A Roman reformer and inventor, being a new text of the treatise rebus bellicis

151 Pages·1952·5.637 MB·English

by  Edward Arthur Thompson, Barbara Flower

A ROMAN REFORMER
AND INVENTOR
BEING A NEW TEXT OF THE TREATISE
DE REBUS BELLICIS
WITH A TRANSLATION AND
INTRODUCTION
BY
E. A. THOMPSON
AND A LATIN INDEX
BARBARA FLOWER
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1952
Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C.4
OLASOOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS CAPETOWN
Geoffrey Cumberlege, Publisher to the University
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BY CHARLES BATEY, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PREFACE
The text of the treatise de rebus bellicis printed in this book is
based on a collation of the four major extant manuscripts.
I collated C at Oxford and MPV from photographs kindly
suppHed by the Directors of the Bayerische Staatsbibhothek
and the Bibhotheque Nationale and by Professor A. Cetto of
the Bibhoteca Comunale, Trento, to all of whom my warmest
thanks are due. At the foot of each page of the text the reader
will find (together with one or two matters mentioned in the
Introduction) the materials which will enable him, it is hoped,
to reconstruct the text given by the lost archetype of CMPV,
the famous Codex Spirensis; and in a Critical Appendix at the
end of the text he will fmd a hst of the numerous sHps and
errors of which the scribes of CMPV have been guilty and
which are of httle importance in themselves. Since CMV have
not been collated hitherto, the study of the anonymous writer’s
text has made httle progress. Whatever advance this edition
marks is entirely due to the kindness of Professor P. Maas,
who generously put at my disposal his critical corrections and
suggestions: they form the most valuable contribution that has
hitherto been made to the subject.
The text is divided into chapters as indicated in the Thesaurus
Linguae Latinae, although it might have been better to mark
the praefatio as chapter I. The sections of each chapter correspond
to the paragraphs into which the text is divided in CMPV.
What is rather audaciously called a ‘Translation’ is, in fact,
merely a version designed to show what meaning I attach
to the Latin, apart, of course, from those passages to which
I can assign no meaning at all. The inadequacies of this
version will become apparent at a glance, and it is scarcely an
excuse, I suppose, to point out that the author’s style is very
difficult. At any rate, its shortcomings would have been un¬
speakably more obvious had it not been for the kindness of
Miss Barbara Flower, who submitted it aU to a thorough
revision, from which it emerged wearing in very many places
VI
a new and better aspect. Miss Flower crowned her kindness by
adding the Latin Index at the end of the book.
The purpose of the Introduction is to place before the reader
the results of such study as has been given to the treatise by
earlier students of it. It is, of course, difficult to summarize the
views of others without coming to one or two conclusions of
one’s own; but the chief novelty to be found here is due to
Professor A. H. M. Jones, who has allowed me to print his
elucidations of some passages so obscure that they had baffled
all those who have hitherto concerned themselves with the de
rebus bellicis.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help which other
scholars, too, have given to me. Professor W. S. Maguiness and
Mr. W. R. Smith discussed many passages of the text and
translation with me, and have kindly permitted me to print
one or two of their emendations. Mr. C. E. Stevens allowed
me to see his paper on the treatise before it went to print.
Professor W. M. Edwards and my colleague Professor W. J. H.
Sprott put me on the track of the Yarmouth liburna. Professor
P. Lehmann procured for me a photograph of Diemand’s
article, which does not appear to be available in any British
hbrary. Not least. Dr. Norman H. Baynes, in addition to other
acts of kindness, lent me his copy of Neher’s valuable Disserta¬
tion, which would have otherwise been inaccessible.
I would offer my gratitude to all these scholars, and in
particular to Miss Flower, Professor Maas, and Professor Jones,
as well as to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for their
generosity in publishing this book, and Mr. W. R. Chalmers
for helping to correct the proofs. It will be understood that
the scholars who have helped me are in no way responsible for
such mistakes, omissions, and errors of judgement as will be
found throughout the work.
I would dedicate this book to Professor Benjamin Farrington
as a small return for his personal kindness and as a mark of
respect for his services to scholarship. EAT
CONTENTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY xi
INTRODUCTION 1-89
A. The Author and the Book i
1. THE DATE OF THE BOOK I
H. THE AUTHOR 2
III. MANUSCRIPTS 6
IV. MODERN STUDY OF THE TREATISE 17
B. The Contents of the Book 22
V. THE PREFACE 22
VI. THE COINAGE 26
VII. THE DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 31
VIII. THE REFORM OF THE MINT 34
IX. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION 37
X. THE MILITARY BUDGET 4I
XI. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN THE LATER EMPIRE 44
XII. THE INVENTIONS 5O
(a) The Warship 50
(b) The Scythed Chariots 54
(c) The Portable Bridge 58
(d) Artillery 61
(e) The Tichodifrus 65
(J) The Clipeocentrus 67
(^) The Plumbata et tribulata 67
(h) The Plumbata mamillata 68
(y) The Thoracomachus 68
XIII. THE LINE OF MARCH 7O
XIV. FRONTIER FORTIFICATIONS 72
XV. THE CODIFICATION OF THE LAW 74
XVI. CONCLUSION 75
viii Contents
SIGLA 90
TEXT 91
TRANSLATION 106
CRITICAL APPENDIX 124
ADDENDA 125
INDEX VOCABVLORVM ET LOCV-
TIONVM NOTABILIORVM 127
LIST OF FIGURES
at end of volume
I. COMMODAE AVCTORITATIS VARIAE PRI-
SCORVM MONETAE
II. FELIX INCHOATIO SACRAE DIVINAEQVE
MONETAE
III. BALLISTA QVADRIROTIS
IV. TICHODIFRVS: CLIPEOCENTRVS
V. PLVMBATA ET TRIBVLATA: PLVMBATA
MAMILLATA
VI. CVRRODREPANVS
VII. CVRRODREPANVS SINGVLARIS
VIII. CVRRODREPANVS CLIPEATVS
IX. THORACOMACHVS
X. ASCOGEFYRVS
XI. LIBVRNA
XII. BALLISTA FVLMINALIS
XIII. HARVESTING MACHINE DESCRIBED BY
PLINY AND PALLADIVS
(reconstruction by A. Nachtweh, Journal fiir
Landwirtschaft, lix, 1911, Tafel iii).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography is not intended to be complete: some works—most of
them by Renaissance scholars—which contain incidental references to our
author or reveal a knowledge of his book without expressly naming it are not
included. An almost complete bibUography down to 1911 will be found in
Neher’s Dissertation.
Cadwallader J. Bates, ‘A Forgotten Reference to Roman Mile-Castles’,
Archaeologia Aeliana, ser. ii, vol. xvi, 1894, pp. 447-51.
M. Berthelot, ‘Histoire des machines de guerre et des arts mecaniques au
moyen age’. Annales de Chimie et de Physique, ser. vii, vol. xix, 1900, pp.
289-420.
— ‘Sur le traite de rebus bellicis qui accompagne le Notitia Dignitatum dans les
manuscrits’, Jowrna/ des Savants, 1900, pp. 171-7.
— ‘Le hvre d’un ingenieiu: mihtaire a la fin du XIV® siecle’, ibid., pp. 1-15,
85-94-
— ‘Les manuscrits de Leonard de Vinci et les machines de guerre’, ibid., 1902,
pp. 116-20.
J. Bedez and F. Cumont, luliani Epistulae Leges Poematia, &c. (Oxford and
Paris, 1922), at p. 212.
E. Birley, ‘The Beaumont Inscription, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the
Garrison of Hadrian’s Wall’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmore¬
land Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, vol. xxxix (n.s.), 1939, pp. 190-
226, at pp. 208-10 and 226.
W. Camden, Britannia, ed. 5 (London, 1600), at p. 715; cf. Philemon Holland’s
translation Britain (London, 1637), at p. 793.
A. Diemand, ‘Ein in WaUerstein aufgefimdenes Bruchstiick des Itinerarium
AntoTuni’, Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins Dillingen, xxii, 1909, pp. 1-9.
H. T. Horwitz, ‘Zur Geschichte des Schaufelradantriebes’, Zeitschrift des
Oesterreichischen Ingenieur- und Architekten-Vereines, Ixxxii, 1930, pp. 309-13.
356-60.
H. Kochly and W. Rustow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, i (Leipzig, 1853),
pp. 410-19.
P. Lehmann, ‘Die mittelalterhche Dombibhothek zu Speyer’, Sitzungs-
berichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: phil.-hist. Abteilung,
1934, Heft iv.
P. Lejay, Review of Schneider’s edition. Revue critique d’histoire et de littdrature,
N.S., Ixviii, 1909, pp. 289-91; cf Revue dephilologie, xxxvi, 1912, pp. 344 f.
M. M(anitius), Review of Schneider’s edition, Literarisches Zentralblatt, bd,
1910, p. 313-
B. A. Muller, Review of Schneider’s edition, Berliner Philologische Wochen-
schrift, xxi, 1911, pp. 229-38.
— Review of Neher’s Dissertation, ibid., xxxvi, 1916, pp. 1521-30, 1551-62,
1583-94-
Bibliography
XU
R. Neher, Der Anonymus de Rebus Bellicis, Diss. Tubingen, 1911.
R. Oehler, Reviews of Schneider’s edition and Neher’s Dissertation, Wochen-
schrift Jiir klassische Philologie, xxvi, 1909» PP* 875—7» ibid., xxix, 19^2,
pp. 520-1; Zeitschriftfiir das Gymnasialwesen, bcvi (n.f. xlvi), 1912, pp. 227-9.
H. Omont, Notitia Dignitatum Imperii Romani: reproduction rdduite des 105
miniatures du manuscrit latin g66i de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 1911.
S. Reinach, ‘Un homme d’idees au Bas-Empire’, Revue archiologique, s^r. v,
vol. xvi, 1922, pp. 205-65 (with text on pp. 255-65).
P. Schnabel, ‘Der verlorene Speirer Codex des Itinerarium Antonini, der
Notitia Dignitatum imd anderer Schriften’, Sitzungsberichte der preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften: phil.-hist. Klasse, xxix, 1926, pp. 242-57.
R. Schneider, Anonymi de rebus bellicis liber, Text und Erlautenmgen, Berlin,
1908.
— ‘Vom Biichlein de rebus bellicis', Neue Jahrbucher fiir das klassische Altertum,
xiii, 1910, pp. 327-42-
K. ScHOTTENiOHER, Pfalzgraf Ottheinrich und das Buch (Reformationsgeschicht-
liche Studien imd Texte begriindet von J. Greving, Heft 50/51), Miinster in
Westf., 1927, at pp. 9-22, 192.
O. Seeck, ‘Zur Kritik der Notitia Dignitatum’, Hermes, ix, 1875, pp. 217-42;
cf. his edition of the Notitia (Berlin, 1876), pp. ix sqq.
— Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopddie, i, 1894, p. 2325, s.v. ‘Anonymi (3)’.
— Review of Schneider’s eition, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, xxix, 1908, pp.
3171-2.
C. E. Stevens, ‘A Roman Author in North-West Britain’, Transactions of the
Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, vol. 1
(N.S.), 1951, PP- 70-79-
For editions of the text see below, p. 17.