Talk:On Weights and Measures

Legitimacy of Didius Julianus?
I have an issue with the statement that "Epiphanius does not consider the 9-week reign of Didius Julianus to be legitimate, which he obtained through usurpation, and therefore does not mention him at all."

What is the source of this statement? The list of emperors contains numerous errors (eg "Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, otherwise Verus, nineteen years. And the same man is called Commodus Lucius"), and is missing other emperors (Gordian II, Pupienus, Balbinus, Aemilianus), yet none of these are specifically identified by their absence in the article. Rather than a deliberate refection of Julianus's legitimacy by Epiphanius, the more logical position would be that it is simply an oversight/error, one of many within the list of emperors within the text. Unless there is a reputable source than can be cited to support this statement, it should be removed from the article. Oatley2112 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My good friend, I have since corrected the edit regarding Didius Julianus. I think that you can appreciate it when I tell you that I was not present at that time in history in the 2nd-century of our Common Era to precisely know what names these men (emperors) went by, but I have only the words of the historians to rely upon. My duty (at least in this article) is to be faithful to the words of its author (without changing them). As for Marcus Aurelius, it is Epiphanius himself who says explicitly that he was also called Verus. In fact, he says or mentions it twice. As for the regnal years brought down by him, it is no secret that there are discrepancies with other chroniclers, namely, the Greek fragments of Epiphanius' On Weights and Measures, and perhaps also with Josephus' chronology of some Caesars, or perhaps even with Suetonius' work, De vita Caesarum. I do not think it my bounden duty to decide in favor of one method or another, since this would diverge from the purpose of this article, viz. to bring down Epiphanius' words as we found them. Besides, doing so would also infringe upon WP:NOR. If, however, there is a wide-consensus among ancient chroniclers that differ from Epiphanius' view, this information can be provided in a footnote, as I have done elsewhere. As for why Epiphanius does not mention Gordian II, it may simply be because he, being the son of Gordian I, was subservient to his father who was already emperor (and whose father allegedly had his son wield some form of power within his administration during his own short reign). Epiphanius, disputing with other chroniclers, puts his reign as lasting 6 years. I have nothing to add about Pupienus and Bulbinus, unless Epiphanius' omission of these names can be related to the fact that Bulbinus was also co-emperor with Gordian III and that when Epiphanius saw the name Gordian (and since the Gordians were all of one family) he viewed them all as one person's rule, consolidating their individual reigns which brought the number of regnal years up to six. You see it gets to be quite speculative, doesn't it? My suggestion would be to look at the earliest written accounts about Gordian II, Pupienus and Bulbinus and to check and see whether or not their reigns overlapped those of Gordian I and Gordian III, and whether or not their reigns were officially accepted by all. As for Aemilianus, it would seem to be my personal opinion that this is a classic example of where the legions surrounding him declared him emperor, but he had no support from the Roman Senate. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is For Your Information: Upon further consideration of this subject, there seems to have been no error in the transcriptions of our author, Epiphanius. Epiphanius' contemporary, Jerome, who made a recension of Eusebius' Chronicle, a work now entitled the Chronicon of Jerome, which you can see here, has likewise written similar things as we find in Epiphanius. He does not mention the ascension of Didius Julianus after the assassination of Pertinax in 193 CE, but writes only that Severus succeeded him. As for Gordian I, Jerome consolidates the reigns of the three Gordians, putting them altogether at six years - just like Epiphanius, and mentioning that after the first Gordian entered Rome in 240 CE, Pupienus and Albinus who had seized power by killing the previous emperor Maximinus were themselves slain in the palace. Gordian I was soon slain thereafter, in c. 241 CE. However, Jerome does not consider these impostors' reigns to have been legitimate, and therefore does not assign regnal years unto them (i.e. Pupienus and Balbinus), but only mentions them as "usurpers." You see, historians are in dispute about the legality of their so-called "reigns." As for Aemilian, Jerome mentions that in 254 CE he "caused a revolt in Moesia" but that his usurpation of power lasted no longer than 3 months before he was killed. It is clear from Jerome's Chronicon that Aemilian was never officially recognized as emperor, as the Senate in Rome had put their eyes on Gallienus (who was also known as Gallus) to make him emperor. You may wish to see the Augustan History for the period mentioning the Gordians.Davidbena (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)