Page images
PDF
EPUB

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

1905.

I. The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy and Reinhold's Lost

Chronicon.

By Prof. HENRY A. SANDERS,

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.

THE Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy, covering Books 37-40 and 48–55, was discovered on some papyrus fragments, found in the summer of 1903, though the fact of the discovery was not published until November of that year, when I was already reading the page proof of my article on the Lost Epitome of Livy, in Vol. I of the Univ. of Mich. Studies. was able to add in a footnote only the most general reference to the find. As I have been criticised in the Amer. Hist. Review, Vol. X, p. 621, by one who evidently knew nothing about the circumstances or the subject, because I had not delayed my article until I could compare it with the newly discovered work, I have felt compelled to take the subject up again.

The Oxyrhynchus Epitome is only a late descendant of the Lost Epitome of Livy. It is far briefer than even the extant Periochae. It throws new light practically on but one question, which I discussed in the Studies, viz. Reinhold's Lost Chronicon. In the publication of the Papyrus, Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyr. Pap. IV, p. 90 ff., refer to Mommsen's (Abh. d. k. sächs. Ges. VIII, p. 552) and Zangemeister's (Festsch. d. XXXVI Philologenversam. 1882, p. 86) proofs of a Lost Epitome of Livy. They appear to have had no knowledge of the

5

later literature on the subject, of which the more extensive articles are by Ay, De Livii Epitoma deperdita, Leip. 1894; Sanders, Die Quellen-contamination im xxi, xxii Buche des Livius, Pt. I, Berlin, 1897; Reinhold, Das Geschichtswerk des Livius als Quelle späterer Historiker, Berlin, 1898; and Drescher, Liviusepitome, Erlangen, 1900.

Reinhold, in particular, had tried to establish an intermediate source for Eutropius, Festus, Cassiodorus, and Obsequens. This source was a Chronicon derived from the Epitome of Livy, but unlike it, arranged chronologically, with the consuls' names in the ablative before the events of each year. The need of comparing this view with the newly found Oxyrhynchus Epitome was at once apparent. It was undertaken by C. H. Moore, Amer. Jour. Phil. XXV (1904), p. 241, and by Kornemann, Beiträge sur alten Geschichte, zweites Beiheft, 1904, Die neue Livius-Epitome. In the fol- . lowing discussion I shall refer to these articles by the authors' names alone, taking them up in the order of their appearance.

Reinhold, p. 8, called attention to four chronological statements in which either Festus or Cassiodorus agrees with Eutropius, against the united testimony of Livy and the Periochae. Neither my own criticism of these proofs in U. of M. Studies, I, p. 180 ff. nor Reinhold's reply, Woch. f. klass. Phil. XXII (1905), p. 566, is satisfactory.

First of all there are other chronological statements in these authors, which need explanation. Let us consider them all, at least for the period of the republic, and not pick out some one or two, which seem to prove or disprove a pet theory. I will give them for convenience in a table.

The identity of the numbers in Eutropius and Festus is apparent. The only real difference is that Eutropius does not give the length of Servius Tullius's reign. Festus could, however, obtain it by the easiest combination, or from the Epitome of Livy, which also had the same, and was known to him. The years of Rome up to the death of Jovian (1117, Festus, 1, 1)1 agree with Eutropius, 10, 18, 2–3 : Decessit . . . tertio decimo Kal. Mart. anno u. c.

1 Cf. Pirogoff, De Eutrop. brev. fontibus, Berlin, 1873, p. 26.

.

Dio-
DORUS

DIONY-
SIUS

LIVY

PER.
Liv.

EUTRO-
PIUS

FESTUS

Cassi-
ODOR

HIERO-
NYM.

EUSE-
BIUS

CHRON. a. 354

BAR-
BARUS

38

38

38

38

38

or 243

(**)

2

2

[ocr errors]

Romulus

37 37

37
37

38
Interregnum

I
1

1
I

(1)
Numa

41
43 43

43
43 41
41 41 41

41
Tullus

33
32 32

32
32 32 32 32

32

32
Ancus
(27) 24 24 24

24

23 23 23

36

23
Tarquin I
37 38 38 38 38 38

37 37 37

28

38
Servius

44
(44)
44
44

44

34 34 34 45 44 Tarquin II

24 25 25 25

24 24 35

35 35 25 35 Total 244 244

240 244 255

243 243 240

240

255

(251) Consuls I.

84

(84) ?1

+3/ Decemvirs

2 3 3 3

40

2 Mil. trib. I

30
29

9
Total

119

(124) I 24 Mil. trib. II

16 15

?1

17

?
+
Anarchy

5
5
4
4

4
Mil. trib. II

3
4

3
3

3
Total

24
(+1)

24
Consuls II

(314)

(314) Republic Total

(458)
(462)

462 464
Caesar

5

5

5
Total

467

467 467 469 Empire

407 407 569 (407) Total

1117 1117 1271

(1117) 1117+ 86+68)

= 1031 + 240 1 A question-mark indicates mention without number of years. Numbers in parentheses are gained by combination or emendation.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

MCXVIII. (The exact time is thus 1117 years, 1 month, 17 days.) It is noteworthy that Festus closes with the same date as Eutropius, in ortum perennitatis vestrae (i.e. the accession of Valentinian and Valens), repeating it as in Iovianum (i.e. to the death of Jovian). Festus, 1, 3, gives the duration of the republic as 467 years in Pansam et Hirtium (i.e. counting their consulship, during which Octavianus came to power). Eutropius, 7, 1, places the death of Caesar 709 a.u.c., mentioning the consulship of Antony, and follows with the consulship of Pansa and Hirtius without date, but 710 a.u.c. is to be inferred, though he is thus one year earlier than the Varronian reckoning. If Festus subtracted his 24 years of royal rule from this 710 years, he got 467 years for the republic. As Livy must have given 464 years for the same period 1 and Eusebius-Hieronymus had 469, it is very likely that Eutropius was the source of Festus.

The duration of the empire in Festus (407 years) must thus also agree with Eutropius, as the totals of the two were the same. We have left to consider in Festus, 1, 3, the 916 consuls (=458 pairs), two years for decemvirs, three years under military tribunes, and four years without curule magistrates. Eutropius, 2, 1, mentions the change from consuls to military tribunes, though he does not say for how long a time; then (2, 3) he mentions the four years without curule magistrates and adds that military tribunes were again elected, and that this office continued for three years. Festus interpreted these three years as covering the whole period of rule by military tribunes, and so placed it before the four years of anarchy. These, with the two years of decemvirs, gave him nine years without consuls: 467-9=458; i.e. the number of consular years for Festus, hence 916 consuls. The fact that most of these statements are wrong, and that all are thus easily derived from Eutropius and from no other known source, is a positive proof that Eutropius actually was the source.

1

Livy's reckoning is three years behind the Varronian from Book 10 on; thus the consulship of Pansa and Hirtius would have been 708 a.u.c., and taking away 244 years for kings, he had 464 for republic; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Chron.

p. I 20 ff.

« PreviousContinue »