yirrNRLF 
 
 ^ 5 b72 ^0 
 
L= 
 
 115 
 
 A 5/ 
 

 Ubc IHnivcxeit^ ot Cbicago 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
 
 AND LITERATtfRE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF 
 THE LATIN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 
 
 BY 
 
 MARY JACKSON KENNEDY 
 
 Press of 
 
 'HE New Era Printing Compan» 
 
 Lancaster, Pa 
 
 I9I2 
 
Ube xantversttp ot Cbicaao 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
 
 AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF 
 THE LATIN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 
 
 BY 
 
 MARY JACKSON KENNEDY 
 
 \ 
 
 Press of 
 
 'he New Era Printing Companv 
 
 Lancaster. Pa. 
 
 I9I2 
 
♦ • 
 
 .' i ■■ < 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 To Professor Hendrickson, at whose suggestion this thesis 
 was undertaken, and with whose encouragement it was carried 
 out, I wish to make all due acknowledgment. 
 
 Mary Jackson Kennedy. 
 
 257700 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 Standing, as he does, the last figure in Roman historical 
 literature, Ammianus has a wide field from which to choose 
 style and literary form. Apart from all external evidence, his 
 work is proof of a heterogeneous education and omnivorous 
 reading. Much has been written on the barbarities and 
 extravagances of his diction but the plea contained in his own 
 modeatly proud expression, ut miles quondam et Graecus, 
 is still the best apology for the liberties which he has taken with 
 the Latin language, especially when we remember that to the 
 eyes and ears of the corrupt age in which he lived simplicity 
 was common and the unaffected vulgar. His theory of com- 
 position, although as interesting a matter as stylistic problems, 
 has been little discussed. We cannot doubt that Ammianus 
 had weighed this latter question carefully: the schools of 
 rhetoric dominated the age, and none who had come under their 
 influence could escape the necessity of limits imposed by tradi- 
 tion. A strict conception of the ideal in historiography had 
 long existed. To its laws the majority of Latin authors, whose 
 writings touched or lay within the sphere of history, had given 
 recognition, either in word or practice. The great masters in 
 this department of Roman literature, Livy, Sallust, Tacitus, 
 had chosen for the most part to abide within the limits set by 
 this theory. Between these writers and Ammianus had arisen 
 biography, which, falling by its own legitimate tendency within 
 the influence of encomiastic theory, had become at the hands 
 of Nepos and Suetonius a recognized medium for the lasting 
 memory of men and events, a medium of such power that 
 influence from its methods on those traditional in history was 
 inevitable. We find the authors of the Historia Augusta 
 therefore openly transgressing the long-honored traditions of 
 
2 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 historiography and reducing history to a mere chain of court 
 trivialities and incidents. Still another factor that worked 
 for change of theory in the realm of historical literature was 
 the florid style and tasteless subject-matter of the panegyrists. 
 It was amidst such a complex inheritance of influences that the 
 Greek soldier of Asiatic origin set himself the bold task of 
 taking up the threads of Roman history where they had fallen 
 from the hands of Tacitus, and carrying them down to a period 
 contemporaneous with his own activity. It has not escaped 
 the notice of critics that Tacitus was his model in many 
 respects, notably so in language. Points of contact or imi- 
 tation in technique, however, have not been carefully traced 
 or strongly emphasized, and yet it is in this respect perhaps that 
 Tacitus has best served Ammianus as a guide. Similarities 
 of language may be unconscious reminiscence or repetition; 
 coincidences in theory, by their very nature, must be deliberate 
 and for a settled purpose. We would not have the word 
 theory in this connection misinterpreted. It would be going 
 too far to insist upon or even claim a strict historical method of 
 composition for Ammianus; to no such fixed principles does he 
 appear to bind himself. He seems rather to have chosen from 
 history, biography, panegyric, whatever suited his own taste, 
 and was to his eyes best adapted to his purpose; points of 
 technique once chosen, he shaped them to his own ends by 
 means of devices learned in the school of rhetoric. The result 
 is a system so elastic that it can hardly be called a consistent 
 theory, and even from its light exactions the author often 
 escapes, not wilfully but in apparent unconsciousness of its 
 laws, however flexible. In spite of the incongruities and 
 inconsistencies inevitably attendant on so lax an art, much 
 can be found in the "Rerum Gestarum Libri" that is the out- 
 come of a legitimate technique, which consciously or uncon- 
 sciously was part of the debt of Ammianus to Tacitus. To offer 
 tentative matter for the substantiation of the view just stated 
 is the object of this paper. Data for the identification of 
 method will be taken from parallel studies of the authors 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 3 
 
 compared, and these studies will be confined to points of 
 technique in the delineation of character. 
 
 That Ammianus took up his work as a direct continuation 
 of Tacitus is a commonplace of any history of Latin literature. 
 This is the interpretation put upon his own words, XXXI. 
 i6, 9: Haec ut miles quondam et Graecus, a principatu Caes- 
 aris Nervae exorsus ad usque Valentis interitum pro virium 
 explicavi mensura. 
 
 His imitation of Tacitus in many points does not seem to be 
 fully recognized, and the wide difference between Tacitus and 
 Ammianus in the treatment of individual character has been 
 one of the strongest hindrances to the recognition of this 
 imitation. To formulate the difference mentioned in the 
 broadest terms, the method used by Tacitus is the indirect, 
 that of Ammianus, the direct; the former is artistic, the latter 
 scientific. 
 
 We shall expect, therefore, to find the method of Ammianus 
 governed by the rules laid down by Polybius, who denied to 
 historians the dramatic privilege of presenting to the reader 
 historical characters measured by the author's personal 
 standard. According to these rules, a man's acts must be 
 related by the historian without bias (Polyb., I. 14, 7 . . . 8. 
 ovT€ T(ov (f)tXQ)v Karrjyopelv ovre rots e')(j9pov<i iiraivelv OKtrqreov . . • 
 aTTOtTTavre? ovv ratv Trparrov rwv avrol<i rot? Trpairofievoit i^apfioa-reov 
 To,^ irpeTTOvaa^; aTro(f)pda€i9 Kal 8i,aXr)-\jr€is iv toI<; VTro/xvqfiacnv) ; circum- 
 stances, influences, hereditary traits must be weighed in the 
 balance, reconciled and related to circumstance and action volun- 
 tary or involuntary (Polyb., IX. 22, 9, 16. . . . "Evioi fikv yap 
 eXey^etr^at 6aai, ra^ <f)V(r€t,<: viro t(ov irepLaTaaecov Kai tow fiev 
 rat? i^ovaiai'i KUTacfyavelf yiyvecrdai, Kal 6\co<t rov irpo rov j(^p6vov 
 avacrriWovrai, tow he ttoXlv iv Tat? aTV')(idL<i) . Then only will the 
 picture be a true one. More, the author's investigation must 
 be free and open; he must give not merely the finished prod- 
 uct of his brush, we must see each progressive touch in the 
 work (Polyb., X. 26, 9. . . . KaC Trep 'qfiel<; . . . eV aviriwv rSiv 
 irpayfxdrcov ah rov KaOrjicovra Xoyov dpiJb6^ovT€<; aTrocfiaLvo/xeOa irepi 
 
4 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 re r5iv ^aaCkemv koL tmv ein^avSiv avBpcov, vofii^ovr€<; rainrjv 6l Keiorepav 
 elvai Koi T0t9 'ypd^ovai koL rot? ava'^L'yvdxTKOvcn rrjv iinaijfiaatav). 
 
 The author who employs this direct or scientific method is 
 limited to the purely subjective, and barred by the very 
 spirit of his work from the indirect technique. The indirect 
 method, on the other hand, while adopting as a convenience 
 objective media, need set no such definite limits to its scope. 
 Art is freer than science. The author, with his finger on the 
 pulse of the world, includes the needs of the reader as well as 
 the hearts of his characters in his world-knowledge, and his 
 art is plastic for both. Where the narrative, the recorded 
 judgment of friends or enemies, individuals or state, public 
 gossip, the manifest results of actions fail to paint the portrait 
 in the tones desired, it is the author's privilege to step forth 
 from the background, and give expression to his own estimate; 
 where dramatic insinuation might go too far, he may check it 
 in like manner.^ 
 
 Of the latter art of delineation Tacitus is past master, rarely 
 resorting to direct methods. Objective as we must term his 
 technique, in no author do we feel more subjective force, and 
 in spite of the close reserve and repression of personality that 
 characterizes his art, we are always conscious that it is the 
 author's own deep convictions and strong judgments to which 
 his spell causes us to incline.^ Ammianus adopted for his work 
 the historiographical form of Tacitus, the annalistic, but the 
 influence of a long period of biography dominated by rhetoric, 
 together with the natural preferences of a character like that of 
 Ammianus, brought about a method of characterization in 
 the main distinctly antithetical to that of his great prototype. 
 
 ^ It is here assumed that the reference in Polybius, although referring strictly to 
 the presentation of historical facts, may be extended to include points of characteri- 
 zation for individuals. 
 
 Cf. Bruns, " Personlichkeit und Geschichtsschreibung d. Gruchen," p. 44, Jene 
 iiber das Wesen eines Mannes kurz orientirenden Worte sind eben da am Platze, wo 
 die indirekte Charakteristik sich nicht entfalten kann. Cf. also p. 46 if. 
 
 ^ For all established principles for the indirect method, the chapter on Thucydides 
 in Bruns's " Literarische Portrat der Gruchen," pp. 1-45, must be considered the 
 original source. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 5 
 
 That the sources used by Ammianus were a potent factor for 
 the subjective tone of his portraiture of character is certain; 
 the elogia, which he employs to set the mark of impressiveness 
 on a prominent character at the close of a career, are proof 
 positive of what he owed to biography and panegyric. Perhaps 
 it is the influence of Livy and Tacitus that causes us to feel 
 that a chronicle should be outwardly at least without individu- 
 ality, and that the tone of encomiastic biography is not in 
 keeping with the form of historiography. At any rate the 
 student of Ammianus cannot but feel inconsistencies between 
 the annalistic form of the narrative whose pages he is turning, 
 and the author's frank revelation of himself and his estimates 
 of the characters that he depicts.^ Ammianus, however, 
 departs on occasion from the precepts of Polybius, and where 
 this occurs, it may be traced as a rule to a Tacitean reminis- 
 cence. His delineation in the main, however, is free and open; 
 there are few insinuations, no veiled judgments; he expresses 
 his thoughts and estimates with the artlessness of a child. 
 We get a plain view of his intended work in each case, and 
 proceed with him step by step as he investigates and weighs 
 actions. Tacitus, on the other hand, gives us only the finished 
 pictures; the causes that led to the conception of that picture 
 remain unknown or are matter of conjecture.'^ There is no 
 need to ask in the case of Ammianus, as in that of Tacitus, 
 how far his design in character delineation went, or whether 
 these characters are being used also as dramatic illustrations 
 of times and situations. We recognize the fact that he is 
 giving us his own conception of each personage, and his only 
 object in so doing is to describe that personage. 
 
 A comparison of parts of the work of each author, dealing 
 with historical situations not dissimilar, will best illustrate the 
 essential differences above sketched. 
 
 ' See Bruns's remarks on this, " Die Personlichkeit in d. Geschichtsschreibung d. 
 Alten," p. 63 S. 
 
 * Cf. Bruns, " Die Personlichkeit in der Geschichtsschreibung der Alten," p. 78 fF. 
 " Es is ebenso das Princip des Tacitus, wie es das des Thukydides war, den Laser in 
 seine psychologischen Voruntersuchungen keinen Einblick thun zu lassen." 
 
O THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 The Annals of Tacitus, I and the early part of II, are devoted 
 partly to the campaigns of Germanicus in Germany. The 
 figure of Germanicus stands out vividly as we read, but no less 
 clearly do we see the personality of Tiberius in the background, 
 and we feel assured that this is what the author intended. 
 The narrative is essentially historical; rarely does it cross the 
 limits of historiography; and yet the skill of Tacitus leaves two 
 brilliant portraits, the successful Caesar, battling abroad for 
 the Empire, the jealous Emperor in the court at home. 
 
 It is not pressing an analogy too far to set side by side with 
 these passages of Tacitus that part of the work of Ammianus 
 which contains the narrative of the early history of Julian and 
 Constantius, Books XV-XXI, where the historical setting is 
 very similar, and the relations of the two main personages 
 present a sufficiently close parallel. The portraits drawn by 
 Ammianus are as conspicuous as those of Tacitus, and form 
 companion pictures for them. No one can read this portion 
 of the later historian's work without being fully convinced, 
 in spite of the sharp contrast which the methods of delineation 
 adopted by Ammianus often offer to those of Tacitus, that 
 here at least the earlier author was the later author's model. 
 
 Before entering upon a closer examination of these passages, 
 it will not be out of place to consider a general matter, that of 
 fullness of detail. The narrative covering the campaigns of 
 Germanicus belongs to the years 14, 15 and 16 A. D., and is 
 comprised in about thirty pages of Teubner text; the account 
 of Julian in Ammianus covers the period from 355-361 A. D. 
 {i. e., up to Julian's acclamation as Emperor) and is included 
 in about fifty pages of the same reckoning. The difference in 
 detail is remarkable. The narrative of Tacitus is particularly 
 full, names of officers, and even of inferiors, incidents of battle, 
 the tribes of the enemy, their leaders, and many less prominent 
 personages being enumerated. In Ammianus, considering the 
 closer relation of the author to the era with which he deals, 
 we have much less detail of that kind, save where, mindful of 
 the dramatic effect attained by Tacitus, he is adopting, almost 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. / 
 
 mechanically, the treatment of his model; the officers come in 
 for little attention, except those that serve as foils to Julian. 
 The omission of such particulars leaves room, of course, for 
 the more extended characterization of the leading figure 
 necessary in the technique of Ammianus, but it is not so much 
 this omission as the entirely different purpose for which the 
 details given are apparently utilized that engages our attention. 
 In Tacitus they seem part of the narrative; in Ammianus there 
 is much open use of them to characterize the leading figures. 
 We do not lose sight of Germanicus in the pages of Tacitus 
 any more than we do of Julian in Ammianus, but in the former 
 case we must do our own characterization from narrated events 
 and facts; Ammianus freely interprets for us, and assists our 
 judgment. Yet, when we reach the end, the studied reserve 
 of the Tacitean method has marked Germanicus as his darling 
 and Tiberius as the object of his detestation, as vividly as the 
 later author's frankly encomiastic or critical treatment had 
 shown his opinions of Julian and Constantius. 
 
 That Ammianus intends to glorify that part of his work which 
 relates to Julian is frankly stated in the introductory sentence 
 of his excursus on the Gauls, XV. 9, i. 
 
 Proinde quoniam — ut Mantuanus vates praedixit excelsus — 
 maius opus moveo, maiorque mihi rerum nascitur ordo. ... 
 But he strikes the keynote of his treatment of Julian still more 
 clearly for us in XVI. i, 2-3. 
 
 Quia igitur res magnae quas per Gallias virtute felicitateque 
 correxit, multis veterum factis fortibus praestant, singula serie 
 progrediente monstrabo, instrumenta omnia mediocris ingenii, si 
 suffecerint, commoturus. Quicquid autem narrabitur, quod non 
 falsitas arguta concinnat, sed fides Integra rerum absoluit docu- 
 mentis evidentibus fulta, ad laudativampaene materiam, pertinebit. 
 
 The general tone of apology reminds the reader of the 
 commonplaces with which the author of an encomiastic oration 
 excuses his panegyric, and which the rhetoricians enjoined for 
 works of laudatory character, to anticipate any prejudicial 
 feelings that praise might engender. In Aristides (Sp. II. 
 506, 13) we have among the rpoiroL tov firj <f)opTiKm iiratvetv, one 
 
8 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 that covers this point: rpiTO<i rpoiro'i ojav irplv elirelv ir arvyvoifirjv 
 €0' ocf av fxeXXrjXeyetvalT'^Tat. Another feature of the encomium 
 is found in the words "instrumenta omnia mediocris ingenii, 
 si suffecerint, commoturus." Doxopater lays down as one of 
 the laws of encomium such a profession .of incapacity in com- 
 parison with the subject (Doxopater, Walz. Rh. Gr., II. 449, 
 33. . . . v6fio<i eVrt rol<i iyKw/xid^ovai jxei^ova rov oliceCov Xoyov Trjv 
 Trpoa-KejXLevrjv vvjoOecnv). 
 
 But it is in the last phrase of 2 that Ammianus most clearly 
 defines his method — -ad paene laudativam materiam pertinehit 
 Here we have complete acknowledgment of his intention, and 
 we shall see that this purpose is maintained, often even in 
 technicalities, throughout his treatment of Julian, partly 
 through his own observance of rhetorical theory, partly by 
 reflection of the biographical and encomiastic sources, on which, 
 no less than on personal recollection, he based his representation 
 of his favorite Emperor. 
 
 The passage given above, although preparing us for the 
 narrative of Julian's exploits, is not his first introduction into 
 the pages of Ammianus. In XV. 8, 5-18, we have a description 
 of his adoption as Caesar by Constantius, and the first charac- 
 terization of him is found in the same passage. This is one of 
 the places where Ammianus, fresh from preparatory perusals 
 of his great model, resorts to the indirect technique and uses 
 it most skilfully. The scene is highly dramatic, aflPording an 
 excellent opportunity for objective characterization. 
 
 XV. 8, 4: Cum venisset accitus praedicto die, advocate omni quod 
 aderat commilitio, tribunali ad altiorem suggestum erecto, quod 
 aquilae circumdederunt et signa, Augustus inscendens eumque 
 (Julian) manu retinens dextra, haec sermone placido peroravit. 
 
 Obvious instruments for characterization are the speech of 
 Constantius, and the description of the reception of the new 
 Caesar by the soldiers, both of which Ammianus uses. After 
 an introductory reference to the disturbance in Gaul, the 
 Emperor presents their future commander to the army in the 
 following words (XV. 8, 8) : 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 9 
 
 lulianum hunc fratrem meum patruelem, ut nostis, verecundia, 
 qua nobis ita ut necessitudine carus est, recte spectatum iamque 
 elucentis industriae iuvenem in Caesaris adhibere potestatem 
 exopto, coeptis, si videntur utilia, etiam vestra consensione fir- 
 mandis. 
 
 The last clause is the cue for interruption by the soldiers, given 
 in the following paragraph (XV. 8, 9) : 
 
 Dicere super his plura conantem interpellans contio lenius pro- 
 hibebat, arbitrium summi numinis id esse, non mentis humanae, 
 velut praescia venturi praedicans. 
 
 This is acknowledged and interpreted by the Emperor with 
 further characterizing phrases (XV. 8, 10) : 
 
 Quia igitur vestrum quoque favorem adesse fremitus indicat 
 laetus, adulescens vigoris tranquilli, cuius temperati mores imitandi 
 sunt potius quam praedicandi ad honorem prosperatum exsurgat: 
 cuius praeclaram indolem bonis artibus institutam hoc ipso plene 
 videor exposuisse quod elegi. 
 
 After the formal assumption of the insignia of Caesar, during 
 which the soldiers show further approval {cum exercitus 
 gaudio), Constantius concludes his speech with a conventional 
 exhortation to the future commander. A flattering burst of 
 applause from the contio completes this bit of historical drama 
 (XV. 8, 15): 
 
 Nemo post haec finita reticuit sed mihtares omnes horrendo 
 fragore scuta genibus inlidentes — quod est prosperitatis indicium 
 plenum, . . . — immane quo quantoque gaudio praeter paucos 
 Augusti probavere iudicium Caesaremque admiratione digna sus- 
 cipiebant imperatoris muricis fulgore flagrantem. 
 
 It is readily seen that the speech of Constantius, although 
 serving the usual purposes of a speech in historiography, that 
 of adding to the dramatic effect and placing the situation in 
 summary, is here utilized also for laudatory ends. The praise 
 bestowed on Julian follows the rhetorical formulae for enco- 
 mium. We have his mores (verecundia, XV. 8, 8; temperati 
 mores; praeclaram indolem, 10), his bodily powers (vigoris 
 
lO THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 tranqullli, lo), his iraChevaL'; (bonis artibus institutam, lo) ; 
 and the phrase "imitandi sunt potius quam praedicandi'^ 
 might have been culled from a panegyric. An admirable 
 instance of the indirect technique is found in the words con- 
 tractiore vultu suhmaestum used to characterize Julian during 
 the ceremony. In Tacitean fashion the reader is left to inter- 
 pret this for himself; but the conclusion is obvious. These words 
 contain a tribute to the "^/^y^?? of Julian, which disdained the 
 honors of a throne in comparison with higher things, and are 
 directly in keeping with the glimpses of his character revealed 
 by the Emperor's speech.^ 
 
 A more open touch of personal praise is added in XV. 8, i6, 
 where the soldiers scrutinize more closely their new com- 
 mander: 
 
 cuius oculos cum venustate terribiles vultumque excitantius 
 gratum diu multumque contuentes, qui futurus sit, coUigebant, 
 velut scrutatis veteribus libris, quorum lectio per corporum signa 
 pandit animorum interna. 
 
 Julian's progress through Vienna (XV. 8, 21-22) gives further 
 opportunity for indirect praise, in the description of the 
 flattering reception given him by the populace. The praise 
 is of the most exaggerated kind (salutarem quendam genium 
 adfulsisse) and there are traces of the rhetorical ai/f/^cri?,^ so 
 common in encomium. The omen for future greatness, which 
 appeared generally in the 'yeveaisP of the encomium, is intro- 
 duced in 22, presaging preeminence for Julian at the entrance 
 into his new life. 
 
 XV. 8, 21: Cumque Viennam venisset, ingredientem optatum 
 quidem et impetrabilem honorifice susceptura omnis aetas con- 
 
 ^ We feel a continuance of this in XV. 8, 17, where the newly chosen Caesar is borne 
 to the palace muttering a line from Homer: susceptus denique ad consessum vehiculi, 
 receptusque in regiam, hunc versum ex Homerico carmine susurrabat, ?XXa/3e 
 irop<p6p€os ddvaros Kal /xocpa Kparaii). This is a note in the biographical manner, an 
 echo of Suetonius. 
 
 * Aristides, Sp. II. 505, 10. Xanpdvovrai Si ol iiraivoi koto, rpdirovs recrcropas 
 ai^riffei, irapaX^ixf/ei, irapa^oKrj, eixprifda, 
 
 ' Hermog., Sp. II. 12, 8. ipers S4 ripa (cat & wepl ttjv fiveaiv avviireaev A|ia 
 daipxiTOi olov i^ dveipdruv fi ff/jLV^dXuv if tivwp Tovoirov. Cf. Nich. Soph., Sp. III. 480, 
 31 ff.; Menand., Sp. III. 371, 3 ff.; Quint., III. 7, 11. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. II 
 
 currebat, et dignitas proculque visum plebs universa cum viclnitate 
 finitima, imperatorem clementem appellans et faustum, praevia 
 consonis laudibus celebrabat, avidius pompam regiam in principe 
 legitime cernens; communiumque remedium aerumnarum in eius 
 locabat adventu, salutarem quendam genium adfulsiss'e conclamatis 
 negotiis arbitrata. 
 
 22. Tunc anus quaedam orba luminibus cum percontando quinam 
 esset ingressus, lulianum Caesarem comperisset, exclamavit, hunc 
 deorum templa reparaturum. 
 
 In the following book (XVI), Ammianus lays aside all 
 attempt at continuing the indirect technique, and employs the 
 most openly encomiastic style, as formulated by rhetoricians, 
 preparing the reader for such a step by the words "ad lauda- 
 tivam paene materiam pertinebit," already quoted. This 
 passage comprises XVI. i ; 4, 5, and its quotation will best 
 serve to illustrate the point of open laudation (XVI. I ; 4, 5) : 
 
 4. Videtur enim lex quaedam vitae melioris hunc iuvenem a 
 nobilibus cunis ad usque spiritum comitata supremum. Namque 
 incrementis velocibus ita domi forisque conluxit ut prudentia Titus 
 alter aestimaretur, bellorum gloriosis cursibus Traiani simillimus, 
 clemens ut Antoninus, rectae perfectaeque rationis indagine con- 
 gruens Marco, ad cuius aemulationem actus suos effingebat et mores. 
 5. Et quoniam, ut Tulliana docet auctoritas, omnium magnarum 
 artium sicut arborum altitudo nos delectat, radices stirpesque non 
 item, sic praeclarae huius indolis rudimenta tunc multis obnubi- 
 lantibus tegebantur, quae anteferri gestis eius postea multis et 
 miris hac ratione deberent, quod adulescens primaeuus ut Erech- 
 theus in secessu Minervae nutritus ex academiae quietis umbraculis 
 non e militari tabernaculo in pulverem Martium tractus, strata 
 Germania, pacatisque rigentis Rheni meatibus, cruenta spirantium 
 regum hie sanguinem fudit, alibi manus catenis adflixit. 
 
 Although the whole passage is in a high strain of praise, the 
 most strongly rhetorical touch is in the accumulation of 
 comparisons in 4 with Titus, Trajan, Antoninus Pius and 
 Marcus Aurelius. This a-vyKpta-i^, which is here of a formal 
 character, was a marked feature of the encomium.^ 
 
 * Hermog., Sp. II. 13, 3. /jxylffrt] Si iv rots iyKUfilois i<l>opn^ ij dirb tQv ffvyKplffeuv, 
 1}v T(i|«j us Av 6 Kaipbs ixpriyijr ai. 
 
12 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS, 
 
 This is a detailed example of the avyKptcn^ /MepiK'q, likening 
 the compared characters in one single point.^ 
 
 Another example of this figure may be noted in 5, in the words 
 "non e militari tabernaculo in pulverem Martium tractus." 
 Here the comparison is implied, and the reader feels the "ut 
 alii," to be supplied after non. The negative adverb marks 
 another rhetorical device, ai/ai/oeo-t9, frequently employed in a 
 syncritical passage, and mentioned by Hermog. (Sp. II. 307)^" 
 as an instrument of the grand (a-efivof) style. The words in 5, 
 multis obnubilantibus tegebantur, may be interpreted in close 
 relation to the last figure named, serving to paint a background 
 of obstacles which will enhance Julian's later glory; we might 
 also consider them as a light \v<tk of possible criticism of the 
 Caesar's early inert life. Such explanations were allowed by 
 rhetoricians to encomiasts. ^^ The highly rhetorical exaggeration 
 of the closing words of this passage also forms part of the 
 encomiastic treatment (strata Germania, pacatisque rigentis 
 Rheni meatihus cruenta spirantium re gum hie sanguniem fudit, 
 alibi manus catenis adflixit). 
 
 XVI. 2, 2 continues in the same tone; the background of 
 difficult circumstances is deepened by the words, "ancillari 
 adulatione posthabita, qua eum proximi ad amoenitatem 
 flectebant et luxum," picturing the allurements to luxury to 
 heighten the virtue of temperance that resists them, and the 
 phrase "velut dux diuturnus" is conspicuous praise for a 
 young and inexperienced leader. In 4, 5, 6, our attention is 
 called to his bravery and ardor (fidentius Caesar audaciam 
 viri fortis imitari magnopere nitebatur). His strategic skill is 
 proved in 7, and the result is pointed out (proinde certiore 
 spe . . . venit Tricasas adeo insperatus ut eo portas paene 
 pulsante diffusae multitudinis barbarae metu aditus urbis 
 
 ^ Menand., Sp. III. 377, 5. dXX' iKeivai, (ffvyKpiffeis) fUv^ffov rai/j^piKdi^otov iraiSiias 
 Taidelav ij ffu<l>poffiv7]s -irpbs aw<l>po<iivi)v. 
 
 10 X/^eis bi Xa/JLirpdi. alVep iXiyovro elvai Kal (re/ivdi. Cf. Nich. Soph., Sp. III. 487, 32 
 ff., on ff&yKpiais: <}>p6.aiv 5k bpjoiwt k avradda irofiiriKTjv Kal dearpiK^v elvai tov ceixvov. 
 
 ^^ Nich. Soph., Sp. III. 482, II ff. T&s Xi;<r«x iird^o/xev icrxi'/wT^pas iva vavraxbOev 
 ri T^j dvirdiffeu^ /3Xd)3os Xi/ijTai. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. I3 
 
 non sine anxia panderetur ambage). The next personal 
 note is in ii: "hinc deinde nee itinera nee flumina transire 
 posse sine insidiis putans erat providus et cunctator, quod 
 praecipium bonum in magnis ductoribus opem ferre solet 
 exercitibus et salutem," the side remark giving the inter- 
 pretation of the action. 
 
 XVI. 3, 3, after some annalistic details in i, 2, resumes the 
 characterization, illustrating the efficiency of the young 
 general, with a world of wars upon his shoulders, "ubi bellorum 
 inundantium molem humeris suis quod dicitur vehens scinde- 
 batur in multiplices curas, ut milites qui a solitis descivere prae- 
 sidiis reducerentur ad loca suspecta, et conspiratas gentes in 
 noxam Romani nominis disiectaret ac provideret, ne alimenta 
 deessent exercitui per varia discursuro." The generalities 
 employed here are such as encomiastic biography could supply. 
 XVI. 4, 4 prepares the way for further eulogistic writing: 
 ^' efficacissimus Caesar providebat constanti sollicitudine ut 
 militum diuturno labori quies succederet aliqua licet brevis. 
 ... 5. verum hoc quoque diligentia curato pervigili, adfusa 
 laetiore spe prosperorum, sublato animo ad exsequenda 
 plurima consurgebat." 
 
 The ensuing description of Julian in camp and civil life is a 
 real bit of encomiastic biography, resting upon an account of 
 the Caesar's moderation and his care for the soldiers, ^ox^poavvr}^ 
 it will be remembered, was one of the four cardinal virtues, 
 under which the encomiastic writer classed the rrpd^u<i of 
 his subject. Julian maintained this temperance, as Ammianus 
 makes us clearly understand, in spite of manifold inducements 
 to the contrary. 
 
 XVI. 5, I. temperantiam ipse sibi indixit atque retinuit. 
 
 XVI. 5, 3. Denique cum legeret libellum assidue, quem Con- 
 stantius ut privignum ad studia mittens, manu sua conscripserat, 
 praelicenter disponens, quid in convivio Caesaris impend! deberet: 
 phasianum, et vulvam et sumen exigi vetuit et inferri, munificis 
 militis vili et fortuito cibo contentus. 
 
 The deeds that are enumerated under this head (3) show an 
 
14 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 underlying moral purpose {'jrpoaipea-i';)^ again a rhetorical 
 point.^^ After this come his pursuits and studies, divided under 
 the heads of night and day (XVI. 5, 4-8; 9). The former 
 correspond to the eTrizrjBev/xaTa of the rhetorician, in its 
 highest sense, as given by Menand., Sp. III. 372, 3, 
 €7riTr]SevfiaTa S' iarlv dvev ajcavcov 7r/oa|et9 ■^diKUL. These 
 especially indicate character, as they imply choice. Under 
 this head we hear of Julian's diligent application to study and 
 statesmanship. 
 
 XVI. 5, 4. Hoc contingebat ut noctes ad officia divideret 
 tripertita, quietis et publicae rei et musarum. 
 
 In this we meet again a a-vyKpiai<i with Alexander the Great, 
 strongly balanced in favor of Julian. 
 
 4, 5. quid factitasse Alexandrum legimus Magnum; sed multo 
 hie fortius. Ille namque aenea concha supposita brachio extra 
 cubile protento pilam tenebat argenteam, ut cum nervorum vigorem 
 sopor laxasset, infusus, gestaminis lapsi tinnitus abrumperet som- 
 num. (5) lulianum vero absque instrumento quotiens voluit, 
 evigilavit et nocte dimidiata semper exsurgens, non e plumis vel 
 stragulis sericis ambiguo fulgore nitentibus sed ex tapete et (navpa. 
 
 Conspicuous here too is the avaipeai<; {non e plumis, etc.) in 
 combination with the figure of comparison. We learn in the 
 following paragraphs (5, 6, 7, 8) of Julian's devotion to poetry, 
 philosophy, theology, oratory and history; of his acquaintance 
 with Greek and Latin. The closing sentence in 8 openly avows 
 the intention to characterize in enumerating his pursuits; 
 "et haec quidem pudicitiae virtutumque sunt signa nocturna." 
 Julian's justice and ability in civil life are characterized in 
 10-15, to which 9 forms a rhetorical transition, filled with 
 epithets of encomiastic nature. 
 
 XVI. 5, 9. Diebus vero quae ornate dixerit tt facete, quaeve in 
 apparatu vel in ipsis congressibus proeliorum, aut in re civili mag- 
 nanimitate correxit et liberalitate, suo quaeque loco demonstra- 
 buntur. 
 
 ^^ Arist. Rhet., I. 9, 32. iirh d' iK tQv irpd^ewv 6 ^iraivos . . . ireipar^ov deiKvivai 
 Trpdrrovra /card irpoalpeaiv . . . t6, S' tpya (TTjpjeia. ttjs ?|ews iarlv. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 1 5 
 
 We may distinguish in this the grouping of the irpd^ei^ under 
 the divisions of war (in ipsis congressibus proeliorum) and 
 peace (in re civili), which corresponds to the manner of enco- 
 mium,^^ and was adopted Into biography. A purely biograph- 
 ical feature is here introduced, that of the airo^de^fiara. 
 
 10. When confronted with the difficulties of initiation into 
 military drill, he utters "vetus illud proverbium clitellae bovi 
 sunt impositae; plane non est nostrum onus." 
 
 11. et imperator "rapere" inquit, "non accipere sciunt 
 agentes in rebus." 
 
 12. "'incusent' iura clementiam, sed imperatorem mitissimi 
 animi legibus praestare sevens decet." 
 
 Such is the characterization of Julian in some ten pages of 
 Ammianus, after the first appearance of his hero Emperor upon 
 the scene as Caesar. 
 
 We shall now turn to the portion of the Annals where 
 Germanicus is portrayed under not unlike conditions. We 
 shall find very little of the presence of the author's personality 
 that marks the writing of Ammianus. The author's comments 
 are so rare that their presence is always a surprise. We get 
 our first glimpse of Germanicus in the historian's most objective 
 fashion, through the medium of the thoughts of Tiberius, one 
 of whose chief causes for apprehension at the death of Augustus 
 was (Ann., I. 7) "ne Germanicus, in cuius manu tot legiones, 
 immensa sociorum auxilia, mirus apud populum favor, habere 
 imperium quam exspectare mallet." There is no characteri- 
 zation of Germanicus here — simply a background of "mirus 
 apud populum favor" to make us desirous to know more of 
 this people's darling. In chapter 31, we learn also that the 
 hopes of the German legions turned toward Germanicus, 
 "magna spe fore ut Germanicus Caesar imperium alterius pati 
 nequiret, daret se legionibus vi sua cuncta tracturis," a touch 
 that, like the first reference, stimulates interest in Germanicus. 
 In chapter 33 we have at the actual introduction of Germanicus 
 
 " TttS Toiairros Toiivv Siaip-fiffets vpd^eis Slxa eis re rk Kar elp'^vqv Kal ra Karb. 
 ir6\efju)v. Menand., Sp. II. 372, 25 fF. 
 
l6 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 a short 7eW (ipse Druso fratre Tiberil genitus, Augustae nepos, 
 sed anxius occultis in se patrui aviaeque odiis, quorum causae 
 acriores, quia iniquae . . . credebaturque si rerum potitus 
 foret libertatem redditurus; unde in Germanicum favor et spes 
 eadem). His marriage to Agrippina is mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding sentence. There is nothing so far beyond the briefest 
 relation of facts necessary for historiography, including the 
 popular belief upon which rested the "favor et spes." In the 
 next sentence we come upon a really subjective touch: "nam 
 iuveni civile ingenium, mira comitas, et diversa ab Tiberii 
 sermone, vultu, adrogantibus et obscuris." A personal com- 
 ment seems almost necessary here, and even the most reserved 
 of historians could not avoid it, especially when it could carry 
 with it a fling at Tiberius. 
 
 The opening words of chapter 34 convey an impression of 
 Germanicus in a generous light; "sed Germanicus quanto 
 summae spei propior, tanto impensius pro Tiberio niti," but 
 the historian does not comment even with an adjective. 
 In the dramatic events that follow, Germanicus, although 
 present to our minds throughout, does not claim the main share 
 of attention; when we recall the scene to our imagination, it is 
 a mutinous camp that we see, and this is indisputably what the 
 historian intended, and what the technique of historiography 
 demanded. This scene, however, can be best compared with 
 a portion of Ammianus upon which we have not yet touched. 
 It will be dwelt upon in detail hereafter. All that is insisted 
 upon here is, that where Tacitus had an opportunity openly to 
 make Germanicus conspicuous, he refrained from so doing and 
 subserved the purposes of history. A general comparison 
 might be instituted between this scene in the Annals and the 
 coronation scene in Ammianus: in the one all present are actors 
 in the scene; in the other all are mere supernumeraries, with 
 the exception of the central figure, the Caesar in his imperial 
 robes. Chapter 36, which might have given scope for enlarging 
 upon the general's wise policy, opens with a purely impersonal 
 line, "consultatum ibi de remedio," and we have no mention 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. IJ 
 
 of any conspicuous part played by Germanicus In the matter. 
 In the ensuing chapters, the narrative is absolutely colorless, 
 not a single epithet of any kind being applied to Germanicus, 
 nor is the slightest suggestion of interpretation of his actions 
 to be discovered, even his speeches being devoid of all charac- 
 terizing qualities. 
 
 When we reach chapter 51, we come upon a touch which, 
 interpreted by the rules of rhetoric, is encomiastic: 
 
 excivit ea caedes Bruderos, Tubantes, Usipites, saltusque, per quos 
 exercitui regressus, insedere. Quod gnarum duci incessitque 
 itineri et proelio. 
 
 This may be taken as a result of the leader's remarkable 
 sagacity, and in the encomium would be classed under the 
 virtue <f)p6vT]<n<;. Later in the chapter comes another sentence 
 also capable of such interpretation, 
 
 turbabanturque densis Germanorum catervis leves cohortes, cum 
 Caesar advectus ad vicensimanos voce magna hoc illud tempus 
 obliterandae seditionis clamitabat. 
 
 In the succeeding chapter, 52, the phrase "bellicaque 
 Germanici gloria" may be construed into a recognition by the 
 author of the Caesar's exploits. A very slight tone of comment 
 may also be inferred in 58, "dementi responso." Chapters 
 61 and 62 are doubtless intended to present forcefully the 
 pious and patriotic attitude of Germanicus in rendering the 
 last rites to Varus and his army, but the author places the 
 narrative before us without a comment; it Is left to us to read 
 into the lines a tribute to the "pietas" of Germanicus, unless 
 the adjective "gratlsslmo" in 62, characterizing the action of 
 the general as he places the first sod, is a personal note. But 
 the attitude of the whole army (61), "permoto ad miserationem 
 omni qui aderat exercitu ob propinquos, amicos denlque ob 
 casus bellorum et sortem hominum," and the mention of 
 Germanicus In 62 as "soclus" makes him merely an actor In 
 the scene, and important only through his position as general. 
 
 The next passage from which we deduce any characterization 
 of Germanicus is I. 71, where, after the great loss In battle, the 
 
lO THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 conduct of the leader is narrated, evidently to impress his 
 humanity and thoughtful care {(^iXavOpoDiria). 
 
 Germanicus . . . propria pecunia militem iuvit. Utque cladis 
 memoriam etiam comitate leniret, circumire saucios, facta singu- 
 lorum extollere; vulnera intuens, alium spe, alium gloria, cunctos 
 adloquio et cura sibique et proelio firmabat. 
 
 It is in Book II, chapters 12, 13, that Tacitus gives us the 
 most interesting and impressive part of his delineation of 
 Germanicus. A most advantageous point for the characteri- 
 zation of a general is immediately before or after a battle. 
 Tacitus has already availed himself of the latter opportunity 
 in I. 5; here in Book II we find the former. This is perhaps as 
 striking an example as can be presented of the Tacitean 
 resources for characterization without laying aside the author's 
 mask. Rumors and references to the Roman people's love 
 for Germanicus have marked him for the reader with the stamp 
 of popularity; but Germanicus is at this moment far from the 
 Roman people, and characterization, unless subjective, must 
 come through the army. Never did dramatist resort to a 
 more unique device than Tacitus has employed on this occa- 
 sion. ^^ We see Germanicus, in his anxiety to learn the feelings 
 of his men with regard to the coming conflict, steal forth under 
 cover of darkness and in fantastic disguise (per occulta et 
 vigilibus ignara, comite uno, contectus umeros ferima pelle), 
 to try the disposition of the unwitting soldiers as shown in free 
 converse with one another (II. 12, penitus noscendae mentes 
 cum secreti et incustoditi inter militaris cibos spem aut metum 
 proferrent).^^ Incidentally he enjoys the privilege not usual 
 
 " The force of this passage for characterization has been most fully recognized by 
 those interested in points of technique. Cf. Bruns, " Die Personlichkeit in der Ge- 
 schichtsschreibung der Alten," p. 72; Hendrickson, " Proconsulate of Julius Agricola," 
 p. 21. 
 
 " Ammianus (XIV. i, 9) represents Gallus (and by implication Gallienus) resorting 
 to a similar but more direct expedient to learn the estimation in which he was held : 
 novo denique perniciosoque exemplo idem Gallus ausus est inire flagitium grave, quod 
 Romae cum multo dedecore temptasse aliquando dicitur Gallienus, et adhibitis paucis 
 clam ferro succinctis vesperi per tabernas palabantur et compita, quaeritando Graeco 
 sermone cuius erat impedio gnarus, quid de Caesare quis que sentiret. Both motive 
 and result, we may conclude, were different from those of the quest of Germanicus. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. I9 
 
 for eavesdroppers (frulturque fama sui, cum hie nobilitatem 
 duels, decorem alius, plurimi patientiam, comitatem, per 
 seria per iocos eundem animum laudibus ferrent, redden- 
 damque gratiam in aeie faterentur). The most open praise 
 could not more plainly convey to us the author's judgment of 
 Germanicus than these few lines, couched in purely objective 
 form. 
 
 The ensuing chapter contains the general's speech before 
 the battle, given with suggestions of praise (11. 14: vocat 
 contionem et quae sapientia provisa aptaque imminenti pugnae 
 disserit. Cf. I. 15, orationem ducis secutus militum ardor). 
 
 In II. 20, we find a rhetorically encomiastic touch such as 
 has been noticed in I. 51 (quod gnarum duci). Here the 
 expression has a wider scope (II. 20: Nihil ex his Caesari 
 incognitum; consilia locos prompta occulta noverat astusque 
 hostium in perniciem ipsis vertebat), and the intent to glorify 
 Germanicus as a leader is more strongly felt by the reader. 
 Still the author does not betray himself by any epithet or 
 phrase such as Ammianus uses under like circumstances (XVI. 
 2, II: erat providus et cunctator quod praecipium honum in 
 magnis ductoribus opem ferre solet exercitibus et salutem). In 
 the same chapter, "primus Caesar cum praetoriis cohortibus 
 capto vallo dedit impetum in silvas" may emphasize for the 
 reader the avhpua of Germanicus, and we are arrested in the 
 next chapter (21) by the same strain; after openly acknowl- 
 edging the bravery (virtus) of the leaders of the Germans, 
 Arminius and Inguiomerus, Tacitus adds, "et Germanicus, quo 
 magis agnosceretur, detraxerat tegimen capiti." The inference 
 of the juxtaposition is not difficult. 
 
 In chapter 22 the modest reticence of Germanicus in setting 
 up the commemoration of his triumph (superbus titulus) is to 
 be divined from the brief clause, "de se nihil addidit," where 
 Ammianus would have added some such characterizing phrase 
 as "modestissimus Caesar." Tacitus proceeds to psychological 
 analysis of the springs of the action, "metu invidiae an ratus 
 conscientiam facti satis esse." In suggesting the two reasons, 
 
20 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 he serves a double purpose: he preserves the historic balance 
 ■ of impartial narrative and does not commit himself to either. 
 It is not difficult, however, to decide whether the slur on 
 Tiberius or the tribute to Germanicus is to be accepted as the 
 author's choice. ^^ 
 
 In chapters 24 and 25, the historical narrative serves also to 
 depict the difficulties, in order to give introduction with greater 
 force to "eo promptior Caesor pergit introrsus," illustrating the 
 persevering bravery of Germanicus. Meanwhile, in 24, bare 
 as is the recital of the facts, we feel called upon to admire his 
 tender humanity and distress at the loss at sea, "sola Germanici 
 triremis Chaucorum terram adpulit; quem per omnes illos 
 dies noctesque apud scopulos et prominentes oras, cum se 
 tanti exitii reum clamitaret, vix cohibuere amici quominus 
 eodem mare oppeteret." In chapter 26, "addidit muni- 
 ficentiam Caesar, quantum quis damni professus erat, exsol- 
 vendo," almost directly refers to the generosity of the Caesar. 
 A look at his campaigns in summary, and a statement of the 
 prospects of the war, follows in the next sentence, in indirect 
 technique, depending on "nee dubium habebatur." The 
 enemy are about to ask for terms (labare hostes petendaeque 
 pacis consilia sumere); another year would fill the cup of 
 successes to the brim (si proxima aetas adiceretur, posse 
 bellum patrari). The consummate skill of the historian 
 presents Germanicus in this sentence in a position, at the end 
 of his campaign in Germany, of assured success, and at the 
 same time, by adding the second clause (si proxima, etc.), 
 renders that position impregnable for the future. It prepares 
 us for and anticipates the recall by Tiberius, which immediately 
 follows. In the full glory of this position too, at the acme of 
 popularity, with a victorious army at his beck, how can we but 
 admire Germanicus, when we see him so magnanimously 
 obeying the Emperor's decree (haud cunctatus ultra Germani- 
 
 18 Bruns suggests a possible stylistic reason for the presentation of double motives 
 by Tacitus ("Die Personlichkeit in d. Geschichtsschreibung d. Alten," p. 79): "das 
 die unfehlbare Sicherheit, mit der die Grundlinien gezogen sind, noch starker hervor- 
 treten lassen soil." 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 21 
 
 cus, quamquam iingi ea, seque per invidiam parto iam decore 
 abstrahi intellegeret). 
 
 The triumph of Germanicus in II. 41 closes the account of 
 his career in Germany. After a brief enumeration of the 
 spoils, follow these sentences: 
 
 Augebat intuentium visus eximia ipsius species currusque, 
 quinque liberis onustus. Sed suberat occulta formido, reputantibus 
 haud prosperum in Druso patre eius favorem vulgi, avunculum 
 eiusdem Marcellum flangrantibus plebis studiis intra iuventam 
 ereptum, breves et infaustos populi Romani amores. 
 
 A note of open admiration is found in "eximia ipsius species," 
 but in the following words, the reference to the "favorem 
 vulgi" of Drusus, the "breves et infaustos populi Romani 
 amores," speak volumes for the light in which Tacitus wishes 
 us to believe that Germanicus was regarded by the people; 
 dramatically they serve also to shadow forth his tragic fate. 
 
 Let us now consider parts of the story of Germanicus which 
 have been designedly omitted in the foregoing pages. 
 
 The revolt of the Germanic legions described in Annals, I. 
 31 ff., is an intrinsic part of the history of the period. Its 
 recital follows naturally on that of a similar movement among 
 the forces in Pannonia. No historical treatment of the events 
 consequent on the death of Augustus would be complete with- 
 out accounts of these mutinies. The introduction, therefore, 
 of careful descriptions of these uprisings in the Annals, with 
 their bearing on the disposition and political status of the 
 army, is the duty of the historian. Very simple and har- 
 monious is the transition from the situation at Rome to that of 
 the army in these important provinces (Ann., I. 16, i : Hie 
 rerum urbanarum status erat, cum Pannonicas legiones seditio 
 incessit). All the following passage through chapter 30 is 
 devoted to the mutiny specified in this introductory sentence. 
 The contemporary disturbance among the German legions is 
 taken up in chapter 31, and, with the exception of chapter 33, 
 which introduces Germanicus as an important historical figure 
 
22 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 apart from any relation to the mutinous army, and chapters 
 46 and 47, which throw sidelights on the feeling caused at 
 Rome by the military unrest and the attitude of Tiberius, 
 continues through chapter 49, in whose concluding sentences 
 we read that the final fruit of the wild outburst is as wild a 
 penitence (truces etiam turn animos cupido involat eundi in 
 hostem, piaculum furoris). As far as space in the pages of 
 history goes, the two rebellions receive equal attention at the 
 hands of the historian; but a careful examination and com- 
 parison of the treatment accorded to each uprising offers 
 results not without weight for those interested in the methods 
 of the Tacitean art. 
 
 The outbreak in Pannonia, as Tacitus tells us (chapter 16), 
 was consequent on no definite preliminary acts (nullis novis 
 causis). The state of idleness in a summer camp (intermiserat 
 (Blaesus) solita munia) had already engendered a mischievous 
 spirit (lascivire miles, discordare), and the death of Augustus, 
 rousing the memory of political changes in which an army 
 had played important roles, gave the final impulse to disorder 
 (mutatus princeps licentiam turbarum et ex civili bello spem 
 praemiorum ostendebat). The seven following chapters paint 
 a vivid picture of the mutinous camp. There is no leading 
 figure; with kaleidoscopic effect the personages and details 
 pass before us as we read. We recognize the familiar figure of 
 the "walking delegate" in the "Percennius quidam, dux olim 
 theatralium operarum, dum gregarius miles, proca lingua et 
 miscere coetus histrionali studio doctus," as he gathers the 
 discontented element of the camp together, at first in midnight 
 meetings, then, growing bolder, more openly fans the flame of 
 mutiny, until after the insurrectionary speech given in chapter 
 17, it bursts Into a blaze. Blaesus, intrepid and resolute 
 throughout, although legatus does not claim our attention 
 more closely than Aufidius Rufus, the prefect, with his experi- 
 ences at the hands of the soldiers, related in chapter 20, un- 
 pleasant but not without a touch of comedy, or Bibulenus with 
 his taste for pathos and his inventive powers (chapters 22, 23). 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 2$ 
 
 Nor can we forget the centurion Lucilius, characterized in the 
 description of the murderous attack on the centurions by the 
 clause "cui militaribus facetiis vocabulum 'cedo alteram' 
 indiderant," and the appropriate reason for the name. At 
 this juncture Drusus arrives, accompanied by a reassuring 
 bodyguard (Ann., I. 24: cum primoribus civitatis duabusque 
 praetoriis cohortibus), strong in itself, although, to strengthen 
 it further, extraordinary precautions have been taken (et 
 cohortes delecto milite supra solitum firmatae. Additur magna 
 pars praetoriani equitis et robora Germanorum qui turn cus- 
 todes imperatori erant). To these material defences is added 
 Sejanus, as adviser for Drusus (rector iuveni), to which respon- 
 sibility is annexed the wide and promising field of appeal to the 
 greed or cowardice of the mutineers (et ceteris periculorum 
 praemiorumque ostentator). Although sent nullis certis man- 
 datis, Drusus is merely a representative of Tiberius, and 
 the ex re consulturum will fall on Sejanus. The effect of the 
 Emperor's message, read by Drusus to the army, is not sooth- 
 ing; after angry demands for concessions and strong accusations 
 against both Tiberius and Drusus, presented by Tacitus with 
 persuasive innuendo as the spotaneous utterances of the excited 
 soldiery — an admirable instance of the skill with which this 
 historian avails himself of every opportunity for indirect 
 characterization — the contio breaks up, ripe for more violent 
 deeds. The presence of Drusus is no check upon such demon- 
 strations. Lentulus, to whom the soldiers feel especial 
 resentment, is attacked as he is departing from the tribunal in 
 company with the Caesar, and is saved only by the coming up 
 of the strong body of troops which form the imperial reserve 
 (ad cursu multitudinis quae cum Druso advenerat, protectus 
 est). The crisis threatened by the approaching night is averted 
 by a chance that arrays superstition on the side of those in 
 command (chapter 28. i : noctem minacem et in scelus erup- 
 turam fors lenivit: nam luna claro repente caelo visa relan- 
 guescere). Interpreting the continuance of this phenomenon 
 as disastrous to their efforts, the soldiers waver, believing the 
 
24 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 gods averse to them. We trace the agency of Sejanus In the 
 instant advantage taken by Drusus of this state of mind; the 
 generalization of the methods of the emissaries sent by Drusus 
 to the soldiers on guard in the rebellious camp (spem offerunt, 
 metum intendunt) can be interpreted rationally as an out- 
 working of the deliberations of the periculorum praemiorumque 
 ostentator of chapter 24. The policy of summary punishment 
 of flagrant offenders may be traced to the same advisory source 
 (chapter 29: nihil in vulgo modicum; terrere ni paveant, ubi 
 pertimuerint; impune contemni; dum superstitio urgeat, 
 adiciendos ex duce metus sublatis seditionis auctoribus). 
 Nor is a convenient point of presentation of a fault in the 
 character of Drusus omitted (promptum ad asperiora ingenium 
 Druso erat). The strong measures adopted, together with 
 sudden and unseasonable storms, which to the eyes of the 
 ignorant soldiery represent the "caelestis ira," complete the 
 suppression of disorder, and Drusus returns to Rome, leaving 
 matters in a state sufficiently satisfactory. To review briefly 
 the foregoing narrative, it is in summary a lively account of an 
 event with some historical significance, amid whose scenes we 
 discern no central figure, although many personalities of more 
 or less passing interest claim our attention. Drusus, who 
 technically handles the situation, is painted in dull tones; his 
 own speech and actions do not quell the mutiny; that Is 
 brought about by the Intervention of Providence and the aid of 
 that shrewd advisor, Sejanus. We have already noted that 
 the concluding steps taken by Drusus serve to Illustrate a defect 
 of character, and upon this Tacitus comments openly. These 
 points are emphasized here because we shall find In the story 
 of the second mutiny features which present contrasts almost 
 symmetrical, so much so that the first narrative forms an 
 admirable foil to throw out the stronger colors of the second. 
 The Insurrections occur at the same time (chapter 31: isdem 
 fere diebus) ; the causes are similar (isdem causis) ; but the 
 second presents difficulties far greater than the first (quanto 
 plures, tanto violentlus). The movement Is organized and 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. ^5 
 
 general, and the Intention of the historian to contrast in this 
 respect the rebellion first outlined is shown hy a. clause of direct 
 comparison, as well as by the more subtly rhetorical avaipeai';^ 
 already noted as characteristic of the syncritical figure (31. 5: 
 non unus haec, ut Pannonicas inter legiones Percennius, . . . 
 sed multa seditlonis ora vocesque). The conclusion of chapter 
 32 also calls attention with a deeply rhetorical color to the 
 securely founded and concerted nature of the insurrectionary 
 movement, where after relating the fact that the soldiers had 
 taken the control of the camp into their own hands, Tacitus 
 adds the psychologist's reflection "id militares animos altius 
 coniectantibus, praecipuum iudicium magni atque implacabilis 
 motus, quod neque disiecti aut paucorum instinctu sed pariter 
 ardescerent, pariter silerent, tanta aequalitate et constantia ut 
 regi crederes." A contrast between the legions afi'ected in 
 each case by rebellion and their military position is suggested 
 in chapter 31. 5; the German legions are masters of the situ- 
 ation, no strong praetorian cohort is there to overawe them, 
 they need not wait the issue in bodies more powerful than 
 themselves (nee apud trepidas militum aures, alios validiores 
 exercitus respicentium; here again is the suggestion of avat- 
 /)€<ri9); these legions are an influential factor in a political 
 no less than in a military sense. The fact that their position 
 is given by Tacitus as part of their own reflection on the 
 situation at the death of Augustus is significant of the his- 
 torian's belief in the possibilities that might have resulted 
 from their attitude (chapter 31. 5: sua In manu sitam rem 
 Romanam; suis victoriis augeri rem publlcam, in suum cog- 
 nomentum adsclsci impera tores). (Tacitus here puts Into the 
 indirect discourse the contents of the sed clause, corresponding 
 to the nee apud trepidas militum aures, as sed multa seditionis 
 ora vocesque completes the avaipeac^ beginning in non unus 
 haec; by so doing, he adds variety and conceals more artfully 
 the cr'x^fjfjba avyKpiTtKov) . The soldiers' belief In their own power 
 is conveyed also in the significant indirect discourse in chapter 
 31. I (legionibus vi sua cuncta tracturis), and the full force of 
 
26 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 these suggestions may be understood from the rest of the 
 same sentence; their hopes were centered in Germanicus 
 (magna spe fore ut Germanicus Caesar imperium alterius pati 
 nequiret daretque se legionibus vi sua cuncta tracturis). 
 The possibiHties for civil war have already been suggested, i6. i 
 (ex civili bello spem praemiorum ostendebat); also in 17. i 
 (novum et mutantem adhuc principem) ; so that here the only 
 new note is the definite mention of Germanicus for the leading 
 role in the drama played so often in Roman history. 
 
 To the evident traces of comparison between the two 
 mutinies, another is added in the beginning of chapter 32 in the 
 form of a-vyKpi<n<i^ already familiar (nee legatus obviam ibat). 
 The directly contrasted figure of Blaesus is so obviously 
 suggested as to require no argument to enforce its presence by 
 that of the commander Caecina, whose position is indicated by 
 the suggestion that follows: quippe plurium vaecordia con- 
 stantiam exemerat.^' Under these conditions in the camp of 
 the lower army, it is not surprising to read in chapter 32 of the 
 successful carrying out of a violent attack upon the centurions, 
 and the assumption of entire control of the service by the rebels. 
 
 Placing the main characteristics of the Pannonian rebellion, 
 yet fresh in mind, beside the conditions so far developed of the 
 mutiny in Gaul, the result of the comparison is, on the one 
 side, the rendering of the first a mere bagatelle, beginning in 
 idle mischief and ending by chance; while, on the other hand, 
 the critical and important nature of the second is to be more 
 clearly understood by a juxtaposition of its inner workings and 
 suggested issues with the aimless and detached story of the 
 first.^* Aside from the artistic effect of this bit of literary 
 
 ^' This sentence is evidently not so much for the purpose of characterizing Caecina > 
 as to add weight to the gravity of the rebelHon by throwing out a reference to the effect 
 upon the mind of the Heutenant, whose career as learned from other historical episodes 
 does not justify criticism of his resolution or courage. 
 
 ^* That the first movement was one of greater gravity than Tacitus contrives to- 
 make it appear is not improbable. The fact, that three legions had come together 
 (tres legiones miscere, ch. l8) indicates much. If one may not accuse Tacitus of sup- 
 pression in this matter, it is at least fair to note that this fact is related without comment. 
 It is improbable that they could have thus united without marches of considerable 
 extent which would show a deeper and more intense element than the Tacitean account 
 would have us suppose. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. I'J 
 
 artifice, another motive exists for Tacitus. With the Gallic 
 mutiny, Germanicus enters as an historical character, and we 
 may feel assured that all possible means will be employed to 
 make that entrance a striking and memorable one. The darker 
 the background of the mutiny (magnus et implacabilis motus) 
 the more conspicuously will it place in relief the character that 
 Tacitus delights to honor. The conditions sketched in chapters 
 31 and 32 are per se of a most serious and threatening nature; 
 add to these the mental attitude of the troops towards Ger- 
 manicus personally, and to meet all the problems and possi- 
 bilities of the hour a paragon is required. Interpreted by the 
 medium of Tacitean art, Germanicus is that paragon. 
 - The entire responsibility of the Gallic provinces rests with 
 Germanicus (chapter 31. 2, 3: regimen summae rei penes 
 Germanicum); hence, once introduced upon the scene as the 
 central personage, his own acts and words would portray 
 character, even without the suggestive touches added where 
 occasion is afforded. With the opening words of chapter 34 
 Tacitus strikes the keynote for his delineation of Germanicus, 
 incorruptible loyalty to Tiberius (quanto summae spei propior, 
 tanto impensius pro Tiberio niti); and the position of this 
 reflection shows that it is to be interpreted with special reference 
 to the mutiny in hand, the description of which is resumed im- 
 mediately (audito legionum tumultu raptim profectus). When 
 Germanicus approaches the camp, the offenders come forth 
 to meet him in apparent penitence (deiectis in terram oculis 
 velut paenitentia). If with this we compare chapter 24. 4, 
 where the meeting ofDrusus with the Pannonian troops is 
 described, we find a similar imputation of assumed feeling 
 (quamquam maestitiam imitarentur), but the addition of two 
 words (contumaciae propriores) marks a difference in tone, 
 slight but significant for the relative estimates in which Drusus 
 and Germanicus were held by the troops. The appeals, it 
 may also be noted, in chapter 34 (postquam vallum iniit, 
 dissoni questus audiri coepere et quidam, prensa manu eius 
 per speciem osculandi inseruerunt digitos, ut vacua dentibus 
 
28 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 ora contingeret; alii curvata senio membra ostendebant), are 
 of a personal character, while In chapter 25, which describes 
 the scene before the tribunal of Drusus, it is the Caesar only 
 that calls forth even seeming respect for Drusus. Reluctantly 
 as the soldiers fall into order at the command of Germanicus, 
 they listen respectfully while he reveres the memory of Augus- 
 tus and dwells on the exploits of Tiberius with praises un- 
 stinted and free. This disaffection is shown only faintly 
 (silentio haec vel murmure modico audita sunt). It is the 
 reproachful questions of Germanicus (ubi modestia militaris, 
 ubi veteris disciplinae decus, quonam tribunos quo centuriones 
 exegissent) that cause the outbreak that is to try so severely 
 his wisdom and loyalty, to the effect that he may emerge from 
 it with heightened glory. Even when this storm breaks it is 
 not the clamor described in chapter 26, addressed to Drusus 
 (cur venisset; neque augendis militum stipendiis neque adle- 
 vandis laboribus, denique nulla • bene faciendi licentia.^ at 
 hercule vergera et necem cunctis permitti) ending with the 
 personal abuse of Drusus and Tiberius noted above; it is 
 rather an attempted justification of their actions by showing 
 wounds and scars, and a recital of their grievances, long terms 
 of service, lack of pay, unreasonable labor, substantially the 
 burden of complaint of chapter 26, but presented in a different 
 spirit; the name applied in chapter 26 is "mandata"; in 
 chapter 35, even in the case of the veterans who seem the most 
 clamorous, it is appeal, not demand (orabant); and to realize 
 the full force of this comparison in enhancing the regard felt 
 for Germanicus, fresh in mind are the points of contrast already 
 established, impressive of the more dangerous nature of the 
 second mutiny (chapter 31: quanto plures, tanto violentius; 
 chapter 32. 5: id militaris animos altius coniectantibus prae- 
 cipuum indicium magni atque implacabilis motus, quod, etc.). 
 The climax of the situation is reached in the recognition of 
 Germanicus as the rightful heir of Augustus although Tacitus 
 veils this moment of emotional intensity with a guarded phrase 
 {fuere etiam qui legatam a divo x\ugusto pecuniam reposcerent), 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 29 
 
 and in the zeal of the soldiers for his establishment as emperor, 
 and promises of adherence (faustis in Germanicum ominibus; 
 et si vellet imperium, promptas res ostentavere). Up to this 
 time there has not been recorded a word of threat or danger 
 to Germanicus; he is the soldiers' hope, their savior, to him 
 they offer their allegiance. The loyalty of Germanicus is 
 beyond all proof; abhorrence of the thought is vivified in action 
 (tum vero, quasi scelere contaminaretur, praeceps tribunali 
 desiluit). The disappointed soldiers demand his return with 
 menacing weapons (minitantes ni regrederetur) ; the dramatic 
 tension of this part of the scene culminates in the Caesar's 
 refusal unto death (ille moriturus potius quam fidem exueret 
 clamitans, ferrum a latere diripuit, elatumque deferebat in 
 pectus, ni proximi prensam dexteram vi adtinuissent). The 
 rash actions of those who order him to strike, with the definite 
 addition of the miles nomine Calusidius, serve as a background 
 against which stands out the horror of the rest at such atrocity 
 (saevum id malique moris etiam furentibus visum), and allows 
 the exit of Germanicus during the pause of shrinking con- 
 sternation. The encomiastic significance of this chapter for 
 the character of Germanicus can hardly be overestimated; 
 and yet, such is the art of the historian, that there is not one 
 word of direct characterization throughout; the words and 
 actions of the army, of the Caesar himself, unfold with studied 
 care the triumph of an incorruptible nature in an hour of strong 
 temptation; while the inference for history is the averting of a 
 civil war through his pure ambition and loyalty. 
 
 Although the first chapter in the mutiny is closed, and the 
 refusal of Germanicus is accepted as decisive, the remaining 
 passages that deal with this matter offer many interesting evi- 
 dences of the purpose and skill of Tacitus. Chapter 36 con- 
 tains a summary of the difficulties of the situation which stamps 
 it as a grave emergency. The sedition threatens to spread 
 (parari legatos qui superiorem exercitum ad causam eundem 
 traherent) ; plans for plunder and slaughter are on foot (desti- 
 natum excidio Ubiorum oppidum, imbutasque praeda manus in 
 
30 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 direptionem Galliarum erupturas); the enemy is aware of the 
 insurrection and awaits his opportunity (gnarus Romanae 
 seditionis et, si omitteretur ripa, invasurus hostis); it is a 
 matter that jeopards the state, a problem almost without 
 solution (periculosa severitas, flagitiosa largitio; seu nihil 
 militi sive omnia concederetur, in ancipiti res publica). 
 
 Chapter 40. All except Germanicus are in fear; their 
 apprehensions lead them to reproaches of their leader. Ex- 
 pression of this feeling gives Tacitus an opportunity to put in 
 strong colors the generous leniency of Germanicus through his 
 favorite instrument of indirect discourse (eo in metu arguere 
 Germanicum omnes, quod non ad superiorem exercitum 
 pergeret ubi obsequia et contra rebellis auxilium: satis superque 
 missione et pecunia et mollibus consultis peccatum). Under 
 the guise of reproach, the Caesar's intrepidity is held up before 
 us (si vilis ipsi salus). Appealed to in the name of the safety 
 of his family, Germanicus, the tender husband and father, is 
 influenced so far only as to remove his wife and family from the 
 scene of danger, but remains himself. This the soldiers will 
 not permit. The fact that they are recalled to their duty and 
 obedience by personal feeling for Germanicus is the only 
 possible inference to be drawn from the scene described in 
 chapter 41. The speech of Germanicus (chapter 42, 43) is 
 for the purpose of characterization and that alone. ^® His 
 patriotism and devotion to Tiberius are stronger than all other 
 considerations (chapter 42, i : non mihi uxor aut filius patre et 
 re publica cariores sunt). His reproaches and appeals to the 
 soldiers throughout the speech are made not in his own name 
 but that of the Emperor. Agrippina is not referred to as the 
 Caesar's wife; she is Tiherii nurus; Germanicus himself is 
 Augusti pronepos, filius imperatoris nostri. The speech cannot 
 but be considered a miracle of eloquence and tact, a proof of 
 the facundia of the young general, as powerful an influence in 
 the contio as on the field of battle. The effect on the soldiers 
 
 ^' The rhetorical character of this speech is noted by Furneaux, and the evident 
 reminiscence of the speech of Scipio Africanus, Liv., 28, 27, is pointed out. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 3 1 
 
 Is instantaneous, so apparent that the speaker recognizes it 
 (chapter 43 : vosque quorum alia nunc ora, aha pectora con- 
 tueor) ; they confess their guilt, offer the most flagrant offenders 
 for punishment, and promise return to allegiance. 
 
 The wisdom, tact and generosity of Germanicus thus 
 triumph over all obstacles. The close of the disturbance in 
 the army of Caecina is worth noting, as a point of comparison 
 of Germanicus with Drusus may be here inferred. The 
 punishment of the guilty is put by suggestion from Germanicus, 
 first, in the case of the lower army, into the hands of the eagerly 
 penitent soldiers, who in their zeal hold a court-martial whose 
 results resemble a massacre. Tacitus makes this comment, 
 chapter 44: Nee Caesar arcebat, quando nullo ipsius iussu penes 
 eosdem saevitia facti et invidia erat. The same course is 
 followed in the camp of Caecina, with more horrifying results; 
 here, too, we find an allusion to the attitude of Germanicus, 
 chapter 49: mox ingressus castra Germanicus, non medicinam 
 illud plurimis cum lacrimis sed cladem appellans, cremari 
 corpora iubet. The application of these passages is obvious. 
 The severity of the punishment is such as to lay the com- 
 mander-in-chief open to an invidious charge of cruelty; by the 
 skill of Tacitus he is completely absolved from any such 
 accusations, and invested with a spirit of tenderness and 
 humanity; while a like situation in the first mutiny called forth 
 from the historian the sentence, "promptum ad asperiora 
 ingenium Druso erat." 
 
 It is worth while in this connection to recall the position 
 ascribed by Tacitus to Tiberius with reference to the mutinies. 
 An ostentatious but insincere speech to the senate (magis in 
 speciem verbis adornata quam ut penitus sentire crederetur) 
 recognizes the success of Germanicus; a more emphatic mark 
 of praise is awarded Drusus (paucioribus Drusum et finem 
 Illyrici motus laudavit, sed intentior et fida oratione). Besides 
 this innuendo on the Emperor's sincerity, his grudging praise 
 of Germanicus hints at a bid for popularity in the actions of 
 his adopted son (quod largiendis pecuniis et missione festinata 
 
32 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 favorem militum quaesivisset), a dark contrast to what in the 
 mind of Tacitus was the truth in the case. 
 
 An historical scene, closely resembling the situation in which 
 we have seen Germanicus during the mutiny in Gaul, but 
 possessing a different denouement, is the occasion of Julian's 
 elevation to the position of emperor. There are many points 
 in the technique of Ammianus in this portion of his history that 
 may reasonably be taken as indication of the fact that he has 
 well in mind not only the Tacitean treatment just noted 
 but other phases of the story of Germanicus. It must be con- 
 ceded that the later historian had the harder task. He 
 must reconcile, to a character which he would represent as 
 model, a course of action which, to say the least, was of doubt- 
 ful credit. Direct personal comment was impossible; the only 
 convincing method of making the worse appear the better 
 cause was to force facts and words to do service on the side 
 which Ammianus desired to triumph. The traditional maxims 
 of encomiastic style offer justification of optimistic presentation 
 of dubious matter, and as we shall see, Ammianus did not 
 neglect their instructions. The results achieved may be looked 
 upon as successful, and it is in this part of his delineation of 
 Julian that Ammianus has shown the most persuas-ive and at 
 the same time most unobtrusive form of art. But let us take 
 up the situation in question. 
 
 Under pretence of a movement against the Parthians, the 
 jealous Constantius orders the troops who have been under 
 service with Julian to leave Gaul for the East (XX. 4, 2). As 
 Germanicus (Ann., II. 26) acquiesces in his return from Gaul, 
 at the hour of highest triumph (hand cunctatus est ukra 
 Germanicus), so Julian bows to the will of Constantius (con- 
 ticuit hisque adquieverat lulianus, potioris arbitrio cuncta 
 concedens). But, model general as he is, although submitting 
 to the lessening of his own power, for the soldiers he is com- 
 pelled to remonstrate. 
 
 XX. 4, 4: lUud tamen nee dissimulare potuit nee silere (dissim- 
 ulare, for the Caesar knows well the real object of Constantius in 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 33 
 
 withdrawing the troops, but hides his knowledge since it concerns 
 him alone) ut illi nullas paterentur molestias, qui relictis laribus 
 transrhenanis sub hoc venerant pacto, ne ducerentur ad partes 
 unquam transalpinas. 
 
 The next sentence in the Oratio Obliqua is a strong illustration 
 of Julian's sagacity as well as of his justice: 
 
 verendum esse, adfirmans, ne voluntarii barbari mllitares, saepe 
 sub eius modi legibus adsueti transire ad nostra, hoc cognito, 
 deinceps arcerentur. 
 
 His remonstrance is, however, of little avail. Three hundred 
 picked men from the legions are immediately withdrawn by the 
 legatus in charge of the matter, the rest to follow later. 
 
 An elaboration of the difficulties which now faced Julian is 
 next introduced in the highly artificial and inverted diction 
 which Ammianus uses to the greatest excess when dealing with 
 what he deems most important. We are put by the wording 
 of Ammianus in possession of the Caesar's thoughts, and, from 
 that point of view, survey the situation. 
 
 XX. 4, 6: Et quia sollicitus Caesar, quid de residuis mitti 
 praeceptis agi deberet, perque varias curas animum versans, 
 attente negotium tractari oportere censebat cum hinc barbara 
 feritas inde iussorum urgeret auctoritas maximeque absentia 
 magistri equitum augente dubitatem. 
 
 The defenceless position of the provinces is touched on 
 again (7), 
 
 abstrahendos e Galliarum defensione pugnaces numeros barbaris- 
 qu?, iam formidatos. 
 
 Julian's whole consideration is for the soldiers and the country, 
 not for himself, as interpreted for us by Ammianus. As 
 Germanicus bore alone the burden of the Gallic mutiny, so 
 Julian encounters the difficulties caused by Constantius' order. 
 His prefect is absent, and the refusal of the latter to return 
 leaves Julian without advisers; the responsibility rests upon 
 him alone (consiliatorum adminiculo destitutus). He finally 
 
34 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 decides to call all the required troops from their winter quarters 
 to prepare for the march ordered by Constantius. The dis- 
 content caused by this decision breaks forth in a lampoon, 
 emanating from the Petulantes, which, among other things 
 not given by the historian, contained the following grievance, 
 an outworking, one would note, of the difficulty suggested by 
 Julian in 4: 
 
 XX. 4, 10: nos quidem ad orbis terrarum extrema ut noxii 
 pellimur et damnati, caritates vero nostrae Alamannis denuo 
 servirent, quas captivitate prima post internecivas liberavimus 
 pugnas. 
 
 This, the first outward sign of dissatisfaction from the troops, 
 proves the correctness of the Caesar's original thought regard- 
 ing the situation. Ammianus is certainly not quoting the 
 "libellus" in question; the diction is peculiarly his own. 
 
 The permission given to the families to accompany the 
 soldiers, although without comment, is an illustration of the 
 just kindness of Julian. The route chosen for the departure 
 lies through Paris, where Julian was then staying. Forestalling 
 any unfavorable interpretation of hidden purpose in this 
 choice, Ammianus is careful to tell us that it was not Julian's 
 own proposition but the suggestion of another. 
 
 XX. 4, II: placuit notario suggerente Decentio per Parisios 
 omnes transire. 
 
 Again in 12, where we are told that Julian goes out to meet the 
 troops, and, as becomes the personal commander, addresses 
 and praises individuals ex more, suspicion of any ulterior motive 
 is anticipated and checked by giving the substance of his 
 exhortation: 
 
 ut ad Augustum alacri gradu pergerent, ubi potestas est ample 
 patens et larga, praemia laborum adepturi dignissima. 
 
 Compare for this treatment of the soldiers the passage in Ann., 
 I. 71, where Germanicus encourages his troops: 
 
 circumire saucios, facta singulorum extollere; vulnera intuens alium 
 spe, alium gloria, cunctos adloquio et cura sibique et proelio firmabat. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 35 
 
 So Julian, XX, 4, 12: 
 
 idem que adventantibus in suburbanis princeps occurrit, ex more 
 laudans quos agnoscebat, factorumque fortium singulos monens, 
 animabat lenibus verbis. 
 
 A farewell banquet is given to the chiefs, and permission is 
 accorded to them to make any necessary request. The 
 artifice employed by Tacitus in Ann., II. 13, where the soldiers' 
 free talk around the camp-fire on the eve of battle is made a 
 medium of imparting the esteem in which they hold German- 
 icus, has an echo here in Ammianus. The chiefs return from 
 the convivium "dolore duplici suspensi et maesti," and the 
 cause of their grief is assigned, in their own sorrowing reflection, 
 "quod eos fortuna quaedam inclemens et moderato rector e et 
 terris genitalibus dispararet." Their feeling leads to action 
 during the night;^° they throng the palace of Julian and hail 
 him as Augustus. There is no avenue left for escape (14: 
 spatiis eius ambitis, ne ad evadendi copiam quisquam per- 
 veniret); Julian delays until delay is no longer possible (ex- 
 spectari coacti dum lex promicaret, tandem progredi com- 
 pulerunt), and is greeted with more determined cries of "Augus- 
 tus." The description of his refusal, dramatically put as, we 
 remember, was that of Germanicus on a like occasion, sounds 
 like an amplification of the Tacitean theme.^^ 
 
 15: et ille, mente fundata universis resistebat, et singulis, indignari 
 semet ostendens, nunc manus tendens oransque et obsecrans, ne 
 post multas felicissimasque victorias agatur aliquid indecorum, 
 neve intempestiva temeritas et prolapsis discordiarum materias 
 excitaret. 
 
 The occasion for a speech that would prove his sincerity and 
 loyalty to the Emperor is not overlooked by the historian. 
 
 XX. 4, 16: Cesset ira quaeso paulisper: absque dissensione vel 
 rerum adpetitu novarum impetrabitur facile quod postulatis, 
 
 2" XX. 4, 14. Nocte vero coeptante in apertum erupere discidium. Cf. Ann., I. 
 28; noctem minacem et in scelus erupturam. 
 
 2' Ann., I. 35, quasi scelere contaminaretur, praeceps tribunali desiluit. 
 
36 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 quonlam dulcedo vos patriae retinet, et insueta peregrinaque metuitis 
 loca, redite iam nunc ad sedes nihil visuri quia displicet, transal- 
 pinum. Hocque apud Augustum capacem rationis et prudentissi- 
 mum ego conpetenti satisfactione purgabo. 
 
 Despite the concessions of this speech, the insistent soldiers 
 continue their demands, and Julian, after vain protests and 
 delay, is compelled to accept the honor, which Ammianus 
 would have us consider thrust upon him. The ardor of the 
 troops, even resorting to threats and reproaches, as we re- 
 member did also the troops of Germanicus, the order to assume 
 a crown, the scruples of Julian representing his reluctance, the 
 repetition of the necessity pressing on him, all these are 
 amplification of the historian eager to excuse and defend the 
 course taken by his favorite Emperor. From the standpoint 
 of history, we need no such elaborations of the circumstances; 
 they are purely biographical, serving only to illustrate a point 
 of character, which actual results contradict. The emphasis 
 laid on necessitudo is a point worth special consideration: 
 
 XX. 4, 14. Tandem progredi compulerunt. 
 
 17. Caesar adsentire coactus est. 
 
 18. Trusus ad necessitatem extremam iamque pericu- 
 lum praesens vitare non posse advertens si reniti 
 perseverasset.^^ 
 
 This is to be recognized as a part of ev(f)r)fiia enjoined in the 
 four general maxims for encomium (Aristid., Sp. II. 505, 10),^^ 
 a form of the 0X0)9 ael irdvra iirl to kuWCov ipyd^€a(f>ai to which 
 the rhetorician exhorts the would-be worker in encomiastic 
 literature (Nic. Soph., Sp. Ill, p. 481, 24). Still more apt to 
 the case in hand is the phrase in Cicero, de Inv. 174 — "cum 
 incolumitati videbimur consulere, vere poterimus dicere nos 
 honestatis rationem habere quoniam sine incolumitate eam 
 nuUo tempore possumus adipisci." 
 
 *2 Compare the words of Julian in the speech to the army, XXI. 5, 5. At nunc 
 cum auctoritate vestri indicii rerum que necessitate compulsus ad angustum elatus sum 
 culmen, where the same motive is transferred to the indirect technique. 
 
 23 Xafi^dvovrai 5^ ol ^iraivoi Karet rpdirovs riaffapas aii^i^ffei irapa\el\f'ei vapaPoXij 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 37 
 
 Confirmation of Julian's attitude is conveyed in the para- 
 graphs that follow (19-22), which have no indispensable 
 historical force, but continue the theme of the foregoing passage 
 for elaboration of the new emperor's reluctance and his con- 
 scientious action. Julian is stunned by the turn that matters 
 have taken (4. 19-20: accidentium varietate perterritus) ; his 
 modesty and reluctance to assume imperial honors are im- 
 pressed upon the reader by his course of action (19: nee diadema 
 gestavit, nee procedere ausus unquam, nee agere seria quae 
 nimis urgebant). But the soldiers again flock to the palace, 
 and with insisting shouts and threats refuse to depart unless 
 they see their chosen Emperor in his imperial robes (4. 22: non 
 antea discesserunt quam adsciti in consistorum fulgentem eum 
 augusto habitu conspexissent). The reiteration of this phase 
 of the matter can have but one motive, namely, the justi- 
 fication of Julian's acceptance. We find the same points made 
 prominent in the letter sent later by Julian to Constantius 
 (XX. 8, 5 fF.) ; he dwells upon the violence of the soldiers and 
 his own unwillingness. He was shocked, and sought conceal- 
 ment (XX. 8, 9: cohorrui, fateor, et secessi amendatusque dum 
 potui salutem mussatione quaerebam et latebris) ; he appeared 
 to the soldiers in the final extremity only for the purpose of 
 stilling their tumult (XX. 8, 9: cumque nuUae darentur indu- 
 tiae, libero pectoris muro, ut ita dixerim, saeptus progressus 
 ante conspectum omnium steti, molliri posse tumultum 
 auctoritate ratus, vel sermonibus blandis); the excitement of 
 the troops, their menaces and threats are emphasized (8, 10: 
 exarsere mirum in modum, eo usque provecti, ut quoniam preci- 
 bus vincere pertinacione conabar, instanter mortem contiguis 
 adsultibus intentarent). Thus does he plead the final exigency 
 which forced him to the course adopted (10: victus denique 
 mecumque ipse contestans quod alter confosso me forsitan 
 libens declarabitur princeps, adsensus sum, vim lenire sperans 
 armatam). 
 
 In the last sentence, which contains his own self-justification 
 (mecumque ipse contestans, etc.), is the very essence of the 
 
38 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 Ciceronian dictum for the interpretation of necessitas as 
 honestas; if safe, he might consider an honorable future, faithful 
 to Constantius, in which case he really consulted that which was 
 honorable. There is proof from other writings of Julian that 
 the substance of his communication to Constantius was what 
 Ammianus here conveys, but the application of this letter 
 to the historian's purpose of eulogizing Julian is what is note- 
 worthy; and it speaks eloquently for the lessons learned from 
 Tacitus by the later writer in the instruments of the indirect 
 method, though the art of concealing their use was not so 
 well mastered. We feel the special pleading in Ammianus 
 before we have received its complete import; in Tacitus, all 
 details are in our minds ere the writer's purpose has been 
 suspected, so speciously is the historical continuity maintained. 
 The speech made by Julian before the assembled soldiers 
 (XX. 5, 3-8) reveals in the summarizing of Julian's exploits 
 a further attempt at justification. The setting-forth of the 
 past, thus blending with praise for the army the claims of 
 Julian to distinction, is an artistic touch. The preliminary 
 reference to his youth at the time when he became Caesar 
 (vix dum adulescens specie tenus purpuratus) casts a more 
 strongly favorable light upon the glory since achieved. Since 
 that time, he has never wavered in a virtuous and moderate 
 course (numquam a proposito recte vivendi delectus sum); 
 he has been foremost in every undertaking (vobiscum in omni 
 labore perspicuus); then follows, with the afi^r](n<i permitted 
 to the general's speech, the description of difficulties and 
 dangers past (cum dispersa gentium confidentia post civitatum 
 excidia peremptaque innumera hominum milia, pauca, quae 
 semiintegra sunt relicta, cladis immensitas persultaret). It is 
 needless to recount all the struggles of inclement seasons; 
 when both on land and sea others refrained from warlike 
 efforts they vanquished the Alamanni. Here is the implied 
 avyKpt(Ti<; with former armies and rulers, nations previously 
 unconquered having succumbed (indomitos antea). That 
 most glorious day at Strasbourg, liberating Gaul forever, must 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 39 
 
 not be ignored (ille beatissimus dies vehens quodammodo 
 Galliis perpetuam libertatem). Although from JuHan's own 
 lips, the almost arrogant terms of praise relating to himself 
 are softened and deprived of invidious effect by extending the 
 praise to the soldiers, and the personal relations between 
 generals and troops. 
 
 It is clear that all the palliating circumstances of the situa- 
 tion have been brought out vividly by Ammianus in the 
 passages just reviewed, and that the object of this handling of 
 the subject with its consistent use of the instruments of 
 indirect technique, results from the resolve of the historian to 
 shed the most favorable light upon this passage in the life of 
 his favorite Emperor. Incidentally, we get a few facts, from 
 which inferences of contrasting signification could be drawn. 
 Compare for instance the quaintly frank acknowledgment 
 of the situation found in XX. 8, 4, where Julian's intention to 
 send a letter to Constantius is discussed. 
 
 Et quamquam non repugnantur, tamen nee abrogantibus verbis 
 quicquam scripsit ne videretur subito renuntiasse. 
 
 Another point which might be utilized to refute the view which 
 Ammianus wishes to present of Julian's forced acceptance of 
 the power is the story of the omen (XX. 5, 10). The genius 
 publicus appears to Julian on the night preceding his elevation 
 to the purple, and warns him against resistance to fate. 
 
 Olim, luliane, vestibulum aedium tuarum observe latenter, 
 augere tuam gestiens dignitatem et aliquotiens tanquam repudiatus 
 abscessi; si ne nunc quidem recipior, sententia concordanto mul- 
 torum, ibo demissus et maestus. Id tamen retineto imo corde quod 
 tecum non habitabo. 
 
 There is also, of course, in this a possible suggestion of spiritual 
 reasons for accepting these honors with proper resignation; 
 it casts, as it were, the blessing of heaven upon the new Em- 
 peror and reconciles him to the breach of fidelity to Constantine 
 by assuring the protection of the gods. 
 
 The points of similarity between the treatment adopted by 
 
40 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 Ammianus of this, the turning-point in Julian's case, and that 
 accorded by Tacitus to a like crisis in the life of Germanicus 
 seem therefore too striking to be viewed with indifference by 
 students of literary theory. The Tacitean narrative, with its 
 brilliance and strength, cannot fail to impress even the ordinary 
 reader. It is small wonder then that Ammianus, with strong 
 desire to achieve results in his own work, should seize for his 
 own purpose details of method of which others, devoid of such 
 a purpose, would realize only the impressive results. 
 
 The conviction of Tacitus that the death of Germanicus in 
 Asia was due to the machinations of Tiberius, with Piso as his 
 tool, is strongly impressed upon all readers of the Annals. 
 The plot is foreshadowed in Ann., 11. 5. After a chapter 
 devoted to sketching trouble in the East, the passage cited 
 opens with this sentence: 
 
 ceterum Tiberio haud ingratum accedit turbari res Orientis, ut ea 
 specie Germanicum suetis legionibus abstraheret, novisque pro- 
 vinciis impositum dolo simul et casibus obiectaret. 
 
 Following this in immediate connection we find: / 
 
 at ille quanto acriora in eum studia militum, et aversa patrui 
 voluntas, celebrandas victorias intentior. 
 
 The sentence therefore serves as a comment on the attitude 
 of Tiberius at a period quite remote from the catastrophe 
 described in Ann., II. 69 flF.,^'* and as a connecting link for the 
 resumption of the narrative which deals with Germanicus. It 
 is not probable either that Tacitus, with his mastery of per- 
 suasive artifice, overlooked the effectiveness of placing in close 
 juxtaposition the malicious outworkings of the "aversa patrui 
 voluntas" and further evidence for the "impensius pro Tiberio 
 niti" noted in I. 34. Tacitus makes no effort here to conceal 
 the fact that it is his own opinion that he records. It is simply 
 and directly stated, and contains a synopsis of the plot, which, 
 as he believes, was afterwards carried out by Tiberius so 
 
 ** The death of Germanicus. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 41 
 
 successfully. If no other proofs of the conviction of Tacitus 
 were added, by the one word "dolo" he brands Tiberius with 
 guilty complicity in the death of Germanicus, a complicity more 
 base because long-studied and deliberate. But further proofs 
 are not lacking, both openly and covertly presented: and not 
 the weakest indication of his belief is the growth of a like feeling 
 in the mind of one, who, abandoning himself to the spell of 
 the author, reads without reflection. A closer reasoner might 
 suggest awkward questions, and point to inconsistencies in the 
 characteristics of Tiberius, hard to reconcile. 
 
 In due accordance with the design sketched in II. 5, Ger- 
 manicus is recalled from Germany, and further developments 
 are related in II. 43, where Tacitus avails himself of the Oratio 
 Obliqua to represent in the Emperor's own words the first 
 steps taken. 
 
 Ann. II. 43, I. Igitur haec et de Armenia quae supra memoravi 
 apud patris disseruit, nee posse motum Orientem nisi Germanici 
 sapientia componi nam suam aetatem vergere, Drusi nondum satis 
 adolevisse. 
 
 If we place beside this passage a sentence from 11. 26, where 
 Tiberius is quoted as commenting invidiously on the strategic 
 powers of Germanicus by contrasting with the methods used 
 by the Caesar in Gaul Tiberius' own former achievements, we 
 can best appreciate the insinuation conveyed in the words 
 cited above. 
 
 Ann. II. 26. se noviens a divo Augusto in Germaniam missum, 
 plura consiliis quam vi perfecisse. 
 
 The use of sapientia in II. 43, after the reflection in the earlier 
 passage is a sarcastic comment on the phrase, "Drusi nondum 
 satis adolevisse," for, as we remember, Germanicus was but 
 two years the senior of Drusus. Under the guise of. praise and 
 reward, Germanicus is despatched to his death. With a sedy 
 whose suggestive adversative force cannot be overestimated 
 to meet the requirements of the historian's implication, the 
 Emperor's next move is introduced, the substitution of Cn. 
 
42 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 Piso for Creticus Silanus as legate of Syria. The phrsaes that 
 characterize or comment on the individualities of these men, 
 apparently the ordinary asides that history permits on the 
 admission of a new personage of even slight importance, are 
 in this connection charged with sinister significance for the 
 motives that prompted the change. 
 
 Sed Tiberius demoverat Suria Creticum Silanum, per adfinitatem 
 conexum Germanico, quia Silani filia Neroni vetustissimo liberorum 
 eius pacta erat, praefeceratque Cn. Pisonem, ingenio violentum et 
 obsequi ignarum, insita ferocia. . . . 
 
 Confirmation of these dark suspicions is supplied by Piso's 
 own judgment, "nee dubium se habebat delectum, qui Suriae 
 imponeretur ad spes Germanic! coercendas;" still another link 
 in the chain of evidence against Tiberius is the hint of opinion 
 prevalent at the time, 
 
 Ann., II. 43. Credidere quidam data et a Tiberio occulta 
 mandata, 
 
 and the implication of Livia in the cruel secret, 
 
 et Plancinam haud dubio Augusta monuit aemulatione muliebri 
 Agrippinam insectando. 
 
 The clause introduced by nam which follows makes plausible 
 the facts just stated by relating the private feeling in the 
 Emperor's household. The "mandata" mentioned above are 
 plainly hinted at again in chapter 55: 
 
 At Cn. Piso, quo properantius destinata inciperet. 
 
 Again in III. 16, the existence of such instructions is supported 
 by a discreetly impersonal statement under the guise of perfect 
 impartiality and the strictest regard for historical accuracy. 
 
 Audire me memini ex senioribus visum saepius inter manus 
 Pisonis libellum, quem ipse non vulgaverit; sed amicos eius dictita- 
 visse, litteras Tiberi et mandata in Germanicum contineri, et 
 destinatum promere apud patres principemque arguere ni elusus a 
 Seiano per vana promissa fore; nee ilium sponte extinctum, verum 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 43 
 
 immlsso percussore. Quorum neutrum adseveraverim; neque 
 tamen occulere debui narratum ab iis, qui nostram ad inventutem 
 duraverunt. 
 
 In the words of the dying Germanicus, another allusion to the 
 same subject is found in II. 71, 7: "fingentibusque scelesta 
 mandata aut non credent hominus aut non ignoscent." Here 
 "fingentibus" and the epithet "scelesta" are in keeping with 
 the loyal belief of Germanicus; and yet the last words, "aut non 
 excusent" leave room even in his mind for doubt. A speech 
 reported to be from the lips of Domitius Celer offers assurance 
 to Piso in the following words. 
 
 II. 'J1, 6. est tibi Augustae conscientia, est Caesaris favor, sed 
 in occulta; et perisse Germanicum nuUi iactantius maerent quam qui 
 maxime laetantur. 
 
 This speech, from its rhetorical color and diction, may safely 
 be considered as a Tacitean invention. Public sentiment also 
 at the funeral rites of Germanicus recognizes this suspicion, 
 II. 73. "suorum insidiis externas inter gentes occidisse." 
 
 From the passages quoted it will be seen that in the pres- 
 entation of this one bit of evidence against Tiberius and Livia, 
 Tacitus exhausted every source of indirect information: the 
 belief in actual instructions to Piso current at the time of his 
 appointment over Syria (chapter 43); the knowing talk of old 
 men, survivors of that time, heard by Tacitus himself (III. 16); 
 the allusions more or less definite of Piso's friends (III. 16; 
 II. 77, 6); opinion general at Antioch when the death of 
 Germanicus was the one absorbing topic (II. 73, 3); the 
 significant words wrung from the lips of the dying hero, 
 despite his fidelity to his adoptive father (II. 11). Nowhere 
 perhaps does Tacitus give a more masterly proof of the art 
 that conceals art than in his treatment of this one detail of the 
 Germanicus narrative. Only once (chapter 55) do we find 
 a trace of the author's personal view; and yet testimony for the 
 existence of such damning evidence against Tiberius is found 
 in most insidious form on every page. 
 
44 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 The intricate and exhaustive presentation of this point is 
 another instance of the keenly logical insight of Tacitus. Docu- 
 ments that contained instructions which might be construed as 
 boding ill to Germanicus were the only possible proofs of the 
 complicity of the Emperor in the crime of Piso, if crime there 
 were. The death of Piso, by his own hand, related as a simple 
 historical fact (III. 15), or, as suggested in immediate sequence 
 (III. 16), by an emissary from the palace, a report originating 
 among his intimates, who, if any one, would know the truth, 
 and his silence before that time, removed all possibility of 
 adducing verbal testimony. In matters of such public note 
 as a trial in the senate, the insinuations of even a Tacitus could 
 find no place. Matter capable of being construed for his 
 purpose lacking, the historian must content himself with 
 developing his proofs from a source not so well known or whose 
 very nature allows surmise of its suppression. The only phrase 
 in Piso's farewell letter to Tiberius which could apply to the 
 point under consideration is designedly ambiguous (III. 16) — 
 "deos immortales testor, vixisse me, Caesar, cum fide adversum 
 te neque alia in matrem tuam pietate," words which might be 
 interpreted as a general phrase, or charged with strong sig- 
 nificance to one in the secret. The presumptions offered by 
 Tacitus in favor of the existence of such "mandata" far out- 
 weigh the negative argument to the contrary, lying in the fact 
 that no such papers ever came to light. Whatever be its legal 
 status, inference in such cases is stronger than actuality for 
 producing opinion, Tacitus could not reverse the verdict of 
 existing records, such as a decree of the senate; but by instilling 
 belief in the possibility of evidence suppressed or destroyed he 
 could influence the decision of the ages yet to come against the 
 Emperor whom he hated. Given proof of collusion between 
 Tiberius and Piso, and Piso involved in the death of Ger- 
 manicus, the case against Tiberius is complete. 
 
 The process of inducing the belief that Germanicus met his 
 death through poison, administered at the instigation of Piso, 
 is pursued in the same insidious manner. Germanicus himself 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 45 
 
 believed implicitly in the guilt of Piso; we have specific state- 
 ments to that eiTect, first in the form of a generally accepted 
 historical fact, which the historian records as a matter of course 
 (11. 69, saevam vim morbi augebat persuasio veneni a Pisone 
 accepti); again in the indirect discourse, carrying with it the 
 stronger appeal to credence that personality imparts. The 
 messengers sent by Piso are looked upon as spies who would 
 pry into the sick man's state with a view to evil symptom 
 (II. 69, ut valetudinis adversa rimantes) and elicits from 
 Germanicus expressions of indignation (II. 70, . . . lenta 
 videri veneficia; festinare et urguere ut legiones solus habeat. 
 Sed non usque eo defectum Germanicum neque praemia caedis 
 apud interfectorem mansura); his death is a murder (caedis) 
 and Piso is the murderer (interfector). Again in the speech 
 made by Germanicus when the end approached, Piso is branded 
 as his destroyer (II. 71, . . . ; nunc scelere Pisonis et Plan- 
 cinae interceptus; referatis patri ac fratri, quibus acerbitatibus 
 dilaceratus, quibus insidiis circumventus miserrimam vitam 
 pessima morte finierim). That the belief that he was poisoned 
 was shared in by the friends of Germanicus is shown by the 
 language used in describing the cremation of the body at 
 Antioch; although actual results left the question open (II. 
 73, . . . praetulent ne veneficii signa, parum constitit, nam ut 
 quis misericordia in Germanicum et praesumpta suspicione aut 
 favore in Pisonem pronior, diversi, interpretabantur). The 
 demand made by Vitellius and Veranius for Martina, famed for 
 her skill in poisons, assert the belief of these friends of the 
 deceased Germanicus in the theory that he was poisoned (11. 
 74,2^ . . . ). This woman Martina, to whose name is attached 
 a phrase, apparently careless, but in reality full of meaning 
 (Plancinae percaram) afterwards died under circumstances 
 
 25 Infamem veneficiis ea in provincia et Plancinae percaram, nomine Martinam in 
 urbem misit, postulantibus Vitellio ac Veranio ceterisque. Cf. the accusations made 
 by the same friends of Germanicus, III. 13, where the substance of the speech made by 
 Vitellius (multa eloquentia Vitelli) is produced in Oratio Obliqua, sacra hinc et immo- 
 lationibus nefandas ipsius (Piso) atque Plancinae, . . . Postremo ipsum (Germanicus) 
 devotionibus et veneno peremisse. 
 
46 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 which throw a strong light upon the impartial statements of 
 Tacitus as to the presence of poison in the body of Germanicus 
 (III. 7, . . . Vulgatam erat missam, ut dixi, a Cn. Sentio 
 famosam veneficiis subita morte Brundisii extinctam, vene- 
 numque nodo crimium eius occultatum, nee ilia in corpore signa 
 sumpti exitii reperta). If the poison left no traces in this case 
 (and suicide by poison is the inference) what need was there 
 to prove its presence in the body of Germanicus? A carefully 
 laid train of circumstantial evidence brings the responsibility 
 home to Piso in another way. Martina, his instrument, was 
 removed (subita morte) before he returned to Rome (III. 
 7, . . . subdola mora scelerum probationes subverteret) ; 
 recourse to magical arts, closely connected with the name of the 
 veneficariae is reported in suggestive relation to the acts of 
 Piso. 
 
 II. 69. Et reperiebantur solo ac parietibus erutae humanorum 
 corporum reliquiae, carmina et devotiones et nomen Germanici 
 plumbeis tabulis insculptum, semusti cineres ac tabo obliti aliaque 
 malifica, quis creditur animas manibus infernis sacrari.^® 
 
 The death-bed speech of Germanicus (II. 71), from which 
 extracts have already been given, is a purely rhetorical bit of 
 writing; but the passages cited above are evidence of the 
 historian's power of adapting such material to the ends of 
 indirect delineation. The parting injunctions to Agrippina 
 convey hidden but unmistakable reference to Tiberius (II. 
 72, . . . neu regressa in urbem aemulatione potentiae validi- 
 ores inritaret) even without the sentence that follows, "haec 
 palam, alia secreto, per quae ostendere credebatur metum ex 
 Tiberio;" even in the fair mind of Germanicus, according 
 to the conjectures of his friends, based upon his dying words 
 and actions, lay the dark foreboding of evil intent from Tiberius 
 toward himself and his. Other points in this speech are 
 better noted in connection with the narrative of Julian's story 
 in Ammianus. 
 
 ^ Cf. III. 13, devotionibus et veneno peremisse; sacra hinc et immolationes nefandas. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 47 
 
 The part of the Germanicus story which deals with the 
 funeral rites and attendant circumstances is indisputably 
 reproduced from a laudatio funebris; a form of literature that 
 by this time had come to conform closely to the rules of 
 rhetoric, so much so that in it the formal theory of the en- 
 comium was followed as a matter of course. A comparison of 
 the Laudationes of Germanicus, as found in Dio Cassius 
 (LVII. i8), Suetonius (Cal., 3 ff.), and Tacitus (Ann., II. 72), 
 make a common source obvious; the biographer has reproduced 
 it in greater detail, as befits his literary theory; the historians 
 have dealt with it more succinctly, each in his characteristic 
 method. 
 
 The Tacitean treatment, although as highly encomiastic in 
 its effect as that of either Dio or Suetonius, conforms punctili- 
 ously to the requirements of the code that governs histori- 
 ography. As far as the tottoi of the encomium are concerned, 
 Tacitus carefully chooses only such as would throw light on 
 contemporary or succeeding historical events, the family life 
 of Germanicus, his character, achievements, fate. He dwells 
 most forcibly on the second, for it was by this, if at all, that 
 Germanicus must have influenced the course of history. Of 
 details of his physical appearance, possessions, favorite pur- 
 suits, our author gives us nothing, for these lie wholly within 
 the realm of biography, and are extraneous to history. But it 
 is not the careful culling out of biographical material that 
 distinguishes the Tacitean form of this laudatio; Dio Cassius 
 has adopted an equally critical view of that point. The 
 reconciliation of the introduction of any purely encomiastic 
 passages into a work avowedly historical, both in form and 
 aim, is the delicate problem of literary discrimination, ignored 
 by Dio Cassius, but solved by the Latin historian with admir- 
 able success. Public feeling is an essential part of history; the 
 attitude of the court, the mob, the world at large as known at 
 the epoch whose events are recorded, the judgment or surmises 
 of friends or enemies of contemporaries or the immediately 
 succeeding generation — the faithful setting down of all of these 
 
48 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 falls to the historian, and it is by means of this recognized 
 function of historiography, that Tacitus contrives to insert 
 material for panegyric without apparent violation of his own 
 literary theory, and without breaking the continuity of the 
 historical narrative. By throwing his encomium of Ger- 
 manicus into the indirect discourse, he differentiates its use from 
 a biographical characteristic to a legitimate instrument of 
 historiography. That all the necessary tottol are preserved 
 will be seen by introduction of the text. No Trpoofifj^iov is 
 needed in an historical narrative, and the 7eVo9 has already 
 been given (I. 33); avarpocf)')] would not come within the scope 
 of history, belonging to a period previous to that of his appear- 
 ance as a public personage. We should expect, as stated above, 
 an emphasizing of character through the Tr/aa^et?, and such is 
 the case. 
 
 The first motif for the introduction of a laudatory theme is 
 found in the widespread sorrow at the death of Germanicus 
 (II. 72). 
 
 Neque multo post extinguitur, ingenti luctu provinciae et cir- 
 cumiacentium populorum; indoluere externae nationes regesque. 
 
 This magnifies his memory by showing the esteem in which 
 he was held abroad, and an elaboration of the reasons follows 
 almost as a matter of course in point of fact, it might have been 
 almost as a matter of course. In point of fact, it might have 
 been written In the oratio obllqua, so naturally does It seem to 
 express the thoughts of those mentioned in the context. 
 
 II. 72. tanta illi comitas in socios, mansuetudo in hostis; 
 visuque et auditu iuxta venerabilis, cum magnitudineni et gravi- 
 tatem summae fortunae retineret, invidiam et adrogantiam effugerat. 
 
 The qualities dwelt upon in this extract come obviously 
 under the head of 'n-pd^eif el<i aperaf 8iT]pr}iJieva<i. Cic. de Or., 
 II. 84, 343, enumerates comitas and mansuetudo (dementia) 
 among other qualities calling for praise: 
 
 Sunt enim aliae virtutes quae videntur in moribus homlnum, et 
 quadam comitate ac beneficentia positae . . . Nam dementia^ 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 49 
 
 iustitia, benignitas fides, fortitudo in periculis communibus incunda 
 est auditu in laudationibus. 
 
 A further comment from Cicero is illuminating for the encomi- 
 astic significance of "cum magnitudinem et gravitatem 
 summae fortunae retineret invidiam et adrogantiam aifugerat." 
 
 De Or., II. 84, 342. quod ipsa virtus in earum rerum {i. e., bona 
 quae fortuna dat) usu ac moderatione maxime cernitur, tractanda 
 in laudationibus etiam haec sunt naturae et fortunae bona, in quibus 
 est summa laus; non exiulisse se in potestate, non fuisse insolentem in 
 pecunia, non se praetulisse aliis propter abundantiam fortunae, ut 
 opes et copiae non superbiae videantur ac lihidini, sed bonitati ac 
 moderationem facultatem et materiam dedisse}"^ 
 
 This apparently simple statement of facts referring to the 
 deep grief felt for the fate of Germanicus lies quite within the 
 scope of an historical work, and reflecting as it does a general 
 sentiment, is not colored by the personality of the author. 
 The introduction of further and more rhetorically laudatory 
 matter, such as follows in chapter 73, must necessarily, aside 
 from artistic incongruities, lay the historian open to the charge 
 of partiality. It is to avoid both possibilities, that Tacitus 
 has cast this matter, as before noted, in the oratio obliqua; its 
 laudatory character is frankly acknowledged, since the form 
 of presentation, devoid of personal suggestion however encomi- 
 astic be the tone or feeling, bars all possible criticism of the 
 author's position. 
 
 II. 73. Funus sine imaginibus et pompa per laudes ac memoriam 
 virtutum eius celebre fuit. 
 
 Then follows the passage whose topics reflect most clearly the 
 laudatio, which was its source. 
 
 Et erant, qui formam, aetatem, genus mortis ob propinquitatem 
 etiam locorum, in quibus interiit, magni Alexandri fatis adae- 
 quarent, nam utrumque corpore decoro, haud multum triginta annos 
 egressum, suorum insidiis externas inter gentes occidisse; sed hunc 
 mitem erga amicos, modicum voluptatum, uno matrimonia, certis 
 " Cf. Amm., XXI. 16, 14; Isoc. Panath, 31 ff., especially 32. 
 
50 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 libertls egisse, neque minus proeliatorem; etiam si temeritas afuerlt, 
 praepeditusque sit perculsas tot victoriis Germanias servitio 
 premere. Quod si solus arbiter rerum, si iure et nomine regio 
 fuisset, tanto promptius adsecuturum gloriam militiae, quantum 
 dementia, temperantia ceteris bonis artibus praestitisset. 
 
 The correspondence of the points in this passage to the tottol of 
 the ^acriXiKo<i \6<yo^ is too obvious to require specific detail; 
 we would call attention to the avyKpLmf with Alexander, a 
 character constantly referred to as a model monarch by the 
 writers of encomia. Extant panegyrics show that this king 
 was an example that had done good service also in Roman 
 laudatory literature. The circumstances of the death of 
 Germanicus, as instanced in the text, make the comparison a 
 natural one, and the emphasis of similarity of condition is used 
 with great artistic effect to throw out the contrast of character. 
 Germanicus was gentle, temperate, chaste — characteristics 
 .to which the well-known faults of Alexander lend a suitable 
 relief. He was yet no less a warrior, but without the rash and 
 inconsiderate spirit of a tyrant. The invidious term, "temer- 
 itas," embodying the Roman criticism of an Alexander, 
 deflects still more the balance of comparison in favor of Ger- 
 manicus. The last sentence (quod si solus . . .) seems to 
 have some correspondence to the iiriXoyo^; of the encomium, 
 in that it presents in summary fashion the strongest qualities 
 of the subject, into which an appreciation of possibilities 
 neutralized by conditions enters. This element, with its 
 prophetic perspective, possibly supplies the place of the apos- 
 trophe to a dead hero which was the general conclusion of the 
 epilogue, and thus completes the list of encomiastic topics as 
 formulated by the rhetoricians for this branch of epideictic 
 literature. 
 
 The utilization of a people's grief as an instrument of praise 
 for the dead is found again in the beginning of Book III, where 
 the scene is Rome. There is much amplification of detail; the 
 merits of Germanicus must be extolled by the expression of 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 5I 
 
 sorrow and regard felt by a whole people. There was no affec- 
 tation of regret (III. 2, . . . quippe aberat adulatio), and the 
 clause of explanation that follows imputes to the Roman 
 public the author's own power of searching hearts and judging 
 motives (gnaris omnibus lactam Tiberio Germanici mortem 
 male dissimulari). Thus amidst the description of the mourn- 
 ing of the city Tacitus skilfully inserts an artifice to increase 
 the odium already directed against Tiberius. Further contri- 
 butions to the same effect are found in chapter 3, containing 
 the account of the course pursued by the Emperor and his 
 mother (Tiberius atque Augusta publico abstinuere), for 
 which with apparent impartiality two supposititious causes are 
 offered, one fair, the other adverse (inferius maiestate sua rati, 
 si palam lamentatentur, an ne omnium oculis vultum eorum 
 scrutantibus falsi intellegerentur) ; to the same purpose is 
 the suggestion of coercion brought to bear upon the aged 
 Antonia, whose absence from the scene of mourning was also 
 matter of note (crediderim Tiberio et Augusta, qui domo non 
 excedebant, cohibitam ut par maeror et matris exemplo avia 
 quoque et patrius attineri viderentur). Of analogous tendency 
 too is the cehsure of Tiberius implied in the contrast noted by 
 men between the honors paid to Drusus by Augustus and the 
 last rites of Germanicus. 
 
 III. 5. Fuere qui publici funeris pompa requirerent com- 
 pararentque quae in Drusum patrem Germanici honora et magnifica 
 Augustus fecisset. 
 
 Their language is reported in vivid rhetoric, with considerable 
 dwelling on detail; probable excuses for the discrepancy are 
 anticipated and deprecated. 
 
 Tiberius's suppression of further lament and comment, while 
 serving the purely historical purpose of showing his attitude, 
 is employed by Tacitus with consummate skill to add testi- 
 mony to the esteem in which Germanicus was held by the , 
 Romans. 
 
52 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 III. 6, . . . multos inlustrium Romanorum ob rem publicam 
 obisse, ^^ neminem tarn flagranti desiderio celebratum. 
 
 Thus does the one whom Tacitus would have us look upon as 
 the worst foe of the dead hero pay homage to his memory. 
 
 The death of Julian described in Book XXV of Ammianus's 
 Histories, although differing widely in circumstances from that 
 of Germanicus, has received at the hands of Ammianus a treat- 
 ment recalling in some of its features the Tacitean record 
 which has just been under consideration. 
 
 An oracle presages the death of Germanicus (II. 54) at Colo- 
 phon. 
 
 Et ferebatur per ambages, ut mos oraculis, maturum exitium 
 cecinisse. 
 
 The genius publicus, seen by Julian at his elevation to the 
 throne, appears to him again during the night previous to his 
 last battle. 
 
 Am. XXV. 2, 3. ipse autem ad sollicitatam suspensamque 
 quietem paulisper protractus cum somno, ut solebat, depulso, ad 
 aemulationem Caesaris lulii quaedam sub pellibus scribens obscuro 
 noctis altitudine, sensus cuiusdam philosophi teneretur, vidit 
 squalidius ut confessus est proximis, speciem illam Genii publici, 
 quam, cum ad Augustum surgeret culmen, conspexit in Galliis, 
 velata cum capite Cornucopia per aulaea tristius discedentem. 
 
 Scorning alarm, Julian offers supplication to the gods, and then 
 beholds a celestial portent, 
 
 XXV. 2, 4. flagrantissimam facem cadenti similem visam, aeris 
 parte sulcata, evanuisse existimavit. 
 
 This is interpreted by Etruscan haruspices as boding ill fortune 
 in the coming battle. The Emperor disregards the omen, and 
 at daybreak marches against the enemy. He is fatally 
 wounded in the first onset, is carried to his tent and there dies. 
 We have considered the deathbed speech of Germanicus; 
 
 *' An implied ffiyKpuns of sweeping force. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. §3 
 
 a like feature Is found in Ammianus, and the phrases of the 
 setting in the two passages form appropriate parallels. 
 
 Ann., II. 71, I. Adsistentes amicos in hunc modum adloquitur. 
 Am., XXV. 3, 15. Julianus, in tabernaculo iacens circumstante 
 adlocutus est demissos et tristes. 
 
 Each in his dying speech refers to his premature death, Ger- 
 manicus with sorrow and indignation, Julian as becomes the 
 philosopher (haec placide dicta 21). 
 
 Ann., II. 71. iustus mihi dolor etiam adversus deos esset quod 
 me parentibus, liberis patriae infra inventam praematuro exitu 
 raperent. 
 
 A reference to military renown is included in "quondam 
 florentem et tot bellorum superstitem." 
 
 The corresponding passage in Ammianus would suggest to 
 the attentive and reflective reader almost a comparison with 
 the fate of Germanicus. 
 
 Amm., XXV. 3, 19. Ideoque sempiternum veneror numen quod 
 non clandestinis insidiis nee longa morborum asperitate sed in medio 
 cursu florentium gloriarum hunc merui clarum e mundo digressum. 
 
 With these points resemblance between the speeches ceases; 
 basing conclusions on the similarities noted, it is not unreason- 
 able to say that Ammianus had the Tacitean passage in mind; 
 the diametrically opposed circumstances precluded further 
 coincidence in outward treatment. Each speech has duality 
 of intention suited to the exigencies of the setting, and each 
 is equally a product of rhetoric.^^ In the interpretation of a 
 common truism men's dying utterances reveal the truth and 
 command belief; therefore to the obsession of their last words 
 the human mind is most open. Both historians have taken 
 advantage of this maxim of humanity, and, in each case, that 
 which seems a clear glass, through which shines the feelings and 
 personality of the speaker is, in reality, but a mirror, reflecting 
 
 '^ Whatever be the conclusions of editorial authority on the authenticity of such 
 speeches in Ammianus, this one certainly reads as if made to order. 
 
54 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 the author's own conception of the truth. The Tacitean speech 
 does not characterize; after so much characterization in the 
 past, addition here would be needless; its twofold object was 
 to stir sympathy for Germanicus and suspicion against Tiberius. 
 Ammianus, without prejudice against superfluity, wished in 
 the speech which he gives to glorify Julian both as Emperor 
 and philosopher; or it might be said, he here interprets, in 
 Julian's own words, the character which it has been his aim to 
 reveal by actions and glorify by comment in the preceding 
 narrative. The whole tone of the speech, as well as specific 
 passages, serve to impress the calm high philosophy of the 
 dying Emperor. 
 
 The introduction of passages from the speech itself will best 
 show this. 
 
 Amm., XXV. 3, 15. Advenit, a socii, nunc abeundi tempus e 
 vita impendio tempestivum, quam reposcenti naturae, ut debitor 
 bonae lidei redditurus exulto, non, ut quidam opinantur, adflictus 
 et maerens, philosophorum sententia generali perdoctus, quantum 
 corpore sit beatior animus, et contemplans, quotiens condicio melior 
 a deteriore secernitur, laetandum esse potius quam dolendum, illud 
 quoque advertens quod etiam dii caelestes quibusdam piissimis, 
 mortem tanquam summum praemium persolverunt. 
 
 The modest tone of the next sentence is a very artistic touch. 
 
 XXV. 3, 16. Munus autem id mihi delatum optime scio, ne diffi- 
 cultatibus succumberem, arduis, neve me proviciam unquam aut 
 prosternam expertus quod dolores omens ut insultant ignavis, ita 
 persistentibus cadunt. 
 
 Thus does Ammianus make effort to offset and prevent the 
 possibly prejudicial effect of the arrogantly virtuous summary 
 of Julian's life that follows. 
 
 Nee me gestorum paenitet, aut gravis flagitu recordatio stringit, 
 vel cum in umbra et angulis amendarer, vel post principatum 
 susceptum, quem tanquam a cognatione caelitum defluentem 
 immaculatum, ut existimo, conservavi, et civilia moderatius regens, 
 exanimatis rationibus bella inferens, et repellens, tametsi pro- 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 55 
 
 speritas simul utilitasque consultorum non ubique concordent, 
 quoniam coeptorum eventus superae sibi vindicant potestates, 
 reputans autem iusti esse finem imperi obcedientium commodum et 
 salutem, ad tranquilliora semper, ut nostis, propensior fui, licentiam 
 omnem actibus meis exterminans, rerum corrupticem et morum, 
 gaudensque abeo gestiensque ubicumque me velut imperiosa parens, 
 consideratis periculis, obiecit res publica, steti fundatus, turbines 
 calcare fortuitorum adsuefactus. 
 
 Another characteristically philosophic passage is found near 
 the close. 
 
 (19) Aequo enim iudicio iuxta timidus est et ignavus qui, cum non 
 oportet, mori desiderat et qui refugiat cum sit opportunum. 
 
 The concluding passage breathes forth the highest feelings of 
 moderation and patriotism. 
 
 (20) Super imperatore vero creando caute reticeo ne per impru- 
 dentiam dignum praeteream, aut nominatum quem habilem reor, 
 anteposito forsitan alio, in discrimen ultimum trudam, ut alumnus 
 autem rei publicae frugi, opto bonum post me reperiri rectorem. 
 
 The intention of the speech as regards the glorification of 
 Julian's philosophy, and incidentally, by the summarization of 
 his life and virtues, his royal career, is obvious enough. Con- 
 spicuous is the continuance of the first theme in the remaining 
 divisions of chapter 3 (21-23). The lofty soul of the phi- 
 losopher regarded death with calm disdain; but Julian, the 
 tender friend, weeps for the fate of another (acriterque amici 
 casum ingemuit qui elate ante contempserat suum). He 
 gently chides his weeping friends, and enters into a discussion 
 on the sublimity of the soul with intricate logic, and thus en- 
 gaged, passes away (vita facilius est absolutus). It is evident 
 that, up to this point, the historian is animated by the strongest 
 desire to depict through words and actions the lofty and sus- 
 tained spirit of the dying Julian, personal comment being so 
 rare as to form a marked contrast to the author's well-known 
 practice. 
 
 A noticeable shift in theory follows; for with the words, vita 
 
56 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 facillus est absolutus, Ammlanus glides Into an open laudatlo 
 funebris, so closely adhering to the most rhetorical type, that 
 it might have been delivered over the Emperor's dead body 
 almost without alteration. Such elogla are a characteristic 
 feature of the History of Ammianus. He introduces them at 
 the death of each prominent personage; they seem to represent 
 to him the final stamp of the translation of these from private 
 individuals into the universality of history. Incongruous as 
 these elogia seem with the annalistic form chosen by him for 
 his work, they do not surprise, for the reader of Ammianus 
 cannot fail to be impressed with the elasticity of the author's 
 theory of historiography, if indeed any such was ever formu- 
 lated even in his own mind. His own nature, incurably sub- 
 jective, led him to epideictic methods; wherever he restrained 
 his inclinations in that direction, and adopted less obvious 
 means of portraiture, there seems to have been a strong 
 Taciteari reminiscence working upon him. Here, at least, 
 his admiration for the hero Emperor so far overbalanced that 
 felt for the historian, that all regard for historical theory is 
 flung to the winds, and Ammianus becomes a panegyrist pure 
 and simple. The incongruity of this has been already noted; 
 one feels the transition from the attempt at characterization 
 through the last words and actions of the Emperor to this 
 rhetorical laudatlo as almost absurd. Its presence is noted like 
 a patch upon a fair garment. Compare with its bald insertion 
 the laudatio of Germanicus, so artfully interwoven by Tacitus 
 into his narrative that we receive it as a bit of history. In 
 Ammianus the laudatio is a biography in brief, a detached 
 passage of absolutely personal information concerning Julian, 
 and could be removed in entirety without affecting in the 
 slightest degree the record of historical events. 
 
 This will best be shown by a presentation of the text. 
 
 XXV. 3, 23. Quibus ideo iam silentibus (i. e., the weeping friends 
 by the bedside) ipse cum Maximo et Prisco philosophis super 
 animorum sublimitate perplexius disputans, hiante latius suifossi 
 lateris vulnere, et spiritum tumore cohibente venarum, epota 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 57 
 
 gelida aqua, quam petiit medio noctis horrore, vita facilius est 
 absolutus anno aetatis altero et tricesimo, natur apud Constanti- 
 nopolim, a pueritia usque parentis obitu destitutus Constant!, quem 
 post fratis Constantini excessum inter Complures alios turba 
 consumpsit imperii successorum, et Basilina matre, iam inde a 
 maioribus nobili. 
 
 The encomium passage begins in most obvious fashion with 
 the words "anno aetatis," continuing through the remaining 
 part of 3 and all of 4. Chapter 5 opens as follows : 
 
 Nee fuit post hec lamentis aut fletibus locus. Corpore enim 
 curato pro copia rerum et temporis, ut ubi ipse olim statuerat, 
 conderetur, principio lucis secutae, quae erat quintum Kalendas 
 lulias, hostibus ex omni latere circumfusis, coUecti duces exercitus, 
 advocatisque legionum principiis et turmarum, super creando 
 principe consultabant. 
 
 It is evident that the placing of chapter 5 immediately after 
 the words "vita facilius est absolutus" renders the historical 
 sequence perfect, and leaves nothing to be desired in the con- 
 tinuity of events. 
 
 The intervening passage is a /3ao-tXt/<;o9 Xo'709, conforming 
 to the strictest rhetorical rules. No proem is found here, as 
 that has been already given (XVI. 3). The yevo^ therefore is 
 entered upon immediately, a topic universally given by 
 rhetoricians as the second heading under encomium. Accord- 
 ing to Apthonius,^^ this division may embrace four topics, 
 eOvoi;, 7raT/3t9, irpoyovot, irarepef. Ammianus has in this case 
 touched on all, and dwells especially on the evyeveta (iam inde 
 a maioribus nobili). The early training (avarpo^-^) of his hero 
 is also omitted, save by indirect reference, since much has been 
 already said on the subject in previous passages. A sweeping 
 laudation of Julian in general (XXV. 4, i. Vir profecto 
 heroicis connumerandus, ingeniis, claritudine rerum coalita 
 maiestate conspicuus) is followed by a presentation of his 
 deeds from the point of view of aperai, a classification formal- 
 ized by Ammianus himself, 
 
 32 Sp. III. 371, 27 ff- 
 
58 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 XXV. 4, I. cum enim sint, ut sapientes definiuut, virtutes 
 quattuor praecipuae, temperantia, prudentia, iustitia, fortitudo, 
 eisque accedentes extrinsecus aliae, scientia rei militarise auctoritaSy 
 felicitas atque liberalitas, intento studio coluit omnes ut singulas.'^ 
 
 These additional items to the Socratic virtues are, it will be 
 remembered, found also in Cicero's praise of Pompey (Pro 
 Imperio 28). "Fortuna" finds an admirable explanation from 
 the Roman point of view in Cic. de Or., II. 85, 347.^^ 
 
 Neque tamen ilia non ornant, habiti honores, decreta virtutis 
 praemia res gestae iudiciis hominum comprobatae; in quibus etiam 
 felicitatem ipsam deorum immortalium iudicio tribui laudationis est. 
 
 LIberalitas is an outworking of the virtue ^iXavdpcoTria^ added 
 in Greek encomium either as a separate virtue, or a combi- 
 nation of all virtues. 
 
 To review briefly the passage under the author's own 
 categories, we have first (5, 6) the facts praised under the head 
 of temperantia, of which he makes castitas a second division 
 (2, 3) while temperantia In general Is treated In 4, 5, 6. Julian's 
 moderation and self-denial, treated with rhetorical elaboration 
 and fullness of detail, receive final Impress from a poetic <Tv<yKpi(Tt<i^ 
 
 (6) Et si nocturna lumina inter quas lucubrabat potuissent voces 
 ullae testari, profecto ostenderant inter hunc et quosdam princlpes 
 multum interesse quern norant voluptatibus ne ad necessitatem 
 quidem indulslsse naturae." 
 
 A still more artificial working In of the same thought Is found 
 in the Actio Gratiarum luliano of Claudius Mamertinus 
 (Baehrens, XII. Panegyrlcl Latini, p. 254), where would-be 
 rulers of unholy memory are offered by Providence the power 
 
 ^ Ammianus repeats the name of each virtue at the opening of the passage devoted 
 to it, going back to first principles. Cf. the precepts of Menander (Sp. II. 372, 14 ff.)- 
 XPV Si yiyviiXTKeiv Kal tpvXaT'reiv rb irapdyyeXfm Sri Srav /jJWtjs inb Ke<pa\alov fjxrapalveiv 
 els Ke^dXaiov, del wpoifui^eaOai irepl oi jU^XXeu ^xf'P"'' ^''"^ irpoaeKTiKdv rbv a.Kp<Ta.Ti}v ipydorj 
 Kal n^ ^dj \av6dveiv fiijdi KXivTeffdai tQv Ke(Pa\aiuv ttjv ^■f)T'r)<nv. 
 
 ^ Menander (Sp. III. 376, 25) formally recognizes ti^x'? in Greek encomium. 
 fivTjfwvejiffeii 5^ //.erd. rovro rijs rixi)^, X^wc Sir (rvfiirapo/iapTeTv 5i (oiKeiv i<p Airaffi ko. 
 /jipd^eci Kal Xdyois ry /3a<riXe? ry fieydXtp t6xV Xafiirpa. 
 
 « Cf. XXIV. 4, 26, 27; XXV. 2, 2 ff. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 59 
 
 to reign as Emperor, under conditions such as concur with 
 Julian's life. 
 
 At nunc ultro vobis potestas regnandi datur ut ea quae lulianus 
 conditione regnetis, ut pro omnium otio die noctuque vigiletis, et 
 cum domini vocemini, libertati civium serviatis, saepius proelium 
 quam prandium capessatis, hihil unquam auferatis et ultro omnibus 
 largiamini, nulli gratificemini, in neminem saeviatis, toto in orbe 
 terrarum nullius virginis fama violetur, sit lectulus etiam sine 
 concessis et legitimis voluptatibus VestaHum toris purior, aestate 
 Alamannicum pulverem hieme pruinam Thraciae intectis verticibus 
 perferatis. 
 
 Julian's vigils and care for camp and soldiers are strong 
 material for encomium;^® labors for the sake of others are 
 especially noted for praise in Latin laudatio. 
 
 Cic. de Or. 85, 346. Gratissima autem laus eorum factorum 
 habetur, quae suscepta videntur a viris fortibus sine emolumento 
 ac praemio; quae vero etiam cum labore copiam ad laudandum 
 quod et dici ornatissime possunt, et audiri facillime. Ea enim 
 denique virtus est praestantis viri, quae est fructuosa alliis, ipsi aut 
 lahoriosa, aut periculosa, aut certe gratuita. 
 
 Evidences of prudentia (71) are so many that it will be 
 necessary to cite a few only; this paragraph is concise and anti- 
 thetical, contrasting favorably with the usual involved style 
 of Ammianus, and iustitia (8, 9) receives treatment of a 
 similar kind. 
 
 Fortitudo (10) is shown by deeds in war and endurance of 
 hardships. The use of ipse and suo {ipse trucem hostem ictu 
 confecit audacter congressus ac nostros cedentes obiecto 
 pectore suo aliquotiens cohibuit solus) recalls the injunction of 
 Menander (Sp. III. p. 374, 24). on auro? rjv 6 SiaTTaroyLiei/o?, 
 avT(K cTTpaTTjyaiv, auro? o rbv Kaipbv T'^? fioXrj^ evKfyiffKcov k. t. X.^^ 
 
 ^ Occasions where Ammianus emphasizes this quality are frequent. Cf. XXIV. 3, 
 9; 3, 11; XXIII. 5, 24 (here the praise is voiced by the army, nihil periculosum fore vel 
 arduum clamitabat sub imperatore plus sibi laboris quam gregariis indicente); XVII. 
 2, 3; I, 2. To these add Julian's speech to the soldiers, XX. 8, 6. 
 
 '^ Cf. Quint., III. 7, 16, gratiora esse audientibus quae solus aut primus aut certe 
 cum paucis fecisse dicetur. 
 
6o THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 Scientia rex militaris (ii) is declared from the outcome of 
 sieges and battle, skilful marshalling and encamping, in concise 
 summary. The presentation of these four heads, prudentia, 
 iustitia, fortitude, scientia rei militaris is in its very summar- 
 izing an instance of encomiastic theory; facts of universal 
 knowledge are thus to be presented; these deeds of Julian are 
 so well known and so manifold {prudentiae eius indicia vel 
 plurima . . . quibus autem iustitiae inclaruit bonis, multa 
 significant — Fortitudinem crebritas certaminum — Castrensium 
 negotiarum scientiam plura declarant et notd) that they need 
 no narration, merely comprehensive reference. 
 
 Auctoritas (12), a word which seems to have no single 
 equivalent in the Greek encomium, may possibly have attained 
 its position in the laudatio of the general (for it is here that it 
 seems to have its proper place) by transference of one of the 
 requirements laid down for the symboleutic orator, when ora- 
 tory came to be weighed as one of the factors that made 
 for military success. This is the r)6LKr} iria-Ttt of Aristotle 
 (Rhet., II. i) dependent on the (f>povr)ai^, aperr), evvoia of the 
 orator for its force on an audience. A Roman recognition is 
 given in Quintilian, III. 8, 48. 
 
 Multum refert etiam quae sit persona suadentis; quia anteacta 
 vita, si illustris fuit, aut clarius genus, aut aetas, aut fortuna affert 
 expectationem. . . . et quibusdam suificit auctoritas, quosdam 
 ratio ipsa aegre tuetur. 
 
 So III. 8, 12. Valet autem in consiliis auctoritas plurimum. 
 We find in Tacitus examples that are identical in meaning with 
 the above. 
 
 Germ. XI. auctoritate suadendi magis quam iubendi potestate. 
 Hist. I 45. Sed Othoni nondum auctoritas inerat ad prohib- 
 endum scelus; iubere iam poterat. 
 
 Ann. XV. multa auctoritate quae viro militari pro facundia erat. 
 .Auctoritas then is in this connection personal influence, 
 derived from the known deeds and character of the subject. 
 So Julian is both feared and loved; he is the associate of his 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 6 1 
 
 soldiers in the field, but the stern punisher of the laggard; 
 mutineers are quelled by a threat to leave them; especially 
 does the last instance given by Ammianus apply (13): 
 
 Denique id pro multis nosse sufficiet; exhortatum eum simplici 
 contione militem Gallicanum pruimis adsuetum et Rheno, pera- 
 gratis spatiis regionum extentis per tepentem Assyriam ad usque 
 confinia traxisse Medorum. 
 
 This is the auctoritas of Tacitus, "quae viro militari pro 
 faciundia erat;" the persuasive power of the soldier orator 
 whose wisdom, bravery, good-will have been proved in the 
 past. In this connection also we have the force of summari- 
 zation (id pro multis nosse sufficiet). 
 
 Felicitas (fortuna) (14) is treated with strongly encomiastic 
 amplification. 
 
 Felicitas ita eminuit ut ipsis quodammoda cervicibus Fortunae 
 aliquam diu bonae gubernatricis evectus victoriosis cursibus 
 difficultates superstaret immensas et postquam ex occidua plaga 
 digressus est, et quoad fuit in terris, quievere nationes omnes 
 immobiles ac si quodam caduceo leniente mundana. 
 
 Two noteworthy points of rhetorical tradition are the 
 emphasis laid on the hero's triumph over obstacles (difficul- 
 tates immensas), and the great Influence of his power (quoad 
 fuit in terris, quievere nationes omnes immobilis ac si quodam 
 caduceo leniente mundana). For the last, note the precept 
 of Menander (Sp. III. 377, 10 ff.) : eV Tourot? e/oet? . . . otl ov 
 SeSoiKUfxev fiap^dpovi ov TroXefiiou^i, 6')(ypoiTepov rot? ^aa-iXeayi 6Tr\oL<i 
 rerei'x^iafxeda rj roi? rei'yeaLV ai iroXea . . . avTol fxr) 7ro\€fiovvr€<i, 
 irapa Se rr)? ^aatXeoyi %€t/309 vifC(oar)^ Se^o/xevai. 
 
 Mamertinus speaks of Julian's good fortune in like extrava- 
 gant terms (Bachrens, p. 266, 6) : 
 
 Cuius unquam divinior felicitas fuit? Paulo ante a liberatis 
 Galliae provinciis lassus inimi — corum capitalium apertls armis et 
 occultis insidiis petebatur in pauculis mensibus divino munere 
 
SZ THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 Libyae, Europae Asiaeque regnator est. Quae maiora expecta- 
 bimus dei praemia? Quae uberiora dona Fortunae? 
 
 Here too the magnifying of difficulties adds to the effect. 
 
 Liheralitas (15) has proofs plurima et verissima. Justice 
 in remitting and exacting tribute {fwpiov 8e Trj<i (f)i\avdpco7ria<i 77 
 hiKaioavvr}^ Men., Sp. III. 374, 28) is emphasized among 
 the instances selected. Rhetorical precept covers this also 
 (Men., Sp. 375, 21: epel^ en irepi t(ov (j>6p(ov ov<i eirurraTreL . . . 
 Tov K00<f)(O9 Kul pdSiay; hvvaaOai ^epeiv Tois v7roK6ov<i) . Here is 
 also the implied comparison with former rulers (quos velut 
 iure vendidere praeteritae potestates), Ammianus using in 
 this passage the crv<yKpL(Tt.<; p.epLK'q^ wherever the figure is 
 employed. 
 
 We come now to a portion of the elogium which, although 
 seemingly inconsistent with the rules of Greek encomium as 
 laid down by the technicians, can be reconciled to the same 
 literary form when adapted to historical uses. More than 
 once does Ammianus vaunt his own truthfulness and non- 
 partisan attitude. Perhaps the statement made in XXX. 7, i, 
 in connection with the 6logium of Gratianus may be taken as 
 his generalized dictum on the subject. 
 
 Replicare nunc est opportunum, ut aliquotiens fecimus et ab 
 ortu primigenio patris huinsce principis ad usque ipsius obitum actus 
 eius discurrere per epilogos breves, nee vitiorum praetermisso 
 discrimine vel bonorum, quae potestatis amplitudo monstravit, 
 nudare solita semper animorum interna. 
 
 Such passages as the one with which we are now about to deal, 
 which presents the vitia of Julian (16-22), satisfy the historical 
 conscience embodied by Ammianus in the passage last quoted, 
 and reconcile the elogium with the impartial treatment claimed 
 for history. Frankly as the faults are admitted, wherever 
 modification is possible we find it. Julian is "levioris ingeni," 
 but this he corrected by most excellent training (verum hoc 
 instituto rectissimo temperabat). Unjust decrees are admitted 
 to be his work, but the highly laudatory prelude to the admis- 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 6^ 
 
 sion makes these laws insignificant exceptions (aestimari 
 poterat, ut ipse aiebat, vetus ilia lustitia, quam offensam 
 vitiis hominum Aratus extollit in caelum eo imperante redisse 
 rursus ad terras). 
 
 22 is devoted to describing his personal appearance, the 
 Kara aw/jba of the Greek rhetorician, the forma of the Roman 
 laudatio. The beauty and brilliancy of his eyes are often 
 mentioned in Ammianus. So too Claudius Mamertinus 
 (Baehr., p. 249) "micantia' sedereis ignibus lumina." Tdxo<i 
 and potifir), designated divisions of the topic Kara acofia^ find 
 representation in the phrase unde viribus valebat et cursu. 
 
 The remainder of this passage (23-27) deals with a criticism 
 of Julian made openly by his detractors, (23) Quoniam eum 
 obtrectatores novos bellorum tumultus ad perniciem rei com- 
 munis simulant concitasse. 
 
 This is clearly one of the avrideaeut to which rhetoricians 
 call attention, which could not be passed over and for which a 
 strong \vai<; must be offered by the encomiast. Ammianus 
 presents his defence of the censure quoted, in the form of a point 
 blank denial, the incontrovertible truth, as he tells us (docente 
 veritate perspicue). Constantius, not Julian, stirred up the 
 wars which have been laid to the charge of the latter. Basing 
 for encomiastic purposes his epilogue on this sweeping negative 
 statement, he skilfully employs the reference to gravely 
 questionable matter. Julian's career is notable not by the 
 agitation of wars, but by the bringing of them to a glorious 
 issue. His swift and brilliant conduct of the war in the Gauls 
 is reviewed with strong amplification (25); the Alps were no 
 longer a barrier of defense to Italy, so violent were the German 
 tribes; tears and terror were the lot of men; bitter remembrance 
 shared their minds with sadder expectation. In this dire 
 condition of affairs, sent as Caesar when but a youth, Julian 
 achieved a glorious triumph, reducing barbaric monarchs to 
 serfs, and this too with superhuman swiftness (mira dictu 
 celeritate). Rapidity in victory is in itself a /cotW to'tto? of 
 encomium. 
 
64 THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 
 
 In the same careful rhetoric, Ammianus paints an elaborate 
 picture of the horrors and difficulties of the Persian war (23-24). 
 With armies cut to pieces, Roman soldiers in captivity, cities 
 razed, fortifications destroyed, Roman empire in Persia was 
 threatened to its downfall. Forced by such exigencies, Julian 
 attacked the Persians to add laurels to Roman arms and his 
 own fame as in the past, had it been the will of Heaven. A 
 point of contact with the laudatio of Germanicus (11. 73) may 
 be found in this connection. It will be more obvious if the 
 passages are set side by side. 
 
 Ann,, II. 73. quod si solus arbiter rerum, si iure et nomine regie 
 fuisset, tanto promptius adsecuturum gloriam militiae quantum 
 dementia, temperantia, ceteris bonis artibus praestitisset. 
 
 Amm., XXV. 26. Itaque ut orientem pari studio recrearet, 
 adortus est Persas, triumphum inde relaturus et cognomentum, si 
 consiliis eius et factis inlustribus decreta caelestia congruissent. 
 
 We have in each a summarizing reference to past achieve- 
 ments (quantum dementia temperantia, ceteris bonis artibus 
 praestitisset . . . ; Itaque ut orientem pari studio recrearet); 
 a prediction of a glorious future (adsecuturum gloriam militiae; 
 triumphum inde relaturus et cognomentum) and an hypo- 
 thetical clause presenting the conditions that prevent fulfill- 
 ment of the prophecy (si solus arbiter rerum, si iure et nomine 
 regio fuisset ... si consiliis eius et factis inlustribus decreta 
 caelestia congruissent).^^ 
 
 In the light of the resemblances and parallel points of 
 handling in the two episodes just reviewed, it does not seem too 
 much to claim Tacitus as the model of Ammianus. We would 
 not assert a slavish imitation, nor need the statement be 
 pressed so far as to insist on conscious coincidence of treatment 
 although that is probable. But it seems clear that what 
 
 "Cf. Epitaph of Scipio (C. I. L., I. 33): 
 
 Mors perfecit tua ut essent omnia brevia 
 Honos fama virtusque gloria atque ingenium; 
 Quibus sei in longa licuisset tibi utier vita 
 Facile facteis superases gloriam maiorum. 
 
THE LITERARY WORK OF AMMIANUS. 65 
 
 Tacitus approved, the later Roman felt himself privileged to 
 adopt; that wittingly or unwittingly he followed for Julian in 
 this passage the lines of delineation which in the hands of 
 Tacitus had so magnified the character of Germanicus. Where 
 the instances of greatest departure from his model occur, as 
 in the handling of the laudatio, it is the insuperable bent of his 
 own spirit in the direction of biography that caused the 
 deflection. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Jan26i, 
 
 iOiVlar'50B2' 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 OCT 17 1956 
 26Ag'60Es1 
 
 SEP 81961 
 
 \VS^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 D 21-100m-9.'48(BS993l6)476 
 
 Mfc-CD LP 
 
 1 1 0-65 -9 ?«