Santa Costanza at Rome and the House of Constantine

The Roman Empire had an army to keep out or destroy its enemies by whatever means necessary. There was no need, or even thought, of compromise. Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of a treacherous attack on a raiding band of Saxons in 370 concludes ‘and though some fair judge of these things will condemn this act as treacherous and hateful, yet on having considered the affair, he will not think it improper that a destructive band of brigands was destroyed once the opportunity was given’. This brutality was not confined to the battlefield. Earlier in the fourth century, Constantine the Great threw two Frankish kings to the beasts in the amphitheatre. Usurpers were as brutally treated, executed in public and their heads put on display. Thus in 422 Honorius celebrated his tricennalia by executing a usurper and his general in the arena at Ravenna.

D URING LATE ANTIQUITY (4th-6th c. A.D.) it was a common practice of the Romans to pay subsidies to foreign peoples. The purposes of these subsidies and the circumstances under which they were paid varied, but they fell into two broad categories. They were either a genuine subsidy, such as a reward for good behaviour or payment for assistance (usually military), or they were a rental of good behaviour. In the former case the subsidy, which was paid from strength, could be terminated at will and was often an economic alternative to military action. In the latter case the subsidy was paid from weakness (since a credible military alternative did not exist), and so the payments tended to become regular and to increase.' These payments, too, might be justified economically,2 but the political costs could be very high since the regularised subsidy had, in effect, become a tribute which implied the subordination of the payer to the recipient.3 This danger, in various forms, was recognised and debated during the period. In the fourth century, Ammianus Marcellinus (24.3.4) makes the Emperor Julian, in an address to his troops, say that payments to the barbarians have reduced the Roman Empire to beggary. In the fifth, Priscus (Fr. 15.2) makes Attila claim that Theodosius II is his slave bound to the payment of tribute.4 But discussion was most intense in the second half of the sixth century over the systematic use of payments by Justinian in the later part of his reign. Although both Agathias (5.24.2-25.6) and Menander the Guardsman (Fr. 5.1/4) see a positive side to the use of payments in sowing dissension amongst the barbarians, the position of Procopius (Anecd. 11.3-12), that the payments, by confessing Roman

Ammianus Marcellinus is one of our most important sources for late Roman warfare, and his significance in this regard has long been recognized. This recognition has even extended to his treatment of commanders, emperors and otherwise. Many have focused on Ammianus’ characterization of Julian, with an especial focus on his narrative and rhetorical strategies (Rohrbacher, Ross), especially with respect to Julian’s apparent heroism (Lendon, Rohrbacher). What there have been few of, however, are examinations of Ammianus’ views on generalship contextualized into wider thinking on the art of war and generalship in the late Roman World. The focus of this chapter is the place of heroic generalship in open combat, for Keegan exemplified by Alexander the Great, a figure often held up as a model by or for Julian, and an approach to command which Lendon has argued persisted from the fourth century through the sixth. The analysis straddles two threads: historiographical when it comes to examining how Ammianus characterizes the generals that feature in his accounts of combat; and historical when we attempt to situate his accounts in the wider context of late Roman thinking on war exemplified here by Vegetius.

Greek and the Greeks made a notable contribution to the last great burst of ancient Latin literature, that of the late fourth and early fifth centuries AD, in spite of the fact that the domains of Greek and Latin were in many ways clearly distinct and became rigidly so, at least for administrative purposes, with the division of the empire in 395. The greatest Roman historian of the age was Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek-speaker from Antioch; Claudian, born and educated in Egypt, migrated to Rome i:o make his career by writing Latin encomia; Macrobius drew copiously on Greek of various kinds and from various sources; Jerome, who had a close knowledge of Christian Greek writers, quotes words frequently in his criticism and exegesis. One of the most remarkable writers of this period is Ausonius, whose entire life as far as we know was spent in or near the cities of Bordeaux and Trier. He wrote four poems, albeit of the briefest, which are wholly in Greek, and another three in which lines of Greek and Latin alternate. In one of his letters Greek and Latin words, roots, and inflexions are mixed as perhaps never before, making what he calls a μϵ μiγ μ ϵ νoβ α ρ β α ρoν ωiδ η ν (‘a poem intermingled with barbarisms‘, by which he jokingly means Latin). Another letter, partly in Greek, seems to imply a broad knowledge of Greek literature. These and other writings of his cast an interesting light on the position of Greek language and literature in fourth century Gaul, and their place in the mind and affections of a leading scholar and poet.

Late Roman Britain through the eyes of Ammianus Marcellinus Ammianus Marcellinus, whose Res Gestae is the last full-scale narrative and analytical history after the classical manner in Latin,1 was a participant in and observer of many of the major events in the Roman empire of the mid to late fourth century. As a soldier, and in particular as a member of the elite corps of protedores domestici ('household guards'), he was personally involved in the stirring events and campaigns of his own day, and was able to mix with high ranking officials and even emperors, in particular Julian, for w h o m he felt a special admiration.2 His work, as we have it is based largely on eyewitness accounts and personal interviews (15.1.1), though he also used written sources, particularly, though not exclusively, in his digressions (and no doubt for the non-contemporary sections of his work, now lost to us). A Greek from an influential family in Antioch, it is believed, Ammianus was b o m ca 330 and by 353 had joined the staff of Constantius II's general Ursicinus (14.9.1), under w h o m he took part in the removal of the usurper Silvanus in Gaul and in the Persian campaign which climaxed in the siege of Amida, of which he has left a vivid eyewitness account. After Ursicinus' disgrace Ammianus' may have left the army, to rejoin subsequentiy for Julian's ill-fated attack on Persia and Jovian's sunender and retreat. Under the Pannonian emperors Valentinian and Valens, Ammianus spent some time in the East, and some time travelling extensively—to Egypt, Greece and Thrace, and the Pontic regions, about which he gives eyewitness information.3 By the time he reached Rome, probably in the early 380s, he bad not merely prepared himself for writing his history as a participant and a traveller, but may well have had the work planned and partly drafted, in the hope of attracting a Roman patron. H e evidently lived in R o m e for some years, from at least the 1 The edition referred to here is that of John C. Rolfe, 3 vols., Loeb Classical Library, London, rev. edn 1950-52, repr. 1963-64, giving book, chapter, and line number; translations are m y own. For a useful published translation see Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 353-378), trans. Walter Hamilton with an Introduction by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Harmondsworth, 1986. The most recent, and comprehensive, account of Ammianus in his literary and historical setting, is found in John Matthews, The Roman Empire ofAmmianus, London, 1989. 2 The events in which Ammianus was involved are conveniently listed by Andrew Wallace-Haddrill, The Later Roman Empire, pp. 15-16; see also N. J. Austin, 'Autobiography and History: Some Later Roman Historians and their Veracity', in History and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett, Sydney, 1983, pp. 54-57. 3 Egypt 22.15.1; Greece 26.10.19; Pontus 22.8.1. For a fuller discussion see Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, pp. 8-17. P A R E R G O N ns 10.2, December 1992 120 A. Nobbs mid 380s until the publication of his work in the early 390s and, presumably, his death. These circumstances and experiences would well have suited Ammianus to be a keen observer of the late Roman world. He comments freely on military policy (e.g. 25.9.8), the role of the emperor (e.g. 29.2.18), and problems of the frontiers and provinces and not so freely, perhaps, on the religious changes culminating in the reign of Theodosius I, in whose time Ammianus completed his work.4 The extant part of the work (beginning at book 14) takes us in a detailed nanative from the events of 353, with the defeat of Magnentius in the west by Constantius II, to those of 378, with the death of Valens in battle against the Goths outside Hadrianople. There is a considerable emphasis on the traditional events (res gestae) of Roman history, namely the deeds of emperors and the battles fought throughout the...

Imperial succession was always problematic in the Roman empire and was born with the empire itself. Therefore, succession was a potential threat to the political stability of the empire. This paper discusses a number of situations of imperial succession as described in the Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus, the most important historian of the fourth century. After discussing shortly the rise to power of Julian (361–363), Valentinian (364–375), and Valens (364–378) as instances of potential political (and military) insecurity, the main part discusses the power vacuum as a consequence of the sudden and unexpected death of the emperor Julian in the heartland of Persia. This was a particular moment of crisis. Thanks to the capable crisis management of the military and civic officials within a few hours a successor was nominated by the consistorium and subsequently acclaimed by the army. Although initially not considered for Julian's succession, the dynamics of the crisis made Jovian the unanticipated ruler over the Roman empire. He managed to deal with a critical and almost hopeless situation. He quickly concluded a settlement with Shapur without surrendering that not only brought the army safely back to Roman territory but also established relatively peaceful relations between Rome and Persia for many years to come. In that sense the crisis of 363 became a turning point.

Ammianus Marcellinus is a careful manipulator of language and narrative structure. This article seeks to show through literary analysis that his description of the Emperor Constantius II ( ut cunctator et cautus , 14.10.14) is not meant to be a positive evaluation but a negative one, especially when compared with how Ammianus renders the Caesar Julian ( bellicosus ductor , 16.12.18), with consequences for how we should read Ammianus. Despite his failure to elaborate on Constantius’ second campaign in Raetia in 356 c.e. (16.12.15–16), or the possible loss of an earlier telling of the campaign via corruption of the textual transmission (Barnes 1998, 138), Ammianus’ is the fullest account available; and, in fact, there is enough in what we do know about the campaigning seasons of 354–59 on the northern frontiers to be able to discern Constantius and Julian’s strategies, and thus what each considered to be “achievement.”

The article deals with the little-known rebellion of Silvanus in Gaul, an infantry commander of Frankish origin. It took place in Cologne in August 355 and lasted 28 days. This revolt is particularly interesting due to its course, but it has not been properly described in Polish historiography to this day. Augustus Silvanus has been forgotten because during the last eleven years of the reign of Emperor Constantius II (337- 361) as many as six usurpers appeared. Given such a large number of usurpations, the most dangerous for the empire lasting three years (the usurpation of Magnentius and Decentius), the short episode of Silvanus seems to be nothing serious. For the same reason, only one account by Ammianus Marcellinus has survived, describing the rebellion in Cologne in detail. Emperor Constantius II defeated all usurpers in civil wars except the last one – his nephew Julian II the Apostate. The latter only succeeded in this because Constantius II died unexpectedly and legitimized his rule on his deathbed. The aim of this article is to introduce the little-known Silvanus rebellion to the Polish reader. The causes, course, and effects of this event and the character of the usurper, including his ethnic origin and the armed forces at his disposal, have been analyzed. An attempt has been made to distinguish the factors that led to the usurpation in this region in the last decade of the reign of Emperor Constantius II. The source texts have been adopted as the basis – primarily the account written by Ammianus Marcellinus, an eyewitness and participant in the usurpation of Silvanus and the greatest historian of late antiquity.

IN CONNECTION WITH the recent interest in the early modern cult image within the discipline of art history there have been considerable debates and confusion on how to treat the image, which was, o...

The Kaisergeschichte (KG) was a set of short imperial biographies extending from Augustus to the death of Constantine, probably written between 337 and c. 340. It no longer exists but its existence can be deduced from other surviving works. Amongst the histories of the fourth century – Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Festus, Jerome's Chronici canones, the Historia Augusta, the Epitome de Caesaribus, and, in places, even Ammianus Marcellinus and perhaps the Origo Constantini imperatoris (Anonymi Valesiani pars prior) – there is a common selection of facts and errors, and common wording and phrasing in their narratives between Augustus and the death of Constantine, especially in their accounts of the third century. A natural assumption is that later historians copied earlier ones, yet later historians include information not contained in earlier ones, and historians who could not have known each other's work share similarities. For example, it looks as though Aurelius Victor was copying Eutropius, yet Victor wrote before Eutropius, and Eutropius contains information not in Victor and does not reproduce Victor's peculiar style or personal biases, things which he could hardly have avoided. Therefore Eutropius cannot be copying Victor. Since neither could have copied the other, there must therefore have been a common source. In his Chronici canones Jerome appears at first to be simply copying Eutropius. Yet when he deviates from Eutropius, his deviations usually mirror other histories, such as Suetonius, Victor, Festus, even the Epitome and the Historia Augusta, two works that had not even been written when Jerome compiled his chronicle and that did not use, and would never have used, the Christian chronicle as a source. Jerome was hurriedly dictating to his secretary, he had no time to peruse four or five works at a time for his brief notices. There must have been a single source that contained both the Eutropian material and the deviations common to Jerome and the other works. That source was the KG. It is the purpose of this paper to add to the above list of authors who relied upon the KG two other writers whose work can be shown to have derived, either at first hand or later, from the KG: Polemius Silvius and Ausonius.

In the Later Roman Empire A.H.M. Jones gives the army, like other institutions, just one chapter, two-thirds of it to the well-documented army of the fourth century, the army of Ammianus Marcellinus, the Notitia Dignitatum and the Theodosian Code. Jones? sources for the army ranged far more widely than this trinity: over inscriptions and papyri, notably from Oxyrhynchus and Panopolis to the Fayyum , as well as technical writers such as the anonymous De Rebus Bellicis and Vegetius? Epitoma rei militaris. In this chapter, Jones comments ,?Constantine appears to have been the innovator who created the army of the fourth century.? The use of detachments is the key to understanding the evolution of the late-Roman mobile army. Jones may have exaggerated the contrast between Diocletian and Constantine, and played down the third-century evolution, but these are questions of emphasis where scholars will differ.Keywords: A.H.M. Jones; Ammianus Marcellinus; Constantine; Diocletian; late-Roman mobile army; Later Roman Empire; legionary detachment; Notitia Dignitatum; Theodosian Code; third-century evolution

ne may ask anachronistic questions of history, as the great Witold Kula once observed, as long as the answers are not anachronistic. So my intention here is to examine certain passages from Ammianus Marcellinus, relating them to realities and beliefs of the fourth century— realities and beliefs that, in my opinion, deserve to be better understood through a comparison with those present in some later authors of the fifth and sixth centuries. Two very well known digressions by Ammianus on the vices of the senate and people of Rome have been frequently analyzed. Each passage has been variously judged: as a precious source of factual information,1 as a malevolent venting of personal rancor,2 or as a purely rhetorical construction of invective purposely designed to overthrow the schemes proposed by Menander (a rhetorician of the third century c.e.) as suitable for the praise of a city.3 One of these digressions is that of Book 14 (chap. 6), which was very probably already in circulation in 392 together with the rest of the first twenty-five books. The other digression is to be found in Book 28 (chap. 4.6–35) and was probably outlined at the same time as the first (which it resembles and complements, especially concerning the eating habits of the Romans, both aristocratic and plebeian), but it was published some years

The fourth century historian of the Roman Empire, Ammianus Marcellinus, focuses on attire and accessories that signify high rank, status and authority. In his narrative there are a number of cases where clothing and insignia feature in illegitimate or dangerous aspirations to power, and brought destruction upon the aspirants, or threatened to. An ongoing concern for Ammianus is how appropriately attired people are. He scorns the pretentious clothing of Roman nobles and bishops, took pleasure in retailing the reaction of the emperor Julian to his overdressed barber, and considered the craven Epigonius to be a philosopher only in his attire. Gallus Caesar's forced change from high to low status clothing portended his imminent execution. In his ethnographic excurses, Ammianus uses the attire of foreign peoples to define their otherness. The sixth century historian of Merovingian Gaul, Gregory of Tours, is largely oblivious to fine apparel unless it is the shining vestments of saints and angels. Humble and harsh clothing, such as skins and hair shirts denote spiritual commitment or reorientation, a change of "habit", a declaration that can be stripped away by enemies and persecutors while leaving the faith itself intact. Real ascetics eschew footwear in winter. The most striking feature of clothing in Gregory is the magical powers, to heal or punish, that it can absorb from the bodies of holy wearers. In both authors, clothes and character may be mismatched but Ammianus does not share Gregory's fondness for simple and uncomfortable attire, and certainly not his belief that a few threads from the clothing of someone long dead can work miracles.

In the earlier studies devoted to the architecture and fitting out of ancient libraries, little attention was paid to their late antique phases. As often with Greek and Roman monuments, they were studied mainly from the architectural point of view, therefore only the original structure of the buildings and possibly their major transformations (as in the case of the library of Hadrian in Athens) were investigated, without taking into account their becoming in the course of time. Based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Ammianus Marcellinus, and the premise of a widespread cultural decay, it is generally taken for granted that libraries were abandoned by the middle of the fourth century. The aim of this paper is to verify the correctness of this picture, reconsidering both the archaeological and the textual evidence. The basic data on the main public and private Roman libraries are presented, with reference to the excavations reports; they show that public libraries follow either a standardized, elaborate architectural scheme (the rectangular room, with rows of niches in the walls) or simpler solutions, where free wooden shelves are used to store the books. This seems to be the case also with most of the private libraries; on the other hand the wide use of niches made by the residential architecture starting from the 1th c. A.D. makes it difficult to identify with certainty any specific function. As far as late antiquity is concerned, recent archaeological investigations show that the picture is far from homogeneous; there is no evidence of an early neglect, and in the case that the library buildings are damaged by external causes at the end of the 4th c. (Ephesus, Sagalassos), they were taken care of as civic monuments. The written sources confirm that the cultural life remained active up to the 5th-6th centuries, manifestly in Athens, but also in Rome, where one of its settings was the area of the Trajan’s Forum and of its libraries. They also attest the major role of libraries in the aristocratic style of life; however, as in previous centuries, the architectural setting of private libraries, as well as their possible distinctive features, remain hardly perceptible. Equally, very little is known from the archaeological point of view of the ecclesiastic libraries, the only possible cases being the scanty rests of the scrinium Lateranense; the identification as libraries of the two side chambers of Saint John the Evangelist in Ravenna, although suggestive, should be cautiously received, while the attribution to the bibliotheca Agapeti of a late antique hall on the Celio in Rome has been finally discarded, since it has been proved that the large apsis still standing is the reception hall of a domus.

The sources which refer to Silvanus and his abortive usurpation are few and varied. They include a secular historian with a military background (Ammianus Marcellinus), a Roman emperor (Julian) and a lesser group composed of secular and ecclesiastical historians, orators and priests. Epigraphical evidence is slight. These sources are not of equal merit or value nor are they in absolute agreement. Indeed, the two major sources, Ammianus and Julian, differ substantially.