The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  The Battle of the Frigidus

  Theodosius’ preparations to return to the East after the defeat of Maximus included placing his general, Arbogast, in control of the west. For several years, Arbogast was the power behind the throne, issuing orders in the name of the teenaged emperor Valentinian II, who committed suicide under suspicious circumstances in May 392 (Croke 1976). After several months of strained relations between Arbogast and Theodosius, Arbogast, who as a barbarian could not aspire to rule the empire, named his own emperor, Eugenius, an obscure former teacher of rhetoric. Although Eugenius was a Christian, under his brief reign pagan ritual was revived. Thus when Arbogast and Eugenius were defeated by Theodosius at the Frigidus river in September 394, it was widely seen as a victory for Christianity. The battle began with an attack by Theodosius’ Gothic troops, which was repulsed. Theodosius’ army was ultimately victorious, however, thanks to a heavy wind which suddenly blew against the army of the usurper and was widely held among Christians to be a miracle.

  Eunapius’ partisan approach to Theodosius is most clear in his treatment of the Battle of the Frigidus (Buck 1988: 47–50; fr. 60.1). He removes almost every hint of pagan sympathies from the defeated army, such as the Jupiter and Hercules banners under which they fought. Other sources agree that the turning point was a hard, cold wind that blew against the forces of Eugenius and Arbogast. This wind, which other versions attributed to the intercession of the Christian deity, Eunapius replaced with a non-existent eclipse. Theodosius’ forces win in a very unheroic fashion, by falling upon the western forces while they slept and killing the majority in their beds.

  In Rufinus, the Battle of the Frigidus is set forth as a conflict between Christianity and paganism, the military equivalent of the destruction of the Serapeum (11.33). To further this picture, Rufinus highlights the contrast between Theodosius and the aggressive pagan Nicomachus Flavianus, while mentioning Eugenius and Arbogast only infrequently (Thélamon 1981: 311–21). Theodosius’ preparations are religious, not military: he arms himself “not so much with the aid of weapons and arms as with fasts and prayers,” he prostrates himself before reliquaries, and he holds nightly vigils before the battle. These preparations contrast with those of the pagans, who explore the entrails of sheep and are reassured by Flavianus that the divination predicts victory for Eugenius. After the first clash of armies, Theodosius’ barbarian troops are routed, but this, Rufinus assures us, was arranged by God to ensure that the battle would be won by Romans and not by Goths. At this point in the battle Theodosius prostrates himself and prays to God, and a heavy wind frustrates the forces of Eugenius.

  Rufinus is particularly keen to make the victory at the Frigidus psychological and ideological rather than simply military. When Nicomachus Flavianus committed suicide at the end of the battle, he was despondent, Rufinus says, more over the failure of divination than the failure of the usurpation. Similarly, Rufinus concludes his account of the battle with the comment that the victory was glorious more because of the failed prophecies and hopes of the pagans than because of the death of the usurper (11.33).

  Socrates gives a much more straightforward account of the Battle of the Frigidus than Rufinus, and he provides almost no religious content. In Socrates, Arbogast and Eugenius plot together to kill Valentinian II out of simple lust for power. There is no suggestion that the battle is a conflict between Christianity and paganism. While Theodosius does pray, and a hard wind does blow, Socrates does not draw an explicit lesson from the events. On the whole, Socrates’ treatment provides evidence for the claim that he is less concerned about paganism than are the other church historians (5.25; Urbainczyk 1997b: 156–9).

  Sozomen reintegrates religious material into his treatment of the conflict (7.24). He shows Theodosius preparing to head west by praying at the church he had erected to hold the recently discovered head of John the Baptist. As the armies meet in battle, Sozomen describes the familiar story of the emperor prostrating himself and praying for help. In Sozomen’s version, however, the prayer has an immediate effect when some of Eugenius’ officers, who had been stationed in ambush, agree to defect in return for high posts in Theodosius’ army. Sozomen omits the information on Nicomachus Flavianus which Rufinus provided, and he does not explicitly represent the battle as a clash between paganism and Christianity. An anecdote he provides does, however, allude to this idea. At the very time that the battle was being won in the west, a demon appeared in the church where Theodosius had prayed. After pausing to taunt John the Baptist for being decapitated, the demon announced that he, presumably as a stand-in for paganism, had been conquered.

  Theodoret’s account of the battle is more artfully constructed but less accurate than the other ecclesiastical historians’ accounts (5.24). In his version, Theodosius points out the contrast between the Cross of Christ, which was the standard of his army, and the image of Hercules put forward by the enemy. The emperor also has a dream in which John the Baptist and the Apostle Philip promise their aid, and to prove its significance, one of his soldiers has the same dream. As in other Christian versions, the wind blinded the army of the usurpers, who in Theodoret’s account surrendered when they realized that God opposes them. When Eugenius is brought before him, Theodosius rebuked him first for his usurpation, and then for his trust in Hercules. Thus Theodoret portrays the purpose of the war more as the suppression of a usurpation than as the upholding of Christianity. While the Christian God is essential to the story, the moral is primarily that Theodosius “always sought divine aid, and always received it” (5.24.17).

  Just as Orosius had underlined the virtues of Maximus to further glorify Theodosius’ victory, he also portrays Arbogast as a veritable superman, “outstanding in courage, foresight, boldness, and power” (7.35.11). In both cases, Orosius asserts, it is the power of God which overcame the evil plans of men. Orosius describes at length the hard wind, which alternately ripped the shields out of the enemies’ hands and crushed the shields too tightly against them. Hurled javelins were blown back to transfix the throwers. Again Orosius emphasizes the lack of bloodshed, although he mentions in passing the death of Theodosius’ auxiliary troops, ten thousand Goths, which he sees as a benefit rather than a loss. Orosius ends his account with a challenge to pagans to provide a single example from all of Roman history of a war ending so pleasantly and easily. This demonstrates, he asserts, that heaven prefers the side trusting in God to the side trusting in itself and its idols (7.35.22).

  Conclusion

  Theodosius died suddenly in 395. He left behind two sons, Honorius and Arcadius, who were weak emperors with undistinguished reigns. Arcadius’ son Theodosius II had a long but equally undistinguished reign. In retrospect, the emperor seemed unusually strong and successful in war when compared to emperors who did not personally take the field. Theodosius’ posthumous reputation increased substantially at the hands of Christians of the next generation. He was the last emperor to rule the entire Christian empire, and thus remained an important symbol for generations to come. The ruinous civil wars and religious intolerance which the pagan historians deplored were soon overlooked. Late antique Christian historians gathered diverse elements of his reign to create a portrait of an ideal emperor, who was strong enough to crush paganism and heresy, yet submissive to clerical authority.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Allen, P. (1987) “Some Aspects of Hellenism in the Early Greek Church Historians,” Traditio 43: 368–81.

  Allen, P. (1990) “The Use of Heretics and Heresies in the Greek Church Historians: Studies in Socrates and Theodoret,” in G. Clarke, B. Croke, A.E. Nobbs, and R. Mortley, eds, Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, Rushcutters Bay, Australia: Australian National University Press, 266–289.

  Amidon, P.R. (1997) The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11, New York: Oxford University Press.

  Anderson, G. (1993) The Second Sophistic, London: Routledge.

  Angliviel de la Beaumelle, L. (1992) “La Torture dans les Res Gestae d’A
mmien Marcellin,” in M. Christol, ed., Institutions, société et vie politique dans l’Empire romain au IVe siècle après J.-C., Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 91–113.

  Arnaud-Lindet, M.-P. (1990) Orose: Histoire contre les païens, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

  Arnaud-Lindet, M.-P. (1994) Festus: Abrégé des hauts faits du peuple romain, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

  Arnheim, M.T.W. (1972) The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  Asmussen, J.P. (1983) “Christians in Iran,” in Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3, pt. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Athanassiadi, P. (1981/92) Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Second edition (1992) Julian: An Intellectual Biography, London: Routledge.

  Auerbach, E. (1957) [1946] Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, W. Trask, tr., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

  Austin, N.J.E. (1979) Ammianus on Warfare: An Investigation into Ammianus’ Military Knowledge, Brussels: Latomus.

  Avery, W.K. (1940) “The Adoratio Purpurae and the Importance of the Imperial Purple in the Fourth Century of the Christian Era,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 17: 66–80.

  Azema, Y. (1984) “Sur la date de la mort de Théodoret de Cyr,” Pallas 31: 137–55.

  Baldini, A. (1984) Ricerche sulla Storia di Eunapio di Sardi: problemi di storiografia tardopagana, Bologna: CLUEB.

  Balducci, C. (1947) “La ribellione del generale Silvano nelle Gallie (355),” Rendiconti dell’ Accademia dei Lincei 8: 423–8.

  Baldwin, B. (1975) “The Career of Oribasius,” Acta Classica 18: 85–97.

  Baldwin, B. (1978) “Festus the Historian,” Historia 27: 197–218.

  Baldwin, B. (1980a) “Olympiodorus of Thebes,” L’Antiquité Classique 49: 212–31.

  Baldwin, B. (1980b) “Priscus of Panium,” Byzantion 50: 18–61.

  Baldwin, B. (1981) “Greek Historiography in Late Rome and Early Byzantium,” Hellenika 33: 51–65.

  Baldwin, B. (1990) “The Language and Style of Eunapius,” Byzantinoslavica 51: 1–19.

  Balsdon, J.P.V.D. (1979) Romans and Aliens, London: Duckworth.

  Banchich, T.M. (1984) “The Date of Eunapius’ Vitae Sophistarum,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 25: 183–92.

  Banchich, T.M. (1987) “On Goulet’s Chronology of Eunapius’ Life and Works,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107: 164–7.

  Banchich, T.M. (1988) “Vit. Soph. X.2.3 and the Terminus of the First Edition of Eunapius’ History,” Rheinisches Museum 131: 375–380.

  Banchich, T.M. (1993) “Julian’s School Laws: Cod. Theod. 13.5.5 and Ep. 42,” Ancient World 24: 5–14.

  Barcellona, F.S. (1995) “Martiri e confessori dell’età di Giuliano l’Apostata: dalla storia alla leggenda,” in F.E. Consolino, ed., Pagani e Christiani da Giuliano l’Apostata al Sacco di Roma, Messina: Rubbetino, 53–83.

  Bardy, G. (1946) “Théodoret,” in Dictionnaire de théologie Catholique 15.1: 299–325.

  Barnes, T.D. (1970) “The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition,” Bonner Historia–Augusta–Colloquium 1968/69: 13–43.

  Barnes, T.D. (1976) “The Epitome de Caesaribus and Its Sources,” Classical Philology 71: 258–268.

  Barnes, T.D. (1978) The Sources of the Historia Augusta, Brussels: Latomus.

  Barnes, T.D. (1981) Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  Barnes, T.D. (1985) “Constantine and the Christians of Persia,” Journal of Roman Studies 75: 126–36.

  Barnes, T.D. (1993a) “Ammianus Marcellinus and His World,” Classical Philology 88: 55–70.

  Barnes, T.D. (1993b) Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  Barnes, T.D. (1998) Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

  Bartalucci, A. (1976) “Lingua e Stile in Paolo Orosio,” Studi classici e orientali 25: 213–56.

  Bartelink, G.J.M. (1969) “Eunape et le vocabulaire chrétien,” Vigiliae Christianae 23: 293–303.

  Bell, H.I. (1924) Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy, London: British Museum.

  Bihain, E. (1962a) “Le ‘Contre Eunome’ de Théodore de Mopsueste, source d’un passage de Sozomène et d’un passage de Théodoret concernant Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Le Muséon 75: 331–355.

  Bihain, E. (1962b) “La source d’un texte de Socrate (HE 2.38.3) relatif à Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Byzantion 32: 81–91.

  Bird, H.W. (1973) “Further Observations on the Dating of Enmann’s Kaisergeschichte,” Classical Quarterly 23: 375–377.

  Bird, H.W. (1975) “A Reconstruction of the Life and Career of S. Aurelius Victor,” Classical Journal 70: 49–54.

  Bird, H.W. (1984) Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study, Liverpool: Francis Cairns.

  Bird, H.W. (1986) “Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate,” Classical Journal 81: 243–248.

  Bird, H.W. (1987) “The Roman Emperors: Eutropius’ Perspective,” Ancient History Bulletin 1: 139–151.

  Bird, H.W. (1988a) “Eutropius: His Life and Career,” Échos du monde classique 32: 51–60.

  Bird, H.W. (1998b) “Eutropius: In Defence of the Senate,” Cahiers des études anciennes 20: 63–72

  Bird, H.W. (1989) “A Strange Aggregate of Errors for A.D. 193,” Classical Bulletin 65: 95–98.

  Bird, H.W. (1990) “Structure and Themes in Eutropius’ Breviarium,” Classical Bulletin 66: 87–92.

  Bird, H.W. (1992) Eutropius: Breviarium ab Urbe Condita, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

  Bird, H.W. (1994) Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

  Blanchetière, F. (1980) “Julien. Philhellène, Philosémite, Antichrétien. L’affaire du Temple de Jérusalem (363),” Journal of Jewish Studies 31: 61–81.

  Blockley, R.C. (1969) “Internal Self-Policing in the Late Roman Administration. Some Evidence from Ammianus Marcellinus,” Classica et Medievalia 30: 403–419.

  Blockley, R.C. (1971) “Dexippus of Athens and Eunapius of Sardis,” Latomus 30: 710–715.

  Blockley, R.C. (1972a) “Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constantius II,” Latomus 32: 63–78.

  Blockley, R.C. (1972b) “Dexippus and Priscus and the Thucydidean Account of the Siege of Plataea,” Phoenix 26: 18–27.

  Blockley, R.C. (1975) Ammianus Marcellinus. A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought, Brussels: Latomus.

  Blockley, R.C. (1977) “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Battle of Strasbourg: Art and Analysis in the History,” Phoenix 31: 218–231.

  Blockley, R.C. (1980a) “Constantius II and his Generals,” in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II, Brussels: Latomus, 467–86.

  Blockley, R.C. (1980b) “The Ending of Eunapius’ History,” Antichthon 14: 170–176.

  Blockley, R.C. (1981) The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, vol. 1. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.

  Blockley, R.C. (1983) The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, vol. 2. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.

  Blockley, R.C. (1986) “The Coded Message in Ammianus Marcellinus 18.6.17–29,” Échos du monde classique 30: 63–65.

  Blockley, R.C. (1992) East Roman Foreign Policy: Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to Anastasius, Leeds: Francis Cairns.

  Blockley, R.C. (1998) “Ammianus and Cicero: The Epilogue of the History as a Literary Statement,” Phoenix 52: 305–314.

  Bonamente, G. (1986) Giuliano l’Apostata e il Breviario di Eutropio, Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider.

  Bonanni, S. (1981) “Ammiano Marcellino e i Barbari,” Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 23: 125–142.

  Bornmann, F. (1974) “Osservazio
ni sul testo dei Frammenti di Prisco,” Maia 26: 111–120.

  Bornmann, F. (1979) Prisci Panitae Fragmenta, Firenze: Le Monnier.

  Bouffartigue, J. (1992) L’Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes.

  Bowersock, G.W. (1978) Julian the Apostate, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  Bowersock, G.W. (1986) “From Emperor to Bishop: The Self-Conscious Transformation of Political Power in the Fourth Century A.D.,” Classical Philology 81: 298–307.

  Bowersock, G.W. (1990a) Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  Bowersock, G.W. (1990b) Review of Matthews (1989), Journal of Roman Studies 80: 244–250.

  Bowersock, G.W., P. Brown, and O. Grabar, eds (1999) Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  Braun, R. and J. Richer (1978) L’Empereur Julien de l’histoire à la légende (331–1715), Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

  Braund, D. (1994) Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC–AD 562, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  Breebaart, A.B. (1979) “Eunapius of Sardis and the Writing of History,” Mnemosyne 32: 360–375.

  Brock, S.P. (1982) “Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties,” Studies in Church History 18: 1–19.

  Brock, S.P. (1994) “Greek and Syriac in Late Antique Syria,” in A.K. Bowman and G. Woolf, eds, Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–160.

  Brok, M.F.A. (1976/7) “Un Maletendu tenace (Les rapports entre Hérodien et Ammien Marcellin,” Revue des études anciennes 78/9: 199–207.

  Brown, P. (1971) The World of Late Antiquity AD 150–750, New York: W.W. Norton.

  Brown, P. (1972) Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, New York: Harper & Row.