The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  The system as a whole is judged by Inglebert as “more ingenious than coherent” (1996: 521). It sits uneasily with his division of history into time before and after Christ as well as his tripartite division of history into creation to Romulus, Romulus to Christ, and Christ to the present day, although some scholars have heroically attempted to reconcile the systems (Paschoud 1980a; Corsini 1968: 144–50). These attempts to explain history and the succession of empires in such elaborate detail are the most innovative part of Orosius’ work.

  Orosius’ love of peace and his belief in Rome’s divinely favored status leads him to a strikingly original view of the sack of Rome and the question of the barbarian. Barbarian invasions are portrayed, on the one hand, as the just punishment for the sins of the Romans and their leaders. The homoiousian Valens, for example, attempted to press monks into military service, and to destroy orthodox churches, and these sins led to the movement of Huns and Goths and the Roman defeat at Adrianople (7.33). Following this reasoning, Orosius suggests that when the Goths threatened Rome, and the inhabitants blasphemed Christ and returned to the celebration of pagan rituals, the city was justly sacked (7.37). On the other hand, God’s mercy may be seen in the comparatively mild effects of these invasions. Rome was sacked, not by the pagan Radagaisus, but by the Christian Alaric, who respected the sanctity of the churches and acted mildly toward the city as a whole. In any event, Orosius hastens to add, the destruction was nothing compared to the fire during the reign of Nero, or the complete destruction by Goths in the fourth century BC. At the time of writing, a few years after the event, Orosius claims that the city is like new again (7.39).

  In addition to the minimizing of the destructiveness of the barbarians, Orosius argues that Roman encounters with the barbarians are leading to a fulfillment of the divine plan. Matthew 24: 14 commanded the spreading of the gospel to all the nations. The arrival of barbarians on Roman soil, although traumatic at first, had in Orosius’ telling quickly led to comity and peace. “Barbarians, hating their swords, turned to their plows, and they treat the resident Romans as allies and friends, with the result that some Romans may be found who prefer to dwell among the barbarians, poor but free, rather than among the Romans, burdened by worrisome taxes” (7.41.7). The invasions had provided the opportunity to spread Christianity: “throughout the east and west the churches of Christ were replete with Huns, Suebi, Vandals, and Burgundians” (7.41.8). The marriage of the Gothic king Ataulf and the emperor’s daughter Galla Placidia provided the perfect symbol of this union. Orosius had heard Narbo, a Roman general close to Ataulf, claim that the Goth had once been eager to replace “Romania,” the Roman empire, with “Gothia,” but had learned from his devout wife Galla Placidia that he should instead be restorer and increaser of the Roman state (7.43.4–7; Marchetta 1987).

  Orosius writes that his research has been done at Augustine’s request, and concludes his history with an assertion of his obedience, but the size of the work and its philosophy seem to exceed and contradict Augustine’s mandate. The relationship between Orosius’ history and Augustine’s City of God has thus engendered much critical speculation and argument (La Croix 1965: 199–207; Frend 1989; Corsini 1968: 193–215; Mommsen 1959). After completing the first ten books of the City of God, Augustine had, according to Orosius’ account, asked the Spanish priest to prepare simply a list of calamities which had befallen the Romans during pagan times, with the aim of refuting pagan arguments which had gathered in strength after the sack of Rome in 410. Orosius mentions that he read Augustine’s work and used it as a source, and there are several places where his borrowing is evident (Corsini 1968: 197–8). On the other hand, the second half of City of God contains no mention at all of Orosius or his work. Closer inspection reveals that Augustine has not simply ignored the work of his protégé, but has undermined his conclusions with an attitude of what Corsini calls “irritated disapproval” (Corsini 1968: 200). For example, Orosius had interpreted the ten plagues of Egypt as foreshadowing the ten persecutions of the Christian church, each plague a prophecy of the type of calamity the empire suffered under each persecuting emperor (7.27). But Augustine argues that despite what “some” have argued, and “however nicely and ingeniously” they have compared the two, the plagues are not in fact to be interpreted as signs of persecutions (18.52). Likewise, Augustine points out that although “some” say that Semiramis was the founder of Babylon (18.2), in reality the city was founded by the giant Nimrod (16.4). These statements may be understood not just as Augustine’s correction of a minor chronological detail, but as an undermining of the entire series of chronological coincidences which drive Orosius’ numerological theology. Orosius’ determinism and materialism were at odds with Augustine’s political thought, which continued to move in the direction of spirituality and grace under the influence of his reflections on Pelagianism. Thus Orosius’ completed history was not useful to Augustine, since his focus had moved away from the paganism which had absorbed him in the early books of the City of God. The crudeness of Orosius’ philosophy seems rather to have been contradictory and even embarrassing in the light of Augustine’s more complex and sophisticated reflections on human history.

  While the historical philosophy of Augustine’s City of God may be more sophisticated, Orosian analysis proved more popular throughout the Middle Ages. Many hundreds of manuscripts survive. As a world history with a Christian viewpoint, it had great value for Latin-speaking westerners, and in the early Middle Ages was read by Isidore, Bede, and Gregory of Tours. In the ninth century, King Alfred made an adapted translation of the work into Anglo-Saxon, and in the tenth century it was translated into Arabic after being offered as a gift from the Byzantine emperor Romanus II to the Caliph of Cordoba. Orosius was of great importance for the epochal twelfth-century historical works of Orderic Vitalis and Otto of Freising, and Dante drew heavily upon Orosius’ work (Fabbrini 1979: 21–9). While Orosius has won praise from some modern theorists of history, including Benedetto Croce and Karl Löwith, his sloppiness and the extravagance of his vision of history has resulted most often in modern reactions which range from lukewarm to extremely cold. Nevertheless, modern scholarly interest in Orosius is likely to continue, if only because he has so often erred in such new and unusual ways.

  Text and translation

  Latin text edited by C. Zangemeister (1882), Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. English translation by R. J. Deferrari (1964), Fathers of the Church.

  13

  HISTORIOGRAPHY

  Self-presentation

  History writing was a form of rhetoric, or persuasive speech. The ancient historian had to convince the reader that his history was worth reading, and that he had both the ability and the integrity to write a trustworthy history. In a recent book, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, John Marincola explores the way Greek and Roman historians of the classical period had sought to convince readers of the merits of their works through their self-presentation (Marincola 1997). Late antique historians continued to share the needs of their predecessors to demonstrate to readers the value and reliability of their works. They employed new methods of authentication, however, in response to changing ideas of political and religious authority in late antiquity.

  The most traditional method of convincing the reader of the importance of a history is the simple assertion of the greatness of the deeds which the history will treat. We lack the preface to Ammianus Marcellinus, and the surviving books contain no explicit discussion of his reasons for writing history. Nevertheless, because Ammianus gives such disproportionate attention and praise to the emperor Julian, it is very likely that he used his introduction to claim that his history was necessary in order to ensure that the outstanding deeds of the emperor are not forgotten. Eunapius explicitly states that the greatness of the deeds of Julian made a historian of his times necessary (fr. 15). One might, more tentatively, suggest that Olympiodorus and Priscus, whose prefaces also did not survive, had likewise r
eferred to the commemoration of outstanding deeds as the reason for their histories.

  Pagan, classicizing historians were not alone in claiming the desire to preserve the memory of significant deeds. Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History begins with remarks on the need to ensure that events deserving of fame will not fall into oblivion. He compares the words in a history, which endure, with the colors of a painting, which fade (1.1.1–2). Socrates too considers it important that “the deeds of the churches” are not forgotten (1.18.15). In his preface, Eutropius also makes reference to the significance of the events he will discuss. The deeds in his history, Eutropius claims, will be of significance to one reader in particular, the emperor Valens to whom the history is dedicated. For Valens, at least, the deeds are worthy of remembrance since they will reveal that the emperor’s own great deeds have been anticipated by the great deeds of earlier Romans (Eut. pref.).

  History may also have a moral purpose. Victor’s constant moralizing interpretations of historical events make it clear that he presented his history as an aid to reflection upon morality, although he does not explicitly claim such a purpose. Eunapius reveals that moral education is the primary goal of his history in his first fragment, where he suggests that knowledge of the many facts of history allows a younger man to have the experience of an older man, and thereby to learn what ought to be sought and what ought to be avoided (fr. 1). Theodoret apologizes for the inclusion of a particularly unpleasant incident, the massacre of thousands of civilians in Thessalonica, by explaining that it is essential to teach a moral lesson. The various passions of lust, greed, envy, and anger, Theodoret says, are constantly threatening to overcome reasonable behavior. The reader will better understand this important lesson, thanks to Theodoret’s presentation of this story (5.16.7). When Socrates apologizes for the inclusion of material on heresies, he explains his aim, as Theodoret had, as moral education. Knowledge of these heresies, he claims, renders the reader better able to resist error, and to see through the seductive but empty arguments of heretics (1.18.16).

  Other historians provide different reasons why a reader should want to read their histories. Rufinus portrays his work as a cure or remedy for those afflicted by fear and worry over recent barbarian violence (pref.). Simple diversion, rather than instruction, is the stated purpose for Rufinus’ work. Sozomen also claims that the pleasure of the reader is his object. After musing that Greek writers in the past had demonstrated their eloquence by descriptions of mythological events, Sozomen wonders why he should not do the same with a history of the church (1.1.11). Sozomen is heavily dependent upon Socrates for the events he describes, and it seems fitting that in the preface to a history which is largely a rewriting of another’s work, he should put particular emphasis on style rather than content.

  Orosius’ history is more rhetorical than the others treated here, insofar as he is more devoted to winning over the audience to a specific point of view. The historian frequently pauses to directly address the reader, with the aim of persuading him to accept that times prior to the Christianization of the Roman empire were worse than Christian times. While the actual audience for the work was probably Christian, Orosius maintains the conceit that he is addressing unbelievers, who, he hopes, may someday be convinced by his evidence (7.1).

  Once a historian has explained why the subject matter he will treat is worthy of the reader’s attention, he must next convince the reader that he is capable of writing the history and can be trusted to do so fairly. Some late antique historians credit friends or authority figures who encouraged or commissioned the work, which allows the historian to show that others vouch for his abilities. Theodoret, for example, states that his friends had been encouraging him frequently to write a history (1.1.3). For Eunapius, it was not just friends but those who were “preeminent in learning” who urged him to write (fr. 1). Eunapius’ claim is repeated as he embarks on his description of the career of Julian. The most learned men had encouraged him and even assisted him in describing the emperor and his reign (fr. 15). Rufinus’ preface directly addresses his patron, the bishop Chromatius of Aquileia, who has requested the work at hand (pref.). Socrates also addresses a patron or friend, Theodore, in prologues to his second and sixth books. Theodore not only commissioned the work (6.pref. 1), but also, it seems, may have requested changes when Socrates’ first book did not meet his expectations (2.1.6).

  Historians hoping to give the appearance of independence might acknowledge friends or patrons, but would avoid admitting that a superior had commanded them to write. Both Eutropius (pref.) and Festus (1.1) acknowledge that their breviaria have been composed at the direction of their imperial sponsor, Valens. To the ancient reader, their works thus hover uneasily between history and panegyric. Because Orosius’ work is less traditionally historical, the revelation of its origin in an express request from Augustine is less damaging to his reliability (1.pref.). Instead, as a work of religious orthodoxy, its value may be enhanced by the approval of a religious thinker as respected as Augustine. At the conclusion of his work, Orosius calls upon Augustine to destroy his work if it is displeasing. This cleverly allows Orosius to suggest that the entire work carries the imprimatur of the bishop (7.43.20).

  Some historians attempt to assert their reliability by the bald claim that they are dedicated to the truth. This seems to be more characteristic of the classicizing style of history. Thus, Ammianus concludes his history with the claim that he has never knowingly strayed from the truth (31.16.9). His assertion of his truthfulness prior to his satirical digression on the morals of the inhabitants of Rome is, perhaps, itself a satire of this traditional historical stance (14.6.2). Eunapius claims that the purpose and highest goal of history is to describe events without bias (fr. 1), and he later adds that despite the bitterness and horror of the events he is about to recount, the reader will appreciate them nevertheless because of their truthfulness (fr. 66.2).

  Historians may also demonstrate their truthfulness through descriptions of their sources. Many historians support particular details in their works by reference to their personal involvement. The simple claim by the historian that he has witnessed the events himself, or has heard them from eyewitnesses, is common. The “seen or heard” formula may be found in its pure form in Ammianus (15.1.1), Eunapius (fr. 30), Socrates (6.pref. 9–10), and Sozomen (1.113). Ammianus also reveals his participation in large parts of his history by his use of first-person pronouns. In the preface to his continuation of Eusebius’ history, Rufinus says that he will include events that he personally has remembered (10.pref.), including his familiarity with the life and works of Didymus the Blind (11.7) and with the activities of various monks of Egypt (11.4, 11.8). Eutropius points out that he had been a member of Julian’s expedition to Persia (10.16.1), and Sozomen vouches for the healing power of the church called the Michaelion, because he himself has been a beneficiary (2.3.9). Sozomen relates several other first-hand accounts. When a sinful woman ate bread during a religious ceremony, for example, the bread miraculously turned into stone in her mouth. Sozomen has seen the stone, complete with tooth marks, in a church (8.5.6). He has also witnessed the barbarian Sciri, who were turned into farmers and settled in different parts of the empire, during a visit to Bithynia (9.5.7). Olympiodorus’ argument that the Oasis was once an island is supported by his personal observation of fossil seashells in the desert (fr. 32), and is reminiscent of Orosius’ proof of Noah’s flood based on seashells found on mountaintops (1.3.4).

  The oral sources from whom the late antique historians claim to have gained information range from specific individuals with special knowledge of events to more vague reports from the inhabitants of a particular area or simply from “people” in general. Church historians seem more likely to directly cite their sources. Rufinus credits Aedesius and Bacurius for accounts of the foreign missions in which they participated (10.10, 10.11), and his account of the torture of Theodore during the time of Julian comes straight from the victim (10.37). Socrates cl
aims to have always sought out eyewitnesses and carefully weighed their stories, to ensure that his account is truthful (5.19.10; 6.pref.9–10). He apparently judges that he will win more respect from his readers by revealing his sources among the Novatians, such as the priest Auxanon, than he will lose for his association with schismatics (1.10, 1.13.2, 4.28). Other church historians also reveal their sources for oral information. Sozomen, for example, has spoken with people who witnessed miracles performed by Arsacius (4.16.13), and Orosius cites a man from Narbo for his claims about the Gothic leader Ataulf (7.43.4).

  Historians also refer to oral sources with less specific detail. Socrates says that the events surrounding the discovery of the True Cross by the empress Helena are known to be true by most of the people of Constantinople (1.17.10). Similarly, the miraculous deeds of Spyridion are known to be true, Sozomen says, by the inhabitants of Cyprus (1.11.1). Orosius recognizes that the destruction of Gildo and his barbarians would seem unbelievable if it were not for the testimony of eyewitnesses (7.36.12). Eunapius says that he has drawn upon oral sources for his description of the Huns, but offers no evidence of their identity (fr. 41).

  Historians refer to the written works which they have consulted to prove their reliability and to give evidence of the arduous task of gathering and weighing evidence. The bald citation of sources is relatively rare in classicizing histories that treat contemporary events. Ammianus cites Timagenes as his source for a geographical digression on the original inhabitants of Gaul (15.9.2), and Cicero and Sallust on the habits and history of the Gauls (15.12.4, 6). The massive cliffs called the Symplegades, Ammianus says, seem motionless, and it would be difficult to believe that they had once magically crushed any ships passing between them, were it not for the evidence of all of the songs of the poets (22.8.14–15). Ammianus also claims to have combed the records to discover evidence of any eunuch in the past who could be compared to the excellent Eutherius (16.7.8). To demonstrate his extensive knowledge of the subject, Ammianus anticipates the reader’s possible suggestion, the eunuch Menophilus, and explains why this eunuch does not reach the level of excellence attained by Eutherius (16.7.9–10).