In the field of secular historiography, the first complex narrative to survive from this period is the Res gestae composed in Latin by Ammianus Marcellinus c. ad 391. This work originally covered the period from the accession of the emperor Nerva (ad 96-8) to the repulsion of the Goths from Constantinople following the death of the emperor Valens (ad 364-78) at the battle of Hadrianople; but it does not survive in full. The surviving text commences with an account of the behavior of Gallus Caesar at Antioch in ad 353, although Ammianus occasionally refers back to his description of events during the earlier period. According to the transmitted book numbers, we possess the last eighteen books of a work that had originally consisted of thirty-one books; but it has recently been argued that the book numbers suffered corruption at an early stage in the transmission of this text, so that we actually possess the second eighteen books of a work that had consisted of thirty-six books (Barnes 1998: 20-31). Controversy also surrounds the career of the author. He describes himself as a former soldier and a Greek (31. 16. 9), and provides a great deal of information concerning his military career during the period ad 353-64, when he saw service in both the western and the eastern halves of the empire. He seems to have participated in the emperor Julian’s ill-fated expedition against the Persians in AD 363, but his status subsequently remains something of a mystery. He was in Antioch during the treason trials there in ad 370, but seems to have moved to Rome by about ad 384. Nevertheless, his identification with the Antiochene Ammianus engaged in literary activity at Rome, to whom the rhetor Libanius addressed a letter in AD 392, remains improbable. While it is true that Ammianus spent much of his life in or about Antioch, he probably came from somewhere in Phoenicia (Barnes 1998: 54-64), perhaps Emesa (Woods 2003). While it is clear that Ammianus saw himself as a continuator of the work of Tacitus, whose Historiae had ended in ad 96, he did not follow his methodology or style very closely. His text contains many digressions more in keeping with the Greek historical tradition, the most noteworthy being his digressions on scientific matters such as earthquakes (17. 7. 9-14). He remains silent about the sources that he used for the surviving portion of his history, although one may assume that he supplemented his own memories with a variety of oral and written sources. Great controversy surrounds the relationship of his history to that by Eunapius of Sardis, since they were close contemporaries writing at the same time on the same subject matter; but the argument that Ammianus had access to a first edition of Eunapius’ history has much to recommend it (Barnes 1978: 117-19). Otherwise, he probably used a variety of official reports, the writings of the emperor Julian, panegyrics, and letters. The accuracy and objectivity of Ammianus have been highly praised in the past, not least because his prejudices appeal so much to the modern academic. In fact, he is an anti-Christian polemicist, who allows his religious prejudice to distort much of what he reports (Barnes 1998: 79-94), although he is far more subtle in this than was Eunapius of Sardis. Furthermore, it is arguable that some of his apparent oral sources, such as the eunuch Eutherius, may have tailored their reminiscences to suit his obvious prejudices (Woods 1998). Hence, Ammianus’ text is far more complex and difficult to use than might initially seem to be the case.
The only other substantial secular historical text to survive in Latin from this period was the collection of imperial biographies now known as the Historia Augusta. It consists of thirty biographies, although some are really collections of biographies, from Hadrian (ad 117-38) until Carinus (ad 283-5). It presents itself as having been written by six different historians working during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I; but it has long been accepted that it was probably written at Rome by one man shortly after ad 395. The fact that it contains several direct quotations from Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, that it betrays a knowledge of the history of
Ammianus Marcellinus, and that it seems to allude to several contemporary events such as the destruction of the Serapeum in ad 391 and the battle of Frigidus in AD 394, suffices to prove its late date (Syme 1968). It is not clear why the author of this text should have sought to conceal his date and identity, but the fictitious nature of much of the material that he reports, during the later biographies in particular, suggests that he designed the whole work as an academic hoax and that it was necessary to conceal his real date and identity as part of this hoax. It has been argued that he derived his authentic historical information from six main sources, four of whom can be identified by name: Marius Maximus, Herodian, Dexippus, and Euna-pius. The remaining two are hypothetical sources, whose existence is deduced from the nature of the text and its relationship with other late Latin historical sources: a reliable Latin source that ended in ad 217, the author of which is sometimes misleadingly referred to as Ignotus by modern commentators, and another Latin source conventionally described as the Kaisergeschichte, which the author of the Historia Augusta seems to have shared with the authors of other Latin epitomes or brief histories composed during the late fourth century (on which more below; see Barnes 1978). The Historia Augusta preserves our most detailed surviving account of the period ad 238-85, but it is difficult to distinguish between the material that the author derived from a reliable source and the material he invented as part of his hoax.
As far as Latin historiography was concerned, the fourth century was otherwise very much the age of the epitome or brief history. This type of work represents an intermediate stage between the complex narrative history and the chronicle, and the popularity of such works during the late fourth century provides a telling insight into the social and political changes already afoot; changes that eventually saw the triumph of the chronicle as the primary vehicle for the transmission of historical knowledge. Writing c. ad 361, Sextus Aurelius Victor composed his De Caesaribus, a history of the emperors from 31 bc to ad 361 (Bird 1984). He was a career civil servant, who was appointed governor of Pannonia Secunda in ad 361 and prefect of Rome c. ad 388. Writing c. ad 369, Eutropius composed his Breviarium, a history of the Roman state from its mythical foundation by Romulus down to ad 364. He also was a career civil servant, who was magister memoriae in ad 369 and rose to become consul in AD 387. Next, writing c. ad 370, Festus composed his Breviarium, a history of the Roman state from the foundation of Rome to ad 364 once more, but it was only about a quarter of the length of Eutropius’ text (Eadie 1967). He seems to have succeeded Eutropius as magister menoriae and rose to become proconsul of Asia by AD 372. Finally, an anonymous author composed the Epitome de Caesaribus shortly after ad 395, in which he summarized Roman history from 31 bc to ad 395. It is not clear what inspired these authors to write as they did, although Festus wrote in response to a direct request from the emperor Valens himself. It seems that the emperor felt that his work would serve some definite purpose, whether as a convenient educational tool for those ignorant of Roman history or as piece of propaganda designed to provide justification for an intended Persian campaign. In all cases, however, one suspects that the authors were motivated by a hope that the circulation of their work would enhance their reputation as men of learning and so prove them worthy of further promotion, rather than by a desire to prove a particular argument.
They all rely heavily on a common source, the Kaisergeschichte (or a continuation of the same down to ad 378). This was probably a comprehensive history of Rome from its origins to ad 358 rather than a history of the imperial period alone (Burgess 2005). The fact that so many ambitious men of relatively humble origin should have interrupted their busy careers in order to compose historical works provides a telling confirmation of the complaints by Ammianus Marcellinus (14. 6. 18; 18. 4. 14) that the senatorial elite, the great landed families whose members should have had both the time and the means to compose complex historical narrative in the manner of Tacitus or Cassius Dio, were no longer interested in such serious pastimes. Some senators did manage to bestir themselves, such as Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, consul in ad 394; but nothing is known about the nature of his annates, which may have been an epitome of republican history rather than a detailed original description of contemporary events (Hedrick 2000: 145-7).
World History
