Arduum res gestas scribere

A collection of articles - The preliminary plan

THE CHRONOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONFINES
The Faces of the Other – Religious and Ethnic Otherness in the Late Roman World focuses on the perception of otherness, whether other peoples or religions, in the Greco-Roman world. The planned time span is around 100-400 CE and onwards, that is, the Late Roman Empire as understood broadly. In the case of perception of otherness a longue dureé perspective is most appropriate. Therefore, it is possible to move beyond these chronological limits. The thematic confines are more significant here.

The time span, c. 100-400 CE, has been chosen because significant ideological changes take place during that period. Within this time span it is possible to outline changes and continuities in the long-term thought patterns and attitudes in Roman society. Furthermore, Late Antiquity had a crucial impact on the development of the perceptions and attitudes that have prevailed for centuries and exist even today.
THE THEMES
The purpose of the book is to discuss the conceptions, depictions and attitudes towards the other in Greco-Roman antiquity. These others may be ethnic others such as the Persians and the Germanic peoples or the Huns were to Romans; or religious others such as Jews were Christians, or Christians to Jews, Christians to pagans, or pagans to Christians, or different cults to the ‘mainstream’ Romans, or different Christian sects to each other. At least one of the articles (M. Kahlos, ‘Who is Roman, who is Barbarian?’) will discuss how the ethnic otherness and religious otherness are interconnected in the argumentation and depictions. This article forms a bridge from Part One ‘The religious others’ to Part Two ‘The ethnic others’.
THE RESEARCH ON IMAGES AND ATTITUDES
The Faces of the Other participates in the current discussion of Greek and Roman identities and attitudes to otherness in the Greco-Roman world. We also take part in the scholarly discussion of the research on images, attitudes and conceptions. The focus will be on the people, community or culture that created the image. Thus, the starting point is that the depiction of the other does not reflect reality as much as it reveals a reverse image of the community or culture that created it.

Therefore, one of our basic assumptions is that the image of the other reveals more of the creators of the image than of the object portrayed. Attention is focused on the writers, their audiences and their society as well as the ways in which the writers view otherness and define themselves and their communities through the other. The hypothesis will be tested in the articles of the book that survey different communities and circumstances under the Late Roman Empire.

In the historical research of images, the concept of image is understood as a cognitive structure of knowledge of an object. The image is a reflection of reality and it could be compared to a map in a person’s mind, portraying reality but not being real in itself. Nonetheless, images become ‘real’ in the sense that they influence people’s decisions and actions. Perceptions of reality become reality.

Images are considered more permanent than opinions or attitudes and more extensive than stereotypes. Stereotypes are regarded as the parts of an image. The stability of images is due to the fact that image formation begins in childhood and people tend to acknowledge the information that supports the already existing image and reject the information that opposes it. Despite this stability, images also change – either because of abrupt dramatic occurrences or repeated experiences. These may force a person or a community to re-evaluate the earlier image and shape a new image. In The Faces of the Other we draw attention to the permanence as well as the changes of images.

As was stated above, the historical research of images shifts the emphasis to the person, community or culture that forms the image. It is postulated that the image is influenced by the political, social, economic and ideological circumstances of the culture producing the image. Similarly, the worldview, personal background, motives and intentions of the creator of the image have an effect on the image.

The images that we are able to study usually represent the views of the Greco-Roman elites. We are aware of the fact that it is difficult and almost impossible to get in touch with the views of the so-called ordinary people. At best only glimpses of the conceptions of ordinary people may be grasped through the literature written by the elite. In The Faces of the Other it will be discussed how representative the researched images under discussion are and whether they are to be regarded as collective images common to a community or culture.

From the perspective of the research on images and attitudes, it is less important whether an image is ‘true’ or ‘false’. Rather, what is more crucial here is to understand how and why the image is formed, that is, to lay emphasis on the process of image formation. Thus, the purpose of The Faces of the Other is not to search for original and genuine objective descriptions of the other in the sources but rather to expose Greco-Roman ideas and conceptions of reality.

The depictions of the other are seen to function as community building and clarification of boundaries. To put it plainly, to be able to define and understand oneself one has also to define the other. To the others are attributed the qualities that the formers of the image would not see in themselves. The image of the other serves as self-definition. The clarification of boundaries with redefining the self and the other becomes particularly important in times of significant changes, crises and upheavals. It is crucial to discuss in the articles of our book how these changes and crises influence the construction of identities through the images of the other.
THE COHERENCE OF THE BOOK
In order to build consistency and coherence in the book, we have given the writers a list of questions to be considered while writing their articles. The questions are to be taken into consideration mutatis mutandis according to the particular topic of each article:

o What kinds of images are depicted in sources?
o What kind of different elements /aspects /levels are there in these depictions?
o What kinds of arguments are used for depicting the other as, e.g., morally or intellectually inferior?

o What kinds of stereotypes are depicted?
Which negative elements? Which positive elements?
o Is the other romanticized (e.g., in Tacitus’ Germania)?
If it is, what is projected in the stereotype of the romanticized other?
o Is the other depicted as an enemy (enemy image)?

o How are the images formed?
o How does a writer perceive the other through the concepts of a writer’s own culture (e.g., the Greco-Roman concepts rex and basileus were projected to the leaders of the Huns)?
o What kinds of models and traditions of depictions are there? Which literary conventions?

o Why does/do a writer /writers /community form /create this kind of image?
o What is the purpose of the image for the writer / the writer’s community?
o What is the social status of the writer and how does it influence the image?

Distances:
o How are geographical or cultural distances articulated?
o How is difference articulated?
o How is similarity articulated?

Clarifying identity:
o How do ancient authors define themselves/their communities through the depictions of the other, e.g., by marking boundaries between one’s community and the other’s community?
o How are identities defined and redefined?

Symbolic language:
o What kind of symbolic language is used when speaking about the others?
o Did this language change and, if it did, how and why?

The stability of the image and changes:
o Do the images and stereotypes change during the researched period?
If they do, which elements and aspects become dominant and which become recessive?
o How do social, political, cultural and ideological circumstances influence the changes in images and stereotypes?

History of effect:
o Do particular models and ways of depicting otherness in Greco-Roman antiquity reach to the present and if they do, how?
THE CONTENTS OUTLINE
The articles are divided into two main sections: Part One ‘The religious others’ and Part Two ‘The ethnic others’:

Introduction: Otherness in the Late Roman Empire
Maijastina Kahlos

PART ONE: THE RELIGION OF OTHERS

Devotees of Cybele as the image of otherness
Marika Rauhala (University of Oulu)

Christians as others
Markus Mertaniemi (University of Oulu)

What are ‘pagans’ needed for? Fourth- and fifth-century Christian writers meet the other (‘Pagans’ as others)
Maijastina Kahlos (University of Helsinki)

Othering in the Pauline Letters as Intrinsic to Identity Formation (Judaising Christians)
Anders Klostergaard Petersen (University of Aarhus)

Orthodox Christians and the other in the second and fourth century
Anders-Christian Jacobsen (University of Aarhus)

That ill-formed little fox. Irenaeus’s refutation of Valentinians
in Adversus haereses (Creating Orthodoxy and Heresy – Valentinians by Heresiologists)
Päivi Vähäkangas (University of Helsinki)
PART TWO: ‘BARBARIANS’ AS OTHERS

Who is Roman and who is Barbarian? Subversions in the Christian Empire
Maijastina Kahlos (University of Helsinki)

The images of the Gauls and the Germans compared
Antti Lampinen (University of Turku)

The Huns as others
Päivi Collander (University of Turku)

The Persians as others
Markus Mertaniemi (University of Oulu)