The Historians of Late Antiquity (19 page)

Athanasius is the hero of the first book of Rufinus’ history. As a child he was observed baptizing as a pretend-bishop, and as an adult he struggled against “nations, kingdoms, and armies” in his fight for orthodoxy (10.15). While in hiding, he managed to evade capture through miraculous means, and God granted him the perfect words during an audience before the emperor (10.20). His virtue was enhanced by his persecution by both Arian emperors and by the pagan Julian, who had been originally conciliatory (10.33–5). The emperor Valens, later a persecutor of homoousians, was divinely restrained while Athanasius lived (11.2), and at Athanasius’ death, the bishop was succeeded by Lucius, a bloodthirsty monster (11.3).

One way that God continued to work in history, according to Rufinus’ vision, was through the performance of miracles by holy men. Paphnutius had been mutilated during the persecution of the emperor Maximian, but miracles “arose through him no less than through the apostles long ago” (10.4). He was renowned for his healings and exorcisms, and the emperor Constantine demonstrated his respect by frequent kisses on the bishop’s empty eye socket. The words Rufinus chooses to describe the miracles of Paphnutius are carefully chosen to echo scriptural passages describing the acts of the apostles and of Jesus himself. Rufinus similarly uses biblical phraseology to describe the miracles of the monks of Egypt (11.4; Thélamon 1981: 376–402).

Rufinus is our major and sometimes only source about several cases of the spread of Christianity outside of the borders of the empire, including Ethiopia (10.9–10), Georgia (10.11), and Arabia (11.6). The historical veracity of his details is not always possible to ascertain, but he clearly reveals his belief in the progressive and inevitable spread of Christianity throughout the world. He also provides a new paradigm for the barbarian, for in his work the apparently uncivilized and dangerous outsider may turn out to be the most pure and devout Christian.

Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history had been innovative in its frequent presentation of original documents, such as creeds and
imperial letters. Rufinus very rarely indulges in this innovation. He reproduces the Nicene Creed (10.6), but otherwise Rufinus stands apart from Eusebius and from successors like Socrates and Sozomen, who also frequently reproduce documents of all sorts. Such documents allow the reader to engage in the kind of scrupulous exegesis typical of contemporary theological dispute, and Rufinus’ rejection of documents may be seen as a reflection of the anti-intellectual message he presents in his history. He often contrasts the excessive cleverness of heretics and pagans with the pure and simple faith of monks or ordinary Christians. Perhaps Rufinus’ experiences in the Origenist controversies had strengthened his distaste for theological argument, although the triumph of simplicity would be a major theme in the successor church histories as well. In the beginning of his history Rufinus points to the importance of “simplicity of faith” for the orthodox resisters to the Arians, who were “cunning in debates” (10.2). When a pagan philosopher debated bishops at Nicaea, his rhetorical skill left the Christians embarrassed and unable to respond. But the recitation of foundational Christian beliefs by a “simple” man was enough to convert the philosopher, who is convinced not by words, but by the irresistible power which came out of the speaker’s mouth (10.3). Heretics trick simple western Christians by demanding whether they prefer “homoousios or Christ”; in their ignorance of Greek philosophical terms, they naturally prefer Christ (10.22). The pagan priests of Egypt, whose power is destroyed at the end of Rufinus’ work, also manipulate by means of their mystification. The priest of Saturn, Tyrannus, used deception to convince well-born women that they were serving the god when he was raping them. The exposure of his fraud led many pagans to destroy idols and shrines (11.25).

The continuing struggle against paganism is a major theme of the
Ecclesiastical History
. Just as the reign of Constantine was presented by Rufinus as especially holy, so too was the reign of Theodosius. Although Theodosius’ anti-pagan initiatives included legislation and temple destruction around the empire, Rufinus chooses to focus narrowly upon events in Alexandria, which culminate in the destruction of the great temple to Serapis and its reconsecration to Christ. Thélamon speculates that Egypt’s renown for paganism in both biblical and Greco-Roman tradition, and perhaps the familiarity with Isiac religion among Rufinus’ immediate audience in Aquileia, may have made Egypt an appropriate symbol for paganism as a whole. Although Rufinus does not mention his sources for the events, Sophronius, a student of Jerome, is known to have written
about Alexandria, and Rufinus may have found his work a ready source of information (Thélamon 1981: 160–2, 260–3).

Rufinus begins with a description of a pitched battle in Alexandria, during which pagans fortified a temple and forced Christians to sacrifice. After numerous woundings and killings, the Roman government suppressed the violence and the pagans fled (11.22). Rufinus then describes the magnificence of the temple and cult statue of Serapis, carefully describing the tricks using light and magnets designed to impress worshippers. Despite a pagan rumor that the sky would fall if the cult statue were damaged, a pious soldier dramatically struck it with an axe, and then with a cry many joined in to chop and burn the statue to pieces. That ended “the vain superstition and ancient error of Serapis” (11.23). Although Rufinus has been selective in the details of Serapis worship which he relates, comparison with other ancient sources and with archaeology suggests that he has provided many reliable details on the cult (Thélamon 1981: 165–205). Further destruction of temples and looting of their shrines uncovered evidence of horrible pagan crimes, such as the murder of children, which Rufinus claims led many pagans to embrace Christianity (11.24–6). These temples were then leveled and the areas dedicated to the Christian god, and all traces of Serapis on buildings were removed and replaced with crosses (11.27–9). Rufinus’ account of the events in Egypt concludes with the triumphant proof of the superiority of Christianity over paganism. The tools to measure the extent of the Nile’s flood had customarily been brought to the Serapeum, since the god was the guarantor of the seasonal flow. Though pagans feared that the destruction of Serapis would lead to a disruption in the river’s rise, divine beneficence assured that the flood was more abundant than it had been in many years (11.30).

The momentum of the chapters of the history which dramatically detail the destruction of temples prepares the reader for the conclusion of the work, the victory of Theodosius over paganism at the Battle of the Frigidus River. The victory over the pagan gods in their historic Egyptian heartland is paralleled by this victory on the battlefield. Rufinus portrays the battle entirely as a contest of Christian against pagan, although Eugenius, the emperor installed in the west, was himself a Christian. Thus, in place of Eugenius, he presents the arch-pagan Nicomachus Flavianus as Theodosius’ primary opposition. The emperor is portrayed as a Christian champion, who is credited with handing control of churches over to homoousians and offering copious resources for building and refurbishing churches (11.19). Even his ordering of a massacre at Thessalonica (attributed
to demons) was the occasion for his new and “amazing” law requiring a thirty-day “cooling-off period” before commands of emperors are carried out (11.18). When Theodosius prepared for battle, Rufinus tells us that he first sought God’s will through the monk John, who prophesied victory (11.32). Then the two sides underwent spiritual preparations: Theodosius’ men prayed and sought help from martyrs and saints, while the pagans performed constant animal sacrifices. Rufinus claims that Nicomachus Flavianus committed suicide not from despair over the military failure, but because of his realization that his religion was false, and others of the usurping force defected to Theodosius. The final battle went poorly at first for Theodosius, who was observing from high on a rock, until he prostrated himself and prayed to God for help. His prayer evokes both biblical models, such as Judas Maccabee, and classical models, such as Aeneas (Courcelle 1969; Thélamon 1981: 318–20). A fierce and divinely inspired wind arose with such force that the enemy’s weapons were blown back into their lines, and they were defeated. The pagans who survived, says Rufinus, were chagrined and ashamed at the failure of their gods (11.33).

The repeated use made of Rufinus’
History
by later writers is proof of its popularity and success. While Rufinus drew upon Eusebius for the genre and its primary themes, his exploration of those themes in the post-Constantinian world created a new model for church history in a Christian state. The twin battles against heresy and paganism, the power of simplicity and monasticism in the face of sophistry and traditional hierarchy, and the expansion of Christianity among the barbarians are themes that successor church historians would take for granted. His translation of Eusebius brought the history of the early church and the progressive view of world history to those without Greek. The barbarian invasions had the potential to raise questions about the idealized Eusebian view of historical progress, and Rufinus’ work was designed to refute these concerns by its emphasis on Christian victory. His idealized portraits of numerous figures of the fourth century, such as Constantine, Athanasius, and Theodosius, became standard in later writers. The work became one of the very few in Latin to both be a source for later Greek writers and to be translated into Greek itself.

Text and translation

Latin text edited by T. Mommsen (1908),
Eusebius Werke
2.2. English translation by P. Amidon (1997), Oxford University Press.

9
SOCRATES

Life

We have no information about the life of Socrates outside of what can be inferred from his history, and thus any account of his life must be both brief and speculative. The historian’s name is often given as Socrates “Scholasticus,” a surname which suggests its bearer might be a lawyer. However, Urbainczyk, in her full study of the historian, points out that the title seems to have been a late addition to the manuscripts. The scribes may have confused the historian with another church historian, Evagrius Scholasticus, who was a lawyer, or the title may have been added to distinguish the historian from the philosopher. Socrates shows no particular knowledge of the law and, as Urbainczyk points out, his reference to “the worthless and unjust lives of those in the courts” (6.3.2) would reflect a rather unusual attitude toward his own profession (Urbainczyk 1997b: 13–14; Errington 1997: 403–6).

Socrates was born in Constantinople around 380. The date can be estimated by three pieces of information. In his preface to the sixth book of his history, which begins with the accession of Arcadius in 395, he claims to be turning to events from his own time (6.
pref.6;
Urbainczyk 1997b: 19). Also, he says that when he was a boy he studied under the grammarians Helladius and Ammonius (5.16.9). These men probably fled Alexandria for Constantinople around 390, and if Socrates were 10 when he studied with them he must have been born by 380. Finally, the priest Auxanon, who died during the reign of Theodosius I (and thus before 395), told stories about the monk Eutychian to Socrates “when he was very young” (1.13.3).

Socrates says he was born, educated, and lived at Constantinople (5.24.9, 5.16.9). He provides us with a bit of information about his teachers, the aforementioned Helladius and Ammonius. The former
was a priest of Zeus, the latter of the ape god Pithekos, in Alexandria. After the destruction of the temple of Serapis at the urging of the bishop Theophilus, religious objects taken from the interior of the temple were paraded through the streets, leading to civil unrest in which many Christians and a few pagans were killed. Socrates recalls the complaints of Ammonius, who was offended at the prominent place given to display of an ape statue in the Christian attempt to mock paganism, and the boasts of Helladius, who had successfully killed nine Christians during the rioting (5.16.13–14).

The education of Socrates by non-Christians provides no certain information about his childhood religion, but may help to explain his generally sympathetic attitude toward the study of the Greek classics (Allen 1987: 371–3). While his citations of non-Christians are limited, there are more than were found in the works of his predecessor, Eusebius. He often praises or denigrates figures in his history based on the extent of their traditional schooling. Most striking is the digression (3.16) on Greek learning, where Socrates explicitly argues for the study of the Greek classics. He supports traditional education both because the ancients have wisdom which is true and which supports Christianity, and because training in ancient literature prepares the student to successfully refute the arguments of non-Christians.

A central concern expressed in Socrates’ work is the necessity for order and harmony in the church, which perhaps explains why he is more tolerant of doctrinal difference than other church historians. It is in this context that his sympathy for the Novatian sect should be examined. The Novatians were not “heretical,” which is to say that their understanding of Christian doctrine was in line with the proto-Orthodox or “homoousian” position. They were, instead, “rigorist,” insisting that Christians who had apostatized in the face of the persecutions of the third century could not be forgiven and that forgiveness for any serious sin after baptism was generally impossible. They were also more ascetic in their practices and were more likely to reject classical culture and learning (Gregory 1975: 1–18; Urbainczyk 1997b: 26–8). Socrates mentions numerous contacts with Novatians, who served as sources for his history, and he sometimes defends their views, stressing their opposition to the Arian heresy. In 1.10.4, for example, he criticizes Eusebius for overlooking Constantine’s support of the Novatian Acesius. His omission of six imperial laws hostile to the Novatians, and inclusion of the one which was favorable, only underlines his partisanship (Allen 1990).
It is possible that Socrates himself was a Novatian, but his references to the Novatians as separate from “the church” (2.38.5) suggest otherwise. His sympathies with the sect are clear in any case.