The Historians of Late Antiquity (3 page)

A major church council or “synod” met at Nicaea in northern Asia Minor in May 325, not only to discuss the dispute between Arius and Alexander but to solve various other controversies which divided Christians. Constantine was himself present and played a major role in the debates, eventually winning nearly unanimous assent to the Nicene Creed, which held that the Father and Son were “of the same substance.” Constantine’s relationship with the church served as a model for later emperors. The emperor was frequently involved in church controversies, but had no official role in the church itself, and was liable to be criticized by clergy should he intervene too aggressively. Constantine’s rhetoric constantly proclaimed the virtue of unity in the church, but new conflicts and further rounds of synods to dispute them were the norm throughout late antiquity.

Theological disputes often became quite heated and on many occasions resulted in bloodshed and even massacres. At stake were not only fervently and sincerely held religious beliefs, but also the right to possess and use valuable church real estate and the ability to distribute major amounts of patronage in the forms of jobs and charitable donations. In the fourth century, church historians concentrate on the activities of the “Arians” or homoiousian parties, who were the established church during the reigns of the homoiousian emperors Constantius II and Valens. Athanasius (299–373) was the most indefatigable champion of Nicene Christianity, and church historians tend to take his apologetic writings at face value. Numerous times Athanasius was forced to flee his bishopric in Alexandria for safety in the west. Eastern and western bishops tended to be divided over Christological disputes, with the east favoring homoiousian formulations and the west the Nicene
homoousian formula. The two halves of the empire, which would go their own ways politically in the fifth century, were already distrustful of each other in theological matters in the early fourth century.

The spread of monasticism throughout the fourth century was particularly strong in the east. Monasticism could take the form of communal living in accordance with a rule, such as the thousands of monks who lived in communities organized by Pachomius in Egypt. In the Syrian desert one could find individual monks, “athletes for Christ,” who underwent severe and sometimes bizarre privations in an attempt to become closer to God. Simeon Stylites, for example, spent forty-five years on a pillar, where the curious and the powerful came for advice and help.

In the fourth century, Christian emperors granted benefits to Christian clergy and favored Christians in other ways, but did not move to outlaw the beliefs of the pagans of the empire. Constantine suppressed a few temples where ritual prostitution was practiced, for example, but did little to disturb most temple buildings. Although he legislated against animal sacrifice, this seems to have been ineffectual, since similar legislation was still being passed under Theodosius. Nevertheless, the removal of imperial patronage from pagan cult, the transfer of wealth and attention to church building and the clergy, and the increased prestige of a religion associated with the imperial house must have encouraged conversion. By the end of the fourth century, especially under the rule of Theodosius I and his sons, a harder line began to be taken against paganism. Much of the violence against pagan temples and shrines in these years was not orchestrated by the emperor, who sometimes actually tried to intervene against the mobs of monks who sought to demolish the dwelling places for demons which remained in their midst. Imperial legislation against paganism appears then to have followed rather than created the wave of popular religious violence directed against the remaining public symbols of the ancient gods.

While ordinary pagans thought of religion in terms of sacrifice and ritual, intellectual pagans studied Neoplatonism. Plotinus and his successors had elaborated upon Plato’s system by seeing reality as composed of a series of levels, from the highest level of the One or Unity, down to the level of Mind, and then the level of Soul. The theurgists were Neoplatonists who had integrated cult with philosophy. By means of certain rituals, theurgy allowed the philosopher to ascend toward the One. This form of late antique Platonism influenced Christian philosophers as well.

It is impossible, of course, to say whether people in late antiquity were more “spiritual” or “religious” than those of other ages. The impact of Christianization can be seen more directly, however, in transformations of the landscape and in changes in the rhythms of daily life. In the cities, the church had supplanted the temple and, in some places, the synagogue. The patron and local magnate was likely to be a bishop. Christian preaching and the celebration of Christian festivals and rituals were displacing other forms of oratory and entertainment. The holy man or monk was more prevalent and powerful in the countryside than the waning pagan shrines. While, with hindsight, we are able to see where the process of Christianization was heading, we should not allow our knowledge to blind us to the lack of certainty contemporaries felt in the face of rapid religious change. The very definition of orthodoxy and of paganism was forged in these centuries by the ideological and political controversies of the day.

The historians of late antiquity: an overview

Ancient history is a prose narrative of past events which is true (on the nature of ancient history see Fornara 1983; Woodman 1988). By late antiquity, many centuries of history-writing had both defined the genre by example and had revealed many possible ways in which prose narratives about the past could be written. The historians treated in this volume provide a broad spectrum of ways in which classical traditions of literature were transformed to create new types of truthful narratives about the past.

The category of
classicizing
historians includes Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, and Priscus (Blockley 1981; Baldwin 1981). Blockley points to the broad diversity of this group of historians (1981: 86–94). Nevertheless, he shows that these authors all purposely drew attention to the connections between themselves and works of classical antiquity. They write in a selfconsciously elevated and rhetorical style, which reveals their traditional education in the classics.

The category of
breviaria
includes Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, and Festus (den Boer 1972; Malcovati 1942). These are short works which provide a summary of historical events. Despite their brevity, these works allowed their authors some margin for individual style and for commentary and interpretation on the events they describe. Because these three authors used the same basic source for their information about the history of the empire, investigation of the ways in which they differ can shed light on their differing purposes and values.

The category of
ecclesiastical
or
church history
includes Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret (Momigliano 1990; Downey 1965; Markus 1975; Chesnut 1986). This genre was invented by Eusebius of Caesarea, and all four of the church historians discussed here begin their work where Eusebius’ history left off (on Eusebius, see Grant 1980; Barnes 1981; Chesnut 1986). The later church historians grapple with Eusebius’ legacy in different ways. All include in some fashion the material which Eusebius’ introduction states will be treated in his own ecclesiastical history: the names of famous Christian bishops and leaders, the fight against heretics, pagans, and Jews, and the accounts of those who were martyred (Eus.
HE
1.1.1–2). But the successor church historians found different answers to questions concerning the style in which to present the material, the purpose served in continuing Eusebius’ work, and the proper treatment of secular material in religious history.

The category of
apologetic history
includes Orosius. His unusual work uses history as a weapon to prove his theological points by means of a blend of secular historiography, Eusebian triumphalism, and biblical numerology. While classicizing historians demonstrate the continuing links between late antiquity and the Greco-Roman tradition, Orosius’ historical work demonstrates the formal innovation and rethinking of values that are equally typical of late antiquity.

The format of the book

The first section (
chapters 1
–
12
) treats each historian individually, presenting what is known of his life and then describing the nature of his historical work. Appended to each chapter is a citation of the Greek or Latin text of the author, and any available English translations. The second section (
chapters 13
–
19
) is dedicated to discussions of the opinions of the historians on certain significant themes. The first chapter of this section,
chapter 13
, explores late antique historians’ uses of speeches and documents, and the ways in which they assert their credentials and abilities as historians.
Chapter 14
treats the historians’ approach to certain novel elements of late antique governance, including the sacralization of the emperor, the bureaucracy, and legal and economic topics.
Chapter 15
explores the extent to which historians link themselves to the distant past of the Roman state and how they interpret this period.
Chapter 16
, on religion, investigates the historical treatment of paganism, of Christian conflict, of Judaism, and of monasticism.
Chapter 17
explores the image of the barbarian, including Goths, Huns, and Persians. Two concluding chapters consider the historians’ presentations of two important and controversial emperors of late Roman empire, Julian and Theodosius I. These chapters should help the reader to better understand the strengths, aims, and biases of the late antique historians. They also reveal the sorts of information that are presented in late antique history, and serve as an introduction for the reader to some fascinating topics in late antique history and society.

1
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

Life

We know a good deal about the life of Ammianus Marcellinus, who frequently appears in his own history. The complex mixture of Greek and Latin culture with which he was imbued, and his participation in some of the most important events of his time, provided him with the essential background for the creation of his monumental work, the
Res Gestae
.

Ammianus says that he was an “adolescens” (
Res Gestae
16.10.21) in the year 357. This term generally is applied to those under the age of 30, which suggests that he was born in the late 320s or early 330s. His birthplace was almost certainly the Syrian city of Antioch, one of the most important cities of the empire in the fourth century (Liebeschuetz 1972). This Antiochene heritage helps to explain his surprising decision to write in Latin rather than in Greek, even though he describes himself as a Greek at the conclusion of the work (31.16.9) and frequently glosses Greek words with a comment like, “As
we
call it …” (e.g. 20.3.11). In the Antioch of his youth, Latin would have been a familiar language. The emperor Constantius II used Antioch as his base during a series of wars against the Persian empire throughout the 340s, and the city was filled with Latin-speaking soldiers and bureaucrats.

Indeed, given what we can reconstruct of Ammianus’ early career, it is not unlikely that he was raised in a Latin-speaking family (Matthews 1989: 71–80). Ammianus served as
protector domesticus
, a military staff assistant (Trombley 1999). Some men reached this position through long years of service, but Ammianus was still a young man when he became
protector
, which suggests that he received his rank through family connections. His father had probably been a soldier (Barnes 1998: 58–9), and was perhaps even
the Marcellinus who served in the powerful position of
comes Orientis
in 349 (Gimazane 1889: 24–7). Ammianus several times complains about the unfair burdens placed upon the municipal elite, who were increasingly compelled to perform onerous duties as members of the
curia
, or city council (22.9.12, 25.4.21; Thompson 1947a). Ammianus may have derived exemption from such service from his father’s position in the imperial service as well as from his own military profession (Barnes 1998: 58–9). The general under whom Ammianus served as
protector
, Ursicinus, had a home in Antioch (18.4.3), and Ammianus’ service as
protector
may have been an apprenticeship under a family friend. Appointment to the position of
protector
required the ritual of
adoratio purpurae
, prostration before the emperor and the kissing of his purple robe (Avery 1940), and Ammianus probably performed this ritual while Constantius II was still in Antioch, and therefore before 350.

We can extract some suggestive information about Ammianus’ youth from remarks scattered throughout his work. He describes himself as
ingenuus
and therefore accustomed to ride rather than walk (19.8.6); the word implies a reasonably high social status. In 359, he tells us, he stayed at the home of a certain Jovinianus, who was the satrap of the Armenian province of Corduene (18.6.20–1). Jovinianus had developed a love of Roman literature during his youth, which he spent as a hostage in the eastern empire. Perhaps the two met in school. The acquaintanceship reveals a bit of the cosmopolitan nature of the Antioch of Ammianus’ childhood.

This traditional account of Ammianus’ birthplace and background, outlined by E.A. Thompson (1947a) and augmented by John Matthews (Matthews 1989, esp. 67–80), has come under attack in recent years (Barnes 1993a, 1998; Fornara 1992a; Bowersock 1990b). Some scholars have denied that Ammianus was born in Antioch and have suggested in its place some other city of the Greek east. Most revisionists pay particular attention to a letter of the Antiochene orator Libanius to “Marcellinus” (
ep
. 1069), which had long been believed to be addressed to the historian. The letter congratulates its recipient on the success of his recent readings at Rome and was written around 392. In reviews of Matthews’ work, Bowersock (1990b) and Barnes (1993a) both suggest that this letter addressed to Marcellinus was not written to our Ammianus Marcellinus but rather to another holder of that common name. Bowersock goes so far as to claim that “the assumption [of Ammianus’ Antiochene origins] is based solely upon the identification of the recipient of [the] letter … as the historian Ammianus
Marcellinus” (1990b: 247). Both reviewers were influenced by the work of Fornara (1992a), who similarly argued that Libanius’ Marcellinus cannot be the historian, and that our understanding of Ammianus and his background should be reconsidered, as this letter is the “singular pillar” holding up the traditional account.