Barbarian attacks troubled the empire throughout the fifth century. In 441 Theodosius II dispatched an army to aid Valentinian III in an unsuccessful attempt to dislodge Gaiseric and his Vandals from Africa. Rua and then his successor as king of the Huns, Attila, took advantage of these difficulties by demanding tribute from the eastern emperor and by devastating the Balkans and Thrace when payment was deemed insufficient. After the death of Theodosius the new eastern emperor, Marcian, refused to continue to pay subsidies to the Hunnic empire. Attila turned his attention to the west, where the sister of Valentinian III, Honoria, unhappy with the marriage that had been arranged for her, offered herself in marriage to Attila. Attila came with his army to collect his bride, but the Huns were checked in Gaul in 451 by Aetius, the chief general and power behind the throne of Valentinian. A Hunnic invasion of Italy in 452 was unsuccessful, and after the death of Attila in 453 the Hunnic empire swiftly disintegrated.
The position of Marcian, the military officer who succeeded Theodosius II to the throne, was legitimated by his marriage to the previous emperor’s sister Pulcheria. Marcian was succeeded after his death in 457 by Leo. Both emperors seem to have reached the throne through the influence of the general Aspar, but Leo came to favor another general, Zeno, and eventually had Aspar assassinated in 471. His reign was most notable for a disastrous attempt to drive the Vandals from Africa and for conflict with the Goths under their leader, Theodoric Strabo. At Leo’s death in 474, the eastern empire was insolvent and threatened by Gothic power in the Balkans.
Valentinian III was assassinated in 455, having ruled for thirty years. After several short-lived emperors took the throne, the German general Ricimer supported as emperor Majorian (457–61) and, after executing Majorian, Libius Severus (461–5). The nominee of the eastern emperor Leo, the general Anthemius, next held office (467–72). The Roman army in this period ceased controlling Africa, Spain, and most of Gaul, and when the German officer Odoacer came to power in Italy, he neglected to appoint a western emperor and instead sought confirmation of his own power directly from the eastern emperor Zeno. When Zeno refused this recognition, Odoacer ruled with the title rex, or king, which was also used by the other German kings on what had once been Roman territory.
The Roman empire in the fourth and fifth centuries: religious history
Christianity was despised by pagan and Jew alike in the first centuries after the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Although technically illegal, most emperors sought to minimize prosecutions or persecutions which could lead to false accusations or general unrest. Christians continued to win converts gradually throughout the third century, and their growing numbers provoked two great persecutions, under the emperor Decius (250–1) and Valerian (257–60). Christians across the empire were forced to sacrifice to the gods or be martyred, and the persecution inspired many heroic acts of resistance as well as many more prudent acts of flight or surrender. Valerian’s defeat and capture by the Persian king was considered divine vengeance by Christians, and his successor Gallienus restored property to the church and instituted a policy of religious toleration which would last for forty years.
Diocletian was a firm believer in the traditional gods, and considered Jupiter and Hercules, represented by himself and his colleague Maximian on earth, to be protectors of the empire. In February 303 the emperor published an edict intended to destroy the corporate life of Christianity, demanding that churches be destroyed, sacred books be burned, and that Christians lose their offices and legal rights. In the summer the emperor further commanded that Christian bishops be arrested and forced to sacrifice. The persecution was broadened still further under the leadership of the Caesar Galerius, who in 304 demanded that all Christians sacrifice or face death. After the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, their successors continued to pursue anti-Christian measures.
After years of persecution, however, the dying Galerius had a change of heart, and in 311 published his famous “Edict of Toleration,” which returned Christianity to the neutral position it had held before 303. The edict was not accepted by all of the rulers of the Roman state. But in October 312, as the emperor Constantine marched on Rome against Maxentius, he saw in the sky a cross of light with the message, “In this conquer.” The emperor credited the Christian God with his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. In an alliance with the emperor Licinius, Constantine promulgated the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed freedom of religion throughout the empire. The degree to which Constantine understood the Christian religion at that time is uncertain, but his benefactions to the church were significant, including the exemption of clergy from duties and the showering of wealth upon churches in the west. In only a decade, Christianity had been transformed from an object of persecution to the favored religion of the Roman state.
The granting of privileges to the Christians made the definition of Christianity a much more significant source of strife. The fourth and fifth centuries were wracked with doctrinal disputes fueled by various mixtures of ideological, political, and economic motives. In order to consider these disputes fairly it is essential to avoid retroactively imposing later notions of orthodoxy upon earlier thinkers. It was out of the doctrinal controversies that the implications of various theological positions eventually came to be understood, and orthodoxy came to be constructed.
The relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son was a frequent subject of debate in the fourth century. On the one hand, common sense and the Greek philosophical tradition would suggest that the Father was in some way greater than or existed prior to the Son. To emphasize too strongly the singularity of God ran the risk of not thoroughly disassociating Christianity from Judaism, which was an attractive alternative to Christianity in the cities of the east. Also, an emphasis on the human and therefore subordinate aspect of Jesus was necessary to underscore the pain that Jesus suffered on the cross. A fully divine Jesus would not seem to have undergone much of a sacrifice on behalf of mankind. On the other hand, there were strong reasons for emphasizing the essential unity of Jesus and the Father. A too-human Jesus might be assimilated with the many pagan stories of demigods and heroes. The greatness of God’s sacrifice could only be emphasized by underlining Jesus’ divinity. Without a Son whose power was fully divine, how could human sins be forgiven?
Arius was a priest of Alexandria who came into conflict with his bishop, Alexander, over the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Because, on the one hand, we do not know exactly what Arius taught, and on the other, we can be certain that he did not teach all of the many different things which he was accused of inspiring, the often-used term “Arianism” is not very useful for describing a theological position. It was, instead, used to smear theological opponents, few of whom would have been likely to describe themselves with the word. In some cases, the historian can substitute the more neutral term “homoiousian” and its counterpart “homoousian.” The first term, which includes the letter “i,” refers to the belief that the Father and Son are of “like” substance, and can refer to a number of theological positions which deny what would eventually become the orthodox belief that the Father and Son are of the “same” substance.
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.
Theolog
ical 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, o
f 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.
The Historians of Late Antiquity Page 2
