The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  Orosius’ approach to warfare is of particular interest. Ammianus had adduced the military disasters of the republic to soften the impact of contemporary disasters in Persia and Adrianople. The Roman state had weathered such storms before, he reminds despairing contemporaries, and would doubtless do so again. Orosius’ emphasis on republican military disasters, such as the destruction of Rome by the Gauls (2.19), is aimed at similarly pessimistic contemporary critics. But Orosius’ conclusion reaches further. He suggests that the relative mildness of contemporary troubles proves that the Roman state has evolved from a depraved past to a superior present. When Orosius reflects on the proscriptions of Sulla (5.22.5–15), for example, he points out that civil wars have been much milder in his own time due to Christianity. Similarly, the civil wars of the late republic, which culminated in the death of Caesar, were the result of the competition between arrogant nobles. This competition has now been suppressed thanks to the coming of Christ and his teachings of humility (6.17.9–10).

  Orosius presents the empire as a period of peace. Tiberius’ resistance to military expansion is praised (7.4.2–4), and in Christian times even the depravity of Caligula cannot prevent peace (7.5.4). What warfare did persist into imperial times was the result of the just chastisement of God. The civil wars after Nero, for example, resulted from Nero’s persecutions of Christians (7.8.2), and the Flavian suppression of the Judaean revolt reflected divine displeasure with the Jews (7.9.2).

  In general, historians writing in Greek devote less attention to the republic than do historians writing in Latin, and historians writing later in the fifth century devote less attention to the republic than do those who write earlier. The importance of the republic recedes as the later empire emerges in its new Greek and Christian form. This would appear to be true even for a historian like Olympiodorus, who was deeply involved in western affairs and eager to promote western and eastern unification. For the ecclesiastical historians, however, the republic is no longer useful as a source of lessons or models. The biblical past became more accessible than the classical past for some late antique Christians.

  In western circles at the turn of the fifth century, the republic was considered an integral part of Roman history and could be appropriated for moral (Victor), institutional (Eutropius), or military (Festus) ends with regard to contemporary affairs. The more elaborate apparatus of Ammianus presents a republican spirit handed down to the emperors and embodied in particular by Julian. Continuity with the distant past serves to legitimate the present order for these fourth-century authors. Orosius, too, in a quite different way, legitimates the present through his treatment of the past. In contrast with the corruption and violence of the republican past, the late empire represents, for Orosius, a new and higher level of history marked by peace and unity.

  Orosius’ view was more sustainable than Ammianus’ for many historians. With the exceptions of Eunapius, who seems to have drawn equally, if tenuously, upon both Greek and Roman antiquity, and Rufinus, whose history may have been mostly complete before the writing of his pessimistic preface, the other historians described here have optimistic and progressive views of their own time. Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret write in the shadow of the pious and long-lived Theodosius II, while Olympiodorus and Priscus celebrate their own successful diplomatic missions. Rather than attempting to link their histories to an increasingly alien past, they have jettisoned the distant past altogether, deeming it irrelevant to the new concerns of court and church at Constantinople.

  16

  RELIGION

  Christianity versus paganism

  “Pagan” was an insulting term, carrying an implication of rustic “backwardness,” which was invented by Christians to disparage practitioners of traditional religions (Chuvin 1990; Bowersock 1990a; MacMullen 1981; Lane Fox 1987). Those who used the word sought to lump into a single category the near-infinite constellation of practices and beliefs regarding man’s relationship to the divine that had evolved over millennia of Mediterranean life. The definition of pagan, therefore, was in flux throughout late antiquity. At the time of Constantine, the erection of temples and the sacrifice of animals were considered part of pagan cult, but many gray areas remained. The emperor continued to receive divine honors. Both pagans and Christians used magic and divination to tell the future. Classical literature and art were deeply imbued with the pagan gods, and were therefore suspect to some Christians. Late antique historians open a window onto the diversity of pagan thought and the continuing prominence in the Christian empire of certain practices now considered pagan.

  Eutropius and Victor were pagans writing presumably for a mixed audience of Christians and pagans. They provide, as a result, useful insight into what ordinary members of the elite, without intense feelings about religion, would consider non-objectionable material. Eutropius, whose quasi-official work was written at the command of a Christian emperor, mentions the apotheosis of each emperor awarded divine status by the senate after his death. The offering of worship to an emperor was clearly considered an act of respect without anti-Christian overtones. Half a century later, the Christian Sozomen would refer to citizens naturally offering obeisance to painted pictures of the emperor (5.17.3–5). Even Constantine, according to Eutropius, was “enrolled among the gods” (10.8.3).

  Victor provides a bit more commentary on religion in his work than had Eutropius (Rike 1987: 114–17). He praises Diocletian and Maximian for the respect they showed for the most ancient religious cults (39.45), and Caracalla for his piety in bringing the cults of Egypt to Rome (21.4). Victor assimilates Constantine’s imposition of Christianity as a state religion into this model when he praises the emperor for “regulating religious practices” (41.12). Victor also makes several references to traditional methods used to predict the future. The death of some particularly white chickens kept in Rome for divinatory purposes, for example, marked the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (5.17). Victor adds that these chickens were so useful for divination that they continued to be used for divinatory rituals in his own day. The validity of divination is further emphasized by the emperor Gordian’s successful prediction of his fate from his skillful analysis of an unusual sacrifice (26.4). Victor provides several interpretations of the prodigy which appeared during the reign of Philip the Arab, when female genitalia were discovered on the belly of a hog (28.3–9). While Philip understood this sign as a threat to the virtue of the young, and therefore outlawed male prostitution, other soothsayers claimed that it meant the triumph of the effeminate over the good. Victor rejects these interpretations, instead drawing the moral lesson that those without shame cannot be happy.

  Divination and magic were not necessarily considered pagan if they were performed without animal sacrifice, and Constantine’s legislation banned divination by animal entrails only if it was performed in secret. Thus, Christians would not have recoiled in disbelief or horror when told about the ancient magical statues which Olympiodorus discusses (frs. 16, 27). Olympiodorus reveals that Christians rejected the Etruscan soothsayers who promised to protect Rome from Alaric with thunder and lightning, due to opposition from the pope (fr. 7.5; Zos. 5.21). The rites of the Asian Libanius, a magician who likewise claimed to be able to ward off barbarians, seem to have required secrecy, and when they came to the attention of the devout Christian empress Galla Placidia, he was put to death (fr. 36).

  The paganism of intellectuals often included complex Neoplatonic explanations of the gods. Late antique religious Neoplatonism was henotheistic, directed toward the One (Greek hen) supreme power, from which emanated multiple levels of increasingly less powerful planes of existence. The skilled practitioner of this religion might, through study or magic, elevate himself beyond the low, shadowy, material plane on which we live to a higher and more substantial level of reality. Eunapius refers to this process in his eulogy of Julian, who, the historian claims, was able to transcend his flesh through force of character and raise himself up to the heavens, where he mingled wi
th divine spirits (frs. 28.1, 28.5). The secret rites which Julian and Oribasius performed in order to prepare for the civil war with Constantius may have been “theurgic” in nature, aimed at questioning and perhaps controlling the gods (fr. 21.1). Eunapius does not, however, scorn more traditional pagan rites, and expresses general disgust at the destruction of temples (frs. 64.2, 64.3) while praising Fravitta’s dedication to the traditional worship of the gods (fr. 69.4). But his form of paganism saw temples and rituals as superficial manifestations of more profound religious truths, and thus he can mock those who destroy and sack temples for merely “waging war on stones” (fr. 56).

  Ammianus’ religious position has long been contested. While he is a pagan, historians have differed in their interpretations of his comments about Christianity and about Julian’s paganism. It has been argued that Ammianus is quite hostile to Christianity, omitting information which would be to the credit of Christians and Christianity and slanting other information to discredit Christians (Barnes 1998; Elliott 1983). While acknowledging some hostility and inaccuracy in Ammianus’ treatment of Christianity, others cite his disparagement of some of the pagan policies of Julian in order to argue that the historian is evenhanded in his religious criticism (Hunt 1985, 1993; Matthews 1989: 435–51). The key to understanding Ammianus’ religious opinions lies in recognizing the multiple systems of belief which we lump under the term “paganism.” The historian is a partisan pagan who nevertheless rejects aspects of Julian’s pagan practices (Rike 1987).

  Ammianus is particularly critical of Julian’s excessive sacrificing and indiscriminate divination. By his continual sacrifices, the emperor overemphasized the gross, physical aspects of paganism, wasting money and filling the streets with drunken and gluttonous soldiers (22.12.6). Julian also indiscriminately allowed anyone to read omens and portents, despite their lack of qualifications (22.12.7). For these reasons, Ammianus characterizes the emperor as “superstitious rather than truly religious” (25.4.17).

  For Ammianus, paganism is a system of thought as rigorous as a science. His digressions on Nemesis and on the guardian spirit, for example, cite ancient authorities who have investigated these divine phenomena (14.11.25–6; 21.14.3–5). Ammianus is never critical of the religious wisdom of ancient cultures. He praises the depth of knowledge of the Druids (15.9.8), whom Victor had criticized as “notorious” (4.2). He refers to the “ancient wisdom” of hieroglyphics, and encourages the reader to investigate the primeval religious knowledge of the Egyptians (17.4.8, 22.16.19–22). He also cites the ancient Etruscan religious writings of Tages and Vegoe, and the “most incorruptible” form of worship performed by the Persian Magi (17.10.2, 23.6.32–6).

  In Ammianus’ account, in the background of Julian’s march toward Persia and subsequent defeat, death is a competition between two rival schools of paganism. Julian’s philosophers are shown continually misinterpreting the divine signs which urge against the invasion. They repeatedly disregard the superior wisdom of the Etruscan soothsayers (23.5.10–11). By the end of the invasion, Ammianus can say that Julian struggled against “the entire science of divination” (25.2.7–8). Ammianus thus locates Julian’s tragic flaw in his failure to be properly pious. Christian emperors, of course, are even less pious, in Ammianus’ view.

  Christian historians concentrate on the physical evidence of pagan cult. Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret refer to temples, sacrifices, and festivals in various permutations to characterize paganism as a whole (Soc. 3.1.39; Soz. 2.3.7, 9.9.1; Theod. 3.6.1). Because of the varieties of practices and beliefs traveling under the name of pagan, church historians are able to describe the most repugnant practices of pagans as if they represented all non-Christians. Paganism in the church historians therefore rests on frauds and evils, and can be effectively challenged through the dramatic demonstration of its errors. Rufinus reports that magnets and tricks of the light were responsible for the miracles of the Egyptian divinity Serapis, and that a priest of Saturn speaking through the cult statue was able to have his way with numerous married women (11.23, 25). Sozomen likewise claims that machinery was in use in temples to create the appearance of demonic visitations (5.2.5).

  The church historians frequently equate paganism with human sacrifice, although there is generally no convincing evidence for the charge. For Rufinus, paganism in Alexandria is exemplified by corpses and by the decapitated heads of babies discovered in jars (11.24). Socrates reports on the discovery of the skulls of those who, he claims, had been sacrificed in order to tell the future by the inspection of their entrails (3.2). Theodoret likewise claims that, after the death of Julian, a woman was found who had been cut open for divinatory purposes, and other body parts were discovered in the palace (3.26, 27).

  Orosius makes occasional jibes at temple corruption (3.16.12–13), sacrifice (4.21.5–9), and divination by the inspection of entrails (5.4.8). In one lengthy aside, he asks how powerful the Roman gods could be, if they were unable to resist the coming and the triumph of Christianity (6.pref.). But despite the fact that Orosius’ history is written “Against the Pagans,” he shies away from detailed criticism of pagan practices. To prove the superiority of Christianity to all other forms of religion, he cannot be distracted by fine-grained distinctions between “paganisms.”

  Christianity versus Christianity

  The doctrinal disputes which wracked the church in the fourth and fifth centuries dominate the work of the ecclesiastical historians. In the first centuries of Christianity, Christians had shared common enemies in an unfriendly Roman state and a powerful pagan establishment. But the rise of a Christian state with a Christian emperor who distributed wealth and patronage to “orthodox” bishops and churches made the issue of orthodoxy worth fighting over. The application of more sophisticated methods to scriptural interpretation and theological discussion produced endless sources of disputation.

  The activities of Athanasius of Alexandria dominate the early books of the Greek church historians (Barnes 1993b; Hanson 1988: 239–73). Athanasius was a major figure in the struggles over the definition of orthodoxy in the middle decades of the fourth century, and his career demonstrates the mixture of theological, personal, political, and financial motives which drove these conflicts. He presented himself as an indefatigable champion of Nicene orthodoxy. The historians, quoting Athanasius directly or paraphrasing his voluminous writings, highlight his willingness to undergo repeated exiles and to suffer numerous condemnations at the hands of church councils and emperors alike. While Athanasius is an unalloyed hero in the works of the church historians, modern scholars have tended to be rather critical of the bishop for his continual attempts to claim that legitimate complaints about his improper conduct as bishop were motivated by ideological opposition to Nicene Christianity. In particular, the discovery of certain papyrus documents at the beginning of the twentieth century made it clear that Athanasius and his supporters had indeed been guilty of the violent behavior which was imputed to them by their enemies and which the church historians had dismissed as outrageous lies (Bell 1924). The case of Athanasius, then, serves to remind us of the dangers and challenges of reconstructing church history through the use of the church historians. The historians often depend on unreliable sources, such as the polemical works of Athanasius himself. In addition, the church historians seek to recreate the past with the aim of comforting, edifying, and inspiring their readers. They met these goals most effectively by presenting a morally uncomplicated Athanasius, and by framing his conflicts as battles over doctrinal disputes which had been settled by their own times.

  A closer look at another important and controversial Christian leader of late antiquity will reveal important differences in the perspectives of the Greek church historians. The bishop John Chrysostom was active a generation after Athanasius, and thus the testimony of the historians on the dramatic events of his life is likely to be more reliable. The conflicts in which John was entangled touched only slightly upon doctrine; instead, they reveal the conflic
ts engendered by the new power of the bishop in a major city of the east (Kelly 1995; Liebeschuetz 1990: 166–227; Mayer and Allen 2000; for background, Bowersock 1986). The rapid rise to power of the bishop through the fourth century upset long-established relations of power in the ancient city. Chrysostom’s oratorical skills and moral sway enabled him to mobilize the mass of citizens, and his administrative and financial skills set him in charge of an army of clergy and a network of charitable organizations funded by the wealthy of the city. His location in Constantinople placed him in constant contact with the imperial family and in an uneasy relationship with other major bishoprics, such as Alexandria, and with less powerful sees in Asia Minor and the Levant.

  John was born around 349 in Antioch and was raised by his mother alone after his father died shortly after his birth. He prepared briefly for a career in law, and studied rhetoric with the famous sophist Libanius, before turning to a more ascetic, Christian way of life in a community of monks in the Syrian desert for several years. The rigors of monastic life damaged his health and he returned to the city, where he served the bishop Flavian in various capacities and was ordained as a priest in 386. For a decade he worked as an priest at Antioch, where he was involved in charitable work and became popular and well known for his powerful sermons. When Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, died in October 397, John was selected to replace him either by the emperor Arcadius, or by the eunuch Eutropius, who was extremely influential at court at the time. From the start, the bishop made enemies. Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, supported a different candidate, and rumor suggested that Eutropius had to blackmail him into acquiescence. John’s firmness with clerical discipline angered many of his subordinates, and his habit of speaking his mind may have caused friction with members of the imperial family and court.