ALGUNAS CONSIDERACIONES FINALES

Despite the way the text carefully makes reference to itself only as a work of literature and not as History in the Prologue, the text nevertheless locates itself within a historical context. The Prologue is characterised by a preoccupation with historical literature. Initially Orosius refers to his research methodology in writing the Historiae, as instructed by Augustine, to use ‗histories and annals‘, historiarum atque annalium: ‗accordingly you bade me set forth from all the records available of histories and annals

122 _{Croke and Emmett, (1983). p. 1}

123 _{Marincola, (2009), p. 16. See also Edwards, Goodman, Price and Rowland, (1999), p. 2, quoting}

Conte, (1994), p. 132: '...this view of genres, that they serve as a means of classification, has come to seem deeply unsatisfactory to literary critics. Genre should not be seen as a mechanical recipe-book for the production of texts, but rather as 'a discursive form capable of constructing a coherent model of the world in its own image'. Genre is thus best seen as a way of talking about the strategies of writers (and readers) in different cultural traditions and particular contemporary situations.'

124 _{Lucian, Quomodo historia conscribenda. For an example of some of Lucian‘s ideals for the writing of}

whatever instances I have found from the past...‘125

(Prologue 10, p. 4) The Prologue is then concerned to establish previous historical writing as doing one thing, and the

Historiae as doing something quite different. Orosius centres his argument around the

choice to begin other works of history not with Creation but with the reign of Ninus, king of the Assyrians: ‗Since nearly all men interested in writing, among the Greeks as among the Latins, who have perpetuated in words the accomplishments of kings and peoples for a lasting record, have made the beginnings of their writing with Ninus...‘126 (1.1.1, p. 5) Orosius builds his apologetic argument around the neglect and ignorance of previous writers of history who chose to begin with Ninus and consequently neglect over three thousand years of history: ‗...3184 years passed, which either have been omitted or unknown by all historians.‘127

(1.1.5, p. 6) Orosius then completes his polemical attack on the pagan historians by entirely dismissing the period of history between Ninus and the birth of Christ: ‗2015 years have passed, in which between the performers and the writers the fruit of labours and occupations of all were wasted.‘128

(1.1.6, p. 6) This condemnation allows Orosius to differentiate these substandard literary works from the Old Testament:

Therefore, the subject itself demands that I touch upon briefly a few accounts from these books which, when speaking of the origin of the world, have lent credence to past events by the prediction of the future and the proof of subsequent happenings...129 (1.1.7, p. 6)

It is possible to interpret the reference to the prediction of future events as the

foreshadowing of the coming of Christ in the Old Testament. Orosius maintains that the Old Testament, especially the book of Genesis, is more accurate for dating history than earlier pagan histories. In relying on Scripture the Historiae is therefore superior to the works of previous writers, a claim that is implicit but nonetheless evident.130

125 _{Prologue 10, vol. 1, p. 8: praeceperas ergo ut, ex omnibus qui haberi ad praesens possunt historiarum}

atque annalium fastis...

126 _{1.1.1, vol. 1, p. 10: Et quoniam omnes propemodum tam apud Graecos quam apud Latinos studiosi ad}

scribendum uiri, qui res gestas regum populorumque ob diuturnam memoriam uerbis propagauerunt, initium scribendi a Nino Beli filio...fecere. For an extended discussion of the choice of dating from Creation or Ninus, see 2.1.5, ‗Beginnings‘, pp. 88-92, and 2.1.6, ‗Signposts‘, pp. 92-3.

127 _{1.1.5, vol. 1, p. 10: ...anni III CLXXXIIII, qui ab omnibus historiographis uel omissi uel ignorati sunt.} 128

1.1.6, vol. 1, p. 11: colliguntur anni II XV in quibus se inter actores scriptoresque omnium otia negotiaque triuerunt.

129 _{1.1.7, vol. 1, p. 11: Quaepropter res ipsa exigit ex his libris quam breuissime uel pauca contingere qui}

originem mundi loquentes praeteritorum fidem adnuntiatione futuorum et post subsequa probatione fecerunt.

130 _{See Werner who understands the Historiae to be a continuation of the historical books of the Old}

Orosius uses the Prologue to establish an opposition between earlier writers of history on the one hand, and the Historiae, informed by Scripture, on the other. In doing so Orosius is aligning the Historiae with a more ancient and reliable tradition; beginning with Creation the Old Testament pre-dates other works of history by thousands of years. Orosius does not claim explicitly to be writing better history; in fact in the Prologue he does not claim to be writing history at all. Orosius was instead writing about the material of history.131 This is made evident by the subject matter itself, the universal scope of time and space, and the preoccupation with dating and time, as well as the numerous further references to works of history and historians as the work progresses. In Book Seven Orosius readily acknowledges that he is writing about history: ‗There is no need to expatiate on history known to very many, even as spectators, which those who have viewed it know better than I.‘132

(7.35.12, p. 344) Not only did Orosius perceive history through eye-witness accounts, as demonstrated in the previous citation, he also understood the material of history to be preserved by historical literature and material evidence: ‗...that Carthage surpassed all Africa and extended the boundaries of its empire...both the records of history and the remains of cities show us.‘133 (7.2.6, p. 286)

But despite Orosius‘s approach in the Prologue the text contains three references to the work as ‗history‘:

These matters will now be set forth by me more fully, unfolding my history orderly.134 (2.3.10, p. 47);

At the same time, then, Cyrus, king of the Persians, whom I have mentioned above in the unfolding of my history...135 (2.6.1, p. 52);

I have woven together an inextricable wicker-work of confused history...136 (3.2.9, p. 83).

131 _{A similar distinction was made by Olympiodorus of Thebes in the composition of his work in twenty-}

two books: according to Photius he writes that his work was not a history (σσγγραφή) but a collection of materials for a history (σλη σσγγραφης). 4.68, col. 1. See Thompson, (1944), p. 47.

132

7.35.12, vol. 3 p. 99: Historiam notam etiam oculis plurimorum quam melius qui spectauere nouerunt dilatari uerbis non opus est.

133 _{7.2.6, vol. 3, p. 18: Carthaginem uero uniuersae praecelluisse Africae...historiarum simul monumenta}

urbiumque declarant. For the most famous example of Orosius‘s reliance on eye-witness accounts, see 7.43.4-6.

134 _{2.3.10, vol. 1, p. 90: Quae modo a me plenius ab ipso Vrbis exordio, reuolutis per ordinem historiis,}

proferentur.

135

2.6.1, vol. 1, p. 95: Igitur eodem tempore Cyrus, Rex Persarum – quem superius explicandae historiae causa commemoraueram...

These references are arguably anomalies in Orosius‘s more general approach in his unwillingness to specifically characterise the Historiae. It is possible that these

references slipped in erroneously due to the difficulty of sustaining language of what is a technical difference: the writing of history, or writing about the material of history. Alternatively the paucity of references to the Historiae as history could reflect Orosius‘s desire to differentiate his text from the works of earlier pagan historians, and he was therefore tentative in designating his text along similar lines, as history. Orosius‘s cautious approach is similarly revealed by his reluctance to specifically identify pagan historians (gentiles historici), directing his apologetic in the broadest of terms (1.3.6). Although Orosius does not juxtapose himself as a Christian author against pagan

writers, the language of opposition is clear; pagan historians are false and untrustworthy and the knowledge they contribute is based on lies: ‗but we have already spoken

somewhat about the different opinions of disagreeing historians, and let it suffice that these have been detected and that what is falsely known is the knowledge of lies‘ (5.3.4, p. 178).137 In this sense the approach of the Historiae to genre is apologetical, but in a way that leaves the text simultaneously contextualised within but excluded from the genre of history.

Part Two