LA CONCIENCIA DE LOS CHAKRAS EN LA VIDA DIARIA

Within this historiographical investigation of the genre of the Historiae the theoretical difference between the reader and the addressee or opponent has been established. Despite the typical assumption that the reader is pagan, it has been demonstrated that this is not automatically the case, and that a more nuanced approach to the question of audience is required. In order to fully understand what the text is and what the text is

doing, the related but distinct issues of audience and opponent must be considered. This section will look closely at the treatment and function of the pagan opposition,

particularly as writers of history rather than as the contemporary pagan opponents Orosius was writing in response to.245 This distinction between a writer of the past and a contemporary opponent complicates the definition of ‗pagan‘ and who is being evoked with the use of the term, but it is crucial to recognise this distinction if a more complete understanding of the text is to be reached.

In the Historiae the perception of the past according to pagan writers is challenged, a perception where the past is glorified and provides exempla for imitation and aspiration. This perception is a one-sided representation by Orosius, and will be inevitably

distorted and manipulated by his apologetic motivations. Orosius‘s conception of the past is formulated through literature, and his response is itself literary. But Orosius is careful to direct his attack against other writers in the broadest possible terms. Although it is rarely made explicit, it is a reasonable deduction, based on the wider apologetic discourse of the text, that the authors Orosius writes against are pagan.246 In this context, ‗pagan‘ refers to the construct offered in the Historiae which functions as a binary opposite to ‗Christian‘. It is impossible to tell from the text alone how far this is a fictionalised concept. At the outset of the work Orosius directs his criticism against Greek and Latin writers (Graecos...Latinos) ‗who have perpetuated in words the accomplishments of kings and peoples for a lasting record‘.247

(1.1.1, p. 5) Within this polemic the ‗blind opinion‘ (opinione caeca) of these writers is juxtaposed with the more complete and truthful Christian reading of history.248 (1.1.2, p. 5) The narrative voice argues against gentiles historici, ‗pagan historians‘ (1.3.6, p. 21) and the reign of Alexander the Great is told by historici.249 (3.16.13, p. 102) Similarly Orosius

challenges the evidence given by historici (4.13.8, vol. 2, p. 44) and ‗writers‘ (scriptorum) who are inconsistent and false:

This 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

245 _{Here ‗contemporary‘ is the contemporary time of Orosius, the early fifth century AD.} 246

Van Nuffelen makes the same argument: ‗as Orosius remarks, ancient (given his apologetic slant, that label equals pagan) historians...‘ Van Nuffelen, (2012), p. 69.

247 _{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...

248 _{1.1.2, vol. 1, p. 10. See 2.1.5, ‗Beginnings‘, for further discussion.} 249 _{1.3.6, vol. 1, p. 43; 3.16.13, vol. 1, p. 166.}

to extol the courage of the fatherland for present and future generations.250 (4.20.7, p. 162)

The same accusation is made later against historicorum who lie and whose diversity in recording events is evidence of their untrustworthiness: ‗...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‘.251 (5.3.4, p. 178) At the opening of Book Three Orosius discusses the conundrum of attempting to cover all past events and how they came about, as recorded by ‗authors‘ (scriptores) who do not have the same motivation for writing as he does.252

As Van Nuffelen has recognised, Orosius‘s polemic invites us to see a wide chasm between the Historiae and pagan works of history. Van Nuffelen understands that it is Orosius‘s ‗express aim‘ to present ‗the only true narrative of the past, which does not suffer from the blindness and bias of earlier histories.‘253

Although individual authors are on occasion criticised by name in the Historiae, it is evident from the examples cited above that Orosius is generally careful to restrict the terminology he uses to designate the authors he is writing against, describing them as historici or scriptores.254 In doing so Orosius is establishing his polemic as vaguely directed against the writers of the past. Orosius is able to focus on his own apologetic argument and perspective of the past that he considers to be right rather than having to engage too closely with the individual arguments of others. This collectivization into a discursive category enables Orosius to homogenize the literature he is opposing, facilitating its disproval.255 To designate the

250 _{4.20.7, vol. 2, p. 62: Sed haec uarietas scriptorum utique fallacia est; fallaciae autem causa profecto}

adulatio est, dum uictoris laudes accumulare uirtutemque patriae extollere uel praesentibus uel posteris student.

251 _{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 ips uidere, diuersi sunt -. I have thought it preferable to retain the original Latin cases when quoting from the Historiae in order to maintain consistency so that quotations are always direct and replicate the original text exactly. For a previous note on this, see 0.11,

'Methodological Considerations'.

252 _{3 Preface 1, p. 77: ‗...neither can all things be unfolded nor through all things what were accomplished}

and just as they were accomplished, because important and innumerable matters were described by a great many writers at very great length; moreover, the writers, although they did not have the same motives...‘. 3 Preface 1, vol. 1, p. 134: nec omnia nec per omnia posse quae gesta et sicut gesta sunt explicari, quoniam magna atque innumera copiosissime et a plurimis scripta sunt; scriptores autem etsi non easdem causas...

253 _{Van Nuffelen, (2012), pp. 80-1.}

254 _{For example, see 4.20.6 where Orosius questions the statistics of the enemy who were killed or}

captured in battle provided by Polybius, Valerius Maximus, and Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius.

255 _{Kahlos, (2007), p. 16: ‗Lumping all non-Christians together under one term was a convenient and}

writers as writers of the past also has its own inherent pejoration; Orosius is trying to demonstrate that the past has been fundamentally misrepresented and was actually much worse than is generally thought. Earlier authors are automatically considered to be untrustworthy and deceitful, a portrayal actively emphasised by Orosius‘s discourse to enlighten the reader to the correct interpretation of the present, which is much more favourable.

The instances provided above where Orosius refers directly to the authors he is writing to oppose demonstrate the generalized terminology he employs; although individual writers are given the epithet of ‗pagan‘, in only one place are these writers collectively identified as pagan: gentiles historici, ‗pagan historians‘.256 (1.3.6, p. 21) Orosius‘s strong apologetic motivations for writing and use of rhetoric necessitate that the

Historiae is thoroughly interrogated and that the occurrences where Orosius informs the

reader that the text is something or is doing something are not blindly accepted as a truthful statement. However, Orosius‘s important and infamous definition of ‗pagan‘ given in the Prologue where the narrative voice addresses Augustine confirms his instructions for the composition of the Historiae: ‗You [Augustine] bade me speak out in opposition to the empty perversity of those who, aliens to the City of God, are called ‗pagans‘...‘257

(1 Prologue 9, p. 4) It would be hard to conceive that Orosius would represent Augustine as his patron, associated with and directing the text in instructing the defence of Christianity against paganism, if this situation was without foundation.258 Therefore it is possible to conclude from this statement that at least according to the author‘s own admission and using his own terminology, the main opposition of the text was pagan.259 At this point it is important to note that the terminology of ‗pagan‘ used in the Prologue develops multiple layers of identity in the text; the pagan authors of the past must be separated from the contemporary ‗pagan‘ opponents who were attacking

rhetorical strategy since it was far easier to attack one target at a stroke than try to hit opponents one by one.‘ Similarly Athanassiadi and Frede, (1999), pp. 4-5: ‗...those who were grouped together as pagans by the Christian apologists, partly for reasons of convenience, partly for reasons of propaganda.‘ See Al. Cameron, (2011), pp. 26-7.

256

1.3.6, vol. 1, p. 43.

257 _{1 Prologue 9, vol. 1, p. 8: Praeceperas mihi uti aduersus uaniloquam prauitatem eorum qui alieni a}

ciuitate Dei ex locorum agrestium conpitis et pagis pagani uocantur...

258

Orosius confirms the link between the pagans he is writing against and ‗the same pagans‘ (hos ipsos paganos) that Augustine was writing to counter in De civitate Dei. 1 Prologue 11, p. 4; 1 Prologue 11, vol. 1, p. 8.

259 _{However there is no reason to suppose that just because Orosius says at the beginning he is going to}

write against the pagans, that is actually what he intends to do or what he does do in the text, much like the reference to the City of God in the same place, which is the only place the theological concept is mentioned in the Historiae.

Christianity and whom Orosius directed his polemic against. The former provides the evidence for Orosius to argue against and discredit, and the latter is the adversary to be disproved. This Chapter is here focused on earlier pagan writers and not contemporary opponents.260