Members-only podcast episode
‘This Fortunate City’: Constantinople Considered as Talisman, Part II
This is a special podcast episode for SHWEP members only
Already a member? Log in here to view this episode
In this episode we get pretty deeply stuck into the life and doings of Sōpater of Apamea/Syria – prominent student of Iamblichus and theurgic specialist – along with a cast of characters including the Emperor Constantine, Prætextatus, staunchly-polytheist Senator from Rome, and others. John Lydos tells us in an aside that Prætextatus and Sōpater teamed up with Constantine in some unnamed ritual action to do with the founding of `this fortunate city’; we consider whether this was a theurgic action of talismanic ritual. We draw the careful conclusion that even if the theurgic founding of the city didn’t happen, it could have. But we present the evidence in extenso – evidence pretty well hidden from non-specialists in a number of little-read late-antique texts – so that listeners can make up their own minds.
Featuring a discursus on the eschatological pole and the Roman god Janus’ role in ferrying souls through the polar gate.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
Sōpater of Syria/Apamea:
- See generally Richard Goulet, editor. Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. CNRS Éditions, Paris, 1989-2018, vol. VI, pp. 459-463.
- Iamblichos’ letters to him: Stobæus, Anth. I 5, 18 (Ἐκ τῆς Ἰαμβλίχου πρὸς Σώπατρον ἐπιστολῆς) ; III 1, 17 et 49, III 31, 9, III 37, 32, IV 39, 23 (Ἐκ τῶν Ἰαμβλίχου πρὸς Σώπατρον περὶ ἀρετῆς) ; II 2, 6 (Ἐκ τῆς Ἰαμβλίχου ἐπιστολῆς πρὸς Σώπατρον περὶ διαλεκτικῆς) ; II 31, 122 (Ἐκ τῆς Ἰαμβλίχου ἐπιστολῆς Σωπάτρῳ Περὶ παίδων ἀγωγῆς) ; cf. II 46, 16 ; III 11, 35.
- The Suda on Sōpater: s.v. Σώπατρος, Σ 845.
- Libanios (maybe) on Sōpater: Disc. XVIII, § 187.
For the ‘pagan conversion of Constantine’ account: Sozomen: Hist. eccl. I 5; cf. Zosimos, Hist. II 29.
Eustathios of Cappadocia:
- His embassy to Shapur: Eunapios VS 465, Ammianus RG XVII 5.
- His career at Constantine’s court, and execution on charges of ‘fettering the winds’: Eunapios VS 462 Wright.
Lydos on Julius Cæsar the theurge: De mens. IV 102 Wünsch.
Constantine calls in Sōpater of Apamea for some specialist telestic consultation on his Constantinople-project: John Lydus De mens. p. 65, 2-66, 1 Wünsch.
Photios on Lydos: Bibl. 180 (ed. Henry 1960: 187-188).
Secondary:
Elena N. Boeck. The Bronze Horseman of Justinian in Constantinople: The Cross-Cultural Biography of a Mediterranean Monument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021.
Mischa Hooker, editor. On the Months (De mensibus). 2nd edition, 2017.
Maijastina Kahlos. Vettius Agorius Praetextatus – A Senatorial Life in Between. Rome, 2002.
Anthony Kaldellis. The Religion of Ioannes Lydos. Phoenix, 57(3/4):300–16, Autumn – Winter 2003.
Paul Magdalino. L’Orthodoxie des astrologues: La science entre le dogme et la divination à Byzance (VIIe-XIVe siècle). Number 12 in Réalités Byzantines. Lethielleux, Paris, 2006.
For Recommended Reading, see the previous episode
Natan Melzer
January 19, 2026
I don’t have the greek of Sozomen, so feel free to ignore me if this is contradicted by the actual meaning of the greek, but I don’t see a contradiction here: Sozomen claims that:
1) Constantine was already converted well prior to the death of Crispus (while what it meant for Constantine to be converted is extremely dubious, Crispus dies after Nicaea and the writing of the universal history, so his christianization is already pretty ongoing)- in any case, Sozomen thinks he knows this by testimony of the laws.
2) Sopater wouldn’t have been there at the time Sozomen thinks Constantine converted, because Constantine was in the war-ravaged west and Sopater wouldn’t have been (of course, we think any proccess of christianization was far more gradual than does Sozomen, but if we grant him 1. in full, this might works as an argument)
3) Had Sopater been there for Crispus’ murder, he would have been able to give an expiation- which Sozomen thinks he knows because of the stories of Heracles rather than because of testimony.
If Sozomen claimed he knew Sopater had actually said otherwise, that would contradict 2) but that is very different from saying that Sopater would on account of his knowledge be expected to act differently, and Sozomen seems to say, in translation, that his reasoning for 3) is on the basis of how Sopater would on account of Sozomen’s beliefs about his doctrines and knowledge be expected to act, not on account of him actually having pointed to Heracles as an example.
The arguments, save to some extent 1) are still quite weak- 2) only works against Sopater being consulted at the time of the Milvian bridge, not him having been consulted at the time of Crispus’ actual death, and 3) is very weak by any measure because it has very little resemblance to the actual neoplatonic relationship to myth, but to take the example of a response to the claim “I saw you driving without a seatbelt on Tuesday” this is more like saying “I did not drive on Tuesday and care about safety enough that I would wear a seatbelt if I had” then “I did not drive on Tuesday, and I wore a seatbelt when I did”. The latter is a contradiction, the former isn’t.