-
Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288 brill.com/vc
VigiliaeChristianae
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI:
10.1163/15700720-12341129
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
H.C. TeitlerFischer-von-Erlach-Strae 5, 80689 Munich,
Germany
[email protected]
AbstractChristian sources name several dozen Christian martyrs
under Julian the Apostate. Six of these martyrs were according to
such sources executed in Antioch during Julians stay in this city
in 362-363 A.D. Pagan authors like Ammianus Marcellinus and
Libanius are silent about their martyrdom, and about the
persecution of Christians by Julian in general. It is examined in
this article whether the Christian authors, among them John
Chrysostom, represent historical reality more than Ammianus and
Libanius do, and whether their writings can be adduced to prove
that Julian was a persecutor.
KeywordsJulian the Apostate, Antioch, Ammianus Marcellinus,
Libanius, John Chrysostom, Christian martyrs, Artemius, Iuventinus
& Maximinus.
1IntroductionThe Roman emperor Flavius Claudius Iulianus
(361-363) is better known as Julian the Apostate. He owed this
nickname to the fact that he openly renounced Christianity as soon
as he had become sole emperor. In one of his letters he wrote: one
ought to teach these silly people (i.e. the Christians) rather than
punish them. It is not Julians only utterance of such a nature. For
instance, in a letter to Atarbius, governor of the province
Euphratensis, he stated: I affirm by the gods that I do not wish
the Galilae-ans to be either put to death or unjustly beaten, or to
suffer any other injury.
Can we take such remarks of the emperor at face value, as proof
of his policy that the Christians should not be harmed physically?
Or are his words insincere and hypocritical? Did Julian only wear a
mask of
-
264 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
moderation, as the fifth-century church historian Theodoret of
Cyrrhus put it, and was he in reality indisputably a persecutor
(G.W. Bowersock)? What evidence can be brought to bear, apart from
Julians own writings? I will try to answer these questions, on the
basis of what is known about the situation in Antioch.1
2Julian in AntiochJulian approached Antioch on the Orontes in
July 362 A.D. Here he intended to prepare the expedition against
the Persians which would end in disaster and would cost him his
life. Julian was enthusiastically received by the Antiochenes,
according to Ammianus Marcellinus, the historian who served in
Julians army and who himself hailed from Antioch: the citizens went
part of the way to meet him, welcomed him with public prayers as if
he were a god and shouted that a lucky star had risen over the
East. However, when Julian crossed the threshold of his Syrian
residence, other sounds were heard. His arrival coincided with the
anniversary of the death of Adonis, the lover of Aphrodite, who,
according to the myth, had been killed by a boar during a hunt. It
was a day of mourning, and all over the place wailing was heard.
That did not bode well.2
1) Nickname Apostate (): Greg. Naz. Or. 4.1, 18.32, cf. Socr. HE
3.12.1, Soz. HE 5.4.8. Silly people: Jul. Ep. 61c, 424b Bidez: , ,
, . Letter to Atarbius (PLRE I, Atarbius): Jul. Ep. 83, 376c Bidez
(= 37 Wright, whose translation I borrow): . Cf. further Jul. Ep.
115, 424c (= 40 Wright) and Ep. 114, 438b (= 41 Wright).
Galilaeans: in all his writings except Ep. 114, 437d, where he
cites a Christian bishop, Julian calls the Christians Galilaeans;
cf. S. Scicolone, Le accezioni dellappellativo Galilei in Giuliano,
Aevum 56 (1982) 71-80 and S.C. Mimouni, Qui sont les Galilens dans
la littrature chrtienne ancienne?, Proche-Orient Chrtien 49 (1999)
53-67 on p. 53. Cf. also P.-L. Malosse, Galileans or Gallus?
(Julians Letter to Aetius), Classi-cal Quarterly 60 (2010) 607-609
and P.-L. Malosse, Philostorge, Libanios et Julien: diver-gences et
convergences, in: D. Meyer (ed.), Philostorge et lhistoriographie
de lAntiquit tardive (Collegium Beatus Rhenanus 3), Stuttgart 2011,
203-222 on pp. 219-220. Theodoret: HE 3.15.1: .... Bowersock: G.W.
Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, London 1978, 92.2)Julians arrival
in Antioch: Amm. 22.9.14-15. Its date in the month of July is often
supposed to be 18 or 19 July precisely, but this supposition is
built on quicksand, as is shown in J. den Boeft, J.W. Drijvers, D.
den Hengst, H.C. Teitler, Philological and Historical Commentary on
Ammianus Marcellinus XXII, Groningen 1995, 177-180. In what follows
I refer more often to Ammianus. Consultation of the relevant
commentaries of Den Boeft et alii is
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
265
Julians stay in Antioch was far from pleasant for him. He was
especially, but not exclusively, criticized by the Christian part
of the populationsome months before, in December 361, Julian had
openly turned his back on Christianity. Almost everyone, Christians
and pagans alike, considered the Apostates habit of sacrificing
vast numbers of animals to be an outrage. Most people blamed him
for the fact that, unlike his cousin and predeces-sor Constantius
II, he did not show any interest in public entertainment, and was
hardly ever seen in the theatres or at the horse-races. The
billeting of his soldiers in the city was regarded as most
annoying, and it was gener-ally thought that he dealt very ineptly
with economic problems, in particu-lar with food shortage. As a
result, hardly any enthusiasm was left for the young emperor when,
on 5 March 363, Julian left Antioch to start his Persian campaign.
Julian himself felt deeply aggrieved. He told the Antiochenes who
saw him off that he would never return to their city. Instead,
after his Persian expedition he would go straight to Tarsus. These
proved to be prophetic words: in the night of 26 on 27 June 363
Julian died near modern Bagdad; shortly afterwards the emperors
remains were buried in a suburb of Tarsus.3
recommended; as a rule the literature cited there is not
repeated here. Antioch as Amm.s place of origin: J.F. Matthews, The
Origin of Ammianus, Classical Quarterly 44 (1994) 252-269, contra
C.W. Fornara, Studies in Ammianus Marcellinus. I. The Letter of
Libanius and Ammianus Connection with Antioch, Historia 41 (1992)
328-344. See further on this topic P. Barcel, berlegungen zur
Herkunft des Ammianus Marcellinus, in: U. Vogel-Weidemann and J.
Scholtemeijer (eds.), Charistion C.P.T. Naud, Pretoria 1993, 17-23;
S. Rota, Ammiano e Libanio: LEpistola 1063 Frst. di Libanio (A
proposito di un articolo di C.W. Fornara), Koinonia 18 (1994)
165-177; G. Sabbah, Ammien Marcellin, Libanius, Antioche et la date
des derniers livres des Res Gestae, Cassiodorus 3 (1997) 89-116,
esp. 97-107; T.D. Barnes, Ammi-anus Marcellinus and the
Representation of Historical Reality, Ithaca-London 1998, 54-64; G.
Kelly, Ammianus Marcellinus. The Allusive Historian, Cambridge
2008, 109-118.3)Stay in Antioch: e.g. Bowersock, Julian (above, n.
1), 94-105; E. Pack, Stdte und Steuern in der Politik Julians.
Untersuchungen zu den Quellen eines Kaiserbildes (Collection
Latomus 194), Brussels 1986, 301-377; K. Rosen, Julian in
Antiochien oder Wie eine Theorie in der Praxis scheitert, in: W.
Schuller (ed.), Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum,
Darmstadt 1998, 217-230; K. Bringmann, Kaiser Julian, Darmstadt
2004, 152-168. Apostasy revealed: Amm. 22.5.2. Sacrificing: Amm.
22.12.6, 22.14.3 and 25.4.17; cf. I. Sandwell, Religious Identity
in Late Antiquity. Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch,
Cambridge 2007, 97: In fact, there is evidence to suggest that
Libanius did not favour blood sacrifice himself and that he might
not have approved of the prominent role it played in Julians
so-called religious revival. Disdain of public entertainment: Jul.
Mis. 339c-340a, with J.A. Jimnez Snchez, El empera-dor Juliano y su
relacin con los juegos Romanos, Polis 15 (2003) 105-127. Billeting
of soldiers:
-
266 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
During his stay in Antioch Julian felt obliged to vent his
indignation openly in a leafleta unique event in the history of the
Roman empire. This pamphlet, full of sarcasm and irony, is entitled
Antiochicus, but it is commonly called Misopogon (Beard-Hater),
which alludes to that which, more than anything else, had provoked
ridicule among the Antiochenes, namely Julians beard, the most
conspicuous sign of his tendency to pose as a philosopher.
Remarkably, the Misopogon was Julians sole weapon in his struggle
with the Antiochenes according to Libanius, the professor of
rhet-oric who, like Ammianus, hailed from Antioch. Although the
emperor, as Libanius says, had it in his power to torture or
execute, he preferred to avenge himself merely by means of an
oration. Julians conduct in general was extremely lenient in the
eyes of Libanius; he reports several times that the emperor even
refrained from executing people who had made an attempt on his
life. Julians reaction to the attempted murder is confirmed by
Ammianus, who more than once praises the clementia of the
emperor.4
Not all sources are as benevolent with regard to Julian as his
pagan admirers Libanius and Ammianus. On the contrary, several
Christian authors report that the emperor actually did take
unpleasant and cruel measures in Antioch, or at least did not
prevent his companions from com-mitting atrocities. We hear of
harassments, sufferings and banishments of Christian confessors
(and of their heroic resistance). A certain Theodorus was cruelly
tortured, but kept singing psalms cheerfully. The widow Publia
irritated the emperor so much that he had her hit in the face, with
the result that blood streamed down her cheeks. Bishop Euzoius was
cuffed on the
Amm. 22.12.6. Economic problems: Amm. 22.14.1. Farewell to
Antioch: Amm. 23.2.3-6. Death and burial: Amm. 25.3.23,
25.9.12-13.4)Julians beard: Jul. Mis. 338b-d, 349c, 355d, Amm.
22.14.3. Of the vast literature on the Misopogon see e.g. A.
Marcone, Un panegirico rovesciato: pluralit di modelli e
contami-nazione letteraria nel Misopogon giulianeo, Revue des tudes
Augustiniennes 30 (1984) 226-239 (repr. in A. Marcone, Di tarda
antichit. Scritti scelti [Studi Udinesi sul Mondo Antico 6],
Rome-Florence 2008, 15-28); M.W. Gleason, Festive Satire: Julians
Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch, Journal of Roman Studies 76
(1986) 106-119; J. Long, Structures of Irony in Julians Misopogon,
Ancient World 24 (1993) 15-23; A. Quiroga, Julians Misopogon and
the Subversion of Rhetoric, Antiquit Tardive 17 (2009) 127-135; L.
van Hoof and P. van Nuffelen, Monarchy and Mass Communication:
Antioch A.D. 362/3 Revisited, Journal of Roman Studies 101 (2011)
166-184. Misopogon as sole weapon: Lib. Or. 18.195-198. Attempted
murder and Julians reaction: Lib. Or. 12.85, 15.43, 16.19, 18.199;
37.5; Ep. 1120.3 (cf. P.-L. Malosse, Rhto-rique et psychologie
antiques: loge des vertus et critiques obliques dans le portrait de
lEmpereur Julien par Libanios, Ktema 20 [1995] 319-338 on pp.
329-330), Amm. 25.4.9. Clemen tia: Amm. 16.5.12-13, 21.5.12,
21.9.5-10.1, 22.7.5, 22.10.5, 22.14.4-5.
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
267
ears when he tried to prevent Julians uncle and namesake from
urinating against the main altar in the Great Church of Antioch.
Romanus, a young soldier, was not executed, as Julian had
originally ordered, but banished to the farthest borderlands of the
empire. We also hear of executions. Arte-mius had to die because he
had roused Julians anger by stepping into the breach for the
priests Eugenius and Macarius, who themselves also died a martyrs
death. Theodoretus was another priest who was arrested, savagely
tortured and finally decapitated. Iuventinus and Maximinus,
soldiers of the palace guards, suffered the same fate.5
Are we dealing with Libanius and Ammianus on the one hand, who
regard Julian as a moderate and lenient sovereign, and Christian
sources on the other, who unanimously accuse him of persecuting
their co-religionists? It is not as simple as that. There are some
Christian authors who admit that Julian, although he harmed the
Christians considerably, was not as violent a persecutor as many of
his predecessors had been. The church historian Socrates, for
instance, writes that Julian eschewed the excessive cruelties which
had been practised under Diocletian. His colleague Sozomen even saw
Julians policy vis--vis the Christians as one of leniency, which
would help him to promote paganism better than punishment and
persecution would do. Rufinus, another church historian, argued in
the same vein. He calls Julian callidior ceteris persecutor (a
smarter persecutor than others) who tried to win the Christians
over to his side non vi neque tormentis, sed praemiis honoribus
blanditiis persuasionibus (not by violence or torture, but by
rewards, honours, flattery, persuasion). On the other hand,
Libanius may have suppressed all information about Julians grim
measures, but Ammianus did not. He often praises Julian for his
clementia, but he also reports that the emperor did not hesitate to
punish ruthlessly when he deemed this necessary: in the course of
the Persian campaign Julian had
5)Theodorus: Rufin. HE 10.36-37; Socr. HE 3.19.1-10; Soz. HE
5.20.2-4; Thdt. HE 3.11.1-3. Publia: Thdt. HE 3.19.1-6. Euzoius:
Thdt. HE 3.12.3. Romanus: Thdt. HE 3.17.5-8. Some scholars
iden-tify Theodorets Romanus with the tribune of that name
mentioned by Amm. in 22.11.2 (who in his turn is identified with
the comes Africae Romanus of Amm. 27.9.1), e.g. D. Woods, Ammianus
Marcellinus and the Deaths of Bonosus and Maximilianus,
Hagiographica 2 (1995) 25-55 on p. 49 n. 80 and N. Lenski, The
Election of Jovian and the Role of the Late Imperial Guards, Klio
82 (2000) 492-515 on p. 512. Cf., however, G. Marasco, Storiografia
locale e prospettiva universale nella Storia ecclesiastica di
Teodoreto di Cirro, Koinonia 28-29 (2004-2005) 145-167 on p. 151 n.
41: Lidentificazione del personaggio con il tribuno Romano, mandato
in esilio da Giuliano (Amm. Marc. 22, 11, 2) incerta. For the
sources on the martyrs see below.
-
268 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
some men executed who had fled from the battlefield (Julian
himself once wrote in a letter that soldiers who deserted their
post should be put to death and denied burial), and he ordered,
probably during his stay in Anti-och, the capital punishment of the
notarius Gaudentius, the former vicarius Iulianus, the son of the
former magister equitum et peditum Marcellus and the former
military commander of Egypt Artemius.6
The former dux Aegypti Artemius was later worshipped as a
Christian martyr. Ammianus does not mention the religious
standpoint of Artemius (nor, for that matter, of Gaudentius, the
vicar Iulianus and the son of Mar-cellus), let alone that he calls
him a martyr. Neither does he speak of the supposed martyrdom of
Eugenius, Macarius, Theodoretus, Iuventinus and Maximinus, nor of
the fate of the confessors Theodorus, Publia, Euzoius and Romanus.
Nowhere in his work does he say that Julian persecuted Christians.
Does this mean that in Ammianus eyes such a persecution did not
exist? Or was he silent about Christian martyrs and confessors,
because he thought that this issue fell outside the scope of
classical historiography? Another possibility is that he, perhaps,
had specific reasons to leave out all information about Christian
marytrdom. T.D. Barnes thinks that, at least in the case of
Iuventinus and Maximinus, Ammianus silence was, indeed,
cal-culated. When he speaks of the abortive attempt to murder
Julian, which has already been referred to, Barnes maintains that,
although Libanius alludes to it in three of his Julianic speeches,
Ammianus deliberately omits to mention this episode. Why? According
to Barnes his motive seems clear: The failed assassins were
celebrated as martyrs after their execution, but Ammianus account
of Julian gives the impression that there were no Chris-tian
martyrs at all during his reign. Ammianus thus faithfully reflects
the emperors official propaganda that any Christian put to death
had been
6)Church historians about Julian: Socr. HE 3.12.6; Soz. HE
5.4.9; Rufin. HE 10.33. Julian and Libanius: R. Scholl, Historische
Beitrge zu den Julianischen Reden des Libanios (Palingenesia 48),
Stuttgart 1994; Malosse, o.c. (above, n. 4); H.-U. Wiemer, Libanios
und Julian. Studien zum Verhltnis von Rhetorik und Politik im
vierten Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Vestigia 46), Munich 1995; U.
Criscuolo, Giuliano nellepitafio di Libanio, in: Giuliano
imperatore, le sue idee, i suoi amici, i suoi avversari (Rudiae
10), Lecce 1998, 267-291; J. Bouffartigue, Limage poli-tique de
Julien chez Libanios, Pallas 60 (2002) 175-189 on p. 176: Limage de
Julien fournie par Libanios est donc une image partisane, ce qui
nest pas exactement synonyme dimage fausse; J. Wintjes, Das Leben
des Libanius (Historische Studien der Universitt Wrzburg 2), Rahden
2005, 119-133. Julian and the execution of soldiers: Amm. 24.3.2.
Letter to Oribasius: Jul. Ep. 14, 385c. Capital punishment of
Gaudentius, Iulianus and the son of Marcellus: Amm. 22.11.1-2.
Artemius: PLRE I, Artemius 2 (see further n. 9).
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
269
justly condemned for crimes that had nothing to do with his
religion. Chris-tian sources name several dozen martyrs under
Julian.7
Barnes supposition about Ammianus motive is considerably
weakened by the fact that it is wrong to state that Ammianus,
unlike Libanius, omits to mention the unsuccessful endeavour to
murder Julian. Barnes appar-ently overlooked Res Gestae 25.4.9,
which clearly refers to the same episode mentioned by Libanius:
constat eum in apertos aliquos inimicos insidiatores suos ita
consurrexisse mitissime, ut poenarum asperitatem genuina
lenitu-dine castigaret (it is common knowledge that in dealing with
some open enemies who conspired against him he [sc. Julian] was so
merciful that he allowed his native mildness to mitigate the
severity of the laws demands, tr. Hamilton). In this passage
Ammianus (like Libanius) does not elucidate whether or not the
anonymous conspirators were Christians (we find the names
Iuventinus and Maximinus only in Christian sources; more on this
below). Neither does he say that the former dux Aegypti was
executed for religious reasons (Libanius is completely silent on
Artemius). In 22.11.2 we only read: tunc et Artemius ex duce
Aegypti Alexandrinis urgentibus atro-cium criminum mole supplicio
capitali multatus est (Then, too, Artemius, sometime military
commander in Egypt, since the Alexandrians heaped upon him a mass
of atrocious charges, suffered capital punishment, tr. Rolfe).
If neither Ammianus nor Libanius says that Artemius, Iuventinus
and Maximinus were Christian martyrs, what support is there, apart
from
7)Barnes, o.c. (above, n. 2), 53; cf. T.D. Barnes, Early
Christian Hagiography and the Roman Historian, in: P. Gemeinhardt
and J. Leemans (eds.), Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity
(300-450 AD). History and Discourse, Tradition and Religious
Identity (Arbeiten zur Kirchen-geschichte 116), Berlin-Boston 2012,
15-33 on p. 19-20: Half a century after the Great Persecu-tion
ended in 313, hagiography on the old model again became possible
when a significant number of Christians were executed in the brief
reign of Julian as sole emperor, who are counted as martyrs even
though Julian made sure that they were all convicted of and
exe-cuted for crimes other than their religion. The evidence from
Libanius for the failed assas-sination is cited in n. 4 above. As
to Libanius and the Christians of Antioch, cf. J. Harries, Imperial
Rome AD 284 to 363. The New Empire, Edinburgh 2012, 287: The
significant Christian population, its churches and clergy are
entirely missing from Libanius word-portrait (sc. of Antioch), with
in n. 43: This accords with classicising criteria. The emperors
official pro-paganda: Barnes presumably refers to the repeated
statements in Julians letters that he did not persecute the
Christians (above, n. 1); see for a more positive view of Julians
policy e.g. J. Bouffartigue, Lempereur Julien tait-il intolrant?,
Revue dtudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques 53 (2007) 1-14 and M.
Marcos, He forced with gentleness. Emperor Julians Attitude to
Religious Coercion, Antiquit Tardive 17 (2009) 191-204.
-
270 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
reading between the lines, to say that they were? It is
certainly right to state that in Christian sources several dozen
martyrs under Julian are named. Some of them have been mentioned
above. But how trustworthy are these sources? How do we know that
they are reliable and that they represent historical reality better
than do Ammianus and Libanius? Clearly some of the Christian
sources in which Julian is depicted as a persecutor can not be
relied on at all, although the opposite is sometimes claimed. For
instance, some scholars believe that Julian ordered Basilius of
Ancyra and Eupsy-chius of Caesarea to be tortured and die a martyrs
death, referring to Soz. HE 5.11.7-8 and the passio s. Basilii
presbyteri (BHG 242). However, it can be shown that the passio
Basilii belongs to the category of fictitious martyrologies and,
although it contains some historical elements, does on the whole
not deserve to be believed as a historical source, and it can also
be shown that the passage in Sozomens ecclesiastical history about
Eupsy-chius martyrdom is at variance with what Sozomen himself had
said a little earlier with regard to Julians activities in
Caesarea; it should therefore be rejected as evidence. Are the
sources which inform us of the fate of the supposed Christian
martyrs in Antioch any better? Let us see what they have to say
about Artemius, Eugenius, Macarius, Theodoretus, Iuventinus and
Maximinus.8
3ArtemiusWhen the son of a certain Anthimus once spent the night
in the Church of John the Baptist in Constantinople, a miracle
occurred. The young man suffered from unbearable pains in his
testicles and could no longer pass water. His father, a physician,
put him in a litter and had him brought to the
8)Basilius of Ancyra: D. Woods, The Martyrdom of the Priest
Basil of Ancyra, Vigiliae Chris-tianae 46 (1992) 31-39 regards the
passio s. Basilii presbyteri as a reliable historical source. He is
followed by F. Scorza Barcellona, Martiri e confessori dellet di
Giuliano lApostata: dalla storia alla leggenda, in: F.E. Consolino
(ed.), Pagani e Cristiani da Giuliano lApostata al sacco di Roma,
Soveria Mannelli 1995, 53-83 on pp. 69-71 and F. Fatti, Giuliano a
Cesarea. La politica ecclesiastica del principe Apostata (Studi e
Testi TardoAntichi 10), Rome 2009, 77 with n. 117. Eupsychius of
Caesarea: K. Rosen, Julian. Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser,
Stutt-gart 2006, 279: Der Kaiser machte Eupsychios den Proze und
lie ihn mit einem Teil seiner Helfer hinrichten, die anderen
schickte er in die Verbannung. For arguments against these views
see H.C. Teitler, History and Hagiography. The Passio of Basil of
Ancyra as a Historical Source, Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996) 73-80
and idem, Avenging Julian. Violence against Christians during the
years 361-363 (forthcoming).
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
271
Church of John; in the crypt of this church a leaden sarcophagus
had been placed with the mortal remains of Saint Artemius, the
martyr whom we met as dux Aegyptihe sided in this capacity with the
Arian bishop George of Cappadocia against the pagans and Nicene
Christians of Alexandria. Artemius had become a saint and possessed
healing powers. He was espe-cially good at curing diseases of the
spine and the genitals, as we learn from the Miracula Artemii (BHG
173-173c), a collection of Artemius miracle cures which was written
down in the seventh century. In the night in question the holy
martyr appeared in a dream to Anthimus son in the shape of his
father. Undress yourself and show me what you have. The young man
obeyed, whereupon Artemius pinched his balls so vehemently that the
boy woke up and screamed aloud. He first thought that his disease
had wors-ened, but then realised that the pain had gone and that he
was cured.9
St Artemius performed his miracles in Constantinople, but he
died somewhere else. No fourth-century writer other than Ammianus
mentions that his death was ordered by Julian, nor does it occur in
the Ecclesiastical
9)Healing of Anthimus son: Miracula Artemii 1; cf. for this work
e.g. V. Droche, Pourquoi crivait-on des recueils de miracles?
Lexemple des miracles de Saint Artmios, in: C. Jolivet-Lvy, M.
Kaplan and J.-P. Sodini (eds.), Les saints et leur sanctuaire
Byzance. Textes, images et monuments, Paris 1993, 95-116; V.S.
Crisafulli and J.W. Nesbitt, The Miracles of St. Artemios. A
Collection of Miracle Stories by an Anonymous Author of
Seventh-Century Byzantium (The Medieval Mediterranean 13),
Leiden-New York 1997; D. Krueger, Writing and Holiness. The
Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East, Philadelphia
2004, 63-70; S. Efthymiadis and V. Droche, Greek Hagiography in
Late Antiquity (Fourth-Seventh Cen-turies), in: S. Efthymiadis
(ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, I,
Periods and Places, Farnham 2011, 35-94 on p. 66: Humour and comic
effects are...a hall-mark of the collection of miracles of St
Artemios for which internal evidence allows a pre-cise dating
between 658 and 668, the year in which the Emperor Constans II died
(see mir. 23 and 41). Arianism: W. Lhr, Arius Reconsidered,
Zeitschrift fr Antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 524-560; 10 (2006)
121-157. Artemius and bishop George of Cappadocia: Amm. 22.11.2-8
(cf. n. 12 below). Of the literature on (the cult of) Artemius I
only mention: J. Dummer, Fl. Artemius Dux Aegypti, Archiv fr
Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 21 (1971) 121-144 (repr. in
J. Dummer, Philologia sacra et profana. Ausgewhlte Beitrge zur
Antike und zu ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, ed. M. Vielberg,
Wiesbaden-Stuttgart 2006, 172-199); H.C. Brennecke, Studien zur
Geschichte der Homer. Der Osten bis zum Ende der homischen
Reichskirche (Beitrge zur historischen Theologie 73), Tbingen 1988,
127-131; Scorza Barcellona, Martiri e confessori (above, n. 8),
62-66; G. Marasco, Limperatore Giuliano e lesecuzione di Fl.
Artemio, dux Aegypti, Prometheus 23 (1997) 59-78; S.N.C. Lieu, From
Villain to Saint and Martyr. The Life and After-Life of Flavius
Artemius, dux Aegypti, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 20 (1996)
56-76; D. Woods, The Final Commission of Artemius the Former dux
Aegypti, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23 (1999) 2-24; D.
Woods, On St. Artemios as Deacon, Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies 24 (2000) 230-233.
-
272 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
Histories of Rufinus, Socrates and Sozomen, but there are brief
references to it in the work of Theodoret of Cyrrhus (HE 3.18.1)
and in the Chronicon Paschale (a. 363), an extensive chronological
compilation from the seventh century, written in Constantinople (I
leave aside references to Theophanes, Cedrenus and Nicephorus,
since these sources derive from Theodoret and/or the Chronicon
Paschale; for Zonaras see below). Theodoret puts Arte-mius
execution down to the destroying of idols ( ). Theodoret does not
specify where and on what occasion Arte-mius did this. In the
Chronicon Paschale it is said that Artemius head was cut off
because (a rather vague reason) he had displayed great zeal on
behalf of the churches (... ). We find Artemius death and the
events of his life described in more detail in the Artemii passio
(BHG 170-171c), a piece of writing dating from the ninth century by
an anonymous author who, in some manuscripts, is called John of
Rhodes, otherwise unknown, in others John of Damascus. Its author
is familiar with the rough outlines of the political history of the
time he writes about, namely the fourth century, which indicates
that he must have consulted older sources. He himself says that he
had some church historians at his disposal, one of whom was
Philostorgius. This is not unlikely, although he probably did not
find much about Arte-mius in the latters workPhilostorgius church
history has been passed down only fragmentary, so that we cannot be
sure; in the remnants we have of Philostorgius Artemius is not
mentioned. The author also says that he derived some information
from Eusebius of Caesarea, but this is certainly incorrect.10
10)Theodoret: HE 3.18.1 ( ), , (Artemius commanded the troops in
Egypt. He had obtained this command in the time of Constantius, and
had destroyed most of the idols. For this reason Julian not only
confiscated his property but ordered his decapitation, tr.
Jackson); cf. Th. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Bishop and
the Holy Man, Ann Arbor 2002 (Theodorets history is markedly
different from the other two [sc. Socr. and Soz.], being much more
outspoken in its condemnation of those he considered enemies. The
emperor Julian, for instance, is described in the blackest terms,
with no redeeming features, p. 30-31). Chronicon Paschale a. 363: ,
, , (And Artemius, who was dux of the diocese of Egypt, since in
the period of his office under Constantius the Augustus of blessed
memory he had displayed great zeal on behalf of the churches, had
his property confiscated
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
273
On the authority of Eusebius it is alleged that Artemius was a
senator in the time of Constantine and belonged to the emperors
inner circle, but no trace of him is found in Eusebius
Ecclesiastical History or his Life of Con-stantine. It is also
alleged that Artemius was present when Constantine had his famous
vision near the Milvian Bridge in 312. In that case Artemius would
have been over eighty when he, supposedly, died a martyrs death on
Julians orders in 362, which does not tally with the information in
the pas-sio that he was still in active service in the time of
Julian. It would seem, therefore, that the alleged borrowings from
Eusebius are fictitious, and are, perhaps, meant to provide a
starker contrast between the reign of Constan-tine, the first
Christian emperor, and that of his nephew, the persecutor Julian.
On the other hand, there may be some truth in the remark that
Arte-mius and Constantines son Constantius were friends. At any
rate, it is absolutely certain that during Constantius reign
Artemius was dux Aegypti for a couple of years.11
As dux Aegypti Artemius operated as the accomplice of bishop
George the Cappadocian (who was murdered by a violent mob in 361).
At the bishops request he had his soldiers attack and plunder the
temple of Sera-pis in Alexandria. He also helped the Arian George
with the hunting down of Athanasius, Georges orthodox predecessor
who had been exiled. We know this from sources other than the
Artemii passio. In the passio nothing is said of all this, which is
remarkable, but not surprising. More than once the
and his head cut off in the Alexandrian city, since Julian bore
a grudge against him, tr. Whitby and Whitby). Theophanes, Cedrenus,
Zonaras, Nicephorus: Brennecke, o.c. (above, n. 9), 129 n. 76. The
text of the Art. pass. (BHG 170-171c): B. Kotter, Die Schriften des
Johannes von Damaskos, V. Opera homiletica et hagiographica
(Patristische Texte und Studien 29), Berlin-New York 1988, 185-245
and, partly, J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann, Philostorgius
Kirch-engeschichte, mit dem Leben des Lucian von Antiochien und den
Fragmenten eines arianis-chen Historiographen (GCS), Berlin 19722,
151-165 (cf. pp. 166-175 for the text of the martyrium vetus [BHG
169y-z]). An English translation of the greater part: M. Vermes,
[John the Monk], Artemii passio (The Ordeal of Artemius, BHG
170-171c, CPG 8082), in: S.N.C. Lieu and D. Montserrat, From
Constantine to Julian. Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History,
London-New York 1996, 224-256 (with introduction and notes by
S.N.C. Lieu on pp. 210-223 and 256-262, respectively). Date: R.W.
Burgess, The Passio S. Artemii, Philostorgius, and the Dates of the
Invention and Translations of the Relics of Sts Andrew and Luke,
Analecta Bollandiana 121 (2003) 5-36 on p. 23. Church historians
consulted: Art. pass. praef. and 4, cf. Burgess, o.c.,
13-17.11)Artemius senator: Art. pass. 4. Artemius present in 312:
Art. pass. 45. Contrast Constan-tine-Julian: Lieu, o.c. (above, n.
10), 218. Artemius friendship with Constantius: Art. pass. 9. Dux
Aegypti: e.g. P. Oxy. 7.1103 (cf. PLRE I, Artemius 2 for further
references).
-
274 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
orthodox author of the passio makes it clear that he did not
like Arians. He either did not want to admit that his hero Artemius
himself had supported an Arian bishop, or more likely, this was no
longer known in the ninth cen-tury. Presumably, this aspect of
Artemius past had been pushed into the background in the centuries
between Artemius lifetime and the writing down of the passio.12
Although the author of the Artemii passio is silent about the
riots in Alex-andria and about Artemius connection with the Arian
bishop George, he does refer obliquely to Artemius stay in Egypt.
He obtained a high position there, as is stated, because
Constantius II wanted to express his gratitude for the successful
execution of an important assignment: Artemius had dis-covered the
relics of St Andrew (among others) and had brought them to
ConstantinopleAndrew was, according to the tradition, crucified in
Patras in 62 A.D. on a cross afterwards named after him, and
Artemius had now brought his remains back to the place where the
apostle had founded the first Christian church, when Constantinople
was still Byzantium. The translation of St Andrews relics to
Constantinople is, apart from in the Artemii passio, mentioned in
the Chronicon Paschale and in some other writings. However, only in
the Artemii passio do we read something about Artemius role in it.
It seems therefore likely that once again we are dealing with a
concoction of the hagiographer.13
12)George the Cappadocian: Amm. 22.11.3-11; Dummer, o.c. (above,
n. 9); M. Caltabiano, Lassassinio di Giorgio di Cappadocia
(Alessandria, 361 d. C.), Quaderni Catanesi 7 (1985) 17-59; J.R.
Aja Snchez, El linchamiento del obispo Jorge y la violencia
religiosa tardorro-mana, in: A. Gonzlez Blanco, F.J. Fernndez Nielo
and J. Remesal Rodrguez (eds.), Arte, sociedad, economa y religin
durante el Bajo Impero y la Antigedad Tarda, Murcia 1991, 111-136;
C.J. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity. Topography and Social
Conflict, Baltimore-London 1997, 280-295. Temple of Serapis: Jul.
Ep. 60, 379a-b (= Socr. HE 3.3.4-25) , , cf. Thdt. HE 3.18.1
(quoted in n. 10). Artemius and Athanasius: Athan. Ind. a. 360, S.
Pacomii vita prima Graeca 137-138. Anti-Arian tenor: Art. pass. 6,
17, 20. Arianising: Da die historische Gestalt Artemius...nur ein
homischer Christ gewesen sein kann, war schon lange bekannt
(Brennecke, o.c. [above, n. 9], 128). N.B. For the sake of
convenience I leave aside Batifols theory which tries to solve the
problem by assuming that there had been two Artemii, the Arianising
commander of Egypt and an orthodox martyr executed by Julian, who
at one time or another merged into one person (P. Batiffol,
Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius, Rmische
Quartalschrift fr christliche Altertumskunde und fr
Kirchengeschichte 3 [1889] 252-289 on pp. 253-254).13)Artemius and
Egypt: Art. pass. 18, 19, 36. Relics: Art. pass. 9, 16-18. St
Andrew: F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the
Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge Mass. 1958, esp. 227-230.
Chronicon Paschale: a. 357, cf. M. and M. Whitby, Chronicon
Paschale
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
275
The data we have for Artemius life are scarce and, as far as the
Artemii passio is concerned, of doubtful historicity. With respect
to his death the situation is no different. It is, for instance,
not clear where he died. Accord-ing to the Artemii passio it was in
Antioch, according to the Chronicon Pas-chale in Alexandria.
Ammianus, unfortunately, is silent on this matter, just as he is
not very communicative in other respects, but at least he makes it
clear that Artemius already had resigned his post of dux Aegypti
when he was put to death after being charged by the people of
Alexandria with a mass of outrageous crimes (tunc et Artemius ex
duce Aegypti Alexandrinis urgentibus atrocium criminum mole
supplicio capitali multatus est, tr. Ham-ilton). Ammianus does not
say what sort of crimes Artemius was accused of, but the fact that
the execution took place at the insistence of the people of
Alexandria justifies the presumption that, according to him, the
main issue was, that Artemius had taken the side of bishop George.
This idea is strengthened by what Ammianus goes on to say, viz.
that the Alexandrians turned their wrath upon bishop George when
they heard that Artemius paid the ultimate penalty (Alexandrini
Artemii comperto interitu...iram in Georgium verterunt episcopum).
As has already been noted, Ammianus does not say, where precisely
Artemius was executed. However, he does say, that the Alexandrians
feared that Artemius would harm the many peo-ple who had injured
him when he had returned with his power restored (quem verebantur,
ne cum potestate reversus, id enim minatus est, multos laederet ut
offensus). Note the word returned (reversus): it is a clear
indica-tion that, according to Ammianus, Artemius was judged (and
executed) not in Alexandria (as the Chronicon Paschale states), but
elsewhere. It would seem that this time the Artemii passio is right
and that it was indeed in Antioch, where Julian stayed, that
Artemius was court-martialled.14
As we have seen, for the author of the Artemii passio there was
no con-nection between his hero and the actions of the Arian bishop
George in Alexandria. He tries a different approach: Artemius,
still in active service, had to die because he had raised Julians
wrath by throwing himself into the breach for two Antiochene
priests, Eugenius and Macarius. These recal-citrant Christians had
been arrested in their hometown and brought before
284-628 AD (Translated Texts for Historians 7), Liverpool 1989,
33, with n. 102 for other sources. Concoction: I follow Burgess,
o.c. (above, n. 10) against D. Woods, The Date of the Translation
of the Relics of SS. Luke and Andrew to Constantinople, Vigiliae
Christianae 45 (1991) 286-292.14)Reason for Artemius execution: cf.
Jul. Ep. 60, 379a-b (quoted in n. 12). Place where Arte-mius died:
Art. pass. 22, Chron. Pasch. a. 363. Ammianus: 22.11.2-3.
-
276 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
the tribunal of Julian. To quote the relevant passage: While
these men were being so cruelly punished and suffering the heaviest
blows, the blessed and pious Artemius, as has been shown earlier,
had been appointed by Con-stantius governor and Augustalis of all
Egypt ( ... ), and because of his honourable and inimitable
manage-ment had also received the authority to manage the affairs
of Syria. Since he was devoted to the Roman imperial family, and
had heard that Julian was emperor and was hastening to wage war in
Persia, when he had received a letter instructing him to come to
Antioch with his whole army, following his instructions he came to
Antioch and with his atendant pomp and body-guards he stood before
the emperor on his platform. This was at the time the Apostate was
conducting his inquisitions of the holy martyrs.15
There he was then, the dux et augustalis of all Egypt (the title
is anach-ronistic), all of a sudden standing with his bodyguards
before the emperor, who, remarkably, was unaware of his entry into
the city. Julian soon discov-ered what kind of person Artemius was.
The words O Emperor, why do you so cruelly torture men who are holy
and consecrated to God, and force them to abjure their own faith
were only the beginning of a lengthy dis-course full of abuse. When
Julian had heard this speech by the martyr, he was totally
astounded, and his anger was more aggravated, like the flame of a
fire rekindled when more wood added below revives it. He gave a
loud and piercing cry: Who is this scoundrel and where does he come
from, that has spewed forth such a torrent of oratory before me on
my platform? His troops replied It is the Governor of Alexandria (
), master. Artemius?, said the emperor, that villain who arranged a
cruel death for my brother? Yes, they said, best of emperors, it is
he.16
Artemius accused by Julian of being the murderer of his
half-brother Gallus: this comes as a surprise for the reader who
remembers that in the preceding chapter Artemius received a letter
from Julian with the invita-tion to come to Antioch with his army
and join the fight against the Per-sians. It is one of several
incongruities in the Artemii passio, which shows
15)Sufferings of Eugenius and Macarius: Art. pass. 25-34.
Artemius career and his coming to Antioch: Art. pass. 35, tr.
Vermes (above, n. 10), whose translation I also borrow hereafter.
Cf. Burgess, o.c. (above, n. 10): This entire account of Artemius
career...sounds like, and with regard to important claims can be
proven to be, hagiographic exaggeration and fabrication (p. 10),
contra Woods, The Final Commission (above, n. 9), who on the basis
of this passage tries to make Artemius magister equitum per
Orientem.16)Art. pass. 35-36. Cf. Zonaras 13.12.44 , .
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
277
many characteristics of what Father Hippolyte Delehaye has
called pas-sions piques: tales of sufferings which are for the
greater part fabrications. Much is made of Artemius sufferings. He
was placed naked upon the plat-form and beaten with oxhide whips so
that the ground became soaked with blood. He was temporarily
imprisoned together with Eugenius and Macar-ius, deprived of bread
and water, but then tortured again. In between the agonies there
were altercations with the emperor, who more than once was
outwitted by the martyr and as a result ordered other forms of
torture. Arte-mius flanks were pierced through with steel awls and
his back was skew-ered with sharp spikes and split open while he
was dragged along. He was crushed between rocks, so that his
insides were ruptured, the structure of his bones shattered and his
eyeballs knocked out of their sockets, but even then the martyr
survived, until finally his head was cut off.17
A pious woman, Ariste by name, a deaconess of the Church at
Antioch, asked Julian for Artemius body. The request was granted,
whereupon Ariste made a coffin and smeared with myrrh his holy and
blessed body, and anointed it with valuable scents and ointments,
and laid it in the coffin, and had it carried to the prosperous
city Constantinople, placing it in a conspicuous place, since she
wanted to build a home worthy of the saintly and great martyr
Artemius, and to create a shrine to commemorate his famous
martyrdom.18
And so the former dux Aegypti who had sided with the Arian
bishop George against pagans and orthodox Christians in Alexandria
and was exe-cuted by order of Julian in Antioch, became an orthodox
martyr in Con-stantinople. Why and in what capacity Artemius was
executed is arguable. Was it as a Christian martyr, because he had
destroyed idols (Theodoret), because he threw himself into the
breach for the priests Eugenius and Macarius (Artemii passio), or
because he had displayed great zeal on behalf of the churches
(Chronicon Paschale)? Or was the former military com-mander of
Egypt executed as a rebellious officer, because the people of
Alexandria had charged him with a mass of outrageous crimes
(Ammianus Marcellinus)?
In his brief statement about the death of Artemius (22.11.1-3)
Ammianus goes, according to Timothy Barnes, out of his way to deny
that he (sc.
17)Gallus: PLRE I, Constantius 4. Passions piques: H. Delehaye,
Les passions des martyrs et les genres littraires (Subsidia
Hagiographica 13B), Brussels 19662, passim. Artemius suffer-ings:
Art. pass. 37 ff.18)The deaconess Ariste: Art. pass. 67.
-
278 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
Artemius) was in any sense a martyr. Admittedly, it is possible
that Ammi-anus does not tell the (whole) truth, but what
independent evidence is there to prove that Artemius died a martyrs
death? The Artemii passio? Its unreliability as a historical source
is obvious. The short references of Theodoret and the Chronicon
Paschale? Instead of saying that Ammianus goes out of his way to
deny that Artemius was a martyr one could just as well state that
we find defamatory claims in these late Christian sources concocted
after Julians death and intended to blacken the emperors
reputation.19
4Eugenius and MacariusThe story of Eugenius and Macarius is part
of the history of Artemius, who, as we already saw, addressed
Julian, according to the Artemii passio, when the emperor was
interrogating the Antiochene priests. Eugenius and Macarius had
been apprehended and brought before Julian as soon as the emperor
arrived in the Syrian capital (in July 362). A little earlier,
according to our source, Julian had threatened to sweep all
Christians from the face of the earth. A prolonged debate arose,
first between the emperor and Euge-nius, already called martyr, in
advance of things to come, then between Julian and Macarius. Both
priests were flogged when the emperor disliked their answers to his
questions. Then Artemius appeared on the stage. He acted as a
self-appointed counsel for the defence, with the result that he
himself was also tortured and after a while imprisoned together
with the priests. On their way to prison the three men sang psalms
and prayed to God. The next day Julian decided to deal further with
Artemius alone. He banished Eugenius and Macarius to a faraway
place, Oasis in Arabia, where, on the emperors orders, they were
decapitated after forty days, on Decem-ber 20 (362). Subsequently
there occurred a miracle on the spot where they died: where there
had been only a desert, a well sprung up.20
19)Barnes, o.c. (above, n. 2), 53.20)The story of Eugenius and
Macarius: Art. pass. 25-34, 39; cf. G. Lucchesi, Eugenio e
Mac-ario, Bibliotheca Sanctorum 5 (1964) 201-202. Oasis in Arabia:
Art. pass. 39; presumably, Oasis is a corruption of the otherwise
unknown name found in the martyrium vetus, Augasis (p. 171
Bidez-Winkelmann, above, n. 10). Oasis in Egypt (not in Arabia) was
a well known place of exile, see e.g. Dig. 48.22.7.5, CTh 9.32.1,
Socr. HE 7.34.11, Zos. 5.9.5 and cf. J. Schwartz, In Oasin
relegare, in: R. Chevallier (ed.), Mlanges dArchologie et dHistoire
offerts Andr Piganiol, III, Paris 1966, 1481-1488.
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
279
Thus the story of Eugenius and Macarius as told in the Artemii
passio takes a surprising turn: Julian had both priests brought
from Antioch in Syria to Oasis in Arabia, to have them executed
therea rather laborious thing to do. Elsewhere we read that
Eugenius and Macarius were exiled to Mauretania, where they died a
natural death. This version can be found in the Greek passio
Eugenii et Macarii (BHG 2126), which cannot be dated pre-cisely. It
is clear that this passio, too, belongs to what Father Delehaye has
called passions piques. Its content differs considerably from that
of the Artemii passio. This time Eugenius and Macarius are not
priests, but broth-ers. There is not a word about Antioch as being
the scene of their ordeal. Both men are interrogated by Julian, but
the dialogues are totally different from those in the Artemii
passio, as are the tortures they had to endure. Martyrdom was not
granted to them. Instead, they were banished to Din-dona in
Mauretania, where they discovered that the locals had never heard
of Christ, but were open to missionary work, the more so after the
brothers, with Gods help, had defeated a dragon. More miracles
occurred: a falling star, for instance, announced the death of
Julian. After four months their unvoluntary exile ended. On 22
February (363) they peacefully passed away, a prayer on their
lips.21
It is time to say goodbye to Eugenius and Macarius. We followed
them from Antioch in Syria to Oasis in Arabia and then to Dindona
in Maureta-nia, where they were decapitated on 20 December and
peacefully died on 22 February, respectively. I shall not try to
explain away the differences between the Artemii passio and the
passio Eugenii et Macarii. That is point-less, in view of the
nature of both sources. There is another reference to the death of
the Antiochene priests, a short remark of Zonaras, who wrote his
Chronicle in the twelfth century but sometimes used sources we no
longer have. Zonaras makes martyrs out of the confessors: (sc.
Julian) (13.12.44), but it is doubtful if that is enough to believe
in the historicity of their martyrdom.
21)The text of the passio Eugenii et Macarii (BHG 2126): F.
Halkin, La Passion grecque des Saints Eugne et Macaire, Analecta
Bollandiana 78 (1960) 41-52. There exists a Latin transla-tion: BHL
5103 (the last chapter is missing). Date: B. de Gaiffier, Les
martyrs Eugne et Macaire morts en exil en Maurtanie, Analecta
Bollandiana 78 (1960) 24-40 on p. 38: ant-rieure au dbut du IX
sicle. Delehaye: above, n. 17.
-
280 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
5TheodoretusThe greater part of the temple of Apollo in Daphne,
a suburb of Antioch, and an age-old statue of the god were
destroyed by fire in the night of 22 October 362. Julian was angry
and assumed that the fire had been started deliberately by
Christians. Pending an investigation he had the Great Church of
Antioch closed. The emperor was not the only person who was very
much put out by the incident. His namesake and uncle, a brother of
his mother, was also greatly disturbed. In the very same night of
the fire this Iulianus, who, as the highest civil authority in the
diocese Oriens bore the title comes Orientis, rode from his
residence in Antioch to the scene of the disaster. He had the
watchmen flogged immediately after his arrival when he saw the
ashes which were left of the statue of the godof the so-called god,
to quote our informant, the church historian Theodoret, bishop of
Cyrrhus, who himself hailed from Antioch, correctly. Comes Iulianus
also suspected that Christians had caused the fire, but his
suspi-cion was not confirmed by the watchmen. These kept saying,
even under torture, that the fire had started not from below, but
from above, appar-ently referring to a bolt of lightning. Farmers
who came flocking in from the countryside also said that the fire
had descended from heaven.22
The destruction of the temple at Daphne must have come as a
shock to the comes Orientis. He was not only a pagan (according to
the Artemii pas-sio he was, like his nephew, an apostate), but he
had only recently taken great pains to restore the dilapidated
sanctuary. In the spring of 362 his nephew implored him to take
care of its restoration: he should bring back the columns which had
been taken away, or, if this proved impossible, replace them by
pillars of baked brick covered with imitation marble. No doubt the
comes had complied with this demand of the emperor, who in other
respects too could count on him. Christian authors liked him less.
In his Ecclesiastical History Theodoret relates that Iulianus,
after the Great Church in Antioch had been closed, entered it with
some companions,
22)Apollo of Daphne: Amm. 22.13.1; cf. D.M. Brinkerhoff, A
Collection of Sculpture in Classi-cal and Early Christian Antioch,
New York 1970, 33-37, figs. 41-45. Julians reaction: Amm. 22.13.2;
cf. F.W. Deichmann, Das Oktogon von Antiocheia: Heroon-Martyrion,
Palastkirche oder Kathedrale?, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 65 (1972)
40-56. Investigation: Amm. 22.13.2, Soz. HE 5.20.6, Lib. Ep. 1376.
Julians uncle (PLRE I, Iulianus 12 + J.R. Martindale, Historia 23
[1974] 249) and the fire in Daphne: Thdt. HE 3.11.5, cf. Chrys.
pan. Bab. 2.94.
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
281
stole the precious objects, urinated against the main altar and
gave bishop Euzoius a cuff on the ears when he tried to stop
him.23
Shortly after these misdeeds Iulianus and his friends fell ill,
according to Theodoret. Iulianus intestines began to rot and he
excreted no longer in the normal way, but through his mouth, the
same filthy mouth which had poured out blasphemous language. On top
of this he was chided by his wife, a pious Christian, who told him
to praise Christ and thank Him for teaching him this lesson.
Otherwise he would never have believed in the power of the Saviour.
These words, and his sufferings, forced Iulianus to mend his ways
at the very last moment: he begged the emperor to give the Great
Church back to the Christians. Alas, Iulianus died before his
nephew had answered his appeal. According to Philostorgius in his
Ecclesiastical History this was after an illness of forty days,
which coincides rather well with the dying day of the comes as it
was computed on other grounds: after 6 Decem-ber 362 and before the
end of January 363.24
Apart from Philostorgius and Theodoret, other Christian writers
also relate the death of Julians uncle, because they wanted to
demonstrate that God punishes His enemies severely, but the
disgusting details of the ordeal the comes had to endure vary. Some
authors tell us that worms appeared in Iulianus belly, to the
despair of the physicians whose advice was asked. Their attempts to
remove the maggots by putting flesh of recently butch-ered doves on
the rotting parts of the body were in vain. The worms scorned the
doves and devoured the intestines, until at last Iulianus passed
away. One of the authors in question is Sozomen from Gaza, a church
historian like his contemporary Theodoret. It is interesting to
compare his account with that of Theodoret.25
23)Comes Iulianus apostate: Art. pass. 23. Columns: Jul. Ep. 80,
cf. Lib. Ep. 695.3, with S. Bradbury, Selected Letters of Libanius
from the Age of Constantius and Julian (Translated Texts for
Historians 41), Liverpool 2004, 184 n. 15; Amm. 22.13.2. Julian and
his uncle: Jul. Mis. 365c, 371a. Comes Iulianus in the Great
Church: Thdt. HE 3.12.1-3.24)Illness and death of comes Iulianus:
Thdt. HE 3.13.1-3. Forty days: Philost. HE 7.10. Date of death:
T.D. Barnes, New Year 363 in Ammianus Marcellinus. Annalistic
Technique and His-torical Apologetics, in: J. den Boeft, D. den
Hengst and H.C. Teitler (eds.), Cognitio Gesto-rum. The
Historiographic Art of Ammianus Marcellinus, Amsterdam 1992, 1-8 on
p. 6.25)Punishment of God: Philost. HE 7.10, cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 5.2
(no name mentioned here). Worms: Chrys. pan. Bab. 2.92, hom in Mt.
4.1, de laud. Paul. 4.6, Ephr. HcIul 4.3, Soz. HE 5.8.2-3; cf.
Lact. mort. pers. 33 about the death of emperor Galerius and see T.
Africa, Worms and the Death of Kings. A Cautionary Note on Disease
and History, Classical Antiquity 1 (1982) 1-17 and C. Nardi, La
figura del verme nella Narratio del Crisostomo (Adv. oppugn. vit.
mon. I, 1-2), in: S. Pricoco (ed.), La narrativa cristiana antica.
Codici narrativi, strutture formali,
-
282 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
Sozomens Iulianus is an even more fanatic pagan than the
Iulianus of Theodoret. According to him the comes Orientis was not
only full of hate vis--vis the Christians, but persecuted them with
all his force against the will of the Emperor Julian. Sozomen
relates, like Theodoret, Iulianus mis-behaviour in a church in
Antioch and his theft of precious objects. He also alludes to the
urinating in the church and says that immediately afterwards
Iulianus penis and the lower part of his body began to rot. But he
does not mention the cuff on the ears of bishop Euzoius. Instead,
he narrates that all clerics of Antioch except for one had left the
city. Only the priest Theodor-etus (not to be confused with the
church historian of that name) had stayed, in order to keep an eye
on the precious objects. Comes Iulianus had him arrested, tortured,
and beheaded.
It is surprising that the church historian Theodoret, who came
from Antioch, does not speak at all of the misery and death of his
namesake and fellow townsman. Arguments have been brought forward
to do away with the discrepancy between his account and that of
Sozomen by assuming that bishop Euzoius was earcuffed in the Great
Church, whereas the priest Theodoretus was arrested in another
Antiochene church. This attempt to solve the problem is not very
satisfactory, if only because in that case comes Iulianus urinated
in two churches, and God punished him only after the second time.
More attractive is the suggestion that the passage about the martyr
originally did not occur in Sozomens work, but is a later
interpola-tion. Whatever the truth (the hypothesis cannot be
proven), it is a fact that the eventual earcuffing of bishop
Euzoius impressed posterity less than the supposed martyrdom of
Theodoretus, witness the Greek and Latin passiones devoted to him
(BHG 2425, BHL 8074-8076).26
schemi retorici (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 50), Rome
1995, 301-322. Sozomens account: HE 5.7.9-5.8.4, cf. D.F. Buck,
Sozomen on Julian the Apostate, Byzantion 76 (2006)
53-73.26)Discrepancy reasoned away: P. Allard, Julien lApostat,
III, Paris 19103, 74. Interpolation: J. Hahn, Gewalt und religiser
Konflikt. Studien zu den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Chris-ten,
Heiden und Juden im Osten des Rmischen Reiches (von Konstantin bis
Theodosius II.), (Klio Beihefte N.F. 8), Berlin 2004, 176 n. 236.
BHG 2425: F. Halkin, La passion grecque de saint Thodoret
dAntioche, in: Hagiologie byzantine. Textes indits publis en grec
et traduits en franais (Subsidia Hagiographica 71), Brussels 1986,
123-151. BHL 8074-8076: P. Franchi de Cavalieri, Passio s.
Theodoriti, Note agiografiche 6 (Rome 1920 = Studi e Testi 33),
89-101. Cf. Brennecke, o.c. (above n. 9), 147 n. 171: ber Sozomenus
ist das Martyrium des Theodorit in die hagiographische berlieferung
eingegangen.
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
283
Sections 9 and 10 of the passio Theodoreti, which consists of
twelve sec-tions, are perhaps the most interesting (at this point
the priest has just been decapitated). In the first place, there is
great confusion in the different ver-sions of the passio and the
hagiographical literature derived from it con-cerning the day of
Theodoretus death and, accordingly, concerning the dying day of
comes Iulianus shortly thereafter: 2, 3, 4, 23 and 29 March are
mentioned, but also 10 April, 6, 12, 17, 18 May and 23 October.
None of these dates corresponds with the day on which the
historical Iulianus died (after 6 December 362 and before the end
of January 363, as we have seen)proof, for those who need it, of
the fictitious character of the passio Theo-doreti. Secondly, on
Theodoretus dying day comes Iulianus hurries to the imperial palace
and proudly announces before the emperor that the priest is about
to die. If he had expected praise from Julian, he must have been
disappointed. You did the opposite of what I always advocated,
Uncle, Julian said, I always tried to refute the Galilaeans with
argumenst. The use of violence I rejected. Never in my life did I
kill anyone. It is therefore totally wrong what you have done. You
played the Galilaeans game and you can count on it that they now
will blacken my reputationsignificantly, even in hagiographical
sources it is sometimes admitted that Julian was not a bloody
persecutor.27
6Iuventinus and MaximinusJohn Chrysostom, the Antiochene priest
who became bishop of Constanti-nople, heaps in one of his sermons
many reproaches on Julian the Apos-tate, who had died some
twenty-five years before the sermon was delivered. He points inter
alia to the emperors cunning and deceitful way of doing things.
Julian, according to Chrysostom, did not grant Christians the glory
of martyrdom, aware as he was of the fact that this might greatly
help their cause. Instead, he ordered Christian physicians,
soldiers, sofists and rheto-ricians to give up their jobs or
renounce their faith. Those, who under his Christian predecessors
had destroyed pagan altars or temples, were sum-moned to appear in
court. The emperor did not bother with conclusive evi-dence: an
accusation sufficed to condemn people to death. Julian even
27)Theodoretus day of death: B. de Gaiffier, Sub Iuliano
Apostata dans le Martyrologe Romain, Analecta Bollandiana 74 (1956)
5-49 on p. 16; A. Galuzzi, Teodoreto, Bibliotheca Sanctorum 12
(1969) 228. Dying day of Iulianus: above, n. 24. Galilaeans: The
author of the passio aptly adopts the terminology of Julian himself
(cf. for Galilaeans above, n. 1).
-
284 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
invented crimes and seized any pretext to execute Christians
without awarding them the martyrs crown. Chrysostom examines in
more detail one case in particular: the condemnation of two
soldiers, whose names, Iuventinus and Maximinus, not brought up in
the sermon itself, are men-tioned in its title, which is of a later
date.28
In Antioch the two soldiers once took part in a feast with
fellow soldiers. As is common on such occasions, all partygoers
drank heavily and talked a lot. Our couple complained loudly about
the current sorrows and spoke highly of the good old days of the
past. Has life any sense nowadays?, they openly wondered. All
things holy are despoiled. Our faith in the Lord is treated with
contempt and disgrace. Wherever one is, one inhales the ugly smell
of animal fat and sacrificial meat. Nowhere can one find any fresh
air. These words did not remain unnoticed. One of their fellow
soldiers reported all that had been said to the emperor, who had
waited for this opportunity. He had Iuventinus and Maximinus put in
jail and confiscated all their belongings, on a charge of high
treason, because, although they died for their faith, he did not
want to make martyrs out of them (Chrysostom repeats this tune a
number of times). Soon afterwards29 January (363) is the
traditional datethe two soldiers were executed, in the middle of
the night. Again, Julian wanted to avoid too much awareness of
their death. If this really was the emperors aim, then his purpose
failed, for at least two other Christian authors in antiquity,
Theodoret and John Malalas, kept the memory of Iuventinus and
Maximinus alive (there is no reference to them in the works of
Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, Socrates and Sozomen).29
In his Ecclesiastical History Theodoret devotes half a page to
Iuventinus and Maximinus. Whereas Chrysostom only speaks of
soldiers, Theodoret
28)Text of sermon about Iuventinus and Maximinus: PG 50.571-578
(= BHG 975); cf. in the first place P. Franchi de Cavalieri, Dei
SS. Gioventino e Massimino, Note agiografiche 9 (= Studi e Testi
175), Vatican City 1953, 167-200. Christian soldiers in Julians
army: Aug. Enarr. in psalm. 124.7, cf. A. Barzano, I cristiani,
lesercito e la guerra, in: M. Sordi (ed.), Limpero
romano-cristiano. Problemi politici, religiosi, culturali, Rome
1991, 77-93 on p. 90. In general for Christians and pagans in the
army of the fourth century: E. Gabba, I Cristiani nellesercito
romano del quarto secolo d.C., in: E. Gabba, Per la storia dell
esercito romano in et imperiale (Il Mondo Antico 3), Bologna 1974,
75-109; R.S.O. Tomlin, Christianity and the Late Roman Army, in:
S.N.C. Lieu and D. Montserrat (eds.), Constantine. History,
Historiog-raphy and Legend, London 1998, 21-51; R. Haensch, La
christianisation de larme romaine, in: Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff
(eds.), Larme romaine de Diocltien Valentinien Ier, Lyon-Paris
2004, 525-531.29)Chrys. In Iuventinum et Maximinum, PG 50.574-576.
29 January: P. Peeters, La date de la fte des SS. Juventin et
Maximin, Analecta Bollandiana 42 (1924) 77-82.
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
285
states that they belonged to Julians bodyguardnote that
Ammianus, too, speaks of a verdict of guilty regarding two members
of Julians bodyguard, but their names were Romanus and Vincentius,
not Iuventinus and Maxi-minus, and they were exiled, not executed.
Theodorets account differs from that of Chrysostom in one other
respect (he has Julian himself inter-rogate the two men), but for
the rest both authors agree (they either had a common source or
Theodoret copied Chrysostom). Theodoret too speaks of a party with
heavy drinking, criticism of Julian, an informer who reports to the
emperor, and the death penalty on a charge of high treason because
Julian did not grant the martyrs crown to his victims. These
ingredients are missing in the version of the sixth-century author
John Malalas, who prob-ably was also born in Antioch and whose
Chronicle shows a great familiar-ity with the history of this city.
Malalas account on the background of the event is less extensive
than that of Theodoret and Chrysostom. He merely relates that the
Christian Iuventinus and Maximianus (he uses this name instead of
Maximinus) belonged to the imperial bodyguard, quit their job,
blended into the crowd and stirred up the people against Julian, an
action which cost them their life.30
No pagan author mentions the names of Iuventinus and Maximinus,
but it is often, though not unanimously, assumed that Libanius
refers to their case when he speaks about a conspiracy of soldiers
(ten in Or. 18.199, eight in Ep. 1120.3), which came to light when
the conspirators blew the gaff when they were drunk. It should be
noted, however, that, if this assumption is right (I for my part
accept it, and so does Barnes, as we saw above), Libanius tells a
story which completely differs from the one we find in the
Christian
30)Bodyguard: Thdt. HE 3.15.4 , cf. Chrys. In Iuventinum et
Maximinum, PG 50.571 . Amm. 22.11.2 Romanus quin etiam et
Vincentius Scutariorum scholae primae secundaeque tribuni agitasse
convicti quaedam suis viribus altiora acti sunt in exsilium. Malal.
Chron. 13.19 (belonging to the emperors incrowd) . Cf. J.
Bouffartigue, Malalas et lhistoire de lempereur Julien, in: S.
Agusta-Boularot, J. Beaucamp, A.-M. Bernardi and E. Caire (eds.),
Recherches sur la Chronique de Jean Malalas II, Paris 2006,
137-152, esp. p. 141; P. Boulhol, La geste des saints et lhistoire
du monde. propos des sources hagiographiques de Mala-las, in: J.
Beaucamp with S. Agusta-Boularot, A.-M. Bernardi, B. Cabouret and
E. Caire (eds.), Recherches sur la Chronique de Jean Malalas I,
Paris 2004, 103-116. Brennecke, o.c. (above, n. 9), 145 thinks, on
account of Malalas , that the two men were Verwandte Julians. There
is a hymn, in a Syriac translation (the Greek original is lost), of
the sixth-century bishop Severus of Antioch (PO 7.5, 611-612),
which, apart from Iuventius and Maximus (sic) mentions another
victim, a certain Longinus. See in general for the relation between
the different sources Franchi de Cavalieri, o.c. (above, n.
28).
-
286 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
authors. According to Libanius the soldiers had treasonable
intentions and wanted to murder Julian. The Antiochene rhetor is
silent about a possible religious background andthe most important
differencedoes not men-tion the execution of the conspirators. On
the contrary, he repeatedly argues that Julian did not execute
individuals who had made an attempt on his life. This is, as we
saw, confirmed by Ammianus Marcellinus.31
The evidence of Ammianus 25.4.9 is disregarded by Timothy
Barnes, as has already been noted, but that of Libanius he duly
mentions (Libanius alludes to it in three of his Julianic
speeches). As has already been noted, Libanius does not explicitly
refer to Iuventinus and Maximinus nor does he speak of the
execution of the conspirators. However, according to Barnes a
slight difference between two remarks of Libanius sheds light on
the issue under scrutiny. In Or. 18.199 Libanius speaks of ten
conspirators, whereas in Ep. 1120.3 he only mentions eight. Barnes
conclusion: Eight of the ten alleged plotters were released, but
two of them were executed, viz. Iuventi-nus and Maximinus.
Ingenious though this suggestion is, it is not, of course, cogent
proof that Julian ordered the execution of the two soldiers on
reli-gious grounds. The only explicit evidence we have for this are
the accounts of Theodoret, Malalas and, in the first place,
Chrysostom, but, as in the case of Artemius, one cannot rule out
that these Christian authors deliberately spoke ill of Julian and
wanted to vilify the emperors reputation.32
31)Assumption that Libanius refers to the case of Iuventinus and
Maximinus: e.g. Norman ad Lib. Or. 18.199 and Hahn, o.c. (above, n.
26), 173. Sceptical e.g. E. Bliembach, Libanius, Oratio 18
(Epitaphios). Kommentar ( 111-308), Diss. Wrzburg 1976, 124 and
Scholl, o.c. (above n. 6), 142. Ammianus: 25.4.9. Cf. for possible
further evidence Jul. Ep. 98, 402a: Julian there writes to Libanius
that he looks back with pleasure at a court martial trial in which
he showed in his decision the utmost clemency and justice ( , , ,
tr. Wright). 32)Barnes, o.c. (above, n. 2), 53. The three Julianic
speeches: Lib. Or. 15.43; 16.19; 18.199 (see further Or. 12.85 and
37.5). Lib. Or. 18.199 . (Still, though he was so reluctant to shed
blood, ten soldiers formed another conspiracy to kill him. They
waited for the day of the manoeuvres, but fortunately drink
forestalled their attempt and revealed the whole affair, and the
plan hitherto secret was proclaimed aloud, tr. Norman). Lib. Ep.
1120.3 . (Remember him who by his death gave you cause for tears:
you will probably find that he excused many people for faults that
were not trivial nor yet such as caused you to be at loggerheads.
Indeed, you know those eight and their swords, tr. Norman).
-
Ammianus, Libanius, Chrysostomus, and the Martyrs of Antioch
287
In his In Iuventinum et Maximinum Chrysostom reminds his
audience of an episode in the history of his native city which he
himself had witnessed. At that time he was a teenager or even
younger (Chysostoms date of birth is disputed), but he was probably
old enough to remember later that Julians stay in Antioch in
362-363 had caused a great deal of controversy. Elder fellow
townsmen will have informed him further about that episode.
Pre-sumably, he also read the orations of Libanius, whose pupil he
had proba-bly been, and Julians Misopogon. Perhaps he used even
more sources. Chrysostom interpreted the material he had found in
his own way and he aired this interpretation in his sermon. Is this
a reliable source? Does it represent historical reality? One
wonders. Chrysostoms impartiality is not beyond doubt. His
assertion, for instance, that Julian ordered Christian physicians,
soldiers, sofists and rhetoricians to give up their jobs or
renounce their faith, is a gross caricature (presumably, it is an
allusion to Julians notorious school law). The same goes for the
statement that Julian sum-moned to court people who had destroyed
pagan altars or temples, did not bother to adduce evidence but
summarily brought the indicted to death. This is a totally
unfounded accusation, unparallelled in serious historical sources.
Chrysostoms often repeated statement that Julian charged the
soldiers with high treason because he did not want to make martyrs
out of them shows that he could not accuse the emperor of openly
persecuting the Christians and had to find other ways to attack the
hated Apostate.33
33)Chrysostom and the history of (the church in) Antioch: E.
Soler, Lutilisation de lhistoire de lglise dAntioche au IVe sicle
par Jean Chrysostome, dans les dbuts de sa prdication, in: B.
Pouderon and Y.-M. Duval (eds.), Lhistoriographie de lglise des
premiers sicles (Thologie historique 114), Paris 2001, 499-509.
Chysostoms birth date: 344 or 347 (W. von Christ, W. Schmid and O.
Sthlin, Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur, II.2, Munich 19246,
1457), 349 (R.E. Carter, The Chronology of Saint John Chrysostoms
Early Life, Traditio 18 [1962] 357-364 on p. 362 and J. Rist,
Iohannes Chrysostomos, Der Neue Pauly 5 [1998] 1059-1060 on p.
1059), 354 (S.L. Greenslade and W. Liebeschuetz, Chrysostom, John,
Oxford Clas-sical Dictionary3 [1996] 329). Chrysostom pupil of
Libanius: Socr. HE 6.3.1, Soz. HE 8.2.2, cf. C. Fabricius, Vier
Libaniusstellen bei Johannes Chrysostomus, Symbolae Osloenses 33
(1957) 135-136; C. Fabricius, Zu den Jugendschriften des Johannes
Chrysostomos. Untersuchungen zum Klassizismus des vierten
Jahrhunderts, Lund 1962, 22 n. 1 and 132; D.G. Hunter, Libanius and
St. John Chrysostom. New Thoughts on an Old Problem, Studia
Patristica 22 (1989) 129-135; Wiemer, o.c. (above, n. 6), 214-215
with n. 118; see, however, the sceptical remarks of P.-L. Malosse,
Jean Chrysostome a-t-il t llve de Libanios?, Phoenix 62 (2008)
273-280. Other sources: Delehaye, o.c. (above, n. 17), 166: En
lisant les pangyriques des saints Juven-tin et Maximin...on ne se
dfend pas de limpression que S. Jean Chrysostome se souvenait
davoir lu des Actes ou des chroniques. Bias: Chrys. In Iuventinum
et Maximinum, PG 50.573 , , , ,
-
288 H.C. Teitler / Vigiliae Christianae 67 (2013) 263-288
7ConclusionChristian sources name several dozen martyrs under
Julian, as Barnes rightly says. Six of them were according to such
sources executed in Anti-och during Julians stay in this city from
July 362 till 5 March 363: the priests Eugenius, Macarius and
Theodoretus; Artemius, a former dux Aegypti; and two soldiers of
Julians bodyguard, Iuventinus and Maximinus. It is ques-tionable
whether the Christian sources in these cases represent historical
reality and whether they can be adduced to prove that Julian was a
perse-cutor. With respect to the martyrdom of Eugenius and
Macarius, the sources in question (the Artemii passio, the passio
Eugenii et Macarii, Zonaras) do not inspire much confidence at all.
The same holds good in the case of the priest Theodoretus (Sozomen,
the passio Theodoreti). Artemius death is, apart from in Christian
sources (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the Chron-icon Paschale, the Artemii
passio), mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, who, according to Tim
Barnes, goes out of his way to deny that he (sc. Arte-mius) was in
any sense a martyr. I for my part rather suspect that it was the
other way around, that late Christian sources made a martyr out of
the for-mer military commander of Egypt. This is mutatis mutandis
also my view in the case of Iuventinus and Maximinus, for whom
there are on the one side a sermon of John Chrysostom and brief
observations of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and John Malalas, on the other
some passages of Libanius and Ammianus Marcellinus.34
and ibid. , , , ... , , , . Cf. E. Di Santo, Giuliano lApostata
nel pensiero di Giovanni Crisostomo: Imperatore, filosofo,
persecutore, Augustinianum 45 (2005) 349-387 on p. 382: Il Giuliano
del Crisostomo presenta dei tratti chiaramente caricaturali.
Julians school law: Jul. Ep. 61c. Scepticism about the martyrdom of
Iuventinus and Maximinus we find in Tomlin, o.c. (above, n. 28),
33-34: They were exe-cutedfor their breach of military
disciplinethough naturally enough they were treated as martyrs. The
Churchs need for martyrs and confessors stimulated the supply after
Julian was dead. 34)Thanks are due to Ines van de Wetering, who
corrected my English.