The New Rome and the Old: Ammianus Marcellinus' Silences on Constantinople

21 Pages·2008·2.63 MB·English

The New Rome and the Old: Ammianus Marcellinus' Silences on Constantinople
Author(s): Gavin Kelly
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 588-607
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556223 .
Accessed: 18/01/2013 02:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ClassicalQ uarterl5y3 .2 588-607 (2003)P rintedi n GreatB ritain 588
THE NEW ROME AND THE OLD: AMMIANUS
MARCELLINUS' SILENCES ON CONSTANTINOPLE
Nobody doubts that Ammianus Marcellinus wrote in Rome and for Rome.' Rome, in
the larger sense, is the subject of his work, but in his ideology the boundary between
the city and the empire is blurred. He returns to the eternal city for the most
uneventful prefectures, and the most elaborate purple-patches. Although an occa-
sional stage for events in the Res gestae, Constantinople receives no such treatment.
Rather it is the victim of polemical silence, or at any rate polemical evasion.
The point has been considered less than it might have been.2 To concentrate on what
a historian does not say is both counter-intuitive and perilous. Silence might be
attributed to ignorance, suppression, the perceived irrelevance of the subject matter.
Indeed, silence may derive from the fact that what has gone unmentioned never
existed. Some recent scholarship on Ammianus cannot spot the difference and displays
the neurosis of conspiracy theory. The subject of this article will be three places where
Ammianus is silent, in my view audibly silent, about Constantinople. In 25.10.5,
Ammianus suggests that the emperor Julian should have been buried in Rome rather
than Tarsus; in 16.10.15-16, Constantius II gazes in awe at the Market of Trajan and,
confessing himself unable to match it, presents the city of Rome with an obelisk from
Thebes; in 17.4.12-15 Constantius' gift arrives and is erected. Constantinople
conspicuously haunts all of these passages though not dignified with mention by
name. That all three describe and glorify the topography of Rome is of course highly
significant. It is at the pretensions of Constantinople to the status of Rome that
Ammianus targets his idiosyncratic technique of disdain.
Negative attitudes towards Constantinople can be found in many fourth- and
fifth-century authors. Oriental and occidental alike, they disparage its novelty and its
voracious appetite both for food and for other cities' religious and artistic treasures;
sometimes, with more or less openness, they dislike its Christianity. It was natural that
the other cities of the East should resent a rival, whose Senate snatched away their own
eminent citizens: the sarcasm of Libanius of Antioch and Eunapius of Sardis is not
surprising.3T he Western administrative class expressed its conservatism more subtly:
Sextus Aurelius Victor is a notable example. For the author of a breviary, omission
or, better, extreme curtness is a natural weapon. Victor mentions Constantine's
foundation of his city periphrastically and as a virtual aside, and at the same time and
with the same brevity includes Constantine's patronage of Christianity (condendau rbe
formandisque religionibus ingentem animum auocauit, simul nouando militiae ordine,
41.12). Later he reports Constantine's burial 'in the city named after him' (funus
relatum in urbem sui nominis, 41.17), an event that caused public disorder in Rome.4
1 Thee xceptiont hatp rovest he rulei s 14.6.2,w hereA mmianups urportst o addressh is satirical
remarkso n the city to peregriniN. ote the use of the Romant echnicatl erm.
2 Honourablee xceptionsin cludea cuter emarksb y G. SabbahL, a methoded 'AmmieMn arcellin
(Paris, 1978), 349-50, and T. D. Barnes,A mmianusM arcellinusa nd the Representationof
HistoricaRl eality( Ithaca,1 998),9 3.
3 Fore xampleL, ibaniusO, r.3 0.6, 37;E unapiusV, S 462 (VI.2.8-9G iangrande)s;e e L. Cracco
Ruggini,' Simbolid i battagliaid eologican el tardoe llenismo'i,n Studis toricii n onored i Ottorino
Bertolin(iP isa, 1972),1 77-300,2 05 andn . 58, 206 and n. 60).
4 Cf. the ambiguityif not hostilityo f Eutropius1 0.8.1p rimusquue rbemn ominiss ui ad tantum
fastigiume ueherem olituse st, ut Romaea emulamfaceret.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE NEW ROME AND THE OLD 589
Ausonius of Bordeaux, by contrast, brings himself to mention the name in his Ordo
nobilium urbium (2); nonetheless he undermines all claims of Constantinople to rival
Rome, by making it compete against Carthage for second place.
Equal or greater hostility might be expected in authors with strong connections to
the old Rome.5 The Augustan History pretended to date from before the establish-
ment of Constantinople, which forced the scriptor to avoid the subject, but a typical
privatej oke has been plausibly identified: the comment that there were no old families
among the Byzantines (Gallieni duo 6.9).6 For Claudian of Alexandria, personal
origins and political allegiance combined with the subject matter of his poetry to
provide examples, for those who seek them, of hostility towards the New Rome: thus
he mocks the Graios Quirites who applaud Eutropius' Consulate (In Eutrop. 2.136).7
Claudian is probably most analogous to Ammianus of the preceding selection. Both
were residents of Rome; they originated respectively from Alexandria and from
Antioch, the two greatest Eastern cities until Constantine's city was founded; both
were required by their narratives to cover events in Constantinople.8 Ammianus does
not call Constantinople urbs... magnae quae ducitur aemula Romae (Claudian, In
Rufin. 2.54), or indeed anything that might suggest or mock any vaunted parity to
Rome. But absence of openly hostile remarks does not mean absence of hostility, it will
be seen. Nor is such a technique uncharacteristico f Ammianus. Although he claimed to
have produced an opus ueritatemp rofessum,c orrupted by no lie or silence (31.9.16), the
most revealing, satisfying and interesting readings have laid huge emphasis on his
silences,9 in particular, those concerning Christianity. Rather than the 'pagan
Monotheist', whose fair-mindedness stands out amidst the intolerance of his age,'0
more recent scholarship sees a manipulative and persuasive author, who consistently
minimizes the significance of Christianity in politics and whose polite remarks on the
Christian religion are constantly juxtaposed with the low behaviour of its adherents."l
Insinuation, after all, functions through careful use of silence, through implication and
juxtaposition rather than statement.12
Ammianus' treatment of Christianity and his treatment of Constantinople could
obviously be linked. It would be easy, and has in the past been too easy, to pile up the
antitheses between the old Rome and the old religion, and the New Rome and the New
Religion. Speculative religious history often sees the new city founded thanks to Con-
stantine's troubled relationship with pagan Rome. But reaching an accommodation
5 Victor, a native of Africa, was Prefect of Rome in c. 389: any earlier links with Rome are con-
jectural (cf. H. W Bird, Sextus Aurelius Victor A HistoriographicalS tudy [Liverpool, 1984], 5).
6 M. A. Wes, Das Ende des Kaisertumsi m Westend es rimischen Reichs (Gravenhage, 1967), 16,
cited by Cracco Ruggini (n. 3), 210, n. 62.
7 Cracco Ruggini (n. 3), 210, n. 62.
8 C. W Fornara, 'Studies in Ammianus Marcellinus I: the letter of Libanius and Ammianus'
connection with Antioch', Historia 41 (1992), 328-44, rejected the traditional version of
Ammianus' Antiochene origins, a move accepted by e.g. T. D. Barnes, 'Ammianus Marcellinus
and his world', CPh 88 (1993), 55-70 (review.article of J. E Matthews, The Roman Empire of
Ammianus [London, 1989]), but denied by J. E Matthews, 'The origin of Ammianus', CQ 44
(1994), 252-69, and G. Sabbah, 'Ammien Marcellin, Libanius, Antioche et la date des derniers
livres des Res gestae', Cassiodorus3 (1997), 89-116. He was at any rate a resident of Antioch.
9 Cf. remarks of Barnes 1993 (n. 8), 68.
10 Monotheism demolished by R. L. Rike, Apex Omnium: Religion in the Res Gestae of
Ammianus (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1987), 1-7. Such a view is still found in standard
works (e.g. M. von Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature[ Leiden, 1997], 1428). For a modified
claim on Ammianus' essential tolerance, see Matthews (n. 8, 1989), 435-51.
"
Summary and further references in Barnes (n. 2) passim, esp. ch.VIII.
12 Barnes (n. 2), 87-8 on the possible treachery of the Bishop of Bezabde (20.7.7-9).
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
590 G. KELLY
with Rome was difficultf or all emperors;p agan Constantinopleis visible on closer
inspection,a nd the prominenceo f Christianityin the RomanA ristocracya nd urban
landscape( as well as the prominenceo f Romei n Christiani deology)n eedsn o closer
inspection. The demolition of such an antithesisa s a historicalr epresentationis
justifiableb, ut it should perhapsn ot be so quicklyd ismisseda s a model underlying
ancienth istoriographyw, hichw as alwaysk een to identifyi n Constantinea common
cause of benefitso r ills. The two antipathiesa re importantlyd istinct,b ut the tech-
niquesw ith whicht hey are expresseda re similara, nd Ammianusp' oliticalh ostilityt o
Constantinoplfer equentlyh as religiouso vertones.
I. THE TOMBO F JULIAN( 25.10.5)
The rioting in Rome that followed Constantine'sb urial in his new city is not an
isolatedi ndicationo f the significanceo f imperialr emains,a nd only the firstm arko f
the tensiont hat surroundedth e choice of imperialb urialp lacesi n the fourthc entury.
The emperorC onstantiusI I obtainedh is greatestp osthumousf ame fromA mmianus'
narrativeo f his arrivali n Romeo n 28 April 357 (16.10).L ess famous,b ut perhapsa s
grandiose a spectacle, was his posthumous aduentusi nto Constantinople.O n
3 November3 61, on the brinko f civil war with his cousinJ ulian,C onstantiusd iedi n
Cilicia.H e was said to have named Julianh is heir (21.15.2, 5), which conveniently
bestowed legitimacyo n both Julian'sr eign and Constantius'm emory.T he rituals
were observed. The emperor'sb ody was washed and placed in a coffin, and an
impressivelyt all, though stooping, young officer,J ovian, son of Varronianusw, as
givent he duty of escortingC onstantiusr' emainsw ith regalp omp to his burial-place
near his relatives in Constantinople.J ovian was presented with samples of the
soldiers'r ations,a nd the post-horsesw ere paradedb efore him, as they might have
been for an emperor,w hich Ammianust hought portendedh is futile and shadowy
reign, as directoro f a funeralp rocession.S uch is the sum of Ammianus'a ccount
(21.16.20-1):h e plainlyf ounda n aduentusw orthiero f attentioni n Julian'sd reamlike
epiphany( 22.2.4-5). By contrast,G regoryo f Nazianzusr eportst hat angelicm usic
was hearda s Constantiusb' ody crossedt he TaurusM ountains( Or.5 .16), and that at
Constantinopleth e whole armyp aradedi n full armsa s though for a livinge mperor,
and the entirec ity pouredo ut to greet him (Or.5 .17). Julian,w ho had brokenw ith
Christianity,w as without a diadem as he went to meet the corpse, and lead the
funeralp rocessiont o the Churcho f the Apostles:t hereC onstantiusw as buriedn ext
to his wife Eusebia,c lose to the tomb of his fatherC onstantine.'3
Eighteenm onthsl aterJ uliant oo was dead, at the hand of an unknowna ttackerin
battlei n Persia.J ovian,l ikeV alentiniana nd Theodosiusa fterh im a youngo fficera nd
son of a generalw, as proclaimede mperorin a desperates ituation.H e madea n ignoble
peace and rushedh ome to establishh is regime.T he task of accompanyingth e dead
emperor'sr emainsw as given to Julian'sk insmanP rocopius( 25.9.12-13),w ho,w as
himself to attemptu nsuccessfullyto wear the purple.T hereafterd ifferencesa ppear.
Gregoryo f Nazianzust ells us that the processionw as accompaniedb y paid clowns
who mockedh is apostasya nd his demiset o the accompanimenot f flutes (Or.5 .18).
The detailsa rec uriousa nd scarcelyin terpretableth: e confidente ccentricityo f Julian's
13 A tomb that Constantinem ay have sharedw ith his motherH elenaa nd wife Fausta.S ee
n. 17.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE NEW ROME AND THE OLD 591
portrayalo f the imperialo ffice was preservedin death.14A mmianust ones down the
distinction:C onstantiusw ent to his burialr egiap ompa( 21.16.20)a nd Julianh umili
pompa (mentionedi n a forwardr eferencea t 23.2.5). Julian'sr emainsw ere taken to
Tarsus,a nd burntb eforeb uriali n a tomb outsidet he town,15n ear the monumento f
MaximinD aia, as Leo Grammaticurs emarks( 93.23). Just as the pagan Julianh ad
participatedin ConstantiusC' hristianb urial,t he pious ChristianJ oviand ecoratedh is
predecessor'tso mb whenp assingt hroughT arsus( 25.10.5).
Jovian'sr eign as funeral director had been portended by his part in burying
Constantiusa: fterJ ulian'sfu neral,t herew as but a shortw ait untilh is own. He died on
his way to Constantinopleo, f a cause that did not inspirei nvestigationb, ut inspired
Ammianus to impressive insinuation (25.10.13).16 His corpse was taken to
Constantinoplea nd buriedi n the Churcho f the Apostles,w hereh is wife Charitow as
laterb uriedw ith him (Zonaras1 3.14.23).A mmianusis againa ccurateb ut not entirely
comprehensive't:h e body was sent to Constantinopleto be burieda mongt he remains
of the Augusti' (26.1.3). Mention of the church is again evaded. At this stage
Constantinopleh ad the bodieso f two Augustia nd (perhaps)o ne Augusta'7o nly,b ut
whenA mmianusw as writingi n the late 380s,t he traditiono f imperialb urialsi n Con-
stantinoplem ay havea ppearede stablishedS. o eleveny earsa fterJ ovian,V alentinian's
bodyh ad a longj ourneyf romB regetio( nearS irmium)t o be buriedi n Constantinople,
said Ammianusi,n terd iuorumre liquia(s3 0.10.1).T he body of Theodosiusw as brought
there from Milan in 395, and east Roman emperorsw ere entombedt here until the
eleventhc entury1.8
The most remarkablea nd ironic part of the story is that at some point Julian's
remainsw ereb roughtf romT arsusa nd reburiedn ext to Jovian'si,n a stoa on the north
side of the Church of the Apostles. Leo Grammaticusd escribes the coffin as
cylindricala nd made of porphyry,a nd states that Julian'sw ife Helena (who had
originallyd ied at Viennea nd been buriedi n Romei n 360, 21.1.5), was burieda long-
side him (94.1-2). Cedrenus(3 08A)a ndZ onaras( 13.13.23-25)g ivea four-linee pitaph
in Homerich exametersa, lludingt o his buriali n Tarsus,w hichC edrenusi mpliesw as
still extanto n the coffin.'19
The delicatelyn uancedd ifferenceisn pagana nd Christianf uneralp racticet hat the
14 Typifiedb y the Misopogona, nd typicallyo ver-interpretebdy Julian'sb iographers.
5 The burial outside the town limits is repeatedlym entioned,a nd is another important
variationin pagana ndC hristianb urialp racticesC. f. e.g. AverilC amerona nd S. G. Hall, Eusebius
Life of Constantine( Oxford, 1999), 347-8.
16 Insinuationg ivenp roperr ecognitionb y J. Currani n CAH 13 (Cambridge1, 999),8 0.
17 Helenaw as originallyb uriedi n Rome( Eusebius,V C3 .47.1;T . D. Barnes,C onstantinaen d
Eusebius[ CambridgeM, A. and London, 1982],2 21). Whethera nd when she was (re)buriedin
Constantinopleis a difficultq uestion:s ee P. Grierson,' The tombs and obits of the Byzantine
emperors( 337-1042)',D OP 16 (1962), 1-63, at 39-40. Cedrenus2 97A and Leo Grammaticus
88.6-7 haveb oth Helenaa ndF austab urieda longsideC onstantineB. ut it is possiblet hatt he idea
of Helena'sb uriali n Constantinoplde erivesf roma n errori n Socrates( 1.17):h e misinterpreted
Eusebius'r eferencet o the ro'Atd(R ome)a s meaningC onstantinople( 1.17). See
M. J. Johnson,' Wherew erfelaC aoLnAstEaXntoiuvrsI a a nd Helenab uried?'L, atomus5 1 (1992), 145-50 at
149-50, and J. W Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend
of the Finding of the True Cross (Leiden, 1992), 74-5.
'8 Grierson (n. 17), passim.
19 A two-linee pigrams haringt he last line is foundi n Zosimus3 .34.4a nd AP 7.7.47( attributed
to Libanius)C. redenceh as usuallyb eeng ivent o the versiono f Cedrenusa nd Zonaras( Grierson
[n. 17],4 1; J. Arce Martinez,' La tumbad el emperadorJ uliano',L ucentum3 [1984],1 81-91 at
185-6).O nec annoti nvariablyg ivec redencet o the claimso f Byzantines ourcesw hichc laimt hat
somethings tille xists:t heym aym erelyr epeatt he claimso f a source.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
592 G. KELLY
ceremonial of the court could accommodate in the mid and late fourth century are
fascinating. One might equally light upon the consecratio which was granted alike to
Constantius, Julian, and Jovian,20 or the creation of an exemplary sequence of
imperial tombs to glorify Constantinople.21M y interest in this study, however, is in
Ammianus' presentation, in the contrasting ways in which he treats Julian's burial in
Tarsus and other imperial burials in Constantinople. The interment of Constantius
prope necessitudinese ius has been noted as one of Ammianus' 'most oblique references
to Christianity',22a nd the same might be said of the other imperial burials in the
Church of the Apostles (particularly Valentinian's burial inter diuorum reliquias).
Julian, the exceptional case of the period, is given far greater attention.
The Sophist of Antioch, Libanius, had held that Julian should not have been buried
at Tarsus, but in Athens, beside Plato in the garden of the Academy, to be celebratedb y
an eternal succession of teachers and youths.23A mmianus (who had mentioned the
funeral separately) used Jovian's decoration of the tomb to make a forceful and
vigorous intervention, which corrected Libanius and brought Julian powerfully into
the imagination of his Roman audience (25.10.5):
exindequee gredi nimium properans,e xornaris epulchrums tatuit luliani, in pomerio situm
itineris, quod ad Tauri montis angustias ducit, cuius supremae t cineres,s i qui tunc iuste
consuleret, non Cydnus uidere deberet, quamuis gratissimus amnis et liquidus, sed ad
perpetuandamg loriam recte factorump raeterlamberTe iberis,i ntersecansu rbem aeternam
diuorumqueu eterumm onumentap raestringens.
Thoughi n excessiveh aste to leave [Tarsus][, Jovian]d ecidedt o decoratet he tomb of Julian,
situateda t the city boundaryo n the roadw hichl eadst o the passeso f Mt. TaurusB. ut as for his
remainsa nd ashes, if anyonet hen showed soundj udgement,t he Cydnuso ught not look on
them,a lthoughi t is a beautifula nd clears tream,b ut to perpetuatet he gloryo f his noble deeds
the Tiber should wash past them, which cuts through the eternal city and flows by the
memorialso f the deifiede mperorso f old.24
The Neoplatonic golden chain of teachers and pupils in which Libanius located his
imaginary Julian was replaced in Ammianus' conception by a different exemplary
succession, the tombs beside the Tiber of the ancient deified emperors. Julian was
worthy of the eternal glory that the eternal city could bestow on him: through allusion
his imagined tomb both evokes the first burial in Rome's imperial monuments and
the last figure in another timeless succession, Vergil's parade of Roman heroes (Aen.
6.873-4):25
20 Onw hichs ee e.g. S.G.M acCormackA, rt and Ceremonyi n Late Antiquity (Berkeleya nd Los
Angeles,1 981),S ectionI I.
21 Grierson( n. 17),a nd muchp riora nd subsequenbt ibliography.
22 Matthews( n. 8,1989),5 49,n . 48.
23 E a70o (cid:127)V TOop O Tapuocv T7 KtAtKlaSX COwpovE, LtX8E' v 8LKaLOTEpoTv O
rq ATlOK(cid:127)-aTrolv7 lcag 70'o aWUTa VTO) TrrapTa dLOV EVl E(cid:127) V Kat 8USaCKCLAoJV
Li Ka(cid:127) T7 TAaTCO77TL rlTaElAo rE aOaL1 (HAA (cid:127)'g7rWavVeOj uSs, t outside Tarsus in Cilicia receive'TdE h is body. It ought
more properlyh aveb een in the Academyn ext to Plato'st omb, so that he too mightr eceivet he
honours paid to Plato by endless generationso f youths and teachers')( Or. 18.306,t rans.
Norman).
24 Translations( occasionally adapted) from J. C. Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus, 3 vols
(CambridgeM, A, 1935,1 939,1 940).
25 The Mausoleumso f Augustusa nd Hadrianw ere the most famouso f the tombs by the
Tiber,a nd containedt he remainso f many othere mperorsT. he Mausoleumo f Augustusw as
beguni n 28 B.c.:M arcellusw asb uriedt heref ivey earsl ater.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE NEW ROME AND THE OLD 593
uel quae,T iberineu, idebis
funera,c um tumulump raeterlaberree centem!
Whato bsequiesw ill you see,T iberinusa, s you flow past the new-raisedt omb!
So Julian is imprinted on to the last hero of Vergil's procession, and becomes
Ammianus' Marcellus: si qua fata aspera rumpas, tu Marcellus eris.26A lthough the
traditional limpidity of the Cydnus is duly acknowledged,27 its claims must yield to
the Tiber's: a further allusion to Vergil, to the speech of the prophetic river-god
Tiberinus, mirrors the open argument of the text, by lending the Cydnus some of the
Tiber's qualities (Aen. 8.62-64):
... ego sum, plenoq uemf luminec ernis
stringentemri pase t pinguiac ultas ecantem,
caeruleusT hybrisc, aelo gratissimuas mnis.
I am he whom you see lavingm y banksw ith full flood, and cleavingt he rich fields, the blue
Tiber,r iverb est belovedo f heaven.
The imagined tomb in Rome (as opposed to Tarsus or Athens) representsA mmianus'
forceful appropriation of the emperor, and mirrors his practice throughout the work,
in which Julian is central and definitively Roman. Indeed, in a sense, this exemplary
monument, facing both future and past, reflects the structure of the Res gestae as a
whole. Julian is one of the few characters to have any historical learning, and he
consciously looks back to those examples, both Roman and Greek, that are thrust at
other characters by the narrator.28 His place as an heir, even in his faults, to
exemplary earlier emperors (especially those of the second century) is particularly
strongly marked.29 And Ammianus' last books show the beginnings of how to
understand Julian himself as exemplum by invoking his memory indirectly and
directly to the detriment and envy of the reigning emperors.30 The complex of
allusions to Libanius and Vergil at least acknowledges the claims of Tarsus, and
alludes to those of Athens. The allusion that is missing-and striking for its
absence-is that to Constantinople. Beyond the literary statement, there is a clear
political statement, about the respect due to Rome, and the lack of significance to be
attached to its rival.
An emperor's burial in Rome was imaginable, albeit a possibility that had receded.
The bodies of Julian's sister-in-law Constantina and wife Helena had both been sent
there. But in all probability, Julian was buried in Tarsus because the alternative was
burial in Constantinople, and therefore in a Christian church, an option that would
have been insufferable both to Christians and to polytheists. (At some later point, it is
evident, the objections of both had softened or could be ignored.) All other emperors
since Constantine who had died in normal circumstances had been taken to
26 Cf. Eutropius 10.16.3 on Julian: uir egregius et rempublicami nsigniterm oderaturus,s iperfata
licuisset.
27 Cf. Curtius 3.4; J. Fontaine, Ammien Marcellin 4 (vol. 2) (Paris, 1987), 279, n.709.
28 Julian's historical learning praised: 16.5.7. Historical learning in Julian's speeches: e.g.
23.5.16-23. Exempla consciously followed: Cyrus 21.9.2, Marcus 22.5.4 (corrected by
Ammianus), Scipio Aemilianus 24.2.16, Alexander and Scipio Africanus 24.4.27, Alexander
25.4.15. Ignorance of other characters:e .g. Gallus 14.11.22, Constantius 16.10.3, Barbatio 18.3.7,
Valentinian 30.8.4.
29 Second-century emperors as exempla: e.g. 16.1.4, 22.5.4, 24.3.9, 25.4.17.
30 Cf. e.g. 26.5.11, 29.4.2. I hope to write on this process elsewhere.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
594 G. KELLY
Constantinople for burial: if the tradition was not fully established at Julian'sd eath, it
certainly was by the time Ammianus wrote, as is suggested by his formulaic descrip-
tions of the burials of Jovian and Valentinian inter Augustorumld iuorumr eliquias.
Imagining Julian's tomb in Rome is not contrary to possibility, then, but is plainly
forced. Not merely because other emperors were buried in Constantinople: imagining
Julian buried in Rome was in no way linked to that emperor's own allegiances or
preoccupations. Julian had been born in Constantinople and had never visited Rome;
his eloquence and learning in Greek far exceeded his Latin, the adequacy of which won
Ammianus' praise (16.5.7). His letter to the Senate of Rome pleading for support
against Constantius had been rejected with the acclamation auctori tuo reuerentiam
rogamus (21.10.7).31H is accession was followed by building works in Constantinople,
and conciliation of and participation in that city's Senate, which Constantius had
raised to parity with that of Rome.
Indeed there may be a further way in which Ammianus suppresses the significance
of Constantinople. Ammianus does not record Julian's reburial in a stoa attached to
the Church of the Apostles. The most likely reason for that silence is that the body had
not yet been moved when Ammianus published; indeed an understandable conclusion
is to make Ammianus's publication in c. 390 a terminusp ost quem for the reburial.32
But an early date (by 395, or not much after) for the removal of Julian'sr emains seems
likely, for various reasons;33I do not think that Ammianus' thoughts on Julian'sb urial
can be cited with complete certainty as excluding the possibility that he knew of the
reburial. The following examples of Ammianus' willingness to suppress mention of
Constantinople will make a plausible case for as extreme an omission as this.
II. THE MARKET OF TRAJAN (16.10.15-16)
Julian's imaginary tomb exemplifies the possibility for buildings or monuments to
have memorializing, and thus exemplary, force. The use in texts of buildings as
exemplars does not need to be argued, particularly within the Latin historiographical
31 Thei rregulacrl ausulas upportst he authenticityo f the acclamation.
32 Grierson( n. 17), 40, Arce( n. 19), 184. Griersone ven suggestst hat Ammianusp' ublication
mayh avep romptedT heodosiust o reburyt he remainso f his predecessorO. therp otentialt ermini
(EunapiusP, hilostorgiusc)a n be ignoredb ecauseo f theirf ragmentarsyu rvival.
33 The most generala rgumentis that the ideologicalv alue of Julian'sr emainsa nd interesti n
wheret hey shouldb e placedi s likelyt o haveb een greatesti n the periodc omparativelsyh ortly
afterh is death.I n the wordso f Grierson( n. 17), 'it is difficultt o imaginea nye mperorla tert han
TheodosiusI interestingh imselfi n the matter'( 40) and 'it was Theodosiusw ho was most active
in turningt he churcho f the HolyA postlesi nto an imperiaml ausoleum('4 0-1).P articulard etails
in Grierson'sr econstructiono f the evidence of the tombs support such a view. Firstly,t he
monument'lso cationa djacentt o Jovian'sC. onstantineC, onstantiusa, ndT heodosiusw erel aido n
threes ideso f the Mausoleumo f ConstantineA. saner econstructiono f eventsw ill haveJ ovian
originallyb uried alongside Constantinea nd Constantiusa nd then moved to make way for
Theodosius( Grierson[ n. 17],2 5-6). Others cenariosa re plainlyp ossible,b ut the relocationo f
Julian'st omb to that particularp ositionw ill make sense in the periodc . 395. Secondlyi, f the
claimt hatJ ulianw as buriedw ithh is wife,H elena,i s accepted,w e havet o postulatet he removal
of her remainsf romR ome.P oliticalc ircumstancems aket his morel ikelyi n the Theodosiana ge.
The body of HelenaA ugustam ay also haveb een broughtf romR omei n this period( see n. 17).
See M. DiMaio, 'The transfero f the remainso f the EmperorJ ulianf romT arsust o Constan-
tinople',B yzantion4 8 (1978), 43-50, for an argumentf or a late date (sixth-tenthc enturies);
B. Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhundertsu nd der spitantiken Geschichtsschreibung:
Untersuchungenz u den nachdionischenQ uellen des JohannesZ onaras (Munich, 1992), 386, n. 235,
arguesw ella gainsta laterd ate,a nd less well for removaal t the beginningo f Valens'r eign,f ailing
to confrontt he apparentt erminupso st quemo f Ammianusp' ublication.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE NEW ROME AND THE OLD 595
tradition.34 The collected buildings of the city of Rome, for Ammianus as for, say,
Livy, offer a particularly powerful exemplary focus. Rome inspires Ammianus to a
number of his finest set-pieces, and it is to one of these-the one most concerned
with the topography of the Eternal City-that I propose to turn next, the visit of
Constantius II in 357 (16.10), in particular, Constantius' response to the market of
Trajan (15-16). But it will be necessary briefly to digress both on the respective
characterizations that Ammianus bestows upon Rome and Constantinople and the
external evidence for the balance of power and of esteem between the two cities at the
time of Constantius' visit.
Ammianus treats Rome in tones that vary from the grandiose to the satirical, but
there is an important constant, which may be called exemplary timelessness. Roman
time is slower than other time. When Constantius intrudes his extraordinary
procession, it is on a people living quietly and not expecting or wanting anything of the
sort (16.10.2): the emperor has to step back his behaviour by centuries when he arrives.
In Rome, the temporal jars with the eternal. Examples of the past come to life more
readily, so that in the second of the satirical Roman digressions, latter-day Romans,
serious about frivolity, are parodied through comparison to the Castores and Cato,
Duilius, and Marcellus (28.4.11, 18, 21, 23). A similar conclusion can be derived from
a famous and rich metaphor, derived but distinct from Florus (1 4-8),35 which
Praef.
precedes the first Roman digression (14.6.3-6): the existence of Rome is compared to
the life of a man. Rome's youth had seen great victories, but approaching old age, its
people handed the management of its inheritance to the Caesars as if to its children.
The troubling question of what follows after old age is left untreated.36O ne may note
that as well as the chronological contraction, and the blurring between the Roman
people and the city, there is spatial ambiguity, between Rome as city and Rome as
world-empire, as urbs and as orbis.
In expressing the relationship of Rome and the provinces, many comparisons play
with this ambiguity. Constantius' visit has baths built up to the measure of provinces
(16.10.14). Nicomedia, Diocletian's capital, might have been esteemed like a regio of
the eternal city (22.9.3). Alexandria is seen as an extraordinary seat of learning, and its
great temple of Serapis second only to that of Capitoline Jove (22.16.12).
Praise of the great cities of the empire is often found in the Res gestae: both those
already named, and Antioch,37 where Ammianus had lived and probably also been
born.38I n the geographical digressions, words like nobilitat or eminet distinguish the
leading cities of each region.39 There is an interest in the founders, and a premium on
antiquity. Given these other descriptions, the surprisingly brief coverage of Con-
stantinople in the long digression on the Black Sea is worth quoting in full (22.8.8):
34 Characterizebdy the way thatm onumentucma n represenbt oth physicalo bjectsa nd written
records:s ee e.g. Krauso n Livy6 .1.2.
35 The Lebensaltervergleichw as also in Seneca'sH istory( quoted in Lactant.D iv. Inst. 7.15,
14-16 = Peter,H RR 2, AnnaeusS enecaf r. 1). On its contexti n Ammianuss, ee e.g. H. P. Kohns,
'Zeitkritikin die Romexkursedne s AmmianusM arcellinus'C, hiron5 (1975),4 85-491.
36 Barnes (n. 2), 173-5, a polemic against J. E Matthews,' Ammianusa nd the eternityo f
Rome', in C. Holdsworth and T. P. Wiseman (edd.), The Inheritance of Historiography,3 50-900
(Exeter,1 986),2 2; similars entimentsc oncludeM atthews'ms agnumo pus( Matthews[ n. 8, 1989],
472).
37S ee e.g. 14.1.9,1 4.8.8,2 2.9.14o rientisa picemp ulchrum.
38 See n. 8.
39 14.8.3,8 nobilitatu sedo f Tarsusa nd Antioch,2 3.6.23,2 6 emineto f Apamiaa nd Susa.
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
596 G. KELLY
nams upercilieai uss inistraA thyraps ortusd espectaett Selymbrieat Constantinopoluise,t us
ByzantiumA, tticorumc olonia, et promuntoriumCe rasp raelucentemna uibusu ehens
constructacme lsiustu rrimq, uapropteCre rataas ppellatuure ntusin des uetuso ririp raegelidus.
Thel eftb ank[ of theB osporosi]s lookedd owno n by thep orto f Athyraas ndS elymbriaan d
Constantinoplteh, e ancientB yzantiuma,n Attic colonya, ndt he promontorCy erasw, hich
bearsa towerb uilth igha ndg ivingli ghtst o ships:t hereforae v eryc oldw indw hicho ftenb lows
fromt hatq uarteirs calledC eratas.
The erroro n the founderso f Constantinoplea part,t his is a remarkabled escription.
The digressionsm ay be based on 300- or 400-year-oldg eographicals ources, the
circuit of the Black Sea may be a geographicala nd historiographicatl opos (one
thinks of Sallust or Arrian).I t is true that Constantinopled id not belong in either
the sources or the traditional Herodotean perspectiveA mmianusw as affecting;
nonethelesst he limitationso f writtens ources are surelya n excuse rathert han the
reasonf or sucha cursoryt reatment.40
A look at the political status of Constantinoplea mere thirty years after its
dedicationo n 11 May 330 showsh ow unrepresentativaen d how damningA mmianus'
treatmentis . Its founderg avei t the title of the New Rome,N ia 'Pdw'h(uCqT h. 13.5.7,
Soc. 1.16). Unlike the old Romei n the fourthc enturyi, t serveda t times,t houghn ot
perenniallya,s a residenceo f emperorsI.t s institutionsw eref oundedt o mirrort hose of
the old Rome.A s earlya s 332 a corn dole was introducedt, aking the Egyptianc orn
thath ad previouslyg one to Rome.4A1 Senatew as establisheda, nd thoughf or a while
its membersw ere known only as uiri clari, rathert han clarissimib, y the mid-350s
Constantiush ad grantedt hem parallels tatusw ith those of Rome.T he pagano rator
Themistiusa, dlectedi n 355, was givent he powert o recruitt hroughoutt he citieso f the
East, and Senatorsw ere divertedf rom Rome to ConstantinopleT. hirtyy ears on, he
describedt he numbersa s havingi ncreasedf rom3 00 to 2000 (Or.3 4.13).423 57 appears
to be the turningp oint, the yearw hent he Senateo f Constantinoplbe ecames implyt he
Senatei n the East.43I n 359 a Prefecto f the City of Constantinoplew as appointed,
mimickingt he Roman arrangement.4B4 ut whereas a law was passed in Rome
restrictingth e right of the Prefectt o hear appealsf romt he variousI talianp rovinces,
the Prefecto f Constantinoplew as givent he rightt o heara ppealsf roma ll overT hrace
and the variousp rovinceso f north-westA sia Minor.45T his particulari mbalanceo f
powerw as probablyn ot long term.R ome'ss ympathiesfo r variousu surpationsa ndt he
impendingc ivil war between Constantiusa nd Julianm ay have played a part. But
the trend was inexorable.A s I have mentioned,J uliana s much as Constantineo r
Constantiuse nhancedt he statuso f the ConstantinopolitanS enatew ith his presence
40 Barnes( n. 2), 93, has pertinentr emarkso n this and similarp assages.F or the varietyo f
sources, see J. den Boeft, J. W. Drijvers,D . den Hengst and H. C. Teitler,P hilologicala nd
Historical Commentaryo n AmmianusM arcellinus XXII (Groningen, 1995), 88-147.
41 A. H. M. Jones,T he Later Roman Empire2 84-602 (Oxford,1 964),6 97 and n. 20.
42 The speedo f the changei s a matterf or debate.T he conventionavl iew is that this change
took place over thirty years from the 350s (Jones [n. 41], 527). G. Dagron, Naissanced 'une
capitale: Constantinoplee t ses institutions de 330 a 451 (Paris, 1974), 130, has the change taking
place between 357 and the end of Constantius' reign. J. Vanderspoel, Themistiusa nd the Imperial
Court( Ann Arbor,1 995),6 2, 108,p ointso ut the greateru rgencyo f the recruitmenitn 357-360,
and suggestss implyt hat' the task ... occupiedT hemistiusfo r somet imea fter3 57'.
43 Vanderspoel (n. 42), 55, 57-60.
"
Jones( n. 41), 132;S ocrates2 .41;C hronM. in.1 .239.
45 CTh. 11.30.27 (357) and 1.6.1 (3 May 361).
This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:04:12 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions