Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

HISTORY
of Nazianzus. Most of these, as well as the polemical works which he wrote
during his sojourn in Palestine, fall outside the scope of the present study. His
Ecclesiastical history, however, calls for some notice. Rufinus was induced some
time in the first decade of the fifth century by Chromatius bishop of Aquileia to
translate the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, as nothing comparable existed in
Latin. He abbreviated his original text, omitted many of the documents which it
cited, and added two books of his own covering the period from 324 to 395. The
translation is very free, and the style simple and unrhetorical, as befitted what
was in essence a technical work. The two final books are based on Rufinus' own
recollections and on the writings of the fourth-century church Fathers. In
careful scrutiny of sources and critical acumen Rufinus falls short of Eusebius.
He did however introduce a new genre into Latin literature.
About the same time or shortly afterwards Sulpicius Severus, a member of the
cultivated Gaulish aristocracy, educated at Bordeaux and a friend of Paulinus
of Nola, wrote a briefer but in some ways more original Christian history. His
Chronicle, in two books, covers the period from the creation to A.D. 400, and is
mainly devoted to biblical and church history. Sulpicius was a man of scholarly
habits, with a feeling for the importance to the historian of documents. Inevitably
he turned to Eusebius for much of his material. But he also drew on pagan
historians and on his own very wide general reading. As befits the fellowcountryman,
and perhaps even the pupil, of Ausonius, he writes clear, classical
Latin. But his style is rather flat and undistinguished, without the panache
which Jerome succeeded in displaying even in writing dry catalogues. He
furnishes much useful information on events of his own lifetime.
On 24 August 410 the troops of Alaric the Visigoth captured and pillaged
Rome. The Goths remained in the city only three days. The damage and loss of
life were by ancient standards fairly light. Many of the better-off citizens had
long ago left the city and taken refuge in Sicily, Africa or the east. Yet the
reaction to the sack of Rome was out of all proportion to its real importance.
The impossible had happened, and men could no longer be sure of anything. In
far-off Bethlehem Jerome could no longer work on his Commentary on Ezekiel.
Quis crederet, he exclaims, ut totius orbis exstructa uictoriis Roma corrueret? ' Who
could believe that Rome, built upon victories over the whole world, could
collapse?' (/« E^ech. prol. in lib. 3, PL 25.75D). In a letter written at the same
time he asks Quid saluum est, si Roma perit? ' What is safe, if Rome perishes? *
(Epist. 123.16). Augustine's changing reaction to the catastrophic event can be
traced in the sermons which he preached in 410 to 412 to his congregation in
Hippo, which included many emigres from Italy. He began by counselling
asceticism, a passe-partout response to any difficult situation. But soon he turned
to examining the grounds for the belief in the universality and eternity of the
Roman empire.' Heaven and earth will pass away, according to the Gospel, and
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008