FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109  
110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   >>   >|  
ness to do justice to his own good qualities, Cassiodorus would hardly have spoken thus of himself in a work avowedly proceeding from his own pen. The clause which is placed in brackets [et ... superposuit] is probably also due to the copyist, anxious to supply what he deemed the imperfections of his memorandum. In short, it must be admitted that the fragment cannot consist of the very words of Cassiodorus in however abbreviated a form. Still it contains so much that is valuable, and that could hardly have been invented by any writer of a post-Cassiodorian age, that it is well worthy of the careful and, so to speak, microscopical examination to which it has been subjected by Usener. [Sidenote: Date of the fragment.] [Sidenote: Persons to whom addressed.] The work from which these 'Excerpta' are taken was composed, according to Usener, in the year 522. This is proved by the facts that the receiver of the letter is spoken of as Magister Officiorum, a post which he apparently held from Sept. 1, 521, to Sept. 1, 522; and that the Consulship of the two sons of Boethius, which began on Jan. 1, 522, is also referred to. The name of the person to whom the letter is addressed is given as Rufius Petronius Nicomachus. Usener, however, shows good reason for thinking that his final name, the name by which he was known in the consular lists, is omitted, and that his full designation was Rufius Petronius Nicomachus Cethegus, Consul in 504, Magister Officiorum (as above stated) in 521-522, and Patrician. He was probably the same Cethegus whom Procopius mentions[100] as Princeps Senatus, and as withdrawing from Rome to Centumcellae in the year 545 because he was accused of treachery to the Imperial cause[101]. [Footnote 100: De Bello Gotthico iii. 13 (p. 328, ed. Bonn).] [Footnote 101: If Usener be right (and he has worked up this point with great care), we can trace the following links in the pedigree of Cethegus (see pp. 6 and 11): Rufius Petronius _Placidus_, Consul 481. | Rufius Petronius Anicius _Probinus_, Consul 489. | Rufius Petronius Nicomachus _Cethegus_, Consul 504, correspondent of Cassiodorus. Probinus and Cethegus are referred to by Ennodius in his letter to Ambrosius and Beatus, otherwise called his Paraenesis (p. 409, ed. Hartel).] [Sidenote: Its object.] The object of the little treatise referred
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109  
110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Rufius

 

Petronius

 

Cethegus

 
Usener
 

Consul

 

Nicomachus

 

Sidenote

 
referred
 

letter

 

Cassiodorus


Magister

 

Officiorum

 
addressed
 

Footnote

 

spoken

 
Probinus
 

object

 

fragment

 

Imperial

 

treachery


designation
 

accused

 
omitted
 

consular

 

Senatus

 

Patrician

 

Princeps

 

Procopius

 
mentions
 

withdrawing


Centumcellae
 

stated

 

Anicius

 

correspondent

 
Ennodius
 

Placidus

 

Ambrosius

 

Beatus

 
treatise
 

Hartel


called

 

Paraenesis

 

pedigree

 

worked

 
Gotthico
 

valuable

 

proceeding

 

abbreviated

 
invented
 

worthy