Classical Receptions in Drama and Poetry in English
from c.1970 to the Present  

Homepage
Contacts

Links

© Copyright Notice

January Conference 1996

THE RECEPTION OF CLASSICAL TEXTS AND IMAGES

The Classical past in the Classicising Historians

Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawa

Contents      Abstract

Twenty-five stades away from this city of Canusium is Cannae, where they say the Romans in early times suffered their great disaster at the hand of Hannibal, the general of the Libyans.[1]

Thus Procopius alludes to the Second Punic War while describing Belisarius' lacklustre campaigning against the Goths in Italy in A.D. 546. It is clear that the event seems very distant to him.[2] This remoteness from Rome's wars in Italy in the third century B.C. may be contrasted with Procopius' reference to the so-called 'Caspian Gates' through the Caucasus mountains. In this case Procopius describes how Alexander the Great, having seen what a strategic pass this was, 'constructed gates in the aforesaid place and established a fortress there'. No hint is given here of any uncertainty (although the information is quite incorrect), nor of the antiquity of the event (although Alexander reigned a century before Hannibal's war in Italy).[3]

If we move back in time to the other great historian of late antiquity whose work survives in more than just fragments, we come to Ammianus Marcellinus. Though a Greek-speaker from Antioch, he chose to write his history in Latin.[4] Now whereas in Procopius no mention whatever is made, for instance, of such important figures of the Roman republic as Gaius Marius, Cornelius Sulla or the Gracchi, quite the reverse is the case in Ammianus. A couple of examples may suffice. When he introduces the future Emperor Julian in his work, he engages in a digression on Fortuna; in the course of this he mentions the Sicilian Agathocles, the tyrant Dionysius, the usurper Andriscus of Macedonia, and the Romans Veturius, Mancinus, Regulus and Pompey (among others)[5]. Likewise, when assessing the reign of the Emperor Valentinian, he notes comparisons with the Emperor Aurelian, as well as with Themistocles, Cinna and Gaius Marius [6].

A similar difference between the two writers can be noted in regard to their treatment of the British isles. Ammianus records events there, such as incursions by Scots and Picts, and measures taken to defend the province.[7] For Procopius, on the other hand, Britain is a mysterious place, the location of which is even uncertain: such is his confusion that he refers to two separate places, Brittia and Britain. On the further side of a dividing wall in Brittia, presumably Hadrian's Wall, 'it is actually impossible for a man to survive there even a half-hour, but countless snakes and serpents and every other kind of wild creature occupy this area as their own.' Further remarkable stories follow concerning Brittia.[8]

Can these differences be accounted for?[9] This paper will attempt to provide some sort of explanation. Two points will need to be considered. First, what texts were available to historians in the fifth and sixth centuries? Second, what use was made of them? Thus two forms of reception must be considered whether information was received in the first place (via the works of earlier historians) and how this information (assuming some at least was transmitted) was received. I shall concentrate on the period of the middle to late Roman republic to illustrate these points, though reference will also be made to other periods.

First then is the question of what texts were available in the sixth century. On the face of it, the picture looks quite encouraging, for several writers provide references to earlier works they claim to have used. Thus the church historian Evagrius offers a lengthy list of earlier historians, such as Polybius, Appian, Diodorus Siculus, Dio Cassius and Dexippus[10]. The Antiochene John Malalas, whose work comprises a chronicle from Adam to Justinian, cites 67 different writers in the first half of his work, many of whom wrote in Latin[11]. Likewise John the Lydian, 'a disgruntled civil servant and antiquarian', makes numerous references to earlier writers in his works[12]. Unfortunately the assertions of these writers have not met with general credence. Evagrius probably made use of an epitome of the writers he names by a certain Eustathius of Epiphaneia. Malalas undermines his own claims, regarding both Cicero and Sallust as poets. John the Lydian is also thought to have made use of epitomes and translations into Greek of the works he cites.[13]

Several points follow from this state of affairs. First, some information was available about earlier writers and their writings, if only from epitomators; this information clearly was not always accurate. Second, it was considered worthwhile, by these three writers at least, to name these sources to lay claim to have researched their material. Third, it would appear that there was a considerable interest in the past in the sixth century, even if doubtful methods were employed in reporting it. This is a point worth stressing, since many of the sources bearing on this question do not survive. Mention has already been made of Eustathius of Epiphaneia, for instance, who wrote a universal chronicle, the second volume of which spanned the period from the fall of Troy to the reign of Anastasius; only a few brief citations from this survive.[14] The chronicle of Hesychius of Miletus has suffered a similar fate; it went from before the Trojan war to the death of Anastasius. The same writer also wrote about the reigns of Justin I and Justinian, and compiled a volume of biographies of famous literary men.[15]

An interest in the past, and on a grand scale, is thus attested. But it was an uneven interest: some periods were more favoured than others. The Roman republic was clearly not felt to be of much interest to readers in the eastern empire in the sixth century; nor was the history of Athens in its heyday, the fifth century B.C. On the other hand, the earlier world empires, such as those of the Assyrians and Persians, were recounted in some detail, as was the Trojan war and other mythological events. This has been plausibly explained as having to do with the systems of government in question: the more democratic periods of republican Rome and fifth-century Athens were less comprehensible to readers in this period.[16] A good example of a preference for mythological events is provided by the Emperor Justinian himself, in the prefaces to his Novels concerning the administration of various provinces, issued in the 530s: these have been well analysed by Michael Maas, who notes the frequent use of (rather dubious) precedents to justify changes being introduced. Thus in the preface to Nov.25 (on Lycaonia) he refers to Romulus and Aeneas; no mention is made of the Roman annexation of Lycaonia in the second century B.C. Likewise in Nov.29 he connects Paphlagonia to Venetia through mythological figures.[17]

The question remains, however: how much was known of the Roman republic in the sixth century? Malalas spends some time on the kings of Rome and the early republic, and spends a little time on Hannibal and Scipio, then moves quickly on to Julius Caesar. Another source may be brought to bear at this point, the Romana of Jordanes, written in Latin. This sketch of Roman history from Romulus to A.D. 550/1 was composed in Constantinople by Jordanes, an author better known for his history of the Goths or Getica. It too has much to say on the early republican period, and deals with the wars against Pyrrhus and Hannibal. But it jumps from the Second Punic War to the end of the first century B.C. and Augustus' victory at Actium; all it offers in between is a brief geographical survey of conquests, which does mention generals such as Pompey, Crassus and even Ventidius but only in connection with the eastern provinces.[18] Nonetheless the late republican period was still accessible at this time. One piece of evidence attesting this is the continuing popularity of Eutropius' Breviarium, which was twice translated into Greek; this work, dedicated to the Emperor Valens, offered a concise résumé of Roman history from the foundation of Rome to A.D. 364. One of these translations was made soon after its publication, while the other (which does not survive) was made in the sixth century by a certain Capito Lycius.[19] A further testament of the survival of information on the period is furnished by the chronicler John of Antioch, probably writing in the early seventh century. Many fragments of his work, which began with the Creation, are preserved in the excerpts compiled under Constantine Porphyrogenitus; of these not a few concern the late republic, offering details on both foreign wars and domestic disputes, such as the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus (mistakenly attributed to Scipio Aemilianus). It appears that John was drawing on a translation of Eutropius as well as the earlier historians Dio Cassius and Herodian. To a 'sober historian' such as John, then, information on the republican period was available in the seventh century; it happened, however, that neither chroniclers nor classicising historians took much interest in it.[20]

I should be inclined to conclude therefore that Procopius could easily have read up on, for instance, the Second Punic War, and hence have sprinkled his account of the Gothic War with historical comparisons with Hannibal and Fabius Maximus in the way that Ammianus might have done. No doubt there was less material available in the sixth century than the fourth: the fire that swept through the Basilica at Constantinople in 476, destroying 120,000 books, must have had some impact.[21] That many works remained available, however, including many in Latin, is clear from the work of the grammarian Priscian, writing in the early sixth century: he is concerned with Latin grammar, and cites numerous authors, including Ammianus, Sallust, Livy, Cicero, Caesar, Cato and the Emperor Trajan. Hence, given that Procopius almost certainly knew Latin, he could have read up in Livy about Hannibal, even if Polybius was no longer available; and we have already seen that Dio Cassius, who offered a complete history of Rome from its foundation, was accessible to John of Antioch, writing after Procopius.[22]

But instead of comparing Belisarius to some great Roman general of the past, Procopius prefers to confine himself to a brief mention of Hannibal's victory, as something dimly remembered: it may be presumed that he had come across the exploits of this renowned general in some school textbook.[23] In the same way, it may be supposed, the seventh-century historian Theophylact Simocatta noted the interest of one of the Emperor Maurice's generals, Philippicus, in the tactics of Scipio (Africanus); from the allusion, it seems that Theophylact had only a vague idea about Hannibal's campaigning against the Romans.[24] Scipio and Hannibal retained a place in the basic knowledge of educated Byzantines, it appears, quite possibly confined to little more than the fact that the former vanquished the latter after a great struggle. Hence Scipio is mentioned by Theophylact's contemporary George of Pisidia in a panegyric of the Emperor Heraclius, as well as in the Strategikon attributed to the Emperor Maurice.[25]

That Procopius and other classicising historians were equally ignorant of fifth century Greece is, however, highly unlikely; and it has already been seen that Procopius was quite familiar with events relating to Alexander the Great. It is well known that Herodotus and Thucydides provided the stylistic models for Greek historians for two thousand years, and among these imitators were the 'classicising' historians of the fifth and sixth centuries. Now it was possible for a knowledge of their styles to be acquired by means of handbooks - collections of famous passages, such as the defence of Thermopylae or the siege of Plataea at the start of the Peloponnesian War. Some classicising historians, such as Agathias, may indeed have relied purely on such compilations, but others, such as Procopius, clearly had a good knowledge of the 'classical' historians.[26] What is instantly striking in the case of Procopius (and other fragmentary classicising historians) is his failure to make any specific references to the Peloponnesian or Persian Wars, despite his frequent verbal echoes of passages concerning both. No mention is ever made of Pericles or Thucydides himself, for instance. Themistocles and Xerxes are only mentioned in the Buildings, a panegyrical work; for in such works comparisons remain common in the sixth century.[27]

A peculiar picture of fifth and sixth century writers is emerging. On the one hand there are writers such as Malalas and Evagrius, who lay claim to greater knowledge than they deserve; on the other hand, Procopius and Priscus appear to know more than they are prepared to say, at least concerning classical Greek history. In order to account for this situation, a distinction must be made. For while writers such as Procopius, Priscus and Agathias were concerned with contemporary events, in the spirit (above all) of Thucydides, John the Lydian, Malalas and others (including Justinian himself) were much more interested in the past. It is, in effect, a distinction between historians and antiquarians.[28] The latter category made use of some available materials to build up a picture of the past but seldom, unsurprisingly, from disinterested motives. Justinian, it has been seen, was able to justify some of his legal measures by means of questionable historical precedents. John the Lydian for his part was eager to emphasise the importance of the praetorian prefecture in his description of the Roman magistracies, and his account is largely built around this end.[29] Panegyrists, while hardly antiquarians, might also dip into the past, usually just to pluck out a few emperors with whom to compare the reigning monarch: these examples had become quite hackneyed by the sixth century, usually featuring Titus, Trajan and perhaps Marcus Aurelius or Augustus.[30]

A selective picture of the past was thus being built up in the sixth century, thanks in part to the efforts of such antiquarians. Little place was found for the republic in this picture, and not much more for the imperial period, although the information was available. Some reasons for this have already been suggested in the case of the chroniclers; it remains to consider why classicising historians, such as Procopius, make so little reference to the period. For it has been noted above that Ammianus indulged in digressions on earlier Roman history, and he was not alone in this. A couple of other cases, written in Greek, may be noted here. The first is the 'classicising' historian Eunapius, writing in the fourth century, or perhaps the early fifth; although only fragments of his work survive, these contain references to Marius, Sulla, Scipio Aemilianus and Phameas Himilco, a figure of the Third Punic War.[31] The other is the Emperor Julian himself, who in his works shows a good grasp of Roman history, particularly in the Caesars, where reference is made to most of the emperors who preceded him on the throne, as well as several republican figures.[32]

If Eunapius and Ammianus, both 'classicising' historians in their way, were able to include allusions to figures of the Roman past, why not Procopius or Priscus ? There are, I believe, several reasons which may be advanced. A gulf separates the fourth century and the sixth; even before the end of the western empire in 476, historians in the east had begun to concentrate more on eastern affairs and relations with Balkan and Persian neighbours. Thus while both Eunapius and Olympiodorus, writing earlier in the fifth century, give quite extensive coverage to western events, this is much less marked in the two other classicising historians dealt with by Blockley, Priscus and Malchus.[33] Another way of illustrating this is by looking at Procopius' perception of time: for him, even events of the late third century, such as the rise and fall of Palmyra, are 'in former times'.[34] When he prefaces his account of wars, in the east or west, with a summary of earlier events, he does not go beyond the early fifth century, the reigns of Honorius and Arcadius.[35]

Earlier Roman history presented a problem for sixth century historians. Two conflicting views confronted them: on the one hand, the superiority of the past, the lost 'Golden Age', which was always a strong influence on classical authors. On the other, there was the powerful feeling that the sixth century and the reign of Justinian in particular was an important period. Important deeds were being wrought, which required reporting, just as Thucydides had decided to do with the Peloponnesian War.[36] The first sentiment certainly inspired some writers, most notably Zosimus, writing at the very start of the sixth century, and determined to describe the downfall of the Roman empire; but Jordanes too cannot avoid a certain amount of pessimism in his account of recent events.[37] For John the Lydian and Procopius, the dilemma was acute. Both are opposed to innovation and dislike many of Justinian's reforms as a consequence. On the other hand, for Procopius at any rate, Belisarius' campaigns were a remarkable achievement, and he has harsh words for those who express admiration only for things ancient.[38]

Any knowledge of earlier Roman history could but reveal the former magnitude of the Roman empire, the amazing conquests achieved to acquire such a domain, and the remarkable generals who had accomplished this. That some writers in late antiquity, including Ammianus as well as Zosimus, looked back to this earlier history with nostalgia is unsurprising therefore.[39] But in the fourth century Rome was still the capital of an undiminished western empire, the place where Ammianus believed Julian should have been buried; only in 395 were the two halves of empire divided, a division this time never to be healed.[40] Thenceforth geography as well as chronology distanced writers in Constantinople and the east; Persia became more important than the western empire, and only a glimmer of republican history survived as general knowledge, in particular that which related to eastern affairs. Pompey's civil wars with Caesar were thus of less import than his eastern conquests: if his name remained alive in the family of the Emperor Anastasius, it was doubtless for this reason.[41]

In conclusion, it has been seen that information on the republican period was indeed available in the sixth century, and was put to use by some writers. For classicising historians, however, it was of less interest, and the extent of their knowledge of such material may be doubted.[42] Like Thucydides, Procopius was convinced of the superiority of his own times, and in the importance of the events he was describing. Compared to generals such as Scipio, Pompey or Trajan, however, Belisarius' armies were small, poorly disciplined, and patchy in their performance. Their equipment bore little relation to the legions of the past, likewise their tactics. Comparison with Roman generals of the distant past therefore could redound to Belisarius' credit only with difficulty, if sixth century readers were likely to appreciate them in any case. It was preferable therefore to look still further back in time, as did the chroniclers, and make mythological digressions, for instance on the Trojan war; this helps to explain the preface to Procopius' Wars, with its discussion of Homeric bowmen, which has sometimes instead been viewed almost as a joke. Allusions to Greek history might also occasionally be included, particularly bearing on the wars against the Persians.[43]

Classicising historians were thus growing more classicising, concentrating, like Thucydides, on contemporary events, and leaving the past to the antiquarians. Mythological excursus were permitted, since they were to be found in Herodotus, and likewise digressions on geography and foreign peoples. Roman heroes of the past, like Latin titles and offices, did not fit with a thoroughgoing emulation of Thucydides and Herodotus.[44] Procopius' reference to Cannae should then be interpreted in this light: he is writing in Herodotean fashion of a remote event, about which he probably had only a dim awareness. It is possible that much republican history had even become something almost mythical, the object at any rate of great wonderment.[45] It is appropriate then to end with Procopius' description of the Via Appia from Rome to Capua (and beyond), which gives an impression of his (rather Herodotean) awe; there is indeed little sense that Procopius himself is one of 'the Romans'.

So Belisarius led his army from Naples by the Latin Way, leaving on the left the Appian Way, which Appius, the consul of the Romans, had made 900 years before and to which he had given his name.

Now the Appian Way is in length a journey of five days for an unencumbered traveller; for it extends from Rome to Capua. And the breadth of this road is such that two waggons going in opposite directions can pass one another, and it is one of the noteworthy sights of the world. For all the stone, which is mill-stone and hard by nature, Appius quarried in another place far away and brought here; for it is not found anywhere in this district. And after working these stones until they were smooth and flat, and cutting them to a polygonal shape, he fastened them together without putting concrete or anything else between them. And they were fastened together so securely and the joints so firmly closed, that they give the appearance, when one looks at them, not of being fitted together, but of having grown together.[46]

[return to contents]

List of periodical abbreviations

BNJ Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher

BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CQ Classical Quarterly

DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers

GRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies

TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the Americal Philological Association

Notes

[1] Procopius (henceforth Proc.), Wars VII.18.19, ed. J. Haury, rev. P. Wirth, (Leipzig, 1962-3), tr. H.B. Dewing, Procopius of Caesarea, History of the Wars, vol.4 (London, 1924), 309. [return to text]

[2] One might also have expected Hannibal to be referred to as a Carthaginian rather than a Libyan.The only other reference to Hannibal in the Wars refers to a camp of his in Italy, which was in Procopius' day re-used by the Gothic leader Totila (Wars VII.22.24). No mention is ever made of his Roman opponents, such as the Scipiones or Q. Fabius Maximus.[return to text]

[3] Proc. Wars I.10.9, tr. H.B. Dewing. On the problematic Caspian Gates, cf. G. Greatrex, Procopius and the Persian Wars, D. Phil. thesis (Oxford, 1994), 115-16, A.R. Anderson, 'Alexander at the Caspian Gates', TAPA 59 (1928), 130-63 and K. Synelli, Hoi diplomatikes skheseis Byzantiou kai Persias eis ton st' aiona (Athens, 1986), 99-120. [return to text]

[4] Cf. J.F. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London, 1989), 461-4 and idem, 'The origin of Ammianus', CQ 44 (1994), 252-69. [return to text]

[5] Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri quae supersunt, ed. and tr. J.C. Rolfe (London, 1935-9), XIV.11.28-33. [return to text]

[6] Ammianus XXX.8.7-9. Such excursuses on earlier Roman history are not confined purely to biographical passages: cf. e.g. XV.10 (on the Cottian Alps, referring to Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Gnaeus Scipio among others). [return to text]

[7] Ammianus XX.1.1 on raids of Picts and Scots; XXVII.8 on measures for Britain. [return to text]

[8] Proc. Wars VIII.20.42-58 on Brittia. Note also Belisarius' offer to the Goths (VI.6.28) that they might take possession of Britain, which had belonged to Rome 'in early times' - to anekathen. [return to text]

[9] At an obvious level, it is the case that Britain was no longer a province of the Roman empire in Procopius' day (although the Emperor Justinian sought to dispose of it as though it were - Proc. Wars VI.28.28), while it had been in Ammianus' day. This does not account, however, for the amazing stories recounted by Procopius, since his description of the Hephthalite Huns (Wars I.3-4), also outside the empire, is far from inaccurate. [return to text]

[10] Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, edd. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), V.24, pp.218-19. [return to text]

[11] As noted by E.M. Jeffreys, 'Byzantine Chroniclers and World History', Byzantion 49 (1979), 220. Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf (Bonn, 1831); tr. and annot. E. and M. Jeffreys and R. Scott (Melbourne, 1986). [return to text]

[12] M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and politics in the age of Justinian (London, 1992), 1 for the quotation; his appendix gives a detailed list of all the various sources quoted by John. [return to text]

[13] On Evagrius, cf. P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus, the Church Historian (Louvain, 1981), 239. On Malalas, cf. Jeffreys, 'Byzantine Chroniclers', 220-1; Malalas, 212 on Sallust being a poet. On John, cf. T. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society - Romano-Byzantine Bureaucracies viewed from within (Kansas, 1971), II, 48, 65 and N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London, 1983), 54. [return to text]

[14] Cf. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, ed. J. Martindale (Cambridge, 1980) (henceforth PLRE), s.v. Eustathius of Epiphaneia 10, 435; also Greatrex, Procopius and the Persian Wars, 8 and The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. Kazhdan (Oxford, 1991) (henceforth ODB), 2.753-4. [return to text]

[15] Cf. PLRE II, s.v. Hesychius 'Illustrius' 14, 555; also ODB 2.924. [return to text]

[16] Cf. Jeffreys, 'Byzantine Chroniclers', 205-7, R. Scott, 'Malalas' View of the Classical Past', Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, G. Clarke, ed. (Rushcutters Bay, 1990), 150. Note the criticisms of Mamertinus of the Republican electoral system in his panegyric of Julian, Panégyriques Latins, ed. E. Galletier, vol.3 (Paris, 1955), XI(3), ch.19, pp.32-3 (tr. in S.N.C. Lieu, ed., The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic [2nd ed., Liverpool, 1989], 28-9).
The Christian world view is also important to his inclusion (e.g.) of the world empires, cf. R. Scott, 'Malalas and his contemporaries' in Studies in John Malalas, E. Jeffreys, with B. Croke and R. Scott, eds., (Sydney, 1990), 67-8. [return to text]

[17] Cf. M. Maas, 'History and Ideology in Justinianic Reform Legislation', DOP 40 (1986), 19-20 (on Lycaonia), 22 (on Paphlagonia); cf. Scott, 'Malalas and his contemporaries', 70-2, 75. Justinian, Novellae in Corpus Juris Civilis vol.3, edd. R. Schoell and W. Kroll, sixth edition (Berlin, 1954). [return to text]

[18] Jordanes, Romana, ed. Th. Mommsen in MGH AA V.1 (Berlin, 1882), 30-31 (§230-40) on the east, derived from Festus. His other main source is Florus: cf. W. Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550-800) (Princeton, 1988), 49, 51. Malalas, 171-88 on early Rome, then 208-10 on Hannibal and Scipio, followed by the jump to Caesar and Pompey at the start of book IX, 213: cf. Jeffreys, 'Byzantine Chroniclers', 205. It is interesting that Malalas refers to several authorities in dealing with this period Sallust, Palaiphetos, the translation of Eutropius and Florus (epitome of Livy), 209-11 although he has so little to say. From the garbled nature of his references, however, it may be supposed that he understood little of the events in question; cf. Jeffreys, Studies in Malalas, 181, 192. [return to text]

[19] On Eutropius, cf. ODB 2.758; on the translations, cf. C. Santini, Eutropii Breviarum ab urbe condita (Leipzig, 1979), xiv-xv, L. Baffetti, 'Di Peanio traduttore di Eutropio', BNJ 3 (1922), 15, and D.N. Trivoli, Eutropius Historicus kai oi Ellenes metaphrastai tou ab urbe condita (Athens, 1941), 151-60. Malalas mentions a translation of Eutropius when dealing with Aemilius Paullus and his victory over Perseus, 209. [return to text]

[20] Most of John of Antioch's fragments may be found in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol.4, ed. C. Müller (Paris, 1851), esp.560-5 on the mid-late republic. On John, cf. ODB 2.1062 and M. Whitby, 'Greek Historical Writing after Procopius: Variety and Vitality', The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East. I. Problems in the Literary Source Material, L. Conrad and A. Cameron, eds. (Princeton, 1992), 62. On his sources, cf. Müller, op. cit., 538 and E. Jeffreys in Studies in Malalas, 252 (who describes him as a 'sober historian'). I have not seen P. Sotiroudis, Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerk des Johannes von Antiocheia (Thessaloniki, 1989). On the long-term effects of the lack of attention paid to the republican period, see below n.42. [return to text]

[21] Malchus frg.11 in R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire (Liverpool, 1981-3) (henceforth FCH) II, 418, on this. Cf. R. Scott, 'The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography', Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, M. Mullett and R. Scott, eds., (Birmingham, 1981), 73, who stresses ignorance of Roman history and the Latin tradition in this period. [return to text]

[22] A. Cameron, Procopius and the sixth century (London, 1985), 222 on Proc.'s probable knowledge of Latin, cf. J.A.S. Evans, Procopius (New York, 1971), 101. Polybius was not read by Photius, but his works were known to the Constantinian excerptors; Zosimus' allusion to him, Histoire Nouvelle, ed. and tr. F. Paschoud (Paris 1971-1989), I.1, need not imply knowledge of his complete works. On the failure of Polybius to inspire admiration comparable to Thucydides or Herodotus, cf. A. Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Berkeley, 1990), 47-8. [return to text]

On the authors cited by Priscian, cf. the Index Scriptorum in Prisciani grammatici Caesariensis Institionum Grammaticorum libri XVIII, edd. M. Hertz, H. Keil, Grammatici Latini, vol.3 (Leipzig, 1859). Note also Priscian's panegyric of Anastasius, ed. and tr. A. Chauvot, Procope de Gaza, Priscien de Césarée, Panégyriques de l'empereur Anastase 1er (Bonn, 1986), ll.45-50, 84 and 174-7, for imperial and republican figures.

Note that John Lydus, De Magistratibus, ed. R. Wünsch (Leipzig, 1903) (henceforth de Mag.), I.38 (p.40.16), refers to the dictatorship during the Second Punic War, which also implies some knowledge of events. Cf. also Scott, 'The contemporaries of Malalas', 157, on republican material in George Syncellus, writing after Malalas, implying survival of information.

[23] Cf. Carney, Bureaucracy, II, ch.4 on this, esp.48, on what was read in the sixth century (rather over-estimating the curriculum, I think). [return to text]

[24] Theophylact Simocatta, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor, rev. P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1962), I.14.1-4, tr. and annot. M. and M. Whitby (Oxford, 1986), 40 and n.76. [return to text]

[25] Giorgio di Pisidia, Poemi. I. Panegirici Epici, ed., tr. and comm. A. Pertusi (Ettal, 1959), Heraclias, 97 for the reference to Scipio. Cf. on this M. Whitby, 'A new image for a new age: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius', The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, ed. E. Dabrowa (Cracow, 1994), 205 and n.48. I. Shahîd, 'Heraclius pistos en Christo basileus', DOP 34-5 (1980-1), 228, who doubts one of the two mentions of Scipio, notes that apart from this instance George nowhere else in the poem refers to any Roman figures (preferring, e.g. Timotheus and Alexander the Great). Cf. also M. Whitby, The Emperor Maurice and his historian (Oxford, 1988), 279 n.6.

Maurice, Strategikon, ed. G.T. Dennis (Vienna, 1981), VIII.2.93 (p.258) for the mention of Scipio; tr. idem, Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy (Philadelphia, 1988), 91. In the eleventh century Hannibal and Scipio figure once again, in a list of those who were clever generals: Cecaumeni Strategicon, edd. B. Wassiliewksy and V. Jernstedt (St Petersburg, 1896), 16 (alongside Belisarius); C. Mango, 'Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium', Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, 53. [return to text]

[26] On the habit of imitating classical writers, cf. Scott, 'The Classical Tradition', 61-74 and H. Hunger, 'On the imitation (MIMESIS) of antiquity in Byzantine literature', DOP 23-4 (1969-70), esp. 27-8, and Gy. Moravcsik, 'Klassicizmus in der byzantinischen Geschichtschreibung' in Polychronion. Festschrift F. Dölger, ed. P. Wirth (Heidelberg, 1966), 369-70, noting Priscus' imitation of Thucydides in describing the siege of Naissus, frg.6 in FCH II, 230-2 (A.D. 441-2).

A. Cameron, 'Herodotus and Thucydides in Agathias', BZ 57 (1964), 41, 48-51, argues that Agathias had little knowledge of Herodotus and Thucydides, relying on handbooks and Procopius. She also, art. cit., 49, plays down Proc.'s knowledge; but it seems more probable that he was well acquainted with their writings, especially if he was connected with the Gaza school, as I have argued in Medieval Prosopography (forthcoming, 1996). Cf. also K. Adshead, 'Procopius' Poliorcetica: Continuities and Discontinuities', Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, 93-104, emphasising Proc.'s use of Thucydides. [return to text]

[27] Themistocles, De Aedificiis (=Buildings) (henceforth Aed.), ed. J. Haury, rev. P. Wirth (Leipzig, 1964), tr. H.B. Dewing (London, 1940), I.1.7; Xerxes, V.3.8. Likewise Procopius of Gaza, in his panegyric of Anastasius (in Chauvot, Procope de Gaza), refers to Pausanias (§22), Aristides (§14), Cyrus and Astyages (§25), as well as some fourth century figures. [return to text]

[28] Cf. Maas, John the Lydian, 54-5. Note Justinian's researches on 'Scythia', noted by Maas, 94, reported by John at de Mag. II.28; cf. also Wilson, Scholars, 53-4. Momigliano, Classical Foundations, 41, 68-9 on this division. [return to text]

[29] Momigliano, Classical Foundations, 68, on the links between antiquarianism and politics. John the Lydian, de Mag. II.28-9, on Justinian's research into Scythia as a background to legal reform; and q.v. n.17 on the Novels. Carney, Bureaucracy, II, 37 on John and the praetorian prefecture. Also Maas, John the Lydian, 40-1, on the importance of the past in the sixth century. [return to text]

[30] Cf. Priscian's panegyric of Anastasius (ed. Chauvot), 45-50 and John the Lydian, de Mag. II.28.3 (effectively a panegyrical aside). Cf. Carney, Bureaucracies, II, 39 and 55, on such commonplaces, with M. Whitby, 'Images for Emperors in Late Antiquity', in P. Magdalino, ed., New Constantines (Aldershot, 1994), 84-6 and cf. C.E.V. Nixon, 'The Use of the Past by the Gallic Panegyrists', Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, 30-3, for tables of references to earlier history by the fourth-century panegyrists. [return to text]

[31] On Eunapius, cf. Blockley, FCH I, 1 and ODB 2.745-6. Frg.20.4 (FCH II, p.30) on Sulla and Marius; frg.69.5 (p.112) on Scipio and Phameas Himilco. [return to text]

[32]Julian, The Caesars, ed. and tr. W. Wright (London, 1913), vol.2, 344-414. Note also the speech Ammianus attributes to him at XXII.5.16-17, mentioning almost all the previous Roman campaigns in the East. [return to text]

[33] Cf. Blockley, FCH I, 87, for this narrowing of focus over the fifth century. Note also Carney, Bureaucracies, II, ch.2, on John's geographical knowledge (with some interesting maps). Even if we do not possess the entirety of Priscus' work, the quantity we have is comparable to that of Eunapius; hence it is still surely significant that the former makes no allusion to earlier Roman figures. [return to text]

[34] Wars II.5.6 (on Odenathus, about whom he seems to be reasonably well informed): alla tauta men en tois ano chronois egeneto. The implication is almost that these events are of limited interest because of their antiquity. Cf. e.g. Aed. III.4.6 on Pompey, described in similar terms. [return to text]

[35] Cf. Wars I.2 and III.2. Note also his confusion between Theodosius I and II in Aed. III.1, on which cf. G. Greatrex, 'The two fifth century wars between Rome and Persia', Florilegium 12 (1993), 6. [return to text]

[36] Thucydides I.1.1, Proc. Wars I.1.1-2, on the greatness of contemporary events. On the lost golden age, cf. e.g. John the Lydian, de Mag. II.7-10, with Maas, John the Lydian, 5-6; also below, n.38. [return to text]

[37] On Zosimus, cf. ODB 3.2231 and R.T. Ridley, 'Zosimus the historian', BZ 65 (1972), 284. On Jordanes, Goffart, Narrators, 57. [return to text]

[38] On the attitudes of Proc. and John to change, cf. Carney, Bureaucracy, II, ch.7, esp. tables 7.1-2, 164-5; also Cameron, Procopius, 244-8, on the two writers, and Evans, Procopius, 102, noting the attitudes also of Thucydides and Herodotus. Proc. Wars I.1.7 and VIII.1.12-13 for his criticism of an excessive reverence for antiquity. [return to text]

[39] On Ammianus' nostalgia, cf. T.D. Barnes, 'Literary Convention, Nostalgia and Reality in Ammianus Marcellinus', Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, 83. Cf. also the speech of Modestus in Robert Graves' novel, Count Belisarius (Harmondsworth, 1987), 34-6, which exemplifies such a view (and borrows from Proc. Wars I.1). [return to text]

[40] Ammianus XXV.10.5 on Julian's burial place, noted by P. Athanassiadi, Julian. An intellectual biography (London, 1981), 231. [return to text]

[41] Cf. Alan Cameron, 'The House of Anastasius', GRBS 19 (1978), 403-4 and Carney, Bureaucracy, II, 40. On the greater importance attached to Persia, cf. Carney, Bureaucracy, II, 28-9, 40. [return to text]

[42] I note that Proc. refers to Sallust the historian at Wars III.2.4 (as does Malalas, 209, referring to the Bellum Catilinae, though see Jeffreys in Studies in Malalas, 197 and above, n.13). It is possible that Procopius read some of Sallust's works: cf. Greatrex, Procopius, 179 n.42, for a possible parallel between Bellum Catilinae 58.1-3 and Wars I.14.13-14.

It is perhaps worth noting that by Zonaras' day (the twelfth century) there was a real lacuna in information on republican history after 146 B.C., as this chronicler noted: cf. Scott in Studies in Malalas, 47. He had only Plutarch's lives of Caesar and Pompey to carry him through to the death of Caesar. If few people were writing about the period in the sixth century, it is unsurprising to find such a dearth of information half a millenium later. [return to text]

[43] Proc. Wars I.1.6-10 on Iliadic bowmen; cf. I.17.11-20 (on Iphigenia and Orestes), also Agathias, Historiae, ed. R. Keydell (Berlin, 1967), tr. J.D. Frendo (Berlin-New York, 1975), II.10.2-5 for a catalogue of (Greek) parallels. On Proc.'s preface, cf. Scott, 'Classical Tradition', 73. [return to text]

[44] On the problem posed by Latin titles for classicising historians, and the periphrasis used to avoid them, cf. e.g. Blockley, FCH I, 90-1. [return to text]

[45] Hard and fast lines between the mythical and the historical do not seem to have been in evidence in the sixth century, as Scott, 'Malalas and his contemporaries', 71, argues, pointing in particular to Proc. Wars VIII. The passages on Britain noted above also show the mythical air beginning to shroud the Roman past. [return to text]

[46] Wars V.14.6-10, tr. H.B. Dewing, vol.3, 143-5. Cf. V.12.17-19 on Roman dress preserved in Gaul. [return to text]