02-20-2013, 03:55 AM
Nathan, if I may be presumptive for a moment (and at the risk of derailing the original topic here), can I quote a post I made some time ago on another site re the issues you have raised:
I would like to open up Heliodorus and his novel ‘The Aethiopica’ a little more as I indicated in an earlier post. I now have a copy bought from Amazon of the newer translation but without the introduction which confirms a late 4th century date. I have however located and read the authority which was originally used to validate this date in the introduction and so do not need it in its entirety now.
The following then is a summation of the research of Bowersock as presented in Appendix B, 'History as Fiction'
But why ‘The Aethiopica’? Well, it provides a striking description of a cataphract rider, possibly the longest and most detailed of all the ancient sources; it deploys well-known tropes in relation to the cataphract; and it presents unknown details about this rider which deserve more study. The argument against the validity of the description is two-fold and simple: the description is set in a work of fiction and therefore not necessarily accurate; that the dating is indeterminate and therefore any description as such remains provisional and not helpful in the study of either 3rd century or 4th century cavalry equipment and tactics.
Let’s start off then with some specifics.
The novel is a romance set in the 3-5th century BC and written in Greek. It is primarily set in Aegypt at a time when it is ruled by the Persians (before Alexander conquered them) and also in Aethiopica. It has a series of stories set within it which take place in ancient Greece also. It is authored by Heliodorus who, as he tells us in the work, is a native of Emesa and descended from the Sun, hence his name.
The ancients did not have a sense of historical authenticity or indeed veracity in their works in the way we now do and so details within the work – manners, customs, rituals, descriptions, actions, clothings, etc – are all derived either from a 3rd century or 4th century AD sensibility. The work is pagan in its outlook but contains themes of chastity which will sit comfortably within a naive Christian teleology.
So let’s summarise the dating issue in a little more detail and this will then allow us to re-evaluate the cataphract context more fully.
The earliest commentary upon the author Heliodorus is by Socrates Scholasticus who states clearly
It is said that the author of the usage which obtains in Thessaly was Heliodorus bishop of Tricca in that country; under whose name there are love books extant, entitled Ethiopica . . .
Photius, for example, writes the following
Read the Dramaticon of Iamblichus, a narrative of love adventures. The author makes less show of indecencies than Achilles Tatius, but he is more immoral than the Phoenician Heliodorus. Of these three writers, who have all adopted the same subject and have chosen love intrigues as the material for their stories, Heliodorus is more serious and restrained, lamblichus less so, while Achilles Tatius pushes his obscenity to impudence
This locates him in an Emesan locale.
A much later source, Nicophorus Callistus, states that this Bishop when later asked to renounce the work written in his early years or resign his bishopric, choose to renounce the work.
There is little biographical detail in the work itself.
As to dating, this is where it gets interesting. Previous consensus was that Heliodorus wrote the work within the reign of the emperor Theodosius. This was largely confirmed by the work of Carlo Conti Rossini around 1919 who drew attention to the striking parallels between a description of the triumphal procession of the emperor Aurelian in 274 AD as decribed in the Historia Augusta and a similar procession in Book X of The Aethiopica. Rossini observed that the procession included two peoples from Meroe and Aksum. This similarity or paring was also observed by later scholars and therefore would seem to argue for a late 4th century date which would allow these two peoples to co-habit a parade. In otherwords, it would have been anachronistic to place these peoples in a parade in the 3rd century (under the reign of Aurelian) or indeed even earlier. It would have been similar to writing that Claudian invaded Britain and was opposed by Atecotti and Picti.
So scholarly opinion up to around the early 1970s seems to concur on a late 4th century date for the The Aethiopica based on the fact that both works linked a series of peoples together who historically existed as contemporaries in that period. The Historia Augusta was written in the late 4th century therefore it seems reasonable to identify Heliodorus' work as existing alongside it also and sharing a level of intertextuality.
This was complicated with the arrival of Tibor Saepessy’s work on Heliodorus in 1975. He argued quite forcefully that The Aethiopica belonged to the 3rd century and not the 4th. His work resonated among scholars and still does so that in many works you will find an assumption of a 3rd century date to the exclusion of a late 4th century one. Szepessy argued not in relation to the similarities of the peoples assembled in the Book X parade and the triumph of Aurelian but instead on the siege of Nisibis in 351 AD under Shapur II. This siege is described in literature by Julian Augustus and Ephreim the Syrian (who wrote to counter Julian’s paganism) and seems to find a remarkable parallel in Book IX of The Aethiopica. Szepessy argued from a close reading of Ephreim’s work that in fact it differed in a key element from Julian’s version.
This difference was the nature of the earthworks thrown up by the Sassanids about the city of Nisibis. Julian states – as does Heliodorus – that the city was surrounded by earth ramparts and then flooded by the river Mygdonius (the Nile in the latter writer’s case). Szepessy argued that Ehpeim wrote that 'mounds' were erected not walls (tumuli is the Latin word he uses in place of the original Syriac) and therefore differs in a key aspect. Note: Szepessy is using a 19th century Latin translation. As a result of this, Szepessy argues that Julian is in fact echoing Heliodorus and his earlier work and creating a literary topos. Therefore the work by Heliodorus must have been written much earlier.
This argument won over many and as mentioned above still holds currency to this day. Bowersock however shows up the fallacy of this arguement by reverting to the original Syraic and noting that Epheim uses the word tall in its plural which can mean mound and also earthworks and is variously translated into Latin as aggeres and moles. The Syriac plural – talala – matches precisely the Greek word used by both Julian and Heliodorus. In other words, Ehpreim matches exactly the description as written by Julian regarding the siege – and echoed in the fictional work of Heliodorus.
This refutes Szepessy’s argument and again brings The Aethiopica into orbit, as it were, with Julian and the Historia Augusta. The inference is obviously that Heliodorus is in fact echoing Julian as it would be improbable that Julian copied a work of fiction that miraculously predicted the siege of Nisibis in 351 AD.
Bowersock goes further. He turns specifically to two other striking parallels in The Aethiopica – the description of the cataphract riders and the battle in which they are defeated in Book X. He comments on the detail of the cataphracts and the specific poetic conceit of the moving statue as a literary topos in late Roman literature. Again, Julian is cited as an example. Claudian is referenced also in this regard.
More importantly, Bowersock cites Ammianus Marcellinus as using this trope. For Bowersock this is an important comparison in that Ammianus Marcellinus, in the Res Gestae, describes how the these Roman elite heavy cavalry were unhorsed and defeated by light barbarian infantry springing up underneath the horses to surprise and unhorse the riders. This was a tactic previously used by the Romans under Crassus. What interests Bowersock however is the concurrence of the moving statue image and the barbarian tactic in unhorsing these cataphracts. Both these elements occur in Book IX of The Aethiopica.
In summation, what Bowersock explores is the seeming intertextuality of a number of late Roman works:
The panegyrics of Julian (Nisibis and cataphracts)
The Historia Augusta (the triumphal procession under Aurelian and Severus Alexander)
The Res Gestae (the triumphal procession under Constantius II and the battle of Argentoratum)
The poetry/hymns of Ephreim the Syrian (the siege of Nisibis)
The Aethiopica (the procession in Book X, the cataphracts and the siege in Book XI)
Hence a certain genealogy wherein Julian’s work provides inspiration for the siege, Ammianus for the battle tactics, the writer of the Res Gestae provides the procession, all three provide references to cataphracts as 'living statues' or clibanarii. Therefore Heliodorus is either writing within the textual web of these works or conversely these works (Julian’s being excepted) are drawing upon the romance novel.
This brings the work of Heliodorus into an unequivocable late 4th century date. It shows that Heliodorus drew on a striking number of images and events which pre-existed his own work and synthesised them into a narrative re-cast back into ancient Aegypt under the Achaemenid Persians. If this is true, then this combined with his location at Emesa and the period in which he lived allows a certain degree of authenticity to be allowed into his writings. His description, for example, of the fictional cataphracts under the Achaemenid Persians must be allowed some degree of veracity in that it is more detailed and may be, as a result, derived from first hand observation, if perhaps misunderstood. 5 vexillations of Roman clibanarii alone were stationed within the field army of the Orient and therefore may have been observed by Heliodorus on maneuvers near or indeed within Emesa. His lifetime saw massive incursions of Sassanid armies and the counter-invasion of Julian with its tragic consequences which rendered the 'Persians' in his work as a contemporary danger which his readers might have easily identified with.
However, the opposite might also be argued – that indeed the decriptions of the cataphracts as 'living statues' was now a literary topos and one that was quite common; such that not only were imperial panegyricists using it along with historians, so, too, were romance writers! Therefore Heliodorus is merely adapting a commonplace to terrify his readers . . .
Sources
Res Gestae
Aethiopica
Historia Augusta
Panegyrics of Julian
Epheim the Syrian
Bowersock 'Fiction as History'
I would like to open up Heliodorus and his novel ‘The Aethiopica’ a little more as I indicated in an earlier post. I now have a copy bought from Amazon of the newer translation but without the introduction which confirms a late 4th century date. I have however located and read the authority which was originally used to validate this date in the introduction and so do not need it in its entirety now.
The following then is a summation of the research of Bowersock as presented in Appendix B, 'History as Fiction'
But why ‘The Aethiopica’? Well, it provides a striking description of a cataphract rider, possibly the longest and most detailed of all the ancient sources; it deploys well-known tropes in relation to the cataphract; and it presents unknown details about this rider which deserve more study. The argument against the validity of the description is two-fold and simple: the description is set in a work of fiction and therefore not necessarily accurate; that the dating is indeterminate and therefore any description as such remains provisional and not helpful in the study of either 3rd century or 4th century cavalry equipment and tactics.
Let’s start off then with some specifics.
The novel is a romance set in the 3-5th century BC and written in Greek. It is primarily set in Aegypt at a time when it is ruled by the Persians (before Alexander conquered them) and also in Aethiopica. It has a series of stories set within it which take place in ancient Greece also. It is authored by Heliodorus who, as he tells us in the work, is a native of Emesa and descended from the Sun, hence his name.
The ancients did not have a sense of historical authenticity or indeed veracity in their works in the way we now do and so details within the work – manners, customs, rituals, descriptions, actions, clothings, etc – are all derived either from a 3rd century or 4th century AD sensibility. The work is pagan in its outlook but contains themes of chastity which will sit comfortably within a naive Christian teleology.
So let’s summarise the dating issue in a little more detail and this will then allow us to re-evaluate the cataphract context more fully.
The earliest commentary upon the author Heliodorus is by Socrates Scholasticus who states clearly
It is said that the author of the usage which obtains in Thessaly was Heliodorus bishop of Tricca in that country; under whose name there are love books extant, entitled Ethiopica . . .
Photius, for example, writes the following
Read the Dramaticon of Iamblichus, a narrative of love adventures. The author makes less show of indecencies than Achilles Tatius, but he is more immoral than the Phoenician Heliodorus. Of these three writers, who have all adopted the same subject and have chosen love intrigues as the material for their stories, Heliodorus is more serious and restrained, lamblichus less so, while Achilles Tatius pushes his obscenity to impudence
This locates him in an Emesan locale.
A much later source, Nicophorus Callistus, states that this Bishop when later asked to renounce the work written in his early years or resign his bishopric, choose to renounce the work.
There is little biographical detail in the work itself.
As to dating, this is where it gets interesting. Previous consensus was that Heliodorus wrote the work within the reign of the emperor Theodosius. This was largely confirmed by the work of Carlo Conti Rossini around 1919 who drew attention to the striking parallels between a description of the triumphal procession of the emperor Aurelian in 274 AD as decribed in the Historia Augusta and a similar procession in Book X of The Aethiopica. Rossini observed that the procession included two peoples from Meroe and Aksum. This similarity or paring was also observed by later scholars and therefore would seem to argue for a late 4th century date which would allow these two peoples to co-habit a parade. In otherwords, it would have been anachronistic to place these peoples in a parade in the 3rd century (under the reign of Aurelian) or indeed even earlier. It would have been similar to writing that Claudian invaded Britain and was opposed by Atecotti and Picti.
So scholarly opinion up to around the early 1970s seems to concur on a late 4th century date for the The Aethiopica based on the fact that both works linked a series of peoples together who historically existed as contemporaries in that period. The Historia Augusta was written in the late 4th century therefore it seems reasonable to identify Heliodorus' work as existing alongside it also and sharing a level of intertextuality.
This was complicated with the arrival of Tibor Saepessy’s work on Heliodorus in 1975. He argued quite forcefully that The Aethiopica belonged to the 3rd century and not the 4th. His work resonated among scholars and still does so that in many works you will find an assumption of a 3rd century date to the exclusion of a late 4th century one. Szepessy argued not in relation to the similarities of the peoples assembled in the Book X parade and the triumph of Aurelian but instead on the siege of Nisibis in 351 AD under Shapur II. This siege is described in literature by Julian Augustus and Ephreim the Syrian (who wrote to counter Julian’s paganism) and seems to find a remarkable parallel in Book IX of The Aethiopica. Szepessy argued from a close reading of Ephreim’s work that in fact it differed in a key element from Julian’s version.
This difference was the nature of the earthworks thrown up by the Sassanids about the city of Nisibis. Julian states – as does Heliodorus – that the city was surrounded by earth ramparts and then flooded by the river Mygdonius (the Nile in the latter writer’s case). Szepessy argued that Ehpeim wrote that 'mounds' were erected not walls (tumuli is the Latin word he uses in place of the original Syriac) and therefore differs in a key aspect. Note: Szepessy is using a 19th century Latin translation. As a result of this, Szepessy argues that Julian is in fact echoing Heliodorus and his earlier work and creating a literary topos. Therefore the work by Heliodorus must have been written much earlier.
This argument won over many and as mentioned above still holds currency to this day. Bowersock however shows up the fallacy of this arguement by reverting to the original Syraic and noting that Epheim uses the word tall in its plural which can mean mound and also earthworks and is variously translated into Latin as aggeres and moles. The Syriac plural – talala – matches precisely the Greek word used by both Julian and Heliodorus. In other words, Ehpreim matches exactly the description as written by Julian regarding the siege – and echoed in the fictional work of Heliodorus.
This refutes Szepessy’s argument and again brings The Aethiopica into orbit, as it were, with Julian and the Historia Augusta. The inference is obviously that Heliodorus is in fact echoing Julian as it would be improbable that Julian copied a work of fiction that miraculously predicted the siege of Nisibis in 351 AD.
Bowersock goes further. He turns specifically to two other striking parallels in The Aethiopica – the description of the cataphract riders and the battle in which they are defeated in Book X. He comments on the detail of the cataphracts and the specific poetic conceit of the moving statue as a literary topos in late Roman literature. Again, Julian is cited as an example. Claudian is referenced also in this regard.
More importantly, Bowersock cites Ammianus Marcellinus as using this trope. For Bowersock this is an important comparison in that Ammianus Marcellinus, in the Res Gestae, describes how the these Roman elite heavy cavalry were unhorsed and defeated by light barbarian infantry springing up underneath the horses to surprise and unhorse the riders. This was a tactic previously used by the Romans under Crassus. What interests Bowersock however is the concurrence of the moving statue image and the barbarian tactic in unhorsing these cataphracts. Both these elements occur in Book IX of The Aethiopica.
In summation, what Bowersock explores is the seeming intertextuality of a number of late Roman works:
The panegyrics of Julian (Nisibis and cataphracts)
The Historia Augusta (the triumphal procession under Aurelian and Severus Alexander)
The Res Gestae (the triumphal procession under Constantius II and the battle of Argentoratum)
The poetry/hymns of Ephreim the Syrian (the siege of Nisibis)
The Aethiopica (the procession in Book X, the cataphracts and the siege in Book XI)
Hence a certain genealogy wherein Julian’s work provides inspiration for the siege, Ammianus for the battle tactics, the writer of the Res Gestae provides the procession, all three provide references to cataphracts as 'living statues' or clibanarii. Therefore Heliodorus is either writing within the textual web of these works or conversely these works (Julian’s being excepted) are drawing upon the romance novel.
This brings the work of Heliodorus into an unequivocable late 4th century date. It shows that Heliodorus drew on a striking number of images and events which pre-existed his own work and synthesised them into a narrative re-cast back into ancient Aegypt under the Achaemenid Persians. If this is true, then this combined with his location at Emesa and the period in which he lived allows a certain degree of authenticity to be allowed into his writings. His description, for example, of the fictional cataphracts under the Achaemenid Persians must be allowed some degree of veracity in that it is more detailed and may be, as a result, derived from first hand observation, if perhaps misunderstood. 5 vexillations of Roman clibanarii alone were stationed within the field army of the Orient and therefore may have been observed by Heliodorus on maneuvers near or indeed within Emesa. His lifetime saw massive incursions of Sassanid armies and the counter-invasion of Julian with its tragic consequences which rendered the 'Persians' in his work as a contemporary danger which his readers might have easily identified with.
However, the opposite might also be argued – that indeed the decriptions of the cataphracts as 'living statues' was now a literary topos and one that was quite common; such that not only were imperial panegyricists using it along with historians, so, too, were romance writers! Therefore Heliodorus is merely adapting a commonplace to terrify his readers . . .
Sources
Res Gestae
Aethiopica
Historia Augusta
Panegyrics of Julian
Epheim the Syrian
Bowersock 'Fiction as History'
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
