Review of Van Waarden, Writing to Survive

Robin Whelan

English

Humanities Commons

Journal of Roman Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/JRSAdditional services for Journal of Roman Studies:Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here VAN WAARDEN, WRITING TO SURVIVE. A COMMENTARY ON SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS, LETTERS BOOK 7. VOLUME 1: THE EPISCOPAL LETTERS 1–11 (Late Antique History and Religion 2) . Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Pp. ix + 659, map. isbn 9789042923201. €85.00.Robin WhelanJournal of Roman Studies / Volume 102 / November 2012, pp 415 ­ 416DOI: 10.1017/S0075435812000950, Published online: 02 November 2012Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0075435812000950How to cite this article:Robin Whelan (2012). Journal of Roman Studies, 102, pp 415­416 doi:10.1017/S0075435812000950Request Permissions : Click hereDownloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JRS, IP address: 54.234.4.233 on 21 Mar 2013emperor out of pastoral concern; also, once emperors began attending church, they becamevulnerable to pastoral critique (53–4).Part Two surveys Ambrose’s ecclesiastical career, with an emphasis on his ascetic treatises and hisinteraction with imperial authorities. His ascetic treatises emphasized celibacy, which he required ofhis clergy (66). L. observes that asceticism must have been an especially appealing topic for Ambroseand Chrysostom because it was ‘theologically neutral ground’ for Nicene and Homoian Christians(71, 140). In his account of priestly duties, Ambrose includes resistance to authority when thelaws of God are at stake. His sermons teach that kings must accept criticism from priests, or faceexclusion from church and salvation (82–3, 91–4). Ambrose followed these instructions when heresisted imperial demands. When Valentinian II and his mother, Justina, asked for a church forthe Homoians, he refused (85–9). In his most famous act of outspokenness, Ambrose required theemperor Theodosius to repent for the massacre in Thessalonica (89–91). Although nothing likethis had happened before or would happen again, the authority of the Church over the emperorwas brought out of the realm of theory and into reality.The section on Chrysostom begins with a background chapter on asceticism in Syria andMesopotamia, where an even greater emphasis on celibacy and a wide variety of ascetic lifestylesprevailed. The following chapters focus on Chrysostom’s early life and writings, many of whichdeal with asceticism. L. compares Chrysostom vividly to a ‘student radical’ who hoped toconvince ordinary Christians to embrace asceticism (139). After gaining pastoral experience,Chrysostom remained idealistic, but developed more empathy for laypeople (177–84; 199). Hiswritings propose that priests hold authority over rulers (148–52; 216–17). His career shows thathe lived according to this precept. L. provides a lengthy account of Chrysostom’s conict with theimperial court (ch. 15). Standing his ground, Chrysostom refused a Gothic general’s request for achurch for the Arians. Later, when faced with a powerful empress, Chrysostom criticized her greedand vanity despite her power to retaliate against him.In his conclusions, L. summarizes his comparisons of the twomen: bothwere educatedmenwhowereraised by single mothers and drawn to the ascetic life (251–4). Both wrote treatises on the duties ofpriesthood and both acted on these beliefs with varying measures of success. Their similarities resultedin large part from the unity of Christian culture in East and West at this time. L. argues persuasivelythat Ambrose’s success and Chrysostom’s failure to wield authority over emperors were due to thedifferent political situations rather than to the differences in their personalities (257–61). While there isno proof that Chrysostom read anything by Ambrose, L. suggests that Chrysostom was likelyinuenced by Ambrose’s refusal to provide a church for Homoian Christians (5, 89, 229, 240, 261–4).This book contributes to current scholarship on bishops in Late Antiquity. L. convincingly arguesthat these two famous Church Fathers were products of their times in their asceticism, their advice forlaypeople, and their complex relationships with imperial authorities. The main weakness of this bookis the structure: the seventeen short chapters are not all clearly related to the main themes of the book(especially chs 7, 13 and 17). L. acknowledges in the introduction that the book is lopsided inChrysostom’s favour, but one would still expect, for example, an introductory chapter on Westernasceticism as a counterpart to the chapter on Syrian and Mesopotamian asceticism.Ohio University Jaclyn Maxwelljaclyn.maxwell@gmail.comdoi:10.1017/S0075435812000949J. A. VAN WAARDEN, WRITING TO SURVIVE. A COMMENTARY ON SIDONIUSAPOLLINARIS, LETTERS BOOK 7. VOLUME 1: THE EPISCOPAL LETTERS 1–11(Late Antique History and Religion 2). Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Pp. ix + 659, map. ISBN9789042923201. €85.00.Sidonius Apollinaris is many things to late antique historians: senatorial eyewitness to fth-centuryturmoil; emblematic case of Christianization (the Urban Prefect of Rome who would becomebishop of Clermont-Ferrand); spokesman for a southern Gallic aristocracy coming to terms withbarbarian rulers. Partly as a result of Jill Harries’ seminal study of his career in SidoniusApollinaris and the Fall of Rome (1994), Sidonius has become a central gure in any number ofweighty late antique debates. Johannes van Waarden’s commentary on Book 7 of his letters is avaluable addition to the recent scholarship on Sidonius, not least because it steps back from thesegrand historiographical themes to consider Sidonius’ literary output on its own terms.REV IEWS 415It is a shame that van W. had to restrict himself to a general introduction (1–68), as his insightsinto the text open up numerous protable lines of enquiry for a book-length treatment. After settingthe scene (1–4), van W. sketches out the biographical, historical, and ecclesiastical contexts of theletters, drawing upon recent historiography (4–30). The concise explorations of epistolography(30–52) and lateantique literary style (52–66) which follow are particularly useful. Themes whichrecur across the commentary (opening sentences; uses of different forms of ‘you’ and ‘I’; stylisticpatterning) are briey and elegantly summarized. Van W. is surely right to stress that the use ofrhetoric and formalized prose should not be considered ‘empty’ or divorced from reality (62–6and e.g. 339, 359, 362–3). He also makes clear his debt to Harries in his analysis of Sidonius’‘coded communication’ and ‘allusive technique’ (39), while prudently noting the danger that he, asa critic, might indulge in ‘excessive subtlety’ (40). Van W. is generally successful in avoiding thispitfall, although his attempt to discern thematic coherence in Book 7 (41–4) as a sort of ‘unity indiversity’ (38), while ingenious, is not entirely convincing. It is not always obvious what thispursuit of ‘unity’, as a single authorial programme, adds up to — particularly given Sidonius’range of messages and registers, which van W. brings out so well throughout.The commentary (69–562) serves both as an introduction and guide to this group of letters and,read as a whole, the raw materials for a compendium of late antique Latin literary style. Van W. isparticularly adept at teasing out the dual contexts of the letters: the time of their original composition,and their placement in a published volume. So, the chronologically earlier Ep. 7.10 to Graecus ofMarseille becomes an apology for the blunt Ep. 7.7 (see the comments at 534 and 546); theaddress from the election of Simplicius of Bourges, attached to Ep. 7.9, is published as amanifesto for the ideal noble-bishop (433–4); and the light-hearted Ep. 7.2 acts as a distortingmirror for aspects of Ep. 7.7 (337–8) and Ep. 7.9 (442).Of course, an effective commentary needs to provide both the full ten-course ‘Gallic table’ (1) andeasy access to individual gobbets. In this regard, the commentary is a qualied success. For eachclause, van W. clearly sets out the basis for his interpretation and how it might differ from thoseof previous scholars. The reader is steered carefully through Sidonius’ syntax, rhetorical gures,and the various potential meanings and connotations of his words; plentiful comparanda are alsopresented as guides. Nevertheless, a running English translation (promised at 1, but notconsistently carried out) could have made the commentary more user-friendly. Often the reader isleft to piece together the nal translation for themselves across numerous paragraphs.One aspect which perhaps deserved sustained analysis is that of the relationship between Sidonius’literary persona as a preserver of Roman culture and his contemporary circumstances. Van W. takesseriously the turmoil of the 460s and 470s, and its potential to disrupt the livelihood of theGallo-Roman élite (10–16): ‘sooner or later, economic instability and precarious safety forcedeveryone to decide on the future’ (15). Thus, Sidonius’ rhetoric of ‘writing to survive’, thecommentary’s leitmotif, is taken as an understandable and justiable response to historicalcircumstances. But this sits uneasily with the commentator’s valid concern to present Sidonius theartful literary operator, self-consciously (re-)shaping his presentation of recent events (39–40). Thistension is evident in the introduction to letter 7.7, where the socio-economic impact of the fthand sixth centuries on Gaul is suddenly downplayed: ‘the one plausible answer seems to be thatSidonius’ alarming picture reects not so much the historical reality as his own frustration … Inall probability, there was no economic crisis in Southern Gaul before the seventh century’ (336;but cf. 377 ‘some had to face execution, and quite a few economic ruin’ — on the same letter).There are various ways through this juxtaposition of Sidonius’ writings and his immediatecontext; van W. could usefully have signalled his own route from the start.The great merit of van W.’s commentary derives from its sustained effort to explicate Sidonius’letters in their original literary context. Recent work in the burgeoning eld of late antiqueepistolography has consistently stressed the necessity of reading the composition of letters andcollation of collections as a means of authorial self-presentation. In van W.’s hands, this approachhas borne signicant fruit.Corpus Christi College, Cambridge Robin Whelanrew47@cam.ac.ukdoi:10.1017/S0075435812000950I I I . LATE ANTIQUITY416

Van Waarden, Writing to Survive: A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris; Letters Book 7, vol. 1, The Episcopal Letters 1–11.

https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:13064/CONTENT/review_of_j._a._van_waarden_writing_to_s.pdf/

Van Waarden, Writing to Survive: A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris; Letters Book 7, vol. 1, The Episcopal Letters 1–11.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Humanities Commons