The Historians of Late Antiquity (9 page)

The major, perhaps sole, written source for Victor’s history was the work known as “Enmann’s Kaisergeschichte,” or the
KG
. The
KG
, which is no longer extant, was first inferred by Alexander Enmann on the basis of similarities between Victor, Eutropius, and the
Historia Augusta
(Enmann 1884; see also Cohn 1884; Barnes 1970, 1976, 1978: 90–7; Bird 1973, 1989; Burgess 1993). Its influence has since been detected in Festus, Jerome, the anonymous
Epitome de Caesaribus
, Ausonius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, among others. Victor and Eutropius share a similar selection of facts and several errors in their descriptions of the imperial period, particularly the third century. Because Victor’s treatment is more thorough than that of Eutropius, but precedes Eutropius in date of publication, the two must depend upon a common source, the
KG
.

Given the number of fourth- and fifth-century histories which depend upon it, the
KG
must have been one of the few Latin sources to cover the third and early fourth centuries. It seems to have covered the period from the beginning of the empire, around 30 BC, up to at least the Constantinian period, around 340, and maybe up to the reigns of Constantius and Julian in 357. The work cannot have been particularly long, or the similarities between Victor and Eutropius would not have been so obvious. The author demonstrates
a particular interest in usurpers. It has been suggested that the
KG
should be identified with the lost historical work of Eusebius of Nantes, which served as a source for a (lost) series of poems on usurpers written by Ausonius in the 380s (Burgess 1993).

Victor took the dry narrative of the
KG
and expanded it with the addition of moralizing commentary and stylistic flourishes. Neither addition has been well received by modern critics. Unlike the sober and flowing narrative of Eutropius, who follows the
KG
more closely in his imperial section, Victor frequently speaks in the first person in complex and sometimes puzzling asides. In diction and in syntax, Victor is greatly dependent upon the historian Sallust, who was one of the primary authors taught in the schools of late antiquity. Sallust’s pessimistic moralism fits well with Victor’s historical approach, but unfortunately Victor is no Sallust and his work is often affected and artificial (Bird 1984: 90–9). Victor was also familiar with the works of Tacitus, and the introduction to the
De Caesaribus
purposefully recalls the opening section of Tacitus’
Annales
. Tacitus clearly serves as a stylistic model only, however, and not as a historical model, since numerous errors which must derive from the
KG
would have certainly been corrected if Victor had a copy of Tacitus at hand while he wrote.

Victor pauses at certain points in his narrative to impose structure upon the history of the imperial period. Den Boer suggests that this periodization, which mirrors that of modern historians of the empire, is one of Victor’s original accomplishments (1972: 28–31). Victor marks important breaks after Domitian, after Alexander Severus, and at the accession of Diocletian. After the assassination of Domitian, Victor remarks that those born in Italy had held the throne up to that point, but afterwards emperors from elsewhere did so as well. “And to me at least … it is perfectly clear that the city of Rome grew great especially through the virtues of immigrants and imported skills” (11.13). Alexander Severus is praised for his intellect, his modesty, and his military and judicial excellence. At the end of his thirteen-year reign, Victor pauses to reflect. The empire had grown enormously between the reigns of Romulus and Septimius Severus, and had reached its peak under Alexander, he claims. Subsequent emperors, more interested in civil wars than wars of foreign conquest, sent the state into decline. “And without discrimination, men good and evil, noble and ignoble, even many barbarians seized power.” Fortune, which had previously been restrained by virtue, entrusted power to the least noble and the least educated (24.9–11). Victor casts a mixed judgement on the recovery
of the state at the accession of Diocletian. He was “a great man” with a list of accomplishments in military, civil, and religious affairs. He was additionally looked up to as if he were a father, and his character impelled him to abdicate voluntarily. He was not, however, of noble background, and Victor considers his lack of nobility to be the reason for his demand that he be addressed as “Lord” and for his wearing of silk and jewels. Victor adds that those of humble origin often become excessively proud with power, and that nobility is therefore to be preferred in a ruler (39.7).

A general picture of Victor’s vision of proper political and social behavior can be derived from his scattered reflections. His approval of nobility, remarked upon in connection with Diocletian, has parallels in other passages. Nerva’s choice of Trajan as a successor is judged as particularly good due to Trajan’s senatorial status (13.1). Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (15–16) were equally distinguished because of their noble birth. Victor’s criticism of Gallienus partially depends upon that emperor’s (purported) removal of senators from military roles (33.34, 37.6). Yet Victor is not a simple apologist for the nobility and the senatorial order. He portrays Vespasian, a man of humble origins, as one of the best of the emperors (9), and conversely asserts that the noble Galba was cruel and murderous (6). Victor saw the weakened state of the senatorial class not as the result of external pressures but as largely selfinflicted. Victor argues that after the assassination of Caligula, the republic might have been restored if only noble Romans were still performing military service (3.14). Again, after the death of Probus, Victor feels that the policy of Gallienus might have been reversed, and senators returned to leadership in the army, if only the nobles cared for something beyond their leisure and their wealth (37.5).

The roles of the army and of the imperial administration are recurring concerns in Victor’s work. From the earliest period the army is depicted as barbarized, corrupt, and prone to civil war (Bird 1984: 41–52). The military quartermasters known as
actuarii
receive special criticism in a digression. They are “worthless, venal, cunning, quarrelsome, greedy” (33.13; Bird 1984: 47–8). Victor, a bureaucrat himself, has similar criticism for other imperial bureaucrats. Emperors who reduced taxation and cracked down on corruption receive praise, such as Vespasian, who restored cities ravaged by the civil wars without burdening farmers (9.9) and Aurelian, whose assassination is blamed on his zeal for good government (35.8). He praises Diocletian for his abolition of the
frumentarii
, or grain inspectors, who were notorious “secret police”
whom Victor likens to the
agentes in rebus
who performed similar functions in his own day (39.44). To Victor, of course, bureaucratic corruption does not arise from structural causes but from personal ones, as his comments on the reforming prefect Anatolius make clear: “there is nothing good or bad in the state that cannot be changed to the opposite by the character of its rulers” (13.7).

Victor was a pagan, and he favors emperors who worshipped the traditional gods. He praises Augustus for being extremely devoted to religion (1.5), and he thinks that an example of Diocletian’s excellence is his restoration of ancient cult (39.45). Hadrian was as pious as Numa Pompilius or an ancient Athenian in his attention to religious cult and his celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries (14.2). Prodigies also play a role in Victor’s history, as when the discovery of female genitals on a pig’s abdomen during the reign of Philip predicted the decadence of generations to come (28.4–5). Victor’s support of traditional Roman religion seems to derive more from his support of tradition than his support of religion. His traditionalism is clear also in his championing of the classical education which allowed him to progress so far in his own career. He frequently compares emperors to figures from Roman antiquity: Hadrian resembled Numa, Pertinax, the Curii (18.1), and Constantius, Pompey (42.22). He judges emperors based on their cultural attainments and digresses upon this criterion after the death of Vitellius. All the early emperors, he states, had been men of great eloquence and learning, and both character and education should be requirements for holding supreme power (8.8). A similar focus on these two criteria can be found in his reflections on the emperor Didius Julianus, whom he (following the
KG
: Bird 1989) confuses with the legal expert Salvius Julianus. While this man was well educated in the law, his lack of character made him unable to restrain his passions (19). Diocletian and the other tetrarchs were likewise flawed only because of their lack of culture (39.26; Bird 1984: 71–80).

Victor’s ambitious attempt to expand the
KG
with his stylized reflections appears to have succeeded in the eyes of one important reader, the emperor Julian, but has found few other champions up to the present day. The difficult style of Victor may have led readers to the easier and far more popular work of Eutropius. Victor’s commentary is often trite and flaccid, and it lacks coherence. Victor does serve as an ideal example of a particular type of Roman in the mid-fourth century, one who has risen from rather humble origins to power in the imperial administration, and perhaps for that reason
holds conventional and nostalgic views on government and morality. The
De Caesaribus
thus remains as a valuable witness to a view of history and a style of historiography produced by participants in the new class of imperial functionaries.

Text and translation

Latin text edited by F. Pichlmayr (1966), Teubner. English translation by H.W. Bird (1994), Translated Texts for Historians.

3
EUTROPIUS

Life

Eutropius reveals little about his life in his
Breviarium
, but there are numerous references to Eutropius outside of his work. Unfortunately, the name was popular in antiquity, and a biographer must decide which figures who bear it are the historian Eutropius, and which are not (den Boer 1972: 114–15; Capozza 1973: 84–95; Bonamente 1986: 19–45; Bird 1988a: 51–60, 1992: vii–xviii; Hellegouarc’h 1999: vii–xi).

Eutropius’ title is given as
magister memoriae
in the dedication of his work, written in 369 to the emperor Valens. Eutropius’ statement that he accompanied that emperor in his invasion of Persia in 363 suggests that he had also been a member of the imperial administration under Julian (10.16). The
Suda
describes Eutropius as “an Italian sophist who wrote a historical epitome in Latin and other things.” Another source (pseudo-Codinus, in
scr. orig. const
. 1.58, p. 144) suggests that he was “epistolographos,” a secretary in charge of correspondence, under the emperor “Constantine,” presumably an error for “Constantius.” This would imply that Eutropius was (to use the Latin terminology)
magister epistularum
before 361. The fourteenth-century historian Nicephorus Gregoras adds that Eutropius was a contemporary of Valens and Julian, and a pagan.

Eutropius’ birthplace is unknown. Although he is referred to in the
Suda
as Italian, and is the author of a work in Latin, he served as
magister memoriae
in the east and has a Greek name. He certainly demonstrates a familiarity with the Greek language (Bird 1988a: 51–2) and perhaps owned property in Asia (Symm.
ep
. 3.53). Most scholars deny that the historian Eutropius is also the Eutropius mentioned by Marcellus Empiricus as a medical writer and native of Bordeaux (
de medicamentis, pref
.), although the identity remains
possible. Bonamente (1986: 22–3) points out that there is no evidence of special medical interest or knowledge in the accounts of emperors’ deaths in the
Breviarium
.

The following reconstruction of Eutropius’ life requires the identification of the historian with the governmental official who is found, without mention of any historical work, in the legal codes and in the letters of Symmachus and Libanius. The identification is perhaps strengthened by our knowledge that the historian served in important positions under both Julian and Valens, and thus possessed the talents and survival skills which would have allowed him to hold other offices and to correspond with important figures of the late fourth century. The reconstruction must still, however, be understood as tentative.

To reach the position of
magister epistularum
before 361 would normally require at least a decade of work as a civil servant. This would place Eutropius’ birth, whether in the east or the west, around 320. Scribal duties included the movement of judicial paperwork from the emperor out to the provincial governors and the reception of similar paperwork from the provinces for the emperor. Scribes would also have handled paperwork which concerned army service and appointments and promotions in the civil service (Jones 1964: 575–6). After the death of Constantius, Eutropius continued to serve under Julian. It has been speculated that he may even have been among those higher-ranking officials who met after Julian’s death to determine a successor (Bird 1988a: 54). Eutropius’ promotion to
magister memoriae
under Valens between 367 and 369 suggests that he avoided supporting the usurper Procopius in 365. The dedication of the
Breviarium
can be understood as an offering of thanks to the emperor for his appointment, and the writing of the
Breviarium
may even be understood as one of Eutropius’ duties in his new position.

Ammianus and Libanius refer to a certain Eutropius as proconsul of Asia in 371. If this is the historian Eutropius, his career path would mirror that of the historian Festus, who succeeded Eutropius as
magister memoriae
, wrote his own
Breviarium
in that position, and then became proconsul of Asia. Festus’ succession in Asia appears to have been the result of intrigue. When a plot against Valens had been uncovered, Ammianius tells us that Festus attempted to falsely involve Eutropius in the plot. Fortunately, the philosopher Pasiphilus refused under torture to implicate Eutropius, and the proconsul escaped death (29.1.36).