to important posts, wrote on Rome’s policy and wars in the East.
Appian (v. supra) dealt with the wars waged under the early empire
in the closing books of his work, which have not been preserved.
Dio Cassius, a Bithynian who attained to the dignity of a second
consulship as the colleague of Severus Alexander, wrote a history
of Rome to the death of Elagabalus in 80 books. We possess
only epitomes and excerpts of the portion dealing with events from
A.D. 46 onwards, except for parts of the 78th and 79th books, in
which Dio’s narrative of contemporary events is especially valuable.
Herodian, a Syrian employed in the imperial service, wrote a history
of the emperors from Commodus to Gordian III., which as the work
of a contemporary is not without value, although the author had no
historical insight. L. Marius Maximus compiled biographies of the
emperors from Nerva to Elagabalus which, like those of Suetonius,
contained much worthless gossip. His work was amongst the
sources used in the compilation of the Historia Augusta (see further
Augustan History), upon which we are obliged to rely for the
history of the 3rd century A.D. This work consists in a series of
lives of the emperors (including most of the pretenders to that title)
from Hadrian to Carinus, professedly written by six authors,
Spartianus, Vulcacius Gallicanus, Capitolinus, Lampridius, Trebellius
Pollio, and Vopiscus, under Diocletian and Constantine. Modern
criticism has shown that (at least in its present form) it is a compilation
made towards the close of the 4th century; it is not even
certain that any of the above-named writers really existed, and the
documents inserted in the text are palpable forgeries. The earlier
biographies, however, contain much authentic information, which
seems to have been derived from a good contemporary source. The
fragments of Dexippus, an Athenian who successfully defended his
native town against the Goths, throw much light on the barbaric
invasions of the 3rd century. Under Diocletian and his successors
(A.D. 289–321) were delivered twelve Panegyrics by Eumenius and
other court rhetoricians which possess slight historical value. The
history of the final struggle between church and empire is told from
the Christian point of view by the author of the De mortibus
persecutorum—perhaps Lactantius, the tutor of Crispus. Eusebius’s
Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine give an ex parte
version of the events which they relate; the first of two tracts
published under the name of the Anonymus Valesianus furnishes
a brief contemporary narrative of the period 305–37, without
Christian prepossessions; while the lost work of Praxagoras treated
the history of Constantine from the pagan standpoint. The most
important historian of the 4th century was Ammianus Marcellinus,
a native of Antioch and an officer in the imperial guard, who continued
the work of Tacitus (in Latin) to the death of Valens. We
possess the last eighteen books of his history which cover the years
A.D. 353–78. Two compendia of imperial history pass under the
name of Aurelius Victor, the Caesares, or lives of the emperors from
Augustus to Julian, and the Epitome de Caesaribus (not by the same
author,) which goes down to Theodosius I. Similar works are the
Breviarum of Eutropius (secretary of state under Valens) and the
still more brief epitome of Festus. The writings of the Emperor
Julian and of the rhetoricians Libanius, Themistius and Eunapius—the
last-named continued the history of Dexippus to A.D. 404—are
of great value for the latter part of the 4th century A.D. They wrote
as pagans, while the Christian version of events is given by the
three orthodox historians Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, and
the Arian Philostorgius, all of whom wrote in the 5th century. An
imperial official, Zosimus, writing in the latter half of that century,
gave a sketch of imperial history to A.D. 410; the latter part is
valuable, being based on contemporary writings, e.g. those of the
Egyptian Olympiodorus, of whose work some fragments are preserved.
The bishops Synesius and Palladius, who lived under
Arcadius and Theodosius II., furnish valuable information as to
their own times; while the fragments of Priscus tell us much of
Attila and the Hunnish invasions. Mention must also be made of
the poets and letter-writers of the 4th and 5th centuries—Ausonius,
Claudian, Symmachus, Paulinus of Nola, Sidonius Apollinaris,
Prudentius, Merobaudes and others—from whose writings much
historical information is derived. Cassiodorus, the minister of
Theodoric, wrote a history of the Goths, transmitted to us in the
Historia Gothorum of Jordanes (c. A.D. 550), which gives an account
of the earlier barbaric invasions.
Several chronological works were compiled in the 4th and 5th centuries. It will suffice to name the Chronology of Eusebius (to A.D. 324), translated by Jerome and carried down to A.D. 378; the Chronicle of Prosper Tiro, based on Jerome and continued to A.D. 455; the Chronography of A.D. 354, an illustrated calendar containing miscellaneous information; and the works based on the so-called Chronica Constantinopolitana (not preserved), such as the Fasti of Hydatius (containing valuable notices of the period A.D. 379–468). Some minor chronological works such as the Chronicon Ravennae are published in Mommsen’s Chronica Minora. The Chronicon Paschale, primarily a table giving the cycle of Easter celebrations, was compiled in the 7th century A.D.
The Codes of Law, especially the Codex Theodosianus (A.D. 438) and the Code of Justinian, as well as the Army List of the early 5th century, known as the Notitia Dignitatum, possess great historical value. For the inscriptions of the empire, which are of incalculable importance as showing the working of the imperial system in its details, see Inscriptions; the coins (q.v.) also throw much light on the dark places of history in the lack of other authorities. Egyptian papyri are not only instructive as to legal, economic and administrative history, but also (by the formulae employed in their dating) contribute to our general knowledge of events. The Zeitschrift für Papyrusforschung, edited by U. Wilcken, gives an account of progress in this branch of study.
Modern Authorities.—Tillemont’s Histoire des empereurs (6 vols., 1690–1738), supplemented by his Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, a laborious and erudite compilation, furnished Gibbon with material for his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1788), which has never been superseded as a history of the entire imperial period, and has been rendered adequate for the purposes of the modern reader by Professor J. B. Bury s edition (1897–1900). The history of the empire has yet to be written in the light of recent discoveries. Mommsen’s fifth volume (Eng. tr., as Provinces of the Roman Empire, 1886) is not a narrative, but an account of Roman culture in the various provinces. C. Merivale’s History of the Romans under the Empire (8 vols., 1850–62, to Marcus Aurelius) is literary rather than scientific. H. Schiller’s Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit (1883–88) is a useful handbook. For the later period we have Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire (1889), beginning from A.D. 395, and T. Hodgkin’s Italy and her Invaders (8 vols., 1880–99), which tells the story of the barbaric invasions at great length. The imperial constitution is described by Mommsen in the second volume of his Staatsrecht (v. supra); divergent views will be found in Herzog’s Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung (1884–91); the working of the imperial bureaucracy is treated by O. Hirschfeld, Die römischen Verwaltungsbeamten (1905). The Prosopographia Imperii Romani, compiled by Dessau and Klebs (1897–98), is a mine of information, as is the new edition of Pauly’s Realencyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (in progress). Von Domaszewski’s Geschichte der römischen Kaiser (2 vols., 1909) is popularly written and gives no references to authorities. See further the articles on individual emperors and provinces.
A general history of Rome to the barbarian invasions, popular in character and richly illustrated, was written in French by Victor Duruy (Eng. tr. in 6 vols., 1883–86). The 2nd, 3rd and 4th vols. of Leopold von Ranke’s Weltgeschichte deal with Roman history. An outline of Roman history is given by B. Niese in the 3rd vol. of Müller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (3rd ed., 1906). A. H. J. Greenidge’s Roman Public Life (1901) is an excellent guide to Roman institutions. The principal authorities on Roman chronology are: Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie (1825–26); Fynes-Clinton, Fasti Romani (1845) (a continuation of the same author’s Fasti Hellenici, 1830–41, which goes down to A.D. 14); Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln (1846); Mommsen, Römische Chronologie (2nd ed., 1859); Matzat, Römische Chronologie (1883–84) and Römische Zeittafeln (1889); Holzapfel, Römische Chronologie (1885); Soltau, Römische chronologie (1889); Unger, “Römische Zeitrechnung” in the 1st vol. of Müller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (2nd ed., 1892). Goyau’s Chronologie de l’empire romain (Paris, 1891) is a useful handbook. (H. S. J.)
IV. The Roman Republic in the Middle Ages
The history of the Roman commune as distinguished from the papacy during the middle ages has yet to be written, and only by the discovery of new documents can the difficulties of the task be completely overcome. Although very different in its origin, the Roman Republic gradually assumed the same form as the other Italian communes, and with almost identical institutions. But, owing to the special local conditions amid which it arose, it maintained a distinct physiognomy and character. The deserted Campagna surrounding the city checked any notable increase of trade or industry, and prevented the establishment of the gilds on the solid footing that elsewhere made them the basis and support of the commune. There was also the continual and oppressive influence of the empire, and, above all, the presence of the papacy, which often appeared to absorb the political vitality of the city. At such moments the commune seemed annihilated, but it speedily revived and reasserted itself. Consequently there are many apparent gaps in its history, and we have often extreme difficulty in discovering the invisible links connecting the visible fragments.
Even the aristocracy of Rome had a special stamp. In the other republics, with the exception of Venice, it was feudal, of German origin, and in perpetual conflict with the popular and commercial elements which sought its destruction. The history of municipal freedom in Italy lay in this struggle. But the infiltration of Teutonic and feudal elements broke up the
