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

describe Julian’s many outstanding qualities (e.g. 16.5) and at his death his virtues are laid out as in a formal encomium (25.4.1–15). Nevertheless, despite the open partisanship of parts of his narrative, Ammianus provides the reader with several critical comments on the emperor’s career and character. Julian was “superstitious rather than truly religious” (25.4.17), given to excessive sacrificing and foolish dependence on untrustworthy diviners. He was also too populist and too often undignified in his conduct as emperor (25.4.18), as he demonstrated when he leapt out of his seat in the senate of Constantinople to embrace the philosopher Maximinus(22.7.3), or when he dismissed every one of the attendants from the palace (22.4.1–2). Ammianus also criticizes several of Julian’s laws, such as the school law which forbade Christians to teach the pagan classics (25.4.20), and the curial laws which attempted to press more people into service in their local government (22.9.12, 25.4.21).
    Ammianus shows this same willingness to provide a mix of favorable and unfavorable material in his obituary treatments of other emperors. At the death of each, he presents their virtues and vices in turn. Although his narrative accounts of the reigns of Constantius II, Valentinian, and Valens are broadly critical, in their obituaries Ammianus includes some positive judgements as well. Constantius was dignified, careful as an administrator, and temperate and abstinent in his personal life (21.16.1–7). Valentinian successfully fortified and defended the Rhine, and had military success on other western frontiers (30.7.5–11). Valens was a just and prudent administrator who restored public buildings and successfully resisted unfair attempts on the public purse (31.14.1–5). These obituary evaluations are, however, typically more negative than positive, and even the positive comments are often laced with sarcasm, as in this comment on Constantius’ artistic pretensions: “He was a diligent striver after culture, but he was dissuaded from rhetoric because of his dull mind, and when he turned to the more difficult art of writing poetry, nothing worthwhile resulted” (21.16.4). That Constantius never ate fruit during his life is also curiously brought forth as an example of his merits (21.16.7). Yet Ammianus’ willingness to provide any exculpatory information at all about his “bad” emperors can be seen as an attempt at fairness.
    Ammianus’ treatment of Christianity also has been cited as evidence of his fairness (Hunt 1985, 1993). Although Ammianus was a pagan, the Res Gestae is free from the virulent contempt for Christianity often found in the work of other fourth-century writers. Indeed, Ammianus occasionally makes references to Christianity which can be interpreted positively, such as his description of Christianity as a “simple and complete religion” (21.16.18), his praise of provincial bishops (27.3.15), and his reference to the “glorious death” of Christian martyrs (22.11.10). This moderate tone is, however, often undermined by more subtle attacks on Christianity (Barnes 1998; Elliott 1983).
    Other motives have also undermined the impartiality of Ammianus’ history. Ammianus was, unsurprisingly, a partisansupporter of his patron Ursicinus, and he presents him in a favorable light (Matthews 1989: 34–47; Thompson 1947a: 42–55; Blockley 1969, 1980a). He tries to excuse Ursicinus’ participation in the trials under Gallus in 354 by claiming that Ursicinus sent secret letters to Constantius describing the corruption and begging for aid (14.9.1). These letters and the excesses of these trials may have provided the impetus for Constantius’ recall and execution of his nephew later in the year (14.11). From this point on Ammianus depicts the relationship between Constantius and Ursicinus as fueled by the emperor’s paranoia and his lamentable susceptibility to court gossip. We might be more willing to see