I’ve just finished reading Peter Brown’s Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. It is a survey of the relationships between local, urban “notables” (civic leaders) and the imperial government and its representatives from the 4th c. after Constantine through the 5th c., mostly in the Greek East, but also in Milan and north Africa. Brown’s task is to trace the transition from a classical, pagan elite, whose “power and persuasion” was based on shared paideia (education, culture, rhetoric) to a Christianized elite in the person of both the emperor and local bishops. Brown’s focus is on problems of communication, appeasement, and “free-speaking” (candid address to an emperor or VIP). He is concerned with the structures of power and potential violence that existed in the Empire in Late Antiquity. His conclusion is that paideia and classical modes of civic leadership remained strong throughout the period, but with Christianization and the rise of bishops, other forces also come into play, such as the mobilization of the non-citizen urban poor, the political interference of uneducated (and often violent) gangs of monks, shows of miraculous power, and (eventually) sloganeering among the masses that could go straight to the emperor himself. There is a transition from the leadership style of the “gentleman” to that of the charismatic religious figure who appeals to the masses, with the earlier and more urbane bishops playing a middle position between the two.

Peter Brown’s narrative style is engaging, and he relates many historical incidents with flair and insight (sometimes a little too Machiavellian). His overall view of the importance of paideia (contra most historians, who see it merely as an outdated, antique “ornament”) is accurate, I believe. He gives an excellent analyses of the role that shared culture and rhetoric play in assuaging anger and other passions, especially as displayed by a dangerous tyrant. His sketch of the classical philosopher as “free-speaker” (having the virtue of parrhesia) is also worthwhile, esp. in comparison to the later bishops, who come to take over the philosopher’s place in the face of autocratic power.

Two aspects of the book, however, are fundamentally disturbing. The first is Brown’s attribution to Christian emperors and bishops motives and methods that sit ill with an Orthodox vision of how such leaders ought to (and presumably did) operate. He goes beyond descriptions of actual behavior and textual evidence to impute political motivations and machinations, and these often run counter to our sensitivities about how a saint should be. At the same time, there is one section late in the book where Brown extolls in his own highest rhetoric the fading glory of the pagan philosopher. One would not like to accuse such an obviously competent scholar of anti-Christian bias, but… (Either that, or Christian historians have some apologetic work to do, to the extent Brown’s interpretations are fair.)

The second aspect of the book which is troubling (more so than the first) is its “postmodernism”. Brown almost never deals with the actual content of the paideia, culture, and rhetoric he emphasizes. He never deals with the search and fight for truth, even “poetic” truth. He never compares the intrinsic appeals of pagan culture, philosophy, and religion with the Christian gospel, or addresses the fight between heretics and orthodox Christians, which loomed overwhelmingly large in this historical period. He always deals with “forms” of communication and persuasion, and with power structures and politics, rather than with the substance of ideas. He deals with volatile personalities, not with saints or wise men; political factions, not the Church and schismatics. His values are those of tolerance, diversity, appeasement, and power politics. Words do matter. Brown shows this, against the materialistic interpretation of history; but so does thought, and truth. He does not deal with these at all, much less take any kind of stand.

There is much in this book that helps to understand the early Church and its leaders, and the Christianization of the East Roman empire. There is probably much that can apply to the embattled Church today, and its need for effective leadership in an increasingly hostile and pagan environment where words nevertheless matter in the extreme. On the other hand, Brown’s thesis that it is paideia which underlies the classical (including classical Christian system) bodes ill for any kind of imitation of the leadership styles of the early bishops and Fathers. We lack paideia today. Even if some sort of Christian paideia could be recovered for Christian leaders, it is almost impossible to imagine that it could become a culture-wide influence, with effect beyond the Church, such as it was in Late Antique Rome.

I will try to post some quotes later.