EPITAPHIUM (’EΠITÁΦION) CONSTANTII

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.

The end of the inscription according to Th. Mommsen’s interpretation:

“Das Grabmal errichtet dem Gatten die Gattin, welche jetzt, wiederum mit ihm vereinigt, neben ihm ruht; das Grab des Gatten soll keine Hand wagen je zu verletzen, das der Gattin dagegen auf deren Wunsch der Vater.”

Editions: H. Canisius Antiquae lectiones: seu antiqua monumenta ad historiam mediae aetatis illustrandam numquam edita VI. Ingolstadt 1604, 505–506, M. de la Bigne, Magna bibliotheca veterum patrum, et antiquorum scriptorum 9. Köln 1618, 642, Nova bibliotheca veterum patrum et scriptorum ecclesiasticorum sive supplementum bibliothecae patrum 2. Paris 1639, 274, J. Basnage, Thesaurus monumentorum ecclesiasticorum et historicorum, sive Henrici Canisii lectiones antiquae II/2. Antwerpen 1725, 73, ICUR I p. 265–266, 579–580 = ICUR II p. 280, 284 Nr. 1, CLE 1335, E. Dümmler, Poetae Latinae aevi Carolini I. MGH A Poet. Lat. I (1881) 32, 33, 78–79 Nr. L, ILCV 66, Dobó 1975, Nr. 605. Cf. M. Ziegelbauer-O. Legipontius, Historia Rei Literariae Ordinis S. Benedicti in IV. partes distributa IV. Augustae Vind. et Herbipoli 1754, 643, Bethmann 1849, 5–6, l. bethmann: Paulus Diaconus. Leben und Schriften. Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 10, 1851, 320, Dümmler 1878, 105, 108, mommsen 1893, seeck 1900, a. Potthast: Bibliotheca historica medii aevi: Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des europäischen Mittelalters bis 1500. Vollständiges Inhaltsverzeichniss zu ‘Acta sanctorum’ Boll.-Bouquet-Migne-Monum. Germ. hist.-Muratori-Rerum Britann. scriptores etc.; Anhang: Quellenkunde für die Geschichte der europäischen Staaten während des Mittelalters. Berlin 1896, 417, b. schröDer: Studien zu den Grabdenkmälern der römischen Kaiserzeit. Bonn 1902, 2, Anm. 3, a. maselli: Di alcune poesie dubbiamente attribuite a Paolo Diacono. Montecassino 1905, 108-109, neff, 1908, XVi, 45, 107, 118, 147, 180, J. sunDwall: Weströmische Studien. Berlin 1915, 66, Nr. 110, fiebiger–schmiDt 1917, 29–30, Nr. 34, alfölDi 1926, 86, balogh 1929, 482 (with a Hungarian translation of the first half of the text), maenchen-helfen 1973, 102–103 = maenchen-helfen 1978, 75–76 (with English and German translation), PLRE II, Constantius 9, r. ernst–D. woJtecki: Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa. Serie A. Lateinische Namen bis 900 III/1. Carolus(Martellus)-Emnetzur. Stuttgart 1983, 198, Régészeti kézikönyv, 242, j. 50, thomPson 1999, 139 n. 9, koVács 2000, 142, D. A. bullough: Alcuin. Achievement and Reputation. (Being part of the Ford Lectures delivered in Oxford in Hilary Term 1980.) Education and society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 16. Leiden 2004, 344 n. 38, stickler 2007, 36, treffort 2007, 91, 240; Jones 2010, 88.

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION

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, 13–15), 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.⁵⁵It 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. 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.
2. 2.Trier Mommsen.
3. 3.Locus ignoratur: sequitur in codice epitaphium Toctronis positum Ravennae, ibidem utrumque esse potuit de Rossi.

De Rossi’s latter remark can be accepted because of several elements of the epitaph were known and used later in Italy⁶ 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.

It seems the collection of these three epitaphia (erected to Constantius, Droctron and Geroldus) were part of the same Carolingian collection and all had mentioned Pannonian Barbarians, the Huns (in the case of Constantius) and Avars (Epitraphium Droctonis v. 19 Rursus et in terris Avarem superavit eois, MGH Poet. Lat. I p. 114 v. 3 Pannoniis vera ecclesiae pro pace peremptus) who were almost always identified with the Huns in the Carolingian historical works.⁹As 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.

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. in Rome: e. g. ICUR 534, 713, 4149, 4210, 4969, 11079, 17516b, 20815, 23394, 24833. Some of these is a simple loculus grave therefore the world designates the grave: e.g. ICUR 17516b, 20815. A similar use can be observed in Pope Damasus’ epigrams (also in the ones attributed to him): Epig. Dam. 7.7, 11.1, 19.2, 25.1, 28.5, 32.1, 42.3, 44.1, 47.1, 50.7, 51.2.²⁸ 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 participle pictus does not rule out this possibility as the sarcophagi were also painted. On the other hand, among the sarcophagi of Ravenna there are very few similar scenes.³¹ Based on the text 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. 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. 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. 1.)v. 6–7 naval success against a sea-going gens that was followed by an inland one.
   2. 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 view³⁷ 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. The exact burial place of Constantius Chlorus who died in July 306 at Ebracum is unknown (Lact De mort. pers. 24.8, Eus. v. Const. I.21, Hier. Chron. (Helm) 228g, Chron. min. I p. 7, 231, 447, Aur. Vict. 40.4, Eutr. X.1.3, Epit. de Caes. 41.3, Oros. VII.25.16, Socr. I.2, Zos. II.9.1, Zon. XII.33), only Philostorgius mentions (H. E. I.5) that Constantine personally took part in the burial of his father.³⁸ Constantius could have been buried in Britain and Trier as well,³⁹ but the funerary inscription in question cannot solve the problem.

Constantius dux can hardly be identified with one of Attila secretaries (there were two Constantii) as O. Seeck suggested as his senatorial rank refutes this opinion.⁴⁰ The identification with Flavius Constans suggested by de Rossi must also be ruled out.⁴¹ This Constans (PLRE II Constans 3) AS magister militum per Thracias (412–14 AD, cos. 414) had in important role in the defence of the Lower Danubian provinces in the 410s and he must have had connections with the Huns as well. On the other hand, he had nothing to do with the Pannonian Huns or Pannonia as the province belong to the prefecture of Italy of Western Rome. It can also be repelled that Constans would have served in the eastern and western court, too.

The identification of the gentes caused less problem: the Pannonians were identified with the Huns first by de Rossi,⁴² and Seeck argued first that sea-going people were the Vandals.⁴³ Based on this, Maenchen-Helfen supposed that a succesfull campaign against the Vandals between 437–440 was commanded by Constantius. On the other hand, the Roman attempts in this period cannot be called successful: cp. the loss of Carthago in 439 and the fleet that freed Sicily in 441 was sent by East Rome.⁴⁴ Among the Roman commanders of the fleet there was no Constantius (cf. Nov. Valentin. III.9, Chron. min. I p. 478 Nr. 1342, 1344, Theoph. AM 5941: Sigisvult, and Ariobindus, Ansila, Germanus, Arintheus, Inobindus).⁴⁵

Constantius’ identification has become more difficult as he cannot be connected to the other 17 known Constantii of the 5^th c. (see the list below). On the other hand, Mommsen was probably right when he emphasized that some kind of trace of Constantius’ activity must have remained in the relevant written sources. All these 17 Constantii can be excluded but the scholarly literature knows another Constantius and his activity can be associated to Pannonia. He was Flavius Constantius Felix who as Valentinian’s magister utriusque militiae (further patricius, cos. 428⁴⁶) had a decisive role in West Rome between the years 425–430 (PLRE II, Felix 14).⁴⁷ His name is attested in several inscriptions too but the most important one was that he erected together with his wife, Padusia in the apse of the basilica San Giovanni in Laterano. Unfortunately, it has been destroyed in the 13^th c. The inscriptions mention him only as Flavius Felix (ILCV 68 = ICUR II p. 149 Nr. 17 = p. 307 Nr. 5 = CIL VI 41393, ICUR 658, ILS 1298, AÉp 1905, 88, Caelest. Ep. IV.10), in the written sources as Felix (Chron. min. I p. 471, 472, 473, II p. 22, 77, Ioann. Ant. Frag. 201). Based on the archives of the basilica, Panvinius edited his name in the text of the Lateran inscription as Fl(avius) Constantius Felix.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.

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:Chron. min. II p. 22, 77 Ravenna tumultu occiditur militari, apud Ravennam occiditur cf. Chron. min. I p. 473, Ioann. Ant. Frag. 201. Already Seeck and several other scholars connected his person to enigmatic data of Marcellinus Comes and Jordanes who mention concerning the year 427 AD Pannonia was re-occupied by the Romans after fifty years of Hun rule ⁵³:

Marcellinus Comes Chron. Min. II p. 76 Pannoniae, quae per quinqueginta annos ab Hunnis retinebantur, a Romanis receptae sunt.

Jordanes Getica XXXII.166 Nam duodecimo anno regni Valiae, quando et Hunni post pene quinquaginta annorum invasam Pannoniam a Romanis et Gothis expulsi sunt …

As few successes of Rome against the Huns are attested already de Rossi connected Constantius’ epitaph to Marcellinus’ data.⁵⁴ The exact interpretation, the common source of Marcellinus Comes’ and Jordanes’ passages⁵⁵ 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 The loss of Pannonia (and Illyricum) in 376 or after Hadrianople in 378 became a widely used topus in the contemporary literature (Ambrosiaster 115.49, Ambr. Comm. in Luc. X.10, Paneg. Lat. II(XII).11.4, Hier. Ep. LX.16, CXXIII.17, Comm. in Soph. CSEL 76A p. 658, Comm. in Osee I.4.3, Claud. De bello Gothico 633–634, Prud. Contra Symm. II, 696–697). Illyricum and Pannonia have not been lost before Theodosius’ death in 395 or under Stilicho’s regency. Based on this fact, Marcellinus’ passage must be understood as a part of Pannonia, highly likely province Valeria was re-occupied. This fact also supports Alföldi’s opinion that in the territory of Valeria Huns were settled down probably based on a foedus in 406 (cf. the foedus of 406: AD Priscus Frag. 11.2, Zosimus V.26, Chron. Gall. 52 Chron. min. I p. 652, Orosius VII.37.3, Marcelliinus Comes Chron. min. II p. 69 3) or rather in 409 (cf. the foedus of 409: Zosimus V.50, Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. II.8 1).⁵⁹ These Barbarian elements could have been expelled in 427. It is another question whether East or West Rome defeated the Huns in 427. Illyricum dioecesis and Pannonia belonged to the prefecture Italia even in the Not. Dig. (Not. Dig. Occ. I, 40–42, 51, 83, 87, II,7, 28–32, V,136–138, VII,40, IX,17–19, XI,4, 10–11, 24–25, 39, 46–48, XII,4, 21, XXXII–XXXIV), but SE Pannonia, i.e. Pannonia secunda latest from the 430s was controlled by Constantinople. Marcellinus Comes was born in Illyricum⁶⁰ and lived in the eastern capital identified the Romani with East Rome in many cases but not exclusively.⁶¹ This term cannot decide the problem. On the other hand, it is a fact that the Eastern Roman troops commanded by Ardabur and Aspar who followed Galla Placidia and his son reached Aquileia on the continental (It. Ant. 270,1–272,7) and marine route SE Pannonia–Salona– Aquileia (Philost. XII.13 = Olymp. Frag. 43). In Pannonia they obviously used the Sirmium–S alona road (It. Ant.

weisbarkeit der Alatheus–Safrax-Gruppe in Pannonien. In: Römische Legionslager in den Rhein- und Donauprovinzen. Nuclei spätantikfrühmittelalterlichen Lebens? Publ. M. Konrad, Chr. Witschel. Abhandlungen/Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse N.F. 138. München 2011, 114–140. 267,13–269,7).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 Val entinian’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).

Following Olympiodore’s account, Aetius brought 60.000 Huns to Italy in order to help Johannes by Aqui leia in 425 but they arrived three days after his death (Philostorgius XII.14( = Olymp. Frag. 43.2), Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. II.8, Chron. min. I p. 470, 658, II p. 155, Socr. VII.23.8, 43.1 Prisc. Frag. 30.1).⁶⁶ The Huns returned home only as they concluded a foedus and received a huge amount of gold (Aetius called them with this promise: Another question where these propria can exactly be localised, it cannot be excluded that they already owned Eastern Pannonia too.

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

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

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 402⁷¹) 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’ rule⁷³ 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 out⁷⁸⁷⁸) because no other people can be taken into account in the Western Empire in the 5^th century. Another question is if Felix could have achieved victory over the Vandals. There are relevant data concerning the Vandals’ activity in the Mediterraneum before the invasion of Africa in 429. Hydatius mentions in his Chronicon that Vandals looted the Balearic Islands in 425, from there the Hispanian cities Hispalis and Carthago Spartaria, moreover, they invaded Mauretania too: Hyd. Chron. 86 Chron. min. II p. 21 Vandali Baliaricas insulas depraedantur deinde: Carthagine Spartaria et Hispali eversa et Hispaniis depraedatis Mauritaniam invadunt. We have no data on a naval campaign against the Vandals in these years⁷⁹ but it cannot be excluded that the Romans achieved a smaller victory over them. A more probable possibility is that the troops sent by Felix to Africa against Boniface in 427–428 could have found Vandal allies in Boniface’s army. Prosper Tiro remarks that both parts invoked Barbarians who earlier could not use ships: Prosp. Tiro 1294 Chron. min. I p. 472 exinde gentibus, quae uti navibus nesciebant, dum a concertantibus in auxilium vocantur, mare pervium factum est bellique contra Bonifatium coepti in Segisvultum comitem translata est.⁸⁰ Tiro’s remark confirms the possibility that the accusation against Boniface that he would called the Vandals to Africa was well founded as it was described by later Byzantine historians (Prok. Bell. Vand. III.3.25, Jord. Get. 167, Ioann. Ant. Frag. XXXIII.196, Theoph. AM 5934 p. 94, Paul. Diac. Hist. Rom. XIII.10) and Jordanes. Boniface in 428 needed allies against Sigisvult that is why he could have called Vandals as well. The memory of this event may have been distorted in later sources into inviting the Vandals to Africa. Based on these, the troops sent by Felix in 428 probably had to fight against Vandals too (besides Goths: cf. Aug. Ep. 185.1⁸¹) and Felix could attribute any success to himself.⁸² Vandals probably did not serve on the other side as Goth and Hun allies are attested in 428 in a letter attributed to Augustine (Pseudo-Augustinus Ep. IV PL 33 (1805) col. 1095).⁸³

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. The heros as high-ranking military commander had an important role in the point of view of the military defense of West Rome. He commanded at least two military campaigns against the Vandals and the Huns in Pannonia. Based on the funerary inscription, Marcellinus Comes’ data on Pannonia in 427 must be interpretated as follows: West Rome campaigned successfully against the Huns who were settled down earlier as foederati.

Theoretically anothern period must be taken into consideration during the 5^th century. At the beginning of his reign, in 458 AD Emperor Maiorian successfully expelled a Vandal–Moorish incursion into Campania (Sid. Ap. Carm. V,388–440),⁸⁴ and in the same year he suppressed on Italy the revolt led by the Hun (?) Tuldila (PLRE II, Tuldila) in his Barbarian (cf. Sid. Ap. Carm. V,472–479) army recruited with the aim to recapture Gallia, Hispania and Africa (Carm. V,483–510).⁸⁵ According to Sidonius Apollinaris’ account these Barbarian came from the Danube region, i.e. from Pannonia too (Carm. V,485–488): quae nuper ab Histro / rettulit indomitum solito truculentior agmen / quod dominis per bella caret, populoque superbo / Tuldila plectendas in proelia suggerit iras. It must also be added that in Sidonius Apollinaris’ list the Pannonii (i.e. Barbarians who lived in Pannonia) were also enumerated (Carm. V,475).⁸⁶ The commander who defeated them could have been called “horror” of the Pannonian gentes. On the other hand, the campaign against the Vandals in Campania was not followed by naval battles, but Ricimer in 456 under Avitus’ reign defeated the Vandals in Sicily (Agrigentum) and Corsica (Hydat. 176, 177 Chron. min. II p. 29, Sid. Apoll. Carm. II,353, 367; Prisk. Frag. 31.1). Several ships of the Vandals were captured, but as far as we know there were only land battles (cf. Sidonius Apollinaris’ remark: piratam per rura vagum).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.

It would be tempting to identify him with Flavius Felix but the cognomen Constantius most probably did not belong to Felix’s name. If they would be identical and Felix would have been an ancestor of the senatorial families Ruricii or Ennodii as it is supposed,⁸⁸ his famous descendants (e. g. Ruricius, bishop of Limoges or Felix, cos. 511: cf. Cass. Var. II.3.2) could help to keep his memory and the text of his epitaph. On the other hand, the identification is probably not correct but the events mentioned in the inscription agree with the ones under Felix’s magisterium therefore Constantius could also have been a high-ranking military commander of the magister militum (during the Pannonian campaign for instance comes Illyrici⁸⁹), who was later transferred to the Italian mobile army and served under Sigisvult.

Sources

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

427 AD Marcellinus Comes Chron. Min. II p. 76 Pannoniae, quae per quinqueginta annos ab Hunnis retinebantur, a Romanis receptae sunt.

Jordanes Getica XXXII.166 Nam duodecimo anno regni Valiae, quando et Hunni post pene quinquaginta annorum invasam Pannoniam a Romanis et Gothis expulsi sunt …

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

437 AD The cession of Illyricum to East Rome: Cassiodorus Variae XI.1.9 Placidiam mundi opinione celebratam, aliquorum principum prosapia gloriosam purpurato filio studuisse percepimus, cuius dum remisse administrat imperium, indecenter cognoscitur imminutum. Nurum denique sibi amissione Illyrici comparavit factaque est coniunctio regnantis divisio dolenda provinciis.

Jord. Romana 329 Post haec III anno Valentinianus imperator a Roma Constantinopolim ob suscipiendam in matrimonio Eudoxiam Theodosii principis filiam venit datamque pro munere soceri sui totam Illyricum celebratis nuptiis ad sua regna cum uxore secessit.

The Huns’ rule over Pannonia

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Iust. Nov. XI.1 Cum enim in antiquis temporibus Sirmii praefectura fuerat constituta, ibique omne fuerat Illyrici fastigium tam in civilibus quam in episcopalibus causis, postea autem Attilanis temporibus eiusdem locis devastatis Apraemius praefectus praetorio de Sirmitana civitate in Thessalonicam profugus venerat, tunc ipsam praefecturam et sacerdotalis honor secutus est, et Thessalonicensis episcopus non sua auctoritate, sed sub umbra praefecturae meruit aliquam praerogativam.