Free The Historians of Late Antiquity by David Rohrbacher Page B

1970, 1976, 1978: 90–7; Bird 1973, 1989; Burgess 1993). Its influence has since been detected in Festus, Jerome, the anonymous Epitome de Caesaribus , Ausonius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, among others. Victor and Eutropius share a similar selection of facts and several errors in their descriptions of the imperial period, particularly the third century. Because Victor’s treatment is more thorough than that of Eutropius, but precedes Eutropius in date of publication, the two must depend upon a common source, the KG .
    Given the number of fourth- and fifth-century histories which depend upon it, the KG must have been one of the few Latin sources to cover the third and early fourth centuries. It seems to have covered the period from the beginning of the empire, around 30 BC, up to at least the Constantinian period, around 340, and maybe up to the reigns of Constantius and Julian in 357. The work cannot have been particularly long, or the similarities between Victor and Eutropius would not have been so obvious. The author demonstratesa particular interest in usurpers. It has been suggested that the KG should be identified with the lost historical work of Eusebius of Nantes, which served as a source for a (lost) series of poems on usurpers written by Ausonius in the 380s (Burgess 1993).
    Victor took the dry narrative of the KG and expanded it with the addition of moralizing commentary and stylistic flourishes. Neither addition has been well received by modern critics. Unlike the sober and flowing narrative of Eutropius, who follows the KG more closely in his imperial section, Victor frequently speaks in the first person in complex and sometimes puzzling asides. In diction and in syntax, Victor is greatly dependent upon the historian Sallust, who was one of the primary authors taught in the schools of late antiquity. Sallust’s pessimistic moralism fits well with Victor’s historical approach, but unfortunately Victor is no Sallust and his work is often affected and artificial (Bird 1984: 90–9). Victor was also familiar with the works of Tacitus, and the introduction to the De Caesaribus purposefully recalls the opening section of Tacitus’ Annales . Tacitus clearly serves as a stylistic model only, however, and not as a historical model, since numerous errors which must derive from the KG would have certainly been corrected if Victor had a copy of Tacitus at hand while he wrote.
    Victor pauses at certain points in his narrative to impose structure upon the history of the imperial period. Den Boer suggests that this periodization, which mirrors that of modern historians of the empire, is one of Victor’s original accomplishments (1972: 28–31). Victor marks important breaks after Domitian, after Alexander Severus, and at the accession of Diocletian. After the assassination of Domitian, Victor remarks that those born in Italy had held the throne up to that point, but afterwards emperors from elsewhere did so as well. “And to me at least … it is perfectly clear that the city of Rome grew great especially through the virtues of immigrants and imported skills” (11.13). Alexander Severus is praised for his intellect, his modesty, and his military and judicial excellence. At the end of his thirteen-year reign, Victor pauses to reflect. The empire had grown enormously between the reigns of Romulus and Septimius Severus, and had reached its peak under Alexander, he claims. Subsequent emperors, more interested in civil wars than wars of foreign conquest, sent the state into decline. “And without discrimination, men good and evil, noble and ignoble, even many barbarians seized power.” Fortune, which had previously been restrained by virtue, entrusted power to the least noble and the least educated (24.9–11). Victor casts a mixed judgement on the recoveryof the state at the accession of Diocletian. He was “a great man” with a list of accomplishments in military, civil, and religious affairs. He was additionally looked