 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Res Gestae INTRO
Res Gestae: Ammianus Marcellinus (Introduction)
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Res Gestae INTRO
Res Gestae: Ammianus Marcellinus (Introduction)
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
| ||||||
Introduction - John C. Rolfe (Loeb Edition) |
|---|
1. Our knowledge of Ammianus
is derived almost wholly from his own
writings. He was born about A.D. 330
in Syrian Antioch, of a good Greek
family, [1] and probably received his
early education in his native city.
Footnote: Cf. ingenuus, xix.8, 6 and xxxi.
16, 9.
2. Antioch at that time
was one of the principal cities of the
Roman Empire, orientis apex pulcher, [2]
and Ammianus took just pride in its
material prosperity. [3] He was not,
however, equally proud of his fellow
citizens, a mixed population of Greeks,
Jews, Syrians, and other peoples, [4] united
only in their devotion to luxury and the
pursuit of pleasure.
Footnote: 2. xii. 9, 14
3. xiv. 8, 8; xiv. 1,9
4. Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. v. 456
3. The historian makes no reply
to the criticisms passed upon them by
Julian, [5] except to characterize them
as exaggerated. But Greek still maintained
its intellectual leadership, and the
opportunities for education were good. [6]
The city produced other men of distinction,
notably Libanius and Joannes Chrysostom.
Footnote: 5. xxii. 14, 2-3; xxiii. 2, 3-4
6. Mommsen, l.c.
4. Ammianus spent his active life
during the reigns of Constantius II, Julian,
Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, in the second
half of the fourth century, when, in spite of
some memorable victories, the prestige of the
empire was on the wane. The turning-point in
its history was the disastrous defeat of Valens
by the Goths at Adrianople in 378, in which the
emperor himself met his death, and at that date
our direct knowledge of Ammianus comes to an end.
5. At an early age the future
historian was made one of the protectores
domestici, [1] a select corps of the imperial
bodyguard, which is further testimony to his
good birth. In 353 he was attached by the
emperor's order to the staff of Ursicinus,
commander-in-chief of the army in the East,
and joined him at Nisibis in Mesopotamia. [2]
Footnote: 1. Their full title, protector
lateris divini Augusti nostri,
appears in an inscription in
Ephem. Epigr.,v.121 (no.4).
2. iv. 9,1.
6. He accompanied his general
to Antioch, where Ursicinus was entrusted by
Gallus Caesar with the conduct of trials for
high treason. Ammianus' early life is closely
connected with the career of Ursicinus, to whom
he was strongly attached, and with whom he shared
prosperity and adversity. Incidentally, he
immortalized his chief, of whom little or nothing
is known from other sources.
7. In 354 Ursicinus, who had become
an object of suspicion to the emperor, was
summoned to the court at Mediolanum, [3]
accompanied by Ammianus. There palace intrigues
caused Ursicinus to be still more distrusted by
Constantius, who accordingly assigned to him the
difficult task of suppressing the revolt of
Silvanus, who had assumed the purple at Cologne; [4]
but although the mission was successful, Ursicinus
not only received no commendation from the emperor,
but was even accused of embezzling some of the Gallic
treasure. [1]
Footnote: 3. xiv. 11, 4.f.
4. xv. 5, 21 ff.
1. xv. 5, 36.
8. Ammianus remained with his chief
in Gaul until the summer of 357, and hence was
in close touch with the exploits of Julian, the
newly appointed Caesar. Ursicinus was next summoned
by the suspicious emperor to Sirmium in Pannonia,
and from there, because of the danger which
threatened from the Persians, was once more sent to
the East, [2] still accompanied by Ammianus. But
when the Persians began hostilities in 359, Ursicinus
was again recalled to court, but on reaching the
river Hebrus received orders to return to Mesopotamia,
which had already been invaded by the enemy. [3]
Footnote: 2. xvi. 10, 21.
3. xviii. 6, 5.
9. Since Sabinianus, who in the
meantime had been appointed commander-in-chief
of the army in the East, took no action,
Ursicinus with his staff went to Nisibis, to
prevent that city from being surprised and
taken by the Persians. [4} From there he set
out for Amida, to keep the roads from being
occupied, but immediately after leaving Nisbis
sent Ammianus back to the city on an errand. [5]
Footnote: 4. xvii.6,8
5. xvii.6,10 ff.
10. In order to escape the hardships
of the siege with which Nisibis was threatened,
Ammianus after hastily carrying out his orders
tried to rejoin his general. He was all but
captured on the way, but finally came up with
Ursicinus and his following at Amudis, warned
them of the approach of the Persians, and
accompanied them in their retreat. [6]
Footnote: 6. xviii. 6, 12 f.
11. By a clever stratagem they misled
their pursuers into taking the wrong direction,
and finally reached Amida. [1] There by a
cipher message from Procopius, who had gone
to the Persians as an envoy and was detained
by them, they were informed that the enemy's
main body had crossed the Tigris, and Ursicinus
sent Ammianus, accompanied by a faithful
centurion, to the satrap of Corduene, who
was secretly a friend of the Romans, in quest
of more definite information. [2]
Footnote: 1. xviii. 6, 14ff
2. xviii. 6, 20 f.
12. From a rocky height Ammianus
saw the advance of Sapor's army, witnessed
their crossing of the river Anzaba, and
reported what he had learned to Ursicinus.
He, on hearing of the enemy's advance,
resolved to go to Samosata and destroy
the bridges by which the Persians were
planning to cross the Euphrates; [3]
but through the negligence of the Roman
cavalry outposts his forces were attacked
and scattered. [4]
Footnote: 3. xviii. 8, 1
4. xviii. 9, 2 ff.
13. Ammianus after several narrow
escapes was forced to return to Amida, [5]
where he took part in the stubborn resistance
of the city to the Persian attack. [6] When
Amida finally fell, he succeeded in making his
escape under cover of night and after many
adventures met Ursicinus at Melitene in
Armenia Minor and with him returned safely to
Antioch. [7]
Footnote: 5. xviii. 8, 11
6. xix. 1-7.
7. xix. 8, 5-12
14. After the diposition of Ursicinus
in 360 we hear little definite about the
historian's career. He took some part in
Julian's Persian campaign of 363, but in
what capacity is uncertain; he apparently
joined Julian with the arrival of the
Euphrates fleet, since it is after that
point in his narrative that we find him
using the first person. [8].
Footnote: 8. xxiii. 5, 7, profecti ..venimus
15. After the return of the Roman
army to Antioch on the death of Julian and
the accession of Jovian he seems to have
remained in his native city for a considerable
time, since his account of the trials conduted
there for high treason in 371 is clearly that
of an eye-witnesss. [1]
Footnote: xxix. 1, 24 ff.
16. He probably made his home
in Antioch until the defeat and death of Valens,
but his residence in the city was interrupted
by journeys to Egypt [2] and to Greece after
the great earthquake of July 6, 366. [3] It was
doubtless in Antioch that he did some of his
extensive reading in preparation for the writing
of his History. His military career occupied a
comparatively brief period of his life, [4] the
greater part of which was devoted to study and writing.
Footnote: 2. xvii. 4, 6; xxii. 15, 1
3. xxvi. 10, 10
4. Apparently not more than fifteen years;
cf. Klein, pp. 9 f.
17. After the events of 378 Ammianus
went to Rome by way of Thrace, where he seems to
have inspected the battlefields, [5] choosing the
land route rather than the more convenient trip by
sea in order to get material for his History. At
any rate, he seems to have taken up his residence
in the Eternal City before 383, and his bitter
language about the expulsion of foreigners at that
time because of threatened famine [6] has led
some to infer that he was one of those who were
forced to leave.
Footnote: 5. xxxi. 7, 16.
6. xiv. 6, 19
18. The words of Symmachus, [7]
defectum timemus annonae, pulsis omnibus quos
exserto et pleno ubere Roma susceperat, imply
that the expulsion was general and Ammianus'
unfavourable opinion of the Anicii, who at
that time were a powerful family at Rome, may
have some bearing on the question. [1]
Footnote: 7. Epist. ii. 7.
1. xvi. 8, 13
19. Others believe that his rank
as a former protector domesticus, which
carried with it the title of perfectissimus, [2]
would have spared him such an indignity. If he
was driven out, it seems probable that the hope
of Symmachus, [3[ quam primum revocet urbs
nostra quos invita dimisit, was fulfilled, for
Ammianus wrote his History in Rome, and acquired
a certain position in the city, numbering among
his friends Symmachus and Praetextatus, [4]
although apparently some circles of distinguished
Romans did not admit an honestus advena to intimacy.[5]
Footnote: 2. pp. xxviii and xliii
3. l.c.
4. xxi. 12, 24; xxvii. 3, 3; 9,8
5. xiv. 6, 12
20. That Ammianus was not a Christian
is evident from many of his utterances, for he
speaks of Christian rites, ceremonies, and
officials in a way which shows a lack of
familiarity with them. [6] At the same time he
was liberal in his attitude towards the Church;
he twice censures the closing of the schools of
rhetoric to Christian teachers, [7] praises the
simple life of the provincial bishops, [8] and
in general favours absolute religious toleration.[9]
Footnote: 6. xiv. 9,7; xv. 5, 31;
xxvii. 3, 3 and 9, 8.
7. xxii. 10, 7; xv. 4,20
8. xxvii. 3, 15
9. xxx. 9, 5.
21. He often refers to a supreme power
(numen), with such adjectives as magnum, superum,
caeleste, divinum, sempiternum, and others of the
same kind, and he sometimes speaks of this power
as deus, [10] but in much the same sense as the
word is used by Horace [1] and other pagan writers.
He indicates a belief in astrology, divination,
dreams, and other superstitions of his time, and
he speaks of Fortuna and fatum as controlling
powers, but shows that they may be overcome or
influenced by man's courage and resourcefulness. [2]
Footnote: 10. xvii. 13, 33; xxiv. 1, 1; etc
1. Odes, i. 3, 21; i. 34, 13.
2. xviii. 1, 1 ff.; xxiv. 3, 6; 4, 1 ff.;
xxxi. 5, 14; cf xxiii 5, 5
22. The view of Dill, [3]
that "his real creed was probably a vague
monotheism with a more decided tendency to fatalism"
is rightly questioned by Ensslin, [4] who says that
Ammianus was a determinist, but not a passive
fatalist, one who in inactive quiet awaited what
might come.
Footnote: 3. p. 101
4. p. 81
23. When Ammianus died
is quite uncertain. The latest allusion in his
History is to the consulship of Neotherius in
391. [5] In the same year the Serapeum at
Alexandria was burned, but the historian refers
to the building as if it were still standing; [6]
other indications are his references to Probus
and Theodosius. [7] He was certainly living in
391, and probably in 393, but how much longer
his life was prolonged cannot be determined.
Footnote: 5. xxvi. 5, 14
6. xxii. 16, 12
7. xxvii. 11, 1 xxix 6, 15
1. Ammianus set himself the vast
project of succeeding Tacitus as an historian,
and might have entitled his work Res Gestae
a fine Corneli Taciti; but the title which
has come down to us is simply Res Gestae. [8]
Footnote: 8. Priscian, Gr. Lat. ii. 487, 1 Keil.
2. It covered the period between
the accession of Nerva in A.D. 96 to the death
of Valenus in 378, and was divided into
thirty-one books, of which the first thirteen
are lost. Since the surviving eighteen books
deal with a period of twenty-five years, from
353, the seventeenth year of the reign of
Constantius II, to the battle of Adrianople,
the lost books must have given a brief account
of the two hundred and fifty-seven years to
which they were devoted.
3. In 391 Libanius implies [1]
that Ammianus published, and probably recited
parts of his work at Rome with great success.
Seeck thinks that the part which was published
in 390 or 391 ended with the twenty-fifth book;
that this was his original plan, and that he
was encouraged to go farther by the favourable
reception given to a public recitation; that
he intended to continue beyond the death of
Valens is indicated by his promise to tell of
the fate that overtook Maximinus and
Simplicius, [2] but hs failure to do so may
possibly have been an oversight. That the
work was published in instalments seems to be
indicated by the prefatory remarks at the
beginning of Books xv. and xxvi.
Footnote: 1. Epist. 983, "I hear that Rome
herself has crowned yourwork, and
that her verdict is, that you have
surpassed some and equalled others."
2. xxviii. 1, 57
4. There can be no doubt
that Ammianus took his task seriously and made
careful preparation for it, reading extensively
in Latin literature and making copious notes of
what he read. He naturally gave special attention
to Tacitus, in particular to the Histories, and
imitated him so far as he could. He also read
Livy and sometimes attempts to use his periodic
structure, occasionally with success. [1]
Footnote: 1. At the beginning of Books xiv. and
xxiv.; see Mackail, Class Studies
p. 163
5. He also was acquainted with Sallust,
although the traces of the Amiternian's diction
may be due to the latter's influence on Tacitus.
It is of no significance that he nowhere mentions
either Tacitus or Livy in his work. To perfect
his Latinity he read Cicero, whom he quotes more
than thirty times; partly for the same reason and
partly for information about Gaul, he read Caesar.
6. In addition to these conspicuous examples
he shows acquaintance, not only with such prose
writers and Gellius, Valerius Maximus, the elder
Pliny, Florus, and others, but also with the poets;
for example, Plautus and Terence, Virgil, Horace,
Ovid, and Lucan. Of later writers he used the
Annales of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, and the
work of an anonymous Greek writer who followed
the Thucydidean chronology by summers and winters;
Ammianus shows in this respect a mixture of the
annalistic and the Thucydidean method.
7. He depended also for historical
information on the Diary of magnus of Carrhae; [2]
and in his excursuses he made use of Seneca,
Naturales Quaestiones Solinus, Ptolemy, and
others, as well as of the official lists of the
provinces (Notitiae).
Footnote: 2. On this complicated question see
especially Klein, who also
reconstructs fragments of Magnus
of Carrhae.
8. In addition to his literary
sources Ammianus relied for a considerable part
of his work on his own observation and personal
experiences, and it is these that give his work
its greatest charm. It is evident that he wished
to write a history, rather than follow the
biographical treatment which had been popular
since the time of Suetonius; he speaks with scorn
of those who, detestantes ut venena doctrinas, read
only Juvenal and Marius Maximus. [1] Yet he could
not wholly escape the influence of the followers
of Suetonius; he has a biographical sketch of each
of the emperors and Caesars included in his History,
besides an encomium of the eunuch Eutherius, [2]
but he did not follow any fixed form of biographical
composition. [3] He also disapproved of the
epitomes which were fashionable in his day, yet
he did not hesitate to draw on Eutropius,
Rufius Festus, and Aurelius Victor.
Footnote: 1. xxviii. 4, 14. Mentioned as authors
of gossipy works, contrasted with those
of solid learning. Marius Maximus
(circa A.D. 165-230) wrote Lives of the
Caesars, in continuation of Suetonius,
from Nerva to Elegabalus. His work is
lost, but was used by the Scritores
Historiae Augustae
2. xvi. 7, 4 ff.; his account of Julian
also has characteristics of the
encomium; see M.J> Kennedy, the literary
Work of Ammianus, Univ. of Chicago
diss., 1912.
3. See Leo, Die griechisch-romische
Bioraphie, pp. 236 ff.
9. Ammianus aimed at strict
truthfulness [4] without suppressing anything that
was well authenticated or indulging in deliberate
invention, [5] faults which he censures in his
criticism of the official reports of the emperor
Constantius; [6] and he avoided exaggeration. [7]
Footnote: 4. See e.g xv. i. 1; xvi. 1, 3;
xxxi. 5, 10
5. xxix. 1, 15
6. xvi. 12, 69
7. xviii. 6, 23
10. Although he recognised
the danger of speaking freely and frankly of
recent or contemporary personages and events, [1]
he does not profess to write sine ira et studio, [2]
but gives free expression to praise or blame; he
did not hesitate to censure where censure was due,
and he more than once finds faults even in his
hero Julian. [3]
Footnote: 1. xxvi. 1, 1; xxvii. 9, 4
2. Tac., Ann. i. 1.
3. xxii. 9, 12; 10, 7; etc
11. In the historical part
of his work he may fairly he said to have attained
his ideal of truthfulness; that he was less
successful in his numerous excursuses was due in
part to lack of knowledge, and to some extent
to an apparent desire to conceal the extent of
his dependence upon literary sources. If he
had heeded Livys warning about digressions, [4]
his work would have been more uniformly successful.
They could be omitted without interfering with
the course of the narrative.
Footnote: 4. ix. 17, 1.
12. Ammianus wrote for Roman readers,
and in particular for the leading literary circle
of the Eternal City, of which Symmachus was a
prominent member. It was for that reason, and
not merely because he was continuing the narrative
of Tacitus, that he wrote in Latin and not in his
native language. His readers and hearers were
of course utriusque linguae periti, but they knew
their Roman literature and could appreciate and
applaud his echoes of Livy, Cicero, and other
greater writers of the past. In modern times
Gibbon found him sincere, modest, loyal to his
superior officers, copious and authentic, an
accurate and faithful guide. [5]
Footnote: 5. Passim; see Mackail, Class. Stud.,
p. 164
13. Mackail calls him an officer
and a gentleman, worthy of a place among the great
Roman historians. [1] Seeck [2] praises his ability
in depticting character, all but unexampled in
ancient literature, and ranking him with the first
historians of all time. In ancient times his work
was little know; it is cited only once, by
Priscian, [3] who seems to have had no more of the
History before him than we have today.
Cassiodorus is said to have written out the entire
work to have imitated its author's style. [4]
Footnote: 1. l.c.
2. Paully-Wissowa, Real-Enc. i., p. 1852
3. Gr. Lat. 2, 487, l f.,
Keil, ut "indulsi indulsum" bel
(PETER SEE TEXT)
4. Teuffel, Romische Literatur,
6th ed., p. 299
1. That Ammianus gave great
attention to the style of his work is evident.
Klein's idea of the manner in which he composed
the History seems plausible, [5] namely, that
he wrote his first draft in his natural
Latin, using also from memory expressions
which he had met in his wide reading.
Footnote: 5. l.c., p. 9
2. When he wished to publish,
or recite, a part of it, he worked it over
with particular attentin to stylistic effect,
drawing heavily on the results of his reading
from the notes which he had collected. Being
a soldier, he knew Latin as the official language
of the army; he could speak, read, and write it
but he did no acquire a thorough mastery of it,
the Sprachgefuhl of a native Roman. As Pliny
aptly says, [6] invenire praeclare, enuntiare
magnifice, interdum etiam barbari solent;
disponere apte, figurare varie nisi eruditis
negatum est.
Footnote: 6. Epist. iii. 13, 3.
3. It was in particular Ammianus'
attempt to decorate his style with ornaments
of all kinds, drawn from every source, combined
with his imitation of Tacitus, that produced his
very extraordinary Latin; in the words of
Kroll, [1] sein taciteisches Latein ist
schwer zu verstchen, unleidlich geziert und
uberladen, eine Qual seiner Leser," a verdict
in which the present translator would take
exception only to the last clause. Some of
his peculiarities are an unnatural word-order,
attempted picturesque and poetic forms of
expression, and a general striving for effect,
due in part to the general taste of the time
in which he lived, and in part to the
custom of public recitations.
Footnote: 1. Teuffel, Romische Literatur,
6th e.d, p. 297, repeated from
earlier editions.
4. There are colloquial features:
the use of the comparative for the positive,
of quod with the indicative for the accusative
and the infinitive, of the present for the
future, the imperfect for the pluperfect, and
the pluperfect for a preterit; also improper
uses of the subjunctive, and a disregard of
the sequence of tenses. Naturally, characteristics
of his native language appear; some of the
peculiarities already noted may be traced to
that source, as well as his extensive use of
participial constructions. [2]
Footnote. 2. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa,
pp. 648 ff., who sees also influence
of the Asianic oratorical style
5. In spite of all this,
when we consider the high value which the Romans,
even of late times, set upon form and rhetoric,
it does not seem possible that the success of
his public recitations was due solely to the
content of his History, or that his style could
have been as offensive to his hearers as it is
to the modern reader of his work.
6. Ammianus' attention to form
is further shown by the rhythmical structure of
his prose; for it has long since been observed
that he regularly ended his clauses with metrical
clausulae. These have recently been made the
object of special study by Clark [1] and
Harmon, [2] with the result that they have been
found to be based upon accent and not upon quantity.
Footnote: 1. Ed. of Ammianus, vol. i.,
Berlin, 1910, pp. vi. ff.
2. Trans. Conn. Acad. of Arts and
Science, 16 (1910), pp. 117 ff
7. The system which he uses
was a simple one: between the last two accents
of a phrase two or four unaccented syllables
are placed, never one or three. Quantity
makes no difference and final vowels are never
elided; Greek words as a rule retain the Greek
accent; i and u may be read either as vowels
or as consonants. Of course it is possible that
in some instances the arrangement of syllables
may be accidental, but the number of clausulae
is too great to be other than designed.
8. In spite of the simplicity
of his system Ammianus has considerable variety
in his endings, as is illustrated by Clark [3]
in the following scheme:
Cursus planus: expeditionis eventus, xiv.1,1.
illuc transiturus, xiv.6,16;
Aegyptum petens, xxii.5,5, [4]
regna Persidis, xxiii.5,16 [4]
Cursus tardus: partium animis, xiv. 1,1.
instrumenta non levia, xiv.6,18.
Cursus velox: fregerat el laborum xiv.1,1.
relaturi quae audiret, xiv.1,6 [1]
obiecti sunt praeter morem, xiv.2,1.
Aegypto trucidatur, xiv.11, 32 [4]
graminea prope rivum, xxiv.8,7.
nomine allocutus est, xv.6,3.
incensas et habitacula, xviii.2,19
Footnote: 3. l.c., p. vii. For the value of the
clausulae for the interpretation of
the text, see Preface
1. The transformation of the
Roman Empire into an oriental monarch began
in A.D. 284, when Diocletian became sole ruler.
He abandoned all republican traditions and
undertook the reorganisation of the civil and
military administration. The process was
continued by Constantine and his succesors,
until the government became a bureaucracy in
the hands of a limited number of high officials.
The powers and rank of these ministers varied
during this period, and involve a number of
difficult problems. For the sake of reasonable
brevity the offices are described so far as
possible as they were in the time of Ammianus.
2. Diocletian, realising that
the rule of the vast empire was too great a
task for one man, took Maximianus as his
colleague, sharing with him also the title
Augustus. The authority of the two Augusti
was equal and all the laws and edicts were
issued in their common name, but practically the
empire was divided into two parts, Diocletian
ruling the East, with his headquarters at
Nicomedia, Maximian the West, at Mediolanum.
3. The Augusti were not accountable
to any legislative body or magistrate. They
wore the imperial diadem and a robe trimmed
with jewels, and an elaborate ceremonial was
required of all who approached them. Everything
connected with the emperor was called sacer,
sanctissimus, or divinus.
4. Nine years after Diocletian
became emperor he and Maximian chose two
Caesars, who stood next to themselves in rank
and dignity; they were, however, dependents of
the Augusti, having no authority except what
was conferred upon them by their superiors,
and receiving a fixed salary. The
administration was divided into four parts;
Diocletian took Thrace, Egypt, Syria, and
Asia Minor, and assigned to Galerius, the
Caesar whom he had nominated, the Danubian
provinces, Illyricum, Greece, and Crete;
Maximian governed Italy and Africa; Constantius,
his Caesar, ruled Gaul, Spain, and after 296
Britain. This division was only for
administrative purposes; the empire in reality
consisted of two parts, of which the two
Augusti were the supreme rulers.
5. The main purpose of the institution of the
Caesars was to provide for the succession, and
it was a part of the plan that when one of the
Augusti died or resigned, his place should be
filled by one of the Caesars, who at the time of
their appointment were adopted by the Augusti.
When Diocletian and Maximian retired in 306, a
series of wars followed among the Caesars and
the Augusti. In that year Constantine I, later
surnamed the Great, assumed the title of Caesar,
which was acknowledged by Galerius; in 308 he
was declared Augustus along with Galerius, and
Severus and Maximinus were chosen as Caesars.
6. Maxentius, son of Maximian,
was proclaimed Augustus by the troops at Rome,
but was not acknowledged by the other Augusti
and Caesars; he defeated and slew Severus in
Italy, whereupon Licinius was made an Augustus
by Galerius.
7. In 308 there were four Augusti:
Constantine, Galerius, Licinius, and Maximinus
in addition to the usurper Maxentius. A series
of wars followed. Maximinus was defeated by
Licinius and died shortly afterward; Galerius
had died in 311. Constantine defeated Maxentius
at Saxa Rubra in 312 and reigned for a time
with Licinius.
8. After two wars, with a
brief interval of peace, Constantine defeated
Licinius at Adrianople and Chalcedon in 324.
In that year he became sole Augustus, with his
sons Crispus, Constantine and Constantius as
Caesars; in 335 Delmatius and Hannibalianus
were added to the list of Caesars, making
five in all.
9. Constantine ruled alone
until his death in 337, when his sons
Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans
were declared Augusti; Crispus had in the
meantime falled victim to the jealousy of
Fausta, his stepmother, and Delmatius and
Hannibalianus were now put to death.
10. In 340 war broke out
between Constantinus II and Constans; the
former was defeated and slain, and Constans
became sole emperor in the West. In 350
Constans died, and three usurpers appeared:
Magnentius in Gaul, Nepontianus at Rome, and
Vetranio at Mursa in Pannonia. The last two
were quickly disposed of; Nepontianus was
killed in less than a month after his
elevation to the supreme rank, and Vetranio
was defeated and deposed by Constantius
after then months.
11. The contest with Magnentius,
who had appointed his brother Decentius to
the position of Caesar, lasted for three
years; Constantius defeated the usurper at
Mursa and drove him into Gaul, where
Magnentius was again defeated and took his
own life. Constantius ruled as sole Augustus
until 361; in 351, while the war with
Magnentius was still going on, he had conferred
the rank of Caesar on his cousin Gallus and
sent him to the East, to carry on war against
the Persians. With Gallus' arrogance and
cruelty to Antioch the extant part of
Ammianus' narrative begins.
12. After Constantius became
sole emperor his authority was supreme, but
the four-fold administrative division of the
empire into the East, Illyricum, Italy, and
Gaul was continued; [1] the divisions were
called prefectures, and were governed by
praetorian prefects, resident at Constantinople,
which Constantine had made the capital of the
empire in 330; at Sirmium; at Mediolanum (Milan);
and at Treveri (Treves) or at Eboracum (York).
The prefectures were divided into dioceses,
and the dioceses into provinces; the provinces
were under the charge of a governor called
consularis, corrector, or praeses. [2] There
were thirteen dioceses and 101 provinces
compared with 45 in Hadrian's time), a number
which was later increased to about 120.
13. The purpose of these
divisions and of the consequent increase
in the number of these and of other
officials [1] was to prevent any officer
from becoming powerful enough to start a
revolution and interfere with the regular
succession to imperial power. The same
end was sought by a sharp division
between civil and military authority, [2]
and by the fact that the competence of the
various official groups was not always
clearly defined, which led to jealousy and
rivalry among the officers.
14. Also the subordinates
of the higher officials were appointed by
the emperor, and the conduct of their
superiors was besides watched and reported
to the Augustus by a corpos of secret
service men, the agents in rebus. [3] The
effect of all this, and the elaborate
ceremonial required in order to approach
the emperor, removed him from contact with
his subjects and enhanced his dignity and
majesty; at the same time he was unable to
hear the complaints of the people, since
the officials, who often enriched themselves
at the expense of the provincials, concealed
one another's misdemeanors.
15. The emperors gathered
about them a body of advisers, which entirely
superseded the senate in importance. [5] It
was first called the auditorium or consilium
principis, but Constantine gave it the title
of consistorium principis or sacrum
consistorium; [6] consistorium does not
appear in inscriptions until 353, and Ammianus
seems to be the first writer to use the word.
16. There is a difference
of opinion as to its membership. It was
composed mainly of the heads of the various
departments of administration, certainly of
those most intimately connected with the
imperial household (dignitates palatinae):
the Minister of Finance (comes sacrarum lagitionum), [1]
the Minister of the Privy Purse (comes rerum
privatarum), the Quaestor (quaestor sacri palatii),
who was the emperor's legal adviser, and the
Master of the Offices.
17. The prefect, whose seat
of government was at the capital
(praefectus praetorio praesens), was probably
a member, as well as the Grand Chamberlain
(praepositus sacri cubiculi), and some
officials of the grade spectabilis. The
members of the council were called comites
consistoriani or simply consistoriani, [2].
It was presided over by the emperor, or in his
absence by the Quaestor, who was obliged to
give is decisions in writing; the proceedings
were taken down by secretaries and stenographers
(notarii). [3]
18. Since the consulship
was often held by the emperor, that office
was one of high honour and the consul in
office ranked next to the emperor himself,
above the patricii and the prefects. The consuls
however, had little actual power. On the day
of their accesion to office they held a
procession, which the emperor himself attended,
exhibited games, and freed slaves. The title
consularis, which was the highest title held
by the governors of the provinces, [1]
did not necessarily imply that its holder
was an ex-consul.
19. The Praetorian Prefect
(praefectus praetorio) in the time of
Augustus was a military officer, the
commander of the praetorian cohorts in Rome,
which formed the emperor's body-guard. It was
the highest grade in the equestrian cursus
honorum, and its holder gradually acquired
great power. Sejanus was practically the
ruler of Rome during the absence of Tiberius,
and Titus, although of senatorial rank, assumed
the office in order to increase his authority
and to have a freer hand. {2] There were
ordinarily two prefects, although occasionally
there was only one, and in the latter part of
the reign of Commodus there were three.
20. This official, as time
went on, became more prominent as a judge
and in a civil capacity, and under Septimius
Severus and Gallienus he was practically a
civil minister, although he retained some
vestiges of military authority even under
Diocletian.
21. When Constantine abolished
the praetorian guard and replaced it by the
scholae Palatinae, [3] the dignity and rank
of the prefect survived and he became the
highest civil servant of the emperor,
without any participation in military affairs.
He was appointed for an indefinite period,
but because of his great power he was seldom
kept in office for more than a year.
22. Constantine also appointed
a praefecuts per Gallias and a praefectus
per Orientem, and to these a praefectus per
Illyricum was later added, so that each of
the four grand divisions of he empire was
governed by a prefect. The prefect had a
number of vicarii, each of whom governed
one of the dioceses into which his
prefecture was divided. [1]
23. In spite of various
restrictions [2] the power of a prefect
was very extensive. His office, like that
of the other illustres, was large and well
organized with assistants, recorders,
clerks, shorthand writers and mounted
messengers. From the time of Alexander
Severus he was a member of the senate.
24. He had complete control
of the general tax ordered by the emperor
(indictio), and through his subordinates
took part in levying it; he held court as
the emperor's representative; he issued
edicts, which had the same force as those
of the emperor, unless they were annulled
by the Augustus; he supervised the governors
and judges of the provinces, proposed their
names, and paid their salaries; and he had
a general supervision of the grain supplies,
manufactures, coinage, roads and
courier-service (cursus publicus). [3]
25. His insignia was a lofty
chariot, a golden pen-case, a silver
inkstand, and a silver tripod and bowl
for receiving petitions. He work a cloak
like that of the emperor, except that it
reached to the knees instead of to the
feet; as a mark of his former military
rank he carried a sword. [1] Of the four
praetorian prefects one who was resident
at the court of an emperor or a Caesar
seems to have been called praesens or
praesentalis, if the number of Augusti,
and Caesars was less than four. [2]
26. The Prefect of the City
(praefectus urbis) in early times had charge
of the city of Rome during the absence of the
king or the consuls. His duties and powers
were gradually taken over by the city praetor
(praetor urganus), until Augustus revived the
office, in order to provide for the government
of Rome during his absence.
27. Under Tiberius, because
of his long stay at Capri, the office became
a permanent one, and it increased in power and
importance until the City Prefect ranked next
to the Praetorian.
28. He had command of the city
troops (cohortes urbanae) and general charge
of the policing of the city. In addition to
this he had a number of officers under his
supervision, through whom he managed the census,
the markets, and the granaries, and had power
over all the corporations and guilds which
carried on business in the city. Within the
hundredth milestone he had supreme judicial,
military, and administrative power. He convoked
and presided over the senate, and made known its
wishes to the emperor.
29. His insignia were twelve
fasces, he wore the toga, and shared with the
praetorian prefect alone the provilege of using
a chariot with the city. There was also a
city prefect at Constantinople (xxxvi.7,2)
with corresponding powers.
30. In very early times
the Master of the Horse (magister equitum) was
an assistant of the dictator, and was appointed
by him; he played a particularly important part
between 49 and 44 B.C., because of the frequent
absence of the dictator Caesar from Italy.
31. Augustus transferred
the powers of this official to the praefectus
praetorio, who exercised them for a long time.
Constantine in the early part of his reign,
for the purpose of limiting the powers of
the praetorian prefect, revived the office
by appointing two commanders-in-chief of
the military forces of the empire, one of
the cavalry (magister equituum), the other
of the infantry (magister peditum).
22. From the middle of the
fourth century these two officers began
to be called magistri equituum et peditum,
or magistri utriusque militiae, and
finally, magistri militum. Ammianus
uses both titles, as well as magister
armorum, [1] magister rei castrensis [2]
and pedestris militiae rector. [3]
Constantius added three more magistri
militum, for the Orient, Gaul, and Illyricum,
and in the Notitia Dignitatum we find five
in the Eastern, and three in the Western Empire.
23. With the apointment
of these officers the organisation of the army
was changed. The limitanei, who guarded the
boundaries of the empire, were diminshed in
number, while the comitatenses, or field-troops
under command of the several magistri militum,
and the palantini, [1] attached to the court and
commanded by the Master of the Officers, were
increased.
24. The magistri militum were the judges of the
army under their control, and had the power
of jurisdiction even in some civil cases
involving their soldiers; but their civil
powers were very strictly limited, and in
civil matters the decision ordinarily rested
with the provincial judges; and appeal from
their decision went to the praefectus
praetorio, and not the magister militum.
25. The magistri militum were
judges over their subordinates, the comites
rei castrensis and the duces, but not over
the subordinates of the comites and duces.
They could not move troops from one part
of the empire to another, without the emperor's
order, except in case of a very great emergency.
26. Next in rank to these three
officials was the Grand Chamberlain
(praepositus sacri cubiculi). Chamberlains
are first mentioned in connection with Julius
Caesar's capture by the pirates. [2] Four years
later Cicero alludes to them in such a way as to
imply that they were regular members of the
families of the wealthier citizens; [3] they
had considerable importance as personal
attendants of the governors of provinces, but
were not members of their official staff. [1]
27. When Augustus reorganized
the palace service, the chamberlains formed
a corps under the headship of an officer
called a cubiculo, [2] who was in close touch
with the emperor, later sometimes his
companion [3] and confidant, and hence
gradually acquired wide influence.
28. Another official of the
corps is perhaps the decurio cubiculariorum,
mentioned by Suetonius in connection with
the murder of Domitian. [4] The praepositi
of the time of Ammianus were eunuchs, and
as constant companions of the emperor they
had great power; in once instance a praepositus
who confessed that he had taken part in a
conspiracy escaped punishment through the
intervention of his fellow eunuchs, [5]
and Ammianus ironically says [6] that the
emperor Constantius had considerable influence,
if the truth be told, with Eusebius, his
Grand Chamberlain.
29. The Grand Chamberlain
had a considerable body of subordinates,
all of whom were employed in the personal
service of the emperor; the primicerius sacri
cubiculi was the head of those who served as
the chamberlains of the emperor's apartment,
and the comes castrensis sacri palatii of
all who were not chamberlains, such as pages,
and the throng of palace servants; other
subordinates, with appropriate title's had
charge of the royal wardrobe, of necessary
repairs in the palace, and the keeping of
any noise from reaching the imperial
apartments (the silentiarii).
30. Another important official
in close contact with the imperial household
was the Master of the Offices (magister officiorum).
In 321 and 323 we hear of a tribunus et magister
officiorum, [1] so that the office goes back at
least as far as Constantine, although the
earliest magister who appears in inscriptions
held office in 346. [2]
31. Since tribunus implies
military service, the office is supposed to
have originated when Diocletian organized the
officiales of the palace on a military basis and
chose the senior tribune of the praetorian guard
to take charge of the various corps of palace
attendants, and also to command the soldiers
attached to the court.[3]
32. As one of the dignitates
palatinae the functions of the Master of the
Offices came in conflict with those of the
Praetorian Prefect, whose power he still
further curtailed, and to some extent with
those of the Grand Chamberlain. Besides
being in command of the five sholae of the
palace guards, [4] he had supervision over
the chiefs of the four imperial scrinia, or
corresponence bureaus, and over the schfola
of the agents in rebus, [5] and he also had
charge of the cursus publicus, or state
courier-service.
33. The management of this
was at first in the hands of the Praetorian
Prefect, but was transferred under Constantine
to the Master of the Offices. This control
of the means of conveying state dispatches
and persons travelling on state business
throughout the empire was a very important one,
since it included the right to issue passes
giving the privilege of using the cursus.
It brought the Master into frequent collision
with the Praetorian Prefect, but the Master
had the superior supervision.
34. The Master of the Offices
also had control of the great arsenals and
manufactories of arms of Italy, and in
particular it was through him that imperial
audiences were obtained, and that the
ambassadors of foreign powers were received
and introduced.
35. Actual entrance into the
audience-chamber was under the direction of
a magister admissionum, and a corps of
admissionales; in the cases of distinguished
applicants for audience the magister
admisssionum functioned [1] and in very
exceptional cases the magister officiorum
himself, regularly in the case of women of
distinction. He had a very large corps of
assistants and subordinates; his duties
were very complex and important, and he was
one of the most powerful officials.
36. The Quaestor Sacri Palatii
was also numbered among the dignitates
palatinae and was in close touch with the
emperor. In the days of Augustus the
quaestorship was the lowest office that
gave admission to the senate. It was
given additional prestige by the
arrangement by which some of its occupants
were selected by the emperor himself
(called quaestores candidati or quaestores
Augusti, or principis), and because one of
them was regularly attached to the person of
the ruler, to read his letters and other
communications to the senate. [1]
37. As the emperor's letters
came more and more to have the force of
laws and edicts, the Quaestor was considered
a legal officer connected with civil
jurisprudence, and ranked as one of the highest
officials of the court. He had the rank of
Count and at fourth century became an
illustris. His duties required him to be
the mouthpiece of the emperor, and to suggest
to the ruler anything that would be for the
welfare of the state.
38. He had the right to suggest
laws and to answer petitions addressed to
the emperor. It was therefore necessary
that he should be a trained jurist, in order
to be an exact and just interpreter of the
law. He also had the supervision of every
one who entered the capital; he made inquiries
into the character of all who came from the
provinces, and found out from what provinces
they came and for what reasons, the purpose
being to prevent worthless men from taking up
their residence in the city.
39. Theodoric wrote to the
senate with regard to the office of Quaestor: [2]
"It is only men whom we consider to be of the
highest learning that we raise to the dignity
of the quaestorhip, such men as are fitted to
be the interpreters of the laws and sharers
of our counsels," and Claudian said of that
official [1] "thou comest to give edicts to
the world, to make reply to suppliants. A
monarch's utterance has won dignity from
thine eloquence."
40. The Count of the Sacred Largesses
(comes sacrarum largitionum) was the Minister
of Finance, who conrolled the revenues of the
state, except those which passed into the
hands of the prefects, the Count of the
Privy Purse (comes rerum privatarum), [2]
the Quaestor, and the Master of the Offices.
41. He had supreme charge
of the sacrum aerarium, or state treasury,
including the former aerarium and fiscus, [3]
exerting it in the provinces through his
subordinates, the comites largitonum, of whom
there was one for each diocese. The latter
had subordinates called rationales summarum,
each of whom collected the money and taxes
either of his whole diocese or of a great
part of it.
42. The Comes Sacrarum Largitionum
also had under his supervision numerous
direct and indirect taxes, and the revenues
from the provinces were sent to him by the first
of March. Through subordinates he had control
of the sea-coast and of merchants, who could
not go beyond certain cieites prescribed by
law; and the trading in salt, which was a
government monopoly, was under his direct
supervision, including the granting of
licenses for the working of the public salt
mines, the revenues from which were under
his control.
43. Through other subordinates
he had charge of the banks in the various
provinces, in which the money that was
collected was kept until it was sent to him.
He controlled the other mines and those who
worked in them, the coinage, and the mints.
He was general superintendent of the imperial
factories, the employees in which could not
engage in private work and were hereditarily
confined to their special trades; they were
under the direct charge of procuratores.
44. He also had judicial control
over his subordiantes and the power of
confirming the appointments of some judges
in the provinces. As his title implies,
he administered the bounties of the emperor
(the largitones). The disposition of the
money under his charge was entirely dependent
on the good will of the emperor, either in
meeting the demands of the various
necessities of state, or in giving presents,
or in conferring rewards.
45. Like the other high official
he had in his office a great number of
bureaus of correspondence (scrinia)
consisting of officials who received the
payments made each year by the provinces;
kept accounts of the sacrae largitiones
through tabularii; made out the fiscal
accounts and supervised the largitiones;
had charge of all the expenditures for
clothing needed in the palace and for
the soldiers, whether they belonged
to the palace troops or note, of the
silverware of the palace, and the like.
The Count of the Privy Purse
(comes rerum privatarum) had charge of the
aerarium privatum, consisting both of the
res privatae, the inalienable crown property,
and the patrimonium sacrum, the private and
personal property of the emperor, which
could be inherited by his family.
His subordinates were at first the magistri
(later the rationales) rei privatae, one for
each diocese or province, who took care of
all finances within their province, inclidng
lands belonging to the temples, and kept a
record of the income. He had the
superintendence through his rationales of
the government estates, both at home and in
the provinces, as well as of the revenues from
estates which were especially assigned to the
imperial house.
The res privatae at this time included also
the confiscated property of men who had been
condemned or proscribed, which before
Tiberius had gone to the state treasury
(aerarium), as well as all deposited money
which because of long lapse of time had no
claimant, and property for which there were
no heirs.
The Count of the Privy Purse also
superintended the collectors of the rents
of the imperial property in the provinces,
and of the giftrs of silver or gold demanded
in time of needd from those to whom the
emperors haad made presents of real estate,
which was free from taxation.
To the dignitates palatinae, or offices whose
duties did not call their holders away from
the capital, might be added the Counts of the
Body Guard (comes domesticorum equitum and
comes domesticorum peditum), who are placed
in the Notiti Dignitatum immediately after
the Comes rerum privatarum, although they
were not always illustres, but sometimes
held that rank. With the protectores are
sometimes coupled, [1] and when Constantine
in 312 disbanded the praetorian troops, he
gave their rank and duties to the protectores
et domestici.
Thus we have two kinds of palace troops:
the scholae palatinae [2] under the command
of the Master of the Offices, and two corps
of protectores et domestici, who ranked higher
than the members of the scholae palatinae
and were commanded by the comites domesticorum.
Ammianus is the first to refer to the
protectores and domestici as also divided
into shcolae. [3] These consisted of ten
divisions of fifty men each, commanded by
deceprimi, of the rank clarissimus, and these
were under the supervision of a primicerius, [4]
of the grade spectabilis; the protectores
themselves ranked as perfectissimi.
In addition to accompanying the emperor
when he went abroad, the protectores and
domestici were sent to the provinces to
perform various public services, although
a part had to be alwahys in praesenti, or
at court. Sometimes, as in the case of
Ammianus, they were sent to a magister
militum and placed under his orders.
Whenever they were sent abroad, their
pay, which was already large, was increased.
Tribunus is a tile of various military
offiers in connection with the domestici,
the armaturae, the scutarii, and the
protectores; also of officers in charge of
manufactories of arms [5] and the of the
imperial stables. [6] As has already been
noted, the title was given also to civil
officials, such as the higher in rank
of the notarii, [1] Tribuni vacantes
had the tile and rank of tribuni vacantes
had the title and rank of tribuni without
a special assignment. [2]
There are twelve manuscripts that contain all the surviving books of Ammianus. Two break off at the end of Book xxvi. (PR). and one ends abruptly at xxv.3, 13 (D). There are besides six detached sheets which once formed part of a codex belonging to the abbey of Hersfeld; these are now in Kassel, and the manuscript to which they belonged is designated as M. Of the other fifteen manuscripts seven are in Rome (VDYEURP), one each in Florence (F), Modena (Q), Cesena (K), and Venice (W), and the remaining four in Paris (CHTN). V and M are of the ninth century, the rest of the fifteenth. A full description of all these and their relations to one another is given by Clark, [3] who has convincingly shown that of the existing manuscripts only V had independent value. To this are added the readings of M, so far as that manuscript has been preserved, [4] and so far as the readings of its lost part can be restored from the edition of Gelenius, who professed to follow M, but made extensive emendations of his own. Clark reconstructs the history of the text as follows. A capital manuscript, presumably of the sixth century, was copied, probably in Germany by a writer using the scriptura Scottica. In the early Caroline period a copy was made from this insular manuscript, which is the parent of V (Fuldensis), and of the one of which the Hersfeld fragments formed a part (M). No copy of the Hersfeldensis exists, but many of its readings are found in the ediiton of Gelenius. Every other manuscript is copied from the Fuldensis (V), four directly (FDN and E), and the other nine through F, including Gardthausen's codices mutili (P and R), which are copies of V at two removes at least. Since the text of V is in bad shape, with numerous lacunae, some of the readings of the early editions are of of value. The first printed edition (S) was that of Sabinus, Rome, 1474, containing Books xiv.-xxvi.; it is a reprint of R, the poorest manuscript in existence, and hence of little or no value. The next (B), that of Petrus Castellus, Bologna, 1517, was a reprint of S, iin which the text was further debased by irresponsible emendations, which vitiated all the subsequent history of the text of books xiv.-xxvi. A pirated reprint of B by erasmus (b) was published at Basle in 1518. The first improvement dates from the edition of Accursius (A), Augsburg, May, 1533, who used a manuscript copied from V and corrected from a copy of E, which is itself a transcript of V emended by a humanist. A still greater improvement was made by the edition of Gelenius, Basle, July, 1533, who also was partly dependent on the copy of E, but had access besides to the purer tradition of M. Subsequent editions were those of Gruter, 1611, who corrected his text from V; of Lindenbrog, Hamburg, 1609, who made use of F and first provided the text with explanatory notes; of Henricus Valesius, Paris, 1636, whose annotations formed the basis of all later commentaries, while his brilliant scholarship and critical acumen led him to make numerous correct emendations, with the help of N (his codex Regius). He also recognised the existence of metrical clausulae, and says three or fourt times [1] that certian emendations do not correspond with these. His punctutation also seems to take account of the clausulae, and hence is often the same as that of Clark. [2] Also important are the editions of Wagner and Erfurdt, Leipzig, 1808, with a collection of the best material in previous commentaries, and of Ernesti, Leipzig, 1773, with a useful index verborum, which, however, is not complete, and gives only the numbers of the chapters, without those of the sections, a practice especially exasperating in the long chapters. The critical study of the text begins with the edition of Henricus Valesius. His younger brother Hadrianus in his edition (Paris, 1681) had the use of two additional manuscripts, C and the codex Valentinus, which is now lost. Later editions were content with the readings of these editions until 1871, when Eyssenhardt published his text at Berlin, which was followed in 1874-75 by that of Gardthausen (Leipzig). The latter was the first to use the Petrinus (P), which he though was written before V came into Italy, form an archetype on a plane with V, and that a copy of V, corrected from M, was the archetype of E and of Accursius' codex. His readings of P are often erroneous, and it is now recognized, as already said, that P does not represent a tradition independent of V. The standard critical edition is that of C.U. Clark, of which volume one, containing Books xiv.-xxv., and volume two, containing xxiv.-xxxi., were published at Berlin in 1910 and 1915 respectively. Cf. also P. De Jonge, Sprachlicher und historischer Kommentar zu Ammianus Marcellinus, Groningen, 1935-53.