Flavia Magna - Sources

From J. R. Martindale's The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire Vol. 2 (page 700):

Martindale's 2nd citation is from Nikephoros I's Chronographikon Syntomon, which includes the section

• Source - Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitam opuscula historica, ed. C. de Boor. Accedit Ignatii diaconi vita Nicephori - https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_mr0UAAAAQAAJ/page/n163/mode/2up

Google translates this section as "From these was born Olyvrios, husband of Irene, daughter of Magna, sister of King Anastasios, from whom was born Proba, wife of Probos; and from these, Juliana, wife of Anastasios. From which Proba, wife of Georgius, Areabindus and Plakidia, wife of Ioannou Moustakonos."

This allows us to account for the daughter of Magna, Eirene and her husband Flavius Anicius Olybrius Iunior and their daughter Flavia Proba granddaughter Juliana and Juliana's three children.

It seems Irene has an extra son who is not mentioned in the sources: Anicius Probus of Rome

Judging from the tree, it seems to be a case of mistaken identity with the daughter, Proba, and her husband Probus.

I have cut Anicius Probus of Rome from the tree. His children seem to correspond loosly to Juliana children, but they have extra relatives attached which I am unable to source.

Could the managers of profiles in the tree such as Flavius of Byzantium Cleônas Of Mégara-Hyblaea or Georgia Eudóxia please provide some evidence of their existence and the proper place they fit into the tree? I am struggling to find much proof that these people existed.

I see some of those profiles have references to fabpedigree, which I need to stress is not a source that should be used to build trees on Geni, as it is full of fantastical and spurious connections.

Some more cleanup. The ancestry of Paulus which includes Clearchus Gallus and Husband of Anastasia is fictitious. It seems to be another of David Hugh's nonsense inventions. I have isolated the section and sent it off for deletion.

Since I have started this discussion, I have gotten my hands on Settipani's Continuité gentilice et continuité familiale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l'époque impériale : mythe et realité and even he does not hypothesize any parents for Magna I think its safe to remove Magna from her parents. The only primary sources we have for her existence are the two I listed above at https://www.geni.com/discussions/265167?msg=1632160 and https://www.geni.com/discussions/265167?msg=1632020

Neither of those sources mentions anything about her parentage. Even her marriage to Probus is just an assumption based on the fact that he is the only known brother of the emperor Anastasius. I have removed Magna from the parents currently attached to her and locked the relationships on her profile.

The name of the mother of Paulus is unknown. So is the name of his father, although it is theorized to be "Pompeius," mostly due to a later fabricated genealogy that made Anastasius I the descendent of Pompey the Great.

Private User

Instead of reattaching the connection, could you please provide evidence that Anicius Probus of Rome existed and that he was the son of Flavius Anicius Olybrius Iunior and Eirene I have locked the connection in the meantime.

Private User I see that you have created a new branch of ancestors for Anicius Probus of Rome

This new set is completely different from what was there before. It has no sources and makes Probus the descendent of Emperor Constans I, who is not known to have had any children.

As you refuse to engage with me in my requests for sources and continue to insert your fake genealogies into the Geni tree, I have reported you for vandalism. This is not how one operates in the Geni tree.

The entries from Martindale's PLRE II for the sister of [[Paulus Paulus]], Caeseria

The entry for Secundinus, Eparch of Constantinople

Now we get to the tricky parts of the tree in the parentage of Flavius Probus

This is what Martindale has to say in PLRE II', page 912':

Martindale lists him as the consobrini (cousin) of the brothers Pompeius and Hypatius

Martindale's primary source for this is Marcellinus Comes's chronicle.

The chronicle in the original Latin:

And in an English translation by Brian Croke:

^Source - The Chronicle of Marcellinus, translation and commentary by Brian Croke (Sydney, 1995), pages 120-121.

Alan Cameron, in "The House of Anastasius", pages 261-262, argues that

"There is no direct evidence for Probus' father, and the one text which mentions all three together, Hypatius, Pompeius et Probus genere consobrini, divique Anastasii nepotes (Marcellinus, Chron. s.a. 532), does not seem to me (pace Stein) necessarily to imply (though it certainly does not exclude the possibility) that all three had the same father. What does seem to me to tilt the balance of probability in favour of this (the usual) conclusion 12 is Priscian's phrase jratris natos'. Had Probus been Paul's son, then it would have been both accurate and tactful, nor would it have made any difference to the metre, for Priscian to have written jratrum natos', to cover Paul as well as Secundinus. He wrote jratris' because all of Anastasius' distinguished nephews were the sons of the same <brother'. It is difficult to believe that an experienced panegyrist would have been so careless as to risk quite unnecessary offense by writing jratris' if he had really been meaning to evoke the sons of two imperial brothers. Secundinus is not actually named because, being only a brother-in-law, he was not him- self (unlike his sons) of the blood royal, nor quite so important a person as Paul-or indeed his own sons, as illustrated by his late consulship. If Paul had had any sons who survived to maturity, we may be sure that they would have received honours comparable to those showered so generously on Secundinus' sons. The fact that none is on record suggests of itself that there were no such sons."

See: https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000194679552871

Alan Cameron, in "The House of Anastasius", pages 261-262, argues that

"On this reconstruction Paul had only daughters, three of them. Yet Priscian credits him with sons, so it has usually been inferred. A more careful reading of the relevant passage does not confirm this deduction. At lines 290-94 Priscian praises Paul before evoking in 295 the piety of Anastasius, piety

qua fratris natos animo complecteris aequo,
non patrui tantum, sed patris more colendo,
indole quos nutris dignos et stirpe parentum?
Hypatii vestri referam fortissima facta ...

On the face of it, the 'frater' of 296 might be thought to be Paul. Yet the only one of the 'fratris natos' singled out for individual mention, Hypatius, was unquestionably not a son of Paul. Furthermore, which nephews of Anastasius can a panegyrist writing (as Priscian probably was) in 503 have had in mind but Hypatius, Pompeius and Probus, cons~ in turn for 500, 501 and 502 (Hypatius and probably Pompeius too had both commanded armies as well)? And Hypatius and Pompeius at least are expressly stated to have been sons of Secundinus.
There is no direct evidence for Probus' father, and the one text which mentions all three together, Hypatius, Pompeius et Probus genere consobrini, divique Anastasii nepotes (Marcellinus, Chron. s.a. 532), does not seem to me (pace Stein) necessarily to imply (though it certainly does not exclude the possibility) that all three had the same father. What does seem to me to tilt the balance of probability in favour of this (the usual) conclusion is Priscian's phrase jratris natos'. Had Probus been Paul's son, then it would have been both accurate and tactful, nor would it have made any difference to the metre, for Priscian to have written jratrum natos', to cover Paul as well as Secundinus. He wrote jratris' because all of Anastasius' distinguished nephews were the sons of the same <brother'. It is difficult to believe that an experienced panegyrist would have been so careless as to risk quite unnecessary offense by writing jratris' if he had really been meaning to evoke the sons of two imperial brothers. Secundinus is not actually named because, being only a brother-in-law, he was not him- self (unlike his sons) of the blood royal, nor quite so important a person as Paul-or indeed his own sons, as illustrated by his late consulship. If Paul had had any sons who survived to maturity, we may be sure that they would have received honours comparable to those showered so generously on Secundinus' sons. The fact that none is on record suggests of itself that there were no such sons."

See: https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000194679552871

Priscian's text:

Source - Priscian's De Laude Anastaii Imperatoris, by Patricia Coyne, PhD Dissertation, McMaster University, April 1988, pages 55 and 69.

Cameron argues that Flavius Probus was potentially the brother of Pompeius and Hypatius and not their cousin. Otherwise, Priscian would have written sons of your brothers, instead son of your brother. This would make Probus the son of Secundinus, Eparch of Constantinople and Caeseria

Settipani is not very convinced by Cameron's argument, writing in Continuité gentilice et continuité familiale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l'époque impériale : mythe et realité, page 420, that

"C'est la position de la Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire en dernier lieu, mais elle a été contestée par C. Capizzil et A. Cameron. Si l'opinion du premier est trop mal fondée pour avoir besoin d'être sérieusement combattue, il en va autrement pour le second."

If google translate is to be trusted, Settipani calls Cameron's theory too ill-founded to need to be seriously contested and difficult to follow.

I also think that Cameron's theory, which rests largely on literary nitpicking, is pretty weak.

Settipani follows Martindale's formulation that Probus is likely the son of Paulus and Magna, as Paulus is the only other known sibling of Emperor Anastasius and this placement would make him both the nephew of Anastasius and the cousin of Pompeius and Hypatius. I moved Flavius Probus to be the son of Probus, but added a curator note mentioning the uncertainty involved.

Settipani follows Martindale's formulation that Probus is likely the son of Paulus and Magna, as Paulus is the only other known sibling of Emperor Anastasius and this placement would make him both the nephew of Anastasius and the cousin of Pompeius and Hypatius. I moved Flavius Probus to be the son of Paulus, but added a curator note mentioning the uncertainty involved.

The last two problem spots in this tree concern the place of Flavius Anastasius Paulus Probus Sabinianus Pompeius Anastasius and Flavius Anastasius Paulus Probus Moschianus Probus Magnus in the genealogy. Scholars have often considered them to be relatives of Anastasius, perhaps grand-nephews or more specifically, the sons of Pompeius and Probus. This is due to their names, which share so many similarities with members of Anastasius' family.

Cameron claims that their names prove that they are the descendants of Paulus and Magna. He makes the two consuls the sons of two different daughters of Paulus. These daughters married the consuls Sabinianus and Moschianus and were the parents of Flavius Anastasius Paulus Probus Sabinianus Pompeius Anastasius and Flavius Anastasius Paulus Probus Moschianus Probus Magnus respectively.

Settipani writes that the nomenclature of Magnus and Anastasius is too identical and too parallel for it not to be two brothers". The nomenclature of the polyonyms of this period has not yet received any particular treatment, but it seems that the "rule" is that the first names give the genealogy of the character, those in the middle would be the names of relatives or allies or even from the names of the church, finally would come the proper name of the individual. So there is here a proclamation to be descended from the Emperor Anastasius by his brother Paulus and his nephew Probus. The names of Moschianus and Sabinianus may well come to them from their mother or grandmother who could be close relatives of the two above-named generals, of whom it is not known if they were not themselves closely related. Settipani argues the two consuls were brothers and that they were the sons of Flavius Probus

Since there is no concrete evidence, beyond naming patterns, and disagreements among scholars where these two fit into the tree, I recommend we keep them floating, perhaps as siblings, with a mention of the various theories surrounding their parentage in their about sections.

Some final cleanup in this section of the tree.

I will create new discussions for the other families.

Probus the husband of Magna's granddaughter, Flavia Proba is only known to us as a name from Nikephorus's chronicle. See https://www.geni.com/discussions/265167?msg=1632160

Settipani theorizes that Probus could have been a relative of his wife, perhaps through her father or maybe a descendent of Flavius Probus Olybrius. Perhaps he was the same as the Probus who served as consol in 525.

Probus is currently shown on Geni as the son of yet another Probus I have disconnected as we have no documentary hints at his true parentage.

Some final cleanup in this section of the tree.

I will create new discussions for the other families.

Probus the husband of Magna's granddaughter, Flavia Proba is only known to us as a name from Nikephorus's chronicle. See https://www.geni.com/discussions/265167?msg=1632160

Settipani theorizes that Probus could have been a relative of his wife, perhaps through her father or maybe a descendent of Flavius Probus Olybrius. Perhaps he was the same as the Probus who served as consol in 525.

Probus is currently shown on Geni as the son of yet another Probus I have disconnected as we have no documentary hints at his true parentage.