A Short Chronicle of Vandal Kings of Africa: Translation and Overview
The following work that is the subject of this post was edited by the German classicist Theodor Mommsen in 1898 under his Chronica Minora (“Minor Chronicles”). The work amounts to a short chronicle of the kings of the Vandals from the time they entered Carthage in 439 CE and established their realm in the Africa region centred on Carthage (modern-day Tunisia), until the demise of their kingdom in 533/534 CE at the hands of the Byzantines, who incorporated the territory into their empire and held it until the time of the Islamic conquests. Mommsen’s attempt to reconstruct and edit this chronicle is primarily based on two recensions out of a total of five manuscripts. One of those two recensions is named as the “Augiensis,” while the other is a recension from a Madrid manuscript he put under the title of “Hispani,” where the parts of the text Mommsen extracted for his addition are interlaced with lines from the chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine, which represented a continuation of Saint Jerome’s Universal Chronicle.
Mommsen dubbed this chronicle the “Laterculus Regum Vuandalorum et Alanorum” (“Laterculus of the Kings of the Vandals and Alans”), with a laterculus being a chronology or chronicle in this context. Yet it is important to note that there is no evidence that the work Mommsen constructed actually had this title. It therefore cannot be used as evidence for the fact that the Vandal king styled himself as “King of the Vandals and Alans”! There is nonetheless other evidence that this styling was used throughout the period of Vandal rule in Africa: for instance, in his contemporary account of the persecution of Catholics under the Vandals’ realm (Historia Persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 2.39 and 3.3), Victor Vitensis quotes documents of the Vandal king Huneric where this title is used. It is similarly attested in an inscription of the time of the last Vandal king Gelimer.
Logically also, the title makes sense, because according to accounts of the history of fifth century CE Iberia (where the Vandals and other ‘barbarian’ peoples had initially settled within the lands of the Western Roman Empire), the Alans lost their independence because of military campaigns the Visigothic king Wallia waged on behalf of the Romans. As such, the Alans brought themselves under the rule of the Vandals settled in western Iberia, who subsequently migrated into Africa and whose kings perhaps wished to emphasise their power by also highlighting how the Alans had come under their dominion.
This discussion of royal styling in turn raises the question of how the Vandals are to be defined, an important point noted by Frederik Hartmann (2020). In so far as we can speak of a Vandal identity, was it defined primarily by language, geographic origin, religious allegiance (adherence to Arian Christianity as opposed to Catholicism followed by the locals ) or political allegiance to the king, for example? Much of the information on the Vandals comes from Latin and Greek sources, though it is not apparent that these sources had a clear and detailed idea of how the community and political realm were structured. For instance, who were the different ‘tribes’ or ‘clans’ of the Vandals, if any such divisions existed? What exactly is meant by the distinction between the “Silingi” Vandals and the other Vandals (the latter crossing into Africa, the former having settled in southern Spain, as attested in sources)? Was it simply a difference of geographical settlement? A matter of political disagreement etc.?
It is also conventional to speak of the Vandals as a “Germanic people,” based primarily on the fact that the names of their kings and notables are mostly Germanic. For example, the -ric ending of the names of Gaiseric/Genseric, Hunderic and Hilderic can be linked to the names of Gothic kings like Alaric and Theodoric, with -ric likely being a reflection of a Germanic -*reiks ending, which can be translated as “ruler” or “king.”
Moreover, if a certain Latin epigram (poem 285 in the “Latin Anthology,” where it is titled “Concerning barbarian banquets”) is considered to originate from Africa under Vandal rule, then it seems to contain some Vandal words in its first line, albeit apparently dubbed “Gothic”:
inter “eils” Goticum “scapia matzia ia drincan!”
non audet quisquam dignos edicere versus.
Calliope madido trepidat se iungere Baccho,
Ne pedibus non stet ebria Musa suis.
Amid a Gothic “eils, scapia matzia ia drincan,”
No one dares to pronounce worthy verses.
Calliope is afraid of joining up with drunk [/wet] Bacchus,
As she fears that as a drunk Muse she will not stand on her own feet.*
[*NB: I should note that some translators have difficulty with this last line, but it seems quite clearly to me to be a typical Latin fear clause- hence the “ne…non” construction- implicitly introduced by “trepidat” in the preceding line].
What precisely the first line means is debated, though there is no doubt about the Germanic nature of the words:
eils: cf. Gothic hails and English whole.
scapia: cf. Gothic gaskapjan and Old English scieppan (“to create”).
matzia: cf. Gothic matjan (“to eat”) and English meat.
ia: clearly means “and” (cf. Gothic “jah”).
drincan: cf. Gothic drigkan (“to drink”) and English “drink.”
From this starting point could spring multiple interpretations of the line: for instance, should “drincan” be taken as an infinitive form based on comparison with e.g. Gothic and Old English infinitive endings -an, and should “scapia” and “matzia” be similarly taken as verbal infinitives with a final -n elided? Or should they all be analysed as first person plural exhortative forms based on comparison with the Gothic verbal first person plural ending “-am”? In the latter case, one reasonable interpretation of the line in my view would be: “Hey! Let’s draw [beer], eat and drink!”
This discussion aside, the most we can say with confidence is that the Vandal migrations brought a group ruled/led by speakers of a Germanic tongue into Iberia and then North Africa. This tongue may have been “East Germanic” and should be classified with Gothic, or may constitute its own branch of Germanic (cf. Hartmann’s analysis). Speakers of non-Germanic tongues- such as the Alans- were likely part of those migrations too. The existing populations in Africa that came under Vandal dominion continued to speak Latin and/or Berber languages.
Turning back to this “laterculus” constructed by Mommsen, it is important to ask what kind of text it is in relation to similar chronicle-style writings. In this regard, I find the view of Roland Steinacher (2001) to be persuasive: that is, rather than being a special document distinguished for some sort of reliance on Vandal royal documents and records, this “laterculus” should rather be seen as ultimately going back to a local (Catholic) African effort in the sixth century CE to continue Prosper’s chronicle, with local continuations of chronicles being common at the time.
Below is my translation of the Mommsen edition of the text. Things in ordinary parentheses represent what Mommsen originally put in square brackets, whereas insertions in square brackets are my own and primarily intended to help the reader with dates. Comments by Steinacher have been useful in providing some supplementary notes for the translation.
Some Further Reading
Balg, G.H., Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language, (Mayville, Wisconsin and other places, 1887-1889).
Conant, Jonathan, Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean 439-700, (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Petschenig, Michael (ed.), Victoris Episcopi Vitensis: Historia Persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, (Vienna, 1881).
Hartmann, Frederik, The Vandalic Language- Origins and Relationships, (Universitätslag Winter Heidelberg, 2020).
Schmidt, Ludwig, Geschichte der Wandalen, (Verlag Von B.G. Teubner, 1901).
Steinacher, Roland, “The so-called Laterculus Regum Vandalorum et Alanorum: A Sixth-Century African Addition to Prosper Tiro’s Chronicle?” in A.H. Merrills (ed.), Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa, (Ashgate, 2004).
Wrede, Ferdinand, Über die Sprache der Wandalen, (Trübner and Comp., 1886).
Wright, Joseph, Grammar of the Gothic Language, (Clarendon Press, 1910).
——————————-
Translation
[Hispani 1]: (When Theodosius was consul for the 15th time, and Valentinian for the fourth time, peace was made with the Vandals whereby they were given a part of Africa to inhabit. This was enacted) by Trigetius in the locality of Hippo on the third day before the Ides of February [11 February 436 CE].
[Augiensis 2]: After the consulship of Theodosius and Festius, Geiseric the king of the Vandals entered Carthage on the 14th day before the Kalends of November [19 October 439 CE].
[Hispani 2]: (When Theodosius was consul for the 17th time and Festus was consul), Gaiseric occupied Carthage on the 14th day before the Kalends of November, after spending three years in Hippo Regius.
[Augiensis 3]: He ruled this city in Africa for 37 years, three months and six days [i.e. until 25 January 477 CE].
[Hispani 3]: Gaiseric ruled in Africa for 37 years and two months.
[Augiensis 4]: After him his son Huneric ruled for seven years, ten months and 28 days [i.e. until 23 December 484 CE].
[Hispani 4]: His son Huneric ruled at Carthage for seven years and ten months.
[Augiensis 5]: At the end of year seven of his rule, he persecuted the Catholic Church, shut all the churches, and banished into exile all the Lord’s Catholic priests along with Eugenius the bishop of Carthage.
[Augiensis 6]: He came to the end of his life through God’s judgement as he was full of worms.
[Augiensis 7]: Gunthamund- the son of Gento who was the brother of the same King Huneric- ruled after him for 11 years, nine months and 11 days [i.e. until 6 October 496 CE].
[Hispani 7]: Gunthamund- a grandson via Gaiseric’s son Gento- ruled at Carthage for 11 years and eight months.
[Augiensis 8]: In the third year of his rule, he ordered for the cemetery of the martyr Saint Agileus to be given to the Catholics at Carthage, with Eugenius the bishop of Carthage now having been recalled from exile.
[Augiensis 9]: In the tenth year of his rule, he opened the churches of the Catholics and recalled from exile all the priests of God at the request of Eugenius the bishop of Carthage.
[Augiensis 10]: These churches had been shut for ten years, six months and five days: i.e. from the eighth year of Huneric, namely from the seventh day before the Ides of February- [i.e. 7 February 484 CE] until the tenth year of King Gunthamund, namely the fourth day before the Ides of August [i.e. 12 August 494 CE]. In this period passed ten years, six months and five days.
[Augiensis 11]: The aforementioned King Gunthamund lived afterwards for two years and one month.
[Augiensis 12]: After him ruled Gento’s son Thrasamund for 26 years, eight months and four days [i.e. until 10 June 523 CE].
[Hispani 12]: Thrasamund the brother of Gunthamund ruled at Carthage for 26 years and nine months.
[Augiensis 13]: So from the beginning of the rule of Avitus until year 27 of Thrasamund: …XVIII[i]
[Hispani 13]: And thus today is year 84 since the entry into Carthage.
[Augiensis 14]: So from year 14 of Valens’ rule and his death [378 CE] until year 27 of Thrasamund are 118 years.[ii]
[Augiensis 15]: After him reigned Huneric’s son Hilderic for eight years and eight days [i.e. until 18 June 531 CE].[iii]
[Hispani 15]: Then Huneric’s son Hilderic- the grandson of Gaiseric- ruled at Carthage for seven years and 14 days [i.e. until 24 June 530 CE, on this reading].
[Augiensis 16]: In the beginning of his reign, he ordered for Boniface to be ordained as bishop at Carthage in the church of Saint Agileus, and he restored liberty for all the Catholics.
[Augiensis 17]: While he ruled, Gelimer launched a coup and usurped his rule. The latter ruled for three years and three months [i.e. until September 534 CE].[iv]
[Hispani 16]: Gelimer launched a coup. After Hilderic was deposed from rule and his stock was maimed,[v] this man dominated the Africans for three years and three months [i.e. until September 533 CE, per this reading].
[Augiensis 18]: This man committed so many murders in his wickedness, that he did not even spare his relatives.[vi]
[Hispani 19]: Belisarius the magister militum entered Carthage with the Eastern army on the 18th day before the Kalends of October [i.e. 14 September 533 CE, on this reading],[vii] while Gelimer was routed and subsequently captured.
[Augiensis 20]: So from the beginning of King Gaiseric until the exile of the Vandals, 93 years, ten months and 11 days passed [30 August 533 CE].[viii]
[Augiensis 21]: So from the demise of Valens, which was in year 14 of his rule, until the aforementioned time, 154 years passed.
[Augiensis 22]: So the total number of years from Adam until the perdition of the Vandals is 5733 years.
Notes
[i] There is a gap in the text here. If the calculation is taken from the beginning of Avitus’ rule as Western Roman emperor (455 CE) until the year 523 CE in Thrasamund’s rule, then the time gap is 68 years, which could fit the Roman numerals that appear here.
[ii] The calculation here is mistaken: the author meant to say until the beginning of Thrasamund’s rule.
[iii] To make the chronologies more consistent and in keeping with other evidence, a suggestion here is for eight years to be corrected to seven years, with the original mistake being due to scribal error. It seems plausible to accept this amendment in light of the subsequent text.
[iv] But if the aforementioned amendment is made, then the end of Gelimer’s reign here would be in September 533 CE.
[v] Referring to punishments imposed on Hilderic’s family and relatives etc.
[vi] i.e. Hilderic’s relatives.
[vii] Perhaps this should be corrected to 14 September to coincide with Belisarius’ arrival in Carthage going by Procopius’ account.
[viii] It may be that this date is chosen to coincide with the arrival of Belisarius’ troops by ship to Africa, again going by Procopius’ account.