Aetius Attila’s Nemesis Page 2
Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus Frigeridus (fl. fifth century) wrote a history that only survives in fragments. Fortunately, he was used as a source by Gregory of Tours for his book Historia Francorum (History of the Franks), from which many items of value can be gleaned. The accuracy of these fragments is in many cases unknown.
Salvian Salvian (fl. fifth century) wrote a work known as De gubernatione Dei (On the Government of God, also known as De praesenti judicio), in which he describes life in fifth-century Gaul and contrasts the ‘wickedness’ of the Romans with the ‘virtues’ of the barbarians. Although written with a specific purpose, it can be used with care to furnish relevant information about conditions in Gaul after the invasions of 406.
Victor of Vita Victor of Vita (b. c.430) wrote the Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Geiserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum (History of the Vandal Persecution in the time of Gaiseric and Huneric, Kings of the Vandals, usually abbreviated to History of the Vandal Persecution) during the persecution of Catholics by Huneric. It depicts the horrors of the era, but was updated after the worst was over, following which it reflects ‘happier times’.3 Victor’s hatred of the Vandals can lead him to exaggerate their more disagreeable actions, so the work needs to be used with caution.
Zosimus Zosimus (c.500) wrote the Historia Nova (New History), which covers the period from the mid third century to 410. He appears to have used two main sources for his information: Eunapius for events to 404 and Olympiodorus for the years c.407–410. Zosimus was a pagan, writing in Constantinople, who was determined to show that Christianity was the reason for the disasters suffered by the empire. He closely follows Eunapius and Olympiodorus and is not critical of his sources, so although his work is useful one must use it with a great amount of caution.
Ecclesiastical Histories and Associated Works
Augustine Augustine (354–430) wrote many works, including De civitate dei (The City of God), which was written after the Gothic sack of Rome in 410. It includes information that is useful in reconstructing events concerning the early years of Aetius’ life, but the moralizing Christian nature of the work needs to be taken into account.
Hagiographies Several of the ‘lives of the saints’, for example Possidius’ Life of Saint Augustine and Constantius’ Life of Saint Germanus of Auxerre, contain information concerning the era during which Aetius was in control in the west. However, the fact that these works are aimed almost exclusively at promoting the sanctity of the individual being described means that they are not subjective and so extreme caution is needed in these cases.
Socrates Scholasticus Socrates (b. c.380) wrote the Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History), which covers the years 305–439. It was written during the reign of Emperor Theodosius II (408–450) solely as a history of the church. However, it does contain much information about secular events, but mainly only where they impinge on church history. However, these items are otherwise unrecorded, so they can offer unique insights.
Theodoret Theodoret (c.393–c.457) wrote many works on Christian doctrine, but more importantly a Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History), which begins in 325 and ends in 429. He used several sources, including, amongst others, Sozomen, Rufinus, Eusebius and Socrates. Possibly due to the mixed nature of his sources, the work is chronologically confused, and must be used with caution.
Letters
Many letters written at this time survive. Although most are obviously of a personal nature, some include information on secular events and on some of the leading men of the time, including Aetius. These can be valuable in filling in details, but their accuracy in most areas remains unknown.
Augustine Augustine, apart from his religious treatises, was a prolific writer of letters, many of which are still extant. They give an impression of what life was like in early fifth-century Africa as well as occasionally giving useful information concerning secular events.
Sidonius Apollinaris Sidonius Apollinaris (c.430–489) is the most important source for conditions in Gaul during the last years of the west. His many letters illuminate relations between Goths and the Roman elite as well as demonstrating the changing attitudes of the aristocracy towards their ‘barbarian’ overlords. However, at all times the biases of a Roman aristocrat need to be borne in mind, along with the position of the recipient of the letter: a letter to a fellow aristocrat may contain disparaging remarks about the Goths, whereas a letter to a Goth would certainly not contain these.
Chronicles4
The chronicle was the form of history that ‘so well suited the taste of the new Christian culture that it became the most popular historical genre of the Middle Ages’.5 The positive aspect of this popularity is that several chronicles have survived. The negative aspect is that they displaced conventional history as the means of transmitting information about the past, and so no complete histories written during the fifth century survive.
There is a further feature that causes difficulty when analyzing the chronicles, especially the fragmentary ones. Several collections of these sources were made prior to the twentieth century. Each of these collections could give the sources different titles. For example, the works referenced as the Anonymus Cuspiniani in secondary sources from the early twentieth century and before are now referred to as the Fasti Vindobonenses Priori, following Mommsen’s description in the Chronica Minora, Vol. 1 (see Bibliography). Therefore readers should be aware that references in this book are likely to differ from these earlier works.
The Chronica Gallica of 452 is a continuation of the Chronicle of Jerome covering the years 379 to 452. The Chronica Gallica of 511 also begins in 379 and continues to 511. Due to the similarity between the two, it is possible to see the chronicle of 511 as a continuation of the chronicle of 452. Both of these works contain useful information but need to be used with care, since the dates given may not in fact be accurate. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 only becomes accurate after 447, and here the events in Gaul are the most accurately dated. Prior to 447 the chronology is extremely confused.6 The Gallic Chronicle of 452 has some entries undated. In these the reference is simply to the modern ‘number’ given to the entry. For example, the invasion of Italy by Radagaisus is undated and is therefore referenced simply as ‘no. 50’.
The Chronicon Paschale (Easter Chronicle, so-called because of the author’s use of Easter as the focus of his dating system) is an anonymous chronicle dating from the early seventh century, compiled in Constantinople.7 Although it is a later document, and some of the dates and facts are wrong, the Chronicon Paschale is useful in confirming other sources and adding detail to events. However, it must be used with caution thanks to the temporal distance between its compilation and the early–mid fifth century.
Hydatius Hydatius (c.400–c.469) wrote a continuation of the Chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome, beginning with the accession of Theodosius in 379 and finishing in 468, so he appears to have finished writing in 469. His work has serious errors in dating that are still confusing. These are probably caused by the fact that much of his information was late arriving in Spain, being taken there by embassies and merchants whose dating was insecure.8 For events in Spain, especially concerning the Vandals, his work is good and relatively accurate.9 Although potentially valuable, the errors mean that Hydatius must be used with caution, with dates especially being confirmed by other sources whenever possible.
John Malalas John Malalas (fl. sixth century) wrote a chronicle intended to be used by both churchmen and laymen. Unfortunately, the work covers ‘history’ from the biblical period to the reign of Justinian in one book, so much is glossed over or omitted. As a result, the work is useful in places, but this is rare.
Marcellinus Comes Marcellinus (fl. sixth century) wrote a chronicle that covers the period from 379 to 534 (an unknown writer continued the chronicle down to 566). It is mainly concerned with the eastern empire, but includes some information concerning the west, drawn mainly from Orosius. Where possible this information needs to be confi
rmed by independent sources to ensure the accuracy of dates and the reliability of information contained.
Prosper Tiro Also known as Prosper of Aquitaine, c.390–c.455, he wrote a continuation of Jerome’s Chronicle. Prosper’s Chronicle finishes in 455. The early sections contain many errors, but between the years 433 and 455, when Prosper was personally involved in events, he is accepted as being the most reliable of the chroniclers, giving ‘careful and accurate’ dating.10 Prosper was not a clergyman, but his close association with the clergy and especially his contacts with Pope Leo I and Saint Augustine resulted in his viewpoint being heavily biased towards the church. Prosper doesn’t approve of Aetius. Possibly thanks to Augustine’s friendship with Boniface, Boniface is the only western general Prosper praises. This bias needs to be taken into account when reading the chronicle.11
Difficulties with the Chronicles The modern concept of a chronicle is that events are accurately dated and each single occurrence is allocated a separate entry in its relevant date. This preconception has badly affected perceptions of the chronicles, leading to accusations of inaccuracy and a poor grasp of time. In fact, some of these observations are unfair to the chroniclers. Even in the modern era, where access to periodicals, newspapers and the internet is common, one of the most common radio competitions is ‘Guess the Year’. It is clear that without modern methods of establishing specific dates, such as newspaper archives, human error in reporting events is to be expected.
Furthermore, ancient chroniclers were not writing with modern expectations in mind. As long as events were in roughly the correct order the chronicle would fulfil its purpose. Therefore it is a common occurrence for the chronicler to include later events at a convenient place earlier in his account.
Instances of the chroniclers predicting events are common. For example, in Hydatius’ entry for 430 he notes the defeat of a Gothic force by Aetius before extolling Aetius’ ability by noting that ‘Juthungi as well as Nori were vanquished by him in the same way.’ At first sight, these campaigns must therefore have taken place in 430. However, Hydatius’ entry for 431 includes the sentence ‘Aetius, general of both services, subdued the Nori, who were in rebellion.’ On reflection, the second campaign must date to the latter entry.
A more extreme example is in the Chronicon Paschale in the entry dated to 437, where the chronicler describes the marriage of Valentinian III and Eudoxia: ‘And he celebrated his nuptial, taking Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius and Eudocia Augusti, in the month Hyperberetaeus, on day four before Kalends of November, and by her he had two daughters, Eudocia and Placidia.’ The entry highlights the fact that the chroniclers were including later events at convenient places within the earlier entries, unless Eudoxia experienced two extremely fast gestation periods.
A further problem with the chroniclers is that they use different methods for calculating dates. For example, Prosper and Hydatius use a different method of calculating Christ’s passion, Prosper dating this to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Hydatius to the start of Tiberius’ fifteenth regnal year. This discrepancy helps to explain the differences in dates between the two chronicles.12 The consular date used by Prosper, plus his closer proximity to events, results in his dating system being preferred on the majority of occasions.
Panegyrics
When reading panegyrics one piece of advice is worth remembering: ‘the aim of the panegyrist is not to tell the truth, but to glorify his subject, exaggerating the good and suppressing or distorting the bad, the inappropriate, or the inconvenient’.13 With this in mind, it is possible to look at the two writers of panegyrics to have survived from this period in the fifth century.
Flavius Merobaudes14 Merobaudes was probably of Frankish origin, having an ancestor who was either a Romanized Frank or Frankish noble who took service with the empire – possibly the Merobaudes who lived during the reigns of Valentinian I (364–375) and Gratian (375–383).15
Perhaps originally from Gaul, he appears to have moved to Spain, where he married the daughter of Astyrius, a member of the old Spanish aristocracy. In the early fifth century the majority of the aristocracy withdrew from public life, but Merobaudes followed the example of his father-in-law and entered into an imperial career.16 Famed for his talents as a rhetorician and writer, he also gained a positive reputation as a military commander.17 Obtaining the position of either comes rei militaris (‘count’ of the military) or dux (duke), his military and literary abilities resulted in entry to the Senate and then a rapid rise through its ranks. On 30 July 435 he was honoured by having a statue erected to him in the Forum of Trajan in Rome.
After these successes Merobaudes appears to have focused mainly on his literary works. He may have delivered a panegyric to Aetius, as well as an ode honouring the wedding of Valentinian III and Eudoxia, daughter of Theodosius II, both in 437. Unfortunately, both have been lost. The latter may have been in emulation of Claudian (d. 404), the panegyrist of Stilicho (395–408). It is possible that Aetius and Merobaudes enjoyed a similar relationship to the earlier pair, although the fragmentary nature of the evidence means that this hypothesis must remain conjecture.18 The ode celebrating Valentinian’s wedding in Constantinople may also have been at least partly responsible for Merobaudes receiving the title of patricius from Theodosius, the eastern emperor.19
In 438 Merobaudes appears to have written verses celebrating the birth of Eudocia, Valentinian and Eudoxia’s first child, and probably in the winter of 441–442 he wrote a genethliakon (‘birthday poem’, ‘ode composed for a person’s birthday’, now known as Carmen IV) on the first birthday of Gaudentius, Aetius’ son.
Also in the early 440s, although the exact date is unknown, Merobaudes wrote an ekphrasis (an attempt to describe physical works of art in literary form and which is now known as Carmen III) for his friend Anicius Acilius Glabrio Faustus. Probably in 443 he wrote two poems to celebrate the baptism of Placidia, daughter of Valentinian and Eudoxia, which may be Carmen I and Carmen II, both of which are ekphrastic poems, although it should be noted that their actual purpose and content remains the matter of debate.20 All of these works are useful sources of information in their own right, but obviously they need to be used with care.
Shortly after writing these two poems Merobaudes was appointed magister utriusque militiae and sent to Spain, where he succeeded his father-in-law Astyrius in command. After his recall in 444 Merobaudes composed another panegyric to Aetius, which he delivered in Rome to the Senate and which is now known as Panegyric I.21 Shortly after this he composed yet another panegyric, now known as Panegyric II, which he delivered on 1 January 446.
Unfortunately, little is known of Merobaudes’ later career, and it is believed that he died before 460. He was obviously a man of influence and power and of considerable literary and military ability. Like Claudian before him, it would appear that Merobaudes took a full part in the regime set up by the ruling magister militum, in this case Aetius. There is little doubt that Merobaudes’ efforts on Aetius’ part helped to maintain the latter’s popularity and esteem.
Sidonius Apollinaris In addition to his letters, Sidonius Apollinaris wrote panegyrics on three individuals who became emperor after Aetius’ death, namely Avitus, Majorian and Anthemius. Within these panegyrics are events from the earlier lives of the three emperors, including some information concerning events during Aetius’ lifetime. However, it should be remembered that their aim was to praise their recipients, not to serve the interests of the historian in the life and deeds of Aetius, so they need to be read with care.
Other Sources
Notitia Dignitatum The Notitia Dignitatum is an extremely important document. It purports to list the bureaucratic and military organization of both the eastern and western empires. Thousands of offices are listed. Dated to c.420 for the west and c.395 for the east, it is potentially a mine of statistical and legal information. Unfortunately, there are many problems. Probably originating with the Emperor Theodosius in the east, it may in theory have been int
ended as a full list of offices. The eastern section of the Notitia appears to date from the early 400s. As a result, it is usually believed that the surviving document is a copy preserved in the west of the eastern Notitia dating from the reign of Arcadius (395–408). Unfortunately, it was not kept strictly up to date and there are many omissions and duplications. Moreover, due to the fragmentation of the Empire during and immediately after Stilicho’s death in 408, it is uncertain whether many of the army units listed existed in reality or only on paper. As a consequence, information taken from the Notitia should be accepted as possible rather than certain.
There appear to have been later attempts to update the western portion of the document and evidence suggests that these were last compiled at some date in the 420s, possibly under the orders of Constantius III (magister militum in the west from 411 and Emperor from February to September 421).
Unfortunately, there are internal problems with the Notitia, which suggests that it does not reflect reality. For example, although the provinces of Britain had drifted out of the imperial orbit in the early 410s, the leaders and troops associated with the island are still included in the Notitia. The same is true of the provinces of Belgica and Germania. The fact that these are ‘unquestionably anachronistic’ suggests that the document includes material reflecting what had once been available to the empire rather than the current military status.22 Yet the document may also have been a statement of intent. If it was compiled under the orders of Constantius III in 421, it may have been his intention as emperor to restore the glory of the west and incorporate the lost provinces back into the empire.