IN SEARCH OF LATE ANTIQUITY
Marta Nowak in conversation with Ignazio Tantillo
MARTA NOWAK
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin
Marta Helena Nowak is a PhD candidate in History at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (Lublin, Poland) and a graduate in classical philology from the Catholic University of Lublin (Poland). She specializes in the study of medieval Irish visionary literature and cultural memory in the Middle Ages and is currently finalizing her dissertation, “The Vision of Tnugdal as a Medium of Cultural Memory of the Irish Community in the Regensburg Monastery of St. James.” She is the author of “The Role of Time and Space in Counterfactual Thinking,” in In Lieu of Duration: Spatiotemporal Excursions in Literature, Film and Architecture, ed. Maciej Stasiowski (London: Interdisciplinary Discourses, 2021), 219–32.
Ignazio Tantillo is Professor of Roman History at the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Italy). His research interests embrace various aspects of Mediterranean history in the Roman period and especially in Late Antiquity: imperial ideology and representation of power; aspects of political and cultural history of the fourth century; late antique northern Africa and its administration; the city of Lepcis Magna; Cassiodorus and Ostrogothic Italy; the province of Crete and Gortyn in the fourth century AD; and the “statue Habit” between the second and sixth century AD. His publications include L’imperatore Giuliano (Rome: Laterza, 2001); La tolleranza religiosa nella tarda antichità: Atti del convegno, ed. Arnaldo Marcone, Umberto Roberto, and Ignazio Tantillo (Cassino: Università di Cassino, 2014); and the critical edition of Cassiodorus’s works—Cassiodoro, Varie, vol. 2–4, ed. Andrea Giardina, Giovanni Alberto Cecconi, and Ignazio Tantillo with Fabrizio Oppedisano (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2014–2016).
Cite this post: Marta Helena Nowak and Ignazio Tantillo, “In Search of Late Antiquity,” One More Thing… (blog), History and Theory, October 2023, https://historyandtheory.org/omt-poznan/nowak-tantillo.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Check out the History and Theory Discord server, where we have a dedicated channel for discussing contributions to One More Thing . . . !
Marta Nowak: How would you define the status of historiography inside and outside academia today?
Ignazio Tantillo: Generally speaking, I believe that historiography is pretty healthy nowadays, and the main challenges for history lie essentially outside academia. There is, at least in Western countries, a strong request for history by the public, very often by people with a middle- or low-level education. There is a demand for history, which does not mean that people buy books, but they go a lot through the internet. I discovered that podcasts made by professional historians could be incredibly successful. Ongoing demand for history reveals a widespread sensitivity to the value of studying history. When, a few years ago, in Italy, there was a proposal from the government to reduce the hours of history at high school, a strong protest arose among professional historians; the leading national newspaper circulated their petition, and the protest was joined by many people who signed this petition. As a result, the minister had to give up his politics. It made me think that history in our society is regarded as a national patrimony. Italy is a country where significant differences exist between regions and where history (often a naive and mythologically distorted form of history) is essential in shaping the identities of single communities. History made by proper historians is very much needed to avoid distorted uses (for example, in parochial or racist terms) of national history. What is paradoxical is that, at universities, the number of historians has decreased dramatically in the last ten or twenty years.
MN: Do you mean professional historians or students?
IT: Teachers—about 30% less than twenty years ago. Italian public universities suffered from a lack of money in the last twenty years, so they had to reduce personnel. History suffered more than other disciplines in this general staff reduction, partly because the university had less demand for history. With several university reforms, there were new curricula [wherein] history was less important. So, there is a contrast between the strong demand for history in society and the fact that professional history is in crisis worldwide.
MN: How do you see the future of this theoretical thinking about history? Do you see any new threats or challenges?
IT: I see some threats. One of them (I know that some of my colleagues would kill me for that) comes not from the vulgarization of history but from the idea that history can be made and disseminated by professionals who are not historians. I am referring to “public history,” which I see as a threat. I think it is essential that history is widely communicated, but at the same time, researching history demands a lot of training that cannot be easily replaced. Historians should learn how to communicate in the first person and involve themselves more in communicating history through media. Public history is defined ambiguously at the moment. A public historian should be someone who mediates between public society and professional history, as well as someone who should avoid misinterpretation of history, for example, for political purposes. This task demands deep historical knowledge. Today, it is crucial for historians to be involved in public debate. Think about what happened with cancel culture and the statues in Anglo-Saxon countries. At the same time, it did not affect France, Italy, or Germany, because there is a different consciousness of history and its relation to the present. I believe that a public debate should be held when deciding to remove a historical monument, and historians should play a primary role in it. Historians should be aware of the importance of their participation in public life. Sometimes we are closed in our golden towers, in universities, while there are so many ways to communicate with the broader public. We do not have an excuse.
MN: Which recent historical readings do you find most interesting and why?
IT: There are two levels, I would say. At one level, I may find very inspiring even short articles that discuss, in detail, single documents, small pieces of evidence (for example, one fragmentary papyrus)—something very specific that suddenly enlightens me and makes me see the whole frame. On the other side, I still like history as a narrative and often read books on history that are not about ancient history just for the pleasure of doing that—many classical studies from twentieth-century French historiography (Georges Duby or Jean-Pierre Vernant). From more recent reading, I would say Serge Gruzinski’s book. [1] What Braudel did with the Mediterranean world he did on the global level, and it really struck me.
Closer to my interest, there’s Noel Lenski’s book on Constantine [2]—he was able to write something very original about an emperor about whom a great deal has been written. Lenski’s book is very solid and founded on an in-depth knowledge of the sources. It is characterized by the ability to exploit many minor or lesser-known sources and make them fit in a general, consistent interpretation of Constantine’s politics. There is another recommendation—Vienna and Versailles, [3] by Jeroen Duindam, a Dutch historian and specialist in court history. It is based on a comparative study of the two main courts in modern Europe: Vienna and Versailles. From this erudite comparison, he develops a representation of what the court meant in the history of medieval and modern Europe. It is very well written as well.
MN: Over the last century, the approach to Late Antiquity as a concept of an autonomous period and the fall of the Roman Empire was subject to many changes. In your opinion, what new trends do you so see in the contemporary approach to the study of Late Antiquity?
IT: I would say—and I inscribe myself to this new trend—that there is a tendency to return to a more traditional view of the end of antiquity, a more dramatic picture of what the end of the Western Roman Empire, and the transformation of the Eastern [Roman Empire], really meant for people living around the Mediterranean Sea. The concept of Late Antiquity is relatively recent, but the interest in the last centuries of antiquity is much older. It took time for it to be appreciated as a distinct period and not to be seen just as an era of decline. Today, many scholars prefer to see the positive sides of this age: a time full of innovations in which new local cultures finally came to light. In recent decades, historiography has revolutionized the so-called “barbarian invasions” meaning. The very concept of “barbarians” has lost most of its dramatic meaning as the focus has shifted from invasion and conquest to different models of accommodation. This irenic [vision]—or, at least, the downplayed vision of the end of the Mediterranean empire or its drastic downsizing—is still strong. Some archaeologists and historians tried to show that the troubles of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries caused profound changes in all sectors of society. Bryan Ward-Perkins tried to show it exclusively from the material point of view. [4] The invention of “long Late Antiquity” has served as an instrument to reduce the disturbing impact of the end of the ancient world. The destruction, death, and violence are diluted over a broad period in which the elements of continuity prevail, and even the most emblematic facts, such as the end of the Western Roman Empire, become epiphenomena.
MN: The recognition of Late Antiquity as a fully autonomous period in chronology was not always apparent. What is the unique significance of this era that justifies this periodization that is accepted today?
IT: The long period from the second to the ninth century does not share homogenous characteristic features. Some historians, like Peter Brown, say that, to clarify the history of the fourth century, sources from the seventh or eighth centuries are still helpful. But Brown’s Late Antiquity is the Late Antiquity of the eastern part of the Mediterranean. The inclusion of other cultures (like Syrians, Armenians, and Arabs) is justified here because these cultures began to emerge in the fourth century and continued to develop afterward. If you consider Late Antiquity as a period that goes from the third century to the end of the sixth century and the Lombard invasion of Italy (which is an acceptable chronological definition of Late Antiquity for me), then you can say that this period is defined by the fact of still being mostly “ancient.” It means that people lived in relatively large cities (the core of the ancient world) with constant relations with the countryside, exactly as in previous times. In this time and space constellation, the idea of equality of citizens, a fundamental concept of the classical polis, still existed, even if a small circle of potentiores ruled it. Citizens of those cities still went to theaters and baths. Wealthy individuals distributed money to their fellow citizens just because they were fellow citizens. Sure, such traditional habits were now challenged by new practices and institutions, like Christian charity, which has nothing to do with classical cities, for it was addressed to the poorest, wherever they come from. Churches became centers of gravity for civic life and economic investment. Other habits, such as the epigraphic habits, took on different forms. For instance, in the Greek-speaking provinces, inscriptions engraved on statue bases were no longer in prose but beautiful epigrams. Around the sixth century, the use of inscriptions ended, both in the East and West. This shows that the period I call Late Antiquity (from approximately 250 to 600 AD) is different but still in close continuity with the previous period and that the real caesura comes immediately afterward.
MN: In the introduction to Late Antiquity in Contemporary Debate, edited by Rita Lizzi Testa, we read that one of the most challenging issues today “concerns the possible chronological definition of the period and its geographical context.” [5] In your opinion, what is the central dilemma in defining these boundaries?
IT: There are only slight differences among scholars when determining the beginning of Late Antiquity (more or less, everyone agrees on setting it between the end of the second century and the age of Diocletian or Constantine). The end of this period is much more problematic. Especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, many scholars—historians and archaeologists—think that Late Antiquity comes to embrace even the ninth century. One can recognize different ways of making history, the influence of historical schools, and the priority given to specific sources. For instance, in archaeology, which is a reconstruction of historical processes through the study of material culture, continuity is much more challenging to see than discontinuity. Discontinuity is most easily visible in texts, literary works, and, especially, the evolution of artistic forms and images. That is why, I guess, art historians first isolated and defined Late Antiquity. In short, there is no agreement about the end of Late Antiquity. If you give primality to political and institutional history, you end up with the concept of a short Late Antiquity. It is entirely understandable; only when you look at political history and institutions, then you see the end of the Roman Empire. But if we look at things from a more cultural, religious point of view, and if we deal with the eastern part of the empire, we may tend to see the continuity. Historians supporting a long periodization of Late Antiquity insist on cultural aspects more than institutional politics. Still, there is no longer a war between different visions of Late Antiquity, and the discussion has cooled down. We have arrived at a compromise allowing each of us to maintain our opinions by identifying subperiods like Ancient Late Antiquity and Late Late Antiquity. Geographical borders of Late Antiquity are essential because the geographical extent of Late Antiquity is one of the reasons for its success. The Bas-Empire was just the end of the later Roman Empire. Late Antiquity, on the contrary, became much more inclusive and extended its boundaries to embrace Sassanian Persia, Armenia, and Arabia. It deals with all the regions in contact with the Roman Empire, which emerged with their distinctive cultures, either within or outside the Roman Empire. I think that geographical opening to other cultures and territories outside the Roman Empire was critical in determining the success of Late Antiquity.
MN: You mentioned the language aspect of defining boundaries of Late Antiquity and its connection with epigraphy. In one article, you suggest that the study of epigraphy can be a way of defining Late Antiquity. [6] How can a shift from traditional historiography influence the perception of chronology and cultural change of transitional periods?
IT: I have tried partly to answer that in my article. Changes in epigraphic habits reflect changes in culture and society. Let us make an example with the last statues of antiquity. From the quantitative point of view, there is a sharp decline in the production of honorary statues in both East and West. Still, more importantly, entire categories of honorary statues disappear from the statuary landscape of fourth- and fifth-century cities. Such types of people as ordinary town councillors, freedmen, or athletes were no longer significant in society and were no longer actors in civic life. The production of public epigraphy became the prerogative of narrow elites. Also, the transformation of imperial epigraphy reflects the change in the idea of the role of the emperor and the ways the emperor was perceived. Imperial power was no longer one of the princeps, but its monarchical nature was now widely recognized. And this is mirrored both in the way the emperor was represented on statues and in the way he was praised in inscriptions. So yes, it can be a way to define chronologically, culturally, and sociologically the last section of antiquity.
MN: The problem of representation of power and ideology of power in Late Antiquity is one of your research topics. It was also at the center of the panel you organized here in Poznań. [7] In your opinion, is it possible to formulate a distinctive theoretical model of the ruler and court in Late Antiquity?
IT: Yes, it is, but I also think the difference between the Late Antiquity ruler and the late empire princeps has been overstressed. The Late Antiquity ruler was more similar to the early Roman emperor than Byzantine basileus. We must think that, during the Roman Empire, surely in the fifth century and even at the beginning of the sixth century, the Roman emperor was not a king but an “agent” who exercised a power delegated to him by his genuine holders (the people and the senate of Rome). He was invested with a mandate, and this idea never disappeared—even if, in the fourth century, there were attempts to create legitimacy of imperial power based on other grounds: God or hereditary succession. These ideas never really got constitutional, so I think the difference has been overstressed.
MN: What about the theoretical model of a court and ruler in Late Antiquity?
IT: For me, it remains more or less the same. A new ceremony, which put distance between the ruler and subject, was introduced, but that distance was often abolished because the ruler continued to mix with ordinary people precisely as the Roman princeps did. Peter Brown came up with a definition of the late Roman ruler that I like a lot: someone who was able to mix moments in which he showed himself distant from normal people, appearing like a god (like a Byzantine icon, sitting on the throne), with moments in which he acted like a first citizen. And it was precisely the judicious dosing of these two facets that made his power and image so effective. In short, the later Roman emperor positioned himself somewhere between a constitutional prince and a charismatic monarch, but he was much more similar to Augustus than Charlemagne. Regarding the emperor’s court, we should be cautious about using Byzantine sources to reconstruct the palace of the late Roman emperor. The appearance, organization, and role of the court changed at the beginning of the fifth century when the emperors finally decided to remain in Constantinople and Ravenna. Before that, they were always moving because they were both emperors and military commanders, so they led their armies at war. It has ended in the fifth century, and that is the difference.
MN: Do you see an alternative to the comparativist approach that would be equally helpful in conducting research on history in Late Antiquity? What alternatives do you see in conducting cultural research of antiquity?
IT: The comparatist approach in the study of the court is both common and a new trend in court historiography. I think the cultural study of Late Antiquity remains very traditional. It studies literature and visual arts according to the conventional way of perceiving them. You still look at the monuments (for example, the statue of Constantine or the church of Saint Sophia in Constantinople) as a moment in the evolution of art forms, which traces back to classical antiquity. I think it needs to be studied within this framework. The comparatist approach has been very challenging because there was a problem if the court existed in the ancient world.
MN: How do you perceive the future of the studies of Late Antiquity? What issues will be on the agenda in the following decades?
IT: There is a demand for deeper exploration and more extensive exploitation of Christian and Byzantine sources. Many Christian sources from Late Antiquity do not even have proper editions. If you think of one of the most important works for reconstructing court history—the Book of Ceremonies, a Byzantine collection from the ninth century that gathers various sources, some of which date back to the fifth century—it had no critical edition until recently. [8] The same can be said about John Chrysostom or several other influential writers from the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries [whose texts have yet to be published as] scientific editions. I was trained in philology, and I like to think of history as craftsmanship, which demands long training, hard work, and a rigorous approach to sources. It is also the pleasure of creating something. Having this idea of history does not make history less noble, nor does it mean a refusal to conceptualize. Very often, history theories propose new models, but they do not really alter how we make history. And the vision of history is a different thing than the role of history. But this is too much for me. One should ask a philosopher. What I do is write history.
Notes
[1] See Serge Gruzinski, The Eagle and the Dragon: Globalization and European Dreams of Conquest in China and America in the Sixteenth Century, transl. Jean Birrell (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014).
[2] Noel Lenski, Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Ideology and Civic Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016).
[3] Jeroen Duindam, Vienna and Versailles: The Courts of Europe’s Major Dynastic Rivals, 1550–1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
[4] Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
[5] Rita Lizzi Testa, introduction to Late Antiquity in Contemporary Debate, ed. Rita Lizzi Testa (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017), viii.
[6] Ignazio Tantillo, “Defining Late Antiquity through Epigraphy?,” in Lizzi Testa, Late Antiquity in Contemporary Debate, 56–77.
[7] The panel “Court and Courtiers in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean” was held on 23 August 2023.
[8] Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, 2 vols., transl. and ed. Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
