EL CUARTO DE TRABAJO

Within the dichotomy of earlier pagan writers as deceitful and the Historiae as a text to be trusted, it is through the evidence from these texts in relation to warfare that Orosius is able to most effectively discredit pagan writers. Orosius criticises the suppression of the true statistics of war by ‗ancient writers‘ who do not record the number of people killed on the winning (Roman) side:

How great a number of Pyrrhus‘ allies on the opposite side were destroyed, tradition has not handed down, especially because it is the custom of ancient writers not to preserve the number of the slain on the side of those who were victorious, lest the losses of the

263 _{The early Christian use of ‗paganism‘ functioned as ‗a convenient shorthand for [a] vast spectrum of}

cults ranging from the international to the ethnic and local.‘ Fowden, (1993), p. 38.

264

See the discussion by Kahlos, (2007), pp. 17-18.

265 _{Kahlos, (2007), p. 18.} 266 _{Kahlos, (2007), p. 5.}

victor tarnish the glory of the victor, unless perchance when so few fall that the small number of the losses increases the admiration and fear of the victor‘s courage, as was the case with Alexander the Great in the battle of the Persian War.267 (4.1.12-13, p. 123)

Orosius argues that in order to preserve the glory of the victory ‗tradition has not handed down‘ the total number of losses for the victorious Romans; in highlighting this absence Orosius implies that the past has been misrepresented and the full impact of war, even for those who are triumphant, is elided. The inconsistency in the statistics given by Polybius, Valerius Maximus, and Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius for the number killed or captured at the battle of Cynoscephalae is attributed to deceit (fallacia):

The inconsistency among the writers is surely a falsehood, but the cause of the

falsehood is certainly flattery, for they are eager to pile up the praises of the victor and to extol the courage of the fatherland for present and future generations. Otherwise, if the number had not been investigated, whatever it had been would not have been expressed. But if it is glorious for a general and the fatherland to have killed a large number of the enemy, how much more joyful can it seem to the fatherland and happier to the commander to have lost none or very few of his men. Thus, it is very clear that this takes place with the like shamelessness of lying, by which an addition is made to the number of the enemy killed, and also the loss suffered by the allies are diminished or even completely overlooked.268 (4.20.7-10, pp. 162-3)

Orosius accuses the historians of falsifying the records of war for the sake of flattery, in order to heap praise (laudes accumulare) upon the winning side and proclaim the courage of the fatherland (patriae). These writers can increase the glory of their

narratives if they can not only record that a large number of the enemy have been killed in battle but that none or very few Roman lives were lost in the process. It is with the ‗shamelessness of lying‘ (impudentia mentiendi) that the number of the enemy

(hostium) killed is increased whilst the number of the allies (sociorum) killed is reduced or suppressed altogether.

267 _{4.1.12-13, vol. 2, p. 12: Nam quantus e diuerso numerus sociorum Pyrrhi fuerit extinctus, memoriae}

traditum non est, maxime quia scriptorum ueterum mos est ex ea parte quae uicerit occisorum non commendare numerum ne uictoriae gloriam maculent damna uictoris, nisi forte cum adeo pauci cadunt, ut admirationem terroremque uirtutis augeat paucitas perditorum, sicut in prima Persici belli

congressione apud Alexandrum Magnum fuit...

268

4.20.7-10, vol. 2, pp. 62-3: Sed haec scriptorum utique fallacia est; fallaciae autem causa profecto adulatio est, dum uictoris laudes accumulare uirtutemque patriae extollere uel praesentibus uel posteris student: alioquin, si inquisitus non fuisset numerus, nec qualiscumque fuisset expressus. Quodsi gloriosum est duci et patriae plurimos hostium peremisse, quanto magis laetum patriae et duci beatum potest uideri suorum uel nullos uel paucissimos perdidisse. Ita lucidissime patet quia simili impudentia mentiendi qua occisorum hostium numero adiicitur, sociorum quoque amissorum damna minuuntur, uel etiam omnino reticentur.

In Book Five Orosius again highlights the discrepancy in the historical narrative shown through the statistics of war. Tacitus, Valerius Antias, and Polybius all give varying figures for the numbers killed in two battles, Thermopylae and Phocis. Tacitus records twenty thousand killed at Thermopylae and seven thousand killed at Phocis; Valerius Antias only confirms the occurrence of the first battle and the number of the dead; whilst Polybius is forced to record both battles, ‗since he could not ignore a disaster at home‘, but does not give the numbers of dead involved (5.3.3, p. 178).269

From these historical assessments Orosius is able to dismiss the evidence given by the historians of the past as not to be trusted:

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, because they clearly show that they must receive little

credence in other matters, who, in those things which they themselves have seen, are contrary.270 (5.3.4, p. 178)

Orosius understands variance in the historical record as evidence of deceit.271 Writers who differ when recording events that they have witnessed cannot be trusted in the rest of their accounts. By considering and comparing the statistics of warfare given by pagan historians Orosius argues that these writers cannot be believed; their misrepresentation and distortion of the past is responsible for the warped view of contemporary pagans:

The rhetorical culture thus has a double distorting effect, for it disfigures the perception of both past and present: the former is deemed uniformly glorious, the latter infamous and dire. Such an attitude comes at the price of sanitizing the past: as Orosius remarks, ancient (given his apologetic slant, that label equals pagan) historians systematically leave out the number of dead on the Roman side so as to enhance the glory of the

269

5.3.3, vol. 2, p. 88: ...tamen, quia domesticam cladem ignorare non potuit...

270 _{5.3.4, vol. 2, p. 88: sed de uarietate discordantium historicorum aliquanta iam diximus; quorum}

sufficiat detecta haec et male nota mendaciorum nota, quia parum credendum esse in ceteris euidenter ostendunt qui in his quoque, quae ipsi uidere, diuersi sunt. Orosius is probably referring the reader back to 4.20.7-10, as discussed above.

271 _{As part of this rhetoric Orosius questions even the statistics that are provided as being deliberately}

inaccurate: ‗For who, I ask, would believe that there was that number just in the army of the Romans; I do not mean the number that fled?‘ 4.13.8-9, p. 147: ‗When a part of their army had been killed, not at all so great as ought to have caused them terror, eight hundred thousand fled; for the historians hand down that at that time three thousand of them were killed, which is, therefore, more ignominious and disgraceful, that so many battle lines fled when so few had been lost, since they betrayed that in other victories they had prevailed, not by the strength of their courage, but by the fortunate issue of the battles. For who, I ask, would believe that there was that number just in the army of the Romans; I do not mean the number that fled?‘ 4.13.8-9, vol. 2, p. 44: octingenta milia Romanorum, nec saltim tanta quanta eos terrere debuit, caesa sui parte fugerunt: nam tria milia eorum tunc interfecta historici tradunt. Quod ideo ignominiosius turpiusque est, tam paucis amissis tanta agmina diffugisse, quia se in aliis uictoriis non uiribus animorum praeualuisse sed bellorum prouentibus prodiderunt. Quis enim rogo in exercitu Romanorum crederet numerum istum fuisse saltim, non dico fugisse?

victory... contemporary pagans have no idea what real suffering is and how much blood the rise of Rome has cost.272

The pagan writers who have misrepresented the past are responsible for the flawed contemporary understanding of the past and present, a perspective Orosius is writing to correct. Orosius as a writer and the Historiae as a text are, by implication, more

trustworthy.