Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T06:30:49.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ammianus Marcellinus and the Lies of Metrodorus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

B. H. Warmington
B. H. Warmington
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The eleventh-century Byzantine compiler Cedrenus includes a unique story in the midst of his otherwise traditional and hagiographic material on the emperor Constantine. Mentioning the outbreak of war between the Roman and Persian empires, he describes the cause of the breakdown of peace somewhat as follows. A certain Metrodorus, who was of Persian origin, went to visit the Brahmins in India to study philosophy and won the reputation of being a holy man through his asceticism. He also built water mills and baths, unknown to the Indians till that time. Having acquired this reputation, he entered the temples and took away many precious stones and pearls. He also received gifts from the king of the Indians. On his return to Byzantium he gave them to the emperor Constantine as being gifts of his own. When Constantine expressed his astonishment, Metrodorus said he had sent other gifts by the land route but that they had been detained by the Persians. Constantine then wrote a strong protest to Sapor demanding the gifts but received no reply; thus the peace was broken.

This remarkable conte, more appropriate to the Arabian Nights than to sober history, is generally supposed to be referred to in a passage in Ammianus. Towards the end of a long section commenting on the personality and achievements of Julian, Ammianus turns briefly to the question of the ultimate responsibility for the Persian War which ended so disastrously for Julian and the Roman Empire:

et quoniam eum obtrectatoribus novos bellorum tumultus ad perniciem rei communis insimulant concitasse, sciant docente veritate perspicue, non Iulianum sed Constantinum (MS. Constantium) ardores Parthicos succendisse, cum Metrodori mendaciis avidius acquiescit, ut dudum rettulimus plane.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , December 1981 , pp. 464 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 1. 295a–b, Bonn.

2 25. 4. 23–4.

3 e.g. Eutrop. Brev. 10. 8. 2; Aur. Victor Caes. 41. 13 cf. 16; Origo Constantini 6. 30–1; Julian, , Or. 1. 18bGoogle Scholar.

4 HE 10. 9.

5 1. 19. 3; Sozom. 2. 24.

6 In Hieroclem, most conveniently in vol. ii of the Loeb edition of Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana. On Hierocles, see Barnes, T. D. ‘Sossianus Hierocles and the antecedents of the Great Persecution’, HSCP 30 (1976), 245 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 Itinerarium Burdigalense in Corpus Christianorum, vol. 175.

8 Vita Constantini 4. 50.

9 Amm. Marc. 17. 5. 15; Eunapius, , v. Sophist. 465–6Google Scholar. The date was 357/8.

10 Caes. 39. 37.

11 Baynes, N. H., ‘Rome and Armenia in the fourth century’, EHR 25 (1910), 625 ffGoogle Scholar. followed by, for example, Stein, E. and Palanque, J. R., Histoire du Bas-Empire, i (1959), p. 130Google Scholar; Macmullen, R., Constantine (1969), pp. 221 ff.Google Scholar, Vogt, J., Constantin der Grosse (2nd ed. 1960), p. 237Google Scholar. I hope to deal with this problem elsewhere.

12 Ensslin in PW, s.v. Metrodorus No. 22.

13 Amm. Marc. 21. 13.

14 Amm. Marc. 22. 12. 3.

15 Or. 49. 2; 17. 19; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., Antioch (1972), pp. 162 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 Or. 18. 164.

17 loc. cit.

18 Or. 17. 19.

19 Libanius, , Or. 18. 206 ffGoogle Scholar. in 363. For later judgements, Eutrop. Brev. 10. 10. 1; Epitome de Caesaribus 42. 18; Amm. Marc. 21. 16. 15; Warmington, B. H., ‘Objectives and Strategy in the Persian War of Constantius II’ in Akten des XI Internationalen Limeskongressus, 1977Google Scholar.

20 The unique nature of the loss of Mesopotamia is stressed by Eunapius, , Brev. 10. 17Google Scholar; Amm. Marc. 25. 9. 11. See PW s.v. Nisibis for a vast range of references from Christian sources.

21 On Eunapius and Zosimus, see in general the introduction to vol i of the edition of Zosimus by F. Paschoud (1971) but see n. 22 below. Cp. Matthews, J. F., ‘Olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West’, JRS 60 (1970), 79 ffGoogle Scholar. Hunger, H., Die Hochsprachliche Profane Literatur der Byzantiner, i (1978), pp. 285 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 Suggested by Chalmers, W. R., ‘The ν⋯α ἔκδοστς of Eunapius' Histories’, CQ n.s. 3 (1953), 165 ff.Google Scholar; Cameron, Alan, ‘An alleged fragment of Eunapius’, CQ n.s. 13 (1963), 232 ff.Google Scholar; most recently, Barnes, T. D., The sources of the Historia Augusta (1978), pp. 114 ffGoogle Scholar. Any suggestion of Nicomachus Flavianus as a source for Ammianus and Eunapius, as Paschoud (op. cit.) maintained, should be rejected.

23 Hunger op. cit. i. 301, 327 and 361 for the later use of Eunapius.

24 Zos. 2.27; Amm. Marc. 16. 10. 16 refers to the (lost) account. Zonaras 13. 5 (3. 189 Dindorf) has divergent details. See PW s.v. Hormisdas no. 3 (Seeck) but problems remain.

25 Alan Cameron, op. cit. p. 334, quoting M. F. A. Brok, De Perzische expeditie von keizer Julianus volgens Ammianus Marcellinus. Note that two-thirds of what Zosimus has to say about Constantine is devoted to the civil wars with Maxentius and Licinius.

26 17. 5. 3 ff. when Sapor's demands in 357 specified the return of Armenia and Mesopotamia.

27 Syme, R., Ammianus Marcellinus and the Historia Augusta (1968), p. 105Google Scholar quotes 14. 11. 10 (Eutrop. Brev. 9. 24), 15. 5. 18 (Brev. 9. 26); to which should be added 16. 10. 3 (Brev. 9. 25).

28 Müller, C., FHG iv. 2. 3Google Scholar.

29 Müller, C., FHG iv. 3Google Scholar; Libanius, , Or. 1. ed. Norman, A. F. (Oxford, 1968), 22, 28 ff., 158 ffGoogle Scholar.

30 Or. 49. 2 τεθνε⋯τος το⋯νυν αὐτο⋯ το⋯ π⋯λεμου ἤδν πεφυτευκ⋯τος. Contrast what he has to say in Or. 59. 62 ff., written in 349 under the sons of Constantine, where the Persians are simple aggressors.

31 Zos. 2. 28; Eutrop. Brev. 10. 6. 1.

32 Zos. 2. 29; cf. Sozom. 1. 5; Julian, , Caes. 338a–bGoogle Scholar.

33 Amm. Marc. 59. 8. 12. The point was already admitted by Eusebius, , VC 4. 54Google Scholar.

34 Eutrop. Brev. 10. 7; Zos. 2. 38. 1; Epitome de Caesaribus 41. 16; Julian, , Caes. 335bGoogle Scholar.