Ammianus Marcellinus, Seven Studies In His Language And Thought 0826204953, 9780826204950

Citation preview

Ammianus Marcellinus

University of Missouri Press Columbia, 1986

Ammianus Marcellinus Seven Studies in His Language and Thought

Robin Seager

Copyright ® 1986 by The Curators of the University of Missouri University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri 65211 Printed and bound in the United States of America All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicarion Data Seager, Robin. Ammianus Marcellinus, seven studies in his language and thought.

Bibliograhy: p. Includes indexes. 1. Ammianus Marcellinus. Rerum gestarum libri. 2. Ammianus Marcellinus—Language—Grammar. 3. Latin language—Grammar. 4. Rome—History—Empire, 284-476. I. Title. PA6205.S37 1986 937\08 85-20119 ISBN 0-8262-0495-3 (alk. paper) M™ This paper meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48, 1984.

For Gene Costa ut militi quondam

Preface

M y intention in this study is first of all to offer an unashamedly compre­ hensive presentation and analysis of the language used by Ammianus to ex­ pound certain major themes in his history, and second, in order to set these results in some sort of context, to make a cursory examination of the occur­ rence or nonoccurrence of the same linguistic phenomena in a selection of other authors, chiefly Ammianus’s contemporaries whose interests and sub­ ject matter might be expected to overlap with his own. Tacitus, Aurelius Vic­ tor, the Epitome de Caesaribus, Eutropius books 7-10, the first part of the Excerpta Valesiana, the Historia Augusta, the Codex Theodosianus, and the Latin prose panegyrics (including Pliny, Symmachus, and Ausonius) have been used. Such assertions as “Eutropius three times uses," “is not found in Sym­ machus,* or “nowhere occurs* should be read in terms of these limitations. The exclusion of other prose writings, verse, and Greek is largely a matter of practicality and is not intended to suggest that the works of Claudian, Themistius, or Julian himself, for example, contain no potentially useful material. To write a book about the language and thought of the fourth cen­ tury as a whole would simply be a different and much larger undertaking; all I hope is that the results achieved here may be of value. In this connection it should also be stressed that the sections that deal with other writers do not pretend to be studies of those authors in their own right. W hat is con­ sidered is how their usage parallels, differs from, or otherwise illuminates that of Ammianus. Hence detailed references have not always been given, particularly in the case of Tacitus, for points that are not controversial and are easily verified in indices and in lexica. However, any possible comparison must ultimately be unsatisfactory. W hat is needed is what never existed: a contemporary historian of similar scope. All Ammianus’s contemporaries wrote in different genres, with ob­ jectives much more restricted than his. It is therefore hardly surprising that their concerns and viewpoints differ, while their range of vocabulary and

vu

V lll

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

theme remains relatively narrow. In terms of sheer length only Tacitus is an adequate foil, and indeed it is between him and Ammianus that the broadest overlapping of language is to be found. But the empire of which Tacitus wrote and even that in which he lived were in several major respects very unlike the world of Ammianus, which in some degree diminishes his useful­ ness for the present purpose. It is for that reason that Tacitus has been whol­ ly left out of account in Chapter 7. Nevertheless, it should at least emerge that such notions as “standard fourth-century terminology” and “standard fourth-century ideas,” like most such conveniences, disintegrate on closer inspection. O f course Ammianus used the language of his time, but his judgments of men and events and his reasons for making those judgments (on which, it is to be hoped, some fresh light has been shed) were the product of his individual outlook and preoccupa­ tions, not of a mindless and too liberal scattering of rhetorical commonplaces. The first three chapters are closely connected in theme and may indeed be regarded as sections of a single larger unit. Chapter 1 deals with the funda­ mental concepts of moderation and excess, the notions of mean and balance, and the most common forms of expression that connote excess. Chapter 2 widens the focus of the inquiry to study virtues closely related to modera­ tion (temperantia, Imitas, bumanitas, dvilitas, aequitas) and their contrary vices (acerbitas, asperitas), to analyze the treatment of arbitrary forms of behavior, indulgence in licmtia, and the inability or refusal to make proper moral judgments, and, finally, to examine three aspects of character, stub­ bornness, pride, and anger, that frequently lead to excess. Chapter 3 deals with the principal features of the rich array of rhetorical language used by Ammianus to signal extreme behavior and the circumstances that provoke it: vocabulary that highlights an absence of self-control (efferri, exsultare, effrenatus), images of burning, seething, and swelling, accusations of savagery and madness, and the use of extremus. ultimus. postremus. and nécessitas x$_ characterize extreme situations.yftinally, some conclusions that are suggested ~By”these three chapters are p r e s e n t e d . _____________ 1 Chapter 4 analyzes moio fully and precisely than has hitherto been essayed Ammianus’s treatment of three related subjects: caution, prudence, and sobriety. In particular it emerges that sobriety has been accorded much more importance than it deserves. Chapter 5 examines Ammianus’s interest in seditiones and turbae, including the types of disturbance to which these terms are applied, their causes, and the ways in which they were dealt with. Chapter 6 addresses adulation, attempting to determine which aspects of an emperor’s character the flatterers tried to work on, what exactly they hoped to achieve, and how great an effect, if any, their activities had on the course

PREFACE

IX

of events. Finally, the imperial power is examined, first through a review of the language in which it and its trappings are described, then through an analysis of Ammianus’s views on such questions as the relative importance of various factors on which an emperor might base his claim to rule, the nature of the relationship between one emperor and another, usurpation, and the principal duties of a ruler. The book was essentially finished before the appearance of M. Chiabo, Index Verborum Am m iani Mareellini (Hildesheim, 1983), which has, how­ ever, been consulted, with considerable profit, in its revision. The edition of Ammianus used is basically that of W. Seyfarth (Leipzig, 1978), though where the text was in doubt other editions have been consulted, principally that of C. U. Clark (Berlin, 1910-1915). My thanks are due to two former pupils, Roger Tomlin, who made many useful comments on my first draft, and Josette Jackson, who contributed much to such intelligibility, cogency, and even elegance as the final version may possess. Robin Seager Liverpool 1983

Contents

Preface, vii Abbreviations, xii 1. Moderation and Excess, 1 2. Some Kindred Virtues and Vices, 18 3. The Rhetoric of Excess, 43 4. Caution, Prudence, and Sobriety, 69 5. Sedition and Disturbance, 84 6. Adulation, 97 7. The Imperial Power, 105 8. Conclusion, 131 Selected Bibliography, 139 Index Locorum, 141 Index Verborum Potiorum, 161

Abbreviations

AAH = Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. A und A = Antike und Abendland. AC = Acta Classica. CS = Critica Storica. M A A R = Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. PdP = La Parola del Passato. REA = Revue des Etudes Anciennes. RFIC = Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica. RSA = Rivista Storica dell’Antichità.

1

Moderation and Excess

It was the moderation of his age that, says Ammianus, gave him the courage to write the last dozen years of his history, and his admiration of moderation and detestation of excess are perhaps the most fundamental principles that determine his judgments of men and their behavior (28.1.2).'

Moderatio, modestia, and modus Emperors frequendy lay claim to moderation and sometimes show it. Though he was harsh and implacable where accusations of treason were concerned, Constantius is given credit for being in other respects a moderate ruler ( 14.V.2. 21.16.8)7* 1 ne value tnat he claimed to set on moderation is attested on various occasions, mostly in the field of foreign policy (15.8.13f., 19.11.5).’ Thus in recommending peace with the Alamanni to his army he expressed his conviction that to call a halt while fortune was still favorable would be construed as moderation and humanity, not as inertia. He made the same point in reply to Sapor’s arrogance, warning him to abandon his threats, for if in the past Rome had waited to be attacked, this was not the result of inertia but of moderation (14.10.15, 17.5.14). Julian, too, is more than once praised for moderation, in both military and civil*1234 matters (20.4.13,21.5.5).* Before Argentorate he assured his troops that he would be with those who pursued the enemy, provided that they did so with moderation and caution. While he was wintering at Antioch, he prac­ ticed moderation in punishing criminals, and on his deathbed he repeated 1. Cf. Ensslin, Ammianus, 42ff.; Thompson, 79f.; Tränkle, 28; Camus, 107, 114; Tassi, 178; Blockley, 89fF. 2. 14.9.2: “cetera medium principem”; the antithesis with “acerbum et implacabilem” makes the sense of “medium” dear. Also 21.16.8: “aliis principibus mediis comparandus,” where the same point is being made and the contrast between “mediis” and “sine fine” should again put the meaning beyond dispute. 3. 15.8.13f.: program for his sharing of power with Julian; 19.11.5: use of diplomacy in dealing with the Limigantes. Cf. 21.16.5 on his personal habits. 4. 20.4.13: the view of his troops; 21.5.5: his own opinion of himself.

1

2

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

his earlier claim to moderation in the conduct of civil affairs (16.12.33, 22.10.1, 25.3.17). Even Valentinian is honored for his moderate stance on the question of religious tolerance (30.9.5). Valens is said to have combined generosity with moderation, and Ammianus’s praise of the young Gratian includes mention of this quality (31.14.3, 10.18). Others besides emperors are also lauded (27.3.3, 28.1.25, 29.1.8).* The good eunuch Eutherius demonstrated, discreedy and with moderation, that the charges brought against Julian by Marcellus were false (16.7.3).6 A few of the palace officials were moderate and upright men, and Julian is criti­ cized for failing to retain them (22.4.2). Only one barbarian is credited with moderation: King Gabinius of the Quadi, who made a moderate protest against the proposal to build a fort in his territory. This surprising behavior is sharply contrasted with the inhuman and treacherous reaction of Marcellianus (29.6.5). Finally, an instance from the natural world may be noted. The beneficent effects of the flooding of the Nile, when this phe­ nomenon occurs in moderation, are set against the harm that ensues when the river rises to excess (22.15.13). In several passages the word modus is employed to commend moderation. In justifying his decision to make peace with the Alamanni, Constantius said that a limit should be set on expansion while fortune was still favorable (14.10.15). W hen Julian was appointed Caesar, the men praised him neither beyond measure nor less than was proper, and so their judgment was the more respected (15.8.16). Similarly, on the occasion of Constantius’s cere­ monial entry into Rome, the people behaved in a manner that upheld free­ dom while avoiding arrogance, and the emperor, too, observed the due mean (16.10.13). The concept of the mean also occurs in Ammianus’s praise of the speech with which Julian quelled his mutinous troops on the Persian expedition (24.3.8). Modus plays a far more prominent role in the condemnation of excesses of various kinds. It is, however, characteristic that, where a field of operation is specified, the trait concerned would almost always be reckoned a vice even if manifested only in moderation: greed, arrogance, the abuse of power, and so on.7 Ammianus says that he will refrain from giving details of Gallus’s atroci­ ties so as not to exceed the limits he has imposed on himself. But he notes 5. 27.3.3: Symmachus; 28.1.25: Eupraxius; 29.1.8: Theodorus. Moderation may, however, be feigned, cf. 28.1.45 on Simplicius. 6. 16.7.3: “verecunde et modice”; contrast “strepens et tumultuans” of Marcellus at 7.2. 7. Greed: 14.11.3 (imperial eunuchs), 22.4.3 (palace officials dismissed by Julian); arrogance: 14.1.2 (Constantina), 22.12.6 (Julian’s Celtic troops); abuse of power: 14.6.1 (Orfitus). Also 27.3.12 on excessive ambition (the contest for the papacy between Damasus and Ursinus).

MODERATION AND EXCESS

3

that his behavior in the East became difficult for good men to endure, as he no longer exercised any restraint (14.9.9, 7.1). After the suppression of Pro­ copius’s rising no limit was set to the atrocities that raged till Valens and his men were sated with gain and slaughter (26.10.14). The constant din of flat­ terers is more than once said to know no bounds, whether they are urging Constantius to tamper with the obelisk that Augustus had left untouched, deriding Julian’s successes in Gaul, or encouraging Constantius to accept the bogus offer of tribute from the Limigantes (17.4.12, 11.1, 19.11.7). Constantius’s anger is several times condemned. First the news of the games cele­ brated by Gallus at Constantinople infuriated him beyond mortal measure, then on hearing of Ursicinus’s comments concerning events at Amida he was again angered beyond measure, while his wrath was even less controlled than usual when Julian’s letters in defense of his usurpation were read (14.11.13, 20.2.5, 9.2). Foreign kings and tribesmen also offend, if they are not prevented (29.5.41, 31.2.1, 15.14).* Before Argentorate Chnodomarius had been throwing his weight about in all directions without limits, while Valentinian was worried by Macrianus, who was disturbing the Roman state without limit or measure (16.12.4, 28.5.8). Constantius sent an em­ bassy to deceive Sapor, so that he would not strengthen the defences of his northern provinces beyond mortal bounds (17.5.15).* Derivatives of modus are used in a similar manner. Most common is immodicus, which condemns a variety of crimes and errors: the too diligent inquiry among Gallus’s household troops about his imperial ambitions, the exaggerated promotion of Agilo to take the place of Ursicinus, Constantius’s haste to march against Julian, the increase in religious ceremonies before Julian’s Persian expedition, the effects, in the view of his detractors, of exces­ sive prosperity on his judgment, the immoderate amounts Julian planned to spend restoring the temple at Jerusalem, the verbal excesses of Ruricius leading to his condemnation, the frenzy of the Alamanm before Argen­ torate, and the Gothic advance against Constantinople (14.7.19, 20.2.5, 21.15.1, 22.12.7, 3, 23.1.2, 28.6.22, 16.12.31, 31.16.4). Immoderate oc­ curs in Ammianus’s remarks concerning Julian’s irrational attack on Constantine for raising barbarians to high office (21.12.25, cf. 10.8). Immodestus describes the behavior of the Alamanni at Valentinian’s meeting with Macrianus, immodeste the loud demands of the troops after Julian’s death that they be allowed to cross the Tigris, and nec . . . modeste is employed in the story of the fall of the notary Jovianus, who did not show moderation89 8. 29.5.41: Africans; 31.2.1: Huns; 15.14: Goths. 9. The standard is presumably what would render them unassailable from the Roman point of view.

4

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

after Jovian’s elevation but muttered and invited military men to dinner (30.3.5, 25.6.11, 8.18). Akin to the notion of the mean is balance.101Constantius’s admirable reply to Sapor’s insolent letter is introduced by phrases suggestive of calm and balanced judgment (17.5.9). Similar language is used of Julian’s decision to grant terms of peace to the Alamannic kings Macrianus and Hariobaudus, and the unanimity of Julian’s counselors in approving this course is also stressed (18.2.18). Julian is also praised for his conduct at Maozamalcha, where he achieved a balance between the pursuit of the siege by the infantry and the acquisition of plunder by the cavalry, so that the whole army could live off the enemy without being a burden to the provincials. (24.4.9)!* In commending Gratian as his colleague Valentinian promised that in conse­ quence of his humanity and learning he would weigh questions of right and wrong with untarnished judgment (27.6.9). Elsewhere the senate is com­ plimented at Valentinian’s expense. W hen the emperor referred the case of Hymetius to the senate, it investigated the affair with balanced justice and exiled the defendant, thereby incurring Valentinian’s wrath, for he had wanted and expected Hymetius to be condemned to death (28.1.23). A somewhat different figure is employed to honor the gentle virtues of Hypatius (29.2.16). But the notion of balanced and weighty judgment is open to irony; Ammianus mocks those senators who issue dinner invitations only after weighing the pros and cons (28.4.17). Lack of balance is of course blamed. Thus Constantius was ready to attach too much weight to irresponsi­ ble accusations, which led him to torture and exile Gerontius (14.5.1).

O ther Formulae Connoting Excess The absence or infringement of a limit or measure is expressed in various other ways, involving the nouns finis and terminus, the verb supergredi, the preposition ultra, and the adjectives immanis, immensus, and infinitus.u Abuses of power are commonly criticized in terms of the passing of a finis or terminus. Thus Gallus went beyond the bounds of the power allotted to him by Constantius; the death of Clematius of Alexandria stood out among his misdeeds, for his power had now passed the bounds of moderate crimes (14.1.1, 3). In investigating charges of imperial aspirations Constantius ob­ served no limit, surpassing Gaius, Domitian, and Commodus (21.16.8). The courts were a frequent theater of such behavior. The prosecutions instigated 10. Cf. Tassi, 166; Blockley, 91. 11. Forfinis in combination with modus, cf. 28.5.8. For ultra in combination with modus, cf. 14.6.1, 11.3, 13, 20.2.5, 9.2, 22.12.6, 29.5.41. For a strictly literal use of ultra fines, cf. 22.9.1.

MODERATION AND EXCESS

5

by Paulus multiplied without limit, Maximinus went beyond the bounds of judicial procedure, and Pergamius, brought into court by Palladius, endless­ ly clamored that he knew of many thousands of guilty men (19.12.13, 28.1.36, 29.1.25). By comparison, Julian’s error in allowing all self-styled prophets, including charlatans, a completely free hand to ply their trade was venial (22.12.7).1* Supergredi is positive or at least neutral when it refers to Jovian’s accession to the purple (25.5.8). But it is strongly pejorative when it alludes to the ex­ cesses of Gallus, Paulus’s early career of delation in Britain, and Valentinian’s departure from tradition in appointing his relatives as Augusti rather than Caesares and his attempt to render senators liable to torture (14.1.3, 5.6, 27.6.16, 28.1.25). Ultra usually indicates progress in an undesirable direction, often beyond what is fitting for mortal men (15.7.7, 28.1.38, 4.12, 15.8.7, 22.8.25).11 Julian was inspired by the favors of fortune to cherish more than mortal am­ bitions. It was not long before he conceived his fatal desire to conquer Per­ sia. He ignored all warnings against penetrating deeper into the country, since he always yearned to go further and to achieve more (22.9.1, 24.7.3, cf. 6.4). The capture of Cyzicus carried Procopius beyond mortal limits and made him forget that fortune’s wheel may turn (26.8.13). Valens’s restora­ tion of Papa to Armenia filled Sapor with superhuman frenzy (27.12.11). In earlier times Commodus felt more than mortal exultation when slaughter­ ing vast numbers of beasts in the arena, and the arrogance of Plautianus swelled beyond mortal measure (31.10.19, 26.6.8). Two passages that do not use ultra may also be mentioned. After the liquidation of Silvanus, Constantius’s arrogance grew until he presumed to be the arbiter of human destiny, while Sapor burned with a superhuman desire to extend his empire (15.5.37, 18.4.1). In very few instances does immanis mean anything so colorless as very large.12131415Even where the connotations are essentially only those of size, the linguistic or factual context often suggests the extreme nature of the situa­ tion described.1f The word is often used absolutely of both in­ dividuals—usually barbarians—and peoples (26.5.7, 22.11.10, 17.4.3).16 It 12. Julian is dearly being criticized for failing to apply a check. Cf. 30.4.18 on advocates. 13. 15.7.7: Athanasius; 28.1.38: Maximinus; 4.12: parasites; 15.8.7: barbarian inroads; 22.8.25: barbarian savagery, with which cf. 22.15.27 on Egyptian snakes and 24.5.2 on Per­ sian bears. Cf. also 22.15.21 on the sagacity of hippopotami, 28 on the height of the pyramids. For ultra with terminus, cf. 14.1.1, 28.1.36. In general, cf. Selem, 103. 14. Thus 22.8.29, 23.4.11, 5.8, 6.50, 57, 24.4.19, 5.2, 6.8, 28.2.2, 29.5.28, 31.8.5. 15. Thus 14.2.6, 15.4.2, 17.7.13, 21.12.11, 24.7.5, 25.4.10, 9.3, 29.2.25, 31.9.5. 16. 26.5.7 (cf. 28.5.9): Alamanni; 22.11.10: the Alexandrian mob; 17.4.3: Cambyses.

6

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

marks out Chnodomarius as an impressive figure before Argentorate, but after the battle three monstrous kings came to beg for pardon (16.12.24, 17.1.13). Julian was very concerned that on his departure from Gaul another monstrous man, Vadomarius, should not disturb the tranquillity he had worked so hard to establish (21.4.6). Valentinian’s advisers warned him of the monstrous nature of the kings of the Alamanni, especially Macrianus, who would attack the cities themselves if he were not pacified (30.3.3). His detractors accused Papa of monstrous behavior toward his subjects (30.1.3). Among Romans Constantius and Valentinian are condemned. Constantius easily exceeded the monstrousness of Caligula, Domitian, or Cornmodus (21.16.8). Valentinian was monstrous in the savagery he displayed in condemning his groom to death for a trivial fault, and if he learned that of­ ficials whom he had promoted had behaved monstrously, he praised them as if they were Lycurgus or Cassius (30.5.19, 8.13). Monstrous deeds are common (18.2.1, 21.11.1, 26.3.4, 29.1.16).'7 An­ toninus was moved to dare the monstrous deed of going over to Sapor with much valuable military information (18.5.1). Valentinian’s leniency toward men of high station encouraged them to monstrous crimes (27.9.4). The ex­ ecutioner who had a woman stripped naked before she was led to her death was burned alive for this monstrous act (28.1.28). On occasions when it is not used absolutely, immanis is frequently associated with vices such as harshness, savagery, arrogance, greed, anger, .and frenzy.1* Monstrous savagery is usually~a trait o f barbarians in alt ages: the Germans, the Tauri, the Odrysae, the Britons, and the Goths (16.12.36, 22.8.33, 27.4.9, 8.9, 31.7.8). So, too, is monstrous arrogance, which is ascribed to Suomarius and Hortarius before they were reduced to subjection by Julian (17.10.10). Another barbarian in need of deflation was Macrianus, who approached his peace conference with Valentinian monstrously puffed up as if he were going to dictate terms, while the Goths in their monstrous arrogance sent an envoy to demand the surrender of Hadrianopolis (30.3.4, 31.15.5). Confidence born of his earlier victories over the Romans had made Sapor monstrously arrogant (29.1.1). The only Roman mentioned in this regard is Palladius, whose monstrous arrogance was inspired by his connections at court (29.2.9). Monstrous anger is peculiar to Julian. A surprise attack by thesurena first aroused his ire, then the same phrase follows a series of condemnations of his conduct before the178 17. 18.2.1 : the intentions of the Alamanni; 21.11.1 : the resistance of Aquileia; 29.1.16: the plan to assassinate Valens. 18. Harshness: 31.14.5 (Valens); savagery: 19.10.2 (the Roman mob), 18.7.4f. (lions); greed: 26.6.7 (Petronius), 31.2.12 (the Huns).

MODERATION AND EXCESS

7

fort near Ctesiofroq: after his narrow escape from death, in his monstrous anger he resolved on a siege (24.3.2, 5.7). At H adrianopolis Bellona was bent with more monstrous fury than usual on bringing the Romans to disaster (31.13.1). T o create a monstrous row may be commendable, as when Malarichus protested that men devoted to the empire were being made the victims of intrigue (15.5.6). The rumor that Julian had been assassinated caused his men to riot with a monstrous din; hardly critical, though as always stress on their excessive behavior serves to diminish Julian’s responsibility (20.4.21). Ammianus may seem more hostile to the monstrous din created by the ar­ my that demanded that Valentinian should immediately appoint a colleague (26.2.4). But this and several other linguistic cross-references between the two passages suggest that, although Ammianus, as a believer in Julian’s in­ nocence of intended usurpation, was committed to the view that Julian could not control his men, the historian was also well aware that Valentinian cut a far better figure and was even prepared to admit it by implication. Undoubtedly hostile is the observation that, when Arbitio was accused of im­ perial ambitions, he was attacked with monstrous clamor by the ironically named Verissimus (16.6.1). Under this rubric should also be noted that the grammarian Didymus had attacked learned men like a puppy yelping from a safe distance at a mightily roaring lion (22.16.16). Immanis is occasionally applied to ardor, terror, discord, losses suffered in barbarian raids, and, somewhat paradoxically, caution (25.8.2, 24.4.2, 27.12.9, 28.6.6, 23.6.78). Finally, immanis signals two positive reactions, both concerning Julian: the joy with which all but a few of Constantius’s men greeted his promotion was monstrous, and his speech to his troops when he decided to challenge Constantius was saluted with a monstrous clashing of shields (15.8.15, 21.5.9). Immemus also frequently castigates vices. Immense arrogance is ascribed to the Roman nobility and, along with immense cunning, to Sapor (28.4.7; 19.1.4, 27.12.14). Immense greed characterizes some upperdass Romans, in addition to Probus, the would be usurper Valentinus (or Valentinianus,,), and the Huns (14.6.10, 27.11.3, 28.3.5, 31.2.11). Im­ mense anger was shown, not surprisingly, by Valentinian, immense obstinacy by the defenders of Aquileia (30.5.10, 21.12.4). The word also serves to signal other extreme conditions, not necessarily morally evil in themselves: bellicosity, elation, terror (29.6.1, 22.2.2, 29.1.26).1920 There are 19. 28.3.5: for the name, cf. Demandt, Feldzüge, 90. 20. For immense disasters, cf. 17.12.7, 20.5.4, 31.5.12.

8

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

only two positive uses, in reference to the immense difficulties overcome by Julian’s fortune and the immense increase in Theodosius’s popularity because he refused to allow his army to take supplies from the provincials (25.4.14, 29.5.10). Infinitus occurs pertinendy only once, in reference to the greed of Constantius’s courtiers (16.8.13). Ammianus is also very fond of other adjectives compounded with in- to condemn excesses of behavior. The list is long: implacabilis, indeclinabilis, inexorabilis, intolerabilis, insatiabilis, inexplebilis, irrevocabilis, inexplicabilis, inexpiabilis, inconsolabilis. All are applied almost exclusively to Romans. Implacability is condemned in Gallus and, where charges of treason were concerned, in Constantius (14.1.5, 9.2). Julian showed himself mild and cle­ ment after the surrender of Aquileia, but his appointment of Alexander as governor of Syria prompted the people of Antioch to pray that he might prove more lenient on his return (21.12.20, 23.2.4). Valens’s cause in put­ ting down Procopius’s rising had been entirely just, but the implacable way in which he pursued the usurper’s alleged accomplices brought many inno­ cent men to the torture; he did not know that it was the duty of a good ruler to resist greed and implacable anger (26.10.13, 29.2.18).21 Maximinus’s implacable nature passed all bounds, for he claimed that no man could be found innocent against his wish (28.1.38). Probus, too, was implacable. If once he had decided to harm someone, he could not be mollified (27.11.6). The only foreigner to whom the word is applied is Firmus, an implacable enemy of Rome (29.5.4). T o show-unbending or unswerving devotion to a course is almost always fault Only Julian is praised for being immovable in distinguishing right and wrong (18.1.2).2223Less commendable in Ammianus’s eyes was Julian’s steadfast determination to cut prices at Antioch, despite the protests of the council. Nor could the combined efforts of his generals deflect Julian’s in­ sistence on advancing across the Tigris (22.14.2, 24.6.5). Valentinian puuished'the faults of common soldiers with unbending severity, though he was lenient toward their superiors (27.9.4). W hen begged not to pay funeral honors to Heliodorus, Valens at first remained inflexible, though eventually he gave way (29.2.14). O f lesser Romans, Probus could not be moved to pardon any error (27.11.6). Again only one foreigner appears, this time Sapor. His letter to Constantius in no way departed from his natural arrogance, and in reply the emperor rebuked him for his unfaltering and wideranging greed (17.5.2, 10).25 21. 26.10.13: cf. the language of 10-12. 22. “Indedinabilis iustorum iniustorumque distinctor"; cf. also 25.4.7. 23. Cf. also 19.8.2, 29.1.34 on fate.

MODERATION AND EXCESS

9

The other in- compounds are all uniformly pejorative. Constantius never granted a pardon to anyone accused of treason, as even inexorable emperors had done (14.5.5). Maximinus’s one virtue was that he sometimes spared men in response to pleas. In this he was unlike Probus, who was immune to such appeals (28.1.40, 27.11.6). Petronius was also cruel and immune to prayers (26.6.8). The chamberlain Eusebius, who had lofty ambitions, was rendered intolerable by his exaggerated rise, and Valens became the same when he assimilated other crimes to treason and gave rein to his cruelty (22.3.12, 31.14.5). Advocates and those Roman commanders who pro­ fiteered from the famine of the Goths are condemned for their insatiability (30.4.9, 31.4.11). Inexplebilis is used to stigmatize Arbitio’s determination to damage Ursicinus, inexpletus describes the rapacity of Constantius’s taxcollectors, which brought him more hatred than profit (15.2.4, 21.16.17). Gallus hurled himself against all opposition with the irrevocable impetus of a torrent. But when Constantius heard his explanation of his atrocities at Antioch, he was smitten with irrevocable anger (14.1.10, 11.2 3). Sallustius warned Julian to avoid irrevocable destruction by putting off the Persian ex­ pedition (23.5.4). Valens should have known that when a man’s life is at stake one should hesitate long before passing judgment and not act precipitately when what is done will be irrevocable (29.2.18). Mercurius brought his distorted accounts of dreams to Constantius’s yawning ears so that a man would find himself charged as if he were guilty of some fault that could not be explained away; inexplicabilis is also used of Valens’s hatred of Papa (15.3.5, 30.1.18).2425Unlike his father and brother, Domitian brought inexpiable detestation on his memory (18.4.5). Also inexpiable was Valens’s arrogant practice of condemning the innocent and guilty alike (29.1.18). The daughter of Constantius, on her way to marry Gratian, was almost cap­ tured by the Quadi, which would have been an inexpiable crime (29.6.7). Valens thought of paying funeral honors to Heliodorus and at first stood firm, though he was earnestly begged to refrain from this evil, which would have brooked no consolation (29.2.14). Another way of indicating deviations from the norm involves the use of solitusV However, the content is more frequently positive than with the other formulae treated so far (20.5.1, 27.3.3, 10.5).26 The assertion that 24. 30.1.18: there is no reason to emend to “inexpiabile.” Cf. also 19.11.7. 25. Neutral uses of solitus are to be found at 14.10.2, 16.11.3, 12.36, 17.6.1, 18.6.9, 20.3.6, 21.5.1 (though here the formula might signalize the importance of the occasion), 13.9 (where it may be intended to suggest that Constantius felt insecure even on his own ground), 25.10. 3, 26.4.5, 5.7, 31.4.2 (the last three on the theme of barbarian incursions). 26. 20.5.1: marking the solemnity of the occasion.

10

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

when Julian set out against the Alamanni the army advanced more keenly than usual is a compliment to his leadership (16.2.9). Similarly, the report that foreign embassies came more quickly than usual to wait on him highlights his reputation and how widely it had spread (22.7.10). When at­ tacks were made on Amphilochius, Constantius responded with unusual mildness, though here the compliment paid in the individual case is outweighed by the criticism implied in the statement of the norm (21.6.2). Conversely, the implication of a praiseworthy norm can point up an excep­ tional fault, as when the magister equitum Severus suddenly lost his courage and conducted a march in cowardly fashion, contrary to his usual practice (17.10.2) . It may be noted that in all these casessolitus has a precise and con­ crete reference determined by the individual context: the normal behavior of the Roman army before Julian’s appointment or Severus’s behavior in the field on previous occasions, for example. O f clearly pejorative instances, one occurs in a critique of Roman society, referring to the excessive height of carriages (14.6.9). Interesting is the com­ ment that Constantius’s speech to his men after the campaign against the Limigantes left the army feeling keener than usual. This recalls the earlier compliment to Julian’s leadership and might be positive here. However, any favorable implication is in fact undermined by an unsavory motivation: the men were keen only because their hopes of better conditions and gain had been aroused (17.13.33). In most cases a now familiar pattern is seen. The quality or mode of behavior that is noted as exceeding the usual is already in itself a vice.2728 Thus Constantius was always prone to anger, but when Julian’s letter excusing his conduct was read, his wrath blazed up beyond its customary measure (20.9.2). T he destruction of the temple of Apollo at Daphne mnvpd Inlian ro such anger that he ordered a more vigorous in­ vestigation than usual and the closing of the principal church of Antioch (22.13.2) . The passage is striking. Although it is dear that Julian is being criticized for his excessive anger and his irrational accusation of the Chris­ tians, the practical connotations of solito are somewhat obscure.2* In trying to put the blame for his usurpation on the troops who were reluctant to be transferred to the East, he had written that the news had made them more savage than usual (20.8.8). This, too, is bizarre, suggesting, if taken literally, that his men were in the habit of indulging in fairly savage outbursts. The 27. Cf. 29.3.8 regarding excessive tortures (though the text is damaged), 30.2.7 regarding Sapor’s harshness. 28. It would be over-ingenious to inquire how strict an investigation was usual when a tem­ ple was consumed by fire; the implied contrast is probably simply with the leniency Julian habitually practiced when not overcome by anger.

MODERATION AND EXCESS

11

explanation is no doubt to be found in an overriding desire to deny his responsibility. Finally, the catastrophic nature of the batde of Hadrianopolis is marked out by the claim that Bellona was more frantically bent than usual on producing a Roman disaster (31.13.1). Here the natural meaning of solito is clear enough but nonsensical. It would be absurd to say that Bellona was always moderately eager to bring about Roman disasters. Either the mean­ ing must be refined and we must understand that she was more eager than she usually was on those occasions when she was eager at all for Roman disasters (though these did not include every battle in which Romans engag­ ed), or Ammianus’s desire to stress her extreme behavior has got the better of his logic. But of the formulae used to condemn excess, the most common are those that use nimius or kindred words. In some three dozen instances “excessive” merely means “e x tre m e .S o m e twenty more passages show nimius mean­ ing “excessive,” but with no moral or political significance.’0 There remain over thirty cases where excess in some form or other is criticized. Prominent are examples of theabuse_o£-pawer by emperots-and others. Gallus displayed excessive harshness in the exercise of the power that had come to him so unexpectedly when he was still young (14.1.1). In the con­ text of his readiness, egged on by his flatterers, to claim the achievements of others as his own, Constantius is branded as excessive by nature (16.12.68). Valentinian is also labeled excessive for his threats against Eupraxius, who nevertheless remained faithful to the cause of justice. In general, Valentinian forgot that all forms of excess should be avoided by the ruler of an empire (27.6.14, 30.8.2). Valens’s irascibility and lack of concern for truth had con­ sequences that were odious in their excess (29.1.22).*1 Ursicinus found himself attacked by Arbitio, who at that time possessed excessive power (15.2.4).52 The evil Paulus showed an ostentatious ingenuity in his scheming,29301 29. Thus 14.11.1, 15.6.1, 16.7.5, 11.14, 12.37, 47, 17.4.15, 18.6.19, 19.2.14, 8.6, 12.5, 20.4.19, 10.2, 11.10, 21.10.1, 15.2, 22.9.4, 15.29, 23.4.3, 5.13, 21, 6.11, 12, 28, 46, 62, 25.2.6, 26.8.3, 28.4.1, 21, 29.1.25, 5.30, 30.10.6, 31.4.5, 9.2, 14.2, 16.3. Of these, 31.9.2 describes a situation that was positively favorable and was exploited to Rome’s advantage, while 31.14.2 might be regarded as complimentary to Valens. Whether 28.2.11 and 31.12.9 are complimentary depends on one's point of view. 16.7.5, on the intelligence of the good eunuch Eutherius is clearly positive, as are 28.4.1 on Olybrius’s prefecture and 30.10.6 on Gratian's affection for Valentinian II. Most amusing is Ammianus's revelation that during his adventure at Amida he was exhausted by the excessive amount of walking he had to do (19.8.6: “incedendi nimietate”). 30. 14.2.9, 10.6, 17.7.5, 12, 19.4.2, 6.6, 20.11.29, 22.5.4, 15.5, 13, 22, 23, 16.11, 23.6.1, 27.8.4, 28.2.11, 29.6.17, 30.5.7, 6.5, 31.2.8. 31. Cf. 2.12 on his excessive power. 32. For the phrase, cf. 14.8.2 on the Isauri.

12

AMM IANUS MARCELLINUS

just as some wrestlers are inclined to parade an excess of skill in the ring (15.3.4). Even the better eunuchs of the past were, unlike Eutherius, prone to some form of excess, whether of cruelty, mischief, arrogance, or subser­ vience (16.7.8). These and other vices are duly pilloried (14.6.9, 19.5.2, 24.5.12, 25.10.5).” The accusation of excess may be used to puncture pretension. Despite his lack of military successes, Constantius on his triumphal entry into Rome wanted to mount a procession of excessive length (16.10.2). Julian’s detractors compared his alleged lack of moderation in success to the excessive growth of too lux­ uriant crops (22.12.3). Excessive violence is condemned, both in regard to Sapor’s eagerness to recover control of Armenia and repeatedly to the use of torture in judicial inquiries (26.4.6; 15.6.1, 21.16.10, 29.3.8).” Both Valentinian and his henchman Maximinus were prey to excessive greed (30.8.8, 28.1.35). The unfortunate Papa was accused by his enemies of ex­ treme ill-treatment of his subjects (30.1.3). Excessive flattery bulks large. W hen Constantius thought of making Julian his Caesar, his courtiers, trained to an excess of adulation, tried to tell him that there was no problem with which he could not cope alone (15.8.2). Apodemius was so eager to bring Constantius the news of Gallus’s assassination that he killed several horses through driving them to excess (15.1.2). Excess in flattery is also noted of those who sought the favor of the chamberlain Eusebius (18.4.3). But the flatterers perhaps did their greatest harm when the excessive barrage of warnings they issued encouraged Jovian to make his unguarded concessions to Persia (25.7.11). Somewhat partisan is the condemnation of the former vicarius Julianus as an excessively enthusiastic representative of the opposition to Julian (22.11.1). Constantius was too easily influenced. H e was excessively recep­ tive to slander and was also too much dominated by his wives, his eunuchs, and some of his officials (18.4.4, 21.16.16). Julian is condemned for seem­ ing excesssively eager to win empty fame by his ostentatious greeting of the philosopher Maximus (22.7.3). In preparing for the Persian expedition he drenched the altars with the blood of an excessive number of victims, and he was also too much given to the consideration of omens (22.12.6, 25.4.17).” Three times a virtue is perhaps carried too far. An excess of caution might lead to trouble, as Ursicinus found when he tried to placate Constantius (14.9.2). The statement that Constantius was excessively cautious in looking3* 3 3. It is uncertain what followed “nimium quantum” in 29.5.30, which will therefore be left out of account. 34. Cf. 28.1.21 on Valentinian’s attitude to the case of Hymetius. 35. 22.12.6: cf. 14.3.

MODERATION AND EXCESS

13

after his troops might seem at first to be neutral or even complimentary, but it probably conceals a critical comment on the defensive strategy pursued by the emperor in the East against the wishes of Ammianus’s hero Ursicinus (21.16.3). Valentinian is also criticized for excess in a laudable end: his burn­ ing desire to reinforce the frontier defenses was glorious but was taken too far (29.6.2).

O ther Sources The basic vocabulary of moderation is used by Tacitus in exactly the same fashion as it is by Ammianus. Praise of moderatio and modestia is frequent, and in particular there are copious instances of modus. Such negatives as im­ moderate, immodestus, and immodicus are rarer, but their application is iden­ tical. Though his language is much less elaborate, Victor presents an essentially similar picture. H e repeatedly commends moderatio and modestia and like Am­ mianus, is illogical enough to condemn lack of moderation in the practice of vices (Vict.1.4, 20.15, 26.4, 31.2, 39.5). He also once criticizes a lack of moderation in a virtue (Viet. 18.1). Relevant uses of modus number three (Viet. 39.15, 40.15, 41.5). The Epitome is even more sparse in such usage. O n­ ly once is moderation praised, and there is only one relevant use of modus. Condemnations of the lack of moderation are more frequent, though confined to the later part of the work (Epit.1.16; 43.7; 41.8, 16, 42.7, 20, 43.7). Eutropius commends moderation far more often than he regrets its absence: fourteen instances against two (Eutrop.7.8.4, 13.1, 19.2, 21.1, 23.1, 8.1.1, 4.1, 12.2, 13.1, 9.9.1, 11.2, 12.1, 10.7.1, 15.2; 9.13.1, 10.16.3). In the Historia Augusta moderation is also consistendy praised. There are seven in­ stances of modestia, nine of moderatio, ten of moderatus. Their antonyms are very rare—only three occurrences—but uniformly hostile. The observance of a modus is seven times commended, departure from one blamed six times. The Code also makes much of moderation. It is praised in general terms on thirteen occasions and its occurrence in individuals is commended on a further four oc­ casions. Emperors themselves claim moderation thirteen times. The lack of moderation on the part of individuals is condemned eight times. The emperors also speak against immoderate gifts (four times) and immoderate prices (once). Among the panegyrists, Pliny lauds Trajan’s moderation with extreme fre­ quency and lack of imagination: thirty-five instances, none of any interest. He also has two relevant uses of modus, both positive (Plin Pan .55.5 , 73.3).56 Later exponents of the genre are less excessive, though reasonably consistent (Pan.Lat.9.8.2, 8.2.3, 6.4.4, 8.6, 12.8.2, 4.9.3, 5, 15.3, 23.2, 3.15.5, 27.3,36 36. Cf. also 31.4 on the Nile.

14

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

31.1, 2.13.1, 3, 20.5).}7 Most striking for the student of Ammianus is the praise accorded to Valens by Symmachus for the moderation he showed after his victory over Procopius. The same author commends Valentinian for his moderation in financial exactions (Symm.Or.1.21, 2.31). Ausonius mentions Gratian’s moderation three times (Aus.GA 28, 64, 68). Nazarius notes its absence in the behavior of a barbarian king (Pan.Lat.4.24.7). There are also a few positive uses of modus (Pan.Lat.5.5.2, 11.2, 4.16.3, 29.2, 2.13.3). But as often in panegyric, a vice may be turned into a virtue. The failure of the emperor’s joyful subjects to exercise moderation is willingly ex­ cused by both Mamertini and Nazarius. Nazarius uses modus to the same ef­ fect, and has a further positive instance of a modus exceeded, of Constantine’s glory, which surpasses human measure (Pan.Lat.l 1.12.1, 4.32.8, 3.29.3; 4.1.3, 35.1; 16.2). Ubrare occurs twice, both times in reference to balanced judgment: once in the Code, once in Nazarius of god (CT 8.4.26, Pan.Lat.4.7.4). Finis and terminus are used by Tacitus as they are by Ammianus, but they are not found in this type of context elsewhere. Few authors exhibit in­ teresting uses of ultra.1* However, the Excerpta Valesiana offer a positive use of a phrase which in Ammianus might have had a more dubious sense (Exc.Val. 1.18).}9 The Historia Augusta has five instances of ultra to denote the abnormal; two signal what is more than mortal (HA Diad.8.3, A ur. 26.2, Car.9.3; Ael.2.4, A u r.24.S).3 40 9387 Positive uses of ultra are not uncom­ mon in panegyric.41 Supra is also employed to express the notion that the imperial power is beyond the reach of ordinary mortals (Pan.Lat.6.2.4). No other author shares Ammianus’s obsession with the word immanis. Apart from a couple of instances of immane quantum the adjective occurs only three times in Tacitus; only once is a hostile moral judgment involved (Tac. A n n .6.20). The use of immanitas is slightly more frequent. There are four in­ stances of this word, including two allusions to Nero. O f Victor’s four uses of immanis, two are insignificant and two refer to imperial vices (Viet.3.7, 5.14). In the Epitome the word occurs only twice, once in conjunction with a vice, once as an absolute (Epit.2.9, 14.8). Eutropius offers nothing. N or is immanis common in the Historia Augusta. It is used four times to refer to an individual, once to qualify a vice, twice in neutral instances. Immanitas is pejoratively 37. 12.8.2: of the Tiber, not an emperor. 38. Insignificant are Epit.41.13, Pan.Lat.8.1.1, 2.2, 7.1.3, 6.21.2, 2.41.4. 39. “Vehementer in ulteriora festinans,” lauding Constantine’s ambitions. 40. Ael.2A: cf. A lb.\\.2. 41. Thus Pan.Lat.9.13.1, 17.2, 5.8.2, 4, 4.1.1 (though Nazarius also has one pejorative and one neutral instance at 17.1 and 28.4), 2.1.2, 13.1, 23.1.

MODERATION AND EXCESS

15

ascribed to an individual on six occasions (HA M ax. 10.1, 11.6, Max.Balb. 2.3, Gord.W.5; Awr.31.4; M ax.28.6, Car.8.3; Get.7.4, M acr.\2.3, 15.2, Gord.XO.5, A u r.31.10, Car.3.3). The Code offers some variety. The most frequent use—eight instances—is to condemn crimes. O f the other six, one refers to furor, two to financial burdens, and one to tortures. Two are ab­ solute; of these one reference draws an analogy with barbarians (CT 9.38.7f., 40.16, 11.30.57, 36.4, 13.5.16, Sirm. 1, 14; 16.6.7; 5.14.31, 7.13.7; 11.36.7; 9.12.1, 35.2). Pliny is also varied. One usage refers to wild beasts, two to barbarians (in the second the epithet is transferred to the plains they roam), two to Domitian and his times, and one, also plainly pe­ jorative, to the size of the blocks of stone employed by Domitian in his building schemes (Plin.Pan.34.3; 17.2, 56.7; 47.1, 48.3; 51.1). In the later panegyrists the application of immanis and immanitas to barbarians predominates heavily over all other uses.4243Eumenius uses the word regard­ ing the labor involved in rebuilding the schools. It occurs in the Anonymus of 310 in reference to wild beasts and to the force of the Rhine. When Nazarius applies it to the forces of Maxentius, something more than mere size is probably connoted. Finally, Pacatus uses immanis once to qualify a vice (Pan.Lat.9.4.1; 6.9.2, 13.2; 4.25.3; 2.20.4). Eutropius employs infinitus once to connote excess (Eutrop.7.14.2). The Historia Augusta perhaps comes closest to Ammianus in the use of both immensus (four times) and infinitus (six times) in a manner that suggests criticism (HA H adr.\9.5, A nt.2.5, Pert.8.9, A u r.6 .1; H adr.8A, A el.6 .1, A nt.2.5, M arc.24.3, Sev. 17.7, Tyr.2.\). O f seven instances of immewus in the Code, only one, which is used to condemn an excess of power, is of in­ terest (CT 9.13.1). Pliny employs immensus twice in reference to excess. The second instance refers, with some justice, to his own speech. Five other occurrences are geographical, but of these, one also involves moral condem­ nation. Infinitus occurs once regarding power, as a compliment to Trajan for not succumbing to its temptations (Plin/Vm. 12.2, 56.2; 50.1; 55.9). The use of infinitus by the Anonymus of 313, to refer to the length of time for which Maxentius had gathered supplies, is rendered critical by its con­ text, which highlights the sufferings of those who had to provide them (Pan.Lat. 12.16.1). Positive usages of both words are found in Nazarius (Pan.Lat.4.2.6, 35.1).4} Tacitus’s use of other adjectives compounded with in- is very similar to that of Ammianus but much more restricted. Most frequent is implacabilis. There 42. Thus Pan.Lat. 10.7.3, 11.17.4, 6.2.2, 6.4, 12.1, J.2.4, 4.18.1. 43. Pan.Lat.4.36.5 is purely physical, as is 3.19.2.

16

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

are six instances, of which at least four, perhaps five, are critical. Inexorabilis is once positive, once negative; so too insatiabilis. The three instances of inexplebilis are all extremely hostile. Inexpiabilis, irrevocabilis and inexplicabilis are found once each, all negative. Inconsolabilis, intolerabilis, indeflexus, and indeclinabilis do not occur. There is, however, one instance of declinare con­ demning departure from the path of virtue, in contrast to four positive uses. Victor employs only insatiabilis, twice, both strongly pejorative, and implacabilis, once, positive (Viet. 17.7, 39.6; 20.20). The Epitome offers nothing and Eutropius only a single instance of intolerabilis (Eutrop.10.9.3). Even the Historia Augusta has very little: one instance each of implacabilis, inexorabilis (both positive), inexplebilis, and intolerabilis (both pejorative) (HA Sev. 18.4, Alarc. 24.1, Max.Balb. 17.2, Gall. 14.6). In the Code im ­ placabilis is neutral, intolerabilis is used of vices, and inexpletus of greed. But both instances of inexpiabilis are positive, referring to just vengeance and punishment (CT 4.8.5; 7.13.7; 1.16.7; 7.13.9, 16.5.9). Panegyric, too, is almost barren. Inexpiabilis is used regarding the undying wrath of the Franks, intolerabilis regarding the defection of Britain, inexpletus condemns lusts (Pan.Lat.6.10.2; 8.10.4; 4.8.3). Most interesting are two instances of irrevocabilis. The first is overtly positive, in reference to the ardor inspired by Constantine in his troops. Nazarius then uses the word to refer to an irresisti­ ble enemy attack—which Constantine prompdy shattered (Pan. Lat.8.14.4, 4.24.2). Tacitus is much more sparing than Ammianus in his use of solitus to mark departures from the norm. There are only five instances, though their func­ tion is similar. The Historia Augusta has only three instances (HA Marc. 5.2, Macr. 5.7, Car. 3.3). In panegyric the most common use o f solitus is positive, to mark the unusual solemnity or joyfulness of an occasion.44 M ore interesting is the assertion that the Rhone appeared to flow more slowly than usual, which calls attention to the eagerness of the force that was sailing down it (Pan.Lat.6.18.4). Though nimius and its cognates are frequent in Tacitus, his greater restraint makes his usage much more pointed than that of Ammianus. O f forty-eight occurrences with reference to things and qualities, no less than forty-four express moral disapprobation; only four connote mere excess. Nimius is applied to persons seven times; only one of these instances is ab­ solute. Victor employs nimius and cognates five times. Twice he shares Ammianus’s illogical habit of condemning an excess of vice, twice the excess is of virtue, and once the use is absolute (Viet.6.2, 11.7; 20.7, 42.23; 8.7). 44. VXm.Pan.%.3, 92.5, Pan.Lat.4.1.1, Symm.Or.2.6.

MODERATION AND EXCESS

17

O f seven occurrences in the Epitome, only two are connected with vices; the other five allude to mere excess (Epit.8.6, 14.7; 12.11, 41.12, 42.17, 43.1, 48.11). Eutropius is more moral. Of seven cases, only one has no moral content; the rest are all pejorative (Eutrop.10.18.1; 8.5.1, 9.9.3, 10.15.2, 16.3). So, too, is the Historia Augusta. Eight uses of nimius merely indicate an extreme, but nearly twice as many are disapproving. Three oc­ currences are critical of individuals, six qualify a vice, two condemn excess of virtue (HA Hadr. 14.6, 9, A ur.8.3; A n t.3.7, Grt.4.4, A lex.29A , 59.5, Gall. 18.1, Aur.44.2; A lex.20.3, Tyr.5.4).4* Three instances of nimium con­ demn vice in an individual (HA Vex. 10.3, Tyr.24.5, Car . 14.2).44 Two of three occurrences of nimietas refer to vices, the other alludes to wealth (HA Ver. 1.4, Tyr.9.5; Claud.9.6). But of twenty uses of nimis, only three contain criticism of an individual (HA Ver.2.9, Alex.64.3, T y r.\0 .17). Almost all in­ stances of nimius in the Code, though not numerous, have critical implica­ tions. Excess is criticized on seven occasions (CT 7.4.31, 8.5.19, 9.17.3, 10.10.21, 11.1.35, 12.1.68, 16.8.9).454647489The panegyrists offer some variety of usage.4' Excess is several times condemned.4’ But Pliny also flatters Tra­ jan by suggesting that his very moderation might be carried to excess (Plin. Pan.58.2). Positive excesses, namely, love for the emperor and joy, are com­ mended, and Constantine is flatteringly rebuked for his excessive en­ thusiasm in battle (Pan.Lat.12.3.1, 3.29.2, 2.37.2; 12.9.4). But on the darker side there is Symmachus’s remark that in the past no emperor felt the extreme of his power except by going against the wishes of the senate (Symm. Or.4.5).

4 5. Cf. also Max. 17.3 (of love), Pert.\5.% (general). 46. So, too, rtintie at Gord.6.2. 47. 16.8.9 refers to a religious fanatic. Only 15.6.2 is neutral. 48. Neutral are Pan.Lat.8.3.2, 6.1.3, 9.2, 23.3. 49. Thus Plin.Aro.3.3, 78.4, 86.5, Pan.Lat.8.10.2 (arrogance), 20.2, 5.10.3, 11.2, 5, 12.12.3, 2.29.2 (allegedly excessive piety, of the Priscillianists), Symm.Or. 1.12, Aus.GA 72 (meanness).

2

Some Kindred Virtues and Vices

Moderate Virtues and Their Contraries O ther virtues akin to moderation are also highly prized, while vices that are symptoms of excess are criticized. Temperantia is particularly associated with Julian, whose temperate charac­ ter is first contrasted with the character of Gallus—as great a difference as between Domitian and Titus—then commended as an object of imitation by Constantius on his appointment as Caesar. Ammianus praises Julian for accomplishing the difficult task of imprajpg r>n h irr^ |f and lists it fn the~necrology among his cardinal virtues (14.11.28, 15.8.10, 16.5.1, TT.'C lT' Valentinian expressed the hope that fortune would eventually help him to select a colleague in empire who was of temperate character. Indeed, if he himself had tempered his other acts to match those that deserved praise, he could have stood comparison with Trajan or Marcus (26.2.9, 30.9.1).1 23 W hen recommending the conclusion of peace with the Alamanni, Constan­ tius appealed to temperance in advising the imposition of a limit on the ex­ ploitation of good fortune ( 14.10.15). O f lesser Romans, Olybrius the urban prefect is commended because he was temperate toward those under him, as he is for several other forms of moderation (28.4.1). Among Persians Artaxerxes is singled out for his temperate ways. N ot so Sapor, who merely pretended that he had now tempered the greatness of his fortune with quiet humanity (30.8.4; 18.10.4). ’ Intemperance is regularly criticized.4 Constantius departed intemperately from the path of justice when he employed the tide Aetemitas mea and designated himself master of the entire world, despite his claim to imitate the more moderate emperors (15.1.3). Julian was inr