The Historians of Late Antiquity (8 page)

Of course we cannot determine with certainty the sources of the lost books, but the use of the back references in the surviving books can suggest some possibilities. The Greek sources for this period, Dio Cassius, Herodian, and Dexippus, were rich and, one might think, promising sources for Ammianus’ purposes, but it does not appear that Ammianus made much use of them. If Ammianus had used Herodian as a major source for the years 180–239, for example, one would not have expected the numerous divergences between the two historians found even in the surviving books (Brok 1976/7). Studies of Ammianus’ attitudes toward the emperors of the earlier period suggest that he followed the Latin rather than the Greek tradition (Gilliam 1972; Stertz 1980). For example, Ammianus’ references to the emperor Hadrian are hostile (22.12.8, 25.4.17, 30.8.10) and critical of him for excessive superstition. This appears to have been the position of the Latin biographer Marius Maximus, but not that of Dio, who is reported to have said that Hadrian was popular with soldiers and Greeks (70.1.3; Stertz 1980: 502–3). It seems likely that Ammianus depended upon the lost third-century Latin history known as the
Kaisergeschichte
, the lost Marius Maximus, and other lost and generally inferior Latin works as the primary sources for his earlier books.

Ammianus’ digressions were generally based upon written sources, even in many cases where one might expect the historian to
use his first-hand knowledge. The digression on siege engines is one example where the historian has gone to the reference books rather than into the field (23.4; den Hengst 1999). Similarly, Ammianus’ longest digression, on Persian history, religion, and geography, draws far more from written sources than from his own experience (23.6; Drijvers 1999; den Boeft 1999; Teitler 1999). Ammianus seems to favor Latin sources even in cases where Greek sources would provide richer and more accurate information, although he sometimes writes in such a way as to imply that he has consulted the Greek. Thus, his digression on rhetoric is based on Cicero’s
Brutus
and on Aulus Gellius, but he quotes Demosthenes as if at first hand (30.4; Fornara 1992b: 425–6). Some scientific digressions can also be traced to Latin sources, such as the passage on earthquakes which also comes from Gellius (17.7; den Hengst 1992). An exception has been found in the digression on Neoplatonism, a subject particularly dear to Ammianus, where Barnes has demonstrated that Ammianus was familiar with the original Greek (1998: 76–7; 21.14.5).

For the period chronicled in the surviving part of the
Res Gestae
, Ammianus had few contemporary histories to draw upon. Although he mentions both Aurelius Victor (21.10.6) and Eutropius (29.1.36) as actors in his work, their abbreviated accounts could provide little useful information for his detailed narrative. Both may have provided information orally to Ammianus, however. It remains a debated question whether Ammianus drew upon the first edition of the
History
of Eunapius of Sardis for some information concerning Julian’s Persian invasion (Fornara 1991; Chalmers 1960; Matthews 1989: 163–79; Barnes 1976: 265–8; Elliott 1983: 222–41; Paschoud 1980b). Ridley (1973) compares the accounts of the Persian invasion in Zosimus, who is dependent on Eunapius, with that in Ammianus. The two accounts differ markedly, with each preserving details not found in the other. It remains possible, however, that in several places Ammianus used Eunapius to provide information which he himself was unable to witness (Matthews 1989: 169–75). Ammianus’ use of such lost works as the
Annales
of Nicomachus Flavianus or the historical work of Magnus of Carrhae is sometimes suggested, but impossible to prove.

Ammianus probably drew upon other quasi-historical documents, such as the account of the Battle of Strasbourg which Eunapius tells us was written by Julian himself (
fr
. 17), and perhaps even the memoirs written by Julian’s companion Oribasius which Eunapius used (
fr
. 15). Ammianus also demonstrates his familiarity
with some other works of Julian, such as the
Misopogon
, the unusual diatribe the emperor wrote against the people of Antioch (22.14.2).

A major documentary source for Ammianus appears to have been
relationes
, documents written by imperial functionaries for official purposes (Sabbah 1978: 115–217). Documents of this type which survive include the official correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan and, nearly contemporary with Ammianus, the letters of Symmachus to the emperors from when he served as prefect of the city of Rome. A few passing remarks suggest that these reports were accessible to the historian. After Julian’s success at Strasbourg, Ammianus complains that Constantius tried to take the credit for the victory, and claims that records exist in the public archives which preserve this unwarranted boasting (16.12.70). Describing the unfair prosecutions under Maximinus, Ammianus pauses to point out that there were so many evils that even the material from the public archives would not suffice to describe them all (28.1.15). After Ammianus reproduces the letter written by Julian to Constantius explaining his usurpation, he adds that a second, harsher private letter was also written, which he was unable to inspect. Sabbah suggests that the first letter was available in the public archives, the second only in the personal papers of the emperor (1978: 135–6). Ammianus is vague, and we cannot be certain what sort of records he could inspect or where and when he could inspect them, but given the existence and apparent accessibility of such archives, one might expect that Ammianus would have made regular use of this kind of information. Indeed, there are numerous passages in the
Res Gestae
which seem to have been derived from such records. Ammianus’ account of events in Africa during the reign of Valentinian, for example, makes several references to
relationes
which the historian has almost certainly seen himself (28.6; Warmington 1956). The level of detail in this account, including many obscure names and records of several embassies, suggests that Ammianus had the equivalent of the official dossier in front of him as he wrote. The account of the campaigns of Theodosius the Elder in Britain (27.8, 28.3) also bears the marks of official reports (Sabbah 1978: 172–3).

Much of Ammianus’ material which is not derived directly from his personal experience must have been drawn from interviews with those who had participated in the events recounted. The potential number of informants is very large: fellow
protectores
and other military companions, friends and associates of Ursicinus or Julian, officials whom he could have met at Antioch, at Rome, or else-where.
Ammianus’ lavish praise for Alypius, a victim of the persecution of Valens at Antioch, suggests that he knew him, and perhaps therefore used him as a source for his account of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, which Alypius supervised during the reign of Julian (23.1.2–3). His profuse praise for the eunuch Eutherius may also indicate an informant. Eutherius had served the imperial court since the reign of Constantine, had an “excellent memory,” and had retired to Rome (16.7). He undoubtedly could have provided Ammianus with vast amounts of information about events at court. Praetextatus was another official who may have been a source for the historian. After relaying several anecdotes concerning the acts of Julian at Constantinople, Ammianus tells us that Praetextatus was present for all these events (22.7.6). This Praetextatus, who served later as prefect of Rome, was appointed governor of Greece by Julian, and surely was the source for Ammianus’ information.

The
Res Gestae
is distinguished by its wild profusion of detail, and Ammianus was the author of the most colorful, readable, and elegant history of the fourth century. The
Res Gestae
is the product of an attempt not only to revive the grand style of history which had lain dormant in the Latin-speaking world for two centuries, but also to surpass previous histories with the addition of
exempla
drawn from all of ancient history and with the addition of digressions covering every facet of ancient knowledge. While modern readers may not find the relentless moralizing or the encyclopedic detail entirely to their liking, Ammianus’ colossal ambition cannot be denied. Ammianus’ diction and imagery provide a scathing portrait of a squalid and violent age. His evidence must be approached with caution, since his distaste for Christianity and partisanship for Julian have resulted in subtle but systematic distortion. Nevertheless, the
Res Gestae
remains the essential source for the reconstruction of the history of the later fourth century, and stands out among late antique histories as one of the enduring creations of antiquity.

Text and translation

Latin text edited in two volumes by W. Seyfarth (1978), Teubner. English translation of entire work in three volumes by J.C. Rolfe (1935), Loeb edition, and of most of the work by W. Hamilton (1986), Penguin.

2
AURELIUS VICTOR

Life

The life of Sextus Aurelius Victor has been comprehensively limned by H.W. Bird in several works (Bird 1975, 1984: 5–15, 1994: vii–xi. See also Nixon 1971; den Boer 1972: 19–20; Dufraigne 1975: ix–xv). Victor tells us that he, like the emperor Septimius Severus, was born in the country, the son of a poor and uneducated father (20.5). Several pieces of evidence suggest that he was from Africa. He treats the African emperor Septimius Severus favorably and at great length (20), he includes a digression on a relatively minor event in the African town of Cirta (40.28), and he refers to Carthage as
terrarum decus
(40.19), the “glory of the world” (Bird 1984: 128 n. 2). He was probably born around 320, since he held the position of consular governor of Pannonia Secunda in 361, and his humble background would have prevented him from rising more rapidly through the imperial service (Bird 1975: 49). Victor may have been in Rome from 337 to 348. It has been suggested that his remark on the unhappiness of the people of Rome in the year 337 over the burial of Constantine at Constantinople (41.17) might be evidence of his presence in the city, as might his comment on the lack of celebrations at Rome to mark the eleven hundredth anniversary of the city (28.2), although neither of the passages demands such an interpretation (Bird 1975: 50).

In 361, when the usurping emperor Julian prepared for the looming campaign against Constantius II, he met Victor at Sirmium in northern Italy, and he urged the historian to join him at Naissus in modern-day Serbia (Amm. 21.10.6). Sirmium was an important center of the imperial administration in the fourth century, serving as an imperial residence as well as the headquarters for both the governor of Pannonia Secunda and the
praetorian prefect for Illyricum (Bird 1984: 8–9). Victor must have been in imperial service for some time before 361, beginning perhaps as a
notarius
, or scribe, a common position for those of humble birth (Teitler 1985; Jones 1964: 572–5), or perhaps, given his detailed knowledge of somewhat trivial affairs around the empire, in the
scrinium epistolarum
, the department which drafted replies to petitions from local authorities (Bird 1984: 7–8). At Sirmium, Victor presumably served under the praetorian prefect Anatolius, whom he praises for his skill in managing the system of public post-roads (13.5–6; cf. Amm. 19.11.2–3). Victor’s frequent mention of taxation, particularly toward the end of the book and often with personal comments appended, leads Bird to suggest that he likely served as a financial officer under the prefect (Bird 1984: 9–10).

Ammianus tells us (21.10.6) that Julian made Victor governor of Pannonia Secunda, a promotion which included membership in the senate and the elevated rank of
clarissimus
, and also honored him with a bronze statue. Julian’s usurpation was risky, and he would certainly have been pleased to have gained the allegiance of any high-ranking civil servant, especially one whom Ammianus describes as “worthy of emulation because of his temperance.” But the special honor of the statue may suggest that it was Victor’s literary accomplishment that had caught Julian’s eye. Bird points out that Victor’s moralizing tone and excoriation of the tax collectors would have matched Julian’s predilections, although his complaints about the military might not have coincided as well with the views of the emperor (Bird 1984: 12). The length of Victor’s term in office is unknown, but he must have left before 28 May 365, when another governor is attested (Bird 1984: 12).

In addition to the governorship, Victor held the position of prefect of the city of Rome, under the emperor Theodosius I. His holding of the prefecture is clear both from Ammianus (21.10.6) and from the inscription on the base of a statue which Victor himself dedicated to the emperor (ILS 2945). This prestigious position was highly sought after and therefore generally held for a limited tenure. Victor seems to have served from the end of 388 until the summer of 389 (Bird 1984: 13–14). Victor’s whereabouts in the more than twenty-five years which intervene between the holding of these two offices is unknown. He likely held some other office, perhaps the proconsulship of Africa (Bird 1984: 12–13).

Work

The
Historiae Abbreviatae
, commonly known as the
De Caesaribus
, survives only in two late manuscripts, bound with two other short works which were falsely attributed to Victor. Of the three
breviaria
, or abridged histories, investigated here, Victor’s work was the first published, and in many ways it is the most ambitious and most original.

The history covers the period from the reign of Augustus to the reign of Constantius. Victor probably began writing in 358, to judge from his mention of the earthquake in Nicomedia (16.12) which occurred in August of that year. Near the end of the book, Victor says that Constantius had been ruling as Augustus for twenty-three years, which implies a date of publication after September 360 (42.20). The last section of the book is rather curious. Victor first lavishes the emperor Constantius with praise, but then ends the work with a pair of sentences which sharply criticize Constantius’ selection of advisors and subordinates. Bird has suggested that the early panegyrical remarks on the emperor marked the original ending to the work, and the more critical remarks were added after the outbreak of civil war between Constantius and Julian in the summer of 361 (Bird 1994: xi).