THE FORGED LETTER ATTRIBUTED to MARCUS AURELIUS One

CHAPTER SIX THE FORGED LETTER ATTRIBUTED TO MARCUS AURELIUS One of the most interesting sources related to the rain miracle is the— surely forged—Greek letter in which the emperor reports the events to the senate. The text was preserved in a 14th-century manuscript (Cod. Par. Gr. 450) attached to the Apologia of the Greek Church Father Jus- tin.1 The letter, its date, and value as a source have been vehemently debated;2 therefore it is worth examining it separately. Although Scaliger had already devoted some attention to the letter,3 it was only Harnack who fi tted it into the sources on the rain miracle in detail.4 According to him the letter is obviously forged, but it fol- lowed reliable sources, as 1. its author knew about the emperor’s letters addressed to the senate; 2. he describes the blockade and the thirst; 3. he gives an account of the solders’ prayer; 4. he tells the story of the rain comforting the Romans and the thunder destroying the enemy; 5. he names two Romans: Pompeianus and Vitrasius Pollio; 6. he has exact topographic data; and 7. he mentions troops who surely partici- pated in the war. Moreover, the author includes Marcus praying, too, therefore he must have known the pagan version of the legend, and answered it in this way. He must also have known the information stemming from Tertullian and Eusebius, according to which the emperor had prohibited further persecution of the Christians. Thus, the terminus post quem for the writing of the letter is A.D. 311, as the author must have known Galerius’ edict of toleration (Eus. H. E. VIII.17.9). A later date for the letter is supported by its language, a koine full of barbarisms. The original letter 1 Edited in Harnack 1894, 878–879, Ed. J. C. T. Otto, Corpus apologetarum Chris- tianorum saeculi secundi I3. Jena 1876 (repr. Wiesbaden 1969) 246–252. 2 Harnack 1894, 863–871, 878–882, Domaszewski 1894, 616–617, Domaszewski 1895, 123–124, Mommsen 1895, 91, Anm. 2, Geffcken 1899, 264–267, 269, Anm. 1, Zwikker 1941, 213, Anm. 180, Freudenberger 1968, Merkelbach 1968, Berwig 1970, 135–140, Birley 1987, 173–174, Sage 1987, 106–107, Klein 1989, 126–127. 3 Harnack 1894, 878–882. 4 Harnack 1894, 863–871. 114 chapter six cannot have been known to the author or else he would not have written a new one. The relationship between the letter and Dio-Xiphilinus, however, is uncertain. Harnack clearly and convincingly showed that the letter in its present form cannot have been written based on them alone. There are serious differences between the two versions: 1. The praying emperor; 2. The praying soldiers; 3. The data on the legions diverge; the participation of the legio XII fulminata is not mentioned in the letter, an anti-Christian tendency, Harnack suggests. According to Harnack, however, there are some elements in common, for example, the word περίστασις that appears in a sentence of Xiphilinus (LXXI.9. 3–4) occurs only in the letter.5 Based on this, Harnack assumed a common source from the age of Marcus (Quelle X) that was used by both authors. Scaliger’s textual emendations are not correct, sometimes even misleading. An example is the correction of the reading Cotinum to Carnuntum caused by Scaliger’s lack of information. Domaszewski also had a negative opinion of the value of the letter as a source.6 The real data, like, e.g., the names of the legions, stem from a historian (Dio or Dexippus), and, according to Domaszewski the expression µῖγµα κατηριθµηµένον refers to the barbarians. According to Mommsen, denying the existence of X, the author of the letter took his data, like Xiphilinus, from Eusebius and Dio’s still-complete text.7 The function polemarkhos could have been identifi ed with the late Roman magister militum, and Vitrasius could have sent the letter to the provinces according to the later function of a praetorian prefect. These features themselves suggest—according to the style of the letter—a late (but not medieval) date for the writing of the letter. “Sacred” as an adjective of the senate was used in Asia, which supplies the place where the letter was written. Geffcken dealt mainly with the date of the letter.8 He was the fi rst to formulate, rightly, that a date from the Byzantine age is quite uncertain due to the fact that the legio XII fulminata is not mentioned (as I have shown above, in the Middle Ages only the data of Eusebius and his translators were repeated). According to Geffcken the letter could have been written shortly after 311, but still under 5 That latter fi nd (the occurrence of a word in both passages) is not suffi cient evi- dence in itself, but perhaps it might indicate a common source. Based on that, the letter cannot be traced back to Xiphilinus. 6 Domaszewski 1894, 617–618, Domaszewski 1895, 123–124. 7 Mommsen 1895, 91, Anm. 2. 8 Geffcken 1899, 264–267, 269, Anm. 1..

Load more