Did Ammianus Marcellinus make some booboos?

[inkstain]

Two inconsisencies I need help sorting out for my current writing. Many thanks for any comments:

1. Did the Comes Barbatio die soon after beheading Caesar Gallus or not? In Book XIV, Ammianus Marcellinus says that the men involved in the execution of Gallus were punished afterwards for their deed; "Barbatio, who for a long time had invented false accusations against Gallus, charged by the whispers of certain men of aiming higher than the mastership of the infantry, was found guilty and by an unwept end made atonement to the shades of the Caesar, whom he had treacherously done to death." When was this "unwept end?" Because wait, here is Barbatio turning up again during the reign of Julian, some years later: "From another direction Barbatio, who had been promoted after Silvanus' death to the command of the infantry, came from Italy at the emperor's order with twenty-five thousand soldiers to Augst," and as we know, was caught out trying to do in Julian by withholding vital reinforcements.

2. And what about the notorious inquisitor post-Magnentius, the notary Paulus Catena? In Book XIV, we are introduced to him as, "Prominent among these was the state secretary, Paulus, a native of Spain, a kind of viper, whose countenance concealed his character, but who was extremely clever in scenting out hidden means of danger for others. When he had been sent to Britain..."
But in Book XV, he's turned from a Spaniard into a Persian? "Paulus and Mercurius were easily the leaders, the one a Persian by origin, the other born in Dacia; Paulus was a notary, Mercurius, a former imperial steward, was now a treasurer. And in fact this Paulus, as was told before, was nicknamed "the Chain," because he was invincible in weaving coils of calumny."

Best wishes and thanks again for a great site.
Milo

[Nathan Ross]

Ammianus certainly did make some mistakes - his description of the topography of Amida is strangely faulty.

Of the two examples you cite, I suspect the first is not an error; the second could well be. Ammianus mentions the execution of Barbatio in connection with the death of Gallus to stress the justice of his end. The actual execution happened much later, after an intercepted letter from his wife hinted at imperial ambitions. The whispering men in this instance would presumably have included Arbitio, who brough the letter before Constantius.

The origin of Paulus Catena is more mysterious: ortus in Hispania (XIV.5.6) is usually translated as 'a native of Spain' - but could it possibly mean that he had come from Spain, where he was engaged on some other nefarious business? In XV.3.1 we have Inter quos facile Paulus et Mercurius eminebant: hic origine Persa, ille natus in Dacia: notarius ille, hic a ministro triclinii rationalis. - this surely means that the two men were Dacian and Persian by birth. I think, actually, that Ammianus reverses the order of the central clause for rhetorical effect, the 'ille' in both cases referring to the notarius Paulus while the 'hic' is Mercurius - which would make Paulus the Dacian.

It's quite likely, then, that Ammianus just made a mistake here. Standards of proofreading in the ancient world were perhaps none of the best!

[ValentinianVictrix]

As Nathan pointed out, Ammianus does make the odd mistake here and there, and there are books and other works that point out his errors.

There is another problem, not of Ammianus' making, and that is the twin evils of time and translation. The first one concerns how copies of the work became corrupted by the destruction of key passages and words, and this leads directly to translation where translators, even from a thousand years ago, were having to try and translate those damaged passages with what they believed were the missing parts. Or it may be that said translators of Latin were actually not that skilled in the language and mistranslated what they read.

[Paul Elliott]

I think, actually, that Ammianus reverses the order of the central clause for rhetorical effect, the 'ille' in both cases referring to the notarius Paulus while the 'hic' is Mercurius - which would make Paulus the Dacian.

That makes more sense, it is hard to believe that Paul the Chain was of Persian blood, I can't really remember any high ranking officers or notaries of Persian ancestry.

[Nathan Ross]

I can't really remember any high ranking officers or notaries of Persian ancestry.

Except if we believe the above quote from Ammianus, which makes the a rationalis Mercurius, aka 'The Count of Dreams', a Persian...

Actually, though, if it seems unlikely that Mercurius really was Persian then maybe that particular passage is corrupt? Which would mean that Paulus wasn't Dacian either, and can safely return to being a Spaniard again?

[Longovicium]

I think Hormisdas and his son were Persian - specifically Sassanian - and also held high commands under the Augustii - indeed, was not Julian rumoured to be using the former to replace Shapur had his Persian excursus been successful? I am drunk on cider and may be remembering incorrectly here!

[Nathan Ross]

I'd say Hormisdas and son were a special case - there are several examples like them, I think, of foreign rulers given honorary Roman positions of rank.

One other possibility might be that Mercurius was a eunuch - perhaps one of those eunuchs from Abasgia that Procopius mentions in a later century. If he were, then he may have been born within the Persian empire and therefore be 'Persian' to Ammianus's mind.