From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History.

Julius
Africanus and the Atthidographers on the Origins of Athens
Umberto Roberto
Ambito di Storia, Università Europea di Roma, Via degli Aldobrandeschi 190, I-00163
Roma, Email: [email protected]

What is meant by writing a Christian Universal History at the beginning

of the third century? It is hard to give a concise but exhaustive answer to
this question. Nevertheless, taking inspiration from the fragments of the
Chronographiae of Julius Africanus, at least a few features underlying
Christian universal historiography starting from its earliest origins may be
identified. In the first place, writing a Christian universal history naturally
entails constructing a fresh view of history, presenting new relationships
between the divine and man and among men themselves; and also offering
different models for the interpretation of time and space. In the second
place, from a ‘technical’ point of view, the Christian historian performs
an act of mediation. He actually expresses himself by achieving a synthe-
sis between his new perception of history and his personal cultural and
historiographic background. In the case of Julius Africanus we are dealing
mainly with Graeco-Hellenistic roots. E. Schwartz (with whom I am in
complete agreement) considered Julius Africanus to have continued in the
Greek chronographic tradition. And his position as “father of Christian
chronography” (as he is described by H. Gelzer) may be understood only
if we reflect on his original mediation between classical and Hellenistic
culture and the Christian outlook1.
Included among the fragment of the Chronographiae is a long pas-
sage on the synchronism between Moses and Ogygus, the legendary king
of Attica. This text is of great historiographic value, as it enables us to
understand both the role of a mediator performed by Africanus and the

1
For the text see: Julius Africanus, Chronographiae. The Extant Fragments, ed. by M.
Wallraff with U. Roberto and, for the Oriental Sources, K. Pinggéra, translated by W.
Adler, GCS.NF 15, Berlin/New York 2007. Fragments from Africanus are always quoted
according to this edition. See H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische
Chronographie, New York 1967 (= 1, Leipzig 1880; 2/1, Leipzig 1885; 2/2, Leipzig
1898); E. Schwartz, Die Königslisten des Erathosthenes und Kastor mit Excursen über
die Interpolationen bei Africanus und Eusebios, AGWG 40, 1895, (1-92) 23-24. On
Africanus’ cultural background: U. Roberto, Julius Africanus und die Tradition der hel-
lenistischen Universalgeschichte, in: M. Wallraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche
Weltchronistik, TU 157, Berlin/New York 2006, 3-16; in general: W. Adler, Sextus Julius
Africanus and the Roman Near East in the Third Century, JThS 55, 2004, 520-550.

ZAC, vol. 14, pp. 525-538 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2010.28

© Walter de Gruyter 2011 Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
526 Umberto Roberto

methodological aspects of his work as a historian. At the beginning of the

passage (fragment F34, which probably represents the prooemium of the
whole of book III), Africanus presents one of the most important working
tools for every Christian historian: the synchronism between the events
affecting different peoples of the Earth:
Mšcri m{n tîn 'Olumpi£dwn oÙd{n ¢krib{j ƒstÒrhtai to‹j “ Ellhsi, p£ntwn
sugkecumšnwn kaˆ kat¦ mhd{n aØto‹j tîn prÕ toà sumfwnoÚntwn: aƒ d{ ºkr…bwntai
pollo‹j, tù m¾ ™k ple…stou diast»matoj, di¦ tetraet…aj d{ t¦j ¢nagraf¦j aÙtîn
poie‹sqai toÝj “ Ellhnaj. oá d¾ c£rin t¦j ™ndoxot£taj, kaˆ muqèdeij ™pilex£menoj
ƒstor…aj mšcri tÁj prèthj 'Olumpi£doj ™pidramoàmai: t¦j d{ met¦ taàta, suzeÚxaj
kat¦ crÒnon ˜k£staj, e‡ tinej ™p…shmoi, ta‹j `Ellhnika‹j t¦j `Ebra#k£j, ™xistorîn
m{n t¦ `Ebra…wn, ™faptÒmenoj d{ tîn `Ellhnikîn, ™farmÒsw tÒnde tÕn trÒpon:
labÒmenoj mi©j pr£xewj `Ebra#kÁj ÐmocrÒnou pr£xei Øf' `Ell»nwn ƒstorhqe…sV kaˆ
taÚthj ™cÒmenoj, ¢fairîn te kaˆ prostiqeˆj t…j te “ Ellhn À Pšrshj À kaˆ Ðstisoàn
tÍ `Ebra…wn sunecrÒnisen ™pishmeioÚmenoj, ‡swj ¨n toà skopoà tÚcoimi2.

Synchronism is a fundamental tool for ensuring the characteristic of univer-

sal history, that is, a description of the events in which account is taken of
the passage of time computed by means of an exact chronology; and on the
other hand, a historical narration composed by the varied and multifarious
events concerning the peoples of the earth. In other words, an account is
achieved kat¦ œqnh, according to the model of Hellenistic universal histo-
riography, which is nevertheless contained in a precise chronological grid.
For Christian authors, this grid has a secure starting-point: the date of
the creation of Adam. From this point of view, Christian historiography
has proved itself capable of overcoming the methodological and cultural
difficulties inherent in Greek historiography. Indeed, the solution proposed
by Africanus, a Christian historian following the Hebrew tradition, for
one of the thorniest problems facing Graeco-Hellenistic universal histori-
ography, is of great interest. It is an established fact that the Greeks had
trouble providing a historical description of the origins of mankind. For
them, history began where the space of the myth ended. The majority of

2
Afric., Chronographiae F34 (GCS.NF 15, 72,1-11 Wallraff/Roberto): “Until the time of
the Olympiads, nothing accurate has been recorded by the Greeks in their histories, all
their accounts before that time being muddled and in no point agreeing among themselves.
The Olympiads, however, have been accurately recorded by many, because the Greeks
kept registers of them that were not separated by a long span of time, but rather by an
interval of four years. For this reason, I shall give a cursory treatment to my selection of the
most notable of the legendary narratives up until the first Olympiad. But those narratives
after that time, if any of them are noteworthy, I shall combine together chronologically
one to the other, the Hebrew with the Greek, carefully investigating the affairs of the
Hebrews while only touching upon those of the Greek. And I shall fit them together in
the following manner: By taking up a single event in Hebrew history contemporary with
an event recorded by the Greeks, and basing myself on it, and by either subtracting from
or adding to it, I shall indicate what noteworthy person – whether Greek or Persian or
whoever – was contemporary with the Hebrew event. And in this way I shall perhaps
accomplish my objective” (English translation by W. Adler according to the text edition
of Wallraff/Roberto [see note 1], 73).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 527

authors agreed this to be the Trojan War or the first Olympiad3. A well-
known passage from Varro, preserved by Censorinus (De die natali liber
ad Q. Caerellium 21,1), enables us to appreciate that the problem of the
origins was still an open question at the time of Africanus:
Et si origo mundi in hominum notitiam venisset, inde exordium sumeremus.
Nunc vero id intervallum temporis tractabo, quod ƒstorikÒn Varro appellat.
Hic enim tria discrimina temporum esse tradit: primum ab hominum principio
ad cataclysmum priorem, quod propter ignorantiam vocatur ¥dhlon, secundum
a cataclysmo priore ad olympiadem primam, quod, quia multa in eo fabulosa
referuntur, muqikÒn nominatur, tertium a prima olympiade ad nos, quod dicitur
ƒstorikÒn, quia res in eo gestae veris historiis continentur4.

As fragment F34 from Africanus shows, the Chronographiae solution is

very efficacious. Africanus claims that in order to explain the origins of the
world – which in his Christian version may be equated with the creation
of man, see fragment F 1 –, it is necessary to take as a basis the precise
chronological structure of the Hebrew tradition. Clearly, the historia nar-
rated in the Bible is in conflict as regards the earliest history of mankind
with the mythodeis historiai of Greek tradition, which are inaccurate and
unreliable at least until the first Olympiad. Therefore, the development
of every archaiologia in the Christian historical perspective starts from
the concrete evidence of the limits imposed by Greek historia and from
the need to explore the obscure times of the Graeco-Hellenistic culture
(adelos chronos) through the historia of the Hebrews, that is, through
the data in the Bible. This produces a cultural synthesis that underlies all
Judaeo-Hellenistic or Christian universal history and that is based on the
assumption of the unreliability of Greek historiography with regard to
the origins of mankind5.

3
See e.g. Eratosthenes (FGH 2B, 241, 1010-1021 Jacoby). See on the problem: A. Mo-
migliano, The Origins of Universal History, ASNSP ser. III 12, 1982, 533-560 = idem,
Settimo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Roma 1984, 77-103.
For the Greek and Hellenistic tradition: J.M. Alonso-Núñez, Emergence of Universal
Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries BC, in: H. Verdin/G. Schepens/E.
de Keyser (eds.), Purposes of History, StHell 30, Louvain 1990, 173-192; K. Clarke,
Universal Perspective in Historiography, in: C. Shuttleworth Kraus (ed.), The Limits of
Historiography, Mn.S 191, Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999, 249-279.
4
Cens., De die natali liber ad Q. Caerellium 21,1 (BSGRT, 50,17-51,5 Sallmann). See K.
Sallmann, Censorinus ‘De Die Natali’. Zwischen Rhetorik und Wissenschaft, Hermes
111, 1983, 233-248.
5
For critical approach to Hellenistic chronography, Judaeo-Hellenistic chronography rep-
resents the main model for early Christian chronicles and for Africanus in particular. See
B.Z. Wacholder, Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles, HThR 61, 1968,
451-481. Greek and Jewish chronography in Alexandria: P. Guillaume, Philadelphus’
Alexandria as a Cradle of Biblical Historiography, in: P. McKechnie/P. Guillaume (eds.),
Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Mn.S 300, Leiden/Boston 2008, 247-255. On
the problem of the origin of history in the Greek and Hellenistic tradition see W. Adler,
Time immemorial. Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius
Africanus to George Syncellus, DOS 26, Washington 1989, 20-42.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
528 Umberto Roberto

To enable this historiographical synkrisis between different traditions,

the synchronism is a fundamental methodological tool. Christian early
chronographers appear to be attracted by it even more than Judeo-Hel-
lenistic chronographers6. This is a very strong message for an intellectual
and historian of Greek background like Africanus; but it is also through
this choice of mediation that his original creation of Christian universal
history is achieved.
How may this operation by Julius Africanus be judged? Is it the ex-
pression of a pure apologetic spirit determined by the conflict between
Christian and Hellenistic-Roman tradition? Quite clearly, apology plays
an important role in Africanus’ thought. But I fear that it might be a little
too “reductionist” to attempt to limit the whole message of the Chrono-
graphiae to purely apologetic aims. In my opinion, the Chronographiae
represents above all a cultural mediation, precisely because it is a Christian
intellectual work relying strongly on its Hellenistic roots. Besides that,
we should always be conscious of the fact that the author is a Roman
citizen, proud of his political identity. In accordance with his apologetic
precedessors, Africanus strives to demonstrate that the superiority of the
Hebrew historia over the Greek mythodeis historiai is actually based not
so much on cultural and religious prejudice as on scientific tenets, namely
chronological evidence. It is indeed exact chronological computation that
allows Julius Africanus to claim that his statement is well-founded. This
could be used to support the claim that Africanus was nothing more than
a Christian apologist, however, it seems that in his work scientific evidence
(in his Hellenistic meaning) always comes before apology. Therefore, it is
scientific necessity which appears to underlie the Chronographiae, logical
given that the book was also adressed to a non-Christian public. The his-
torical truth of this reflection emerges clearly when Africanus demonstrates
how the various computations present in the historiographic traditions
he examined (from very different cultures) coincide synchronically with a
definite chronological date7.
Of fundamental importance in this regard is also fragment F15. After
pointing out the absurdity of the Egyptian chronographic tradition, which
Plato’s Timaeus still bears witness, Africanus goes on to say:

T¦ g¦r Foin…kwn trismÚria œth À tÕn tîn Calda…wn lÁron, tÕ tîn mh' muri£dwn, t…
de‹ kaˆ lšgein; ™k toÚtwn g¦r 'Iouda‹oi tÕ ¢nškaqen gegonÒtej ¢pÕ 'Abra¦m ¢rx£menoi
¢tufÒterÒn te kaˆ ¢nqrwp…nwj met¦ toà ¢lhqoàj di¦ toà Mwusšwj pneÚmatoj
didacqšntej, œk te tîn loipîn `Ebra#kîn ƒstoriîn, ¢riqmÕn ™tîn pentakiscil…wn

6
See R.W. Burgess, Apologetic and Chronography. The Antecedents of Julius Africanus,
in: Wallraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (see note 1), (17-42)
30.
7
On the problem see also Burgess, Apologetic (see note 6), esp. 33-38, who describes
“Africanus’ growth away from apologetic”. This cultural development leads to the foun-
dation of “Christian history”.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 529

pentakos…wn e„j t¾n ™pif£neian toà swthr…ou lÒgou t¾n ™pˆ tÁj monarc…aj tîn
Kais£rwn khrussomšnhn paradedèkasin8.

The historiographic appeal of this passage can only increase the regret
that a work capable of such complex reasoning has been lost. Africanus
here presents his “historiographic genealogy” insofar as he is a Christian
universal historian; but when he affirms the reliability of Hebrew histori-
cal tradition he is also speaking as a Hellenistic intellectual. Unlike other
eastern and Egyptian traditions, the Hebrew historia is the only one that
can draw inspiration from the fundamental value of Greek historia, i.e.
aletheia. A consequence of this is its character of historiography con-
structed in accordance with moderation and in a human dimension, that
is, in a rationally verifiable and scientifically reliable Greek perspective
(¢tufÒterÒn te kaˆ ¢nqrwp…nwj). And the tool chosen by Africanus to
confirm this view is in fact Hellenistic chronological science. The entire
manifold scientific research is based on the possibility of verifying that
the two chronological systems – that of Hebrew tradition (the older) and
that of Hellenistic-Roman tradition (starting from Olympiad 1,1) – run
parallel and are equivalent as they are based on the same measure: human
reasoning expressed via the scientific method; and therefore they are aimed
at obtaining the same result: historical truth.
In a more general perspective, the observation of the two historiographic
and chronological systems has been performed until it demonstrated the
synchronism between the incarnation of Christ and the Roman monarchia
(two events of universal significance). In my view this is indicative of
an outlook of profound historiographic significance. It is indeed on this
synchronism (incarnation of Christ/foundation of the Roman monarchia)
that Christian universal history is based, which is necessarily distinct from
any previous Jewish or Graeco-Hellenistic experience.
On the basis of these historiographic and methodological premises,
it is possible to interpret another passage of great interest from the long
fragment F34 dedicated to Moses and the chronology of Exodus from
Egypt. After presenting the synchronism between the Greek system and
the Hebrew one, Africanus continues:
OÙkoàn tîn a' kaˆ k' ™tîn tîn mšcri prèthj 'Olumpi£doj ¢pÕ Mwusšwj te kaˆ
'WgÚgou, ™kkeimšnwn prètJ m{n œtei tÕ P£sca kaˆ tîn `Ebra…wn œxodoj ¹ ¢p'
A„gÚptou, ™n d{ tÍ 'AttikÍ Ð ™pˆ 'WgÚgou g…netai kataklusmÒj, kaˆ kat¦ lÒgon:

8
Afric., Chronographiae F15 (24,9-14 W./R.): “Of the 30.000 years of the Phoenicians
or of the absurdity of the Chaldaeans, with their 480.000 years, why should one even
speak? For although it is from the Chaldaeans that the Jews as descendants of Abraham
derive their origins, they have received through the spirit of Moses more modest and
moderate teaching, together with the truth. And from their remaining Hebrew histories,
they have handed down a period of 5500 years up to the advent of the Word of salva-
tion that was announced during the sovereignty of the Caesars” (English translation by
Adler [see note 1], 25).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
530 Umberto Roberto

tîn g¦r A„gupt…wn ÑrgÍ Qeoà cal£zaij te kaˆ ceimîsi mastizomšnwn e„kÕj Ãn
mšrh tin¦ sump£scein tÁj gÁj. œti te 'Aqhna…ouj tîn aÙtîn A„gupt…oij ¢polaÚein
e„kÕj Ãn ¢po…kouj ™ke…nwn Øponooumšnouj, éj fasin ¥lloi te kaˆ ™n tù Trikar£nJ
QeÒpompoj9.

Methodologically speaking, Africanus’ synchronism may be explained

along the lines that have already been illustrated. In the first instance,
Africanus is concerned with stating the truth of the historical fact using
the tool of chronology. The mythical story (mythodes historia) of Ogygus’
flood in Attica is situated precisely 1020 years before the first Olympiad,
in perfect synchronism with Moses’ Exodus from Egypt, which for Julius
Africanus is historia. In this way it is possible to wrench the event from
mythical space through the reliability of the Hebrew chronographic tradi-
tion.
After fixing the chronological order of the event, Africanus then proceeds
to explain this calamity in terms that respect the parameters of histori-
cal truth (¢l»qeia) and of narration constructed in a human dimension
(¢tufÒterÒn te kaˆ ¢nqrwp…nwj), that is, rationally. It is interesting to note
that he develops his explanation by using two interpretations that hark
back to his Greek cultural background.
The first is philosophic in nature and it refers to natural science. There
is actually a precise reference to Stoic philosophic speculation in which all
parts of the cosmos are believed to be interconnected. It is scientifically
rational to consider that the Attica flood occurred at the time of Moses’
Exodus from Egypt, as all parts of the cosmos are interconnected and
therefore doomed to suffer the effects of the same catastrophic event.
This is the doctrine of Stoic sympatheia, re-elaborated in a Christian
key and evoked by Africanus also through the lexical choice of the verb
sump£scein.
Even more important for our argument is the second interpretation,
which is a reference to cultural history. Africanus also deems it to be
rational that the disasters unleashed by God on Egypt should involve At-
tica, since the Athenians are Egyptian colonists. It is therefore the ethnic
kinship (suggšneia) and the cultural links between metropolis and colony
that justify the choice of the divine providence10. In order to support this

9
Afric., Chronographiae F34 (80,96-82,102 W./R.): “So then, in the first year of the 1020
years extending from Moses and Ogygus up to the first Olympiad, the Passover and the
Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt took place. But in Attica the flood at the time of
Ogygus occurred, and with good reason. For when the Egyptians were being scourged by
the wrath of God with hailstones and tempests, it was fitting for certain parts of the earth
to suffer along with them. For it was appropriate that the Athenians should experience
the same things the Egyptians did, since they are considered to be emigrants from them,
as is stated, among others, by Theopompus in his Tricaranus” (English translation by
Adler [see note 1], 81.83).
10
On the idea of Suggšneia see D. Musti, Sull’idea di suggšneia in iscrizioni greche, ASNSP
32, 1965-1966, 225-239; S. Lücke, Syngeneia. Epigraphisch-historische Studien zu einem
Phänomen der antiken griechischen Diplomatie, Frankfurter althistorische Beiträge 5,

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 531

view, Africanus, as he customarily does in the Chronographiae, appeals

to the authority of a Greek or Hellenistic historian, in particular quoting
a passage from a lost work of Theopompus, the Trikaranos.
Africanus’ statement is of great historiographic significance. In my opin-
ion this is one of the passages in which the transformation of cultural
paradigms marking the birth of Christian historiography out of the re-
elaboration of the classical and Hellenistic tradition can most clearly be
seen. The hypothesis that Athens was an Egyptian colony, perhaps founded
by the inhabitants of the city of Sais in the Delta region, had long been
current in Greek culture. It is present also in Plato’s Timaeus, where it was
vehemently rejected in complete favour of the autonomy and superiority
of Athens. It was in fact a theme that suggested the debate on the origins
of the entire Greek civilization and the reasons for its alleged superior-
ity over the other cultures. In the confrontation among civilizations, in
the Greek view, greater age also signified cultural superiority. Therefore,
the issue hung on the possibility that the Greeks might have drawn their
origins from a long process of colonization by external populations. The
external colonization hypothesis was contrasted with the thesis of the
autochthony of the principal Greek peoples, an idea on which the cultural
primacy of the entire Hellas was founded. It is therefore not surprising
that the hypothesis that Athens was an Egyptian colony was rejected out
of hand in the classical era11.
In the Hellenistic age, the debate was rekindled. The primacy of the
Athenian civilization was reconfirmed through the work of the writers on
the origins of the city, the Atthidographers. Writers on the archaic history
and chronology of Athens are already attested in the fifth century BC. Hel-
lanikos of Lesbos is the first historian to write an Attiké Syngraphe after
404. This historiographical group grew with great vitality at least until the
first half of the third century BC. Philocoros is author of a Atthis, a history
of Athens in 17 books, composed around 260. In particular during the
fourth century, the Atthidographers devote themselves to celebrating the
cultural and historical primacy of Athens, working on its archaic history,

Frankfurt 2000; D. Musti, La “syngheneia” e la “oikeiotes”. Sinonimi o nuances?, in:

M.G. Bertinelli/L. Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio e terminologia diplomatica dall’antico
Oriente all’impero bizantino, Roma 2001, 44-63.
11
Egyptian culture in greek thought: Hdt., Historiae II 143; Pl., Tim. 22-23; Pl., Criti. 108E;
112E. On the problem see of course M. Bernal, Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots of
Classical Civilisation, Vol. 3: The Linguistic Evidence, New Brunswick 2006, 564-568;
and recently: idem, Egyptians in the Hellenistic Woodpile. Were Hekataios of Abdera
and Diodoros Sikeliotes right to see Egypt in the origins of Greece?, in: McKechnie/Guil-
laume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World (see note 5), 119-134. Autochthony
of Athens: N. Loraux, Né de la terre. Politique et autochtonie à Athènes, Paris 1996;
recently C. Bearzot, Autoctonia, rifiuto della mescolanza, civilizzazione: da Isocrate a
Megastene, in: T. Gnoli/F.M. Muccioli (eds.), Incontri tra culture nell’Oriente ellenistico
e romano, Milano 2007, 7-28.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
532 Umberto Roberto

on the interpretation of myths and events concerning the early history of

the polis. Their aims were cultural, but also political and religious12.
On the other hand, starting in the late fourth century BC, the idea
of a pan-Egyptian colonization that led among other things also to the
foundation of Athens, as a colony that is, arose again. The Trikaranos is
lost: therefore it is not possible for us to know exactly in which context
Theopompus (or its true author, Anaximenes of Lampsacos) revived this
theory. Nevertheless, it clearly reappeared in other authors linked to the
Ptolemaic court, Greek writers of Aigyptiaka, such as Hecataeus of Abdera.
In his work, Hecataeus stakes a claim to the superiority of the Egyptians,
who are described as the earliest civilisation in the Mediterranean region.
According to his opinion, many Greek intellectuals learnt their wisdom
from Egypt13.
In the first century BC, Hellenistic universal historiography again ad-
dressed the issue, although now in a perspective that definitely favoured
the primacy of Hellenistic-Roman culture. Diodorus Siculus actually re-
jected the hypothesis, reiterating the unreliability of the Egyptian theories
(Bibliotheca historica I 28,1.4; 29,5f.)14. Then, in the era of Hadrian,
against a background of a profound reappraisal of Egypt and its culture,
the image of Athens as an Egyptian colony reappeared in a more struc-
tured form in the work of Charax of Pergamon, who was favourable to
this tradition15.
A few decades later came Africanus’ testimony which proved to be of
fundamental importance as it was incorporated in the new historiographic
context. The following is an aspect of Africanus’ historiographic work
that deserves to be examined in greater detail. To support the reliability
of his synchronism between Moses’ Exodus and the Attica flood at the
time of Ogygus, Africanus joins in a historiographic debate that had been
going on for centuries in Greek culture. He chooses between the various
historiographic schools of thought: he chooses to support the thesis of
Theopompus, Hecataeus and Charax (probably one of his sources) in
open opposition to one of his models, Diodorus Siculus, and to an entire
historiographic current, that of the Atthidographers.
As mentioned earlier, the Atthidographers claimed the cultural and
civic primacy of Athens, referring in particular to the autochthony of the

12
For a general survey on Atthidography and its aims see E. Schwartz, Atthis, PRE 2,
Stuttgart 1896, 2180-2183; F. Jacoby, Atthis. The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens,
Oxford 1949; P. Harding, Androtion and the Atthis, Clarendon Ancient History Series,
Oxford 1994; C. Bearzot/F. Landucci. Storie di Atene, storia dei Greci, Milan 2010.
13
For Hecataeus see O. Murray, Hecataeus of Abdera and the Pharaonic Kingship, JEA
56, 1970, 141-171.
14
D.S., Bibliotheca historica I 28,1.4; 29,5f. (BSGRT Diodori Bibliotheca Historica Vol.
1, 44f.; 47f. Bekker/Dindorf/Vogel).
15
On Diodorus see A. Burton, Diodorus Siculus. Book I. A Commentary, EPRO 29, Leiden
1972, 122-123. On Charax of Pergamon: O. Andrei, A. Claudius Charax di Pergamo.
Interessi antiquari e antichità cittadine nell’età degli Antonini, Bologna 1984.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 533

population in Attica. This need became even stronger in the era of Athens’
political decadence, beginning in the fourth century and in the Hellenis-
tic period16. In Roman times, the defence of the primacy of Athens over
Greece and the entire oecumene became one of the tools used to celebrate
Hellenistic-Roman culture, that is, the hegemonic culture of the empire.
Above all, at the time of the Antonini and the Second Sophistic, Athens
represented a sublime model of polis in an empire, such as the Roman
one, formed by cities17.
By reproposing the model of Athens as an Egyptian colony, Africanus
attacked this fundamental value of Hellenistic-Roman culture, the primacy
of Athens. His opposition to Atthidography in the entire fragment F34 is
direct. As we saw earlier, there is, in the first instance, the general context
of the discourse. In the opinion of important representatives of Hellenistic-
Roman culture (such as Varro, in Censorinus), any reconstruction of the
history of the origins by the Greeks has no historical value. When the At-
thidographers write about the first kings of Attica, their claims are shrouded
in legend. They write fantastic stories (mythodeis historiai), lacking any
scientific basis. Africanus’ polemic is severe with reference to the whole
chronological system of the Atthidography. According to him, these are
events that, in any case, come after the feat of Moses and can therefore be
placed in a historical framework based solely on the Hebrew historia:
Shmeiwtšon d{ æj Ó ti pot{ ™xa…reton “ Ellhsi di' ¢rcaiÒthta muqeÚetai, met¦ Mwusša
toàq' eØr…sketai: kataklusmo… te kaˆ ™kpurèseij, PromhqeÚj, 'Iè, EÙrèph, Sparto…,
KÒrhj ¡rpag», must»ria, nomoqes…ai, DionÚsou pr£xeij, PerseÚj, «qloi `Hr£kleioi,
'Argonaàtai, Kšntauroi, Minètauroj, t¦ perˆ ” Ilion, `Hrakleidîn k£qodoj, 'Iènwn
¢poik…a kaˆ 'Olumpi£dej18.

16
According to the Greek thought, autochthony means antiquity, cultural autonomy, and
therefore superiority: see, e.g., Hdt., Historiae VII 161,3; Isocrates, Panegyrikos 26-33
and 39; Bearzot, Autoctonia (see note 11), 20f.
17
Athens in the age of Antonini and after: D.J.R. Waterfield, Athens. A History, From
Ancient Ideal to Modern City, London 2004, 282-323; E.J. Watts, City and School in
Late Antique Athens and Alexandria, The transformation of the classical heritage 41,
Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2006; M. Di Branco, La città dei filosofi. Storia di Atene
da Marco Aurelio a Giustiniano. Con un’appendice su ‘Atene immaginaria’ nella lette-
ratura bizantina, CivVen 51, Firenze 2006. Athens held the cultural primacy, while Rome
held the political hegemony on the entire oecumene. See the development of this idea in
Aelius Aristides’ Panathenaicon: E. Oudot, Penser l’autochtonie athénienne à l’époque
impériale, in: V. Fromentin/S. Gotteland (eds.), Origines gentium, Ausonius Publications/
Études 7, Bordeaux 2001, 95-108.
18
Afric., Chronographiae F34 (80,88-92 W./R.): “But it should be noted that if ever any
remarkable story is recorded by the Greeks because of its antiquity, this will be found
to have occurred after Moses: the floods and fires, Prometheus, Io, Europe, the Sparti,
the rape of Kore, the mysteries, enactment of laws, the exploits of Dionysius, Perseus,
the labors of Heracles, the Argonauts, the Centaurs, the Minotaur, the story of Troy, the
return of the Heraclidae, the settlement of Ionia, and the Olympics” (English translation
by Adler [see note 1], 81). It is highly probable that a passage in Ps. Iustinus, Cohortatio
ad Graecos 12,2 (PTS 32, 38,14-18 Marcovich), should be attributed to Africanus. At
least it derives from his tradition: ” Allwj te oÙd{ toàto ¢gnoe‹n Øm©j pros»kei, Óti oÙd{n

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
534 Umberto Roberto

Evidently, Africanus is following the main theme of the Jewish apologetic

and chronography. According to Eupolemus and Artapanus, as well as
Philo and Flavius Josephus, Jewish cultural superiority was demonstrated
by the greater antiquity of Abraham and Moses. The chronological method
of Jewish historians clarifies that Abraham and Moses lived before any
Greek writer. Flavius Josephus claims that even the Egyptians derived
their wisdom from the Jews19. The early Christian chronographers shared
this apologetic opinion with their Jewish predecessors. Theophilus (Ad
Autolycum III 16-29) and the chronological essay in book I of the Stro-
mateis (101-147) by Clemens Alexandrinus are fundamental to understand
Africanus’ Chronographiae20.
In his criticism of Greek chronology and historiography, Africanus com-
mences his debate with this polemic between the Greeks and Jews. But then,
he expands his analysis and embraces the whole history of the Mediterra-
nean civilisation. In order to contrast the position of the Atthidographers
on the early history of Athens, he tries to provide a synthesis of the tradi-
tional themes of Jewish apologetic together with the opinions of hellenistic
historians, who were in evident opposition to the Atthidographers21.
In view of these premises, it is easy to understand, for example, Afri-
canus’ harsh judgment of the assertions of the Atthidographers regarding
Ogygus, the first king of Attica.
T¦ d{ prÕ toÚtwn æd… pwj tÁj 'AttikÁj cronograf…aj ¢riqmoumšnhj, ¢pÕ 'WgÚgou
toà par' ™ke…noij aÙtÒcqonoj pisteuqšntoj, ™f' oá gšgonen Ð mšgaj kaˆ prîtoj ™n
tÍ 'AttikÍ kataklusmÒj, Forwnšwj 'Arge…wn basileÚontoj, æj 'Akous…laoj ƒstore‹,
mšcri prèthj 'Olumpi£doj, ÐpÒqen “ Ellhnej ¢kriboàn toÝj crÒnouj ™nÒmisan, œth
sun£getai c…lia e‡kosin […]22.

“ Ellhsi prÕ tîn 'Olumpi£dwn ¢krib{j ƒstÒrhtai, oÙd' œsti ti sÚggramma palaiÕn `Ell»nwn
À barb£rwn shma‹non pr©xin, mÒnh d{ ¹ toà prètou prof»tou Mwusšwj proãpÁrcen
ƒstor…a, ¿n ™k qe…aj ™pipno…aj MwusÁj gšgrafen to‹j tîn `Ebra…wn gr£mmasi. On the passage
see Ps. Justin (Markell von Ancyra?), Ad Graecos de vera religione (bisher “Cohortatio
ad Graecos”). Einleitung und Kommentar von C. Riedweg, Teil 1: Einleitung, SBA 25/1,
Basel 1994, 30f.
19
J., AJ I 167f.; J., Ap. I 162-165. Before Josephus see also Eupolemus, Aristobulus and
Artapanus. On the Judaeo-Hellenistic chronography see Wacholder, Biblical Chronology
(see note 5). For Christian reinterpretation of Judaeo-Hellenistic chronography: A.J.
Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture,
HUTh 26, Tübingen 1989; Burgess, Apologetic (see note 6), 25-29.
20
Cf. Thphl.Ant., Autol. III 16-29 (PTS 44 [43/44], 116,1-136,47 Marcovich) and Clem.,
strom. I 21,101-147 (GCS Clemens Alexandrinus 42, 64,18-92,3 Stählin/Früchtel). On
Africanus’ Christian predecessors see Burgess, Apologetic (see note 6), 30-35. On Clem.,
strom. I 101-147 see C. Termini, Il profilo letterario delle sezioni storiografiche nel primo
libro degli Stromati di Clemente Alessandrino, RSMR 18, 1994, 219-242.
21
For criticism against Atthidography among the writers of the Second Sophistic (Dio
Chrysostomus, Pausanias, Lucianus) see Oudot, Penser l’autochtonie (see note 17).
22
Afric., Chronographiae F34 (74,26-30 W./R.): “Now the Attic system of measuring
time reckons the dates of the earlier events in something like the following way: From
Ogygus, who was believed by them to be indigenous, and in whose time the great first
flood in Attica occurred, when Phoroneus was king of Argos, according to the historical
record of Acusilaus, up to the first Olympiad, from which time the Greeks believed they

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 535

The Atthidographers wrongly believed Ogygus to be an autochthon, as,

according to Africanus’ reconstruction, he was actually an Egyptian. Indeed
the first part of the list of Athenian kings preserved by Sincellus (and partly
the parallel passage from the Excerpta Barbari) recalls (fragment F54b):
`Wj aÙtÕj 'AfrikanÕj memartÚrhken ™n ¢rcÍ toà tr…tou lÒgou e„pèn: 'ApÕ m{n
'WgÚgou di¦ t¾n ¢pÕ toà kataklusmoà poll¾n fqor¦n ¢bas…leutoj œmeinen ¹
nàn 'Attik¾ œtesin rpq'. E"ta Kškroy Ð difu¾j œth n'. KranaÕj aÙtÒcqwn met¦
Kškropa œth q'23.

For Africanus, the first autochthonous king of Attica is Cranaus. Ogygus

and Cecrops diphyes were therefore not autochthonous but of Egyptian
origin. In a brief digression, it may be wondered whether consideration
should be given at least among the dubious fragments of the Chrono-
graphiae to the Eusebian passage in which the double nature (diphyes) of
Cecrops is explained:

Kškroy Ð difu¾j tÁj tÒte 'AktÁj, nàn d{ 'AttikÁj, ™bas…leusen œth nʹ, di¦ mÁkoj
sèmatoj oÛtw kaloÚmenoj, éj fhsin Ð FilÒcoroj, À Óti A„gÚptioj ín t¦j dÚo
glèssaj ºp…stato. oátoj ¢pÕ tÁj 'Aqhn©j t¾n pÒlin 'Aq»naj çnÒmasen. ™pˆ aÙtoà
¹ ™n tÍ ¢kropÒlei ™la…a prètwj ™fÚh. ¢p' aÙtoà d{ Kekrop…a ¹ cèra ™kl»qh24.

It should be noted that Clement (Stromateis I 102) and Tatianus, Africa-

nus’ predecessors for Christian chronography, still recorded Cecrops as
AÙtÒcqwn. Besides that, they do not mention the Egyptian origin of Ogy-
gus. Therefore, Africanus is the first Christian writer to consider Ogygus
an Egyptian. Since he affirms that Cranaus, the king after Cecrops, was
the first to be called AÙtÒcqwn, we could infer that in his reconstruction,
Cecrops was also Egyptian. The information provided by Eusebius seems
to confirm this hypothesis. Probably, Eusebius derives his explanation of

were accurate in their chronology, there are altogether 1020 years” (English translation
by Adler [see note 1], 75).
23
Afric., Chronographiae F54b (158,1-5 W./R.): “[This Africanus himself has attested in
the beginning of his third book:] from the time of Ogygus, because of the great destruc-
tion wrought by the flood, what is now Attica remained without a king for 189 years.
Then Cecrops the Double-Natured, 50 years. After Cecrops, Cranaus the indigenous, 9
years”. (English translation by Adler [see note 1], 159).
24
Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica (BSGRT, 179,9-13 Mosshammer) = Eus.,
Chronicorum Canonum (Eusebi, Chronicorum Libri Duo, edidit A. Schoene, vol. 2, Hi-
eronymi versio e libris manuscriptis, Berlin 1866, 24), cf. FGH 3B, 328,F93, 127 Jacoby;
translation: The Chronography of George Synkellos. A byzantine Chronicle of Universal
History from the Creation, Translated with an Introduction and Notes by W. Adler and
P. Tuffin, Oxford 2002, 221: “Kekrops the Double-Natured ruled what was then Akte,
but is now known as Attica, for fifty years. He was called the Double-Natured either
because of his bodily stature, or because, as an Egyptian, he knew two languages. He
named the city Athens after Athena”. This text is already ascribed to Africanus by Gelzer,
Julius Africanus I (see note 1), 129-130; and then by G. De Sanctis, Atthis. Storia della
repubblica ateniese dalle origini all’età di Pericle, Torino ²1912, 105. On the Egyptian
origin of Cecrops see Bernal, Black Athena (see note 11), 567f.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
536 Umberto Roberto

difu»j joining the interpretation from Philochoros to Africanus’ opinion

that Cecrops was Egyptian25.
The results of his research led Africanus to express a historiographic
judgment on the Atthidographers in which they are vilified:
T¦ g¦r 'Aqhna…wn ƒstoroàntej `Ell£nikÒj te kaˆ FilÒcoroj oƒ t¦j 'Atq…daj, o† te t¦
SÚria K£stwr kaˆ QallÒj, kaˆ t¦ p£ntwn DiÒdwroj Ð t¦j Biblioq»kaj, 'AlšxandrÒj
te Ð Polu$stwr ka… tinej tîn kaq' ¹m©j ¢kribšsteron ™mn»sqhsan kaˆ tîn 'Attikîn
¡p£ntwn. e‡ tij oân ™n to‹j cil…oij e‡kosin œtesin ™p…shmoj ƒstor…a tugc£nei, kat¦
tÕ cr»simon ™kleg»setai26.

Africanus’ polemic against the reliability of the Atthidographers is calm

but unhesitating. Their reconstruction is false, as it does not have the sup-
port of the Hebrew historia. And also vis-à-vis the other pagan Hellenistic
authors, the Christian writers (oƒ kaq' ¹m©j) are able to attain the maximum
degree of accuracy and truth precisely because of their capacity to draw on
multiple chronological and historiographic traditions. This was not only
a harsh blow dealt to the Atthidographers, but also an exaltation of the
historiographic capabilities of the new Christian historians27.
Africanus was by nature inclined towards a frequent, often annoying,
self-celebration. However, in this confrontation the personal reference
was expanded into a judgment on the various historiographic methods,
that of the earlier tradition and the new Christian one. It follows that, for
Africanus, both the Atthidographers and the entire Greek historiography
are incapable of competing with the research methods adopted by the new
Christian universal historiography on the issue of the origins of Athens.
From the historiographic point of view, the opposition between Greek
tradition and Christian innovation is quite clear28.
In opposition to the harsh criticism of Jewish apologetic, Africanus’
Chronographiae represents a synthesis of Jewish wisdom and Romano-
Hellenistic historiography. For this reason, the Chronographiae was not
only very successful, it also went on to become a model for the late antique

25
Both explanations could quite easily derive from Africanus, since Philocorus is mentioned
as a source in the Chronographiae (F34 [74,26-33; 78,71-73 W./R.]).
26
Afric., Chronographiae F34 (74,31-36 W./R.): “For the writers of Athenian history, both
Hellanicus and Philocorus, authors of the Atthides; writers of Syrian history, Castor and
Thallus; writers of universal history, Diodorus the author of the Bibliotheca, and Alexander
Polyhistor; and some writers of our own tradition have recorded this chronology more
accurately than even all the Attic historians” (English translation by Adler [see note 1],
75).
27
On the unreliability of the Atthidography, a passage by Ps. Iustinus, Cohortatio ad Graecos
(9,2 [35, 11-13 M.]) should be attributed to Africanus: 'En g¦r to‹j crÒnoij 'WgÚgou te kaˆ
'In£cou, oÞj kaˆ ghgene‹j tinej tîn par' Øm‹n Øpeil»fasin gegenÁsqai, Mwusšwj mšmnhtai
ïj ¹gemÒnoj te kaˆ ¥rcontoj toà tîn 'Iouda…wn gšnouj. See the commentary of Ps. Justin
(Markell von Ancyra?), Ad Graecos (see note 18), 32-33. The contrast between Greek
writers (oƒ par' Øm‹n) and the Christian Ps. Iustinus on the autoctony of Ogygus clearly
derives from Africanus’ criticism.
28
On this point, before Africanus see, e.g., Clem., strom. I 112,4; 114,1; 116,3; 121,4;
124,4.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 537

and byzantine chronicle. Christian Universal chronicles in Greek are often

based on Africanus’ structure and chronology, while Africanus was also
considered an authority by eastern historiography29.
At the conclusion of our discussion, we may ask why Africanus chose
to make a selection so unfavourable to Athens and its primacy as autoch-
thonous city and cradle of knowledge for the Greeks and the Romans.
Apologetic aims come first to mind. At the time of Africanus, as well
as throughout late antiquity, Athens was the most important centre of
Graeco-Roman philosophy and paganism. To attack the city on the grounds
of its origins is a historical operation that certainly has an effect also on
Athens’ religious role, and on the relations between Christianity and pa-
ganism in general. Among the principal aims of Atthidography there was
the defence of traditional religion. These writers strove to explain and
to understand the myths of archaic Athens through different patterns of
investigation: Orphic theology, e.g., or rationalistic interpretation of the
texts30. According to Africanus’ criticism, the results of this investigation
are unreliable both for chronological errors and for cultural and historical
misinterpretation.
However, to reduce everything to an apology in the case of Africanus
would to my mind be an oversimplification. Rather, it is possible to refer
again to the grand ideas underlying Africanus’ conception of history.
As a Christian, as an exponent of Hellenistic culture, as a Roman
citizen at the time of the Severi (after Caracalla), Julius Africanus be-
lieved in the cultural unity of mankind. In his fragments we glimpse the
idea of the existence of a continuous history of human progress starting
from Adam, passing through the diamerismos of Noah’s descendants and
continuing until the synchronism between the coming of Christ and the
Roman hegemony over the oecumene in which the destiny of individual
peoples of the Earth is maintained united (fragment F15)31. On the one
hand, this idea of a cultural unity of mankind fits in with Roman univer-
salism in the Severan age after the Constitutio Antoniniana; on the other
hand, with Christian ecumenism and proselytism. We should consider it

29
See W. Adler, Eusebius’ Chronicle and Its Legacy, in: H.W. Attridge/G. Hata (eds.),
Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Leiden/New York/Köln 1992, (467-491) 484-486; B.
Croke, Byzantine Chronicle Writing. 1: The early development of Byzantine chronicles, in:
E.M. Jeffreys/B. Croke/R. Scott (eds.), Studies in John Malalas, Byzantina Australiensia
4, Sydney 1990, 27-38.
30
Probably, the Cronik¾ ƒstor…a of Dexippus of Athens (after 269/270 AD), a universal
chronicle, presented again an interpretation of the archaic history of Athens which was
aimed to celebrate the cultural and religious primacy of the city in the Roman Empire.
See F. Millar, P. Herennius Dexippus. The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions,
JRS 59, 1969, 12-29. For Eunapius’ criticism on this part of Dexippus’ chronicle see F.
Paschoud, La préface de l’ouvrage historique d’Eunape, Historia 38, 1989, 198-223.
31
A fundament of this theory is the providential synchronism between the incarnation of
Christ (™pif£neia toà swthr…ou lÒgou) and the foundation of the Roman Empire by
Augustus (monarc…a tîn Kais£rwn) – as explained in fragment F15. This synchronism
reveals the unity of time in the history of mankind.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
538 Umberto Roberto

as an important element in Africanus’ intellectual thinking, which aimed

to create a chronological synthesis of the Roman Empire and Christianity.
From a cultural and historiographical point of view, it works well in the
Chronographiae of Africanus. But, of course, this idea is in stark contrast
to Athenian autochthony, which originates from the sense of cultural su-
periority of Greek culture, on the one hand; on the other hand, from the
refusal of any ethnic and cultural mixture between Athenians and other
cultures. According to the authors of the Classical age and to Atthidog-
raphers, autochthony means eÙgšneia, purity: these ideological claims lead
to the cultural and anthropological supremacy of Athens and his pol‹tai.
It is evident the anachronistic value of this opinion in opposition to the
universality of the Roman Empire32.
Through the idea of the unity of mankind, Africanus was able to intro-
duce into his thinking another fundament of his historical vision, which
was equally suited for ancient history and his own period. According to
him, Athens and the Greeks only represent a segment, albeit an important
one, in the transmission of wisdom and civilisation. This process has a
well-defined starting point: the East, and in particular the land whence
Africanus himself came. This is where man and his knowledge were born.
And it is from there that the processes leading to the spread of culture
and civilization began. In a sort of translatio of civilization and tšcnai,
together with the Jews and other Mesopotamian cultures, a fundamen-
tal role was played by Egypt. It is in this perspective, to my mind, that
Africanus’ adoption of the theory of Athens as an Egyptian colony must
be viewed; and more in general, his judgment on Greek culture. Despite
his background of Hellenistic-Roman paideia, Africanus has an approach
to knowledge that is deeply multicultural and extends beyond the limits
of the Greek view, which is still present in the Atthidographers (in the
case of the origins of Athens) or in its models such as Diodorus Siculus.
His Christian outlook enables him to embrace all the cultures of the oe-
cumene, retaining as a fundamental assumption the role of Egypt and the
East in the development of civilization. In this sense, Greek civilization,
although occupying a noble and central place in Africanus’ interests, is
downgraded to just one of the cultures at work in the overall history of
mankind; and in its classical dimension (which is the one most celebrated
by the Greeks themselves and the Romans), it is a relatively tardy and
in any case unoriginal phenomenon of human civilization. In order to
understand Athens, it is necessary to know Egypt. But even Egypt de-
rives his wisdom from eastern cultures: Jews, Chaldeans, Babylonians.
And it is no coincidence that the moment that Greek civilization achieves

32
See U. Roberto, Die Einheit der Menschheit und die Chronographia von Julius Africanus,
in: D. Brodka/M. Stachura (eds.), Continuity and Change. Studies in Late Antique His-
toriography, Electrum 2007, 15-28. For new interpretations of Athenian archaic history,
fit for Roman universalism see Oudot, Penser l’autochtonie (see note 17).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08
 From Hellenistic to Christian Universal History 539

worldwide and cultural hegemony over the oecumene coincides with the
conquest of Egypt by Alexander and ends with the Egypt of Cleopatra;
it therefore ends with the oecumenic monarchia of the Romans. And we
may conclude by emphasizing the fact that, just as Africanus was writing
the Chronographiae, insisting at the historiographic level on the role of
the East, under Elagabalus and then under Severus Alexander, there is a
family of oriental princes that holds supreme sway in the Roman world.
The historiographic effort of Africanus thus reflects the political events of
his contemporary age and even his personal experience. Indeed, during the
period running from the end of the reign of Elagabalus and the beginning
of that of Alexander Severus, Africanus is one of the Roman citizens of
oriental origin who move to Rome, where they are appointed to impor-
tant positions in the administration and government of the empire. The
primacy of the East, which is justified by the Christian historiographic
view, is thus seen to be realized materially by the pro-oriental policies of
the Severian emperors33.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die Chronographiae des Julius Africanus stehen am Übergang von der Antike zur
Spätantike. Als Anhänger des christlichen Glaubens und Begründer der christlichen
Universalgeschichte bleibt Africanus zugleich der Tradition der hellenistischen Gelehr-
samkeit verbunden. Infolgedessen wird die christliche Idee der Einheit der Menschheit
in den Chronographiae durch den Rückgriff auf die hellenistische Kultur verstärkt.
Dies zeigt sich besonders deutlich an der Verknüpfung der als synchron angesehenen
Ereignisse des Exodus von Israel unter Mose und der Flut zur Zeit von Ogygos in Attika
(F34). Interessant ist, wie Africanus die Autochtonie und kulturelle Eigenständigkeit
Athens ablehnt. Die Polemik gegen eine idealisierende Beschreibung der Urgeschichte
Athens ist eine wichtige Etappe im Wandel von einer klassisch-hellenistischen zu einer
christlichen Universalgeschichte.

33
On Africanus and Rome see my forthcoming Le Chronographiae di Sesto Giulio Africano.
Storiografia, politica e cristianesimo nell’età dei Severi.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 20.09.12 12:08