aurelian - questions and problems

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Aurelian: Questions and Problems Author(s): John Scarborough Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 1973), pp. 334-345Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295957Accessed: 28-08-2015 11:48 UTC

REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295957?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 131.211.206.117 on Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:48:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295957

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295957?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



AURELIAN: QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

T HE THIRD CENTURY of imperial Roman history is often called a "period of crisis,"I containing a plethora of horrors which normally spell demise for organ-

ized states that undergo such upheavals. Barbarian invasions, coinage debasement, fragmentation of political control, military irresponsibility and frequent violent

changes of rulers all point to a time when the Roman empire seemed on the point of total collapse. The years between A.D. 249 and 284 were days of gloom and pes- simism, reflected in most of our literary sources.2 Yet the empire survived, not exactly as the same Roman empire that prospered under the Antonines, but as an empire that had found a new lease on its life and new solutions to numerous political and economic problems. Somehow within the confusion of the mid-third century there were factors that allowed the Romans to adapt and change under the rigorous demands of the age, and the period from 249 to 284 emerges as one of the most important periods in Western history, simply because Rome survived and did not pass into memory as

1 E.g., G. Walser and T. Pekiry, Die Krise des romischen Reiches (Berlin 1962), and the overcredulous Le Cripuscule des Cisars (Monaco 1964), compiled by Henry Bardon. The two represent opposite extremes in consideration of the third century: Walser and Pekairy indicate laudable caution with the sources, perhaps too much so, while Bardon accepts the Scriptores bistoriae Augustae (SHA in further references) at face value. Debate divides scholars working on the problems of sources and source-analysis for the third century. The sweeping assumptions of A. Alfoldi, Studien zur geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jabrbunderts nach Christus (Darmstadt 1967), have been modified by numerous scholars whose essays occasionally appear in the irregularly-issued Beitrizge z ur Historia-Augusta-Forschung as Historia-Augusta-Colloquium (hereinafter HAC). The SHA is the primary problem under consideration in the HAC series (the full bibliographical entry would read as follows: Antiquitas, Reihe 4: Beitriige zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung [Bonn: Ru- dolf Hlabelt Verlag] , with the various volumes issued as Historia-Augusta-Colloquium: Bonn, 1963 [Bonn 19641 , that is Band 2 in the series; Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, 1964/1965 [Bonn 19661, Band 3; Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, 1966/1967 [Bonn 1968], Band 4; Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, 1968/1969 [Bonn 19701, Band 7), but on occasion problems of context and interpretation of coins, inscriptions, and other literary sources and foundations are raised. See also A. Chastagnol, Recherches sur i'Histoire Auguste (Bonn 1970), esp. ch. I: "Les recherches sur l'Histoire Auguste de 1963 a' 1969." R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968) and Emperors and biography (Oxford 1971) probe the matrix surrounding composition of the biographies of the SHA. Other studies, e.g., I. J. Manley, Effects of the Germanic invasions on Gaul (Berkeley 1934), give plunder full scope.

2 Most particularly Zosimus (ed. Mendelssohn) 1.48-62, who probably used Eunapius' "Con- tinuation of Dexippus" (in Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, ed. MUller, IV, p. 7-56) as well as Dexippus' accounts of the Gothic invasions of the Balkans (fr. in Die Fragmente dergriechischen Historiker, ed. Jacoby, IIA, p. 452-480), which are contemporary. Gloom pervades the SHA Aurelian, steeped with a senatorial distaste for imperial matters as a whole. Dexippus (more or less cited by the erstwhile biographer of the SHA in Severus Alexander 49.3; Maximinus 32.3-4, 33.3; Gordians 2.1, 9.6, 19.9, 33.1; Maximus and Balbinus 1.2, 15.5, 16.306; Thirty tyrants 32.1; Claudius 12.6. Dexippus' defeat of the Goths is recorded in SHA, Gallieni 13.8), shows an increasing confidence as does Aurelius Victor. The coins of Claudius Gothicus, Quintillus, and Aurelian merely continue the normal platitudes of imperial propaganda, much as one would get on postage stamps of the twentieth century, and inscriptions from the mid-third century speak elo-

quently of unstable military surroundings with an occasional exception (e.g., the career of Julius Placidianus, who was made pretorian prefect by Aurelian sometime in 270 and later shared a consulship with the emperor, from interpretations of CIL XII.2228 and CIL XII.1551; summarized in L. L. Howe, The pretorian prefect from Commodus to Diocletian [Chicago 1942], p. 82. Even with this one example from the inscriptional corpus, problems appear: CIL XI.1551 = ILS 569, and with newer emendation, Placidianus' colleague in 273 is the senator Tacitus, later to become a short-lived emperor. For this view, see PIR2, J468, and Syme, Emperors and biography, p. 245-246).



AURELIAN: QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS 335

another empire conquered by her enemies or one that crumbled from internal stresses. The sources for the period, unfortunately, are mirrors of that age of threatened dis- integration, and the judicious combination of all available evidence is absolutely necessary for any rendering of historical accuracy. To gain access into the years during which Rome found her restorer in Aurelian, we must assess not only literary references, such as the SHA Zosimus, Aurelius Victor, and others,3 but also epigraphical, papyrological and numismatic evidence. Sometimes it is a moot point whether or not the twentieth century can pose meaningful questions to these sources from the mid- third century, given predilections of certain economic theories and literary judgments in common use.

Basic to understanding the reign of Aurelian (270-275) is how one judges the relevant sections of the SHA. As they stand within the present texts, the erstwhile biographies are littered with historical anachronisms at best and flagrant lies at their worst.4 Within the structure, however, of the Aurelian biography are points of historical truth which can be verified in cross-checking with coin-issues,5 as well as inscriptions.6 There are particular problems in dealing with numismatic evidence and other

3 The mammoth bibliography on "source criticism" for the SHA is merely suggested in Syme's two vols. cited above, and in the notes of the studies in the HAC series. Far less has appeared of source criticism for Zosimus and Aurelius Victor. Here pathways are indicated by C. G. Starr, "Aurelius Victor: historian of empire," American historical review 61 (1955) 574-568; L. Men- delssohn's introduction to his ed. ofZosimibistoria nova (Teubner; repr. Hildesheim 1963) remains instructive, and A. Chastagnol, "Zosime II, 38 et I'Histoire Auguste," HAC 1964/1965 (1966), 43-78, pulls together a huge number of sources that elucidate connections between Zosimus, Aurelius Victor, Eunapius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and the SHA. Military matters in Zosimus receive scrutiny in J. Edie, "The development of Roman mailed cavalry," JRS 57 (1967) 161-173 (esp. 171), which, in turn, relate to Eadie's The breviarium of Festus (London 1967); arguments turn on the battlesite of Aurelian's defeat of Zabdas, general of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. Festus (see Eadie, Breviarium, p. 65, 92, 145-146) and Jerome, Chron. ann. 273, p. 222 (ed. Helm) puts the battle at Immae, and (as Eadie rightly observes, p. 171 of "Mailed cavalry") Festus alone states that the Palmyrene cavalry were clibinarii. Generally A. Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian historiography in the fourth century," in The conflict between paganism and Chris- tianity in the fourth century (Oxford 1964), p. 79-99, gives a solid analysis of overall problems treated piecemeal in the HAC essays on Eutropius, Zosimus, etc., and the SHA. Momigliano addresses himself directly to the SHA in "An unsolved problem of historical forgery: the 'Scrip- tores historiae Augustae,' " in his Studies in historiography (New York 1966), p. 143-180. The major problem in all studies is verification of reliability, and the prominent approach is collation of Zosimus, Eutropius, etc., with given sections of the SHA. Specifically for Aurelian, see W. 11. Fisher, "The Augustan vita Aureliani," JRS 19 (1929) 1925-1949. The crucial account of Dexip- pus, which possibly underlies much of the SHA covering the years from 240 to 270, is clearly delineated in F. Millar, "P. Herennius Dexippus: the Greek world and the third-century invasions," JRS 59 (1969) 12-29.

4 The author (if it was one man) is called by Syme ignotus; see Emperors and biography, passim.

5 Generally, L. Homo, Essai sur le rkgne de 1'empereur Aurdlien (Paris 1904), using the guide of H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappdes sous I empire romain (Paris 1886), vol. VI, p. 176-218, now supplemented and generally replaced by H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham, The Roman imperial coinage (London 1927), vol. V, part I, p. 248-314 (cited as RIC). Further interpretation of coinages in historical context appears in J.-P. Callus, La politique mondtaire des empereurs romains (Paris 1969). Suggestions of how coins can and do reflect political directions in Roman history are summarized by S. Bolin, State and currency in the Roman empire to 300 A.D. (Stockholm 1958), p. 248-290 (third century).

6 Homo, Aurelien, appendix on inscriptions (appendice III, p. 350-361), now updated with new finds by G. Sotgiu, Studi sull'epigrafia di Aureliano (Sassari 1961), and L. Bivona, "Per la cronologia di Aureliano," Epigraphica 38 (1966) 106-121.



336 JOHN SCARBOROUGH

specific questions about epigraphical reliability and chronology,7 but there emerges a fairly clear indication that the SHA does have a base somewhere within the late third century. Several examples will illustrate. Although the biographer of Aurelian begins with a seemingly carefree statement-noting he will write "as he wishes"8-he patterns his style after the timetested manner of Suetonius.9 Comparison with reliable sources on Aurelian reveals agreement on points within the chronology of Aurelian's eastern campaigns.10 In particular, the bare-bones notices in Eutropius verify that the author

7 E.g., Ida F. Kramer and Tom Jones, "Tribunicia potestate: A.D. 270-285," AJP 64 (1943) 80-86, and C. H. V. Sutherland, "Denarius and sestertius in Diocletian's coinage reform," JRS 51 (1961) 94-97. The so-called reform of Aurelian has engendered much controversy: E. A. Syden- ham, "The Roman monetary system, part II," Numismatic chronicle 4th ser., 19 (1919) 114-171 (140-151), argues that Aurelian's antoninianus "was half again as much as the denarius in value," and this theoretical ratio was the base of the reform; Aurelian issued bronze coins with a small percentage of silver at approximately two-thirds weight of the debased antoinianus (p. 146); C. Oman, "The decline and fall of the denarius in the third century A.D.," Numismatic chronicle 4th ser., 16 (1916) 37-60, would trace the new antoninianus from Caracalla only through Gallienus; P. H. Webb, "The reform of Aurelian," Numismatic chronicle 4th ser., 19 (1919) 235-243, argues against "reform" and for a "restoration" of the antoninianus; the weights of the coins are uneven, as pointed out by L. C. West, Gold and silver coin standards in the Roman empire (New York 1941; Numismatic Notes and Monographs 94), p. 122; R. A. G. Carson, "The reform of Aurelian," Revue numismatique 7 (1965) 225-235, notes the attempted anti-inflationary measures deduced from the coins; C. Gatti, "La politica monetaria de Aureliano," La parola del passato 27 (1961) 83-106, writes that the antoninianus was simply the symbol of Aurelian's war against corruption; F. Ehrendorfer, "Der denar des Aurelian," Numismatische Zeitschrift 76 (1955) 12-15, notes that Roman coinages did not carry signs that might indicate value, as they were fixed and simple, and the reform of Aurelian gave a necessary "cut," with the piece marked XXI remaining a denarius; J.-P. Callu and J. Yvon, "Le trtsor de Ngaou (Algirie), ndoantoniniani de la premiere tetrarchie," Mdlanges A. Piganiol (Paris 1966), p. 303-320, propose that the tetradrachm tarrifed for the antoninianus before 296. Still basic for most of these problems is J. Hammer, "Der Feingehalt der griechischen und romischen Miinzen," Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik 26 (1908) 1-143.

8 SHA Aurelian 2.2. Our author is bidden, "Scribe ... ut libet. Securus quod velis dices, habiturus medaciorum comites, quos historicae eloquentiae miramur auctores."

9 Syme, Emperors and biography, p. 132-133, 284; Syme emphasizes the influence of Sue- tonius on the author of the SHA: 36, 46, 57, 256-258. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, p. 101-102, denotes the similarity between Suetonius, Caligula 19.3, Otho 10.1, and the SHA Aurelian 43.2-3. Styles of introductions in Suetonius, very much like some entries in the SHA, are pointed up in G. Brugnoli, "Il titolo de viris inlustribus," Annali della Facolta . . di Cagliari 27 (1960) 337-361.

10SHA Aurelian 25.1-28.1, as compared with Zosimus 1.52-54. Once other sources are brought to bear upon this minimal skeleton (see Eadie's studies in n. 3 above), such as Syncellus (Bonn, ed.) 1.721, Jordanes, Rom. 291, and Malalas 300.11, a fairly reliable whole emerges. Particular points of Roman engagements of Palmyrene forces (doublet battles in the accounts, confusion of sites in the sources, etc.) are collected and reasonably deduced in G. Downey, "Aurelian's victory over Zenobia at Immae, A.D. 272," TAPA 81 (1950) 57-68. For Malalas, see A. S. von Stauffenberg, Die romische Kaisergeschichte bei Malalas; gr. Text der Bucher IX-XII und

Untersuchungen (Stuttgart 1931), esp. p. 385-390. Coins help too, where some confusion ensues as Malalas 301.1-4 speaks of an uprising of mintworkers in Antioch in 271. E. Groag, "Lucius Domitius Aurelianus," RE 5 (1905) 1352-1390 (1362), thinks the mint at Antioch was under Palmyrene dominion, noting (as Downey does, A history of Antioch in Syria [Princeton 1961], p. 266) that the account in Malalas is a doublet of the mintworkers' rising in Rome about the same time. The coins are in, RIC 5, part II, p. 584-585, and elaboration upon Palmyrene domination in

H. Mattingly, "The Palmyrene princes and the mints of Antioch and Alexandria," Numismatic

chronicle 5th ser., 16 (1936) 89-114; lead tokens also were minted in the name of Herodian, son of Odenath, and Zenobia apparently minted some of her own: H. Seyrig, "Note sur Hdrodien, prince de Palmyre," Syria 18 (1937) 1-4. The confused background for Rome's eastern mints is suggested in R. A. G. Carson, "The Hama hoard and the eastern mints of Valerian and Gallienus," Berytus 17

(1968) 123-142; J. Vogt, Die alexandrinischen Mf•nzen

(Stuttgart 1924); and J. W. Curtis, The tetradrachms of Roman Egypt (Chicago 1969).




of the Aurelian vita had access to trustworthy materials on the origin of the emperor's family,ll although our author adds a multitude of simply incredulous material as filler.12 In the matter related to Aurelian's wars against barbarian invaders in A.D. 270-271, there seems little doubt that the biography reflects some accuracy, although the incredible sloppiness of the author shows again and again.1 3 Underneath the vita may rest a series of lost sources,14 or we may be the unfortunate recipients of a text that has embedded literally generations of reediting.15

Cross-checking with coinages and epigraphical evidence gives solid indication that the SHA Aurelian contains material of great worth, even though the hodge-podge of gossip and fictitious letters obscures most of the truth.16 Coins show Aurelian's steady progress over the enemies of Rome, going from east to west, and his victories over the rebellious provinces of the east and his reconquest of the breakaway Gallic west are eloquently illustrated on the various issues.17 Underneath the obvious propaganda

11 SHA Aurelian 3.1, and 4.1, compared with Eutropius 9.13 and Epitome 25.1. Fisher, JRS 19 (1929) 129-130.

12 SHA Aurelian 3.2-5, and 4.2-5. 13 SHA Aurelian 18.2-6, and 21.2-4, as compared with Aurelius Victor, Caesars 34.3, and 25.2,

as well as Epitome 25.2. SHA Aurelian 22.2 and 33.3, and Eutropius 9.13 (Gothic War). Fisher, JRS 19 (1929) 131, assumes that the two sections of SHA Aurelian (18.206, and 21.2-4) are "variant readings of the same original," since they are so much alike.

14 The theory proposed by A. Enmann, "Eine verlorene Geschichte der r6mischen Kaiser," Philologus, Supplementband IV (1884), 337-501, and generally accepted by Fisher, JRS 19 (1929) 125-149. Underneath the labeled "Kaisergeschichte" was a series of lost accounts, some of which appear traceable through Marius Maximus (but Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, p. 89-92, 97-98, 176-177, would only agree partially, and even that influence on the SHA was an undesirable one) and other related obscurities.

15 Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, puts the date of "composition" of the SHA in 395, a fair compromise amongst many suggestions (listed by Syme, p. 176-191, 211-219). The theory of a hasty editing by more than one person of an uncompleted manuscript was put forth by N. H. Baynes, The Historia Augusta: its date and purpose (Oxford 1926), and in the earlier "The date of the composition of the Historia Augusta," CR 38 (1924) 165-169, which Syme (Ammianus and the Historia Augusta, p. 181, and n. 4) remarks as "... least plausible precisely in the 'latter part' of the HA."

16 Syme, Emperors and biography, has tersely and with sardonic thrusts revealed most of the bogus material; for Aurelian, see esp. p. 3-6, 8-9, 14, 17-18, 26, 208-211, 213, 216-217, 222-223. I cannot agree with Syme's conclusions on the medical.writer, Marcellus (p. 23), who borrowed his remedy most likely from Alexandrian tradition rather than from Gamaliel. Marcellus, De medica- mentis 23.77, does indeed record the contemporary "remedy" of Gamaliel, but both authors got the concept from a much older pattern, seen best in Caelius Aurelianus. See Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic diseases 3.4.54-62, and R. Heim, "De rebus magicis Marcelli Medici," in Schedae philo- gicae Hermanno Usener oblate (Bonn 1891), p. 119-137, which makes clear Marcellus' use of magic (were Jews not famed in Roman times for such investigations?), traditional knowledge, Gallic remedies, and utter superstition.

17 RIC 5, part. I, p. 265-318, and part II, p. 328-419, 580-588. Literature on the coins of the breakaway empires is increasing, with new finds and updated analysis. RIC must now be supplemented by: J. Lafaurie, "La chronologie des empereurs gaulois," Revue numismatique 6 (1964) 91-127; V. Picozzi, "Le moneta di Vaballato," Numismatica 2 (1961) 123-128; J. Schwartz, "Les Palmyrdniens et l'Egypte," Bull. soc. arch. d'Alexandrie 40 (1953) 1-21; J. G. Milne, "Coinage in Roman Egypt in relation to the native currency," Aegyptus 32 (1952) 143-151; G. Elmer, "Die Miinzpragung der gallischen Kaiser in K1oln, Trier und Mailand," Bonner Jabrbiicher 146 (1941) 1-106; P. Bastien, "Travaux d'Hercule dans le monnayage de Postume," Revue numismatique 6.1 (1958) 59-78. Supplementing the RIC listings on Aurelian and Severina are H. G. Pflaum, "Monnaie inddite d'Aurdlien de Cyzique," Bull. soc. francaise de numismatique 18 (1963) 269-270, and "Denier inkdit de Sdverine," ibid. 15 (1960) 440-441.




intended by the Roman government runs the basic question of what "use" the general public made of these coins,18 as well as whether or not the modern scholar has been

asking meaningful questions of numismatic evidence from the third century.19 Keying the various general events, seen on the coins, with the apparent chronology within the SHA, is vexed with problems, but basic sequences within the SHA Aurelian are revealed as generally accurate.20 From coin-issues, we can trace the challenge Aurelian made to the brother of the deceased Claudius,21 and thence through his campaigns in the east and the west.22 Interpreting the so-called monetary reform of Aurelian has

boggled numismatists since Rohde speculated about it a century ago,23 and recent studies of the mysterious markings on the new-or perhaps more correctly reminted- coins of Aurelian have quietly suggested that there is something more involved than a

simple revamping of an outmoded coinage-system.24 Inscriptional evidence can be tied with the SHA Aurelian rather tightly from time

to time. The sequence of titles is fairly clear from inscriptions alone,25 and embedded matter in the biography is confirmed by epigraphy.26 Sometimes, the vita is backed

18 C. H. V. Sutherland, "Flexibility in the reformed coinage of Diocletian," in Essays presented to H. Mattingly (Oxford 1956), p. 174-189; L. C. West, "The relation of subsidiary coinage to gold under Valerian and Gallienus," Museum notes 7 (1957) 95-123, and "The cost of living in Roman

Egypt," CP 11 (1916) 293-314; A. N. Zadoks-Jitta, "Notes and questions on coin ornaments,"

Congrbs international de numismatique 2, Actes (Paris 1953) [1957], p. 453-459. 19 A. H. M. Jones, "Inflation under the Roman empire," Economic history review 2.53 (1953)

293-318, and R. A. G. Carson, "The inflation of the third century and its monetary influence in the Near East," in International numismatic convention 1963: proceedings (Jerusalem 1967), p. 231-250.

20 E.g., SHA Aurelian 3.1, and 4.1 (Eutropius 9.13-14. Epitome 35.1): Aurelian's early life

(SHA Aurelian 6.1, is fake), hinted from coins showing Aurelian's rugged manner and background (RIC 5, part I, p. 266, #s 8 and 9; 268-269, #s 20-28, 33, 38, 41; 271, #s 57 and 58).

21 RIC 5, part I, p. 239-247. Markl, "Gewicht und Sibergehalt der Antoninianen von Quin- tillus," Numismatische Zeitschrift 25 (1903) 143-147, and "Das Provinzialcourant unter Kaiser Claudius II Gothicus," ibid. 32 (1900) 319-328. For a controversial view of the beginnings of Aurelian's reign, see A. Alfoldi, "The crisis of empire," Cambridge ancient history 12 (1939) 191-192. Inscriptions, coins, and the related literacy materials form the backbone of his analysis in "The emperors" (222-231).

22 RIC 5, part I, p. 265-318. N. 10 and 17 above for some literature on the coins, east and west.

23 T. Rohde, Die Munzen des Kaisers Aurelianus, seiner Frau Severina und den Firsten von

Palmyra (Miskilcz 1881). N. 7 above for a few suggestions for the reform of Aurelian. In addition: G. Dattair, "La cifra XXI sopra i codisetti antoniniani," Rivista italiana di numismatica 18 (1905) 443-449; B. Hilliger, "Der Pseudoantoninianus Aurelians und die Mtinzreform Diocletians," Deutsch. Jabrbuch fur numismatik 2 (1939) 102-116; J. Gricourt, "Deniers d'Aurdlien et de S verine," Bull. soc. francaise de numismatique 13 (1958) 205-206; E. Pridik, "Zur Miinzreform des Kaisers Aurelian," Numismatik 2 (1933) 160-163; P. le Gentilhomme, "La trouvaille de la

Vineuse et la circulation monetaire apres les reformes d'Aurelien," Revue numismatique 5.6 (1942) 23-102.

24 R. A. G. Carson, "The reform of Aurelian," Revue numismatique 6.7 (1965) 225-235, and

"The inflation of the third century and its influence in the Near East, International numismatic

convention, 1963. proceedings (Jerusalem 1967), p. 231-250. 25 Ida F. Kramer and Tom Jones, "Tribunicia potestate: A.D. 270-285," AJP 64 (1943) 80-86

(83-86); L. Bivona, "Per la cronologia di Aureliano," Epigraphica 28 (1966) 106-121.

26 E.g., W. Kubitschek, "Des Grafen Klemens Westphalen Miinzsammlung und

Munzforschung," Numismatische Zeitschrift, n.f. 8, 40 (1915) 131-184 (170-171). Some of Aure-

lian's coins proclaim him "Dominus et Deus," and coins with the legend DEO ET DOMINO NATO

AURELIANO AUG are coupled with Dessau, ILS 1.585: DEO AURELIANO RPCTU (Res publica

coloniae Tubersicitanae), from Numidia. Aurelian is alive, so the inscription would indicate. Cf.

SHA Aurelian 41.1-3 (the letter of the army to the senate, probably bogus), which preserves a




by inscriptional, numismatic, and corollary sources, as in the case of Aurelian's desig- nation of Gotbicus Maximus, dated to December of 271 until December of 272. In turn this corresponds with Aurelian's third year of tribunicia potestas,27 which then can be placed within the biography. The author compacts his story, but keeps the

chronology clear and accurate.28 Although some authorities are prone to reject most of the traditions within the SHA as spurious,29 inscriptions prove the biographer of Aurelian (or at least the original version of the later reedited work) had good materials at his fingertips. The biography notes that Aurelian defeated Carpi in Thrace, a detail backed by an inscription dated to 272.30 The biographer has followed a Suetonian model and given the unadorned fact of the defeat, without the elaboration of later resettlement, a mannerism which might induce doubt of the total account. Other

examples from the body of the biography and their verification by inscriptions are

fairly numerous,31 and the major difficulty is to arrange the biographer's facts into a sensible order, something Suetonian scholars have done for many years.32 Like the coins, inscriptions aid in giving a secure chronology for the period, but unlike the

coinages, the inscriptions can key specific events or official actions closely. The SIHA adds a fabrication of mood acceptable to the time-whenever that might be3 3-the version we possess came into circulation.

If the SHA has worth in our analysis of Aurelian, and we have reasonable confidence in other literary sources, fragmentary though they prove to be all too often, it remains to consider the underlying problems of how the modern scholar can interpret the age from these literary indications as well as inscriptional, numismatic, and occasionally papyrological and archaeological finds. The secondary literature on the history of the Roman empire is fairly well unanimous in presenting the resultant empire of Diocletian and Constantine as very different in tone from the empire of Severus Alexander, but most accounts skim over the period as if little can be said other than "it changed." It appears that the solution to many unanswered questions, which have

implications far beyond the reign of Aurelian, comes from a careful reassessment of

masked tradition. ILS 574-587 are concerned with Aurelian; cf. CIL 11.3832 (from Saguntum) and CIL XI.6303 (ILS 583), CIL XI.5 56, that show Aurelian was cross-identified with several gods.

27 SHA Aurelian 22.2. Ammianus Marcellinus 31.5.17. ILS 576, 8925. CIL VIII.10017. RIC 5, part I, p. 303, #339 (pre-reform coin from Cyzicus).

28 SHA Aurelian 22.5-24 (internal confabulations). Zosimus 1.50.2 (capture of Tyana). 29 Esp. Syme, Emperors and biography, who would make the majority of the SHA into

historical fiction. 30 SHA Aurelian 30.4. Aurelius Victor 39.43-44. CIL 111.12456. 31 E.g., SHA Aurelian 35.4. Parthicus maximus comes in the third year of Aurelian's tribuni-

cian power (CIL VIII.9040; however, ILS 577: TPIV). RIC 5, part I, p. 291, #240: VICTORIA- PARTICA on a pre-reform coin from Siscia. SHA Aurelian 21.9 (Wall for Rome, 271). G. J. Pfeiffer, et al., "Stamps on bricks and tiles from the Aurelian wall at Rome," Supp. papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Rome 1 (1905) 1-86 (9: statistically shows that bricks used in Aurelian's wall-building project were borrowed from earlier structures, dating from ca. A.D. 50 to 250. A total lack of stamped bricks from 250 to ca. 285), and I. Richmond, The city wall of imperial Rome (Oxford 1930), p. 27-30 (sources), 242-250. Aurelian also refaced the Baths of Caracalla. Chron. of 334, s.v. Aurelianus. Richmond, p. 61.

32 This trend is only recently reflected in studies of the SHA. K. F. Stroheker, "Die Aussen- politik des Antoninus Pius nach der Historia Augusta," HAC, 1964/1965 (1966) 241-256, and H.-G. Pflaum, "La valeur de la source inspiratrice de la Vita Pii

' la lumiere des personnalit's nommement citbes," ibid. 143-152. Syme, Emperors and biography, says that Ignotus was "a recognizable successor of Suetonius" (p. 44).

33 Internal mood and spurious names can "date" the SHA anywhere from ca. 295 to as late as 450.




the bits and pieces we have from the mid-third century including papyri,34 and from the archaeological reports that daily grow more numerous for the period.35

To illustrate the difficulties that surround consideration of the coinages for the

period, we need but look briefly at the issues during the reign of Aurelian from the eastern part of the empire. By this time, there was rampant confusion attested by the

multiplicity of the local coin-issues throughout Asia Minor, a mess well analyzed by Jones, who leaves us with further questions about the "so-called Greek imperial coinages."36 If we turn to the tariffing, we expect to find the eastern tetradrachma

exchanged for the new imperial coin, the antoninianus, which had, in turn, taken the

place of the more-or-less defunct denarius.37 Yet by the time of Aurelian, the ex-

change-rates seen in the Egyptian papyri are muddled, and the careful calculations of Johnson and West do little to give a system to dealings in bullion or interest on loans

34 Papyri are extremely useful, even if they are normally limited to Egypt; e.g., BGU III, p. 946, on the dating when Vabalathus took the title of Augustus (sometime between 11 March and 29 August, 271, the start of the Alexandrian new year). The coins of Vabalathus are in Rohde, p. 260-265, and RIC 5, part II, p. 585 (#1: AEQUITASAUG, and #6: VICTORIAAUG). Problems of joining numismatic with papyrological evidence is the point of A. Segre, "Papirologica e numismatica," Chronique d'Egypte 79 (1965) 198-205. See also: 0. Montevecchi, "Ricerche di socio- logia nei documenti dell'Egitto greco-romano," Aegyptus 19 (1939) 10-53, and P. Bureth, Les titulatures imperiales dans les papyri, ostraca et let inscriptions d'Egypte (Brussels 1964). Probus' period is better represented in the papyri than Aurelian. R. Remondon, "Un nouveau document concernant Probus," Revue de philologie 28 (1956) 199-210, and W. L. Westermann, "The papyri and the chronology of the reign of the Emperor Probus," Aegyptus 1 (1920) 297-301. Hebrew becomes important for our understanding of the Palmyrene empire. C. Clermont-Ganneau, "Odeinat et Vaballat, rois de Palmyre, et leur titre romain de corrector," Revue biblique 17 (1920) 382-419. SIIA Aurelian 39.1, associates the title with the right person, but after Zenobia and Tetricus marched in Aurelian's triumph. SHA Thirty tyrants 30.27 (Zenobia) and 25.4 (the House of Tetricus). But Aurelius Victor 25.5 and Eutropius 9.13 appear to make the same mistake.

35 The frontier of the empire has received overdue attention for the third century; many studies are conveniently listed in R. MacMullen, Soldier and civilian in the later Roman empire (Harvard 1963). Legionary camps and their location remained important as Aurelian redefined what lines to defend and what the Roman empire could not afford. For the Roman withdrawal from Dacia, there is N. Jorga, "Le probleme de l'abandon de la Dacie par l'empereur Aurelien," Revue historique du sud-est europben 1 (1924) 37-58. Romanian work on the questions of Roman Dacia has increased enormously, as indicated in D. W. Wade, "More ado about Dacia," CW 64 (1970) 114-116, and L. Rossi, Trajan's column and the Dacian wars (London; Ithaca, New York 1971). For Moesia, see J. Fitz, Die Laufbabn der Statthalter in der rbmischen Provinz Moesia

inferior (Weimar 1966), esp. p. 37-38. Pannonia now has A. Dob6, Die Verwaltung der romischen Provinz Pannonien (Amsterdam; Budapest 1968). Still of cardinal importance is T. Mommsen, The

provinces of the Roman empire (Eng. transl., London 1886), and recent excavations in Yugoslavia are reflected in J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (London 1969). The northwestern frontier and early Saxon

raiders, along with recent archaeology, are contained in S. Frere, Britannia (London 1967), esp. ch. 9 and 16. M. Rostovtzeff, Social and economic history of the Roman empire, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1957) is the best summary of economic materials for the third century (ch. 10 and 11), which can now be supplemented by the stiff book by J. Innes Miller, The spice trade of the Roman empire (Oxford 1969), which has material for the third century scattered in its voluminous references.

36 Tom Jones, "A numismatic riddle: the so-called Greek imperial," Proceedings of the Ameri- can Philosophical Society 107 (1963) 308-347. A. R. Bellinger, "Greek mints under the Roman

empire," in Essays in Roman coinage presented to H. Mattingly (Oxford 1956), p. 137-148. Generally (looking for life-styles on the coins), P. R. Franke, Kleinasien zur Romerzeit (Munich 1968): excellent plates. The complications are magnificently shown in M. Jessop Price, "Greek

imperial coins," Numismatic chronicle 7th ser., 11 (1971) 121-134.

37 C. M. Kraay, "Notes on the early imperial tetradrachms of Syria," Revue numismatique 4.7 (1965) 58-68.




or purchasing with what in mid-third-century Egypt.38 Callu hopes to put some order into the chaos by simply putting the various titles before us, but little results here other than a new list of the ORIENS AUG, CONCORDIA MILITUM, IOVI CON- SERVATORI, SOLI INVICTO, and so with mint-attributions, much as proposed by Mattingly-Sydenham and Rohde.39 The coins themselves are not very revealing, either in subject-matter on the coins or even from chemical analysis.40

It has been accepted for some time that coins continued to be debased in the

empire from the time of Hadrian on, and it is common knowledge that the mid-third

century was most notorious for its rotten coinages, at least by the standards we would expect from the time of Augustus or from more modern times when gold and stable

exchange rates became accepted as a base for international exchange. Yet we are faced with an interesting reversal of Gresham's law in the evidence of the hoards from over the entire empire in the third century: it seems the folk in those days hoarded the

utterly worthless issues, and perhaps "spent" something else. The evidence of coin- hoards suggests that token currency, rather than coins of actual worth, are what we are

finding,41 and a parallel emerges from Roman Egypt, where lead tokens were analyzed for the period by Milne for the Numismatic chronicle back in 1930.42 In addition, the rate of inflation seems to shoot up only after the government took drastic action in 296 and 301, as seen in the famous price edict of Diocletian.43 A puzzling total, which suggests that we may have to pose different economic questions to the period.

The coin evidence points to: (1) local issues in the name of the imperial government became increasingly common in the third century; such a conclusion matches well our

knowledge of the increasingly burdensome local duties for the nobility in the empire for the period, and it might be feasible to propose that the central government chose

38 A. C. Johnson, and L. C. West, Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt (Princeton 1944), p. 30-85.

39 Callu, La politique mondtaire, p. 230-245, passim. 40 Coin analysis techniques grow ever more sophisticated. A. Ravtex, "Neutron activation

analysis of silver of some late Roman copper coins," Archaeometry 6 (1963) 46-55. G. C. Boon and P. A. Rahtz, "Third-century counterfeiting at Whitechurch, Somerset," The archaeological journal 122 (1966) 13-51. J. Lafaurie, "M thode de fabrication des coins de deux monnaies de Severine," Bull. soc. francaise numismatique 15 (1960) 441-442. J. P. C. Kent, "Barbarous copies of Roman coins," in Limes Studien (Rheinfelden/Basle 1957), p. 61-68. G. F. Carter, "X-ray fluorescence analysis of Roman coins," Analytical chemistry 36 (1964) 1264-1267.

41 Articles on coin-hoards form the majority of essays in the numismatic journals; e.g., I). Keinast, "Der Miinzfund von Ankara (270-310 Chr.)," Jabrbuch fiur Numismatik 12 (1962) 65-112; the series of articles by R. A. G. Carson, Numismatic chronicle 7th ser., 11 (1971) 181-225, on hoards found at Gare (Cornwall), Leysdown (Kent), Willersey (Glos.), and Hcslington, Yorkshire (the last article jointly authored with J. P. C. Kent).

42 Johnson/West, Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt, p. 23, and n. 41. 43 L. C. West, "The coinage of Diocletian and the edict on prices," Studies in honor ol'A. C.

Johnson (Princeton 1951), p. 290-302. Bolin, State and currency in the Roman empire, p. 291-333. Growth of inflation is seen in viewing P. Oxy. XII.1411 (ca. 265: Roman currency not trusted; it seems the money-changers would not exchange Roman coins and silver drachmae) in context with P. Oxy. 2142 (price of a measure of wheat, 288, is 300 drachmae, compared with twelve to twenty drachmae in 255; ); the comparison of these papyri with IGRR IV 893 (an altar in Asia Minor cost 200 denarii, ca. 279/280), and CIL VIII.14891 (from Africa in the time of Probus: a bronze statue cost 7000 denarii). Real galloping inflation came after 288, and Dio- cletian's edict of 301 (one pound of gold was equal to 50,000 denarii) shows the state's attempt to

stop it. It did not work. F. Heichelheim, "Zur Wahrugskrisis des romischen Imperiums im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.," Klio 26 (1933) 96-113 (107-109).




to return to a system of publicani, so ill-famed from the late republic, in order to pay for the minimum of upkeep for the imperial army and bureaucracy, which seem to receive wages throughout the period; (2) a tokenism gradually came to be common in the third century, and the coins themselves may not have been intended as any more than buttons with imperial propaganda on them, worth a very limited amount in the marketplace; a modern parallel might be our own use of postage stamps-loaded with extraneous messages from many interest groups in the United States-which can be applied from time to time to limited purchases, stamps for small coins; (3) even

though Pliny, Cassius Dio, and Zosimus tell us how coins did have exchange value, and Pompeiian graffiti bear this out for everyday life, the lack of gold and silver in the hoards from the third century indicates "precious" metals had more important use.

Perhaps for art or ostentation, and their "value" was their workability. Gold coins are

very rare for mid-Roman history. In the British Museum collection, to cite one

example, Aurelian's gold issues are represented by: seven aurei from the mint of Rome; three from Mediolanum (Milan); six from Siscia; one from Antioch; and Severina's gold coin issues are represented by one each from Rome and Milan or Ticinum. These coins are beautiful in their workmanship, yet they exhibit the same

designs seen on the countless copper or silver-wash antoniniani in the same collection; from the mint of Rome, the BM collection has 113 examples of the various issues of antoniniani, only the best pieces from thousands available. Then too, new hoards of these basely-minted antoniniani turn up by the dozens each year in western Europe. Here I shall cite Carson's unpublished notes on the Gloucester hoard, found in

1960.44 The trove contained 15,544 coins, most of the varieties possible after the so-called reform of Aurelian in 274; out of the total are only 100 coins representing coins from the pre-reform years, indicating that the hoarder saw something better in the new coins. A single coin from the usurper emperors of Gaul is an antoninianus of Victorinus. The further breakdown of attributed coins in the hoard: Aurelian and Severina, 2739; Tacitus, 3688; Florian, 200; Probus, 6530; Carus and family, 753; Diocletian and imperial colleagues, 1531; Carausius, thirty-six; and Allectus, two; Quintillus has but one coin, and Claudius Gothicus is seen on thirty-nine.

The hoard will give an excellent example of what can be made of the coins for the context of mid-third-century Roman history. For Aurelian and Severina, there is great emphasis on the cult of Sol Invictus, yet the basic problem for the coinage of Aurelian is his reform of the coinage itself. The argument among numismatists has centered upon the possible meaning of the XXI or KA in Greek numerals on the post-reform coins. It is now generally accepted that the sign does not mean "21," but is a formula

stating that one of these new units is equivalent to twenty other units. Sutherland has recently argued that the so-called follis of Diocletian's reform was a five-denarius piece, and the antoninianus of Victorinus in Gaul with a V in the field may express the same equivalency. On the base of the hoard and from other finds and collations, a new kind of equivalency might be postulated: one new coin equals twenty sestertii equals five denarii. The date of the reform is difficult to determine, but it is traditionally placed in 274, a date backed by no conclusive evidence. The Gloucester hoard shows pre-reform coins in low proportion to post-reform coins; the mint of Rome had no pre-reform coins at all. The hoarder carefully selected his coins; but not all coins

44 In lengthy discussions with R. A. G. Carson (Dep't. Coins and Medals, British Museum) in

June and July 1969, the nature of the hoard became clear. I am deeply indebted to his patience and his warm understanding. His notes on the hoard are a series of probable attributions and types.




could, within probability, be concentrated in the last year of Aurelian's reign; the hoard thus might suggest that the revolt of Felicissimus in 271 may have been followed by the reform, or the proposed reform may have been a cause of the revolt. The mints are oddly represented in the hoard; possibly the coins are those used in Britain by Constantine Chlorus, say in 296; but there are only thirty-six coins from Carausius, with only twenty in his own name, while sixteen were issued in the name of Diocletian and Maximian. The conclusions from all this are that (1) the hoarder knew his coins, and rejected as many of the pre-reform coins as possible, and (2) he rejected the coins of the Gallic empire rather rigorously. The coins of the separatist empires were ignored, perhaps, as Carson suggested to me, "showing the forecast of the future." On the other hand, the total evidence from the Gloucester hoard, which stands in contrast to most continental hoards that have enormous numbers of pre-reform coins, seems to indicate a growing confidence in Rome and her central government. The landmark is the reform of Aurelian, probably dated from internal evidence in 271 or 272. Such conclusions as might come from coin hoards thus will contradict the gloomy predic- tions within the-SHA, which seems to lean forward to the time of Constantine for imperial fortunes; in the vita of Aurelian, we are struck again and again by the sharp condemnation of "old hand on hilt" coupled with a grudging acknowledgment of Aurelian's achievements, one of which was suppressing the revolt of the moneyers in Rome. The bare outline of sequence from the Gloucester hoard and others of differing composition bears out the basic, if confused chronology of the SHA.

Zosimus, Aurelius Victor, and fragmentary literary sources will, from time to time, conflict with the SHA, particularly in matters of detail concerning Aurelian's career. Yet there are often what seem surprising confirmations from legal, artistic, and reli- gious evidence, and, again we are led to the generalized conclusion that the SHA Aurelian has as its core something quite reliable. To illustrate: in the SHA Aurelian 47-48 is a discursive account of how the emperor gave bread and wine to the popula- tion of Rome, accompanied by a plan to use the uncultivated lands of Italy in the source of supply for the program. The Codex Justinianus 11.58.1-2, recording the constitutions of Aurelian (mixed in this case with constitutions of Constantine, while a corollary constitution, Cod. Just. 12.62.4, is mixed with the constitutions of Diocle- tian and Maximian) mentions just this kind of project for the reign of Aurelian. Other points within the legal evidence which seem at least to faintly echo points within the SHA are in the Codex Justinianus 1.23.2; 2.44.1; 5.3.6; 5.72.2; 7.16.7; and 10.62.2.

Artistic evidence is always controversial at best, yet dated finds appear to bear out some of the statements within the SHA. It is well known that Aurelian favored a form of sun-worship common in the Roman east, but hotly controversial as to how much he promoted such worship in Rome. According to the SHA Aurelian 31, the emperor ordered the Temple of the Sun at Palmyra restored, after the place had been plundered by the "eagle-bearers of the Third legion" (31.7). Recent wbrk at Palmyra confirms the statement of the biographer for the legion sacking the temple,45 and Will suggests it was indeed the III Cyrenaica that did the plundering. Coupled with this kind of oblique confirmation are the numerous archaeological and art history essays that bear out Aurelian's tendencies for cult-type representation of himself. For example, Will argues that Aurelian fused the long-lived Zeus-Jupiter image with that of Sol Invic- tus.46 The new Aurelian interpretation came from a kind of Jupiter known in Rome

45 E. Will, "Le sac de Palmyre," M langes A. Piganoil (Paris 1966) 1409-1416. 46 E. Will, "Une figure du culte solaire d'Aurelien, Jupiter consul vel consulens," Syria 36

(1959) 193-201. K. Winkler, "Iuppiter consul vel consulens," Philologus 102 (1958) 117-126.




as Consul vel consulens, which in turn was joined with the Greek Zeus Euboulens, and the emperor's cult-image, that of Sol Invictus, was the acceptable result. Coin art has

given rise to a great number of interpretive essays on the changing image of the

emperor in the 270's. One scholar thinks "glyptic art was superimposed on the mone-

tary art" by Aurelian's time,47 and another author joins the coin-art with the first

representation of the emperor (Aurelian) as Deus and Dominus natus, which in turn was important for Aurelian's claim of being Restutitor orbis, seen both in the SHA and on numerous coin-issues.48 Commemorative pieces, rather than coins, were more

important for Aurelian's adventus propaganda, according to Toynbee,49 and the point is borne out by Grant's analysis of Aurelian's medals in the Roman anniversary issues of 1950.50 All this is related in general terms to the mood cast by the caustic biographer, who gives Aurelian full credit for an almost overweening self-value, particularly in regard to the deification of himself. Yet an art-style typical of the time seems

apparent, as far away as India, as suggested by Alexander's study of a Roman silver- relief showing the Indian triumph of a Dionysius-Aurelian.51 The ancient Alexander-

myth also seems reflected in the art as well as the work of a certain Julius Valerius, and art historians have pointed out given resemblances to earlier Hellenistic models.52 Mosaics from the time fit the image of official deification of the emperor by the time of Aurelian, an official tendency which may have got a hesitant start in the reign of

Philip the Arab.53 The broad view of the SIIA biography of Aurelian suggests that there are many

points of reliability within the text, many of which are obscured within the formats of fake letters or bogus names, as Syme has indicated. The Aurelian, joined with ever-

increasing sophistication in coin study and textual criticism of other sources such as Zosimus, Dexippus, Eunapius, John of Antioch, Zonarus, and even George Syncellus, can yield a reasonable picture of an age undergoing incredible stress, yet managing to

preserve an essentially Roman framework. Inscriptions are gradually providing a

chronological guide for our study, and the work of Homo supplemented by Sotgiu, Jones, and Bivona has given a skeleton on which to redistribute the SHA Aurelian. But we must tread warily between overcredulity and utter skepticism.

The results by Diocletian and Constantine are well known: a new army, a new economic system, and a complete reorientation of Roman imperial policy came into

being, along with redefinitions in religion and law. Some scholars point out that the

early fourth century is the beginning of a new history, that of the "Byzantine" empire, linked with old Rome in so many ways, yet having a mood and direction all its own. It

may be that we are looking at the most important revolution in the ancient world, one that allowed the reevaluation of thought in new molds, yet one which preserved from Classical civilization those values that retained inner life. Christianity itself illustrates

47 M. Gramatopol, "Nouveaux portraits glyptiques dans l'iconographie imperiale," Latomus 26

(1967) 695-707. 48 F. Taeger, "Zur Geschichte der spitkaiserzeitlichen Herrscherauffassung," Saeculum 7

(1956) 182-195. 49 J. M.

M. C. Toynbee, Roman medallions (New York 1944), p. 38.

5) M. Grant, Roman anniversary issues (Cambridge 1950), p. 139-143. 51 C. Alexander, 'A Roman silver-relief: the triumph of Dionysus," Bulletin of the Metro-

politan Museum of Art 14 (1955-1956) 64-67. 52 D. Romano, "La historia Alexandri di Giulio Valerio e la ideologia politica di Aureliano,"

Annali del liceo classico 3-4 (1966-1967) 218-228. 53 J. Charbonneaux, " Aion et Philippe l'Arabe," Mhlanges d'archaeologie et histoire de l'Ecole

francaise de Rome 67 (1960) 253-272.




this rather well. Some suggestions on how we might probe into this period in a new

way may be proposed. The evidence at our disposal is varied and fraught with con-

ceptual difficulties, but the resultant understanding of the mid-third century would throw a beam of light on the basic question of how a major organized society survived under incredible stress, both from without and from internal disruption. Our sources are subject to the interpretation we give them, but we must consider such varia as art, religion, and law as well as the normal sources from literature, inscriptions, and coins, a point emphasized by Rostovtzeff-and ignored-many years ago.

JOHN SCARBOROUGH

University of Kentucky



aurelian - questions and problems

Documents

jstor terms

jstor archive

problems of sources

roman empire

classical association

terms conditions of

problems authors

problems t