in any respect. Above all, Cyprian possesses faith, that most excellent gift, the bond of friendship between man and man, the pledge of reverent obedience to God. He is invited to enter upon the duties of Count of the Sacred Largesses, at the third Indiction (524-5),1 and exhorted so to bear his honours in that that office that the king may advance him yet higher.

But a

The words of the document before us, together with those of a similar letter to Cyprian's brother, Opilio, which I shall notice next, make up a seemingly honourable record of public service. close consideration of it, and a comparison with the statements of Procopius, of the 'Anonymus,' and of Boethius himself, will, I think, enable us to see that the two accounts are not absolutely irreconcilable, and that the qualities which won Theodoric's admiration and Cassiodorus's concurrence are not such as would exclude the lower motives attributed to the informers by what may be called the counsel for the defence. Here we have a clever young lawyer, prac

1 The Indiction was an ever-recurring cycle of fifteen years, instituted, or, to speak more accurately, formally adopted by Constantine in 312. One such cycle began in September 522, and so the third Indiction from this date will be 524-5. For full explanation of the history of the system, and the method of computing it, see Hodgkin's Cassiodorus, p. 125, and "H. B." in Dict. Christian Ant., s. v. "Indiction."

tically a self-made man, whose chief claim to distinction lies in his ready wit and mental agility, thanks to which he can state a case with such absolute impartiality as often to satisfy either of the contending parties,-" alternæ parti indiscreta laude placuisti." At the risk of appearing paradoxical, I would say that scrupulous fairness of this sort is by no means incompatible with a certain strain of unscrupulousness, and that a man who could deliberately shut his eyes to the superior rights of one side or the other in a lawsuit, need not necessarily have been blind to his own interests. I do not for one moment mean so far to lose sight of the difference between the intellectual and the moral power as to suggest that the one implies the other. I would only remind the reader that success in the law, as in every other profession, has sometimes been known to depend on the energy with which a man can push his own advancement, and the coolness with which he can regard the claims of others. It is easy to imagine that Cyprian would look with envying eyes on the honours heaped upon Boethius, and that he would not be sorry for an opportunity of taking from him his share in the king's affections and adding it to his own. And now with Boethius's voluntary championship of the accused senator came an unexpected

chance. The hesitation (there is no question of reluctance, as Dr Hodgkin would seem to imply 1) with which the 'Anonymus' tells us he extended his indictment to Boethius, may be accounted for by the flutter which the sudden appearance of that pattern of loyalty as the protector of treason would cause in the court, and further by a not unnatural doubt as to how the king would take an attack upon his Master of the Offices.

The event shows that his hesitation was baseless. Treason was abroad, and Theodoric meant to stamp it out, putting sternly aside all claims of friendship or of former services. And thus we see that as Boethius fell, involving in his ruin his father-in-law, Symmachus, and all his family, so Cyprian rose, carrying with him into the sunshine of royal favour Opilio, his brother, and Basilius, his connection, the former of whom shortly 2 received that same office of comes sacrarum largitionum which had become in a manner hereditary in his family.

Cassiodorus, who retained his post of quæstor, with its attendant duties of secretary and pamphleteer, under Athalaric, the boyish successor of Theodoric, writes in the warmest terms about the merits

1 "With regret, but of necessity, Cyprian enlarges his charge." -Op. cit., vol. iii. p. 545.

2 In 527.

of a man whom we have lately heard Boethius denounce as a condemned felon. The letter, addressed to Opilio (Var.,' viii. 16), is particularly interesting, as it appears to contain a covert allusion to the trial of Boethius.

"You are to enjoy," the king writes, "all the privileges and emoluments which were allowed to your predecessors. Heaven grant that those who stand firm in the strength of right action be not shaken by any machinations of calumny. Time was when even judges were harassed by informers. But do you put away fear, you with whom is no fault. Enjoy the fruits of your office. We lay on you the same honours that adorned your brother; do you imitate his faithful service. For in following him, you take honourable precedence of many. He was a man whose opinion was highly respected, whose steadfastness was proved. Under our great forerunner he bore himself blameless, and administered justice to the admiration of all." (Why, then, that sentence about the machinations of calumny, we are entitled to ask?) "It is easy to gauge the value of his services, for under a successor who had not known him, the whole court could not abstain from singing his praises.”

In the companion letter of recommendation to the

senate (Var.,' viii. 17), the friendly rivalry of the two brothers is held up to admiration. With characteristic tautology, Cassiodorus assures his readers that while the one preserves constancy in his friendships, the other makes a point of fulfilling his promises ("Amicitiis ille præstat fidem; sed magnam promissis debet iste constantiam "); that the one is free from avarice, and the other a notorious stranger to covetousness. Both have been faithful servants of the king and trusted friends of their colleagues. Opilio's manner of life (victus) has found favour with the Goths, and his judicial decisions have satisfied the Romans. Indeed the fact of his having been so often chosen arbiter in private suits is sufficient testimony to the esteem in which his integrity is generally held.

An honourable alliance with the house of Basilius is also touched on. Here we have a possible allusion to that Basilius who was "long since expelled the king's service" (vide supra, p. 36). The name, indeed, appears to have been a not uncommon one at the time; but all the actors in this drama are so closely connected with one another, that we may with the greatest probability assume the identification. It may be mentioned here that in the 'Variæ,' iv. 22, 23, the case is discussed of two senators