The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  In sharp contrast to Ammianus’ refusal to grant humanity to the barbarians he describes on the battlefield is his description of barbarians who served in the Roman army or administration. It is difficult to find a negative racial characterization applied to these Romanized barbarians (Chauvot 1998: 400–4). While he is critical of some German officials (14.10.8, 21.10.8), he praises others (17.10.5, 26.8.5, 31.9.2). He frequently praises the courage of the German troops fighting for the empire. Several passages reveal more clearly Ammianus’ favorable attitude toward barbarians in official positions. When courtiers attacked Silvanus in Gaul, Malarichus, his fellow Frank, complained to other Franks “who were prominent at court at that time” (15.5.11), that this was an outrage to Franks who were so “devoted to the empire” (15.5.6). Ammianus places the claim of loyalty in Malarichus’ mouth without comment, and he seems unconcerned by the prominence of Franks at court. When Julian sought the support of the Roman senate for his usurpation, he wrote letters attacking the reputation of Constantine, and he “openly reproached him for being the first to promote barbarians” to the consulship (21.10.8). Ammianus considered this “tasteless and thoughtless,” pointing out that Julian himself would soon name Nevitta consul, a barbarian far inferior in reputation and experience to any that Constantine had appointed.

  Ammianus describes the barbarians across the frontier as bestial while judging barbarians in Roman service, with whom he had lived and worked for many years, by the full range of criteria which he applies to Romans. Ammianus’ support of very harsh policies toward barbarians, therefore, even including extermination, cannot be considered racially motivated. Rather, it reveals the historian’s soldierly belief in the legitimacy of the use of any means to accomplish a given end. When the Romans ambushed and massacred the Saxons in Gaul, Ammianus recognizes that some might find the measure too strong, but states that it was nevertheless necessary (28.5.7). The massacre of Goths after Adrianople is considered by Ammianus a “wise” plan and the general Julius is praised for his “swift and beneficial” action (31.16.8).

  Eunapius, unlike Ammianus, can fairly be charged with a general dislike of all barbarians, Romanized or otherwise. Goths are both arrogant and ugly (fr. 37). Eunapius particularly faults the barbarians’ lack of Greco-Roman literary culture, as his depiction of the causes of the Battle of the Frigidus reveals. The barbarity of the Frank Arbogast is emphasized. He obtained his imperial position by murder, and when Valentinian III attempted to dismiss him from his office with a rescript, Arbogast howled and ripped the order to pieces (fr. 58). Eunapius further states that Arbogast loved war and slaughter, and upon his defeat “showed his native barbarian madness” by falling upon his sword (fr. 60). It was therefore Arbogast who compelled Eugenius, a professor “with a high reputation for eloquence,” into a failed revolt, which was destined to end in his conquest at the Frigidus river (fr. 58). In Eunapius’ account, barbarian madness has forced a peaceful scholar to a suicidal war (fr. 60).

  Eunapius saw the Goths in particular as eternally hostile to the Roman state. Even before their entrance onto Roman territory the Goths had sworn an oath which he describes as “an unholy one that went beyond the normal savagery of barbarians” (fr. 59). The historian implausibly claims that the Goths pledged that even if the Romans were unceasingly benevolent toward them, they would nevertheless plot against them with the aim of conquering the entire empire. Eunapius’ fragments do provide one honorable and heroic Goth, the Roman general Fravitta. One reason Eunapius supported Fravitta was presumably his successful campaign against the Goth Gainas, who attempted a coup in Constantinople in 400. More important for Eunapius, however, was undoubtedly the fact that Fravitta shared his traditional religious beliefs. The Goth is described as a “Hellene” (fr. 69.2) and an “initiate” of pagan mystery cults (fr. 69.4), who demanded from the emperor in return for his service the right “to worship God in the ancestral manner” (fr. 69.4).

  Eunapius thus deplored the very existence of barbarians both on the frontiers and in Roman service, and he was not especially averse to extreme measures, such as massacres, if necessary (Zos. 4.26). In Eunapius’ view, however, the empire’s religious and cultural crisis was to blame for its military difficulties. He says that the invasion of Greece by Alaric, for example, fulfilled a prophecy which indicated that destruction would result as a consequence of the closing of the ancient cult site at Eleusis, and in general he links the destruction of temples with the invasion of barbarians (frs. 64.2, 64.3). In Eunapius’ vision, the empire required a figure like Julian to fight both barbarism and Christianity on behalf of traditional Greek thought.

  Olympiodorus may also suggest that pagan revival would aid the state against invasion. The removal of sacred apotropaic statues from Thrace occurred just days before a Gothic invasion (fr. 27). The historian also suggested the potential efficacy of pagan rites in defending Rome against Alaric, although Sozomen uses this section of Olympiodorus to argue for the opposite view (fr. 7.5; Soz. 9.6.3–4; Zos. 5.41.1–3). Nevertheless, Olympiodorus’ work is a pragmatic diplomat’s account of recent successes in restoring international order, not an expression of longing for cultural reaction. His work in its fragmentary form provides no evidence of antibarbarian polemic or stereotyping. In fact, his support of Stilicho and apparent support of the marriage of Ataulf and Galla Placidia suggest a Roman both comfortable with Goths and other barbarians (such as the African Blemmyes, fr. 35.2) and interested in incorporating them into the Roman world.

  From the evidence of the surviving fragments, Priscus, like Olympiodorus, refrained from gratuitous anti-barbarian language and approached barbarian conflict in a pragmatic spirit. Priscus appears fair-minded in his description of Hunnic customs and culture, despite the difficulties he encountered on his journey, and his other comments on foreign people are antiquarian rather than critical in nature (frs. 41.3, 66). Although diplomacy is central to his work, Priscus favors a hard line, particularly toward the Huns, and he condemns the payments made by Theodosius II to Attila as nothing better than tribute (frs. 3, 9.3). It is unclear whether Priscus was critical of the Roman reliance upon foreign troops and generals in particular, if he simply criticized the cowardice he saw in many generals regardless of ethnicity (Blockley 1981: 64–7).

  Rufinus introduced an innovative approach to thinking about barbarians in history. The old model of conquest in war by the emperor had been replaced by a form of conquest by conversion, with the emperor present only in the capacity of a suitably pious sovereign. In a work written to comfort those afflicted by barbarian invasion, Rufinus had completely inverted the concerns of the sufferers. The real danger for the state, he revealed, was not the threat of invasion from outside of the empire, but internal subversion in the form of Arianism and paganism, which Theodosius had triumphantly suppressed. The study of the world beyond the borders of the empire revealed that the apostolic project was continuing in the present day and held forth the prospect of an entirely Christian world in the future.

  While Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret reproduce the accounts of foreign conversions found in Rufinus, they draw back from complete espousal of his interpretations. The Greek church historians continue to be influenced by the Eusebian model of the triumphant Christian king who will protect his state and flock from foreign powers. Both Socrates and Theodoret preserve an anecdote, whose exact historicity is uncertain, set in the reign of Theodosius II (Soc. 7.43.1–4; Theod. 5.37.4). In the more full account of Socrates, careful and fervent prayer by the emperor caused a lightning bolt to strike the Hun leader, Ruga, and caused many of his followers to be killed by plague and by fire from heaven. The emperor’s traditional power to destroy barbarians remained more important to these historians than the church’s ability to convert them.

  Orosius, on the other hand, carries even further Rufinus’ suggestion that the division of the world into Christian and pagan supersedes the old division of Roman and barbarian. Orosius’ account is often inconsistent, however, for
he claims on different occasions that barbarian invasions were punishments for Roman sinfulness (e.g. 7.37), that good pious emperors will crush the barbarians (7.28, 7.34), and that the death of thousands of Goths in Theodosius’ army at the Battle of the Frigidus was cause for rejoicing (7.35). Yet Orosius’ optimistic vision is in the peroration of his work when he praises the felicity of the times, when “the most savage nations have been suppressed, restrained, incorporated, and destroyed with very little blood, with no struggle, and almost without any killing” (7.43.17).

  Conclusion

  Late antique historians reveal a wide spectrum of possible depictions of barbarians. More traditionalist historians such as Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and Eunapius all share a belief in the desirability of constant aggressive warfare against Persia and the northern barbarians. In the fifth century, historians like Olympiodorus and Priscus reproduce apparently accurate accounts of their own firsthand encounters with non-Romans. Olympiodorus boldly recommended Roman and Gothic cooperation, while Priscus, faced with the more intransigent Huns, favored a military solution over the payment of subsidies.

  Rufinus was a great innovator in his recognition of barbarians as potential Christian partners rather than solely as the objects of conquest. Orosius extends Rufinus’ idea to include barbarians entering the empire as well as those beyond the borders. The Greek church historians also show an interest in Christian barbarians, and recount persecutions in Gothic and Persian territory. For them, however, because of the relative stability of the eastern throne, and the increasingly flaunted Christian piety of the eastern emperor, no sharp distinction between Christian and Roman needed to be drawn. Instead, the fourth-century sense of Roman superiority over the barbarians could simply be enhanced by the Christian sense of superiority over the pagan. The Christian, Roman emperor was ideally placed to defeat the pagan barbarian, whether Goth or Persian, on behalf of the Christians abroad whom the emperor claimed as his own.

  18

  THE EMPEROR JULIAN (THE APOSTATE)

  Few figures from late antiquity have inspired more interest, both in their own day and in the present day, than the emperor Julian (Bowersock 1978; Athanassiadi 1981/92; Smith 1995; Browning 1975; Bouffartigue 1992; Braun and Richer 1978). The emperor was reviled by Christians, yet often treated with the respect due a worthy opponent, and although pagans praised him, they did not fail to mention his flaws. His bold attempt to restore paganism to the empire aroused tremendous passion among contemporaries, but his innovations in military, judicial, and fiscal policies were also controversial.

  Our knowledge of Julian’s life and reign comes not only from historians but also from orations, both in favor of and opposed to the emperor, and from numerous speeches, letters, and other works written by the emperor himself. The richness of our information allows us to know Julian as well as almost any other figure from antiquity, and serves as a useful check on the claims of partisan historians. Julian was the focus of the works of several late antique historians and occupied a substantial part of several others. A historian’s treatment of the emperor can serve as a particularly effective guide to understanding his interests and biases.

  Youth and education

  Modern studies of Julian tend to place considerable weight on the emperor’s childhood and education in an attempt to understand this psychologically complex man (Bowersock 1978: 21–32; Athanassiadi 1981/92: 13–51; Smith 1995: 23–48; Browning 1975: 31–66). Julian’s father, Julius Constantius, was a half-brother of Constantine the Great. Julian was born in 331 at Constantinople; his mother died within months of his birth. At the death of Constantine in May 337, further tragedy struck. Soldiers, after announcing that they would obey only legitimate sons of Constantine, killed Julian’s father and eight others, sparing only the 6-year-old Julian and his half-brother Gallus (DiMaio and Arnold 1992). Many years later Julian would point to this massacre as justification for his revolt against his cousin, Constantius II, who was widely believed to have had a role in the killings.

  The orphaned Julian was brought to Bithynia, where he was raised by his maternal grandmother. At age 7 his schooling began at the hands of Eusebius, the Arian bishop of Nicomedia, and Mardonius, a Gothic eunuch who had long been associated with Julian’s family. Julian would later remember Mardonius fondly as the man who had introduced him to Homer and other classics. In 342, however, Julian and his brother were sent into exile at an estate in Cappadocia, where they were isolated from their former teachers and friends. During this period it seems that Julian was guarded by eunuchs and taught by, among others, the Christian bishop George.

  In 348, when Julian was 18, the sentence of exile was lifted, and while Gallus was taken to the court of Constantius, Julian was allowed to continue his education. He remained briefly in Constantinople, and then studied at Nicomedia. When Constantius elevated Gallus to the rank of Caesar in 351, Julian traveled to Asia Minor, where he studied Neoplatonism with Aedesius. Two traditions of late Platonism, descending from the philosophers Porphyry and Iamblichus respectively, were current at the time. The Porphyrean strain, which Aedesius professed, concentrated on the power of reason to know the soul. Julian was warned by Aedesius’ circle against the practitioners of the more ritualistic “Iamblichan” sort of Platonism, which sought enlightenment through the use of magic and miracle-working. This type of philosophy proved, however, to be exactly what Julian preferred, and he left Aedesius and his school to study with Maximus of Ephesus, who was a master of “theurgy,” the art of manipulating the gods through ritual. Julian later considered his education under Maximus to be responsible for his conversion to paganism, and Maximus would become an important advisor to Julian when he had gained imperial power. Julian’s survival was momentarily in doubt when Gallus was recalled and executed by Constantius in 354, but he was spared by the intercession of the empress Eusebia. With the empress’s support he then traveled to Athens, where he pursued further studies in theurgy with the philosopher Priscus, and where he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. For years to come, however, he hid his apostasy from all but his closest intimates, and publicly continued to profess Christianity.

  Ammianus’ history is dominated by Julian, both in the percentage of the work allotted to him, despite his short reign, and in his role as the ideal emperor to whom all others are compared. In light of the importance of Julian to the Res Gestae as a whole, it is perhaps surprising to see how little information Ammianus gives us about Julian’s youth. Julian first appears in the extant books as the object of slander at court after the execution of Gallus in 354, where it is stated that he was eventually allowed to go to Greece to further his education (15.2.7–8). Evidence for the presence of information about Julian in the lost books is very thin. Ammianus probably mentioned the massacre of Julian’s family, since he later presents it as an example of Constantius’ cruelty (21.16.8). But when Julian traveled to Nicomedia as emperor, Ammianus mentions, as if for the first time, that Julian had spent time there as a youth (22.9.4). When Ammianus discusses the murder of Bishop George of Alexandria and Julian’s reaction to it, he surprisingly neglects to mention George’s role as tutor of the young Julian (22.11.3–11). At the beginning of book 16, Ammianus provides a formal introduction of his hero as he prepares to lead an army in Gaul as Caesar. The only references to Julian’s childhood in this passage are the passing remarks that Julian’s success was all the more remarkable since he was brought up in seclusion and had come “from the quiet shadows of the Academy, not from a soldier’s tent” (16.1.5).

  Julian was raised a Christian and did not convert to paganism until his teens, as all of our other sources and Julian’s own writings make clear. Ammianus’ comment on Julian’s religion comes, then, as a surprise: “Although Julian from the first beginnings of boyhood was rather attracted toward the worship of the gods, and as he grew older was gradually more aflame with desire for it, out of fear he was performing certain acts pertaining to divine worship, insofar as he was able, in the mo
st extreme secrecy” (22.5.1). Ammianus seems determined to portray Julian’s paganism as a gradually evolving tendency, rather than as something acquired in a sudden moment of conversion. Ammianus’ later criticisms directed at Julian for his “superstition” and for his excessive reliance on theurgic wonder-workers such as Maximus and Priscus suggest that the historian did not approve of the “Iamblichan,” theurgic paganism which the emperor professed (Matthews 1989: 128–9). The erasure of Julian’s formative years allowed the historian to avoid extensive discussion of either his Christianity or his theurgic Neoplatonism, both of which Ammianus found distasteful.

  Eunapius, like Ammianus, wrote his history in order to praise the deeds of Julian, as he explicitly claims. He and his companions felt that the history of the age had reached its apogee at the time of Julian, whom all worship as a divinity (fr. 1; cf. fr. 15). Eunapius places the blame for the massacre of Julian’s relatives firmly on Constantius (fr. 20.3), adding that all of his family’s property was stolen as well. We derive much of our information about Julian’s teachers and associates, such as Maximus and the Christian sophist Prohaeresius, from Eunapius’ Lives of the Sophists. We can thus imagine that Eunapius had provided some information about Julian’s earlier life in his history, which has left a trace in Zosimus’ summary of his work. In Zosimus, the imperial official Eusebius describes Julian as one who “has spent his whole life as a student” and who has no experience in worldly matters (3.1.3). Zosimus’ claim that Julian excelled his teachers in every kind of learning may summarize a collection of anecdotes found in the original Eunapius (3.2.1).