We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Little, if anything, in Justin scholarship has been as controversial as the dating of the so-called Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Suggested dates have varied from the time of Antoninus Pius through the third century to the end of the fourth. The latter was proposed in 1988 by Sir Ronald Syme, but has in fact received little support in subsequent literature on Justin, which has tended to accept the earlier dating (late second/early third centuries). An exception is T. D. Barnes, who has voiced support for a later dating based on a linguistic parallel to Justin in the Historia Augusta.
Barnes observes that Oscar Hey, author of the article ducatus in TLL (5.2129.30–2131.42), drew attention to the similarity between Justin 30.2.5 Agathocles regis lateri iunctus civitatem regebat, tribunatus et praefecturas et ducatus mulieres ordinabant and HA Heliog. 6.2 militaribus… praeposituris et legationibus et ducatibus venditis. Hey, he notes, refers at the head of that particular section of the article (Section 2 [2130.5–63]) to Seeck's article on dux. Seeck had demonstrated—and this is now taken for granted by scholars—that from the time of Diocletian dux is used technically as a formal title, and, in drawing attention to the parallel between HA Heliog. 6.2 and Justin, Hey must have been intimating that Justin is, like the author of Heliog. 6.2, using ducatus as a (post-Diocletianic) formal title. He then seems to suggest that Hey was right and Justin is to be dated to at least some time after 260.
1 Syme, Sir Ronald, ‘The date of Justin and the discovery of Trogus’, Historia 37 (1988), 358–71.Google Scholar Restated by Syme in ‘Trogus and the HA, some consequences’, in Christol, , Demougin, , et al. (edd.), Institutions, societe et vie politique dans I'empire romain au IVe siecle ap. J-C (Rome, 1992), 11–20.Google Scholar
2 For the dating suggested by scholars before Syme's article, see Syme (n. 1, 1988), 359–62. Since Syme:Conte, G. B., Latin Literature: A History, trans. Solodow, J. B. (Baltimore/London, 1994), 551–2Google Scholar; Develin, R. in Yardley, J. C. and Develin, R., Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus (Atlanta, 1994), 4Google Scholar; P. J. Rhodes, http.//www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/Histos/1998/ rhodesrev.html, 15/10/99; J. M. Alonso-Nuñez, Latomus 54 (1995), 356 and CR 48 (1998), 504.
3 T. D. Barnes, ‘Two passages of Justin’, CQ 48 (1998), 589–93 at 590–1.
4 In fact, Barnes incorrectly cites these words as HA Aurel. 10.2. The error is easily explainable. Hey does also cite Aurel. 10.2 because the words tribunatus and ducatus occur together there, as well (habuit ergo multos ducatus, plurimos tribunatus) (TLL 5.2130.22).
5 Seeck, O., RES (1905)Google Scholar, 1869.11–1875,10.
6 For example,Ruhl, F., Die Verbreitung des lustinus im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1871), 36Google Scholar; Steele, R. B., ‘Pompeius Trogus and Justinus’, AJP 38 (1917), 19–41 at 24–6Google Scholar; Dietmar Richter, Heinz, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie: Die Vorlagen des Pompeius Trogus fur die Darstellung der nachalexandrischen hellenistischen Geschichte (Just. 13–40) (Frankfurt, 1987), 13Google Scholar, n. 2;Alonso-Nuñez, J. M., La Historia Universal de Pompeyo Trogo (Madrid, 1992), 13.Google Scholar
7 Alonso-Nuñez, J. M., ‘An Augustan world history: the Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus’, G&R 34 (1987), 56–72 at 60.Google Scholar
8 My thanks to my friend and collaborator Waldemar Heckel for reading this note and endorsing its conclusions.
