Jovian’s loss of territory in the east, which Eutropius sees as unequalled in more than a thousand years of Roman history (10.17.2). This should be understood as a rallying cry for the looming Persian campaign of Valens, and the final conclusion to the work, “we reserve these matters for a more ornate composition” (10.18.3), looks to a panegyric to praise the emperor’s military success to date and predict glory in the campaign to come.
The ideology of the Breviarium is wholly conventional, as one might expect from its quasi-official nature, and Eutropius’ concerns can be readily paralleled in other fourth-century works. The historian praises good relations between the emperors and the senatorial aristocracy, which may be achieved by emperors who recognize their shared interests with the local and bureaucratic elites. Emperors should be reminded of the need for civilitas , the “civility” which restrains them from excessive punishments and encourages them to support the established leadership of the cities (Scivoletto 1970). In turn, aristocrats are encouraged to support the glory of the state and, in particular, glorious military expansion. In a world in constant danger of civil war and of alienation between civilian and military leaders, Eutropius’ work draws upon the past in the hope of unifying contemporaries in support of foreign conquest.
Text and translation
Latin text edited by C. Santini (1979), Teubner. English translation by H.W. Bird (1993), Translated Texts for Historians.
4
FESTUS
Life
The brief and impersonal work of Festus contains little information about its author. Festus must have been considerably older than the emperor Valens, the patron of the work, since he refers to himself as very old (30.1; Arnaud-Lindet 1994: vii–viii). Since Valens died in August 378, when he was nearly fifty years old (Amm. 31.14.1), Festus must have been born in the period roughly before 318. In the last sentence of the work, the comments of Festus about a god ( deus ) and a divinity ( numen ) have been interpreted as the words of a pagan distinguishing gracefully between his beliefs and those of the Christian emperor (e.g. Eadie 1967: 9 n. 2). This is not, however, a necessary reading of the words, and Baldwin (1978: 203) provides numerous parallel examples of such panegyrical writing in the fourth century.
Various manuscripts provide the additional information that the author’s name was Rufus or, alternatively, Rufius Festus. A single manuscript identifies the author as holder of the position of magister memoriae , the same position held by Eutropius. Although this evidence is not conclusive (Baldwin 1978: 199), we do know that a man named Festus served in that position sometime between 365 and 372 (the work itself was written in 369 or 370). Scholars generally identify the historian, whose work was written in 369 or 370, with this imperial official Festus who was from Tridentum, a city in northern Italy.
Festus of Tridentum is mentioned with disgust by three pagans, Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius, and Eunapius. Ammianus says that he was of lowly birth (29.2.22–8). Ammianus is less interested in Festus himself than in using the historian to further blacken the character of Maximinus, the official whom Ammianus decries for his role in a series of sorcery trials at Rome. Therefore Ammianuspraises Festus’ early career, when he served as consularis Syriae (in 365 or 368) and magister memoriae (in 370). When Festus became proconsul Asiae , however, Ammianus claims that he fell under the sway of the evil Maximinus. While Festus had at first opposed Maximinus’ despotic behavior, Ammianus says, he soon saw it as a means for career advancement and began prosecuting his subjects for sorcery. Among his victims were the philosopher Coeranius and numerous other innocents who, far from practicing malicious magic, were persecuted for simply performing simple charms for their health.
Unlike Ammianus, Libanius
The ideology of the Breviarium is wholly conventional, as one might expect from its quasi-official nature, and Eutropius’ concerns can be readily paralleled in other fourth-century works. The historian praises good relations between the emperors and the senatorial aristocracy, which may be achieved by emperors who recognize their shared interests with the local and bureaucratic elites. Emperors should be reminded of the need for civilitas , the “civility” which restrains them from excessive punishments and encourages them to support the established leadership of the cities (Scivoletto 1970). In turn, aristocrats are encouraged to support the glory of the state and, in particular, glorious military expansion. In a world in constant danger of civil war and of alienation between civilian and military leaders, Eutropius’ work draws upon the past in the hope of unifying contemporaries in support of foreign conquest.
Text and translation
Latin text edited by C. Santini (1979), Teubner. English translation by H.W. Bird (1993), Translated Texts for Historians.
4
FESTUS
Life
The brief and impersonal work of Festus contains little information about its author. Festus must have been considerably older than the emperor Valens, the patron of the work, since he refers to himself as very old (30.1; Arnaud-Lindet 1994: vii–viii). Since Valens died in August 378, when he was nearly fifty years old (Amm. 31.14.1), Festus must have been born in the period roughly before 318. In the last sentence of the work, the comments of Festus about a god ( deus ) and a divinity ( numen ) have been interpreted as the words of a pagan distinguishing gracefully between his beliefs and those of the Christian emperor (e.g. Eadie 1967: 9 n. 2). This is not, however, a necessary reading of the words, and Baldwin (1978: 203) provides numerous parallel examples of such panegyrical writing in the fourth century.
Various manuscripts provide the additional information that the author’s name was Rufus or, alternatively, Rufius Festus. A single manuscript identifies the author as holder of the position of magister memoriae , the same position held by Eutropius. Although this evidence is not conclusive (Baldwin 1978: 199), we do know that a man named Festus served in that position sometime between 365 and 372 (the work itself was written in 369 or 370). Scholars generally identify the historian, whose work was written in 369 or 370, with this imperial official Festus who was from Tridentum, a city in northern Italy.
Festus of Tridentum is mentioned with disgust by three pagans, Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius, and Eunapius. Ammianus says that he was of lowly birth (29.2.22–8). Ammianus is less interested in Festus himself than in using the historian to further blacken the character of Maximinus, the official whom Ammianus decries for his role in a series of sorcery trials at Rome. Therefore Ammianuspraises Festus’ early career, when he served as consularis Syriae (in 365 or 368) and magister memoriae (in 370). When Festus became proconsul Asiae , however, Ammianus claims that he fell under the sway of the evil Maximinus. While Festus had at first opposed Maximinus’ despotic behavior, Ammianus says, he soon saw it as a means for career advancement and began prosecuting his subjects for sorcery. Among his victims were the philosopher Coeranius and numerous other innocents who, far from practicing malicious magic, were persecuted for simply performing simple charms for their health.
Unlike Ammianus, Libanius
Similar Books
