Ando, 'Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9503
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9503-ando-aurelius
@@@@95.3.21, Bird, trans., Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus
H. W. Bird (trans.), Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994. Translated Texts
for Historians, 17. Pp. xxx, 228. $17.95. ISBN 0-85323-218-0.
Reviewed by Clifford Ando -- University of Michigan
cando@umich.edu
As a companion to his Eutropius, B(ird) now offers a
translation of, and commentary on, the History of
(Aurelius) V(ictor). It is timely: though Victor has been
translated into English several times in this century, none of
these efforts received commercial publication.[[1]]
Unfortunately, the book contains a mind-boggling array of
typographical errors, which will confuse most of the student
audience for which the book is intended (Preface).
The introduction is divided into 6 sections: "V.: his life
and career"; "The date and tradition of the De
Caesaribus"; "The sources and influence of the De
Caesaribus"; "Method and Procedure"; "Syle and Language"; and
"Conclusions." In the second section B. refers to the "editor of
the corpus" before he has explained what that corpus is,
or when it was assembled: some reference ought to have been made
to Momigliano's classic article in JRS 48. He uses the
Teubner edition of Pichlmayr as revised by Gruendel[[2]]; the
reader might have been cautioned that none of the modern editions
of V. is completely satisfactory.
In the section on "Method and Procedure," B. adopts from
Momigliano the assertation that pagan historians were not
concerned with "ultimate values," though B. singles out V. as an
exception for his stress on the need for "education, culture,
honesty and respect for tradition" (xv). In B.'s introduction
and commentary, therefore, V. resides in a splendid but stifling
isolation: he is connected to his literary peers almost
exclusively through their shared use of Enmann's
Kaisergeschichte. Momigliano had appealed to the "social
and political earthquakes of the third century" to explain the
fourth century's love of potted histories; though Momigliano
labels them "pagan" he argues that their "characteristic
neturality presented no danger to the Christians."[[3]] But
fourth-century literature in general was deeply preoccupied with
the continuity of the present with the past: orators and
letter-writers used exempla to create images with which to
discuss contemporary figures and events; in this way they could
stress the shared history of the governing class while avoiding
explicit mention of politically sensitive issues. Such a method
of political communication was especially suited to exponents of
a scholarly culture whose interests were frequently directed
towards what had already become the classical past. Thus
histories such as that written by V. provide a map to the
concerns and rhetorical tropes of fourth-century political and
cultural discourse. In the dialogue which develops between the
pagan Roman aristocracy and the Christian barbarian court--
generalizations which, for better or for worse, were operative in
the fourth century--the dedication of a textbook to an emperor
may be seen as inviting him to join educated society, by
suggesting that he view the past as the glorious history of a
pagan empire. When, therefore, pagan histories are compared with
the Christian historiography of the age, they provide a means of
examining this conflict between pagan and Christian not only in
moments of crisis but also in the struggle for the curriculum of
the schools, that is, for the mind of the next generation.
Augustine's aspiration to be "something more than a mere writer
of history" set him apart; Orosius was far more typical in
desiring to debate with pagan historiography on its own
terms.[[4]] After all, even Christians had conceded that
Julian's early proficiency in his studies had singled him out as
capax imperii (Socrates, 3.1).
The section on "Style and Language" is reproduced almost
verbatim from B.'s earlier book (Liverpool: 1984; 96f.); one
wonders how Latinless students will benefit from lists of
Victor's favorite words. More importantly, B. urges that Victor
was "intent upon writing history rather than biography" (xxi).
That is true--V. was undoubtedly influenced in this by Tacitus--
though it is open to debate to what extent Victor succeeded in
maintaining that distinction. Late-antique readers quite
sensibly tended to see all imperial history as imperial
biography: Jerome claimed that Tacitus had written the "Lives of
the Caesars" in thirty books, and the MSS describe the
Epitome as a set of biographies abridged from the books of
Victor.[[5]] The modern division of V. into chapters, which
devotes roughly a chapter to each emperor and was established in
the editio princeps by A. Schott (1579), strongly
emphasizes the History's biographical nature; but the
paragraphing in the MSS is quite different.[[6]] If B. wishes on
this point to correct a long-standing injustice in V.'s
reception,[[7]] why use the title de Caesaribus? It is a
description, perhaps, but not a title; it is nowhere attested in
the MSS. It was undoubtedly coined to parallel the title of the
work which precedes it in the corpus, the de viris
illustribus--but that title is itself attested only in the
later MSS. de Caesaribus is not employed as a title in
any edition until the first edition of Pichlmayr (1892). The
only indication given by the MSS is the heading Aurelii
Victoris Historiae abbreviatae.
The translation is quite satisfactory, but an editorial
decision greatly reduces its usefulness: no paragraph numbers
are given, though B. refers to the text by chapter and paragraph
number throughout the introduction and commentary. Since the
traditional numeration of V. results in several long chapters--
the longest occupying 5 Teubner pages and containing 48
paragraphs--the absence of those numbers seems inexplicable. The
commentary is frequently helpful. The notes generally begin by
listing other ancient sources relevant to the topic at hand; for
instance, at 39.43, B. writes: "Cf. Eutrop. 9.25; Oros. 8.25.12;
Pan. 4(5).1[sic]; 8(5)5 [sic]; Jord. Rom. 299;
Get. 16.91; Chron. Min. I.230, 295; Ammianus,
28.1.5; Lact. De Mort. Persec. 13.2; 18.6...." (173 n.
28). In commenting on a text which covers so much ground, such
compression may be a regrettable necessity. But citation in this
fashion may give the impression that all these sources simply
iterate or confirm the information in V., and that is not always
the case.
This quotation raises another difficulty: a commentary
which cites so many different sources is only useful when
students can find their way to the passages in question. B.
describes his practice in the Preface: "In order to accomodate
students the Loeb editions of classical sources were used when
available" (p. v; cf. Bibliography, p. 222). Even when a Loeb
does exist, however, the bibliography is frequently unhelpful.
Loebs, however, are easily located; more troublesome is the
absence in the bibliography of works which are frequently cited
in the commentary and which do exist in translation in
less familiar locales: Malalas and Zosimus in another fine
series, Byzantina Australiensia; Orosius in the Fathers of the
Church; Socrates and Sozomen in NPNF; the Theodosian Code in the
translation by Pharr. Absent as well are B.'s own translation of
Eutropius and the Whitbys' Chronicon Paschale in this
series. No edition is listed for de rebus bellicis,
Festus, Jordanes, Peter Patricius, Philostorgius or Rufinus,
though these are frequently cited.
The need for brevity in the commentary demands the frequent
use of abbreviations; those abbreviations must somewhere be
expanded for the book's intended audience. Students are likely
to find the commentary confusing in this respect as well.
Sometimes B. cites the actual work in Mommsen's Chronica
Minora; sometimes he cites only by page number: this volume
is absent from the bibliography. Can students be expected to
know that Pan. and Pan. Lat. both refer to the
Panegyrici Latini--and these texts are sometimes cited in
the traditional, and sometimes also with chronological
numeration? Students may know CIL and ILS; will they also be
familiar with FHG and HGM? Will students know that "Hieron.
ab Abr. 2214"; "Hieron. Chron. p. 223"; "Hier.
Chron. A. D. 334"; "Hieron. Chron. 315"; "Hieron,
Chron. Ann. 344-345"; "Jerome, Ann. 165, p. 205
[Helm]"; "Jerome, G.C.S. 47.215"; and "Euseb.-Hieron. Chron.
CCLVIII Olymp., CCLVIII Olymp., 220" all refer to the same
text? A large number of additional sources are cited, almost
always by abbreviation; none of these is explained.
The textual errors begin with the Table of Contents, where
the Introduction and Translation have been transposed, and
continue through the Bibliography, where for "Lindorf" read
"Dindorf" or "L. Dindorf." Some errors are relatively harmless:
Marron for Marrou, Laet. for Lact. But errors in citations also
abound: "Plat. Rep. 5676" requires legwork, and "Eus.
H.E. 13" even more (I think he wants 7.13). In the
Commentary I counted approximately one typographical error every
other page.
It should be obvious from the range of sources listed in the
previous paragraphs that B. has devoted considerable effort to
the production of this commentary. We can only hope that
Liverpool will consent to the immediate publication of a
corrected edition.
NOTES
[[1]] Two of these included commentaries on all or part of
the text: B. T. Moss, dissertation U.N.C. (1944), and C. E. V.
Nixon, dissertation U. of M. (1971). P. Dufraigne included a
full commentary in his Bude edition (1975). B. has made
extensive use of these.
[[2]] Teubner has now (1993), in a most bizarre decision,
republished the uncorrected edition of Pichlmayr in paperback.
[[3]] A. Momigliano, The conflict between paganism and
Christianity... (Oxford, 1963), 85-86.
[[4]] See de civitate Dei III.18; Orosius, Prol. 9-10
and II.3.8-10.
[[5]] The MSS describes the Epitome as a libellus
de vita et moribus imperatorum breviatus ex libris S. Aurelii
Victoris; Jerome on Tacitus apud Comm. ad. Zach. III.
14: Cornelius Tacitus, qui post Augustum usque ad mortem
Domitiani vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit.
[[6]] See the works by S. D'Elia: Studi sulla tradizione
manoscritta di Aurelio Vittore (Naples, 1965), and in
particular his essay in RAAN 43 (1968), at 162ff.
[[7]] Gibbon, for example, referred to Victor either by
chapter number, or by the name of the emperor (cf. Chapter X, nn.
77, "Victor , c. 33" and 85, "Victor in Caracal.").