Olympiodorus’ history was divided into twenty-two books. Photius’ comment that Olympiodorus’ account of the embassy to the Huns was the conclusion of the first ten-book section implies that the work was further divided between the first ten books and the subsequent twelve. The first part may have been published separately from the second part, and some have noted differences in, for example, the length and ordering of the earlier fragments, but there is no firm evidence (Zuccali 1993; Blockley 1981: 33). If the history was divided into books equal in length to those in Ammianus, it would have been around 900 pages long, which emphasizes the severe compression of Photius’ compilation, and even of Zosimus’.
The work was arranged in broadly chronological order, and used consular dating to help guide the reader, although Photius complains that it was “loosely organized.” Italy was the central focus of the history, with events in Gaul and Spain treated in digressions (Matthews 1970: 87).
Olympiodorus begins the main narrative of his work with the death of Stilicho, the generalissimo and guardian of the emperor Honorius, and describes the series of tragedies which befell the west thereafter. The first ten books are accordingly filled with disasters. The failure of Rome to successfully negotiate with Alaric leads to three sieges of the city, to the reduction of the Romans to cannibalism, and finally to the sacking of the city in 410. Alaric is succeeded by his brother Ataulf after his sudden death, and chaos throughout the west leads to the rise of numerous usurpers in Gaul and in Spain. The tenth book ends with Olympiodorus’ embassy to the Huns, perhaps with the message that negotiation is preferable to the use of force (Zuccali 1993: 254).
The second half of the work describes the gradual improvement, in fits and starts, of western affairs. It begins in 412, when Ataulf made an alliance with the emperor Honorius and suppressed the usurper Sebastian. The marriage of Ataulf to the princess Galla Placidia further cements the Roman–Gothic alliance. The work ends in 425 with an encomium of the city of Rome and a description of the extraordinary wealth of its inhabitants, which emphasizes how strongly the Romans had rebounded from the destruction fifteen years earlier. Valentinian III was installed as western emperor with military help from the east. It is a satisfying ending in literary terms, tracing the fall and then rise of the city of Rome, carrying with it a political message which emphasizes the necessity of eastern help and eastern supremacy to ensure order in the west.
Photius tells us that Olympiodorus considered his work a hyle, or “material,” for history, rather than a history itself, and he criticizes its vulgarity and emptiness. Byzantine notions of high style, however, do not correspond with ours, and a charitable interpretation of Photius’ comments might suggest that he recoils at exactly those features which moderns find so useful and admirable in Olympiodorus’ work, such as his frequent use of numbers and his careful attention to geography. The level of style may have been elevated in the prefaces which Photius says began each of the twenty-two books. Whether the work contained speeches is not known, but the surviving fragments show no evidence of any.
Of the forty-six Photian fragments, twelve are digressions: linguistic, ethnographic, geographic, and others. This would suggest that roughly a fourth of the work was digressive, a percentage even higher than that of Ammianus’ Res Gestae. This, perhaps, was another feature of the history which brought the stylistic criticism of Photius upon it. Since the digressions often deal with eastern events, Blockley suggests that they were not well integrated into the narrative. They were, rather, used to mark transitions between major events (Blockley 1981: 35–6).
The digressions contain much of interest. Olympiodorus explains that Alaric was unable to cross from Rhegium to Sicily due to a magic statue which warded him off. He claims that the statue was set up in antiquity in order to protect against the fires of Mount Etna and to prevent barbarians from crossing the sea. As predicted, its removal led to volcanic eruption and invasion (fr. 16). He describes the sophistic cloak, a garment which could be worn at Athens by would-be scholars only with the permission of the sophists and after the completion of the following ritual. The candidates were brought before the baths and shoved forward by their teachers. Another team of men tried to block the candidates, forcing them away from the baths and shouting, “Stop, stop, don’t take the bath!” After this ritual, successful candidates entered the baths, washed, and then exited wearing their cloak, escorted by community leaders (fr. 28). Olympiodorus also describes the immensity of Rome and its buildings, particularly the public baths and the great private homes, which contained within their walls everything one might find in a medium-size city (fr. 41.1). Olympiodorus’ description of Rome was probably presented at a higher stylistic level than other parts of the work, and the historian was even moved to include a piece of poetry in the digression. The description of his dangerous sea voyage (fr. 19) to the Huns may have aimed at pathos, as Photius claims that the historian ektragoidei, “declaimed tragically.” The details Photius provides of the wedding of Ataulf and Galla Placidia suggests that it was an elaborate set-piece, with descriptions of the location, the clothes that each wore, the wedding gifts (among other things, Ataulf presented her with jewels and gold which had been looted during the sack of Rome), and the celebration of Romans and barbarians after the nuptials (fr. 24).
Olympiodorus showed a particular interest in geography (Thompson 1944: 45, 49–50). Insofar as he refers to earlier authors, it is usually to make a geographical point. For example, his digression on the Oasis (fr. 32) cites Herodotus and Herodorus, and in addition he claims that Homer had been born in the Thebaid. He presents a lengthy argument on the location of the wanderings of Odysseus (fr. 42), and on the founding of the city of Emona by the Argonauts (at Zos. 5.29.1–3), information which he derived from the obscure poet Pisander. He also quotes the third-century historian Asinius Quadratus on the founding of Ravenna (at Zos. 5.27.1–2) and the geographer Ammon on the length of the walls surrounding the city of Rome (fr. 41.1). A large amount of geographic information can be found among the fragments, but it is difficult to determine the degree of accuracy that Olympiodorus’ account possessed before its severe compression by Photius, Zosimus, and Sozomen.
The geographical information often comes with exact figures (e.g. frs. 17, 26.1; Zos. 5.48.2), and Olympiodorus also provides numbers at other junctures. The size of armies, the number of seats in the Roman baths, and various sums of money are given in what appear to be fairly reliable figures. A famous fragment of his work provides numerical information on the finances of the Roman elite (fr. 41). For example, he reveals that Probus spent twelve hundred pounds of gold celebrating his praetorship, whereas Symmachus spent two thousand pounds of gold in celebration of his son’s praetorship. The amount of quantification in Olympiodorus’ history was probably greater than in any historian of antiquity. On the other hand, Olympiodorus’ passion for numbers is great only in comparison to other ancient historians, and the accuracy of his figures should not be overestimated (Maenchen-Helfen 1973: 459).
Another oddity of Olympiodoran style is his frequent use of transliterated Latin (Matthews 1970: 85–7). This is most common in his use of the Latin names of political and bureaucratic offices, and he also often uses the Latin names for provinces of the empire. In addition, Olympiodorus provides weights and measurements in Latin, as well as certain phrases, quotes, and inscriptions which he transliterates in their entirety. Sozomen and Zosimus generally translated Olympiodorus’ Latinisms with the Greek equivalent, but Olympiodorus’ intended audience must have been the “Latinized” administrators and courtiers who had no need of translation.
Even through the paraphrase one can glimpse some of Olympiodorus’ deft characterizations. Consider his memorable sketch of the general Constantius III: “In public processions Constantius was downcast and sullen, a man with bulging eyes, a long neck and a broad head, who always slumped over the neck of the horse he was riding, darting glances here and there out of the corners of his eyes, so that all saw i
n him ‘a mien worthy of a tyrant,’ as the saying goes. But at banquets and parties he was so cheerful and affable that he even competed with the clowns who often played before his table” (trans. Blockley 1983: 187; fr. 23). Olympiodorus favors the general Boniface, whose love of justice he demonstrated through the following anecdote. A soldier complained to Boniface that his wife was having an affair with a barbarian ally. That very evening the commander rode almost ten miles to the site of the adultery, removed the barbarian’s head from his body with his sword, and rode back, presenting the soldier with his rival’s head on the following day. The soldier was understandably stunned into silence, but Olympiodorus assures us that later he was filled with thanks (fr. 40).
The historian spoke favorably of Stilicho, pointing to the many wars he won on behalf of the Romans (fr. 3) and defending him against the charge that he plotted against the eastern emperor (Soz. 9.4). He is, therefore, hostile toward Stilicho’s enemy Olympius (fr. 5). Olympiodorus was also critical of the ineffectual emperor Honorius, and goes beyond faulting his poor policy decisions to complain that his frequent kissing on the mouth of his sister Galla Placidia gave rise to unsavory suspicions (fr. 38). Olympiodorus criticized Placidia further in blaming the turn of Constantius from virtue to avarice on her influence (fr. 37).
Olympiodorus’ assessment of some of these figures is quite unusual for a fifth-century historian. Stilicho claimed guardianship over both the eastern and the western emperor, which ensured continuing hostility toward him from the eastern court. Placidia, on the other hand, was a more popular figure in the east than in the west. The marriage of Placidia to Ataulf, which Olympiodorus described in a positive manner, was not well received in the east. It appears that Olympiodorus’ western biases must reflect western sources for much of his history (Sirago 1970; Matthews 1970: 90–1).
Since there is no evidence of any other narrative history of the period, Olympiodorus presumably gathered much of the evidence firsthand while in the west, or from westerners who had made their way east. His role as an imperial official would have allowed him to gain access to those close to the principal actors of the time. Blockley (1981: 34–5) suggests that the soldier Candidianus, who was in Placidia’s retinue and who received favorable treatment from the historian, may have been one of those sources. Olympiodorus also had access to documentary material, as is evident from his use of a relatio of the city prefect Albinus which describes the resettlement of Rome (fr. 25).
Olympiodorus is rightly considered one of the great historians of late antiquity, despite the fact that his work only survives in fragments (Thompson 1996: 11–12). His information seems to have come from knowledgeable sources. He provided the sort of detail which ancient historians often omit, but which modern historians appreciate, and the fragments do not reveal major bias or partisanship. The loss of his work is thus particularly unfortunate, and the early fifth century would be far better understood if his history had survived as a guide.
Text and translation
Greek text and translation by R.C. Blockley (1983), The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire II.
7
PRISCUS
Life
The historian Priscus was from Panium in Thrace, as his entry in the Byzantine encyclopedia Suda informs us. The Suda also states that he lived during the reign of Theodosius II. Many sources describe him as a sophist or rhetor, and in addition to a history in eight books he is credited with “Rhetorical Exercises” and with letters, none of which survives.
Other information about Priscus’ life must be derived from the surviving fragments of his history (Bornmann 1979: xi–xv; Blockley 1981: 48; Baldwin 1980b: 18–25). He gives a lengthy description of his participation in the embassy to Attila of 448/9 in fragments 11–14. If he were roughly 30 years old at the time of this embassy, he would have been born around 420. He was apparently at Rome in 450 (fr. 20.3), Egyptian Thebes in 451 or 452 (fr. 27), and Alexandria in 453 (fr. 28). He last appears in the extant fragments of his history as an advisor to the magister officiorum Euphemius in negotiations with Gobazes, leader of the Lazi, inhabitants of western Georgia (fr. 33.2). He must have lived at least into the 470s, since his history covers up to that point.
Priscus accompanied a friend, an imperial official with the common name Maximinus, on many of his travels. The Maximinus described in the fragments of Priscus seems to have pursued a military career, and thus we should agree with Blockley in rejecting the association of this Maximinus with the lawyer of that name who was on the commission to create the Theodosian Code (Blockley 1981: 48). This association had prompted the suggestion that Priscus served as an imperial lawyer or bureaucrat (Baldwin 1980b: 21), but given the extant evidence it is impossible and perhaps unnecessary to attach an official role of any kind to Priscus’ involvement. He accompanied Maximinus to the camp of Attila only after being cajoled (fr. 11.2), which suggests an unofficial role, and although he may have served in some official capacity under the functionary Euphemius (fr. 33.2), the wording could suggest that he was simply an advisor or friend.
The fragments in which Priscus discusses his participation in the embassy to Attila are quite lengthy and provide us with many memorable pictures of the Huns as well as of the historian himself. Fragment 11 begins with the arrival of the Hun Edeco at Constantinople bearing letters from Attila. Attila was demanding territorial concessions along the Danube, the return of Hun fugitives, and a Roman embassy composed of high-ranking officials. The eunuch Chrysaphius, at that time the most powerful advisor to emperor Theodosius II, met with Edeco, and the eunuch offered him fifty pounds of gold to assassinate Attila. The Roman translator Vigilas was informed of the plot and was ordered to accompany Edeco and his retinue to meet with Attila. Maximinus, who was apparently unaware of the plot, was selected to join the delegation to Attila, and Maximinus convinced Priscus to come along.
Thirteen days of travel brought Edeco, Vigilas, Maximinus, Priscus, and the rest of the embassy to Serdica (modern-day Sofia in Bulgaria), where the men feasted and toasted both Theodosius II and Attila. When Vigilas, who had perhaps overindulged in wine, suggested to the Huns that it was improper to equate a god such as Theodosius with a man like Attila, tempers flared. Only the presentation of silk and jewels to the Huns smoothed things over.
The party arrived at Naissus, which had become a ghost town after its complete destruction by the Huns. Bones littered the river bank. Several more days through rough territory brought them to the Danube, which they crossed with the help of barbarian ferrymen. After further travel, the attendants of Edeco went to announce the arrival of the embassy to Attila.
At this point, however, the ambassadors were rebuffed. Hun leaders, including Edeco, Orestes, Scottas, and others, demanded to know the purpose of the embassy. The Romans refused to talk to anyone but Attila. The Huns then revealed that they had read the secret correspondence of Theodosius, and ordered the surprised Romans, who continued to insist upon a meeting with Attila, to depart immediately. It appears that Edeco had informed Attila of the assassination plot, but Vigilas was unaware that his cover had been blown. Maximinus and Priscus were mystified at what they saw as the inexplicable hostility of the Huns. The Romans packed their baggage and were ordered to leave in the morning.
The ambassadors discussed how they ought to react to this turn of events. Vigilas argued that they should claim to have new information to provide to Attila, in the hope, presumably, that the assassination plan could continue, while Maximinus was dejected and silent. Then Priscus, with the help of an interpreter, put his persuasive rhetorical skills to work. He offered the Hun Scottas gifts for his help and claimed that a meeting with Attila would benefit both Romans and Huns. Then he slyly added that although he had heard that Scottas was a powerful Hun leader, he would find it difficult to believe if Scottas was not able to arrange a meeting with Attila. This last challenge caused Scottas to leap on his horse and head for Attila’s tent. Priscus returned to an overjoyed Ma
ximinus and Vigilas, who unpacked the baggage and began to decide on the proper gifts and protocol for their meeting with Attila.
Maximinus addressed Attila politely when the embassy came before him, but the Hun did not respond in kind, instead showering angry abuse upon Vigilas. Attila demanded that Vigilas leave immediately and that Hunnic fugitives be handed over, and then he dismissed the embassy. The Romans marveled at the harshness of Attila. Priscus suggested that perhaps Attila had been made aware of Vigilas’ earlier claim that Theodosius was a god but Attila a man. In reality the Hun leader must have been aware that Vigilas was implicated in the plot to assassinate him. In the midst of this confusion, Edeco pulled Vigilas aside and instructed him to bring the gold which was to be distributed to those involved in the planned assassination. Shortly thereafter, some of Attila’s men ordered the Romans not to purchase anything until the embassy had been completed. This was a cunning trick to trap Vigilas with the gold and without a convincing rationale for his possessing it.
The embassy then traveled with the court of Attila as he set out to marry the daughter of an ally. Priscus describes the inhabitants of the villages they pass through. At one village, the Romans were frightened by a storm but succored by the (female) ruler, who offered them food and attractive women. The first was accepted, the second declined. The party also encountered a second Roman embassy, this one from the western court.
The travelers came to a village where Attila maintained a particularly large palace. The elegant wooden structure was near another set of wooden buildings which had been built by Onegesius, Attila’s second-in-command. Onegesius had also had baths of stone constructed. The builder, a prisoner from Sirmium, had hoped to win his freedom in return for his service, but instead had been pressed into service as a bath attendant for Onegesius and his friends. The Romans dined at the compound of Onegesius with Attila’s son and daughter-in-law, while Onegesius met with Attila in private. The next morning Priscus waited with gifts outside shut doors hoping to meet with Onegesius. Here Priscus tells us that he encountered a Greek in Hunnic dress who told the historian that after being taken captive by the Huns, he had won his freedom, but married a Hunnic wife and was now an attendant to Onegesius himself. The historicity of their conversation, a philosophical setpiece about the relative superiority of the Roman or Hunnic systems, is rather doubtful.
The Historians of Late Antiquity Page 11