Isabel
Moreno Ferrero
(Universidad
de Salamanca)
History, Rhetoric and the Fictionalization
of History:
The King Pap of Armenia Episode (AM, Res gestae 27.12.9-30.1)
Historia, retórica y la
ficcionalización de la historia: El episodio del Rey Papa de Armenia (AM, Res gestae 27.12.9-30.1)
Abstract: What we analyse in the king Pap of Armenia episode is
how Ammianus describes a complex political and religious background, by using a
rhetorical approach and a very varied narrative and dramatic register: a fictional
plot, full of adventures, theatrical and dramatic, diverse in its staging and
striking and impressive in its details. The fictionalization of the account and
the use of the rhetoric, aided by many contrasts, ominous prolepses, defined
characterizations, theatrical re-enactments, and details (rather than facts)
which converge to make a banal historical reality but one that is attractive
for the reader, will mask a historical truth, but they serve the ultimate aim
of the historian: the decadence of Rome was not only due to Adrianopolis, but
to the loss of the moral values. In sum, a good example of fictionalized
history.
Key
Words: History,
Rhetoric, Fictionalization of history; Drama, Ammianus; Pap of Armenia.
Resumen: Lo que analizamos en el episodio del rey Papa de
Armenia es
cómo Amiano describe un contexto político-religioso complejo, utilizando un
planteamiento retórico y un registro narrativo-dramático muy variado: una trama
novelesca, repleta de peripecias, que también es teatral y dramática, con una
puesta en escena muy impactante e impresiva en los detalles. La
ficcionalización del relato y el empleo de la retórica, ayudados por múltiples
contrastes, ominosas prolepsis, definidas caracterizaciones, teatrales
escenificaciones, y detalles (más que datos) que convergen hacia una realidad
banal históricamente pero atractiva para el lector, enmascaran una verdad
histórica, pero sirven al propósito último del historiador: la decadencia de
Roma no se debió sólo a Adrianópolis, sino a la pérdida de los valores morales.
En suma, un buen ejemplo de ficcionalización de la historia.
Palabras Clave: Historia, retórica, ficcionalización de la
historia, drama, Amiano, Papa de Armenia.
Fecha de Recepción: 15 de junio de 2015.
Fecha de Aceptación: 30 de septiembre
de 2015
Introduction
Ammianus Marcellinus is one
of the greatest historians of Rome.[1] He was a Greek by birth, born in Antioch according to
traditional sources, and a committed pagan, as seems to be indicated by his
work and his laudatio of Julian.[2]
Ammianus’ history, despite its connection with the classical spirit of
traditional Rome, has an evident Hellenic world-view; hence his Latin, richly
nuanced but imbued with Greek expressions, and the universal approach of his
history, emphasised in the many geographical excursus concerning the provinces where action takes place.
However, the essentially analytic structure of the Res Gestae fits the needs of its times, comprising the life and
accomplishments of the emperors, their political activities in each part of the
Empire, and the geographical division between East and West, each with its
respective problems, their main cities always being contrasted with the eternal
Rome. Our historian, in his need to integrate all these elements, is obliged to
provide a complex account, both literary and historical. His approach is not
linear, because it cannot be so; his almost innumerable characters contrast
with and highlight the main ones; his narrative (so abundant in events of the
most various kinds) is rich and varied, but paints a grim picture; and his
rhetoric functions effectively on different levels of the narration. There are
numerous events organized and resolved in a way quite different from Livy’s.
And the characters are briefly but efficiently sketched out by the author, who
portrays them by their behaviour or any other distinguishable feature: these
characters, according to Ammianus, are not known for their noble or exemplary
conduct.[3]
They tend to be mostly negative figures: dark, sinister, wicked, selfish, weak
or tragicomical (like Procopius), more pragmatic than intelligent. The leading
characters, moved by their baser passions, dominate a political scene pervaded
by conspiracies and vileness, while the minor characters (the courtiers and
their henchmen) play their own part with intrigues and manipulation; the
following social panorama is far from being optimistic or positive. Sometimes,
even those characters who attempt to help others (such as Cylaces and
Artabanus) end up being sacrificed by those whom they helped: this is what
happens, for example, to the king Pap of Armenia (27.12.14). The historian
offers a colorful and impressive spectacle, whose staging has led to a
well-known debate on the objectivity of the historian: the influence of
rhetoric in Roman historiography cannot be denied, as well as Ammianus’ ability
to manipulate his narrative. The dramatic value of several passages, as the one
we will study in this paper, is not always easy to recognize.
Here we have an apparently minor episode, seemingly
independent of the main narrative, but nonetheless relevant to it. It is formed
by different scenes, guided by the actions of its many characters, and its
development combines various narrative levels: it is a bit novelistic (some
adventurous and picturesque elements can be found); a bit tragic (there are
crimes and injustices aplenty, while the rulers prove to be mean and cruel);
and overall very dramatic, both in the theatrical influence over the
characters’ personality and in the dramatic disposition of the settings, which
comprise two large sequences (27.12 and 30.1) with different formal registers
on each. This episode contributes to underlining the general presentation of
the story-line, gradually moving towards the final Roman disaster (Adrianopolis)
that will be caused by the loss of the eternal values which made Rome the ruler
of the whole world: we can clearly see in this episode that Valens proves to be
as negative a character as Shappur.
The structure of the passage, roughly speaking, is this:
I.
Presentation of Pap (27.12)
a.
Introduction:
prologue, Shappur and his intrigues (27.12.1-3), and the death of Arsaces
(27.12.4)
b.
Artogerassa
is attacked, actions of Cylaces and Arrabanes, Pap’s flight from the city
(27.12.5-12), capture and burning of the city. Arintheus is sent.
c.
Shappur’s
guile, Pap’s injustices, death of Cylas and Artabanus; war between Valens and
Shappur for Armenia (27.12.18)
II.
Death of Pap
a.
Transition:
from the death of the king of the Quadi in the West to Pap’s death in the East
(30.1). Preface to the capture and death of the king (30.1.2-3).
b.
First
part: Pap’s capture and his flight. Crossing of the Euphrates on improvised
rafts (30.1.8-9). Crossing of the mountains (30.1.11-15).
c.
Second
part: Assassination of the king (30.1.17-22). The crime is insincerely
justified by the sycophants of the Emperor.
I Presentation
of Pap (27.12)
It is well-known that if Polybius narrated the
creation of the Roman people Amiannus recounted their disintegration.[4]
What is certain is that, beyond the specific details and isolated gruesome
passages,[5]
his account exudes a disturbing acrimony and profound despair, thanks
especially to the concurrence, multiplication, interrelation, gradatio, projection and contrast of
such kinds of references. But that expressive, funereal baroque style, superior
to a large extent to that of Tacitus, as we have already highlighted elsewhere,[6] is combined and rounded off with a complex internal
mechanism (structure; subject matter selection; silences; contrasts, allusions,
echoes or intertextuality…), more difficult to perceive, by means of which suggestion
is achieved, with no explicitness at all.[7] In fact, it is easy to show how, from the coming to
power of Valentinian and Valens, and much more so after the twenty-eighth book,
a very marked decline began, which, as Livy revealed centuries earlier,[8] pointed to the widespread disaster in which Rome was
to be immersed: the combination of catastrophic internal and external factors
with the stark narrative and factual contrast that Ammianus establishes — the
disaster of Adrianopolis is responded to by the unexpected intervention of the
Mount Taurus army commander, Julius,[9] villainous and pragmatic, at the end of the account—,
impose on the reader the sensation that the author intended.
The passage we analyse this time also contributes to
this idea: the rise to the throne and death of Pap of Armenia. It is yet
another reason for this series of passages that Ammianus’ account configures; a
series of mosaics whose colouristic tesserae
help to shape, with their individual contribution within a defined whole, a
bright fresco (beautiful or macabre). With regard to art and applying it to the
poetry of the fourth century, but with good reason in the case of Ammianus’
prose, it is what Michael Roberts called “The
jeweled style”.[10]
Our goal is to analyse, on the one hand, the way in
which Ammianus has combined the substantial and traditional elements of
historical accounts with the selection and disposition (inventio and dispositio)
that highlight the intended effect. In short, the rhetorical planning that
accompanies it, especially in what contributes to controlling the message and
the interests of the historian, removing the rest. And, on the other hand, to
highlight the fictionalization process of the account increased in the latter
part of the episode, within parameters that enhance or conceal the author’s
purpose: a very impressive and spectacular configuration (visual and
theatrical: sequences, scenes, characterizations and sets of different characters
in action…); varied (different registers, levels and resources: fictional,
anecdotal, tragic); and heavily contrastive, with very marked strokes, in
colours and darkness. In fact, the dual purpose of the historian —(a) to keep
quiet the anti-Roman and un-Christian nature of Pap compared to his never
mentioned enemy, the katholikos Narses;[11]
and, at the same time, (b) to bolster the guilt of Valens and his team, clumsy,
devious, crafty, and, as such, worthy antagonists of the Persian sovereign—,
scarcely to be disclosed among the heap of more or less entertaining and
original information he offers, with the variationes
fortunae his characters undergo. That is his skill. That, and projecting
the value of the assassination on the ending of the work, like yet another
state crime that stains the track record of Rome, steering her to her
(deserved) end; it is, as Poncet highlighted with regard to the work of Rosen,
yet another indication of the internal causes of the failure of the imperial
policy of this time.[12]
The episode, divided into two parts (presentation of
the main character and the character’s death), brings to the fore the
difference in register to which the historian resorts in each case: the
fictional value and adventure; the dramatic one of enargeia, with the different acts and scenes that the process is
made up of, marking its progression;[13] and how he resorts to different echoes, nuances and
resources of different tenors and different authors, in a mixture of typical
genres of the moment, also within the idiosyncrasy of the historical account
itself. It is what Rowland Smith highlighted with regard to the long fragment
about Julian, where different techniques are linked and combined, from epic
ones to philosophical debate, or eulogy; and his title, Telling Tales, incorporates well the essence of the Pap adventure,
with its many ups and downs, in connection with the incidents that the
protagonists of the novel experience, and the fiction, together with the
vagueness that can be discerned behind the stories.[14] All
this does not in the least mean that this is a collateral episode. It plays an
important role in the structural scope of the text, with the swing or division
between West / East (26.5.15), with their different problems and issues; and it
brings into play a fundamental aspect of the historical account, already noted
by Livy in his transition from the twenty-first book, with the sceptical
Flaminius to the disaster of Trasimene, which is the disposition of the endings
of the episodes projecting on the immediate future: a large scale prolepsis,
without hardly any specific reference,[15] and
not unique in Ammianus, but it is one of the most notable ones. In fact, the
resource is used to close another two episodes related in tone and
characteristics to this one: the first (i) starts with the deeds of Antoninus
(18.5.8), the deserter of the imperial guard who goes over to Shapur for
economic reasons, taking his family with him (18.5.1-2), although this latter
is of lesser importance (20.6.1) than that of Pap; and (ii) the deeds of
Craugasius, with his beautiful wife and daughter (18.10.2), benevolently
treated by Shapur,[16] whose adventure, more amorous than in the case of Pap
(19.9.3-7), ends happily. The art of Ammianus, at times very subtle, brings
both characters together (19.9.7-8), albeit leaving it in second place. It is
not coincidental that the two (the former very angry, like Shapur), should
later open up the important matter of the conquest of Singara (20.6.1).
The presentation closes the dense Book 27, and with
only this topic devoted to the East (27.12),[17] which sets the scene already for the main elements of
the story:[18] the treacherous death of Arshak (§ 3), Shapur’s
wiles, attempting to take Artogerassa (§§ 5; and 12); his flight from the city,
on the advice of his mother (§ 9); and then, those of his unexpected protectors
(§11), and, finally, the unjust action of the young king, assassinating them (§
14), on unconditional surrender to the Persian. Considerably later will come
the assassination (30.1), which opens the penultimate book of the work, in
which the death of Valentinian is described (30.6), and his characterization
(30.7-9), parallel with and antithetical to that of Valens in the last one
(31.14).[19] This chapter (30.1), from the historical and
political point of view, is completed with the immediate exchange of
ambassadors over Armenia and Iberia (30.2) of both sovereigns: what is
suggested, although utilizing different formulas (fictional and rhetorical), is
the geographical-military and political use of the zone for each of them.
The opening of the fragment is unique for the episode
in general, unlike the epilogues, that are different for each part, and fulfils
well its informative and rhetorical function: with the topic a persona, [20] the change of scene of the action is presented (from
West to East): Rex vero Persidis...;[21] then, the general psychological motivation of the
character is added to launch into the taking of Armenia (dulcedini rapinarum addictus)
also similar to the previous one, when the Persian king burnt with desire to
acquire Mesopotamia (20.6.1). Thus, keeping the substance of the elements the
same, the structural value of the expression, the geographical and narrative
transition, the wishes of the king to seize the area, and its political and
human tenor,[22]
Ammianus draws a parallel between the two circumstances; increasing by the echo
of the fatality of the first (the disaster of Julian), the second, before
driving forward the action with the reasons for the opportunity to attack
Armenia: the deaths of Julian and Jovian, with whom he had signed a “shameful”
pact; and, especially, now makes that fundamental historical motif clear in the
passage: iniectabat Armeniae manum ut…
dicioni iungeret suae. A motif that will be reiterated threateningly at the
end: suumque parabat exercitum ut…
subverteret omnia, …(§ 18). An ominous dramatic prolepsis, as we have mentioned,
which, in addition, offers a fine contrast with the justifications that, from
the opposing side and centuries earlier, had been offered by Corbulo,[23] and with which it closes, not completely, but
rhetorically, the first epilogue; a conclusion whose starting point is the
contrasting attitudes of the sovereigns (27.12. 17-18) on the share-out of
Iberia. Very well illustrated with the parallel and antithetical participial
formulas (Quae imperator doctus… / His
percitus Sapor…), each passage is then resolved in a very different way: in
the case of Valens, with a skilful contrast between his usual cruelty and the
desire here to smooth out tensions, his consilium
and his prudentia are
highlighted, the two typical virtutes of
the dux which the Roman emperor never
appeared to have and which will be forgotten at Adrianopolis…, and which lay
bare the historical explanation that he took, the division of Iberia, as the
most logical one;[24] thus, without the fallacy of the argument being
noticed, the Roman sovereign appears as a good political organizer. In the case
of Shapur, on the other hand, exclamatory mood dominates (§ 18). Certainly
there is an objective recapitulation of the data[25], but by way of contrast, it is presented subjectively
and emotionally: it is Shapur who shouts (pati
se exclamans indigna), revealing his feelings[26]―, with
an amplificatio[27] ―the stark reality of intimidation: to subvert it all―, which
appeals not to mercy as we shall see later (§ 7), but to fear.
The second (30.1.22-3), however, does boost the
emotive value, on several fronts.[28]
(i) It recapitulates the crime against Pap,
recriminating the forms,[29]
plus the infringement of legality and hospitality that Valens has committed.
(ii) It evokes the bloody way in which this crime had
been carried out, contrasting it with the surrounding adornment (in ambitiosa lintea); he resorted to the
living presence of the gods (hospitali
numine contuente).
(iii) He plays with the lexis (cruor / conspersus spumante sanie satietati superfuit) to stress
the visceral nature of the action and the anguish those present suffer, which
underlines the gravity of the event.
(iv) And, as an ending, before resorting to the topic exemplum of Roman integrity compared to
the attempted assassination of Pyrrhus, the authority of a dead man, the hero
Fabricius Luscinus, is invoked, for him to repent this change in Rome’s
attitude. The footnote, almost a maxim, with its venerable language on the reverentia of the past, closes this
first exemplum.
Then, Sertorius’ theoretical contrast is added; an
imprecise addition on the Hispano-Roman,[30] which is further clarified in the reference to
Demosthenes: one crime does not mitigate another, even though it has not been
punished. But the exempla, although
they bring the episode to an end, within the typical moralizing
historiographer’s technique and the need to maintain the dignity of the
account,[31]
they do not serve as a historical close to the fundamental subject matter. The
direct political struggle for the kingdom will come later, in the following
chapter, with the embassies and the dispute of both sovereigns (30.2): on the
one hand Shapur, whose mood swings between concern, sadness, irritation, pride,
anger again, decisive contempt, and cruel threats (§§ 7-8); and on the other
hand an emperor over whom eventually hangs, in a further prolepsis, this latter
on the main line of argument,[32] the imminent Gothic threat (§ 8).
At the beginning, the subject matter was based on a
clear chronological sequence deriving from Shapur’s attitude:
a) primo,
devious attempts against the Satraps
b) dein: the
assassination of Arshak, attracted per
exquisitas periuriisque mixtas inlecebras.
c) deinde:
Iberia, with the expulsion of Sauromag and the crown for Aspagur, with the
visible and public insult brought to life in the symbol of the diademate addito; an external referent,
always visible, of luxury and power, and a point of contrast with the next Pap
case, sent by Valens to Armenia sine
ullis insignibus… (27.12.10),[33] but later regaliter
vocatus (30.1.4) to be annihilated.
d) and the start of the main nub of the narration with
a very Caesarian absolute ablative of synthesis and transition: quibus ita studio nefando perfectis.
It is the death of Arshak, very theatrically described,[34]
which introduces the crux of the
matter: it gives way to the actors and enables, in a typical dynamic scene,[35] the
development of the subsequent movements: invited in convivium, captured treacherously, tortured and finally
executed, the brief report reveals the change in register with which Ammianus
handles the data on each occasion. Brief and informative, but without
renouncing the macabre nuance of the historian’s clarifications (29.1.37-40),
it underlines the expressionist baroque style of the epoch and the historian’s
own taste, on a very different plane to the subsequent one by his son
(30.1.19-22): this one is longer, much more dramatic and meticulous in its
details, more lively in the actio,
and much more theatrical on the stage; in any event, both show that ekphrasis is never superfluous, nor does
it lack functionality.[36]
Here the main elements of the representation (27.12.3),[37] not of the simple evidentia,
are transmitted using three notes: a) movement: his transfer, that is
active in which they take him from the party; and passive for him, who “is
dragged” (trahi); tragic, too,
because fortuna takes him from a
playful environment, in which he was important and happy, to the place of his
death (ad castellum…§ 3); and, as an
antithesis to any kind of adventus or
triumphal return, “through a concealed postern”;[38] b) visualization, both the sensationalist impact that
the event produces on the recipient of the information due to its painful,
almost tangible nature,[39] and the deprivation of the sense of sight itself
which he suffers: effossis oculis; c)
together with the futile “ornament” which he is granted (vinctum catenis argenteis),[40] and
typical or illustrative of this eastern zone, as clearly exemplified by the
triumph of Aurelian over Zenobia of Palmyra taken “in golden shackles” ―on feet
and hands, and torques, also of gold,
around her neck—, to act as a spectacle for
the People of Rome (HA Aur. 30.2). In
both cases ostentation further darkens, by contrast, the fall from favour of
the character and the tone of the account. In fact, Ammianus, to insist on it,
compared to the initial per exquisitas…
illecebras (§ 3), adds two last notes on the demise of the king: (1) the
painful torture, obvious thanks to the graphic hapax, discruciatus;[41]
and (2) the execution, with the typical expression[42] of the
official punishment: the sword (ferro
poenali). The brief exercise in historical fictionalization seeks more to
impress the reader than to inform him.
But it is the traditional turn of phrase quibus… perfectis that gives way now to
the main actors in the fragment (Cylaci
spadoni et Artabanni, the wife of Arshak, and Pap) setting the scene of the
action: Artogerassa, the place of refuge of the former and custody of the
riches of the kingdom; from here Pap will flee (§ 9),[43] and then Cylaces and his companion, outwitting
Shapur, through “the heights of the mountains, the depth of the forests and the
undulating hills”; details all of which, although not necessary for the story,
make a huge contribution to framing the situation and suggesting the atmosphere,
defining the type of account (adventures) that is used.[44]
The sequence of this urbs capta, which, as Menander recommended in his treaty On Epideictic Genres (I 344-46),
includes, by way of a traditional prologue, the reasons for its solidity,[45]
focusses its thematic originality on the surprising action of the eunuch
Cylaces,[46] and the dux Artabanus;[47] and its rhetorical distinctiveness, in the inversion
of several traditional parameters:
a) The brevity is greater because here the dramatic
value does not fall on the siege,[48] but on its consequences.
b) The physical and circumstantial difficulties of the
place, topics and both with echoes of Livy, even in their expression,[49] are not determining factors for the action, nor for
the passage,[50] as occurred in Heraclea (AVC 36.23.6).[51]
c) There are women’s laments, but not after taking the
fort, but when Arshak’s wife shouts (heiulante),[52] faced with the sad fate of her husband and the
proposition of both characters handing over the city who do not want to provoke
the cruelty of Shapur.
d) And such a proposal, like the response, is resolved
indirectly, so the traditional rhetorical possibility of any kind of parley is
rejected.[53]
e) But, on the other hand, in a good, double reversal
of classical approaches, what is modified is not the situation, but the frame
of mind of the messengers. Suddenly, the two characters change their approach: in misericordiam flexi. Ammianus only
uses this noun in one other very expressive and visual scene: the Sarmatian
king Zizais, throwing down his arms prostrates himself on the ground,[54] imploring before Constantius II, and, unable to
speak, arouses such “compassion” in those who watch the act, that, as happens
here, he obtains what he wanted; and precisely from whom, by being in a superior
position,[55] is able to grant it. The historian is well aware of
the Livian tradition, but, for this reason, is capable of modifying it
perceptibly and skilfully:[56] the actors (the wife), instead of arousing compassion
in the readers, fulfilling the topical function of tragedy, with such
background theatre, arouse it in the two interlocutors,[57] who are seen as capable of suffering what the other
is suffering.[58] Then, Ammianus will repeat the underlying idea,
although varying the term and the interpreters: the two characters “seduced” (illecti) by Pap’s humanitas, will request Valens to appoint him king of Armenia. In
the finest tradition of historical accounts,[59] Ammianus adduces a psychological reason for a
political event (§ 9), and prepares the characterization of the young king to
confront him immediately, on the one hand, with the stupidity of Valens who
allows himself to be seduced by his incompetent advisers, amongst whom
Terentius, an orthodox and pious
Christian, whose characterization (30.1.2), could be related to such a
characteristic;[60] and, on the other hand, with his own weakness,
yielding to Shapur’s wishes, to whom he sends the heads of his two protectors,
whom he kills following the same procedure (blanditiarum
inlecebris, § 14) as the one used against his father (per exquisitas... inlecebras § 3).[61]
Certainly, it is this double triumph of the Persian,
the psychological one (§ 12) and the one in war, that is brought into the final
part of the fragment. Ammianus makes him “contemplate” the passage of time in
desperation, stressing the summer, with its “parched” fruit trees, and the
frequent (in these cases) sidere
flagrante brumali,[62] before the aperta
praedatione underlines the emphatic and self-evident physical way that he
conducts the conquest ―a new contrast compared to the opacity and guile with
which he has acted earlier (§§ 2-3).[63] But Pap’s treachery to those who had helped him
(Cylaces and Artabanus), has an even greater projection: in short, the
superiority of the Persian is accepted.
Two final important details highlight other narrative
and argumentative techniques used by Ammianus in the fragment: one, the
appearance, but not the presentation, of a figure who, by way of leit-motif,
until putting an end to Pap, marks the main stages of his itinerary; it is the
famous Terentius dux, who Valens asks
to take him back to Armenia (27.12.10); and then (§ 16), without Ammianus
resorting to any of his dramatic flashbacks to enhance his role, used as an
indirect weapon to do away with him (30.1.2-3). From the standpoint of the
general organization of the account, by not presenting him in this initial
action, the historian makes perfectly clear[64] the secondary value that he gives to him, despite
being a prominent personality, a much-vaunted catholic; with his impressive
description later—some well-chosen
terms: demisse[65] ambulans, semperque submaestus, sed, quoad
vixerat, acer dissensionum instinctor[66] (30.1.2-3)—,
and the hypocrisy he exudes, the perversity and inefficiency of the disastrous
group of Valens’ advisers, who “exaggerate the crimes” of the king of Armenia,
increases.[67]
And the fine orchestration of the last passage
maintains the two foci of attention with regard to the dual purpose intended:
a) The (necessary) information about the areas of conflict,
with the see-sawing of events (Armenia/ Iberia), with the further clarification
about Shapur’s make-up, which is variable and accommodating, as required, who
manipulates Pap like a pawn, who will later suffer himself punishment for such
an attitude, served up by General Trajan (30.1.19).
b) And the rhetorical shape, which leaves unresolved
the future as a reality and a threat. Thanks to this, the connection with the
subsequent fragment (30.1), which continues to have a bearing on the crimes,
and making the narration swing from West to East, is easily linked, despite the
huge leap in time and narrative.
II.
Death of Pap (30.1)
The second act of the episode maintains the
antithetical and complementary contrast of the main characters, although now it
will be Valens, with Rome in the background, who aided by the conspirators who
“plot” the machinations,[68] and highlights with his evil the ultimate reason for
the fall of Rome. But what dominates the passage is the novelty of the
expressive forms of which it is composed: the echo of the story, with the
descriptive brevity and simplicity in the depiction of situations; the ease of
comprehension, with substantially fictitious details in the two main courts;
and the fictional incidents,[69] with the role of fate,[70] which
attracts the reader, who ceases to care about the substance. Thus, the
multiplication and diversification of details act as a means of disinformation making it possible to
leave out the important political and religious background of the issue, which
the uninitiated reader fails to perceive.[71]
The transition from the problems of the West to those
of the East is achieved using the same topic for both areas: a crime; in the
former, the attempt on the life of Gabinius the king of the Quadi (29.6.5), by
order of Marcellianus (29.6.3-5), son of the proud, hypocritical and cruel
Prefect of Rome, Maximinus,[72] and not much better than him, in the latter
(30.1.11), the dirum...facinus of
Pap. But with notable differences for each actor and his representative value.
(i) First, Gabinius, as a person, is of no importance;
he has no particular characteristic, except his natural lack of fear; and only
two actions are predicated about him (political / personal) with the two
participles: poscentem, his
(reasonable) request that the statu quo between
Quadi and Romans be maintained (29.6.1-2) / digredientem:
his departure from the banquet.[73]
(ii) The space where the crime is committed is of no
importance: there is no ritual, or drama; no description; no multiplication of remarks
to offer a vivid picture of the situation, as did happen in the case of Pap,
where the author allows himself to be carried away by the atmosphere of the
scene that he is recreating (30.1.20-21): rich food, the echo of the music and
singing in the spacious halls, which evoke the hedonistic sensuality of the
area; and, of course, the complement of the wine,[74] who
inflames the passions and induces the owner of the mansion to leave per simulationem naturalis cuiusdam urgentis…
This latter an expression, furthermore, with an important echo, within his
apparent humility, because Caracalla was assassinated, according to the Historia Augusta, when he withdrew ad requisita naturae discessisset (Cc.
7.1); and Ammianus describes, in the excursus
of the Persians (23.6.79), his discretion in these acts, so different from
Roman indifference: … nec ad requisita
naturae secedens facile visitur Persa; doubt about where the expression
comes from, and the relationship between the two works has been the source of
much ink spilling.[75]
From this moment on, the account becomes an almost
paradigmatic exercise in the typical distortion of genres in this epoch in
which the borders between them, where unwritten laws have maintained their
strength so far, begin to blur. Invention does not replace history in respect
of the basic facts (30.1.18), and Ammianus himself insists on offering the causa of the events which he “has known”
(§ 1)[76] to
strengthen an approach from which he will immediately escape. But
imagination, the enemy of fides historica,
takes possession of the account in the three main sequences of which it is
composed: a) the flight of the king, with the crossing of the Euphrates on the
wineskins (§ 5-10); b) and then over the mountains (§§ 12-16); c) and death (§
19-21). With such events, entertaining the first two and pathetic the last, the
historian achieves his dual purpose: to distract the reader from the real
historical problems,[77] and shapes a very novel fragment, where the sense of
spectacle dominates the background —with the wonderful; or, at least,
adventurous (§§12-15), or risky ending in comedy, with Pap happy in his kingdom
(§ 15), or tragedy, with his death (§ 21)—; and form: the scenic sequence of
the drama which enables the different episodes to be separated from the gradual
advance of the argument. In fact, one of the fragments of the episode (that of
the way through the mountains, §§ 11-16) is perfectly defined by the appearance
and performance of the extras:
Danielus and Barzimeres (§§ 11 and 16), sent to capture the king by Valens,
first of all annoyed by his escape (§ 11), and then seized by inexplicable hate
(§18). In his final appearance, Ammianus multiplies the negative notes against
them: by indirect means, with the judgement of those who attack them after
their failure (…venenatae serpentes);
and direct ones, with a nuance already well-proven in the work: sharpening his
claws “to hurt” (nocituri).[78] His action, as in the earlier case of Shapur, will
initiate the next and final act: the death of the sovereign.
But before this pathetic and flexible closure, the
historian includes the two anecdotes that are good examples of the use of
descriptive resources to boost the fiction’s logic[79] and the
role of chance. One is the crossing of the Euphrates, when, after skilfully
outwitting the moderator provinciae who
intended to stop his flight (§§ 6-7), with arrows shot wide of the mark with
which he wanted to scare and not injure, Pap and his men arrived at the river,
for which there were no boats to cross it. Ammianus places the sovereign and
his generals on beds held up by wine-skins,[80]
tilting them in order to avoid the movement of the water, until they reached,
after great difficulty, the other bank; whereas his men, with great difficulty,
crossed the furious current on horseback (§ 8). Without the echo becoming an
allusion,[81] the hazardous adventure (§§ 8/ 9 / 10) evokes earlier
passages and heroic deeds: Caesar trying to reach his ships, with his mantle
between his teeth and taking care that the documents he was carrying in his
hand did not get wet (Suet. Caes. 64); or Hannibal’s encounter with Olcades,
Vaccaei and Carpetanos on the Tagus (21.5), with the brief commentary that Livy
makes about the difficulties of the infantry to sustain themselves in the
watery medium, compared to the safety of the cavalry. The historical and
rhetorical docere fulfils
a delighting function,[82] and implied in this is the active role from which the
echoes of tradition may be recognized.
For this reason the evocation will be completed with
that of Sallustius in the next phase, when an unknown viator, a providential deus
ex machina, ends up resolving the problem for the king and his men who are
lost in the area. Without precision or identity, because it is only a matter of
inducing a memory, that of the Ligurian, who looking for snails finds the
solution for Marius in the face of Jugurtha (93.2), is inescapable; as in
allusion, what matters is the passage from the notional to the emotional
feeling, which is the one which reaches the recipient of the message.[83]
In fact, for this final fragment the historian has
played with a perfect division of the material, adapting the topics and
language, to the various blocks and transitions. Here, with the dominion of
nature at the centre, the agile narration only seeks to inform and entertain:
i) unknown mountains and valleys in which it is easy to get lost (§ 12); and
riders who pursue and are pursued; ii) and a river, a determining geographical
feature in the works of Ammianus, a degree of difficulty and a touch of human
improvement, and a good setting for the physical description and, above all,
the personal heroic deeds in the actors,[84] which adds yet another nuance of emotion and empathy
on the part of the recipients of the work. And by way of contrast, closing it
with the prologue of the next (§ 17), the negative elements of politics: a)
Valen’s desire for vengeance, and his advisers, outwitted by Pap’s superior
intelligence; b) hypocrisy, and the crafty and devious procedures with which
situations are handled (confidential letters…); c) or the typical accusation of
“Circean spells” with the so-called fog by which, changing his appearance and
that of his men, Pap managed to escape (§ 17).
But the register changes in the last part of the
episode; the pure delectatio to which
the intrigue contributed, somewhat tragically at times, where the author
creates for the reader the illusion of seeing with the developments, and
actions of the actors, making way for the climax of the last supper; pure
theatre, due to the setting and the actions of the characters in it, described
with minute detail and great vividness, and where what generates added tension
is the attack of the scurra in
contrast to the convivial atmosphere that is created; and in which the field of
the senses (sight; sound; taste: exquisitae
cuppediae// vino), and the precision of movement,[85] clashes with the fierceness of the executor,[86]
compared with the victim’s inability to defend himself. The noteworthy
precision of all the wounds[87]
are opposed, once again, to the attempt to save his life omni ratione, and the violation of all human and divine rights.
Both Zangara (245), highlighting the personal mental image that each reader
conjures up from the elements provided, and Webb, who, regarding the depiction
and the Aristotelian perspective, develops enargeia
(‘vividness’),[88] coincide in emphasizing that combination of visual
luxuriance and emotion which the authors of Progymnasmata
(41) presupposed, and the account Ammianus offers here.
The publicist function of the passage, completely
wiping from the recipient’s mind the substantive issue (religion and
partisanship), fulfils the intended mission. Fictionalization of history, with
its ‘verisimilitude’,[89] replaces its intended informative objectivity,
without the reader realizing it, or noticing the difference. Ligota may have
been partly right when observing the notion of historic reality was foreign to
the historical thinking of Graeco-Roman antiquity.[90]
Furthermore, perhaps, Gabba when saying that traditional history, focused on
military and political and constitutional matters, always coexisted with other
forms of historical accounts, aimed at a different public.[91] But
maybe the division has disappeared and, as this episode illustrates, Ammianus
also writes for this audience, whom he censured earlier (28.4.14) and who reads
Juvenal and Marius Maximus…
Conclussion
This passage, as we have attempted to demonstrate,
despite its brevity, exemplifies well some of the main features of the Res Gestae, especially the practice of
fictionalization of history: an occurrence far more frequent in a time when the
genre was not so regulated as it is today, according to the rules of historical
positivism and the demand for an accurate presentation of the facts. Ammianus
succeeds in making an impression on his readers on account of his narrative and
dramatic methods: his story becomes a changeable drama where the characters
express, through their actions and behaviour, the historian’s world-view and
opinions. This accumulation of people and events has an important effect on the
minds of the audience: they easily forget the deeper motives lurking behind
this confusing reality or the author’s silence on other actors,[92]
or again the orthodoxy of figures like the “evil” general Terentius, rewarded
by Valens with the construction of a Church and whose daughter was a ‘deaconess’.[93]
Finally, in the long term there is an even worse problem: Rome, without the
political insight and the magnanimity of its former leaders, is condemned to
the defeat at Adrianopolis.
Isabel
Moreno Ferrero
Universidad de Salamanca
ismo@usal.es
Bibliography
Alonso Nuñez, J.M. (1975), La
visión historiográfica de Amiano Marcelino, Valladolid: Universidad,
Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología.
Barnes, T.D. (1998), A.
Marcellinus and the Representation of
Historical Reality, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press
Barthes, R. (1993-1994), “Tácite et le baroque funèbre ”, Oeuvres complétes Marty, É. (ed.),
Paris: Ed. du Seuil, I, 1247-9
Boeft den, J., Drijvers,
J.W., Den Hengst, D., Teitler, H.C. (eds.) (2009), Philological and Historical Commentary on A.
Marcellinus XXVII, Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Comber M. (1997), “Re-reading the Roman Historians”, Companion
to Historiography, ed. M.
Bentley, 1st ed., London-N. York:
Routledge: 38-52.
Conte, G. B., Barchiesi,
A. (1989), “Imitazione e arte allusiva. Modi
e funzioni dell’ Intertestualità, in La
produzione del testo. Lo spazio letterario di Roma Antica, G. Cavallo-P.
Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), (s.l.), Ed. Salerno
Dinter, M. (2012), Anatomizing
Civil War: studies in Lucan's Epic Technique, Michigan: Michigan Univ.
Press.
Feldherr, A. (1998), Spectacle
and Society in Livy's History, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press
Françóis. P. (2012), “Iuvit
locus. L’entrelacemente du narratif et du descriptiv dans le récit
historique”, in La trame et le tableau.
Recit and Description. Poétiques et Rhétoriques du récit et de la description
dans l’Antiquité grecque et latine, M. Briand (ed.), Rennes: Pres. Univ.,
115-138.
Gabba, E. (1981), “True History and False History in
Classical Antiquity”, Journal of Roman Studies 71, 50-62.
Genette, G. (1989) (=1972), Figuras
III, Barcelona: Lumen.
Kelly, G. (2008), A. Marcellinus. The Allusive
Historian, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Konstan,
D. (2007), “La piedad divina desde el paganismo al cristianismo”, Auster 12, 11-23
____ (2001), Pity
Transformed, London: Duckworth.
Ligota, C.R. (1982), “‘This story is not true’. Fact and
Fiction in Antiquity”, Journal of the
Warburg and Courtland Institutes, 45, 1-13
Martin, R., Gaillard,
J. (1981), Les genres littéraires à Rome,
I, Paris: Scodel.
Matthews, J. F. (1989), The
Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press.
Morgan, J.R. (2011), “Fiction and History: Historiography
and the novel”, in A Companion to Greek
and Roman Historiography, J. Marincola (ed.), II, 553-564
Moreno
Ferrero, I. (2013), “La inversión
del binomio «sentimientos romanos-pasiones bárbaras» en la historiografía del
s. IV”, in
El espejismo del
bárbaro. Ciudadanos y extranjeros al final de la Antigüedad, David Álvarez Jiménez, Rosa Sanz Serrano & David Hernández
de la Fuente (eds.), Castellón: Univ. Jaume I, 19-44.
Neri, V. (1992), “Ammianus’ definition of Christianity as absoluta et simplex religio”, J. den
Boeft, D. den Hengst and H.C. Teitler (eds.), in Cognitio Gestorum: The Historiographic Art of Ammianus Marcellinus,
Amsterdam /Oxf. / N. York/ Tokyo, 59–65.
Pitcher, L. (2009), Writing
Ancient History, An Introduction to Classical Historiography, N. York: I.B.
Tauris.
Poncet,
A. (1969), “Reseña de Kl. Rosen, Studien
zur Darstellungskunst und Glaubwürdigkeit des A. Marcellinus, Manheim,
Diss. Heidelberg”, in Revue des Études Latines 47, 620-623.
Reinhold, M. (1985), “Human Nature as Cause in Ancient
Historiography”, in The Craft of the
Ancient Historian. Essays in honor of Ch.G. Starr, J.W. Eadie-J. Oler
(ed.), Lanham-N.York-London, 21-40
Roberts, M. (1989), The
Jewelled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity, Ithaca-London,
Cornell Univ. Press.
Sabbah, G. (1978), La
méthode d’Ammien Marcellin: recherches sur la construction du discourse
historique dans les Res Gestae, Paris: Les Belles Lettres
Smith, R. (1999), “Telling Tales. Ammianus’ Narrative of
the Persian Expedition of Julian”, in The
Late Roman World and its historian. Interpreting A. Marcellinus, Drijvers,
J.W., Hunt, D (ed.), London-N. York:
Routledge, 89-104.
Todorov, T. (1971), Poétique
de la prose, Paris: Seuil.
— (1981), Introducción
a la Literatura Fantástica, 2ª
ed., Méjico, PRAEMIA s.a.
Tougher, Sh. (1999), “Ammianus and
the Eunuchs”, in The Late Roman World and its Historian.
Interpreting A. Marcellinus, Drijvers, J.W., Hunt, D (ed.), London-N. York:
Routledge, 64-73.
Webb, R. (1988), Ekphrasis,
Imaginatio and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice,
Farnham-Burlington: Asgate
Weston, A.
(2005) (=1992),
Las claves de la argumentación, Barcelona: Ariel.
Zangara, A. (2007), Voir l’histoire. Théories anciennes du
récit historique IIe s. A.J.-C. Après J.-C., Paris: Ed. De
l’Ecole des Hautes Études en sciences sociales.
[1] This article has been written under the
auspices of Project FFI2011-29055 of the Ministry of Economy and Competitivity,
“Actio in Latin historiography of the
imperial age”.
[2] Or maybe he was an apostate,
like the Emperor. Cf. Barnes
(1998: 83).
[3] Some of them are barely known (if not
altogether unknown) but nonetheless useful to illustrate the social circles of
the time.
[4] Cf. Alonso Nuñez
(1975: 192).
[5] Plots, betrayals, deaths,
convictions and torture, or simple ones, but continuous and repeated injustices
and vengeances…; Tacitus (Ann. 4.33.3) had already
lamented the inclusion of these passages.
[6] For Tacitus, cf. Barthes (1993-4: 1247-9). For Ammianus, cf. Moreno (2013: 44, n. 125).
[7] Amiannus, The
elusive historian (as Kelly
(105-158) entitles his biographical chapter 3), playing with the words of the
title of the work) is often unclear, even when he recognizes his competence, as
in the army (quondam miles et Graecus,
31.16.9). Martin-Gaillard
(1981,142) compares his intentional vagueness —a distancing that seeks to avoid
the pedantry of precision (ib.)—,
with the accuracy of Caesar, and the demands of Polybius.
[8] …
labente / lapsi sint / praecipites donec uitia nostra nec remedia pati
possumus… (Prol. 9-10).
[9] It is the complete reversal of the values that
Rome had defended and incorporated. Cf. also Moreno
(2013: 44).
[10] There are different nuances in those who use
this expression. Roberts (1989:
132) applied it to the different scenes that make up the striking result of a
text. Smith (1999: 89) saw the
diversity of narrative forms of which the long Julian passage is composed. We
refer the different episodes, acts or scenes, dynamic or static, very
noteworthy and with a certain independence that mark out the central account.
[11] Cf. Barnes
(1998: 81) and den Boeft et al. (2009: 267-8).
[12] Cf. Poncet
(1969: 620) and Rosen (1968). And
this despite his vaunted faith in sovereign Rome: ut domina suscipitur et regina… (14.6.6). Perhaps the answer is to
be found in the time difference: maybe then the situation was not as onerous as
now; the fall seems to increase with Book 28.
[13] In the sense of the genre that is represented
and seen; again we testify to the importance of spectacle in the work of
Ammianus ―Livy had already fostered it (Feldherr 1989)―, whose
awareness may be seen in the case of the material stored causa theatri (29.6.11); and the episode of Petronius Probus in
Sirmium (29.6.9), whose characterization (adsuetus / praestrictus / oculosque vix attollens/ ambigens / inmobilis)
includes a good final dramatic/comic antithesis (27.11.2).
[14] Cf. Smith (1999:
89-90).
[15] Cf. Genette
(1989: 95 and 121-4). Unlike
the multiple internal mentions that bind the contexts at other times.
[16] The echo of Alexander and Sisygambis hovers
over the passage (18.10.3), in which, however, the differences are very
important: the allusion to the burkha —the black veil that covers her up to her
lips— and the selfish attitude of Shapur, who seeks to use her as a bargaining
chip to obtain Nisibis, far from the very generous attitude of the Greek with
his mother and wife of Darius.
[17] Except the brief references to the Syrians
(27.9.6-7).
[18] In narratology (Pitcher 2009: 132), the term applies to the events “as they
are ‘dispositioned and ordered in the text’; and the ‘fabula’, ‘all events
which are recounted in the story, abstracted from their disposition in the text
and reconstructed in their chronological order”.
[19] Briefer, and less nuanced and organized: no military
and literary education (31.14.5); interference in the administration of
justice, lack of moderation and infinite cruelty (29.2.10-17).
[20] The already “long-lived Shapur”, a similar
formula to the one used after the proclamation of Julian, when the Persian, truculentus rex ille Persarum, …, was to launch his attack
against Singara. We cannot enter into the problem of the shape and publication
of the work, which is complex and has been carefully studied (Matthews 1989). But
this subtle parallelism helps to make the narration inclusive, with recurrent
leitmotifs that contribute to bring the themes together.
[21] Earlier Ammianus has dealt with Valentinian’s
campaign against the Alamanni (27.10), and presented the important Petronius
Probus (27.11), whose conduct will be highlighted later (28.1.31; 29.6.9-19).
[22] Avarice (18.10.2); pride or arrogance (19.1.3-4).
[23] What was worthy was that the Roman people were to recover
the conquests of Lucullus (99 B.C.) and Pompey (69 B.C.), ... (Tac, Ann. 13.34.2).
[24] For the generalization based on incomplete
information or the oversight of alternatives as fallacious arguments see Weston (2005: 124-5).
[25] … quod… quod. Objectivity continues with the preparation of the army
and the improvement in the weather…
[26] He “feels scorned”, a sentiment that Gallus
had also shared (14.7.12), in the midst of his problems and evils, when
Constantius sent Domitianus to take him to Italy (14.7.10).
[27] Ad Her. II 30.47. Logically, there is no
way of fitting together the ten topics adduced ―fifteen
in the De inventione (1.53-54.100)―, for
this kind of resource that the author adjusts to his material.
[28] It may be summarized in indignatio (against the adversary, although here he is a Roman:
Valens) and the conquestio (a commiseratio because of the indignity of
Rome now). Cicero (supra) notes among
the topics the granting of speech to the dumb or inanimate beings ―or
dead, as in this case Luscinus (1.54.109)―; or
recriminating something that should not have happened (§108), such as the
criticism of regicide.
[29] Deceit as a means, and sullied trust.
[30] Plutarch, who links the act to a love affair
(Sert. 26), presents the intriguing and ambitious Perpenna, inviting him to a
supper in Osca to commemorate a non-existent victory, and giving a signal to one
Antonius, who was beside him, on dropping a glass of wine. Florus
only establishes that suorum scelere et
insidiis (II 10[III 22],6). Velleius does state it: inter coenam (II 30.1).
[31] Cf. Sabbah (1978:
416-9).
[32] Homodiegetic and completive, cf. Genette (1989: 122-30).
[33] Cf. also 27.12.14: maiestatis regiae velamento...
[34] Especially in the way he is taken from the
banquet, and the various acts of torture.
[35] Cf. Todorov
(1971: 121) and (1981: 11, 66 and 88). Albeit curiously, in itself static.
[36] Cf. François (2012:
138).
[37] Not of the image which would be a static
concept. The introduction, however, that highlights the more
psychological part, without even leaving out the physical suggestion of such
caresses, completes the picture with the voice that remains outside the direct
indication ―per
exquisitas periuriis mixtas inlecebras…. It is the same as
he does with Pap.
[38] Ammianus frequently stresses with this term (latentem), in its different categories,
the devious way of acting of the imperial hub, Shapur too (§ 14); and the allamannus Rando (27.10.1).
[39] If the pain is psychological it
hurts the recipient's sensitivity less; it is transmitted with greater
difficulty, and requires more expressive capability, but involves more
artistry. Blood is much more sensationalist.
[40] Even for the author himself (§ 3). Ammianus
appears to be more restrained than others. Cf. den Boeft (2009: 272)
[41] A reference that takes the same macabre path
of the epic procedure, and Lucan applauding the force of the amputations and
the limbs dislocated or wrenched off in the battle.
Cf. Dinter (2013, 36-38).
[42] For the parallel, cf. the punishment of the curiae Romulus and Sabostius (21.12.20).
[43] The topic is presented as an “addition” (§ 9).
For the narrator, the main reason for the dissension between Rome (inter nos) and Shapur is the inopina defectio of Cylaces and
Artabanus (§ 7-9), and the necesque
Persarum (infra), provoked by the
attack by the iuventus… velox (§ 8).
[44] Such as the expressions that describe this
attack (§ 8): the besiegers, asleep, without noticing him because of their passibus insonis, calmly snore away (stertitur).
[45] Physical: the wall; and human: treasure; and
the widow and her descendants.
[46] Very suitable as such for the salacious and
very expressive characterization, attributed to him: aptusque ad muliebria palpamenta
(hapax). In the episode of the rich merchant Antoninus (supra),
parallel in some points to the latter, they are described as feri et acidi semper carentesque
necessitudinibus ceteris divitias solas ut filiolas iucundissimas amplectuntur
(18.5.4); cf. Tougher (1999,
64-73).
[47] Always in the background, cf. the immediate Artabanne adscito (§ 6), which involves
the inclusion in a duo. There is no action, dictum
or gesture which makes him independent and marks him out.
[48] Such as in Pirisabora (24.2.9-22) and Singara
(20.6), which, even though sharing some topics with the latter, or viceversa ―a
mission is sent, which grants a deadline, although it does not convince the
besieged―, it is infinitely richer in details
of the attack and the defence. It is to that end when the deserter Antoninus is
referred to for the last time (20.6.1).
[49] … asperitate
montana (for the former cf. 15.10.2 and 10; is also applied to Count
Fortunatianus (29.1.5), indirectly linked to the process against Theodore; or
the violence of the diseases) // rigente
tunc caelo nivibus et pruinis…
[50] A different case for both is that of an
unnamed fortress on the way to Ctesiphon, when faced with Julian’s attack
(24.5.6), which was about to cost him his life, and where he seems to have lost
his traditional calm (24.5.6-7 and § 10-11).
[51] A siege which was completely dominated by the
conditions of the geographical features. In the Res Gestae, even the cases of Bezabde
(20.7.1), or Maogamalcha (24.4.10), or the most undiscovered, Thiluta, in the
middle of the river (24.2.1), concentrate interest on the internal vicissitudes
of the process; as in Singara with its duration, its battering ram and its
tower (20.6).
[52] An infrequent verb (4 occasions), linked to
passages of notable physical and moral harshness: the cruelty of Gallus (14.7),
where Luscus, the one who shouts, is burnt alive as the inciter of the riots;
and Montius torn limb from limb…; or that of the boy who Ammianus found
abandoned by his mother because he was holding back her flight from the enemy
(18.6.10). Also in that of Maximinus’ servants (28.1.36), Mucianus and Barbarus,
despite the feigning.
[53] In the case of Bezabde, leader of the
Christian community (Christianae legis
antistes), with his gestures and movements, he manages to be allowed to
leave the city to go and parley with the Persian king (20.7.7). His arguments
are not accepted; and Ammianus lets all the weight of suspicion of a possible
denunciation about the most accessible places in the wall fall on Shapur.
[54] Such as the penitents (17.12.9-10); the long
scene brings together several of these topics, highlighting the physical nature
of the action, which accompanies, by antithesis or complement, the humility of
the requests.
[55] The pitier, then, must be in a superior
position to the pitied. Cf. Konstan (2001:
50).
[56] Without dwelling on it, two details that are
not to be found in Ammianus: Livy frequently resorts to the doublet (3.56.11);
sometimes to antithesis (3.50.7), and on other occasions intensification
(7.30.11). It is the Populus Romanus,
or the Senate, the target of his entreaty, or the agent of mercy (7.30.11). And
the expressions are very varied, more rhetorical (26.29.6/ 24.26.15/ 40.10.2);
and more numerous (30 appearances). This scene can also be compared with that
of the ambassadors of Carthage, raising the unbearable pressure of Masinisa
(42.23.10).
[57] The result is the fast decision ―not a
generous one: Ammianus, with his usual negative tone, does not fail to
immediately chime in with: et spe
potiorum erecti…—, explained in detail, of a sudden departure to massacre
the enemy. Beyond the topics (confidential conversations; time set at night;
even the oath), what is noteworthy is the atmosphere of secretiveness that the
historian creates and the shape of the scene that envelops the contenders with
their different ways of behaving and how they are characterized (§§ 7-8).
[58] Konstan (2007: 11) stresses that the very happy or
arrogant ones do not usually have it (ib.), and it is offered to those
who are worthy of it, that is, those who suffer undeserved misfortunes. And
Ammianus is playing with the anticipation of the future tragedy: Cylaces, with
Artabanus, may be thinking about the hypothetical problems that they could be
afflicted with, and, in fact, will be afflicted with in the future: Pap will
have no “mercy”.
[59] Substantially Livian, and Thucydidean before him.
Cf. Reinhold (1985:
22): Thucydides was the first historian to use human nature “as motive force in history”.
[60] Cf. Den Boeft (2009:
283). In other cases Ammianus maintains his neutrality, or praises some
members of this religio absoluta et
simplex (21.16.18). The definition demonstrates that he knows about it: absoluta implies the completeness of its
doctrine, which requires no changes and simplex,
its lack of ambiguity. Cf. Neri
(1992: 59-60).
[61] In general, it is a term, and a procedure with
which Ammianus emphasizes many endings. Here the contrast is important and the
intensification of the antithetic parallel.
[62] Den
Boeft et al. (2009: 286) point to the “idiosyncratic” nature of the phrase, which
appears with similar notes in other cases: Bezabde (20.7.11), which Shapur
intends to take before the winter; antithetically, a little before Strasbourg
(16.12.15); and in Daphne (22.13.4), with the drought which dried up rivers and
fountains.
[63] In fact, both the tricks and the opposition
between what is open and what is concealed is always promoted; yet another
parallel, in the Antoninus episode (cf. 18.5.6).
[64] On the forms of characterization, place and
value, differences (portrait; relationship; outline…, between main and
secondary figures), or applied physiognomy, etc., cf. Sabbah (1978, 419-53).
[65] This adverbial hapax has been used as an adjective in respect of Julian, whose
“lower lip was somewhat drooping” (25.4.22), but who had seemed to them to have
“come down from the heavens” (22.2.4), almost like Mamersides, who does “come
down” using a rope from the fort (24.2.21). And whom Genius, demissus et maestus (20.5.10), fears
having to abandon. His friends gather round him on his death bed, demissos et tristes (25.3.15).
[66] Ammianus only applies the term to the
unfortunate Nigrinus too, accused of being the instigator of the uprising in
Aquileia (21.12.20).
[67] Cf. Sabbah (1978:
424).
[68] A graphic consarcinabant (30.1.2), which opens the part
aimed at the evidence
that justifies the historian’s assertion (30.1.1). The verb with this value very often appears: with the
very perverse notary Paulus (14.5.6), and in respect of Ursicinus (14.9.2); the
cruel Maximinus (28.1.12); Pergamius, who “embroils” the cause in excess
(29.1.25); the forged letters (15.5.5; and 12); and the trap plotted by Rufinus
(16.8.4). It only applies in the true sense in the case of
Julian (22.9.11), speaking of the chlamys that an aspiring emperor has woven,
reported by another; and in the clothes interwoven by the Huns (31.2.5).
[69] In the proper sense, and in the most general
of incident, episode, occurrence. In it more worlds and characters are
recreated than situations (story).
[70] Always the basis of tragedy: from felicitas to disaster.
[71] Neither the Christians, inclined to the Roman
side (as a counterbalance to the Sassanid influence in the area, and the
progressive extension of the “Magian religion”; hence the request for Pap’s
return to Armenia); nor the role of Narses, all of which can always be related
to the problem of Ammianus regarding such religio
(cf. n. 2, 50, and 57, and the suggestion concerning the possible denunciation
of the bishop, 20.7.8) are anywhere to be found. Cf. Barnes
(1998: 81) and den Boeft et al. (2009: 267-8).
[72] A serpent… (28.1.7; 28.1.18; 31 and 35); now,
furthermore, an ill-fated prevaricator (29.6.3).
[73] The reason is only a detonator that triggers
actions that end up giving way to other more notable or more enhanced elements:
such as the attempt to kidnap Constantia (§ 6.7).
[74] With
Alexander the Great in the background.
[75] Cf. Sallustius, Hist., Fr. 16363.1.1, Quintilian 8.6.59
and Herodian 4.13.4 for the verb ἀνεχώρει.
[76] Compared to the rumores ( “false accusations”) or the incentiones Circeas of the advisers (§ 17).
[77] Religion and political partisanship. Here, as Macrobius notes (Com.
Somnum Scipionis II), only the love aspect is missing.
[78] Like Petronius Probus (ut noceat, 27.11.5); the
cruel Maximinus (28.1.10); or Constantia and Gallus, ready ad nocendum (14.1.2).
[79] The expression belongs to Zangara in one of her sections (2007:
194)
[80] quorum erat abundans prope… copia. The
area, very rich in wine-growing facilitated their abundance.
[81] For her, “full of elegance and refinement”,
since it implies subtlety and culture in the reader, cf. Sabbah (1978: 515) and Kelly (2008: 165-6).
[82] For the detailed analysis of the term,
passages and characteristics, cf. Sabbah (1978:
377-9). But the responsibility of the conclusion, in the various echoes, is
ours.
[83] Cf. Conte (1989:
97).
[84] Or the characterization, as in the scene of
peace in the midst of the course of Macrianus and Valentinian (30.3.3).
[85] There are many: he gets up (from the torum), with his dagger unsheathed; he
falls (procubuit); is beaten (ictibus); and run through: … perforato...
[86] … lumine ferociens... barbarus asper / scurra (§
20).
[87] The pierced breast; the numerous blows; and
the deformis.
[88] Cf. Webb
(1988: 52): “the key to the definition
of ekphrasis”.
[89] Cf. Morgan
(2011: 555): “Fiction is neither truth
nor lie: both sender and recipient recognize it for what it is”.
[90] Cf. Ligota
(1982).
[91] Cf. Gabba
(1981:52).
[92] Like the Armenian Christians, whose katholikos Narses was killed by Pap. Cf.
Barnes (1998: 81, nn. 71 and 92).
[93] Cf.
Den Boeft (2009: 238).