Some remarks on Anonymus Valesianus’ Pars Posterior TAMÁS KOVÁCS • The work of the Anonymous Valesianus, known as Pars Posterior, is a debated is- sue of historiography for more than one hundred years, all the more so as both the identity of the author and the circumstances of the compilation of the work are obscure. The opus of Anonymous is, however, unavoidable while studying the Ostrogothic rule in Italy since it reveals several elements which cannot be found in contemporary sources. The decades since the publication of the first scholarly monograph witnessed an abundance of studies which attempted to answer the questions concerning the Pars Posterior, to identify the author as well as the pla- ce and time of his activity.1 The heightened interest is obvious since the fifth–sixth centuries proved to be a particularly stirring period. Although the last decades of the Western Roman Empire are well documented, these extant sources are mostly fragmented. Among these sources one can find a ninth-century collection referred as Cod. Berol. Phillipps 1885 kept in Berlin.2 On the top of one of the extracts the fol- lowing can be read: “item ex libris chronicorum inter cetera”, that is, in fact the Pars Posterior3 of Anonymus. The Pars Posterior, along with several other fragments, was already published in 1636 – edited by Henri de Valois –, and it took almost another fifty years when his brother Hadrian re-edited the work of Anonymous in the edition of Ammianus Marcellinus in 1681. It was the first time when Excerpta 1 I. König, Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Grossen. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kom- mentar einer anonymen Quelle. Darmstadt 1997, 1–2. 2 König, Aus der Zeit, 1-2. The corpus which was first presented by Henri de Valois contains a part of an eighth–ninth-century manuscript collection which originated from Italy, most likely from Verona. The collection later turned up in the Jesuit Collège de Clermont in Paris. The parchment bundle, originally consisted of 34 flimsy layers – a manuscript prepared by nine different hands – was later ordered and attached to- gether acccording to the hands. The collection appeared in the catalogue of the Jesuit college at the occasion of the sale of the library by auction in 1764. The collection was sold and transferred to a certain Johannes Meermann (Codex Meermannus 794) in the Hague. Following the death of Meermann, the collection was possessed by an English collector Sir Thomas Phillipps (Codex Phillippsianus 1885). Later, through the heirs, it was taken by the German State Library in Berlin in 1887 where it is accessible today under the shelf-mark: ‘Ms. Phill. 1885’. 3 Anon. Val. P.P. Consularia Italica. Anonymi Valesiani Pars Posterior. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquissimorum. 9. Ed.: T. Mommsen, Berlin, 1892. 5 TAMÁS KOVÁCS Valesiana, that is the edition of the Pars Posterior was clearly separated from other fragments.4 Due to the nature (ex chronicorum libris) of the Pars Posterior it can be appro- ached as follows: 1) it can be regarded a ninth-century extract of one or more sixth-century works; 2) or perhaps it might be an earlier (sc. prior to the ninth century) interpolated sixth-century text which was copied in the ninth century; 3) or the known text is a ninth-century summary or the re-edition of one or more sixth-century works. Regarding contemporary mainstream research,5 the present study concerns the Excerpta as a single work of an unknown sixth-century author, which was produ- ced at unknown place and time. In the course of the following analysis, attempts are going to be made for the explanation of the “30/33” years problem, as well as to identify the time and place of the record of the Pars Posterior. In the first phase of the research on the Pars Posterior – during the last years of the nineteenth century – the Italian Carlo Cippola was convinced that instead of an author, one should think of an editor of the opus. According to his thesis, Anony- mous’ activity did not exceed the juxtaposition of the different sources.6 The idea of those scholars who argued for the (re)division or reorganization of the work can easily be justified since the Pars Posterior follows an unusual editorial principle. The work of Anonymous consists of 60 chapters (caput) and it presents the cha- in of events as a chronicle from Chapter 36 to 59: from the rule of Emperor Zeno, through the decline of the power of Odoacer, up to the succession of Theoderic in 4 B, Croke, „Latin Historiography and the Barbarian Kingdoms.” in G. Marasco, Greek & Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity Fouth to Sixth Century A.D., Ledien-Boston 2003, 352. König, Aus der Zeit, 1-2. The catalogue of the Louis-le-Grand library in Paris listed the contents in 1764 as follows: “Codex membranaceus in 4° minori (constants foliis 75) saec IX. Exaratus. Ibi continentur I. Isidori Hispalensis historia Gothorum, Vandalorum et Suevorum. II. Anonymus de gestis Constantini Magni. III. Excerpta ex chronicis incertis de rebus Zenonis et Anastasii imperatorum nec non Theoderici regis. IV. Excerpta ex aliis chronicis de rebus Iustiniani et Francorum usque ad Carolum Martellum”. 5 S. J. B. Barnish, „The Anonymus Valesianus II as a Source for the Last Years of Theod- eric.” Latomus 42 (1983), 572–596. 6 C, Cippola, „Le vestigial del frasario officiale presso l’ “Anonimo Valesiano II’” Miscellanea di Studi in Onore di Attilio Hortis (1910) 919-928. Similar to Cipolla, Roberto Cessi argued for the reorganization. He had a closer look of the Pars Posterior from the points of view of Classical literary traditions as well as from that of linguistics. In the course of the elaboration of his thesis the style of the work played an important role: he observed that the first part of the opus praised Theoderic while the second part – from Chapter 83 onwards – argues against the ruler. (R, Cessi, „La vita di Papa Giovanni I nel Liber Pontificalis e nell’ Anonimo Valesiano” in A. Muratori, Archivio Muratoriano. 19/20 (1917), 474–478). Against the background provided by the two parts, Cessi linked the Pars posterior to two authors: the first part was written by a person who supported Theoderic and the Ostrogoths, while the second parts was compiled by a clergyman. After Cipolla, it was Nino Tamassia who made remarks concerning the Pars Posterior. The scholar drew a parallel between the Book of Kings and the Pars Posterior and attempted to underpin with the information by several authors about the great-scale building activity and jurisdiction during the rule of both Theoderic and Solomon. Based on these premises, he assumes an ecclesiastical author of the Pars Posterior. N. Tamassia, „Sulla seconda parte dell’Anonimo Valesiano.” Archivio Storico Italiano 3 (1913). 3–22. 6 SOME REMARKS ON ANONYMUS VALENSIANUS’ PARS POSTERIOR 493. In the next section, from Chapter 60 to 79, the description of the rule of Theo- deric – the Italian ruler of Germanic origin – can be found. In this part the aut- hor departs from the chronicle form and provides a transformation which disp- lays, first of all, parallels with the emperors’ biographies. Besides the description of political events the author dwells on portraying the major virtues of the ruler through different narratives. In the closing section (Chapter 80 to 96), however, a twist can be observed. The author describes the tragic years of Theoderic’s rule. After Chapter 83 the behavior of Theoderic manifestly shifted: the author vested the emperor with the attributes of the devil, he enumerates a list of wonders, and finally narrates the accusation and the capital sentence of Boëthius which shows analogy with the martyrs’ acts and passions.7 Though it was an unusual edition, it was not fully unique in the period since this style was popular in the literature of the imperial period as well as of the late antiquity. This anecdotic manner narrated the events shifting from one topic to an- other, thus it became widely accepted theory that the Pars Posterior is mostly ba- sed on Suetonian tradition8 which bears both chronicle-like and Orosian features.9 Scholars, however, could easily argue concerning the inconsistency and divi- sion of the Pars Posterior since there are two subsequent lines in Chapter 59 where the author determines the tenure of the Ostrogothic ruler first as 30 years while la- ter as 33 years.10 Based on this fact, Cessi and Barnish assessed that the dating sys- tem of Anonymous is fully inconsistent even though the chain of events follows a clear chronological sequence. There, however, might be two different explanations for the cited sentence of Anonymous. The death of Theoderic was unanimously identified as 526, the length of his tenure, however, was recorded in the sources somewhat different. While Iordanes sets the tenure as 30 years in his narrative on 7 G. Zecchini, “L’Anonimo Valesiano II: Genere Storiografico e contesto politico”, in Teoderico il grande e i goti d’Italia, Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1993, 809–810. 8 Chapter 62 of Pars Posterior is almost identical with the description of Emperor Claudius by Suetonius (SUETONIUS 5.15). It is apparent that several parts of the work of Anonymus Valesianus, for instance 14.48, lack any chronological reference. Although the accurate dating is very often missing from the literature of the late imperial and early medieval periods, an author to be sought who stood closer to Anonymous. The way of description by Anonymous much more resembles to that of Aurelius Victor (Liber de Caesaribus) (Barnish, „The Anonymus Valesianus II,” 575).