Ammianus Marcellinus on the Empress Eusebia: a Split Personality?*
Ammianus Marcellinus on the Empress Eusebia: a Split Personality?*
复制标题
阿米亚努斯·马塞利努斯论尤西比亚皇后：人格分裂？*
DOI：
10.1093/gr/47.1.94
复制
发表时间：
2000
期刊：
影响因子：
0.1
通讯作者：
S. Tougher
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Tougher
罗马皇后尤西比亚是基督教皇帝君士坦提乌斯二世（Constantius II，公元337-361年）的妻子，她之所以在历史学家中享有盛名，是因为她在最后一位异教皇帝叛教者朱利安（Julian the Apostate，公元361-363年）的生活中扮演了重要角色。在354-355年，皇后成为了她（仍在壁橱里）异教姻亲的救世主和拥护者。然而，在这篇文章中，我希望只关注Ammianus Marcellinus历史中对Eusebia皇后的处理，Ammianus Marcellinus是古代晚期的伟大历史学家，他自己也是Julian的信徒。这种处理方式值得关注，不仅因为尤西比娅是历史上为数不多的女性角色之一，而且因为在历史上，皇后被塑造成了看似不同的人物。她是善良美丽的皇后，类似于尤利安自己在《感谢尤西比亚的演讲》中创造的她的形象，这篇演讲是为了纪念尤西比亚在她手中的救赎而写的;但她也是一个狡猾的玩家，正如我们在卓西姆对待皇后的方式中所发现的那样，尽管在阿米阿努斯那里，她的狡猾是恶毒的。我想在这里探讨的，正是这种治疗中矛盾的特征方面。虽然一般的尝试已经作出了调和这些图像在政治历史的背景下，我们的理解阿米亚努斯的影响已经很少探讨。历史学家怎么能让这些对比鲜明的图像共存？他只是笨拙地拼凑了他的历史，还是有一个更有价值的解释皇后的分裂人格的印象？
The Roman empress Eusebia, wife of the Christian emperor Constantius II (A.D. 337–361), owes what fame she enjoys amongst historians to her role in the life of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor (361–363); in the years 354–355 the empress emerged as the saviour and advocate of her (still in the closet) pagan in-law. However in this article I wish to focus exclusively on the treatment of the empress Eusebia in the history of Ammianus Marcellinus, the great historian of Late Antiquity and himself a devotee of Julian. This treatment merits attention not just for the undoubtedly interesting fact that Eusebia is one of the few female characters to surface in the history, but also because in the history the empress is cast in seemingly different personae. She is the kind and beautiful empress, akin to the image Julian himself created of her in his Speech of Thanks to Eusebia, written in commemoration of his salvation at her hands; but she is also a devious player, as we find too in Zosimus' treatment of the empress, though in Ammianus her deviousness is malevolent. It is this contradictory characterization aspect of the treatment that I wish to explore here. For whilst general attempts have been made to reconcile these images in the context of political history, the repercussions for our understanding of Ammianus have been little explored. How can the historian let these contrasting images co-exist? Has he merely assembled his history clumsily, or is there a more rewarding explanation for the impression of the empress's split personality?