Symmachus and the "Barbarian" Generals

Author(s): Michele Renee Salzman

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 55, H. 3 (2006), pp. 352-367
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436821 .
Accessed: 23/11/2012 02:34

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 support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SYMMACHUSAND THE "BARBARIAN"GENERALS

The literature of the Roman elites of the fourth and fifth centuries is filled with nega-
tive, anti-barbarianimages and attitudes. In his poem, Contra Symmachum,Prudentius
summed up the sentiments of many a late Roman aristocrat (2.816-.817):
sed tantumdistant Romana et Barbara, quantumquadrupes abiuncta est bipedi vel
muta loquenti.
Yet what is Roman and what is barbarianare as different from each other as the four-
footed creature is distinct from the two-footed or the dumb from the speaking.i
The fourthcentury Panegyricists frequentlymaligned barbariansas uncontrollable,cruel
and rapacious.2 Some aristocratsthinly veiled such feelings by disparaging barbarians
in terms of their style; so, for example, in the fifth century, Sidonius Apollinaris mocked
barbarians for their being skin-clad, smelly and uncultured (Ep. 1.7.6; 2.1.2; 5.5.3).
Despite the existence of such negative attitudes, late Roman aristocratshad to face the
reality of a growing number of barbariansin their midst. It would become increasingly
necessary for late Roman aristocrats to build friendships with these non-Romans, and
especially those non-Romans who held high military office. But given these anti-barbar-
ian sentiments, could fourth-centuryRoman elites overcome these negative stereotypes
to accept the barbarian?
In this paper I will argue, based on the Letters and Orations of Symmachus, that
the culture and language of late Roman amicitia was exceptionally useful for building
social ties across the Roman / barbariandivide. Analysis of Symmachus' letters to the
barbarian generals Stilicho (4.1-.14), Richomeres (3.54-.69), and Bauto (4.15-.16)
reveals how the language of amicitia smoothed over tensions and made it possible to
ignore the "barbarian"difference. The power and prominence of these generals led
Symmachus to adopt a carefully crafted prose style that conformed in content and tone
to the polite norms of elite epistolography. Probably, Symmachus' letters to Arbogastes
(which were presumably omitted from the collection after the failed usurpation) were
similarly cast in the obliquely formal and politic language of amicitia.3

I Prudentius, Contra Symm. 2.816-817, Translation by H.J. Thomson (Cambridge, Ma. 1995 rept.),
Vol. 2, 71.
2 See, for example, Pan. Lat. 2.32.4 which echoes the sentiment that disorder, confusion and looting
are typical among the barbarians. For more on this theme, and with bibliography, see especially F.
del Chicca, "Panegiristi e barbari:tra convenzionalita e originalita di notazioni," Rom Bar 11 (I 99 1)
109-128, and A. Chauvot, Opinions romainesface aux barbares au IVesiecle ap. J.-C. (Paris, 1998)
46-47, 87-100.
3 All references to texts are taken from the edition by J.P. Callu, Symmaque, Lettres, Tomes I-IV
(Paris, 1972-2002). Callu's volumes are much indebted to the seminal edition by 0. Seeck, Sym-
machi opera, MGH.AA 6.1 (Berlin, 1883). The likely omission of the Letters to Arbogast depends
in part on what we know about the editing of these books. The explicits to Books 2 and 4 indicate
that Symmachus'son, Memmius, compiled the correspondence after his father's death. This led S.

Historia, Band 55/3 (2006)

? Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Generals
Symmachusandthe "Barbarian" 353

Symmachus' letters to these barbariangenerals are not, however, uniform in tone,

style or content. In the letters to Stilicho there is nothing to suggest the non-Roman
origins or culture of this extremely powerful general. However, Symmachus' Letters to
Bauto (Ep. 4.15-.16) and two of his letters to Richomeres (Ep. 3.59 and .61) are differ-
ent. In both instances Symmachus calls attention to a failure of etiquette on the part of
these two powerful generals. In establishing himself as the arbiter amicitiae, Symmachus
demonstrates his cultured superiority to these men of non-Roman origins. At the same
time, Symmachus defended his reputation and reasserted his influence.
Moreover, as I will propose, Symmachus' letters to Bauto and Richomeres convey
a carefully coded criticism of these two powerful non-Roman generals. The nuanced
anti-barbarianprejudice in these letters, dated between the 380s and early 400s4, con-
trasts sharply with the more standard anti-barbarianrhetoric found in Symmachus'
First and Second Orations, securely dated to 368 and 370 CE5. I shall conclude with
a brief overview of the anti-barbarianrhetoric in these Orations directed against the
Alamanni and the imperial policy toward this barbariangroup in the intervening decade;
this overview reinforces the impression left by the Letters that Symmachus, although
well familiar with anti-barbarianstereotypes, chose instead to wield the language of
amicitia to build friendship ties with powerful non-Romans. Yet, a writer as subtle as
Symmachus could also make subtle distinctions between Romans and "barbarians."
Thus, I propose, Symmachus' Letters marka key moment in the transitionof barbarians
in military service into acceptable late Roman aristocrats;this acceptance, however, also
reinforced traditionalRoman notions of the barbarian'sinferior status. Interestingly,this
is the same epistolary strategy that Symmachus adopted when dealing with refractory
but powerful figures, like the bishop Ambrose (Ep. 3.30.37).

Roda, Commento storico al libro IX dell'epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco (Pisa, 1981) 69-79 to
propose,rightlyI think,thatMemmiusonly publishedBooks 2-7; Books 8-10 appearto follow a
differentorganizationalpatternandcontainsome anonymousletters,suggestingto Rodathatbooks
8-10 were a latercompilation.Hence,problematicreferencesin Books 2-7 wereremovedeitherby
Symmachushimself in preparationfor publicationof these letters,or by his son, Memmius,post-
humously.So, for example,thereis no mentionof Symmachus'panegyricin supportof the usurp-
ing emperorMaximusin 388; only the speech of apology to Theodosiusand the pardonare noted
(Symm.,Ep. 2.13, 2.128, .130, .131, .132, 8.69.) Similarly,I wouldarguethatArbogastwas a likely
correspondentof Symmachus.He was one of the key Theodosiangenerals;his colleagues,Promotus
andTimasius,werecorrespondentsof Symmachus,as was his uncle, Bauto.Any correspondenceto
Arbogasteswould have been likely removedafterhis failed usurpationin 394 CE. Foran opposing
argument,see B. Croke,"TheEditingof Symmachus'Lettersto EugeniusandArbogast,"Latomus
35 (1976) 533-549.
4 The datingof these lettersis variouslyplacedbetween383 CE and402 CE. Discussionof the dating
of individualletterswill be noted when appropriate.For Books 3 and 4, I will also makefrequent
reference to A. Pellizzari, Commento storico al libro III dell'Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco
(Pisa, Rome, 1998) and A. Marcone, Commento storico al libro IV dell'Epistolario di Q. Aurelio
Simmaco(Pisa, 1987). All translationsin the text are by the authorunless otherwisenoted.
5 Symmachus'First Orationwas deliveredin honorof Valentinian'sQuinquennalia,correctlydated
to 368 CE by A. Chastagnol,"Les Quinquennaliade Valentinienet Valens,"Melangesa P. Bastien
(Wetteren,1987) 255-268. Symmachus'Second Orationis securelydated to the thirdconsulship
(Or.2.9) of Valentinianin 370 CE.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 MICHELERENEESALZMAN

Symmachus' Letters to Stilicho: The Good "Semi-Barbarian"

I will begin with Symmachus' letters to the barbariangeneral Stilicho. This semi-bar-
barian traitor - semi-barbarus proditor as Jerome (Ep. 123.16) later denigrated him
- was intimately tied to the imperial family. In fact, he was the first magister militum to
marry into the imperial family; he wed Serena, Theodosius' niece, and Stilicho's two
daughters, Maria and Thermantia, married Theodosius' son, Honorius, each in their
turn.6So powerful was Stilicho that he had his own private bodyguard,the first Roman
general attested as having one since the late Republic.7 He twice attained the honor of
the consulship, in 400 and 405 CE, still the highest distinction in the empire.8One other
sign of Stilicho's prestige is the prominentplacement of Symmachus' letters to Stilicho
at the beginning of his fourth book of correspondence.
In the opening letter, most likely dated to sometime after 383 and before 397 CE,
Symmachus claims that Stilicho owes him correspondence; this obligation (officium)
suggests an ongoing friendship between the two men.9 Eight of the fourteen letters to
Stilicho can be securely dated to 397-402 CE, the period of Stilicho's greatest influence
as magister militum of the West (394-408 CE).10 Yet, all fourteen of these letters to
Stilicho are ratherstandardSymmachan fare in terms of style and content. Symmachus
includes, for example, the customary letters of recommendation, one for his protege, a
certain Rufinus (Ep. 4.3), and one for his son-in-law, Nicomachus Flavianus the Younger
(Ep. 4.2).
Indeed, Symmachus' letters to Stilicho concerning his son-in-law are of historical
interest, for they shed light on the fates of men involved in the usurpationof Arbogastes

6 A. Demandt, "The Osmosis of Late Roman and Germanic Aristocracies," in Das Reich und die Bar-
baren, ed. E.K. Chrysos and A. Schwarcz (Wien-Koin, 1989) 81. Marriages between imperial and
barbarian military families had happened earlier; Constantius II married a daughter of the magister
militum Flavius Eusebius (see PLRE 1, 39). For more on the importance of Stilicho to Theodosius,
see A. Cameron, "Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho," HSCPh 73 (1969) 247-280.
For his political prominence, see too A. Marcone, "Simmaco e Stilicone," Colloque genevois sur
Symmaque (Paris, 1986) 145-162.
7 Zos. 5.34.1 claims they were Huns; and see A. Demandt, "Der spatromische Militaradel," Chiron
10 (1980) 631.
8 For more on Stilicho's career, see PLRE 1, 853-858. For his political prominence, see too A. Mar-
cone, Simmaco (as in n. 6) 145-162.
9 Symm., Ep. 4.1: Diu siluisse me fateor, ut mihifiduciam scribendi tuus sermo praestaret. Sed cum
perspicerem necdum me ullo invitamento officii provocari, prior in verba salutationis erupi plurimum
rogans ut exempli istius imitator esse digneris. Vale. J.P.Callu, Symmaque (as in n. 3) Tome II, 232
n. 2, suggested that Ep. 4.1 represents a rapprochement after a period of coldness, but I find little
to support this notion; the letter itself is far too formulaic to suggest a rupture. Even less likely is
0. Seeck's view, Opera (as in n. 3) CXL, that this is the beginning of the correspondence. Rather,
Marcone, Commento (as in n. 4) 34 that takes the most likely view, namely that ep. 4.1 is indeed part
of an on-going dialogue between these two men; beginning a book in medias res is reminiscent of
the opening letter to his father in Book 1. The dating of this letter has also been disputed. I concur
with Marcone, Commento (as in n. 4) 35, that it is simply not possible to securely date this first let-
ter, but I would argue that the deferential tone suggests that Stilicho has attained a sufficiently high
imperial post, at least tribunus praetorianus militaris, which he received in 383 CE, or, even more
likely, comes sacri stabuli, attained in 384 CE; see Flavius Stilicho, PLRE 1, 853-854. Hence, this
letter should be dated after 384 but before 397 CE, when Stilicho and Symmachus were in more
constant contact.
10 Ep. 4.1, .2, .3, .10, .11 are, in my view, not able to be securely dated due to insufficient evidence;
here I concur with Marcone, Commento (as in n. 4) ad loc.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusand the "Barbarian"
Generals 355

and Eugenius. The letter recommending the younger Nicomachus (Ep. 4.2) is conven-
tional and yet adopts such a deferentialtone in addressingStilicho thateditors have dated
it after 384 CE (when Stilicho had attained a high enough imperial position) but before
the disgraceful fall of Flavianus the Younger's father at the Battle of Frigidus, i.e. before
394 CE."I Most likely, this letter established the bond which Symmachus relied on in
asking Stilicho's aid for his son-in-law. Two letters (Epp. 4.4 and 4.6), securely dated
to 399 and 398 CE respectively, express Symmachus' gratitude for Stilicho's efforts on
behalf of his son-in law's returnto normal political life; that re-entry was signaled by
the restoration of the urban prafectureship to Flavianus the Younger (Ep. 4.4), and by
the extension of an invitation to his son-in-law to attend the consular ceremonies for
Mallius Theodorus in Milan on January 1, 399 (Ep. 4.6).
The favors that a powerful general like Stilicho could extend to a well-placed sena-
tor like Symmachus are openly described in their correspondence. In Epistle 4.7, for
example, Symmachus thanks Stilicho for the use of public transport to carry horses
from Spain to Rome for the praetoriangames of Symmachus' son, Memmius, to be held
there in 400 CE. In Epistle 4.8, dated to 401 CE, Symmachus asks for special favors
in connection with his son's games, namely the use of silk robes, the presentation of
theatrical water shows, and the opening of the Flavian Amphitheater to seat the large
crowds that Symmachus anticipates.12Symmachus claims that such favors have been
grantedbefore. And, of course, following epistolary conventions, Symmachus concludes
this letter with a stock topos that regardless of how Stilicho responds to these requests
for favors, he will abide by Stilicho's decision; yet his honor is at stake, so he can only
rely on Stilicho's generosity and friendship.'3
Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of this correspondence is how effusive is
Symmachus' praise of Stilicho and how humbly he presents himself (Ep. 4.8.3):
...eminentissimae et semper mihi reverendaesublimitati tuae expendendumrelinquo,
quid merito existimes convenire. De me enim opinio hominumiudicabit, si iusta non
impetrem,cum tuae censurae animus soleat magna praestare.
... I leave it to your sublime Eminence, always most revered by me, to consider
what you think is deservedly fitting. Men will form an opinion about me if I do not
obtain justice, since your spirit of good judgment (tuae censurae) is accustomed to
grant great things.
This humility is reinforced by the semi-official tone of the words chosen to refer to
Stilicho. Symmachus mentions Stilicho's good judgment, censurae, and twice refers
to him as parens publicus (Ep. 4.12, .14), an adaptation with overtones recalling the
laudatory official title of emperors as pater patriae.14 The superlative eminentissimae

11 Marcone,Commento(as in n. 4) 36; and n. 9 above.

12 Symm., Ep. 4.8.1-.2: Aquae vero theatralis et holosericarum vestium impetratio etiam aliis ante me
plerumque delata est et ideo iuvatur exemplis. Amphitheatrum in spectaculum, quod editioni filii
mei propter capacitatem loci opto, concedi...
13 Symm., Ep. 4.8.3. For a good discussionof topoi in letters,see K. Thraede,Grundzugegriechisch-
romischer Brieftopik, Zetemata 48 (Munich, 1970).
14 Marcone,Commento(as in n. 4) 49, remarkson the termtuae censuraethatthis is a semi-official
phraseand tries to captureit by his translation:"nellaseveritadel suo giudizio il tuo animo."For
moreon the titles of courtesyused by Symmachusin addressingStilicho andfor the possible refer-
ence to Trajanconveyedby the appellation,parenspublicus,see Marcone,Simmaco(as in n. 6) 155,
who notes its use fourtimes by Pliny for Trajan,Pan. Traiani10.6, 26.3, 67.1, 87.1.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 RENEESALZMAN
MICHELE

reinforces the polite humility that befits the fact that Stilicho has reached the highest
honor in the state, the consulship.
Symmachus can hardly praise Stilicho enough. In Epistle 4.12.3, dated to 400 CE,
Symmachus claims:
Longius pergerem, nisi tuus nobilis pudor par virtutibus ceteris laudis onera vi-
taret.
I would proceed even longer, if your noble modesty, equal to all your other virtues,
were not preventing me from weighty praise.
There is no sign here of Stilicho's non-Roman origins, and no indication that Symma-
chus felt anything but respect for this successful barbarianconsul. Nor is there any sign
of anything but admiration for this importantpolitical friend in the frequent laudatory
references made to Stilicho in Symmachus' other books of Letters.15
On the contrary, Symmachus' last letter to Stilicho in Book 4 accompanied a gift
(sportula) sent on the occasion of the marriageof Symmachus' son, Memmius, to Galla,
probably the sister of the brotherof Flavianus the younger.16 The gift is an expression of
Symmachus' gratitudefor Stilicho's approval of the union, and his hope that his friend-
ship with Stilicho will live on into the next generation. The demise of Stilicho in 408
CE ended the desirability of that bond, but this last letter of 402 CE concludes with a
rosy image of a friendship intact for generations to come. Indeed, maintaining this tie
was also in the best interests of Symmachus' son, Memmius, who edited these letters
for publication after the death of his father in 402 CE; in the years immediately after the
loss of his father,Memmius would have wanted to re-enforce his inheritedfriendshipties
with Stilicho, now at the height of his own career, and build bonds with Stilicho's rising
young son, Eucherius.17Yet, nowhere is there indicationthat Symmachus acknowledged
or cast subtle aspersions on the non-Roman origins of this powerful figure.'8

Symmachus' Letters to Bauto and Richomeres

Symmachus' letters to the Roman barbariangeneral Bauto, placed directly after his let-
ters to Stilicho in Book 4, are ratherdifferent in tone and content. Bauto, a Frankfrom
across the Rhine, came to militaryand political power underGratianand continued under
Valentinan II. In 384 CE, as a member of the imperial consistory he and the General

15 Stilicho is referred to or spoken of indirectly by Symmachus in Epps. 6.10, .12, .36, .52, .59; 7.13,
.14, .48, .59, .93, .104, .105, .106, .110, .122; and 8.29. For the positive epithets used to refer to him
in these letters, see Marcone, Simmaco (as in n.6) 155.
16 Symm., Ep. 6.14; and see Marcone, Simmaco (as in n. 6) 158.
17 For more on Eucherius, see PLRE II. 404-405. The fall of Stilicho in 408 CE provides another
terminus post quem for Memmius' editing of the Letters of Symmachus as well as the omission of
the name of the usurper Attalus; see Callu, Symmaque (as in n. 3) Tome I, 19.
18 This is in contrast to the anti-barbarian polemics after Silicho's demise; see especially L. Cracco
Ruggini, "De Morte Persecutorum e polemica antibarbarica nella storiografia romana e cristiana
(A proposito della disgrazia di Stilicone)," Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 4 (1968) 433-
447.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusand the "Barbarian"
Generals 357

Rumoridorus had opposed Ambrose concerning the removal of the Altar of Victory.'9
It seems likely that Bauto was probably a pagan himself.20 But even if they were co-
religionists, Symmachus' letters to Bauto lack the effusive praise and obsequious tone
noted in his letters to Stilicho. Rather,Symmachus adopts a somewhat critical stance as
he points out, in the first of two letters (Ep. 4.15) to Bauto, that the general has made a
serious breach of etiquette; Symmachus did not receive his consular gift from Bauto at
the beginning of his year in office, 385 CE. Given Symmachus' position as the current
praefectus urbis, this omission was a notable lapse of etiquette.
Symmachus begins his letter by assuring Bauto as follows (Ep. 4.15.1):
Non cadit in te ista suspicio, ut consulto amicitiae neglegens fuisse credaris. Est
tibi animus tenaxfidei.... Quapropternec ante opinatus sum exemptumme numero
ceterorum quibus principio anni munus consulare tribuisti, et nunc amplius quam
reliquis mihi credo delatum. Nam quod illis generalis oblatio dedit, nobis specialis
cura restituit.
No suspicion falls on you that you could be believed to have intentionally been
negligent of our friendship. Your character is tenacious of its fidelity...
For which reason, I did not previously think that I was removed from the number
of those to whom you gave a consular gift at the beginning of the year, and now I
believe that more has been granted to me than to the rest. For what a general offer-
ing gave to them, a special concern has restored to me.
In a masterly tour de force, Symmachus turns Bauto's insulting delayed gift into a com-
pliment. Clearly, Symmachus says, this delay marked him out as the object of special
concern (specialis cura). The import of the gift is explained explicitly as a point of
honor; only the delivery of the gift, late indeed, has restored to Symmachus the honor
which all others had attained on time.
In lines that are hard to read as anything but polite irony, Symmachus defuses his
anger by laying the blame for this breach on some unknown, treacherous person (Ep.
4.15.2):
Qua in re his quoque suscensere non debeo, qui me exortem prioris honorificen-
tiae esse voluerunt. Neque enim mihi aliter evenire potuisset, ut quodfraus aliena
subtraxerat, bis mererer.... Sive error istud seu dolus fecerat, docuisti omnes ni-
hil ulterius ad destruendas amicitias callidum cogitare, quas vident insidiis suis
crescere.
In this matter(i.e. the delayed gift) I ought not even to be angry at those who wanted
me to be deprived of the previous honor. For it could not have otherwise happened

19 Ambr., Ep. 1.57.3: aderat amplissimus honore magisterii militaris Bauto comes et Rumoridus, et
ipse eiusdem dignitatis, gentilium nationum cultui inserviens a primis pueritiae suae annis. For more
on Bauto'scareer,see PLRE1, 159-160.
20 Bauto was a Frank,and most Frankswere pagans.In addition,Zosimus4.33 ff. describesBautoin
a positive light.Ambr.Ep. 1.57.3, is inconclusiveconcerningBauto'sreligiousaffiliation;Ambrose
indicatesthatBautoandRumoridorushadopposedhimconcerningtheAltarof Victorycontroversy,
and statesclearlythatthe latterhadlong been a paganbut is simply silent aboutBauto'sreligiosity.
Hence, contraMarcone,Commento(as in n. 4) 54-55, 1 follow R. von Haehling,Die Religions-
zugehorigkeit der hohen Amtstrager des Romischen Reiches seit Constantins 1. Alleinherrschaft bis
zum Ende der Theodosianischen Dynastie (324-450 bzw. 455 n. Chr.) (Bonn, 1978) 463-464, and
would arguethatBautowas probablya pagan.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 MICHELERENEESALZMAN

that I earned twice what someone else's fraudulence had taken away. ...Whether an
erroror trickery had done that, you have taught everyone to plot no furthertrickery
to destroy friendships which they see growing because of their own treachery.
Who or what could have delayed his gift is left vague (fraus aliena), but the assertion
of some unknown, deceitful intermediaries takes the blame off Bauto and preserves
Symmachus' reputation. Commentators have no clue as to whom Symmachus may be
referring.2"I suspect there were no specific people involved, and that this is but a clever
rhetorical ploy to allow Symmachus to save face and yet maintain his friendship with
Bauto. Yet this delay is a serious insult, and for that reason, Symmachus returns to it
in ending this letter. Whether Bauto's breach of etiquette was the result of "an error"
or of some "deceit" is of little consequence for, as Symmachus concludes with a stock
epistolary ending, the key issue is the preservation of their friendship.
The next letter to Bauto, 4.16, dated to some time between 385 CE and the death of
Bauto in 388 CE, proves that Symmachus' strategy had worked; it is a brief and rather
formulaic note, filled with the conventional language of amicitia (Ep. 4.16):
Interpraecipua gaudiorum numero litteras tuas scilicetfraterni animi testes et vere
religionis interpretes.
Among my chief joys I count your letters which certainly are witnesses of a fraternal
spirit and spokesmen, truly, of a close attachment.
WhetherBauto had erred intentionally or not, he had brokenthe normsof amicitia. Sym-
machus' willingness to raise this breach and his own ability to restore the relationship
puts him in a superior position. There is criticism of Bauto here to be sure, but is his
letter also a coded critique of Bauto's non-Roman, non-elite origins? Did not consular
gifts arrive late with some frequency?
Interestingly, in ten books including some nine hundred and two of Symmachus'
letters22,I have found only one other person who is cited for committing the samefaux
pas - the barbariangeneral Richomeres.23There are some fifteen extant letters sent by
Symmachus to this eminent Frankishgeneral, Magister Militum in the East between the
years 383-394 CE, and consul in 384 CE. When Richomeres was at the very height of
his powers, Symmachus sent him a letter in 385 CE (Ep. 3.59) that raised the issue of
Symmachus' delayed consular gift.24 So Symmachus begins the letter by pointing out
the obvious (Ep. 3.59.1):
Alius fortassis existimet serum esse munus quod anni superioris consul exoluit: at
ego sentio me atque alios, qui procul degimus, amicitiaefiducia ad hoc locorum esse
dilatos, illis vero continuo satisfactum, quorumtamdiumemor esse non posses.
Perhaps someone may think that the gift which the consul of the previous year
awarded was late. But I feel that it was deferred until this point in time for me as for
others who live far away because of your trustin our friendship;in truth,satisfaction
was given immediately to those whom you could not remember for so long.25
21 Marcone,Commento(as in n. 4) 55 for discussion.
22 Accordingto Callu,Symmaque(as in n. 3) TomeI ,18, n.2, therearesome extant902 letters,or 905
if 2. 33, 8.55, and9.29 aredivided.
23 Formoreon Richomeres,see FlaviusRichomeres,PLRE1, 765-766; andPellizzari,Commento(as
in n. 4) 187-188.
24 As Symmachushadbeen the urbanprefect,the delayedgift was indeedan insult.
25 For the gift as an obligation(munus),see Pellizzari,Commento(as in n. 4) 197.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusandthe "Barbarian"
Generals 359

Others might see this delayed gift as an insult, but Symmachus excuses it as a sign of
how confident Richomeres is in their friendship. In this way, Symmachus cleverly re-
versed the insult and read the incident as a sign of Richomeres' trust. So, Symmachus
continues (Ep. 3.59.2):
Videro igitur an se quispiam credit ordine aliis aut honore postpositum; ego me
intellego pura adfectione praelatum. Neque enim satis amicus est, cui sollemne
aliquid statim redditur; honestior est illa securitas quae putat sibi deforme non
esse, si quid diu familiaribus debeatur. Quare velim credas moram quoque ipsam
mihi iucundamfuisse. Sic iudico, sic interpretor,quae dudum aliis ex more delata
sunt, nobis amore servata.
I will see therefore whether someone believes that he has been placed after the oth-
ers in order or in honor; I perceive that I have been placed before the others in pure
affection. Nor indeed is he enough of a friend to whom some customary practice is
immediately rendered;more honorable is that calmness of manner which does not
consider it a dishonor for anything to remain owed to friends for some time. For
which reason, I would ratherthat you believe that even the delay itself was pleasing
to me. So I consider it; so I interpretit; the things which, from habit, were distributed
to the others some time ago were saved for me out of affection.
Symmachus casts Richomeres' actions in the best possible light. The friendship is real-
ized by the gift, however late. Symmachus describes the gift as a munus, an obligatory
act regulated by a customary ceremonial which Richomeres should have followed in
a timely fashion. Symmachus is willing to interpretits delay as a sign of amor, loving
friendship; others will not be so forgiving.
In the thirteen remaining letters to Richomeres we see why Symmachus was will-
ing to be so accommodating on points of etiquette. Symmachus writes to Richomeres
and requests the sorts of favors one could extract from a highly placed general. So, for
example, he recommends his friend, Firmus (Ep. 3.67), and his son-in-law, Nicomachus
Flavianus the Younger (Epp. 3.66; .69) for favors and positions which, if granted, will
accrue too to Symmachus' prestige.
But even as Symmachus incorporatedthese powerful generals into his network of
friends, he claimed his superiority over these non-Romans in a subtle way through his
criticism of these generals' failure to follow the rules of polite society. His point would
have been crystal clear to anyone who could decode the rules of late Roman epistolary
etiquette. Indeed, on one level, Symmachus is actually teaching these non-Romans
how to be members of the Roman senatorial elite; they ought to be appreciative of his
"pedagogical" efforts.
Perhaps, one might counter, it was just these two generals' bad luck that their gifts
arrived late? I think this unlikely and would argue, instead, for seeing these letters as
subtle anti-barbariansentiment for several reasons.
First, as I noted earlier, these are the only two correspondents that I have found
who are noted as failing in this way in a correspondence of ten books containing 902
letters over a 28-year period; both of these were barbariangenerals. Moreover, Sym-
machus' letters to other Roman generals turned consul are included in Books 3 and 4,
in particular,to the generals Timasius (Ep. 3.70-.73) and Promotus (Ep. 3.74-.80), both
consuls in 389 CE. None of Symmachus' letters to these Roman generals include criti-
cism for breaches of etiquette. On the contrary,Symmachus includes literary allusions
to please Promotus, considered by G. Dagron "the most Roman of Theodosius' generals,

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 MICHELERENEESALZMAN

not only for his birth, but for his spirit and culture."26Symmachus' remarks to Bauto
and Richomeres appear all the more pointed since, in several cases, he either made no
mention of consular gifts, or when he does so, it is in a positive fashion. In Ep.1.103,
for example, Symmachus thanks the Roman Syagrius for his consular gift, even though
Symmachus had missed the ceremonies.27
Secondly, the inclusion of these two critical letters in the collection was intentional;
Symmachus' letters were carefully culled and edited by Memmius, Symmachus' son, as
the explicits to the manuscripts of Book Two and Book Four indicate. So, for one oft-
cited example of this editing, there is no mention of Symmachus' embarrassingsupport
for the usurper Maximus in 388 CE.28
Third, Symmachus had engaged in such a subtle form of criticism before. In his
eight letters to the bishop Ambrose (Ep. 3.30-.37), no less than three raise points of
etiquette, as I shall discuss at length below. Such criticism has led some scholars to view
Symmachus and Ambrose as far less than friends, if not plain enemies;29 I think this
position goes too far. Symmachus' strategy is more subtle; by pointing out failures in
etiquette, he establishes his superiority,much as he has done with the barbariangenerals.
As the arbiterof epistolary norms of amicitia, Symmachus can thus instructAmbrose
not only in matters dealing with etiquette, but more importantly, in matters dealing
with the patronage that this etiquette facilitated. In this way, Symmachus can extend
his own influence at the same time as he is able to maintain a useful "friendship"with
this strong-willed bishop. It is a sound solution, one that effectively takes advantage of
Symmachus' status in the politics of culture.

Symmachus' Letters to the Bishop Ambrose

Ambrose's breaches of etiquette, it must be said at the outset, appearfar less threatening
to Symmachus' personal prestige than those committed by the barbariangenerals. In
Epistle 3.31, a letter of recommendation for a certain Sallustius dated before 386 CE,30
Symmachus points out that his is a reiterated request. Symmachus carefully frames
implicit criticism for procrastinationon Ambrose's part by praising the bishop's con-
stantia and emphasizing how hard-pressed is his friend Sallustius.31 Such tardiness in
fulfilling requests indeed happens, but etiquette demands such a delay be excused and

26 G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451 (Paris, 1974)
200-201; and see too Pellizzari, Commento (as in n. 4) 217-218.
27 Symm., Ep. 9.153, dated to 391, notes his own sportulae on the occasion of his assumption of the
consulship; all went as planned.
28 Symmachus had composed and delivered a panegyric to Maximus, but he notes only the fact that
he delivered a speech of apology to Theodosius and obtained a pardon: Epp. 2.13; 2.28; 8.69. See
too Soc., HE 5.14.6; Lib., Ep. 1004.8 (ed. R. Foerster).
29 J. F. Matthews, "Symmachus and his Enemies," in F. Paschoud, ed., Colloque genevois sur Symmaque
(Paris, 1986) 163-175. N. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capitol
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1994) 264-275, elaborates on the hostility between the two men, even as
he acknowledges the utility of the "friendship."
30 For this Sallustius, urban prefect in 387 CE, see Sallustius 4, PLRE 1, 797. This is the dating pro-
posed by Pellizarri, Commento (as in n.4) 58, and Callu, Symmaque (as in n. 3) Tome III, 41.
31 Symm., Ep. 3.31: Non quo metuam ne tutelam forte eius oblivione destituas, cum familiare sit
constantiae tuae fideliter exequi recepta mandata, sed quia diligentiam meam fortuna amici saepe
sollicitat et laborantibus commendatio una non sufficit, licet tenaciter memorem rursus admoneo.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusandthe "Barbarian"
Generals 361

remedied.32The letter concludes with a succinct but polite urging (Ep. 3.31): Praestabit
beneficii tui celeritas, ne sit mihi necesse idem saepiusfacere. ("Speed in performing
this favor on your part will be better, so that it not be necessary for me to remind you
of it more often.") Ambrose is being chided in coded language not only for his delay,
but, too, for not excusing it. Such unexplained inaction in response to favors requested
for a client emerges as an issue as well in Ep. 3.33, dated to 393/394 CE; Symmachus
points out that Ambrose has not yet acted on behalf of his friend Marcianus, which is
the expectation.33
The clearest example of Symmachus' assertionof superioritybased on epistolaryeti-
quette in dealing with Ambrose is provided by Ep. 3.32, dated to some time before 398
CE.34Symmachus says it is because of his scrupulousness(religio) that he must point out
Ambrose's lapse in sending a single letter of recommendation for two men, Dorotheus
and Septimius,35 whom Ambrose had sent to Rome. There is no separate statement for
Dorotheus, a situation that leads Symmachus to exquisite extremes of politeness to, in
essence, request another letter from Ambrose for the young man (Ep. 3.32):
Nam etsi tibi Dorotheus frater noster probatus est, cupio tamen ut eum in maiorem
modum iudicii mei praerogativa conciliet, quod futurum esse non ambigo, cum
adfectio boni animi capax sit augmenti, quotiens meritis provocatur.
For althoughour brotherDorotheus alreadyhas your confidence, I nevertheless desire
that the preference accorded him by my high opinion may raise him yet higher in
your favour, which I have no doubt will be the case, since the affection of a noble
heart is always able to grow stronger when stimulated by kindnesses.36
Interestingly,this is a point of etiquette on which Symmachus himself could be criticized;
in later correspondence, he did on at least two occasions write a single letter of recom-
mendation for two students (Epp. 5.40; .74). Yet, in his correspondence with Ambrose,
Symmachus gains the moral high ground, as it were, by pointing out this lapse; it is a
position of authority that he also took when criticizing Praetextatusfor writing a single
letter to both Symmachus and his father (Ep. 1.50). However, Ambrose's breach is more
public and embarrassingthan that of Praetextatus';it may be that Dorotheus himself had
to take back to Ambrose in Milan this very letter requesting another recommendation
from the bishop. As N. McLynn observed: "the episode can in any case have done little
for Ambrose's reputationas an effective referee.",37Symmachus has used this breach of
etiquette to assert his superiority, even as he maintained the connection.

32 Pellizarri,Commento(as in n. 4) 128-129, observesthatSymmachushimselfhas at timesbeenguilty

of a similardelay in writing,but is carefulto excuse himself as in Symm., Ep. 3.28.
33 Symm., Ep. 3.33: Erit igitur tibifacilior ad impetrandum via, cum meritorum tuorum opitulatio alio-
rumiuveturexemplis.I follow the datingproposedby Pellizzari,Commento(as in n. 4) 130-131.
34 I follow the datingproposedbothby Pellizzari,Commento(as in n. 4) 58, andCallu,Symmaque(as
in n. 3) Tome III,42.
35 DorotheusandSeptimiusareotherwiseunknown,butthey appearto have been two young menwho
came to Rome perhapsto complete their education,as McLynn,Ambrose(as in n. 29) 267 n. 60
suggested.
36 Symm., Ep. 4.32. Translation by B. Croke and J. Harries, Religious Conflict in Fourth-Century Rome
(Sydney, 1982) 119.
37 McLynn,Ambrose(as in n. 29) 267.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 MICHELERENEESALZMAN

One other of Symmachus' letters to Ambrose is of note, for in it Symmachus warns

Ambrose against yet another breach of the rules of polite society. In Ep. 3.36, dated to
396/7 CE, Symmachus intervenes on behalf of his friend Caecilianus to make sure that
Ambrose will follow his sancti mores ("holy character")and not involve himself in a
potential lawsuit against this man that concerns money.38Symmachus remindsAmbrose
not only that this is not his way, but (Ep. 3.36): Sunt leges, sunt tribunalia, sunt magis-
tratus, quibus litigator utatur salva conscientia tua ("thereare laws, tribunalsof justice
and magistrates which the plaintiff may employ without violation to your conscience").
Symmachus' polite letter does not mask his authoritativetone.
Like Symmachus' criticism of Bauto and Richomeres, his criticism of Ambrose was
made in the coded language of late Roman elite society. Such subtlety is appropriate
indeed, given the powerful positions of the bishop and of the generals; I shall say more
about the new political realities concerning barbariangenerals below, but it is important
to recall that by the 380s, barbarianswho served the state in the highest levels were
granted honors and status that entitled them to be members of the senatorialorder.39So,
too, by the 380s certain bishops were powerful figures in urban life and at court. That
Symmachus was aware of these changes and would thus nuance anti-barbariansenti-
ments in his Letters should not be surprising. Nor should it surprisethat he would have
covered over with polite formality any feelings of disdain he may have personally felt
towards the well-placed, increasingly influentialbishop Ambrose. It is worth noting here
that Symmachus' letters to Ambrose date after the bishop had forestalled Symmachus'
delivery of his famous State Paper (Relatio 3); hence the bishop's intervention led to
Symmachus' failed attemptson behalf of the senate in returningthe Altarof Victory.This
failure mav well have irritatedSymmachus, especially as Ambrose later promulgated
and took credit for his defeat.40
However, I would not read Symmachus' superior stance in his letter to Ambrose
as typical of his attitude toward all Christians; much depended on the social position,
culture and birth of the man, and so Symmachus' letters to the influential and learned
ChristianAusonius (Ep. 1.13-.43), for example, are among the most reverentand cordial
in the corpus of Symmachus' correspondence. Neither I nor other scholars have detected
a consistent tone of disdain for Christians in Symmachus' letters; on the contrary,Sym-
machus even writes letters of recommendations for bishops (Ep. 1.64; 7.5 1), although
in each case he stresses the virtues of the man, not his religiosity.41
In contrast, it appearsthat Symmachus felt in some ways superiorto and resentfulof
barbariansand their generals. The intermingling of barbariansand senatorial elites was

38 Forthis Caecilianus,Prefectof the CornSupplyin 397 CE andlaterPraetorianPrefectof Italyin 409

CE, see Caecilianus1, PLRE2, 244-245. Forthe dating,see Pellizzari,Commento(as in n. 4) 58.
39 See notes 62 and65 below.
40 For full discussionwith documentation,see McLynn(as in n. 29) 166-170; 264.
41 So, for example,there is no consistentdifferencein tone in lettersto the Christianand pagancor-
respondentsin Book I of Symmachus'Letters.The ChristiansincludedAusonius,his son, Decimius
HilarianusHesperius,SextusClaudiusPetroniusProbus,and,arguably,FlaviusClaudiusAntonius;
for moreon these menandtheirletters,see Callu,Symmaque(as in n. 3) Tome1,78-140. Forfailure
to find evidence of anti-Christiansentiment,see too J.F.Matthews,"TheLettersof Symmachus,"
Latin Literature of the Fourth Century, ed. J.W. Binns (London, 1974) 87-91; and Pellizzari, Com-
mento(as in n. 4) 129. Similarly,religionis absentfromS. Roda'sanalysis,"Polifunzionalitadella
lettera commendaticia: teoria e prassi nell'Epistolario Simmachiano," La parte migliore del genere
umano,ed. S. Roda(Turin,1994) 225-270.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusand the "Barbarian"
Generals 363

still quite limited; indeed, we find almost no cases of intermarriagebetween the Roman
senatorial and the military aristocracies.42Such discrimination, based in no small part
about reservations about their non-Roman origin, would be understandable in a man
like Symmachus, for whom birth was a key indicator of moral worth as well as social
status. How subtle was the anti-barbariansentiment relayed by this epistolary strategy
emerges most sharply if we look briefly at two of Symmachus' earlier works, namely
two of his surviving Orations, both delivered more than a decade before these letters.

Barbariansin Symmachus' Orations

In his First Oration, delivered on Valentinian's Quinquennalia in 368 CE, Symmachus

praised Valentinian's victories over the Alamanni; Valentinian has courageously set
Roman standards(Or. 1.14) supra inpacati Rheni semibarbaras ripas ... ("beyond the
semi-barbarianbanks of the unpacified Rhine"). The stereotypical warlike barbarianis
justifiably slaughtered by the emperor;43the defeated are characterized as (Or. 1.19)
truces populos et Rheniferoces indigenas ("savage and ferocious peoples native to the
Rhine"). These commonplaces highlighted the courage of the emperor in undertaking
this campaign.
Symmachus develops these barbarianstereotypes at greater length in his Second
Oration, delivered at the consular inaugurationof ValentinianI on Jan. 1, 370 CE. Sym-
machus had seen these barbariansfirst hand, since he likely accompanied the emperor
on some of the campaign into the territory of the Alamanni, which land Symmachus
simply calls (Or. 2.4) ripa barbariae ("the bank of that barbarianland").44The barbar-
ians are suspicious after their losses at the hands of Romans, but this only makes them
more anxious than prepared, and thus the able emperor can play on these anxieties to
defeat the barbarians.45Traditional assumptions about Roman superiority in military
planning and training lie behind this passage.46 Traditional, too, is the notion that
barbarianscannot organize because of their (Or. 2.7) desidiae barbarorum ("inherent
laziness of barbarians").
Symmachus celebrates the returnof Roman control over the Alamanni; it is a sign
of imperial largesse that the emperor chose to pardon the barbariansand to allow them
to live, but as slaves.47 Indeed, the imperial victory that turnedthe barbariansinto slaves

42 Demandt, Osmosis (as in n. 6) 82.

43 Symm., Or. 1.17: quis non congruum iudicavit, ut a caede barbarica in facinus civile arma
torqueres?
44 Symm., Or. 2.2 and .18 imply that Symmachus was present in person on Valentinian's campaign. The
date of this campaign is disputed; Chauvot, Opinions (as in n. 2) 181, and Chastagnol, Quinquennalia
(as in n. 5) 256 would date Symmachus' presence to Valentinian's campaign in the spring/summer
of 368 CE, while E. Lorenz, Imperii fines erunt intacti: Rom und die Alamannen (Frankfurt, 1997)
118-122 prefers Valentinian's campaign of summer 369 CE. Given the re-dating of Symmachus'
First Oration, the likelihood is greater that Symmachus went on the campaign of 368 CE. Symm.
Or. 4: testis est haec ipsa ripa barbariae. Barbariae is a substitute for Alamannia.
45 Symm., Or. 2.5: non ambiguum est, semper barbaros suspicari, quae saepe perpessi sunt. Sed inex-
plorata veritas magis anxios efficit... altitudo principis utrumqueprovidit. Ut et illorum circumspectio
falleretur, qui numquam mente securi sunt.
46 On the barbarian's military practices, see H. Elton, Warfarein Roman Europe, AD 350-425 (Oxford,
1996) 45-88. Romans interpreted these practices as barbarian inability to plan and train.
47 Symm., Or.2.12.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364 RENEESALZMAN
MICHIELE

enabled Symmachus to develop yet anothernegatively stereotype of the barbariansince,

to a Roman mind, the barbarian,as slave, lacked the moral and ethical abilities of a free
man.48So the servile barbarianappears in this Oration, now so cowed that he is eager
even to pay tribute voluntarily, and to assist in the destruction and rebuilding of the old
fortress city.49 Such servitude leads Symmachus to exclaim (Or. 2.15): superat omnem
famulandi modum,qui contra se huiusmodipraestat officium... ("He surpassesall limits
of servitude, who performs a duty of this sort against himself..."). The barbarianslave
thus highlights Valentinian's success in building fortresses on the Neckar and Rhine;
not only do the fortresses secure the frontier, but they make real to the barbarianstheir
enslaved state (Or. 2.22).
As this brief summary indicates, Symmachus drew on stereotypical attributesof the
barbarianfor his Orations - ferocity, savagery, deceitfulness, treachery and thieving
- and consequently, he can count on his audience picking up on his brief allusions to
these.50 For example, Symmachus can note that the barbarianuprising is nothing more
than an act of brigandage (Or. 2.16: latrocinium); and his remark that Valentinian's
greater glory exists in medullis barbarorum non tentoria sed tecta constituis ("you
establish not tents but buildings in the midst of the barbarians")51is readily under-
stood by Romans as a critique of people who do not possess the basic prerequisites of
civilization, namely cities. Admittedly, Symmachus' anti-barbariansentiments in his
Orations fall short of the vituperative rhetoric that we find in some early fourth-century
panegyricists.52 Nonetheless, Symmachus' First and Second Orations of 368 and 370
CE employ, quite effectively, elements of the standardbarbarianstereotypes to praise
Valentinian's military policy and to denigrate the barbarian.

Imperial Policy on the Alamanni and Barbariansin the Decades between

Symmachus' Orations and Letters

In his Orations, Symmachus highlighted the efforts made by Valentinianto pacify the
"barbarians"and more specifically the Alamanni along the Upper Rhine and Danube. A
brief discussion of imperial policy in this area in the 370s and early 380s, the decades
between the Orations and the Letters of Symmachus, will put Symmachus' subtle anti-
barbarianattitudes into context. I will argue here that Symmachus' epistolary strategies

48 P. Heather, "The Barbarian in Late Antiquity," in Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity, ed. R.
Miles (London and New York, 1999) 237-238, citing Libanius, Or. 19.16, 20.14 and Synesius, De
Regno 21, both discussing Goths, to support the view that many a Roman believed that slavery was
the natural state of all barbarians, who were "prisoners of their bodily lusts and unfortunately lack-
ing in knowledge of Sallust and Virgil."
49 Symm., Or. 2.15; .17.
50 Symm., Or. 2.4; 2.22; G. Wirth: "Symmachus und einige Germanen," Colloque genevois sur Sym-
maque (Paris, 1986) 288, formulated these traits in a concise fashion: "Was Symmachus zeichnet,
um diese Vorstellung zu begrunden, ist das Bild einer gleichsam idealen barbaries mit den typischen
Symptomen vonferocitas und immanitas als qualitativen wie quantitativen Bedrohungssymptomen,
wozu fallacitas, perduellio und latrocinium als die kategorischen moralischen Verhaltensweisen
treten."
51 Symm., Or. 2.30 is another indication of how permanent this solution was intended to be.
52 See, for example, Nazarius of Bordeaux who stated, in addressing Constantine I (Pan. Lat IV [XI
18): Bellicum strepunt nomina, et immanitas barbariae in ipsis vocabulis adhibet horrorem... See
too F. del Chicca, Panegiristi (as in n. 2) 109-128.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusand the "Barbarian"
Generals 365

reflect the impact of the policies of Valentinian and his immediate successors, notably
Theodosius; these emperors elevated large numbers of barbarianswho served in the
military and advanced them into elite civic society. I will focus here on Valentinian's
policy in dealing with the Alamanni not only because it is the subject of Symmachus'
Orations, but also because the issues raised and imperial policies adopted in this area
were in many regards typical of the ways in which late fourth-century emperors ap-
proached the Germanic barbariansand their leaders.
A. Chauvot has suggested that Symmachus was invited to court to deliver his Sec-
ond Oration in 370 CE in order to justify and perhaps even shape Valentinian's policy
in Alamannia.53The emperor may well have been considering a new strategy, think-
ing perhaps of making Alamannia into a province, or so the allusions in Symmachus'
speech to sending iudices andfasces (Or. 2.31) to Alamannia have been interpreted.54
This seems too literal a reading of Symmachus' remarks, but whatever Valentinian's
intent, Symmachus clearly desired to praise this emperor's success in re-establishing
Roman control over the "barbarians"in the region. For this reason, Symmachus praised
Valentinian's fortress building along the Rhine and Upper Danube as an excellent way
to secure the region, as indeed fortress building was traditionally viewed.55 Valentin-
ian would have welcomed such support for we know that his policy was not uniformly
praised.56So, Symmachus' Oration would not only justify the campaign to critics, but
it would impress Roman taxpayers at home that this was an emperor who was aggres-
sive against the barbarians.57
The importance of fighting the barbarian, commemorated too on Valentinian's
coinage, rose significantly in the early 370s with the emergence of Macrianus; this
Alamannic leader had "pre-eminent prestige (which) threatened frontier security."58
Valentinian's initial successful attacks on Macrianus in 372 CE allowed him to replace
this leader with one more to his liking, Fraomar.59But Fraomarcould not maintain con-

53 Chauvot,Opinions(as in n. 2) 182-184.
54 Chauvot,Opinions(as in n. 2) 182-184.
55 Symm., Or. 2. 12-.16, .18-.22; and for the campaign,see too Amm. Marc.28.2.1; and R. Seager,
"RomanPolicy on the Rhine andthe Danubein Ammianus,"CQ 49.2 (1999) 579-605.
56 Amm. Marc.28. 2.5-. 10 pointedlytells us thatValentinian'sfortressesextendedbeyondthe Rhine
Riverin the Neckarregionagainstpre-existingpeacetreaties,andthis drovetheAlamannito revolt.
Heather,Barbarian(as in n. 48) 240 rightly observes the conflict between traditionalideas (i.e.
fortressbuildingis always a good way to controlsavage barbarians)and the fourth-centuryreality
(i.e. sometimespeace by treatyis moreeffective).
57 C. Sogno, "Barbariansas Spectacle:The Accountof an Ancient "EmbeddedReporter"(Or. 2.10
-. 12),"Barbariansand Romans(forthcoming)ed. R. MathisenandD. Shanzer,has arguedthateven
the fightingthatSymmachuswitnessedon this frontierwas stagedto impresshim.Forthis view, see
too J. F. Drinkwater,"Ammianus,Valentinianand the RhineGermans,"in TheLate RomanWorld
and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, edd. J. W. Drijvers and D. Hunt (London,
1999), 127-137. For anotherview of this policy, see D. Shanzer,"TheDate and LiteraryContext
of Ausonius' Mosella: Ausonius, Symmachus and the Mosella," in Style and Tradition: Studies in
Honor of WendellClausen,edd. P. Knox and C. Foss (Stuttgartand Leipzig, 1998) 284-305; and
Eadem,"TheDateandLiteraryContextof Ausonius'Mosella:ValentinianI's AlamannicCampaigns
and an UnnamedOffice-Holder,"Historia47.2 (1998) 204-233.
58 Heather,Barbarian(as in n. 48) 238; for ValentiniancoinagewithGloriaRomanorumandSecuritas
Reipublicaecontinuinguntilafterthe end of Valentinian'sreign in November375, see Pearce,RIC
9, XVII-XVIII.
59 Amm. Marc.29.4.2-.7.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
366 MICHELE RENEE SALZMAN

trol. Macrianus returnedas leader of the Alamanni, but before the emperor could fight
him, an outbreak on the middle Danube led Valentinian to reverse course; Valentinian
now accepted Macrianus, who served the emperor until his death.60 In reversing his
stand on Macrianus,Valentinian,like emperors before him, sought to rewardthe "good"
barbarianswho served the emperor's interests and use them against the "bad"barbarians
who did not. We see this policy again and again in the 370s and 380s, as Romans met
and defeated Alamanni, Franks, Sarmatians, and Quadi.61
Imperial willingness to reward barbarianswho served them was not new, but what
appears in an expanded and systematized form for the first time under Valentinianand
Valens (364-375) is the full integrationof militaryelites into the Romancursus honorum;
now men in imperial or military service, even in the lowest levels, received the same
distinctions and privileges as senatorial aristocratsin civic office.62 So, for example, at
the lowest levels, military duces (many often of non-Roman origin), comites and trib-
unes were included in the senatorial order. Senatorial rank and its attendantprivileges
were part of imperial efforts to encourage "barbarians"to serve in the military. Such
a policy would also, presumably, "Romanize" the barbarian;so Symmachus' remark
about Valentinian'spolicies toward the Alammani (Or. 2.12) is apt indeed: sat est, quod
mores gentium parcendo mutasti ("It is enough that by sparing the customs of tribes,
you have changed them").
Valentinian'spolicies were successful; many barbariansentered into military service
and, in particular,many Frankscame to Trier to serve this emperor.63It may well have
been at court in Trier that Symmachus first met the two Frankish soldiers, Bauto and
Richomeres, who later rose to prominence.64But it is importantto emphasize that the
successful military careers of these Franks, as of many other barbarians,were facili-
tated by the structuralchanges that we see systematized under ValentinianI and Valens
(364-375 CE). Moreover,this imperialpolicy of advancingbarbariansinto the senatorial
elite did not end with Valentinian nor with the bitter defeat of Valens at Adrianople in
378 CE. On the contrary,the emperor Theodosius, in his efforts to recruit for the army,
became renowned for his willingness to employ and reward barbarians,although not
all approved.65
In the 380s, Symmachus was eager to correspond with and maintain friendship ties
to five of Theodosius' top generals, three of whom were barbarians.This, in itself, is
eloquent testimony to the success of an imperial policy that favored the assimilation
of the "good" barbarianwho was willing to serve. Symmachus' world now included

60 Amm. Marc.28.5; 29.4; 30.3.

61 Heather,Barbarian(as in n. 48) 240-241, rightlyremarked,"suchgroupswerenow effectivelypart
of the Romanimperialsystem,enjoyinga morestructuredrole, which allowedthemto makesome
demandsof, and impose some limits on, Romanemperors."
62 M. R. Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western
RomanEmpire(Cambridge,2002) 36-37.
63 E. Ewig, "Observationssurla grandeuret la decadencede Trevesla romaine,"Economieset societes
du Moyen Age, Mlanges E. Perroy, Publications de la Sorbonne, serie Etudes, IV (Paris, 1973)
22.
64 Chauvot,Opinions(as in n. 2) 322-323, makesthis suggestion;it seems plausible.
65 On Theodosius'generouspolicies towardbarbarians,see especially J.H.W.G.Liebeschuetz,Bar-
barians and Bishops. Army, Church and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom (Oxford,
1990) 7-31. Still one of the best discussionsof the late Romanmilitaryelite is, in my view, thatby
Demandt,Militaradel(as in n. 7) 609-636; and see too Demandt,Osmosis(as in n. 6) 75-85.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Symmachusand the "Barbarian"
Generals 367

barbarian generals, some of whom were among the most powerful men in the late
fourth century, as well as among the most honored since they held the highest rank of
the senatorial order, illustres.66 How quickly this could change, and how close to the
surface was anti-barbariansentiment is suggested by the murderousrage that followed
Stilicho's downfall in 408 CE; Roman soldiers systematically hunted down and killed
the wives and children of Germanic soldiers serving in the Roman army (Zosimus, New
History 5.35.5-.6).

Conclusion

To conclude, regardless of his willingness to express anti-barbariansentiments, as he

had in his Orations, by the 380s Symmachus chose to use the language of amicitia to
build ties with powerful barbariangenerals. The language of amicitia was exception-
ally useful for this purpose; for even as epistolary conventions of amicitia established
personal ties and smoothed the way for reciprocal favors, they allowed the aristocrat,
when he desired, to make subtle distinctions between Roman and "barbarian."Admit-
tedly, Symmachus might well have expected that his barbariangeneral correspondents
understood the criticism and subtle status distinctions he made, and hence that he was
in essence, "Romanizing"them. This may be true, but it does not diminish Symmachus'
superior stance as arbiter amicitiae.
In Symmachus' Letters we can see the position that many of Rome's elite will take
in confronting barbariangenerals and rulersin the fifth and sixth centuries in the Western
Roman Empire. The remnants of the Roman civic elites were willing to live under the
rule of the barbarian,but even as they did so, they found subtle ways to maintain their
status. Long after the western Roman governmenthad disappeared,the aristocrat'sclaim
to cultural superiority would remain where Symmachus had located it, at the center of
a Roman aristocrat's identity.

University of California, Riverside Michele Renee Salzman

66 In additionto Stilicho, Bauto, and Richomeres,Symmachuswrote to PromotusandTimasius.See

Salzman,Christian Aristocracy (as in n. 62) 129-131.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:34:10 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions