Panegyrici Latini

Last updated

XII Panegyrici Latini or Twelve Latin Panegyrics is the conventional title of a collection of twelve ancient Roman and late antique prose panegyric orations written in Latin. The authors of most of the speeches in the collection are anonymous, but appear to have been Gallic in origin. Aside from the first panegyric, composed by Pliny the Younger in AD 100, the other speeches in the collection date to between AD 289 and 389 and were probably composed in Gaul. [1] The original manuscript, discovered in 1433, has perished; only copies remain. [2]

Contents

Background

Gaul had a long history as a center of rhetoric. It maintained its dominance of the field well into the 4th century. [3] An early lead in the field was taken by the Aedui, early allies of Rome and eager to assimilate to the ways of their new rulers: Maenian schools were celebrated as early as the reign of Tiberius (r. AD 14–37). [4] They continued to flourish into the days of Eumenius' grandfather, but were closed by the mid-3rd century. [5]

There was some revival in the city in the late 3rd century, but after the establishment of Trier as an imperial capital in the 280s, the orators began feeling jealousy for the imperial patronage enjoyed by the citizens of Trier. [6] Despite the political and economic hegemony of the city, however, Trier failed to make any significant mark on the rhetoric of the period. [7] Nixon and Rodgers suggest that it was simply too close to the imperial court. [6] The surviving evidence (which might be prejudiced by Ausonius' Professors of Bordeaux) points to a shift from Autun and Trier as centers of the art in the Tetrarchic and Constantinian period, moving to Bordeaux later in the 4th century. [8]

The panegyrics evince a familiarity with prior handbooks of rhetoric. Some have argued that Menander of Laodicea's treatises were particularly influential on the collection, and believed his precepts were used in the tenth panegyric. [9] However, because so much of Menander's advice consisted of standard rhetorical procedure, the parallels adduced in favor of Menander as a model are insufficient to prove his direct use by the panegyrists. Other handbooks of rhetoric might also have had influence on the collection. Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, for example, treats the subject of an oration's ancestry, parentage, and country in a manner similar to the panegyrics of 289, 291, 297, 310, 311, 321, and 389. [10] In any case, the other panegyrics in the collection vary widely from Menander's schema. [11] Parallels with other Latin orators, like Cicero and Pliny the Younger, are less frequent than they would have been if those authors had served as stylistic models. [12]

Language and style

The Latin of the panegyrics is that of a Golden Age Latin base, derived from an education heavy on Cicero, mixed with a large number of Silver Age usages and a small number of Late and Vulgar terms. [13] To students of Latin in Late Antiquity, Cicero and Virgil represented the paragons of the language; as such, the panegyrists made frequent use of them. Virgil's Aeneid is the favorite source, the Georgics the second favorite, and the Eclogues a distant third. [14] (Other poets are much less popular: there are infrequent allusions to Horace, [15] and one complete borrowing from Ovid. [16] ) When drawing from Cicero's body of work, the panegyrists looked first to those works where he expressed admiration and contempt. As a source of praise, Cicero's panegyric of Pompey in support of the Manilian law ( De Imperio Cn. Pompei ) was quite popular. It is echoed thirty-six times in the collection, across nine or ten of the eleven late panegyrics. Cicero's three orations in honor of Julius Caesar were also useful. Of these, the panegyrists were especially fond of the Pro Marcello ; across eight panegyrics there are more than twelve allusions to the work. For vilification, the Catiline and Verrine orations were the prominent sources (there are eleven citations to the former and eight to the latter work). [17]

Other classic prose models had less influence on the panegyrics. Pliny's Panegyricus model is familiar to the authors of panegyrics 5, 6, 7, [18] 11, and especially 10, in which there are several verbal likenesses. Sallust's Bellum Catilinae is echoed in the panegyrics 10 and 12, and his Jugurthine War in 6, 5, and 12. [19] Livy seems to have been of some use in panegyric 12 [20] and 8. [21] The panegyrist of 8 must have been familiar with Fronto, whose praise of Marcus Aurelius he mentions, [22] and the panegyrist of 6 seems to have known Tacitus' Agricola . [23] The Aeduan orators, who refer to Julius Caesar in the context of Gaul and Britain, are either directly familiar with his prose or know of his figure through intermediaries like Florus, the historian. [24] Panegyric 12, meanwhile, contains a direct allusion to Caesar's Bellum civile . [25]

Accentual and metrical clausulae were used by all the Gallic panegyrists. All of the panegyrists, save Eumenius, used both forms at a rate of about 75 percent or better (Eumenius used the former 67.8 percent of the time, and the latter 72.4 percent). [26] This was a common metrical rhythm at the time, but had gone out of style by the 5th century, when metrical considerations no longer mattered. [27]

Contents

OratorManuscript orderDateChronological order
Pliny the Younger IJanuary 9, 1001
Pacatus II38912
Claudius Mamertinus IIIJanuary 1, 36211
Nazarius IVMarch 32110
AnonymousV3118
AnonymousVI3107
AnonymousVIISeptember 3076
AnonymousVIII2974
Eumenius IX2985
AnonymousX2892
AnonymousXI2913
AnonymousXII3139
After Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 20.

The collection comprises the following speeches:

  1. by Pliny the Younger. It was originally a speech of thanks (gratiarum actio) for the consulship, which he held in 100, and was delivered in the Senate in honour of Emperor Trajan. This work, which is much earlier than the rest of the collection and geographically anomalous, probably served as a model for the other speeches. [28] Pliny was a popular author in the late 4th century—Quintus Aurelius Symmachus modeled his letters on Pliny's, for example [29] —and the whole collection might have been designed as an exemplum in his honor. [30] He later revised and considerably expanded the work, which for this reason is by far the longest of the whole collection. Pliny presents Trajan as the ideal ruler, or optimus princeps, to the reader, and contrasts him with his predecessor Domitian.
  2. by Pacatus in honour of Emperor Theodosius I, delivered in Rome in 389.
  3. by Claudius Mamertinus in honour of Emperor Julian, delivered in Constantinople in 362, also as a speech of thanks at his assumption of the office of consul of that year.
  4. by Nazarius. It was delivered in Rome before the Senate in 321 at the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of the accession of Constantine I and the fifth anniversary of his sons Crispus and Constantine II (emperor) becoming caesares. The speech is peculiar because none of the honoured emperors was present at its delivery, and because it celebrates Constantine's victory over Maxentius (at the Battle of Milvian Bridge) in 312, avoiding almost any reference to contemporaneous events.
  5. from the year 311, delivered in Trier by an anonymous orator, who gives thanks to Constantine I for a tax relief for his home town Autun.
  6. by an anonymous (yet different) author, also delivered at the court in Trier in 310, at the occasion of Constantine's quinquennalia (fifth anniversary of accession) and the founding day of the city of Trier. It contains the description of an appearance of the sun god Apollo to Constantine, which has often been regarded as a model of Constantine's later Christian vision. Also, the speech promulgates the legend that the emperor Claudius II was Constantine's ancestor.
  7. by an anonymous author delivered at the wedding of Constantine to Maximian's daughter Fausta in 307, probably also at Trier, and it therefore contains the praise of both emperors and their achievements. The bride and the wedding feature only to a very limited degree in the oration.
  8. celebrates the reconquest of Britain by Constantius Chlorus, caesar of the tetrarchy, from Allectus in 296. The speech was probably delivered in 297 in Trier, then the residence of Constantius.
  9. is the second speech in the collection where the emperor was not present. It is by Eumenius, teacher of rhetoric at Autun, and is directed at the governor of the province of Gallia Lugdunensis. It was most probably delivered in 297/298, either in Autun or Lyon. Apart from its main subject, the restoration of the school of rhetoric at Autun, it praises the achievements of the emperors of the tetrarchy, especially those of Constantius.
  10. from the year 289 (and therefore the earliest of the late antique speeches of the collection), at Trier in honour of Maximian at the occasion of the founding day of the city of Rome. According to a disputed manuscript tradition, the author was a certain Mamertinus, who is identified with the author of the next speech.
  11. from 291, also at Trier to Maximian, at the emperor's birthday. It is often attributed to Mamertinus, probably magister memoriae (private secretary) of Maximian, though the text is corrupt and the authorship not entirely certain.
  12. by an anonymous orator, delivered in Trier in 313, celebrating (and describing extensively) Constantine's victory over Maxentius in 312. The author of this panegyric makes heavy use of Virgil. [31]

Themes

The panegyrics exemplify the culture of imperial praesentia, or "presence", also encapsulated in the imperial ceremony of adventus , or "arrival". [32] The panegyrics held it as a matter of fact that the appearance of an emperor was directly responsible for bringing security and beneficence. [33] The orators held this visible presence in tension with another, more abstract notion of the timeless, omnipresent, ideal emperor. [34] The panegyrist of 291 remarked that the meeting between Diocletian and Maximian over the winter of 290/91 was like the meeting of two deities; had the emperors ascended the Alps together, their bright glow would have illuminated all of Italy. [35] Panegyrics came to form part of the vocabulary through which citizens could discuss notions of "authority". Indeed, because panegyrics and public ceremony were such a prominent part of imperial display, they, and not the emperor's more substantiative legislative or military achievements, became the emperor's "vital essence" in the public eye. [36]

Origin and tradition of the collection

Compilation and purpose

The formation of the Panegyrici Latini is usually divided into two or three phases. At first, there was a collection of five speeches by various anonymous authors from Autun, containing numbers 5 through 9 above. [37] Later, the speeches 10 and 11, which are connected to Trier, were appended; when 12 joined the collection, is uncertain. At some later date, the speeches 2, 3 and 4 were added. [38] They differ from the earlier orations because they were delivered outside of Gaul (in Rome and Constantinople), and because the names of their authors are preserved. Pliny's panegyric was set at the beginning of the collection as classical model of the genre. [1] Sometimes the author of the last speech, Pacatus, is credited as the editor of the final corpus. [39] This belief is founded on the position of Pacatus' speech in the corpus—second after Pliny's—and because of the heavy debt Pacatus owes to the earlier speeches in the collection. [40] Although most of the speeches in the borrow from their predecessors in the collection, Pacatus borrows the most, taking ideas and phraseology from almost all the other speeches. He is especially indebted to the panegyric of 313. [41]

Because the collection is thematically unconnected and chronologically disordered, Nixon and Rodgers conclude that "it served no political or historical purpose", and was simply a tool for students and practitioners of panegyrical rhetoric. [30] Roger Rees, however, argues that the circumstances of its composition (if Pacatus is taken as its compiler) suggest that it was intended to illustrate Gaul's continuing loyalty to Rome. Along the same line, Pacatus' speech of 389 might have been meant to reassure Theodosius (who had defeated the usurper Magnus Maximus in Gaul the previous year) that Gaul was completely loyal to him. [42]

Manuscript tradition

The Panegyrici Latini make up most of the sixteen pre-400 Latin prose speeches in praise of Roman emperors that survive today. (The remaining four consist of three fragmentary speeches from Symmachus and one speech by Ausonius. [43] ) Only one manuscript of the Panegyrici Latini has survived into the 15th century, when it was discovered in 1433 in a monastery in Mainz, Germany by Johannes Aurispa. [2] That manuscript, known as M (Moguntinus), was copied several times before it was lost. Two branches of Italian manuscripts derive from a copy Aurispa made of M, X1 and X2. [44] These are also lost, [45] but twenty-seven manuscripts descend from the pair. The evidence of the surviving manuscripts suggests that Aurispa's copy of M was made in haste, and that the Italian manuscripts are generally inferior to the other tradition, H. [46]

Another independent tradition branches off of M: H (at the British Library: Harleianus 2480), N (at Cluj, Romania: Napocensis), and A (at the Uppsala University Library). [47] H and N are both 15th-century manuscripts, transcribed in a German hand. H shows corrections from a near-contemporary, h. N was copied at some time between 1455 and 1460 by the German theologian Johannes Hergot. [48] Detailed investigation of the manuscripts by D. Lassandro has revealed that A derives from N and N derives from H. [49] H is usually considered the best surviving manuscript. [47]

Modern editions of the Panegyrici incorporate variant readings from outside H. [50] For example, when X1 and X2 are in agreement, they sometimes preserve the true reading of M against H. They also contain useful emendations from the intelligent humanist corrector of Vaticanus 1775. [48] Early print editions also prove helpful, as Livineius' 1599 Antwerp edition contains variant readings from the work of scholar Franciscus Modius, who made use of another manuscript at the abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint-Omer (Bertinensis). [51] Bertinensis is now generally believed to be cognate with, rather than derived from, M. Cuspinianus' 1513 Vienna edition has proved more problematic. The relationship of M to the manuscripts Cuspinianus used is a mystery, and additional material, varying in length from single words to whole clauses, is found in Cuspinianus' text and nowhere else. Some scholars, like Galletier, reject Cuspinianus' additions in their entirety; Nixon and Rodgers chose to judge each addition separately. [48] Puteolanus' 1476 Milan edition and h's corrections have also proved valuable. [50]

Notes

  1. 1 2 Nixon and Rodgers, 4.
  2. 1 2 Nixon and Rodgers, 3–4.
  3. ↑ T.J. Haarhoff, Schools of Gaul (London, 1920; rept. Johannesburg, 1958), passim, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 7.
  4. ↑ Tacitus, Annals 3.43, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 7.
  5. ↑ Pan. 9.17.2–3, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 8.
  6. 1 2 Nixon and Rodgers, 8.
  7. ↑ Haarhoff, Schools of Gaul, 48, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 8.
  8. ↑ Haarhoff, Schools of Gaul, 46–48, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 8; Nixon and Rodgers, 7–8.
  9. ↑ Mesk, J. (1912). "Zur Technik der lateinischen Panegyriker" (PDF). Rheinisches Museum für Philologie . 67: 569–590 [p. 573]. Cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 10–12.
  10. ↑ Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.10ff; Galletier I: xxxi, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 12–13.
  11. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 12.
  12. ↑ E. Vereecke, "Le Corpus des Panégyriques latins de l'époque tardive," Antiquité classique 44 (1975): 151–53, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 13.
  13. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 14.
  14. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 16. See also: Rees, "Praising in Prose: Vergil and the Panegyric," in Romane Memento: Vergil in the Fourth Century (London: Duckworth, 2004).
  15. ↑ As at 9.2.4, referencing Carmina 2.1.22, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 16.
  16. ↑ 12.25.2–3, modeled on Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.746–61, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 17.
  17. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 17.
  18. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 18 n.68.
  19. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 18.
  20. ↑ At 12.15.6, borrows its sentiments and phrasing to Livy 28.44.8, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 18.
  21. ↑ At 8.16.4, which echoes Livy 38.17.3, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 18.
  22. ↑ At 8.14.2, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 18.
  23. ↑ At 6.9.3, which echoes Tacitus Agricola 12; B. Baldwin, "Tacitus, the Panegyrici Latini, and the Historia Augusta," Eranos 78 (1980): 175–78, and N. Baglivi, "Osservazioni su Paneg. VII(6),9," Orpheus 7 (1986): 329–37, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 18.
  24. ↑ Klotz, "Studen zu den Panegyrici Latini," 546, 554, (cited at Nixon and Rodgers, 18 n.72) argues for the latter case; Nixon and Rodgers (at Nixon and Rodgers, 18) argue for the former.
  25. ↑ At 12.6.1–2, alluding to Bellum civile 3.80.1–81.2, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 18–19.
  26. ↑ Steven M. Oberhelman and Ralph G. Hall, "Meter in Accentual Clausulae," Classical Philology 80:3 (1985): 222–23, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 19.
  27. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 20.
  28. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 4; Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 22.
  29. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 7 n.22; Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 22 n.84.
  30. 1 2 Nixon and Rodgers, 7.
  31. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 16.
  32. ↑ Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 6–7. See also: S. MacCormack, "Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of "Adventus"," Historia 21:4 (1972): 721–52; B.S. Rodgers, "Divine Insinuation in the "Panegyrici Latini"," Historia 35:1 (1986): 69–104.
  33. ↑ Van Dam, 21.
  34. ↑ Van Dam, 21–22.
  35. ↑ Pan. 11.10.4–5, 11.4, cited in Van Dam, 22.
  36. ↑ Van Dam, 23–24.
  37. ↑ W. Baehrens, "Zur quaestio Eumeniana", Rheinisches museum fur philologie 67 (1912): 313; and Galletier, 1: xiii and xix, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 5.
  38. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 5.
  39. ↑ As in R. Pichon, Les derniers écrivains profanes (Paris, 1906), 285–91, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 6 n. 18; Roger Rees, "The Private Lives of Public Figures in Latin Prose Panegyric," in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Mary Whitby (Boston: Brill, 1998), 99.
  40. ↑ Rees, "Private Lives", 99.
  41. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 6.
  42. ↑ Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 23.
  43. ↑ Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 6.
  44. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 35–36; Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 19.
  45. ↑ Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 19.
  46. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 35–36.
  47. 1 2 Nixon and Rodgers, 36; Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 19.
  48. 1 2 3 Nixon and Rodgers, 36.
  49. ↑ D. Lassandro, "I manoscritti HNA nella tradizione dei Panegyrici Latini," Bolletino del Comitato per la preparazione della Edizione Nazionale dei classici Greci e Latini 15 (1967): 55–97, cited in Nixon and Rodgers, 36, and Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 19.
  50. 1 2 Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 19–20.
  51. ↑ Nixon and Rodgers, 36; Rees, Layers of Loyalty, 19–20.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constantine the Great</span> Roman emperor from AD 306 to 337

Constantine I, also known as Constantine the Great, was Roman emperor from AD 306 to 337. He was the first emperor to convert to Christianity. Born in Naissus, Dacia Mediterranea, he was the son of Flavius Constantius, a Roman army officer of Illyrian origin who had been one of the four rulers of the Tetrarchy. His mother, Helena, was a Greek woman of low birth and a Christian. Later canonized as a saint, she is traditionally attributed with the conversion of her son. Constantine served with distinction under the Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius. He began his career by campaigning in the eastern provinces before being recalled in the west to fight alongside his father in the province of Britannia. After his father's death in 306, Constantine was acclaimed as augustus (emperor) by his army at Eboracum. He eventually emerged victorious in the civil wars against emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire by 324.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diocletian</span> Roman emperor from 284 to 305

Diocletian, nicknamed "Jovius", was Roman emperor from 284 until his abdication in 305. He was born Diocles to a family of low status in the Roman province of Dalmatia. Diocles rose through the ranks of the military early in his career, eventually becoming a cavalry commander for the army of Emperor Carus. After the deaths of Carus and his son Numerian on a campaign in Persia, Diocles was proclaimed emperor by the troops, taking the name Diocletianus. The title was also claimed by Carus's surviving son, Carinus, but Diocletian defeated him in the Battle of the Margus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Galerius</span> Roman emperor from 305 to 311

Galerius Valerius Maximianus was Roman emperor from 305 to 311. During his reign he campaigned, aided by Diocletian, against the Sasanian Empire, sacking their capital Ctesiphon in 299. He also campaigned across the Danube against the Carpi, defeating them in 297 and 300. Although he was a staunch opponent of Christianity, Galerius ended the Diocletianic Persecution when he issued an Edict of Toleration in Serdica in 311.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maximian</span> Roman emperor from 286 to 305

Maximian, nicknamed Herculius, was Roman emperor from 286 to 305. He was Caesar from 285 to 286, then Augustus from 286 to 305. He shared the latter title with his co-emperor and superior, Diocletian, whose political brain complemented Maximian's military brawn. Maximian established his residence at Trier but spent most of his time on campaign. In late 285, he suppressed rebels in Gaul known as the Bagaudae. From 285 to 288, he fought against Germanic tribes along the Rhine frontier. Together with Diocletian, he launched a scorched earth campaign deep into Alamannic territory in 288, refortifying the frontier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carausius</span> Emperor in Britain and northern Gaul from 286 to 293

Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Carausius was a military commander of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century. He was a Menapian from Belgic Gaul, who usurped power in 286, during the Carausian Revolt, declaring himself emperor in Britain and northern Gaul. He did this only 13 years after the Gallic Empire of the Batavian Postumus was ended in 273. He held power for seven years, fashioning the name "Emperor of the North" for himself, before being assassinated by his finance minister Allectus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crispus</span> Roman caesar from 317 to 326

Flavius Julius Crispus was the eldest son of the Roman emperor Constantine I, as well as his junior colleague (caesar) from March 317 until his execution by his father in 326. The grandson of the augustus Constantius I, Crispus was the elder half-brother of the future augustus Constantine II and became co-caesar with him and with his cousin Licinius II at Serdica, part of the settlement ending the Cibalensean War between Constantine and his father's rival Licinius I. Crispus ruled from Augusta Treverorum (Trier) in Roman Gaul between 318 and 323 and defeated the navy of Licinius I at the Battle of the Hellespont in 324, which with the land Battle of Chrysopolis won by Constantine forced the resignation of Licinius and his son, leaving Constantine the sole augustus and the Constantinian dynasty in control of the entire empire. It is unclear what the legal status of the relationship Crispus's mother Minervina had with Constantine was; Crispus may have been an illegitimate son.

Latinius Pacatus Drepanius, one of the Latin panegyrists, flourished at the end of the 4th century AD.

Eumenius, was one of the Ancient Roman panegyrists and author of a speech transmitted in the collection of the Panegyrici Latini.

Claudius Mamertinus was an official in the Roman Empire. In late 361 he took part in the Chalcedon tribunal to condemn the ministers of Constantius II, and in 362, he was made consul as a reward by the new Emperor Julian; on January 1 of that year he delivered a panegyric in Constantinople by way of thanks to the Emperor. The text of this is extant, preserved in the Panegyrici Latini. Claudius Mamertinus later went on to become praetorian prefect of Italy, Africa, and Illyria before being removed from public office in 368 for embezzlement.

Nazarius,, was a Roman and a Latin rhetorician and panegyrist. He was, according to Ausonius, a professor of rhetoric at Burdigala (Bordeaux).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carausian revolt</span> Revolt by Roman naval commander, Carausius (286-296)

The Carausian revolt (AD 286–296) was an episode in Roman history during which a Roman naval commander, Carausius, declared himself emperor over Britain and northern Gaul. His Gallic territories were retaken by the western Caesar Constantius Chlorus in 293, after which Carausius was assassinated by his subordinate Allectus. Britain was regained by Constantius and his subordinate Asclepiodotus in 296.

The Thervingi, Tervingi, or Teruingi were a Gothic people of the plains north of the Lower Danube and west of the Dniester River in the 3rd and the 4th centuries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merogais</span>

Merogais was an early Frankish king, who, along with his co-ruler Ascaric, is the earliest Frankish ruler known. He was an enemy of the Roman Empire. Merogais is mentioned in the Panegyrici latini and by Eutropius and Eumenius. The very existence of Merogais depends on the manuscript reading of Johann Kaspar Zeuss. The sentence which names the two kings begins with Asacari or Assaccari in all manuscripts, but it ends with the corrupt forms cinere gaisique, cumero geasique, cymero craisique, and cymero caisique. Zeuss reads those sentences as ending respectively cum Neregaisique, cum Merogeasique, cum Merocraisique, and cum Merocaisique, each meaning as "and with Merogais".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ascaric</span>

Ascaric or Ascarich was an early Frankish war leader, who, along with his co-leader, Merogais, are the earliest known leaders explicitly called Frankish, although the name of the Franks is earlier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil wars of the Tetrarchy</span> 306–324 wars between Roman co-emperors

The civil wars of the Tetrarchy were a series of conflicts between the co-emperors of the Roman Empire, starting from 306 AD with the usurpation of Maxentius and the defeat of Severus to the defeat of Licinius at the hands of Constantine I in 324 AD.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">German and Sarmatian campaigns of Constantine</span>

The German and Sarmatian campaigns of Constantine were fought by the Roman Emperor Constantine I against the neighbouring Germanic peoples, including the Franks, Alemanni and Goths, as well as the Sarmatian Iazyges, along the whole Roman northern defensive system to protect the empire's borders, between 306 and 336.

Brian Herbert Warmington (1924–2013) was a British classicist and ancient historian.

In Byzantine rhetoric, a basilikos logos or logos eis ton autokratora is an encomium addressed to an emperor on an important occasion, regularly at Epiphany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Brescia (312)</span> 312 AD battle in the Civil Wars of the Tetrarchy

The Battle of Brescia was a confrontation that took place during the summer of 312, between the Roman emperors Constantine the Great and Maxentius in the town of Brescia, in northern Italy. Maxentius declared war on Constantine on the grounds that he wanted to avenge the death of his father Maximian, who had committed suicide after being defeated by him. Constantine would respond with a massive invasion of Italy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siege of Segusio</span> 312 AD battle in the Civil Wars of the Tetrarchy

The siege of Segusio or siege of Susa was the first clash of the civil war between the Roman emperors Constantine the Great and Maxentius in the spring of 312. In that year, Maxentius had declared war on Constantine, claiming to intend to avenge the death of his father Maximian, who had committed suicide after being defeated by him. Constantine would respond with an invasion of northern Italy.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.