The Historians of Late Antiquity (14 page)

Olympiodorus’ discussion, at the end of the work, of the immensity of the buildings in the city of Rome and the enormous incomes of the Roman nobility suggests that he had traveled to the west (
fr
. 41). In conjunction with this western visit he may have inserted the digression on the wanderings of Odysseus, which he claims took place along the coast of Italy (
fr
. 42). The western bias of some of his sources is further evidence of this visit. If he traveled to Rome on official business, he may have been involved in suppressing the usurpation of John (Baldwin 1980a: 217–18), or he may have assisted with the restoration of the emperor Valentinian III under the auspices of the eastern emperor Theodosius II (Matthews 1970: 80). It is likely that he attended, and he may have been involved in, Valentinian’s coronation, the dramatic event with which Olympiodorus concluded the history.

Work

Olympiodorus’ work, though Greek, is almost entirely concerned with events in the western half of the empire. The
History
(or, more properly, the
hyle historias
, the
Material for History
) of Olympiodorus survives only in paraphrase and summary. Photius preserved in his
Bibliotheca
a description of the work in around forty paragraphs (
cod
. 80). Olympiodorus is also the source of the last part of the
New History
of Zosimus, which was written at the turn of the fifth century. The lack of innovation in Zosimus’ work fortunately preserves for us a fairly close approximation of whatever source he is dependent upon. While Zosimus is following the work of Eunapius, which extended to 404, he describes eastern events, he is vague and imprecise, and he is hostile to the western warlord Stilicho. Zosimus turned to Olympiodorus for the years 407 to 410, which are covered in chapters 5.26 to 6.13 of the
New History
. Here he emphasizes western events, is precise and accurate, and becomes a partisan of Stilicho, all characteristics of the Photian summary of Olympiodorus (Matthews 1970: 81–2).

Olympiodorus is also the main source for the section of the
Church History
of Sozomen which runs from 9.4 until its conclusion. At this transition point, not only are western events suddenly emphasized to the exclusion of eastern events, but the subject matter itself largely shifts from ecclesiastical to secular history.
Whether the
Church History
of Philostorgius shows dependence upon Olympiodorus is less clear. Philostorgius, like Olympiodorus, is only extant in a paraphrase of Photius, and if he did use Olympiodorus’ work, it was just one of several of his sources for the period (Baldwin 1980a: 228–9; Gillett 1992: 3–6).

Olympiodorus’ work must have been published after 425, the date of the coronation of Valentinian III which concluded the work, and before the death in 450 of Theodosius II, to whom, Photius says, the work was dedicated. Sozomen, who must postdate Olympiodorus, published in the late 440s. The church historian Socrates, who published in 439, did not make use of Olympiodorus, and perhaps this suggests that the work was not yet available to him (Gillett 1992: 4–6). Thus we can conclude that the history was probably published sometime in the 440s.

Olympiodorus was connected to the empress Aelia Eudocia through her father Leontius. Eudocia, though not a pagan, was a patron of the kind of Hellenized literature which Olympiodorus produced, as was her protégé, Cyrus of Panopolis (Cameron 1982). Although Olympiodorus was in government service prior to the rise to power of Cyrus and Eudocia, the atmosphere they fostered until they were forced to leave Constantinople in 441 would have been particularly congenial to him. Gillett comments that the work seems to celebrate the growing closeness of the eastern and western empires under the guidance of Theodosius II. Following the installation of Valentinian III in 425, the east and west had continued to work together, both on the compilation of the Theodosian Code and with the dynastic marriage of Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius II, to Valentinian III. Olympiodorus’ work, by tracing the evolution of the relationship between east and west from alienation to cooperation, may be in part understood as an argument in favor of the continuation of such cooperation in the face of new threats, such as the rise of Vandal power in Africa (Gillett 1992).

Photius states that Olympiodorus’ history began in the year 407, although it seems that information on the earlier career of Stilicho was included, possibly as part of the preface which Photius says adorned the beginning of each book (Blockley 1981: 30). In fact, since the first consular date noted in Zosimus is 408, the year of Stilicho’s death, rather than 407, the work may have officially begun in that year (Paschoud 1985a). In any case it is clear that Olympiodorus did not intend to formally continue the history of Eunapius, which concluded in 404.

Olympiodorus’ history was divided into twenty-two books. Photius’ comment that Olympiodorus’ account of the embassy to the Huns was the conclusion of the first ten-book section implies that the work was further divided between the first ten books and the subsequent twelve. The first part may have been published separately from the second part, and some have noted differences in, for example, the length and ordering of the earlier fragments, but there is no firm evidence (Zuccali 1993; Blockley 1981: 33). If the history was divided into books equal in length to those in Ammianus, it would have been around 900 pages long, which emphasizes the severe compression of Photius’ compilation, and even of Zosimus’.

The work was arranged in broadly chronological order, and used consular dating to help guide the reader, although Photius complains that it was “loosely organized.” Italy was the central focus of the history, with events in Gaul and Spain treated in digressions (Matthews 1970: 87).

Olympiodorus begins the main narrative of his work with the death of Stilicho, the generalissimo and guardian of the emperor Honorius, and describes the series of tragedies which befell the west thereafter. The first ten books are accordingly filled with disasters. The failure of Rome to successfully negotiate with Alaric leads to three sieges of the city, to the reduction of the Romans to cannibalism, and finally to the sacking of the city in 410. Alaric is succeeded by his brother Ataulf after his sudden death, and chaos throughout the west leads to the rise of numerous usurpers in Gaul and in Spain. The tenth book ends with Olympiodorus’ embassy to the Huns, perhaps with the message that negotiation is preferable to the use of force (Zuccali 1993: 254).

The second half of the work describes the gradual improvement, in fits and starts, of western affairs. It begins in 412, when Ataulf made an alliance with the emperor Honorius and suppressed the usurper Sebastian. The marriage of Ataulf to the princess Galla Placidia further cements the Roman–Gothic alliance. The work ends in 425 with an encomium of the city of Rome and a description of the extraordinary wealth of its inhabitants, which emphasizes how strongly the Romans had rebounded from the destruction fifteen years earlier. Valentinian III was installed as western emperor with military help from the east. It is a satisfying ending in literary terms, tracing the fall and then rise of the city of Rome, carrying with it a political message which emphasizes the necessity of eastern help and eastern supremacy to ensure order in the west.

Photius tells us that Olympiodorus considered his work a
hyle
, or “material,” for history, rather than a history itself, and he criticizes its vulgarity and emptiness. Byzantine notions of high style, however, do not correspond with ours, and a charitable interpretation of Photius’ comments might suggest that he recoils at exactly those features which moderns find so useful and admirable in Olympiodorus’ work, such as his frequent use of numbers and his careful attention to geography. The level of style may have been elevated in the prefaces which Photius says began each of the twenty-two books. Whether the work contained speeches is not known, but the surviving fragments show no evidence of any.

Of the forty-six Photian fragments, twelve are digressions: linguistic, ethnographic, geographic, and others. This would suggest that roughly a fourth of the work was digressive, a percentage even higher than that of Ammianus’
Res Gestae
. This, perhaps, was another feature of the history which brought the stylistic criticism of Photius upon it. Since the digressions often deal with eastern events, Blockley suggests that they were not well integrated into the narrative. They were, rather, used to mark transitions between major events (Blockley 1981: 35–6).

The digressions contain much of interest. Olympiodorus explains that Alaric was unable to cross from Rhegium to Sicily due to a magic statue which warded him off. He claims that the statue was set up in antiquity in order to protect against the fires of Mount Etna and to prevent barbarians from crossing the sea. As predicted, its removal led to volcanic eruption and invasion (
fr
. 16). He describes the sophistic cloak, a garment which could be worn at Athens by would-be scholars only with the permission of the sophists and after the completion of the following ritual. The candidates were brought before the baths and shoved forward by their teachers. Another team of men tried to block the candidates, forcing them away from the baths and shouting, “Stop, stop, don’t take the bath!” After this ritual, successful candidates entered the baths, washed, and then exited wearing their cloak, escorted by community leaders (
fr
. 28). Olympiodorus also describes the immensity of Rome and its buildings, particularly the public baths and the great private homes, which contained within their walls everything one might find in a medium-size city (
fr
. 41.1). Olympiodorus’ description of Rome was probably presented at a higher stylistic level than other parts of the work, and the historian was even moved to include a piece of poetry in the digression. The description of his dangerous sea voyage (
fr
. 19) to the Huns may have aimed at
pathos, as Photius claims that the historian
ektragoidei
, “declaimed tragically.” The details Photius provides of the wedding of Ataulf and Galla Placidia suggests that it was an elaborate set-piece, with descriptions of the location, the clothes that each wore, the wedding gifts (among other things, Ataulf presented her with jewels and gold which had been looted during the sack of Rome), and the celebration of Romans and barbarians after the nuptials (
fr
. 24).

Olympiodorus showed a particular interest in geography (Thompson 1944: 45, 49–50). Insofar as he refers to earlier authors, it is usually to make a geographical point. For example, his digression on the Oasis (
fr
. 32) cites Herodotus and Herodorus, and in addition he claims that Homer had been born in the Thebaid. He presents a lengthy argument on the location of the wanderings of Odysseus (
fr
. 42), and on the founding of the city of Emona by the Argonauts (at Zos. 5.29.1–3), information which he derived from the obscure poet Pisander. He also quotes the third-century historian Asinius Quadratus on the founding of Ravenna (at Zos. 5.27.1–2) and the geographer Ammon on the length of the walls surrounding the city of Rome (
fr
. 41.1). A large amount of geographic information can be found among the fragments, but it is difficult to determine the degree of accuracy that Olympiodorus’ account possessed before its severe compression by Photius, Zosimus, and Sozomen.

The geographical information often comes with exact figures (e.g.
frs
. 17, 26.1; Zos. 5.48.2), and Olympiodorus also provides numbers at other junctures. The size of armies, the number of seats in the Roman baths, and various sums of money are given in what appear to be fairly reliable figures. A famous fragment of his work provides numerical information on the finances of the Roman elite (
fr
. 41). For example, he reveals that Probus spent twelve hundred pounds of gold celebrating his praetorship, whereas Symmachus spent two thousand pounds of gold in celebration of his son’s praetorship. The amount of quantification in Olympiodorus’ history was probably greater than in any historian of antiquity. On the other hand, Olympiodorus’ passion for numbers is great only in comparison to other ancient historians, and the accuracy of his figures should not be overestimated (Maenchen-Helfen 1973: 459).

Another oddity of Olympiodoran style is his frequent use of transliterated Latin (Matthews 1970: 85–7). This is most common in his use of the Latin names of political and bureaucratic offices, and he also often uses the Latin names for provinces of the empire. In addition, Olympiodorus provides weights and measurements in
Latin, as well as certain phrases, quotes, and inscriptions which he transliterates in their entirety. Sozomen and Zosimus generally translated Olympiodorus’ Latinisms with the Greek equivalent, but Olympiodorus’ intended audience must have been the “Latinized” administrators and courtiers who had no need of translation.

Even through the paraphrase one can glimpse some of Olympiodorus’ deft characterizations. Consider his memorable sketch of the general Constantius III: “In public processions Constantius was downcast and sullen, a man with bulging eyes, a long neck and a broad head, who always slumped over the neck of the horse he was riding, darting glances here and there out of the corners of his eyes, so that all saw in him ‘a mien worthy of a tyrant,’ as the saying goes. But at banquets and parties he was so cheerful and affable that he even competed with the clowns who often played before his table” (trans. Blockley 1983: 187;
fr
. 23). Olympiodorus favors the general Boniface, whose love of justice he demonstrated through the following anecdote. A soldier complained to Boniface that his wife was having an affair with a barbarian ally. That very evening the commander rode almost ten miles to the site of the adultery, removed the barbarian’s head from his body with his sword, and rode back, presenting the soldier with his rival’s head on the following day. The soldier was understandably stunned into silence, but Olympiodorus assures us that later he was filled with thanks (
fr
. 40).