Whose tool? Ammianus Marcellinus on the emperor Valens 1

di Lawrence A. Tritle

The Ancient History Bulletin, 8/4 (1994), pp. 141-153

 

 

Then [Valentinian] adorned [Valens] with the imperial insignia and put a diadem on his head ... thus having indeed a lawful partner in his power, but, as the further course of our narrative will show, one who was as compliant as a subordinate.

Ammianus Marcellinus 26. 4. 3

Twenty years ago there occurred at the University of Chicago such a concentration of research into the late antique world that French historian André Loyen, writing in the Revue des Études anciennes, dubbed it the 'Chicago School.'2 Under the direction of Walter Kaegi and Stewart Oost, came theses and dissertations that explored various aspects of this period by Steven Bradford, Frank M. Clover, and Kenneth Holum, then a few years later by Robert Edbrooke, Fotios Litsos, Francis Noonan and David Novak. More recently, a second wave of Chicago students including Ralph Mathisen (a student of Clover's), Todd Hickey and David Olster, have continued to investigate the history of the late antique world. The present topic is a footnote of sorts to this group's activity, noted by Novak some years ago and here elaborated for the first time.3

It was Novak who questioned Ammianus' assertion that the emperor Valens was little more than a cipher to his brother and patron Valentinian I.4 This perception continues to appear in current scholarship, most notably in John Matthews' recent study of Ammi anus, where he claims that 'none doubted [Valens'] submissiveness to the superior authority of Valentinian.'5 Valentinian was certainly the senior partner in the Imperial government and had elevated Valens to his position of co-emperor. But Ammianus' characterization of Valens' 'submissiveness' to his brother should not be accepted too readily, as it appears to reflect Ammianus' anti-Valensian bias.6 That Ammianus and others disdained Valens for his lack of polish, his rustic ways, is well attested. Libanius dismissed him as the 'Pannonian Emperor,' his rival for the imperial power, Procopius, taunted him as the 'degenerate Pannonian' and as 'Sabaiarius,' the beer-drinker;7 as late as the eve of Adrianople, the people of Constantinople blamed him for the Gothic raids that menaced them and had so little faith in him that according to Socrates, begged for weapons to defend themselves.8 Yet this image of the simple, boorish Valens is incomplete. Themistius praised him for his support and encouragement of education which suggests that there may be another side to Valens — like much else in his reign — that requires investigation.9 More striking perhaps — again prompting skepticism of Ammianus' statement — is the well known fact that the brother emperors took divergent paths in matters of religion: Valens is after all, in the words of E. A. Thompson, the 'ardent Arian' emperor.10

It is the presumed Arianism of Valens that provides the first hint that Ammianus' caricature of the emperor as his brother's lackey is suspect. Analysis of Valens' staff argues that the ready assumption of Valens' subordination to his brother is mistaken. A significant number of his staff officers, particularly the powerful magistri militum, as well as others holding equally important and senior posts in the bureaucracy, can be found serving the emperor Constantius II, that other notably Arian ruler of the fourth century. What this suggests is that Arianism provides a heretofore neglected key to interpreting Valens' reign. It is important, however, to give this factor the correct nuance: i.e., it was a factor clearly, but others must also be taken into account, such as bureaucratic and institutional continuity, not to mention more than just a little self-interest. It is clear too that during Valens' reign there was a diversity of belief among those who served the emperor: Niceans, Arians, and pagans all served side by side. What all of this suggests though is that Ammianus is misleading about the relationship of the imperial brothers. Whether Valens' actions were the result of bureaucratic influence and ambition, his own conscious decisions, or som e combination of these, is a point to which we will return.

A quarter century ago scholars were not especially bothered by any sense of ambiguity regarding terms such as Arian, Nicean, or Catholic. An example of this may be found in G. Ostrogorsky who labeled Valens, as E. A. Thompson already cited, an Arian without the least effort to qualify the term.11 Today this sort of generalization is usually avoided or at least qualified. Recent discussions of Arianism note that its views and formulations were much broader than those associated with Arius himself, that 'Arian' was really an abusive term that its advocates would have shunned, and that Valens' death at Adrianople did not really sound the death knell of Arianism.12

These views seem quite sensible for their critical assessment of the evidence; they also take into account the consideration that the Arians lost the theological debates and the catholic winners wrote the history. For purposes of this discussion, the supposed Arianism of Valens will be viewed within the context of late fourth century Christian doctrine in which the parameters of what constituted correct belief were fairly broad and permeable; that Valens' religious policy was not particularly remarkable and may even be considered essentially Constantinian.

A few incidents from Valens' reign may serve as examples of this continuity. At a church council meeting in Carian Antioch in 365, a delegation of non-Nicean bishops met and, while proclaiming their desire for concord, rejected the Nicene creed and affirmed their adherence to the so-called 'Dedication Council' of Antioch (341) which had been reaffirmed in 359 at Seleucia. Subsequently, Valens forestalled a projected council at Tarsus and then ordered that those bishops deposed by Constantius but reinstated by Julian should again be removed.13 Within a short time, however, Valens took steps to placate Athanasius, the powerful bishop of Alexandria, first inviting him to resume his episcopal duties and then approving a request to rebuild the Caesareum in Alexandria destroyed a year or two before (c. 365/6).14 While the argument that Valens sought to win Athanasius' support during the revolt of Procopius has some force, it may be just as instructive to note that in 350 Constantius had followed a similar course of rapprochement during the rebellion of Magnentius.15 Some years later, in 372, Valens made various grants of rural property to Basil of Caesarea and also allowed him to appoint bishops in areas of Armenia recently recovered.16 Repetition of these measures in the reigns of Constantius and Valens argues that a conscious policy decision has been made in the imperial administration. Valens came to the imperial throne with little in the way of experience and found himself relying upon his friends and relatives and others already present in the bureaucracy. His inexperience in government suggests that he would have known little about such a policy, or any precedent from Constantius' reign, but highly placed bureaucrats with service under Constantius would.

Finally, in 377/8, shortly before the fateful battle of Adrianople, Valens issued an order for the recall of Nicean bishops and presbyters previously exiled from their sees and churches.17 The rationale for this act is not recorded and so Valens' intentions can only be conjectured. It may have been his aim to sow turmoil in the Christian community, as one writer has claimed, and so weaken the Nicene faction. But our lack of knowledge, however, should not preclude the consideration that in undertaking a Gothic campaign, Valens may have decided to adopt a more conciliatory line so as to strengthen his position and the Empire. The people of Constantinople, we have seen, were sharply critical of Valens, blaming him for the Gothic threat to their city. Valens may have decided that it would be opportune to ease any further Nicene persecutions so as to win popular support.18 As noted above, Constantius too sometimes vacillated in his policies toward the same group, particularly the implacable Athanasius.19

Valens' religious policy then bears a number of resemblances to that of Constantius, right down to a reaffirmation of the Homoean creed of 360.20 What were the influences at the imperial court that resulted in these policies, policies that were not especially consistent, policies that reflect numerous viewpoints? Among those noted previously who held Valens' confidence were the Arian bishop of Antioch, Euzoius, and the empress Domnica, who, according to the catholic Theoderet, converted Valens to Arianism.21 Yet the Emperor's own household — not to mention the Empire — was hardly unanimous in its beliefs, policies, and actions. Valens' daughters, Anastasia and Carosa, were both sympathetic and possibly students of the Novatian Marcianus and Anastasia purportedly influenced her father to mitigate his policies toward the Novatians.22 The imperial family's evening table-talk must have made for fascinating conversation! Moreover, such religious diversity is reflected within the Empire at large. Valens, as mentioned above, dealt carefully, one might even say with deliberate ambiguity, with the likes of powerful churchmen such as Athanasius and Basil, while allowing for the persecution of their Nicene co-religionists. Yet at the same time as Nicene persecutions occurred, there were other persecutions of 'extremist' Christian groups going on within the Empire. In addition to the Novatians noted above there were Euphemite or Messalian monks, who were persecuted by Fl. Lupicinus, the commander who did so much to provoke the Goths in Thrace prior to Adrianople.23 What is of special interest here is that the Euphemite/Messalian sect was notably pro-Arian in its sympathies.24 The persecution of both groups then demonstrates how difficult it is to assert that Valens' acts were based simply upon his religious principles. 'Orthodoxy' is clearly an ambiguous term, and when the continued survival of paganism in the Empire is considered, one is reminded that the late Roman world was really, as Glen Bowersock has phrased it, the world of Jesus Christ and Dionysus.25 This only serves to make more complicated the job of the historian in trying to understand the policies of the Roman government.

It has been argued that Valens' own lack of experience in and with imperial government led him to trust and rely upon those who had.26 This latter observation, as right as it is, does not go far enough. What in fact occurred is that an appreciable number of men (nearly fifty in number) who served in the administration and court of Constantius continue to hold military commands and positions in the civilian bureaucracy of Valens. It is this continuity that most satisfactorily explains the similarities between the two reigns.

This sort of influence can be seen among Valens' senior army commanders, officers such as Sebastianus (34) and Traianus (42), both of whom began their military careers under Constantius. Both served as magistri militum under Valens and both fought and died with him at Adrianople.27 Yet their religious orientations were at opposite ends. While serving as dux in Egypt under Constantius (356-358), Sebastianus arrested adherents of Athanasius as he supported the bishop George whose beliefs were more compatible with those of Constantius. Elsewhere Sebastianus is described as a Manichean, which could conceivably mean anything from Manichaean to heretic to Arian. Sebastianus then would appear to be an excellent example of the continuing influence of Constantius' 'Arian' policies and ideas into Valens' reign.

The career of Sebastianus' contemporary Traianus, however, cautions against any simple generalizations about Valens' reign and policies. Not only was Traianus also a longtime serving officer, he was also Nicean or Catholic.28 In the campaigning season before Adrianople, probably after the inconclusive battle at oppidum Salices, Valens apparently rebuked Traianus for his lack of success.29 His retort? Valens' persecution of Niceans was to blame for the failed campaign and not any incompetence on his part. To Traianus' support came two other magistri, Fl. Arinthaeus (5) and Victor (45), both of whom had also begun their careers under Constantius. Perhaps more telling, both Arinthaeus and Victor were Christian and Nicaean in sympathy. Traianus was dismissed, but shortly afterwards recalled to duty in time to die at Adrianople.

A similar pattern may be discerned in the imperial bureaucracy that served Valens as it had Constantius. Among senior level officials is Domitius Modestus (25), who served under Constantius (and Julian) as comes Orientis (c. 358-362) and then as praetorian prefect in the East under Valens from 369-377.30 Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus (38) occupied a similar position of importance under Valens and in this capacity was responsible, among other things, for persecuting Niceans in Egypt (368/9). Like Modestus, Tatianus had also served extensively under Constantius and both men had strong pagan affiliations, though Modestus evidently became Christian, i.e., Arian, in Valens' reign. A person of similar stature was Vulcacius Rufinus (32), who also served under Constantius as praetorian prefect in Illyria and then under Valentinian and Valens expanded his jurisdiction to include Italy and Africa.31 Though he retired c. 368, his associates and protégées, including the notary Brasidas (7), served under Valens. Both Rufinus and Brasidas appear to have been pagan.

Others who moved from the court and government of Constantius to that of Valens include Clearchus (9), who held a number of unknown posts under Constantius and then rose to become vicar and proconsul of Asia and then city prefect of Constantinople under Valens. Such an individual could be expected to have many contacts and be a patron to others and this Clearchus was; among those he advanced was Theodorus (41), who first appears as an advocate in 358 and then later rises to be governor of Asia. Clearchus and Theodorus were also pagan. Finally, two others associated with Constantius' administration also occupied influential niches in Valens' court: Nebridius (27), who held a number of positions in both east and west under Constantius and then was praetorian prefect of the East under Valens, and Simplicius (37), son of Fl. Philippus, former praetorian prefect in the East under Constantius, who exercised a position of influence at Valens' court after 365. Again, both men were pagan.

Two last persons of influence from Constantius' court again serving in like capacities in Valens' may be mentioned. These are Eutropius (13), who served both emperors as a sort of official historian, and Themistius (40), the great orator and intellectual, who again served both as an advisor and court intellectual.

The situation that Valens faced upon his imperial acclamation may have been similar to Robert Redford's Candidate, who asks upon winning his election, 'Now, what?' Valens had little in the way of military experience and so can be presumed to have deferred to the advice of his senior commanders. Valens' accession, it must be remembered, began under a cloud with the rebuke of the general Dagalaifus, who according to Ammianus Marcellinus (26.4.1) told Valentinian that if he loved his family, he had a brother, but if he loved the state, he should look carefully for a man (presumably a good man) to make emperor. Family ties prevailed. From the beginning then the military had little respect for Valens and this relationship never, it would appear, improved. This is made clear by a statement near the end of Ammianus' narrative and discussion of Valens. In recounting the trials of various conspirators at Antioch in 371 and 372, Ammianus declared that 'the military had a sword almost at [Valens'] throat.'32 This then would explain Valens' fatal decision to engage the Goths at Adrianople. Though his own instinct to preempt the arrival of his nephew Gratian may have predisposed him to accept the strategy argued by Sebastianus and others for immediate attack, he may also have simply lacked the will and courage to propose another plan to that offered by his generals.33 Men like Sebastianus often became emperors and their stature and authority must have been truly awesome. Valens would have been easily swayed or intimidated by them.34

So too in matters of imperial administration, which included the church and religious policy, Valens would have lacked the experience and knowledge of the inner workings of government. Again Valens was not well educated or otherwise prepared for his responsibilities and he does not seem to have grown into his position; even in his bias this much seems accurately reported in Ammianus' account. Thus Valens would have turned to those who had experience and heard the advice of those officials, individuals such as Modestus, Tatianus, and Nebridius, who were holdovers from Constantius' regime. Moreover, as Valentinian was not evidently disposed to offer much advice to his brother, he would have been left even more dependent upon the advice, suggestions, and reminders of those around him: in his own household, his wife and daughters, but also in the government as it resumed the policies of Constantius. A good example of this dominating influence is Domitius Modestus, who according to Ammianus Marcellinus, exerted extensive control upon Valens: discouraging him from any supervision of the judicial system, flattering him and leading him to commit various acts of cruelty and misrule.35 Even allowing for Ammianus' bias, it is clear that Valens succumbed to the pressures of his court officials.

In the late antique world of Jesus and Dionysus, labels such as Christian, Arian, and pagan are not always helpful and may even mask the real issues of the times. This may be the case with the reign of Valens. There can be little doubt that partisans of the above identified sects figured in his court and administration, or that those known to be Nicene outnumbered the Arian. Yet this fails to account for the pronounced tilt against the Nicenes or other similarities between Valens' reign and that of Constantius. Valens was undoubtedly influenced as Ammianus remarks, but it was not Valentinian who exerted the pressure. Rather it was the men who had served Constantius and carried out his policies and who now executed these anew, but in the name of another sovereign. Why did this happen? With no one 'in charge' at the top, it was nearly a situation of all against all, everyone for himself. The emperor was weak, subject to his generals, bureaucrats, his wife and daughters. Thus it was possible to find the persecutions of Nicenes and at the same time pro-Arian monks and others beyond the pale so to speak. In this confusing, almost bewildering situation, the soldiers and bureaucrats stepped in — in part to preserve their own interests and influence, but also because Valens was so ineffectual.

Appendix

Bureaucrats and Soldiers from Constantius to Valens

The following is a list of those known to have served in the administrations and armies of Constantius and Valens. Service in the intervening regimes of Julian and Jovian is for the most part omitted. Individuals identified in the text above carry the number cited before the names; numbers that appear after the names are those found in PLRE as also the reference to PLRE itself.  

NAME

RELIGION

SERVICE UNDER CONSTANTIUS

SERVICE UNDER VALENS

1 Acacius 8, PLRE 1. 7 pagan? Gov. Phrygia (pre 361); later Gov. of Galatia, 361-2 Com. Dom. per Cappadoc., 364-5
2 Agilo, PLRE 1.28-9 pagan 36 Trib. stab., 354, trib. gent. et scut., 354/60; Mag. Ped. 360-62

Aided Valens in revolt of Procopius

3 Andronicus 3, PLRE 1.64-5 pagan Gov. of Phoenice, 360-1 other posts 355-57 [see Amm. Marc. 21.16.3]37 Vicar of Thrace, 366; executed by Valens
4 Fl. Arbitio 2, PLRE 1.94-5 ? Mag. Equ. 351?-361 cos., 355 Aided Valens in revolt of Procopius
5 Fl. Arinthaeus, PLRE 1.102-3 christian 39 trib., 355; com. r. mil., 363-4 Mag. Ped., 366-78; cos., 372
6 Auxonius 1, PLRE 1.142-3 ? see Amm. Marc., 21.16.3 PPO, 367-69; associate of Clearchus
7 Brasidas, PLRE 1.164- ? see Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Notary (East) 366
8 Caesarius 1, PLRE 1.168- christian Vicar. Asiae, 362-63; see Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 PVC, 365
9 Clearchus 1, PLRE 1.211-12 pagan Unknown posts, 359-60; see Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Vicar Asiae, 363-6; procon. Asiae, 366-7; PVC, 372-73
10 Decentius 1, PLRE 1.244 pagan Trib. et not., 360 Mag. Off. (East) 364-65
11 Equitius 1, PLRE 1.281 ? Army service pre-363, as he served as trib. at accession of Jovian [relative of Valens] Trib. et cur. palatii, 378 [killed at Adrianople]
12 Fl. Eusebius 40, PLRE 1.308-09 christian40 Gov. of Hellespont, 355, Gov. of Bithynia, 355/6 cos., 359 Prosecuted for treason by Valens but later recalled from exile and restored
13 Eutropius 2, PLRE 1.317 pagan Mag. epist., c. 361 Mag. mem., 369, Proc. Asiae, 371/2
14 Flavianus 3, PLRE 1.343 ? Gov. of Egypt, before 364; see Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Praef. Aegypti, 364-8
15 Fortunatianus 1, PLRE 1.369 pagan 41 CRP (East), 370-77
16 Gomoarius, PLRE 1.397-98 ?42 Trib. Sch. 350, Mag. Equ. (Gaul), 360-1 Deserted to Valens [served under him?]
17 Heraclius 3,9,10 (?), 43 PLRE 1.418-20 ? com. sent to Egypt ordering expulsion of Athanasius, 356 v.c., Gov. Thebaidos, 368
18 Hierius 4, PLRE 1.430 pagan Gov. before 360 Praef. Aegypti 364
19 Hilarius 2 (6?), 44 PLRE 1.434 pagan Notary, 356 Palatine office before 371/2, executed for treason
20 Fl. Hypatius 4, PLRE 1.448-49 christian Cos. before 359 Tried, convicted, and exiled for treason, 371; later restored, then PVR, 379.
21 Iovinus 1, PLRE 1.461-62 ? See Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 CSL or CRP, 364-65
22 Iulius 2, PLRE 1.481 ?45 Comes r. mil., 365 v.c., comes et mag. equ. et ped. (East), 371-78
23 Fl. Lupicinus 6, PLRE 1.520-21 christian Mag. Equ. (West), 359-60 Mag. Equ. (East), 364-7; cos. 367
24 Vindaonius Magnus 12, PLRE 1.536 arian46 See Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 CSL, 373; PVC, 375-6
25 Domitius Modestus 2, PLRE 1.605-08 arian/pagan Com. Orientis, 358-62 PPO Orientis, 369-77; cos. 372
26 Musonius 2, PLRE 1.613 pagan See Amm. Marc. 21.16.3; vicar of Macedonia, 362 vicarius Asiae, 367-68
27 Nebridius 1, PLRE 1.619 ? Comes Orientis, 354-58 QSP (Julian), 360; PPO Gaul, 360-61 PPO Orientis, 365
28 Aelius Palladius 15, PLRE 1.661 ? See Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Praef. Aegypti, 371-74
29 Pientius, PLRE 1.701 ? Unknown offices, see Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 palatinus, 364
30 Priscianus 1, PLRE 1.727 pagan Gov. of Euphratensis, 360-1; Gov. of Cilicia, 363-4 Gov. of Palaestrina Prima, 364
31 Aradius Rufinus 11, PLRE 1.775-76 pagan Comes Orientis 363-64 (cf. Amm. Marc. 21.16.3) PVR, 376
32 Vulcacius Rufinus 25, PLRE 1.782-83 pagan Cos, 347; PPO Illyr., 347-52 PPO Ital., Illyr., Afr., 365-68
33 Fl. Saturninus 10, PLRE 1.807-08 christian47 Military service, c.350; cura Palatii, 361 Com. r. mil., 373; Mag. Equ., 377-78
34 Sebastianus 2, PLRE 1.812-13 manichean [?] Dux, Egypt, 356-8 Com. r. mil., 363-78
35 Saturninus Secundus Salutius 3, PLRE 1.814-17 pagan Gov. of Aquitania, Mag. Mem., Proc. Africae, etc. PPO Orientis, 361-65, 365-67
36 Serenianus 2, PLRE 1.825 pagan Dux, Phoenices, 354 Comes domest., 364-5
37 Simplicius 4, PLRE 1.843 pagan Exiled by Constantius for consulting oracle, 358/9 Man of influence at court of Valens, 365
38 Fl. Eutolmius Tatianus 5, PLRE 1.876-78 pagan Advocate, c.358 etc. Praef. Aegypti, 367-70 Consul. Syriae et com. Orient., 370-74
39 Terentius 2, PLRE 1.881-2 christian See Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Comes et dux Armen. c. 369-74
40 Themistius 1, PLRE 1.889-94 pagan Procons. of Constant., 358 etc. Senate legate, 369 etc.
41 Theodorus 11, PLRE 1.897 pagan Advocate, 358; Gov. in Asia, 364-65; cf., Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Service under Clearchus 1 (vic. Asiae), 363-66
42 Traianus 2, PLRE 1.921-22 christian48 Military service since Constantius [?] Dux Aegypt., 367-8; Com. r. mil., 371-4; Mag. Ped., 377-78
43 Ulpianus 3, PLRE 1.973-74 ? Official before 361 (cf. Amm. Marc. 21.16.3); Gov. of Cappadocia, 361-3 Gov. of Arab. 363-64; Gov. of Phoenice, 364
44 Vadomarius, PLRE 1.928 ? Dux, Phoenice, 361/6 Served under Valens in revolt of Procopius
45 Victor 4, PLRE 1.957-59 christian49 Amm. Marc. 31.12.6 Com. r. mil., 362-63[?]; Mag. Equ. (East) 363-79; cos. 369
46 Victorinus 4, PLRE 1.964 arian See Amm. Marc. 21.16.3 Dux Aegypt., 364-66
47 Vrsicinus 2 (&4), PLRE 1.985-86, 987 ? Mag. Equ., 349-50; Mag. Ped., 359-60 Com. r. mil., 364

Footnotes

1     An earlier version of this paper was read at the Nineteenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, held at Princeton University, November 5, 1993. I would like to thank Walter Kaegi and John Vanderspoel for their comments and suggestions which were of much help in revising this essay.

2     A. Loyen, 'L'œuvre de Flavius Merobaudes et l'histoire de l'occident de 430 a 450', REA 74 (1972), 153.

3     Of those named above, Edbrooke, Litsos, Noonan, and Novak have left academia, casualties of the first Ph.D. glut of the 1970s. Novak first told me of his doubts regarding Ammianus' assessment of Valens more than ten years ago when we planned to discuss it jointly as an essay in a Festschrift for S. Oost, a project cancelled and then revived in another form; hence the delay in presenting Novak's observation.

4     Amm. Marc. 26. 4. 3, cf. 27. 4. 1. In the latter passage cited here, Ammianus says that Valens began a punitive campaign against the Goths, as they had supported Procopius in his revolt; this was done ostensibly in accordance with Valentinian's wishes. This statement would seem to provide further evidence of Valens' submissiveness. Such a view has little to recommend it. Any campaigning against the Goths would be a major undertaking and Valens would certainly want to inform his brother so that, if worse came to worse, he could receive aid. Moreover, this incident, even if reported accurately, occurs early in Valens' reign and such a communication is not unusual, as Valens would presumably want to keep his brother informed. Finally, what emerges from this passage is not simply a critical assessment of Valens but rather a case of outright bias (see further n.11 below).

5     J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (Baltimore, 1989), 190; cf. the review-article of T. D. Barnes, 'Ammianus Marcellinus and His World', CP 88 (1993), 55-70. See also A. Cameron, The Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 99 f., who discusses the accession of Valentinian and Valens, but without referring to any domination by Valentinian.

6     See Amm. Marc. 27. 5. 8 in which Ammianus characterizes Valens' conduct of matters during Procopius' revolt as reasonable, at least until he allowed himself to be led astray by flatterers. It was this weakness, his inability to resist flattery, that would lead him, in Ammianus' opinion, to inflict on Rome its greatest loss — the defeat at Adrianople. This remark demonstrates clearly that Ammianus is slanting his account against Valens from its beginning. This bias goes undetected by R. Seager, Ammianus Marcellinus. Seven Studies in His Language and Thought (Columbia, 1986), 23, 101, 121. See also R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1968), 126, who notes Ammianus' hostility toward Valens on account of his boorishness, and E. A. Thompson, 'Ammianus Marcellinus', in Latin Historians, ed. by T. A. Dorey (New York, 1966), 148, who argues that in books 26-31, Ammianus has no heroes (like Julian earlier) and that no one is depicted in a favorable light.

7     See the discussion in A. Alföldi, A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire, trans. by H. Mattingly (Oxford, 1952), 117-19, who cites the evidence referred to here.

8     Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 4. 38., supported by a similar account of civic disturbance told by Amm. Marc. 31. 11. 1.

9     See Them. Or. 9, 10, and G. Downey, 'Education and Public Problems as seen by Themistius', TAPA 86 (1955), 303. R. MacMullen, 'Roman Bureaucratese', Traditio 18 (1962), 374, questions the extent to which such speeches 'were actually delivered to the throne' and not just circulated. He concludes that Themistius and other orators were successful in making their opinions known.

10     E. A. Thompson, s.v. 'Valens' (2), OCD2 (Oxford, 1970), 1104, who continues that Valens' religious policy was considerably 'less tolerant' than that of Valentinian.

11     G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, rev. ed., trans. by J. Hussey (New Brunswick, 1969), 51-53, who also notes that Valens' death meant 'the final collapse of Arianism.' For similar analysis of Arians and Catholics see A.A. Vasiliev, A History of the Byzantine Empire, 2 vols. (Madison, 1952), 78 f. A more subtle analysis of the complexities at issue here was made by G. Downey, The Late Roman Empire (New York, 1969), 62-3, who notes that the orthodoxy enforced by Valens did not exclude Arian doctrine. Downey also noted that this policy had been that of Constantius as well.

12     For reference and additional discussion of the views presented here see Cameron, ibid. 69-71, and T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 14-15 [hereafter cited Barnes, AC].

13     Barnes, AC 161 f., 57-62 (for discussion of the Council of Antioch).

14     On the Caesareum (or Sebasteion), a temple for Antony begun by Cleopatra but completed by Octavian, eventually becoming the cathedral of Alexandria, see E. Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aegyptum (Bergamo, 1922), 92, E. M. Forster, Alexandria (Woodstock, NY, 1974), 185.

15     Barnes, AC 163 f.

16     See Theoderet, HE 4. 16, C.A. Frazee, 'Anatolian Asceticism in the Fourth Century: Eusthathios of Sebastea and Basil of Caesarea', CHR 66 (1980), 31.

17     For full discussion see R. Snee, 'Valens' Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda', GRBS 26 (1985), 395-419.

18     I thank John Vanderspoel for this observation.

19     See discussion in Barnes, AC 163 f., 219, n.60.

20     See H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: Der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 73 (Tübingen, 1988), 181-242.

21     On Euzoius, see Snee, ibid. 414-16; on Domnica, see Theod. HE 4. 12. 3-4, and A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I: A.D. 260-395 (Cambridge, 1970), 265 (all references are to vol.1, hereafter cited as PLRE). Theodoret is perhaps the harshest anti-Arian propagandist and his assertions and views are not to be accepted uncritically.

22     See references in PLRE 58, 182 (= Anastasia and Carosa), 554 (Marcianus).

23     On Fl. Lupicinus see PLRE 520-21 and the sources cited there.

24     For discussion of the 'Arian' sympathies of the Messalians, see Frazee, 'Anatolian Asceticism', 17-18, 22-23, 32-33. On the identification of the Messalians as Euphemites, see J. Höfer and K. Rahner, eds., Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche2, 10 vols. (Freiburg, 1959), 3. 1185.

25     G. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, 1990), 41-53, particularly evident in the fourth century mosaic from New Paphos in Cyprus that depicts Dionysus enthroned, evoking an immediate comparison with Christ.

26     Argued by Snee, ibid. 414, but without realizing that the very persons she identifies had served earlier under Constantius. A similar comment is made by A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 2 vols. (Norman, 1964), 1. 141, who identifies Domitius Modestus among Valens' officials.

27     On Sebastianus and others cited here see the sources and discussion in PLRE. The numbers noted parenthetically in the text correspond to those in the list of individuals in the attached appendix, 'Bureaucrats and Soldiers from Constantius to Valens,' and readers should turn there for evidence and sources. In the notes I cite only additional information and references as needed.

28     Theod. HE 4. 28. 2, 33 attests his catholicism, as well as his support of the catholic hermit Zeugmatus against his Arian opponents (Theod. HE 4. 28. 2).

29     Cf. Amm. Marc. 31. 7, Theod. HE 4. 30, and the discussion of P. J. Heather, Goths and Romans, 332-489 (Oxford, 1991), 142-44. The historicity of Traianus' remark, reported by Theoderet, is suspect as it seems to be the perfect remark by a catholic 'martyr' to the 'Arian' emperor. The incident, however, may well be based upon an actual debate and clash of opinion.

30     Barnes, AC 208, n.14, dismisses Modestus as a mere 'time-server.' This estimation may be true, but in an age of religious transformation and controversy, is it so certain that individuals made fundamental decisions of belief simply and without even some doubt and hesitation?

31     The influence of this family (and its party of adherents, etc.) in the reign of Constantius and later can also be seen in Rufinus' brother Naeratius Cerealis, PLRE 197-99, who held a series of high posts similar to those of Rufinus.

32     Amm. Marc. 29. 1. 15 (the translation is that of W. Hamilton in the Penguin ed., Harmondsworth, 1986).

33     Amm. Marc. 31. 12. 4-7. Valens' conduct of the Adrianople campaign shows that during fourteen years of rule he had not picked up much in the way of military strategy or tactics. After accepting the recommendation of Sebastianus and others to fight, he allowed himself to be deterred by Gothic delays and requests for parley, which allowed the Goths to recall those forces away from the main body, while his own men were kept waiting in the hot sun. Clearly Valens had not learned much about the techniques of command, which calls into question what he might have learned about the art of government. For a thorough discussion of Valens' Gothic War, see U. Wanke, Die Gotenkriege des Valens. Studien zu Topographie und Chronologie im unteren Donauraum von 366 bis 378 n. Chr. (Frankfurt/Main, 1990).

34     Among those generals thought able enough to be emperor were Severus (Amm. Marc. 27. 6. 3) and Lupicinus (Amm. Marc. 20. 9. 9). Theodosius and his father provide additional well known examples.

35     Amm. Marc. 29. 1. 10-11.

36     R. von Haehling, Die Religionszugehörigkeit der hohen Amtsträger des römischen Reiches seit Constantins I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum Ende der Theodosianischen Dynastie, Antiquitas, Ser. 3, v. 23, ed. by A. Alföldi et al., (Bonn, 1978), 247-48, notes that Agilo was possibly pagan on account of his marriage to the daughter of Araxius, perhaps pagan also.

37     Ammianus relates here that Constantius required ten years' service before a civil servant could hope to rise to high office, i.e., master of offices, a treasury post. I have used this passage to infer the length of service for bureaucrats, beginning under Constantius and continuing with Valens. The same requirement for service apparently held for military commanders.

38     von Haehling, ibid. 257. His religious affiliation is unknown.

39     Ibid. 252, 258-59. Baptized on his deathbed, von Haehling argues that he was a staunch Christian as his defense of Traianus shows. This may be so, but perhaps his support for Traianus before Valens demonstrates the solidarity of the military (cf. n.32 above)?

40     T. D. Barnes, 'Christians and Pagans in the Reign of Constantius', in L'Eglise et l'empire au IVe siècle, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique, 34 (Vandœuvres, 1989), 317.

41     There is no known service for Fortunatianus under Constantius, but his position of comes rei privatae in 370-77 points to a prior record of civil service, as above, n.37. The CRP's responsibility for grain, e.g., would also support this point. See J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch. City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1972), 127, 154.

42     Haehling, ibid. 249, 261.

43     The identities of these separately listed figures in PLRE seems possible, as the evidence for all comes from Egypt in the late 350s and 360s.

44     The identification of Hilarius is based as above.

45     von Haehling, ibid. 260.

46     Ibid. 119-20.

47     Ibid. 257-58.

48     Ibid. 259-60.

49     Ibid. 252, 256-57.