The partition of time in Book One through periodisation demarcated by individual figures and the physical division of the world is further extended by a broader and more comprehensive categorization of time, history and space, in the rise and fall of
empire.368 Orosius‘s theory of successive empires, of Babylon, Macedonia, Africa, and Rome, not only provides an important structure to the narrative but also helps to demonstrate the apologetic of the text. The theory was designed to prove the first empire Babylon was the predecessor ultimately to Rome; one empire flourishing at the beginning of times, the other at the end:369
...if the kingdoms are hostile to one another, how much better it is if some one be the greatest to which all the power of the other kingdoms is subject, such as the Babylonian kingdom was in the beginning and, then, the Macedonian, afterwards also, the African and finally, the Roman which remains up to this day.370 (2.1.4-5, p. 44)
365
Munz, (1977), p. 37.
366 ‗The circular-linear opposition has also been questioned on the basis that so-called "circular"
(repetitive) time does not logically exclude "linear" sequencing because each repetition of a given "event" necessarily occurs later than previous ones. The analogy between time and a circle closing back on itself misleads here‘. Munn, (1992), p. 101.
367
4.10.5, vol. 2, p. 37: interea; 4.10.5, p. 142: ‗in the mean time‘. 3.13.5, vol. 1, p. 158: tunc; 3.13.5, p. 96: ‗at that time‘. 4.21.4, vol. 2, p. 69: eodem tempore; 4.21.4, p. 168: 'at the same time'. 4.13.15, vol. 2, p. 45: post hoc; 4.13.15, p. 148: 'after this'. 3.16.11, vol. 1, p. 166: sed dum haec [Darius] agit; 3.16.11, p. 102: ‗Now, while [Darius] was accomplishing these things‘.
368
For meaning within history connected with myth and the rise and fall of empire, see Munz, (1977), p. 115.
369 Ennius, Annales, Fragment 501; Augustine, De ciuitate Dei, 18.22. 370
2.1.4-5, vol. 1, p. 84: ...si autem regna diuersa, quanto aequius regnum aliquod maximum, cui reliquorum regnorum potestas uniuersa subicitur, quale a principio Babylonium et deinde Macedonicum fuit, post etiam Africanum atque in fine Romanum quod usque ad nunc manet...
The idea that Rome was founded in the year of Assyria‘s downfall can be found in Ennius, and is understood by Joseph Ward Swain and Gary Trompf to have been reproduced in Varro and subsequently Augustine.371 Despite the secular presentation of the scheme in the Historiae it is often claimed that it originates in the Old Testament. This is questioned by Swain:
Orosius nowhere associates this philosophy with Daniel - he does not even record the celebrated dream and vision - and, while he knew Jerome personally and used Justin as his principal source for secular history, his arrangement of the empires, including Carthage, indicates that he learned this philosophy of history elsewhere.372
The typology of the prophecies of the Book of Daniel concerning the four kingdoms is not directly quoted by Orosius but plays an important role as it constitutes the logical and chronological framework of the Historiae.373 The eschatological vision of King Nebuchadnezzar of a statue made up of four parts is interpreted as four successive kingdoms that will rule over the world.374 The significance of this philosophy of history for both pagan and Christian writers has been well established in an important article by Swain.375 The usual interpretation of the four kingdoms in later historiography is that they refer to the Babylonian, Mede-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires.376 Orosius‘s reinterpretation enabled a more western focus for the Historiae: the Persian and Babylonian empires are telescoped into one empire with Macedonia as the second empire, which allowed for the African or Carthaginian empire to take third place, naturally securing Rome‘s place as successor to Carthage and the final empire.377 As Fear rightly concludes, the end result of Orosius‘s revised chronology remained
unaltered but his ‗new explanation of the vision would have seemed a far more credible version of historical development to his Roman readers than those offered by previous Christian interpretations, mired as they were in a narrow eastern perspective.‘378
The 371 Swain, (1940), p. 14; Trompf, (1979), pp. 222-3. 372 Swain, (1940), p. 21 373 Paschoud, (1967), p. 279. 374 Daniel, 2.28-46. 375
Swain, (1940). Swain challenges the assumption that the philosophy of history is of primary
importance for Christian writers by citing the significance of the theory for pagan writers, beginning with Velleius Paterculus (p. 2).
376
Fear, (2010), p. 19.
377
Swain points out that the four empire theory is fundamental to Pompeius Trogus‘s History, further suggesting a reliance by Orosius on Justin‘s Epitome of Trogus. Swain, (1940), pp. 16-18. In his discussion Marrou stresses the originality of Orosius in his manipulation of the four-empire theory: ‗interprétation, on le voit, originale et qui repose sur une lecture attentive du chapitre concerné de Daniel.‘ Marrou, (1970), p. 73.
rhythm of the rise and fall of empire gave meaning to history in the Historiae, of ‗steadily increasing strength from kingdom to kingdom and age to age, culminating in the setting of a seal of inescapable glory on the extreme west.‘379
The re-structuring of time in the Historiae simultaneously achieves a reorientation towards the west in the translation of empire principally from Babylon and ultimately to Rome. This lends strength to the polemic of the work where Rome is not only the fourth and final empire, but is the chosen empire for the continuation of time.