We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
When in A.D. 378 Ammianus Marcellinus fails us we have for the rest of the century and, indeed, for the whole history of the Theodosian house in the East a considerable amount of varied documentation. But, lacking ‘an accurate and faithful guide’ like Ammianus, for a coherent picture of the political and military activity of the period we must have recourse to the inferior and derivative New History of Zosimus, partisan ecclesiastical histories, and late and skimpy chronicles. In these circumstances the fragments of the History of Eunapius, preserved mostly in the Excerpta of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but also in some notices of the Suda, have considerable value. For, despite Eunapius’ clear inferiority to Ammianus as an historian, he was a contemporary of the events which he described. The fragments have been underused, which is probably due to the common, though not wholly accurate, opinion that Zosimus, being nothing more than a slavish copier of Eunapius, faithfully preserves what his source wrote. Yet (ignoring the problem of the degree of Zosimus’ dependence) he greatly condensed his source, and thus there is much in the Eunapian survivals that is not in the New History. The final fragments (80-88), to which I wish to address myself, are especially important because much of their material corresponds to a lacuna in Zosimus’ text, and the ecclesiastical historians,who make some use of Eunapius, appear to have deserted him here, probably because they found his version of events, especially those involving John Chrysostom, unpalatable.
1 The view of Ridley, R.T., 'Eunapius and Zosimus', Helikon 9–10 (1969–70), 574–92,Google Scholar that Zosimus departed in places from Eunapius’ version, is, despite the implicit rejection by Paschoud, F. (Cinq études sur Zosime [Paris 1975], esp. 207–12)Google Scholar convincing. Barnes, T.D. (The Sources of the Historia Augusta [Bruxelles 1978], 121–3) also ignores Ridley while arguing Zosimus’ complete derivativeness.Google Scholar
2 refer to the fragments by the numbering of the edition of Müllier, C. (Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum 4 [Paris 1851]),Google Scholar but in every case I have checked the text against the edition of the Excerpta de Sententiis of U. Ph. Boissevain (Berlin 1906) and of the Suda by Adler, A. (Leipzig 1928–35).Google Scholar In speaking of the ‘final fragments’ I ignore, of course, frags. 89-110, placed at the end as sedis incertae. Also, I do not discuss frag. 81, which is not certainly from Eunapius and is of no relevance to the present paper.
3 I prefer the moderate view of Mendelssohn, L. in his edition of Zosimus (Leipzig 1887), 36 and n. 1,Google Scholar to that of, for example, Jeep, L., ‘Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern’, JCPh., Suppl. 14 (1885), 53–178, who argued for large-scale use.Google Scholar
4 Bibl. cod. 77(ed.Henry, R., 1 [Paris 1959], 158):Google Scholarάποτελευτςίδέείςτήν 'Ονωρίουκαί Αρκαδίου των Θεοδοσίου παίδων βασιλείαν, έκεινον τον χρόνον τέλος της Ιστορίας ποιησάμενος, òv Άρσάκιος μεν τοΰ χρυσού της έκκλησίας στόμαχος Ιωάννου άπελαθέντος είς τόν άρχιερατικόν θρόνον άπηγμένος ίεράτευεν, ή δέ roti βασιλεύοντος Αρκαδίου γυνή κατά γαστρος έχουσα καί άμβλώσασα τον 6ίον άπέλειπεν.
5 Both in Müller, 4. 53. A third possibility, that the second edition of the History was prepared after Eunapius’ death and was continued beyond 404, has been disposed of by Chalmers, W.R., ‘The ΝΕΑ ΕΚΔΟΣΙΣ of Eunapius’ Histories’, CQ 47 (1953), 165 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Müller, 4. 8, suggests that fati necessitas dictated the point of termination.
7 Eunapius is not named as the source of this notice, but to judge from the parallel material in Zosimus (5. 20. 1) the ascription seems reasonable. Fravitta is also mentioned in frag. 60 as a Gothic chieftain loyal to Theodosius I (cf. Zosimus 4. 56).
8 ώς βάρβαρος βαρβάρφ και μύστης μύστη παρέχων διαφυγην καί σωτηρίαν. The critics of Fravitta are the anti-German party at Constantinople (cf. Bury, J.B., History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian, repr. 2 vols. [New York 1958], 1. 126 ff.).Google Scholar In the original there was probably more of the same and a defence by Fravitta of his paganism. But the text of the fragment is badly mutilated and much of it makes no sense.
9 Zosimus 5. 21. 4–6 parallels frag. 82. The exemplum, which is really a separate passage, does not name Fravitta, but it is a reasonable assumption that it was used in praise of his generalship.
10 Eunapius is not named, but the style and subject-matter look Eunapian. Zosimus, 5. 25, remarks the Isaurian war and Arbazacius’ inglorious part in it (also Sozomen 8. 25; Philostorgius 11. 8; Palladius, Dial, de vit. S. Jo. Chrysostomi 16, in PG 47. 53). Marcellinus in his Chronicle appears to date the beginning of the war to 405, but since the sources place it before the death of Eudoxia, 404 is the latest possible date; E.W. Brooks in CMH 1. 461, prefers 403.
11 John, , comes sacrarum largitionum in 404Google Scholar (Palladius, Dial. … 3,in PG 47. 14), was the alleged lover of Eudoxia (Zosimus 5. 18. 8) and the confidant of Arcadius even after the death of the Empress ( Synesius, Ep. 110). He was one of the leaders of the anti-German party. Eunapius calls him τεχνικόν δή τίνα Ιερακοτρόφον, rendered by Müller as callidum scilicet Hieracis alumnum. But since Hierax appears to have been a minion of John’s, I would take -τρόφον = -βοσκόν, one example of which is given by Liddell and Scott (cf. Mendelssohn ad Zos. 5. 23. 1).
12 The Greek is ούτω γοϋν και ό Έρεννιανος τότε τον Ίέρακα τω πολλά μεν ύφελέσθαι, πλείονα δέ καταβαλεϊν συλλαβών απέδειξε δικαίας άποτίνοντα τιμωρίας του κατά Φράβιθον which I render, ‘Thus, at that time Herennianus arrested Hierax, who, having stolen much, paid out more; and by this means he made Hierax pay a suitable penalty for the death of Fravitta.’ The Greek does not suggest that Hierax lost his life, but that he lost his wealth.
13 Cf. Hes. Op. 202-12, a parable on the irresistibility of might and thus appropriate for the transactions described by Eunapius.
14 The fragment ends with a separate passage, also on the sale of offices. The jackdaw is, of course, the prefect (see n. 30).
15 This fragment, too, is badly mutilated. For Eunapius' opinion of Stilicho, see frags. 62 and 63.
16 Precise references to Zosimus at nn. 7, 10 and 11.
17 Zosimus typically excises the rhetoric on Arbazacius’ character.
18 Aurelian, Saturninus and John, who had been taken hostage by Gainas and exiled.
19 Photius (quoted at n. 4) implies that Eunapius mentioned Chrysostom’s exile.
20 So Cameron, A.D.E., Claudian. Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius (Oxford 1970), 135 (with further references). CIL 3. 9510 has been taken to mention Fravitta as postconsular (i.e. in 402), but it has been heavily restored.Google Scholar
21 Op. cit. (at n. 3) 243 n. to 11. 15 ff.
22 Socrates 6. 6; Sozomen 8. 4; John of Antioch, frag. 190; as well as Zosimus 5. 21. 9.
23 Frag. 87 ad fin. makes it clear that Hierax had a hand in Fravitta’s death.
24 So, for example, Cameron, loc. cit. (at η. 20) and Stein, E., Histoire du bas-Empire, trans. Palanque, J.-R. (Paris 1959), 1. 237.Google Scholar I am disputing only the dating, not the suggestion that Fravitta was proposing a rapprochement with Stilicho.
25 See Bury, op. cit. (at n. 8) 1. 158 n. 1.
26 Schoo, G., Die Quellen desKirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Berlin 1911), 81 ff., basing himself upon parallels with Zosimus. The extent of the debt is unclear.Google Scholar
27 8. 25: Στελίχων …, εις έχθραν καταστάς τοις Αρκαδίου άρχουσι, έβεβούλευτο προς έαυτά συγκροϋσαι τα βασίλεια.
28 This is clear from the initial words of the sentence quoted at n. 12.
29 Zosimus’ passage does not, of course, parallel frag. 87. It speaks of confiscation of estates and probably refers to the persecution of the supporters of Chrysostom (cf. Sozomen 8. 23). But it establishes the character of Eudoxia presented in the work. Zonaras (13, 20. 9) says of her: ή δε ην γύναιον ίταμον και χρημάτων ήττώμενων έρωτος, κάντεϋθεν καί άδικώτατον.
30 The prefect would have been Flavius Eutychianus, who was also involved in the persecution of Chrysostom’s supporters (PLRE 1 ‘Eutychianus’ 5).
31 Mendelssohn, 266 n. to 11. 6 ff., suggested that Zosimus 5. 38, which attributes the deaths of Stilicho and his wife Serena to their greed and impiety, is an insert of Eunapian material in the part of the New History based on Olympiodorus (who, unlike Eunapius, favoured Stilicho). If so, this material might have been associated with frag. 88. However, Paschoud, 140 ff., and Cameron, A.D.E., ‘Theodosius and the Regency of Stilicho’, HSCPh 73 (1969), 259, reject this.Google Scholar
32 Boissevain, 103 η. to 1. 5.
33 Zosimus, 5. 18. 8 makes this allegation.
34 Bury, 1. 138; Stein, loc. cit. (at n. 24). Brooks, E.W., in CMH l. 460, suggests that Eudoxia’s supporters killed Fravitta because he had incurred her enmity.Google Scholar
35 As well as the debatable passage of Zosimus cited above (n. 31 ), see, for example, Eunapius, Vit. Soph. (ed. Wright) 464, pp. 386–90, and 481, pp. 458–60.
