The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  Priscus intercepted Onegesius as he exited his palace and convinced him to meet with Maximinus. Maximinus’ attempt to have Onegesius come to Constantinople was rebuffed, but Onegesius invited Priscus to return to confer with him. On the next day, Priscus brought gifts to one of Attila’s wives, Hereka, and then went to wait for Onegesius. Outside of Onegesius’ house Priscus met members of the western embassy. They discussed the possibility of the Huns invading the Persian empire, and while Priscus prayed that Attila would turn his forces away from the Romans, the western ambassador Constantiolus worried that success in destroying the Persians would strengthen the Huns even further.

  Priscus acted as an intermediary after Onegesius appeared (fr. 13). When asked which high-ranking officials would serve as ambassadors to Attila, Priscus consulted with Maximinus and told Onegesius that the emperor would send whomever he wanted. Maximinus was then led in to consult with Attila, who provided a list of men of consular rank with whom he would deign to meet. With business concluded for the day, the Romans were invited to a banquet. After the ceremonial drinking of wine, dinner was served. Priscus notes that Attila used only wooden tableware, while the others had plates and cups of silver, and that his sword and boots were plain, not adorned with jewels like that of the other Hunnic nobility. Attila also ate only meat, while the others indulged in fancy prepared dishes. Postprandial entertainment included the chanting of songs celebrating Attila’s victories, a deranged Hun shouting unintelligibly, and Zercon, a hunchbacked Moor who amused the crowd with his appearance and his mixture of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic speech. Attila alone was able to resist the general hilarity, softening only at the arrival of his young son Ernach. The celebration and drinking continued throughout the night, but Priscus and the Romans left early.

  Onegesius drew up several letters for the Romans to bring to Theodosius upon their return, and the Romans managed to ransom a few of their compatriots. Several more days of Hunnic hospitality followed. The Romans dined at the invitation of Attila’s wife the following evening, and with Attila again on the next. They were allowed to leave three days later accompanied by Berichus, a Hun in search of gifts from Theodosius. Berichus, who had begun the journey in a friendly mood, grew unfriendly after the party crossed the Danube and accused the Romans of unfairness toward barbarians. Attempts to mollify him were unsuccessful. The Romans also crossed paths with Vigilas, who was returning to the court of Attila intending to carry out the assassination. He was, in fact, walking into a trap, and after he was caught with the fifty pounds of gold, he would confess in response to threats against his son (fr. 15). The son was sent to retrieve another fifty pounds to ransom his father, and Attila sent ambassadors to Constantinople to demand the surrender of the eunuch Chrysaphius, who first conceived of the plot. But Priscus’ role in these events apparently ended with his return to Constantinople.

  This narrative of the extraordinary events surrounding the embassy to Attila is the centerpiece of the surviving fragments, and was probably the centerpiece of the whole work. The historian presents himself as curious and careful in his descriptions, and sensible and confident in his dealings with others. It is not surprising that Maximinus thought his presence would be beneficial.

  The other fragments in which Priscus himself was involved are much briefer. Priscus states that “we” saw the younger son of the recently deceased Frankish king while in Rome (fr. 20.3). This suggests that he was in Rome with someone else, perhaps Maximinus, who was probably the courier for a letter (ep. 75) of Pope Leo, dated 9 November 450 and addressed to the clergy of Constantinople. Priscus and Maximinus next appear in Damascus in 451 or 452, where they found the general Ardabur in peace negotiations with the Saracens (fr. 26). From Syria they traveled to Thebes in Upper Egypt, where Maximinus worked out a treaty between the Romans and the defeated Blemmyes and Nubades (fr. 27). Shortly thereafter Maximinus fell ill and died (Zuckerman 1994: 176–9).

  Priscus went from Thebes to Alexandria and there witnessed the major rioting in protest at the selection of the bishop Proterius (fr. 28). Rioters put troops to flight and burned them alive. Within a week, two thousand more troops had arrived and proceeded to abuse the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians. The governor, acting on Priscus’ advice, put an end to the rioting by allowing the shows to continue and by restoring the payment of the regular dole. Priscus appears no further in the extant fragments, but these surviving examples demonstrate that he was an active participant in the events of his time.

  It is not certain whether Priscus was a Christian or a pagan (Baldwin 1980b: 43–7; Blockley 1981: 59–60). As with other classicizing historians, it is difficult to ascribe the avoidance of Christian terminology to animus against Christianity rather than to desire to follow traditional style. The religion of his patron Maximinus has been described as pagan, because of his toleration of the Blemmyes’ worship of Isis (fr. 27), but also as Christian, because of his relationship with Pope Leo (ep. 75). Neither argument is compelling, nor would Maximinus and Priscus necessarily share a religion. Priscus praises both pagans, like Cyrus of Panopolis (fr. 8) and Apollonius (fr. 23.3), and Christians, like the emperor Majorian, and religious belief does not seem to play much of a role in his approach to history.

  Work

  Most of our fragments of Priscus survive in the compilations made under the supervision of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–59), the Excerpta de Legationibus Romanorum ad gentes (Excerpts of Roman Embassies to Foreigners) and the Excerpta de Legationibus Gentium ad Romanos (Excerpts of Foreign Embassies to the Romans). Photius does not mention Priscus, nor does the Suda depend explicitly upon his work in more than a few places. Priscus’ history was influential in the centuries following its publication, and a number of later historians drew upon it either directly or through intermediaries. The extent of this influence, however, is difficult to discern. The Getica, or Gothic History, of Jordanes, written in the sixth century, draws upon Priscus, perhaps secondhand from the lost Gothic history of Cassiodorus. The sixth-century ecclesiastical historian Evagrius Scholasticus names Priscus as a source, and some of the fragments of the seventh-century chronicler John of Antioch rely on Priscus. These two authors may have gotten their Priscan material indirectly via the (lost) sixth-century chronicler Eustathius of Epiphania. Procopius, writing in the sixth century, also used Priscus as a source for his Wars. Finally, the anonymous author of the seventh-century Paschal Chronicle, the ninth-century chronicler Theophanes, and the fourteenth-century Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus Callistus, all derive material from Priscus, again perhaps through the intermediary Eustathius (Blockley 1981: 113–18).

  The title of Priscus’ work is unknown. The Exc. de Leg. Gent. gives simply History, the Exc. de Leg. Rom. gives Gothic History, and the Suda provides both Byzantine History and Events in the Time of Attila. The title Byzantine History is anachronistic, and the Suda frequently gives the subjects of works rather than their actual titles, so these suggestions are unhelpful (Bornmann 1979: xiii). The Huns are occasionally referred to as Goths by classicizing historians, which perhaps explains the title Gothic History. No definitive conclusion is possible, but perhaps the simple title History, that is, personal investigation, fits the work best (Blockley 1981: 49).

  The period covered by the history is also unclear. The earliest datable fragment (fr. 2) describes the death of the Hunnic king Rua and the succession by his sons Attila and Bleda. This took place perhaps in 433 or 434. The first fragment, which describes the entrance of the Huns into Europe, may have been part of a flashback introducing the Huns. Since Attila is the focus of the early fragments, this would be a reasonable place to begin. The last datable fragment which is definitely of Priscan origin describes the murder of the general Aspar in 471 (fr. 61). The work may have concluded with the death of Leo in 474. Another possible ending point would be the death of Anthemius in 472, which is supported by the fact that according to Photius (cod. 78), the historian Malchus, who may have continued
the work of Priscus, began in the year 473 (Blockley 1981: 51).

  Since even the title and the scope of the history are uncertain, it is unsurprising to discover that the structure of the work cannot be reconstructed with any confidence. The Suda tells us that the history was divided into eight books. About forty years of history in eight books provides an average of five years per book, but the majority of the surviving fragments concern Attila and come from the years 447–50. Blockley suggests that perhaps the first four books concluded with the death of Theodosius II in 450, that the fifth covered the reign of Marcian, and that the sixth, seventh, and eighth treated events during the reign of Leo (Blockley 1981: 49–50).

  Priscus’ treatment of two military figures, Basiliscus and Onoulphus, is central to determining the date of publication of the History. Basiliscus was commander of an expedition against the Vandals in 468. After the failure of the campaign, he was accused of accepting bribes from the enemy and his life was spared only through the agency of his sister, the empress Verina. He later forced the emperor Zeno to flee, in 475, and reigned as emperor for a year and a half, until Zeno’s return in August 476. Zeno then exiled Basiliscus and his family to Cappadocia, where they were imprisoned and starved to death. Priscus’ critical comments on Basiliscus thus suggest a publication date after 476. The Hun Onoulphus served in the Roman military in the 470s and rose to the position of magister militum per Illyricum from 477 to 479. He is criticized by John of Antioch (fr. 209.1), and if this fragment is derived from Priscus, it suggests that Priscus published his work after 479, when Onoulphus no longer held a powerful office in the east (Blockley 1981: 49–50).

  The History covered a period of western instability and of frequent foreign wars. Under Valentinian III in the west, Aetius became magister militum and held real power until his death in 454, shortly after the death of Attila in 453. After the death of Valentinian in 455, a series of puppet emperors were dominated by the general Ricimer until his death in 472. In the east, Theodosius II contended successfully with the Persians and less successfully with the Huns until his death in 450. The soldier Marcian, who succeeded him, married Theodosius’ sister Pulcheria. His successor, Leo, took power in 457 with the support of the magister militum Aspar, who was assassinated in 470.

  The fragmentary state of Priscus’ history makes it quite difficult to determine his views on some of the significant actors of the period. The negative judgements in John of Antioch and the Suda on Theodosius II have usually been attributed to Priscus (fr. 3). A few other passages suggest that Priscus may not have attacked Theodosius directly but was clearly opposed to his policy of subsidies to Attila, which Priscus saw as cowardice (frs. 9.3, 15.2). This may explain his apparent support for the eunuch Chrysaphius in his attempt to assassinate Attila (fr. 15.3). Here, however, the evidence is mixed: John of Antioch is extremely critical of the eunuch, and Priscus’ apparent praise may be ironic (cf. Blockley 1981: 64; Baldwin 1980b: 35; Thompson 1996: 222). Priscus appears to have supported Marcian (fr. 19), who withdrew subsidies from Attila and avoided retribution by the timely death of the Hun. No explicit Priscan judgements of Leo survive. The available fragments provide a fuller account of events in the east than in the west, but one western figure whom Priscus clearly disliked was Ricimer (frs. 36.2, 64).

  Priscus presents some reflections on the empire under Theodosius II in the unusual extended set-piece he creates in the form of a debate between himself and a Greek who has defected to the Huns (fr. 11, lines 407–510; Blockley 1981: 55–9). The paired speeches begin with an allusion to Plato (Phaedo 227a), which signals to the reader that the following dialogue ought not be judged by the usual historical criteria. The Greek says that he had settled on the Danube as a merchant and had been enslaved when his city was taken by the Huns, but that he had since won his freedom by military service and lived happily as a dependant of Onegesius. He then proceeds to extol the superiority of Hunnic life to Roman life. Because Romans are forbidden by their rulers to carry weapons, he says, they must depend upon others for safety, and those Roman soldiers who do bear arms are put at risk by cowardly generals. In peacetime, Romans face heavy taxes and corrupt courts. Legal matters stretch on indefinitely, and the rich are always successful while the poor always lose.

  Priscus replies “gently” to the Greek, with a response based on Platonic ideas. The founders of the empire, he claims, established that one class of men would be made soldiers who specialized in guardianship and could fight without fear. Another class of men would support these guardians through specialization in agricultural work. Still other men would serve as judges or advocates. Legal specialists ensure that judgements are paid off in order to prevent further litigation. If cases take an excessive amount of time, it is simply because of the importance of getting a just result, and for the Romans the law applies equally to everyone, including the emperor. Finally, Priscus points out that Romans treat their slaves better than the Huns do. The Romans treat slaves like children, are forbidden to put them to death, and frequently manumit them. The Huns, on the other hand, had required dangerous military service of the Greek in return for his freedom. The dialogue concludes when the Greek bursts into tears, agreeing with Priscus that the constitution of the Roman state is excellent but lamenting its corruption by rulers with contempt for tradition.

  Priscus’ reply has been condemned as weak and unconvincing; Gibbon denounced it as a “feeble and prolix declamation” (quoted in Baldwin 1980b: 40). Priscus may respond to the Greek’s specific complaints with abstract constitutional theory, but he does address each of the complaints seriously, albeit not in a manner likely to gain much sympathy from modern readers. To the argument that mercenary armies are dangerous for citizens and cowardly in battle, Priscus responds that specialized training creates more fearless soldiers. To the complaint that taxation is too high, Priscus reminds the Greek that citizens without the need for military service are able to devote themselves fully to working the land and can thereby support those fighting on their behalf. The dialogue concludes with the unremarkable suggestion that Priscus’ arguments about the excellence of the Roman system are well founded, but that poor leadership prevents the proper working of the system. It is noteworthy that several of the accusations leveled by the Greek, particularly about the cowardice of Roman generals and the oppressiveness of taxation, reappear in the mouths of others in other fragments. Blockley describes these accusations as examples of the indirect method of criticism favored by Priscus (1981: 58–9).

  The exchanges between the Greek and Priscus are reported indirectly in the fragments, but may have been in direct speech in the History itself. It is to be expected that a sophist would have included other speeches in his work, but only traces survive in the fragments. Evidence for his use of formal digressions is also difficult to evaluate, but it appears that Priscus has primarily digressed to introduce various foreign peoples with whom the Romans and the Huns came into contact (Blockley 1981: 61–2).

  Priscus’ style is similar to that of other classicizing historians, and is neither as ornate as that of Eunapius nor as clotted with technical terminology as that of Olympiodorus (Baldwin 1980b: 50–3; Blockley 1981: 52–4). He avoids most, though not all, Latinisms, and uses technical terms inconsistently. He is also inconsistent in his use of ethnic names, as, for example, in his use of the terms “Hun” and “Scythian” interchangeably. There is little evidence of the use of numbers or of serious attention to chronology in the extant fragments.

  Priscus frequently alludes to Herodotus and Thucydides (Bornmann 1974; Blockley 1981: 54–5). For example, distance is measured by reference to so many “days’ journey for a well-girt man” (several times in fr. 11), a Herodotean usage. More significantly, in several places Priscus explains events with stories from Herodotus, such as his explanation of the movements of the “tribes of the northern Ocean” who were driven south by attacks of gryphons (fr. 40.2). This tale, it seems, was derived from a similar explanation of the movement of the
Arimaspians in Herodotus 4.13. These Herodotean explanations seem to be confined to stories of people far from the borders of the Roman empire, for whom Priscus could find no reliable information. Priscus’ borrowing from Thucydides is particularly evident in his account of the Huns’ siege of Naissus (fr. 6.2), which is modeled on the famous account of the siege of Plataea (Thucydides 2.75–8) as well as on Dexippus’ own imitation of Thucydides (fr. 27) (Thompson 1947b; Blockley 1972b; Baldwin 1980b: 53–6). Priscus’ imitation of Thucydides here is primarily at the level of diction. For example, both remark that the defenders were sheltered by a screen “covered with skins and hides (derreis kai diphteras).” These allusions need not have corrupted Priscus’ historical accuracy, and the details of the siege do differ markedly from the Thucydidean model. The Herodotean borrowings likewise seem to be used only in circumstances where distance in time and space would have made any story suspect. Such borrowings and allusions suggest a sophisticated audience who would be expected to recognize and appreciate the references.

  Priscus makes no mention of other historians as sources for his own work, and most of his information must have been drawn from autopsy or from interviews. He was clearly well traveled and well connected, and thus would have had access to participants in the events he discussed. He must also have had some access to documents and archival information such as treaties (e.g. fr. 2).