AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS AND THE REX ALAMANNORUM VADOMARIUS by DAVID WOODS The Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus provides our only detailed account of the correspondence between the rex Alamannorum Vado- marius and the emperor Constantius II (337-61) which resulted in the arrest and apparent exile of Vadomarius in early 361. 1) According to Ammianus, Constantius secretly wrote to Vadomarius instruct- ing him to launch some occasional raids on the neighbouring Roman districts across the Rhine in order to keep the western usurper Julian occupied in defence of Gaul and distract him from any advance eastwards against Constantius himself, or so it was rumoured (21.3.4). Vadomarius apparently complied, but a messenger whom he sent to Constantius was captured by soldiers loyal to Julian, and the let- ter carried by this messenger revealed to Julian that Vadomarius could not be trusted (21.3.5). For this reason, Julian gave some sealed instructions to the notarius Philagrius whom he was sending on business to that region anyway, and told him that he was only to open these instructions if he came across Vadomarius on the Roman side of the Rhine (21.4.1-2). Hence when Philagrius met Vadomarius at a banquet held by the local military commander, he excused himself, returned to his quarters and read these instruc- tions (21.4.3-4). He then took his place at the feast once more, and awaited its end before arresting Vadomarius, and revealing Julian’s instructions to the local commander. Finally, Vadomarius was des- patched to appear before Julian himself, who then sent him to Spain (21.4.6). 1)Amm. 21.3-4. For the older literature on this subject, see E.A. Thompson, Three Notes on Julian in 361AD , Hermathena 62 (1943), 83-95, at 83-8. For the more recent literature, see J. den Boeft, D. den Hengst, and H.C. Teitler, Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXI (Groningen 1991), 32-41. Modern commentators di Ver greatly on the nature, or reality even, of this corre- spondence. Most recently, C.E.V. Nixon and B.S. Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (Berkeley 1994), 401-2, have expressed disbelief that Vadomarius acted on Constantius’ instructions. ©Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 Mnemosyne, Vol. LIII, Fasc. 6 THE REX ALAMANNORUM VADOMARIUS 691 While the broad outlines of this anecdote are clear enough, a more detailed examination of Ammianus’ text raises a number of questions, chie y concerning the identity of his sources, and the way in which he used these. His main source for this anecdote is usually identi ed as the notarius Philagrius himself. 2) But why? True, he pays an important compliment to Philagrius when he claims that Julian had sent him on his mission against Vadomarius because he had con dence in his good judgement which he had already tested (21.4.2), but this may be no more than a simple statement of fact. Similarly, the bald assertion that “Ammianus’ account puts Philagrius at the very centre of the episode and tells it largely from his point of view” proves little. 3) Firstly, it is not at all clear that Ammianus does report the event from Philagrius’ point of view. Secondly, if Philagrius really did bring the instructions from Julian to arrest Vadomarius, then it is di Ycult to see why he should not have been at the centre of anybody’s account of this episode. One could ask rather, why do we hear no more of this Philagrius? If either he or Ammianus so twisted the facts of this episode that he achieved a prominence which he did not really deserve, then one would have expected them to act similarly on other occasions also. Certainly, the fact that Philagrius reached the position of comes Orientis by 382 suYces to prove that he must have enjoyed successive promotions within the court administration during the years preceding 382, 4) and have played an increasingly prominent part in the background to many other controversies also. So why does Ammianus not men- tion him, in brief even, on any of these other occasions? Finally, it has been argued, or implied at least, that Ammianus’ knowledge that Philagrius was comes Orientis eventually, combines with the fact that this o Ycer was normally based at Antioch, to suggest that Ammianus met Philagrius while he was in retirement in his native city of Antioch. 5) Unfortunately, not only is it unclear that Antioch really was Ammianus’ native city, but there is no evidence that he 2)See, e.g., G. Sabbah, La méthode d’Ammien Marcellin. Recherches sur la construction du discours historique dans les Res Gestae (Paris 1978), 226-7; J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London 1989), 376-7, 480 n. 28, 509 n. 19. 3)Matthews (above, n. 2), 376. 4)Amm. 21.4.2; CTh. 8.5.41 (20 September 382); Libanius, Or. 1.206-11. 5)Matthews (above, n. 2), 376..