The Historians of Late Antiquity by David Rohrbacher Read Free Book Online

passages on the Gauls (15.12.1–4), Persians (23.6.75–84; Teitler 1999), Saracens (14.4.1–7), Huns, and Alans (31.2.1–25; King 1987), to which one might add the scattered comments on eunuchs (especially 14.6.17, 16.7.8–10, 18.4.5; Tougher 1999), who are treated as a race apart. Ammianus’ treatment of non-Romans in his digressions is very much in keeping with traditions of ancient historiography. The bizarre and primitive habits of the barbarian (for example, the Huns do not cook meat, but merely heat it by a day’s ride under a saddle) are contrasted with the civilized behavior of the Romans. On theother hand, the barbarian often possesses some traits, such as loyalty and fighting ability, which the effete Roman has lost. This use of ethnographic digressions as an opportunity for the historian to comment upon contemporary mores is not uncommon in ancient historiography.
    Ammianus’ satirical and moralizing “Roman digressions” are, by contrast, a striking innovation (14.6 and 28.4; Rees 1999; Salemme 1987; Kohns 1975; Pack 1953). In the course of a discussion of Orfitus’ prefecture of Rome, Ammianus describes how the city was wracked by riots inspired by wine shortages (14.6.1). The digression which follows is introduced as an explanation for why Ammianus’ descriptions of events at Rome concern nothing but “riots, taverns, and worthless things” (14.6.2). The historian attributes Rome’s success to a partnership between Virtue and Fortune, a union which enabled the Romans to expand from a single city to a worldwide empire. Rome, the personified city, has now retired, passing on its power and responsibility to the emperors, who serve as its heirs. And although the ancient assemblies no longer rule the city, Rome is revered and admired throughout the world (14.6.3–6; Matthews 1986).
    This idyllic picture of Rome is marred, however, by the fickleness and licentiousness of a few inhabitants who do not respect the magnificence of their native city. Ammianus’ criticism of these Romans centers upon traditional satiric concerns: they prance in overly luxurious clothes (14.6.9), they boast of their wealth (14.6.10), and they offer hospitality to gamblers and gossips but not to the learned (14.6.14), for they prefer music and dance to serious scholarship (14.6.18). He has words of criticism for the Roman plebeians as well, who are obsessed with gambling, and are normally to be found either gaping at the chariot races or snorting unpleasantly over a dice game (14.6.25–6). Ammianus’ account of the city prefecture of Ampelius in 371–2 (28.4.3–5) provides further opportunity for the historian to digress in a satirical vein. Again the nobles are reproached for directing their hospitality toward charioteers and parasites (28.4.10–12) and for hating learning like poison (28.4.14). They are also legacy-hunters (28.4.22), arrogant (28.4.23), and superstitious (28.4.24). Commoners are again scorned for their obsession with races and shows (28.4.29–32) and for stuffing themselves with loathsome food (28.4.34).
    Various attempts have been made to interpret these unprecedented derisive digressions. Ammianus’ criticisms have often beenlinked to particular bad experiences he himself may have undergone at Rome. Both digressions do place great emphasis on the abysmal hospitality offered by the city elite (14.6.12–15, 28.4.10–13, 17). The hosts prefer gamblers, musicians, and loudmouths to learned men because of their ignorance. Libraries have been shut up like tombs (14.6.18), and the only reading that these men do is of the satirist Juvenal and the scandalous biographer Marius Maximus (28.4.14). Ammianus is also critical of the attitude of the Romans toward foreigners. While in the old days, noble Romans kindly welcomed foreign travelers of high birth, now they only have time for the childless and unmarried (14.6.22), and the common people are now wont to chant in the theater that visitors ought to be