Search

Search Results

• Civitas Eraviscorum und Aquincum

  145–165.

  Ioan Piso

  Views:

  9

  The author presents his position in the highly complex debate on the relationship between the civitas Eraviscorum and the Roman city of Aquincum. He believes that Mount Gellért is the direct predecessor of the Roman settlement of Aquincum and that, therefore, it bore the same name. He then agrees with those who believe that, with the establishment of the municipium of Aquincum, the civitas Eraviscorum ceased to exist as a legal entity and was preserved in inscriptions only as a symbol. The latter aspect could perhaps be explained by the personal relationship between the future emperor Hadrian and this civitas when, in 106/108, he was governor of Lower Pannonia and later, in 118, when, as emperor, he was personally active on the Middle Danube.

• Neue Beobachtungen zum Geschichtswerk des Iulius Florus als eines spätaugusteischen Autors

  101–137

  Holger Koch

  Views:

  297

  Baldwin (1988) summarized the main problems of Florus 25 years ago. These are still unsolved. They deal with the identification of the Flori, the date of Florus’ history and the correct title of the work. The most vexing of all the questions associated with the history is its date: Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) or Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.). An Augustan date has been plausibly proposed by Neuhausen (1992 and 1994) against the „communis opinio”. Following his studies I can explain and solve all the „anachronisms”, which were caused by the false dating of Florus to the second century A.D. According to Neuhausen’s and my own studies Florus’ history must therefore be dated after the consecration of Augustus (17th of September, 14 A.D.) [~ first edition]; the second edition came from the time of Trajan, because the preface contains two short interpolations with the name of this emperor at its end. The writer of the history has to be identified with Iulius Florus, the famous addressee of Horace’s two epistles. The original work probably has only one volume. The title Epitoma de Tito Livio bellorum libri duo is wrong and has to be changed into Rerum gestarum populi Romani breviarium or tabella.