Imperial Residences And Journeys

2. Phoenix 34 (1980), 160-166. On the imperial chronology of the period 337-361, sec also D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt, 1989), 305-320 [with helpful bibliographies for each emperor and usurper).

3. The following usurpers proclaimed in 350 are omitted: Magnentius, Augustus in Gaul until 353 (PLRE 1.532); his Caesar Decentius (PLRE 1.244/5); Nepotianus, who was briefly emperor in Rome from 3 to 30 June 350 (PLRE 1.624); and Vetranio, who was Augustus in Illyricum, though loyal to Constantius, from the spring of 350 until he abdicated on 25 December of the same year (PLRE 1.954). Also omitted is Silvanus, who was briefly proclaimed Augustus in Cologne in 355 (PLRE 1.840/1). As for Poemenius, who rebelled against Magnentius and held Trier against Decentius (Ammianus 15.6.4: not in PLRE 1), it seems clear from the coins that he acted in the name of Constantius without assuming the purple himself (R/C 8. 164/5, Trier Nos. 328-337, cf. J. P. C. Kent, The Revolt of Trier against Magnentius,' Numismatic Chronicles 9 (1959), 105-108, P. Bastien, 'Décence, Poemenius: Problèmes de chronologie,' Quaderni ticinesi: Numismática e antichità classiche 12 (1983), 177-189, at 187-189. It should be noted at the outset that Zosimus is used with extreme caution throughout: for a brief catalogue of his errors in 3.1-11, including serious misstatements about the movements of Constantius and Julian in 355-360, see Matthews, Ammianus (1989), 493 n. 32; for obvious inventions about Julian, most of which Zosimus may have repeated from Eunapius, D. F. Buck, 'Some Distortions in Eunapius' Account of Julian the Apostate,' Ancient History Bulletin 4 (1990), 113-115.

4. For this inscription, see now E. Popescu, Inscripttile greceçti latine din secolele IV-Xlll descoperite in Romania (Bucarest, 1976), 251 No. 238 (with photograph). On it, the dux limitis Scythici Sappo gives the three imperial brothers the following victory titles:

Constantinus Al[aman(icus) ma)x. G[erm(anicus) max.\ Constantius Sarm(aticus) [Per)si[c(us)]

notes to pages 218-219 Constans Sarm(aticus)

The inferences drawn here for their military activities proceed from comparison with the heading of a letter of Constantine to the Senate at Rome in spring 337, where Constantinus is bare Alaman(icus), while the other Caesars lack any victory titles at all (AE 1934.158; New Empire [19821, 23 No. 8 [heading onlyj). For discussion, see 'The Victories of Constantine/ ZPE 20 (1976), 149-155, at 154; Phoenix 34 (1980), 162, 164; J. Arce, 'The Inscription of Troesmis (ILS 724) and the First Victories of Constantius II as Caesar,' ZPE 48 (1982), 245-249; T. D. Barnes, Two Victory Titles of Constantius,' ZPE 52 (1983), 229-235; J. Arce, •Constantius II Sarmaticus and Persicus: A Reply,' ZPE 57 (1984), 225-229 (based on some dubious assumptions).

5. Can Constantinus have addressed a constitution to the proconsul of Africa, which belonged to Constantius? Schwartz, Ges. Schr. 3 (1959), 268 n. 1, noted the difficulty and pronounced the year erroneous. But Aurelius Celsinus, the recipient of CTh 12.1.27, was certainly proconsul of Africa between 337 and 340 (CIL 8.12272, cf. ILT 757), and the year is confirmed as 338/9 by CTh 10.10.4, issued by Constans at Viminacium on 12 June 338. The constitution, therefore, could be an attempt by Constantinus to assert his fragile theoretical primacy in the imperial college: see Seeck, Geschichte 4 (1911), 42; F. Paschoud, Zosime: Histoire nouvelle 1 (Paris, 1971), 245; P. Bruun, 'Constans Maximus Augustus,' Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren, 1987), 187 (suggesting that CTh 12.1.24-27 show the imperial brothers deliberately issuing contradictory constitutions); J.-P. Callu, 'La dyarchie constantinide (340-350): Les signes d'évolution,' Institutions, société, et vie politique au IV'™ siècle ap. J. C. (284-423): Autour de l'œuvre d'A. Chastagnol (Rome, 1992), 39-63.

6. Schwartz, Ges. Schr. 3 (1959), 295 n. 5, pronounced Zonaras' account 'der beste Bericht.' Zosimus 2.41 confuses Constantinus and Constans.

7. For Antioch as the residence of Constantius, sec also Expositio totius mundi et gentium 23: 'Antiochia ... ubi et dominus orbis terrarum sedet'; 32: 'ibi imperator sedet.' The Greek original of this work was clearly written between 347 and the death of Constantius (28). J. Rouge, in the introduction to his edition, Sources chrétiennes 124 (Paris, 1966), 9-26, reviewed earlier theories and argued for 359/60. But what is said about emperors residing in Sirmium and Trier as well as Antioch points rather to composition before 350.

8. After his interview with the emperor, Athanasius traveled by way of Constantinople to Alexandria, which he entered on 23 November 337 (Index 10, cf. Chapter IV).

10. J.-P. Callu, 'Un "Miroir des princes": Le "Basilikos" libanien de 348,' Geriôn 5 (1987), 133-152, at 138 n. 26, dates the meeting of Constantius and Constans to which Libanius refers to 340.

11. On the date, see Chapter IV.

12. P. Peeters, 'L'intervention politique de Constance II dans la Grande Arménie, en 338,' Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres517 (1931), 10-47, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales 1 (Subsidia Hagiographica 27 [Brussels, 1951]), 222-250.

13. On the date, see 'The Career of Abinnacus,' Phoenix 39 (1985), 368-375, at 370.

14. For a critical edition and discussion, see J.-P. Callu, 'La préface à Y Itinéraire d'Alexandre,' De Tertullien aux Mozarabes: Mélanges offerts à J. Fontaine 1 (Paris, 1992), 429-443.

15. The anecdote in Augustine, Sermo domini in monte 1.12.50 (PL 34.1254), provides additional indirect testimony for Constantius' presence in Antioch during the consular year 340.

16. Seeck, Kegesten (1919), 192, emended the date of CTh 12.1.35 to 9 June.

17. Theophanes, p. 37.11,20/1 de Boor = Philostorgius, p. 213.1/2, 11/2 Bidez, registers a victory and triumph of Constantius over 'Assyrians' and a Roman defeat of the Persians in a.m. 5834 and 5835, which correspond to the years 341/2 and 342/3: H. Lietzmann and K. Aland, Zeitrechnung der römischen Kaiserzeit, des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit für die Jahre 1-2000 n. Chr.* (Berlin and New York, 1984), 20, cf. 11.

18. For the hypothesis that Constantius may have visited Constantinople to celebrate his vicennalia there on 8 November 343, see Chapter IX. It is also possible that the transmitted date of CTh 12.2.1 + 15.1.6, which was issued in Constantinople and addressed to the comes Orientis Marcellinus, should be emended from 3 October 349 to 3 October 343 (below, n. 25).

19. The majority of recent historians have dated this battle, which is distinguished by the sobriquet vvKTO\ia\ia/hellum nocturnum, to 348: so Seeck, Geschichte 4 (1911), 93; Regesten (1919), 196; J. Moreau, 'Constantius II,' Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 2 (1959), 162-179, at 164; A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Emptre (Oxford, 1964), 112; A. Piganiol, L'empire chrétien2 (Paris, 1972), 85; T. D. Barnes, Phoenix 34 (1980), 164; J.-P. Callu, Geriôn 5 (1987), 135/6. But Jerome and the so-called Consularia Constantinopolitana, who give the date of 348, both derive from the same single source and are not necessarily authoritative for the precise year (cf. App. 5 n. 1). Nor does the fact that the first celebration of the victory on the imperial coinage occurs in 348 (J. P. C. Kent, 'Fel. Temp. Repa ratio,' Numismatic Chronicle6 7 (1967), 83-90, cf. RIC 8 11981), 34-39) confirm that date, given the ambiguous nature of the Roman success (emphasised by Festus, Brev. 27).

In favor of 344, see J. B. Bury, 'Date of the Battle of Singara,' BZ 5 (1896), 302-305; N. H. Baynes, Cambridge Medieval History 1 (Cambridge, 1911), 58; E. Stein, Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches 1 (Vienna, 1928), 213; K. Kraft, 'Die Taten der Kaiser Constans und Constantius II,' Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 9 (1958), 141-186, reprinted in his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur anttken Geldgeschichte und Numismatik 1 (Darmstadt, 1978), 87-132, esp. 104; W. Portmann, 'Die 59. Rede des Libanios und das Datum der Schlacht von Singara,' BZ 82 (1989), 1-18. The first four historians named argued principally from Julian's statement that Constans died about five years after the battle (Orat. 1, 26b: €ktoi> trou iigàiota jierà töu iröXe^ov cto? ou jnicpy npöa6ei> (-nvnaQTiv). Portmann has now, in my view, shown that Libanius, Orat. 59, which celebrates the battle at length (99-120), was probably delivered in 344/5—though he is mistaken in assuming that Libanius recited the speech in the presence of Constantius (BZ 82 (1989], 1,12/3).

The chronicle of Jacob of Edessa, which puts both Constantius' building of Amida and the nocturnal battle in year 660 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 348/9, appears to derive from Jerome's Chronicle (ed. and trans. I. Guidi,

CSCO, Scriplores Syr/3 4 [1903), Textus 293; Versio 218).

20. Ephraem conspicuously never mentions Constantius' presence at any of the sieges of Nisibis in 337,346, and 350: consequently, it is mistaken to hold that he relieved the siege of 346, as does J. W. Eadie, The Breviarium of Festus (London, 1967), 150/1.

21. The heading to Themistius, Orat. 1, which is ancient, reads: outos eipritai ev Ay»cvpg t% TaXaTiag, ore TTpajrow ovvirvx* tw paoiXei, ueos o> Itl. 6io7Tep ou§€ ttqvu KpaT€i ttis i&as. Most scholars who have discussed Themistius* speech have dated it to 350: thus O. Seeck, Die Brief'edes Libanius (Texte und Vntersuchungen, N.F. 15.1/2 [Leipzig, 1906|), 293/4; H. Scholzc, De Temporibus librorum Themistii (Gottingen, 1911), 9-11; W. Stegemann, Themistios,' RE 5A (1934), 1657; G. Downey, Themistii Orationes quae super sunt (Leipzig, 1965), 4; PLRE 1.889. And those who have argued for 347 have deduced the date from the erroneous premises that Themistius' speech was known to Libanius when the latter composed his Orat. 59 or that it was written before the nocturnal Battle of Singara in 348: thus C. Glad is, De Themistii Libanii lutiani in Constantium orationibus (Diss. Breslau, 1907), 6, 14; R. Foerstcr, Libanii Opera 4 (Leipzig, 1908), 201/2; R. Foerster and K. Munscher, 'Libanios,' RE 12 (1925), 2508; T. D. Barnes, 'Himerius and the Fourth Century,' CP 82 (1987), 206-225, at 211. The question has perhaps been wrongly posed: since the lack of any perccprible allusion to the death of Constans or the proclamations of Magnentius and Vetranio tells against dating the speech to 350, the choice should lie between the spring of 347, when Constantius' presence is attested in Ancyra, and the autumn of either 343 or 349, in one of which years the emperor appears to have traveled from Antioch to Constantinople and then returned to Syria.

22. CTh 5.6.1 is addressed 'ad Bonosum mag(istrum) equitum,' whom PLRE 1.164 identifies as FI. Bonosus, consul in 344. But the latter was a western consul, and he was replaced by FI. Sallustius c. May—which usually implies dismissal and disgrace (Consuls 119871, 222).

23. On this obscure and difficult passage of Festus, see now W. Ponmann, BZ 82 (1989), 14-18. Since Festus distinguishes between a battle near Singara praesente Constantio and the nocturnal battle where Constantius was also present, it is an obvious corollary of dating the latter to 344 (above, n. 19) to date the former to 348, which is the year stated for the latter in Jerome, Chronicle 236'; Chr. mitt. 1.236.

24. As interpreted in App. 8.

25. For the possibility that the transmitted date should be emended to 343, see above n. 18.

26. On Constantius' movements in 350, see now C. S. Lightfoot, 'Facts and Fiction: The Third Siege of Nisibis (A.D. 350),' Historia 37 (1988), 105-125, at 113.

27. Ephraem, Carmina Nisibena 2.2, makes it clear that Constantius made no attempt to lift the siege of the city, but it seems unlikely a priori that he remained in Antioch, as Theodoretus alleges (cf. Libanius, Orat. 18.207).

28. Socrates, HE 2.28.17, gives the place as Sirmium: on the confusion of the sources over the date and place, see Seeck, Geschichte 4 (1911), 429/30.

29. Julian, Orat. 1, 36a, writes as if Constantius took part in the Battle of Mursa: it is hard to construe this as anything other than a deliberate falsehood.

30. T. D. Barnes, ZPE 52 (1983), 235; T. D. Barnes and J. Vander Spoel, 'Julian on the Sons of Fausta,' Phoenix 38 (1984), 175/6, arguing from (1) Constantius' delay in invading Italy in 352, (2) the fact that Constantius officially rook the victory title Sarmaticus maximus before 358 (Ammianus 17.13.25, 33) on an otherwise unknown occasion, and (3) Julian's assertion in his first panegyric of Constantius that the emperor 'tÎ|i> Ttpôs toùs T6tq? rj|ûi> cîpnvrji/ toîç ôttXois KpaTifcras àa<i>aXfj TTapeoK€Î»ao€v' (Or at. 1, 9d).

31. Seeck, Regesten (1919), 195, emended the date to 346. However CTh 11.1.6 refers to a 'statutum Constantis (Constant» ms.) fratris mei' relating to Italian landowners: hence its author must be Constantius, not Constans (PLRE 1.782).

32. On the addressee of CTh 8.7.2, who cannot be the praetorian prefect Philippus if the date of 353 is correct, see below, n. 53. Ammianus records Constantius' completion of thirty years of rule on 10 October 353, even though it is clear that his dies imperii was 8 November 324: CIL l2, p. 276; Chr. min. 1.232, cf. AE 1937.119, which has idibus Nov(embribus) for a.d. viid(us) Nov(embres). Perhaps Octobres in the text of Ammianus should be emended to Novembres.

33. For laws issued by Constantius in Milan between 354 and 357 whose exact year cannot be determined, see Seeck, Regesten (1919), 44-47.

34. Both places are otherwise unknown: Mommsen, ad loc., located them in Raetia since he accepted the transmitted dates of both constitutions and regarded them as issued during Constantius' Raetian expedition of 355 (as argued in the prolegomena to his edition [Berlin, 1904], ccxxxi).

35. In favor of Mommsen's emendation of the day to 'id. Ian.,' see 'The Capitulation of Liberius and Hilary of Poitiers,' Phoenix 46 (1992), 256-265, at 258. Seeck, Regesten (1919), 202, emended the year to 356.

36. The place of issue is transmitted as both Haerbillo and Med(iolani): Mommsen, ad loc., identified it as Helvillum on the Via Flaminia between Spoletium and Ariminum.

37. Mommsen, ad loc., declared the subscription to CTh 8.5.10 suspect, adducing CTh 11.36.14, which, like it, is addressed 'ad Flavianum proc(onsulem) Afric(ae),' but with the transmitted date of 3 August 361. The proconsul Flavianus is also named as the recipient of CTh 15.1.1, issued at Milan with the consular date of 2 February 320. Seeck, Regesten (1919), 203, corrected the year of both CTh 15.1.1 and 11.36.14 to 357—which implies that Flavianus was proconsul of Africa for two years, from spring 356 to spring 358, cf. 'Proconsuls of Africa, 337-392,' Phoenix 39 (1985), 144-153,273/4, at 148.

38. The correct date could also be December 351, cf. PLRE 1.456.

39. Seeck, Regesten (1919), 207, following Mommsen, also identified as deriving from the same law CTh 11.1.1, which the manuscripts present as issued at Constantinople on 17 June 315. In favor of emending its date to 356 or 357 and dat(a) to acc{epta)> see J. Rouge, 4Le proconsul d'Afrique Proclianus est-il le destinataire de C. Th. XI, 1, 1?' Revue historique de droit français et étranger 52 (1974), 285-295; T. D. Barnes, Phoenix 39 (1985), 149.

40. Socrates, HE 2.44.7, 46.1, appears to imply that Constantius came to Antioch in the spring of 360, but that is probably due to confusion with events of the following winter.

41. In 21.13.8, most editors, including W. Seyfarth (Teubner, 1978), read 'reversus est

Hierapolim': in favor of reading 'Nicopolim urbem,' see G. Pighi, Studia Ammianea (Milan, 1935), 134-140 (with a schematic map on p. 136).

42. On CTh 8.5.7, see C. E. V. Nixon, 'Aurelius Victor and Julian,' CP 86 (1991), 113-125, at 118. This constitution, issued from Antioch, has the transmitted date of 3 August 354, but is addressed to the proconsul of Africa Olybrius, whose proconsular year must be 361/2 (Phoenix 39 (1985), 152). Accordingly, Secck, Regesten (1919), 74,208, emended the year to 361. But the hypothesis that Constantius was in Antioch in early August is incompatible with the narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus, who makes the emperor pass rapidly through the city en route from Mesopotamia to confront Julian autumno iam senescente (21.15.2). Nor do Constantius' movements in 360 permit the date to be emended to 3 August 360, as Mommsen, ad loc., proposed. Hence the transmitted month must be erroneous as well as the year. Perhaps the constitution was in fact issued on 3 March 361 to form part of Olybrius' initial instructions as the new proconsul of Africa due to take office in April.

43. Matthews, Ammianus (1989), 101, retains the date nonis Octobribus transmitted at Ammianus 21.15.3: in favor of accepting the evidence of the other sources (and emending the text of the historian), see 'Ammianus Marcellinus and His World,' CP 88 (1993), 55-70, at 64/5.

44. Note Expositio totius mundi et gentium 58: Treviris, ubi et habitare dominus dicitur'; 57: 'Pannonia regio ... semper habitatio imperatorum est. habet autem et civitates maximas, Sirmium quoque et Noricum.' On the date of the work, see above, n. 7.

45. PLRE 1.764, following Gothofredus and Mommsen, ad loc., emends the year to 346.

46. See above, n. 4. The issue of the mint of Siscia which proclaims VICTORIA (D N) CONSTANTS AUG(USTI) (RJC 8.351/2 Siscia 33-38) may be relevant: on the coinage of Constans between 337 and 340, see now P. Bruun, Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren, 1987), 189-199.

47. The Passio Artemii states that Constantinus prepared for war against Constans while the latter was in Rome—which implies his presence there in the winter of 339/40. Although the date alleged is impossible, a visit to Rome after the defeat and death of Constantinus is not improbable: see 'Constans and Gratian in Rome,' HSCP 79 (1975), 325-333. For a newly published inscription (AE 1988.217), which may reinforce the inference drawn there from ILS 726 (Rome), see L. Gasperini, 'Dcdica ostiense di Aurelio Avianio Simmacn alPimperatore Costante,' Miscellanea gréai e romarui 13 (1988), 242-250.

48. The imperial coinage indicates that Constans supervised the settlement of Franci in Toxandria at the mouth of the Rhine: K. Kraft, Gesammelte Aufsätze 1 (Darmstadt, 1978), 116-125.

49. On the date of Libanius' speech, see W. Portmann, BZ 82 (1989), 1-18. Its occasion is uncertain. J.-P. Callu, Geriôn 5 (1987), 136, argues that Libanius delivered it as parr of a ludus in Nicoinedia commemorating the anniversary of Constantius' proclamation as emperor; he also suggests that one of the other speakers on the same occasion was the panegyrist Harpocration of Panopolis, who traveled the empire giving speeches in praise of the emperors (P. Köln inv. 4533 verso 23-27, published by G. M. Browne, 'Harpocration Panegyrista,' Illinois Classical Studies 2

[1975], 184-196). But the fact that Libanius emphasises that he was compelled to compose the speech (4, 6) and praises the emperors for replacing their praetorian prefects regularly (164) suggests that he was forced to speak by the prefect Philippus, whom he disliked (Orat. 1.69-70: contrast the warmth of his reference to Montius' 'command' that he compose hypotheses to the speeches of Demosthenes). Philippus will have passed through Nicomedia after expelling Paul from Constantinople in the autumn of 344 (App. 8).

50. Also Socrates, HE 2.22.5, translated and discussed in Chapter X.

51. For the inferences drawn here from Athanasius' references to his audiences with Constans, see Chapter VII.

52. The constitution is addressed to the praetorian prefect Anatolius: in favor of retaining the transmitted date, see A. F. Norman, 'The Illyrian Prefecture of Anatolius,' Rheinisches Museum, N.F. 100 (1957), 253-259; T. D. Barnes, 'Praetorian Prefects, 337-361,' ZPE 94 (1992), 249-260, at 258. It was emended to 22 June 357 by Seeck, Regesten (1919), 204, and the emended date is adopted in PLRE1.60.

53. These two fragments are addressed *ad Silvanum com(item) et magistrum militum'—a rank which Silvanus attained only after the Battle of Mursa (PLRE 1.840/1). Seeck, Regesten (1919), 199, accordingly emended the year to 352. A. H. M. Jones, 'The Career of Flavius Philippus,' Historia 4 (1955), 229-233, at 232/3, advanced the adventurous but convincing hypothesis that the compilers of the Theodosian Code have accidentally confused the headings of what are now adjacent extracts in CTh 7.1.2, 3 and 8.7.2, 3. He identified their original dates and addresses as follows:

1) CTh 7.1.2 + 8.7.3: issued at Sirmium on 27 May 349 and addressed to Constans' praetorian prefect Titianus;

2) CTh 8.7.2: issued at Aries on 3 November 353 and addressed to the magister militum Silvanus;

(3) CTh 7.1.3: issued on 30 May 349 and addressed to Constantius' praetorian prefect Philippus.

54. The date of the appearance of the cross in the sky is given by Cyril of Jerusalem in his letter to Constantius (BHG3 413 = CPG 3587). The Consularia Constantinopolitana combine the correct date with that of 30 January, which is preferred in Seeck, Regesten (1919), 198.

55. On this revolt, see J. Arce, 'La rebelión de los Judíos durante el gobierno de Constancio Galo Cesar: 353 d.C.,' Athenaeum 65 (1987), 109-125 (though his assumed date of 353 is impossible). J. Geiger, 'Ammianus Marcellinus and the Jewish Revolt under Gallus,' Liverpool Classical Monthly 4 (1979), 77; 'The Last Jewish Revolt against Rome: A Reconsideration,' Scripta Classica Israelica 5 (1979/80), 250-257, argues that the prominence of Ursicinus in the Jerusalem Talmud, combined with the absence of any allusion to Gallus, shows that the Caesar entrusted the suppression of the rebellion to Ursicinus and did not visit the theatre of war himself.

56. For the chronology of Gallus' movements in 353/4, see 'Structure and Chronology in Ammianus, Book 14,' HSCP 92 (1989), 413^22.

57. In favor of restoring the consular date as (ímd-rois KiovoTai/riqi ZepaoTÓj to) c Kai Kwi/otawtiip Kaíaapi t(o y"), see HSCP 92 (1989), 414-416—where the emended date contains the typographical error KuifOTaimvu) for the first KcovoTai'Tiy.

58. For Julian's movements from 355 to 361, see G. W. Bowersock,the Apostate (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), 33-65; Matthews, Ammianus (1989), 81-106, esp. the map 'Julian in Gaul, 356-360' (82) and the chart 'The Rise of Julian, 359-362* (102/3).

59. If the Council of Baeterrae was a provincial council of the bishops of Narbonensis (as suggested in 'Hilary of Poitiers on His Exile,' Vig. C/;r. 46 (1992], 129-140), then, according to the fifth canon of the Council of Nicaea, it should have met between Easter and Ascension, which in 356 fell on 7 April and 19 May respectively. C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers' Role in the Arian Struggle (The Hague, 1966), 26-29, denies that Julian was on hand for the council.

60. The date is deduced from Julian's remark that the barbarians captured the city ten months before he reoccupied it in combination with Ammianus' report that news of its capture reached Julian at Turin at the very beginning of December 355 (15.8.18/9), cf. G. W. Bowersock, Julian (1978), 36. (Julian's 'ten months' could mean nine months on exclusive reckoning.)

61. Matthews, Ammianus (1989), 492 n. 16, arguing against the theory that the place named by Ammianus is not Sens, but Senon, which lies between Metz and Verdun, proposed by C. J. Simpson, 'Where Was Senonae? A Problem of Geography in Ammianus Marcellinus XVI, 3,3,' Latomus 34 (1974), 940-942; J. Nicolle, 'Julien apud Senonas (356-357): Un contresens historique,' Rivista storica dell'antichità 8 (1978), 133-160.

62. For discussion of the exact site of the battle, see J. J. Hatt and J. Schwartz, 'Le champ de bataille de Oberhausbergen (257-1262),' Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg 42 (1964), 427-430.

63. Ammianus 20.4.2 makes it clear that Julian's proclamation occurred well before the end of the winter of 360/1. Seeck, Geschichte 4 (1911), 487, deduced that the month was February from the denunciation of the month Shebat in Ephraem, Contra Julianum 1.10, but this interpretation is rejected in the recent translation by K. E. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns (New York, 1989), 229.

64. On Julian's movements in 361, see now C. E. V. Nixon, CP 86 (1991), 113-118. He rightly rejects both the traditional date of October for his arrival in Sirmium (G. W. Bowersock, Julian (1978), 58) and the very early date of mid-May advanced by J. Szidat, 'Zur Ankunft Iulians in Sirmium 361 n. Chr. auf scinem Zug gegen Constantius II,' Historia 24 (1975), 375-378.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment