APPENDIX 505 Now, while the two stories need not stand on the same footing so far as historical credibility is concerned, while it may be possible to follow Mr. Hodgkin in rejecting the one and accepting the main part oi the other, there is a prelimin- ary question which must be discussed before we attempt to decide the ultimate question of historical fact. Procopius is not the only authority for these stories. They are also found in the Salmasian Excerpts, which were first printed by Cramer in his Anecdota Parisina, ii. 383 sqq. , and afterwards included among the fragments of John of Antioch by C. Miiller, in the Fragmenta Hist. Grsec, vol. iv. p. 535 sqq. The fragments in question are 196 and 200. It was a serious flaw in Mr. Freeman's essay that he was not aware either of the Salmasian Excerpt 196, or of the Constantinian Excerpt 201, which also bears on the question of Aetius and Boniface. Mr. Hodgkin refers to fr. 196, which (vnth. Miiller) he ascribes to Joannes Antiochenus, and says : "Though a comparatively late author (he probably lived in the seventh century) and though he certainly used Procopius freely in his compilation, he had also some good contemporary authorities before him, especially Priscus, and there seems some probability, though I would not state it more strongly than this, that he may have found the story in one of them as well as in Procopius ". But Mr. Hodgkin, while he takes account of fr. 196 in defending one " Procopian legend, " takes no account of fr. 200 in rejecting the other "Procopian legend, ' though fr. 200 bears to the latter the same relation which fr. 196 bears to the former. Now in the first place it must be clearly understood that the author of the work from which the Salmasian Excerpts are derived cannot have been the same as the author of the work from which the Constantinian Excerpts are derived. There is no question about this, and it could be proved merely by comparing the two (Salmasian) fragments under consideration (frags. 196 and 200) with (the Constantinian) fragment 201. If then we accept the Constantinian Excerpts under the name Joannes of Antioch, we must be careful not to ascribe the Sal- masian Excerpts to that writer. "Which is the true Joannes, is a question still subjvdice. (See below, vol. iv. Appendix 1.) The vital question then is whether Procopius was the source of S. (as we may designate the author of these Excerpts) for these fragments or not. For if he was, S. adds no weight to the authority of Procopius and may be disregarded ; if he were not, his statements have to bereckoned with too. From a careful comparison of the passages, I find myself in complete agreement with C. de Boor (who has dealt with the question in Byz. Ztsch. ii. 204 sqq.) that Procopius was not the source of S. but that the accounts of both authors were derived from a common source. ^ The proof in the case of f r. 200 is very complete ; because we happen to have in Suidas sub voce OKaSia^ (see Miiller ad loc.) a fragment of what was evidently that common source. The inference, for historical purposes, is important. We cannot speak with Mr. Freeman of "Procopian legend" or "legend of the sixth century". Procopius cannot be described in these cases as setting down "the received tale that he heard ". He was using a literary source ; and there is not the slightest proof that this literary source belonged to the sixth century. It seems more probable that it was a fifth century source. It may have been Priscus or it may not. These two episodes therefore depend on the authority of a writer (who has so far not been identified) earlier than Procopius and distinct from John of Antioch. They may for all we know have very early authority, and they cannot be waived away as "Procopian legend ". Each must be judged on its own merits. It seems to me that there was probably a certain foundation of truth in both stories, but that they have been dressed out with fictitioiis details (like the story of the Empress Eudocia and Paulinus). I do not feel prepared to reject the main facts implied, that Aetius intrigued against Bonifacius and that Valentinian seduced the wife of Maximus. 1 Cp. further E. Gleye in Byz. Ztsch. v. 460 sgg., Vv-here some other of the Excerpts (esp. fir. 12) are treated in their relation to Procopius, with the same result.
