Hubbry Logo
OrosiusOrosiusMain
Open search
Orosius
Community hub
Orosius
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Orosius
Orosius
from Wikipedia

Paulus Orosius (/ˈpɔːləs əˈrʒəs/; born c. 375/385 – c. 420 AD),[1][2][3] less often Paul Orosius in English, was a Roman priest, historian and theologian, and a student of Augustine of Hippo. It is possible that he was born in Bracara Augusta (now Braga, Portugal), then capital of the Roman province of Gallaecia, which would have been the capital of the Kingdom of the Suebi by his death.[4] Although there are some questions regarding his biography, such as his exact date of birth, it is known that he was a person of some prestige from a cultural point of view, as he had contact with the greatest figures of his time such as Augustine of Hippo and Jerome of Stridon. In order to meet with them Orosius travelled to cities on the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, such as Hippo Regius, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Key Information

These journeys defined his life and intellectual output. Orosius did not just discuss theological matters with Augustine; he also collaborated with him on the book City of God.[5] In addition, in 415 he was chosen to travel to Palestine in order to exchange information with other intellectuals. He was also able to participate in a Church Council meeting in Jerusalem on the same trip and he was entrusted with transporting the relics of Saint Stephen. The date of his death is also unclear, although it appears to have not been earlier than 418, when he finished one of his books, or later than 423.[6]

He wrote a total of three books, of which his most important is his Seven Books of History Against the Pagans (Latin: Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII), considered to be one of the books with the greatest impact on historiography during the period between antiquity and the Middle Ages. Part of its importance comes from the fact that the author shows his historiographical methodology. The book is a historical narration focusing on the pagan peoples from the earliest time up until the time Orosius was alive.[7]

Orosius was a highly influential figure both for the dissemination of information (History Against the Pagans was one of the main sources of information regarding Antiquity that was used up to the Renaissance) and for rationalising the study of history (his methodology greatly influenced later historians).[8][9]

Biographical sources

[edit]

Despite the importance of his books many questions remain regarding his life, hampering efforts to construct a biography with any certainty. This is particularly true for sources of information regarding his birth and death.[10] However, his life has been widely studied and there are a number of authors who propose dates for both events.

The main biographical references for Orosius come from the writings of Gennadius of Massilia and Braulio of Zaragoza, although his own writings should not be overlooked.[10] In addition, Orosius is mentioned in letters written by Augustine.

Questions regarding his identity

[edit]

Name

[edit]

While there is no doubt regarding his surname of Orosius, there are questions regarding the use of the name "Paulus". The problem is that it is not completely certain if he used this name or if he was simply called Orosius and whether Paulus has been added with the passing of time. This could have happened given that the initial "P" for "presbyter" (priest) was always placed next to his name, and over time this could have led to the confusion.[11]

However, this idea is flawed as authors writing immediately after Orosius's death use the name Paulus. In fact, even Casimiro Torres Rodríguez, one of the main scholars of Orosius's life, indicates that Paulus might be his Christian name and Orosius his native name, a theory that cannot be entirely dismissed.[11]

Whatever the truth of the matter this subject has been widely studied and the most current theory is probably that of Pedro Martínez Cavero, another important Orosius scholar.[12]

Ó Corráin's conclusions

[edit]

Based on a careful reading of the relevant sources, Irish scholar Donnchadh Ó Corráin concluded that:

Orosius, author of Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri vii, was a Briton, born at latest c. AD 375. Taken by Irish raiders, he spent years (c. AD 400) as a captive, held by traders, on the south shore of the Shannon estuary. He escaped and probably reached Galicia before AD 405. Ordained a priest, he served at Bracara (now Braga in Portugal). He corresponded with Augustine and moved to Hippo in AD 414. Sent to the East by Augustine, he played an undistinguished role at the councils of Jerusalem and Diospolis (AD 415). He settled at Carthage, where he wrote his main work, originally at the instigation of Augustine. He disappears after a voyage to the Balearic Islands. His is the first textual witness to Christianity in Ireland, observed c. AD 400, written up in AD 416–17.

Birthplace

[edit]
Panorama of present-day Braga, the most likely birthplace for Orosius.[4]

The subject of his birthplace is still disputed although a broad consensus has now been reached.[4] Basically there are four theories regarding his birthplace, that can be summarised as follows:

  • Born in Braga: this idea is most widely accepted as it has the most evidence supporting it. If he was not born in Braga, it is likely he was born in the area around the town. This idea is supported by Orosius's own works and two letters written by Augustine, the 166th and the 169th.[4]
  • Born in Tarragona: this theory has been put forward because in his Histories Orosius talks of "Tarraconem nostra" (our Tarragona). The 19th-century author Teodoro de Mörner[13] held this opinion, but nowadays it does not seem reasonable to support the idea solely based on one indication.[14]
  • Originated in A Coruña (Brigantia): this is a relatively new theory solely based on the fact that Orosius twice mentioned it in the geographical section of his Histories.
  • Originated in Brittany: like the previous theory the supporting data for this theory rests on the fact that Orosius had some knowledge of this area.[15]

Date of birth

[edit]

Lastly, his supposed date of birth varies between sources. A likely date has now been calculated, however. It is known for certain that in 415 Augustine referred to Paulus Orosius as "a young priest", which means that at that time he could not have been older than 40, as he was young, and he had to be older than 30, as he was a priest.[16]

Therefore, his date of birth can be fixed between 375 and 385, although the most widely accepted date is 383. This assumes that when Orosius met Augustine he was 32 years old, that is, he had been an ordained priest for two years.[12]

Biography

[edit]

Early life

[edit]

Despite the scarcity of sources, if his date of birth is accepted as that given above or at least within the window between 375 and 385 it can be seen that Orosius grew up during a period of cultural flourishing, contemporary with Hydatius and Avitus of Braga.[17] Priscillianism was an important doctrine at this time and it is considered likely that after entering the priesthood he took an interest in the Priscillianist controversy, which was being widely debated in his native country.[18]

The classical theories suggest that Orosius belonged to a family with good social standing,[19] which would have allowed him to gain a good education. This would have developed along Christian lines, although assuming that Orosius was born in Braga, he would also have had a good knowledge of the rural culture of that time.

Contemporary histories indicate that from an early age Orosius was loquacious and erudite,[20] alluding to statements to this effect made by both Augustine and Pope Gelasius I. In any case, any discussion of Orosius's youth is pure speculation and conjecture because, as discussed above, there is little knowledge regarding this period of his life.

Journey to Africa

[edit]
Schematic map showing all the journeys made by Paulus Orosius.[21]

It is thought that Paulus Orosius lived in Gallaecia (northwest Hispania) until 409, but after that time and up until 415, there is no concrete information regarding his life. The traditional chronology, or at least the most widespread,[22] proposes the succession of events outlined in the following paragraphs.

It appears that Orosius had to leave Braga as a result of the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire. The date of his departure is in some doubt, however, what is known for certain is that he had to leave suddenly. This is even confirmed by Orosius himself who states that he was pursued onto the beach from which he set sail.[23]

A number of dates have been suggested for his departure from Braga, ranging from 409 to 414. The two most widely accepted dates are:

  • 410: proposed by G. Fainck. This date means that Orosius had a window of 5 years for his collaboration with Augustine before he travelled to Palestine.
  • 414: which is the most widely accepted. In his book Commonitorium, which was published in 414, Orosius talks of his arrival, his meeting with Augustine etc.

What is certain is that once Orosius had left the Iberian Peninsula he was certain that his destination was Hippo (now Annaba in Algeria), and a meeting with Augustine, who was the greatest thinker of his time. From his arrival Orosius formed part of a team that worked alongside Augustine. It is therefore possible that Orosius collaborated in the writing of The City of God or at the least that he was aware of the book.[5]

In 415 Augustine entrusted Orosius with the task of travelling to Palestine to meet with the thinker Jerome who at that time was living in Bethlehem. This indicates that Augustine had a great deal of faith in Orosius as relations between Augustine and Jerome had not always been good.

Journeys to Palestine

[edit]

The visit to Palestine had a double purpose: Orosius wanted to discuss a number of theological topics with Jerome, particularly those relating to the soul's origins, and Augustine wanted closer ties with the thinker and to gather information regarding the Priscillianists, Origenists and the Pelagian heresy.[24]

In reality, it would seem[citation needed] that Orosius's main task was to assist Jerome and others against Pelagius, who, after the synod of Carthage in 411, had been living in Palestine, and finding some acceptance there.[25] Orosius met with Pelagius on Augustine's behalf and he represented the orthodox party against the Pelagians at the Synod of Jerusalem[26] that was held in June 415.

At the synod Orosius communicated the decisions of the synod of Carthage and read several of Augustine's writings against Pelagius. Success, however, was not achieved among Greeks who did not understand Latin, and whose sense of reverence was unfazed by Pelagius's famous question, Et quis est mihi Augustinus? ("Who is Augustine to me?").[25]

Orosius succeeded only in obtaining John's consent to send letters and deputies to Pope Innocent I of Rome; and, after having waited long enough to learn the unfavourable decision of the Synod of Diospolis (Lydda) in December of the same year, he returned to North Africa,[25]

Orosius had a confrontation with the Archbishop of Jerusalem, John II at the synod, in which Orosius was accused of heresy in front of the entire conclave. As his defence Orosius wrote his second book Liber Apologeticus, in which he emphatically rejected the accusation.[27]

Orosius's first act on meeting Jerome was to hand him the correspondence that he had brought from Augustine. This implies that the journey was always conceived of as a return journey as Orosius would have to deliver the letters from Jerome back to Augustine. In parallel to this, the relics of Saint Stephen were uncovered at the end of 415 and part of the find was given to Orosius in order that he could take it back to Braga.[28] This marks both the start of his return journey and, from our current perspective, a new epoch in Orosius's life that is lacking in sources of information for its study.

Later years

[edit]

Given that Stephen's relics were uncovered on 26 December 415, Orosius must have departed from Palestine after that date. Although his idea was to travel to Braga, he was forced to pass through Hippo as it is known that he delivered letters from Jerome to Augustine, it is also generally agreed that he passed through Jerusalem and Alexandria, although it is not known if he visited the latter on his outward journey, on his return journey or on both occasions.[29]

During his second stay in Hippo he had a long conversation with Augustine during which he handed over the letters he was carrying from Jerome and informed Augustine about the meetings he had had with Pelagius.[30] The idea for Orosius's great work, Historiae Adversus Paganos, was born during this reencounter with Augustine. However, it is difficult to estimate an exact date for when the book was written and for when the book was finished. This has given rise to a number of theories regarding the writing of the book:

  • The traditional theory states that the book was finished between 416 and 417.[31] Support for these dates comes from the fact that the Liber Apologeticus does not mention Orosius's work as a historian, and the prologue refers to Book XI of the City of God by Augustine, which was not published until 416. In order to justify how Orosius managed to write seven books in such a short time it is argued that he could have written summaries that were later filled out.
  • A recent theory, proposed by Casimiro Torres Rodríguez, states that Orosius briefly stayed in Stridon a second time while trying to return to Portugal, which he was unable to do and he wrote the book during a third stay in Stridon. This would explain why Orosius refers in the "Histories" to events that took place in Hispania in 417.
  • A third, older, theory, posed by T. von Mörner and G. Fainck, says that Orosius undertook the work before he travelled to Palestine. In fact, this idea has recently been given a new lease of life by M. P. Annaud-Lindet, although with the proviso that Orosius wrote the book during his return journey from Palestine.

Disappearance

[edit]

Very little information is available regarding the life of Paulus Orosius after the publication of his Histories. It is known that he was in Menorca where he used the remains of Stephen in attempts to convert members of the Jewish community to Christianity, but the date of his death is not known. This lack of information regarding Orosius could be due to cooling of relations with Augustine, who never makes any clear unambiguous references to Orosius's "Histories" once they have been published. Gennadius of Massilia considers that Orosius lived at least until the end of the Roman emperor Honorius’ reign, which lasted until 423. However, there is no news of Orosius after 417 and it seems unlikely that such an active author would go six years without publishing anything new.[6]

There are other theories, from a sudden death to a range of legends that talk of Orosius's final arrival in Hispania and his founding of a monastery near to Cabo de Palos where he ended his days, although this latter idea now[when?] seems improbable.[6]

His works

[edit]

Commonitorium and Liber Apologeticus

[edit]
The Commonitorium and the Histories are a response, at least in their origins, to the direct influence that Augustine of Hippo exercised over Orosius.[32]

Although Paulus Orosius's most important book was the Historiae Adversus Paganos, his other two surviving books must also be taken into account: Commonitorium and Liber Apologeticus.[33]

The full name of his first book is Consultatio sive commonitorium ad Augustinum de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum (in English: A Warning and Reminder to Augustine Against the Errors of the Priscillians and the Origenists).[32] Its chronology is littered with the same grey areas as Orosius's biography. In principle it is a book intended for Augustine and therefore it must have been written before Orosius arrived in Africa, between 409 and 414 as discussed above.[34] The second chronological limit is 415, which is traditionally considered to be the date when Augustine's book Liber ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas was published, in which Augustine replies to Orosius's Commonitorium.[35]

The book is not only aimed at Augustine but was also preceded by conversations with him.[36] It not only describes Orosius journey to Africa, but also summarises the beliefs of Priscillianism and Origenism, and it asks for Augustine's advice regarding these theological issues, thereby exposing some of Orosius's theological doubts.[37]

The full name of Orosius's second book is Liber apologeticus contra Pelagium de Arbitrii libertate.[38] It was published at the time of Orosius's participation in the Council of Jerusalem in 415.[39] The book is the result of a theological debate during which Archbishop John II accused Orosius of heresy due to his idea that man cannot remain free of sin, not even with the help of divine intervention.[39]

In order to defend himself from these accusations Orosius wrote Liber Apologeticus, in which he describes his motives for participating in the synod, he was invited by Jerome, and rejects the accusation of heresy made against him.[38] However, neither of these two books are of a historical nature, despite containing elements that help in the reconstruction of Orosius's life.

Historiae Adversus Paganos

[edit]
Historiae adversus paganos, 1561
Page from a manuscript of Orosius's Histories held in Florence.

Paulus Orosius's masterpiece is Historiae Adversus Paganos, the only history book that he wrote, which gives insight into the historiographical methodology of the Spanish priesthood. It is not possible to be certain as to when it was written as there is no single theory that is unanimously accepted by all historians. The most common estimate places the drafting of the book between 416 and 417.[31][40]

Miguel Ángel Rábade Navarro offers a clear and concise definition on Orosius's history in one of his articles on the author. In this article Rábade calls the Histories a "universalist history with an apologetic and providentialist character, whose main aim is to compare a pagan past with a Christian present, through their followers, their actions and their geographical and temporal location".[7]

Be this as it may, the book had a definite origin and a clear purpose. The book's origins were a response to Augustine's express desire for a book that would complement his De Civitate Dei which is a history focused on the pagan races.[41] The date of the book is not our main focus here, what is more important is Orosius's objective in responding to Augustine's request by writing a book aimed at proving that Rome’s decadence – Rome was sacked by Alaric I in 410 – had nothing at all to do with the fact that the Romans had relatively recently converted to Christianity.[42]

In a more general way Orosius wanted to show that the world has improved since the introduction of Christianity rather than declined as others had argued. In response to those who pointed to contemporary disasters, he simply argues that previous disasters occurring before Christianity were much worse. The work, a universal history of the calamities that have happened to mankind was the first attempt to write the history of the world as a history of God guiding humanity.[25]

Throughout the seven books that comprise the history, Orosius introduces several new methods and he also uses others that pick up on the traditional methods of Graeco-Roman historiography.[43] Orosius never offers a negative image of the Pagans, in this way he is being true to the traditions of the Graeco-Roman historians of that time, who always tried to give a positive impression of their "enemies".[43]

Editions

[edit]

The Histories have been widely printed, and there are at least 82 surviving copies and 28 incunables from the first printed editions, as well as copies of editions in Italian and German from the sixteenth century.[9] Johannes Schüssler printed the Historiae in Augsburg in 1471.[44] Authoritative modern editions are:

  • Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII; accedit eiusdem, Liber apologeticus, ed. by Karl Zangemeister, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 5 (Vienna: Teubner, 1882).
  • Pauli Orosii historiarum adversum paganos libri VII, ed. by Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Zangemeister, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899).
  • Orose: Histoires contre les païens, ed. by Marie-Pierre Arnaud-Lindet, 3 vols. Collection des Universités de France (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990–1991).

Translations

[edit]
  • An abridged, free translation into Old English, known as the Old English Orosius, previously erroneously attributed to King Alfred and now thought to have been done in the early tenth century.[45][46][47]
  • An Arabic translation, known as Kitāb Hurūshiyūsh, reputedly made during the reign of al-Hakam II of Córdoba. This is one of the very few known medieval translations from Latin to Arabic.
  • A thirteenth-century Italian translation by the Florentine judge Bono Giamboni [it].[48]
  • A still unpublished fourteenth-century Aragonese translation, made by Domingo de García Martín at the request of Juan Fernández de Heredia, based on Bono Giamboni's Italian translation.
  • A French translation of 1491.[49]: 906 
  • A German translation of 1539.[49]: 906 
  • The Seven Books of History against the Pagans: The Apology of Paulus Orosius, trans. by Irving Woodworth Raymond (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936) (digitised and corrected version available here)
  • Orosius (1964). The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press. OCLC 711212.
  • Seven Books of History against the Pagans, ed. and trans. by A. T. Fear, Translated Texts for Historians, 54 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010). ISBN 978-1846312397.

Influence

[edit]

The assumed falling out of Paulus Orosius and Augustine at the end of the former's life does not seem to have had a negative effect on the distribution and impact of his Histories.[50] Despite criticisms of his work, Orosius's books were considered to be successes from virtually the day of their publication. Nearly two hundred manuscripts of the "Histories" have survived.

The Histories were considered to be one of the main works of Spanish historiography right up until the time of the Reformation.[8] This success has, to a large extent, meant that Orosius's other works have also been conserved.[citation needed]

Historiae Adversus Paganos has been quoted by authors ranging from Braulio of Zaragoza to Dante Alighieri, and was one of the main books used by students of Ancient History throughout the Middle Ages.[9] Via its Arabic translation, it became one of the sources of Ibn Khaldun in his history.[51]: 136–53  Lope de Vega made Orosius a central character in his play The Cardinal of Bethlehem, which shows how long-lived his fame was.[9]

Historical methodology

[edit]

Universalism

[edit]

The Universalist nature of Orosius's work is perhaps its most notable aspect. In fact, despite the lack of agreement regarding all other aspects of Orosius's life, including his biography and his works, most experts agree on the universalist nature of this work, including classicists such as Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo and even more modern historians such as Torres Rodríguez.[52] In addition, his works are not only identified as universalist but as the first Christian universalist history, or put another way, the last classical universalist history.[53]

Paulus Orosius is not only a widely studied author he also described his own thoughts on his historical methodology in some of the prologues to the volumes that comprise his "Histories". He was always clear in his objectives, he wanted to write the history starting with the creation and leading up to the times in which he lived, which is a clear declaration of his universalist intentions as a historian.[54]

Orosius uses the so-called "succession of the four world empires theory" throughout his works,[55] which traced world history based on the premise that out of the ruins of one great civilization another arose. Therefore, his theory was based on four historical empires, Babylonia, pagan Rome, Macedonia and Carthage, with a fifth empire, that of Christian Rome as the inheritor of all these.[56] In fact, during the narration of their histories the four empires develop in the same way and there are a number of striking parallels between them that are markedly different from Rome, which Orosius praises.[7]

Orosius's basic innovation in dealing with the four empires theory was to introduce Carthage between Macedonia and Rome, which is something that scholars such as García Fernández point out as one of Orosius's defining and definitive acts.[42]

Patriotism and universalism

[edit]

Another important characteristic of Orosius's "Histories" is defined as patriotism.[57] There are two clearly defined positions regarding Orosius's patriotism, a more traditional view espoused by Torres Rodríguez and a more novel view as recently outlined by García Fernández.

Torres Rodríguez’ theory refers to patriotism is the sense that Orosius places special emphasis on the events that took place in Hispania. This is normal given Orosius's origins, but it can be thought of not only as patriotism but also as Hispanism.[57] Examples of this tendency include narratives of events in the "Histories", that occurred in Braga or the fact that Orosius himself was charged with transporting the reliquaries of Saint Stephen.[58] It is even pointed out that Orosius's narrations are sometimes used by current day groups of Galician nationalists.[58]

On the other hand, in 2005 García Fernández made an explicit allusion to Torres Rodríguez’ theory when he stated that it was an exaggeration to characterize Orosius's historical methodology as "patriotic".[59] This was a rejection of nearly all of the statements made by Torres Rodríguez on this matter.[60] García Fernández used the idea of "localism", which was a fashionable idea amongst historians at the beginning of the 21st century.[61] This idea argues that beyond "Hispanism" Orosius shows a "benevolent attitude" to Hispania.[61]

Optimism and pessimism

[edit]

Another interesting point is the pessimism with which Orosius deals with certain themes and the exaggerated optimism with which he refers to others. In general he is pessimistic about anything to do with paganism or the past and optimistic regarding Christianity and his present, which is remarkable given the difficult times that he was living in.[62]

These characteristics infuse all the others, it is particularly noticeable in his narration when he places a special emphasis on the suffering of the defeated,[63] and the terrors of war.[64] This characteristic can clearly be attributed to the influence of Augustine, as Orosius is showing us the two sides of a coin in the purest style of Augustinian dualism.[65]

Orosius is thereby able to present the past as a series of adversities with concrete examples, from Noah's flood to the shipwrecking of ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and the future as something positive despite the reality of the times in which he lived.[65]

In order to follow a narrative of suffering and tragedy he often concentrated on defeats, which was different from the usual Roman historiography which normally gave pre-eminence to victories.[63] However, from a historiographical point of view this approach led to some inconsistencies, as, in order to bring the reader round to his point of view, Orosius sometimes described myths and legends as if they were historic fact.[66]

Another traditional criticism of Orosius's work relates to this dichotomy of pessimism/optimism, which often causes him to offer a narrative that in many ways lacks an objective viewpoint.[67] This divides historians into those that view him as biased and others that reject this criticism and justify his approach by saying that Orosius viewed history in the same way as Christians view life.[67] Put another way, his approach is justified as being founded in the author's Providentialist character.[7]

Narrative

[edit]

The narrative ability of Orosius should also not be overlooked. The author had a clear objective: that the Christians be defended from the non-Christian Roman's accusations that the sacking of Rome in 410 was a reprimand because the Christians had forsaken the city's traditional pantheon of gods.[68]

Orosius's narrative abilities in forwarding this argument therefore went beyond the pessimism/optimism duality that was discussed in the previous section. His basic idea is that the past is always worse than the present, because it is always further from the true religion.[68]

The fact that he had clear objectives ensured that he wrote his stories with a definite end in mind. Therefore, there are events that he narrated with little detail and others that he presents in full detail. Orosius never seems lacking in sources of information, he even affirms that an historian should be selective with those he has, it rather seems that this difference in level of detail reflects the emphasis that he wants to place on reinforcing his ideas.[64]

The fact that his writing has a moral objective and apologist agenda means that he focuses on unusual events, such as the suffering of the general population during wartime.[54] This selection of facts, in large part, enables him to write about patriotism, for example, as he always pays a lot of attention to events in Hispania.

The importance of geography

[edit]

Another important aspect of Orosius's work is the importance he placed on geography in his work as a historian.[69] This is shown in his geographic description of the world in the second chapter of the first of the seven books that comprise the Histories.[69]

One failing of his geographical descriptions is his imprecision, such as, for instance, when he overuses the noun "Caucasus" to refer to other nearby ranges.[70] Despite this vagueness it is notable that the Histories include a chapter on geography. This has lent an increased value to his work in modern historiography, mainly thanks to authors such as Lucien Febvre and Fernand Braudel.

Sources used by Orosius

[edit]

The sources Orosius used have been investigated by Teodoro de Mörner;[citation needed] besides the Old and New Testaments, he appears to have consulted Caesar, Livy, Justin, Tacitus, Suetonius, Florus and a cosmography, attaching also great value to Jerome's translation of the Chronicles of Eusebius.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

Paulus Orosius (c. 375 – after 418) was a Christian priest, theologian, and historian from the Iberian Peninsula, best known for composing the Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII, the earliest surviving universal history written from a Christian perspective.
Born likely in Gallaecia (modern northern Portugal or Spain), Orosius entered the priesthood and traveled to North Africa around 414, where he became a disciple of Augustine of Hippo amid the Pelagian controversy. Augustine commissioned him to author a historical compendium demonstrating that wars, disasters, and calamities had plagued humanity throughout antiquity, predating Christianity and thus refuting pagan claims—exacerbated by the Visigothic sack of Rome in 410—that the empire's woes stemmed from the abandonment of traditional gods.
Orosius's Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, completed circa 417, chronicles events from the biblical creation to his era, emphasizing divine providence and moral causation in human affairs while drawing on earlier Roman historians like Livy and Tacitus. Though criticized by some modern scholars for selective sourcing and apologetic bias, the work's providential framework influenced medieval historiography, including translations and adaptations by figures like King Alfred the Great. He also penned theological treatises opposing Priscillianism, Origenism, and Pelagianism, and journeyed to Palestine in 415 to combat Pelagian influence, though his efforts there led to conflict with local bishops.

Identity and Origins

Debates on Name and Ethnic Identity

Scholars generally refer to the historian as Paulus Orosius, with "Paulus" attested as his praenomen only from the eighth century onward, while "Orosius" appears as his cognomen in contemporary sources such as Augustine's letters dated to 414–415 CE. A nineteenth-century hypothesis by Theodore von Mörner proposed an extended form of the name, such as "Paulus Orosius Hormistas," "Paulus Hormistas Orosius," or even "Paulus Hormistas Mundus," interpreting "Hormistas" as potentially indicating a family or baptismal name of Eastern or non-Latin origin. This suggestion, however, lacks direct manuscript evidence and has not been adopted in modern scholarship, which favors the simpler "Paulus Orosius" based on primary texts like his own Historiae adversus paganos (c. 417 CE) and patristic references. Regarding ethnic identity, Orosius is conventionally identified as a Hispano-Roman from the province of in northwest , reflecting the Romanized elite of the region amid late antique cultural assimilation. His writings emphasize a Roman-Christian , with no explicit claims of non-Roman ancestry, and he describes barbarian invasions—such as the and entering in 409 CE—as external threats that prompted his flight, aligning with a Roman provincial perspective rather than affinity for Germanic groups. A minority view, advanced by editor Marie-Pierre Arnaud-Lindet, posits a possible British origin or Briton residing in , drawing on perceived stylistic parallels or migration patterns, but this remains speculative and unsupported by onomastic or biographical evidence from Augustine or . Mainstream dismisses such claims, attributing Orosius's identity to the Romanized context, where ethnic distinctions were increasingly subordinated to religious and civic affiliations by the early fifth century.

Proposed Birthplace and Birth Date

The birthplace of Paulus Orosius is not definitively established in primary sources, but scholarly consensus places it within the of during the late fourth century AD. Traditional accounts identify Bracara Augusta (modern in northern ), capital of the province of , as the most likely origin, based on Orosius's familiarity with local ecclesiastical matters and his early career activities in the region. This attribution draws from his self-identification as a Spaniard (Hispanus) in his writings and indirect references to Gallaecian contexts, though no explicit autobiographical statement confirms it. Alternative proposals suggest (modern , ) in the province of Tarraconensis, citing Orosius's potential ties to Priscillianist controversies centered there and linguistic evidence in his Latin style. However, these remain speculative, as Orosius provides no of his origins beyond general provenance, and later medieval traditions may have retroactively localized him to Braga due to its prominence in Iberian . Orosius's birth date is likewise approximate, with estimates ranging from circa 375 to 390 AD, inferred from his active priesthood by 414 AD and associations with contemporaries like (354–430 AD). Earlier dates around 375 AD align with his maturity during the 410 sack of Rome, which prompted his historical work, while later ones near 390 AD fit timelines of his travels and theological engagements. These approximations rely on chronological reconstruction from his Historiae adversus paganos and letters, as no contemporary records specify an exact year.

Biographical Sources and Reliability

The principal biographical sources for Paulus Orosius derive from contemporary or near-contemporary ecclesiastical writers within the orthodox Christian tradition. provides the earliest and most direct testimonies in his correspondence, particularly Epistle 166 to Evodius of Uzalis (dated c. 415), where he describes Orosius as a "religious young man" who arrived in Hippo as a from , bound in Catholic communion, and recommends him for consultations on doctrinal matters amid the Pelagian controversy. In Epistle 169 to Evodius (c. 415), Augustine further notes dispatching Orosius to in with inquiries on the soul's nature and Origenist errors, highlighting his role as a trusted emissary. These letters offer firsthand accounts of Orosius' travels, orthodoxy, and collaboration with leading theologians between 414 and 418, corroborated by Orosius' own Commonitorium de Errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum (c. 415), in which he reports his consultations in and return to report findings to Augustine. Gennadius of Massilia, writing c. 467–480 in his De Viris Illustribus (continuation of 's catalog), supplies additional details, portraying Orosius as a Spanish sent by Augustine to for instruction , who subsequently introduced Western to relics of St. Stephen the Protomartyr via of Caphar Gamala's account. Gennadius credits Orosius with composing works against Priscillianists, Origenists, and Pelagians, and notes his historical compendium at Augustine's urging, framing him as an exemplary anti-heretical figure. These accounts align with Orosius' self-presentation in his Historiae Adversus Paganos (c. 417–418), where he acknowledges Augustine's prompt to compile providential history. The reliability of these sources is constrained by their scarcity and shared confessional context: all emanate from orthodox Latin Christianity, with no independent secular or non-orthodox attestations, reflecting the era's focus rather than comprehensive . Augustine's letters, as personal endorsements amid doctrinal crises, exhibit rhetorical praise but remain anchored in verifiable events like Orosius' Hispano-African-Palestinian itinerary (c. 414–416), which internal evidence from Orosius' treatises substantiates without contradiction. Gennadius, composing decades later, draws on circulating traditions and Orosius' publications but introduces hagiographic elements, such as relic importation, potentially amplified for edification; his catalog prioritizes doctrinal utility over empirical detail, as seen in selective emphasis on anti-heretical labors. Cross-verification with Orosius' writings—e.g., his Liber Apologeticus (c. 414) defending Spanish bishops against Priscillianist accusations—lends causal coherence to the narrative of his early career and travels, though gaps persist on origins, precise chronology, and death (post-418). Absent adversarial sources or archaeological corroboration, the record favors interpretive caution, privileging the sources' consistency on Orosius' theological agency while discounting unsubstantiated embellishments.

Life and Travels

Early Career in Hispania

Paulus Orosius commenced his ecclesiastical career in Hispania as a presbyter, having been ordained in his native region following early dedication to Christian service. Limited details survive regarding his initial priestly duties, but he likely engaged in local ministry amid the province's Roman Christian communities during the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Hispania at this time faced increasing instability from Germanic migrations, with Suebi, Alans, and Vandals crossing the Pyrenees in 409 CE, sacking cities and disrupting ecclesiastical order. Orosius's presbyterate thus unfolded against this backdrop of invasion and fragmentation, though no specific pastoral roles or writings from this period are attested prior to his later anti-heretical efforts. By circa 414 CE, escalating Vandal advances prompted his departure from Hispania for North Africa, marking the end of his early tenure there.

Confrontation with Priscillianism

In the early fifth century, Orosius, serving as a in the region of in northwest , confronted the resurgence of , a heterodox movement emphasizing extreme , rejection of , and esoteric scriptural interpretations that had survived the execution of its founder, , in 385 CE despite conciliar condemnations. This revival threatened ecclesiastical orthodoxy in Hispania, where the heresy retained adherents among ascetic communities. Orosius, drawing on local observations, identified doctrinal overlaps between Priscillianist views—such as allegorical excesses and denial of bodily —and certain Origenist speculations, viewing them as interconnected threats to . To combat this, Orosius composed the Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum (Consultation on the Errors of the Priscillianists and Origenists) around 414 CE, a concise outlining specific heretical tenets like the Priscillianists' purported endorsement of Origen's of souls and subordinationist , substantiated by quotations from Priscillian's own writings then circulating in . He presented this work to during a journey to in 414, seeking the bishop's authoritative assessment to bolster anti-heretical efforts back home and requesting Augustine's intervention against the sect's influence. The Commonitorium served as both a diagnostic report from Orosius's firsthand experience and a call for unified episcopal action, emphasizing the need to refute these errors through scriptural rather than secular coercion. Augustine's endorsement of Orosius's analysis, as implied in subsequent correspondence, reinforced the latter's role in this doctrinal skirmish, though the persisted in isolated pockets of into the sixth century. Orosius's approach prioritized theological precision over punitive measures, aligning with patristic emphases on persuasion amid the empire's declining administrative control over peripheral provinces. This episode marked an early pivot in Orosius's career from local pastoral duties to broader intellectual engagements with .

Journeys to Africa and Palestine

Around 414, Paulus Orosius, a from , journeyed to in amid concerns over doctrinal errors, including possible Origenist influences in his region, seeking guidance from . There, Augustine received him favorably and discussed theological matters, including the Pelagian controversy, which denied and emphasized human free will without divine grace. In 415, Augustine dispatched Orosius to to confer with in and assist in combating , which had gained traction there. Orosius traveled along the Mediterranean coast, possibly stopping at , and arrived in time for a in convened by Bishop John in July 415. At this gathering, Orosius accused of heresy, citing the prior condemnation of Pelagius's associate Celestius by a council in in 411 or 412, but Bishop John, sympathetic to Pelagius, reportedly deflected the charges and deferred judgment to papal authority. Orosius remained in Palestine through December 415, participating in further discussions, including the Synod of Diospolis (Lydda), where defended his views before Eastern bishops and received a qualified acquittal. In response, Orosius composed his Liber Apologeticus, defending his accusations and the Western church's stance against . In spring 416, he departed , returning first to Augustine in with a commendatory letter from (Epistle 134), before proceeding back to . This letter praised Orosius's orthodoxy and urged continued vigilance against Pelagian errors.

Collaboration with Augustine of Hippo

In 414, Paulus Orosius, a presbyter from Hispania fleeing the region amid Vandal invasions, arrived in Hippo Regius to seek counsel from Augustine on doctrinal issues raised by the Priscillianist heresy, particularly concerning the origin of the soul. There, Orosius composed the Commonitorium de Errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum, a short treatise outlining and refuting errors attributed to Priscillianists and Origenists, which he presented to Augustine for review and guidance. Augustine, impressed by Orosius's piety and scholarship, praised him as a "discreet and holy man" and dispatched him in 415 as an emissary to Palestine, instructing him to consult Jerome on Pelagian controversies and to defend orthodox views at councils in Jerusalem and Diospolis. Upon Orosius's return to Hippo around 416, Augustine, amid ongoing pagan critiques blaming for Rome's sack in 410, urged him to compile a historical work demonstrating that calamities and moral disorders were more prevalent and severe in pre-Christian eras than under the Christian dispensation. This directive directly prompted Orosius to author the Historiae Adversus Paganos (Seven Books of History Against the Pagans), completed by 418, which served as a concise supplement to Augustine's own City of God by providing empirical historical examples of pagan-era disasters to affirm under . Their interaction thus extended beyond personal consultation to a collaborative effort in apologetic , with Orosius acting as Augustine's trusted protégé in countering both heretical doctrines and anti-Christian narratives.

Final Years and Disappearance

In 416, following his consultations in , Orosius returned to to consult with Augustine, delivering letters from and relics of acquired in the . Augustine urged him to compose a comprehensive demonstrating Christian providence amid contemporary calamities, leading Orosius to undertake the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, which he completed by 417 or 418 while still in . The work concludes with events of 417, including the suppression of the usurper Heraclian, after which Orosius dedicates it to Augustine as a fulfillment of their discussions. Intending to return to , Orosius set out from Hippo but learned en route of intensified barbarian incursions—, , and had ravaged the peninsula since 409, rendering travel perilous and his native particularly unstable. He deposited the relics of on Minorca for safekeeping before any definitive homeward journey, though accounts differ on whether he ultimately reached or remained in longer amid the disruptions. No contemporary records document Orosius's activities beyond 417–418, marking his abrupt disappearance from historical view. This obscurity aligns with the broader collapse of Roman administration in western provinces, where clerical and scholarly figures often vanished amid migrations, invasions, and loss of archival continuity; his presbyteral status and lack of institutional ties likely exacerbated traceability. Later traditions proposing missionary voyages to Britain or lack primary and stem from medieval interpolations or hagiographic rather than verifiable sources. His date and precise end remain unknown, with scholarly estimates placing it sometime after 418, possibly in during the escalating tribal confederations.

Major Works

Commonitorium de Errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum

The Commonitorium de Errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum, composed by Paulus Orosius in 414 AD, constitutes a brief dogmatic addressed to during Orosius's sojourn in . Presented as a consultatio or memorandum, it delineates perceived doctrinal deviations among followers of and in , where Orosius possessed direct familiarity from his clerical experiences amid lingering post-execution remnants of Priscillian's movement after 385 AD. Orosius's primary aim was to solicit Augustine's authoritative judgment on countering these intertwined , which he viewed as infiltrating Spanish through the dissemination of Origen's speculative texts. He attributes the introduction of Origenist ideas to Spanish figures, including two individuals named —one a visitor to and another linked to the —who facilitated the blending of Origen's cosmology with Priscillianist and apocryphal leanings. The work critiques specific Origenist tenets, such as erroneous conceptions of the soul's preexistent genesis, the remedial rather than retributive nature of divine punishment, and heterodox interpretations of Christ's , positioning them as threats to core and . While less detailed on Priscillianism—relying on Orosius's regional insights into its syncretic practices—the treatise employs the neologism "Priscillianist" for the first attested time to denote adherents, framing their errors as a persistent Western variant compounded by Eastern Origenist influences. Augustine's reply, the Liber ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas of 415 AD, offered a measured refutation, condemning unambiguous heterodoxies while noting interpretive ambiguities in Origen's corpus, thereby guiding Orosius's subsequent anti-heretical efforts. This text exemplifies Orosius's early engagement in transregional theological polemics, highlighting the diffusion of westward and its fusion with local deviations like , which complicated episcopal oversight in early fifth-century . Preserved in editions such as the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL 18), it spans roughly eight pages in modern print, underscoring its consultative brevity over exhaustive exposition.

Liber Apologeticus

The Liber Apologeticus contra Pelagium de arbitrii libertate is a theological apology written by Paulus Orosius in 415 CE, shortly after his participation in the at (also known as Diospolis) convened by Bishop John to evaluate 's doctrines. Commissioned implicitly by , who had alerted Orosius to 's views denying the necessity of for moral perfection and downplaying , the work defends Orosius's intervention at the while systematically critiquing Pelagian anthropology. Orosius arrived in around July 415, bearing Augustine's Commonitorium against , and testified that 's emphasis on unaided human undermined Christian reliance on grace; the , however, issued a qualified of , prompting accusations against Orosius himself. The treatise, preserved in Latin and edited in critical editions such as Zangemeister's CSEL volume, spans approximately 40 pages in modern printings and divides into a account of the , a refutation of charges that Orosius denied (arbitrii libertas), and a doctrinal exposition affirming orthodox . Orosius recounts quoting 's own concessions—such as the impossibility of sinless living without grace—to argue that contradicted himself by claiming humans could achieve perfection independently, a position Orosius labels as semi-Pelagian evasion rather than true . He counters the accusation of by insisting exists but is vitiated by Adam's fall, requiring for salutary acts, thus aligning with Augustine's emerging anti-Pelagian framework while echoing Jerome's scriptural more prominently. Doctrinally, Orosius maintains that Pelagius's optimism about autonomy ignores of universal sinfulness, as observed in biblical and experience, where unaided efforts lead to repeated failure rather than moral triumph. He appeals to councils like (411–412 CE) that had already rejected Pelagian denial of infant baptism's necessity for remitting , urging the Palestinian bishops to align with African and Roman verdicts. The Liber's fierce tone—describing Pelagius's supporters as obfuscators—reflects Orosius's frustration with the synod's leniency, which later councils at (418 CE) and (431 CE) overturned by condemning outright. Scholarly assessments note the work's reliance on Jerome's anti-Origenist and exegetical traditions over direct Augustinian influence, suggesting Orosius positioned himself as a mediator between Eastern and Western debates rather than a strict disciple. Its brevity and focus on procedural defense limit its depth compared to Augustine's later De gratia et libero arbitrio (426–427 CE), but it provides a primary witness to early Pelagian controversies, including verbatim synodal dialogues and Orosius's role in transmitting Iberian concerns to the broader church. The text circulated alongside Orosius's Historiae adversus paganos, reinforcing his apologetic career against perceived heretical threats to providential history.

Historiae Adversus Paganos

The Historiae adversus paganos, commonly translated as the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, was composed by Paulus Orosius between 417 and 418 AD. Commissioned by Augustine of Hippo as a concise historical counterpart to his own City of God, the work directly addresses pagan critiques attributing the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 AD—and broader imperial misfortunes—to the empire's Christianization. Orosius contends that such disasters were neither novel nor uniquely severe under Christianity, but paled in comparison to the endemic warfare, plagues, and societal upheavals that characterized pagan antiquity. Structured in seven books preceded by a prologue dedicated to Augustine, the narrative provides a universal history synchronizing biblical with secular events from the post-Flood era to Orosius's own time in 417 AD. Book I surveys early civilizations, including the Assyrian and empires, enumerating cataclysms like floods and earthquakes to establish a baseline of pre-Christian misery. Books II through IV condense Greco-Roman history up to the , quantifying casualties—such as over 300,000 deaths in the siege of —to illustrate the bloodier scale of pagan conflicts. Books V and VI cover the rise and expansion of , arguing that even triumphant eras involved mass slaughters exceeding those of recent barbarian invasions. The final book culminates in , portraying Christian emperors like as agents of relative stability amid . Orosius's central argument rests on empirical comparison: by tallying deaths and destructions across epochs, he asserts that the Christian dispensation has ameliorated human suffering, fostering empire-wide peace under figures like , whose reign coincided with Christ's birth. Drawing eclectically from sources such as , , and Eutropius, the author employs rhetorical selection to prioritize calamitous events, framing as a providential progression toward and temporal improvement. This optimistic contrasts with more ambivalent contemporary views, emphasizing Christianity's role in curbing innate human bellicosity rather than as a harbinger of decline.

Other Attributed Writings

No other treatises or substantial texts are securely attributed to Paulus Orosius beyond his three principal works: the Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum, the Liber apologeticus, and the Historiae adversus paganos. Ancient references, such as those in Augustine's correspondence and Jerome's writings, mention only these compositions in connection with Orosius' activities around 414–417 CE. Medieval manuscript traditions and patristic catalogues, including those compiled by and later Carolingian scholars, similarly limit attributions to these texts, with no evidence of additional authentic productions. Scholarly editions, such as Karl Zangemeister's 1882 critical text (CSEL 5), collect solely these works, reflecting consensus on Orosius' limited corpus as a response to specific theological controversies and Augustine's commissions. Claims of further attributions, such as fragmentary geographical digressions or homiletic materials, lack support and stem from conflations with his introductory sections in the Historiae, where he outlines world divisions for providential history. Modern analyses, prioritizing paleographic and stylistic consistency, reject spurious additions, noting Orosius' focused role as polemicist rather than prolific author. Thus, his attributed writings remain confined to interventions against and pagan , underscoring his brevity amid late antique tumult.

Historiographical Approach

Sources and Method of Compilation

Orosius compiled the Historiae adversus paganos by drawing primarily from pagan Roman historians, abridging and excerpting their accounts to construct a chronological universal history from the biblical creation to 417 AD. His principal sources included , whose detailed Roman annals provided the backbone for much of the narrative on republican and imperial events, often copied verbatim or closely paraphrased. ' epitome of supplied condensed summaries of early Roman history, particularly for the regal period, while Eutropius' Breviarium offered a succinct framework for later imperial chronology. Additional classical authorities encompassed Caesar for military campaigns, for imperial biographies, Justin's adaptation of Pompeius Trogus for universal scope beyond , and for select episodes in the early empire. For Christian integration, Orosius incorporated scriptural references and Jerome's continuation of ' chronicle to align secular events with . Events post-377 AD, covering the late empire up to the sack of Rome in 410 and subsequent years, relied less on prior texts and more on contemporary reports, including consular annals like the Consularia Constantinopolitana. The method emphasized selective compilation over original research, prioritizing brevity and polemical utility at Augustine's behest to counter pagan attributions of Rome's woes to . Orosius structured the seven books thematically by era—early world history, Assyrian and Greek phases, Roman foundation through —juxtaposing pagan-era disasters (wars, plagues, famines) against relative Christian-era stability to underscore providential judgment, often tallying casualties and omitting favorable pagan achievements. This rapid assembly, likely completed in under a year circa 417-418, favored rhetorical persuasion through accumulation of examples rather than critical analysis of sources, resulting in occasional inaccuracies from misreadings or conflations.

Universalism and Christian Providence

Orosius's Historiae Adversus Paganos, composed between 417 and 418 AD, marks the earliest extant Christian universal history, extending from the biblical Creation—placed roughly 5199 years prior to Christ's birth—to contemporary events in 417 AD. This expansive chronological framework synchronizes sacred scriptures with classical sources, such as and , to forge a cohesive linear that encompasses , , , and the Mediterranean world, rejecting pagan cyclical models in favor of a divinely ordained progression toward Christian fulfillment. The structure revolves around the four successive world empires foretold in the —Babylonian, Carthaginian, Macedonian, and —with elevated as the final, providentially sustained monarchy, geographically and temporally aligned for Christ's under (r. 27 BC–14 AD). Orosius delineates three principal epochs: from Creation to Rome's founding in 753 BC, from the founding to the Nativity, and from Christ's birth onward, highlighting westward expansion as a marker of divine intent, wherein pagan empires' internal miseries and conquests (e.g., over 120 years for Spain's subjugation) contrast with role in disseminating . Divine providence forms the interpretive core, positing as the sovereign director of events, where triumphs reward and disasters correct , yet with a post-Incarnation amelioration: Orosius quantifies pre-Christian eras as rife with protracted wars (e.g., enumerating over 1,000 years of global conflicts before Augustus's pax) versus fewer, shorter ones thereafter, attributing this shift to Christianity's restraining influence on human sin. The Visigothic sack of Rome in 410 AD exemplifies this providential lens: not a refutation of Christian efficacy but a merciful purge of residual , with churches as divinely protected refuges that minimized casualties among the faithful, invoking scriptural motifs like the sieving of the righteous ( 9:9). Emperors such as (r. 379–395 AD) embody providential agency, their successes—like the bloodless rout at the Frigidus River in 394 AD via miraculous winds—subordinating imperial power to God's will, rather than human strategy. In theological contrast to Augustine's De Civitate Dei, which sustains dualism between earthly transience and heavenly eternity, Orosius adopts an optimistic wherein Christian endures as a terrestrial extension of providence, fostering and imperial cohesion under , while critiquing pre-Christian history's unchecked brutality as evidence of divine forbearance yielding to .

Geography and Causal Explanations

Orosius structures the opening of his Historiae Adversus Paganos (c. 417–418 CE) around a geographical that divides the inhabited world (oikoumene) into three continents— occupying half the globe, with and (Africa) sharing the remainder equally—drawing primarily from classical authorities like and , supplemented by biblical and contemporary references. This schematic, non-innovative compilation reflects late antique clerical knowledge rather than original exploration, emphasizing interconnected regions under Roman hegemony to frame his universal history from creation to the early fifth century. By cataloging diverse peoples, climates, and terrains—from steppes to Ethiopian deserts—Orosius underscores the global scope of human suffering, preempting pagan arguments that recent calamities like the 410 CE sack of Rome were uniquely Christian-era afflictions. Geographically, Orosius integrates spatial details into his narrative to highlight causal patterns of , portraying disasters as distributed across latitudes and empires rather than localized to imperial decline; for instance, he parallels Carthaginian and Roman sieges with floods in India and earthquakes in Asia Minor to demonstrate pre-Christian precedents. This approach subordinates empirical to historiographical utility, using it less for cartographic precision than for illustrating the world's unity under God's oversight, where physical barriers like the Atlantic or fail to isolate regions from providential judgments. In causal explanations, Orosius prioritizes divine providence as the primary mover, interpreting wars, plagues, and invasions—such as the 390 BCE Gallic sack of Rome or the 378 CE Battle of Adrianople—as orchestrated by God to punish idolatry, curb hubris, or pave the way for Christian expansion, while acknowledging secondary human and natural factors like military tactics or seismic activity. Unlike pagan historians' reliance on fortuna or cyclical necessity, his linear teleology posits history as a directed sequence culminating in Christ's advent, with events like Alexander's conquests or Attila's campaigns serving God's corrective or redemptive aims rather than autonomous geopolitical forces. This fusion of sacred causality with secular narration defends Christianity by cataloging greater pagan-era tolls—e.g., over four million deaths in the Second Punic War—quantified to refute claims of imperial decay under the faith.

Narrative Style and Selection of Events

Orosius adopts a concise and accumulative narrative style in the Historiae Adversus Paganos, structuring the work as a chronological universal history from the biblical to 417 AD, divided into seven books that parallel the ages of world history while emphasizing rhetorical persuasion over elaborate literary flourish. Influenced by classical models yet adapted for , he employs exempla—primarily negative instances of calamity and vice—to build a cumulative case against pagan critiques, interspersing brief digressions and providential interpretations rather than sustained dramatic . This approach yields a functional that prioritizes evidentiary density, with short entries on events often reduced to key facts, dates, and casualty figures to underscore patterns of or mercy. His selection of events is rigorously apologetic, deliberately curating material to illustrate that pre-Christian eras were marred by incessant and severe disasters—such as the , where he tallies over 1 million Roman deaths—or moral depravities, while minimizing or contextualizing afflictions under as attenuated by providence. For example, in contrasting ancient sacks of cities like Syracuse in 212 BC (with widespread slaughter and enslavement) to the Gothic in 410 AD, Orosius highlights the latter's brevity, lack of mass rape or torture, and rapid restoration, claiming fewer than 1,000 casualties amid a population of 800,000, to argue Christian times are comparatively benign. He omits or downplays intra-Christian conflicts and focuses on triumphs like imperial conversions, drawing from pagan sources (e.g., for Republican horrors) and Christian chronicles (e.g., for ecclesiastical history) but excerpting selectively to impose a teleological arc toward redemption. This method involves occasional direct copying from antecedents with interpretive twists, such as attributing pagan defeats to rather than Roman valor, thereby subverting classical narratives of imperial glory in favor of a pessimistic view of antiquity's "unimproved" state. The result is a that, while comprehensive in scope, privileges causal explanations rooted in and grace over neutral , using quantification (e.g., enumerating drowned in floods or slain in battles) to lend empirical weight to theological claims.

Patriotism for Rome and Hispania

Orosius's Historiae Adversus Paganos embodies a staunch Roman patriotism, portraying the empire's expansion and endurance as manifestations of rather than mere human conquest. He systematically catalogs calamities afflicting and its provinces prior to —such as the Gallic sack of in 390 BC, the (264–146 BC), and civil strife under Marius and (88–82 BC)—to refute pagan assertions that Christian abandonment of traditional gods caused contemporary woes like the Visigothic sack of Rome in 410 AD. By emphasizing that 's greatest triumphs, including the subjugation of and the stabilization under emperors like (r. 379–395), occurred amid recurrent disasters, Orosius affirms the empire's resilience and moral legitimacy, framing its Christian phase as a culmination of God's plan for universal order. This approach reflects a provincial's loyal embrace of Roman identity, subordinating critiques of imperial excess to a of providential progress. Complementing his imperial allegiance, Orosius exhibits pronounced pride in , his birthplace in the province of near Bracara Augusta (modern ), by elevating Iberian events within the broader Roman chronicle. In book 5, chapter 1, he personifies provinces to "speak" of their pre-Christian tribulations, stating "edat Hispania sententiam suam" ("let give its opinion"), before detailing two centuries of relentless warfare in the peninsula—from the (82–72 BC) onward—where locals irrigated their fields with blood yet repelled invaders house by house. He spotlights Iberian resistance in episodes like the siege of (134–133 BC) and the (29–19 BC), portraying them not as futile rebellions but as integral to Rome's civilizing dominion and provincial fortitude. This selective emphasis underscores a "fidelismo"—a faithful localism—wherein contributions affirm rather than challenge Roman supremacy, blending regional heritage with unwavering loyalty to the empire.

Philosophical and Theological Themes

Optimism Versus Pessimism in History

Orosius' Historiae Adversus Paganos, composed around 417 AD, adopts an framework for interpreting , positing that the advent of marked a providential improvement in human affairs despite ongoing tribulations. This stance directly rebuts the of pagan intellectuals, such as Rutilius Namatianus, who blamed Christian abandonment of ancestral cults for calamities like the Visigothic sack of Rome on August 24, 410 AD, which killed thousands and displaced many residents. Orosius counters by compiling of far graver pre-Christian disasters, arguing that pagan antiquity was rife with incessant wars, famines, and plagues that dwarfed contemporary woes in scale and frequency. Central to this optimism is Orosius' quantification of suffering to demonstrate Christianity's mitigating role; for instance, he details how the three (264–146 BC) alone claimed over 270,000 Roman lives alongside vast civilian tolls, exceeding the aggregated casualties of major Christian-era conflicts up to his time, such as the Gothic incursions under Alaric, which he minimizes as relatively restrained with limited bloodshed. In Book VII, he catalogs the reigns of Christian emperors from Constantine I (r. 306–337 AD) onward as periods of relative stability, attributing reduced warfare to divine favor extended through the Church, even amid barbarian pressures, and projecting future pacification of invaders via Christian conversion. This empirical tallying—drawing from sources like and —serves not mere but a theological assertion that progresses under God's , with Christ's inaugurating an era of tempered judgment rather than unmitigated decline. Scholars note Orosius' divergence from Augustine's De Civitate Dei (begun 413 AD), where the latter maintains a about the earthly city's inevitable strife, viewing temporal events as secondary to eternal dualism between the cities of and man. Orosius, by contrast, integrates secular history more affirmatively into salvation narrative, expressing confidence in Christianity's societal benefits—like curbing imperial excesses and fostering mercy—without Augustine's eschatological reservation, though both share . This , tempered by acknowledgment of sin-induced setbacks like Arian heresies, reflects Orosius' Hispano-Roman context amid fifth-century upheavals, yet prioritizes causal realism in divine intervention over fatalistic decay. Critics like Peter van Nuffelen argue this rhetoric avoids naive triumphalism by rhetorically balancing exempla of mercy and judgment, underscoring history's didactic purpose under providence.

Defense of Christianity Against Pagan Critiques

Paulus Orosius wrote Historiae Adversus Paganos in 416–417 AD as a historical supplement to Augustine of Hippo's City of God, specifically to refute pagan claims that 's rise had angered the traditional gods, causing calamities like the Visigothic sack of Rome in 410 AD. Pagans, including figures like Rutilius Namatianus, argued that abandoning sacrifices and temples had revoked divine protection over the empire. Orosius countered by compiling evidence of recurrent disasters throughout pre-Christian history, asserting that such events were not novel but chronic under , often more severe in scale. Orosius systematically cataloged wars, plagues, famines, and natural disasters from antiquity to his era, emphasizing their frequency and intensity before Christ's birth. For instance, he detailed the Carthaginian plague that killed 600,000, the collapse of the amphitheater claiming over 20,000 lives, and fires ravaging 14 districts of , all occurring under pagan rule. In Book III, he highlighted prior sacks of —such as by the in 390 BC and others—demonstrating that invasions predated Christianity and were not uniquely tied to its adoption. He argued these afflictions stemmed from human sin and , not the neglect of pagan deities, as God's providence governed history independently of Roman rituals. In contrasting eras, Orosius claimed the Christian period brought relative mitigation: the Pax Romana under coincided with Christ's incarnation, transforming imperial peace into divine favor rather than mere pagan fortune. Despite persecutions like Nero's fire or the Jewish War's toll of up to 1.1 million, he posited fewer empire-wide wars post-Constantine and argued expanded Rome's borders while converting barbarians, benefiting the state more than harming it. The 410 sack, he noted, was milder—sparing citizens and churches—compared to ancient precedents, underscoring God's mercy under the new faith. Theologically, Orosius viewed calamities as corrective punishments for , with offering and providence's ultimate optimism over pagan .

Relationship to Augustine's Theology

Paulus Orosius, a Hispano-Roman , established a close theological rapport with during his visit to in 414 AD, seeking guidance on doctrinal controversies including and . Augustine, recognizing Orosius's zeal, commissioned him to compile a historical narrative demonstrating that Rome's recent calamities, such as the Gothic sack of 410 AD, were not unprecedented or attributable to Christianity's rise, thereby supplementing the philosophical arguments in Augustine's De Civitate Dei (City of God). This directive aligned Orosius's Historiae Adversus Paganos (completed circa 417 AD) with Augustine's core theological framework, particularly the assertion of governing human affairs irrespective of religious shifts. Theologically, Orosius mirrored Augustine's emphasis on God's over history, portraying events from creation to his era as orchestrated to fulfill divine and mercy, with serving as a mitigating force against pagan-era excesses like widespread and imperial cruelties. Both rejected pagan causal attributions of disasters to Christian abandonment of traditional gods, insisting instead on scriptural precedents for as providential or , as seen in Orosius's enumeration of pre-Christian wars and plagues exceeding fifth-century scales in mortality. Augustine explicitly endorsed this approach in correspondence, praising Orosius's work for its utility in countering detractors while aligning with his own rejection of historical determinism tied to Roman or pagan rites. Notwithstanding these convergences, Orosius diverged from Augustine in tone and eschatological nuance, evincing a more sanguine view of temporal progress under Christian auspices—depicting the empire's Christian phase as engendering relative and moral amelioration—contrasting Augustine's insistence on the perpetual strife between and the earthly polity, unmitigated by imperial conversion. This optimism in Orosius, who integrated Roman patriotism with without Augustine's radical devaluation of the saeculum, reflects an adaptation rather than strict adherence, potentially diluting Augustine's dualistic by implying historical toward earthly felicity. Scholars note that while Orosius deferred to Augustine's authority, his narrative's brevity and selective emphasis prioritized apologetic efficacy over the latter's profound meditation on human fallenness and eternal orientation.

Criticisms and Controversies

Accusations of Bias and Superficiality

Scholars have accused Orosius' Historiae Adversus Paganos of exhibiting a pronounced theological , stemming from its explicit apologetic purpose to refute pagan claims that caused Rome's misfortunes, such as the sack of 410 CE. Commissioned by Augustine around 416–417 CE, the work selectively emphasizes calamities in pre-Christian eras—drawing from sources like and —to argue that disasters were more frequent and severe before 's advent, thereby portraying Christian providence as ameliorative. This approach has been critiqued as ideologically charged, prioritizing divine causation over empirical historical analysis and subordinating factual narrative to a defense of . Critics further contend that Orosius' bias manifests in his minimization of contemporary Christian-era woes, such as barbarian invasions, by framing them as milder than ancient precedents, which distorts comparative historical judgment. For instance, his portrayal of Roman emperors like Trajan receives favorable treatment despite pagan persecution, reflecting a pro-Christian lens that elevates monotheism's role in imperial stability. Such selectivity, while aligning with Augustine's City of God, has led to characterizations of the Historiae as a "thinly-veiled piece of theological commentary" rather than impartial historiography. Accusations of superficiality arise from the work's compressed scope, spanning approximately 2,500 years in seven books of roughly 200 pages in modern editions, resulting in a brisk compilation reliant on abridging predecessors without substantial original inquiry or causal depth. Peter Van Nuffelen observes that the Historiae is often dismissed in scholarship as a "superficial and ideologically charged compilation of earlier histories," lacking rhetorical sophistication or nuanced event interpretation beyond providential framing. Victoria Leonard notes the "strangely superficial" quality of its apologetics against paganism, where vehement defenses occur but without rigorous engagement with opponents' arguments. This superficial treatment extends to geographical and ethnographic digressions, which, while innovative for their time, serve primarily illustrative purposes rather than analytical ones, often recycling classical sources like with minimal adaptation. Critics argue this brevity fosters omissions and generalizations, such as underemphasizing internal in favor of external threats attributable to divine will, undermining the text's utility as a standalone historical record. Despite these charges, some modern reassessments defend as deliberate brevity suited to its polemical , though accusations persist due to its divergence from standards of detached chronicle-keeping evident in contemporaries like .

Discrepancies with Augustine

Orosius's Historiae adversus paganos, composed around 417 CE at Augustine's urging, diverges from Augustine's De civitate Dei (City of God, written 413–426 CE) in its optimistic portrayal of historical progress under Christian influence, contrasting Augustine's more restrained view of earthly achievements. While both works defend Christianity against pagan accusations that it precipitated Rome's misfortunes, Orosius emphasizes the Church as a transformative agent mitigating disasters and fostering societal improvement, whereas Augustine subordinates church history to a broader devaluation of temporal events, seeing human endeavors as transient and intermixed with sin. A core discrepancy lies in their assessments of Rome's enduring role. Orosius upholds Rome's imperial power as providentially sustained and compatible with Christian expansion, portraying its history as culminating in relative felicity post-Constantine, which aligns with an unorthodox about earthly . Augustine, however, radically questions the stability of any earthly , including , viewing it as inevitably flawed and subject to rather than progressive fulfillment. Theological emphases on providence further highlight tensions: Orosius depicts divine intervention as a predictable guide elevating Roman affairs and Christian temporal success, attributing eras of peace explicitly to Christ's advent over pagan figures like . In contrast, Augustine stresses the unpredictability of historical contingencies, cautioning against overinterpreting earthly events as direct proofs of divine favor, and integrates a dualistic framework of the heavenly and earthly cities without Orosius's accent on institutional Church efficacy. These differences reflect Orosius's adaptation of Augustine's framework into a more accessible, narrative-driven , yet scholars note that Augustine's influence did not fully temper Orosius's Hispano-Roman patriotism or his departure from Augustinian ambivalence toward secular glory. Augustine's later revisions to City of God engage Orosius's work selectively, incorporating its historical data while critiquing its interpretive optimism, underscoring their intellectual proximity amid substantive variances.

Modern Debates on Historical Accuracy

Modern scholars continue to debate the factual reliability of Orosius's Historiae adversus paganos, weighing its value as a historical source against its overt theological agenda, which prioritized demonstrating the relative mildness of calamities under Christian rule compared to pagan antiquity. Completed around 418 AD, the work compiles events from creation to Orosius's era, drawing primarily from pagan historians like and Christian chronographers like , but often through selective omission, compression, or interpretive reframing to support providential claims. This approach, while innovative for its universal scope, invites scrutiny for potential distortions, as Orosius admits in his to writing under time at Augustine's request, limiting exhaustive verification. Traditional critiques, originating with Enlightenment figures like and persisting into the , dismiss Orosius as superficial and unreliable, citing hasty composition, uncritical source dependence, and ideological bias that subordinated empirical detail to . For instance, highlighted Orosius's exaggeration of pre-Christian disasters—such as inflating the scale of ancient wars or plagues—to contrast them favorably with contemporary events like the 410 sack of Rome, arguing this undermined factual integrity. 19th- and early 20th-century scholars echoed this, faulting chronological inconsistencies, such as misalignments in synchronizing Roman and biblical timelines, and factual slips like erroneous attributions of events to wrong emperors, attributing them to Orosius's prioritization of moral causation over precise annalism. These views portray the Historiae as more pamphlet than history, with accuracy sacrificed for persuasion, rendering it of limited use for reconstructing events without cross-verification. Countering this, late 20th- and 21st-century reassessments defend Orosius's accuracy within his rhetorical framework, arguing that perceived errors reflect deliberate generic blending—history with and —rather than incompetence or deceit. Peter Van Nuffelen contends that Orosius actively reshaped sources like not through blind copying but via sophisticated juxtaposition and abbreviation to forge a cohesive of divine oversight, preserving core facts while adapting them for anti-pagan ; for example, his handling of Roman kings diverges from in emphasis but retains verifiable outlines. Victoria Leonard extends this by positing that Orosius intentionally "defied" linear historical progress, presenting an "unimproved past" to underscore eschatological stasis under , where minor factual liberties served higher truths about unchanging sin's consequences—a aligned with Augustine's typology rather than modern . These scholars, drawing on intertextual analysis, maintain that Orosius's reliability holds for broad patterns (e.g., disaster frequencies corroborated by and parallels in or Prosper), but falters in minutiae where theology overrides, urging readers to assess claims contextually rather than by forensic standards. Ongoing debates hinge on : while Orosius's dependence on intermediaries introduces transmission errors (e.g., Eusebius's chronography yielding inflated ancient death tolls), digital and comparative studies reveal fewer outright fabrications than selective silences, such as downplaying intra-Christian conflicts. Critics like those in Gibbonian tradition persist in viewing this as systemic unreliability, especially amid academia's occasional overemphasis on ideological intent at truth's expense, yet proponents argue such charges undervalue late antique historiography's norms, where accuracy meant fidelity to divine patterns over archival precision. Ultimately, Orosius's work endures as a contested benchmark, valuable for attitudes toward the past but requiring supplementation from primary evidence like inscriptions or for verifiable details.

Legacy and Influence

Medieval Transmission and Adaptations

The Historiae adversus paganos experienced robust transmission across medieval Europe, with over 245 manuscripts and fragments preserved from the 6th to the 16th centuries. The earliest surviving example, a manuscript from northern Italy (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, pl. 65.1), dates to the 6th century, followed by others such as a late 7th- or early 8th-century copy in Brussels (Bibliothèque Royale, 19609). Its popularity stemmed from its concise universal history framework and Christian apologetic stance, making it a staple in monastic scriptoria and educational curricula. During the , Orosius's text saw renewed copying and adaptation, including epitomes like the one produced at Tours (, VLQ 20), which highlighted themes of empire, biblical typology, and divine favor in . This period amplified its dissemination, influencing perceptions of Roman imperial legacy and Christian providence, as evidenced in Charlemagne's cultural reception of Augustan ideals derived from Orosius. A prominent vernacular adaptation emerged in Anglo-Saxon England with the Old English Orosius, composed in around 862–930 CE by an anonymous translator. This version condensed the original seven books into six, omitting or merging sections while expanding the geographical preface with 9th-century ethnographic details, notably the voyages of to and Wulfstan to the Baltic. Such modifications localized the Mediterranean-focused narrative for a northern audience, underscoring Orosius's flexibility in medieval chronicle-writing and map-making traditions. Orosius's introductory world description profoundly shaped early medieval geography, circulating widely and informing works until of Seville's Etymologies in the offered an updated synthesis. Chroniclers like accessed and referenced Orosius for historical schemata, adapting its providential view of antiquity into Visigothic and broader European historiographical frameworks.

Impact on Renaissance and Enlightenment Historiography

Orosius's Historiae adversus paganos, completed around 417 CE, provided a model of universal history that extended from biblical creation to contemporary events, emphasizing and comparative chronology to argue for Christianity's moral superiority. This framework influenced early humanists seeking to reconcile with Christian , notably (1304–1374), who drew on Orosius's chronological structure in works like Rerum memorandarum libri to frame history as a progression toward moral and cultural renewal. 's selective citations of Orosius, often via intermediaries like , reflect a transitional use of the text to bolster arguments for Italy's historical continuity from , though he critiqued its overly optimistic portrayal of post-Christian eras. Similarly, incorporated Orosius's providential interpretations in the and De monarchia, adapting them to envision universal empire under Christian auspices. Despite this, Orosius's direct sway diminished amid humanism's revival of pagan sources like and , which prioritized secular virtú over ; his work was among the first historical texts printed in 1471, ensuring availability but yielding to more "authentic" classical narratives. Spanish and Italian chroniclers, influenced by Orosian , integrated it into national historiographies, as seen in adaptations emphasizing imperial continuity from to contemporary monarchies. In the Enlightenment, Orosius's legacy shifted from interpretive authority to factual repository, as historians embraced empirical over providentialism. (1737–1794), in The History of the Decline and Fall of the (1776–1789), frequently cited Orosius for early events—such as Gothic invasions and Theodosian policies—yet dismissed his apologetic as credulous, contrasting it with of Rome's internal decay independent of Christian . 's annotations reveal Orosius as a biased source, useful for data but emblematic of the "superstition" he critiqued in late antiquity's . This selective appropriation underscores Enlightenment historiography's causal realism, prioritizing socioeconomic and political factors over divine intervention, though Orosius's comprehensive scope prefigured universal histories like Voltaire's Essai sur les mœurs (), which echoed its global purview while secularizing causal explanations.

Role in Arabic and Islamic Scholarship

The Historiae adversus paganos of Paulus Orosius was translated and adapted into Arabic as the Kitāb Hurūšiyūš during the 10th century in , under the of . This version, produced likely through collaboration between Muslim and Christian scholars, restructured the original Latin text to align with Islamic historiographical conventions, omitting or reframing elements incompatible with Qur'anic narratives while preserving Orosius's providential view of history. The adaptation emphasized chronological accounts from biblical times through the early Christian era, integrating Orosius's data on ancient empires, geography, and events as a supplement to Islamic sources like the works of . Patronage from caliphs such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān III (r. 912–961) or al-Ḥakam II (r. 961–976) facilitated the translation, reflecting Córdoba's intellectual milieu where Christian texts were mined for empirical details on the pre-Islamic world to bolster caliphal legitimacy and universal historical claims. The Kitāb Hurūšiyūš served as a primary conduit for late antique Latin historiography into Islamic scholarship, offering detailed timelines and ethnographical insights absent in Greek translations like those of Josephus or Eusebius, which dominated earlier Abbasid efforts. Its influence extended to Andalusian chroniclers, who drew upon it for synchronizing Islamic, biblical, and Roman chronologies, thus embedding Orosius's framework—originally a defense of Christianity against pagan attributions of calamity—into Muslim interpretations of cyclical history and divine justice. In broader Islamic historiography, the Arabic Orosius exerted a lasting impact in the western Islamic world, informing works on ancient kings and prophets up to the and shaping perceptions of Roman decline as a prelude to Islamic ascendancy, though adapted to affirm tawḥīd (divine unity) over Christian . Manuscripts of the text circulated in and , with annotations revealing scholarly debates on Orosius's reliability for verifying timelines or geographical extents of ancient realms, underscoring its role as a pragmatic, if selectively interpreted, repository of non-Islamic empirical data. This transmission highlights al-Andalus's unique position in bridging Latin Christian and Islamic intellectual traditions, distinct from the more Hellenocentric Abbasid translations.

Contemporary Reassessments

In the early , a resurgence in Orosian scholarship prompted a reevaluation of Paulus Orosius's Historiae adversus paganos, shifting from longstanding dismissals of the work as superficial or theologically driven propaganda to recognition of its rhetorical sophistication within late antique traditions. Peter van Nuffelen's 2012 analysis argues that Orosius employed classical rhetorical conventions—such as selective emphasis on disasters and moral exempla—not merely to advance Augustine's but to construct a coherent universal history that integrated pagan sources like and Eutropius with Christian providentialism, thereby subverting expectations of linear improvement in human affairs. This reassessment posits Orosius as a competent of Greco-Roman , rather than a naïve compiler, though his distortions of chronology and causation remain evident to prioritize divine judgment over empirical sequence. Victoria Leonard's 2022 monograph further challenges the caricature of Orosius as historically incompetent, interpreting his Historiae as a deliberate "defiance" of progressive historical narratives by reordering time to underscore persistent human misery predating , thus countering pagan attributions of Rome's 410 sack to Christian abandonment of traditional gods. contends that Orosius's willingness to manipulate timelines—evident in amplified accounts of pre-Christian calamities like the Gallic sack of Rome in 390 BCE—served a theological realism, portraying history as cyclical degradation relieved only by Christian revelation, even at the expense of factual precision. Recent studies, such as those examining his treatment of Roman kings or , reinforce this view by highlighting Orosius's selective sourcing to align imperial expansions with moral decline, integrating empirical data from classical annals while subordinating it to causal interpretations of . Despite these rehabilitations, debates persist on Orosius's reliability, with scholars noting factual errors—like inflated casualty figures in pre-Christian wars—and a Hispano-centric reflecting his origins, which modern evaluators attribute less to than to rhetorical strategy in a post-410 context of imperial crisis. These reassessments underscore Orosius's role as a bridge between pagan universal histories and medieval chronicles, valuing his work for illuminating early Christian responses to and decline rather than as a verbatim record.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.