Fritigern: a Christian prior to 376?

[Alanus]

Recently, I've been PM-ing with another RAT member concerning a statement I made in one of my posts-- ie: Fritigern was a Christian prior to his so-called acceptance of Valens' Arianism. My stance posits Fritigern not as a dueling warlord against Athanaric, but a chieftain already Christianized by Ulfilas and intent on fighting the Second Gothic persecution of Christians. Our information on the early "career" of Fritigern comes from Socrates Scholasticus and then Sozomen.

Here is what Sozomen has to say (Book VI, Chap. 37).
Sozomen starts off talking about the First Gothic persecution of Bishop Ulfilus and his Christians, [ordered by Aoric and carried out by his son Athanaric]. Ulfilas and his direct followers ask Constantius for asylum in Moesia. "The object of his [Ulfilas'] embassy was fully accomplished, and the [Ulfilas] Goths were permitted to take up their abode in Thrace."

However, the Christians under Fritigern are not mentioned, nor were they with the Ulfilas group. Sozomen continues, "Soon after, contentions broke out among them [Tyrfingi Goths], which led to their division into two parts, one of which was headed by Athanaric, and the other by Phritigernes. They took up arms against each other, and Phritigernes was vanquished, and implored the assistance of the Romans. The emperor, having commanded the troops of Thrace to assist and ally with him [Fritigern], a second battle was fought, and Athanaric and his party were put to flight. In acknowledgement of the timely succor afforded by Valens, and in proof of his fidelity to the Romans, Phritigernes embraced the religion of the emperor, and persuaded the barbarians over whom he ruled to follow his example. It does not, however, appear to me that this is the only reason that can be advanced..."

Sozomen then back-tracks, explaining events that led to the First Persecution, mentioning that the Fritigern Goths were already Christians prior to the Second Persecution: "He [Ulfilas] taught them [the Tyrfingi] the use of letters, and translated the Sacred Scriptures into their language... At the same period, there were many of the subjects of Phritegernes who testified to Christ, and were martyred. Athanaric [the magistrate, judge] resented that his subjects had become Christian under the persuasion of Ulfilas; and because they had abandoned the cult of their fathers,... some he put to death."

So basically, Sozomen is telling us that the Fritigern portion of the Tyrfingi had converted to the Gothic Church. We might assume, since Fritigern was their leader-champion, that he too was a Christian after the departure of Ulfilas and his group into the Balkans-- sometime in the 360s perhaps, but the reason for Athanaric's revival of persecutions.

Now it gets even better! :woot:

Sozomen and Scholasticus both mention the troops of Thrace helping Fritigern. Why would the Romans help a barbarian chieftain in a Gothic internal war outside the Roman empire? The notion defies rationality. And who could Fritigern have persuaded to contact the emperor? The answer lies in a couple of letters written by Basil of Caesaria, who just happened to be the cousin of Junius Soranus, Dux per Scythia Minor (aka, a part of the Diocese of Thrace), and the only likely candidate as co-commander of the Roman force sent across the river into Gothia.

The letters concern the bones of the martyrs, the same martyrs mentioned by Sozomen yet without dated context. However, we have dates on the deaths of two of the Gothic Christians: St. Saba died 12 April 372, and St. Nicetus died 15 September, 372. The bones were retrieved in either 373 or 374. The accompanying letter gives us the ecclesiastical participants in the retrieval, "Epistle of the Church of God in Gothia [now modern Wallachia] to the Church of God located in Cappadocia." This combined Church-secular-military action was the real mission into a Gothic war-zone, not a civil war, and it appears to be the same event as Fritigern's appeal for aid. Was Fritigern a Christian prior to 376? 8-)

I suppose an epilogue is in order... after such a lengthy post. Formal translation of relics became a solemn and important event in the early Church. A surviving fragment, partially legible, of the Gothic calendar records the 29 October feast day of the martyrs "Werekas the priest and Batwin the balif." However, if we back up to 23 October, we find homage to the people killed by Athanaric and his lesser judges-- " for the many martyrs among the Gothic people, and of Fritharei[rei]keis." The name of the last mentioned individual is corrupted (a mouse-chewing?), yet it has been deciphered as "Frithigairnais."

Heather and Matthews [p. 121, note 61] appear to be confused on this reference. They note that no-one by that name appears in the martyrologies, then try to explain it off as, "The entry in that case might allude to the conversion to Christianity... of the section of Goths led by Fritigern in the time of Valens." Close, but no cigar. He was celebrated in the Gothic calendar because he BELONGED there. My view is this: Fritegern was a long-standing Christian, going right back to Ulfilas and the reign of Constantius. When he first arrives in the histories, he is called Phritigairnus, or Frithigairnus... and if we transtlate Gothic to English, his name literally means, "He who has Gained Faith." :-)

[Alanus]

Evidently I have to answer my own post!-- which is either too long, too obtuse, or too religious (nuk, nuk, nuk). :razz:

Anyway, here is the "obverse" side of the tale, which is the same story as the other one. :dizzy: I'm using the ecclesiastical historians because nobody on RAT ever refers to them, probably because secular historians like Ammianus actually give dates... as opposed to "about the same time" or "shortly thereafter." :whistle:

We turn to Socrates Scholasticus. who sounds like a broken record at 78 rpm, Book IV, Chap. 33:
After describing the war between Fritigern and Athanaric, Scholasticus says, "And as Ulfilas did not restrict his labors to the subjects of Fritigernes, but extended them to those who acknowledged the sway of Athanaric also [who then] subjected those who professed Christianity to severe punishments; so that many Arian Goths of that time became martyrs." Even though Ulfilas left Gothia at an earlier date [unknown to both Sozomen and Scholasticus], Christian presbyters remained behind and continued to convert the Fritigern Goths.

"That time" would have been the 340s for the 1st persecution, and the 2nd persecution followed Athanaric's disasterous treaty with Valens, as he loses cross-river trade with the exception of one marketplace. Fueled by revenge toward anti-paganism, Athanaric must have started another purge in 370-371 against the Fritigern faction. Scholasticus was unaware of the two different persecutions. But his reference to Fritigern's war with Athanaric falls in line with the martyrdoms and the emergence of Soranus as some sort of Christian champion. The two events seem to coincide.

None of this is mentioned by Ammianus, nor is it reviewed by modern gurus such as Heather or by Kulikowski (who REALLY gets my goat). Anyway, we don't even have to read between the lines, because the lines are plainly there and Fritigern was without doubt a Christian, either an Arian or Othodox. The classic picture of him and his Goths on their knees accepting the "faith" of Valens was Roman propaganda designed to glorify the emperor. It was years after the fact .

[ValentinianVictrix]

I must thank you Alan for this very interesting topic. You have raised some very interesting questions that have been overlooked by many authors. The issue of course is when exactly did the 'civil war' between Fritigern and Athanaricus actually take place. Was it before 376AD or afterwards? Socrates appears to place it after the conclusion of the treaty between Valens and Athanaricus in 369 on the Danube. This would be logical, Athanaricus had suffered a defeat at the hands of Valens and the treaty removed some obligations and tributes that would have been paid under the treaty placed on the Goths by Constantine. This may well have placed him in a bad light and caused rebellion amongst his chieftains. However, both Ammianus and Sozomen place the civil war to around 376 when the Goths were given permission by Valens to cross the Danube, whilst Zosimus places it to after the Batlle of Adrianople. Its pretty clear that Zosimus had got his history dates mixed up so I think we can discount what he said, but its difficult to ignore Ammianus and Sozomen who were living contemporary with the events.

[Timianus]

Rec. My view is this: Fritegern was a long-standing Christian, going right back to Ulfilas and the reign of Constantius. When he first arrives in the histories, he is called Phritigairnus, or Frithigairnus... and if we transtlate Gothic to English, his name literally means, "He who has Gained Faith." :-)

Very interesting. I wonder if people have discounted (or not explored the possibility enough) that the conflicts of the later "decline" era were, in fact, genuinely reglious in nature. It is easy for us, as modern westerners to look cynically on such claims and argue that the men in charge were political realists who just used religion as a tool to get power. However, I think we err to discount the possibility that political leaders at the time were motivated by genuine religious conviction....particularily since Theodisius' formal "my religion only" policy was most likely an formal enactment of what was already taking place on a local level..i.e. "orthodox" christians persecuting both pagans and christian heretics.

[Alanus]

Thanks for the reply, Adrian

I brought this subject up because the events "define the man"-- in this case, Fritigern... and by "attachment," also Soranus. As you point out: this is a very little-known subject about an important event. It crystalizes Fritigern's character; and presages all following events. The 376 Danube crossing, the eventual rebellion, the ensuing war-- are all built upon this initial "civil war." Yet it was not really "civil," but rather a war of ideology, a war of conscience in which Soranus becomes a participant.

Ammianus gives terse mention to it, and we don't get its full impact, a rare case of Ammianus' guilt by omission. Of the two somewhat accurate and protracted mentions, that of Scholasticus seems more viable. Scholasticus was born c. 380 while Sozomen was born 20 years later. However, the key to dating the event (and pinpointing Fritigern's prior Christianity) comes from one of the 3 surviving letters written by Basil of Caesaria. We also have 2 dates confirming the deaths of 2 of the 32 martyrs.

First, lets go back to Fritigern's initial loss to Athanaric. He seeks aid because his people are being killed for being outspoken Christians. They may have been Arians, because Ulfilas missionaries were only a 2-days-walk back to Gothia, or the they may have been Orthodox because the Church at Tomis also sent in missionaries.

I think some were Arian while others were Orhodox. Let's face it!-- how could an unknown "loser" like Fritigern approach Roman military authorities and possibly convince them to back him in a Gothic ideological war? He obviously had prior contact, most likely militarily or through the Church. Perhaps he was, at some point, a federate officer. This also falls in line with his future capabilities as an excellent tactician. Fact is, we'll never know.

In any event, he convinces Junius Soranus to side with him on a duel-purpose mission. We can date it precisely to 373 through Basil's epistle 155 in answer to Soranus. And we discover more than just the retrieval of bones of the martyrs. Basil says, "As for yourself, whatever good deeds you do... and whatever relief you provide for those suffering from persecution for the name of the Lord, this you lay by for yourself on the day of recompense." This would be within a year after the deaths of St. Saba and St. Nicetus, the two major martyrs, as Soranus and Fritigern carefully plan a retaliatory attack upon Athanaric.

Fritigern appears to have been a Christian prior to this second battle, otherwise he never could have convinced Soranus (and subsequently the emperor) to aid him. And this was 3 years prior to his Tyrfingi crossing the Danube. In all that happens thereafter-- the retention camps, the "dog-meat scheme," the attempted assassination by Lupicinus, the battle of Adrianople, the protracted war-- Fritigern never loses his faith, always seeks peace, and never lowers himself to become an immoral man. This is what sets him apart from the great majority of leaders of his time.

[Alanus]

And back to Tim,

I agree that religious conviction played a more important role in this "late" Roman period than has been acknowledged by modern historians. Some contemporary historians have difficulty with it. Heather, for instance, seldom amplifies the role of religion, either Christian or pagan, in his dissertations. However, he does mention the obvious heightening of Christianity within the Gothic 4th-century culture, exactly when we find Fritigern's "problems." Heather notes that the periphery graves of the Sintana de Mures - Cernjachov Culture do not contain weapons, and he correctly conjectures that the deceased may have been Christians.

On other points, Heather misses the mark-- including the "date" of Fritigern's "conversion," or the Gothic calendar reference denoting Fritigern as a holy man, and even when the ideological war was fought. (see Heather, 1986, The Crossing of the Danube and the Gothic Conversion.) We find an accurate appraisal through Noel Lenski, including a good reading of the corrupted calendar reference. (see Lenski, 1995, The Gothic Civil War and the Date of the Gothic Conversion.)

I figured it out upon my own back in 2003 while researching my novel (Forging the Blade), because Fritigern would become one of two major characters. I wanted to get him "right." And I used the original sources.

At the beginning of the film Gladiator, general Maximus says, "What we do in life echoes in eternity." Of course, that's fiction but the statement rings true. In that light, Theodosius was a man with little conviction. And yet we find others, too few, like Fritigern, who genuinely believed in being a conscionable person.

[Alanus]

Well, very interesting. :errr:

I thought this subject was significantly important.

The historicity of it explains why the Tyrfingi Goths became weakened to the point of being over-run by the Huns. The incorrect date of Fritigern's conversion-- 376, as we see it in Hundreds and Hundreds of books on the prelude to Adrianople-- has led professors and published authors down the wrong path for centuries. :mad:

In that light, I'm shocked at the feeble response to this thread. :dizzy:

[antiochus]

Alanus wrote:
I agree that religious conviction played a more important role in this "late" Roman period than has been acknowledged by modern historians.

I am in total agreement. The sack of Rome in 410 AD is one such story. St Augustine claims it was divine intervention that the Goths did not sack the Christian temples during the sack of Rome. However, from what I have read, it smells of a Christian conspiracy made with Alaric to rid Rome of the pagans. From my reading of St Augustine and following his lamenting that some pagans after declaring themselves followers of Christ, take refuge in the Christian temples and were spared. Did some of the pagans have foreknowledge that the Christian temples would be spared?

Alanus wrote:
In that light, I'm shocked at the feeble response to this thread.

Two years ago I spoke about this forum to Prof. Ridley. I told him every time I used empirical data no one responded. He said their silence was a sign they agreed but did not want to admit it. It could be the feeble response is because many are in agreement with you but there is also the strong possibility some members are embarrassed, resentful or jealous they did not make the discovery.

[Vindex]

It could also be that people are reading the sources again to look at the evidence before contributing and I for one have limited time to do my own research never mind voice an opinion on someone else's.

Original thought is rare but you have to have patience when you take people out of their comfort zone. I remember long YEARS of trying to persuade people Gaius Julius Vindex was not just another Gallic National rebelling because he wanted independence for Gaul. Some struggle to understand the more subtle and sophisticated arguments when they have been spoon fed by reputable historians (and biased contemporary sources do not help, either).

Please don't take it personally and keep up the good work.

[Alanus]

To Moi and Steven,

Thanks for the support. mile:
It wasn't my intention to pull anyone out of the "comfort zone," but rather to dispel a longstanding academic error. When we take Scholasticus' material and add it to the equation, we are looking at 3 years of war between Valens and Athanaric, followed by immediate retribution toward "Roman ways" for another 3 years, giving the Tyrfingi a total period of 6 straight years of war. Some historians have gone so far to state they were "starving," no doubt from destroyed crops and the loss of all trading centers with the exception of one (probably Durostorum). No wonder the Huns over-ran them. The two Tyrfingi factions went separate ways, Alaviv and Fritigern to the banks of the Ister, and Athanaric and his pagans to the hinterlands of Transylvania... exactly where the Christians retreated during the First Christian Persecution in the 340s.

This Christianization of the Tyrfingi has been underrated, but even archaeology seems to crystalize it. For instance, the earlier (central) inhumations and cremations at Cernjachov contain grave goods. The later graves, around the periphery (all of them inhumations), lack grave goods. They comprise 50% of Cernjachov's burials. I agree with Heather and Matthews, that these later graves indicate a Christian burial. This is what Athanaric was trying to eradicate.

To discount religion in all its manifest forms, as NOT significant in the historical equation, can come back to haunt you... particularly if you're someone like Heather, the current "guru" on the Goths. In the above posts, I've mentioned Scholasticus, Sozomen, Heather, and Lenski... all available online in PDF form. RAT members can form their own opinions. Also, to those interested in the original "core" of the problem-- Orthodox vs Arian in the Gothic territories-- you will find Hagith Sivan's Ulfila's Own Conversion, Harvard Theological Review, Sept. 1996.

[Alanus]

A little bit more, for anyone who cares. :whistle:

Here is the original reference in the 6th century Gothic calendar (only 300 years after the fact), "thize ana Gutthiudae managaize martyre jah Frithareikiekeis." Zeevic Rubin believed this emendation would correct it, modifying the name to "Frithigairnis reiks," or "Fritigairn the reiks." Lenski says of the calendar reference, "If Fritigern were commemorated for converting the Goths under his control, the conversion could just as easily have occurred in 376 as in ca. 372." He then gives his argument for sometime between 369 and 373.

However, even Lenski missed the context within the calendar reference, which wasn't for a conversion, but directly linking Fritigern to the Gothic martyrs... all in one sentence. When we add Basil's Epistle 155 to Junius Soranus, we find Soranus and Fritigern leading a substantial force-- perhaps the XI Claudia-- across the river to "relieve the suffering" of Fritigern's people in 373.

A relic of one of the martyrs, the left "untainted" hand of St. Nicetas, killed by one of Athanaric's squads. St. Nicetas was once in the Roman army as a Gothic federate.
[attachment=9665]nikitas-relic.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=9666]saintnikitas.jpg[/attachment]
Here's an icon of St. Nicetas as a soldier. He was tortured and thrown into a fire.


The Tyrfingi never again became a united confederation. Fritigern's element, already Christianized, moved across the river three years later. Within six to eight months, he rebelled due to Roman abuses. If he had accepted Christianity in 376, as Heather and others assert, then why didn't he abandon this new-found religion and revert to Gothic paganism in a anti-Roman backlash? But that's not what we see two years later (378) when Ammianus tells us one of Fritigern's "most trusted" confidants was a "presbyter."

After 373, Athanaric was never able to unite his remaining Tryfingi. Finally, they turned on him. He became a fugitive from his own people and ended his life as a political pawn within the mechanizations of Theodosius. 8+)

[Alanus]

Happy Easter! 8+)
Thanks, Michael.. for the Thank You.

If it weren't for the extant letter of Basil of Caesaria to Junius Soranus, we'd have no "connection" to rely upon. Here's a photo of St. Basil. I was there and took it with my ancient Brownie camera. ;-)

[attachment=9667]saintbasil.jpg[/attachment]

[Robert Vermaat]

I thought this subject was significantly important.

Just read the tread for the first time.
I think you may have a point but as a hiostorian I'm cautious. Sources of this period are notorious where dates are concerned, and some ignore events that others (and we) find extremely interesting. Fact is, we can't be sure what the contact of fritigern with the empire was about. Was it military aid? Was it Christianity? Both perhaps? We can't be sure. My guess is therefore, you may well be right. Valans may have seen Fritigern as a pawn which he could use, to split up and weaken, or perhaps even to dominate a threat across the border. Diplomacy was part of the Roman strategy, so I wouldn't be surprised.

[Alanus]

Fact is, we can't be sure what the contact of fritigern with the empire was about. Was it military aid? Was it Christianity? Both perhaps? We can't be sure. My guess is therefore, you may well be right. Valans may have seen Fritigern as a pawn which he could use, to split up and weaken, or perhaps even to dominate a threat across the border. Diplomacy was part of the Roman strategy, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Hello, Robert

Thanks for the reply. I'd say it was a combination of both. Fritigern and Soranus were quite handy for Valens. If this final chapter in the Tyrfingi's saga began directly after the emperor's 369 treaty with Athanaric, and so it seems, then the homogeneity of the tribe was destroyed.

Valens was not a humane individual by nature. We know how he treated the Orthodox clergy. He burned a shipload of them. :whistle: Yet we find this anomaly, as the good-intended cross the Danube to help Gothic Christians, both Arian and Orthodox. We don't know the internalizations of either Soranus or Fritigern, only that Athanaric was killing Christians in significant numbers.

My point was simply bringing up events not mentioned by Ammianus, who repeatedly avoided the subject of religion, events occurring several years prior to the Goths crossing the Danube and their official-- missdated-- conversion in 376. A little after the fact. :dizzy:

With all of the involvement from so many quarters, plus political intrigue, it might make a good Hollywood film. Then we can see Soranus wearing Ist Century Roman armor and Fritigern clothed in mangy furs.

[Robert Vermaat]

With all of the involvement from so many quarters, plus political intrigue, it might make a good Hollywood film. Then we can see Soranus wearing Ist Century Roman armor and Fritigern clothed in mangy furs.

ARGH no VETO! :mad: :mad: