Adjutor.
(3) TheAdjutor. Some of the uses of this term are very perplexing. It seems clear (from Lydus, 'De Mag.' iii. 3) that all the members of the officium were known by the generic nameAdjutores. Here however we may perhaps safely assume that Adjutor means simply an assistant to the officer next above him, as we find, lower down in the list of the 'Notitia,' the Exceptores followed by their Adjutores. We may find a parallel to Adjutor in the word Lieutenant, which, for the same reason is applied to officers of such different rank as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a Lieutenant-General,a Lieutenant-Colonel, and a simple Lieutenant in the Army or Navy.Primiscrinius.In the lists of Cassiodorus and Lydus we find no mention of an officer bearing the special name of Adjutor, but we meet instead with aPrimiscrinius, of whom, according to Lydus, there were two. He says[136], 'After the Cornicularius are two Primiscrinii, whom the Greeks call first of the service[137].' And later on[138], when he is describing the course of business in thesecretumof the Praefect, as it used to be in the good old days, he informs us that after judgment had been given, and the Secretarii had read to the litigant the decree prepared by the Assessors and carefully copied by one of the Cancellarii, and after an accurate digest of the case had been prepared in the Latin language by a Secretarius, in order to guard against future error or misrepresentation, the successful litigant passed on with the decree in his handto the Primiscrinii, who appointed an officer to execute the judgment of the Court[139]. These men then put the decree into its final shape by means of the persons appointed to assist them[140](men who could puzzle even the professors themselves in logical discussions), and endorsed it on the litigant's petition in characters which at once struck awe into the reader, and which seemed actually swollen with official importance[141]. The name and titles of the 'completing' officer were then subscribed.
If the suggestion that the Primiscrinii were considered as in some sense substitutes (Adjutores) for the Cornicularius be correct, we may perhaps account for therebeing two of them in the days of Lydus by the disappearance of the Princeps. The office of Cornicularius had swallowed up that of Princeps, and accordingly the single Adjutor, who was sufficient at the compilation of the 'Notitia,' had to be multiplied by two.
Commentariensis, or Commentarisius.
(4) TheCommentariensis. Here we come again to an officer who is mentioned by all our three authorities, though in Cassiodorus he seems to be degraded some steps below his proper rank (but this may only be from an accidental transposition of the order of the letters), and though Lydus again gives us two of the name instead of one. The last-named authority inserts next after the Primiscrinii 'two Commentarisii—so the law calls those who are appointed to attend to the drawing up of indictments[142].'
The Commentariensis (or Commentarisius, as Lydus calls him[143]) was evidently the chief assistant of the Judge in all matters of criminal jurisdiction[144]. We have a remarkably full, and in the main clear account of his functions in the pages of Lydus (iii. 16-18), from which it appears that he was promoted from the ranks of theExceptores(shorthand writers), and had six of his former colleagues serving under him as Adjutores[145]. Great was the power, and high the position in the Civil Service, of the Commentariensis. The whole tribe of process-servers, gaolers, lictors[146]—all that we now understand by the police force—waited subserviently on his nod. It rested with him, says Lydus, to establish theauthority of the Court of Justice by means of the wholesome fear inspired by iron chains and scourges and the whole apparatus of torture[147]. Nay, not only did the subordinate magistrates execute their sentences by his agency, he had even the honour of being chosen by the Emperor himself to be the minister of vengeance against the persons who had incurred his anger or his suspicion. 'I myself remember,' says Lydus, 'when I was serving as Chartularius in the office of the Commentariensis, under the praefecture of Leontius (a man of the highest legal eminence), and when the wrath of Anastasius was kindled against Apion, a person of the most exalted rank, and one who had assisted in his elevation to the throne[148], at the same time when Kobad, King of Persia, blazed out into fury[149], that then all the confiscations and banishments which were ordered by the enraged Emperor were entrusted to no one else but to the Commentarienses serving under the Praefect. In this service they acquitted themselves so well, with such vigour, such harmonious energy, such entire clean-handedness and absence of all dishonest gain, as to move the admiration of the Emperor, who made use of them on all similar occasions that presented themselves in the remainder of his reign. They had even the honour of being employed against Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, when that prelate had provoked the Emperor by suspending all intercourse with him as a heretic; and that, although Celer, one of the most intimate friends of Anastasius, was at that very time holding the rank of Magister Officiorum.'
An officer who was thus privileged to lay hands on Patriarch and Patrician in the name of Augustus waslooked up to with awful reverence by all the lower members of the official hierarchy; and Lydus, with one graphic touch, brings before us the glow of gratified self-love with which, when he was a subordinateScriniarius, he found himself honoured by the familiar conversation of so great a person as the Commentariensis[150]: 'I too am struck with somewhat of my old awe, recurring in memory to those who were then holders of the office. I remember what fear of the Commentarisii fell upon all who at all took the lead in theOfficium, but especially on the Scriniarii; and how greatly he who was favoured with a chat with a Commentarisius passing by valued himself on the honour.' Lydus also describes to us how the Commentariensis, instructed by the Praefect, or perhaps even by the Emperor himself, would take with him one of his faithful servants, the Chartularii, would visit the abode of the suspected person (who might, as we have seen, be one of the very highest officers of the State), and would then in his presence dictate in solemn Latin words the indictment which was to be laid against him, the mere hearing of which sometimes brought the criminal to confess his guilt and throw himself on the mercy of the Emperor.
It was from thiscommentum, the equivalent of a Frenchacte d'accusation, that the Commentariensis derived his title.
Ab Actis (Scriniarius Actorum?).
(5) TheAb Actis. The officer who bore this title (which is perhaps the same as the Scriniarius Actorum of Cassiodorus[151]) seems to have been exclusively concerned with civil cases, and perhaps held the same place in reference to them that the Commentarienses held in criminal matters[152]. Practically, his office appears to have been very much what we understand by that ofChief Registrarof the Court. He (or they, for in Lydus'time there were twoAb Actisas well as two Commentarienses[153]) was chosen from the select body of shorthand writers who were known as Augustales, and was assisted by six men of the same class, 'men of high character and intelligence and still in the vigour of their years[154].' His chief business—and in this he was served by theNomenclatores, who shouted out in a loud voice the names of the litigants—was to introduce the plaintiff and defendant into the Court, or to make a brief statement of the nature of the case to the presiding magistrate. He then had to watch the course of the pleadings and listen to the Judge's decision, so as to be able to prepare a full statement of the case for the Registers or Journals[155]of the Court. These Registers—at least in the flourishing days of Roman jurisprudence—were most fully and accurately kept. Even theDies Nefastiwere marked upon them, and the reason for their being observed as legal holidays duly noted. Elaborate indices, prepared by the Chartularii, made search an easy matter to those who wished to ascertain what was the decision of the law upon every point; and the marginal notes, orpersonalia, prepared in Latin[156]by the Ab Actis or his assistants, were so excellent and so full that sometimes when the original entry in the Registers had been lost the whole case could be sufficiently reconstructed from them alone.
The question was already mooted at Constantinople in the sixth century whence the Ab Actis derived his somewhat elliptical name; and our archaeology-loving scribe was able to inform his readers that as the officer of the household who was calledA Pigmentishad the care ofthe aromatic ointments of the Court; as theA Sabanis[157]had charge of the bathing towels of the baths; as theA Secretis(who was called Ad Secretis by vulgar Byzantines, ignorant of the niceties of Latin grammar) was concerned in keeping the secret counsels of his Sovereign: so theAb Actisderived his title from the Acts of the Court which it was his duty to keep duly posted up and properly indexed.
Numerarii.
(6) TheNumerarii(whose exact number is not stated in the 'Notitia'[158]) were the cashiers of the Praefect's office. Though frequently mentioned in the Theodosian Code, and though persons exercising this function must always have existed in a great Court of Justice like the Praefect's, we hear but little of them from Cassiodorus[159]; and Lydus' notices of theδιαψηφισται, who seem to correspond to the Numerarii[160], are scanty and imperfect. Our German commentator has collected the passages of the Theodosian Code which relate to this class of officers, and has shown that on account of their rapacity and extortion their office was subjected to a continual process of degradation. All the Numerarii, except those of the two highest classes of judges[161], were degraded intoTabularii, a name which had previously indicated the cashiers of a municipality as distinguished from those in the Imperial service; and the Numerarii, even of the Praetorian Praefect himself, were made subject to examination by torture. This was not only to be dreaded on account of the bodilysuffering which it inflicted, but was also a mark of the humble condition of those to whom it was applied.
Scriniarius Curae Militaris.
We may perhaps see in theScriniarius Curae Militarisof Cassiodorus[162]one of these Numerarii detailed for service as paymaster to the soldiers who waited upon the orders of the Praefect.
Subadjuvae.
(7) TheSubadjuvae. This is probably a somewhat vague term, like Adjutores, and indicates a second and lower class of cashiers who acted as deputies for the regular Numerarii.
Cura Epistolarum.
(8)Cura Epistolarum.The officer who bore this title appears to have had the duty of copying out all letters relating to fiscal matters[163]. This theory as to his office is confirmed by the words of Cassiodorus (Var.xi. 23): 'Let Constantinian on his promotion receive the care of the letters relating to the land-tax' (Hic itaque epistolarumcanonicarumcuram provectus accipiat).
Regerendarius, or Regendarius.
(9)Regerendarius, orRegendarius[164]. This officer had the charge of all contracts relating to the very important department of theCursus Publicus, or Imperial Mail Service. At the time of the compilation of the 'Notitia' only one person appears to have acted in this capacity under each Praefect. When Lydus wrote, there were two Regendarii in each Praefecture, but, owing to the increasing influence of the Magister Officiorum over the Cursus Publicus[165], their office had become apparentlylittle more than an ill-paid sinecure. As we hear nothing of similar changes in the West, the Cursus Publicus was probably a part of the public service which was directly under the control of Cassiodorus when Praetorian Praefect, and was administered at his bidding by one or more Regendarii.
Exceptores.
(10) We now come to theExceptores, or shorthand writers[166], a large and fluctuating body who stood on the lowest step of the official ladder[167]and formed the raw material out of which all its higher functionaries were fashioned in the regular order of promotion.
Augustales.
We are informed by Lydus[168], that in his time the Exceptores in the Eastern Empire were divided into two corps, the higher one calledAugustales, who were limited in number to thirty, and the lower, of indefinite number and composing the rank and file of the profession. The Augustales only could aspire to the rank of Cornicularius; but in order that some prizes might still be left of possible attainment by the larger class, the rank of Primiscrinius was tenable by those who remained 'on the rolls of the Exceptores.' The reason for this change was that the unchecked application of the principle of seniority to so large a body of public servants was throwing all the more important offices in the Courts of Justice into the hands of old men. The principle of 'seniority tempered by selection' was therefore introduced, and the ablest and most learned members of the class of Exceptores were drafted off into this favoured section of Augustales, fifteen of the most experienced ofwhom were appropriated to the special service of the Emperor, while the other fifteen filled the higher offices (with the exception of the Primiscriniate) in the Praefectoral Courts[169].Deputati.The first fifteen were calledDeputati[170], the others were apparently known simply as Augustales.
The change thus described by Lydus appears to have been made in the West as well as in the East, since we hear in the 'Variae' of Cassiodorus (xi. 30) of the appointment of a certain Ursus to be Primicerius of the Deputati, and of Beatus to take the same place among the Augustales[171].
Adjutores.
(11) TheAdjutoresof the 'Notitia' were probably a lower class of Exceptores, who may very likely have disappeared when the Augustales were formed out of them by the process of differentiation which has been described above.
We have now gone through the whole of what was termed the 'Learned Service[172]' mentioned in the 'Notitia,' with one exception—the title of an officer, in himself humble and obscure, who has given his name to the highest functionaries of mediaeval and modern Europe.
Cancellarius.
(12) TheCancellariusappears in the 'Notitia' onlyonce[173], and then in connection not with the Praetorian Praefect, but with the Master of the Offices. At the very end of the Officium of this dignitary, after the sixScholaeand fourScriniaof his subordinates, and after theAdmissionales, whom we must look upon as the Ushers of the Court, comes the entry,
Cancellarii:
Cancellarii:
their very number not stated, the office being too obscure to make a few less or more a matter of importance.
After the compilation of the 'Notitia' the office of Cancellarius apparently rose somewhat in importance, and was introduced into other departments besides that of the Master of the Offices.
One Cancellarius appears attached to the Court of Cassiodorus as Praetorian Praefect, and from the admonitions addressed to him by his master[174], we see that he had it in his power considerably to aid the administration of justice by his integrity, or to hinder it by showing himself accessible to bribes.
In describing the Cancellarius, as in almost every other part of his treatise, Lydus has to tell a dismal story of ruin and decay[175]:
'Now the Scriniarii [subordinates of the Magister Officiorum] are made Cancellarii and Logothetes and purveyors of the Imperial table, whereas in old time the Cancellarius was chosen only from the ranks of Augustales and Exceptores who had served with credit. In those days the Judgment Hall [of the Praefect] recognised only two Cancellarii, who received anaureusapiece[176]per day from the Treasury. There was aforetime in the Court of Justice a fence separating the Magistrate from his subordinates, and this fence, being made of long splinters of wood placed diagonally, was calledcancellus, from its likeness to network, the regular Latin word fora net being casses, and the diminutive cancellus[177]. At this latticed barrier then stood twoCancellarii, by whom, since no one was allowed to approach the judgment-seat, paper was brought to the members of the staff and needful messages were delivered. But now that the office owing to the number of its holders[178]has fallen into disrepute, and that the Treasury no longer makes a special provision for their maintenance, almost all the hangers-on of the Courts of Law call themselves Cancellarii; and, not only in the capital but in the Provinces, they give themselves this title in order that they may be able more effectually to plunder the wealthy.'
This description by Lydus, while it aptly illustrates Cassiodorus' exhortations to his Cancellarii to keep their hands clean from bribes, shows how lowly their office was still considered; and indeed, but for his statement that it used to be filled by veteran Augustales, we might almost have doubted whether it is rightly classed among the 'Learned Services' at all.
End of the Militia Literata.
Now at any rate we leave the ranks of the gentlemen of the Civil Service behind us, and come to the 'Militia Illiterata,' of whom the 'Notitia' enumerates only
Militia Illiterata: Singularii.
(13) TheSingularii, a class of men of whose useful services Lydus speaks in terms of high praise, contrasting their modest efficiency with the pompous verbosity[179]of the Magistriani (servants of the Master of the Offices) by whom they were being generally superseded in his day. They travelled through the Provinces, carrying the Praefect's orders, and riding in a post-chaise drawn by a single horse (veredus), from which circumstance, according to Lydus, they derived their name Singularii[180].
We observe that the letter of Cassiodorus[181]addressed to the retiring chief (Primicerius) of the Singularii informs him that he is promoted to a place among the King's Body-guard (Domestici et Protectores), a suitable reward for one who had not been a member of the 'Learned Services.'
After the Singularii Lydus mentions theMancipes, the men who were either actually slaves or were at any rate engaged in servile occupations; as, for instance, the bakers at the public bakeries, theRationalii, who distributed the rations to the receivers of the annona[182], theApplicitarii(officers of arrest), andClavicularii(gaolers), who, as we before heard, obeyed the mandate of the Commentariensis. The Lictors, I think, are not mentioned by him. A corresponding class of men would probably be theApparitores, who in the 'Notitia' appear almost exclusively attached to the service of the great Ministers of War[183].
Thus, it will be seen, from the well-paid and often highly-connected Princeps, who, no doubt, discussed the business of the court with the Praetorian Praefect on terms of friendly though respectful familiarity, down to the gaoler and the lictor and the lowest of the half-servilemancipes, there was a regular gradation of rank, which still preserved, in the staff of the highest court of justice in the land, all the traditions of subordination and discipline which had once characterised the military organisation out of which it originally sprang.
Editiones Principes.
The Ecclesiastical History ('Historia Tripartita') seems to have been the first of the works of Cassiodorus to attract the notice of printers at the revival of learning. The Editio Princeps of this book (folio) was printed by Johann Schuszler, at Augsburg, in 1472[184].
The Editio Princeps of the 'Chronicon' is contained in a collection of Chronicles published at Basel in 1529 by Joannes Sichardus (printer, Henricus Petrus). The contribution of Cassiodorus is prefaced by an appropriate Epistle Dedicatory to Sir Thos. More, in which a parallel is suggested between the lives of these two literary statesmen.
Next followed the Editio Princeps of the 'Variae,' published at Augsburg in 1533, by Mariangelus Accurtius.
In 1553, Joannes Cuspinianus, a counsellor of the Emperor Maximilian, published at Basel a series of Chronicles with which he interwove the Chronicle of Cassiodorus, and to which he prefixed a short life of our author.
Edition of Nivellius.
The Editio Princeps of the collected works of Cassiodorus was published at Paris in 1579 by Sebastianus Nivellius; and other editions by the same publisher followed in 1584 and 1589. This edition does not contain the Tripartite History, the Exposition of the Psalter, or the 'Complexiones' on the Epistles. Some notes, notwithout merit, are added, which were compiled in 1578 by 'Gulielmus Fornerius, Parisiensis, Regius apud Aurelianenses Consiliarius et Antecessor.' The annotator says[185]that these notes had gradually accumulated on the margin of his copy of Cassiodorus, an author who had been a favourite of his from youth, and whom he had often quoted in his forensic speeches.
The edition of Nivellius, which is evidently prepared with a view to aid the historical rather than the theological study of the writings of Cassiodorus, contains also the Gothic history of Jordanus (sic), the 'Edictum Theoderici,' the letter of Sidonius describing the Court of Theodoric IIthe Visigoth(453-466), and the Panegyric of Ennodius on Theodoric the Great. The letter of Sidonius is evidently inserted owing to a confusion between the two Theodorics; and this error has led many later commentators astray. But the reprint of the 'Edictum Theoderici' is of great interest and value, because the MS. from which it was taken has since disappeared, and none other is known to be in existence. A letter is prefixed to the 'Edictum,' written by Pierre Pithou to Edouard Molé, Dec. 31, 1578, and describing his reasons for sending this document to the publisher who was printing the works of Cassiodorus. At the same time, 'that the West might not have cause to envy the East,' he sent a MS. of the 'Leges Wisigothorum,' with illustrative extracts from Isidore and Procopius, which is printed at the end of Nivellius' edition.
I express no opinion about the text of this edition; but it possesses the advantage of an Index to the 'Variae' only, which will be found at the end of the Panegyric of Ennodius. Garet's Index, which is in itself not so full, has the additional disadvantage of being muddled up with the utterly alien matter of the Tripartite History.
In 1588 appeared an edition in 4to. of the works of Cassiodorus (still excluding the Tripartite History andthe Biblical Commentaries), published at Paris by Marc Orry. This was republished in 1600 in two volumes 12mo.
The 'Variae' and 'Chronicon' only, in 12mo. were published at Lyons by Jacques Chouet in 1595, and again by Pierre and Jacques Chouet at Geneva in 1609, and by their successors in 1650. These editions contain the notes of Pierre Brosse, Jurisconsult, as well as those of Fornerius.
Edition of Garet.
In 1679 appeared, in two volumes folio, the great Rouen edition by François Jean Garet (of the Congregation of S. Maur), which has ever since been the standard edition of the works of Cassiodorus. Garet speaks of collating several MSS. of various ages for the text of this edition, especially mentioning 'Codex S. Audoeni' (deficient for Books5,6, and7of the 'Variae'), 'et antiquissimae membranae S. Remigii Remensis' (containing only the first four books of the same collection). A codex which once belonged to the jurist Cujacius, and which had been collated with Accurtius' text in 1575 by a certain Claude Grulart, seems to have given Garet some valuable readings by means of Grulart's notes, though the codex itself had disappeared. Garet's edition was re-issued at Venice in 1729, and more recently in Migne's 'Patrologia' (Paris, 1865), of which it forms vols. 69 and 70.
Forthcoming Edition by Meyer.
There can be little doubt, however, that all these editions will be rendered obsolete by the new edition which is expected to appear as a volume of the 'Auctores Antiquissimi' in theMonumenta Germaniae Historica. The editor is Professor Wilhelm Meyer, of Munich. The work has been for some years announced as near completion, but I have not been able to ascertain how soon it may be expected to appear.
Supposed fragment of orations.
Finally, I must not omit to notice the fragments of an oration published by Baudi de Vesme in the Transactions of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Turin(1846). Those fragments, which were found in a palimpsest MS. of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, were first published in 1822 by Angelo Mai, who was then disposed to attribute them to Symmachus (the elder), and to assign them to the early part of the fifth century. On reflection, however, he came to the conclusion that they were probably the work of Cassiodorus, and formed part of a panegyric addressed to Theodoric. This theory appears now to meet with general approval. The style is certainly very similar to that of Cassiodorus; but, as will be inferred from the doubt as to their origin, there is little or nothing in these scanty fragments which adds anything to our knowledge of the history of Theodoric.
Life by Garet.
To the literature relating to Cassiodorus the most important contribution till recent times was the life by Garet prefixed to his edition of 1679. I cannot speak of this from a very minute investigation, but it seems to be a creditable performance, the work of one who had carefully studied the 'Variae,' but unfortunately quite misleading as to the whole framework of the life of Cassiodorus, from the confusion which it makes between him and his father, an error which Garet has probably done more than any other author to perpetuate.
Life by St. Marthe.
The life by Garet was paraphrased in French by Denys deSte. Marthe('Vie de Cassiodore,' Paris, 1695), whose work has enjoyed a reputation to which it was not entitled on the ground either of originality or accuracy, but which was probably due to the fact that the handy octavo volume written in French was accessible to a wider circle of readers than Garet's unwieldy folio in Latin. A more original performance was that ofCount Buat(in the 'Abhandlungen der Kurfürstlichen Bairischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,' Munich, 1763); but this author, though he pointed out the cardinal error of Garet, his confusion between Senator and his father, introducedsome further gratuitous entanglements of his own into the family history of the Cassiodori.
Modern monographs.
All these works, however, are rendered entirely obsolete by three excellent monographs which have recently been published in Germany on the life and writings of Cassiodorus. These are—
Thorbecke.
AugustThorbecke's'Cassiodorus Senator' (Heidelberg, 1867);
Franz.
AdolphFranz's'M. Aurelius Cassiodorius Senator' (Breslau, 1872); and
Usener.
HermannUsener's'Anecdoton Holderi' (Bonn, 1877), described in thesecond chapterof this introduction.
Thorbecke discusses the political, and Franz the religious and literary aspects of the life of their common hero, and between them they leave no point of importance in obscurity. Usener, as we have already seen, brings an important contribution to our knowledge of the subject in presenting us with Holder's fragment; and his Commentary (of eighty pages) on this fragment is a model of patient and exhaustive research. It seems probable that these three authors have really said pretty nearly the last word about the life and writings of Cassiodorus. In addition to these authors many writers of historical works in Germany have of late years incidentally contributed to a more accurate understanding of the life and times of Cassiodorus.
Dahn, in the third section of his 'Könige der Germanen' (Würzburg, 1866), has written a treatise on the political system of the Ostrogoths which is almost a continuous commentary on the 'Variae,' and from which I have derived the greatest possible assistance.
Köpke, in his 'Anfänge des Königthums bei den Gothen' (Berlin, 1859), has condensed into a small compass a large amount of useful disquisition on Cassiodorus and his copyist Jordanes. The relation between these two writers was also elaborately discussed byvon Sybelin his thesis 'De Fontibus Libri Jordanis' (Berlin, 1838),and bySchirren, in his monograph 'De Ratione quae inter Jordanem et Cassiodorum intercedat' (Dorpat, 1885). The latter, though upon the whole a creditable performance, is disfigured by one or two strange blunders, and not improved by some displays of irrelevant learning.
Von Schubert, in his 'Unterwerfung der Alamannen unter die Franken' (Strassburg, 1884), throws some useful light on the question of the date of the early letters in the 'Variae;' andBinding, in his 'Geschichte des Burgundisch-Romanischen Königreichs' (Leipzig, 1868), discusses the relations between Theodoric and the Sovereigns of Gaul, as disclosed by the same collection of letters, in a manner which I must admit to be forcible, though I do not accept all his conclusions.
Mommsen, in his paper 'Die Chronik des Cassiodorus Senator' (Vol. viii. of the 'Abhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften;' Leipzig, 1861), has said all that is to be said concerning the unfortunate 'Chronicon' of Cassiodorus, which he handles with merciless severity.
To say thatEbert, in his 'Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters im Abendlande' (Leipzig, 1874), andWattenbach, in his 'Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter,' tell us with fullness and accuracy just what the student ought to wish to know concerning Cassiodorus as an author, is only to say that they are Ebert and Wattenbach. Every one who has had occasion to refer to these two books knows their merits.
Passing from German literature, I regret that I am prevented by ignorance of the Dutch language from forming an opinion as to the work ofThijm('Iets over M.A. Cassiodorus en zijne eeuw;' Amsterdam, 1857), which is frequently quoted by my German authorities.
Gibbonof course quotes from the 'Variae,' and though he did not know them intimately, he has with his usual sagacity apprehended the true character of the book and ofits author. But the best account of the 'Various Letters' in English, as far as I know, is unfortunately entombed in the pages of a periodical, being an article by DeanChurch, contributed in July, 1880, to the 'Church Quarterly Review.' There is also a very good though necessarily brief notice of Cassiodorus inUgo Balzani'slittle volume on the 'Early Chroniclers of Italy,' published by the Christian Knowledge Society in 1883.
In the following chronological table of the life of Cassiodorus I have, for convenience sake, assumed 480 as the year of his birth, and 575 as that of his death. It is now, I think, sufficiently proved that if these dates are not absolutely correct, they cannot be more than a year or two wrong in one direction or the other.
Consular Fasti.
As dates were still reckoned by Consulships, at any rate through the greater part of the life of Cassiodorus, I have inserted the Consular Fasti for the period in question. It will be seen that several names of correspondents of Cassiodorus figure in this list. As a general though not universal practice, one of the two Consuls at this time was chosen from out of the Senate of Rome and the other from that of Constantinople. We can almost always tell whether a chronicler belongs to the Eastern or Western Empire by observing whether he puts the Eastern or Western Consul first. Thus, fora.d.501, Marcellinus Comes, who was an official of the Eastern Empire, gives us 'Pompeius et Avienus, Coss.;' while Cassiodorus, in his 'Chronicon,' assigns the year to 'Avienus et Pompeius.' Pompeius was a nobleman of Constantinople, nephew of the Emperor Anastasius; while Avienus was a Roman Senator[186]. Again, ina.d.490, Marcellinus gives the names of Longinus and Faustus, which Cassiodorus quotes as Faustus and Longinus. Longinus was a brother of the Emperor Zeno, and Faustus was for many years Praetorian Praefect under Theodoric, and was the receiver of many letters in the following collection.
I have endeavoured to give the priority always to theWesternConsul in the list before us, except in those cases where an Emperor (who was of course an Eastern) condescended to assume the Consulartrabea.
Indictions.
Another mode of reckoning the dates which the reader will continually meet with in the following pages is byIndictions. The Indiction, as is well known, was a cycle of fifteen years, during which, as we have reason to believe, the assessment for the taxes remained undisturbed, a fresh valuation being made all round when the cycle was ended. Traces of this quindecennial period may be found in the third century, but the formal adoption of the Indiction is generally assigned to the Emperor Constantine, and to the year 312[187]. The Indiction itself, and every one of the years composing it, began on the 1st of September of the calendar year. The reason for this period being chosen probably was that the harvests of the year being then gathered in, the collection of the tithes of the produce, which formed an important part of the Imperial revenue, could be at once proceeded with. What gives an especial importance to this method of dating by Indictions, for the reader of the following letters is, that most of the great offices of State changed hands at the beginning of the year of the Indiction (Sept. 1), not at the beginning of the Calendar year.
To make such a mode of dating the year at all satisfactory, it would seem to us necessary that the number of the cycle itself, as well as of the year in the cycle, should be given; for instance, thata.d.313 should be called the first year of the first Indiction, anda.d.351 the ninth year of the third Indiction. This practice, however, was not adopted till far on into the Middle Ages[188]. At the time we are speaking of, the word Indiction seems generally to have been given not to the cycle itself, but to the year in the cycle. Thus, 313 was the first Indiction, 314 the second Indiction, 315 the third Indiction, and so on. And thus we find a year, which from other sources we know to be 313, called the first Indiction, 351 the ninth Indiction, 537 the fifteenth Indiction, without any clue being given to guide us to the important point in what cycles these years held respectively the first, the ninth, and the fifteenth places.
As the Indiction began on the 1st of September a question arises whether the calendar year is to be named after the number of the Indiction which belongs to its beginning or its end; whether, to go back to the beginning,a.d.312 ora.d.313 is to be accounted the first Indiction. The practice of the chroniclers and of most writers on chronology appears to be in favour of the latter method, which is natural, inasmuch as nine months of the Indiction belong to the later date and only three to the earlier. Thus, for instance, Marcellinus Comes calls the year of the Consulship of Belisarius, which was undoubtedly 535, 'Indictio XIII:' the thirteenth Indiction of that cycle having begun Sept. 1, 534, and ended August 31, 535. But it is well that the student should be warned that our greatest English authority, Mr. Fynes Clinton, adopts the other method. In the very useful table of comparative chronology which he gives in his Fasti Romani[189]he assigns the Indiction to that year of the Christian era in which it had its beginning, and accordingly 534, not 535, is identified with the thirteenth Indiction.
In order to translate years of Indiction into years of the Christian era it is necessary first to add somemultiple of 15 (whatmultiple our knowledge of history must inform us) to 312. On the 1st of September of the year so obtained the Indiction cycle began; and for any other year of the same cycle we must of course add its own number minus one. Thus, when we find Cassiodorus as Praetorian Praefect writing a letter[190]informing Joannes of his appointment to the office of Cancellarius 'for thetwelfthIndiction,' as we know within a little what date is wanted, we first of all add 14 x 15 (= 210) to 312, and so obtain 522. The first Indiction in that cycle ran from September 1, 522, to August 31, 523. The twelfth Indiction was therefore from September 1, 533, to August 31, 534, and that is the date we require.
On the other hand, when we find a letter written by Cassiodorus as Praetorian Praefect to the Provincials of Istria[191]as to the payment of tribute for thefirstIndiction, we know that we must now have entered upon a new cycle. We therefore add 15 x 15 (= 225) to 312, and get 537. As it happens to be thefirstIndiction that we require, our calculation ends here: September 1, 537, to August 31, 538, is the answer required.
If anyone objects that such a system of chronology is cumbrous, uncertain, and utterly unscientific, I can only say that I entirely agree with him, and that the system is worthy of the perverted ingenuity which produced the Nones and Ides of the Roman Calendar.
In the following tables I have not attempted to mark the years of the Indiction, on account of the confusion caused by the fact that two calendar years require the same number. But I have denoted by the abbreviation 'Ind.' the years in which each cycle of the Indictionsbegan. These years are 492, 507, 522, 537, 552, and 567.