Orosius and the Rhetoric of History [Paperback ed.] 0199655278, 9780199655274

Citation preview

THE OXFORD EARLY CHRlSTIAN STUDIES series includes scholarly volumeson the thought and historyof the·earlyChristiancenturies.Coveringa wide range of Greek. Latin, and Oriental sources,.the books are of interest to theologians,ancient historians,and specialistsin the classicaland Jewishworlds. Titlesin the seriesinclude: Hilaryof Poitierson the Trinity FromDe Fideto De Trinitate Carl L Beckwith(2008) The EasterComputusand the Originsof the Christian Era . Alden A. Mosshammer(2008)

Orosius and the Rhetoricof History PETER VAN NUFFELEN

· · ..: The Lettersof Jerome Asceticism,BiblicalExegesis,and the :Co.nsthictio~~ Christi.an Authority in LateAntiquity · "· ·. , Andrew Cain {2009)

Basuof.Caesarea, Gregoryof Nyssa,and the Transformationof DivineSimplicity AndrewRadde-Gallwitz(2009}

The Asceticismoflsaac of Nineveh Patrik Hagman (2010) Palladiusof Helenopolis The OrigenistAdvocate DemetrlosS. Katos(2011) Origenand Scripture The Contours of the Exe~cal Life Peter Martens (2012) Activityand Participationin Late Antiqueand EarlyChristianThought TorsteinTheodor Tollefsen(2012) Irenaeusof Lyonsand the Theologyof the Holy Spirit AnthonyBriggman(2012) Apophasisand Pseudonymityin Dionysiusthe Areopagite 'No LongerI' Charles M. Stang (2012) Memoryin Augustine'sTheologicalAnthropology PaigeE. Hochschild(2012)

OXFORD \JNIVBJlSITY PRESS

OXFORD . \JlUVl!l.~ITY

GreatCmendon

PUSS

St~: Oiford.OX26OP,

Tableof Contents

United Kingdom

OxfordUniversityPrm is • depanrnent of the Universityof Oxford.

It furthen !he U~rsity' s objectl~ o{ excelle~ in research,sdlolarshlp, and.ed\lQticmby puhlishingwondwide•.Pxfordis a registeredtJademarkof OxfordUniwrsityPl'ffl in lhe UKand in Qel'tainother counlrle$

ICPetttVan Nuffden2012 The moral rightsof the author h-

been all$el1ed

Firstpublished2012 Impression:2 Allrlgltt.,reserved.No pan of lhis publk:ationmaybe reprodw:ed. $}'$lltll, or transmitted,in anyformor by any mean$, sioredin a retrle\111 without the prior ~rmission in writingof OxfordUni-sity PreliS, or u apressly permittedby law,or underlen11$ agrom with the appropriate reprographicsrighu 0rgllllization. Enquiriescon.:emingreproduction outsidethe s.:opeof the aboveshouldbe sent to the RightsDepartment, Orlord Unlvet$JtyPress. at theaddressabove Youmust not circulatethis workin any other form and you m1111t bnposethis sameconditionon any acqulrer BritishLlbraryCataloguingin PublicationData Data,wilable

Libraryof Cong.- Catalogingin PublicationData

Preface Note on Abbreviations Jntroduction

vii

viii I

1. UnexpectedPearls:Prefacesand the Rhetoricof Deference 25 2. A Tale of Two Cities:Book2 and the Fall of Rome

45

3. The Past as Literature:exempla and the Culture of Rhetoric 63 4. (Re)sourcesof Narrative

93

5. A Senseof the Past: The Truth of Rhetoric

115

6. A Past for the Present:On Metaphorsand Panegyric

145

7. BeyondRome: UniversalHistoryand the Barbarian

170

8. What DifferenceDoes ChristianityMake?

186

Dataavailable ISBN978-0-19-965527-4 Printedin GreatBritainby MPGBooksGrllllp,BodminaJldKing'sLynn

Bibliography

Index of Sources SubjectIndex

207 235 248

Preface This monograph arguesthat closestudy of the rhetoricalfeaturesand intentions of Orosius' Historiaeadversuspaganospennits a fundamentalreassessmentof the work. Often read as a theologyof history in disguiserather than a proper history, Orosius'.Histories.canin fact be shown to deploy the breadth of rhetorical tools that classical historia.nsused,with the ultimate aim of,uqdermini.J}g the traditional, gloriousview of the Roman past. This book constitutes.as it were, a digressionfrom another monograph on late antiq_uehistoriography. BecauseOrosius has often been depicted as the paradigm of how Christians wrote history, it hopes neverthelessto contribute to our generalunderstandingof the writingof history in late Antiquity. Researchfor this book waslargely done at Oxford,where_Iwas a VisitingMember of the Corpus Christi ClassicsCentre in ·2009-10. I wish to thank Neil Mclynn for hosting me and the Flemish ResearchFund for fundingthe stay.He and BryanWard-Perkinsinvited me to give a paper on Orosius in their research seminar and I thank all present for their usefulcomments-not least Matthew Kempshall, whosuggestedthe coverillustration.Partsof the bookwerepresented to audiencesin Brusselsand Seville.A first draft waswritten during a stay in the FondationHardt (Geneva)in May and June 2010. Thanks to its dedicated staff, it is one of the few institutions in the world where one can write up a monograph in two months. My sincerestthanksgo to the serieseditors for acceptingthe book and offeringmuch good advice.The commentsof the externalreader encouragedme to rethink my argwnent and to rewrite parts of the book. I also wish to thank the editorial staff of Oxford University Press for their efficient work. I thank Duckworth Publishers for allowingme to use material first publishedin Van Nuffelen(2010). As ever, my most stringent critic wasmy wife, LieveVan Hoof, who once again commented thoroughly on the entire manuscript Havingexhaustedmy ways of sayingthanks in previouspublications, I shall now have recourseto a most sincerepraeteritio.

.SO~uJ

Note .oriAbbreviations Abbreviationsof journal titles followthe list of L'Anneephilologique (www.annee-philologiqae.com/aph/). Other abbreviations wed in this book are: ANRW = Haase,W., e.a. (1972-}Aufetiegund Niedergangderromischen Welt.Ge$chichte und KulturRomsim Spiegelderneueren Forschung.Berlinand New York,Walter de Gruyter. FGrHist = Jacoby;F., e.a. (1922-) DieFragmentedergriechischen Historiker.Berlinand Leiden,WeidmannscheBuchhandlungand Brill. LCL = (1912-) LoebQassicalLibrary. London and Cambridge(Mass.), Heinemann and Harvard UniversityPress. PL

==Migne, J.P. (1844-55, 1862-6) Patrologia Latina.Paris, Petit-

Montrouge.

Referencesto Orosiusare to the Historiae,unlessspecifiedotherwise.

Introduction The SpanishpresbyterOrosius wrote his Historiaeadversuspaganos in 416/7, the behest of Augustine.1 Intended as a companionto the Cityof God,it hasa similarapologeticaim;:thatis, demonstratingthat the pagan perception of the classicalRoman past as a time of glory and triumph is mistaken. The concomitant view that Christianityis responsiblefor the decline of Rome,as evidencedin Alaric's sack of Romein AD 410,is turned upsi_dedown:in fact,Orosiusargues,one is now better off than in the times of old. The Historiaetend to have a riithernegativepress in scholarshipand are often seen as a superficial and ideologicallycharged compilationof earlierhistories.This judgment has been extended to their author, whose intellectualqualities havebeen doubted.The present bookputs forwarda differentviewof Orosius and situates ihe Historiaein the context of the writing of history in the fourth a:nd fifth centuries AD and in that of the rhetorical education of the period-two contexts that are, in fact, intimatelylinked. The more literary approath espousedhere will, I hope, not only lead to a revaluation of the Historiae, but also generate a better understanding of the way history was written in the Latin West in late·Antiquity.

at

I. OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY A much maligned historian, Orosius seems to be in constant need

of revisionism.Indeed. oneof the firs_tbook-length studies of the 1

MartinezCavero 2002a: $2--4.

Orosiusand the Rhetorkof History

2

Historiae,A. Lippold's 1952 dissertation, presented itself as ~evisionist, emphasizing the need to study Orosius as_a historian in contrast with more theolqgicalreadings.2 The present monograph, albeit verydifferentin scope,approach, and outcome from Lippold's, has a similar aim. Hence,before I detail my own approach,it may _be important to explainwhy,sixtyyearslater, it stillis necessaryto make a similar argument. Apart from an intuitive dislike of apologeticin history among contemporaryscholars,which seemsto go againstthe duties of the modern historian, two specificreasons are, in my_view, crucial. The first is the factthat the optimism of the Historiaejars with our viewof the fifthcentury in the Roman West as one prolongedagony. Although he does not deny the numerous problems that faced the empire in the first decadesof the century, Orosius narrates them in a series of panegyricalchapters that conclude the work. Notwithstanding the effortsof recent scholarship/ the battle of Adrianople(378), the invasion of Radagaisus(405/6), and the sack of Rome (410) are still often seen as steps towards the inexorable fall of the Western empire.4 Whereas Orosius sees conditions improving, even in the\ West after a series of invasions and usurpations, we see a tottering -i empire. It is the tragedy of Orosius that the green _shootsof the stabilizationof Romanpower, which lend his vision somecredibility, were soon swept away,leaving his optimism destitute. It does not help .much that many shared his optimism in the years around 4l 7/85-even paganssuch a.sRutiliusNamatianusand Olympiodorus of Thebes:6 the collapseof the Westem empire stigmaµzesthe Historiaeas an inadequateassessmentof their own age.lfhe challengeof study of Orosiiis is therefore to blend out o-ur._ (oreknowledgeof what wasto followand to understand his history as the product of a very specificmoment in time when optimism still seemedpermitted. This is not tci suggestthat Orosius' optimism is merely.the result of historicalcircumstances:it obviouslyis also driven by the apologetic intentions of the Historiae,being written at the deniand of Augustine to supplement the argument of the City of God.

*la 1

Lippold 1952:1, 66. Seethe overviewof Pohl 2008. 4 Seemost recentlyWard-Perkins2005 and Heathec2009. 5 Courcelle1964:!02-14. 6 Rutilius Namatianus,De reditu 1.141-4. For Olympiodorus,see Van Nuffelen (forthcoming). · 3

lntrodu,tion

3

II. THE SHADOW OF AUGUSTINE The second reason is, indeed, the special relationshipthat Orosius entertains with Augustine,a relationshipthat is even closer than the .mere fact that the latter is the dedicatee of the Historiae.Indeed, Orosius is the paradigm of how an individual can come into the spotlight-ofhistory through associationwith a more famous person and how he can virtuallydisappearfrom our sightonce that relationship has ended. Orosius arrived in Hippo in. 414, froIµ Braga in · Galicia/ to see Augustine,and left Africain 418. He made a voyage to Jerome in Bethlehemin between and intervenedthere unsuccessfullyin the pelagiancontrove~sy.The only important testimonyto his life besideshis acquaintancewith the.two most famous Latin fathers of his age is in the Letter of Severusof Minorca,describingthe arrival of the relicsof SaintStephenon the island (418). The presbytersaid in the letter to be accompanyingthe relicsof SaintStephento Minorcais probably Orosius. He is depicted as planning to return to Spain but forcedto go to Africa.8 What Orosius did before414 and after 418 is a matter of speculation.9 Althoughhe also visitedJeroine,it is mainly Augustinewith whom Orosius was involved.Indeed; Orosius deliberatelysought to establisha link with Augustineand, as I shall argue in this book. consciouslytried to cash in on the latter's fame. He gained his place in history through advertisinghis intimacy with the , most famous Latin Church father. Whether the intimacy with Augustine is '.historicalor not is of ~ . less importance than its consequences. for how the Historiae\ have.been read. Indeed, Augustinecasts a long shadow on Orosius. Commandedby, and dedicatedto, the bishop of Hippo, the Historiae are usually read in the light of Augustine's theologr and thus as a theology of history rather than a proper history. ~he traditional

1 EpistulaAviti ad PakhoniumPL 41.805-7.The most likelyorigin, but not the only one proposed;see Martinez Cavero2002a:22-$: Fear 2010a:3. 8 Severus,Epistula4.1-2. · ' That Orosius died soon after418 in a shipwreck(Arnaud-Lindet1990-l: i.ix) is an example of such speculation. I follow the traditional chronology,as set out in Vilella2000. The chronologyproposed in Bradbuty 1996:24-S and Fear 2010a:5 situates the transfer of the relics and visit to Minorca before the writing of the Hirtl>Tiae. ..On Orosius' life, see also Lippold 1976:l.xi-xxii;Torres Rodriguez 1985:16-45; Arnaud•Undet 1990-1:i.ix•xx;MartinezCavero2002a;Fear 2010a:3-7.

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

Introduction

approach is ·well· summed up in the title of a classic article by Hans-WernerGoetz: Orosiusund die Barbaren:Zu den umstrittenen Vorstellungen eines spatantikenGeschichtstheologen (1980b). Goetz de:fines·orosiusas a theologianof history, not as a historian, who is supposed to have systematic views that can be reconstructed and assessed. This approach to Orosiushas deeproots in scholarshipon historiographyoflate Antiquity:it is commonlyassumed that in Christian historiography, theology trumps history. Because Christianity is a historical religion·and sees time evolvingfrom Creation through Incarnation to the Second Coming, so it is argued, all Christian historiesaim at tracing God's plan of salvation.10 There is therefore no meaningful distinction between exegesis,theology, and historiography in the Christian·mind. In such a vie'w,Christian historiographydoes not have an identityof its own,but is a subcontractorfor theology.As a consequence,a Church history and Augustine'sCity of God can be depicted as identical undertakings.11 Unsurprisingly, then, studies of Christian historiography have often seen literary and historiographicalcharacteristicsas merely preparatory for the real questionson the divinelyinspired evolution of history.To quote againH.-W.Goetz,in his monographon Orosius' theologyof history: 'Das Anliegendes christlichen Geschichtschreibersist notwendigerweise die Geschichtsdeutung.'12 Recently,one scholar has equated intertextuality,secular historiography, Hellenism, and paganism.1J Secularworksof history are thus complex,allusive,and artful;Christian historiesare simple, unelaborated,and theologies.indisguise. As we shall see in more detail below, scholars have started to explorethe importanceof genre and literary art in Christianhistories, thus questioningthe falsedivide between Christian and 'classicizing' historiesin late Antiquity.This is, I would suggest,also the route to be taken by scholarshipon Orosius:we can only gain new insightsin the Historiaeon condition that we take its self-description and selfunderstandingas a history seriously.Whilst not denyingthat Orosius

had.some ideas, this book argues that we cannot try to deduct views from a work of history without.understandingit on its own terms. As a profoundly rhetorical work {as any history from Antiquity), opiin.their narrative anjl.argunions that are aired need,to be .sitµa~~g, .mentative context. and cannot be isolated to construct the fragile edificeof Orosius' theologyof history.

4

......., r_,.~

10 Dawson 1977: 30-7; Latourelle 1977: 75-7; Lulselll 1980; Goetz 1991: 247; Winkelmann 2002; Wallraff2004 and 2005: 4. A strong influence was exercis«I by Lowith 1953. 11 Luiselll1980:518;Press 1982:123-6; Zakai and Mali 1992-3;Allan 2003:24-5; Alonso-Nunez2005. 12 G-Oetz 1980a:44. 13 Kaldellis2004.

5

III. THE MASTER MISUNDERSTOOD The most important shift in scholarshipon Orosius happened in the middle of the twentieth century and regards his intellectualrelationship with Augustine. For a long time the Historiaehad been interpreted as an illustrationof some of the themes of the City of God,as Orosius' prefaceitselfsuggests.Little differencewas noticed between Augustine'sview of history and that of Orosius. This view changed slowlyin the interbellumand radicallyin the early fifties.14 Scholars started to notice in the Cityof Godthe depreciationof human history in favour of personal salvation,and the opposition between ephemeral felicity of this world and the eternal beatitude of the world to come. The OJ:.>t!Djl~Ji4._ view of the Historiae,where Christianity is ~ depicted as impi%vingthe world and spreadin,g peace, was, scholarse.~ct realiied, difficul'tto reconcilewith that of Augustineas expressedin the City of God.Hence scholarshipstarted to focuseven more on the particularitiesof Orosius' 'theologyof history'; alwaysin comparison with Augustine.The titles of some fundamentalstudieson Orosiusof the past half a century are eloquent in this respect: Paul Oroseet sa conceptionde l'histoire(Fainck 1951); Die Geschichtstheologie des Orosius(Schondorf 1952;Goetz 1980a);Oroseet ses idees(Lacroix 1965).The conclusion usuallywas that, in comparison with Augustine, Orosiushad fewideas of limitedvalue.Indeed, the paradoxthat a pupil couldso fundamentallymisunderstandhis masterwasexplained by increasinglydismissivejudgmentson Orosius'intelligenceand culture:that his was a smallmind with barelya pro12ereducationis a polite

14 Particularlyimportant a.re Karnlah1951; Scliondorf 1952;Maier !9SS; Mommsen 1959b.Seethe earlierstudies of Fuchs 1938and Straub 1972c,originallypublished

in 1939.

\l\(, "~

Introduction

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

6

swnm.aryof some of the judgrnents.15 Unsurprisingly,such a largely negativejudgment has been countered by a minority of scholars who~ -o !.?Pseinto the.opposite~ of excessivepraiseand consfder Orosius'4 16 judgmel}texpressedin a 1t, thoughtprofound and dartng. The following recent survey illustrates well the traditional assessment of Orosius: 'While his recounting of the facts is often unimgressive,his complex systematizingrevealshis bold and originalmind'~ Here Orosius'work as a historianis explicitlydevaluatedat the expenseof supposed originalityin the field of theology. A seriesof first-rateeditions and translationshas continuedto draw attentionto Orosiusas a historian,18 but eventhey havebeen influenced bythe persistentvaluejudgments.Giventhe role playedby the heavily charged opposition between Orosius and Augustine in generating thesejudgments,it is usefulto take a closerlook at the precisescholarly context in which that contrast developed To do so, I shall briefly discuss two dominant figures in twentieth-centurypatristic studies, Erik Peterson (1890-1960) and Henri-Irenee Marrou (1904-77). WhilstOrosius never was c:entralto their work, Augustine was, and their interpretation of Augustine was crucially shaped by the social and politicalchangesof the 1930sin Europe. ErikPeterson was a theologian and Church historian who had to abandon his chair at the Universityof Bonn when he converted from Lutheranismto Catholicismin 1930.In the 1930shis theologydeveloped a clearlypolitical character: against the fascinationfor a secular eschatology,evidenced in. the Nazi claim to a Third Reich and the exaltation of the historical achievementsof the German race, he reemphasizedthe spiritual nature of Christian eschatology,which could not and should not serve a secular state. This argument was directed in the first place against the alliance•that had developed between Protestant Churches and the Reich and the attraction that Nazi

15 Pascboud 1967:277,291; Corsini 1968: 50-l; Markus 1970: 162;Marrou 1970: 83; Straub 1972a: 266; Martelli1982; Arnaud-Lindet 1990-1: i.xxi; Alonso-Nunez 1993: 208; Inglebert 1996:582; Split 1998:359; Marcone 2002: 864; Cesa 2003: 30; Kany2006:576. Exceptionsare Fainck 1951: 10; Lippold 1976:i.xxxv; Fabbrini 1979:

7

ideologystarted to have on some Catholic:theologians.19 The problem of the relationship between Church and state and the theological justification of state power lie at the heart of the famous tract Der MonotheismusalspolitischesProblem,published in 1935.20 Peterson challenged 'political theology', particularlyof the Eusebian kind, in order to show that a proper Nicaean. Trinitarian theology was not open to the temptation of becoming subservient to imperial power. Eusebius had used theological arguments to justify the empire of Constantine, but this had, accordingto Peterson..,been fa~ilitatedby his unorthodox, subordinationist Christology. Ostensibly an argument about patristics, the work was as much a scholarly treatise as a political statement. For the theologianPeterson, the religiousjusti- •' ficationof tyrannical power was based on an erroneous theology.He singled out Orosius as the culmination of the Augustustheologie, which theologicallyjustified the role the Roman Empire had to play in the history of salvation,and suggestedthat his lack of theological insight had turned him into an apprentice-sorcererplaying dangerous games.In this he was the heir to Eusebius,but whereasthe dazzle of Constantine's sudden conversion could count as an excuse, no pardon was forthcoming for Orosius, still exaltinga tottering Christian empire. Nazi Germany had, Peterson suggests,too many Orosil: possibly well-meaning but dangerously flawed well-wishersof the regime. Significantly,Peterson puts forward Augustine as the counthe City of God,which terpoint of Orosius and the Augustustheologi.e:, turns mankind's mind away from the worries.and entanglements of earthly life, refocuses attention on the eschatological essence of Chris.tianity,and warns against the dangers ofidentifying an earthly state (or Church) as the fulfilment of God's plans. Orosius and Augustinethus occupy opposite sidesof a heavilycharged theological spectrum. Marrou's interest in Augustine was kindled by the parallels he noticed between late Antiquity and Europe in the 1930s, namely the sense of cultural crisis and decline.21 He later revised his negative assessmentof the age of Augustineto develop a much more positive viewof the period, becoming, through his influenceon Peter Brown,

77-81. 16

Fabbrini 1979: 46 ('la profondlb\ dei concetti espressi'); Polichetti 2000: 99

('un coragglosopioniere nella storia della cultura occidentale');Zeccltlni 2003: 320

19

Maier2001.

('a masterpiece').

20

N1ch1weiss 1992: 470-97, 763-830; Diickers 1999: 254-5 and 264-7; Maier

17

Rohrbacher2002: 138.

l&

Deferrari 1964; Lippold 1976; Arnaud-Lindet 1990-1; Fear 2010a.

2001:246. 21 Riche 2003:40-1. SeeMarrou 1938.

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

Introduction

2 the grandfather of the contemporary field of late Antiquity.2 In one damning paper, published in 1970,he drew a stark contrast between 23 Relying Orosius'view on history,and that of his master Augusflne. 24 on earlierOrosian scholarship, Marrou's central argwnent was that, whereas Augustinetakes a critical distance from human history, pagan and Christian. and downplays its importance in favour of the salvationof the individual,Orosius exalts history since the Incarnation and seesthe Christian empire as the culmination of history. The latter position is deemed naive and ill-advised.The explanation for this stark contrast and the curt dismissalof Orosius lies in Marrou's own view of history, which can be termed,:-Augustinian.Although he never developed these ideas explicitly in his historical works, ·Marrou too reacted against the desire to see history achieve its end in historicaltime and re-emphasizedthe eschatologicaldimension of a Christian understanding of history. The achievementof history, for a Christian, cannot lie in the temptations of temporal power, but must be the ultimate return to God.25 This position probably was influeJ:i&ed by the events of the 1930s,but there is also a specifically Frenchcontext Orosius' perspectivewas,implicitly,deemed irreconcilablewith the viewof a secularFrench society,as it had developedat the end of the nineteenth centqry, in which religion was essentiallya private affair.After the initial resistanceof the Church to the creation of the publiclaicite,French Catholicsespou~edthis model of Church• state relationsas opening up the possibilityof livinga truly Christian life:•.li,berated from the dangers of serving temporal power, as the established Church in, for example, Belgium-illustrated, Catholics were free to challenge the state and, where possible,to improve it. The vision of societyand human history that transpires in the City of Godsuited this perspectivewell:Augustine'ssensefor the imperfection of all that is earthly, both Church and state, was not seen_as improvement pessimisticbut as opening up the .chanceto strive·eor by taking the ideal, heavenly city as a model for one's actions. In abandoning the ideological identification of Church and state and the naive belief in the perfection of the former, the City of God

allowed Christians to play a role in modern society without falling into the trap of exalting,or even needing;a particular state. As one scholar put it, Augustine's view on history and· society seems'modern' to us,26 and underpins, fot example,Robert Markus's Saeculum,27 but also a seriesof pre- and post-war studies byJohannes Straubabout the way Christians dealt with the crises of the fourth and fifth centuries.28 It is not my intention to suggest that this understanding of Augustineis flawedbecause it has roots in European history. I am rather interested in its consequences for the study of Orosius. In order to construct Orosius as the contrast of Augustine, attention was shifted t() his theology of history, whilst his place in ancient historiographyremained obscure. BecauseAugustinebe~e a beacon for modern Christians, showing the wayout of the shifting sands of politics,Orosius,understood as Augustine's opposite,became . -. ' almost necessarilyan example not to follow. ~ '

8

22 23 24 25

Vessey1998. Marrou1970. In particularCorsini 1968.See the critique of Firpo 1983on this work. Mandouze1999.

9

IV. HISTORY AND RHETORIC

The present book proposes an alternative approach, which, in contrast with the traditional,theologicalone, can be termed rhetorical. This label,in turn, covers two different,but interrelated aspects.First, my approach to the Historiaeis literary, that is, we need first to understand the fonn of the Historiaebefore we can grasp its content. Orosius deploys a full panoply of literary techniques, ranging from allusionsover metaphors to panegyric,in order to suggest a specific interpretat_ionof the past. A correct understanding of these tech~ niques, rarely studied in their own right. will, I suggest, show that Orosius' intention is not so much the exposition of a Christian _theology of history as an attempt to destabilize the traditional Roman view of the past as glorious and praiseworthy-a view that makes it hard for elite Romans to see the present in its true colours. The traditionalview was inculcated in the school of rhetoric, where

.26 17

Pasclioud 1967: 274.

Markussees,for example,Augustineas identifyingand accepting'pluralism'in society-a profoundlymodem concept. 28 Straub J972a, l 972b.-and 1972c, originallypublisbe;:I in, respectively, I 950, 1954,ari.d1939.

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

Introduction

the study of great poets, the exempla of the forefathers. and traditional accountsof Roman history not only shaped the words but also the minds of the late Roman elite.There is, thus, also a socialaspectto the rhetorical approach espousedin this book. Orosius informs us in more than one way about the type of training receivedin the schoolof rhetoric. Not only does he offer some amusing vignettes of the rhetorically'over-determined'elite individual,but his own Historiae are also the product of the school of rhetoric:the historieshe used as sources are mainly the ones read there, and he uses different rhetorical techniques in order to undermine the traditional view of the past. Thus, rather than being a paradigm of a late antique theologyof history,this book argues that the Historiaeare exemplaryof the close intertwiningof history and rhetoric in this period. In choosingthis approach, I am indebted to severalrecent tendenciesin scholarship.Mainly German scholarshave increasinglydrawn ,mentionto the Sitz im Lebenof ancientworksof history in the school . of rhetoric. History was obviouslya common topic of declamations and other exercises.But it has been argued that late qDcientbreviaries, and also earlierworks such as those by Justin and Florus,found their Jlliin readership in students and teachersof rhetoric.29 These works aimed at conveyinga standard, idealizedimageof the Roman past. As has been shown by U. Eigler,the educationalsystem·privilegedas its historicalfocus the period from Troy to Augustus.Knowledgeof this period was transmitted and maintained through a variety of textsnot in the least Vergil-and a good command of the history of this period was a sign of education. It thus permitted to display or to maintain social status. Eigler argues that, as long as the educational systemcontinued to shape the late antique elite, the canonicalunderstanding of Roman history remained in place,even against"Christian attempts to put the Bible at the heart of society.~ Eigler's socioliteraryperspectiveprovidesa crucialcontext for Orosius:the historian challengesthe canonical understanding of the past and the mind-I ~- it produces, but from within the education that underpins it. Orosius 4eploys all the sources and resources of the education, but to show that the idealizationof the past, and concomitantrejection of the present, is mistaken.

In taking this stance, Orosius is probably indebted to Augustine, who, ash~ been shown by C. Tomau, suspectedthe educationof his age to produce amoral individualswho only aimed at glory.31 At the same time, Augustinecontinued to use the rhetorical conventions of his age. A firm grasp of these conventionsand their use, in Tornau's case in the City of God, is thus crucial to an understanding of the argwnent of Augustine.Rather than seeingit as mere decoration,the form may actually shape the content. In studies on late antique literature particular attention has been devoted.to one such formal aspect: literary allusions. In a recent monograph on Ammianus Marcellinus,G. Kellysees allusionsas the key to understanding that historian. He stresses in particular that an allusion is never passive, but often involvesthe consciousadaptation of the original passageto a new context. In fact, h.e argues in particular that we should see Ammianus as part of the mainstream of Latin literature in this respect.32 Claiming a similarplace for Orosius in the history of literature may seem hazardous.Yet the principle that allusionscreate meaning is applicableto Orosiustoo: whilsthis use of Vergilianverses is well known, they are often seen as mere decoration, a few stray flower-potsin front of a drab house. However,the versesdrawn from Vergil are rarely accidentallyinserted, but rather carefully selected, and if the reader is capable of recallingthe Vergilian context of the verses quoted, he is rewardedwith additional insight in to the messageof the Historiae.GivenVergil's central rol~in Roman education, Orosius' allusionsto mainlythe Aeneidoften subtly invert the meaning they had in the original context,much like Augustine'scomplex and subtle engagementwith Vergilas traced by S.MacCormack.33 All these scholars apply frameworksand approaches long reserved for the 'real' classics,and in this waycontribute to a revolution in our understanding of late antique literature, much like the boom in studies on the Second Sophistic,now considered one of the most fascinatingperiods inAntiquity,was prompted by the choice not to consider its literature as second-rate?4 Together with many other recent contributions,35 this book hopes to contribute to the further

10

.

&-tf'~""

, ,d

31

32

29

Schmidt1968,1988,and1989;Fugmann1990-2003; Hose1994;Felmy2001;Eigler

2003;Sehlmeyer2009. 30

Eigler2003.

33 3i

35

Tornau 2006. Kelly 2008: 161-221 off= a good introduction to the issues involved. MacCormack1998. , e.g.Swain 1996;Goldhill 2001; Whitmarsh 2001; Van Hoof2010a. e.g. S.F. Johnson 2006;Scourfield2007;Cain 2009; Van Hoof2010b.

11

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

Introduction

refutation (if need be) of the vie.wthat late ancient literature was merely derivative,or, in the case of Christiantexts, mainly interested in content and not in fQrm. The role of rhetoric in ancient historiographyis currently a central issue in the study of ancient historiography.How did rhetoric impact on the representation of the facts and how was the relationship between both conceptualizedby practitioners of the genre are some of the central questions today.36 In modern literary criticism, the starting point is usually Hayden White's The content of the form (1978), who argued that we should understand different styles of historiography as rhetorical tropes, but the issue has deeper roots in the study of ancient historiography,in which the impact of rhetoric is obvious from the start-just think ofThucydides' comments on the orations he inserted in his history.37 The increased attention for the literary form of historiography has spurred a long and impressive series of works on dramatization, tragedy, and rhetoric in classical works of history,38 and has made dear that one should understand first their literary form before one can assess their content. Discussions of the role of rhetoric in ancient historiography have often centred on the role of fiction in historiography.Indeed, in the book that constitutes the point of reference in the debate among ancient (1988),Tony Woodhistorians, Rhetoricin ClassicalHistoriography man argued that scholarshad long tended to see ancient and modern historiographyas fundamentallyiden,ticalundertakings, both aiming at establishing the truth. In his view, however, the ancients consciouslyallowed the use of r~etorical inventioin history not onJy to embellishthe narrative, but also, if necessary,to invent facts. Understanding inventioas introducing fiction in history, Woodmim'sbook has had the result that discussio~sof the relationship betweenrhetoric and historiography have focused on the presence of fiction in historiography.In fact, as has been argued recently,this is too narrow • on the assump-• a conception of inventio,which, moreover,stillJ._elie§ tion that rhetoric and historiographyrepresent respectivelythe realm of fictionand the realm of facts.But for orators, rhetoricaltechniques, such as dramatization, do not serve the invention of fictive facts,

but rather tools that help to display factsto an audience in such a way that they .almostfeelpresent themselves.Dependingon their perspective, historians could chide..thetork.a~~angerous foi; the veracityof to its verisimilitude.39 the narrative or praise it as ver autobiographicalinformation. This book argues against such a reductiveviewof Orosius' rhetorical qualitiesand the apparent simplicity of his history. As a start, this chapter suggests,on the contrary, that Orosius combines Vergilianallusionsand deft self-presentation in the prefaces to the Cornmonitoriumand the Historiaeso as to harness Augustine'sauthority for his own credit. Both resourcescan be detected in the works of many ancient and late antique writers:3 1

Augustine,Epistulii166:promptus eloquio;Prosper Tiro, Chroniwna. 396: vir eloquens;Gennadius,De virisiUustribus 39:vir eloquens.For modernstylisticanalyses, see Svennung 1922;Mulder 1926: 174; Wotke l939; Hingst 1972: 173-95, 236-S4; Banalucd 1976. z SeeP.6, note lS, of the introduction. 3 Felgentreu1999;Trout 1999;Liihken2002;Rees2004;Kelly2008;Mastrangelo · 2008; Swain 2010. ·

26

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

Orosius was thus doing what reasonablycould be expected of any aspiring author. As a consequence.the autobiographicalcomments interspersedin both workshave first and foremost a rhetoricalfunction, which we need to fully understand before we attempt to write Orosius' biography.4

I. SINNER AND SAINT

Orosius washed up on the shores of North Africa,probably in 414. The reasons for his arrival from Spain remain unknown. In the recommendation letter to Jerome that Orosius took with him to Bethlehem(415), Augustineattributed Orosius' choiceof destination to his own reputation,5 but a more violent causehas been construed from passages in the Historieswhich seem to indicate that their author once narrowlyescapeda barbarian raid.6 Neither explanation can be decisive.WhilstAugustine's reputation surelyplayeda role,he immediatelydisowns it: he suggestshe teaches his pupils only what he can and, sincehe is lackingin knowledgein certain fields,he has to send Orosius to his learned colleagueJerome.The relevantpassages from the Histcrriae, as we shall see in chapter 5, are primarilyaimed at arousing the sympathy of the reader and at displayingthe sort of emotions the rest'of the work wishesto provoke.Moreover,they do not link the escape from barbarians with the choice·of Africa as a destination. Significantly,Orosius' first preservedwork, the 'consultation or reminder to Augustineabout the errors of the Priscillianists and Origenists'(Qmsultatiosive commonitoriumOrosiiad Augustinum de errorepriscillianistarumet origenistarum),1writtenprobably in 414 shortly after his arrival, fails to give a precise reason for his coming,and its preface consciouslyplays on the bafflementthat the

4

5

~ Kelly2008, 104-58 for a similarargument about Ammianus.

Augustine,Epistula166:fama exdtus, quod a me posset de his quae Scire vellet qui.dquidvelletaudire. a: Lacroix 1965;34; Fabbrini 1979:52-3: Martinez Cavern, Beltran Corbalan,and Gonzalez Femandez;1999:68-70. 6 Orosius 3.20.6and 5.2.1-2. Cf. Corsini 1968: 10-12; Amaud-Lindet 1990-1: ix-xii. Both positions are reconciledby M6mer LS44:20; Lippold1976:i.xx; Torres Rodriguez1985:33; MartinezCavero 2002: 32-4. ' On Orosius and Priscillianism,see Sanchez2009:51-2.

UnexpectedPearls:Prefacesand the Rhetoricof Defe,ence 27 sudden and unannounced debarkationof a young Spanish presbyter must have generatedin Hippo. The Commonitorium reminds Augustineof a demand Orosiushad made orally before.namely,to provide him with argwnents against hereticsin Spain.Orosius placeshigh hopes on the bishop of Hippo: only he will be able to root out the tree of heresy and plant new, healthy seeds.Augustineis depictedas a tool of God: 'Through you, saintly father, through you, I say, our Lord God will mend with the word the ways of those he has castigatedwith the sword,'8 Divine providence,therefore,has sent Orosiusto Augustine(ad te per deum missus sum). The unfathomableways of God are then made explicit in the followingconfession: I do not know why I came. Without wish, without necessity,without permission I left my homeland,driven by some unknown force, and I then arrivedon the shoresof this land. At this point I finallyhave seen reasonagain in the fact that I was sent to you. You willnot judge me · •impudent if you acceptmy confession.Makeme return to my beloved homeland as a good merchant having found the pearl, and not as a fugitiveslaveafter a reversalof fortune. · agnoscocur venerim.sine voluntate,sine necessitate,sine consensu de patria egressussum occul.taquadam vi actusldonec in istius terrae litus allatussum. Hie demum in eum resipui intellectwn,quod ad te venire mandabar.lmpudentem non iudices,si accipisconfitentem.Fae me ad dilectam dominam meam idoneum negotiatoreminventa margarita, non fugitivumservumeversasubstantiareverti9 '.

The passage suggests that Orosius' departure'from Spain was not uncontroversial.BysayingsinevoluntateOrosiuslayshimselfopen to the chargeof akedia,the accusationof spirituallethargy;sine necessitate suggeststhat he abscondedwithout there being a pressingcause, whereas sine consensupoints to the fact that presbyters were not supposed to travel without permission. Orosius had clearly taken leavewithout asking.Only Augustinecan redeemhim. If he provides him with the advice asked for, the presbyter will be able to regain Spain as the good merchant in the parable in the Gospelof Matthew · (13, 45-6): the Kingdom of Heavensresemblesa merchant of pearls who sells all his possessions when he finds one pearl of immense 8 Orosius,CommonitoriumI: per te dominus deus nosier, per te, inquam, beate pater,quos castigavitin gladio,emendetin verbo. 9 . Orosius, Commonitorium1.

28

Orosiusand theRhetoricof History

Unexpected Pearls:Prefacesand the Rhetoricof Deference 29 references to a work of an addressee are not uncommon12 and Orosius did know Augustine's most famous work when he wrote 13 his Historiae. In the Commonitorium, Orosius bas,however,another trick up his sleeve to draw the attention of Augustine. His description of his wanderings through the Mediterranean is not as innocent as it looks: de patriaegressussum occultaquadamvi actus,donecin .istius terrae litus allatus sum contains an allusion to the preface of the Aeneid (1-4: Arma virumque cano, Troiae.qui primus ab oris/ ltaliam, fato profugus, Laviniaquevenit/litora, multum ille et terris iactatus et alto/!!,superum saevae memorem lunonis ob iram). The chance to associate one's travels through the Mediterranean with the fate of Aeneas was too great to resist for a qdtured individual, who had learnt Vergil by heart, as Augustine himself illustrates in where his farewell to his mother Monica in Ostia the Confessions, is modelledon that of Aeneas to Dido.14 The allusion is more than a flourish. It creates a sense of homecoming: just as Italy was to be Aeneas' new home, Hippo and Augustine will be for Orosius. Like the rhetoric of sinfulness, the statement invites Augustine to create a new home for Orosius. It also underscores the providential nature of his arrival in Hippo: just as Aeneas was guided by fate without knowing it, Orosius is directed by providence. How far one can press such subtle allusions is hard to tell: the assumption of the persona of Aeneas might, for example,,support the idea that violence and upheaval caused Orosius to leave his hometown, although that seems to contradict the rest of the preface. Equally, Vergilianallusions during a disembarkationin.Africacan hardly not conjure up the image ofDido. 15 Orosius might thus be alluding to the fact that he will have to leave at some point, whilst at the same time hoping for a relationship of friendship between himself and

value. But if Augustine refuses to grant advice, Orosius will go back like a fugitiveslavewho is forced back to his master by poverty and hunger. His departure.from Spain was thus at least a breach of decorum and without proper justification. The referenceto the parable suggests that Orosius left all he had (possessions~career.prospects?)behind in order to travel to Africa.This does not lend much credence to the hypothesisthat barbarian invaders chased Orosius. Yet, it is dangerous to draw too many historical conclusionsfrom what is, after all, a rhetorical self-presentation in the context of a preface. Orosius harnesses the clearly uncommon fact that he had arrived in Hippo on his own initiative to his personal advantage,He consciouslystyles himself as a sinner, not just in the anaphora sine voluntate,sine necessitate, sine consensu,but also in the reference to his own confession (si accipis confitentem). The last lines of the preface take this self-depictionas a sinner even further: through a shift from the singular to the plural, Orosius identifieshimself with the sinful, because heretical,Spaniards (nos confitemur offensam,tu pervidesplagam:'we confessthe offense,you see clearlythe wound'). Conversely,Augustine is elevatedabove the mortal fray.Not only is he an instrument of divine providence, but Orosius assimilatesthe pearl, which in Matthew stands for the Kingdom of Heavens, with Augustine'steaching.The word of Augustine,Orosius suggests,is the word of God.The confessionaltone of Orosius and the relationshipof sinner and saint that he construesbetweenhimselfand Augustineare reminiscent of how Augustine positions himself towards God in his 10 Confessions. The emphasis on a lack of self-knowledge and ignorance of one's ownmotifs also picks up one of the key themes of Augustine's most famous work, as well as the· way in which providence ultimately guides one through sin towards a good purpose.11 None of these themes would be outlandish in any Christian work,but their close·occurrence in a dedication to Augustine is intriguing.lt is therefore tempting to interpret Orosius' double use of confitentem/ confitemuras a consciousreferenceto the Confessiones. Such covert

10 SeealsoAugustine,Sermo67.2,where confessionis definedas confessingone's sins and praising God This is the double movement detectablein the preface of Orosius,with Augustinetakingthe placeof God.SeealsoSenno 131.2,describinghow one is drawn to God by love. Shared love is a central theme .in the preface to the Historlae(pr. 8). 11 Augustine,Confessiones 5.(8)14,9.(10)23.See Crosson 2003;aark 2005.

·

12 The carmenby Ucentius,followinghis letter to Augustine (Augustine,Epistula 26), contains references to Augustine's Cassiaclumdialogues:see Shanzer 1991: 127-33. 13 Orosius 7.30.3derivesfrom Augustine,Confessions 8.(5.)10(d. COurcelle1963: 204).The Confessions werea workthat made an impac:t:Paulinusof Noladraws on it in his Eucharisticos (cf. Courcelle 1963:206-22; COskun2006:294-305). 14 Augustine,Confessiones 5.(8)14,with Bennett 1988:65. Seealso the correspondence with the pagan Maximus (Augustine,Epistulae16-17) and with Volusianus (Au~tine, Epistulae135-7), as analysedby Tomau 2006:40-3, 57---69. 1 Cf.Augustine,Confessiorn:s 1.(13)22.

30

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

the bishop. The preface of the Commonitorium,with its demand for adviceto be brought back to Spain, indeed impliesthat Orosius' presencein Africa will be temporary (d. me ... reverti),which would support this interpretation.These last suggestionsare obviouslyspeculative, but they draw attention to the methodologicalpoint that intertextualallusionsare by their very nature unlimited,in that they can generate meanings that go beyond what the author may have intended.What we as scholarswish to ascribe to Orosius' intentions can only be determined by showingthat certain messagesgenerated by the allusionengagewith the other themes the text deals with.16 In this case,the Vergilianallusion,howeversuggestive,adds depth and meaning to Orosius' descriptionof his wanderings.Moreover,it is complementedby the referenceto the merchant of the Gospel of Matthew,which·skilfullycontinues the theme of travelling,but also adds a new element:Orosius hopes to take somethingvaluableback home and avoid the fate of a fugitiveslave.Such twin referencesto Vergiland the Biblerecur, as we shall see immediately,in the preface of the Historiae,and together they symbolize the two pillars of learning of the Christian Latin elite of late Antiquity.17 Orosius' deployment of both may have appealed to Augustine, who was steepedin V ergil but also keen to correct and contrast him with the Gospel.111The preface of the Commonitoriumis thus very precisely targete4;Orosius displaysimplicitlybut clearlya shared culture with the addressee,but also admiration for his work. This literary skill, combined with the self-effacementof a sinner who ·faces a saint, betraysa desire to be drawn into the orbit of Augustine,fountain of learningand ~sdom. The bishopof Hippo seemsto have liked it and paid Orosius in kind His reply complimentsOrosius by picking up severalof the expressionsand metaphorsof the prefaceto the Commonitoriurn, 19 and, as we have already seen, he praises the learning and eloquenceof his new pupil in the letter to Jerome,20

u For methodologicalreftectionson intertextualityin ancientliterature,see Fowler 2000: 127-8; Kelly 2008: 161-222. The latter provides a useful overviewof views amongscholars of Latinliterature. 1 ' See the essaysin Rees2004. u On Augustine'sattitude to Vergil,see Ma1;Connack1998;Qark 2004. 19 See the references.in the apparatus of Augustine,Ad Orosium(Corpus Christianorum. SeriesLatina 49, 165-7). 20 Augustine,Epistula166;vigilingenio,promptus eloquio,flagransstudio.

UnexpectedPearls:Prefacesand the Rhetoricof Deference 31 II. THE LORD'S DOG

The prefaceto the Historiaemay look like an incongruouswhole:it starts with settingout Augustine'spraeceptumto Orosius (1-2), then elaboratesa comparisonof a dog and his master (3-7), often taken to symbolizethe relationshipbetweenGod and the Church, and finally returns to the praeceptum(8-16).21 When read, however,in the light of Orosius' selfvpresentationand his use of Vergilian allusions as in detected in the Commonitorium,the middle sec.tionfits p_erfectly the preface, which aims at capitalizingon Augustine's fame as a theologianand author. · The prefacefallsinto two parts,dearly delineatedby Orosius.The first half, opening with praeceptistuis parui ('I have obeyed your orders'), -elaboratesthe relationship between the author and the dedicatee,Augustine(L.pr.l-8). Pickingup twicethe opening words of the preface(l.pr.9: praeceperas mihi;l.pr.10: praeceperas ergo),the secondpart sets out the nature of the commandment,and revealsthat additional encouragementfor the work was givenby a certain Julian of Carthage,who is further unknown (l.pr.12). 22 Given his position in the preface, Julian is completelysubordinated to Augustine and he willplay no further role in the Historiae.. He is alsoabsent from the postface,in which Augustine,on the contrary, gets pride of place (7.43.19-20). A firstapproachto the proemiumis to set it again'st the background

of contemporaryliteraryhabits.It partakesin two generaltendencies oflater Latin prefaces,as analysedby T. Janson.23 First, there is little in the preface that is specificfor historical works:no praise for the usefulnessof history, no justificationthrough referenceto the greatness of the deeds told, no claim of impartiality.24 This should create no doubts as to the genre of the Historiae:apart from the title, the definition of their subject in 1.pr.10as warfare,disease,and natural disasters is exactlythat of earlier and later historians,25 and one can 21 For useful analyses of the preface, see Amaud-Lindet 1990-91: i.3; Fear 2010a:31. 22 Mandouu, Marrou, and Palanque 1982:616 sp«ulate he might have been a

monk. 23 Janson 1%4; 115-16. 24 For these topoi,see Marincola 1997;34-43, 158-73. 25 Thucydides 1.23;Tacitus, Historiael.2-3; Herodian 1.4; SidoniusApollinaris, . Epistuk44.22.3;Agathias,Historiaepr.10, l.1.2.

32

UnexpectedPearls:Prefacesand the Rhetoricof Deference 33

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

detect an avatar of the idea of the greatness of the subject in his contentionthat the eventsof the past were more cruel ~banthose of the present. Even the admission that Orosius himself was first not convincedof the superiorityof the present (Lpr.13) can be read as a claim for objectivity:Orosius presents himselfas an originallysceptical historianwho was convincedby his own research.Nevertheless, all in all, the prefacewellillustratesthe tendency towardshomogenization of the prefacesfor differentgenres that Janson has detected. The second tendency is the reduced popularity of non-dedicatory prefaces:most late-antiqueworks present themselvesas having been written at the behest of an individual.The commandment of the dedicateeusuallyraises doubts in the mind of the author regarding the feasibilityof the task and his own competence, but then the author adjusts his will to that of the dedicatee:he freelyand sometimes eagerlyfulfilsthe task set to him.in the expectationthat the work will bring him intellectual,spiritual, or material rewards?' Unsurprisingly,much of the vocabulary and themes expressing these sentiments is shared by Orosius and contemporary authors, such as labor,27 libentia,UIand voluntas,29 but also expressionsof submission30 and modesty.31 Such a similarity in general outlook may point to a relianceon the same examples.A possiblemodel is the preface of the Rhetoricaad Herennium,a late Republicanwork ascribedto Cicero,whichenjoyedparticular popularityin late fourthcenturyrhetoricaleducation.32 That prefaceis of the dedicatorytype,

and has the adjustment of wills,as well as the typical vocabulary.3' Its rebuttal of the inane arrogance of Greek rhetorical writers and their complex theories may have been the inspiration for Orosius' attack on the vain perversityof the pagans.34 • The hallmark of a· good preface, however, is that it cannot be reduced to a concatenation of commonplacesderived from a rhetoricaleducation.35 That of Orosiusalso merits closerattention, espe0 dally regardingthe way he subtly createsa position of authority for himselfout of the rhetoric of deference.Indeed,by their very nature, dedicatory prefaces establish an unequal relationship between the dedicatee and the author. Even if the dedicatee is not of a higher socialstatus,the mere fact that he orders the work to be written gives him a position of power. As a consequencethe author usually in36 dulges in a rhetoric of subservience. For Orosius, Augustine was obviouslybis socialand intellectualsuperior, and the historian immediately emphasizes his obedience and humility: 'I have obeyed your orders, saintly father Augustine, and I hope I did it with as much good resultas good will.' The hope of a good result is, however, subordinated to a more important matter, namely, obedience to Augustine'swill: But I am, both positively and negatively, not really stirred by the question whether I haveacted rightly or wrongly,for you havetaken the effortto examineif I coulddo whatyou ordered me to. On my part I am content with the testimony of obedience alone, if at least I have 37 embellished it with willand effort.

u See, e.g.ltinerariumAlexandri1.2: vicem sdam in me etiam redundaturam. 'J:J Oroslus 1.pr.l: tu enim iam isto iudi.ciolaborasti; ltinerariumAlexandriI.I: libenssane et laboriscum amoresuccubul;VegetiusLpr.4:labor diligensad fidelis; Panegyrici /atini5.1.1:laboreac diJigentia.; SulpiciusSeverus,ChronicaI.I.I: quomm egovoluntatems«utus non pepercilaborimeo; d. Orosiusl.pr.13: dedi openm. 28 Orosius 1.pr.l: utinam efficactterquam libenter, l.pr.S: quod Jibensfeel;ltinerarium Ale:umdriI.I: libens sane et laboris.cum amore succubui;Festus l: parebo libenspraecepto. 29 Orosiusl.pr.2: voluntate,;onatuquedecoravi;ltinerariumAlexandri 1.1: meum velle;SulpiciusSeverus,Chronica1.1.1:quorum ego voluntatemsecu.tusnon peperci laborimeo; Eutropius,pr.: ex voluntateman&uetudinis. 30 Orosius1.pr.8:subiectiomea praeceptopatemitatistuae;ItinerariumAlexandri l.l: libens sane et laboriscum amoresuccubui. 31 Orosius l.pr.12: levi opusculo;Vegetiusl.pr.4: in hoe opusctilo,l.pr.6: in hoe parvolibello. 32 Jerome,Apologiaadvmus /il,rosRufiniPL 23.409,Commentariiin Abdiam PL 25.1098:Rufinus,Decompositiontet de metrisoratoruinp. 577.29.

33

Rhetoricaad HerreniumI.l: quod datur otii libentiusin philosophiaconsumere consuevimus... tua nos voluntas commovit... ne aut tua causa noluisseaut fugisse nos laboremputasses. 34 RhetoriC4ad HerreniumI.I: inanis adrogantiaecausa;Orosius l.pr.8: vaniloquempravitatem. ); Seethe commentsofFdgentreu1999:I93on Janson'sratherreductiveapproach. 36 Such a rhetoric is very manifest in works dedicated to the emperor, without him havingaskedfor them: ~, e.g.theprefaceof Vegetiusand that of the De rebu5 btUicis. 37 Orosius l.pr.l-2. Praeceptistuis parui, beatisslmepater Augustine;atque utinam tam efficadterquam libenter.quamquam ego in utramuis partem parum de expli,;itomouear,rectenean secusegerim:tu enlm iam lsto iudiclolaborasti,utrumne hoe,quod praeciperes,possem;egoautemsoliusoboedientiae,si tameneamuoluntate · conatuquedecoraui,testimnio contentussum.

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

34

This is mirrored in the postface, where Orosius again stresses his obedienceand asksAugustine,as his teacher.to judge the work.38 The shift from uncertaintyabQutthe result to obedienceto Augustineis in fact only apparent. Under the cover of h~ility and obedience,the firstlinesof Orosius'prefaceimmediatelysignalto the reader that this work is not only written at the behest of Augustine,but also carries his approval:the insight of Augustine into Orosius' capacitiesguarantees the identity of the task set and the result executed Obedience to Augustinethus ensures that the work livesup to his expectations. This suggestsan uncommon closenessbetween both men, which is elaboratedin the next fiveparagraphs,through a comparisonof their relationshipwith that of a master and his dog. The more ambitiousoflate Latin authors chose a striking imageto run through their prefaces.Rufinus of Aquileia,a contemporary of Orosius,for example,had to write numerousprooemiafor his translations from the Greek and often selecteda specifictheme for each of them.39 The brief preface to Festus' breviariumin turn draws on th~ vocabularyof counting.40 The convoluted Latin of the ltinerarium Alexandriaspiresto more than it actuallyachieves,but the preface is strikinglyreplete with languageof divination,possiblyenhanced by a referenceto the Delphic oracle from Statius' Thebaidin its very first line.41 The comparison with a master and his dog c~n be seen as the Orosianequivalentof such literarygames,and he packs a lot in it. The similetakes up most of the firsthalf of the preface(1.pr.3-8). Already in Antiquitythe dog was man's best friend:even in the houses of the great and worthy, Orosius notes, 2 Schematadianoesquaead rhetorespertinent71: enatgeia est imaglnatio,quae actum incorporeisoculissubidt; Isldorus,Li!iellusde arte rhetorica517.10. 3s Quintilian 12.10.59. 3~ The example of oratiogravis(4.12)reminds one immediatelyof Orosius' style, with its exclamations,use of questions,ornate but also repetitivevocabulary,and the claim of the impossibilityof languageto expressthe facts. 26

0

35

Rhetoricaad Herren/um4.ll.

122

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

A Senseof the Past:The Truth of Rhetoric

contentio(antithesis,4.21), exclamatio(apostrophe), which in particular conjuresup pain and indignation(quaeconficitsignificationem dolorisaut indignatio11is), and interrogfltio(interrogation,4.22},subiectio (hypophora-the use of questions, 4.33-4), conduplicatio (reduplication),particularlyusefulin amplificationand commiseration, and interpretatio(synonym,4.38), expeditio(eliminationof various counterarguments,4.40-1), superlatio(hyperbole,4.44), and similitudo (simile,4.59). Accordingto the Rhetorica,amplificationcan be divided into two categories:exhortation(c.ohortatio), leadingto anger in the audience,and bathos (conquestio), which arousespity (3.24). In terms of speaking style,pathos demands frequent interruptions and long pauses;for corporalbehaviour,dramaticgesturessuch as hittingone's headinterruptedbycalmgesturesarerecommended(3.26-7).Byits very nature, the pathetic mode of amplification is closely linked 6 It has to conmiseratio,as both aim at arousingpity (misericordia).3 to be relativelybrief,for, as the Rhetoricaterselynotes,'nothing dries as quicklyas a tear'.37 With this brief perusal of rhetoricaltheory.in the back of our mind, we can now turn to a closerstudy of book 5 of the Historiae.

Yet,not all are and, Orosiusnotes,some stressthe gloryof all Roman victories.This counterargument,which is indebted to the distorted view of the past that was strongly attackedin book 4, is eliminated in a lengthy rebuke (5.1-2): Orosius first argues that this unduly privileges the glory of Roman triumph at the expense of the suffering of what were about to becomeprovincesof the empire, and that the world offers now many more safe havens if one would have to flee today for an invasion.39 The final sentence explicitly compares the good things of the present to the sufferingo( the maio,:es. Proof is found in history. The first subject of Orosius is the destruction of Corinth, depicted as the sequel to that of Carthage: 'in a short period and at the same time the pitiful burning of two of the greatestcitiesshone through the variousparts of the world.'40 The hyperboleand the qualificationof the fire as miserabileannounce the dramaticnature of the descriptionthat follows.Whereasthe military movementsleading to the sack of Corinth are set out in a rather factual manner and in a simple style, the actual sack itself is dramaticallyhighlighted.Orosius :firstdraws attention to the fact that Corinth was the richest city and the arts capital of the world. Then he describesthe destructionof the city itself:

II. WAR INTO CIVIL WAR: TEARFUL SPECTACLES IN BOOK 5

Emotionsoften run high in the Historiae.But their expressionis not random, nor ubiquitous.It is thereforeimportant not to restrictone's analysisto a number of passages,but to take a Iookat an entire book. Book5 presentsitselfas a suitablecase-study.It coversRomanhistory from the sackof Corinth to the rebellionof Spartacus,one of the most troubled periods of Roman hiStory,with, in particular,the first civil wars.Emotionalinvolvementof the reader is immediatelysolicitedin the very first sentence of book 5: 'I know that quite a number of people can now, after all this, be moved by the fact that Roman victoriesgrewgreater by the massacreof many peoplesand cities.'38 36

See,e.g.Rhetoricaad Herrenium4.38. . . Rhetoricaad Herrenium2..50:nihileruin lacrima citlus arescit. Orosius5.1.I: Sci.oaliquantosposthaecdeiru:epspe.rmoueri posse,quoduictor• iae Romanaemultanmt gentium et ciuitatumstragecrebrescunt. 7 ~ 38

123

Oncethe licenceto plunder is cruellygiven,even to captives,everything is so filledwith murderand firethat the fireburns fromthe circuitof the wallsas if from a furnacemassedinto one flame.In that way,the greater part of the population is consumed bysword and fireand the rest is sold as slaves,After the city has bumt down, the wallsare destroyedfrom their foundations. The stone of the walls is reduced to dust and an enonnous plunder is taken. permissacrudeliteretiam captiuispraedandilicentiasic omnia cae66This is a concern echoed at length by Orosius in the preface to book 3. The prefaceopens with a sense of defeatism:It is impossible'to set out everythingand in every detail what happened and how they happened' (nee omnia nee per omnia posse quae gesta sunt sicut gesta sunt explicari).There are simply too many facts described by too many,authors. Moreover, Orosius is not interested in the facts themselvesbut the misery of the facts.-Brevitasis thus a necessaryquality of his history. Yet it is a problematic one: too much brevity may earn him the accusation of

et

in

66

Quintilian 4.2.44: non minus autemcavenda est. quae nimium corripientes omnia sequitur, obscuritas, saliusque aliquid narrationi superesse quam deesse.Tr. D. Russell(LCL).See also Quintilian 8.3.82; Rhetoricaad Herrenium 1.15, 4.69; Cicero,De inventione1.29.

Brevityand obscurity,or rather brevity,as it is always obscure, takes away the rigour-of understanding, even if it offers a semblance of knowledge.But I, as I know that either has to be avoided,will aim for both so that they balanceeach other out in someway,on conditionthat not a lot of eventswillseemto havebeen left out nor that theyseemtoo restricted. breuitasautematqueobscuritas,immo ut est semper obscurabreuitas, etsi oognoscendiimaginempraefert,aufert tamen intellegendiuigorem. sed ego cum utrumqueuitandum sciam, utrumque faciam ut quocumque modo alterutra temperentur,si nee multa praetennlssa nee multum constricta uideantur (3.pr.3)

This is a remarkable statement for an otherwise rhetorically astute author: Orosius proclaims here that two of the cardinal virtues of narrative,brevity and lucidity, can hardly be success!ullyreconciled: brevityalwaystends tQbe obscure (obscurabre~itas). He proposes a vaguecompromise:he will try to be as brief as possible,hoping not t_o reducethe understandingof the events.At one level,one can read this as an·honest confessionby Orosius who realizes the conflict that is developingin his narrative. Indeed, the general prefaceto the Historiae claims the cardinal rhetorical virtue of brevitasand seems to situate the work in the tradition of writing breviaria rather than that of full-scale historiography: Augustine's order was ut ( ... ) ordinatobrevitervoluministextu explicarem(l.pr.10). Yet the actual 67 Note the parallelwith Ammianus 15.Ll: tune enim laudanda est brevitas cum moras rumpens intempestivas nihil subtrahit cognitioni gestorum, a passage discussedon p. 1.36. • 8 Cf. Orosius 2.18.5,3.14.8,3.20.5. ~9 SeeAugustine, Retractationes 1.5and Z.13for similar reflections.

Orosiu.sand the Rhetoricof History

A Senseof the Past:The Truth of Rhetoric ,

result, seven books, is far from brief, and shar.esfew characteristics Withthe extant breviariaof the fourth century-except that Orosius used them as sources.The prefaceto book 3 would then be an apology for the dash between brevitasand enargeia-a rhetoricallyinformed admission of failure.70 On this reading, Orosius' apologetic enthusiasm leads to him transcending the boundaries of the genre of the breviariumin which be started out. Such an interpretation takesOrosius at face value. But admissions of failureby ancient authors are rarely straightforwardand Orosius is actually up to much more. There is, first, an obvious element of modesty in the assertion of failingto fulfil the demands of rhetoric: just as Orosius could stylehimselfa sinner in the Commonitorium,he presents himselfhere as an unaccomplishedwriter. At the same time, it raises Orosius' standing as an author, because it demonstrates the difficultyof the task. Second, the appeal to 'obscure brevity' draws attention to the double strategy of persuasion in the Historiae.We have seen that Orosius alternates more descriptive passages With emotional ones. Whereas the latter show the true, miserable,nature of the events, the former serve to indicate the extent of suffering of the past. The referenceto 'obscure brevity'can be taken to hint at the absenceof the vividness in these other passages and at the general incompletenessof Orosius' narrative. It invites the reader to extrapolate, from the few dramatic descriptionsthat are actually given,all that remains hidden behind the names and nwnbers in the other passages. In such a way, Orosius is not obliged to perform the impossible task of dramatizing the entire course of history, which would not only be impossible,but would also contravene the rhetorical preceptsthat pathosshould be punctual and brief.The apparent modest admission to the presence of obscurity in his narrative thus servesto highlightthe luciditythat shines elsewhereand to suggestto the reader what drama remains hidden in the other passages. The adtnissionof the failureto achievefull lucidityin the preface of book 3 is thus an invitationto the reader to fill in the skeletonoffered in the Historiae.The drama punctually supplied by Orosius is to be extended imaginativelyby the audience to the other events that

are merely summed up. Read in this light. the repeated references throughout the narrative to the necessity to abbreviate, and the omissions this implies, take on a different meaning.71 & statements of imperfection, they are constant reminders of what is not in the work and how many more examplesand details of sufferingfrom the past could be given. Orosius therefore does not write a breviarium. Traditional breviariapretend to be comprehensive:they do not contain all events,but give a completepicture in the sensethat the reader will know all he needs to. 72 Indeed, in rhetorical.theorybrevity does not mean truncation: a brief account is still a full account.reduced to its essentials.Orosius, on the contrary, is at pains to emphasize his own incompleteness,as a rhetorical suggestionthat he has evenmore proof of the misery of the past than he actually offers to the reader. There is a further level on which to understand Orosius' qualms about brevity and lucidity, namely as a statement of the difficultyof translating the chaos of the past into a clear narrative. Indeed, in his desire to represent to the reader the true nature of events, Orosius confessesto abandoning the rules of a well-orderednarrative, and to prefer a chaotic narrative that truly reflects the disordered state of things. In book 3, he excuses himself for having produced a disordered narrative-because the facts themselves are completely topsy•turvy:

134

70

This is most explicitlyargued in De Coninck 1992.Orosius' brevitasis usually seen as problematicor feigned:Lacroix1965:75-7; Corbellini 1984;EscribanoPaiio 1996;Cesa 2003: 28; Sehlmeyer2009: 302. An lnterpretation going in the direction here suggestedis put forward by Kempshall2011:74-6.

135

I havewovenan inextricablehurdleof confusedhistory and entwined the uncertain courses of wars wagedhere and therewith a mad fury, havingfollowedthem with words from their t~ces. And, as I see it, I havewritten about these in a so much moredisorderedwayas I have

triedto maintaintheir order.73 As we noted in chapter 3, Orosius sometimeselidesfact and text and tries to describe the events in the way they present themselves.This generates disorder in his narrative-but this allows him to distance

71 See, e.g. Orosius 1.6.l, 1.12.1, J.12.7-10, 1.19.2-3,4.S.6,4.10.4,4.20.40,S.15.2, 5.17.2, 5.19.2, 5,23.3, 6.7.2, 6.18.2, 7.37.1. Orosius sometimes has recourse to the vocabularyof'counting' (numerare)in'steadof telling the facts (1.12.2-3,3.2.10-11, 3.7.1).He'shares this with the breviariumof Festus {seethe preface). 72 Eutroplus,pr.; Festus,pr. 'J Orosius 3.2.9:Contexltiindigestaehistoriae inextri~bilcm cratem atque incer• tos bellorum orbes hue et i1luclymphatico furore gestorurnuerbls e uestigiosecutus inplicui, quoniam tanto, ut uidco, inordinatius scripsi, quanto magis ordinem custodiui.

136

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

himself from more rhetorical waysof writing in which the nature of eventsis sacrificedto the virtues of narrative. In aspiring to truth, in disorder, Orosius consciouslywrong-foots a traditional way of writing history, as exemplifiedin Am.mianus. At the beginningof his fifteenthbook,Ammianus notes: So far as I could investigatethe truth, I have,a&erputting the various eventsin clearorder, relatedwhat I myselfwas allowedto witnessin the courseof mylife,or to learn by meticulousquestioningof those directly concerned.The rest, which the text to followwilldisclose,we shall set forth to the best ofour abilitywith still greateraccuracy,feelingno fear of criticsof the prolixityof our work,as theyconsiderit. For brevityis to be praised only when it breaks off ill-timed discursiveness,without detractingat all from an understandingof the courseof events.7'

The passageis often read as Ammianus' critique on the tradition of bre-viaria of the fourth century.7s Yeta more rhetorical reading is also possibleand, I would argue, to be preferred: in line with rhetorical theory, Ammianus links clarity and order,76 and, just as Orosius, takes his distances from excessivebrevity. In essence, Ammianus' argument is similar to that of Orosius: excessivebrevity leads to obscurityand takes awaythe cognitio gestorum.ButAmmianus solves the conflict in a traditional way, by consciously'arguing that one should describe events at the length their importance demands. In doing so, he puts himselfas the author at the centre of attention: he as authoritativeauthor has researchedthe events and will set out what the reader needs to know in relation to the magnitude of the events. This makes Ammianus' work self-contained:contrary to Orosius, who constantlyreminds his reader that there is much more than he can report in vivid detail and thus drawsattention to what lies beyond the narrative,he presents his work as all one needs to-know.Equally, in co~trast with Orosius, who sacrificesna~rativeorder to the reality and disorder of events,Ammianussticksto·a rhetoricallyconstructed· 74 Ammianus15.Ll: Vtcumquepotuimusvecitatemscrutari,ea quaevidereUcuit per aetatem, vel perplexe interrogando versatos in medio scire, narravimus ordine c_asuu_m expositodiversorwn:res.lduaquaesecuturusaperiettextus,pro viriwn captu l~tlus absolvemus, nihil obtrectatores longi, ut putant, operis formidantes. tune enun laudandaest brevitascum moras rumpensintempestivasnihil subtrahit rognitioni gestorum.Tr. J.Rolfe (LCL}, 75 De Jonge 1948:6; Rosen 1970:5; Barnes 1998:66; Kelly2008:240; Sehlmeyer 2009:22-3.

76

Rhetoricaad Herreniurnl.15.

A Senseof the Past:The Truth of Rhetoric

137

structure that allows the events to stand out in all clarity without addressing the difficulty·of making reality· fit with the rhetorical demands of such an ordered narrative.77 Although Orosius constructed his work as rhetoricallyas Ammianus did, he nevertheless betraysthe awarenessthat the demands of narrativelimit one's ability to represent reality in its true colours. It is Orosius' overriding concern with giving the most truthful narrative that makes him explore the limits of rhetorical narrative. Yet exploration:it is, not explosion. The impossibility to narrate everything in due lucidity is caused by the number of events, not by a fundamental impossibilityto represent facts with words. The admissionthat the chaoticnature of the eventsforceshim to abandon traditional criteria for an ordered narrative still maintains the belief that words can fully depict events, although it points to the inadequacy of a narrative that adheres to the demands of order and lucidity. As the comparison with Ammianus shows, this can be interpreted as a criticism of traditional historiography. Indeed, Orosius' attention to the limits of rhetoric is predicated on the polemicalclaim that his is the truest depiction of the past. Depicting the Historiaeas only in part a full and truthful exposition of all thel drama of history turns the rest of the work into an aide-memoirethat invitesthe reader to imaginethe true nature of events. The Historiae are, hence, presented as a synecdocheof the full reality of the events. If the part is alreadyso dramatic, how much more must the full story be. It is this kind of rhetorical outbidding that pushes Orosius to question the power of rhetoric.

IV. THE TRUTH OF VIVIDNESS

Drawing on Quintilian's understanding of enargeiaas a way of displayingtruth, I have argued that the highly rhetorical historiography of Orosius aims at almost literallyshowingthe truth to his audience. Here we touch on a more general problem: to our modern understanding, rhetoric and truth are mutually exclusive.78 Rhetoric is for us a synonym of fiction, to be avoided at ~ costs in history. " On thls issue,see Qulntilian 4.2.55. 78 Cf. Ginzburg 1999;FOJC 200l.

139

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

A Senseof the Past:The Truthof Rhetoric

In addition, the arousal of emotions,bathos,and drama are supposed to be alien to the writing of history and, indeed,.Orosius'rhetorical outburstshave been us~dto disqualifyhim as a historian.79 At best,he is a quasi-historianwho talksthe talk but lacks the substance.In this final section, I shall first argue that such a view of Orosius fails to situate him in the context of ancient historiography,to which such apparently outrageousrhetoric is les~alien than some have thought. Then, I suggestthat Orosius' use of enargeiaand pathosas modes of displaying truth is one particular way in which the relationship between history and rhetoric could be conceptualiz.edin Anti· quity-one that may deservemore attention in current discussions of that relationship. Although he strongly distances himself from classicalhistorians, Orosius does not stand alone in the history of historiography in choosing highly rhetorical modes of expression. As we have seen, Quintilian assimilatesthe kind of emotions expressedin pathoswith those depictedin tragedy.Orosius' emphasison pathosthus puts him in the tradition of so-called 'tragic historiography'.The term goes back to the criticismby the Hellenistichistorian Polybiuson some of his predecessors,in particular Phylarchus, for trying to show the drama of the past and arousing the emotions of his readers. In his habitual way, Polybiusdraws a strong contrast between such historians and himself, and distinguishesfirmly tragedy from history: the former has to charm and to please,and can thus tell lies,the latter has to tellthe truth and thus be useful.MScholarshipis 'stillin two minds about 'tragic historiography'. It was argued by E. Schwartz that Hellenistictragic history was based on a peripatetic theory which reversed Aristotle's own separation of history and poetry.81 Tragic history was thus a subgenrebased on a theoreticalchoice.Schwartz's theory was challengedearly on by F. Walbank,who argued that 'the link between tragedy and history ( ... ) is in fact· a fundamental affinity going back to the earliest days of both history and tragedy,

and insisted upon throughout almost the whole of the classicaland later periods downto the Byzantinescholiasts':a.iThat this is the more fruitful line of inquiry has become clear in the past decades. The accusationsvoiced by Polybiusagainst Phylarchushave been turned against himself,83 and his polemic unmasked as consciouslymisrepresentinghis own practiceand that of his predecessors.MPolybius' seeminglytheoretical statements thus started off a wild goose chase for the 'genre' of tragic historiography,whereas in fact the use of dramatic elements was very widespread in all forms of historiography. Scholarshave detectedenargeia,appealto emotions,dramatic language,theatricality,and imitation of tragic structures in almost all 85 major historians, including those of the Latin tradition. Enargeia 86 was regularly praised as a quality in historiography, but also debated.87Ammianus'relianceon energeiaand pathoswas noted a long time ago,88and, as we have seen above,his history exploressome of the same rhetorical issuesas the Historiae.How far an author verged towards dramatization depended on his motives and intentions. Entertainment has been allegedas the main motive for Phylarchus, but another aim may have been more important: one of the most dramatic passagesin his history was the extreme punishment meted out by the Achaeansto the Mantinaeans in 223 BC. A strong antiAchaeanbias must have playeda role in him embracingpathosin his narrative of these events:89 strikingly displaying the immoral behaviour of the Achaeansmay well have been a consciousattempt to coax people into sY1\lpathizing with their enemies.In the case of the

138

79

Co.rbellini1984;Pardini I 988, Bessone2000. Polybius2.56.See also 2. 16.14,3.48.8,7.7.2, 15.34.See Plutarch, Life of Themis• tocks 32.4 and Life of Alexander75. On Phylarchus,si;e Pedech 1989:391-493. The other main proponent of 'tragic hiStory' was Duris ofSamo.5:see FGrHist76 Fl with Pedech 1989: 368-72. 31 Aristotle, Poetica9.2-9, 14Slbl-32, See Schwartz 1897:''560, 1900: 107, and 1909: 491; Scheller 1911; von Pritz 1958; Brink 1960; Landucci Gattinoni 1997; Foucher 2000a:773-80 and 2000b,Candau Moron 2001; Cozzoli2002. 80

82 Waloonk 1960: 240. See also Meister 1975: 109-22; Ped.em 1989: 371-2; Marincola2003. &3 Schepens 1975. 34 Walbank 1962;Schepens 1980. 85 Mellor 1993:I 18-22; Walker 1993;Levene1997;Feldherr 1998:4-12, 165-211; Woodma~ 1998: 190-217; Shwuate 1997; Dui 2000; Foudier 2000a and 2000b: Marincola 2003; MacMullen2004: 15-72; Mahe-Simon2006;Santoro L'Hoir 2006. 86 e.g.Plutal'Ch.DegloriaAtheniemium347AC on Thucydides;Lucian,QuC1modo historiaconscribenda est 51. 57 Zangara 2004. 811Rosen 1970: 193-200. 1982: 149-63. Rosen's approach was controversial (see Austin 1973; Calboli1974), as it questioned Ammianus' reliability,but has on the whole turned out to be veryfruitful.The direction pointed by Rosenhas been pursued by Kelly2004 and 2008 and Mratschek.2007, but not alwayswith the same attention

for the rhetoricalbacl.cgroWld. 89 Phylarchus, FGrHist81 F53-6. McCaslin 1985-1986 compares Polybius and Phylardius.

141

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

A Senseof the Past:The Truth of Rhetoric .

Historiae,the accusation of immorality is extended to the whole of pre-Christian history: just as Phylarchusaccuses.the Achaeans, Orosius attacks the pagans for misrepresentingthe horrors of the past. He can, thus, be fruitfullyseen as belongingto the more 'tragic' or 'rhetorical' mode of historiography,as long as this is not understood as a claim for the continuity of a hypotheticalgenre. Rather, drama and high rhetoric were resourcesthat each ancient historian could draw on, if his aims prompted him· to do so. The difference betweenhistorians,then, lies in the degreeto which this rhetoric was embraced,rather than whether rhetoric was used or not. As the exampleof Polybiusshows,it is part of the tropes of historiographyto accuseother historiansof writingin a rhetoricalmode and not doing justice to reality.But that is in itselfa rhetoricalpose, which,moreover,usuallyonlymeansthat onerhetoricalmodeof writing is substitutedfortheother,or hidesthe factthat thehistorianis relyingon the very procedureshe accusesthe others of. We modems are easily seducedinto sympathizingwiththe side that makesthe accusationsand assertsits own objectivity,but that temptation is to be resisted.90 As Orosiusshows,the claimto givea truthfulaccountis itselfrhetoricaland the wayhe constructssuch an accountis quintessentially rhetorical The fact that historians, as all ancient authors, were rhetorically informed,to a greateror lesserdegree,is a trivialfact.But too great an influenceof rhetoric on historiographyhas been seen as imperilling the very nature of history. As rhetoric is seen as concerned with elaboration and amplification,and Jess with getting the facts right, its use in historiographyimpugns the hallmark of history, namely veracity.Scholarshiphas long been aware o( this tension,91 although it was often minimizedby arguing that rhetoric was just a matter of styleand not of substance.Ancienthistoriansstickto the facts,so the suggestionwent, but they obviouslyhave to present their material in an attractive way.92 ln 1988Tony Woodman challengedthat view. He contended that earlier scholars had failed t9 take the rhetorical nature of ancient historiographyseriouslyand detectedamong them a desire to see ancient and modern historiographyas fundamentally identical undertakings that aim at establishingthe facts. Against this he pleaded for the discontinuity of ancient and modern

historiography:for the ancients, historiographywas literature, and they could freelydraw on the rhetoricalresourceof inventionot only to embellishthe narrative,but also to invent facts.93 Wood.man'sRhetoricin Classical Historiography has had the great meritof trying to conceptualizea long neglectedproblemin the study of historiography,but it also had the effectof focusingdiscussionsof the relationship between rhetoric and historiographyon one particular element, namely the use of inventio,and hence the presence of fiction in historiography.94 Indeed, his suggestion that ancient historians were free to make up facts shows that he interpreted the oppositionbetween rhetoric and historiographyas one between fact and fiction: since the former distinction did not exist in Antiquity, nor did the latter. Having establishedthat fiction was admitted into the historical narrative in Antiquity,Woodman used this feature as the crucial distinction betweenancient and modern historiography. Woodman's position has hence been interpreted as undermining the traditional idea that historiographyis Wldergirdedby a referential truth, namely that history represents true events.95 Nevertheless,he explicitlyconcedesthat a historian is usuallylimited by the facts: he compares ancient historiographyto modern documentariesthat add dramatic detail to enliven history.96 Wood.man'scontribution has been crucialin seeingrhetoric not as a problem, but as part of the very nature of ancient historiography.n Scholars have become more sensitive to how historians construct meaning jnstead of simply conveyingfacts, and it has been argued that what constitutestruth is relativeto the specifichistoricalposition of author and audience.98 This has implied a weakeningof the very notion of truth, which as a relativecategory is supposed to be 'not subject to refutation'.99 Implicitly, such views still presuppose the

140

90

See,e.g. Schepens1975on Polybiusand Phylarchus. " See Peter1911. · 92 For a polemicalrestatement of that view,see Lendon 2009.

93 The use of tnventioby early Roman historians had also been argued for by Wiseman 1979and 1994. 94 SeeWoodman 1988:eh. 2;Paschoud I989, 1995,and I 997;Moles1993;Wiseman 1993;Booworth2003;Zangara2004;Bleckmann2006and 2010;Marincola2009. Fot a gooddiscussionof theseissuesfor Medievalhistoriography,see KempshaU2011:4-9, 350-427. ?$ Blocltley 2001;Bosworth2003;Brodka2007;Lendon2009;50. 96 Woodman 1988:92. For truth in history, see Avenarius 1956:76-9. 7 ~ Cf. laird 2009; 212. 98 Fox 1996:29-48; Laird 1999: 116-52. 119 Laird 2009: 197. Fox 1996: 33 justifies his 'relativism' with reference to H.-G. Gadamer and P. Ricoeur~two philosophers who would, l suppose, not appreciate that label.

143

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

A Senseof the Past:The Truth of Rhetoric .

identificationof the opposition between rhetoric and history with that betweenfictionand fact.The argumentthat truth is relativeand irrefutableweakensthe notion of 'fact' and hence opens up a much wider realm in whichrhetoric, whichwe think of as creatingfiction, can perform its part. Suchargumentscorrectlydraw attentionto one of the keyissuesin this debate, namely how we and the ancients widerstood historical truth. Yet the precedingdiscussionof Orosius suggestsstill another wayof conceptualizingthe relationshipbetweenrhetoricand history -thanthe one just sketched.In ancientrhetoricaltheory the appealto emotions was closely related to the third of the three traditional qualitiesof narrative,namely credibility(or verisimilitude),besides brevityand lucidity.100 Quintiliannotes that, evenfor sometheorists, grandeur (megaloprepeia) wasanothervirtueof narrative,and for still 101 others enargeia. For him, the latter is indeed an important quality of narrative,'when a truth requiresnot only to be told but in a sense to be presentedto the sight'.102 All of these are important properties of narrative,dependingon the occasion,but, for Quintilian,they can be classedunder the traditionalthree headings:enargeia,for example. can go under lucidity.103 Vividness and the 4isplay of emotions therefore do not distance the text from reality: on the contrary, they approach speech and reality by making the •former conform to nature.104 A vivid description'sets out the whole event and as it were puts it before the eyes'.105 When Orosius is thus writing in a rhetorical mode, this dQes not contradict his ass~rtion,explored above in chapter 3, that he wishes to deconstru~t the distorted rhetorical image of his contemporaries by havipg recourse to the true facts. Inde~ accordingto rhetoricaltheory, events vividly describedhelp to showtheir real nature. Amplificationand commiseration thus havetheir placein a work of history.Paradoxically,then, but only tothe modern mind, rhetoric is a tool to represent reality

better:Orosiuswouldhave·felt unableto givea true senseof the facts had he no~had the tool of enargeiaat hand. In the Historiae,and I would dare to suggest for many other ancienthistoriansas well,'reality'does not lie so much in describing the eventsexactlyas theywere,but rather in displayingthem in such a waythat the readercan feelpresentand experiencethem as if he were present. The measure of truth is not the simple correspondenceof words to an externalreality,but the correspondenceof the recreated experienceof the reader's perceptionwith that .of a real .spectator. Referentialtruth is hence not absent in ancient historiography,but mediated through the readees apperceptionof the events as presented in the narrative. Truth has to be created in the reader's mind, not in the text.106 To phrase it differently:we tend to think of historical truth as the correspondencebetween the events as they happened in reality and their descriptionby the historian. Orosius (or, not to give too much credit to him, Quintilian)suggestsanother correspondence.The text is only a mediator betweenthe reader and the event, whic;h aims at creating a contact as direct as possible betweenthe reconstitutedevent and the reader. Helped by the text, the reader becomes,as tt were, an eyewitness.This is more than a semantic(and pedantic) distinction,as shown by Orosius.His entire Historiae. aim at challengingthe mindsetof his audienceand opening its eyesthrough pathos.In this framework,on~ understandsthat the role of fiction in historiographyis of limited ~portance. Quintilian does mention making details up as a possibilitywhen aiming at a truthful, ~vid narrative, but it remains subordinated to general truthfulness.107 As such, rhetoric is a matter not of fiction, but of truth: it is a way of displayingreality,rather than distorting it. The relationship between rhetoric and history was conceptualizedin various ways in Antiquity,103 and Orosius' understandingof it can thus not be a priori extended to all ancient historians.Yet, I would like to suggest,it deservesattention in current discussionsabout this relationshipamong classicists.

142

100

Rhetcricaad Herrenium1.14; Qulntllian4.2.31-2. .. See Cicero,Topica97. . 1112 Qu.intilian4.2.64:cwn quid vert non dicendumses quodarnmodoetiam osten101

dum est. 03 ' 1

Quintilian 4.2.64. 0-1 See Quintilian 6.2.27:in iis quae esse veri similla volemus, simis ipsi similes eorum qui vere patiWltur adfectibus.Seealso Rhetoricaad Herrenium1.16. 105Rhetoricaad Herren/um4.69: Statliit enim rem totarn et prope ponit ante oculos.

106 Cf. Morgan 1993: 184, commentingon Dw-isof Samos, one of the so-called tragichistorians.This view is not entirelydifferentfrom the one espousedby Pomlan 1999:59-78 regarding the role of fiction in contemporaryhistoriography.Pomian's view is unplidtly dependenton Collingwood1946. 10 ' Quintilian8.3.62. 108

Fox 2001.

144

Orosiusand the Rhetoricof History

Contrary to the tendency to.~parate Orosius off from ancient historiography,he can fruitfullybe seen as exemplifytng·tendencies that are fundamentalto.ancient historiographyin general.His apologetictendency does not catapult the Historiaeoutside the realm of historiography;rather, it exacerbatesand highlightsgeneral characteristicsof the writing of history in Antiquity.Admittedly,Orosius is obviouslya historian with an axe to grind and his agenda unsurprisingly affects the way he presents events.10~ But that is true for all ancient historians,!JO and it remains to be demonstratedthat writing with a Christian bias is substantiallydifferent from writing with an Athenian,senatorial,Alexandrian,or Achaeanbias, to the degreethat it relegates one from the realm of ancient historiography.On the contrary, there is great pro.fitin locating Otosius in the context of ancient historiography.His apologetictendency makes him acutely sensitivefor the rhetorical distortions of his pagan predecessorsand he thus questions some of the silent presuppositionsof the classical tradition, such as the suitabilityof rhetorical narrative to represent truly the events. At the same time, his critique on the rhetoric of history is fully rooted in that rhetoric itself. His relianceon enargeia, oratiogravis,and pathostrwnps, as it were, previous histories:these rhetorical modes ensure, in his view, that his history possesses a greater verisimilitudethan traditional narratives. 'Orosius believed, just as many of his predecessors,that rhetoric, ultimately,helps to represent the truth.

109 See,e.g. Pardini 1988;Bessone2000; EscribanoPano 2007. Brandt 2010: 122 notes that, for Orouus, history serves as an argument,·in contrast with classical history.But doe$historynot serveas an argument in, say, Polyl>iusand Tacitus? 110 See,e.g. for Ammianus,most fort:efullyPaschoud1989and 1992.Accusations of bias are ci;ntralto the polemicalself-definitionof historians:see Luce 1989.

6 A Past for the Present: On Metaphors and Panegyric ·

Just before the 6001 made their final charge againstXerxes,Leonidas counselledthem to 'eat as you will dine with the gods later'. Orosius comments: See,whilehe promis~da better future, they [the contemporarypagans] ascertain that the past is better. Both detest their respectivepresents, and what can one concludeother than that e.itherthe present times are 2

always good but badly appreciated or never better in geticaim, the Historiaeare not prognostic,but at bestdiagnosticof present woes.s4 They explainhow the present is what it is and how it stands in relationto the past, but do not go beyondthat. One onlylooksfor statementsabout the end of time if one defines Orosius in advanceas a theologianof history.55 Yet, as I have argued, this results in a distorted reading of Orosius which lifts the 'theory' out of the text and does not study how metaphors function within the text. That Orosius himself explicitly excludesthe end of time from his scope is 'further support for my contentionthat we firsthaveto understand him as a historian.Whilst the focus on Orosius' text may force us to rethink some widelyheld asswnptionsabouthis ideas,the precedingargumentonly makeshim more ordinary. Givenhis emphasison the omnipotenceof God and his free agencyin history,Orosiusprobablyheld the most traditional view on the end of time: we do not know when it will happen.

cadenceof the other books:there is littlealternationbetweendescriptive and pathetic passages,with all the rhetoric concentratedin the last third of the book. It is thus clearthat Orosius'tone has changed From the portrait of TheodosiusI onwards (7.43), one encountersall the traditionalpraiseof contemporarypanegyrics,such as the slaying of tyrants,58 the suppressionof uncouthbarbarians,59 and miraculous and bloodlessends to battles.6 Concomitant.and equallyunoriginal, emphases are on the piety of individual rulers61 and the civilizing force of Romeand Christianity.62 The questionto be askedis, then, to whom is that panegyricaddressed?Is it Rome and the empire as is often asserted?63 As we shall see, this is only the case when these chapters are superficiallyread: in fact, they highlightthe benefits of Ghristianvirtue, but also serve to flaunt Orosius' dose relationship with Augustineand to remind his primary audience, rich Romans having settled in Sicilyand Africa, of the privilegedposition they enjoy thanks to God. It is, then, in the last chapters that the central concernsof the entire Historiaesurfacemost explicitly:they aim, as it were, to deliver the final blow to the pagan argument that was alreadyweakenedby the precedingbooks and chapters and to draw its waveringaudiencefinallyinto the Christian camp. Beforewe ,GiornaleitalianodifilologiaN.S.9: 79-91. Santoro l'Hoir, F. (2006) Tragedy,Rhetoricand the Historiographyof Tacitus' Annales.Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press. Scheller,P. (1911) De hellenisticahistoriaeconscribendaarte.Diss.:Leipzig. und lvdpyEul in Polybios'Geschichtstheorie', Schepens,G. (1975) 'lJJAl,o.01s RSA 5: 185-200. -( 1980) 'Polemicand methodology in Polybius'Book XlI', in Purposesof History:Studiesin GreekHistoriography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C.:Proceedings of the InternationalColloquiumLeuven,24-26 May 1988 (Studia hellenistica 30), eds. H. Verdin, G. Schepens, and E. de Keyzer. Leuven,s.n.: 39-61.

Bibliography

229

Schlumberger,J.A.(1974) Die Epitomede Caesaribus.Untersuchungenzur heidnischenGeschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhundertsn. Chr. (Yestigia. Beitrii.gezur Alten Geschichte 18). Munich: Beck. Schmale, F.-J. (1985) Funktion und Formen mittelalterlicherGeschichtsschreibung:eine Einfuhrung. Dannstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge. sellschaft. Schmidt, P.L. (1968)Iulius Obsequensund das Problemder Li'Vius-Epitome: Wiesbaden: ein Beitragzur Geschichteder lateinischenProdigienliteratur. Steiner. -· -(1988) 'Zu den Epochen der spatantiken lateinisdien Histor-iographie', Philologus132:86-100. -(1989) 'Historiographie',in R.estauration und Erneuerung.Die lateiniscm Literaturvon 284 bis 374 n. Chr.,ed. R Herzog.Munich: Beck:173-21I. Schmitz,T. (1997)Bi/dungund Macht:zur sozialenund politischenFunktion derzweitenSophistikin dergriechischenWelt derKaiserzeit(Zetemata 97). Munich: Beck. Schneiderhan,A. (1921) DieExemplabei Hieronymus.Diss.: Munich. des Orosius.Munich, s.n. Schondorf, KA. (1952) Die Geschichtstheologje Schott, J. (2007}'Heresiologyas universal history in Epiphanius' Panarion', ZAC 10:546-63. -(2008) Christianity,Empire,and the Making of Religionin Late Antiquity. Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress. Schrijvers,P. (1982) 'Invention, imagination, et theorie des emotions chez Ciceron et Quintilien', in ACTUS. Studies in Honour of H.L.W. Ne/$on, eds. J. den Boeftand A.H.M. Kessels.Utrecht: lnstituut voor klassieke Talen: 395-408. Schwartz, E. (1897) 'Die Berkhte iiber die CatiliJiarischeVerscliworung', Hermes32: 554-608. , -(1900) 'Kallisthenes'Hellenika',Hermes35: 107:-30. -(1909) 'Die Zeit des Ephoros', Hermes44: 481-502. Scourfield,J.·H.D.(ed.) (2007) Texts and Culturein Late Antiquity. Inheritance,Authority,and Change.Swansea:Classical Press of Wales. Sebesta,J.L (1980) 'Claudian's credo. The de sa\vatore', CB 56: 33-6. Seeck,0. and Veith, G. (1913) 'Die Schlacht am Frigidus',Klio 13: 451-67. Seel,0. (1934) 'Die justinischen Handschriftenklassenund ihr Verhiiltniszu Orosius, I', SIFC11: 255-8$. -(1935) 'Die justinische Handschriftenklassen und ihr Verhiiltnis zu Orosius, II', SIFC12: 5-40. Sehlmeyer,M. (2004) Origogentis romanae (Texte zur Forschung). Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft. Geschichtsbilder fiir Paganeund Christen.Res Romanaein den -(2009) spatantiken Breviarien(Beitrage zur Altertumskunde 272). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

230

Bibliography

Bibliography

Shanzer; D. (1991) 'Arcanum Varronis iter. Licentiufs Verse Epistle to Augustine',REAug37: 110-43. . Shumate, N. (1997) 'Compulsary pretense and the "theatricalisation of experience"in Tacitus', in Studiesin Latin Literatureand Roman History VoL 8 (Collection Latomus 239), ed. C. Decoux. Brussels: Societe des Etudes latines: 364-403. Sirinelli,J.(1961)Les vueshistoriquesd'Eusebede Cesareedurant laperiode preniceenne.Paris: Macon. -and des Places,E. (1974)Eu.sebede Cesaree.La preparationevangelique. Introductiongenerale.LivreI (Sources chretiennes 206). Paris: Le Cerf. Skidmore, C. (1996) PracticalEthicsfor Roman Gentlemen.The Work of ValeriusMaximus.Exeter: Exeter UniversityPress. Sordi, M. (2003) 'll problema della successionedegli imperi tra Pompeo Trogo e Orosio', in La successionedegli imperi e de/le egemonienelle relazioni internazionali, eds. D. Foraboschi and S.M. Pizzetti. Milan: Unicopli,77-84. Spat, E. (I 998} 'The Commonitorium of Orosius on the teachings of the Priscillianists',AAHung 38: 357-79. Straub, J. (1972a) 'Christliche Geschichtspologetikin der Krisis des romischen Reic:hes',in Id., Regeneratioimperii.Dannstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft:240-71. -(1972b} 'Augustins Sorge um die Regeneratioimperii', in Id., Regeneratio imperii.Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft:271-95. -( 1972c)'Romanus et christianus... Die gotische Landnahme im Spiegel der christlichen Geschichtsapologetik',in Id., Regeneratfoimperii.Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft:296-303: Suerbaum,W. (1997) art. Ennius, in DerNeue Pauly3: 1040-6. Svennung, J. (1922) Orosiana.Syntaktische,semasiologische und kritische Studienzu Orosius.Uppsala:Appelberg. Swain,B. {2010)'Jordanes and Vergil:A case study of intertextualityand the Getica', CQ 60: 243-9. Swain,J.W. ( 1940) 'The theoryof four monarchies.Opposition history under lhe Roman !:'.mpire',CPh25: 1-2. Swain,S. (1996) Hellenismand Empire.Lan~age, Classicism,and Po'IVe:r in the GreekWorld,AD 50-250.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Swift,L.J.(1986)'Defininggloriain St Augustine's•Cityof God', in Diakonia. Studies in Honor of R.T. Meyer, ed. T. Halton. Washington: Catholic · Universityof America Press: 133-44. -(1987) 'Pagan and Christian heroes in Augustine's City of God', Augustinianum 27: 509-22. Syme,R. (1988)'The date ofJustin and the discoveryofTrogus', Historia37: 358-71.

Szidat,J. (1992)'Ammian und die historische Realitat',in den Boeftand den Hengst 1992: 107-16. Tabacco, R. (1990) 'L'itinerarium AlexandrL Analisi del proemio', in La storiografialatina del IV secof.o,ed. L. Lana. Firenze:Olschki: 147-62. -(2000) ltinerarium Alexandri.Testa,apparatocritica,introduzione,traduzionee commento.Turin: Gheroni. Talbert, R. J. A. (1999) 'Tacitus and the senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre', AJPh120:89-97. Tanner, RG. (1989) 'The historical method of Sulpicius Severns', Studia Patristica19: 106-I0. Tanz, S. (1983) 'Orosius im SpannungsfeldzwischenEusebiusvon Caesarea und Augustin', Klio65: 337--%. Thielman, F.S. {1987) 'Another look at the eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea', VChr41: 226-37. Timpe, D. (2001) RomischeGeschichte und Heilsgeschichte. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter. Tornau, C. (2006) ZwischenRhetorikund Philosophie.AugustinsArgumentationstechnikin De civitate Dei und ihr Bildungsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund (Untersuchungenzur antiken Literatur und Geschichte82). Berlin and New York:Walter de Gruyter. Torres Rodriguez, C. (1985) Paulo Orosio,.suvida y sus obres.Santiago: Fundacion 'Pedro Barrie de .laMaza Conde de Fenosa'. Trieber, C. (1892) 'Die Idee der vier Weltreiche',Hermes27: 321-44. Trout, D. (1994) 'Re-textualizingLucretia:Cultural subversionin the City of God', JEC,S1: 53-70. ~ (I 999) Paulinusof Nola.Life,Letters,and Poetnf.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Ulrich, J. (1999) Euseb von Caesareaund die Juden. Studien zur Rolleder Juden in der TheologiedesEusebiusvon Caesarea·(PatristischeTexte und Untersuchungen49). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. van Andel, G.K (1976}The ChristianConceptof Historyin the Chronicleof SulpiciusSeverus.Amsterdam:Gieben. Vanderspoel,J. (1986) 'Claudian, Christ and the cult of the saints', CQ 36: 244-55. Van Hoot: L. (2010a) Plutarch'sPracticalEthics. The SocialDynamicsof Philosophy.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. -(2010b) 'Greek Rhetoric and the Later Roman Empire. The "bubble"of the "Third Sophistic"',AntTard 18:211-24. Van Nuffelen, P. (2004a) Un heritagede paix et de piete.Etude sur les Histoiresecc/esiastiques de Socrateet de Sczomene (Orientalialovaniensia analecta 142). Leuven:Peeters.

231

232

Bibliography

-(2004b) The unstained rule of Theodosius II: A late antique panegyrkal topos and moral concern', in ImagoVirtutis (Collectiondes Etudes dassi-

ques), eds. T. van Houdt e,a. Leuven:-Peeters:229-56. · Van Nuffelen,P. (2010) 'Theologyvs. genre? Tradition as universalhistoriography in Late Antiquity, in Liddeland Fear 2010: 190-212. -(forthcoming) 'Olympiodorus of Thebes and eastern triumphaJism'·in ·TheodosiusII: The Reformationof the Roman Empirein Late Antiquity, ed. C. Kelly.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. V-azde Carvalho, C. (1955} 'Dependeni S. Agostinho de Paulo Orosio?', RevistaPortuguese defilosofta2: 142-53. Vessey,M. (1998) 'The Demise of the Christian writer and the remakingof "Late Antiquity": From H.-1. Marrou's Saint Augustine (1938) to Peter Brown's holy man (1983)',JECS6, 377-411. -Pollman, K, and Fitzgerald,A.D. (eds.) (1999)History,Apocalypse,and the SecularImagination.New Essayson Augustine'sCity of God.Bowling Green OH: VillanovaUniversityPress. Veyne, P. (1990) 'La providence stoicienne intervient-elle dans l'bistoire?', Latomus49: 553-74. Vilella,J.(2000)'Biografiacritica de Orosio', JbAC43: 94-121. Vitale-Brovarone,A. (1980) 'Persuasione e narrazione. L'exemplumfra due retoriche (VI-XIIsec.)', MEFRM92: 87-112. Vittinghoff,F. (1%4) 'Zum geschichtlichenSelbstverstandnisder Spatan• tike', HZ 198:519-74. Walbank,F.W. (1943) 'Polybiuson the Roman constitution', CQ 37: 73-89. -(1955) 'Tragic history. A reconsideration',BICS2: 4-14. -(1960) 'History and tragedy', Historia9: 216-34. -{1962) 'Polemic in Polyb\us',JRS52: 1-12. - (2002a)'Pro.fitor amusement Some thoughts -onthe motives of Hellenistic historians', in Id., Polybius,Rome and the HellenisticWorld.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress: 231-41. -(2002b) 'A Greek looksat Rome:PolybiusVI', in kl, Polybius,Romeand the HellenisticWorld.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress: 277~92. Walker, A.D. (1993) 'Enargeia and the spectator in Greek historiography',

TAPhA 123: 353-77. Wallraff,M. (2004) 'Protologie und Eschatologieals Horizonte der Kirchengeschichte?Das Erbe christlicher Universalgeschichte';in Historiographie urulTheologie,eds W. Kinzige.a. Leipzig:EvangelischesVerlagshaus: 153-67. -(2005) 'Von der antiken Historiezur mittelaJterlichenChronik', in WeltZeit. ChristlicheWeltchrtJnistik aus zwei Jahrtausendenin Bestandender ThuringerUnive-rsitiitsund Landesbibliothek Jena,ed. M.·WaJlraff.Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter: 1-16.

Bibliography

233

-(eel) (2006) JuliusAfricanus und die christlicheWeltchronistik(Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 157). Berlin andNew York: Walt_erde Gruyter. Walter, U. (2002) 'GeschichteaJs Lebensmachtim republikanischenRom', GWU 53: 326-39. ' Ward-Perkins, B. (2005) The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress. Webb, R. (2009) Ekphrasis,Imaginationand Persuasionin Ancient RhetoricalThoughtand Practice.Aldershot Ashgate. Werner, K.F. (1987) 'Gott, Herrscher, Historiograph.DerGeschkhtsschreiber als Interpret des Wirkens Gottes in der Welt und J,u.tgeberder Konige (4. Bis 12. Jahrhundert)', in Deus qui mutat tempora. Menschen und Institutionen im Wandel des Mittelalters.FestschriftA/Jons Becker zu seinemjunfundsechzigstenGeburtstag,eds. E.-D. Hehl, H. Seibert, and F. Staab. Sigmaringen:Thorbecke: 1-31. Whitby, M. (ed.) (1998) The Propagandaof Power;The Roleof Panegyricin Late Antiquity (MnemosyneSupplements 183).Leiden,Brill. White, H. (1978) The Contentof the Form.Discourseand HistoricalRepresentation.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress. Whitmarsh, T. (2001) GreekLiteratureand the Roman Empire.The Politics of Imitation.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Wickham, C. (2004) Framingthe EarlyMiddleAges:Europeand the Mediterranean400-800. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Winkelmann, F. (1992) 'Grundproblemen christlicher Historiographie in ihrer Frtihphase (Eusebiosvon Kaisareiaund Orosius)',]iiByz 42: 13-28. Wirth, G. (1997)'Rome and its Germanic Partners in the Fourth Century', in Kingdomsof the Empire.The Integrationof Barbariansin Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Roman World. Volume I), ed. W. Pohl. Leiden:Brill: 13-55. Wiseman, T.P. (1979) Clio'sCosmetics:ThreeStudiesin Greco-RomanLiterature.Leicester:LeicesterUniversityPress. -(1993) 'Lying historians: Seven types of mendacity', in Gill and Wiseman 1993:122-46. Historiographyand Imagination:EightEssayson Roman Culture. -(1994) Exeter:Exeter UniversityPress. -( 1995)Remus.A RomanMyth. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Wittchow, F. (2001) Exernplarisches Erziihlenbei Ammianus Marcellinus: Episode,Exemplum,Anekdote (Bei.tragezur Altertumskunde 144). Munich: Saur. Wittgenstein,L. (1961) TractatusLogico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge. Woodman, A.J.(1988) Rhetoricin ClassicalHistoriography:Four Studies. London: Croom-He)m.

234

Bibliography

Woodman, A.J. (1998) Tadtus Reviewed.Oxford Oxford UniversityPress. Wotke, F. (1939}art. 'Orosius', in RE 19, ll85-9S. Yardley,Y.C. (1994) Justin. Epitomeof' the Phil/ipicHistoryof Pompeius Trogus.Atlanta: Societyfor BiblicalStudies. -(2003} Justinand PompeiusTrogus.A Study of the Languageof Justin's Epitomeof Trogus.Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press. Yarrow, L (2006) Historiographyat the End of the Republic.Provincial Perspectives on RomanRuk. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Zakai,A. and Mali, A. (1992-3) 'Time, history and eschatology.Ecclesiastical historyfromEusebiusto Augustine'Journal of Religious History17:393-417. Zangara, A. (2004) 'Mettre en images le passe: l'ambiguite et l'efficacitede l'"enargeia"dans le recit historique', Metis2: 251-72. '.4ngemeister,K. (1877) 'Die Chorographiedes Orosius', in Commentationes philologaein honoremTh. Mommseni.Berlin,s.n.: 715-38. Zangemeister,C. (1882) Pauli OrosiiHistoriarumadversumpaganoslibri VII, accediteiusdem liber apologeticus(Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasti· corum latinorum 5). Vienna: Hodder. Pichler and Tempsky. Zanker, G. (1981) 'Enargeia in the ancient criticism of poetry',RhM 124: 297-3ll. Zecchini,G. (2003) 'Latin historiography:Jerome, Orosius,and the Western Chronicles',in Marasco 2003: 317-45.

Index of Sources AGATHIAS

Historiae pr.10: 31 n. 25 pr.11-13, 16-17: 157 n. 64 1.1.2: 31 n. 25 AMnose

Defide 1.1: 85

De obitu Thecdosii 24.8: 157 n. 62 Epistu/ae 18.7: 148 n. 27, 188 n. 14 AMMlANUS MAR.CELLINUS

14.6: 81 n. 84, 149~51 lS.l.l: 133 n. 67, 136

28.4: 81 n. 84 31.5.to: 81 n. 83 31.13.ll: 152 n. 44 31.16.9: 158n. 65 ARISTOTLE

Poetica

9.2-9: 138 n. 81

Rhetorica 2.1-11: 116 n. 3

3.19: 117 D. 4 AUGUSTINE

Ad Orosium: 30 Confessiones 1.(13)22: 29 n. IS, 89 n. l 14 1.(17)27: 89 n. 114 1.(18)28:89 n. 114 3.(6)11: 74 n. 49, 102 n. 21 S.(8)14: 28 n. 11, 29 n. 14 6.(4)6: 89 n. 114 8.(5)10: 29 n. 13 9.(10)23: 28 n. 11

De civitateDei 1.1-2: 45 n. l I.I: 51 n. 23, 165 n. 106 1.7: 16S n. 106

1.15: 89 n. 118 l.24: 89 n. 118, 203 n. 81 l.31-3: 70 n. 27 1.33: 74 n. 4S, 99 n. 16 2.14: 118 n. 12 . 2.l8: 55 n. 44, 70 n. 27 222: 59 n. 53 2.24: 59 n. 53 2.25: 59 n. 53, 96 2.29: 53 n. 32, 89 n. 117 33: 59 n. 53 3.6: 55 n. 44, 118 n. 12 3.7-8: 118 n. 11 3.7: 59 n. 53 3.12: 118 n. 12 3.13: 55 n. 44 3.14: 59 D. 53, 118 n. 12 3.15: 59 D, 53 3.17: 55 D. 44 3.20: 118 n. 11 3.28: 98

3.29: 60 D. 55 3.31: 17 n. 61 4.1: 74 n. 49 4.2: 23 n. 71, 40 n. 55 4.5: 77 n. 64 4.7: 48 n. 13, 198 n. 67 4.33: 51 n. 24, 202 n. 76 5.11: 47 n. 9, 202 n. 76 5.12: 89 n. 117 5.15-19: S2 n. 28 5.16-8: 69 n. 24, 89 n. 118 5.17: 89 n. 117 5.22: 68 n. 22 5.23: 103, 165 n. 106, 181 n. 48,203 n. 82 5.24:. 199 n. 69, 203 n. 82 5.25: 199n. 70, 200 n. 71, 203 n. 82 5.26: 43 n. 66, 114, 162 n. 93, n. 97, 163, 203 n. 82 15.5: 118 n. 12 16.17: 52 n. 26 16.43: 149 n. 29 18.2: 52 D. 26, 198 D. 64 18.20: 52 n. 26 18.21: 47 n. 10

236

Index of Sources

De civitate Dei (amt.) 18.27;_36: 152 n. 41 18.27: 52 n. 26 18.40: 153 n. 45 18.52: 159 n. 76-7, 160 n. 78, 198n. 64 19.12: 99 n. 17 19.13: 198n. 64

CASSIUS D10

208: 152 n. 44

47.14.2: 97 n. 14

De be/logothico

CHRONICLE OF Z\JQNIN

m.101, 108: 129n. 61

CICBl!.O

19.26: 52 n. 26 20.23: 48 n. 13 21.14: 198n. 64 De doctrinadi ristiana 2.28.44: 63 n. 4

Ad familiares 5.12.4: 66 n. 11 5.12.5: 117 n. 4 6.6: 83 n. 89 De inventione

De excidiourbisromae

1.27: 74 n. 49 1.29: 132 n. 66

7: 52 n. 25

De verareligione 49-50; 143 n. 27

Ennaraticin psalmos 52: 87 n. 107

Epistu/ae 2*: 16 n. 58 16-7: 29 n. t4 26: 29 n. 12 135: 16 n. 58, 29 n. 14 i37: 16 n. 58, 29 n. 14 166: 25 n. 1, 26 n. 5, 29 n. 20

Retractatwnes 1.5: 133n. 69 2.13: 133n. 69 Sermones 67.2: 28 n. 10

Index of Sources

De legibus 2.62: 83 n. 89 De oratore 2.56: 120 n. 22 2.59: 120 n. 22 2.188: 117 n. 9

2.189: 118n. 15 2.194: 117 n. 9 2.335: 83 n. 89

De republica 1.58, 2.21, 23: 148 n. 24 3.20: 123 n. 39 3.34: 148 n. 24

In Catilinam 4.11: 118 n. ll

Orator

207: 66 D. Ii 571-2: 152 n. 42

DeconsulatuStilichonis l.374-85: 58 n. 51 2.204-5: 152n. 42 2.223-407: 88 n. 109 3.106-29: 152 n. 42

De sextoconsu/atoHonorii

lnRufinum 1.273-4: 58 n. 51 2.50-4: 58 n. SI

Panegyricusde tertioconsulatu Honoriiaugusti 96-8: 43 n. 66

47.7: 107 48.l: 107 48.7: 108

Demcnstratwevangelica 3.2.37: 193 n, 45 3.7.30-6: 193:n.45

97: 142 n. 101

a. 384: llO

110 110 110 110- l 110

a. 388: 108 n. 37

10: 97 n. 14

IU>ITOME DB CilSARIBUS

46.2: 106 47.2: 106

75-173: 88 n. 109

Topica

X1 (Prof.) 2.21: 78 n. 68 20.8: 78 n. 67

1.78; 156 n. 56

EUSSBIUS

a.379: a. 380: a. 381: a. 382: a:383:

Commentariolum·petitionls

Opuscula

De laudibusConstantini

14: 83 n. 89

AOSONIOS

ENNODIUS

398-418: 79 n. 80

CONSULAltlA CONSTANTINOPOLlTANA

CICEltO, QUINTUS

DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS

Panegyricus dictus Probinoet Olybric ccnsulibus

169: 81 n. 86

5.13: 75 n. 53

17.13, 35, 70: 118 n. 11 19.6-8: 118n. 11 20.71: 118 n. 11 36.33: 70 n. 27

Lysias 7: 76 n. 60, 120 n. 22

ProArchia

Sermones Do/beau

DlOOOJlUS SICOUIS

In Eutropium

77.10: 36 n. 47

131.2: 28 n. 10

I: 48n. B. 36: 74 n. 4.4 76.4: 95 n. 11

AntiquiHe.s 1.2: 147 n.13

81.8: 148 n..27 81.9: 56 n. 45, 151 n. 36 · 105.8: 151 n. 36 111: 191n. 31,202 n. 78 113A.ll: 36 n..47

Pro Marcello 4.11: 151 D. 3(i

DE VIRIS ILWSTR.JBUS URBIS ltOMAE

218-28: 157 n. 62 356-493: 88 n. 109 407-24: 152 n. 42 1.371-513: 88 n. 109 1.435-65: 79 n. 80 1.499: 128 n. 58 2.60: 63 n. 4 2.159-66: 43 n. 66 2.598: 60 n. 56

a. 392: 108n. 37 a. 395: 109n. 44 CORNELIUS NBPOS

CLAUDlAN

pr.: 83 n. 92

22: 77 n.66 26.1-6: 78 n. 68

Carminamirwra

DEMl!Tll.11.JS

50: 86~8

On style

XIX(Epigrammata) 1.1: 166 n. lll

De be/logildonico 17: 58 n. 51

XXVII(Epistulae) 10.21: 78 n. 68

28-127: 88 n. 109 ll5: 152 n. 43

16: 193 n. 39, n. 41

4.9: 194 n. 46 7.1: 194 n. 46

Historiaecclesiastica 5.103: 87 n. 106

Praeparatio evangelica I.3-4: 192 n. 3 5 1.4.6-12: 192 n. 36 Vita Constantini 1.3.2: 53 n. 33 EUTROPIUS

209: 121 n. 29 DE .Rl:.8US BELUCIS

pr.: 33 n. 33

237

pr.: 32 n. 29, 135 n. 72 1.20: 60 n. 56 3.11: 95 n. 11

9.18: 112 9.19.2: 112 10.18.3: 158 n. 65

238

Index of Sources

Index of Sources

FESTUS

a. Abr. 1264: 54 n. 39

Or-ationes

Revelaticn

l: 32 n. 28, 34 n. 40, 135 n. 72

a.285: 112 a. 377: 104 n. 28

IS.1-2: 63 n. 4

11.15: 182 n. 56 17.3: 49

30. l: .158 n. 65 fLOll.US

pr.:_149 pr.7: 148 n. 20 1.3.9: 54 n. 39 1.7: 60 n. 56 1.16: 74 n. 44 1.21: 43 n. 68

a.378:

104 n. 29, 106

Commentariiin Abdiam PL 25 1098: 32 n. 32, 119 n. 19 Commentariiin Danielem I.ii.31-35: 48 n. 13 Jl.vii.1-7: 48 n. 15 Epistulae

16.8: 63 n. 4 18.53: 63 n. 4

OLD TESTAMENT

UCENTIUS

Genesis

Carmen: 29 n. 12

3.24: 87 14.14: 85 19.16: 183 n. 57

LIVY

Vim Ma/chi

pr.9: 79 n. 78 2.32.9-12: 146 n. 8 5.24: 60 5.50-5: 60 n. 56 5.54: 60 7.6.1-5: 100-1 8.12.1: 99 n. 16 22.8.3-5: 146 n. 9

l: 148 n. 27

PSEVDO-LONGINUS

JOHN OP BlllTH•APHTHONIA

Pmhypsous

H~llODIAN

Vita Severi

1.4: :?.1n. 25

201: 1S3 n. 45

9.15: 117 n. 4 15.8: 12.1n. 27

RlPPOLYTUS

JULIAN

LUCAN

ORIGEN

2.9.26: 98 GENNADIUS

Deviris i/lustribus 39: 25n.l,4ln.58 GllEGOll.Y OF NAZl,\.NZVS

Orationes 24.10: 88 n. 108

22: 84 70: 84-5, 91 n. 124 107: 119 n. 19 123.7: 127 n. 57

239

Joshua 5.14: 85

Amos 9.9: 183 n. 57

Tobias 6.1: 35 n.43

Daniel 2: 48 13: 87 17: 49 ORACULA SIBYLUNA

3.158-161: 147

InDanielem

Epi.stulae

4.9: 193 n. 37

31: 78 n. 73

1.337: 43 n. 66 2.173-93: 97 n. 14

HOii.ACE

JUUUS VICTOR

LUCIAN

2.30: 193 n. 41

Carmina

Ars rhetorica 371-448: 119 n. 19

Quomodohistoriaconscribenda est SI: 139 n. 86

OROSJVS

3.29: 146 n. 11

Epodcn

JUSTIN

n. 13

ContraCelsum

Commonitorium

MACR081VS

1: 27

Saturnalia

Historiae

7.2.9: 66 n. U

1.4: 83 n. 89.

pr.4: 79 n. 79 6.8.2: 99 n. 16 12.2.16-17: Ill n. 48

ISIOORIJS

JUVENC\lS

fr.4.6: 156

1.pr.: 31-41 l.pr.1-2: 33 n. 37 Lpr.I: 32 n. 27-8 l.pr.2: 32 n. 29

7.17-20: 54 n. :?.5

Satyra

Libel/us 517.10: 121 n. 32 (TINERARl\1M ALEXANDlt.l

1.1: 32 n. 27-30, 34 n. 41 1.2: 32 n. 26 1.3: 34 n. 41 1.8: 34n.41 1.10: 34 n. 41

pr.1-2: 53 n. 31

MENANDER PROTECTOR

n.56, 157 n. 64

MINUCIUS FELIX

LACTANTIUS

25.12: 147 n. 13

lnstitutiones

NEW TESTAMENT

S.13.23: 89 n. 118 7.15.12: 53 n. 31 7.15.13: 147 n. 13

7.15.14-7: 148 n. 25, 149 De mortibuspersecutorum 5.2-3: 94 n. 9

Matthew 13.45-6: 27-30 15.27: 35

24.6-9: 187 n. 5 24.31: 182 n. 56 25.6-9; 155

Jtl.OME

7.22.4: 94

Apologiaadversuslibr0$Rufmi PL23

UBANIUS

20.24-9: 87

409: 32 n. 32, 119 n. 19

Epistu/ae

Chronicon

Letter to theRomans

1058: 78 n. 72

13: 47

pr.: 158 n. 65

1434: 78 n. 72

John

1.pr.3-8: 34-8 1.pr.8: 28 n. 10, 32 n. 28, n. 30, 33 n. 34, 36 n. 48,38 l.pr.9: 16 n. 55, 37, 39, 66 n. 13, 69, 145 n. 4 l.pr.10: 39 n. 53, 133 l.pr.12: 32 n. 31, 36 n. 48, 39 1.pr.13-14: 63 n. l, 145 n. 4 l.pr.13: 32 n. 27, 40 l .pr.15: 155 n. 52 1.1: 18 n. 65 l.l.1: 76 n. 58 1.1.2: 147 IL 13 1.1.4: 170 n. 3 1.1.6: 76 n. 58

240

Indexof Sources

Historiae(cunt.)

2.3.7: 52 n. 26

l.1.8:' 75

2.3.9: 39 n. 54

1.1.11: 183 n. 8 1.1.13: 148 n. 21 1.1.14: 46 n. S, 175 n. 25, 188 n. 9 1.2: 22,170 n. 3, 175 1.2.4-5: 48 n. 11 1.3.6: 75 n. 52 l.4: 198n.64 1.4.4: 128 n. 58 1.5.5:75n.52 1.5.l0: 75 n. 51 1.6.l: 81 n. 85, 135 n. 71 1.6.2: 75 n. 51, 152 n. 41 l.6.3: 16 n. 55 1.6.S:68 n. 21, 74 n. 48 1.6.6: 52 n. 27, 61 n. 60 1.8.6: 75 n. 52, 76 n. 56 1.8.14: 81 n. 85 1.10.10: 75 n. 51 1.11: 118 n. 12 l.11.2: 43 n. 66 1.12.l: 81 n. 85, 135n. 71 1.12.4-10: 42 n. 63 1.12.6:68 n. 21, 74 n. 48 1.12.7-10: 135 n. 71 1.12.10: 102 1.15-16: 74 n. 45, 123 n. 58 1.16-17: 45 n. 3, 61 n. 61 1.16.2: 111 n. 48 1.16.4: 81 n. 85 1.17.2: 42 n. 63 1.17.3: 17 n. 62 1.18.l: 42 n, 63, 61 n. 62 1.19.3: 60 n. 63, 135 n. 71 1.20.1-4: 43 n. 66 '· 1.20.l: 17 n. 62 1.20.3-4: 99 n. 16 1.20.6: 152 n. 41 1.21.17: 81 n. 85 1.21.19: 57 n. 49 1.21.20: 175 n. 25 1.21.21:60 n. 58 2.1-3: 147 n. 16. 2.1: 198 n. 64 2.1.1: 188 n. 10 2.1.6: 148 n. 19 2.2.4: 76 n. 58 2.2.10: 50 n. 22, 147 n. 14 2.3.2: 50 n. 22

2.42: 54 n. 34, 55 l4.6: 55 2.4.7: 54 n. 38 2.4.8: 55 2.4.10: 55 2.4.15: 148 n. 18, n. 20 2.5.5-6: 60 n. 56

2.3.5: 152 n. 41 2.3.6: 51

2.5.5: 55 ·n.44, 148 n. 22 2.5.10: 56, 175 n. 25 2.6: 198 n. 64 2.6.2: 57 n. 48 2.6.6-11: 57 n. 48 2.6.13: 53, 57 n. 48, 148 nn. 18-19, 151, · 154 n. 51 2.6.14: 57 n. 49, 148 n. 20 2.7.4: 128 n. 58 2.10: 198 n. 64 2.10.3: 128 n. 58 2.11.9: 66 n. 13,99 n. 16, 145 n. 2 2.11.10: 14S n. 2, 186 n. 1 2.11.20: 16 n. 55 2.12.I: 60 n. 59 2.14.1: 17 n. 62 l14.4: 17 n. 62 2.16.15: 73 n. 42 2.17.5: 76 n. 57 2.17.12: 121 n. 23 2.17.14: 94 n. 6 2.17.15: 99 n. 16 2.17.17: 7.4n. 45 2.18.4: 59,74 n. 48, 175 n. 25 2.18.5: 133 n. 68 2.18.6: 17 n. 62 2.19: 45 n. 3, 59, 163 ri. 101 2.19.4: 68 n. 20 2.19.6: 74 n. 45 2.19.10-15: 59 3.pr.l: 76 n. 58, 132 3.pr.3: 118, 133 3.1.l: 61 n. 64 3.l.2-3: 73 nn. 42-3 3.1.24: 61 n. 64 3.2.1: 73 n. 43 3.2.8: 99 n. 16 3.2.9: 76 n. 58, 135 n. 73 3.2.10-11: 135 n. 71 3.2.12: 66 n. 13, 81 n. 85, 146 n. 6 3.2.13: 76 n. 58 3.3.2-3: 52 n. 25, 61 n. 64, 81 n. 85 3.5: 100-1

Indexof Sources 3.6,b. 61 n; 64 3.7: 146 n. 6 3.7.l: 135 n. 71 3.8.2: 148 n. 22, 152 n. 40 3.8.3: 152 n. 41 3.8.5: 175 n. 25 ·3.8.8:152 n. 38, 152 n. 40 . 3.9.2: 99 n. 16 3.10: 74 n. 45, 128 n. 58 3.12.19: 118n. 12 3.12.33: 148 n. 20 3.13.1: 61 n. 64 3.14.7: 61 n. 64 3.14.8: 68 n. 20, 74 n. 48, 133 n. 68 3.15: 198 n. 64 3.15.1: 69 3.16-20: 73 n. 38 3.17.7: 74 n. 45 3.18.5: 128n. 58 3.20: 118n. 17 3.20.S: 133 n. 68 3.20.6: 26 n. 6, 131 n. 65 3.20.10-3: 178 n. 36, 191 n. 30, 202 n. 75 3.20.12: 45 n. 3 3.20.15: 61 n. 64 3.21.1: 61 n. 64 3.22.8: 74 n. 45 3.22.15: 45 n. 3, 61 n. 64 3.23.2: 121 n. 28 3.23.67: 61 n. 64, 75 n. 53 4.pr.2-3: 66 n. 12, 76 n. 58, 146 n. 7 4.pr.6-9: 67 n. 16-7 4.pr.6: 186 n. 3 4.pr.8-10: 67-8 4.1.11: 7l n. 30 4.1.12: 69 n. is 4.1.13-22: 71 n. 30 4.4.41: 202 n. n 4.S.3-5: 74 n. 44 4.5.6: 135 n. 7l 4.5.11: 7l n. 32 4.6.I I: 61 n. 64 4.6.12-15: 72 n. 33 4.6.33: 17 n. 62 4.6.35: 152 n. 41 4.6.38: 72 4.8.I-3: 73 n. 41 4.8.10-5: 74 n. 47 4.9.12-13: 17 n. 62 4.10: 17 n. 62 4.10.l: 73 n. 37, 95 n. 11

4.10.4: 135 n. 71 4.1 l.4: 72, 76 n. 58 4.12.7: 73 n. 41 4.12.9: 72 n. 34 4.12.11-3: 72 4.13.6-8: 72 n. 34 4.13.9: 73 n. 40 4.13.17: 73 n. 41, 118 n. 12 4.15.6-7: 73 n. 38-9

4.16.5: 95 n. 11 4.16.12: 73 n. 39 4.16.18: 73 n. 42 4.16.21: 73 n. 43 4.17.2-6: 61 n. 64 4.18.2: 17 n. 62 4.19.1: 72 n. 34 4.20.6-10: 72 4.20.7: 7l n. 32 4.20.9: 73 n. 36 4.20.40: 135 n. 71 4.21: 74 n. 45 4.21.5-9: 74 n. 45 4.21.5: 99 n. 16 4.22.9: 72 n. 34 4.23: 61 n. 64 4.23.4: 72 n. 34 4.23.10: 70 n. 28, 71 n. 29 5.1: 17 n. 63 5.1-2: 123, 146 n. 6 5.l.l: 122 n. 38 5.l.3: 175 n, 25, 179 n. 37 5.1.4: 179 n·.38 5.l.S-9: J79"n.39 5.1.ll: 73 n.\40, 187 n. 4 5.1.14: 179 ri'.40

5.2: 188 n. IS 5.2.1-2: 26 n. 6 S.2.1-4: 17 n. 61 5.2.6-7: 161 n. 88,202 n. 78 S.3.1: 61 n. 64, 123 n. 40 5.3.3-4: 75 n. 55 5.3.6: 123 5.4.7: 73 n. 42 5.4.15: 60 n. 58 5.5: 74 n. 45 5.5.l: 124 n. 43 5.5.6: 125 n. 45 5.5.15: 124 n. 43 5.5.16: 146 n. 6, 187 n. 6 5.6: 17 n. 62, 126 n. 51 5.6.1: 45 n. 3, 61 n. 64 5.6.6: 125 n. 47

241

242

Indexof Sources

Hisrorure(cont.) 5.7: 6~ n. 64, 74 n. 45 5.8.2: 126 n. 48 5.9.1-3: 120 n. 21 5.9.8: 126 5.10.7: 118 n. 12 5.10.11: 17 n. 62, 126 n. SI 5.11: 17 nn. 61-2. 126 5.ll.2-4: 127 n. 53-5 5.L1.6: 146 n. 6, 152 n. 41, 187 n. 6 5.13.3: 17 n. 62, 126 n. 51 5.14.8: 67 5.15.2: 42 n. 63, 135 n. 71 5.15.1 I: 121 n. 23 5.15.21-2: 73 n. 42 5.16-17: 128 n. 58 5.16.4: 61 n. 64 5.16.9: 179 n. 40 5.16.13-9: 127-8 5.16.21: 127 n. S6 5.16.23-4: 54 n. 34, 118 n. 12

5.17.l: 61 n. 64 5.17.2: 135 n. 71 5.17.7-ll: 61 n. 64 5.17.12-3: 74 n. 45 5.18.28-9: 146 n. 6, 187 n. 6 5.19.2: 75 n. 55, 135 n. 71 5.19.3: 61 n. 64 5.19.7: 95 n. 11 5.19.12-3: 95-7 5.19.12: 97, 128 n. 59 5.19.13: 118 n. 12 5.19.14-6: 97 5.19.20-2: 128 n. 59, 179 n. 41 5.21.6: 126 n. 52, 179 n. 41 5.21.7: 74 n. 45, 98 · 5.22: 129-30, 146n. 6,179 n.40, 187 n. 6 5.22.7: 148 n. 20 5.22.1 I: 52 n. 27 5.23.1: 148 n. 22. 5.23.3: 135 n. 71 5.24: 130-1 5.24.3: 129 n. 61 5.24.5: 61 n. 64 5.24.9: 146 n. 6, 187 n. 6 5.24.21: 39 n. 54

6.1: I95n.52 6.J.I: 42 6.1.2: 52 n. 27 6.1.3: 189 n. 20 6.1.5: 188 n. 10 6.1.6: 152 n. 38

6.1.7-8: 194 n. 51 6.l.23: 59 6.1.27: 188 n. 13 6.l.30: 75 n. 55 6.2.11: 61 n. 64 6.2.30: 74 n. 45 6..3.5: 17 n. 62 6.4.41: 69 n. 23 6.5.3: 118 n. 13 6.5.5: l 18 n. 14 6.6.6: 42 n. 63 6.7.2: 135 n. 71 6.7.13-4: 74 n. 47 6.12.2: 121 n. 28, 148 n. 22 6.14.l: 146 n. _11, 152 n. 39 6.14.3: 148n. 22 6.15.17: 74 n. 45 6.17.l: 74 D, 45 6.17.5-8: 152 n. 39 6.17.7: 74 n. 45, 102 n. 21 6.l7.9: 81 n. 85 6.18.2: 135 n. 71 6.18.30-2: 17 n. 62 6.19.l: 73 D. 42 6.20.4: l 51 n. 37, 189 n. 23 · 6.20.9: 189 n. 23 6.21.17: 118n. 12, 128 n. 58 6.21.19-20: 175 n. 25 6.22.6-8: 191 n. 28 6.22.10: 152 D. 39 6.22.11: 52 n. 27, 188 n; 10 6.23.10: 152 n. 41

7.1: 18 n. 65 7.1.5: 16 n. 55 7.2.2: 60, 148 n. 18, n. 23 7.2.15: 152 n. 39 7.3.3: 74 D. 46, 161 n. 8~, 188 n. 10, 191 n. 31, 202 n. 79 7.3.6: 52 n. 27, 191 n. 27 7.3.7: 43 n. 66 7.3.11: 155, 187 n S 7.4.12: 91 n. 123 7.5.3: 152 n. 39, 190 n: 24 7.5.4: 17 n. 62 7.5.10: 118 n. 14 7.5.11: 188 n. 10 7.6.8: 152 n. 39 7.6.11: 191 n. 29 7.6.18: 118 n. 14 7.7.l: 94 n. 6 7.7.9: 118 n. 12 7.7.11: 189 n. 19

Inde,xof Sources 7.8.2: 189 n. 19 7.8.4: 152 n. 41 7.9.4: 152 n.·39 7.9.7: 75 n. 55, 189 n. 22 7.10.2: 81 n. 85 7.10.4: 75 n. 55, 189 n. 22 7.11.l: 75 n. 55, 189 n. 22 7.12.3: 189 n. 19 7.13.2: 189 n. 20 7.14.2: 189 n. 20 7.15.5: 189 n. 19 7.17.5: 189 n. 19 7.19.2: 189 n. 19 7.19.4: 75 n. 55, 189 n. 22 7.20: 94 n. 9 7.20.2: 189 n. 19 7.21.5: 189 n. 19 7.22,2-3: 189 n. 19 7 .22.4: 94 n. 9 7.22.6: 131 n. 64 7.23.11-13: 188 n. 14 7.24.4: 112 7.26.2: 152 n. 41 7.26.10: 58 n. 50 7.27.1: 189 n. 22 7.27.2: 13 n. 42 7.27.14: 160 n. 79 7.27.15: 155 n. 53 7 .28.23-6: 190 n. 26 7.28.26: 161 n. 90 7.29.4: 159 n. 77 7.30.3: 29 n. 13 7.30.l4: 159 n. 77 7.32.9: 159 n. 77, 198 n. 64 7.33.1-4: 104 n. 28 7.33.3: 159 n. 77 7.33.7: 104 n. 28 7.33.8: 105-6 7.33.9: 188 n. IO, 191 n. 27 7.33.13-5: 104 n. 29, 106-7 7.33.16-19: 160 n. 85 7.33.16: 152 n. 41, 160 n. 80 7.34: 109, 162 n. 93 7.34.1-2: 107, 159 n. 74 7.34.2-3: 91 n. 123, 162 n. 91 7.34.4-7: 103 7.34.5: H)9 n. 21 7.34.8: 159 n. 77 7.34.9: 105, 107-8 7.34.10: 108, 162 n. 96 7.35-8: 157 n. 60 7.55: 94 n. 9

243

7.35.2: 189 n. 21 7.35.5: 111 7.35.6-8: 1'59 n. 74, 163 n. 99 7.35.6: 152 n. 41 7.35.10: 109 n. 44 7.35.12: 163 n. 100 7.35.14-19: 131 n. 64, 162 n. 94 7.35.20: 159 n. 74, 162 n. 95 7.35.21: 43 n. 66 7.35.22: 81 n. 85, 162 n. 94 7.35.23: 109 n. 44 7.36.5-8: 104 n, 30 7.36.12: 156 7.38.1: 104 n. 31 7.37: 183 n. SS 7.37.l: 135 n. 71, 180 n. 45 7.37.2: 180 n. 46, 183 n. 57 7.37.4: 181 n. 49 7.37.5: 164 n. 103 7.37.8-9: 180 n. 42, 182 n. 56 7.37.11-14: 183 n. 60 7,37.12-17: 181 n. S0-2, 182 n. 53 7.37.13: 183 n. 58 7.37.17: 52 n. 27 7.37.18: 182 n. 55 7.38: 181 n. 47, 165 n. 106 7.39: 45 n. 2, 103, 165 n. 106, 181 7.39.1-10: 157 n. 60 7.39.1: 182n.54 7.39.5-10: 131 n. 64 7.39.14: 156 7.39.16-18: 159 n. 74 7.40: 45 n. i; 131 n. 64, 160 n. 81 7.40.2: 165 n: 107, 184 n. 62, 185 n. 67 7.41: 17 n. 63 7.41.l: 160n. 82 7.41.2: 159 n. 74, 160 n. 83 7.41.4-7: 161 n. 86, 188 n. 10 7.41.4-5: 131 n. 65, 188 n. 15 7.41.7-8: 188 n. 14 7.41.9: 161 n. 87, 202 n. 79 7.42.1-4: 157 n. 58 7.42.6-8: 157 n. 59 7.42.13: 91 n. 123, 159 n. 74 7.42.15-17: 157 n. 61, 164 n. 104 7.42.15: 165 D• .109 7.42.16-18: 159 n. 74, 165 n. 110 7.43: 157 n. 62 7.43.4-8: 166 n. 112 7.43.4: 104 n. 32, 157 n. 59 7.43.5: Ill 7.43.6: 185 n. 64-5, 188 n. 14

244

Indexof Sources

Indexof Sources

Historiae(cont.)

Degloria athenieruium

7.43.7-15: I6Sn.108, 184n.63, 18Sn.66 7.43.11-12: 17 n. 64, 166 n. 114 7.43.12: 17 n. 62 7.43:16: 1$2 n. 41, 164 n. 104 7.43.17: 157n. 58 7.43.19: 152 n. 41, 160 n. 84 7.43.20: 34, 166 n. 111

3.347A: 117n.J0,139n.86

Pr,uceptagerendaereipublicae 814AC: 83 n. 90

Themistocles 32.4: 138 n. 80 POLYBUJS

OVID

1-3: 171 n. 6

Tristia

1.3.3; 146 D. 8 2.16.14: 138 n. 80 2.56: 118 n. ll, 138 n. 80 3.48.8: I 38 n. 80 6.4.11: 148 n. 24 7.7.2: 138 n. 80

3.11.39-54: 43 n. 66 PANf.