SOURCE: Blockley, R. C. “Gallus: Dramatic and Moralizing History.” In Ammianus Marcellinus: A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought, pp. 18-29. Bruxelles, Belgium: Latomus, 1975.

[In the following excerpt, Blockley argues that Ammianus wavers between the personae of objective historian and didactic moralist, using Ammianus's book on Constantius Gallus for illustration.]

Much of book XIV, the first surviving book of Ammianus' History, describes the later part of the reign and the death of Constantius Gallus. Gallus, who, with his half-brother Julian, survived the massacre of the kinsmen of Constantine I carried out at the accession of his sons¹, was appointed Caesar in 351 a.d. by his cousin, the Emperor Constantius II, and left to guard the East against the Persians while the Emperor went West to face the usurper Magnentius². In 354, after the defeat of the usurper, Gallus was summoned to the West, deposed and put to death.

Ammianus, whose narrative deals only with the years 353 and 354 (and perhaps not all of 353)³, characterizes Gallus as a cruel and angry tyrant. Dwelling upon these traits he describes actions which led to unrest in the East, a plot against the Caesar (which was uncovered and cruelly suppressed) and finally to his deposition and execution at the order of Constantius, who, Ammianus suggests, was afraid that his behaviour would cause an uprising if it were allowed to continue⁴.

E. A. Thompson has argued that the curial Ammianus, through omissions and distortions, has seriously misrepresented the reign of Gallus who, favouring the lower classes and hostile to the curials, aroused the ire of the latter which led to his downfall⁵. Elsewhere I have partly accepted this interpretation, rejecting the suggestion that the Caesar favoured the lower classes, and arguing instead that Gallus' difficulties arose mainly from his failure to understand the role of the Caesar as conceived by Constantius. The Emperor thought of him purely as a military assistant, whereas Gallus saw himself as a sort of junior Emperor with civil and military competence. Thus Gallus' interference in civil affairs led to opposition by officials who better understood his position. But the Caesar saw this opposition merely as insubordination, and reacted (or rather over-reacted) accordingly⁶.

However, Ammianus' account of the career of Gallus is coloured not only by his own class prejudice, but also by other non-objective factors, especially moral preconceptions and literary considerations which influenced the form and content of the narrative.

Building upon parallels between the cases of Gallus and Julian and using the former as a foil for the latter, Ammianus consciously points to contrasts between the two men. Julian, like Gallus, was slandered at court, and Constantius reacted similarly in both cases: his suspicions aroused, he tried to withdraw his Caesar's troops⁷. Gallus was deceived and Julian acquiesced. But whereas Julian, according to Ammianus (XX, 4, 14-22), was so popular that he was forcibly hailed Augustus, Gallus was so hated that even when driven to consider revolt he could find no support (XIV, 11, 8) and was destroyed. Julian, like Gallus, had to face the opposition and treachery of the officials appointed by Constantius⁸, and when he announced his usurpation to the Emperor, aware that Gallus' inertia had contributed to his downfall (XXI, 1, 2), he stipulated that he himself would appoint all officials except the praetorian prefect (XX, 8, 14). Naturally the careers of the two Caesars were linked and compared by observers; and not only Julian, but also his detractors, referred to Gallus in commenting upon his own actions⁹.

More important for Ammianus' purpose is the contrast between the characters of the two men which he exploits as he describes their respective careers. Julian has in great measure all the virtues of the ideal ruler, which are carefully illustrated by the historian both in the narrative and in the biographical sketch which is inserted after the account of his death¹⁰; Gallus, on the other hand, is represented as the exact obverse of this ideal. In the description of Julian's dealings with the recalcitrant Antiochian senate his own mildness is contrasted with his half-brother's anger and cruelty. Gallus urged on the mob to violence against the governor of Syria and later condemned the whole senate to death under one writ. Julian refused to be deterred from his plans by the objections of the senate, but, despite his anger, he stopped short of violence—“like his brother Gallus, but not thirsty for blood”¹¹. Similarly Gallus' love of blood-sports, which he shared with the mass of the Antiochians (but not with Ammianus), contrasts sharply with Julian's disgust at the spectacle¹².

Ammianus says that when Gallus was created Caesar he swelled up in pride (efferebatur in fastus, XIV, 1, 1). But Julian, when raised to the purple and seated in the Emperor's carriage, remained downcast and whispered a line from Homer:

ἔλλαβε πορφύρεοs θάνατοs χαί μοῖρα χραταίη(13).

Gallus was immoderate, foolish, unjust and afraid, with no compensating virtues¹⁴. In short, Ammianus says (XIV, 11, 28), he differed as much from his brother as Domitian did from Titus. This remark not only illuminates the historian's view of the contrast between Julian and Gallus, but also suggests that he regards the latter as a typical tyrant in the moralistic sense of an evil and immoderate ruler, of which Domitian had become a stock example¹⁵. This figure, stereotyped and extremely popular in Greek and Roman philosophy, declamation and other kinds of writing, exercised considerable influence upon history also. The classic example is the Tacitean portrait of Tiberius, but less subtle treatments are found in some of the lives of the Historia Augusta and in Herodian's sketch of Maximinus Thrax. The historical epitomes frequently assimilate “bad” rulers to this type. Justin's sketch of the younger Dionysius is a fine example¹⁶. Shorter and more essential is the description of Domitian in Eutropius' epitome, which might have been known to Ammianus¹⁷; “But in the commencement of his reign he used his power with moderation; however, soon proceeding to the greatest excesses of licentiousness, rage, cruelty, and avarice …” (7, 23). This brief sketch illustrates two of the major characteristics of the literary tyrant, the four prime vices and the descent from an auspicious beginning into tyranny.

Ammianus would have been familiar with these conventional figures from his wide reading of history and also from knowledge of more specialized works which described types of persons, such as the angry and the cruel man. He certainly knew the handbook of Valerius Maximus¹⁸ which treats various aspects of behaviour under separate headings, for instance cruelty: crudelitatis uero horridus habitus, truculenta facies, uiolenti spiritus, uox terribilis, ora minis et cruentis imperiis referta; cui silentium donare, incrementum est adiicere (9, 2). Some of the expressions, though too commonplace to suggest imitation, are similar to those used by Ammianus of Gallus.

Of the four tyrannical vices mentioned by Eutropius, Ammianus ascribes three of them to Gallus, anger, cruelty and greed¹⁹. Since the first part of the narrative of his reign is missing, we cannot tell whether it was described as beginning auspiciously. But indications of a deteriorating behaviour appear in the part which survives. Post hoc impie perpetratum … tamquam licentia crudelitati indulta (XIV, 1, 4); quibus mox Caesar acrius efferatus, uelut contumaciae quoddam uexillum altius erigens (id., 10); latius iam disseminata licentia (XIV, 7, 1)—such expressions suggest development, not a change in character but rather a clearer revelation of the true self (the concept of many other ancient writers, including Tacitus)²⁰. Similarly another passage, on Gallus' spying in disguise: nouo denique pernicioso exemplo idem Gallus ausus est inire flagitium graue, quod Romae cum ultimo dedecore temptasse aliquando dicitur Gallienus (XIV, 1, 9). Here clearly the phrase nouo exemplo refers not to be general activity of spying in disguise (since a second instance—Gallienus—is given, and other tyrants are reputed to have done the same)²¹, but to the specific act of Gallus, which Ammianus views as another development in viciousness.

Another characteristic of the tyrant (discussed by Dio Chrysostom in his Sixth Discourse, 41-5) is the perpetual insecurity which drives him on to still greater excesses of repression. This, too, finds its place in the portrait of Gallus. As with the other traits the best illustrations come from XIV, 1, which is not based upon quoted facts but is little more than a collection of commonplaces giving expression to Ammianus' hatred of Gallus. Spies eavesdrop and concoct fake stories to ruin their victims (XIV, 1, 2); they penetrate the houses of the rich and, with information which they have gleaned, bring them to ruin (6), creating such a climate of terror that even the walls are feared as informers (7). Some are charged with treason and magic (2); some are condemned on a mere shadow of suspicion (4), others despite their obvious innocence (3). Gallus himself walks the streets in disguise, asking opinions of Caesar (9).

The tyrant's behaviour is also illegal. Ammianus describes how Clematius, though innocent, was put to death “without being allowed to speak or even to open his mouth” (XIV, 1, 3); and this episode is followed by a general complaint that constitutional rule and due process had given way to a bloody and arbitrary despotism. Later, in the trial of those who plotted against Gallus, even the ordinances of the gods were banished from the court: uelut exturbatum e iudiciis fas omne discessit (XIV, 7, 21).

Ammianus not only portrays Gallus as a typical tyrant, but he also interprets his career as a fall to nemesis resulting from his hubris. When he has described the last journey and the execution of the Caesar, the historian comments: “These and countless events of this kind are at times (and I wish that they were always) the work of Adrastia, who punishes evil deeds and rewards good, and whom we also call by another name, Nemesis … When the pride of mortals swells in vain, she binds it in the unbreakable bonds of necessity (necessitas)”²².

The precise significance of this passage need not be discussed here, but it clearly shows that Ammianus is thinking in terms of punishment for evil. Its importance to him is indicated by the way in which it displaces the regular biographical sketch of the dead ruler, which is reduced to a few conventional details (XIV, 11, 27-28), lost in the far longer discussion of which the above quotation is a part. The view expressed is important not only in its effect upon the interpretation of Gallus' career, but also in that the hubris-nemesis scheme influences the structure of the narrative.

Ammianus, taking the pro-Julian view of the harsh treatment which the brothers in their early life are said to have suffered at the hands of Constantius²³, describes Gallus' promotion to Caesar as an unexpected advancement to prosperity from the depths of wretchedness—ex squalore imo miseriarum … ad principale culmen insperato saltu prouectus (XIV, 1, 1). Next he emphasizes the excess, pride and especially the cruelty of the man²⁴, the prime ingredients of hubris, which is commonly translated into violent behaviour—ultra terminos potestatis delatae procurrens, asperitate nimia cuncta foedabat … efferebatur in fastus. A Fury too is supplied, Gallus' wife Constantia, graue … incentiuum … turgida supra modum … Megaera quaedam mortalis, inflammatrix saeuientis assidua (1, 2). Proud to excess like her husband, she drives him on to madness with her goads—stimulos admouente regina, quae abrupte mariti fortunas trudebat in exitium praeceps²⁵.

After ruining some unimportant persons, Gallus and his wife advance to their first real crime, the killing of the nobleman Clematius, nefanda mors repentina (1, 3). When they have performed this impious (impie) deed, the evil pair spread their activities wider, tamquam licentia crudelitati indulta (1, 4). Gallus encourages spies, listens to rumours, roams the streets at night looking for trouble. His desire to destroy increases, uelut contumaciae quoddam uexillum altius erigens (1, 10). Finally Constantius has to prepare to uproot the Caesar, antequam effundendis rebus pertinacius incumberet confidentia (XIV, 11, 1). His cruelty and anger are developing into insanity, he is efferatus; and others goad him on: Thalassius … considerans incitationem eius ad multorum augeri discrimina … aduersando iurgandoque cum parum congrueret, eum ad rabiem potius euibrabat … quibus mox Caesar … efferatus (XIV, 1, 10). Domitianus insults Gallus, driving him into a rage. Montius accuses him of treason; his cognitis Gallus ut serpens … districta dentium acie stridens (XIV, 7, 13)—a fine image of madness, which infects the soldiers too, “bold even to the point of insanity” (7, 17). Finally the Caesar's madness is revealed to all—non celate (ut antea) turbidum saeuiebat ingenium (7, 21).

Gallus never realizes where his course is carrying him. After the unhoped-for advancement to the purple, he is deceived and blinded by his confidentia²⁶, and despite his sometime realization of his danger and resistance to the initial attempts of the Emperor to lure him to Italy (XIV, 11, 6-10), he is finally persuaded to set out by the tribune Scudilo. “And as men's perception is dulled and blunted when the Fates lay their hands upon them, Gallus, aroused by his persuasion to hope for better things … set straight out from the smoke, as the old proverb says, into the fire” (11, 12). Constantia, travelling ahead in order to placate her brother, dies on the journey. The nemesis of the Caesar is now at hand, and though troubled, he remains blind²⁷. On the way he stops at Constantinople, where he celebrates games, crowning the winning charioteer, “as if his situation were prosperous and secure” (ibid)—the final act of blind hubris, at the news of which Constantius ultra mortalem modum exarsit (11, 13). When Gallus reaches Adrianople the deceit is swept away, and too late he realizes his position, “weeping and at times cursing his rashness which had reduced him to a contemptible and worthless condition, and had subjected him to the will of the lowest of men” (11, 16). The cycle is completed, returning him whence he came, squalor imus miseriarum. Tormented in his dreams by the phantoms of his victims who fling him to the claws of the Furies, he is subjected to interrogation, condemned, beheaded and left—cadauer est relictum informe, paulo ante urbibus et prouinciis formidatum (11, 13). The career of Gallus thus ends suitably and pathetically with a Virgilian echo²⁸.

From this analysis it is clear that in his description of Gallus' career Ammianus not only places a moral interpretation upon the actions of the Caesar, but also builds this interpretation into the structure of his narrative, which, though hardly tragic in the Aristotelian sense (Gallus is too much a monster to evoke the necessary response), is undoubtably dramatic and at times pathetic²⁹. Ammianus' tendency to dramatize the narrative is observable elsewhere in the History, for instance when he relates his own adventures and when he tries to give dramatic unity and force to certain episodes, such as the revolts of Silvanus and Procopius³⁰. The narrative upon Gallus has a fairly tight dramatic structure, which as such is not used elsewhere by Ammianus on a similar scale. But a similar, though looser structure, utilizing the same progression of related incidents to a climax, will be seen in other parts of the work, and is of great importance for causation, as is clear from the narrative on Gallus.

Ammianus' concern for the dramatic is reflected in his interest in the stage which is expressed in some of his descriptions and similes. In a number of passages to introduce or sum up a description he uses the simile of the theatre curtain hiding or revealing a scene with dramatic suddenness³¹. The scene itself as described is static, its actors frozen in a pose. A good example of this is an incident at the battle of Strasburg (XVI, 12, 57) which is described as if it were a compartmentalized painting. Another is the description of the usurper Procopius at his acclamation, which, as it catches a strange world of vividness and gesticulation, shows Ammianus' graphic prose at its best:

stetit itaque subtabidus—excitum putares ab inferis—, nusquam reperto paludamento, tunica auro distincta, ut regius minister, indutus, a calce in pubem in paedagogiani pueri speciem, purpureis opertus tegminibus pedum, hastatusque purpureum itidem pannulum laeva manu gestabat, ut in theatrali scaena simulacrum quoddam insigne per aulaeum uel mimicam cauillationem subito putares emersum

(XXVI, 6, 15).

Many of Ammianus' other similes display a similar vividness, especially the important group which uses animals³². There are over fifty of these in the surviving books of the History and the great majority of them are used either of unpleasant situations or (by far the commonest) of persons to whom Ammianus is intensely hostile. Their distribution is very uneven and instructive. They are most frequently found in books XIV and XV (on Gallus and Constantius) and XXVI-XXXI (the Pannonian Emperors), which deal with periods when the historian is hostile to the leading characters and pessimistic in his view of events. On the other hand, they are far rarer in books XVI-XXV, which span the career of Julian. Since the images are used both of Romans to whom Ammianus is hostile (most commonly) and of external enemies, such as the Goths and the Huns, they provide a link between the two forces which the writer sees as threatening the Empire. The animals themselves are almost all wild, and the characteristics which they most frequently represent are savagery (bestia, fera) and cunning (serpens, coluber, uiper), the latter almost exclusively of Romans. Other writers too use such animals to express evil qualities³³, and the model for the usage has been found in the symbolic art of the period³⁴: one thinks of the serpent trodden underfoot on the reverse of some solidi of the late Empire³⁵. More specifically, however, the description of a bad ruler or official or an enemy of the state as a savage beast would appear to be a natural inversion of the scene of peaceful domesticity—the shepherd, his sheep and the guard dog—which is commonly used to represent the reign of a good king³⁶. In contrast with this the savage beast is the wolf which threatens the flock.

Ammianus' style tends towards the visual and descriptive rather than the narrative, and animal images are a means towards vividness in descriptions³⁷. However, in the light of the ancient tendency to regard appearance and behaviour as evidence of a particular moral state, their use in a derogatory manner of human beings means in effect that they are reinforcing Ammianus' own expressions of hostility, as for instance in the case of the prefect Maximinus who is a number of times likened to a snake. From the point of view of objectivity this is dangerous, as can be seen in the following passage (XIV, 7, 13). Domitianus had threatened Gallus and was under arrest. The quaestor Montius had summoned the leaders of the palatini and had protested Gallus' action, implying that it was treasonable. For the purpose of this argument it does not matter whether the actions of Domitianus and Montius were themselves treasonous³⁸, but Gallus had reason to think that they were. Ammianus describes Montius as ad lenitatem propensior and says that he addressed the troops mollius (XIV, 7, 12), which stands in sharp contrast with Gallus' behaviour. When he learned of Montius' action, Gallus ut serpens appetitus telo uel saxo, iamque spes extremas opperiens et succurrens saluti suae quauis ratione, colligi omnes iussit armatos, et cum starent attoniti, districta dentium acie stridens … Not only is this a fine visual image, but against the background of the calmness of Montius the snake simile, appealing to the common feeling about the unpleasantness of these reptiles, condemns Gallus in the very middle of the episode as something nasty. Ammianus, appealing to emotion, has asked his audience to prejudge the Caesar.

A similar danger is present when the historian involves us in a scene, making us look at it through the eyes of one of the actors or spectators. Thus we join the crowds lining the road to observe the triumphal entry into Rome of Constantius (XVI, 10, 4) and view a Roman mob rioting through the eyes of the urban prefect, Leontius, who is naturally unsympathetic (XV, 7, 4). In these and other cases we are invited to take upon ourselves the emotions and attitudes of the people through whom we watch the activity³⁹.

Ammianus allows his moral preconceptions to intrude into his History and judges the characters in his narrative against these⁴⁰, a trait which he shares with all the important Roman historians, although the approaches differ. History's function was to enshrine the good and evil actions of the past as examples for posterity and to provide a reward for the good and a punishment for the bad⁴¹. Firstly, this meant that basically men and their character counted in history, not political systems, economic forces and so on: of the Emperor the historian asked, “capax imperii?”⁴² and opened the way towards Imperial biography. Tacitus, by a brilliant use of dramatic narrative development, avoided some of the dangers of this type of historiography. But Ammianus wrote at a time when the composition of biography of a markedly anecdotal kind had become influential and when the projected personality of the Emperor was paramount in the life of the Empire. That is to say, most of the Emperors attempted by means of aloofness, complex ceremonial and a formalized pattern of behaviour to assimilate themselves in the eyes of the world to an almost mystical ideal: they aimed to become, as it were, caricatures. And there was in this a danger for the historian that in writing a history with individuals at the centre he would himself, either in praising or in censuring such an Emperor, tend to produce a type.

Secondly, since the moral-didactic approach to history forced the historian to judge between good and evil, using his own preconceived ideals as a yardstick, his judgements tended to be based upon general principles rather than particular events, his interpretations upon general conclusions drawn from a number of observations and at times forced upon recalcitrant phenomena in order to point a moral. Such an approach, in a character-dominated history written in an age when the leading figures of the day behaved, in public at least, in conformity to a type, itself reinforced the tendency for the historian to produce types, black-and-white caricatures of virtue and vice.

In Ammianus this development was itself further reinforced by his tendency on occasions to generalize from a dominant idea. For example in XXI, 12, 20 the historian tells how after the surrender of Aquileia the rebel leader, Nigrinus, was burnt alive while others were decapitated. But later, in XXII, 8, 49, we are told incidentally that the defenders of Aquileia had surrendered the rebel leaders, all of whom had been burnt alive (isdemque uiuis exustis, ut supra relatum est). This is carelessness, but it also reveals a particular manner of thought which, in combination with the tendencies described above, contributes towards the production of a characterization such as that of Gallus.

Gallus is a type, static and timeless and firmly within the ancient rhetorical tradition. Wholly evil, his character undergoes no change, merely a clearer revelation of wickedness as his behaviour deteriorates and he sinks into madness. He is important to Ammianus as the incarnation of arbitrary cruelty, an evil against which the historian vigorously protests; he forms the lower end of the moral spectrum, serving as a foil for and introduction to Julian.

That is not to suggest that all Ammianus' characters are caricatures; Gallus is extreme. But the type of thought is at work throughout the History, especially in the portrait of Julian. At times there is tension with a more objective outlook as the moralist conflicts with the objective historian. And it is to Ammianus' credit that the latter holds his own, minimizing the effect upon the work of the tendency to think in types and of other influences which, though harmful to objectivity, are attractive to the moralist.

Notes

1. Some sources say at the instigation of Constantius: Zosimus, II, 40, 2; Julian, Ep. ad Ath., 270C-271B; Philostorgius, 2, 16; Theodoret, 3, 1 (cp. Gregory Nazianzen, Or., 21, 26). Others say that he connived at it: Eutropius, 10, 9; Socrates, 2, 25.

2. Philostorgius, 3, 25; Socrates, 2, 28; Zosimus, II, 45, 1; Libanius, Or., 18, 16; Zonaras, 13, 8.

3. See Blockley, Latomus, 1972, p. 439-40.

4. XIV, 7, 9; 11, 1 and 21-3. Cp. XXI, 13, 11; Victor, Caes., 42, 12; Zonaras, 13, 9.

5. Thompson, Cambridge, 1947, ch. 4.

6. Blockley, art. cit.

7. Gallus: XIV, 7, 9. Julian: XX, 4, 1-3.

8. Gallus: XIV, 1, 10; 7, 9 and 10-20. Julian: XVI, 7, 1-2; 11, 6-15; XVII, 3; XVIII, 3, 6; XX, 4, 2.

9. XVII, 1, 14.

10. See p. 73-74.

11. Gallus: XIV, 7, 2 and 5-6. Julian: XXII, 14, 1-2.

12. XIV, 7, 3; Julian, Misopogon, 340A-B; Libanius, Or., 1, 5; 18, 170-1; Zosimus, III, 11, 4.

13. XV, 8, 17 = Iliad, 5, 83. Cp. XV, 8, 11 and 20. Such a show of unwillingness was traditional (Rosen, p. 71).

14. Immoderate, XIV, 1, 1; foolish, 11, 11 and 26; unjust, 1, 3; afraid, 11, 21. There are many more examples. The whole narrative emphasizes these characteristics.

15. Rosen, p. 182 calls the account of Gallus' reign einer stufenweisen Verschlimmerung der Tyrannis.

16. Epitome 21, 1-3.

17. He is perhaps mentioned in XXIX, 1, 36. Like Ammianus he was with Julian in Persia (Eutropius, 10, 16).

18. For Ammianus' use of Valerius Maximus see Schneider, p. 12 ff., 34 ff., 38; Finke, p. 15-20; Klotz, p. 60-1.

19. Anger and cruelty: XIV, 1, 1, 4-5 and 10; 7, 3; 9, 9. Greed: XIV, 1, 4.

20. On the static concept of character in Tacitus see F. B. Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius, Oxford 1931, p. 14; Alexander, The Tacitean ‘non liquet’ on Seneca, p. 355 ff.

21. Cp. Tacitus, Ann., XIII, 25, 1-2 on Nero.

22. XIV, 11, 25-6. Cp. the summary of the fate of Eusebius in similar terms in XXII, 3, 12.

23. XIV, 1, 1. Ammianus refers to the exile at Macellum which was perhaps not too harsh (Allard, I, p. 278-91). The tone is from Julian (cp. Ep.ad Ath., 271B-D).

24. For cruelty see note 19.

25. XIV, 1, 8; cp. 7, 4. In 9, 3 Ammianus writes of Constantia stimulis reginae exsertantis ora. If ora (for aura of MS. V) is read, then there is an echo of Virgil, Aen., 3, 425, where Scylla is thus described.

26. XIV, 11, 1; cp. 11, 6, spe (of Constantia).

27. Cp. later (XIV, 11, 13) ac nequo casu idem Gallus de futuris incertus, which implies that he is still certus (i.e. blind).

28. Hagendahl, p. 3-4, referring to Aen., 2, 556 ff. (of Priam). Cp. Pacatus (Pan. Lat., II), 45, 2, aulsum humeris Maximi caput et sine nomine corpus adspiciat, of the dead usurper Maximus.

29. On the quality of the tragic in Ammianus' History see Selem, ASNP, 1965, p. 404-14.

30. For discussion and more examples see Rosen, p. 189-92.

31. XVI, 6, 3; 12, 57; XXVI, 6, 15; XXVIII, 6, 29. Cp. XX, 1, 2; XVIII, 5, 6; XXVIII, 1, 4 and 10; XXIX, 2, 23.

32. For the data upon which the following remarks are based see Appendix B [in R. C. Blockley, Ammianus Marcellinus: A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought].

33. Eg. Themistius, Or., XIX, 226 B-C (on Nero): εὗ eδεω ὅτι θηρίον ἐν πορφῆ ἀνθρώπου Seneca, de Clem., I, 25, 1; 26, 3; II, 3; III, 24, 33; Eunapius, frags., 14, 2; 68; 69; 71; 87.

34. MacMullen, A. Bull., 1964, p. 442-4.

35. Solidi from Valentinian III onwards are found with the serpent motif on the reverse (see the illustrations in W. E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of Rome, Princeton, 1968, facing p. 18). Cp. also the solidus of Honorius which shows the Emperor treading on a lion; and the fourth century bronzes on which a phoenix accompanies the legend fel. temp. reparatio.

36. Plato, Polit., 268C; Crito, 109B; Dio Chrysostom, Or., 2, 69; 3, 130; 4, 43-5; 56, 2; Plutarch, Moralia, 781C; Julian, Or., II, 86D; 88B; Eusebius, Laud. Const., 2; Themistius, Or., VIII, 118B; IX, 121D; XIII, 171C; XV, 186D; Synesius, de Regno (PG., 66), 1061A-C; 1089C; and very often elsewhere.

37. On Ammianus' striving for vividness see E. Auerbach, p. 47-9; Rosen, p. 193 ff.

38. So Thompson, op. cit., p. 64.

39. For further examples see Rosen, p. 195-96.

40. The heavily moralizing character of Ammianus' History has often been noted—Vogt, p. 824-5; Dautremer, p. 126; Klein, p. 10; Demandt, p. 11-12.

41. See p. 162-3.

42. Cp. Syme, The Senator as Historian, p. 198-9.

Works Cited

W. H. Alexander, The Tacitean ‘non liquet’ on Seneca, in UCP, 14, 1952, p. 269-386.

P. Allard, Julien L'Apostat, 3 vols., Paris, 1900-03.

E. Auerbach, Mimesis, trans. NY, 1957 (1953).

R. C. Blockley, Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constantius II, in Latomus, 31, 1972, p. 433-68.

L. Dautremer, Ammien Marcellin. Étude d'histoire littéraire, Lille, 1899.

A. Demandt, Zeitkritik und Geschichtsbild im Werk Ammians, diss. Marburg Univ., Bonn, 1965.

H. Finke, Ammianus Marcellinus und seine Quellen zur Geschichte der römischen Republik, Heidelberg, 1904.

H. Hagendahl, Studia Ammianea, diss. Upsala, 1921.

W. E. Kaegi, The Emperor Julian's Assessment of the Significance and Function of History, in PAPhS, 108, 1964, p. 29-38.

W. Klein, Studien zu Ammianus Marcellinus, Leipzig, 1914.

A. Klotz, Studien zu Valerius Maximus and den Exempla (Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Academie der Wiss., Heft 5), Munich, 1942.

R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order—Treason, Unrest and Alienation in the Empire, Cambrige Mass., 1966.

Id., Some Pictures in Ammianus Marcellinus, in ABul, 46, 1964, p. 435-55.

K. Rosen, Studien zur Darstellungskunst und Glaubwürdigkeit des Ammianus Marcellinus, diss. Heidelberg (privately printed, Mannheim, 1968).

E. Schneider, Quaestiones Ammianeae, diss. Berlin, 1879.

A. Selem, Ammiano Marcellino ed i problemi sociali del suo tempo, in ASNP, ser. 2, 33, 1964, p. 147-53.

Id., Il senso del tragico in Ammiano, in ASNP, ser. 2, 34, 1965, p. 404-14.

R. Syme, Tacitus, 2 vols., Oxford, 1958.

Id., The Senator as Historian, in Fondation Hardt. Histoire et historiens dans l'antiquité (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique, tome IV), Geneva, 1956, p. 187-201.

E. A. Thompson, The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus, Cambridge, 1947.

J. Vogt, Ammianus Marcellinus als erzählender Geschichtsschreiber der Spätzeit, in Akad. der Wiss. und der Lit. in Mainz., 1963, p. 801-25.

Abbreviations Used in This Essay

ASNP Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa.

PAPhS Proceedings of the American Philological Society

PG Migne, Patrologia Graeca.

UCP Univ. of California Publications in Classical Philology