The Historians of Late Antiquity (33 page)

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 with 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 conflicts 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.

John is a heroic figure in the works of all three church historians, who all condemn his eventual deposition as an injustice. Nevertheless, Socrates is markedly cooler toward John than the other historians, and in many cases we can see Sozomen at work rejecting the criticisms of Socrates and providing refutations to other charges. Socrates, for example, describes John as upright, yet somewhat haughty, and suggests that John was a little too arrogant in his relations with his clergy, who were therefore cold toward him (6.3–4). Sozomen rejects any hint of blame in John’s conduct, seeing his regulation of the life of clergy as evidence of his goodness and character (8.3.1–2). The descriptions of another incident during John’s tenure bring out the differences between the two historians. The eunuch Eutropius fell out of favor with Arcadius and fled for his life to John’s church, seeking sanctuary. With Eutropius present, John delivered a sermon which used the eunuch’s situation as an example of the malleability of human fortune. Socrates calls this speech an “interrogation,” and says that it made some unhappy, as it seemed to lack compassion toward one so wretched (6.5.1–7). Sozomen, on the other hand, begins with an elaboration of Eutropius’ sins to emphasize his wickedness, and describes John’s speech as simply an “oration.” He adds that “the enemies of John” reproached him for cruelty, and then moves swiftly to a description of Eutropius’ decapitation, the just result of the wrath of God (8.7).