Orosius Oddities: Fanboying the Worst (Western) Roman Emperor

Back in September 2020, I took a stab at listing my choices for the Worst Western Roman Emperor:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2020/09/04/the-five-worst-western-roman-emperors/

Number One, of course, is Dear Old Honorius. A chap one might trust with poultry, but not the western half of a vast European/Mediterranean Empire. Someone who attains the status of godawful without even a grain of larger-than-life glamour – Honorius lacks the giggling malevolence of a Caligula or a Commodus. He was just a dull man utterly out of his depth, an Emperor defined by his inability to do anything as the Empire faced existential crisis after existential crisis. A James Buchanan of the Ancient World, only without the trousers (famously so), and one subject to the scathing anecdote from later Byzantine historian, Procopius:

“At that time they say that the Emperor Honorius in Ravenna received the message from one of the eunuchs, evidently a keeper of the poultry, that Rome had perished. And he cried out and said, ‘And yet it has just eaten from my hands!’ For he had a very large cock, Rome by name; and the eunuch comprehending his words said that it was the city of Rome which had perished at the hands of Alaric, and the emperor with a sigh of relief answered quickly: ‘But I thought that my fowl Rome had perished.’ So great, they say, was the folly with which this emperor was possessed.”

But I have now discovered that even Honorius has his loyal historiographical fans. It’s such an amusing discovery, I thought I would comment on it. Hence today’s post.

Specifically, I am referring to The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, by Paulus Orosius (417), a rather meaty Classical text I have just finished reading. An online English translation can be found here: http://www.attalus.org/info/orosius.html

Some context is probably in order. Orosius was a Christian Clergyman, writing in the early fifth century. The Roman Empire had recently converted to Christianity under Theodosius, only for Alaric and his merry bunch of Goths to sack Rome in A.D. 410 – the first such sack in eight centuries. The residual pagans of the time argued that this humiliation was punishment for Rome abandoning the old ways… so the Christians got to work, arguing that Alaric’s Sack had nothing to do with Christianity.

St Augustine accordingly wrote The City of God (426), where he argued that there is a Heavenly City and an Earthly City. The Earthly City was decadent and corrupt, and so fell. The Heavenly City, the “real” City, did not. Et cetera. Orosius, one of Augustine’s colleagues, embarked on a similar project. But his project was not about philosophy, but rather about history. Specifically, he wrote a “universal” history, from the Babylonians to his own time, arguing the following:

  • Wars and calamities and earthquakes and plagues have always been with us.
  • These disasters were worse when pagans ruled the Empire (c.f. Orosius compares the Sack of Rome by Brennus’ Gauls in 389 B.C. with that of Alaric’s Goths in A.D. 410 – Brennus’ one was nastier).
  • Rome has brutalised the world for centuries with its endless wars. Alaric was Rome’s comeuppance from the Christian God, not a punishment from Jupiter.
  • Imperial calamities during the pagan era can be linked to persecution of Christians (c.f. Decius’ persecution of Christians is argued to have contributed to the horrors of the mid-Third Century).
  • Imperial calamities during the Christian era can be considered Divine Punishments for heresy, specifically certain Emperors listening to Arius.
  • If we all just accept a proper Christian Empire, and forego war, we can all live together in harmony. It’s all part of the Plan.

Well and good (or not – much worse was coming for the Romans in ensuing decades). But how does this tie-in with Honorius?

Well, Honorius was the son of Theodosius, the fellow who enforced Christianity on the Empire. And, at the time Orosius was writing, Honorius was (in theory) warming the Western Throne. He is thus included in the history, presented as presiding over a competent regime, with the Emperor’s own personal piety ensuring that Rome is smiled upon by fortune:

Hence God, the just steward of the human race, willed that the pagan enemy should perish and allowed the Christian enemy to prevail, in order that the pagan and blaspheming Romans might be thrown into confusion by the death of the one and punished by the invasion of the other. In particular, the holy faith and continence of the emperor Honorius, remarkable in a ruler, merited no small measure of divine mercy.  

This entire series of open usurpers or disobedient generals was, as I have said, overcome by the exceptional piety and good fortune of the emperor Honorius and by the great diligence and quickness of Constantius. Their success was deserved because in those days, by the order of Honorius and the aid of Constantius, peace and unity were restored to the Catholic Church throughout Africa, and the Body of Christ, which we ourselves constitute, was healed by the closing of the schism.

That’s a far kinder assessment of the Emperor than anything written by any historian since. But Orosius does not stop there. He also has something to say about Stilicho, the fellow running around with the armies, desperately trying to hold the West together. Specifically, Stilicho is portrayed as an ambitious shit-weasel, and his execution in 408 as eminently justified:

Meanwhile Count Stilicho, who was sprung from the Vandals, that unwarlike, greedy, treacherous, and crafty race, thought it insufficient that he had imperial power under the nominal emperor, and tried by every possible means to place upon the throne his own son Eucherius. According to common report, the latter had been planning the persecution of the Christians from the time when he was a boy and still a private citizen. Hence, when Alaric and the whole Gothic nation begged humbly and straightforwardly for peace on very favourable terms and also for some place to settle, Stilicho supported them by a secret alliance, but in the name of the state refused them the opportunity of either making war or peace, reserving them to wear down and to intimidate the state. 

Moreover, other nations irresistible in numbers and might who are now oppressing the provinces of Gaul and Spain (namely, the Alans, Suebi, and Vandals, as well as the Burgundians who were driven on by the same movement) were induced by Stilicho to take arms on their own initiative and were aroused when once their fear of Rome was removed. Stilicho’s plan was to batter the Rhine frontier and strike against the two Gauls. This wretched man hoped that in this dangerous situation he could thereby wrest the imperial dignity from his son-in-law and give it to his son, and that it would be as easy to repress the barbarian nations as it was to arouse them. 

When the character of these crimes was openly revealed to the emperor Honorius and to the Roman army, the soldiers very properly mutinied and killed Stilicho, who, in order to clothe one boy with the royal purple, had imperilled the blood of the whole human race. Eucherius was also slain, who for the sake of gaining the favour of the pagans had threatened that he would celebrate the beginning of his reign by the restoration of the temples and by the overthrow of the churches. Several accomplices also were punished for their wicked plots. Thus the churches of Christ and the devout emperor were freed as well as avenged with very little trouble and with the punishment of but a few persons.

Now, Stilicho might have been an ambitious shit-weasel in truth. But he was also a competent shit-weasel. Which is more than can be said for anyone else at the time. Orosius plays into ugly xenophobia via his reference to Stilicho’s Vandal heritage, and utterly glosses over the cruel and idiotic massacre of the foederati in the aftermath of Stilicho’s fall. An action that would cost the Romans dearly – these are the seeds of the 410 Sack.

But to be fair, we don’t have to scratch our heads at this praise for such a godawful Emperor. There are a couple of good reasons for why Orosius might be more favourable towards Honorius than, say, Procopius.

Procopius (writing a good century later) was hunting around for the imbecile responsible for letting the West collapse. And, frankly, Honorius is as good a pick as any, so far as that goes. Orosius, by contrast, has a different objective – he’s trying to reassure the well-heeled citizens of Rome that their newfound religious faith is not the cause of this humiliating disaster. Honorius was from an impeccably Christian family, with none of that nasty Arius-influence (Orosius blames Arianism for Valens at Adrianople). Augustine conveniently shifts his focus towards theology and philosophy, but Orosius is addressing more worldy matters. Ergo, that means running public relations cover for the regime – to some degree.

Moreover, Honorius was the incumbent Emperor. The man himself might have been a drooling fool, but the Imperial court was vicious, and life was cheap in this era. Excessive criticism of authority, even the figurehead, might have been injurious to one’s health – though seeing as Orosius was well-connected in the Imperial religious community, he might have been safer than most. We know that Augustine had a very low opinion of the Empire, while Ambrose of Milan defying Theodosius is less than thirty years removed from Orosius’ book. But praising the incumbent Emperor is generally the safer political move, especially when he’s religiously acceptable, and there are others out there (residual pagans and Arius-followers) who might cause trouble.

And speaking of such people, Orosius’ overarching goal with this work remains clear. He’s fighting a rhetorical battle with the residual pagans, to the extent of cheerfully quoting Claudian the (pagan) poet in praise of Honorius. One is reminded of nothing so much as Parliamentary Question Time, with one side playing petty ‘gotcha’ against their political opponents.

I do not taunt those who disparage us. Let them point out a single war in the history of Rome undertaken from such conscientious and compelling motives, carried out with such divine good fortune, stilled with such merciful kindness, one in which the battle did not entail heavy losses nor the victory a bloody revenge. Then perhaps I may admit that these blessed victories were not the rewards of the faith of a Christian general. Yet I am not anxious about this testimony of theirs, since one of their own number, a distinguished poet but a most obstinate pagan, has borne witness both to God and to man in these verses:

  O thou much beloved of God! for whom the sky does battle,
  For whom the winds in concert heed the trumpet’s call.
        { Claudian, Panegyric on the third consulate of the Emperor Honorius, 96-8 }  

Claudian at least has the better excuse for praising Honorius. He’s a poet writing panegyrics for the Emperor in search of reward, and panegyrics are, by definition, cheesy – albeit in encountering a panegyric in praise of Honorius, I am very much reminded of Robert Burns’ ‘To a Louse’.

But in one of those strange quirks of history, Orosius’ text endured. The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans was apparently a major source for Medieval knowledge of the Classical World. With Western Europe losing the ability to read Greek, it’s very likely that the educated classes of the Medieval West learned of Honorius from the Latin-writing Orosius, rather than Greek-writing Procopius… which means that for centuries after his death, the Worst Emperor of the Western Empire likely had a far better press than he deserved. The thing about historical reputations is that they are so dependent on what survives.

Leave a comment