The Historians of Late Antiquity (15 page)

The historian spoke favorably of Stilicho, pointing to the many wars he won on behalf of the Romans (
fr
. 3) and defending him against the charge that he plotted against the eastern emperor (Soz. 9.4). He is, therefore, hostile toward Stilicho’s enemy Olympius (
fr
. 5). Olympiodorus was also critical of the ineffectual emperor Honorius, and goes beyond faulting his poor policy decisions to complain that his frequent kissing on the mouth of his sister Galla Placidia gave rise to unsavory suspicions (
fr
. 38). Olympiodorus criticized Placidia further in blaming the turn of Constantius from virtue to avarice on her influence (
fr
. 37).

Olympiodorus’ assessment of some of these figures is quite unusual for a fifth-century historian. Stilicho claimed guardianship over both the eastern and the western emperor, which ensured continuing hostility toward him from the eastern court. Placidia, on the other hand, was a more popular figure in the east than in the west. The marriage of Placidia to Ataulf, which Olympiodorus described in a positive manner, was not well received in the east. It
appears that Olympiodorus’ western biases must reflect western sources for much of his history (Sirago 1970; Matthews 1970: 90–1).

Since there is no evidence of any other narrative history of the period, Olympiodorus presumably gathered much of the evidence firsthand while in the west, or from westerners who had made their way east. His role as an imperial official would have allowed him to gain access to those close to the principal actors of the time. Blockley (1981: 34–5) suggests that the soldier Candidianus, who was in Placidia’s retinue and who received favorable treatment from the historian, may have been one of those sources. Olympiodorus also had access to documentary material, as is evident from his use of a
relatio
of the city prefect Albinus which describes the resettlement of Rome (
fr
. 25).

Olympiodorus is rightly considered one of the great historians of late antiquity, despite the fact that his work only survives in fragments (Thompson 1996: 11–12). His information seems to have come from knowledgeable sources. He provided the sort of detail which ancient historians often omit, but which modern historians appreciate, and the fragments do not reveal major bias or partisanship. The loss of his work is thus particularly unfortunate, and the early fifth century would be far better understood if his history had survived as a guide.

Text and translation

Greek text and translation by R.C. Blockley (1983),
The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire II
.

7
PRISCUS

Life

The historian Priscus was from Panium in Thrace, as his entry in the Byzantine encyclopedia
Suda
informs us. The
Suda
also states that he lived during the reign of Theodosius II. Many sources describe him as a sophist or rhetor, and in addition to a history in eight books he is credited with “Rhetorical Exercises” and with letters, none of which survives.

Other information about Priscus’ life must be derived from the surviving fragments of his history (Bornmann 1979: xi–xv; Blockley 1981: 48; Baldwin 1980b: 18–25). He gives a lengthy description of his participation in the embassy to Attila of 448/9 in fragments 11–14. If he were roughly 30 years old at the time of this embassy, he would have been born around 420. He was apparently at Rome in 450 (
fr
. 20.3), Egyptian Thebes in 451 or 452 (
fr
. 27), and Alexandria in 453 (
fr
. 28). He last appears in the extant fragments of his history as an advisor to the
magister officiorum
Euphemius in negotiations with Gobazes, leader of the Lazi, inhabitants of western Georgia (
fr
. 33.2). He must have lived at least into the 470s, since his history covers up to that point.

Priscus accompanied a friend, an imperial official with the common name Maximinus, on many of his travels. The Maximinus described in the fragments of Priscus seems to have pursued a military career, and thus we should agree with Blockley in rejecting the association of this Maximinus with the lawyer of that name who was on the commission to create the Theodosian Code (Blockley 1981: 48). This association had prompted the suggestion that Priscus served as an imperial lawyer or bureaucrat (Baldwin 1980b: 21), but given the extant evidence it is impossible and perhaps unnecessary to attach an official role of any kind to Priscus’ involvement. He accompanied Maximinus to the camp of Attila only after
being cajoled (
fr
. 11.2), which suggests an unofficial role, and although he may have served in some official capacity under the functionary Euphemius (
fr
. 33.2), the wording could suggest that he was simply an advisor or friend.

The fragments in which Priscus discusses his participation in the embassy to Attila are quite lengthy and provide us with many memorable pictures of the Huns as well as of the historian himself. Fragment 11 begins with the arrival of the Hun Edeco at Constantinople bearing letters from Attila. Attila was demanding territorial concessions along the Danube, the return of Hun fugitives, and a Roman embassy composed of high-ranking officials. The eunuch Chrysaphius, at that time the most powerful advisor to emperor Theodosius II, met with Edeco, and the eunuch offered him fifty pounds of gold to assassinate Attila. The Roman translator Vigilas was informed of the plot and was ordered to accompany Edeco and his retinue to meet with Attila. Maximinus, who was apparently unaware of the plot, was selected to join the delegation to Attila, and Maximinus convinced Priscus to come along.

Thirteen days of travel brought Edeco, Vigilas, Maximinus, Priscus, and the rest of the embassy to Serdica (modern-day Sofia in Bulgaria), where the men feasted and toasted both Theodosius II and Attila. When Vigilas, who had perhaps overindulged in wine, suggested to the Huns that it was improper to equate a god such as Theodosius with a man like Attila, tempers flared. Only the presentation of silk and jewels to the Huns smoothed things over.

The party arrived at Naissus, which had become a ghost town after its complete destruction by the Huns. Bones littered the river bank. Several more days through rough territory brought them to the Danube, which they crossed with the help of barbarian ferrymen. After further travel, the attendants of Edeco went to announce the arrival of the embassy to Attila.

At this point, however, the ambassadors were rebuffed. Hun leaders, including Edeco, Orestes, Scottas, and others, demanded to know the purpose of the embassy. The Romans refused to talk to anyone but Attila. The Huns then revealed that they had read the secret correspondence of Theodosius, and ordered the surprised Romans, who continued to insist upon a meeting with Attila, to depart immediately. It appears that Edeco had informed Attila of the assassination plot, but Vigilas was unaware that his cover had been blown. Maximinus and Priscus were mystified at what they saw as the inexplicable hostility of the Huns. The Romans packed their baggage and were ordered to leave in the morning.

The ambassadors discussed how they ought to react to this turn of events. Vigilas argued that they should claim to have new information to provide to Attila, in the hope, presumably, that the assassination plan could continue, while Maximinus was dejected and silent. Then Priscus, with the help of an interpreter, put his persuasive rhetorical skills to work. He offered the Hun Scottas gifts for his help and claimed that a meeting with Attila would benefit both Romans and Huns. Then he slyly added that although he had heard that Scottas was a powerful Hun leader, he would find it difficult to believe if Scottas was not able to arrange a meeting with Attila. This last challenge caused Scottas to leap on his horse and head for Attila’s tent. Priscus returned to an overjoyed Maximinus and Vigilas, who unpacked the baggage and began to decide on the proper gifts and protocol for their meeting with Attila.

Maximinus addressed Attila politely when the embassy came before him, but the Hun did not respond in kind, instead showering angry abuse upon Vigilas. Attila demanded that Vigilas leave immediately and that Hunnic fugitives be handed over, and then he dismissed the embassy. The Romans marveled at the harshness of Attila. Priscus suggested that perhaps Attila had been made aware of Vigilas’ earlier claim that Theodosius was a god but Attila a man. In reality the Hun leader must have been aware that Vigilas was implicated in the plot to assassinate him. In the midst of this confusion, Edeco pulled Vigilas aside and instructed him to bring the gold which was to be distributed to those involved in the planned assassination. Shortly thereafter, some of Attila’s men ordered the Romans not to purchase anything until the embassy had been completed. This was a cunning trick to trap Vigilas with the gold and without a convincing rationale for his possessing it.

The embassy then traveled with the court of Attila as he set out to marry the daughter of an ally. Priscus describes the inhabitants of the villages they pass through. At one village, the Romans were frightened by a storm but succored by the (female) ruler, who offered them food and attractive women. The first was accepted, the second declined. The party also encountered a second Roman embassy, this one from the western court.

The travelers came to a village where Attila maintained a particularly large palace. The elegant wooden structure was near another set of wooden buildings which had been built by Onegesius, Attila’s second-in-command. Onegesius had also had baths of stone constructed. The builder, a prisoner from Sirmium, had hoped to
win his freedom in return for his service, but instead had been pressed into service as a bath attendant for Onegesius and his friends. The Romans dined at the compound of Onegesius with Attila’s son and daughter-in-law, while Onegesius met with Attila in private. The next morning Priscus waited with gifts outside shut doors hoping to meet with Onegesius. Here Priscus tells us that he encountered a Greek in Hunnic dress who told the historian that after being taken captive by the Huns, he had won his freedom, but married a Hunnic wife and was now an attendant to Onegesius himself. The historicity of their conversation, a philosophical setpiece about the relative superiority of the Roman or Hunnic systems, is rather doubtful.

Priscus intercepted Onegesius as he exited his palace and convinced him to meet with Maximinus. Maximinus’ attempt to have Onegesius come to Constantinople was rebuffed, but Onegesius invited Priscus to return to confer with him. On the next day, Priscus brought gifts to one of Attila’s wives, Hereka, and then went to wait for Onegesius. Outside of Onegesius’ house Priscus met members of the western embassy. They discussed the possibility of the Huns invading the Persian empire, and while Priscus prayed that Attila would turn his forces away from the Romans, the western ambassador Constantiolus worried that success in destroying the Persians would strengthen the Huns even further.

Priscus acted as an intermediary after Onegesius appeared (
fr
. 13). When asked which high-ranking officials would serve as ambassadors to Attila, Priscus consulted with Maximinus and told Onegesius that the emperor would send whomever he wanted. Maximinus was then led in to consult with Attila, who provided a list of men of consular rank with whom he would deign to meet. With business concluded for the day, the Romans were invited to a banquet. After the ceremonial drinking of wine, dinner was served. Priscus notes that Attila used only wooden tableware, while the others had plates and cups of silver, and that his sword and boots were plain, not adorned with jewels like that of the other Hunnic nobility. Attila also ate only meat, while the others indulged in fancy prepared dishes. Postprandial entertainment included the chanting of songs celebrating Attila’s victories, a deranged Hun shouting unintelligibly, and Zercon, a hunchbacked Moor who amused the crowd with his appearance and his mixture of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic speech. Attila alone was able to resist the general hilarity, softening only at the arrival of his
young son Ernach. The celebration and drinking continued throughout the night, but Priscus and the Romans left early.

Onegesius drew up several letters for the Romans to bring to Theodosius upon their return, and the Romans managed to ransom a few of their compatriots. Several more days of Hunnic hospitality followed. The Romans dined at the invitation of Attila’s wife the following evening, and with Attila again on the next. They were allowed to leave three days later accompanied by Berichus, a Hun in search of gifts from Theodosius. Berichus, who had begun the journey in a friendly mood, grew unfriendly after the party crossed the Danube and accused the Romans of unfairness toward barbarians. Attempts to mollify him were unsuccessful. The Romans also crossed paths with Vigilas, who was returning to the court of Attila intending to carry out the assassination. He was, in fact, walking into a trap, and after he was caught with the fifty pounds of gold, he would confess in response to threats against his son (
fr
. 15). The son was sent to retrieve another fifty pounds to ransom his father, and Attila sent ambassadors to Constantinople to demand the surrender of the eunuch Chrysaphius, who first conceived of the plot. But Priscus’ role in these events apparently ended with his return to Constantinople.

This narrative of the extraordinary events surrounding the embassy to Attila is the centerpiece of the surviving fragments, and was probably the centerpiece of the whole work. The historian presents himself as curious and careful in his descriptions, and sensible and confident in his dealings with others. It is not surprising that Maximinus thought his presence would be beneficial.

The other fragments in which Priscus himself was involved are much briefer. Priscus states that “we” saw the younger son of the recently deceased Frankish king while in Rome (
fr
. 20.3). This suggests that he was in Rome with someone else, perhaps Maximinus, who was probably the courier for a letter (
ep
. 75) of Pope Leo, dated 9 November 450 and addressed to the clergy of Constantinople. Priscus and Maximinus next appear in Damascus in 451 or 452, where they found the general Ardabur in peace negotiations with the Saracens (
fr
. 26). From Syria they traveled to Thebes in Upper Egypt, where Maximinus worked out a treaty between the Romans and the defeated Blemmyes and Nubades (
fr
. 27). Shortly thereafter Maximinus fell ill and died (Zuckerman 1994: 176–9).