Constantius heros – Notes on the history of Pannonia in the 5th century

In his paper the author deals with a lost late Roman funerary text, Constantius’ epitaph. Based on the manuscript tradition, the epitaph was probably erected in Rome or more rather at Ravenna. Constantius was an important military commander of Western Rome in the 5th century and he had an important role in the fifth century history of Roman Pannonia as he fought against the Barbarians, most probably the Huns who settled down in Pannonia. The earlier identifications must be rejected but his person – unfortunately – cannot be identified with Flavius Constantius Felix. On the other hand, the events (fights against the Huns and the sea-going Vandals) mentioned in the funerary epigram fit perfectly into the period at the beginning of Valentinian III’s reign.

Our data on the history of the Pannonian provinces afterwards 410 AD are extremely scarce, even the official abandonment and the cession of the province to the Huns are indirectly attested in the late antique written sources. Among them, there is a lost Latin verse funerary inscription having a special importance. Despite the other opinions, the funerary epigram can surely be dated to the 5 th century and was erected to Constantius who Pannoniis gentibus horror erat (CLE 1335=ILCV 66). In my paper I intend to deal with this inscription and Constantius' identification. I wish to examine the text from the point of view of the history of the province, too.
The text of the inscription as follows: ICUR I p. 265-266=ICUR II p. 284 Nr. 1=CLE 1335=ILCV 66 (add)=Dobó 1975, Nr. 605: Manuscripts: Cod. Par. Lat. 528 f. 122 (9th c., P.), Cod. S. Gall. 899 p. 57-58 (10 th c., G, Fig. 1-2 Lectiones variae: Epitafion G, Constantis de Rossi, 7 armipoten P, 9 fraglauit P, 10 honor P, 13 media pictis P, medio pictus G, mediost ictus Buecheler, fixus Maenchen-Helfen, tristis? Dümmler, natorum medio Pictis pavet Traube, natorum medio pictus iacet Mommsen, 17 doct. P, 19 hoc tum P, 21 istum P, 22 Thedora P, Thedoratuum Canisius.  Here the glory of Italy is buried, the hero Constantius, who was the shield of his country, its walls and weapons. Invincible in war, a lover of true peace, though pierced with wounds, he was victorious everywhere. He subdued the race that crossed the middle of the sea, and likewise the land refused to give aid to the vanquisheđ. He was sober, mighty in battle, chaste, a powerful commander, first in judgment, first in war. He was as much burning in love and devotion to the Romans as he was bringing terror to the Pannonian tribes. In war he sought honors for himself and his sons, to the nobles he gave as gifts the cut-off heads. In the midst of his sons the father lies stabbed; the grievous mother does not know whom to lament, overwhelmed by her sorrow. Worse is the misfortune of Rome, robbed of so great a senator; she has lost her ornament, she has lost her arms. The saddened armies are standing still, after their great commander has been taken away, with whom Rome was powerful, without whom she is lying prostrate. This tumulus, o great leader, has been erected for you by your wife, who lies here, reunited with you. The epitaph survived only in Carolingian codices. The codex from Paris can be dated to 9 th c. (Cod. Par. Lat. 528 f. 122=P), the one from Sankt Gallen to the 10 th c. (Cod. S. Gall. 899 p. 57-58=G). The earlier P contains verses attributed to Alcuin, Petrus Pisanus and Paulus Diaconus (f. 122-127). Among the latter ones (f. 123v, 125, 130 and 135v) the funerary inscriptions of Constantius and Toctron were edited (f. 122). 2 Th. Mommsen during his investigation concluded that the text in the earlier P codex is the more authentic one. Despite his view, the text in P holds more mistakes than G (cf. the lectiones variae). Codex G is few decades younger than P (9 th -10 th c.) and it also includes the works attributed to Petrus and Paulus (pp. 7-8, [13][14][15], several of them are also edited in P (4 or 5), among them Constantius' epitaphium too (p. 57-58). 3 The G also contains the epitaphium Geroldi comitis (p. 57) who died in 799 during the campaign against the Avars in Pannonia. 4 Both codices were prepared for Carolingian monastery schools and most probably are going back to a common source written in Northern Italy, perhaps by the literary circle of Paulus Diaconus. 5 It must have contained a collection of Carolingian verses together with the three funerary inscriptions. The editio princeps was prepared by the Dutch humanist, Canisius and his followers (Bigne, Basnage) who used codex G without any doubt. Later, de Rossi edited the text and also explained the reason of the reading THEDORA in the last line of both versions. According to him a small O was written between ED and the copier of the common source of the codices did not observe it (ICUR I p. 265). The first critical edition was prepared F. Dümmler in the Poetae Latinae aevi Carolini of the MGH. All the newer editions follow him (CLE, ILCV, Schmidt), the emendations were placed in the footnotes. Toctron's funerary inscription is published in the CIL, too (CIL XI 319) but Constantius' epitaph has not been edited in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum yet, most probably because of its uncertain provenance. PROVENANCE The manuscripts did not mention the provenance of the inscription therefore several hypothesises has arisen: 1. sed alicubi in Helvetia aut in Germania e veteri lapide exscriptum de Rossi, trans Alpes videtur obiisse de Rossi, in Heluetiae Germaniaeq. confiniis alicubi Buecheler. Von einem germanischen oder helvetischen Grabstein herrührend Schmidt.
De Rossi's latter remark can be accepted because of several elements of the epitaph were known and used later in Italy 6 and nothing refers to a provenance outside Rome or Italy. His earlier identification followed by others is based only on the Sankt Gallen codex. Mommsen's opinion with Trier must be connected to his identification of Constantius with the emperor Inside Italy the most relevant cities are the imperial capitals, Rome, Mediolanum and Ravenna.
In our opinion, the next epitaph in codex P can confirm the provenance at Ravenna as it was surely erected in the basilica of San Vitale 3 Pannoniis vera ecclesiae pro pace peremptus) who were almost always identified with the Huns in the Carolingian historical works. 9 As Drocton and Gerold were historical persons Constantius' epitaph cannot be called fictitious. We must also cite the fact that the epitaphs were edited in a sylloge of Carolingian verses attributed to Paulus Diaconus. Based on these facts we must come to the conclusion that Constantius' inscription was known in Ravenna, perhaps it was erected there. 6

THE PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION
Most part of the inscription can easily be understood but there are few lines that can hardly be explained. That is why several emendations has been suggested.

a. reading
line 10: It is the generally accepted view that reading horror of G is the correct one and it is the metrical correct one. Despite this fact, Mommsen accepted the reading honor in P in order to confirm his view on Constantius' identification. 10 The term Pannoniae gentes can hardly be connected to the provincial population of Pannonia as in most cases it refers to Barbarians inside and outside the Roman Empire, in this case Barbarian tribes who settled down in Pannonia. 11 The mistake honor-horror must be explained by the paleographical similiarity and the fact that at the end of the next line the word honores can be found. line 13: in this line the reading and the interpretation of the adjective connected to the word pater is problematical as even the form pictus in G can hardly be explained, therefore it was emendated as follows: mediost ictus Buecheler, fixus Maenchen-Helfen, tristis? Dümmler. Mommsen (and Traube) used the variant pictis in P and they interpreted it as a locative in plural ablative or nominative of the tribe Pictus: natorum medio Pictis pavet Traube, natorum medio Pictus iacet (sc. beaten by Constantius) Mommsen. 12 On the other hand, there is a more simple explanation of the adjective. The participle pictus coming from the verb pingo (with the meaning to paint, colour, or decorate) can hardly be observed in inscriptions, 13 mainly they are cognomina. 14 In our case it would be useless to use the original meaning but the participle depictus (the preposition de-was omitted because of metrical reason) can be explained. 15 In this case it would mean the figural depiction of the father (and the family) in the grave monument. The verb depingere can hardly be found in epigraphic material: e. g. 5 th c. loculus grave from Rome: ICUR 15795=CLE 758,5 haec Decorosus amici depinxit in vertice tymbae (instead of descripsit: cf. CLE 2029 depinxit dolorem patris). In this case the translation of line must be changed, the wife and the husband lament together over their sons. The wife could not have lamented his husband because she was buried into the grave, too (line 20).
line 22: According to Mommsen, Theodora mentioned in the last line was the dux's wife, therefore he was identical with Emperor Constantius Chlorus, the parens of Theodora was Maximianus, and he interpreted the last line as follows: das Grab des Gatten soll keine Handwagen je zu verletzen, das der Gattin dagegen auf deren Wunsch der Vater. 16 O. Maenchen-Helfen, who omitted the translation of the last two lines in the English version translated the part in question as follows: deins (sc. Grab), Theodora zugleich, die als Nächste es wünscht. 17 Both interpretations must be refused as they are not in accordance with the Latin text. The clause beginning with the conjunction at concerns to a person who can be buried into the grave despite the prohibition. The ablative absolute te cupiente could grammatically concern to Theodora and Constantius too, but the vocative in line 19 (magne dux) and the possess adjective tuum (belongs to the word sepulchrum) in line 22 rule out the possibility of Theodora. Based on this fact, Theodora's name is in the nominative, the subject of the ablative absolute is Constantius therefore his parens (mother) was Theodora who can be buried into the grave at his son's desire. Already de Rossi interpreted the text in the same way: ICUR I p. 580: Neque illud elogium est exercitationis gratia a poeta compositum, sed ipsius Constantii tumulo Theodorae matris nomine inscriptum.

b. date
The author of the epigram is not given in the manuscripts but based on the other poems in the collection L. Bethmann concluded that Constantius' epitaph is written by Paulus Diaconus himself. 18 Latter opinion was not accepted by scholars dealing with the Carolingian author but Dümmler also edited in his corpus among the dubia. 19 The same sentence is given later even by Bethmann. 20 Neff concluded that the epigram together with Toctron's one was an antecedent of the Carolingian verses therefore it was edited in this collection. Already de Rossi and Mommsen could point out that funerary text clearly belongs to the late Roman world and it has to be identified with a late antique funerary verse inscription and its author is uncertain. 21 Both of them dated the text based on Constantius' identification to the beginning of the 4th or 5 th century. Now, the generally accepted date is given O. Seeck and L. Schmidt who date the inscription to a period when the Roman province Pannonia was abandoned (earliest 406 or 409) and Barbarians settled down there but the Western Roman Empire still firmly existed (cf. v. 17 Roma potens) (before 476), 22 and there were at least two emperors (cf. the plural princibus in v. 11). Nothing suggests a later date.

c. name
In the title and line 1 the name is clearly given as Constantius (in the genitive and nominative). This fact was refuted by Bethmann and de Rossi who observed a genitive Constantis in the title in P therefore de Rossi identified him with Flavius Constans. 23 Latter opinion was heavily repelled by Mommsen as de Rossi omitted the name in line 1 and he interpreted correctly the title in P. Here, he clearly read the form epitaphiū Constantii and the transparent letter S belongs to the verso of the same folio. 24 According to de Rossi, the name Constantius in line 1 would cover Constanst and it was used only because of metrical reason. This explanation must be rejected with Mommsen's remark: eine derartige Namensvertauschung meines Wissens unerhört ist. 25 Based on these, his name was clearly Constantius.

d. The possible grave monument
The grave monument from where the text was copied can hardly be a tombstone in the province Germania as Schmidt supposed. 26 It is also clear that the inscription cannot be erected by Constantius' wife as she was already buried (v. 20) but it is sure that she built the grave monument (v. 19): hunc tumulum ... tuum tibi condidit uxor. Unfortunately, the words tumulus and sepulchrum had a too general meaning (=tomb, grave monument), 27 and it was also used in Christian funerary verse inscriptions in the 5 th c.  28 The participle (de)pictus does not help as it can concern to the fresco decoration of a grave chapel but a painted carved monument (a sarcophagus) cannot be excluded either. The new interpretation of line 13 can mean that the whole family was depicted. In the middle the couple stood (stat) framed by their sons: that explains the form in medio natorum. There is no reason to suppose that the family was not Christian but there is no allusion to their religion in the text. A richly decorated grave chapel, similar to imperial mausolea, cannot be ruled out but the burial into sarcophagi from the 4 th c. became the most frequent use even in the case of the members of the imperial family, mainly in early Christian churches. 29 Based on this fact Constantius and his wife could have been buried into marble sarcophagus decorated with the figures/busts of the family and other scenes or architectural elements. As a full figure scene is the more probable one, strigilated or arched sarcophagi can be taken into account as several similar sarcophagi of the same period from Rome and Italy show the deceased persons but a medallion with the bust of the couple in the middle cannot be excluded either. 30  the burial place was bought by Constantius' wife but the inscription was erected later. 32 The only person who survived them was Theodora.

e. Constantius' identification
Mommsen's plausible remark has to be our starting point: allerdings ist es schwer zu glauben, dass der in so vollen Tonen in dem Epigramm gefeierte, 'Heros' aus unserer geschichtlichen Ueberlieferung gänzlich verschwunden sein soll. 33 It cannot be supposed that such an important person characterised as heros would have totally been disappeared from the written sources. On the hand, the only available source for Constantius' life is his epitaph: 1. He had to be a senatorial person (v. 15-16) with high military rank. His position was mentioned as magnus dux (v. 19), magnus ductor (v. 17). An important Roman statesman, even if he was a Christian, could have been called heros. 34 He cannot be identified with a simple dux, military commander of a single province as he defended Rome during at least two campaigns in sea and Pannonia. 35 His rank can probably identified with the magis ter militum. 36 The identification with a Roman emperor can also be excluded as he brought the severed heads of the enemy for them as a gift (v. 12 munera principibus colla secata dedit).
2. his res gestae mentioned only his successful military campaigns (v. 4 victor ubique tamen) and he was wounded at least once (v. 4 confixus plagis). The list of the campaigns could not be very long as the text refers only two concrete campaigns (probably in chronological order): 1.) v. 6-7 naval success against a sea-going gens that was followed by an inland one. 2.) v. 10 his successful activity against the Pannonian tribes. Based on the text his wife bought the grave, but she was also buried there, they had sons, but died earlier. They had already some kind of office (v. 11 honores). His mother, Theodora survived him and probably she erected the inscription.
Based on these data, several different opinions have been arisen for Constantius' identification (see list 1) but the generally accepted view is that his person cannot be exactly identified.
Mommsen's view 37 can clearly be rejected as even the text contradicts his hypothesis. Theodora could not be identified with his wife and an emperor did not have to bring severed heads as gift to his co-emperors. The provenance of the funerary inscription cannot be connected to Trier.   48 That is why it is generally accepted in scholarly literature that this would have been his official name. On the other hand, several doubts have been arisen already in de Rossi (however, first he accepted the name Constantius) and others. 49 According to them, the name Constantius must go back to the incorrect expansion of the abbreviation v(ir) c(larissimus). This hypothesis is confirmed by the earliest copy (9 th c.) of the Corpus Laureshamense that edited several early Christians from Rome and Italy after 823 (it can probably be connected to the legation of Adalung from Lorsch) 50 ) (Cod. Vat. Pal. 833 f. 31r). The codex edits the name as it was supposed (Fl(avius) Felix v(ir) c(larissimus). A later (12 th -13 th c.) copy of the inscription (Cod. Sess. 290 f. 25v) described the name as Flavius felix Victor constantinus. 51 This confirms that existed another, different copy of the inscription in the archive of the basilica that was used later by Panvinius. It contained no abbreviations. Based on these, the name Constantius should have been excluded but in Panvinius' copy the order of the names was changed as Constantius Felix. Earlier de Rossi deduced (ICUR II p. 149) that the abbreviation VC was expanded as victor by the humanist and the name Constantius is a genuine one. But it also can be supposed (as de Rossi later did) that Panvinius interpreted the cognomen Felix as adjective besides the noun victor and that is why he transferred Constan tius. This solution is the more probable one and the copy of Lorsch seems to be most genuine one: Flavius Felix VC. Most probably, the cognomen Constantius did not belong to the magister militum's name.

ICUR 27632 ------/ [---] mortis acer<b>ae / [---a]etatis habend(a)e / [---]tius heros / [---) Aureliae ditant / [---a]b aetas / [---]tis annos / [---]as / [---] qu(a)erens / [---] tibi / [---]t. See another "Christian
Despite this fact, it is noteworthy to examine Felix' activity and compare to the events mentioned in the inscription. Felix became Galla Placidia's confidant and magister militum in 425 through his wife (Padusia and Spadusa are highly probably identical (Olymp. Frag. 40 cp. PLRE II Spadusa). His person is widely known because of his conflicts with Bonifatius and Aetius, 52 that is why he was killed together with Padusia in Ravenna in 430: 42 54 The exact interpretation, the common source of Marcellinus Comes' and Jordanes' passages 55 have heavily been discussed among the scholars dealing with late antique history of Pannonia. After Andreas Alföldi's monograph on the fifth c. history of the province, it is generally accepted in the Hungarian research that Romani of Marcellinus were Eastern Roman troops. 56 According to László Várady' widely known opinion, the reoccupation of Pannonia and the Huns can be connected to the Goth-Alan-Hun people of Alatheus and Saphrac (the mythical Drei-Völker-Koalition) who would have been settled down in the province in 380 as foederati. 57 Latter opinion cannot be accepted as no written source (Zos. IV.32.3-4) or archaeological data confirms this hypothesis, esp. that the Hun part of the coalition would have been survived in Pannonia for fifty years. 58 13-269,7). 62 The latter fact clearly shows the uncertain circumstances in Pannonia and the presence of the Huns in the province. Ardabur and Aspar did not follow the shorter and quicker imperial road Sirmium-Emona-Aquileia (It. Ant. 128,7-131,4 or 259,11-261,3, It. Burd. 560,7-563,8) as several troops did during the civilian wars of the 4 th c. Most probably, Illyricum was ceded by Gallia Placidia to Constantinople during Va lentinian's and Theodosius' daughter engagement in 424 or their marriage in 437 (Cassiodorus Variae XI.1.9, Jord. Rom. 329). It has heavily been discussed which part of Illyricum was ceded, East or West Illyricum or a part of the western one, 63 but Cassiodorus' passage makes clear that Rome lost at least a part of West Illyricum (... imperium, indecenter cognoscitur imminutum). Jordanes dated the loss of whole Illyricum to 437, i.e. to the date of the marriage: Jord. Rom. 329 datamque pro munere soceri sui totam Illyricum celebratis nuptiis ad sua regna cum uxore secessit. It is noteworthy that whole Illyricum, esp. Pannonia could not have been ceded as a part of Pannonia was given to Attila by Aetius (Prisc. Frag. 11.1) and there was part of Pannonia in the 440s that did not belong to the Huns (Savia or Pannonia II: cf. Prisc. Frag. 11.2). Another fact is that in Dalmatia (where from this period much more epigraphic material had survived) in the case of the dated inscriptions before 454 always the consuls appointed by Ravenna were mentioned if they were not mutually accepted (e.g. Salona IV, 201, 206, 210, 770). 64 That surely means that Dalmatia did not belong to the Eastern Empire. At the same time, Sirmium was besieged and occupied by the Huns around 441 (Prisc. Frag. 11.1, 11.2). 65 This fact clearly shows that Sirmium and Pannonia II already belonged to Constantinople as there was peace between Rome and the Huns after 434. The Byzantine rule over Sirmium remained permanent, the seat of the prefecture was transferred to Thessalonica this time (Iust. Nov. XI.1, cf. Nov. Praef., XI.2, Synec. c. XIX, ed. Burckhardt 657,7-9) and the Ostrogoths concluded a foedus with Marcianus in order to settle down in Pannonia in 456 (Jord. Get. L.264, LII.270). Based on this fact it can be supposed that SE Pannonia as it was important in strategical point of view to Constaninople was permanently occupied by Ardaburus' troops but this event cannot be connected to the campaign in 427. All these data show that western Roman troops commanded by Felix freed Pannonia in 427. The campaign was successful but the province organisation was not rebuilt (cp. as the civilian administration of Valeria was erased in the Not. Dig. (Occ. I,42).
The Pannonian gentes in plural can concern other smaller Iranian people as well who were subdued by the Huns. Jordanes mentions one of them, the Sadagis/Sadagari qui interiorem Pannoniam possidebant (Jord. Get. LIII.272 Sadagis). 67 Their archeological material has also been identified in Transdanubia (cf. the use of veils with golden glitters or brooches). 68 Jordanes explicitly describes other subdued people who were settled in the territory of the former provinces Pannonia and Dacia: XLIII.226 Igitur ab Dacia et Pannonia provinciis, in quibus tunc Hunni cum diversis subditis nationibus insidebant, egrediens Attila in Alanos movit procinctum. Jordanes added that besides the Romans, the Goths gained victory over the Huns. The historicity of this remark must be questioned as his (or his source, Cassiodorus cf. Chron. min. II p. 156) frequently used method was to 'smuggle' the Goths into the text, 69 however, in the Roman army (from Italy and Illyricum) against the Huns several Goths must have served. In this point of view, a passage of Theophanes Confessor became also interesting where the historian mentions that the Goths (Ostrogoths) left Pannonia in the 19 th year of Theodosius' reign (426-427) and moved to Thrace (i.e. before the foedus of 456 with Marcianus: Jord. Get. L.264, LII.270): 70 Theophanes Conf. AM 5931 p. 94. Go/ tqoi de\ Pannoni/ an e1 sxon prwton e1 peita tw| id' e1 tei th= j basilei/ aj Qeodosi/ ou tou~ ne/ ou e0 pitre/ pontoj ta_ th= j Qra| & khj xwri/ a w! | khsan kai\ e0 pi\ xro/ nouj nh' e0 n th| = Qra| & kh| die/ treyan.
Cf. Prok. Bell. Vand. III.2.39. Based on Alföldi' observation, it is generally accepted that this remark is based on the combination of Marcellinus' and Jordanes' data (or rather of their common source) and Procopius Bell. Vand. III.2.39 where the Byzantine historian did not mention any date, but the enumeration of the Goths in chronological order after 456 (Pannonia, Thracia and Italy). On the other hand, B. Croke could correctly point it that the 19 th reignal year of Constantius could have 427 and 421 too (as he was elevated in 402 71 ) and Theophanes used both dates. 72 Croke concluded that there was an Ostrogoth incursion into Thrace. This hypothesis must be excluded as from Pannonia one cannot reach Thrace and the Huns would have not allowed such an independent action of the Goths. This fact, naturally, does not rule out the possibility that the Goths participated in the Hun attack against the Lower Danubian provinces in 422. As there is no other available data on the settlement of the Ostrogoths under the Huns' rule 73 Jordanes' remarks must be accepted. (Jord. Get. XXIII.174). According to his remark concerning the Ostrogoth Beremud who fled to the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths lived in Scythia, i. e. in the territory of the Huns in the Barbaricum. 74 The short Ostrogoth period of Pannonia (456-473 AD is well known, 75 even their archaeological material has already been identified. 76 This typical post-Hun period material cannot be dated decades earlier. 77 Based on these, among the gentes Pannoniae could have been Goths as well but this assumption cannot be proven. According to the epitaph, Constantius personally commanded his in at least one campaign and he was wounded (v. 4). Perhaps this remark concerns rather this campaign than a naval battle.
Turning back to the epitaph, all commanders of the Roman, esp. Felix, the magister militum could have attributed the victory to himself. It is sure that the news reached Constantinople too, therefore Constantius correctly called himself as he brought terror Pannoniis gentibus. The other campaign against the sea-going mentioned in the epitaph can also be identified in this period. It is almost sure that the enemy was the Vandals (as Seeck already pointed out 78 ) because no other people can be taken into account in the Western Empire in the 5 th century. Summarily, we can come to the conclusion that Constantius and his wife most probably died and buried at Ravenna in the first half of the 5 th century. His mother, Theodora survived and probably she erected the inscription.  87 These events can agree with the ones mentioned in the epitaph (v. 5-6 victory over enemy who crossed the sea, refused landing). In view of these, it cannot be excluded that one of Ricimer's close subordinates could have been called Constantius who attributed these victories to himself.