Eunapius’ life, correcting the work of Goulet (1980) upon which Blockley (1981) depends. It is apparent that when Eunapius arrived at Athens, his teacher Prohaeresius was banned from teaching rhetoric undergovernmental sponsorship by the anti-Christian legislation of the emperor Julian ( Lives 493). This ban went into effect on 17 June 362 ( Cod. Th . 13.3.5), and Julian died on 26 June 363 (Penella 1990: 2). Thus Eunapius must have reached Athens in either 362 or 363, and was therefore born in 347 or 348. He left Athens just after his fourth year there, in either 366 or 367. Since his history covers the period up to the year 404, he must have lived at least until then.
Eunapius was an accomplished sophist and, like many sophists, his interests extended also into philosophy and medicine. Chrysanthius, his instructor in philosophy, was a student of Aedesius, who in turn had been a student of one of the greatest Neoplatonic philosophers of the age, Iamblichus. When Chrysanthius was an old man, he requested the presence of Eunapius when doctors were performing a bloodletting upon him ( Lives 504–5). Eunapius boasted on this occasion of his skill in medicine, and felt confident enough to interfere when he felt that the doctors were bleeding his mentor excessively. The physician Oribasius, a confidant of the emperor Julian, wrote four books on medicine dedicated to his friend Eunapius, whom he calls “philiatros,” an amateur doctor. This extant work, the Libri ad Eunapium , is designed for an amateur doctor like Eunapius, who was knowledgeable enough to be unsatisfied with guides for laymen but aware that certain medical tasks are suitable only for a professional (Penella 1990: 6–7; Baldwin 1975).
Work
The ninth-century Byzantine patriarch Photius describes the history of Eunapius in his Bibliotheca ( cod . 77). Most of our fragments of the work are derived from two tenth-century collections of excerpts from historians prepared under the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Excerpta de Sententiis and the Excerpta de Legationibus . Fragments have also been garnered from entries in the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedia called the Suda . In addition, much of the central narrative of the historian Zosimus, who wrote at the turn of the sixth century, clearly derives from Eunapius (on this question see Paschoud 1985b: 244–53; Ridley 1969/70; Blockley 1980b, 1983: 97–8). Photius tells us ( cod . 98) that Zosimus “did not write a history, but rather copied out Eunapius.” A comparison of the fragments of Eunapius with the narrative of Zosimus suggests that Photius should be taken at his word,although differences between the two arise from Zosimus’ compression of fourteen books of Eunapius into about four of his own. (Zosimus 1.47 or 1.48 to 5.25 covers the same ground as Eunapius’ history.) When Zosimus ceases to use Eunapius as a source and begins to use Olympiodorus, he changes his method of dating and he shows a striking change in attitude toward Stilicho. Zosimus’ ability to present such contradictory positions increases our confidence that he is faithfully recording his sources, rather than substituting his own judgements. Nevertheless, he does make errors in his use of Eunapius, and sometimes presents different opinions and emphases. Other historians who used or may have used Eunapius are surveyed by Blockley (1983: 97–100). None is a significant source of information for our knowledge of the historian.
Photius tells us that the history of Eunapius was published in two editions. He differentiates between the two by claiming that the first was filled with anti-Christian diatribes, which were partially removed from the second, and that the second was difficult to read because of the gaps left by the removal of passages from the text. The nature of the first edition of the History has generated considerable scholarly debate (Chalmers 1953; Blockley 1971, 1981: 2–5; Barnes 1978: 114–23; Paschoud
Eunapius was an accomplished sophist and, like many sophists, his interests extended also into philosophy and medicine. Chrysanthius, his instructor in philosophy, was a student of Aedesius, who in turn had been a student of one of the greatest Neoplatonic philosophers of the age, Iamblichus. When Chrysanthius was an old man, he requested the presence of Eunapius when doctors were performing a bloodletting upon him ( Lives 504–5). Eunapius boasted on this occasion of his skill in medicine, and felt confident enough to interfere when he felt that the doctors were bleeding his mentor excessively. The physician Oribasius, a confidant of the emperor Julian, wrote four books on medicine dedicated to his friend Eunapius, whom he calls “philiatros,” an amateur doctor. This extant work, the Libri ad Eunapium , is designed for an amateur doctor like Eunapius, who was knowledgeable enough to be unsatisfied with guides for laymen but aware that certain medical tasks are suitable only for a professional (Penella 1990: 6–7; Baldwin 1975).
Work
The ninth-century Byzantine patriarch Photius describes the history of Eunapius in his Bibliotheca ( cod . 77). Most of our fragments of the work are derived from two tenth-century collections of excerpts from historians prepared under the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Excerpta de Sententiis and the Excerpta de Legationibus . Fragments have also been garnered from entries in the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedia called the Suda . In addition, much of the central narrative of the historian Zosimus, who wrote at the turn of the sixth century, clearly derives from Eunapius (on this question see Paschoud 1985b: 244–53; Ridley 1969/70; Blockley 1980b, 1983: 97–8). Photius tells us ( cod . 98) that Zosimus “did not write a history, but rather copied out Eunapius.” A comparison of the fragments of Eunapius with the narrative of Zosimus suggests that Photius should be taken at his word,although differences between the two arise from Zosimus’ compression of fourteen books of Eunapius into about four of his own. (Zosimus 1.47 or 1.48 to 5.25 covers the same ground as Eunapius’ history.) When Zosimus ceases to use Eunapius as a source and begins to use Olympiodorus, he changes his method of dating and he shows a striking change in attitude toward Stilicho. Zosimus’ ability to present such contradictory positions increases our confidence that he is faithfully recording his sources, rather than substituting his own judgements. Nevertheless, he does make errors in his use of Eunapius, and sometimes presents different opinions and emphases. Other historians who used or may have used Eunapius are surveyed by Blockley (1983: 97–100). None is a significant source of information for our knowledge of the historian.
Photius tells us that the history of Eunapius was published in two editions. He differentiates between the two by claiming that the first was filled with anti-Christian diatribes, which were partially removed from the second, and that the second was difficult to read because of the gaps left by the removal of passages from the text. The nature of the first edition of the History has generated considerable scholarly debate (Chalmers 1953; Blockley 1971, 1981: 2–5; Barnes 1978: 114–23; Paschoud
Similar Books
