[darkagebritain] Re: Aetius' fourth consulship
- From: Matthew Richardson <m.t.richardson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: darkagebritain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:47:23 -0400
Am I reading Halsall correctly as stating that the modern consensus is
that the western Aetius did *not* have a fourth consulship?
If so, I would agree with Kevin that this strengthens his case that
the 'thrice consul' reference could be anachronistic.
Matt
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Kevin Bowman <kbowman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> According to Guy Halsall:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ULzYGIj8oC&pg=PA520&lpg=PA520&dq=Aeti
> us+fourth+consulship&source=bl&ots=qLZxk_b7Vs&sig=-1VeY0LX2yJ64gZyKy1mBg
> kfgqQ&hl=en&ei=ZSbaSZHvFJmqMrv-qYEP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum
> =1
>
> identification of the fourth consulship of Aetius in 453 comes from the
> Consularia Constantinopolitana of Hydatius and the Fastii Vindobonenses
> Posteriori of 570 (of which I know nothing), but the modern scholarly
> consensus is that this was based on confusion.
>
> I have no knowledge that I could offer to refute the reported consensus
> opinion.
>
> I will only add that, if there was no fourth consulship for Aetius, it
> is all the more likely that Gildas could have referred to him as thrice
> consul anachronistically.
>
> Kevin A. Bowman
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
