Orosius will often cite non-Christian writers to support Christian contentions. Tacitus’ Histories, for example, is cited in order to demonstrate that pagan authors, too, know something of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (1.5). Orosius similarly uses the pagan historian Justin to provide evidence for Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt (1.8). After making reference to many sources in his first book, however, Orosius follows single sources almost exclusively in the later books.
The Greek church historians, following in the footsteps of Eusebius, contain not only verbatim documents but also large direct excerpts from writers such as Athanasius and Rufinus. Rather than pointing the reader toward the source for a section of church history, the historian reproduces the source directly. Occasionally a historian will simply direct the reader to another work for further information on a subject. Rufinus, for example, refuses to repeat information about the life of the monk Antony, since the reader may more easily turn to available translations of Athanasius’ work on the saint (10.8). Similarly, Socrates encourages his readers to peruse the sermons of John Chrysostom themselves (6.4.9). If readers wish to learn more about the philosophy of the heretic Eunomius, Sozomen suggests that they go to his works or those of others which explain them, for Sozomen himself finds them rather difficult to understand (6.27.7).
Late antique historians are particularly prone to mention their sources in order to refute or attack them. Classical historiography was born in polemic, with Herodotus criticizing Homer and Thucydides criticizing Herodotus in turn. Criticism of predecessors allows the historian to boast of his own strengths and reveal his own historiographical ideals in attacking their opposites. Socrates’ work, in particular, contains a continual series of criticisms of his sources and of other historians. Socrates draws often, for example, upon the collection of church documents made by a certain Sabinus and known as the Synagoge. Sabinus was a bishop of the Macedonian heresy, whose perspective on the documents in his collection was hostile to Socrates’ Nicene orthodoxy. Socrates complains that Sabinus has called those promulgating the Nicene Creed “fools and simpletons,” and that he has ignored some evidence and twisted other evidence to fit his views (1.8.24–7). Socrates also accuses Sabinus of inconsistency for using Eusebius as a trustworthy source even though Eusebius, unlike Sabinus, was a supporter of the Nicene Creed (1.8.26, 1.9.28). Sabinus criticized the flaws of Athanasius, and Socrates defends Athanasius by accusing Sabinus of overlooking similar or worse flaws in the activities of Athanasius’ enemies (2.15.8–11). Socrates further accuses Sabinus of purposefully omitting from his collection the letters of Pope Julius on behalf of Athanasius, in the interest of sullying Athanasius’ character (2.17.10–11).
When Socrates criticizes his predecessor Eusebius, he points more gently to omissions or errors, without attributing to him the willful dishonesty he attributes to Sabinus. Socrates says that his history is necessary to supplement the work of Eusebius because Eusebius failed to treat Arianism thoroughly, and because his praise of Constantine was excessive (1.1). By disassociating himself from Eusebius in this way, Socrates proclaims that he sees doctrinal disputes as central to his successor history, and that his work will be history rather than panegyric. Later Socrates says that Eusebius had not treated the history of Manichaeism with enough detail, and that he himself will supplement Eusebius’ account with more information drawn from the work of a certain Archelaus (1.22.2–3). The aim is less to criticize his predecessor than to highlight Socrates’ resourcefulness and value independent of Eusebius. Socrates’ criticism of Rufinus has a similar tone (2.1). Although Rufinus’ chronology has proven to be incorrect, Socrates still plans to use his work where it has been verified, and no hint of purposeful fraud on Rufinus’ part is insinuated. Instead, Socrates emphasizes his own thoroughness and accuracy.
Socrates is sharply contentious when he discusses pagan writers. Upon the death of Julian, for example, he quotes a section of the funeral oration performed over the emperor by the pagan Libanius, in order to refute it (3.23). He later differentiates his history from pagan history by suggesting that authors of the latter felt free to deviate from the truth (6.pref. 3). In addition to criticizing secular historiography, Socrates attacks the work of Philip of Side, who had written not an ecclesiastical history but rather a Christian history. This sort of history, Socrates complains, is stylistically uneven, excessively long, and confused in chronology (7.27).
Neither Sozomen nor Theodoret provides many targeted criticisms in the style of Socrates, perhaps because their histories are more derivative than his and are thus less concerned with source criticism. When Sozomen warns readers against the dangers involved in consulting document collections, since these collections were made by partisans, he may be echoing in more general terms the specific criticisms Socrates made against Sabinus (1.1.15–16). Sozomen is also critical of unnamed pagan sources. For example, he rejects the suggestion attributed only to “pagans” (probably Eunapius) that Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was motivated by a desire for absolution after his execution of his son, Crispus (1.5). Sozomen demonstrates that the chronology does not support such a charge, and that this form of absolution would in any case have been obtainable through the traditional Greek cult. He concludes that this accusation, then, must be the result of purposeful slander of the Christian religion.
Orosius begins his narrative with an accusation, claiming that other historians, both Greek and Latin, by starting their histories with the Assyrian king Ninus, had suggested that the world did not have a beginning (1.1.1–5). Orosius will, instead, begin with Adam, the first human being. Throughout his work, Orosius suggests that the dishonesty of earlier historians stems from their patriotic desire to vaunt the successes of their homelands (4.20.6–9, 5.3.4). The historian twice suggests that, given this motivation, the historical record contains a bias toward success and prosperity (4.5.12–13, 5.19.22). Each instance of failure or disaster should then, Orosius argues, be magnified, which further emphasizes his thesis of the misery of pre-Christian times.
Eunapius also begins his history with an accusation, criticizing Dexippus for what he characterizes as his slavish devotion to chronology at the expense of morally instructive narrative (fr. 1). This criticism, however, comes only in the midst of other reflections on Dexippus and his historical abilities. Later Eunapius is careful to draw a distinction between historians who are purposely deceitful and those whom necessity or haste led into error (fr. 66.1). Eunapius is forgiving to those who wrote during politically dangerous times and therefore were overly favorable to those in power, although he says that he himself has chosen, instead, the path of truth. Eunapius is also indulgent toward those whose histories are inadequate simply for lack of care and attention. He directs his outrage toward those historians who have altered their histories to flatter the powerful with irrelevant details. His criticism recalls Ammianus’ concern that the writing of contemporary history may require the historian to include trivial material, which is beneath the dignity of history, in order to please an audience desirous of recognition and fame (26.1.1–2).
It was commonly understood in antiquity that skill at rhetoric was dependent upon the good character of the speaker. If the reader approved of the character of the writer of history, he would be more trusting toward its contents. Some of the methods already described, such as professions of truth-seeking, the support of the powerful, and the demonstration of skill in handling sources, contribute to the portrayal of the historian as a man to be trusted. Other methods of self-portrayal are also deployed to incline the reader to feel more confident about the historian’s character.
The inclusion of the historian himself as a character in his history not only increases the trustworthiness of the events he narrates as an eyewitness, but also may encourage the reader to see the historian as a more trustworthy man, owing to the competence and cleverness he reveals. Ammianus, Priscus, and probably Olympiodorus narrate their own participation in events to highlight their go
od judgement and success. Ammianus’ boldness and ingenuity in his escape from Amida, and Priscus’ diplomatic skill and good sense during the embassy to Attila, are evidence of their commendable character. Olympiodorus may have demonstrated his fortitude during the many near-disasters at sea he seems to have described (frs. 19, 28, 35.1). Perhaps Orosius’ lamentations over the tribulations he had endured can also be seen in this light (3.20.6–7). Orosius claims to better understand the turmoil he describes because of his own sufferings, and the description of his own sufferings may also serve as a defense against charges that he is insensitive to the horrors of the sack of Rome which he seeks to minimize.
Ammianus not only portrays himself in the role of a soldier in history, but adopts the title of soldier as a qualification for his role as historian in the last line of his history (31.16.9). In this same line he also states that he is a Greek as a further qualification. Elsewhere, too, he makes his Greekness known (e.g. 20.3.4, 23.6.20, 25.2.5), often in digressions, where he exploits the superior reputation of the Greeks in antiquarian knowledge. Ammianus also makes a pointed reference to his high social standing (19.8.6), a traditional guarantor of character and historical ability, especially among Latin historians.
Aurelius Victor provides an atypical self-portrait during his discussion of Septimius Severus (20.5). Victor describes himself as the son of a poor man who has gained success through education. This suggests that the historian saw his audience as composed of other imperial functionaries who similarly valued education and social mobility over noble birth.
Sozomen discusses his family in order to provide a Christianized version of noble birth (5.15.14). He boasts of his Christian grandfather, who was learned in Scripture and was forced to flee Bethelia during the persecutions under Julian. Sozomen’s claim that he does not fully understand the reasoning of heretics like Eunomius and Apollinaris may also be understood as an attempt to improve the perception of his character in the eyes of his Christian audience. His intellectual credentials may be weakened, but he suggests that his personal piety is so strong that he is unable to even comprehend the works of the heterodox.
Speeches, letters, and documents
From the beginning, classical historians had included speeches delivered by their subjects. Speeches in ancient history are presented directly, as if they represent a verbatim transcript of the words spoken. In reality, of course, without recording technology, such speeches could be only approximations of what was actually said. In addition, it is clear that some historians allowed themselves some latitude in their presentation of speeches, and understood their responsibility to be the presentation of the sort of speech a historical figure might have been expected to deliver rather than the closest approximation to words that were actually spoken.
Lengthy speeches were an ornament to a history in the high style in a culture where attending an oratorical performance was a common form of entertainment. The summary works of Victor, Eutropius, and Festus, therefore, omit speeches altogether. Because the histories of Eunapius, Olympiodorus, and Priscus have come down to us in similarly reduced forms, the full extent of these historians’ uses of speeches cannot be known. Eunapius’ love of rhetoric and the preservation of one pair of speeches suggest that the historian had made frequent use of the device. In these surviving speeches, a barbarian king speaks and then hears the response of Julian (fr. 18.6). The surely ahistorical words of the king of the Chamavi amount to a reflection on the nature of fatherhood and kingship. Eunapius uses Julian’s response to characterize him as noble and just. The enthusiastic response of the barbarians to Julian’s words further emphasizes the power of his speech. Priscus, too, who is referred to as a “rhetor” by several ancient sources, probably included many more speeches in his history than survive in our excerpts. We have a speech which Priscus claims to have delivered himself in defense of the Roman system against a Greco-Hunniccritic (fr. 11). Like the speech provided by Eunapius, Priscus’ speech also has a philosophical tone. The practice of Olympiodorus, however, is not as clear. As the writer of “material for history” rather than a full, formal history, he may have eschewed ornaments like speeches. On the other hand, other ancient works which present themselves as merely material to be used for a more elaborated form of history, such as Caesar’s Gallic Wars, do contain formal speeches.
Although Ammianus is in many ways the most self-consciously classicizing of the late antique historians, he does not use speeches as often or in as varied a manner as did many of his classical predecessors. Of the dozen or so speeches which Ammianus presents, almost every one is spoken by a general to his troops, either to encourage them before battle or to introduce to them a newly appointed holder of imperial power. Imperial speeches almost always result in approval from the soldiers. In Julian’s case, the soldiers show their enthusiasm after his speech before the Battle of Strasbourg (16.12.9–12), upon his acceptance of the title of Augustus (20.5.3–7), before crossing into Persian territory (23.5.16–23), and after mollifying mutinous soldiers by assuring them that they would soon possess the wealth of the Persians (24.3.3–7). The exception to these cases is the hostile reaction of the soldiers to Julian’s brief attempt to refuse the title of Augustus (20.4.16), which serves to bolster Ammianus’ contention that Julian was compelled to accept the promotion.
Despite the criticism which Ammianus generally expresses of Constantius, the emperor’s speeches are as elegant and as well received as those of Julian. Even Constantius’ denunciation of Julian’s usurpation results in uniform support in Ammianus’ telling (21.13.10–15), and before Constantius’ speech celebrating his conquest of the Sarmatians, Ammianus notes that he was received favorably “as usual” (17.13.26–33). Only after a speech by Constantius in which he explains to the men his decision to make peace with the enemy does Ammianus provide the unflattering observation that Constantius’ general lack of success in foreign wars influenced the opinion of the army (14.10.11–16). Nevertheless, the army is still described as unanimous and full of praise for the emperor.
The only extended speech in Ammianus which is not given by a general before his troops is the speech of Julian on his deathbed (25.3.15–20). The scene, which is purposely composed to suggest parallels between the emperor and Socrates, reveals Julian’s nobility in his high-minded reflections on the state and on his own career. This speech is received by Julian’s tearful associates, whom the emperor rebukes as did Socrates to his similarly weeping companions at the conclusion of the Phaedo.
Church history as a rule avoids speeches. Instead, the narrative flow of a church history is broken up by the insertion of original documents, particularly letters from church councils or emperors. Original documents appeared very rarely in classical historiography. While Ammianus does present a pair of letters exchanged by Constantius and the Persian king Shapur, these are not given as original documents, but are rather reworked by the historian and function as speeches in the narrative (17.5). Ecclesiastical historians, however, take their cue from Eusebius’ history, which seems to have begun as a collection of documents with commentary, and was only later fleshed out with the kind of narrative we consider integral to history.
Rufinus deviates from the Eusebian tradition and provides only one document, the Nicene Creed (10.6). Rufinus’ work is far more rhetorical than that of the Greek church historians. In his illustration of the victory of orthodoxy over paganism and heresy, the details of doctrine are less important than the evidence that God’s presence continues to favor the church. With the triumph of Theodosius at the end of the work, heresy has ceased to be a problem, and thus the study of doctrinal disputes is no longer necessary for the reader.
Although Socrates and Sozomen both praise the peace within the church brought by Theodosius II in their own day, neither suggests that Christian factionalism has been put to rest. Thus Socrates, for example, provides information on heresy, because it will help the reader avoid error in the future (1.18.16). The preface to Socrates’ second book sug
gests that he had originally only summarized documents, following the style of Rufinus, but that in his second edition he had inserted the original documents into the work. Socrates’ work is particularly thick with documents in the first two books, during which he is especially dependent on the collection made by Sabinus. Later books of Socrates, by contrast, contain very few documents. Sozomen claims to have collected documentary evidence from palaces, churches, and private collections (1.1.13). Some of his documents are taken from Socrates, but many are not. Like Socrates, he provides hardly any contemporary documents, perhaps because these would have been more readily available elsewhere to those who wished to see them. At one point Sozomen explains that the reproduction of documents was generally welcome because of their usefulness for future generations, but that wise men had counselled him to refrain from including certain documents for fear that the unbaptized might read them (1.20.3). This concern does not recur in Sozomen nor in the other church historians, and what Sozomen and his advisors feared to reveal remains a mystery.
Theodoret’s work was perhaps inspired by the doctrinal disputes in which he himself was embroiled in the 430s and 440s. The historian’s work is both more didactically focused on the “Arian” heresy and its successors than are the more variegated works of Socrates and Sozomen. Theodoret also provides less of the contemporary history which had yielded fewer documents in the works of Socrates and Sozomen. Perhaps for these reasons there is a greater density of documentary material in Theodoret’s history. His first two books, in particular, are little more than lists of documents with occasional narration to link them together. In this way Theodoret manages to blur the line between history and antiquarian collection, and to turn the genre back to its roots in the first editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.
The Historians of Late Antiquity Page 21