The Military Handbook of Festus: A New Look at the Breuiarium1
p. 403-420
Texte intégral
1The Breuiarium of Festus, perhaps the shortest history of Rome written in Antiquity, has attracted very little attention2. The neglect of Festus’ Breuiarium is such that, despite it being only 3800 words long, a translation into English has never been published3. There are, however, two internet translations available and the work has been translated into other languages4. It was not always thus. In the Middle Ages, the Breuiarium of Festus was immensely popular and at least 185 manuscripts survive5. Festus can also be traced as a source for Jerome, Ammianus Marcellinus, Jordanes, and Isidore6. In line with the revelations of recent scholarship, however, the Breuiarium, in fact, has much more to offer. Not only was the author capable of incorporating complex literary devices which show he was not as unaccomplished as earlier scholars would have us believe, but the work itself may reveal more complex agendas. Specifically, it may be read as a didactic military pamphlet for the emperor on how to conduct a campaign against the Persians and one which is full of exempla of actions and conduct to emulate and avoid.
2Festus’ Breuiarium traces the history of Rome from its origins to the brief reign of the emperor Jovian (AD 363-364). The work concerns itself chiefly with the acquisition of the provinces in the West and East, and the history of military campaigns against the Parthians/Persians (they are called a variety of names including Babylonians). Two thirds of the work are concerned with the East with almost half on Parthia/Persia alone. The last section especially (chap. 15-29) seems to seek to justify and support Valens’ own planned Persian campaign against Shapur, launched in AD 3707. Others have given the Breuiarium a range of dates (with little or no consideration of the evidence) from 368 to 372 but its date can only fall between February and the campaigning season of 3708.
3It has been argued that Festus’ Breuiarium was intended for both emperors, Valentinian and Valens, or for Valentinian alone since he makes a more worthwhile dedicatee as he was the “senior” emperor9. The manuscripts are not particularly helpful; some have no named dedicatee, some name Valens, some Valentinian, and some simply have the abbreviation Val. We can, however, unequivocally establish that the work was addressed to Valens for several reasons. Firstly, Valens had commissioned a brief Roman history from Eutropius the year before (Eutr., praef.). More on this work anon. A dedication to Valens is also supported by the final phrase of chapter 30 referring to his Gothic victory of AD 369 (cf. Amm. 27.5), the only post-363 event referred to):
Maneat modo concessa dei nutu et ab amico, cui credis et creditus es, numine indulta felicitas, ut ad hanc ingentem de Gothis etiam Babyloniae tibi palma pacis accedat.
“May the good fortune granted by the grace of the gracious God in whom you believe and to whom you are entrusted, be enduring so that for you the palm of peace of Babylonia too may accede to this momentous one concerning the Goths”.
4The author and work are usually dismissed and abused as worthless. R. Syme calls Festus a “meagre summary” and lumps him in with Eutropius and Aurelius Victor as “poor and scrappy productions all three”. He adds ‘The three epitomators betray the low standard still prevalent in the days of Julian and Valentinian (and an abysmal ignorance about the past history of imperial Rome). Otherwise, who would have made the effort of writing, who would have read these meagre compilations?”10. At the risk of defying Syme (and there is still risk in doing so), there is, in fact, much more to be found in this intriguing work if we choose to look11.
5In considering Festus’ Breuiarium, one cannot avoid reference to the only other breuiarium from Antiquity to survive: that of Eutropius. Far greater attention (both scholarly and otherwise) has been paid to Eutropius12 and yet these two works are inextricably linked.
6In 369 Valens commissioned Eutropius to compose a Breuiarium. The reason for Eutropius’ commission has been explained thus: “Both of the current emperors and their military commanders were mainly uneducated provincials from the Danube region or Germans, with little knowledge of Roman history. They had to mix with the established members of the senatorial aristocracy who expected a sound knowledge of Roman history and institutions”13. H. Bird argues that the level of ignorance of these military commanders is shown by the commissioning of Festus to write another, yet more brief, breuiarium the following year14. It should be pointed out that such arguments are flawed since anyone who has glanced at the Breuiarium can see that Festus’ work can hardly have been useful to cure an ignorance of Roman history or give a sound knowledge of Roman institutions, especially when it contains numerous obvious errors. Regardless of their quality as history, however, both breuiaria offer other insights. Eutropius’ work emphasised military subjects; he makes several references to those Roman generals and emperors who restored or maintained military discipline15, and W. Den Boer argues that the one thread which runs throughout Eutropius is the dignity of war16. H. Bird argues that Valens is deliberately compared to Trajan by Eutropius and that he urges Valens to emulate this glorious predecessor17. Such elements may have been included by Eutropius in part to justify an aggressive foreign policy against the Persians18. The two breuiaria are thus linked in this regard as well and the theme of campaigns against the Persians is presented more emphatically in Festus’ shorter work.
7Some scholars have argued that a specific commission, which is normally assumed, need not have provided the germ for Festus’ Breuiarium. B. Baldwin asserted that “any intelligent observer of Roman affairs in the East at that time” could have written it19. M. Peachin raises the valid possibility of a dedication to an emperor as a specious literary device20 and argues that the opening of chap. 15 can be interpreted to show that the composition of the work may have been of Festus’ own initiative:
Scio nunc, inclyte princeps, quo tua pergat intentio. Requiris profecto, quotiens Babyloniae ac Romanorum arma conlata sint et quibus uicibus sagittis pila contenderint.
“Now I know, Renowned Princeps, where your intention is heading. Obviously you are asking how often the forces of Babylon and Rome have clashed and in what victories arrows contended with spears”21.
8There were other works written at the same time which were composed on their author’s initiative and these works provide interesting parallels with Festus’ work. The anonymous libellus known as the De Rebus bellicis was addressed to dual emperors with living sons who had put down usurpers. Although many dates and addressees have been suggested22, Valens and Valentinian fit perfectly in the period 366-375. What is more, it is possible to argue strongly that the De Rebus bellicis was addressed to Valens (and not his “senior” brother since in the text a single emperor is named) in 369 but before Valens’ Gothic victory. This is possible because the Anonymous’ two major concerns are the Danube frontier and the Persians. Valens was campaigning on the Danube from 367-370 and then moved on to his planned campaign against the Persians. It is possible, therefore, that Festus (with a similar focus) wrote at a time when authors were addressing the emperor with unsolicited advice and when the emperor himself may also have been asking for it implicitly or explicitly23. This literary milieu of the late iv century brings us to a consideration of the genre of the breuiarium.
9When thinking about the genre of the Breuiarium we must take several factors into account. Despite Festus’ work always being referred to as a breuiarium, what it actually is has puzzled many. In the works of Festus and Eutropius we have the only two surviving breuiaria from Antiquity. They should not, however, be considered characteristic of the genre because of the unique circumstances of their composition; written possibly within a few months of each other, and probably at the prompting of the same emperor, to somehow justify his forthcoming campaign against the Persians. Both breuiaria may also have been composed by two men occupying the imperial office of magister memoriae successively24. We know very little about the office of the magister memoriae but it is entirely possible that the composing of a breuiarium fell within the scope of the duties of that office25. P. Van Nuffelen contends that the writing of breuiaria was indeed an occupation for the “top brass” of Roman society and they were not written for the common man26.
10The genre of the breuiarium is difficult to define precisely because Antiquity leaves us with no description of its characteristics. J. W. Eadie defined a breuiarium as “a brief Roman history, compiled from two or more sources, commencing with the founding of Rome and brought down to the author’s own time”27. The breuiarium was distinct from both the epitome and the chronicon which were also genres of historical writing. H. Bird defines an epitome as “a summary or abbreviated version of a longer work, often with minor additions from other sources”28. The chronicon was a universal history which began with mythology (or Abraham in the case of Eusebius) and traced the history of the world arranged according to different peoples. All three titles were commonly applied to works by medieval scribes and we should be careful to use such titles only when they are substantiated by Antiquity29.
11The first breuiarium we know of is referred to by Suetonius and may have been compiled for Sallust by L. Ateius Praetextatus Philologus in the i century BC30; breuiarium may be a title given to the work by Suetonius and not by Ateius himself, although by the reign of Hadrian the work had been given the title of breuiarium rerum omnium Romanarum31. We also have references to Pompey’s breuiarium of his Eastern campaign32 and the third sealed scroll left by Augustus to accompany his will was a breuiarium totius imperii, quantum militum sub signis ubique esset, quantum pecuniae in aerario et fiscis et uectigalium residuis (Suet., Aug., 101.4: “a summary of the condition of the whole empire; how many soldiers there were in active service in all parts of it, how much money there was in the public treasury and in the privy-purse, and what revenues were in arrears”)33.
12Therefore, although the breuiarium is considered a historical genre, it seems to have begun life as an administrative summary produced by the civil service or something similar to Pompey’s notes on his achievements on campaign and possibly some kind of legal administrative document that, later, a magister memoriae would naturally be associated with. S. Grote contends that it might be more appropriate to consider (he uses the stronger “call”) the Breuiarium a position paper or brief34. C. Ando considers that they were similar to, or even the same as, the rationes imperii or accounts of the condition of the empire, churned out by the imperial bureaucracy since Augustus35. The idea of this genre as primarily historical may therefore be misplaced although the two surviving works have primarily been considered as such, even if not especially highly. The reality may be that what could be written under the title of a breuiarium was, in fact, quite malleable. Neither Eutropius’ nor Festus’ work come close to a campaign or administrative summary and neither give such details as numbers of soldiers or money in the public treasury despite the fact that both authors may have worked within the imperial bureaucracy at the time they wrote. That said, however, Grote explores the emphasis in the Breuiarium on law, administration, justice and eastern foreign policy, and he argues persuasively that: “Festus’ attention to the legal aspect of Roman dominion and the justness of Roman acquisitions suggests an intention to give advice oriented toward questions of justice” and that Festus displays a clear concern with law and administration36. Like any other writer, both Eutropius and Festus had their personal axes to grind within their works and, dissatisfying as it might seem, until a more exhaustive study is made, we need to take and interpret Festus on his own terms. Whilst Eutropius is given some credit as an author who selected his material and did not slavishly copy or cut-and-paste his sources37, the same credit has, until recently, been denied to Festus38. S. Grote’s 2011 article goes some way to explore what Festus may have been up to but, in addition, it opens up many more unexplored possibilities.
13It is also necessary to clear up a common misunderstanding regarding the genre of Festus’ Breuiarium. Chap. 4-14 are commonly described as a provincial list of the Western empire39. Such a description rests awkwardly with a breuiarium which (at least) we know was a self-contained literary product. Provincial lists were a genre unto themselves and there is no need to make Festus’ work have the contradictory split purpose of a provincial list and a concentrated breuiarium on Eastern affairs. It is more likely that, among his sources, Festus made use of an earlier provincial list40.
14M. Peachin argued that the Breuiarium had a unified and overall purpose41. He pointed out that if we consider the first half of the work as a history of the conquest of provinces also, then it was Festus’ deliberate intention to juxtapose the relative ease with which Rome conquered her provinces in the West with the situation in the East. There seems to be a deliberate contrast between chap. 2-14 and 15-30, which relies on the less encouraging results of previous Eastern campaigns. This may also explain why Festus holds the successful Roman emperors in the East as his heroes. Secondly, and more importantly to Peachin, Festus “highlights the great difficulty of any war in the east”42. Peachin’s point seems a good one; if Valens defeated the Persians, the Breuiarium would show how difficult the foe was that he had overcome, and enhance the victory all the more. If on the other hand Valens was defeated, Festus had warned that any Eastern war was a chancy business but he was still placing Valens in illustrious imperial company43. This marrying of the two halves of the Breuiarium goes some way to solving the conundrum which has led other historians to more uncomfortable solutions such as the claim that a provincial list was all that was needed for the West – a not particularly convincing claim for a work which was possibly intended, and possibly commissioned, as an (albeit brief) summary or history of Rome by the Eastern emperor44. Another point which Peachin makes is that Festus’ “list” bears no resemblance to other extant provincial lists45. The majority of these lists are subsequent to Festus, but Peachin’s suggestion seems more logical than Den Boer’s view that Festus may be the originator of the list genre46. What is more, Festus’ ‘list’ does not present all lands of the empire, only those which had been conquered: this surely supports Peachin’s hypothesis47. Italy is noticeably absent although, perhaps, Festus thought of Italy along the same lines as Pomponius Mela (2.58): nota sunt omnia, “it is known to one and all”48. Festus himself begins chap. 4 with: quo ordine autem singulas prouincias Romana res publica adsecuta sit, infra ostenditur, “Now in what order the Roman state acquired individual provinces is stated below”. As S. Grote observes, Festus then treats the acquisition of provinces in a remarkable scheme of “chronological order by geographic area”49 and, in this way, this account might resemble a list but it is still consistent with a breuiarium as history or summary, and, possibly, a uniquely devised way of presenting it. The two halves of Festus’ work are, however, written differently and if the first half is also a history of conquest then some reason must be sought for the difference.
15Festus makes several other errors and omissions which are usually listed to justify derision of him. Several events are assigned to the wrong emperor or individual, provinces are omitted or referred to in the plural and Thrace is included in the Western empire. There may be more complex explanations for some of Festus’ information (such as his omission of the province of Valentia, created to honour Valentinian in 36950) but, for the most part, his version is simply dismissed51. Grote points out that the significance of Festus’ deviations from accepted history have hardly been touched52. Festus is also a source for several pieces of unique information or incidents such as Sulla’s Spanish campaign (5) or the troop numbers of Maximianus (25). Events for which Festus is the sole authority are, however, generally rejected, explained away or credited to his (unknown and non-extant) sources53. There is no need to reject several of the events for which Festus is the only source such as the night battle at Eleia (27)54 fought by Constantius, probably in 344. Some of Festus’ unique information for close to contemporary events may even be suggestive of something else, such as his own participation in them55.
16Whilst it is necessary to reject the idea of Festus’ Breuiarium containing an element as contradictory as a provincial list, there are aspects of his work which make it clear that he filled his work with elements which were, strictly speaking, unnecessary. D. Rohrbacher calls Festus “official propaganda” to lay the foundations for Valens’ Persian expedition56. N. Lenski fully supports such a picture in his biography of Valens: Festus’ undoubted purpose was to ‘employ historical discourse as a practical instrument to prepare for and justify war with Persia’ and further to provide support for Rome’s legal rights to territories Shapur claimed using the rhetoric of aggression and expansion57. Whilst S. Grote rejects the idea that Festus was a propagandist and that such a simple view is in need of revision, and, he contends, that Festus wrote aiming to convey something “too complex to be categorized as mere ‘optimism’”58, Grote does go on to see Festus’ work as intended to give advice to Valens. Building on all these arguments, the work can actually be seen as a didactic pamphlet on how to conduct a campaign against the Persians. Before we can consider that, however, we must tackle briefly the thorny questions of the author and his literary merits.
17The question of the author of the Breuiarium is the one which has occupied the most space in the relatively small number of works which comprise the corpus of Festus literature. The only biographical information which Festus seems to give us as an author is that he is “burdened with age” (30: aeuo grauiorem parabo). The individual most often identified with the author is Festus of Tridentum although identifying the author with this Festus raises several issues since in our sources Festus of Tridentum was the villain of the conspiracy trials in the East which persecuted pagans and others in 371 and 37259. Festus of Tridentum held the office of consularis Syriae, probably in 36860. After that, and before 371, Festus was magister memoriae (in which office he would have written the breuiarium) and then proconsul Asiae for a remarkably long tenure, from 371-379. We have three surviving eyewitnesses to Festus of Tridentum’s career (Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius and Eunapius of Sardis)61 none of whom mention any literary aspirations although Libanius (Or., 1.126) does decry him as an ignoramus who knew no Greek. All three sources are unreservedly hostile and the reliability of their evidence on Festus can be called into question. The author Festus has previously always been regarded as a pagan because of the final chapter of the breuiarium whilst Festus of Tridentum has nearly always been regarded as a Christian. Arguments regarding Festus’ literary merits have revealed that the author was indeed a Christian62 and so can be identified with Festus of Tridentum with great confidence. The only dilemma which remains therefore is in identifying the historian with the apparent perpetrator of such appalling persecutions later in his career.
18We may be able to add more information to Festus’ career if we consider that he was an eyewitness to some of the events he describes in the Breuiarium and if part of the qualification for being magister memoriae was experience in the East. Festus’ details on the battle of Eleia and his recording of the death of the Persian prince Narses at the battle of Narasara in 343 in the same chapter (27, for which he is again the only source) suggest that he may have been personally involved in the Persian campaigns of Constantius. Festus’ account is usually rejected in favour of other sources which place Narses’ death elsewhere63. Nonetheless, the idea of Festus serving with Constantius fits with suggested dates for his career. His being burdened with age when he wrote the Breuiarium in 370 (and the political appointments we know of) easily fit with a birth date around 320 (therefore writing the Breuiarium when he was 50). His death in 379/380 (based on Eunapius) would also fit. As a man in his early 20s he could have served in Constantius’ Eastern campaigns. It is possible that he also served in the Persian campaigns of Julian since he provides more details of them than Eutropius does, and yet we know Eutropius participated in the campaign64. Festus is the earliest historian to record Julian’s defeat outside Ctesiphon (28, a detail which Eutropius omits) and his account is corroborated by later historians. In what capacity Festus might have served in these campaigns remains unknowable. He does, however, show easy familiarity with specialised technical military jargon65. In 2018, M. Antiqueira proposed that Festus may have been a member of the emperor’s elite guard, the protectores domestici, suggesting that he could have been with Constantius II at Sirmium in 35966. If this was the case then it explains Festus’ presence in the campaigns of Constantius, Julian and Jovian as suggested in the unique insights within the Breuiarium. In 364 Valens took with him to the Eastern court officers who had had previous experience in the East and Festus’ continued prominence in the Eastern bureaucracy (as consularis Syriae, magister memoriae and proconsul Asiae) strongly suggests that he was one of them (and a trusted or senior one at that)67. A position within the army from where he could have gained the trust of Valentinian is also suggested by his rapid and meteoric rise68. Festus’ subsequent prominent career also suggests that he had gained the trust of Valens himself and this, therefore, adds weight to the idea that Valens too was in the army with his brother during the campaign of Julian (at least). These suggestions make stronger the idea that Festus had extensive personal military experience which he reflected (briefly) in the Breuiarium where he did indeed rely on memory (rather than a written source) for contemporary events. These suggestions are in keeping with the known dates and offices of Festus of Tridentum’s career.
19A personal involvement in earlier Eastern campaigns would also add to Festus’ credibility in later providing a work for Valens focussing on Eastern affairs and of justifying a campaign against the Persians. If a factor in the choice of Eutropius to write a breuiarium was because he was a veteran of earlier Persian campaigns, the same could be true of Festus. If the evidence of Sicorius Probus’ involvement in Persian relations is relevant, then possibly a consideration for candidates for the office of magister memoriae itself was experience in Persian affairs69. Personal experience in the East also adds weight to arguments as to why Festus’ heroes are those who were either successful or aggressive in the east.
20Although he is generally abused and dismissed, Festus actually made the most of his opportunity to show his literary skill in the small space allowed to him70. What is more, in the context of a breuiarium, such literary flourishes are not only unexpected (since Festus is at pains to point out his “breviloquence”, as B. Baldwin terms it71), they also stand out easily from the necessary brevity that surrounds them72. This feature also reminds us that we may not be dealing with an ignorant and uneducated author. It should also be pointed out that since Festus’ is often dismissed as such, many of his examples of literary style have been ignored or overlooked. It is also surely better to identify them as (attempts at) literary style rather than labelling them as “puerile rhetoric”73 or simply devices inherited from his sources, especially when so many of these flourishes are untraceable in the extant sources74. It is not the main thrust of this paper to identify the literary devices Festus uses and where they, perhaps, derive from if they are not Festus’ own. Nonetheless, by identifying several of the more interesting examples which have generally gone unnoted, it is possible to reinforce the idea that Festus was not an ignoramus, that he had an agenda as an author and, building on the arguments of M. Peachin and S. Grote, suggest what that may have been. Grote calls for a detailed study of Festus’ aims and intentions in his Breuiarium; a similar call can be made for the literary aspects of his work since recent scholarship has shown that previous attempts remain unsatisfactory75.
21Festus’ statement in chap. 15 that he will cover the occasions on which arrows have contended with spears (sagittis pila contenderint) is a striking example of synecdoche76. The idea of the sagitta representing Persian warfare (or the East) as opposed to the pila representing Roman warfare (or indeed the spear representing Western warfare or the West) goes back as far as Aeschylus’ Persae (85-86, 147-149) and continued to be recognised77. Festus’ opening remark that he will be like an accountant78 and express great events in few words might even be regarded as wit. Festus also uses hendiadys, one use of which is crucial to authorial arguments, but elsewhere too. In chap. 12 Festus refers to ‘pirates and seagoing maurauders’ (piratis ac praedonibus maritimus), and in chap. 10 the East is mentioned in triplicate as the “areas of the Dawn” (Eoas partes79), ‘the Orient’ (Orientem) and the provinces “beneath the neighbouring sun” (positas sub uicino sole prouincias). Most crucially, Festus uses both dei nutu and numine in the final chapter. For a long time this passage was considered to prove that Festus was pagan while the Emperor Christian; akin to “your god” and “my god”. Instead, it would seem that Festus was contending “the gracious God in whom you believe and to whom you are entrusted”80. Festus also uses pleonasm such as (2): “For 243 years kings 7 in number ruled at Rome” (regnarunt Romae per annos CCXLIII reges numero VII)81.
22Given the necessary brevity of Festus’ work, whenever he goes outside his scope of providing a strict (historical) summary, it is both obvious and noteworthy (just as his attempts at “being literary” are similarly obvious). Thus when Festus provides a detail which is not strictly necessary, or gives a personal observation on an event, his message is, if not clear, at least indicative that an explanation for that deviation from brevity should be sought. What that message might be is made clearer still when Festus repeats observations or themes in a work so short that such repetition cannot go unnoticed. These details, observations and repetitions can all be argued to be aimed at giving, not just legal and administrative advice, but military advice to Valens as to which actions and behaviours should be emulated, and which avoided, during a Persian campaign. As such, the material Festus has included can easily be considered a collection of exempla to be digested by his audience. The importance of the exempla in contemporary literature cannot be over emphasised; P. Van Nuffelen puts it succinctly: “Knowledge of history consists of knowledge of exempla and successful characters imitate the good and avoid the bad”82. Certainly Festus’ passages on individual commanders or campaigns are no longer than the stratagems in Frontinus or the exempla in Valerius Maximus and in several cases Festus’ chapters resemble individual stratagems or exempla which were themselves necessarily brief83. Just as in the stratagems of Frontinus and Polyaenus, there is no explanation as to why each exemplum is relevant in Festus’ examples – the exemplum is simply recorded and allowed to stand on its own merits.
23Themes which seem clear within the Breuiarium, and which Festus’ material can be seen as exempla of, include the necessity that the emperor have good fortune (felicitatis), avoiding plunder (and the disaster which can follow when troops indulge in it), being wary of supposed enemy deserters, the correct treatment of hostages, achieving victory through true virtue, and that vastly outnumbered Roman soldiers can still achieve victory through good discipline. Festus shares this last sentiment with Vegetius (although such a connection seems to have passed unnoticed) who also stressed that superior numbers were not necessary, only superior discipline (Veg., Mil., 1.1). These traits can be added to those identified by S. Grote who argues that Festus “meant to depict Roman territorial expansion as just, as divinely sanctioned and as the aim of morally praiseworthy emperors, and inversely to associate the loss of territory with imperial vice”84. Taking these observations together, Festus’ work does indeed seem to be attempting to pack a great deal of advice into its short length.
24Festus describes how Lucius Lucullus defeated the huge forces of the king of Armenia, Tigranes, at Tigranocerta in 69 BC with only 18 000 Romans (decem et octo Romanorum milibus) in chap. 15. This theme of numerically inferior Romans defeating superior numbers of enemies has several exempla to support it and could reflect the expectation that, in any Persian campaign, Roman troops would be vastly outnumbered. Festus’ examples offer an effective counter to any concern this may have raised. Festus gives Tigranes’ forces as 7 000 clibinarii and 120 000 archers (septem milibuus clibanariis et centum viginti sagittariorum)85. When we look to the other sources of this campaign (Appian and Plutarch) we find a similar picture although the exact numbers are different. Appian (Mithr., 12.84-85) gives Lucullus 2 legions and 500 cavalry, and Tigranes 250 000 infantry and 50 000 cavalry. Plutarch (Lucul., 26.6) gives Tigranes 20 000 archers and slingers, 55 000 cavalry, 17 000 cataphracts and 150 000 heavy infantry. At 27.2 Plutarch describes Lucullus as having 16 000 infantry and 1000 cavalry. Festus’ numbers are therefore not as unreliable as they could have been, indeed he is conservative in comparison with Appian and Plutarch, despite his theme of defeating great odds with well-disciplined legions. Festus returns to this theme in chap. 18 (P. Ventidius Bassus “engaging the Persians who had invaded Syria under Labienus’ command at Mount Capros, put them to flight with only a few men”, P. Ventidius Bassus Parthos, qui ducente Labieno Syriam inuaserant, occurens in Capro monte cum paucis fugauit), again in chap. 24 (“Aurelian defeated her many thousands of armoured horsemen and archers at Immae”, quam Aurelianus multis clibanariorum et sagittariorum milibus fretam apud Immas […] uicit) and twice in chap. 25 (Maximianus) who “battled fiercely against a countless horde with a few men” (cum contra innumeram multitudinem cum paucis acriter dimicasset) and “falling suddenly on the enemy camp with 25 000 men, he attacked the countless Persian formations and utterly annihilated them” (cum uiginti quinque milibus militum superueniens castris hostilibus subito innumera Persarum agmina adgressus ad internicionem cecidit)86. To show that this was not just a successful trait in the east, Festus includes (6) that Caesar campaigned in Gaul for nine years with only 10 legions of 3000 Italians each (C. Caesar cum decem legionibus, quae terna milia militum Italorum habuerunt)87. Such low numbers for Caesar’s legions may be questioned as historically inaccurate but the point fits Festus’ message to Valens that he could overcome the hordes of the Persians with relatively few men. What is more, rather than simply reject Festus’ figure, it may be usable in the debate regarding the size of legion in the iv century and possibly reflect the size of legions Festus had personal experience with88.
25Festus’ message to avoid plunder is stressed in several passages. In chap. 13 Festus claims that the riches of Cyprus seduced the Romans to attain her without justice (Cyprus, famosa diuitiis, paupertatem populi Romani, ut occuparetur, sollicitauit)89, and at 28 that Julian would have captured Ctesiphon “had not the opportunity for plunder been greater than the concern for victory” (nisi maior praesarum occasio fuisset quam cura uictoriae). Crassus’ fate in chap. 17 is also associated with his burning desire for plunder (hence the punishment of having molten gold poured down his throat). Victory through virtue is also stressed in chap. 15: “always the Romans are revealed victors through true virtue” (uera autem uirtute semper Romanos probabis exstitisse uictores). Crassus is used as a message to be aware of false deserters90. This advice is repeated in chap. 19 (Claudius Caesar, grandson of Augustus) and 28 (Julian). Taking these exempla as military advice builds on the legal and administrative arguments of Grote, indeed the two need not be mutually exclusive.
26Festus twice repeats his exemplum of treating hostages correctly. In 14, when the wife and daughters of Narses were taken prisoner, they were “guarded with the utmost care for their chastity” (cum summa pudicitiae custodia reseruatis). The result of the peace which followed (and which Festus implies was the result of the care shown to the royal women) “endured to the time of the emperor Constantine” (in tempus diualis Constantii reseruata durauit). This is repeated in chap. 25 with greater emphasis:
Pro qua admiratione Persae non modo armis, sed etiam moribus Romanos superiores esse confessi sunt. […] Pax facta usque ad nostram memoriam rei publicae utilis perdurauit.
“For this admirable deed, the Persians admitted that the Romans were superior, not only in arms, but also in moral fibre. […] The peace made for the benefit of the state endured even to our own memory”.
27This is, perhaps, another example of Festus’ own experience rather than a clumsy or lazy use of sources to repeat the same anecdote91. It would be impossible to miss or overlook the repetition of such an anecdote in a work so brief and it might therefore suggest how important Festus considered such advice. R. Jacobi considered the source for this chapter was Petrus Patricius92, although that author reports only that Narses’ wife and children were returned to him. This is still more information than Eutropius provides. It is not difficult to read these passages as advice from Festus to Valens that he should treat any hostages correctly; and that by doing so he could reap rewards in the conclusion of an Eastern campaign. The point here is exactly that made by Philip to Alexander in Lucian’s The Dialogues of the Dead (12.397): “I’ve only heard of one thing I can praise; you kept your attentions away from Darius’ beautiful queen, and looked after his mother and his daughters. That was conduct befitting a King”. Parallels between Alexander and Roman generals who fought the Persians/Parthians were commonly made93.
28The role of good fortune is also stressed by Festus in several passages94. Pompey was “known for good fortune” (16: expertae felicitatis), Aurelius Alexander was “born, as if by some fate, for the destruction of the Persian race” (22: Aurelius Alexander quasi fato quodam in exitium Persicae gentis renatus), and Lucius Verus “accomplished, through good fortune, many remarkable and impressive deeds against the Persians” (21: multa et ingentia aduersus Persas feliciter gessit)95. Julian, “an emperor of proven good fortune against external enemies” (28: Iuliano in externos hostes expertae felicitates principi)96, and Constantine (26)97 have their good fortune stressed. Valens’ own good fortune is then stressed in the final chapter (numine indulta felicitas). Such a plethora of examples of the good fortune of commanders in the East could not help but have an impact on the reader. Of course, how to obtain and maintain good fortune was much trickier although the idea that good fortune was divinely ordained is repeated when Valens’ own good fortune is mentioned.
29The loss or lack of felicitas is also recognised by Festus – Valerian (23) is termed the “unlucky princeps” (infausti principis). S. Grote connects the idea of Valens’ felicitas as a divine gift and thus links it to his idea of Festus emphasising divine sanction for territorial expansion98. Chap. 26 and 28 also tie Valens to the exempla of Constantine and Julian who advanced on the Persians after securing victory against the Goths, surely encouraging Valens to emulate them and do the same99.
30Festus has harsh words for any individual whose actions in regard to Persia he did not agree with such as Jovian (29). This chapter is one of J. W. Eadie’s examples of “puerile rhetoric”100 but much more seems to be going on in the author’s penultimate chapter:
Iouianus proeliis superiorem sed confusum subita morte amissi imperatoris suscepit exercitum. Cum comeatus deficerent et uia in reditu prolixior inmineret, Persae crebris incursibus nunc a fronte, nunc a tergo mediorum quoque latera incursantes iter agminis morarentur: consumptis aliquot diebus tanta reuerentia Romani nominis fuit, ut a Persis prius sermo de pace haberetur ac reduci confectus inedia exercitus sineretur condicionibus (quod numquam antea accidit) dispendiosis Romanae rei publicae inpositis ut Nisibis et pars Mesopotamiae traderetur, quibus cupidior regni quam gloriae Iouianus in imperio rudis adquieuit.
“Jovian took command of an army superior in battles, but confused by the sudden death of the departed emperor. With supplies running out and a longer route on the return looming, the Persians – with swift assaults now from the front, now from the rear, and also attacking the flanks in the middle – delayed the journey of the column. After several days had been consumed thus, there was such reverence of the Roman name that a discussion about peace was first held by the Persians and the army, weakened by famine, was allowed to be withdrawn when conditions (which had never happened before) inimical to the Roman state had been imposed, so that Nisibis and part of Mesopotamia was surrendered. To these Jovian, unskilled in empire and more desirous of rule than of glory, conceded”.
31Rather than puerile rhetoric, Festus’ message seems to be that Valens, in contrast to Jovian, was both skilled in empire and desirous of gloria in the most positive, old-fashioned, Roman sense, and not in the excessively ambitious sense apparent in this negative exemplum of Jovian. What is more, in the context of a pamphlet of military advice, this passage takes on an entirely different tenor and one with strong practical connotations. Within its brevity, the passage succeeds in summarising the harassing tactics of the Persians and the results which could eventuate if strong leadership was lacking. Since this was the image with which Festus chose to end his history of campaigns against the Persians, its admonitory message is clear. The details provided also add to the idea that Festus participated in this campaign and was offering first hand advice. It is not simply a passage which encourages Valens to avenge a major loss101. That said, Festus does include a telling aside in his chapter on Ventidius Bassus (18): qua congressione Pacorum regis filium eadem die, qua Crassus fuerat victus, occidit, ne aliquando Romani ducis mors inulta reliqueretur, “In this battle, he killed Pacorus the king’s son, on the same day that Crassus had been killed (lest the death of a Roman commander ever be left unavenged)”. Perhaps, therefore, Festus was also urging Valens to avenge the death of Julian and possibly Valerian who (23) wasted away in “shameful servitude” (dedecori seruitute).
32The emperor Carus (24), who attained total victory over the Persians, is used for a different message by Festus:
Cari imperatoris uictoria de Persis nimium potens superno numini uisa est. Nam ad inuidiam caelestis indignationis pertinuisse credenda est. Is enim ingressus Persidam quasi nullo eam obsistente uastauit, Cochen et Ctesiphontem, urbes Persarum nobilissimas, cepit. Cum uictor totius gentis castra supra Tigridem haberet, ui fulminis ictus interiit.
“The emperor Carus’ victory over the Persians seemed too pre-eminent to the supreme god above and it must be believed to have led to the jealousy of celestial indignation. For, when Carus entered Persia, he devastated it, as if no one stood against him; he captured Coche and Ctesiphon, the noblest cities of Persia – and thus, when victorious over the whole race he made camp beyond the Tigris and died when struck by a bolt of lightning”.
33Festus seems to be using the age-old exemplum of not being too successful or of exceeding natural or divinely ordained limits, and warning Valens against being too successful or pushing too far. S. Grote, however, goes further and argues that the Carus exemplum is framed that way precisely because Festus considered that Carus’ advance beyond Ctesiphon violated the divinely established boundary of Roman expansion102. Grote links this passage with the Vita of Carus (chap. 8-9) in the SHA which tries to ridicule the account of Carus’ death by lightning but in doing so discusses the “certain decree of Fate that no Roman emperor may advance beyond Ctesiphon” (uim fati quondam esse, ut Romanus princeps Ctesiphonem transire non possit)103. Grote also points out that all four of the failed campaigns of Julian, Crassus, Marcus Antonius and Carus were because they were immoderate “excessively avaricious, excessively mighty, insufficiently attentive to recommendations of caution or offers of peace, or simply aiming at the conquest of too much territory or at the invasion of territory too far East”104. This last vice, excessive geographical ambition, is common to all four and it is therefore not unreasonable to consider that Festus was warning Valens against following such conduct. In chap. 28, the exemplum of Julian’s good fortune deserting him after he demonstrated this excessive ambition and exceeded a divinely sanctioned boundary, Festus can be seen to be warning Valens that the same fate may await him if he follows a similar pattern. Festus also states that Julian’s death was the result of his becoming “incautious” (incautius) and this too may be seen as advice that Valens not make the same mistake. Grote even cautiously suggests that Festus considered the Tigris river a clear geographical limit – perhaps advising Valens that to cross that line courted disaster105. More complex still is the possibility that Festus here may have been reinforcing an attitude of Valens’ own, included in the Breuiarium to persuade others that such a geographical limit existed. This suggestion opens up a different interpretation of the intentio of chap. 15 and may imply a much closer relationship between Valens, Festus and the Breuiarium than has been put forward previously.
34In isolation, Festus’ brief sentences (of advice) may not seem to add up to much and they have generally been ignored or abused. Taken together as a collection of exempla, however, Festus’ advice to Valens on which practices and behaviours to follow and which to avoid during a campaign against the Persians rings out loud and clear106. Festus’ purpose, advice, literary merits and even considerations on the genre of the breuiarium, deserve more attention they have received; they should not be dismissed out of hand as worthless.
Notes de bas de page
1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the ‘Genre in the Ancient World’ conference at Sydney University in April 2010. I wish to thank all the delegates for their suggestions and comments. I especially wish to thank Angie Morton for her assistance, guidance and support. Thanks also for all the robust comments of anonymous readers who have critiqued this paper since then – their astute observations have much improved it. Any errors which remain are mine alone.
2 Most importantly see Eadie 1967; Barnes 1968; Cameron 1969; Brok 1970; Wölfflin 1904; Garroni 1915; Den Boer 1972; Baldwin 1974; Peachin 1985; Moreno Ferrero 1986-1987; Lana 1990; Neri 1992; Arnaud-Lindet 1994; Winterbottom 1995; Reeve 1997; Dahm 1999; Rohrbacher 2002; Lenski 2002; Raimondi 2006; Sehlmeyer 2009; Fele 2009; Mouchová 2009; Kelly 2010; Grote 2011; Van Nuffelen 2012; Hughes 2013; Antiqueira 2018. See also Bird 1993; Burgess 2001.
3 Dodgeon & Lieu 1991 have collected and translated the relevant passages (chap. 14; 22-29).
4 The internet translations can be found at http://www.roman-emperors.org/festus.htm (T. Banchich and J. Meka, 2001) and http://ausonius.blogspot.com/2007/04/breviarium-of-festus.html (G. Kelly, 2007). See Arnaud-Lindet 1994. Earlier translations into French include those by N. A. Dubois (Paris, 1843), D. Nisard (Paris, 1860); into German: F. Hoffmann (Stuttgart, 1830); into Italian: V. Belprato (Florence, 1550).
5 Eadie 1967, 21-32 considered that he had consulted all the extant Mss and that there were 88. Soon after the publication of his edition other Mss came to light. Reeve 1997, 509-511, tracked down 185.
6 See Eadie 1967, 19-20 and n. On Ammianus’ use of Festus see Mommsen 1881 and most recently Kelly 2010, 85-89.
7 Valens only got as far as Antioch before other events intervened and he was prevented from ever embarking on his eastern campaign; an armistice with Shapur was concluded in late 371.
8 Reeve 1997, 508, argues the date can only be 370. Bird 1993, xxiv argues for early 370. Eadie 1967, 2 dates the work to after the Gothic victory of 369 and before summer 370. This is better than Jones 1964, 381, who dates it to 368. See Cameron 1969, 305. Brok 1970, 323 argues that since the last chapter alludes to war with Persia, 372 would be more appropriate. Kelly 2010, 81-82, using Cod. Th., 7.13.2, observes that Valens was still at Marcianople on 31 January 370 and so the Breuiarium was most probably written between February and April that year.
9 Rohrbacher 2002, 62, argues that there might be a parallel between Valens’ relationship to Valentinian and Festus’ treatment of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. According to Rohrbacher, Festus stresses the Antonines’ equality of power, calling them “equally emperors” (21: pariter Augusti).
10 Syme 1968, 105. Eadie 1967, 19 postulated that the simplest reason for the popularity of Festus and Eutropius may have been that the Breuiarium was a work which could be copied quickly. Eadie himself made a stronger argument on the following page: that breuiaria “provided a concise survey of Roman history and occasionally information which was not obtainable elsewhere. In short, they were considered useful”. The reasons a work has survived are not, however, necessarily connected with the reasons a work was written.
11 Van Nuffelen 2012, 78 has observed that it is misleading to consider a decline in historiography in the iv century. That is not to say that negativity towards (or indeed outright dismissal of) Festus and the Breuiarium has ceased. Kelly 2010, 89 considered that Festus “is unrevealing of ideology” and terms the work a “superficially dull little compilation” which stripped the past of any sort of cultural baggage.
12 See Bird 1993, 168-174, for bibliography.
13 Bird 1993, xix. See also Momigliano 1963, 85-86.
14 Eutropius’ text is 77 Teubner pages long; Festus’ only 20. Cameron 1969, 305-306 termed the idea that Eutropius’ history was too long and that Festus was asked to write a shorter history to replace it a “mischievous” suggestion by Momigliano (1963, 85-86). See Bird 1993, xix. Den Boer 1972, 173 n. 3 argues that the suggestion is hardly mischievous since, as it constitutes Momigliano’s explanation of the work’s inscription breuiarium […] de breuiario, “a summary of a [or the] summary”, it is entirely credible. The inscription itself is problematic. See Arnaud-Lindet 1994 but also Reeve’s discussion (1997, 508-509).
15 See 4.19; 4.27; 8.7; 8.23; 9.14 ; Bird 1993, xii.
16 Den Boer 1972, 164.
17 Bird 1993, xxi. Eutropius had other agendas such as his self-appointed role of senatorial spokesperson (Bird 1993, xxvi) and his assertion of the proper relationship between Senate and emperor (countering the Pannonian military emperors’ promotion of men of humble origins, like Festus himself [see below] and fellow Pannonians [Bird 1993, xxvi]).
18 Bird 1993, xx.
19 Baldwin 1978, 200.
20 Peachin 1985, 159 esp. n. 7.
21 According to Peachin, intentio can be interpreted two ways; either that Valens requested a book for the coming war, or that Festus presented what he thought Valens wanted. Festus may have been aware of plans for a Persian campaign and decided to prepare a voluntary work. Peachin 1985, 159 n. 11 concludes that “although proof is impossible, it seems to me most likely that Valens made some kind of non-specific request, and it was to this that Festus responded with the Breviarium”. If breuem fieri clementia tua praecepit is Festus’ opening sentence, however, it hardly seems vague. Building on the arguments of S. Grote 2011, however, intentio may have even greater implications. See below.
22 See Thompson 1952, 1-2; Hassall 1979, esp. A. Cameron’s contribution, “The date of the Anonymous”, 1-11.
23 It may be possible to see this as a iv century trend if one considers that book one of Vegetius’ Epitoma rei militaris was written, unsolicited, in the late iv century, after 383. For dating see Milner 1993, xxv-xxix. The environment for offering unsolicited advisory literature to the emperors may, of course, have changed after the battle of Adrianople in 378.
24 Despite nearly all works on Eutropius accepting his position as magister memoriae, the only evidence for him holding this office actually comes from a manuscript of Festus. See Bird 1993, vii and n. 3; Burgess 2001. If both authors were magister memoriae, then their positions at court would have provided them with the perfect opportunity to gauge what the temper of the court was and what might have been required or welcomed.
25 See Grote 2011, 720-721. He also points out the possible precedent of Diocletian’s magister memoriae, Sicorius Probus, who may have negotiated Diocletian’s Persian settlement. A particular focus of the office of magister memoriae may have been the East and/or Persia.
26 Van Nuffelen 2012, 78-79. He explains that Eutropius’ popularity (and therefore by extension, Festus’ too) was because he was seized by the rhetorical schools. This is in contrast to the scant evidence Ammianus was read. It need not have been only rhetorical schools where the value of these works were appreciated.
27 Eadie 1967, 11. Bird 1994, xx n. 83 adds “a breuiarium is an abbreviated account of an often substantial historical period from a particular point of view and relying on more than one major source”. Festus’ own sources included Florus, Eutropius, the Periochae of Livy (or possibly the Epitome of Livy) and the lost historical source known as Enmann’s Kaisergeschichte as well as the possible “Continuation” of the same.
28 Bird 1994, xx n. 83.
29 See in general Burgess 1999. The first epitome in Latin (the Epitome Liuiana) can be dated to not long after Livy completed his Ab Vrbe conditia in the early i century AD. By the third century they had become a popular and acceptable Latin historical genre – establishing the market for short histories in antiquity (Eadie 1967, 12). The chronicon achieved its final form with the works of Eusebius who wrote two, the first before 303 and the second between 325-326, but it had gained popularity at the same time as the epitome.
30 Suet., Gram., 10. Eadie 1967, 12-13.
31 The work is lost and we have such a short reference in Suetonius that we cannot tell what differences there may have been between Ateius and the iv century breuiaria. See Wölfflin 1902, 342; Eadie 1967, 12. J. W. Eadie considerd that Sen., Luc., 39.1, written sometime between AD 62 and 65, provides evidence that the word breuiarium is post-Augustan. The passage in question, however, actually seems to provide evidence that the word had its origins in vulgar Latin: haec (ratio), quae nunc uulgo breuiarium dicitur, olim cum latine loqueremur, summarium uocabatur, “This type of account, which is now in vulgar Latin called a breuiarium, once (when we used to speak real Latin) was called a summarium”. Eadie seems to have assumed that olim cum latine loqueremur referred to Seneca’s, and his addressee, Lucilius’ speaking of Latin (akin to ‘back in my day’), rather than a reference to the Latin language generally. There had always been vulgar Latin just as there has always been colloquial speech, and so the origins of the word are not proven by this passage.
32 Plin., Nat., 7.98: ...hoc est breuiarium eius [Pompei] ab oriente. It may well be that Pliny is assigning the title to a work not so called by Pompey. Pompey may have given the work the title commentarii just as Caesar had. Lucius Verus still titled his campaign summary a commentarii in the 160s for use by M. Cornelius Fronto in the latter’s Principia Historiae. See Fronto, Ad Verum Imp., 2.3. It is possible that in cases such as this breuiarium and commentarii were considered interchangeable.
33 Eadie ignored Suet., Aug., 101.4, and Plin., Nat., 7.98 and instead summarised the four hundred years between Ateius and Eutropius: “obscure is the evolution of the Breviarium from Ateius to Eutropius; indeed we have no evidence that any breviarium was published in the interim’ (Eadie 1967, 13). There is no need to reject Pliny and Suetonius’ use of the term. See also Ando 2000, 149-152.
34 Grote 2011, 720. Kelly 2010, 89, accusingly calls Festus a bureaucrat turning Roman history into a briefing document.
35 Ando 2000, 151 n. 89.
36 Grote 2011, 708.
37 Bird 1993, xxvi-xxvii.
38 See Eadie 1967, 70-98.
39 Den Boer 1972, 197-199; Baldwin 1978, 205; Eadie 1967, 154-171; Arnaud-Lindet 1994, 49-53. For bibliography see Eadie 1967, 178. For a summary see Kelly 2010, 80, who pronounces unhelpfully that Festus is “both more and less than a provincial list”.l
40 Bury 1923, 137 and 145 dates this list to AD 308-315. Others, however, see Festus as the originator of the list genre. The argument that the first half is a provincial list causes other problems and it would seem more reliable to disregard such a possibility. See below.
41 Peachin 1985, 158-161.
42 Peachin 1985, 160. See also Antiqueira 2018, 303.
43 This seems a far more acceptable position for Festus than that of the patriotic admirer of the past and undaunted optimist of Den Boer 1972, 199-201. See also Bird 1993, xxiv.
44 Other uncomfortable explanations arise in regard to the errors Festus makes in the first half of his work such as the omission of Italy entirely and the placing of Thrace in the Western empire. For Thrace see Eadie 1967, 169; Baldwin 1978, 198. For Italy see Eadie 1967, 169; Cameron 1969, 307. Den Boer 1972, 197 argues that Festus did not need to include Italy in the list since even barbarian emperors knew of the cradle of the empire.
45 Peachin 1985, 158 esp. n. 14.
46 Den Boer 1972, 197. Some lists pre-date Festus and Den Boer also overstates his case when he argues that Festus could not have conceived of isolating an Eastern treatise from an account of the whole empire. Peachin’s arguments that the Breuiarium is homogeneous in terms of focus and intention are the most convincing thus far presented and Grote builds upon this idea of a unified treatise brilliantly.
47 See Den Boer 1972, 197. The fact that Festus might make mistakes cannot disprove this. Nor does the fact that Italy is excluded.
48 See Frick 1880; Romer 1998.
49 Grote 2011, 708. Kelly 2010, 72-73, calls this a “novel ordering of material which combines chronology with geography” but observes that “being brief and innovative has not sufficed to lend Festus much esteem or scholarly attention”.
50 See, for instance, Baldwin 1978, 197-199; Eadie 1967, 2, who uses its omission as part of his dating criteria.
51 One exception is Bury 1923, 134-135 and 140-144, even though he seems to consider Festus’ work was a provincial list. On several occasions Bury points out where the Verona List corroborates the information found in Festus or where Festus can be used positively.
52 Grote 2011, 705 and see n. 7.
53 For the Spanish campaign of Sulla see Eadie 1967, 37. Jordanes (Rom., 212) copies Festus at this point. In general see Eadie 1967, 76-98.
54 Also known as the battle of Singara or Hileia.
55 Eadie 1967, 97-98 considered that from chap. 25 onwards Festus’ style could have reflected Festus’ reliance on memory but then argues that the changes “were undoubtedly influenced by a written source”. Eadie considers that this source was the continuation of Enmann’s Kaisergeschichte. Baldwin 1978, 212, entirely disagrees with him, asserting that Festus simply reworks and expands the material he has already presented in earlier chapters. Eadie 1967, 98, does go on to briefly consider that Festus may have participated in Julian’s Persian campaign.
56 Rohrbacher 2002, 60.
57 Lenski 2002, 188, 193 and 195.
58 Grote 2011, 706.
59 Most recently see Kelly 2010, 73-82 who gives a summary of the problem and who unequivocally identifies the author as Festus of Tridentum.
60 Matthews 1975, 46. According to PLRE, I, “Festus 3”, he could have been consularis Syriae in 365 or 368. The only evidence is Libanius and Cod. Th., 8.4.11, a decree addressed to Festus and dated to October 2 in the consulate of Valentinianus et Valens. This could be 365, 368 or 370. Norman 1958, 74-75 maintains that, based on Libanius’ chronology, the date can only be 365. Downey 1939, 17 would not commit to anything other than quoting Otto Seeck’s original (368, in : PW 6 2256 no. 10) and revised opinion (365, in: Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, 1919), 33.38, 227). Libanius’ chronology in this case is, however, highly suspect and any certainty adduced from it can be easily shown to be flimsy.
61 Amm. 29.2.22-28; Lib., Or., 1.156-160 and 163; Eun., VS, 480-481 (7.6.6-13) and frg. 39.8. There is also a brief passage in Zosimus’ New History (4.15.2; probably taken from Eunapius’ lost history). Festus (as consularis Syriae) is also the addressee of Cod. Th., 8.4.11 and, according to A. Schultern (Jahreshefte des österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes, 9, 1906, 61-70 [40-70]), cited by Downey 1939, 17, an inscription at Ephesus records a decree addressed to him as proconsul Asiae. This is not recorded in PLRE.
62 See Dahm 1999, 17-22.
63 See Dodgeon & Lieu (1991), 154 and 188 and n.
64 Eutr. 10.16 (“I was also a member of this expedition”, cui expedition ego quoque interfui) See Eadie 1967, 98; Bird 1993, x-xi. Blockley 1973, however, examines the possibility that Festus used Libanius (Or., 18) or Sozomen (HE, 6.1) or that there was a common source (Seleucus’ Parthica). Still, Festus records details which Libanius and Sozomen do not and so the possibility that Festus was not following a written source but writing from his own experiences is equally valid.
65 On his use of the term clibinarii see below.
66 Antiqueira 2018, 300.
67 See Lenski 2012, 26; Antiqueira 2018, 300.
68 If Festus was a protector domesticus in this period then his relationship with Ammianus Marcellinus, one of the three eyewitnesses to his career, is made exactly contemporary and more complex than it already is and needs to be re-examined.
69 See, however, Antiqueira (2018), 298 n. 15, on the iv century reforms which may have affected the scope of the office of magister memoriae.
70 See Wölfflin 1904; Baldwin 1978, 212-217.
71 Baldwin 1978, 213. In most of his chapters, Festus achieves this brevity admirably. In chap. 2 for instance Festus covers Rome’s three types of rule (243 years for the kings, 467 for the consuls and 407 under the emperors) and in chap. 3 he summarises the growth of the empire. Thus, he covers 1117 years of history in barely 350 words.
72 Baldwin 1978, 213 wisely points out the caution necessary in tracing Festus’ inspiration to a single literary source. Other commentators such as Eadie have been all too ready to ascribe any and everything (with the possible exception of his mistakes) to Festus’ sources.
73 Eadie 1967, 18.
74 See Baldwin 1978, 212-217; Eadie 1967, 35-41.
75 Kelly 2010, 89 dismisses Festus and the Breuiarium as having “only a few sparse literary adornments”.
76 Rohrbacher 2002, 62.
77 See D.L. 5.5 on Aristotle’s use of the imagery.
78 Translating calculonum. On the rarity of this word see Baldwin 1978, 213-214. See also Kelly 2010, 72.
79 See Baldwin 1978, 215. He simply calls this a poetic flourish (cf. Hor., Carm., 1.35.31: Eois timendum partibus Oceanoque rubro; Ov., Fast., 1.140: Eoas partes Hesperiasque simul) although he points out it can also be seen in Mel. 1.11: Seres media ferme Eoae partis incolunt. Perhaps Festus had read Pomponius Mela if he followed his advice on Italy. Earlier, at 1.9, Mela has Eous ab oriente.
80 See Dahm 1999. Kelly 2010, 76 considers the use of the additional deus as trinitarian.
81 Rohrbacher 2002, 63. He categorises piratis ac praedonibus maritimus as pleonasm also but it is surely hendiadys. Rohrbacher also points out the use of the poetic plural in 7 (sub amicitiis) and 26 (regna Babyloniae).
82 Van Nuffelen 2012, 81-82. Van Nuffelen goes further on 83: ‘The past inspires one in the present to become, in the future, part of a glorious past”. See Van Nuffelen 2012, 63-93, and 84 n. 94 for bibliography. See especially Kelly 2008; Blockley 1994; Cameron 1994, 350-369.
83 This article is not the place to explore the similarities between Festus and the stratagems of Frontinus, Polyaenus and the exempla of Valerius Maximus or to compare their use/abuse of sources. Such a comparison might also shed light on Festus’ errors and the fluid manner in which similar errors in exempla collections should be treated – if an anecdote is ascribed to the wrong individual that in no way lessens the practical message of the anecdote itself. A modern fixation with historical accuracy has, perhaps, blinded scholars to this aspect of the practicality of exempla. The popularity of such exempla collections and their survival might also prove useful for the similar popularity and survival of Eutropius, Festus and the other much derided authors of the iv century.
84 Grote 2011, 713.
85 Festus uses the term clibinarii twice (15; 24) and Baldwin 1978, 214, tentatively suggests that Festus’ lack of a gloss may suggest his own acquaintance with it. Both Ammianus Marcellinus (16.10.8) and the SHA (Seu. Al., 56.5) explain that the clibinarii (“baking-tin men”) are catcphractarii. Festus’ use of a specialised piece of military jargon without comment supports the idea of his own military experience.
86 Festus is the sole source for Maximianus’ 25 000 men.
87 See Eadie 1967, 78, quoting Holmes 1931, 562: “this statement is of no use”, which sums up common attitudes to Festus’ contribution.
88 It is worth noting that at siege of Amida in AD 359 the eyewitness Ammianus states (19.2.14) that there were seven legions within the city who numbered 20 000 men. Caesar himself (Ciu., 3.2 and 3.6) tells us that he invaded Greece with seven legions which amounted to only 20 000 men.
89 See Grote 2011, 710.
90 Bird 1993, xxiv, contends that Festus simply softens or explains away Rome’s defeats. Read in a didactic way, however, Festus’ advice does not explain away or soften; it warns, especially when the same warning is repeated.
91 This would also seem a better explanation than Eadie’s, who contends (1967, 97-98) that from chap. 25 onwards Festus changed sources and “began to borrow from a more literary source”. Although Eadie considers memory, he rejects it in favour of a written source. Eadie’s rejection of the idea of Festus as an eyewitness complicates what could be a very simple solution for the information contained in chap. 27-29.
92 Jacobi 1874, 51-52.
93 See Dahm 2002.
94 See Antiqueira 2018, 305, on Festus and Julian’s felicitas.
95 It is highly likely that Lucius Verus’ good fortune was deliberately included since he too was the younger brother and junior emperor – although, expectedly, Festus calls them equal in chap. 21 (see Rohrbacher 2002, 62).
96 The emphasis on externos hostes might also suggest Festus was involved in Julian’s campaigns.
97 Constantine is styled rerum dominus, “master of affairs”.
98 Grote 2011, 719 n. 31.
99 See Neri 1992, 148-149.
100 Eadie 1967, 18.
101 Rohrbacher 2002, 62.
102 Grote 2011, 714-715.
103 It is also of interest that the SHA author here uses the example of Maximianus and his success against Narses as evidence that this decree of Fate was wrong. Festus emphasises a different theme; the reasons for Maximianus’ success are his defeating great odds with superior Roman discipline and the moral superiority of the Roman forces.
104 Grote 2011, 717. See also Antiqueira 2018, 305.
105 Grote is fully aware of the ramifications for such a view in terms of scholarship on Roman limes, but this suggestion reinforces the idea that many more complex issues may be involved in Festus’ work than anyone has previously considered.
106 The arguments here presented go against the attitude found in Rohrbacher 2002, 62, who comments that “Festus’ account of Roman policy in the East is too minimalist to shed much light on his opinions and beliefs”. He also comments that Festus’ account is mostly “unadorned facts” and that ‘rare exceptions” (such as the casualties inflicted by Pompey [16] and a possibly invented embassy to Constantine [26]) prove that the work is mostly unadorned facts by their “triviality”.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Architecture romaine d’Asie Mineure
Les monuments de Xanthos et leur ornementation
Laurence Cavalier
2005
D’Homère à Plutarque. Itinéraires historiques
Recueil d'articles de Claude Mossé
Claude Mossé Patrice Brun (éd.)
2007
Pagus, castellum et civitas
Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire sur le village et la cité en Afrique romaine
Samir Aounallah
2010
Orner la cité
Enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine
Anne-Valérie Pont
2010
