The Greco-Roman tradition of history writing proved immensely durable. From the third to the seventh centuries Herodotus and Thucydides, Sallust and Livy, were still being read and copied in both east and west. Jerome (Ep. 58) suggested that just as budding generals aspired to be the new Camillus or Scipio, so should new historians seek to emulate Thucydides and Herodotus, Sallust and Livy. He introduced young students to Sallust and Livy (Rufinus, Apology 28) and presumed other young boys read works such as Aemilius Asper’s commentary on Sallust (Jerome, In Rufinum 1.16). Jerome’s contemporary and imperial tutor Ausonius possessed copies of Herodotus and Thucydides (Ep. 10.32), while Staphylius who taught at Bordeaux knew Herodotus and Livy (Auson. Prof. 20.8). At Rome Naucellius translated an unspecified Greek history (Symm. Ep. 3.11), another aristocrat wrote his own Roman history (Symm. Ep. 9.110), yet others were busily arranging for manuscripts of Livy to be copied for themselves. At Sardis, Eunapius (F 66), who considered Thucydides the most accurate of historians, knew of lots of recent histories, albeit rushed and unsatisfactory, while at Constantinople Thucydides was read and imitated. The most significant Latin history of the period was written by a Greek (Ammianus Marcellinus) equally at home with both Thucydides and Sallust.
Thucydides’ history in particular was one of the most common school texts, a stylistic model. It also constituted a paradigm for writing the history of one’s own times, as had been emphasized by Lucian in the second century (HC 15ff.). Although the reputation and use of earlier Greek and Roman historians in late antiquity remain little studied, Thucydides and Herodotus stand out. Over ninety papyrus fragments of Thucydides, dating from the third to the seventh centuries, have already been discovered, which is nearly twice as many as for Herodotus and
Xenophon (information from Leuven database, ldab. arts. kuleuven. ac. be/ index. html). At Constantinople, Thucydides was a shared and valued experience among the cultured courtiers and government officials. The Egyptian poet Christodorus, in the late fifth/early sixth century, described a statue of Thucydides in the Baths of Zeuxippos at Constantinople. The historian’s right arm was raised as he declaimed his history to his listeners, ‘‘wielding his intellect, weaving as it seemed, one of the speeches of his history’’ (Anth. Pal. 2.372-376).
Periodic wars against the Persians and other threatening invaders generated a demand for new histories written in the conventional mold. However, the modern label of‘‘classicizing’’ which is regularly applied to historians writing in Greek can be misleading. The historiographical tradition had not become fossilized. Rather, it posed for each author the challenge of being creative within an authoritative tradition without appearing to be novel or original for its own sake. Most of these historians, both Greek and Latin, are either entirely lost or preserved only in extracts and fragments. The only ones which have survived in full are Procopius, Agathias, and Theophylact in Greek, along with Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, and Isidore in Latin. The majority of the histories of Ammianus and Zosimus is still extant. All we have of many historians’ works, however, are a later summary or selective extracts (Roques 2004): Dexippus, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, Malchus, Candidus, John of Antioch. We have absolutely or virtually nothing of Praxagoras, Eustathius of Epi-phaneia, Capito of Lycia, Hesychius, Nonnosus, Peter the Patrician, John of Epipha-neia, and Theophanes of Byzantium in Greek, along with Nicomachus Flavianus, Sulpicius Alexander, Renatus Frigeridus, Symmachus, and Cassiodorus’ Gothic History in Latin. Sometimes it is possible and instructive to show how one historian used an earlier one, for example, Jordanes on Orosius, Evagrius on Procopius and Zosi-mus, but generally it is impossible. As a result much scholarly energy has been devoted to divining connections and to disinterring fragments of lost historians in later writers. Sometimes the results are useful (e. g., the so-called Kaisergeschichte:. above, p. 297), but otherwise entirely dubious, such as attempts to locate traces in later writers of the lost Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus and then make assumptions about the work (Bleckmann 1992; Zecchini 1993: 51-64; Ratti 2003: 212-216).
In Greek there continued a line of historians right down to Theophylact in the early seventh century, more or less continuing each other but bringing different emphases and perspectives. Dexippus (FGrHist 100), a local Athenian priest and public official in the later third century, wrote a Thucydidean history covering the recent Gothic invasion of Attica (possibly continuing Dio) and the defense of Athens as well as a chronographical summary history to the 270s. Over a century later his history was continued by the sophist Eunapius, who took Dexippus to task for disfiguring his text with attempts at chronological precision. ‘‘For what,’’ he asked, ‘‘do dates contribute to the wisdom of Socrates or the acuity of Themistocles?’’ (F 1). His history was evidently designed to highlight the reign of the emperor Julian (361-363), who symbolized the failed attempt to reinstate the Hellenic tradition for which Eunapius stood (Blockley, FCH I.1-26; II.1-150; Baldini 1984; Liebeschuetz 2003: 177-201). In Eunapius’ perspective the aim of reading histories was to ‘‘gain experience of old age while still young so that we know what is to be avoided and what sought after’’ (F 1). Much the same view was held by his hero Julian, who also considered history as helping to substitute for experience and to provide a means of liberal education (Or. 3.124 B-D, cf. Lib. Or. 15.28; 18.246). Eunapius made efforts to exploit the best possible eyewitnesses including his much older friend Oribasius, the emperor Julian’s physician. Except for completing his education in Athens in the 360s, Eunapius spent most of his life in his native Sardis, so he complains of the difficulty of securing reliable information on western events (F 66.2).
Even so, it is claimed that for western events he was able to rely on the recent Latin history of Ammianus Marcellinus which was written in Rome in installments in the 380s and early 390s. Ammianus was from Antioch, had enjoyed an adventurous stint in the Roman army in the 350s and 360s, and produced a history from long gestation which continued Tacitus from 96 ce. There has been an enormous amount of recent research on many aspects of his history, particularly his religious views, the lost books, sources, literary structure and style, his personal and cultural background, and how this is reflected in his history (Matthews 1989; Barnes 1998; Sabbah 2003; above, Chs. 24, 48-49). The Res Gestae of Ammianus centered on Julian’s reign and culminated in the defeat of the emperor Valens by the Goths in 378. It is a powerful narrative enhanced by an evocative pictorial style and interspersed by learned digressions in the classical tradition. Ammianus was critical of the tastes of the Roman aristocrats of his day (14.6.18; 28.4.14-15), not least because of their preference for sensational biography. This was the time when some clever Roman teacher produced the Historia Augusta, a series of imperial lives from Hadrian to 285, purporting to have been written by several different people in the late third/early fourth century. Fully exposing the imposture has been a significant feat of modern scholarship (Birley 2003; above, p. 302).
Ammianus could have been read not only by Eunapius but also by Olympiodorus, a highly educated litterateur from Egyptian Thebes who compiled what he called ‘‘material for history’’ which consisted of twenty-two books covering the years from 407 to 424 and dedicated to the emperor Theodosius II (Blockley, FCH I.27-47; II.152-220; Liebeschuetz 2003: 201-206). Participation in embassies or other trips to the Huns in 412, to Athens in 415, to his native Egypt, and to Rome and Ravenna in 424/5 all found a place in his history and appear to have provided clear opportunities for learned disquisitions on relevant topics. His interest in accurate description and especially geography and topography are reflected in the remains of his work. Like Olympiodorus, the rhetor Priscus from Thracian Panion wove his experiences into his history which covered the period from 434 to the early 470s in eight books (Blockley, FCHI.48-70; II.222-400; 2003: 293-312). His eyewitness account of the complex journey to the camp of Attila, king of the Huns (F 11), is equal to anything similar in Greco-Roman historiography. He has several speeches, including an exchange between himself and a former Roman who had opted for life with the Huns, while his account of the siege of Naissus (F 6), for example, draws heavily on Thucydides. Malchus, from Syrian Philadelphia, was also a rhetor and wrote a Byzantine History commencing probably in 330 and concluding in the reign of Zeno (474-491), with the last seven books covering a year each (473/4 to 480). He was considered by the ninth-century patriarch Photius to be a model historian
With a clear and dignified style, and some of the extant extracts support that view (Blockley, FCHI.71-83; II.402-462; 2003: 293-312). It was possibly in response to Malchus that Candidus, an imperial official in Isauria, wrote his history to provide a positive account of the reign of the Isaurian emperor Zeno (Blockley, FCH II.464-473; 2003: 312-313; Roberto 2000).
Somewhere in the later fifth century belongs the New History of Zosimus, an imperial legal officer whose incomplete work covers the period from classical times to the early fifth century (Paschoud 1971-2000; Liebeschuetz 2003: 206-215). Much of his history depends on both Eunapius and Olympiodorus, although his own authorial conception and execution have been underestimated. His history was ‘‘new’’ insofar as it sought to counter the interpretation entrenched by the fifth-century ecclesiastical historians, especially in their favorable pictures of Constantine and Theodosius for whom Zosimus constructs a countervailing evaluation (below, p. 575). Around the same time, at Rome, Symmachus, renowned as a modern Cato, wrote a Roman History in seven books in Latin which is lost, except for a single later quotation from Book 5 dealing with part of the reign of Maximinus (235-238). Its exact extent, literary character, sources, and date of composition are unknown, although spurious claims have been made for its extensive use by later writers, most notably by Jordanes in his Romana written at Constantinople in 550/1 (Croke 1983b; Festy 2003). Jordanes was a former secretary to a senior Roman general and also produced a History of the Goths (Getica), from legendary times right down to the time of writing (Goffart 1988: 20-111; Croke 2003: 373-375; 2005a). The extent to which he relied on Cassiodorus’ lost history of the Goths written in the 520s has been a matter of some dispute (Momigliano 1955b; Goffart 1988: 31-42; Croke 2003: 361-367).
Jordanes was an exact contemporary of Procopius of Caesarea, one of the most important historians of late antiquity, not least because he is one of the few to have survived in full and because his history constitutes such a dominant source of information for the period he covers, from 527 to 553/4. His history follows the pattern of Appian in dividing Justinian’s wars into three fronts, Persian (two books), Vandal (two books), and Gothic (three books), followed by an eighth book which covered all three fronts. Procopius was a secretary to Justinian’s general Belisarius so that he can provide an eyewitness account of events until 540 when he retired to Constantinople. Thereafter he had access to the memories and documents of other leading participants. Procopius’ history has been the subject of growing interest in recent years and the received view of him has begun to change significantly. There has been much discussion about when and how he wrote his histories and how they relate to his two other works, the Secret History and the Buildings (Cataudella 2003: 391-415; Greatrex 2003; Croke 2005b). As a historian his literary, political, and cultural background has become a subject of serious research and some debate. Procopius was educated in his native Caesarea and possibly also at the flourishing sixth-century schools in Gaza. His history is replete with all the literary apparatus of the heirs of Thucydides, especially speeches and digressions. It also reflects the contemporary Christian culture in which its writer lived and worked. Particularly controversial is whether or not his personal political and religious views are evident behind the literary facade of the history, and if so whether they constitute an orthodox Christian outlook or a Platonist or other philosophical stance (Cameron 1985; Brodka 2004: 14-151; Kaldellis 2004).
Procopius had a significant impact on his immediate successors and Byzantine historiography more generally, beginning with Agathias. Educated at Alexandria and Beirut, Agathias wrote books which continued the wars of Justinian from 553/4 to 557/8, complete with elaborate digressions on the Franks and Persians. He was not a participant in the wars but managed to squeeze some of his experiences into his history. He too has been the subject of research in recent times, resulting in a more nuanced understanding of his perspectives and personal viewpoint as a writer of contemporary history (Cameron 1970; Kaldellis 1999; Brodka 2004: 152-192). Menander continued Agathias until 582. Only extracts survive but are sufficient to suggest that his history was fairly detailed and extensive, around two to three years per book for ten books, while concentrating in detail on the negotiations and execution of peace with the Persian court (Blockley 1985; Whitby 1992: 39-45). Others had continued Agathias before Menander, namely John of Epiphaneia (FHG
IV.272-276) and Theophanes of Constantinople (FHG IV.270-271). They all knew their Thucydides intimately, and wrote in a style that self-consciously imitated him.
Theophylact was an Egyptian born around 590 and educated at Alexandria and Constantinople in the traditional literary and legal curriculum. He became a successful imperial bureaucrat and in the 630s he wrote a history which concluded at the death of the emperor Maurice (582-602). Theophylact’s history was focused on the Roman government’s relations with the Slavs and Avars, who were occupying imperial territory in the Balkans, and with the Persians in Mesopotamia and Armenia. He devoted most space to accounts of battles and embassies and wrote in an elaborate rhetorical style, complete with several speeches and learned digressions, fully utilizing the classical exemplars and his personal experience (Whitby 1988; Brodka 2004: 193-227). When, early in the reign of Heraclius (610-641), Theophylact publicly recited his narrative of the terrible murders of Maurice and his sons, his audience is said to have burst into tears (8.12.3).
World History
