Antioch & the Eastern Frontier

While recently reading the Atlas of the Roman World by Tim Cornell and John Matthews (FactsOnFile, New York, 1982), I came upon an interesting map of the region of Antioch, which showed not only the Roman roads in the region but also the siting of the string of forts that protected the city and the province of Syria Coele from encroachment by Parthians and Sassanids. Here it is:

The map shows the essentials of the Diocletianic eastern frontier (strata Diocletiana) as reconstructed from the the evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum, field archaeology and aerial surveys. 

 

The Palmyrene Period in Antioch

I stumbled upon a map this week which showed clearly the extent of the Palmyrene "empire" at its largest. Here it is:

As can be seen this brief flourishing out of the desert was not only extensive at its most successful moment but it also encompassed Antioch, which was far more central to this "empire" than Palmyra itself.

While there are many books on Zenobia and her family, not many of these mention extensively the effects for Antioch. Thus it is most useful to quote at length from Glanville Downey's "A history of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab conquest", Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1961. Here he offers the political background, where essentially a power vacuum, allowed the Palmyrene vassals of Rome an opportunity to step into the breach and then become over-confident:

"The capture of Valerian in midsummer A.D. 260 and the second taking of Antioch by the Persians later in the same year left Syria and the remainder of the East at the mercy of Persia. Gallienus, who had succeeded Valerian, was fully occupied in the West, and could do nothing against the Persians. One of Valerian's generals, Macrianus, with the support of the praetorian prefect Callistus (nicknamed Ballista), took this opportunity to proclaim his sons Macrianus and Quietus emperors, and Ballista succeeded in driving Sapor back to the Euphrates. Macrianus and Quietus were recognized as emperors in Syria, and they issued coins in Antioch. The emperor Gallienus, however, defeated Macrianus and his son when they tried to establish themselves in Europe. Gallienus himself could not go to the East or send troops, but he now gained support from the prince of Palmyra, Odenath.  

For some years the Palmyrenes, realizing the weakness of the Romans in Syria, had been trying to establish their independence, and Odenath saw an opportunity in the situation that had developed by A.D. 260. He first approached Sapor, but being rebuffed, he decided to support Rome, and proclaiming himself king of Palmyra he marched against Sapor and inflicted a severe defeat on the Persians. Gallienus in gratitude gave Odenath the title of dux and appointed him to the supreme command of the Roman forces in the East. Odenath proceeded to win control of most of the cities of Syria, and defeated Ballista and Quietus, who were killed, late in A.D. 261 or early in 262. Syria was thus nominally brought under the control of Gallienus, though Odenath was the actual master of the East, and it was Odenath and the Palmyrenes who saved the eastern Roman Empire from the Persians. In A.D. 262 Odenath invaded Persia with an army composed of Romans and Palmyrenes, and penetrated as far as Ctesiphon. Gallienus then granted him the title of imperator. In A.D. 266/7, however, a dynastic plot against Odenath was formed, and he was assassinated. He was succeeded, in the government of Palmyra, by his second wife Zenobia and his infant son Waballath. Gallienus, in an effort to check the power of Palmyra, withheld from Waballath the Roman titles that had been conferred on Odenath, so that in theory Waballath was merely king of Palmyra. Zenobia, however, remained in actual control of Syria. 

During this period Antioch was at first for a brief time under the nominal control of the regime of Macrianus, and its mint issued coins for the younger Macrianus and Quietus. After Odenath established himself as master of the East in A.D. 261 and 262, Antioch (with the rest of Syria) came under Palmyrene domination, though it remained nominally under the rule of Gallienus. Coins of Gailienus began to be struck at the mint of Antioch in A.D. 263. 

At about this time Gallienus was assassinated (March A.D. 268) and after a brief interval Claudius II (A.D. 268-270) established himself as emperor. Claudius at once found himself absorbed with checking the Goths in the Balkans, and his only known activity in affairs in the East seems to have consisted of a refusal to grant Waballath the titles that Gallienus had given Odenath. Antioch remained outwardly under the control of Claudius; during his reign, the mint struck only coins in his name, though the types of the coins were apparently influenced by Palmyrene ideas. As Mattingly points out,'" "it suited diplomatists on both sides Roman and Palmyrene - to pretend that the rule of the Roman Emperor continued unabated."

The situation was altered when Claudius died in Sirmium of the plague in January A.D. 270. For a few months his brother Quintillus was recognized as emperor, but Aurelian, a famous general, quickly displaced him. One of Aurelian's first problems was the question of the spreading power of Palmyra. Whether Aurelian at first, being occupied in Italy, felt that he had to make concessions, at least for the time being, or whether Zenobia took the initiative in an attempt to increase her son's power and dignity, is difficult to decide.

A German invasion of Italy, and a rebellion in Rome in A.D. 271 suggested to Zenobia that this was a favorable moment to make a final break with the Roman Empire and to assert the complete independence of Palmyra; and at some time between ix March and 28 August A.D. 271 this was done. Waballath took the title of Augustus and had appropriate coins struck at the mints of Antioch and Alexandria. Simultaneously there appeared coins in which Zenobia was styled Augusta.

Aurelian took action in the summer of A.D. 271, sending the future emperor Probus to reconquer Egypt, which the Palmyrenes had occupied. Later in the same year Aurelian himself proceeded by way of the Danube and Byzantium to Asia Minor, which he reconquered in the early part of A.D. 272. A substantial force of the Palmyrene army under command of the general Zabdas and accompanied by Zenobia herself, was waiting in Antioch, which Aurelian could be expected to make his first objective in Syria.

Aurelian, apparently planning to circle about Antioch and cut the escape route to the south, did not approach the city by the direct Pagrae-Antioch road, but took the route which skirted the eastern side of the Lake of Antioch. From this he would reach (via the road to Gindarus) the Antioch-Beroea road, along which he could move on Antioch from the east. Somewhere along the Antioch-Beroea road east of the crossing of the Orontes at Gephyra (mod. Djisr el-Hadid) the Romans encountered a large force of Palmyrene cavalry. This seems to have represented a major part of the Palmyrene forces at Antioch, dispatched by Zabdas when he learned of the Romans' approach.

On learning that he would have to face the Palmyrene cavalry, Aurelian detached his infantry and sent it across the Orontes, presumably because he knew that it could not stand against the Palmyrene horse. He ordered his cavalry, which he knew was inferior to the enemy's, not to offer battle at once, but to simulate withdrawal, so that the Palmyrenes might be worn out with the heat and the weight of their heavy armor. The Romans fell back along the highway toward Immae, a village which lay in the direction of Beroea, and when it was seen that the Palmyrenes were fatigued, the Romans turned on them and won a complete victory. Those of the Palmyrenes who could do so, escaped to Antioch. Zabdas probably realized that the people of the city, on learning of the disaster, would rise in favor of Aurelian, whose clemency during his recovery of Asia Minor had doubtless become known in Antioch; besides, knowledge of the superior power of the Roman army would turn the local population against the Palmyrene regime. Zabdas therefore, in order to gain time and to prevent any attempt by the inhabitants to interfere with his withdrawal, immediately after the battle let it be known that he had defeated and captured Aurelian, and paraded through the streets a man who resembled the emperor. The trick succeeded, and Zabdas and Zenobia were able to flee from Antioch that same night with the remainder of their forces, leaving a rear guard behind them. Evidently they went by the road which led through Daphne to Seleucobelus and then to Apamea, whence they could have gone via Epiphania to Emesa. 

Apparently Aurelian had not been able to occupy this road. The Palmyrene rear guard established itself on a height above Daphne, probably that on the left of the road (as one goes south) which rises above the valley where the springs are located. Occupation of this position would slow down, at least, the Roman pursuit of Zenobia and her people. On the next day, when he learned of Zenobia's flight, Aurelian gave up his plans for an infantry assault on Antioch and entered the city, receiving an enthusiastic welcome from the inhabitants. Finding that many people had fled the city in fear of punishment for their having sided with Zenobia, the emperor proclaimed an amnesty and had copies of the proclamation circulated in the surrounding areas, upon which the refugees returned. It is a tribute to the strength of Aurelian's military discipline that he was able to keep his troops from plundering the city. The Palmyrene rear guard was easily dislodged from its stronghold at Daphne and annihilated. Aurelian then issued such orders as were necessary concerning the internal affairs of the city". 


What Downey does not mention is that Odenath (and his son by a previous marriage) appears to have been murdered in Antioch, showing how the city had become one of the dual poles of Palmyrene power. Gayle Young in here thesis "WORTHY WARRIOR QUEEN:PERCEPTIONS OF ZENOBIA IN ANCIENT ROME", Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 2009 maintains: 

"...Odaenathus did not have long to savor his remarkable victories or his elevation to King of Kings. He was killed shortly afterwards in Antioch by a relative, along with his elder son and heir, Herodes. There was some speculation in the ancient histories that the Emperor Gallienus, becoming fearful of the Palmyra’s military might, conspired to have Odaenathus secretly assassinated. The inconsistent SHA* first blames the king’s death on revenge by Persian gods, but then states that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Zenobia to ensure that her son, rather than Herodes, inherited the throne. Zonaras, writing in the 12th century from sources now lost to us, has the most credible version of the murder, stating the royal father and son were killed by the king’s disgruntled nephew who had been punished for misbehaving during a family hunting expedition". Apparently, Zonaras contends that, while hunting with the king, the nephew killed beasts before the king had a chance to do so - a breach of etiquette that led to his brief imprisonment. When he was released, the nephew killed the king and Herodes with a sword during a family dinner.


* Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Volume III: The Two Valerians, The Two Gallieni, The Thirty Pretenders, The Deified Claudius, The Deified Aurelian. Translated and edited by David Magie. Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library, 1932.

An Anecdote on Antiochene Superficiality

I was reading the note by Peter van Nuffelen and Lieve Van Hoof, No Stories for Old Men. Damophilos of Bithynia in Julian's Misopogon on www.academia.edu and had to confess that the story in the first paragraph he relates a story from Julian's Misopogon that gave an amusing picture of the supposed superficiality of the Antiochene populace:

"According to an anecdote that could be found in a compilation of Damophilus of Bithynia but that was ultimately derived from the Life of Cato the Younger of Plutarch, Cato was once approaching Antioch when he saw the ephebes lined up outside the city. Ostensibly embarrassed as befits a philosopher's modesty, but also flattered, he reproached his friends for having secretly announced his arrival to the city and thus caused this formal welcome. Yet when he came close, the gymnasiarch ran up to him and asked ‘Stranger, where is Demetrius?’ The welcome was thus intended not for the modest and austere Cato but for a rich slave of Pompey. Cato could only utter ‘o unhappy city’ and turned his heels. For Julian, the Antiochene fervour for a rich slave is additional proof of the innate depravity of Antioch, which clearly predated his own presence in the city".

From what I gather the authors' paper is unpublished in the conventional sense and thus shows the evolution of academia.edu into a forum for serious papers to get to the end users without having to pass the traditional gatekeepers. One of our recent frustrations has been that some conferences with Antioch themes held in 2010 and 2011, which we have tried to get the papers from, are advised as still being compiled by the academic publishing houses. This is ridiculous as the papers as presented are generally in publishable form when they are first presented. This is just an example of torpor. Fortunately some academics are forthcoming with their works and ideas before the dead hand of academic publishing has its way with their works. 

Tztetzes on the Naming and Founding of Antioch

In John (Ioannes)  Tzetzes' work,  Chiliades 7.167  we have related a story (sourced from Pausanias) on the founding, naming and initial construction at the Antioch site: 

ὡς Παυσανίας γράφει μὲν ᾽Αντιοχείας κτίσει, / κτίζεται ᾽Αντιόχεια Νικάτορι Σελεύκωι, / κατά τινας εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς σφοῦ ᾽Αντιόχου, / (170) Λουκιανῶι δ᾽ εἰς ὄνομα υἱέος ᾽Αντιόχου, / τὸν ὃν Σωτῆρα ἔλεγον ... / (174) ταύτην τὴν ᾽Αντιόχειαν Σέλευκος κτίζει πόλιν, / καὶ ἄλλας ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ τέσσαρας δὲ πόλεις. / τοὺς δ᾽ ἀμαθῶς ᾽Αντίοχον λέγοντας ταύτην κτίσαι / ᾽Ατταῖός τε καὶ Περιττᾶς, ᾽Αναξικράτης ἅμα / ἐλέγξουσι σαφέστατα καὶ δείξουσι ληροῦντας, / σὺν οἷς ᾽Ασκληπιόδωρος δὲ οἰκέτης τυγχάνων, / (180) οὓς τότε Σέλευκος ποιεῖ κτισμάτων ἐπιστάτας.

"As Pausanias writes on the foundation of Antioch, Antioch was founded by Seleukos Nikator,/according to some, as the namesake of his own father Antiochos,/(170) but according to Lucian, as the namesake of his son Antiochos, the one whom they called Soter . . . /(174) Seleukos founded that city of Antioch as well as seventy-four other cities./But as for those who foolishly claim that it was Antiochos who founded the city,/Attaios and Perittas, as well as Anaxikrates/will refute them most wisely and will expose them to be nonsensical,/(alongside whom Asklepiadoros happened to be a fellow-slave/ (180) and whom at the time Seleukos made the supervisors of his buildings)".

The Elusive Dom(n)inos

Oh the frustration! Should one search for the scantily recorded historian of Antioch called variously Domninos or Dominos (and try to narrow down the search by adding Antioch), one is veritably deluged with returns on virtually every branch of the similarly named pizza chain within a significant radius of Antioch, California. Is this the final indignity of this poor man?!

I must confess that I had never heard of him before now either. However, while reading the journal Greek, Roman and Byzantium Studies, Vol 50, No 3 (2010) The Introduction of the Antiochene Olympics: A Proposal for a New Date by Sofie Remijsen when I stumbled across the passage:

"... focus reflects Malalas’ own attachment to the place and his main source, the otherwise unknown Domninos, fourth- or fifth-century author of a work on Antiochene history". 

The reference to this source comes from:

 E. Jeffreys, “Malalas’ Sources,” in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Studies in John Malalas (Sydney 1990) 167–216, esp. 178–179, 203–205.

which I tracked down... here is what Jeffreys had to say:

"Domninos: unidentified historian. [See: Bourier, 1899, passim.]

Preface: included in the list of authorities consulted; IV §24, Bo 88: Phaidra's affair took place 52 years after Pasiphae's death; V §67, Bo 142: on the statue of Orestes, The Runaway'; §25, Bo 208: Antioch's walls rebuilt 122 years after the city's foundation; X §10, Bo 235: Dornninos recorded Tiberius' building activity in Antioch; X §51, Bo 266: on the length of Apollonios of Tyana's life (and all his other activities?); X[ §4, Bo 273: on the rituals on Trojan's arrival at Antioch; XII §9, I3o 287: on the amphithales at Antioch; XII §26, Bo 297: on Valerian's Persian Wars (contrasted with Philostratos' account); XII §44, Bo 310: Domninos on Diocletian and the Olympic festival.

Domninos is an otherwise unknown historian, considered by Bourier to be one of Malalas' main sources. His work clearly dealt with Antiochene history, with especial emphasis on its legendary past (as exemplified by the narratives on Orestes). He is interested in the buildings and statues of Antioch (e.g. his account of 'The Runaway' and Apollonios' talismans). It is tempting to attribute the narrative earlier in the chronicle on Amphion and Zethos to Domninos on the grounds that the statues of these two are mentioned under Trojan. He is also concerned with _civic rituals, e.g. the Olympic games, the welcome to Trajan, the role of the amphithales. His work would seem to have given some information on military history (e.g. on Valerian's campaigns), perhaps on that which particularly affected Antioch. Some of his sources, e.g. Pausanias, can be shown to be embedded in material which must be derived from Domninos (13ourier, 1899). Bourier assumes that Domninos' history was available to the end of XIV (cf. the table on p. 198 below), but we must remember that Malalas' last citation of Domninos Occurs in XII. Though perhaps if Domninos is to be associated with references to Antiochene buildings then as the last significant notice is to the Basilica of Anatolius, at XIV §13, Bo 360, this may be an indication that the work extended at least to the reign of Theodosius IL Since nothing else is known of Domninos, assimilation to the bishop named DOMTIOS in the mid-fifth century is pure guesswork. Domnos would represent the conflict between pagan/Hellenic views and Christianity that is a leit-motif of Malalas' chronicle, but this does not in fact advance our understanding of the situation very much. It might also be suggested, following an inspection of PLRE 2 (cf. PW 5, cols. 1521-5), that the Domninos who came from Larissa not far from Antioch and was a philosopher in Athens in the mid-fifth century might be an attractive candidate; this writer's extant works, however, and the references to him elsewhere show that his interests lay entirely with mathematics and he would seem to have nothing in common with the homonymous Antiochene historian. Note that Patzig (1901) wanted to coalesce Domninos and Nestorianos into one; this, however, simply means removing the question of the structure of the chronicle away from Malalas and back one generation, still leaving the same of rationale to be answered. On the question of the substantial amount of material on the Trojan war, which Bourier attributes to Domninos - might it not be more logical to attribute to Domninos only the Orestian narrative, based largely on Euripides (from V §65 onwards) and with a strong Syrian connection, leaving the DiktysiSisyphos sections to have been added by Malalas? However shadowy Domninos remains, it must nevertheless be accepted that an Antiochene history attributed to him lies behind much of the early books of Malalas".

In the book, Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaisergeschichte, Volumes 1-3 edited by Max Büdinger, there is some more elaboration with references to "Die Chronographie des Domninos, seine Universalegeschichte mit Antiochenischem horizont und einseitiger Berucksichtigung der antiochenishen Stadtchronik".

In the book, La littérature grecque by Pierre Batiffol, Lecoffre, 1901, the author makes the following comments: 

"Domninos est cité par Jean Malalas (PG, t. xcvu, p. 172, 324, 361, 404, 433), lui encore comme un « très sage chronographe ». L'antiquité grecque et romaine et l'histoire de l'empire marquent seules dans les citations faites par Malalas. Il était probablement d'Antioche (p. 241 et 413), mais il ne semble pas qu'il ait été chrétien".

Coming right out of left-field there is some potential that Domninos was a fiction of Malalas. Sulochana R. Asirvatham her Jacoby entry on Pausanias of Antioch comments: "Of the seventy-five sources whom Malalas cites, those whom we possess are misrepresented frequently enough to suggest that Malalas was paraphrasing at best. Even worse is the apparent presence of a number of fictional authors in his text: for example, five universal histories that Malalas quotes repeatedly but which are not attested elsewhere, in addition to Eustathius whom he mentions infrequently. One of the unattested universal historians deemed fictional by Treadgold is ‘Domninus’, whom H. Bourier saw as one of Malalas’s main authors (believing in fact much of fragments 10 and 11 belonged to Domninus and not Pausanias (H. Bourier, Uber die Quellen der ersten vierzehn Bücher des Johannes Malalas (Augsburg 1899-1900), 9-12)".

The source for Treadgold is  W. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York, NY 2007), 235-56.

It seems that this lost work (if it ever existed) would be a major addition to our Antioch knowledge should it ever resurface in all or part. 

More on Pausanias

I have previously written on Pausanias and his lost work back in 2010 here. While reading Glanville Downey's magisterial work on the history of the city, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton University Press, 1974, I found that he had dedicated  a few pages to the subject of lost sources including Pausanias. This is what he has to say on Pausanias: 

"The best known ancient account of the foundation of Antioch is the lost Αντιοχειασ Κτισιζ of Pausanias, which was used and mentioned by later writers. The quotations seem to suggest that Pausanias' work included a history of Antioch, whether as a part of the Κτισιζ or as a separate composition is not clear. There were a number of writers named Pausanias in antiquity, and modern scholars were for some time uncertain whether the Pausanias who wrote on Antioch was to be identified with the much better known Pausanias the periegete, whose work is preserved. The evidence seemed to most students to indicate that these two writers named Pausanias were not identical, but then the question arose as to whether the writer on Antioch was the Pausanias who was called Pausanias of Damascus. Opinion on this question varied, and indeed the evidence is very slender." A recent study by Aubrey Diller of the whole problem of the authors named Pausanias, based on a much better collection of material than was previously assembled, has shown that the writer on Antioch is to be separated from Pausanias of Damascus, and that he is not to be identified with the other writers so named who are known in other connections. While  the evidence is not extensive, it appears that Pausanias' work on Antioch is to be dated either in the second or the fourth century after Christ".

A periegete, by the way, is a wanderer or voyager. 

Downey also notes that Malalas quotes Pausanias (38.15; 197.17; 203.22; 204.2, 8; 248.15), as he does many other writers, but this does not necessarily mean that Malalas used Pausanias directly. he contends that Malalas may have taken the information from an intermediate source, while giving the impression that he was making a direct quotation. 

Richard Forster, cites passages which, he states, prove that Libanius made use of Pausanias' work in writing his oration, In praise of Antioch, the Antiochikos. Downey states that it is likely that Libanius did derive some of his material from Pausanias, whether directly or indirectly; but the passages cited by Forster are of such a generalized character that it may be doubted whether they are by themselves as convincing as Forster believed.

Aubrey Diller's work, "The Authors Named Pausanias," TAPA 86 (1955) 268-279, through the wonders of someone lifting it from JSTOR and putting it online, is now available for general reading only 57 years after first being published. It is an interesting piece, as it discusses the many (or maybe not so many) different personages that may have been called Pausanias and written his major work. 

Interestingly Diller did not cite a previous work which like his own tried to enumerate the various Pausanias characters in the ancient world. This work, The topography of Athens and the Demi, Volume 1, by William Martin Leake, published by J Rodwell in 1841 contains an Appendix IV (pages 475-76) dedicated to the Pausanias alternatives. It is available on Google Books (which Diller obviously did not have access to...).

Leake states: "Again, I. Tzetzes and I. Malala refer, as well as Stephanus, to a Pausanias who wrote a work on the foundation of Antioch (Αντιοχειασ Κτισιζ ) which agrees with the mention of Antioch, the Orontes, and Daphne, by the Periegetes of Greece; the article Δωποζ in Stephanus accords equally with his notice of some of the most remarkable places in Judaea. Malala describes Pausanias as a χπονογραφοζ which concurs with the references in Tzetzes and Stephanus, to the extent of shewing that the work on Syria was chiefly historical".

The Sources for Malalas

Glanville Downey regards Malalas as one of the most informative later sources on Antioch. In his book he dedicates a sub-section specifically to the sources that Malalas used. One of these, Domninus, we have discussed previously here. On the sources, Downey has this to say:

"The acta urbis. The sixth-century chronicler loannes Malalas, ..........., cites among his sources the names of four writers, all of whose works are lost, namely Pausanias (already discussed), Domninus, Timotheus, Theophilus. Our information concerning these writers is very scanty; according to the citations in Malalas, Domninus, and Pausanias each wrote a chronicle that was largely or primarily concerned with Antioch, while the others seem to have composed world-chronicles in which Antioch was mentioned. Malalas' citations sound as though he used these sources directly, but it is possible that he drew upon them only at second hand. Malalas also quotes the acta urbis (τα ακτα τηζ ρολεωζ, 443.20) as a source of his information concerning the earthquake of A.D. 528, and it is clear in any case that some of his information could well have come from local official records, though we are not sure precisely how the information would have reached him. We have not enough information to know whether there were acta urbis at Antioch for the whole of the Roman period, and we do not know know which kind of official records of local events might have been kept during the Seleucid period".  


A more expansive examination of Malalas' sources is given by Peter van Nuffelen in his paper:

Malalas and the chronographic tradition

in L. Carrara, M. Meier, C. Radtki, eds., Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas – Quellenfragen, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2017, 261-272

which is available on academia.edu here.