Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:29:16.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constantine and the Christians of Persia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

T. D. Barnes
T. D. Barnes
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The twenty-three Demonstrations of Aphrahat are not likely to be familiar to most students of Roman history or of Constantine. Aphrahat was head of the monastery of Mar Mattai, near modern Mosul, with the rank of bishop and, apparently, the episcopal name Jacob: as a consequence, he was soon confused with the better known Jacob of Nisibis, and independent knowledge of his life and career virtually disappeared. Fortunately, however, twenty-three treatises survived, whose attribution to ‘Aphrahat the Persian sage’ seems beyond doubt. Aphrahat wrote in Syriac and composed works of edification and polemic for a Mesopotamian audience outside the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, he provides crucial evidence not only for the attitude of Persian Christians towards Rome, but also for the military situation on Rome's eastern frontier at the end of the reign of Constantine. It is worth the effort, therefore, to set Aphrahat's fifth Demonstration, which bears the title ‘On wars’ or ‘On battles’, in its precise historical context. The present paper begins by considering the place of this Demonstration in Aphrahat's oeuvre and its exact date (I–III); it then argues that in 337 Constantine was preparing to invade Persia as the self-appointed liberator of the Christians of Persia (IV, VI), that Aphrahat expected him to be successful (V), and that Constantine's actions and the hopes which he excited caused the Persian king to regard his Christian subjects as potential traitors—and hence to embark on a policy of persecution (VII).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 75 , November 1985 , pp. 126 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © T. D. Barnes 1985. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 See the notice in BL, Orient. 1017, fol. 160a (dated A.D. 1364), printed by Wright, W., Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum acquired since the year 1838 11 (1871), 401Google Scholar; 896. Episcopal rank is presupposed by Aphrahat's composition of the synodical letter which comprises Demonstration XIV, cf. Forget, J., De Vita et Scriptis Aphraatis, Sapientis Persae (Diss. Louvain, 1882), 82Google Scholar ff.

2 Within a hundred and fifty years of Aphrahat's death, Gennadius can summarize the content of the Demonstrations (albeit not quite accurately), but ascribe them to ‘Jacobus cognomento Sapiens Nizebenae nobilis Persarum modo civitatis episcopus’ (De viris illustrious 1). BL, Orient. 1017, fol. 159a confuses Aphrahat with Jacob of Tagrit.

3 Edited by Wright, W., The Homilies of Aphraates 1 (1869)Google Scholar; Parisot, R., Patrologia Syriaca 1, 1 (1894)Google Scholar; 1, 2 (1907), 1–489 (with Latin translation).

4 On the literary context of Aphrahat, see Murray, R., ‘The Characteristics of the Earliest Syriac Christianity’, East of Byzantium. Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium 1980, publ. 1982), 3–16Google Scholar.

5 See, recently, Blum, G. G., Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte XCI (1980), 27 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 See ZPE LII (1983), 234.

7 Translated into English by Johnston, A. E. in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series XIII, 2 (1898), 352–62Google Scholar. (For the identity of the translator, sometimes mis-stated as J. Gwynn, see ibid. 116.) The translations offered here are my own: references are to the paragraphs in Parisot's edition.

The fifth Demonstration survives in Armenian and Ethiopic as well as in the original Syriac: for the former, see G. Lafontaine, CSCO CCCLXXXII = Scriptores Armeniaci VII (1977), 88–114 (text); CSCO CCCLXXXIII = Scriptores Armeniaci VIII (1977), 46–60 (translation); for the latter, Pereira, F. M. E., ‘Jacobi, episcopi Nisibeni, Homilia de adventu regis Persarum adversus urbem Nisibin’, Orientalische Studien Th. Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet II (1906), 877–92Google Scholar (based on only one of the two extant manuscripts, and with no translation). The Ethiopic is throughout a paraphrase rather than a translation: see F. Thureau-Dangin, reported by Parisot, R., Patrologia Syriaca 1, 1 (1894), xlGoogle Scholar. The Armenian translation appears to belong to the fifth century, even though none of the numerous manuscripts which preserve it ante-dates the seventeenth: see Lafontaine, G., ‘Pour une nouvelle édition de la version arménienne des “Demonstrations” d'Aphraate’, Bazmavep, Revue des études arméniennes CXXXIII (1975), 365–75Google Scholar. To judge from the Latin translation provided by Lafontaine, the Armenian translator tried to stay close to the Syriac, but resorted to paraphrase where he found Aphrahat obscure: he is also guilty of some careless lapses (e.g., confusing Roman emperors with Seleucid kings).

8 Dem. 1, 1, etc. The address is combined with a claim to be systematic in Dem. 11, 11.

9 Dem. x, 7, taken with III, 1; VI, 6–10, implies that the addressee is to use the Demonstrations for instructing a monastic community. Note also I, 20: ‘so that you may learn and teach, believed and be believed’.

10 No such statement in fact stands at the end of x in either of the extant manuscripts of that treatise.

11 Neusner, J., Aphrahat and Judaism. The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Studia Post-Biblica XIX, 1971), 4 ffGoogle Scholar.

12 Fiey, J.-M., ‘Notule de littérature syriaque. La Démonstration XIV d'Aphraate’, Museon LXXXI (1968), 449–54Google Scholar. Two centuries ago, when publishing the Armenian version, Antonelli, N., Sancti Patris nostri Jacobi episcopi Nisibeni Sermones (1756), 401 ffGoogle Scholar., segregated the synodical letter and denied that it could be from the same hand as the other Demonstrations.

13 Nedungatt, G., ‘The Authenticity of Aphrahat's Synodal Letter’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica XLVI (1980), 62–88Google Scholar; Owens, R. J., The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden III, 1983), 2 ffGoogle Scholar. Observe, however, that not all of Nedungatt's arguments are valid, in particular his claim that ‘In epistolary language, the Syriac kethbeth, like its Latin equivalent “scripsi”, can mean “I wrote or I dispatched”, or “I am writing/dispatching”… When kethbeth is taken in the sense of dispatching or sending, the actual time of the composition of the letter or letters is left out of consideration' (65–6).

14 The thesis of M. J. Higgins, BZ XLIV (1951), 265 ff.; Traditio IX (1953), 48 ff.; Traditio XI (1955), 1 ff., cf. Kmosko, G., Patrologia Syriaca 1, 2 (1907), 690 ffGoogle Scholar.

15 G. Nedungatt, op. cit. (n. 13), 69 n. 11, draws attention to the problem, ignored to the detriment of their arguments by Peeters, P., Anal. Boll, LVI (1938), 131 ffGoogle Scholar.; Devos, P., Anal. Boll, LXXXIV (1966), 246 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 de Lagarde, P., Analecta Syriaca (1858), 111Google Scholar; Wright, W., Homilies (1869), xxiiGoogle Scholar. For translations of the whole letter, Cowper, B. H., Syriac Miscellanies (1861), 61 ffGoogle Scholar.; Ryssel, V., Georgs des Araberbischofs Gedichte und Briefe (1891), 44 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 The only systematic published collections of these acta are by Assemani, S. E., Acta Sanctorum Martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium I (1748), 10 ffGoogle Scholar.; Bedjan, P., Acta martyrum et sanctorum 11 (1891), 131 ffGoogle Scholar.

18 BHO 718 (Assemani, Acta 105 ff.; Bedjan, , Acta II, 292 ffGoogle Scholar.).

19 There is a critical edition of the two versions of the passion of Simeon (BHO 1117, 1119) by Kmosko, M., Patrologia Syriaca 1, 2 (1907), 715 ffGoogle Scholar.

20 The connection was seen by Forget, J., De Vita et Scriptis Aphraatis (1882), 19Google Scholar.

21 The relevant part of the relative clause in A reads:

22 Grumel, V., Traité d'Études byzantines I. La Chronologie (1958), 209 fGoogle Scholar.

23 Nöldeke, T., Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden (1879), 436Google Scholar.

24 T. Nöldeke, op. cit., 410 ff.; Lewy, H., Orientalia, N.s. x (1941), 45Google Scholar. No Sassanian coins earlier than Peroz bear the kings' regnal years, cf. Göbi, R., Sasanian Numismatics (1971), 23Google Scholar.

25 Bert, G., Aphrahat's des persischen Weisen Homilien (Texte und Untersuchungen III, 3/4 (1888), 1–431)Google Scholar, xvi, 69–70, cf. recently Frye, R. N., History of Ancient Iran (1984), 310Google Scholar.

26 Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (1981), 208 ffGoogle Scholar.; 245 ff.

27 Eusebius, VC 11, 18.

28 Eusebius, VC II, 44 ff., cf. AJP cv (1984), 69 ff.

29 Eusebius, Triac. 8, 1 ff.; VC III, 54, 4 ff.

30 Constantine, quoted by Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 86, 10/11; Gelasius, HE III, 10, 10; Eusebius, VC IV, 5/6.

31 Constantine (1981), 18.

32 ibid. 65.

33 Pan. Lat. IV (x), 38, 3; Porfyrius, Carm. XVIII, 4: ‘et Medi praestas in censum sceptra redire’. The Persian prince Hormizd, a brother of Shapur, had recently fled from Persia and arrived at the imperial court (Zosimus 11, 27, cf. John of Antioch, frag. 178).

34 Eusebius, VC IV, 8. This section of the Life is arranged thematically, not chronologically.

35 Eusebius, VC IV, 8.

36 de Decker, D., ‘Sur le destinataire de la lettre au roi des Perses (Eusèbe de Césarée, Vit. Const., IV, 9–13) et la conversion de l'Arménie à la religion chrétienne’, Persica VIII (1979), 99–116Google Scholar.

37 viz. Eusebius, VC IV, 9–10 (Winkelmann's first paragraph), 11–12 (Winkelmann's second and third paragraphs) and 13. Eusebius writes as if he translated the letter from Latin into Greek himself: on his competence as a translator, see E. Fisher, YCS XXVII (1982), 200 ff. Eusebius may slightly have distorted Constantine's undoubtedly often obscure Latin, but it is unlikely that he rewrote the letter entirely, as argued by Barceló, P. A., Roms auswärtige Beziehungen unter der Constantinischen Dynastie (306–363)Google Scholar (Eichstätter Beiträge, Abteilung Geschichte III, 1981), 77Google Scholar.

38 Constantine (1981), 258 f.

39 On which, see now Thélamon, F., Païens et Chrétiens au IVe siècle. L'apport de l''Histoire ecclésiastique' de Rufin d'Aquilée (1981), 85 ffGoogle Scholar.

40 RIC VII, 331, Rome 298; Victor, Caes. 41, 18; Chr. min. 1, 233 (rebuilding of Trajan's bridge on the Danube); AE 1934, 158 (title of Dacicus maximus).

41 Constantine, , Oratio 16, 4Google Scholar, cf. Phoenix xxx (1976), 186 ff.

42 Eusebius, VC IV, 9.

43 For Persian aggression, Libanius, Orat. LIX, 62 ff.; Eutropius, Brev. X, 8, 2; Festus, Brev. 26. It is significant that Libanius in 349 presents the Persians as plotting to renew warfare for the whole of the four decades since their defeat in the 290s (Orat. LIX, 65). On the other hand, both the date and the significance of the capture of Amida alleged by Theophanes, p. 20, 20 ff. de Boor, remain uncertain: Theophanes puts the capture in 324, but couples it with the death of Narses—which occurred nearly twenty years later.

44 Faustus III, 21, cf. Ensslin, W., Klio XXIX (1936), 102 ffGoogle Scholar.

45 Ammianus xxv, 4, 23; Cedrenus I, 516 Bonn. However, the whole story is argued to be an invention by Eunapius, without any factual basis at all, by Warmington, B. H., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and the Lies of Metrodorus’, CQ XXXI (1981), 464–8Google Scholar.

46 Eusebius, VC IV, 56; 62, 2.

47 Eusebius, VC IV, 57, chapter-heading (the text is lost); Libanius, Orat. LIX, 71 f.; Festus, Brev. 26.

48 Origo Const. Imp. 35; Epitome 41, 20.

49 RIC VII, 584; 589 f., cf. Seeck, O., Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt IV (1911), 25Google Scholar.

50 Eusebius, VC IV, 60 ff.; Festal Index 10; Chr. min. I, 235; Socrates, HE I, 39, 2; 40, 3.

51 Julian, Oral. I, 16 ff.; Socrates HE n, 2 ff., cf. Phoenix XXXIV (1980), 162.

52 Jerome, Chronicle 234d Helm; Chron. Pasch. 533 Bonn, cf. ZPE LII (1983), 229 ff.

53 Constantine (1981), 261 f.

54 Jacob of Nisibis died in the Seleucid year 649 after taking an active part in the defence against Shapur's first siege: see Peeters, P., ‘La légende de Saint Jacques de Nisibe’, Anal. Boll. XXXVIII (1920), 285–373Google Scholar.

55 Gavin, F., Journal of the Society of Oriental Research VII (1923), 98 ffGoogle Scholar.; Murray, R., Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (1975), 241 ffGoogle Scholar.

56 That Aphrahat's argument is not allegorical was rightly stressed by Sasse, C. J. F., Prolegomena in Aphraatis Sapientis Persae sermones homileticos (Diss. Leipzig, 1878)Google Scholar.

57 The Chronicle of Edessa notes that Augustus began to rule in year 266, i.e. 47/6 B.C. (CSCO, Scr. Syri III, 4 (1903), 3, 17–18).

58 Jerome, Chronicle 217c Helm: ‘primusque omnium ex Romanis imperatoribus Christianus fuit’.

59 Lactantius, Mort. Pers. 10, 6 ff.; 31, 1; Eusebius, HE VIII, App. 1; 3.

60 Daniel VII, 23 stresses the difference between the third and fourth kingdoms which Aphrahat equates.

61 A saying of Jesus quoted in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies XII, 29 (PG 11, 324) and Epitome 96 (Resch, A., Agrapha. Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente 2 (Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F. XV, 3/4, 1906), 106 fGoogle Scholar.

62 Neither Aphrahat nor the Itinerarium Alexandri receives any mention in Warmington, B. H., ‘Objectives and Strategy in the Persian War of Constantius II’, Limes. Akten des XI International Limeskongresses (1977), 509–20Google Scholar, who argues that Constantius' strategy was from the start ‘strictly defensive’.

63 The sole manuscript appears to be Milan, Ambros. P 49 sup., fols. 54v–64v, the most recent edition that by D. Volkmann (Prog. Pforta, publ. Naumburg, 1871). I am grateful to the Medieval Institute of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana for providing me with a microfilm.

The Itinerarium Alexandri is duly noted and discussed in standard handbooks: Schanz-Hosius, , Gesch. d. lat. Litt. IV, I2 (1914), 115 fGoogle Scholar.; W. Kubitschek, RE IX (1916), 2363 ff.; Piganiol, A., L'empire chrétien (1947), 76Google Scholar (missing the relevance of Trajan). Also, in her survey of the myth of Alexander in late antiquity, by Ruggini, L. Cracco, Athenaeum, N.s. XLIII (1965), 5Google Scholar.

64 I print Volkmann's text (p. 2, 5–10). The only serious textual difficulty is in the first line, where the MS has ‘iussio maiora longe felicioraque quae profecto sint’.

65 Libanius, Orat. LIX, 43 ff.; 72 ff., cf. E. Ferrero, Diz. Ep. 11, 657.

66 e.g. Athanasius, Apol. ad Const. 4, where ‘any others (ἄλλους τινάς)’ means precisely Constantinus.

67 Peeters, P., ‘L'intervention politique de Constance II dans la Grande Arménie, en 338’, Bull. Acad. roy. de Belgique, Classe des Lettres XVII (1931), 10–47Google Scholar, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientates 1 (Subsidia Hagiographica XXVII, 1951), 222–50.

68 Brock, S., ‘A Martyr at the Sasanid Court under Vahran II: Candida’, Anal. Boll. XCVI (1978), 167–81Google Scholar.

69 Fiey, J.-M., Jalons pour une histoire de l'Église en Iraq (CSCO cccx: Subsidia XXXVI, 1970), 87 fGoogle Scholar.

70 Nöldeke, T., Geschichte (1879), 501Google Scholar; Aufsätze zur persischen Geschichte (1887), 97 ft.; G. Bert. op. cit. (n. 25), 69 n. 1.

71 Labourt, J., Le Christianisme dans l'empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide (1904), 43 ff.; 104 ffGoogle Scholar.; Fiey, J.-M., Jalons (1970), 85 ffGoogle Scholar.

72 Brock, S. P., ‘Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties’, Studies in Church History XVIII (1982), 1–19Google Scholar.