Monthly Archives: June 2012

Radiation, History, and Human Misery

I need to offer two apologies. First is for not posting more often. Every year around mid-June I seem to get very busy which cuts down on my blogging. For some reason I thought that might not happen this year but it has (definition of insanity here?). At the very least I’ll be quite busy through a conference in Charleston I’m returning from on July 20 and I imagine for at least a few weeks after that. My second apology is that I’m about to put up what may be one of the most pointless posts I’ve ever written. But I want to get something out which I could put together quickly, even though a chunk of it relates to my real job.

I recently received the conference proceedings for the “International Science Symposium on Combating Radionuclide Contamination in Agro-Soil Environment.” Yes, this is the kind of stuff I read for my real job. A friend of mine from USDA who I work with on a national radiological project attended (March 8-10 in Koriyama Japan) and sent the proceedings to me. This is absolutely fascinating stuff (this term will be repeated later). We have the world’s largest outdoor laboratory to assess the agricultural and environmental impacts of a large-scale radiological incident. The amount we’re going to learn from this, lessons we can apply in case of another incident, will be tremendous.

The proceedings, which include discussions of topics such as; the efficacy of recovery techniques such as potassium or phosphate fertilizer applications, feeding Prussian Blue to livestock; which crops are susceptible and resistant to radionuclide soil uptake; lessons learned from Chernobyl and their application to Japan, etc., is riveting. Seriously. And I’m just getting started reading it.

So I’m reading the first presentation and the thought literally crosses my mind, “This is absolutely fascinating.”

Full. Stop.

This is a real tragedy, with a massive Human cost. The death toll will likely approach 20,000. The economic losses will be in the hundreds of billions and won’t be able to be accurately assessed for decades. Displaced families, cultural damage and loss – I suppose I could throw in a hundred terms about what Japan and its citizens have suffered and continue to suffer. And I find it fascinating? I was more than a little appalled at my response.

I can’t help it. As I continue to read, it continues to be fascinating. Intellectually I know there have been massive losses and suffering. I can’t say I’ve never been exposed to this as I’ve assisted with disaster response before though for nothing approaching this scale. However for the most part my interest in the subject matter trumps my recognition of the devastation. And then I started thinking about history.

I find it fascinating too. Never mind that so much of it is about Human suffering. The end of the Roman Empire, the period in which I’m most interested, resulted in (I’m certain, despite some recent books seeking to minimize this) major societal upheaval, loss, death, lack of security, and so on. During the later Roman Empire the mere existence of the institution of slavery meant that for many people their entire lives consisted of a pitiful existence. Among the areas I find most interesting are heresy and its suppression and the Crusades. No suffering there, eh? (sarcasm mode)

But I don’t think of this, much. I know it went on though I can’t quantify it. I don’t give it all that much thought when I’m reading about the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent disaster (though it does encroach a bit more). I’m not a psychologist and can’t begin to explain it but I don’t think I’m alone in being able to read about and study Human events which were absolutely devastating for those involved where my foremost thought isn’t the Human impact but rather how interesting it is. I guess we wouldn’t want a world full of people walking around crying every time a tragic event crossed their minds. Even so, I find this troubling.

Don’t say you weren’t warned; I told you this post was pointless.


Posted by on June 23, 2012 in Uncategorized


Tags: ,

Constantine, Panegyric and Conversion

I’ve been reading a collection of late antique panegyrics in Nixon and Rodgers (1994). Most of these are fairly standard though they do include some historical references not found elsewhere. The most interesting one for me (so far, I’m not done with the book) has been a panegyric in honor of Constantine delivered in Trier, probably in 313. 1

There’s a lot of historical information contained in this. It is largely an account of Constantine’s campaign against Maxentius, culminating in the Battle of Milvian Bridge and there are details I haven’t found elsewhere. But what has most fascinated me about this is that the panegyrist (who is anonymous) doesn’t seem to know what to do regarding Constantine’s religion. For those less familiar with these (I’m lumping sources titled as “Orations in honor of …” in this class as I can’t see a distinction), such speeches are generally filled with references to divinities and prior to this, including in earlier speeches in honor of Constantine, these references are to the traditional Roman Gods. As recently as 310, Constantine is referred to as divine and under the special protection of Apollo. 2

By 313 this had changed. The panegyrist expresses surprise that Constantine has ignored inauspicious omens and gone against the advice of soothsayers in offering battle. His patron God is not named and in fact the author considers him/her to be a mystery, known only to the Emperor, but clearly having dominion over lesser divinities. 3

Later the author asks, “… tell us, I beg you, what you had as counsel if not a divine power?” This nameless God, while creator of the world is also given Jupiter’s attributes, including casting thunderbolts. At the close of the panegyric this god is referred to as, “… you, supreme creator of things.” 4

The panegyric contains classical references. It is nothing like, for example, the orations given by Ambrose for Valentinian II and Theodosius. However something has changed and the (almost certainly pagan) author seems a bit at a loss as to how to deal with it. Constantine is given divine properties, but the panegyric contains a mix of attributing this divinity to the Emperor and to his relationship with this new, unnamed God. There is no story of a miraculous vision at Milvian Bridge and nothing about Constantine’s soldiers having any sort of symbol with them during the battle. In fact, the only way to equate this with Christianity is through the events of the subsequent quarter-century.

I found this panegyric fascinating. Eusebius provides a story of a sudden, extreme conversion, one which I’ve always discounted as a later invention, mostly (nothing to say Constantine didn’t have a dream or even was converted through it but he shows a lot of sympathy to the traditional gods for at least the next decade). Still, there is a distinct change in tone between the Panegyric given in 310 and that of 313. Constantine’s religious allegiance was different and this change appears to be associated with the campaign against Maxentius. Reports of this change were public enough to be picked up by an orator in Trier. Also interesting is how the panegyrist addresses it. He’s open in stating that he doesn’t know Constantine’s god but it is one who is new and different, and very powerful. Constantine is not exactly divine, but full of divinity anyway due to his relationship with this deity. It’s one of those moments of transition which show up in sources sometimes, before people have had much time to put a spin on things. Seriously cool stuff and I apologize for the brevity (new apology for me) but things are very busy right now and I wanted to get something on this out.

1 Nixon and Rodgers (1994), “XII. Panegyric of Constantine Augustus,” pp. 288-333. For this book I’ll reference the Latin verse locations as well as the pages of the English translation.

2 In Nixon and Rodgers (1994) see “VI. Panegyric of Constantine,” pp 211-53, particularly a first reference to his divinity at 1.5-2.5, pp. 218-21 and his relationship with Apollo on 21.4-21.7, pp. 248-51.

3 This combination of themes is covered at the beginning of the panegyric in Nixon and Rodgers (1994) at 2.1-2.6, pp. 295-6.

4 In Nixon and Rodgers (1994); for the initial quote, 4.1, p. 299; this god having Jupiter’s powers, 13.2-3, pp. 313-4; as supreme creator, 26.1, p. 332.

C.E.V. Nixon and Barbara Saylor Rodgers, eds., In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini, with introduction, translation, and historical commentary. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press (1994). ISBN: 978-0-520-08326-4.


Tags: , , , , , , ,