The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  Priscus’ skillful and careful narration of the events as an eyewitness is the most striking and rewarding part of the extant fragments of his history. His work was probably at its best when he concentrated on the diplomatic and foreign affairs which he knew first hand through his association with Maximinus, Euphemius, and possibly others. The loss of his History is, of course, greatly to be regretted. The extant fragments, however, probably preserve many of the highlights, in particular the account of the embassy to Attila.

  Text and translation

  Greek text and translation by R.C. Blockley (1983), The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire II.

  8

  RUFINUS

  Life

  Tyrannius Rufinus was not only the author of a very influential Ecclesiastical History, but also an important translator, polemicist, and monastic founder. Consequentially, we are richly informed about his life, to such an extent that he is the subject of a full-length biography which remains the authoritative account of his life (Murphy 1945; also see Kelly 1975; Fedalto 1992). Rufinus became enmeshed in controversy with the ever-irascible church father Jerome, which spawned three polemic Apologies from Jerome and two from Rufinus (to Pope Anastasius as well as to Jerome) and which provide us with much biographical detail. We also have nearcontemporary comments on his life and works from the pen of Gennadius of Marseilles, references to Rufinus in the Lausiac History of Palladius, and evidence for Rufinus’ activities in the correspondence of many of the church fathers, including Augustine and Paulinus of Nola.

  Rufinus was born in Concordia, a small town in northwest Italy. He attended school with Jerome, but appears to have completed his studies a little before him. Thus he is usually considered to have been a year or two older than Jerome, which places his birth around 345. Palladius tells us that he was well born, which we would have assumed in any case because of his high level of formal education (Murphy 1945: 1–9).

  The presence of the exiled Athanasius in the west in the middle of the fourth century aroused interest in monasticism and in the new experiments in communal living under way in the east. As a young man, Rufinus became interested in these more serious and ascetic forms of Christianity, and after his schooling he lived in a community of like-minded Christians, including the bishop Chromatius and his friend Jerome. He was baptized in either 369 or 370. When the group broke up, it was, for some, the beginning of a more monastic way of life. Jerome left for the desert of Syria, and Rufinus went to Alexandria (Murphy 1945: 21–31).

  In Egypt he studied under the Christian teacher Didymus the Blind, and met with the many monks who lived in the desert. He was jailed during the persecution of homoousian (Nicene) Christians which broke out in the east at the instigation of Valens after the death of the homoousian champion Athanasius. It was in Egypt around this time that Rufinus met Antonia Melania the Elder (Murphy 1945: 32–58). Melania, born of a wealthy Roman aristocratic family, had dedicated herself to an ascetic Christian life. After traveling to Egypt, she toured the desert, and traveled from there to Palestine, accompanied by monks who had been exiled during the persecutions of Valens. A few years later Rufinus followed her there, and together they became the first westerners to establish a monastery in Palestine.

  The monastery, on the Mount of Olives, operated a hostel for pilgrims. Melania supervised fifty virgins, and Rufinus oversaw a number of monks engaged in the copying of manuscripts. Both Melania and Rufinus spent much time studying both Christian and secular texts. Rufinus had studied the writing of the third-century church father Origen under the tutelage of Didymus, and he encouraged Melania also to explore Origen’s works. Rufinus was ordained as a priest during this time.

  Jerome, while in Antioch around 374, heard rumors that his old schoolmate and friend Rufinus was exploring the desert of Egypt, and the two corresponded in a friendly fashion. After the establishment of the monastery by Rufinus and Melania, and Jerome’s departure from Rome in 385, Jerome came to visit and then to establish his own monastery with his protégé Paula in nearby Bethlehem. The two became friends, and Jerome and Paula’s monastic foundation was based largely on Rufinus’ model.

  This friendship was not to last. While the proximate cause of their disagreement was a theological dispute, it is fair to say that the severity and length of the conflict can be attributed to Jerome’s extreme contentiousness. Rufinus was far from the only friend or acquaintance of Jerome to find himself enmeshed in conflict with the brilliant theologian, whose frequent moves from city to city were in part the result of his tendency to alienate those around him. Jerome’s enmity toward Rufinus lasted for decades, and he even continued to criticize Rufinus in savage terms after his death.

  The two men split as part of the struggle over the legacy of the third-century Alexandrian theologian Origen. The extremely prolific Origen was a pioneer in translation, in exegesis, and in the application of Greek philosophical thought to Christianity (Crouzel 1998; Trigg 1998; Barnes 1981: 81–105). He was eagerly studied by many in the late fourth century, including both Rufinus and Jerome, but certain of his positions had come to seem heretical after a century of theological disputes. Among the most important were his Trinitarian views (he held that the Son was inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both) and his doctrines on the body and the Resurrection (he argued that souls were inserted into bodies at birth and departed at death, and that the resurrected would not be in their physical bodies).

  In the mid-390s the bishop Epiphanius of Salamis came into conflict with the bishop John of Jerusalem. Epiphanius had been fanatically anti-Origenist for decades (Clark 1992: 86–104). To further his goal of purging the monasteries of Palestine of Origenists, he had sent a band of monks to Jerome and to Rufinus, demanding their abjuration of Origen, and while Jerome had readily complied, Rufinus had shut his gates and threatened the monks with a beating. Rufinus was close to John and defended the bishop against the accusations of Epiphanius. Jerome, on the other hand, was friendly with Epiphanius. Conflict increased after Epiphanius ordained Jerome’s brother, Paulinian, thereby trespassing on John’s jurisdiction as bishop. A widely circulated letter of Epiphanius accused John of being a follower of Origen and included Rufinus among those infected by Origenism. Jerome translated this letter into Latin (ep. 51), with additions and alterations that made the letter even more harsh. This quarrel was finally mediated by Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome withdrew his virulent diatribe Against John from circulation and was reconciled with Rufinus in a church in Jerusalem on Easter 397 (Kelly 1975: 195–209; Murphy 1945: 59–81).

  In the same year Rufinus returned to Italy, where he became close to Melania’s niece, Avita, and Avita’s husband Apronianus. He embarked upon a career of translation, particularly of the works of Origen which had recently created so much controversy in the east. Rufinus produced paraphrases rather than literal translations, taking the liberty to suppress material which he felt was heretical and to insert in place of these omissions other comments by Origen which were orthodox. He translated the Apology for Origen by the martyred Pamphilus of Caesarea, and added his own preface, which stressed the value of Origen’s theology and hermeneutics. Rufinus appended to the translation his own short work, The Falsification of the Books of Origen, in which he explained his translation method. He argued that Origen himself had not held heretical views, but that such views had been inserted into the works by heretical enemies of the great man. He cites a letter of Origen in which the theologian complains to friends that his work has been adulterated, and he points to similar, more modern cases of interpolation to back up this theory, which he sincerely, if naively, held. Rufinus then traveled to the monastery of a friend, Ursacius, south of Rome, and there translated the monastic rule of St Basil (Murphy 1945: 82–91).

  The translation of one of Origen’s most important works, the Peri archon (On First Principles), renewed his struggle with Jerome. In a preface to the work explaining his method, Rufinus heaps praise upon Jerome’
s earlier translation of some of the biblical commentary of Origen which he had written at the behest of Pope Damasus. Because Jerome was now engaged in more impressive and complex work than mere translation, Rufinus continues, it has fallen to him to pick up where Jerome had left off and to continue the translation of Origen for the benefit of westerners. This preface, and then his second preface to the third and fourth books of his translation, reveal his familiarity with a circle of anti-Origenists at Rome who took offense at his efforts to bring the thought of Origen to the west. It seems likely that his fulsome references to Jerome were strategic attempts to blunt further criticism (Kelly 1975: 232–4).

  Eusebius of Cremona, a friend of Jerome and an extreme anti-Origenist, managed to steal a copy of Rufinus’ incomplete work. The work was immediately sent off to Jerome with a cover letter expressing concern that his name was perhaps being used as justification for Rufinus’ heretical project (Jer. ep. 83). Anti-Origenists at Rome immediately began to vilify Rufinus, and so, after receiving letters of recommendation from Pope Siricius and writing a friendly letter of explanation to Jerome, he set off for the friendlier surroundings of Aquileia in 398. Jerome, who had used and translated Origen for years, may have attacked Rufinus in order to firmly separate himself from any imputation of heresy (Clark 1992: 121–51). Jerome then proceeded to translate the Peri archon himself in a highly literal manner for his friends, in an attempt to demonstrate the many heresies of the author which Rufinus had smoothed over or ignored. This translation was brought to Rome with two letters, one a more temperate letter to Rufinus (ep. 81), and one a sharp attack on Origen’s writings and on the methods used by Rufinus to interpret them (ep. 84). But anti-Origenists suppressed the first letter and widely publicized the second, increasing the enmity between the two men.

  At Aquileia, Rufinus continued his translations, which included several homilies of the Cappadocian fathers Basil and Gregory Nazianzan and the Ring of Sixtus, a collection of aphorisms falsely attributed to Pope Sixtus II. He also translated the Adamantius: Dialogue on True Faith in God, an anti-heretical work which was falsely attributed to Origen. Rufinus’ desire to prove Origen’s orthodoxy seems to have overcome his critical sensibility and allowed him to overlook the many non-Origenist sentiments expressed in the work. It incorporates entire sections from the work of Methodius of Olympus, a major opponent of Origen (Murphy 1945: 125; cf. Buchheit 1958).

  In late 399, Pope Siricius, Rufinus’ protector, died, and was replaced by a more ambivalent pope, Anastasius I. Further bad news followed for Rufinus. Theophilus of Alexandria, who had earlier mediated Origenist strife between John and Epiphanius, had a change of heart and became strongly anti-Origenist in order to pacify the anti-Origenist monks of Egypt. Jerome signed on enthusiastically with Theophilus in this campaign. A council in Alexandria in 400 condemned Origen, and the council proceedings were forwarded to the new pope. In a conflict at Milan, Rufinus discovered that his nemesis, Eusebius of Cremona, had altered the Latin of his works in order to demonstrate that he was a heretic. Rufinus blamed the smear campaign against him on Jerome, and he wrote an Apology to the pope in order to explain his position. The pope, in a letter responding to John of Jerusalem, reiterated his condemnation of Origen, and expressed his hope that Rufinus would translate Origen only to refute his heretical doctrines (Murphy 1945: 111–37; Kelly 1975: 243–9). Rufinus may have written his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed at this time in an attempt to demonstrate his orthodoxy (Hammond 1977: 389). The work draws heavily upon the Catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem but contains much original content as well.

  Rufinus’ anxiety and anger are on display in his Apology against Jerome, which he published in 401. The Apology begins with a lengthy defense of his own orthodoxy, and an explanation of the purpose for his translation of the Peri archon. He then shifts to the offensive, and outlines the many outrages Jerome and his followers had committed against him. He criticizes Jerome’s study of the pagan classics and his study of Hebrew with a Jewish teacher. In particular, he points out that Jerome had shifted from being an early supporter of Origen to being a leading partisan against him, and he concludes that any condemnation of Rufinus or Origen would logically have to include Jerome himself. He supports this assertion with substantial quotes from works of Jerome which argue an Origenist line. Jerome began a reply to the rumored appearance of Rufinus’ work even before its publication. His response, Apology against Rufinus in two books, is a masterpiece of polemic, viciously mocking his adversary’s arguments, writing style, and personal appearance. In 402 he added a third book, further insulting his former friend. In the face of this assault, Rufinus refrained from open, personal criticism of Jerome for the remainder of his life, but Jerome continued to attack him as “scorpion” or “grunting pig,” even after Rufinus’ death (Murphy 1945: 138–55; Kelly 1975: 249–58). Perhaps Rufinus’ omission of any mention of Jerome in his church history provided a bit of revenge.

  Despite the distractions of the quarrel with Jerome, Rufinus continued his translation work. Not long after completing his Apology, at the request of his friend, the bishop Chromatius of Aquileia, he began his translation of the Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius (Barnes 1981; Grant 1980; Chesnut 1986: 1–174). In the preface Rufinus says that Chromatius hoped that reading church history would help assuage the fears of his flock in the face of the Gothic invasion of Italy in 402. Eusebius was the inventor of church history and of some of the features which successor church histories would incorporate, such as the liberal use of quoted documents and avoidance of invented speeches. Eusebius proclaimed in his preface that his themes would include bishops, heretics, Jews, and pagans. These remained the central themes for the successor ecclesiastical historians such as Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and Rufinus’ translation made this immensely influential genre accessible to the Latin west upon its publication in 402. Rufinus decided to add to Eusebius’ work himself, abridging the tenth book, adding information in that book on Gregory Thaumaturgus, and then writing an eleventh and twelfth book which brought the history down to the death of Theodosius I in 395.

  After completing the Ecclesiastical History, Rufinus may have returned to Rome. The Origenist controversy had been overshadowed in the early 400s by the controversies surrounding John Chrysostom, which began in the east but soon spread to the west, and the climate at Rome had become more hospitable to Rufinus (Hammond 1977: 372–9). Rufinus’ friends were supporters of John, and Rufinus’ translation of the anonymous History of the Monks in Egypt, which details the lives and careers of thirty-four desert fathers of Upper Egypt, may have been done in support of John and his monastic supporters (Jer. ep. 133). Rufinus must have translated it after completing his Ecclesiastical History, since it refers the reader to book 11 of that work.

  Rufinus continued to translate the works of Origen, focusing on the homilies which Origen had written on numerous books of the Bible. If he had indeed returned to Rome, the absence of prefaces for some of these translations may be attributed to his desire to lie low and not flaunt his presence and his topics (Hammond 1977: 397). Again Rufinus adapted, shortened, and altered his translations to make them accessible and orthodox. He followed these translations with a translation of the Recognitions, falsely attributed to Pope Clement.

  Between 405 and 408, Jerome and Rufinus continued to snipe at each other in the prefaces to their works. Rufinus criticized Jerome’s preference for the Hebrew over the Greek Bible and recalled his hypocrisy over his use of Origen, and Jerome accused Rufinus in scathing language of constant attacks on his own work and of mediocrity and illiteracy. Rufinus’ next work, an original Commentary on the Benediction of the Twelve Patriarchs, contains a pair of letters from Paulinus of Nola which serve as prefaces. The tone of the letters suggest that the two had been friendly for some time and that Paulinus was an ally of Rufinus in his struggle against Jerome (Hammond 1977: 412–21; Murphy 1956). Rufinus fled Rome with Pinian and Melania to escape the Gothic invasion of Italy
which culminated in the sack of the city in 410. In his preface to a translation of Origen’s homilies on Numbers, he asks how one can write when he has seen “the destruction of cities and country, when he has had to flee from the dangers of the sea? … the barbarian was within our sight, he had burned the city of Rhegium,” and the only protection was the strait between Italy and Sicily. Rufinus thanks the abbot of Pinetum, Ursacius, for his help in transcribing the works under such difficult conditions, and says that he will soon turn to a translation of Origen’s homilies on Deuteronomy. But Rufinus died shortly after completing this translation. The news reached Jerome in the middle of 411, prompting his charming reflection that “the scorpion is buried and the many-headed hydra has ceased to hiss against us” (comm. ad Ezech., pref.). Other contemporaries were more charitable in their judgements, and his works found enthusiastic audiences continuously for centuries thereafter.

  Work

  Before considering the Ecclesiastical History in depth, a preliminary controversy must be addressed. Is Rufinus the author of the two books which continue Eusebius’ ten books, or are the last two books merely a translation from the Greek work of Gelasius of Caesarea? The relationship between the two works has dominated scholarship for much of the twentieth century (survey with bibliography in Amidon 1997: xiii–xvii), although there now seems to be a consensus that Rufinus’ history is original.

  The work of Gelasius of Caesarea is entirely lost, but it is clear that he was the first historian to continue the work of Eusebius. In 1914, Anton Glas studied the fifth-century work of Gelasius of Cyzicus and the ninth-century work of George the Monk. These works cite Rufinus, impossibly, as the source of some material which occurred prior to the period which he covered in his history, and also attribute some information to “Gelasius or Rufinus” (Glas 1914). To Glas, these incorrect citations suggested that the two works had become confused, and by comparing Greek material from these later writers, which he assumed to be from Gelasius of Caesarea, with the Latin material of Rufinus, he argued that Rufinus had translated Gelasius. Photius believed that Gelasius, whom he had read, was a translation of Rufinus (cod. 89), but we know that Rufinus wrote in 401 or 402 and that Gelasius was dead by 400 (Jer. ep. 92). Therefore, any similarities which Photius saw in the works must be proof of Rufinus’ dependence upon Gelasius and not the other way around.