Nestorius ίερϕαντεῑν τεταγμένοϛ

Author(s): Thomas M. Banchich

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte , 3rd Qtr., 1998, Bd. 47, H. 3 (3rd Qtr.,
1998), pp. 360-374
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436512

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NESTORIUS IEPODANTEIN TETArMENOX

The early 6th c. A.D. historian Zosimus recounts in his Historia Nova how,
sometime after the death of Valentinian I on 17 November 375, a dream

directed a certain Nestorius i'po4av?tev tE-raygi'vo; to honor the hero Achilles

in order to deliver Athens from the threat of seismic destruction:

Toivtou TeXeuvTf'avTo; egnea)V TCP ltpgiip KiiT7Eto; Ta PaaiX&a cat&-

oke4e icat T'v ayopav, So4e Te tot; T&a Totaita Kpiv&tv 6evot; ODIC
't _ _ , Ir I 11 I , 5 ,
atatov tot; Kotvot; lpayJ
auvijvCXOjiav t6lot;. 2 '
fe)Conotvviloo;gjsta Tfn ; d
T6&v ic6Xewv, iXv Tf5 'A
xcptooOivai 4aatv ?t aiTia; totda8e Nsat6pto; ?-v bceivot; 0to; xpO-
vot; iEpo0avtEv TeTaygvo; ovap LOEadaTo napaxKEXuo6gevov Xpiivat
T6v 'AXtX a TOv 'jpwa br8TioGiat; Tti5aOatTtgat;- o-Ocnat y&p ToVTo
T1i n6kXt cr&tiptov. 3 'Eie'i 6e eicotv6caTo T0ott; Fv T?v t ti1v 6'/tv, oi 5e
XIpeltv a6to6v ota 8Tj 'ncVpy1ipwv ovta vogiaavte EV Ov-evt TO Pj0 ?v
Enotijaavto, awot; KaO' ?autov Xoytcagevo; To cpacictov icai tait; Oo0-
et6ecntv LVVoiat; nat8aywyol4)Levo5, OiVo'va TOO) Tl"p)O, ?V o1iKcw gKpCt)
5ijgtoupy1cTa; Utmnre01Kn TCc V rIap0evC5vit KCa0t6pvgLVWt( r; 'A08TvCe;
ayay4aTt, TEXo)V 8L t1i Oe) ta cTa viOu l icaTa taitov Kat Tcp jpcot Ta
?yvex-cjva oi KaTa Oeacr6v 'irpaTTs. 4 Tof)Tco TE TCo TpO6(p Ti"; TOV0
EVUinviou CrugpouXfi; ?pywC nXflpcoOeioTj;, ?ir43piaavTo;toi ao iitcrgV g6-
VoV5; 'AOrjvaiout; Mpta(oOivat ouvV?3i, getaXou'oT; tcv TOt ijpwo;
?V?FpYF-CtOV Kat na"; T5 'ATrxvq OTt SF' ToVko 6'Xi?k c'axt, gaeetV
EOct 5t' 0v O6 OtX6ao0oo IDptav6; bt&niX0sv, ivov ei; toiiTOVov TO6v
ijpoa ypaoov- kXXa TaiTa OUKc davdpjota tota ; ttpoete'vot; 6OvTa iape-
Orvca. I

Zos. 4.18, ed. F. Paschoud, Zosime. Histoire Nouvelle (Paris 1979) II.2, 278-279. R. T.
Ridley, Zosimus, New History (Melbourne 1982) 77-78, translates: "After his [Valenti-
nian's] death, a thunderbolt struck Sirmium, burning the palace and market; interpreters
considered this an in auspicious portent for public affairs. And earthquakes occurred in
some places: Crete, the Peloponnese, and the rest of Greece were severely shaken and
many cities were destroyed. Athens and Attica, however, were spared, and they say the
reason for their preservation was this: Nestorius, the hierophant at this time [ "a cette
epoque charge des fonctions de hi6rophante," trans. Paschoud], had a dream in which he
was told to honour the hero Achilles with public sacrifices in order to save the city (3) but
when he informed the magistrates of this vision, they thought he was foolish and senile

Historia, Band XLVII/3 (1998)

i Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius iepoOaVrt6V TEtaMyjVOq 361

There is general agreement that Zosimus' Nestorius is the father or grandfather

of Plutarch, first scholarch of the Neoplatonic Academy at Athens, known also
from Proclus' commentary on the Republic and from Marinus' Life of Proclus.2
Likewise, most scholars understand Zosimus' phrase IEpoOav-rEIv tEaypEvo,;
as a reference to the position of hierophant of the Eleusinian mysteries, which,
in turn, has led to the identification of Zosimus' Nestorius with an anonymous
hierophant of Eleusis vividly described in Eunapius' Vitae Sophistarum:3

e' xaQt taiftava EtXe xaMX;, a1cou, oa; ,t ni;ov eivai cxaa Tiiv 'EXXd6a
nap' tCtaItv EEaIv i'poOxvMta, cKav lp6o; i1icEvov 6O;g `6pagEv. toi 6e
iEpoo vtou, xca' ecEItvov IOv xpOvov Oatri Tiv, o5ouvoRia ov iol. 09tt;
X?yEtv kTeXcit y&p TOv tacx)a ypa'ovta, Kait i; E6VioXnitiaq ; Tye icat
o0ut6; YE i7 v 6 icat ti-vv t p ip(v KaTaatpoOiv iai tf; 'EXXd8o; a'nc6Xc-
av ad&irai; npoyvou;, toi auyypa4?co; iapovto;, xcait avcpCb; czaiaptx-
p6p.cvo; 6S; rcO' aiut6v i'poOaVTmT; ycviTc(oTo, (1) gTi OEt igpoOaVTtKuCV
axNaoacat Opovov, eitSi Oco1; kti poi; -caO6ipwtat, xcat o6ouOKiv appTj-
tox; OpKOV5; CTpE3V itpdv (V >1ot npOOtcTc0ac tpoatraEoOat 6E ?Xc9yev
6iw; acnt6v gir8c 'A0ivatov 6vta. cat (ci; TOCTOV8? ipovoia; ?utcvElto)
au' atCp tE ta 'epa iataaKca4niaecOat Kai 8nro"caOaat -`aaicv,
alcxcIvov Co)vra tauta E21O'xgEjcOat, ia' 4nXoTtgiav neppvrti6v artqaC6ge-
vov, icat npotcX.uMtiOCtV ye al5TOI tv 0cpanEiav tcilv Ocaltv, TOv &e tf;
Ttg4; EoatcEpT10?vta, [it*r TOv iEpo4dvtv i,t? TO6v ynpat6v fiiov ?X?lV.
KaQ taiTd yE 06Oit aga TE yap o tFic OcantWvt EyivETO, IEatiCp (Ov TTI;
MtOptaici; TOXct;, Kat ouic ci; IaKpa&v i,OV Kaicat a&iyit(ov e'ntwKxl-
CS09vTwv ivaKCv, 3v Ta ?v ?v Tooto Y; ti u iatopia; cipwrat, T&
F aV ?XntTp?5'nn T6 Octov, XecX? tat, 6 [t] 'AXXdptXo; ?XOV TOV;
PapJa'pom; 8ta' TCiv HltX6ov napiXOc-v, 65o-nep 8taz msaioi Kai 'InIoicpO-
toU nS8ioU tpEXov to TwTa; al5(O Ta; ntxa; a; Sctt4e -j; 'EXX65o; il tc
T6v Tda oaa iitcita Xovtowv a&xcX-6to; npoaiapclacXOOvTOv as?acta,

and took no notice of what he said. He turned it over in his own mind, however, and under
the influence of divine thoughts. he fashioned an image of the hero in a small shrine
which he set up under the statue of Athena in the Parthenon. So when he made the
customary sacrifices to the goddess, at the same time he did for the hero what was decreed
by law. (4) In this way he carried out the advice of his dream, and when Greece was
afflicted by earthquakes, only the Athenians were saved, and the whole of Attica shared in
the hero's benefits. You may learn the truth of this from the account of Syrianus the
philosopher, who wrote a hymn to this hero. I have added this because of its relevance to
our present theme."
2 PLRE I, 626 and 708 s.vv. Nestorius 2 and 3 and Plutarchus 5, provides references; E.
tvrard, "Le maitre de Plutarque d'Athenes et les origines du neoplatonisme athenien,"
L'Antiquite classique 29 (1960) 108-133, and H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink,
Proclus. The'ologie Platonicienne (Paris 1968) I, xxvi-xxxiv, discuss Nestorius, his
family (n.b., stemma, p. xxxv), and his place within the context of the history of Athenian
Neoplatonism.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
362 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

Kat o cvv npoavtuc6v 6eapv iapappayc?i; vo6o; aica crvn

aXkkaX taf-ra gtev Fc,; irepov Fiipa6X0, cat o kX6yo; tax tiv np6yvwat
zapivEYK1V.3

There is little reason to dispute the scholarly consenus regarding the identity of
Zosimus' Nestorius, but the links between Nestorius, Eleusis, and Eunapius'
hierophant are problematic at best.4

3 VS 7.3.1-5/475-476, ed. G. Giangrande (Rome 1956) 45-46. W. C. Wright, Philostratus

and Eunapius (Cambridge, Mass. 1921) 437-439, translates (slightly adapted): "Now
when his [Julian's] studies with them [Maximus and Chrysanthiusl were prospering, he
heard that there was a higher wisdom in Greece, possessed by the hierophant of the
goddesses, and hastened to him with all speed. The name of him who was at that time
hierophant it is not lawful for me to tell; for he initiated the author of this narrative. By
birth he was descended from the Eumolpidae. He it was who in the presence of the author
of this book foretold the overthrow of the temples and the ruin of the whole of Greece, and
he clearly testified that after him there would be a hierophant who would have no right to
touch the hierophant's high seat, because he had been consecrated to the service of other
gods and had sworn oaths of the uttermost sanctity that he would not preside over temples
other than theirs. Nevertheless, he foretold that this man would so preside, though he was
not even an Athenian. To such prophetic power did he attain that he prophesied that in his
[Eunapius' hierophant's] lifetime the sacred temples would be razed to the ground and
laid waste, and that that other would live to see their ruin and would be despised for his
overweening ambition; that the worship of the Goddesses would indeed come to an end
before his [Eunapius' hierophant's or the bogus hierophant's] death, and that deprived of
his honor his [the bogus hierophant's] life would no longer be that of a hierophant, and the
he [the bogus hierophantl would not reach old age. Thus indeed it came to pass. For no
sooner was the citizen of Thespiae made hierophant, he who fathered the ritual of
Mithras, than without delay many indescribable disasters came on in a flood. Some of
these have been described in the more detailed narrative of my History, others, if it be
permitted by the powers above, I shall relate: when Alaric with his barbarians invaded
Greece by the pass of Thermopylae, as easily as though he were traversing an open
stadium or a plain suitable for cavalry. For this gateway of Greece was thrown open to
him by the impiety of the men clad in black raiment, who entered Greece unhindered
along with him, and by the fact that the laws and restrictions of the hierophantic
ordinances had been rescinded. But all this happened in later days, and my narrative
digressed because I mentioned the prophecy."
4 Important and representative scholarship includes M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechi-
schen Religion 2 (Munich 1961) II, 351, who distinguishes Eunapius' hierophant from
Nestorius, though making Nestorius an Eleusinian hierophant; K. Clinton, The Sacred
Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
N.S. IV.3 (Philadelphia 1974) 43-44; Paschoud, Zosime, I1.2, 367-369; and W. Burkert,
Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Mass. 1987) 50, equate the two. For Saffrey and
Westerink, Theologie Platonicienne (as in n. 2) 1, xxix, n. 5, the identification "reste tres
probl6matique." PLRE I, s. v. Nestorius 2, makes no mention of the evidence of Eunapius
and thereby implies no connection between Nestorius and Eunapius' hierophant.
T. Barnes, "The Epitome de Caesaribus and its Sources," CP 71 (1976) 266, and The
Sources of the Historia Augusta. Collection Latomus 155 (Brussels 1978) 115-116; R.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius iepooavrelvte trtaygvo; 363

In the Vitae Sophistarum Eunapius piously observes hieronomy in his

refusal to name the Eleusinian hierophant who initiated him into the mysteries
and whose reminiscences color Eunapius' account of Julian and of his imme-
diate successors. Why, then, would Eunapius have named Nestorius as Eleusi-
nian hierophant in the History, whence, presumably, he appears in Zosimus?5
The argument that the hierophant's death removed the restrictions of hierono-
my operative at the time of the composition of the Vitae Sophistarum around
399 and permitted the identification of Nestorius in the History is difficult to
sustain. For an CK6oot; of that portion of Eunapius' History which reached to
Adrianople in 378 antedated the Vitae Sophistarum, perhaps by as much as
sixteen years.6 This specific contradiction might be explained by positing a
revision of the History subsequent to the Vitae Sophistarum, yet other problems
would remain. To these, various emendations offer solutions.7 But are they
solutions to false problems? Does 'EpoOavXEtv tstayg&vo; necessarily refer to
the priesthood of Eleusis or, for that matter, to any priesthood at all?
To judge from translations of Zosimus and from scholarly debate about
Nestorius and Eleusis, iepo0avte1v should be understood as "to hold a
Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire (Liver-
pool 1981) 1, 3-4: Paschoud, "Eunapiana," BHAC 17 1982/83, Antiquitas 4 (Bonn 1985)
276-278; and R. Penella, Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Centurv A. D.
(Leeds 1990) 142-143, treat historiographical implications.
5 On hieronomy, see Clinton, Sacred Officials (as in n. 4) 9-10. Paschoud, Zosime, III.2,
82-84, and "Les Fragments de l'ouvrage historique d'Eunape correspondant aus deux
premiers livres de l'Histoire nouvelle de Zosime." De Tertullien aux Mozarabes 1,
Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes, Serie Antiquite 132 (Paris 1992) 613-625. discus-
ses Zosimus' debt to Eunapius.
6 T. Banchich, "The Date of Eunapius' Vitae Sophistarum," GRBS 25 (1984) 185-194.
Alan Cameron's and J. Long's objections to this date, Barbarians and Politics at the
Court of Arcadius (Berkeley 1993) 51, n. 175, rest partly on their mistaken notion of the
necessity of some causal, rather than purely temporal, relationship between the revolt of
Tribigild and the subordination of the office of proconsul of Asia to that of praetorian
prefect. As for their reservations about why Eutropius would have increased the power of
a praetorian prefect, see "The Date of Eunapius' Vitae Sophistarum." 190-191. J. Ochoa,
"Sobre las 6ltimas monograffas y ediciones de los Fragmentos Hist6ricos de Eunapio de
Sardes," Erytheia 9 (1988) 211-220, and Paschoud, Zosime, 111.2, 82-91. review recent
scholarship on the History.
Banchich, "Eunapius and Jerome," GRBS 27 (1986) 319-324, argues that Jerome used
Eunapius' History in the composition of his Chronica, published before the death of
Gratian, 25 August 383. Paschoud, Zosime, III.2, 98, thinks this very unlikely. R. Burgess
forthcoming volume on the Chronica for the Liverpool series Translated Texts for
Historians may help resolve the issue.
7 For example, since Zosirnus calls Nestorius IE'pyTIpwov, the equation of the latter with
Eunapius' anonymous hierophant can only be maintained by correction of the e0' ackov5
of Laurentianus Mediceus gr. LXXXVI, 7 to e0' aTht4, as proposed by J. Vollebregt,
Symbola in novam Eunapii Vitarum editionem (Amsterdam 1929) 103. Cf. Paschoud,
Eunapiana (as in n. 4) 274-275, and Penella, Philosophers and Sophists (as in n. 4) 143,
n. 61.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
364 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

priesthood," most often that of hiero

occurs in Eunapius, either in the Vitae Sophistarum or in the fragments of the
History, and it appears in Zosimus only once, in connection with Nestorius. For
what it is worth, its limited usage in other authors does not imply the holding of
a position, but rather the act of mediating divine revelation.8
Of course, iepo0avrtsv may not derive from Eunapius at all, but from
Zosimus himself or, for that matter, from the Neoplatonist Syrianus, to whose
hymn to Achilles Zosimus (or Eunapius via Zosimus) refers as evidence of the
truthfulness of his account. If so, the metrical difficulties presented by ispo-
4av-rCtv tvraypevo; would suggest a prose hymn of the sort described by
Menander Rhetor.9 But whatever Eunapius or Syrianus might have said, iFpo-

8 E.g., iEpo01av?.o): Eusebius Or. de Laudibus Constantini 32-33, PG 20 (1857) col. 1317:
ol; 8il r; OE-oipEnEl T;tXEta; iEpoOavsoUtEvot, 4&i 'All Oeiwv opyijw Ebawv6geOa;
Heraclitus Homeric Allegories 64.4, ed. F. Buffi&re (Paris 1989) 70: e10' il nokXnp6ao-
no; 6i; aiavTa ' oo0xTat FpwTEo; Etac6p0ot; XOtInottKOi cai Kcepda-Ttot gsi0oo
SOKOl)flV, ?i pgn X15 o6pavi(I 4XVj T&Q oXlv7iOt) OWlpOtU TEXta; 1.Epo0cva tE;
Lucian Alex. 39.5, ed. M. Macleod (Oxford 1974) 11, 349: 96q8)ouKEIt 6& xai icc pOdvn
o 'Ev&uiio.v AkXav8po;; Philo De Vita Mosis 2.37, edd. L. Cohn and P. Wendland
(Berlin 1896-1926) IV, 208: ntcpi eyv nrp&rov Tij yeve6acc 9egtXov iEpoOav'ri'atv
[i.e., to translate from "Chaldaean" to Greek. The production of the Septuagint]
9 Zosimus seldom uses oaai or its equivalents. Examples are Xaoi, 4.36.5, with Paschoud's
n. 174, esp. pp. 421-422; Xi-yoxt)u, 1.32.3 and 3.22.5, with Paschoud's n. 60; and
4iyErac, 5.38.5. Eunapius, on the other hand, frequently uses forms of oruii and Xiyco to
signify reports of others. Cf. Index in Eunapii vitas sophistarum, edd. 1. and M. Avotins
(Hildesheim 1983), s.vv. orlgi and Xiyw, and, in Blockley's edition, frags. 28.3-4 (in both
of which Ocda may be the work of the excerptor), and 6; 39.9; 48. 1, line 2 (the strongest
parallel to Zosimus); and 71, line 12. Menander Rhetor 331-345, especially the commen-
tary of D. Russell and N. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981) to 332.4 on prose
hymns and to 333.2-26 on parallels between Menander and Neoplatonic classifications of
myth. At 390.4, Menander recommends oveipara rX&rCEI.v, though there seems scant
chance that Nestorius' dream was a fiction of Eunapius or Syrianus. However, Syrianus'
hymn may have presented aspects of the episode - particularly in a hierarchic arrange-
ment of Nestorius rdlc; Ooeta6nv evvoiat; nat8ayov6g)tvo;, the dream baiwci.v, the
hero Achilles and his statue, and the goddess Athena - to conform with Neoplatonic
telestic and prayer theory, on which see Anne Sheppard, "ProClus' Attitude to Theurgy,"
CQ 32 (1982) 211-224, and J. Dillon, lamblichi Chalcedensis in Platonis Dialogos
Commentariorum Fragmenta (Leiden 1973) 48-52 and 407-411. On Syrianus 3, PLRE
II, 1051; K. Praechter, "Syrianos I," RE IV A.2 (1932), cols. 1728-1775; and Aristotle
Transformed, ed. Richard Sorabji (Ithaca 1990) passim. J. Geffcken, The Last Days of
Greco-Roman Paganism (trans. of 1929 ed.: Amsterdam 1978) 175, thought Nestorius
had attempted to institute a cult of Achilles, but the circumstances as described by
Zosimus would seem to demonstrate otherwise: Nestorius' actions were meant to avert
the specific threat of earthquakes rather than to establish some permanent cult. Neverthe-
less, note Zosimus' use at 4.18.3 of the imperfect gnparTe. For Achilles cults, see W. H.
Roscher, Lexicon der griechischen und romischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1884-1886) I.1,
cols. 58-63, and, on Zosimus' story at 5.6.1-3 of the intervention of Achilles and Athena
during the invasion of Alaric, Paschoud, Zosime 11.2, 96-97.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius iepoOavrCtv rtEtQyVO; 365

Oavtetv tetaypgvo; is surely Zosimus' construction, for, while

appear in Eunapius, it is a favorite of Zosimus, who also regularly employs
te-raygivo; with an infinitive. Zosimus' syntax, then, is most likely his reaction
to something different in Syrianus or Eunapius even if he found in either of
them some form of tipo4dvM; or of iepo4avrco.).0
Yet even the assumption of the presence in Zosimus' source of a form of
iepoodvTq; or of 'epoOav?-co in no way implies the priesthood of Eleusis.
Many mystery cults apart from Eleusis were devoted to Demeter, some were
not. Pausanius, for example, describes hierophants of Demeter at Celae, and
papyri have revealed hierophants of Demeter in Egypt. The title also appears on
a Pergamene altar and, more pertinent to Eunapius, is convincingly restored on
an honorific dedication probably of the second century A.D. from Sardis.
Roughly contemporaneous with the dramatic date of Nestorius' dream, two
inscriptions from Rome record hierophant of Hecate among the honors held by
their dedicators, Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius and Ulpius Egnatius Faventius.
Iamblichus speaks of Phoenician hierophants of the mysteries of Byblos and
Tyre, and Synesius uses hierophant as a general designation for a priesthood.
Noteworthy, too, is Arcadius' and Honorius' command of 7 December 396 to
abolish privileges granted antiquo iure sacerdotibus ministris praefectis hiero-
fantis sacrorum. II
Some examples of iepo4axvts; may reflect problems in translating Latin
titles into Greek. For instance, a Latin inscription from Thisbe styles the famous

10 Cf., e.g., Zos. 1.15.1: oi 'reraypgvot OiAdvretv; 1.40.1: Aurelian 'reaypevov napacub-
Xdtasv; 2.51.4: Menelaus apXetv reray&voq; 4.20.6: r6ov ... 4poupeiv re'raayg6ve)v;
5.32.6: Salvius tetayg&vo; -nsayopelktv. Zosimus uses 6aaow simplex and various
compound forms at least fifty-nine times.
11 Pausanias 2.14.1, ed. F. Spiro (Stuttgart 1903) I, 161, provides in his description of
mystery rites celebrated at Celae an example of non-Eleusinian hierophants of the cult of
Demeter. See also, Oxyrhynchus Papyri 36 (London 1970) no. 2782; R. Raslan, "Notes
on the Cult of Demeter in Roman Egypt," Proceedings of the XVIII International Con-
gress of Papyrology. ed. B. Mandilaras (Athens 1988) II. 211-213; and Oxyrhynchus
Papyri 58 (London 1991) no. 3920, especially p. 17, n. 17. The inscriptions: von
Gaertringen's commentary to IG IV2 I 549, p. 122: xCot flavOEjico r6v I(ogs6v M. Avp.
M-nvo-yv% o iepodxvxni; Kcai xpxkavt;; and Greek and Latin Inscriptions, edd. W.
Buckler and D. Robinson, Sardis VII.I (Leiden 1932) 74, no. 62: [xcov] gtuan[piov
iepo0xvti1v]. ILS 4152 and 4153, both from August 376, on the hierophantae of Hecate
Aedesius 7 and Faventius 1, PLRE I, 15-16 and 325. J. Matthews, "Symmachus and the
Oriental Cults," JRS 63 (1973) 175-195, sets these in historical context. Iamblichus De
Vita Pythagorica 3. 14, ed. A. Nauck (Reprint of 1884 ed.; Amsterdam 1965) 14, line 6.
Synesius I1EPI ENTINIQN 144 A, Synesii Cyrenensis Opuscula, ed. N. Terzaghi (Rome
1944) 11.1, 167, with the commentary of Nicephorus Gregoras. Scholia in Synesium de
Insomniis, PG 149 (1865), col. 600. Throughout his treatise Synesius stresses that no
special qualifications are needed for dreaming, but nonetheless describes dream experi-
ence in the language of the mysteries and prophecy. Cod. Theod. 16.10.14, ed. T.
Mommsen (Berlin 1904) I.2, 901.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 366 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

Vettius Agorius Preatextatus a hierophanta, and John Lydus alleges that a

iepoodvt1; Praetextatus (perhaps the same), together with the pagan philoso-
pher Sopatros, figured in the dedication of Constantinople, and goes on to speak
of hierophants of the Romans.'2 However, translation is not an issue in a series
of dedications made about 297 by iepoodv-ri Diogenes on the ocassion of his
becoming an i?piu; of Asclepius, or in an inscription from Epidaurus, a
dedication KOT' ovap of ca. 355 by 6 iepo4cvtii; icazt t'ep; toi canipo;
Mnaseas Hermioneus, son of Mnaseas, to Asclepius at Aegae.13
The Asclepius' connection is suggestive, for further epigraphic evidence
reveals that about 308 A.D. dreams the contents of which were not to be
divulged prompted a Plutarch, perhaps the father of Nestorius, to become a
priest of Asclepius, at the same time or earlier, having become dpXtepel5 of
Attica and ipoiotko; of Dionysus. The double occurrence of the name Asclepi-
genaea in the stemma of Nestorius' family and the proximity of the family's
house to the Asclepieion at Athens reflect a special bond between the family
and the god, and iepooavrCtv tayt?vo; may well refer the priesthood of his
cult. 14
But the cultic connection most obvious from Zosimus' account of Nestorius
is that of Athena centered on the statue of the goddess in the Parthenon.
Because Zosimus specifically states that Nestorius' dream mandated public
honors for Achilles, it seems clear that whatever rites Nestorius performed
before the ?ilCCi)v of Achilles hidden in the Athena Ev flapOe6vt were them-
selves public, which, in turn, suggests that Nestorius had some official status in
the worship of the goddess. While here is scant evidence for ritual connected to
Athena in Athens in the fourth century, the Panathenaic procession did still
occur and is the only known candidate for the &lgoAiat Tngai required to fulfill

12 Dessau ILS 1259. Cf. Dittenberger SIG II1 (Leipzig 1917) 583, no. 869, line 20, and OGIS
II (Leipzig 1905) 189, no. 528, line 14, the first, from Eleusis (165/9 A.D.), to honor T. Fl.
Leosthenes 14, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names I1, edd. M. Osborne and F. Byrne
(Oxford 1994) 284, the second, from Prusa ad Hypium (early third century A.D.), to
honor Ti. Claudius Piso, PIR II. no. 961. Lydus De Mensibus 4.2, ed. R. Wuensch
(Stuttgart 1898) 65-66, on Praetextatus and Sopater 1, PLRE I, 846.
13 IG IV2 I 417-427 and 438. See also no. 551, the undated dedication of a hierophant
T[tp6i6KpI'ro;, and, on translation from Greek to Latin, J. Oliver, The Athenian Expound-
ers of the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Baltimore 1950) 84-119. Sara B. Aleshire, The
Athenian Asklepieion (Amsterdam 1989) 7-36, especially 18-20, examines history and
topography, and, 85-86, the permanent priesthood of Asclepius Soter, last known to have
been held ca. 300 by Marcus lunius Nicagoras, son of Minucianus. On Nicagoras 1, PLRE
I, 627, also the last known diaduch of Eleusis and who himself may have had Neoplatonic
connections, see Clinton, Sacred Officials (as in n. 4) 64-66.
14 IG 1V2 I 436-437, with Kurt Latte, Review of IG IV2 1, Gnomon 7 (1931) 118, n. I and
Saffrey and Westerink, Theologie Platonicienne (as in n. 2) xxix-xxx. The proximity of
the so-called House of Proclus to the Asclepieion is noteworthy in this connection. See A.
Frantz, "Pagan Philosophers in Christian Athens," PAPhS 119, No. 1 (1975) 29-38.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius iepo4avreiv reraygvo; 367

the conditions set down by Nestorius' dream. Indeed, an inscription from

Athens names a Plutarch, identified persuasively as the Neoplatonist scholarch
who was the son or grandson of Nestorius, as having thrice financed the sacred
ship of the Panathenaic procession at the cost of a whole fortune. Not only did
this Plutarch pay for the ship but he also seems to have formed part of its crew,
which comprised priests and priestesses. On this basis, it seems safe to infer that
Plutarch himself was a priest, though not necessarily one of Athena. If the other
Plutarch who was apXtspeu; of Athens at the time he became a hierophant of
Asclepius is actually Nestorius' grandfather or father and the Panathenaic
benefactor Plutarch is the son or grandson of Nestorius, the latter's possession
of some priesthood would seem pro forma and thereby perhaps explain
iepooawvetv tetayg9vo;.15
But apart from a designation of positions in cults, iepoo0vvt; was also a
common label for individuals thought to have access to the divine. In the first
century, Philo had termed Moses iepoa'vvti;, while for Heraclitus, author of
the Homeric Allegories, Homer was o tya; ou'pavov Kai O Cov ivpoOdvM;. 16
Julian's predecessor, the Emperor Constantius recommends the orator Themi-
stius to the senate of Constantinople as having established himself a itporiiM;
,ll?V tOW nalatCov xaC coOCov aMvpCov ..., iEPpoXavt11; 8E tOV aQ&1`t)V TE Kav
avact6pcov OtXoaooia;.17 Of special importance in connection with Nestorius,
is the place of 'tipodvwM; within the lexicon of the Neoplatonists: Porphyry
says that Plotinus once complimented him on his use of mystical language by
calling him nouqrfq, 0tX6aooo;, and iepo0xvTq;; Julian called Iamblichus by

15 IG 112 3818. A. Frantz, Late Antiquity: A.D. 267-700. The Athenian Agora XXIV
(Princeton 1988) 23-24, on the Panathenaic procession, and 63-64, on the identification
of the Plutarch of IG II2 3818 with Plutarch, the son or grandson of Zosimus' Nestorius.
Perhaps Plutarch was among the priests described by Himerius Or. 47. 13, ed. N. Festa

(Rome 1951) 194: T6o jiv oiv nkipwga ri' vedi iepeL; e Kcai i?pEtat, eiYitarpibat
irdv're, XPxool;, oi &i dv6evolt ea 4ecavojvot roi4 aTetacrtv. Note too the com-
ments of Archiadas 1, PLRE 11, 134, Nestorius' great-grandson, on Athena and the
Panathenaea at Damascius fr. 273, ed. C. Zintzen, Damnascii Vitae Isidori Reliquiae
(Hildesheim 1967) 217. Valentinian died in November and the Panathenaic celebration
would fall late in the Athenian month Hecatombaeon, which began with the new moon
before the summer solstice. If the episode of Nestorius is connected to the Panathenaea,
the date must be the summer of 376. We do not know what did or did not transpire in late
antiquity once the Panathenaic procession reached the acropolis and inferences from
earlier testimony may mislead. This noted, see J. Niels, Goddess and Polis: The Panathe-
naic Festival in Ancient Athens (Hanover, New Hampshire/Princeton, N.J. 1992), and D.
Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and the Erechtheion (Oxford 1995), especially
244.
16 Philo Legum Allegoriarum 3.173, edd. Cohn and Wendland, I. 151; De Somniis 2.109, III,
276; and De Specialibus Legibus 1.41, V, 10. Heraclitus 76. 1, ed. Buffiere, 82.
17 AHMHIOPIA 20a, edd. G. Downey and A. F. Norman, Themistii Orationes (Leipzig
1974) III, 124, lines 17-19. I owe this reference to R. J. Penella.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
368 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

the synonymous ispo4advtop; to Marinus, Proclus was toi 6Xou ic6ojiov

iepo6vtTnv; and Proclus could style his teacher Syrianus a iepo4xivt;
Plato.'8 Because -rF-rayg9vo; is clearly Zosimus' wording, 'epo4aiv-rr as he
may have found it in Eunapius need not imply any cult office. So this use of
.Epo4xdvTi1 should not be overlooked.
Yet another explanation is possible: the selection of Nestorius, perhaps by
some group of pagan savants, 'itpooavwtv through a dream vision. In this case,
the force of iepo0av6tev pertains to function rather than office. Numerous
magical papyri testify to this practice of conjuring dreams, but the case of
Nestorius differs from these in two crucial respects, for Nestorius neither
induced his dream nor did he interpret it. Rather his dream was the product of
the synaptic ?vvoiat of his luXil, perhaps even an instance of the sort of
godsent OVe-pO; distinguished by Iamblichus from dreams magically produced
and from those which were no more than unconscious reactions to physical
stimuli, the sort of sacred dream vision detailed by Damascius in his Vita Isidori
and declared in the Latin version of the 6th-century Neoplatonist Priscianus'
Solutiones ad Chosroem attainable even while awake to intellects purified of
the corporeal.19

18 Porphyry Vita Plotini 15, ed. J. Boissonade, Diogenis Laertii Vitae Philosophorum (Paris
1878) 110; Julian fr. 161, Epistulae, Leges, Poematia, Fragmenta Varia, edd. J. Bidez
and F. Cumont (Paris 1922) 214; Marinus Vita Procli 19, ed. Boissonade, Diogenis
Laertii Vitae Philosophorum (Paris 1878) 161; Proclus In Rem Publicam, ed. W. Kroll
(Leipzig 1899) I, 71.
19 Papyri Graecae Magicae2, ed. Karl Preisendanz, et al. (Stuttgart 1973-1974), V.370-
446; VII.222-254, 359-369, 664-685, 703-726, 740-755, 795-845; VIII.64-1 10, with
K. Preisendanz, "Oneiropompeia," RE XVIII.1 (1939), cols. 440-448, and the posthu-
mous excerpts from Samson Eitrem's unfinished manuscript Magie und Mantik der
Griechen und Romer in Magika Hiera, edd. C. Faraone and D. Obbink (Oxford 1991)
175-187. Thessalus De virtutibus herbarum, Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum
VIII.3, ed. P. Boudreaux (Brussells) 134-136, especially 135, lines 27-30: aei 8e ioV
rfl; i*Xu%; npogav?xvo?vTl; Oeolt 6gXikaat, auve.x* 6i; oipav6v tiac; Xeipa; EK-
teiVov roiU; 0eo-; 0Xtrdveuov St' 6veipou 4avtacia; ii 8t& XvEs6asco; eeiov xapiaCa-
a0ai toi 'It tofoiXo, KXX., summarized and discussed by Garth Fowden, The Egyptian
Hermes (Reprint of 1986 ed.; Princeton 1993) 162-165, provides colorful detail about an
encounter with Asclepius. Damascius frs. 1-14 with annotations, ed. Zintzen, 4-15, on
Isidore, and fr. 69, p. 98, on Anthusa, whose dream in the shape of her father, introduces
her to the mantic technique of divination through the observation of cloud formations.
lamblichus condemns T(iv Evlnviov EiwXk6v at Protrepticus 8, ed. H. Pistelli (Stuttgart
1888) 46, but for the type of dream ascribed to Nestorius, see De Mysteriis 3.2-3/102.15-
109.3, ed. E. des Places, Les MystMres d'Egypte (Paris: 1966) 99-103, where the civrloi;
,e xCov G9opo6vrcova uvundpXTI of 3.2/104.11 raises the possibilty that Nestorius was a
sort of designated dreamer iEpo0avTeiv xerayg9vo; from among some group which was
present during his dream experience and whose movement even facilitated it. Priscianus
Solutiones ad Chosroem 3.566.64-72, ed. I. Bywater. Commentaria in Aristotelem Grae-
ca. Supplement 1.2 (Berlin 1886) 63: si igitur segregatur corpore in somnis, dignafieri

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius i?po0av'E&v xrEaygcvoq 369

These sacred dream visions were unambiguous revelations experienced by

a select few. On the basis of the qualities attributed to him by Proclus and
Marinus, Nestorius would have been a suitable receptor. For Proclus' Nestorius
0 Otto; practiced a sort of psychotherapy on a Roman noblewoman tormented
by a memory of her soul's residence in the bodies of a barmaid, a dog, a snake,
and a bear, while Marinus' Nestorius 6 g?ya; guarded opyta passed by him
through Plutarch to the scholarch's daughter, Asclepigenaea, and thence to
Proclus, 6pyta which Marinus makes clear involved theurgic arcana connected
with the Chaldaean oracles and with various methods of divination.20 Though
this interpretation would seem to be the sole instance of the use of 'tepo4avxetv
in a purely oneiritic context, given the vocabulary of the mysteries regularly
associated with such dream experience, this explanation of Zosimus' iepo4avtev
ttay,uvo; warrants careful consideration.
Whatever the precise meaning of 'Epo0avTev tstay vo;, any of the three
alternatives offered above - reference to a priesthood other than that at Eleusis,
perhaps of Asclepius or of a cult of Athena in the Parthenon; reference to an
individual without a cultic post, but especially in touch with some aspect of the
divine; or reference to the act of communion with the sacred through godsent
dream revelation - seems preferable to the problematic association of Nestorius
iEpo4avwtEv TETa'ygvos; with the anonymous Eleusinian hierophant of the
Vitae Sophistarum. And if Zosimus' icpo4avev retaygvo; has nothing to do
with Eleusis, so too does his Nestorius have nothing to do with Eunapius'
Eleusinian hierophant.
As for the latter, though no explicit mention of him survives in the frag-
ments of Eunapius' History, he must have loomed large in the portion of its
account devoted to the emperor Julian, and the reason is not difficult to discern:
the hierophant himself was one of Eunapius' most important sources of infor-
mation about the Apostate.21 This should give pause to an uncritical acceptance

potest deo missis visionibus - et nunquid hoc videtur Aristoteli et quibusdam ex illius
schola - et a deo missas operationes et virtutes accipit, quas pulcre habet et facile
commixta intellectualibus. unde et sine somnis anima corporalibus purgata intellectuales
habet receptiones et cum divina quadam operatione praevidetfuturum. See especially A.
Bouch6-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquite9 (Reprint of 1879 ed.; Paris
1963) 1, 83-91, on divination and Neoplatonists, and 277-329, on oneiromancy, together
with T. Hophner, "Mantike," RE XIV.1 (1928), cols. 1268-1274, and "Traumdeutung,"
RE VI.A,2 (1937), cols. 2233-2245; H. Kenner, "Oneiros," RE XVIII.I (1939), cols.
448-459; R. Festugi6re, La Revelation d'Hermes Trisme'giste (Paris 1950) I, 312-317,
and P. Athanassiadi, "Dreams, Theurgy and Freelance Divination: The Testimony of
lamblichus," JRS 83 (1993) 115-130. The orientation and focus of P. Miller, Dreams in
Late Antiquity (Princeton 1994), perhaps explains her failure to treat this distinction and
the literature that surrounds it.
20 Vita Procli 28, ed. Boissonade, 165; In Rem Publicam, ed. Kroll, II, 324-325.
21 Julian did, of course, hold the hierophant in esteem and probably did consult him, if not
before making the final choice to rise against Constantius, then in the immediate after-

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

of the assertion of the Vitae Sophistarum that Julian journeyed from Asia Minor
to Athens specifically to avail himself of the "something more" than the

iiaOtaet; of Maximus and Chrysanthius to be had from the hierophant of

Two Goddesses.22
Of course, once in Athens, Julian did become an intimate of the hierophant,
so much so that he later summoned the priest to Gaul, where, if we believe
Eunapius, "having completed with him things known to them alone," Julian
chose to rise against Constantius. With Constantius' death, Julian ended Ola't;
between the priestly yevrn of Athens and sent the hierophant back to Greece,
according to Eunapius, "as though he were sending back some god who had
revealed himself, and bestowed on him what he desired, ... and with him also
gifts worthy of an emperor, and attendants to take care of the temples of
Greece."23
However much these passages tell us about Julian, they reveal even more
about the impressionable Eunapius and about the anoymous hierophant's con-
viction of his own central role in the life and reign of Julian, the memory of
which were colored by how the hierophant perceived these at the time of his
contact with Eunapius. Similar interpretative strictures apply to Eunapius'
account of the hierophant's prediction of disaster for the Eleusinian cult in
particular and for temple worship in general, though in these cases, rather than
the relationship of present to past as a framework within which to position

math of the elevation to Augustus, in order to confirm for himself that the course of affairs
were in agreement with the will of the gods. It is the centrality of the role of the
hierophant as described by Eunapius that is here significant. D. Buck, "Eunapius on
Julian's Acclamation as Augustus," AHB 7 (1993) 73-80, analyzes the ancient sources
and surveys modern scholarship. See too J. Drinkwater, "The 'Pagan Underground',
Constantius II's 'Secret Service', and the Survival, and the Usurpation of Julian the
Apostate," Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History III, ed. C. Deroux, Collection
Latomus 180 (Brussels 1983) 348-387. Eunapius' account of Prohaeresius' consultation
of the hierophant, VS 10.8.1-2/493, probably also derives from the anonymous priest.
22 VS 7.3.1/475. In reality, Constantius had summoned Julian from Asia Minor to Italy,
whence the latter journeyed to Athens. PLRE I, 477, gives the literary evidence. J. Arce,
Estudios sobre el emperador Fl. Cl. Juliano, Anejos de "Archivo Espaiiol de arqueolo-
gia" 8 (Madrid 1984) 155-156, argues convincingly against dating to 355 an inscription -
Arce, p. 106, no. 102 - sometimes assigned to the period of Julian's sojourn in Athens, for
evocative accounts of which see J. Bidez, La Vie de l'Empereur Julien (Paris 1930) 112-
120, and P. Athanassiadi, Julian and Hellenism (Oxford 1981) 45-51. G. Pighi, "La
Dichiarazione Cesarea di Giuliano," Aevum 8 (1934) 489-521, and Nuovi Studi Am-
mianei. Pubblicazioni della Universita? Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Series 4: Scienze
Filologiche 21 (Milan 1936) 27-45, produces a detailed chronology for the period in
question and places Julian's depature for Athens at the end of June, 355, his return to
Milan at the beginning of October of the same year.
23 VS 7.3.7-9/476 and, on priestly rivalry, Lib. Or. 18.115, ed. R. Foerster (Leipzig 1903-
1927) II, 284.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius iepoaavitv retaygvo; 371

himself, present and future provided the temporal co

which reflect, on the hierophant's part, a similar solipsistic sense of self-
importance.
The Vitae Sophistarum appears to some to credit the hierophant with
foreknowledge of the effects on temple worship of Theodosius' legislation of
391-2 or of the consequences of Alaric's invasion of Greece in 395/6. Yet,
disallowing genuine prescience, association of the hierophant's prophecy with
either or both referents must be the work of Eunapius and rests on the hindsight
he possessed in 399, the date of the composition of the Vitae Sophistarum.
Furthermore, publication prior to 391-2 of the portion of Eunapius' History
devoted to Julian and Valens - those sections in which a treatment of the
hierophant's predictions most likely would have occured - would rule out the
events of the 390s as the inspiration behind the hierophant's prognostications as
they may have appeared in those ?C6a06et;. Indeed, Charles Fornara's recent
arguments notwithstanding, Eunapius' return from Athens to Sardis in 366
marks a reasonable terminus ante quem for the forecast. But what then promp-
ted these dire predictions?24
Fortunately, Eunapius records the hierophant's precise pronouncements
about the future of the Eleusinian cult: the next hierophant would be ritually
unfit to preside at Eleusis because he held priesthoods in other cults, and
because he was not even an Athenian, let alone a Eumolpid. Ultimately disho-
nored for his ambition, this bogus hierophant would witness the destruction of
the temples in general and the end of the worship of the Two Goddesses. Kai
tai3-rd ye oi09Xr%, avows Eunapius as he begins, through a sort of Freudian
"secondary revision,"25 to describe how subsequent events - Theodosius' legis-
lation and Alaric's incursion - contingent, he thinks, on the violation of
hierophantic ordinances, confirmed the prognostic virtuosity of his source.
Eunapius' interpretative, after-the-fact, glosses must not mislead. What remains
after their removal is a coherent psychological portrait of Eunapius' anonymous
hierophant as a man convinced of his own importance not just in shaping the
past but to the shape of the future.

24 T. Barnes, "The Epitome de Caesaribus," 266, and The Sources of the Historia Augusta,
116 (both as in n. 4), has argued for retrojection with respect to destruction caused by
Alaric's Goths. T. Banchich, The Historical Fragments of Eunapius of Sardis (Diss.,
Buffalo 1985) discusses the chronology of the publication of the History and sets the
appearance of its relevant sections, i.e., the treatments of Julian and Valens, before 383.
For the period during which Eunapius was in Athens, see R. Goulet. "Sur la chronologie
de la vie et des ceuvres d'Eunape de Sardes," JHS 100 (1980) 60-72; Banchich, "On
Goulet's Chronology of Eunapius' Life and Works," JHS 107 (1987) 164-167; C.
Fornara, "Eunapius' Epidemia in Athens," CQ n.s. 39 (1989) 517-523; and Banchich,
"Eunapius in Athens," Phoenix 50 (1996) 304-311.
25 S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, trans. J. Strachey. The Standard Edition of the
Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud V (London 1953) 488-508.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
372 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

Whatever his name, this hierophant had initiated Julian into the Myste-
ries, traveled to him in Gaul, and helped convince him to put Constantius to the
test. In turn, the hierophant and the Eleusinian cult had benefited from Julian's
patronage and doubtless from the favor of the emperor's proconsul of Achaea,
Praetextatus, himself an initiant.26 But, after Julian's death (17 July 363), this
refloresence seemed threatened by the policies of Valentinian.
Valentinian's recognition as Augustus at Nicaea on 26 February 364 repre-
sented a not altogether satisfactory compromise between the interests of ap-
pointees of Julian and various factions within the command structure of the
Roman army. On 28 March of the same year Valentinian saw to the elevation of
his brother Valens, to whom he entrusted the management of eastern affairs,
which, in the aftermath of terms agreed upon by Sapor and the late Jovian,
would have comprised primarily domestic matters. In late-April or early-May
364, the Augusti departed Constantinople and moved west. At Naissus, there
was a division of troops between the brothers and a reapportionment of pro-
vinces, as a result of which Achaea became subject to Valentinian. By 7
September he had reached Aquileia, and in late-October arrived in Milan,
where he remained until the following September. During this same period
Valens returned to Constantinople and remained in or near that city.27
It appears that before the brothers parted company a series of moves were
made against individuals suspect partly due to their connections with Julian. In
some cases, the rationale may have been to find scapegoats for the failure of the
Persian campaign. But Zosimus, probably following Eunapius, supplies a fur-
ther motive. In 364 Valentinian had become ill and suspected that his sickness
was magically induced by supporters of Julian.28 Julian's guru, the theurgist
Maximus, whom Zosimus alleges had accused Valentinian of impiety before
Julian, was arrested, fined, imprisoned, and tortured.29 The philosopher Priscus,

26 Eunapius VS 7.3.7/476, almost certainly on the basis of the testimony from the hierophant,
recounts how Julian consulted the priest in Gaul before itni tiv ca8aipecfv nyjepOij rf
KowvoavTiou tupavvi6o;. On Valentinian's assumption of control in Illyria, Zos. 4.3.1
and E. Groag, Die Reichsbeamten von Achaia in spatromischer Zeit, Dissertationes
Pannonicae Ser. 1, no. 14 (Budapest 1946) 48. On Julian's patronage of Eleusis, Claudius
Mamertinus Pan. 3 (11) 9.3-4, ed. R. Mynors (Oxford 1964), with commentary of B.
Rodgers in C. Nixon and B. Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors (Berkeley
1994) 410-41 1, nn. 62 and 65, and, on Praetextatus, Zos. 4.3.3 with ILS 1259, which
styles him sacratus Eleusilnils.
27 Chronology and evidence, 0. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste (Stuttgart 1919)
214-218. For events at Naissus, Zos. 4.3.1, with Paschoud, Zosime, I1.2, 335-336, and J.
Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London 1989), 190-191.
28 Zos. 4.1.1-2.1 and Amm. Marc. 26.4.4, with Paschoud's n. 107, Zosime, I1.2, 331. T.
Elliott, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Fourth Century (Toronto 1983) 140-143, investi-
gates the dismissal by Valentinian and Valens of officials with connections to Julian.
29 Zos. 4.2.2, VS 7.4.11-17/478-479, and Themistius Or. 7.99D, ed. G. Downey (Leipzig
1965) 1, 149, which J. Vanderspoel, Themistius and the Imperial Court (Ann Arbor 1995)

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Nestorius iepocavrtsv 'reray?vo; 373

who, like Maximus, had accompanied Julian on the march into Persia, was
arrested at the same time. We next hear of him upon his return to Greece
sometime around 366.30 Julian's physician Oribasius, who, together with Maxi-
mus and Priscus, had been at the Apostate's deathbed, suffered exile too,3'
while the praetorian prefect and confidant of Julian, Salutius Secundus was
briefly deposed but reinstated upon satisfactory demonstration of his loyalty to
the new regime.32 We know nothing of the proconsul of Achaea Praetextatus
between 364 and his appointment as prefect of Rome sometime before 18
August 367, and he may have been replaced in 364 by a certain Olympius.33
Finally - though perhaps of only tangential relevance - there is Julian's relative
Procopius, who had under Jovian retired to his Cappadocian estates, but,
suspect in the eyes of Valentinian and Valens, now went into hiding until his
proclamation as Augustus on 28 September 365.34
Given this list of suspects, it would come as a surprise if the hierophant who
had been so instrumental in Julian's rise and who was an acknowledged adept at
mantic prognosis escaped attention. Eunapius' departure from Athens to Lydia,
if correctly dated to 366, provides a terminus ante quem for the hierophant's
prophecy. His removal may antedate legislation of 9 September 364 against
nocturnal sacrifice or may have been coincident with it.35 However, it would
have resulted from Valentinian's concerted effort to break the power of Julian's
former supporters and from fear of the efficacy of their perceived proficiency in
magic, rather than from any pointedly anti-pagan policy. Valentinian's positive
reaction to Praetextatus' plea on behalf of the mysteries demonstrates this
point. If for no other reason than to avoid unnecessary unrest and discontent in

166, believes refers to Julian's praetorian prefect Salutius rather than to Maximus 21,
PLRE I, 583-584.
30 VS 7.4.11-12/478. PLRE I, 530, s.v. Priscus 5.
31 VS 21/498-499 with PLRE I, 653. R. J. Penella, Philosophers and Sophists (as in n. 4)
113-114. Barry Baldwin, "The Career of Oribasius," AClass 8 (1975) 85-97, especially
95-96. This setting for Oribasius' exile seems preferable to the later contexts considered
in Banchich, The Historical Fragments of Eunapius (as in n. 24) 86-88.
32 PLRE I, 814-817, s.v. Saturninius Secundus Salutius 3. Zos. 4.1.1, on Salutius and
Valentinian's illness; 4.2.3-4 on Salutius' dismissal. On the relationship of Suda ? 64, ed.
A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon (Stuttgart 1935) IV, 316-317 and Fl 2441, ed. Adler IV, 208 =
Eunapius fr. 30 Muller FHG IV, p. 26, and Malalas 13.31/340, see A. Cameron, "Priscus
of Panium and John Malalas in 'Suidas,"' CR 77 (1963) 264.
33 For the evidence, see PLRE I, 722, s. v. Praetextatus 1. and 645-646, s. v. Olympius 9, with
the remarks of E. Groag, Reichsbeamten (as in n. 26) 49.
34 PLRE I, 742-743, s.v. Procopius 4. Zosimus alone, via Eunapius, recounts Procopius'
flight to the Tauric Chersonese. Zos. 4.5.1-2, ed. Paschoud, 11.2, 265-266, with Paschoud's
analysis of sources in n. 114.
35 Banchich, "Eunapius in Athens" (as in n. 24), on the date of Eunapius' return to Sardis.
Cod. Theod. 9.16.7, ed. Mommsen, 462, and Zos. 4.3.3, ed. Paschoud, II.2, 264, with n.
111.

This content downloaded from

79.107.250.124 on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
374 THOMAS M. BANCHICH

Greece, Valentinian allowed the ancient rites to continue but, in my view, under
a new hierophant. In fact, this policy would stand him in good stead, for, when
supporters of Procopius attempted to portray him as the pagan alternative to
Valentinian, they received a cool reception.36
The divorce of Nestorius from any connection with the Eleusinian myste-
ries thus allows the dismissal of Eunapius' hierophant to be placed within the
historical context of the early months of the reign of Valentinian. In the process,
the perception of Valentinian's policy by Julian's closest confidants becomes
better understood, and in the foreboding of the soon-to-be-deposed iepotcv";
of Eleusis we are granted a glimpse of the very real psychic price paid by those
who invested so much in support of the Apostate. Zosimus' account of Nestori-

us ippoXavteiv meaygevo;, on the other hand, is a separate issue, one which

testifies, if not to the apotropaic efficacy of the talisman of Achilles, at least to
the very real therapeutic power of the dream among an ever-narrowing, post-
Julianic circle of Athenians for whom the gods were still there.

Canisius College, Buffalo, NY Thomas M. Banchich

36 On Procopius' rebellion, see J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (as in n. 27)
191-203, and Paschoud's commentary to Zosimus 4.4-8, ed. Paschoud, 11.2, 265-269,
with nn. 114-120.

This content downloaded from

79.10ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms