The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  The first fragment served as a preface to the entire work, not just to the first book, since it states that the work will reach its climax in its description of the reign of Julian. Fragment 15 provides something of a second preface, which allows us to understand better Eunapius’ plan and purpose. He describes the earlier part of the history as a summary which concentrated only on important events, and states that he will now turn to a discussion of Julian, his main purpose from the beginning. The first book, then, was an epitome of events from 270 to 355, the year in which Julian became Caesar. Blockley offers a speculative outline of how the rest of the material of the history may have been organized: perhaps four books on Julian, three on Valentinian and Valens, and six more to the conclusion of the work in 404 (1981: 8).

  The first books of Eunapius’ History cover many of the same events discussed in Ammianus’ Res Gestae, though with a stronger and more explicit anti-Christian bias. The Suda reports that Eunapius was very negative in his judgement of Constantine. His account of Julian is perhaps even more laudatory than that of Ammianus, and he claims that the emperor was worshipped as a divinity by all (fr. 1; cf. frs. 15, 17, 28). Eunapius’ condemnation of Jovian’s settlement with the Persians (fr. 29) lessens Julian’s culpability for the failure of his campaign. He also accuses Jovian, a Christian, of burning a temple and library dedicated to the emperor Trajan.

  Eunapius’ judgements on other historical figures often correlate with their religious beliefs. The staunchly Christian Theodosius is harshly criticized (fr. 46), whereas the general Fravitta, who worshipped the old Greek divinities, is idealized (frs. 59, 69). He blames the destruction of the Serapeum and the cults of the gods at Alexandria on the swinish behavior of monks (fr. 56), and his description of barbarians who sneaked into Roman territory dressed as monks (fr. 48.2) may be seen as a comment on the dangers of Christianity. Eunapius’ anti-Christian bias does not completely overwhelm his historical judgement, however. He did not blame Christians for the death of Julian (fr. 28.1), and his criticisms of tyrannical behavior and bureaucratic corruption are not solely aimed at Christians (Sacks 1986).

  Blockley (1980b) suggests that the name Eudoxia should be substituted for the manuscript reading of Pulcheria in fragment 72, an emendation which makes sense out of the concluding fragments of Eunapius and supports Photius’ claim that 404 was the last year of the history. The work probably concluded with broad criticism of the empress Eudoxia, the wife of Arcadius. Eudoxia was perhaps blamed for the political strife between east and west because of her patronage of the treasury official John, with whom she was reputed to have had a sexual affair. She would also have been held responsible for the turmoil at Constantinople which arose from her conflict with John Chrysostom, and would have been condemned for the general corruption associated with her court. Her early death from miscarriage on 6 October could have been portrayed as an appropriate expression of divine will (Blockley 1981: 5–6).

  Eunapius writes his history with the traditional moral purpose of providing historical figures for emulation or rejection. He relies upon the classical view of character as a fixed quality which may be revealed in actions but does not change. He asks, rhetorically, in his rejection of careful chronology, if Socrates or Themistocles were more or less virtuous in the summer than in the winter (fr. 1). When he criticizes Gratian for incompetence, Eunapius adds that, if the young man had had true greatness of soul, this greatness would have allowed him to overcome the deleterious effects of a childhood spent in the palace (fr. 50). This view of character adds to the shrillness Eunapius displays when he describes his subjects, who tend to be portrayed as either wholly depraved or wholly virtuous.

  Evidence of Eunapius’ sophistic profession and interests is visible throughout his History. He was encouraged to write by his famous and learned friends, who offered their support (fr. 15). He suggests that he had to take up the task of writing about the deeds of Julian because they had been previously described by those without sufficient rhetorical skills (fr. 15). His faith in traditional education is apparent when he claims that a literary education is valuable in choosing appropriate tactics on the battlefield (fr. 44.1). Eunapius’ sophistic approach to history reveals itself in his dismissal of chronology and apparent lack of concern for details, accurate numbers, and accurate geography (Blockley 1981: 15). Also typical of sophistic style are Eunapius’ frequent use of quotations and citations of earlier authors, of exempla, and of speeches (Blockley 1981: 11–13). He quotes Plato (fr. 30), Homer (fr. 39.1), and Pindar (fr. 66.2), among other great Greeks of antiquity. He even quotes a (now unknown) comic writer, who wrote that “the possessions of an ex-magistrate are public property,” and follows the quote with the threat that “the one who is ignorant of who this writer is, is unworthy to read this history”! (fr. 72). In keeping with the moralizing purpose of the history, Eunapius frequently speaks proverbially, as in his comment on Valens’ punishment of the associates of the usurper Procopius: “it is godlike to spare even the guilty, but it is human to condemn even the innocent” (fr. 34.9; cf. 23.3, 23.4). Only one full-scale speech survives in the fragments, but we are dependent on summaries, and the work probably contained many more. This exchange between Julian and a leader of the barbarian Chamavi concludes with the barbarian prostrated before the emperor, “thinking he was some sort of god because of his words” (fr. 18.6).

  The style of Eunapius’ History appears to be similar to the style that he used in his Lives (Giangrande 1956; Baldwin 1990). He frequently uses rare, archaic, and poetic forms, and is fond of periphrasis and excessive use of the superlative. His use of neuter substantives is reminiscent of Thucydides and of late Greek philosophy. In general, his style does not appeal to modern tastes, and his writing appears contrived and hyperbolic. Blockley points to the most grotesque simile of the extant fragments (Blockley 1981: 14), where the winning over of the barbarian chief Charietto is likened to the movement of the Pythagorean monad toward the dyad (fr. 18).

  Eunapius claims, unhelpfully, that the sources for his early books were unspecified writings and oral traditions (fr. 30). The historian’s sophistic friends who encouraged him to write may also have provided him with material. Sophists appear in the historical fragments and some, such as Libanius, who were discussed in the Lives, are also discussed in the History (Penella 1990: 13–16). One such sophist, his friend Oribasius, presented him with written information about the career of Julian, whom Oribasius served as doctor and advisor (fr. 15). Eunapius was also familiar with the works of Julian himself. At one point he declines to narrate the details of a battle in deference to Julian’s already existing account (fr. 17), and elsewhere he makes reference to the emperor’s letters (frs. 23.2, 27.1, 28.5). Fragment 66.2 explains the difficulties involved in obtaining information during the struggles between Stilicho in the west and Eutropius in the east and provides a bit more insight into Eunapius’ method, although it mostly consists of historiographical commonplaces. It appears that Eunapius is arguing that contemporary histories of the events he recounts were flawed, both by partisanship and by the difficulty of gathering information, but that his own account will be accurate, thanks to the passage of time and his own zeal for the truth. He explains that during the time of the eunuch Eutropius it was difficult to learn about events in the west, since information was often out of date because of the length of the sea voyage, soldiers and administrators were biased, and merchants were driven by profit, rather than truth.

  Although the work of Eunapius was the only full-scale narrative source in Greek for the events of the fourth century, its anti-Christian tone and the fact that it was summarized by Zosimus probably contributed to its disappearance. Eunapius sought to create a work for his readers’ moral edification and his own rhetorical display. His history was less valuable than others since he was removed from the centers of power where a historian could gain reliable and important information, a weakness which he occasionally admits (e.g. fr. 50). The loss of most of the history is thus
regrettable less for its historical detail, although it would have provided a welcome check on the narrative of Ammianus, than for the insight it provides into the historical vision of a committed Hellene and supporter of Julian in an age when this vision was being suppressed.

  Text and translation

  Greek text and translation by R.C. Blockley (1983), The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire II.

  6

  OLYMPIODORUS

  Life

  Details of the life of Olympiodorus must be drawn almost exclusively from the fragments of his work, but fortunately he spends considerable time digressing upon his own adventures. Although he writes in Greek, he is in some ways reminiscent of Ammianus, another Greek imperial official who provides a detailed narrative of near-contemporary political history. Olympiodorus was born around 380 in Egyptian Thebes. Our primary source of information about the historian is the summary written by the ninth-century Byzantine patriarch Photius, who describes him as a poet by profession. One verse of his, which he inserted into his history, survives (fr. 41.1). Because Olympiodorus had spent time with the people of upper Egypt known as the Blemmyes, he has been credited, probably incorrectly, with the authorship of the “Blemyomachia,” an epic poem recently discovered on a papyrus fragment (Livrea 1978; Clover 1983: 153–6).

  Olympiodorus was a Greek who knew Latin well. Although he writes for a Greek audience in the eastern Roman empire, he incorporates an unprecedented amount of transliterated Latin. Olympiodorus was also a pagan, as were many of the literary-minded administrators of late antiquity. Hierocles, a teacher and Neoplatonist, dedicated his (extant) philosophical work On Providence to the historian. Several fragments reveal Olympiodorus’ belief in magic and in the traditional gods, such as fr. 36, which describes how the empress Galla Placidia foolishly rejected the help of the magician Libanius, although he had previously demonstrated his ability to defeat barbarian invaders with the occult arts (Blockley 1981: 38–40). Olympiodorus seems, however, to have refrained from the kind of anti-Christian rhetoric which we find in Eunapius, among others.

  The friends and associates whom Olympiodorus mentions further situate him in the literary-administrative class. He received some information about magical statues from Valerius, the governor of Thrace (fr. 27). He was involved in the installation of the professor Leontius in a sophistic chair at Athens (fr. 28); the daughter of this Leontius would grow to become the empress Eudocia. Another friend, Philtatius, was a philologist whom the Athenians honored with a statue (fr. 31). His numerous digressions seem designed to parade his learning. For example, in a discussion of Egypt he makes reference not only to the famous historian Herodotus, but also to the obscure poet Herodorus (fr. 32).

  Olympiodorus was well traveled and discussed a number of his journeys, including several accounts of the dangers he faced at sea (frs. 19, 35.1). Around 412, he went on an embassy to meet a certain Donatus, the leader of a group of Huns. In the course of the meeting Donatus was deceived and killed. This angered a more powerful Hunnic king, Charaton, but Olympiodorus managed to placate him with gifts (fr. 19). Although it has been suggested that Olympiodorus’ mission was from the beginning one of assassination (Cameron 1965: 497; Matthews 1970: 80), it seems unlikely, if this were the case, that the historian would have described the murder as taking place “unlawfully” as the result of the breaking of an oath.

  Olympiodorus’ next attested journey was in 415 or 416, when he had the aforementioned Leontius appointed against his will to a sophistic chair at Athens. Olympiodorus may have undertaken this mission under imperial orders. His trip to Egypt was the source of a digression on the region called the “Oasis,” which he claimed had been an island at one time. One of his pieces of evidence for this claim reveals that he had visited it personally, for he had seen sea shells in the area that now was desert but had once been sea (fr. 32). He also traveled “for the purpose of research (historias)” in remote parts of the Thebaid in Upper Egypt inhabited by the Blemmyes (fr. 35). Whether this research was undertaken for his history or as part of official business is unknowable. The Blemmyes allowed him access to their cities, but he regretted that he was unable to visit their emerald mines in the region. Photius says, simply, that the historian was invited by the Blemmyes because of his “reputation.” This might refer to his poetic reputation or, more likely, to his governmental position and influence.

  Perhaps it was on this trip to Egypt that Olympiodorus again ran into trouble at sea, and barely escaped death, when what he described as a “star” hit the mast of the ship (fr. 35). While Olympiodorus survived, his parrot, a companion for twenty years, may not have. This parrot, he claims, was a gifted mimic, which would dance, sing, and call people by name.

  Olympiodorus’ discussion, at the end of the work, of the immensity of the buildings in the city of Rome and the enormous incomes of the Roman nobility suggests that he had traveled to the west (fr. 41). In conjunction with this western visit he may have inserted the digression on the wanderings of Odysseus, which he claims took place along the coast of Italy (fr. 42). The western bias of some of his sources is further evidence of this visit. If he traveled to Rome on official business, he may have been involved in suppressing the usurpation of John (Baldwin 1980a: 217–18), or he may have assisted with the restoration of the emperor Valentinian III under the auspices of the eastern emperor Theodosius II (Matthews 1970: 80). It is likely that he attended, and he may have been involved in, Valentinian’s coronation, the dramatic event with which Olympiodorus concluded the history.

  Work

  Olympiodorus’ work, though Greek, is almost entirely concerned with events in the western half of the empire. The History (or, more properly, the hyle historias, the Material for History) of Olympiodorus survives only in paraphrase and summary. Photius preserved in his Bibliotheca a description of the work in around forty paragraphs (cod. 80). Olympiodorus is also the source of the last part of the New History of Zosimus, which was written at the turn of the fifth century. The lack of innovation in Zosimus’ work fortunately preserves for us a fairly close approximation of whatever source he is dependent upon. While Zosimus is following the work of Eunapius, which extended to 404, he describes eastern events, he is vague and imprecise, and he is hostile to the western warlord Stilicho. Zosimus turned to Olympiodorus for the years 407 to 410, which are covered in chapters 5.26 to 6.13 of the New History. Here he emphasizes western events, is precise and accurate, and becomes a partisan of Stilicho, all characteristics of the Photian summary of Olympiodorus (Matthews 1970: 81–2).

  Olympiodorus is also the main source for the section of the Church History of Sozomen which runs from 9.4 until its conclusion. At this transition point, not only are western events suddenly emphasized to the exclusion of eastern events, but the subject matter itself largely shifts from ecclesiastical to secular history. Whether the Church History of Philostorgius shows dependence upon Olympiodorus is less clear. Philostorgius, like Olympiodorus, is only extant in a paraphrase of Photius, and if he did use Olympiodorus’ work, it was just one of several of his sources for the period (Baldwin 1980a: 228–9; Gillett 1992: 3–6).

  Olympiodorus’ work must have been published after 425, the date of the coronation of Valentinian III which concluded the work, and before the death in 450 of Theodosius II, to whom, Photius says, the work was dedicated. Sozomen, who must postdate Olympiodorus, published in the late 440s. The church historian Socrates, who published in 439, did not make use of Olympiodorus, and perhaps this suggests that the work was not yet available to him (Gillett 1992: 4–6). Thus we can conclude that the history was probably published sometime in the 440s.

  Olympiodorus was connected to the empress Aelia Eudocia through her father Leontius. Eudocia, though not a pagan, was a patron of the kind of Hellenized literature which Olympiodorus produced, as was her protégé, Cyrus of Panopolis (Cameron 1982). Although Olympiodorus was in government service prior to the rise to power of Cyrus and Eudocia, the at
mosphere they fostered until they were forced to leave Constantinople in 441 would have been particularly congenial to him. Gillett comments that the work seems to celebrate the growing closeness of the eastern and western empires under the guidance of Theodosius II. Following the installation of Valentinian III in 425, the east and west had continued to work together, both on the compilation of the Theodosian Code and with the dynastic marriage of Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius II, to Valentinian III. Olympiodorus’ work, by tracing the evolution of the relationship between east and west from alienation to cooperation, may be in part understood as an argument in favor of the continuation of such cooperation in the face of new threats, such as the rise of Vandal power in Africa (Gillett 1992).

  Photius states that Olympiodorus’ history began in the year 407, although it seems that information on the earlier career of Stilicho was included, possibly as part of the preface which Photius says adorned the beginning of each book (Blockley 1981: 30). In fact, since the first consular date noted in Zosimus is 408, the year of Stilicho’s death, rather than 407, the work may have officially begun in that year (Paschoud 1985a). In any case it is clear that Olympiodorus did not intend to formally continue the history of Eunapius, which concluded in 404.