The Historians of Late Antiquity (11 page)

Text and translation

Latin text edited by C. Santini (1979), Teubner. English translation by H.W. Bird (1993), Translated Texts for Historians.

4
FESTUS

Life

The brief and impersonal work of Festus contains little information about its author. Festus must have been considerably older than the emperor Valens, the patron of the work, since he refers to himself as very old (30.1; Arnaud-Lindet 1994: vii–viii). Since Valens died in August 378, when he was nearly fifty years old (Amm. 31.14.1), Festus must have been born in the period roughly before 318. In the last sentence of the work, the comments of Festus about a god (
deus
) and a divinity (
numen
) have been interpreted as the words of a pagan distinguishing gracefully between his beliefs and those of the Christian emperor (e.g. Eadie 1967: 9 n. 2). This is not, however, a necessary reading of the words, and Baldwin (1978: 203) provides numerous parallel examples of such panegyrical writing in the fourth century.

Various manuscripts provide the additional information that the author’s name was Rufus or, alternatively, Rufius Festus. A single manuscript identifies the author as holder of the position of
magister memoriae
, the same position held by Eutropius. Although this evidence is not conclusive (Baldwin 1978: 199), we do know that a man named Festus served in that position sometime between 365 and 372 (the work itself was written in 369 or 370). Scholars generally identify the historian, whose work was written in 369 or 370, with this imperial official Festus who was from Tridentum, a city in northern Italy.

Festus of Tridentum is mentioned with disgust by three pagans, Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius, and Eunapius. Ammianus says that he was of lowly birth (29.2.22–8). Ammianus is less interested in Festus himself than in using the historian to further blacken the character of Maximinus, the official whom Ammianus decries for his role in a series of sorcery trials at Rome. Therefore Ammianus
praises Festus’ early career, when he served as
consularis Syriae
(in 365 or 368) and
magister memoriae
(in 370). When Festus became
proconsul Asiae
, however, Ammianus claims that he fell under the sway of the evil Maximinus. While Festus had at first opposed Maximinus’ despotic behavior, Ammianus says, he soon saw it as a means for career advancement and began prosecuting his subjects for sorcery. Among his victims were the philosopher Coeranius and numerous other innocents who, far from practicing malicious magic, were persecuted for simply performing simple charms for their health.

Unlike Ammianus, Libanius does not present a Festus who is corrupted later in his career, but rather portrays him as bloodthirsty from the beginning when he took the position of
consularis Syriae
. Libanius describes him as an idiot and a man who knew no Greek (the two being synonymous for the Latin-loathing Libanius), and accuses him of plotting with Libanius’ enemy Eubulus in return for a luxurious feast (
or
. 1.156). Festus managed to disrupt Libanius’ public orations, but he failed in his attempt to destroy the orator by connecting him to the supposed crimes of a certain Martyrius. The prosecution of this otherwise unknown man is reminiscent of the prosecutions that Ammianus described as common during Festus’ administration as proconsul. Martyrius’ weakness for wrestling apparently led him to dabble in magic in an attempt to hinder a competitor, and Libanius claims that Festus, in a private meeting with the emperor Valens, attempted to link both him and the historian Eutropius to this sorcery.

Festus is attacked even more harshly by Eunapius, who portrays him as madman with the soul of a butcher, and a persecutor of pagans (
Lives
480–1). Eunapius blames Festus for many beheadings, including that of the philosopher Maximus of Ephesus, the friend of Julian. Eunapius also relates the story of the death of Festus, which he claims to have witnessed himself. After leaving office, he married a wealthy woman of Asia, and decided to try to pacify the enemies he had made through his conduct by holding a lavish banquet for nobles and office-holders. After many had agreed to attend his party, Festus made the error of entering the temple of the goddess Nemesis, although he was not a pagan and had punished pagans with death. He described to those in the temple an ominous dream he had had in which his victim Maximus had dragged him by the neck to be judged by Pluto. Although Festus followed the advice of those in the temple and offered prayers to Nemesis, on his way out of the sanctuary he slipped on the pavement and fell on his back,
expiring soon after. Eunapius found this end to be a particularly satisfying example of the justice of the gods.

Work

Momigliano claimed that the work of Festus was an epitome of the work of Eutropius (1963: 85–6). He suggested that after the
magister memoriae
of 369, Eutropius, had produced his
Breviarium
, the ignorant emperor Valens found it too complex. Thus, he asked for an abridgement of the abridgement from his
magister memoriae
of the following year. This theory is partly based on the title of the work, which one manuscript preserves as
Breviarium Festi De Breviario Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani
(Eadie 1967: 13).

Momigliano, and den Boer following him (den Boer 1972: 173–4), interpreted the title to mean “a
breviarium
of the
breviarium
(of Eutropius).” This is in contrast to the earlier theory of Wölfflin (1904: 72), who interpreted the phrase to mean “the
breviarium
to surpass all
breviaria
,” like the phrase “king of kings.” Because, on the one hand, Wölfflin’s suggestion is linguistically impossible, and on the other, Festus’ work is clearly not an abridgement of Eutropius’ work, a different explanation for the title is required. One is provided by Arnaud-Lindet (1994: xv). He suggests that the actual name of the work was
De Breviario Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani
(“[book] concerning a summary of the history of the Roman people”) and that the first two words were originally added by a copyist after the “incipit” (“here begins the
breviarium
of Festus”) and then erroneously considered to be part of the original title. There is thus no reason to adhere to Momigliano’s untenable thesis.

At the end of his work, Festus laments his inability to rise to the level of eloquence which a full narrative history of the deeds of Valens would demand. He prays that the gods will grant the fortune necessary for the emperor to subdue Persia in the manner in which he has subdued the Goths. The Gothic victory took place in 369 (Amm. 27.5), so the work must have been published after that date. Mommsen suggested that the work must have been completed in 369 as well, since the list of provinces which Festus provides omits the province of Valentia, which was created in 369 and named for Valentinian. This date is not necessarily certain, however, since scribal error may have caused the name to be lost, or Festus may have used an older list which did not contain the newest division (Baldwin 1978: 197–9). Since Ammianus suggests that Festus was
magister memoriae
in between his service as
consularis Syriae
(either in 365 or 368) and as
proconsul Asiae
(from 372 to 378), it would not be inconsistent with the evidence to imagine the work was composed in late 369, when he succeeded Eutropius in the position.

Festus dedicated his production to the emperor Valens, who had requested its production, as several passages of the work make clear. Various forms of the fulsome address required of court officials to the emperor appear throughout, such as “most glorious emperor” (1.2), “your clemency” (1.1), and “your eternity” (2.1; Eadie 1967: 2 n. 2). It is certain that the intended recipient was the eastern emperor Valens, rather than the western emperor, his brother Valentinian, since in the tenth chapter Festus describes how the eastern provinces fell under “your rule,” “sceptris tuis” (10.1). In addition, the victory over the Goths praised by Festus in chapter 30 (30.2) must refer to Valens’ recent conquest of Athanaric. No credence need be given to the suggestion that the existence of Valentinian’s name at the beginning of one line of the manuscript tradition represents a second dedication; rather, the name is best explained as an incorrect scribal expansion of an original abbreviation “VAL” (cf. Eadie 1967: 3–4).

The work itself is less a summary of Roman history than a piece of official propaganda prepared by the court to lay the foundations for Valens’ Persian expedition. A large majority of the work pertains to the history of Roman–Persian relations, and of the part which does not, a majority pertains to Roman foreign policy. In length it is more a pamphlet than a book, and it does not attempt to provide a succinct history of Rome as do the
breviaria
of Victor and Eutropius.

The work was composed very rapidly and the historian used few sources for its composition. Several close linguistic parallels suggest that the information in the republican section of the work was derived from an epitome of Livy, perhaps one which served as a source for the extant
Periochae
of Livy. The abbreviated history of Florus may also have been used. Parallels between Festus, Eutropius, and the
Historia Augusta
in the imperial section of the history reveal that Festus made use of the
Kaisergeschichte
. The numerous errors in the work suggest that Festus was not always careful in using his sources, and that he may also have relied upon his memory for some information (Eadie 1967: 70–98; Arnaud-Lindet 1994: xxi–xxiv).

The work can be divided into an introduction (1), a numerical division by years of all of Roman history into the regal, republican,
and imperial periods (2), a quick survey of which provinces were conquered during the three periods (3), the conquest of the western provinces (4–9), the conquest of the eastern provinces (10–13), a history of Roman warfare against Persia (14–29), and a conclusion encouraging Valens’ designs against Persia (30).

In the introduction, Festus states that the emperor has requested brevity and that he will therefore proceed in the fashion of moneychangers, who express large amounts of small change in smaller numbers of higher-denomination coins (1.1). This is an introduction not so much to the entire work, but rather to the subsequent chapter, in which Festus makes good on his introductory promise to enable the emperor to not read about the past as much as to count it out. The period from the founding of Rome to the accession of Valens comprised 1,117 years. The regal period included 243 years, the consular period 467, and the imperial period 407. He gives the length of rule of each king, the number of consuls who held office in the republican period, and the number of emperors.

Festus again summarizes in the third section, in which he lists which regions had been conquered during each of the three major divisions of Roman history. In
chapter 4
he turns to a different task, the listing of each province and the date and circumstances of its absorption into the Roman empire. This signals a shift from the historical arrangement of the second and third chapters to a new geographic arrangement of his material. This also reveals the fundamental difference in structure between the work of Festus and that of Victor or Eutropius.
Chapters 4
to
14
of Festus travel roughly clockwise from Sicily and Sardinia to Africa (4), Spain (5), and Gaul (6), then from Crete north through Greece, Illyricum, Pannonia, and Noricum (7), and then east through Asia Minor (11–12), to Cyprus and Egypt (13), and finally to Judaea, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Armenia (14).

This geographic section is split into a western and an eastern section by Festus’ comment in that he now turns to the jurisdiction of Valens. The western and eastern sections are also distinguished by an unusual feature which Festus includes in the former, but not the latter section. After the sketch of the history of the acquisition of each western diocese, Festus provides a list of its provinces. This is the earliest surviving list of its type, and it may represent the only source of information which modern historians find useful in Festus’ work. An eastern provincial list is lacking, perhaps because it would have been unnecessary at the eastern court. The purpose of the list has been disputed. Eadie (1967: 170–1)
suggests that the list rounds off the discussion of the dioceses of the western half of the empire, to which Festus will not return. Den Boer sees the list as “remarkable” and innovative (den Boer 1972: 197). The list, which fits in well with the unadorned nature of the first half of the work, emphasizes the geographic arrangement of
chapters 4
–
9
. By presenting the magnitude of Roman strength and conquests in the west, perhaps it is meant to suggest that war in the east is the logical and inevitable result of the growth of Roman power (cf. Peachin 1985).

After describing the western Roman conquests in a geographically clockwise spiral which concludes in the east, Festus turns to a historical summary of Roman–Persian relations. The introduction to this section (15.1) suggests the instructions Festus had received from Valens. “I know now, illustrious prince, where your purpose leads. You assuredly seek to know how many times Babylonian and Roman arms clashed, with what fortunes the javelin contended with the arrow.” Festus’ use of “Babylonian” for “Persian,” and his synecdoche of the Roman
pila
, the typical javelin of the Roman infantryman, and the Persian
sagitta
, the arrow of the Persian cavalryman, are examples of his intermittent attempts at high style. He goes on to state that the Persians will emerge only rarely as victors in his account, and that the Romans would often win because of their superior virtue.

Festus’ account of Roman policy in the east is too minimalist to shed much light on his opinions or beliefs. Contrary to what one might expect from the official nature of Festus’ account, the narrative mostly provides the unadorned facts. A slightly higher estimate of casualties inflicted by Pompey (16; Eadie 1967: 129) than those found in other sources, and the possible invention of a Persian delegation to Constantine to head off a threatened invasion (26; Arnaud-Lindet 1994: 34 n. 190), are exceptions which prove the rule by their triviality. In discussing the campaigns of Lucius Verus, the younger co-emperor of Marcus Aurelius who had great success in the east, one might expect Festus to exploit the parallels with his patron, Valens, also a junior emperor. Perhaps the slightest hint of this can be seen in Festus’ reference to Marcus and Verus as “pariter Augusti,” “equally emperors.” This stress on the equality of their power can also be found in Eutropius (8.9.2), who operated in a similar political atmosphere as Festus, but not in Victor (16.3), who emphasizes the superiority of Marcus. Festus concludes with a description of the shameful surrender of Persian territory under Jovian. The work thus serves Valens’ purpose of explaining an upcoming war as necessary to avenge a major loss.