Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 3 (1897).djvu/528

 506 APPENDIX The story of the single combat of Aetius and Boniface is derived from Marcel- linus (like Procopius, a writer of the sixth century). But rightly interpreted it contains nothing improbable. It does not imply a duel ; but a single combat in a battle. It is however important to observe that "John of Antioch" (fr. 201, Miiller, p. 615) saj-s nothing of Boniface's wound but states that he was out-generalkd by Aetius, and that he died of diseases due to depression and chagrin. Toi' Si Boi'iaTto»' crvv 7roAj) Sia^avra xei.p airb T19S Ai^iijj? KaTeCTTpoT7;yj/(7'«»', «i<7Te iKtlvov tiiv iiTo 4>povTiSii>v v6(T<^ TcAevTTJeroi. It remains to be added that the essay of Mr. Freeman throws great light on the career of Boniface in Africa and the doings of Castinus, FeUx and Sigia- vult. 27. THE "EGYPTIAN" OF SYNESIUS— (P. 371) The interpretation of the Egj'ptian allegory of Synesius has caused a good deal of trouble, owing to the fact that our other sources supply such meagre material as to the details of the political transactions at Constantinople in the reign of Arcadius. It had long been recognized that Egypt stood for the Empire, and Thebes for Constantinople ; and the Praetorian Praefect Aurelian had been detected xrnder the veil of Osiris. But no certainty had been attained as to the identity of T)-phoi3, the wicked brother of Osiris. It was chiefly in consequence of this lacuna that the able attempt of Giildenpenning to reconstruct the history of the years a.d. 399 and '?00 on the basis of the work of Synesius (cp. my Later Roman Empire, i. p. 79 sqq. ) did not carry complete conviction. But O. Seeck has recentlj' succeeded in proving the identity of Tj^phos and in interpreting the allegory more fully {Philologus, 52, p. 442 aqq. , 1894). His results must be briefly noted. 1. Taurus. — Synesius states in the Preface that the name of the father of Osiris and Typhos was Taurus. There can be no question that he is the Tauri^s who appears in the Consular Fasti of a.d. 361. He was quaestor in 353, ana became praetorian prefect in 355. He held this oflice (the fieya^T) apx>j of Synea. c. 2, p. 1213, ed. JUgne) till 361. He was appointed to decide a theological dis- putation (Epiphanius, de Haer. 71, 1); and presided at the Council of Ariminum (359). He was an author as well as an oflicial. The arguments of Borghesi and Seeck establish his identity with Palladius Rutilius Taiirus Aemilianus, the author of 14 Books De re rustica. Taurus had a son named Harmoniua who was killed by Arbogastes 392 (John Ant., fr. 187). 2. Aurelian. — He appears first about 383 as builder of a Church (Acta Sanctorum, 6th May, p. 610). In 393 we find him (C. Th. 2, 8, 23, &c ) Prefect of Constantinople before Rufinus held that oflice. Then after the fall of Eutropius, he appears as Praetorian Prefect of the East (399-400). In 400 the revolt of Grainas causes his fall (see above, p. 371). But he was to rise again and become Prefect a third time (402-404), as Seeck has shown from two letters of Synesius (31 and 38: cp. Cod. Th. 4, 2, 1, and 5, 1, 5, where the false dates have to be amended). He is therein described as Tpurinapxav, "thrice Praefect," in an epigram (Anth. Plan. 4, 73) on a gilt statue dedicated to him by the senate. His son's name was Taurus (Synes., epist., 31), which confirms the identification. Osiris (i. c. 3, p. 1217) held a post which is described aa en-KrrdTijs Sopv(<)opcuf v6p.evoi Kai aKoa<; iricTTevef I9, explained by Seeck to be that of magister oflBciorum ; e was then Prefect of the city (n-oAiapxiio-o?, ib.) ; he was consul (ii. 4, p. 1272), and he twice held the jie-yaAij apx^ or praetorian prefecture, — the second time /ifTii avvdrifiaro^ p-eL^ovoi (lb.), which means the Patriciate, ^^lat happened to Osiris on his faU corresponds even more strikingly to that which happened to Aurelian. The leader of the foreign mercenaries is on the other side of a stream (like Gainas), Aurelian crosses it (p. 1252) and is spared. His com- panions in misfortune (Satuminus and Johannes) are alluded to, p. 1268. 3. Arcadius. — The insignificance of Arcadius is reflected in the mjrth by the fact that he is never mentioned except in one passage (p. 1268) where he appears as the High Priest. The person who through his influence over the Emperor had the real power appears in the myth as holding the kingly office — e.g. Osiria while he was in power. I