The Reign of Trajan DeciusAuthor(s): F. S. Salisbury and H. MattinglySource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 14 (1924), pp. 1-23Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/296323Accessed: 03/06/2009 06:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

By F. S. SALISBURY and H. MATTINGLY.

The general chronology of the reign of Decius has been described by Arthur Stein in a recent paper, 1 based principally on the evidence of papyri, inscriptions and coins.

Grenfell and Hunt had already pointed out (Ox. Pap. i, 35), in connexion with a papyrus giving a list of emperors from Augustus to Decius with the number of years of each reign, that ' in reckoning the length of reigns, the months after the last Thoth I (Aug. 29) in an emperor's reign are neglected, since the interval between the death of an emperor and the next Thoth I counted as the ISt year of his successor.' The latter half of the reign of Decius extended as we shall see for nearly a year after Aug. 29, A.D. 250. As, therefore, he has only two years (a and 3) both on the papyri and on the coins of the Alexandrian mint, it follows that his reign in Egypt begins at a date after Aug. 29, 249. In other words, although Decius had been proclaimed emperor by the Pannonian legions at the close of 248 or in the first part of 249, the authority of Philip was maintained in Egypt until his overthrow and death at Verona in the autumn of 249. This is confirmed by the dating of Philip's coins which enter on a seventh year in Egypt and by Pap. Brit. Mus. 950-I which, however, gives no month.

But the duration of Philip's reign after Aug. 29, 249, was short. According to the Code of Justinian, Decius was Augustus on Oct. I6 in that year, and a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus recording a cession of land (Ox. Pap. xiv, 1636) is dated Choiak I in the first year of Decius (Nov. 27, 249), 2 which Grenfell and Hunt note as the earliest mention of the new emperor in Egypt.

In the Balkans, however, the authority of Decius must have been established for several months before the death of Philip, and an interesting numismatic problem arises in that connexion. Decius certainly struck coins at at least one mint in the Balkans (Viminacium) later in his reign. Did he issue a coinage of his own during the long interval between his proclamation and his victory at Verona, and if not, how did he pay his troops ?

1 Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung, 1923. 2 Stein, loc. cit., followed by Vogt Die Alexan- drinischen Miinzen, wrongly says Sept. 27.

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

A hoard of over 4,000 Roman silver pieces buried in an earthen jar near Plevna at the close of A.D. 250 and found by a Bulgarian peasant at the end of I922,1 contained a very large number of coins of the reign of Decius, a careful study of which has resulted in the conclusion that without exception they were struck at the mint of Rome. If that conclusion is correct with regard to so plentiful a series of the coins of Decius from a site in Moesia itself, it follows that if Decius issued any coinage of his own during these first months, its quantity was negligible.

This is perhaps a surprising result, but it agrees in a striking manner with the statements of ancient historians, whose accuracy it has often been the custom to question.

Joannes Zonaras2 tells us the story of the mutiny of the legions in Moesia. He says: 'An officer named Marinus was elected emperor by the soldiers. Alarmed by the news Philip consulted the senate about the rising. No one had any advice to offer until Decius said that Marinus need cause him no anxiety, for he was not fit for an emperor and would be killed by the soldiers themselves. Soon afterwards his prediction was fulfilled, with the result that Philip, impressed by the foresight Decius had shown, instructed him to go to Moesia and punish the mutineers. Decius begged to be excused, saying that the mission would advantage neither himself nor Philip, but the emperor still pressed him, and so unwillingly enough he went. The moment he arrived the troops hailed him as emperor and, when he refused the honour, drew their swords and compelled him to accept.

'Accordingly he wrote home to Philip bidding him not be alarmed by what had happened, for if he became master of Rome he would lay aside the imperial ornaments. But Philip distrusted him and marched against him, and in the battle which ensued with the forces of Decius he fell fighting in the van. With him his son Philip was also slain, and on their death the beaten army went over in a body to Decius.'

The account given by Zosimus3 supplements that of Zonaras. He says that the empire was in a very disturbed state at this time. In the east there was much discontent at the weight of taxation, while the provincial governor Priscus had made himself intolerable. Revolution broke out; Jotapianus was proclaimed emperor by the troops in Moesia, and Marinus in Pannonia.

Zosimus then goes on, like Zonaras, to describe Philip's appeal to the Senate and the reply of Decius, and the accuracy of his fore- cast; for both Jotapianus and Marinus were destroyed 'without much trouble.' But this did not allay Philip's fears. He knew that

1 Num. Chron. I925, H. Mattingly and F. S. Salisbury.

2 Dind., iii, 624-5. 3p. 22.

2

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

the army in the Balkans hated their officers, and he called on Decius 1 to go out and take over the command of the troops in Moesia and Pannonia. Zosimus is here evidently following the same authority as Zonaras. He describes the reluctant compliance of Decius, who makes a virtue of necessity, 2 and how the soldiers, considering revolt less dangerous than submission, force him to assume the purple.

The two stories confirm and supplement one another. Zosimus, who had no grudge against Decius for his persecution of the Christians, gives some personal details in praise of his character and talents. In describing his speech to Philip in the Senate he comments on the great respect in which the speaker was held for his ability and virtues,3 and he tells us that the troops in Pannonia were confident of an easy victory over Philip because of the statesmanlike qualities of Decius and his skill as a commander.4

If the portrait is correct, Decius was not only trusted but trust- worthy, until his hand was forced by the mutineers. Even after that, the expressions of loyalty in the letter to Philip recorded by Zonaras may have been genuine. It is difficult not to believe in the fact of the letter itself, and whether honest or not it explains why right up to the battle of Verona he struck no coinage which would contradict his professions of loyalty.

Our answer, then, to the question how the Pannonian legions were paid between the arrival of Decius in their camp and his victory at Verona, is twofold. Philip knew better than to send Decius empty-handed. He gave him a large sum in money; perhaps arrears of pay had to be settled and were a contributing cause of the mutiny. The money was Philip's coinage, but Decius did not restrike it because he did not intend to retain the imperial insignia. Later, the troops expected their pay and a large donative in addition as the prize of victory, while Decius was either without silver to strike, or retained the intention of retiring in favour of Philip until the latter was in the field against him and the march of events and armies became too rapid to allow of the preparation of a coinage.

THE BATTLE OF VERONA.

The date of the Battle of Verona cannot be fixed exactly. Philip had probably not yet left Rome to march against Decius before June I7, 249, under which date his name appears in the Code of Justinian.5 The existence of Alexandrian coins of Philip of the seventh year shows that he was still emperor after Aug. 29, 249,

1 7rapaKaXEL . . d. a&aa-Oa. 4 TroXltLK?7 Te dpeT Ka TrOXef/tK Trepa 2 Philip Tr OerTraTXLKt Xeyo/A'vf 7reOavd'yKr T7rpo'rKWv.

Xp 7cOdaevoS EKTWtTret. 5 Clinton, Rom. Chron., p. 69. 3

yevet vrpoXWv Kal adcttcuart rpo?E'rt d Kcal 7rdoatIs CtarpeT7rW raTsL dperats.

3

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

and it has been pointed out that Decius has only two years on the papyri, and cannot therefore have been recognized in Egypt before that date. The earliest mention of Decius on the Egyptian papyri is dated Nov. 27, 249.1 But in the Code of Justinian he is already Augustus on Oct. I6, 249, and was therefore probably established in Rome by that date. We may thus take the widest possible limits as Sept. I to Oct. I6, with a probable date in the latter half of September, allowing for Philip's seventh year coins at one end, and the march of Decius from Verona to Rome at the other.

Details of the battle are meagre. Zosimus says that the troops of Decius, relying on the ability of their commander and the careful dispositions he had made for the struggle,2 were confident of victory although they knew their enemies greatly outnumbered them. Philip too was enfeebled by age.3

Both Zonaras and Zosimus, perhaps following a common source, say that the younger Philip, as well as his father, was killed in the battle. Another tradition, followed by Aurelius Victor,4 says that he was put to death afterwards in the praetorian camp at Rome when the news of Verona reached the city.

ROME IN THE AUTUMN.

It seems that it must have taken Decius some weeks, perhaps a month or two, to set things in order at Rome before he could turn his attention to matters elsewhere. He could hardly have been in Rome before the beginning of October, but in the middle of that month he is promulgating a law. And by the 28th Dec. 249, he is secure enough to give their release to veterans who have served

twenty-eight years.5 The consuls are L. Fulvius Aemilianus for the second time and L. Naevius Aquilinus.

But he was no sooner established in the capital than he began a vigorous policy of reconstruction. The idleness of camps is a fruitful source of disaffection, and he guarded against a recurrence of trouble in the Balkans by keeping his army busy and on the move in the same way that, as Sallust informs us,6 Metellus re-established the morale of the Roman forces in Africa on his appointment to conduct the war against Jugurtha.

Decius had won the confidence of the provincials along the Danube during the tenure there of an important command which Philip had entrusted to him about A.D. 245. But an interval of

1 Ox. Pap. xiv, I636. 5 C.I.L. iii, z, pp. 898-9, D-LVI; found 8 miles 2Tr AeKiov reTroIO6res LtrTr-. Kct Trepi from Rimini. Cf. xi, 373, bronze tablet of same

7rvr,ra wpovoka. date. 3 Aurelius Victor, de Caesaribus, 28, io. 4 ibid. 28, Io. This version is adopted by 6 Sallust, 7ugurtha, xlv.

Clinton, Rom. Chron. p. 69, and by Gibbon.

4

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

disorganisation and neglect had followed. Communications, especially the military highway along the southern bank of the Danube and the roads leading to it from the south, were in dis- repair. These he proceeded to put in order. Accordingly there is a series of milestones from the Balkan area inscribed with the name of Decius and recording the restoration of roads and bridges.

All the inscriptions of the series date from this period as is shown by the first tribunician and consular year. Thus they must belong to A.D. 249. We should be tempted to place them in the first eight months of the year and to find in them a means of filling up the blank of the interval between the proclamation of Decius by the troops and the battle of Verona, were it not that the title of Pontifex Maximus and perhaps even that of Augustus could hardly have been assumed before they were conferred by the Senate at Rome.

One stone from the road leading from Scarbantia (Odenburg) in Upper Pannonia to Vindobona on the Danube may be quoted as typical. 1

[i]MP CAES C MESS QVINT DECIVS TRA IANVS P F AVG PONT MAX TRIB POT P P COS PR COS VIAS ET PONT VE CONL RESTITVIT

A VIND MP IIII

The last two lines are abbreviated for vetustate conlapsas restituit a Findobona millia passuum quatuor.

Other inscriptions of this series are from Lower Moesia,2 recording restoration, and two milestones from Lower Pannonia,3 at Adony on the bank of the Danube and on the Via Aquinco Sirmium, on both of which the title INVICTO is still further evidence of their belonging to the post-Verona period.

It is not difficult to understand why Decius concentrated his attention first of all on this section of the frontier which events were soon fatally to prove was the danger spot of the empire. But he had also a personal interest in the welfare of this part of the provinces, for Eutropius tells us that the emperor was himself a native of Budalia in Lower Pannonia.

Close to the end of the year, when he is already Consul designate for 250, his restoration of discipline in the Balkan legions is still one

1 C.I.L. iii, 4651 ; cf. iii, 4645, also from Upper 2 C.I.L. iii, 12515. Pannonia on the road along the Danube from Vindobona eastward; and iii, 5752, westward of 3 C.a.L. iii, 3723, 10641. Vindobona. Also Eph. Epigr. ii, 766, from Lower Pannonia, Cos. Procos.

5

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

of his chief titles to fame. A stone from Lower Moesia found on the north bank of the Danube opposite Nicopolis reads

IMP CAES C MESSIO Q TRAIANo DECIO P F INVICTo AV[g PONT M TRIB POT COS I DESIGNATO P P PROCOS REPARATORI DISCIPLINAE MILITARIS FVNDATORI SACR VRBIS FIRMATORI SPE[ratrici]S FO[rtunae ?]

It comes later than the series of milestones, and sufficiently records the moral value of the activity of which the milestones describe the material results. Two fragments of a marble base at Rome1 recording a dedication of statuary read PRO SALVTE IMP CAES C M Q TRAIANI DECI AVG N ..... CIVES COTINI EX PROVINCIA pannonia iNFERioRE/MILITES COHH pr ... conTVLERVNT. The names of other cohorts follow. Probably this indicates the settlement of a military colony in the province mentioned. With the opening of the year 250 the communications in the Balkan provinces have apparently been set in good order, for Decius now turns his attention to the other end of the empire, and from Spain we have a series of milestones found along the course of the Via Bracara Austuricam in Hispania Tarragonensis, all of which are inscribed PROCOS IIII COS 11,2 with one exception3 which has COS II but omits the proconsulate. The unusual fourth proconsulate has not been satisfactorily explained, but the consular year fixes the date as 250 A.D., while the omission of either of the princes indicates that the month is not later than September. Of A.D. 25I we have from the Viae Conventus Cluniensis . potESTATIS III . COS III of this emperor.4

BRITAIN 249-50.

The reorganisation of other outlying provinces of the empire was not neglected by Decius during this first period of his reign. Probably we should refer to the last months of 249, and the first part of 250, several milestones from Britain, none of which are dated, but on which the name and titles of Decius only occur. They come from the Castle Hill, Lancaster; from Duel Cross about three miles from

1 C.I.L. vi, 32557, a, b (a=283I: b=2852, 3 C.I.L. ii, 4823. q.v.); cf. vi, 32558 (=z2814).

2 C.I.L. ii, 4809, 4812, 4813, 4833, 4835 [4836]. 4 Eph. Ep. viii, 249. See also ii, I372 and Eph. Ep. viii, addit. Corp. ii, 226.

6

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

Aldborough in Yorkshire; from Ribchester, Lancashire, and from Llandiniolen in Carnarvonshire. 1 Another from Castleford in the West Riding (Eph. Ep. ix, 1913) was first inscribed to Decius, then set upside down and reinscribed to Gallus and Volusian, the end of the new running into the end of the old which is not other- wise obliterated. 2

AFRICA.

In Africa a milestone from Portus Magnus concluding COS PROCOS RES/P PORTVMG, dedicated to Decius, must belong to the end of 249.3

Several must be assigned to the first eight months of 250 (the second consulate, without the Caesars), notably two4 from the Via Cirta Rusicadem, the latter of which records VIAM IMBribus et/VETVSTATE collap/SAM CVM PONTibus/RESTITVIT/

Two others5 of Decius with Etruscus will be of the autumn of 250, from September to November.

GALATIA.

It is clear from these widespread indications that we are not to contemplate an empire with broken and disorganised extremities. A Galatian6 milestone of Decius, A.D. 250 to September, records repairs to the highway. Another inscription 7 from the same quarter is dedicated to Decius and Herennius Caesar by M. Junius Valerianus Nepotianus, president of the province of Galatia and of Pontus. A third from the same region8 inscribed to Decius and both the Caesars must belong to the very end of 250 or even the beginning of 25I-.

Still further east, in Palestine and Syria, the imperial writ runs. A milestone of Decius was found near Philadelphia 9; another1 0 on the Sabrina, three miles from its confluence with the Euphrates, records the restoration of the roads by Decius. 11

The completeness of the organisation of which we get these glimpses suggests that, except so far as they increased the burdens of provincial taxation, the devastations of civil war were local, and that the machinery of government continued to work elsewhere uninterruptedly. But it suggests also an emperor who, even in the midst of campaigns against invasions which threatened to cut the

1 C.I.L. vii, II74, I80, 1171, II63. See also 6 C.I.L. iii, I4I8440.

below, p. 246, no. I0. 7 iii, I48425. 2 Similarly from same place, Eph. Ep. vii, 1104.

8 iii, 220zo, between Kesner and Yalak. 3 C.I.L. viii, 10457. See also Eph. Ep. vii, 584, 9 iii, I4155.

586, 589, 6oo, 639, all apparently of A.D. 249. l iii, I3644-

4viii, 10313-4, cp. 10318, 10360 (Sitifi). 1 See also Waddington, 2544 (Inscr. Gr. ad R.R. 5

iii, 10051, 10354. pert. iii).

7

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

empire in two, had energy enough to infuse vigour into the administra- tion of the furthest provinces. ' Such,' says Zosimus, after describing the death of Decius, ' was the fate that befel him at the end of an excellent reign,'l and there seems no reason to doubt the justice of the tribute.

THE PERSECUTION.

Zonaras says that Decius had appointed Valerian to assist him in the administration of the empire and that they egged one another on to persecute the Christians. 2 He tells us that some3 attributed the persecution to Decius' hatred of Philip who paid great respect to the Christians. 'At any rate,' he adds, ' Decius raged against the faithful.'4

But however much Philip favoured the Christians, and Eusebius5 even refers to a tradition that he was a Christian himself, he was apparently powerless to control the mob of Alexandria, who for a whole year before the emperor's death conducted a pogrom against the Christian community. When Decius came to the throne he issued a decree regularising a persecution which he was unwilling or perhaps unable to repress. That the decree was issued soon after his accession seems plain from the language of Eusebius,6 the correctness of whose account is supported by the description he gives of the martyrdoms before and after the change of government. Before it the accounts are those of irresponsible lynchings ; afterwards we read repeatedly of an examination before a magistrate and efforts to extort recantation, while there is some indication that the influence of the judge was, sometimes at all events, exercised to mitigate the severity of the law.

It does not seem probable that the persecution of the Christians can have begun much earlier than the end of 249. At Rome it had begun by the middle of January 250o, for Fabianus of Rome suffered martyrdom on the 2ist of that month.

In Egypt the Declarations of Conformity required of suspects or actual lapsi are all dated in the first Egyptian year of Decius,7 and the actual dates given range from June izth to July I4th, 250. It seems therefore that the persecution must have been over in Egypt before the end of August, 250.

1 AeKWU ,1v ot7v dpra-Tc. p[eaJ\LXeVK6rT r7Xos bishop of Alexandria: X rs /3a(oLXeiaS Keitvs

rotv& ?eo vvdej . rTs euoevyeorpas ?t vy (there had been a brief 2ii 584, 20. dvXXvXous els eooe~Xiav ,rapa- respite) TaeraXoX/ &8i-yyeXraL, Ka'L 7roX)S o T?S

Kpor?ocaY7res, 6twy./6v T7r fLtpaXv Kar&a rv s 6/' 'Ias 'i7recAXs 0/6o3os dveretvero. KaL 8

XptLCrToW ovY oioo5p6rarTov. KaiL Vrap7v TO rp6a-'ra,ya. 3 e.g. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. vi, 39. 7 Examples from the Arsinoite nome are very 4g /eti'hveL -yovv KaLTr& rTv icrLory. numerous. Paul M. Meyer, Libelli aus Theadelpbia. 5 Eusebius, H.E. vi, 34. See also Ox. Pap. iv, 658; xii, 1464; John Rylands 6 Eusebius, H.E. vi, 41, quoting Dionysius, Library, Pap. ii,

i 2a.

8

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

SACRIFICE TO THE EMPEROR.

The view has been put forward elsewhere1 that a series of consecration coins of the emperors, at one time erroneously attributed to Gallienus, belongs in reality to the reign of Decius. This con- clusion was strongly supported by considerations of style and fabric, and by their presence in or absence from hoards buried at or just before t,his period. It would be of importance in this connexion if it could be shown that at the time of the persecution special emphasis was laid on the divinity of the emperors. The inscriptions do not give us much, if any, real indication of this during Decius' lifetime. Too much stress must not be laid on the title 8t1 v~eox6pog assumed by Perinthus in an inscription in Decius' honour.2 Perhaps it means that a temple had been built to Decius himself, but in the East the same thing happened to Augustus. On an inscription in the Cathedral at Tarraco3 (250 A.D. after August) Decius is sanctissimus and the dedication is to his son's numen.

Q HERENNIO ETRVS CO MESSIO DECIO

NOBILISSIMO CAES FILIO D N SANCTISSIMI TRA IANI DECI P F INVIC TI AVG ORD D C D

DICATISSIMVS NVMINI EIVS

A Spanish inscription4 of A.D. 250 records the fulfilment of a vow to the emperor's numen: (res) P CALLENSIS VOTA NVMINI MAIESTATIQ (eius) D D; and an altar in the museum at Bonn bears a dedication to the effect that it was presented by a priest named Marinus to the cavalry of the first Flavian cohort in honour of the divine house (in h.d.d.) in the consulship of Decius and Gratus. 5

On an inscription at Rome (but a dedication from Lower Pannonia), on which the name of Decius is erased, the empress is apparently described as sanctissima augusta.6 But the term sanc- tissimus is applied on Christian epitaphs to bishops 7 or to the saintly dead, 8 and the word numen is used in reference to the living emperor as early as Augustus. 9

1 Num. Chron. 1925. 7 C.I.L. viii, 20904-5. 2 Inscr. Gr. ad R.R. pert. i, 788. 8 *-

3CI 1~ A *- ~ O^s viii,O 20913; xi, I9g (Ravenna) CONIVGI 4 C.I.L. ii,' 4?37 SANCTISSIMO; xi, 132, CONIVGI SIBI 5 CI..L. Auct. 643. SANCTISSIMAE. 6 C.I.L. vi, 32557; cf. also xiii, 6670, PRO 9 Ovid F. iii, 42I, 'ignibus aeternis aeterni

SALVTE DD NN SANCTISSIMORVM IMP; numina praesunt Caesaris./ Ibid. 1. 427, sancta ibid. 1904, 1940. fovet ille manu.

9

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

On the Egyptian Declarations of Conformity the phrase is regularly 'I have always made a practice of sacrificing and pouring libations to the gods,' 0'C (v O6cv xal a7evscovv -TO'Z OeoZg t6rXeraa 1 or similar expression, without special application to the emperor, unless the word apeIve, which is sometimes added, refers to the emperor as Augustus (Se3ator6?).2 In a libellus3 of the latter kind the imperial decree is described as Oseo xplaLt;.

In dating these documents, always in the emperor's first year, no term expressive of deification occurs. The phrase is regularly AUTOxp0Tropoq Kca(ocpo; Poatou MeaaCou KuTvTou- TpoCavoQ- Asexou EucraoiU? EUTuXo5u Seepcazoiu (Imperatoris Caesaris ..... Pii Felicis Augusti).

On the other hand, the inscriptions leave no doubt that among the divinities to which dedications were made the numina of the Augusti often occupied an important place alongside of the other gods. Usually the name of Jupiter comes first, as in an inscription from Mogontiacum4 I.O.M./eT NVMINI/BUS AVGVSTO/rum, etc. Another stone5 gives the descent from god to guardian spirit in a nicely graduated scale, I O M ET NVM/AVG ET GENIO VI/CINIAE M MANN/IVS, etc. In at least one instance, also from Mogontiacum, the numina come first,6 . Numinibus Aug. I. O. M. Fortu[nae] Ve[stae] d Laribus Penatibus L. Sallusti[us] Sedatus hospes v.s.l.m. Instances of other dedications to the imperial numina might be multiplied.

The worship of the deified emperors is thus amply attested, and that of the living emperor grew out of it. 7 But that he should be worshipped as a god alongside of the Olympians in his presence at Rome was to put a strain on imagination or credulity, and, while Augustus accepted divine honours jointly with Roma in the provinces, he seems8 to have been worshipped in the city itself under the guise of his genius. Mrs. Arthur Strong,9 describing the scene on the arch at Benvenuto (A.D. 115) where the Olympians receive Trajan, and Jupiter in their presence hands the thunderbolt to the emperor, goes so far as to speak of it as the abdication of Jupiter. That seems to us to be pressing the significance of an adulatory monument further than the evidence of the inscriptions we have quoted justifies. We have instanced one in which the Numen Augusti precedes the name of Jupiter, but in a much larger number the order is reversed.

The scene on the Benvenuto arch is put in its right perspective

1 Ox. Pap. iv, 658. by the consuls Julianus and Crispinus, as also is 2 aefdair-os pKos is an oath by the genius 7612 to A.D. 223.

of Augustus C. I, I933. xiii, 6708; cf. 6805, 3075, 1775, 1776, the 3 Ox. Pap. xii, 1464, Ovew Katl a7r1vserv Kai last two from Lugdunum.

trg-3e .. .. r KeXevoUT'vra uiro rTs Oeias Kplrews. 7 Mrs. Arthur Strong, Apotheosis and After 4C.I.L. xiii, 365I. Life, pp. 70 foll. 5 Xiii, 3652; cf. 7317, i N. H D D/NuMIN 8ibid. p. 70.

AVG/ etc., an inscription which is dated A.D. 224 9 ibid. pp. 85-6.

IO

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

by a gold coin of Trajan (Cohen 46) with the reverse type of Jupiter Conservator, whose erect figure occupies the full height of the field, extending down a thunderbolt over a diminutive emperor to the left.

During his lifetime at all events the exact status of a man-god could not avoid ambiguity. When Odysseus crossed the Ocean in his black ship to visit the dead, he saw the mighty shade of Heracles among the other ghosts. But it was only the shadowy counterpart of the hero, whose real self was married to Hebe on Olympus. 1 The cult of the god superimposed on the earlier cult of the hero has produced the double picture, and the dead hero has a place in both Heaven and Hades.

There is a curious parallel to this, though the exact form of it is copied from the story of Iphigeneia in Aulis, in a passage of Ovid's Fasti. 2 The poet says that he was about to pass by the Ides of March without referring to the murder of Julius Caesar, when Vesta spoke to him from her chaste hearth and bade him not hesitate to recall the tragedy. 'He was my priest,' she says. 'Their sacrilegious hands aimed their weapons at me, but I myself rescued the man and left his semblance in his place. That which fell beneath their daggers was Caesar's shade. The man himself set in, heaven beholds the halls of Jupiter . . . while all those who dared the impious deed, and in defiance of the will of the gods did outrage to the Pontiff's life (polluerant pontificale caput), lie dead as they deserved.'

In view of the double conception which Ovid's poetic fancy reflects, it is fortunate that we have in the Passion of Procopius a document which appears to be nearly contemporary with the martyr- dom it records.3 Procopius was a reader who suffered at Caesarea in Palestine, July 8th, A.D. 250. According to the account of Eusebius he was conducted before the governor Flavianus, who commanded him to sacrifice to the gods. 'There are not many gods but one only, the Creator of all things,' said Procopius. The governor accepted the answer, but followed it up by commanding the accused to offer incense to the emperor; whereupon Procopius quoted the lines of Homer: ' It is not good to have so many masters : let there be orie master, one king.'4 The judge construed this as an insult to the emperor, and pronounced sentence of death.

In this account it is to be noted that the sacrifice to the gods comes first. The judge's requirement, in fact, is precisely that certified in the Declarations of Conformity. The sacrifice to the emperor comes next, as on most of the dedicatory inscriptions in which the numina Augustorum are mentioned.

1 Odyss. xi, 6oi foil. 3 See Ethel Ross Barker, Rome of the Pilgrims and Martyrs, p. I47. Euseb. H.E., app. to Bk. viii.

2 Ov. F. iii, 697-707. IL. ii, 204.

II

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

THE CAESARS.

The next problem which presents itself concerns the date at which each of Decius' sons was elevated to the rank of Caesar. Its interest is not entirely chronological since it may have an important bearing on the actual events of the reign.

On papyrus documents of the first Egyptian year of Decius only the emperor's name is mentioned without either of the princes. This year ends August 28th, 250, and it follows that before that date neither Herennius nor Hostilian was Caesar. The evidence of the papyri is confirmed by the dating of the Alexandrian coins of the two princes, which occur only of year B.1

Among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (X, 1284) is a receipt for taxes issued by a public bank and dated Choiak Igth in the second year of Decius, i.e. December 15th, 250. The emperor's name is followed by the names and titles of both his sons who are described not only as Caesares but as Augusti. The latter title will be referred to later: it is at all events certain that both princes were Caesar by the I5th December, 250.

The Plevna hoard already referred to contains a long series (I27 pieces) of the coins of Herennius Etruscus, but only three of Hostilian. The legends vary, but all have the title Caesar, though not Augustus. August 29th, 250, is, as we have seen, the earliest date at which the series can begin. Hostilian's coins are so few that we concluded in our paper on the hoard that he could have been only just created Caesar when it was buried. We needed to postulate several months for so long a series as those of Herennius, especially as four distinct types were represented. The three coins of Hostilian were of one of these types only. It follows, therefore, that the coins of the elder prince must extend over nearly the whole of the period between the earliest and latest dates indicated.

Herennius, then, was created Caesar soon after the end of August 250, and his younger brother not long before December I5th following. If we may hazard a guess as to the occasion for the elevation of the elder son, the anniversary of the victory at Verona suggests itself, the date of which we have already seen reason to place in the latter part of September.

The inscriptions also fall into groups corresponding with these conclusions. There are milestones, such as C.I.L. ii, 4949, 2 in which Decius and Herennius are mentioned without Hostilian, the elder son being still Caesar only. These will date between September and December, 250. During a second period, which we may date after the beginning of December, 250, the inscriptions describe the princes together as Caesares but not as Augusti, e.g. a milestone

1 Brit. Mus. Catal. of Gk. Coins of Alexandria, etc., nos. 2095-2099.

2 Also C.I.L. ii, 4953 (Spain).

12

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

from Dalmatia,1 while two stones from Valentia in Spain set up by the veterans of that city in honour of Herennius and Hostilian respectively (C.I.L. ii, 3735-6) are inscribed to each as

NOBILISSIMO CAES PRINCIPI IVVENTVT.

They will belong to the period beginning with the very last coins of the Plevna hoard. A milestone from Friedberg2 reads:

[imp caes c mess]IO quinTO DECIO TRAI [a]NO PI[o] FEL AVG P[m tr] pP. PRO. COS ET Q H[erennio] ETRVSCO M[e]SSIO DEC[io] ET C [vale]NTi HOSTILI A[n]O MESSIO [quinto] NOBILISSIMIS CAE- SARIBVS CT ANDA

1. x.

The editors of the Corpus date this stone A.D. 249, which is impossible on the cumulative evidence of our other documents, whether inscriptions, papyri or coins, unless the title Caesaribus is merely complimentary. Perhaps 1. 4, where the second P is redundant, should read [p.] II PRO COS, the second tribunitian year, which then brings the stone to A.D. 250, and, with both princes Caesars, near to the end of it.

We now come to consider the title of Augustus on the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus of date December I5th, 250, already cited.3 After the names of the two princes come the words Tcov seBa(Jt0oTTco v [KLoacopwv] Esraoctov. There is no doubt about the correct restoration of the lacuna. But it will be noted that the titles are given to the two Caesars jointly for the sake of brevity, and it is quite probable that while the title Caesar is correctly given to both, that of Augustus belongs by right to Herennius only. If the formula is written out in full with his titles separately given to each prince, the cumbrous result will show how great was the temptation to abbreviate. In an inscription from Rome itself Hostilian is still only Caesar in his second tribunitian. year, that is in 251.4

C. VALENTI HOSTILIAN[o] MESSIO QVINTO

NOBILISSIMO CAESARi TRIB POTEST II PRINCIPI IVVENt

FILIO

1 C.I.L. iii, I3321. 2 C.I.L. xiii, 11, 2, 9123.

I3

3 OX. Pap. x, 1284. 4 C.I.L. vi, I o2.

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

But it is necessary to assume for this explanation that Herennius was really Augustus, and there are two milestones from Rhaetia (C.I.L. iii, 5988-9) belonging to the second tribunitian year of Decius (A.D. 250) which conclude with a formula briefer than, but similar to, that of the papyrus. No. 5988 reads:

11. 5 ff. MESSIS DECIO ET QVIN T[o] NOBILLISSI MIS CAESS AVGG

Other inscriptions fortunately help to resolve our doubts. A stone from Lower Pannonia1 on which Decius is associated with both his sons is important for the fullness with which the imperial titles are set out and because Herennius, as well as the emperor, is consul designate, the son for the first, 2 the father for the third, time. Both princes are Caesar only, and the inscription indicates, therefore, that if Herennius was elevated to the rank of Augustus before the end of 250 it was on some later occasion than his designation for the consulship of 251. The terms of the Pannonian inscription are confirmed in every respect by another from Falerii.3

A column 4 found near Vich in Spain belongs to the third consul- ship of Decius and is therefore of A.D. 25I. On it Herennius is consul but not Augustus. It conflicts with the papyrus and the two Rhaetian milestones quoted above; but, as we found it impossible to accept their evidence as regards Hostilian, they may also be flatteringly inaccurate in regard to Herennius as well.5 The entire absence of coins of the latter with the title aspocao6S from the Egyptian mint and their rarity from Rome add weight to evidence tending to defer the date at which the title was assumed. The new year and the entry on the consulship must equally be discarded as occasions for the honour, and it becomes increasingly probable that it was due to the critical circumstances of the Gothic War.

We have little other evidence than that which we have just shown to be an inaccuracy due to abbreviation or flattery, to suggest

1 C.I.L. iii, 3746. The use of the plural of the higher title for Maxi- 2 The description of the two Decii as joint minus Augustus with Maximus Caesar is a gram-

consuls VI Kal. Nov. by Trebellius Pollio (Hist. matical and not a historical point. Joseph Vogt,

Aug. xxii) is wrong. Herennius may have been p.- cit. p. J74, quotes the title K CGB, exactly consul designate. corresponding to the [Katoidpwv] ZefaoTrr of

the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Dec. 15, 250, on a ib. xi, 3088. Alexandrian coins of Diadumenian, who is shown 4 ib. ii, 4958. by his Roman coins to have been Caesar but never 5We may quote also the legend PIETAS Augustus. The combination of the titles Caesar

AVGVSTORVM on coins of Herennius Caesar, Augustus, usually mutually exclusive (the pre- though here ' Augustorum ' mqy be an objective nomen Caesar is not here in question), is found on

genitive, since Etruscilla also was Augusta. Maxi- the Egyptian coins of Philip II, Valerian II, min has coins with the legend VICTORIA Saloninus, and Numerian, all of which read K CCB. AVGVSTORVM when there was only one Augustus. Vogt quotes evidence from the papyri for Geta also.

I4

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

that Hostilian was ever made Augustus by his father. There is an inscription1 from Carsioli in which Etruscilla is described as herself Augusta and also as mother of the Augusti:

HERENNIAE CYPRESSENIAE ETRVSCILLAE AVG CONIVGI D N DECI AVG MATRI AVGG NN ET CASTROR

S P Q C

It may belong to the very end of the reign by which time Hostilian may have been advanced to the highest dignity. But an inscription from Rome2:

C. VALENTI HOSTILIAN[o] MESSIO QVINT[o]

NOBILISSIMO CAESAR[i] TRIB POTEST II PRINC IVVENt

FILIO

must from its tribunitian year belong to 25I, and he is here still only Caesar.

The 'Adventus' coin of Hostilian, struck in the East, with legend C 0 VAL OSTIL MES COVINTVS AVG, may be assigned on account of the reverse type to the reign of Trebonianus Gallus, of whom Zosimus, p. 25, tells us that he came to Rome after the death of Decius and adopted his surviving son.

The Egyptian coins of the two princes are instructive here. As we have already remarked, they are all of the second year, i.e. from August 29th, 250, to some time in the summer of 251. Those of Hostilian all have the obverse legend r OVAL OSTIA MEC KVINTOS K(oLaocp); those of Herennius have K CPC CTR MCC ACKIOS KAICA. They tell against the view that Herennius was Augustus for any great length of time. But he certainly held the title during the last fatal campaign of 251, for six types of his coins, from other mints than that of Alexandria, all of them uncommon, however-viz. Cohen 7, I6, 18, 37, 41, 42- have the legend with AVG.

Our conclusions as regards the Caesars are that Herennius Etruscus received that title about September 250, and Hostilian early in December. Herennius was also certainly raised to the rank of Augustus before the end of the reign. Perhaps the occasion for the honour was the beginning of the Gothic campaign.

Herennius perished with his father in the fatal issue of the Gothic

I5

1 C.I.L. ix, 4056. 2 ibid. vi, I I 2.

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

war, but Hostilian as we have already noted was associated with Gallus as Augustus., and died of the pestilence which broke out in the first year of that emperor's reign.

THE EMPRESS.

We have the most meagre details concerning Herennia Etruscilla. We can only study her features on the coins and in the British Museum bust and, noting the various ways, falling into two main styles, in which she dresses her hair, speculate about her brief sway as a leader of Roman fashion.

She wins no notoriety such as her predecessor won by patronage of the Christians. 1 But she was, so far as we can judge, not without the old Roman virtues which might make her a fit consort for a vigorous and martial ruler.

We have argued elsewhere2 that the legend PVDICITIA on coins of Etruscilla is given to her as wife of the Pontifex Maximus, because of his close connexion with the worship of Vesta, as appears from several passages in the Fasfi of Ovid.3 This view is probably correct, although the term-which from a modern point of view seems to assert what should be taken for granted-is not unfamiliar in Roman funeral inscriptions.4

The empress apparently accompanied her husband when he took the field, for she is mater castrorum and mater augustorum on an

inscription5 already quoted. Perhaps we may assign to this period two other dedications to Etruscilla Augusta as mater castrorum, one an altar from Carnuntum6 on the Danube (a few miles from the site of one of Decius' .iliaria, which probably belongs, however, to the end of 249), the other from Andautonia,7 also in Upper Pannonia. The latter with its prayer PRO SALVTE ETRV- SCILLAE almost certainly belongs to the last campaign.

There is a fragmentary inscription from Salonae in Dalmatia8 which the editor conjecturally restores '[Herenn]iae Etru[scillae] ubi

cot[idie lavatur]'. If this is correct it may record an episode in her life while Decius was in command in the Balkans in A.D. 245, or

restoring discipline in 248-9; or she may have gone there to be nearer her husband during later campaigns.

Few other inscriptions allude to her.9

1 Eusebius says that in his day a letter was extant 7 ibid. 4011.

written by Origen to Philip and another to Otacilia 8 ibid. 88 I6 Severa. Euseb. H.E. vi, 36.

2 Num. Chron. I925. 9 C.I.L. vi, 31376, if rightly restored, from Rome 3 See Ov. F.iii, 419-426 and 697-707; iv, 949-954. and Eph. Ep. vii, 286, where the empress is AVG 4 C.I.L. xiii. in, I, 6279, PVDICISSIMAE. on a stone of the same provenance as one, no. 600,

Cf. xi, 405; xi, 81 (Ravenna) BONAE apparently of A.D.. 249. On no. 639, certainly of MEMoRIAE /CASTISSIMAE CONIVGI. A.D. 249, Decius and Etruscilla Augusta are named

5 C.I.L. ix, 4056. together. An inscr. from Pautalia in Thrace is 6 C.I.L.iii, II87. dedicated to her, Itscr. Gr. ad R.R. pert. i, 671.

i6

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

THE FRONTIER WARS.

In A.D. 250 Decius was consul for the second time with Gratus as his colleague. A marble column found at Rome, 1 and formerly supporting a bronze lamp, is dedicated PRO SALVTE EQ[uitum] SING[ularium] and concludes ANIMO PLENO / POSVERVNT/ COLUMNA ET / LVCERNA AENEA / DECIO AVG /II ET GRATO COS.

The emperor was engaged in military operations on the northern frontier during the summer of 250 as well as in 251. The former campaign was brought to a successful conclusion, for a stone found at Carlsburg2 is inscribed to him (without the Caesars) as restorer of the Dacias, where he apparently planted military colonies to make the settlement more secure.

RESTITVTO/RI DACIARVM / COL NOVA APVLeS

The editor of the Corpus attributes to this event the coins of Decius with the reverse inscriptions DACIA and DACIA FELIX. But the Plevna hoard of I922, which was buried towards the end of A.D. 250, contains only those inscribed DACIA. If therefore the argument from its absence is worth anything, the longer legend must be subsequent.

Further west the German frontier was not neglected, and the key position of Mogontiacum was the centre of considerable activity. At Ladenburg on the road running south from Mogontiacum along the right bank of the Rhine is a dedication to Decius by the Suebic town of Nicretum.3 A similar inscription is at Heidelberg.4 These perhaps both date from the latter part of A.D. 249, but two others,5 also from Ladenburg and Heidelberg respectively, are inscribed to Herennius Etruscus Caesar, and belong therefore to the end of 250. A single stone of the same or a little later date is inscribed to Hostilianus Caesar by the Civitas Tribocorum.6

At the close of 250, being at the time consul designate for 25I, Decius gives their missio at Ravenna to another set of time-expired veterans, 7 as he had done a year previously.

THE GOTHIC INVASION OF 251.

There is some reason to suppose that the Gothic invasion of 251 did not begin until the early part of that year. M. Seure8 adopts this view in a paper on a hoard of nearly a thousand silver pieces dug up by a Bulgarian peasant at Nicolaevo near Plevna, but as the

1 C.I.L. vi, 3II65; cf. ib. Auct. 589, Oct. I, 250. 5 ib. 9102, 9IIO. C.I.L. iii, I 76. 6 ib. xiii, 9097.

3 C.I.L. xiii, 9IoI, cf. 9090. 7 C.I.L. iii, 2, pp. 898-9. 4 ib. 9109. 8 Rev. Numis. I923.

I7

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

find contains no coins of Decius, whereas the reigns of Gordian and Philip are fully represented by 294 and 250 coins respectively, it must lave been buried soon after the secular games to which its last pieces refer, and can have nothing to do with the interesting discussion of the campaign of A.D. 251 which M. Seure bases on it.

Towards the close of 250 the Dalmatian roads had been put in repair. A milestone from Konjical has Hostilian's name, another2 that of both the Caesars. Decius was, therefore, not unprepared, though the suddenness of the invasion when it came may have taken him by surprise.

It is quite probable that the Goths under their chief Kniva entered Moesia in the depths of winter, perhaps taking advantage of ice on the Danube. Decius sent his son at once in advance to the army in Illyricum,3 and perhaps at this crisis raised him to the rank of Augustus. Meanwhile the Goths had laid siege to Philippopolis, and Decius, who had hurried to the Balkans from Rome as soon as the magnitude of the invasion became known, was unable to prevent the sack of the besieged city.

Starting from Viminacium and approaching from the west along the Danube with a view to cutting the line of the Gothic retreat, the Emperor and his lieutenant Trebonianus Gallus appear to have been compelled to act mainly on the defensive.

M. Seure, in an interesting and plausible section of the paper referred to above, compares in detail the account of Jordanes with the results of recent topographical research. His description may be in the main correct, but he lays great stress on the time factor, and it is impossible to allow him as long as he requires. He is, perhaps, right in holding that the final phase consisted of two battles, one close to Plevna, the other I50 miles to the east as the crow flies, and therefore a week or two later. In the first battle the Romans possibly more than held their own, but Herennius Etruscus was killed, and it was in his haste to pursue the retiring enemy and avenge his son that Decius was cut off in the marshes of the Dobrudja and killed.

DEATH OF DECIUS.

It is possible to fix the date of the death of Decius within definite limits. He has no Egyptian coins of the third year, and therefore could not have been emperor for long after August 28th, 25I, which is the last day of his second Egyptian year.

A study of the coinage of Viminacium indicates an era beginning some time in August, A.D. 239, when the Carpi had been driven

1 C.I.L. iii, 15102, Via Narona-Sarajevskopolje. and I3311-2 to Herennius, but those of Decius 2 ibid. 1332I. Other Dalmatian milestones are may belong to the first twelve months of his reign.

iii, 8268, 10048, I3309-10 inscribed to Decius only, 3 Aurelius Victor, de Caes. 29.

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

back, in the year after Gordian III's accession. The evidence on this point is clear. Philip has coins of the year XI at Viminacium, which must have been struck after the era date but before Verona. We have placed the latter with considerable certainty towards the end of September A.D. 249. The Viminacium year, to allow for the coinage, can hardly have begun less than a month earlier. On the other hand, Gallus strikes coins of year XII. These must fall before the end of the Viminacium year in 251, but after the death of Decius. We have therefore three dates-the death of Decius, the year of the Viminacium era, and the battle of Verona-separated from one another in this order by intervals long enough for a coinage. Presently we shall find other evidence from inscriptions to show that Decius was still emperor on June 9th, and the requirements of the Balkan campaign indicate that this cannot be the last date. Dates in July, and late August, and September respectively, cannot be far wrong. Incidentally, the occurrence of Philip's coins of year XI and those of Gallus of year XII is conclusive proof that Decius struck no coins in at least this important Balkan mint during the pre-Verona period.

We seem, then, to require a date not later than the end of July, 251, for the death of Decius, and evidence from the Dacian mint compels us to put back the date still further to about July I.1 At all events M. Seure's conclusion for Nov. 251, following Goyau Chron., p. 300, is untenable. The 'decisive text' on which it is based is that in Ch. v of the Vita Valeriani. But the date, Oct. 27, there given is that of a meeting of the Senate in the temple of Castor at Rome summoned by Decius to consider the appointment of a Censor. It is true that Trebellius Pollio gives the consular year as that of the two Decii, father and son; but that is certainly an error, and by M. Seure's own theory Decius was at that very time fighting on the Danube, and had been in the Balkans for several months. The meeting of the Senate described may have taken place on the date given, but it must have been in 250, or even 249, not 251.

Two months are not too short a period to assign for the twelfth Viminacium year of Gallus, for it must be remembered that he would be able to strike coins almost at once at the Balkan mint. A brief period is also indicated by the fact that Gallus has no coins or papyri of his first Egyptian year,2 which closed about the same time as that of Viminacium.

Stein, on the other hand, puts the date of Decius' death too early on the strength of an inscription from Rome3 which he misreads.

1 See chronological summary below and note on 22); xiv. 1640, Phaophi 20 (Oct. I7); Gallus and Balkan mints, p. 2 I. Volusian are from the first named together as

2 Gallus has only Egyptian coins of year 3, but Augusti. year B occurs on a papyrus at the British Museum and in Ox. Pap. vi, 977, Mecheir I (Jan. 26); xii, 3 C.I.L. vi, 3I 30. Joseph Vogt, op. cit. p. 198, 5 54, Choiak 7 (Dec. 3) xii, I442, Pharmouthi 8 perpetuates the mistake, just as he antedates

(Apr. 3) ; Year 7 of Gallus and Volusian occurs Ox. Pap. xiv, 1636, at the beginning of the reign Ox. Pap. viii, 1II9, Mesore 23 and 29 (Aug. I6 and by two months.

I9

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

It begins DEDIC VIII KAL IVL ..... DIOC... III ET. The readings in the 'apparatus criticus' give no support to the device of re-writing DEC for DIOC, which seems certain, and the occurrence of ERENNIO later in the inscription has no reference to Herennius Etruscus. The name with or without initial H is common enough, but the Caesar's name invariably has the aspirate, except on a single inscription (C.I.L. iii, I418425) from Galatia in which ETRVSCIO DECCIO are also thus wrongly spelt.

Let us then put the latest probable date early in July. The end of the month would be more likely, but for the fact that we have to find time for coins of Gallus of year V at the Dacian mint which ends not later than July 31 (see note on Balkan mints below).

A close limit in the other direction can also be fixed. The last date at which Decius appears on an Egyptian papyrus is March 4, 25I (8 Phamenothl). But the time required for the Gothic campaign shows that this cannot be very close to the end of the reign, and the fact that there is an interval of nearly ten months between the last papyrus record of Decius and the first of his successor, Gallus (Dec. 3, 2512), shows that this class of evidence is very far from covering all the ground.

A marble base3 found in the Atrium of Vesta at Rome and now in the Baths of Diocletian runs V ID IVN DD NN IMP DECIO AVG III ET DECIO AVG .... COS, showing that Decius was still Augustus on June 9, 25I.

Certain inscriptions4 with TER ET SEMEL COS, on which the actual names of the emperors are suppressed, are referred by Kubitschek5 to Decius and Herennius after ' damnatio memoriae.' But the erasure of Decius' name on some monuments does not justify the conclusion that he ever suffered such ' damnatio ' especially in view of the adoption by Gallus of his surviving son, Hostilian. Kubitschek's attribution therefore cannot be accepted.

The literary texts vary as to the length of the reign, but the best evidence is that of Eusebius (H.E. vii, i. I), who in this part of his history is using contemporary correspondence, and who states that Decius reigned for less than two whole years. Eutropius6 and Aurelius Victor7 both give two years. The Epitome de Caesaribus says 30 months, and is perhaps reckoning from the proclamation by the Pannonian legions, if that took place close to the end of 248. The figure looks, however, like a round number, as does the three years of Orosius.

Wessely, Texte Gr. 55. 3 C.I.L. vi, 312I9. 2 Ox. Pap. xii, 1554, Choiak 7. Stein quotes 4 C.I.L. x, 3699 (Cumae, Oct. 9); xi, 4086

Pap. Lond. iii, p. 9I, I2I2 as giving the earliest date (Otricoli, July 5), and xiv, 352 (Ostia, prob. July i6). of Gallus (Choiak 30: Dec. 26) but the Ox. Pap. 5 Num Zeit. 908, 75 if. date is not only earlier but more satisfactory, 6 7? since the Brit. Mus. papyrus was apparently written ix? 4. in the 2nd year of Gallienus. 7 xxix, 4.

20

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

NOTE ON THE BALKAN MINTS.

The only Balkan mints striking coins with Latin inscriptions at this period were Viminacium, and the provincial mint of Dacia. The era of Provincia Dacia began in the latter part of the reign of Philip who has three years there. Aemilian, whose short reign may be put in the summer of 253, has two Dacian years which are numbered VII and VIII. But he has only year XIV at Viminacium, which is that ending about Aug. 31, 253, and his reign does not extend to the era date, for Valerian also has year XIV. We thus have, say, the middle of August, 253, as the latest possible date for Aemilian, so that the Dacian era must fall in July to permit of his having a second year (VIII). These conclusions from the mint evidence are consistent with the account of Eutropius. He says (ix, 5):-

'Mox imperatores creati sunt Gallus Hostilianus et Galli filius Volusianus. sub his Aemilianus in Moesia res novas molitus est: ad quem opprimendum cum ambo profecti essent, Interamnae interfecti sunt non completo biennio . . . Aemilianus obscurissime natus obscurius imperavit et tertio mense extinctus est.'

The words non completo biennio and tertio mense confirm dates for the reign of Aemilian from May to early August, 253. The Dacian era cannot therefore be placed later than July; and it must have been in the latter part of the month since year V of Decius, whose death we have independently assigned to July, is succeeded by Gallus also with coins of the same year. It follows that if the reading of the date is correct on a coin of Decius attributed to year III, about which, however, Pick expresses some doubt, this must have been struck before July, 249, while coins of Philip were still being issued from Viminacium up to the end of September. The explanation in that case will be that the province of Dacia had declared independently for Decius: the official attitude of Viminacium must surely indicate that of Decius himself, and one can imagine a wager between the rival mint masters on the result of the struggle. But the date of the coin of Decius, as Pick suggests, should probably be read as IIII, not III.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY.

A.D. 249 June 17. Philip in Cod. Justin. Aug. 29. Philip's 7th Egyptian year begins (coins).

Decius has only two Egyptian years whether on coins or on papyri, and these must fall between Aug. 249 and Aug. 29, 251. The era of Viminacium must nearly coincide with that of Egypt. Philip has coins of year XI, i.e. between the era date and Verona; Gallus of year XII, i.e. between the death of Decius (circ. July I) and the era date; and Valerian of year XIV between the death of Aemilian (? early August) and the era date. The only serious difficulty is presented by Aemilian's Egyptian coins of year B. Even if we push the Viminacian era a week later than the Egyptian, and allow a week or two for the news of Spoleto to reach Alexandria, there are still Valerian's Viminacian coins of year XIV to fill the brief interval thus gained, unless we assume that he was master of the Balkans before Aemilian's death.

circ. Sept. 30. Conjectural date of Battle of Verona, allowing time for Philip's 7th Egyptian year before, and Decius' establishment in Rome after.

Oct. I6. Decius Augustus in Cod. 7ustin. Nov. 27. Decius on Ox. Pap. XIV, I636.

A.D. 250 Jan. i. Decius enters on second Roman year, Trib. pot. II. Cos II. Jan. 21. Fabianus martyred at Rome. June 12-July 14. Declarations of Conformity on Egyptian papyri. July 8. Procopius suffered martyrdom at Caesarea in Palestine.

21

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

Aug. 29. Decius enters on second Egyptian year. Both the Caesars created after this date, since all the extant Egyptian coins and papyri of both Herennius and Hostilian belong to year B. Relative numbers of coins of Herennius and Hostilian in Plevna hoard indicate Herennius created Caesar early in period Aug. 29-Dec. 15 (q.v.) and Hostilian near the end of it. Accordingly,

circ. Sept. 30. Herennius elevated to rank of Caesar, perhaps on anniversary of Verona.

circ. Nov. 30. Hostilian elevated to rank of Caesar. Dec. 15. Both princes on Ox. Pap. X, 1284 [KaLodpwv] Zpao-rTWv.

A.D. 251 Jan. I. Decius enters on third Roman year, Trib. pot. III, Cos III. March 4. Decius on papyrus, Wessely Texte Gr. 55. June 9. Decius still Augustus, C.I.L. vi, 3II29.

Death of Decius must be deferred as late as possible to find room for events of Gothic War, but not later than

circ. July I. Conjectural date of death of Decius, because time must be found for the coins of Gallus of year V of the Dacian mint struck between the death of Decius and

circ. July 20. Conjectural era of Dacian mint. This era can hardly be later because Aemilian's coins of year VIII come between it and his death in

Early August. Conjectural date of Aemilian's death. Between Aemilian's death and the era date of Viminacium come Valerian's Viminacian coins of year XIV.

End of August. Conjectural date of era of Viminacium. An appreciably later date impossible, since Philip's Viminacian coins of year XI were struck after the era date but before Verona, which we must place at end of September.

22

THE REIGN OF TRAJAN DECIUS.

TABLE OF MINTS.

E = Egypt. V = Viminacium.

D - Provincial Mint of Dacia.

E. V. D.

I-V

PHILIP sen. Ist-7th V-VIIII, I-III and XI

PHILIP jun. 2nd-7th VI-VIIII, I-III and XI

OTACILIA Ist-7th V-VIIII2 I-III

DECIUS ist-2nd XI and XII IIII-V3

ETRUSCILLA ist-2nd XI and XII IV-V AUG.

HER. ETRUSCUS 2nd XII4 V5

HOSTILIAN 2nd XII and XIII6 V

GALLUS 3rd only XII-XIV V

I Philip's tenth Vimina- cian year is very doubtful, or missing, probably in consequence of the rebel- lion of Pacatian.

2 Years X and XI of Otacilia very doubtful.

3 Inscr. IMP TRA- IANVS DECIVS AVG. A type of year V only has IMP C M Q TRAIANVS DECIVS AVG. Both the longer and shorter inscrr. occur on Viminacium XII, but the longer not on XI except in the form with- out TRAIANVS.

4 and XI doubtful. 6and IV slightly less

certain.

6 Two types of XII with AVG and three of XIII (Brit. Mus.) belong to his association with Gallus.

AEMILIAN 2nd only XIV VIL-VIJI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

GORDIAN III.

23

AEMILIAN 2nd only XIV VII-VIII