The Historians of Late Antiquity (31 page)

In Priscus’ conversation with the Greek who defected to the Huns, he allows the Greek to complain about the high taxes of the empire. In response, he explains that taxes are more readily paid by farmers who can concentrate on their fields without facing conscription themselves (
fr
. 11.2). Priscus is, however, a strong critic of using tax revenue for payments to the Huns and other barbarians (
fr
. 9.3). This, he claims, required the institution of such high taxes that many of the wealthy were required to sell jewelry and furniture, and some even committed suicide.

Ancient governments, both imperial and local, were major players in commodity markets, both by providing goods such as grain and oil at low costs or for free to favored clients, and by ordering higher or lower prices in cases of food shortages. As an example, Victor describes the institution by Aurelian of a system of free pork distribution to the people of the city of Rome (35.7). Shortages of grain at Antioch under both Gallus and Julian drew the attention of both Ammianus and Socrates (de Jonge 1948; Downey 1951; Liebeschuetz 1972: 126–32; Matthews 1989: 406–9). In each case it seems that the presence in Antioch of the imperial court and of an army preparing for the Persian war sparked temporary food shortages. The intervention of the emperor was unsuccessful and resulted in criticism from the historians in each case as well. Ammianus says that when the city council of Antioch told Gallus that his policy of price ceilings would fail, he threatened them with death. When
more common citizens begged Gallus for help, he blamed the crisis on the hapless governor of Syria, who in consequence was beaten and ripped to pieces by the mob (14.7). Ammianus suggests that the emperor could have alleviated the crisis by ordering the importation of grain from neighboring provinces (14.7.5).

In discussing a recurrence of crisis eight years later, Ammianus attributes Julian’s attempt to fix a maximum price for grain to his “love of popularity” and points out that “sometimes” this policy causes scarcity and famine (22.14.1). Ammianus seems to deny that any crisis existed, siding with the council of Antioch who again warned the emperor against any attempt to fix prices (22.14.2). In Julian’s own work, the
Misopogon
, he blames merchants and speculators who hoarded cheap grain. This excuse plays on the general distrust of trade in antiquity, as revealed, for example, in Eunapius’ characterization of merchants as liars who seek only profit (
fr
. 66.2). Socrates, however, provides the most reasonable account of the crisis (3.17.2–4). Like Ammianus, Socrates blames the crisis on Julian’s desire for popularity. He adds, however, that the presence of an army must necessarily lead to price hikes, and he even understands that merchants cease selling grain when prices are artificially low since they are unable to sustain the losses they suffer.

Church historians champion ecclesiastical generosity toward the poor. The preaching of Basil of Caesarea, according to Rufinus, urged the distribution of money to the poor and for the establishment of monasteries and nunneries (11.9). Socrates relates an affecting story about a bishop melting down the church’s holdings of gold and silver sacred objects in order to raise money to allow the return of Persian prisoners of war (7.21), and in praising Atticus, the bishop of Constantinople, Socrates lauds his distribution of gold not only to the poor of his own city but also to the poor of other cities (7.25.1–9). Theodoret praises John Chrysostom for sending a troop of zealous monks to Palestine in order to destroy some pagan temples (5.29). The money for this operation came not from the public treasury but from John’s fundraising among wealthy noblewomen of Constantinople. The imperial opposition to John was probably strengthened by his access to large sums of money independent of imperial control. Access to wealth brought with it the possibility of corruption for clergy, as Socrates shows in his account of the bishop Theodosius of Synada. Theodosius was a fervent persecutor of the Macedonian heretics, but he was impelled not out of orthodox zeal but rather from lust for the seizure of wealth from the dispossessed sectarians (7.3).

Conclusion

Ancient historians are not an ideal source for information about the administration and economy of the late antique state, but they do often reveal the opinions and attitudes held by the educated elite about these institutions. In general, late antique historians attempt to combine, sometimes uneasily, ancient and traditional beliefs about society with more contemporary ideas. Thus, the civil and republican ideals of imperial presentation collide with more elevated visions of imperial dominance. The idealized vision of the relationship between emperor and subject often harkens back to a bygone era no longer commensurate with the reality of the larger and more intrusive late antique administration. While ideals of justice remained unchanged, the reality of punishment became harsher. Economic issues were personalized, and complaints about taxation, for example, generally reveal more about the historian’s view on the emperor and the times than on the historian’s grasp of imperial fiscal policy.

15
THE ROMAN PAST

For historians writing in the fourth and fifth centuries, the period of the late republic stood at roughly the same distance as does the age of Columbus for modern historians. The earlier republic was as ancient then as the Norman conquest is today. Nevertheless, given the Roman respect for the past, it is not surprising that many historians reflect upon the earliest history of Rome. A few late antique historians directly treat the regal and republican periods, but even those who are only chroniclers of their own time often find opportunities to refer to people and events of the distant past. Such reflections shed light, both explicitly and implicitly, on the historian’s understanding of the meaning and purpose of the broad sweep of human history. The omission of republican material by some late antique historians is itself a reflection of the historian’s attitude toward his work and the expectations of his audience.

Of late antique histories, Ammianus’
Res Gestae
most deliberately adapted the style of the classical historians, and so not surprisingly it contains numerous allusions to Rome’s distant past. Ammianus provides us with an elaborate schema of Roman history, which recognizes the changes in government from antiquity to his day but at the same time expresses a belief in the unity and progression of the Roman state (Matthews 1986). In a familiar ancient image, Rome is depicted as a man passing through the stages of life. From “cradle” to “childhood,” the Romans fought around their walls, and in “adulthood” waged war across the seas. In Ammianus’ time, the city, having retired, had wisely entrusted its patrimony to the emperors, who skillfully manage this inheritance (14.6.3–6). The image creates a direct link between the earliest history of Rome and the fourth-century empire. Roman history has come full circle with the return of the tranquillity of the time of King Numa. While Tacitus had worried about the
prospects for liberty in an imperial world, Ammianus suggests that the fourth-century empire, the product of a pact of eternal peace between Virtue and Fortune, had transcended the conflicts of the earlier empire.

The
Res Gestae
makes frequent reference to figures from the republic. In the surviving books, famous figures of the republic appear more often than the emperors who ruled in the first, second, or third centuries. In this respect, Ammianus is similar to other fourth-century Latin writers, such as Claudian or the panegyricists, who depend almost entirely on republican
exempla
, to the exclusion of imperial ones (Stertz 1980: 491). For example, Ammianus supports his contention that the earlier inhabitants of Rome were superior in modesty to their decadent successors with a quote from Cato the Elder (14.6.8), and he demonstrates the fickleness of Fortune by references to Pompey, Regulus, and other republican military leaders (14.11.32). Ammianus’ frequent recourse to such references is less a reflection of his opinion of the republic than an assertion of his belief in the continuity and centrality of
Romanitas
over so many centuries. His traditionally educated audience would have appreciated his references, which establish Ammianus’ link with the classical historiography of the past.

Ammianus often reaches for republican
exempla
when passing judgement upon military events. The ability of Rome to recover after Cannae (31.13.19) and the Gallic invasions (31.5.12) suggests that Rome has the potential to recover from the massacre at Adrianople, if only Roman moral standards can return to those of their republican antecedents. Ammianus treats with scorn the cession of Nisibis to the Persians by Jovian in 363, adding a reminder that earlier peace treaties signed under duress, such as the one following Rome’s ignominious defeat at the Caudine Forks, were readily abandoned (25.9.11).

Ammianus often compares Julian to the glorious heroes of the republic. The emperor’s battle exhortation recalls the example of Sulla (16.12.41), his habit of writing while on campaign recalls Caesar (25.2.3), the unfair attacks upon him are like those directed against Scipio Aemilianus and Pompey (17.11.3), and his victory at Strasbourg surpasses the Punic Wars in excellence (17.1.14). The exhortation to the troops which Ammianus attributes to Julian before the invasion of Persia (23.5.16–23) contains several instances of Ammianus’ use of republican history. First is the utility of the republic as a source for providing historical lessons which still resonate in the present day. To demonstrate that his proposed expedition
is in no way a novelty, Julian points out that, contrary to the muttering of some critics, the Romans had often been successful in past campaigns against Persia under such figures as Lucullus, Pompey, and Ventidius. Ammianus has Julian claim that the expedition seeks the complete destruction of the Persian empire, and he draws upon the examples of cities such as Carthage and Fidenae to prove that Romans have eradicated their rivals in the past. Second, the history of the republic offers moral
exempla
for the behavior of a Roman general. Julian is willing to follow the example of the Curtii, the Mucii, and the Decii, and give his life in return for Roman victory. Both the magnitude of Julian’s expedition and the greatness of his character are emphasized through his references to republican precedents. Ammianus thus frames Julian’s achievements as evidence of the continuing power of the classical republican spirit.

Aurelius Victor aimed to take the pedestrian
Kaisergeschichte
and present a rhetorically and morally improved version. This rewriting entailed the addition of both republican
exempla
and of a broader meditation on historical change. The meaning of the transition from republic to empire for Victor is evident in his first sentence, where he states that under Octavian the Romans began to “obey one man alone.” The assassination of Caligula provided an opportunity for the restoration of the republic, but the Romans had been corrupted by the transfer of their historical duty of military service to foreign mercenaries (3.14–15). For Victor, the republic was dependent upon Romans who remained virtuous through continued military service. Victor’s derogatory attitude toward the army throughout his history makes it clear that he felt the shift to a professional army was a mistake (Bird 1984: 41–52). (The third-century historian Dio Cassius, too, had seen a professional soldiery as a key to the shift from republic to empire, although he supported the change (52.14).)

Republican figures are ubiquitous in Victor’s work. He often demonstrates the wisdom or goodness of an imperial figure through a comparison with an ancient one. Hadrian’s attention to religion, for example, is praised through comparison to the similar attention paid by Numa (14.2). Because of his learning, morality, and frugality, Pertinax is likened to the Curii and Fabricii (18.1). The military valor of Claudius II, culminating in the sacrifice of his life for the state, is hailed as a return of the long-lost tradition of the similarly selfless Decii (34.2). Constantius’ installation of a king on the Sarmatian throne is praised as an action unmatched since the
eastern conquests of Pompey (42.22). Such comparisons imply not only that Victor believes in the excellence of the republican period, but also that he believed it possible for later figures to rival the accomplishments of the ancients.

When Victor presents observations or theories, as he is wont to do, he sometimes includes republican
exempla
which help universalize his points. His contention that Rome has often been aided by the contributions of foreigners receives confirmation both in his depiction of the Cretan emperor Nerva and in a reference to the Etruscan Tarquinius Priscus (11.12). He supports his assertion that Probus was a good general by explaining his similarity to Hannibal: both emphasized rigorous training and prevented the soldiers from becoming idle by engaging them in the planting of trees (37.2–3). Victor’s theory that men of low birth are more likely to act tyrannically when they receive power is demonstrated by the example of the republican Marius as well as that of the late imperial Diocletian (39.6).

Eutropius, who unlike Victor begins his history from the founding of Rome, presents a view of early history designed to emphasize the continuity of one institution in particular, the Roman senate. Eclipsed in the third century by the rise of military rule, the senate began to regain its importance and power in the post-Constantinian empire (Arnheim 1972). Senatorial prestige received a temporary boost under Julian, but the rise to power of the Pannonian generals Valentinian and Valens produced strained relations between the court and the senate (Matthews 1975: 32–56). Eutropius, himself a senator as well as an administrator for Valens, is particularly concerned with emphasizing the importance of the ancient senate. Of sixteen mentions of the senate in his account of republican history, only one is negative (Bird 1992: xxvii–xxx).