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

hansteitler@yahoo.de

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.