The Historians of Late Antiquity (32 page)

Eutropius’ pro-senatorial bias is particularly clear in his account of the conflict between Marius and Sulla. Marius is directly blamed for the war (5.4), which Eutropius attributes to his spurned desire to lead the campaign against Mithridates. Sulla’s campaigns in the east are described as a stunning success (5.6), and his return to Rome is portrayed as the result of a senatorial delegation begging him to restore order after the massacre of nobles perpetrated by Marius (5.7.4). Sulla’s own proscriptions are passed over with the phrase “the restoration of order to the state” (6.1). This pro-senatorial stance is presumably also the explanation for Eutropius’ complete omission of the revolutionary Gracchi (Bird 1986).

Eutropius condemns Julius Caesar for his refusal to lawfully run for senatorial office (6.25), and also omits mention of Caesar’s posthumous apotheosis (den Boer 1972: 156). Eutropius’ negative treatment of Caesar based on his poor relations with the senate is echoed in the imperial section of the history, where the historian judges emperors largely on their behavior toward the senate. Nero’s evil is demonstrated by the fact that he executed a vast number of senators and was “an enemy of all good men” (7.14.1), while Vespasian, on the other hand, was “friendly to the senate, the people, and, finally, to everyone” (7.20.2).

While Eutropius’ emphasis on the senate provides continuity from republic to empire in his account of Roman history, Festus focuses on the continuity of the Roman military. Festus’ introduction presents the traditional separation of Roman history into regal, republican, and imperial periods (2), but he frequently elides these distinctions in the early sections of the work, which are arranged geographically rather than in strict temporal order. In describing Roman foreign policy in the east, Festus provides a story of expansion which moves smoothly from Sulla and Pompey to Augustus and Trajan without reference to the political discontinuity between republic and empire.

Unlike Eutropius, Festus does not refrain from dwelling upon failure. A disproportionately large amount of the history is devoted to the gruesome demise of Crassus (17). While Eutropius had blamed the disaster on Crassus’ failure to heed certain omens (6.18), Festus blames the failure of Crassus on his refusal to accept a proffered peace and on his reliance on a treacherous deserter. These historians’ views of the defeat of Crassus may have been influenced by their attitudes toward the more recent failure of Roman armies under Julian. Festus’ account of Julian is, like his account of Crassus, more critical than that of Eutropius (10.16). Festus’ Julian rejected a chance for peace (28) and foolishly continued the Persian invasion until he was killed, while Eutropius’ Julian, victorious, died merely by chance on his triumphant return to Roman territory (10.16.2). Both historians also have kind words for Lucius Cassius, the quaestor of Crassus. Cassius’ success in preserving the defeated army and even in gaining some victories over the Parthians after the death of Crassus is perhaps meant to contrast with the failure of Jovian (Fest. 29; Eut. 10.17) after the death of Julian.

The nature of our evidence makes impossible a definitive judgement on the treatment of the republic in the fragmentary historians Eunapius, Olympiodorus, and Priscus. It seems likely
that comparisons of contemporary historical events and figures with those of the classical period would generally have been extraneous to the main thread of the narrative, and would thus be particularly likely to have been suppressed in the summaries by Photius, Zosimus, or the Byzantine excerptors.

Eunapius is a more devoted traditionalist than is Olympiodorus or Priscus, and perhaps for this reason he seems to have been more drawn to
exempla
. His
exempla
, however, are derived largely from the Greek rather than the Roman past. As a successor to Dexippus and Dio, his historical pedigree ultimately stems from Herodotus, Thucydides, and classical Athens. In his extant
Lives of the Sophists
, there are no references to early Roman history, but there are several passing references to Greek figures like Nicias (479), Pericles (498), and Peisistratus (488). The
History
suggests a similar interest in the Greek past. In his preface, he uses “the wisdom of Socrates” and “the acuity of Themistocles” as examples of virtues which histories describe (
fr
. 1). Alexander the Great receives several mentions (
frs
. 28.5, 34.10), and Zosimus’ comparison of Julian’s victory in Gaul with that of Alexander over Darius (3.3.3) may derive ultimately from Eunapius.

Despite his Hellenic bias, Eunapius occasionally made reference to figures of the Roman republic. The
Excerpta de Sententiis
preserves two such references. Marius (whom he calls “the Roman Marius”) used to say of Sulla that he was two beasts, a fox and a lion, and that he feared the fox more. Eunapius comments that Constantius was surrounded by no lions, but by many foxes (
fr
. 20.4). Another preserved quip concerns the Carthaginian general Phameas and his respect for Scipio Aemilianus (
fr
. 69.5). Blockley suggests that Eunapius had likened Fravitta to Scipio and Gainas to Phameas (1983: 148 n. 167). These mentions of republican figures were presumably derived from collections of
sententiae
rather than original research, but given the narrow, Greek-oriented world of sophistic
exempla
, they are still worthy of note (on sophistic historical
exempla
cf. Anderson 1993: 101–32).

Two passages in Zosimus which survey early Roman history could conceivably be derived from Eunapius. In his critical account of Jovian’s surrender of Roman territory to the Persians after the disastrous defeat of Julian, Zosimus provides a quick survey of Roman–Persian relations, with reference to Lucullus, Pompey, Crassus, and Augustus (3.32). The comparison with republican figures who had never lost Roman territory ensures that particular opprobrium falls upon Jovian. Second, Gratian’s refusal to take up the ancient pagan title of
pontifex maximus
prompts Zosimus to
sketch the history of the office, pointing to Numa as its originator and Augustus as the first emperor to hold the title (4.36.3). If these passages originated with Eunapius they would provide evidence for an attempt to systematically compare fourth-century Rome with an earlier period, but they could easily be additions by Zosimus, written to support his comprehensive theory of Roman decline.

It is even more difficult to determine Olympiodorus’ use of the Roman past. His extant fragments contain no references to the republic or early empire. Olympiodorus was familiar with Latin and with contemporary Rome, and the digressive nature of his history might have provided opportunity to reflect upon the ancient past. But as a writer of “material for history” rather than proper, formal history, he probably omitted the lengthy, rhetorical comparisons of ancient and modern times which characterized the more traditionalist works of historians like Ammianus or Eunapius.

Priscus’ fragments contain no references to early Roman history. Priscus’ work, like Olympiodorus’, focuses heavily on contemporary events. His emphasis on eastern rather than western events would have limited his opportunities to discuss the republic. The historian’s treatment of Rome in his debate with the Greek who became a Hun further suggests a lack of interest in the ancient history of Rome. His defense of Rome centers primarily upon the value of Roman law and the Roman constitution. The institutions which Priscus defends are those of the late Roman state. He gives no attention to the virtuous heroes of early Rome or to the republican constitution which earlier historians had seen as integral to the success of the Roman state.

Orosius provides a vision of the Roman republic strikingly at odds with that of the pagan and classicizing historians. Under the influence of the Eusebian vision, he depicts a corrupt and bellicose republic which gave way, at the time of the coming of Christ, to a more benevolent and progressive empire. The Roman state, according to Orosius, was born in bloodshed and violence, as Romulus murdered his grandfather and brother, abducted the Sabine Women, and gathered together a band of criminals as the first citizens (2.4). But the regal period did not lead to a liberated republic. Instead, Orosius describes the regicide Brutus as the murderer of his sons and thus as even worse than Romulus. The horrors of the republic only ceased with the coming of Augustus. Augustus’ opening of the doors of the temple of Janus, which signifies the peace of the empire, is purposefully misdated by Orosius in order to link it directly with the Epiphany (6.20.3; Inglebert 1996: 543).

Orosius aims to show that the disasters of the early fifth century, which some had blamed on the abandonment of traditional Roman religion, paled in comparison with the disasters of the Roman state prior to the coming of Christ and the establishment of Christianity. The Eusebian framework he adopts to explain Roman history suggested that the sole rule of Augustus over a world empire was the secular counterpart to the rule of one God over the world, and that the two threads, secular and divine, became united with the coming of Constantine, at once the worldly emperor and the head of the Christian church. Orosius does not clearly suggest that the troubles of the republic rested upon a flawed political system; in fact, he only occasionally recognizes any systemic difference between republic and empire. Instead, every kind of disturbance, whether in warfare, in domestic affairs, or in natural events such as pestilence and earthquake, is set forth as evidence of the corruption of the early Roman state.

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.