Dexippus, Eunapius, Olympiodorus: continuation and imitation

di D. F. Buck

The Ancient History Bulletin, 1/2 (1987), pp. 48-50

Dexippus of Athens, Eunapius of Sardis and Olympiodorus of Thebes wrote the history of the Roman Empire in the third, fourth and fifth centuries A.D., respectively. This note will examine how these three historians relate to each other. It is generally accepted that Eunapius continued Dexippus and that Olympiodorus continued Eunapius; however, continuation should not be considered to imply imitation of the predecessor’s historiographical practice.

There is no doubt that Eunapius continued Dexippus’ Chronica since he announces this fact in his own Histories (frr. 1 and 8).¹ It is equally certain that Eunapius did not take the Chronica as his model, for he adopts a regnal, not an annalistic structure, and declares that precise and detailed chronology is not needed in a didactic history like his (fr. 1).² Why, then, did Eunapius link his work to one so dissimilar?

More precisely, did Eunapius begin with the year 270 A.D. because that was the terminus of Dexippus’ Chronica, or did Eunapius choose Dexippus because of where he wanted to begin his Histories?³ Since Eunapius constructed his Histories on the premise that Constantine the Great initiated the decline of the Roman Empire,⁴ he may well have chosen his starting point to coincide with Constantine’s birth. The emperor was born in 272 or 273⁵ A.D.; an insignificant discrepancy by Eunapius’ chronological standards. Moreover, Eunapius may have written a life of Constantine before he conceived the plan of his Histories or looked for a predecessor to continue. His incentive would have been to counter eulogistic biographies like those by Eusebius of Caesarea, Praxagoras of Athens and Bemarchius of Caesarea.⁶ In his Lives of the Sophists (VS 464), Eunapius refers to a life of Constantine which may be the life whose lineaments are detectable in Book 2 of Zosimus.⁷ If so, Eunapius incorporated his biography of Constantine into his Histories and his starting point was not determined by Dexippus.

It is not immediately obvious that Olympiodorus continued Eunapius’ Histories. Olympiodorus never cites Eunapius by name and no parallels have been detected &151; nor would they be expected to shine through Photius’ epitome.⁸ The fact that Zosimus takes Olympiodorus as his source when Eunapius’ Histories end⁹ does not prove that Olympiodorus continued Eunapius, for Zosimus, like the compiler of the (whole) Origo Gentis Romanae, could have simply coupled together three convenient accounts.¹⁰ The most serious difficulty is Photius’ testimony that Eunapius’ Histories ended in 404 and Olympiodorus’ work began in 407.¹¹ E. A. Thompson recognizes that Olympiodorus refers to events before 407, but opines that he “does so in the course of his narrative.”¹² J.F. Matthews reverts to the theory of Reitemeier and Haedicke that Olympiodorus had an introductory section covering the years 405 and 406.¹³ Yet Matthews’ suggestion still leaves a de facto gap of ten years between the two histories, for Olympiodorus dealt almost exclusively with western affairs and Eunapius is thought not to have carried his account of the western empire beyond 395.¹⁴ R.C. Blockley, who wishes to disprove that Olympiodorus continued Eunapius, in part because of the supposed gap between their works, agrees that Olympiodorus outlines Stilicho’s early career, but says only that some of the events treated could have occurred before 404.¹⁵ A solution lies in fr. 2 of Olympiodorus where Photius records that Olympiodorus narrated Stilicho’s rise to power and, in particular, how Theodosius made him regent over both Arcadius and Honorius. This mythical¹⁶ dual tutelage must be dated to Theodosius’ death in 395, and thus it is evident that Olympiodorus did in fact continue Eunapius’ account of western events. Stilicho was indeed a prime concern of both Eunapius (fr. 62) and Olympiodorus (frr. 2-9).

Olympiodorus did not, however, imitate Eunapius’ way of writing history, since among other things he abandoned the regnal structure, included much autobiographical detail and admitted Latinisms and technical jargon.¹⁷ The answer to the question why Olympiodorus chose to continue Eunapius is doubtless that Eunapius wrote the canonical pagan Greek history of the fourth century. Eunapius’ Histories were used not only by Petrus Patricius, Zosimus and John of Antioch, but even by the church historians, Sozomen and Philostorgius.¹⁸ Surely Olympiodorus, who was not only pagan¹⁹ but sufficiently erudite to know Asinius Quadratus,²⁰ must have intended to continue Eunapius.

Eunapius nowhere states that he is imitating a previous historian and any attempt to identify a model must be tentative. The best candidate, however, appears to be Herodian who is the prime example of regnal history before Eunapius. Both his statements of purpose and method (1.1.6 and 2.15.7) and the attempt to apportion one book to each reign show that he wrote a regnal history very like Eunapius’. Their chronological practice is also similar. Moreover, G. Giangrande has demonstrated that Eunapius was familiar with Herodian.²¹ Not only do they have certain rare words in common, but Eunapius’ reflection that Xenophon was a philosopher of deeds as well as words (VS 453) echoes Herodian’s comment on Marcus Aurelius (1.2.4), while Eunapius’ description of Prohaeresius’ endurance in the Gallic winter shows the influence of Herodian’s account of Septimius Severus on the Danube frontier (2.10.5). Finally, Eunapius and Herodian write the same kind of rhetorical Attic.

The late antique historians, Eunapius and Olympiodorus, forged a continuous account of the Roman Empire by linking their works to those of their predecessors. Yet each felt free to write in his own way without being influenced by the historian whom he continued. Eunapius may have taken Herodian as his model, but Olympiodorus appears to have been idiosyncratic.

Footnotes

1     The fragments of both Eunapius and Olympiodorus will be cited according to the conventional numbering of Mueller, FHG IV.

2     Cf. D.F. Buck, “A Reconsideration of Dexippus’ Chronica,” Latomus 43 (1984) 596-597.

3     Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 77 (Eunapius) and cod. 82 (Dexippus).

4     Cf. T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge and London 1981) 273.

5     Ibid. p. 3.

6     F. Jacoby, FGrHist 219 (Praxagoras) and 220 (Bemarchius). F. Winkelmann, Eusebius’ Werke i.1² (GCS, 1975).

7     2.8-28 are a chronological account of Constantine’s civil wars; 2.29-39 are a topical treatment of Constantine’s deeds as sole emperor.

8     Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 80.

9     Zosimus begins to use Olympiodorus at 5.26. Vid. L. Mendelssohn, Zosimi Historia Nova (Leipzig 1887) ad. loc., and F. Paschoud, Zosime Histoire Nouvelle i (Paris 1971) lvii ff.

10     A. Momigliano, “Some Observations on the ‘Origo Gentis Romanae,’” Secondo Contributo (Rome 1960) 145-176 (= JRS 48 [1958] 56-73).

11     Photius, Bibl., codd. 77 and 80.

12     E.A. Thompson, “Olympiodorus of Thebes,” CQ 38 (1944) 45, n. 7.

13     J.F. Matthews, “Olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West (A.D. 407-425),” JRS 60 (1970) 87.

14     Ibid. 81-82.

15     R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. 1 (Liverpool 1981) 29-30.

16     Alan Cameron, Claudian. Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius (Oxford 1970) 38ff.

17     See Matthews, op. cit. 85-89. Blockley, op. cit., 30-31, argues that Olympiodorus used a topical-geographical structure.

18     Mendelssohn, op. cit. xxxv f.

19     Photius, Bibl., cod. 80.

20     Cf. Zosimus 5.27.2.