Festus (historian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (February 2009)

Festus was a late Roman historian (and proconsul of Africa) whose breviary (summary of the history of Rome, one source was the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte) was commissioned by the emperor Valens in preparation for war against Persia.

Contents 1 Life 2 The Breviarium 3 Works cited 4 External links

[edit] Life

Little is known about Festus’ life because most information available comes from contextual clues in his Breviarium and various other minor manuscripts of this time. Some indicate that Festus’ full name was Rufus or alternatively, Rufius Festus. And a single manuscripts indicates that one Festus held the position, magister memoriae (an officer whose duty is to receive orders of the emperor on any subject and communicate it to the public or persons concerned), the same position that was held by Eutropius. There is some debate over whether this is the same Festus who wrote the Breviarium, but in general, most historians liken the historian and the imperial official as the same person. The reason being because the assumed dates of the historian’s life are coincident with that of the official’s life. Festus the historian wrote his Breviarium in either 369 or 370. From this work, it is understood that Festus must have been considerably older than the emperor Valens, whom commissioned the work, because Festus refers to himself as being very old. Valens died in the month of August, 378 when he was fifty years old at that time. So we can assume that Festus was most likely born in the period around or before 320. Though information of the imperial officer is meager, scholars are certain that a Festus served in the position of magister memoriae sometime between 368 and 372, and this Festus was from Tridentum, a city in northern Italy.. This indicates that the two are the same because Festus the historian was known to have served as the consularis Syriae (in 365 or 368) and as a proconsul Asiae (from 372-378), and in between he assumed the role of magister memoriae. When all the facts together are put together, a character appears, named Rufus Festus, born around or before the year 320 in the city of Tridentum, who wrote a Breviarium for emperor Valens around the year 369 after serving as an imperial official.

For more insight on the life of Festus, we turn to three distinguished pagans: Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius, and Eunapius, who all mention Festus of Tridentum with disgust. Ammianus includes Festus in his work, but only to further his goal of tarnishing Maximunus, an official who Ammianus lambastes for his role in sorcery trials. Ammianus at first praises Festus’ early career as consularis Syriae and magister memoriae, but then the tone shifts negatively, with Ammianus claiming Festus wound up under the influence of the despotic Maximinus. Ammianus recounts that at first Festus denounced Maximinus’ evil behavior, but then realized it was an opportunity and a means for career advancement and he too began accusing and condemning his his subjects for sorcery, even though most were simply performing charms for health, not practicing the malicious magic they were accused for. In this way, many innocents were persecuted, including the philosopher Ceoranius.

Likewise, Libanius also accuses Festus of being a corrupt man, though in his account, Festus was evil from the time he became consulari Syriae. Libanius portrays an idiotic Festus, a man who knew no Greek (an insult from the Latin-hating Libanius). The accusations continue with Libanius claiming Festus plotted with his enemy Eubulus in return for a extravagant feast. To halt the orations of Libanius, Festus attempted to link him to a certain Martyrius, an otherwise unknown man. Martyrius, apparently a wrestling aficionado, allegedly used magic to hinder a competitor. Libanius claims that Festus, in a secret meeting with Valens attempted to associate both him and the historian Eutropius to Martyrius’ sorcery.

Finally, Eunapius attacks him with the most fervor and vehemence of the three pagans. He claims Festus is mad, soulless, and a persecutor of pagans, who was responsible for many beheadings, including that of the philosopher Maximus of Ephesus. Eunapius also gives an account of Festus’ death, which he claims to have witnessed himself. In his narrative, Eunapius recounts Festus leaving office and marrying a wealthy woman of Asia. Then, in an attempt to make peace, he decided to hold a feast for his enemies. But before this, Festus had a dream in which Maximus, his beheaded victim, came back from the dead and dragged him by his neck to Pluto to be judged. Festus went to the temple of the goddess of Nemesis and followed the advice of those there and offered prayers to the gods. As a persecutor of pagans however, Eunapius contends that the gods satisfyingly provided justice by making Festus slip and fall on his way out of the temple and expire on the pavement.

[edit] The Breviarium

While Festus’ Breviarium is straightforward and informative, it does not go without the stylistic components that characterized literature of that time. Festus shows a penchant for pleonasm, or using more words than needed in his writing. This is seen in phrases such as “kings seven in number,” or “pirates and maritime bandit.” A Breviarium is typically a short work that provides a summary of historical events. While these works lack in quantity however, it typically allows the writer to infuse some individualistic style, interpretations, and opinions on the events. Despite Festus’ work being classified as a Breviarium, his piece is more a reflection of a particular commission for a particular time rather than a legitimate historical source. The reason for the classification is due to the fact that two other authors, Aurelius Victor and Eutropius both wrote Breviaria, and all three (Festus, Aurelius Victor, and Eutropius) share the same root for information. By comparing the three we can see the purposes that each had in writing their account. Much of Festus’ work pertains to the history of Roman-Persian relations, and the parts which do not pertain to Roman foreign policy. Thus it takes on a role more like that of a propaganda pamphlet rather than a brevarium that provides a history of Rome such as Victor Aurelius and Eutropius.

The title of Festus’ Breviarium has been the topic of some controversy over the years. An early take on the title was that of Wolfflin. He suggested that the title, “Breviarium Festi De Breviario Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani” meant “the breviarium to surpass all breviaria,” but that was later proved to be linguistically impossible. Later scholars such as Momigliano claimed that Festus’ work was just Eutropius’ work abridged. The reasoning behind this thought is that Eutropius had the position of magister memoriae before Festus, and when he turned in his Breviarium, the emperor Valens found it to be far too complex and confusing, so the year after, he asked his new magister memoriae, Festus, to provide an abridgment to the abridgment of Eutropius. More proof for this theory is found in the title which Momigliano and another scholar, den Boer interpreted to mean “a breviarium of the breviarium (of Eutropius).” The only flaw with this argument however, is that Festus’ work clearly differs from that of Eutropius. Therefore, another explanation must be found, and another scholar, Arnaud-Lindet provided. His theory is that the real name of the piece was “De Breviario Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani” ([book] concerning a summary of the history of the Roman people) and that over the years, the first two words were added by a copyist, and then was assumed to be part of the original title.

Historians can date his work because at the end of it, Festus laments his inability to achieve the level of eloquence that emperor Valens demanded of him. He pleas for the emperor to put down Persia in the same manner in which he did to the Goths. That victory took place in 369, so it can be concluded that his work would have been published after that date. Another way to date the creation of his piece was through the list of provinces Festus provides. In this list, he omits the province of Valentia, which was formed in 369. These are consistent with the fact that he succeeded Eutropius as magister memoriae in 369 as well.

Festus’ work was clearly dedicated to the emperor Valens, who asked for its creation. Festus addressed the emperor with eloquent, flattering phrases such as “most glorious emperor,” “your clemency” and “your eternity” in numerous passages. There has been some discussion over whether or not Festus intended to dedicate his Breviarium to Valen’s brother, Valentinian, whose name appears at the beginning of one line of the manuscript. But these theories were put to rest by facts in the tenth chapter, where Festus writes how the eastern provinces fell under “your rule” (Valens was the eastern emperor). Also the victory over the Goths, praised in chapter 30, must refer to the recent conquest, led by Valens, of the Athanaric. Valentinian’s name appearance can attributed to scribal error in the expansion of the original abbreviation “VAL.” Because Valens asked for its creation, historians assume that he did it for the purpose of passing it around after as information and to garner support for his mission against the Persians.

It appears as if Festus composed his work very quickly and used few sources for its creation. Parallels of the information can be found in the Periochae that Livy wrote. Also, Florus’ abbreviated history may have also been used. And finally, Eutropius’ work clearly influenced Festus’ own. But errors in his work indicate that Festus was not always careful in using his sources and that often times he must have relied upon his own memory for information.

Festus’ work is 30 chapters long, and can be divided into an introduction (1), a division by years of Roman history into regal, republican, and imperial periods (2), the provinces which were conquered in each periods (3), the conquest of western provinces (4-9), the conquest of the eastern provinces (10-13), an account of past military conflicts with Persia (14-29), and a persuasive conclusion to inspire faith in Valen’s plans against Persia.

For modern day scholars, the most important and valuable component of Festus’ work is the list of provinces. This is the earliest surviving list of its type, but oddly, it excludes eastern provinces. Perhaps because it would be unnecessary because the book was for the easter court. It is uncertain why the list was formed and is a topic of some debate. Some scholars such as Den Boer insists the list is “remarkable” and innovative. Others suggest the list rounds off the discussion of the dioceses of the western half of the empire, which Festus did not return to. Another theory is that by displaying the power and conquests of the Rome in the west, the reader would conclude that expansion in the east is a logical and inevitable part of the growth in Roman power.

Festus then begins a lengthy account of the Persian-Roman relations throughout history. In the introduction he makes clear the wishes that Valens gave to him: “I know now, my illustrious prince, where your purpose leads. You assuredly seek to know how many times the Babylonian and Roman arms clashed, with what fortunes the javelin contended with the arrow” (synecdoches, Roman pila is the typical javelin, and the Persian sagitta, the arrow of the Persian cavalry). Festus continues by saying that in his account, the Persians would only rarely emerge as victors, and that the Romans would often prove to be the victor due to their superior virtue. Also, by describing Persia’s formidable might, Festus would be able to enhance Valen’s victory if he won because he overcame such a difficult opponent, but if Valens lost, then it would just be because Persia was so powerful. Through these chapters, Festus is seen rallying the people, and the vast amount of information shows how much emphasis he puts on the Persian-Roman conflict. The importance is obvious as Festus spends 15 chapters recounting tales of the two power’s previous clashes.

Most historians can agree that while Festus’ Breviarium was produced under the guise of a historical account of the Romans, its main role was to persuade and inform the people of Rome on the past conflicts with Persia and the impending conflict with Persia. His work served merely as a pamphlet would in our society today. The only historical significance Festus brings to the table, is the list of provinces he provided. This is the only valuable contribution he made that modern historians value.

[edit] Works cited

• Baldwin, Barry. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 1st ed. Vol. 27. 1950. 197-217. 1978. Jstor. Jstor. Lucas Family Library, Atherton. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435590>.
• Banchich, Thomas M., and Jennifer A. Meka. "Brevarium of the Accomplishments of the Roman People." An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors. 2001. Canisius College, Buffalo, NY. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://www.roman-emperors.org/festus.htm>.
• Barnes, Timothy D. "Festus. The Breviarium." Rev. of The Journal of Roman Studies, by J. W. Eadie. 1968: 263-65. 1968. Jtor. Jstor. Lucas Family Library, Atherton. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/299726>.
• Peachin, Michael. The Purpose of Festus' Breviarium. 4th ed. Vol. 38. The Netherlands: Brill, 1985. 158-61. 1985. Jstor. Jstor. Lucas Family Library, Atherton. 7 Dec. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/pss/4431386>.
• Rohrbacher, David. Historians of Late Antiquity. New York: Routledge, 2002. 59-64.

[edit] External links

• Breviarum of the accomplishments of the Roman people, translated by Thomas M. Banchich and Jennifer A. Meka (2001)