DOCSLIB.ORG

Ammianus 30.5.4 and the Career of Petronius Probus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ammianus 30.5.4 and the Career of Petronius Probus mnemosyne 69 (�0�6) 3��-3�7 brill.com/mnem Ammianus 30.5.4 and the Career of Petronius Probus A mere glance at PLRE I, Probus 5 suffices to see that Sex. Claudius Petronius Probus, consul in 371 AD, was a powerful man, who regularly had high positions in the imperial administration.1 Many literary, legal and epigraphical sources document his career, and the amount of scholarly literature about the man who is called nobilitatis culmen in CIL 6.1751 = ILS 1265 is vast.2 Still, some details of Probus’ career are disputed (“sein cursus bedarf einer erneuten Untersuchung”, Coşkun).3 In this short note I do not intend to discuss every step of that career. I shall restrict myself to Probus’ first and third praetorian prefectures and I shall argue that the essential point of Ammianus Marcellinus 30.5.4, a sec- tion of the Res Gestae often quoted as relevant in this respect, has so far been 1 misunderstood: it is my view that in 30.5.4 Ammianus does not refer to the year 375, but to 364, when Probus was praetorian prefect for the first time. It is epigraphically attested that Probus was praetorian prefect four times (CIL 6.1752 = ILS 1268 praefecto praetorio quater; CIL 6.1753 = ILS 1267; AE 1934.160; CIL 6.1756b = ILCV 63 praefectus quarto . bis gemina populos prae­ fectus sede gubernans). The first time was in Illyricum, the second in Gaul, the third in Italy and Africa according to an inscription from Verona (now lost), viz. CIL 5.3344 = ILS 1266: Petronio Probo v. c. totius admirationis viro, procons. Africae, praef. praetorio Illyrici, praef. praet. Galliar. II, praef. praet. Italiae atque Africae III, cons. ordinario etc.4 1 Probus was born ca. 328 according to the PLRE, between 330 and 334 according to others, e.g. Seyfarth 1970, 413. See for Probus’ consulate Bagnall et al. 1987, 276-277. 2 The most relevant studies are, in chronological order: Palanque 1933, 109-118; Mazzarino 1967; Seyfarth 1970; Drexler 1974, 65-78; Novak 1980; Chastagnol 1982; Giardina 1983; Cameron 1985; McCoy, 1985; Cameron 2012, 136-140. 3 Coşkun 2002, 403, n. 7. Cf. Giardina 1983, 171: “(the reconstruction of Probus’ career is) uno dei nodi piú intricati della ricerca prosopografica tardoantica”. 4 In the text of CIL 5.3344 = ILS 1266 the prefectures are listed in chronological order, as Novak 1980, 475-476 and Cameron 1985, 179-180 rightly argue, not grouped in geographical areas, as Seeck 1914, 25 as well as Palanque 1933, 110 and Mazzarino 1967, 415 suggest, with fatal conse- quences for the dating of Probus’ first prefecture (see the next note). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi �0.��63/�5685�5X-��34�996 Ammianus 30.5.4 and the Career of Petronius Probus 313 Thanks to a law of the Theodosian Code, which, like the Codex Iustinianus, often furnishes chronological information, we know that Probus was praetorian prefect for the first time in 364,5 for in that year he received Cod. Theod. 1.29.1, which is addressed to him ([Imp]p. Val(entini)anus et Val(ens) AA. ad Probum p(raefectum) p(raetori)o), and which is dated 27 April 364 (dat. V K. Mai. divo Ioviano et Varroniano conss).6 Since a discussion of Probus’ second prefecture is irrelevant for my argument,7 I move on to the third prefecture which started when Vulcacius Rufinus (PLRE I, Rufinus 25) had died in office and Probus was summoned from Rome, where he seemed to live the life of a private citizen, to succeed him: Per haec tempora [i.e. in 368] Vulcacio Rufino absoluto vita, dum admini­ strat, ad regendam praefecturam praetorianam ab urbe Probus accitus (Amm. 27.11.1). According to the Verona inscription quoted above, CIL 5.3344 = ILS 1266, Probus’ third prefecture was in Italy and Africa. However, Illyricum also 5 Contra e.g. Palanque 1933, 118 (“La première, de 367 à 375, est en Italie-Illyrie-Afrique”), Mazzarino 1967, 415, Seyfarth 1970, 413 and Giardina 1983, 170 (“la sua prima prefettura . durò dal 368 al 375(6)”). Palanque 1951, 6, n. 5 speaks of “l’inutilité de l’hypothèse d’une préfecture illyrienne de Probus”. 6 The fact that in 364 Cod. Theod. 1.29.1 was addressed to Petronius Probus as praetorian pre- fect and not to Claudius Mamertinus (PLRE I, Mamertinus 2) has aroused the suspicion of some scholars, for in 26.5.5 Ammianus states that in the beginning of Valentinian’s reign Mamertinus ruled as praetorian prefect Italiam . cum Africa et Illyrico. How to explain this? Here is the answer given by Den Boeft et al. 2008, 106-107: “Some scholars, e.g. Seeck, 1919, 91-92, 232 and Pergami, 1993, 25-28 argue that the date of Cod. Theod. 1.29.1 must be wrong and that the constitution was issued in 368 instead of 364. However, it is better to accept the date of the cited law and assume with e.g. Jones, 1974, 390-391 and the authors of PLRE I that Mamertinus in 364 was temporarily replaced as PPO of Illyricum by Probus. See for this in the first place Cameron, 1985, 178-181 and cf. further Wirbelauer/Fleer, 1995, 199.” Probus’ Illyrian prefecture of 364 is also accepted by Migl 1994, 157-158. See further the thorough argumenta- tion in defence of 364 as the date of Cod. Theod. 1.29.1 by Frakes 2001, 94-104. 7 The scholars cited in n. 5 above do not take the Gallic prefecture into account. They disregard the evidence of Cod. Iust. 7.38.1, addressed to Probus as PPO Galliarum (Impp. Valentinianus et Valens AA. ad Probum pp. Galliarum). Unfortunately, the subscription of this law is lost. However, there is Cod. Theod. 11.1.15, issued in Rheims on 19 May 366 (dat. XIV Kal. Iun. Remis, Gratiano et Dagalaipho coss.) and addressed to the PPO Probus (Impp. Valent. et Valens AA. ad Probum pf. p.). Moreover, the last attested date as PPO Galliarum for Decimius Germanianus (PLRE I, Germanianus 4) is 7 April 366 (Cod. Theod. 8.7.9), while the first date in this capacity of Florentius (PLRE I, Florentius 5) is 3 June 367 (Cod. Theod. 13.10.5). It is, therefore, more than likely that Probus was PPO Galliarum in the period between April 366 and June 367. mnemosyne 69 (2016) 312-317.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.2-Persecution Under Valens (371-373) Copyright 2018 Glen L
    4.2-Persecution under Valens (371-373) Copyright 2018 Glen L. Thompson This document is provided for personal and educational use. It may not be used for commercial purposes without the permission of the copyright holder. Last updated 6/6/18 Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Macedonians seek fellowship with Liberius 4.12.1 But we will have more opportunity to mention 6.10.3 Valens and Eudoxius then directed their both Basil and Gregory again in the course of our history. resentment against the Macedonians, who were more When the maintainers of the homoousian doctrine had been numerous than the above-mentioned Christians in that severely dealt with and put to flight, the persecutors began region, and they persecuted them without measure. The again to harass the Macedonians. Macedonians, in apprehension of further sufferings, sent 4.12.2 Impelled by fear rather than violence, the delegates to various cities, and finally agreed to turn to Macedonians sent messengers to one another from city to Valentinian and to the bishop of Rome rather than share city, declaring the necessity of appealing to the emperor’s in the faith of Eudoxius and Valens and their followers. brother, and to Liberius bishop of Rome, saying that it was far better for them to embrace their faith, than to commune with the party of Eudoxius. 4.12.3 For this purpose they sent Eustathius bishop of 6.10.4 And when it seemed ideal to do this, they Sebastia, who had been deposed several times, Silvanus of selected three of their own number—Eustathius, bishop Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabala in the same of Sebaste; Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus; and Theophilus, province, charging them to not to disagree with Liberius in bishop of Castabalis—and sent them to the Emperor anything concerning the faith, but to enter into communion Valentinian.
    [Show full text]
  • Diocletian's New Empire
    1 Diocletian's New Empire Eutropius, Brevarium, 9.18-27.2 (Eutr. 9.18-27.2) 18. After the death of Probus, CARUS was created emperor, a native of Narbo in Gaul, who immediately made his sons, Carinus and Numerianus, Caesars, and reigned, in conjunction with them, two years. News being brought, while he was engaged in a war with the Sarmatians, of an insurrection among the Persians, he set out for the east, and achieved some noble exploits against that people; he routed them in the field, and took Seleucia and Ctesiphon, their noblest cities, but, while he was encamped on the Tigris, he was killed by lightning. His son NUMERIANUS, too, whom he had taken with him to Persia, a young man of very great ability, while, from being affected with a disease in his eyes, he was carried in a litter, was cut off by a plot of which Aper, his father-in-law, was the promoter; and his death, though attempted craftily to be concealed until Aper could seize the throne, was made known by the odour of his dead body; for the soldiers, who attended him, being struck by the smell, and opening the curtains of his litter, discovered his death some days after it had taken place. 19. 1. In the meantime CARINUS, whom Carus, when he set out to the war with Parthia, had left, with the authority of Caesar, to command in Illyricum, Gaul, and Italy, disgraced himself by all manner of crimes; he put to death many innocent persons on false accusations, formed illicit connexions with the wives of noblemen, and wrought the ruin of several of his school-fellows, who happened to have offended him at school by some slight provocation.
    [Show full text]
  • Collector's Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage
    Liberty Coin Service Collector’s Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage (49 BC - AD 518) The Twelve Caesars - The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (49 BC - AD 96) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Julius Caesar (49-44 BC) Augustus (31 BC-AD 14) Tiberius (AD 14 - AD 37) Caligula (AD 37 - AD 41) Claudius (AD 41 - AD 54) Tiberius Nero (AD 54 - AD 68) Galba (AD 68 - AD 69) Otho (AD 69) Nero Vitellius (AD 69) Vespasian (AD 69 - AD 79) Otho Titus (AD 79 - AD 81) Domitian (AD 81 - AD 96) The Nerva-Antonine Dynasty (AD 96 - AD 192) Nerva (AD 96-AD 98) Trajan (AD 98-AD 117) Hadrian (AD 117 - AD 138) Antoninus Pius (AD 138 - AD 161) Marcus Aurelius (AD 161 - AD 180) Hadrian Lucius Verus (AD 161 - AD 169) Commodus (AD 177 - AD 192) Marcus Aurelius Years of Transition (AD 193 - AD 195) Pertinax (AD 193) Didius Julianus (AD 193) Pescennius Niger (AD 193) Clodius Albinus (AD 193- AD 195) The Severans (AD 193 - AD 235) Clodius Albinus Septimus Severus (AD 193 - AD 211) Caracalla (AD 198 - AD 217) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Geta (AD 209 - AD 212) Macrinus (AD 217 - AD 218) Diadumedian as Caesar (AD 217 - AD 218) Elagabalus (AD 218 - AD 222) Severus Alexander (AD 222 - AD 235) Severus The Military Emperors (AD 235 - AD 284) Alexander Maximinus (AD 235 - AD 238) Maximus Caesar (AD 235 - AD 238) Balbinus (AD 238) Maximinus Pupienus (AD 238) Gordian I (AD 238) Gordian II (AD 238) Gordian III (AD 238 - AD 244) Philip I (AD 244 - AD 249) Philip II (AD 247 - AD 249) Gordian III Trajan Decius (AD 249 - AD 251) Herennius Etruscus
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar of Roman Events
    Introduction Steve Worboys and I began this calendar in 1980 or 1981 when we discovered that the exact dates of many events survive from Roman antiquity, the most famous being the ides of March murder of Caesar. Flipping through a few books on Roman history revealed a handful of dates, and we believed that to fill every day of the year would certainly be impossible. From 1981 until 1989 I kept the calendar, adding dates as I ran across them. In 1989 I typed the list into the computer and we began again to plunder books and journals for dates, this time recording sources. Since then I have worked and reworked the Calendar, revising old entries and adding many, many more. The Roman Calendar The calendar was reformed twice, once by Caesar in 46 BC and later by Augustus in 8 BC. Each of these reforms is described in A. K. Michels’ book The Calendar of the Roman Republic. In an ordinary pre-Julian year, the number of days in each month was as follows: 29 January 31 May 29 September 28 February 29 June 31 October 31 March 31 Quintilis (July) 29 November 29 April 29 Sextilis (August) 29 December. The Romans did not number the days of the months consecutively. They reckoned backwards from three fixed points: The kalends, the nones, and the ides. The kalends is the first day of the month. For months with 31 days the nones fall on the 7th and the ides the 15th. For other months the nones fall on the 5th and the ides on the 13th.
    [Show full text]
  • Name Reign Succession Died
    Name Reign Succession Died March 20, 235 CE - Proclaimed emperor by German legions April 238 CE; Assasinated by Praetorian Maximinus I April 238 CE after the murder of Severus Alexander Guard Proclaimed emperor, whilst Pro-consul in Africa, during a revolt against Maximinus. Ruled jointly with his son Gordian II, and in opposition to Maximinus. Technically a usurper, but March 22, 238 CE - retrospectively legitimised by the April 238 CE; Committed suicide upon Gordian I April 12, 238 CE accession of Gordian III hearing of the death of Gordian II. Proclaimed emperor, alongside father March 22, 238 CE - Gordian I, in opposition to Maximinus by April 238 CE; Killed during the Battle of Gordian II April 12, 238 CE act of the Senate Carthage fighting a pro-Maximinus army Proclaimed joint emperor with Balbinus by the Senate in opposition to April 22, 238 AD – Maximinus; later co-emperor with July 29, 238 CE; Assassinated by the Pupienus July 29, 238 AD Balbinus. Praetorian Guard Proclaimed joint emperor with Pupienus by the Senate after death of Gordian I & April 22, 238 AD – II, in opposition to Maximinus; later co- July 29, 238 CE; Assassinated by the Balbinus July 29, 238 AD emperor with Pupienus and Gordian III Praetorian Guard Proclaimed emperor by supporters of April 22, 238 AD – Gordian I & II, then by the Senate; joint February 11, 244 emperor with Pupienus and Balbinus February 11, 244 CE; Unknown, possibly Gordian III AD until July 238 AD. murdered on orders of Philip I February 244 AD – Praetorian Prefect to Gordian III, took September/October
    [Show full text]
  • The Rescripts of the Emperor Probus (276-282 A.D.)
    Digital Commons @ Georgia Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 6-1-1974 The Rescripts of the Emperor Probus (276-282 A.D.) Alan Watson University of Georgia School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation Alan Watson, The Rescripts of the Emperor Probus (276-282 A.D.) (1974), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/265 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RESCRIPTS OF THE EMPEROR PROBUS (276-282 A.D.) ALAN WATSON* Scholars tend to date the onset of the "post-classical period" of Roman law to 235 A.D., the year when the Emperor Alexander Severus was murdered by his troops. The line of great jurists had just about come to an end-Ulpian had been murdered by the mutinous Praetorians in 223-and for the next fifty years, until the accession of Diocletian, the Empire was in a state of chaos. The post-classical period itself divides neatly into eras: early post-classical (or epiclassic as F. Wieacker suggests1 ), Diocletianic, Constantinian, and so on, right up to the time of Justinian. One thing these eras have in common is relative neglect by modern legal historians. Yet, they have a charm and fascination of their own. The charm is that, for the first time in Roman law, we have primarily to study texts that we know concerned real people and 2 real situations; the sources, almost entirely imperial rescripts, reflect the immediate practical concerns of the addressees, not the interests of the jurists.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interesting Family: Carus and His Sons by Peter E
    An interesting Family: Carus and his Sons by Peter E. Lewis The Ctesiphon Arch, Iraq by S.A. Svoboda, 1826-96. (Wikimedia Commons) ARUS and his sons, Carinus and pro claimed Carus emperor. At the time means they were probably limited in CNumerian, were Roman emperors in Carus was at Sirmium and Probus sent number. Carus had no reservations abo ut the 3 rd century AD. They were military part of his army to defeat the rebels, but using this inscription and it appears on men, very capable and successful in what when they joined forces with Carus, the a double antoninianus minted at Siscia in they did, but all ultimately destroyed by soldiers remaining with Probus murdered 282 ( Figure 3 ) and for the first time on an treachery. Although generally forgotten him not far from Sirmium. aureus ( Figure 4 ). The double antonini - today, coin collectors can follow their car- When he became emperor Carus ass- anus shows Carus with the sun-god, Sol eers because large numbers of coins were umed the name Marcus Aurelius Carus. Invictus. The emperor Aurelian (270-275) minted during their reigns. His two sons also added ‘Marcus Aurelius’ had promoted the worship of Sol Invictus Carus was born in about 224 AD at to their names, as had Probus when he Narbo in Gaul. ( Figure 1 – map ) Narbo became emperor in 276. Marcus Aurelius had been a Roman colony since 118 BC. had been a successful and popular Roman Carus rose through the ranks eventually emperor in the 2 nd century AD and by becoming the commander of the Praetor- assuming his name Carus intended to ian Guard, a powerful position in the signify a similar career.
    [Show full text]
  • A Medallion of Constantius II Julia Ruff Lawrence University
    Lawrence University Lux Lawrence University Honors Projects 2005 A Medallion of Constantius II Julia Ruff Lawrence University Follow this and additional works at: https://lux.lawrence.edu/luhp Part of the Byzantine and Modern Greek Commons © Copyright is owned by the author of this document. Recommended Citation Ruff, Julia, "A Medallion of Constantius II" (2005). Lawrence University Honors Projects. 70. https://lux.lawrence.edu/luhp/70 This Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by Lux. It has been accepted for inclusion in Lawrence University Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of Lux. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This honors these submitted by Julia Ruff has been read and found acceptable for Honors in Independent Study Randall McNeill, Member of the Examinin~ Committee Je#ld Podair, Member of the Examining Committee Carol Lawton, Thesis Adviser A MEDALLION OF CONSTANTIUS II Julia Ruff TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1 Introduction 2-3 The Sources 4 Historical Background 4-9 Ammianus Marcellinus 9-12 Reign of Constantius II 13-18 Medallions: Definition 18-19 Medallions: Occasions for Minting 19-22 Medallions: Intended Recipients 23-27 Description of the Medallion 28 Obverse 28-33 Reverse 34-39 Medallions: Production 39-45 The Messages of the Medallion of Constantius 45-50 Conclusions 50-51 Figure 1 52 Figure 2 53 Figure 3 54 Figure 4 55 Figure 5 56 Figure 6 57 Figure 7 58 Figure 8 59 Figure 9 60 Bibliography 61-62 ( 1 ( PREFACE I would like to acknowledge those individuals who have helped to make this work possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Codex of Justinian, Sixth Book Edited and Translated by Simon
    The Codex of Justinian, Sixth Book Edited and translated by Simon Corcoran , Michael Crawford , and Benet Salway1 First Title Runaway Slaves and Runaway Freedmen and Slave Craftsmen of Cities, Both those Assigned to Various Jobs and Those Belonging to the Privy Purse or the Imperial Domain2 [1] Emperors Diocletian and Maximian Augusti to Aemilia. It is manifest that a runaway slave (servus fugitivus) commits a theft of himself and that, therefore, usucapion and long time prescription do not apply, so that the flight of slaves does not cause loss to their masters for any reason. Posted December 9, in the consulship of Maximus, for the second time, and Aquilinus (286). [2] The same Augusti and the Caesars to Pompeianus.3 It is the governor’s duty to give masters the right to search for their runaway slaves. Posted April 29, in the consulship of the Caesars (294). [3] Emperor Constantine Augustus and Licinius Caesar4 to Probus.5 Whenever fugitive slaves are seized while going over to the barbarians, they are either to be mutilated by the amputation of a foot or condemned to the mines or inflicted with some other punishment at will. Without day or consul (310/324?). [4] Emperor Constantine Augustus to Valerianus. pr. Whoever, without knowledge of the master, receives a runaway slave into his house or land is to return him, together with another comparable slave or 20 solidi. 1. But if he has taken him in a second or third time, he is, besides returning him, to give the master two or three others, or the aforesaid amount for any one of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Fernando López Sánchez with the Exce
    VIRTUS PROBI: PAYMENTS FOR THE BATTLE CAVALRY DURING THE RULE OF PROBUS (A.D. 277–278)* Fernando López Sánchez With the exception of the military crisis beginning in 406,1 the worst military crisis that the Roman Empire ever suffered was the one that started in 260 with the capture in the East of Valentinian by Shapur. With all the frontiers under threat, the decreasing trust of the army in the ruling dynasty led to a de facto division into three regions: the Gal- lias, the Italian-Danubian axis and the Eastern part of the Empire. The re-uni cation of the Empire from the centre could only be achieved in 274, after many efforts by Aurelian. Within this context, it is not surprising that, both in the past and present, the main interest of his- torians has focused on understanding the means by which the central Empire that governed from Italy could at the same time cope with external attacks and carry out the re-conquest of the Empire. Within this process of re-uni cation, special attention has been given to the battle cavalry, a special cavalry unit presumably based in Milan and sent to different regions according to the orders given by the different central emperors. And yet the existence of a cavalry stationed in Milan and ready to act under direct order of the emperor does not seem to have been an exclusive prerogatory of the central Empire of Italy. The Gallic emperors, too, in the years 260–274, seem to have had a battle cavalry, similar to that formed in the north of Italy.2 The real agent in the recovery of the Gallias for the central Empire, the emperor Aurelian, had since 274 been very conscious of the need * I am indebted to Dominique Hollard for his advice and comments and to the research group Urbs of Zaragoza.
    [Show full text]
  • A Journey in Pictures: Christianity Conquers Rome
    A Journey in Pictures: Christianity Conquers Rome By Ursula Kampmann, © MoneyMuseum What is god? A Roman who believed in the state gods and a Roman who believed in Christianity would have answered this question quite differently. For the former, the gods were powers which could be induced by magic ceremonies to be well disposed to man. For the latter, God was a loving father who had sent his Son to mankind to redeem all who believed in him. While the Roman gods demanded their rituals, the Christian God claimed the complete person, jealously forbidding him to venerate other gods. The Roman and Christian understanding of god was so different that the one was not prepared to yield to the other peacefully. How and why, however, did it come about that Christianity replaced the Roman cults? 1 von 19 www.sunflower.ch The Roman form of piety Pietas standing before a burning altar, strewing incense over the flame from a box with her left hand. A sesterce of the Roman co-emperor Lucius Verus (161-169 AD), minted for his wife Lucilla The Romans considered pietas to be the basis of their state. If we were to translate "pietas" with the English word "piety" we would not convey the right meaning. "Pietas" meant reverence for everything handed down by one's ancestors: faithfully performing all the domestic rituals, accepting political responsibility and personal ties, obedience towards those who were older and ranked higher. The person who complied with the divine order without wanting to change it in any way was "pius." He could be assured of the solicitude of the gods who rewarded him for his pietas.
    [Show full text]
  • Egypt Under Roman Rule: the Legacy of Ancient Egypt I ROBERT K
    THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF EGYPT VOLUME I Islamic Egypt, 640- I 5 I 7 EDITED BY CARL F. PETRY CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE CONTENTS The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2Ru, United Kingdom http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY roorr-42rr, USA http://www.cup.org ro Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3 r66, Australia © Cambridge University Press r998 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published r998 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge List of illustrations to chapter I 3 ix List of contributors x Typeset in Sabon 9.5/r2 pt [CE] Preface xm A cataloguerecord for this book is available from the British Library Note on transliteration xv Maps xvi ISBN o 5 2r 4 7r 3 7 o hardback r Egypt under Roman rule: the legacy of Ancient Egypt I ROBERT K. RITNER 2 Egypt on the eve of the Muslim conquest 34 WALTER E. KAEGI 3 Egypt as a province in the Islamic caliphate, 641-868 62 HUGH KENNEDY 4 Autonomous Egypt from Ibn Tuliin to Kafiir, 868-969 86 THIERRY BIANQUIS 5 The Isma'ili Da'wa and the Fatimid caliphate I20 PAUL E. WALKER 6 The Fatimid state, 969-rr7r IJ I PAULA A.
    [Show full text]