Criticism of Defense. The Blaming of „Crudelitas“ in the „Historia Augusta“*

Criticism of Defense.
The B laming of „Crudelitas“ in the „Historia Augusta“*
ASKO TIMONEN
The Historia Augusta (HA) is the coilection of the biographies of the emperors
and famous pretenders from Hadrian to Numerian. It constitutes
an enigma in that we know neither its a.uthor nor the exact time of publication.
For the purpose of this report, I have adopted the broad dating
used by P. Soverini, as such a stance provides a general foundation in terms
of the research of the history of mentalities and ideologies. Soverini dates
publication of the compilation at about the fourth or the fifth century.1
In this paper the concept of crudelitas – the use of „unnecessary“ violence
– shall be discussed with reference to the political situation in a historiographical
sense. Of further interest here is the methodology used in the
biographical historiography in that the author utilizes imperial propaganda
for his own purpose of blaming a ruler, in this case L. Septimius Severus,
of being cruel. To illustrate this concept, I shall interpret the author’s
comments on the autobiography of Septimius Severus as weil as the author’s
excerpts which were inspired either by this very autobiography or by
Severus‘ speeches to the senate. The author of the HA was weil acquainted
with the now-lost autobiography of Septimius Severus: Uxorem tune Marciam
duxit, de qua tacuit in historia vitae privatae (Sept. Sev. 3.2). Vitam
suam privatam publicamque ipse composuit ad fidem, solum tarnen vitium
crudelitatis excusans (Sept. Sev. 18.6). In vita sua Severus dicit . . . (Pese.
4.7). A d imperium venit natu iam grandior et maior Pescennio Nigro, ut
Severus ipse in vita sua loquitur (Alb. 7.1).2
However, not much is currently known about the autobiography of
Septimius Severus. The references above may be second-hand information,
* I am grateful to Jeri L. Hill, Ph.D., for revision of the language of this manuscript.
1 P. Soverini, Scrittori della Storia Augusta, vol. 1 (Torino 1983) 52.
2 See also Alb. 10.1: Et Severu3 quidem ip3e haec de eodem loquitur, ut eum dicat
turpem . .. and 11.4: Vini 3ane parcum fu.iue dicit, quod Severu3 negat, qui eum ad$erit
ebrium . . .
63
perhaps selected from the writings of then-contemporary historians, such
as Cassius Dio and Herodian. Other second-hand references, for instance
from the lost history of the emperors, may also have been referred to.3 Z.
Rubin insists that the autobiography was written in Latin.4 It is obvious
that Severus did not write it himself. A. R. Birley names two men who may
have assisted in the writing as Aelius Antipater (if it was, in fact, written
in Greek) and Messius Saturninus (if it was, rather, written in Latin). The
latter was the holder of the a declamationibus and made drafts of Severus
speeches for delivery in court.5
The purpose of the autobiography was to justify one’s actions. In this
sense, it served the interests of Roman politicians and military men.6 In
this particular case, it is of interest to determine what Septimius Severus
wanted to justify.
The HA gives a straightforward answer: The purpose of Severus‘ autobiography
is to apologize for his cruelty (Sept. Sev. 18.6: Vitam suam privatam
publicamque ipse composuit ad fidem, solum tamen vitium crudelitatis
excusans). The author continues on this theme, using the opinion
of the senate (ibid. 18.7) , illum aut nasci non debuisse aut mori, quod et
nimis crudelis et nimis utilis rei publicae videretur. I interpret this statement
to mean that the Severan violence was unavoidable but paradoxically
3 A comprehensive study on the sources of the HA: T. D. Barnes, The Sources of the
Historia Augusta (Brussels 1978); see also A. Chastagnol, Emprunts de I’Histoire Auguste
aux „Caesares“ d‘ Aurelius Victor, Revue de Philologie de Litterature et d’Histoire
Anciennes, Ser.Ill, 41 (1967) 85-97; id., L’Utilisation des „Caesares“ d’Aurelius Victor
dans I’HistoireAuguste, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1966/67 (1968) 53-66; on
the „Historia-Augusta-Forschung“ during 1963-1970, see id., Recherehes sur I’Histoire
Auguste (Bonn 1970); Z. Rubin, Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography (Brussels
1980}; R. Syme, lgnotu$, the Good Biographer, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium
1966/67 (1968) 131-153; id., The Historia Augusta. A Call of Clarity (Bonn 1971).
4 Rubin, 26, note 29.
5 A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus. The African Emperor (2nd ed., London 1988) 167-8.
6 B. Baldwin, The Roman Emperors (Montreal 1980) 1 1 7; C. W. Fornara, The Nature of
History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1983) 101, 179-
181; more comprehensively on autobiography in Antiquity, see G. Misch, Geschichte
der Autobiographie (Leipzig 1931) and A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek
Biography (Cambridge, Mass. 1971) 93.
64
unnecessary. The emperor rumself was necessary for the empire, but he
was also cruel. 7
The HA author describes Severus as a ruler who, after the civil war,
does not implement clemency. Nevertheless, he uses the clementia catchword
in his propaganda (Sept. Sev. 12.9: Post hoc de sua clementia disseruit,
cum crudelissimus fuerit) . The Severan biography lists 41 senators
sentenced by Severus to death, one of the bloody results of the war of
195-197 against Clodius Albinus. Albinus proclaims hirnself A ugustus and
is thus declared, at the instigation of Severus, a public enemy ( hostis publicus).
After the battle of Lugdunum in 197, Severus comes to Rome to
punish the supporters of Albinus. Some sixty members of the senate are
arrested.8
The HA author uses Severus‘ own propaganda of clementia, criticizing
it and giving an example of rus mental depravity: Severus personally
violates the corpse of Clodius Albinus {Sept. Sev. 1 1 .8). Violation of the
borlies of treasoners of the state was usual. However, direct participation
by the emperor rumself was not. In the HA, Severus is the only infamous
emperor so designated. The signs of violence connected with the decisions
of damnatio memoriae are common in the compilation.9 Unnamed
soldiers and plebs dishonor and humiliate their rulers during the rituals
( caput unco trahatur; corpus in Tiberim) .10 Official permission is given
7 I agree with B. Mouchova, Crudelitas principis optimi, Bonner Historia-AugustaColloquium
1970 {1972) 182, 191.
8 The names of the executed nobile& in Sept. Sev. 13.1-7; see also Alb. 12.2; on the executions
after Lugdunum, see Dio 75{76).8.4, and after the revolt of Pescennius Niger,
in 194, see ibid., 74{75).8.2-3; on the Iist of the executed, see G. Alföldy, Eine Proskriptionsliste
in der Historia Augusta, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/69 {1970)
1-11 1= Die Krise des Römischen Reiches (Stuttgart 1989) 164-178] and D. Magie, The
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, vol.l {1979, repr.) 401, footnote. 2; on the politics between
Severus and the senate, see Alföldy, Septimius Severus und der Senat, Bonner
Jahrbücher 168 {1968) 112-160.
9 Commodus {Comm. 18-19); Opellius Macrinus {Diadum. 9.4); Elagabal (Heliog. 17.1-
7) and Maximinus Thrax (Maximin. 16 and 23. 7).
10 Damnatio memoriae, see F. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit.
Untersuchungen zur „damnatio memoriae“ (Berlin 1936); on the measures passed
against emperors and their families derived from penalties for maie&ta&, see R. J. A.
Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton 1984) 356 ff.; on Roman executions,
see especially the articles of J.-P. Callu, F. Hinard and J. Scheid in: Du chätiment
65
by the representatives of the state who themselves, nevertheless, take no
direct part in these acts of gruesome violence. In the HA, Severus is a
notorious exception.
The portrait of Septimius Severus in the HA is that of a man who
creates rule by war. Likewise, it is a comparison between Severus and his
enemies. Thus, when considering the historiographical motives for labeling
him as „cruel“ in the compilation, it is imperative to closely examine his
rivals. These are identifi.ed as M. Didius Julianus, the emperor from late
March to early June of 193, and the two „Gegenkaiser“ , L. Pescennius
Niger and D. Clodius Albinus.
M. Didius Julianus is a rich senator.U He is known as the winner of
the great auction at which the empire was sold by the praetorian officers
who, in 193, murdered Helvius Pertinax. Cassius Dio regards the auction
as most disgraceful and beneath Roman dignity. He records that Didius
wins over his rival Flavius Sulpicianus, the prefect of the City, by bidding
at one time fi.ve thousand sesterces, so that the final price exceeds 20.000
sesterces per soldierP Dio adjudges Didius to be aggressive in this unique
acquisition of rulership. He describes how Didius hurries from Mediolanum
(where he had been exiled by Commodus as a revolutionist) to Rome as
soon as the news of the murder of Pertinax reaches him. The historian
continues that this rich senator is blatantly eager at the auction, shouting
in a loud voice and holding up his fingers.13
According to Herodian, who also regards the purchase of the empire
dans Ia cite. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique, Collection
de l’Ecole fran􀔑aise de Rome 79 ( 1984) and K. M. Coleman, Fatal Charades: Roman
Executions Staged a.s Mythological Enactments, Journal of Roman Sturlies 80 (1990)
44 ff.
11 See the negative rema.rks of Dio 73(74).11.2; on Didius Julianus‘ senatorial ancestry,
see D. Kiena.st, Römische Kaisertabelle (Da.rmstadt 1990) 154; more comprehensively
G. Alföldy, Senatoren aus Norditalien. Regiones IX, X und XI, Epigra.fia e ordine
senatorio II, Tituli 5 (Rome 1982), 354 and Birley, 40-41.
12 Dio’s bitter comments on the auction in 73(74).11.3 ff.; cf. Herod. 2.6.5 ff.; perhaps
the best modern account is in Birley, 93-96; Dio teils about Q. Aemilius Laetus, the
praetorian prefect of Pertinax and his betrayal, see 73(74).9 ff., but see also Birley,
94; on Laetus’s prefecture, see L. L. Howe, The Pretorian Prefect from Commodus to
Diocletian (Chicago 1942) 68; on the obvious role of some senators, see J. B. Campbell,
The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC-235 AD (Oxford 1984) 117-120.
13 Dio 73(74).1 1.2-5.
66
as scandalous, Didius is considerably more indecisive than Dio intimates.
Herodian describes how luxurious, feasting and wine-drinking Didius is
encouraged and persuaded by his wife, daughter, clients and some officers
to take part in the contest which is ultimately to come between him and
Flavius Sulpicianus. Sulpicianus cannot prevail, as his financial resources
are limited. Moreover, he is the father-in-law of the murdered Pertinax.
It is this close relationship between these two men that makes the praetorians
suspicious: Sulpicianus might revenge the murder of Pertinax. And
although Didius is not presented as an agreeable man in Herodian’s text,
neither is he depicted as an unscrupulous ruler.14
As for the events of 193, the HA author agrees more with Herodian
than with Dio. The HA accounts that the proclamation of Septimius
Severus as an emperor is a surprise to Didius. He therefore fears only
Pescennius Niger’s popularity among the troops.15 Didius is the puppet
of the praetorians. Indeed, he is no formidable competitor for Severus.
His political decisions are desperate and insane. He is a lonely man when
Severus overthrows him.16 In Dio, before his death, Didius Julianus asks,
„What evil have I done? Whom have I killed?“ Even so, the senators
put him to death, name Severus emperor and consecrate Pertinax. The
decision of the senate is founded on the military sovereignity of SeverusY
Both Dio and Herodian ridicule that Didius causes his own misfortune.
He depends only on his financial means; and, in all other respects, he
is virtually incompetent and an easy victim for Severus. That is also
the opinion presented in the HA. None of our sources, on the other hand,
sympathizes with Severus, either. The texts present a pessimistic narration
of the time when military leaders shaped politics in a ruthless manner, and
the decisions of the senate are explained as reasonably as possible under
those conditions.
During his rule, Severus had two more prominent rivals than Didius
Julianus. They were Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus. Pescennius
14 Cf. the account of Herodian, 2.6.6-11 and his judgments, 2.6.14; on the portrait of
Didius Julianus in the HA, see I. Moreno Ferrero, La caracterizacion de Didio Juliano
en la HA, Symbolae L. Mitxelena oblatae (Vitoria 1985).
15 Did. Jul. 5.1-3 timens praecipue Syriacos ezercitus . . . sed cum ei nuntiatum esset
Severum descivisse, quem suspectum non habuerat, perturbatus est . . .
16 lbid. 7.9-11; 8.6-7
17 Dio 73(74).17; cf. Herod. 2.12.6-7.
67
Niger, the governor of Syria18 was hailed emperor by the Syrian legions
when the news of Pertinax‘ death reached Antioch. It is evident that Niger
knew nothing about the proclamation of Severus in Pannonia. The HA
accounts that Niger declares hirnself emperor, in Opposition to Didius Julianus.
But it also teils, rather contradictorily in my opinion, that Niger has
learned of Severus‘ success.19 However, Niger has never enjoyed Severus‘
confidence. In fact, Severus soon leaves Rome to campaign against him.
Niger is declared an enemy of the state in mid-193, after the fall of Didius
Julianus. After three fights (Cyzicus, Nicaea and Issus) during 193 to 194,
Niger is captured and hanged in Antioch.20
The biography of Niger concentrates, with numerous illustrations, on
his military career, auctoritas and severitas. He is compared to legendary
military heroes, such as Hannibal and Marius.21 In contradistinction, historians
Cassius Dio and Herodian show no interest in his military career. Dio
says that he was remarkable for nothing either good or bad. 22 Niger falls
to make preparations to withstand Severus‘ challenge, describes Herodian,
„remaining inactive amidst the pleasures of Antioch“ .23 Both historians
emphasize Niger’s incompetence in the face of Severus‘ challenge at the
crucial battle of Issus, and against thunder.24 Had, as the HA tends to
put forth, Fortuna abandoned this man?25 Herodian, in fact, blames Niger
hirnself for his gruesome end: he merely pays for his sloth, procrastina-
18 Dio 73(74).14.3-4, Herod. 2.7.4; Kienast, 159.
19 On his proclamation, see Sept. Sev. 6.7-8 and espeeially Pese. 2.1: I& po&tquam comperit
occi&um Commodum, Iulianum imperatorem appellat-um eundemque iu&su Severi
et &enatu& occüum . . . appellatu& e&t imperator, ut quidam dieunt, magi& in Iuliani
odium quam in aemulationem Severi; cf. also Herodian, 2. 7.5-6 and the eomments of
C. R. Whittaker, Herodian, voL 1 (London 1969} 187; Dio 73(74).14.3 ff. is not very
aeeurate of Niger’s aetions; see also the modern aceounts of J. Hasebroek, Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus (Heidelberg 1921) 19-21 and Birley,
108 ff.; on the chronology see Kienast, 156, 159.
20 See the account of Dio 74(75).6.1-8.3; the HA is much more summarizing, Sept. Sev.
7.6-9.8; Pese. 5.2-6.4.
21 Ibid. 6.10-7.9 and 10-12.
22 74(75).6.1.; most of his military career is unknown, see Whittaker, 182-183, note 3
and Kienast, 159.
23 Herod. 2.14.6, the translation is Whittaker’s, 241.
24 Dio 74(75).7-8.2; Herod. 3.4.1-9.
25 Pese. 6.10: imperator infeliz.
68
tion and idleness. Despite all this, Herodian also mentions that Niger is
regarded neither as a bad leader nor a bad man. 26 Cassius Dio says that
Niger is somewhat foolish and vainglorious. 27
Pescennius Niger is, according to the HA, one ofthe victims ofSeverus‘
cruelty. In the HA, the reader is reminded of the friendly terms between
Severus and Niger under Commodus. However, when Commodus later
appoints not Severus, but Niger, as consul, the anger of the former is
aroused.28 Niger does not instigate the revolt, but he declares hirnself
emperor at the insistence of his troops. In the author’s opinion, it is
not Niger who initiates the war; it is Severus. Even though Severus is
said to guarantee Niger’s safety in exile ( on the condition that Niger will
lay down his arms), the author nevertheless places greater emphasis on
Severus‘ revenge on Niger and his family.29 The „criminal“ is Severus,
not Niger. Clodius Albinus meets with success in his military career under
Commodus. Severus appoints Albinus as the British governor Caesar after
the overthrow of Didius Julianus. Severus further nominates Albinus for
cos. II in 194. But already by the following year, Albinus is regarded as
hostis publicus. Has Albinus become too powerful? Does Severus deem
it safer to eliminate him? For whatever reason, Cassius Dio claims that
Severus initially favors Albinus, because Severus wants to maintain peace
and stability in the western part of his empire until he can subdue the
revolt of Pescennius Niger in Syria.30 According to the HA, it is Severus
who is responsible for all the violence. As a matter of fact, he intends
to create a dynasty, and is, therefore, anxious about Albinus‘ popularity
among the senators. The HA author describes Severus‘ suspicions of this
„son of the senator Ceionius Postumus“ . His nobility and his support
by the senate are a great challenge to Severus‘ envisioned dynasty.31 The
author sides with Albinus and vindicates him of cupiditas imperii, telling
of Severus‘ refusal of the nomination to Caesar offered by Commodus. To
be sure, the real reason for such, his caution, is also mentioned. 32
26 Herod. 3.4.7.
27 Dio 74(75).6.1-2.
28 Pese. 4.6; eon􀁡ul $Uffeetu$ in 183; Kienast, 159.
29 Pese. 5.8–6.1-2; cf. Sept. Sev. 10.1.
30 75(76).4.1; so also Herod. 2.15.1-6.
31 Alb. 7.2; 12.1.; but see on his aneestry Magie, 466-467 and Kienast, 160.
32 Alb. 2.1-3.1 and 6.4-5.
69
The HA reveals that the the confiict between Severus and Albinus is
due to Severus‘ plans for a dynasty. On the contrary, Cassius Dio records
that Albinus aspires to the glory of the emperor. In the HA, the conflict is
said to have had its origin in Severus‘ envy; Dio says it is a mere struggle
for power between these two. Herodian agrees with Dio and reports that
Albinus boasts with the title of Caesar and that many senators, because of
his noble ancestry, prefer him as emperor.33 For this reason, Severus feels
compelled to dispose of him. First he tries to murder Albinus; but when
that attempt fails, he declares Albinus an enemy of the state. 34
Although it seems that the HA is the most invective against Severus,
faults of bis enemies are also presented. The enemies are not characterized
as totally innocent victims, but rather as victims of their own lust for
power or their incapacity. Nevertheless, the highest guilt is reserved for
Severus; therefore, the HA author judges him as cruel.
The very fact that the biographies of Pescennius Niger and Clodius
Albinus are included in the collection of the biographies of the emperors
is as noteworthy as the charges against Severus. 35 Niger is characterized
as better than Severus in all respects: He is severe, but in an acceptable
manner (Pese. 12.3: Apud omnes constat quod, si rerum potitus fuisset,
omnia correcturus fuerit, quae Severus vel non potuit emendare vel noluit,
et quidem sine crudelitate, immo etiam cum lenitate, sed militari, non
remissa et inepta atque ridicula.). Niger’s superiority is based on his being
authoritarian and demanding. He is commilito in the positive sense, like
Severus Alexander, the ideal princeps of the compilation.36
In his autobiography, Severus assaults Pescennius Niger, accusing him
33 Herod. 3.5.2.
34 Ibid. 3.5.3-6.9.
35 Although the author apologizes for his including in the collection a biography of a
man like Pescennius Niger (Pese. 1.1-2), the attitude is totally different from, e. g., the
biography of Opellius Macrinus (Opil. 1.1-2), in which he (or maybe another) says there
is nothing worth telling in the private Jives of the pretenders and unworthy emperors.
The emperor Macrinus is, in the opinion of the HA author, a tyrant. Niger is neither.
36 On the concept of commilito of Severus Alexander, see e. g. Heliog. 29.5; Alex.
12.4-5; 21.6-8; 25.1-2; 45.1-3; 47; 50.1; 51.5-8; 52.1-4; 53; 54; 59.4-5; 64.3; Maximin.
7.6; commilito in the imperial propaganda, see Tac. Hist. 1.29; 1.37; Agric. 33; Suet.
Iu!. 7; Aug. 25.1; Plin. Ep. 10.53; 10.101; 10. 103; Herod. 1.5.3; 4.7.6; 4.14.4; 6.8.4
(Maximinus); commilito as a title of optimu$ princep$, see H. Instinsky, Wandlungen
des römischen Kaisertums, Gymnasium 63 (1956) 260-8; Campbell, 32-59.
70
of usurpation (Pese. 5.1): Niger was gloriae cupidus, vita fictus, moribus
turpis, aetatis provectae, cum in imperium invasit. However, the HA author
is somewhat doubtful of Severus‘ defense (ibid.: si Severo credimus)
and attempts to reveal his real thoughts (ibid. 4.6-8). Indeed, the HA author
regards Niger as a genuine representative of Roman military virtue, a
vir militaris. Severus, on the contrary, found it difficult to keep his troops
under control without offering donatives.37 The increased donatives to the
troops result in decreased liberalitates to the senators. It is certainly no
wonder that, in the opinion of the HA author, Severus‘ adventus in 193 to
Rome is terrifying and massive!
The biography of Clodius Albinus is an encomium on the cooperation
between a military Ieader and the senate. His nobility is respected; he
exemplifies a good soldier, a consul who deserves his post, one who is on
confidential terms with the senators. The biography renders incredulous
the information given by Severus and Aelius Junius Cordus about Albinus‘
habits.38
The biographies of Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus serve the
express purpose of assailing the politics of Severus. In each of these works,
Severus is depicted as a villain. Even the corrupted Didius Julianus behaves
more respectfully than Severus towards the senate. According to the
HA author, Severus writes his autobiography in order to vilify his rivals
and disprove the charges of his cruelty. This is the case. The HA author
was eclectic in his use of official propaganda.
The autobiography of Severus was used as a source for two purposes:
i) to describe the fallacy of Severan propaganda of clemency and ii) to use
this very propaganda as a weapon against Severus hirnself in criticizing his
ruthless policy towards his rivals. lndeed, the rivals are praised, because
they are not enemies of the senators. In the HA, it is said that Severus is
37 Sept. Sev. 7.1-9.
38 See Alb. 1 .3; 3.5-6; 4.1-7; 7.2; 7.4; 9.6; 10.1-3; 11 .2-8; 12.1-12; 13.3; 14.2; Sept.
Sev. 11.3. Catilina, the prototype of a revolutionist, is romanticized in the features of
Albinus, see Alb. 13.2: Armorum .scien.s pror.su.s, ut non male .sui temporis Catilina
diceretur; there is some sympathy in the author’s iudicium on Albinus, as has already
remarked N. Criniti, L’Uso propagandistico del topos catilinario nella „Historia Augusta“,
in: Propaganda e persuasione occulta nell’antichita, Contributi dell‘ Istituto
di storia antica 2 (Milano 1974), 97-106; on the „Catilinian myth“ in literature, see
id., „Catilina“ e „catilinario“, in: Storiografia e propaganda, Contributi dell ‚lstituto di
storia antica 3 (Milano 1975), 121-135.
71
„Sulla“ and „Marius“ (Pese. 6.4: tune cum innumeros senatores interemit
Severus et ab aliis Sullae Punici, ab aliis Marii nomen accepit), without
further explaining the graphic usage of these two personifications of cruelty.
Comparisons with these symbols of cruelty come from the similarity of
politics, the civil wars and the proscriptions on the senators. In callously
using this analogy, the HA author makes Severus‘ policy appear to be
awkward by not allowing him the opportunity to defend his point of view.
Even so, not even Cassius Dio understands the cruelty of Severus; but in
telling the opinions of the emperor himself, Dio allows the reader to draw
his own conclusions. The HA author is much more selective and assailing
than is Dio.
If we are to believe the HA, cruelty was a common feature of the
Roman military emperors during the third century. In its biographies,
cruelty is defined as the main vice of Septimius Severus (as a military
leader and the oppressor of the senators who was cruel), of Caracalla (as
the murderer of his brother, the parricida Bassianus, who was cruel), of
Opellius Macrinus (as a lowbirth emperor who was cruel), of Maximinus
(as a semibarbarian militant who was cruel), of Aurelian (as a military
minded ruler who was cruel). It is a by-product of the depraved, luxurious
idler, such as the cruel Elagabal and Gallienus.39
The blame of cruelty is placed in the context of an emperor’s accession
to the throne or his politics to maintain hirnself in control of rule. The
concept of cruelty in the HA is primarily an inner political term. It is a
political concept which, nevertheless, is not explained politically, that is,
not in rational terms. It is explained as a predestined feature of the ruling
military character.
One of the main themes in the HA is the relationship between the
senate and the emperor. Was the senate able to maintain its old libertas,40
prestige and, perhaps more importantly, the privilege to rule during the
crises of the third century? The basis for the criticism against the so-called
„soldier“ emperors was the uncontrolled division of ruling power between
39 On the concept of crudelita$ in the HA, see Mouchova, 167-194; id., Zum literarischen
Porträt des Opilius Macrinus in der Historia Augusta, Graecolatina Pragensia X 3
(1983) 29-34.
40 On liberta$, see C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a. Political ldea. at Rome during the Late
Republic and Early Principate (New York 1950).
72
the emperors and his armies and the senate.H However, the HA author
makes no thorough analyses of the state, as does Cassius Dio and, to some
degree, Herodian. In biographical form, as presented by the HA author,
the rationale for violence is ultimately, and perhaps exclusively, found in
the mind of the ruler.
41 On the crisis of the third century, see e. g. A. Alföldi, Studien zur Geschichte
der Weltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Darmstadt 1967); G. Alföldy, Die
Krise der Römischen Reiches (Stuttgart 1989); M. Mazza, Lotte sociali e restaurazione
autoritaria nel III secolo d. C. (Bari 1973); id., Il principe e il potere rivoluzione e
legittimismo costituzionale nel III sec. d.C., Atti di un incontro tra storici e giuristi,
Firenze, 2-4 maggio 1974 (Milano 1976); K. Dietz, Senatus contra principem (München
1980).
73
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND II
CRUDELITAS
The Politics of Cruelty
in the Ancient and Medieval World
Proceedings of the International Conference
Turku {Finland), May 1991
Edited by
Toivo Viljamaa, Asko Timonen
and Christian Krötzl
Krems 1992
Front page illustration: Martyrdom of Saint Barbara (detail),
Friedrich Pacher, Tyrolian, 1480-1490,
Neustift (Novacella), South Tyrol (Italy), Stiftsgalerie
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 1094 05 9
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems, Österreich – Druck:
KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Contents
Preface 7
Andrew LINTOTT (Oxford): Cruelty in the Political Life
of the Ancient World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Maarit KAIMIO (Helsinki): Violence in Greek Tragedy 28
Toivo VILJAMAA (Thrku): „Crudelitatis odio in crudelitatem
ruitis“ . Livy’s Concept of Life and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Katarüna MUSTAKALLIO (Helsinki): The „crimen incesti“
of the Vestal Virgins and the Prodigious Pestilence
Asko TIMONEN (Thrku): Criticism ofDefense. The Blam-
56
ing of „Crudelitas“ in the „Historia Augusta“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Christer BRUUN (Helsinki): Water as a Cruel Element in
the Roman World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4
Luigi de ANNA (Thrku): Elogio della crudelta. Aspetti
della violenza nel mondo antico e medievale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Greti DINKOVA-BRUUN (Helsinki): Cruelty and the Medieval
Intellectual: The Case of Peter Abelard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Christian KRÖTZL (Tampere): „Crudeliter affiicta“ . Zur
Darstellung von Gewalt und Grausamkeit in mittelalterlichen
Mirakelberichten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5
Thomas LINDKVIST (Uppsala) : The Politics of Violence
and the Transition from Viking Age to Medieval Scandinavia
Alain DUCELLIER (Toulouse): Byzance, Juge Cruel dans
un Environnement Cruel? Notes sur le „Musulman cruel“
dans l’Empire byzantin entre Vlleme et XIIlerne siedes
Asko TIMONEN (Turku): Select Bibliography
6
139
148
181
Preface
The present volume is a collection of the papers read at the conference
which was held in May 1991 at the University of Turku on the theme
The Politics of Cruelty in the A ncient and Medieval World. The general
aim of the conference was to advance interdisciplinary and international
collaboration in the fields of humanistic studies and particularly to bring
together scholars who have common interests in the study of our past.
The choice of the subject of cruelty naturally resulted from different study
projects concerning the political and social history of late antiquity and
the Middle Ages – the Roman imperial propaganda, the conß.ict between
paganism and christianity, the history of the Vandals, the Byzantine empires,
the Medieval miracle stories, to name some of them. Perhaps also
contemporary events had an influence on the idea that cruelty could be
the theme which conveniently would unite those various interests. And
the idea emerged irrespective of considerations whether or not we should
search for models in the Ancient World or join those who, as it seems to
have been a fashion, insist on investigating what we have common with
the Middle Ages.
One might argue – and for a good reason indeed – that cruelty is
a subject for anthropologists and psychologists, not for philologists and
historians. Where does the student of history find reliable criteria for
defining the notion of cruelty in order to judge the men of the past and their
actions, to charge with cruelty not only individuals but also nations and
even ages („the crudelitas imperatorum“ , „the Dark Ages“ , „the violence of
the Vikings“, „the cruel Muslims“ )? Is it not so that the only possibility is
to adapt our modern sensibilities to the past and to use our own prejudices
in making judgements about others? The prejudices – yes, but this is just
what makes the theme interesting for the historian because our prejudices
– our conception of cruelty, for instance – are part of the heritage of past
centuries. The events of our own day – maybe more clearly than ever – have
demonstrated that we live in a historical world. When we investigate the
history of the concept of cruelty we, as it were, Iook ourselves at a mirror
and learn to understand ourselves better. The concept of cruelty has two
sides. It is a subjective concept used to define and describe those persons
7
and those acts that according to the user of the term are negative, harmful,
humiliating, harsh, inhumane, primitive and unnatural; in everyday life
it is associated with religious habits – with crude remnants of primitive
religion, it is associated with passion, an uncontrolled mental state, or with
violence and with the exercise of power without justice. On the other hand
the term is used to classify people by their ethical and social habits, to
accuse, to invalidate and injure others; therefore the accusation of cruelty
refers to basic features of ancient and also Medieval thought, to the fear of
anything foreign, to the aggressive curiosity to define and subsume others
simply by their otherness.
Such were the considerations wich gave inspiration for arranging the
„cruelty“ -seminar. The conference was accommodated by the Archipelago
Institute of the University of Turku, in the island Seili („Soul island“) , in
an environment of quiet beauty of the remote island and sad memories of
the centuries when people attacked by a cruel fate, lepers or mentally ill,
were banished there from the civilized community.
The conference was organized by the Department of Classics of the
University of Turku in collaboration with the Departments of Cultural
History and Italian language and culture of the same university. It is a
pleasure to us to be able to thank here all those who helped to make the
congress possible. We would like especially to express our gratitude to
Luigi de Anna and Hannu Laaksonen for their assistance in preparing and
carrying out the practical arrangements. The financial assistance given by
the Finnish Academy and by the Turku University Foundation was also
indispensable. Finally, we close by expressing our gratitude to Gerhard
Jaritz, the editor of the Medium Aevum Quotidianum for the Gesellschaft
fü r Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, for his kind COoperation
and for accepting this collection of papers to be published as a
supplement to the series of the studies on the Medieval everyday life. One
of the starting-points for organizing the „cruelty“ -conference was the firm
conviction that the Graeco-Roman Antiquity did not end with the beginning
of the Middle Ages, but these two eras form a continuum in many
respects, and the continuity was felt not only in the literary culture, in the
Greek and Latin languages which were still used, but also in the political,
social and religious structures of the Middle Ages. We think that this
continuity is amply demonstrated by the studies of the present volume.
Department of Classics, University of Turku, Finland
8