Absolute Time: Rifts in Early Modern

British Metaphysics Emily Thomas

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/absolute-time-rifts-in-early-modern-british-metaphysic
s-emily-thomas/
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

Absolute Time
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

Absolute Time
Rifts in Early Modern
British Metaphysics

Emily Thomas

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Emily Thomas 2018
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017957995
ISBN 978–0–19–880793–3
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

Contents

Abbreviations ix
Chronology of Selected Writings xi
Acknowledgements xv

Introduction 1
Existing Literature 2
Scope 4
General Theses 6
Overview 10
1. Scene Setting: Time, Philosophy, and Seventeenth-Century Britain 13
1.1 Introduction 13
1.2 A Cook’s Tour of the History of Time: From Plato to Descartes 13
1.2.1 Antiquity: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Augustine 13
1.2.2 The long Middle Ages: Averroes to Suárez 18
1.2.3 Descartes 20
1.3 Time in Early Seventeenth-Century British Philosophy 21
1.3.1 British Aristotelianism 21
1.3.2 British natural philosophy 23
1.3.3 British Platonism 24
1.3.4 British materialism 27
1.4 The Wider British Seventeenth-Century Scene 28
2. Henry More and the Development of Absolute Time 31
2.1 Introduction 31
2.2 Sketching More’s Life and Works 32
2.3 More’s Evolving Views on Time and Duration 33
2.4 More’s Evolving Views on Divine Presence in Space and Time 40
2.4.1 More on ‘nullibism’ and ‘holenmerism’ 40
2.4.2 More’s mature asymmetric account of God’s presence
in space and time 43
2.5 The Development of More’s Early Views on Time 45
2.6 Understanding More’s Mature Absolutism 51
2.7 The Influence of More’s Account of Absolute Duration 56
3. A Continental Interlude: Time in van Helmont, Gassendi,
and Charleton 58
3.1 Introduction 58
3.2 Jan Baptist van Helmont’s Platonic Time 58
3.3 Pierre Gassendi’s Space and Time Absolutism 60
3.4 Walter Charleton and the Reality of Time 63
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

vi CONTENTS

4. Space and Time in Isaac Barrow: A Modal Relationist Metaphysic 68

4.1 Introduction 68
4.2 Sketching Barrow’s Life and Works 69
4.3 Barrow’s Texts on Space and Time 72
4.4 Existing Readings of Barrow on Space and Time 77
4.4.1 The first reading: Barrow lacks a deeper metaphysics
of space and time 77
4.4.2 The second reading: identifying space and time with God’s
attributes 78
4.4.3 The third reading: space and time as unreal containers 81
4.5 A New Reading of Barrow on Space and Time 82
4.5.1 Barrow as a modal relationist 82
4.5.2 Modal relationism in Barrow and Leibniz 84
4.5.3 An objection to reading Barrow as a modal relationist 88
4.6 Barrow, Newton, and Leibniz 91
5. Early British Reactions to Absolutism: 1664 to 1687 93
5.1 Introduction 93
5.2 New Gassendist and Morean Absolutists 93
5.3 Emerging Critics of Absolutism 96
6. Newton’s De Gravitatione on God and his Emanative Effects 104
6.1 Introduction 104
6.2 Sketching Newton’s Life and Works 105
6.3 The Existing Scholarship on Newtonian Time and Space 107
6.4 A New Causation Reading of De Gravitatione 110
6.5 God’s Presence in Time and Space 119
6.6 After De Gravitatione 124
7. Locke as a Steadfast Relationist about Time and Space 125
7.1 Introduction 125
7.2 Sketching Locke’s Life and Works 126
7.3 Locke’s 1671–1685 Texts on Time and space 128
7.3.1 Locke’s 1671 Draft B 128
7.3.2 Locke’s 1676–1678 journals 129
7.3.3 Locke’s 1685 Draft C 134
7.4 A Newtonian Interlude: Locke, Newton, and the 1687 Principia 137
7.5 Space and Time in Locke’s 1690 Essay 140
7.5.1 Reading Locke’s 1690 Essay as explicitly neutral 140
7.5.2 Undermining the absolutist reading of Locke’s 1690 Essay 141
7.5.3 Reading Locke’s 1690 Essay as implicitly relationist 147
8. Later British Reactions to Absolutism: 1690–1704 150
8.1 Introduction 150
8.2 New Gassendist, Morean, and Newtonian Absolutists 150
8.3 New Critics of Absolutism 153
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

CONTENTS vii

9. Samuel Clarke’s Evolving Morean Absolutism 156

9.1 Introduction 156
9.2 Sketching Clarke’s Life and Works 157
9.3 Clarke’s Account of Time and Space: Part I 160
9.3.1 The existing scholarship 160
9.3.2 Clarke’s 1704 A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God 161
9.4 Another Newtonian interlude: the 1706 Optice and 1713 Principia 163
9.5 Clarke’s Account of Time and Space: Part II 164
9.5.1 Clarke’s 1713–1719 letters on time and space 164
9.5.2 Clarke’s post-1719 texts on time, space, and deity 172
9.6 God’s Presence in Time and Space 176
9.6.1 The existing scholarship 176
9.6.2 Why Clarke’s God is not extended, nor nullibist 176
9.6.3 Clarke’s holenmeric God 179
9.7 In Summary: Clarke, More, and Newton 180
10. Last Battles over Absolutism: 1704 Onwards 182
10.1 Introduction 182
10.2 In the Shadows of Giants: Absolutists and Critics 1704 to 1734 183
10.2.1 New British absolutists 1704–1731 183
10.2.2 New British critics of absolutism 1704–1731 187
10.2.3 Edmund Law’s 1731 Essay and the storm that followed 190
10.3 John Jackson on Time 196
10.3.1 Sketching Jackson’s life and works 196
10.3.2 Jackson’s 1734 The Existence and Unity of God 198
10.3.3 Absolutism and eternalism 202
10.4 After 1734: The Debate Rolls On 203
Conclusion 207

Bibliography 211
Index 229
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

Abbreviations

AT Descartes, Rene (1964–76). Oeuvres de Descartes [Vols I–XII]. Edited

by Adam, C. & Tannery, P. Vrin/C.N.R.S.: Paris.
CL Nicolson, Marjorie and Sarah Hutton (eds.) (1992). The Conway
Letters: the Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More
and their Friends, 1642–1684. Oxford University Press: New York.
CSM/K Descartes, Rene (1985–91). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes
[Volumes I–III]. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff,
Dugald Murdoch, and (for Volume III) Anthony Kenny. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
H Clarke, Samuel (1738). The Works of Samuel Clarke. Edited by
Benjamin Hoadley. London.
N Barrow, Isaac (1859). The Theological Works of Isaac Barrow. Edited
by Alexander Napier. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
PP More, Henry (1878). The Complete Poems of Dr. Henry More. Edited
by Alexander B. Grosart. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.
PW Newton, Isaac (2004). Philosophical Writings. Edited by Andrew
Janiak. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
W Barrow, Isaac (1860). The Mathematical Works of Isaac Barrow. Edited
by William Whewell. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
V Clarke, Samuel (1998). A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of
God, and other writings. Edited by Ezio Vailati. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

Chronology of Selected Writings

1644 Descartes Principles of Philosophy

1644 Gassendi Disquisitio Metaphysica
1647 Henry More Philosophical Poems
1648 Jan Baptist van Helmont Ortus medicinae
1651 Hobbes Leviathan
1652 Isaac Barrow Cartesiana Hypothesis
1653 Henry More Antidote against Atheism
1654 Walter Charleton Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana
1655 Hobbes De Corpore
1655 Henry More Antidote against Atheism, second edition
1655 Thomas Hobbes De Corpore
1658 Gassendi Opera Omnia
1659 Henry More Immortality of the Soule
1664 Margaret Cavendish Philosophical Letters
1665 Samuel Parker Tentamina Physico-Theologica de Deo
c.1664–66 Isaac Barrow delivers two sets of lectures at Cambridge, later pub-
lished as Lectiones Geometricae and Mathematicae
1668 Henry More Divine Dialogues
1670 Isaac Barrow Lectiones Geometricae
1671 Henry More Enchiridium Metaphysicum
1671 Locke composes Drafts A and B of An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding
1674 Nathaniel Fairfax A Treatise of the Bulk and Selvedge of the World
1675 Robert Boyle Some Considerations about the Reconcileableness of
Reason and Religion
1676–78 Locke makes several journal entries on time and space
c.1677–79 Anne Conway composes The Principles of the Most Ancient and
Modern Philosophy
1677 Spinoza Ethics
1678 Ralph Cudworth The Intellectual System of the Universe
1679 Henry More Enchiridium Metaphysicum, second edition
1683 John Turner Discourse of the Divine Omnipresence
1683 Isaac Barrow Lectiones Mathematicae
c.1664–85 Newton composes De Gravitatione
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

xii CHRONOLOGY OF SELECTED WRITINGS

1685 Locke composes Draft C of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

1687 Newton Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
1690 Locke An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
1690 Anne Conway’s The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern
Philosophy is anonymously published in the collection Opuscula
philosophica
1694 Richard Burthogge An Essay upon Reason, and the Nature of Spirits
1696 Richard Bentley Eight Sermons preach’d at the Honourable Robert
Boyle’s Lecture
1697 Joseph Raphson De Spatio Reali
1702 John Keill Introductio ad veram physical
1704 William King De Origine Mali
1704 Newton Opticks
1704 John Toland Letters to Serena
1704 Samuel Clarke delivers his first set of Boyle lectures, later published
as A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God
1704 William Wotton A Letter to Eusebia
1705 Samuel Clarke A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God
1705 George Cheyne Philosophical Principles of Natural Religion
1706 Newton’s Opticks translated into Latin Optice
1710 Berkeley Principles of Human Knowledge
1712 Samuel Clarke Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity
1713 Newton Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, second
edition
1714 John Jackson Three Letters to Dr. Samuel Clarke
1715 George Cheyne Philosophical Principles of Religion, Natural and
Revealed.
1715–16 Leibniz and Samuel Clarke correspond
1717 A Collection of Papers, Which passed between the late Learned
Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke
1718 Newton Opticks, second edition
1718 Samuel Colliber An Impartial Inquiry into the Existence and Nature
of God
1726 Newton Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, third edition
1728 Henry Pemberton A View of Sir I. Newton’s Philosophy
1731 Edmund Law An Essay on the Origin of Evil
1732 John Clarke Defence of Dr. Clarke’s Demonstration of the Being and
Attributes of God
1732 Edmund Law An Essay on the Origin of Evil, second edition
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

CHRONOLOGY OF SELECTED WRITINGS xiii

1733 John Clarke Second defence of Dr. Clarke’s Demonstration of the

Being and Attributes of God
1733 Joseph Clarke Dr. Clarke’s notions of space examined
1733 John Clarke Third defence of Dr. Clarke’s Demonstration of the Being
and Attributes of God
1733 Isaac Watts Philosophical Essays on Various Subjects
1734 John Jackson The Existence and Unity of God
1734 Joseph Clarke A farther examination of Dr. Clarke’s notions of space
1734 Edmund Law An Enquiry Into the Ideas of Space, Time, Immensity,
and Eternity &c
1735 John Jackson Defence of The Existence and Unity of God
1735 Samuel Colliber An Impartial Enquiry Into the Existence and Nature
of God, third edition
1743 Catharine Cockburn Remarks Upon some Writers on Morality
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

Acknowledgements

Metaphysical theories do not spring fully formed from the ether, and nor do
books. A number of people and institutions have helped me bring this book into
existence, and I offer them my sincere thanks.
Over cups of tea and glasses of wine, I’ve especially received advice from
Christoph Jedan, Martin Lenz, Andrea Sangiacomo, Erin Wilson, Matt Duncombe,
Han Thomas Adriaenssen, Sander de Boer, Bianca Bosman, Sarah Hutton, Robin
Le Poidevin, Tim Crane, Tom Stoneham, Jeremy Dunham, Jess Leech, Ori Belkind,
Eric Schliesser, Carla Rita Palmerino, Geoff Gorham, Ed Slowik, and Andrew
Janiak.
I am also grateful for the thoughtful work of Peter Momtchiloff, and that of
the other staff at Oxford University Press, throughout the publication process.
The first people to read this manuscript as a whole were in fact two anonymous
referees for Oxford University Press, and their detailed comments on that
first (significantly rougher) draft were phenomenally helpful—you know who
you are.
Along the way, I have presented portions of this book at a variety of meetings,
seminars, and conferences, including talks at the Ghent University; University of
Cambridge; University of York; University of Groningen; Kohn Institute, Tel
Aviv; Durham University; CUNY, New York; Macalester College; University of
Alaska, Anchorage; and Leiden University. In addition, the book benefited hugely
from a full-day CHiPhi book in progress workshop, hosted in 2015 by the
University of Sheffield. I am grateful to everyone who participated in these talks.
This book forms part of a larger project that was supported throughout by a
Netherlands Research Council (NWO) Veni grant. It was written and revised
across my time as a postdoc at the University of Groningen; as a visiting fellow at
Christ’s College, Cambridge; and as a lecturer at Durham University. I am
extremely grateful to all four of these institutions for their support. Appropri-
ately, this book’s cover image is taken from an early eighteenth-century manu-
script authored by a Dutchman.
Two chapters of the book are partly based on material that has already been
published. Chapter 2 makes use of my paper ‘Henry More on the Development of
Absolute Time’ (2015, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 54: 11–19).
Chapter VII makes use of my paper ‘On the “Evolution” of Locke’s Space and
Time Metaphysics’ (2016, History of Philosophy of Quarterly 33: 305–326). I am
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/3/2018, SPi

xvi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

grateful to both of these journals for providing me with the appropriate permis-
sions, and to their anonymous referees for improving both the articles and the
requisite parts of the monograph.
Finally, I’d like to thank my wonderful family, with a special mention to CT
and FR. This book is dedicated to them.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/2/2018, SPi

Introduction

Misshapen Time, copesmate of ugly night,

Swift subtle post, carrier of grislie care,
Eater of youth, false slave to false delight,
Base watch of woes, sin’s packhorse, vertues snare;
Thou nursest all, and murthrest all that are.
William Shakespeare (1594, 925–9)

As Shakespeare so baroquely describes, our lives take place in time. We are nursed
in it, and ultimately we die in it. Philosophers have long asked, What is time?
Traditionally, it has been answered that time is a product of the human mind, or
the motion of celestial bodies. In the seventeenth century, another answer emerged:
time is ‘absolute’, something that is independent of human minds and material
bodies. Absolutism comes in many varieties, and some absolutists considered time
to be a barely real being, whilst others identified it with God’s eternity.
This study explores the development of absolute time during one of Britain’s
richest and most creative metaphysical periods, from the 1640s to the 1730s. It
features an interconnected set of main characters—Henry More, Walter Charleton,
Isaac Barrow, Isaac Newton, John Locke, Samuel Clarke, and John Jackson—
alongside a large and varied supporting cast, whose metaphysics are all read in
their historical context and given a place in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century development of thought on time. Although Newton and Locke are by
some distance the most familiar of the main cast, it will be seen that they are parts
of a much larger British network.
This wedge of philosophical history is interesting for several reasons. One is
that absolutism raises many further important philosophical questions. What
kinds of things exist? How are things created? How do they change? Is God
present in time? If so, how? Another reason is that, as we shall see, the meta-
physics of time together with space was one of the defining metaphysical issues of
the period, discussed by philosophers of all stripes. Further, going beyond the
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/2/2018, SPi

 INTRODUCTION

history, work on time in metaphysics and philosophy of physics continues apace

today, and several current debates draw directly on the conceptual frameworks
developed during this period. Finally, going beyond philosophy, another reason
absolutism is interesting is that from the mid-eighteenth century onwards it has
played a role in subjects as diverse as art, geology, and philosophical theology.
In what follows I will place this study in the existing literature and explain its scope,
before setting out its general theses and giving an overview of the coming chapters.

Existing Literature
The existing literature dealing with absolute time or space in the early modern
period can be roughly categorized into four groups. The first comprises general
overviews of the history of philosophy of time, from antiquity onwards. As one
would expect, these overviews are extremely selective, and they usually restrict
themselves to relatively brief comments on some pick of the early modern
philosophical giants: Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Newton, or Leibniz.
To give a relatively recent example, Adrian Bardon’s 2013 A Brief History of
the Philosophy of Time runs from the pre-Socratics to the present day, and selects
a small group of early modern time theorists, including Locke, Newton, and
Leibniz.1 In contrast, the present study deals with a much larger number of
thinkers, many of whom are not well known.
The second group lies at the other extreme: focused, specialist literature
dealing with the work of just one early modern thinker, including their views
on time or space. This literature may take the form of individual journal articles,
such as Geoffrey Gorham and Edward’s Slowik’s 2014 paper on Locke’s absolut-
ism; or monographs, such as Antonia LoLordo’s 2007 Pierre Gassendi and the
Birth of Early Modern Philosophy. Whilst valuable in themselves, these specialist
studies are not generally concerned with the wider development of time or space
in this period. That said, Jasper Reid’s 2012 The Metaphysics of Henry More
constitutes an important exception to this rule.
The third group relates to an ongoing, multifaceted debate that draws
directly on the conceptual frameworks developed during our period. One of
the most famous set pieces of early modern metaphysics is a series of letters that
passed between Samuel Clarke, who is sometimes read as acting as Newton’s
mouthpiece, and Leibniz. As detailed in Chapter IX, Clarke defends ‘absolutism’,
and Leibniz appears to defend ‘relationism’, on which time and space are
identified with the temporal and spatial relations holding between bodies.

1
See also Gunn (1929), Heath (1936), Whitrow (1988), Turetzky (1998), and Jammer (2006).
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/2/2018, SPi

INTRODUCTION 

Today, a descendant of this debate continues: absolutism or ‘substantivalism’2

still battles relationism. As a result of the close connections between the early
modern absolutism–relationism debate, and today’s absolutism/substantivalism–
relationism debate, a number of studies dig into the former with the aim of
shedding light on the latter. To illustrate, John Earman’s 1989 World Enough
and Space-Time: Absolute Vs. Relational Theories of Space and Time opens by
considering Newtonian absolutism; and Gordon Belot’s 2011 Geometric Possibility,
a study of relationism, contains a lengthy exploration of Leibniz.3 Although
fascinating, these studies rarely go beyond their tightly limited remit, and hence
are unconcerned with the developmental story of early modern absolutism.
Finally, there is the group of literature most relevant to this study: wide-
ranging explorations of the early modern period with a special emphasis on the
development of the relevant metaphysics. The twentieth century saw several
such magisterial tomes: E. A. Burtt’s 1924 The Metaphysical Foundations of
Modern Physical Science, Alexandre Koyré’s 1957 From the Closed World to the
Infinite Universe, and Edward Grant’s 1981 Much Ado About Nothing.4 Although
these studies are focused on space rather than time, many of their conclusions
are important to us because so many philosophers treat time and space symmet-
rically. However, Burtt, Koyré, and Grant are interested in the developmental
history of space in Western European philosophy more broadly, considering the
work of Italian thinkers such as Galileo; French thinkers such as Descartes,
Gassendi, and Nicolas Malebranche; Dutch thinkers such as Spinoza; and German
thinkers such as Johannes Kepler and Leibniz. In contrast, this study focuses
exclusively on British thinkers. Whilst these tomes discuss British thinkers—and
the following pages will frequently engage with them—they do not enter nearly so
deeply or broadly into the British context.
The final piece of literature belonging to this group deserves a special mention:
John Tull Baker’s 1930 An Historical and Critical Examination of English Space
and Time Theories. As its title suggests, Baker’s monograph bears comparison

2
‘Substantivalism’ is a twentieth-century term of art for a position which is usually taken to be
closely related to absolutism. Sklar (1977, 162) characterizes substantivalism as the view that space
or spacetime has an ‘independent reality . . . a kind of substance’. Dainton (2001, 2) writes that
substantivalists would include space and time in their inventory of the world, and provides a handy
pictorial representation of space as a container. Belot (2011, 2) writes that substantivalists maintain
that space consists of parts and that the geometric relations between bodies are derivative on the
relations between the parts of space they occupy.
3
See also Sklar (1977), Barbour (1989; 1999), Jammer (1993), and Dainton (2001).
4
If readers are wondering why I do not place Michael Edwards’ excellent 2013 Time and the
Science of the Soul in Early Modern Philosophy in this group, it is because Edwards explicitly tracks
the Aristotelian tradition through this period, and absolutism is an anti-Aristotelian position.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/2/2018, SPi

 INTRODUCTION

with the present volume: it considers the developmental history of space and time
in English philosophy, and its choice of figures partly overlaps with my own.
Nonetheless, there are differences. One is that Baker is concerned with English
theories generally, not absolutism in particular. Another is that the present study
enters significantly further into the period, discussing a far broader selection of
figures and views. Additionally, it is worth noting that on many issues this study
disagrees with Baker’s; for example, Baker reads Barrow, Locke, and Newton as
absolutists in the style of More, and I reject such readings. Nonetheless, this study
owes a great debt to Baker’s work, and to many, many other works of scholarship.

Scope
This section explains the scope of this study with regard to geography, historical
period, and topic.
Geographically, I take ‘British’ in the early modern sense, to cover the Stuart
kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the principality Wales. It will be
seen that all the main figures of this study and many (though certainly not all) of
the supporting cast are English. As Sarah Hutton (2015, 4) explains in her landmark
British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century, it is a matter of historical record that in
the seventeenth century, England produced more philosophers of note than the rest
of the Stuart kingdoms put together. Although Scotland had emerged as a philo-
sophical power by the mid-eighteenth century, this study will not take us quite so far.
An advantage of this geographic focus is that it allows us to study an inter-
connected network of philosophers, many of whom were personally acquainted.
In addition to personal friendships, these philosophers came into contact
through correspondence, and by reading one another’s books. To provide a few
illustrations, Newton read More and Charleton closely, and engaged personally
with More and Barrow at Cambridge; Newton and Clarke became close friends
and were later neighbours in London; Locke read More, and developed a
friendship with Newton; Clarke exchanged letters on philosophy with Jackson,
which in turn led to a friendship; and Jackson made use of Locke’s texts. It is no
coincidence that these figures are so closely linked; on the contrary, I have selected
them precisely because of it. The process of tracing intellectual connections has led
me to figures far outside of the canon, with the aim of more accurately sketching
the development of absolute time in early modern British metaphysics.
Although this study focuses on a tightly connected core of British figures, they
were not working in a geographic vacuum from the rest of Europe. As we will
see, in addition to reading books authored by philosophers living on the Con-
tinent, British philosophers sometimes corresponded through letter with their
Continental contemporaries, or met them through travel. To give a few examples,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
saved. If, as we have a right to suppose, Aetius had no direct part in
this achievement, both he and Marcian were probably indirectly
responsible for it and in fact had far more to do with it than Leo.
Were the Roman armies nothing, then, or the Byzantine threat
against Attila’s communications only a dream?
Not so. Attila retreated because like another Barbarian he “could
do no other,” and even so he dared not retrace his way over the
Julian Alps, for Marcian was already in Moesia, and ready and
anxious to meet and to punish him. He retreated instead upon that
Verona which he had ruined, crossed the Alps there, and after
pillaging Augsburg, was lost, as it proved for ever, in the storm of the
north and the darkness of his Barbary.

FOOTNOTES:
[13] See my “Ravenna; a Study” (Dent), 1912.
[14] So Jornandes who asserts that Aquileia was so utterly
destroyed “ita ut vix ejus vestigia ut appareant reliquerint.”
 IX
ATTILA’S HOME-COMING

Such was the return, such was the failure of Attila. He had looked
to hold the world in fee; he returned for the last time across the
Danube his desire unaccomplished, his hopes dead. He had struck
first the East and perhaps ruined it, but he had failed to take
Constantinople. He had struck Gaul and left its cities shambles, but
he had not destroyed the armies of Aetius. He had desired Rome for
his plunder and his pride, but Leo had turned him back before he
crossed the Po. Every attack had ended in a long retreat; if he
brought ruin to a hundred Imperial cities, at last he but achieved his
own. He returned to his wooden stockade in the heart of Hungary
with all his hopes unfulfilled, all his achievements undone, a ruined
man.
That he did not realise his failure is but to emphasise the fact that
he was a Barbarian. To him, doubtless, destruction and booty, ruin
and loot seemed the end of war, he had not even in this his last hour
begun to understand what the Empire was. And so if we ask
ourselves what in reality the enormous energy of the Hunnish
onslaught achieved in the first half of the fifth century, we are
compelled to answer, nothing; nothing, that is, consciously and
directly. Unconsciously and indirectly, however, the restless brutality
of Roua and of Attila brought to pass these two great and even
fundamental things; it was the cause of the passing of Britain into
England, and it founded the republics of the lagoons which were to
produce Venice the Queen of the Adriatic.
Of all this, of his failure as of those strange achievements, Attila
was wholly unaware. He came home like a conqueror to his wooden
palace in the midst of a great feast prepared for him, to be greeted
as Priscus describes he had been greeted before, on his return from
the ruin of the East and his failure to reach Constantinople. He had
made the West his tributary; he was laden with the gold and the spoil
of northern Italy. It was enough for him, and so he made ready with
joy to marry yet another wife, to add yet one more to his concubines;
not that Honoria who would have been the sign of his victory, but one
rather a prey than a prize, pitiful in her youth and helpless beauty,
Ildico, or as the German legends call her Hildegrude, perhaps a
Frankish or a Burgundian princess.
It is said, we know not with how much truth, that upon that long
and last retreat as he crossed the river Lech by Augsburg an old
woman with streaming hair, a witch or a sorceress, cried out to him
thrice as he passed, “Retro Attila!” It is part of the legend which
makes so much of his history.
Upon the night of his last orgy or wedding he had feasted and
drunk beyond his wont and he was full of wine and of sleep when he
sought the bed of the beautiful and reluctant Ildico, the last of his
sacrifices and his loot. What passed in that brutal nuptial chamber
we shall never know. In the morning there was only silence, and
when his attendants at last broke into the room they found Attila
dead in a sea of blood, whether murdered by his victim or struck
down by apoplexy cannot be known. It is said that Ildico had much to
avenge—the murder of her parents and her brothers as well as her
own honour.
From that dreadful, characteristic chamber the Huns bore the body
of their King, singing their doleful uncouth songs, to bury him in a
secret place prepared by slaves who were duly murdered when their
work was accomplished. Jornandes has preserved or invented for us
the great funeral dirge which accompanied the last Barbarian rite. It
celebrated Attila’s triumphs over Scythia and Germany which bore
his yoke so meekly, and over the two Emperors who paid him tribute.
He left no memorial but his terror written in the fire and smoke of
burning cities, and that tradition of “frightfulness” to which Kaiser
Wilhelm II first appealed to his troops on their departure for China,
and which he is practising upon the body of Europe to-day. For upon
his death Attila’s vast and barbaric hegemony fell to pieces.
Enormous revolts broke it in sunder, and e’er many years had
passed the very memory of it was forgotten.

“Kingless was the army left:

Of its head the race bereft.
Every fury of the pit
Tortured and dismembered it.
Lo, upon a silent hour,
When the pitch of frost subsides,
Danube with a shout of power
Loosens his imprisoned tides:
Wide around the frighted plains
Shake to hear his riven chains,
Dreadfuller than heaven in wrath,
As he makes himself a path:
High leap the ice-cracks, towering pile
Floes to bergs, and giant peers
Wrestle on a drifted isle;
Island on ice-island rears;
Dissolution battles fast:
Big the senseless Titans loom,
Through a mist of common doom
Striving which shall die the last:
Till a gentle-breathing morn
Fires the stream from bank to bank,
So the Empire built of scorn
Agonized, dissolved and sank.”
 SOURCES

I
AMMIANI MARCELLINI RERUM GESTARUM LIBER XXXI

II. 1. Totius autem sementem exitii et cladum originem diversarum,

quas Martius furor incendio solito miscendo cuncta concivit, hanc
comperimus causam. Hunnorum gens, monumentis veteribus leviter
nota, ultra paludes Maeoticas glacialem oceanum accolens, omnem
modum feritatis excedit. 2. Ubi quoniam ab ipsis nascendi primitiis
infantum ferro sulcantur altius genae, ut pilorum vigor tempestivus
emergens corrugatis cicatricibus hebetetur senescunt imberbes
absque ulla venustate, spadonibus similes: compactis omnes
firmisque membris, et opimis cervicibus: prodigiosae formae et
pandi, ut bipedes existimes bestias, vel quales in commarginandis
pontibus effigiati stipites dolantur incompte. 3. In hominum autem
figura licet insuavi ita visi sunt asperi, ut neque igni, neque saporatis
indigeant cibis, sed radicibus herbarum agrestium et semicruda
cuiusvis pecoris carne vescantur, quam inter femora sua et equorum
terga subsertam, fotu calefaciunt brevi. 4. Aedificiis nullis umquam
tecti: sed haec velut ab usu communi discreta sepulchra declinant.
Nec enim apud eos vel arundine fastigatum reperiri tugurium potest.
Sed vagi montes peragrantes et silvas, pruinas, famem, sitimque
perferre ab incunabulis adsuescunt. Peregre tecta nisi adigente
maxima necessitate non subeunt; nec enim apud eos securos
existimant esse sub tectis. 5. Indumentis operiuntur linteis, vel ex
pellibus silvestrium murium consarcinatis: nec alia illis domestica
vestis est, alia forensis. Sed semel obsoleti coloris tunica collo
inserta non ante deponitur aut mutatur, quam diuturna carie in
pannulos defluxerit defrustata. 6. Galeris incurvis capita tegunt:
hirsuta crura coriis munientes haedinis: eorumque calcei formulis
nullis aptati, vetant incedere gressibus liberis. Qua causa ad
pedestres parum accommodati sunt pugnas: verum equis prope
adfixi, duris quidem, sed deformibus, et muliebriter iisdem
nonnumquam insidentes, funguntur muneribus consuetis. Ex ipsis
quivis in hac natione pernox et perdius emit et vendit, cibumque
sumit et potum, et inclinatus cervici angustae iumenti, in altum
soporem adusque varietatem effunditur somniorum. 7. Et
deliberatione super rebus proposita seriis, hoc habitu omnes in
commune consultant. Aguntur autem nulla severitate regali, sed
tumultuario optimatum ductu contenti, perrumpunt, quidquid inciderit.
8. Et pugnant nonnumquam lacessiti, sed ineuntes proelia cuneatim
variis vocibus sonantibus torvum. Utque ad pernicitatem sunt leves
et repentini; ita subito de industria dispersi vigescunt, et incomposita
acie cum caede vasta discurrunt: nec invadentes vallum, nec castra
inimica pilantes prae nimia rapiditate cernuntur. 9. Eoque omnium
acerrimos facile dixeris bellatores, quod procul missilibus telis, acutis
ossibus pro spiculorum acumine arte mira coagmentatis, sed
distinctis: cominus ferro sine sui respectu confligunt, hostesque, dum
mucronum noxias observant, contortis laciniis illigant, ut laqueatis
resistentium membris equitandi vel gradiendi adimant facultatem. 10.
Nemo apud eos arat, nec stivam aliquando contingit. Omnes enim
sine sedibus fixis, abseque lare vel lege, aut ritu stabili dispalantur,
semper fugientium similes: cum carpentis, in quibus habitant: ubi
coniuges taetra illis vestimenta contexunt, et coërunt cum maritis, et
pariunt, eo adusque pubertatem nutriunt pueros. Nullusque apud eos
interrogatus, respondere, unde oritur, potest, alibi conceptus,
natusque procul, et longius educatus. 11. Per indutias infidi,
inconstantes, ad omnem auram incidentis spei novae perquam
mobiles, totum furori incitatissimo tribuentes. Inconsultorum
animalium ritu, quid honestum inhonestumve sit, penitus ignorantes:
flexiloqui et obscuri, nullus religionis vel superstitionis reverentia
aliquando districti: auri cupidine immensa flagrantes: adeo
permutabiles, et irasci faciles, ut eodem aliquoties die a sociis nullo
irritante saepe desciscant, itidemque propitientur nemine leniente.
12. Hoc expeditum indomitumque hominum genus, externa
praedandi aviditate flagrans immani, per rapinas finitimorum
grassatum et caedes, adusque Alanos pervenit, veteres
Massagetas: qui unde sint, vel quas incolant terras (quoniam huc res
prolapsa est) consentaneum est demonstrare, geographica
perplexitate monstrata, quae diu multa luda..., et varia, tandem
reperit veritatis interna ...* ...* ad.... 13. Hister advenarum
magnitudine fluenti Sauromatas praetermeat adusque amnem
Tanaim pertinentes, qui Asiam terminat ab Europa. Hoc transito, in
immensum extentas Scythiae solitudines Alani inhabitant, ex
montium adpellatione cognominati, paullatimque nationes
conterminas crebritate victoriarum attritas ad gentilitatem sui
vocabuli traxerunt ut Persae. 14. Inter hos Neuri mediterranea
incolunt loca, vicini verticibus celsis, quos praeruptos geluque
torpentes aquilones adstringunt. Post quos Budini sunt, et Geloni
perquam feri, qui detractis peremptorum hostium cutibus indumenta
sibi, equisque termina conficiunt, bellatrix gens. Gelonis Agathyrsi
collimitant, interstincti colore caeruleo corpora simul et crines: et
humiles quidem minutis atque raris, nobiles vero latis, fucatis et
densioribus notis. 15. Post hos Melanchlaenas et Anthropophagos
palari accepimus per diversa, humanis corporibus victitantes: quibus
ob haec alimenta nefanda desertis, finitimi omnes longa petiere
terrarum. Ideoque plaga omnis Orienti aestivo obiecta, usque dum
venitur ad Seras, inhabitabilis mansit. 16. Parte alia prope
Amazonum sedes Alani sunt Orienti acclines, diffusi per populosas
gentes et amplas, Asiaticos vergentes in tractus, quas dilatari
adusque Gangen accepi fluvium, intersecantem terras Indorum,
mareque inundantem australe.
17. Ibi partiti per utramque mundi plagam Alani (quorum gentes
varias nunc recensere non refert) licet dirempti spatiis longis, per
pagos, ut Nomades, vagantur immensos: aevi tamen progressu ad
unum concessere vocabulum, et summatim omnes Alani
cognominantur mores et media et efferatam vivendi, sed iam
immaturam. 18. Nec enim ulla sunt illisce tuguria, aut versandi
vomeris cura, sed carne et copia victitant lactis, plaustris
supersidentes, quae operimentis curvatis corticum per solitudines
conferunt sine fine distentas. Cumque ad graminea venerint, in
orbiculatam figuram locatis sarracis ferino ritu vescuntur:
absumptisque pabulis, velut carpentis civitates impositas vehunt,
maresque supra cum feminis coëunt, et nascuntur in his et
educantur infantes: et habitacula sunt haec illis perpetua; et
quocumque ierint, illic genuinum existimant larem. 19. Armenta prae
se agentes cum gregibus pascunt: maximeque equini pecoris est eis
sollicitior cura. Ibi campi semper herbescunt, intersitis pomiferis
locis: atque ideo transeuntes quolibet, nec alimentis nec pabulis
indigent: quod efficit humectum solum et crebri fluminum
praetermeantium cursus. 20. Omnis igitur aetas et sexus imbellis
circa vehicula ipsa versatur, muniisque distringitur mollibus: iuventus
vero equitandi usu a prima pueritia coalescens, incedere pedibus
existimat vile: et omnes multiplici disciplina prudentes sunt
bellatores. Unde etiam Persae, qui sunt originitus Scythae, pugnandi
sunt peritissimi.
21. Proceri autem Alani paene sunt omnes et pulchri, crinibus
mediocriter flavis, oculorum temperata torvitate terribiles, et armorum
levitate veloces, Hunnisque per omnia suppares, verum victu
mitiores et cultu: latrocinando et venando adusque Maeotica stagna
et Cimmerium Bosporon, itidemque Armenios discurrentes et
Mediam. 22. Utque hominibus quietis et placidis otium est
voluptabile; ita illos pericula iuvant et bella. Iudicatur ibi beatus, qui in
proelio profuderit animam: senescentes enim et fortuitis mortibus
mundo digressos, ut degeneres et ignavos conviciis atrocibus
insectantur: nec quidquam est, quod elatius iactent, quam homine
quolibet occiso; proque exuviis gloriosis, interfectorum avulsis
capitibus detractas pelles pro phaleris iumentis accommodant
bellatoriis. 23. Nec templum apud eos visitur, aut delubrum, ne
tugurium quidem culmo tectum cerni usquam potest: sed gladius
barbarico ritu humi figitur nudus, eumque ut Martem, regionum, quas
circumcircant, praesulem verecundius colunt. 24. Futura miro
praesagiunt modo: nam rectiores virgas vimineas colligentes,
easque cum incantamentis quibusdam secretis praestituto tempore
discernentes, aperte, quid protendatur, norunt. 25. Servitus quid sic
ignorabant, omnes generoso semine procreati: iudicesque etiam
nunc eligunt, diuturno bellandi usu spectatos. Sed ad reliqua textus
propositi revertamur.
 II
EX HISTORIA BYZANTINA PRISCI RHETORIS ET SOPHISTAE

Excerpta de Legationibus Gentium ad Romanos.

(Niebuhr. Bonn. 1829.)
1. Scythae, quo tempore mercatus Scytharum et Romanorum
frequenti multitudine celebrabatur, Romanos cum exercitu sunt
adorti, et multos occiderunt. Romani ad Scythas miserunt, qui de
praesidii expugnatione et foederum contemptu cum eis
expostularent. Hi vero se non ultro bellum inferentes, sed factas
iniurias ulciscentes, haec fecisse responderunt. Margi enim
episcopum in suos fines transgressum, fiscum regium et reconditos
thesauros indagatum expilasse. Hunc nisi dederent una cum
transfugis, ut foederibus convenerit, (esse enim apud eos plures,)
bellum illaturos. Quae cum Romani vera esse negarent, barbari vero
in eorum, quae dicebant, fide perstarent, iudicium quidem de his,
quae in contentione posita erant, subire minime voluerunt, sed ad
bellum conversi sunt. Itaque transmisso Istro, oppidis et castellis ad
ripam sitis plurima damna intulerunt, et inter cetera Viminacium,
quae Moesorum urbs est in Illyrico, ceperunt. His gestis, cum multi in
sermonibus dictitarent, episcopum dedi oportere, ne unius hominis
causa universa Romanorum respublica belli periculum sustineret: ille
se deditum iri suspicatus, clam omnibus civitatem incolentibus ad
hostes effugit, et urbem traditurum, si sibi Scytharum reges
liberalitate sua consulerent, pollicitus est. Ad ea cum beneficium
omni ratione se repensuros promitterent, si rem ad exitum
perduceret, datis dextris et dictis iureiurando utrinque praestito
firmatis, ille cum magna barbarorum multitudine in fines Romanorum
est reversus. Eam multitudinem cum ex adverso ripae in insidiis
collocasset, nocte dato signo exsiliit, et urbem in manus hostium
traduxit. Et ab eo tempore barbarorum res in diem auctiores
melioresque fuerunt.
2. Sub Theodosio Iuniore Imperatore Attilas Hunnorum rex
delectum ex suis habuit, et litteras ad Imperatorem scripsit de
transfugis et de tributis, ut, quaecumque occasione huius belli
reddita non essent, quam citissime ad se mitterentur, de tributis
autem in posterum pendendis legati secum acturi ad se venirent:
nam si cunctarentur aut bellum pararent, ne se ipsum quidem
Scytharum multitudinem diutius contenturum. His litteris lectis,
Imperator nequaquam Scythas, qui ad se confugissent, traditurum
dixit, sed una cum illis in animo sibi esse, belli eventum exspectare.
Ceterum se legatos missurum qui controversias dirimerent. Ea sicuti
Romani decreverant, ubi Attilas rescivit, ira commotus Romanorum
fines vastavit, et castellis quibusdam dirutis, in Ratiariam urbem
magnam et populi multitudine abundantem irruptionem fecit.
3. Post pugnam in Chersoneso commissam Romani cum Hunnis
pacem per Anatolium legatum fecerunt, et in has conditiones
convenerunt: profugos Hunnis reddi, sex millia auri librarum pro
praeteritis stipendiis solvi; duo millia et centum in posterum singulis
annis tributi nomine pendi. Pro unoquoque captivo Romano, qui in
Romanorum fines, non soluto redemptionis pretio, evasisset,
duodecim aureorum mulctam inferri. Quae si non solveretur, qui
captivum recepisset, restituere teneri. Romanos neminem ex
barbaris ad se confugientem admittere. In has quidem foederum
leges Romani sponte consensisse videri volebant: sed necessitate
coacti, superante metu, qui Romanorum ducum mentes
occupaverat, quantumvis duras et iniquas conditiones sibi impositas
summo pacis consequendae studio ducti lubentibus animis
susceperunt, et gravissimum tributum pendere non recusabant,
quamquam opes imperii et regii thesauri non ad necessarios usus,
sed in absurda spectacula, in vanos honorum ambitus, in immodicas
voluptates et largitiones consumptae fuerant, quales nemo sanae
mentis vel in maxime affluentibus divitiarum copiis sustineret, nedum
Romani isti, qui rei militaris studium adeo neglexerant, ut non solum
Scythis, sed et reliquis barbaris, qui proximas imperii Romani
regiones incolebant, vectigales facti essent. Itaque tributa et
pecunias, quas ad Hunnos deferri oportebat, Imperator omnes
conferre coegit: nulla etiam eorum immunitatis habita ratione, qui
terrae onere, tanquam nimis gravi ad tempus, sive Imperatorum
benignitate, seu iudicum sententia, levati erant. Conferebant etiam
aurum indictum qui in Senatum ascripti erant, ultra quam facultates
ferre poterant, et multis splendida et illustris fortuna vitae
commutationem attulit. Conficiebantur enim pecunias, quae
unicuique imperatae erant, cum acerbitate et contumelia ab iis,
quibus huius rei cura ab Imperatore erat demandata. Ex quo, qui a
maioribus acceptas divitias possidebant, ornamenta uxorum et
pretiosam suam supellectilem in foro venum exponebant. Ab hoc
bello tam atrox et acerba calamitas Romanos excepit, ut multi aut
abstinentia cibi, aut aptato collo laqueo vitam finierint. Tunc igitur,
parvo temporis momento exhaustis thesauris, aurum et exules (nam
Scotta, qui susciperet, advenerat,) ad Scythas missi sunt. Romani
vero multos ex profugis, qui dedi reluctabantur, trucidarunt, inter
quos aliqui fuerunt e regiis Scythis, qui militare sub Attila renuerant
et Romanis se adiunxerant. Praeter has pacis conditiones Attilas
Asimuntiis quoque imperavit, ut captivos, quos penes se habebant,
sive Romanos, sive barbaros, redderent. Est autem Asimus oppidum
validum, non multum ab Illyrico distans, quod parti Thraciae adiacet,
cuius incolae gravibus damnis hostes affecerunt. Non illi quidem se
murorum ambitu tuebantur, sed extra propugnacula certamina
sustinebant contra infinitam Scytharum multitudinem et duces magni
apud eos nominis et existimationis. Itaque Hunni omissa spe ab
oppugnando oppido destiterunt. Illi autem vagantes et a suis longius
aberrantes, si quando hostes exisse et praedas ex Romanis egisse,
exploratores denuntiabant, inopinantes aggressi parta ab eis spolia
sibi vindicabant, numero quidem inferiores adversariis, sed robore et
virtute praestantes. Itaque Asimuntii plurimos ex Scythis in hoc bello
necaverunt, et multos Romanorum in libertatem asseruerunt, et
hostium transfugas receperunt. Quamobrem Attilas, se exercitum
non ante moturum, aut foederis conditiones ratas habiturum
professus est, quam Romani, qui ad Asimuntios pervenissent,
redderentur, aut pro his mulcta conventa solveretur, et liberarentur
abducti in servitutem barbari. Quum, quae contra ea dissereret, non
haberet Anatolius legatus, neque Theodulus, praesidiariorum
Thraciae militum dux, (nihil enim rationibus suis barbarum movebant,
qui recenti victoria elatus, promte ad arma ferebatur, ipsi contra
propter recens acceptam cladem animis ceciderant,) Asimuntiis per
litteras significarunt, ut Romanos captivos, qui ad se perfugissent,
restituerent, aut pro unoquoque captivo duodecim aureos penderent,
et Hunnos captivos liberarent. Quibus litteris lectis, Romanos, qui ad
se confugissent, liberos se abire sivisse, Scythas vero, quotquot in
suas manus venissent, trucidasse responderunt. Duos autem
captivos retinere, propterea quod hostes, obsidione omissa, in
insidiis collocati, nonnullos pueros, qui ante munitiones greges
pascebant, rapuissent, quos nisi reciperent, captivos iure belli sibi
acquisitos, minime restituros. Haec renuntiarunt qui ad Asimuntios
missi fuerant. Quibus auditis, Scytharum regi et Romanis principibus
placuit exquiri pueros, quos Asimuntii raptos esse querebantur. Sed
nemine reperto, barbari ab Asimuntiis capti sunt dimissi, prius tamen
fide a Scythis accepta, non esse apud ipsos pueros. Iuraverunt
etiam Asimuntii, se Romanos, qui ad se effugissent, libertate
donasse, quamvis adhuc multos in sua potestate haberent. Nec
enim sibi perierasse videbantur, modo suos a barbarorum servitute
salvos et incolumes praestarent.
4. Pace facta, Attilas rursus legatos ad Romanos Orientales mittit,
qui transfugas repeterent. At illi legatos plurimis donis ornatos, cum
nullos perfugas apud se esse asseverassent, dimiserunt. Misit et
iterum Attilas alios, quibus non minus amplis muneribus ditatis, tertia
ab eo, post illam itidem quarta legatio advenit. Ille enim Romanorum
liberalitatem, qua utebantur, veriti, ne a foederibus barbari
discederent, ludibrio habens, novas subinde causas fingebat, et
vanas occasiones legatorum mittendorum excogitabat, et ad suos
necessarios, quos liberalitate ornare volebat, eas legationes
deferebat. Romani vero in omnibus rebus Attilae dicto audientes
erant, et quae praecipiebat, domini iussa ducebant. Non solum enim
a bello contra eum suscipiendo eorum rationes abhorrebant, sed et
Parthos, qui bellum apparabant, et Vandalos, qui maritimas oras
vexabant, et Isauros, qui praedis et rapinis grassabantur, et
Saracenos, qui regiones ad Orientem excursionibus vastabant,
metuebant. Praeterea gentes Aethiopum in armis erant. Itaque
Romani animis fracti Attilam colebant, sed ceteris gentibus resistere
conabantur, dum exercitus comparabant, et duces sortiebantur.
5. Edecon, vir Scytha, qui maximas res in bello gesserat, venit
iterum legatus cum Oreste. Hic genere Romanus Paeoniam
regionem, ad Saum flumen sitam, incolebat, quae ex foedere inito
cum Aetio, Romanorum Occidentalium duce, barbaro parebat.
Itaque Edecon in palatium admissus, Imperatori litteras Attilae
tradidit, in quibus de transfugis non redditis querabatur, qui nisi
redderentur, et Romani a colenda terra abstinerent, quam bello
captam suae ditioni adiecerat, ad arma se iturum minabatur. Ea vero
secundum Istrum a Paeonibus ad Novas usque in Thracia sitas in
longitudinem extendebatur. Latitudo autem erat quinque dierum
itinere. Neque vero forum celebrari, ut olim, ad ripam Istri volebat,
sed in Naisso, quam urbem a se captam et dirutam quinque dierum
itinere expedito homini ab Istro distantem, Scytharum et Romanorum
ditionis limitem constituebat. Legatos quoque ad se venire iussit
controversa disceptaturos, non ex quolibet hominum genere et
ordine, sed ex consularibus illustriores, quos si mittere intermiserint,
se ipsum ad eos arcessendos in Sardicam descensurum. His litteris
lectis, digresso ab Imperatore Edecone, cum Bigila, qui ea, quae
Attilas verbis Imperatori denuntiari voluit, interpretatus erat, cum
reliquas quoque domos obiret, ut in conspectum Chrysaphii spatharii
Imperat. veniret, qui plurimum auctoritate et gratia apud Imperatorem
valebat, admirabatur barbarus regiarum domuum magnificentiam.
Bigilas autem, simulatque barbarus in colloquium venit cum
Chrysaphio, interpretans retulit, quantopere laudasset Imperatorias
aedes, et Romanos beatos duceret propter affluentes divitiarum
copias. Tum Edeconi Chrysaphius dixit, fore eum huiusmodi
domuum, quae aureis tectis praefulgerent, compotem et opibus
abundaturum, si, relicta Scythia, ad Romanos se conferret. “Sed
alterius domini servum, Edecon ait, nefas est eo invito tantum
facinus in se admittere.” Quaesivit ex eo eunuchus, an facilis illi ad
Attilam pateret aditus, et num qua potestate apud Scythas esset. Ille
sibi necessitudinem intercedere cum Attila, respondit, et decretam
sibi cum nonnullis aliis Scythiae primoribus eius custodiam. Nam per
vices unumquemque eorum praescriptis diebus cum armis circa
Attilam excubias agere. Tum eunuchus, si fide interposita se
obstringeret, inquit, se maximorum bonorum illi auctorem futurum.
Cui rei tractandae otio opus esse. Hoc vero sibi fore, si ad coenam
rediret sine Oreste et reliquis legationis comitibus. Facturum se
pollicitus barbarus coenae tempore ad eunuchum pergit. Tum per
Bigilam interpretem datis dextris et iureiurando utrimque praestito,
ab eunucho, se de rebus, quae Edeconi minime damno, sed fructui
et commodo essent, verba facturum, ab Edecone, se, quae sibi
crederentur, non enuntiaturum, etiamsi exsequi nollet. Tunc
eunuchus Edeconi dixit, si in Scythiam rediens Attilam sustulerit, et
Romanorum partibus accesserit, vitam in magnis opibus beate
traducturum. Eunucho Edecon assensus est. Ad hanc rem
peragendam opus esse pecuniis, non quidem multis, sed
quinquaginta auri libris, quas militibus, quibus praeesset, qui sibi ad
rem impigre exsequendam adiumento essent, divideret. Cum
eunuchus, nulla mora interposita, dare vellet, dixit barbarus, se prius
ad renuntiandam legationem dimitti oportere, et una secum Bigilam,
qui Attilae de transfugis responsum acciperet; per eum enim se illi,
qua ratione aurum sibi mitteret, indicaturum. Etenim Attilam se,
simulatque redierit, percunctaturum, ut reliquos omnes, quae
munera sibi et quantae pecuniae a Romanis dono datae sint. Neque
id celare per collegas et comites licitum fore. Visus est eunucho
barbarus recta sentire, et eius est amplexus sententiam. Itaque eo a
coena dimisso, ad Imperatorem consilium initum detulit, qui
Martialium, magistri officiorum munere fungentem, ad se venire
iussum docuit conventionem cum barbaro factam: id enim illi credi et
committi iure magistratus, quem gerebat, necesse fuit. Nam omnium
Imperatoris consiliorum magister est particeps, sub cuius cura sunt
tabellarii, interpretes et milites, qui palatii custodiae deputati sunt.
Imperatore autem et Martialio de tota re consultantibus placuit, non
solum Bigilam, sed et Maximinum legatum mittere ad Attilam.
6. Bigila insidiarum in Attilam manifeste convicto, Attilas, ablatis ab
eo centum auri libris, quas a Chrysaphio acceperat, extemplo
Orestem et Eslam Constantinopolim misit, iussitque Orestem,
crumena, in quam Bigilas aurum, quod Edeconi daretur, coniecerat,
collo imposita, in conspectum Imperatoris venire atque eunuchum
interrogare, num hanc crumenam nosset; deinde Eslam haec verba
proferre, Theodosium quidem clari patris et nobilis esse filium,
Attilam quoque nobilis parentis esse stirpem, et patrem eius
Mundiuchum acceptam a patre nobilitatem integram conservasse.
Sed Theodosium tradita a patre nobilitate excidisse, quod tributum
sibi pendendo suus servus esset factus. Non igitur iustam rem
facere eum, qui praestantiori et ei, quem fortuna dominum ipsi
dederit, tanquam servus improbus clandestinas paret. Neque se
prius criminari illum eo nomine destiturum, quam eunuchus ad
supplicium sit traditus. Atque hi quidem cum his mandatis
Constantinopolim pervenerunt. Eodem quoque tempore accidit, ut
Chrysaphius a Zenone ad poenam deposceretur. Maximinus enim
renuntiaverat, Attilam dicere, decere Imperatorem promissis stare, et
Constantio uxorem, quam promiserit, dare, hanc enim, invito
Imperatore, nemini fas fuisse desponderi: aut enim eum, qui contra
ausus fuisset, poenas daturum fuisse, aut eo Imperatoris res
deductas esse, ut ne servos quidem suos coercere posset, contra
quos, si vellet, se auxilium ferre paratum. Sed Theodosius,
iracundiam suam palam fecit, cum bona puellae in publicum redegit.
7. Cum primum Attilae nuntiatum est, Martianum post Theodosii
mortem ad imperium pervenisse, et quae Honoriae accidissent, ad
eum, qui in Occidente rerum potiebatur, misit, qui contenderent,
Honoriam nihil se indignum admisisse, quam matrimonio suo
destinasset; seque illi auxilium laturum, nisi summa quoque imperii
ei deferretur. Misit et ad Romanos Orientales tributorum
constitutorum gratia. Sed re infecta legati utrimque sunt reversi.
Etenim qui Occidentis imperio praeerat, respondit, Honoriam illi
nubere non posse, quod iam alii nupsisset. Neque imperium
Honoriae deberi. Virorum enim, non mulierum, Romanum imperium
esse. Qui in Oriente imperabat, se minime ratam habere tributi
illationem, quam Theodosius consensisset: quiescenti munera
largiturum; bellum minanti viros et arma obiecturum ipsius opibus
non inferiora. Itaque Attilas in varias distrahebatur sententias, et illi in
dubio haerebat animus, quos primum aggrederetur. Tandem melius
visum est ad periculosius bellum prius sese convertere, et in
Occidentem exercitum educere. Illic enim sibi rem fore non solum
cum Italis, sed etiam cum Gothis et Francis: cum Italis, ut Honoriam
cum ingentibus divitiis secum abduceret: cum Gothis, ut Genserichi
gratiam promereretur.
8. Et Francos quidem bello lacessendi illi causa fuit regum
ipsorum obitus et de regno inter liberos controversia, quum maior
natu Attilam auxilio vocasset, Aëtium minor, quem Romae vidimus
legationem obeuntem, nondum lanugine efflorescente, flava coma,
et capillis propter densitatem et magnitudinem super humeros
effusis. Hunc etiam Aëtius filii loco adoptaverat, et plurimis donis
ornatum ad Imperatorem, ut amicitiam et societatem cum eo faceret,
miserat. Quamobrem Attilas antequam in eam expeditionem
ingrederetur, rursus legatos in Italiam misit, qui Honoriam poscerent:
eam enim secum matrimonium pepigisse: cuius rei ut fidem faceret,
annulum ab ea ad se missum per legatos, quibus tradiderat, exhiberi
mandavit. Etiam dimidiam imperii partem sibi Valentinianum debere,
quum ad Honoriam iure paternum regnum pertineret, quo iniusta
fratris cupiditate privata esset. Sed quum Romani Occidentales in
prima sententia persisterent et Attilae mandata reiicerent, ipse toto
exercitu convocato maiore vi bellum paravit.
9. Attilas, vastata Italia, ad sua se retulit, et Romanorum
Imperatoribus in Oriente bellum et populationem denuntiavit,
propterea quod tributum sibi a Theodosio constitutum non solveretur.
 EX HISTORIA GOTHICA PRISCI RHETORIS ET
SOPHISTAE
Excerpta de Legationibus Romanorum ad Gentes.

(Niebuhr. Bonn. 1829.)

1. Cum Rua, Hunnorum rex, statuisset cum Amalsuris, Itimaris,
Tonosuribus, Boiscis ceterisque gentibus, quae Istrum accolunt,
quod ad armorum societatem cum Romanis iungendam
confugissent, bello decertare, Eslam componendis Romanorum et
Hunnorum controversiis adhiberi solitum misit, qui Romanis
denuntiaret, se a foedere, quod sibi cum illis esset, recessurum, nisi
omnes Scythas, qui ad eos se contulissent, redderent. Romanis vero
consilium de mittendis ad Hunnos legatis capientibus, Plinthas et
Dionysius, hic ex Thracia, ille ex Scythia oriundus, ambo exercituum
duces, et qui consulatus dignitatem apud Romanos gesserant, hanc
legationem obire voluerunt. Ut vero visum est non ante legatos
proficisci, quam Eslas ad Ruam rediisset, Plinthas una cum Esla
misit Singulachum, unum ex suis necessariis, qui Ruae persuaderet
cum nullo alio Romanorum, quam cum ipso, colloquium inire. Cum
autem, Rua mortuo, Hunnorum regnum ad Attilam pervenisset,
Senatus decrevit Plintham legationem ad Attilam exsequi. Quo S.C.
Imperatoris suffragio comprobato, Plintham cupido incessit,
Epigenem, qui sapientiae laude celebris erat et quaesturae
dignitatem obtinebat, socium legationis sibi adsciscere. Qua de re
lato quoque suffragio ambo in eam legationem profecti sunt, et
Margum pervenerunt. Est autem Margus urbs in Illyrico Mysorum ad
Istrum sita, ex adverso Constantiae arcis, ad alteram fluminis ripam
collocatae, quo et regii Scythae convenerant. Extra civitatem equis
insidentes utrique congressi sunt. Nec enim barbaris de plano verba
facere placuit, et legati Romani suae dignitatis memores eodem
quoque apparatu in Scytharum conspectum venire statuerunt, ne sibi
peditibus cum equitibus disserendum foret. Itaque placuit, profugos
omnes, etiam qui multo ante profugerant, una cum captivis Romanis,
qui non soluto redemtionis pretio ad sua redierant, dedi: aut pro
unoquoque captivo Romano his, qui eum bello ceperant, octo aureos
dari, Romanos belli societatem cum barbara gente, quae bellum cum
Hunnis gerat, non facere. Conventus ad mercatus paribus legibus
celebrari, et in tuto Romanos e Hunnos esse. Foedera rata manere
et observari, si quoque anno septingentae auri librae tributi nomine
Scythis regiis a Romanis penderentur, cum antea tributum annuum
non fuisset nisi trecentarum quinquaginta librarum. His conditionibus
pacem Romani et Hunni pepigerunt, qua iureiurando patrio ritu
utrimque praestito firmata, utrique ad sua redierunt. Itaque qui ex
barbaris ad Romanos transierant redditi sunt, de quorum numero
erant filii Mama et Attacam ex regio genere, quos Scythae receptos
in Carso, Thraciae castello, crucis supplicio affecerunt, et hanc ab
his fugae poenam exegerunt. Pace cum Romanis facta, Attilas et
Bleda ad subigendas gentes Scythicas profecti sunt, et contra
Sorosgos bellum moverunt.
2. Theodosius misit Senatorem, virum consularem, ad Attilam
legationem obiturum. Et ille quidem quamvis legati nomen adeptus
esset, minime tamen est ausus terrestri itinere Hunnos adire: sed iter
per Pontum Euxinum instituit, et in Odessenorum civitatem navigavit,
in qua Theodulus dux commorabatur.
3. Chrysaphius eunuchus suasit Edeconi Attilam de medio tollere.
Super ea re, habito ab Imperatore Theodosio cum Martialio magistro
consilio, decreverunt non solum Bigilam, sed et Maximinum legatum
ad Attilam ire, et Bigilam quidem specie interpretis, quo munere
fungebatur, quae Edeconi viderentur, exsecuturum, Maximinum vero,
qui minime eorum, quae in consilio Imperatoris agitata erant,
conscius esset, litteras ab eo Attilae redditurum. Scripserat enim
Imperator legatorum causa, Bigilam interpretis munus obiturum, et
Maximinum legatum mitti, qui quidem Bigilam dignitate superaret, et
genere illustris et sibi valde familiaris esset. Ad haec minime decere
Attilam foedera transgredientem Romanorum regionem invadere. Et
antea quidem ad eum plures, nunc vero decem et septem transfugas
mittere. Nec enim plures apud se esse. Et haec quidem litteris
continebantur. Coram autem Maximinum suis verbis iusserat Attilae
dicere, ne postula et maioris dignitatis viros ad se legatos transire.
Hoc enim neque ipsius maioribus datum esse, neque ceteris
Scythiae regibus, sed quemlibet militem aut alium nuntium legationis
munus obiisse. Ceterum ad ea, quae inter ipsos in dubietate
versabantur, diiudicanda sibi videri, Onegesium mitti debere. Qui
enim fieri posset, ut in Serdicam, quae diruta esset, Attilas cum viro
consulari conveniret? In hac legatione Maximinus precibus mihi
persuasit, ut illi comes essem. Atque ita cum barbaris iter facere
coepimus, et in Serdicam pervenimus trium et decem dierum itinere
expedito homini a Constantinopoli distantem. Ibi commorantes ad
cibum nobiscum sumendum Edecona et ceteros barbaros invitandos
duximus. Bobus igitur et ovibus, quas incolae nobis suppeditaverant,
iugulatis, instructo convivio epulati sumus. Inter epulas barbari
Attilam, nos Imperatorem admirari et extollere. Ad quae Bigilas dixit,
minime iustum esse, deum cum homine comparare, hominem
Attilam, deum Theodosium vocans. Id aegre tulerunt Hunni, et
sensim ira accensi exasperabantur. Nos vero alio sermonem
detorquere, et eorum iram blandis verbis lenire. A coena ut
surreximus, Maximinus Edeconem et Orestem donis conciliaturus,
sericis vestibus et gemmis Indicis donavit. Orestes deinde
praestolatus Edeconis discessum verba faciens cum Maximino, sibi
quidem, ait, illum probum et prudentem videri, qui non ut alii ministri
regii peccasset. Etenim nonnulli, spreto Oreste, Edeconem ad
coenam invitaverant et donis coluerant. Nos autem harum omnium
rerum ignari, quo pertinerent Orestis verba, non satis percipientes,
cum ex eo sciscitaremur, quomodo et qua in re despectui esset
habitus et Edecon honore affectus, nihil respondit, et discessit.
Postridie cum iter faceremus, Bigilae, quae Orestes dixerat,
retulimus. Ille vero ait, Orestem non debere iniquo animo ferre, si
eadem, quae Edecon, minime esset consecutus. Orestem enim
comitem et scribam Attilae, Edeconem vero bello clarissimum, ut in
gente Hunnorum, longe illum dignitate antecellere. Quae cum
loqueretur, patrio sermone Edeconem affatus, non multo post nobis
confirmavit, seu vera proferret, seu fingeret, se Edeconi ea, quae
prius illi dixeramus, exposuisse, et aegre iram eius ob dicta Orestis
lenivisse. Venimus Naissum, quae ab hostibus fuerat eversa et solo
aequata: itaque eam desertam hominibus offendimus, praeterquam
quod in ruderibus sacrarum aedium erant quidam aegroti. Paulo
longius a flumine ad vacua lota divertentes (omnia enim circa ripam
erant plena ossibus eorum, qui bello ceciderant), postridie ad
Agintheum, copiarum in Illyrico ducem, qui non longe a Naisso
habitabat, accessimus, ut, traditis Imperatoris mandatis, reciperemus
ab eo quinque transfugas, qui septemdecim numerum, de quibus ad
Attilam scripserat, explerent. Hominem igitur convenimus, et quinque
profugos Hunnos tradere praecepimus, quos verbis consolatus,
nobiscum dimisit. Nocte transacta, a montibus Naissi Istrum versus
pergentes, in angustam convallem per obliquos flexus et circuitus
multos deferimur. Hic cum in ea opinione essemus, ut in occasum
iter tendere existimaremus, simulataque illuxit, sol exoriens sese ex
adverso oculis nostris obiecit. Itaque qui loci situm ignorabant,
exclamare, tanquam sol contrarium solito cursum conficeret, et
abhorrentia a constituto rerum ordine designaret: sed propter loci
inaequalitatem via ea parte ad Orientem spectat. Ex illo difficili et
arduo loco ad plana et uliginosa devenimus. Hic nos barbari
portitores in scaphis unico ligno constantibus, quas arboribus sectis
et cavatis adornant, exceperunt, et flumen transmiserunt. Et lembi
quidem minime ad nos traducendos, sed ad multitudinem
barbarorum traiiciendam erant praeparati, quae nobis in via
occurreret, quia Attilas ad venationem in Romanorum fines
transgredi volebat. Revera autem bellum contra Romanos paravit,
cuius gerendi occasionem sumebat, quod transfugae non
redderentur. Transmisso Istro, septuaginta fere stadiorum iter cum
barbaris emensi in campo quodam subsistere coacti sumus,
tantisper dum Edecon Attilam nostri adventus certiorem faceret,
manentibus interea nobiscum ex barbaris, qui nos erant deducturi.
Circa vesperam nobis coenantibus, auditus est strepitus equorum ad
nos venientium. Et duo viri Scythae advenerunt, qui nos ad Attilam
venire iusserunt. Nobis vero prius eos ad coenam accedere
rogantibus, de equis descendentes una convivium inierunt, et
postridie viam praeeuntes demonstrarunt. Qua die hora fere nona ad
Attilae tentoria pervenimus: nam erant ei plurima. Et cum in colle
quodam tentoria figere vellemus, obvii barbari prohibuerunt, quoniam
Attilae tentorium esset in planitie positum. Quamobrem ad
barbarorum arbitrium locum tentorii collocandi cepimus. Huc
Edecon, Orestes, Scotta et alii ex Scythis primores mox advenerunt,
et ex nobis quaesierunt, quarum rerum consequendarum gratia hanc