sure that from that time onward, so long as the new arrangement lasted, Hesperius did almost all the work. If the joint prefecture began in 378, Hesperius' labours must have been somewhat lightened by the cutting off of Eastern Illyricum from the West, in the new partition of the empire which was made by Gratian and Theodosius in January, 379; but my own opinion is that the joint prefecture was subsequent to that partition. The arrangement of the father and son acting as prefects in common was still in force in the early part of September, 379;1 but before December 3 the prefectures were again separated, Hesperius retaining the administration of Italy, together with Western Illyricum and Africa, while Siburius succeeded to the prefecture of Gaul, and Ausonius retired once more into private life. It would seem, therefore, that the plan of joint prefects was introduced into the administration of the Western Empire to meet a particular emergency; but the idea seems to have commended itself to Gratian, and after two years of return to normal methods it was revived again, so far as the prefecture of Italy was concerned. From the beginning of 382 to the close of 386, that is to say, for about five years, there seem to have been regularly two joint prefects administering in common the Italian prefecture. In that prefecture Hesperius had been succeeded by Syagrius some time between March 14, 380,3 and June 18, 380.1 Syagrius remained prefect for rather more than two years, and did not retire from his office until some time between July 5, 382,5 and August 18, 382. But before he did so, in the early months of 382, some time before April 1,7 Hypatius became his colleague. I have attempted to set forth, beneficii, quae et ipsa non vult vice simplici gratulari, liberalius divisa quam juncta, cum teneamus duo integrum neuter desiderat separatum." In his Epicedion in Patrem (vv. 41, 42, Opuscc., edit. Schenkl, p. 34), Ausonius makes it clear that he had held the prefecture of the praetorium of Italy as well as the prefecture of the praetorium of Gaul. He puts into the mouth of his father a description of his own honours, and makes his father say "Maximus ad summum columen pervenit honorum, That is to say, at the time when Ausonius pronounced his Gratiarum Actio (see the passages quoted in the preceding note). 2 Cod. Theod., xi. 31, 7. Ibid., xi. 30, 38. 3 Ibid., x. 20, 10. Ibid., ix. 40, 13. In regard to this law, which, according to the two codes of Theodosius and Justinian (cf. Cod. Just., ix. 47, 20), was addressed on August 18, 382, by Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius, "Flaviano Praefecto Praetorio Illyrici [et Italiae" in Cod. Theod., not in Cod. Just.] from Verona, Baronius and Godefroy try to make out that it belongs to the year 390, and that it was enacted by Theodosius after the massacre at Thessalonica. But Pagi has successfully replied to their arguments (Critica, ad ann. 390, §§ iv.-ix., edit. 1727, vol. i. pp. 578, 579). If Baronius is right, it would be necessary to change not only the Emperors, the prefect, and the consuls, but also the month and the place. Tillemont (Empereurs, v. 721, 722) agrees with Pagi; and Haenel, the critical editor of the Theodosian Code (edit. 1842, col. 939), takes "unhesitatingly” the same view. Seeck (Chronol. Symmach., p. cxvii. adn. 579) tries to revive Baronius' view, but he has been answered by Rauschen (Jahrbücher, p. 337, n 9, and pp. 321, 322). I have no hesitation in accepting the date given by the two codes. Ibid., xi. 16, 13. This law was published at Carthage on April 1, 383. It must have been enacted some weeks, if not months, earlier. Gratian was in North Italy during the early part of the year. in the table given below, the double succession of Italian prefects which followed. 382. SYAGRIUS became prefect between March 14, 380,1 and June 18, 380.2 He ceased to be prefect between July 5, 382,3 and August 18, 382.* FLAVIANUS became prefect, in succession to Syagrius, between July 5, 382,3 and August 18, 382,* and continued prefect through the rest of this year. 383. FLAVIANUS began the year as prefect. He ceased to be prefect between February 27, 383, and the middle of September in that year. He was almost certainly still prefect on May 10,8 and probably remained in office till early in September. PROBUS probably became prefect, in succession to Flavianus, in September, 383.7 His name first appears in the Code in a law whose true date appears to be January 19, 384.11 See n. 3 on previous page. See n. 5 on previous page. See n. 7 on previous page. Cod. Theod., vii. 18, 8, and ix. 29, 2. HYPATIUS became prefect some time before April 1, 382,5 and continued prefect all through this year. HYPATIUS began the year as prefect. He ceased to be prefect between May 28, 383,9 and March 13, 384.10 ATTICUS became prefect in succession to Hypatius between May 28, 383,9 and March 13, 384.10 See n. 4 on previous page. There is a letter from Flavianus to Symmachus (Symmach., lib. ii. ep. 6, edit. Seeck, p. 44), written from Campania, after his retirement, when "aestas prope decessit autumno." I think that he must have fallen into disgrace with Theodosius after Gratian's death on August 25. Flavianus' son fell into disgrace with Theodosius, and his fall probably brought about that of his father. But the son was still Proconsul of Asia on May 10 (cf. Cod. Theod., xii. 6, 18). Compare Seeck (Chronol. Symmach., p. cxvii.). 10 Ibid., xiii. I, 12. • Cod. Theod., ii. 19, 5. 11 Ibid., xi. 13, I. The subscription of this law gives the date, January 19, 383; but Probus cannot have been prefect at that date. No doubt the date has been corrupted by the omission of the words, "post consulatum," a very common mistake of the scribes. The insertion of those words gives the corrected date, 384, which fits in well with another law addressed to Probus on October 26, 384. The inscriptions in honour of Probus, to be found in the Corpus Inscrr. Latt. (vol. v. pars i. p. 340, n. 3344, and vol. vi. pars i. p. 386, nn. 1751-1753), seem to me to justify Seeck's view (Chronol. Symmach., p. ciii.) that Probus was prefect during part of the years 383 and 384 (see also Socrat., v. II and Sozom., vii. 13). Yet Seeck tries to put the law of October 26 back to 383 by the omission of the words, "post consulatum," which are found in the subscription (Cod. Theod., vi. 30, 6), on the ground that ordinarily "post consulatum" is only found ATTICUS probably began the year I think that the preceding table gives approximately a true view of the double succession of prefects in Italy from 382 to 386. Possibly a more critical investigation of details might lead to some corrections having to be admitted; but the broad fact that there was a double succession during those years cannot, I think, be impugned. in laws belonging to the first months of the year. However, Rauschen (Jahrbücher, p. 82, n. 7) has shown that that rule does not hold in laws belonging to the latter part of the fourth century. 12 Cod. Theod., vi. 30, 6. 13 Ibid., ix. 30, 14. 14 Ibid., vi. 5, 2. 15 Cod. Just., i 54, 5. Praetextatus died after having been nominated by the Emperor as one of the consuls for 385 (cf. S. Hieron. Lib. contr. Joann. Hierosol., cap. 8, P. L., xxiii. 361). See also C.I.L., vol. vi. pars i. pp. 396, 397, nn. 1777 et 1778. 18 Cod. Theod., viii. 5, 43. The words, "post consulatum," must be inserted into the subscription of this law (cf. Seeck, Op. cit., p. cliv. adn. 785). 17 Ibid., vii. 2, 2. 19 Ibid., ii. 8, 18; viii. 8, 3; xi. 7, 13. 18 Ibid., xvi. 1, 4, and 4, I. 20 Ibid., xi. 30, 48. From what I have said it will, I hope, be clear to any reader, who has had the courage to wade through this argument, that it is just possible that there may have been two prefects of the Praetorium of Italy, viz. Ausonius and Hesperius, during at any rate part of the time which elapsed between the death of Valens on August 9, 378, and the accession of Theodosius on January 19, 379; but that it is more probable that the temporary union of the two prefectures and their joint-administration by Ausonius and his son did not commence until after Theodosius' accession, in which case Hesperius must have been sole prefect in Italy during the five months which preceded that accession. It will, I hope, also be clear that in 382, from April 1 onwards, there were certainly two prefects of the Italian praetorium; and in particular that Syagrius and Hypatius were joint prefects in Italy between April 1 and July 5 in that year. Lastly, it has, I think, been shown that we have no reason to suppose that in 380 there was ever more than one Italian prefect at any one time. Hesperius was sole prefect in the early part of that year, and Syagrius in the later part. Unless I am much mistaken, this last result gets rid of Merenda's theory that the synodical letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae emanated from the Roman Council of 380. No doubt that theory has been adopted by Hefele and Duchesne; but they do not seem to have noticed the difficulties which attach to it. The necessity under which we lie, of dating the synodical letter mentioned above, during a time when there was a plurality of prefects in Italy, does not absolutely exclude the theory which assigns the letter to the later months of 378, though it leaves the possibility of that date doubtful. I have, however, given, in an earlier part of this Excursus,1 other reasons which, to my mind, make such a date highly improbable. On the other hand, all the data of the problem seem to me to be satisfied, if we suppose that a council was held at Rome in May or June of the year 382, and that it was by that council that the letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae 2 was drawn up. 1 See pp. 518, 519. In that letter (§ 5) it is mentioned that Florentius, Bishop of Puteoli, had been condemned and deposed six years before at a Roman synod, and that he has now, "post sextum annum," crept back to his city. The condemnation of Florentius may well be supposed to have taken place at the council held at Rome in the latter half of the year 376 or in the beginning of 377 (for the date, see p. 326, and compare Merenda, De S. Damasi Opusculis et Gestis, cap. xi., P. Î., xiii. 172-180, and Hefele, E. tr., ii. 290). The name of the Vicarius Urbis, Aquilinus, to whom Gratian's rescript was addressed, does not help to decide the year when the rescript was written. There are gaps in the list of the known names of the Urban Vicars, in 378, 380, and 382. There is nothing to prevent Aquilinus being assigned to any of these years. If my conclusion as to the date of the council is correct, it will follow that he was, in fact, Vicar in the year 382. EXCURSUS II. On certain facts and dates connected with the proceedings of Maximus the Cynic in North Italy, which corroborate the conclusion that a council of the province of Milan was held in May, or thereabouts, in the year 381 (see p. 346). I PROPOSE in this Excursus to try and throw some light on certain passages, bearing on the proceedings of Maximus the Cynic in North Italy, which do not seem to me to have been rightly explained hitherto. My reason for dealing with this subject is that, unless I am much mistaken, I shall be able to show that Maximus appeared before a council of the bishops of the province of Milan in the month of May, 381, or thereabouts; and if I only succeed in making this seem probable, I shall have corroborated the conclusion, at which I have arrived on p. 346, that a Milanese council was, in fact, held about that time. Such a corroboration will, I hope, tend to confirm the confidence of readers in the general accuracy of my chronology of the Antiochene compact and of its partial ratification in North Italy. In order to make the discussion comprehensible, it will be necessary to begin by giving a short summary of the grotesque story of Maximus' earlier proceedings. Towards the end of the year 379, when S. Gregory Nazianzen was acting as a missionary bishop in Constantinople, and was doing his utmost to revive the faith in that Arian city, a strange personage appeared on the scene, one Maximus, an Alexandrian, who " wore the white robe of a Cynic, and carried a philosopher's staff, his head being laden with a huge crop of crisp curling hair, dyed a golden yellow, and swinging over his shoulders in long ringlets." " This personage, in some way or other, gained the heart of the too confiding Gregory, and was admitted to his closest companionship. The saint actually preached a panegyrical oration in honour of Maximus and in his presence. But Gregory was nurturing, without knowing it, a viper in his bosom. Maximus was plotting to get himself substituted for his kind host and patron, as bishop of the Catholics in Constantinople. He somehow persuaded his fellow-countryman, Peter of Alexandria, to become his accomplice. Peter, notwithstanding the fact that he had previously written to S. Gregory, recognizing his status as missionary bishop in Constantinople, now sent three of his Egyptian suffragans to consecrate ! I use the expression "Milanese council" to denote a council of the bishops of the province, of which Milan was the metropolis. Such a council would usually be held at Milan, but it might on occasion be held at any other city in the province. 2 Smith and Wace, D.C.B., iii. 878. |