Eunapius and Jerome

Eunapius and Jerome Thomas M Banchich J EROME'S Chronicle has played no small part in modern reconstructions of imperial Roman historiography. Besides figuring in several divergent hypotheses regarding the publication and sources of the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus, it has revealed to some a spectre lurking behind the Historia Augusta, the Epitome de Caesaribus, and Zosimus' Historia Nova, which alternatively manifests itself as Virius Nicomachus Flavianus or Eunapius of Sardis.l Yet in the case of the latter, a common source long seemed the most reasonable explanation for similarities between the Chronicle and Eunapius' two known works, the History and Vitae sophistarum: for Jerome's translation and continuation of Eusebius had certainly appeared before 383-indeed, very probably closer to 381-while both the History and Vitae sophistarum were thought to have been published ca 396.2 It has only been since T. D. Barnes' effort to demonstrate that a version of 1 The classic Quel/ef!(orschungen of the Chronicle remain R. Helm, RhM N.F. 76 (1927) 138-70, 254-306, and Die Chronik des Hieronymus 2 (Berlin 1956) 279-455. On Ammianus see especially O. Maenchen-Helfen, AJP 76 (1955) 384-99; R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968) 17-24, 80-83, with the review of A. Cameron, JRS 61 (1971) 255-67; R. C. Blockley, Ammianus Marcellinus (=Col/. Latomus 141 [Brussels 1975]) 177-82. J. Schlumberger, Die Epitome de Caesaribus (= Vestigia 18 [Munich 1974]), argues for the influence of Nicomachus' Annales on the Historia Augusta, Zosimus (via Eunapius), various Latin epitomes, and Jerome's Chronicle; T. D. Barnes, CP 71 (1976) 258-68, and The Sources of the Historia Augusta (= ColI.Latomus 155 [1978]) 114-23, champions Eunapius. On the related matter of the Kaisergeschichte, see A. Enmann, Phil%gus Suppl. 4 (1884) 335-501; T. D. Barnes, Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1968/69 (Bonn 1970) 13-43; H. W. Bird, CQ N.S. 23 (1973) 375-77, and Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study (Liverpool 1984). 2 In his proem, Jerome describes the rapidity with which he worked (2.16-3.4 Helm) and names Gratian and Theodosius Augusti (7.3-9). £p. 18A 1 (I 55.23-26 Labourt), written before the Council of Constantinople in spring 381, refers to the translation of Eusebius as complete. See further J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome (New York 1975) 72-75. Eunap. VS 476 (46.4-6 Giangrande) and 482 (58.22-25), which mention Alaric's invasion of Greece in 395/6, provide a terminus post quem for these biographies that has sometimes been presented as a date of publication. In fact Eunapius seems to have written the VS ca 399, a date that undermines the chronology proposed by F. Paschoud, Cinq etudes sur Zosime (Paris 1976) 169-80, and Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1977178 (Bonn 1980) 149-62. See T. M. Banchich, GRBS (1984) 183-92. Paschoud advances no new positive arguments in Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1982/83 (Bonn 1985) 239-303, esp. 284-92. 319 320 EUNAPIUS AND JEROME the History was in circulation by ca 380 that Jerome's direct dependence on Eunapius has become a possible alternative to a Ions communis, an alternative that suggestive parallels between the Chronicle and History seem to support. 3 Indeed, there are numerous correspondences to Eunapius in Jerome's continuation (which begins with 325). Those that antedate 362 are of limited value for the matter at hand, because Eunapius derived his account of pre-Julianic affairs from published literary sources, any of which might be posited as a link between the two works:' Such is not the case with regard to material from 362 to 378, Barnes' suggested terminus of an lK80cTtc; of the History and the known terminus of the Chronicle. For that period Eunapius avers that he combined his own observations with the privileged oral or especially-prepared written testimony of a coterie of eastern pagan intellectuals, of which he was a junior member. The distinctive, sometimes unique, result is reflected in the historical fragments, the Vitae sophistarum, and the derivative Historia nova of Zosimus.5 If we provisionally accept Barnes' thesis that an lK8ou•.e; of the History ended with Valens' defeat at Adrianople (9 August 378), then the singular quality of Eunapius' treatment of 362-378, together with the relatively brief interval between its publication and that of the Chronicle (from 381 to mid-383), enhances the possibility that the influence of the History may be seen in those points of contact between Eunapius and Jerome that occur in their accounts of 362-378 and are not paralleled in extant sources perhaps consulted by Jerome. 3 Barnes (supra n.n maintains that the History broke off ca 378 and was published ca 380. R. C. BLOCKLEY, The Fragmentary Ciassicising Historians oj the Later Roman Empire (Liverpool 1981-83 [hereafter 'Blockley']) I 2-5, modifies Barnes' thesis to include an initial version of the History that covered Aurelian through Julian, followed by a supplement that ended with Adrianople, and, after the publication of the VS, a final installment that brought the narrative up to 404. The older view of the chronology of Eunapius' work is conveniently represented by C. MUller, FHG N 8 col.2. 4 Some noteworthy coincidences are Chron. 232a Helm and Zos. 2.29.2, on Constantine's disposal of Fausta; 232g and VS 462 (19.22-20.15), on the alleged denudation of provincial cities during the foundation of Constantinople; 233b and VS 461 (18.5-7), on Constantine's destruction of pagan temples; and 234c and VS 463f (20.22-23.14), on Ablabius. Another possible link is 232h, on Metrodorus, for which see B: H. Warmington, CQ N.S. 31 (1981) 464-68. 5 Eunapius' method of handling sources for events prior to ca 362 may be inferred from VS 453 (2.6-13) and frr.30 (Blockley II 48) and 41 (II 58), and is reflected in the similarities between fr.5.1 (II 12) and Eutrop. Brev. 9.19. Cj. also fr.18.6 (II 24-28) and Peter the Patrician fr.18 (FHG IV 191), though Peter is generally held without good reason to depend on Eunapius rather than on Eunapius' source. For Eunapius' approach to contemporary history see frr.15, 30, 66.1f, and 71.2. (II 20, 48, 100-02, and 114), together with Blockley's remarks (I 22-25). THOMAS M. BANCHICH 321 Of the four notices from the Chronicle that satisfy the above criteria, the first, set in 363, involves Eunapius' teacher Prohaeresius, who appears both in the History and Vitae sophistarum: Prohaeresius so./ista Atheniensis lege data, ne XPiana liberalium artium doctores essent, cum sibi specialiter Iulianus concederet, ut XPianus doceret, scholam sponte deseruit. 6 Now, apart from Jerome, Eunapius alone mentions Prohaeresius' predicament (493): 'IoVMavOV BE {JaUu\'EVoVTO-;, <EV> TO~ , ,.. ~, TOV 7Ta£uEVEW E~dP'YOI-£V; '/:."..' ('~.! \.,. , ) EuuKE£ -yap E£va£ ")(p£CTTtaVO-; •••• If Boissonade's emendation of T07~ to T07TOV is correct, T07TOV TOV 7Ta£8EVE£v should refer to the place where Prohaeresius taught as holder of a 1TOAtT£KO-; (Jpcwo-;- i.e., to his schola; Giangrande's con"on the spot," is hardly irreconcilable with Jejecture, < EV > T01~, rome's wording. More problematic is Jerome's claim that Prohaeresius willingly abandoned his school in spite of an imperial dispensation that would have allowed him to continue to teach in an official capacity, a point not noted in the Vitae sophistarum. It is, of course, possible that Eunapius dealt with this matter in the History, but this is little more than hypothesis. 7 Whatever the explanation of this particular, more important is the very fact that Jerome, with numerous examples of Christian suffering and sacrifice under Julian at hand, chose Prohaeresius; for, if the entry does derive from a literary source, Eunapius' History is the only known candidate.s A second point of contact between the Chronicle and the History concerns the sophist Libanius. In a brief notice for 368 (Chron. 245g: Libanius Antiochenus rhetor insignis habetur) Jerome seems to allude to a revival of Libanius' prestige that elicited from Valentinian and Valens the offer of an honorary prefecture. That the overture was made, and that Libanius refused the title, is recorded only in a section of the Vitae sophistarum expressly said to reproduce material from the History, though the historicity and date of the episode may be inferred from Libanius' orations and letters themselves. 9 Thus, if Jerome's comment was provoked by a literary source, we are once more confronted with a reflection in the Chronicle of an incident known to us only through Eunapius. Chron. 242f. C(' Eunap. fr.26.2 (II 38), VS 485 (63.16-18) and esp. 493 (79.5-11). VS 493 (79.5f with apparatus). T. M. Banchich, JHS 107 (1987, forthcoming), analyzes the passage within the context of a critique of R. Goulet, JHS 100 (1980) 60-72. 8 Pace PLRE I 731 s.v. "Proaeresius," Oros. 7.30.3 (Zangemeister, CSEL 5.509.18510.4), makes no mention of Prohaeresius: aperto tamen praecepit edicto. ne quis Christianus docendorum Iiberalium studiorum prq{essor esset. sed tamen. sicut a maioribus nostris compertum habemus. omnes ubique propemodum praecepti condiciones amplexati officium quam ./idem deserere maluerunt. 9 VS 496 (84.21-85.3), on which see T. M. Banchich, Phoenix 39 (1985) 384-86. 6 7 EUNAPIUS AND JEROME 322 A third relevant entry records: Valentinianus in Brittania, antequam tyrannidem invaderet, oppressus (Chron. 246c). Both the year, 371, and the name, Valentinianus, are mistakes, for Valentinus was overthrown in 369. Significantly Zosimus, too, substitutes Valentinianus for Valentinus, and that in a section of the Historia nova whose chronological inexactiude betrays its Eunapian origin.lO Here, then, the category of common error points again towards the History. Finally, there appears under the year 373: Clearchus prae!ectus urbi Constantinopoli agnoscitur. a quo necessaria et diu expectata votis aqua civitati inducitur.l1 It has been suggested that this reference to Clearchus' construction of baths was inspired by Jerome's own observations during his sojourn in Constantinople (ca 379/80-380.12 Several factors, however, intimate Eunapius. First, Ammianus Marcellinus links the same lavacrum to the discovery of an oracle that prophesied disastrous barbarian incursions (31.1.4f). Socrates Scholasticus explicitly names Clearchus in the same context, and the incident excited the notice of several later writers. 13 Admittedly the story occurs neither in the fragments of the History nor in the Vitae sophistarum. Nevertheless, Clearchus does have an especially prominent place in the latter-apart from Jerome and several letters of Libanius, his only appearance in contemporary literature. 14 In addition, both the History as we have it and the Vitae sophistarum testify to Eunapius' fondness for oracles.16 If a literary source prompted Jerome's entry, it is reasonable to assume that that source made the connection between Clearchus, the baths, and the ominous oracle, the last of which Jerome might have thought best to pass over in silence. What we know of Eunapius leads us to suspect that he would have dealt with the 10 Zos. 4.12.2: lCaTcl TOIIM TOV )(I>Ovov OVaAEJlTLc~, &a TLva 7rATlIJ.I.UAT,JUlTa .,.,,11 BpETTavucTjJI vijCTov OllCE'V ICEAEVU8Eif;, Em8~JIOf; TVpavvl.& uvvam8ETo TaVrn {Jiov. BaAEJlTLVcav4l8E {3aCTLAE' VOCTOf; EIIECTIC'fII/JEII, ,)TLf; atiTov 7rapQ. TOU {Jiov /UTECTTTJCTEV. Amm. Marc. 28.3.3-6 is correct. Jordanes Romano 308 (39.25f Momm- T4I /JpaxV roll sen: quo tunc regnante alter Valentinianus in Brittania tyrannidem adsumens in continenti oppressus est) comes from Jerome, as noted by Mommsen, MGH AA I xxvi. Likewise Romano 309 (39.32f: sed apoplexia subito et sanguinis eruptione Bregitione defunctus est) derives fom Chron. 247h (Valentinianus subita sanguinis eruptione. quod Graece apoplexis vocatur. Brigitione moritur), which may betray a Greek source. 11 Chron. 247b. For Clearchus' career, see PLRE I 211f. 12 Kelly (supra n.2) 72. 13 Soc. HE 4.8; Cassiod. HE 7.21; Cedrenus 1. 542f; Zonar. 13.16.29-36 (BUttnerWobst, CSHB 46.79.12-81.2); Niceph. Call. HE 11.4 (Migne, PG 145.593-95). See further E. Patzig, HZ 6 (1897) 341f. 14 VS 479f (52.4-54.0. Though the omen does not appear in the appropriate contexts provided by VS 480 (55.2-5) and Zos. 4.21, it is significant that contexts exist at all. 15 E.g. frr.27.7, 28.4, 6 (II 40, 42, 44); VS 464 (23.15-24.13). THOMAS M. BANCHICH 323 incident in the History, precisely the work towards which the other, less equivocal, passages of the Chronicle examined above point. Jerome's account of secular events in his Epistula ad Heliodorum (ca 396) strengthens the connection to Eunapius suggested by the evidence of the Chronicle. Where comparison between the letter, the Chronicle, the historical fragments, the Vitae sophistarum, and Zosimus is possible, the presentation of particulars between 362 and 378 is consistent.1 6 Especially striking is Jerome's lament in the epistle that Romanus exercitus, victor orbis et dominus, ab his [the Huns] vincitur, hos pavet, horum terretur aspectu, qui ingredi non valent, qui, si terram tetigerint, se mortuos arbitrantur: 17 for it closely parallels the History as adapted by Zosimus and, very probably, as preserved in Suda .18 In the case of events after 378, however, the letter differs sharply from the Eunapian version as reflected in the Hisloria Nova. For instance, Jerome correctly names Lugdunum as the location of Gratian's murder, while Zosimus sets it at Sigdunum in Upper Moesia. 19 Jerome and Zosimus also disagree on the fate of Abundantius, who in 396 fell victim to the machinations of the eunuch Eutropius, with Jerome maintaining that the former consul lived the life of a beggar in Pityus on the Black Sea, and Zosimus placing the exile in Phoenician Sidon.20 Jerome's dependence in the Epistula ad Heliodorum on an EKBoa-I8 of Eunapius' History that extended only to ca 378 would readily explain what appears to be their uniform treatment of events prior to that year as well as their divergent accounts of subsequent affairs. Of course the hypothesis that Jerome used Eunapius involves accepting the proposition that a portion of the History had appeared by ca 383 at the latest. And even if this were admitted, it might still be objected that the passages adduced above are far from certain proof that Jerome knew the History; on the other hand, once the possibility of a date of publication prior to 383 is allowed for the latter, there is nothing in the Chronicle that so much as suggests that he did not. Ep. 60.15 (III 105.4-22), on Constantius, Julian, Jovian, and Valens. 60.l7 (III IOS.9-12) 18 Zos. 4.20.4: 1T~ 'Yap oi #L7}'TE Ei~ yijll 1rij~(lL To~' m>o~ otoi 'TE Ol'TE~ EfJpa~, aU' Em 'TWII i1T1TWII Kat fJW.L'TC;~VO Kat Ka9Ev&I'T~, with Suda A101Sf (I 93.20-24 Adler) aKpoO'cfxAi~ &Kp~ EO'cfx~vo<;. «> BE EKb.EvO'E XWPELV Em 'TO~ &1TOo~ Kat 16 aKpoO'q,).EL~ 17 c.r. (}ijllllOV<;. &IIEV -yap L1T1TWII OV x!~f all 0311110S' ,",II yijll 1Tar'7}uELEII .... ill 'T4i f3afJ/J;.ELv Uq,aO~IL. 'TOV'TEO"TLII oi 0311110L. The Suda entries do not appear in any edition of the fragments of Eunapius; for the argument for Eunapius' authorship, see T. M. Banchich, CP (forthcoming). 19 Ep. 60.l5 (III 105.22-25); Zos. 4.35.6. Eunap. fr.Sl (II 122) may be from the section of the History on which Zosimus depended. Paschoud (supra n.2) 79-99 posits a Latin origin of the tale on the basis of the pun pons/ pontifex reproduced at Zos. 4.36. 20 Ep. 60.l6 (III 106.9); Zos. 5.l0.5. 324 EUNAPIUS AND JEROME What is certain is that, in the space of eight pages in Helm's edition, Jerome discusses Eunapius' teacher; seems to touch on an incident in the life of Libanius described by Eunapius in a section of the Vitae sophistarum explicitly said to reflect the History; misrepresents Valentinus' usurpation in a fashion similar to the Eunapius-inspired version of Zosimus; and notices in a context suggestive of Eunapius' concerns the historian/biographer's much-admired acquaintance Clearchus. All this may be coincidence, though the additional evidence of the Epistula ad Heliodorum would seem to suggest otherwise. Objections that Eunapius' paganism would have caused Jerome to eschew the History are inadmissible, given that the saint drew upon other pagan authors.21 Futhermore, the fragments of the History and allusions in the Vitae sophistarum show that, in the course of the publication of its two or three installments, the History only gradually assumed the character of an anti-Christian polemic attributed to it in toto by Photius.22 Thus, there would have been less to offend Jerome in the History as it stood ca 383, before Theodosius' assault on paganism, than there would have been in any post-404 version. When all things are considered, therefore, the collective weight of the evidence inclines the balance towards Eunapius as one of Jerome's sources for secular events through 378, and reinforces existing arguments that the portion of the History in circulation before the publication of the Vitae sophistarum culminated in the battle of Adrianople.23 CANISIUS COLLEGE August, 1986 See Helm (supra n.l) and Philologus Suppl. 21.2 (I 929). Bibl. cod. 77 (I 158-60 Henry). Photius' comments on the two EKOo"L~ of the History examined by him-both of which he says treated the same period (A.D. 270404), the ilEa EK80o"L~ being a careless expurgation of the first, with much anti-Christian sentiment removed-must refer to Eunapius' finished work and a later bowdlerization of the same, not necessarily (indeed, probably not) by Eunapius' hand. Cj. B. G. Niebuhr, CSHB XIV.l (Bonn 1829) xix, and MUller FHG IV 8 co1.2-9 coLI. In any case, EK&)o"L~ as installments (the matter considered here) must be distinguished from EKOo"L~ as different editions of a coterminous whole. Thus, successive EKOuL~ in the first sense, which collectively comprised the first, later revised EK8ouL~ in the second sense, could have become increasingly vitriolic with respect to Christianity. On the development of Eunapius' attitude towards Christianity, see T. M. Banchich, The Historical Fragments qf Eunapius qf Sardis (diss.State University of New York at Buffalo 1985) 132-49. 23 This neither precludes Jerome's consultation of other sources of information on Julian and his successors nor confirms the use of the History by other authors, e.g. Ammianus or the compiler of the Epit. de Caes. 21 22