Late Antiquity in the Roman Empire
We have four different readings this week, relating to the theme of the Empire and Barbarians.
The reading by Priscus was written after 472. It describes, first-hand, a visit to Attila the Hun. As you read it, look for evidence of the Roman world among the barbarians. How does Priscus portray Attila? How does this contrast with how Priscus portrays himself? What is your sense for the nature of Roman and barbarian identity on the basis of the text? (Can one become a Barbarian? Can one become a Roman? Or are these things set in stone and not changeable?)
As always, be aware of the problem of literary sources: where does a literary portrayal stop and where does reality begin?
This latter problem is something keep in mind as you read Ammianus (written ca. 392): do you think his depictions of barbarians are accurate? Do his barbarians seem like nice people? What do you the barbarians would have made of his descriptions of them, had they read them? As an analogy, think of how Texans might be portrayed in a British television show–whom would such a portrayal say more about, people from Texas or people from the UK? (Full disclosure: I am from Texas and have lived in the UK!)
The last two readings come from the pen of Augustine of Hippo (354-430), arguably the greatest Christian writer of late antiquity and probably one of the two or three most important and influential thinkers in the last 2,000 years of Christian history. Augustine was raised as a Christian in North Africa and his spiritual journey is perhaps the most famous in late antiquity—arguably only overshadowed only by that of the emperor Constantine. He would leave Catholic Christianity in his late teens to pursue philosophy and next became a Manichee for 9 years. From Manichaeism, Augustine then become a skeptic before eventually returning to Catholic Christianity in his early 30s. A master of the Latin language and a profound thinker, Augustine’s large body of writings exerted a powerful influence over Western Christianity for more than a millennium after his death and are still very influential today.
The two readings we have from Augustine relate to the sack of Rome in 410. Pagans in the early fifth century blamed Christians and the abandonment of the traditional Greco-Roman gods for the calamity of this seismic event. In response to this charge, Augustine wrote a monumental work, The City of God, publishing it piecemeal over the years 413-426. In his final years (426-427), Augustine wrote another work, the Retractations, in which he commented on and offered updates to writings from throughout his life.
We will read this week Augustine’s description of the City of God from the Retractations, in which he situates the writing of the work in the aftermath of 410 and pagan accusations against Christians; we will also read a small excerpt of the City of God, one of the most influential pieces of political theology and the philosophy of history ever written and a work which attempts to make sense of the course of human events and what purpose(s) can be read in the path of history. In his inauguration speech in January, President Biden quoted from the City of God.
As you read Augustine, think back to Lactantius and Eusebius and the views of Christianity and empire and Christianity and history they put forward.
How does the “theology of victory” that they espouse (something which can also be seen in On the Incarnation and the Life of Anthony—the idea of a triumphant and victorious Christianity over paganism) look in light of the events of 410?
How does Augustine attempt to answer the charge leveled against Christians that they caused the sack of Rome through their abandonment of the traditional gods?
How does Augustine use history in his arguments?
Do you find his responses to pagan charges against Christians plausible?
More generally, do you think that trying to find patterns of meaning in the past and a direction and purpose in the movement of human affairs is something that can be done in a plausible or persuasive way?
Augustine raises an important question for us to ponder: does history have any larger meaning or purpose?
