Aufstze / Essays

Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors

before Julian the Apostate?
by Noel Lenski

The ecclesiastical sources are nearly unanimous in reporting that the

future emperor Valentinian defended his faith before Julian the Apostate
while serving in the army. Many also report that Valentinians brother
Valens and his imperial predecessor Jovian confessed the faith before
Julian as well. Despite the wide diffusion of these stories, however, schol-
ars have remained uneasy about their credibility1. The details offered by
the various sources tend to be contradictory and the stories themselves
sound like post eventum embellishment designed both to boost the repu-
tations of the future emperors and to denigrate Julian for persecuting his
successors. In a series of recent articles, D. Woods has made the case that
the various sources on the confessions and early careers of at least
Valentinian and Valens can be reconciled2. His arguments are worthy of

1
D. Hoffmann, Das sptrmische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, 2 vol.,
EpiSt 7, Dsseldorf 1969/70, I 316-318; II 134 note 76, first argued that the ecclesiastical
sources fabricate the story of Valentinians exile out of a version of Ammianus story at
Amm. XVI 11,6-7 (Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Libri Qui Supersunt, 89, 2-13
Clark) that Valentinian was dismissed from Julians army in Gaul. The same conclusion
is reached by R. Tomlin, The Emperor Valentinian I, Diss. Oxford 1973, 13-16; cf. id.,
Christianity and the Late Roman Army, in: Constantine. History, Historiography and
Legend, ed. by S.N.C. Lieu/D. Montserrat, London 1998, (21-51) 34; J.F. Matthews,
Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364-425, Oxford 1975, 34; id., The
Roman Empire of Ammianus, Baltimore 1989, 77.187-188; R. Soraci, LImperatore
Valentiniano I, Catania 1971, 17-21. W. Heering, Kaiser Valentinian I 364-375 n.Chr.,
Diss. Jena 1927, 7-11, also dismisses the exile story but holds that Valentinian was re-
enlisted after his expulsion in Gaul and participated in Julians Persian expedition. Many
thanks to Beth Dusinberre, Nikolaus Schindel, and above all David Woods who kindly
and carefully commented on this paper despite his disagreements with it.
2 D. Woods, Valens, Valentinian I, and the Ioviani Cornuti, in: Studies in Latin Literature
and Roman History 9, ed. by P. Deroux, CollLat 244, Brussels 1998, 462-486; id., A
Note Concerning the Early Career of Valentinian I, AncSoc 26, 1995, 273-288; cf. id.,
Ammianus Marcellinus and the Deaths of Bonosus and Maximilianus, Hagiographica 2,
1995, (25-55) 32-33.54; id., Ammianus and Some Tribuni scholarum palatinarum c.
A.D. 353-64, CQ 47, 1997, (269-291) 281. C.E.V. Nixon, The Early Career of Valen-
tinian I, in: Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2 Early Christianity, Late
Antiquity and Beyond, ed. by T.W. Hillard et al., Grand Rapids/Cambridge 1998, 294-
304, also examines the problem in a recent essay which will be dealt with in the notes
which follow. For previous attempts to reconcile the sources on this question, see O.
Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, vol. 5, Stuttgart 1913, 19-20; A.

ZAC, vol. 6, pp. 253-276

Walter de Gruyter 2002

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
254 Noel Lenski

attention and have already won support in T.D. Barnes groundbreaking

book on Ammianus3. Here I propose to examine the question yet again
using a broader range of sources than Woods. I hope to demonstrate that
earlier suspicions about these stories were indeed well founded: the con-
tradictions among the different versions are too complicated to be recon-
ciled and they should thus be regarded with extreme skepticism.
On Valentinian, Woods makes the case that the future emperor, though
not himself a confessor, was closely connected with the famous confessor
St. Martin4. We know from Ammianus that Valentinian was serving as a
tribune in Gaul while Julian was Caesar there and that he was expelled in
3575. We also know that around the same time Martin, then serving in the
Scholae Palatinae, refused a donative offered by Julian and was also
discharged. There were, in this period, five units of the Scholae Palatinae6,
but Woods contends that both Martin and Valentinian were members of
the same unit, the Gentiles7, and that Valentinian was actually Martins
commander and fellow Christian zealot. Valentinians membership in the
Gentiles is nowhere indicated in the sources, but Woods believes it can be
deduced from the fact that Ammianus names Valentinians fellow tribune
in 357, Bainobaudes, as the leader of another corps of the Scholae
Palatinae, the Scutarii8, which often appears in conjunction with the
Gentiles. Moreover, notes Woods, Valentinian himself shows up seven
years later as a tribune of the Scutarii9. Given this coincidence, says
Woods, Valentinian must already have led a less senior unit in the Scholae
Palatinae in 357, to wit the Gentiles.
Nagl, Art. Valentinianus 1, PRE VII A 2, Stuttgart 1948, (2158-2204) 2159-2160;
A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A Social, Economic and Administra-
tive Survey, London 1964, 1095 note 2; PLRE I Flavius Valentinianus 7; Flavius Valens
8; H.C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homer. Der Osten bis zum Ende der
homischen Reichskirche, BHTh 73, Tbingen 1988, 126-127. Many have simply ac-
cepted Valentinians confession without further question, as W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of
Christianity, Philadelphia 1984, 617; P. Brown, Christianization and Religious Conflict,
in: CAH 13. The Late Empire A.D. 337-425, ed. by A. Cameron/P. Garnsey, Cambridge
21998, 645; A. Demandt, Die Sptantike. Rmische Geschichte von Diocletian bis

Justinian 284-565 n.Chr., HAW 3.6, Munich 1989, 111 note 11.
3 T.D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality, Ithaca
1998, 52.
4
D. Woods, Note (see note 2).
5
Amm. XVI 11,6-7 (89,2-13 Cl.).
6
Not. dign. or. XI 4-10; oc. IX 4-7. On the Scholae Palatinae see T. Mommsen, Das
rmische Militrwesen seit Diocletian, Hermes 24, 1889, 195-279 = id., Gesammelte
Schriften VI, Berlin 31994, (206-283) 230-234; A.H.M. Jones, Later Roman Empire (see
note 2), 613-614; R.I. Frank, Scholae Palatinae. The Palace Guards of the Later Roman
Empire, PMAAR 23, Rome 1969; D. Hoffmann, Bewegungsheer (see note 1), I 279-303;
D. Woods, Ammianus and Some Tribuni (see note 2); id., The Scholae Palatinae and the
Notitia Dignitatum, JRMES 7, 1996, 37-50.
7
D. Woods, Note (see note 2), 279-281; cf. id., Ammianus and some Tribuni (see note 2),
281.
8 Amm. XIV 11,14 (33,21-23 Cl.) with XVI 11,6 (89,4-5 Cl.); cf. PLRE 1 Bainobaudes 1.
9 Sources at PLRE 1 Flavius Valentinianus 7.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 255

The inference is possible though hardly proven. Ammianus, our best

source on the matter, says only that Valentinian was tribune of a cavalry
unit, nothing of its name nor even that Valentinian was a guardsman of
any sort10. Though other sources on Valentinians expulsion from the
army under Julian are more specific they actually name four distinct, and
thus mutually contradictory units none mentions the Gentiles11. It seems
safer, then, to admit that we simply cannot know the name of Valentinians
unit. Woods then charges that Martin of Savaria St. Martin was also
in the Gentiles. Martins biographer Sulpicius Severus does at least state
that Martin was enrolled inter scholares alas, though he too stops short
of stating in which of the five units Martin served12. Woods contends,
however, that when Sulpicius refers to Martins mother and father as
gentiles i.e., pagans he puns on the name of Martins military unit13.
This speculation too demands a leap of faith.
Building on his conjecture that Valentinian and Martin both served in
the Gentiles, Woods further speculates that the two served simultaneously
and were fast friends. In support of this reconstruction, he argues that
Sulpicius alludes to Valentinian when he describes Martins commanding
officer. According to Sulpicius, this unnamed tribune convinced the saint
to remain in service for his last two years by promising that he too would
resign after completing his tribunate14. It is certainly true that Martin and
Valentinian did meet in an incident which Woods believes shores up his
case. In his Dialogues, Sulpicius reports that, after Valentinian was em-
peror and Martin a devoted holy man, Valentinian angrily refused Martin
entre into his court until forced to receive the saint under divine compul-
sion15. But this incident hardly indicates the kind of warm friendship
described between Martin and his unnamed commander in the Vita
Martini. Had Valentinian and Martin been friends, we might expect some
mention of the fact in Sulpicius; instead, he relates only this prickly

10 Amm. XVI 11,6-7 (89,2-13 Cl.). Soz., h.e. VI 6,3-7 (GCS Sozomenus, 243,23-244,22
Bidez/Hansen) clearly treats the same affair and actually names Valentinians unit as the
Ioviani. This cannot be correct, however, since the Ioviani were an infantry unit while
Ammianus XVI 11,6-7 explicitly states that Valentinian directed cavalry. Here PLRE I
Flavius Valentinianus 7, which places Valentinian in the Ioviani based on Sozomen, has
been misled.
11 Below note 37.
12 Vit. Mart. II 2 (SC 133, 254 Fontaine).
13
Vit. Mart. II 1 (254 Font.) with D. Woods, Note (see note 2), 282. For gentiles as pagans,
see C.T. Lewis/C. Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1879, s.v. gentilis; II C.2; cf. J.
Fontaine (ed. and trans.), Sulpice Svre Vie de Saint Martin, vol. 1, SC 133, Paris 1967,
255, who translates paens.
14 Vit. Mart. III 5-6 (258 Font.): Nec tamen statim militiae renuntiavit, tribuni sui precibus
evictus, cui contubernium familiare praestabat: etenim transacto tribunatus sui tempore
renuntiaturum se saeculo pollicebatur. Qua Martinus expectatione suspensus per bien-
nium fere posteaquam est baptismum consecutus solo licet nomine militavit.
15 Sulp. Sev., dial. II 5 with D. Woods, Note (see note 2), 281.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
256 Noel Lenski

encounter. Moreover, Valentinians later career gives no indication that

he, like Martins commander, considered renouncing his wordly ambi-
tions for the religious life. On the contrary, not only did Valentinian
continue to pursue offices, but once he gained the throne he became
notorious for avoiding involvement in religious issues16.
Above all, Woods reconstruction fails because it is based on a chrono-
logical misunderstanding. It is clear from Ammianus that Valentinian was
discharged from the Gallic army in the early summer of 35717. Relying on
earlier chronologies, Woods believes that Martin renounced his military
career in August of 35618. T.D. Barnes has shown, however, that Martins
renunciation came fourteen or fifteen months later, in October or Novem-
ber of 35719. Martin thus remained in service for five or six months after
Valentinian had been cashiered. If, as Sulpicius reports, Martin continued
to serve during his last two years only at the behest of his commander, he
would surely have resigned when Valentinian was dismissed. We must
conclude that this commander was another man.
In a separate article20, Woods has argued that the many sources which
describe Valentinians refusal to sacrifice before Julian c. 363 and his
consequent expulsion from the army cannot apply to Valentinian who
had been discharged already in 357 but refer instead to Valens. These
sources, Woods argues, have substituted the name of the Orthodox
Valentinian for his Arian brother, the true confessor. As Woods would
have it, an orthodox source from the east who reported the confession
story simply would not, or could not, believe anything to the credit of
Valens and thus substituted his orthodox brothers name for Valens
own21. Woods then holds that this Urquelle was picked up by all later
sources who therefore consistently misreport Valens confession and exile
as if it had been Valentinians.
The case is elaborate, not least because Woods acknowledges that
the sources on Valentinians = Valens confession seem to offer contradic-
tory details. For example, the sources offer different names for the unit in
which Valentinian = Valens was serving: while Sozomen assigns Valen-
tinian to the Ioviani, Philostorgius and several others place him in the

16
E.g. Amm. XXX 9,5 (552,15-19 Cl.); Soz., h.e. VI 7,2-5 (245,13-246,88 Bid./Han.); cf.
D.H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts, Oxford
1995, 71.77-79.115-116.
17 Amm. XVI 11,1 (88,14 Cl.) indicates that the events of Valentinians dismissal occurred
shortly after the close of winter, at the beginning of the campaign season in 357; cf. O.
Seeck, Zur Chronologie und Quellenkritik des Ammianus Marcellinus, Hermes 41, 1906,
(481-539) 504.
18
D. Woods, Note (see note 2), 284-285, following C. Stancliffe, St. Martin and His
Hagiographer. History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus, Oxford 1983, 135-136.
19
T.D. Barnes, The Military Career of Martin of Tours, AB 114, 1996, 25-32.
20 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2).
21 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 468, cf. 480.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 257

Cornuti22. But Woods argues that these may in fact be alternative names
for a single unit. As evidence, he adduces an inscription from Nacoleia
which appears to record the combination of both names applied to a
single unit, the Io(viani) Corn(uti) Sen(iores)23. Furthermore, Woods is
aware that Ammianus apparent silence on Valens discharge and exile
under Julian presents an obstacle to his case. He posits, however, that
Ammianus does in fact describe the incident but simply omits Valens
name from his account24. Woods even goes so far as to contend that
Valens won glory and honors for his bold confession. Ammianus reports
that, once Valentinian became emperor, he promoted Valens to Tribunus
Stabuli in preparation for elevating him to co-emperor25. But Woods
believes that it was actually Jovian who had already made Valens Tribunus
Stabuli as a reward for his courageous confession and that from this
position of power Valens played a key role in winning the imperial
election for his brother26.
Woods is certainly right to assume that Valentinian never stood up for
the faith before Julian27. This he deduces from Ammianus, who reports very
credible circumstances for Valentinians dismissal from Julians army in
357 which have nothing to do with religion28. Ammianus relates that, when
a group of Laeti made a raid on Lugdunum, Julian posted three divisions
along the roads leading back to their territory in order to intercept them.
One of these was under the command of Valentinian and his fellow tribune
Bainobaudes. Unfortunately for both, Barbatio, a henchman of Constantius,
sent a Scutarius to order that Valentinian and Bainobaudes allow the Laeti
to pass. When the Scutarius later confessed the treachery, Barbatio, who
was obviously implicated, shifted the blame onto Valentinian and Baino-
baudes. Both were relieved of their commands and sent home as privati.
Ammianus thus gives us grounds for believing that Valentinian, though
discharged under Julian, was not expelled for his faith but for his perform-
ance as a soldier. Nor should we expect a run-in with Julian over religious
matters at this early date. In 357, Julian was still publicly playing the role
of a Christian. He did not openly declare his apostasy and begin enacting
pro-pagan policies until 36129. Only if Valentinian had subsequently
22 Soz., h.e. VI 6,3-4 (243,26-244,6 Bid./Han.); Philost., h.e. VII 7 (GCS Philostorgius, 86,6
Bidez/Winkelmann); cf. Chron. pasch. p. 540 (CSHB, Dindorf); Theoph., chron. a.m.
5855 (Theophanis chronographia, 51,9 De Boor).
23 T. Drew-Bear, A Fourth-Century Latin Soldiers Epitaph at Nakolea, HSPh 81, 1977,
257-274; cf. D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 470-471.
24 Op. cit. 480-485; cf. Amm. XXIII 1,5-6 (297,9-19 Cl.).
25 Amm. XXVI 4,2 (396,10-12 Cl.).
26
D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 474-477.
27 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 466-468; id., Note (see note 2).
28 Amm. XVI 11,6-7 (89,2-13 Cl.); cf. XXX 7,5 (546,13-15 Cl.).
29
Julian was still publicly pretending to be a Christian even in January of this year (Amm.
XXI 2,5 = 220,4-6 Cl.), though he had certainly emerged from the closet before
Constantius death in November, as Jul., ep. 26 (Bud 1/2, 54,5-7 Bidez); Greg. Naz., or.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
258 Noel Lenski

reentered the army would there have been a second opportunity for Julian
to attack him for his religion. This, however, seems unlikely. There are
several indications that, once home in 357, Valentinian remained there
until 363. In 359, Gratian, Valentinians first son, was born in Sirmium,
about 60 km from his fathers home town of Cibalae in Pannonia30. This
would indicate that Valentinian was living in the area at the time. Simi-
larly, Ammianus reports that when Valentinian returned to Pannonia in
374/5 after ten years away as emperor, he was able to rattle off the names
of regional grandees as if he knew them personally31. Given that much of
his adolescence and early adulthood was spent following mobile field
units32, he must have had a considerable period cooling his heels in the
region following his dismissal to reacquaint himself with the locals. Above
all, testimony in Ammianus indicates that Valentinian was still around
Pannonia in 363. When Jovian came to power, he sent to his father-in-law
Lucillianus in Sirmium and instructed him to proceed west together with
a group of men selected for their loyalty in order to report Jovians
election: among the confidants chosen by Lucillianus was Valentinian33.
While Julian was marching into Persia in 363, then, Valentinian was at
home around Sirmium making contacts with domi nobiles like Lucillianus.
Any reports of confession in Antioch and exile to remote frontiers must
be looked on with extreme skepticism.
Need we assume with Woods, though, that the ecclesiastical sources
are simply substituting Valentinians name for Valens? Perhaps so if, as
Woods argues, we could reconcile the contradictions in our accounts of
Valentinians = Valens fate. Indeed, Woods argument hinges on the
presumption that all our sources trace to a single Urquelle which made the
switch from Valens to Valentinians name; to assume that multiple sources
made precisely the same substitution would of course be petitio principii.
But if, as Woods contends, we could demonstrate that all the sources
report essentially the same incident, there would be good reason to accept
that all trace to a single, largely trustworthy account. Unfortunately,
Woods has not employed enough evidence to prove this case34.
4,52 (SC 309, 156,5-8 Bernardi); cf. G.W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, Cambridge,
Mass. 1978, 61-62; J.F. Drinkwater, The Pagan Underground, Constantius IIs Secret
Service, and the Survival, and the Usurpation of Julian the Apostate, in: Studies in Latin
Literature and Roman History 3, ed. by P. Deroux, CollLat 180, Brussels 1983, (348-387)
354-356.
30
PLRE I Fl. Gratianus 2.
31 Amm. XXX 5,10 (541,20-24 Cl.).
32 Symm., or. 1,2 (MGH.AA VI 1, 318,19-319,6 Mommsen) with N. Lenski, Valens and
the Fourth Century Empire, Diss. Princeton 1995, 69.74-75.
33 Amm. XXV 8,7-10; 10,6-8 (380,1-16; 385,16-386,4 Cl.); cf. Zos. III 35,1-2 (Bud 2/1,
56,23-57,10 Paschoud).
34 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 463, dismisses Socrates account and choses to avoid the
Latin sources for the problem as well (462 note 3). He makes only passing reference to
sources later than Theodoret (473 notes 40-41). C.E.V. Nixon, Early Career (see note 2),
294-295 notes 3-4 suffers from a similar lack of concern for the source tradition.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 259

Woods mentions that the sources list two units in which Valentinian
served and contends that these are easily reconciled as separate epithets of
a single unit. His Io(viani) Corn(uti) Sen(iores) are, however, nowhere to
be found in the extensive lists provided by the Notitia Dignitatum nor in
any of our literary sources. Indeed, Woods evidence for such a unit
consists of a single inscription which offers the abbreviations cited. More
importantly, Woods nowhere says that two equally plausible readings of
the abbreviations in question are discussed by its editor: the Io(vii)
Corn(uti) Sen(iores) and taking into account variant letter forms the
Eq(uites) Corn(uti) Sen(iores), the latter of which is attested in the
Notitia35. A recent investigation of the same inscription makes a strong
argument that the reading Iov(ii) Corn(uti) Sen(iores) best corresponds
with a passage in Aurelius Victor which seems to allude to the same unit36.
The Io(viani) Corn(uti) Sen(iores) are thus hardly a sure thing. Moreover,
the Ioviani and Cornuti are not the only two units in which Valentinian
is said to have been serving when expelled from the army. In fact, the
sources mention two others, the Lanciarii and Scutarii37. Similarly, Woods
discusses only two of the places given in the sources where Valentinian =
Valens was supposed to have been exiled and holds that one can be easily
dismissed as a reference to an earlier posting station of Valens. Here again,
however, the sources name four places, none of which is any more or less
likely than the other: Melitene, Thebes, Mesopotamia and Selymbria38.
Moreover, he assumes that the sources offer a single and coherent picture
of how Valentinian brooked Julians order to sacrifice and how he suf-
fered the consequences. In fact, four incidents with varying details are
described, three dealing with Julian and one with Constantius. In sum, a
more comprehensive examination of the sources will show that they
simply do not allow us to draw a coherent picture of Valentinians (or
Valens) supposed confession and expulsion.
In total six Latin and fifteen Greek sources mention the confession of
Valentinian. Some of these same sources also discuss the confession of his
predecessor Jovian and his brother Valens. Based on the content and

35 T. Drew-Bear (see note 23), 272-273. For the Equites Cornuti Seniores, Not. dign. oc. VI
48; VII 162.
36 M. Speidel, Raising New Units for the Late Roman Army Auxilia Palatina, DOP 50,
1996, (163-170) 167-168, citing Aur. Vict., caes. XXXIX 18 (BiTeu, 118,23-27).
37 Ioviani: Soz., h.e. VI 6,3-4 (243,26-244,7 Bid./Han.). Cornuti: Philost., h.e. VII 7 (86,6
Bid./Wink.); Theoph., chron. a.m. 5855 (51,9 DeB.); Chron. pasch. p. 549 (Din.).
Lanciarii: Thdt., h.e. III 16,1-4 (GCS Theodoret, 194,14 Parmentier/Hansen); Cassiod.,
hist. trip. VI 35 (CSEL 71, 357,3 Jacob/Hanslik). Scutarii: Orosius VII 32,2-3 (CSEL 5,
512,4-5 Zangemeister).
38 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 477-479. Melitene: Soz., h.e. VI 6,3-7 (244,13 Bid./Han.).
Egyptian Thebes: Philost., h.e. VII 7; VIII 5 (86,8; 107,4 Bid./Wink.). Mesopotamia:
Philost., h.e. VII 7 (86,16 Bid./Wink.). Selymbria: Jo. Mal., chron. XIII 28 (CFHB 35,
260,28-33 Thurn); Chron. pasch. p. 549 (Din.).

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
260 Noel Lenski

phrasing of these accounts, we can describe five source traditions, some

of which overlap to varying degrees39.

I.

The first tradition consists of three notices which describe how Valentinian
was serving in the Cornuti when Julian failed to force him to apostasy. In
his frustration, Julian exiled Valentinian, Philostorgius says to Thebes:

Philost., h.e. VII 7 = 86,5-8 Chron. pasch., p. 549 Theoph., chron. a.m. 5855
Bid./Wink. (c. 425)40 Din. (c. 630)41 = 51,7-11 DeB. (c. 814)42

ti tn Oalentiniann n totoij ka Oalen- ll n totoij dipreyan

postthj, tgmatoj tinianj, tribonoj tte n mologv t ej Cristn
prconta stratiwtiko tgmatoj kornotwn otw Oalentinianj, tribonoj
(kmhj gr crhmtizen legomnwn noumrJ t ej tte n tgmatoj,
tn legomnwn kourno- Cristn mologv dip- Kornotwn legomnwn
twn) pe pnta prttwn repen. O mnon gr to noumrou, o mnon to
odamj atn scuse tj ximatoj katefrnhsen, ximatoj katafronsaj,
esebeaj metastsai, ll ka xorv poblhqej ll ka xorv poblh-
paralsaj to ximatoj gennawj ka proqmwj qej, stij met tata p
ej Qbaj tj Aguptaj pmenen. j met tata qeo basilej nedecq.
fugadeei43. pwj timqh n toj xj
dhlwqsetai

It is commonly accepted that none of these authors had access to the other
but that all three used a common fourth-century source, the Anonymous
Arian Historiographer whose fragments are collected in Bidezs and Win-
kelmanns edition of Philostorgius45. Woods argument that Valentinians

39 The notices at Cedrenos, hist. p. 588 (Bekker); Zonaras XIII 15,4 (CSHB, 73,10-11,
Bttner-Wobst); Theod. Lect., epit. 158 (GCS Theodoros Anagnostes, 63,4-5 Hansen);
Theophylact Bulgariae, hist. mart. 10 (PG 126,166-167) are too jejune to be adduced for
comparison.
40
For the date, see F.M. Clover, Olympiodorus of Thebes and the Historia Augusta, in:
BHAC 1979/1981, Bonn 1983, (127-156) 137-141; ctr. A. Gillett, The Date and Circum-
stances of Olympiodorus of Thebes, Tr. 48, 1993, (1-29) 5-6 note 21.
41 For the date, see M. Whitby/M. Whitby (ed. and trans.), Chronicon Paschale 284-628
AD, Translated Texts for Historians 7, Liverpool 1989, ix-x.203-205 with bibliography.
42 For the date, see C. Mango/R. Scott (trans. and comm.), The Chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Oxford 1997, lvii.
43 Cf. Philost., h.e. VIII 5 (107,4 Bid./Wink.) on exile to Thebes.
44
Cf. Theoph., chron. a.m. 5856 (54,22-23 DeB.).
45 J. Bidez/F. Winkelmann (eds.), Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte, GCS, Berlin 1972, 202-
241, esp. 233-234 for these passages. For Philostorgius sources, see op. cit. cxxiv-cxl. For
the Chronicon Paschales sources, see M. Whitby/M. Whitby, Chronicon (see note 41),
xv-xxii, esp. xvi. For Theophanes sources, see C. Mango/R. Scott, Chronicle (see note
42), lxxiv-xcv, esp. lxxx-lxxxi. Cf. L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen
Kirchenhistorikern, JCPh.S 14, 1884, (53-178) 81-86.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 261

name has been substituted for Valens by an ecclesiastical writer skittish

about an Arian confessor thus suffers a blow. The Anonymous Arian was
writing shortly after Valens death46 and would have been the earliest
ecclesiastical historian to have recorded the incident. While it could be
argued that he was the very source which substituted Valentinians name
for that of Valens, this would seem unlikely given that he, like Valens, was
a Homoian Arian; he thus had no reason to hide Valens heterodoxy.
Nor is it likely that these three followers of the Anonymous Arian made
the substitution. A glance at the placement of this story among the frag-
ments of the Anonymous Arian shows that it was nested amidst a series
of Arian martyr and confessor accounts. The longest catalog of these
survives in the Chronicon paschale, whose author seems to have had little
notion that he was recording the glories of heretics47. If Valens had been
listed among the legion of confessors cataloged in the Anonymous Arian,
we would surely find his name rather than Valentinians here48.

II.

The second group consists of a pair of notices which charge not that
Valentinian was exiled to Thebes but rather sent as a tribune to a certain
Salambria/Selybria, presumably Thracian Selymbria:
Jo. Mal., chron. XIII 28 = H 260,28-33 Chron. pasch., p. 555 Din. (c. 630)
Thurn (first redaction c. 532)49
tn gr atn basila Balentiniann ' Iou- ntina Oalentiniann 'Ioulianj para-
lianj Basilej parabthj, j cris- bthj j cristiann pnu pmyaj n ej
tiann pnu pemyen ej Salambran, poi- Shlubran, poisaj atn ke tribonon
saj atn tribonon riqmo: gnw gr riqmo. gnw gr n rmati `Ioulianj
n rmati ti metatn atj basileei. ti met atn basileei. d parcoj tn
d{ parcoj Salostioj pmyaj negken praitwrwn Salostioj pmyaj negken
atn p Salambraj, ka e"pen t atn p Shlubraj, ka e"pen t strat
strat ti odej poie basila `Rwmawn ka t sugkltJ ti odej poie basila
j otoj. ej t `Rwmawn j atj.

46 J. Bidez/F. Winkelmann, Philostorgius (see note 45), cli-clxiii.

47
H.C. Brennecke, Studien (see note 2), 114-141, demonstrates that these martyr accounts
survive precisely because late sources like the Chronicon paschale let just such Arians slip
into their narrative in ignorance. Brennecke even argues that at this period Valentinian
was himself a Homoian, in keeping with the confessional fashion of the early 360s (126).
48 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 480, himself acknowledges that the Arian Philostorgius
would not have hidden Valens glories, but even this oversimplifies. Philostorgius, though
Arian, was an Anomean who deeply despised Valens and would thus have had good
grounds to edit out his name. The testimony of Theophanes and the Chronicon paschale,
using the Anonymous Arian independently and both also reporting Valentinians name,
indicates that he did not have the option.
49
For the date, see B. Croke, Malalas, The Man and his Work, in: Studies in John Malalas,
Byzantina Australiensia 6, ed. by E. Jeffreys/B. Croke/R. Scott, Sydney 1990, (1-26) 17-25.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
262 Noel Lenski

Here again we encounter the Chronicon paschale, though six pages later
in Dindorfs edition and reporting a completely different story. Valentinian
is sent not to Egypt but to Thrace, not as an exile but as a tribune, and
not so much because he locked horns with Julian but because Julian
foresaw that Valentinian would succeed him. The author of the Chronicon
paschale has simply lifted this second account from Malalas, whom he
often followed50. Unfortunately for both, Malalas reliability on this inci-
dent seems questionable. To begin with, the claim that Valentinian was
recalled from his outpost by the Praetorian Prefect Sallustius only after
Jovians death contradicts directly Ammianus testimony that Valentinian
had been serving as a tribune under Jovian for several months before his
election and was stationed in Ancyra, only 150 km from the comitatus,
when he was called to the purple51. Moreover, the vision of Julian fore-
warning him that Valentinian would succeed him is rooted more in legend
than reality. A related incident is reported in Philostorgius following the
passage quoted in group I:
totn fasi, nka Kwnstntioj basleusen, den tina tn legomnwn silentiarwn
purj flga to stmatoj finta: den d{ kat t deilinn, nka met trofn
tn pnon aromeqa, ka tata shmnai KwnstantJ. ka gr kenou pmyantoj
atn di tina crean metakalsasqai tn Oalentiniann, peritucen t qemati.
d{ Kwnstntioj t ggelv ej pnoian m{n ka doj katsth, o mn g ti
parelphse tn ndra: paramuqomenoj d{ t okeon doj, per t froria tj
Mesopotamaj kpmpei flaka tn kese tpwn smenon ka tj tn Persn
pidromj nastllonta52.

The stereotyped vision recurs, though the emperor named is entirely

different and the circumstances altered considerably. Valentinian is not
exiled to Thebes by Julian but sent as a guard to Mesopotamia by
Constantius. Photius epitome of Philostorgius offers no explanation for
this apparent contradiction to the earlier account. We must either assume
that Philostorgius follows yet another source tradition here or that he had
an alternate version of the story reported in Malalas and the Chronicon
Paschale. Regardless, the contradictions mount. The ecclesiastical histo-
rian Sozomen, whose account we shall examine next, apparently under-
stood this. Sozomen, who often corrects and supplements his sources,
chose not to follow the account of Valentinians exile found in Philo-
storgius, which he used53, but offers instead a third version which is
closely related to the story of Valentinians dismissal in 357 retailed in
Ammianus.

50 M. Whitby/M. Whitby (see note 41), xvi and 44 note 131.

51 Amm. XXVI 1,5 (390,21-22 Cl.).
52
Philost., h.e. VII 7 (86,8-17 Bid./Wink.).
53 See L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen (see note 45), 147-150; G. Schoo, Die Quellen des
Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos, NSGTK 11, Berlin 1911, 83-86. J. Bidez/G.C. Hansen
(eds.), Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte, GCS, Berlin 21995, liii-lv, have reservations.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 263

III.

This third tradition reports an incident wherein Valentinian, on entering

a temple as one of Julians guards, was sprinkled with an ablution by a
pagan priest, struck the priest and was therefore sent to guard a desert
fortress, which Sozomen names as Melitene, presumably Melitene in
Armenia Minor:

Soz., h.e. VI 6,3-6 = 243,24-244,16 Bid./Han. (c. Thdt., h.e. III 16,1-4 = 194,12-
448/9)54 195,4 Parm./Han. (c. 448/50)55
3. lgetai gr j, nka 'Ioulianj krtei `Rwmawn, 1. ka gr Balentinianj kenoj
suntagmatrchn atn nta to katalgou tn mikrn steron basilesaj (cil-
kaloumnwn 'Iobiann, tj strateaj pesato ka arcoj d{ n thnikata tn per
idJ fug zhmwse, prfasin m{n j o dentwj t basleia tetagmnwn Logco-
taxe toj p atn stratitaj prj toj pole- frwn gomenoj) n e"cen p{r
mouj, t d{ lhq{j nteqen: 4. ti digwn 'Ioulianj tj esebeaj ok pkruye zlon.
n toj prj dsin Galtaij ken ej tina nan qswn: 2. m{n gr mbrnthtoj kenoj
sunn d{ at ka Oalentinianj: qoj gr palain ej t tj Tchj tmenoj esei
`Rwmaoij tn gomenon tn 'Iobiann ka `Erkou- corewn, katrwqen d{ tn qurn
liann (tgmata d{ tata tn n lgJ stratiwtn, estkeisan newkroi perirranth-
t m{n f `Hrakloj, t d{ p Dij lacnta tn roij toj esintaj prokaqaron-
proshgoran) kat ntou ggj sane flakaj tej j nmizon 3. peid d{ to
pesqai t basile. 5. pe d{ mellen peramebein basilwj gomenoj t clandi
to nao tn odn, qalloj tinaj diabrcouj kat- _anda pelsasan e"den Balenti-
cwn erej nmJ `Ellhnik perirraine toj es- nianj, basileaj katraj to-
intaj: kpesoshj d{ stagnoj p tn ato sqta tou crin tetuchkj, px paise

54 J. Bidez/G.C. Hansen, Sozomenus (see note 53), lxiv-lxvii support a date between
443/450. C. Rouech, Theodosius II, the Cities, and the Date of the Church History
of Sozomen, JThS 37, 1986, 130-132, however, had demonstrated that the terminus post
quem of 443 first proposed by A. Gldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret
von Kyrrhos. Eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen, Halle 1889, 12-13, cannot be supported.
The terminus post quem must then remain the earliest publication date of Socrates
history, which Sozomen used as a source (below note 74). A. Cameron, The Empress and
the Poet, Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II, YClS 27, 1982, (217-289)
265-267 proposes that Sozomens eulogy of Pulcheria (h.e. IX 1 = 390,3-392,7 Bid./Han.)
must have been composed after her return to favor at the court of Theodosius II, which
he dates to 450 based primarily on Theoph., chron. a.m. 5942 (102,7-8 DeB.). Though
T.D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian
Empire, Cambridge, Mass. 1993, 206.209.307 note 3, now argues for a date of 450 for
the entire work, the case is hardly closed. Theophanes is notoriously unreliable on
chronology in this period, cf. C. Mango, The Date of the Studius Basilica at Istanbul,
BMGS 4, 1978, (115-122) 119-120. Pulcheria could easily have been back in favor in
449. Moreover, large parts of Sozomens work could have appeared before his ninth book
and been available to Theodoret earlier in the 440s. Finally, the premise of Camerons
argument has been challenged at H. Leppin, Von Constantin dem Groen zu Theodosius
II. Das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theo-
doret, Hyp. 110, Gttingen 1996, 279-281. Leppin proposes a date for Sozomens work
shortly before Marinas death in 449. See also A. Gillett, Date and Circumstances (see
note 40), 6-7.
55 For the date, see below note 64.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
264 Noel Lenski

calepj negken Oalentinianj (n gr Cristianj) tn newkron, memolnqai fsaj,

ka t _anonti loidorsato: fas d{ ka to
basilwj rntoj atka peritemen ka porryai
sn at t yekdi son brch tj sqtoj. 6. t
d{ x kenou mhnin 'Ioulianj o poll steron
katedkasen ato tn Melitinn tj 'Armenaj di-
hnekj oken, atan skhymenoj tn per toj p
atn stratitaj _vstnhn: o gr boleto dxai
di tn qrhskean kakj atn poien, na m mrtu-
roj mologhto gern xiwqeh:
o kekaqrqai. qeasmenoj d{ t
gegonj xgistoj ej frorion
atn par tn rhmon kemenon
xpemyen, atqi digein proste-
tacj. 4. ll kenoj m{n niauto
ka mhnn dielhluqtwn lgwn
misqn tj mologaj tn basi-
lean dxato

Woods builds much of his reconstruction on Theodorets version. Indeed,

he argues that Theodorets story actually finds confirmation in Ammianus:
Ammianus brief notice on a priest who died suddenly at the temple of
Tyche in Antioch on January 1, 363 may says Woods allude to the
incident Theodoret describes here56. Though Ammianus omits Valens
name and other details, this need reflect nothing more than his character-
istic reticence about Christian affairs57.
The fact remains, however, that the two incidents are quite distinct: in
Ammianus a priest dies suddenly without being struck while in Theodoret
a priest is struck but does not die58. Moreover, had Valens been involved
in the incident Ammianus describes, the historian could have included his
name without having to mention Christianity whatsoever. Ammianus
often mentions Christian leaders by name and even describes incidents of
violence between pagans and Christians59. When doing so, he tends to
downplay Christianity or omit it altogether, but he does not hesitate to
name the figures involved. If he were indeed referring to an incident
involving the future emperor, he would surely name him while perhaps
disguising religious motivations for his assault. Nor is the common setting
in a temple of Tyche as striking as Woods would have us believe60. Julian
visited the temple of Tyche in Antioch and countless other temples in the
east on many occasions61. Simply because both Ammianus and Theodoret

56
D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 480-483 with Amm. XXIII 1,5-6 (297,9-19 Cl.).
57 T.D. Barnes, Ammianus (see note 3), 79-94 offers the most penetrating recent treatment
of Ammianus attitudes to Christianity. Earlier scholarship is summarized at V. Neri,
Ammiano e il Cristianesimo. Religione e politica nelle Res gestae di Ammiano Marcellino,
Bologna 1985, 25-70.
58 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 481, stretches the truth to draw supposed similarities
between the two accounts: Theodoret and Ammianus both describe a violent incident
which took place at a temple, a temple which both locate at Antioch. Neither does
Ammianus describe a violent incident nor does Theodoret explicitly locate his story in
Antioch.
59 Cf. Amm. XXII 11,3-10 (277,10-278,20 Cl.); cf. XIV 10,2; XXVII 3,12-13 (28,9;
424,15-23 Cl.) for violence involving Christians.
60 D. Woods, Valens (see note 2), 469.
61
Jul., mis. 346 b-c (Bud 2/2, 168 Bidez); cf. Amm. XXII 12,6; 14,3-4 (279,22-280,5;
282,13-22 Cl.).

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 265

report visits to a temple of Tyche during which problems arose need not
mean that they refer to the same event.
Indeed, we should be altogether more suspicious about Theodorets
setting for the event than Woods would have us believe. The core of
Theodorets account is clearly the same as that of Sozomens, but the
differences in detail indicate that one of the two has distorted his source
considerably. Different units are named, both distinct from those named
in earlier sources: the Ioviani and Logcforoi presumably the Lanciarii,
as Cassiodorus translates62. More importantly, the two versions are set in
completely different parts of the empire: Sozomen locates the incident in
Gaul while Theodoret does not name the location but places his report
amidst events in Antioch. One of the two must have misrepresented the
location, and more than likely this was Theodoret. Of the three synop-
tic fifth-century ecclesiastical historians, Theodoret was the least con-
cerned with historical accuracy. Not only does he often misreport, exag-
gerate and embellish his sources, but he is generally unconcerned with
chronology and often lumps stories together by theme rather than arrang-
ing them in the order in which they occurred63. Despite recent skepticism,
it remains probable that Theodoret wrote after Sozomen and made use of
his work64. Here he has apparently relocated Sozomens story to a point
in his narrative which covers Julians most intensive activities against
Christians. He then rearranged details to suit his argument, including the
mention of the temple of Tyche and the description of the improbable
fisticuffs.
In contrast with Theodoret who does not explicitly name the city
where the incident transpired Sozomen locates it quite emphatically in
Gaul. Moreover, Sozomen is generally much more concerned with histori-

62 Cassiod., hist. VI 35,1-4 at 1 (357,2-3 Jac./Han.): tunc millenarius erat circa palatia
constitutus dux lanciariorum.
63 A. Gldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (see note 54), 97-99; L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchun-
gen (see note 45), 154-157; G.C. Hansen/L. Parmentier (eds.), Kirchengeschichte/Theo-
doret, Berlin 31998, xcviii-cvi; cf. N. Lenski, The Gothic Civil War and the Date of the
Gothic Conversion, GRBS 36, 1995, (51-87) 72-73.
64
On Theodorets use of Sozomen, see L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen (see note 45), 155,
citing this specific passage; A. Gldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (see note 54), 41-49, cf.
98; J. Bidez/G.C. Hansen, Sozomenus (see note 53), xxxv-xxxvi. G.F. Chesnut, The Date
of Composition of Theodorets Church History, VigChr 35, 1981, 245-252 challenged
the close dating of Theodorets Ecclesiastical History to 448/49 propounded at A.
Gldenpenning, Kirchengeschichte (see note 54), 18-25. His much earlier terminus post
quem of 441 has, however, been refuted by B. Croke, Dating Theodorets Church History
and Commentary on the Psalms, Byz. 54, 1984, 59-74. T.D. Barnes, Athanasius (see note
54), 209, cannot therefore be right to argue for Theodorets independence from Sozomen
based on chronological priority. On Sozomens date see above note 54. Most recently,
G.C. Hansen in his revision of L. Parmentiers edition of Theodoret (see note 63), lxxxiii-
xc argues that Theodoret depends not on Sozomen but on a common source with
Sozomen. Though he cannot name such a source, even if it existed, this would affect my
argument little.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
266 Noel Lenski

cal context and more engaged with a broader range of sources than is
Theodoret. This was especially true when it came to supplementing and
correcting his predecessor, Socrates65. Sozomen not only recast Socrates
narrative in a more elevated style, but he also added to it and reshaped it
to focus on new concerns. In this vein, Sozomen often adds material
clearly directed at pagans, particularly material designed to refute pagan
versions of political history66. This appears to be precisely what he is
doing here. In the next group of sources we will see that Socrates says
nothing of this incident and indeed, even denies that Valentinian and
Valens and Jovian were dismissed at all. Sozomen, by contrast, has
clearly seen a report of Valentinians 357 discharge: he notes twice that
Julians pretext ( 3 prfasij, 6 atan skhymenoj) for exiling Valen-
tinian was military incompetence though his real motivation was reli-
gious. Sozomens polemic must be directed against a pagan source like
Ammianus, though certainly not Ammianus himself, whom Sozomen did
not use67. A likely candidate is Eunapius, a pagan and ardent supporter
of Julian who would have had good reason to join in the debate about
Valentinians early career68. This suspicion is confirmed when we consider
that Sozomens notice ( 4) about the etymology of the names Ioviani and
Herculiani is closely paralleled in Eunapius abbreviator Zosimus in the
immediate context of Jovians election. The same notice appears in the
Suda whence it has been assigned to the fragments of Eunapius himself69.
It seems then that Sozomen not only had Eunapius at hand but was also
reading the part of his narrative where this incident would logically occur
as he composed his own version of Valentinians confession. The fact that
he has recast the 357 discharge as a religious affair provides a major clue
about the origin of our narratives on Valentinians confession.

65
G. Schoo, Quellen (see note 53), 11-15; cf. T. Urbainczyk, Observations on the Differ-
ences Between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen, Hist. 40, 1997, 355-373.
66
Soz., h.e. I 5,2-3; V 1,8-9; V 20,5-6 (13,17-14,2; 189,18-190,8; 227,6-17 Bid./Han.); cf.
B. Grillet/G. Sabbah/A.-J. Festugire (ed. and trans.), Sozomne Histoire ecclsiastique,
Livres I-II, SC 306, Paris 1983, 84. For other differences between Sozomen and Socrates
see T. Urbainczyk, Observations (see note 65).
67 On Sozomens sources, see J. Bidez/G.C. Hansen, Sozomenus (see note 53), xliv-lxiv;
G. Schoo, Quellen (see note 53).
68 Sozomen is the only one of the three synoptic ecclesiastical historians certain to have
used Eunapius, cf. J. Bidez/G.C. Hansen, Sozomenus (see note 53), li.liv-lv; G. Schoo,
Quellen (see note 53), 80-83; L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen (see note 45), 150.153;
cf. R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire.
Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, 2 Vol., Liverpool 1981/83, I,99-100.
69
Zos. III 30,2 (2/1,50,19-21 Pas.): tagmtwn d{ tata nmata, par Dioklhtiano ka
Maximiano katastnta, ferntwn tj totwn pwnumaj: m{n gr Dij d{ `Hraklouj
pnumon e"ce; cf. II 42,2 (1, 114,13-14 Pas.); Eun., hist. fr. 6 (FHG IV, 14 Mller). G.
Schoo, Quellen (see note 53), 82-83, already noticed this correspondence. C.E.V. Nixon,
Early Career (see note 2), 297-298, shows that Zos. IV 2,2 (2/2 263,9-13 Pas.) confirms
Eunapius treatment of Valentinians dismissal.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 267

IV.

A fourth set of sources reports that not just Valentinian but also his
predecessor Jovian and his brother Valens stood up for their faith. Com-
mon to these accounts is the notice that the confessors were willing to
relinquish their military belt (znh, i.e. cingulum) rather than succumb to
Julians orders:

Soc., h.e. III 13,1-4 (c. 446)70 Suda I, 401 Phot., bib. 484a Theoph., chron.
s.v. 'Iobianj (epitome of a.m. 5855
(c. 980) [Simeon Meta- (51,11-14 DeB.)
phrastes], c. 950)

1. 'Ekleue d{ mhd{ kat t bas- j Tte d tte ka mowj ka

leia strateesqai toj m bou- ['Iobianj] 'Iwbianj ka 'Ioubianj tn
lomnouj katalipen m{n tn Cri- nka Oalentinianj, o znhn luse
stianismn, p t qein d{ toj 'Ioulianj met tata kat krzwn:
glmasin rcesqai 3. atka aresin diadocn basi- Cristianj emi:
gon, j n cwneuthrJ, o te toj lesantej, lsantej n laj
ntej Cristiano ka o nomiz- strateuo- atn tj znaj gapn strato-
menoi fanero psin gnonto: o mnoij tqei, t turnnJ pedrchn nta
m{n gr rq gnmV Cristian- qein prosrriyan: xVtsato tn
zontej equmteroi tn znhn postra- Ece, lgontej, basila m
petqento, pnta mllon po- teesqai, ka tj znaj ka diksai atn:
mnein rnesqai tn Cristn mllon tn tj timj: e bolei stij ka
aromenoi. 4. (n totoij san znhn d{ ka kolzein, basilej met
'Iobianj, Oalentinianj te ka poqsqai proqmwj soi 'Iouliann
Olhj o ka steron basile- boleto. parcomen ka t nhgoreqh.
santej)71. smata.

Here, Woods argument that Valentinians name has been transposed for
that of the Arian Valens suffers another blow since the orthodox Socrates
has no trouble listing Valens together with Jovian and Valentinian as a
confessor of the orthodox faith. Moreover, Socrates notice is entirely
different than those seen previously: it includes not one but three future

70 GCS Sokrates, 207,7-16 Hansen. For the date, see H. Leppin, Von Constantin (see note
54), 274-279; cf. T. Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople. Historian of Church and
State, Ann Arbor 1997, 20-21; G.F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories. Eusebius,
Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, Macon, Georgia, 21986, 175-176; cf. F.
Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus, SGTK 3/4, Leipzig
1898, 7-8.
71 Jo. Ant., fr. 179 (FHG IV, 606 Mller), who is known to have used Socrates extensively
G.C. Hansen (ed.), Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, GCS, Berlin 1995, xxxvii also reports
that Julian forbade Christians to serve in the imperial bodyguard (prj tn basilikn
doruforan) and that among these were Jovian, Valentinian and Valens. In this extremely
abbreviated notice he says nothing of the znh, but given that it follows immediately after
a report of Julians Teachers Edict, as does Socrates version, Socrates seems the likely
source. This is confirmed at Jo. Ant., fr. 181 (606 Mller) which reports Jovians
confession and willingness to part with his znh without mention of Valentinian and
Valens.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
268 Noel Lenski

emperors and does not indicate that any was punished for his confession.
Woods deals with these contradictions to his thesis with a curt dismissal72,
yet as we shall see, they may come as close as any to the reality of what
happened.
Interesting in this group is the presence of Theophanes, whom we have
already seen as a transmitter of the Homoian account from the Anony-
mous Arian Historiographer (group I). This second notice, on Jovian only,
is tacked onto his earlier statement about Valentinian the Cornutus and
apparently draws on a separate source. Theophanes is known often to
have questioned or corrected his Arian source using other material, in-
cluding the lost Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Caesarea73. Gelasius
also served as the key source for Socrates74. Similarly, Gelasius was

72 D. Woods, Note (see note 2), 463.

73
C. Mango/R. Scott, Chronicle (see note 42), lxxvi. On the extremely contentious ques-
tion of Gelasius lost Ecclesiastical History see especially F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen
zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia. SDAWS 3/1965, Berlin 1966; cf. F.
Scheidweiler, Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia, ByZ 46, 1953, 277-301.
J. Schamp, Glase ou Rufin. Un fait nouveau sur des fragments oublis de Glase de
Csare (CPG no. 3521), Byz. 57, 1987, 360-381, believes that Photius cod. 88-89 can
be reconstructed to show that Gelasius text ended with the death of Constantine, indeed
that it constituted little more than a summary of the Council of Nicaea and events
following it down to 337. The text in question, already much debated, is extremely
jumbled and filled with obvious errors, cf. Winkelmann, op. cit. 10-11. Schamps attempt
to smooth over these falls short for three reasons. First and foremost because the codex
(or codices?) of Gelasius of Caesarea at Photius disposal was obviously mutilated: it
lacked authorial attribution and may (as Winkelmann, loc. cit.) have offered only
Gelasius prooemion. Even if we accept Schamps optimistic reconstruction of a MS with
material ending at 337, this need not have represented the end of Gelasius original
History; Photius could easily have been an excerpted and redacted summary of Gelasian
material relevant to Nicaea, as the title attributed to it would indicate (cod. 88 p. 12,1f.
[ed. Hnry]: t kat tn n Nikav snodon pracqnta). Second, Photius himself, who had
Gelasius Contra Anomeos at hand (cf. cod. 102), was extremely reluctant on stylistic
grounds to attribute the text in question to Gelasius of Caesarea, further evidence of an
excerpted and redacted version. Finally, there is good evidence that Gelasius history
included material related to events as early as 306 (Winkelmann, op. cit. 14.27; cf. F.
Winkelmann, Vita Metrophanis et Alexandri BHG 1279, AB 100, 1982, 147-183),
evidence which Schamp, op. cit. 379, must explain away with the unlikely speculation
of E. Honigmann, Glase de Csare et Rufin dAquile, BAB 40, 1954, (122-161) 134-
135, about the existence of an unidentifiable historia bipartita as the source for this
material. Similarly, Schamp, op. cit. 380-381, must simply brush aside the close parallels
between George the Monk, the Vita Athanasii (BHG 185) and Socrates which point to
a common Greek source for all three continuing into the early 370s. In sum, Schamp
relies too heavily on the battered and error-ridden passage in Photius and takes little if
any account of the substantial remaining evidence for a much lengthier Gelasian Eccle-
siastical History from other sources.
74
G.C. Hansen, Sokrates (see note 71), xlv-xlviii; F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen (see
note 73), 22-47. Gelasius was used by Rufinus of Aquileia (below note 85), a source
Socrates also used, cf. F. Geppert, Quellen (see note 70), 19-23.113-129. Here, however,
Socrates offers so many more details than Rufinus (h.e. X 32; XI 2 = GCS Eusebius II
994,11-20; 1002,14-1003,10 Mommsen) that he must have had a different source,
cf. F. Geppert, Quellen (see note 70), 123-124. This can be none other than Gelasius,

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 269

apparently the main source for the codex cited from Photius (258 = BHG
185), which also drew on Socrates himself75. Since the Suda is known to
have drawn heavily on Socrates as well76, we have a clearly defined
tradition tracing to Gelasius: Socrates, Theophanes and Photius codex
used him directly and the Suda indirectly through Socrates. The earliest
orthodox ecclesiastical historian to treat the issue Gelasius wrote in the
390s77 thus presented all three of Julians successors as confessors,
without apparently offering specifics on their exile or punishment. Indeed,
if we use Socrates as our touchstone for the details from Gelasius, none
was actually expelled from the army or exiled at all. Later in his history,
Socrates reports this explicitly:

Soc., h.e. III 22,2-3 (218,5-8 Hansen): stij ['Iobianj] cilarcoj n nka
'Ioulianj aresin toj strateuomnoij nmJ protqei qein postrateesqai,
mllon tn znhn poqsqai prorhto ktelen seb{j basilwj ptagma.
'All 'Ioulianj m{n t ngkV to pikeimnou polmou n toj strathgosin e"ce
tn ndra.
Soc., h.e. IV 1,8-10 (229,21-230.4 Hansen): prteron m{n gr p 'Iouliano, te
m{n Oalentinianj cilarcoj n, Olhj d{ n toj okeoij to basilwj
strateeto, oon e"cen kastoj zlon pdeixan. qein gr nagkazmenoi, tj
znaj tj strateaj mllon potqesqai ronto finai tn Cristianismn.
'All tte m{n 'Ioulianj basilej, creideij toj ndraj toj dhmosoij edj,
odna tj strateaj knei, sper od{ 'Iobiann tn met atn basilesanta.

The reference in all instances to casting off military belts makes it clear that
we are dealing with the same tradition which apparently reported that all
three future emperors fell under suspicion by refusing to sacrifice but were
eventually retained in the ranks.

V.

Finally, we have a group of Latin writers who follow a different tradition

which is even more vague on the specifics of Valentinians expulsion:

as the parallel in Theophanes, who also used Gelasius but not Socrates or Rufinus,
confirms. T. Urbainczyk, Socrates (see note 70), 51-52, has recently argued that, because
Socrates nowhere names Gelasius, he must not have used him. The argument is flawed:
ecclesiastical historians often fail to name important sources altogether, as when
Sozomen, who can be shown to have used Socrates extensively, nowhere mentions his
name, see G. Schoo, Quellen (see note 53), 19-26; L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen (see
note 45), 137-148; J. Bidez/G.C. Hansen, Sozomenus (see note 53), xliv-xlviii; id.,
Sokrates (see note 71), xxxiv; T. Urbainczyk, Observations (see note 65), 355-357.
75 F. Scheidweiler, Die Verdopplung der Synode von Tyros vom Jahre 335, BZ 51, 1958,
87-99, demonstrated that this life of Athanasius was composed from material found in
Gelasius and Socrates; cf. F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen (see note 73), 47-49.
76 G.C. Hansen, Sokrates (see note 71), xxxix.
77 E. Honigmann, Glase (see note 73), 126-127.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
270 Noel Lenski

Ruf., h.e. XI 2 = Oros. VII 32,2-3 Aug., civ. Quodvultdeus,

1002,14-1003,2 = 512,3-10 Zang. XVIII 52 lib. prom.
Mom. (a. 402)78 (a. 417)79 (a. 425)80 (a. 445/51)81
post hunc qui cum Christianus integra fi- sub quo quod in Valen-
Valentinianus de sacramentum militiae gere- Valentinianus tiniano Valentis
imperium ret sub Iuliano Augusto tribu- maior, qui fratre vidimus
suscepit, qui pro nus scutariorum, iussus ab im- post eum impletum qui
fide nostra a peratore sacrilego aut immo- tertius dum pro Christo
Iuliano militia lare idolis aut militia excedere, imperator militiam tribu-
fuerat expulsus. fideliter sciens et graviora Dei fuit, fidei natus sprevit,
Sed conplevit in esse iudicia et meliora promis- Christianae huius mundi
illo Dominus sa, sponte discessit. ita parva confessor regnum indeptus
quod promisit, interiecta mora Iuliano inter- exstitit est et ut verus
plus etiam quam fecto ac mox Ioviano mortuo militiaque Christi confessor
centupla in qui pro nomine Christi ami- privatus est. vitam adquisivit
praesenti saeculo serat tribunatum, retribuente aeternam.
restituens ei. nam Christo in locum persecutoris
quia militiam pro sui accepit imperium.
Christo reliquerat,
recepit imperium.

There is clearly some measure of interdependence between all these sources

but it is complicated. Two Orosius and Quodvultdeus report that
Valentinian was a tribune; three Rufinus, Orosius and Quodvultdeus
that Valentinians rule was a reward for his readiness to spurn a military
career. Y.-M. Duval, who has examined the Latin sources in most detail,
argued that Quodvultdeus used both Orosius and Rufinus, and Augustine
only Rufinus82. One wonders, however, where Rufinus and Orosius found
their accounts. It is possible that Orosius detail about Valentinians unit,
the Scutarii, derives from the notice in Jeromes Chronicle that Valentinian
was Tribunus Scutariorum at his accession83. Without this, Orosius be-
comes little more specific than Rufinus. Indeed, the source criticism on
Orosius is unanimous in assuming that Rufinus was Orosius main eccle-
78 For the date, see P.R. Amidon (trans.), The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia,
Oxford 1997, x.
79
For the date, see M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet, (ed. and trans.), Orose Histoires contre les
paens, 3 Vol., Paris 1990, I, xix.xxiv.
80 CSEL 40/2, 355,27-9 Hoffmann. For the date, see P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo. A
Biography, Berkeley 1967, 378.
81
For the date, see R. Braun (ed. and trans.), Quodvultdeus Livre des promesses et des
prdictions de Dieu, SC 101, Paris 1964, 15-18.
82
Y.-M. Duval, Un nouveau lecteur probable de lHistoire ecclsiastique de Rufin dAquile,
lauteur du Liber promissionum et praedictorum Dei, Latomus 26, 1967, (762-777) 762-766.
83 Jer., chron. s.a. 364 (GCS Eusebius VII, 244,1-4 Helm): post quem Valentinianus
tribunus scutariorum e Pannonia Cibalensis aput Nicaeam Augustus appellatus. The
connection here between Jerome and Rufinus was already noticed at C. Zangemeister
(ed.), Pauli Orosii Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, CSEL 5, Vienna 1882, xxiv
with 512; cf. Y.-M. Duval, Un nouveau lecteur (see note 82), 764 note 5.
84
C. Zangemeister, Pauli Orosii (see note 83), 512.700, and M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet, Orose
(see note 79), I xv-xix.298.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 271

siastical source for this period84. Ultimately, then, Rufinus is the source for
all these accounts. Like Socrates, Rufinus drew on indeed translated or
paraphrased Gelasius of Caesarea, though perhaps not past his Book X
15, prior to the section in question85. It is clear that in this instance he lacks
many of the specifics reported in Socrates, so many that he seems to have
followed a different source altogether.
Indeed, one wonders if Rufinus has not followed our earliest source on
the problem, Ambrose of Milan. In two passages, one composed in 386
and the second in 392, Ambrose claims in very hazy terms that Valentinian
confessed the faith while serving as a tribune under Julian:
Ambrose, ep. 75[21],3 = CSEL 82/3, 75,22-25 (a. 386): nisi forte vilis quibusdam
tanti imperatoris aestimatur sententia, cuius et fides confessionis constantia
comprobata est et sapientia melioratae rei publicae profectibus praedicatur.
Ambrose, de obit. Val. 55 = CUAPS 58, 219 Kelly (a. 392): Adest etiam pater
qui militiam sub Iuliano et tribunatus honores fidei amore contempsit.

The allusions lack any of the details mentioned in the sources in groups I
to IV but could easily have provided Rufinus with everything he reports.
It is especially striking that this earliest source for Valentinians confes-
sion offers none of the specifics in the later sources. Both passages come
from a bishop who had enjoyed personal contacts with Valentinian and
his confidants86, and both are addressed to Valentinians own children,
the first to his son Valentinian II and the second to his daughters Iusta and
Grata. If there were a story to be told about Valentinians courageous
confession and harsh exile, one would assume that Ambrose would have
told it here87. This, however, is all that we get. In the west then, the
portion of the empire which Valentinian ruled and the portion which
spawned the earliest extant report of his confession, we have none of the
specifics which Woods argues lend credence to the eastern tradition.
Indeed, Woods dismisses without discussion the second of these pas-
sages88 and does not mention the first. If we follow his argument, though,
the lack of specifics in the western sources need not disturb us. If it were
85
F. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen (see note 73), 76, cf. 101.104. The question of Rufinus
dependence on Gelasius has been much debated. The issues and bibliography are well
summarized at P. Amidon, Church History (see note 78), xiii-xvi. F. Thelamon, Paens
et Chrtiens au IVe sicle, Paris 1981, makes a strong case that, whatever his debt to
Gelasius, Rufinus reshaped his source material to his own ends.
86
N.B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Berkeley
1994, 47-50.
87
Interestingly, in his letter to Valentinian II of 384, Ambrose introduces the persona
Valentinian I as a witness in his case against Symmachus efforts to restore the Altar of
Victory. Though Valentinian I is made to profess disgust at the fact that Christian
senators were forced to be present at pagan sacrifices, he says nothing of his own
purported refusal to partake in precisely the same ceremonial, ep. 72[17],16 (CSEL 82/
3 19f.,157-169). At this early date, Ambrose seems not to have been ready to deploy the
myth of Valentinians confession.
88 D. Woods, Note (see note 2), 465 note 11.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
272 Noel Lenski

to Valens rather than Valentinian that the eastern stories actually refer, it
would stand to reason that the Latin historians remain vague. The prob-
lem is that, once we take Ambrose into account, there is no longer any
room for Woods mysterious Urquelle which transposed the name of
Valentinian for Valens. Ambrose mentions the confession of Valentinian
to Valentinians own children little more than a decade after his death.
This Urquelle would need to have been very convincing and very clever
at disseminating his distortion to have persuaded not just all subsequent
sources, but even Ambrose and Valentinians own children that Valen-
tinian and not Valens had been the confessor.
Finally, Woods has also stopped short of investigating the sources
contemporary to Valentinian or Valens for mentions of the confession.
We have an abundance of contemporary material written for both emper-
ors, yet none of it, pagan or Christian, mentions anything. Despite allu-
sions to various events in the early career of Valentinian, Symmachus
mentions nothing of his confession in the extant parts of his panegyrics to
Valentinian and Gratian89. So too, Themistius mentions nothing to Jovian
or Valens of these events in his seven extant orations to them nor in his
single oration to Gratian90. Similarly, Eutropius, who wrote his Breviarium
for Valens, mentions Julians Christian persecutions but says nothing of
his patrons confession91. This silence is even more disconcerting in Chris-
tian writers. Epiphanius of Salamis, writing in the 370s, says nothing of
the confession of Jovian or the reigning emperors nor do any of the
Cappadocian fathers92. Especially notable here is Gregory of Nazianzus,
who had numerous opportunities for such allusions in his two invectives
against Julian, Orations 4 and 5, both composed in 36493. At Oration
5,15, for example, Gregory lauds Jovians martial courage and appropri-
ateness as a successor to Julian but mentions nothing of confession. At
4,65 he speaks of many soldiers who stood up to Julian, but mentions
nothing of the future emperors. In his oration on Athanasius (21,33),
written fifteen years later94, Gregory mentions Jovians recall of those
exiled by Julian without a hint of Valentinian who, according to the
sources in group II, numbered among the beneficiaries of this recall. The
silence of contemporary sources is thus resounding.

89 See especially or. 1,1.6 (318,6-15; 320,6-8 Mom.).

90 Orr. 5-11 and 13.
91
Brev. X 16,3; for Eutropius dedication to Valens, see brev., praef. (BiTeu, 2,1 Santini);
cf. H.W. Bird (trans.), Eutropius Breviarium, Translated Texts for Historians 14, Liver-
pool 1992, vii-xviii.
92 Epiph., haer. 68,11,2 even mentions Jovians accession and recall of Athanasius from
exile without any word of confession by the three emperors.
93 For the date, see J. Bernardi (ed. and trans.), Grgoire de Nazianze Discours 4-5, SC 309,
Paris 1983, 32-35.
94 For the date, see J. Mossay (ed. and trans.), Grgoire de Nazianze Discours 20-23, SC
270, Paris 1980, 99-103.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 273

What then are we to make of the stories of confession? For Valentinian

it seems safest to assume that Ammianus has indeed given us the full story.
He was expelled under Julian, though technically by Constantius, for
failing to maintain a roadblock in 357. He was sent home to Pannonia
where he remained until 363 when Jovians father-in-law called him back
into service. Some time after his death his sons and successors participated
in a gradual recasting of the event as if it had been grounded in a defense
of the faith. This began with vague allusions to Valentinians readiness to
abandon his career for Christianity as Ambrose. Even so, by the 380s it
seems, the Anonymous Arian had already invented a story that Valentinian
was actually exiled, though details have been confused in the attenuated
reports which transmit his version. By the 390s, sources like Gelasius, and
in turn Rufinus and Socrates, still preferred to remain vague on specifics
and avoided claims that the future emperor was exiled. Nevertheless, in the
mid-fifth century, Christian authors began responding to the version pre-
sented in pagan authors like Ammianus and presumably Eunapius, who
were perhaps themselves responding to the first Christian accounts of
confession. Through this gradual reshaping of the event, the stories came
to be embellished with a bewildering variety of mutually contradictory
details which render them of dubious historical value. Even so, the tradi-
tion which appears in group III makes it clear that in all of its manifesta-
tions, the story remained essentially an apologetic rewriting of Valentinians
inglorious expulsion. The tradition in group II seems also to have retained
an awareness that it was actually Constantius and not Julian who dis-
missed Valentinian. Indeed, all of these traditions retain wisps of correct
information. It is, however, unwise to assume that we can use them to
reconstruct a glorious incident in Valentinians let alone Valens early
career.
With regard to Jovian, and Valens, the picture is slightly different. The
stories of their confession come in a single source tradition95. In contrast
with sources in group I-III, however, no source charges that Jovian or
Valens were exiled or even discharged from the army, only that they
confessed. This is at least possible given what we know from other
sources. In Jovians case at least, it is certain that if he did confess, he did
not suffer for it. Both Ammianus and Eutropius, who were eyewitnesses
to Jovians election in 363, tell us that he was serving in the imperial
bodyguards, the Protectores Domestici, when he was elected the day after

95
Secondary work on Jovians confession at O. Seeck, Art. Iovianus, PRE IX 2, Mnchen
1916, (2006-2011) 2007; R. Soraci, LImperatore Gioviano, Catania 1968, 19-20; PLRE
I Fl. Iovianus 3; G. Wirth, Jovian, Kaiser und Karikatur, in: Vivarium. FS Th. Klauser,
Mnster 1984, (353-384) 373-374, all of which deny the validity of the story. On Valens
confession, see Soc., h.e. III 13,1-4; IV 1,8-10 (207,7-16; 229,21-4 Han.); Jo. Ant., fr.
179 (606 Mller). Secondary work at R. Tomlin, Emperor (see note 1), 56-58; PLRE I
Flavius Valens 8; A. Nagl, Art. Valens 3, PRE VIII A 2, Stuttgart 1948, (2097-2147)
2097; N. Lenski, Valens (see note 32), 81-89.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
274 Noel Lenski

Julians death96. Themistius in his consular address to Jovian six months

after the election told the emperor that he had marched out a bodyguard
and come back an emperor97. Whatever the nature of his confession,
then, Jovian was not expelled from the army nor even demoted from his
post in the elite corps of Protectores Domestici.
Valens position during Julians Persian expedition is less well attested.
Only in the sources which report his confession do we learn that he too
was an imperial bodyguard98. There is, however, circumstantial support.
First of all, Valens seems to have been a member of the mobile army
marching with Jovian and formerly with Julian since he was present
with that army for appointment as Tribunus Stabuli within ten days of
Jovians death99. Second, when Valentinian was considering appointing
Valens as co-emperor, he was warned off by Dagalaifus with the words:
si tuos amas, imperator optime, habes fratrem, si rem publicam quaere
quem vestias100. This indictment implies that Dagalaifus, who had served
as the Comes Domesticorum under Julian, knew Valens well, perhaps as
his commanding officer. Whatever the case, Valens was certainly not the
seasoned and courageous officer Woods argues for. Both Ammianus and
Zosimus agree that he had little military experience101. He was probably
also not exiled for his defense of the faith, certainly not if we are to believe
Socrates explicit testimony to the contrary.
Valens and Jovian thus started their tour with Julian as imperial
bodyguards in the Protectores Domestici and at least Jovian is known to
have retained his post until his election. Valens, who also seems to have
remained in the army, may at worst have suffered a demotion. In a law

96 Amm. XXV 5,4 (372,19 Cl.): domesticorum ordinis primus; XXV 5,8 (373,14 Cl.):
adhuc protectorem; Eutr. X 17 (70,17 Sant.): tunc domesticus militabat; Jer., chron. s.a.
363 (243,14-5 Helm): ex primicerio domesticorum; cf. Jord., rom. 305 (MGH.AA V/1,
39,15-6 Mommsen); Jo. Ant., fr. 179 (606 Mller).
97
Or. 5,66b (Bi Teu I, 97,5 Downey): xestrteusaj m{n acmofroj, pankeij d{ atokrtwr.
98 Soc., h.e. IV 1,8 (229,22-3 Han.): Olhj d{ n toj okeoij to basilwj strateeto;
cf. Soc., h.e. III 13,3-4 (207,12-16 Han.); Jo. Ant., fr. 179 (606 Mller).
99 Amm. XXVI 4,2 (396,12 Cl.). Thdt., h.e. IV 6,3 (217,15 Par./Han.) holds that
Valentinian had to send for Valens in Pannonia but is not to be trusted. D. Woods, Note
(see note 2), 474-477, contention that Jovian, not Valentinian, made Valens Tribunus
Stabuli directly contradicts our only source that Valens held the position at all: Amm.
XXVI 4,2, claims Valens was appointed to the post on March 1, 364 by Valentinian.
Woods related speculation that Valens played a role in Valentinians election rather
than vice versa also disregards all extant sources, most notably the numerous contem-
porary references in Themistius to Valens dependence on his brother for his elevation,
see or. 6,74a.75a-c.76b.83a; 9,125a (109,22-110,4; 111,10-112,13; 113,2-9; 123,4-10;
188,22-189,5 Down.).
100 Amm. XXVI 4,1 (396,8-10 Cl.).
101
Amm. XXXI 14,5 (593,25 Cl.): nec bellicis nec liberalibus studiis eruditus; Zos. IV 4,1
(2/2, 265,2-4 Pas.): prteron m{n prgmona tryanta bon fnw d{ basilean para-
labnta ka tn tn pragmtwn gkon o fronta. Perhaps Valens was first drafted by
Constantius during his Balkan recruitment drive of 359, cf. Amm. XIX 11,17; XX 8,1
(179,14-15; 200,22-24 Cl.).

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
 Were Valentinian, Valens and Jovian Confessors before Julian the Apostate? 275

of August 18, 362, Julian drastically cut the ranks of the Protectores
Domestici and Valens may well have numbered among those who were
eliminated102. Julians motivations in paring the corps were complex, but
among them was certainly the desire to weed out Christians: a number of
sources agree that Julian specifically forbade Christians to serve as guards-
men103. Indeed, the stories of Valentinian, Valens and Jovian are can-
vassed as examples of this exclusionary policy. Many sources also relate
a handful of incidents in which Julian exiled guardsmen who refused to
comply with his religious program104 and even executed two of them,
Iuventinus and Maximinus105. These incidents probably date to early 363,
indeed they probably trace to the ruckus stirred up by the Antiochene riots
on January 1 of that year106. Tensions between Julian and his army are
well documented even before this period107, and they seem to have come
to a head at this time and in these guard units.
Even so, the number of those who seriously suffered was probably few.
It is well known that Julian, who was fully aware of the consequences of
creating martyrs, avoided openly persecuting Christians108. Gregory of
Nazianzus, writing only two years after Julians death, indicates that more
than 7,000 soldiers made claims to have resisted Julians religious pro-
gram109. From these many thousands, however, our sources record only

102
CodTheod VI 24,1 (Antioch). Cf. A.H.M. Jones, Later (see note 2), 636. Julians zeal
for cutting his guard corps is already attested at Pan. lat. III(XI) 24,7 (OCT 139,8-9
Mynors).
103 Soc., h.e. III 13,1 (207,7-9 Han.); Jo. Ant., fr. 179 (606 Mller); Thdt., h.e. III 8,2
(185,14-15 Par./Han.); cf. W. Enlin, Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichs-
verwaltung, Klio 18, 1923, (104-199) 184-185.
104 Greg. Naz., or. 4,82-84 (206,28-214,36 Ber.); Thdt., h.e. III 16,6-17,8 (195,8-197,2
Par./Han.); Soz., h.e. V 17,8-12 (220,23-221,24 Bid./Han.); cf. Libanius, or. 18,167-
168.
105
John Chrysostom, homilia in SS. Martyres Iuventinum et Maximinum (PG 50, 571-
578); Thdt., h.e. III 15,4-9 (193,6-194,10 Par./Han.); Soz., h.e. V 17,4-12 (220,8-
221,24 Bid./Han.). See also Jo. Chrys., De S. Babyla 2-3 (PG 50, 572-576) with Julian
ep. 98 (1/2, 23,18-20 Bid.); Chron. pasch. pp. 545-549 (Din.). On Julians anti-Christian
politics more broadly, see W. Enlin, Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk (see note 103),
172-190; H.C. Brennecke, Studien (see note 2), 87-157, esp. 114-157; R.J. Penella,
Julian the Persecutor in Fifth Century Church Historians, AncW 24, 1993, 31-43; R.
Smith, Julians Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the
Apostate, London 1995, 207-218.
106 P. Peeters, La date de la fte des SS. Juventin et Maximin, AB 42, 1924, 75-82, dates
the martyrdom of Iuventinus and Maximinus to January 29, 363. M. Gleason, Festive
Satire. Julians Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch, JRS 76, 1986, (106-119) 109,
associates the initial transgressions in both incidents with the New Year festival of 363.
107
W.E. Kaegi, Domestic Military Problems of Julian the Apostate, ByF 2, 1967, 247-264.
108 Julian, ep. 26, 83, 114, 115 (54,1-4; 143,22-144,4; 194,21-197,3 Bid.); Greg. Naz., or.
4,58.93.96 (164,1-9; 232,1-234,22; 242,10-247 Ber.); Soc., h.e. III 3,19-20; 12,5-13,1
(195,27-196,3; 206,22-207,9 Han.); Soz., h.e., V 4,6-7; 5,1; 11,12; VI 6,6 (197,20-198,5;
198,14-199,1; 210,19-22; 244,15-18 Bid./Han.); Artemii passio 2.
109 Greg. Naz., or. 4,64-65 (172,1-173,16 Ber.).

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM
276 Noel Lenski

two who were executed and a handful of others who were exiled110. The
rest of Julians guardsmen, it seems, suffered nothing or at worst, perhaps,
demotion. Valens may have been among these latter. Julian had a war to
fight. For all his pagan zeal, he would not have risked stirring up the army
against himself, let alone cutting its ranks by up to 7,000. In order to carry
through with his planned Persian invasion, he must have established a
modus vivendi with his Christian troops which precluded extensive per-
secution. Those who opposed his attempts to paganize the army were
apparently numerous, but those who pushed their resistance to extremes,
it seems, quite few. Nevertheless, after Julians death, soldiers probably
magnified the vigor of their confessions so as to amplify the glory they
might claim as resistors. Among these were apparently Valentinian, Valens
and Jovian. All had indeed served under Julian, and Valentinian had
actually been expelled from the army by the apostate. Though Jovian
apparently suffered nothing and Valens only perhaps demotion, with the
passing of time all three could claim to have confessed with reasonable
credibility. On these claims our sources have built a tenuous edifice of
contradictory stories which we would be unwise to use as the foundation
for further historical speculation.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Zahlreiche Quellen berliefern, da Julian der Abtrnnige den zuknftigen Kaiser

Valentinian aus dem Heeresdienst entlie, weil er sich zum Christentum bekannte.
Einige Zeugnisse erwhnen auch, da Valens und Jovian ebenfalls Bekenner waren.
Obwohl mehrere Gelehrte die Glaubwrdigkeit dieser Berichte bezweifeln, vertrat D.
Woods neuerdings die Auffassung, da solche Quellen mindestens im Falle von Valens
Glaubwrdigkeit verdienen. Er argumentierte, da Julian Valens verbannte, weil er als
ein bei den Ioviani dienender Soldat einen heidnischen Priester angegriffen habe. Im
vorliegenden Beitrag versuche ich zu zeigen, da die vielfltigen Widersprche zwischen
den Quellen nicht so einfach gelst werden knnen, wie Woods behauptete. Die
frheste und zuverlssigste Quellenberlieferung deutet an, da keiner der zuknftigen
Kaiser wegen seines Glaubens verbannt wurde. Vielmehr wurde Valentinian nach einer
gescheiterten Militroperation aus dem Heer entlassen, whrend Valens und Jovian,
obwohl sie sich eigentlich zum Christentum bekannt haben mochten, deswegen keine
schwerwiegenden Nachteile erfuhren.

110 R. Tomlin, Christianity (see note 1), 32-34. D. Woods, Deaths (see note 2), has recently
argued for the veracity of another incident involving the execution of the standard bearers
of the Ioviani et Herculiani, Maximilianus and Bonosus, reported at passio SS. Bonosi et
Maximiliani Militum, T. Ruinart (ed.), Acta Martyrum, Ratisbona 1859, 609-612.

Brought to you by | Universit de Fribourg

Authenticated
Download Date | 8/14/17 5:32 PM