Anician Myths

Anician Myths
Author(s): ALAN CAMERON

Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 102 (2012), pp. 133-171
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41724969
Accessed: 14-02-2016 20:26 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41724969?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Roman Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:26:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Anician Myths
ALAN CAMERON
ABSTRACT
Thispaper discussesthewidelyheld viewthatpoliticsin fifth- and sixth-centuryItalywere

largelydrivenby rivalrybetween the two great familiesof the Anicii and the Decii,
supposedlyfollowingdistinctivepolicies (pro- or anti-eastern, philo- or anti-barbarian ,
etc). It is probable thatindividual members of these (and other)familieshad feudsand
disagreementsfrom time to time, but there is absolutely no evidence for continuing
rivalrybetweenDecii and Aniciias families , let alone on specificissues of public policy.
Indeed by the mid-fifth centurythe Anicii fell into a rapid decline. The nobility
continuedto play a centralrle in the social and (especially)religiouslife of late fifth-
and earlysixth-century Italy. Theirwealthgave themgreatpower, but it was power that
they exercised in , mainlyon theirestates
, essentiallytraditionalfields
relativelyrestricted
and in the cityof Rome. The quite extraordinary sums theyspenton games rightdown
into the sixth centuryillustratetheiroverridingconcernfor popular favourat a purely
local level. In this contexttherewas continuingcompetitionbetweenall noble families
rich enough to compete. Indeed, the barbarian kingsencouragedthe nobilityto spend
theirfortunescompetingwitheach otherto thebenefitof thecityand populationof Rome.
Keywords:Late Roman politics;Anicii; Decii; PetroniusProbus; Symmachus;Boethius;

Cassiodorus; Olybrius
I THEPROBLEM
By thesecondhalfof thethirdcentury, theauthorityof theRoman senatehad reachedthe

lowestpointin its thousand-yearhistory,excludedfrommilitarycommandsand yielding
to distantarmiesits traditionalrightof proclaimingnew emperors.No one could have
foreseenits remarkablerevival,if in a somewhat different form,in the course of the
fourthcentury.This is not the place to describe that revival, accompanied by an
enormousexpansion in size and the creationof a second senate in Constantine'snew
easterncapital Constantinople.1My concern is with the increasingdominationof the
senateof Rome duringthisperiod by a small numberof immenselyrichlandowners.
While the senate had long ceased to exercise any significantcollectiveauthority,
individualmembersof the great familieswielded considerablepower by virtueof their
areusedinthenotesforfrequently
abbreviations
Thefollowing cited:
Cameron,LastPagans= AlanCameron, TheLastPagansofRome(2011)
Fastes
Chastagnol, = Andr Chastagnol, Lesfastes deRomeau Bas-Empire
dela prfecture (1962)
Matthews,Western =John
Aristocracies Matthews, WesternAristocracies Court
andImperial ec^n
(1975;rev-
1990)
Continuit
Settipani, = Christian
gentilice Continuit
Settipani, etcontinuit
gentilice danslesfamilles
familiale
snatoriales
romaines l'poque
impriale: mytheetralit(2000)
1Matthews,Western ; A. Chastagnol,
Aristocracies Le snatromain l'poque (1992);P. Heather,
imperiale
CAHxiii(1998),184-210;usefulsummary byG. P. BurtoninOCD3(1996),1386-7.
1RS102(2012),pp.133-171. TheAuthor(s) 2012.

Published forthePromotion
byTheSociety ofRoman Studies.
doi:i o.i o17/S007 200007X
543581
134 ALANCAMERON
wealth.This wealthand thepowerit boughtactuallyincreasedas imperialpowerdeclined

in theWest,reachinga new highunderthebarbariankingsof Italy.As JohnMatthewsput
it,'viewingthesenateof thetimeof Odoacer and Theoderic,one mighthave been forgiven
formistakingit forthe senateof the late Republic,as a fewgreatfamiliesdominatedthe
public life of the city and filledthose officesof state which theirmastersat Ravenna
conceded to them'.2 Only one of these familiescould actually claim descent froma
Republican dynasty,the Acilii Glabriones. The most famous was the comparatively
upstarthouse of the Anicii.
Much has been writtenabout theAnicii.Theirrisein thethirdcenturyand dominance
in the age of Constantinehave been carefullystudied,3but afterthateven the most basic
factsare in doubt. Their rle in the political and even intellectuallife of the fifthand
sixthcenturiesas characterizedin much writingof the past halfcenturyis pure fantasy.
This paper seeks on the one hand to stripaway the nonsense,and, on the other,to
contributeto the moderndebate about the rle of noble familiesin the social, religious
and politicallifeof late antiqueItaly.
Accordingto GiuseppeZecchini,theactivityof theAniciifromc. a.d. 400 down to the
530s can only be understoodwith referenceto theircontinuingrivalrywith another
powerfularistocraticfamily,the Decii.4 The two familiesare supposed to have followed
distinctive policies for more than a century,identifiedas pro- or anti-eastern,philo- or
anti-barbarian, pro-catholicor pro-pagan.On this basis it has oftenbeen assumed that,
in effect, whatevertheAniciidid or wanted,the Decii did or wantedthe exact opposite.
It has to be said straightawaythatthereis nota shredof solid evidenceforrivalryof any
sort at any time betweenAnicii and Decii. It is probable that, like most aristocrats,
individualmembersof these(and other)familieshad feudsand disagreements fromtime
to time,but thereis absolutelyno evidence for continuingrivalrybetweenDecii and
Anicii as families , let alone on specificissues of public policy. Nor is there either
evidenceor even probabilitythat all membersof the Anicii or Decii, or of any other
noble familyforthat matter,pursuedthe same 'policies' generationaftergeneration.In
everyfamily,especiallywhere vast estates,great wealth and real power are at stake,
youngerbrothersare jealous of older brothers,5sons feud with fathers,and daughters
marryambitiousoutsiderswho tryto deflectthe familywealth and power to theirown
aims and dependants.JohnMoorhead has shown thatthe fourconsularsons of Caecina
Decius Basilius cos. 463, so far from forminga united Decian block, squabbled
among themselveson issues both large and small.6 Personal issues aside, the four
brothersmusthave marriedinto different familieswith concernsand traditionsof their
own, as did theirconsularsons in turn(Fig. 4). The likelihoodthatall male descendants
continuedto agree on what was best forany familyover morethan a centuryin the fast
changingpolitical climate of fifth-and sixth-century Italy is remote. The world of
2 'AniciusManlius Severinus Boethius',inM. Gibson (ed.),Boethius, hisLife

, Thought andInfluence (1981),
15-43, reprintedinJ.Matthews, Political
Life andCulture inLateRoman Society ch.5.
(1985),
3 D. M. Novak,"Theearlyhistory oftheAnidanfamily', Studies inLatinLiterature andRomanHistory 1
(I979)>119-65;'Anicianae domusculmen, nobilitatis
culmen',Klio62 (1980),473-93;M. Christol, '
propos desAnicii: le IIIesicle',
Mlanges de l'colefranaise Rome98 (1986),141-64;P. I. Wilkins, The
AfricanAnicii- a neglected textanda newgenealogy', Chiron 18 (1988),377-82.
4 G.Zecchini,'I GestadeXysti Purgationee lefazioni a RomaallametdelV secolo',
aristocratiche Rivista di
storiadellachiesain Italia34 (1980),60-74;'La politica degliAniciinelV secolo',Attidel Congresso
diStudiBoeziani
Internazionale (1981),123-38;'La politica religiosadi Aezio',inM. Sordi(ed.),Religione e
nelmondo
politica antico(1981),250-77;Aezio.L'ultima dell'Occidente
difesa romano (1983);Ricerche di
latinatardoantica
storiografia (1993)and Ricerche di storiografalatinatardoanticaII (2011); L. Cracco
Ruggini, 'Nobiltromana e potere di Boezio',Atti... StudiBoeziani(1981),73-96;'GliAniciia
nell'et
Romae inprovincia', Mlanges del'colefranaisedeRome100(1988),69-85.
5 'solitafratribus
odia', Tacitus,Ann.4.60.3.
6 'TheDeciiunder Theodoric', Historia33 (1984),107-15.
ANICIANMYTHS 135
Odoacar and Theoderic became increasinglydifferent fromthe world of Honorius and

ValentinianIII.
A further peculiarityof much modernwritingon the subjectis thatotherfamiliesare
held to be 'branchesof' or 'mergedwith' the Anicii,a process which apparentlyonly
workedin one direction.Because a memberof one branchof the Symmachimarriedan
Anicia, the Symmachiare claimed as one of these 'branches'.This is a strangeconcept.
The power and wealth of the Aniciiwere so overwhelming(it seems) that anyone lucky
enough to snare an Anician wifewas automaticallyconsidereda memberof some sort
of Anician collective,fromwhich his descendantscould never break away, obliged to
follow Anician 'policies' in perpetuity.Most modernswritingabout the Anicii employ
the terms'clan' and 'group' ratherthan 'family',as if aware that they are assuming
somethingmuchlargerand morecomprehensive than a regularfamily.
In effect,this approach sees Anicii and Decii as politicalpartiesratherthan families.
Inevitably,one is remindedof the once fashionableview thatpoliticsunderthe Republic
consistedof 'contestsforofficeand influencebetweencoalitionsof aristocraticfamilies'.7
That view is seldom held now in a strong form, but there are good reasons for
maintaininga weaker version. The only way to win public officethen was through
elections,and that required the support of those able to mobilize large numbersof
voters.Inevitably,ambitiousnobles musthave cultivatedothernobles, promisingto get
out the vote forthemor theirsons in futureelections.The only two textsthat referto
actions of the Anicii as a familyboth just accuse them of greed.8A major difference
fromthe supposed Republicanfactionsis thattheywere assumed to be based on family
ties insteadof common policies,whereas we are asked to believethat Anicii and Decii
shared both blood and policies, generationaftergeneration.Yet while the two might
coincidefora period,it is obviouslymost unlikelythattheywould continueto coincide
over more than a century. Each successive generation brings new in-laws, new
relationships,new situations,and new concerns- especiallyafterA.D.476.
To takea case wherewe have muchmoreconcreteevidencethanforanyofthesupposed
Anicianand Decian factionsdiscussedin thispaper,muchhas beenwrittenof thepersonal,
religiousand familialties betweenthe Symmachiand Nicomachiat the end of the fourth
century.But whilebothwerepagans, theelderNicomachusFlavianuspursueda careerat
court while Q. Aur. Symmachuspreferredthe traditionalaristocraticcareer,and they
certainlydid not followthe same policies on everyissue. Symmachusopenlybacked the
usurperMaximus (a.D. 383-89) but had nothingto do with Eugenius (a.D. 392-94),
whileNicomachusFlavianusheld officeunderEugeniusbut not Maximus.9
Zecchini'smethodfordetermining whichfamilywas dominantand whichin eclipseat
any givenmomentis to identifythose who held the cityand praetorianprefectures and
consulshipsat the time.But this reflectsa misguidednotion of why the nobilitysought
these offices,how theywon them,and what theyexpectedto do while holdingthem.
They soughtthemfor status,influence,and wealth ratherthan to pursue policies,and
thosewho acquired power used it to win officefortheirsons and in-laws(more on this
below). On the basis of supposed Anicians in high officeat the time,we are asked to
believethatthe Anicii 'supported'firstthe westernusurperJohn(a.D. 423-25) and later
the generalissimoAetius (a.D. 433-54). The supremacyof Aetius allegedlymarkedthe
'crestof the wave' for the Anicii,while his fall was a disasterfor them.10As we shall
see, on Zecchini'sown evidencethisis simplyfalse (see below).
7 P. A. Brunt,
TheFalloftheRomanRepublic andRelated Essays(1988),443-502,at 443,citing
themost
importantearlier
discussions.
8 Amm. Marc.16.8.13;Zos.6.7.4.
9 Forfulldiscussion,
Cameron, LastPagans , passim.
10'La presadipotereda partediAezio... riportagliAnicii
sullacresta
dell'onda op.cit.(n.4,
...', Zecchini,
1981),126.
136 ALANCAMERON
Not only is thereno evidencefor any such 'support'.The real Achilles'heel of this
approachto the fifth- and sixth-century Anicii.For example,the
Aniciilies in identifying
followingare regularlylistedas leadingmembersof the Anicii duringthe supremacyof
Aerius:Anicius AucheniusBassus cos. 431; Anicius Acilius Glabrio Faustus cos. 438;
PetroniusMaximus cos. 433 and 443; Q. AureliusSymmachuscos. 446; Gennadius
Avienuscos. 450; and BoethiusPPO in 454. That looks an impressiveconstellation.But
thereare serious,not to say fatalobjections.Thereis no actual evidencethata singleone
of these men 'supported'Aerius (whateverthat mightmean), let alone throughoutthe
period of his ascendancy.More important,only one of them, Bassus, can even be
consideredAnician in the fullestsense. This is obviouslynot unconnectedwith the fact
that,unlikethe Decii, the Anicii failedto produce enough male heirsin the directline.
The over-generous definition of what it meantto be a 'memberof the Anicii' is not the
leastof theproblemsin mostmodernwritingon thesubject.11
II PETRONIUS
PROBUS
The Aniciireacheda peak of powerand splendourin theage of Constantine,withAnicius

Iulianus consul in 322, his brotherAnicius Paulinus consul in 325, and Iulianus' son
AniciusPaulinus iuniorconsul in 334 (Fig. 2). One at least of these men convertedto
Christianity, one of the earliest men of such high rank to do so, thus achievinga
differentsort of fame in the eyes of posterity.12The three of them practically
monopolizedthe prefecture of Rome foralmosta decade. But fromthentillthe 370s, no
Aniciusheld any of the greatofficesof state.A crypticpassage of Ammianus,probably
writtenin the late 380s but referring to 356/57, describesthe 'posterity'of Anicii
for
unspecifiedstriving gain 'in emulationof theirancestors'('ad avorumaemulationem
posteritas tendens',16.8.13). By the centurytheywereclearlyin decline.
mid-fourth
By its close we findtwo different men posing as restorerof the familyfortunes:Sex.
Claudius PetroniusProbus cos. 371 and Anicius Auchenius Bassus, prefectof Rome
(PVR)13 in 382. Modern scholarshave generallytaken littlenoticeof Bassus' claim. He
was certainlya person of less consequence than Probus, perhaps the most powerful
privatecitizenof his age. But Bassus was at least a genuineAnician in the directline,
whereas Probus, contraryto widespreadbelief,was not. A posthumousdedicationby
one of his consularsons and his daughterproclaimsProbus the 'eminence'or 'bulwark'
of the Anician house: 'Sexto Petronio Probo Anicianae domus culmini ... Anicius
HermogenianusOlybriusv. c. consul Ordinariuset Anicia Iuliana c. f. eius devotissimi
filiidedicarun(ILS 1267). And so he was. But thatdoes not provehimbornan Anician.
Chastagnol argued that his father, Petronius Probinus cos. 341, married an
(unidentifiable)Anicia.14Why then did Probinusname his son Sex. Claudius Petronius
Probus,withouta singleAnician name?15The key text here is a verseepistleAusonius
addressed to Probus, after his consulship (371) and before he laid down his third
praetorian prefecture(375). The poem accompanies a little book of Latin fables,
which Ausonius sent Probus for the education of the son recentlyborn to his wife,
Anicia Faltonia Proba. Accordingto lines 32-4, Probus 'renewsthe stock of the Amnii
11AsnotedinpassingbyJ.J.O'Donnell, thePatrician',
Tiberius 37(1981),33:'ThegensAnicia
Traditio ... isa
great ofmodern
favorite scholars
(whose hastempted
enthusiasm themtoattach
many unrelated without
figures,
evidence).'
12Which oneremainsuncertain:Cameron,LastPagans, 179-81.
13P(raefectus)
V(rbis)
R(omae);I alsousetheabbreviation
P(raefectus) forpraetorian
P(raeton)0 prefect.
14Chastagnol,
Fastes
, 124.
15Thenaturalassumption a Claudia,
isthathemarried Claudius
ifPetronius
especially isanotherofhissons(see
below).
ANICIANMYTHS 137
and decorateswithequal garlandsthe familytreeof the Anicii' ('stirpisnovatorAmniae/

paribusque comit infulis/Aniciorum stemmata').The name Amnius is only found twice
applied to actual persons:AmniusManius Caesonius NicomachusAniciusPaulinuscos.
334 (ILS 1220), and his fatherAmnius Anicius Iulianus cos. 322. Both Claudian and
Prudentiususe Amniadae as a poetic patronymicforlatergenerationsof the Anicii.16In
an inscriptiondated to 395 Proba's two youngersons describeher as 'an ornamentto
the Amnii, Pincii and Anicii' (ILS 1269), and her granddaughterDemetrias, who
dedicated herselfto a life of good works and virginity, is describedon her funerary
as
inscription 'Dem[etria]sAm[nia virgo]' (ILS 8988. i=/LCV 1765. 1), where,since
the inscriptionis in verse,Amnia is surelynot one of Demetrias' actual names but an
adjectiveto be takenwithvirgo, meaning'Anidan female'.17
On thebasis of Ausonius'stirpsAmnia, Seeck identified
PetroniusProbusas a grandson
of AmniusAniciusPaulinuscos. 334. Butthatwould not explaintheparibus (letalone his
names). Why 'equal' garlands? They are equal because Probus himselfcame froma
differentbut equally distinguishedfamily;both his fatherand his grandfatherin the
male line had been consuls before him: PetroniusProbinus cos. 341 and Petronius
Probianuscos. 322 (Fig. 1).
Petronius
Probianus
cos.
322 Faltonia
Betltia =Clodius
Proba Celsinus PVR351-4
Adelphius
signo
1
I i i
Petronius
Probinus
341
cos. Q.Clodius 379=Tyrannia
cos.
Hermogenianus
Olybrius lulianaFaltonius
Anicia Probus
Alypius
1 i
Sex.
Claudius
Petronius
Probus 371-Anicia
cos. Faltonia
Proba
Anicius
Claudius I
(Anicius)
OlybriusProbus 423/5
praetor
Anicius
Hermogenianus
Olybrius =Anicia
cos.395 luliana
Anicius
Probinus
cos.395Anicia
ProbaAnicius
Petronius
Probus
cos.
406
Demetrias
FIG.i. Thefamily
ofthePetronii
andOlybrii.
That Probus'Anicianconnectiondid not begintillhismarriageis put beyonddoubtbya
laterpassage in the same poem of Ausonius:
uthincavi ac patrisdecus,/mixto resurgens

sanguine,
ProbianoitemqueAnicio,/utquondamin Albaemoenibus
supremus Aeneastatus/SilviosIulismiscuit;
sicistequi natustui... /suescat
peritusfabulis
simulet iocariet discere(82-93).
So thatherebytheprideofhisfatherandgrandfather, fromthemingled
springing bloodofthe
ProbiandAnicii,as ofold within
thewallsofAlbathelastscionofAeneasunitedthelinesof
Silviusandlulus,so thathewhois yourson ... maybecomeversedinfables,growingusedto
playand learnat thesametime.
16Claud.,Ol. etProb.9; Prud.,

contra
Symm. 1.551.
17Partofthenameis buttheAM is clearly andgiven
visible, herancestry
no other is
missing, supplement
possible.
138 ALANCAMERON
The fatherof line 82 mustbe Probus himself,the grandfather Probinuscos. 341. If this
childunitesthe blood of the Probi and Anicii,theymustbeforethenhave been separate.
Nothingcould be more tellingin contextthan Ausonius' analogy: Probus is compared
to Aeneas unitingthe Trojans and Rutuliansthroughthe son Silviusborn to him by his
wife Lavinia. Extravagantthough the comparisonis, it would simplyhave misfiredif
both Probus and his wifeProba had been Anicii.If Proba is to play Lavinia to Probus'
Aeneas, theirfamiliesmusttill that momenthave been entirelyseparate.It followsthat
Probuscannothave been an Anicianby birth.
A dedicationto Probusfromthefamily homeinVeronafromtheearly370s,probablybefore
his marriage,saysnothingof any Anicianconnection,proclaiminghimsimply'grandsonof
Probianusand son of Probinus,prefectsof the cityand consuls' ('nepoti Probiani,filio
formsof thenameProbus,the
Probiniw. cc., praef[f].urbiset conss'). Apartfromdifferent
one nameall threeshareis Petronius, whencethefamilyis generallyknownas thePetronii.
It is no doubt the coincidencethat PetroniusProbus' wifewas also called Proba that
fosteredthe idea thattheywere both Aniciansby birth(like FranklinRooseveltmarrying
Eleanor Roosevelt).From the generationof theirchildrenon, Probus and Proba were
certainlytreatedas Anician names. But neitheris found among the Anicii in earlier
generations.Probus/Probaare common enough names,18and it is surelyno more than
coincidencethatPetroniusProbusmarriedan Aniciawho happenedto be called Proba.
Proba's fullnamewas AniciaFaltoniaProba. The uncommonFaltonialeaveslittledoubt
about her descent.As Seeck saw, her fathermusthave been Q. Clodius Hermogenianus
Olybriuscos. 379, son of the ChristianpoetessFaltoniaBetitiaProba. As it happens,this
familyis particularlywell documented(Fig. 1). Thereis no signof an Anicianconnection
untilProba's son Clodius HermogenianusOlybriusmarriedTyrraniaAnicia Iuliana, a
union securelyattestedby a dedicationto Iuliana which explicitlystylesher wife of
Olybrius.19That Olybrius had a brothercalled Faltonius Probus Alypius is securely
attestedby a Roman dedicationthat spells out theirnames in full,and a note in a lost
tenth-century manuscriptof Proba's one survivingpoem describesher as uxor Adelphi
and materOlibrii et Aliepii.20Olybriusand Proba seem to have had threechildren,to
each of whom theygave (at least) one name fromthe familyof BetitiaProba and Clodius
Celsinus,and thename Aniciusfromtheirmother'sfamily(Fig. 1).
The youngerOlybrius,namedforhis fatherand so presumablytheeldest,was governor
of Tuscia-Umbriain 370.21 The elder Olybriuswas proconsul of Africa in 361 and
consularis of Campania before this. For their eldest son to have held a provincial
governorshipby 370, the marriageof the elder Olybriusand Iuliana cannot have fallen
laterthan c. 345. Since neitherof his sons rose higherthan consularis, theymay have
died in theirtwentiesor thirties.A fragmentary dedicationin Crete revealsthatAnicius
Claudius had held a provincialgovernorshipby 38 z.22 The marriageof theirdaughter
FaltoniaProba to PetroniusProbus musthave takenplace a yearor two before375.
What is the ancestryof Tyrrania Anicia Iuliana?23 Most scholars have identified
her as a daughterof Anicius Auchenius Bassus (PVR 382), because he married a
18PIRvi2(1998),p.410;PLREi andiiandPCBEsubnomine.
19'Tyrraniae
AniciaeIulianaec.f.coniugiQ. ClodiHermogeniani Olybriv.c.,consularis
Campaniae, proconsulis
Africae, urbis,
praefecti praef. praef.
praet.Illyrici, consulis
praet.Orientis, Fl. ClodiusRufus
ordinarii, v.p.
patronae ILS 1271.
perpetuae',
20'Q. ClodioHermogeniano Olybrio admirandae
v.c.,fratri Faltonius
pietatis, ProbusAlypius v.c.',ILS 1270;
Cameron, LastPagans, 331.
21Cod.Tbeod.12.1.72;theaddresses oflawsonlygiveonename, butitislikelythathetoowascalledAnicius.
22A. Cameron, 'Anicius Claudius (I. Cret.iv. 322)',Zeitschrift
frPapyrologie undEpigrafik 57 (1984),
147-8.
23SeeckandChastagnol identified
Olybrius* wifeas a daughterofAniciusAuchenius Bassus,whosewifewas
calledTurreniaHonorata. Butevenallowing fora teenage howcouldtheconsulof 379 marry
bride, the
daughterofa PVR382?
ANICIANMYTHS 139
Trrenla Honorata. But the name Turranius is not uncommon in the early fourth
century,24 and we shall see in the followingsectionthatBassus himselfwas not born till
c. 355. The Iuliana pointsto AniciusIulianus cos. 322, the firstknown Iulianus among
the Anicii. The contrastbetween the presence and absence of the Anician name in
successivegenerationsof the familiesof both HermogenianusOlybrius and Petronius
Probus stronglysuggeststhat these two marriageswere theirfirstAnician connections.
Olybriusmarrieda daughteror (more probably)granddaughter of AniciusIulianus cos.
322; ProbusmarriedOybrius'daughter(Fig. 1).
to take a closerlook at a dedicationto Anicia Faltonia Proba fromher
It is instructive
two youngersons, describingher as 'consulisuxori,consulisfiliae,consulummatri'(ILS
1269). She was the wife, daughterand motherof consuls - but not granddaughter,
much less great-granddaughter. She was not a directdescendantof one of the great
ConstantinianAnicii.Probus' Anicianconnectionwas at two removeson the femaleside.
The bestcommentary on Ausonius' 'paribus ... infulis'comes in Probus' own epitaph,
two poems of eighteen(A) and thirty(B) lines copied by M. Vegio fromthe now long
destroyedmausoleumof Probus.25Accordingto A.3-4,
consulibus et consulemaior
proavissocerisque
quod geminasconsulreddidit ipsedomos.
So Vegio's transcript,but consule maior makes no sense.26We are bound to accept

Lfstedt'scorrectionsocero:27 Probus is greaterthan both his own consular forebears
(Probinusand Probianus)28and his consularfather-in-law (the elder Olybrius)29because
by his own consulship('consul ... ipse') he restoredtwo houses. Reddiditis being used
herein the sense 'put back (in its properor normalposition)'.30Ideallya consularhouse
produceda new consul in each generation,and the conceithereis that,beingboth born
into and marryinginto consularfamilies,Probuswas 'restoring'two noble houses. Once
again, clear proof that he claimed to be unitingtwo different houses, his own (the
Petronii)and the Anicii.The poet does not name the Anicii,and (in context)forgood
reason. The father-in-law whose achievementshe had 'restored'was Olybriuscos. 379,
not himselfan Anicianby birth.Like Probus,he too had marriedinto the Anicii.
PetroniusProbusand Anicia FaltoniaProba had fivechildren.The eldest,theunnamed
subjectof Ausonius' poem, livedlong enoughto marrya woman called Furia,31but died
soon after,apparentlybefore 395, or he would surelyhave become consul that year
togetherwith Anicius HermogenianusOlybrius instead of the third brother,Anicius
Probinus.A fourthbrother,AniciusPetroniusProbus, became consul in 406, and there
was also a daughter,Anicia Proba. Followingthe example of his father-in-law Olybrius
cos. 379, he gave all his childrenthe Anician name, but on survivingevidenceonly the
24PLREi.925-6;Chastagnol, , 15-17;F. Chausson,

Fastes Stemmata aurea
: Constantin
, Justine
, Thodosey
revendications
gnalogiques etidologie au IV s. ap.J.C.(2007),176-8.
impriale
25CILvi.1756; ICURn.s.ii(1935),no.4219;CILvi.8.3(2000),pp.4752-3;M. G.Schmidt, 'Ambrosiicarmen
deobituProbi',Hermes 127(1999),99-116;D. Trout, 'Theverse ofPetronius
epitaph(s) NewEngland
Probus',
Classical
Journal 28 (2001),157-76.
26B. CrokeandJ.D. Harries, ReligiousConflictinFourth-Century Rome(1982),117,improbably supplement
thana [normal]
'greater consul'.
27E. Lfstedt,
'Zu lateinischen Eranos13 (1913),72-82n. i, a correction
Inschriften', I jotted
downinmy
ofSeeckmany
edition yearsago,before coming acrossthisarticle.
28Infactfatherandgrandfather; thepoetusedproavi because itfitted
themetre.
29Schmidt,op.cit.(n.25)hasargued that thefarmore ChristianB istheworkofAmbrose,butthere canbelittle
doubtthatProbacommissioned A (cf.A. 15-18),inwhich caseherclaimthatProbusexcelledherownfather
Olybrius
might bethought tohertwobrothers,
unflattering Anicius Claudius
andOlybrius. Bothwereinfact
deadby390.
probably
OLD s.v.reddo1.
31OnFuria, seePLREi.375.
140 ALANCAMERON
two youngestsons names fromhis own family.32 WhateverAusoniusmightsay about the

'equal garlands' of the Petronii,it seems clear that Probus himselfattached more
importanceto the heritageof his Anicianwife.
His marriagemusthave fallena yearor so beforeAusonius'poem celebrating thebirthof
hisfirstchild.Taegert'sdateof374/5mustbe approximately correct.Accordingto Claudian's
panegyric on theconsulshipof Olybriusand ProbinusinJanuary395, neitherhad yetgrown
thefirstdownon hischeeks(69-70; cf.pubentes142), andJeromerefers to Olybrius,theelder
ofthetwo,as 'consulquideminpueritia'(Ep . 130.3). Taegertand Barnesinferthatneitherwas
bornbeforec. 38o.33Perhapsso, butthatwould leavea gap of morethanfiveyearsbetween
thefirstand secondchild.Jeromeand Claudianareperhapsexaggerating to underline
slightly
theuniquenessof thehonouraccordedthem.Olybriusand Probinusmayhave beenin their
late ratherthanearlyteensin 395. Even so, it is hardto believethatProbinus,theyounger
of thetwo, is theProbinusattestedas proconsulof Africain 397-34Teenagersholdingthe
purelyceremonialofficeof consul are one thing,but the proconsulshipof Africawas a
full-timeadministrativepost.
While givingall theirchildrenthe name Anicius, Probus and Proba seem to have
regardedAmniusand Pinciusas obsolete,nor are theyfoundin latergenerations.More
shadowythan even the Amnii,the Pincii have leftno identifiablerepresentative. That a
familyof this name did once exist is proved by the domus Pinciana mentionedby
Cassiodorus (Variae 3.10), presumablyto be identifiedwith the palatium Pinciorumof
the Liber Pontificalis(60.6), on what by the fourthcenturyhad come to be called the
to believe that we should know so littleof the Pincii and
Pincian Hill. It is difficult
Amniiif theywent back to the comparativelywell documentedHigh Empire,let alone
the Republic.More probablytheyhave fallenthroughthe manygaps in our knowledge
of the third-century aristocracy.It is temptingto conjecturethatthe Amniiwere in any
case nothingmore than a branchof the Anniiwho decided to enhancetheirexclusivity
by a changeof spelling- like pretentiousSmithswho proclaimthemselvesSmythe.
Ill ANICIUS BASSUS

AUCHENIUS
The inscriptionthatsuppliesmostof our information about AniciusAucheniusBassus (ILS

1262) claims that both his fatherand grandfatherwere ordinaryconsuls: 'claritatem
generispaternisavitisque fastorumpaginis celebratam... reddiditauctiorem'.We are
bound to accept so precisea claim, in which case it is difficultto see who the father
could be but AmniusManius Caesonius Nicomachus AniciusPaulinus cos. 334, son of
AmniusAnicius Iulianus cos. 322 (Fig. 2). The Caesonius in his father'snomenclature
suggestsa connectionwith Caesonius Bassus cos. 317, which would explain Bassus'
own last name,not previouslyfoundamong theAnicii.35
These identificationsare all but compelling,but thereis nonethelessa chronological
problem. Bassus' urban prefecture yearsafter
is securelydated to 382, hence forty-eight
his father'sconsulate.How can thisbe? In the ordinaryway we mighteliminatethe gap
by postulatingan undocumentedintermediategeneration,but then we would lose the
32Fortheeldestwhodiedyoung, as a guessI wouldsuggest

purely Anicius Probianus.
(Petronius)
33W.Taegert, dictus
Panegyricus OlybrioetProbino consulibus AJPin (1990),
(1988),25-9;T. D. Barnes,
418 (reviewing Barnes
Taegert). suggests(p. 419)thatthefirstbornwasa sonfrom an earlier but
marriage,
thatwouldrequirethathisfirst
andsecond wivesshould bothhavebeenAnicians.
34Cod.Theod.12.5.3.Onthebasisofa dubious from
inference Symm.,Ep.9.126(seetooRodaandCalluad
backto396,buttheoffice
loc.),PLREi.735takeshisproconsulate wasnormally heldforjustoneyear,inthis
casepresumablycutshort 'Between
T. D. Barnes,
byGildo'srebellion: Theodosius andJustinian:LateRoman
Phoenix
prosopography', 37 (1983),256-7.
35ButthereareplentyofotherBassi(PLREi.151-8),notably IuniusBassus cos.331.
ANICIANMYTHS 14I
Anicius
Faustus
cos. PVR
298, 299
Amnius
Anicius
lulianus
cos. PVR
322, 326-9 Sex.
Anicius
Paulinus
cos. PVR
325, 331-5
Amnius
Manius
Caesonius Anicius
NicomachusPaulinus
cos. PVR
334, 334
Anicius
AucheniusPVR
Bassus 382
Anicius
Aucheniuscos.
Bassus 408 Anicia =Anicius
luliana cos.
Hermogenianus 395
Olybrius
Anicius
Auchenius
Bassus
cos.
431
FIG.2. Thefamily
ofAnicius
Auchenius
Bassus.
emphaticallyidentifiedconsular father.Seeck and Chastagnol assumed that, for some

reason unknown, Bassus' public career was retarded.But the dedications reveal an
ambitiousman; note particularlythe one in the Forum of Trajan: 'quaestori candidato,
uno eodemque temporepraetoritutelari,proconsuli Campaniae, praefectourbi.' The
formula'A uno eodemque temporeBC' should link B and C, not A and B.36 The
praetorship,a sinecure held in the late teens or early twenties,marked a young
aristocrat'sentryinto public life. Bassus is apparentlyboastingthat he enteredon his
firstprovincialgovernorship(datable no earlierthan 379) beforehis year as praetorhad
finished.A youngman born to privilegewho enjoyedlifein Rome mighthave delayed
his firstgovernorship,but hardlyhis praetorship.Taken by itself,the evidenceimplies
an acceleratedratherthan retardedcareer. On this assumptionhe mighthave been
twenty-fivein (say) 380, thatis to say born c. 355.
His father,AniciusPaulinus,was probablyyoungwhen he held his consulshipin 334
(his fatherhad been consul only nine yearsearlierin 325). Let us say he was born soon
after 300. If so, Anicius Bassus would have been born when his fatherwas about
Roman nobles, with estatesand statusto pass on to the next generation,did
fifty-five.
not normallywait so long to marryand have a family.The obvious explanationis a
firstmarriagewithoutissue, or with sons who died young,which would also have the
advantage of explainingthe missingAnician generationin the mid-fourth century.As
soon as he was old enough, young Bassus hastenedto pursue his familyobligations,
only to discover that outsiders,Petronius Probus and the sons of Hermogenianus
Olybrius,were claimingthe Anicianfamilymantle.
On at least two public dedications Bassus proclaimed himselfWestitutor generis
Aniciorum'.37This mightbe no more than a referenceto the long gap since his father
last held high office:we're back. But in view of the fact that an outsider,Petronius
Probus,was makingthe same claim at the same time ('stirpisnovatorAmniae'), we are
36AsI arguedin ofRomanStudies

75 (1985),at 166-8.
37ILS 1263;CILJournal
X.5651; toberestored
perhaps in9.1568.
142 ALANCAMERON
surelybound to see Bassus' claim as a defiantstatement:I am the real thing,a direct

descendantin the main line of the Anicii.
The rivalclaimscan be dated fairlyprecisely.We know fromAusoniusthatProbuswas
flauntinghis new Anician son c. 375. And Bassus began advertisinghis claim while
proconsulof Campania, c. 380. Probus' claim restedon more than the Anician son he
had sired. It is not just a question of whetherhe was (or whethercontemporaries
consideredhim) a 'real' Anician. By their marriages,Probus and the elder Olybrius
must betweenthem have acquired a significantportion of the Anician familyestates
and connections,to which Probus was able to add the presumablynot insignificant
wealth he had inheritedfromhis own consular forebears.The chorus of accusations
about his greed makes it clear that he substantiallyincreasedwhateverwealth he had
acquired by eitherroute. Bassus had no doubt grown up in the expectationthat he
would be the head of the familyand controllerof its wealth and destiny.He cannot
have been pleased to watch this arrogant outsider play the part he had grown up
assumingwould be his.
Bassus' uno eodemque temporeboast is rathercurious. There were many provincial
governorships, not hard for any well-connectedyoung noble to come by, nor does he
deservemuch creditfor leaving Rome beforethe end of his sinecureyear of officeas
praetor.38Consider now a boastfuldedicationfromCapua praisingProbus for being
uno eodemque temporepraetorianprefectand ordinaryconsul.39Probus was prefect
from368-75 and consul in 371; Bassus was proconsulof Campania between379 and
382. These are the only survivingexamples of the uno eodemque temporeformulain
such a dedication,theyare nearlycontemporary, and the two men involvedwere rivals.
As proconsulof Campania Bassus is likelyto have seen Probus' monumentin Capua. Is
he perhaps mockingProbus' boastfulnessby trivializingit? Afterall, the combination
was not uncommon(Placidus PPO 342-44 and cos. 343; Lollianus PPO 355-3 6 and
cos. 355; MamertinusPPO 361-65 and cos. 362; Ausonius PPO 377-79 and cos. 379),
since serviceas praetorianprefectwas one of the main qualificationsforthe honour of
theconsulship.But no one else we know of publiclyboasted about it.
Bassus defiantlyproclaimedhimself'restitutor generisAniciorum'on his dedications
and contrivedto preservethe individualityof his own branch of the familyby calling
his son by his own distinctivename Bassus, passed on in turnto his grandson.As for
Auchenius,Claudian treatsit as a metricallyconvenientpoeticismfor 'Anicius'; e.g.,
Pan. OL et Prob. 8,
necte latuerepotentes
seisgenusAuchenium,
Amniadae,
and (especially)line21, whereafterclaimingthatno otherfamilycould claimequalitywith
theAnicii,he concludes:
sedprimasederelicta
secundo.
de iurelicetcertare
Aucheniis,
placeto theAuchenii,
leavingthefirst forthesecond.
letwhowillcontest
'Such a complimentpaid to the obscure name of the Aucheniihas amazed the critics',
remarkedGibbon. Althoughthe name is only now known to us in the person and line
of AniciusAucheniusBassus, on the evidenceof Claudian it cannot originallyhave been
38Thedutiesofa latefourth-century werehardly

praetor chief
onerous, among thembeing
presidingatgames
provided(andpaidfor)byhisfather: 'Observations
A. Chastagnol, suffect
surle consulat du
et la prture
RevueHistorique
Bas-Empire', 219(1958),
221-53,at243-53.
39Fullbibliography ofRoman
atJournal Studies
75 (1985),164-6.
ANICIANMYTHS I43
exclusiveto his branchof theAnicianline.Like Amnius,itmusthave beenan earlyAnician

name available to all branchesof thefamilyiftheywished,a namewithan archaicflavour
appropriate,like the sonorous patronymicAmniades,for hexameterverse.Nonetheless,
PetroniusProbus did not give the name to any of his children,perhaps unwillingto
antagonize his rival. Anicius Auchenius Bassus and his wife Turrenia Honorata had
severalchildren.40It is worthpointingout thatBassus did not give any of her names to
at any rate his eldestson, unusuallygivenexactlythe same names as himself,as was his
41
grandson,consul in 4 31.
IV THEHEIRSOF PROBUS
By c. 390, when he died, PetroniusProbus had made his branchof the Aniciithe richest
and mostpowerfulhouse in Rome. His two eldestsons were appointedconsuls together
in 395, and his youngestson consul in 406, all threebeforeholding any otheroffice.
Most modernwriterstake it for grantedthat his heirswent fromstrengthto strength.
Accordingto Zecchini,by the early fifthcenturytheirrle increasedin a world where
the weakeningof centralpower encouragedthe developmentof senatorialpower and
factions.As a generalproposition,this is no doubt true. But what is the evidencethat
the Anicii in particular rather than the aristocracyin general became increasingly
influential?
Amongotherthings,thisview takes it forgrantedthatall bearersof theAnicianname
workedtogetherand presenteda unitedfrontto theworld. Quite apart fromthe intrinsic
improbability of such an assumption,we have seen that therewere rival branches.We
should not assume that (Anicius) Olybriusand Anicius Claudius, the sons of Olybrius
cos. 379, were happyto yieldleadershipof theirline to the childrenof theirsisterAnicia
Faltonia Proba. Afterall theytoo were born Anicii.That makes threebranches- what
we mightcall the Olybrian,Petronianand Bassan lines - alreadyby the 380s.
Nor is this a modern distinction,inventedby myself.We have already seen that
Ausonius distinguishedProbi and Anicii. And when extollingthe glorious forebearsof
the Anician nun Demetrias,Jeromedistinguishes'the famous names of the Probi and
Olybrii and the illustriousline of the Anicii'.42So too Prudentius,listingthe earliest
noble houses to convertto Christianity:
Amniadum suboleset pigneraclaraProborum .

fertur
enimantealiosgenerosus Aniciusurbis
inlustrasse
caput;sic se Romainclyta iactat.
et
quin Olybriaci et nominis
generisque heres,
adiectusfastis...
ambitet AusoniamChristoinclinare securem
The descendantsof theAmniiand theillustriousscionsof theProbi.It is said thata noble

Aniciusbeforeall othersshedlustreon theRomansenate,43 and theheirof thebloodand
nameof Olybrius , thougha consul... was eagerto humbletheRomanaxe to Christ(CS
I-55I-7)-
40'AniciusAucheniusBassus
v.c. etTurrenia
Honorata c. f.eiuscumfiliis
deosanctisque ILS 1292.
devoti',
AniciusPaulinus
PVRin380(Chastagnol,
Fastes , PLREi.678)maybeanolder
207: brother
ofAniciusBassus.
42'Scilicet
nuncmihi ProborumetOlybriorumclararepetenda suntnomina,etinlustre
Anicii in
sanguinis
genus,
quo autnullus,
autrarusest,
quinonmerueritconsulatun, Jer.,
Ep. 130.3.
43Forcaputurbis= thesenate,
Cic.,ProMil.90 (evenifthetruereading is orbis
, Prudentius*
textmighthave
givenurbis).
144 ALANCAMERON
Ifcontemporaries distinguishedbetweenAnicii,Probi,and thehouse of Olybrius,who are

we to lumpall threetogetherindifferently as Anicii?The factthat,followingthemarriage
betweenPetroniusProbusand AniciaProba,thethreelinescame togetherin theirchildren
did not mean thattherewere no otherAnicii,Probi,and Olybrii.
In the shorttermthe Petronianline fell into rapid decline. In the firstplace, not to
mentionthe portioncontrolledby his widow, Probus' estatesmust have been divided
five ways between his children(the firstborn was already marriedwhen he died).
Second, not the least of the ways Probus himselfbuilt up his wealth and connections
was by holding officeafteroffice,year afteryear. Even the ChristianJeromeaccused
him of taxingIllyricumto ruinduringone of his prefectures, and Ammianusmemorably
describeshim as like a fishout of waterwhen out of office.On survivingevidence,only
the youngestof his sons held any officeaftertheir precocious consulships:Anicius
Probus,who may have been comes sacrarumlargitionumin 412-14, when still in his
early twenties.44They no doubt continuedto trade offthe familyprestigeand exploit
theirfather'sconnections,but holdingoffice,especiallyhigh officegivingaccess to the
emperor,was a vital way of maintainingand increasingwealth,connectionsand power.
More importantstill,not one (it seems) of Probus' threesons produceda son who lived
to hold highoffice.It is impossibleto overestimate the significance
of failureto produce
a male heirin an aristocraticfamilywithvast estates.
The bestdocumentedof Probus' grandchildren is Demetrias,daughterof Olybriuscos.
395 and his wifeAnicia Iuliana. WhenJeromewroteto congratulateDemetriason taking
theveilin 414, he mentionstheuntimelydeathof herfather,fortunate onlyin thathe did
not liveto see thesack of Rome (Ep. 130.3). That is to say,Olybriuscos. 395 was dead by
410, barelythirty, c. 410 Augustinewroteto an obviouslyrichRoman widow called Italica
withyoungchildren.45 The name is rare,and it is naturalto identify heras themotherof
AniciaItalica,46wifeofValeriusFaltoniusAdelfius,cos. 451,47and to assumethatshewas
thewifeof one of the othertwo sons, a son who (sinceshe was a widow) obviouslydied
young.This son's only identifiable survivingchildwas a girl.
One othertextis relevanthere.A well-knownexcerptof Olympiodoruspreservedby
Photiusgivesthe names of threewealthynobles who gave extravagantpraetoriangames
in the firstthreedecades of the fifthcentury.Here are the relevantdetails,as given by
Marc. gr. 450 (A), the only manuscriptused by Bekkerforhis long standardeditionof
Photius:48
WhenProbus,thesonofOlympius hispraetorship
, celebrated duringthereignoftheusurper
John[423-5],he spent1,200poundsof gold.Beforethecaptureof Rome[infactin 402],
Symmachus theorator,a senatorof middling wealth,spent2,000 poundswhenhis son,
Symmachus, his praetorship.
celebrated Maximus,one of the wealthymen,spent4,000
poundson hisson'spraetorship.
While common enough in itself,49the name Olympiusis not found in the ranks of the
higheraristocracy.Since we mightexpect to findthe Anicii among the big spenders,
most have accepted the easy correctionOlybrius,identifiedas Olybriuscos. 395. This
would give him a son called Probus who at any rate lived long enough to become
44R. Delmaire,Les responsables

desfinances au Bas-Empire
impriales romain(1989),182-4.Probuswas
quaestor in395andconsulin406.Symmachus'
candidatos sonMemmius Symmachus wasquaestor in393,
whenonlyten.
45Thenameisfound amongtheCeionii:
a Ceionius isattested
Italicus ofNumidia
as consularis in343(PLRE
i.466).
46Thesearetheonlytwoexamples inPLREi-ii;PCBEii.i citestwomorefrom c. 600.
47PLREii.8-9.
48A. Cameron,'Probus'Praetorian Greek
, Roman andByzantine Studies
49PLREii.800-4citefifteen. Games', 25 (1984),193-6.
ANICIANMYTHS 145
praetor.Probuswould be a plausibleAnicianname,but therhetoricof Olympiodorus'list

impliesthathis Probuscomes froma less richfamilythanSymmachusor Maximus,which
hardlypointsto theAnicii.Marc. gr. 451 (M), firstused in R. Henry'sBud edition,offers
Alypius,a rare but securelyattestedaristocraticname that would removethe need for
emendation.50Alypiuscould be confidently identifiedas FaltoniusProbus Alypius,PVR
391 and youngerbrotherof Olybrius cos. 379.51 Probus would also be a plausible
name for a son of Alypius, 'in any case another Anician', according to Cracco
Ruggini.52But (as Fig. 1 illustrates)he would not have been descendedfromthe line of
PetroniusProbus and Anicia Proba and so not actuallyan Anicianon a strictdefinition.
This would also suit his more modestexpenditure.If this Probus was praetorin 423/5,
when probablyno more than twenty,he mightwell be the fatherof Valerius Faltonius
Adelfiuscos 451, who (as we have seen) married Anicia Italica, granddaughterof
Olybrius395. The names Faltoniusand Adelfiuswould come fromhis grandfather and
great-grandfather respectively, the non-Anician side of the family.
On themodernview of theAniciias a politicalgroupratherthan a regularfamily,the
house of FaltoniusProbusAlypiuswould be close enoughto thehouse of PetroniusProbus
to countas Anician,and in mostrecentscholarshiphas indeedbeen so counted.Buton the
standarddefinition of a family,requiringblood descentor marriageas qualificationsfor
membership, it was not. The most obvious definingfeatureof aristocracyis descentand
exclusivity.It does not seem to have occurredto those who champion so generousa
definitionof the 'Anician group' and its 'allied' familiesthat they are robbing this
supposedlymostexclusiveof houses preciselyof its exclusivity.
A lost inscriptionfromAquileia purportsto be the epitaph,dated to 459, of Anicia
Ulfina,daughterof AniciusProbus v(ir) i(llustris)and Adeleta.An AniciusProbuswhose
daughterdied at the age of eighteenin 459 could be a grandson (hardlya son) of
PetroniusProbus, but it is hard to believethat such a grandeewould have a wife and
daughterwith the Germanicnames Adeleta (Adelaide) and Ulfina.Even if (withPLRE)
we correctthe mother'sname to Adelphia and the daughter'sto Iuliana,53thatstillgives
us no more than an Anicius Olybrius who claimed the title vir illustrisand lived in
Aquileia, wherehe buriedhis eighteen-year-old thisProbus
daughter.Settipaniidentifies
with Olympiodorus' praetor Probus, but of course that presupposes accepting the
emendationOlybriusratherthan the transmitted Alypius.
The onlyauthorityforthisepitaphis thenotoriousforgerGirolamoAsquini,and many
(fromMommsenon) have dismissedit as a modernforgery.54 One mightadd thattheold
aristocracyaffected the archaizingstylev(ir)cl(arissimus) inl(ustris)in dedicationsrather
et
than the straightforward v(ir) i(nlustris),a nicetyof protocol that an early nineteenth-
centuryforgeris unlikelyto have known.55On the otherhand, why would a forgercast
doubt on his 'find' by choosing not one but two such obviously non-Roman names?
Aniciiare foundin the epigraphyof Aquileia, evidentlyat a lower social level (an Anicia
Glucera).56If the dedicationis authentic,thisAniciusProbus,despitehis title,musthave
50SinceAandM areentirely independent ofeachother, Alypiusisnottobeseenasa correction ofA'sOlympius.

51423/5 wouldbelateinthedayforAlypius tohavea soninhislateteens/early twenties,butthere
isalwaysthe
ofa second
possibility marriage.NotetoothatProbus issaidtohavegiven hisowngames, whereasinboththe
othercasesthefather
isnamed as theprovider ofthegames. Presumably hisfatherwasdead.
52CraccoRuggini, op.cit.(n.4, 1988),83 n. 36.
53So C. Sotinel,Identitciviqueet christianisme: Aquiledu IIIe au VIesicle(2005),278-9,withfull
bibliography.
54S.Panciera,Unfalsario
delprimo ottocento, Girolamo Asquini, e l'epigrafia
anticadelleVenezie
(1970),52-67
(accepting M. P. Billanovich,
authenticity); 'Il falsoepitafio
aquileiense diAnicia Rendiconti
Ulfina', dell'Istituto
Lombardo 108(1974),530-50(against).
55A. Cameron, 'Flavius:
a nicety ofprotocol', Latomus 47 (1988),26-33,at 32-3.
56CIL V.1071 = CLE 66;A. Calderini, Romana : ricerche di storia
e di epigrafia
Aquileia (1930),450-1.The
claimthattheAquileian martyrs Cantia,Cantianus and Cantianilla were'de genere Aniciorum',
though
146 ALANCAMERON
beena poor relation- or no relation.Eitherway,itwould be rashto use itto fillin gaps in

theAniciiof Rome.
Olympiodorus'Maximus is generallyidentified as thefatherof PetroniusMaximus cos.
433? 443 and short-lived emperorin 45 5-57Solelyon thebasis of thenamePetronius,most
recenthistorianssimplyassumethatPetroniusMaximus was an Anician,indeed,givenhis
obvious importance,'il "numerouno" della famiglia'.58But Maximus is not knownas an
Anicianname untila centurylaterwithFl. Maximus cos. 523. Many relyon a passage of
Procopius that identifiesthis Maximus as a descendant of PetroniusMaximus, but
Cassiodorus,when praisinghis Anicianlineage,does not mentionPetroniusMaximus.59
Furthermore, the same Procopius elsewhereidentifiesMaximus 523 as a descendantof
the usurperMagnus Maximus.60 It is in any case pure assumptionthat the son of
Olympiodorus' Maximus was himselfcalled Maximus.61 If he was not, then any
possibilityof a linkwithPetroniusMaximus vanishes.
Nor does the factthat PetroniusMaximus gave his own son the equally un-Anician
name Palladius support the assumptionthat he saw himselfas leader of the Anicii.
Zecchiniinsiststhat 'the main branchof the Petroniiwas fusedwiththe Anicii',and so
a PetroniusMaximus had to be an Anician.But it is not as if PetroniusProbus was the
last of the Petronii.A PetroniusClaudius is attestedas proconsulof Africain 368/70,62
an officepracticallymonopolizedby the aristocracy.63 Given that PetroniusProbus' full
name was Sex. Claudius PetroniusProbus and that he was praetorianprefectat the
time,it is likelythatthisPetroniusClaudius was a kinsman,perhapsa youngerbrother
profiting fromhis elder brother'spatronage.There is also Probinusproconsulof Africa
in 397 (assumingthathe is not the consul of 395), perhapsa son of PetroniusClaudius.
If eitherman lived long enough to marryand have sons, that would be enough to
explain non-Anicianfifth-century Petronii.Once again, most modernswould be tempted
to count a brotheror nephewof PetroniusProbus as an Anician.But not by blood, and
the grandchildrenand great-grandchildren of such a brother would have been
increasinglyremote kin of the grandchildrenand great-grandchildren of Petronius
Probus. If we are going to count second and thirdcousins as Anicii,the total would
soon reachthe hundreds.
Zecchini also argues that only the supportof the 'main branch' of the Anicii could
explain Petronius Maximus' extraordinary career (four prefectures and two
consulates).64But familysupport was not the way anyone won high officeat this
period. Powerfulpatronsat court helped, but we have already seen that only one core
memberof the Petronianbranchof the Anicii (verybriefly)held officeat court in the
early decades of the fifthcentury(Anicius Probus in 412-14). More important,the
claim thatMaximus descendedfromthe 'main branch'of the Aniciiadmitsof an almost
mathematicalrefutation.
undoubtedly atanyrateimplies
false, thepresence inAquileia:
ofAnicii i Canziani
seenowR.Lizzi,'GliAnicii, e
la Historia
Augusta ' Hist.Aug.Coll.Bambergense (2007),279-94;Sotinel,
op.cit.(n.53),278-80.
57Olympiodorus' Roman visitis usuallydatedto424/25,inwhich casehisMaximus must havebeenpraetor
sometime between (say)410and42,andso bornbetween 390and405.
58Zecchini,op.cit.(n.4, 1983),251.
59Asnoted byT. Hodgkin, TheLetters ofCassiodorus(1886),424n. 2.
60Settipani,
Continuitgentilice,381.
61SinceOlympiodorus' first
twoexamples inreverse
arelisted chronological
sequence (423-5and402),itis
to assumethatthethird
reasonable than402,in whichcasea muchearlier
is earlier Maximus mightbe
suchas Valerius
considered, Maximus PVR361-62.
62PLREi.208;A.Chastagnol, Ultalieetl'Afriqueau Bas-Empire(1987),340.
63Fora listofproconsuls between 337and392,T. D. Barnes, 'Proconsuls
ofAfrica, Phoenix
337-392.', 39
(1985),144-53-
64Zecchini,op.cit.(n.4, 1980),73.
ANICIANMYTHS I4 J
Insufficient attentionhas beenpaid to thededicationthatdescribeshis 'a proavisatabis-

q(ue) nobilitas'(ILS 809). While we need not take too seriouslyvague claims of consular
ancestorsmade by hagiographers,eager to stresstheirheroes' renunciationof worldly
rank,65preciseclaims by contemporarywritersand dedicationsare anothermatter.We
have alreadyanalysedthe case of AniciusBassus, and will encounterseveralmorein the
course of this investigation. If PetroniusMaximus could have claimed a consular father
or even grandfather,he surelywould have. As it is, he claims no more immediate
consular forbearthan a great-grandfather (proavus). He is known to have been born
c. 396,66 which makes it extremelyunlikelythat he could have been a son of eitherof
the teenageAnicianconsuls of 395. But if he had been,he would thenhave been able to
claim a consular fatherand grandfather, which he did not. If his fatherhad married
Probus' daughterAnicia Proba,67 he would still have been able to claim a consular
grandfather, if on the femaleside. If his motherhad marriedone of the two sons of
Olybrius cos. 379, he would also have had a consular grandfather- but not
great-grandfather. On chronologicalgroundsa grandsonor granddaughterof Olybrius
cos. 379 would make a betterlink.That would give him a consulargreat-grandfather -
but not great-great-grandfather. Hardly the 'main line' of the Aniciiin any case.
Nor does descentfromthe Anicii Bassi provide the necessaryconsular ancestors.If
Maximus' fatherhad been Bassus PVR 382 (or marriedBassus' daughter),that would
have given him a consular grandfather as well as great-grandfather. Furthermore, birth
c. 396 would have been ratherlate forsuch a match,giventhatBassus PVR 382 had a
son who was consul in 408. If his father(or father-in-law) had been Bassus cos. 408, he
would have had a consular father.It is difficultto see any way PetroniusMaximus
could be a directdescendantof any of the threeidentifiable branchesof the Aniciiat the
end of the fourthcentury.
In all probabilitynot one of Olympiodorus'threeextravagantpraetorswas an Anician.
And ifa representative of theAniciiwas not among thetop threemostconspicuousrecent
spendersknown to Olympiodorus,the consequence is serious for the standingof the
Petronianline of the familyin the early decades of the fifthcentury.And if Petronius
Maximus was not an Anician,the consequencesare devastating.For his seizureof the
purple in 455 is held to be the clearestproof of the power of a familythat could
engineersuch a coup. But if it was a noble fromanotherfamilythat seized the throne,
this proof would vanish. Some familywe cannot even identifyproduced the most
powerfulprivatecitizenof the age.
Onlyone likelydirectmale descendantofPetroniusProbuscan be identified: theAnicius
Olybriuswho endedhis daysas emperoroftheWestin 472. His own namesand thenames
of his famousdaughter,Anicia Iuliana, rebuilderof the recentlyexcavatedchurchof St
Polyeuctusin Constantinople,68 mightsuggestthat he was Demetrias' brother,son of
Olybrius cos. 395 and the elder Anicia Iuliana. But Demetriaswas born in the late 390s,
and (accordingto Jerome)was on the point of marriagewhen she chose virginityin
414.69 If AniciusOlybriuswas her brother,he too would presumablyhave been born a
littlebeforeor after400. But since nothingis heard of him till c. 454 and his daughter
lived till 527/28,70 we mustsurelyposit (at least) one intervening generation.We know
65e. g. 'praetermitto
... usquead consulatus familiae
provectam suaenobilitatemi VitaHonorait
Hilarius, 4.2.
Forevenmorefanciful claims tomythological seebelow.
ancestors,
66PLREii.749.
67Ifbornc. 396,Maximus couldnothavebeenborntoanyofthedaughters
ofProbus' thatthetwo
sons,given
eldestwerestillteenagersin395.
68R. M. Harrison, Temple : theDiscovery
forByzantium andExcavation
ofAnicia Palace-Church
in
Juliana's
Istanbul (1989).
69PCBEii.i.544-5.
70PLREii.635-6.
148 ALANCAMERON
fromAugustine,who dedicatedhis De bono viduitatisto the elderAnicia Iuliana in 414,

that she had more than one child, at least one of them male ('tu ... filioshabes').71
Demetriasmay have had a brotherwho lived long enough to marryand sire a son, but
not long enough to win high office(at any rate, no such office-holder is on record).
Given the fragilityof imperialrule in the West and the importanceof continuity, it is
perhapsunlikelythatAniciusOlybriuswould have been proclaimedWesternemperorin
his seventies.
PetroniusProbus'threesons werea disappointment. Not onlydid theydo nothingand
die young.Theydid not producesons of theirown, at any rateno sons who livedto hold
the highestofficesof stateand advance the familyfortunes.
V THEACILIIGLABRIONES
Bassus' homonymoussons were consuls in 408 and 431. Like all threeof Probus' sons,
Bassus cos. 408 won his consulatewithout(it seems) havingheld any otheroffice- a
hallmarkof the highestnobility.But after431 thereare no more Anicii Bassi. Like the
Petronianline,the Bassan line (if it did not die out altogether)musthave passed down
on the femaleside. The factthat the distinctiveAucheniusdoes not appear among the
names of the great Roman familiesof the late fifthand early sixth centuriesstrongly
suggeststhatit died out.
In the absence of male issue, much of the Petronianfamilywealth musthave passed
throughthe femaleside. While therewas evidentlya dearth of male Anicians in the
main lines, thereare bound to have been a few daughtersavailable for marriageto
suitableoutsiders.The firstidentifiablebeneficiary is AciliusGlabrio Sibidius,whose full
name is known froma dedicationto him by his son, Anicius Acilius Glabrio Faustus,
cos. 438, whose distinguishedcareer ran fromthe 420s to the 440s.72 The lack of
Anician names in the fatherand presencein the son suggeststhat Sibidius marriedan
Anicia and advertisedthe union in the standardway in his son's nomenclature.On this
basis Sibidius,Faustus and theirdescendantsare regularlyidentified,in view of their
undoubtedimportance,as leadersof the 'Aniciangroup' down into the sixthcentury.
Let us takea closerlook at AniciusAciliusGlabrioFaustus.Witha consulshipon top of
threeurbanand two praetorianprefectures, he and PetroniusMaximus wereundoubtedly
thetwo mostdistinguished men of theage, on theusual view twinleadersof theAniciiat
theheightof theirpower.Accordingto one critic,Faustus'represents themain line of the
Anicii'.73But his distinctionand influenceneed not derive fromhis father'sAnician
connectionalone. Seen over the longue dure, the fame of the Acilii Glabriones far
outshonethat of the Anicii,relativeparvenus.In 400 it was barelyone hundredyears
since the firstAnician ordinaryconsul, AniciusFaustus cos. 298. The Acilii Glabriones
could boast a consul as far back as 191 b.c.74 Herodian describesM' Acilius Glabrio
cos. II a.D. 186, son of M' Acilius Glabrio cos. 152, as 'the most nobly born of the
patricians,since he tracedhis descentfromAeneas son of Aphroditeand Anchises'.In
192 he turneddown Pertinax'sofferof the throne.75That any familyshould reproduce
itselfcontinuouslyin a directline forseven hundredyears is (of course) incredible,and
it is likelythat a few key links in the chain were forgedon the female side, if not
71Aug.,De bonovid.8.11.AugustinemakesitclearthatIulianaonlymarried once.

72PLREii.452-4;Chastagnol,Fastes
, 286-9.
73B. L. Twyman,
'Aetius 19 (1970),480-503,at484.
Historia
andthearistocracy',
74M. Dondin-Payre, dupouvoir
Exercise etcontinuit : lesAciliiGlabriones
gentilice (1993).
75Herodian2.3.4;PIRZA.59-73withstemma onp. 12;M. T. W.Arnheim, TheSenatorial inthe
Aristocracy
LaterRomanEmpire R. Syme,
(1972),68-9,107-9;generally, 'Aneccentric RomanPapersiii
patrician',
(1984),1316-36.
ANICIANMYTHS I49
outrightforged.Thereis a particularly embarrassinggap of morethana centurybetween

M. AciliusGlabrio cos. 256 and Sibidius.76
But whetheror not Sibidiuswas a genuinelineal descendantof the consul of 256, he
'needed only', as Corey Brennan put it, 'to be genuine (or at least rich) enough to
impresscontemporaries',which he evidentlydid.77 A man who could boast such a
lineage may have looked on an Anician marriagelike an impoverishedEnglishduke a
centuryago seeking an American heiressto restorethe statelyhome and repair the
familyfortune.He is not likelyto have turnedhis back on more than seven hundred
years of his own glorious family historyand simply submerged himselfinto this
hypothesizedAniciancollective.He will surelyhave seen himselfas revivingthe fortunes
of the AciliiGlabrionesby a good marriage.
Who did Sibidiusmarry?The firstof his son's threeurbanprefectures fellbetween421
and 423,78implyinga date of birthno laterthanc. 390, and perhapsa yearor two earlier.
This is much too earlyforSibidiusto have marriedeitherAnicia Proba, the daughterof
PetroniusProbus,79 born no earlier than the mid-380s; or a daughter of Anicius
AucheniusBassus, born c. 355 and so unlikelyto have marriedbeforec. 380. One
possibilityis a granddaughterof Olybrius cos. 379. If so, once again not the main
Anicianline.
Though no doubt a Christian,instead of building churches like Probus' female
descendants,Sibidiusbuilta familyforum,betweenthe Piazza Navona and the Tiber.80
His son 'adorned' this forum,and set up (at least) threestatuesthereto commemorate
three members of his family: his father, Sibidius; his father-in-law,Tarrutenius
Maximilianus, consularis of Picenum and vicarius of Rome; and a 'maternal
great-grandfather' (proavo suo ma[terno])whose name is unfortunately lost. A maternal
great-grandfather would be his Anician mother'sgrandfather. If PetroniusProbus and
AniciusBassus are excluded,possiblyOlybrius379, not himselfan Anician.
But whoeverAniciusFaustus' motherwas, the key factis that her grandfather is not
describedas Faustus' great-grandfather ( proavo suo), but as his mother'sgrandfather.
At Rome a man's nobilitywas determinedby his agnaticancestors,his forbearson the
male side.81 While it was a grand thing to be 'noble on both sides', like Galba's
designatedheirPiso Licinianus,82nobilityon the mother'sside alone neverhad the same
weightas nobilitypassed down fromfatherto son. Badel cites the case of Petronius
Probus as an illustrationof the 'weakening'of the traditionalRoman view, but his is
not a case of a 'new' man claimingnobilityby marryinga noble wife.As a consul who
was the son and grandsonof consuls, by any standardProbus was impeccablynoble in
his own right.So faras we know he neverclaimedto be an Anicianhimself.He did not
need to. What does appear to be an innovationis the factthat he chose to emphasize
his wife'sfamilyin the heritageof his fivechildren,givingthemall the name Anicius.In
76ForSibidius'career,PLREi.838-9.Thegapis partly filledbyan otherwiseunidentifiable

AciliusGlabrio,
namedwitha dozenothersenators at thebeginning of thefourth whodonated
century, money forthe
construction
of a buildingin Rome(CIL vi.37118, re-edited withfullcommentary in CIL vi.8.3(2000),
pp.
77T.4819-20).
C. Brennan,'Gentilician
permanence andstrategy overseven centuries?',
reviewing op.cit.
Dondin-Payre,
(n.74),inJournalofRoman Archaeology 9 (1996),335-8.
78Chastagnol,Fastes
, 286-9.
79Asassumed by Chastagnol,Fastes
andbySettipani, Continuit 194.
80Forwhatis known gentilice,
ofthisforum,seeR. E. A. Palmer, StudiesoftheNorthern Campus MartiusinAncient
Rome , Transactionsof the American Philosophical Society80.2 (1990),47-50; Matthews, Western
Aristocracies
, 356-7;H. Niquet, Monumenta virtutum Senatorische
titulique: imsptantiken
Selbstdarstellung
RomimSpiegel derepigraphischenDenkmler (2000),253-9;forthededication,seenowCIL vi.8.3(2000),
pp. 5094-5
81C. Badel,La noblessedel'empire
romain: lesmasques etla vertu(2005),140-3.
82'nobilis Tac.,Hist.1.14.11,
utrimque', withChilver's Bael,op.cit.(n.81),141.
commentary;
150 ALANCAMERON
view of the constantemphasisin our sourceson the wealth and greedof the Anicii,the
explanationmay be the predominantly Anician ownershipof the estatescontrolledby
Probusand his father-in-law,Olybriuscos. 379.
By givinghis Aniciangreat-grandfather the limitingepithet'maternal',AniciusFaustus
clearlyimpliedthathis primaryforbearsweretheAciliiGlabriones.He remainedfirstand
foremostan Acilius Glabrio ratherthan an Anicius. The names of his three known
descendantstell the same story:Anicius Acilius AginantiusFaustus cos. 483, Rufius
AchiliusMaecius Placidus cos. 481, and RufiusAcilius Sividiuscos. 488. Since Faustus
438 was born no laterthan c. 390 and Faustus 483 held a second urban prefecture as
late as c. 503, these men must be his grandsonsratherthan sons. They are probably
cousins ratherthan brothers,the diversityof theirnames reflecting the factthatFaustus
438 had at least two sons who marriedinto different families.Only one of thembears
the name Anicius,while all threekept the Acilius. Faustus 483 has his grandfather's
Faustus as diacritical,Sividius 488 his great-grandfather's Sibidius, neitherof them
Anician names. To judge fromtheirnomenclature,this generationrated theirAcilian
above theirAnician heritage,while also pridingthemselveson otherconnections.Brunt
similarlyobjectedto the theoryof Republicanfactionsthatit was 'implausiblethatclans
or familiesno less proud of theirlineage ever accepted the leadershipof Fabii, Metelli,
etc.'.83
VI THECORVINI
Anotherman regularlyidentified as a prominentAnician is AniciusProbus Faustuscos.

490. Given the combinationof Anicius and Probus in his nomenclature,on this basis
alone it is temptingto identifyhim as a directdescendantin the main Anician line, 'a
senior memberof the ... clan'.84 Actuallywe are singularlywell informedabout his
immediatefamilytree(Fig. 3). His fatherwas GennadiusAvienuscos. 450, and Anicius
Probus Faustus called his own sons Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus and Ennodius
Messala, consuls in 502 and 506 respectively; and the youngerAvienuscalled his son,
consul in 530, Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes. Not one exclusivelyAnician name
among them.85Gennadius Avienus no doubt married an Anician heiress,and, like
Sibidius,advertisedthe connectionin one of his son's names. Probus Faustus was no
doubt proud of his Anician blood. But (as in the case of Anicius Acilius Glabrio
Faustus) this does not seem to have been a connectionhis descendantschose to give
priority.
In thiscase our mostilluminating in some
sourceis a letterof Sidonius,characterizing
detail GennadiusAvienusand Caecina Decius Basilius cos. 463, the two most powerful
men in Rome at the timeof his visitin 467:
I debated... whichsenators
wouldhavetheinfluence to aid myhopes.Therewas reallylittle
aboutthis,fortherewereveryfewwhoseclaimsas possiblechampions
hesitation wereworth
weighing.Certainlythereweremanyin thesenateblessedwithwealthand exaltedin lineage
(opibuscultigeneresublimes)... but (withall due respectto therest)twoconsulars
of the
Gennadius
distinction,
highest Avienus and CaecinaBasilius,stoodoutabovetheirpeers... If
we comparethe two men,theircharacters, thoughboth extraordinary, are nevertheless
... Wheneitherof themhappenedto go out of doors,he was encircled
different by a
swarming massofclients whowalkedbeforehim,afterhim,or at hisside... Avienus, so far
83Brunt,op.cit.(n.7),445.
84A. Gillett,
Envoys andPolitical intheLateAntique
Communication West
, 411-533(20x53),
149.
85Asweshall see,Probus/Proba Anician
werenotexclusively names.
ANICIANMYTHS 151
PPO
Messala 399-400
Avienus inMacrobius'
(Interlocutor Saturnalia)
I
Gennadius
Avienus
cos.
450
Anidus
Probus 490?Rufius
Faustus
cos. Valerius PVR
Messala
Rufius Faustus
Magnus 502Ennodius
Avienus
cos. Messala
cos.
506
Rufius
Gennadius
Probus 530
Orestes
cos.
FIG.3. TheCorvini.
as hisinfluence
extended,exerted
himself inpromotinghissons,sons-in-law,
andcousins,andas
he was alwaysbusywithcandidates fromhisown family, he was lesshelpful in meeting
the
wantsofplace-seekersoutsidehiscircle... Suchfavours
as Avienusobtainedforhisrelatives
wheninoffice,Basiliusbestowedon outsiders evenwhenoutofoffice (Ep. 1.9.2-4).
Not a word about theAnicii,an omissionthemorestriking in thatSidoniusdirectlynames
the familiesof which Basilius and Avienus were the currentpatriarchs,the Decii and
Corvinirespectively. In modernAnician mythology, the Decii were theirgreatrivals.If
Avienuswas a doyen of the Anicii,86why does a well-informed contemporaryobserver
say he was the head of a quite different
family?One scholar simplydefinesthe Corvini
as an 'Anician house', withoutfurtherexplanation.87On a more naturalinterpretation
of the passage, Sidonius was includingthe Anicii of this date under the heading 'those
blessed with wealth and exalted in lineage' but not worth consideringas promising
sponsorsforan ambitiousyoungman.
The factthat one of Gennadius Avienus'grandsonswas called Messala suggeststhat
the Corviniclaimed descentfromMessala Corvinuscos. 31.88 Nothingis known about
Avienus' father,but in Macrobius' Saturnalia (1.6.26), writtenin the 430s but with a
dramaticdate of 382, when explaininghow aristocraticcognomina were passed down
fromgenerationto generationin the great families,the host Praetextatussays to his
fellow noble Avienus: 'So too your own Messala, who derives his name from the
cognomenwon by Valerius Maximus when he capturedthe famouscityof Messana in
Sicily.'This ancestormustbe M' Valerius Maximus Messala cos. 263 b.c. As for'your
Messala', presumablyMessala PPO of Italy in 399-400, whom Rutilius Namatianus
even more ambitiouslyclaimed to descend from Valerius Publicla cos. 509 b.c.89
Messala and Avienus (representedas a youngman at Macrobius' dramaticdate in 382
but dead by the 430s) were no doubt brothers.90Brotherscalled Messala and Avienus
86So Zecchini,
op.cit.(n.4, 1981),126.
87S.J.B.Barnish,Transformationandsurvival
inthewestern
senatorial ca 400-700',
aristocracy, ofthe
Papers
British
Schoolat Rome (1988),120-,at 114.
88Ch.15andstemma inR. Syme, TheAugustan
89De Red.1.267-72.9 Aristocracy
(1986).
90Cameron,LastPagans , 241-2.
152 ALANCAMERON
would make appropriatelynamed forbearsfor Gennadius Avienus and his line.91A

fifth-century urban prefectcalled RufiusValerius Messala is also presumablyrelated.92
Like the Acilii Glabriones (though probably with less justification),the Corvini were
layingclaim to a lineagethatreachedback centuriesbeforethe Anicii.
It is instructive to considerthetermsin whichSidoniusdescribes,as an eyewitness, the
patronageexercisedby the two greatpatriarchsof his day. No hintof the 'policies' that
are supposed to have divided the Anicii and Decii down the decades (pro- or
anti-eastern, pro- or anti-barbarian),policies for which thereis not a scrap of textual
evidenceat any period.What Sidoniusnoticed,aftercareful(self-interested) observation,
was thatGennadiusAvienuslimitedhis patronageto his 'sons, sons-in-lawand cousins',
while Caecina Decius was also helpfulto 'place-seekersoutside his circle'. There is no
suggestionof rivalrybetweenthe families,exceptin so far as each patriarchwas trying
to further the interests of his own protgs.Since no one held officeforlong,therewere
always enough to go around. For example, we know the names of no fewerthan
seventy-two urban prefectsbetween425 and 525, fivebetween440 and 445 - statistics
the more impressivegiven that we have nothinglike a complete list for the period.
Avienus' protgsmust have been Corvini and in-laws,while Basilius did not restrict
himself to Decii alone,as illustrated
bythefactthathe secureda cityprefectureforSidonius.
The line of Basiliuscos. 463 virtuallymonopolizedtheconsulshipforfourgenerations
(Fig.4). We have thefullnamesof fiveof histwelveconsulardescendants,whichrevealthe
now familiarmixtureof recurringfamilynames (Caecina, Decius and Basilius) together
with new names, reflecting otherconnectionsconsideredimportant,some inevitablyon
the femaleside. The most intriguing consul in 541 (the last
is his great-great-grandson,
citizenconsul ever appointed),Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius.93Have even the Decii
now becomeAnicii?94
Momiglianothoughtit significant that'an Aniciuswas chosenas consul byJustinian in
541'.95 Basiliuscos. 541's motherwas no doubt an Anicia (not necessarilyfroma main
branchof the family),and he may well have been proud of his in-laws,but a glance at
Fig. 4 will show that his peers must have seen him as the Decian patriarchof his
generation,adding to an accumulationof consulshipsnot seen in one familysince the
Metelli won fifteenbetween143 and 52 b.c. The aristocracywas much reducedin size
by the sixthcentury,fewergreat familiesofferingsuitable brides for the sons of their
peers (further reducedby the tendencyof richheiressesto embracevirginity and widows
to avoid remarriageat this period). The situationwas exacerbated by the fact that
Basilius cos. 463 and his eldest son Basilius cos. 480 had three and four sons
respectively,all of whom, luckier than the Anicii, lived long enough to reach the
consulate and have sons of their own. Decian males needed a lot of aristocratic
heiresses.Despite the familydecline, Anician daughtersmust still have come with
enticingdowries, and by the late fifthcenturythe entirearistocracymust have been
linked by marriageone way or another to both Decii and Anicii. Basilius 541 can
hardlyhave been the firstDecius to have an Anician mother,and it should be noted
that the majorityof his names are Decian. By the sixth centurythe Anicii had
91Formuch more buthighly

ambitious, speculative,
family trees, Continuit
Settipani, 161,162,164
gentilice,
and165.
92PLREii.761;S. Orlandi, dell'Occidente
anfiteatrale
Epigrafia Romano VI (2004),495-6,no.hi. Purelyas a
I haveinserted
conjecture, himintothefamilytreeas a secondsonofGennadius Avienus;thiswouldexplainthe
inthenexttwogenerations.
Rufius
93TheintervalbetweenAlbinus
cos.493andBasilius toolargefora single
cos.541issurely generation.
94Theentry ofFaustusandAvienusintotheDecianlineamong thesonsofBasilius a
cos.480(Fig.3) suggests
linkwiththeCorvini.
marriage
95A.Momigliano, andItalian
'Cassiodorus ofhistime',
culture ProceedingsoftheBritish
Academy 41 (1955),
207-45= Secondo Contributo deglistudiclassici
allastoria (i960),191-229,at 247.
ANICIANMYTHS 153
Decius
Caecina Aibinus
Aginatius(cos.
444)
Caecina
Decius
Aibinus463)
(cos.
Caecina
Decius Aibinus
Maximus 480) Caecina
(cos. Mavortius
Basilius
Decius Marius
486) Decius
(cos. Venantius
Basilius
(cos.
484)
Vettius Basilius
Agorius Mavortius
(cos.
527) Basilius
Venantius
(cos.
508)
Decius
iunior iunior
529)Paulinus
(cos. 534)?
(cos.
Aibinus493)Avienus
(cos. 501)Theodorus
(cos. (cos.
505)Inportunus
(cos.
509)
Anidus
Faustus
Aibinus
Basilius
(cos.
541)
FIG.4. TheDecii.
transferred mostof theirwealthto theEast, and Justinianmayhave been impressedbythe

familiarAniciusin Basilius'nomenclature. But he chose Basiliusforwhatwas to provethe
last citizenconsulshipless because he was an Anician than because he was the most
distinguished survivingnoble leftin a Rome whencemosthad long sincefled.
VII THESYMMACHI
At thetimeof Sidonius'visit(467) theAniciiwereat bestthethirdmostpowerfulfamilyin

Rome - perhapsactuallythe fourth,ifwe take the Symmachiinto consideration.It has
oftenbeen assertedthatthe Anicii'merged'withthe Symmachi.Llewellynwritesof 'the
Aniciiand the relatedSymmachi',as thoughthe Symmachiwere only importantbecause
of their Anician connection.96But the Symmachiwere an immenselywealthy and
distinguishedfamily in their own right,with ordinary consulships in all but one
generationbetween330 and 522, and a suffectconsulshipin the late thirdcentury.97
Zecchini describesAureliusMemmius Symmachuscos. 485 as 'an Anician son' of
Symmachuscos. 446, and in a tellingslip Cracco Ruggini cites him as Q. Anicius
Memmius Symmachus.98The fact is that his names proclaim Symmachuscos. 485 a
96P. Llewellyn,
RomeintheDarkAges(1970),28:B. Lanon, Romedansl'Antiquit
tardive
(199O,8*.
97TheoneexceptionisQ. Fabius Memmius sonofSymmachus cos.391.Since isknown of
Symmachus, nothing
hiscareer
after
hispraetorship
in402,hemayhavediedyoung - thoughnotsoyoung thathedidnotmarryand
producea son,theconsulof446.L. Aurelius Avianus
Symmachus,thefather
ofSymmachus 391,wasconsul
for367 whenhedied.Fortheantiquity
designate oftheSymmachi,seeA. Cameron, The antiquity
ofthe
Symmachi',Historia
48 (1999),477-505.
98CraccoRuggini,op.cit.(n.4, 1981),77.
154 ALANCAMERON
LAurelius
Avianius cos.
des.
Symmadius 377
& Aurelius cos.

391Avianius
Symmachus Vindicianus
Avianius
Valentinus
Celsinus
Titianus
a Fabius
Memmius
Symmachus401
praetor Aurelius
Anidus
Symmachus
Q.Aurelius cos.
446
Symmachus Boethius
PPO
Italiae
454
Aurelius
Memmius cos.
485 Nar.
Symmachus Manlius
Boethius
cos.
487
i-h I
=Anidus
Galla Rustidana Severinus
Manlius
Boethius
cos.
510
-
i S
Boethius
cos.
522 Symmachus
cos.
522
FIG.5. TheSymmachi
andtheBoethii.
direct descendantof Q. Aurelius Symmachuscos. 391, throughhis son, Q. Fabius

MemmiusSymmachus,praetor402."
Yet accordingto Settipani,'at thebeginningof thefifth
century,theSymmachi... began
to use the familyname (gentilice)Anicius'.100This is a misleadingformulation.The
formula 'use the familyname' implies that the Symmachiwere formallydeclaring
themselvesan Anician subsidiary.But by the late fourthcenturythe concept of family
name is hard to pin down. Noble nomenclaturewas no longer a simple matterof
praenomen,familyname and cognomen.In Republican times,the presenceof certain
names (Aemilii,Licinii, Cornelii) was an automaticpointerto membershipof certain
families,withthe different branchesdistinguishedby cognomina (AemiliiLepidi, Licinii
Crassi, CorneliiScipiones).Those who identify AniciusAcilius Glabrio Faustus,Anicius
Probus Faustus, Anicius Acilius Aginantius Faustus, and Anicius Faustus Albinus
Basiliusstraightforwardlyas Aniciansare in effectassumingthatthe same principlesstill
applied. Anyone styledAnicius,regardlessof his other names, could automaticallybe
counteda core memberof the 'Aniciangroup'.
But in the course of the fourthcenturythe practiceof name-givingin the aristocracy
changed radically.Some changes fromtraditionalpracticeare already obvious in the
familiesof PetroniusProbus and Olybrius379, notablythe emphasison descenton the
femaleside. Remarkablyenough,instead of being given names handed down over the
generations in the male line, Petronius Probus' eldest surviving son,101 Anicius
HermogenianusOlybriuscos. 395, got all threeof his names fromhis mother'sfamily.
Anotherinnovationis that, unlike the third-century and ConstantinianAnicii,the old
praenominadisappear102and in theirstead we findAnicius,the 'familyname', in first
99TheMemmius cameintothefamily fromSymmachus cos.391'sfather-in-law

Memmius VitrasiusOrfitus.
100Settipani,
Continuitgentilice.
412.
101Fora guessaboutthenames oftheeldest,
seen. 32 above.
102TheSymmachi wereunusualincontinuing
tousethetraditional fifth
downintoatleasttheearly
praenomina
Cameron,
century: op.cit.(n.97),485-7.
ANICIANMYTHS 155
place. One or two otherfamilies,theMacrobii forexample,followedthisunusualcustom

of placingthefamilyname first.103 In theSymmachi,thefamilyname alwayscame last.In
theDecii, apparentlyin any position:forexample,in first,second and fourthplace in the
case of the threesons of Basilius463 (Fig. 4).
The 'familyname' of the Symmachimay once have been Avianius,104but by the late
third century it had become Symmachus,though only (it seems) for the eldest
son. Q. Aurelius Symmachus cos. 391 was the eldest son of L. Aur. Avianius
Symmachus.He had threeyoungerbrothers,Celsinus Titianus, Avianius Vindicianus
and Avianius Valentinus.105Titianus lived long enough to be vicar of Africa and
Vindicianusand Valentinusto be governorsof Campania, but all threewere dead by
38o.106 The names Titianus, Vindicianus and Valentinus signalled various marriage
connections,a new developmentin the aristocracy,reflected(forexample) in the names
of successivegenerationsof the Decii (Fig. 4). Anyone marryingan Anician daughter
would feelentitledto treatthe Anician name no differently fromthe name of any other
familyhe marriedinto when naminghis children.It did not mean that he thoughtof
himselfas Anician firstand anythingelse a distantsecond - or indeed that he was so
consideredby other Anicii. The names Titianus, Vindicianus and Valentinusdo not
reappearin latergenerationsof the Symmachi,thoughthingsmighthave been different
if Symmachuscos. 391 had died youngand one of his brothershad survivedto become
the familypatriarch.
Settipani'sclaimthattheSymmachiadopted the 'gentilice'Aniciusis based on Aurelius
AniciusSymmachus, PVR in 418-20. Butsincewe know fromtheabundantevidenceofhis
correspondence that Symmachuscos. 391 had only one son, Q. Fabius Memmius
Symmachus(praetor401), AureliusAnicius Symmachusmust have been a nephew of
Symmachuscos. 391, son of one of his threebrothersand an otherwiseunidentifiable
Anicia.107For some, this is enough to place all futuregenerationsof Symmachiin the
Aniciancamp. For example,one of the 'proofs'thatthe Anicii supportedAetiusis held
to be the factthata Symmachussharedthe consulatefor446 withAetius.
But thereis no trace of any Anician name in the main line of the Symmachi,which
descendsdirectlyon the male side from330 to 48 5.108Symmachuscos. 391 was close to
Titianus, and included a batch of letters to him in Book 1 of his published
correspondence. But forwhateverreason he did not includeany lettersto Vindicianusor
Valentinus,nor to Anicius Symmachus.Whether or not he resented the Anician
connectionthat produced Anicius Symmachus,it is surelysignificant that so devoteda
family man as Symmachus never even mentioned, much less addressedhis nephewin his
correspondence, so abundant in
precisely the last decade of his life,when the youngman
was takingthe firststeps in a careerthat led to the proconsulshipof Africain 415 and
prefecture of Rome in 418-20. There is no indicationthat any of the later Symmachi
descendfromAureliusAniciusSymmachusratherthanSymmachuscos. 391.
Symmachuscos. 485 had daughterscalled Rusticiana and Galla, traditionalfamily
names. Rusticianawas the name of thewifeof Symmachuscos. 391 and Galla the name
of the wife of Memmius Symmachus(in anothertellingslip Cracco Rugginigives the
103Cameron, LastPagans , 238.

104Cameron, LastPagans, 487.
105Chastagnol,
Fastes, 160,218;M. R. SalzmanandM. Roberts,TheLettersofSymmachus: BookI (2011),
xix-xx.
106'Tertius
hiemihideoptimis fratribus
luctus Ep.3.6.2,Titianus'
est',Symm., deathin380.Presumably
allthree
hadoneother nameas well,unfortunatelyunknown.
107Notetoothathisfather gavehima majority
ofSymmachan names, andthatAnicius
standsinsecondplace,
not,as inalmost
allother known ofthename,
bearers infirst
place.
108Symmachus cos.522isthesonofBoethius anda daughter
ofSymmachus cos.485.Avianius the
Symmachus
father
ofSymmachus cos.391diedconsul in377.
designate
156 ALANCAMERON
youngerRusticianathestyleAnida Rusticiana).Down thegenerationsall theseSymmachi

musthave marriedgirlsfromotherfamilies,but,repudiatingtheirfourth-century practice,
thefifth-century Symmachireturnedto theolderstyleof confining themselvesto namesin
the directmale line ratherthan marriageconnections.
One namethathas been made to bear moreweightthanit can standis a supposedthird
daughterof Symmachus cos. 485 calledProba,supposedlyan Aniciannameand so proofof
a valued Anicianconnection.But quite apartfromthefactthatProba is not an exclusively
Anicianname,the texton whichthishouse of cards restshas been misread.Fulgentiusof
Ruspe, in a letterto a widowed nun called Galla, describesher as having a father,
grandfather, father-in-lawand husband who were all consuls (avo, patre, socero, marito
consulibus).109GregorytheGreatdescribesa noble nun called Galla who was thewidowed
daughterof Symmachusthe consul and patrician.110 Since the fatherof Symmachuscos.
485 was, like a
him, consul, therecan be no doubtthatGregoryand Fulgentius are referring
to thesame Galla, daughterof Symmachuscos. 485 and granddaughter of Symmachuscos.
446. Galla's unnamedhusbandmusthave beenconsulbetweenabout 495 and 510, son ofa
man who had also been consul.No knownAnicianfitsthe bill,but at leastsevenwestern
consulsduringthisperiodwereDecii or Corvini,and everyone had a consularfather.
On theverysame page Fulgentiusrefersto Galla's sisterProba,also a nun,as being'avis
atavisquenata consulibus'.The standardassumptionis that,beingGalla's sister,Proba too
was a daughterof Symmachuscos. 485. But Proba's consular forebearsare explicitly
limitedto grandfathersand atavi (more remote ancestors). If she too had been the
daughter of a consul, why would the obviously well-informedand sycophantic
Fulgentiussay only granddaughter?When his language about Galla's forbearsis so
precise,111we are bound to accept that he is similarlyprecise only a few lines later
about Proba's. Obviously Fulgentiusis characterizingthem as spiritual , not biological
sisters.Proba was not a daughterof Symmachuscos. 485.
The fifth-and sixth-centurySymmachimaywell have enjoyedclose relationswithone or
anotherof thevariousbranchesof theAnicii,butwhywould descendantsin themain line
of so rich,powerfuland long-established a familyhave thoughtof themselvesas anything
but Symmachi?
ViliBOETHIUS
That leavesthephilosopherBoethius,in fullAniciusManlius SeverinusBoethius,son ofthe

westernconsulof 487, whose fullnamesare givenon hisconsulardiptychas Nar. Manlius
Boethius.112Presumably Boethiuspremarriedan Anicia,once again oftenassumedto place
all future(and even past) Boethiiin the Anician camp. For example, the fact that the
philosopher'sgrandfather, praetorianprefectin 454, is said to have been a friendof Aetius
and was killedwith him is taken to confirmAnician supportof Aetius. But thereis no
reasonto believethatit was thisBoethiuswho contractedthemarriagethatresultedin his
philosophergrandson being given the name Anicius. Many referto the philosopher
straightforwardlyas 'an Anician',113but if the Anicius in his nomenclatureis so
what of the Severinus?The usually cautious Momigliano was attractedby
significant,
109Ep.II ad Gallarti
viduam 31 (CC 91.208).
110Greg.,Dial.4.14.1(SC 265,p. 55).
111NotethathedoesnotgiveGallaa consular sinceMemmius
, correctly,
proavus wasnotconsul
Symmachus
(Fig.
5).
112Somestrange guesseshavebeenmadeabouttheabbreviation NAR(Narses, op.cit.(n.4,
CraccoRuggini,
1981),82),butthesimplest isthattheN is anerror
solution forM,andthatthenameabbreviated
is Marius:
A. Cameron,'Boethius's
father's
name', ZPE 44 (1981),181-3.
113'unanicio',
Zecchini,op.cit.(n.4, 1983),52.
ANICIANMYTHS 157
Hodgkin's fancifulsuggestionthatBoethiuswas named afterSaint Severinusof Noricum,

buried in the Lucullanum monasteryby its abbot, his biographerEugippius, who
dedicateda book to the noble nun Proba and so is creditedwith Anician connections.
Zecchiniwentso faras to characterizethe givingof thisname to the baby Boethiusas a
'decision of the Anicii'.114It is incomparablymore likelythat it came froma marriage
connectionwithSeverinuscos. 482, son of Severinuscos. 461, a man of greatinfluence,
accordingto Sidonius(Ep . 1.11.10). Does thismakestheBoethiia branchof theSeverini?
From about this period we have a prefectof Rome and patrician called Venantius
SeverinusFaustus,evidentlyanotherproductof a connectionwiththeSeverini.115
BothBoethius'parentsdied whenhe was veryyoung,and he was broughtup, not bythe
Anicii,but by Symmachuscos. 485. Here is Lady PhilosophyaddressingBoethiusin his
prisoncell:116
Whenyoulostyourownfather youwerecaredforbymenofthehighest rank(summorum te
virorum ), and beingchosento becomekinto thefirstmenin thestate(in
curasuscepit
affinitatemprincipmcivitatis
), which is the most valuable kind of kinship(quod
pretiosissimum genusest),you becamedear to themevenbeforeyou were
propinquitatis
actuallyrelatedby marriage.Who did not call you happy,with such immensely
in-laws(tantosplendoresocerorum
distinguished ), withsucha chastewife,and withthe
ofsonsto followyou?
blessing
A page later Philosophyreassureshim with the informationthat 'your father-in-law

Symmachus,that most precious ornamentof mankind,lives safely,and being a man
wholly formedin wisdom and virtue ... and thereforewithoutconcern for his own
troubles,he laments over yours'. 'Need I speak', she continues,'of your sons, both
consuls,who, forchildrenof theirage, alreadytake afterthe natureof eithertheirfather
or theirgrandfather (vel paternivel avitispecimenelucetingenii
).' These sons, significantly
named Boethiusand Symmachus,117 were appointedconsulswhilestillchildren,a striking
illustrationof the prestigeof the Symmachiat this time.The fatherand grandfather to
whom he alludesare obviouslyBoethiushimselfand Symmachuscos. 485.
What is so interestingabout thisheavilyautobiographicalpassage is itsconsistentuse of
kinshipterminology.Despite what appear to be genericplurals (virorum , principm ,
socerorum ), the referenceis undoubtedlyto one family,the familythat took him in as
an orphan and into which he subsequentlymarried,the Symmachi.He dedicatedhis De
118 and De arithmetica
trinitate 119 to
Symmachus. Nor are the dedications mere
formalities.In both cases, dedicatoryepistlesinsistthat Symmachusis the only person
on whose advice Boethiusreliesand the only personwhose judgementhe values. In his
Contra Eutychenet Nestorium , dedicatedto Johnthe Deacon, he refersto an occasion
when a letteron its subject matterwas read publicly,regretting that he was sittinga
long way fromthe one person whose reactionhe was most anxious to see. Chadwick
thoughtthismighthave been the Pope, but a few lines laterBoethiussays that once he
has John's reactionsto what he himselfhas writtenhe will 'send the work on to be
judged by the man to whom I always submiteverything'.120 This is what he elsewhere
114T. Hodgkin,ItalyandherInvaders iii(1885),523;Momigliano, op.cit.(n.95),252;M. A.Wes,Das Ende

desKaisertumsimWestern desrmischen Reichs
(1967),147: Zecchini,op.cit.(n.4, 1993),89.
115Orlandi,op. cit.(n.92),436and478-9.
116De consol,
phil.2.3-4.
117Itwouldhave beeninstructive
toknowtheir fullnames,but(despite theincorrectinformation on
supplied
p. xin.aoftheLoebBoethius) wedo not.
118Conveniently available
intheLoebBoethius (rev.ednS. T.Tester,
1967),2-4.
119H. Oosthout andI. Schilling,
A.M.SBoethii De arithmetica(1999),3-6.
120Contra pr.(pp.74-6Loeb);H. Chadwick, Boethius: TheConsolations
Eutych. ofMusic, , Theology
Logic
andPhilosophy (1981),181.
158 ALANCAMERON
saysof Symmachus.The dedicationto De arithmetica calls on Symmachusto advance his

endeavourspaternagratia.EvenifbybirthBoethiusowed some allegianceto theAnicii,his
own words implya single-minded devotionto the Symmachiin his adult years.
Yet Cracco Rugginirefersto Boethiusand Symmachusas 'illustriousAnicians',and
accordingto Momigliano Cassiodorus 'neverlost an opportunityto celebrateBoethius'
family,the Anicii'.121There are in fact just two passages in the Variae where
Cassiodorus (channellingKing Theodohad) praises the Anicii. But thereare fourmuch
longerand morespecificpassages wherehe praisesthe Decii. First,Var. 3.6:
It is thebloodoftheDeciithatespecially dazzlestheeyeofmy[Theoderic's] Forso
serenity.
manysuccessive years,it has shoneoutwiththebrightness of consistentvirtue;and though
gloryis a rarity,
no variation can be detected
in so longa familytree... See howa fourfold
gloryspringsfroma singleseed,an honourto the citizens,a gloryto theirfamily, an
increase to theSenate.Theyblazeout in theircommonmerits, butyoucan stillfindone to
praiseforhispersonalqualities...
And so on fora page and a half,celebratingthe patriciateconferredon Inportunus,cos.
509, one of the fourconsular sons (the 'fourfoldglory') of Caecina Decius Maximus
Basiliuscos. 480, son of Basilius cos. 463. Then thereis Var. 9.22, celebratingthe 534
consulateof Paulinus,great-grandson of Basiliuscos. 463:
In yourfamilyRome recognizes the descendants of her ancientheroesthe Decii, a line
honouredin earliercenturies,
protectors gloryof thesenate... In an age of
of our liberty,
heroesnonelovedtheircountry more.
Theconsulateis a highhonour,butonethatis routine foryourfamily.TheRomanSenateis
composedalmostentirely ofDecii ...
Then Var. 9.23 on the same subject,praisingPaulinus' fatherVenantiuscos. 508:

Suchan honour[theconsulate] is no surprise
forthefamilyoftheDecii,fortheirhalls(atria)
are fullof laurelledfasces... Venantius,gloryingin so manychildren, fatherto so many
consuls.Forothersthisis a raredistinction, for[theDecii]birthis practically
synonymous
withtheconsulate.
No less striking
is Var. 8.22, comparingthepatricianCyprianus,not himselfa Decian, to
theDecii and Corviniof old.122In context,thereferenceis to thelegendarydevotioof the
Decii Mures, fatherand son, in 340 and 295 b.c. So too a fragmentary panegyricof
Cassiodorus, claiming that Theoderic surpassed the devotio of the Decii (p. 467. 4
Mommsen). The late antique Decii evidentlyaffecteddescent from these Republican
heroes,a claim Cassiodorus twice explicitlyevokes, describingInportunuslearning'in
the books of the ancients' (presumablyLivy 8.9 and 10.28) about his great ancestors
'livingon throughtheirgloriousdeaths'.123Ennodius too includesDecii and Corviniin
listsof Republicanheroes,neverAnicii.124Praise of the Republican Decii and Corvini
was obviouslyintendedto call to mind theirpresent-day'descendants'.The Aniciiwere
unable to make any such claim. There were indeed Republican Anicii,but quite apart
fromthe factthattheyhailed fromPraenesteratherthan,as the laterAnicii,fromNorth
Africa,they were not in the firstor perhaps even the second rank of great Roman
121CraccoRuggini,op.cit.(n.4, 1988),70;Momigliano,
op.cit.(n.95),189.
122'Simileshabuistis
olim,patres Decios,similes
conscripti, vetustas fuisse
praedicat Var.8.22.3;for
Corvinos',
Cyprianus,PLREii.332-3.
123Var.3.6.4-5;cf.9.22.3.
124Ennod. pp.14.12and66.25.J.Moorhead, Theoderic on 'thelackof
inItaly(1992),164.hasremarked
interest
displayedbyCassiodorus intheAnicii,
... andEnnodius andtheir higher
apparently in
levelofinterest
theDecii'.
ANICIANMYTHS I59
houses.125The Decii, liketheCorviniand AciliiGlabriones,claimeda gloriousRepublican

past.
Let us returnto thetwo letters( Var. io.ii and 12) thatpraisetheAnicii,writtenin 535.
The firstis addressedto Maximus cos. 523,126the second to the senateabout Maximus:
Ancient
timesbegottheAnicii,a housealmostequal to royalty.
The dignity
of theirname,
downto youin yourblood,has shoneforthmorepowerfully
channelled and gloriously
...
Theyarea family
renownedthroughout theworld...
Twelve years earlier Cassiodorus (channellingTheoderic) had writtencongratulating

Maximus on his consulship,withoutmentioningthe distinctionof his family.There can
be little doubt why this is firstmentionedin the two later letters.Both allude to
Maximus' recentmarriageto an (unnamed)Gothicprincess:'you have earneda brideof
royal blood whom you did not dare to hope for in your consulship.' Maximus is
describedas a man 'worthyof my (Theodohad's) kinship',and told that 'heretofore
yourfamilyhas indeed been praised,but it has not been adorned by such a bond; there
is no further way foryour nobilityto increase'.This praise of the Aniciihas nothingto
do with any personal connection of Cassiodorus, still less of Boethius. It is solely
motivatedby the decision of the Gothic royal house that only an Anicius had the
pedigreeto marrya princessof the blood royal. Cassiodorus' lettersto Boethiusand
Symmachusnevermentionthe Anicii.
When Cassiodorus characterizesthe familyof Maximus as 'paene principibuspares'
(Var. 10.11.2), thiswas neitherfamilyloyaltynor even flattery inspiredby theircurrent
power,but the simpletruth.AniciusOlybriuscos. 464 had marriedan imperialprincess
and in 472 served as emperor himself. Barnish styled Maximus a 'kinsman' of
Boethius.127But the Anicia Boethius' fathermarriedmay have been several branches
removedfromMaximus and the kinshipcorrespondingly remote.In this sense almost
any aristocratof this period was 'kin' to most of the great families. But when
Theodohad was lookingaround fora husband forhis granddaughter,128 onlythe Anicii
could point to royaltyin theirfamilytree.If the years covered by Cassiodorus' Variae
had been dominated by any trulyimportantAnicii, why does he mentiononly the
Maximus?
relativelyinsignificant
IX ORDOGENERIS
CASSIODORORUM
Mentionof Cassiodorus bringsus to a subjectthatcan no longerbe postponed:themuch

discussed(and much misunderstood)documentknown afterits discovereras Anecdoton
Holderi, published by Herman Usener in 1877. 129 It is described in its heading as
Excerpta ex libello Gassiodori Senatoris,monachi, servi Dei, ex patricio et consule
ordinario, quaestore et magistro officiorum,quem scripsit ad Rufium Petronium
Nicomachum [Cethegum], exconsule ordinario, patricium et magistrmofficiorum ,
followed by what looks like the title of the work excerpted: Ordo generis
Cassiodororum , 'Genealogyof the Cassiodori'.
125Briefly,Kleine
Paulyi (1975),354;T. P.Wiseman,
Roman Studies
(1987),34i.
126Often referred
toas AniciusMaximus. He mayhavebornethenameAnicius,butitisnotactually in
attested
anysurviving textorinscription.
127S. T.B. Barnish,
Cassiodorus
: Variae
, Translated
TextsforHistorians
12 (1992),in n. 2.
128Aninference from thefactthatTheodahadwaselderly
by535:PLREii.1067-8.
129Anecdoton Holderi:
EinBeitragzurGeschichte
Romsinostgotischer
Zeit(1877),translated
intoFrench
with
usefulintroductionandbibliographybyA. Galonnier,
Anecdoton Holderiou OrdoGeneris Cassiodororum
:
lments pourunetudedel'authenticit
Bocienne
desopusculasacra(1997).
l6o ALANCAMERON
Butwhatfollowsis certainly nota genealogynorevena historyoftheCassiodori.Of the

threebiographiesincluded,onlyone fitssucha title,thatof Cassiodorushimself.And even
that is almost comically inadequate compared with the substantialautobiographical
materialincludedin several of the Variae (1.3-4; 3.28; 9.24-5), purportedlylettersof
Theoderic and AthalaricpraisingCassiodorus and his father,but in fact (of course)
writtenby Cassiodorus himself.Var. 1.4 also includes detailed informationabout his
grandfather and great-grandfather.
Why then does a work titledOrdo generisCassiodororumdeal with only one of the
Cassiodori but includebiographiesof two other,on the restof our evidence,unrelated
people, Symmachuscos. 485 and Boethius? On the standard modern interpretation,
what the title 'really' means is that all four men named in these excerpts,including
Cassiodorus and his dedicatee Cethegus, were members of a larger group, the
super-family of the (unnamed) Anicii.130Indeed, according to Zecchini, Cassiodorus
here 'declares his kinshipwith the Anicii'.131'Declares' impliesan explicit,not to say
proud claim; it certainlyimpliesthatthe Aniciiare at least mentioned . But theyare not.
Accordingto Momigliano,by 'including] Symmachusand Boethiusin the accountof
his own family'Cassiodorus musthave regardedthemas kinsmen.132 Magnus Aurelius
CassiodorusSenatorhas been linkedto the Aniciiat one removethroughthe Symmachi,
in the beliefthat, like Boethius,the Symmachiwere membersof the 'Anidan group'.
Aureliuswas indeed a name regularlyborne by the Symmachi,but is by no means
confinedto them.133Cassiodorus refersto the noble nun Proba as his parens (Inst.
i. 23.1), but over and above the factthatparens is a vague term,oftenused as no more
than a respectfuladdress to an older person, we have seen that Proba was not
Symmachus'daughter.
If the title had gone on to say et propinquorum , it mighthave been argued that
Cassiodorus was listingfamouspeople to whom he was related,howeverremotely.But
the veryprecisephrase Ordo generisCassiodororumclearlyimpliesmembersof his own
immediatefamily.Furthermore, his account in the Variae (especially1.4) of the lives of
his father,grandfatherand great-grandfather says nothingabout their marriagesor
otherkinshipconnections.In the Variae Cassiodorus mentionsonly his directforebears
in the male line,of whom he seems to have been extremelyproud: 'fame also celebrates
the previousCassiodori; althoughthat name may run in otherfamilies,it still belongs
especiallyin this,an ancientstock,a race muchpraised ...' (Var. 1.4.9). The implication
is thatall thosehe includedwere actuallycalled Cassiodorus.
Jordanes,writingno earlierthan 551, concludeshis Getica, knownto have drawnon
Cassiodorus' Gothic History, with the marriageof Justinian'scousin Germanusto the
GothicprincessMatasuenthain 551, characterizing the marriageas a 'union of the race
of the Aniciiwiththe stockof the Amali'.134'Nobody exceptCassiodorus', accordingto
Momigliano,could have represented thismarriageas a union of Aniciiand Amali rather
than a union of the Gothic and Roman royal houses. On this basis he argued that
Jordaneswas drawingon, not the originaleditionof Cassiodorus' book, completedat
an unknowndate between519 and 533,135but a revisionpublishedin 551. But there
130So mostrecently A. Giardina,Cassiodoro (2006),16.

politico
131'dichiarala suaparentelacongliAnicii',Zecchini,op.cit.(n.4, 1983),91 n. 304;so againin'La politica
di Aezio',CISA7 (1981),274n. 142;so tooF. Troncarelli
religiosa inRevuedesEtudes Augustiniennes35
(1989),130 ('C. mettevainrisaltoi suoilegamidiparentela
congliAnicii').
132Momigliano, op.cit.(n.95),204(myitalics);andinDiz.biogr. 21 (1978),495.Manyothers
degliItaliani
havesaidsomething similar.
133Seetheentries forAurelius inPLREi (seven pages)andii.
134'coniuncta Aniciorum genuscumAmalastirpe spemadhucutriusque domino
generi promitti,
praestante
Get.314.
135J.O'Donnell, Cassiodorus(1979),44.
ANICIANMYTHS l6l
are problemswiththenotionof a revisededitionoftheGothicHistory.136 Moreover,there

are two factsthat have been largelyignoredeven in earliercriticismsof Momigliano's
famousthesis.Firstand most obviously,it is entirelydependenton the assumptionthat
Cassiodorus saw himselfas an Anician. Second, the Anicii at issue here are the eastern
branch:Jordaneshimselfwrote in Constantinople,and Germanus' fathermust on any
hypothesishave been an (unidentifiable)easternAniciuswho marrieda sisterof Justin
I.137 The eastern Anicii considered themselvesless aristocratsthan royalty.In the
immensepoem inscribedaround the interiorof the great church of St Polyeuctusin
Constantinopleshe rebuilt,the younger Anicia Iuliana describes herself,not as an
Anician,but as a princessof the blood royal,a directdescendantof the founderof the
church,the empressEudcia (Fig. 6).138Beforeher marriageto Areobindusthe emperor
Zeno had (unsuccessfully)offeredher hand to Theoderic, a traditional fate for
There is no evidence that the easternAnicii made common cause with
princesses.139
theirmorehumbleRoman cousins.
II=Alia
Theodosius Eudcia Sex.
Petronius
Probus
cos.
391
Licinia =Valentinian
Eudxia III
Gaiseric
rn /
=Eudcia
Huneric =Anicius
Placidia cos.
464,
Olybrius 472
emperor
Anicia =Areobindus
Iuliana cos.
506
FIG.6. Thefamily
ofAnicia
Iuliana.
As for RufiusPetroniusNicomachus Cethegus,the dedicatee,it is true that his two

middlenames are foundin the Anician line,thoughNicomachusnot since the 330s and
Petronius is not an exclusively Anician name.140 As it happens we have solid
contemporaryinformationabout his familytree. Though his fatherwas Probinuscos.
489, none of his supposedly Anician names were borne by his grandfather,Rufius
Achilius Maecius Placidus.141 His closest known Anician connection is his
Anicius Acilius Glabrio Faustus cos. 438. It is a stretchto see
great-great-grandfather
him as a keymemberof the 'Aniciangroup'.
The truthis that thiscuriouslywidespread'Anician' interpretation of the Anecdoton
simplyassumes that the Anicii were a super-family incorporatingother families,and
reliesentirelyon information(actuallyguesswork)outsidethe Anecdoton. How thendo
136Against,
seeespeciallyB.Croke,'Cassiodorus
andtheGeticaofJordanes',
CP 82(1987),117-34;P.Heather,
GothsandRomans 332-489 (1991),38-52;W. Goffart,BarbarianTides:TheMigration AgeandtheLater
Roman Empire(2006), <59.
137SeeO'Donnell, op.cit.(n.135),271.
138Where sheclaimed to be thedaughterof(Olybriusand)Placidia, of(Valentinian
III and)
granddaughter
Licinia andgreat-granddaughter
Eudxia, of(Theodosius
II and)Eudcia(AP1.10.8).
139Malchus F 18.3(p.432.27 Blockley).
140ForPetronius,PLREii.862-4andPCBE2. ii.1722-5; op.cit.(n.24),182-5,rather
Chausson, implausibly,
tries
totietogetherallknown Nicomachi.
141Ennodius,p. 314.36-8Vogel;andseetheir entries
inPLREii.Foranimaginative reconstruction
offurther
stagesinthefamilytree, Continuit
Settipani, ce,131.
gentili
l6z ALANCAMERON
we accountfortheinclusionof biographiesof Symmachusand Boethius?The explanation

may lie in the clumsy and incoherentwords that follow the title Ordo generis
Cassiodororum : namely 'qui scriptoresextiterintex eorum progenie vel ex quibus
eruditis***', 'which writersdescendedfromtheirfamily,or the learned men from/by
whom they [?were instructed?]'.This makes littlesense as it stands, and at least one
word, if not several,mustbe missingat the end. It is perhaps no more than a guess of
the excerptorintendedto explain why two out of the three abbreviatedbiographies
included are of famous writersnot related to Cassiodorus. On any hypothesis,qui
scriptoresand ex quibus eruditissuggestintellectualinfluencesratherthan maritalor
blood connections.
Some have arguedthatthe originallibelluswas barelylongerthan theseexcerpts,but
the factthat it was dedicatedto an importantaristocrataccorded his fulltitlessuggests
a regularbook ratherthan just a broadsheet.Yet the factthatthe entryforCassiodorus
himselfruns to less than ten lines suggeststhat 'excerpts'is an exaggeration.What we
have is surely,at best, a drasticabridgementof whateverCassiodorus wrote. That the
biographiesare, in the formin which we have them,the work of a poorly informed
epitomatoris confirmedby theirerrors.
The omissionof Cethegus'diacritical,thenamehe was knownbyin one-namecontexts,
mightbe explainedas nothingmore than scribalomission.But considerthe titlesgiven
Cassiodorushimselfin the veryfirstline. We have the correctsequence of his titlesas of
537/38 in the heading to his Variae: ex quaestore, ex consule ordinario , ex magistro
officiorum, praefectuspraetorioatque patricius.That is to say, he was still prefectat the
date of publication,and was not named patriciustill afterhis appointmentas prefect.
The headingto the Ordo generisomitshis prefecture, places his patriciatetoo early,and
mistakenlycalls him formerpatrician,makingthe gross errorof treatingthe patriciate
as an officeratherthan an honorifictitlethat,once awarded,was held forlife.
Cassiodorushimselfis said to have been 'adviserto his fatherwhile he was praetorian
prefectand patrician'('patrisCassiodori patriciiet praefectipraetoriiconsiliarius'),after
which he recited a panegyric on Theoderic, who appointed him quaestor. But
Cassiodorus seniorwas not createdpatriciantill afterhis prefecture, as we know from
none other than his son who, quaestor at the time,wrote (in Theoderic's name) the
letterof appointment,listinghis posts in order (Var. 1.4). Furthermore, 'while he was
patrician'reflectsthat same errorabout the patriciate.The errorsare no doubt fairly
trivial,but it is hard to believe that Cassiodorus of all people would get such details
wrong.Anothererroris the stylingof Theoderic rex Gothorum, a styleneverused by
eitherthe kinghimselfor Cassiodorus.142That is to say, these are not just sentencesof
Cassiodorus excerptedfroma largerwhole, but, in theirpresentform,the work of an
epitomator.
The use of officialtitlesforbothauthorand dedicateesuggeststhattheworkepitomized
was writtenbeforeCassiodorusabandonedhis secularcareerforthereligiouslife(byabout
550), in whichcase monachiand serviDei mustbe interpolations bytheexcerptor, familiar
with the titlepages of his later works. For example, the commentaryon the Psalms:
Cassiodori Senatoris exigui servi Dei iam domino praestante conversi . Cassiodorus
himselfwould never have combined the two styles. Either the pompous officialex
quaestoreetc.,or the self-abasingserviDei .
The publicationoftheAnecdotonmarkeda new stagein modernBoethianstudies,since
it explicitlyascribesto himtheDe trinitate and othertheologicalworks,tillthenassumed
spurious.On thebasis ofthisnotice,no one now doubtsthatBoethiuswas a Christian,and
even somethingof a theologian.Nonetheless,while thereare no actual errors,the seven
lines devoted to Boethiusare to say the least peculiar. Even the briefestbiographyof
142Giardina,
op.cit.(n.130),149-50.
ANICIANMYTHS 163
Boethiusought to mentionthe work that has made his name immortal,the Consolatio
Philosophiae.Insteadwe are told about a bucolicumcarmen, and two of the sevenlines
are devoted to a panegyricon Theoderic. Boethius undoubtedlyhad good Greek,
enablinghim to read logical and mathematicalworks in Greek. But to say that he was
'an orator skilled in both languages' is a very strangeway to put it. It may be that
Cassiodorus did not approve of the Consolatio, but even so he must have produced a
betterinformedand more balanced accountof the lifeand worksof Boethius.
Thereis no majorfaultto findwiththefourand a halfreasonablyfluentlinesdevotedto
Symmachus,thoughtheycannot be morethan a fractionof what Cassiodorus had to say
about thisimportantfigure.One much quoted detail raises doubts: 'dixit sententiampro
allecticiisin senatu, parentesque imitatushistoriamquoque Romanam septem libris
edidit.'This Roman History'in imitationof his ancestors'has, no doubt correctly, been
taken as a referenceto the Annales of the elder Nicomachus Flavianus. But some have
gone further and inferredthatFlavianus' historywas also in seven books.143Even if we
were certain that this was pure Cassiodorus, the inferencewould be dubious. The
clumsyway the clause about the historyis tacked on to a clause on a different subject
witha -que betraysthe epitomator.Furthermore, parentesimpliesmore than one family
historian,yet there is no evidence of any other before the consul of 485. Since
Symmachuscos. 485 was, like Symmachuscos. 391, a celebratedorator as well as a
historian,the original text surely said that he imitatedboth his famous ancestors,
obviouslya greaterachievement.In senatu balances septem libris, the one qualifying
sententiam , the otherhistoriam.It should be added that 'in imitationof his ancestors"
('parentesquesuos imitatus')must referto his own, Symmachan,ancestors,a further
objectionto thenotionthatthesubtextof theAnecdotonis thatall thesemenare Anicians.
The informationin these capsule biographies no doubt derives ultimatelyfrom
Cassiodorus,but in its presentdrasticallyabridged,error-filledformit is the work of an
epitomator with no first-hand
knowledge of what he wrote. Given the uncertainquality
of what we have here,it is rash to make inferences about what we do not have. There is
not the faintesthintof a referenceto the Aniciiin thisscrappytextof less than a single
page.
Even forCassiodorus' own immediatefamily,Ordo generisCassiodororumwould be
an odd title.How far back in time did he go? Ordo generisimpliesmany generations
tracedback to a founder.Chromatiusof Aquileia uses thisveryphraseforthe genealogy
of Jesusin Luke.144I suggestthat Ordo generisCassiodororumis not the titleof a lost
book of Cassiodorus, but simplythe heading to a familytree.Roman nobles had been
compilingand maintainingtheirfamilytreesforcenturies.145 The standardtermsin the
early Empirewere stemmaor tabula generis. As early as the late Republic many (not
just theJulii)tracedtheirline back to refugeesfromTroy.146The emperorGalba is said
to have 'displayeda familytreein his atriumon whichhe tracedhis father'sfamilyback
to Jupiterand his mother'sto Pasipha the wifeof Minos'; the Acilii Glabrionestraced
their line back to Aeneas; and (according to Jerome) his patron Paula hers to
Agamemnon.147Rutilius Namatianus describes Rufius Volusianus as tracinghis line
143MostrecentlyG.Zecchini,
'EndeundErbederlateinisch-heidnischen inA.Goltzetal.
Geschichtsschreibung',
derGrenzen
(eds),Jenseits (2009),92;S.Ratti,
AntiquusError A.Cameron,
(2010),219.Against, JRA24(2011),
836.
144Chrom., Tract,
inMatt.1.
145M. Bettini, andRoman
Anthropology Culture(1991),169-81and298-301;H. Flower,
Ancestor
Masksand
Aristocratic
Power inRomanCulture (1996),211-17andpassim onimagines .
146T. P. Wiseman, in late-republican
Rome',in RomanStudies(1987),207-20;
'Legendarygenealogies
A. Cameron, GreekMythography intheRomanWorld (2004),228-9.
147Paula'sfamily
treeisreconstructed Continuit
bySettipani, 133.Formore
gentilice, ofmythological
examples
genealogies,
includingthelateantiqueGreekworld,F. Chausson, 'Les lignages dansquelques
mythiques
164 ALANCAMERON
antiquo stemmateto theVolusus addressedbyTurnusin Aeneid 11.463, and a passage of

Sidoniustoo longto quote describestheantiquorumstemmataof his kinsmanFerreolus,at
thenearend suggestively includingtheman's unclesas well as his father.148
Writingof his
patronMarcella,Jeromerefersto herillustriousfamilyand lineage,'stemmatapercnsules
et praefectospraetoriodecurrentia'(Ep. 127.1), wherethe participlesuggeststhe literal
descentof a familytreedown throughgenerationsof consuls and prefects.
These stemmatawere displayedin the atria of aristocratichouses forall comersto see
and admire. Cassiodorus writesof the atria of the Decii as being 'plena ... fascibus
laureatis'(Var. 9.23.5), and Sidoniusof men of senatorialstockrubbingshouldersevery
day with 'trabeatisproavorumimaginibus'(Ep. 1.6.2). Such statements,coming from
people who moved in the highestRoman circles,are perhaps to be taken literally.
Consider too Ausonius' lampoon on a man who 'scorns the illustriousnames of the
currentage, hankeringafteran ancientpedigree'('spernitvigentisclara saecli nomina /
antiqua captans stemmata')and had his mythologicalforebearswoven into his silken
robes,engravedon his silverwareand painted'on his thresholdand on the ceilingof his
atrium'.149 We may be scepticalabout the silk robes and silverplate, but the placingof
thesestemmataon thethresholdsand ceilingof the man's atriumringstrue.
Suchstemmatawerepresumably also maintainedinwhatwe would call paperform.Some
mayhavebeenincludedin biographiesoffamousmen,butso faras I knowonlyone survives
completewithmarriagesand children:a 'GenealogyofValentiniantheGreat'thatbysome
strange fluke was included with the writings of the Patriarch Nicephorus of
Constantinople.150 Cassiodorus knew somethingabout his great-grandfather, though
probably littlemore than names beyondthat. But names could take a familytreeback
anothercouple of generations.If thisis the explanationof the Ordo generis, thenwe can
have no idea at all whatworkof Cassiodoruswas adornedbythisstemma.
X ANICIUS
OLYBRIUS
Most of the supposed leaders of the 'Anidan group' in the fifthand sixth centuries
(AureliusAniciusSymmachus,AniciusAcilius Glabrio Faustus,AniciusProbus Faustus,
Anicius Manlius SeverinusBoethius,Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius) seem to have
acquired theirAnician connectionon the femaleside. However theycame by it, some
may have taken great pride in the name and claimed to be 'the' Anicii of their
generation,while othersmay simplyhave looked on Anician bridesas a welcomesource
of wealth.It does not follow that theyinheritedor were able to exercisethe same sort
of wealth and power as PetroniusProbus. There is certainlyno evidencethat theysaw
sense membersof the same family.The varietyof names
each otheras in any significant
theygave theirsons and grandsonssuggeststhat'Anicianism'was not a connectionthat
supersededbeingAciliiGlabriones,Corvini,Symmachiand so on.
Onlyone manwe can identify afterc. 450, AniciusOlybrius(eastern)cos. 464, can claim
directdescentin one ofthemainAnicianlines.Bycontrast,ofthe(at least)fifteen151 Decian
between444 and 541, everysingleone was a directdescendantof
consulsin fivegenerations
revendications
gnalogiquessousl'empireromain',inD. Auger
andS. Said(eds),Gnalogies
mythiques (1998),
395-417-
148Rut.Nam.,De red.1.169-70;
149Auson., Sidon.,Ep. 7.12.1-2.
Epigr. 26 (p.73 Green, withcommentary onpp.390-1).
150C. deBoor,Nicephori archiepiscopi opuscula
Constantinopolitani histrica
(1880),xxv,103-4.
151Fourteenrecorded onFig.4,butsince comments
Cassiodorus soemphaticallyonthenumber ofconsularsons
bornto Basilius Venantius cos. 508 ('fecundaprolegaudentemet totconsularibuspatrem ... totprotulit
... totmeretur
consulares infiliis
consulatus', of533),there
Var.9.23.3-4, must havebeenmorethanthetwo
so faridentified.
Surelyatleastthree.
ANICIANMYTHS 165
Caecina Albinuscos. 444 (a grandson,great-grandson and great-great-grandsonall had at

leastthreesons, all of whom becameconsuls).It has always been assumedthatthewealth
of theAniciidwarfedthatof all othergreathouses. Yet trulyfabulouswealthmusthave
been called on to financefifteenconsulshipsin fivegenerations,while one of the few
Anicianconsuls,Maximus cos. 523, needed the promptingof a letterfromTheodericto
spendappropriately on his consulargames.152As forAniciusOlybrius,whilehe marrieda
Theodosian princessand ended his days as emperor,his earliercareeris a mystery. He is
notknownto have heldany officeexcepthis consulship.
What sort of man would a weak emperorlike ValentinianIII choose to marryhis
daughter?Certainlya man of noble birthand great wealth, but hardlyan ambitious
man with a power base. Olybriuswas surelyseen as impeccablynoble but no threat.
We may recall the Maximus Theodahad chose to marrya Gothic princess.Cassiodorus
waxes lyricalabout his Anician blood, but says nothingabout any achievementsor
officesheld. O'Donnell neatly characterizeshim as a 'luminaryof low wattage'.153
Nothing whateveris known about Maximus' ancestors. For all Cassiodorus' praise,
there is no evidence that he was a direct descendant in the male line from either
PetroniusProbus or AniciusBassus.154
By450 ValentinianIII had two daughters,Eudcia and Placidia,aged perhapstwelveand
ten,butno son. Sincehe was littlemorethana puppetofhisgeneralissimo Atius,thiswas a
dangeroussituation.The menwho marriedhisdaughterswerelikelyto inherithisthrone-
perhapswithoutwaitingforhimto die. He betrothedEudcia to theVandal Gaiseric'sson
Huneric,perhapsas earlyas 442/43.As forPlacidia,amongcandidatesmentionedforher
hand in addition to Olybrius are Atius' son Gaudentius and the futureemperor
Majorian, a militaryman. When PetroniusMaximus seized the throneon Valentinian's
murderin 455, he marriedhis son Palladius to Eudcia. Later thatyear Geisericsacked
Rome, returning to Carthagewith both princesses.Eudcia he marriedto Huneric,and
afterlengthynegotiationsreturnedPlacidia to Constantinople,whitherOlybriushad fled
beforethesack. Some sourcesplace themarriageof Olybriusand Placidia in Rome before
the sack, others in Constantinopleafter Placidia's return.155Thereafterthe couple
remainedin the East, whereOlybriusreceivedthe easternconsulshipfor464. Finally,in
472, when in Rome on an embassyfromthe easternemperorLeo, he was proclaimed
emperorbythegeneralissimoRicimer,butdied laterthatyear,unrecognizedby Leo.
On thefaceof it,AniciusOlybriusshouldhave beentheleadingmemberof theAniciiin
his generation,one of the most powerfulmen in Rome. But thereis no evidencethathe
played any such rle. He is nevermentionedbeforehis betrothalto Placidia, a rle for
which his principalqualificationswere his wealth and the blueness of his blood. And
while PetroniusMaximus was consumed by ambitionall his life,held all the highest
officestwice each, and intriguedmightilyfor his brieftenureof the throne,Olybrius'
only qualificationwas his marriageto Placidia. Leo had sent Olybriusto mediatein the
civil war betweenthe thenwesternemperorAnthemiusand Ricimer.Leo would hardly
have selectedhim forsuch a missionif he suspectedhim of any such ambitions.156 After
152Cassiodorus,
Var.5.42.
153O'Donnell,op.cit.(n.135),271.
154Ifhewasreallya descendantoftheusurper
PetroniusMaximus, whowehaveseenwasnotanAnician, the
Anicianconnectionmay havecomeina later
generation.
155Thesebetrothals
arealluncertain
and(even
more undatable:
seethevarious inPLREii;F.
entries
frustrating)
M. Clover,
The family andearlycareerofAnicius Historia
Olybrius', 27 (1978),169-96;R. W. Mathisen,
'Anicius
Olybrius',
www.roman-emperors.org/olybrius.htm
(1998).
156Malalas's
story (375Bonn = 298Thurn)thatLeosenthimwitha letter
toAnthemius hisexecution
is
ordering
a folk
motif
with Homeric IfLeohadreally
roots. suspected
Olybriusoftreachery
hewouldneverhavesenthimat
all.
166 ALANCAMERON
all, Anthemius(an easternerhe himselfhad nominatedfiveyearsearlier)was stillalive,and

Olybriushad neverheld any public office.
As bothan Anicianand thehusbandof a daughterof Valentinian,Olybriusmighthave
beenmorewelcometo thearistocracy ofRome thantheGreekAnthemius. Butby472 he too
had been living in Constantinoplefor decades. Many Roman aristocratsfled to
ConstantinopleduringJustinian'sinvasion of Italy, but it is a paradox that the most
famousnoble familyof all desertedthe sinkingship beforeeven the Vandal sack of 455.
The Aniciihad extensiveestatesin theEast (AniciaFaltoniaProba is said to have donated
'possessionesin Asia constituas'forthe supportof the clergyand the poor,157but there
must have been much else). From the mid-fifth centuryon Anician benefactionswere
largelytransferredto theEast, in thepersonsof AniciusOlybriusand his daughterAnicia
Iuliana. Iuliana marriedthe easterngeneralAreobinduscos. 506 (son and grandsonof
easternconsuls,all militarymen),and theyhad a son Olybrius,easternconsul as a child
in 491, who marriedIrene,a niece of the emperorAnastasius,but is not knownto have
held any otheroffice.158Therewas also an Olybriuscos. 526, apparentlynot the son of
Olybriuscos. 491, who had only daughters.Since he is attestedby a Roman inscription
as early as January526 and was in Rome when it fell to Totila in 546, presumably
westernconsul,thoughthereis no evidenceabout his parentage.159
XI ANICIAN
HISTORIOGRAPHY
It was Momiglianowho firstcreditedthe Aniciiwithculturaland intellectualas well as

politicaldominance.It should by now be obvious thatthis is entirelydependenton the
assumptionthatBoethius,Cassiodorus and Symmachuscos. 485 were all core Anicians.
Momiglianoeven wantedto add Ennodius,a Gaul who became professorof rhetoricin
Milan and laterbishop of Pavia, claimingthat 'the intellectualprestigeof the Aniciiwas
not limitedto Rome'.160 On what basis? Ennodius' lettersconstantlyappeal to his
, necessitudo
adfinitas , consanguinitas , proximitasand propinquitaswith a varietyof
correspondents, not all of whom can have been genuinelyrelatedby blood or marriage.
A numberof such lettersare addressedto AniciusProbus Faustus cos. 490 and his two
consular sons Avienus and Messalla, but since the latter's full name was Ennodius
Messala, whateverthe familiallink, thereis no need to inferthat it ran throughthe
Anicii.161And since Faustus' own Anician connectionmay be ratherremote,to see
Ennodiusas an Anicianculturaloutpostin NorthernItalyis farfetched.
Perhapsthestrangest ofall Anicianmythsis theclaimthattherewas a specifically
Anician
historiography.The idea was firstmootedbyMomiglianoand developedbyZecchini.162 The
only seriouscontender in this area is theHistoriaRomana of cos.
Symmachus 485, which is
entirelylost.163How then do we know what it said? We returnto W. Ensslin'sthesis,
developed by Marinus Wes, that Symmachus'historywas the primarysource of the
Chronicleof Marcellinusand Jordanes'sRomana, and base our conclusionson what
157ACO 2.1.90:citedatPLREi.733.
158PLREii,s. vv.Olybrius 3 andIrene,known from thegenealogy preservedbyNicephorus, p. 104deBoor.
159Anth. Pal.1.10.39:CLRE587s.a. 526:Procopius 7.20.19.
160Momigliano, op.cit.(n.95),233;Llewellyn,op.cit.(n.96),29;Cracco
Ruggini, op.cit.(n.4,1988);M.Cesa,
Ennodio : Vitadelbeatissimo Epifaniovescovodellachiesa pavese(1988),9 n. 6. Forsomeextravagant further
conjectures,seeT. S. Mommaerts andD. H. Kelley, The Anicii ofGaulandRome',inJ.Drinkwater and
H. Elton(eds),Fifth-Century Gaul:a Crisis
of Identity? m-21.
(1992.)
161Ontheproblem ofidentifying
Ennodius*various kinfolk,seethecareful
analysis inS. A.H. Kennell,Magnus
FelixEnnodius: A Gentleman oftheChurch (2000),128-67.
162'GliAnicii delVIsecolod.C.',nowinSecondo
latina
e lastoriografia Contributo ii(i960),231-53;Zecchini,
op.cit.(n.4, 1983),89-94.
163Except fora single
quotation inJordanes abouttheemperor Maximin, whoreigned from 235to238.
ANICIANMYTHS 167
theysay.164The keyitemis Marcellinus'notoriousclaim,repeatedverbatimbyJordanes,

that with the depositionof Romulus Augustulusin 476 the 'westernempire' fell.Wes
arguedthatthisreflects the attitudeof the aristocracyof Rome (or a Symmachanfaction
therein),lamentingthefactthatItalywas now a barbariankingdom.A brilliantarticleby
Brian Croke effectively demolishedthisantiquatedpiece of source criticism(significantly
enoughalreadyabandoned by Ensslinhimself)by showingthatMarcellinus'perspective
throughoutis easternand mustbe presumedto depend primarilyon easternsources.165
The very fact that he referredto the westernempire ('Hesperium Romanae gentis
imprium')reveals an easternperspective.Of course, if Marcellinus had drawn on a
westernsource,he would have adjusteditsterminology to suithis easternperspective.But
what exactlywould that westernsource have said here? Certainlynot that 'Romanae
gentisimprium'fell,obviouslyfalse,given the survivalof the easternprovincesruled
fromNew Rome. The depositionof Romulus in 476 directlyaffectedonly Italy,but the
grandiose,almost apocalypticclaim that'HesperiumRomanae gentisimprium'fell522
(actually 519) years afterthe firstAugustusbegan to rule in the 709th year afterthe
foundationof Rome, surelyembracesGaul, Spain, and NorthAfricaas well. The loss of
Italywas the last straw,spellingthe end of the entirewesternhalf of the empire,what
eastern Romans referredto as f) xrj cmpa aaiXeia, ruled by xrj orcpa
aaitetx;.166It is not easy to think of a formulationthat could have been simply
'easternised' by the addition of Hesperium. Furthermore,if Marcellinus had read
Symmachus'Historyat firsthand, with understanding, how could he have made the
ignorantblunderof twicestylingOdoacer rex Gothorum?167
As fortheidea thatlinkingthe'fallofthewesternempire'to a barbariantake-over was the
perspective ofa Romanaristocrat livingunderbarbariankings,thetruthis thatthearistocracy
of Rome enjoyed an Indian summerof both prestigeand power under Odoacer and
Theoderic,almostmonopolizingnot onlythe westernconsulship(everyyear from480 to
490) but the city and praetorianprefectures as well. Wes implausiblyargued that the
consulshipsof the 480s were conferredby the easternemperorZeno, but even if true
(whichit is not)168thatwould stillnot explainthe multipleprefectures held by Odoacer's
consuls.
Momigliano saw Symmachus'extensiveculturalactivitiesas a withdrawalfromthe
barbarianworld in which he was forcedto live, but such activitieswere traditionalfor
the Symmachi.Wes emphasizesthatSymmachushimselfheld no officeunderTheoderic.
But he did receive the consulship, a prefectureof Rome and the patriciate from
Odoacer, and on Wes's own theoryit was Odoacer ratherthan Theodericwho brought
the 'westernempire'to an end. In any case, the absence of posts underTheodericis no
more than an argumentfromsilence. Symmachuscertainlypaid at least one visit to
Constantinople,probably as an envoy for Theoderic, and in 522 received the
extraordinaryhonour, unknown since the two sons of Petronius Probus held the
consulshiptogetherin 395, of havinghis two grandsonsappointedconsuls together.
It is now generallyacceptedthatthe idea of treatingthe depositionof Romulus as the
fall of Rome to barbarians was the perspective(and justification)of the Justinianic
164W.Ensslin,DesSymmachus Historia
Romana alsQuellefr (Sitz.Bay.Akad.1948.3);Wes,op.cit.
Jordanes
(n.114).
165B.Croke,'A.D.476:themanufacture ofa turning Chiron
point', 13(1983),81-119;seetoB-Croke,Count
Marcellinus
andhisChronicle (2001),190-s.
166TextscitedbyCroke,op.cit.(n.165),108.
167Marceli,
a. 476.2 and489;cf.n. 153above;W.Treadgold, TheEarlyByzantine
Historians(2007),232.
168Wes,op.cit.(n.114), A. Cameron andD. Schauer,
'Thelastconsul:
Basilius
andhisdiptych',
151;against,
ofRoman
Journal Studies72 (1982),126-45,at I28-
l68 ALANCAMERON
reconquista.169 As Crokeemphasized,thatitwas easternin originseemsput beyonddoubt

by thefactthattheByzantinechronicletradition,firstattestedin Evagrius,writingc. 592,
but probablytaken over fromEustathiusof Epiphaneia at the beginningof the sixth
century,likewiseunderlinesthe epochal significanceof the event by enumeratingthe
yearssincethe foundationof Rome by the firstRomulus.170
While acceptingthe generalvalidityof Croke's critique,Zecchini did his best to save
what he could of the idea thatMarcellinusat any rate reflectskey aspectsof the history
of Symmachus,by identifying what he claimed to be Anician details. For example,the
allegedlysympathetic portrayalof the usurpationof the westernthroneby the notary
John (423-25). Accordingto Zecchini, (1) Marcellinus' 'positive evaluation' of John
would be 'inexplicable'in an easternsource;171(2) if his source was westernit must
have been Symmachus;and (3) if it was Symmachus,then Symmachus'historymust
have been writtenfroman Anicianpointof view.
It will be obvious thatthe argumentfailsat the firsthurdleby presupposingboththat
Symmachuswas an Anician and that John was 'supported' by the Anicii. More
specifically,Marcellinus'evaluationof Johnis not straightforwardly positive.Underthe
year424 he reflects
the easternviewpointthatJohn was a usurper('regnum... invasit').It
is truethatunder425 he says thatJohnwas killed 'by the treachery(dolo) ratherthan
virtueof Ardaburand Aspar', but thatis hostileto the two easterngeneralsratherthan
favourableto John.Theirtacticswereindeedunderhand,and we should bear in mind,not
onlythatbothwereArianheretics,butthatAspar and his son, Ardaburtheyounger,were
more than once accused of treacheryin the course of the next four decades. In 465
Ardaburwas disgracedfortreasonouscorrespondencewithPersia. In 471 Leo had both
Aspar and Ardaburassassinated,and underthatyearMarcellinusrecordsthat'the Arian
Aspar was killedin the palace togetherwithhis Arian breed (cum Arrianaprole)'.172All
of this must have been at the back of Marcellinus' mind when he wrote about their
'treachery'in 425. Hostilityto Ardaburand Aspar unmistakably pointsto an eastern,not
a westernsource. Even if therewere contemporary evidencethathis kinsmensupported
Johnwhen he seized power (and thereis not), whywould Symmachus,writinga century
later,have continuedto reflectthe favourableattitudethat those kinsmenmust have
disavowedthemomentJohnwas deposed and executed?
Zecchini's second argumentis based on Marcellinus'claim that the 'westernempire'
also fellwiththe murderof Aetiusin 454. But thistoo is a perspectivefoundin eastern
as well as westerntexts.Zecchini drew attentionto Marcellinus'statementthat Aetius
was killedtogetherwith 'his friendBoethius',praetorianprefectof Italyin 454. Yet this
too was well known in the East (the killingof Boethiusis describedin some detail by
Priscus).173Zecchini argues that the combinationof these two elementspoints to an
'Anician source'. Yet there is no evidence for an Anician connectionfor the Boethii
beforethe consul of 487, and even if therewere,the factthat he is describedas Aetius'
friendwould provenothingabout the politicsof the Aniciiin general.
169In additionto Croke, op. cit.(n. 165),seeP. Heather, culture

The historical ofOstrogothicItaly',in
A. Giovanditto(ed.),Teodorico il grande e i suoiGotiinItalia(1993),317-53,at 332-4;P. Amory, People
andIdentityin Ostrogothic Italy(1997),109; Goffart, op.cit.(n. 136),53-4;J.J.O'Donnell,TheRuinof
theRoman Empire (2008),214-15.
170Though withdifferent figures: Marcellinus after1,231(actually (HE 2.16) and
1,228)years;Evagrius
Theophanes (AM 5965)after1,303years.Surprisingly enough, do notseemto havebeenvery
Byzantines
concernedaboutfixing anexactdateforthefoundation ofRome.Syncellus offers
actually twodifferentdates,
AM4752and4755(p.230.5,10and13Mosshammer). I amgratefultoRichardBurgessforhelponthispoint.
171Zecchini,op.cit.(n.4, 1983),49; (n.4, i993>>7^-7
172Seethedetailedaccount byB.Croke, 'Dynasty andethnicity:
Emperor LeoI andtheeclipse
ofAspar',Chiron
35 (2005),
173'After 147-203.
Aetius,
killing Valentinian alsokilled Boethius whohadbeenhigh
theprefect, inAetius's after
favour',
which he'exposedtheir bodiesunburied intheforum' (F 30,p. 329.39 Blockley).
ANICIANMYTHS 169
XII CONCLUSIONS
The modernmythof theAniciias thegreatpower-brokers of thefifth

and sixthcenturies,
where not just pure speculation,is based on a confusion.Afterthe death of Petronius
Probus theirfame grew but theirreal power declined.It was the women who kept the
reputationof the Petronianbranchof the Aniciialive in the firstfewdecades of the fifth
century:Probus' widow, Anicia Faltonia Proba; her daughter-in-law the elder Anicia
Iuliana (perhaps a daughterof Bassus, and if so an Anicia in her own right);and her
granddaughter(Iuliana's daughter) Demetrias (not to mention the younger Anicia
Iuliana a centurylaterin Constantinople).All showeredmoneyon the Church,perhaps
in part at least preciselybecause therewere no ambitioushusbands or brothersalive to
stop themand exploitit formoretraditionalends.174
Therecan be no questionthatthenobilitycontinuedto play a centralrle in thelifeof
late fifth-and early sixth-century Italy. From the late 420s on the city and praetorian
prefectures were regularly held by membersof the great families,and the consulship
almost confinedto them.The cityprefecture had oftenbeen held by aristocratsin the
fourthcentury,but the praetorianprefecturemuch less often,and the consulshipvery
rarely.They served on embassies,especiallybetweenRavenna and Constantinople,an
importantpoliticalrle that also broughtthemprestige,in the East as well as the West.
Membersof the greatRoman houses continuedto be VeryImportantPeople.
Theyalso playeda steadilyincreasingrlein thereligiouslifeofRome,largerindeedthan
in pagan times,175not only foundingchurchesbut takingpart in ecclesiasticalelections
and controversies. Here too familyloyaltieshave been thoughtto be crucial.For example,
duringthe Laurentianschismthe Anicii are said to have supportedPope Symmachus
while the Decii backed his rival Laurentius.In this case the only factsknown are that
PostumiusRufius Festus cos. 472 and Probinus cos. 489 supported Laurentius,and
Faustus,Pope Symmachus.176 Festus was evidentlya man of great influence,entrusted
withnumerousembassies,presumablythe son (perhapsgrandson)of Festuscos. 439. 177
But not one of the threecan be confidently identifiedas eitherAnicianor Decian, which
further underminestheassumptionof a societydividedbetweenthetwo families.178
Nonetheless,as Barnish has put it, 'aristocraticdominance ... may be deceptively
impressive'.A numberof neweror otherwiseunknownnames also appear in the fastiof
highoffice.179 Moreover,while the nobilityundoubtedlyplayed an importantrle in the
civil administrationof the Ostrogothicregime,they were entirelyexcluded fromthe
militarysphere.Furthermore, the factthat theynormallyheld theirprefectures forsuch
shortperiods (oftenless than two years)180makes it unlikelythat any individualnoble
174P. Laurence, 'Proba,Juliana etDmtrias:le christianisme

desfemmes de la gensAniciadansla premire
moitiduVesicle', Revuedestudes 'Demetrias
48 (2002),131-63;A. Kurdock,
Augustiniennes ancilladei:
AniciaDemetrias andtheproblem ofthemissing in K.
patron', Cooper J. and Hillner , Dynasty
(eds),Religion ,
andPatronage inEarlyChristian Rome , 300-900(2007),190-224;C. Machado, 'Romanaristocrats andthe
Christianization
ofRome', inR. Lizzi-TestaandP. Brown (eds),PagansandChristians intheRoman Empire:
TheBreaking ofa Dialogue (2011),493-516.
175Forthelimited rleofpaganpontficesinthereligious
lifeoffourth-century
Rome, often inmodern
overrated
studies,
Cameron, LastPagans, ch.4.
176LiberPontificalis53.
177Festuscos.472must havereceived hisconsulship
early,sincehewasstillalivein513.
178According toWes,op.cit.(n.114),99a letter ofAvitusofVienne toSymmachus cos.485andFaustus 'Niger'
provesthatSymmachus toobacked PopeSymmachus. ButChadwick pointedoutthattheletter seeks
topersuade
thetwomenrather thanshowsthem already
persuaded (H. Chadwick, Boethius: TheConsolations ofMusic,
Logic,Theology , andPhilosophy (1981),41,287n. 27;D. Schanzer andI. Wood,Avitus ofVienne: Letters
andSelected Prose(2002),159-62).
179Barnish, cit. at 129-30.
180Inthefourth (n.87),
op.
sometimes
century onlya fewmonths: A. Chastagnol, La prfecture urbaine Romesousle
Bas-Empire (i960),187-8.
170 ALANCAMERON
had the time or opportunityto acquire significantly more power than any other.Such
power as the officeconferredwas spread fairlyevenlyaround the lite. Apparentlythe
attractionwas less the power itselfthan the prestigeof havingheld a post thatconferred
the rank of illustris.Those who held the post more than once proudlystyledthemselves
PVR II or even (like Anicius Faustus) PVR III, however short their tenures.In the
Ostrogothicage this rapid turnoverof city prefectswas regularized into annual
appointments.181 While the authorityof the cityprefectwas limitedto the cityof Rome,
thepraetorianprefecture carriedaccess to the emperor,laterking,at court.In the fourth
century ambitious men often contrivedto spend years at court as praetorianprefect,
gaining wealth, power and influence (one of PetroniusProbus' fourprefectures lastedfor
seven years). This seems to have been less common under Odoacer and Theoderic.As
for the consulship,it was a purelyceremonialhonour, increasinglybestowed on the
childrenof the nobility.
No one we know of held officeat courtlongerthan Cassiodorus,at intervalsquaestor
palati/,magisterofficiorum and praetorianprefectformorethantwelveyears.On theface
of it,surelythe mostpowerfulman of the age. But as morethanone scholarhas pointed
out,he was in officewhenbothTheodericand hissuccessorAthalaricdied and Theodahad
and Amalasunthawere murdered.If he had been involvedin the decisions behind or
provoked by any one of this succession of crises, how could he have kept his
position?182Cassiodorus' contributionto successiveregimesconsistedin his literaryand
administrative abilities.He playedno part in thepoliticaldecisionsof his Gothicmasters.
As forthefar-fetched notionthatthenobilityexercisedseriouspowerbehindthethrone,
'supporting'usurpers and generalissimos, let us look again at the case of John.It is often
allegedthathe was proclaimedby senators.183 But his only documentedsupporterswere
militarymen,Castinusthe magistermilitumand the youngAetius.184It may be thathis
elevationwas nominallyratifiedby the senateas a body, in the time-honoured way, but
it is not clear what concretesupportany individualnoble or group of nobles could have
offered.It is not as if theycould realisticallythreatento supporta competitor.While it
may be that some Anicii supportedAetius,is it crediblethat anybodyactivelyopposed
him? What could the Decii possiblyhave had against him that was worthriskingthe
exclusionof the entirefamilyfromhighofficeforthe quartercenturyof his supremacy?
In fact we know that the Decii did not oppose Aetius. While several Anicii held the
praetorianprefecture of Italy for a year or so duringthis period, Decius Albinus cos.
444, doyen of the Decii, held it for six years, and an otherwiseunknown Firminus
(from neitherfamily)for at least three.185We are bound to inferthat Aetius saw
Albinusas a moreefficient or reliableally than any of theseAnicii.
As for all these 'policies' the late Roman nobilitysupposedlypursued,theirwealth
certainlygave them great power, but it was power that theyexercisedin a relatively
restricted,essentiallytraditional field, mainly on their estates and in the city of
Rome. Sidonius' eyewitnessdescriptionof Gennadius Avienus and Caecina Basilius
'encircledby a swarmingmass of clients' wheneverthey went out of doors has a
verytraditionalring.The quite extraordinary sums theyspenton games rightdown into
the sixth centuryillustratetheir overridingconcern for popular favour at a purely
181Cass.,Var.1.42.3;3.11.1;Chastagnol, op.cit.(n.180),188.
182E. Histoire
Stein, duBas-Empire ii(1949),12.8-9;
Momigliano,SestoContributo vi.2 (1980),490;Giardina,
op.cit.(n.130),15-21.
183MostexplicitlybyO. Seeck, Gesch. desUntergangsderantikenWelt vi(1921),90,407-8('nicht dasHeer
vonRavenna, sondern derSenatvonRom...'), butthetexthecites, oi rrjv'PctyxTi
pacnXc xv
ocAfj
uva kevt|cxpaxicoxv... fkxaiAaaipowcai(Procop.,BV 1.3.7),byidentifying John as 'oneoftheofficials
there'clearly
pointstothecourt inRavenna, v'Pc|XT|
hereperhapsjustmeans 'intheWest'.
184For allsources,
Seeck, op.cit.(n.183)andPLREii.595.
185Onthelength ofthevarious PLREii.1248;forFirminus
prefectures, 2,ib.471.
ANICIANMYTHS 17I
local level.186In thiscontexttherewas continuingcompetitionbetweenall noble families

richenough to compete.Since the biggestgames by farwere the now (sometimestwice
yearly)consular games, clearlythis was a competitionthat the Decii, with theirfifteen
consulshipsin fivegenerations,easilywon. The barbariankingsencouragedthe nobility
to spend their fortunescompetingwith each other to the benefitof the city and
population of Rome. We have seen that Theoderic actuallyreproachedMaximus cos.
523 fornot spendingenough.
As forthe argumentthat the Anicii were 'philobarbarian'and the Decii supporteda
rapprochementwith the East, there is an obvious sense in which all aristocrats
collaboratedwith theirbarbarian masters,to theirown great profit.And while many
nobles keptin touch withthe easterncourt,all musthave been well aware thatthe lack
of a westernemperorhad greatlyincreasedtheirown power and prestige.Heather has
shown that in some ways the Ostrogothiccourt 'actively fosteredRoman literary
culture'.187Symmachus,for example, had held the highestofficesof state in his youth
and then been able to devote the restof his lifeto scholarlyotium in the best Roman
tradition.188 During the half centurybeforethe dramaticturnof eventsthat led to the
executionof Boethiusin 524 and Symmachusin 525, few can have imaginedthat the
restorationof imperialpower in Italy would bringthem any benefit.In the eventthe
Justinianic reconquistaspelledtheend of boththeRoman senateand aristocraticpower.189
Columbia University
ade i @columbia.edu
186Briefly,
Cameron, LastPagans
, 790-1;moredetailinV. Fauvinet-Ranson,DecorCivitatis
, DecorItaliae.
Monuments , travaux etspectacles
publics au VIesicled'aprs
lesVariaedeCassiodore
(2006),303-440.
187Heather, op.cit.(n.169),334.
188Hisdateof birthisunknown, butsinceheheldtheconsulship before
hisdeath
(485)forty
years (525),hemust
havehelditfairlyyoung. Histwograndsons heldtheirsas smallchildren.
189T. S.Brown,Gentlemen andOfficers
: ImperialAdministrationandAristocratic
Power
inByzantine A.D.
Italy
554-800(1984),ch.2.

Anician Myths

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Anician Myths

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Anician Myths

Author(s): ALAN CAMERON

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Thispaper discussesthewidelyheld viewthatpoliticsin fifth- and sixth-centuryItalywere

Keywords:Late Roman politics;Anicii; Decii; PetroniusProbus; Symmachus;Boethius;

By thesecondhalfof thethirdcentury, theauthorityof theRoman senatehad reachedthe

1RS102(2012),pp.133-171. TheAuthor(s) 2012.

wealth.This wealthand thepowerit boughtactuallyincreasedas imperialpowerdeclined

2 'AniciusManlius Severinus Boethius',inM. Gibson (ed.),Boethius, hisLife

Odoacar and Theoderic became increasinglydifferent fromthe world of Honorius and

The Aniciireacheda peak of powerand splendourin theage of Constantine,withAnicius

and decorateswithequal garlandsthe familytreeof the Anicii' ('stirpisnovatorAmniae/

uthincavi ac patrisdecus,/mixto resurgens

16Claud.,Ol. etProb.9; Prud.,

So Vegio's transcript,but consule maior makes no sense.26We are bound to accept

24PLREi.925-6;Chastagnol, , 15-17;F. Chausson,

two youngestsons names fromhis own family.32 WhateverAusoniusmightsay about the

Ill ANICIUS BASSUS

The inscriptionthatsuppliesmostof our information about AniciusAucheniusBassus (ILS

32Fortheeldestwhodiedyoung, as a guessI wouldsuggest

emphaticallyidentifiedconsular father.Seeck and Chastagnol assumed that, for some

36AsI arguedin ofRomanStudies

surelybound to see Bassus' claim as a defiantstatement:I am the real thing,a direct

38Thedutiesofa latefourth-century werehardly

exclusiveto his branchof theAnicianline.Like Amnius,itmusthave beenan earlyAnician

Amniadum suboleset pigneraclaraProborum .

The descendantsof theAmniiand theillustriousscionsof theProbi.It is said thata noble

Ifcontemporaries distinguishedbetweenAnicii,Probi,and thehouse of Olybrius,who are

44R. Delmaire,Les responsables

praetor.Probuswould be a plausibleAnicianname,but therhetoricof Olympiodorus'list

50SinceAandM areentirely independent ofeachother, Alypiusisnottobeseenasa correction ofA'sOlympius.

beena poor relation- or no relation.Eitherway,itwould be rashto use itto fillin gaps in

Insufficient attentionhas beenpaid to thededicationthatdescribeshis 'a proavisatabis-

fromAugustine,who dedicatedhis De bono viduitatisto the elderAnicia Iuliana in 414,

71Aug.,De bonovid.8.11.AugustinemakesitclearthatIulianaonlymarried once.

outrightforged.Thereis a particularly embarrassinggap of morethana centurybetween

76ForSibidius'career,PLREi.838-9.Thegapis partly filledbyan otherwiseunidentifiable

Anotherman regularlyidentified as a prominentAnician is AniciusProbus Faustuscos.

would make appropriatelynamed forbearsfor Gennadius Avienus and his line.91A

91Formuch more buthighly

transferred mostof theirwealthto theEast, and Justinianmayhave been impressedbythe

At thetimeof Sidonius'visit(467) theAniciiwereat bestthethirdmostpowerfulfamilyin

& Aurelius cos.

direct descendantof Q. Aurelius Symmachuscos. 391, throughhis son, Q. Fabius

99TheMemmius cameintothefamily fromSymmachus cos.391'sfather-in-law

place. One or two otherfamilies,theMacrobii forexample,followedthisunusualcustom

103Cameron, LastPagans , 238.

youngerRusticianathestyleAnida Rusticiana).Down thegenerationsall theseSymmachi

That leavesthephilosopherBoethius,in fullAniciusManlius SeverinusBoethius,son ofthe

Hodgkin's fancifulsuggestionthatBoethiuswas named afterSaint Severinusof Noricum,

A page later Philosophyreassureshim with the informationthat 'your father-in-law

114T. Hodgkin,ItalyandherInvaders iii(1885),523;Momigliano, op.cit.(n.95),252;M. A.Wes,Das Ende

saysof Symmachus.The dedicationto De arithmetica calls on Symmachusto advance his

Then Var. 9.23 on the same subject,praisingPaulinus' fatherVenantiuscos. 508:

houses.125The Decii, liketheCorviniand AciliiGlabriones,claimeda gloriousRepublican

Twelve years earlier Cassiodorus (channellingTheoderic) had writtencongratulating

Mentionof Cassiodorus bringsus to a subjectthatcan no longerbe postponed:themuch

Butwhatfollowsis certainly nota genealogynorevena historyoftheCassiodori.Of the

130So mostrecently A. Giardina,Cassiodoro (2006),16.

are problemswiththenotionof a revisededitionoftheGothicHistory.136 Moreover,there

As for RufiusPetroniusNicomachus Cethegus,the dedicatee,it is true that his two

we accountfortheinclusionof biographiesof Symmachusand Boethius?The explanation

antiquo stemmateto theVolusus addressedbyTurnusin Aeneid 11.463, and a passage of

Caecina Albinuscos. 444 (a grandson,great-grandson and great-great-grandsonall had at