Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T01:02:36.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The final commission of Artemius the former dux Aegypti

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

David Woods
David Woods*
Affiliation:
University College Cork
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is normally assumed that Artemius was dux Aegypti at the time of his martyrdom at Antioch on 20 October 362. The present paper argues that Constantius II had actually promoted him as his magister equitum per Orientem about a year beforehand, just before his own death. In accordance with his anti-Christian bias, however, Ammianus Marcellinus conceals this fact in order to create a false association between Artemius and the disreputable bishop George of Alexandria, attacking not only the cult of martyrs in general but that of Artemius at Antioch in particular.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 23 , 1999 , pp. 2 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1999

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. Trans, by Vermes, M. in Lieu, S.N.C. and Montserrat, D. (eds.), From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History (London 1996) 210-62Google Scholar. There are occasional slips, however, as when Gallicanus is translated as the name of a province rather than as the name of a lodging post in the province of Bithynia as the text correctly states (AP 14.112), p. 230. Nor is this information unique, contra n. 23, p. 259, since Amm. XIV, 11, 6 better preserves the full name of this post as Caeni Gallicani. More importantly, one cannot rely on the translation as far as technical terms are concerned. For example, the translation refers to ‘Gaudentius the dux Africae’, although the text only reads ‘Gaudentius, general of Africa (AP 21.18: στρατηγòν τñζ Άɸρικής), p. 234, while rendering ‘He is dux of Alexandria’ (AP 36.5-6: ‘O δούξ έστιν Άλεξανδρείας) as ‘It is the Governor of Alexandria,’ p. 237.

2. Lieu, S.N.C., ‘From villain to saint and martyr. The life and afterlife of Flavius Artemius, Dux Aegypti ’, BMGS 20 (1996) 56–76 Google Scholar.

3. Amm. XXII, 11, 1-3. My translation.

4. Hist. Aceph. II, 10.

5. Sabbah, G., La méthode d’Ammien Marcellin. Recherches sur la construction du discours historique dans les Res Gestae (Paris 1978) 482 Google Scholar.

6. den Boeft, J., Drijvers, J.W., den Hengst, D., and Teitler, H.C., Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXII (Groningen 1995) 196 Google Scholar.

7. Amm. XXII, 3, 1-8.

8. Amm. XX, 9, 8; XXV, 3, 14.

9. E.g. Rolfe, J.C., Ammianus Marcellinus, II (LCL 315. Cambridge, MA 1940)Google Scholar, 259 translates, ‘whom they dreaded, for fear that he would return with his power restored (for so he had threatened) and do harm to many for the wrong that he had suffered’; Hamilton, W., Ammianus Marcellinus: The Later Roman Empire (AD 354-378) (Harmondsworth 1986) 246 Google Scholar translates, ‘They had been afraid that he would return, as he threatened, with his power restored and take revenge on the many people who had injured him’.

10. Hence den Boeft et al., op. cit., 202 claim that ‘the Alexandrians feared Artemus might return as dux Aegypti’.

11. Amm. XXI, 16, 3.

12. Amm. XV, 2, 1-2; XIV, 11, 5.

13. Amm. XVIII, 5, 5. Note that Ursicinus was vicarius magistri peditum praesentalis when Sabinianus was sent to the East, and that Sabinianus was succeeding him as the senior commander in the eastern theatre of operations but Prosper in his post of magister equitum per Orientem.

14. Amm. XX, 2,1-5.

15. Amm. XXVI, 5, 2.

16. Amm. XX, 9, 5. See Demandt, A., ‘Magister militum’, RE Suppl. XII (1970) 573 Google Scholar.

17. He commanded a force of 30,000 men together with the future usurper Procopius and had orders to protect the Tigris frontier (Amm. XXIII, 3,5). Procopius’ office is not specified either, but as a former notarius (Amm. XXVI, 6,1) he can only have been a civilian official, most probably the comes sacrarum largitionum in succession to Felix who had died at Antioch in January 363 (Amm. XXIII, 1,5).

18. In general, see Mango, C., ‘Constantine’s Mausoleum and the Translation of Relics’, and ‘Constantine’s Mausoleum: Addendum’, BZ 83 (1990) 51–61 Google Scholar, 434. The basic problem is that the Artemii Passio dates Artemius’ involvement in the translation of these relics to late 359 (AP 16-18), while the better chronicles — Jerome’s Chronicon, the Consularia Constantinopolitana, the Chronicon Paschale — date their translation to 357. But as the controversy surrounding the date of the so-called bellum Cibalense between Constantine I and Licinius proves, for example, the chronicles are not necessarily infallible. For while Jerome’s Chronicon dates this war to 313, and the Consularia Constantinopolitana dates it to 314, the wider evidence supports a date of 316. See Pohlsander, H., ‘The Date of the Bellum Cibalense: a Re-Examination’, The Ancient World 26 (1995) 89–101 Google Scholar.

19. P. Oxy. 1103.

20. Athan., Fest. Ind. 32.

21. A. Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia, I: The Life of Saint Pachomius (Cistercian Studies Series 45: Kalamazoo 1980) 220-24, 396-97.

22. Socrates, HE III, 3, 10 = Julian, Ep. 21 (Wright). Trans. Zenos, A.C., The Writings of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, II (New York 1890) 79 Google Scholar.

23. Wright, W.C., The Works of the Emperor Julian, III (LCL 157. Cambridge, MA, 1923) 63 Google Scholar.

24. Bidez, J., L’empereur Julian oeuvres complètes, I. 2e Partie (Paris 1924) 70 Google Scholar n. 1.

25. E.g. Caltabiano, M., ‘L’assassinio di Giorgio di Cappadocia’, Quaderni Catanesi di Studi Classici e Medievali 7 (1985) 17–57 Google Scholar at 37, n. 72; Barnes, T.D., ‘Pagans and Christians in the Reign of Constantius’, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 34 (Geneva 1989) 322-37 at 327Google Scholar; Lieu and Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian, 214. Exceptionally, Dummer, J., ‘Fl. Artemius Dux Aegypti’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 21 (1971) 121-44Google Scholar at 138-39 seeks to identify the dux Aegypti as Sebastianus and the occasion as the expulsion of bishop George from Alexandria in 358.

26. E.g. Martin, A. and Albert, M., Histoire ‘Acéphale’ et Index Syriaque des Lettres Festales d’Athanase d’Alexandrie (Sources Chrétiennes 317. Paris 1985) 188 Google Scholar; Barnes, ‘Pagans and Christians in the Reign of Constantius’, 327; Matthews, J., The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London 1989) 443 Google Scholar; Lieu and Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian, 213-14; Haas, C., Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore 1997) 288 Google Scholar.

27. Soc. HE III, 2. Trans, by Zenos, op. cit., 78-9.

28. Hist. Aceph. II, 8. Trans. Robertson, A., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd Series, IV (New York 1892) 497-98Google Scholar. It is clear from Amm. XXII, 11,9 that the anonymous author of the Historia Acephala has misinterpreted his source as he condensed it, that two men were killed in addition to George, the praepositus monetae Dracontius and Diodorus, and that of these it was Diodorus alone who supervised the building of the church.

29. Amm. XXII, 11,7. Trans. Hamilton, op. cit., 247.

30. Amm. XXII, 11,11.

31. Hist. Aceph. V.12-13.

32. Amm. XXII, 11,9. Trans. Hamilton, op. cit., 247.

33. See den Boeft et al., op. cit., 209, who concludes that ‘the present text simply explains that the mob regarded Diodorus as someone who belonged to George’s company.’

34. E.g. PIRE I, 255.

35. Not. Dig. Or. XXVIII, 1 refers to the comes limitis Aegypti. P. Oxy. 4381 (3 August 375) refers to Flavius Mauricius as the comes ordinis primi et dux.

36. Socrates, , HE II, 13 Google Scholar; Sozomen, , HE III, 7 Google Scholar; Amm. XIV, 10, 2.

37. Rufinus, , HE XI, 18 Google Scholar; Augustine, , Civ. Dei. V, 26 Google Scholar; Sozomen, , HE VII, 25 Google Scholar.

38. Trans, by M. Vermes in Lieu and Montserrat, op. cit., 236.

39. See Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972) 114-16Google Scholar.

40. In general, see Kaegi, W.E., ‘Domestic Military Problems of Julian the Apostate’, BF 2 (1967) 247-64Google Scholar. For more detailed discussion of individual victims of Julian’s attempts to purge the army in this way, see Woods, D., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and the Deaths of Bonosus and Maximilianus’, Hagiographica 2 (1995) 25–55 Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997) 335-67; idem, ‘Valens, Valentinian I, and the Ioviani Cornuti’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IX (Brussels 1998) 463-86.

41. On the loss of Lucillianus, see Amm. XXI, 9, 5-8. The events of 361 are too complex and controversial to be discussed in any detail here, and will form an important part of my forthcoming monograph on the identities and succession of the magistri militum in the fourth century. For a taste of the problems, see Nixon, C.E.V., ‘Aurelius Victor and Julian’, Classical Philology 86 (1991) 113-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is my opinion, however, that Julian captured both Constantius’ magister equitum praesentalis Arbitio as well as Lucillianus, whom I identify as the vicarius magistri equitum praesentalis, as he sped through Illyricum in 361.

42. Trans. Rolfe, op. cit., 257-59.

43. Trans. Hamilton, op. cit., 246.

44. See MacMullen, R., Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven 1988) 137-67Google Scholar.

45. E.g. den Boeft et al., op. cit., 199.

46. In general, see Barnes, T.D., ‘Literary Convention, Nostalgia and Reality in Amraianus Marcellinus’, in Clarke, G. et al. (eds.), Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay 1990) 59–92 Google Scholar at 75-82; idem, ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and His World’, Classical Philology 88 (1993)55-70 at 67-70; Woods, D., ‘Ammianus 22.4.6; An Unnoticed Anti-Christian Jibe’, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1998) 145-48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. See Hunt, E.D., ‘Christians and Christianity in Ammianus Marcellinus’, Classical Quarterly 35 (1985) 186–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Christianity in Ammianus Marcellinus Revisited’ in E. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 24 (Louvain 1993) 108-13.

48. Amm. XXII, 5, 4.

49. Amm. XXII, 11, 10.

50. See Matthews, J., ‘The Origin of Ammianus’, Classical Quarterly 44 (1994) 252-69CrossRefGoogle Scholar who argues that Antioch was the ‘focus of Ammianus’ experience’, 255. On the basis of Amm. XXIX, 1,24 and Amm. XXIX, 2,4, it is generally agreed that Ammianus was in Antioch during the infamous treason trials of 370-71 at least. While I am inclined to believe that Ammianus was actually from Phoenicia, for reasons which I have touched upon in ‘Maurus, Marvia, and Ammianus’, Mnemosyne 51 (1998) 325-36, 1 do not doubt that he did spend a great deal of his life in the regional capital, Antioch.