The Last Historians Blog

In 1681, the French historian Adrien de Valois (Hadrianus Valesius, 1607–93) published an edition of Ammianus Marcellinus’ history at Paris. He presented it as a reprint of the groundbreaking edition of 1636 by his late brother Henri de Valois’s (Henricus Valesius, 1603–76), but it was in fact thoroughly updated and improved. Many of the corrections in the text that Henri had suggested in his notes were incorporated into the text; those notes appeared, along with Henri’s later thoughts and further notes by Adrien, as footnotes beneath the text rather than at the end. The books were divided into chapters, whose titles formed an epitome at the start of each book: these are the divisions still used today (for my discussion of these, see here). Another useful element of Adrien’s work was to reprint as an appendix the notes on the text written by Friedrich Lindenbrog (1573–1649) to accompany his edition (Hamburg, 1609), supplementing them with further subsequent annotations by Lindenbrog.

A few months ago, Joop van Waarden kindly pointed out to me a letter to Hadrianus Valesius from the German Classicist Johann Georg Graevius (1632–1703), who held chairs in Rhetoric and in History and Politics at the University of Utrecht. The letter, preserved in manuscript with other letters to and by French scholars in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, reveals that Graevius was responsible for sourcing Lindenbrog’s later textual notes. It also offers a number of emendations on the text of Ammianus, especially book 31, and is a nice illustration of the informal networks by which the Republic of Letters operated. In what follows, I provide a text, a translation, some notes on points in the text (indicated in the text and translation by *), and a discussion of each of the emendations in turn. The original is Paris, BNF, NAL 1554, f. 73, which can be found by way of this link:

Viro summo

Hadriano Valesio

S[alutem] P[lurimam] D[icit]

Joannes Georgius Graevius.

Litteras novissimas, in quibus significavi fratris tui notas in Harpocrationem describi,* et Lindenbrogii annotationes auctiores expectari,* recte tibi redditas puto. Interea litteras habui a Langermanno, qui recepit se quamprimum invenerit, cuius fidei has sui civis lucubrationes* committere sustineat, ad nos illas missurum. Eas enim fere omnes descriptas esse. Nec dubito quin propediem simus illas uisuri, In Ammiano tuo lib. XXV p. 294 [25.4.17], videtur legendum, ut versus constet

            οἱ λευκοὶ βόες Μάρκῳ τῷ Καίσαρι χαίρειν

                        Ἢν δὲ νικήσεις ἄμμες ἀπωλόμεθα.

Huic voto non dissimile recenset Seneca III de benef. 27.* Libro XXXI p. 435 v. 11 [31.1.3] videtur scribendum carmina quaedam nimium horrenda. P. 438 v. 25 credo sine fune distentas pro vulgato sine fine [31.2.18]. P. 443, v. 23 editur: nec victui congruis sunt adiuti [31.5.1]. Editiones veteres: nec hoc victui congruis. Forte scripsit Ammianus: nec humano victui congruis. P. 447 v. 27 vide, Vallesi doctissime, an non Ammianus scripserit: iam turmae praedatoriae discursabant compilando villas [31.5.8]. Et sic pagina sequenti videtur quoque syllaba excidisse v. 18, ubi legendum existimo in unum conspirando. Ibid. v. 36 [31.5.9] mallem, si et tibi ita videbitur: qui ad id solum intentus.* P. 445 v. 23 melius veteres editiones hac gratia, quod est, hanc ob caussam [31.5.14]. Sed nimius sum. Haec ad te \non/ scribo, quasi tu istas leves mendas non videris, sed ut tuae voluntati me morem gerere voluisse intelligas. Tuo iudico [sic, lege iudicio] stabunt hae coniecturae cadentve. Florum ad vos curat Elzevirius.* Ubi tamdiu in via haereat equidem ignoro. Sed \sat/ cito veniet, modo sat bene veniat, et tibi se probet, Vale vir illustris et me ama. Traiecti Batavorum d. XXII Maii Gregor. MDCLXXX.*

Huic voto non dissimile recenset Seneca III de benef. 27.* Libro XXXI p. 435 v. 11 [31.1.3] videtur scribendum carmina quaedam nimium horrenda. P. 438 v. 25 credo sine fune distentas pro vulgato sine fine [31.2.18]. P. 443, v. 23 editur: nec victui congruis sunt adiuti [31.5.1]. Editiones veteres: nec hoc victui congruis. Forte scripsit Ammianus: nec humano victui congruis. P. 447 v. 27 vide, Vallesi doctissime, an non Ammianus scripserit: iam turmae praedatoriae discursabant compilando villas [31.5.8]. Et sic pagina sequenti videtur quoque syllaba excidisse v. 18, ubi legendum existimo in unum conspirando. Ibid. v. 36 [31.5.9] mallem, si et tibi ita videbitur: qui ad id solum intentus.*

P. 445 v. 23 melius veteres editiones hac gratia, quod est, hanc ob caussam [31.5.14]. Sed nimius sum. Haec ad te \non/ scribo, quasi tu istas leves mendas non videris, sed ut tuae voluntati me morem gerere voluisse intelligas. Tuo iudico [sic, lege iudicio] stabunt hae coniecturae cadentve. Florum ad vos curat Elzevirius.* Ubi tamdiu in via haereat equidem ignoro. Sed \sat/ cito veniet, modo sat bene veniat, et tibi se probet, Vale vir illustris et me ama. Traiecti Batavorum d. XXII Maii Gregor. MDCLXXX.*

To the distinguished Hadrien de Valois, many greetings from Johann Georg Graevius.

I believe that my most recent letter, in which I indicated that your brother’s notes on Harpocration were being copied* and that more complete annotations by Lindenbrog were awaited,* reached you safely. In the meantime, I have had a letter from Langermann, who promised that, as soon as he found someone to whom he dared entrust these lucubrations of his fellow-townsman,* he would send them to me; he says they have practically all been copied. I have no doubt that we shall see them any day now. In your Ammianus, book 25, p. 294* [25.4.17] it seems that it should read (so the verse works):

                        οἱ λευκοὶ βόες Μάρκῳ τῷ Καίσαρι χαίρειν

                                    Ἢν δὲ νικήσεις ἄμμες ἀπωλόμεθα.

Seneca recounts something not unlike this prayer in De beneficiis 3.27.* In book 31 p. 435 line 11 [31.1.3], it seems best to write carmina quaedam nimium horrenda. On p. 438 line 25 [31.2.18] I think sine fune distentas [extended without a rope] in place of the vulgate text sine fine [without end]. On p. 443, line 23 one reads: nec victui congruis sunt adiuti [31.5.1]. Old editions have: nec hoc victui congruis. Maybe Ammianus wrote: ne humano victui congruis. On p. 447 [read 444] line 27 [31.5.8] consider, most learned Vallesius [sic], whether Ammianus could not have written: iam turmae praedatoriae discursabant compilando villas. And it seems in the same way a syllable has been lost on the next page [445], line. 18, where I think it should read in unum conspirando [31.5.13]. Same page, line 36 [actually previous page, 444 = 31.5.9], I’d prefer, if it also seems right to you: qui ad id solum intentus.

On p. 445 v. 23 better are the old editions hac gratia, that is, ‘for this reason’ [31.5.14]. But that’s enough from me.  I am not writing this to you as if you have not seen these minor errors, but so you understand that I wanted to support your wishes. By your judgment these conjectures will stand or fall. Elzevir will make sure you get Florus.* Where it has got stuck on the road for so long I have absolutely no idea. But it will come fast enough as long as turns up right enough, and I hope it meets with your approval. Be well, illustrious man, and keep me in your thoughts. At Utrecht in the Netherlands, on 22 May (Gregorian), 1680.*

Notes

Fratris tui notas in Harpocrationem Henricus Valesius’ notes on the grammarian Harpocration were published two years later by Jacob Gronovius, who later edited Ammianus: Henrici Valesii Notae et animadversiones ad Harpocrationem et Philippi Jacobi Maussaci notas (Leiden, 1682).

Lindenbrogii annotationes auctiores Hadrianus Valesius’ 1681 edition of Ammianus included notes by Friedrich Lindenbrog (1573-1648) in a bloc at the end, including additional notes written after his Ammianus edition of 1609: In the preface, Hadrianus writes: ‘Fridericus Lindenbrogius post editum Ammianum vixit annis plus minus triginta: quo toto temporis spatio non oblitus tanti historici, suis Observationibus plurima adjecit: quae ex urbe Hammaburgo ad me missa, corpori eius Observationum adjunxi, ac suis quaeque in locis inserui. Cunctas istas accessiones duobus asteriscis medias interposui, ut a prioribus Observationibus separarentur.’ ‘[Friedrich Lindenbrog lived around 30 years after editing Ammianus [in fact 39], and over the whole period did not forget so great a historian and added many points to his Observations. These were sent to me from the city of Hamburg and I added them to the text of his observations inserting each in their proper place. I have these supplements between double asterisks so that they can be distinguished from the earlier Observations.’]

A Langermanno… has sui civis lucubrationes The fellow townsman is Lindenbrog. Langermann is a Hamburg family. The most notable member at the time was probably Johann Lorenz Langermann, a Lutheran clergyman in Hanau (1640-1716), but perhaps we should be looking for a member of the family still resident in Hamburg.

p. 294 The page numbers are those of Henricus Valesius’ edition of 1636, which had no chapter divisions, but which did contain marginal line numbers. The chapters now used were introduced in Hadrianus’ edition of 1681 and the section numbers by Wagner and Erfurdt 1808.

Intentus there is an abbreviation above the line that I do not understand.

Florum … Elzevirus Graevius’ edition of Florus was published in Utrecht apud Ioannem Ribbium in this same year, 1680. Probably Graevius’ friend Daniel Elzevir, the last major member of the publishing dynasty, who died later in 1680. He was not the publisher but had connections with Paris.

d. XXII Maii Gregor. The Netherlands did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1700, so Graevius dates according to his correspondent’s calendar.

Commentary on the individual textual suggestions

25.4.18 The Greek text transmitted in V is ΟΙ ΛΕΥΚΟΙ ΒΟΕΣ ΜΑΡΚΩ ΤΩ ΚΑΙΡΙΝ ΑΝ ΠΜ ΝΙΚΗΣΗΝ ΜΕΙΣ ΑΠΩΛΟΜΕΘΑ. Τhe elder Valesius had written οἱ λευκοὶ βόες Μάρκῳ τῷ Καίσαρι. ἂν σὺ νικήσῃς ἡμεῖς ἀπωλόμεθα. It is a satirical poem addressed by white cattle to Marcus Aurelius asking him to win victories so they can avoid falling victim to his appetite for sacrifice. The issue here is whether the transmitted Greek should be an elegiac couplet (it certainly should). Valesius 1636 had accepted Accursius’ emendation of V’s ΚΑΙ ΡΙΝ to Καίσαρι; Graevius is here clearly correct to write Καίσαρι χαίρειν (implying a sort of saut-du-même-au-même in the transmission). This correct conjecture had, however, already been made independently by Casaubon in his annotations on the Historia Augusta (1603, 155). In the second line where Valesius had written ἂν σὺ, Graevius conjectures Ἤν δὲ; the reading of V is ΑΝ ΠΜ. Either ἂν or ἢν is an acceptable substitute for ἐὰν, but neither δὲ nor σὺ (found in Gelenius) is metrical. Valesius 1636 has Gelenius’ ἡμεῖς where Graevius rightly suggests ἄμμες for the sake of the metre (V has ΜΕΙC). Again he had been anticipated by Casaubon, who had also made the light correction of indicative to subjunctive, νικήσεις το νικήσῃς. For the whole epigram, the younger Valesius simply reprinted his brother’s text with the following note:

Johannes Georgius Graevius, vir optimus atque doctissimus, mihi Traiecto Batavorum rescripsit mense Maio anno M. DC. LXXX. ut versus constet, legendum sibi videri:

Οἱ λευκοὶ βόες Μάρκῳ τῷ Καίσαρι χαίρειν

Ἂν δὲ νικήσεις ἄμμες ἀπωλόμεθα.

Addidit, huic votum non dissimile alterum commemorari a Seneca in libri III. de beneficiis capite XXVII. ἄμμες quidem Aeolice dicitur pro ἡμεῖς: sed cum in codicibus priscis omnibus Graeca haecce scripta repperiantur, ita ut a fratre meo olim sunt edita, nihil mutandum: nihil addendum puter, ne temeritatis accuser, si a codicibus consentientibus sine causa recessero, quorum auctoritate plurimi faciendam nemo nescit. Versum quidem stare nihil necesse est. Ingeniosa tamen est amici nostri coniectura: cui libenter acquiescerem, ni conspiratio codicum obstaret.’

[Johann Georg Graevius wrote to me from Utrecht in the Netherlands in May 1680, that he thought to work as verse it should read: … He added that a second prayer not unlike this is mentioned by Seneca in Ben. 3.27. Now, ἄμμες is the Aeolic for ἡμεῖς, but since in the old manuscripts the Greek is to found just as my brother edited it long ago, I should think that nothing should be changed, nothing added, lest I be accused of rashness if I abandon without cause the unanimous reading of the manuscripts – whose authority everybody knows should be held in the highest regard, as I hardly need say. Still, my friend’s conjecture is ingenious, and I would willingly agree to it were it not that the unanimity of the manuscripts stood in the way.’].

Interestingly, a similar but even more developed solution to the passage reached Hadrianus soon afterwards, in the notes of Lindenbrog sent from Hamburg (which he printed in an appendix). Lindenbrog identified and solved metrical problems in both lines – though both his solutions had already been reached by Casaubon. In the first line they both replaced οἱ λευκοὶ βόες, with the anomalous short fourth syllable, with with οἱ βόες οἱ λευκοὶ; in the second they added an additional short syllable to make: ἂν δὲ σὺ νικήσῃς. Though this scans modern editors rightly print Haupt’s ἂν πάλι νικήσῃς (if you win again), which is much closer to the reading of V (ΠΜ). But in the first line, we might wonder whether the emendation has gone too far. I have no doubt that it represents the original form of the epigram from the second century. But what if the transposition was an overcorrection and Ammianus incorporated a version with a relatively minor metrical error? Ammianus would mainly have been transmitted by copyists ignorant of Greek and unlikely to swap the words. That said, most editors will probably have the same reaction as Joop van Waarden did when I suggested this, to doubt that an educated Greek like Ammianus would make such an error. Let me close by adding my own translation of the couplet:

            Marcus the Caesar we white oxen greet –

But please don’t win again, or we’re dead meat.

To sum up: Graevius is right on most points, though he had been anticipated by Casaubon and Lindenbrog; Hadrianus quotes Graevius but disagrees. We could consider adding the name of Graevius to apparatuses for Καίσαρι χαίρειν, which he seems to have reached independently. I may well print the unmetrical οἱ λευκοὶ βόες in my edition.

31.1.3 Ammianus speaks of ghosts howling by night, in V, carmina quaedam nimiarum horrenda, but nimiarum had been replaced by a renaissance corrector of V, followed by Accursius and the elder Valesius, with nimirum, ‘certain songs, indisputably frightening’. This suggestion, nimium,‘certain exceptionally horrifying songs’, is an improvement, and Hadrianus printed it without comment or attribution. Modern editors rightly print Gronovius senior’s emendation neniarum ‘certain grim dirge-like songs’; nimium gives a bad clausula, though neither Hadrianus nor Graevius is likely to have known that: prose rhythm was not generally understood at the time.

31.2.18 Nobody has ever followed up on the suggestion of sine fune distentas, and Hadrianus ignores it.

31.5.1 V reads ne hoc uictui congruis sunt adiuti, followed by Accursius and some sixteenth-century editions as ne hoc; Gelenius’ second edition deleted hoc, and Lindenbrog emended to nec, ‘and they were not aided with any provisions’(I am not aware of any old edition that reads nec hoc).

31.5.8 The transmitted text is iam turmae praedatoriae concursabant pilando uillas et incendendo (‘now raiding bands dashed about, plundering and burning villas’); Graevius proposes a swap of prefixes with discursabant, compilando. These compound forms are commoner, but the transmitted forms accord with Ammianus’ usage. Hadrianus Valesius preserves concursabant, but emends (unnecessarily) to praedando.

31.5.13 Unum spirando uesania gentium dissonarum V (‘breathing as one, the madness of discordant nations…’). Henri de Valois’ edition had printed in unum spirando, and Graevius changed this to in unum conspirando. His instincts were correct, as conspiro is intransitive and Ammianus uses it with in unum several times (17.10.2, 26.5.11). But since spirando is transitive and since Ammianus elsewhere uses unum spiro (24.3.4, 27.10.9, 29.5.28) the transmitted text is fine, and indeed it is restored by Hadrianus Valesius.

31.5.9 quia ad id solum inuentus V was corrected to qui… by Accursius, but a commander ‘who, being found for this alone, rushed to escape while others were still fighting’ is hard to defend; intentus is printed by modern editions, attributed to Bentley and Gardthausen and approved by Petschenig; Graevius anticipated both the former, but he was ignored by Hadrianus, who printed inuentus. Graevius’ name should, therefore, enter the apparatus.

31.5.15 Hac gratia is the generally accepted reading, printed by Hadrianus, and Valesius 1636’s haec gratia is presumably just a typo.

The overall results might disappoint: Graevius’s correct emendations had, with one exception, already been made by others; others, while clever, were based on false information. Still, it is clear that he was the contact to whom we owe the publication of Lindenbrog’s later emendations, and it is interesting to see his enthusiasm, for the most part focused in a fairly narrow part of the text, for supporting Adrien’s reworking of his brother’s great edition.

by Agnese Bargagna

The Crucial Role of Fourth-Century Historians

Conversations about imperialism and societal progress gave taken centre stage, and, in terms of historical scholarship, the Roman Empire has been a key focus. Understanding its imperial system is, therefore, more important than ever. Yet, some periods of the Empire remain obscure, due to a lack of written historical accounts. Indeed, after Hadrian’s reign (117-138), Roman historical writing faded, leaving gaps in our knowledge of the period between the reigns of this emperor and Constantine and his successors – a crucial era in Roman history. This changed around AD 360 when Sextus Aurelius Victor revived Latin historical writing with his Historia Abbreviata, sometimes called De Caesaribus. His work inspired a new generation of historians, including Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus Marcellinus, and the authors of the Historia Augusta. Therefore, to Victor and other secular historians writing in the following four decades – Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus Marcellinus, and the author(s) of the Historia Augusta – we owe much of our knowledge of Roman imperial history over nearly three centuries between Hadrian and Theodosius I.

‘The Last Historians of Rome’ Project

Roman history has often been shaped by a few well-known historians, but recent scholarship is reshaping our understanding of that era. Key figures like Ammianus Marcellinus, Sextus Aurelius Victor, and the Historia Augusta—once dismissed or overlooked—are now being reconsidered as essential sources of historical insight. The Last Historians of Rome project, hosted at the Universities of Edinburgh and Nottingham, funded by the generous support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant number: AH/Z505936/1], seeks to break new ground in the study of these historians, by systematically exploring the manuscripts that transmit these historical works, rethinking their historical value and place in Roman historiography, and ultimately producing new critical editions and English translations.

The changing view of Key Roman Historians

Ammianus Marcellinus: Traditionally seen as the final great historian of the Roman Empire, his work (covering AD 353–378) has been re-evaluated. Scholars like Kelly argue that Ammianus’ prose style and relationship to earlier historians, such as Tacitus and Livy, require further exploration. At Kelly has shown, there’s a particular need for more emendation, alongside a more comprehensive analysis of the manuscript tradition and the early printed editions.

Sextus Aurelius Victor: Once regarded as a minor historian, Victor’s work De Caesaribus has been shown to be more complex than initially thought. Stover and Woudhuysen’s research reveals that Victor’s writings were a significant abbreviation of a larger, lost work, making him an important figure in late Roman historiography.

Historia Augusta: While still considered a patchwork of fiction, recent findings by Stover have uncovered previously ignored manuscript sources, revealing that the Historia Augusta contains authentic historical elements hidden beneath its fictional layers. This should require rethinking its historical value.

What’s Missing in Current Scholarship?

Despite recent progress, several gaps remain in how Roman historians are studied:

• Inadequate Editorial Work: Previous editions of Ammianus, Historia Augusta, and Victor have often overlooked important manuscripts, leading to errors and missing passages. For example, Stover’s research uncovered significant fifteenth-century manuscripts of the Historia Augusta that were ignored by earlier editors.
• Neglected Manuscript Traditions: Many works, especially the Historia Augusta and Victor’s writings, have not been fully explored in light of their complete manuscript histories. Stover’s findings show that early editors missed key manuscript branches, which are essential for understanding the development of these texts.
• Misunderstanding Minor Historians: Figures like Victor, Eutropius, and Festus have been treated as secondary writers. Their works have been undervalued, limiting our understanding of their role in shaping Roman historiography.
• Outdated Translations: Existing English translations of these texts, such as those in the Loeb editions, are incomplete and don’t reflect recent scholarship. Furthermore, several key texts like the so-called Epitome de Caesaribus and Festus are not available at all in conventionally published English translations.

What’s Needed Moving Forward

To address these gaps, the Last Historians project aims to achieve the following goals:

Textual and Manuscript Reassessment: A comprehensive review of the primary texts and their manuscript traditions is needed. Kelly and Stover’s work on Ammianus and the Historia Augusta highlights the importance of re-evaluating these texts with an eye toward neglected manuscript branches.

Reevaluation of Minor Historians: The works of Victor, Eutropius, and Festus deserve a fresh perspective. Stover and Woudhuysen’s studies on Victor show that his works were deeply engaged with earlier historiography, offering more historical value than previously recognized.

Modern Translations: New translations of these texts are crucial for making them accessible to a wider audience.

Why This Matters

The reexamination of these texts isn’t just about correcting historical errors—it’s about transforming our understanding of Roman historiography. This new approach highlights several key points:

Collective Contribution: By viewing historians like Ammianus, Victor, and the Historia Augusta as a collective group, we can better understand how their works influenced each other and contributed to the development of Latin historical writing.

Incorporating Archaeology: Modern archaeological discoveries, such as those from Harzhorn and Glac, are shedding new light on both the Historia Augusta and Victor’s texts, offering fresh insights into these works.

Onomastics: The study of names (onomastics) is helping to correct errors in manuscripts and trace their transmission through medieval scribes. This is crucial for understanding how these texts evolved over time.

Accessible Translations: The goal of this project is to produce new, comprehensive English translations that are both accurate and transparent, making these foundational texts available to a modern audience.

Conclusion

The re-evaluation of Ammianus, Victor, and the Historia Augusta is reshaping our understanding of Roman historiography. By addressing gaps in editorial work, re-examining manuscript traditions, and producing new translations, scholars are uncovering a much richer and more complex history of the late Roman Empire than previously thought. This fresh approach is not just about updating old editions but about ensuring these texts remain relevant and accessible for today’s readers, offering valuable insights into the development of Roman history.

The inscription on the base of the now-lost statue that Sex. Aurelius Victor erected in honour of the Emperor Theodosius (CIL 6.1186) during his urban prefecture (389?).

by Gavin Kelly

The centrepieces of the Last Historians of Rome project are the team’s new critical editions of the five historians we are studying, and for me in particular, the biggest task is to edit Ammianus Marcellinus, the longest and greatest of the five. But we are also producing translations: at the moment, Justin Stover and George Woudhuysen are polishing off Aurelius Victor, and I am in the very final stages of the translation of Ammianus, which has occupied me for many years, off and on. The translation is for Robert Strassler’s Landmark series, will be published by Oxford University Press in New York, and is a collaboration with Michael Kulikowski: he is the volume editor and responsible for everything that isn’t the translation – the introduction, notes, lavish maps and illustrations, and appendices – as well as for working over the translation with me and making sure that it is as stylish and readable and clear as possible.

Right now, however, rather than discussing style, readability, or the explanatory help for readers which we hope will make this markedly more accessible than previous translations, I am going to discuss the most fundamental task of a translation: working out what the original actually means. Something can have been translated many times but there will be occasional passages where translators go different ways – or where they all go one way but might be wrong. There is a rider, especially in the case of texts in ancient languages that survive because people made a series of manuscript copies: namely, that you need to be willing to ask ‘Is this actually the original?’

Let me give three examples from the first surviving book of Ammianus Marcellinus’ history, though it is one of the later ones I translated, at the start of this year (I started with the books that had the benefit of commentaries by the Dutch team of Den Boeft, Den Hengst, Drijvers and Teitler). In the first case, I translate in a way different from everybody else. In the second, I concluded that what I was translating was not the original and that some text has been lost. In the third, I spent time wondering if the transmitted text was correct, before concluding that it was but that it didn’t mean quite what I had originally thought – and I found that though most translators had gone slightly astray, two Italian translations had nailed it.

1. How to fight the Isaurians (14.2.7)

The Romans of the fourth century thought that there were baying barbarians encircling their empire’s frontiers. The Isaurians were an exception – they were barbarians inside the empire, in the rugged heart of the Taurus Mountains in central Anatolia. Isauria was a province, but some of its population were prone to raiding their prosperous neighbours and fighting Roman troops. 

Isauria as imagined in the late Roman Notitia Dignitatum; copy made in Basel, 1436 (Oxford, Canon. Misc. 378)

In chapter 2 of book 14, Ammianus gives a memorable account of Isaurian raids in the year 353, which begin as retaliation when some Isaurians were thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre at Iconium (Konya). There is an unforgettable story of their capture of merchant shipping at anchor off the Cilician coast –the attackers climbing silently up the ropes by night and slaughtering the sailors without mercy. In neighboring Lycaonia, they keep defeating small Roman garrisons, in part by their extraordinary surefootedness and speed in the uplands. Ammianus continues (14.2.6):

And at times, our infantrymen were compelled to climb up high cliffs in order to pursue them, and even if they reached the mountaintops, grasping at thickets or brambles when their feet slipped, still they could not, in the narrow and trackless places, extend a battle line or gain a firm footing despite all their powerful efforts, since the ubiquitous enemy rolled broken rocks on to them from above; they either made a perilous withdrawal downhill or else, battling bravely in their desperate necessity, were flattened by the vast weights crashing down.

The problem lies in the following section, which I give first in Rolfe’s translation and then in Latin (14.2.7):

Therefore extreme caution was shown after that and when the marauders began to make for the mountain heights, the soldiers yielded to the unfavourable position. When, however, the Isaurians could be found on level ground, as constantly happened, they were allowed neither to stretch out their right arms nor poise their weapons, of which each carried two or three, but they were slaughtered like defenceless sheep.

Quam ob rem circumspecta cautela obseruatum est deinceps,^| et cum edita montium petere coeperint grassatores,^| loci iniquitati milites cedunt;^| ubi autem in planitie potuerint repperiri,^| quod contingit assidue,^| nec exertare lacertos^| nec crispare permissi tela quae uehunt bina uel terna^| pecudum ritu inertium trucidantur.^|

This is Rolfe’s translation, and it is more or less the same as all others of which I am aware. The problem is, however, that except for obseruatum est the main verbs are in the present tense, and the verbs in the subordinate clauses are either perfect subjunctive, following cum iterativum, or present. Ammianus does sometimes use the historic present main verb, but if it was talking about events in the past, he would at least have put quod contingit assidue, ‘which constantly happens’ in the perfect (and even though the perfect contigit would be an easy emendation we know that he did write contingit, since the perfect would require a different word order, assídue cóntigit, to make the prose rhythm work). It seems that Ammianus is talking about a permanent change in Roman strategy towards the Isaurians in response to their experience in 353, nearly forty years before:

Accordingly, it has been the practice since that time to show circumspection and care; whenever the raiders start making for the highest uplands, the soldiers give up in the face of the unequal terrain. But whenever the Isaurians happen to be caught on the plain – which constantly happens – they are given no chance to thrust out their strong arms or to hurl the two or three javelins each of them carries, and they are slaughtered like helpless cattle.

2. Warding off the Isaurians near Laranda 

Somewhat later, after a setback against the legions wintering at Sidē, the Isaurians arrive by a back route near Laranda, modern Karaman (we can tell from the prose rhythm that Ammianus pronounced it Láranda, following the Greek accentuation). There they attack some wealthy villages but are beaten off. Again I give Rolfe’s translation and the Latin text (14.2.12):

There they were refreshed with food and rest, and after their fear had left them, they attacked some rich villages; but since they were aided by some cohorts of cavalry, which chanced to come up, the enemy withdrew without attempting any resistance on the level plain; but as they retreated, they summoned all the flower of their youth that had been left at home.

Ibi uictu recreati et quiete,^| postquam abierat timor,^| uicos opulentos adorti^| equestrium adiumento cohortium, ^| quae casu propinquabant, ^| nec resistere planitie porrecta conati^| digressi sunt, ^| retroque cedentes^| omne iuuentutis robur relictum in sedibus acciuereunt.^| 

Rolfe’s translation accurately catches what the passage must mean, but does not escape from the awkwardness (‘they were aided’ must in context mean ‘the villages’, as the equestrian cohorts are assuredly Roman troops). If we look at Ammianus’ other uses of adiumento, ‘with the help of’, followed by a genitive, it is quite clear that we need reference to the action in which they helped and probably also the actors whom they helped. It seems an inescapable conclusion that a few words have been lost after adorti. As a minimum, one might suggest <et aegre repulsi> (‘and were with difficulty held off’), perhaps better <et ab incolis aegre repulsi> (‘and were with difficulty held off by the inhabitants’). Best of all might be if repulsi were replaced by a participle ending in –ti so that we could explain the loss of the words as an eye-skip, a scribe having jumped from the ending of adorti from a similar ending a little later. I will be very grateful for suggestions!

Accordingly, I translate:

There they recovered their strength with food and sleep, and once their fear had left them, they attacked some opulent villages, <but were with difficulty driven off> with help from some cavalry cohorts who happened to be nearby. And they made no attempt to resist on the broad plains, but withdrew, and, as they retreated, they called up all the strong young men who had been left at home.

A footnote will explain the textual problem. In the edition, meanwhile, I will probably simply mark a lacuna rather than inserting text, as the omission could only be two or three words, as translated here, or something longer – perhaps a whole line. That text is lost seems overwhelmingly likely, but the wording is a complete guess.

3. Senior officers with mixed loyalties (14.10.7-8)

My final example comes from the following year, 354. The emperor Constantius’ forces are gearing up to fight the Alamanni based on the far side of the Rhine from Rauraci (modern Kaiseraugst, near Basel). I give my translation, except for the phrase on which I got stuck, which I give in Latin (14.10.7-8):

But lo and behold, there arrived all of a sudden an informant with expertise in these regions, and after taking a payment he showed them a shallow place by night where the river could be forded. And with the enemy’s focus elsewhere, the army would have been able to cross here, not expected by anybody, and to create devastation everywhere, were it not that a few individuals from that nation, quibus erat honoratioris militis cura commissa, informed their countrymen of this attack through secret messengers – or so some thought. 8. At any rate, this suspicion blotted the reputation of Latinus the Count of the Domestici, Agilo the Tribune of the Stables, and Scudilo the commander of the Scutarii, who were respected at that time as if they carried the Republic in their own hands.

If one were translating verbatim in the manner of a teenage Latinist, this might come out as ‘to whom the care of a/the more honoured soldier had been entrusted’. Most translators proceed as if this is verbiage, and paraphrase (‘who had achieved high rank in our army’, Hamilton; ‘who held military positions of high rank’, Rolfe; ‘qui s’étaient vu confier les plus hauts grades dans notre armée’, Galletier; ‘die bei uns als höhere Offiziere dienten’, Veh; ‘die bei uns höhere militärische Stellen bekleideten’, Seyfarth). But this seems like a fudge.

At this point we might consider an emendation or two. Gelenius’ edition of 1533 wrote militiae instead of militis. Now Gelenius had access to the lost Hersfeld manuscript, since lost, which was on the whole slightly better than its twin, the Fulda manuscript, from which our text derives. It is also easy to imagine that an s could be written in place of ae (or e or ę, all possible spellings in a medieval manuscript), especially when the change is from the rarer to the commoner word. On the other hand, Gelenius was a bold conjectural emendator who consulted his own instincts more often than the Hersfeld manuscript. Honoratioris militiae cura could mean ‘an office of high rank in the service’, and this reading could perhaps result in a translation like those cited above. But is it needed? I wondered about emending to honoratior militis cura, ‘who had a more highly-ranked command of the soldiers’ – here taking militis as a collective singular for the soldiery. But once I had made that step, I realised that the transmitted text is fine, and honoratioris militis cura means ‘command over elite troops’. And that point I realised that I really should have thought about the individuals who are later named: the protectores domestici, commanded by Latinus, are Ammianus’ own regiment; the scutarii of this period are another elite regiment; and the Tribunus stabuli commanded the corps of stratores, who had responsibility for publicly owned horses.

After I had fixed on the translation ‘who had been entrusted with command of elite troops’, I found that two Italian scholars had already reached the right conclusion, Selem (‘che … comandavano i reparti migliori dell’esercito’) and Viansino (‘che comandavano militari di grado elevato’). Of course the distinction in meaning is not a huge one, but it does make the passage much more pointed. It also reflects Ammianus’ consistent interest in his own unit of the protectores et domestici.

And there is one final implication for another passage. After the emperor Julian had been killed, the council to appoint a successor was stalled, when an anonymous soldier intervenes to suggest that the high command lead the army out of Persia and elect a new emperor once back in Roman territory and reunited with the other army in Roman Mesopotamia. The soldier is called honoratior aliquis miles (25.5.3). Based on this passage, I would suggest that the sense here is ‘a soldier from an elite regiment’: it is about prestige not rank. This soldier has sometimes been identified, since the Abbé de La Bléterie and Gibbon in the eighteenth century, with Ammianus himself. That is highly speculative, but the implication of this passage is that we cannot rule it out.

*          *          *

I hope that these three passages give a sense of the challenge of the translation as well as the pleasure that comes from the progress of hundreds of small advances. And examples also show the truth of a point made by many famous textual scholars – it is always a good idea for an editor to translate the text first. 

by Justin Stover and George Woudhuysen

“At some point in the later 4th century AD, perhaps around 380, the famous and irascible translator, Christian theologian, and general polymath, St Jerome, sat down to write a letter. Unsurprisingly, it was about books. His addressee was one Paul, a centenarian bibliophile who lived in Concordia near Aquileia, an important ancient city on the Adriatic. Two of the books Jerome asked for were what we might expect: the commentary on the Gospels of Fortunatian, sometime bishop of Aquileia, and the letters of the Christian schismatic Novatian. The third is rather more surprising – the History of Sextus Aurelius Victor…”

St Jerome looking rather wearied by his scholarly labours: Saint Jerome in his study, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, 1530 (Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, MD, USA).

Read the rest at Antigone here.