|
|
| Home > Seminar Index > | |
Seminar VIII: Religious Revisionism – Peter Brown and the Invention of ‘Late Antiquity’Judging by the lectures and seminars so far one might be forgiven for thinking that the only persons to take an interest in the later Roman Empire were anti-Christian secularists. To be sure, some of the historians we have looked at, not least Bury, exculpated the Church from Gibbon’s charge that Christianity distracted the Romans from the military arts and their government from the work of defence, but the effect (and perhaps the aim) of such arguments is to diminish the importance of Christianity by treating its emergence as an irrelevance. There has, however, long been an alternative approach to the period, one which concerned itself not with the ‘Decline and Fall’ but with the ‘Rise of Christianity’ – an approach which defined the crucial moment as the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (r. 306–337) rather than the sack of Rome by Alaric (410) or the deposition of Romulus Augustulus (476). Within British academia these two approaches were for a long-time kept apart: the secularists were housed in departments of history whilst ecclesiastical historians were consigned to schools of theology and divinity; the former confined themselves to political and constitutional history while the latter concerned themselves with the development of Christian institutions and theology. One has to go outside academia, to the work of private scholars such as Christopher H. Dawson (1889–1970), to find an exception to this pattern in earlier twentieth-century Britain. A convert to Catholicism, Dawson believed that religion was the fundamental force driving society: ‘It is the religious impulse’, he wrote, ‘which supplies the cohesive force which unifies a society and a culture... A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture.’ In his influential work The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity (1932), Dawson argued that the Fall of Rome, far from being a bad thing, ushered in the most creative period in western history. It was a period when, confronted with the forces of barbarism that had plunged the Empire into chaos, the Church asserted itself as the defender of unity and order – as the guiding light of western civilisation. Since the Second World War the older disciplinary demarcations which encouraged the separation of religion off from the historical ‘mainstream’ have broken down. A new interest in those historical phenomena which have mattered to ordinary people (‘history-from-below’) has directed attention towards religion and culture, whilst the findings and theories of the social scientists, especially the cultural anthropologists, have disrupted the older conviction that economics and politics were the engines of historical development. Thus, whilst Dawson’s work received scant recognition, that of a more recent religious revisionist, Peter R. L. Brown (1935–), has had a huge impact. The product of an Irish Protestant family, Brown has had remarkable career: he has gone from Oxford University, where he was a junior fellow at All Souls (1966–75) and a university lecturer in Late Roman History (1970–73), to Royal Holloway, London (1975–78), and from there to America, where he has held chairs at Berkeley (1978–86) and at Princeton (1986–). Brown is widely credited, moreover, with having invented a whole new way of conceiving later Roman history: in direct contrast to Gibbon, Brown has promoted the view that this period was a time, not of recession and failure, but of new beginnings and tremendous creativity. For Brown ‘late antiquity’ was a coherent phase in human history, defined in The World of Late Antiquity (1971) as comprising ‘the period from about AD 200 to about 700’ (p. 7). The term ‘late antiquity’, or rather its German equivalent Spätantike, was first popularised, not by Brown, but by the Austrian art historian Alois Riegl, who was much concerned with art which had been produced in what he considered were ‘transitional’ periods. But it is Brown who has done most to promote the concept in the English-speaking world. He gave it a new meaning and new currency in The World of Late Antiquity. Ostensively an illustrated history intended for students and the general reader, this work pioneered a new view of the late Roman world which rested, not on grand statements of theory, but on a radical shift of perspective. Note in particular:
Brown developed this approach further in The Making of Late Antiquity (1978), a work which did for his new phase in the history of the Mediterranean world what another distinguished Oxford historian, Sir Richard Southern, had done for the High Middle Ages (for the period between 950 and 1250) in his The Making of the Middle Ages (1953). More recently, in the late 1990s, Brown helped to enshrine the concept when, together with Glen Bowersock and Oleg Grabar, he edited a one volume encyclopaedia entitled Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Post-Classical World. The time had come, they explained in their introduction, for scholars, students and the educated public in general to treat the period between around 250 and 800 as distinctive and quite decisive period of history that stands on its own. It is not, as it once was for Edward Gibbon, a subject of obsessive fascination only as the story of the unravelling of a once glorious and ‘higher’ state of civilization. It was not a period of irrevocable Decline and Fall; nor was it merely a violent and hurried prelude to better things. It cannot be treated as a corpse to be dragged quickly off-stage so that the next great act of the drama of the Middle Ages should begin (p. ix). The period saw the invention, the editors assert, of many of the social and cultural structures that have given rise to the present: Not only did late antiquity last for over half a millennium; much of what was created in that period still runs in our veins. It is, for instance, from late antiquity that we have inherited the codifications of Roman law that are the root of the judicial systems of so many states in Europe and the Americas. The forms of Judaism associated with the emergence of the rabbinate and the codification of the Talmud emerged from late antique Roman Palestine and from the distinctive society of Sassanian Mesopotamia. The basic structures and dogmatic formulations of the Christian church, both in Latin Catholicism and in the many forms of eastern Christianity, came from this time, as did the first, triumphant expression of the Muslim faith. (pp. ix–x.) Like Dawson, Brown puts religious change at the centre of the historical process: he claims, for example, that the changes in ‘religious attitudes’ which took place in late antiquity were just as ‘decisive’ as those which took place ‘in the public life of the empire’. Like Dawson, Brown sees religion as a force for cohesion. But whereas Dawson focused on the ‘Catholic Church’ and its contribution to the history of the West, Brown takes a much wider and less sectarian view: the creativity which he perceives in the Roman world between c.200 and c.700 is to be found not only in the Latin Church but also in eastern orthodox Christianity, in Judaism and in Islam. Paul Hayward (10.xii.07). Photo: Peter R. I. Brown. Set Texts
Worksheet Questions
Strongly Recommended Reading
Some works of Peter Brown, with an Emphasis on those that Promote the Concept of ‘Late Antiquity’
Critical Discussions of the Concept of ‘Late Antiquity’.
A Few Terms and Phrases Not Translated by Brown
|
|
|
Contact Details: Department of History, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YG, UNITED KINGDOM | Email: history@lancaster.ac.uk | Tel: +44-1524-592554 | Fax: +44-1524-846102. Credits: This site is maintained by Dr Paul Hayward. Please report any problems to p.hayward@lancaster.ac.uk. Copyright: Department of History, Lancaster University | Disclaimer: as per university policy. |
|