In the reconstructed Philosophical History of Damacius, which is our main source of repainting the circle of late platonic philosophers and their world in the 5th and early 6th century, the author mentioned Salustios of Emesa. In a few places Damascius gave this person the name of Cynic. He said: “His [Salustios'] philosophy was along the lines of Cynicism” (κυνικώτερον δὲ ἐϕιλοσόϕει), and in another passage: As a Cynic philosopher Salustios (Ὁ Σαλούστιος κυνίζων) did not follow the well-trodden path of philosophy, but the one made jagged through criticism and abuse and especially through toil in the service of virtue. According to his opinion, in the modern historiography Salustios is called the last Cynic philosopher of the antiquity, the last heir of philosophy and spiritual movement which was founded by the famous Diogenes of Sinope in the fourth century BC. He was not only the last one, but also the only Cynic philosopher known by name after 4th century who is described by sources.

In the times of the Roman Empire cynicism was a vital philosophy, but also it became the widespread social movement which Giovanni Reale named the Phenomena of the Masses. On the one hand, we have the Cynicism of well-educated philosophers like Demetrius — a friend of Seneca, or Dio of Prusa.

1. Anitius Manlius Severinus Boethius (475/477–525/526) was a formative thinker of a transition period, for his times were stormy ones. As John Marenbon remarks his birth coincides with the deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus, in 476. Italy, after a period of barbaric incursions which annihilated the Roman Empire had a short time of respite (Pax gothica) under the reign of Theodoric the Great, king of Ostrogoths.

Boethius himself came from aristocratic stock, namely from the ancient family of Anitii. After he had lost his parents, he was brought up by Quintus Memmius Simmachus, a leading member of one of the foremost Roman families of the day. The family tradition and the milieu where Boethius spent his formative years were favorable for his philosophical and literary interests, the general political situation and the position of his family tended naturally to push him into politics, while his Christianity inspired him with interest in theology, so there is no wonder that during his whole life his preoccupations were divided between these three areas. Although Cassiodorus also mentiones that he was a poet.

The philosophical and literary nourishment he received was of the best quality that century of declining Roman culture was able to offer him, as he probably studied in the philosophical school of Alexandria, possibly in others, such as that of Athens.

Abstract: The aim of this article is to draw attention to the need to intensify historical research on Herulian settlements in Byzantium under Emperors Anastasius and Justinian based on the analysis of written sources. The starting point for studying the history of the Heruli in Late Antiquity should be a historical analysis of the excursus devoted to them by Procopius of Caesarea in the book VI Wars. As a result of a historical analysis based on literal interpretation and critical examination, taking into account legal circumstances and the historical context, it can greatly contribute to our knowledge of Herulian history.

To sum up the results of the conducted research, it is possible to give quite a precise description of the relations between the empire and the Heruli based on an analysis of the accounts of Procopius of Caesarea and Marcellinus Comes. In 512, Emperor Anastasius settled the tribe on the empire's lands. Taking advantage of their difficult situation, he probably forced them into full subordination. It seems that the Heruli, deprived of their tribal organisation and striving to keep their independence, rebelled and attacked the Romans at the first opportunity, i.e. ca. 514. The imperial army managed to defeat them as early as 515 or 516, and Anastasius refused to give them the status of allies, i.e. improve their position. In this situation it seems most likely that the empire completely broke its ties with the Heruli and the tribe left the empire's lands.

I. The θεȋoς ἀνήρ

1. Social reality or scholarly construct?

The first question that springs to mind when confronted with the theme of this volume is a methodological one: is the term θεȋoς ἀνήρ a recent coinage — a modern convention, like, say, “Neoplatonism” — or is it contemporary with the society we are studying? Even a quick glance at the evidence reveals that the formula is ancient and, what is more, of regular usage in late antique society. It was an expression to which people had recourse in order to describe a familiar type, a figure who played a role in their lives both as an ideal and a reality. And if we were to compare it with the term “Second Sophistic”, which is a methodological construct invented by a chronicler to legitimise a social trend by transforming it into a consistent intellectual movement, we would immediately see how much more weight it carried in contemporary society; for, unlike the “Second Sophistic”, an expression that would have meant nothing to people outside Philostratus' own narrow circle, the term θεȋoς ἀνήρ corresponds to a concept created and nurtured to meet the needs of an entire society. Whichever way one approaches the subject therefore, it is not possible to deconstruct it along the lines dictated by the “methodologies of suspicion” the notion and reality of the θεȋoς ἀνήρ is firmly embedded in the society of late antiquity.

1. Introduction

In the research of the last twenty years, a paradigm shift in the study and perception of Late Antiquity can be sensed, from an epoch of decay and anxiety to an epoch of transformation, crucial in shaping later European civilizations. But in all these varying pictures one motif remains constant: the sense that in Late Antiquity there was a special keenness for religion, for the interaction with the divine world. The collection of biographical anecdotes of philosophers and rhetoricians of the 4th century assembled by Eunapios of Sardes can be viewed as a typical product of late antique paganism: for the highest bios, the philosophical life, a special connection with the divine is a must. Whether viewed by Praechter or Geffcken as an instance of the irrational wonder-craving bend of late Greek religion, or by Penella or Cox Miller as a means of circumscribing Eunapios' notion of true Hellenism, the Lives are of special interest as they provide us not with stories about legendary ancient philosophers, but with salient examples of what a 4th century cultivated pagan considered to be ‘divine’ humans among his contemporaries.

Eunapios' collection of figures embodying Hellenism features one female philosopher, Sosipatra, the wife of Eustathios. Her biography is inserted into that of her husband, which in turn forms part of the life of Aidesios, presented by Eunapios as Iamblichos' successor.