Metrodorus (4th century)

Metrodorus was a late antique philosopher living in the 4th century . Little is known about him personally, but some historians claim that his actions played a certain role in the conflict between the Roman Empire and the Neo-Persian Sassanid Empire in the early 4th century.

The "Lies of Metrodorus"

The important late antique historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports in connection with the Persian War of Emperor Julian's , which was lost to the Romans (see Peace of 363 ), of a remarkable episode: Ammianus claims that it was not Julian but Constantine who was to be blamed for the war with Persia, for Constantine greedily believed the "lies of Metrodoros" ( Metrodori mendaciis ), which Ammianus has already discussed in more detail elsewhere. The passage in question has not survived, however, as Ammianus' work has only come down to us from the 14th book.

That these so-called “lies of Metrodoros” had a fairytale character, however, emerges from a parallel tradition that is tangible in later Greek sources. The Central Byzantine chronicler Georgios Kedrenos reports that in the 20s of the 4th century a philosopher named Metrodoros, who was of Persian descent, set out to join the Brahmins in India. With these he gained a great reputation, he is also said to have imparted knowledge of water wheels and baths. Under some pretext, however, he sneaked into their shrines and stole numerous gems and pearls. He is said to have received further gifts from Indian kings for Emperor Constantine. Metrodorus is said to have gone to Constantinople . Constantine is said to have been very pleased with the gifts. But then Metrodorus is said to have claimed to the emperor that he had received further gifts, but that the Sassanid king Shapur II had confiscated. Thereupon the angry Constantine wrote a letter to Shapur, which he left unanswered. Soon afterwards the war broke out between Rome and Persia.

A similar report can also be found in the Middle Byzantine Chronicle of Leon Grammatikos . This can be explained by the fact that both Kedrenos and Leon used older material in their chronicles and only compiled it (Kedrenos) or only edited it slightly (Leon). These correspondences were already contained in their templates, which can be traced back to a common source , probably conveyed via a comprehensive historical work ( epitome ). It is the so-called Leo Spring , a work of history that the researcher Bruno Bleckmann equated with the histories of Petros Patrikios (6th century), which are lost today . This thesis is now widely accepted. Bleckmann was also able to plausibly prove that Petros used a pagan historical work for the 4th century, which was probably written in Latin and in which a senatorial point of view was represented. The existence of such a basic source is considered very likely, although Bleckmann's thesis that it was the Annales of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus is controversial. But this basic source explains the agreement of the Byzantine authors with Ammianus' remark regarding the "Lies of Metrodoros", because Ammianus obviously referred to this episode and received his information as well as the Central Byzantine chroniclers (conveyed via the Leo source or the epitome based on it ) from the said basic source. In this context, it is ultimately irrelevant whether it was Nicomachus Flavianus or another author.

The fact that this story enriched with incredible elements is reproduced by Kedrenos is astonishing. But other sources also report that a certain Metrodoros traveled to India, which is why it is possible that such a trip actually took place - although the rest of the story is certainly fabulously decorated and not believable. The reason why Ammianus invokes it is quite obvious, since he was able to protect his hero Julian from hostility due to the failed Persian campaign. Ammianus therefore took up the report of the basic source (which probably already polemicized against Constantine) and denounced Constantine as the culprit for the war, whom Ammianus viewed rather negatively anyway. Of course, this had nothing to do with the real historical background that led to the war between Rome and Persia in 337/38 (and which can also be easily reconstructed from other sources), especially since Julian himself had attempted the war against Persia again in 362/63 .

literature

• Bruno Bleckmann : The Chronicle of Johannes Zonaras and a pagan source on the history of Constantine . In: Historia . Volume 40, 1991, pp. 343-365.
• Richard Goulet: Métrodore. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques . Volume 4, CNRS Éditions, Paris 2005, ISBN 2-271-06386-8 , p. 505 f.
• John F. Matthews: The Roman Empire of Ammianus . Baltimore / London 1989.
• Eric H. Warmington : Ammianus Marcellinus and the Lies of Metrodorus . In: The Classical Quarterly . Volume 31, 1981, pp. 464-468.

Remarks

1. ↑ Ammian 25: 4, 23.
2. ↑ Immanuel Bekker (ed.): Georgius Cedrenus . Volume 1, Bonn 1838, pp. 516f.
3. ↑ Immanuel Bekker (ed.): Leonis Grammatici Chronographia . Bonn 1842, p. 85f.
4. ↑ On the Leo source and the current state of research cf. especially Bruno Bleckmann: The Imperial Crisis of III. Century in late antique and Byzantine historiography. Investigations on the post-Dionic sources of the Chronicle of Johannes Zonaras . Munich 1992; Bruno Bleckmann: Comments on the Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus . In: Historia. Volume 44, 1995, pp. 83-99.
5. ↑ See also Bleckmann (1991), p. 358ff., Especially with regard to the Metrodoros episode.
6. ↑ See also Warmington (1981), p. 464f .; see also Bleckmann (1991), p. 360f.
7. ↑ See Matthews (1989), pp. 135f .; Warmington (1981), pp. 466f. See also Bleckmann (1991), p. 362f.
8. ↑ See Matthews (1989), pp. 130ff.