The Historians of Late Antiquity (18 page)

Despite the distractions of the quarrel with Jerome, Rufinus continued his translation work. Not long after completing his
Apology
, at the request of his friend, the bishop Chromatius of Aquileia, he began his translation of the
Ecclesiastical History
written by Eusebius (Barnes 1981; Grant 1980; Chesnut 1986: 1–174). In the preface Rufinus says that Chromatius hoped that reading church history would help assuage the fears of his flock in the face of the Gothic invasion of Italy in 402. Eusebius was the inventor of church history and of some of the features which successor church histories would incorporate, such as the liberal use of quoted documents and avoidance of invented speeches. Eusebius proclaimed in his preface that his themes would include bishops, heretics, Jews, and pagans. These remained the central themes for the successor ecclesiastical historians such as Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and Rufinus’ translation made this immensely influential genre accessible to the Latin west upon its publication in 402. Rufinus decided to add to Eusebius’ work himself, abridging the tenth book, adding information in that book on Gregory Thaumaturgus, and then writing an eleventh and twelfth book which brought the history down to the death of Theodosius I in 395.

After completing the
Ecclesiastical History
, Rufinus may have returned to Rome. The Origenist controversy had been overshadowed in the early 400s by the controversies surrounding John Chrysostom, which began in the east but soon spread to the west, and the climate at Rome had become more hospitable to Rufinus (Hammond 1977: 372–9). Rufinus’ friends were supporters of
John, and Rufinus’ translation of the anonymous
History of the Monks in Egypt
, which details the lives and careers of thirty-four desert fathers of Upper Egypt, may have been done in support of John and his monastic supporters (Jer.
ep
. 133). Rufinus must have translated it after completing his
Ecclesiastical History
, since it refers the reader to book 11 of that work.

Rufinus continued to translate the works of Origen, focusing on the homilies which Origen had written on numerous books of the Bible. If he had indeed returned to Rome, the absence of prefaces for some of these translations may be attributed to his desire to lie low and not flaunt his presence and his topics (Hammond 1977: 397). Again Rufinus adapted, shortened, and altered his translations to make them accessible and orthodox. He followed these translations with a translation of the
Recognitions
, falsely attributed to Pope Clement.

Between 405 and 408, Jerome and Rufinus continued to snipe at each other in the prefaces to their works. Rufinus criticized Jerome’s preference for the Hebrew over the Greek Bible and recalled his hypocrisy over his use of Origen, and Jerome accused Rufinus in scathing language of constant attacks on his own work and of mediocrity and illiteracy. Rufinus’ next work, an original
Commentary on the Benediction of the Twelve Patriarchs
, contains a pair of letters from Paulinus of Nola which serve as prefaces. The tone of the letters suggest that the two had been friendly for some time and that Paulinus was an ally of Rufinus in his struggle against Jerome (Hammond 1977: 412–21; Murphy 1956). Rufinus fled Rome with Pinian and Melania to escape the Gothic invasion of Italy which culminated in the sack of the city in 410. In his preface to a translation of Origen’s homilies on
Numbers
, he asks how one can write when he has seen “the destruction of cities and country, when he has had to flee from the dangers of the sea? … the barbarian was within our sight, he had burned the city of Rhegium,” and the only protection was the strait between Italy and Sicily. Rufinus thanks the abbot of Pinetum, Ursacius, for his help in transcribing the works under such difficult conditions, and says that he will soon turn to a translation of Origen’s homilies on
Deuteronomy
. But Rufinus died shortly after completing this translation. The news reached Jerome in the middle of 411, prompting his charming reflection that “the scorpion is buried and the many-headed hydra has ceased to hiss against us” (
comm. ad Ezech., pref
.). Other contemporaries were more charitable in their judgements, and his works found enthusiastic audiences continuously for centuries thereafter.

Work

Before considering the
Ecclesiastical History
in depth, a preliminary controversy must be addressed. Is Rufinus the author of the two books which continue Eusebius’ ten books, or are the last two books merely a translation from the Greek work of Gelasius of Caesarea? The relationship between the two works has dominated scholarship for much of the twentieth century (survey with bibliography in Amidon 1997: xiii–xvii), although there now seems to be a consensus that Rufinus’ history is original.

The work of Gelasius of Caesarea is entirely lost, but it is clear that he was the first historian to continue the work of Eusebius. In 1914, Anton Glas studied the fifth-century work of Gelasius of Cyzicus and the ninth-century work of George the Monk. These works cite Rufinus, impossibly, as the source of some material which occurred prior to the period which he covered in his history, and also attribute some information to “Gelasius or Rufinus” (Glas 1914). To Glas, these incorrect citations suggested that the two works had become confused, and by comparing Greek material from these later writers, which he assumed to be from Gelasius of Caesarea, with the Latin material of Rufinus, he argued that Rufinus had translated Gelasius. Photius believed that Gelasius, whom he had read, was a translation of Rufinus (
cod
. 89), but we know that Rufinus wrote in 401 or 402 and that Gelasius was dead by 400 (Jer.
ep
. 92). Therefore, any similarities which Photius saw in the works must be proof of Rufinus’ dependence upon Gelasius and not the other way around.

Many obstacles remained for those who claimed that Rufinus’ two books were simple transcriptions of Gelasius. Rufinus firmly claims that he himself is responsible for the material from Constantine to the death of Theodosius in the prologue to the work. There would appear to be no good reason for him to write deceptively. Even more telling are the comments of the fifth-century historian Socrates, who describes his use of Rufinus and criticizes his chronology (Soc. 2.1). It would surely be unprecedented for a Greek writer to forgo the use of the Greek original in favor of a Latin translation. Furthermore, the content of Rufinus’ work is not what we would expect from Gelasius. For example, Gelasius’ uncle and patron, Cyril of Jerusalem, is not presented in a wholly admirable light (10.24; Bihain 1962b). A large part of Rufinus’ second book concerns the monks of Egypt, whom Rufinus knew and had lived with. Gelasius, however, may never have even visited Egypt. Jacques Schamp administered the
coup de grâce
to the theories
which argued for substantial dependence of Rufinus upon Gelasius by a close reading of the fragments preserved by Photius which demonstrated that Gelasius’ history must have ended with the death of Arius in 335 and therefore could not have been Rufinus’ source for much of his work (Schamp 1987a, 1987b). It is certain, then, that Rufinus wrote the two books from the death of Constantine to the death of Theodosius I by himself, although he may have used Gelasius sparingly, as one of his many sources.

The original books of Rufinus have received the majority of scholarly attention, but it is worthwhile to provide a glimpse at Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius as well (Oulton 1928; Christensen 1989; Inglebert 1996: 334–9). Rufinus applies the same translation techniques to the work of Eusebius as he did for Origen. The translation is a paraphrase, with material altered for stylistic or doctrinal purposes. Rufinus’ task was complicated by the frequent obscurity or infelicity of the original Eusebian text, and by Eusebius’ penchant to wander into territory of questionable theological orthodoxy as judged by late-fourth-century standards. Rufinus, for example, translates Eusebius’ description of the Son as “second after the Holy Father” (1.2.9) as “the Lord Himself with Himself” in order to avoid Arianism, and in many other cases Rufinus adds a clarifying or explanatory note to ensure that the reader does not fall into a suspect Christology (Oulton 1928: 153–6). Rufinus claims that to translate the panegyrics of bishops in book 10 of Eusebius would be “superfluous” and would “add nothing to our knowledge,” but perhaps he truly sought to avoid presenting the Arian sentiments expressed in this section. He also suppresses doubts that Eusebius expressed about the canonicity of certain books of the New Testament (Oulton 1928: 156–8). Rufinus sometimes ignores or summarizes the documents which Eusebius reproduced, in keeping with the greater emphasis on narration which he will adopt for his two original books.

Rufinus’ alterations of Eusebius’ original text are so numerous that his translation has been described as “an independent piece of work” (Christensen 1989: 333). He frequently breaks up Eusebius’ long sentences into several smaller ones, avoids translating parts of Eusebius which he finds unclear or superfluous, and adds explanatory notes to clarify difficult material. At times, of course, such revision has the effect of substituting Rufinus’ own ideas about the progress of Christianity for those of Eusebius. In particular, Rufinus’ changes tend to emphasize the fourth-century concerns of church hierarchy and the importance
of heresy, and to de-emphasize the importance of martyrdoms (Inglebert 1996: 336).

Rufinus has also added some new information to Eusebius’ history (Oulton 1928: 158–74). In addition to the material in the tenth book on Gregory Thaumaturgus, Rufinus provides the original Latin of Tertullian in two places. Western pride perhaps inspires his additional comment that Tertullian was “the most noble of writers” (6.43). It is not surprising to learn that he expands upon Eusebius’ account of Origen, drawing from his own wide knowledge of the theologian. Personal knowledge allowed Rufinus to augment Eusebius by the addition of certain topographical and historical details. Rufinus also added details to Eusebius’ accounts of martyrdoms. Comparison between Rufinus’ account of the martyrdoms of Phileas and Philoromus and the extant
Acts
of the martyrs demonstrates that Rufinus had used these
Acts
as a source (8.9). Rufinus’ addition of significant details to other martyrdoms from Eusebius’ work may likewise depend on martyr
Acts
no longer extant.

Rufinus provides a brief preface to his translation. He addresses his remarks to Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, who had asked him to provide a distraction for the Aquileians, who are disturbed by the incursions of the Goths into Italy. Despite the dedication, the work does not seem to be particularly designed for the community at Aquileia, nor does Rufinus say that Chromatius had requested specifically an
Ecclesiastical History
. Rufinus may have already begun work on this historical translation and addendum before the request, which merely served as the proximate cause for its publication (Ventura 1992: 8–20). Rufinus expresses concern that his Latin skills may not be up to the task of the translation, but this should be understood as a conventional rather than a serious worry. Equally conventional is Rufinus’ claim that the material for his new books was drawn partly from the writings of others, and partly from his own memory. He concludes with a comparison of his work to the five loaves and two small fishes with which Jesus fed the multitude (John 6: 1–14): the ten books of Eusebius correspond to the loaves, and his two additional books correspond to the fish. Rufinus suggests that his work will nourish the faith of his readers as the loaves and fishes nourished their recipients.

The tenth book of the
Ecclesiastical History
, the first of Rufinus’ two books, is dominated by the struggles between those holding homoousian and homoiousian understandings of the Trinity. The other themes of Rufinus’ work are interspersed throughout the
main narrative of book 10. Among the topics treated are sketches of noteworthy holy men, struggles against paganism and Judaism, the expansion of Christianity into foreign territories, and a few mentions of secular events. All of these themes can also be found in book 11, although in different proportions. In this second book, the struggle against paganism provides the main theme. The tenth book culminates in the death of Julian and the failure of the plan he inspired to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. With the accession of Jovian which begins the eleventh book, Rufinus celebrates the return of the army and the state to Christianity. The history concludes with a series of decisive blows against paganism: the destruction of the temple of Serapis in Egypt, the destruction of other pagan shrines in Alexandria, and the defeat of the usurper Eugenius by the emperor Theodosius, which is portrayed as the victory of Christianity over paganism.

Françoise Thélamon, the premier modern interpreter of Rufinus’ historical work, has described the
Historia Ecclesiastica
as a “sacred history” (Thélamon 1979, 1981, 1992). Rufinus has carefully selected and framed his topics to demonstrate his belief that history provides evidence of the working of God in time, and that history has a progressive, if fitful, movement toward the fulfillment of a divine plan. Eusebius had described the divinely inspired spread of Christianity and the transformation of Christianity from persecuted religion to imperial power with the conversion of Constantine; Rufinus traces the spread of Christianity outside of the boundaries of the empire, and the conquest of its twin enemies, heresy and paganism, under the guidance of Theodosius.

Rufinus’ strong ideological purpose seems to have encouraged him to alter the chronology of some of the events in his history in order to fit his presuppositions. For example, Rufinus portrays the reign of Constantine as an especially holy period, as symbolized by the prominent space given the discovery of the True Cross by the emperor’s mother Helena (10.8). Discreditable details of his career, such as the execution of his son Crispus, are effaced, as they had been by Eusebius. By contrast, the reign of the Arian emperor Constantius II, Constantine’s son and successor, is connected with strife and decline. It appears that Rufinus has placed the mission to the kingdom of Aksum, which took place under Constantius, in the reign of Constantine, in order to credit the orthodox emperor with the glory of evangelizing (10.10; Thélamon 1981: 60–2). For similar reasons Rufinus distorted the timing of events in the careers of Athanasius and Arius. Although Constantine, toward the end of
his life, had allowed Arius to reconcile with the church, and had sent Athanasius into exile, Rufinus moves these events into the time of Constantius II. Arius’ death, which should be dated to 336, is likewise necessarily pushed forward in time into the reign of Constantius. It is presumably these misstatements which the historian Socrates complains about (2.1), and which he had to correct in his own work by reference to works of Athanasius and others.