career, death by the swords of the mutinous army, that is the epitome of the life of the majority of the Caesars." THE REIGN OF PROBUS 5 onward to their accomplishment. To understand fully the Empire of the time of Probus it is well to turn back a moment to some Emperors of the past. The reign of Severus (a.d. 193-211) has rightly been said ^ to mark an epoch in the history of autocracy. The imperial power was based hence- forth upon the army, and upon the army alone, and the fiction of the dyarchy, a partnership between Emperor and Senate, was allowed to fall into oblivion. The soldier, who became such an important personage, was pampered and allowed to disregard the claims of discipline. He lived in plenty and in the bosom of his family .^ The rest of the world under this rule of militarism became mere ciphers. Italy lost her coveted privilege of sole eligibility for admission to the praetorian guards, and of keeping its soil free from the presence of barbarian soldiers, and the lus Italicum was bestowed upon many cities in the provinces. The Senate dared not oppose the slightest wish of its imperial master, and lost most of its revenues, owing to the reduction of the aerarium to insignifi- cance. When Alexander Severus (a.d. 222-235), a prince of the best intentions and favourably disposed to the Senate, was invested with the imperial power, there was little change. He desired to restore the prestige of the Senate, but he carried out this policy in a half-hearted manner.^ 1 Stuart Jones, The Roman Empire, p. 252. 2 Restrictions upon marriage were now abolished, legionaries wore gold rings and received frequent donatives. 3 Hopkins, Alexander Severus, p. 223. " Half-blmdly, 6 THE REIGN OF PROBUS Militarism was now fully established, and the good intentions of a weak-minded emperor could not overcome an irresistible tendency. Then followed a series of Emperors or "tyrants" — the difference was immaterial — " transient and embarrassed phan- toms," all of them. Under Valerian and Gallienus Rome reached its nadir ^ and both Postumus in Gaul ^ and Odaenathus ^ in the East might justly despise the master whom they had disowned. But the frenzy of militarism had now almost spent itself, and the Empire might now seem a prize scarcely worth snatching at. Claudius (a.d. 268-270) brought with him a transient gleam of sunshine. He fought bravely with the difficulties which confronted him — and truly few men have had to cope with more. Gaul, Spain and Britain in the West had gone, Zenobia, though discreet and outwardly unaggres- sive, had practically annexed the far- Eastern por- tion of the Empire, while the Alamanni and the Goths had broken through the Illyrian limes in Raetia and Dacia respectively. The Alamanns were defeated near Lake Benacus, and Spain returned to her allegiance. In spite of the Alaman- with enthusiasm tempered by weakness, he trod the path of reaction, only to find the Senate a broken reed, and the army the real autocrat of all the world." 1 Vopiscus, Cams, 3. 4. " nihil post haec praeter Severi diligentiam usque ad Alexandrum Mammeam sensit bonum. uti enim Valeriano principe non potuit et Gallienum per quin- decim annos passa est." 2 Proclaimed Emperor a.d. 258. Established an " Empire of the Gauls," but this empire was Roman in all its characteristics. He won victories over the Germans, as coins show. 2 Ruler of Palmyra. It is too much, perhaps, to say that he disowned Gallienus, though his allegiance was only nominal. On his death, his wife Zenobia succeeded to his power. THE REIGN OF PROBUS 7 nine victory, Claudius did not march northwards into Gaul,^ where Postumus had been succeeded as ruler by Victorinus, who in turn was slain at Koln (a.d. 269). The huge preparations of the Goths — it is said that the men alone in their host amounted to 320,000 — rendered it necessary for him to take the field against them. They were, however, defeated at Naissus (a.d. 269). Claudius, who had refused Zenobia all recognition, would next, probably, have gone to the East, but died at Sirmium, attacked by the plague which was then raging.^ The attempt to replace Claudius by his brother Quintillus proved abortive, and Aurelian was pro- claimed Emperor by the Pannonian legions. It is said that Aurelian would have been chosen on the death of Gallienus, but for his strictness.^ How- ever, the Senate, though it strongly disliked Aurelian, had in reality gained nothing from Claudius, who, angered by their considering the death of Gallienus as a victory for their order, compelled them to deify the murdered Emperor, and jealously guarded all his prerogatives, while, however, avoiding an open quarrel. Aurelian, by his harshness, caused the Senate to look back with 1 Claudius acted prudently. Homo justly regards it as Claudius's merit " ut dilata imperii restitutione consilia viresque ad barbaros repellendos unice intenderit." 2 He received the honour of deification. In later times it was sought to connect Claudius with Constantius Chlorus. PoUio, in his life of Claudius, invents oracles to prove that the descend- ants of Claudius shall reign for evei (Claudius ^ 3. 6, 10. 1-7. In 11. 9 Claudius's pedigree is even traced to Dardanus of Ilium). Vopiscus accepts this descent, Aurelian, 44. 5. 3 Homo, De Claudio Gothico, p. 29. 8 THE REIGN OF PROBUS longing upon the days of his predecessor,^ and as the history of the time is deeply tinged with senatorial prejudices, Aurelian'e reputation suffered. In spite, however, of such paltry depreciation, Aurelian must be regarded as Rome's saviour, and in his short reign (a.d. 270-275) the Empire regained its proper limits. A treaty was made with the Goths, and Aurelian, recognizing the difficulty of defending a trans-Danubian province, surren- dered Dacia.^ Some of the inhabitants were taken across the Danube to Moesia, and Aurelian called this region his Dacia. The Alamanns were de- feated after three severe battles, and Tetricus, a Roman senator who had been made, against his will, ruler of Gaul, entered into secret communica- tions with Aurelian and went over to his side on the field of battle (a.d. 273). Meanwhile Aurelian had experienced trouble at Rome. He had dis- placed the Senate, and had still more seriously offended the corrupt vested interest of the minters, who for a long period now had been debasing the coin, to their own great profit.^ Aurelian ruthlessly 1 Yet Claudius yielded nothing. The Senate were still excluded from a military career, and Claudius quietly encroached upon their privileges. The " legati " of the provinces were supposed to be senators. No equestrian " legati " were appointed, but we find "vices agentes legati," and "vices agentes legatorum pro praetore," and these deputies needed not to be senators. Homo, p. 71. 2 Vopiscus, Aurelian^ 39. 7. " cum vastatum lUyricum ac Moesiam deperditam videret, provinciam trans Danubium Daciam a Traiano constitutam sublato exercitu et provincialibus reliquit, desperans eam posse retineri ; abductosque ex ea popu- los in Moesiam collocavit, appellavitque suam Daciam, quae nunc duas Moesias dividit." Lecrivain,p.362, would read instead " cam," after Eutropius, 9. 15. ^ Mommsen, Roman Coinage (French translation), iv. THE REIGN OF PROBUS & closed the mint at Rome, and the cowardly and corrupt officials whose misfeasance had so long been tolerated, treacherously seized the opportunity of external troubles to revolt. There was a pitched battle on the Caelian hill, which ended in the destruction of the rebellious faction, whose strength was unfortunately augmented by Aurelian's un- popularity. Aurelian now turned to the East, where his last great achievement awaited him. A long and arduous conflict resulted in the complete over- throw of Zenobia's power,' and Palmyra, which again rebelled, was blotted out from the list of Roman cities. Aurelian celebrated a glorious triumph, in which Zenobia was the general cynosure (a.d. 274). Aurelian again set out for the East, but, at Caenofrurium near Byzantium, met his death by the hands of conspirators who were the dupes of Eros, the Emperor's secretary.^ The Senate, as we have said, disliked Aurelian,^ and were shocked 62-112. Felicissimus seems to have been the captain of this unscrupulous gang. 1 There were Roman victories near Antioch and Emesa. After a long siege Palmyra was taken, in spite of a Persian attempt at relief. 2 He told them, falsely, that the Emperor had decided upon their destruction. In self-defence, therefore, they assassinated him. Vopiscus calls it " calliditas servi ncquissimi, error militarium." 3 Vopiscus says (Aurelian, 4i4<. 1.), " Aurelianum quidem multi neque inter bonos neque inter malos principes ponunt, idcirco quod ei, dementia, imperatorum dos prima, defuerit." Yet he strangely says, " populus autem Romanus amaviU senatus et timuit." Diocletian is said to have censured Aurelian's savagery (" ferocitas "). Perhaps he had a lively apprehen- sion that his predecessor would be a serious rival for the applause of posterity. 10 THE REIGN OF PROBUS by the sight of Tetricus, a senator, in the train of captives at Aurehan's triumph. Vopiscus hesitates whether to place AureUan among the good or the bad Emperors ; modern historians have fewer scruples and fewer doubts. The brief reign of Tacitus owes such importance as it possesses to a temporary revival of senatorial pretensions. The army had an uneasy feeling that some one had blundered, and realized in an un- wonted fit of repentance that perhaps assassination was not the due and proper reward of the restoration of the Empire. It determined that the murderers, whom it abstained from punishing for their mis- taken action, should not derive any advantage from their witlessness. It therefore remitted the choice of an Emperor to the Senate,^ which, not to be outdone in courtesy, wisely declined the doubtful honour, and six months passed before the Senate and the army ceased to bandy compliments. This interregnum is celebrated by Vopiscus in a specimen of his choicest fustian, in order that future ages may have some record of this astounding self- control, and that aspirants to the purple may learn the lesson not to be too precipitate. One might have thought that this period of calm proved that an Emperor was superfluous. However, on the ^ Vopiscus, AureUan, 40. 2. " de imperatore deligendo exercitus rettulit ad senatum, idcirco quod nullum de his faciendum putabat qui tam bonum principem occiderant." Vopiscus gives a letter of the army, doubtless apocryphal, AureUan, 41. Tacitus, 2. " senatus sciens lectos a se principes militibus non placere, rem ad milites rettulit, dumque id saepius fit, sextus est peractus mensis." THE REIGN OF PROBUS 11 twenty-fifth of September a.d. 275, the Senate addressed itself to the momentous task of choosing an Emperor.^ The consul Gordianus, after harangu- ing the fathers on the need of immediate action, in view of the movements of the Germans on the frontier of the Rhine and the threatening attitude of the Persians,^ called upon M. Claudius Tacitus, who seems to have been " princeps senatus." ^ ^ The evidence of coins seems to explode the story of an interregnum. The Alexandrine coins show that Aurehan was alive after August 29, 275, his seventh year according to the Alexandrine mode of reckoning. Poole, Alexandrian Coins. 2402-2408 belong to Tacitus. The tradition that Tacitus began to reign in September seems trustworthy. The interreg- num, then, becomes a trivial matter of three or four weeks, the time necessary for an exchange of opinions between the Senate and the army. The reigns of Tacitus and Florian were so short that they might be considered as an interregnum be- tween the reigns of Aurelian and Probus. C /. L., ii. 4635, 4636 and xiii. 5563 show that Tacitus was Emperor before December 10. 2 Vopiscus gives a full account, which purports to be taken from the proceedings of the Senate. Velius Cornificius Gordianus is only given in the Prosopographia as mentioned in this passage. " imperator est deligendus . . . limitem trans Rhenum Germani rupisse dicuntur, occupasse urbes validas, nobiles, divites et potentes. iam si nihil de Persicis motibus nuntiatur, cogitate leves esse mentes Syrorum," etc. If the interregnum only lasted three weeks, these movements are less likely, another argument against the authenticity of the speech. Still the account, in its outlines, seems perfectly natural and credible. 3 It was Tacitus who, at the former meeting of the Senate, had been first called upon and had proposed the deification of Aurelian. Meanwhile the senators must have discussed possible candidates amongst themselves, and Tacitus had modestly sought retirement at Baiae. He was brought back, however. In Tacitus, 7, it is stated that he was there two months. This is improbable. It is supposed that at this time the Emperors had given up the title of " princeps senatus," which Augustus had originally adopted. li THE REIGN OF PROBUS But the conclave had already come to a decision, and in elaborate and doubtless carefully- rehearsed terms acclaimed as Emperor the blushing and confused Tacitus. They knew well whom they had chosen, as Tacitus naively remarked. In vain he urged his age, his inexperience, his unfitness for the arduous tasks which awaited the successor of Aurelian. What mattered these slight deficien- cies ? ^ Trajan had succeeded to the Empire as an elderly man, and Hadrian and Antoninus also; they desired a statesman, not a warrior. The hall resounded with cries of " Heaven preserve Tacitus Augustus." 2 Rome had had enough of boy- emperors, whose pens had to be guided by their tutors, yet one speaker revealed the secret of this action by an adjuration to Tacitus not to nominate his children as heirs, but to imitate Nerva and Trajan.^ Tacitus's sole claim to the imperial office was his ^ Tacitus, "incertum quam sententiam vellet dicere, omnis senatus acclamavit." Ch. 4 . . . " scit senatus quern principem fecerit." 9. 6. 2 Ibid,, 4. 5. " miror in locum Aureliani fortissimi principis senem velle principem." ..." vix munia senatus imple- mus, vix sententias edicimus." ..." an probaturos senem imperatorem milites creditis." The reply was " imperatorem non militem facimus. habes prudentiam et bonum fratrem." (It seems to be assumed that Florian would assist his brother, but we have nothing to prove that he was " capable.") " Tacite Auguste, dii te servant." 3 Ibid., 6. 5. " dii avertant principes pueros, et patres patriae dici impuberes. et quibus ad subscribendum magistri litterarii manus teneant " . . . " teque, Tacite, convenio, petens ne parvulos tuos facias heredes Romani imperii ne sic rempublicam patresque conscriptos populumque Romanum, ut villulam tuam, ut colonos tuos, ut servos relinquas quare circumspice, imitare Nervas Traianos, Hadrianos." THE REIGN OF PROBUS 13 lack of distinction and his insignificance ^ — even his descent from the historian was a fiction— and such a claim was, in the eyes of the Senate, too strong to be rejected. He was intended merely to be the Senate's instrument, and if his election resulted in Rome's catastrophe, " after them the deluge." Invested with the purple, he bore himself with the same humility and modesty which had led him, when his elevation was first mooted, to retire to Baiae.^ He urged Probus, whom the Fates destined to be his successor, not to relax his zeal for the State, reminded him how much depended upon his services, and spoke of his tried capacity.^ He did not take umbrage when difficulties were put in the way of his brother Florian receiving a consulship in the ensuing year, a.d. 276. The Senate proved by the letters which it dispatched to Carthage, Antioch, Corinth, and other important 1 He was a senator and an ex-consul, and, as the Senate were excluded from the military profession, without experience of warfare. He is said to have read " ad stuporem." The use of literature as a narcotic had apparently already been dis- covered. He was very fond of lettuces, and other pieces of " chaste information " may be found in Vopiscus. 2 Zonaras, xii. 28, says Tacitus was elected when in Campania. Vopiscus is aware of this variant account, but seems to give the correct story, though his appeal to Tacitus's signature in the 6th armarium of the Ulpian library will convince no one. ^ Prohu.9, 7. 3. " attamen sciendum tibi est tuis nunc humeris magis incubuisse rem publicam, qui et quantus sis omnes novimus." The consulship for next year, a.d. 276, was offered him, but Vopiscus rightly says that the formula " te manet Capitolina palmata " could not be an omen of empire, as it was the usual phrase in such cases. Unfortunately the " ducatus totius Orientis " which is offered to Probus is an office which did not exist. 14 THE REIGN OF PROBUS cities, in what small account it held its nominee. The power of appointing the Emperor had reverted to it (if a prerogative which it had never enjoyed could do so), and also the right to hear appeals. The State was restored to its original constitution ^ and the laws of Romulus had returned.^ Indolent and invalid senators were urged to assume fresh vigour and strength for the duties which it behoved them to perform. Such was the blindness of the Senate nine years before the accession of Diocletian, and its folly is only matched by the fatuity of its chronicler. If any evidence were needed of the entire incapacity of the Senate to hold together a falling Empire, there is ample proof in the choice, in succession to Aurelian, of a weak, undistinguished, good-natured old man to take arms against the sea of troubles which compassed Rome about on every side. Truly the Senate knew whom it had chosen. It chose 1 Tacitus, 18. 2. " quod bonum, faustum, felix, salutareque sit rei publicae orbique Romani, dandi ius imperii, appellandi principis, nuncupandi Augusti, ad nos revertit, ad nos igitur referte quae magna sunt." To Carthage, and similarly to Antioch, Aquileia, Milan, Alexandria, Thessalonica, Corinth and Athens. There is a private letter from Autronius Tiber- ianus to his father urging him to resume his attendance at meetings, and another to Cerrius Metianus, which significantly says, " possumus et prohibere, qui coepimus facere; dictum sapienti sat est." With his usual carelessness Vopiscus puts these letters in a kind of appendix at the end of the life of Florian. It is evident that Peter is right in considering the lives of Tacitus and Florian as one. These two letters have, of course, been rejected. If not " ben vero," they are certainly " ben trovato." 2 Cf. Claudian, " Romuleas leges rediisse fatemur." One evidence of the Senate's activity is the reappearance of the letters S.C. on the coins of this reign. THE REIGN OF PROBUS 15 with open eyes, and by its choice it pronounced its own condemnation.^ ^ Aurelius Victor has an uneasy feeling that the Senate acted badly. 36, " quae tamen laetitia brevis neque exitu tolerabilis f uit . . . refici militia potuit . . . neque iudicio manipularium imperium daretur, amplissimo ac tanto ordine in castris degente, verum dum oblectantur otio simulque divitiis pavent, munivere militaribus et paene barbaris viam in se ac posteros dominandi." CHAPTER II HISTORY " The reign of Probus, like the other reigns of this period, has been narrated in scant and incompetent fashion, and such is our dearth of material that an examination of this reign almost resolves itself into an appraisement of authorities. The authorities are as follow : — A number of inscriptions, which have been found in different provinces, give us the name and titles of the Emperor, and in some cases enable us to date them with precision, and to confirm or reject state- ments made by the other authorities.^ Tacitus's ^ The following inscriptions refer to Probus. C. I. L., vol. ii., Spain, 1116, 1673, 2071, 3738, 4507, 4881 ; vol. iii., Dalmatia, etc., 1805, 6433, 8707, 10488, 14019, and 14184^5 (Supplement); vol. viii., Africa, 100, 1329, 1353, 5516, 10068, 10085, 10281 ; vol. ix., Italy, 2329; vol. x., 3728; vol. xii., Gaul, 5437, 5467, 5472. Dessau, i. 1210, has an inscription naming Virius Lupus, who was praefectus urbi a.d. 278-280 and consul A.D. 278, and 1213 one which names Caeonius Rufius Volusianus, who was " corrector Italiae " in a.d. 283 and 284. Also Ephemeris epigraphica, vii. 591, 638 (?), 693. Mionnet, Alexandrian Coins, vi. 3546-3581, and (quoted in Pauly) Wien. Num. Zeitschrift, 1877, pp. 303-322. It may not be out of place to add those referring to the preceding reigns. Tacitus, C. I. /.., ii. 4635, 4636, 4638, 4959, 6197 (Florian, 1115); iii. 3204, and Supplement, 142073« (Florian, 15086); vii. (Florian, 1156); viii. 10072, 10089; ix. 2328; xii. 5563, 5676. Dessau, i. 588 = Ephemeris epigraphica, iii. 117, and 589. = Ibid., vii. 590. Ephemeris epigraphica, vii. 612, 613, 619, 629 (Florian, 1116). Mionnet, vi. 3539-3545. Supplement, ix. 619, and a few others mentioned in Pauly. 16 AUTHORITIES 17 name is given as Claudius always, and this fact seems to dispose of his boasted descent from the historian. Another (xii. 5563) celebrates the reign of liberty, and styles him " verae libertatis auctor." His encounter with the Goths is men- tioned (xii. 5676), where he is called " Gothicus Maximus." And two inscriptions at least (ii. 4635, and xii. 5676) show that his tribunician power was held by him over two official years. Four inscriptions show that Florian in his short rule contrived to gain recognition in Britain, Spain and Dalmatia, and assumed all the usual titles of the Emperor. M. Aurelius Probus is given the titles " Imperator," " Pater Patriae," and '' Pontifex Maximus." Reference is also made to his tribu- nician and proconsular powers.^ These inscrip- tions show that the Emperors still followed the precedent which Augustus had created, and based their authority (in theory at any rate) upon the various powers which the Senate conferred upon them at their accession. We have a much larger number of coins (Cohen gives 684). Similarly in the case of his prede- cessor Tacitus, 174 coins have survived which were struck in his short reign of six months, while there are 108 which commemorate Florian's two months' usurpation. The coins of Probus do not give us much help in chronological matters, and do not 1 Cf. ii. 2071 : " imperatori Caes. M. Aur. Probo. Pio. Felici invicto. Aug.," and 4507 : " P. M. Trib. Pot." Here Probus's name is erased. 4881 : " Pont. M. Trib. P.P.P. Procos." The years of the tribunician power start from December 9. Thus ii. 1673, trib. potestatis VI. Cos. IV. is quite correct. c 18 THE REIGN OF PROBUS often refer to consulships and other powers/ They confirm the statement of Vopiscus that Probus was granted the titles of " Augustus " and " Pater Patriae," and that he held the office of " Pontifex Maximus," as did all the Emperors, following the example of Augustus. He is described somewhat rarely as Lord (cf. 161, " Imperatori deo et domino Probo Augusto"), a title which became much more the vogue in later times. He is also a few times described as " perpetuus '^' or " bonus imperator." The coins give some record of his consulships. It would seem that Probus desired to show his " civili- tas " by assuming the consulship year after year. His tribunician power is recorded on some coins. ^ There are numerous legends on the coins. Probus's qualities are commemorated by legends describing his virtue, clemency, humanity and invincibility.^ His victories over the Germans and Goths are mentioned.^ 1 Cohen, vol. V. 40, 222, 371, refer to Probus's first consulship; 69, 89, 112, 221, 267, 285, 298, 375, 437, 588-596 refer to his second; 27, 359, 381-384, 412, 455-461, 477-479, 492, 589, 597 to his third; 67, 83, 355, 397, 403, 462 to his fourth; 68, 385 to his fifth. Lepaulle deals with the coins of Probus very fully. See Appendix. 2 Ibid., 27, 40, 371-376, 381. The Alexandrian (Greek) coins are of importance, chronologically speaking, as they give the year of the Emperor's reign. On one we find the symbol denoting 8. Therefore, as the Alexandrian year began on August 29 (or 30 in a leap year), Probus succeeded before the end of August, 276, and was not slain till after August 29, 282. Thus we get, according to the Alexandrian reckoning, eight years. 3 " Virtus Probi," 53, 58, 216, 233, 248, 596-7. " Clementia," 148, 152, 160. '' Humanitas," 292. " Indulgentia," 293. "Piaetas" (sic), 367. His invincibility, 2, 51, 67. "Pacator Orbis," 25. 4 " Victoria Germanorum," 47, 48, 568. " Victoria Gothis," 555. AUTHORITIES 19 But these medals, unfortunately, do not mention his consulships, and thus chronological data are lacking. He is often compared, perhaps in allusion to his travels, to Hercules, and there are the customary panegyrics on the happiness of the times. ^ The dubious attitude of the troops might explain the legend " adlocutio militum," which must often have been needed. There are also references to " fides militum," a quality too rarely manifested, to eternal peace, a consummation which the Emperor vainly sought to achieve, and once to the Muse of Augustus, who had many an inglorious epic to write." Visits to towns are referred to in the inscription " adventus Augusti." ^ We have no coins of the tyrants Saturninus and Proculus, but a few of Bonosus, and these are characterized by clumsy workmanship. We have two enactments of Probus which have been preserved for us in the Code of Justinian,^ one of which shows that Probus was at Sirmium on May 5, a.d. 277. This is the sum-total of our contemporary evidence. Our other authorities are slight in bulk, and their scanty information becomes still scantier after possible truth has been separated from certain fabrication. Aurelius Victor and Eutropius both give short 1 Cohen, 39, 80, " temporum felicitas." 546, " tempora felicia." 287, " Herculi Pacifero." 329, " Marti Pacifero." 2 " adlocutio militum," 1, 111, 112; *' fides militum," 2, 66, 261-267, 333; " concordia militum," 183; " concordia exer- citus," 182; " Calliope Augusti," 151. 3 " adventus Augusti," 8. * Cod. Justin., yiii. 56, 2; viii. 54, 4. C 2 20 THE REIGN OF PROBUS notices of the reign. Victor in his Caesars gives biographies of all the Emperors down to Con- stantius. His attitude is that of a senator, and he dwells on all matters which might increase the greatness of the Senate. He wrote about a.d. 360. His biographies can be supplemented in a few details by an epitome whose author must have consulted other authorities besides Victor. Eutropius (a.d. 364-387), who wrote at much the same time, is the author of a history in outline of Rome from its foundation. Its shortness has led some to believe that we have only a summary of it and not the real work, but there is no justification for this view.^ Orosius, who wrote (about a.d. 417) a history designed to show that Providence was always against the Pagans, passes over the reign in a single paragraph and, as he tells us nothing fresh, need not delay us more than a moment. Zosimus, on the other hand, is an authority of first-rate importance. His Historia Nova was written after a.d. 425, and, it has been proved,'-^ follows in its first part Eunapius as authority, a writer whose history ended with the year a.d. 408. His account of the reign omits many things which we find in Vopiscus, and is fuller than the latter in other cases. Unfortunately, we have not the whole of the reign from Zosimus. The MSS. suddenly stop ^ after narrating Probus's 1 Bechmann and Ulrici thought the history an abbreviation. See Ennman, p. 399. 2 See Mendelssohn's edition. 3 The first book ends suddenly with chapter 71. ravra Book II. starts in a.d. 305. AUTHORITIES 21 dealings with the East and Ptolemais, and we tlius lose the end of his first book and the beginning of the second. It appears, however, that his account would not have been prolonged to a much greater length, though it is likely that his account of the death of Probus differed from that of Vopiscus.^ Zonaras wrote an epitome of histories in the twelfth century. He seems to have followed Zosimus, and probably contented himself with one authority. His account does not seem of much value, and he has little historical ability. But Zonaras and John of Antioch (of whom we have four fragments relating to the reign) practically prove that Zosimus, whom they followed slavishly, recorded another account of the end of Probus. John says (fragment 160 Miiller) that after a success- ful and just reign, Probus learnt that the troops of Rhaetia and Noricum had revolted and invested Carus with the purple. The troops sent against Carus went over to him, and the deserted Emperor was put to death. The writer who continued Dio writes to the same effect. The Chronicles of this time are very confused. The accepted dates for the reign of Probus are a.d. 276 (for his accession) and a.d. 282 (for his death). These dates are given only by the Chronicler of A.D. 354 and by Prosper. In these confused times the Fasti seem to have been carelessly compiled, and often, no doubt, it was difficult for the compiler to attain to any certainty. Eusebius has three redundant years from a.d. 192 to the accession of 1 This may be inferred from Zonaras, who elsewhere seems to follow Zosimus. 22 THE REIGN OF PROBUS | Diocletian, and puts Probus's reign in the years j 278-285.^ The Chronica Constantinopolitana and j the Consularia Italica put the reign in the years 1 A.D. 277-283, one year late. Cassiodorus later has | a still different inaccuracy, and assigns the reign to i the years a.d. 278-285 (a reign of seven years), j It is worthy of remark that no chronicler gives only ! five years to the reign, as Vopiscus and Aurelius j Victor do. The chronological data for the events I between Probus's accession and his death are very j slight, and those chroniclers who do give more I than the consular Fasti are at variance with one \ another. Our longer authorities avoid chronology { altogether. I It is comparatively easy to examine and appreci- ' ate the authorities so far considered. But there remains the still-vexed question of the value of j Vopiscus's biography of Probus, bound up with | which is the difficult and involved problem of the 1 Augustan History, its author or authors, their j sources, its date and trustworthiness. Around all i these questions the fiercest controversies have raged, and yet many points are still left awaiting i their final solution. In our next chapter we shall | attempt a survey of the controversy of the \ Augustan History, and briefly indicate the views of the chief disputants. \ \ ^ Cf. Clinton, Fasti Romani, vol. i. Eusebius gives Probus \ one year too much. Vopiscus gives Probus only five years. This ] blunder may be due to the fact that Probus died in the year of j his fifth Consulship j CHAPTER III THE CONTROVERSY History, like all literary forms, has its modes and fashions, and different conceptions of the function of the historian have succeeded and dethroned one another, alike in the ancient and in the modern world. Herodotus, the " father of History," as he has been called, was succeeded in a few years by Thucydides, who with his totally different envisagement of History as a series of events proceeding according to laws always and everywhere of like validity, was the originator of scientific History. So at Rome, Livy, the narrator of Rome's growth and conquests, is followed by Tacitus, a writer entirely different in style and standpoint. But History, like the other forms of literature, degenerated, partly owing to political causes. The decadence may be traced even in the great work of Tacitus. The predominance of the Emperors affected History in two ways. The omnipotence of the Emperors rendered their characters and personalities a theme of absorbing interest to their subjects, and, secondly, the sena- torial class, who chiefly wrote History, caring little about an Empire which in one sense was no longer theirs, neglected external affairs, and in their 23 24 THE REIGN OF PROBUS histories concerned themselves chiefly with court intrigues or petty senatorial controversies. Tacitus's greatest fault is this " parochialism," which leads him to ignore the provinces, unless they become the seat of a war, and to concentrate himself upon trivial matters of senatorial prestige. But with Suetonius History descended a degree lower. Suetonius's importance lies in his substitution of Biography for History. The difference is tre- mendous. History regards the tendency as omni- potent. It sees in all events an over- mastering and irresistible current which bears on inexorably all without distinction, a destiny which shapes men's ends, rough-hew them how they will. But the biographer is an individualist and a hero- worshipper. He is firmly convinced of the power a great man has to direct or check the course of events in the crises of History. Both the historian and the biographer have their place, but it was distinctly unfortunate that the biographer became triumphant, and that biography pure and simple passed as History. The best examples of biography in the ancient world are the Parallel Lives of Plutarch, who wrote shortly after Suetonius. His skill in the selection of his subjects and in the composition of his narratives was such that his Biographies are, and still more were in the centuries after the Renaissance, regarded as some of the most valuable relics of antiquity. But, to be highly successful. Biography must deal with men who sum up their epoch, or are at least representative of it in an especial degree. When this is not the case Biography has an irresistible tendency to sink down to the THE CONTROVERSY 25 level of mere anecdotage.^ Such it was too often with Suetonius, the father of Biography. He had the distinction of founding a school, and nearly all historical writers for over a century seem to have regarded him as their exemplar.^ But while they aped his mannerisms, they fell far short even of his standard. Some were not ashamed to indulge in the most trifling gossip about the subjects of their writings, and those who reprobated these methods did not always avoid the piquant anecdote which gave their narrative such zest.^ And thus it comes about that from the accession of Hadrian to the accession of Diocletian (a.d. 117- 285) we depend largely upon the biographies which have been styled the Augustan History, a series which aimed at doing for the later Emperors what Suetonius had done for the early Caesars. Much of it is a striking example of how not to write Biography. And in that part of the History which 1 De Quincey, Works, vi. 438, says one word sums the history up — Anecdotage. " They pursue Caesar not only to his fireside, but into his bed-chamber, into his bath, into his cabinet, nay (' sit honor auribus ') into his cabinet d'aisance." 2 Cf. Vopiscus, Probus, 2. 7. " et mihi quidem id animi fuit non ut Salhistios, Livios, Tacitos, Trogos, atque omnes discr- tissimos imitarer viros . . . sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium MarceUinum, Gargihum Martialem, Juhum CapitoHnum, Aehum Lampridium." A still more striking proof than this allusion is the imitation of Suetonius's method, which is found throughout the History. ^ Vopiscus, Saturninus, 11. 4. " longum est frivola quaeque connectere, et odiosum dicere quali statura fuerit, quo corpore, quo decore, quid biberit, quid comederit ; ab aliis ista dicantur quae prope ad exemplum nihil prosunt." Vopiscus introduces a revolting anecdote with these words : " quoniam minima quaeque iucunda sunt, et habent aliquid gratiae cum leguntur." Proculus, 12. 6. Peter reads iocunda. 26 THE REIGN OF PROBUS deals with those mushroom-like Emperors whose fall was almost simultaneous with their rise to power, the method was peculiarly unfortunate. No age was less suited to a method which ex hypothesi assumes that its subject is of some importance, or at least of some interest. Each life starts de novo, and we have thus the same fact chronicled in duplicate quite unnecessarily, in the biographies of succeeding Emperors. It was an age of persons, not of personalities, and the result is that these writers have incurred the well-merited contempt of all critics who have concerned them- selves with them. " The great Muse of History had descended from Parnassus and was running about Caesar's palace in the bed-gown and slippers of a chambermaid." ^ The History purports to have been written by six writers, Aelius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Volcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio and Flavius Vopiscus. Of these writers nothing is known, nor is there any mention of them elsewhere than in the pages of the History. It has been held that there are no traces of indi- vidual peculiarities in the History,^ and that the whole of it is the work of a forger who assigned the different parts to writers of his own fabrication. There are certainly no strongly differentiating traits in the writers, but the character of their works would not have led us to expect this. They are all writers of one school, and all take Suetonius as ^ De Quincey. Bernhardy, too, is scornful : " parem in. litteris historicorum vel semidoctis neque Graeca antiquitas nee populus Romanus ostentat," ^ Dessau, Hermes, xxiv. 382. THE CONTROVERSY 27 a common model/ Their talent is mediocre, and it is always difficult to distinguish between mediocri- ties. Yet there are some individual traits, and this especially applies to Vopiscus,^ who has some marked mannerisms. We may therefore legiti- mately suppose that the Augustan History is really the work of those writers to whom it purports to belong, except, perhaps, in the case of Volcatius Gallicanus.^ It is not to be supposed that these writers consciously collaborated in a kind of his- torical syndicate to bridge over an historical gulf. The selection of these biographies and their arrangement in a single book must have been the work of one man, most probably one of the six authors whose names are connected with the work, Capitolinus or Lampridius have been suggested.^ Bernhardy was of opinion that the writers were of lowly origin,^ but there is really nothing to justify this view. Vopiscus, at any rate, if we may trust his account of his conversation with Tiberianus, 1 Peter, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, p. 103. 2 Klebs, Rhein, Mus., 1892, p. 50. He has some good remarks on the great difference between the Uterary and the ' spoken idiom of the time. Authors wrote in a dead language and thus lost vigour of style. 3 Mommsen disbelieves in the existence of this writer. Hermes, xxiv. 245. We have only the life of Avidius Cassius, though he proposes a history of all the Augusti. Cassius, p. 41. 4 Peter, p. 146, thinks Capitolinus edited the History before A.D. 330. Lecrivain similarly, p. 26 : The " work was revised, and unimportant lives added to complete it." Giambelli suggests Lampridius, Wolfflin Vopiscus. ^ Procemium de Scriptoribus Historiae Augustae. He calls them " opifices de plebe, qualiscunque sive artis sive consilii immunes, plebeios magistellos et historiarum quasi scrutariam factitantes, sordido dicendi genere inquinatos." Peter disagrees, Philologus, xliii. 138, 28 THE REIGN OF PROBUS was intimate with high officials, and the view taken throughout is the senatorial view. Most recent works on the Scriptores have origin- ated either from a desire to support or oppose the views enunciated by Dessau in an article in Hermes, 1889, views which he also defends in Hermes, 1892. He points out some inaccuracies which render the accepted date difficult. He remarks that Vopiscus alludes to Lampridius and Capitolinus, writers who are supposed to have flourished after him, that Tiberianus was not Prefect at the time of the cele- bration of the Hilaria, that there is a reference to Diocletian after he had laid down the purple (a.d. 305) though Vopiscus is supposed to have written so soon after as a.d. 306, and that the references to Byzantium would be meaningless before the foundation of Constantinople. But the arguments to which he attaches the greatest weight are others. There is an allusion to the descendants of Probus, who live near Verona and are, so the prophets say, one day to regain their glory. This prophecy was fulfilled, he holds, by the distinctions which a Probus attained in the reign of Theodosius. It seems, too, that the Scriptores imitate Victor, who wrote a.d. 360, and Eutropius, who wrote under Valens (a.d. 364-378). The work is therefore to be assigned to the last third of the fourth century. The second half of the theory is that the whole work has proceeded from a single pen. He finds many similarities of expression, and also similarity of method, and identity of point of view. The different authors know nothing of one another, and THE CONTROVERSY 29 though the different style of Vopiscus is admitted, it is simply the same author endeavouring to give greater interest to his work. Mommsen in 1890 approached the question in Hermes, He professes at the outset to be in entire agreement with Dessau, and to write rather to supplement than to correct. But he leaves very little of Dessau's hypothesis unchanged. More scientific than Dessau, he attempts to settle the question by a very close examination to discover anachronisms. Christianity is still associated with Judaism, the geographical designations are those of the age before Diocletian, though there are some traces of the new nomenclature. There was certainly no " corrector Lucaniae " until a.d. 290, and such offices as " praeses Orientis," " praefectus annonae Orientis," " procurator aerarii maioris," are unknown. There is no reference to Diocletian's assigning the command of a legion to a single tribune or to the appointment of " magistri militum," though the office of " dux " is mentioned. The civil and military designations do not take much heed of the great changes under Diocletian, which were not yet firmly established. The History therefore belongs in all essentials to the age in which it purports to have been composed. He then classifies the Lives in three divisions, the first containing all those biographies which are not attributed to Vopiscus and Pollio, the second the works of Pollio, the third those of Vopiscus. The last two series are genuine, but the first twenty- one biographies have considerable differences. The fourteen Lives of the Emperors are genuine, those 30 THE REIGN OF PROBUS of the Tyrants spurious. The fourteen Lives can be divided into the biographies addressed to Diocletian (9) and those dedicated to Constantine (5), and are the work of only two authors. As the name of Volcatius Gallicanus is only once found we may set him aside, and also one of the three names, Spartianus, Lampridius, Capitolinus. We can accept the genuineness of Trebellius Pollio, who is men- tioned by Vopiscus. He wrote before March 25, A.D. 304, the date of Vopiscus's conversation with Tiberianus. As regards the reference to the Hilaria, we must either refer this to the lesser Hilaria or emend. Vopiscus wrote when the four regents were alive ; there is no reason to amend " vivorum " to " divorum " in a disputed passage. The forged Lives are the work of the compiler of the biographies dedicated to Constantine, and he made the collec- tion essentially the work we have. This was done about A.D. 330, but the work was interpolated later, and contains allusions to persons of the age of Valentinian and Theodosius. Dessau in the Hermes of 1892 replies to his critics. He does not assume the aggressive much, but stands rather on the defensive. He thinks the prophecies about Claudius's descendants could not have been written down with safety under Constan- tine, and that the " sortes Virgilianae " were not yet in use as a passage suggests. Valerius was not called so during his lifetime, but Valerius Maxi- mianus or simply Maximianus. He makes some attempt to explain the motive for forgery, though he admits this may be hard to recognize. He points out the uncritical nature of the age, and the scanty THE CONTROVERSY 31 number of readers. With the aid of a few reahstic touches, such as the apostrophes of Diocletian and Constantine, it was easy to impose upon readers. Seeck {Neue Jahrbucher fur Philologie und Paeda- gogik, 1890) is still more fantastic. One allusion to Constantine induces him to assign the composi- tion of the History to the reign of the tyrant Con- stantine (a.d. 407-411), in Gaul, of all places, at the time when it was overrun by the Vandals ! Con- stantine was only a common soldier risen from the ranks, and he had little time to pay attention to history or to the genealogical researches of pedigree- makers. It is true that the Gauls are mentioned, but they are blamed more often than praised. Klebs {Rheinisches Museum, 1890 and 1892) is the most thorough-going champion of the con- servative view. He denies that it is proved that Probus came from Verona. All that we know is that he was a patron {CI.L., v. 33-44, vi. 1753), a different thing, and then the name is very common, and Vopiscus is ironical. It is very improbable that he would trace the pedigree of Constantine the usurper, as it is contrary to his theory that the Empire must not proceed by hereditary succession. He then makes some valuable remarks about the similarity of the different writers, arising out of their common idiom. The gulf between the literary and the spoken idiom was now very great. It was an effort to write in this style, in this dead idiom ; a model had to be followed closely, and this model was Suetonius. He admits some forgeries, but this was due to the habits and views of the time. Documents were composed, and the verses 82 THE REIGN OF PROBUS inserted (whose badness it is sought to extenuate by bringing them forward as translations) are really the composition of the writers. Vopiscus's grandfather is mythical. He knew both Saturninus and Bonosus, though one tyrant arose in the East, the other in Gaul. This similarity is found in other writings (compare the Panegyrics which we have). But it is incorrect to say that there are no individual peculiarities to be found. Klebs proceeds to show the individuality of Vopiscus. He is prejudiced against Christianity, and always refers to Jupiter with great reverence. He speaks often of fate, and has many resemblances to Cicero (given in detail). He has a number of phrases which the other writers have not, and he is throughout far more rhetorical than they; he is fond of alliteration and parallelism, and plays on words. Klebs argues from Vopiscus's indi- viduality that the other writers, too, have their peculiarities (he leaves this point untouched), and that the History is a series composed by from two to six persons. The hypothesis of a later revision is untenable. Peter has written a whole book on the Scriptores ; the principal points will be noticed. The collection may be divided into three classes : (1) Lives dedicated to Diocletian, ranging from a.d. 284 to 305; (2) dedicated to friends, a.d. 298 to a.d. 311 or 316; (3) dedicated to Constantine, shortly after a.d. 324 or 325. He accepts the theory of one common source for the Scriptores, Victor, and Eutropius, composed under Diocletian. Suetonius is the model, and the similarity of the authors is THE CONTROVERSY 88 due to the imitation of one writer. Trebellius wrote from a.d. 298 to 303, Vopiscus later. We cannot take the reference to the Hilaria to mean the lesser Hilaria without express mention. We must therefore either emend, or regard the whole episode as mere embroidery. The reference to civil war is probably not to the struggle between Constantine and Maxentius, but to the mutiny in November, 307, at Carnuntum. Vopiscus probably wrote Aurelian and Tacitus between May, 305, and July, 306, Probus, etc., about 307, Cams by 311. There was finally an editor who arranged and altered the works as he pleased, and added a few biographies to complete the series. This was Capitolinus, and he completed the work about a.d. 330. Peter points out errors and inconsistencies in the speeches and documents. Aelius Scorpianus is mentioned as consul, but we have no other record of him. If the debate in the Senate took place on February 3, he would be a " consul ordinarius." Manlius Statianus, too, is unknown. We know of no third legion called " Felix," or Saracen cohorts. Hunila, given as the name of Bonosus's wife, is a man's name. These documents tell us nothing fresh, and if they had not come down to us we should have lost nothing. Peter seems to accept as genuine the authorities whom Vopiscus quotes (Callicrates, Theoclius, Acholius, Nicomachus, Suetonius Opta- tianus, Aurelius Festivus, Salvidienus, Onesimus, etc.) and regards the material as excellent. But Vopiscus destroys the sequence of events by his reflections, and gives us merely raw material. In some points Peter's views have changed since 34 THE REIGN OF PROBUS his article in Philologus, 1884. He there praises the Ufe of Probus as the best of Vopiscus's per- formances with regard to the order and complete- ness of matter ; it is on a level with some biographies of Suetonius, There is a love of truth evident in the Scriptores. They never fabricate (?) or distort accounts owing to a preconceived bias. Bernhardy is wrong in saying that it is inconceivable that a man moving in the best circles should have left us such a bungling performance, when he had the use of such abundant sources; and Linsenbarth, too, is not justified in regarding our Lives as mere frag- ments and epitomes. On the whole, Peter thinks that even a better writer, with such material, would not have improved much upon Vopiscus. The speeches were perhaps embellished or invented afterwards, and the " acta " were perhaps made out by rhetoricians. The works were probably written in one decade. Brunner {Untersuchungen zur romischen Kaiser- Geschichte, vol. ii.) examines the biographies of Vopiscus critically. He thinks that the conversa- tion between Tiberianus and Vopiscus has the stamp of truth. Vopiscus wrote between May, 305, and the second half of a.d. 308, and the illusion of Lam- pridius and Capitolinus, who wrote after, must be interpolated. The reference to civil war should be referred to a.d. 307, not to 312, and the reference to Maximian's conquest of Persia is perhaps a gloss. After a discussion of Vopiscus's character, he pro- ceeds to the sources. He enumerates fully the material at Vopiscus's disposal, and concludes that it was excellent. He discusses Vopiscus's authori- THE CONTROVERSY 35 ties, the proceedings of the Senate, which Vopiscus loosely calls " Senatus Consulta," the " Acta Populi," which were exhibited publicly on white tablets, the diaries and commentaries found in the " Libri Lintei," etc. Perhaps special permission was needed to examine these; there was a " pro- curator ab ephemeride." He has, however, no regard for the artistic arrangement of his matter, and often interrupts the sequence of his narrative. We must use him simply as raw material. Briinner's chronology for the reign of Probus differs from that generally accepted. Taking the statement that Tacitus was two months in Campania, he puts back his accession, shortening the Interregnum to the end of July. Tacitus, therefore, died about the middle or end of January, and a letter might reach the Senate from Probus, in Florian's lifetime, by February 3. But it is clear from Vopiscus that Florian was dead when Probus wrote to the Senate. This is a fatal flaw in the theory. Briinner believes that Probus's letter was written before Florian's death, and points out other inaccuracies in Vopiscus's account of the reign. His final judgment is that the writer has been more favourably criticized than he deserved. He has an appendix on the relation between Zosimus and Zonaras. He thinks that the latter did not use Zosimus, but perhaps his source, Eunapius, amongst others; and that the German campaign of Zosimus, i. 67, must not, for geographical reasons, be identified with Vopiscus's campaign in Germany. Lecrivain {JStudes sur VHistoire Auguste) discusses the various questions raised in an exhaustive D 2 86 THE REIGN OF PROBUS manner, and gives an elaborate and very useful bibliography. He thinks that most of the bio- graphies were written between a.d. 293 and 306 by six traditional authors, but that Lampridius and Capitolinus wrote and revised after a.d. 325. The revision was due to Capitohnus. The bio- graphies were written under Diocletian and Con- stantine, and revised in the latter part of Con- stantine's reign. He goes through all the speeches and documents one by one, and concludes that nearly all are forged. He then analyses the Lives one by one. He finds that there are three sources for the Life of Probus, the Chronicon Imperiale, a diary, and a Greek source. Much of the work is merely the composition of Vopiscus, and in representing Probus as a senatorial Emperor he does violence to facts. That Probus was an Emperor of merit is shown by the eulogy of Victor and Julian. The description of Saturninus's eleva- tion is purely imaginary ; the same statement holds good with regard to the proceedings of Proculus and Bonosus. Lecrivain therefore holds very extreme views as to the trustworthiness of Vopiscus. Though it is only too true that Vopiscus is a dubious authority, Lecrivain seems far too trenchant. Enmann has subjected the Scriptores, Victor, and Eutropius, to a very close scrutiny. He finds throughout the Scriptores passages which have a very close correspondence with passages in Victor, or in Eutropius, or in both. Eutropius and Victor are both writers of individuality, especially the latter. We could from the Caesars construct a sketch of his character. Vopiscus, too, betrays his THE CONTROVERSY 37 own idiosyncrasies by his references to archives, his anecdotes and his platitudes. It is therefore more hkely that these three authors all excerpted from one common authority than that the later copied from the earlier, as there are so large a number of discrepancies. (For instance, in the reign of Probus there are only three or four passages in which this very close resemblance can be detected.) Enmann therefore concludes that all excerpted from a chronicler who wrote in the age of Diocletian. He followed Suetonius's method. The writer was more skilful than any who copied from him and wrote at greater length. Enmann finds similar resemblances in the history of the years a.d. 284- 357, and thinks this Chronicon Imperiale (as it is generally called) was continued to that date by some writer in Gaul, who wrote under Julian, and was the chief authority of Victor and Eutropius for those years. This theory is worked out with much ability and has been generally accepted. Yet perhaps too much has been made of these resemblances. In the case of Probus the coincidences (the planting of the vine, and Probus's hint about disbanding the army, are the chief) are simply anecdotes which would naturally attract the attention of an historian in a reign of scarce material. Besides these scraps of anecdote there is nothing. And the cumulative weight of negative evidence is very strong. Vopiscus mentions no one who can be identified as the author of such a chronicle, though it must be admitted that ancient writers are often most reticent when referring to their leading authorities. Vopiscus's 38 THE REIGN OF PROBUS references to the lack of information, and Tiberi- anus's suggestion that the gap should be filled, are surprising if we believe that at that very time there existed a work far surpassing in merit that which Vopiscus and his collaborators were to produce. The theory is too elaborate and ambi- tious for the explanation of passages which, in spite of their number, are in proportion only occasional. But Enmann, with the enthusiasm of a fond parent for his own bantling, regards our extant authors as only slices from the great banquet of the Chronicon Imperiale, a work of great historical merits, which suffered untimely decease. The char- acter of the parallel passages would lead rather to the surmise that this Chronicon Imperiale was a meagre chronicle of events, eked out with anecdote. Enmann does not engage in the futile attempt to find an author for this chronicle, and we will not venture on a task before which even his hardihood quails. We may assume that some annalists and diarists had left memorials, however meagre, of the events of various reigns, which gave later writers the necessary bare framework. However, all that any particular resemblance proves is that in that single passage the authors followed a common authority. Without further proof, we are not entitled to assume that throughout this long period one authority only is followed, nor that one man single-handed had achieved the history of this age. It may be added that, on the basis of Enmann's theory, it is still less likely that a writer at the end of the fourth century should write a feeble imitation THE CONTROVERSY 39 of the Chronicon Imperiale, with an admixture of his native banahty, if such a chronicle existed. Czwalina (de Epistolarum Actorumque fide, pt. i.) examines the documents in the Scriptores with a view to deciding whether they are genuine. His dissertation is incomplete and only deals with some of the earlier writers in the History. It is evident, however, that he considers the documents as forgeries throughout. Ruhl {Rheinisches Museum, 1888) examines soberly the evidence as to the date of Vopiscus, but, as he indulges in no rash speculations, other critics, who have been too busy flying their own kites, have ignored his careful examination of the evidence. He is highly impressed by the introduction to the Aurelian, but is constrained to admit that the fulfilment of Vopiscus is not equal to the promise. He comments on Vopiscus' s mention of Lampridius and Capitolinus, although their work is generally attributed to a later date. Maximian's sternness is blamed in one passage, and therefore it seems unlikely that this passage was written for some time after a.d. 305. The generals mentioned in the Probus as trained by him are those whom " our fathers " admired. Many of these are not known, but Diocletian is one, and the passage suggests that it was written a generation after. He refers the allusion to civil war to that of a.d. 322-323 between Constantine and Licinius. It is surprising that the book was not dedicated to Tiberianus if it was published about a.d. 305. In the Rheinisches Museum (vol. xlix.) Seeck endeavours to support Dessau's theory by pointing 40 THE REIGN OF PROBUS out anachronisms. There is a very aggressive tone about his remarks, which makes many passages humorous reading. He is very contemptuous of the " beloved brackets," which are the first resort of so many scholars in cases of difficulty. He admits that there is a kind of individuality in the different parts of the History. Fools are more common than wise men (the remark seems to apply as much to the scholars of the nineteenth century as to the historians of the fourth), and a pack of half-a-dozen blockheads might have easily taken up the task, and would be more fitted for tricks of this kind. He discusses fully the " legio tertia felix " which Vopiscus mentions, and shows that the name implies a second and first " felix legio." We find a " se- cunda felix " in the Notitia Dignitatum only under Valens, and this involves a late origin for the " legio tertia felix." The use of the tribal designa- tion Alamannicus, and the method in which sums of money are referred to, in gold, silver and copper — a method which he asserts was not used before A.D. 340 — are also regarded as supports of his theory. Then the grandson of Aurelian is spoken of as a proconsul of Cilicia, a title impossible at this time, and one which had been picked up from a perusal of Cicero. Such are the anachronisms which Seeck finds, but they are only a selection. The Augustan History has received considerable attention from Italian'^scholars, who have professed it their aim to seek the mean between irrational credulity and hypercritical exaggeration, to avoid the extravagances of many German scholars, while not accepting every statement made by the writers THE CONTROVERSY 41 of the History as gospel truth. De Sanctis is an able exponent of this conservative view (Rivista di Storia antica, 1895-6). He rightly dwells upon the large number of absurd mistakes as an argument favourable to the authenticity of the History. A forger of any ability would have taken good care not to leave such blunders as a moment's reference to some authority would avoid. For example, the conversation between Tiberianus and Vopiscus, which should be assigned to a.d. 303, is impossible, as Tiberianus was not " praefectus urbi " at the time when the Hilaria were celebrated. A forger could easily have settled this point; as it is, the error is merely an example of Vopiscus' s treacherous memory. Again, why should a late forger be so anxious to connect Constantius Chlorus with Claudius ? Maximian would not have been praised, as he is sixty or eighty years later. The passage about Probus's descendants, if it is written to curry favour, could as easily refer to other distinguished men named Probus, e. g. Petronius Probianus, or Sicorius Probus, consul in a.d. 310, as to the Anicianus Probus of the age of Theodosius. Con- stantius is styled " Imperator " in the life of Aure- lian, " Caesar " in the Carinus, a folly of which a forger would have never been guilty. The cele- brated passage " eant nunc qui ad civilia bella milites parant," etc., refers to a.d. 305, when Gale- rius and Constantius Chlorus were threatening war, and not to the age of Theodosius, when barbarians alone were disturbing the peace, and, as many legions were destroyed in the civil and foreign wars, it is not surprising that we have no record of the 42 THE REIGN OF PROBUS third "legio felix." The reference to the works of Lampridius and CapitoHnus by Vopiscus is difficult, but we need not have recourse to the theory of an interpolation. Some of the biographies might have been before Vopiscus, and the periods of the literary activity of the writers might have overlapped owing to some interruption. Tropea takes as the starting-point of his hypo- theses the passage in the hfe of Cams (8. 1) in which an allusion is made to the future conquest of Persia. This is assigned not to a.d. 297, as many scholars have assigned it, but to a.d. 336-337. He puts on one side, therefore, the conversation between Tiberianus and Vopiscus. He dates the authors as follow : — Lampridius a.d. 305-313 Trebellius Pollio a.d. 293-305 Vopiscus, Aurelian, Tacitus a.d. 323-329 Probus A.D. 330 Firmus, etc. a.d. 331-336 Carus, etc. a.d. 336-337 He sees differences of style and method in the different authors, in spite of the similarity of aim. Giri concentrates his attention upon Vopiscus, and, like Tropea, favours a somewhat later date. The Tiberianus conversation does not merit faith. If the story be true, why was not the work dedicated to him ? If we read the episode carefully, we can discover without difficulty Vopiscus's state of mind. The whole thing is a " jeu d'esprit," and naturally a dead man was chosen as interlocutor, and this man in the course of the conversation playfully gives THE CONTROVERSY 43 Vopiscus permission to romance. Giri considers the passage already mentioned, " eant nunc," etc., to have reference to Constantius II, and Magnentius, and beUeves that it can have no better explanation than in the events of a.d. 350. He fixes the bio- graphy of Aurelian to (probably) a.d. 345 or 346, those of Tacitus and Florian, in which the indica- tions are vague, to a.d. 346-349, and that of Probus to before the battle of Mursa, a.d. 351. The prepar- ations for war mentioned refer to that date. The inaccuracies of Vopiscus are in some cases venial. He would not know the titles of all officials in the Empire. Nor is he a sycophant. He sincerely admires Probus, but yet he realizes how small is the number of good Emperors. He is an author who must be used with caution, but not with mistrust. Leo has some general remarks upon the Scrip- tores in his suggestive work on Graeco-Roman Biography. He sees in Suetonius the original model of the biographies. There is a well-developed Suetonian method, but some of the Lives are hybrid in form, and we can recognize the influence of the peripatetic-Plutarchian type on the Augustan History, both in style and method and in arrange- ment and manner of narration. The Aurelian and the Probus of Vopiscus are specially marred by clumsy rhetoric and falsifications. Marius Maximus was of great use to the writers of the earlier lives, but Leo does not attempt to name the writer who was of similar assistance to the others. Heer, Schulz and Kornemann have all been interested rather in the question of the original authority whom our authors have followed, and have 44 THE REIGN OF PROBUS devoted much energy to analyses of the History in the endeavour to discover its source or sources. Heer takes the Ufe of Commodus, and attempts to strip the biographical clothing from off the chrono- logical skeleton, and concludes that this skeleton was obtained from an historian of greater merit than Dio Cassius, and the best authority of his time. The embellishments were obtained from Marius Maximus. In some places it is necessary to assume three or even four sources, and the interpolations of a " redaktor," these interpolations being often marked by catchwords and recurring phrases. Otto Schulz similarly examines the reign of Hadrian and the events between the death of Com- modus and that of Caracalla, and discovers an his- torian contemporary with Dio, but far surpassing him in acuteness and insight, such a writer as had never been imagined to have existed in that age. The analysis, which is elaborate, and often very acute, discovers also some portions which reveal *' tendency." These were added by an editor under Diocletian and Constantine. In the Theodosian age also, some writer attempted to adorn these bio- graphies by the addition of new biographical matter, the removal of matter no longer interesting, and by the insertions of fictions from family histories. Kornemann also treats of the reign of Hadrian — and Rome's last historian. Whatever the con- clusions may be, the book is more brightly written than most German works of learning. He explains that as he advanced in his studies of the period, the necessity was all the more borne in on him of attempting to reconstruct this historical work, and, THE CONTROVERSY 45 if possible, of rescuing the name of the author from undeserved oblivion, a task which required a wider investigation. He therefore examines the relation between " the Anonymus " and his plagiarist. He thinks that the task can be undertaken with fair prospects of success, and that it is better to examine by horizontal- than by cross- section. He compares, therefore, different passages of the same author, and does not, like other investigators, put side by side passages from different authors. By following out this method Kornemann attempts to show that the authors followed an anonymous writer, of whom we have only the skeleton. We can, however, recog- nize the compass, date of composition, and the strength and weakness of the work. The author wrote under Alexander Severus, in the age of the Senate's temporary restoration, and before Dio, who, as von Domaszewski wrongly thinks, attacked him in his History. The work ended with the praise of Alexander's rule (ch. 15, seq.), afterwards inferior and Greek sources were employed. The author therefore wrote before the death of Alex- ander, and probably before the death of Ulpian (a.d. 228). There is a strong senatorial bias in the work, the senators are clearly marked off from the rest of the world (" homines "), and the Senate is sometimes placed even above the Emperor. To this is due the senatorial bias in the Augustan History, which was written at a time when the Senate was completely insignificant. The senatorial class took refuge, therefore, in literature, and the " laudatores tem- poris acti " found a treasure in this " Anonymus." 46 THE REIGN OF PROBUS The strength and weakness of his work depended on this. Great interest is shown in domestic poUtics, and there is an anti-mihtaristic tone such as we should expect in the production of a senator, who was ipso facto excluded from the army. Our author was juristically trained, and perhaps belonged to the circle of Ulpian. He is an historian who may be coupled with Tacitus, and perhaps set himself to continue him. He should be identified with LoUius Urbicus, mentioned once in the life of Dia- dumenos (9. 2). From the very scanty information we can obtain about Lollius or his ancestors, Kornemann weaves some very ingenious theories. Frankfurter and von Winterfeld ^ have analysed the authors in a similar way, but from a rhetorical and stylistic point of view. Frankfurter confines himself to the introduction, conclusions and digres- sions. He thinks that there were several authors, and that the works were " popular." Von Win- terfeld examines the cadences, terminations of sentences, etc. He finds that Marius Maximus, the source of these authors' facts, was also their model in style, and that he was followed often verbatim except through involuntary inaccuracy. The authors did not trouble themselves much to attain to individuality of style. This summary has been long, yet perhaps it is convenient to collect these different opinions to- 1 Lessing's now complete Lexicon to the Augustan History, compiled, presumably, without " parti pris," gives us assistance in proving the individual existence of the authors. We find words and usages peculiar to one author, especially in the cases of Vopiscus and Trebellius Pollio. THE CONTROVERSY 47 gether. It shows the extent to which this question has disturbed the minds of scholars, and strikingly attests the variety of opinion which the materials at our disposal have given rise to. As many of the most distinguished scholars have subjected the poems of Homer to a most laborious analysis, and have dis- sected the Homeric poems, to their own satisfaction at least, so, with much less reason, a legion of scholars have in recent years swooped down upon the Augus- tan History, and have subjected its luckless authors to a merciless examination. Quellenforschung- mania has at length discovered that nowhere has it finer material to labour at than in this miser- able and sorry collection of jejune biographies and platitudinous rhetoric, which has been rightly styled " an inartistic farrago of ill-ordered trivialities.^ " Fervet opus." The classical world has long re- sounded with the hammer of the iconoclasts who, carried away by a well-merited contempt for the sorry productions of the History, have let their zeal outrun their discretion. Seeck and Dessau, two paladins amongst scholars, have made a terrific onslaught upon the History, they have dealt tre- mendous blows and performed prodigies of scholas- tic valour, yet the world has been dazzled rather than convinced. The negative results have been great. It is, undoubtedly, well that we should be impressed, even by one who is unduly emphatic, with the poor historical value of all that has long passed as History, and the series of - hypotheses which we have briefly set out prove by their very 1 Hopkins, Alexander SeveruSy p. xiii. 48 THE REIGN OF PROBUS differences and disagreements that with an inven- tive genius anything can be made out of our material. All cannot be right, and modesty may lead us to the view that no one may be right. Almost every pos- sible combination of possible explanations has been set forth in elaborately-worked-out hypotheses by scholars whose geese are all swans, yet little has been proved save the subtlety of the German intel- lect and the industry of German scholars. Instead of attempting to out-Kornemann Kornemann it seems better to stand fast more or less in the old ways, and to be content to affirm too little rather than too much. The History swarms with misleading state- ments. That is the one solid and unchallenged result of twenty years' investigation concentrated on this subject. Let us be chary, then, of building theories on what are only too probably unsafe foundations. If we cannot attain to certain know- ledge, we can at least realize our ignorance. On some questions, however, though we may not pretend to certainty, a working hypothesis is neces- sary. Unless the History is a colossal forgery it must have been written between a.d. 293 and 330. Yet when we examine the dedications, we are plunged at once into the quagmire of incertitude. Spartianus dedicates his Lives to Diocletian gener- ally, but one (Antoninus Geta) to Constantine; Capitolinus dedicates two to Diocletian, four to Constantine Lampridius, one to Diocletian, two to Constantine; the other writers do not dedicate their work to any Emperor, but many passages contain plain indications that they were written after the abdication of Diocletian. We are at once THE CONTROVERSY 49 reduced to helplessness, unless we accept the some- what unsatisfactory hypothesis that all these writers were practically contemporaneous, an explanation to which one passage of Vopiscus seems to run counter. Yet this is a slight matter compared with that theory which post-dates the whole History sixty or eighty years. A few stray passages have been the frail foundation upon which an imposing superstructure of hypothesis has been reared. An oracle had predicted great prosperity to the descen- dants of Probus, and this, according to Dessau, is the work of one who aimed at flattering that Probus who played such a distinguished part under Theo- dosius the Great.^ Moreover, Verona, with which Probus was connected, was the place to which, as we are told, the descendants of the Emperor retired after his fall. Resemblances between Eutropius and Vopiscus have been taken as a proof that the latter wrote after the former. The reference to the Goths has also been considered an anachronism. These arguments are wholly inadequate, and fail to prove a case which requires the strongest and most convincing reasons to be successful. The name Probus was common, and the connection 1 The poem of Claudian on the consulship of the two sons of Probus is the best testimony to his greatness — " quemcumque require hac de stirpe virum certum est de consule nasci. per fasces numerantur avi, semperque renata nobihtate virent, et prolem fata sequuntur." v. 13 seqq, " vivit adhuc completque vagis sermonibus aures gloria fusa Probi quam non ventura silebunt lustra nee ignota rapiet sub nube vetustas." v. 31. His generosity and the high offices he has held are mentioned. 50 THE REIGN OF PROBUS between the later Probus and Verona seems only to have been that of patron and client.^ A critic favourable to Dessau has worked through the His- tory with a view to discovering anachronisms in the designation of officials, in the administration of the provinces, in the military arrangements, and in matters of coinage. His conclusion is that the refer- ences to such matters are such as would be made by writers of the period to which they profess to belong.^ The climax of all this theorizing is the hypothesis that the work was written in Gaul during the short reign of the usurper Constantine (a.d. 407). The latter was an Emperor who, risen from the ranks, had probably no literary interests, and certainly had scant opportunities to cultivate literature in his brief and troubled reign. The Gauls, too, are depreciated from time to time in the work. The scribe who achieved the whole History in those crowded years must have been as indefatigable as he was facile. It is always easy to point out difficulties in estab- lished views, to emphasize slight matters of detail, and to frame ingenious hypotheses of what might have happened. To evolve a theory which will not give rise to many more difficulties than it solves is by no means so easy. One may fairly assert that the revolutionary critics in this case' always attack the unhappy writers of the Augustan History with a violent invective worthy of the Old Bailey. The attack in many cases fails from its very vehemence. The accusers credit the assumed forger with far 1 See Klebs, Rhein. Mus., 1890 and 1892, and also above for a fuller account. 2 Mommsen, Hermes, 1890 and above. THE CONTROVERSY 51 more acumen and dexterity than we have any reason to suppose that he possessed. Even if we grant that the fabricator of the History was success- ful in the arduous task of constructing an historical fantasia, we are still confronted with the ques- tion why — cut bono ? By the end of the fourth century the fashion of writing long genuinely his- torical works had set in again with Ammianus Marcellinus,^ and we can see no reason ^ why a writer at this time should devote himself to this inglorious and unattractive period, though a writer of a century earlier would naturally have been prompted to rescue from oblivion a period which, though recent, was rapidly being forgotten, and to paint an age which had now passed away for ever. The commonplace character of the work, the non- entities with which it is associated, are not factors which would have increased the esteem of the work. The Augustan History is the proper historical repre- sentative of an age which had lost its literary sense and could no longer discriminate between good and bad work.^ In no other age would it have stood much chance of surviving, and our estimate of the literary perceptions of the age of Jerome, Symmachus and Claudian should prevent us from doing so grave an injustice to that brilliant period of literary re- naissance as to believe that a forger of such fatuous dulness could have existed who was content to devote his life to such a thankless task, or that an 1 He wrote about a.d. 380. 2 Dessau himself admits that it is difficult to be certain as to the motives of the writer. 3 Its writers have one virtue, that of humiHty. Cf. Vopiscus, Introduction to Prohus, £ 2 52 THE REIGN OF PROBUS audience would have been found who would tolerate with the least indulgence this belated child of Rome's Dark Age. On general a "priori grounds, then, we may reject the view of Dessau, and also set aside as unnecessary and unproven the views of those Italian scholars who assign the History to circa a.d. 350. The late composition of the History has not been proved, nor has it been shown that the work was not written by the writers to whom it is ascribed, but the existence of the History, as a whole, seems to involve the exist- ence of an editor, who collected these biographies, and perhaps added a few lines to round off the series, not later than a.d. 330. The personality of this editor has been disputed, but it would seem to be not Capitolinus or Lampridius, but, as Wolfflin suggested, Vopiscus, who appears to be the last in point of time of these writers.^ The documents and speeches found in the History must always be dis- trusted, and generally are useless, and none of the authors can be said to have had a genuine love of truth, or to have been very conscientious in their methods of writing history. Vopiscus mentions Capitolinus and Lampridius ^ as writers of the past, and seems to follow in the footsteps of Trebellius Pollio, whom he desires to emulate. It is therefore natural to suppose that he wrote last, but when we attempt to fix his date exactly we are in a difficulty. He speaks of the 1 The personality of the editor is of minor importance, especially as the chronological succession of the various writers is so doubtful. 2 Some regard this passage {Probus, 2) as an insertion. THE CONTROVERSY 58 generals whom Probus trained as '' men whom our sires admired." Unfortunately, few of these men are known,^ but those who are known are contem- poraries of Diocletian ; and as for Vopiscus's grand- father and father, a mythic halo surrounds these personages. In Probus (23. 5) he inveighs against those who prepare soldiers for civil wars, arm brother against brother, and parent against child, yet this reference is so vague that some critics have denied it any significance at all, and those who do attempt to date the allusion come to amazingly different conclusions. Similarly, the passage which refers to an impending conquest of Persia {Carus, 9. 3) has been construed in various ways.^ Vopiscus refers to judgments upon Maximian uttered by Diocletian, which could hardly have been set down till after that Emperor's death, though in Aurelius (42. 3) he speaks of Diocletian and Maximian as 1 ProbuSy 22. 3. " Carus, Diocletianus, Constantius, Ascle- piodotus, Annibalianus, Leonides, Cecropides, Pisonianus, Herennianus, Gaudiosus, Ursinianus, Herciilius, Maximianus quos patres nostri mirati sunt." Annibalianus was consul A.D. 292, and praef . urbi a.d. 297. Lecrivain identifies Cecropides with a general who was privy to the murder of Gallienus, surely wrongly. Leonides is mentioned, Cod. Just., vii. 16, 27, A.D. 294-302, and a Herennianus was "legatus pro praetore " of Dalmatia under PhiHp. C. I. i., iii. 10. 174 (Supplement). The Prosopographia knows little of these worthies. Asclepiodotus was praef. praetorio under Diocletian. Victor, 39. Eutropius 9. 22. Orosius, 7. 25. 2 Peter thinks this civil war is that which broke out at the beginning of a.d. 306, with the succession of Maxentius; Lecri- vain considers it only vague declamation; Riihl refers the pas- sage to the civil war of A.D.322,between Constantineand Licinius ; Giri, to the war between Constantius and Magnentius, a.d. 351. The Persian war is assigned to a.d. 302 by Lecrivain, to a.d. 336 by Tropea. 54 THE REIGN OF PROBUS Emperors regnant, and mentions Constantius {C an- nus, 17. 6) as Caesar and {Aurelian, 44. 5) as Emperor. Some of these discrepancies may be explained by the hypothesis that Vopiscus's Hterary activity extended over many years, but even those who are staunch upholders of the authenticity of the History are sometimes constrained to take refuge in the hypothesis of a gloss, or even to have recourse to those brackets which rouse the ire of Seeck. The search for the sources of the History is rather futile. Most of the speculations of scholars on this point have been limited to the first half of the Augustan History. Yet we must at least record our dissent from the conclusions which have been adopted. The source of any particular statement is of interest and of importance, but when it is inferred from a few similar passages in our authori- ties that they all had consulted one source (which is possible and even probable),and next that through- out their respective works they employed invariably this same authority, we feel that some stage in the proof of this sweeping assertion has been omitted. This is not the worst. There seems to be but one step from discovery to deification. Enmann is convinced that the author of his Chronicon Imperiale was an historian of unusual merit. Kornemann will rank the child of his imagination no lower than Tacitus. Even the fondness of a literary parent will not palliate this insensate arrogance. The creation of these mute, inglorious Taciti is nothing short of an historical outrage, for all that it is attempted to prove is that certain isolated statements, which sometimes form the skeleton, or the pith — which- THE CONTROVERSY 55 ever metaphor we prefer — of the narrative are found in all the authorities in common. Yet if we compared any two historians in any period treating of the same epoch, we should always find that the outer framework is very similar. It is unusual, however, to assign to the humble annalist who was probably the common source of these statements extravagant historical honours. The only answer to such speculations is ''non historicos fingo." Accepting, then, the traditional view of the author- ship of the History, we come now to Vopiscus, the author of the Lives of Aurelian, Tacitus, Florian, Probus, Carus, Carinus, Numerianus, and some tyrants. He is called Syracusius, but beyond one reference to Sicily ^ there is nothing which throws any light upon his origin. The genesis of his Lives was on this wise. He was riding on the occasion of the Hilaria in the chariot of Junius Tiberianus, prefect of the city. Conversation arose about the deeds of Aurelian, with whom Tiberianus was slightly connected. He expressed his surprise when he heard that no Roman, but a few Greeks, had related that Emperor's achievements, and urged Vopiscus to undertake the task, promising his own assistance.2 ^ Aurelian, 42. 2. " Aurelianus proconsul Ciliciae senator optimus, qui nunc in Sicilia vitam agit, eius est nepos." 2 Ibid., 1. 1. " Hilaribus quibus omnia festa et fieri debere scimus et dici, impletis solennibus vehiculo suo me et iudiciali carpento praefectus urbis vir illustris et praefata reverentia nominandus, Junius Tiberianus accepit . . . sermonem multum a Palatio usque ad hortos Valerianos instituit, et in ipso praecipue de vita principum, cui ego cum respondissem, neminem a me Latinorum, Graecorum aliquoslectitatos, dolorem profudit . . . ' et tamen, si bene novi, ephemeridas illius viri 56 THE REIGN OF PROBUS Doubt has been cast upon this interesting story. Tiberianus was prefect both in a.d. 291 and a.d. 303. The latter date seems the more suitable, but in that case he was not in office during the celebration of the ordinary Hilaria.^ It is rather surprising, too, that no part of the work is dedicated to Tiberi- anus,2 and that there is no further mention of him. Vopiscus's work starts, therefore, under suspicious circumstances. He often professes that he is no stylist and does not aim at oratorical effect,^ yet in spite of this his treatment of his subject is far more pretentious than that of the other writers. He has a tedious scriptas habemus, etiam bella charactere historico digesta, quae velim accipias, et per ordinem scribas, additis quae ad vitam pertinent, quae omnia ex libris linteis, in quibus ipse quotidiana sua scribi praeceperat, pro tua sedulitate condisces. curabo autem ut tibi ex Ulpia bibliotheca proferantur. parui ipse quidem praeceptis ; ' accepi libros Graeeos, et omnia mihi necessaria in manum sumpsi." ^ The Hilaria took place on March 25, and were the third day of the seven-day festival of Cybele. But Tiberianus was not prefect in a.d. 303 till September. It is generally assumed that a minor festival, held on November 3, is meant, or emend " non. Ian." to " non. lun." in the entry about Tiberianus (Mommsen, Hermes, xxv. 257). Lecrivain takes this to be a conventional discourse with no pretensions to authenticity. Riihl is much struck by the prologue, but admits that the promise is not fulfilled. Peter thinks it an imitation of Suetonius. 2 The reference to the domus Tiberiana {Life of Prohus) is taken to refer to his library (Klebs). References to these libraries and to monuments lead us to infer that Vopiscus lived at Rome. Cf. Lecrivain. 3 Prohus, 2. 7. " et mihi quidem id animi fuit ut Suetonium ' imitarer ' ceterosque qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt . . . illud tantum contestatum volo, me et rem scripsisse, quam si quis voluerit honestius, eloquio celsiore demonstret." Klebs, Rhein. Mus., 1892, points out some imitations of Cicero. THE CONTROVERSY 57 mannerism of digressing, and, in the middle of his oratorical excursion, of checking himself abruptly.^ He loves a dignified exordium, which he suddenly leaves to plunge in medias res. One sometimes wishes that his style was more plain and less strained. He declares that he is '' unus e curiosis," which appears to mean that he has a great liking for amassing petty detail and trivial anecdote, though he rebukes occasionally other practitioners of the same art. Vopiscus makes a pompous parade of his historical methods. He is very particular to cite his authori- ties, he knows the value of investigations amongst archives, he quotes the evidence of coins and inscriptions,^ and in a few discussions he shows some historical acumen.^ At first sight he is an historian whose methods are irreproachable, judged even by the standards of the modern orthodox historian. Yet a closer inspection reveals the hollowness of these splendid professions. All ^ Aurelian, " ne multa et frivola procemiis odiosis intexam," Prohus, " ne diutius ea quae ad meum consilium pertinent loquar." Cams, " sed quorsum " (after a page of preamble) " talibus querelis et temporum casibus detinemur ? veniamus ad Carum." 2 Firmus, 2. 1. seqq, Firmus was styled Augustus on coins. ^ Lecrivain is very severe on his pseudo-scientific prattle, his display of erudition and his attempts at historical criticism. He mentions the exact place in the library (the sixth Armarium) where a document may be found. Tacitus, 8. 1. Compare Firmus, 2. 1. There had been a keen discussion between Vopiscus and Rufus Celsus and Ceionius and Julianus and Fabius Sosianus and Fonteius, a dabbler in antiquities (" historiarum amator "), as to whether Firmus was really Emperor. The one side contended that Aurelian only called him " latrunculus." Vopiscus rightly points out that this does not prove the point. 58 THE REIGN OF PROBUS critics, since the Augustan History has been sub- jected to close scrutiny, have been compelled to jettison the documents (speeches, letters, etc.) which he inserts, and his imposing parade of authori- ties is merely imposing. Like Suetonius, he has a father who has communicated valuable informa- tion to him, and a grandfather, and these tales of a grandfather must always be regarded with suspicion. We shall now proceed to compare Vopiscus's account of the reign of Probus with the accounts of the other authorities, and after thus obtaining the historical " kernel," form a more precise estimate of the value of the authorities for the reign. I an •« I o Q 03 « 0) o =° § Se o ll'ii Ph o 2 S" 02 P4H-I 0) I o ' 1 O O 1-^ G, 13 & 00 o o 2-c^- S =^ I ^^ .2 iH M w g O 5^ « "T! S ^A ce o 0-43 §) a S W ^ S «5 (3 w 0) >> O O © ^ s z: OJ §ri1i 5|§-g2 4^ S si i 1 COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 61 L -i^ i2§«- d .> Pi M O CO 2 S M c5 S^'^g'?! ^ -• B 0) O > oQ 20 f-* ^ /-s a> _ CO .^:2 62 THE REIGN OF PROBUS u3 d d^-^ §m ^ i^-^ o3 V. • 0) >,+=r^ S is „ >> t> ■M 43 O COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 63 ;3 d« PI ■5b 3^ 2 3 © .O OS P.^^^.^ 2 f^^.^-^ 3-^ IW . fl bog 2&iD S3 O ^ n 4^ © 0? e8 > rr, o >^ t»occ m S fl a '? © 3 rj . 2 M © «« ^*< V »^ 2 «) © PQ © +3 o «^2 .a I a 43 n" ^1 1^ 3^ .3 JH 43 la OD 43 © I— I ^ g ©^ P;4©<3 o -2 S.2 © 02 '^ 5 ^ ^pS S c3 © !-i S -r fi d 1= 64 THE REIGN OF PROBUS C . o 2 ^ t>. e3 we oWiJ o a* o OS ^ ^11 si si's II O aj « eS ,£5 'r* O ,£5 ■5b 2 g© OJ^ CC t^«c8 cc fl «« C3 S § S? 2 --■§- 30^ ^Ph^^ c p. U2 > §:i f^ 05 OJ^ .Is t^ o r W[ii >i <£> ^ «5 §>s £* .3 -I §11 rt 5 "^ p 03 PM +3 <5 t. BS >> W).2 aj Q '*" -^-s 02 .^.S -« '^ -g F ^ lilllli ^ ^ 66 THE REIGN OF PROBUS A comparison of these accounts may prove instructive. Vopiscus alone mentions the debate of the army on the choice of an Emperor. He slurs over the death of Florian and, not desiring to blacken his hero, makes the former's death the result of the soldiers' spontaneous action. He alone mentions the letter to the Senate and Probus's amnesty to the followers of Florian. His account of the Gallic and Germanic campaign corresponds only in outline with that of Zosimus, and in chron- ology he entirely differs from that author. Peculiar to him is the mention of the recruits received from the Germans, and of the doings of Probus in Rhaetia, Illyria and Thrace. His account of the campaign in Isauria, etc., likewise presents considerable diver- gences from that of Zosimus. He represents the conquests of Coptos and Ptolemais as achieved by Probus himself, not by his generals, as Zosimus says, and alone mentions the Parthian negotia- tions. He gives a closer account of Saturninus's insurrection than the other authorities, and attri- butes his death, like that of Florian, to the impulse of his soldiers. He gives a certain amount of bio- graphical detail about all the tyrants, but leaves us in confusion as to their relations with one another, and as to the sequence of events. He enters into details about the triumph of Probus, and represents his death as due to a sudden mutiny. His hazy chronological conception makes him declare jbhat Probus was slain in his fifth year. Vopiscus is our fullest authority and, as most of our authorities are brief and scanty, he cannot, unfortunately, often be checked by other accounts. COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 67 Where this can be done, the cause of his discrep- ancy from other writers seems to be twofold — (1) his " tendency," (2) his use of different authori- ties. As an inhabitant of Rome he is interested in all things purely Roman — in the Senate and its action, and in such things as a triumph. Again, he has a tendency to hero-worship. He omits everything which is calculated to depreciate the subject of his biography, and occasionally gives the facts a slight twist. For instance, Probus, like other Emperors, had to consider the difficult problem of how to deal with an unsuccessful rival. Vopiscus passes over all unpleasant details, and exempts Probus from all complicity in the murder of Florian and Saturninus. The other divergences, which are more marked, lead us to believe that he has followed an authority who differed in important points from the authority whom Zosimus followed. The chrono- logical sequence is altogether di^erent, and the accounts of the Gallic and Eastern campaigns are so inconsistent that some perplexed critics have been led to believe that they refer to different campaigns. Aurelius Victor deals with the reign in cursory fashion. He mentions Florian's usurpation and end, the tyranny of Saturninus and his fall, and likewise that of Proculus and Bonosus. He men- tions Probus's gift of the vine to Gaul and Pannonia, and Probus's death at Sirmium in his fifth year. He is supplemented by an epitomizer in a few places. The latter states that Probus was chosen Emperor in Illyricum, and that Florian committed suicide, which seems a mistake. He adds from another F 2 68 THE REIGN OF PROBUS authority that Probus took refuge in an iron tower at Sirmium. Eutropius also tells us little. He mentions the fall of Florian and the Gallic campaign, and then the tyrannies of Saturn inus, Proculus and Bonosus. He mentions that Gaul and Pannonia were allowed the vine, and that Mount Alma, which he adds was near Sirmium, was planted with vines, which were handed over to the provincials to cultivate. He mentions Probus' s death at Sirmium in an iron tower, and corrects Vopiscus's notice as to the length of the reign. He gives this as six years, four months. Neither Eutropius nor Aurelius Victor, then, give us any appreciable amount of fresh information, and Eutropius only differs from Aurelius Victor in mentioning the Gallic campaign, and as regards the length of the reign.^ They mention only the landmarks of the reign, and not always these. In some passages they show a remarkable agreement with each other and with Vopiscus, and as it is unsafe to generalize from one Biography we will briefly note the resemblances in all Vopiscus's works. In the Aurelian there are about fifteen notices (3.1-2; 21.5-8; 21.9-11; 32.3; 35.1-2; 35.5; 37. 1-4; 37. 7; 38; 39-40; 45. 1-2; 48. 5). In the Tacitus (and Florian) there are only seven passages containing these resemblances, and they are not of much importance. 1 Linsenbarth (Peter, Philologus, xliii. 179) thinks Eutropius used Victor. It is unlikely that one writer contemporary with another should plagiarize so openly, though both might copy from a common source. COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 69 1. The Interregnum. 2. Execution of Aurelian's murderers. 3. His short reign. " gessit nihil magnum." 4. Died of disease, reigned six months (as some say). Caesar 36. 1. Caesar 36. 2. Eutropius 9. 15. Eutropius 9. 16. " nihil clarum potuit osten- dere." Eutropius 9. 16. "intra sextum mensem." Victor, 200 days. Victor 36. 2. " nullo senatus seu militum consulto, im- perium invaserat." 5. Florian seizes the imperial power. " post fratrem arri- puit imperium non sena- tus auctoritate sed suo motu." 6. Death of Florian. 7. Eulogy of Probus. Probus (here the Chromcon was again of little use) : — 1. Birth of Probus. 2. Probus attacks Gaul. 3. The tyrants. 4. " Gallis omnibus et Ilispanis ac Britannis hinc permisit ut vites haberent vinumque conficerent. ipse Almam montem in Illyrico circa Sirmium militari manu fos- sum lecta vita consevit." 5. His death and its causes. " dixit brevi necessarios milites non futuros." The tyrants. Full. Lecrivain thinks that all the addi- tional matter which is not found in the Probus is the invention of Vopiscus. Victor 37. 1. Eutropius 9. 16. Victor 37. 2. Eutropius 9. 17. gem- Victor Epitome says tus patre agresti." Vopiscus is much vaguer. Eutropius, not very definite or full. Eutropius and Victor give scanty notices. Eutropius 9. 17. " vineas Gallos et Pannonias habere permisit. opere militari Almam montem apud Sir- mium et Aureum apud Moesiam superiorem vineis conseruit et provincialibus colendas dedit." Victor " hie Gallias Pannon- iasquc et Moesorum colics vinetis replevit." 37. 3. Victor 37. 4. Eutropius 9. 17. " dixisse proditur brevi milites frustra fore, dixit brevi milites necessarios non futuros." Eutropius and Victor give cursory notices. See above. 70 THE REIGN OF PROBUS Cams, Numerianus and Carinus : — 1. Carus "praefectus prae- torio." 2. Makes his sons Caesars. Sends Carinus to Gaul. 3. Capture of Mesopotamia and Ctesiphon. 4. Killed by a thunderbolt. 5. Ought not to have gone beyond Ctesiphon, accord- ing to oracles. 6. Aper's craft. The death of Numerianus long con- cealed, and only revealed at last by putrefaction having set in. 7. Choice of Diocletian. Mur- der of Aper. 8. Character of Diocletian. 9. Carinus's profligacy. 10. The battle of Margus. 11. " hie trium principum fmis fuit." Victor 38. 1. Victor 38. 1. Eutropius 9. 18. Victor. The Persian cam- paign. Eutropius. Capture of Coches and Ctesiphon. So Eutropius and Victor. Victor 38. 3. Victor 38. 6. Eutropius 9. 18. Victor 39. 1. Eutropius 9. 19. Victor 39. 5. Victor 39. 12. Eutropius 9. 19. Victor 39. 12. Eutropius 9. 20. Victor 39. 13. "is finis Caro liberisque." These resemblances have led Enmann to predi- cate a common source of greater merit for our three writers. The cumulative weight of these collected passages is strong, but, as we have said before, though it seems certain that our writers used common sources, there is no need to narrow this down to a single source. The resemblances are in some cases inevitable. We should not, for example, consider it remarkable if upon consulting three text-books of English History we found the author in each case asserting that Queen Anne died in A.D. 1714, and that she had many children, who all died young. The chronological outlines of any period are or ought to be a fundamental basis upon COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 71 which all authors have to build their structures, however much their styles of architecture raay differ. Interesting anecdotes, again, are sure to appear in more than one authority. While admit- ting, then, that the others must have followed common sources, we will not presume to assert that a " Chronicon Imperiale " existed, or that, if it did exist, it was the work of a single hand. Still less will we enthrone our presumed author in that lofty sanctuary in which Marius Maximus and Lollius Urbicus sit — with Tacitus — in lonely grandeur. Perhaps, too, the unknown scribe would feel more comfortable in the company of chroniclers and meagre annalists than when breathing the rarefied atmosphere of philosophical history. To return to our authorities. Orosius tells us nothing which we could not have gleaned from the three previous writers. He seems to have followed Eutropius, as he agrees with the latter when he contradicts Vopiscus or Aurelius Victor. So far the authorities have some relation with one another; but Zosimus and Zonaras seem to have followed a different authority. Zosimus alone describes the last campaign of Florian, and casts some of the blame for Florian's death upon Probus. Like Vopiscus, he mentions the vindication of Aurelian and Tacitus, but he adds an account of the method adopted which is peculiar to himself. In these two cases he shows that tendency which has been noted in him before, to reveal the seamy side of affairs. He mentions a revolt in Britain which other writers (except Zonaras) neglect. In other cases he has a superficial resemblance to 72 THE REIGN OF PROBUS Vopiscus, which gives place on a closer scrutiny to serious discrepancy. The war with the Germans has very little in common with that described in the Augustan History.^ He speaks of a famine, and a miraculous deliverance, and mentions a number of tribes with w^hom Probus or his generals fought. Vopiscus left such matters conveniently vague. Again, the campaign in Isauria presents different features in his account from that of Vopiscus. The protagonist is Lydius, not Pal- furius, and a long account of the siege of Cremna, unmentioned by other writers, is given. He represents the reconquest of Ptolemais as the work of Probus's generals, and asserts that Saturninus was slain by his own troops, not by the soldiers of Probus. The account of the death of Probus was perhaps given quite differently.^ Cams appears to be absent from Probus's side, and Probus is slain through treason, not mutiny. This happened in Probus's sixth year. He corroborates Vopiscus as regards the division of the provinces between Probus and Florian, the settlement of the Bastarnae (in Thrace), and the incursions of the barbarians during the trouble with the tyrants. He does not mention Proculus and Bonosus. The differences between Vopiscus and Zosimus render it probable that Zosimus (or perhaps we should say Eunapius) followed an independent, probably a Greek, source. Eastern matters are more fully dealt with than in Vopiscus. 1 So much so that Lecrivain considers it a different campaign. ^ Zosimus's account ends abruptly owing to a lacuna in the MSS. Zonaras, who elsewhere followed Zosimus, had in all probability followed him here COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 73 As Zonaras wrote so long after Zosimus, his account is therefore less valuable. He agrees in the main with Zosimus, but writes at less length. He mentions the division of the provinces between Probus and Florian, the slaying of Florian by soldiers whom Probus is said to have suborned, the execution of the assassins of Aurelian and Tacitus, the war with the Germans and its miraculous issue, and then passes over all events until Saturninus's usurpation. He mentions Probus's triumph, and gives quite a different account of his death from that given by other writers. We cannot, unfortu- nately, here check him by Zosimus. There are a number of discrepancies between Zonaras and Zosimus. He makes Probus address the murderers of Aurelian and Tacitus, and he says that Probus disbelieved the first intelligence of Saturninus's disloyalty and had the messenger executed. It is possible to imagine a variant contemporary tradition handed down by another authority, but it is simpler to believe that here, and in some of the circumstances of Cams' s eleva- tion, Zonaras wrote inaccurately, and either added embellishments of his own, or followed some men- dacious annalist who had made these additions to the account of Zosimus or his authority. Eusebius agrees with Eutropius as to the length of Probus's reign, but his order of events is different. He places the permission for the culture of the vine in the year after the reconquest of Gaul, and in the year before the rebellion of Saturninus. Eutropius puts this concession after the overthrow of the tyrants. The accounts which have come down to us seem, 74 THE REIGN OF PROBUS then, to be derived from two sources — one the source of Vopiscus, Eutropius and Aurelius Victor, the other, probably Greek, the source of Zosimus and Zonaras. The first-named source need not have been an elaborate history, as some critics have imagined, but merely a bare summary of events, perhaps the work of Onesimus, or even a diary. First Source Second Source I I Vopiscus Aurelius Eutropius Zosimus | Zonaras Syracusius Victor | John of Antioch Orosius (a.d. 650) History was at a low ebb at this period, yet it seems probable that Vopiscus was not the only person, or the first person, who had touched on the period. He often quotes others, or many others, but this is probably only a grandiloquent method of referring to a single writer.^ He says that no one had touched upon the reign of Aurelian, but for the life of Tacitus he mentions a Suetonius Optatianus, and for Probus we have frequent references to Onesimus, who was the author of a copious narrative on this theme, and seems also to have written of Carus and his sons.^ These two 1 Probus, 3. 3. " multi dicunt Probum Claudii propinquum fuisse ; quod quia per unum tantum Graecorum relatum est, nos in medio relinquemus." It is possible that Vopiscus was referring to an oral tradition. 2 Tacitus, 11. 7. " legat Suetonium Optatianum qui eius vitam affatim scripsit." For Onesimus of. Proculus, 13. 1. How Proculus became Emperor, Bonosus, 14. 4. " ipse quantum libet bibisset semper securus et sobrius, et ut Onesimus dicit, scriptor vitae Probi, adhuc in vino prudentior." Carus, " Onesimus enim, qui diligentissime vitam Probi scripsit, dicit ilium (Carum) Romae natum." Carus, 4. 2, by Carinus. These comprise all the references to Onesimus's work. COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 75 writers are otherwise unknown, and are thought by some to be the offspring of the mendacious imagination of Vopiscus, yet, unless we accept the theory of the late composition of the History, we are not bound to admit this. The source for the life of Tacitus was then prob- ably, as Lecrivain^ thinks, Suetonius Optatianus, the author of a minute (" affatim ") biography — probably mere anecdotage — and the source of Probus was probably Onesimus. But Lecrivain would regard Onesimus as the source of the variant accounts of Zosimus and Zonaras. If this is so, Vopiscus must have employed his sources even more carelessly than one would have thought. We cannot learn much from the references to Onesimus. He seems to have dealt with the tyrannies of Proculus and Bonosus, and probably continued his narrative into the reign of Carus, who received equally full treatment. He is praised by Vopiscus (this is scarcely a recommendation), yet if he had no other merits he seems to have given copious details. The other authorities which he professes to have used are as follow :— The libri lintei, which he consulted in the Ulpian library, contained letters of the Emperors, and with these may be associated the libri elephantini,^ which included senatus consulta concerning the Emperor. Besides this, the Tiberian library was useful and the regesta of the scribes of the porticus Porphyretica,^ 1 Etudes dans VHistovre Auguste, p. 373. 2 The libri lintei are referred to, Aurelian, 1. 7 and 10. The libri elephantini, Tacitus, 8. 1. 8 Probus, 1. " iisus aiitem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissi- mam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ea bibliotheca 76 THE REIGN OF PROBUS The acta senatus (the proceedings of the Senate) would contain minutes of all the business of the Senate, notes of the speeches and also the resolutions (consulta). The acta populi, which he declares he has also used, were a kind of gazette which contained items of interest, and were daily published and exhibited on white tablets. What might have been of greater use was the diary of Turdulus Gallicanus, a friend of Vopiscus. This, if Gallicanus was a man of sense and shrewdness, would have been very valuable. The use of all these authorities has been ques- tioned.^ It is only too true that there are many inaccuracies in the document which Vopiscus professes to quote. But there can be scarcely any doubt that these documents were available and could have been consulted, and also it is evident from Vopiscus's own words that he does not always Ulpia aetate mea thermis Diocletianis " (built a.d. 298). " item ex domo Tiberiana usus etiam ex regestis scribarum porticiis Porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi, et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum iuvit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis taccre non debui." The Tiberiana domus is mentioned Aulus Gellius, xiii. 18, quoted by Casaubon. 1 ProbuSf 7. 1, is interesting. Probus is said {'' fertur ") to have been put forward by Tacitus as a candidate for Empire. " sed ego S.C. ipsum non inveni." If this is merely a veri- similistic touch, the forger was consummately clever. Peter thinks that " acta senatus " may be genuine. Lecrivain (p. 58) thinks the diary of Aurelian and the " libri lintei " inventions of Vopiscus. Even if they were not used they might have existed. Lecrivain sees Vopiscus in the style and language, the alliteration, Ciceronian terms, and glorification of the Senate. As Briinner says, " consulta " is used in the wider sense of *' acta," COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 77 quote the exact expressions.^ He probably quoted inaccurately, and often from memory, from the proceedings of the Senate, and fabricated some of the imperial letters.^ There is no reason to disbelieve the statement that he consulted a diary. Vopiscus, like all the Scriptores, manifests a strong senatorial bias. His standpoint was ana- chronistic, but the anachronism was frequent at the time. Though with Diocletian the last vestiges of the Senate's power disappear, that Emperor always treated it outwardly with deference and maintained its social prestige. There was no antagonism between Emperor and Senate. The time for that was past, and even those Emperors who were most deferential took care to maintain their own pre- rogatives. Dessau connects this spirit of Vopiscus, and the temporary exaltation of the Senate under Tacitus and Probus, with the desire manifested occasionally by Stilicho to secure the co-operation of the Senate (the two main instances are the discussion of the situation in Africa and the declara- tion of Gildo as a public enemy, a.d. 397, and the discussion in the Senate of the policy to be adopted against Alaric, a.d. 408). Claudian indeed {De Cons. StiL, i. 328) declares that the constitution of Romulus has returned, but he must be allowed this harmless poetic licence. This casual resemblance will not greatly strengthen Dessau's theory. Vopiscus wrote his history in several " volumes," published separately. The first contained the 1 Probus, 7. 2. Tacitus sent such (" talis ") a letter to Probus. Ibid,, 17. 5. Probus's letter to the Persian King " fertur talis fuisse." 2 Internal evidence genierally condemns these. 78 THE REIGN OF PROBUS biography of Aurelian. Tacitus, 2. 4, refers to a "superior liber," i.e. Aurelian, Cf. also later, " priore libro." The next contained Tacitus and Florian. Decrees which refer to Tacitus are put, awkwardly, at the end of Florian's Life.^ The volume on Tacitus and Florian looks forward to a biography of Probus, and lest he should lose the opportunity of glorifying his hero, he inserts here a eulogy of Probus, which is quite out of place. '^ In Probus, 1. 5, he promises to continue his work up to the accession of Diocletian, '' si vita suppetet." Probus formed the next volume, and then one was devoted to the tyrants, who were not fit to rub shoulders with Probus.^ His work would seem, therefore, to have consumed some time. All these passages appear in a very natural setting and do not betray the hand of a forger. If they are due to a forger, then he must have possessed the genius of fraud, and had more wit than to write such a history as the Augustan History.* 1 Tacitus, 12. 2. " ne quid denique deesset cognitioni, ple- rasqiie huiusmodi epistolas in fine libri posui." These are found in Tacitus, 18. 1. " et quoniam me promisi aliquas epistolas esse positurum ... his additis, finem scribendi faciam." 2 Ibid., 16. 5. " haec sunt quae de vita Taciti atque Floriani digna memoratu comperisse memini. nunc nobis aggrediendus est Probus . . . haec ego in aliorum vita de Probo idcirco indidi, ne dies, hora, momentum aliquid sibi vindicaret, ne fatali necessitate absumptus Probo indicto deperirem, nunc claudam vokunen." 3 Probus, 24. 7. " nunc in alio libro, et quidem brevi, de Firmo dicemus." The last volume contained Carus and his sons, Bonosus, 15. 10. Cf., too, Probus, 24. 8. ^ In quoting from Florian, Peter's arrangement has been followed. Florian 1 is Tacitus 14. So with the tyrants, who form one volume, Proculus 1 is quoted as Proculus 12, it being the twelfth chapt ' ^" in the volume. Similarly with Carinus and Numerianu^. COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 79 The Biographies were probably written in the natural chronological order, and this probability is confirmed by several passages.^ They seem to have been written after the abdication of Diocletian, and in the Cams the conquest of Persia by Maxim- ian is anticipated. Some have referred an allusion to civil wars to the disorders which followed Dio- cletian's abdication,^ but it is difficult, in some cases, to see how the Biographies could have been finished so speedily after that event, and it is possible that they were composed some years later, as Riihl thinks. Vopiscus refers to Lam- pridius, Capitolinus and Pollio ^ as though they preceded him. 1 Probus, 1.5. " non patiar ego ille, a quo dudum solus Aurelianus est expetitus, cuius vitam quantum potui persecutus, Tacito Florianoque iam scriptis, non me ad Probi facta conscen- dere, si vita suppetet omnes qui supersunt usque ad Maximi- anum Diocletianumque ' dicturus.' " So Tacitus, 17. 5 ; Prohus, 24. 7. He promises to deal with the tyrants next. Cf . Firmus, 1. 4. Bonosus, 15. 10. " supersunt mihi Cams, Carinus ct Numerianus." Cams, 10. 1. Numerianus was written next, then Carinus. ^ " eant nunc qui ad civilia bella milites parant, in (ier- manorum necem arment dexteras fratrum, hortentur in patrum vulnera liberos, et dignitatem Probo derogent." Prohus, 23. 5. It is likely that Vopiscus 's literary activities extended over a number of years. Riihl, Rhein. Mus., refers this to the war a.d. 322-323 between Constantine and Licinius : Peter to a.d. 307 or 312 (Philologus, xliii. 141). Lecrivain considers the passage only vague declamation. Peter, Scr. H. Aug., prefers to refer it to a mutiny in November, 307, at Carnuntum. He puts Vopiscus's works between May, a.d. 305, and A.D. 311. ^ Prohus, 2. 7. He professes to imitate Capitolinus and Lampridius. Firmus, 1. 3. Trebellius's account of the thirty tyrants is referred to as finished. Briinner thinks this an interpolation. Peter, with Richter, puts this reference to Capitolinus and Lampridius {Prohus, 2. 7) in brackets, regarding it as an interpolation. 80 THE REIGN OF PROBUS We will now give a list ties in the life of Probus, methods : — Probus — 3. 2. " ut quidem in litteras rettulerunt." 3. 3. " multi dicunt." (unus Graecorum). 3. 4. " an ephemeris." 4. 1. A letter of Valerian. 4. 3. Another letter of Valerian. 5. 1. An inference from a diary. 5. 3. Words of Valerian. 5. 5. Letter of Valerian. 6. 2. Letter of Gallienus. 6. 6. Letter of Aurelian. 7. 1. " Tacitus fertur dixisse." (The senatus consultum not found.) 7. 3. Letter of Tacitus. 10. 7. Letter to Capito (talis). 11.2. Probus's letter to Senate. 11. 5. Senatus consultum. 15. 1. Letter of Probus. 17. 5. Letter to Narses. (" fertur talis fuisse.") 21. 4. The inscription on Pro- bus's tomb. Saturninus — 9. 5. Vopiscus's grandfather. 10. 1. Salvidienus. 11. 1. " quosdam scio errare.'* Proculus — 12. 2. " fertur." 12. 7. A letter of Proculus. 13. 1. Onesimus. of references to authori- to illustrate Vopiscus's (Of Probus's father.) (Of Probus's relationship to Claudius.) (Probus's sister buried him.) (Praise of Probus.) (Praise of Probus.) (Probus's early exploits.) (Probus receives " corona civica.") (Probus receives the third legion.) (Praise of Probus.) (Probus receives the tenth legion.) (Probus ought to be Em- peror. ) (Probus's support asked.) (Announcing Probus's acces- sion.) (Deferring to Senate.) (Probus made Emperor.) (Details of his achievements in Gaul and Germany.) (Threatening Narses.) (Present when Saturninus was made Emperor.) (Saturninus's speech.) (Another Saturninus.) (Proculus armed 2000 slaves.) (His outrages.) (How Proculus rebelled.) COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 81 Bonosus — 14. 1. " alii." (Bonosus's father.) 14. 4. Onesimus. (Bonosus's convivial powers.) 15. 4. Vopiscus's grandfather. (Bonosus's wife.) 15. 6. Letter of Aurelian. (Bonosus's nuptials.) It will be seen that Vopiscus quotes frequently and copiously from authorities. What he cites chiefly are (professedly) imperial letters and the proceedings of the Senate (which he calls loosely " senatus consulta," not " acta "). His two refer- ences to his grandfather are deservedly suspect. It is strange that his grandfather was familiar with two tyrants, Saturninus in the East, and Bonosus in the West, and yet nowhere else helps us. Why, too, is M. Salvidienus quoted as the authority for Saturninus's speech upon his elevation when Vopiscus's own grandfather was present ? Onesi- mus is another writer who is mentioned by name, but references to others are generally vague, " multi dicunt," " quidam ferunt," " fertur " and this reference to many authorities may generally be taken as a grandiloquent plural. In two cases the context suggests this. Vopiscus says that many declare that Claudius and Probus were related, and then adds that only one Greek mentions this. It is possible to imagine an elaborate anti- thesis between oral tradition and written statement, and between Roman and Greek accounts, but it is much simpler to suppose that his one Greek authority mentioned this fact. Again, he says that some have erred in confusing the Saturninus of Probus's reign with an earlier Saturninus. If we turn to the " Thirty Tyrants " of Trebellius 82 THE REIGN OF PROBUS PoUio we find that Saturninus (No. 2^), a man of considerable statesmanlike qualities, was made Emperor by his troops, and told them that they had lost a good general and made a bad Emperor, a speech strikingly similar to that of the later Saturninus. The "quidam," then, are probably Trebellius PoUio. It is evident even from Vopiscus that the speeches and documents are not reproduced verbatim. In both cases he handles his material freely, either in imitation of the earlier historians, or through pure indolence, or through the loss of these docu- ments. This must cast the gravest doubt upon all the documents that he cites. ^ A frequent reference to authorities is not always a favourable sign. The easiest course of all is to follow one authority unquestioningly, and an infinite number of authori- ties used without judgment and discrimination may give rise to work of the slightest value. Vopis- cus makes a display of all the apparatus of an historian, but few craftsmen have ever used their tools so incompetently. In view of these facts the prelude to his works (Aurelian, 2. 2) is interesting. In defence of Trebellius Pollio, Vopiscus declares that there is no historian who has not been guilty of some in- accuracy. His friend Tiberianus was convinced and bade him write as he pleased, secure in the knowledge that he would have many a famed 1 Mommsen truly says that such falsification was epidemic at that time. Lecrivain bluntly says that the phrase " legisse me memini " generally heralds an invention of Vopiscus 's. Vopiscus says he quotes " fidei causa, immo ut alios annalium scriptores fecisse video, inserendam putavi." Aurelian, 17. 1. COMPARISON OF AUTHORITIES 83 historian to keep him in countenance. It is a fitting prologue to the works of Vopiscus Mythistoricus.^ ^ He curiously applies this epithet to Marius Maximus. Firmus, 1.2. " homo omnium verbosissimus, qui et mythis- toricis se voluminibus implieavit." G 2 CHAPTER V RESTORATION OF THE IMPERIAL AUTHORITY A NEW era of the republic had been inaugurated by Tacitus, but it was not destined to endure long. The short space of time which Tacitus can have spent at Rome ^ must have been a period of energetic work. The Emperor began with great munificence. He surrendered to the State his patrimony (valued at 1,500,000 sesterces) and such money as he had devoted to the payment of the soldiers, ordered public baths to be built on the site of his house, which was pulled down, and presented his silver plate to the temples, to be used in banquets.^ He also attempted to effect a moral reformation by sumptuary laws. To prevent any rising he ordered the baths to be closed at sunset, and, like most Emperors, he saw that the murder of his predecessor was duly avenged.^ 1 He reigned only six months, most of which must have been devoted to his campaign. Tacitus may have announced all these measures in his first speech to the Senate, as Lecrivain thinks, p. 369. If this is so, his oration must have attained almost to the portentous length of an American Presidential Message. One would think, too, that his " ius relationis " would have been exhausted. 2 Tacitus, 9 and 10. ^ A golden statue to Aurelian was also to be erected on the Capitol, and statues of silver elsewhere. All citizens were bound to have a portrait of Aurelian. A temple for deified emperors was ordered to be built. He emancipated the " servi urbani," or, rather, not more than one hundred of them, in accordance with the " Lex Fufia Caninia." 84 IMPERIAL AUTHORITY 85 The hasty promulgation of these measures can have been attended with very trifling results. In the realm of morals spasmodic action is as likely to do harm as good. The Senate courteously assented to these proposals, and held high revel to celebrate the restoration of their power,^ but the voluptuary and the sensualist still remained voluptuary and sensualist. From such dreams of moral reform and of a return to republican simplicity, the Emperor was rudely awakened by troubles in the East. Aurelian had collected in the Tauric Chersonese a number of barbarians, in readiness for his con- templated campaign against Persia. The death of Aurelian and the confusion which resulted there- from doubtless caused their presence to be forgotten. At length, tired of waiting, they entered the Roman territory. We are not told by Vopiscus whether they invaded Europe or Asia, or whether they approached by land or by sea.^ Tacitus, whose energy one must at least admire, bustled about most vigorously and, with all a novice's enthusiasm, prepared to expel the invader. He probably was assisted by experienced and able marshals, and aided by his brother Florian was successful in his campaign. Inscriptions show that Tacitus in consequence was called Goticus Maximus."^ 1 Tacitus, 12, " tantam senatus laetitiam fuisse . . . ut et supplicationes decernerentur, et hecatombe promitteretiir a singulis." 2 Zosimus and his satellites do, however, tell us. 3 C. /. L., xii. 5676, a.d. 276. (GalHa Narbonensis.) In viii. 10072 he is called " fortissimus imperator et pacator orbis." 86 THE REIGN OF PROBUS But this glory was to be short-lived. The soldiers had, as we said above, in a fit of penitence, remitted the choice of an Emperor to the Senate, and for a while had given themselves the unwonted pleasure of acting in a loyal and obedient manner. But the charm of novelty was now worn away, and they relapsed into their seditious courses. On the return, presumably, at Tyana, Tacitus either was slain by conspirators or, broken in spirit by the discovery of the treasonable designs of his soldiers, succumbed to disease.^ So ended the idle dream of a new Republic. Tacitus was an amiable anachro- nism ; he was not, in spite of his good intentions and his real energy, a worthy occupant of the throne of Aurelian. The accounts of Zosimus, Zonaras and John of Antioch (the latter two accounts being merely transcriptions from Zosimus) differ in many points. After the invasion of Pontus and the neighbouring provinces had been checked, Florian was left by his brother to terminate these troubles. Tacitus mean- while began his return journey, but on his way to Europe was slain by a band of highly-placed con- spirators. The reason was this. Maximus, a kinsman of Tacitus, had been appointed governor of Syria.^ 1 Tacitus, 13. Vopiscus is aware of the two accounts and attempts to reconcile them. " interemptus est enim insidiis mih- taribus, ut aUi dicunt, ut ahi, morbo interiit. tamen constat factionibus eum oppressum mente atque animo defecisse." 2 Zosimus, i. 63. " ovtos (M.) rots iv reAct rpa^iJTaTa 'rrpo(T€p6- fi€Vos €ts B6vov a/xa kol 6l3ov KaTea-rrjcrev. rcKOVTOiV Sk tovto)V /xtcro?, TO XeLTTOfJLivov CIS cTTtjSovX^v eTcXcvTTycrev, y<; KOLVoiVov'S TToirja-dixevoL tova^av, 8ni)$avT€q 8c ava^tvyvvvra cttI rrjv l^vpwirrjv Tolkltov avaipovaLv," Zonaras, xii. 28. IMPERIAL AUTHORITY 87 The preferment of this man, who was most un- popular, filled his rivals with envy and hatred. A plot was formed, to which some who had been parties to the assassination of Aurelian were admitted, and both Maximus and Tacitus were slain. This account is much fuller than the fragmentary notice of Vopiscus, and there is no reason why it should not be accepted. If it be true, Tacitus had aroused the enmity of a small clique, and thus perished. Tacitus had, as became a good citizen, refrained from nominating any member of his family as heir. But autocracy has a natural tendency to- wards the hereditary principle, and the murder of Tacitus led to an attempt to make the succession of the Empire similar, as the senators bitterly exclaimed, to that of a country estate, and to degrade the Romans, lords of the world, to the level of " coloni " and " mancipia." Tacitus had some young children, but their claims were altogether disregarded. In deference to the request of the Senate, he had taken no steps to ensure their succession.^ His brother Florian, however, had no such scruples. He regarded his kinship, and perhaps his recent military successes, as sufficient title to succeed, and, as the scandalized Vopiscus says, treated the Empire as though it were entailed.^ 1 Tacitus, 6. 8. " petens (Falconius Nicomachus) ne parvulos tuos . . . facias Romani heredes imperii." Cf. Ibid., 14. 1. 2 Ibid., 14. 1. " post fratrem, arripuit imperium non senatus auctoritate, sed suo motu quasi hereditarium cssct imperium." " quasi hereditarium imperium arripuerat." " hereditarium sibi (vindicavit) imperium." Probus, 10. 8. 11. 3. Victor, " Florianus nullo senatus seu militum consultg 88 THE REIGN OF PROBUS Florian, as Zosimus shows, was not with his brother at the time of his death, or he would have shared his fate, but was in command of troops, on the Bosphorus according to Zosimus, acting in support of his brother's operations. On receipt of the news he took speedy action, and sent off instantly messages to the Senate and to the provinces. Otherwise it is hard to see how in any way he could have gained a large part of the Empire to his side, as we are assured he did by the evidence of inscriptions.^ His rule was acquiesced in for the moment. He assumed all the usual titles of the Emperor, and in all probability forced the Senate to concede them. It was offended undoubtedly at Florian' s assumption of power, yet Zosimus (and Zonaras) says that he was chosen by Rome, and he secured the adhesion of the whole Empire with the exception of Phoenicia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt.^ Meanwhile the East had its rival candidate, a imperium invaserat." The use of the word "consultum" in reference to soldiers is awkward. Victor perhaps preserves the senatorial tradition about Florian, but one would think the Senate was forced to recognize him. 1 C. /. L., ii. 1115. (Lusitania) iii. 14019. vii. 1156. iii. 15086. (Dalmatia) ii. 1115 runs as follows : " Magnus et Invictus Imp. Caes. M. Annius Florianus. Pius Felix. Invictus Aug. Trib. Pot. Cos. P. P. Procos. ^ Zosimus, i. 64. ivrcvOev ct? ifJLvXa. Zonaras, xii. 29, is still more explicit, iv Sc *Po>/a5 frapa Trjt€vos avrrj o-rpaTOTreSevciv, €yv(OK€i Kara rC)v (V Tw Bo(77ropa) "^KvOdv vUrjv r]fjLLTeX.rj KaraA-eXotTraJS, ravTrj 8c koX rots €yK€KXct(r/A€vots cvSotis dScws TO, oiKeia KaraA.a^ctP', rptySovTOs 8c Tlp6f3ov Tov TToXc/xov Ota Koi i^ cXttTTOvos TToXXw 8vi'd)u,co)S avTov dvaSc^a/otcvov, Kara Tr]v Tapcrov cv tw ^cpct yevofievov Kav/x,aT09, arjO'qo-avTe^ oi ^Xwptavw trvvT€Tay fjievoL Slol to Ik t^s EvptoTTT/s to ttXIov tov cTpaTcv/taTOS cTvat, VOaO) SciVg TTCpiTTtlTTOVO'lV. 94 THE REIGN OF PROBUS a decisive engagement, but at length attacked. Florian's troops sallied forth, but there seems to have been no real battle. Then, however, intrigue was set afoot, and Florian's position was under- mined more surely by these means than by open force. Some of Probus's soldiers went over to Florian, professedly as deserters, and secured Florian's confinement. But wild rumours were abroad, and some, in their excited state, were will- ing to credit rumours which were palpably absurd. It was asserted that Probus desired no harsh measures, and Florian was emboldened in this way to resume the insignia of Empire.^ He thus sealed his fate, and suffered death at the hands of his own troops. Some writers declare that the deed had Probus's sanction,^ yet the latter's treat- ment of another fallen rival leads one to believe ^ Zosimus, i. 64. oTrep /xaOwv 6 Hpo^os €is Kaipov iTriOicrOai Steyvo). rwv h\ ^Xiapiavov (rrpajTHHTOiv kol Trapa Svvapnv eTre^eX^ovTwv, iyivovro fxlv dKpoy8oXt(r/Aot Trpo rrjs TrdXecDS. epyov 8e ovSevos a^i^yrytrews d^tov 7rpax6€VTOSf dW oiTroa-rdvTOiV dXXi^Xoiv tcov O'TparoTreScov, iX.66vTes fM€Ta ravra rtves ruiv a//,a lipoma) o'Tparcvo/xeVcov, TrapaXvovcrt <^A,o)ptavov t^s dpxrj'i' ov ycvofteVov xpovov [xkv icfivXdx6r) nvd. roiv Se irepl avTov ov Kara rrjv Ilp6/3ov irpoaipicnv tovto yeyevrjaOai Xcyoi/rwv, dvaka^etv Trjv dXovpyiSa av^ts rjV€(rx€To. For all this Zosimus is our only authority, followed by John of Antioch. Miiller, iv. 600. ' Zosimus. fi€XP'5 iTraveXOovres ot ra Ilp6^(o (tvv dX-qOua Trepl rov ooKOvvra /xr]vvovT€9 dvaip^Orjvai Trapa twv oLKumv ^Xmpiavov imroiriKacn. Zonaras, xii. 29. Vopiscus, Probus, 10. 8. " milites, cognito quod impcraret Probus, Florianum interemerunt, scientes neminem dignius imperare quam Probum." Tacitus , 14. 2. " Tarsi a militibus, qui Probum audierant imperare, occisus est." The Epitome of Victor says Florian opened his veins. This is obviously an error. (Cf. Probus's letter, " vindicatum quinetiam in ilium a prudentioribu^ militibus, quod fuerat USUrpatum.") Zonaras, xii. 29, amipe^cts vtto twv crrpaTicoTwi/ Trapa UpojSov Xiy ofiivtjiv (TTaXrfvaL, IMPERIAL AUTHORITY 95 that, so far as circumstances would permit, he was leniently disposed. So ended the Eighty Days of Florian.^ He was the brother of Tacitus, and that perhaps is sufficient condemnation. Ambitious but irresolute, an aspir- ant to Empire who seems to have been only a weak imitation of that colourless personality his brother, he was unable to maintain the loyalty of the very army which had saluted him as Emperor, much more to win the allegiance of an Empire. Naturally the legions preferred the experienced Probus to the untried Florian, who had, moreover, by his precipitate action, alienated the Senate, which now considered itself Rome's monarch. His rela- tionship to Tacitus won him a three months' sovereignty ; it could not seat him permanently on the throne. He fell, a victim of the fickle- ness of his legions and of his own inordinate ambition. Probus could not with safety, if he had so desired, vindicate himself upon the murderers of Florian, but he was sufficiently powerful to punish the survivors of the assassins of Aurelian and the murderers of Tacitus. According to one tradition he scrupled not to dissemble. He assembled these men on the pretence of giving a banquet, and when his victims gladly appeared 1 Vopiscus. Scarcely two months seems too short. Victor agrees. " iino mense vel altero vix retentata dominatione." Eutropius, ix. 16. " duobus mensibus et diebus XX in imperio fuit." Eusebius, 80 days. Orosius, vii. 24. " tertio demum mense." Syncellus yjixepa^ Tr'rj, and also ixy]va^ p Trpos i7/A€pas K. Malalas says he was sixty-six years old. 96 THE REIGN OF PROBUS at his quarters, bitterly reproached them for their disloyalty and had them put to death.^ The death of Florian rendered Probus's next step very easy. The armies of Europe acknow- ledged his sway, and only the recognition of the Senate remained. That could hardly have been refused in any case, but a tactful letter secured not only acquiescence but enthusiasm. The date which Vopiscus gives presents many difficulties, and perhaps (with Tillemont) the word " Februarias " should be amended to " Augustas," so that the Senate met on August 3, 276. Probus acted his part well, if not over well. He first reflected upon Florian for seizing the Empire as though it were an hereditary possession, and then with great deference submitted his claims to the decision of the Senate. 2 This adroit glozing over an accom- 1 Probus, 13. 2. "si qui de interfectoribus Aureliani super- fuerant " (Tacitus had executed the rest) " vario genera vindicavit . . . delude animadvertit etiam in eos qui Tacito insidias fecerant." But Vopiscus dwells on Probus's compara- tive humanity. Zosimus, i. ctTrepio-Tao-rys Be ySao-tActas CIS IIpojSoi/, iXavvoiV CTTt Ttt TTpocrw, Trpoot/JLLov iTTOLrjcraro twv virtp rov kolvov Trpa^cwv tpyov CTraivcTOv. irapa yap twv aveXovrwv AvprjXLavov kol iTnOefitvoiV TaKtVo) SiKYjv eyvoi XaySetv, aXA.a 7rpo<;^avcos pikv ov Trpdrrei to fSovXevOiv, Sect Tov fX7] Tiva Tapa)(7]v €k tovtov (TvixfSrjvaLf Xo^ov 8e crrT^cras dvSpiov 015 TOVTO reOapprjKwq ervx^v icji ka^ov. ov fter ov ttoXv avXXa/Soiv (OS oItlov a-cfuari klvBvvov ycyovora TrapaScSwKe ^wvra tw nvpL This seems incredible. Vopiscus, at any rate, disagrees. Zonaras says he slew them. Xcycrat crwayayelv kol ttoXXo. ovciSurat kol diroKTtLvaL. How the transcription of this tale must have delighted the cynical Zosimus ! 2 Probus, 11. 2-4. " recte atque ordine P.C. proximo superiore anno factum est ut vestra dementia orbi terrarum principem daret, et quidem de vobis, qui et estis mundi princi- IMPERIAL AUTHORITY 97 plished fact delighted the Senate, and the letter was received with acclamation. Manlius Statianus, who had the privilege of delivering his opinion first, spoke of Probus's former triumphs,^ and moved that the titles of " Caesar," " Augustus," and " Pater Patriae," the proconsular " imperium," the tribunician " potestas," the office of " Pontifex Maximus," and the right of making three proposals at one meeting of the Senate, should be granted to Probus. The last provision seems to be an assertion of the Senate's rights, for other Emperors had the power of referring as many as five matters to a meeting of the Senate. Vopiscus, who has strong senatorial sympathies, asserts that Probus restored to the Senate many of their former privileges, and always secured the ratification of his laws by "senatus consulta."^ If these " magni indices"^ pes, et semper fuistis, et in vestris posteris eritis, atque utinam id Florianus expectare voluisset . . . quaeso ut de meis meritis facialis quicquid iusserit vestra dementia." The letter is called in one place " oratio," but Vopiscus corrects himself afterwards. But that the letter is very fulsome it might well be that of Probus. Doubt has been cast on the account owing to the anachronistic reference to the temple of Concordia. Scorpianus is not mentioned in the Fasti and must have been a consul ordinarius. 1 " enimvero quae mundi pars est quam ille non vincendo didicerit ? . . . ubique vigent Probi virtutis insignia." The speech was probably written by Vopiscus or at least embellished (cf. " praerogativa," " longum est"). The statements about Probus's career tell us nothing new, and the reference to the Emperor's letters in the archives is very suspicious. 2 Probus, 13. 1. " secundum orationem permisit patribus ut ex magnorum iudicum appellationibus ipsi cognoscerent, proconsules crearent, legatos consulibus darent, ius praetorium praesidibus darent, leges quas Probus ederet, senatus consultis propriis consecrarent." The use of " index " thus is an ana- chronism — Lecrivain, p. 34, who disbelieves that Probus was more senatorial than Alexander Severus. ^ Mentioned in preceding note. H 98 THE REIGN OF PROBUS were the " praefecti urbi et praetorio," it seems incredible that the hearing of appeal from their decisions, a right which had always belonged to the Emperor, should now be transferred to the Senate, or that the governors of provinces should again be necessarily of senatorial rank. The privilege of ratifying the Emperor's laws meant little, for the Senate would not have dared to refuse this trifling formality. It is not probable, then, that Probus waived in this careless way the rights which a long line of predecessors had enjoyed. Yet it may be that the Senate hoped, after the flattering reign of Tacitus, to assume more importance, and conceded more sparingly such honours as it was accustomed to concede at the accession of an Emperor. Alexander Severus had the right of bringing five matters before any one meeting of the Senate, Probus had only, according to Vopiscus, " ius tertiae relationis." However, with an Emperor of Probus's stamp such constitutional pedantries would matter little. If he was complaisant enough to humour the Senate, he did not intend to place himself under the guidance of a servile and dis- credited assembly, which even Gallienus had despised and trampled upon. No Emperor of any character could at this period have seriously increased the power of the Senate. Florian's supporters, who were to be found chiefly in the West, were treated generously. Probus recognized that they had had some justification for supporting the brother of the late Emperor, and did not abuse his good fortune.^ ^ Florian, " sociis pepercit, quod non tyrannum aliquem videbantur secuti, sed sui principis fratrem." Ibid., 13. 3. IMPERIAL AUTHORITY 99 After these preliminary matters had been settled, foreign affairs necessarily claimed his attention. And in the first place the Roman prestige needed rehabilitation in Gaul. Gallienus is the last Emperor whose name is found on coins on the right bank of the Rhine, and Gaul often threatened to follow the example of the German provinces, finding Rome unable to defend it. Postumus had made himself master of Gaul for ten years during the weak reign of Gallienus and had manfully defended it against barbarian incursions,^ and with him was associated Victorinus. After their deaths, under the weak rule of Tetricus, the barbarians broke in, but Aurelian drove them out from Gaul and also put an end to the Empire of the Gauls. On his death the Germans again occupied Gaul,'^ and it was necessary for prompt action to be taken. The Gauls themselves had long been Romanized, and had no desire to be cut off from the Roman world — this was amply proved during the rule of Tetricus — but they had lost their ancient valour and needed to be defended from the barbarians. The invaders probably advanced from city to city, occupying each in turn, the Gauls having made no 1 Gallienus, 4. 3. seqq» " Tacitus, 3. 4. The speech of Gordianus might almost be genuine. It mentions one fact which is not mentioned else- where in the Biography and yet is certainly true. " nam limi- tem trans Rhenum Germani rupisse dicuntur, occupasse urbes validas, divites, et potentes." But the reference to the " limes " as a barrier is at this time an anachronism. The Gauls made Postumus Emperor in self-defence. His strong and able rule seems to have obtained some kind of recognition from Rome. He was recognized also both in Spain and Britain, and the Gallic Empire was a close copy of the Roman Empire. H 2 100 THE REIGN OF PROBUS combined resistance. Probus's achievements were swiftly executed. The barbarians were driven out from Gaul, sixty cities were wrested from them,^ and 400,000 of the enemy were slain. This was not sufficient. Probus crossed the Rhine and drove back the enemy to the Neckar and the Rauhe Alp. A determined effort was made to check future invasions by establishing colonies and forts in the enemy's country.^ This seems at length to have impressed the enemy, and an embassy of nine kings came to the Emperor to sue for peace. Hostages and supplies were demanded and furnished, and the restitution of the Gallic plunder was required.^ These successes gave rise to foolish exultation and exaggerated expectations. There was a report that the Germans were to be disarmed, a ridiculous 1 Probus, 13. 5. " tanta autem illic proelia feliciter gessit, ut a barbaris sexaginta per Gallias nobilissimas reciperet civitates, praedam deinde omnem, qua illi praeter divitias etiam efferebantur ad gloriam." This Jerome puts in the year 229, i, e. A.D. 277. The Cod. Justin., viii. 56. 2, shows Probus was at Sirmium on May 15, a.d. 277, probably before the campaign in Gaul. ^ Ibid. " caesis prope quadringentis milibus qui Romanum occupaverant solum, relliquias ultra Nicrum " (Peter reads "Nigrum") "fluvium et Albam removit . . . contra urbes Romanas et castra in solo Barbarico posuit, atque illic milites collocavit. agrps et horrea et domos, annonam Transrhenanis omnibus fecit, eis videlicet quos in excubiis collocavit." Pro- fessor Bury takes Alba to refer to the Rauhe Alp, not to the river Elbe ; so Boehm. 2 Ibid:, 14. 2. " nee cessatum est unquam pugnari, cum cottidie ad eum barbarorum capita deferrentur, iam ad singulos aureos singula, quam diu reguli novem ex diversis gentibus venirent atque ad Probi pedes iacerent, quibus ille primum obsides imperavit, qui statim dati sunt, deinde frumentum, postremo etiam vaccas atque oves." Lecrivain, p. 377, thinks the whole account a travesty, and comments on the absence of proper names. IMPERIAL AUTHORITY lor project which Probus could hardly have enter- tained,^ and there was hope of making Germany a Roman province again, but the plan seems to have been deferred until a more favourable opportunity should arise.'^ The most substantial result of the campaign beyond the Rhine was 16,000 recruits, who were distributed amongst the various provinces in detachments of a limited number."^ Zosimus * describes two campaigns which do not correspond in many features with that of Vopiscus. He speaks of the cities in Germany (this geographi- cal inaccuracy is not uncharacteristic of Zosimus) being oppressed by barbarians and of Probus being forced to come to their aid. The war was protracted 1 Probus, " dicitur iussisse his acrius, ut gladiis non uterentur, Romanam exspectaturi defensionem si essent ab aliquibus vindicandi. sed visum est id non posse fieri, nisi si limes Romanus extenderetur, et fieret Germania tota provincia." Vopiscus, therefore, does not say that Probus extended the " Hmes," as some have thought. 2 In Probus's letter to the Senate, 15. 7, he says : " volu- eramus Germanis novum praesidem facere, sed hoc ad pleniora vota distulimus." * Prohus, 14. 7. " accepit praeterea sedecim miha tironum, quos omnes per diversas provincias sparsit ita ut numeris, vel limitaneis militibus, quinquagenos et sexagenos intersereret, dicens sentiendum esse non videndum quam auxiliaribus barbaris Romanus iuvatur." Cf. Probus's letter. In that he inconsistently says seventy cities were taken. * i. 67. hvo TTokifxovq ay(j)VLcrdfJi€V09, koX t<3 jXiV avro? Trapa ycyovo)?, t(3 Se eripio a-rpary]yov Trpo(rT7](Tdfi€voi€L kol avrbv '^epLvoiva para tov 7ratSo5 aTreSwKe. So Zonaras, xii. 29, speaks of the Germans harassing Roman cities and of the miracle " ct tlctl tovto Tna-revoLTo." Boehm identifies the Logiones with the Ligii, who dwelt in the neigh- bourhood of Silesia ; Luden thinks the name invented. Zeuss believes that these battles were fought on the Danube and that Zosimus has blundered. Boehm seems to be right in saying that Zosimus used fuller and more authoritative sources than Vopiscus, who contents himself with a panegyric. ^ Ibid,, i. 68. Kal Sevripa ycyovcv avTw pid^rj Trpo's ^pdyKOv^. ovs Sta Twv crTparr)yu)v Kara Kpdro (Src kol r-qv Xctai/ Kttt Tovs ai;(yu,aAwTOvs ovti;as Trap^crrrjcraTO^ hid to)v totc (TTpar'qyrjcTdv- Twi/. Here the Blemyes are represented as allies, not conquerors. Probably they treated their " allies " very cavaUerly. Coptos was important as the starting-point of the Red Sea route from the Nile. 3 Probus, 17. 2. " Blemyas etiam subegit, quorum captivos Romam transmisit, qui mirabilem sui visum stupente populo Romano praebuerunt." It is absurd for Vopiscus to say that the Blemyes were " caesi ad internecionem." 110 THE REIGN OF PROBUS only regard as blackmail levied by the Blemyes upon the Empire. However, the Blemyes received a temporary check, and the news that this dreaded tribe had been subdued perhaps made the Persian King, Vararam II — not Narses, as Vopiscus says — more anxious to improve his relations with Probus. At any rate an embassy arrived with presents for the Emperor. He is said to have rejected the presents, and dismissed the envoys, with a haughty reply suggesting that all Persia was his for the asking.^ These communications mark an important stage in the reign of Probus. He had now overcome all the difficulties which had encompassed him when he succeeded to the throne, and could now, if it was necessary, assume an aggressive instead of a defensive position. He seems to have been picking a quarrel with the Persian King with a view to an attack upon the Empire. Fifty years before, the Arsacid dynasty had been supplanted by the Sassanids, who adopted more of a belligerent attitude towards Rome, and regarded themselves as peers, not vassals, of the Roman Emperors. 1 Probus, 17. 4. " ex quo tantum profecit ut Parthi legates ad eum mitterent, confitentes timorem pacemque poscentes : quos ille superbius acceptos magis timentes domum remisit. fertur etiam epistola illiiis, repudiatis donis quae rex Parthorum miserat, ad Narseum talis fuisse. ' miror te de omnibus quae nostra futura sunt tarn pauca misisse.' ... his acceptis litteris Narseus maxime territus, et eo praecipue quod Copton et Ptolemaidem comperit a Blemyis qui eas tenuerant vindicatas caesosque ad internecionem " (an exaggeration) " eos qui gentibus fuerant ante terrori. facta igitur pace cum Persis," etc. This " igitur " is most inconsequential. Narses did not succeed until a.d. 293. Vopiscus here does not profess to give the letter of Probus. IMPERIAL AUTHORITY 111 The severest disgrace which had been inflicted upon Rome by Persia was the capture of the Emperor Valerian (a.d. 258), who died in captivity. Yet such extravagant claims as Persia had made to the whole of Western Asia had never been made good, largely owing to Odaenathus of Palmyra, who had won back Mesopotamia and effectually checked the Persian advance. But the sting still smarted, and an emperor of Probus's stamp doubtless burned to wipe out past disgraces. It has been suggested that the story is an invention of Vopiscus's, but undoubtedly the invasion of Persia was one of Probus's fixed ideas. He is found at the moment of his death preparing for an invasion, and the policy was carried on by his successor. One would naturally expect that the next development would be a campaign on the Euphrates and an invasion of the Parthian Empire. But nothing came of this spirited prelude, save a treaty of peace. We must infer that at this moment fresh difficulties in another part of the Empire rendered the Emperor's presence there imperative. The project of a Parthian invasion remained a project, and it was Carus, not Probus, who re-established the eastern fron- tier of Severus. Shortly after this Probus made some extensive settlements of barbarians in the Roman bounds. The Bastarnae, who were hard pressed by the Goths, were permitted to cross the Danube and to settle in Thrace to the number of one hundred thousand. They remained loyal, and gave no 112 THE REIGN OF PROBUS cause for regret at this step.^ But other settlers, belonging to the Gipedi, Gautunni and the Vandals, were less loyal, and when Probus was engrossed in the wars with the tyrants, took advantage of this to wander over the Empire as they pleased.'- Zosimus tells us of the adventures of one detach- ment of Franks who took ship, and after doing considerable damage on the coasts of Greece, Italy, Sicily and Africa, contrived to reach their home safely.^ The task of reducing these turbulent vassals was painfully difficult, but it was at length achieved. Probus appears as one of the exponents of the policy of defending the frontiers by barbarian outposts, and perhaps carried the policy to an excess. At any rate the result only partially justified it. 1 Probus, 18. 1. " centum milia Bastarnarum in solo Romano constituit, qui omnes fidem servaverunt." 2 Ibid. 18. 3. " cum et ex aliis gentibus plerosque pariter transtulisset, id est, ex Gepidis " (Peter, " Gipedis "), " Gautun- nis " (" Greuthungis " has been conjectured) " et Vandalis, illi omnes fideni fregerunt, et occupato bellis tyrannicis Probo, per totum pene orbem pedibus et navigando vagati sunt, nee parum molestiae Romanae gloriae intulit. quos quidem ille diversis vicibus oppressit, paucis cum gloria redeuntibus quod Probi evasissent manus." Zosimus, i. 71, mentions the settlement of the Bastarnae and Franks. Baa-rapvas 8c, ^kvOlkov Wvos, vTroTrearovras avrw 7rpo(rte/>(,€i/os, KaTWKto-e ©paKtots x^P'^ots, kol SiereA-ctrav TOis *Pa)/x,ato>v l3L0TeV0VT€dyri (wrongly in Probus's last year). DEATH OF PROBUS 117 Vopiscus himself does so once.^ Yet it appears from him that both claimed the title of Emperor, and both established their power in one province. They seem to have been independent of one another, but were linked together by hostility to a common foe and had some understanding with each other. As Vopiscus gives separate accounts of these two tyrants, we must now perforce follow him. Proculus, who belonged to the Albingauni, a tribe dwelling in the maritime Alps, seems to have kept to the last the characteristics of a barbarian, and his wife Sampso, whose virago qualities greatly impressed her contemporaries, abetted him in his folly.^ Rarely has even a tyrant possessed fewer qualifica- tions for ruling, for his only virtue was his bravery. This robber prince, with his two thousand armed slaves, might win a reputation for cattle-lifting, but was quite out of place as a Roman official or as a Roman monarch. However, he entered the Roman service, and by his gallantry had (pre- sumably) risen to high office. Lugdunum was a city which had experienced the severity of Aurelian 1 Prohus, 18. 5. " deinde cum Proculus et Bonosus apud Agrippinam in Gallia imperium arripuissent." So Eutropius, xi. 17, at Agrippina, and Victor (only Bonosus, but the Epitome joins both) and Orosius. Zosimus and Zonaras mention neither. 2 Proculus, 12. 1. " Proculo patria Albingauni fuere, positi in Alpibus maritimis. domi nobilis, sed maioribus latrocinantibus, atque adeo pecore ac servis et eis rebus quas abduxerat satis dives, fertur denique eo tempore quo sumpsit imperium duo milia servorum suorum armasse. huic uxor virago, quae ilium in hanc praecipitavit dementiam." Album Ingaunum was on the coast of Liguria. It is mentioned C. /. L., v. 7781. (Restor- ation of the walls under Constantius, a.d. 354). — Pauly. 118 THE REIGN OF PROBUS and, dreading punishment at the hands of Probus,^ hoped to avert this retribution by rebeUion, and strove to persuade Proculus to declare himself Emperor. At last, after a series of unusual suc- cesses at the game of " Robbers," ^ he was acclaimed by a wit as Augustus (we must hope that this man's jests had usually more point). In such a frivolous way were emperors made. Mock homage was per- formed, and it was felt that the jest had now become earnest.^ The fall of Proculus was not immediate, and he employed the respite in plying his old metier of cattle-plundering, but not at the expense of his subjects. These brilliant achievements, however, were terminated by the approach of Probus, who drove him to the limit of his dominions, and com- pelled him to take refuge with the Franks, with whom he claimed some kinship.^ They indulged ^ Proculus, 13. 1. " multis legionibus tribunus praefuit et fortia edidit facta, cum etiam post honores militares se improbe et libidinose ageret hortantibus Liigdunensibus, qui et ab Aure- liano graviter contusi videbantur, et Probum vehementissime pertimescebant, in imperium vocitatus est ludo et pene ioco." 2 This game was played with pawns on a board and had a certain resemblance to chess. Different pieces were moved in different ways, some straight and some obliquely. The object was to give a kind of check. It was a difficult game, and the winner seems to have been saluted as " imperator." 3 Onesimus seems to be the authority for this. Proculus, 13. 2. " cum in quodam convivio ad latrunculos luderetur, atque ipse decies imperator exisset, quidam non ignobilis scurra, ' ave,' inquit, ' Auguste.' allataque lana purpurea, humeris eius iunxit, eumque adoravit." * Proculus, 13. 3. " non nihilum tamen Gallis profuit. nam Alamannos, qui tunc adhuc Germani dicebantur, non sine gloriae splendore contrivit nunquam aliter quam latrocinandi pugnans modo. hunc tamen Probus fugatum usque ad ultimas terras, et cupientem in Francorum auxilium venire, a quibus originem se trahere ipse dicebat," etc. DEATH OF PROBUS 119 their proclivity for treachery by handing the fugitive over to Probus, who had no scruple in putting an end to the existence of this brutal and senseless disturber of the peace. His family were unharmed, and continued to dwell among the Albingauni. It was a byword with them that they had no wish to be emperors or robbers (" latrones "), an allusion to the ill-starred game of " latrunculi." ^ Bonosus was born, or resided, in Spain, the son of a British father and a Gallic mother. His father, as he averred, was a rhetorician ; as envious tongues declared, a pedagogue, ever a despised class. However, Bonosus was left fatherless early, with the not uncommon result that he learned nothing.^ He enlisted in the Roman legions and rose to a high position, that of " dux Rhaetici limitis," chiefly through his extraordinary convivial qualities. His capacity (he was called a barrel) was such that he could see any barbarian under the table, and thus he was useful in winning valuable secrets from them.^ Alarmed at some damage done ^ Proculus. " ipsis prodentibus Francis, quibus familiare est ridendo fidem frangere, vicit et interemit . . . poster! eius etiam nunc apud Albingaunos agunt, qui ioco solent dicere sibi non placere esse vel principes vel latrones." He intended to associate his son with him, if he reigned five years, but these soaring hopes were soon cut short. 2 Bonosus, 14. 1. " ut ipse dicebat, rhetoris fiHus, ut ab ahis comperi, paedagogi Hterarii. parvulus patrem amisit, atque a matre fortissima educatus Hterarum nihil didicit." ^ Ibid. " militavit primum inter ordinarios, deinde inter equites, duxit ordines, tribunatus egit, dux limitis Rhetici fuit, bibit quantum hominum nemo. ' non ut vivat natus est, sed ut bibat.' siquando legati barbarorum undecunque gentium venissent, ipsis propinabat, ut eos inebriaret, atque ab his per vinum cuncta cognosceret. ipse quantumlibet bibisset, securus atque sobrius et (ut Onesimus dicit) in vino prudentior." 120 THE REIGN OF PROBUS by the Germans — who had burnt the flotilla of ships on the Rhine which prevented the barbarians from crossing — dreading the responsibility for this re- missness, he took upon himself the still greater responsibility of declaring himself Emperor, and maintained his position for some time.^ Overcome by Probus after a long and severe contest, he hanged himself. Probus spared his two sons and continued his wife's allowance until her death.^ She was a barbarian of Gothic race, and her name, according to Vopiscus, was Hunila, which, as Peter says else- where, is always a man's name. Vopiscus professes to give a letter of Aurelian ordering the marriage of Bonosus and Hunila to be celebrated with due ceremony.^ Both these tyrants were very different from the Lecrivain, p. 383, thinks the whole account of Bonosus an audacious invention. It is strange that Vopiscus 's grandfather knew both Saturninus (in the East) and Bonosus (in Gaul). Klebs notices this, Rhein. Mus., 1892, p. 24. 1 Bonosus^ 15. 1. " cum quodam tempore in Rheno Romanas lusorias Germani incendissent, timore ne poenas daret, sumpsit imperium, idque diutius tenuit quam merebatur." It would seem that the headquarters of Bonosus, at any rate, were at Koln. So Aurelius Victor, Orosius, Eutropius. Chnton puts this in A.D. 281. 2 Ibid.^ 15. 3. " longo gravique certamine a Probo superatus, laqueo vitam finivit. tunc quidem iocus exstitit ' amphoram pendere non hominem.' filios duos reliquit, quibus ambobus Probus pepercit, uxore quoque eius in honore habita, et usque ad mortem salario praestito." 3 Ibid, " fuisse enim dicitur " (" ut et avus mens dicebat." His grandfather knew both Saturninus and Bonosus.) " familiae nobilis gentis Gothicae." The marriage was dictated by state policy. The actual document is quoted from memory. " haec me legisse tenes de Bonoso." Vopiscus seems to have some inkling of the trivial character of this biography. " potui quidem horum vitam praeterire, quos nemo quaerebat." DEATH OF PROBUS 121 refined and cultured Saturninus. Proculus was a sensualist, Bonosus a sot; yet these crude votaries of Bacchus and Venus made a better struggle against Probus than did Saturninus, the experienced states- man and administrator, who had sufficient sensi- bility to feel the momentous character of the step he had taken, and thus allowed " the native hue of his resolution to be sicklied o'er by the pale cast of thought." These pretenders enjoyed a short-lived success. There was little magnetic charm about the personalities of the three whom we have men- tioned, and a much more formidable opponent was needed to wrest the Empire from Probus, until he lost his soldiers' support. Plainly, Probus was the man of his time best fitted to rule, and in all the games of " latrunculi " that he played with his opponents, it was he whose combinations were successful, and he who was acclaimed " imperator." The rebellion of Proculus and Bonosus seems to have involved Probus in some difficulties. The secession of Gaul led to the temporary detachment of Spain and Britain, which were isolated from Rome. These provinces may have accepted the rule of Proculus and Bonosus, or, as is perhaps more probable, waited on events.^ Zosimus tells us of a rebellion in Britain, which, if the account be correct, 1 In C. L L., ii. 3738, the name of Probus is erased. This is a Spanish inscription. Mommsen attributes this to the rising of Proculus. The existence of Bonosus is attested by coins. Cohen, v. 314. Vopiscus says, Probus, 18. 5, " cum Proculus et Bonosus . . . omnes sibi Britannias Hispanias et braccatae Galhae provincias vindicarent." Perhaps a partition treaty; probably nothing more was done. Vopiscus says the Germans refused to help them, 18. 7 : " Probo perservire maluerunt." Lecrivain scornfully rejects this. 122 THE REIGN OF PROBUS should be assigned to this time. The leader is unnamed, but owed his position in Britain to the recommendation of Victorinus (Consul in a.d. 282). Probus called the last-named to him, and after reproving him for his faulty judgment, ordered him to retrieve himself the consequences of his error. He immediately went to Britain, and by discreet methods,^ which may be a euphemism for unscrupu- lous treachery, destroyed the tyrant. Probus was at last enabled to celebrate his long- deferred triumph over the Germans and the Blemyes, the only cases in which he could rightly have claimed the honour. Vopiscus, who is a connoisseur in these matters, describes the triumph as fully as he described the similar triumphs of Aurelian and Carinus. With all the enthusiasm of a dweller at Rome he expatiates on the various fetes which celebrated Probus's many successes. The triumph could not have the eclat or the magnificence of that spectacle some eight years previously, in which the populace had gazed upon a Zenobia, and a Tetricus, following in the train of the Emperor, not to men- ^ Zosimus, i. 66. aXkriv iTravdcrraa-LV iv rrj BperravLa fiiXerr)- OcLcrav Stot BtKTwptvov, MavpovaLov to yevos, wTrep TreurdeU crvx^ rbv iTravacTTOLvra rrj'S Bpcrravta? apxovra Trpo(rTr)(rdfi€vopovL rov Tvpavvov dvaipu. Zonaras Corresponds. He, too, seems ignorant of the tyrant's name. cVepo? 8e ns ev B/aerTavtai? dTrocrraarLav SttixcXiTrjcrev, ov eTrt Trj<; OLpxq'S b ^acrtXciis eTroLrjcraTO, BiKTcopivov MavpovcTLov oLKUUifJiivov dvr^ TOVTO alrrja-afxivov. Kat rovro fiaO^v 6 Upo/Soq r)TLoiTO tov BLKTioplvov. Kat 09 7r€fx