It is well known that the emperor Julian plays a central role in the life and writings of the Antiochene sophist Libanius. As a commentator on the life and reign of the emperor Constantine, he is seldom taken into account, and if he is, he usually gets short shrift as being verbose and unreliable. This neglect is, I believe, hardly justified. Even if it were true that Libanius could not teach us anything about the historical Constantine, his testimony still deserves (...) attention as an example of the attitude of eastern pagans to Constantine. Moreover, although much of what Libanius has to say about Constantine was written down half a century after the events, Libanius himself, born in 314, was a contemporary of the latter part of Constantine's reign. Unlike Julian, born in 331/2,2and Eunapius, born in 347/8,3he was able to form a judgement on Constantine based on first-hand knowledge. (shrink)

Our more distinct knowledge of the career of Eunapius of Sardis is confined to its first stage, when he resided in Athens and studied under Proaeresius, the Christian from Armenia. Common agreement holds that Eunapius reached Athens c. 362, when he was sixteen, and that he remained there for five years, returning to Lydia c. 367 when he was twenty. These conclusions derive from two passages in the V. Soph. in which Eunapius first described the unusual circumstances attendant on his (...) arrival in Athens and then alluded to his departure therefrom . But though the first passage is unproblematical enough, the second is less so; as will appear, the very context which includes within it the datum of the five-year-long residence in Athens carries implications which are inimical to it. Reexamination, therefore, may be profitable. (shrink)

Our more distinct knowledge of the career of Eunapius of Sardis is confined to its first stage, when he resided in Athens and studied under Proaeresius, the Christian from Armenia. Common agreement holds that Eunapius reached Athens c. 362, when he was sixteen, and that he remained there for five years, returning to Lydia c. 367 when he was twenty. These conclusions derive from two passages in the V. Soph. in which Eunapius first described the unusual circumstances attendant on his (...) arrival in Athens and then alluded to his departure therefrom. But though the first passage is unproblematical enough, the second is less so; as will appear, the very context which includes within it the datum of the five-year-long residence in Athens carries implications which are inimical to it. Reexamination, therefore, may be profitable. (shrink)