Three—
Synesius in Constantinople
I—
The Panhellenion
It was during his embassy to Constantinople that Synesius wrote both De regno and De providentia , the principal subjects of the following chapters. But there are two important preliminary questions. What is the date of the embassy? And once it had brought him to the capital, in what circles did he move?
The most important of Synesius's Constantinopolitan connections was undoubtedly Aurelian, one of the protagonists of the crisis of 400. It was he who, as PPO, finally granted Synesius's request for a reduction in the taxes of Pentapolis. In gratitude, Synesius took his new patron's side in the troubles of 400 and drew a flattering portrait of him under the guise of Osiris in De providentia . But it is not only politics that have been thought to bind Synesius to Aurelian. They are also supposed to have shared a passion for Hellenic culture. It has been widely believed that in Constantinople Synesius joined a sizable literary circle gathered around the great man. Bury characterizes Aurelian as "a man of considerable intellectual attainments . . . surrounded by men of letters."[1] This itself is doubtful enough. Moreover, added to this claim is the belief that the members of this circle were all either pagans or pagan sympathizers.
According to Demougeot, for example, while Theodosius was still
[1] Bury (1923)1958, 1:132.
alive, Aurelian "took care to conceal his sympathy for paganism, even going so far as to build a church in Constantinople." But in later years "his literary tastes, inherited from his father, brought him close to rhetors and pagans. . . . All those who dreamed of a pagan reaction and government by philosophers, as in the days of Julian, gathered around him and begged him to be their guide."[2] This passionate Hellenism is linked in turn with the passionate nationalism that is thought to have inspired the hostility of this group to barbarian encroachments on Greco-Roman ideals and privileges. This vivid page from a usually sober history is but a pale reflection of the thesis of Zakrzewski's book Le parti théodosien et son antithèse (Lvov, 1931). According to Zakrzewski, the politicians of Arcadius's court fell into two groups: those who continued the policies of Theodosius and were prepared to trust and work with barbarians (Rufinus, Eutropius, Caesarius), and the nationalists, the party of Aurelian whose spokesman was Synesius, specially invited for that purpose on the strength of his recent triumphs in the Neoplatonist circles of Alexandria. Their aim was to restore the empire of the Antonines, and their political activities were pursued under the cover of literary and scientific studies, with branches in the provinces but headquarters at Constantinople, in a circle called the Panhellenion. The "soul" of the movement was Neoplatonist philosophers, "agitators of the pagan party," as in the days of Julian.[3] Thus crudely stated, this "Neoplatonic freemasonry" (Zakrzewski's own phrase) may seem merely absurd, but in a more muted and insidious form it still exercises considerable influence.[4] Synesius's own enthusiasm for Greek literature and philosophy is beyond question. But even in his case culture is not at all the same thing as cult.
We may begin with the church Aurelian is supposed to have built as a young man to disguise his pagan sympathies. Aurelian was one of a number of Constantinopolitan magnates, including also the generals Victor and Saturninus, who were ardent followers of the Syrian monk Isaac. According to his Life , when Isaac died, his followers were carrying the body to its intended final resting place in their own monastery when a troop of men stationed outside by Aurelian, "one of the dignitaries of the emperor," seized it and carried it off to Aurelian's church of St. Stephen, which happened to be directly opposite, and placed it in the sanctuary to the right of the altar.[5]
[2] Demougeot 1951, 236.
[3] Zakrzewski 1931, 65f.
[4] For example, Holum, while rejecting Zakrzewski's nationalist party (1982, 68 n. 80), nonetheless works with the same simplistic identification of Hellenism and paganism.
[5] Vita Isaaci 4.18 (Acta Sanctorum May VII 258). We are here following up a suggestion made to us in conversation by Cyril Mango.
The Life of Isaac gives a precise consular date for Isaac's death: Merobaudes II and Saturninus. Thus Aurelian would have built his well-documented church of the protomartyr no later than 383.[6] Most historians have accepted this seemingly precise date for the church without question,[7] but the truth is not so simple. Isaac went down in history as the founder of Byzantine monasticism.[8] But there was one major difficulty in his biography: as contemporary sources show, Isaac had also been one of the most vigorous opponents of John Chrysostom. John tried to break Isaac's power over the monks of Constantinople, and Isaac naturally took steps to defend himself.[9] But after being hounded into exile and an early death, Chrysostom was soon rehabilitated and canonized. It then became an embarrassment that the saintly Isaac had led the dogs in what now seemed a shabby and spiteful vendetta. His biographers eventually solved the problem by a neat, if drastic, artifice: they antedated his death. If, as the Life alleges, Isaac died in 383, how could he have had anything to do with a persecution that did not begin until twenty years later? The truth is that Isaac undoubtedly outlived Chrysostom; all we know for certain is that he was succeeded by Dalmatios some time between 406 and 425.[10]
The Life of Isaac in its present form was compiled no earlier than the sixth century,[11] and it is by no means a reliable text. Yet it was a fact that Isaac's body was laid to rest in the wrong church, much to the evident embarrassment and regret of his followers. There seems no reason to doubt that Aurelian was responsible for securing it for his own church. But he would have been very young in 383. More importantly, it is odd that Aurelian should have built a church to Stephen of all the saints and martyrs as early as 383. The great explosion of interest in St. Stephen came with the discovery of his bones in a village near Jerusalem on 3 December 415.[12] Thereafter churches and martyria sprang up all over the empire, mainly to accommodate one or more of his rapidly circulating bones.
We cannot exclude the possibility that Aurelian simply chanced to
[6] Theodore Lector, pp. 132.11, 134.13; see Janin 1969, 472–73. It was destroyed in the earthquake of 869: Downey, 1955b, 599.
[7] To name only the most recent, von Haehling 1978, 79 ("im Jahre 383"); Clauss 1980, 148.
[8] Dagron 1970, 229–76.
[9] Dagron 1970, 245; Liebeschuetz 1984a, 90f.
[10] Dagron 1970, 245.
[11] Dagron 1970, 231f.; Rochelle Snee, GRBS 26 (1985): 405f.
[12] Lucian, Epistola ad omnem ecclesiam de revelatione corporis Stephani martyris , ed. S. Vanderlinden, REB 4 (1946): 178–217; see too E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire , A.D. 312–450 (Oxford 1982), 211–18.
pick on Stephen before 415, but it is incomparably more likely that his church, which is explicitly described as a martyrion,[13] dates from after then. It was not till 439 that the first relics reached Constantinople, brought by the empress Eudocia and subsequently housed in Pulcheria's church of St. Lawrence.[14] But it may be that Aurelian had hopes of obtaining some much earlier. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that this is precisely what happened. In 1906 F. Nau published an extract from an unpublished Paris MS of the Life of Isaac that includes an extra clause. Here we read that Aurelian "built in front of and to the south of the monastery of Isaac a martyrion under the name of the holy protomartyr Stephen [to place there his holy body brought from Jerusalem; then, having failed in this, for by the will of god it was placed in the Constantianai , he formed the plan of getting the body of Isaac in its place, which came to pass]."[15] Nau argued that the entire bracketed clause is an interpolation. The phrase printed in italics is certainly interpolated, since it refers to a much later story concerning relics deposited in her own church in the Constantianai by Anicia Juliana in the early sixth century.[16] But there seems no reason to exclude the rest of the clause. After years of eclipse during the ascendancy of Anthemius, Aurelian was finally restored to power and the prefecture in 414–16. It is entirely plausible that he should have wished to secure for himself the glory of bringing the first relic of the newly found bones of Stephen to Constantinople. We may imagine his embarrassment when, having built a martyrion specifically to house and display the holy relic, he learned that the authorities at Jerusalem were not going to deliver, and we may understand, if we cannot condone, the measures he took to make good the
[13] That is to say, a building (of whatever architectural form) that was intended to display "an object of Christian testimony" (C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture [New York 1975], 10, 73–75), in this case obviously a martyr's relics. For a sample of the literary evidence, Lampe, s.v. III.
[15] Revue de lorient[*] chrétien II (1906): 199f.
[16] Janin 1969, 474–76, with Wortley 1980, 385–86.
deficiency. Isaac was not the protomartyr, but he was at any rate a bona fide holy man—the best substitute that could be obtained at short notice.
On this scenario, Isaac died in or soon after 416.[17] Such a date harmonizes perfectly with the known limits for his death (406–25), the discovery of the bones of Stephen, and Aurelian's restoration to the prefecture.[18] But there can be little doubt that Aurelian's devotion to Isaac dates back at least to 400. His associate Saturninus, who is also recorded as a follower of Isaac,[19] did not long survive 400.
It is hardly likely that the disciple of a Syrian monk also cultivated pagan Neoplatonists. And yet some scholars have been prepared to take all too literally the following report in De providentia of Osiris's exile: "It might be added that to a man who is blessed in all things even exile may be not without profit. During that time he was initiated into the most perfect rites and mysteries of the gods above. Letting go the reins of government, he lifted up his mind to contemplation."[20] Since the Osiris of Synesius's myth represents Aurelian, Lacombrade inferred that Aurelian really was initiated into the mysteries during his exile.[21] But (as we shall see in more detail in the following chapters) nothing is more dangerous than simplistic translation from the mythical to the historical plane. The dramatic date of Synesius's tale is many centuries before Christ. Obviously Osiris could not be shown going into a Christian church. If Synesius wanted to draw attention to Aurelian's piety, he had to do so in pre-Christian terms. Furthermore, it is a grave error to suppose that the mystery terms he uses were restricted to pagan mysteries. All of them—
[17] The dedication of Aurelian's church may have taken place after he laid down his prefecture in May 416, which would be less than six months after the discovery of the relics.
[18] The fact that the biographer changed his consular date but retained the circumstantial details that point so clearly to another date is strong corroboration that the main lines of the story about Aurelian are true.
[19] Vita Isaaci 4.14.
[21] Lacombrade 1951b, 106.
[22] It is enough to refer to the entries for all these words, especially the last, in Lampe.
goal of the priesthood itself, regretting that it cannot be reconciled with the life of action.[23] It is attainable only through the intensive study of literature and philosophy, for which the prerequisite was leisure.[24] The essential point of De providentia 123D is simply that now Osiris has "let go the reins of government" he has the leisure necessary for
G. R. Sievers made this very suggestion long ago.[25] But he went on to connect the passage with the heading to Ep. 1.54 of Nilus of Ancyra,
Nonetheless, it is precisely the title that calls the identification into doubt. For Nilus's correspondence is beset by a major problem of authenticity. It is not the letters themselves that come into question so much as their headings:[28] the names of Nilus's correspondents are equipped with numerous titles that did not exist in his lifetime.[29] There can be little doubt that these titles were added by a sixth-century redactor, perhaps anxious to enhance Nilus's reputation by enhancing the im-
[25] Sievers 1870, 367: "Ist damit angedeutet, daß er damals getauft wurde?"
[26] On the various meanings of "Hellene" in writers of the age, see above, pp. 66–68.
[27] Cameron 1976b, 181–96.
[28] Though the letters do have many puzzling features: Cameron 1976b, 181–82.
[29] For a list, Cameron 1976b, 182–85.
portance of his correspondents. At the beginning of the fifth century, the illustrate, as it came to be called, was a rank restricted to present and past holders of fewer than a dozen offices. Such men were normally styled by office and rank, not rank alone. A man as distinguished as Aurelian, who had held the two highest offices within this category (the urban and praetorian prefectures), would have been addressed as prefect or ex-prefect (
Nothing can be built on such a shaky foundation. It is best to forget about Nilus's "former pagan." It might be added that a pagan who later converted is not at all the same as the philhellene Christian of Zakrzewski and his followers. And while De providentia 123D might be a classicizing description of the baptism of one who, like Synesius himself, left it to mature years, it could not refer to the conversion of a pagan. The reference need not be to anything so specific as baptism. The word theoria might be held to suggest retreat to a monastery. In any case, for contemporaries, familiar with the linguistic conventions of contemporary Christian literature, there is nothing in De providentia that would for one moment have suggested that Aurelian was a pagan.
Further evidence of Aurelian's religious outlook can be obtained if we look forward to his restoration to power under the regency of Pulcheria in 414–16.[33] The year 415 saw an outburst of religious activity
[30] The fullest account is by Stein 1949, 429–31; to the examples he cites add the Justinianic poets Ablabius illustris (AP 7.762) and Eutolmius scholasticus illustris (AP 6.86, 7.611, 9.587); but not the poet formerly known as Tiberius illustris, since Denys Page (1981, 546) has shown that the title is a misreading of the Palatine MS.
[31] Cameron 1976b, 185–86.
[32] Untersuchungen zu Nilus dem Asketen (Leipzig 1917), 68.
[33] For Aurelian's role in Pulcheria's proclamation as Augusta see appendix 1.
on all fronts.[34] On 2 October the relics of Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, were escorted into Constantinople and deposited in St. Sophia.[35] St. Sophia itself was rededicated on 10 October after being rebuilt following the fire of 404.[36] And it now appears that it was in 416 that Aurelian built his church of the protomartyr Stephen to house the relics recently found near Jerusalem.
December saw Theodosius II's first law against paganism, banning pagans from all public offices.[37] In October and November very stringent laws were issued against heretics;[38]Cod. Theod. 16.5.58 expressly withdrew from Eunomians the privilege of making wills, which had been restored to them by Aurelian's brother Caesarius in 395.[39] Another law of October 415 degraded the Jewish patriarch Gamaliel VI, a move described by M. Simon as "the culmination of an underground campaign against the patriarchate."[40] All these laws were addressed to and some at least must have been prompted by Aurelian. This was also the year that saw the terrible anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria that led eventually to the murder of Hypatia.
It has long been customary to ascribe the initiative in this illiberal campaign to the young Augusta Pulcheria.[41] As Sozomen put it in the fulsome panegyric he prefixed to book 9 of his Ecclesiastical History , she "provided zealously and wisely that religion might not be endangered by the innovation of spurious dogmas." But the emphasis here falls on new dogmas, as the following sentence makes clear: "That new heresies have not prevailed in our times we shall find to be especially due to her, as we shall see ." He is clearly referring forward to his discussion of Nestorianism (which does not in fact survive). We are hardly justified in as-
[34] A. Lippold, RE , Suppl. 13 (1972): 967; cf. 1015–16.
[35] Chron.Pasch. , p. 572.15f. = Chron. Min. II.72, giving a.d. 6 Non., where presumably we correct to a.d. 6 Id.
[36] Chron.Pasch. p. 572.15f.
[37] Cod.Theod. 16.10.21; MSS 416, but by 26 August 416 Aurelian had been succeeded by Monaxius, and 415 is the generally accepted correction (Seeck 1919, 88.7).
[38] Cod.Theod. 16.5.57–58.
[39] The privilege was first withdrawn from them by Theodosius in 389 (Cod.Theod. 16.5.17), restored in 394 (16.5.23), revoked by Rufinus in 395 (16.5.25), restored by Caesarius the same year (16.5.27), confirmed by Eutychian in 399 (16.5.36), revoked again by Anthemius in 410 (16.5.49) and by Aurelian in 415 (16.5.58). It might seem surprising that the compilers of the Code (438) should record all these vacillations, but it was only by an examination of the whole series that it could be determined whether a given will was valid or not; it would depend on exactly when it was made (cf. Honoré 1986, 171).
[40] Cod. Theod. 16.8.22; cf. M. Simon, Verus Israel , trans. H. McKeating (Oxford 1986), 130f., for the details and consequences.
[41] So, for example, von Haehling 1978, 83; Holum 1977, 161; 1982, 100.
suming that she was as aggressive in the fight against heresy in 415, when she was only sixteen.
It is worth underlining that all three of the patrons under whose auspices Aurelian's career flourished—Rufinus,[42] Eudoxia, and Pulcheria—were figures of conspicuous Christian piety.[43] Rufinus and Pulcheria were, in addition, well known for their orthodoxy. The man who wormed himself into the favor of all three is hardly likely to have been an enthusiastic patron of the Neoplatonist underground, longing for the restoration of paganism.
Synesius sharply attacked Arian sympathies on the part of the Typhos of his De providentia ; as a bishop he vigorously denounced heresy himself. He was evidently confident that Aurelian would never deal weakly with heretics. Quite possibly it was because of his impeccable orthodoxy that Synesius, as later Pulcheria, turned to Aurelian. There is no evidence that Aurelian had any sympathy for paganism.
When Lacombrade claimed that Aurelian "delighted in pagan philosophers," it is obvious that, first and foremost, it was Synesius he had in mind. He is the only member of Aurelian's alleged circle whose writings survive. If Synesius had indeed been the pagan philosopher of Zakrzewski's romance, there would at least have been some basis of comparison for the rest. But not only has the pagan character of Synesius's writings been much exaggerated; he proves on inspection to have been an orthodox Christian.
The only evidence for the existence of any literary circle in Constantinople ca. A.D. 400 comes in Synesius's Ep . 101 to his Constantinopolitan friend Pylaemenes. Synesius claims to be afraid to write to "the venerable Marcian" in case he "exposed himself to correction from the pedants who polish every syllable." "There is no small danger," he adds, "that the letter would be read in the Panhellenion. This is what I call the place in which many a time I thought deep thoughts, where the famous from all parts meet to hear the sacred voice of the old gentleman whose researches comprehend tales both past and present."
It seems reasonable to infer that this Marcian held some sort of salon, which both Synesius and Pylaemenes had attended. In another letter Synesius asks his friend Tryphon to "salute Marcian the philosopher for me," adding that he had once been governor of Paphlagonia (Ep .
[42] For Aurelian's connection with Rufinus, see pp. 180–81.
[43] Thanks to her unfortunate feud with an unbalanced patriarch, Eudoxia has come in for much unfair criticism: Teetgen's book (1907) is full of phrases like "impetuous caprice," "vain and passionate," "steeped in the flattery and luxury of the corruptest city in the Empire" (14). For the truth, Holum 1982, 57f.
119). But it should be clear from the way Synesius expresses himself that "Panhellenion" was just a name of his own that he did not expect even Pylaemenes to recognize, a private joke.[44] There is in any case no evidence that Marcian was either a pagan or sympathetic to pagan ideas. People simply liked to talk literature and philosophy at his house.
No evidence suggests that Aurelian ever attended such a gathering. Only three of Synesius's letters are addressed to Aurelian (Ep . 31, 34, 38). Ep . 31 praises him fulsomely for his conduct while praetorian prefect. It does so in semiphilosophical terms, but is nonetheless very much a letter to an Important Person, not a philosopher. Ep . 34 opens with a discreet allusion to De providentia , but only to give a personal touch to an otherwise routine letter of recommendation. Ep . 38 also begins in philosophical style, again neatly recalling a panegyrical theme developed in De providentia . But once more, the body of the letter is a routine recommendation.[45] The only other reference to Aurelian in Synesius's letters is to his "dear friend Aurelian the consul" in Ep . 61, emphatically underlining the fact that he actually knew such an Important Person. There are no letters on personal or literary themes—and no sign that he ever received a reply from Aurelian.
The traditional picture of Aurelian as a philosopher and patron of letters is drawn entirely from the portrait of Osiris in De providentia . It would be naive enough to make such an inference from a panegyric directly addressed to Aurelian under his own name. But De providentia is a fable. The fact that select contemporary persons and events are evoked in the fable does not mean that we may substitute Aurelian and Caesarius for Osiris and Typhos and treat it as history.[46] If Synesius had
[45] "It is not because the young Herodes is my relative that I recommend him to your notice, but because he is seeking his rights."
[46] For a particularly glaring example of this fallacy see Holum 1982, 86 n. 30 ("on Aurelian's religion [see] Syn. De providentia 1.18").
wanted to write a history, he could easily have done so. It was not to protect himself that he fictionalized his story,[47] but so that he could make use of the greater license fiction allowed him.
For example, Demougeot's claim that Aurelian inherited his literary tastes from his father rests on the simplistic assumption that the picture of the old philosopher-king in book 1 of De providentia is an accurate biography of the real-life father of his hero, Fl. Taurus cos. 361.[48] This "king, priest, and sage" is not even an idealized version of the long-dead former notary who became Constantius II's lieutenant.[49] He is not a real person at all. He is merely the appropriate paternal mouthpiece for traditional advice to a son who is about to succeed him; as, for example, in De IV consulatu Honorii Claudian imagines how Theodosius once advised the new emperor Honorius on kingship. The parallels between this speech and Synesius's De regno are so close that actual derivation of one from the other has often been suspected—unnecessarily and implausibly: both Claudian and Synesius wrote in the same well-established tradition.[50] The old king comes straight from that tradition, a composite, emblematic stock character with little or nothing in common with the historical Taurus, just as the Theodosius who delivers Claudian's learned and philosophical discourse has little in common with the soldier-emperor Theodosius.
It is this idealized philosopher-king who discourses on encosmic and hypercosmic gods, not the father of Aurelian. As for the idea that Aurelian himself was a philosopher, there is no basis for it even in Synesius. Quite the contrary: Osiris is nowhere praised for either his eloquence or his wisdom. The most that Synesius claims for him is patronage of education in general and the "rustic philosopher" in particular. Least of all are there any grounds for associating him with Hellenism; as we have seen, he studied only as much "foreign culture" as his father thought fit (De providentia 90C).
Anyone familiar with the imperial panegyrics of Themistius and
[47] As supposed by Zakrzewski, who misinterprets in this sense Synesius's love of mystification. We may well doubt whether he actually published either book during the crisis, though he took steps to ensure that De providentia 1 at least did not antagonize Gaïnas. In any case, the contemporary allusions were so transparent that mere denial would hardly have sufficed.
[48] Demougeot also takes for granted Seeck's extraordinary claim (1894, 445–46) that Taurus (presumably a native Greek speaker) is to be identified with the (Latin-speaking) agrarian writer Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, rightly rejected by von Haehling (1978, 293–94). See too A. Cameron, JRS 75 (1985): 173.
[49] According to De providentia , "Egyptian tales say that he was also a god." Constantius II's lieutenant had been dead since at least 367: see below, p. 317 and n. 53.
[50] Cameron 1970a, 21–23; Barnes 1986a, 107.
Julian will at once recognize the tendency of Greek panegyrists to represent Roman emperors as philosopher-kings who patronized philosophy and letters.[51] For Constantius II, there is Themistius Or . 2 and Julian Or . 1 and 3. In Themistius Or . 5 it is Jovian who has recalled philosophy to the palace ("recalled," after Julian!). In Themistius Or . 6, 7, 8, and 11 all the same claims are made for Valens; Or . 8 extols his love of philosophy in extraordinary detail. Or . 9 dilates on how his love of eloquence and philosophy affects the education of his young son (then three years old). In Or . 10 and Or . 15 Theodosius is praised for not barring philosophers from the palace, in Or . 13 Gratian; in Or . 18 it is the young prince Arcadius who studies philosophy.
Not one of these emperors took any personal interest in philosophy, and the only philosopher they all invited to the palace was, of course, Themistius. For Constantius it is instructive to contrast the verdict of Libanius, the leading sophist of the age, a man who no less than Themistius had the opportunity of observing the emperor's treatment of intellectuals at close quarters: "Philosophers and sophists and those who were initiates of Hermes or the Muses, these he never invited to the palace, never saw, never praised, never spoke to, never heard speak" (Or . 62.9). In fact Libanius evidently saw Constantius as an enemy of classical culture.[52] Add to this Ammianus's succinct assessment of the cultural attainments of Valens, subject of no fewer than five of Themistius's philosopher-king panegyrics: "subagrestis ingenii, nec bellicis nec liberalibus studiis eruditus" (31.14.5). He did not even know Greek. Themistius's speeches have considerable interest and importance for the history of Greek political ideas under the Roman Empire.[53] But they tell us nothing about the private culture of the emperors and little enough about their public patronage. There is no reason to believe that Synesius's idealized picture of Aurelian is any more accurate.
We may briefly review the other names listed as members of Aurelian's supposed cultural circle. First Troilus of Side, a celebrated sophist influential with the prefect Anthemius.[54] Troïlus was already claimed as a pagan by Bury and E. Stein before Zakrzewski dubbed him a "grand agitateur païen et nationaliste."[55] According to Holum, Anthemius's "association with Troïlus confirms [his] receptiveness to the claims of the
[51] On the importance of imperial patronage of literature and philosophy down the centuries, see F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London 1977), 496f.
[52] Festugière 1959, 229f., 239.
[53] See G. Dagron's useful study of Themistius under the title Lempire[*] romain dorient[*] au IV siècle et les traditions politiques de lhellenisme[*] (1968).
[54] PLRE II.1128.
[55] Bury (1923) 1958, 213; Stein 1959, 246; Zakrzewski 1931, 122.
Hellenes."[56] The truth is that nothing whatever is known of Troïlus's religious beliefs. Holum's apparently more restrained formulation is more insidiously false than the crude error of his predecessors; for it makes it impossible to understand the combined devotion to rhetoric and Christianity that is the hallmark of Byzantine culture. Anthemius may well have been a cultivated man who patronized men of letters, but Holum implies something more sinister: an organized party of Hellenes who have claims on him. He will allow no more than that "like . . . Aurelian, [Anthemius] must have professed Christianity," and elsewhere expresses doubts about even this.[57] Against these wider suspicions it is enough to point out that Troïlus's pupils included two bishops and an ecclesiastical historian.[58]
Lacombrade claimed Troïlus as "un partisan chaleureux dAurelien[*] " on the grounds that his pupil Eusebius Scholasticus "compose, comme Synésios, sur le soulèvement des Goths, un écrit dactualite[*] ."[59] But since, to judge from Socrates' reference to Eusebius's Gaïnias ,[60] it covered the war itself rather than, like De providentia , the antecedents alone, it is difficult to see how it could possibly have had the exiled Aurelian as its hero. Indeed, the heroes must have been Fravitta and Caesarius.[61] Though a modest literary circle might be allowed to his successor Anthemius, for Aurelian there is no evidence whatever.
Many of the same considerations apply to the Hellenism of the other alleged members of the "Panhellenion"—for example, the successful poet Theotimus,[62] another friend of the prefect Anthemius; Nicander, a man of literary interests and influence unspecified;[63] Pylaemenes, one of Synesius's closest Constantinopolitan friends, an advocate with literary and philosophical interests;[64] Anastasius, tutor of Arcadius's children and a friend of Troïlus;[65] Simplicius, a magister militum and native of the Pentapolis who according to Synesius had asked for a copy of his poems
[56] Holum 1982, 87; cf. Zakrzewski's paper in Eos 31 (1928), at p. 422 ("membre du parti national formé en 399"), 423 ("une ancienne famille sénatorienne, animée par lesprit[*] païen," "personnellement chrétien, mais . . .").
[57] Holum 1977, 169f.; against, see Cameron 1982, 272. Holum (1982, 86 n. 30) replies that he finds his own view "amply attested in the sources and more plausible than that of Cameron," yet provides no new evidence or arguments.
[58] Socr. HE 7.12.10 (Ablabius, Novatian bishop of Nicaea), 7.37.1 (Silvanus, bishop of Troas); the ecclesiastical historian is Socrates himself.
[59] Lacombrade 1951a, 8.
[60] HE 6.6 fin ., our only source.
[61] This conclusion will become clearer after the discussion of De providentia in chapter 6.
[62] PLRE II. 1111, with D. T. Runia, Historia 28 (1979): 254–56.
[63] PLRE II.781.
[64] PLRE II.931.
[65] PLRE II.77–78.
(Ep . 130 fin .). Once again, Synesius's three letters to this important man are all concerned with business rather than literature.
According to Holum, "Synesius of Cyrene associates [Aurelian] with a circle of poets, philosophers and politicians who called themselves 'Hellenes.'"[66] The truth is that not a single one of them is associated with Aurelian in any way. Nor do they call themselves Hellenes. It is Synesius who (three times) applies the term to correspondents, never with any religious connotations, and certainly not as the name of an organized group or circle. It is simply a compliment to the literary taste of his friends.
II—
Paeonius
Another of Synesius's Constantinopolitan patrons deserves more extended discussion. Soon after his arrival Synesius presented a military man called Paeonius with a silver astrolabe that he had had made in Alexandria. In the modern literature this man is always styled Count Paeonius, but the one source that identifies him by name, the letter that accompanied the gift (generally known as De dono ), never indicates his rank. This letter is one of a group of essays Synesius later sent to Hypatia, noting, "And so the reckoning will be complete, I have added my On the Gift , an old piece from the time of my embassy, to a man with great influence over the emperor. And Pentapolis had some profit from the essay and from the gift" (Ep . 154).
Though he has not known Paeonius for long (De dono 310C), Synesius takes the opportunity of writing to him because, he explains, "I heard you recently expressing indignation on behalf of philosophy" (307B). Moreover, Synesius claims, "it was largely on my account that you were so incensed at the present state of philosophy" (308A). On the face of it, a man of philosophical interests. Indeed, we might even infer some familiarity with the Alexandrian school, since Synesius writes as though Paeonius will recognize his reference to "my most revered teacher" (311A, unnamed but feminine), namely, Hypatia. On the other hand Synesius presents the astronomy and metaphysics introduced by the gift as unfamiliar subjects.[67]
[66] Holum 1977, 159, citing thirteen letters of Synesius as though they supported his assertion.
[67] Synesius's own expertise wins severe criticism from Neugebauer 1975, 876–77: "Synesius was not competent as a scientist, but he was rich and well-educated. . . . [The astronomical content of the De dono is] badly organized and obscured by philosophical verbosity and boasting; . . . [parts are] obviously nonsense."
According to Synesius, what had been vexing Paeonius is the fact that false philosophers "enjoy a good reputation with rulers and people alike, while no one pays any attention to true philosophers" (307A). While states should be governed by philosophers, the truth is that
the tribe of sophists lay their snares for the ignorance of the multitude, and that as a result of this the legitimate sons of philosophy come to have less repute than the suppositious and fraudulent. But when those who hold the reins of government and have the affairs of the cities in their grasp are not of the people, but possess intellectual culture, they will quickly make the distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate philosopher, and no longer will the common people have any problem learning what sort of deception has been practiced upon them.[68]
Zakrzewski was in no doubt that this is all to be taken quite seriously.[69] The true philosophers he easily identified as Neoplatonists. But the false philosophers seemed to him more than just sophists, and the "deception" they practice on the people nothing else but Christianity: "Le parti des vrais philosophes est celui des néoplatoniciens qui livre secrètement combat à la nouvelle société triomphante. Cependant le parti des philosophes cherche un homme qui saurait unir la sagesse a la puissance, afin dassurer[*] à la philosophie sur la société linfluence[*] qui lui est due."[70] This seductive hypothesis does no great violence to what Synesius actually says. But, criteria of probability aside, it runs into serious problems. To start with, Zakrzewski was embarrassed that Synesius's addressee who unites temporal power with philosophy—in effect, a Platonic philosopher-king—should be an obscure count not otherwise on record. Such a key figure in the Neoplatonic freemasonry should at the very least be someone identifiable.[71] This problem he solved by assuming that the name, though common enough at the time,[72] was in fact a pseudonym.
His first thought was the MVM Simplicius, who, though not actually called a philosopher, was at any rate interested in poetry. But not even Simplicius was really important enough for Zakrzewski's interpretation of the De dono , and he finally settled on the veteran general Saturninus who was exiled together with Aurelian in April 400. This ingenious suggestion does at least yield a known associate of Aurelian. But quite apart from the improbability of this career soldier being a Neo-platonist, by 400 he had not held a command for nearly twenty years.
[68] De dono 309B-D.
[69] Zakrzewski 1931, 67–71.
[70] Zakrzewski 1931, 69.
[71] "Cest[*] parmi les personnages que nous connaissons par ailleurs quil[*] faut chercher aussi bien Paionios que Typhos" (Zakrzewski 1931, 68).
[72] Three, if not four, other examples in PLRE (I.657,II.817).
Synesius's words make it clear that his Paeonius was in office at the time of writing.[73]
To turn to more traditional tools, according to PLRE "Paeonius is certainly identical with an unnamed count at Alexandria mentioned as an acquaintance and correspondent of Synesius there in three letters." But is he? It is worth subjecting the evidence to a detailed examination, if only to illustrate the machinery of connections through which favors were won and influence peddled in late antiquity.
Synesius's letters are arranged haphazardly for the most part.[74] Atypically, however, his letters to his school friend Herculian are at least segregated by addressee. I. Hermelin dated the whole group after Synesius's first period of study in Alexandria but before his embassy to Constantinople.[75] The letters' tone is generally consonant with a recent separation and fresh enthusiasm for studies recently shared, but the evidence is too lacunose to link up into a firm absolute chronology. In the letters where he gives a clear indication, Synesius writes from home in Cyrene to Alexandria.
Ep . 144 and 146 appear to be a pair. Though the actual business concerned is obscure, Ep . 146 (p. 257.12–20G) formulates principles of decorum fairly clearly:
Your brother Cyrus should have brought back writings from you concerning what you disclosed because of the count from Pentapolis. I was grateful to the motive of the introducer, but you forgot that I am trying to be a philosopher. And I rate at little all honor unless it comes on account of philosophy; so, thanks to God, I require nothing, for we neither do nor suffer wrong. It was fitting that he should do such a thing on our behalf, but not suitable that we should make the request; for if there was a need to seek letters, they should have been sent to me (for then I would have been honored), not on my behalf to the count.
Apparently Herculian made some overtures on Synesius's behalf to "the count from Pentapolis." Synesius protests, first because he is not interested, and second because his own position should have led the count to seek him out. His interest might properly have been solicited. Having solicitations made on his behalf puts him in a dependent position that is not appropriate.
Ep . 144 (p. 254 G) recants just such a proud refusal, apparently this one. Hermelin accordingly dated it later.
[74] Seeck 1894.
[75] Ep . 137–46. Hermelin 1934, 19–25; cf. Lacombrade 1951a, 52–53; Theiler 1953, 195–97 (review of Lacombrade); Runia 1976, 27–30. On Herculian, PLRE II.545.
You have written to me through Ursicinus about the count (I mean the one who holds command over the soldiers in this country),[76] and you asked me to give the word, and there would be writings from your friends able to do it, both to him and to the ordinary commander. Even then I accepted the motive. But I refused the deed as superfluous, as I was stripping myself to grapple with philosophy. But now wronged friends, both private citizens and soldiers, force me to want to take part in politics, for which I know I wasn't born, and they themselves share that knowledge with me. But for their own sakes, they force even an unwilling man to do something. So now if you think it good to do this, I leave it to you. . . . My whole household greets you. Ision is now added to it, whom you longed for because of his stories. He has caused me to make that ignoble and unphilosophic request for writings to those in power, in some things required personally on behalf of many, and in others by the letters he brought. So he waits for you till the twentieth, as I said.[77]
Ep. 144 fills in Ep. 146's picture of the interplay of power and etiquette in recommendation letters. Synesius heavily stresses his personal lack of interest in the favors to be sought. He acts only on behalf of others. Even this indirect need is demeaning: his mere recantation is an "ignoble and unphilosophic request" for which he has to apologize.[78] Ision took the same tack, "on behalf of many." Beyond the lowest level, requests were conveyed by third parties. The letter writer distanced himself from the need as much as possible so as not to weaken his own position; he might then voice the request more compellingly.
Ep. 99 to another school friend, Olympius, also mentions both "your Ision," living at Synesius's house, and an unnamed count, to whom Olympius shall judge "whether or not to give what I have written" (p. 167.21 G). On the most economical interpretation, Synesius means the letter itself, an elegant recommendation of the poet Theotimus.[79] Synesius assists the poet by sending him to Alexandria, not to one patron alone, but to someone who can also smooth his approach toward a further target. The coincidence of Ision and comes seemed to Hermelin to date this letter to the same period as the letters to Herculian.
[77] Cf. Ep. 143: Synesius planned to wait for Herculian till the twentieth of Mesore, but then he had to travel himself.
[78] All his remarks on Ision sound like afterthoughts, so the slight distancing of his description does not imply that he had made some other, grosser prostration.
[79] On whom see generally D. T. Runia, Historia 28 (1979): 254–56. Ep. 61 (p. 102.10–11 G) explicitly tells Pylaemenes to show that letter to Asterius.
Ep. 98, again to Olympius, followed, for it too mentions an unnamed count, to whom Synesius says he has written often but sends another letter through his brother, since Olympius accuses him of not having written. This letter explicitly locates Olympius in Alexandria, whither Synesius will depart as soon as he is well enough. Ep. 143 and 144 also refer to a journey, but the plans are spoken of in very different terms. The corpus of Synesius's letters reflects a great deal of travel and visiting among his friends, so it is reasonable to assume that Ision could have stayed with Synesius more than once. If he did, nothing in these letters need date them with the group to Herculian. Moreover, as David Runia points out, Olympius's count is in Alexandria, whereas Herculian's is "in command over the soldiers in this country" and "from Pentapolis." Probably therefore he was dux Libyarum .[80] With him it is a matter of writing letters, whereas Olympius evidently sees his count in Alexandria. A possible candidate for either count might be Simplicius, MVM per Orientem , who did serve in Pentapolis and hunted often with Synesius and who was also interested in poetry.[81]
It is important to note this complicated multiplicity of counts, as well as the ways Synesius deals with them, because a third letter to Herculian contains another, who has always been identified with Paeonius.[82] In Ep. 142 (p. 249 G), Synesius asks Herculian to
speak to the admirable count (
), toward whom I did not initiate an address in my own person. There is poetry's tag "begin, for you are younger in age" [Il. 21.439]. War and contention he thinks it right that the young man begin, but friendliness the elder. And yet with me the man is honored and deserving of all, who alone of the men of our time brought together education and military ability, which have been barricaded apart by great walls, discovering in these pursuits some ancient kinship (,). Being noble as no soldier yet, "from neighbors" he escapes the arrogance that dwells next to nobility. Him as such a one then, even if I do not write, I love, and if I do not serve, I honor.
The discussion of the Iliadic tag makes plain that Synesius has not written to the count directly because he does not yet possess his acquain-
[80] Runia 1979, n. 15.
[81] Ep. 130, esp. pp. 223.4–7, 224.10–14 G; cf. Ep. 24, 28, 134, p. 233.11–14 G; PLRE II. 1013–14. Roques (1989, 80–82) conflates the unnamed counts and identifies the composite as Simplicius. Another possible dux Libyarum in Synesius's letters is Uranius (Ep. 40 = 37 G), though there is too little evidence to be certain of anything: PLRE II.1186.
[82] E.g., PLRE II.816–17: "certainly identical"; Barnes 1986a, 110: "clearly Paeonius."
tance. He wants Herculian to break the ice for him. The compliments are for Herculian to use in doing so. He is to pass them on, perhaps even handing the letter over for the count to read, like Olympius Ep. 99 on Theotimus to that count. Synesius echoes himself almost exactly in De dono:
How then shall I not assign the middle place in my soul to the admirable Paeonius, who discovered how to bring back and unite philosophy and military ability, long barricaded apart by great walls, seeing in these pursuits some ancient kinship?
Indeed the parallel is striking. But though it is clear that Paeonius holds a military post, he is nowhere explicitly styled count. And it must be remembered that while the count of Ep . 142 was evidently in Alexandria for Herculian to "speak to" him, Paeonius is now in Constantinople. Of course, a military man of significant rank is likely enough to have been a count, and since some time must have intervened between Ep. 142 and De dono for Synesius to get from Cyrene to Constantinople, Paeonius might have been transferred to the capital during the same interval. PLRE suggests a rise from comes Aegypti to comes rei militaris . But far too much weight has been placed on the veracity and specificity of Synesius's compliment.[84]
More importantly, praise for erudition is Synesius's great war-horse. He trots it out whenever he wants a favor, evidently believing it the most flattering tribute a potential patron could wish to hear. His later Ep. 73, to Troïlus, for example, asking him to solicit the praetorian prefect Anthemius on Pentapolis's behalf, begins: "You are both a philosopher and a philanthrope, so I must lament before you the troubles of the land that bore me. You will honor her because of her citizen the philosopher and you will pity her because of the gentleness of your nature, and because of both things you will try to lift again her who has fallen" (p. 130 G). Ep. 118 enlists Troïlus again to approach Anthemius, now on behalf of Synesius's cousin Diogenes. Synesius notes Diogenes' connections, but, clinchingly, "Troïlus the philosopher will see the young man's inner qualities and esteem him on that basis." Synesius recommends Di-
[83] De dono 308B–C.
[84] The fact that he puts it into the third person in Ep. 142 has no independent significance, for Herculian is to convey it to the count on Synesius's behalf.
ogenes to Pylaemenes principally on the grounds of friendship but does not neglect to note that he respects his "kinship with a philosopher" (Ep. 131, p. 226.5 G). Ep. 26 salutes Troïlus in thanks for some intercession with Anastasius as "best of philosophers, for so I delight to call you, as your deeds proclaim." The last passage is particularly instructive. For Troïlus was not in fact a philosopher. His pupil and admirer Socrates refers to Troïlus no fewer than five times, invariably styling him "the sophist" and several times referring to his pupils.[85] More explicitly still, he is known as the author of a commentary on the Staseis of Hermogenes.[86] However learned and prudent a man he may have been, there can be no question that by profession he was a teacher of rhetoric, a tribe elsewhere openly despised by Synesius and directly opposed to true philosophers in the De dono . But when he has a favor to ask, Synesius "delights to call him a philosopher."
In Ep. 119 he asks Trypho to "greet Marcian the philosopher, the former governor of Paphlagonia, for me," so that he too may assist Diogenes (p. 205 G). This must be the Marcian of Synesius's "Panhellenion" (Ep. 101), and the fact that Synesius cannot sufficiently identify him by referring to it here reinforces the argument that the salon did not dominate the Constantinopolitan scene. If so, Marcian's influence will have rested more in his political than his literary position; thus Synesius calls him "philosopher" here as a conciliating compliment. Marcian more than some others may have found it apposite and welcome, of course. The final conclusion to be drawn is that the reluctance Synesius expresses in Ep. 101 to write to Marcian directly reflects not the modesty over his style he asserts, but as with the count of Ep. 142, his inability to claim sufficiently close acquaintance to take the initiative.
As for his major works, the peroration of De regno begins: "May you fall in love, my king, with philosophy and true education" (31C). Synesius dwells on the theme for a while, applying to philosophy the same Iliadic tag he had applied to Paeonius and himself in the De dono ,[87] and he finally concludes that if Arcadius realizes his image of the philosopher-king, "I would have the right to be the first to rejoice at the shoot from my seeds, how I shaped you as king, experiencing such a thing, whenever I offer and receive speech about the things the cities request" (32C). He claims that Cyrene sent him as ambassador to convey two things, its
[85] HE 6.6.36, 7.1.3, 12.10, 27.1, 37.1; cf. in general PLRE II.1128.
[86] H. Rabe, ed., Rhetores Graeci (Leipzig 1895), 6:28–92; Kennedy 1983, 120.
[87] "I have no need of this honor. I understand that I am honored by the decree of Zeus." II. 9.608f.; De dono 308B; De regno 32A.
crown gold and philosophy (2C): thus all the philosophy of the speech reflects on his mission. Still more in De providentia is Osiris praised for achieving a golden age through due respect for education (102D–104B). In particular the exemplary rustic philosopher is granted by Osiris that "he himself was not obliged to perform public service, and his country's obligations had been made less burdensome" (113A–B). Synesius takes care to make it everywhere obvious that education and concrete favors ought to go together. Nothing in Ep. 142 indicates why Synesius esteemed this count so highly. But in view of the ease with which he dispensed such compliments, we can hardly exclude the possibility that at different times he found more than one man who "alone of our time" united philosophy or education with temporal power. In the age that produced Themistius's implausible series of philosopher-emperors, it is not strange that Synesius chose a kindred ploy.
To sum up, we cannot safely identify Paeonius with any of these counts. So there is no firm basis for the view that Synesius was exploiting a connection originally made in Alexandria. On the contrary, the opening of De dono suggests that he had only just met Paeonius. But perhaps we have reached a positive conclusion nonetheless. It is that the motif of the philosopher-king did not need to be restricted to kings. In the debased and trivialized rhetorical lexicon of the early Byzantine world it could be applied to any prospective patron, however implausibly, even to a career soldier.
III—
The Date of the Embassy
Before we can reach a satisfactory interpretation of either De regno or De providentia , we must identify the three wretched years Synesius spent in Constantinople,[88] the three years during which he wrote both works.
He had come as an ambassador (De regno 1A), seeking alleviation of the taxes imposed on "the cities" (32C), that is to say, the cities of Pentapolis.[89] Our only evidence for the specific occasion of his visit is what he proclaims in De regno: he had come to "crown [the emperor's] head with gold" (2C). That is, he had come to present him with aurum coronarium , "crown gold," on behalf of the Pentapolis.
Emperors were normally presented with crown gold on the occasion of their accession and on the successive quinquennial celebrations of
[88] De insomniis 14; Hymn 1.431f.
[89] Liebeschuetz 1985b, 154–55.
their reign.[90] Additional "presentations" might be required on the occasion of an imperial victory, as, for example, in celebration of the defeat of the usurper Maximus in 388.[91] There being no obvious occasion for an extraordinary presentation during Synesius's years at Constantinople,[92] we are left with one of Arcadius's quinquennial anniversaries.
The truth was seen long ago by Sievers and at once forgotten.[93] Since then no one but T. D. Barnes has made any serious attempt to identify this occasion, the one and only precise clue De regno provides. Seeck tried instead to pin the date down by working backwards from Synesius's departure. In Ep. 61 Synesius describes how he left Constantinople during an earthquake, which Seeck identified with the quake placed in 402 by Marcellinus. Departure in 402 at once became canonical as the one secure date, it was thought, in Synesian chronology. Thus, if Synesius spent three years in Constantinople, he could not have arrived earlier than the autumn of 399, and De regno would have to have been delivered in 399 or even 400. To the question of this earthquake we shall be returning. But if it was in 399 that he arrived, which quinquennial anniversary was the crown gold designed to commemorate?
Lacombrade, taking Seeck's departure date of 402 as axiomatic, was reduced to the desperate expedient of assuming that Cyrene was four years late honoring Arcadius's "accession," by which he meant the beginning of his effective reign on the death of Theodosius in January 395.[94] But as Barnes rightly observed, "a Roman emperor began to rule from his dies imperii , not from the death of one of his imperial colleagues, even if that colleague was his father."[95] Since Arcadius was proclaimed Augustus on 19 January 383,[96] his quinquennial celebrations should on the usual inclusive reckoning have fallen on 19 January 387,
[90] Klauser 1944, 129–53 (= 1974, 292–309); Millar 1977, 140–42; Barnes 1986a, 105–6; R. Delmaire, Largesses sacrées et res privata (Rome 1989), 387–400.
[91] McCormick 1986, 44; cf. Lib. Ep. 846, 878. Another might have been expected in 395 after the victory over Eugenius (McCormick 45–46), though Theodosius's death early in the year may have caused a change of plan. But that would have been too early for Synesius anyway. To judge from several scenes of men bearing crowns on the reliefs of Arcadius's column, there was another in 401 to celebrate the defeat of Gaïnas (T. Klauser, Ges. Arbeiten [1974], 303). That would have been too late.
[92] Barnes (1986a, 105) suggests and rightly rejects the possibility of the birth of Arcadius's daughter Pulcheria on 19-i–399. There is no parallel for requiring crown gold to commemorate imperial births.
[93] Sievers 1870, 378.
[94] Lacombrade 1949, 58.
[95] Barnes 1986a, 105–6.
[96] Chron. Min. I.244.
392, 397, 402, and 407.[97] The only year that would suit Synesius's visit is 397.[98]
The quinquennial year would have begun on 19 January 397 and ended on the same day in 398. The crown gold presumably was expected some time between these two dates. If the city chose to send it in the custody of an ambassador charged with a mission at court, as in Synesius's case, it would not have been tactful for him to arrive late. Given the limitations on sea travel during the winter months, we can exclude the possibility that Synesius arrived as late as January 398. A letter from Cyrene to his old friend Herculian (Ep. 144) lamenting his co-option on the embassy and implying departure in the near future is dated 20 Mesore, that is to say, 13 August. From Cyrene to Alexandria could be done in five days;[99] from Alexandria to Constantinople in nine.[100] So the trip could be done in two weeks, though we do not know whether or how long Synesius stopped over on the way. We may probably assume that he arrived early in September 397.
In ideal circumstances, the ambassador would present the gold crown and his address together shortly after arrival. Synesius's extant De regno , which betrays clear signs of frustration at dealing with an unresponsive emperor and court, cannot, for a variety of reasons, have been the speech Synesius delivered on that occasion. It is the wrong sort of speech—and far too long. But the fact that it begins with a reference to the crown gold (2C) suggests a date not too far removed from his arrival.
Synesius described his departure from Constantinople in Ep. 61, to his friend Pylaemenes:
God shook the earth repeatedly during the day, and most people were on their faces in prayer; for the ground was shaking. At the time, considering the sea to be safer than the land, I rushed to the harbor, speak-
[97] There is a tendency for emperors to take the consulate in quinquennial years (somewhat overstated in Richard Burgess's useful paper, "Quinquennial Vota and Imperial Consulship, 337–511," Numismatic Chronicle 148 (1988): 77–96; cf. Cameron, CLRE 23–24). J. P. C. Kent suggests to us that Arcadius celebrated his third quinquennalia in 396, when he was consul, rather than in 397, when he was not. But this would be impossibly early for Synesius. It is not easy to believe that he arrived a year late when he had a favor to ask.
[98] According to Barnes 1986a, 106, Arcadius "celebrated the fifteenth anniversary of his accession on 19 January 398" (a slip of the pen, as he admits); correctly, Sievers 1870, 378.
[99] Ep. 51, with Casson 1971, 284–85.
[100] Theoph. Simocatta 8.13.14 (Casson 1971, 281–96, cites no examples).
ing no word to anyone except Photius of blessed memory—and I only shouted to him from afar and signaled with my hand that I was about to leave. He who left Aurelian, his dear friend and consul
, without a farewell has given an adequate apology for the same behavior toward Asterius the clerk.[101]
Seeck referred this earthquake to one recorded by Marcellinus under 402, and emended
Though omitted from all four modern lists of earthquakes in Constantinople,[103] one in 400 with exactly the consequences Synesius describes is in fact securely attested by a contemporary source. In his Homily 41 on Acts (PG 60.201) Chrysostom says: "Did not God last year (
[101] This section is abbreviated from Cameron 1987, 332–50.
[102] Barnes 1986a, 104.
[103] W. Capelle, "Erdbebenforschung," RE Suppl. 4 (1924): 347; G. Downey, "Earthquakes at Constantinople and Vicinity, A.D. 342–1454," Speculum 30 (1955): 597; V. Grumel, La Chronologie (Paris 1958), 477; A. Hermann, "Erdbeben," RAC 5 (1962); 1104–12. All but Grumel, who does not cite him at all, cite Synesius without comment for 402. It is time for a new, critical list, by someone familiar with the problems of transmission. For some that do not arise in the present case see Brian Croke, "Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes and Their Liturgical Commemoration," Byzantion 51 (1981): 122–47. On Byzantine attitudes to earthquakes, see G. Dagron, "Quand la terre tremble . . .," Travaux et mémoires 8 (1981): 87–103.
[104] See the summary account in Quasten 1960, 440–41 (though he omits the important work of Bonsdorff discussed below).
thirty years earlier in Antioch (to be precise, in 373).[105] Though his arguments were justly described by his only critic as "light as a feather,"[106] Seeck won a decisive victory: neither Chrysostom passage has ever been discussed since in this connection.[107] Since Max von Bonsdorff's valuable work seems to have had no impact beyond the study of Chrysostom and the point is central to Synesian chronology, the main points must be briefly recapitulated.
First, a number of passages unmistakably describe the preacher as a bishop. For example, the last four columns of Hom. 3 (PG 60.39–42) are entirely devoted to an account of the responsibilities of a bishop, and at one point Chrysostom insists that he is "simply speaking as I find it in my own actual experience" (col. 39). Hom. 8 (PG 60.74) refers emphatically to the power of excommunication he enjoyed as bishop, even over the emperor ("as long as I sit on this throne," col. 60). At the end of Hom. 9 an imaginary interlocutor is represented as saying to Chrysostom: "Yes, but you are the leader and bishop" (col. 84). Many other passages refer to the power and responsibility he enjoyed to legislate for his flock.[108] None of this suits Chrysostom's status in Antioch. While already celebrated for the brilliance of his preaching, he was no more than a simple priest in rank and had always behaved with the utmost tact toward his bishop, the patriarch Flavian.[109]
Second, another series of passages alludes to the emperor and his palace as conspicuous fixtures in the world of his listeners. For example, Hom. 21 (PG 60.168) alludes to the possibility of an invitation to the palace from the emperor himself; Hom. 3 (col. 39) refers to both the palace and the bishop's throne; Hom. 8 (col. 99) and Hom. 11 (col. 170) refer to the emperor's adventus and victories; the last passage also to the need for petitioners to approach the emperor while seated, since when he rises the audience is at an end; Hom. 32 (col. 170) refers to the emperor and his council deliberating on military and domestic issues, in particular (appropriately enough for 400/1) "overcoming those who make war on them." It is hardly worth discussing Seeck's positive arguments in favor
[105] Seeck 1894, 460 n. 44.
[106] Max von Bonsdorff, Zur Predigttätigkeit des Johannes Chrysostomus (Helsinki 1922), 90.
[107] Grützmacher referred to Seeck's treatment of the homilies in a footnote (1913, 72 n. 3); Lacombrade in passing (1951a, 100–101); after that, silence.
[108] Collected by Bonsdorff 1922, 87–88.
[109] Baur 1959, 1:390–95. With the passages quoted above, contrast the beginning of Hom. 3 De statuis: "When I look on that throne, deserted and bereft of our teacher" (alluding to the absence of Flavian).
of Antioch. The account of Theodorus's conspiracy there in 372 to which he attributed so much importance (Hom. 38, cols. 274–75) is recounted as a reminiscence of Chrysostom's distant youth in another city.
It was undoubtedly at Constantinople that Chrysostom preached his homilies on Acts. Therefore the following passage in Hom. 44 (PG 60.66) becomes vital: "By the grace of God I too have now spent three years (
) can mean "twelve months ago," but also no more than "last year," that is to say, 400 if spoken in early 401.When did Chrysostom begin the series? He is known to have thought that Pentecost was an appropriate time to study Acts (cf. his homily Cur in Pentecoste Acta legantur ),[111] and early editors inferred from a passage in Hom. 1 (PG 60.22) that he began at or near Easter. But he goes on in the same homily to ask his listeners whether they are waiting for Lent to be baptized, telling them that this is wrong; any time of the year will do. Obviously he cannot have been speaking at Easter. Hom. 4 on the account of Pentecost in Acts 2.1 does not at all suggest that the festival was at hand when he spoke. And a passage in Hom. 29 clearly states that Easter has come and gone (col. 218); indeed it continues "summer is past, winter is here" (col. 219). There is nothing in the context to suggest a metaphorical winter rather than the real thing. The end of Hom. 26 (col. 204) vividly evokes cold weather.
There is also one fairly clear allusion at the end of Hom. 37 (PG 60.267) to the expulsion and massacre of the Goths of 12 July 400. After denouncing the war between the soul and the body, virtue and vice, anger and gentleness (and so forth), Chrysostom continues:
[111] For a full collection of references to this practice see Joseph Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church (1708–22; reprint, London 1875), bk. 14, chap. 3, and bk. 20, chap. 6.
Let us make an end of this war, let us overthrow these enemies, let us set up these trophies, let us establish peace in our own city. We have within us a city and a civil polity, with citizens and many aliens (
); but let us drive out the aliens (), that our own people may not be ruined. Let no foreign or spurious doctrine enter in, nor carnal desire. Do we not see that if an enemy is caught in a city, he is judged as a spy? Then let us drive out the aliens. Indeed let us not merely drive out aliens; let us send our enemies packing too. If we catch sight of a wicked thought,[112] let us hand it over to the ruler, our mind, the thought that is a barbarian tricked out in the garb of a citizen. For there are within us many thoughts of this kind, by nature enemies, though clad in sheep's skins. Just like Persians when they take off the tiara and trousers and barbarian shoes and put on the clothing that is usual with us, and shave themselves close and converse in our own tongue, but still conceal war under their outer garb; just apply the tests and you bring to light what is hidden.
Bonsdorff seems to have taken the second sentence literally.[113] Chrysostomus Baur justly objected that Chrysostom "spoke of the expulsion of moral enemies (vices), which dwell side by side with the citizens (virtues) in the city of the soul."[114] No careful reader could doubt that Chrysostom's language is indeed metaphorical. But why did he choose these metaphors? The idea of a battle between virtues and vices for man's soul is a commonplace, but there seems to be no other example of the virtues and vices being represented as citizens and aliens. On the other hand there is a striking parallel here with a passage from the antibarbarian tirade in De regno: "Many parts of the empire are aflame, as though it were a human body in which alien elements are incapable of mingling in a healthy state of harmony. Then in the case of cities as in that of the body, we must remove the alien elements" (22B-C). Synesius speaks of the body and Chrysostom of the soul, but both compare barbarians in the state to alien elements in man.
The xenelasia Chrysostom recommends was hardly the traditional way of dealing with racial conflicts in Greco-Roman society. A number of classical texts explicitly repudiate it as a harsh Spartan practice, altogether out of keeping with Athenian ways.[115] Yet this is just what Syne-
[113] "Es gibt der Fremdlinge und der Bürger in der Stadt viele, sagt Chrysostom, und er ermahnt seine Zuhörer, den Frieden wieder herzustellen und die Vertreibung der Fremdlinge zu veranstalten, damit die eigene Landsleute nicht verdorben werden" (Bonsdorff 1922, 94).
[114] Chrysostom , vol. 2 (1960), 96 n. 31.
[115] H. Volkmann, Kleine Pauly 5 (1975): 1406.
sius urges in De regno (21, 26A; 24C-D, "purge the army"; cf. De providentia 108D). Did Chrysostom share these extremist views? Could he, like Synesius, have uttered these words before the violent expulsion of the Goths in July 400? Surely not.
For Chrysostom had till then pursued an entirely different policy concerning the Gothic presence in Constantinople, one aiming at assimilation rather than expulsion.[116] It is best described in the words of Theodoret:
Appointing presbyters and deacons and readers of the holy scriptures who spoke the Scythian tongue, he assigned a church to them and with their help won many from their error [i.e., Arianism]. He used frequently to go there and preach himself, using an interpreter who was skilled in both languages, and he got other good speakers to do the same. This was his constant practice in the city.[117]
One of the sermons he preached in this Gothic church survives (PG 63.499–510): were not Abraham and Moses barbarians? he asked them; who were the baby Jesus' first visitors but barbarians? He also sent missionaries to Goths still living on the Danube. Theodoret quotes a letter from Chrysostom to Leontius, bishop of Ancyra, asking him to recommend suitably qualified men (HE 5.31). It is true that he opposed allowing the Goths an Arian church inside the city, but that was a religious, not a racial, question. His goal was to draw the Goths away from Arianism into the true faith. Nor did he stand alone in the attempt: there survive eight letters from the ascetic writer Nilus of Ancyra purporting to be addressed to Gaïnas himself, attacking Arianism and urging him to convert.[118] It is hard to believe that Chrysostom would have uttered such words even in metaphor before July 400. After then, of course, it was a different matter. Not only would such liberal views have been unpopular in the immediate aftermath of Gaïnas's defeat; the mere fact of his coup may have disillusioned many who had till then favored a policy of assimilation.
Granted that Chrysostom was speaking at some time in late 400 or early 401, the fate of the Goths of Constantinople is bound to have been on his mind. Despite the fact that the only aliens he names are Persians
[116] It was thus an oversimplification when A. Momigliano claimed that "St. John Chrysostom supported the anti-German party in Constantinople" (Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century [Oxford 1963], 14); so too S. Mazzarino, End of the Ancient World (London 1966), 63.
[117] HE 5.30.
[118] Ep . 1.70, 79, 114–16, 205–6, 286 in PG 79.
and (later) Jews,[119] the allusion to "sheep's clothing" was hardly less transparent. There is a close, though more explicit, parallel in the homily on the exile of Saturninus and Aurelian, delivered some time in the early summer of 400, apparently before the massacre.[120] Chrysostom is here talking about the "civil" war of 400, a war that is concealed, not open: "On every side there are a thousand disguises. There are many sheep's skins and countless wolves everywhere concealed in them" (PG 52.415). He goes on to denounce those who "flattered and kissed your hand yesterday, but now reveal themselves openly as enemies and cast off their disguises." While these allusions might seem to suggest nothing more than the ill-fated wolf who so disguised himself in the fable,[121] the Goths were notorious for dressing in skins, a fashion that caught on in the capital and was widely denounced by conservatives. In De regno 22A the Goths in Constantinople are compared to wolves among dogs, the guardian dogs of Plato's Republic.[122] In De regno 23C Synesius waxed indignant at the shame of
a man in skins leading warriors who wear the chlamys, exchanging his sheepskins for the toga to debate with Roman magistrates and perhaps even sit next to a consul, while law-abiding men sit behind. Then these same men, once they have gone a little way from the senate house, put on their sheepskins again, and when they have rejoined their fellows they mock the toga, saying that they cannot comfortably draw their swords in it.
Here we have the same idea of barbarians hypocritically and temporarily exchanging their skins for Roman dress. The word
"Foreign doctrine" in Hom. 37 was no less clear an allusion to the ancestral Arianism of the Goths. Synesius, too, refers to "Scythianizing"
[119] It will be remembered that there was a short-lived threat of war with Persia in mid-399: Demougeot 1951, 225.
[120] See below, p. 174.
[121] B. Perry, Aesopica (Urbana, Ill. 1952), 500, no. 451.
[122] Pl. Rep. 375Ef.
[123] Cod.Theod. 14.10.2 (399?; cf. Seeck 1919, 77); 3 (399); 4 (416).
[124] In Ruf. 2.79f.
[125] Claud. IV Cons. Hon. 466, Bell. Get. 481; Rut. Namat. Red. 2.49.
in religion (De providentia 121B). There can be no question that this passage was written when the memory of the Gothic massacre was still fresh in the minds of all, no earlier than the autumn of 400.
How frequently did Chrysostom preach? During Lent and the festival days of Easter, often every day: for example, Hom. 5, 7, 12, 13, and 14 De statuis open with the word "yesterday."[126] In Hom. 32 on Acts (PG 60.238) there is one "yesterday" referring to Hom. 31, but other evidence suggests a more relaxed tempo for this series, which as we have seen was not preached during Lent or Easter. In the passage already cited from Hom. 44, he says that he has been preaching "not every day and night, but often every third or seventh day": either once or twice a week. A passage in Hom. 29 (PG 60.217) refers to "so many prophets twice in every week discoursing to you, so many apostles and evangelists." This implies that twice a week was the norm. If so, it must have taken at least six and perhaps as many as eight or nine months to deliver all fifty-five homilies. If he began later in the year than Easter/Pentecost 400 and had reached winter by Hom. 29, he could not have finished before 401. And we have already seen that there are grounds for placing Hom. 44, at any rate, later than 26 February 401.
There is no way of guessing when Chrysostom began, but he cannot have preached continuously through the summer of 400. Already in April or May he was persuaded to postpone a trip to Asia Minor because of the "expectation of trouble," and our informant goes on to explain that "it was the barbarian Gaïnas who was the expected trouble."[127] Before long, Chrysostom became very involved in the political crisis. In his homily on the exile of Saturninus and Aurelian he begins by apologizing for not addressing his flock for so long.[128] Theodoret describes how he went to Thrace on an embassy to Gaïnas (HE 5.33), and in his lost Life of Chrysostom , summarized by Photius (cod. 273, p. 507b Bekker), he evidently gave more details about these negotiations. The trip to Thrace fell after the massacre (12 July), when Gaïnas retreated from Constantinople to Thrace in late July or August.
The homilies on Acts could have been delivered in unbroken sequence starting in the late summer or early autumn of 400. That scarcely
[126] For other examples, see J. Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church , bk. 14, chap. 4; Baur 1959, 1:222.
[127] Palladius, Dialogus de vita S. Iohannis Chrysostomi 49, ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton (Cambridge 1928), 87.2; cf. Albert 1980, 506–8.
[128] PG 52.413f.
leaves long enough for all fifty-five before the end of 400. We can either divide them between 400 and 401 with Bonsdorff or put them all in 401. For our present purposes, all that matters is that a substantial number of the homilies must in any case be assigned to 401. If so, then the earthquake referred to in Hom. 41 as having taken place "last year" must have fallen in 400.
It is one of the curiosities of scholarship that, having so ably countered Seeck's attempt to transfer the homilies on Acts to Antioch in the 370s, Bonsdorff accepted Seeck's transference of Synesius's departure to 402. He therefore knew of no evidence for an earthquake in 400 and weakly concluded that Chrysostom, who was very vague ("ungenau") about chronology, was referring to a supposed earthquake of 398.
Yet would even the vaguest of writers say "last year" when he meant "three years ago," especially when it was only three years since he had arrived in Constantinople himself? It is only three homilies later in the series (Hom. 44) that Chrysostom stressed those three years he had now spent in Constantinople.
More important, there was no quake in 398. A careful analysis of the sources has shown that all of them refer to 396—before Synesius even arrived in Constantinople.[129] In the light of the true chronology of Chrysostom's homilies, his reference to "last year" and the fact that Synesius's letter refers to Aurelian as consul, we can no longer doubt that both writers are describing one and the same earthquake, in 400.[130] It should be noted that Synesius's "repeatedly during the day" clearly implies a one-day quake, whereas the earthquake of 396 continued for a week.[131] Chrysostom is less precise, but his remark that three days later his quake was forgotten hardly suggests a series lasting seven days.
There may well have been another earthquake in 402. But in the absence of other documentation, can we have any confidence that Marcellinus did not simply misdate the quake of 400? Alternatively, Theodoret records a providential quake that is said to have changed the empress Eudoxia's mind about the first banishment of Chrysostom in
[129] Cameron 1987, 340–44.
[130] As taken for granted by scholars before Seeck: e.g., Clausen 1831, 16 n. 2; Montfaucon's preface to Chrysostom reprinted in PG 60.9–10. Oddly enough Sievers (1870, 378) also argued for a visit lasting from 397/8 to the autumn of 400, though without discussing the earthquake at all.
[131] Marcellinus, s.a. 396 = Chron.Min. II.64 ("per dies plurimos"); Glycas, p.478.20 Bonn = PG 158.484C (seven days).
September 403.[132] If this quake happened at all,[133] it happened in 403. No one can exclude the possibility that there were quakes at Constantinople in 400, 402, and 403,[134] but we should at least consider the possibility that Marcellinus's quake is in fact the same as Theodoret's, in which case it would have to be transferred to 403.[135] If so, that would remove any possibility of linking it to Synesius's departure, since he cannot possibly still have been in Constantinople as late as September 403. In all probability only one earthquake took place during Synesius's three years at Constantinople, in the autumn of 400. This fits perfectly with our earlier calculation that he must have arrived with the crown gold in the autumn of 397.
Since Synesius returned home by sea, he is not likely to have found a passenger boat ready to leave after the end of the sailing season, 10 November at the latest.[136] His three-year embassy will have kept him in Constantinople from some time in the autumn of 397 to late autumn of 400.
[132] HE 5.34; Theodoret's quake is repeated with further embellishments in two worthless later Lives of Chrysostom: see Baur 1960, 2:271 n. 11.
[133] The better-informed Palladius (p. 51.17 Coleman-Norton) says that there was a "calamity in the bedchamber," which has usually been taken to imply a miscarriage. Of course an earthquake might bring on a miscarriage; the emperor Leo VI describes an earthquake in the imperial bedchamber (Baur 1960, 2:271 n. 11.)!
[134] Ep. 2.265 of Nilus of Ancyra (PG 79.265) purports to reply to a letter of Arcadius asking why the city is being so troubled with earthquakes. Nilus replies that it is a judgment for exiling Chrysostom, which implies that he is writing after the quake of 407 (cf. Cameron 1976b, 187). However they are counted, there were a lot of earthquakes during the reign of Arcadius.
[135] Marcellinus is in general one of the more reliable chroniclers, but he does misdate the earthquake of 478 to 480: Stein 1949, 787, with B. Croke, Byzantion 51 (1981): 131. Nearer in time he misdates the destruction of the Serapeum (391; see p. 53 n. 191) to 389.
[136] See Cameron 1987, 344f.; J. Rougé, "La navigation hivernale sous lempire[*] romain," REA 54 (1952): 316–25.