Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

us here, being printed under the title Origo Constantini imperatoris in vol. i. p. 7-11 (1891).

The unknown author of this fragment wrote in the fourth century, and Mommsen designates him as "optimi et Ammiano neque aetate neque auctoritate inferioris" and adds that he probably wrote "ante tempora absolute Christiana". Several passages (e.g., 20, 33, 34), which are redolent of the Christian clerical style, are shown to be interpolations derived from Orosius (Mommsen, pref. p. 6; cp. W. Ohnesorge, Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino, p. 88 sqq., 1885, who has some good remarks on the author's geographical knowledge, and the probability that he wrote in Italy).

[The ANONYMI MONODIA (first published by Morelli in 1691) was supposed to be (in accordance with its title in the Palatine Ms.) a funeral oration on Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Great; and on this supposition Gibbon made important use of it (p. 212, n. 26; cp. p. 232, n. 71). But it is only necessary to read it carefully to see that the inscription is false, and that it cannot refer to the younger Constantine. This was proved by Wesseling, who made it probable that the subject of the oration was Theodore Palæologus. As the argument of Gibbon as to Fausta's survival was recently repeated by such a capable scholar as Victor Schultze, with an appeal to the Monodia (Brieger's Zeitschr. f. Kirchengeschichte, viii. p. 541, apparently he had not read the document), it may be worth while to state briefly the chief decisive points. (I cite from the most recent edition: Anon. Græci oratio funebris, by C. E. Frotscher, 1856.) (1) The very first words are quite impossible in an orator of the fourth century : "Ανδρες Ῥωμαῖοι, μᾶλλον δὲ τῶν Ρωμαίων ποτὲ λείψανα δυστυχή. (2) The subject of the laudation died of a plague (p. 14); Constantine according to our authorities was killed by violence. (3) ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐκ Πελοποννήσου πρὸς ἡμᾶς wádir ávýyov (p. 16) does not apply to Constantine, nor yet (4) the statement (p. 26) that he sent ambassadors to Iberia (whether Spanish or Caucasian) to get him a wife.]

It is much to be regretted that the history of Constantine the Great, in two books, written by a young Athenian named PRAXAGORAS at the age of twentytwo, is only known to us by a brief quotation in Photius, cod. 62, p. 20, ed. Bekk. (=F. H. G. iv. p. 2). Photius does not give his date. Müller says he wrote at end of Constantine's reign, or under Constantius, ut uidetur, but does not give reasons. In accepting this date as probably right I am guided by the following consideration. Praxagoras (Photius tells us) was a pagan ("Edλny tyv Opnoke (av), and yet he praised Constantine very highly, setting him above all his predecessors who held the Imperial dignity. It is extremely improbable that a pagan living in the second half of the fourth century-a contemporary of Julian and Eunapius-or in the fifth, would have adopted this attitude. Hostility to Constantine's memory is a note of Julian and all the pagans who came after him. It seems to me, therefore, that the first half of the fourth century is the only epoch which suits our data respecting Praxagoras.

JULIAN has been treated so fully in the text that only bibliographical points need be noted here. My references throughout are to the critical text of Hertlein (Gibbon used that of Spanheim, 1696), which includes the extant works, except (1) the treatise contra Christianos, which has been ingeniously reconstituted from the citations of Cyril and edited by C. J. Neumann, 1880; and (2) six letters which A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus discovered in a Ms. at the porn s COTÓKOV in the island of Chalce near Constantinople. These are published in the Rheinisches Museum, 42 (1887), p. 15 sqq., in the Maurogordateios Bibliotheke and elsewhere [number 1, to his uncle Julian, 2, to the priestess Theodora (cp. Hertl. Ep. 5), 3, to Theodorus, high priest, 4, to Priscus, 5, to Maximin, 6. probably to a priestess]. Three of these [1, 2, 3] are considered of doubtful authenticity by Schwarz in his valuable Julianstudien, Philol. li. p. 623 sqq. (1892), where he tries to discriminate in the extant correspondence of Julian, what is genuine, spurious, and doubtful. He condemns letters 8, 18, 19, 24, 25, 34, 40, 41, 53, 54, 60, 61, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75. Doubts are attached to 28, 32, 57, 68. Letter 27 is mainly genuine, but is tainted by an interpolation, § 9-21.

(Schwarz also disproves Cumont's conjecture that a number of the letters are the work of Julian the Sophist, p. 626 sqq.) Julian wrote a special work in his Alamannic campaign, not extant now, which was used by Ammianus and Líbanius (see below under Ammianus). The Cohortatio ad Græcos, which had been falsely ascribed to Justin, has been shown by J. Asmus to be a contemporary polemical tract against Julian (acc. to J. Dräseke, Apollinarios von Laodicea, 1891, p. 85 899., identical with the treatise of Apollinaris on Truth, mentioned by Sozomen, v. 18). It was used by Gregory Naz., in his Invectives. See Zeitsch. für wissensch. Theologie, xxxviii. 115 sqq., 1895. The Therapeutic of Theodoret seems to have been directed against Julian's "Rhetor-edict" and his work against the Galilæans; see J. Asmus, Byz. Zeitsch. 3, p. 116 sqq. [Modern works: J. F. Mücke, Flavius Cl. Julianus, 1866-8. Rendall, The Emperor Julian, 1878. Naville, Julien l'Apostat et sa philosophie du polythéisme, 1877. Miss Gardner, Julian the Philosopher, 1895. Sievers (in his Studien), Julians Perserkrieg. Rode, Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser J. gegen die christliche Kirche, 1877. Schwarz, de vita et scriptis Juliani imperatoris, 1888. F. Cumont, Sur l'authenticité de quelques lettres de Julian, 1889. Wiegand, Die Alamannenschlacht von Strassburg (in Heft 3 of Beitr. zur Landes und Volkeskunde von Elsass-Lothr., 1887). Koch, Leyden Dissertation on Julian's Gallic campaigns, 1890. Reinhardt, Der Tod des Kaisers Julian, 1891, and Der Perserkrieg des K. J., 1892. Klimek, Zur Würdigung der Handschriften und zur Textkritik Julians, 1888. See also G. Boissier's La fin du paganisme; Petit de Julleville's L'Ecole d'Athènes au ive siècle après Jésus Christ. Others have been mentioned in the notes.]

Of the life and works of LIBANIUS (314 c. 395 A.D.) a full account will be found in the standard monograph of Sievers, Das Leben des Libanius (1868), which is full of valuable research for the general history of the time. Reiske's edition of the Orations and Declamations appeared too late (1784-1797, 4 volumes) for Gibbon to use. A new edition both of Speeches and Letters (ed. Wolf, 1738) is much needed. 1607 letters are preserved, of which Sievers gives a full dated index (p. 297 sqq.). Four hundred letters professing to be Latin translations from originals of Libanius have been proved by R. Förster to be forgeries (F. Zambeccari und die Briefe des Libanius, 1876; cp. Sievers, ib. Beil. T.T.). The dates of the Speeches of Libanius, which concern us in the present volume, are, according to Sievers (p. 203), as follows:

(1) Baσidinós (lx.)=c. 348 A.D. (349 a.d., Tillemont).

(2) Movedía ènì Nikoμndeig (lxii.)=c. 358 A.D. (after 24th August).

(3) 'AvTioxikós (xi. )=360 a.d.

(4) Προσφωνητικὸς Ἰουλιανῷ (xiii.)=July 362 A. D.

(5) ὑπὲρ Αριστοφάνους (xiv.)=362 A.D. (intercession for a friend who had been

exiled).

Movedía ènì Top év Aáþvy ve❖ (lxi.)=362 a.d. (after 23rd October)

(7) εἰς Ἰουλιανὸν ὕπατον (xii.)=1st January 363 A. D.

(8) πρεσβευτικὸς πρὸς Ἰουλιανόν (xv.)

πρὸς ̓Αντ. περὶ τῆς βασ. οργής (χνί). } =after March 363 A.D.

(10) Movedía enì 'Iovλcave (xvii.)=end July 363 A.D.

(11) Ἐπιτάφιος ἐπὶ Ιουλιανῷ (xviii.)=368 or 369 A. D.

(12) ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἰουλιανοῦ τιμωρίας (xxiii.)=after 378 A.D.

Of the orations of THEMISTIUS (a younger contemporary and friend of Libanius) those which concern this volume are the Panegyrics of Constantius: i. A.D. 347; ii. A.D. 355; iii. (IIpeoßevrikós) and iv., delivered in the senate at Constantinople A.D. 357. The subject of i. is diλar@pwmia, which Christ (Gr. Litteratur, p. 672) designates as the Schlagwort of Themistius,-a pagan whose tolerance stands out in contrast with the temper of men like Libanius and Eunapius. (Ed. Dindorf, 1832; E. Baret, de Them. sophista et apud imperatores oratore, Paris, 1853.)

The Latin panegyric of NAZARIUS on Constantine (see above, p. 304) and the speech of thanksgiving of CLAUDIUS MAMERTINUS to Julian are printed in Baehrens' xii. Panegyr. Lat., as x. and xi.

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, born c. 330, belonged to a good Antiochene family (Amm. xix. 8, 6), and was thus a Græcus (xxxi. 16), though he wrote his history in Latin, which had become a second mother-tongue. His good birth and connexions gained him admission to the corps of the domestici (see below, App. 13). His military service probably lasted somewhat more than ten years. We find him at Nisibis in 353 under Ursicinus (xiv. 9, 1). Next year he is in the west; we catch him on the way to Milan (ib. 11, 5); and he goes with other protectores, domestici and tribuni (scholarum ?) on a mission to Köln (xv. 5, 2, and xviii. 8, 11). But in 357 he returns to the east, to the scene of the Persian war (xvi. 10, 21), and Gibbon notices his escape from Amida. He went through Julian's campaign and probably retired from military service soon after the conclusion of the war by Jovian's treaty (cp. Büdinger, Ammianus Marcellinus und die Eigenart seines Geschichtswerkes, 1895).

His Res Gestæ in thirty-one books was intended as a continuation of Tacitus, and began with Nerva (xxxi. 16). "The first thirteen books, a superficial epitome of 257 years, are now lost; the last eighteen, which contain no more than twentyfive years, still preserve the copious and authentic history of his own times" (Gibbon, ch. xxvi. n. 113). Book xiv. begins with the acts of the Cæsar Gallus in 353 A.D., and book xxxi. ends with the battle of Hadrianople in 378 A.D. The work seems to have been finished early in the last decade of the century, and he won by it a considerable reputation at Rome (cp. Libanius, Epp. ed. Wolf, Ep. to Amm. Marc. pp. 132 sqq.). Characteristic are his imitations of Tacitus and Sallust, and his contempt for the scandal-mongering popular history of Marius Maximus. The impartiality of Ammianus is appreciated by Gibbon, and generally recognized. For the Persian wars his account is not only that of a contemporary but of an eye-witness. As to his sources for Julian's German wars, see below. He was a pagan, but was not unjust to Christianity, of which he speaks with respect, and, though an admirer of Julian, shows by a very strong expression his disapprobation of that Emperor's measure which prohibited Christians from teaching (xxii. 10, 7). For his view of Christianity cp. xxi. 16, 18 (quoted by Gibbon) and xxii. 11, 5 (nihil nisi iustum suadet et lene). His remarkable phrase about the founder of Christianity was unknown until A. von Gutschmid brilliantly restored a corrupt passage, xxii. 16, 22:—

Ex his fontibus [sc. Egyptian sources] per sublimia gradiens sermonum amplitudine Iouis æmulus non uisa Aegypto militauit sapientia gloriosa.

The name of the wise man, thus described, has disappeared from the Mss., and Valesius proposed to substitute Platon for non. But Gutschmid saw that the reference is to Jesus, and that the abbreviated name ihs had fallen out accidentally after his. Thus ex his Iesus fontibus now appears in Gardthausen's text. (Non u. Aegypto is not verbally true, according to the account of Matthew, but it is in any case true in spirit.) Ammianus was doubtless thinking of the doctrine of the Logos in the fourth Gospel.

In connexion with this passage I would hazard a conjecture. I think that when Ammianus went out of his way to connect Jesus with Egypt, he had in mind a letter of Julian to the Alexandrians (Ep. li.), where the Emperor reproaches them for the prevalence of the Galilean superstition in their cities. The general theme of the letter is: What is Alexandria to Jesus or Jesus to Alexandria? The Ptolemies, he says (p. 557, l. 7, ed. Hertl.), our rois' Inσoû doyois nű§noav avтýv ovdè τῇ τῶν ἐχθίστων Γαλιλαίων διδασκαλίᾳ τὴν οἰκονομίαν αὐτῇ ταύτην ὑφ ̓ ἧς νῦν ἐστιν εὐδαίμων ἐξειργάσαντο. Again (p. 558, 1. 7), ὃν δὲ οὔτε ὑμεῖς οὔτε οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἑοράκασιν ̓Ιησοῦν οἴεσθε χρῆναι θεὸν λόγον ὑπάρχειν. I suggest that Ammian's words are a criticism on Julian's argument, and that non uisa Aegypto was suggested by the sentence last quoted.

The attitude of Ammianus to internal ecclesiastical history has been well brought out by Büdinger (op. cit. p. 15 sqq.). He declines to enter into the details of Christian controversies; his idea is that the Christians fight among themselves like wild beasts.-His ideas of morality are high and strict; he believes in progress and the enlightenment of his own age, cp. xviii. 7, 7. He has

a high ideal of the imperial authority. He shows towards the Germans a certain bitterness which is never apparent in his treatment of the oriental nations. That he was in a certain measure superstitious, notwithstanding his enlightenment, has been brought out by Büdinger. A proneness to exaggerate signs and portents may partly account for the extraordinary mistake in xx. 3, 1, where it is stated that in the east of the Empire there was an eclipse of the sun visible from dawn to noon, in 360 A.D. (the month is not given),-a total eclipse, for the stars were visible. In that year there was a total eclipse, but only visible in Australia; and there was also an eclipse in the afternoon of 28th August, (1) visible in Asia but further east than the east boundary of the Empire, and (2) partial, so that intermicabant iugiter stelle could not apply to it. (Query: Did Ammianus, by a lapse of memory, set down under a wrong year the total eclipse of 4th June, 364?)

One sharp criticism of Gibbon on Ammianus (see p. 398, n. 6) is due, as Mr. Hodgkin has pointed out to me, to a misunderstanding Ammianus means in the passage in question that the troops were not to reach Persia, but to muster in Italy, at the beginning of spring.

A reference must be made to the friendship of Ammian with his fellow-citizen and fellow-pagan Libanius. Their correspondence seems to have begun (not very cordially perhaps) about 359; Libanius, ep. 141, ed. Wolf; and a very interesting letter (cited above) is extant (date 390-1) in which the rhetor admonishes Ammianus to go on with his historical work. In ep. 232 he refers to ò кoλòs 'Aμuiavós. In other letters addressed to Ammianus or Marcellinus there is nothing to identify the writer's correspondent.

For contemporary history Ammianus made use of the writings of Julian, the history of Eutropius and other sources. Much has been written on the subject of his fontes: Gardthausen, Die geographischen Quellen Ammians, 1873 (and Coniectanea Ammianea, 1869); Hertz, Aulus Gellius und Ammianus Marcellinus (Hermes 8, 1874); Sudhaus, de ratione quæ intercedat inter Zosimi et Ammiani de bello a Jul. imp. cum Pers. gesto relationes, 1870; Hugo Michael, de A. M. studiis Ciceronianis, 1874, die verlorenen Bücher des Ammianus M., 1880. Hermes 25, 1889, E. von Borries, Die Quellen zu den Feldzügen Julians des Abtrünnigen gegen die Germanen (p. 173 sqq.), elaborately and ingeniously discusses the question of the relations between the sources for Julian's German campaigns (viz., Ammian, Libanius' Epitaphios, and Zosimus). His results

are:

In

(1) Libanius used all Julian's writings including a lost work on the battle of Strassburg. Borries thinks the 'Emirábios was composed as early as end of 363. (2) (Zosimus drew from) Eunapius (who) used a memoir of the physician Oribasius, and various writings (including lost letters) of Julian, but not the work on the campaign against the Alamanni.

(3) A lost source, x., used all the writings of Julian and the Memoir of Oribasius.

(4) Ammianus used two sources (as is shown by a number of contradictions and repetitions, and the fact that he sometimes agrees with Libanius, sometimes with Eunapius (Zosimus)). These sources were Julian's monograph on the Alamannic campaign, and x.

Borries shows that there were no 'Commentaries" of Julian such as Hecker assumes in " Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Julian," 1876 (cp. Die Alamannenschlacht bei Strassburg, in Jahrbb. für class. Philol., 1879, p. 59-80). Gardthausen's edition of Ammianus (1874) is the best.

On Ammian's geographical knowledge see Mommsen, Hermes 16, 1881.

EUNAPIUS of Sardis was born about 347, and survived 414 A.D. For the facts which are known about his life see Müller, Frag. Hist. Græc. iv. p. 7-8. He wrote (1) a continuation of the Chronicle of Dexippus, which ended in 270 A.D. and brought it down to the death of Theodosius I., in 395 A.D. Then (2) he composed (c. 405 A.D.) his Lives of [23] Philosophers and Sophists, a work which is preserved (ed. Boissonade, in Didot series, 1849), and is valuable as a history of

the fourth century renascence of sophistic. (3) About ten years later, he took up his history again and continued it to 404 A.D.,-probably intending to make the death of Arcadius (408) his terminus. Of the history we have only fragments (edited by Müller, F. H. G. iv.); but we have further knowledge of it through the fact that it was the main source of Zosimus. It was characterized by all the weaknesses of contemporary rhetoric. For the history of events from Diocletian forward Eunapius' narrative and the Epitome of Victor seem to have been drawn from a common source, but I agree with Mendelssohn in deciding, in opposition to Opitz and Jeep, that this source was not Ammianus. For the campaigns of Julian, Eunapius used the Memoirs of Oribasius. Like Libanius, he was a firm adherent of the old religion, and an enthusiastic admirer of Julian.

For Magnus of Carrhæ and Eutychianus who wrote accounts of the Persian campaign of Julian, see Müller, F. H. G. iv. 4-6, and Mendelssohn's Preface to Zosimus, p. xxxix. sqq.

ZOSIMUS, count and ex-advocatus fisci, wrote his history, as L. Mendelssohn (who has recently published an excellent critical edition, 1887) showed, between the years 450 and 501 A.D. He is not to be identified with either of his two contemporary namesakes, the grammarian of Ascalon or the sophist of Gaza. That he lived part of his life at Constantinople has been inferred from his accurate description of the city, ii. c. 30 sqq. Like Eunapius he was devoted to paganism, and hostile to the Christian Emperors.

Introducing his work by expressing his belief in a guiding providence in history, and appealing to the work of Polybius in which the wonderful career of Rome was unfolded, Zosimus proceeds to give a rapid sketch of Imperial history up to the death of Claudius (i. 1-46), and then begins, with the accession of Aurelian, a fuller narrative, coming down to the siege of Rome by Alaric in 410. The author clearly intended to continue his work to a later date; if the sixth book, of which there are only thirteen chapters, had reached the average length of the first five, it would probably have ended with the death of Honorius. Between books i. and ii. there is a great gap, corresponding to the reigns of Carus. Carinus and Diocletian. We may conjecture that book ii. began with the accession of Diocletian.

The imporant question of the sources of Zosimus has been acutely investigated by Mendelsohn 'see Preface and Notes to his edition). His results are briefly : (1) For chaps 1-46, Zosimus used a lost source. in which the account of the Gothic invasions was drawn from the Scythica of Dexippus, but the Chronica of that writer was not consulted. The hypothesis of an indirect use of the same source will explain the remarkable agreements between Zonaras and Zosimus; and the identification of the source is bound up with the perplexed question of the fontes of Zonaras. (2) For the main body of the work Zosimus has chiefly relied on Eunapius, as can be shown from the Eunapian fragments. Besides oracles, and one or two passages of small importance, which he has taken from other sources, Mendelssohn makes it probable that the digression on the secular games at beginning of book ii. was derived from Phlegon's treatise on Roman Feasts; and explains the agreements between Zosimus and Ammianus in the account of Julian's Persian expedition by a common use of Magnus of Carrhæ (cp. Zosimus' own words, iii. 2, 4, where he promises to tell of Julian μátora öσa τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελείφθαι δοκεῖ-doubtless an allusion to Eunapius). (3) For the last years, 407-410 A.D., he uses Olympiodorus, whom he mentions. It is important here to consult Sozomen, who used the same source.

There is an elaborate and admirable "characteristic" of Zosimus as an historian in the Analekten to the fourth part of Ranke's Weltgeschichte (Abth. 2, p. 264 sqq.).

The CONSULAR FASTI of Idatius or, correctly, Hydatius, the Spaniard, consist of three parts: (1) from the first consuls to the foundation of Constantinople, 330 A.D., (2) from A.D. 330 to 395, (3) from A.D. 395 to 468. Parts i. and ii. are an epitome

« ForrigeFortsett »