the_late_Geoffrey_de_Ste._Croix-Christian_Persecution ...
the_late_Geoffrey_de_Ste._Croix-Christian_Persecution ...
the_late_Geoffrey_de_Ste._Croix-Christian_Persecution ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION,MARTYRDOM, AND ORTHODOXY
This page intentionally left blank
<strong>Christian</strong><strong>Persecution</strong>,Martyrdom, andOrthodoxyG. E. M. DE STE. CROIXEdited byMichael WhitbyandJoseph Streeter1
3Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dpOxford University Press is a <strong>de</strong>partment of <strong>the</strong> University of Oxford.It fur<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>the</strong> University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,and education by publishing worldwi<strong>de</strong> inOxford New YorkAuckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City NairobiNew Delhi Shanghai Taipei TorontoWith oYces inArgentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine VietnamOxford is a registered tra<strong>de</strong> mark of Oxford University Pressin <strong>the</strong> UK and in certain o<strong>the</strong>r countriesPublished in <strong>the</strong> United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkßThe Estate of G.E.M. <strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> 2006The moral rights of <strong>the</strong> author have been assertedDatabase right Oxford University Press (maker)First published 2006All 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 <strong>the</strong> prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,or as expressly permitted by law, or un<strong>de</strong>r terms agreed with <strong>the</strong> appropriatereprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproductionoutsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> scope of <strong>the</strong> above should be sent to <strong>the</strong> Rights Department,Oxford University Press, at <strong>the</strong> address aboveYou must not circu<strong>late</strong> this book in any o<strong>the</strong>r binding or coverand you must impose <strong>the</strong> same condition on any acquirerBritish Library Cataloguing in Publication DataData availableLibrary of Congress Cataloguing in Publication DataDe <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, G. E. M. (<strong>Geoffrey</strong> Ernest Maurice)<strong>Christian</strong> persecution, martyrdom, and orthodoxy/G. E .M. De <strong>Ste</strong>. Crox;edited by Michael Whitby and Joseph Streeter.p. cm.ISBN-13: 978–0–19–927812–1 (alk. paper)ISBN-10: 0–19–927812–1 (alk. paper)1. <strong>Persecution</strong>. 2. Martyrdom–<strong>Christian</strong>ity. 3. Church history–Primitive an<strong>de</strong>arly church, ca. 30–600. I. Whitby, Michael. II. Streeter, Joseph. III. Title.BR1604.23.D4 2006272’.1–dc222006011789Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, IndiaPrinted in Great Britainon acid-free paper byBiddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, NorfolkISBN 0-19-927812-1 978-0-19-927812-11 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
PrefaceAfter <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of GeoVrey <strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> in February 2000, his widowMargaret passed a mass of aca<strong>de</strong>mic papers to David Harvey andRobert Parker. Among <strong>the</strong>se was a group of essays relating to Greekhistory which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had worked on during <strong>the</strong> 1960s and whichwere in reasonably good shape for publication; Harvey and Parkerwere able to bring <strong>the</strong>se out un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> title A<strong>the</strong>nian DemocraticOrigins and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays (OUP 2004).The majority of <strong>the</strong> papers, however, re<strong>late</strong>d to religious andintellectual matters, primarily <strong>the</strong> Old Testament, Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity,and Plato. For <strong>the</strong> most part <strong>the</strong>se represented elements of twosubstantial publication projects on which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had embarkedin <strong>the</strong> 1980s, a pair of volumes which were inten<strong>de</strong>d to present hisradical views on a wi<strong>de</strong> range of religious and re<strong>late</strong>d topics: Early<strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Women, Sex and Marriage, which would<strong>de</strong>velop i<strong>de</strong>as from <strong>the</strong> lecture series he had given at Gregynog andCornell, and Radical Conclusions, which was to be a ra<strong>the</strong>r moredisparate collection of papers on some speciWc biblical passages orissues and on Early <strong>Christian</strong> topics. Unlike <strong>the</strong> Greek historicalmaterial most of <strong>the</strong>se papers did not exist in clearly publishableforms, but comprised diVerent versions of lectures or seminarpapers, drafts and redrafts, and working notes, some in typescriptbut much in <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s distinctive handwriting which becameincreasingly diYcult to <strong>de</strong>cipher as his health <strong>de</strong>clined during <strong>the</strong>1990s. Credit for <strong>the</strong> Wrst and fundamental contribution to transformingthis mass into what appears in <strong>the</strong> current volume belongsto David Harvey. With great patience, a clear head, and a mastery of<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s hand, David managed to impose some organization on<strong>the</strong> Wles and boxes of papers. The results of his eVorts were passed toMichael Whitby in summer 2002 in six substantial cardboard boxescrammed full of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s characteristic lever arch Wles, fol<strong>de</strong>rs,and notebooks.
viPrefaceThereafter administrative distractions impe<strong>de</strong>d progress, but during2003 it was possible to i<strong>de</strong>ntify, in dialogue with Hilary O’Shea ofOUP, <strong>the</strong> building blocks of a potential volume on <strong>Christian</strong> matters.At an early stage it was <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> material on Plato was tooremote in subject matter and insuYciently complete to be able to beincorporated in <strong>the</strong> project. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had <strong>de</strong>voted much of his last<strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> to working on various papers on biblical topics, and to reXecthis intentions a selection of <strong>the</strong>se was incorporated alongsi<strong>de</strong> variousEarly <strong>Christian</strong> pieces in <strong>the</strong> Wrst formal proposal to OUP for a <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> religious volume; a pair of sympa<strong>the</strong>tic and very helpfulanonymous rea<strong>de</strong>rs indicated that <strong>the</strong> biblical papers required agreat <strong>de</strong>al of work and might still not have <strong>the</strong> impact that <strong>the</strong>irauthor had inten<strong>de</strong>d. As a result it seemed better not to proceed with<strong>the</strong>se, and to focus instead on <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong> writings in avolume which brought toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s seminal writings onmartyrdom and persecution, a couple of re<strong>late</strong>d early items from<strong>the</strong> 1960s which might well have been published <strong>the</strong>n and which evenin unpublished format had been inXuencing aca<strong>de</strong>mic colleagues, adigest of fur<strong>the</strong>r work on persecution which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> presented inlecture series during <strong>the</strong> 1970s and 1980s, a substantial piece on <strong>the</strong>Council of Chalcedon which had been frequently presented at seminarsin <strong>the</strong> 1980s and was also exerting inXuence on subsequentwork, and a published item on <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s to property whichcould represent some of <strong>the</strong> lines of inquiry pursued by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> in<strong>the</strong> Gregynog and Townsend lecture series.1 This at least reduced <strong>the</strong>boxes of papers un<strong>de</strong>r active consi<strong>de</strong>ration to manageable proportions,although <strong>the</strong> unpublished work on Heresies and Chalcedon inparticular were both represented by several diVerent drafts and1 A Greek translation of seven of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s <strong>Christian</strong> writings has just beenpublished: ˇ×ÑÉÓÔÉ`˝ÉÓÌˇÓ ˚`É ˙ ÑÙÌ˙: ˜ÉÙˆÌˇÉ; `ÉR¯Ó¯ÉÓ ˚`É˙¨˙, ed. D. I. Kyrtatas, trans. I. Kralle (A<strong>the</strong>ns, 2005). In addition to <strong>the</strong> three articleswhich we reprint (‘Aspects’ ¼ Ch. 1; ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ ¼ Ch. 3; ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>Attitu<strong>de</strong>s’ ¼ Ch. 7) this also inclu<strong>de</strong>s translations of three short general pieces: ‘TheReligion of <strong>the</strong> Roman World’, Didaskalos, 4 (1972), 61–74; ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity’s Encounterwith <strong>the</strong> Roman Imperial Government’, in A. Toynbee (ed.), The Crucible of <strong>Christian</strong>ity(London, 1969), 345–51; ‘AWorm’s-Eye View of <strong>the</strong> Greeks and Romans and how <strong>the</strong>ySpoke: Martyr Acts, Fables, Parables and O<strong>the</strong>r Texts’, Latin Teaching, 37.4 (1984), 16–30. The Wnal item is a seminar version of ‘Chalcedon’. We are grateful to Robert Parkerfor bringing this to our attention, and lending his copy for <strong>the</strong> sake of comparison.
Prefaceviirewritings, while <strong>the</strong> thoughts on Toleration did not extend farbeyond a list of relevant references.The current volume was commissioned by OUP in autumn 2003,just when Michael Whitby’s administrative duties at Warwick increasedsubstantially. A <strong>de</strong>us ex machina appeared, courtesy of <strong>the</strong>British Aca<strong>de</strong>my which generously allocated one of its small grants to<strong>the</strong> project. Thanks are due to all those involved, and especially toPeter Garnsey and Doug Lee, who wrote in support of <strong>the</strong> project to<strong>the</strong> BA. This money permitted <strong>the</strong> employment of a research assistantand, thanks to a suggestion by Robert Parker, Joseph Streeteragreed to join <strong>the</strong> project in <strong>late</strong> summer 2004. The intelligence,energy, and quality of his input soon indicated that it was appropriateto upgra<strong>de</strong> him from assistant to co-editor, so that <strong>the</strong> volumeassumed its Wnal form. Without his collaboration it is certain that <strong>the</strong>volume would have been far longer in <strong>the</strong> gestation and quitepossible that it would have remained unpublished.The editorial challenge of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> papers was more variedthan that of <strong>the</strong> Greek papers. Three items had already appeared inprint (Chapters 1, 3, and 7), and here we have restricted ourselves tominor updating. In many respects <strong>the</strong> paper on <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict andElvira (Chapter 2) was similar, since this had been accepted by JTS in<strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1960s, while for Voluntary Martyrs, a topic central to all <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecution, <strong>the</strong> challenge was to preserve <strong>the</strong> corpusof evi<strong>de</strong>nce while reducing unnecessary overlap with o<strong>the</strong>r papers in<strong>the</strong> volume. Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> and Chalcedon bothpresented signiWcant challenges. In <strong>the</strong> former <strong>the</strong>re were severali<strong>de</strong>as and issues which might have been pursued at consi<strong>de</strong>rablelength, so that <strong>the</strong> question was to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> where to curtail discussion,especially in <strong>the</strong> absence of clear direction as to where <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>might have taken <strong>the</strong> topic. On Chalcedon <strong>the</strong>re were comparableopportunities, though here it was possible to be much more conW<strong>de</strong>ntabout where and how <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> wanted to <strong>de</strong>velop <strong>the</strong> extantpiece.Primary editorial responsibility for <strong>the</strong> material has been divi<strong>de</strong>das follows, though we have both read and commented on each o<strong>the</strong>r’ssections: introduction to <strong>the</strong> chapters on <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomand editorial work on Chapters 1–2, 4–5, Joseph Streeter;editorial work on Chapters 3 and 6–7, plus <strong>the</strong> introductory material
viiiPrefaceto <strong>the</strong> latter two chapters, Michael Whitby. Editorial additions to,and commentary on <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s material are presented in squarebrackets. Our work on all <strong>the</strong> papers has been greatly assisted bygenerous help from numerous friends and colleagues: Alan Bowman,Averil Cameron, Ca<strong>the</strong>rine Edwards, Peter Garnsey, Mat<strong>the</strong>w Gibbs,Martin Goodman, Thomas Graumann, Caroline Humfress, MarkHumphries, Neil McLynn, Fergus Millar, Kate Nichols, John North,Christopher Parrott, Richard Price, <strong>Ste</strong>fan Rebenich, and Benet Salway.
ContentsAbbreviationsxiPERSECUTION AND MARTYRDOM 1Introduction: <strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> on <strong>Persecution</strong> Joseph Streeter 31. Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 352. The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West and <strong>the</strong> Date of <strong>the</strong>Council of Elvira 79Appendix: The Date of <strong>the</strong> Council of ElviraJoseph Streeter 993. Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 1054. Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 1535. Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> LaterRoman Empire 201Appendix: Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquityand Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity Joseph Streeter 229CHURCH COUNCILS 253Introduction Michael Whitby 2556. The Council of Chalcedon with additions byMichael Whitby 259CHRISTIANITY AND PROPERTY 321Introduction Michael Whitby 3237. Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property and Slavery 328In<strong>de</strong>x of Passages 373In<strong>de</strong>x 378
This page intentionally left blank
AbbreviationsAbbreviations listed in <strong>the</strong> Lid<strong>de</strong>ll–Scott–Jones–McKenzieGreek–English Lexicon are not inclu<strong>de</strong>d.ABACOBHGBHLBZCAHCSCOCSELDOPEHRGCSHTRJbACJECSJEHJTSNPNFOCPPGPLPLREAnalecta BollandianaActa Conciliorum OecumenicorumBiblio<strong>the</strong>ca Hagiographica GraecaBiblio<strong>the</strong>ca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae AetatisByzantinische ZeitschriftCambridge Ancient HistoryCorpus Scriptorum <strong>Christian</strong>orum OrientaliumCorpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum LatinorumDumbarton Oaks PapersEnglish Historical ReviewDie griechische christliche Schriftsteller <strong>de</strong>r ersten Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rteHarvard Theological ReviewJahrbuch für Antike und ChristentumJournal of Early <strong>Christian</strong> StudiesJournal of Ecclesiastical HistoryJournal of Theological StudiesA Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> ChurchOrientalia <strong>Christian</strong>a PeriodicaPatrologia GraecaPatrologia LatinaProsopography of <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empirevol. i, ed. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris(Cambridge, 1971)vol. ii, ed. J. R. Martindale (Cambridge, 1980)vol. iii, ed. J. R. Martindale (Cambridge, 1992)
xiiPOSCTTHTUVig. Chr.ZACAbbreviationsPatrologia OrientalisSources chrétiennesTrans<strong>late</strong>d Texts for Historians (Liverpool UP)Texte und UntersuchungenVigiliae <strong>Christian</strong>aeZeitschrift für antikes Christentum
<strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction:<strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> on <strong>Persecution</strong>Joseph StreeterThe Wve essays collected in this section focus on persecution.Chapters 1 to 4 look at diVerent aspects of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> persecutionsup to <strong>the</strong> conversion of Constantine in 312. Chapter 5 examines <strong>the</strong>persecutions of pagans, Jews, and <strong>Christian</strong> heretics or schismatics in<strong>the</strong> Constantinian Empire. ‘Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘‘Great’’ <strong>Persecution</strong>’ and‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?’ have already been publishedand are recognized classics of <strong>the</strong> Weld; <strong>the</strong> three unpublishe<strong>de</strong>ssays <strong>de</strong>velop <strong>the</strong>mes raised <strong>the</strong>rein, and overlap to a limited extentwith parts of The Class Struggle in <strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World.1 We havearranged <strong>the</strong> essays <strong>the</strong>matically: Chapter 2 complements ‘Aspects’,streng<strong>the</strong>ning its arguments against <strong>the</strong> criticisms of W. H. C. Frend;Chapter 4 expands <strong>the</strong> short discussion on voluntary martyrdom in‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’; Wnally, Chapter 5 shows <strong>the</strong> direction of <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s work from <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1960s, which focused on <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Empireand persecutions in <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Christian</strong>ity.2There is always a complex of narratives to any long-standinghistoriographical problem, particularly one as i<strong>de</strong>ologically chargedas <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong> persecutions. This has almost certainly beencomplicated by <strong>the</strong> long-standing disciplinary ambiguity of earlychurch history, which continues to be subject to <strong>the</strong> competingclaims of historians, classicists, <strong>the</strong>ologians, and stu<strong>de</strong>nts of religion.1 G. E. M. <strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, The Class Struggle in <strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World: From <strong>the</strong>Archaic Age to <strong>the</strong> Arab Conquests (1981; corr. imprint, London, 1983), esp. 445–52;this overlap re<strong>late</strong>s mainly to Ch. 5, ‘Heresy’.2 Perhaps <strong>the</strong> Wrst of his papers systematically to <strong>de</strong>velop this notion was ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity’sEncounter with <strong>the</strong> Roman Imperial Government’, in A. Toynbee (ed.), TheCrucible of <strong>Christian</strong>ity: Judaism, Hellenism and <strong>the</strong> Historical Background to <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Faith (London, 1969), 345–51, with bibliography at 357. See also <strong>the</strong>interview between <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> and D. Kyrtatas, A. Matthaiou, and G. Pikoulas,Horos, 6 (1988), 123–33 at 130.
4 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomI have <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to iso<strong>late</strong> two strands, which illuminate <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’sbroa<strong>de</strong>r intellectual aims, and <strong>the</strong> immediate <strong>de</strong>bates that headdressed. The Wrst goes back to <strong>the</strong> eighteenth century and <strong>the</strong> Wrstsecular histories of <strong>Christian</strong>ity: here I have singled out <strong>the</strong> work ofMontesquieu and Gibbon, who atten<strong>de</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> intolerance of <strong>Christian</strong>ityand its socially harmful consequences. The second is a morespeciWc historiography dating back to <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> nineteenth century,which focused on <strong>the</strong> legal basis of <strong>the</strong> persecutions and <strong>the</strong>ir relationshipto Roman government. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s inXuence has perhapsbeen greatest in relation to <strong>the</strong> second line: <strong>the</strong> central conclusions of‘Aspects’ and ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ are seldom disputed. However, <strong>the</strong>sespeciWc problems were addressed within <strong>the</strong> Wrst, broa<strong>de</strong>r, historicalframework. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> wanted to un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong> form that <strong>Christian</strong>ity<strong>de</strong>veloped in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire and its historical consequences.This inquiry was gui<strong>de</strong>d by strong personal consi<strong>de</strong>rations,above all his hostility to <strong>Christian</strong>ity, and must be un<strong>de</strong>rstood withthis background in mind. By juxtaposing <strong>the</strong>se two lines of historiographywe can examine <strong>the</strong> strengths and weaknesses of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’sapproach to early <strong>Christian</strong> persecution, and gain a good perspectivefrom which to consi<strong>de</strong>r subsequent <strong>de</strong>velopments, in both earlychurch history and our un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire.IFor <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, <strong>the</strong> salient characteristic of <strong>Christian</strong>ity wasintolerance, and this intolerance is <strong>the</strong> central feature in his accountof <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> persecutions. It generates persecution of <strong>Christian</strong>sand persecution by <strong>Christian</strong>s: in <strong>the</strong> generally tolerant RomanEmpire, <strong>Christian</strong>s, Gnostics apart, were persecuted for ‘<strong>the</strong>ir totalrefusal to worship any god but <strong>the</strong>ir own’3 and active rejection and<strong>de</strong>nunciation of all o<strong>the</strong>r forms of worship. To quote from his lecturenotes, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity entirely refused recognition of any o<strong>the</strong>r religion,<strong>de</strong>clining to countenance any form of paganism at all, and in<strong>de</strong>edrejected <strong>the</strong> pagan gods with disgust, ei<strong>the</strong>r as evil <strong>de</strong>mons or as3 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, p. 133).
Introduction 5altoge<strong>the</strong>r non existent and invented’. Throughout <strong>the</strong> essays on pre-Constantinian persecution, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> looks forward to <strong>the</strong> featuresof <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>ity that he found so distasteful, particularlyintolerance and acquiescence in <strong>the</strong> face of exploitation and stateoppression.4 This chronological scope is apparent from <strong>the</strong> start: in<strong>the</strong> conclusion of ‘Aspects’, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> postu<strong>late</strong>d a causal linkbetween <strong>the</strong> ‘atmosphere of constant menace in which <strong>Christian</strong>ityhad matured’ and ‘some of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>plorable features which we Wnd in<strong>the</strong> mentality of so many of <strong>the</strong> prominent churchmen and ecclesiasticalwriters of <strong>the</strong> fourth and following centuries—above all <strong>the</strong>readiness to persecute and <strong>the</strong> hysterical <strong>de</strong>nunciation of <strong>the</strong>ologicalopponents.’5<strong>Christian</strong> intolerance manifested itself in o<strong>the</strong>r ways. In relation to<strong>the</strong> non-<strong>Christian</strong> world, perhaps its most signiWcant aspect was zealfor martyrdom. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> located <strong>the</strong> origins of <strong>Christian</strong> martyrdomin Maccabean-era Judaism, and his account has exercisedconsi<strong>de</strong>rable inXuence through <strong>the</strong> indirect medium of W. H. C.Frend’s Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Early Church.6 He consi<strong>de</strong>redvoluntary martyrdom fairly wi<strong>de</strong>spread and a ‘factor whichboth contributed towards <strong>the</strong> outbreak of persecution and ten<strong>de</strong>dto intensify it when it was already in progress’.7 Equally signiWcant, in<strong>the</strong> long term, was <strong>Christian</strong> intolerance of internal dissent andargument, embodied in <strong>the</strong> twin concepts heresy and schism,which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> believed to go ‘right back to <strong>the</strong> very beginning ofApostolic times’.8 Following <strong>the</strong> conversion of Constantine, thisexclusiveness and zeal combined with imperial power to transform<strong>Christian</strong>ity into ‘a persecuting force without parallel in <strong>the</strong> world’shistory’, which would attack both those who claimed to be <strong>Christian</strong>sand outsi<strong>de</strong>rs such as Jews and pagans.94 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Class Struggle, 398.5 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ (below, Ch. 1, p. 68).6 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Early Church (Oxford, 1965),p. vii; note, however, that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>red Frend’s argument for <strong>the</strong> exclusivelyJewish basis of <strong>Christian</strong> martyrdom too strong; see his review of Martyrdom in JTS18 (1967), 217–21.7 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Voluntary Martyrdom’ (below, Ch. 4); also ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’(below, Ch. 3, pp. 131–3).8 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Heresy’, below, Ch. 5, p. 201.9 A phrase used in Class Struggle at 452, an unpublished paper of 1974, and,slightly modiWed, ‘Heresy’, below, Ch. 5, p. 201.
6 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomIn <strong>the</strong> recent volume of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s essays on classical A<strong>the</strong>ns, <strong>the</strong>editors David Harvey and Robert Parker <strong>de</strong>scribe him as ‘a historianin <strong>the</strong> Enlightenment mould, as little inclined as were Sidney andBeatrice Webb or his mentor A. H. M. Jones to reconstruct culturalcontexts imaginatively’.10 I shall have more to say about <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’smethodology below, but <strong>the</strong> analogy with <strong>the</strong> Enlightenment isworth pursuing, since his account of <strong>Christian</strong> persecution sharesmuch with <strong>the</strong> work of Montesquieu and, more particularly, ofGibbon. <strong>Christian</strong>ity for <strong>the</strong>m, as for <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, was notable for itsintolerance. In his Considérations sur les causes <strong>de</strong> la gran<strong>de</strong>ur <strong>de</strong>sRomains et <strong>de</strong> leur déca<strong>de</strong>nce (1734),11 Montesquieu pointedlyignored <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong> persecutions, concentrating instead on<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>leterious consequences of <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> intolerance, withparticular reference to Justinian.12 In 1716 he had spoken of ‘thatspirit of tolerance and softness which prevailed in <strong>the</strong> pagan world’,13and in Considérations he contrasted <strong>the</strong> toleration of ‘every sort ofcult’ in <strong>the</strong> thriving early Empire with <strong>the</strong> enervating bigotry of <strong>the</strong><strong>late</strong>r ‘Greek’ Empire. What I want to draw attention to here is not somuch a direct inXuence on <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> as a certain discourse on<strong>Christian</strong>ity’s ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to dogmatism and intolerance, which perhapsultimately goes back to Machiavelli, but gains Wrmer historicalgrounding in <strong>the</strong> eighteenth century.While Montesquieu preWgures certain of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s interests, <strong>the</strong>inXuence of Gibbon’s History of <strong>the</strong> Decline and Fall of <strong>the</strong> Roman10 G. E. M. <strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, A<strong>the</strong>nian Democratic Origins and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays, ed. D.Harvey and R. Parker (Oxford, 2004), 369.11 See <strong>the</strong> edition of F. Weil and C. Courtney, with <strong>the</strong> commentary of P. Andrivetand C. Volpilhac-Auger, Œuvres Complètes <strong>de</strong> Montesquieu, ii (Oxford, 2000), 1–318with text at 89–285. There is a translation by David Lowenthal, Consi<strong>de</strong>rations on <strong>the</strong>Causes of <strong>the</strong> Greatness of <strong>the</strong> Romans and <strong>the</strong>ir Decline (New York, 1965). OnMontesquieu’s work on Roman history, see recently V. <strong>de</strong> Senarclens, Montesquieuhistorien <strong>de</strong> Rome: un tournant pour la réXexion sur le statut <strong>de</strong> l’histoire au XVIIIesiècle (Geneva, 2003), esp. 101–83. For a brief introduction, see J. N. Shklar,Montesquieu (Oxford, 1987), 49–66.12 Weil and Courtney edn., 256–7; Lowenthal trans., 190–1: ‘what did most harmto <strong>the</strong> political condition of <strong>the</strong> government was his [Justinian’s] scheme for reducingall men to <strong>the</strong> same opinion in matters of religion, in circumstances which ma<strong>de</strong> hiszeal entirely indiscreet’.13 Montesquieu, ‘Dissertation sur la politique <strong>de</strong>s Romains dans la religion’, inM. A. Masson (ed.), Œuvres Complètes <strong>de</strong> Montesquieu, iii (Paris, 1955), 37–50, at 45.
Introduction 7Empire is undoubtedly more direct, although it should be noted thatGibbon himself took much from Montesquieu.14 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> regar<strong>de</strong>dGibbon as <strong>the</strong> most signiWcant British historian before A. H. M.Jones,15 and <strong>the</strong> inXuence of chapters 15 and 16 of Decline and Fall(1776) on <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s account of persecution is clear. FollowingDavid Hume’s contrast between tolerant poly<strong>the</strong>ism and intolerantmono<strong>the</strong>ism,16 Gibbon outlined an account of <strong>the</strong> persecutions inwhich <strong>Christian</strong> fanaticism took centre stage. It engen<strong>de</strong>red persecutionup to 311, and led <strong>Christian</strong>s to exaggerate its extent <strong>the</strong>reaftereven as ‘in <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong>ir intestine dissentions’ <strong>the</strong>y wereinXicting ‘far greater severities on each o<strong>the</strong>r, than <strong>the</strong>y had experiencedfrom <strong>the</strong> zeal of inW<strong>de</strong>ls’.17 He suggested that <strong>the</strong> numberof martyrs was not large, ei<strong>the</strong>r before 303 or during <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong>, and posited voluntary martyrdom as a commoncause of those that did occur.18 On one of <strong>the</strong> most important14 In his Memoirs, Gibbon recor<strong>de</strong>d his reading habits while at Lausanne (1753–8)and his ‘<strong>de</strong>light in <strong>the</strong> frequent perusal of Montesquieu, whose energy of style, andboldness of hypo<strong>the</strong>sis were powerful to awaken and stimu<strong>late</strong> <strong>the</strong> Genius of <strong>the</strong> Age’;see Gibbon, Memoirs of My Life, ed. B. Radice (Harmondsworth, 1984), 99. OnMontesquieu’s inXuence on Gibbon, see A. Momigliano, ‘Gibbon’s Contribution toHistorical Method’, Historia, 2 (1954), 450–63, at 457–8, repr. in his Studies inHistoriography (London, 1966), 40–55, at 48; P. Ghosh, ‘Gibbon’s First Thoughts:Rome, <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Essai sur l’étu<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> la littérature 1758–1761’, JRS 85(1995), 148–64; J. G. A. Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, iii: The First Decline andFall (Cambridge, 2003), 338–60.15 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Class in Marx’s Conception of History’, New Left Review, 146(1984), 94–111, at 97.16 See Hume, ‘Of Superstition and Enthusiasm’ (1742) in his Essays Moral,Political, and Literary, ed. T. H. Green and T. H. Grose (London, 1889), 144–50;and ‘The Natural History of Religion’ (1757), ed. J. W. Colver, in Hume, The NaturalHistory of Religion and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Oxford, 1976), 23–98,at 58–9. On Hume’s inXuence on Gibbon, see J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Superstition andEnthusiasm in Gibbon’s History of Religion’, Eighteenth Century Life, 8.1 (1982),83–4; D. Womersley, The Transformation of The Decline and Fall of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire(Cambridge, 1988), 20–38.17 E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (ed. J. B. Bury, London, 1909–14),580. For some of <strong>the</strong> controversy chapters 15 and 16 generated, see D. Womersley(ed.), Religious Scepticism: Contemporary Responses to Gibbon (Bristol, 1997).18 Gibbon, Decline, 545: ‘<strong>the</strong> assurance of a lasting reputation on earth, a motive socongenial to <strong>the</strong> vanity of human nature, often served to animate <strong>the</strong> courage of <strong>the</strong>martyrs’. For <strong>the</strong> prevalence of voluntary martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, seeDecline, 576–9.
8 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomproblems—why <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were persecuted and not <strong>the</strong> Jews—<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> followed Gibbon’s explanation that ‘<strong>the</strong> Jews were a peoplewhich followed, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s a sect which <strong>de</strong>serted, <strong>the</strong> religion of<strong>the</strong>ir fa<strong>the</strong>rs’.19 O<strong>the</strong>r central features of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s account overlapsigniWcantly with that of Gibbon. Always alive to <strong>the</strong> ‘scanty andsuspicious materials of ecclesiastical history’,20 Gibbon argued thatwhen presented with <strong>Christian</strong>s ‘it was esteemed <strong>the</strong> duty of ahumane judge to en<strong>de</strong>avour to reclaim, ra<strong>the</strong>r than to punish,those <strong>de</strong>lu<strong>de</strong>d enthusiasts’, and attributed <strong>the</strong> familiar picture ofjudicial savagery to ‘<strong>the</strong> monks of succeeding ages, who, in <strong>the</strong>irpeaceful solitu<strong>de</strong>s, entertained <strong>the</strong>mselves with diversifying <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>aths and suVerings of <strong>the</strong> primitive martyrs’, adding that ‘<strong>the</strong>more ancient as well as au<strong>the</strong>ntic memorials of <strong>the</strong> church are seldompolluted with <strong>the</strong>se extravagant and in<strong>de</strong>cent Wctions’.21 Although<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> was far from regarding Roman magistrates as particularlyhumane or un<strong>de</strong>r any compulsion of duty to ‘reclaim’ <strong>Christian</strong>s, hedid argue that <strong>the</strong> ‘sacriWce test’ was originally ‘a privilege’, whose‘essential aim was to make apostates, not martyrs’, and shared Gibbon’scontempt for <strong>late</strong>r hagiography.22 We can even see some inXuenceof Gibbon’s terminology, or ra<strong>the</strong>r Hume’s terminologytransmitted through Gibbon: towards <strong>the</strong> end of The Class Strugglein <strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> speaks, in very Humean terms,of <strong>the</strong> ‘eVects of religious enthusiasm’.23There are, of course, many diVerences between <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> and hiseighteenth-century pre<strong>de</strong>cessors. Both Montesquieu and Gibbonwrote in a belles-lettres, historical culture, before <strong>the</strong> professionalizationof <strong>the</strong> discipline and with many mo<strong>de</strong>rn techniques of sourcecriticism in <strong>the</strong>ir infancy.24 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> was very much a mo<strong>de</strong>rn19 Gibbon, Decline, 517; see also ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, p. 135).20 Gibbon, Decline, 446.21 Gibbon, Decline, 538–9.22 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, p. 127–8).23 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Class Struggle, 452.24 For some of <strong>the</strong> background to Gibbon’s Decline, see J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Gibbon’sDecline and Fall and <strong>the</strong> World View of <strong>the</strong> Late Enlightenment’, in his Virtue,Commerce and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, ChieXy in <strong>the</strong> EighteenthCentury (Cambridge, 1985), 143–56; i<strong>de</strong>m, Barbarism and Religion, i: TheEnlightenments of Edward Gibbon, 1737–1764 (Cambridge, 1999). See also D. Kelley’suseful survey, Faces of History from Herodotus to Her<strong>de</strong>r (New Haven, 1998), 217–49.
Introduction 9historian in his comprehensive and critical grasp of source material,being unusually well read in <strong>the</strong> sources that classically trainedancient historians customarily ignored, such as martyr acts andhagiography.25 To un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong> parallels between Gibbon and<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> we must look to more personal matters. Only brief mentionneed be ma<strong>de</strong> of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s Marxism. His dislike of <strong>Christian</strong>itydid not follow from his Marxism, and <strong>the</strong>re is in any case littlesanction in <strong>the</strong> works of Marx for hostility to historical forms ofreligion.26 In<strong>de</strong>ed, Marx’s friend and colleague Engels had evendrawn parallels between <strong>the</strong> communist movement and <strong>the</strong> earlyChurch, seeing <strong>Christian</strong>ity as <strong>the</strong> (inevitably incomplete) communismof its day, and its triumph as <strong>the</strong> herald of <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rn worldrevolution.27 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s more thoroughgoing turn to Marxismfollowed <strong>the</strong> events of 1968, and for most of <strong>the</strong> period in which hewas working on <strong>the</strong>se essays, although broadly Marxist in sympathy,he did not commit himself to a Marxist framework.<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s hostility to <strong>Christian</strong>ity <strong>de</strong>veloped in opposition to <strong>the</strong>beliefs of his fundamentalist <strong>Christian</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r. In his lecture ‘Sex andSt Paul’, he explained <strong>the</strong> personal factors that drew him towards <strong>the</strong>subject and which, he felt, gave him a special insight into its characteristicattitu<strong>de</strong>s. Mentioning <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong> belief that <strong>the</strong> Old25 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s enthusiasm for propagating <strong>the</strong>se texts led him to recommend <strong>the</strong>mto a colloquium for those interested in <strong>the</strong> reform of Latin teaching in schools, anaddress subsequently published as ‘A Worm’s-Eye View of <strong>the</strong> Greeks and Romansand how <strong>the</strong>y Spoke: Martyr Acts, Fables, Parables, and O<strong>the</strong>r Texts’, Latin Teaching,37 (1984), 16–30. This contains several long translations of his favourite martyr acts,such as <strong>the</strong> Passio Fructuosi, to illustrate both <strong>the</strong> simplicity of <strong>the</strong> syntax and <strong>the</strong>interest of <strong>the</strong> content.26 Summarizing Marx’s i<strong>de</strong>as about religion is not easy, owing to <strong>the</strong> wi<strong>de</strong> varietyof contexts in which he wrote on <strong>the</strong> subject. Perhaps his most famous exposition is‘A Contribution to <strong>the</strong> Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, in Marx, EarlyWritings, trans. R. Livingstone and G. Benton (Harmondsworth, 1975), 243–57.Here he coined <strong>the</strong> oft-misun<strong>de</strong>rstood <strong>de</strong>scription of religion as <strong>the</strong> ‘opium of<strong>the</strong> people’. Religion has social reality for Marx: ‘religious suVering is at one and<strong>the</strong> same time <strong>the</strong> expression of real suVering and a protest against real suVering’.However, <strong>the</strong> cure for this suVering cannot be eVected by <strong>de</strong>nying <strong>the</strong> reality ofreligion, but by transforming <strong>the</strong> material conditions that create <strong>the</strong> suVering manifestedin religion.27 F. Engels, ‘On <strong>the</strong> History of Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, originally published in Die neueZeit, 1 (1894–5), 4–13 and 36–43, repr. in K. Marx and F. Engels, On Religion(Moscow, 1957), 313–43.
10 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomand New Testaments constituted ‘<strong>the</strong> very Word of God, all ofit divine revelation, absolutely true, factually and historically’ hecontinued thus:As it happens, I feel particularly well trained to <strong>de</strong>al with this attitu<strong>de</strong>, sinceit was imparted to me very powerfully as a child. My widowed mo<strong>the</strong>r (myfa<strong>the</strong>r died when I was four) belonged to <strong>the</strong> sect of <strong>the</strong> British Israelites, oneof those groups on what I hope I may be allowed to call ‘<strong>the</strong> lunatic fringe’ of<strong>Christian</strong>ity. My mo<strong>the</strong>r accepted <strong>the</strong> Bible, every word of it, as in everyrespect <strong>the</strong> inspired Word of God, and for many years I was never allowed tocome into contact with any o<strong>the</strong>r view.The central tenet of British Israelism is that <strong>the</strong> British, or sometimes<strong>the</strong> Anglo-Saxon people more generally, <strong>de</strong>scend from <strong>the</strong> ten losttribes of Israel.28 Although it was not, strictly speaking, a sect,29British Israelism inXuenced a number of unsavoury organizations,among <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> Ku Klux Klan and <strong>Christian</strong> I<strong>de</strong>ntity.30 A feature of<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s upbringing that particularly inXuenced his views on <strong>the</strong>early <strong>Christian</strong>s was <strong>the</strong> violent punishments his mo<strong>the</strong>r anticipatedfor <strong>the</strong> enemies of her sect,31 and his abhorrence of early <strong>Christian</strong>polemic is apparent at numerous points in <strong>the</strong>se essays.32 He also<strong>de</strong>spised <strong>the</strong> Jewish God Yahweh, whom he regar<strong>de</strong>d as ‘a cruel andvicious creature, guilty of innumerable acts and commands which no28 Although many of <strong>the</strong> i<strong>de</strong>as of British Israelism have long antece<strong>de</strong>nts, not leastin English Puritanism, <strong>the</strong> notion that <strong>the</strong> British are <strong>the</strong> actual <strong>de</strong>scendants of Israel,and not just analogous to Israel, was most inXuentially promulgated in John Wilson’sLectures on our Israelitish Origins (London, 1840), which went through Wve editions.See also J. Wilson, ‘British Israelism: The I<strong>de</strong>ological Restraints on Sect Organisation’,in B. R. Wilson (ed.), Patterns of Sectarianism: Organisation and I<strong>de</strong>ology in Social andReligious Movements (London, 1967), 345–76.29 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s <strong>de</strong>scription is a little misleading: British Israelism was not a sectarianbody, with a distinct institutional structure, but a doctrine, which members ofdiVerent Protestant sects—by <strong>de</strong>Wnition those with strong aYnities to fundamentalismand evangelicalism—might hold. The sociologist John Wilson has <strong>de</strong>scribed it as‘an inter<strong>de</strong>nominational fellowship, recruiting in various churches—from <strong>the</strong>Church of England to <strong>the</strong> Pentecostal movement—which are hospitable to <strong>the</strong>traditions of fundamentalist, evangelical Protestantism’; see Wilson, Patterns ofSectarianism, 345.30 On which, see M. Barkun, Religion and <strong>the</strong> Racist Right: The Origins of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> I<strong>de</strong>ntity Movement (Chapel Hill, 1994).31 See R. Parker, ‘GeoVrey Ernest Maurice <strong>de</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> 1910–2000’, Proceedings of<strong>the</strong> British Aca<strong>de</strong>my, 111 (2001), 447–78, at 448–9.32 pp. 218–19, 227–8, 301–2.
Introduction 11one today, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>, Jew, agnostic or a<strong>the</strong>ist, would regardwith anything but <strong>de</strong>testation’, and charged Jesus with failing tocon<strong>de</strong>mn his fa<strong>the</strong>r’s excesses.33 Note that he distinguishes carefullybetween a<strong>the</strong>ism and agnosticism, with <strong>the</strong> former a distinct doctrinalposition, not an attitu<strong>de</strong> of sceptical <strong>de</strong>tachment. Although heconfessed never to have believed in <strong>Christian</strong> doctrine, it is perhapsunsurprising that his renunciation of <strong>Christian</strong>ity took such anextreme form.The early Church was always a central negative part of his life. Hefrequently treated early <strong>Christian</strong>s as though contemporaries, attackingPaul and Augustine in particular with a ferocity worthy of early<strong>Christian</strong> polemic, and showing <strong>the</strong> ways in which institutional<strong>Christian</strong>ity distorted positive <strong>Christian</strong> teachings, most notably onproperty and slavery, but also on toleration.34 He articu<strong>late</strong>d hishostility to <strong>Christian</strong>ity more explicitly over time, and in this collectionit is clearest in Chapter 5. In an interview given shortly before his<strong>de</strong>ath, having criticized <strong>the</strong> pro-<strong>Christian</strong> bias of most scholarly workon <strong>the</strong> early Church, he boasted that <strong>the</strong> book he was <strong>the</strong>n workingon was going to be ‘completely antichristian’.35 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> also consi<strong>de</strong>red<strong>the</strong> early Church relevant to contemporary Marxism, althoughin a way quite diVerent from Engels. In a number of letterswritten following <strong>the</strong> publication of The Class Struggle in <strong>the</strong> AncientGreek World he compared <strong>the</strong> multiplicity of <strong>Christian</strong> heresies with<strong>the</strong> numerous varieties of Marxism. It is, however, unclear how hethought his own, ra<strong>the</strong>r fundamentalist, approach to <strong>the</strong> works ofMarx would remedy this situation.36Within this larger narrative, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> addressed a number ofmore speciWc problems. Although he <strong>de</strong>voted much attention to<strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s of <strong>Christian</strong>s, in his view <strong>the</strong> persecutions could onlysatisfactorily be studied if this perspective was married with a clearun<strong>de</strong>rstanding of <strong>the</strong> administration and religion of <strong>the</strong> Roman33 A quote from <strong>the</strong> conclusion to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s unpublished paper on Job.34 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Attitu<strong>de</strong>s’; ‘Heresy’ (below, Chs. 7 and 5).35 This book was to be called Radical Conclusions; see <strong>the</strong> interview with ChristyConstantakopolou, Utopia, 44 (2001), 157–70, at 168. I would like to thankDr Constantakopolou for giving me a copy of this interview.36 On his fundamentalism, see <strong>the</strong> reference to ‘ ‘‘Marxists’’ (genuine or not)’ in<strong>the</strong> in<strong>de</strong>x of Class Struggle, 718.
12 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomEmpire, and its changes over time.37 In ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>sPersecuted?’, he divi<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> persecutions into three mainperiods on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong>ir relationship to <strong>the</strong> actions of Romangovernment: <strong>the</strong> Wrst up to Nero’s persecution of 64, <strong>the</strong> second from64 to <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution of 250–1, and <strong>the</strong> third <strong>the</strong>nce to ei<strong>the</strong>r313 or 324.38 Before 250, <strong>the</strong> persecutions were sporadic and localwhile after 250 <strong>the</strong>y were centrally initiated. He passed over <strong>the</strong> Wrstand third periods ra<strong>the</strong>r brieXy, <strong>de</strong>voting more attention to <strong>the</strong>second. This required a more comprehensive examination of <strong>the</strong>legal basis of <strong>the</strong> persecutions, a subject thoroughly <strong>de</strong>bated since<strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1880s and early 1890s.39 It is quite common to Wnd <strong>the</strong> termsof <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>bate divi<strong>de</strong>d into three schools, with one advocating ageneral law (ei<strong>the</strong>r a senatus consultum or imperial edict), issuedun<strong>de</strong>r ei<strong>the</strong>r Nero or Domitian, which prohibited <strong>Christian</strong>ity;40one following Theodor Mommsen’s work on <strong>the</strong> provincial governor’spower of coercitio, which could be exercised without <strong>the</strong> need37 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, pp. 113–20, 133–8). See also hisreview of Frend’s Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, JTS 18 (1967), 217–21 at 221.38 ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, pp. 106–8).39 For <strong>the</strong> outline of this <strong>de</strong>bate, see N. H. Baynes, ‘The Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, in S. A.Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth, and N. H. Baynes (eds.), CAH xii: TheImperial Crisis and Recovery A.D. 193–324 (Cambridge, 1939), 646–77, at 654–5;A. N. Sherwin-White, ‘The Early <strong>Persecution</strong>s and Roman Law again’, JTS 3.2 (1952),199, repr. with minor changes in his The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and SocialCommentary (Oxford, 1966), 772–87, at 772–4; A. Wlosok, ‘Die Rechtsgrundlagen<strong>de</strong>r Christenverfolgungen <strong>de</strong>r ersten zwei Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rte’, Gymnasium, 66 (1959),14–32, repr. in R. Klein (ed.), Das frühe Christentum im römischen Staat (Wege <strong>de</strong>rForschung 267; Darmstadt, 1971), 275–301; <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’, n. 18(below, Ch. 3); P. Keresztes, ‘The Imperial Roman Government and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>Church I: From Nero to <strong>the</strong> Severi’, ANRW 23.1 (Berlin and New York, 1979),247–315, at 279–87.40 Perhaps <strong>the</strong> most signiWcant exponent of this view is <strong>the</strong> Belgian scholar C.Callewaert; see particularly his ‘Les Premiers chrétiens furent-ils persécutés par éditsgénéraux ou par mesure <strong>de</strong> police? Observations sur la théorie <strong>de</strong> Mommsen principalementd’après les écrits <strong>de</strong> Tertullien’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2 (1901),771–97 and 3 (1902), 5–15, 324–48, and 601–14. Also, J. Zeiller, ‘Nouvelles observationssur l’origine juridique <strong>de</strong>s persécutions contre les chrétiens aux <strong>de</strong>ux premierssiècles’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 46 (1951), 521–33, and i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘‘‘InstitutumNeronianum’’, loi fantôme ou réalité?’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 50 (1955), 393–9; P. Keresztes, ‘Law and Arbitrariness in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong> of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s and Justin’sFirst Apology’, Vig. Chr. 18 (1964), 204–14, at 204–5. For fur<strong>the</strong>r bibliography, seeKeresztes, ‘The Imperial Roman Government and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church I: From Neroto <strong>the</strong> Severi’, 279–80 n. 182.
Introduction 13for explicit legislation;41 and Wnally one arguing that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>swere merely persecuted for breaking existing criminal law.42Sometimes this division is categorized by linguistic area, with <strong>the</strong>Wrst school predominantly Francophone, and <strong>the</strong> second predominantlyGerman and Anglophone,43 although notable German andEnglish scholars have advocated <strong>the</strong> Wrst position,44 and Frenchscholars <strong>the</strong> second.45 In 1885 Mommsen’s Provinces of <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire was trans<strong>late</strong>d into English and immediately exercised astrong inXuence on British Roman historians. They were receptiveto his explanation for <strong>the</strong> persecutions, and it formed <strong>the</strong> basis ofW.M.Ramsay’sTheChurchin<strong>the</strong>RomanEmpirebeforeA.D.170(1893)and E. G. Hardy’s <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Government (1894).4641 T. Mommsen, ‘Der Religionsfrevel nach römischen Recht’, Historische Zeitschrift,28 (1890), 389–429 and ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’, Expositor 4.8(1893), 1–7; ‘Religionsfrevel’ is reprinted in Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften: juristischeSchriften, iii (Berlin, 1907), 389–422 and ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’,in Gesammelte Schriften: historische Schriften, iii (Berlin, 1910), 540–5 (any subsequentreference to <strong>the</strong>se articles will follow <strong>the</strong> page numbers of Gesammelte Schriften);and his Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), 35–54 and 567–80. See also E. G.Hardy, <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Government (London, 1894).42 The charges vary; L. Cezard, Histoire juridique <strong>de</strong>s persécutions contre les chrétiens<strong>de</strong> Néron à Septime-Sévère (64 à 202) (Paris, 1911), 123–4 (repr. in 1967 as vol.15 of <strong>the</strong> series Studia Juridica), advocated high treason. More common is <strong>the</strong> notionthat <strong>Christian</strong>ity was prohibited as a collegia illicita; see among o<strong>the</strong>rs E. T. Merrill,Essays in Early Church History (London, 1924), esp. 52–66. Hugh Last’s essay ‘TheStudy of <strong>the</strong> ‘‘<strong>Persecution</strong>’’ ’, JRS 27 (1937), 80–92, overlaps with this approach. In acritique of Mommsen’s notion of national apostasy, he argued that until <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1stcent. ad, Romans had not persecuted on religious grounds but had merely takenaction against ‘swindlers’, but that <strong>the</strong> situation changed as <strong>the</strong> collection of <strong>the</strong> Wscusjudaicus diVerentiated <strong>Christian</strong>ity from Judaism; see also Last, ‘ChristenverfolgungII (juristisch)’, Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, 2 (1954), 1208–28. HenriGrégoire, while accepting Tertullian’s ‘institutum Neronianum’ as sound evi<strong>de</strong>nce,argued that Nero’s law was in fact an edict or rescript which merely set a prece<strong>de</strong>nt,and that it was based on republican prohibitions of superstitio; see H. Grégoire, LesPersécutions dans l’Empire romain (2nd edn.) (Mémoires <strong>de</strong> l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong>Belgique, Classe <strong>de</strong>s Lettres 56.5; Brussels, 1964), 22–4.43 See Sherwin-White, ‘The Early <strong>Persecution</strong>s and Roman Law again’ andWlosok, ‘Die Rechtsgrundlagen’ as cited in n. 39 above.44 See, for instance, E. Schwartz, Kaiser Constantin und die christliche Kirche(Leipzig and Berlin, 1913), 35; Baynes, ‘The Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, 655.45 See, for instance, L. Dieu, ‘La Persécution au IIe siècle: une loi fantôme’, Revued’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 38 (1942), 5–30.46 See Ramsay, The Church in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire before A.D. 170 (London, 1893),207–11; Hardy, <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Government, pp. v–vi. In his preface,
14 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, as Sherwin-White had shortly before him, worksbroadly within Mommsen’s framework. One important modiWcationintroduced by Sherwin-White and <strong>de</strong>veloped by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> is anemphasis on <strong>the</strong> locally responsive nature of coercitio and its operationin a legal setting, ra<strong>the</strong>r than in direct ‘police measures’.47 Bothplace <strong>the</strong> trials of <strong>Christian</strong>s within <strong>the</strong> procedure of cognitio extraordinem, a nineteenth-century expression which characterizes <strong>the</strong>judicial powers bound up with <strong>the</strong> provincial governor’s imperium,48although in a reprint of ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?’<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> accepted Fergus Millar’s correction that this expressionshould not be used to characterize standard procedure in Romancriminal trials, since it was not used by any ancient sources.49Sherwin-White and <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> did not disagree in <strong>the</strong>ir un<strong>de</strong>rstandingof judicial procedure, but in <strong>the</strong> charges levelled at<strong>Christian</strong>s to bring <strong>the</strong>m before <strong>the</strong> provincial governor. As Sherwin-Whitenoted, this was <strong>the</strong> central question unanswered byMommsen’s work on coercitio, in that it still remained to say why<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were subject to coercitio.50 Mommsen argued that <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s were persecuted for inducing ‘national apostasy’ from <strong>the</strong>ancestral Roman religion: ‘<strong>the</strong> contempt of <strong>the</strong> dii publici populiRomani, in itself high treason, or as <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s express it(thoughts being free but words not), <strong>the</strong> mere <strong>Christian</strong> Name. . . constitutes a crime in <strong>the</strong> eye of <strong>the</strong> law’.51 However, one of <strong>the</strong>Hardy lists those articles or books that assisted him most fully, of which all apart fromJ. B. Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs are German.47 See Sherwin-White, ‘The Early <strong>Persecution</strong>s and Roman Law again’, 205; <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, p. 113–16).48 On which, see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in <strong>the</strong> NewTestament (Oxford, 1963), 30; J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (London, 1967), 85; I.Buti, ‘La ‘‘cognitio extra ordinem’’: da Augusto a Diocleziano’, ANRW 2.14 (Berlinand New York, 1982), 29–59 at 30 with n. 3; W. Turpin, ‘Formula, cognitio, andproceedings extra ordinem’, Revue Internationale <strong>de</strong>s Droits <strong>de</strong> l’Antiquité, 46 (1999),499–574, at 502 with n. 3.49 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’, repr. in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society(London, 1974), 249 n. 170, with Millar’s review of Sherwin-White’s Letters of Pliny:A Historical and Social Commentary and Fifty Letters of Pliny, JRS 58 (1968), 218–24,at 222.50 Sherwin-White, ‘The Early <strong>Persecution</strong>s and Roman Law again’, 203.51 Mommsen, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’, 542; ‘Der Religionsfrevel nachrömischen Recht’, 407.
Introduction 15characteristics of what we call Roman religion is precisely its lack ofcoercive apparatus,52 and no ancient source records <strong>the</strong> phrase diipublici populi Romani. Sherwin-White argued that <strong>the</strong> persecutionswere based not on religion but primarily on <strong>Christian</strong> contumacia,orrefusal to obey <strong>the</strong> reasonable requests of magistrates, for instance topay homage to di nostri.53 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> in contrast placed religion at <strong>the</strong>centre of <strong>the</strong> persecutions. Emphasizing <strong>the</strong> importance felt by <strong>the</strong>inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world for maintaining <strong>the</strong> properrelationship to <strong>the</strong> gods, or <strong>the</strong> pax <strong>de</strong>orum, he argued that <strong>the</strong>‘pagans were naturally apprehensive that <strong>the</strong> gods would vent <strong>the</strong>irwrath at this dishonour not upon <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s alone but upon <strong>the</strong>whole community; and when disasters did occur, <strong>the</strong>y were only toolikely to fasten <strong>the</strong> blame on to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’.54 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> can clearlyexplain <strong>the</strong> processes characteristic of <strong>Christian</strong> trials much betterthan Sherwin-White, and his emphasis on <strong>the</strong> wi<strong>de</strong>spread need tomaintain divine favour allows for consi<strong>de</strong>rable regional variations inpersecution. In <strong>the</strong> words of one recent author, religion in <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire is now often approached Wrst as a ‘local, collectiveen<strong>de</strong>avor to negotiate fertility, safety, health, misfortune, i<strong>de</strong>ntity,and collective solidarity’, and it is in such a context that disputesbetween <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong>ir neighbours arose and were referred toprovincial governors.55 None<strong>the</strong>less, while Sherwin-White and <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> disagreed over why <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong>s were persecuted, <strong>the</strong>irwork on how <strong>the</strong>y were persecuted overlaps substantially.52 On which see J. North, ‘Religious Toleration in Republican Rome’, PCPS 25(1979), 85–103, repr. in C. Ando (ed.), Roman Religion (Edinburgh, 2003), 199–219.53 Sherwin-White, ‘The Early <strong>Persecution</strong>s and Roman law again’, 210.54 ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (below, Ch. 3, p. 133–8).55 I have quoted from D. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation andResistance (Princeton, 1998), 5–6; see also R. Lane Fox, Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s(Harmondsworth, 1986), 33; J. B. Rives, Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage:From Augustus to Constantine (Oxford, 1995); H. Cancik and J. Rüpke (eds.),Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (Tübingen, 1997); T. Kaizer, The ReligiousLife of Palmyra: A Study of <strong>the</strong> Social Patterns of Worship in <strong>the</strong> Roman Period(Oriens et Occi<strong>de</strong>ns 4; Stuttgart, 2002). See also P. Hor<strong>de</strong>rn and N. Purcell, TheCorrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford, 2000), esp. 403–60.Although Hor<strong>de</strong>rn and Purcell cover a much greater period than just <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire, in emphasizing <strong>the</strong> interaction between diverse regional ecologies (or‘microecologies’) and <strong>the</strong> Mediterranean, <strong>the</strong>y examine many issues germane to <strong>the</strong>interaction between wi<strong>de</strong>ly distributed ‘great traditions’ and locally groun<strong>de</strong>d ‘littletraditions’.
16 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> passed over his third period ra<strong>the</strong>r brieXy, but subjected<strong>the</strong> shorter period 303–12 to close scrutiny. Although <strong>the</strong> changefrom locally initiated to centrally directed persecution was signiWcant,one that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>red indicative of changing popular aswell as elite attitu<strong>de</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> Church, many aspects of his work on <strong>the</strong>earlier persecutions remain relevant. ‘Aspects’ <strong>de</strong>monstrates well<strong>the</strong> importance of persecution for Roman administrative history,providing exemplary evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> workings of <strong>the</strong> tetrarchy,56showing its transformation from a loosely organized division of rulefoun<strong>de</strong>d on <strong>the</strong> auctoritas of Diocletian, to a more fragmented andfractious state of aVairs following his abdication in ad 305. Just as in<strong>the</strong> early Empire, regional variation is signiWcant: <strong>the</strong> workings of <strong>the</strong>tetrarchy are relatively unsystematic, with enforcement of edicts<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on <strong>the</strong> whim of <strong>the</strong> individual Caesar or Augustus aswell as <strong>the</strong> provincial governor.This picture of regional variation and limited central control startsto change in his work on <strong>the</strong> post-Constantinian persecutions, indicatedby his comparison between <strong>the</strong> Church and Eisenhower’s‘military industrial complex’. He Wrst published <strong>the</strong>se i<strong>de</strong>as in TheClass Struggle, and <strong>the</strong>y attracted mixed reactions, with a number ofreviewers criticizing his overt hostility to <strong>Christian</strong>ity.57 ‘Heresy,Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong>’ is valuable primarily for <strong>the</strong> light it shedson <strong>the</strong> larger historical preoccupations un<strong>de</strong>rpinning <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’swork on persecution. SigniWcantly it ends with an extract from <strong>the</strong>thirteenth-century Life of St Louis, whose violently intolerant conten<strong>the</strong> sees as a consequence of <strong>the</strong> ‘great structure of dogmaticand organizational intolerance’ imposed during <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r RomanEmpire.58 This emergence of institutional religious intolerance outof <strong>the</strong> relative openness of <strong>the</strong> classical Roman Empire occurred, heargues, through <strong>the</strong> fusion of <strong>Christian</strong> exclusiveness and hostility topluralism, traced back to <strong>the</strong> Apostolic period, and <strong>the</strong> traditionalRoman concern with establishing <strong>the</strong> pax <strong>de</strong>orum, or <strong>the</strong> correctrelations between man and divine that guarantee <strong>the</strong> well-being56 A point reiterated by Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337(Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 198.57 See particularly <strong>the</strong> criticisms of T. D. Barnes, Phoenix, 36.4 (1982), 363–6, at365; Averil Cameron, Times Higher Education Supplement, 19th Feb. 1982; B. D. Shaw,‘Anatomy of <strong>the</strong> Vampire Bat’, Economy and Society, 13.2 (1984), 208–49, at 247 n. 57;C. G. Starr, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 13.3 (1982), 521–2, at 522.58 Below, Ch. 5, pp. 228–9
Introduction 17of <strong>the</strong> empire. While <strong>the</strong> need to maintain divine support wasclearly important for both <strong>the</strong> pre- and post-Constantinian Empires,<strong>the</strong> latter propagated a much more comprehensive form of stateintolerance by emphasizing orthodoxy of belief: adherence to ‘outward’ritual forms, which allowed substantial freedom of belief, wasreplaced by adherence to articles of doctrine, with baleful consequencesfor human freedom.Few would disagree with <strong>the</strong> general outline of this narrative,which can be connected with what Peter Brown called <strong>the</strong> transitionfrom ‘soft’ to ‘hard’ government.59 However, as with any grand <strong>the</strong>sis<strong>the</strong>re are problems. The sense of local contingency characteristic ofhis work on early <strong>Christian</strong> persecution largely disappears, <strong>the</strong>emphasis shifting to <strong>the</strong> centralized implementation of <strong>Christian</strong>orthodoxy. The link between intolerant rhetoric and persecutionis never explored, and he tends to assume that one necessarilyfollows from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, with little attention to context.60 Althougha substantial body of discriminatory legislation emerged in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>Empire, it was far from uniformly imposed, and persecutionsof pagans, Jews, and heretics or schismatics were, like persecutionsof <strong>Christian</strong>s up to <strong>the</strong> mid-third century, sporadic, withdoctrinal and organizational problems resolved as <strong>the</strong>y arose inlocal disputes. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> central argument of this essay restsupon a number of stark contrasts between <strong>Christian</strong>ity and<strong>the</strong> institutions of <strong>the</strong> classical Graeco-Roman world. Althoughhe notes that <strong>the</strong> Roman state ‘un<strong>de</strong>rwent far less change afterit had become <strong>Christian</strong> than many ecclesiastical historians59 P. Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), 48; on whichsee recently C. Kelly, Ruling <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire (Revealing Antiquity 15;Cambridge, Mass., 2004) and more brieXy P. Garnsey and C. Humfress, The Evolutionof <strong>the</strong> Late Antique World (Cambridge, 2001), 25–51; see also M. Gaddis, There is NoCrime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Roman Empire(Berkeley, 2005).60 See in contrast Peter Brown’s work on pai<strong>de</strong>ia in <strong>late</strong> antique society; Brown sees<strong>the</strong> rules of etiquette bound up with pai<strong>de</strong>ia as creating something roughly homologousto ‘civil society’, encompassing both pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s and providingpractical limits on <strong>Christian</strong> exclusiveness. For Brown’s i<strong>de</strong>as on <strong>the</strong> signiWcanceand power of pai<strong>de</strong>ia in <strong>late</strong> antique society, see his Power and Persuasion in LateAntiquity: Towards a <strong>Christian</strong> Empire (Madison, 1992); for more explicit applicationsto religious toleration, see Authority and <strong>the</strong> Sacred: Aspects of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>isationof <strong>the</strong> Roman World (Cambridge, 1995), esp. 29–54, and ‘<strong>Christian</strong>isation andReligious ConXict’, in A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), CAH xiii: The Late Empire,A.D. 337–425 (Cambridge, 1998), 632–64.
18 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdombelieve’,61 his separation of ‘persecution of <strong>Christian</strong>s’ and ‘persecutionby <strong>Christian</strong>s’ posits an i<strong>de</strong>ntity between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>ity of <strong>the</strong>Emperor and that of <strong>the</strong> state, which seriously un<strong>de</strong>rplays<strong>the</strong> complexities of ‘christianization’. This contrast also ren<strong>de</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>post-Constantinian world ra<strong>the</strong>r homogeneous. Intolerance and persecutionwere more pervasive in some parts of <strong>late</strong> antique and earlymedieval Europe than in o<strong>the</strong>rs. As R. I. Moore notes, at least for <strong>the</strong>post-Roman West, persecution ‘far from being ‘‘normal’’ in medievalsociety . . . fa<strong>de</strong>d away with <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, and did not reappearuntil <strong>the</strong> eleventh century’.62 Where, for <strong>the</strong> pre-Constantinianperiod, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s hostility to <strong>Christian</strong>ity is a strength, givinghim a much more sceptical appreciation of <strong>Christian</strong> rhetoric thanmany of his peers and pre<strong>de</strong>cessors, here it is perhaps a weakness,impelling him to take at face value <strong>the</strong> violent rhetoric of <strong>Christian</strong>argument. None<strong>the</strong>less, it remains important in showing <strong>the</strong> broa<strong>de</strong>rhistorical and ethical problems against which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> studied <strong>the</strong>pre-Constantinian Church.63IIWhat inXuence has <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecution exercised onsubsequent scholarship, and how does it stand up in <strong>the</strong> light of that61 ‘Heresy’ (below, Ch. 5, p. 202).62 R. I. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society (Oxford, 1987), 4.63 One might note that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s interpretation of <strong>the</strong> post-ConstantinianEmpire, with its emphasis on intolerance and persecution, overlaps with that ofa number of European scholars who lived through <strong>the</strong> Second World War. For acomparison between intolerance in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire and in 1930s and 1940sEurope, see F. Poulsen, Glimpses of Roman Culture, trans. J. D. Hansen (Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1952),276. Herbert Bloch saw 4th-cent. Rome as a period ‘kindred’ with <strong>the</strong> years 1910–60,which he <strong>de</strong>scribed as a ‘period of darkness . . . in which long-established traditionsand values disintegrate, in which one crisis precipitates ano<strong>the</strong>r’; see his ‘The PaganRevival in <strong>the</strong> West at <strong>the</strong> End of <strong>the</strong> Fourth Century’, 193–218 in A. Momigliano(ed.), The ConXict between Paganism and <strong>Christian</strong>ity in <strong>the</strong> Fourth Century (Oxford,1963), at 193. In<strong>de</strong>ed this emphasis on conXict, since Andreas AlXoldi’s seminal workof <strong>the</strong> 1940s, for a time dominated <strong>the</strong> historiography of <strong>late</strong> antique Rome. There islittle evi<strong>de</strong>nce of this work exerting a direct inXuence on <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, but fascismand world war, although experienced from quite diVerent perspectives, may haveren<strong>de</strong>red intolerance and repression particularly salient.
Introduction 19scholarship? For a number of reasons, <strong>the</strong> Wrst question is not an easyone to answer. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s published essays on early <strong>Christian</strong>persecutions stand up well on <strong>the</strong>ir own terms, and some of <strong>the</strong>diYculty in charting <strong>the</strong>ir inXuence lies precisely in <strong>the</strong>ir comprehensiveness:<strong>the</strong>y have resolved long-standing problems morethan <strong>the</strong>y have posed new questions. Both were based on thoroughmastery of source materials, and while certain <strong>de</strong>tails have beenquestioned, for <strong>the</strong> most part this has never been serious enoughsubstantially to modify his main arguments, and, along with <strong>the</strong>work of T. D. Barnes, <strong>the</strong>y are almost taken for granted, providinga basis from which historians have studied o<strong>the</strong>r subjects.64 The maindiYculty, however, <strong>de</strong>rives from changes in <strong>the</strong> disciplinary backgroundof early church and <strong>late</strong> Roman history, and changes in <strong>the</strong>questions posed by ancient historians. The aca<strong>de</strong>mic environment inwhich <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> wrote <strong>the</strong>se essays diVers profoundly from thattoday, and here I want to review how <strong>the</strong>se changes might modifysome of <strong>the</strong> assumptions un<strong>de</strong>rlying <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecution,but also how his work might have contributed to <strong>the</strong>se changes.Before examining <strong>the</strong>se broa<strong>de</strong>r aca<strong>de</strong>mic changes, it is worthreviewing some more speciWc aspects of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecutionthat might be questioned in <strong>the</strong> light of subsequent scholarship.Perhaps most obviously problematic is his argument for JewishinXuences on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a of martyrdom. As I have notedabove, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s argument for Jewish inXuences on <strong>Christian</strong>martyrdom was nei<strong>the</strong>r as strong nor as exclusive as that of W. H. C.Frend. None<strong>the</strong>less, following Glen Bowersock’s Martyrdom andRome, it is clear that martyrdom is a concept that overlaps wi<strong>the</strong>arlier examples of Jewish or pagan self-sacriWce in <strong>the</strong> face ofRoman power, but also <strong>de</strong>signates a distinct way of resisting, orperhaps acquiescing in, authority, one ‘absorbed into a conceptualsystem of posthumous recognition and anticipated reward’, bearing adistinct name (martyrdom), and coming into being at a speciWc time(c. ad 50–150).65 This should not lead us to neglect <strong>the</strong> connections64 So, for instance, J. B. Rives, ‘The Piety of a Persecutor’, JECS 4.1 (1996), 1–25, at18 n. 44; M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome,i:A History (Cambridge,1998), 237 n. 87.65 See G. W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge, 1995), 5. Frend has<strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>d his position against Bowersock, but misrepresents Bowersock’s argument,
20 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdombetween early <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Judaism, but it should lead us torethink how we un<strong>de</strong>rstand ‘inXuence’. O<strong>the</strong>r points of <strong>de</strong>bate are<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s contention that <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict was never promulgatedin <strong>the</strong> West.66 Here <strong>the</strong> balance of scholarly opinion is very largelywith him.67 The tetrarchy has been a fruitful Weld in recent historiography,68but with <strong>the</strong> exception of P. S. Davies’s argument againstsuggesting that Bowersock, in connecting <strong>Christian</strong> martyrdom with <strong>the</strong> civic worldof <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman Empire, is simply arguing that <strong>the</strong> inspiration for <strong>Christian</strong>martyrdom came from Graeco-Roman, and not Jewish, exemplars; Frend, ‘Martyrdomand Political Oppression’, in P. F. Esler (ed.), The Early <strong>Christian</strong> World, ii(London, 2000), 815–39, at 817–18. Bowersock’s book is vulnerable in that, havingestablished that 4 Maccabees should not be accor<strong>de</strong>d any priority to <strong>the</strong> NewTestament and <strong>the</strong> letters of Ignatius, he pays little heed to <strong>the</strong> ongoing interactionbetween Jews and <strong>Christian</strong>s; see D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and <strong>the</strong>Making of <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Judaism (Stanford, 1999), 93–126, although Boyarin’scontention that Bowersock constitutes martyrdom as ‘an essence’ by noting itsdistinctiveness is puzzling, especially given Bowersock’s argument that <strong>Christian</strong>martyrdom emerges in <strong>the</strong> historically contingent setting of <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman city.66 Against <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, see Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, 502–3; ‘A Note on <strong>the</strong>Great <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> West’, in Studies in Church History, 2 (1965), 141–8, repr. inFrend, Religion Popular and Unpopular in <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong> Centuries (London,1976); ‘Martyrdom and Political Oppression’, 832 and 837 n. 57; M. B. Simmons,Arnobius of Sicca (Oxford, 1996), 84–96; K. Rosen, ‘Passio sanctae Crispinae’, JbAC 40(1997), 106–25, esp. 122–3. A. K. Bowman, ‘Diocletian and <strong>the</strong> First Tetrarchy, A.D.284–305’, in Bowman, P. Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (eds.), CAH xii: The Crisis ofEmpire, A.D. 193–337 (Cambridge, 2005), 67–89, at 87; G. W. Clarke, ‘Third-Century<strong>Christian</strong>ity’, in CAH xii: 589–671, at 654 states that ‘<strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce is not compellingthat this edict, certainly issued throughout <strong>the</strong> east, was ever promulgated in <strong>the</strong> west:if it was, it cannot have been enforced systematically’.67 J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford,1979), 249; T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 23;i<strong>de</strong>m., ‘The Constantinian Settlement’, in H. W. Attridge and G. Hata (eds.), Eusebius,<strong>Christian</strong>ity, and Judaism (Detroit, 1992), 635–57, at 640, repr. in his From Eusebius toAugustine (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1994); ‘From Toleration to Repression: The Evolution ofConstantine’s Religious Policies’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 21 (2002), 189–207, at192–3; A. Marcone, ‘La politica religiosa: dall’ultima persecuzione alla tolleranza’, inA. Carandini, L. Cracco Ruggini, and A. Giardina (eds.), Storia di Roma, iii.1: L’etàtardoantica: crisi e trasformazioni (Rome, 1993), 223–45, at 236; S. Corcoran, TheEmpire of <strong>the</strong> Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284–324, rev.edn. (Oxford, 2000), 182 and n. 51; see also <strong>the</strong> relevant chapters in Bowman,Garnsey, and Cameron, CAH xii.68 See recently A. Demandt, A. Goltz, and H. Schlange-Schönigen (eds.), Diokletianund die Tetrarchie: Aspekte einer Zeitenwen<strong>de</strong> (Millenium-Studien 1; Berlin andNew York, 2004); also W. KuhoV, Diokletian und die Epoche <strong>de</strong>r Tetrarchie: dasromische Reich zwischen Krisenbewaltigung und Neuaufbau (284–313 n. Chr.) (Frankfurt,2001); F. Kolb, Diocletian und die Erste Tetrarchie: Improvisation o<strong>de</strong>r Experiment
Introduction 21Galerius’ centrality to <strong>the</strong> persecutions,69 on which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> was inany case equivocal,70 subsequent scholarship ei<strong>the</strong>r reinforces hisconclusions or, as R. Bratoz has done recently, provi<strong>de</strong>s more<strong>de</strong>tailed study of <strong>the</strong> eVects of persecution on a distinct region.71One potential modiWcation to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s narrative of persecutionis suggested if we accept <strong>the</strong> argument of G. W. Clarke, ReinhardSelinger, and James Rives, that <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution was notoriginally directed against <strong>Christian</strong>s.72 None<strong>the</strong>less, that a changein <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s and central governmentoccurred around <strong>the</strong> mid-third century remains indubitable, even if<strong>the</strong> reason for this change is not entirely clear.73 The importance ofin <strong>de</strong>r Organisation monarchischer Herrschaft? (Berlin and New York, 1987); vols. 1and 2 of <strong>the</strong> journal Antiquité Tardive (1993–4) with T. D. Barnes, ‘Emperors,Panegyrics, Prefects, Provinces and Palaces (284–317)’, JRA 9 (1996), 532–52; Corcoran,Empire.69 P. S. Davies, ‘The Origin and Purpose of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong> of A.D. 303’, JTS 40(1989), 66–94, against which Barnes, ‘The Constantinian Settlement’, 639–40, andi<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Christentum und dynastische Politik (300–325)’, in F. Paschoud and J. Szidat(eds.), Usurpationen in <strong>de</strong>r Spätantike (Historia Einzelschriften 111; Stuttgart, 1997),99–109, at 104; D. S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395 (London, 2004),338. Contrary to Davies’s assertion (66 n. 2), Galerius’ centrality to <strong>the</strong> greatpersecution had been questioned earlier: see J. Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantins <strong>de</strong>sGrossen (Basel, 1853), 325–30, trans. by M. Hadas as The Age of Constantine <strong>the</strong> Great(London, 1949), 246–8; M. Gelzer, ‘Der Urheber <strong>de</strong>r Christenverfolgung von 303’, inTheologischen Fakultät <strong>de</strong>r Universität Basel (ed.), Vom Wesen und Wan<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>r Kirche(Basel, 1935), 35–44, repr. in his Kleine Schriften, ii (Wiesba<strong>de</strong>n, 1963), 378–86; Kolb,Diocletian und die Erste Tetrarchie, 128–39.70 As was A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economicand Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), 71.71 See recently R. Bratoz, ‘Die diocletianische Christenverfolgung in <strong>de</strong>n DonauundBalkan-provinzen’, in Diokletian und die Tetrarchie, 115–40, although he doesnot cite <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>. See also K.-H. Schwarte, ‘Diokletians Christengesetz’, in R.Gün<strong>the</strong>r and S. Rebenich (eds.), E Fontibus Haurire: Beiträge zur römischen Geschichteund zu ihren Hilfswissenschaften (Pa<strong>de</strong>rborn, Munich, Vienna, Zurich, 1994), 203–40,which attempts to uncover Diocletian’s motivation for persecuting <strong>Christian</strong>s.72 G. W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian, i (Ancient <strong>Christian</strong> Writers 43; NewYork, 1984), esp. 22–5; also ‘Third-century <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, CAH xii: 625–6. R. Selinger,Die Religionspolitik <strong>de</strong>s Kaisers Decius: Anatomie einer Christenverfolgung (Frankfurt,1994), esp. 29–37, and i<strong>de</strong>m, The Mid-Third Century <strong>Persecution</strong>s of Decius andValerian (Frankfurt, 2002), esp. 63–8; J. B. Rives, ‘The Decree of Decius and <strong>the</strong>Religion of Empire’, JRS 89 (1999), 135–54, esp. 141–2. Note that this argument isnot altoge<strong>the</strong>r new: Baynes advocated a similar position in <strong>the</strong> 1930s; see his ‘TheGreat <strong>Persecution</strong>’ at CAH xii: 657.73 See R. Selinger, The Mid-Third Century <strong>Persecution</strong>s, 83–94. Drake has arguedthat <strong>the</strong> third century witnessed a change in <strong>the</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ological basis of imperial rule,
22 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomthis period can, perhaps, be clariWed by recent work on <strong>Christian</strong><strong>de</strong>mography and material culture. While <strong>the</strong>re are many methodologicalproblems posed by <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>Christian</strong> numbers,74 recentestimates—which date <strong>the</strong> major expansion of absolute <strong>Christian</strong>numbers to <strong>the</strong> third century—tally well with <strong>the</strong> material record,which shows <strong>the</strong> Wrst distinctively <strong>Christian</strong> remains appearingtowards <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> second century and growing substantiallyover <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> third century. Attempts have been ma<strong>de</strong> toresurrect <strong>the</strong> general law <strong>the</strong>ory,75 but this can only be entertained in<strong>de</strong>Wance of mo<strong>de</strong>rn scholarship on government in <strong>the</strong> principate, notto mention <strong>the</strong> enormous variety of punishments for <strong>Christian</strong>srecor<strong>de</strong>d in our sources, which range from <strong>de</strong>ath by burning totemporary imprisonment.76 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s account remains markedlyaway from a system ‘anchored squarely in senatorial tradition’ to one based on divinefavour, in which <strong>the</strong> threat posed by <strong>Christian</strong> ‘a<strong>the</strong>ism’ was more salient: see hisConstantine and <strong>the</strong> Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Baltimore, 2000), 148. Gaddisnotes <strong>the</strong> important religious implications of <strong>the</strong> Constitutio Antoniniana of 212,which ma<strong>de</strong> ‘<strong>the</strong> gods of Rome . . . everyone’s gods’; There is No Crime for Those WhoHave Christ, 33.74 R. Stark, The Rise of <strong>Christian</strong>ity: A Sociologist Reconsi<strong>de</strong>rs History (Princeton,1996), 3–27; K. Hopkins, ‘<strong>Christian</strong> Number and its Implications’, JECS 6.2 (1998),185–226, at 192–8. Hopkins is much more aware of <strong>the</strong> problems than Stark, whotreats early <strong>Christian</strong>ity as exactly <strong>the</strong> same sort of phenomenon as an American newreligious movement, with no reference to contextual diVerences.75 See particularly M. Sordi, The <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, trans. A. Bedini(London, 1988), 29–35 and 59–65; P. Keresztes, ‘The Imperial Roman Governmentand <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church I: From Nero to <strong>the</strong> Severi’, 279–82 and Imperial Rome and<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s, I:From Herod <strong>the</strong> Great to about 200 A.D. (Lanham, Md., 1989),111–20; on <strong>the</strong> latter, see <strong>the</strong> review of Barnes, JTS 42.1 (1991), 314–16.76 A point noted by T. D. Barnes, Tertullian, rev. edn. (Oxford, 1985), 147–8. Thebibliography on government in <strong>the</strong> principate is vast, and could not possibly be listedhere in full. Some prominent examples inclu<strong>de</strong> D. Nörr, Imperium und Polis in <strong>de</strong>rhohen Prinzipatszeit (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antikenRechtsgeschichte 50; Munich, 1966), esp. 76–114; F. Millar, ‘Emperors at Work’, JRS57 (1967), 9–19, repr. in i<strong>de</strong>m, Rome, <strong>the</strong> Greek World, and <strong>the</strong> East, ii: Government,Society, and Culture in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, ed. H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers (ChapelHill, 2004), 3–22; i<strong>de</strong>m, The Emperor in <strong>the</strong> Roman World (31 BC–AD 337) (London,1977), esp. 79–84; F. Jacques, Le Privilège <strong>de</strong> liberté: politique impériale et autonomiemunicipale dans les cités <strong>de</strong> l’Occi<strong>de</strong>nt romain (161–244) (Collection <strong>de</strong> l’École Française<strong>de</strong> Rome 76; Rome, 1984); P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy,Society and Culture (London, 1987), 20–40; J. E. Lendon, Empire of Honour: The Art ofGovernment in <strong>the</strong> Roman World (Oxford, 1997); C. Ando, Imperial I<strong>de</strong>ology andProvincial Loyalty in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (Berkeley, 2000), 49–70.
Introduction 23more convincing, and shortly after publication was streng<strong>the</strong>ned byT. D. Barnes’s comprehensive examination of <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong>legal basis of <strong>the</strong> persecutions, which conWrmed that up to Decius<strong>the</strong>re was no general law against <strong>Christian</strong>ity. Like <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Barnessought an explanation for <strong>the</strong> persecutions at a local level, arguingthat <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> violation of <strong>the</strong> mos maiorum, ‘<strong>the</strong> most importantsource for Roman law’, was suYcient to arouse hostility.77 FergusMillar fur<strong>the</strong>r endorsed this in 1973, reckoning, along lines verysimilar to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, that ‘<strong>the</strong> most important conception whichlay behind <strong>the</strong> persecutions was precisely <strong>the</strong> one which was to be <strong>the</strong>foundation of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> empire: that <strong>the</strong> world was sustained,and <strong>the</strong> earthly government of it granted, by divine favour’.78In most speciWc <strong>de</strong>tails, <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s essays on early <strong>Christian</strong>persecution are valid, and continue to be standard works. However,<strong>the</strong>y were written, or at least conceived, in <strong>the</strong> 1950s and 1960s, invery diVerent aca<strong>de</strong>mic conditions from those pertaining today.Perhaps <strong>the</strong> most important change in Anglophone scholarship is<strong>the</strong> growth of interest Wrst in <strong>the</strong> ‘<strong>late</strong>r Roman empire’ and subsequentlyin ‘<strong>late</strong> antiquity’.79 This proceeds most obviously from <strong>the</strong>work of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s mentor A. H. M. Jones, although a Wgure whoseinXuence on <strong>late</strong> Roman historiography is often un<strong>de</strong>restimated wasSir Ronald Syme, who started working on <strong>the</strong> Historia Augusta in <strong>the</strong>mid-1960s.80 The subsequent emergence of ‘<strong>late</strong> antiquity’ asa recognized historical period, part of <strong>the</strong> mainstream of secular77 T. D. Barnes, ‘Legislation against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’, JRS 58 (1968), 32–50, at 50,repr. in his Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (London, 1984). See also hisTertullian, 143–63.78 F. Millar, ‘The Imperial Cult and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong>s’, in Le Culte <strong>de</strong>s souverains(Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 19; Geneva, 1973), 143–65, repr. in Rome, <strong>the</strong>Greek World, and <strong>the</strong> East, ii. 298–312, at 312. See also his chapter on <strong>the</strong> relationshipbetween emperor and church in The Emperor in <strong>the</strong> Roman World, 551–607, esp. 555–7.79 My focus here is <strong>the</strong> Anglophone, and speciWcally English scholarly world, but itis worth noting brieXy that ‘<strong>late</strong> antiquity’, while an expression now common to allmajor European scholarly languages, has a complex history, emerging at diVerenttimes in diVerent language areas and in diVerent disciplines; see J. H. W. G.Liebeschuetz, ‘The Birth of Late Antiquity’, Antiquité Tardive, 12 (2004), 253–61.80 On Jones, see J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz (a near contemporary of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s atUniversity College London, and fellow stu<strong>de</strong>nt of Jones): ‘A. H. M. Jones and <strong>the</strong>Later Roman Empire’, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin, 29 (1992), 1–9. For Syme’swork on <strong>late</strong> antiquity, see particularly his Ammianus and <strong>the</strong> Historia Augusta(Oxford, 1968). Syme heavily inXuenced John Mat<strong>the</strong>ws and T. D. Barnes.
24 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomhistory writing, <strong>de</strong>veloped particularly un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> inXuence of PeterBrown.81 The magnitu<strong>de</strong> of this change can be seen in <strong>the</strong> enlargementof <strong>the</strong> chronological scope of <strong>the</strong> Cambridge Ancient History.Where, in 1939, volume 12 en<strong>de</strong>d with Constantine’s <strong>de</strong>feat ofLicinius in 324, volume 14 of <strong>the</strong> second edition extends to <strong>the</strong>turn of <strong>the</strong> seventh century.82 Following <strong>the</strong> reception of HenriPirenne’s Mahomet et Charlemagne, trans<strong>late</strong>d into English in 1939,it is not uncommon for <strong>late</strong> antiquity to extend as far as 800 and <strong>the</strong>coronation of Charlemagne.83 While <strong>the</strong>re were important Englishscholars working on <strong>late</strong>r Roman history before <strong>the</strong> Second WorldWar,84 <strong>the</strong> emergence of <strong>late</strong> antiquity as a Weld in Anglophonescholarship owed most to <strong>the</strong> émigrés of European fascism whohad come to England, notably Arnaldo Momigliano.85 This has also81 See Averil Cameron, ‘The ‘‘Long’’ Late Antiquity: A Late Twentieth-CenturyMo<strong>de</strong>l’, in T. P. Wiseman (ed.), Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome(Oxford, 2002), 165–91; M. Vessey, ‘The Demise of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Writer and <strong>the</strong>Remaking of ‘‘Late Antiquity’’: From H.-I. Marrou’s Saint Augustine (1938) to PeterBrown’s Holy Man (1983)’, JECS 6.3 (1998), 377–411. Cameron has noted howBrown, at least in his early works written while he was still at Oxford, still workedon ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire’, but from <strong>the</strong> 1970s turned increasingly to ‘<strong>late</strong> antiquity’as a Weld <strong>de</strong>Wned predominantly in cultural terms; see her comments on Brown’s ‘TheWorld of Late Antiquity revisited’, Symbolae Osloenses, 72 (1997), 33–7, at 36.82 A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby (eds.), CAH xiv: Late Antiquity:Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600 (Cambridge, 2000).83 See Cameron, ‘The ‘‘Long’’ Late Antiquity’; examples inclu<strong>de</strong> P. Brown, TheWorld of Late Antiquity AD 150–750 (London, 1971) and ‘Mohammed and Charlemagneby Henri Pirenne’, Daedalus, 53 (1974), 25–33, repr. in his Society and <strong>the</strong> Holyin Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982), 63–79; G. Fow<strong>de</strong>n, Empire to Commonwealth:Consequences of Mono<strong>the</strong>ism in Late Antiquity (Princeton, 1993); P. Athanassiadi andM. Fre<strong>de</strong>, ‘Introduction’ to <strong>the</strong>ir edited volume Pagan Mono<strong>the</strong>ism in Late Antiquity(Oxford, 1998), 1–20, at 3; G. W. Bowersock, P. Brown, and O. Grabar (eds.), LateAntiquity: A Gui<strong>de</strong> to <strong>the</strong> Postclassical World (Cambridge, Mass., 1999).84 The most notable of those immediately to prece<strong>de</strong> A. H. M. Jones were HughLast and Norman Hepburn Baynes. Before that, J. B. Bury’s History of <strong>the</strong> EasternRoman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.) (London, 1889) andHistory of <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire from <strong>the</strong> Death of Theodosius I to <strong>the</strong> Death ofJustinian (A.D. 395–A.D. 565) (London, 1923) were standard works. For a study ofBury, Baynes, and Arnold Toynbee in relation to British Byzantine historiography, seeAveril Cameron, ‘Bury, Baynes and Toynbee’, in R. Cormack and E. JeVreys (eds.),Through <strong>the</strong> Looking Glass: Byzantium through British Eyes (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 2000), 163–75.85 Of <strong>the</strong> Oxford graduates of <strong>the</strong> early 1960s who went on to major careers in <strong>the</strong>subject, Alan Cameron, Averil Cameron, and Peter Brown have testiWed to <strong>the</strong>inXuence of Momigliano, <strong>the</strong>n professor of ancient history at UniversityCollege London. See his important edited volume The ConXict between Paganismand <strong>Christian</strong>ity in <strong>the</strong> Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963).
Introduction 25had important consequences for early church history, as sourcespreviously read almost exclusively by <strong>the</strong>ologians or patristic scholarshave become central for intellectual, cultural, and social history.86The place of <strong>late</strong>r Roman and early church history in <strong>the</strong> 1950s and1960s, when <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> started his aca<strong>de</strong>mic career, was perhapsparticularly unclear in Great Britain. At Oxford and Cambridge,where <strong>the</strong> majority of professional ancient historians were trained,early <strong>Christian</strong>ity was predominantly a subject for <strong>the</strong>ology ordivinity. Moreover, in Oxford <strong>the</strong> classics or ‘Greats’ syllabus onlycovered Roman history up to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Trajan in ad 117, and fromits inception was gui<strong>de</strong>d by distinct moral and aes<strong>the</strong>tic imperatives(in fact, <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire still has a ra<strong>the</strong>r liminal status within<strong>the</strong> Oxford ‘schools’).87 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> was unusual in having studiedAncient History at University College London un<strong>de</strong>r A. H. M.Jones, where he covered a vast period of history, from 3000 bc to<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Heraclius in 641. After his move to Oxford to a fellowshipat New College in 1953, he mainly taught classical Greek history, butencouraged his un<strong>de</strong>rgraduate stu<strong>de</strong>nts to explore new areas, forexample by attending Peter Brown’s lectures in All Souls or readingAmmianus Marcellinus. While he was consistently interested in <strong>the</strong>Church and <strong>the</strong> history of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire, he focused on thisalmost exclusively after he had retired. It is important, though, that wedo not overemphasize <strong>the</strong> uniqueness of <strong>the</strong> division between churchhistory and Roman history in England. For example, <strong>the</strong> ‘historicalcritical’method in church history that <strong>de</strong>veloped in <strong>the</strong>‘natural-scientiWc’ environment of <strong>late</strong> nineteenth-century German86 See in general Cameron, ‘The ‘‘Long’’ Late Antiquity’, 180, and, with respect to<strong>the</strong> study of Augustine, see R. Markus, ‘Evolving Disciplinary Contexts for <strong>the</strong> Studyof Augustine, 1950–2000: Some Personal ReXections’, Augustinian Studies, 32 (2001),189–200. On parallel processes in <strong>the</strong> USA, particularly <strong>the</strong> creation of <strong>de</strong>partmentsof religion in <strong>the</strong> 1960s, see D. B. Martin, ‘Introduction’, in D. B. Martin and P. CoxMiller (eds.), The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gen<strong>de</strong>r, Asceticism, andHistoriography (Durham, NC, 2005), 1–21, at 3–4.87 On which, see O. Murray, ‘The Beginnings of Greats, 1800–1872 II: AncientHistory’, in M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys (eds.), The History of <strong>the</strong> University ofOxford, vi:Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part I (Oxford, 1997), 520–42, esp. 536–7.This was only changed in 1995, with <strong>the</strong> inclusion of a third period of Roman historygoing up to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Hadrian in ad 138, although <strong>the</strong> creation of a <strong>late</strong> antiquenetwork Wrst by John Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, and more latterly by Bryan Ward-Perkins, RogerTomlin, and James Howard-Johnston, has to some extent overcome <strong>the</strong> problem.
26 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomuniversities still, at least in practice, distinguished between<strong>Christian</strong> history and Roman history. It is clear in <strong>the</strong> work of AdolfHarnack, whose Mission und Ausbreitung <strong>de</strong>s Christentums,published in 1902, barely mentioned a non-<strong>Christian</strong> source.88While German Religionswissenschaft did much to broa<strong>de</strong>n <strong>the</strong> contextwithin which early <strong>Christian</strong>ity was studied, this context remained,unsurprisingly, religious, with interest focusing on <strong>the</strong> origins ofritual and dogma, and not on <strong>the</strong> practicalities of life in <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire.89<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> commented on <strong>the</strong> problems engen<strong>de</strong>red by <strong>the</strong>sedivisions in his review of Frend’s Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong>Early Church. He judged <strong>the</strong> treatment of martyrdom a ‘triumphantsuccess’, but that of persecution a ‘severe disappointment’, <strong>de</strong>scribingFrend as ‘an ecclesiastical historian of an unusual and most welcomekind’, but ‘not a Roman historian’, and went on to lament ‘<strong>the</strong> presentorganization of aca<strong>de</strong>mic studies’ which ‘makes it exceedingly diYcultfor an historian of <strong>the</strong> early Church to be . . . capable of <strong>de</strong>alingboth with <strong>the</strong> Church and with its secular and pagan environment’.90Frend’s problem, in fact, was similar to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s. In <strong>the</strong> prefaceto Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong> he <strong>de</strong>scribes how he had originallyinten<strong>de</strong>d to update Hardy’s <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Government,but subsequently wanted to extend <strong>the</strong> subject from ‘<strong>the</strong> outlook of<strong>the</strong> Roman authorities and <strong>the</strong> legal system of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’ to88 Noted by Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (New Haven,1981), 206 n. 16; for <strong>the</strong> relationship between Mommsen and Harnack, seeS. Rebenich, Theodor Mommsen und Adolf Harnack: Wissenschaft und Politik imBerlin <strong>de</strong>s ausgehen<strong>de</strong>n 19. Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rts (Berlin and New York, 1997), and morebrieXy his Theodor Mommsen: eine Biographie (Munich, 2002), esp. 138–9.89 For some background to Religionswissenschaft, see S. Marchand, ‘From Liberalismto Neoromanticism: Albrecht Dieterich, Richard Reizenstein, and <strong>the</strong> ReligiousTurn in Fin <strong>de</strong> Siècle German Classical Studies’, in I. Gil<strong>de</strong>nhard and M. Ruehl (eds.),Out of Arcadia: Classics and Politics in Germany in <strong>the</strong> Age of Burckhardt, Nietzscheand Wilamowitz (London, 2003), 129–60; for religious studies in relation to <strong>the</strong>historiography of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire, see A. Demandt, Der Fall Roms: dieAuXösung <strong>de</strong>s römischen Reiches im urteil <strong>de</strong>r Nachwelt (Munich, 1984), 246–73.90 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, review of Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, JTS 18 (1967), 217–21,at 217. See also Peter Brown’s contemporary <strong>de</strong>scription of <strong>the</strong> disciplinary backgroundto his 1967 biography of Augustine as ‘that ra<strong>the</strong>r lonely and precariousbridge . . . between ancient and medieval history, between <strong>the</strong> disciplines of<strong>the</strong> historian, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologian and <strong>the</strong> philosopher’; Brown, Augustine of Hippo: ABiography, rev. edn. (London, 2000), p. xi (orig. pub. 1967).
Introduction 27‘<strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s <strong>the</strong>mselves and <strong>the</strong> inXuence of <strong>Christian</strong>doctrine as sources of conXict’.91 None<strong>the</strong>less, his account isbased on a number of <strong>the</strong>ological concepts, and at times, a ra<strong>the</strong>runcritical reading of source material. He refers repeatedly to ‘LateJudaism’, on <strong>the</strong> basis that it had been superse<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>Christian</strong>ity,92and regards <strong>the</strong> Jews as frequent instigators of <strong>Christian</strong> persecution.93Moreover, <strong>the</strong> ‘weakness’ of paganism is a <strong>de</strong>cisive factor in<strong>the</strong> ‘failure of <strong>the</strong> persecutions’: by <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> fourthcentury, he argues, ‘it was clear that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> message containedmuch, perhaps nearly all, that <strong>the</strong> pagans had been gropingtowards’.94 Such <strong>the</strong>ological bias was not limited to <strong>the</strong>ologians. Upto <strong>the</strong> mid-1970s Roman religion was, with some exceptions, studiedwithin an evolutionary paradigm that ren<strong>de</strong>red its extinction at <strong>the</strong>hands of <strong>Christian</strong>ity historically inevitable.95Apart from disciplinary changes, <strong>the</strong> interests of Roman historianshave changed consi<strong>de</strong>rably since <strong>the</strong> 1960s. This is re<strong>late</strong>d in part toextra-aca<strong>de</strong>mic factors. As we have seen, Mommsen’s Provinces of <strong>the</strong>Roman Empire had a galvanizing inXuence on British Roman historians,focusing attention on Roman administrative history. From 1892<strong>the</strong>re was a close relationship between training in ancient history and91 Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, p.vii.92 See Boyarin, Dying for God, 127–30.93 Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, esp. 259, 271–2; on <strong>the</strong> implausibility of thisi<strong>de</strong>a, and its basis in <strong>Christian</strong> allegory, see J. Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in <strong>the</strong>World of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Second Century (Edinburgh, 1996), 91; and ‘Accusationsof Jewish <strong>Persecution</strong> in Early <strong>Christian</strong> Sources, with Particular Reference to JustinMartyr and <strong>the</strong> Martyrdom of Polycarp’, in G. N. Stanton and G. Stroumsa (eds.),Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and <strong>Christian</strong>ity (Cambridge, 1998), 279–95. Marcel Simon had argued along similar lines in his Verus Israel: étu<strong>de</strong> sur lesrelations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425) (Paris, 1948), 144–54,trans. into English by H. McKeating (Oxford, 1986), 115–25. See also Fergus Millar’sreview of Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, which criticized Frend’s ‘bias in favour of(orthodox) <strong>Christian</strong>ity, and against <strong>the</strong> Jews’ and endorsed Simon’s assessment of<strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for Jewish persecutions of <strong>Christian</strong>s; JRS 56 (1966), 231–6, at 233–4.94 Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong>, 521.95 On which, see J. North, ‘The Religion of Rome from Monarchy to Principate’, inM. Bentley (ed.), Companion to Historiography (London, 1997), 57–68, at 57.Although it is now rare to Wnd this mo<strong>de</strong>l justiWed in evolutionary terms, contrastsbetween <strong>the</strong> superiority of <strong>Christian</strong>ity over ‘paganism’ can still be found, with littleaccount taken of <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> comparison would only be meaningful to a<strong>Christian</strong>; see, for instance, MacMullen, Paganism in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, 136; Stark,The Rise of <strong>Christian</strong>ity, 196–215.
28 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomimperial administration, with <strong>the</strong> raising of <strong>the</strong> age limit for entryinto <strong>the</strong> Indian Civil Service to 23 and <strong>the</strong> revision of <strong>the</strong> markingsystem of <strong>the</strong> entrance exam, which particularly beneWted OxfordGreats stu<strong>de</strong>nts.96 Although parallels between Roman and Britishimperial administration were not new,97 <strong>the</strong> study of Roman provincialgovernors such as <strong>the</strong> younger Pliny <strong>de</strong>rived consi<strong>de</strong>rableimpetus from this connection.98 Inevitably it also created an electiveaYnity between historians and <strong>the</strong> Roman provincial governors,focusing attention on <strong>the</strong> perspective of <strong>the</strong> administrator and not<strong>the</strong> administered. In most Anglophone studies of <strong>the</strong> persecutions upto <strong>the</strong> Second World War, <strong>the</strong> persecuted <strong>Christian</strong>s rarely appear asactive agents.99 Accompanying this focus on Roman administratorswas a corresponding focus on Roman sources, and on <strong>the</strong> highRoman Empire.100 The most notable exception to this rule amongBritish ancient historians was Norman Baynes, who correspon<strong>de</strong>dregularly with such continental scholars as Delehaye, Ensslin, <strong>Ste</strong>in,Bi<strong>de</strong>s, Grégoire, and Dölger. However, while trained as a classicist, hetaught in <strong>the</strong> history <strong>de</strong>partment at UCL.101 With <strong>the</strong> rapid break-upof <strong>the</strong> British Empire after <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> Second World War, not tomention <strong>the</strong> growth in immigration from former colonies to Great96 For <strong>the</strong> background, see V. T. Larson, ‘Classics and <strong>the</strong> Acquisition andValidation of Power in Britain’s ‘‘Imperial Century’’ (1815–1914)’, InternationalJournal of <strong>the</strong> Classical Tradition, 6.2 (1999), 185–225; R. Symonds, ‘Oxford and<strong>the</strong> Empire’, in M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys (eds.), The History of <strong>the</strong> University ofOxford, vii: Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford, 2000), 689–716, at 699; alsoO. Murray, ‘Ancient History, 1872–1914’, ibid. 333–60, at 346–9.97 See, for instance, George Cornewall Lewis, An Essay on <strong>the</strong> Government ofDepen<strong>de</strong>ncies (London, 1841); 2nd edn. by C. P. Lucas (Oxford, 1891), 111–34.98 Murray, ‘Ancient History, 1872–1914’, 348–9.99 An exception to this, at least in principle, is Ramsay; see his The Church in <strong>the</strong>Roman Empire before A.D. 170 at 173–7 and 185–90.100 Ramsay brieXy ventured beyond <strong>the</strong> 2nd cent., although he attributes his <strong>late</strong>2nd-cent. terminus to a lack of scholarly resources, and in a lecture <strong>de</strong>livered atCambridge in 1889 asked ‘why should traditional belief—or should I say traditionalignorance?—exclu<strong>de</strong> all <strong>Christian</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs or Byzantine historians from <strong>the</strong> classicalscholar’s interest, and almost conWne him to producing <strong>the</strong> 43rd edition of one out ofabout a score of writers?’; The Church in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire at 443–80, esp. 449. Hardyen<strong>de</strong>d his <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Government at ad 195 without comment, whileboth Last and Sherwin-White stayed within similar temporal boundaries.101 See J. M. Hussey, ‘Norman Hepburn Baynes’, Proceedings of <strong>the</strong> British Aca<strong>de</strong>my,49 (1963), 365–73, and more brieXy her biography of Baynes in DNB iv (Oxford,2004), 476–7.
Introduction 29Britain, it is perhaps unsurprising that scholarly attention shiftedfrom administrator to those administered. Although one should bewary of drawing too much from parallels between historiographyand wi<strong>de</strong>r social and political changes, it is at least a notable coinci<strong>de</strong>ncethat <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire should have become so interestingto so many Oxford-trained classicists and historians in <strong>the</strong> 1950sand 1960s, given <strong>the</strong> earlier interconnection between classics,and particularly <strong>the</strong> ‘high’ Roman Empire, and <strong>the</strong> British imperialadministration.Changes in Britain’s imperial role had more tangible consequences.At Oxford <strong>the</strong> relationship between un<strong>de</strong>rgraduate trainingand ‘public life’ came un<strong>de</strong>r scrutiny. In 1961 <strong>the</strong> newly electedChichele Professor of history, Richard Sou<strong>the</strong>rn, argued that historyas a ‘system of education for practical men’ was no longer sustainable,and that <strong>the</strong> subject nee<strong>de</strong>d to be broa<strong>de</strong>ned in scope toacknowledge <strong>the</strong> insights of o<strong>the</strong>r disciplines such as anthropology.102The eVects of <strong>the</strong>se changes in Roman history are clear.Where, before <strong>the</strong> Second World War, Hugh Last was able to <strong>de</strong>feata proposal for an honours school of anthropology at Oxford on <strong>the</strong>grounds that ‘an acquaintance with <strong>the</strong> habits of savages is not aneducation’, from <strong>the</strong> 1960s ancient historians increasingly turned tosocial and cultural anthropology to un<strong>de</strong>rstand both <strong>the</strong> vagaries of‘local knowledge’ and local social structures within <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire, a focus which has been fur<strong>the</strong>r streng<strong>the</strong>ned with <strong>the</strong> inXuenceof postcolonial studies. This generated new interest in Romanreligion.103 Although <strong>the</strong> relationship between anthropology andancient history was not new, <strong>the</strong> study of Roman religion in Great102 R. W. Sou<strong>the</strong>rn, The Shape and Substance of Aca<strong>de</strong>mic History (inaugurallecture, Oxford 1961), quoted in J. Harris, ‘The Arts and Social Sciences,1939–1970’, in B. Harrison (ed.), The History of <strong>the</strong> University of Oxford, viii: TheTwentieth Century (Oxford, 1994), 217–49, at 237.103 Recent works on Roman religion could not possibly be listed in full. Someimportant examples inclu<strong>de</strong> J. North, ‘Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion’,PBSR 44 (1976), 1–12; J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in RomanReligion (Oxford, 1979); MacMullen, Paganism in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire; A. Wardman,Religion and Statecraft among <strong>the</strong> Romans (London, 1982); J. Scheid, Religion et piété àRome (Paris, 1985), 2nd edn. (Paris, 2001); R. L. Gordon, Image and Value in <strong>the</strong>Graeco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and Religious Art (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1996), andhis essays in M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in <strong>the</strong>
30 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomBritain between War<strong>de</strong> Fowler’s The Religious Experience of <strong>the</strong>Roman People (1911) and <strong>the</strong> mid-1970s was remarkably static,locked in an evolutionary framework that <strong>the</strong> emergence of Weldwork-base<strong>de</strong>thnography had ren<strong>de</strong>red obsolete.104 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’saccount of <strong>the</strong> persecutions is unusual in that it bears very littletrace of this framework. He emphasized <strong>the</strong> strong religious feelingsthat motivated <strong>Christian</strong> persecution, and while he ma<strong>de</strong> someconcessions to contemporary i<strong>de</strong>as of elite religious apathy, he didnot try to divi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> religious feelings of <strong>the</strong> elite and <strong>the</strong> populace.As we have seen, he did not regard <strong>Christian</strong>ity as a good thing, andargues that Graeco-Roman paganism and <strong>Christian</strong>ity are categoricallydiVerent ra<strong>the</strong>r than qualitatively comparable.105 <strong>Ste</strong> <strong>Croix</strong>’sdistinction between individualist, belief-centred <strong>Christian</strong>ity andcommunal, ritual-centred paganism might now seem a little overdrawn,but it needs to be placed in its historiographical context. Asreligion in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire has been more wi<strong>de</strong>ly studied, suchstrong contrasts between <strong>Christian</strong>ity and paganism have been scrutinized,and <strong>the</strong>ir edges softened. The i<strong>de</strong>ntity between paganism andpoly<strong>the</strong>ism, for instance, is no longer sustainable,106 likewiseGibbon’s contrast between <strong>the</strong> tolerant pagan Roman Empire andAncient World (London, 1990), 179–255; S. Price, Rituals and Power: The RomanImperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984); Beard, North, and Price, Religions ofRome, vol. i.104 War<strong>de</strong> Fowler was heavily inXuenced by <strong>the</strong> evolutionary anthropology associatedparticularly with E. B. Tylor, of which <strong>the</strong> most famous contemporary exponentwas James Frazer, himself, of course, an eminent classicist. A. D. Nock, much <strong>the</strong>most interesting writer on Roman religion after War<strong>de</strong> Fowler, was appointedFrothingham Professor of <strong>the</strong> History of Religion at Harvard following his move<strong>the</strong>re from Cambridge in 1930.105 As Garth Fow<strong>de</strong>n noted, Robin Lane Fox’s Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s is based onjust such a contrast, with similar beneWts and drawbacks; Fow<strong>de</strong>n, ‘Between Pagansand <strong>Christian</strong>s’, JRS 78 (1988), 173–82, at 173. See also Averil Cameron, <strong>Christian</strong>ityand <strong>the</strong> Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of <strong>Christian</strong> Discourse (Berkeley, 1991),21 with n. 16.106 See <strong>the</strong> essays collected in P. Athanassiadi and M. Fre<strong>de</strong>, Pagan Mono<strong>the</strong>ism inLate Antiquity; although note <strong>the</strong> criticisms of M. Edwards, ‘Pagan and <strong>Christian</strong>Mono<strong>the</strong>ism in <strong>the</strong> Age of Constantine’, in S. Swain and M. Edwards (eds.),Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire (Oxford,2004), 211–34. Garth Fow<strong>de</strong>n has recently ma<strong>de</strong> a ra<strong>the</strong>r unconvincing <strong>de</strong>fence of‘poly<strong>the</strong>ism’ as ‘less nakedly oVensive’ a category than ‘paganism’, and states that‘<strong>the</strong>re was no such thing as ‘‘pagan mono<strong>the</strong>ism’’ ’: see his ‘Late Poly<strong>the</strong>ism’, in CAHxii: 521–72, at 521–2.
Introduction 31its intolerant <strong>Christian</strong> successor which, as we have seen, signiWcantlyun<strong>de</strong>rpins <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecution. In 1984 Peter Garnseyargued that <strong>the</strong> Roman authorities were not so much tolerant asappreciative of ‘<strong>the</strong> limits of <strong>the</strong>ir power’.107 Mary Beard, John North,and Simon Price have fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>de</strong>monstrated that <strong>the</strong> most signiWcantRoman religious concepts, religio and superstitio, were normative andpotentially discriminatory, and argue that ‘oYcial Roman responsesto <strong>Christian</strong>ity’ should be placed ‘in <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong>ir responses too<strong>the</strong>r forms of un<strong>de</strong>sirable behaviour’.108 In consequence <strong>the</strong> early<strong>Christian</strong> persecutions are, if not less unique than <strong>the</strong>y seemed to <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>, <strong>the</strong>n less starkly <strong>de</strong>Wned against a background of openness andtoleration. In<strong>de</strong>ed, Keith Hopkins has suggested we should not askwhy <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong>s were persecuted, but why <strong>the</strong>y were notpersecuted more often.109The turn to cultural history is a particular feature of Anglophone<strong>late</strong> antique history, although <strong>the</strong> inXuence of hermeneutic philosopherssuch as Paul Ricoeur and Hans-Georg Gadamer, oftenreceived through <strong>the</strong> medium of CliVord Geertz’s interpretativeanthropology, has contributed to a pluralizing trend across <strong>the</strong> historicaldiscipline.110 One of <strong>the</strong> hallmarks of work inspired by Geertzis <strong>the</strong> emphasis on perception, or <strong>the</strong> need to un<strong>de</strong>rstand ‘from <strong>the</strong>native’s point of view’, insofar as this is possible. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> diVersfrom this approach emphatically, and sometimes advocates a rigidly107 P. Garnsey, ‘Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity’, Studies in ChurchHistory, 21(1984), 1–27 at 9.108 Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome, i. 211–44 esp. 236–44; see alsoH. Drake, ‘Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early <strong>Christian</strong> Intolerance’, Past andPresent, 153 (1996), 3–36.109 K. Hopkins, ‘<strong>Christian</strong> Number and its Implications’, 197.110 The direct inXuence of Geertz is most obvious in Peter Brown’s essay ‘The Saintas Exemplar in Late Antiquity’, Representations, 1.2 (1983), 1–25, but his inXuence onhumanities more generally has been enormous, particularly since <strong>the</strong> publication ofThe Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973). For a study ofGeertz’s work and inXuence, see F. Inglis, CliVord Geertz: Culture, Custom and Ethics(Cambridge, 2000). For an interesting set of reXections on Geertz’s work, see S. B.Ortner (ed.), The Fate of ‘Culture’: Geertz and Beyond (Berkeley, 1999), and <strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>rhagiographical collection of R. A. Schwe<strong>de</strong>r and B. Good (eds.), CliVord Geertz by hisColleagues (Chicago, 2005). On <strong>the</strong> prominence of cultural history in Anglophone<strong>late</strong> antique studies, see A. Giardina, ‘Esplosione di tardoantico’, Studi Storici, 40(1999), 157–80, at 167 and n. 35; and Cameron, ‘The ‘‘Long’’ Late Antiquity’, esp.171–2.
32 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomfact-based epistemology, such as in his assertion that <strong>the</strong> Church is a‘<strong>the</strong>ological’ and not a ‘historical’ concept,111 and his frequent <strong>de</strong>nunciationof <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> hagiography as ‘worthless’ since it doesnot provi<strong>de</strong> accurate information on actual events. The Wrst of <strong>the</strong>secontentions is clearly false: ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church’ is a historicalconcept, even if one that does not <strong>de</strong>note any objective reality. Thesecond position remains valid, but shows how much historians’priorities have changed,112 and rea<strong>de</strong>rs may now Wnd that <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> raises some important problems, which he is not interestedin <strong>de</strong>veloping. For instance, in ‘Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> EarlyChurch’, he notes <strong>the</strong> contradiction between <strong>the</strong> explicit <strong>de</strong>nunciationof voluntary martyrdom by most leading early <strong>Christian</strong>writers and <strong>the</strong> common praise accor<strong>de</strong>d to voluntary martyrs inpractice, but <strong>the</strong>n expressly ignores ‘<strong>the</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rable quantity of <strong>late</strong>and Wctitious Passions in which <strong>the</strong> martyrs are ma<strong>de</strong> to behave in aprovocative manner and abuse <strong>the</strong>ir judges’.113 Yet this is an interestingcontradiction: why, in periods after <strong>the</strong> conversion ofConstantine, when Church and State were not necessarily in relationsof hostility, and were often closely intertwined, were <strong>Christian</strong>martyrs presented as antagonists?The o<strong>the</strong>r main problem of recent scholarship with importantramiWcations for <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecution is closelyconnected to <strong>the</strong> concerns of Geertz and <strong>late</strong>r with those of Michel111 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Heresy’ (below, Ch. 5, p. 202); ‘Chalcedon’ (below, Ch. 6, p. 260);Class Struggle, 6, 420, and 495.112 Concern with <strong>the</strong> literary and rhetorical aspects of early <strong>Christian</strong> sources isone of <strong>the</strong> most notable <strong>de</strong>velopments in <strong>late</strong> antique historiography. It is not anentirely new <strong>de</strong>velopment: Hippolyte Delehaye and Pierre Courcelle, to name twoparticularly noteworthy authors, transformed <strong>the</strong> study of hagiography and Augustine’sConfessions respectively by attending to <strong>the</strong>ir literary status. None<strong>the</strong>less, Delehaye’swork on hagiography prioritized texts according to <strong>the</strong>ir reliability as a recordof events; see his six-part classiWcation of martyr acts in Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hagiographiques,4th edn. (Brussels, 1955), 106–9. Contrast this with two recent books on martyrdom,which disavow any interest in using martyr acts as sources for <strong>the</strong> events <strong>the</strong>y purportto record: L. Grig, Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity (London, 2004), 1, who statesthat her book ‘does not seek to uncover <strong>the</strong> historical facts about <strong>the</strong> martyrsvenerated by <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> antique Church but to examine <strong>the</strong> construction of heroes’;and E. Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory: Early <strong>Christian</strong> Culture Making (New York,2004), 4: ‘This book is not a history of early <strong>Christian</strong> martyrdom but an explorationof <strong>the</strong> culture-making aspects of its representations’.113 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Voluntary Martyrdom’ (below, Ch. 4, p. 165).
Introduction 33Foucault and particularly Edward Said, namely i<strong>de</strong>ntity.114 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>rarely questions what <strong>Christian</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntity is, short of noting <strong>the</strong> pluralismof <strong>Christian</strong>ity in practice. It appears that he regards it asPauline, or at least would like to do so, as illustrated in his possiblyrhetorical question: ‘Would it be an exaggeration to say that<strong>the</strong> earliest systematic impulse towards execrating those who werebelieved to be proclaiming false doctrine came from St Paul and hiscircle?’115 The most radical recent <strong>the</strong>sis on early <strong>Christian</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntity isDaniel Boyarin’s ‘wave <strong>the</strong>ory’, in which second-century Judaism and<strong>Christian</strong>ity constitute ‘points on a continuum, from <strong>the</strong> Marcionites,who followed <strong>the</strong> second-century Marcion in believing that <strong>the</strong>Hebrew Bible had been written by an inferior God and had nostanding for <strong>Christian</strong>s, and who completely <strong>de</strong>nied <strong>the</strong> ‘‘Jewishness’’of <strong>Christian</strong>ity, on one end, to many Jews on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r end for whomJesus meant nothing’.116 In between <strong>the</strong>se two poles, Boyarin seems toenvisage people uncertain as to <strong>the</strong>ir i<strong>de</strong>ntity, whe<strong>the</strong>r Jewish or<strong>Christian</strong>. It is perhaps signiWcant that scholars working in <strong>the</strong>ologyor religion <strong>de</strong>partments have done much of this work on religiousi<strong>de</strong>ntity. For <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, as an ancient historian, <strong>the</strong> problem of<strong>Christian</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntity would seem less diYcult. By around <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Wrstcentury <strong>the</strong> Romans had a clear conception of what <strong>Christian</strong>s were,which encompassed most, although by no means all, of <strong>the</strong> myriad ofgroups who consi<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>Christian</strong>s. This un<strong>de</strong>rstandingfocused on what <strong>Christian</strong>s were not, namely people who wouldnot participate in traditional sacriWces, and <strong>the</strong>y <strong>de</strong>veloped distinctprocedures for testing whe<strong>the</strong>r someone was a <strong>Christian</strong> by concentratingon a negative that no <strong>Christian</strong>, so <strong>the</strong>y thought, wouldun<strong>de</strong>rtake. The very existence of martyrdom, particularly voluntarymartyrdom, suggests that this perspective was not entirely separate114 Much recent work has focused on <strong>the</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntities of Jews and <strong>Christian</strong>s, and<strong>the</strong>ir fashioning through mutual interaction. See, among o<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong> essays collectedin A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and <strong>Christian</strong>sin Late Antiquity and <strong>the</strong> Early Middle Ages (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 95;Tübingen, 2003); Boyarin, Dying for God; i<strong>de</strong>m, Bor<strong>de</strong>r Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-<strong>Christian</strong>ity (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 2004); S. N. C. Lieu, Image and Reality; Nei<strong>the</strong>r Jew norGreek? Constructing <strong>Christian</strong> I<strong>de</strong>ntity (Edinburgh, 2003); <strong>Christian</strong> I<strong>de</strong>ntity in <strong>the</strong>Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford, 2004).115 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Heresy’ (below, Ch. 5, pp. 213–14).116 Boyarin, Dying for God, esp. 11; Bor<strong>de</strong>r Lines, 17–19.
34 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomfrom <strong>the</strong> un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of <strong>Christian</strong>s. I<strong>de</strong>ntity lies at <strong>the</strong> heart of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> persecutions: <strong>Christian</strong>s are persecuted for being <strong>Christian</strong>,for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> name, an aYliation <strong>de</strong>monstrated by <strong>the</strong> refusal tosacriWce. Although this does not necessarily resolve <strong>the</strong> diYculties of<strong>de</strong>termining what Judaism and <strong>Christian</strong>ity were in <strong>the</strong> early Empire,it is an absolutely essential perspective. Both were incorporated intoconceptual and administrative structures by people with no particularinterest in <strong>the</strong> Wner points of doctrinal dispute.It is here that we can see perhaps <strong>the</strong> most important inXuence of<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work on persecution on subsequent scholarship.Although he was no historian of mentalities, his emphasis on <strong>the</strong>potentially dynamic force of <strong>Christian</strong>ity contrasts markedly with <strong>the</strong>focus of Roman historians from <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> nineteenth century, onpersecution as a problem primarily of Roman administration, oneconWned very largely to <strong>the</strong> high Empire. While some may think that<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> placed too much emphasis on <strong>the</strong> ‘enthusiasm’ or intoleranceof <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong>s, he also helped to restore <strong>the</strong> relationshipbetween <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong>ir Graeco-Roman environment to <strong>the</strong>centre of any study of persecution. Even if <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s approach toand questions about <strong>Christian</strong> persecution may now seem uncontroversialor dated, that is partly because his arguments have beeninternalized by participants in subsequent <strong>de</strong>bates; his articles andunpublished writings helped to create a new context in which <strong>Christian</strong>persecution could be investigated, in more subtle ways, inmyriad local settings, local rivalries and disputes, where <strong>Christian</strong>ssuVered but also contributed to <strong>the</strong> suVering of <strong>Christian</strong>s asprovocative agents or, in due course, as enforcers.
1Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong>*The ‘Great’ persecution, of <strong>the</strong> years 303 to 312/3, requires thoroughreconsi<strong>de</strong>ration. This paper will discuss certain features of <strong>the</strong> persecution,and, without attempting to present a complete picture, willsuggest some modiWcations in <strong>the</strong> received view.1. The Edicts of <strong>Persecution</strong>In this section it is necessary, for <strong>the</strong> sake of clarity, to go rapidly oversome familiar ground.The First Edict (hereafter referred to as ‘E 1’) was apparently issued(datum) on <strong>the</strong> 23rd February 303, on which day <strong>the</strong> church opposite<strong>the</strong> imperial palace at Nicomedia was dismantled. Next day <strong>the</strong> edictwas posted up (propositum). The probable contents may be summarizedas follows:I. (a) All <strong>Christian</strong> churches (and, it appears, any house in which <strong>the</strong>Scriptures mightbediscovered)1were tobe <strong>de</strong>stroyed.2(b)Allcopies ofFirst published as ‘Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘‘Great’’ <strong>Persecution</strong>’, Harvard Theological Review,47.2(1954), 75–113.* I am much in<strong>de</strong>bted to Professors N. H. Baynes, A. Momigliano and particularlyA. H. M. Jones for help, encouragement and criticism, and to Professors E. G. Turnerand Claire Préaux for replying to questions on papyrological matters. They must notbe held responsible for any errors which remain or for <strong>the</strong> opinions expressed. I alsowish to acknowledge a special <strong>de</strong>bt to <strong>the</strong> works of Hippolyte Delehaye, who did somuch to advance <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>the</strong> Passions of <strong>the</strong> martyrs as historical sources.References to Passions are to <strong>the</strong> editions mentioned in Appendix I below.1 See Optat. Append. ii, pp. 200, 202 (ed. C. Ziwsa, CSEL xxvi): ‘ubi scripturaeinveniuntur, (et) ipsa domus diruitur’ [‘where <strong>the</strong> scriptures are found, <strong>the</strong> houseitself is <strong>de</strong>stroyed’].2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. viii 2.4; Mart. Pal. Praef. 1; 2.1; Optat. Append. ii, pp. 198–9;cf. Lactant. De Mort. Pers. 12.
36 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>the</strong> Scriptures and o<strong>the</strong>r liturgical books were to be surren<strong>de</strong>red andburnt, and all church p<strong>late</strong> and o<strong>the</strong>r such property was to be conWscated.3(c) All meetings for <strong>Christian</strong> worship were prohibited.4II. Persistent <strong>Christian</strong>s were apparently <strong>de</strong>prived of <strong>the</strong> capacity tobring actions in <strong>the</strong> courts;5 those who possessed juridical privileges6were to lose <strong>the</strong>m;7 and ïƒ Kí ïNŒåôßÆØò (probably those members of <strong>the</strong>imperial civil service who were not technically soldiers and wouldmostly have been imperial freedmen)8 were to be reduced to slavery.93 Eus. HE viii 2.4; MP Praef. 1; Optat. Append. i, pp. 186–8; ii, p. 199; AugustineC. Cresc. iii 27.30; Conc. Arelat. i, Can. 13; and several Passions cited <strong>late</strong>r. [On <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>struction of books, see W. Speyer, ‘Büchervernichtung’, JbAC 13 (1970), 123–52,esp. 139–40; Speyer, Büchervernichtung und Zensur <strong>de</strong>s Geistes bei Hei<strong>de</strong>n, Ju<strong>de</strong>n undChristen (Stuttgart, 1981). See also P. Oxy. xxxiii 2673, from Feb. 304, in which <strong>the</strong>lector of a church in <strong>the</strong> village of Chysis reports to <strong>the</strong> gymnasiarchs of Oxyrhynchusthat his church possesses nothing apart from a bronze gate, <strong>the</strong>n in <strong>the</strong> process ofbeing <strong>de</strong>livered to Alexandria.]4 Eus. HE ix 10.8; and <strong>the</strong> Passions of <strong>the</strong> martyrs of Abitina and Philip ofHeraclea.5 Lact. MP 13.1; cf. 15.5.6 i.e. senators (clarissimi), those of equestrian status (perfectissimi, egregii), <strong>de</strong>curions,veterans, and to some extent soldiers. [See P. Garnsey, Social Status and LegalPrivilege in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (Oxford, 1970), and more recently his ‘RomanCitizenship and Roman Law in <strong>the</strong> Late Empire’, in S. Swain and M. Edwards(eds.), Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire(Oxford, 2004), 133–55, esp. 140–9.]7 Lact. MP 13.1; Eus. HE viii 2.4; MP Praef. 1. Thus <strong>the</strong> privileged classes wouldbecome liable to torture and <strong>the</strong> more savage punishments normally reserved for <strong>the</strong>lower or<strong>de</strong>rs. [See also P. Oxy. xxxi 2601. On <strong>the</strong> relationship between social statusand punishment, citing <strong>the</strong> distinction between <strong>the</strong> treatment of citizens and aliens in<strong>the</strong> pogrom at Lyon in 177 ce, see P. Garnsey, ‘Legal Privilege in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’,Past and Present, 41 (1968), 3–24, at 19–20, repr. in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studies inAncient Society (London, 1974), 141–65, at 160–1; also F. Millar, ‘Con<strong>de</strong>mnation toHard Labour in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, from <strong>the</strong> Julio-Claudians to Constantine’, PBSR52 (1984), 124–47, repr. in Millar, Rome, <strong>the</strong> Greek World, and <strong>the</strong> East, ii: Government,Society, and Culture in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, ed. H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers(Chapel Hill, 2004), 120–50.]8 Cf. <strong>the</strong> Caesariani of <strong>the</strong> Valerianic persecuting edict (Cypr. Epist. lxxx 1). SeeA. H. M. Jones, ‘The Roman Civil Service (clerical and sub-clerical gra<strong>de</strong>s)’, JRS 39(1949), 38–55, at 46 [repr. in i<strong>de</strong>m, Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford,1960), 151–75, at 164–5; see also The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social,Economic and Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), 564–5]; N. H. Baynes, ‘TheGreat <strong>Persecution</strong>’, in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth, and N. H. Baynes(eds.), CAH xii: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery, A.D. 193–324 (Cambridge, 1939),646–77, at 666 and nn. 1–4. [See more recently K.-H. Schwarte, ‘Die ChristengesetzeValerians’, in W. Eck (ed.), Religion und Gesellschaft in <strong>de</strong>r römischen Kaiserzeit (Kölnerhistorische Abhandlungen 35; Cologne and Vienna, 1989), 103–63, esp. 146–8.]9 Eus. HE viii 2.4; MP Praef. 1.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 37The results of E 1 will be discussed presently. The Second andThird Edicts (EE 2 and 3) can be disposed of brieXy now: <strong>the</strong>ir eVectshave already been admirably summarized by Baynes in his masterlychapter on <strong>the</strong> persecution in <strong>the</strong> Cambridge Ancient History.10 E2,or<strong>de</strong>ring <strong>the</strong> arrest of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> clergy,11 was probably issuedduring <strong>the</strong> spring or early summer of 303, as a consequence (if wemay believe Eusebius) of political disturbances in Melitene and Syria,in which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were apparently believed to be implicated.There is no valid evi<strong>de</strong>nce that this edict was ever promulgated in <strong>the</strong>West. In regions where <strong>Christian</strong>s were plentiful, its enforcementseems to have put an intolerable strain on a rudimentary prisonsystem, inten<strong>de</strong>d to provi<strong>de</strong> not for convicted criminals un<strong>de</strong>rgoingsentence but merely for accused persons awaiting trial. Ordinarycriminals, according to Eusebius, were positively crow<strong>de</strong>d out. Thegovernment, <strong>the</strong>refore, took advantage of <strong>the</strong> vicennalia of Diocletian,which were celebrated ei<strong>the</strong>r in September or in November,303,12 to issue an amnesty to <strong>the</strong> incarcerated <strong>Christian</strong> clergy,granting <strong>the</strong>m pardon on condition <strong>the</strong>y sacriWced.13 This was E 3.The local authorities evi<strong>de</strong>ntly lost no time in ridding <strong>the</strong>mselves of<strong>the</strong>ir unwelcome guests. Some of <strong>the</strong> clergy gave in, and o<strong>the</strong>rs weretortured into compliance; but if we may generalize from a strikingpassage in Eusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine,14 it appears that practicallyall those who remained Wrm were compelled to go through <strong>the</strong>motions of sacriWcing, protesting <strong>the</strong> while, and <strong>the</strong>n released, or10 Baynes, CAH xii. 666–7.11 Eus. HE viii 6.8–9; cf. MP Praef. 2.12 Opinions still diVer regarding this date, but it is not necessary to discuss <strong>the</strong>question here. Contrast W. Seston, Dioclétien et la Tétrarchie, i (Paris, 1946), 49–51,with W. Ensslin in Pauly–Wissowa, Realenc., 2te Reihe, vii ii, 2423–4. [November ismuch more likely. It is given by Lactantius, our source closest to <strong>the</strong> events: DeMortibus Persecutorum 17.1.1, and supported by a papyrus from Panopolis whichrecords a donative given on 20 Nov. 299 commemorating <strong>the</strong> accession of Diocletian;T. C. Skeat (ed.), Papyri from Panopolis in <strong>the</strong> Chester Beatty Library (Dublin, 1964), 2.162–4. The early 7th-cent. Chronicon Paschale is <strong>the</strong> only source to date Diocletian’saccession to 17 Sept. 284, but its evi<strong>de</strong>nce on imperial succession in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 3rd an<strong>de</strong>arly 4th cent. is often inaccurate: see M. Whitby and M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale284–628 AD (TTH 7; Liverpool, 1989), nn. 1, 17.]13 Eus. HE viii 6.10; MP Praef. 2. Despite <strong>the</strong> language of <strong>the</strong> former passage, itseems unlikely that torture was prescribed as a penalty for recusants.14 1.3–4. Cf. <strong>the</strong> 14th ‘canon’ of <strong>the</strong> episcopal letter of Peter of Alexandria (p. 46and n. 44 below).
38 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdommerely dismissed with <strong>the</strong> information that <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>de</strong>emed tohave sacriWced.The Fourth Edict (E 4) or<strong>de</strong>red all inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> empire tosacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods,15 on pain of <strong>de</strong>ath. E 4 cannot be dated exactly,but it was probably issued in January or February, 304, for it hadapparently not reached <strong>the</strong> proconsul of Africa by February 12th, butwas being enforced in <strong>the</strong> Balkans by March.162. The Nature and Consequences of <strong>the</strong> First EdictSince <strong>the</strong> edict and rescripts of Gallienus in <strong>the</strong> early 260s, recor<strong>de</strong>dby Eusebius,17 <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church (or churches) had received acertain measure of toleration and recognition—how complete, andaccording to what constitutional principles, <strong>the</strong>re is fortunately noneed to discuss here. By E 1 <strong>the</strong> government forba<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> collectivepractice18 of <strong>Christian</strong>ity by attacking <strong>the</strong> churches, books andservices of its adherents, and it inXicted special penalties uponmembers of <strong>the</strong> upper classes and imperial civil servants who refusedto abandon <strong>Christian</strong>ity; but for <strong>the</strong> ordinary individual—provi<strong>de</strong>d,of course, he retained no religious writings and atten<strong>de</strong>d noservices—merely ‘being a <strong>Christian</strong>’ (<strong>the</strong> nomen <strong>Christian</strong>um) wasvisited with only one penalty: <strong>de</strong>privation of <strong>the</strong> use of legal process.15 Eus. MP 3.1: ŁýåØí ôå ŒÆd óðÝíäåØí [‘to sacriWce and pour a libation’]. Therecords of martyrdoms suggest that oVering incense or pouring a libation could beaccepted as suYcient.16 See N. H. Baynes, ‘Two Notes on <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, CQ 18 (1924), 189–94,esp. 189–92. It should, however, be realized that of <strong>the</strong> Balkan martyrdoms discussedby B. only those of Agape, Chione and Irene (March and April, at Thessalonica) aresecurely dated to 304. For an outline of <strong>the</strong> views adopted here about <strong>the</strong> divisions of<strong>the</strong> empire among <strong>the</strong> tetrarchs, see Appendix II below. For a criticism of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oryabout <strong>the</strong> origin of E 4 advanced by Baynes, see Appendix III below.17 HE vii 13; cf. 30.19; viii 1.1–6. On this very thorny question, see esp. <strong>the</strong>excellent summary of Baynes, CAH xii. 655–6. [On Gallienus’ rescript see L. <strong>de</strong> Blois,The Policy of <strong>the</strong> Emperor Gallienus (Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1976), 175–85; R. Lane Fox, Pagans and<strong>Christian</strong>s (Harmondsworth, 1986), 553; D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD180–395 (London, 2004), 259–63; G. W. Clarke, ‘Third-Century <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, in A. K.Bowman, P. Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (eds.), CAH xii: The Crisis of Empire, A.D.193–337 (Cambridge, 2005), 589–671, at 645–6.]18 See esp. <strong>the</strong> edict of Maximin of 313 (Eus. HE ix 10.8), where <strong>the</strong> wholepersecution is summed up in <strong>the</strong> words, ôaò óıíüäïıò ôHí ×æØóôØÆíHí Kîfi çæBóŁÆØ[‘<strong>the</strong> abolition of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> assemblies’].
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 39According to Lactantius,19 Diocletian insisted that ‘eam rem sinesanguine transigi’ [‘this matter be carried through without bloodshed’].This iso<strong>late</strong>d statement has often been construed in an exaggeratedsense, and some mo<strong>de</strong>rn writers have gone so far as toconclu<strong>de</strong> that E 1 altoge<strong>the</strong>r forba<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> inXiction of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>athpenalty.20 This view, which is intrinsically improbable, is <strong>de</strong>Wnitelydisproved by reliable contemporary evi<strong>de</strong>nce of executions of <strong>Christian</strong>swho disobeyed <strong>the</strong> speciWc clauses of <strong>the</strong> Wrst section of E 1 (asreconstructed above), by refusing to hand over <strong>the</strong>ir Scriptures or byholding services.21 Yet <strong>the</strong>re is no trace of any lesser punishmenthaving been laid down for disobedience to <strong>the</strong> provisions of <strong>the</strong> Wrstpart of E 1. It seems most likely that for such oVences—which <strong>the</strong>government might reasonably have expected to be rare—no speciWcpunishment was prescribed by <strong>the</strong> edict. The public would naturallyassume that <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath penalty was liable to be inXicted on anyobstinate recusant who openly <strong>de</strong>Wed <strong>the</strong> or<strong>de</strong>rs of a governor insuch a matter;22 and this impression might be expected to have awholesome eVect in securing obedience. ‘Mortuus fueras, si non illasinvenisses’ [‘you would have been <strong>de</strong>ad if you had not found those’],said Victor <strong>the</strong> municipal clerk to Silvanus <strong>the</strong> fossor, of <strong>the</strong> churchof Cirta, when <strong>the</strong> latter produced some of <strong>the</strong> church p<strong>late</strong>.23Instructions may have been given to <strong>the</strong> provincial governors notto resort to capital punishment at all if <strong>the</strong>y could help it; but fur<strong>the</strong>rthan this <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce forbids us to go. The emperor who had alreadyissued <strong>the</strong> ferocious edict against <strong>the</strong> Manichaeans24 would hardly19 MP 11.8.20 e.g. H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Oulton, Eusebius, ii (London, 1928), 272: <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>athpenalty would have been ‘a violation of <strong>the</strong> First Edict’. [In support of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, seemore recently Barnes, ‘From Toleration to Repression: The Evolution of Constantine’sReligious Policies’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 21 (2002), 189–207, at 192.]21 See Appendix IV below.22 Cf. CTh xvi 5.34 (398), where <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath penalty is speciWcally prescribed forEunomians and Montanists who fail to hand over <strong>the</strong>ir heretical books.23 Optat., Append. I, p. 187.24 Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio 15.3.1 in E. Seckel and B. Kübler,Iurispru<strong>de</strong>ntiae anteiustinianae reliquias (Lipsiae, 1927), ii ii, 381–3, or F. Girard andF. Senn, Textes <strong>de</strong> Droit Romain, 7th edn. (Paris, 1967), 582–3. [See also S. Riccobonoet al. (eds.), Fragmenta Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani, 2nd edn. (Florence, 1968), ii.580–1.] The date is probably 31st March 297: see W. Seston, ‘De l’au<strong>the</strong>nticité et <strong>de</strong> ladate <strong>de</strong> l’édit <strong>de</strong> Dioclétien contre les Manichéens’, in Mélanges <strong>de</strong> Philologie, <strong>de</strong>
40 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomhave been squeamish in his attitu<strong>de</strong> towards <strong>Christian</strong>s who wereguilty of open <strong>de</strong>Wance of his or<strong>de</strong>rs.Except during <strong>the</strong> persecution of Decius, and to a smaller extent inthat of Valerian, <strong>the</strong> Roman government had adhered, ever since <strong>the</strong>time of Trajan at least, to <strong>the</strong> wise principle that <strong>Christian</strong>s were notto be sought out: ‘conquirendi non sunt’.25 This principle was not yetto be abandoned, save in respect of <strong>the</strong> two groups (<strong>the</strong> privilegedclasses and ïƒ Kí ïNŒåôßÆØò) who had been specially noticed by <strong>the</strong>edict, and those instituting legal proceedings. It seems unlikely thatany wi<strong>de</strong>spread inquisition was carried out among <strong>the</strong> two specialcategories, since additional machinery would have been required forthis; but it was easy to apply a test in court to intending litigants, todiscover which of <strong>the</strong>m were <strong>Christian</strong>s.26 (This may explain <strong>the</strong>choice of <strong>the</strong> penalty to be imposed on <strong>the</strong> ordinary <strong>Christian</strong>: itwas when initiating court proceedings that he could most easily beexposed.)Littérature et d’Histoire Anciennes oVerts à Alfred Ernout (Paris, 1940), 345–54. Thegreater severity with which Manichaeans were treated was no doubt due to <strong>the</strong>irbeing regar<strong>de</strong>d as agents of a hostile power, as well as religious oVen<strong>de</strong>rs; but much ofDiocletian’s invective against <strong>the</strong> Manichaeans would have applied equally to <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s. [For a translation of Diocletian’s rescript against <strong>the</strong> Manichees, seeM. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome, ii: A Sourcebook (Cambridge,1998), 281–3; D. Lee, Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s in Late Antiquity (London, 2000), 66–7;or I. Gardner and S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire(Cambridge, 2004), 116–18. Lieu supports <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s explanation for <strong>the</strong> severityof <strong>the</strong> edict, reckoning that Diocletian saw <strong>the</strong>m as ‘a Persian Wfth column’; see Lieu,Manichaeism in <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, 2nd edn.(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 63; Tübingen, 1992),121–4, at 121. The date of this rescript to <strong>the</strong> proconsul of Africa is probably 302;see T. D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Mass.,1982), 55 n. 41 and S. Corcoran, The Empire of <strong>the</strong> Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncementsand Government AD 284–324, rev. edn. (Oxford, 2000), 135–6.]25 Pliny, Epist. x 97.2. [Whe<strong>the</strong>r Decius’ edict was aimed at <strong>Christian</strong>s has recentlybeen questioned by Reinhard Selinger, J. B. Rives, and Graeme Clarke: see Selinger,Die Religionspolitik <strong>de</strong>s Kaisers Decius: Anatomie einer Christenverfolgung (Frankfurt,1994), esp. 29–37, and i<strong>de</strong>m, The Mid-Third Century <strong>Persecution</strong>s of Decius andValerian (Frankfurt, 2002), esp. 63–8; Rives, ‘The Decree of Decius and <strong>the</strong> Religionof Empire’, JRS 89 (1999), 135–54, esp. 141–2; G. W. Clarke, The Letters of Cyprian, i(Ancient <strong>Christian</strong> Writers 43; New York, 1984), 22–5; against which I. Gra<strong>de</strong>l,Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford, 2002), 368. See now G. W. Clarke,‘Third-Century <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, CAH xii. 625–6. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> <strong>late</strong>r divi<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> persecutionsinto three stages; see ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’, Ch. 3, pp. 106–7.]26 See Lact. MP 15.5.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 41The time-honoured method of <strong>de</strong>ciding whe<strong>the</strong>r a given personwas a <strong>Christian</strong> was <strong>the</strong> ‘sacriWce test’, as it will be called here: <strong>the</strong>individual concerned was asked to sacriWce, oVer incense, or make alibation, to <strong>the</strong> gods or <strong>the</strong> emperor.27 Since we Wnd <strong>the</strong> sacriWce testapplied on several occasions, before <strong>the</strong> issue of E 4, in a manner notdirectly authorized by E 1, it is necessary to <strong>de</strong>Wne its purpose moreprecisely. Its primary aim had always been not to expose <strong>Christian</strong>sbut to give those falsely accused of <strong>Christian</strong>ity a chance to clear<strong>the</strong>mselves in a universally recognized manner. The government, as arule, took action against <strong>Christian</strong>s only in response to popularclamour or individual <strong>de</strong>lation, and <strong>the</strong> oVence it punished wasbeing a <strong>Christian</strong>, up to <strong>the</strong> moment sentence was pronounced, nothaving been one. Provi<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> was not also guilty of somespeciWc crime such as treason, by word or <strong>de</strong>ed, he could obtain‘veniam ex paenitentia’ [‘pardon for his repentance’], as Trajan putit,28 by sacriWcing, to show that he had apostatized from <strong>Christian</strong>ity.The sacriWce test was thus essentially a convenient method by which asuspected person could <strong>de</strong>monstrate that he had ceased to be a<strong>Christian</strong>, or had never been one. It was a privilege which a wronglysuspected or accused person, or a <strong>Christian</strong> prepared to apostatize,might wish to <strong>de</strong>mand. A humane judge might make a practice ofurging accused <strong>Christian</strong>s to sacriWce as a means of saving <strong>the</strong>mselves.When, from <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> Antonines and Severansonwards,29 <strong>the</strong> judicial torture of free men belonging to <strong>the</strong> lower27 There seems to be no good evi<strong>de</strong>nce from <strong>the</strong> Great persecution of attempts tomake accused <strong>Christian</strong>s curse Christ (as in Passio Polycarp. ix 3) or swear by <strong>the</strong>emperor’s genius or ôý÷ç (as in Id. ix 2; x 1; Passio Scillitan. 5;Passio Apollon. 3).28 See n. 25 above.29 The exemptions in Cod. Just. ix 41.11.pr.; cf. 1 (and see Dig. xlviii 18.15.1;18.16.1; 18.21; 22.6.2; xlix 5.2; 16.7; l 2.14), show that <strong>the</strong> practice was already wellestablished by <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus. The situation un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Severi onwards is wellknown: see T. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), 406–8. [See amongo<strong>the</strong>rs P. Garnsey, ‘Why Penal Laws became Harsher: The Roman Case’, Natural LawForum, 13 (1968), 141–62; E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale àByzance 4e–7e Siècles (Paris, 1977), 9–35; D. Grodzynski, ‘Tortures mortelles etcatégories sociales: les summa supplicia dans le droit romain aux IIIe et IVe siècles’,in Du Châtiment dans la cité: supplices corporels et peine <strong>de</strong> mort dans le mon<strong>de</strong> antique(Collection <strong>de</strong> l’École Française <strong>de</strong> Rome 79; Paris, 1984), 361–404; and R. MacMullen,‘Judicial Savagery in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’, Chiron, 16 (1986), 147–66, repr. in hisChanges in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire: Essays in <strong>the</strong> Ordinary (Princeton, 1990), 204–17 and357–64.] For <strong>the</strong> 4th century, Dig. xxii 5.21.2 is illuminating.
42 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomclasses became customary, it was only too likely that <strong>the</strong> sacriWce testwould on occasion be used, or ra<strong>the</strong>r misused, combined withtorture, to force <strong>Christian</strong> confessors to become apostates. But thatwas far from being its original object. If we may trust his own accountof his procedure, Pliny imposed <strong>the</strong> sacriWce test not on confessorsbut only on those who said <strong>the</strong>y were not <strong>Christian</strong>s.30Only upon <strong>the</strong> issue of E 4 did Diocletian and his colleaguesabandon <strong>the</strong> principle, conquirendi non sunt, and in eVect provi<strong>de</strong>,by <strong>the</strong> universal imposition of <strong>the</strong> sacriWce test, for <strong>the</strong> publicexposure of all <strong>Christian</strong>s, who must <strong>the</strong>n suVer <strong>the</strong> extreme penalty.It is obviously wrong, however, to take <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> sacriWcetest during <strong>the</strong> Great persecution as proof that it is E 4 which is beingenforced, as is commonly done. The appearance in a Passion of a<strong>de</strong>mand (or invitation) that an accused <strong>Christian</strong> ‘sacriWce to <strong>the</strong>gods’, even if <strong>the</strong>re is reason to think it was actually ma<strong>de</strong>, is by nomeans conclusive proof that E 4 was being invoked, for, as we havejust seen, such a <strong>de</strong>mand had long been usual in trials of <strong>Christian</strong>s,and we know that it was revived in 303, in both East and West,31 after<strong>the</strong> publication of E 1, but before E 4 could have been issued. Only anor<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce ‘in accordance with <strong>the</strong> imperial <strong>de</strong>cree’ is conclusive—provi<strong>de</strong>d<strong>the</strong>re is good ground for thinking <strong>the</strong> phrase wasactually used and has not been ad<strong>de</strong>d by a hagiographer as a stockformula. The hagiology of <strong>the</strong> fourth and subsequent centuries cameto be written with diminishing restraint and increasing contempt forhistoricity; and <strong>the</strong> stories of <strong>the</strong> martyrs of <strong>the</strong> Great persecutionwere, as we should say, ‘written up’, according to a pattern whichbecame ever more standardized.32 Refusal to comply with a <strong>de</strong>mandto sacriWce, with or without a reference to an imperial <strong>de</strong>cree to thateVect, became a stock feature and was inclu<strong>de</strong>d in virtually allPassions, even of martyrs who suVered un<strong>de</strong>r emperors o<strong>the</strong>r thanDecius or <strong>the</strong> tetrarchs.3330 Pliny, Epist. x 96.3, 5.31 There is evi<strong>de</strong>nce for Syria, Palestine and Numidia: see below.32 See esp. H. Delehaye, Les Passions <strong>de</strong>s martyrs et les genres littéraires, 2nd edn.(Subsidia Hagiographica 13B; Brussels, 1966); Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hagiographiques, 3rd edn.(Subsidia Hagiographica 18; Brussels, 1927) [trans. by D. Attwater as The Legends of<strong>the</strong> Saints (Dublin, 1998)].33 See e.g. Delehaye, Les Passions <strong>de</strong>s martyrs, 183–5.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 43It will be proWtable to examine all <strong>the</strong> reliable <strong>de</strong>tailed accounts wehave of martyrdoms taking place between E 1 and E 4. From <strong>the</strong>West, we have nothing but <strong>the</strong> Passions of Felix of Thibiuca and of<strong>the</strong> congregation of Abitina, which are quite straightforward, <strong>the</strong>martyrs concerned being executed for direct disobedience to E 1.These documents call for no comment now. From <strong>the</strong> East, we haveonly34 <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>scriptions in Eusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>athsof Procopius, Romanus, and Alpheus and Zacchaeus, which we maynow consi<strong>de</strong>r.The Martyrs of Palestine contains <strong>the</strong> earliest and most au<strong>the</strong>nticversion of <strong>the</strong> story of Procopius, <strong>the</strong> Long Recension (L) being atthis point much more informative than <strong>the</strong> Short Recension (S).35The reason for <strong>the</strong> arrest of Procopius is obscure: it may or may nothave taken place in consequence of E 2. When Procopius was broughtbefore <strong>the</strong> tribunal at Caesarea on <strong>the</strong> 7th June 303, <strong>the</strong> governor Wrstor<strong>de</strong>red him to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods, and <strong>the</strong>n, when he refused, topour a libation to <strong>the</strong> four emperors. He tactlessly replied by quotingwith approval <strong>the</strong> famous lines of Odysseus in <strong>the</strong> Iliad against amultiplicity of rulers, and was immediately behea<strong>de</strong>d for treason. Inview of what has been said above about <strong>the</strong> insertion of a reference toE 4 in virtually all Passions, it is interesting to Wnd that even in <strong>the</strong>Wrst of a series of legendary elaborations of <strong>the</strong> Passion of Procopius<strong>the</strong> execution is represented as taking place un<strong>de</strong>r an edict whichor<strong>de</strong>red everyone to sacriWce or be put to <strong>de</strong>ath36—that is tosay, un<strong>de</strong>r E 4, which was certainly not issued until months afterProcopius’s martyrdom.34 The Passion of Philip of Heraclea, of which we possess only a Latin translation,contains valuable material and seems to <strong>de</strong>pend ultimately on <strong>the</strong> account of an eyewitness(though not <strong>the</strong> oYcial Acta); but it has been so heavily embroi<strong>de</strong>red, asregards its dialogues, that it is unsafe to use it for present purposes. The or<strong>de</strong>r tosacriWce mentioned in Eus. HE viii 6.2 can be explained as by A. C. McGiVert,Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine <strong>the</strong> Great, and Oration in Praise ofConstantine (NPNF I; Oxford, 1890), 327.35 1.1–2. Lawlor and Oulton, at <strong>the</strong> end of Vol. i of <strong>the</strong>ir Eusebius, convenientlyprint si<strong>de</strong> by si<strong>de</strong> admirable English translations of S and of a composite version(from <strong>the</strong> Greek, Latin and Syriac) of L.36 See Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hag.3, chap. v, at pp. 124–5 [Attwater trans., 105]. Cf.<strong>the</strong> similar addition to <strong>the</strong> Passio Felicis, given in H. Delehaye, ‘La Passion <strong>de</strong> S. Félix<strong>de</strong> Thibiuca’, AB 39 (1921), 241–76, at 272, ch. 11.
44 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomOn <strong>the</strong> 17th November 303, still before E 4 had been published, aPalestinian named Romanus, while present at Antioch, saw withindignation men, women and children (among whom were evi<strong>de</strong>ntlymany <strong>Christian</strong>s) ‘going up in crowds to <strong>the</strong> idols and sacriWcing’.37Romanus intervened to rebuke <strong>the</strong> sacriWcers, and was immediatelyarrested and sentenced to <strong>de</strong>ath, ei<strong>the</strong>r for an act of rebellion orbecause his speech to <strong>the</strong> sacriWcers inclu<strong>de</strong>d statements technicallytreasonable. According to L, <strong>the</strong> governor was commanding sacriWce;but it is hard to believe that he did anything more than invite <strong>the</strong>people to make a public <strong>de</strong>monstration of loyalty in this manner.An oYcial or<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce also enters into <strong>the</strong> martyrdom ofAlpheus and Zacchaeus on <strong>the</strong> same day, presumably at Caesarea.38Eusebius has just ma<strong>de</strong> indirect reference to EE 2 and 3, and it isoften assumed that <strong>the</strong>se men, one a rea<strong>de</strong>r and exorcist of Caesareaand <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r a <strong>de</strong>acon of Gadara, had been arrested un<strong>de</strong>r E 2. Thisis certainly not true of Alpheus, a bold volunteer, whom Eusebius<strong>de</strong>scribes as being arrested in consequence of a public intervention,like that of Romanus, to prevent mass apostasy. Zacchaeus wasapparently arrested at Gadara, and it seems very probable that hetoo had been guilty of some special provocation, although <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>tailsdid not come to Eusebius’s knowledge. Alpheus and Zacchaeus wereor<strong>de</strong>red to sacriWce but refused, saying <strong>the</strong>y acknowledged only oneGod, <strong>the</strong> king of all, whereupon <strong>the</strong>y were behea<strong>de</strong>d, presumably formaking a statement technically amounting to treason.Mass apostasies similar to those rebuked by Romanus and Alpheusno doubt took place all over <strong>the</strong> empire during <strong>the</strong> year 303. Inparticular, <strong>Christian</strong>s who belonged to <strong>the</strong> upper classes, and consequentlyhad more to lose if <strong>the</strong>y remained <strong>Christian</strong>s, would think itpru<strong>de</strong>nt to forestall attack by ‘voluntarily’ making a public <strong>de</strong>monstrationof <strong>the</strong>ir abandonment of <strong>Christian</strong>ity. We know fromCyprian that in 250, upon <strong>the</strong> publication of <strong>the</strong> persecuting edictof Decius, very many African <strong>Christian</strong>s publicly apostatized of <strong>the</strong>irown accord before <strong>the</strong>y were even arrested or interrogated or or<strong>de</strong>redto sacriWce: in two very striking passages in his De Lapsis,39 Cyprian37 MP 2.1. If <strong>the</strong> churches were only now being <strong>de</strong>stroyed, as S states, <strong>the</strong>authorities had been very slow to put E 1 into operation in Syria.38 Eus. MP 1.5. L is very much fuller.39 7; 8. Cf. Eus. HE vi 41.11–12.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 45represents <strong>the</strong>m as rushing in crowds to clear <strong>the</strong>mselves of suspicionby sacriWcing.At <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r extreme from <strong>the</strong>se voluntary apostates are <strong>the</strong> ‘voluntarymartyrs’, as <strong>the</strong>y will be called here: men who <strong>de</strong>liberately andunnecessarily went out of <strong>the</strong>ir way to seek martyrdom, like Romanusand Alpheus. Voluntary martyrdom was oYcially con<strong>de</strong>mned by<strong>the</strong> orthodox, except in <strong>the</strong> case of those who were seeking to re<strong>de</strong>eman earlier lapse;40 but it was evi<strong>de</strong>ntly by no means infrequent during<strong>the</strong> second and third centuries, and an astonishingly high proportionof <strong>the</strong> martyrs of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution whose stories we know in<strong>de</strong>tail were volunteers. The curious phenomenon of voluntarymartyrdom <strong>de</strong>serves closer attention than it has hi<strong>the</strong>rto received,and it will be <strong>de</strong>alt with elsewhere.40 a The subject will also come upagain <strong>late</strong>r in this paper. It is suYcient now to record <strong>the</strong> fact thatMensurius, bishop of Carthage at <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution,had to forbid <strong>Christian</strong>s to honour those who ‘gave <strong>the</strong>mselvesup of <strong>the</strong>ir own accord and volunteered <strong>the</strong> information that<strong>the</strong>y possessed Scriptures which <strong>the</strong>y would not hand over, when noone had asked <strong>the</strong>m to do so’. Mensurius also referred, ra<strong>the</strong>r uncharitably,to ‘criminals and <strong>de</strong>btors to <strong>the</strong> treasury, who took advantageof <strong>the</strong> persecution to rid <strong>the</strong>mselves of a life bur<strong>de</strong>ned withmany <strong>de</strong>bts, or hoped to purge <strong>the</strong>mselves and (so to speak) washaway <strong>the</strong>ir crimes, or at any rate to make money and live likeWghting-cocks in prison on <strong>the</strong> charity of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’.4140 As in Peter Alex. Epist. Can. (see n. 44 below), 8; contrast 9, 10. Among <strong>the</strong>many o<strong>the</strong>r passages con<strong>de</strong>mning voluntary martyrdom are Passio Polycarp. iv (cf.Eus. HE iv 15.7–8); Clem. Alex. Strom. iv iv. 16.3 to 17.3; x. 76–77; vii xi. 66.3 to67.2, ed. O. Stählin; Cypr. Epist. lxxxi; Passio Cypr. 1.6 (endorsed by Aug. C. Gau<strong>de</strong>nt.i 31.40); Conc. Illib., Can. 60; cf. Lact. MP 13.2, 3. [See below, Ch. 4, pp. 155, 160–1.]40 a [See fur<strong>the</strong>r Ch. 4.]41 Aug. Brev. Coll. iii 13.25, in <strong>the</strong> translation of A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and<strong>the</strong> Conversion of Europe, rev. edn. (London, 1972), 108. But this allegation may havebeen a commonplace: cf. <strong>the</strong> Passio Theodoriti 3 (‘audivi te esse Wsci <strong>de</strong>bitorem, eti<strong>de</strong>o mori <strong>de</strong>si<strong>de</strong>ras ne reddas quod <strong>de</strong>bes’) [‘I have heard that you are a <strong>de</strong>btor of <strong>the</strong>treasury, and thus you long to die lest you return what you owe’; see <strong>the</strong> more recentedition of M. Marcovich (Berlin, 1986)]; Hippol. Elench. ix 12.7, ed. P. Wendland(Callistus, <strong>the</strong> future bishop of Rome, unable to repay money he had embezzled,voluntarily sought martyrdom).
46 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom3. The First and Fourth Edicts: Contrasts between Eastand WestMo<strong>de</strong>rn writers42 commonly speak as if <strong>the</strong> ‘dies traditionis’ un<strong>de</strong>rE 1 were everywhere distinct from and succee<strong>de</strong>d by a very greatlyintensiWed phase of <strong>the</strong> persecution, <strong>the</strong> ‘dies turiWcationis’ broughtabout by E 4. Those who hold this view might have taken warningfrom <strong>the</strong> fact that Lactantius never refers to E 4 at all, and thatEusebius mentions it only in his Martyrs of Palestine,43 not in hisChurch History.In <strong>the</strong> East, <strong>the</strong> characteristic form of apostasy is always conceivedas sacriWcatio or turiWcatio; <strong>the</strong>re seems to be no evi<strong>de</strong>nce at all thattraditio was regar<strong>de</strong>d as a religious oVence. This is true even of <strong>the</strong>earliest document we possess which <strong>de</strong>als oYcially with <strong>the</strong> problemof <strong>the</strong> Eastern lapsi of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution: <strong>the</strong> ‘Canonical Letter’ ofPeter, bishop of Alexandria,44 dating from Easter, 306, in which, ifanywhere, we might expect to Wnd some emphasis on traditio. Thefourteen ‘canons’ of this letter are concerned entirely with <strong>the</strong> questionof apostasy in <strong>the</strong> persecution, in various forms. Although <strong>the</strong>nature of <strong>the</strong> act constituting <strong>the</strong> lapse is seldom speciWed, it isobviously assumed throughout <strong>the</strong> document to be something in<strong>the</strong> nature of sacriWcing, oVering incense, or partaking of foodpreviously oVered to idols; <strong>the</strong>re is no reference whatever to traditio,42 e.g. Baynes, ‘Two Notes on <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, 189, and CAH xii at 668;M. Besnier, Histoire Romaine, iv: L’Empire Romain <strong>de</strong> l’avènement <strong>de</strong>s Sévères auConcile <strong>de</strong> Nicée (Paris, 1937) (vol. iv of Histoire Générale, ed. G. Glotz), 328; G.Costa, ‘Diocletianus’, in E. <strong>de</strong> Ruggiero (ed.), Dizionario EpigraWco di AntichitàRomane, ii (Rome, 1926), 1793–1908, at 1860–1; L. Duchesne, Early History of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Church, ii (London, 1912), 79; cf. W. Ensslin in Pauly-Wissowa, 2te Reihe,vii ii, 2487.43 3.1. Our remaining contemporary authority for <strong>the</strong> persecution, Constantine(ap. Eus Vita Const. ii 51), does not distinguish between <strong>the</strong> various ‘sanguinaryedicts’. [See <strong>the</strong> English trans. of Averil Cameron and S. Hall, Eusebius: Life ofConstantine (Oxford, 1999), 112.]44 Migne, PG xviii 467–508; M. J. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, iv (Oxford, 1846),23–45; A. P. <strong>de</strong> Lagar<strong>de</strong>, Reliquiae Iuris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimae (Lipsiae, 1856),63–73; E. Schwartz, ‘Zur Geschichte <strong>de</strong>s Athanasius’, part 4, Nachrichten von <strong>de</strong>rköniglichen Gesellschaft <strong>de</strong>r Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Philologisch-historischeKlasse; 1905), 166–75 [repr. in Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften, iii (Berlin, 1959),at 89–103].
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 47direct or indirect. The canons45 of <strong>the</strong> Council of Ancyra, of (probably)314, <strong>the</strong> next document of <strong>the</strong> same kind which has survived,also ignore traditio completely, although many of <strong>the</strong>m areconcerned with <strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> lapsi, and <strong>the</strong>se go into some<strong>de</strong>tail on <strong>the</strong> diVerent ways in which sacriWce could be carried out.None of <strong>the</strong> participants in <strong>the</strong> controversies which vexed <strong>the</strong> Easternchurches in <strong>the</strong> fourth century accuses his opponents of traditio,although Meletius was <strong>late</strong>r accused by his adversaries, absurdlyenough, of sacriWcatio.46 In none of <strong>the</strong> Passions from <strong>the</strong> Easternprovinces is traditio ma<strong>de</strong> an issue. In that of Agape and her fellowmartyrsof Thessalonica,47 Chione complains that her religiousbooks and papers have all been taken away from her, andIrene is accused of preserving äØöŁÝæÆò ŒÆd âØâºßÆ ŒÆd ðØíÆŒßäÆò ŒÆdŒøä،ݺºïıòŒÆdóåºßäÆò; ªæÆöHíôHíðïôå ªåíïìÝíøí×æØóôØÆíHí ôHíIíïóßøí [‘parchments, books, tablets, codices, and pages of <strong>the</strong>writings of <strong>the</strong> erstwhile <strong>Christian</strong>s of unholy name’]. Doubtless all<strong>Christian</strong>s retained <strong>the</strong>ir sacred books when <strong>the</strong>y could. But it appearsthat giving <strong>the</strong>m up, or allowing <strong>the</strong>m to fall into <strong>the</strong> hands of<strong>the</strong> authorities, was not regar<strong>de</strong>d as a sin in <strong>the</strong> Eastern part of <strong>the</strong>empire. We have one positive piece of evi<strong>de</strong>nce to this eVect, in <strong>the</strong>Passion of Philip, bishop of Thracian Heraclea.48 Here we are toldthat Philip himself agreed to hand over <strong>the</strong> church p<strong>late</strong> to Bassus,<strong>the</strong> governor, but refused to give up <strong>the</strong> Scriptures. However, <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>acon Hermes, who was <strong>late</strong>r martyred with Philip, ‘diu anteaverberatus, ingressus est ubi vasa omnia et scripturae <strong>late</strong>runt’[‘having previously been beaten for a long time, he went to whereall <strong>the</strong> church p<strong>late</strong> and scriptures were hid<strong>de</strong>n’]—and <strong>the</strong> narratorshows no sign of disapproval of Hermes’ action but continues to treathim with <strong>the</strong> greatest respect and sympathy. Finally, it is signiWcantthat <strong>the</strong>re appears to be no Greek term in <strong>the</strong> ecclesiastical writers fortraditio.45 C. J. Hefele–H. Leclercq, Hist. <strong>de</strong>s conciles, i i, 301–26; Mansi ii 513–22. The Wrstnine canons <strong>de</strong>al with <strong>the</strong> lapsi. [On <strong>the</strong> council of Ancyra, see J. A. Fischer and A.Lumpe, Die Syno<strong>de</strong>n von <strong>de</strong>n Anfängen bis zum vorabend <strong>de</strong>s Nicaenums (Pa<strong>de</strong>rborn,1997), 453–88; and S. Parvis, ‘The Canons of Ancyra and Caesarea (314): Lebon’sThesis Revisited’, JTS 52 (2000), 625–36.]46 Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 59.1; Socr. Hist. Eccles. i 6.47 §§ 4–6.48 See, on this Passion, n. 34 above.
48 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomIn <strong>the</strong> West, <strong>the</strong> situation is totally diVerent. If we compare with<strong>the</strong> canons of <strong>the</strong> purely Eastern Council of Ancyra those of <strong>the</strong>Western Council held at about <strong>the</strong> same time (August 314) at Arles,we are at once struck by <strong>the</strong> fact that its canons49 make no referenceat all to apostasy by sacriWcing or burning incense. The persecutionhad ceased in <strong>the</strong> West more than nine years before <strong>the</strong> Council met,and only two canons50 are concerned with oVences committed during<strong>the</strong> persecution: <strong>the</strong>y <strong>de</strong>al only with false accusations, and withtraditio, in its diVerent forms, by those ‘qui scripturas sanctas tradidissedicuntur vel vasa dominica vel nomina fratrum suorum’ [‘whoare said to have han<strong>de</strong>d over <strong>the</strong> holy scriptures or <strong>the</strong> Lord’s vesselsor <strong>the</strong> names of <strong>the</strong>ir bro<strong>the</strong>rs’]. Here even traditio of <strong>the</strong> vasadominica, like <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two forms of traditio, is treated as a religiouscrime, justifying <strong>the</strong> removal of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>linquent from <strong>the</strong> ranks of <strong>the</strong>clergy; whereas Philip of Heraclea, as we have seen, saw nothingwrong in handing over <strong>the</strong> church p<strong>late</strong> immediately he was or<strong>de</strong>redto do so. In <strong>the</strong> Donatist controversy, which convulsed <strong>the</strong> Africanchurch henceforward, traditio is <strong>the</strong> one issue which dwarfs allo<strong>the</strong>rs, as far as <strong>the</strong> Great persecution is concerned.50 a In Africa,certainly, <strong>the</strong> oYcial view, of Catholics as well as Donatists, was thattraditio was an act of apostasy. We have already referred to thoseadmirable documents, <strong>the</strong> Passions of Felix of Thibiuca, executed forrefusing to commit traditio, and of <strong>the</strong> martyrs of Abitina. Althougha great part of <strong>the</strong> latter is an almost verbal reproduction of <strong>the</strong>oYcial Acta, <strong>the</strong> Passion in <strong>the</strong> form in which we have it is <strong>the</strong> workof a Donatist, who represents <strong>the</strong> diVerence between <strong>the</strong> faithful and<strong>the</strong> lapsi as turning entirely on <strong>the</strong> question of traditio,51 and does notfail to emphasize that Fundanus, bishop of Abitina, had given uphis Scriptures—<strong>the</strong> most heinous form of traditio, needless to say.49 Hefele–Leclercq, op. cit. 280–95; Mansi ii 471–4. [For a more recent editionand French translation of <strong>the</strong> Canons of Arles, see J. Gau<strong>de</strong>met, Conciles gaulois duIVe siècle (Sources Chrétiennes 241; Paris, 1977), 35–67. For an English translation,see J. <strong>Ste</strong>venson (ed.), A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating <strong>the</strong> History of <strong>the</strong>Church to AD 337, rev. W. H. C. Frend (London, 1987), 293–6.]50 13 (traditio); 14.50 a [See Y. Duval, Chrétiens d’Afrique à l’aube <strong>de</strong> la paix constantinienne: lespremiers échos <strong>de</strong> la gran<strong>de</strong> persécution (Collections <strong>de</strong>s Étu<strong>de</strong>s Augustiniennes 164;Paris, 2000), 65–99.]51 Passio 2; 19–23.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 49Several bishops besi<strong>de</strong>s Fundanus, not to mention o<strong>the</strong>r clerics andlaymen, were guilty of traditio.52 O<strong>the</strong>rs went in for evasions,53 which<strong>the</strong> authorities were evi<strong>de</strong>ntly quite willing as a rule to countenance.54The emphasis is always upon traditio. A bishop could even askano<strong>the</strong>r how he could possibly have gained release after arrest ‘exceptby giving something up or or<strong>de</strong>ring it to be given up.’55 All thisconcentration of interest upon traditio, and <strong>the</strong> virtual absence ofany early reference to sacriWcatio or turiWcatio, shows that <strong>the</strong> persecutionin <strong>the</strong> West was carried out un<strong>de</strong>r E 1, and that E 4 could nothave been enforced to any signiWcant extent.56There is ano<strong>the</strong>r piece of evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> non-enforcement of E 4 in<strong>the</strong> West, or at any rate in <strong>the</strong> African provinces,57 <strong>the</strong> one area forwhich we have much evi<strong>de</strong>nce. This is <strong>the</strong> entire absence of anyWestern reference to <strong>the</strong> purchase of immunity from sacriWcing.The silence of <strong>the</strong> sources on this point presents a strong contrast to<strong>the</strong> wealth of references to <strong>the</strong> libellatici of <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution,5852 e.g. Paul of Cirta (Optat. Append. i, pp. 186–7), Donatus of Mascula (Aug. C.Cresc. iii 27.30), possibly <strong>the</strong> bishops of Zama and Furni (Optat. Append. ii, p. 199).Victor of Rusicca<strong>de</strong> admitted throwing a copy of <strong>the</strong> Gospels into <strong>the</strong> Xames,claiming in extenuation that it was virtually illegible (Aug. C. Cresc. iii 27.30).53 Mensurius claimed that he had given up heretical works (Aug. Brev. Coll. iii13.25). Donatus of Calama surren<strong>de</strong>red medical books, Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanaesome o<strong>the</strong>r papers (Aug. C. Cresc. iii 27.30).54 See Aug. Brev. Coll. iii 13.25. The obliging oYcials tell Mensurius to give <strong>the</strong>m‘aliqua ecbola aut quodcumque’ [‘some rubbish or anything whatever’]. When herefuses, <strong>the</strong>y discover and take away some heretical works. Some Carthaginian<strong>de</strong>curions complain to Anullinus, but he refuses to pursue M.55 Aug. C. Cresc. iii 27.30.56 C. Bigg, The Origins of <strong>Christian</strong>ity, ed. T. B. Strong (Oxford, 1909), 482–3, wasinclined to doubt whe<strong>the</strong>r E 4 was ever published in <strong>the</strong> West. And see Jones (op. cit.in n. 41 above, 55): ‘There is no sound evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> promulgation of <strong>the</strong> four<strong>the</strong>dict in <strong>the</strong> West.’ [This is now wi<strong>de</strong>ly accepted, although for dissenters see Introd.above, p. 20 n. 66. W. H. C. Frend argued against <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> in two works: Martyrdomand <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Early Church (Oxford, 1965), and ‘A Note on <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> West’, in Studies in Church History, 2 (1965), 141–8, repr. inFrend, Religion Popular and Unpopular in <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong> Centuries (London,1976); see Ch. 2 for <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s response: pp. 79–95.]57 Byzacena (Byzacium), here treated as part of <strong>the</strong> Proconsular province, may havebeen a province separate from Proconsularis in 303–4, as it certainly was at some timeduring <strong>the</strong> Wrst tetrarchy (ILA 3832 ¼ CIL viii 23179). [See Barnes, New Empire, 212.]58 There is evi<strong>de</strong>nce for libellatici in Spain (Cypr. Epist. lxvii 1.1; 6.1–2), at Rome(Id. xxx 3.1; also xxi 2.2; 3.2), and also of course in Africa: Id. xx 2.2; lv 3.2; 10.2;13.2; 14.1; 17.3; 26.1; De Lapsis 27–8; Ad Fort. 11. In Epist. lv 26.1, Cyprian <strong>de</strong>scribes<strong>the</strong> purchase of a certiWcate as a far less grave sin than adultery.
50 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomwho procured false certiWcates of compliance with <strong>the</strong> imperial or<strong>de</strong>r.We must not, of course, expect to Wnd any mention in <strong>the</strong> Greatpersecution of libellatici or libelli, for this time certiWcates were notissued—a question to which we shall return presently. If E 4 had reallybeen put into operation in <strong>the</strong> West, however, <strong>the</strong> sale of immunitieswould certainly have taken place <strong>the</strong>re, as we know it did in <strong>the</strong> East;and since <strong>the</strong> washing of dirty linen which went on after <strong>the</strong> persecutionin some of <strong>the</strong> Western churches was <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>dly more vigorousthan in <strong>the</strong> East, and is much better evi<strong>de</strong>nced, largely owing to <strong>the</strong>Donatist controversy, we should certainly have expected to hearsomething about <strong>the</strong> practice we are consi<strong>de</strong>ring. It is impossible tobelieve that <strong>the</strong> rigorist Africans, who, in common with <strong>the</strong>ir Romanand Spanish brethren, had <strong>de</strong>nounced this form of evasion in <strong>the</strong> 250sas a form of apostasy, would have accepted it as permissible Wfty years<strong>late</strong>r.We cannot leave this question without drawing a contrast againbetween East and West. In <strong>the</strong> East <strong>the</strong>re is conclusive evi<strong>de</strong>nce that<strong>Christian</strong>s did buy exemption from E 4; but here it was not regar<strong>de</strong>das a sin. In his twelfth ‘canon’, Peter of Alexandria <strong>de</strong>clares that thosewho purchased immunity are not to be blamed, for <strong>the</strong>y sustainedloss of money with <strong>the</strong> object of saving <strong>the</strong>ir souls. He speaks of <strong>the</strong>malmost with respect. After this we hear nothing more about <strong>the</strong>practice. Anyone who reads <strong>the</strong> canons of <strong>the</strong> Council of Ancyrawith Cyprian’s De Lapsis and letters in mind may well be astonishedat <strong>the</strong> lack of any reference to <strong>the</strong> sale of immunities in <strong>the</strong> Wrst ninecanons, which <strong>de</strong>al in <strong>de</strong>tail with <strong>the</strong> various gra<strong>de</strong>s of apostasyduring <strong>the</strong> persecution. The one satisfactory explanation is that <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>vice was not regar<strong>de</strong>d as sinful by <strong>the</strong> Eastern churches, and<strong>the</strong>refore did not require to be <strong>de</strong>alt with in <strong>the</strong> disciplinary canons.All our evi<strong>de</strong>nce about <strong>the</strong> sale of exemptions in <strong>the</strong> Decian persecutioncomes from <strong>the</strong> West, whereas for <strong>the</strong> Great persecution ourone piece of positive evi<strong>de</strong>nce (Peter’s letter), with <strong>the</strong> clear negativeevi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> canons of Ancyra, comes from <strong>the</strong> East. It is surelypermissible, however, to use all <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for both persecutionstoge<strong>the</strong>r in this respect, and to draw conclusions accordingly. In <strong>the</strong>East, we may infer, <strong>the</strong> purchase of exemptions was not regar<strong>de</strong>d assinful in ei<strong>the</strong>r persecution. This would explain <strong>the</strong> absence of any<strong>de</strong>nunciation of Eastern libellatici in <strong>the</strong> 250s. As regards <strong>the</strong> West,
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 51where <strong>the</strong> practice would undoubtedly have seemed as reprehensiblein <strong>the</strong> Great persecution as it did Wfty years earlier, we can explain <strong>the</strong>lack of any reference to <strong>the</strong> purchase of immunities only on <strong>the</strong>assumption that E 4 was little enforced, so that very few <strong>Christian</strong>s(if any) would have nee<strong>de</strong>d to buy exemption. We shall return <strong>late</strong>r to<strong>the</strong> methods of evasion of E 4, but we may note in passing that bycountenancing <strong>the</strong> purchase of exemptions <strong>the</strong> Eastern churchesma<strong>de</strong> it possible for very many <strong>Christian</strong>s to avoid <strong>the</strong> alternativesof apostasy or <strong>de</strong>ath without <strong>the</strong> least stain on <strong>the</strong>ir consciences.So rarely does sacriWcatio (or turiWcatio) make its appearance in <strong>the</strong>contemporary or near-contemporary documents of <strong>the</strong> Africanchurches that it is impossible to believe E 4 could have been enforcedin Africa, except perhaps in a few iso<strong>late</strong>d cases. It is worth examiningall <strong>the</strong> references in <strong>the</strong> earliest sources to sacriWcatio (or turiWcatio)in <strong>the</strong> African provinces. They may be consi<strong>de</strong>red in three groups:1. (a) At <strong>the</strong> meeting of Numidian bishops at Cirta in 305, whichhas already been mentioned, Donatus of Mascula evasively replied tohis metropolitan’s accusation of traditio, ‘Scis quantum me quaesivitFlorus ut turiWcarem, et non me tradidit <strong>de</strong>us in manibus eius, frater.’[‘You know how often Florus asked me to burn incense, but God didnot hand me over into his hands, bro<strong>the</strong>r.’] (b) At <strong>the</strong> Council of someseventy Donatist bishops at Carthage in (probably) 312, Marcian isreported to have <strong>de</strong>clared that ‘TuriWcati, traditores, abhorrentes <strong>de</strong>omanere in ecclesia <strong>de</strong>i non possunt, nisi (etc.).’ [‘Incense burners andtraitors, being abhorrent to God are unable to remain in <strong>the</strong> church ofGod unless...’]59 (c) Maximus, an el<strong>de</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> church of Carthage,making an oYcial accusation of traditio against Felix of Abthugna on<strong>the</strong> 19th August 314, twice referred (according to <strong>the</strong> surviving procèsverbal)to an imperial or<strong>de</strong>r for sacriWce as well as traditio.60 Thealleged traditio of Felix, however, was supposed to have taken placeat <strong>the</strong> very beginning of <strong>the</strong> persecution un<strong>de</strong>r E 1, a long time beforeE 4 was issued, and <strong>the</strong>re is not ano<strong>the</strong>r word about sacriWce in <strong>the</strong>subsequent proceedings, which <strong>de</strong>scribe how E 1 was enforced at59 Aug. Adv. Fulg. 26.60 Optat. Append. ii, pp. 198–9. The form Abthugna, or Abthugni, is <strong>the</strong> bestattested: see CIL viii (Suppl. iv) 23085, and <strong>the</strong> remarks of H. Dessau at p. 2338.
52 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomAbthugna. The references to an imperial or<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce are not evenconsistent: in one place <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s have to sacriWce or <strong>de</strong>liver <strong>the</strong>irScriptures to be burnt, in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r everyone is to sacriWce and give up<strong>the</strong> Scriptures. We know <strong>de</strong>Wnitely that <strong>the</strong>re had been no suchimperial or<strong>de</strong>r at that time. Before we try to explain <strong>the</strong> three passageswhich have just been cited we must look at some fur<strong>the</strong>r evi<strong>de</strong>nce.2. (a) The Catholic bishop Optatus of Milevis, writing his bookagainst <strong>the</strong> Donatists some sixty years after <strong>the</strong> persecution, speaks inoneplace61asif<strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>sof AfricaProconsularisandNumidiawereeverywhere compelled to oVer incense to <strong>the</strong> pagan gods. He also sayselsewhere62 that it was a matter of common knowledge that during <strong>the</strong>persecution some bishops were guilty of turiWcatio; and when<strong>de</strong>scribing<strong>the</strong> session of Numidian bishops to which reference has already beenma<strong>de</strong> he speaks63 scornfully of Menalius as having stayed away from <strong>the</strong>meeting,on<strong>the</strong>pretencetha<strong>the</strong>wassuVeringfromophthalmia,toavoidbeing convicted of turiWcatio. (Optatus is not above calling <strong>the</strong> earlyDonatists collectively ‘traditores, turati, homicidae’ [‘traitors, incenseburners, and mur<strong>de</strong>rers’], just as Augustine after him calls <strong>the</strong>m ‘traditores,turiWcati, schismatici’ [‘traitors, incense burners, and schismatics’],64and so forth; but <strong>the</strong>se are merely <strong>the</strong> ordinary pleasantries ofcontroversybetweenCatholicsandschismatics.)(b)With<strong>the</strong>sepassagesof Optatus we may couple CIL viii 6700 (19353), an inscription fromnor<strong>the</strong>rn Numidia, referring to an unspeciWed number of martyrs‘qui sunt passi sub presi<strong>de</strong> Floro in civitate Milevitana in diebusturiWcationis’ [‘who suVered un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> governor Florus in <strong>the</strong> city ofMilevis in <strong>the</strong> days of incense burning’].64 aNow <strong>the</strong>re is conclusive proof that Valerius Florus could neverhave enforced E 4, at any rate in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Numidia—that part of<strong>the</strong> province which at <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> ‘Verona List’ and certain61 3.8, a rhetorical contrast between Florus and Macarius <strong>the</strong> imperial notary sentto Africa by Constans in 347 (see W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movementof Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952), 177 V.).62 ii 25.63 i 13.64 Optat. i 15; Aug. Adv. Fulg. 26.64 a [See <strong>the</strong> critical edition of Y. Duval, Loca Sanctorum Africae: le culte <strong>de</strong>s martyrsen Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle (Collection <strong>de</strong> l’École Française <strong>de</strong> Rome 58; Rome,1982), i. 245–7, no. 117.]
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 53inscriptions of <strong>the</strong> early fourth century was Numidia Cirtensis, andwhich inclu<strong>de</strong>d Milevis.65 An inscription from Ksar el-Ahmar, <strong>the</strong>ancient Macoma<strong>de</strong>s, shows that Florus had been replaced as governorby Aurelius Quintianus by <strong>the</strong> time of Diocletian’s vicennalia,which took place between 17th September and 20th November 303.66Quintianus is never named as a persecutor, a fact which it is hardlypossible to explain on <strong>the</strong> conventional view, according to which <strong>the</strong>‘dies turiWcationis’ followed <strong>the</strong> publication of E 4, early in 304, andrepresented a second stage of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution, more severe than<strong>the</strong> Wrst stage, <strong>the</strong> ‘dies traditionis’.67 On this view, we should beobliged to suppose that <strong>the</strong> bishop of Milevis, <strong>the</strong> inscription, an<strong>de</strong>ven <strong>the</strong> contemporary record of <strong>the</strong> Cirta meeting are all mistakenin <strong>the</strong>ir references to Florus. The name of <strong>the</strong> chief persecutor,however, is surely just <strong>the</strong> very thing that is most likely to havebeen correctly remembered locally. The obvious explanation is thatmany <strong>Christian</strong>s, anxious to forestall persecution, had publiclyannounced <strong>the</strong>ir apostasy, soon after <strong>the</strong> promulgation of E 1, byoVering incense to <strong>the</strong> pagan gods; and that Florus, like <strong>the</strong> governorsof Syria and Palestine—and doubtless many o<strong>the</strong>rs—had attempted,possibly in accordance with oYcial instructions from above, toinduce at least some <strong>Christian</strong>s to oVer sacriWce or burn incense to<strong>the</strong> gods as well as hand over <strong>the</strong>ir books. The public <strong>de</strong>fection of abishop or two in this way might be expected to induce numbers ofrank-and-Wle <strong>Christian</strong>s to apostatize.68The language used by Donatus of Mascula—‘quantum me quaesivitFlorus ut turiWcarem’—supports <strong>the</strong> interpretation given here,for it hardly Wts an oYcial command, which would have been backedby torture (a trial Donatus did not claim to have endured) an<strong>de</strong>nforced if necessary by execution. The natural interpretation ofDonatus’s statement is that he had yiel<strong>de</strong>d to a <strong>de</strong>mand for traditiobut had not given in to <strong>the</strong> suggestion of <strong>the</strong> governor that he shouldalso oVer incense.68 a65 See Appendix V below.66 ILS 644 ¼ CIL viii 4764 (18698). On <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> vicennalia see n. 12 above.67 See p. 46 and n. 42 above.68 Cf. Cypr. Epist. lix 10.3.68 a [Perhaps quaesivit means ‘sought for’ra<strong>the</strong>r than ‘asked’. But it is still implied, byDonatus’ silence on <strong>the</strong> subject, that he had committed traditio; and in view of ILS 644(see above) E 4 could not yet have been issued, <strong>the</strong> governor being Florus.]
54 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom3. We are left with only one set of sources which can be broughtforward as evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> promulgation and enforcement of E 4 inAfrica: <strong>the</strong> Passions of <strong>the</strong> African martyrs. Felix of Thibiuca andSaturninus and his companions of Abitina suVered before E 4 couldhave been published in Africa. Of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Passions, <strong>the</strong> only onewhich is suYciently important69 to require serious consi<strong>de</strong>ration isthat of Crispina of Thagora, martyred on 5th December 304 atTheveste (at this time inclu<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> Proconsular province), aftera trial before Anullinus. Four passages70 are material for our investigation.The interrogation begins, ‘Anulinus proconsul dixit: ‘‘Praeceptisacri cognovisti sententiam?’’ Crispina respondit: ‘‘Quidpraeceptum sit nescio.’’ Anulinus dixit: ‘‘Ut omnibus diis nostrispro salute principum sacriWces, secundum legem datam a dominisnostris Diocletiano et Maximiano piis Augustis et Constantio etMaximo [Maximiano (one MS), i.e. Galerio Maximiano] nobilissimisCaesaribus’’.’ [Anulinus <strong>the</strong> proconsul said: ‘Do you un<strong>de</strong>rstand<strong>the</strong> meaning of <strong>the</strong> sacred <strong>de</strong>cree?’ Crispina replied, ‘I do not knowwhat has been comman<strong>de</strong>d.’ Anulinus said: ‘That you shouldsacriWce to all our gods for <strong>the</strong> welfare of <strong>the</strong> emperors, following<strong>the</strong> law issued by our masters <strong>the</strong> reverend Augusti Diocletian and<strong>the</strong> most noble Caesars Constantius and Maximus.’] A little <strong>late</strong>r <strong>the</strong>proconsul says, ‘Caput tibi amputari praecipio, si non obtemperaverispraeceptis imperatorum dominorum nostrorum, quibus <strong>de</strong>servirecogeris subiugata: quod et omnis Africa sacriWcia fecit, nec tibidubium est.’ [‘I will give or<strong>de</strong>rs for you to be behea<strong>de</strong>d if you do notobey <strong>the</strong> edicts of our lords <strong>the</strong> emperors. You will be forced to yieldand obey <strong>the</strong>m: all <strong>the</strong> province of Africa has oVered sacriWce, as youare well aware.’] Fur<strong>the</strong>r on again Anullinus says, ‘Sacrilega non erissi sacris obtemperes iussionibus’ [‘You will not commit sacrilege ifyou obey <strong>the</strong> sacred edicts’]. Finally, <strong>the</strong> sentence pronounced onCrispina reads, ‘Crispina in superstitione indigna perdurans, quaediis nostris sacriWcare noluit, secundum augustae legis mandatacaelestia, gladio eam animadverti iussi.’ [‘Seeing that Crispina haspersisted in infamous superstition and refuses to sacriWce to our godsin accordance with <strong>the</strong> heavenly <strong>de</strong>crees of <strong>the</strong> Augustan law, I have69 See, on <strong>the</strong> remain<strong>de</strong>r, Appendix VI below.70 i 2–3; i 7; ii 3; iv 1.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 55or<strong>de</strong>red her to be executed with <strong>the</strong> sword.’] If <strong>the</strong>se passages aregenuine, we shall have to admit that E 4 was promulgated in at anyrate <strong>the</strong> Proconsular province, and <strong>the</strong>refore, presumably, throughout<strong>the</strong> area controlled by Maximian. No doubt most people will take thisview, which seems <strong>the</strong> natural one. Some, however, may not feelentirely convinced, especially since <strong>the</strong> Passion does contain at leastone Xagrant insertion,71 and <strong>the</strong> addition of a few references tosacriWce would have seemed almost <strong>de</strong> rigueur to any <strong>late</strong>r hagiographer.It is diYcult to believe that an aristocrat like Anullinus wouldhave begun his formal written sentence with a nominativus pen<strong>de</strong>ns;and in <strong>the</strong> clause which follows, <strong>the</strong> more respectable reading, ‘augustae’,found in one or two manuscripts of <strong>the</strong> Passion, may well be a<strong>late</strong>r attempt to improve on <strong>the</strong> ‘Augusti’ of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, betraying <strong>the</strong>handiwork of a clumsy compiler. Even <strong>the</strong> proconsul’s statement, ‘AllAfrica has sacriWced, as you very well know’, does not prove <strong>the</strong>enforcement of E 4: <strong>the</strong> statement is a rhetorical exaggeration in anycase, and it could just as well have been used of <strong>the</strong> large numbers of<strong>Christian</strong>s who had lapsed before E 4 was issued. Moreover, as Monceaux72noticed, <strong>the</strong> Passion which has survived would seem to be byno means i<strong>de</strong>ntical with <strong>the</strong> version known to Augustine.Thus <strong>the</strong>re is hardly suYcient evi<strong>de</strong>nce that E 4 was even promulgatedin Africa, and it cannot have been enforced <strong>the</strong>re, save perhapsin a few individual cases. Yet <strong>the</strong> African provinces, with those ofEgypt, were regar<strong>de</strong>d by Eusebius73 as conspicuous for <strong>the</strong> number of<strong>the</strong>ir martyrs. In Gaul and Britain, Constantius did not even enforceE 1 properly,74 and E 4 can never have been published in those areas.71 Id. iii 1: ‘Et adiecit Anulinus commentariensi oYcio dicens: ‘‘Ad omnem<strong>de</strong>formationem <strong>de</strong>ducta, a novacula ablatis crinibus <strong>de</strong>calvetur, ut eius primumfacies ad ignominiam <strong>de</strong>veniat.’’ ’ [Anulinus <strong>the</strong>n turned to <strong>the</strong> court notary andsaid: ‘Let her be completely disWgured by having her hair cut and her head shaveduntil she is bald, that her beauty might Wrst thus be brought to shame.’] Franchi,curiously enough, was willing to accept this; but see P. Monceaux, ‘Les ‘‘Actes’’ <strong>de</strong>Sainte Crispine, martyr à Théveste’, in Mélanges Boissier: recueil <strong>de</strong> mémoires concernantla littérature et les antiquités romaines dédié à G. Boissier (Paris, 1903), 383–9,at 386. For o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>de</strong>fects in <strong>the</strong> Passion see Monceaux, Histoire littéraire <strong>de</strong> l’AfriqueChrétienne <strong>de</strong>puis les origines jusqu’à l’Invasion Arabe, iii (Paris, 1905), 386–7, 388–9.72 Op. cit. 383–7.73 HE viii 6.10.74 See Appendix II and n. 117 below. Alban’s martyrdom cannot be dated: see C. E.<strong>Ste</strong>vens, ‘Gildas Sapiens’, EHR 56 (1941), 353–73, at 373.
56 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomFor <strong>the</strong> remain<strong>de</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> West—Italy, Sicily, Spain, Raetia andNoricum—<strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce is very scanty in<strong>de</strong>ed. It is <strong>de</strong>sirable to setout what little evi<strong>de</strong>nce does exist.From Sicily we have one fascinating document, <strong>the</strong> Passion ofEuplus, an enthusiastic volunteer for martyrdom. Clasping a copy of<strong>the</strong> Gospels, Euplus went and shouted, ‘I wish to die, for I am a<strong>Christian</strong>’, outsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> oYce of Calvisianus, <strong>the</strong> corrector Siciliae.After a preliminary interrogation and some weeks’ imprisonment,Euplus was brought up again before <strong>the</strong> governor, who merely or<strong>de</strong>redhim to produce his ‘forbid<strong>de</strong>n writings’ and, possibly misun<strong>de</strong>rstandinghis reply, or<strong>de</strong>red him to be tortured (according to <strong>the</strong> Passion)‘until he promises to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods’—<strong>the</strong> only mention ofsacriWce in <strong>the</strong> earliest version of <strong>the</strong> Passion. Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri,who produced <strong>the</strong> best edition of <strong>the</strong> document,75 may have beenright in believing this to be a <strong>late</strong>r insertion. However, it is quitepossible that <strong>the</strong> words were actually spoken, and that <strong>the</strong>y wereequivalent to ‘until he agrees to abandon <strong>Christian</strong>ity’. This Passion,<strong>the</strong>n, is easily explicable without invoking E 4. And we may go fur<strong>the</strong>rthan this. The dates on which Euplus was interrogated were 29th Apriland 12th August 304. If E 4 was ever promulgated in Sicily, it is hard tobelieve that this had not happened by April 29th, let alone August12th; yet both interrogations of Euplus are concerned entirely with hispossession of <strong>the</strong> Scriptures. It is true that Euplus was carrying a copyof <strong>the</strong> forbid<strong>de</strong>n documents when he ma<strong>de</strong> his appearance before <strong>the</strong>governor, and of course <strong>the</strong> Passion cannot be cited as evi<strong>de</strong>nceagainst <strong>the</strong> previous publication of E 4 in Sicily; but it is worth notingthat <strong>the</strong> one Passion we have for <strong>the</strong> West, outsi<strong>de</strong> Africa, whichreproduces <strong>the</strong> oYcial Acta (apart from <strong>the</strong> sentence) with hardlyany alteration or embellishment should turn entirely on a provision ofE 1 and re<strong>late</strong> to an insistent volunteer for martyrdom.From Spain we have not one reliable Passion: Vincent’s is a mere‘historical novel’;76 and although that of Faustus, Januarius andMartial may go back ultimately to a respectable written source,77 it75 Studi e testi xlix (1928) at p. 16.76 See Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hag.3 114. The opening words show that <strong>the</strong> compilerhad no written source available.77 Evi<strong>de</strong>ntly Delehaye thought so, for he places <strong>the</strong> work in his third class ofPassions (op. cit. 114–15).
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 57is impossible to feel any conW<strong>de</strong>nce in its verbal accuracy; moreover,<strong>the</strong>se three martyrs too are represented as volunteers, who publiclychallenged <strong>the</strong> governor and proclaimed <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>Christian</strong>s.O<strong>the</strong>rwise, we have nothing better than some poems in <strong>the</strong> Peristephanonof Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius, written about a hundred years <strong>late</strong>r andhaving very little to do with history. From Augusta Vin<strong>de</strong>licorumin Raetia we have one document, <strong>the</strong> Passion of Afra, <strong>the</strong> ‘GermanMagdalen’, which has been thought by some to be a substantialreproduction of <strong>the</strong> oYcial Acta and by o<strong>the</strong>rs (with more reason)to be a pure romance.78 It seems that only one79 among manymanuscripts of this Passion contains any direct reference to animperial command to sacriWce or o<strong>the</strong>rwise suggests that Afra suVeredin <strong>the</strong> Great persecution; and although <strong>the</strong> manuscript inquestion would appear to be <strong>the</strong> earliest, it will not inspire muchconW<strong>de</strong>nce, except perhaps in those who are already predisposed toaccept <strong>the</strong> ‘Afra legend’.From Noricum we have nothing of real value.80 As regards Italy,from which we might have expected some evi<strong>de</strong>nce, we are very badlyoV in<strong>de</strong>ed. The Roman church in particular did not preserve in atrustworthy form a record of a single one of <strong>the</strong> numerous martyrs itclaims during <strong>the</strong> Great persecution: <strong>the</strong> Roman Gesta Martyrum,noless than twenty-three of which profess to re<strong>late</strong> to this persecution,are not earlier than <strong>the</strong> Wfth century, and <strong>the</strong>y are probably in <strong>the</strong>main of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Wfth and early sixth.81 We have a number of scattered78 For a summary of <strong>the</strong> literature, see A. Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung<strong>de</strong>s Christentums in <strong>de</strong>n ersten drei Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rten, 4th edn. (Leipzig, 1924), ii. 884 andn. 1 [trans. by J. MoVatt as The Mission and Expansion of <strong>Christian</strong>ity in <strong>the</strong> FirstThree Centuries (London, 1908), ii. 271–2] (‘Die Märtyrerakte taugt nichts; dieTatsache ist gut bezeugt’).79 That edited by Vielhaber (see Appendix I below). The crucial words, apparentlylacking in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r MSS, are ‘necesse est ut praeceptis imperatorum obtemperes, utacce<strong>de</strong>ns sacriWces’ [‘it is necessary that you obey <strong>the</strong> commands of <strong>the</strong> emperors andgo up to sacriWce’]. In this MS <strong>the</strong> sentence on Afra begins with a nominativus pen<strong>de</strong>ns.80 The Passion of Florian of Lauriacum (on which see J. Zeiller, Les Origineschrétiennes dans les Provinces Danubiennes <strong>de</strong> l’Empire Romain (Paris, 1918), 62–4)preserves some historical elements, but so much of it is Wctitious that we cannot use itfor present purposes. (Noricum ought perhaps to be consi<strong>de</strong>red as falling in <strong>the</strong>Eastern part of <strong>the</strong> empire during <strong>the</strong> years 303–6, and not in <strong>the</strong> area subject toMaximian.)81 See A. Dufourcq, Étu<strong>de</strong> sur les Gesta Martyrum Romains (Paris, 1900–10), esp. i.287–90. It is Delehaye’s opinion also that <strong>the</strong> Roman legends ‘sont dépourvues <strong>de</strong>
58 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomreferences to <strong>the</strong> Roman and o<strong>the</strong>r Italian martyrs in fourth and Wfthcentury writers, earlier than <strong>the</strong> Passions, and some of <strong>the</strong>m—like<strong>the</strong> Passions <strong>the</strong>mselves—may conceivably preserve historical material;but none of <strong>the</strong>se references is of such a character that <strong>the</strong>historian can safely use it. There is no trace of any contemporaryattempt to preserve records of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>eds of <strong>the</strong> Roman and Italianmartyrs, and as early as <strong>the</strong> time of Pope Damasus (366–384) <strong>the</strong>ywere already more or less legendary Wgures, about whom ‘traditions’circu<strong>late</strong>d, based on no written documents. The Roman church failedto distinguish itself in <strong>the</strong> persecution, which left it <strong>de</strong>moralized and,until 311, continuously disorganized by violent factional strife.82 Itwas actually without a bishop for more than half <strong>the</strong> sevenyears intervening between <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath or technical apostasy83 of PopeMarcellinus in 304 and <strong>the</strong> election of Miltia<strong>de</strong>s in 311. The historyof <strong>the</strong> persecution at Rome cannot be written; but <strong>the</strong>re is at any rateno real evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> application of E 4, even if we accept <strong>the</strong>tradition that Marcellinus oVered incense to <strong>the</strong> gods, for this couldbe explained as <strong>the</strong> result of pressure applied to Marcellinus quiteapart from that edict.The evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> rest of Maximian’s provinces thus provi<strong>de</strong>sno reason for modifying <strong>the</strong> opinion arrived at on examination of <strong>the</strong>African evi<strong>de</strong>nce, that E 4 was hardly, if at all, enforced in Maximian’sarea. The only evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> enforcement of E 4 which commandsany respect at all, apart from <strong>the</strong> Passio Crispinae, is provi<strong>de</strong>d by asingle manuscript of <strong>the</strong> very questionable Passio Afrae.In <strong>the</strong> West <strong>the</strong> persecution seems to have fallen into abeyanceeven before <strong>the</strong> abdication of Diocletian and Maximian on 1st May305; although in Italy and Africa, and presumably Pannonia, peacedid not fully return to <strong>the</strong> Church until after Severus had beentoute valeur au point <strong>de</strong> vue <strong>de</strong> l’histoire qu’elles préten<strong>de</strong>nt faire connaître’[‘are <strong>de</strong>prived of all value with respect to <strong>the</strong> history that <strong>the</strong>y claim to report’](Les Origines du culte <strong>de</strong>s martyrs2, 262). For <strong>the</strong> worthless Passio Sabini(Savini), which so impressed Mason and o<strong>the</strong>rs, see also F. Lanzoni, ‘La ‘‘PassioS. Sabini’’ o ‘‘Savini’’ ’, in Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskun<strong>de</strong> undfür Kirchengeschichte, 17 (1903), 1–26, endorsed by Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hag.383 n. 2.82 See <strong>the</strong> good brief summary in L. Duchesne, op. cit. (in n. 42 above), 72–6.83 See Appendix VII below.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 59overthrown, <strong>late</strong> in 306 or early in 307, by Maxentius.84 Eusebius85 issubstantially right in saying that in <strong>the</strong> West <strong>the</strong> persecution lasted‘not two whole years’. The last datable Western martyrdom is that ofCrispina, on 5th December 304. In Numidia, where <strong>the</strong> persecutionseems to have been at least as severe as anywhere in <strong>the</strong> West, it ha<strong>de</strong>vi<strong>de</strong>ntly ceased for all practical purposes by February or <strong>the</strong> beginningof March 305, since clamorous meetings could <strong>the</strong>n be heldopenly in Cirta itself, <strong>the</strong> Numidian capital, for <strong>the</strong> election of a newbishop in place of <strong>the</strong> traditor Paul, now <strong>de</strong>ceased.864. The Administration of <strong>the</strong> Fourth EdictWe must now consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> way in which E 4 was put into eVect.A comparison with what we know about <strong>the</strong> administration of <strong>the</strong>persecuting edict of Decius will be helpful.It is clear from <strong>the</strong> language used by Cyprian87 that un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> edictof Decius a particular day was appointed, whe<strong>the</strong>r for <strong>the</strong> wholeempire or separately in each province, by which everyone had tosacriWce and obtain a certiWcate that he had done so. When <strong>the</strong> fatalday was past, anyone who had not sacriWced and secured his certiWcatewould have been liable to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath penalty. Cyprian’s correspon<strong>de</strong>nceand treatises show that <strong>the</strong> eVect of <strong>the</strong> persecution was to divi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s into three broad classes: at one extreme <strong>the</strong> lapsi, who ha<strong>de</strong>i<strong>the</strong>r sacriWced or procured false certiWcates to that eVect; at <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rextreme <strong>the</strong> confessors, a few of whom were martyred; and in between<strong>the</strong> two, a substantial third group (often overlooked nowadays) whichis referred to many times by Cyprian and his correspon<strong>de</strong>nts88 as <strong>the</strong>84 Eus. HE viii 14.1; Optat. i 18. Church property was only returned to <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s of Rome by Maxentius in 311 (Aug. Brev. Coll. iii 18.34) and to <strong>the</strong>African <strong>Christian</strong>s (probably) by Constantine in 312/3 (Eus. HE x 5.15–17).85 MP 13.12; cf. 13.13; HE viii 13.11.86 The actual election of Silvanus, <strong>de</strong>scribed at length in <strong>the</strong> Gesta apud Zenophilum(Optat. Append. I, pp. 192–7 [trans. by M. Edwards, Optatus: Against <strong>the</strong>Donatists (TTH 27; Liverpool, 1997), 150–69]), must of course have taken placebefore <strong>the</strong> consecration-meeting on <strong>the</strong> 4th or 5th March 305: for this date, seeAppendix IV below, § (d).87 De Lapsis 3.88 Cypr. De Laps. 2; 3; 4; and many letters, esp. xii 2.2; xiv 2.1; xix 2.2; xxx 5.3;xxxi 6.2; lv 5.1.
60 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomstantes: <strong>Christian</strong>s who were not arrested or called upon to make anypublic profession of <strong>the</strong>ir faith, but had at least run <strong>the</strong> risk ofpunishment for failing to sacriWce by <strong>the</strong> appointed day and mightbe charitably assumed to be ready to confess <strong>the</strong>ir faith should <strong>the</strong>y beapprehen<strong>de</strong>d. Cyprian would have <strong>the</strong>se people treated as potentialconfessors: he says <strong>the</strong> confessors proper had ma<strong>de</strong> a public and <strong>the</strong>y aprivate confession.89 We have no information as to what steps weretaken to discover those who had no certiWcates, and it seems unlikelythat any systematic procedure was adopted. We know from a letterof Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius,90 that inAlexandria—and <strong>the</strong>refore, presumably, in at least some o<strong>the</strong>r capitalcities—<strong>the</strong>re was some kind of public roll-call; but this formed part of<strong>the</strong> procedure for organizing <strong>the</strong> sacriWces and was not a subsequentcheck.The Decian certiWcates of sacriWce which have been preserved fromEgypt, forty-three in number,91 were issued by local commissioners<strong>de</strong>scribed by some such title as ïƒ Kðd ôHí ŁıóØHífi æçìÝíïØ,92 whowere doubtless chosen by <strong>the</strong>ir local curiae. In every civitas throughout<strong>the</strong> empire <strong>the</strong> local magistrates and curia must have been89 De Laps. 3.90 HE vi 41.11: OíïìÆóôd ... ŒÆºïýìåíïØ [‘<strong>the</strong>y were called by name’].91 See J. H. KnipWng, ‘The Libelli of <strong>the</strong> Decian <strong>Persecution</strong>’, in Harv. Theol. Rev.xvi (1923), 345–90, supplemented by H. Grégoire, Les Persécutions dans l’Empireromain, 2nd edn. (Mémoires <strong>de</strong> l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong> Belgique, Classe <strong>de</strong>s Lettres56.5; Brussels, 1964), 129–30, and <strong>the</strong> works <strong>the</strong>re referred to. [There are now 46extant certiWcates of sacriWce from <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution. 41 were edited andtrans<strong>late</strong>d by KnipWng. Those published subsequently are: PSI vii 778; J. Schwartz,‘Une déclaration <strong>de</strong> sacriWce du temps <strong>de</strong> Dèce’, Revue Biblique, 54 (1947), 365–9,repr. in Sammelb. vi 9084; P. Oxy. xli 2990; P. Oxy. lviii 3929; and P. Lips. ii 152. See<strong>the</strong> complete list of Decian libelli with concordances in R. Duttenhöfer and R. Scholl,Griechische Urkun<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>r Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig (P.Lips.II) (Leipzig, 2002),226–41. For <strong>the</strong> general context, see Rives, ‘The Decree of Decius’, 135–6; Selinger,Die Religionspolitik <strong>de</strong>s Kaisers Decius.]92 Cf. Cypr. Epist. xliii 3.1 (Carthage) and (if <strong>the</strong> document really re<strong>late</strong>s to 250)Passio Pionii. iii 1 (Smyrna). [The Passio Pionii is generally dated to <strong>the</strong> Decianpersecution; see, for example, T. D. Barnes, ‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, JTS 19(1968), 509–31, at 529–31, repr. in Barnes, Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire(London, 1984); Lane Fox, Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s, 460–8; and L. Robert, Le Martyre<strong>de</strong> Pionios, prêtre <strong>de</strong> Smyrne (Washington, 1994), esp. 1–9. For an argument in favourof dating it to <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus Aurelius, see H. Grégoire, P. Orgels, and J. Moreau,‘Les Martyres <strong>de</strong> Pionios et <strong>de</strong> Polycarpe’, Bulletin <strong>de</strong> l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong> Belgique,classe <strong>de</strong>s lettres et <strong>de</strong>s sciences morales et politiques, 47 (1961), 72–83.]
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 61saddled with <strong>the</strong> responsibility of choosing commissioners andseeing that <strong>the</strong>y did <strong>the</strong>ir work properly; and certiWcates of sacriWcewere no doubt provi<strong>de</strong>d for everywhere.The machinery of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution was diVerent. Two featuresstand out. First, certiWcates of sacriWce were not issued. For this wehave only negative evi<strong>de</strong>nce: <strong>the</strong> fact that no mention is ever ma<strong>de</strong> ofcertiWcates in <strong>the</strong> sources, and that no certiWcates have survivedamong <strong>the</strong> papyri; but <strong>the</strong> contrast with <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> Decianpersecution is so striking that we can regard <strong>the</strong> complete absence ofany provision for <strong>the</strong> granting of certiWcates as virtually certain.Secondly (and much more important), <strong>the</strong>re is strong evi<strong>de</strong>nce thatuntil 306 <strong>the</strong> central government did not make <strong>the</strong> municipalitiesresponsible for taking active steps to enforce E 4. It must have beenearly in 306—long after <strong>the</strong> persecution had ceased in <strong>the</strong> West—thatMaximin ‘for <strong>the</strong> Wrst time’ (ôïFôï ðæHôïí) issued an edict or<strong>de</strong>ring<strong>the</strong> municipal magistrates to enforce general sacriWce by men, womenand children.93 Immediately, according to <strong>the</strong> Long Recension ofEusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine, heralds in every city called uponeveryone to assemble at <strong>the</strong> temples, and ‘<strong>the</strong> military tribunes andcenturions went from house to house and from ward to ward(ŒÆôš ïYŒïıò ŒÆd ¼ìöïäÆ), making registers of <strong>the</strong> citizens; <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>ysummoned each one by name and thus compelled him to do what hadbeen <strong>de</strong>creed.’ (Eusebius, who is concerned only with Palestine, partof Maximin’s dominions, speaks of Maximin alone as <strong>the</strong> author ofthis <strong>de</strong>cree; but Maximin was still only a Caesar, and it seems probablethat <strong>the</strong> edict was in fact issued by Galerius and Maximin jointly, in<strong>the</strong> whole of <strong>the</strong> East.) Eusebius adds that throughout Caesarea(where he himself was living at <strong>the</strong> time)94 heralds proclaimed <strong>the</strong>edict, and military tribunes summoned each individual by name froma roll. A similar edict, instructing <strong>the</strong> local magistrates to enforceuniversal sacriWce, was issued in 309,95 in an even stronger form; butthis time we hear nothing of <strong>the</strong> compilation of new registers.93 Eus. MP 4.8.94 MP 4.6, 8, 14.95 By Maximin, according to Eus. MP 9.2. By now M. had probably been recognizedas Augustus by Galerius, who may have prompted this action. It is obviouslywrong to seek, with A. J. Mason, The <strong>Persecution</strong> of Diocletian: A Historical Essay(Cambridge, 1876), 284–5, for echoes of this edict in Passions <strong>the</strong> wording of which isuntrustworthy.
62 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThere can be little doubt that <strong>the</strong> edict of 306 was <strong>the</strong> Wrst of itskind during <strong>the</strong> whole persecution, and not merely during Maximin’sreign. Eusebius96 has already said that Maximin set to work on <strong>the</strong>persecution with greater vigour than his pre<strong>de</strong>cessors. When recordingE 4, he does not mention any instructions such as he quotesMaximin as giving in 306 and 309, and <strong>the</strong> steps taken in 306 toprepare registers would not have been necessary had <strong>the</strong>y been takena year or two previously. Eusebius also speaks of <strong>the</strong> roll-calls as if<strong>the</strong>y were unprece<strong>de</strong>nted.Now a <strong>de</strong>cree such as E 4 could not be properly carried out,especially in districts where <strong>Christian</strong>s were numerous and notunpopular, without <strong>the</strong> creation of special administrative machinerysuch as that which was set up in pursuance of <strong>the</strong> Decian edict. Untilthis was done, in 306, and <strong>the</strong> municipal governments were ma<strong>de</strong>actively responsible for enforcing E 4, <strong>the</strong> edict could only have beencarried out to a very small extent. Some <strong>Christian</strong>s would havebeen frightened into sacriWcing, and some o<strong>the</strong>rs would have beenexposed and given <strong>the</strong> alternative of apostasy or <strong>de</strong>ath, but <strong>the</strong> stanteswould have run even less risk of <strong>de</strong>tection than in Decian times,for <strong>the</strong>y were not even liable to exposure by inability to producecertiWcates. This is certainly what we should expect, and, as we shallsee presently, it is conWrmed by <strong>the</strong> narrative of <strong>the</strong> Martyrs ofPalestine. It also appears that until <strong>the</strong> compilation of special registersin 306 <strong>the</strong> authorities in at least some areas (<strong>the</strong> larger towns, at anyrate) may not have possessed <strong>the</strong> complete lists of inhabitants whichwere essential if general sacriWce was to be eYciently organized. Listswould have been available of landowners, country-dwellers, andthose liable to perform liturgies, but it seems ra<strong>the</strong>r unlikely that<strong>the</strong> non-propertied classes in <strong>the</strong> towns would have been inclu<strong>de</strong>d inany oYcial register.97 If this is correct, little could have been done toenforce compliance with E 4 on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> urban poor, who stillprovi<strong>de</strong>d a large part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> congregations. This is <strong>the</strong>situation which Maximin’s drastic edict of 306 was inten<strong>de</strong>d to96 MP 4.1.97 See Appendix VIII below.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 63remedy: <strong>the</strong> government now proposed to compel <strong>the</strong> local authoritiesto act, after completing <strong>the</strong>ir registers. According to <strong>the</strong> Martyrsof Palestine, <strong>the</strong> government did not leave <strong>the</strong> carrying out of <strong>the</strong> newedict entirely to <strong>the</strong> municipal oYcials; but it is permissible tosuggest that <strong>the</strong> procedure <strong>de</strong>scribed by <strong>the</strong> Long Recension, whichEusebius witnessed with his own eyes at Caesarea, was conWned to<strong>the</strong> provincial capitals and perhaps a few o<strong>the</strong>r important towns of<strong>the</strong> East—it would hardly have been possible to Wnd enough troopsand oYcers to perform <strong>the</strong>se bur<strong>de</strong>nsome duties in more than a fewcities, and in most of <strong>the</strong> civitates <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>curions must have been leftto do <strong>the</strong> work <strong>the</strong>mselves. The amount of work involved throughout<strong>the</strong> East would have been consi<strong>de</strong>rable. The new procedure ought tohave ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> enforcement of <strong>the</strong> or<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce much morecomplete. In fact, however, <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> Martyrs of Palestinesuggests that <strong>the</strong>re was no great increase in <strong>the</strong> seeking out of<strong>Christian</strong>s—a fact which can only be explained by <strong>the</strong> reluctance of<strong>the</strong> provincial and civic authorities to carry out <strong>the</strong> or<strong>de</strong>rs given to<strong>the</strong>m from above.We have already seen that in <strong>the</strong> West, where <strong>the</strong> Church wouldhave con<strong>de</strong>mned <strong>the</strong> purchase of exemption from sacriWcing as aform of lapse, E 4 was so little enforced—if at all—that resort to suchevasions was unnecessary, whereas in <strong>the</strong> East <strong>the</strong> purchase ofexemption did take place, but was not con<strong>de</strong>mned. Those <strong>Christian</strong>swho were reluctant to run <strong>the</strong> risk of arrest by becoming openconfessors or secret stantes, and yet were unable for some reasonto buy immunity from sacriWcing, were often able to avoid openapostasy—but not <strong>the</strong> displeasure of <strong>the</strong> Church, and subsequentpenance—by <strong>de</strong>vices we are fortunately able to trace in <strong>the</strong> canons ofPeter of Alexandria and <strong>the</strong> Council of Ancyra. Some <strong>Christian</strong>ssuccessfully <strong>de</strong>ceived <strong>the</strong> authorities by inducing pagans to impersonate<strong>the</strong>m at <strong>the</strong> ceremony of sacriWcing, or by sending <strong>the</strong>ir ownslaves (some of <strong>the</strong>m <strong>Christian</strong>s <strong>the</strong>mselves) to sacriWce in <strong>the</strong>irstead.98 O<strong>the</strong>rs eva<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> edict with <strong>the</strong> connivance of <strong>the</strong> authorities,extending sometimes (in <strong>the</strong> case of priests) as far as <strong>the</strong>arrangement of bogus torture-sessions, to enable <strong>the</strong>m to claim<strong>the</strong>y had sacriWced only after enduring extreme agony, and thus to98 Peter Alex. Epist. Can. 5–7 (see n. 44 above).
64 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomreturn to <strong>the</strong> bosom of <strong>the</strong> Church on easier terms.99 It is diYcult to<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se collusive arrangements testify more strongly to<strong>the</strong> humanity, or to <strong>the</strong> venality, of <strong>the</strong> oYcials concerned. If all o<strong>the</strong>rresources failed, a stalwart <strong>Christian</strong> might take to Xight, as manyhad done in <strong>the</strong> time of Decius, hoping to return when <strong>the</strong> persecutionhad died down. We know from Athanasius100 that many <strong>Christian</strong>swere given shelter by compassionate pagans, who hid <strong>the</strong>m (at<strong>the</strong> risk of <strong>the</strong>ir own lives) while <strong>the</strong> persecution was at its height.5. The Evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Eusebius’s Martyrs of PalestineOf all <strong>the</strong> provinces of <strong>the</strong> empire, it is only Palestine—Syria Palaestina,to give it its proper title—for which we have a full list of all <strong>the</strong>martyrdoms of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution. It has sometimes been <strong>de</strong>niedthat Eusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine gives a complete list of all <strong>the</strong>Palestinian martyrdoms of <strong>the</strong> Great persecution. The expressionsEusebius uses, however, are suYciently clear. After <strong>de</strong>scribing <strong>the</strong>martyrdoms of 310 at Caesarea, <strong>the</strong> last <strong>the</strong>re, he says,101 ŒÆd ôa ìbíŒÆôa ˚ÆØóÜæåØÆí Köš ‹ºïØò ôïEò ôïF äØøªìïF ÷æüíïØò KðØôåºåóŁÝíôÆìÆæôýæØÆ ôïØÆFôÆ [‘Such were <strong>the</strong> martyrdoms accomplished at Caesareaduring <strong>the</strong> entire period of <strong>the</strong> persecution’]. And at <strong>the</strong> very endof his narrative, after mentioning <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r mass execution at Phaeno,he adds,102 ôÆFôÆ ìbí ïsí ôa ŒÆôa —ƺÆØóôßíçí Kí ‹ºïØò ŠôåóØí OŒôgóıìðåæÆíŁÝíôÆ ìÆæôýæØÆ [‘These, <strong>the</strong>n, were <strong>the</strong> martyrdomsaccomplished in Palestine in eight entire years’]. Eusebius evi<strong>de</strong>ntlybelieved he had mentioned all <strong>the</strong> Palestinian martyrdoms, and <strong>the</strong>reis no reason to think his list is incomplete.102 a Eusebius was a priest of<strong>the</strong> church of Caesarea, <strong>the</strong> capital of <strong>the</strong> province, and he probablyremained in Palestine, if not at Caesarea itself, during most of <strong>the</strong>years in question. Few Palestinian martyrdoms (except of course99 Conc. Ancyran. I, Can. 1 (see n. 45 above).100 Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 64.101 MP 11.31.102 13.11 S (cf. L).102 a [Note T. D. Barnes’s more sceptical appreciation of this text which, he argues,only contains those martyrs known to Eusebius; Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge,Mass., 1981), 154–5.]
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 65those at Phaeno) could have taken place elsewhere than at Caesarea,for sentence of <strong>de</strong>ath could be pronounced only by <strong>the</strong> provincialgovernor, who would spend most of his time in his capital city, an<strong>de</strong>xecution was public and normally followed immediately after sentence.If <strong>the</strong> governor con<strong>de</strong>mned a <strong>Christian</strong> when holding hisperiodic assize in some city o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> provincial capital, <strong>the</strong>proceedings would receive full publicity, and it would have beeneasy for Eusebius to obtain particulars. There are no grounds forsupposing that any Palestinian martyrdoms failed to come to Eusebius’snotice.Eusebius’s Palestinian103 martyrs can proWtably be divi<strong>de</strong>d, forpurposes of analysis, into three classes: Wrst, volunteers, who activelybrought arrest and <strong>de</strong>ath upon <strong>the</strong>mselves; secondly, those who,without going so far as to <strong>de</strong>mand martyrdom, never<strong>the</strong>less attractedattention to <strong>the</strong>mselves;104 and thirdly, those whose arrest was notcertainly due to <strong>the</strong>ir own act and who may have been sought out by<strong>the</strong> authorities. The results of classiWcation on <strong>the</strong>se lines are astonishing.Out of a total of ninety-one martyrs, we must set asi<strong>de</strong> fortyfourwho were executed at Phaeno in <strong>the</strong> last years of <strong>the</strong> persecution:we have no <strong>de</strong>tails of <strong>the</strong> circumstances in which <strong>the</strong>y were arrested,and at least two-thirds of <strong>the</strong>m must have been Egyptians.105 Of <strong>the</strong>remaining forty-seven, at least thirteen were volunteers, and at leasteighteen drew attention to <strong>the</strong>mselves, leaving at most sixteen whomay have been sought out. Small as this last group is, it contains atleast three who acted most contumaciously at <strong>the</strong>ir trial.106 For103 In <strong>the</strong> special sense in which Eus. uses <strong>the</strong> term, to inclu<strong>de</strong> Palestinians,wherever <strong>the</strong>y suVered, and <strong>Christian</strong>s from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces martyred in Palestine.104 Cf. Peter Alex. Epist. Can. 11.105 Including 5 out of <strong>the</strong> 6 whose names we know. In MP 13.1 L, Eus. gives over100 Egyptians out of a total of about 150 <strong>Christian</strong>s remaining at Phaeno. Cf. 13.6 S.He records no great number of Palestinian confessors as being con<strong>de</strong>mned to <strong>the</strong>mines: cf. MP 7.2, 3; 8.3, 4; 13.1 L; 13.10 L. InMP 8.1, 13 he mentions 227 Egyptian<strong>Christian</strong>s sent to Palestine in two groups: <strong>the</strong> Wrst batch (of 97: MP 8.1 L, against S)were all sent to Phaeno; of <strong>the</strong> second (numbering 130: MP 8.13), some were taken toCilicia.106 Procopius, Zacchaeus, and <strong>the</strong> woman of Gaza (Ennatha: Eus. MP 8.8 L). Theo<strong>the</strong>r members of this third group are Timothy, Thecla (whose execution is notactually recor<strong>de</strong>d—perhaps she died in prison), Ulpian, Agapius I (MP 3.1; 6.3–7),Domninus, Auxentius, <strong>the</strong> two Pauls, Ennathas, Peter, Asclepius, Pamphilus andValens. The 13 outright volunteers are Alpheus, Romanus, <strong>the</strong> 6 young men of Eus.MP 3.3–4, Apphianus, Ae<strong>de</strong>sius, Antoninus, Zebinas and Germanus.
66 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>the</strong> fourteen who suVered before <strong>the</strong> abdication of Diocletian,<strong>the</strong> corresponding Wgures (even more striking) are eight, two andfour.It is necessary to be very circumspect in drawing conclusions from<strong>the</strong>se Wgures. They emphatically do not prove that <strong>the</strong> persecution inPalestine was a trivial aVair or that it did not cause <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>community great anxiety and misery. Some con<strong>de</strong>mned <strong>Christian</strong>s(whose numbers, by <strong>the</strong> way, are to be reckoned in dozens or scoresra<strong>the</strong>r than hundreds)107 were sent to <strong>the</strong> mines at Phaeno, and someintrepid confessors, like <strong>the</strong> Donatus to whom Lactantius addressedhis De Mortibus Persecutorum,108 are known to have spent monthsand even years in prison, some of <strong>the</strong>m sustaining repeated interrogationsun<strong>de</strong>r torture. Some of those who apostatized in fear orun<strong>de</strong>r pressure may have suVered great agony of mind. Mere statisticsof martyrdoms are not at all a reliable in<strong>de</strong>x of <strong>the</strong> suVerings of<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as a whole. Never<strong>the</strong>less, one certain conclusion doesimpose itself. Of <strong>the</strong> martyrs of Palestine about whom we have any<strong>de</strong>tailed information, very few had been sought out: approximatelytwice as many (if not more) were volunteers or had o<strong>the</strong>rwiseattracted <strong>the</strong> attention of <strong>the</strong> authorities. No such <strong>de</strong>Wnite conclusioncan be reached in respect of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces of <strong>the</strong> empire.However, since Eusebius represents <strong>the</strong> two men who governedPalestine during almost all <strong>the</strong> years of persecution—Urban(304–308/9) and Firmilian (308/9–310)—as particularly enthusiasticand cruel persecutors, and <strong>the</strong> same historian <strong>de</strong>picts Maximin as <strong>the</strong>most zealous in this regard of all <strong>the</strong> emperors, it seems very possiblethat <strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>Christian</strong>s were sought out was at least nogreater in most of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r provinces. The number of martyrs maywell have been exceptionally great in Egypt—but it is precisely inEgypt that we should have expected to Wnd <strong>the</strong> highest proportion ofvolunteers among <strong>the</strong> martyrs; and in<strong>de</strong>ed it is certain that voluntarymartyrdom was extensively practised by <strong>the</strong> Egyptians, of <strong>the</strong>Thebaid at any rate, for when Eusebius <strong>de</strong>scribes his experiences<strong>the</strong>re, he makes it clear that <strong>the</strong> ‘many’ <strong>Christian</strong>s he himself sawcon<strong>de</strong>mned to <strong>de</strong>ath ‘in a single day’ were in fact volunteers, who107 See n. 105 above.108 16.3–11; 35.2.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 67‘leapt up before <strong>the</strong> judgment seat from this si<strong>de</strong> and that(KðåðÞäøí ¼ººïŁåí ¼ººïØ), and confessed <strong>the</strong>mselves to be <strong>Christian</strong>s’,receiving sentence with hymns of thanksgiving.109According to a statement of Lactantius,110 some governors boastedof having shed no <strong>Christian</strong> blood. O<strong>the</strong>rs, like Anullinus, whowinked at Mensurius’s evasion of E 1,111 performed <strong>the</strong>ir dutieswithout unnecessary enthusiasm. The whole climate of opinion hadchanged since <strong>the</strong> mid-third century, when <strong>the</strong> persecution of Deciushad been prece<strong>de</strong>d by serious anti-<strong>Christian</strong> rioting at Alexandria.112Spontaneous popular hostility to <strong>Christian</strong>ity seems to have virtuallyceased by <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> third century. It is <strong>the</strong>refore not surprisingthat <strong>the</strong> edicts enjoining general sacriWce, <strong>de</strong>spite pressure fromabove, were enforced in a very lax manner. In <strong>the</strong> hagiographers, asDelehaye113 put it, ‘c’est toujours et partout la chasse aux chrétiens <strong>de</strong>tout rang’ [‘it is, absolutely invariably, <strong>the</strong> hunt for <strong>Christian</strong>s of allranks’]. That picture could hardly be more misleading.We may reasonably conclu<strong>de</strong> that except on iso<strong>late</strong>d occasions, as forexample during <strong>the</strong> brief but intense local persecution at Nicomediasoon after <strong>the</strong> issue of E 1,114 and perhaps a massacre of <strong>the</strong> wholepopulation—or at any rate <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>Christian</strong> congregation—of aPhrygian town,115 <strong>the</strong> ordinary <strong>Christian</strong> who did not insist onopenly parading his confession of faith (<strong>the</strong> stans) was most unlikelyto become a victim of <strong>the</strong> persecution at all, especially in <strong>the</strong> years109 HE viii 9.5. On Id. 3 we should note <strong>the</strong> sceptical observations of Gibbon (ed.Bury, ii 137, n. 183 [Womersley edn. i. 578–9 n. 182]). And here also <strong>the</strong> martyrs maywell have been mainly volunteers. For Wve Egyptian volunteers in <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution,see Eus. HE vi 41.22–23. For <strong>the</strong> militant characteristics of lower classEgyptians in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r 4th century, see Amm. Marc. xxii 16.23.110 Div. Inst. v 11.13. Lact. characteristically contrives to make his statementredound to <strong>the</strong> discredit of <strong>the</strong> governors concerned.111 See n. 54 above.112 Dionys. Alex., ap. Eus. HE vi 41.1–9; cf. Firmilian, ap. Cypr. Epist. lxxv 10.1.Contrast Eus. MP 9.3.113 Delehaye, Les Passions <strong>de</strong>s Martyrs 175; cf. <strong>the</strong> quotation on p. 177 from <strong>the</strong>Passion of Trophimus and o<strong>the</strong>rs.114 Eus. HE viii 6.1–7; Lact. MP 15.1–3.115 Contrast Lact. Div. Inst. v 11.10 with Eus. HE viii 11.1 (and RuWnus’s version).This may be exaggerated hearsay: not even <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> town is given. Ramsay’ssuggestion (Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1897), i ii, 505–9) that <strong>the</strong> townwas Eumeneia is mere conjecture.
68 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdombefore <strong>the</strong> municipal authorities of <strong>the</strong> East were ma<strong>de</strong> responsiblefor <strong>the</strong> active enforcement of E 4. And in <strong>the</strong> West, where <strong>the</strong>persecution ceased before it had properly <strong>de</strong>veloped, we need notbe surprised to Wnd very few martyrdoms in<strong>de</strong>ed, except of volunteersor of those who <strong>de</strong>Wed E 1. The so-called Great persecution hasbeen exaggerated in <strong>Christian</strong> tradition to an extent which evenGibbon did not fully appreciate. O<strong>the</strong>r persecutions of <strong>Christian</strong>itywere sporadic and short-lived, and none of <strong>the</strong>m, except those ofDecius and perhaps Valerian, were general, involving <strong>the</strong> whole oreven <strong>the</strong> greater part of <strong>the</strong> empire. No estimate of <strong>the</strong> total numberof martyrs can proWtably be attempted, but <strong>the</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rationsbrought forward here certainly reinforce <strong>the</strong> arguments of thosewho have maintained that in <strong>the</strong> Great persecution, at any rate, <strong>the</strong>number was not large.But when all this is said, we must beware of un<strong>de</strong>restimating <strong>the</strong>great suVering caused to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> atmosphere of hostility,liable to turn at any moment into active persecution, in which <strong>the</strong>Church grew up and ultimately triumphed. The threat of persecution,always hanging over <strong>the</strong>ir heads, was a factor of <strong>the</strong> utmostimportance in <strong>the</strong> environment of <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong>s. And for someof <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>plorable features which we Wnd in <strong>the</strong> mentality of so manyof <strong>the</strong> prominent churchmen and ecclesiastical writers of <strong>the</strong> fourthand following centuries—above all <strong>the</strong> readiness to persecute and <strong>the</strong>hysterical <strong>de</strong>nunciation of <strong>the</strong>ological opponents—<strong>the</strong> atmosphereof constant menace in which <strong>Christian</strong>ity had matured was in some<strong>de</strong>gree responsible.APPENDICESI: The Passions. The bibliography by Baynes in Camb. Anc. Hist. xii 790–3gives full references to <strong>the</strong> best texts of most of <strong>the</strong> Passions cited here, with<strong>the</strong> principal recent discussions. The remaining Passions, except that ofFlorian (for which see n. 80 above), will be found in R. Knopf, AusgewählteMärtyrerakten3 (ed. G. Krüger, 1929 [see <strong>the</strong> more recent edition withadditions and amendments by G. Ruhback (Tübingen, 1965)] ), or <strong>the</strong>
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 69various editions (1690–1859) of Th. Ruinart, Acta Martyrum. The doubtfulPassio Afrae is edited by B. Krusch in Mon. Germ. Hist., Scr. rer. Merov. iii61–4 (cf. 41–54), and a single MS by G. Vielhaber in Anal. Bolland. xxvi(1907), 59–61 (cf. 58, 61–5). [See J.-L. Maier, Le Dossier du Donatisme,i:Desorigines à la mort <strong>de</strong> Constance II (303–361) (Texte und Untersuchungen134; Berlin, 1987) for critical texts and French translations of <strong>the</strong> Acta of <strong>the</strong>martyrs of Abitina, <strong>the</strong> Passio Felicis and <strong>the</strong> Passio Crispinae; for Englishtranslations see M. A. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in ConXictin Roman North Africa (TTH 24; Liverpool, 1996). See Musurillo, Acts of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), for texts and English translations of <strong>the</strong>Acta of <strong>the</strong> martyrs of Scillitana, <strong>the</strong> Passio Apollonii, <strong>the</strong> Passio Agapi et al.,and <strong>the</strong> Passio Pionii. See also <strong>the</strong> edition of <strong>the</strong> Passio Pionii by LouisRobert, Le Martyre <strong>de</strong> Pionios, prêtre <strong>de</strong> Smyrne (Washington, 1994).]II: The divisions of <strong>the</strong> Empire (see n. 16 above). It used to be generallyassumed that <strong>the</strong>re was a more or less complete territorial division of <strong>the</strong>empire among <strong>the</strong> four emperors of <strong>the</strong> Wrst tetrarchy, 293–305 (cf. Lact. MP7.2: ‘in quattuor partes orbe diviso’), and that <strong>the</strong> government of anyparticular area at any given time was primarily in <strong>the</strong> hands of <strong>the</strong> Augustusor Caesar who was <strong>the</strong>n supposedly in charge of that area. Quite recentlySeston (op. cit. in n. 12 above, 231–47) has shown that this conceptioncannot be right: <strong>the</strong> Roman world still remained in principle an ‘indivisumpatrimonium’ [‘an undivi<strong>de</strong>d inheritance’], <strong>the</strong> term used by a panegyrist(Paneg. Lat. xi (iii) 6.3) a few years earlier during <strong>the</strong> ‘dyarchy’ of Diocletianand Maximian. It is perhaps worth adding that ‘quadripartito imperio’, in F.Pichlmayr’s standard text of Aurelius Victor (Caes. xxxix 30), is animplausible interpretation of <strong>the</strong> contractions in <strong>the</strong> MSS (q u i and qī):A. Schott’s ‘quasi partito imperio’ is distinctly more acceptable [Schott’sversion is followed in <strong>the</strong> edition of P. Dufraigne (Paris, 1975), but <strong>the</strong> recentedition of K. Gross-Albenhausen and M. Fuhrmann (Düsseldorf, 1997)prints ‘quadripartito imperio’]. Seston, however, goes too far when he says(op. cit. 243) that ‘la division <strong>de</strong> l’empire en quatre parts ne concerna que lesrevenus <strong>de</strong> la capitation et <strong>de</strong> l’annone aVectés àchaque empéreur pour sestroupes; elle ne toucha pas l’administration proprement dite qui resta une.’[‘The division of <strong>the</strong> empire into four parts only concerned <strong>the</strong> revenuesfrom tax and grain allocated to each emperor for his troops; it did not aVect<strong>the</strong> administration technically speaking, which remained one.’] Even if thisis a substantially correct statement of <strong>the</strong> pure <strong>the</strong>ory of Diocletian’s tetrarchy,it gives a misleading impression of its practice. It is evi<strong>de</strong>nt from <strong>the</strong>diatribe against Maximian in <strong>the</strong> De Mortibus Persecutorum (8.3–4), rhetoricaland exaggerated as it is, that Lactantius conceived M. as pursuing, in aparticular area, a <strong>de</strong>Wnite policy of his own choice, which, even if its motives
70 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomwere Wnancial, went far beyond <strong>the</strong> purely Wnancial sphere. This must becorrect: M. was unable to make new laws in <strong>the</strong> West without obtaining <strong>the</strong>approval of D.; but subject always to <strong>the</strong> overriding control of <strong>the</strong> ‘seniorAugustus’, whose personal auctoritas was supreme,116 he must have had aconsi<strong>de</strong>rable <strong>de</strong>gree of freedom in <strong>the</strong> way he enforced <strong>the</strong> existing laws, inevery sphere, in <strong>the</strong> West. This conclusion is streng<strong>the</strong>ned by <strong>the</strong> fact thatConstantius, who was only M.’s Caesar, evi<strong>de</strong>ntly had in practice a more orless free hand in <strong>the</strong> administration of Gaul and Britain, where he spent allhis time. M., as far as we know, never entered C.’s area after 293, except toguard <strong>the</strong> Rhine frontier while C. was reconquering Britain, but remained inItaly, Africa and Spain, which C. never visited again. We know117 that C. didnot even enforce E 1 properly, contenting himself with <strong>the</strong> perfunctory<strong>de</strong>molition of churches. This nicely illustrates <strong>the</strong> position of C. (andindirectly, that of M.) in <strong>the</strong>ory and in practice: <strong>the</strong> edict had to bepromulgated, and in <strong>the</strong>ory it had to be enforced, but in practice C. couldand did prevent its having much eVect.Unfortunately, we seem to have no reliable evi<strong>de</strong>nce about <strong>the</strong> position ofGalerius. It is usually believed that he was allotted a distinct territorial sphereof authority, in <strong>the</strong> Balkans; but this is by no means certain, or evenprobable. D. and his Caesar did not, like <strong>the</strong>ir colleagues in <strong>the</strong> West,spend all <strong>the</strong>ir time in separate areas. G., for instance, warred against <strong>the</strong>Persians in 297/8 from Syria, where D. was also present, and he passed <strong>the</strong>whole winter of 302/3 and part of <strong>the</strong> spring of 305 with D. at Nicomedia. D.was in <strong>the</strong> Danube provinces and Thrace throughout 293 and all but <strong>the</strong> lastfew weeks of 294, spending much of his time at Sirmium in Pannonia; in <strong>the</strong>summer of 303 he was on <strong>the</strong> lower Danube again, and after a visit to Italyfor his vicennalia towards <strong>the</strong> end of 303 he spent <strong>the</strong> spring and summer of304 in <strong>the</strong> Balkans.118 There may well have been o<strong>the</strong>r such journeys. Again,if G. had really been <strong>the</strong> ruler of <strong>the</strong> Balkan area, we might have expected to116 See esp. Lact. MP 15.6; Julian Orat. i 7ab. Cf. also Eus. HE viii 13.11; MP 3.5;Vita Const. i 14; ii 51. [See Corcoran, Empire, 266–92.]117 The best evi<strong>de</strong>nce is <strong>the</strong> Donatist petition in Optat. i 22. Against <strong>the</strong> disingenuousEus. HE viii 13.12–13 and viii Append. 4, and <strong>the</strong> absurd Vita Const. i 16,we must obviously accept Lact. MP 15.7.118 The <strong>de</strong>tails can be reconstructed from Lact. MP 10.6; 11.3; 14; 17–19 and <strong>the</strong>subscriptiones of <strong>the</strong> constitutions issued during <strong>the</strong> years 293–4 and 303: see <strong>the</strong> listof constitutions in chronological or<strong>de</strong>r in P. Krüger’s edn. of <strong>the</strong> Cod. Just., appendixI, and T. Mommsen, ‘Über die Zeitfolge <strong>de</strong>r Verordnungen Diocletians und seinerMitregenten’, in Gesammelte Schriften, ii.ii (Berlin, 1905), 195–291, at 273–88, 290.[On <strong>the</strong> movement of <strong>the</strong> emperors in <strong>the</strong> tetrarchic period, see now Barnes, NewEmpire, 47–87, with amendments in his ‘Emperors, Panegyrics, Prefects, Provincesand Palaces (284–317)’, JRA 9 (1996), 532–52, at 543–4.] Lact. MP 18.6 is veryexaggerated.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 71Wnd him given a pre-eminent position in <strong>the</strong> reliefs on his triumphal arch atThessalonica (for which see K. F. Kinch, L’Arc <strong>de</strong> Triomphe <strong>de</strong> Salonique(Paris, 1890), esp. pl. v–vi and pp. 24–6, 34–7 [see also J.-M. Spieser,Thessalonique et ses monuments du IVe au VIe siècle: Contribution à l’étu<strong>de</strong>d’une ville paléochrétienne (BEFAR 254; A<strong>the</strong>ns, 1984), 99–104; C. C.Vermeule, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Cambridge,Mass., 1968), 336–50]; but it seems that in fact he is <strong>the</strong>re subordinated toD., except when he is represented as <strong>the</strong> victorious general of <strong>the</strong> Persian war(see Seston, op. cit. 180–3, 250–2). It is signiWcant that an in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ntpolicy in a particular area in regard to <strong>the</strong> persecution seems never to beattributed to G. by any writer, even Lact. and Eus., who consi<strong>de</strong>red G. as <strong>the</strong>instigator of <strong>the</strong> whole aVair; and Lact. represents G. as gaining his endsolely by working upon and through D.Only two fourth century writers profess to state G.’s share in a division of<strong>the</strong> empire. Aurelius Victor (Caes. xxxix 30), who gives him ‘Illyrici oraadusque Ponti fretum’ [‘<strong>the</strong> coast of Illyricum right across to <strong>the</strong> strait ofPontus’], was probably inXuenced in his allocation of all four areas, asSeston119 has pointed out, by his knowledge of <strong>the</strong> regional praetorianprefectures of <strong>the</strong> time at which he himself was writing. Praxagoras ofA<strong>the</strong>ns (FGrH 219 F 1.1), who allows G. Greece, Macedon, ŒÜôø š `óßÆand Thrace, gives an incomplete account of <strong>the</strong> division, actually ignoringSyria, Africa, Spain, Gaul and <strong>the</strong> greater part of <strong>the</strong> Balkans. Eutropius, on<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, although he <strong>de</strong>scribes (x 1) <strong>the</strong> partition of <strong>the</strong> Romanworld between Constantius and Galerius in 305, says nothing about aterritorial division among <strong>the</strong> members of Diocletian’s tetrarchy. And Eusebius(HE viii 13.11; MP 13.13) <strong>de</strong>scribes as quite unprece<strong>de</strong>nted <strong>the</strong> pursuitof two entirely diVerent policies in regard to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> East and in<strong>the</strong> West, from <strong>the</strong> abdication of D. and M., or ra<strong>the</strong>r, from shortly beforethat event (ïhðø in HE viii 13.11), when D. was ailing.All this suggests that contemporaries recognized in <strong>the</strong> second tetrarchy adivision of authority which had not existed in <strong>the</strong> Wrst. The facts certainlysupport this view. The unity of <strong>the</strong> Wrst tetrarchy had been preserved mainlyby <strong>the</strong> auctoritas of D.; <strong>the</strong> second tetrarchy, having no such cohesiveprinciple, soon resolved itself into distinct territorial principalities.Although in <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>the</strong> pretence of unity was maintained, yet immediatelyupon <strong>the</strong> abdication of D. and M. <strong>the</strong>re seems to have been a fairly clear119 Op. cit. (in n. 12 above), 244–5, citing <strong>the</strong> proof by J. R. Palanque, Essai sur laPréfecture du Prétoire du Bas-Empire (Paris, 1933), 34, of <strong>the</strong> existence of a separatePrefecture of Illyricum from 357 to c. 361. [See more recently T. D. Barnes, ‘Praetorianprefects, 337–361’, ZPE 92 (1992), 249–60, esp. 258–9, who lists evi<strong>de</strong>nce for<strong>the</strong> prefecture of Illyricum from 343–344 to 361.]
72 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomterritorial division between Constantius and his Caesar Severus in <strong>the</strong> West(who took between <strong>the</strong>m roughly <strong>the</strong> Latin-speaking half of <strong>the</strong> empire,including Pannonia), and Galerius and his Caesar Maximin in <strong>the</strong> East.There was even a well-marked division between <strong>the</strong> Augustus and <strong>the</strong> Caesarin each area, C. leaving Italy and Africa to Severus, and G. similarly leavingto M. <strong>the</strong> vast diocese of Oriens, stretching from <strong>the</strong> Taurus to <strong>the</strong> GreatSyrtis.III: The issue of E 4 (see n. 16 above). The number of martyrdoms in thisperiod in <strong>the</strong> whole empire to which dates can be assigned with anyconW<strong>de</strong>nce is very small in<strong>de</strong>ed. From Asia Minor, where <strong>Christian</strong>ity wasas strong as anywhere, <strong>the</strong>re are no such martyrdoms at all. It does seemquite probable, however, that enforcement of E 4 Wrst began in <strong>the</strong> Balkanarea (see n. 16 above). On this probability, and <strong>the</strong> assumption (which wehave seen to be not well foun<strong>de</strong>d) that <strong>the</strong> administration of <strong>the</strong> Balkans hadbeen entrusted to Galerius to <strong>the</strong> same extent as that of Italy, Spain andAfrica to Maximian and that of Gaul and Britain to Constantius, a bold<strong>the</strong>ory has been <strong>de</strong>veloped about <strong>the</strong> origin of E 4 (Baynes, op. cit. in n. 16above, 193, and in Camb. Anc. Hist. xii 667–8). That edict is conceived ashaving been issued by G. on his own responsibility, in February 304, while D.was incapacitated, and put into operation in <strong>the</strong> Balkans, <strong>the</strong>n forced on M.with <strong>the</strong> threat of civil war, and Wnally adopted with reluctance by D. in <strong>the</strong>East in 305.This <strong>the</strong>ory has little to commend it. The hazards of communication inthose days might result in long <strong>de</strong>lays before an edict was promulgate<strong>de</strong>verywhere. A glance at <strong>the</strong> subscriptiones of some of <strong>the</strong> constitutions in <strong>the</strong>Co<strong>de</strong>s will reveal unaccountable variations in this respect. To quote only onewell attested early example, Wve and a half months elapsed before three lawsissued at Trier early in November, 313 (CTh ix 40.1; xi 30.2; 36.1), werereceived at Hadrumetum by <strong>the</strong> governor of Byzacena. Thus <strong>the</strong> earlierappearance of E 4 in <strong>the</strong> Balkans could be explained quite simply by <strong>the</strong>fact that <strong>the</strong> edict reached <strong>the</strong>se provinces earlier than many o<strong>the</strong>r areas,because it was issued <strong>the</strong>re, or nearby. D. was at Ravenna on January 1st, 304;his next move—after how long an interval, we do not know—was into <strong>the</strong>Balkan district (Lact. MP 17.3–4). G. may well have been in <strong>the</strong> Balkans tooat this time; but if in<strong>de</strong>ed E 4 was more wi<strong>de</strong>ly enforced, in <strong>the</strong> spring of 304,in this area than elsewhere—and <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce (see n. 16 above) provi<strong>de</strong>s novery sure basis for <strong>the</strong> assumption—<strong>the</strong> most probable explanation wouldbe <strong>the</strong> presence of D. himself. There is no reason to conceive D. as veryseriously ill in <strong>the</strong> early part of 304: he would hardly have spent <strong>the</strong> summertravelling along <strong>the</strong> Danube shore (Lact. MP 17.3–4: ‘lectica plurimumvehebatur’ [‘he was conveyed for most of it on a litter’]; cf. ‘morbum
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 73levem’ [‘a minor illness’] if he had been so ill as to be incapable of exercisingcontrol of aVairs; and in <strong>the</strong> autumn of 304 he was able to appear in publicand <strong>de</strong>dicate his new circus at Nicomedia (Lact. MP 17.4; and note <strong>the</strong> dateof CJ iii 28.26). Lact. (MP 17.8), mentioning D.’s next public appearance, on1st March 305, when he was convalescent and ‘scarcely recognizable’, adds,‘quippe qui anno fere toto aegritudine tabuisset’ [‘after <strong>the</strong> wasting eVect ofnearly a whole year’s illness’], where fere, taken with toto, must mean ‘nearly’ra<strong>the</strong>r than ‘about’ a year. This too accords badly with <strong>the</strong> picture of a D.gravely ill in <strong>the</strong> very Wrst weeks of 304.The testimony of <strong>the</strong> sources, such as <strong>the</strong>y are, is certainly in favour of <strong>the</strong>view that G. was a particularly bitter enemy of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> chiefinstigator of <strong>the</strong> persecution: both Lact. (MP 10.6; 11), who was at Nicomediain 303, and Eusebius (HE viii 16.2 and appendix 1, 4; Vita Const. i56–8) evi<strong>de</strong>ntly believed this. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> emperor Constantine(ap. Eus. VC ii 51), claiming Wrst-hand knowledge, seems to have attributed<strong>the</strong> persecution (<strong>the</strong> ‘sanguinary edicts’) mainly to <strong>the</strong> personal superstitionof D.; he ignores G. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> author of <strong>the</strong> Oratio ad Sanctos (whe<strong>the</strong>rConstantine or some contemporary),120 apostrophizing recent persecutorsof <strong>the</strong> Church, from Decius onwards, addresses himself to D. alone among<strong>the</strong> tetrarchs: this is all <strong>the</strong> more signiWcant, in that <strong>the</strong> point of <strong>the</strong> wholepassage (ch. 24–5) is that persecutors come to a bad end, and G.’s end wasnotoriously gruesome, whereas D.’s was not. One may think that G.’s painful<strong>de</strong>ath would in any event have ten<strong>de</strong>d to lead to his being represented in<strong>Christian</strong> propaganda as <strong>the</strong> inspirer of <strong>the</strong> persecution. And it is perhapsworth noticing that Eutropius (Brev. ix 26) credits D. with being clever atmaking o<strong>the</strong>rs bear <strong>the</strong> odium for his own severities.We may conclu<strong>de</strong>, <strong>the</strong>n, that D. un<strong>de</strong>rtook <strong>the</strong> persecution partly at leastfor superstitious reasons of his own, although pressure exerted upon him byG. may well have been an important factor, perhaps even <strong>de</strong>cisive. Toattribute E 4 entirely to <strong>the</strong> initiative of G. is to go far beyond <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce.Lact., for all his anxiety to represent <strong>the</strong> persecution as <strong>the</strong> constant preoccupationof G., never even hints that his object in threatening M. with warwas to make him join in <strong>the</strong> persecution: he speaks of G. as intent at this120 See N. H. Baynes, Constantine <strong>the</strong> Great and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church, 2nd edn., ed.H. Chadwick (London, 1930), 50–6. [The Oratio ad Sanctos is now generally acceptedas <strong>the</strong> work of Constantine; for an English trans. see M. J. Edwards, Constantineand Christendom (TTH 39; Liverpool, 2003), pp. xvii–xxii. Disagreements remainconcerning its date and purpose. See <strong>the</strong> contrasting interpretations of M. J. Edwards,‘The Constantinian Circle and <strong>the</strong> Oration to <strong>the</strong> Saints’, in M. J. Edwards, M. D.Goodman, and S. R. F. Price (eds.), Apologetics in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (Oxford, 1999),251–76; and T. D. Barnes, ‘Constantine’s Speech to <strong>the</strong> Assembly of <strong>the</strong> Saints: Placeand Date of Delivery’, JTS 52 (2001), 26–36.]
74 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomtime solely on driving both Augusti to resign, so that he himself could attainsupreme power (MP 18.1–7).120 aWe may well ask how <strong>the</strong> remarkably intelligent Diocletian could haveallowed himself to be persua<strong>de</strong>d to un<strong>de</strong>rtake a more extreme policy whichevents <strong>late</strong>r showed to be seriously mistaken. The answer is perhaps that E I(especially in <strong>the</strong> East, where <strong>the</strong> Church did not regard traditio as a sin) mayeasily have appeared to <strong>the</strong> government to have been highly successful, andthat little resistance may have been anticipated to E 4.IV: Executions un<strong>de</strong>r E I (see n. 21 above). (a) Felix, bishop of Thibiuca,according to his Passion, was executed at Carthage for refusing to committraditio, on 15th July 303. (b) Saturninus and his companions of Abitina weretried at Carthage on 12th February 304 (Aug. Brev. Coll. iii 17.32) for holdinga religious service, before E 4 could have been promulgated in Africa: see <strong>the</strong>irPassion. These <strong>Christian</strong>s were done to <strong>de</strong>ath in one way or ano<strong>the</strong>r, bystarvation if not by <strong>the</strong> sword. (c) Secundus, bishop of Tigisis in Numidiaduring <strong>the</strong> persecution, wrote in 304 or 305 of Numidian <strong>Christian</strong>s martyredfor refusing to hand over <strong>the</strong> Scriptures (Aug. Brev. Coll. iii 13.25;15.27). (d) At <strong>the</strong> meeting of Numidian bishops at Carthage on 4th or 5thMarch 305 (on <strong>the</strong> date, see O. Seeck, ‘Quellen und Urkun<strong>de</strong>n über dieAnfänge <strong>de</strong>s Donatismus’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 10 (1889),505–68 at 526–7), <strong>the</strong> same Secundus said of <strong>the</strong> martyrs, ‘quia non tradi<strong>de</strong>runt,i<strong>de</strong>o et coronati sunt’ (Aug. C. Cresc. iii 27.30). (e) CIL viii 6700 (19353),referring to <strong>the</strong> martyrs of Milevis, must also re<strong>late</strong> to executions previous toE 4 and <strong>the</strong>refore un<strong>de</strong>r E 1: see p. 52 above. [(f) See <strong>the</strong> Acta Gallonii, recentlyedited by P. Chiesa, ‘Un testa agioagrafica africane ad Aquileia: Gli actaGallonia e <strong>de</strong>i martiri Timida Regia’, AB 114 (1996), 241–68.]120 bV: The divisions of Numidia (see n. 65 above). Inscriptions attest <strong>the</strong>governorship of Florus in <strong>the</strong> North, centre, and extreme South-West ofNumidia: CIL viii 6700, 19353 (Milevis); 4324 (Casae); 2345–7 ¼ ILS 631–3(Thamugadi); Ann. ép., 1942–3, 81 (<strong>the</strong> South-West). Only <strong>the</strong> Thamugadiinscriptions refer to Florus as governor of ‘N.M’ (G. Goyau, ‘La NumidiaMilitiana <strong>de</strong> la liste <strong>de</strong> Vérone’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire <strong>de</strong> l’ÉcoleFrançaise <strong>de</strong> Rome, 13 (1893), 251–79, with p<strong>late</strong> opp. p. 255), i.e., presumably,<strong>the</strong> ‘Numidia Militiana’ of <strong>the</strong> Verona List. Seston (op. cit. in n. 12above, 326–30) believes that F. Wrst governed Numidia as a whole, and <strong>the</strong>nan enlarged Numidia Militiana which now inclu<strong>de</strong>d Tripolitania; but if so,120 a [See fur<strong>the</strong>r, P. S. Davies, ‘The Origin and Purpose of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong> of A.D.303’, JTS 40 (1989), 66–94, who argues that Galerius was much less central to <strong>the</strong>persecution than Lactantius reports.]120 b [See also Chiesa’s account of <strong>the</strong> editorial problems posed by this text, and <strong>the</strong>methods used in making it: ‘Testi agiograWci stratiWcati: problemi editoriali negli ActaGallonii e nella Passio Peregrini Bolitani’, Sanctorum, 1 (2004), 13–23.]
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 75why is Quintianus, in <strong>the</strong> inscription mentioned in n. 66 above, said to begoverning ‘p(rovinciam) N(umidiam)’, and not ‘N(umidiam) C(irtensem)’?A ‘N(umidia) C(irtensis)’ is attested in 306: ILS 651 ¼ CIL viii 5526(18860); 7965. Some problems remain, but Macoma<strong>de</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> site of Quintianus’sinscription, must have been inclu<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn ra<strong>the</strong>r than<strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn subdivision of Numidia, and <strong>the</strong>re can be no doubt at all thatFlorus had left Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Numidia before <strong>the</strong> vicennalia.VI: The African Passions (see n. 69 above). On <strong>the</strong> African Passions seeP. Monceaux, Hist. litt. <strong>de</strong> l’Afrique chrét. iii (1905) 122–61. Nothing need besaid here of Restituta (Id. 133–4), Innocentius (Id. 134–5), <strong>the</strong> Twelve Bro<strong>the</strong>rsof Hadrumetum (Id. 135–6), Arcadius (Id. 154–6), or Marciana (Id.156–8): <strong>the</strong>ir Passions are of no value for present purposes. The ‘martyr’Salsa (Id. 163–8) has been shown to be imaginary by H. Grégoire, ‘SainteSalsa, roman épigraphique’, Byzantion, 12 (1937), 213–24. Aug. Serm.cccxxvi 2 purports to quote <strong>the</strong> dialogue between a governor and certainmartyrs (perhaps <strong>the</strong> ‘Twenty Martyrs’ of Numidia, on whom see Monceaux,op. cit. 153) who are or<strong>de</strong>red to sacriWce and refuse. This may be based on <strong>the</strong>oYcial Acta, but <strong>the</strong> governor’s convenient question, ‘Quam ergo auctoritatempotestis habere?’[‘In that case, what authority can you have?’] (inviting<strong>the</strong> reply, ‘Auctoritatem regis aeterni portamus’ [‘We bear <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>the</strong>eternal king’]), does not sound genuine. And in any event, as we have no morethan a small fragment of <strong>the</strong> interrogation we cannot safely conclu<strong>de</strong> that wehave here an example of <strong>the</strong> enforcement of E 4, ra<strong>the</strong>r than, for instance, <strong>the</strong>trial of <strong>Christian</strong>s arrested, as so often in Africa, for disobeying E 1. ByAugustine’s day, of course, refusal to sacriWce was already a stock formula.The curious Passion of Typasius120 c <strong>the</strong> veteran (Monceaux, op. cit. 27,126–32), from Mauretania Caesariensis, <strong>de</strong>clares that Maximian ‘edictumper Africam misit, ut <strong>de</strong>molirentur ecclesiae, incen<strong>de</strong>rentur divinae legiscodices, turiWcarent sacerdotes et populi, atque omnes revocarentur ad militiamveterani’ [‘sent an edict through Africa, that <strong>the</strong> churches be <strong>de</strong>molished,<strong>the</strong> books of divine law burned, that <strong>the</strong> priests and people sacriWce, and allveterans be summoned to <strong>the</strong> army’] (§ 4); <strong>the</strong> oYcer who brings T. before<strong>the</strong> dux accuses him of <strong>de</strong>clining to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods ‘sicut praeceptum est’(§ 5); and <strong>the</strong>re are o<strong>the</strong>r references to sacriWcing. But <strong>the</strong> main oVencecommitted by T. is refusal to obey a recall to <strong>the</strong> colours, and <strong>the</strong> questionof sacriWce is inci<strong>de</strong>ntal. The Passion of Fabius120 d (Monceaux, op. cit.27, 122–6), who was martyred for refusing to carry a standard in <strong>the</strong> governor’s120 c [Ed. C. De Smedt, ‘Passiones tres martyrum Africanorum, SS. Maximae, Donatillaeet Secundae, S. Typasii Veterani et S. Fabii Vexilliferi’, AB 9 (1890), 116–23.]120 d [Ed. C. De Smedt, ‘Passiones tres’, 123–34; see also P. Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri inStudi e testi, 65 (1935), 101–13, and H. Delehaye, ‘Contributions récentes à l’hagiographie<strong>de</strong> Rome et d’Afrique’, AB 54 (1936), 265–315, at 300–2.]
76 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomprocession, also comes from Mauretania Caesariensis. We are told (§ 2) thatone of <strong>the</strong> tetrarchs ‘qui Orientis partibus praesi<strong>de</strong>bat, mittit ad socios suos perdiabolum scripta feralia, ut beatum Fabium a <strong>Christian</strong>orum castris ad turiWcationisnefas compellerent’ [‘who was governing <strong>the</strong> Eastern regions, used<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>vil to send his associates a savage letter, that <strong>the</strong>y force St Fabius awayfrom <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> camp to <strong>the</strong> oVence of sacriWce’]; but after this we hear nomore about oVering incense or sacriWcing. Monceaux has shown that <strong>the</strong>re isno reason to date ei<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong>se Mauretanian martyrdoms during <strong>the</strong> Greatpersecution.Monceaux’s conclusion (op. cit. 30) is that <strong>the</strong> only North African <strong>Christian</strong>scertainly martyred for refusing to sacriWce (i.e., un<strong>de</strong>r E 4) are Crispina,<strong>the</strong> martyrs of Milevis (pp. 52, 54–5 above), and Maxima, Donatilla andSecunda.120 e The Passion of <strong>the</strong>se three women (on which see Monceaux,op. cit. 148–51; H. Delehaye, ‘Contributions récentes’, 296–300) may containhistorical elements, but it does not <strong>de</strong>serve <strong>the</strong> respect it has received frommost commentators: it has suVered extensive interpolations and revisions, andits wording cannot at any point be trusted. This is apparent from <strong>the</strong> ludicrouslyunhistorical opening sentence, ‘In illis diebus Maximianus et Gallienusimperatores litteras miserunt per omnem illam provinciam ut <strong>Christian</strong>isacriWcarent in possessione Cephalitana’ [‘In those days Maximian and Gallienus<strong>the</strong> emperors sent letters through that entire province that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>sshould sacriWce on <strong>the</strong> Cephalitan estate’]; from <strong>the</strong> proconsul’s questions,‘<strong>Christian</strong>i estis an pagani?’, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>a es an pagana?’ [‘Are you <strong>Christian</strong>s orpagans?’, ‘Are you a <strong>Christian</strong> or a pagan?’]; from <strong>the</strong> double sentence pronouncedon <strong>the</strong> women; and similar absurdities (Passio 1; 3; 6). The Passionprovi<strong>de</strong>s no good evi<strong>de</strong>nce that <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation was in fact un<strong>de</strong>r E 4.VII: Pope Marcellinus (see n. 83 above). Marcellinus was evi<strong>de</strong>ntly guiltyof some act which was regar<strong>de</strong>d at <strong>the</strong> time, or shortly afterwards, asdiscreditable: he is accused in <strong>the</strong> sources of traditio of <strong>the</strong> Scriptures,121or of turiWcatio,122 or of both <strong>the</strong>se crimes;123 and <strong>the</strong> legends of his120 e [Ed. C. De Smedt, ‘Passiones tres’, 110–16, or Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri in Studi etesti (1935), 75–97. Repr. with a French trans. in Maier, Dossier du Donatisme,92–105. For an English trans. of this text, see Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories, 17–24.]121 Aug. C. Litt. Petil. ii 92.202; cf. Gesta Coll. Carth. iii 491–514; Aug. Brev. Coll.iii 18.34–36.122 L. Duchesne, Le Liber PontiWcalis: Texte, Introduction, et Commentaire, i, 2n<strong>de</strong>dn. (Paris, 1955), 162–3; cf. 72–3 [English trans. by R. Davis, The Book of <strong>the</strong> PontiVs(Liber PontiWcalis): The Ancient Biographies of <strong>the</strong> First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD715, 2nd edn. (TTH 6; Liverpool, 2000)]; Acta ps.-Synod. Sinuessae, in Mansi i1249–60 (cf. Hefele–Leclercq, Hist. <strong>de</strong>s conciles i i, 207–8).123 Aug. De Unic. Bapt. 16.27, 30; Liber Genealogus 626 (ed. Mommsen, in MGHAuct. Antiq. ix, Chron. Min. i. 196). On <strong>the</strong> Donatist additions to this work, seeMonceaux, op. cit. (in Appendix VI above) iv 101–2.
Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong> 77subsequent repentance and martyrdom124 are most unconvincing. In <strong>the</strong>light of what has been said above, it may be suggested that perhaps M. in factcommitted traditio, before <strong>the</strong> rigorist African view that such an act wastantamount to apostasy came to prevail generally in <strong>the</strong> Western churches,and that <strong>the</strong> memory of this was kept alive, especially by <strong>the</strong> Donatist groupat Rome, and exaggerated in <strong>the</strong> customary manner to inclu<strong>de</strong> turiWcatio.Atany rate, it is impossible to avoid <strong>the</strong> conclusion of Duchesne (op. cit. in n.42 above, 74) that ‘something unpleasant must have happened’. M. evi<strong>de</strong>ntlysuVered some sort of damnatio memoriae: see T. G. Jalland, The Church and<strong>the</strong> Papacy (London, 1944), 185–6 (where Diocletian’s vicennalia, however,are dated a year too <strong>late</strong>). [See also E. H. Röttges, ‘Marcellinus-Marcellus zurPapstgeschichte <strong>de</strong>r diokletianischen Verfolgungszeit’, Zeitschrift für katholischeTheologie, 78 (1956), 385–420; A. Amore, ‘Il preteso ‘‘lapsus’’ di papaMarcellino’, Antonianum, 32 (1955), 411–26; and J. Curran, Pagan City and<strong>Christian</strong> Capital: Rome in <strong>the</strong> 4th Century (Oxford, 2000), 49–50.]VIII: What registers were available for enforcing E 4? (see n. 97 above). Wedo not know for certain what personal registers were kept, even in Egypt, butit is hard to believe that any such lists would have been compiled for o<strong>the</strong>rthan Wscal purposes—i.e., in connection with anything except taxes orliturgies.124 aAs a result of Diocletian’s reorganization of <strong>the</strong> taxation system, comprehensiveregisters should have been available of all landowners and agriculturalworkers: P. Cairo Boak 1, <strong>the</strong> edict (dated 297) of <strong>the</strong> prefect of Egypt,Aristius Optatus, speaks speciWcally of ¼ªæïØŒïØ only.124 b A. Déléage, LaCapitation du Bas-Empire (Macon, 1943), 49, lists <strong>the</strong> returns ma<strong>de</strong> un<strong>de</strong>rthis edict; add P. Ryl. iv 656. However, until <strong>the</strong> introduction of <strong>the</strong> collatiolustralis, or÷æıóÜæªıæïí, probably by Constantine, <strong>the</strong>re seems to be nogood evi<strong>de</strong>nce that <strong>the</strong> urban poor paid direct taxation anywhere in <strong>the</strong>empire in <strong>the</strong> early fourth century, except in <strong>the</strong> dioceses directly subject toGalerius (or some of <strong>the</strong>m) in <strong>the</strong> years c. 306 to 311: see Lact. MP 23; 26.2;124 Liber Pontif. and Acta ps.-Synod. Sinuess. (as cited in n. 122 above); cf.Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. i 2. The silence of <strong>the</strong> Catalogus Liberianus (Duchesne,Liber Pontif. i 6–7), Depositio Episcoporum (Id. 10: here ‘Marcellini’ shouldclearly be ‘Marcelli’), and Depositio Martyrum (Id. 11–12) [both <strong>the</strong>se in <strong>the</strong> editionof R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice TopograWco <strong>de</strong>lla Città di Roma, ii (Rome,1942), 12–28] as well as of <strong>the</strong> Martyrologium Hieronymianum, seems conclusive.124 a [See A. E. R. Boak and H. C. Youtie, The Archive of Aurelius Isidorus in <strong>the</strong>Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and <strong>the</strong> University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, 1960), 23–9.]124 b [See also <strong>the</strong> inscriptions from Syria collected in F. Millar, The Roman NearEast, 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 535–44 with discussion at 193–6, and<strong>the</strong> comments of Corcoran, Empire, 175–6; for <strong>the</strong> general background, see Barnes,New Empire, 226–37.]
78 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomand CTh xiii 10.2, dated 311 by O. Seeck, Regesten <strong>de</strong>r Kaiser und Päpste fürdie Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr: Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie <strong>de</strong>r christlichenKaiserzeit (Stuttgart, 1919), 52–3.124 c In Julian’s reign <strong>the</strong> townsfolk ofCaesarea in Cappadocia were free from taxes imposed on <strong>the</strong> villagers(Sozom. HE v 4). Even if P. Cairo Boak 12 and P. Strasb. 42 ( ¼ W. Chrest.210) are returns ma<strong>de</strong> for <strong>the</strong> purpose of a capitation tax, as believed byDéléage (op. cit. 44–6), <strong>the</strong> tax in question was probably limited to <strong>the</strong>agricultural population, as Déléage realized (op. cit. 46). Similarly, <strong>the</strong>IíäæØóìüò of P. Ryl. iv 658, line 8, is simply <strong>the</strong> Diocletianic capitatio(Iæïıæçäeò ŒÆd IíäæØóìüò ¼ jugatio et capitatio). The evi<strong>de</strong>nce for a polltaxdiscussed by H. I. Bell in his Introduction (pp. 167–73) to P. Lond. iv1419 is for a <strong>late</strong>r period. The KðØŒåöܺÆØïí ðüºåøò of Oxyrhynchus,evi<strong>de</strong>nced only from 301 to 315, is puzzling, but whe<strong>the</strong>r it is to be explainedas by Déléage (op. cit. 46–48), or as by A. C. Johnson and L. C. West,Byzantine Egypt: Economic Studies (Princeton, 1949), 259–61 (and see265–8), or in some o<strong>the</strong>r way, it does not establish <strong>the</strong> existence of a generalpoll-tax payable by <strong>the</strong> urban population. Even in Egypt <strong>the</strong> original poll-tax(ºÆïªæÆößÆ) had died out during <strong>the</strong> Wrst half of <strong>the</strong> third century (see H. I.Bell, ‘The Constitutio Antoniniana and <strong>the</strong> Egyptian Poll-Tax’, JRS 37 (1947),17–23), and <strong>the</strong> poll-tax of Syria and o<strong>the</strong>r provinces must also have ceasedto be exacted at <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>st during <strong>the</strong> severe inXation of <strong>the</strong> 260s, in <strong>the</strong> reignof Gallienus.124 dSome lists have been preserved on papyrus which may well contain <strong>the</strong>names of those liable to liturgies: P. Oslo iii III (in which only males appear)is a good example. In some cases all but <strong>the</strong> poorest citizens may have beeninclu<strong>de</strong>d—but it was probably still among this class that <strong>the</strong> highest proportionof <strong>Christian</strong>s was to be found in <strong>the</strong> early years of <strong>the</strong> fourth century.It would be very rash to dogmatize, especially since Déléage (op. cit.) hasshown how wrong it is to generalize from particular areas; but <strong>the</strong> procedure<strong>de</strong>scribed by Eus. MP 4.8 is inexplicable if <strong>the</strong> authorities already possessedproper registers.124 c [S. Mitchell has recently dated it to 312; see his ‘Maximinus and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>sin A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription’, JRS 78 (1988), 105–24, at 123, and Anatolia,Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, ii: The Rise of <strong>the</strong> Church (Oxford, 1993), 64 n. 68.See also Corcoran, Empire, 151–2.]124 d [The epikephalaion is attested from around 297/8 to 319/20. R. Bagnallsuggests that it might have functioned similarly to <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r chrysargyron (seeabove), since many of <strong>the</strong> receipts list <strong>the</strong> occupation of <strong>the</strong> payer; see Bagnall, Egyptin Late Antiquity (Princeton, 1993), 154; and for a collection of receipts, P. Parsonsin P. Oxy. 42. 3036–45. The last extant receipt for <strong>the</strong> laographia dates to 248; see R.Bagnall and B. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge, 1994), 10–11.]
2The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West and <strong>the</strong> Date of<strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira1In an article published in 1954 I tried to establish, against <strong>the</strong> standardview of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, that <strong>the</strong>re is no good evi<strong>de</strong>nce, and nolikelihood, that <strong>the</strong> ‘Fourth Edict’ (issued early in 304 and enjoininguniversal sacriWce) was ever enforced in <strong>the</strong> Western part of <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire.2 This <strong>the</strong>sis was challenged in two publications by Frend,3whose arguments can be summarized, partly in his own words, asfollows; <strong>the</strong> Wrst four re<strong>late</strong> only to Africa, <strong>the</strong> Wfth only to Spain.1. ‘The victims in 304 were layfolk, such as <strong>the</strong> women arrested on<strong>the</strong> Saltus Cephalitanus in proconsular Africa and executed on30 July, and perhaps all <strong>the</strong> thirty-four martyrs recor<strong>de</strong>d atHaidra (Ammaedara), in contrast to <strong>the</strong> clerics or organizedcongregations arrested in <strong>the</strong> previous year.’42. ‘Eusebius compares speciWcally <strong>the</strong> persecution in Africa with<strong>the</strong> horriWc scenes he witnessed in Egypt. Nei<strong>the</strong>r this, nor <strong>the</strong>statement in Mart. Pal. (13.12) that <strong>the</strong> persecution in <strong>the</strong> West1 Thisessay, writtenaround1965 in responseto criticisms byW.H.C. Frend,<strong>de</strong>fends<strong>the</strong> contention of Chapter 1 that <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict was never promulgated in <strong>the</strong> West.Henry Chadwick, <strong>the</strong> editor of <strong>the</strong> Journal of Theological Studies, accepted it, but <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> did not go ahead with publication. It was, though, read by Robin Lane Fox, whocites it approvingly in Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s (Harmondsworth, 1986), 784 n. 4.2 ‘Aspects’ [Ch. 1 above, pp. 48–59, 63–4].3 Frend, Martyrdom and <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Early Church (Oxford, 1965), 502–3;‘A Note on <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> West’, in Studies in Church History, 2 (1965),141–8 [repr. in Frend, Religion Popular and Unpopular in <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong> Centuries(London, 1976)].4 Frend, Martyrdom, 502–3; ‘Note’, 144–5.
80 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomlasted ‘‘not fully two years’’ would make sense if <strong>the</strong> persecutionhad en<strong>de</strong>d eVectively in <strong>the</strong> spring of 304.’53. Crispina, executed at Theveste in December 304, was requiredto sacriWce.64. An argument on which I laid particular stress,7 showing fromepigraphic evi<strong>de</strong>nce that Valerius Florus, <strong>the</strong> one persecutinggovernor known in Numidia, had ceased to be governor, at anyrate in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Numidia, well before <strong>the</strong> end of 303, is Wrstmisrepresented and <strong>the</strong>n discounted, as I shall explain.5. On <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira (Illiberris) can bedated to 15 May 309, or at any rate some time after <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong>, its Wrst four canons are cited as evi<strong>de</strong>nce that in<strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> in Spain ‘<strong>the</strong> crime of apostasy wasreckoned in terms of sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods and not surren<strong>de</strong>rof Scriptures’.81. Frend is basing himself on a petitio principii when he refers to‘<strong>the</strong> victims of 304’ and inclu<strong>de</strong>s among <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> women from <strong>the</strong>Saltus Cephalitanus (Maxima, Donatilla, and Secunda)9 and <strong>the</strong>martyrs of Ammaedara, as well as Crispina. In fact <strong>the</strong>re is noevi<strong>de</strong>nce at all of <strong>the</strong> year of persecution in any of <strong>the</strong> cases he5 Frend, Martyrdom, 503; cf. ‘Note’, 143. [Frend adds, ‘i.e. before Eusebius’ Wrst‘‘persecution year’’ was complete’. Frend follows H. J. Lawlor’s study of Eusebius’‘persecution years’, according to which <strong>the</strong> Wrst lasted around 20 months, from April303 to January 305, while <strong>the</strong> rest correspond to normal calendar years—so <strong>the</strong>second year is January to December 305, third year January to December 306, and soon; see Lawlor, Eusebiana: Essays on <strong>the</strong> Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (Oxford,1912), 179–210. G. W. Richardson criticized this chronology, arguing convincinglythat <strong>the</strong> persecution years start with <strong>the</strong> publication of <strong>the</strong> Wrst edict in Palestine, inApril 303, and run subsequently from April to April. See Richardson, ‘The Chronologyof Eusebius’, CQ 19 (1925), 96–100. Ei<strong>the</strong>r way Frend’s point is valid: <strong>the</strong>Fourth Edict would fall in <strong>the</strong> Wrst ‘persecution year’ in both chronological schemes.]6 Frend, Martyrdom, xii, 503; ‘Note’, 144.7 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 52–3, 74–5]. I think that Frend must bereferring to my article at Martyrdom, 503 (cf. 530 n. 178) and ‘Note’, 145–6 (cf. 141 n. 2).8 ‘Note’, 148; cf. Martyrdom, 503.9 I hoped that I had suYciently shown, in ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 52–3, 76],that <strong>the</strong> Passion of Maxima, Donatilla, and Secunda does not in any way provi<strong>de</strong> goo<strong>de</strong>vi<strong>de</strong>nce that <strong>the</strong>ir con<strong>de</strong>mnation was un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict. [For an edition of thistext, see J.-L. Maier, Le Dossier du Donatisme, i: <strong>de</strong>s origines à la mort <strong>de</strong> Constance II(303–361) (Texte und Untersuchungen 134; Berlin, 1987), 92–105, trans. by M. A.Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in ConXict in Roman North Africa (TTH24; Liverpool, 1996), 13–24.]
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 81mentions, except Crispina’s, which I shall <strong>de</strong>al with presently.10 Themartyrdom of Maxima, Donatilla, and Secunda is recor<strong>de</strong>d as havingoccurred on 30 July; but <strong>the</strong> year date of 304, which is always given in<strong>the</strong> books, has been reached by presuming that <strong>the</strong>se women wereexecuted un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict—<strong>the</strong> very fact that has yet to beproved.11 That <strong>the</strong> three women and Crispina, and some o<strong>the</strong>rvictims of <strong>the</strong> persecution, were ‘layfolk’ proves nothing, in view of<strong>the</strong> enthusiastic attitu<strong>de</strong> towards martyrdom prevailing in Africa.And <strong>the</strong> thirty-four martyrs, or alleged martyrs, of Ammaedaracould well have been just such an ‘organized congregation’ as <strong>the</strong>martyrs from Abitinae of <strong>the</strong> Acta Saturnini et al.—who werearrested, we may usefully recall, only at <strong>the</strong> end of 303 or <strong>the</strong>beginning of 304, since <strong>the</strong>y were martyred on 12 February 304.12As for Crispina, martyred apparently at <strong>the</strong> end of 304, <strong>the</strong>re maywell have been special reasons for making an example of her: she wasa noble-born and wealthy lady, of <strong>the</strong> highest social rank13—<strong>the</strong> only<strong>Christian</strong> martyr of ei<strong>the</strong>r sex in Africa at this time who is known tohave been a person of consequence. Crispina may have played aprominent role in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community of <strong>the</strong> little town of10 The best MS of Crispina’s Passion (that of Autun) has Diocletiano novies etMaximiano (octies) Augustis consulibus [‘in <strong>the</strong> 9th consulship of Diocletian and <strong>the</strong>8th consulship of Maximian’]: this makes it reasonable to date <strong>the</strong> event to 304,<strong>the</strong> year of Diocletian’s ninth consulship (and Maximian’s eighth). [See <strong>the</strong> editionof P. Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri, Studi e testi, 9 (1902), 21–35, repr. with trans. byH. Musurillo, Acts of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), 302–9.]11 See, for example, P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire <strong>de</strong> l’Afrique chrétienne <strong>de</strong>puisles origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, iii (Paris, 1905), 149; Frend, ‘Note’, 144; [andMaier, Dossier, 92. The year 304 is, though, justiWed by Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories,13–14.]12 See <strong>the</strong> best text of <strong>the</strong>se Acta, edited by P. Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri in Studi e testi,65 (1935), 48–71. [M. A. Tilley has criticized this edition as an ‘unhappy conXation’of <strong>the</strong> Donatist and Catholic manuscripts; Tilley, ‘Sustaining Donatist Self-I<strong>de</strong>ntity:From <strong>the</strong> Church of <strong>the</strong> Martyrs to <strong>the</strong> collecta of <strong>the</strong> Desert’, JECS 5.1 (1997), 21–35,at 24 n. 9. She has trans<strong>late</strong>d <strong>the</strong> Donatist manuscript in her Donatist Martyr Stories,25–49 following <strong>the</strong> critical text of Maier, Dossier, 57–92. Note, however, thatFrançois Dolbeau has recently <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>d Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri’s edition as largelyreliable, apart from a few minor points; see Dolbeau, ‘La ‘‘Passion’’ <strong>de</strong>s martyrsd’Abitina: remarques sur l’établissement du texte’, AB 121 (2003), 273–96.]13 See Augustine, Enarr. in Psalm 120. 13: clarissima enim fuit, nobilis genere,abundans divitiis [‘for she was most eminent, noble by birth, and abounding withriches’; however, <strong>the</strong> Acta Crispinae do not support Augustine’s suggestion that shewas of senatorial status].
82 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThagora, as did ano<strong>the</strong>r clarissima femina, Lucilla, at <strong>the</strong> Numidiancapital Cirta14—and it may have been thought necessary to single herout at a time when <strong>the</strong> impetus of <strong>the</strong> persecution had died away andthings were generally quieter.2. When Frend speaks of Eusebius’ comparison of <strong>the</strong> persecution‘in Africa’ with that in Egypt, he is thinking of HE 8.6.10. Here <strong>the</strong>reare two points to be ma<strong>de</strong>:(a) Eusebius uses <strong>the</strong> phrase ‘especially those of Africa and Mauretania’(malista oi kata tēn Afrikēn kai to Maurōn ethnos). He uses asimilar expression in MP 13.12, ‘as far as Spain, Mauretania andAfrica’ (epi Spanian Mauretanian te kai Afrikēn). In<strong>de</strong>ed ‘Africa andMauretania’ seems to have been a current way of referring to <strong>the</strong>western provinces of North Africa as a whole, as when Constantine inan oYcial letter written in 313 used <strong>the</strong> phrase per Africam etMauretanian in<strong>de</strong> ad Hispanias [through Africa and Mauretania(and) from <strong>the</strong>re to Spain] when speaking of journeys of clericsfrom <strong>the</strong> individual provinces of Byzacium, Tripolitania, Numidia,and Mauretania.15 Certainly Eusebius’ Afrikē kai to Maurōn ethnoswas inten<strong>de</strong>d to cover Numidia as well—if he had really thoughtabout it. But <strong>the</strong>re must have been far fewer martyrs in Mauretaniathan ei<strong>the</strong>r Proconsularis or Numidia. The fact that Eusebius twicerefers to <strong>the</strong> persecution in Africa by a phrase which omits <strong>the</strong> veryprovince of that area in which <strong>the</strong> persecution probably claimed <strong>the</strong>most victims suggests that his information about <strong>the</strong> events of 303–4in <strong>the</strong> African provinces was not extensive.16(b) Frend forgets that <strong>the</strong> large number of martyrdoms in <strong>the</strong>Thebaid was due particularly, according to Eusebius’ own eyewitnessaccount, to <strong>the</strong> prevalence of voluntary martyrdom on a large scale,with <strong>Christian</strong>s ‘leaping up before <strong>the</strong> judgement seat from this si<strong>de</strong>14 See Optatus (Ziwsa edn., CSEL 26), 1.16–19 [trans. M. Edwards, Optatus:Against <strong>the</strong> Donatists (TTH 27; Liverpool, 1997), 15–19]; Appendix 1, 189–96 ¼ H.von So<strong>de</strong>n (ed.), Urkun<strong>de</strong>n zur Entstehungsgeschichte <strong>de</strong>s Donatismus [hereafterUED], 2nd edn. rev. by H. von Campenhausen, Kleine Texte, 122 (Berlin, 1950),no. 28, pp. 42–50 (esp. 189 lines 4–5 ¼ UED 42 line 5) [Edwards, Optatus, 156–7]. Seealso Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.28.32 and 3.29.33; Enarr. in Ps. 36.2.19; Ep. 43.6.17.15 Optatus, Appendix 3, 205–6 ¼ UED no. 14, pp. 17–18 [Edwards, Optatus, 183].16 He certainly knew of <strong>the</strong> existence of a place called Numidia: see <strong>the</strong> letter ofConstantine quoted in HE 10.6.1.
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 83and that’, confessing <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>Christian</strong>s and receiving <strong>the</strong> sentenceof <strong>de</strong>ath with <strong>de</strong>light.17 It is probable that many of <strong>the</strong> African(especially Numidian) martyrs were also volunteers,18 and voluntarymartyrs provi<strong>de</strong> no evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> enforcement of <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict.3. In my earlier article I <strong>de</strong>alt at some length with <strong>the</strong> ActaCrispina,19 on which Frend lays much stress. Such as it is, thisdocument is <strong>the</strong> one and only piece of apparently respectable evi<strong>de</strong>nceof a martyrdom in Africa, or in<strong>de</strong>ed anywhere in <strong>the</strong> Westernpart of <strong>the</strong> Empire, for refusing to obey an imperial or<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce.It would not, however, amount to convincing proof of <strong>the</strong> enforcementof <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West, even if <strong>the</strong>re were not strongcircumstantial evi<strong>de</strong>nce against such enforcement. Monceaux longago pointed out a number of suspect features in <strong>the</strong> Passion,20 andsome of his criticisms remain, even after <strong>the</strong> publication by Franchi<strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri of a better text based on <strong>the</strong> Autun MS.21 In particular<strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> brutal behaviour of Anullinus <strong>the</strong> proconsul which,although reXecting <strong>the</strong> unpleasant picture of him so familiar inhagiography,22 accords ill with <strong>the</strong> two pieces of good evi<strong>de</strong>nce wehave for his behaviour as a persecutor.2317 HE 8.9.5; cf. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, p. 67] and n. 109.18 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, p. 67], citing Augustine, Brev. Coll.3.13.25 (CSEL 53) ¼ UED no. 4, 6.19 ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, p. 45].20 ‘Les ‘‘Actes’’ <strong>de</strong> Sainte Crispine, martyr à Théveste’, Mélanges Boissier: recueil <strong>de</strong>mémoires concernant la littérature et les antiquités romaines dédié à G. Boissier (Paris,1903), 383–9.21 See above, n. 11; cf. Monceaux, Histoire, iii. 159–61.22 See Monceaux, Histoire, iii. 31–2.23 (1) Augustine, Brev. Coll. 3.13.25 ¼ UED no. 4, pp. 5–7; (2) Acta Saturnini et al.,passim (see n. 12 above). [For full references to Anullinus see PLRE i. 79, s.v. C.Annius Anullinus 3, and A. Mandouze, Prosopographie chrétienne du bas-empire, i:Afrique (303–533) (Paris, 1982), s.v. Anulinus. On <strong>the</strong> reliability of <strong>the</strong> Acta Saturnini,see now A. Dearn, ‘The Abitinian Martyrs and <strong>the</strong> Outbreak of <strong>the</strong> Donatist Schism’,JEH 55.1 (2004), 1–18. Dearn argues convincingly that <strong>the</strong> extant text was composedafter <strong>the</strong> anti-Donatist Council of Carthage in 411, and represents <strong>the</strong> reinterpretationof <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> light of early 5th-cent. arguments, although <strong>the</strong>central section, which records <strong>the</strong> exchanges between governor and martyrs, mayantedate <strong>the</strong> council. Its probable composition as a compendium of disparate localmartyrs argues against relying too heavily on its evi<strong>de</strong>nce.]
84 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThere is moreover, as Frend himself has admitted, evi<strong>de</strong>nce that<strong>the</strong> provincial governors Anullinus in Proconsularis and Florus inNumidia oYcially <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d, at an early stage in <strong>the</strong> persecution,that <strong>Christian</strong>s should not only hand over <strong>the</strong>ir scriptures and churchproperty but also sacriWce and oVer incense.24 Optatus also speaks asif <strong>Christian</strong>s of both provinces had been ‘everywhere compelled tooVer incense’ to <strong>the</strong> pagan gods.25 Evi<strong>de</strong>ntly Anullinus and Florusmay have <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d an act of sacriWce or <strong>the</strong> oVering of incense onany occasion when <strong>Christian</strong>s were brought before <strong>the</strong>m, chargedwith possessing scriptures etc., or with assembling contrary to <strong>the</strong>First Edict.There is good evi<strong>de</strong>nce from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces for accused <strong>Christian</strong>sbeing or<strong>de</strong>red to sacriWce or burn incense, and even doing thisof <strong>the</strong>ir own accord, during <strong>the</strong> earliest phases of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>,when only <strong>the</strong> First Edict had been issued. Examples are:(a) Peter, an imperial slave, tortured to <strong>de</strong>ath at Nicomedia,26presumably on 12 March 303, <strong>the</strong> date in <strong>the</strong> Syriac Martyrology;27(b) possibly also <strong>the</strong> imperial slaves Doro<strong>the</strong>us and Gorgonius and<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs mentioned by Eusebius, HE 8.6.5–7; (c) <strong>the</strong> large numbersof <strong>Christian</strong>s who were sacriWcing at Antioch of <strong>the</strong>ir own accord ‘at<strong>the</strong> very time <strong>the</strong> churches were <strong>de</strong>stroyed’ (un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> First Edict);with (d) Romanus, who voluntarily came forward to rebuke <strong>the</strong>seAntiochene apostates, and was arrested and <strong>late</strong>r strangled in prison,on 17 November 303;28 (e) Procopius of Scythopolis, <strong>the</strong> Wrst Palestinianmartyr of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, executed at Caesarea on24 Anullinus: Optatus, Appendix 2, pp. 198–9 ¼ UED no. 19B, pp. 26–7: ‘cumpersecutio esset indicta <strong>Christian</strong>is, id est, ut sacriWcarent aut quascumque scripturashaberent, incendio tra<strong>de</strong>rent’ [Edwards, Optatus, 172: ‘when an edict of persecutionhad been issued against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s, namely, that <strong>the</strong>y should sacriWce or handover to <strong>the</strong> Xames whatever scriptures <strong>the</strong>y possessed’], and ‘ex iussione proconsulariomnes sacriWcarent et si quas scripturas haberent, oVerrent secundum sacram legem’[Edwards, Optatus, 173 with modiWcation: ‘all should sacriWce according to <strong>the</strong>proconsular edict, and if any had scriptures, <strong>the</strong>y should present <strong>the</strong>m according to<strong>the</strong> sacred law’]. Florus: Augustine, C. Cresc. 3.27.30 ¼ UED no.5,p.7.25 Optatus 3.8, p. 90; cf. 1.13, p. 16; 15, p. 17; 2.25, p. 65; Augustine, C. Fulg. 26. See‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 46–51].26 Eusebius, HE 8.6.2–4, cf. 7–8.27 See H. Lietzmann (ed.), Die drei ältesten Martyrologien (Kleine Texte 2; 1911), 9.28 Eusebius, MP 2.
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 857 June 303;29 and (f) Alphaeus of Caesarea, a volunteer behea<strong>de</strong>d atCaesarea on 17 November 303.304. But it is <strong>the</strong> technical evi<strong>de</strong>nce about <strong>the</strong> governors of Numidiaon which I wish to lay most stress, particularly since Frend hasmisun<strong>de</strong>rstood and misrepresented <strong>the</strong> argument that I put forward.31There are, unfortunately, complications which make it diYcultto set out <strong>the</strong> position brieXy and clearly, but <strong>the</strong> eventual resultis certain.The only persecuting governor of Numidia who is mentioned assuch in <strong>the</strong> literary or epigraphic sources is Florus. He appears inOptatus, operating in Numidia as Anullinus does in Africa Proconsularis;and a document preserved by Augustine represents him aspressing Donatus, bishop of Mascula (in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn part ofNumidia), to oVer incense.32 He is also named in a <strong>Christian</strong>inscription from Castellum Elephantum (RouVach, some 12 km.west of Cirta/Constantina) as <strong>the</strong> governor un<strong>de</strong>r whom certainmartyrs of Milevis (a few km. fur<strong>the</strong>r west) suVered in diebus turiWcationis[‘in <strong>the</strong> days of incense oVering’].33 As we shall see presentlytwo successive phases must be distinguished in Florus’governorship: in one (<strong>the</strong> earlier one, it is virtually certain) he waspraeses provinciae Numidiae, governor of <strong>the</strong> whole of Numidia; in<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r (<strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r) he was governor of only <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn part ofNumidia, Numidia Militiana as it is often called now in accordancewith <strong>the</strong> Verona list.34 Of <strong>the</strong> Wrst seven inscriptions relating to29 Eusebius, MP 1.1–2.30 Eusebius, MP 1.5, especially in <strong>the</strong> Long Recension.31 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 52–3, 74–5].32 Optatus 3.8, p. 90 in Ziwsa edn. [Edwards, Optatus, 75]; Augustine, C. Cresc.3.27.30 ¼ UED no.5,p.7.33 CIL viii. 19353 ¼ 6700, printed in Kolbe’s monograph (see below) at 47, no. 8.[See now <strong>the</strong> much fuller edition, with a photograph and commentary, of Y. Duval,Loca Sanctorum Africae: le culte <strong>de</strong>s martyrs en Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle (Collection<strong>de</strong> l’École Française <strong>de</strong> Rome 58; Rome, 1982), i. 245–7, no. 117.] For <strong>the</strong> site ofRouVach, see S. Gsell, Atlas archéologique <strong>de</strong> l’Algérie (Paris, 1911), 17, no. 93 [see alsoR. A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of <strong>the</strong> Greek and Roman World (Princeton, 2000),31 E4].34 See H.-G. Kolbe, Die Statthalter Numidiens von Gallien bis Konstantin (268–320)(Vestigia. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 4; Munich, 1962), 65 V.; G. Goyau, ‘LaNumidia Militiana <strong>de</strong> la liste <strong>de</strong> Vérone’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire <strong>de</strong>
86 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomFlorus’ governorship,35 <strong>the</strong> Wrst Wve call him governor of N(umidia)M(ilitiana); in <strong>the</strong> sixth <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>scription of <strong>the</strong> province has perished,but <strong>the</strong> place where <strong>the</strong> inscription was found, Casae (El Mah<strong>de</strong>r,some 20 km. north-east of Lambaesis and north-west of Thamugadi/Timgad),36 would certainly have fallen in Numidia Militiana, asKolbe states.37 But Kolbe’s seventh inscription, from Aqua Viva(near Mš Doukal in <strong>the</strong> extreme south-west of <strong>the</strong> province),38<strong>de</strong>scribes Florus as p(raesi<strong>de</strong>) N(umidiae)—and this is an oYcialdocument, with <strong>the</strong> consular date 303, which would be extremelyunlikely to make a mistake about Florus’ title. This inscriptionconWrms <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> literary sources, quoted above, and of<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> inscription from RouVach, that Florus was in chargeof <strong>the</strong> whole of Numidia, including <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn section of <strong>the</strong>province, in <strong>the</strong> early part of 303.39Now, in an inscription found near <strong>the</strong> site of ancient Macoma<strong>de</strong>s,40we Wnd Aurelius Quintianus, who is nowhere named as apersecutor, governing <strong>the</strong> province of ‘Numidia’, regente p(rovinciam)N(umidiam) vestra(m), at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> vicennalia ofDiocletian, which took place between 17 September and 20 November303 and probably on <strong>the</strong> latter date.41 We have already notice<strong>de</strong>vi<strong>de</strong>nce which, for what it is worth, represented Florus, like Anullinusand o<strong>the</strong>r provincial governors, as <strong>de</strong>manding acts of sacriWce orburning incense at a time before <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict was in operation;and what <strong>the</strong> inscription from Macoma<strong>de</strong>s proves is that Florus canl’École Française <strong>de</strong> Rome, 13 (1893), 251–79; A. H. M. Jones, ‘The Date and Value of<strong>the</strong> Verona List’, JRS 44 (1954), 21–9 [repr. in Jones, The Roman Economy: Studies inAncient Economic and Administrative History, ed. P. Brunt (Oxford, 1974), 263–79].‘Militana’, <strong>the</strong> form of <strong>the</strong> name employed by Frend (by analogy with Tripolitana),has no ancient evi<strong>de</strong>nce to support it.35 Kolbe, Statthalter, 46–7. [For full references to Florus see PLRE i. 368, s.v. Florus 3.]36 See Gsell, Atlas, 27, no. 141 [Barrington Atlas, 34 E2]. [See also W. KuhoV,Diokletian und die Epoche <strong>de</strong>r Tetrarchie: das römische Reich zwischen Krisenbewältigungund Neuaufbau (284–313 n. Chr.) (Frankfurt, 2001), 347–8.]37 Kolbe, Statthalter, 52n.3.38 AE (1942/3), 81; Gsell, Atlas, 37, no. 36 [see Barrington Atlas, 34 D2].39 [All references are collected in T. D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian andConstantine (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 172; also KuhoV, Diokletian und die Epoche<strong>de</strong>r Tetrarchie, 347–8.]40 ILS 644 ¼ CIL viii. 18698 ¼ 4764; Kolbe, Statthalter, 53, no. 1.41 [20 Nov. 303 is much more likely—see Ch. 1, n. 12.]
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 87never have enforced <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict in Numidia at all, since he hadceased to be governor, at least as we shall see of <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn part of<strong>the</strong> province, Numidia Cirtensis, well before <strong>the</strong> end of 303, whereas<strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict was not issued until early in 304.42According to Frend, <strong>the</strong> Macoma<strong>de</strong>s inscription merely provesthat in November 303 Florus was no longer governor of <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rnpart of Numidia, <strong>the</strong> part referred to in inscriptions as NumidiaMilitiana after it became a separate province; he seems to regardthis as my view as well,43 and goes on to suggest that ‘Florus may havemoved [when Quintianus took over <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn part of Numidia]to <strong>the</strong> new civil province of Numidia Cirtensis’,44 <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn part ofNumidia, <strong>the</strong> existence of which as a province separate fromNumidia Militiana is attested in 305–6.45 Frend’s argument is misconceivedfor, in a divi<strong>de</strong>d Numidia, Macoma<strong>de</strong>s would have fallenin <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn part, <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Numidia Cirtensis.46 This is proved,beyond question, by <strong>the</strong> discovery <strong>the</strong>re of ano<strong>the</strong>r inscription (CILviii.18700 [4766]) referring to Valerius Antoninus, who is knownfrom three o<strong>the</strong>r inscriptions, from Thibilis (Announa) and Rusica<strong>de</strong>(Philippeville) to have been governor of <strong>the</strong> province of N(umidia)C(irtensis).47 In any case geographical consi<strong>de</strong>ration ma<strong>de</strong> thisvirtually certain: Macoma<strong>de</strong>s is a mere 40 km. or so south-east ofCirta, <strong>the</strong> capital of Numidia Cirtensis, and well north of <strong>the</strong> chain oflakes or marshes which lie to <strong>the</strong> north of Bagai and Thamugadi.Numidia Militiana must have been above all a frontier district,48extending southwards from <strong>the</strong> area of Bagai, Mascula, Thamugadi,Lambaesis, and Lamasba. In my article I pointed out that inscriptions<strong>the</strong>n attested <strong>the</strong> title Numidia Militiana at Thamugadi and nowhereelse. We can now add its neighbour Lambaesis, on <strong>the</strong> strength of <strong>the</strong>subsequently discovered inscription which in fact records a votive42 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 52–3]; cf. Frend, Martyrdom, 493.[See n. 51 below.]43 See n. 6 above.44 Frend, ‘Note’, 145–6; <strong>the</strong> argument in Martyrdom, 503 is not easily intelligiblewithout reference to this.45 [ILS 651; AE (1895), 80; ILAlg. 2.31.] The four inscriptions in question areprinted by Kolbe, Statthalter, 55–6, cf. 51–5 [and listed in Barnes, New Empire, 172].46 As I stated explicitly in ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 74–5].47 All four inscriptions are printed by Kolbe, Statthalter, 55–6.48 Cf. Frend, ‘Note’, 145–6.
88 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomoVering by Florus himself to <strong>the</strong> god Mithras, of whom he wasevi<strong>de</strong>ntly a <strong>de</strong>votee.49Only one problem remains, and it has a simple solution. Theinscription from Macoma<strong>de</strong>s calls Quintianus governor of ‘p(rovinciae)N(umidiae)’, <strong>the</strong> undivi<strong>de</strong>d province of Numidia, not of N(umidia)C(irtensis). Although my case would be if anything even strongerif this could be accepted—because we could <strong>the</strong>n say that Florus <strong>the</strong>persecutor had been superse<strong>de</strong>d by Quintianus as governor of <strong>the</strong>whole of Numidia before <strong>the</strong> issue of <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict—<strong>the</strong> situationrevealed by <strong>the</strong> inscriptions relating to Florus as well as Quintianusmakes it necessary to suppose that <strong>the</strong> Macoma<strong>de</strong>s inscription has notstated Quintianus’ title correctly, and that in fact he must have beengovernor of N(umidia) C(irtensis) only.50 It would be easy for <strong>the</strong>municipal senate of Macoma<strong>de</strong>s, a one-horse town, which set up <strong>the</strong>inscription, to assume that <strong>the</strong>ir new governor was praeses Numidiae,as his pre<strong>de</strong>cessors had been, and so, not realizing that <strong>the</strong> provincehad now been divi<strong>de</strong>d, to have used a title which had just becomeobsolete.51 At any rate, when <strong>the</strong> province had been divi<strong>de</strong>d andQuintianus arrived to take over Numidia Cirtensis, Florus musthave remained as governor of Numidia Militiana, and it is in thissecond phase of his governorship that Kolbe’s Wrst Wve inscriptions, aswell perhaps as <strong>the</strong> sixth, must have been set up.49 AE (1955), 81; Kolbe, Statthalter, 47, no. 5 [see also M. Clauss, Cultores Mithrae:Die Anhängerschaft <strong>de</strong>s Mithras-Kultes (Stuttgart, 1992), 248].50 This is <strong>the</strong> conclusion of Kolbe, Statthalter, 54, with 50–3.51 T. D. Barnes has pointed out to me <strong>the</strong> parallel with certain inscriptions whichcontinue to give <strong>the</strong> governor of <strong>the</strong> province of Numidia, when it had become newlyseparate from Africa, his old title of leg. leg. III Aug.—not, it is true, an incorrect title,but an example of an out-of-date formula which persisted for a time. See B. E.Thomasson, Die Statthalter <strong>de</strong>r römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bisDiocletianus (Lund, 1960), ii. 203. [See also KuhoV, Diokletian und die Epoche <strong>de</strong>rTetrarchie, 348, who discusses <strong>the</strong> Macoma<strong>de</strong>s inscription, but does not place muchweight on it. Like <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> he notes that Macoma<strong>de</strong>s was in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of Cirta, butalso suggests that <strong>the</strong> reference to <strong>the</strong> vicennalia does not necessarily specify <strong>the</strong> exactdate of <strong>the</strong> inscription, since it does not state that <strong>the</strong> honoriWc arch on which it wasplaced was set up on that day. Accordingly, Quintianus may only have becomegovernor sometime after 20 Nov. 303. He dates <strong>the</strong> division of Numidia to 303/304without specifying when this happened, and argues that Florus was initially governorof <strong>the</strong> undivi<strong>de</strong>d province <strong>the</strong>n became governor of <strong>the</strong> militarily more importantNumidia Militiana.]
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 89We may now be certain, <strong>the</strong>refore, that Quintianus took over, ifnot <strong>the</strong> whole of Numidia, at least Numidia Cirtensis, <strong>the</strong> moreimportant and thickly popu<strong>late</strong>d part of Numidia; and that if <strong>the</strong>martyrs of Milevis, in Cirtensis, suVered sub pr(a)esi<strong>de</strong> Floro in diebusturiWcationis, as <strong>the</strong>ir inscription states, it must have been well before<strong>the</strong> end of 303 and before <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict was issued.52I must also add a protest against Frend’s statement that ‘Numidianfolklore recor<strong>de</strong>d a ‘‘dies thuriWcationis’’ as well as a ‘‘dies traditionis’’’.53 It is not merely that in <strong>the</strong> one piece of evi<strong>de</strong>nce we have for<strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> expression ‘dies thuriWcationis’ <strong>the</strong> ‘dies’ are plural andnot singular; much more important is <strong>the</strong> fact that in <strong>the</strong> ancientsources <strong>the</strong> expression ‘dies traditionis’ never occurs at all, and ‘diesthuriWcationis’ only in <strong>the</strong> inscription concerning <strong>the</strong> martyrs ofMilevis, which was apparently set up many years afterwards.54There is certainly no warrant in <strong>the</strong> sources for <strong>the</strong> chronologicalsequence, ‘dies traditionis’ followed by ‘dies thuriWcationis’: this, asfar as North Africa is concerned, is a pure invention of mo<strong>de</strong>rnscholarship.555. Frend’s Wfth and Wnal argument obliges us to consi<strong>de</strong>r oncemore that much disputed question, <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira.Frend accepts Grégoire’s date of 309,56 itself a reWnement of <strong>the</strong>dating proposed by Koch on <strong>the</strong> basis of very unsatisfactory arguments,as we shall see.57 Frend only <strong>de</strong>als with Canons 1–4, but <strong>the</strong>reare several o<strong>the</strong>rs which we must examine: 25, 45–6, 55, 56–7, 59, 60,52 I see no reason to bring in <strong>the</strong> Third Edict, as Kolbe does, Statthalter, 51.53 Frend, ‘Note’, 145.54 [Duval, Loca Sanctorum Africae, 247, argues that <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> inscription isnot well enough known to date it with any exactitu<strong>de</strong>.]55 It can be traced back at least as far as <strong>de</strong> Rossi. See G. B. <strong>de</strong> Rossi, ‘Scoperte diinsigni storiche epigraW di martiri di Milevi (Milah), di SitiW (Setif), e di luogoincerto tra Kalama (Ghelma) e Cirta (Constantina)’, Bullettino di archeologia cristiana(1875), 162–74, esp. 165–6; i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Notizie più precise intorno all’insigne epigrafe <strong>de</strong>iMartiri di Milevi sotto il presi<strong>de</strong> Floro’, BAC (1876), 59–64, esp. 62–3.56 H. Grégoire, Les Persécutions dans l’Empire romain, 2nd edn. (Mémoires <strong>de</strong>l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong> Belgique, Classe <strong>de</strong>s Lettres 56.5; Brussels, 1964), 77, 146–8.57 H. Koch, ‘Die Zeit <strong>de</strong>s Konzils von Elvira’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlicheWissenschaft, 17 (1916), 61–7.
90 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomand 73—some of <strong>the</strong>se are quite irrelevant, but <strong>the</strong>y have beenbrought into <strong>the</strong> discussion by o<strong>the</strong>r writers.58Canons 2–4 can be dismissed immediately: <strong>the</strong>y refer speciWcallyand only to pagan Xamines [priests] who have become baptized<strong>Christian</strong>s (Canons 2–3) or catechumens (Canon 4), and have <strong>the</strong>nperformed some objectionable act, sacriWcing or giving publicgames—if that is what Xamines qui non immolaverint, sed munustantum <strong>de</strong><strong>de</strong>rint [‘priests who have not sacriWced, but who havemerely given games’] in Canon 3 means. Three <strong>de</strong>grees of guilt arerecognized: sacriWcing is to entail total exclusion from communion,extending even to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>athbed. It is quite wrong to represent <strong>the</strong>secanons as referring to apostasy by sacriWcing during a persecution:<strong>the</strong>re is no reference to persecution, explicit or implied. Canons 3–4<strong>de</strong>al expressly with those who have not sacriWced but have carried outo<strong>the</strong>r duties attached to pagan priesthoods, and Canon 2 simplycovers <strong>the</strong> extreme case in <strong>the</strong> same series, where a Xamen has actuallysacriWced. The fact that <strong>the</strong> punishment in this last case was <strong>the</strong> mostsevere that <strong>the</strong> Church in <strong>the</strong> pagan empire was able to inXictindicates that <strong>the</strong> sacriWcing, like <strong>the</strong> giving of games etc., was notconceived as being done in <strong>the</strong> time of persecution, un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> threatof <strong>de</strong>ath, but in a situation where freedom of action was untrammelled.One might have expected that municipal priests could nothave avoi<strong>de</strong>d sacriWcing, but Canons 3 and 4 of Elvira prove that <strong>the</strong>ycould, at least in Spain at this period. These canons suggest that whatcould not be avoi<strong>de</strong>d was giving games. This is un<strong>de</strong>rstandable:games would be much more costly than sacriWces, and thus itwould not be easy to induce ano<strong>the</strong>r person to give <strong>the</strong> gamesinstead, though he might be persua<strong>de</strong>d to perform sacriWces.58 For <strong>the</strong> text, see J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio,ii (Florence, 1759), 1–20; C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire <strong>de</strong>s conciles i.i (Paris,1907), 212–64; E. J. Jonkers, Acta et Symb. Conc. Saec. Quarto (Textus Minores 19,1954), 5–23. [See also J. Vives, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos (Barcelonaand Madrid, 1963), 1–15, and <strong>the</strong> more recent text of G. Martinez Diez and F.Rodriguez, La colección canónica Hispana IV, concilios Galos, concilios Hispanos:primera parte (Madrid, 1984), 233–68. For an English translation, see S. Laeuchli,Power and Sexuality: The Emergence of Canon Law at <strong>the</strong> Synod of Elvira (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia,1972), 126–35, repr. in B. Ehrmann and A. Jacobs (eds.), <strong>Christian</strong>ity in LateAntiquity, 300–450 CE: A Rea<strong>de</strong>r (Oxford, 2003), 244–51. See <strong>the</strong> Appendix to thischapter for recent bibliography on <strong>the</strong>se canons.]
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 91With Canons 2–4 we should take Canon 55, which also refersspeciWcally and only to pagan priests, sacerdotes. If <strong>the</strong>y ‘only wearcrowns and do not sacriWce or oVer anything to idols at <strong>the</strong>ir ownexpense’, <strong>the</strong>y can be received into communion after two years.I agree with Hefele that this canon is a complement to Canons 2–4:while <strong>the</strong>y refer to pagan priests who have ei<strong>the</strong>r sacriWced or givengames, it completes <strong>the</strong> series by <strong>de</strong>aling with those who have doneno more than publicly wear <strong>the</strong> distinctive sign of <strong>the</strong>ir priesthood.59I also agree with Hefele that <strong>the</strong> series is continued in a way byCanons 56–7, <strong>the</strong> last being a little more severe simply because <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s concerned had not been obliged to act as <strong>the</strong>y did.60 Theseries, in or<strong>de</strong>r of severity of punishment, is: Canon 2, 3, 4 and 57, 55,56. Certainly <strong>the</strong>re is, again, no trace of persecution.Canons 59 is ano<strong>the</strong>r to which persecution is irrelevant: it merelyprohibits <strong>Christian</strong>s from being present at sacriWces on <strong>the</strong> Capitol—where <strong>the</strong> main oYcial ceremonies of a city would take place. Thepenalty is severe: ten years’ penance for merely seeing <strong>the</strong> sacriWceperformed by o<strong>the</strong>rs. Again, persecution is not mentioned.Canons 45 and 46 <strong>de</strong>al with catechumens (45) or baptized <strong>Christian</strong>s(46) who ‘have not been to church for a very long time’, perinWnita tempora. Here again—whatever Hefele and o<strong>the</strong>rs maysay61—<strong>the</strong>re is no hint of persecution. In<strong>de</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> words per inWnitatempora show that <strong>the</strong> bishops could not possibly have had <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong> in mind, since it lasted only about two years in <strong>the</strong> West,and for most if not all of that time <strong>the</strong> churches in Spain would havebeen closed and attendance at services would have been a capitaloVence.62Canon 60 <strong>de</strong>als with voluntary martyrdom:63 it <strong>de</strong>clares that<strong>Christian</strong>s executed for smashing idols are not to be accountedmartyrs. Certainly voluntary martyrdom was more frequent duringpersecutions, but <strong>the</strong> phenomenon could occur at o<strong>the</strong>r times. In59 Hefele–Leclercq, Histoire, 251–2.60 Hefele–Leclercq, Histoire, 252–3.61 Hefele–Leclercq, Histoire, 247–8.62 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [see above, Ch. 1, pp. 35–6].63 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 45, 65–8; and see below, Ch. 4,pp. 159–60].
92 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomspite of this prohibition, Faustus, Januarius, and Martial,64 as well asEulalia,65 were duly canonized, although <strong>the</strong>y are all represented asvolunteers.Canon 73 punishes <strong>Christian</strong>s who ‘<strong>de</strong><strong>late</strong>d’ fellow-<strong>Christian</strong>s.Koch was quite wrong to associate this canon with Canon 13 ofArles (314) and take it as proof of recent persecution. The Arlescanon says nothing of <strong>de</strong>lation but speaks of those clerics who ‘aresaid to have betrayed . . . <strong>the</strong> names of <strong>the</strong>ir brethren’ (tradidissedicuntur. . . nomina fratrum suorum).66 Accusation of <strong>Christian</strong>ity,it is true, was normally ma<strong>de</strong> by individual <strong>de</strong>latio,67 but this wouldnot have happened in <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>: <strong>the</strong>n, in an area where<strong>the</strong> persecution was being taken seriously, mere information wouldhave been suYcient to have a <strong>Christian</strong> arrested by <strong>the</strong> authoritiesand put on trial, whe<strong>the</strong>r un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> First Edict, for not handing over<strong>the</strong> scriptures or church property, or un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Second for being acleric, or un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Fourth for not having sacriWced. Hence <strong>the</strong>wording of <strong>the</strong> Arles canon. The situation it contemp<strong>late</strong>s can beseen in <strong>the</strong> Gesta apud Zenophilum, where Wrst Paul, <strong>the</strong> bishop ofCirta, eva<strong>de</strong>s a request for names of <strong>the</strong> rea<strong>de</strong>rs (lectores) who havescriptures, and <strong>late</strong>r <strong>the</strong> sub-<strong>de</strong>acons Catulinus and Marcucliusrefuse point-blank to i<strong>de</strong>ntify rea<strong>de</strong>rs: nos non sumus proditores.Ecce sumus: iube nos occidi [‘we are not traitors. Here we are: or<strong>de</strong>rus to be killed’].68 Elvira Canon 73 is <strong>de</strong>aling with something entirelydiVerent: <strong>de</strong>lation of <strong>Christian</strong>s by <strong>Christian</strong>s for any crime whatsoever.This is proved by <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r part of <strong>the</strong> canon—of which Kochquotes only <strong>the</strong> Wrst sentence referring to <strong>de</strong>lations ending in proscriptionor <strong>de</strong>ath, where <strong>the</strong> penalty is to be total exclusion fromcommunion. The canon goes on to say that if <strong>the</strong> accusation is a lessserious one (not involving proscription or <strong>de</strong>ath), <strong>the</strong> exclusion is tolast for only Wve years. That is to say <strong>the</strong> canon is a general one,64 See <strong>the</strong>ir Passion in T. Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta (1689;ed. Ratisbon, 1859), 556–7.65 Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius, Peristephanon 3, esp. 41–95.66 [For a text and French trans. of <strong>the</strong> canons of Arles, see J. Gau<strong>de</strong>met, Concilesgaulois du IVe siècle (Sources Chrétiennes 241; Paris, 1977), 35–67.]67 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ [below, Ch. 3, pp. 110–11, 120].68 On <strong>the</strong> Gesta apud Zenophilum, see Y. Duval, Chrétiens d’Afrique à l’aube <strong>de</strong> lapaix constantinienne: les premiers échos <strong>de</strong> la gran<strong>de</strong> persécution (Collections <strong>de</strong>sÉtu<strong>de</strong>s Augustiniennes 164; Paris, 2000), 21–63.
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 93punishing all <strong>de</strong>lation within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community. <strong>Persecution</strong>,again, is not <strong>the</strong>re.Canon 25 <strong>de</strong>als with letters of communion, litterae communicatoriae.69DiVerent interpretations have been oVered, but I do not see anyproblem. Especially in view of Canon 9 of Arles,70 <strong>the</strong>re is no doubtwhatever that Canon 25 has in mind a <strong>Christian</strong> who, before settingout on a journey, asks his bishop to certify a letter of recommendationto o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> churches he may visit: such people are to begiven only litterae communicatoriae (for which see Canon 58), and<strong>the</strong>y are not to be <strong>de</strong>scribed as confessors,71 because such a titlemakes too much of an impression upon simple folk.72 Here at lasta reasonable case can be ma<strong>de</strong> for supposing that <strong>the</strong>re previouslyhad been a persecution—but it is by no means an unanswerable case,for three reasons. First, individual persecutions may have occurred inindividual localities in Spain during <strong>the</strong> 45 years between <strong>the</strong> persecutionof Valerian and <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>. Second, even if <strong>the</strong>Council of Elvira took place only just before <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>,Valerianic (and even Decian) confessors might still be alive. Third,volunteers who came forward on <strong>the</strong>ir own initiative to testifypublicly to <strong>the</strong> Faith, and who were dismissed or visited with somepunishment less than <strong>de</strong>ath, might <strong>de</strong>scribe <strong>the</strong>mselves as confessors.That leaves us with only one indication of a probable date forElvira after 305, as we come to <strong>the</strong> last canon which can have anyrelevance to our problem: Canon 1. This exclu<strong>de</strong>s from communion,even on his <strong>de</strong>athbed, <strong>the</strong> adult <strong>Christian</strong> who after baptism has69 Omnis, qui attulerit litteras confessorias, sublato nomine confessoris, eo quodomnes sub hac nominis gloria passim concutiant simplices, communicatoriae ei dandaesunt litterae [‘Anyone who carries a letter of a confessor should be given a letter ofcommunion with <strong>the</strong> title ‘‘confessor’’ removed, since all those sharing in this glory of<strong>the</strong> title upset simple people everywhere’].70 De his, qui confessorum litteras aVerunt, placuit ut sublatis iis litteris aliasaccipiant communicatorias [‘Concerning those who carry a letter of a confessor, it is<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that this letter be taken away from <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>the</strong>y receive ano<strong>the</strong>r letter ofcommunion’].71 Sublato nomine confessoris refers to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>letion of <strong>the</strong> title of confessor.72 Here I agree with Hefele–Leclercq, Histoire, i 235, cf. 287 n. 2. In spite of Hefele’sclear explanation, Koch (as his reference to Cyprian, Epist. 15.4 shows) evi<strong>de</strong>ntlyreturned to an ol<strong>de</strong>r view in which Canon 25 was taken to refer to <strong>the</strong> libelli pacisgiven by confessors to penitent apostates. He is very wrong when he brackets Canon25 with 73 as proof of a previous persecution.
94 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom‘gone to an idol’s temple to worship’, ad templum idoli idolaturus,on<strong>the</strong> ground that he has committed ‘a capital crime, <strong>the</strong> worst ofcrimes’. At Wrst sight this too looks like a post-305 <strong>de</strong>cision. Butneed it be—can it be, even? There are two questions to consi<strong>de</strong>r:(a) The wording is very narrow. A <strong>Christian</strong> who had sacriWced notin an actual temple but, for instance, in a courtroom,73 or some o<strong>the</strong>rpublic place, would not be caught by this provision at all. Yet <strong>the</strong>courtroom in particular must often have been <strong>the</strong> scene of apostasy,when an accused <strong>Christian</strong> was coerced, with or without torture, intooVering incense. I cannot help thinking that Canon 1 means exactlywhat it says and refers to going into a pagan temple to participate in<strong>the</strong> cult.74 If this is so, <strong>the</strong>re is no reference to persecution.(b) The penalty is again <strong>the</strong> most terrible <strong>the</strong> Church had it in itspower to inXict on a believer. In spite of <strong>the</strong> severity of so many of <strong>the</strong>Canons of Elvira, it is impossible to believe that <strong>the</strong> Spanish bishopswould have treated participation in pagan cult in a persecution assuch an unforgivable crime. Koch quotes Cyprian, De Lapsis 17 (andhe might have ad<strong>de</strong>d many similar passages), as evi<strong>de</strong>nce of anintransigent attitu<strong>de</strong> to lapsi.75 But De Lapsis was written before <strong>the</strong>Decian persecution was entirely over, and after that rules had beenlaid down for <strong>the</strong> readmission of penitent apostates in Africa, accordingto which even those who had actually sacriWced could bereadmitted, at <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>st at <strong>de</strong>ath’s door,76 and in some cases muchearlier, with as short a term of penance as three years if <strong>the</strong>y hadbegun as confessors and had apostatized only after torture.77 NowCyprian is known to have been in correspon<strong>de</strong>nce with at leastfour Spanish congregations or <strong>the</strong>ir bishops, in three wi<strong>de</strong>ly separatedparts of Spain: Legio (Leon) and Asturica (Astorga), Emerita(Merida), and Caesaraugusta (Saragossa).78 On a matter whichhad caused so much discussion in <strong>the</strong> mid-third century but ha<strong>de</strong>ventually been settled in a perfectly reasonable manner, to <strong>the</strong>73 Note Lactantius, DMP 13.1; cf. 15.5.74 We may compare Canon 59, discussed above, where merely being a spectator ofpagan cult in <strong>the</strong> Capitol is <strong>de</strong>clared a crime.75 Koch, ‘Zeit’, 63.76 Cyprian, Ep. 55.17.3, sacriWcatis in exitu.77 Cyprian, Ep. 57.1, 3, 5; 56.2.1.78 See Cyprian, Ep. 67salut.; 1.1; 6.1.
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 95satisfaction of all but a few extremists, <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to think that<strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira would have so broken with prece<strong>de</strong>nt andcommon sense.For <strong>the</strong>se reasons I conclu<strong>de</strong> that Canon 1 also must not be taken asevi<strong>de</strong>nce of a recent persecution, but refers to <strong>Christian</strong>s who hadmore or less voluntarily sacriWced in a pagan temple, perhaps during<strong>the</strong> holding of a civil magistracy. Such an act might well be consi<strong>de</strong>redunforgivable by a ga<strong>the</strong>ring of bishops, if torture or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r circumstancesof persecution were not available to oVer any mitigation.We are left, <strong>the</strong>n, with no canon, except perhaps 25, which evensuggests that <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira was held soon after <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong>. And it is <strong>the</strong>n possible to turn <strong>the</strong> argument round andask whe<strong>the</strong>r we are not obliged to date Elvira ei<strong>the</strong>r before <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong> or else consi<strong>de</strong>rably <strong>late</strong>r: for if <strong>the</strong> council took placewithin a few years of <strong>the</strong> persecution, would it not have been boundto <strong>de</strong>al with <strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> various categories of lapsi?I do not see how we can be positive about <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> council.But at <strong>the</strong> least this must be said: if it is put soon after <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong>, it provi<strong>de</strong>s strong evi<strong>de</strong>nce that apostasy in Spain wasnot a great problem, and hence that <strong>the</strong> persecution <strong>the</strong>re had notbeen all that severe. A long time ago Duchesne, in support of a datefor Elvira before <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, emphasized <strong>the</strong> strikingcontrast between its canons and those of <strong>the</strong> Council of Ancyra(314), or of <strong>the</strong> Canonical Letter of Peter of Alexandria (306);79and we may notice here that <strong>the</strong> Elvira canons contain nothing tocorrespond even with Canon 13 of Arles, <strong>de</strong>aling with traditores.Koch’s attempted reply to Duchesne’s argument has no validity: itis based on <strong>the</strong> certainly false assumption that Constantius Chlorusruled Spain at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> persecution. In my earlier article I triedto show that in <strong>the</strong> ‘First Tetrarchy’ (293–305) <strong>the</strong>re was probably aless complete territorial division among <strong>the</strong> four emperors than in<strong>the</strong> Second (after 305);80 but at any rate, in so far as Italy, Africa, and79 L. Duchesne, ‘Le Concile d’Elvire et les Xamines chrétiens’, Mélanges Rénier.Bibliothèque <strong>de</strong> l’École <strong>de</strong>s Hautes Étu<strong>de</strong>s, 73 (1887), 159–74. [Supported by T. D.Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 53, with n. 108, p. 314.]80 ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 69–72]. See also W. Seston, Dioclétien et la tétrarchie(Paris, 1946), i. 231 V., esp. 244–5. [The evi<strong>de</strong>nce is presented by Barnes, New Empire,
96 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomSpain had a particular ruler, everyone would now agree that it wasMaximian, an enemy of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s, and that <strong>the</strong> area in whichConstantius was <strong>the</strong> key Wgure was Gaul and Britain only.The evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Eusebius is distorted by his <strong>de</strong>sire to pleaseConstantius’ son Constantine, by painting as rosy a picture aspossible of his <strong>late</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r.81 But we may accept <strong>the</strong> statement ofLactantius that Constantius merely had <strong>the</strong> churches <strong>de</strong>stroyed butdid not allow any persecution of individuals (DMP 15.7), for it ispartly conWrmed by <strong>the</strong> Donatist petition of 313 to Constantine,preserved by Optatus,82 in which <strong>the</strong> Africans beg Constantine tochoose judges from Gaul to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> between <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>the</strong> party ofCaecilian on <strong>the</strong> grounds that Constantius did not persecute <strong>the</strong>reand Gaul was ab hoc facinore immunis, free from <strong>the</strong> crime of traditio.The evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Lactantius is <strong>the</strong> more valuable in that he actuallylived in Gaul for some time as tutor to Constantine’s son Crispus,and presumably wrote <strong>the</strong> De Mortibus Persecutorum <strong>the</strong>re, betweenabout 318 and 321.83 The Council of Arles did <strong>de</strong>al with traditio, butit was, of course, much more than a merely Gallic council: itcontained bishops from most of <strong>the</strong> western part of <strong>the</strong> empire,including Liberius of Emerita, <strong>the</strong> metropolitan see of Lusitania,and <strong>de</strong>alt with wi<strong>de</strong>r issues such as <strong>the</strong> African schism.We ought to expect some reference to traditio in a Spanish councilheld soon after <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, for <strong>the</strong> First Edict was surelyenforced by Maximian and his provincial governors, and traditiomust have occurred in Spain. The contrast in this respect between196–7, who supports <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> and Seston. The most comprehensive recent narrativeof <strong>the</strong> tetrarchic period is KuhoV, Diokletian und die Epoche <strong>de</strong>r Tetrarchie, 17–326,784–934. In English see Barnes, Constantine, 3–73; for a briefer narrative see S.Corcoran, The Empire of <strong>the</strong> Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and GovernmentAD 284–324, rev. edn. (Oxford, 2000), 5–9, and D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay,AD 180–395 (London, 2004), 280–90, 333–63.]81 In ‘Aspects’, [above, Ch. 1, p. 70] n. 117 I have referred to ‘<strong>the</strong> disingenuous HEviii 13. 12–13 and viii append. 4, and <strong>the</strong> absurd Vita Const. i 16’. The truth leaks outa little in Mart. Pal. 13.12.82 Optatus 1.22, Ziwsa 25–6 ¼ von So<strong>de</strong>n, UED no. 11, p. 13 [Edwards, Optatus,22–3].83 See J. Moreau, Lactance: ‘De la mort <strong>de</strong>s persécuteurs’ (Sources Chrétiennes 39:Paris, 1954), I. 34–7. [There is some <strong>de</strong>bate about <strong>the</strong> date of De Mortibus Persecutorum,and its place of writing and publication: see Barnes, ‘Lactantius andConstantine’, JRS 63 (1973), esp. 32–9, who dates it to some time between July orAugust 314 and 315. The earlier date, however, merely streng<strong>the</strong>ns <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s point.]
The Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West 97Elvira and Arles is striking—unless, of course, <strong>the</strong> standard chronologicalor<strong>de</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> councils is reversed and we place Elvira <strong>late</strong>r thanArles. This is one of two solutions of <strong>the</strong> date of Elvira which I wouldregard as possible. It would explain <strong>the</strong> absence of any reference totraditio at Elvira—<strong>the</strong> question had already been settled at Arles, withLiberius among o<strong>the</strong>rs being present to agree to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cision.Two arguments have been produced against a date after 313. Littleweight need be attached to <strong>the</strong> Wrst,84 that Ossius (Hosius) of Cordobamust have been in constant attendance upon Constantine from 312onwards. Ossius could easily have been given brief leave to attend animportant synod in his own province. The o<strong>the</strong>r argument, proposedby Grégoire,85 is that if <strong>the</strong> political situation had permitted (as it wouldof course have done after Constantine had ma<strong>de</strong> himself master of <strong>the</strong>whole of <strong>the</strong> West at <strong>the</strong> end of 312),86 bishops from MauretaniaTingitana, part of <strong>the</strong> civil diocese of <strong>the</strong> Spains, would necessarilyhave been present at Elvira. This is not conclusive. There is no parallelto Elvira, for <strong>the</strong> bishops attending <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r known synods of <strong>the</strong>period—Arles, Ancyra, Neocaesarea—came in each case from a verylarge area. But <strong>the</strong> argument has some substance: one would certainlyhave expected a synod of bishops from all <strong>the</strong> Spanish provinces to beatten<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong> bishops of Mauretania Tingitana.The alternative is to accept a date for Elvira before 303. The onlyargument I can see against this, but it is a strong one, is that we knowof no parallel for such a council.87 The habit of holding assemblies ofbishops grew up only by <strong>de</strong>grees, and as a result of <strong>the</strong> need to settlemajor disputes, such as <strong>the</strong> Donatist and Arian controversies. SurelyElvira ought to come after Arles, as Neocaesarea after Ancyra. Onceproblems relating to <strong>the</strong> lapsi of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> had beenthrashed out at Arles and Ancyra, <strong>the</strong> bishops at Elvira and84 Advocated among o<strong>the</strong>rs by Koch, ‘Zeit’, 67, Grégoire, Persécutions, 146–7 [andLaeuchli, Power and Sexuality, 87 n. 65].85 Grégoire, Persécutions, 147–8.86 [In fact, Constantine probably inherited Spain from his fa<strong>the</strong>r Constantius in306; both Julian (Oration 2.51d) and Orosius (Hist. Adv. Pag. 7.25.15) record thatConstantius ruled <strong>the</strong>re and, as Barnes notes, <strong>the</strong> panegyric of 313 makes no mentionof Constantine liberating Spain (Pan. Lat. 12.9.25); cf. Barnes, New Empire, 197.Maxentius <strong>de</strong>feated Severus to rule Italy and Africa in 307, lost Africa brieXy toDomitius Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>n reconquered it in 309.]87 Ossius’ attendance at Elvira is no objection to an early date, for when he died in357–8 he could be called a centenarian: Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 45.
98 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomNeocaesarea could <strong>de</strong>vote <strong>the</strong>mselves entirely to o<strong>the</strong>r matters. Onbalance I think that this argument outweighs <strong>the</strong> one objection to <strong>the</strong><strong>late</strong>r date, and with some misgiving I would place Elvira after 314and, because of an acute point ma<strong>de</strong> long ago by Baluze,88 before <strong>the</strong>Council of Nicaea in 324, and preferably earlier ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>late</strong>r inthat period because Valerius, bishop of Caesaraugusta, who waspresent at Elvira, was bishop at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>,during which he was exiled.89At any rate <strong>the</strong> canons of Elvira provi<strong>de</strong> no evi<strong>de</strong>nce whateverabout <strong>the</strong> operation of <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, orin<strong>de</strong>ed about any aspect of that persecution. It is a pity that <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>tailed evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> persecution in Spain is so poor.90 There areno really reliable Passions: <strong>the</strong> best, that of Faustus, Januarius, andMartial, like Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius’ account of Eulalia, exhibits martyrs asvolunteers.91 No doubt <strong>the</strong>re were some executions, but <strong>the</strong> redoubtableOssius, though a confessor,92 survived <strong>the</strong> persecution, and if webelieve <strong>the</strong> Passion of <strong>the</strong> arch<strong>de</strong>acon Vincentius—a mere historicalnovel according to Delehaye93—his bishop, Valerius of Caesaraugusta,was only exiled, a mil<strong>de</strong>r punishment than that meted out tomost confessing bishops.To sum up, <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis I advanced in my earlier article, that <strong>the</strong>Fourth Edict was not enforced, and probably not even promulgated,in <strong>the</strong> western part of <strong>the</strong> empire, stands unimpaired. The mainweight of <strong>the</strong> argument still rests not only on <strong>the</strong> absence of goo<strong>de</strong>vi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> enforcement of <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict in <strong>the</strong> West,but even more on <strong>the</strong> striking contrast between <strong>the</strong> emphasis onsacriWcing alone in <strong>the</strong> canons of Ancyra and <strong>the</strong> letter of Peter ofAlexandria,94 and <strong>the</strong> emphasis on traditio in <strong>the</strong> canons of Arles andin <strong>the</strong> Donatist controversy in Africa.88 See Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, ii 1–2 n. 2; Hefele–Leclercq, Histoire, i.i. 218.89 See <strong>the</strong> Passion of S. Vincentius, in Ruinart, Acta, 400–1. But note <strong>the</strong>comments below on <strong>the</strong> dubious value of this text.90 Cf. J. Zeiller, in A. Fliche and V. Martin, Histoire <strong>de</strong> l’Église, ii; Eng. trans. byE. C. Messenger, History of <strong>the</strong> Primitive Church, iv. 1074.91 See ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 56–7].92 Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 42, 44.93 H. Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hagiographiques, 4th edn. (Brussels, 1955), 114. [Eng.trans. by D. Attwater, The Legends of <strong>the</strong> Saints, repr. with an introduction by T.O’Laughlin (Dublin, 1998), 95.]94 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 48–9].
Appendix to Chapter 2 99APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2The Date of <strong>the</strong> Council of ElviraJoseph StreeterA consi<strong>de</strong>rable amount has been written on <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira after 1965,not all of which is particularly relevant to <strong>the</strong> concerns of this chapter.1Unsurprisingly, given <strong>the</strong> paucity of evi<strong>de</strong>nce from early fourth-centurySpain, <strong>de</strong>bate about <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> council has continued, much of whichremains within <strong>the</strong> scholarly traditions outlined by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>. Accordingly,dating <strong>de</strong>pends upon whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> historian interprets Elvira as a response to<strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>. Barnes and Lane Fox do not, but choose diVerent dates.Barnes follows Duchesne2 in dating <strong>the</strong> council to around ad 300, or ‘not longbefore Diocletian <strong>de</strong>creed persecution’.3 Lane Fox follows <strong>the</strong> arguments of thischapter, noting <strong>the</strong> absence of any reference ei<strong>the</strong>r to lapsi or traditores, andprefers a date after <strong>the</strong> Council of Arles (314) to one before 303, on <strong>the</strong> groundsthat between 260 and 295 no confessors were created.4Laeuchli, Frend, and Chadwick continue to argue for a date of around309–10, although nei<strong>the</strong>r Frend nor Chadwick <strong>de</strong>fends this at any length.51 It has been of particular interest to Catholic <strong>the</strong>ologians, owing to <strong>the</strong> stipulationof priestly celibacy in Canon 33. For a summary of writings on this subject between1970 and 1979, see R. Gryson, ‘Dix ans <strong>de</strong> recherches sur les origines du célibatecclésiastique: réXexion sur les publications <strong>de</strong>s années 1970–1979’, Revue Théologique<strong>de</strong> Louvain, 11.2 (1980), 157–85.2 See n. 79 above. F. Salvador Ventura, on prosopographical grounds, has reWnedDuchesne’s date to <strong>the</strong> years 300–2; see his Prosopografía <strong>de</strong> Hispania Meridional, iii:Antigüedad tardía (300–711) (Granada, 1998), 46 (s.v. Barbatus, and in most subsequententries for participants).3 Barnes, Constantine, 53–4; see also his ‘The Constantinian Reformation’, TheCrake Lectures 1984 (New Brunswick, 1986), 39–57, at 45–6, repr. in Barnes, FromEusebius to Augustus: Selected Papers 1982–1993 (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1994), where he <strong>de</strong>fendsthis date fur<strong>the</strong>r.4 Lane Fox, Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s, 664–5, reaYrmed in his ‘Literacy and Power inEarly <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, in A. Bowman and G. Woolf (eds.), Literacy and Power in <strong>the</strong>Ancient World (Cambridge, 1994), 126–48, at 137.5 Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality, 86 n. 65; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of <strong>Christian</strong>ity(London, 1984), 448; H. Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee toGregory <strong>the</strong> Great (Oxford, 2001), 181–2.
100 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThe date of 309 is problematic, at least as presented by Grégoire.6 As <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> explains above, Grégoire’s case for 309 rests on <strong>the</strong> absence of bishopsfrom Mauretania Tingitana, part of <strong>the</strong> diocese of Spain, at a Spanish churchcouncil.7 The assumptions un<strong>de</strong>rlying this are that Maxentius was, until 310,in control of Spain and prevented signiWcant movements of <strong>Christian</strong>s in histerritories, whereas once Spain came un<strong>de</strong>r Constantine’s rule in 310 <strong>the</strong>impediment would have been removed.8 However, <strong>the</strong> numismatic evi<strong>de</strong>nceun<strong>de</strong>rpinning this argument—namely Maxentian coinage thought to havebeen minted at Tarraco in Spain—has been discredited since <strong>the</strong> coins inquestion were actually struck at Ticinum in Italy.9 There is no o<strong>the</strong>r evi<strong>de</strong>nceto link Maxentius to Spain, control of which was probably inherited byConstantine directly from his fa<strong>the</strong>r in 306.10 Laeuchli <strong>de</strong>fends 309 in lessconcrete terms, seeing <strong>the</strong> contradictory nature of <strong>the</strong> canons as characteristicof <strong>the</strong> pre-Constantinian Church, and <strong>the</strong>ir ambivalent attitu<strong>de</strong>towards Rome as suggesting a Church removed by some distance frompersecution—which would not be <strong>the</strong> case if <strong>the</strong> canons were dated to306.11 Both arguments could also justify a date before 303, and given <strong>the</strong>general lack of evi<strong>de</strong>nce for early fourth-century Spain—let alone <strong>the</strong> SpanishChurch—<strong>the</strong>re are few objective grounds upon which ei<strong>the</strong>r point can beestablished. Finally, <strong>the</strong> earliest date proposed by Koch, 306, is tentativelysupported by Gau<strong>de</strong>met12 and more Wrmly by Ramos-Lisson,13 who links6 See n. 56 above.7 See p. 97 above, with n. 86.8 See E. <strong>Ste</strong>in, Histoire du Bas Empire, i (Paris, 1959), 87. In <strong>the</strong> original draft ofthis essay <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> accepted this chronology, noting that ‘numismatic evi<strong>de</strong>nceshows that Spain adhered to Constantine as early as 310’.9 C. H. V. Su<strong>the</strong>rland, Roman Imperial Coinage, vi (Oxford, 1967), 6–7, 266–98.Cf. Barnes, Constantine, 314 n. 108, and New Empire, 195–200, for <strong>the</strong> politicaldivisions of <strong>the</strong> empire un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> tetrarchy.10 See n. 86 above.11 How far <strong>the</strong> council would need to be removed from persecution for thisambivalence to remain is only <strong>de</strong>alt with Xeetingly. Laeuchli notes, somewhatvaguely, that ‘Man forgets fast, especially if <strong>the</strong> conXict he is about to forget didnot touch him as <strong>de</strong>eply as he thought it did at <strong>the</strong> time’; see Power and Sexuality,87 n. 65. Perhaps, but while <strong>the</strong> persecution in Spain was brief, Spanish <strong>Christian</strong>swould surely have been aware of more brutal events elsewhere which, one imagines,would keep any memory of persecution fresh.12 J. Gau<strong>de</strong>met, ‘Concile d’Elvire’, Dictionnaire d’Histoire et <strong>de</strong> Géographie Ecclésiastique,15 (1963), 312–48.13 D. Ramos-Lisson, ‘En torno al la autenticidad <strong>de</strong> algunos canones <strong>de</strong>l concilio<strong>de</strong> Elvira’, Scripta Theologica, 11 (1979), 181; i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Das Konzil von Ilíberis (um 306)’,in J. Orlandis and D. Ramos-Lisson, Die Syno<strong>de</strong> auf <strong>de</strong>r iberischen Halbinsel bis zumEinbruch <strong>de</strong>s Islam (Munich, 1981), 3–30, at 6, <strong>late</strong>r trans<strong>late</strong>d into Spanish, Historia<strong>de</strong> los Concilios <strong>de</strong> la España romana y visigoda (Pamplona, 1986), 25–67.
Appendix to Chapter 2 101<strong>the</strong> concerns of <strong>the</strong> canons with those of a Church un<strong>de</strong>r immediatepressure from without—a position that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> convincingly criticizes.Much <strong>the</strong> most radical study of <strong>the</strong> canons of Elvira is that of MauriceMeigne,14 although it has not occasioned much discussion in Anglophonescholarship.15 It will have been noted that throughout this essay <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>treats <strong>the</strong> canons of Elvira as a complete document, as do Barnes, Lane Fox,Laeuchli, Frend, Chadwick, Gau<strong>de</strong>met, and Ramos-Lisson, and it is thisassumption that Meigne attacks. He argues that <strong>the</strong> document now called‘<strong>the</strong> canons of <strong>the</strong> council of Elvira’ is in fact a composite text, a collection,consisting of 21 original canons (numbers 1–21) from <strong>the</strong> turn of <strong>the</strong> fourthcentury,16 ano<strong>the</strong>r more or less coherent group of 13 canons (63–75) datingto some time between <strong>the</strong> councils of Arles and Nicaea,17 and 47 remainingcanons of <strong>late</strong>r date.18 Meigne’s reasons for this are several: <strong>the</strong> Elvirancanons are, he notes, unusually long—around four times <strong>the</strong> length ofo<strong>the</strong>r fourth-century canons; <strong>the</strong> list of <strong>de</strong>cisions is disor<strong>de</strong>rly; <strong>the</strong>y arefrequently contradictory, both philologically and in terms of content;19and Wnally, several canons appear anachronistic, preWguring <strong>late</strong>r problemsof church discipline in both East and West. Suberbiola Martinez has fur<strong>the</strong>rreWned Meigne’s <strong>the</strong>sis, positing two early councils in 298 (canons 59–77)and 309 (1–22) with three fur<strong>the</strong>r councils in 354 (53–8), 365 (37–52), and396 (23–36).20One signiWcant objection is that Meigne oVers no motive for such acollection. Ramos-Lisson adds o<strong>the</strong>r criticisms,21 suggesting that <strong>the</strong>unusual length of <strong>the</strong> canons <strong>de</strong>rives simply from <strong>the</strong> number of problemspresented to <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs of Elvira, and that <strong>the</strong> discrepancy between Canons1 and 59 might indicate one <strong>late</strong>r interpolation and not <strong>the</strong> existence of acollection. As to anachronisms, he suggests that <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong>14 M. Meigne, ‘Concile ou collection d’Elvire?’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 70(1975), 361–87.15 Although see H. A. Drake, Constantine and <strong>the</strong> Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance(Baltimore, 2000), 508 n. 70; H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and<strong>the</strong> Council of Serdica (Oxford, 2002), 40–2; and M. Kulikowski, Late Roman Spainand its Cities (Baltimore, 2004), 328–9 n. 3. Barnes mentions it, but without criticalcomment: see his ‘The Constantinian Reformation’, 55 n. 43.16 Meigne follows <strong>the</strong> dating of Duchesne; see n. 79.17 Meigne, ‘Concile ou collection’, 386.18 Meigne, ‘Concile ou collection’, 366.19 Most conspicuously between Canons 1 and 59.20 See his Nuevos concilios Hispano-Romanos <strong>de</strong> los siglos III y IV: La colección <strong>de</strong>Elvira (Malaga, 1987). He attacks <strong>the</strong> integrity of <strong>the</strong> canons on much <strong>the</strong> samegrounds as Meigne, but also notes <strong>the</strong> diversity in penitence (see esp. 16–18). He alsonotes fur<strong>the</strong>r contradictions between canons, notably 7 and 47.21 Ramos-Lisson, ‘En torno’.
102 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdominXuential Ossius of Cordoba explains <strong>the</strong> diVusion of <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>de</strong>bated atElvira, and <strong>the</strong>ir importance in <strong>late</strong>r doctrinal <strong>de</strong>bate. Despite <strong>the</strong>se criticisms,Meigne’s collection <strong>the</strong>sis has been well received by Gryson,22 Brennecke,23and Drake,24 while Reichert <strong>de</strong>scribes it as ‘common property’.25Certainly it provi<strong>de</strong>s a novel explanation for an exceptional document,which Ramos-Lisson’s criticisms do not address very convincingly. Whyshould <strong>the</strong> canons of Elvira be so much longer than those of every o<strong>the</strong>rfourth-century council, and why should a council consisting only of Spanishbishops resolve so many important doctrinal issues? Moreover, in contrastto <strong>late</strong>r fourth-century canons, those at Elvira are often contradictory, andmuddled in or<strong>de</strong>r. However, o<strong>the</strong>r explanations are possible, which do notinvolve rejecting <strong>the</strong> integrity of <strong>the</strong> Elviran canons. Above all it is questionablewhe<strong>the</strong>r coherence of or<strong>de</strong>r is a necessary feature of church canons.Discrepancies could be explained as textual traces of disharmony in <strong>the</strong>Church.26 Parallels with o<strong>the</strong>r councils for which we have more evi<strong>de</strong>nce arealso instructive. While <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon in 451 met to resolve aspeciWc doctrinal issue (<strong>the</strong> nature of Christ), <strong>the</strong> simple fact that manybishops were assembled in one place ma<strong>de</strong> it a convenient opportunity to<strong>de</strong>al with any o<strong>the</strong>r ecclesiastical problems. Thus following discussion of <strong>the</strong>central doctrinal problem, <strong>the</strong> emperor Marcian instructed <strong>the</strong> bishopspresent to ‘remain three or four days longer, and in <strong>the</strong> presence of ourmost magniWcent oYcials, move whatever proposals you wish’.27 Of course<strong>the</strong> circumstances of <strong>the</strong> Church in <strong>the</strong> mid-Wfth century were very diVerentfrom those in <strong>the</strong> Wrst quarter of <strong>the</strong> fourth century, and we are fortunate tohave unusually <strong>de</strong>tailed evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> proceedings at Chalcedon. None<strong>the</strong>less,similar issues of convenience may well explain <strong>the</strong> range of issuesdiscussed at Elvira. Also, if we were to accept Duchesne’s early date, accordingto which <strong>the</strong> Canons of Elvira are <strong>the</strong> Wrst published canons of any22 Gryson, ‘Dix ans <strong>de</strong> recherches’ (n. 95), 161–3: Gryson largely discountsMeigne’s philological argument, but conce<strong>de</strong>s that his general point on <strong>the</strong> collectionis probably correct.23 H. C. Brennecke, ‘Bischofsversammlung und Reichssyno<strong>de</strong>: das Synodalwesenim Umbruch <strong>de</strong>r konstantinischen Zeit’, in F. von Lilienfeld and A. M. Ritter (eds.),Einheit <strong>de</strong>r Kirche in vorkonstantinischer Zeit (Oikonomia 25; Erlangen, 1989), 35–53,at 42–3.24 Drake, Constantine and <strong>the</strong> Bishops, 223 and 508 n. 70.25 E. Reichert, Die Canones <strong>de</strong>r Konzil von Elvira: Einleitung und Kommentar, Ph.D.diss. University of Hamburg (1990), 49. As Hess says, this probably overstates <strong>the</strong>case; cf. Hess, Early Development of Canon Law, 42.26 Cf. Lauechli, Power and Sexuality, 4–8.27 E. Schwartz (ed.), ACO ii.i.2 (Berlin, 1933), 158 §23. On <strong>the</strong> Council ofChalcedon, see Ch. 6 below.
Appendix to Chapter 2 103church council, it would be unwise to expect <strong>the</strong>m to conform to genericregularities, given that <strong>the</strong>y would <strong>the</strong>mselves constitute a new genre.Similarly, an early date would place <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira in quite diVerentcircumstances from <strong>the</strong> councils of Arles or Nicaea. Constantine’s conversionto <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> transformation of religious power that iteVected ‘rationalized’ problems of doctrine and church organization: ra<strong>the</strong>rthan actively seeking to resolve a wi<strong>de</strong> range of ostensibly unre<strong>late</strong>d ecclesiasticalproblems, Constantine more often respon<strong>de</strong>d to speciWc localdisputes, as rival groups appealed to him in or<strong>de</strong>r to receive his patronage.If Elvira dates to <strong>the</strong> turn of <strong>the</strong> fourth century, religious authority within<strong>the</strong> Church was consi<strong>de</strong>rably more diVuse than it became after 312, and <strong>the</strong>range of problems to be raised and subsequently resolved may have beencorrespondingly greater.What consequences might Meigne’s <strong>the</strong>sis have for <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s argument?At one level <strong>the</strong> Meigne and Suberbiola Martinez hypo<strong>the</strong>ses provi<strong>de</strong>possible solutions to <strong>the</strong> dating diYculties that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> reviewed in <strong>the</strong>latter part of <strong>the</strong> paper. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of conXated council <strong>de</strong>cisions issuperior to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s cautious review of <strong>the</strong> possibilities is a matter ofchoice: scepticism is due any answer to a problem with so little supportingevi<strong>de</strong>nce, and Suberbiola Martinez’s work in particular seems unduly bold.28Meigne shows well <strong>the</strong> unusual nature of <strong>the</strong> canons of Elvira, and this<strong>de</strong>serves some comment. If we follow <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> and accept a single council,why might <strong>the</strong> canons have been composed between 314 and 325? They maysimply have been ‘any o<strong>the</strong>r business’ in between <strong>the</strong> more focused meetingsof Arles and Nicaea, which might also explain <strong>the</strong>ir unusual length. In thiscase it is not clear why <strong>the</strong> bishops chose to meet in Spain, although <strong>the</strong>presence of <strong>the</strong> inXuential Ossius could have been important, or whybishops from beyond Spain were not involved in discussing issues of wi<strong>de</strong>rimport. Against an early date for Elvira, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> simply notes its lack ofprece<strong>de</strong>nt—although this did not stop <strong>the</strong> Wrst published canons of aChurch council being published. In<strong>de</strong>ed, lack of prece<strong>de</strong>nt is one way toexplain <strong>the</strong> unusual quality of <strong>the</strong> Elviran canons, particularly in relation too<strong>the</strong>r fourth-century canons—not least given that <strong>the</strong>y would <strong>the</strong>n constitute<strong>the</strong> only published canons of <strong>the</strong> pre-Constantinian Church. There isalso a good piece of evi<strong>de</strong>nce for an early date that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> does notdiscuss, namely <strong>the</strong> list of nineteen bishops present at <strong>the</strong> council: Ossius ofCordoba is second, with Felix of Acci (Cadiz) presiding, which, as Barnes has28 See M. Sotomayor, ‘Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones sobre las fuentes para el estudio <strong>de</strong>lchristianismo primitivo en Andalucia’, in C. González Román (ed.), La Bética en suproblemática histórica (Granada, 1991), 299–311, esp. 304–8.
104 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomnoted, would surely be unlikely after 312.29 None<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> central <strong>the</strong>me ofthis chapter, that <strong>the</strong> canons of Elvira provi<strong>de</strong> no evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> promulgationof <strong>the</strong> Fourth Edict in Spain, is intact whe<strong>the</strong>r we regard <strong>the</strong>m as acollection or as <strong>the</strong> genuine pronouncements of a council. On <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong>council, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had for some time been uncertain, as <strong>the</strong> reference toElvira in Chapter 4 clearly shows.3029 See Barnes, ‘The Constantinian Reformation’, 45.30 See Ch. 4, pp. 159–60.
3Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?1The persecution of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire has attracted<strong>the</strong> attention of scholars of many diVerent kinds. The enormousvolume of literature on <strong>the</strong> subject is partly due to <strong>the</strong> fact that itcan be approached from many diVerent directions: it oVers a challengeto historians of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (especially of its publicadministration), to Roman lawyers, to ecclesiastical historians, to<strong>Christian</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologians, and to stu<strong>de</strong>nts of Roman religion andGreek religion. In fact all <strong>the</strong>se approaches are relevant, and <strong>the</strong>ymust all be used toge<strong>the</strong>r.First published as ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?’, Past and Present,26(1963), 6–38.1 This article is a revised version of a paper read to <strong>the</strong> Joint Meeting of <strong>the</strong> Hellenicand Roman Societies and <strong>the</strong> Classical Association at Oxford on 12 August 1961. As Iam engaged upon a book on <strong>the</strong> persecutions, in which <strong>the</strong> matters discussed here willbe treated in greater <strong>de</strong>tail, I have not attempted to supply complete documentationand bibliographies; but I have ad<strong>de</strong>d a certain number of references. Except wheno<strong>the</strong>rwise stated <strong>the</strong> Passions of <strong>the</strong> martyrs to which I have referred here can be foundin R. Knopf and G. Krüger, Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten, 3rd edn. (Tübingen, 1929).[4th edn. (Tübingen, 1965). For a new text and English translation of most of <strong>the</strong>semartyrdoms, see H. Musurillo, Acts of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs (Oxford, 1972). There isno evi<strong>de</strong>nce that <strong>the</strong> projected book on persecutions ever took even rudimentaryshape; for most of <strong>the</strong> 1960s <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s energies were turned towards aspects ofClassical Greek History, resulting in <strong>the</strong> publication of The Origins of <strong>the</strong> PeloponnesianWar and <strong>the</strong> collection of papers on A<strong>the</strong>nian Democracy which has recently beenpublished as A<strong>the</strong>nian Democratic Origins, while towards <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> he wasbeginning to contemp<strong>late</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues which eventually appeared in The Class Strugglein <strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World: From <strong>the</strong> Archaic Age to <strong>the</strong> Arab Conquests (1981; corr.imprint, London, 1983). The ongoing work on <strong>Persecution</strong>s is represented by <strong>the</strong>article on Elvira (Ch. 2 above) dating from <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1960s and <strong>the</strong> lecture materials on‘Heresy, Schism and <strong>Persecution</strong>’ (<strong>the</strong> basis for Ch. 5 below) from <strong>the</strong> 1970s and1980s. The 1963 P&Particle, but not <strong>the</strong> 1964 rejoin<strong>de</strong>r, was reprinted in M. I. Finley(ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London, 1974), 210–49.]
106 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThe question I have taken as a title needs to be broken down in twoquite diVerent ways. One is to distinguish between <strong>the</strong> generalpopulation of <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world and what I am going tocall for convenience ‘<strong>the</strong> government’: I mean of course <strong>the</strong> emperor,<strong>the</strong> senate, <strong>the</strong> central oYcials and <strong>the</strong> provincial governors, <strong>the</strong> keyWgures for our purpose being <strong>the</strong> emperor and even more <strong>the</strong>provincial governors. In this case we ask Wrst, ‘For what reasons didordinary pagans <strong>de</strong>mand persecution?’, and secondly, ‘Why did <strong>the</strong>government persecute?’ The second way of dividing up our generalquestion is to distinguish <strong>the</strong> reasons which brought about persecutionfrom <strong>the</strong> purely legal basis of persecution—<strong>the</strong> juridicalprinciples and institutions invoked by those who had already ma<strong>de</strong>up <strong>the</strong>ir minds to take action.But let us not look at <strong>the</strong> persecutions entirely from <strong>the</strong> top, so tospeak—from <strong>the</strong> point of view of <strong>the</strong> persecutors. Scholars who have<strong>de</strong>alt with this subject, Roman historians in particular, have with fewexceptions paid too little attention to what I might call <strong>the</strong> un<strong>de</strong>rsi<strong>de</strong>of <strong>the</strong> process: persecution as seen by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s—in a word,martyrdom, a concept which played a vitally important part in <strong>the</strong>life of <strong>the</strong> early Church.2It is convenient to divi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> persecutions into three distinctphases. The Wrst ends just before <strong>the</strong> great Wre at Rome in 64; <strong>the</strong>second begins with <strong>the</strong> persecution which followed <strong>the</strong> Wre andcontinues until 250;3 and <strong>the</strong> third opens with <strong>the</strong> persecutionun<strong>de</strong>r Decius in 250–1 and lasts until 313—or, if we take accountof <strong>the</strong> anti-<strong>Christian</strong> activities of Licinius in his <strong>late</strong>r years, until <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>feat of Licinius by Constantine in 324. We know of no persecutionby <strong>the</strong> Roman government until 64, and <strong>the</strong>re was no general persecutionuntil that of Decius. Between 64 and 250 <strong>the</strong>re were onlyiso<strong>late</strong>d, local persecutions; and even if <strong>the</strong> total number of victimswas quite consi<strong>de</strong>rable (as I think it probably was), most individual2 See W. H. C. Frend, ‘The Failure of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’, Pastand Present, No. 16 (Nov. 1959), pp. 10–30; ‘The <strong>Persecution</strong>s: Some Links betweenJudaism and <strong>the</strong> Early Church’, Jl. of Eccles. Hist. ix (1958), pp. 141–58; ‘The GnosticSects and <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’, Jl. of Eccles. Hist. v (1954), pp. 25–37. [See also‘Voluntary Martyrdom’, Ch. 4 below.]3 In fact <strong>the</strong> persecuting edict was probably issued before <strong>the</strong> end of 249, but <strong>the</strong>reare no recor<strong>de</strong>d martyrdoms before January 250.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 107outbreaks must usually have been quite brief. Even <strong>the</strong> generalpersecution of Decius lasted little more than a year, and <strong>the</strong> secondgeneral persecution, that of Valerian in 257–9, less than three years.The third and last general persecution, by Diocletian and hiscolleagues from 303 onwards (<strong>the</strong> so-called ‘Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’),continued for only about two years in <strong>the</strong> West, although it wenton a good <strong>de</strong>al longer in <strong>the</strong> East.4 In <strong>the</strong> intervals between <strong>the</strong>segeneral persecutions <strong>the</strong> situation, in my opinion, remained verymuch what it had been earlier, except that on <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>the</strong> positionof <strong>the</strong> Church was distinctly better: <strong>the</strong>re were several local persecutions,but <strong>the</strong>re were also quite long periods during which <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s enjoyed something like complete peace over most of <strong>the</strong>empire;5 and in addition <strong>the</strong> capacity of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> churches toown property was recognized, at least un<strong>de</strong>r some emperors. ButI agree with Baynes6 and many o<strong>the</strong>rs that complete toleration of<strong>Christian</strong>ity was never oYcially proclaimed before <strong>the</strong> edict ofGalerius in 311.The subject is a large one, and I cannot aVord to spend time on <strong>the</strong>Wrst phase of persecution (before 64), during which, in so far as ittook place at all, persecution was on a small scale and came aboutmainly as a result of Jewish hostility, which ten<strong>de</strong>d to lead todisturbances.7 After <strong>the</strong> execution of Jesus, <strong>the</strong> organs of governmentcome quite well out of it all: <strong>the</strong>ir general attitu<strong>de</strong> is one of impartialityor indiVerence towards <strong>the</strong> religious squabbles between Jewsand <strong>Christian</strong>s. In consequence of riots provoked by <strong>Christian</strong>missionary preaching, action was sometimes taken by <strong>the</strong> oYcials4 See my ‘Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘‘Great’’ <strong>Persecution</strong>’, Harv. Theol. Rev. xlvii (1954), pp.75 V., at pp. 95–6 [Ch. 1, pp. 58–9 above].5 Especially from <strong>the</strong> reign of Gallienus (260–8) to <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> Great<strong>Persecution</strong> (303).6 N. H. Baynes, ‘The Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, in S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P.Charlesworth, and N. H. Baynes (eds.), CAH xii: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery,A.D. 193–324 (Cambridge, 1939), 646–77, at p. 655. [See also R. Lane Fox, Pagans and<strong>Christian</strong>s (Harmondsworth, 1986); W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of <strong>Christian</strong>ity (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia,1984).]7 See Act. Apost. vi.8–vii.60; viii.1–4; ix.1–2; xii.1–2, 3–19; xiii.45, 50–1; xiv.2, 4–6,19–20; xvii.5–9, 13–14; xviii.12–17; xx.2–3; xxi.27 V. Cf. I Thessal. ii.14–16. Jewishhostility continued, and Tertullian (Scorp. 10) could call <strong>the</strong> Jewish synagogues‘fontes persecutionis’ [‘sources of persecution’].
108 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomof local communities. But any <strong>Christian</strong>s who were martyred, like<strong>Ste</strong>phen and James ‘<strong>the</strong> Just’ (<strong>the</strong> bro<strong>the</strong>r of Jesus),8 were victims ofpurely Jewish enmity, which would count for little outsi<strong>de</strong> Judaeaitself. The Sanhedrin acted ultra vires in executing James—and<strong>Ste</strong>phen, if in<strong>de</strong>ed his <strong>de</strong>ath was not really a lynching.I do not intend to give a narrative, even in outline, of <strong>the</strong> secondand third phases of persecution, which I shall mainly <strong>de</strong>al withtoge<strong>the</strong>r. The earliest stages of intervention on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong>government,beforeabout112,areparticularlyobscuretous.Wecannotbe certain how and when <strong>the</strong> government began to take action; but,like many o<strong>the</strong>r people, I believe it was in <strong>the</strong> persecution by Nero atRome which followed <strong>the</strong> great Wre in 64. The much discussedpassage in Tacitus9 which is our only informative source leavesmany problems unsolved, but I can do no more here than summarizemy own views, which agree closely with those expressed by ProfessorBeaujeu in his admirable recent monograph on this persecution.10 Inor<strong>de</strong>r to kill <strong>the</strong> wi<strong>de</strong>ly believed rumour that he himself was responsiblefor starting <strong>the</strong> Wre, Nero falsely accused and savagely punished<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s. First, those who admitted being <strong>Christian</strong>s11 wereprosecuted, and <strong>the</strong>n, on information provi<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong>m (doubtlessun<strong>de</strong>r torture), a great multitu<strong>de</strong> were convicted, not so much(according to Tacitus) of <strong>the</strong> crime of incendiarism as because of<strong>the</strong>ir hatred of <strong>the</strong> human race (‘odio humani generis’).12 Tacitus,like his friend Pliny and <strong>the</strong>ir contemporary Suetonius,13 <strong>de</strong>tested <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s; and although he did not believe <strong>the</strong>y caused <strong>the</strong> Wre14 he8 Act. Apost. vi.8–vii.60 (<strong>Ste</strong>phen); xii.1–3; Josephus, Ant. Jud. xx.9.1, §§ 197–203; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ii.23 (James).9 Tac. Ann. xv.44.3–8.10 J. Beaujeu, L’Incendie <strong>de</strong> Rome en 64 et les chrétiens (Coll. Latomus, xlix,Brussels, 1960). The o<strong>the</strong>r sources are discussed and quoted by L. H. CanWeld, TheEarly <strong>Persecution</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s (Columb. Univ. Stud. in Hist. Econ. and Pub. Law),lv, 1913), pp. 43 V., 141 V. A good selective bibliography up to 1934 will be found inS. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth, and N. H. Baynes (eds.), CAH x: TheAugustan Empire 44 B.C.–A.D. 70 (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 982–3.11 The imperfect tense, ‘qui fatebantur’ [‘who were confessing’], shows that <strong>the</strong>confession was one of <strong>Christian</strong>ity and not of incendiarism.12 Tac. Ann. xv.44.5. Cf. Hist. v.5; Tert. Apologet. 37.8; Cic. Tusc. Disp. iv.25, 27;Diod. Sic. xxxiv.1.1.13 Suet. Nero 16.2.14 His words ‘abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos’ [‘to eliminate this rumour,Nero furnished culprits’] (44.3) prove that.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 109does say <strong>the</strong>y were ‘hated for <strong>the</strong>ir abominations’ (‘Xagitia’) and hecalls <strong>the</strong>m ‘criminals <strong>de</strong>serving exemplary punishment’.15 The <strong>Christian</strong>swere picked on as scapegoats, <strong>the</strong>n, because <strong>the</strong>y were alreadybelieved by <strong>the</strong> populace to be capable of horrid crimes, Xagitia: thatis worth noticing. (Had not <strong>the</strong> Empress Poppaea Sabina beenparticularly sympa<strong>the</strong>tic towards <strong>the</strong> Jews,16 <strong>the</strong>y might well havebeen chosen as <strong>the</strong> most appropriate scapegoats.) And once <strong>the</strong> Wrstbatch of Nero’s <strong>Christian</strong> victims had been con<strong>de</strong>mned, whe<strong>the</strong>r on acharge of organized incendiarism or for a wi<strong>de</strong>r ‘complex of guilt’,17<strong>the</strong>re would be nothing to prevent <strong>the</strong> magistrate conducting <strong>the</strong>trials (probably <strong>the</strong> Praefectus Urbi) from con<strong>de</strong>mning <strong>the</strong> rest on<strong>the</strong> charge familiar to us in <strong>the</strong> second century, of simply ‘being a<strong>Christian</strong>’—a status which now necessarily involved, by <strong>de</strong>Wnition,membership of an anti-social and potentially criminal conspiracy.I now want to begin examining <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> governmenttowards <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s. I propose to consi<strong>de</strong>rmainly <strong>the</strong> legal problems Wrst, because although <strong>the</strong>y involve somehighly technical questions of Roman public law, <strong>the</strong> more importantones can, I believe, be completely solved, and we shall <strong>the</strong>n be in a verymuch better position to un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong> reasons which prompted <strong>the</strong>government to persecute; although before we can Wnally clarify <strong>the</strong>se,we shall have to consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r si<strong>de</strong> of our problem: <strong>the</strong> reasonsfor <strong>the</strong> hatred felt towards <strong>Christian</strong>ity by <strong>the</strong> mass of pagans.The legal problems,18 from which a certain number of non-legalissues can hardly be separated, may be grouped un<strong>de</strong>r three heads.15 Ann. xv.44.4, 8.16 Jos. Ant. Jud. xx.8.11, § 195; cf. Vita 3, § 16. Jos. <strong>de</strong>scribes Poppaea as ‘Godfearing’(ŁåïóåâÞò). And see CanWeld, op. cit., pp. 47–9, on <strong>the</strong> implications of I Clem.4–6.17 A. Momigliano, ‘Nero’, in CAH x. 702–42, at pp. 725–6.18 The mo<strong>de</strong>rn literature is vast and much of it is worthless. All <strong>the</strong> works thatanyone could wish to consult today are given by Knopf and Krüger, op. cit. (in n. 1above), pp. viii–ix and <strong>the</strong> bibliographies for individual Passions; A. N. Sherwin-White, ‘The Early <strong>Persecution</strong>s and Roman Law Again’, Jl. of Theol. Stud., n.s., iii(1952), pp. 199–213; V. Monachino, Il fondamento giuridico <strong>de</strong>lle persecuzioni neiprimi due secoli (Rome, 1955, repr. from La Scuola Cattolica, lxxxi, 1953); A. Wlosok,‘Die Rechtsgrundlagen <strong>de</strong>r Christenverfolgungen <strong>de</strong>r ersten zwei Jahrh.’, Gymnasium,lxvi (1959), pp. 14–32. [See also H. Musurillo, Acts of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs (Oxford,1972), pp. lvii–lxii.]
110 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomFirst, what was <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> oYcial charge or charges? Secondly,before whom, and according to what form of legal process, if any,were <strong>Christian</strong>s tried? And thirdly, what was <strong>the</strong> legal foundation for<strong>the</strong> charges? (For example, was it a lex, orasenatusconsultum, oranimperial edict speciWcally directed against <strong>Christian</strong>ity, or some moregeneral edict, or an imperial rescript or series of rescripts?) I will <strong>de</strong>alwith <strong>the</strong> Wrst question now, and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two toge<strong>the</strong>r.First, <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> charges against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s. Here Iam going to be dogmatic and say that from at least 112 onwards(perhaps, as we have seen, from 64) <strong>the</strong> normal charge against<strong>Christian</strong>s was simply ‘being <strong>Christian</strong>s’: <strong>the</strong>y are punished, that isto say, ‘for <strong>the</strong> Name’, <strong>the</strong> nomen <strong>Christian</strong>um. This is quite certain,from what <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Apologists say in <strong>the</strong> second and early thirdcenturies,19 from several accounts of martyrdoms,20 and from <strong>the</strong>technical language used by Pliny and Trajan in <strong>the</strong>ir celebrate<strong>de</strong>xchange of letters, probably at about <strong>the</strong> end of 112,21 concerning<strong>the</strong> persecution conducted by Pliny in his province of Bithynia etPontus.22 Pliny speaks of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s he had executed as ‘thosewho were charged before me with being <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (‘qui ad metamquam <strong>Christian</strong>i <strong>de</strong>ferebantur’), and <strong>the</strong> only question he sayshe asked <strong>the</strong>se confessors was whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y admitted this charge(‘interrogavi ipsos, an essent <strong>Christian</strong>i’);23 and Trajan in his replyspeaks of ‘those who had been charged before you as <strong>Christian</strong>s’ (‘qui<strong>Christian</strong>i ad te <strong>de</strong>lati fuerant’), and goes on to say that anyone ‘who<strong>de</strong>nies he is a <strong>Christian</strong>’ (‘qui negaverit se <strong>Christian</strong>um esse’) andproves it ‘by oVering prayers to our gods’ can go free.24 With <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r evi<strong>de</strong>nce, that settles <strong>the</strong> matter. Now <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>latores who Wrstaccused <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as such before Pliny could not be sure (as weshall see) that Pliny would consent to take cognizance of <strong>the</strong> matter at19 e.g. Justin, I Apol.4;II Apol. 2; A<strong>the</strong>nag. Legat. 1–2; Tert. Apol. 1–3 etc.; Ad Nat.i.3; and many similar passages.20 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.15.25 and Passio Polyc. 12.1; Passio SS. Scillitan. 10, 14;Passio Apollon. 1V.21 But perhaps a year or even two years earlier: see R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford,1958), i, p. 81; ii, p. 659 (App. 20).22 Pliny, Epist. x.96–97. It is a pleasure to be able to welcome at last a really goodEng. trans. of Pliny’s Letters, by Betty Radice (Penguin Books, 1963).23 I<strong>de</strong>m, 96.2–3.24 I<strong>de</strong>m, 97.1, 2.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 111all, let alone inXict <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath penalty. Since <strong>the</strong>y thought it was worth‘trying it on’, <strong>the</strong>y evi<strong>de</strong>ntly knew that in <strong>the</strong> past o<strong>the</strong>r oYcials hadbeen prepared to punish <strong>Christian</strong>s as such. And in fact Pliny nowdid so,25 although <strong>late</strong>r on he had second thoughts and consulted <strong>the</strong>emperor, saying he was doubtful on what charge and to what exten<strong>the</strong> should investigate and punish, and in particular whe<strong>the</strong>r heshould take <strong>the</strong> age of <strong>the</strong> accused into account, whe<strong>the</strong>r he shouldgrant pardon to anyone who was prepared to apostatize, and whe<strong>the</strong>rhe should punish for <strong>the</strong> Name alone or for <strong>the</strong> abominable crimesassociated with being a <strong>Christian</strong> (<strong>the</strong> ‘Xagitia cohaerentia nomini’).Trajan explicitly refused to lay down any general or <strong>de</strong>Wnite rules andwas very selective in his answers to Pliny’s questions. In two passageswhich do him great credit he instructs Pliny that <strong>Christian</strong>s must notbe sought out (‘conquirendi non sunt’), and that anonymous<strong>de</strong>nunciations are to be ignored, ‘for <strong>the</strong>y create <strong>the</strong> worst sort ofprece<strong>de</strong>nt and are quite out of keeping with <strong>the</strong> spirit of our age’.<strong>Christian</strong>s who are accused as such, in due form (by a privateprosecutor, <strong>de</strong>lator), and are convicted must be punished, but anyonewho <strong>de</strong>nies he is a <strong>Christian</strong>, and proves it ‘by oVering prayers to ourgods’, is to receive ‘pardon on <strong>the</strong> score of his repentance’ and be setfree. In my opinion, Pliny could justiWably take this to mean thatpunishment was to be for <strong>the</strong> Name alone.As I have shown, I believe that persecution ‘for <strong>the</strong> Name’ beganei<strong>the</strong>r in 64 or at some time between 64 and 112. As an alternative,many writers have brought forward certain passages in <strong>the</strong> NewTestament, especially <strong>the</strong> Apocalypse and I Peter,26 and have soughtto show that un<strong>de</strong>r Domitian, if not un<strong>de</strong>r Nero, emperor-worshipwas enforced in Asia Minor, and that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> sect wasproscribed when <strong>Christian</strong>s refused to take part in it, <strong>the</strong> charge beingreally political disloyalty. I would put no weight on such consi<strong>de</strong>rations;although on <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> Apocalypse I do not doubtthat some <strong>Christian</strong>s may have been put to <strong>de</strong>ath in Asia (especiallyat Pergamum) for refusing to pay cult to <strong>the</strong> emperor. (Of course,25 I<strong>de</strong>m, 96.3.26 Esp. Rev. ii.10, 13; vi.9–11; vii.13–14; xiii.15; xvii.6; xviii.24; xix.2; xx.4; I Pet.iv.12–19. The dates of both works are still controversial. As regards I Peter, I agreewith F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1958), pp. 9–19, that itcomes from <strong>the</strong> early second century.
112 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>the</strong>y ought not to have been compelled to do anything of <strong>the</strong> sort, noemperor being oYcially numbered among <strong>the</strong> gods of <strong>the</strong> Romanstate until he was <strong>de</strong>ad and had been duly pronounced divus, eventhough in practice he received cult in his lifetime at provincial leveland below.) One often hears it said that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were martyred‘for refusing to worship <strong>the</strong> emperor’.27 In fact, emperor-worship is afactor of almost no in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt importance in <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s.28 It is true that among our records of martyrdomsemperor-worship does crop up occasionally;29 but far more often itis a matter of sacriWcing to <strong>the</strong> gods30—as a rule, not even speciWcallyto ‘<strong>the</strong> gods of <strong>the</strong> Romans’. And when <strong>the</strong> cult act involved doesconcern <strong>the</strong> emperor, it is usually an oath by his Genius (or in <strong>the</strong> Eastby his Ôý÷ç)31 or a sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods on his behalf.32 Verycharacteristic is <strong>the</strong> statement of Vigellius Saturninus, proconsul ofAfrica in 180, to <strong>the</strong> Scillitan martyrs: ‘We too are religious, and ourreligion is simple, and we swear by <strong>the</strong> Genius of our lord <strong>the</strong> emperor,and we pray for his welfare, as you also ought to do’.33 This is also <strong>the</strong>situation which is reXected in <strong>the</strong> Apologists. Tertullian, addressinghimself in 197 to <strong>the</strong> Roman governing class in <strong>the</strong> Apologeticus,examines at great length <strong>the</strong> charges against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s: he sums<strong>the</strong>m up by making <strong>the</strong> pagans say to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s, ‘You don’tworship <strong>the</strong> gods, and you don’t oVer sacriWce for <strong>the</strong> emperors’.3427 Cf. Syme, op. cit., ii, p. 469: ‘an invincible spirit that <strong>de</strong>nied allegiance to Romewhen allegiance meant worship of Caesar’.28 That this is just as true of <strong>the</strong> third century as of <strong>the</strong> second has recently been<strong>de</strong>monstrated by R. Andreotti, ‘Religione uYciale e culto <strong>de</strong>ll’imperatore nei‘‘Libelli’’ di Decio’, Studi in onore di A. Cal<strong>de</strong>rini e R. Paribeni, i (Milan, 1956), pp.369–76. It is particularly signiWcant that Cyprian never mentions <strong>the</strong> imperial cult.And ‘<strong>the</strong> cult of <strong>the</strong> emperors plays a very subordinate part in <strong>the</strong> last greatpersecution’ (Baynes, ‘Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, p. 659).29 As in Pliny, Epist. x.96.5 (contrast 97.1: ‘dis nostris’ [‘to our gods’]); Euseb. Hist.Eccles. vii.15.2.30 As e.g. in Pliny, Epist. x.97.1; Passio Justini, v.8; Passio Carpi et al. (Gr.), 4 etc.;Passio Fructuosi, ii.2; Passio Conon. iv.3–5.31 As e.g. in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.15.18, 20, 21 and Passio Polyc. 9.2, 3; 10.1; PassioSS. Scillitan. 3,5;Passio Apollon. 3. Contrast Tert. Apol. 32.2–3.32 As e.g. in Passio SS. Scillitan. 3;Passio Perpet. vi.2; and o<strong>the</strong>r sources. See alsoTert. Apol. 10.1; 28.2 etc.33 Passio SS. Scillitan. 3.34 Tert. Apol. 10.1; and see, for discussion of <strong>the</strong> two charges separately, 10.2–28.1and 28.2–35. Tert. goes on (10.1) to sum up <strong>the</strong> two charges against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 113And <strong>the</strong>re is ample evi<strong>de</strong>nce to show that <strong>the</strong> situation remainedsubstantially <strong>the</strong> same right through <strong>the</strong> third and early fourthcenturies, even during <strong>the</strong> general persecutions.35I now turn to <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> judicial process against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s.(In consi<strong>de</strong>ring this, I shall go beyond <strong>the</strong> strictly legal sphere fromtime to time, and look at some of <strong>the</strong> reasons why persecution tookplace.)The procedure against <strong>Christian</strong>s was in every case that used for<strong>the</strong> vast majority of criminal trials un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Principate: cognitioextra ordinem (or extraordinaria) [‘special investigation’/‘specials’],which I shall discuss in a moment. Capital trials un<strong>de</strong>r this process in<strong>the</strong> provinces took place before <strong>the</strong> provincial governor and no oneelse. In Rome, <strong>the</strong> only trials of <strong>Christian</strong>s about which we have goo<strong>de</strong>vi<strong>de</strong>nce were before <strong>the</strong> Praefectus Urbi36 or a Praefectus Praetorio;37none of <strong>the</strong> known cases was important enough to comedirectly before <strong>the</strong> emperor himself, or <strong>the</strong> senate,38 although in <strong>the</strong>early Principate appeals by Roman citizens Wrst accused elsewheremay have gone to <strong>the</strong> emperor’s court.Now Roman law was surely <strong>the</strong> most impressive intellectualachievement of Roman civilization. But what Roman lawyers oftoday mean when <strong>the</strong>y speak of Roman law is essentially privatelaw, a large part of which is concerned with property rights, <strong>the</strong>ir<strong>de</strong>Wnition and protection. (Did not Cicero in <strong>the</strong> De OYciis, anticipatingMarx, say that <strong>the</strong> main reason for <strong>the</strong> very existence ofpolitical communities was <strong>the</strong> security of private property—‘ut suasacrilegium [literally ‘sacrilege’, but in this context ‘disregard for gods’] and maiestas[‘treason’], but he is hardly using ei<strong>the</strong>r word in its technical sense: his ‘sacrilegium’seems to be a rhetorical equivalent for IŁåüôçò. (For <strong>the</strong> technical meaning ofsacrilegium, see Th. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Berlin, 1899), pp. 760 V.)35 See n. 28 above.36 Justin, II Apol. 1–2 (Ptolemaeus, Lucius and ano<strong>the</strong>r); Passio Justini 1.37 Early in <strong>the</strong> reign of Commodus, Apollonius was tried and sentenced by <strong>the</strong>Praetorian Prefect Perennis; but <strong>the</strong> surviving versions of <strong>the</strong> Passion, and <strong>the</strong>narrative of Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v.21, are confused, notably with regard to <strong>the</strong> roleplayed by <strong>the</strong> senate, which has been much discussed. A conW<strong>de</strong>nt explanation ishardly possible: <strong>the</strong> best so far produced seems to me that of E. GriVe, ‘Les actes dumartyr Apollonius’, Bull. <strong>de</strong> littér. ecclés. liii (1952), pp. 65–76; cf. Monachino, op. cit.(in n. 18 above), pp. 33–9.38 See <strong>the</strong> preceding note.
114 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomtenerent’ [‘so that <strong>the</strong>y could possess what was <strong>the</strong>irs’]?)39 Large areasof Roman criminal and public law, however, were by contrast veryunsatisfactory, and one of <strong>the</strong> worst of <strong>the</strong>se blemishes was preciselycognitio extra ordinem, <strong>the</strong> procedure by which <strong>the</strong> large <strong>de</strong>Wcienciesof <strong>the</strong> quaestio system (<strong>the</strong> ordo iudiciorum publicorum [‘system ofpublic courts’], regulating <strong>the</strong> punishment of what may be called‘statutory crimes’), which at least was subject to fairly strict rules,were supplemented by direct governmental intervention. As Mr.Sherwin-White pointed out in his Sarum Lectures for 1960–61, <strong>the</strong>ra<strong>the</strong>r few oVences <strong>de</strong>alt with by <strong>the</strong> quaestio system were essentiallythose of ‘high society and <strong>the</strong> governing personnel’; <strong>the</strong> ‘crimes of <strong>the</strong>common man’—<strong>the</strong>ft and so forth—had largely to be <strong>de</strong>alt wi<strong>the</strong>xtra ordinem, even at Rome.40 In making use of cognitio extraordinem <strong>the</strong> magistrate concerned had a very wi<strong>de</strong> discretion41—even more so, of course, in criminal trials than in civil actions, justbecause of <strong>the</strong> relative vagueness of <strong>the</strong> criminal law. This discretionexten<strong>de</strong>d not only to Wxing penalties, but even to <strong>de</strong>ciding whichcases <strong>the</strong> magistrate would recognize as criminal and which—likeGallio when appealed to by <strong>the</strong> Jews of Corinth against St. Paul42—hewould refuse even to consi<strong>de</strong>r. The right of judicial cognitio (iurisdictio)belonged to all provincial governors as part of <strong>the</strong>ir imperium.In <strong>the</strong> criminal sphere it was almost unlimited, save in so far as <strong>the</strong>rights of Roman citizens (un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Lex Iulia <strong>de</strong> vi publica)43 had tobe respected, and in so far as a prosecution might be brought against<strong>the</strong> governor at Rome after his term of oYce was over.44 The spherein which <strong>the</strong> judge might exercise his discretion was actually at itswi<strong>de</strong>st in <strong>the</strong> early Principate, before it began to be circumscribed by<strong>the</strong> imperial constitutions issued more and more frequently from39 Cic. De OYc. ii.73.40 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in <strong>the</strong> New Testament(Oxford, 1963), pp. 13–23 and passim.41 The ‘arbitrium iudicantis’ [‘power of <strong>the</strong> judge’], on which see F. M. <strong>de</strong> Robertis,‘Arbitrium Iudicantis e Statuizioni imperiali’, Zeitschr. <strong>de</strong>r Savigny-Stiftung fürRechtsgesch. lix (1939), Rom. Abt., pp. 219–60.42 Act. Apost. xviii.12–17.43 The principal text is Digest, xlviii.6.7; cf. Sent. Pauli, v.26.1. See esp. A. H. M.Jones, Stud. in Roman Government and Law (Oxford, 1960), pp. 54 V.44 See P. A. Brunt, ‘Charges of Provincial Maladministration un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> EarlyPrincipate’, Historia, x (1961), pp. 189–227.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 115Hadrian’s time onwards.45 Tacitus, in his famous comment on AntoniusFelix, governor of Judaea in St. Paul’s time, can speak of his‘royal prerogatives’ (‘ius regium’);46 and, in one of <strong>the</strong> worst cases ofprovincial misgovernment on record, a proconsul of Asia, towards<strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> reign of Augustus, could congratu<strong>late</strong> himself proudlyand in Greek, over <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ad bodies of three hundred provincials hehad executed in a single day, on having performed a kingly act.47In a sense, <strong>the</strong> power to conduct a criminal cognitio was part of <strong>the</strong>power of coercitio [‘right to punish’] inherent in imperium; but it isquite wrong to conceive <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as being punished by purecoercitio in <strong>the</strong> narrower sense, summarily and without <strong>the</strong> exercise ofproper iurisdictio: coercitio in that sense, exercised (as <strong>the</strong> lawyers putit) <strong>de</strong> plano, in an informal manner, was limited to minor oVences.48 Icannot help feeling that some of those who have persisted in speakingof <strong>the</strong> proceedings against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as ‘police measures’ havenot fully realized that <strong>the</strong> trials in question were in no way summaryproceedings by pure coercitio but proper legal trials, involving <strong>the</strong>exercise of iurisdictio in <strong>the</strong> fullest sense.The arbitrary and irresponsible character of <strong>the</strong> cognitio systemwas well un<strong>de</strong>rstood by Mommsen, who says contemptuously in hisRömisches Strafrecht that it entirely elu<strong>de</strong>s scientiWc exposition, itsvery essence being a ‘legalised absence of settled form’.49 ‘To Romancriminal law’, says Schulz, ‘<strong>the</strong> rule ‘‘nullum crimen sine lege, nullapoena sine lege’’ [‘no crime, no penalty without a law’] was andremained for ever unknown.’50 Jolowicz, discussing <strong>the</strong> criminalsystem of <strong>the</strong> Principate, rightly pointed out that it ‘never passed45 See n. 41 above.46 Tac. Hist. v.9.47 Seneca, Dial. iv(De Ira, ii).5.5; cf. Tac. Ann. iii.68.1. The proconsul was L.Valerius Messalla Volesus and <strong>the</strong> date a.d. 11 or 12.48 The principal text is Dig. xlviii.2.6 (‘levia crimina’); cf. i.16.9.3; xlviii.18.18.10.Several passages in <strong>the</strong> law-books and elsewhere (e.g. Sen. De Clem. i.5.3) distinguishbetween a <strong>de</strong>cision given ‘pro tribunali’, as a result of a formal trial, and one given ‘<strong>de</strong>plano’, informally: <strong>the</strong> technical terms ‘cognitio’ and ‘<strong>de</strong>cretum’ are reserved for <strong>the</strong>former type (see Dig. xxxvii.1.3.8; xxxviii.15.2.1; xlviii.16.1.8). The position wasmuch <strong>the</strong> same in civil cases: see R. Düll, Z.S.-S.R. (n. 41 above), lii (1932), Rom.Abt., pp. 170–94.49 T. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), 340.50 F. Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (Oxford, 1936), p. 173, cf. p. 247 (‘Nocriminal charge except by a law, no punishment except by a law’).
116 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomthrough a stage of strict law’, and ‘<strong>the</strong> ‘‘rule of law’’, towards which <strong>the</strong>quaestiones had been a step forward, was never established’.51 To Wndthat in a very important part of <strong>the</strong> Roman legal system <strong>the</strong> rule oflaw as we know it did not exist will surprise only those who Wx <strong>the</strong>ireyes on <strong>the</strong> splendid system of civil jurispru<strong>de</strong>nce52 and ignorecriminal and administrative law and procedure.Recalcitrant as it is to precise analysis, <strong>the</strong> system of cognitio extraordinem has been a<strong>de</strong>quately discussed in <strong>the</strong> standard textbooks.53Through his un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> cognitio process, Mr.Sherwin-White, in an article published in 1952,54 has been able to cutaway a vast amount of <strong>de</strong>ad wood and provi<strong>de</strong> by far <strong>the</strong> bestintroduction to <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>the</strong> legal aspects of <strong>the</strong> early persecutions—althoughI shall argue presently that he is mistaken in onevery important point.Since our information comes almost entirely from <strong>Christian</strong>sources, interested in recording martyrdoms, <strong>the</strong> great majority of<strong>the</strong> trials of <strong>Christian</strong>s we know about in <strong>de</strong>tail end in conviction anda <strong>de</strong>ath sentence. But <strong>the</strong> very wi<strong>de</strong> discretion exercised by <strong>the</strong>provincial governor might on occasion work in favour of accused<strong>Christian</strong>s. The most signiWcant evi<strong>de</strong>nce comes from Tertullian’sAd Scapulam, written probably in 212, where we hear that <strong>the</strong>very Wrst proconsul to shed <strong>Christian</strong> blood in Africa was Vigellius51 H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introd. to <strong>the</strong> Study of Roman Law, 2nd edn. (Cambridge,1952), p. 413. [3rd edn. (1972), 404.]52 Even in civil jurisdiction <strong>the</strong> growth of cognitio extraordinaria resulted in an‘assimilation to administrative and police action’ (W. W. Buckland, A Text-Book ofRoman Law, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1932), p. 663). [See also W. Turpin, ‘Formula,cognitio, and Proceedings extra ordinem’, Revue internationale <strong>de</strong>s droits <strong>de</strong> l’antiquité,3rd ser. 46 (1999), 501–2.]53 Notably Mommsen, op. cit., pp. 340–1, 346–51; P. F. Girard, Man. élém. <strong>de</strong> droitrom., 6th edn. (Paris, 1918), pp. 1084–97; and in more <strong>de</strong>tail U. Brasiello, Larepressione penale in dir. rom. (Naples, 1937). See also Maxime Lemosse, Cognitio.Étu<strong>de</strong> sur le rôle du juge dans l’instruction du procès civil antique (Thèse <strong>de</strong> Droit, Paris,1944), pp. 129 V., esp. 211–57. Useful contributions have been ma<strong>de</strong> in this countryby J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Problems of <strong>the</strong> Roman Criminal Law, ii (Oxford, 1912),pp. 159–75; Jones, op. cit. (n. 43 above), pp. 53–98; Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 40above), v. In<strong>de</strong>x, s.v. ‘Cognitio’. [In <strong>the</strong> reprint in Studies in Ancient Society, 249 n. 170,<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> accepted <strong>the</strong> correction of Fergus Millar (JRS 58 (1968), 222) that <strong>the</strong>standard procedure in Roman criminal trials should not be called cognitio extraordinem, since this was not an expression used in ancient sources.]54 See n. 18 above.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 117Saturninus,55 who was in oYce as <strong>late</strong> as 180;56 and that a wholeseries of African proconsuls (after Saturninus, it seems) had gone outof <strong>the</strong>ir way to be friendly to accused <strong>Christian</strong>s:57 one of <strong>the</strong>mhelped <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s to conduct <strong>the</strong>ir case in such a way as to securean acquittal (I only wish we had more <strong>de</strong>tails of that); ano<strong>the</strong>racquitted an accused <strong>Christian</strong> outright, apparently on <strong>the</strong> groundthat to convict him would cause a riot; yet ano<strong>the</strong>r, reluctant athaving to <strong>de</strong>al with such a case, released an accused <strong>Christian</strong> whoconsented un<strong>de</strong>r torture to apostatize, without actually making himsacriWce; and a fourth tore up <strong>the</strong> vexatious indictment of a <strong>Christian</strong>when his accuser failed to appear.That shows how things might work in practice. A governor exercisingcognitio extraordinaria in a criminal case was bound (forall practical purposes) only by those imperial constitutiones andmandata58 which were relevant in his particular area and were still inforce.59 Unfortunately, oYcial publication of imperial constitutionsseems to have been an extremely ineYcient and haphazard process,60and a conscientious governor might often Wnd himself in great55 Tert. Ad Scap. 3.4.56 See Passio SS. Scillitan. 1.57 Tert. Ad Scap. 4.3–4.58 Mandata, imperial administrative regulations relating mainly to <strong>the</strong> provinces(some of general application, o<strong>the</strong>rs not), were technically distinct from constitutiones.The most complete <strong>de</strong>Wnition of constitutiones is Ulpian’s, in Dig. i.4.1.1 (cf.Inst. J. i.2.6; Gaius, i.5): it can be reduced to epistulae and subscriptiones, edicta,<strong>de</strong>creta (formal legal <strong>de</strong>cisions), and summary <strong>de</strong>cisions <strong>de</strong> plano (see n. 48 above). Atechnical term often employed, which cuts across <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>Wnition just given, isrescripta: this inclu<strong>de</strong>s all subscriptiones (<strong>de</strong>alt with through <strong>the</strong> emperor’s secretarya libellis) and most epistulae (<strong>de</strong>alt with through <strong>the</strong> secretary ab epistulis).59 Some mo<strong>de</strong>rn scholars have held that in strict legal <strong>the</strong>ory imperial constitutionesoriginally remained law only during <strong>the</strong> reign in which <strong>the</strong>y were issued. Yet by<strong>the</strong> third quarter of <strong>the</strong> second century Gaius (i.5) could say it had never beendoubted that such constitutiones had ‘<strong>the</strong> force of law’. Cf. Pomponius in Dig.i.2.2.11, 12; Ulpian in Dig. i.4.1.1; also i.4.1.2, explaining that some constitutionesare ‘personal’ and not to be treated as prece<strong>de</strong>nts. By <strong>the</strong> early second century <strong>the</strong>constitutiones of emperors were evi<strong>de</strong>ntly regar<strong>de</strong>d as holding good until reversed by<strong>the</strong>ir successors—and this is true not only of ‘good emperors’ such as Augustus(Pliny, Epist. x.79, esp. §§ 2, 4, 5; x.80 and 84), but even of Domitian (who hadsuVered a ‘damnatio memoriae’): see I<strong>de</strong>m, x.58 (esp. §§ 3, 10); 60.1; 65–6 (esp. 65.3;66.2); 72; cf. Papinian in Dig. xlviii.3.2.1 (Domitian) and Gai. i.33 (Nero). See on <strong>the</strong>whole question Jolowicz, op. cit. (n. 51 above), pp. 374–83.60 See F. von Schwind, Zur Frage <strong>de</strong>r Publikation im röm. Recht (MünchenerBeiträge zur Papyrusforschung, xxxi, 1940); and brieXy Jolowicz, op. cit., pp. 381–3;
118 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomperplexity as to what <strong>the</strong> law was. This is nicely illustrated by a letterfrom Pliny to Trajan <strong>de</strong>aling with <strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> status of foundlings(Łæåðôïß).61 He can Wnd nothing to <strong>the</strong> point, he says, in <strong>the</strong>constitutiones of previous emperors. An edict said to have been issuedby Augustus had been quoted to him, with letters of Vespasian, Titusand Domitian, addressed to o<strong>the</strong>r parts of <strong>the</strong> empire, but he did notenclose copies of <strong>the</strong>se, as he was not certain of <strong>the</strong>ir accuracy or even(in some cases) of <strong>the</strong>ir au<strong>the</strong>nticity, and he felt sure <strong>the</strong>re would beproper copies in <strong>the</strong> oYces of <strong>the</strong> emperor’s central administration.One sentence is particularly signiWcant: he did not feel that in a matterwhich called for <strong>the</strong> emperor’s authoritative <strong>de</strong>cision he ought to be‘content with prece<strong>de</strong>nts’.62Once Pliny’s correspon<strong>de</strong>nce with Trajan had been ‘published’ (nodoubt by his friends, soon after 117, when he and Trajan were both<strong>de</strong>ad), every educated Roman would be likely to know what instructionsTrajan had given regarding <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s; and <strong>the</strong>reafter anyprovincial governor might well feel that until oYcial policy towards<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s changed he had better follow <strong>the</strong> same procedure. Buto<strong>the</strong>r governors, at any rate in o<strong>the</strong>r provinces, were not absolutelybound by this prece<strong>de</strong>nt; and in<strong>de</strong>ed some ten years <strong>late</strong>r we Wnd aproconsul of Asia consulting Hadrian on <strong>the</strong> treatment of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s,and instructions being sent in return to his successor,C. Minicius Fundanus, <strong>the</strong> purport of which, unhappily, is notentirely clear from <strong>the</strong> version which has come down to us through<strong>Christian</strong> writers63—I myself believe this rescript represented noSchulz, op. cit. (n. 50 above), pp. 243–7. Cf. also U. Wilcken, ‘Zu <strong>de</strong>n Kaiserrescripten’,in Hermes, lv (1920), pp. 1–42; F. M. <strong>de</strong> Robertis, ‘Sulla eYcacia normativa <strong>de</strong>llecostit. imp.’, Annali <strong>de</strong>lla fac. di giurispr. <strong>de</strong>lla R. Univ. di Bari, n.s. iv (1941),pp. 1–100, 281–374; G. I. Luzzatto, ‘Ricerche sull’applicaz. <strong>de</strong>lle costit. imp. nelleprovincie’, Scritti di dir. rom, in onore di C. Ferrini, ed. G. G. Archi (Pavia, 1946),pp. 265–93. [For discussion of diVerent forms of imperial communications, seeF. Millar, The Emperor in <strong>the</strong> Roman World (London, 1977), ch. 5.]61 Pliny, Epist. x.65.62 On prece<strong>de</strong>nt in Roman law, see Jolowicz, op. cit. (n. 51 above), pp. 363–5, and<strong>the</strong> works cited on p. 569.63 Justin, I Apol. 68 (our texts give Eusebius’s Greek version); Euseb. Hist. Eccles.iv.9; RuWnus, Hist. Eccles. iv.9. The traditional date of Fundanus’s proconsu<strong>late</strong> is124–5, but it is 122–3 according to R. Syme, Tacitus, ii, p. 468 n. 5. I believe thisrescript has been misun<strong>de</strong>rstood by e.g. H. Grégoire, Les Persécutions dans l’Empireromain, 2nd edn. (Mémoires <strong>de</strong> l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong> Belgique, Classe <strong>de</strong>s Lettres
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 119<strong>de</strong>parture from <strong>the</strong> policy laid down by Trajan. The <strong>de</strong>cisions takenby Nero in 64 and Trajan in 112 did not constitute prece<strong>de</strong>ntsabsolutely binding upon provincial governors generally. Tertullian’snotorious reference to an ‘institutum Neronianum’64 does not referto a general edict: ‘institutum’ is not a technical legal term, and wemust trans<strong>late</strong> ‘<strong>the</strong> practice adopted by Nero’. We are told by Lactantiusthat Ulpian (in <strong>the</strong> early third century) collected and publishedin his treatise De OYcio Proconsulis <strong>the</strong> nefarious imperial rescriptslaying down <strong>the</strong> penalties to be inXicted on <strong>Christian</strong>s.65 I woul<strong>de</strong>mphasize that Lactantius speaks of rescripta, not edicta or mandata.Unless he is using <strong>the</strong> word very loosely, this is ano<strong>the</strong>r piece ofevi<strong>de</strong>nce against <strong>the</strong> existence of a ‘general law’ speciWcally proscribing<strong>Christian</strong>ity, a notion which, as far as I am aware, no specialist inRoman public law and administration has ever been willing toentertain, popular as it has been among ecclesiastical historians.66It is very possible that <strong>the</strong>se rescripts laid down no more <strong>de</strong>Wniterules than those we Wnd in Trajan’s letter to Pliny or Hadrian’s toFundanus. A rescript of Marcus Aurelius or<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong> penalty ofrelegation to an island to be applied to anyone who did anything toalarm <strong>the</strong> Wckle minds of men with dread of <strong>the</strong> supernatural;67 butthis is scarcely relevant for our purposes, especially as we never hearof any <strong>Christian</strong>s suVering un<strong>de</strong>r this provision. The Sententiae Pauliinclu<strong>de</strong> a rule of unknown date, threatening punishment to thosewho ‘introduce new sects or religious practices not foun<strong>de</strong>d on56.5; Brussels, 1964), 155–64 [pp. 138 V. in 1951 edn.]; contrast W. Schmid, ‘The<strong>Christian</strong> reinterpretation of <strong>the</strong> Rescript of Hadrian’, Maia, vii (1955), pp. 5–13;CanWeld, op. cit. (n. 10 above), pp. 103–18; Wlosok, op. cit. (n. 18 above), p. 23 n. 29.The alleged letter of Antoninus Pius, in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.13, is certainly Wctitious(contrast 26.10).64 Tert. Ad Nat. i.7. See J. W. Ph. BorleVs, ‘Institutum Neronianum’, Vig. Christ.vi(1952), pp. 129–45, esp. 141–4. Cf. Cic. In Pis. 30; Ad Att. iv.18.1; Brut. 269; Tac. Ann.xiv.43.1; Inst. J. i.2.10; Suet. Nero, 16.2.65 Lact. Div. Inst. v.11.19.66 Against <strong>the</strong> historicity of <strong>the</strong> statement in Scr. Hist. Aug., Sep. Sev. 17.1, thatSeverus forba<strong>de</strong> conversion to <strong>Christian</strong>ity (‘Iudaeos Weri sub gravi poena vetuit.I<strong>de</strong>m etiam <strong>de</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>is sanxit’ [‘He prohibited conversion to Judaism with a heavypenalty, and he also <strong>de</strong>creed <strong>the</strong> same for <strong>Christian</strong>ity’]), see <strong>the</strong> convincing argumentsof K. H. Schwarte, ‘Das angebliche Christengesetz <strong>de</strong>s Sep. Sev.’, Historia, xii(1963), pp. 185–208.67 Dig. xlviii.19.30. Cf. Marcus Aurel. Med. i.6.
120 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomrational grounds, so as to inXuence <strong>the</strong> minds of men’;68 but this tooseems to me of little importance for us. Nor does it seem at all likelythat a governor would wish to commit himself in his provincial edicton such a minor criminal matter as <strong>the</strong> prosecution of <strong>Christian</strong>s.And if he was ever in serious doubt about <strong>the</strong> course he ought topursue, he could always consult <strong>the</strong> emperor.It is important to remember that <strong>the</strong> standard procedure in punishing<strong>Christian</strong>s was ‘accusatory’ and not ‘inquisitorial’: a governorwould not normally take action until a formal <strong>de</strong>nunciation (<strong>de</strong>lationominis) was issued by a <strong>de</strong>lator, a man who was prepared not merelyto inform but actually to conduct <strong>the</strong> prosecution in person, and totake <strong>the</strong> risk of being himself arraigned on a charge of calumnia,malicious prosecution, if he failed to make out a suYcient case.69Trajan, as we have seen, forba<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> seeking out of <strong>Christian</strong>s. Thisprinciple, however, could be and sometimes was disregar<strong>de</strong>d. Thebest attested example comes from <strong>the</strong> savage persecution at Lyonsand Vienne in 177, when <strong>the</strong> governor did or<strong>de</strong>r a search to be ma<strong>de</strong>for <strong>Christian</strong>s70—and inci<strong>de</strong>ntally seems to have punished apostatesfor what Pliny had called <strong>the</strong> ‘Xagitia cohaerentia nomini’, <strong>the</strong> shockingcrimes of which <strong>Christian</strong>s were supposed to be guilty, and whichhad been alleged against <strong>the</strong>m in this case by <strong>the</strong>ir pagan slaves.71 It iswrong to say <strong>the</strong> governor here was acting ‘illegally’, because ofcourse he was not absolutely bound to follow Trajan’s rescript toPliny; but it looks as if <strong>the</strong> great majority of governors did follow it.On this occasion <strong>the</strong> governor actually con<strong>de</strong>mned to <strong>the</strong> beasts, as afavour to <strong>the</strong> enraged populace, a <strong>Christian</strong> named Attalus, who wasa Roman citizen, although <strong>the</strong> emperor had just given speciWc instructionsto <strong>the</strong> governor that <strong>Christian</strong>s who were Roman citizensshould be behea<strong>de</strong>d.72 He was exceeding his instructions, certainly;but he could plead political necessity, and <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to thinkhe was taken to task by <strong>the</strong> emperor, who was Marcus Aurelius.68 Sent. Pauli, v.21.2.69 Cf. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.9.3.70 I<strong>de</strong>m, v.1.14.71 I<strong>de</strong>m, 33, cf. 14.72 I<strong>de</strong>m, 50–52, cf. 44, 47 (where IðïôıìðÆíØóŁ~çíÆØ is explained byIðÝôåìíå ôaò ŒåöƺÜò [‘cut oV <strong>the</strong> heads’]); cf. Digest xlviii.19.31.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 121This raises ano<strong>the</strong>r point: <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> emperor. <strong>Christian</strong>propaganda from at least <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> second century onwardstried to make out that it was only <strong>the</strong> ‘bad emperors’ who persecuted,and that <strong>the</strong> ‘good emperors’ protected <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s;73 but <strong>the</strong>re isno truth in this at all. We know, for example, of quite a number ofmartyrdoms un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Wrst two Antonines in wi<strong>de</strong>ly separated partsof <strong>the</strong> empire, and even at Rome itself.74 In reality, persecution wenton automatically, if sporadically, whoever <strong>the</strong> emperor might be; anduntil <strong>the</strong> third century at any rate it is better not to think ofpersecutions primarily in terms of emperors. It was <strong>the</strong> provincialgovernor in each case who played <strong>the</strong> more signiWcant role—an<strong>de</strong>ven his attitu<strong>de</strong> might be less important than what I must call ‘publicopinion’. If <strong>the</strong> state of local feeling was such that no one particularlywanted to take upon himself <strong>the</strong> onus of prosecuting <strong>Christian</strong>s, veryfew governors would have any <strong>de</strong>sire to instigate a persecution. If, on<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, public opinion was inXamed against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s (aswe shall see it often was, down to <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> third century),<strong>the</strong>n <strong>de</strong>lators would not be lacking, and <strong>Christian</strong>s would be put ontrial; and few governors would have any motive for resisting stronglocal feeling <strong>de</strong>monstrated in this perfectly permissible way, especiallyif some of <strong>the</strong> more inXuential men in <strong>the</strong> area were leading <strong>the</strong>agitation, as <strong>the</strong>y often would be. Imperial instructions (mandata)given to provincial governors ba<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>m take care to rid <strong>the</strong>ir provincesof ‘bad men’ (mali homines);75 and Ulpian said it was characteristicof a good and serious-min<strong>de</strong>d governor that he keep hisprovince ‘settled and or<strong>de</strong>rly’ (‘pacata atque quieta’), adding that hewould have no diYculty in securing this end if he diligently saw to itthat <strong>the</strong> province was cleared of ‘mali homines’—and sought <strong>the</strong>mout accordingly.76 The governor was advised by a Wrst-century jurist toconsi<strong>de</strong>r not so much what was <strong>the</strong> practice at Rome as what <strong>the</strong>circumstances required;77 and <strong>the</strong> principle that in <strong>the</strong> exercise of73 The Wrst writer we know to have asserted this is Melito of Sardis: see Euseb. Hist.Eccles. iv.26.9. It soon became ‘common form’: see Tert. Apol. 5 etc.74 e.g. those of Polycarp, of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of Lyons, of <strong>the</strong> Scillitans, and, at Rome,of Ptolemaeus and Lucius, of Justin and his companions, and of Apollonius—toname only a few of whom we possess reasonably reliable records.75 Paulus, in Dig. i.18.3; cf. Sent. Pauli, v.22.1.76 Dig. i.18.13. pr.77 Proculus, in Dig. i.18.12.
122 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomhis criminal jurisdiction <strong>the</strong> governor should act according to <strong>the</strong>circumstances existing in his particular province was wellrecognized.78 Probably <strong>the</strong> main reason why some martyrdoms—perhaps many martyrdoms—took place was that <strong>the</strong>y were thoughtto be necessary if <strong>the</strong> province were to be kept ‘pacata atque quieta’.79Most governors were doubtless only too willing to take action againstmen who were strongly disapproved of by ‘all right-thinking people’,and who ten<strong>de</strong>d to become <strong>the</strong> centre of disturbances. Everyone willremember how Pi<strong>late</strong> yiel<strong>de</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> vociferous <strong>de</strong>mands of <strong>the</strong> localnotables and <strong>the</strong>ir followers for <strong>the</strong> cruciWxion of Jesus.80 If a governor,in<strong>de</strong>ed, refused to do what was expected of him in this way, notonly would he become unpopular: <strong>the</strong> general indignation against <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s would be only too likely to vent itself in riots and lynching,as we have evi<strong>de</strong>nce that it did on occasion;81 and once violencebegan, anything might happen.<strong>Christian</strong>s might also be suspect, as mali homines, in <strong>the</strong> eyes ofsome governors, because <strong>the</strong>y worshipped a man who had admittedlybeen cruciWed by a governor of Judaea, as a political criminal,82 whothought of himself as ‘king of <strong>the</strong> Jews’.83 Their loyalty to <strong>the</strong> state,whatever <strong>the</strong>y might say, could well appear doubtful, if only because<strong>the</strong>y refused even to swear an oath by <strong>the</strong> emperor’s Genius.84 Theywere always talking about <strong>the</strong> imminent end of <strong>the</strong> world; and one of<strong>the</strong>ir books spoke with bitter hatred of Rome, thinly disguised un<strong>de</strong>r<strong>the</strong> name of Babylon, and prophesied its utter ruin.85 And fur<strong>the</strong>rmore<strong>the</strong> secrecy of <strong>the</strong>ir rites might well seem a cover for politicalconspiracy, or at any rate anti-social behaviour. A governor who hadsuch consi<strong>de</strong>rations in mind when trying <strong>Christian</strong>s might even<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> to Wnd <strong>the</strong>m guilty of maiestas (treason): this would account78 See e.g. Ulpian, in Dig. xlvii.11.9, 10 (cf. 14.1.pr.); Saturninus, in Dig.xlviii.19.16.9.79 A. Ronconi, ‘Tacito, Plinio e i Cristiani’, Studi in onore di U. E. Paoli (Florence,1956), pp. 615 V., at p. 628, gives great emphasis to <strong>the</strong> need to satisfy ‘publicopinion’ as a cause of persecution.80 Mark xv.1–15 and parallel passages; and esp. John xix.12, 15.81 See e.g. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. Praef. 1; 1.7; vi.41.1–9.82 See Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9.4.83 Mark xv.2, 9, 12, 26 (and parallel passages); Luke xxiii.2; John xix.12, 15.84 Cf. n. 31 above.85 Rev. xiv.8; xvi.19; xvii–xviii.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 123for various statements by Tertullian about <strong>Christian</strong>s being accusedof that crime86—although I would not take <strong>the</strong>se pieces of rhetoricvery seriously myself. In any event, <strong>the</strong> factors I have just beenmentioning would have less and less weight as time went on, and itbecame clear that <strong>Christian</strong>s had no political objectives whatever andfew particularly anti-social habits.Sometimes a <strong>Christian</strong> who was in danger of being put on trialmight be able to escape altoge<strong>the</strong>r by bribing <strong>the</strong> intending <strong>de</strong>lator or<strong>the</strong> authorities. There is evi<strong>de</strong>nce that this was happening in Africa by<strong>the</strong> early third century at <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>st:87 not merely individuals but wholechurches had purchased immunity, to <strong>the</strong> disgust of Tertullian,88 whobelieved that during persecution <strong>Christian</strong>s must stand <strong>the</strong>ir groundand nei<strong>the</strong>r take to Xight nor buy <strong>the</strong>mselves oV. This rigorist attitu<strong>de</strong>was only partly shared by <strong>the</strong> churches of <strong>the</strong> West, and in <strong>the</strong> East itseems to have been generally repudiated: Xight or concealment duringpersecution was oYcially approved everywhere (except in so far asleading clergy might incur disapproval for <strong>de</strong>serting <strong>the</strong>ir Xocks); butin <strong>the</strong> West, though apparently not in <strong>the</strong> East, <strong>the</strong> purchase ofimmunity, at any rate in a form which might give <strong>the</strong> impression ofapostasy, was regar<strong>de</strong>d as a sin, if not a particularly grave one.89 Ourevi<strong>de</strong>nce comes mainly from Africa, Spain and Rome during <strong>the</strong>Decian persecution, when certiWcates of compliance with <strong>the</strong> imperialor<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods were purchased wholesale by <strong>the</strong> lesssteadfast members of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community.90Although we have not yet disposed of all <strong>the</strong> legal issues, we have atleast reached a point from which we can see that <strong>the</strong> last of my threequestions of a legal nature, ‘What was <strong>the</strong> legal foundation for <strong>the</strong>charges against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s?’, has answered itself, because un<strong>de</strong>r<strong>the</strong> cognitio process no foundation was necessary, o<strong>the</strong>r than a prosecutor,a charge of <strong>Christian</strong>ity, and a governor willing to punish onthat charge. Theories that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> churches could be legallyregar<strong>de</strong>d as collegia illicita, unlawful associations, ei<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> sense86 Tert. Apol. 10.1; 28.3 V., etc.87 Tert. De Fuga in Persec. 5.5; 12–14 (written c.212, during Tert.’s Montanistperiod).88 I<strong>de</strong>m, 13.5.89 See my op. cit. (n. 4 above), pp. 87–8 [Ch. 1 above, pp. 50–1].90 Ibid. n. 58.
124 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomof being irremediably illegal (so that <strong>the</strong>ir members were at all timesliable to criminal punishment), or merely because <strong>the</strong>y wereunlicensed (and liable to be prosecuted if <strong>the</strong>y failed to obey anor<strong>de</strong>r to disband), have been strongly attacked in recent years byspecialists in Roman public law;91 and in spite of some texts whichsuggest <strong>the</strong>re may have been some technical irregularity,92 Iamconvinced that this issue can have had no real importance: wenever hear that any <strong>Christian</strong> was ever prosecuted as a member of acollegium illicitum.I want to <strong>de</strong>al at this point with a <strong>the</strong>ory produced by Mr. Sherwin-White in <strong>the</strong> admirable article I mentioned earlier93 and repeated inhis Sarum Lectures.94 According to this <strong>the</strong>ory, once Pliny haddiscovered that <strong>the</strong> Xagitia generally attributed to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>sdid not exist, <strong>the</strong> real foundation for con<strong>de</strong>mning <strong>the</strong>m was <strong>the</strong>ircontumacia, <strong>the</strong>ir refusal to obey <strong>the</strong> reasonable or<strong>de</strong>r of a magistrate;and in <strong>the</strong> second and early third centuries this contumacia was ‘<strong>the</strong>core of <strong>the</strong> oYcial objection’. Against this <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>the</strong>re are Wveseparate arguments:1. In every single case <strong>the</strong> very word required is stubbornly lacking.Pliny does not use <strong>the</strong> term contumacia at all: employing entirelyuntechnical language, he says he did not doubt ‘whatever sort ofthing it was <strong>the</strong>y were confessing to, <strong>the</strong>ir pertinacity and inXexibleobstinacy ought to be punished’;95 and as far as I know <strong>the</strong> essential91 See esp. F. M. <strong>de</strong> Robertis, Il diritto associativo romano (Bari, 1938), pp. 289–91,366–86; G. Bovini, La proprietà eccles. e la condiz. giurid. <strong>de</strong>lla chiesa in età precostant.(Milan, 1949); Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 18 above), pp. 205–6. Contrast P. W. DuV,Personality in Roman Private Law (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 169–70: until its recognitionby Constantine ‘<strong>the</strong> Church must have appeared to <strong>the</strong> private law as a collectionof unauthorised and <strong>the</strong>refore illegal colleges’.92 Notably Origen, Contra Celsum, i.1 [trans. H. Chadwick, Origen, Contra Celsum(Cambridge, 1953)]; cf. Pliny, Epist. x.96.7 (with 33.3; 34.1); Tert. Apol. 38.1–2; 39(esp. §§ 20–1); De Ieiunio, 13. But for <strong>the</strong> third century see Scr. Hist. Aug., Sev. Alex.49.6; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii.13; 30.19.93 Op. cit. (n. 18 above), pp. 210–12. The essence of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory (though withoutactual endorsement of <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong> crime was called ‘contumacia’) seems to havebeen accepted by H. Last, Reallex. für Antike und Christentum, ii (Stuttgart, 1954), col.1208 V. (see col. 1213).94 Op. cit. (n. 40 above), pp. 4, 18, cf. pp. 19–20, 72–3.95 Epist. x.96.3: ‘pertinaciam ...etinXexibilem obstinationem’.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 125word never appears in any au<strong>the</strong>ntic account of a martyrdom or anyo<strong>the</strong>r reliable ancient source <strong>de</strong>aling with <strong>the</strong> persecutions.96 Thisalone is enough to put <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory out of court in so far as it <strong>de</strong>pendson attaching a technical meaning to contumacia.2. Pliny’s victims, Mr. Sherwin-White says, had refused to complywith ‘a reasonable or<strong>de</strong>r. . . . <strong>the</strong> test requiring homage to <strong>the</strong>di nostri . . . The test was reasonable, and its refusal revealedcontumacia’.97 In fact Pliny never says he had asked any self-confessed<strong>Christian</strong>s to sacriWce: he makes it quite clear that he had imposedthis act only upon those who <strong>de</strong>nied that <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>Christian</strong>s, as atest of <strong>the</strong>ir sincerity.98 This <strong>de</strong>stroys <strong>the</strong> whole foundation of <strong>the</strong><strong>the</strong>ory, an essential presupposition of which is that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>swere or<strong>de</strong>red to sacriWce and contumaciously refused.3. It is true that in many <strong>late</strong>r trials of <strong>Christian</strong>s <strong>the</strong> accused areactually or<strong>de</strong>red to sacriWce or to do some o<strong>the</strong>r act which <strong>the</strong>irreligion did not allow <strong>the</strong>m to perform. But even here contumaciacould not make its appearance until after <strong>the</strong> trial had begun. Andwould it not be absurd to accept as <strong>the</strong> legal ground of a prosecutionan element which could not even arise until after proceedings hadbegun and <strong>the</strong> accused was being questioned?4. The <strong>the</strong>ory we are consi<strong>de</strong>ring would make contumacia <strong>the</strong>essential element, quite gratuitously, in every persistent crime—asof course it is, in a sense; but would it not be perverse to pick out <strong>the</strong>mere persistence and hold it up as <strong>the</strong> essential part of <strong>the</strong> crime?Only in so far as <strong>the</strong> act or <strong>de</strong>fault originally complained of is itselfcriminal can <strong>the</strong> mere persistence in it be a crime. The essentialelement in <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation of <strong>Christian</strong>s is <strong>the</strong> illegality of <strong>Christian</strong>ity,not <strong>the</strong> mere behaviour in court of <strong>the</strong> accused, which, as we96 The o<strong>the</strong>r examples given by Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 18 above), pp. 210–12,show nothing more than what he himself calls ‘<strong>the</strong> remarkable reluctance ofRoman oYcials to con<strong>de</strong>mn <strong>Christian</strong>s’. For <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r assertion, ‘They are onlycon<strong>de</strong>mned when <strong>the</strong>ir contumacia has been proved’ (p. 211), <strong>the</strong>re is no evi<strong>de</strong>nceat all.97 Op. cit. (n. 18 above), p. 210. The same mistake has been ma<strong>de</strong> by o<strong>the</strong>r writers,even A. D. Nock, in his mainly admirable article. ‘The Roman Army and <strong>the</strong> RomanReligious Year’, HTR 45 (1952), 187–251, at 218.98 Pliny, Epist. x.96.5, cf. 3. Sherwin-White himself admits elsewhere (p. 205) thatPliny did not require ‘<strong>the</strong> Wrst batch’ of <strong>Christian</strong>s to sacriWce to di nostri!
126 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomhave seen, is <strong>the</strong> only point at which contumacia could conceivablycome in. We want to know why <strong>the</strong> government wanted <strong>Christian</strong>s tobe brought to trial. The contumacia <strong>the</strong>ory distracts attention fromthis main issue.5. Close examination of three legal texts to which Mr. Sherwin-White appeals in <strong>de</strong>fence of his <strong>the</strong>ory99 and of <strong>the</strong> dozens of o<strong>the</strong>rsin which contumacia (and <strong>the</strong> corresponding adjective and adverb)are used does not at all support his interpretation; but this question istoo technical to be discussed in <strong>the</strong> body of this article.100Nor can I accept Mr. Sherwin-White’s statement that ‘<strong>the</strong> RomanoYcial is indiVerent to <strong>the</strong> religious aspects in <strong>the</strong> known cases,provi<strong>de</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> sheds his contumacia’.101 This is to ignorea signiWcant part of Pliny’s letter: ‘It is clear that <strong>the</strong> temples, recentlyalmost <strong>de</strong>serted, are beginning to be frequented again, and that <strong>the</strong>sacred rites, long neglected, are being renewed; also that <strong>the</strong> Xesh of<strong>the</strong> sacriWcial animals, which has been Wnding very few purchasers, is99 In <strong>the</strong> Wrst, Dig. xlviii.19.4, contumacia merely increases penalties alreadyincurred (cf. Trajan, in Pliny, Epist. x.57.2). The second, Dig. xlviii.19.5, <strong>de</strong>als with<strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation of accused in <strong>the</strong>ir absence: here <strong>the</strong> contumacia consists in notappearing at <strong>the</strong> trial, and may involve sentence in absentia. In <strong>the</strong> third example, <strong>the</strong>cases <strong>de</strong>scribed in Coll. xv.2.2, no one doubted that professio of <strong>the</strong> magic arts wasalready illegal: all Ulpian says is that <strong>the</strong> Magi, ‘per contumaciam et temeritatem’,went from private scientia, which on some earlier views (see loc. cit., init.) was notforbid<strong>de</strong>n, to public professio. Ulpian does not make <strong>the</strong> contumacia a ground for <strong>the</strong>subsequent suppression, as Mr. Sherwin-White represents him as doing when hewrites (p. 211), ‘This, says Ulpian, was contumacia. Hence most emperors imposed atotal ban’—Ulpian mentions <strong>the</strong> contumacia et temeritas inci<strong>de</strong>ntally.100 The words ‘contumacia, contumax, contumaciter’ occur very frequently in <strong>the</strong>legal sources—over 40 times in <strong>the</strong> Digest alone. They are often used quite untechnically(as of <strong>the</strong> behaviour of children to <strong>the</strong>ir parents: Cod. Just. viii.46.3; 49.1), andas a rule <strong>the</strong>y simply indicate an attitu<strong>de</strong> of mind, ra<strong>the</strong>r than any speciWc act: in atleast 13 of <strong>the</strong> texts in <strong>the</strong> Dig. <strong>the</strong> expression used is ‘per contumaciam’ and merelysigniWes that <strong>the</strong> person concerned is acting <strong>de</strong>liberately, wilfully, <strong>de</strong>Wantly (it will besuYcient to cite Dig. l.1.13), and <strong>the</strong>reby in many cases incurring an ad<strong>de</strong>d penalty(see e.g. Dig. xlviii.19.4). The only texts I have been able to Wnd which use contumaciaand its cognates in anything approaching a technical sense are those referring to menwho <strong>de</strong>liberately refuse to comply with a summons to appear (or produce documents),whe<strong>the</strong>r in criminal or in civil trials: e.g. Dig. xlii.1.53.pr., 1, 2, 3; 1.54; Cod.Just. iii.1.13.2b, 2c, 3, 4, 7 (<strong>de</strong>aling with civil cases only); vii.43.4, 7, 8, 9 etc.; Cod.Theod. ii.18.2; x.13.1; xi.31.5. This gave rise to what has been called in mo<strong>de</strong>rn times a‘Contumacialverfahren’: see Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht, 335–6; T. Kipp inPauly-Wissowa, RE iv, cols. 1166–70 (contumacia).101 Op. cit. (n. 18 above), p. 211.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 127on sale everywhere’.102 In view of this it can hardly be <strong>de</strong>nied thatPliny was genuinely concerned—whe<strong>the</strong>r for what we should callreligious reasons or not!—about <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cline of <strong>the</strong> traditionalreligion in his province, and regar<strong>de</strong>d its revival as a justiWcation ofhis policy of repression, tempered by mercy to apostates.On <strong>the</strong> faceof Pliny’s letter <strong>the</strong> ‘obstinacy’ of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s consistedmerely in <strong>the</strong>ir threefold confession of <strong>Christian</strong>ity, in face of awarning(after <strong>the</strong> Wrst confession) that <strong>the</strong>y would be punished for it. Fur<strong>the</strong>rlight is shed upon this ‘obstinacy’ by some of <strong>the</strong> Passions of <strong>the</strong>martyrs, many of whom ei<strong>the</strong>r repeat <strong>the</strong> standard formula, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ussum’, in reply to all questions, or make legally irrelevant replies.If you will give me a quiet hearing, I will tell you <strong>the</strong> mystery of simplicity...Idonotrecognize<strong>the</strong> empire of this world, but ra<strong>the</strong>r I serve that Godwhom no man sees or can see with <strong>the</strong>se eyes. I have committed no <strong>the</strong>ft; butif I buy anything, I pay <strong>the</strong> tax, because I recognize my Lord, <strong>the</strong> King ofkings and Emperor of all peoples . . . It is evil to advocate mur<strong>de</strong>r or <strong>the</strong>bearing of false witness.These are <strong>the</strong> answers given to <strong>the</strong> proconsul of Africa by Speratus<strong>the</strong> Scillitan103—edifying, no doubt, but irritating to a judge andcertainly giving an impression of o<strong>the</strong>r-worldly ‘pertinacity andinXexible obstinacy’.My next point concerns what I call ‘<strong>the</strong> sacriWce test’, used by Pliny inor<strong>de</strong>r to give those who <strong>de</strong>nied being <strong>Christian</strong>s a chance to prove<strong>the</strong>ir sincerity.104 The earliest example we have of <strong>the</strong> use of such atest in <strong>the</strong> Roman world, as far as I know, is at Antioch early in <strong>the</strong>year 67, when it was used during a pogrom by <strong>the</strong> Greeks of that city,to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews.105 The character of <strong>the</strong>sacriWce test changed when judicial torture, which until <strong>the</strong> secondcentury had been used (except in very special circumstances) only onslaves, came to be regularly applied to all those members of <strong>the</strong> lowerclasses (<strong>the</strong> vast majority of <strong>the</strong> population of <strong>the</strong> empire) whobecame involved in criminal trials, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y were Roman citizens102 Epist. x.96.9–10.103 Passio SS. Scillitan. 4, 6, 7. Cf. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v.1.20; Passio Conon. iv.2; etc.104 Pliny, Epist. x.96.5.105 Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii.3.3, §§ 50–1. For <strong>the</strong> date, see § 46.
128 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomor not.106 Once judicial torture had become a standard practice, <strong>the</strong>sacriWce test naturally ten<strong>de</strong>d to lose its original character as aprivilege, and to become something which was enforced, usuallywith <strong>the</strong> aid of torture. But <strong>the</strong> essential aim was to make apostates,not martyrs. One could say without exaggeration that a governorwho really wanted to execute <strong>Christian</strong>s would be careful to avoidtorturing <strong>the</strong>m, lest <strong>the</strong>y should apostatize and go free. For <strong>the</strong>re isno doubt that with few exceptions an accused who was prepared toperform <strong>the</strong> prescribed cult acts was immediately released withoutpunishment. Tertullian, of course, in his barrister’s way, makes muchof this as evi<strong>de</strong>nce that <strong>the</strong> authorities did not really regard <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s as criminals at all. ‘O<strong>the</strong>rs, who plead not guilty’, hecries, ‘you torture to make <strong>the</strong>m confess, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s alone tomake <strong>the</strong>m <strong>de</strong>ny.’107 This was perfectly true, and it must surely countas a lonely anomaly in <strong>the</strong> Roman legal system. The explanation isthat <strong>the</strong> only punishable oVence was being a <strong>Christian</strong>, up to <strong>the</strong> verymoment sentence was pronounced, not having been one. I certainlyknow of no parallel to this in Roman criminal law. Tertullian ridicules<strong>the</strong> situation. What is <strong>the</strong> use of a forced and insincere <strong>de</strong>nial,he asks scornfully. What is to prevent a <strong>Christian</strong> who has given sucha <strong>de</strong>nial and been acquitted from ‘laughing at your eVorts, a<strong>Christian</strong> once more?’108I need not spend much time on <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>the</strong> supposedabominations (Xagitia) with which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were charged—¨ıÝóôåØÆ äå~ØðíÆ ŒÆd ˇNäØðüäåØïØ ìßîåØò [‘Thyestian banquets andOedipo<strong>de</strong>an intercourse’], as <strong>the</strong>y are called,109 meaning of coursecannibalism and incest. It is hard to say how seriously <strong>the</strong>se chargeswere taken by <strong>the</strong> government. The <strong>Christian</strong> Apologists of <strong>the</strong>106 The practice seems to have been well established by <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus Aurelius(161–80): see <strong>the</strong> references in my op. cit. (n. 4 above), p. 80 n. 29 [Ch. 1, p. 41].107 Tert. Apol. 2 (esp. § 10); cf. Ad Scap. 4.2; Cyprian, Ad Demetrian. 13; Min. Fel.Octav. 28.3–5.108 Tert. Apol. 2.17.109 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v.1.14; A<strong>the</strong>nag. Legat. 3, 31; cf. Euseb. H.E. iv.7.11; v.1.26;ix.5.2; Justin, I Apol. 26; II Apol. 12; Dial. c. Tryph. 10; Tert. Apol. 6.11–7.2 etc.; Min. Fel.Octav. 8–9, 28, 30–1; Orig. c. Cels. vi.27, 40. [For discussion of <strong>Christian</strong> apologeticliterature, see <strong>the</strong> collection edited by M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S. Price,Apologetics in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, <strong>Christian</strong>s (Oxford, 1999), esp. S.Price, ‘Latin <strong>Christian</strong> Apologetics: Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Cyprian’, 105–29.]
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 129second and early third centuries <strong>de</strong>vote a good <strong>de</strong>al of attention torebutting such accusations, which were evi<strong>de</strong>ntly believed by <strong>the</strong>populace in both <strong>the</strong> eastern and <strong>the</strong> western parts of <strong>the</strong> empire.After <strong>the</strong> Wrst half of <strong>the</strong> third century, however, <strong>the</strong>y seem to havedied out, although we know from Eusebius that a Roman militarycomman<strong>de</strong>r in Syria in 312, un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> bitterly anti-<strong>Christian</strong>emperor Maximin, did try to fake charges of immoral behaviouragainst <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of Damascus, in or<strong>de</strong>r to inXame publicopinion against <strong>the</strong>m.110 The behaviour of <strong>the</strong> ordinary pagan during<strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> suggests that he no longer believed suchslan<strong>de</strong>rs. Moreover, even for <strong>the</strong> early period, when <strong>the</strong>se accusationswere generally credited, one may feel that a more fundamentalinterpretation is necessary. As Macaulay said over a hundred yearsago, ‘There never was a religious persecution in which some odiouscrime was not, justly or unjustly, said to be obviously <strong>de</strong>ducible from<strong>the</strong> doctrines of <strong>the</strong> persecuted party.’111 The reproaches of Xagitiaseem to have been essentially appendages of some more realcomplaint. Unfortunately, <strong>the</strong>se charges were given some colour by<strong>the</strong> fact that orthodox <strong>Christian</strong>s and heretics ten<strong>de</strong>d to Xing <strong>the</strong>m ateach o<strong>the</strong>r, a fact upon which Gibbon severely remarks, ‘A paganmagistrate . . . might easily have imagined that <strong>the</strong>ir mutual animosityhad extorted <strong>the</strong> discovery of <strong>the</strong>ir common guilt.’112Before I come to <strong>the</strong> Wnal stage of this investigation, I want to take abrief glance at a long series of events which may have given pagansra<strong>the</strong>r more ground for <strong>the</strong>ir active antagonism to <strong>Christian</strong>ity thanwe tend to suppose: I refer to what I have called ‘voluntary martyrdom’.113Examination of it will require us to look at persecution, foronce, mainly from <strong>the</strong> receiving end.110 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ix.5.2. [For analysis of <strong>the</strong> context, see S. Mitchell, ‘Maximinusand <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in AD 312: A New Latin Inscription’, JRS 78 (1988), 105–24.]111 See H. Last, Jl. of Rom. Stud. xxvii (1937), p. 89 n. 63.112 E. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall of <strong>the</strong> Rom. Emp. (ed. J. B. Bury), ii, ch. xvi, pp. 80–1.For examples, see Justin, I Apol. 26; Iren. Adv. Haeres. i.6.3–4; 24.5; 25.3–5 (and seeEuseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.7.9–11); Clem. Alex. Strom. iii, esp. 2, 4, 5; Tert. De Ieiun. 17;Philaster, De Heres. 29 (57), ed. F. Marx.113 For some remarks on this phenomenon, see my op. cit.[Ch.1,pp.45,56,65–7]Ishallgive <strong>the</strong> very consi<strong>de</strong>rable body of evi<strong>de</strong>nce for voluntary martyrdom in my forthcomingbook (see n. 1 above). [For <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s collection of <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce, see Ch. 4 below.]
130 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomIt is a signiWcant fact, as yet not generally appreciated, that a verylarge number of sources (Passions as well as literary texts) showintrepid <strong>Christian</strong>s going far beyond what <strong>the</strong>ir churches oYciallyrequired of <strong>the</strong>m, often in<strong>de</strong>ed oVering <strong>the</strong>mselves up to <strong>the</strong> authoritiesof <strong>the</strong>ir own accord, and occasionally acting in a provocativemanner, smashing images and so forth. After making a <strong>de</strong>tailed studyof <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong>se ‘voluntary martyrs’, I would claim that <strong>the</strong>part <strong>the</strong>y played in <strong>the</strong> history of <strong>the</strong> persecutions was much moreimportant than has yet been realized. It seems to me impossible todoubt that <strong>the</strong> prevalence of voluntary martyrdom was a factorwhich, for obvious reasons, both contributed to <strong>the</strong> outbreak ofpersecution and ten<strong>de</strong>d to intensify it when already in being.Contrary to what is usually said, voluntary martyrdom was by nomeans conWned mainly to heretical or schismatic sects such asMontanists and Donatists, but was a good <strong>de</strong>al more commonamong <strong>the</strong> orthodox than is generally admitted. The heads of <strong>the</strong>churches, sensibly enough, forba<strong>de</strong> voluntary martyrdom again andagain, and were inclined to refuse to <strong>the</strong>se zealots <strong>the</strong> very name ofmartyr—passages to this eVect could be cited from a dozen diVerentsources, including Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Lactantius, atleast three bishops (Cyprian and Mensurius of Carthage and Peter ofAlexandria), <strong>the</strong> Passion of Polycarp, and <strong>the</strong> Canons of <strong>the</strong> Councilof Elvira.114 Never<strong>the</strong>less, we do hear of an astonishingly largenumber of volunteers, most of whom, whatever <strong>the</strong> bishops mightsay, were given full honour as martyrs, <strong>the</strong> general body of <strong>the</strong>faithful apparently regarding <strong>the</strong>m with great respect.One of <strong>the</strong> most fascinating of <strong>the</strong> Passions of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>is that of Euplus, who suVered at Catana in Sicily. It beginsIn <strong>the</strong> consulship of our lords Diocletian (for <strong>the</strong> ninth time) and Maximian(for <strong>the</strong> eighth time) [that is, in 304] on <strong>the</strong> 29th of April, in <strong>the</strong> mostfamous city of Catana, in <strong>the</strong> court room, in front of <strong>the</strong> curtain, Euplusshouted out, ‘I wish to die, for I am a <strong>Christian</strong>.’ His excellency Calvisianus<strong>the</strong> corrector said, ‘Come in, whoever shouted.’ And <strong>the</strong> Blessed Euplusentered <strong>the</strong> court room, bearing <strong>the</strong> immacu<strong>late</strong> Gospels—and he achieved <strong>the</strong> end he had sought.115114 For some of <strong>the</strong>se references, see my op. cit., p. 83 n. 40 [Ch. 1, p. 45].115 Passio Eupli, 1.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 131In <strong>the</strong> next year, 305, while a festival was being celebrated atCaesarea in Palestine, a false rumour began to spread that certain<strong>Christian</strong>s would be given to <strong>the</strong> beasts as part of <strong>the</strong> joyful celebrations.While <strong>the</strong> governor was on his way to <strong>the</strong> amphi<strong>the</strong>atre, sixyoung men sud<strong>de</strong>nly presented <strong>the</strong>mselves before him with <strong>the</strong>irhands bound behind <strong>the</strong>m, crying out that <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>Christian</strong>sand <strong>de</strong>manding to be thrown to <strong>the</strong> beasts with <strong>the</strong>ir brethren. Wecan well believe Eusebius when he adds that <strong>the</strong> governor and hisentire suite were reduced to a condition of no ordinary amazement.The young men were arrested and imprisoned, but instead of giving<strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> beasts as <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d, <strong>the</strong> merciless pagancon<strong>de</strong>mned <strong>the</strong>m to a speedy <strong>de</strong>ath by <strong>de</strong>capitation.116These are but two of a large number of similar examples. Sometimes<strong>the</strong> fact that certain martyrs were volunteers, and were notsought out by <strong>the</strong> authorities, may alter our whole picture of apersecution. For example, <strong>the</strong> many <strong>Christian</strong>s Eusebius says hehimself saw con<strong>de</strong>mned to <strong>de</strong>ath in a single day in <strong>the</strong> Thebaid inUpper Egypt during <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> are <strong>de</strong>scribed by him interms which show that <strong>the</strong>y were volunteers, who, after sentence hadbeen pronounced upon one of <strong>the</strong>ir brethren, ‘leapt up before <strong>the</strong>judgment seat from this si<strong>de</strong> and from that, confessing <strong>the</strong>mselves tobe <strong>Christian</strong>s’.117 The seeking out of <strong>Christian</strong>s in this area, <strong>the</strong>refore,need not have been nearly as vigorous as we might o<strong>the</strong>rwise haveassumed from <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>ntly large number of victims.Now voluntary martyrdom was not just a <strong>late</strong> phenomenon, whichappeared only in <strong>the</strong> general persecutions: we have examples from<strong>the</strong> second century too—in<strong>de</strong>ed, from <strong>the</strong> very earliest period atwhich we have any <strong>de</strong>tailed records of martyrdoms at all: that is tosay, from <strong>the</strong> 150s onwards, including one on quite a large scale fromabout <strong>the</strong> year 185, recor<strong>de</strong>d in Tertullian’s Ad Scapulam. WhenArrius Antoninus, proconsul of Asia, was holding his periodic assizein one of <strong>the</strong> towns of his province, a whole crowd of <strong>Christian</strong>spresented <strong>the</strong>mselves in a body before him, <strong>de</strong>manding <strong>the</strong> privilegeof martyrdom—all <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of that town, says Tertullian,but we must allow for his customary exaggeration. The astonished116 Euseb. Mart. Pal. 3.2–4 (in both Recensions).117 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. viii.9.5.
132 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomproconsul or<strong>de</strong>red a few oV to execution, but contemptuouslydismissed <strong>the</strong> remain<strong>de</strong>r, saying to <strong>the</strong>m, ‘If you want to die, youwretches, you can use ropes or precipices’.118The positive evi<strong>de</strong>nce for voluntary martyrdom begins in <strong>the</strong>Antonine period, about 150. Conceivably, I suppose, it could havebeen a Montanist practice in origin. But I should like to suggest, withall <strong>the</strong> reserve necessitated by lack of direct evi<strong>de</strong>nce, that in fact it islikely to have begun much earlier, and that <strong>the</strong> reason why we do no<strong>the</strong>ar of it before <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> second century is simply that wehave too little speciWc evi<strong>de</strong>nce of any sort about persecution ormartyrdom before that time. Here <strong>the</strong> Jewish background of <strong>Christian</strong>ity,above all <strong>the</strong> Jewish martyr-literature, is a very materialfactor. As far back as <strong>the</strong> Maccabaean period, as Professor Baronhas put it, <strong>the</strong>re was born ‘that great exaltation of religious martyrdomwhich was to dominate <strong>the</strong> minds of Jews and <strong>Christian</strong>s forcountless generations’.119 We have examples of voluntary martyrdomon <strong>the</strong> part of Jews even before <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> era, notably <strong>the</strong> inci<strong>de</strong>ntin 4 b.c., <strong>de</strong>scribed by Josephus, when two pious rabbis instigated<strong>the</strong>ir followers to cut down <strong>the</strong> gol<strong>de</strong>n eagle set up by Herod over <strong>the</strong>great gate of <strong>the</strong> Temple: about forty men were executed, <strong>the</strong> rabbisand <strong>the</strong> actual perpetrators of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ed being burnt alive.120 Now <strong>the</strong>two most fervent works of Jewish martyr-literature, <strong>the</strong> Second andFourth Books of Maccabees, with <strong>the</strong>ir unrestrained sensationalismand gruesome <strong>de</strong>scriptions of tortures, both formed part of <strong>the</strong>Septuagint, and must <strong>the</strong>refore have been well known to <strong>the</strong> earlyChurch. And in<strong>de</strong>ed a <strong>de</strong>tailed linguistic study by Dr. Perler hasshown it to be very likely that IV Maccabees exerted an importantinXuence on <strong>the</strong> thought and writings of Ignatius,121 whose martyrdommust have taken place during <strong>the</strong> Wrst quarter of <strong>the</strong> secondcentury. Although <strong>the</strong>re is no evi<strong>de</strong>nce of any value that Ignatiushimself was actually a voluntary martyr,122 we may, I think, see him118 Tert. Ad Scap. 5.1, quoting <strong>the</strong> proconsul’s words in <strong>the</strong> original Greek.119 S. W. Baron, A Social and Relig. Hist. of <strong>the</strong> Jews, 2nd edn. (New York, 1952), i,p. 230. [For fur<strong>the</strong>r discussion of Jewish prece<strong>de</strong>nts, see Ch. 4 below, pp. 193–8.]120 Jos. Bell. Jud. i.33.2–4, § § 648–55 (cf. ii.1.2–3); Ant. Jud. xvii.6.2–4, § § 149–67.121 O. Perler, ‘Das vierte Makkabäerbuch, Ignat. v. Antiochien u. die ältestenMartyrerberichte’, Riv. di archeol. crist. xxv (1949), pp. 47–72.122 John Malalas (Chronogr. xi, p. 276, ed. W. Dindorf [11.10, ed. Theil]) speaks ofTrajan as ‘exasperated against Ignatius because he reviled him’, and <strong>the</strong> ‘Antiochene
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 133as <strong>the</strong> precursor of <strong>the</strong> whole series; for in his letter to <strong>the</strong> Church ofRome, written while he was being taken from Antioch to <strong>the</strong> capitalfor execution, he displays what has often been called a pathologicalyearning for martyrdom. He <strong>de</strong>scribes himself as ‘lusting for <strong>de</strong>ath’(Kæ &øí ôï &ı IðïŁÆíå&Øí),123 and he admonishes <strong>the</strong> Roman <strong>Christian</strong>snot to try to do anything to save him. The eager way in which hespeaks of <strong>the</strong> tortures confronting him—‘Come Wre and cross an<strong>de</strong>ncounters with beasts, incisions and dissections, wrenching ofbones, hacking of limbs, crushing of <strong>the</strong> whole body’124—shows anabnormal mentality. It is diYcult to believe that Ignatius was aniso<strong>late</strong>d case, even in his own day. If even a few <strong>Christian</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>Wrst and early second centuries had a similar craving for martyrdom(as so many o<strong>the</strong>rs certainly did <strong>late</strong>r), and gave practical expressionto it, especially if <strong>the</strong>y did so by insulting pagan cults, it would beeven easier to un<strong>de</strong>rstand how persecution quickly became en<strong>de</strong>micin many parts of <strong>the</strong> Roman world.We are in a position at last to attempt to answer <strong>the</strong> questionconfronting us, which, it will be remembered, is twofold: ‘Why did<strong>the</strong> government persecute?’, and ‘Why did <strong>the</strong> mass of pagans often<strong>de</strong>mand and initiate persecution?’ I propose to take <strong>the</strong> secondquestion Wrst.The answer is clear: it is given to us over and over again in <strong>the</strong>sources. It was not so much <strong>the</strong> positive beliefs and practices of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s which aroused pagan hostility, but above all <strong>the</strong> negativeelement in <strong>the</strong>ir religion: <strong>the</strong>ir total refusal to worship any god but<strong>the</strong>ir own. The mono<strong>the</strong>istic exclusiveness of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s wasbelieved to alienate <strong>the</strong> goodwill of <strong>the</strong> gods, to endanger what <strong>the</strong>Romans called <strong>the</strong> pax <strong>de</strong>orum (<strong>the</strong> right harmonious relationshipbetween gods and men),125 and to be responsible for disastersActs’ of Ignat. (§ 2) say he was ›Œïıóßøò Xªåôï [‘was willingly led’] to Trajan atAntioch. But this hardly makes Ignat. a volunteer, and is entirely unreliable anyway:cf. The Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, ed. J. B. Lightfoot, 2nd edn. (London, 1889), ii. 2, pp. 363 V.,383–91, 436 V., 480–1 V., 575–6.123 Ignat. Epist. ad Rom. 7.2.124 Ibid. 4.1–2; 5.2–3.125 This subject has been discussed in innumerable works, of which I will mentionhere only W. War<strong>de</strong> Fowler, The Relig. Experience of <strong>the</strong> Rom. People (London, 1911),pp. 169 V., 272 V.
134 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomwhich overtook <strong>the</strong> community. I shall call this exclusiveness, forconvenience, by <strong>the</strong> name <strong>the</strong> Greeks gave to it, ‘a<strong>the</strong>ism’(IŁåüôçò);126 characteristically, <strong>the</strong> Latin writers refer to <strong>the</strong> samephenomenon by more concrete expressions having no philosophicalovertones, such as ‘<strong>de</strong>os non colere’ (not paying cult to <strong>the</strong> gods): <strong>the</strong>word a<strong>the</strong>us Wrst appears in Latin in <strong>Christian</strong> writers of <strong>the</strong> earlyfourth century, Arnobius and Lactantius.127Whatever view we may hold about <strong>the</strong> mentality of educated,upper-class intellectuals, we must admit that <strong>the</strong> great mass of <strong>the</strong>population of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, in both East and West, were atleast what we should call <strong>de</strong>eply superstitious; and I see not <strong>the</strong> leastreason why we should <strong>de</strong>ny <strong>the</strong>m genuine religious feeling, provi<strong>de</strong>dwe remember <strong>the</strong> essential diVerences between <strong>the</strong>ir kind of religionand that with which we are familiar. By far <strong>the</strong> most important of<strong>the</strong>se was that pagan religion was a matter of performing cult actsra<strong>the</strong>r than of belief, or ethics. No positive and publicly enforceableobligation, however, rested upon any private individual, whe<strong>the</strong>r aRoman citizen or not, or upon a common soldier,128 to participate inany particular acts of cult,129 although magistrates and senators ofRome itself,130 and magistrates (and perhaps senators) of individual126 See A. Harnack, Der Vorwurf <strong>de</strong>s A<strong>the</strong>ismus in <strong>de</strong>n drei ersten Jahrh. (Texte u.Untersuch. xxviii [N.F. xiii].4, 1905). Among <strong>the</strong> texts are Epist. ad Diogn. 2.6; PassioPolyc. iii.2; ix.2; cf. xii.2 (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.15.6, 18–19, cf. 26); Euseb. H.E. v.1.9;Justin, I Apol. 5–6, 13; A<strong>the</strong>nag. Legat. 3, 4–30; Clem. Alex. Strom. vii.1.1.1; Tert. Apol.6.10 (note ‘in quo principaliter reos transgressionis <strong>Christian</strong>os <strong>de</strong>stinatis’ [‘forwhich in particular you have i<strong>de</strong>ntified <strong>Christian</strong>s as guilty of wrong-doing’]);10.1–28.2 (esp. 24.1, 9); Arnob. Adv. Gentes, i.29; iii.28; v.30; vi.27.127 Arnob., as cited in <strong>the</strong> preceding note, each time referring to pagan chargesagainst <strong>Christian</strong>s. Lact. (Epit. 63.2; De Ira, 9.7) uses <strong>the</strong> word of pagan philosophersonly. Cicero (De Nat. Deor. i.63) has <strong>the</strong> Greek word ¼Łåïò (applied to Diagoras), andMin. Fel. (Octav. 8.2) transliterates (acc. ‘a<strong>the</strong>on’).128 See Tert. De Idolol. 19: for a man serving in a ‘[militia] caligata vel inferiorquaeque’ [‘military position or some lesser one’] <strong>the</strong>re is no ‘necessitas immolationum’[‘necessity to sacriWce’].129 See, brieXy, Mommsen, Röm. Strafr. p. 568, and on <strong>the</strong> whole subject Nock, op.cit. (n. 97 above), esp. pp. 189–92, 212–13.130 For Roman senators, see e.g. S.C. ap. Edict. Augusti ad Cyren. 135–6 (S.Riccobono, Fontes Iuris Rom. Anteiustin. i, 2nd edn. (Florence, 1941), no. 68); Suet.Div. Aug. 35.3. If Euseb. Hist. Eccles. viii.1.2, is to be believed, some <strong>Christian</strong> oYcials in<strong>the</strong> provinces in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 3rd century will have been given an imperial dispensation fromreligious duties. (These men to whom <strong>the</strong> emperors entrusted ôaò ô &øí KŁí &øíªåìïíßÆò[‘<strong>the</strong> rule of nations’] will hardly have been provincial governors: cf. H.E. viii.9.7; 11.2.)
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 135Greek and Roman towns,131 might be legally obliged to do so; and ofcourse great social pressure might be brought to bear upon individualswho refused (on adopting <strong>Christian</strong>ity or Judaism, for instance)to take part in family or o<strong>the</strong>r observances. No compulsion wasnecessary, because until <strong>the</strong> advent of <strong>Christian</strong>ity no one ever hadany reason for refusing to take part in <strong>the</strong> ceremonies which o<strong>the</strong>rsobserved—except of course <strong>the</strong> Jews, and <strong>the</strong>y were a special case, aunique exception. Much as <strong>the</strong> Jews were <strong>de</strong>tested by <strong>the</strong> bulk of <strong>the</strong>Roman governing class, as well as by many humbler Romans andGreeks, it was admitted (by <strong>the</strong> educated, at any rate) that <strong>the</strong>irreligious rites were ancestral, and very ancient. All men were expectedpiously to preserve <strong>the</strong> religious customs of <strong>the</strong>ir ancestors. And soeven Tacitus, who strongly disliked Judaism, could say that <strong>the</strong>religious rites of <strong>the</strong> Jews ‘have <strong>the</strong> recommendation of beingancient’.132 The gods would forgive <strong>the</strong> inexplicable mono<strong>the</strong>ism of<strong>the</strong> Jews, who were, so to speak, licensed a<strong>the</strong>ists.133 The Jews ofcourse would not sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> emperor or his gods, but <strong>the</strong>y werequite willing, while <strong>the</strong> Temple still stood, to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong>ir owngod for <strong>the</strong> well-being of <strong>the</strong> emperor; and Augustus, if we maybelieve Philo,134 by a happy compromise not only accepted this buthimself paid for <strong>the</strong> sacriWces. Matters were very diVerent with <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s, who had ex hypo<strong>the</strong>si abandoned <strong>the</strong>ir ancestral religions.Gibbon expressed <strong>the</strong> contrast perfectly when he wrote, ‘The Jewswere a people which followed, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s a sect which <strong>de</strong>serted,<strong>the</strong> religion of <strong>the</strong>ir fa<strong>the</strong>rs.’135The <strong>Christian</strong>s asserted openly ei<strong>the</strong>r that <strong>the</strong> pagan gods did notexist at all or that <strong>the</strong>y were malevolent <strong>de</strong>mons. Not only did <strong>the</strong>y131 If only to take oaths when required: see e.g. <strong>the</strong> Lex Municipalis Salpensana,xxvi (Riccobono, F.I.R.A., i2, no. 23). The Severi gave Jews holding municipal honoresexemption from religious acts oVensive to <strong>the</strong>m: Dig. l.2.3.3.132 Tac. Hist. v.5: ‘antiquitate <strong>de</strong>fenduntur’. Cf. Orig. c. Cels. v.25 V. And <strong>the</strong> factthat Jewish cult was aniconic seems to have appealed to some Romans, e.g. Varro(August. De Civ. Dei, iv.31).133 For pagans calling Jews ‘a<strong>the</strong>ists’, see J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Emp. rom. (Paris,1914), i, p. 45 n. 1, § 2.134 Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 157, 317. Contrast Jos. c. Ap. ii.6, § 77 (and cf. B.J. ii.10.4, §197). For an attempt to explain <strong>the</strong> contradiction between Philo and Jos., see E. M.Smallwood’s edn. of <strong>the</strong> Leg. ad Gai. (Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1961), pp. 240–1.135 Gibbon, op. cit. (n. 112 above), ii, ch. xvi, p. 74 (marginal summary).
136 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>the</strong>mselves refuse to take part in pagan religious rites: <strong>the</strong>y would noteven recognize that o<strong>the</strong>rs ought to do so. As a result, because a largepart of Greek religion and <strong>the</strong> whole of <strong>the</strong> Roman state religion wasvery much a community aVair, <strong>the</strong> mass of pagans were naturallyapprehensive that <strong>the</strong> gods would vent <strong>the</strong>ir wrath at this dishonournot upon <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s alone but upon <strong>the</strong> whole community; andwhen disasters did occur, <strong>the</strong>y were only too likely to fasten <strong>the</strong> blameon to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s. That <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were in<strong>de</strong>ed hated forprecisely this reason above all o<strong>the</strong>rs appears from many passagesin <strong>the</strong> sources, from <strong>the</strong> mid-second century right down to <strong>the</strong> Wfth.Tertullian sums it all up in a brilliant and famous sentence in <strong>the</strong>Apologeticus: <strong>the</strong> pagans, he says, ‘suppose that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s are <strong>the</strong>cause of every public disaster, every misfortune that happens to <strong>the</strong>people. If <strong>the</strong> Tiber overXows or <strong>the</strong> Nile doesn’t, if <strong>the</strong>re is a droughtor an earthquake, a famine or a pestilence, at once <strong>the</strong> cry goes up,‘‘The <strong>Christian</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> lion.’’’136The essential point I want to make is that this superstitious feelingon <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> pagans was due above all to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’‘a<strong>the</strong>ism’, <strong>the</strong>ir refusal to acknowledge <strong>the</strong> gods and give <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong>irdue by paying <strong>the</strong>m cult. The <strong>Christian</strong> Apologists have much to sayin reply to this charge137—and, by <strong>the</strong> way, <strong>the</strong>y are addressing<strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> educated class, sometimes in <strong>the</strong>ory to <strong>the</strong>emperors <strong>the</strong>mselves. The earliest surviving Apologists are of <strong>the</strong>mid-second century, but <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to think <strong>the</strong> situationwas diVerent earlier.We must not confuse <strong>the</strong> kind of a<strong>the</strong>ism charged against <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s with philosophical scepticism. Tertullian pretends to bevery indignant because philosophers are permitted openly to attackpagan superstitions, while <strong>Christian</strong>s are not. ‘They openly <strong>de</strong>molishyour gods and also attack your superstitions in <strong>the</strong>ir writings, andyou applaud <strong>the</strong>m for it’, he exclaims.138 The vital diVerence was, of136 Tert. Apol. 40.1–2 (with 37.2); cf. Ad. Nat. i.9; also Firmilian, ap. Cypr.Epist.lxxv.10; Cypr. Ad Demetrian. esp. 2–5; Arnob. Adv. Nat. i.1 V. (esp. 13, 16, 26) andpassim; August. De Civ. Dei, ii.3 (proverb: ‘No rain, because of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’) etc.;Orig. c. Cels. iii.15; Comm. ser. in Matt. 39; Maximin Daia, in Euseb. Hist. Eccles.ix.7.3–14 (esp. 8–9); 8.3.137 See n. 126 above.138 Tert. Apol. 46.4.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 137course, that <strong>the</strong> philosophers, whatever <strong>the</strong>y might believe, and evenwrite down for circulation among educated folk, would have beenperfectly willing to perform any cult act required of <strong>the</strong>m—and thatwas what mattered.That <strong>the</strong> religious misbehaviour of certain individuals should bethought of by pagans as likely to bring unselective divine punishmentmay seem less strange to us when we remember that similar views wereheld by Jews and <strong>Christian</strong>s. Orthodox <strong>Christian</strong>s felt towards hereticsmuch as pagans felt towards <strong>the</strong>m. The martyred bishop Polycarp, who(it was said) had actually known <strong>the</strong> Apostles personally, used to tellhow <strong>the</strong> Apostle John, entering <strong>the</strong> baths at Ephesus, rushed out againwhen he saw <strong>the</strong> heresiarch Cerinthus insi<strong>de</strong>, crying, ‘Away, lest <strong>the</strong>very baths collapse, for within is Cerinthus <strong>the</strong> enemy of <strong>the</strong> truth.’139About <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> third century, however, <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong>general run of pagans towards <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s begins to un<strong>de</strong>rgo adistinct change. Whereas until <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> initiative in persecutionseems to have come from below, from 250 onwards persecutioncomes from above, from <strong>the</strong> government, and is initiated by imperialedict, with little or no sign of persecuting zeal among <strong>the</strong> mass ofpagans. The beginning of <strong>the</strong> change seems to me to come with <strong>the</strong>Decian persecution. The last two recor<strong>de</strong>d major outbreaks of popularfury against <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s which I know of were those in Cappadociaand Pontus in 235140 and at Alexandria in 249.141 The change has gonequite far by <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>, when <strong>the</strong> majority ofpagans (except in a few places, like Gaza)142 seem to be at leastindiVerent, some even sympa<strong>the</strong>tic to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s,143 and fewprovincial governors display any enthusiasm for <strong>the</strong> task. ‘Thegovernment had outrun pagan animosity.’144 The reason for <strong>the</strong>change, I take it, is that <strong>Christian</strong>ity had by now spread wi<strong>de</strong>ly and139 Iren. Adv. Haeres. (ed. W. W. Harvey), iii.3.4; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii.28.6; iv.14.6.The same mentality can be found among <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> emperors: see e.g. Constantine’sletter to AelaWus, of 313–14 (Optatus, Append. iii, f. 30b [trans. Edwards, Optatus]);Cod. Theod. xvi.5.40.1 (a.d. 407); Nov. Theod. iii. pr., and above all 8 (a.d. 438).140 Firmilian, as cited in n. 136 above.141 Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi.41.1–9. The cause of this outbreak is notgiven.142 See Euseb. Mart. Pal. 3.1 (Long Recension).143 See esp. Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 64.144 Baynes, ‘Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, 677.
138 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomlost its secretive character, and pagans had come to realize that <strong>Christian</strong>swere not so diVerent from <strong>the</strong>mselves, and just as religious.I have ignored minor reasons for popular dislike of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s;but no doubt some people might feel a grudge against <strong>the</strong>m onsimple economic grounds: we may remember how <strong>the</strong>se are said tohave been responsible for arousing opposition to apostolic preachingat Philippi and Ephesus.145Finally, we can try to analyse <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> government. Foronce it is of little avail to ransack earlier Roman history for prece<strong>de</strong>nts,in <strong>the</strong> hope of discovering <strong>the</strong> principles on which Rometreated foreign religions,146 because <strong>the</strong> great problem posed by<strong>Christian</strong>ity, its exclusiveness, was something Rome had neverencountered before—except un<strong>de</strong>r very diVerent conditions, in <strong>the</strong>Jewish national religion.147I do not myself believe that <strong>the</strong>re is a single solution to ourproblem. I believe that diVerent members of <strong>the</strong> governing classmay have been actuated by diVerent motives, and I think that eachone of us must <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> for himself how much weight he would attachto each. I have already mentioned some minor factors, which may insome cases have played an important and even a <strong>de</strong>cisive part: <strong>the</strong>need to pacify public opinion; and suspicion of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as aconspiratorial body, or at least as un<strong>de</strong>sirables, mali homines. But formy own part I believe that <strong>the</strong> main motives of <strong>the</strong> government, in<strong>the</strong> long run, were essentially religious in character, according to <strong>the</strong>ancient conception of religion. These religious motives appear in twora<strong>the</strong>r diVerent forms, which some people might prefer to call145 Act. Apost. xvi.16–24; xix.23–41. (For <strong>the</strong> tra<strong>de</strong> in images, see Philostr. VitaApollon. v.20.) See also Tert. Apol. 42–3. And cf. Pliny, Epist. x.96.10—perhaps in acase such as this <strong>the</strong> butchers might be aggrieved!146 The article by H. Last, ‘The Study of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong>s’, JRS 27 (1937), pp. 80–92,is never<strong>the</strong>less useful for its <strong>de</strong>tailed examination of earlier acts of interference inreligious matters by <strong>the</strong> Romans.147 It was perhaps a failure to realize <strong>the</strong> importance of this factor that led Nock,op. cit. (n. 97 above), p. 217, to make a generalization about <strong>the</strong> policy of <strong>the</strong> Romangovernment in religious matters which seems to me mistaken in regard to <strong>Christian</strong>ity:‘To sum up, <strong>the</strong> state interfered not because <strong>the</strong> Roman gods were failing to get<strong>the</strong>ir due but because particular practices or groups were held to be unsuitable orsubversive or <strong>de</strong>moralizing. That is in substance true of oYcial action against <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s prior to Decius.’
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 139‘superstitious’ and ‘political’ respectively, <strong>the</strong>reby avoiding <strong>the</strong> term‘religious’ altoge<strong>the</strong>r. Some of <strong>the</strong> governing class, in <strong>the</strong> third centuryat any rate (and I believe from <strong>the</strong> Wrst), were undoubtedly inspired by<strong>the</strong> very motives I have <strong>de</strong>scribed as characteristic of <strong>the</strong>ir subjects.Among <strong>the</strong> persecuting emperors, we must certainly place Galerius inthis category (on <strong>the</strong> contemporary evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Lactantius),148 andalso Diocletian, who seems to have been a thoroughly religiousman.149 About Decius and Valerian I would reserve my opinion. It istrue that after <strong>the</strong> Severan period we Wnd many soldier-emperors oflittle or no education, whom we might suspect of <strong>the</strong> grosser forms ofsuperstition; and of course among <strong>the</strong> higher oYcials such as provincialgovernors <strong>the</strong>re will have been a greater proportion of uneducatedmen. But, as it happens, Decius cannot be called a man of that sort,and conspicuously not Valerian. I would conce<strong>de</strong> that even in <strong>the</strong> thirdcentury, and to a far greater extent in <strong>the</strong> second, especially <strong>the</strong> earlysecond, <strong>the</strong>re may have been a signiWcant number of members of <strong>the</strong>governing class who did not share <strong>the</strong> superstitious horror feltfor <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s by <strong>the</strong> masses. But even such people, I believe,were impelled to persecute—perhaps as vigorously as <strong>the</strong>ir lessemancipated brethren—by motives I think we are justiWed in callingreligious,150 in that <strong>the</strong>ir aim also was always primarily to break down<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> refusal to worship <strong>the</strong> pagan gods, even if <strong>the</strong> basis fromwhich <strong>the</strong>y procee<strong>de</strong>d was diVerent.I want to stress two vital pieces of evi<strong>de</strong>nce which I do not see howwe can explain away. First, <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> fact that except to a limite<strong>de</strong>xtent in <strong>the</strong> time of Valerian, and more seriously un<strong>de</strong>r Diocletian,what I have called <strong>the</strong> positive si<strong>de</strong> of <strong>Christian</strong>ity is never oYciallyattacked: persecution did not extend to any aspect of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>religion o<strong>the</strong>r than its refusal to acknowledge o<strong>the</strong>r gods. No attempt148 Lact. De Mort. Persec.9V., esp. 10.6; 11.1–4, 8. Galerius seems to have been <strong>the</strong>chief instigator of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong>: see my op. cit. [Ch. 1, pp. 70–2 above].149 See e.g. Euseb. Vita Const. ii.51 [trans. with commentary, Averil Cameron andS. G. Hall (Oxford, 1999)], and note <strong>the</strong> tone of parts of Diocletian’s copiouslegislation, esp. <strong>the</strong> long edict concerning marriage (Mos. et Rom. Leg. Coll. vi.4,esp. §§ 1, 2, 6), or that against <strong>the</strong> Manichees (I<strong>de</strong>m, xv.3, esp. § 3), or even <strong>the</strong>opening of <strong>the</strong> edict on prices (see Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome, ed. T. Frank (Baltimore,1940), v, p. 311). See also Lact. M.P. 11.6.150 In general, I warmly agree with <strong>the</strong> views expressed by J. Vogt, Zur Religiosität<strong>de</strong>r Christenverfolger im Röm. Reich (Sb. Akad. Hei<strong>de</strong>lberg., Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1962).
140 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomwas ever ma<strong>de</strong>, even in <strong>the</strong> general persecutions, to prohibit<strong>Christian</strong>s from worshipping <strong>the</strong>ir own god in private, althoughValerian151 and Diocletian152 (but not Decius) forba<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>m toassemble for common worship, and Diocletian also or<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>struction of churches and <strong>the</strong> conWscation of sacred books andchurch property.153 As <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>puty prefect of Egypt said to BishopDionysius of Alexandria in 257, ‘Who prevents you from worshippingyour own god also, if he is a god, along with <strong>the</strong> naturalgods?’154 And of course <strong>the</strong> sacriWce test continues to be used, andif <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> complies with it he goes free, even in <strong>the</strong> generalpersecutions.Secondly, <strong>the</strong>re is what I believe to have been <strong>the</strong> completeimmunity from persecution of most of <strong>the</strong> Gnostic sects. Some of<strong>the</strong>se professed doctrines of a recognizably <strong>Christian</strong> character(heretical in varying <strong>de</strong>grees as <strong>the</strong>y were) and called <strong>the</strong>mselves<strong>Christian</strong>s. Yet in Roman eyes <strong>the</strong>re was evi<strong>de</strong>ntly a fundamentaldiVerence between Gnostics and orthodox <strong>Christian</strong>s, if Gnosticswere not persecuted. Why? The reason can only be that <strong>the</strong> Gnosticsdid not think it necessary to be exclusive, like <strong>the</strong> orthodox, andrefuse to pay outward respect to <strong>the</strong> pagan gods when <strong>the</strong> necessityarose. We are told by orthodox <strong>Christian</strong> sources that Basili<strong>de</strong>s,perhaps <strong>the</strong> most important of all <strong>the</strong> Gnostic heresiarchs, permittedhis followers to eat meat which had been oVered to idols, and in timeof persecution ‘casually to <strong>de</strong>ny <strong>the</strong> faith’, doubtless by accepting <strong>the</strong>sacriWce test.155 It appears, <strong>the</strong>n, that although <strong>the</strong> tenets of <strong>the</strong>Gnostics must have appeared to <strong>the</strong> Roman governing class to bevery similar to those of <strong>the</strong> orthodox, <strong>the</strong> Gnostics escaped persecutionprecisely because <strong>the</strong>y consented to take part in pagan religiousceremonies on <strong>de</strong>mand, when <strong>the</strong> orthodox refused to do so.151 See Passio Cypr. i.7; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii.11.10–11.152 See Euseb. H.E. ix.10.8; Passio Saturnini et al. Abitin. esp. 1, 2, 5–14 (<strong>the</strong> besttext is by P. Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri, Studi e testi, lxv (1935), pp. 49–71; see also Th.Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, edn. of 1859, pp. 414 V.); Passio Philippi Heracl. 4 (Ruinart,op. cit., p. 441).153 The references are given in my op. cit. [Ch. 1 above, pp. 35–6], nn. 1–3.154 Euseb. H.E. vii.11.9.155 Agrippa Castor, ap. Euseb. H.E. iv.7.7; cf. Iren. Adv. Haeres. (ed. W. W. Harvey),i.19.3; iii.19.4; iv.54; Tert. Scorp. esp. 1, 15; Clem. Alex. Strom. iv.4.16.3–17.3;9.71.1–72.4; 12.81–8. And see Frend, op. cit. (1954), in n. 2 above.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 141What <strong>the</strong>n was <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> more enlightened pagans among<strong>the</strong> governing class? Why did <strong>the</strong>y too persecute?Here I think it may be helpful if I re-tell a story told by HenryCrabb Robinson about <strong>the</strong> reception by Lord Thurlow, Lord Chancellorof England, of a <strong>de</strong>putation which waited upon him in 1788 tosecure his support in <strong>the</strong>ir eVorts to bring about <strong>the</strong> repeal of <strong>the</strong>Corporation and Test Acts. Lord Thurlow ‘heard <strong>the</strong>m very civilly,and <strong>the</strong>n said, ‘‘Gentlemen, I’m against you, by God. I am for <strong>the</strong>Established Church, damme! Not that I have any more regard for <strong>the</strong>Established Church than for any o<strong>the</strong>r church, but because it isestablished. And if you can get your damned religion established,I’ll be for that too.’’’156Lord Thurlow may not have been exactly what we should calltoday a religious man, but his attitu<strong>de</strong> may help us to un<strong>de</strong>rstandthat of some members of <strong>the</strong> Roman governing class of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>Republic and early Principate—though of course I am not saying itis <strong>the</strong> same. Religion, for such Romans, was above all <strong>the</strong> ius divinum,<strong>the</strong> body of state law relating to sacred matters, which preserved <strong>the</strong>pax <strong>de</strong>orum by means of <strong>the</strong> appropriate ceremonial.157 It <strong>de</strong>rivedits great value, as Cicero repeatedly aYrms, mainly from <strong>the</strong> factthat it rested upon <strong>the</strong> auctoritas maiorum,158 <strong>the</strong> force of ancestraltradition. As Dr. Weinstock has pointed out,159 St. Augustinewas very much in <strong>the</strong> Ciceronian tradition when he <strong>de</strong>claredthat he would not believe <strong>the</strong> very Gospel itself, did it notrest upon <strong>the</strong> auctoritas of <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church160—a point of view156 Diary, Reminiscences, and Corr. of Henry Crabb Robinson, ed. T. Sadler, 3rd edn.(London, 1872), i, p. 197 (ch. xv).157 See <strong>the</strong> remark by Caecilius, <strong>the</strong> pagan speaker in Minuc. Fel. Octav. 7.2: allreligious ceremonies were invented ‘vel ut remuneraretur divina indulgentia, vel utaverteretur imminens ira aut iam tumens et saeviens placaretur’ [‘ei<strong>the</strong>r to berewar<strong>de</strong>d by divine approbation, or that anger when threatening might be avertedor, if already swelling and raging, be placated’].158 Cic. De Nat. Deor. iii.5–9 is perhaps <strong>the</strong> most illuminating passage. See also DeDiv. ii.148, etc.159 S. Weinstock, review of K. Latte, Römisches Religionsgeschichte, JRS 51 (1961),206–15, at 210. (I am grateful to Dr. Weinstock for allowing me, before <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>livery of<strong>the</strong> paper on which this article is based, to read <strong>the</strong> MS of his very impressivediscussion, <strong>the</strong>n not yet published. I found his para. 3, pp. 208–10, particularlyhelpful.)160 August. Contra Epist. Manich. 5.
142 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomstill held today by some <strong>Christian</strong> churches. Cicero, legislating in <strong>the</strong>De Legibus for his i<strong>de</strong>al commonwealth, begins with ius divinum.161In <strong>the</strong> De Natura Deorum he makes his more scepticalspeaker, Cotta, open his case in Book i by proclaiming that he ishimself a pontifex, who believes that ‘religious rites and ceremoniesought to be maintained with <strong>the</strong> utmost reverence’,162 and muchmore to <strong>the</strong> same eVect. He makes his Stoic speaker, Balbus, echosentiments he had expoun<strong>de</strong>d himself in his speech to <strong>the</strong> senate, DeHaruspicum Responsis, to <strong>the</strong> eVect that <strong>the</strong> Romans ‘in religion, thatis <strong>the</strong> cult of <strong>the</strong> gods, are far superior to o<strong>the</strong>r nations’.163 Suchpassages could be multiplied. It seems to me entirely besi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> point(though doubtless true enough) to object that Cicero rarely if evershows any unmistakable sign of ‘personal religion’, as we should callit. And when Professor Latte, in his great history of Roman religion,says that one Wnds in Cicero’s philosophical works no ‘inward participation’,164I feel as if I were being invited to note <strong>the</strong> absence ofcolour in a black-and-white drawing. The Roman state religioncontained nothing that was personal to <strong>the</strong> individual. And as forrational belief (or disbelief) in <strong>the</strong> gods—did it ever Wgure in <strong>the</strong>thoughts of Cicero and his kind except when <strong>the</strong>y were playing <strong>the</strong>Greek game of philosophical disputation? Contrast <strong>the</strong> instinctivebelief which Cotta in <strong>the</strong> De Natura Deorum, speaking to Balbus,proclaims in <strong>the</strong> words, ‘From you, a philosopher, I am bound to askfor a rational account of religion. Our ancestors I must believe, evenin <strong>the</strong> absence of rational explanation.’165 These people had a <strong>de</strong>epemotional feeling for Roman religion, as <strong>the</strong> ius divinum, <strong>the</strong> ‘foundationof our state’,166 an essential part of <strong>the</strong> whole Roman way oflife. One can still hold this to be true, even if, taking perhaps anuncharitable view (as I would myself), one holds that quite a large161 Cic. De Leg. ii.18–22.162 Cic. De Nat. Deor. i.61.163 Ibid. ii.8; cf. De Har. Resp. 19. Among many similar passages in o<strong>the</strong>r authors,see Val. Max. i.1, esp. §§ 8, 9; Tert. Apol. 25.2. An interesting early text is S.I.G.3, no.601 (b.c. 193), and one of <strong>the</strong> last (and most important) is Symmachus, Rel. iii (ed.O. Seeck, pp. 280–3), of a.d. 384. O<strong>the</strong>r texts are cited in A. S. Pease’s edn. of <strong>the</strong> DeNat. Deor. ii (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 567.164 K. Latte, Römisches Religionsgeschichte, 2nd edn. (Munich, 1960), p. 285.165 Cic. De Nat. Deor. iii.6.166 Ibid. iii.5.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 143part of that religion was above all an instrument by which <strong>the</strong>governing class hoped to keep <strong>the</strong> reins of power in its ownhands.167 In <strong>the</strong> De Legibus, Cicero, himself an augur, gloriWes thatoYce because past augurs have been able to annul laws passed byreforming tribunes, to which Cicero refuses <strong>the</strong> very name of law.168But such <strong>de</strong>ep-seated expressions of his own interests and those of hisclass are far from making his conception of religion ‘insincere’ or‘cynical’—in<strong>de</strong>ed, <strong>the</strong> reverse is true.I have appealed to Cicero because I suppose most people wouldagree that <strong>the</strong> author of <strong>the</strong> De Divinatione may well be consi<strong>de</strong>redone of <strong>the</strong> least superstitious men in an age which was distinctly lesssuperstitious than <strong>the</strong> age of <strong>the</strong> persecutions. For Cicero’s spiritual<strong>de</strong>scendants of <strong>the</strong> early Principate, Roman religion was part of <strong>the</strong>very stuV of Roman life and Roman greatness; and <strong>the</strong>y were preparedto extend <strong>the</strong>ir protection also to <strong>the</strong> cults of <strong>the</strong> peoples of<strong>the</strong>ir empire, whose <strong>de</strong>votion to <strong>the</strong>ir ancestral religions seemed to<strong>the</strong>ir rulers only right and proper. Can we imagine that such men,however intellectually emancipated from <strong>the</strong> superstitions of <strong>the</strong>vulgar, would have had any compunction about executing <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>votees of a new-fangled sect which threatened almost everyelement of Roman religion, and in<strong>de</strong>ed of all <strong>the</strong> traditional cultsconducted by <strong>the</strong> inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> Roman world? I would beprepared to speak of persecution so motivated as being conductedfor religious reasons, though I realize that o<strong>the</strong>r people might preferto use ano<strong>the</strong>r word—political, perhaps.I shall end by quoting what seems to me <strong>the</strong> most illuminatingsingle text in all <strong>the</strong> ancient sources, for <strong>the</strong> un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of <strong>the</strong>167 For äåØóØäÆØìïíßÆ (which in this passage is perhaps best trans<strong>late</strong>d ‘fear of <strong>the</strong>supernatural’) as <strong>the</strong> very cement of <strong>the</strong> Roman constitution, see Polyb. vi.56.7–12.Varro, <strong>the</strong> greatest authority on Roman religion, thought it expedient, as did Scaevolabefore him, that ‘states should be <strong>de</strong>ceived in matters of religion’: August. De Civ. Dei,iv.27, cf. 31, 32. See in addition Augustine’s attack on Seneca (based on his lost workon Superstition), in C.D. vi.10; also Livy, i.19.4–5; Dio Cass. lii.36.1–3.168 Cic. De Leg. ii.14, 31. In <strong>the</strong> face of conXicting opinions among <strong>the</strong> expertswhe<strong>the</strong>r divination really had a supernatural basis or was simply a political expedient(‘ad utilitatem . . . reipublicae composita’), Cicero proceeds (Ibid. 32–3) to <strong>de</strong>clare hisbelief in <strong>the</strong> divine origin of augury, while lamenting its present <strong>de</strong>cline. In <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>rDe Div., however, he makes it perfectly clear that he had no belief in <strong>the</strong> reality ofdivination (ii, esp. 28–150), although in public he would keep up a pretence of takingit seriously, as a useful buttress of <strong>the</strong> constitution and <strong>the</strong> state religion (ii.28, 70–1).
144 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdompersecutions. Paternus, proconsul of Africa, is speaking to Cyprian athis Wrst trial in 257, and telling him what <strong>the</strong> emperors have just<strong>de</strong>creed. This, it is true, is a special edict, making it incumbent upon<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> clergy, on pain of exile, to perform certain acts whichordinary folk would not normally be obliged to carry out; but what isenjoined is something any accused <strong>Christian</strong> might be or<strong>de</strong>red toperform, and this gives <strong>the</strong> text general signiWcance. The <strong>de</strong>cree is:‘Eos qui Romanam religionem non colunt <strong>de</strong>bere Romanas caerimoniasrecognoscere’.169 I think <strong>the</strong> sense is brought out best bytranslating <strong>the</strong> main clause negatively: ‘Those who do not profess<strong>the</strong> Roman religion’—it is admitted that <strong>the</strong>re are such people—‘must not refuse to take part in Roman religious ceremonies.’<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s article provoked an immediate response from Sherwin-White, whose views on contumacia and <strong>the</strong> relevance of accusationsof immorality to persecutions he had questioned.1 Sherwin-Whiteaccepted that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s <strong>the</strong>sis would ‘for long rank among <strong>the</strong> mostsatisfactory treatments of this <strong>the</strong>me’ (23) and agreed that it wasapplicable to <strong>the</strong> period from <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> second century onwards (25).His concern was for <strong>the</strong> earliest period of persecutions, <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>ncefor which he complained that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> interpreted in <strong>the</strong> light of<strong>late</strong>r <strong>de</strong>velopments. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s typically combative and rapidresponse fairly represents and fully counters Sherwin-White’s arguments,especially with regard to <strong>the</strong> crucial evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Pliny’scorrespon<strong>de</strong>nce with Trajan. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> only element of Sherwin-White’s article that needs to be recalled is his citation of evi<strong>de</strong>ncefrom Lucian who, writing at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> second century, did notmention accusations of immorality against <strong>Christian</strong>s and thought<strong>the</strong>ir only oVence was ‘godlessness’ (De Morte Peregrini 11–14;Alexan<strong>de</strong>r 25); Sherwin-White accepted that by Lucian’s time <strong>the</strong><strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> <strong>the</strong>sis of persecution on religious grounds was beyondchallenge and oVered <strong>the</strong>se references as additional support. Lucian’saccount of Peregrinus is discussed by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> in ‘VoluntaryMartyrdom’ (pp. 186–8 below).169 Passio Cypr. i.1.1 A. N. Sherwin-White, ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?—AnAmendment’, P&P27 (1964), 23–7; repr. (with an Ad<strong>de</strong>ndum) in his Letters ofPliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 772–87.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 145The exchange in Past and Present 1964 terminated <strong>the</strong> public<strong>de</strong>bate: <strong>the</strong>re was clearly insuYcient evi<strong>de</strong>nce to <strong>de</strong>monstrate <strong>the</strong>contumacia <strong>the</strong>ory, and scholars have been increasingly willing toaccept that issues of religion could and did have a signiWcant impactin all periods of <strong>the</strong> ancient world. It has also become clear that inmany respects <strong>the</strong> Roman world did not operate in a neat andcoherent legal way, so that concern for <strong>the</strong> precise legal basis forpersecution is misdirected. This acceptance of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s contentionthat <strong>the</strong> ill-<strong>de</strong>Wned processes of what he labelled <strong>the</strong> cognitio extraordinem were capable of adaptation for occasions of persecution doesprovi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> possibility of a partial rapprochement between an aspectof Sherwin-White’s <strong>the</strong>sis and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> view, namely withregard to contumacia. For <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, <strong>the</strong> phenomenon of volunteermartyrs was a plausible trigger for some, perhaps even many, of <strong>the</strong>outbreaks of persecution (see fur<strong>the</strong>r Ch. 4 below), but <strong>the</strong> behaviourof <strong>the</strong>se volunteers, which might inclu<strong>de</strong> outbursts from spectatorsin court or public disrespect for acts or sites of worship, represented a<strong>de</strong>Wance of authority and a disregard for convention which mightwell have been termed contumacia.2Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?—A Rejoin<strong>de</strong>r*There are two diVerent questions in dispute between Mr. Sherwin-White and myself: [A. N. Sherwin-White, ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early<strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?—An Amendment’, P&P27 (1964), 23–7](1) whe<strong>the</strong>r ‘sheer disobedience’, as such, was ever a ground for <strong>the</strong>judicial con<strong>de</strong>mnation of <strong>Christian</strong>s; and (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r at Wrst <strong>the</strong>government behaved to <strong>Christian</strong>ity ‘exactly as it did towards o<strong>the</strong>r‘‘superstitions’’’ (P &P(1964), 24), and ‘<strong>the</strong> only ground indicatedfor <strong>the</strong> proscription of <strong>the</strong> [<strong>Christian</strong>] cult1 is its association withcrimes and immoralities—Xagitia, scelera, maleWcia’ (p. 23, with <strong>the</strong>next two paragraphs: my italics).2 Musurillo, Acts, p. lxi, also saw scope for convergence between <strong>the</strong> rival <strong>the</strong>ories,though this was through <strong>the</strong>ir common acceptance of <strong>the</strong> arbitrariness of <strong>the</strong> cognitioextraordinaria procedures.* First published in Past and Present, 27 (1964), 28–33.1 It is inexact to speak of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> ‘cult’ in this connection: <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> cultwas not directly attacked before <strong>the</strong> Valerianic persecution (see [pp. 139–40 above]).
146 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom1. On <strong>the</strong> Wrst question, most of my criticisms of Mr. Sherwin-White’s article of 1952 still stand (see [pp. 124–7 above]), especially<strong>the</strong> second, to which he has ma<strong>de</strong> no reply; and he now exposes <strong>the</strong>weakness of his case even more clearly by citing texts which, whencorrectly interpreted, turn against him.First, <strong>the</strong> passage in Marcus Aurelius (xi.3). Here Mr. Sherwin-White takes <strong>the</strong> phrase ŒÆôa łØºcí ðÆæÜôÆîØí, out of its context, as<strong>the</strong> equivalent of ‘ob meram contumaciam’ and assumes that Marcusis accusing <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of seeking <strong>de</strong>ath ‘out of sheer disobedience’.In fact Marcus is contrasting <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s to <strong>de</strong>athwith <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> he himself approves, formed by an act of individualjudgment (Iðe NäØŒ çò & Œæßóåøò), arrived at ‘rationally and withdignity and without <strong>the</strong>atricality’ (ºåºïªØóìÝíøò ŒÆd óåìí &øòŒÆd ...Iôæƪfiþäøò). There is no room here for any i<strong>de</strong>a of disobedienceor <strong>de</strong>Wance of authority (‘contumacia’). What Marcus is objectingto is <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’ irrational pig-hea<strong>de</strong>dness, and <strong>the</strong> Latinequivalent of ðÆæÜôÆîØò here is obstinatio2—a complaint oftenlevelled against <strong>Christian</strong>s.3 Mr. Sherwin-White, substituting contumaciafor obstinatio, converts ‘mere obstinacy’ (cf. pp. 126–7 above)into ‘sheer disobedience’. In exactly <strong>the</strong> same way he tries to turn <strong>the</strong>puzzled Pliny’s attribution to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of ‘pertinacia...etinXexibilis obstinatio’ [‘stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy’]into something quite diVerent: ‘<strong>de</strong>Wance of his authority as governor’.But again, <strong>the</strong> text speaks of ‘obstinacy’, not of <strong>de</strong>Wance or disobedience.And Pliny is not giving a formal, technical justiWcation of hisactions: that was not necessary. What he is saying is, ‘Well anyway,<strong>the</strong>y were a thoroughly obstinate crew and <strong>de</strong>served what <strong>the</strong>y got.’In spite of his ‘nescio quid . . . puniri soleat’ [‘I do not knowwhat punishment is customary’], his own actions (see <strong>the</strong> Wrsttwo sentences of § 3 of his letter) show that he knew confessorsshould be executed for <strong>the</strong> ‘Name’, for ‘being <strong>Christian</strong>s’. Their‘obstinacy’ was one of <strong>the</strong> un<strong>de</strong>sirable manifestations of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>superstitio.2 See F. Martinazzoli, Parataxeis (Florence, 1953), pp. 17 V.3 See e.g. Tert. Apol. 27.2 (where T. goes on in § 3 to call it ‘constantia’), 7; 50.15;De Spect. 1.1; Ad Nat. i.17–19; and of course Pliny, Epist. x.96.3.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 147Secondly, <strong>the</strong> Sardinian inscription (P&P(1964), 26). 3a I ignoredthis as irrelevant: it reveals an entirely diVerent situation, and <strong>the</strong> textactually un<strong>de</strong>rlines Mr. Sherwin-White’s inability to cite any directevi<strong>de</strong>nce. Here <strong>the</strong> proconsul does in<strong>de</strong>ed accuse <strong>the</strong> Galillenses ofdisobedience, to an actual judicial <strong>de</strong>cision (‘nec parentes <strong>de</strong>cretosuo’), and of contumacia (even longa contumacia, <strong>de</strong>Wance ofrepeated or<strong>de</strong>rs to clear out), and he threatens that if <strong>the</strong> situationcontinues he will treat <strong>the</strong>m as guilty of seditio. How convenient itwould be for Mr. Sherwin-White if he could quote even a fewstatements of this sort in relation to <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>Christian</strong>s,as his <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>de</strong>mands that he should! But <strong>the</strong>re is in fact no evi<strong>de</strong>ncethat <strong>Christian</strong>s were ever executed because <strong>the</strong>y were guilty of ‘disobedience’.When Mr. Sherwin-White says <strong>the</strong>re are ‘no <strong>late</strong>r oYcialdocuments’ in which his favourite expression ‘contumacia’ mightappear, he forgets that ‘<strong>the</strong> early martyr-acts, . . . written in <strong>the</strong> formatof a Roman court-record’ (P&P(1964), 23), sometimes preserve <strong>the</strong>actual words spoken by <strong>the</strong> magistrate trying <strong>the</strong> case. Here <strong>the</strong>sentence on <strong>the</strong> Scillitan martyrs is very signiWcant: <strong>the</strong> proconsulsays, ‘quoniam oblata sibi facultate ad Romanorum morem re<strong>de</strong>undiobstinanter perseveraverunt’4—not that <strong>the</strong>y ‘disobeyed an or<strong>de</strong>r’,but that <strong>the</strong>y ‘obstinately persevered, although given an opportunity ofreturning to Roman behaviour’. What I have called ‘<strong>the</strong> sacriWce test’(see pp. 124–8 above) was in<strong>de</strong>ed originally a privilege oVered to thosewho were prepared to apostatize, or who <strong>de</strong>nied being <strong>Christian</strong>s, toenable <strong>the</strong>m to prove <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>tachment from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> superstitio.2. On <strong>the</strong> second question, Mr. Sherwin-White has not paid attentionto what his sources (Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny) actually say.His ‘maleWcia’ can only refer to Suetonius, Nero 16.2, where,however, only <strong>the</strong> corresponding adjective appears, with a signiWcantdiVerence of emphasis. Suetonius calls <strong>Christian</strong>s a ‘genus hominumsuperstitionis novae ac maleWcae’ [‘a class of men from a new and evilsuperstition’]. His attention is concentrated upon <strong>the</strong> actual religion,<strong>the</strong> superstitio: this itself he regards as ‘maleWca’, as a likely cause ofevil-doing.3 a [Text in E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating <strong>the</strong> Principates of Gaius,Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967), 392; trans. in B. Levick, The Government of<strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, 2nd edn. (London, 2000), no. 53.]4 Passio SS. Scillitan. 14.
148 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomIn Tacitus (Annals, xv.44.3–5, 8, in Furneaux’ edition) it is againprecisely <strong>the</strong> superstitio which is <strong>de</strong>testable (‘exitiabilis’), an evil(‘malum’, to be classed with ‘atrocia aut pu<strong>de</strong>nda’ [‘atrocious andshameful acts’]). Although Tacitus <strong>de</strong>scribes <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s as ‘hatedfor <strong>the</strong>ir abominations’, and doubtless himself shared <strong>the</strong> belief in<strong>the</strong>ir ‘Xagitia’ [‘disgraceful acts’] which he attributes to <strong>the</strong> commonherd, and although he calls <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s ‘guilty and <strong>de</strong>servingexemplary punishment’, he evi<strong>de</strong>ntly did not believe <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>sWred Rome (as Mr. Sherwin-White admits in his 1952 article, p. 208);and—<strong>the</strong> essential point—unless Tacitus is misleading us, <strong>the</strong>government did not believe this ei<strong>the</strong>r!5 The government, <strong>the</strong>n, wasnot persecuting <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s for a crime it believed <strong>the</strong>m to havecommitted. The evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Tacitus here may be recalcitrant toprecise analysis; but such as it is it merely shows <strong>the</strong> governmentpersecuting <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s (primarily as incendiaries) because <strong>the</strong>populace believed <strong>the</strong>m guilty of abominations and would <strong>the</strong>reforebe <strong>the</strong> readier to suppose <strong>the</strong>m guilty of starting <strong>the</strong> Wre.Fortunately, <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce of Pliny can be pressed, and is conclusive.There is not <strong>the</strong> least suggestion in Pliny’s letter or in Trajan’sreply that on this occasion <strong>the</strong> ‘Xagitia’ were actually <strong>the</strong> ground ofpersecution, although Pliny was prepared to regard persecution for‘Xagitia’ as a <strong>the</strong>oretical possibility (§ 2 of his letter). Pliny executed<strong>the</strong> confessors for <strong>the</strong> ‘Name’, without any evi<strong>de</strong>nce of ‘Xagitia’, orin<strong>de</strong>ed of anything except <strong>the</strong>ir confession that <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>Christian</strong>s,and he <strong>late</strong>r discovered (from apostates) that <strong>the</strong>re were no ‘Xagitia’.He never<strong>the</strong>less, in <strong>the</strong> acknowledged absence of ‘Xagitia’, still regar<strong>de</strong>d<strong>Christian</strong>ity as something disgusting; but again, as with Suetoniusand Tacitus, it is <strong>the</strong> religion itself, <strong>the</strong> superstitio, which is abhorrent:it is ‘prava, immodica’ (§ 8 of his letter). Even Last, on p. 91 of <strong>the</strong>article recommen<strong>de</strong>d by Mr. Sherwin-White,5 a had to admit thatPliny is ‘far...from proving that <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>nial of <strong>the</strong> Roman gods wasnot <strong>the</strong> essence of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> oVence’.At Wrst Pliny had not felt certain what it was customary to doabout <strong>Christian</strong>s (note <strong>the</strong> word ‘soleat’ in § 1 of his letter). Among5 See <strong>the</strong> treatment of <strong>the</strong> expression ‘subdidit reos’ by Beaujeu, on pp. 16–17 of<strong>the</strong> work cited in n. 10 to my article [p. 108 n. 10 above].5 a H. Last, ‘The Study of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Persecution</strong>s’, JRS 27 (1937), 80–92.
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 149o<strong>the</strong>r things, he says he did not know whe<strong>the</strong>r he ought to punish (1)for <strong>the</strong> ‘Name’ alone, even in <strong>the</strong> absence of ‘Xagitia’, or (2) for <strong>the</strong>‘Xagitia’. The vital diVerence, which commentators seldom bring out,is that (1) punishment for <strong>the</strong> ‘Name’ alone (a) would be inXicted for<strong>the</strong> mere confession of <strong>Christian</strong>ity, but on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand (b) couldbe avoi<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>de</strong>nial or apostasy, <strong>de</strong>monstrated by sacriWcing,whereas (2) punishment for <strong>the</strong> ‘Xagitia’ (a) would involve an inquisitioninto <strong>the</strong>ir nature, but (b) presumably, if ‘Xagitia’ were discovered(or invented), <strong>the</strong> guilty could not escape by merely apostatizingfrom <strong>Christian</strong>ity. We must distinguish between three categoriesamong those accused before Pliny as <strong>Christian</strong>s: some proved to beconfessors (§§ 2–4 of his letter), o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>de</strong>nied that <strong>the</strong>y had everbeen <strong>Christian</strong>s (§ 5), o<strong>the</strong>rs again had apostatized or were ready todo so (§ 6). After some hesitation, Pliny <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d in practice toconsi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> charges both against confessors and against outright<strong>de</strong>niers as being in respect of <strong>the</strong> ‘Name’ alone; and he clearly hopedthat Trajan would allow him to apply exactly <strong>the</strong> same policy toapostates as to <strong>de</strong>niers (§§ 6–10). It was to this course of conduct, inrelation to all three categories (confessors, <strong>de</strong>niers and apostates),that Trajan, betraying no surprise at <strong>the</strong> absence of ‘Xagitia’, explicitlygave his oYcial approval. (It looks to me as if Mr. Sherwin-White hasnot fully realized this: cf. P&P(1964), 24.) It is most signiWcant that<strong>de</strong>niers and (by Trajan’s rescript) even apostates were allowed toescape by accepting <strong>the</strong> sacriWce test: this is yet ano<strong>the</strong>r proof that<strong>the</strong> ‘Xagitia’ were not nearly as important as Mr. Sherwin-Whitethinks—if you take charges of cannibalism seriously, you do notpardon <strong>the</strong> cannibals simply because <strong>the</strong>y tear up <strong>the</strong>ir membershipcards of <strong>the</strong> Cannibals’ Club. Again, it was having <strong>the</strong> ‘superstitio’which ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s dangerous, and abandoning <strong>the</strong> ‘superstitio’removed <strong>the</strong> cause of oVence: get <strong>the</strong>m to give up <strong>Christian</strong>ity,and <strong>the</strong> likelihood of <strong>the</strong>ir wanting to go in for ‘Xagitia’ woulddisappear. This makes excellent sense of <strong>the</strong> Roman attitu<strong>de</strong>, whichon Mr. Sherwin-White’s version of <strong>the</strong> facts is unreasonable in <strong>the</strong>extreme.In view of <strong>the</strong> scantiness of <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce, no one could safely <strong>de</strong>nythat belief in ‘Xagitia’ supposedly committed by <strong>Christian</strong>s mayhave been a factor, on occasion perhaps an important factor, inducing<strong>the</strong> government to persecute. But <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce to which
150 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomMr. Sherwin-White himself appeals aVords no basis for taking <strong>the</strong>‘Xagitia’ as <strong>the</strong> only element, or even <strong>the</strong> main element, in <strong>the</strong> mindof <strong>the</strong> government, although it still leaves open <strong>the</strong> possibility that <strong>the</strong>‘Xagitia’ may have played an important role in <strong>the</strong> minds of ordinaryfolk. Only in so far as <strong>the</strong> government felt it necessary to give in topopular <strong>de</strong>mands for persecution motivated in this way can weconW<strong>de</strong>ntly put particular emphasis on <strong>the</strong> ‘Xagitia’ as a factorinXuencing <strong>the</strong> government.6 But apart from <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>superstitio was itself <strong>the</strong> objectionable thing, <strong>the</strong>re is no directevi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> ground of persecution in <strong>the</strong> early days, so far as <strong>the</strong>government is concerned. I am myself inclined to think that riots—especially with Jews—caused by <strong>Christian</strong> preaching (see n. 7 to myarticle [p. 107 n. 7 above]) and perhaps provocative acts committedby early enthusiasts (see pp. 131–3 above, on ‘voluntary martyrdom’)may have played an important part. It is when we look at <strong>the</strong>behaviour of <strong>the</strong> Roman government over <strong>the</strong> centuries7 (un<strong>de</strong>terredby Mr. Sherwin-White’s <strong>de</strong>scription of this as ‘beginning at <strong>the</strong> endand working backwards’) that we Wnd reason to attribute a majorrole to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’ total rejection of <strong>the</strong> whole of Roman ‘religio’,summed up in <strong>the</strong> charge of ‘a<strong>the</strong>ism’. The onus is on those who <strong>de</strong>ny<strong>the</strong> early importance of this long-lasting element to produce reasonswhy it should have arisen only after Pliny’s day, when all that weknow of Roman religion would lead us to expect its appearancevery soon after <strong>Christian</strong>ity Wrst attracted <strong>the</strong> attention of <strong>the</strong>government.I won<strong>de</strong>r why Mr. Sherwin-White interprets § 10 of Pliny’s letter tomean that it was only ‘subsequently’ (some time after his persecutionbegan) that Pliny ‘became concerned at <strong>the</strong> reported neglect of civiccults due to <strong>the</strong> inXuence of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’. How can he possiblyknow this? Pliny says (perhaps with some exaggeration) that <strong>the</strong>temples, which had been almost empty, were beginning to befrequented again. This, says Mr. Sherwin-White (n. 3), ‘refers to <strong>the</strong>situation some time after <strong>the</strong> measures reported by him in §§ 1–6’.But it is only <strong>the</strong> revival of <strong>the</strong> cults which we can thus date. And6 Here, some pertinent remarks have been ma<strong>de</strong> by A. Ronconi, in <strong>the</strong> lastparagraph of his paper referred to in n. 79 to my article [p. 122 n. 79 above].7 See esp. n. 139 to my article [p. 137 n. 139 above].
Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted? 151Pliny goes on to say something Mr. Sherwin-White fails to repeat:that <strong>the</strong> sacred rites which had long been allowed to lapse (‘diuintermissa’) were being renewed, and <strong>the</strong> Xesh of <strong>the</strong> sacred victimswas again being sold. We cannot know when Pliny ‘becameconcerned’, but in view of <strong>the</strong> words ‘diu intermissa’ we may wellthink it likely that <strong>the</strong> neglect of <strong>the</strong> traditional observances wassomething that forced itself on Pliny’s notice soon after his arrivalin <strong>the</strong> area. However, my point is not so much that this may haveinXuenced Pliny in <strong>de</strong>ciding whe<strong>the</strong>r to persecute (on this we haveno information), but that Pliny, in his tactful attempt to get Trajan toapprove <strong>the</strong> policy he had followed, laid great emphasis on <strong>the</strong>religious revival he had brought about, which he evi<strong>de</strong>ntly believedwould weigh with <strong>the</strong> emperor.That anyone can say <strong>the</strong> government behaved to <strong>Christian</strong>ity‘exactly as it did towards o<strong>the</strong>r ‘‘superstitions’’ ’ is incomprehensibleto me. The <strong>de</strong>votees of what o<strong>the</strong>r ‘superstitio’ did <strong>the</strong> Romans everexecute as such whenever anyone brought a charge against <strong>the</strong>m ofholding that superstition? The answer, of course, is None. Mr. Sherwin-Whiteshould reXect in particular upon <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>tails of <strong>the</strong>suppression of <strong>the</strong> ‘Bacchanalia’ in b.c. 186.8 Here, (1) punishmentwas inXicted not for professing adherence to <strong>the</strong> cult, or even takingpart in it, but for committing ‘Xagitia’; (2) <strong>the</strong> cult was not ma<strong>de</strong>altoge<strong>the</strong>r illegal but was sanctioned even at <strong>the</strong> time to <strong>de</strong>voteesalready committed to it, in small groups of not more than Wvemembers, if <strong>the</strong>y obtained <strong>the</strong> permission of <strong>the</strong> senate; and (3)<strong>late</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> Bacchic cult was freely tolerated. Actions taken by Romeagainst o<strong>the</strong>r cults (that of Isis, for example) were equally short-livedand always for speciWc abuses, and <strong>the</strong>y contrast equally strongly with<strong>the</strong> permanent ban on <strong>the</strong> mere profession of <strong>Christian</strong>ity.Mr. Sherwin-White would do well to re-read a very useful work towhich he himself appeals as if it fully supported his <strong>the</strong>ories: that ofE. G. Hardy (cited in his n. 4, and more familiar to most people as <strong>the</strong>8 For which see A. H. McDonald, in Jl. of Rom. Stud. xxxiv (1944), at pp. 26–31,with full references. [R. A. Bauman, ‘The Suppression of <strong>the</strong> Bacchanals: FiveQuestions’, Historia, 39 (1990), 334–48; E. S. Gruen, ‘The Bacchanalian AVair’, inStudies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Berkeley, 1990), 34–78; P. G. Walsh,‘Making a Drama out of a Crisis: Livy on <strong>the</strong> Bacchanalia’, Greece and Rome, 34.2(1996), 188–203.]
152 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomWrst section of Hardy’s Studies in Roman History, i, London, 1906,1910). Here he will Wnd a point of view ra<strong>the</strong>r diVerent from his own.‘The <strong>Christian</strong>s’, says Hardy, ‘subsequently to, as before [my italics],<strong>the</strong> rescript of Trajan were punished generally for <strong>the</strong> name, i.e. . . .for <strong>the</strong> inherent disloyalty to <strong>the</strong> state involved in <strong>the</strong>ir IŁåüôçò[a<strong>the</strong>ism], and manifested in <strong>the</strong> obstinatio with which <strong>the</strong>y clungto it’ (Studies, 2nd edn., p. 101, cf. 13). This is much nearer <strong>the</strong> truth.<strong>Christian</strong>ity, unlike all <strong>the</strong> various forms of paganism, which enjoyed‘peaceful co-existence’ among <strong>the</strong>mselves, would never countenanceo<strong>the</strong>r religions: this was surely <strong>the</strong> heart of its unique oVence—against <strong>the</strong> gods and <strong>the</strong>refore against <strong>the</strong> state. Toleration of a veryancient idiosyncrasy of <strong>the</strong> national faith of <strong>the</strong> Jews (cf. p. 135above) could not be exten<strong>de</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> potentially dangerous innovationsof a missionary superstitio.
4Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early ChurchIn consi<strong>de</strong>ring <strong>the</strong> relation between early <strong>Christian</strong>ity and its environment,historians have paid far too little attention to <strong>the</strong> phenomenonwhich I shall call voluntary martyrdom. By a volunteer martyr,or volunteer, I mean a <strong>Christian</strong> who <strong>de</strong>liberately and unnecessarilyprovoked persecution and thus sought a <strong>de</strong>ath which he might haveavoi<strong>de</strong>d without any sacriWce of <strong>Christian</strong> principle. There is suYcientevi<strong>de</strong>nce to show that voluntary martyrdom was by no meansconWned to heretical or schismatic sects but, although frowned uponby <strong>the</strong> dominant section of opinion in <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church, was agreat <strong>de</strong>al more common among <strong>the</strong> orthodox than <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>apologists have cared to admit. In all probability quite a substantialproportion of <strong>the</strong> ‘noble army of martyrs’ of <strong>the</strong> Wrst three centuriesconsisted of volunteers and those whom I shall presently <strong>de</strong>Wne as‘quasi-volunteers’. It is impossible to doubt that <strong>the</strong> prevalence ofvoluntary martyrdom was a factor which both contributed towards<strong>the</strong> outbreak of persecution and ten<strong>de</strong>d to intensify it when it wasalready in progress.In my class of voluntary martyrs, as I have <strong>de</strong>Wned <strong>the</strong>m, I inclu<strong>de</strong>only those who (a) explicitly <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> privilege of martyrdom;or (b) came forward of <strong>the</strong>ir own accord in times of persecution andma<strong>de</strong> a public confession of <strong>Christian</strong>ity which was bound to lead toinstant execution; or (c) by some <strong>de</strong>liberate act—<strong>de</strong>stroying images,for example, or assaulting a provincial governor while he wassacriWcing—clearly invited arrest and execution. Intermediatebetween <strong>the</strong>se volunteers and <strong>the</strong> ordinary martyrs are those whom[This collection of evi<strong>de</strong>nce was put toge<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1950s, and served toun<strong>de</strong>rpin <strong>the</strong> brief discussion in Past and Present (1963), 21–4 (Ch. 3, pp. 129–33).]
154 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomI shall call ‘quasi-volunteers’. These fall into three groups: I. those inwhom we cannot <strong>de</strong>monstrate a conscious <strong>de</strong>sire for martyrdom forits own sake, but who were rigorists of one kind or ano<strong>the</strong>r, goingbeyond <strong>the</strong> general practice of <strong>the</strong> Church in <strong>the</strong>ir opposition tosome aspect of pagan society—for example, <strong>Christian</strong> paciWsts whorefused military service; II. those who without, as far as we know,actually <strong>de</strong>manding or inviting martyrdom, <strong>de</strong>liberately and unnecessarilyattracted attention to <strong>the</strong>mselves, for example by ministeringopenly to arrested confessors, and hence brought about <strong>the</strong>irown arrest; III. martyrs who are not recor<strong>de</strong>d to have been directlyresponsible for <strong>the</strong>ir own arrest, but who after being arrested behavedwith <strong>de</strong>liberate contumacy at <strong>the</strong>ir trial. Being <strong>Christian</strong> confessors,<strong>the</strong>y would probably have been put to <strong>de</strong>ath in any event, but some of<strong>the</strong>m brought upon <strong>the</strong>mselves particularly unpleasant forms ofexecution.It is diYcult to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> how one should regard those <strong>Christian</strong>s who,after being arrested, or in fear of arrest or of some violation of <strong>the</strong>irchastity, <strong>de</strong>liberately committed suici<strong>de</strong>, ‘religious suici<strong>de</strong>’ as I shallcall it. I will not in fact be treating <strong>the</strong>m as volunteers or quasivolunteers,nor have I attempted to record <strong>the</strong>m all. Their motivesare seldom, if ever, known to us: sometimes <strong>the</strong>y may have beenactuated by a very un<strong>de</strong>rstandable <strong>de</strong>sire to escape a possibly lingeringand painful <strong>de</strong>ath, or may have feared that when subjected to torture<strong>the</strong>y would <strong>de</strong>ny <strong>the</strong>ir faith and thus <strong>de</strong>stroy <strong>the</strong>ir immortal souls.Sometimes, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, especially when a neurotically sexualelement is present, one may suspect <strong>the</strong> existence of some pathologicalyearning for <strong>de</strong>ath, which is so evi<strong>de</strong>nt in some of <strong>the</strong> voluntarymartyrs. Anyone who concerns himself seriously (as I do not feelqualiWed to do) with <strong>the</strong> psychological aspects of martyrdom mustobviously take <strong>the</strong>se cases into account. I shall limit myself to giving abrief account of <strong>the</strong> ‘oYcial’ attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Church on this question.My principal aim in this paper is to show that a large body ofevi<strong>de</strong>nce exists for voluntary martyrdom. I shall <strong>the</strong>refore set out thisevi<strong>de</strong>nce, in three parts: Wrst, <strong>the</strong> passages in which <strong>the</strong> practiceis con<strong>de</strong>mned by lea<strong>de</strong>rs of orthodox opinion; second, <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>ncefor individual volunteers, including quasi-volunteers, roughlyin chronological or<strong>de</strong>r; third, some o<strong>the</strong>r relevant material,
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 155including a discussion of Jewish antece<strong>de</strong>nts. Finally, I shall drawsome conclusions.OYcial Disapproval of Voluntary MartyrdomIn trying to state <strong>the</strong> oYcial attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Church towards voluntarymartyrdom we are confronted from <strong>the</strong> Wrst with an obvious conXictbetween <strong>the</strong>ory and practice, between <strong>the</strong> verdict on principle byparticular churches, clerics, and at least one episcopal council, and<strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> actually adopted by <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church towards numerousindividual volunteers.Apart from <strong>the</strong> works of heretics and schismatics, includingTertullian in his <strong>late</strong>r, Montanist, phase,1 I know of no open advocacyor approval of voluntary martyrdom in principle by any surviving<strong>Christian</strong> writer of <strong>the</strong> Wrst few centuries, apart perhaps from twosituations in which it is sometimes countenanced. First, where alapsed <strong>Christian</strong> repents and wishes to atone immediately for hisfall,2 and, second, where one of <strong>the</strong> faithful sees o<strong>the</strong>r believers on <strong>the</strong>point of lapsing and hopes to prevent this by making a voluntaryconfession at <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisive moment.3 Certainly <strong>the</strong> practice of voluntarymartyrdom was repeatedly con<strong>de</strong>mned in general terms, as weshall see. This is natural enough and eminently sensible during <strong>the</strong>pagan Empire, when an act of provocation might endanger both <strong>the</strong>individual concerned and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community—<strong>the</strong> individualbecause he might lapse un<strong>de</strong>r torture, and <strong>the</strong> community because apersecution (at any rate a local one), or an intensiWcation of persecution,might well follow. However, <strong>the</strong> treatment of individual1 For such heretical views, see below, pp. 191–2.2 See Peter of Alexandria, Ep. Can. 8. [Cyprian also argued that <strong>the</strong> lapsed couldgain pardon by making a public confession, <strong>the</strong> consequences of which could rangefrom exile to execution; see Ep. 19.2.3; Eps. 24 (Caldonius to Cyprian) and 25; Ep.55.4.1–2, 7.1, 16.3; De Lapsis 36. See fur<strong>the</strong>r G. W. Clarke, ‘Double-Trials in <strong>the</strong><strong>Persecution</strong> of Decius’, Historia, 22 (1973), 650–63, at 656–7, and his commentaryand translation of Cyprian’s letters, The Letters of St. Cyprian, 4 vols. (Ancient<strong>Christian</strong> Writers 43–7; New York, 1984–9). Note, however, that such acts onlywin pardon for Catholics. Schismatics cannot be martyrs (De Ecclesiae CatholicaeUnitate 14).]3 The only authority I can quote for this exception is Peter of Alexandria, Ep. Can.11 (if I have interpreted it correctly). A good example would be Eusebius, HE6.41.22–3 [and perhaps MP, Long Recension, 1.5 e–h; see n. 78 below].
156 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomvolunteers is not at all what <strong>the</strong> general statements about voluntarymartyrdom might lead us to expect: <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>eds of very many wereevi<strong>de</strong>ntly remembered with enthusiasm by <strong>the</strong> faithful and <strong>the</strong>y arecertainly recor<strong>de</strong>d without disapproval in <strong>the</strong> sources, which virtuallynever make an adverse comment upon any particular volunteerwho remained steadfast to <strong>the</strong> end. It is incorrect to say that ‘<strong>Christian</strong>swho <strong>de</strong>liberately courted martyrdom were <strong>de</strong>nied <strong>the</strong> name ofmartyr’.4This curious contradiction between <strong>the</strong>ory and practice has largelyescaped <strong>the</strong> notice of historians. Thus Le Blant, in an address <strong>de</strong>liveredin 1875, could say, ‘Dans le camp <strong>de</strong>s chrétiens . . . la foule avaitses entraînements, et, trop facilement parfois, saluait comme <strong>de</strong>smartyres <strong>de</strong>s personnages que l’Église se refusait à inscrire au nombre<strong>de</strong> ses saints’ [‘in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> camp . . . <strong>the</strong> crowd had its passions,and sometimes too easily hailed as martyrs those whom <strong>the</strong> Churchitself refused to inclu<strong>de</strong> among its saints’] without acknowledgingthat <strong>the</strong> Church frequently capitu<strong>late</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> masses.5 Ra<strong>the</strong>r morerecently Delehaye has written, ‘Nos texts donnent l’impression que,sauf le cas d’hérésie, la mort héroïque du martyr arrêtait sur les lèvresdu juge ecclésiastique le reproche que son inconsidération auraitméritée . . . Les tourments et la mort subis sans défaillance pour lavraie foi, étaient, en pratique, le seul critère du martyre’ [‘Our textsgive <strong>the</strong> impression that, excepting <strong>the</strong> case of heretics, <strong>the</strong> heroic<strong>de</strong>ath of a martyr would stop <strong>the</strong> ecclesiastical judge from voicing <strong>the</strong>reproach that his lack of consi<strong>de</strong>ration should have <strong>de</strong>served ...inpractice, <strong>the</strong> only criteria for a martyr were <strong>the</strong> torments and <strong>de</strong>athsuVered without weakness for <strong>the</strong> true faith’].6 The explanation may4 Thus H. Chadwick in his excellent translation of Origen, Contra Celsum (Cambridge,1953), 501 n. 3. To <strong>the</strong> same eVect see E. Le Blant, ‘Polyeucte et le zèletéméraire’, in Mémoires <strong>de</strong> l’Institut Nationale <strong>de</strong> France, Académie <strong>de</strong>s Inscriptions etBelles-Lettres, 28 (1876), 335–52, at 335: ‘Selon les rigoureuses lois <strong>de</strong> la discipline <strong>de</strong>sanciens âges, Polyeucte ne serait pas un martyr; l’acte même <strong>de</strong> violence qui a illustrésa mémoire l’exclurait <strong>de</strong> tout droit à ce titre’ [‘According to <strong>the</strong> strict rules andrequirements in ancient times, Polyeucte would not be a martyr; <strong>the</strong> very act ofviolence which ma<strong>de</strong> his memory famous would exclu<strong>de</strong> him from all right to thistitle’; on Polyeuctes, see below, p. 169 and n. 21].5 E. Le Blant, ‘Polyeucte et le zèle téméraire’, 337.6 H. Delehaye, Sanctus: Essai sur le culte <strong>de</strong>s saints dans l’Antiquité (SubsidiaHagiographica 17; Brussels, 1927), 167, 169.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 157be correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough: it fails toexplain <strong>the</strong> contradiction between <strong>the</strong>ory and practice. We still needto ask why voluntary martyrdom was con<strong>de</strong>mned unequivocally ifvirtually every successful volunteer received as much veneration as anordinary martyr. If <strong>the</strong> Church was prepared to forgive, and evenapplaud, all such infractions of discipline, why did it con<strong>de</strong>mn <strong>the</strong>mwithout qualiWcation beforehand? Why did it not merely issue awarning against <strong>the</strong> dangers of volunteering for martyrdom, bothto <strong>the</strong> individuals concerned and to <strong>the</strong>ir church? The answer, surely,is that in practically all cases of voluntary martyrdom <strong>the</strong> mass ofsimple believers forced <strong>the</strong> hand of <strong>the</strong>ir more intelligent andworldly-wise lea<strong>de</strong>rs and insisted on having <strong>the</strong> volunteers veneratedjust like o<strong>the</strong>r martyrs.7The evi<strong>de</strong>nce for con<strong>de</strong>mnation of voluntary martyrdom down to<strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Persecution</strong> can conveniently be presented inroughly chronological or<strong>de</strong>r.1. Passio Polycarpi 4; Eusebius, HE 4.15.7–8. In <strong>the</strong> persecution atSmyrna just before <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus Aurelius in which PolycarpsuVered,8 a Phrygian named Quintus, accompanied by some o<strong>the</strong>rswhom he had induced to follow him, came forward voluntarily tooVer himself to <strong>the</strong> authorities as a <strong>Christian</strong>; but his courage failedhim and un<strong>de</strong>r threat of torture he apostasized. What <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs7 [This is a slightly unconvincing explanation, not least because it fails to explainwhy <strong>Christian</strong> writers should have inclu<strong>de</strong>d accounts of voluntary martyrs if <strong>the</strong>rewas such consensus amongst <strong>the</strong> elite concerning <strong>the</strong>ir proper status. It seems to memore convincing simply to accept it as a contradiction between <strong>the</strong>ory and practice,one that cannot be divi<strong>de</strong>d into elite and popular elements. On <strong>the</strong> shortcomings ofsuch a ‘two-tiered’ mo<strong>de</strong>l see P. Brown, The Cult of <strong>the</strong> Saints (Chicago, 1981), esp.17–22; Arnaldo Momigliano’s ‘Popular Beliefs and <strong>the</strong> Late Roman Historian’, inStudies in Church History, 8 (1971), 1–18 is often cited in this context, although itshould be noted that he does not dismiss <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>l as such, but disagrees with itsapplication to <strong>late</strong> antiquity.]8 [The date is much disputed. Eusebius places it in <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus Aurelius,which is supported by H. Grégoire and P. Orgels, ‘La Véritable Date du martyre <strong>de</strong> S.Polycarpe (23 février 177) et le ‘‘Corpus Polycarpianum’’ ’, AB 69 (1951), 1–38 andmore recently by P. Brind’ Amour, ‘La Date du martyre <strong>de</strong> Saint Polycarpe (le 23février 167)’, AB 98 (1980), 456–62. However, his dating is not always reliable (see, forinstance, <strong>the</strong> Passio Pionii, at n. 55 below) and it is more convincingly placed in <strong>the</strong>mid- to <strong>late</strong>- 150s. See T. D. Barnes, ‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, JTS 19 (1968),509–31, at 512–13; and J. Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in <strong>the</strong> World of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Second Century (Edinburgh, 1996), 72–3.]
158 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomaccompanying him may have done we are not told. The churchat Smyrna, in whose letter <strong>the</strong> Passion of Polycarp is preserved,expresses its disapproval of this action as contrary to <strong>the</strong> advice of<strong>the</strong> Gospel. The reference is no doubt to Mat<strong>the</strong>w 10: 23 [‘when <strong>the</strong>ypersecute you in this city, Xee into ano<strong>the</strong>r’], a text often cited in thisconnection.92. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.4.17.1–3; 4.10.76.1–77.3;7.11.66.3–67.2 (about ad 200). Clement con<strong>de</strong>mns <strong>the</strong> practice ofvoluntary martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> most vigorous terms in three separatepassages. He <strong>de</strong>fends <strong>the</strong> orthodox position against <strong>the</strong> Gnostics who<strong>de</strong>precated physical martyrdom as a form of suici<strong>de</strong> (Strom.4.4.16.3), and at <strong>the</strong> same time rebukes volunteers with a mostingenious argument (Strom. 4.10.77.1): <strong>the</strong>y become accomplices in<strong>the</strong> crime of those who put <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>de</strong>ath, an accusation which isdiYcult to resist on logical grounds. There is nothing whatever inClement’s polemic to suggest that <strong>the</strong> volunteers he had in mind were‘heretics’.103. Tertullian, De Corona Militis 1.4.4–5. In one of <strong>the</strong> most aggressiveworks of his <strong>late</strong>r phase, written (perhaps in 211) after hehad become a Montanist,11 Tertullian reveals that <strong>the</strong> orthodox<strong>Christian</strong>s of Africa were perturbed by <strong>the</strong> openly anti-militaristten<strong>de</strong>ncies of <strong>the</strong> Montanists, which were endangering <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>nsatisfactory situation of <strong>the</strong> African Church. Praising a fanaticalsoldier who had been executed for refusing to wear a wreath at <strong>the</strong>distribution of a donative (and who would <strong>the</strong>refore fall into ourcategory of quasi-volunteers of type I), Tertullian <strong>de</strong>nounces thoseCatholic <strong>Christian</strong>s who had passed strictures on <strong>the</strong> soldier ‘ut <strong>de</strong>9 Cf. also Matt. 26: 41; 6: 13; 26: 47. Cited by Peter of Alexandria, Ep. Can. 9, andQuirinus, bishop of Siscia, on being arrested while in Xight from his see, probably in308 (Passio Quirini 2, T. Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta (1689;ed. Ratisbon, 1859), 522–3). Origen, Contra Celsum 8.44, evi<strong>de</strong>ntly has this text inmind when he says that a <strong>Christian</strong> who Xees from persecution is observing <strong>the</strong>commandment of his Master.10 As asserted by M. M. Hassett, ‘Martyr’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, ix (NewYork, 1910), 736–40, at 737.11 [T. D. Barnes originally dated this work to 208, but <strong>late</strong>r conce<strong>de</strong>d that this wastoo early; note, however, that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s caution in suggesting 211 is well justiWed.See Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1985), 37and 328.]
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 159abrupto et praecipiti et mori cupido, qui <strong>de</strong> habitu interrogatusnomini negotium fecerit’ [‘as being headstrong and rash, and tooeager to die, because in being interrogated about a matter of dress, hebrought trouble on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> name’] and had complained ‘that apeace so good and long is endangered for <strong>the</strong>m’. The orthodox hadgood cause for anxiety in <strong>the</strong> activities of such men, and in thispamphlet of Tertullian, who was in eVect exhorting <strong>Christian</strong> soldiersto <strong>de</strong>sert—as Gibbon put it, ‘a counsel which, if it had been generallyknown, was not very proper to conciliate <strong>the</strong> favour of <strong>the</strong> emperorstowards <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> sect’.124. Origen, Comm. in Johannem 28.23 (18), written perhaps aboutad 232–5, also rebukes would-be volunteers, and at some length,using much <strong>the</strong> same arguments as Clement and appealing to numeroustexts of Scripture. This passage, in <strong>the</strong> mature Origen, is all<strong>the</strong> more weighty in that Origen himself, when a mere boy, is said tohave been on <strong>the</strong> verge of becoming a voluntary martyr.135. Passio Cypriani 1.5 (ad 257). Cyprian tells <strong>the</strong> proconsul thatchurch discipline does not allow <strong>the</strong> presbyters of Carthage to give<strong>the</strong>mselves up of <strong>the</strong>ir own accord, but that he will Wnd <strong>the</strong>m if heseeks <strong>the</strong>m out. Cyprian’s attitu<strong>de</strong> is commen<strong>de</strong>d by Augustine,Contra Gau<strong>de</strong>ntium 1.31.40.6. Cyprian, Ep. 81.1.4 (ad 258): ‘Let no one among you stir up anytrouble for <strong>the</strong> brethren or oVer himself up to <strong>the</strong> Gentiles of his ownvolition.’147. Commodian, Instr. 2.21 (‘Martyrium volenti’), writing probablyin <strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> third century, urges those who wouldrush into martyrdom to be satisWed instead with living <strong>the</strong> good life.158. Council of Elvira, Canon 60 (ei<strong>the</strong>r c.300 or towards 320).Anyone who smashes an idol is not to be counted as a martyr. The12 E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (ed. J. B. Bury, London,1909–14), i. 482 n. 102. See also H. Grégoire, Les Persécutions dans l’Empire romain,2nd edn. (Mémoires <strong>de</strong> l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong> Belgique, Classe <strong>de</strong>s Lettres 56.5;Brussels, 1964), 31–3.13 See below, pp. 168–9.14 [Trans. G. W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian, iv. 105–6, slightly modiWed.]15 Cf. Instr. 2.7 (‘Fi<strong>de</strong>les cavete malum’), lines 14–18, where Commodian expresseshis view that ‘multa sunt martyria, quae sunt sine sanguine fuso’ [‘<strong>the</strong>re are manymartyrdoms which occur without blood being shed’].
160 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdompractice is not warranted by <strong>the</strong> Gospel and was unknown in <strong>the</strong>Apostolic Age.169. Lactantius, DMP 13.2.3, speaks of <strong>the</strong> man who tore downDiocletian’s Wrst persecuting edict when it was posted up in Nicomediaon 24 February 303 as acting non recte, and unfeelingly saysthat he was legitime coctus.17 Eusebius on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand is sympa<strong>the</strong>ticto this martyr (HE 8.5), although he was in fact, of course,executed for an act of civil disobedience and only indirectly as a<strong>Christian</strong>.10. Augustine, Brev. Coll. 3.13.25. Mensurius, bishop of Carthage,writing in ad 304–5 to Secundus <strong>the</strong> bishop of Tigisis, says hehas forbid<strong>de</strong>n his Xock to honour those ‘who gave <strong>the</strong>mselves up of<strong>the</strong>ir own accord and volunteered that <strong>the</strong>y possessed Scriptures which<strong>the</strong>y would not hand over, when no one had asked <strong>the</strong>m to do so’.18Mensurius also refers uncharitably to ‘criminals or <strong>de</strong>btors to <strong>the</strong> treasury,who took advantage of <strong>the</strong> persecution, wishing to be rid of a lifebur<strong>de</strong>ned by many <strong>de</strong>bts, or thought <strong>the</strong>y could thus purge and washaway <strong>the</strong>ir crimes19—or at any rate make money and live like Wghtingcocks in prison on <strong>the</strong> charity of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’.2011. Peter of Alexandria, Ep. Can. (Easter ad 306). Four of <strong>the</strong>Wfteen canons (numbers 8–11) refer to voluntary confessors. Theyare in general mildly censured (Canon 9) for ignoring <strong>the</strong> precepts ofJesus.21 Peter expresses himself ra<strong>the</strong>r obscurely at places, but itappears that he countenanced voluntary confession only when16 [On <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira, see fur<strong>the</strong>r, Ch. 2.]17 Possibly Eu<strong>the</strong>rius, whose martyrdom at Nicomedia on 24 Feb. is recor<strong>de</strong>d in<strong>the</strong> Syriac martyrologies: see H. Delehaye, Les Origines du culte <strong>de</strong>s martyrs, 2nd edn.(Subsidia Hagiographica 20; Brussels, 1933), 148.18 Failure to hand over sacred books was almost certainly <strong>the</strong> only capital oVenceof which <strong>Christian</strong>s could be guilty in Africa, where it is very unlikely that any but <strong>the</strong>Wrst of <strong>the</strong> persecuting edicta of Diocletian and his colleagues had been published: see‘Aspects’ [above, Ch. 1, pp. 46–53].19 The early <strong>Christian</strong> Church saw <strong>the</strong> martyrs as assessors in <strong>the</strong> divine judgement,and believed that <strong>the</strong>ir ‘baptism of blood’ had wiped away all <strong>the</strong>ir sins, even<strong>the</strong> sins of those who, as mere catechumens, had not yet received baptism in <strong>the</strong>ordinary way; see Hippolytus, Apost. Trad. 19.2.20 Trans. by A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and <strong>the</strong> Conversion of Europe, rev. edn.(Harmondsworth, 1972), 108.21 And see Canon 10, which is particularly diYcult to interpret but must refer toclerics who oVered <strong>the</strong>mselves up (see <strong>the</strong> commentaries of Balsamon and Zonaras,printed alongsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> English translation in <strong>the</strong> Ante-Nicene <strong>Christian</strong> Library 14
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 161un<strong>de</strong>rtaken by those who had lapsed but repented (Canon 8), or bythose who wished to set an example to prevent o<strong>the</strong>rs from lapsing(Canon 11).22 Peter refuses to con<strong>de</strong>mn those who had left everythingand Xed (Canon 13).23In <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Empire few opportunities for voluntary martyrdompresented <strong>the</strong>mselves, and references to it are correspondingly uncommon.The orthodox attitu<strong>de</strong> is stated brieXy byGregoryofNazianzus(Or. 43.6): ‘It is <strong>the</strong> custom of martyrdom for people not to go asvolunteers to <strong>the</strong> contest...nor when present to withdraw—for <strong>the</strong>one is <strong>the</strong> mark of rashness, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r of cowardice’. The same sentimentsare expressed in more <strong>de</strong>tail by Athanasius (Apologia <strong>de</strong> Fuga Sua22 [31]), who disapproves of ‘rashly tempting <strong>the</strong> Lord’ and regardsXight from persecution as a divine law.24 The practice of <strong>the</strong> blessedmartyrs, he says, was to Xee, but to submit to martyrdom whendiscovered. It is interesting at this point to Wnd him sud<strong>de</strong>nly changinghis ground. If, he says, some of <strong>the</strong> martyrs oVered <strong>the</strong>mselves up to <strong>the</strong>persecutors, <strong>the</strong>y did not do so without reason: <strong>the</strong>y <strong>de</strong>monstrated by<strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>aths that <strong>the</strong>ir oVering up of <strong>the</strong>mselves was from <strong>the</strong> Spirit.25(Edinburgh, 1869), 292–322). [On <strong>the</strong> general context of Peter’s letter, see T. D.Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 201–2, and D. Potter,The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395 (London, 2004), 411–13. For editions see Ch.1 n. 44.]22 See above, p. 155.23 He cites Acts 12: 4, 18–19; 19: 26–30; Gen. 19: 17; Matt. 2: 13–16. [See also hisletter (although it is possibly apocryphal) to Apollonius <strong>the</strong> bishop of Sioout, whohad apparently lapsed into idolatry; Peter admonishes him, and confesses to being ‘ata loss about you, where your wits have gone, that you have not had <strong>the</strong> wit to turnback and escape, and have not had <strong>the</strong> wit to exercise yourself and escape by means of[o<strong>the</strong>rs] who have <strong>the</strong>ir wits about <strong>the</strong>m, before you were ruined’. See J. Barns and H.Chadwick, ‘A Letter ascribed to Peter of Alexandria’, JTS 24 (1973), 443–55, at 454.Note too that his Canonical Epistle should be read against his own Xight following <strong>the</strong>publication of Diocletian’s Wrst persecuting edict in 303.]24 [On <strong>the</strong> relationship of this text to <strong>the</strong> rest of Athanasius’ thought, seeA. Petterson, ‘To Xee or not to Xee: An assessment of Athanasius’ <strong>de</strong> Fuga Sua’, Studiesin Church History, 21 (1984), 29–42; for <strong>the</strong> general background, see T. D. Barnes,Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in <strong>the</strong> Constantinian Empire (Cambridge,Mass., 1993), 124–6.]25 [To <strong>the</strong>se might be ad<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> earlier example of Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4.18.1–2,who states that Christ Xed from persecution as a lesson to future <strong>Christian</strong>s. On thispassage, see O. Nicholson, ‘Flight from <strong>Persecution</strong> as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius’Divine Institutes IV.18.1–2’, JTS 40.1 (1989), 48–65.]
162 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThe mid-Wfth-century ecclesiastical historian Theodoret expressesmild disapproval of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>struction of a Persian Wre temple in ad419–20 by, according to <strong>the</strong> story,26 a bishop named Abdas, who <strong>the</strong>nrefused to obey an or<strong>de</strong>r from <strong>the</strong> Persian king Yazdgard I to rebuild<strong>the</strong> temple, and thus brought about his own martyrdom and apersecution which aZicted <strong>the</strong> Church in Persia for thirty years(HE 5.39.3). However, Theodoret cannot bring himself to con<strong>de</strong>mnAbdas altoge<strong>the</strong>r: he says he much admires him and thinks himworthy of <strong>the</strong> martyr’s crown. The Western Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> fourth to<strong>the</strong> sixth century rarely mention voluntary martyrdom except, ofcourse, in relation to sectarian fanatics such as <strong>the</strong> Donatist Circumcellions,to be mentioned <strong>late</strong>r, against whom are aimed <strong>the</strong> SecondCanon of <strong>the</strong> Council of Carthage of ad 348–9 and some of Augustine’spolemical writings.27 Augustine certainly implicitly con<strong>de</strong>mned<strong>the</strong> practice of oVering oneself up for martyrdom when, as we havealready noticed, he applauds <strong>the</strong> statement of Cyprian that churchdiscipline did not allow <strong>the</strong> Carthaginian presbyters to give <strong>the</strong>mselvesup of <strong>the</strong>ir own accord. Ambrose is much more explicit:although martyrdom must be eagerly accepted if it oVers itself, itmust not be rashly sought out, for <strong>the</strong>re is a danger that <strong>the</strong> volunteermay be betrayed by his own weakness or bring down a persecutionupon <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community.28 Jerome twice emphasizes that26 But see J. Labourt, Le <strong>Christian</strong>isme dans l’empire Perse sous la dynastie Sassani<strong>de</strong>,224–632 (Paris, 1904), 105–7, and P. Peeters, ‘Une passion arménienne <strong>de</strong>s SS.Abdas, Hormisdas, Sâhîn (Sueres) at Benjamin’, AB 28 (1909), 399–415, who makesuse of o<strong>the</strong>r sources, notably <strong>the</strong> Syriac Passion of Abdas, according to which <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>struction of <strong>the</strong> Wre temple was <strong>the</strong> work of a presbyter, Hasu. [See also L. VanRompay, ‘Impetuous Martyrs? The Situation of <strong>the</strong> Persian <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> LastYears of Yazdgard I (419–420)’, in M. Lamberigts and P. Van Deun (eds.), Martyriumin Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reekmans (Louvain, 1995), 363–75,at 365–7.]27 Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, iii (Florence, 1759),143 V., 151 V.; summarized in Hefele–Leclercq, Histoire <strong>de</strong>s conciles, i (Paris, 1907),837–41; Augustine, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani 1.10.16; Contra Gau<strong>de</strong>ntium1.22.25, 1.27.30, and 1.28.32; Eps. 88.8, 185.3.12. [See fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> bibliography in E.Lepelley, ‘Circumcelliones’, in C. Mayer (ed.), Augustinus-Lexicon, i (Basel, 1986–94),930–6.]28 Ambrose, De OYciis Ministrorum 2.30.153, laudabilis mortis cum occasiodatur, rapienda est illico [‘should <strong>the</strong> opportunity arise to die a <strong>de</strong>ath that willbring you great praise, seize it <strong>the</strong>re and <strong>the</strong>n’; trans. I. J. Davidson]; see also1.37.187, 1.42.208.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 163martyrdom is worthless if it is un<strong>de</strong>rtaken for <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> honourand glory (Comm. in Ep. ad Galat. 5.14, 26; PG 26.410, 424).It is convenient at this point to draw attention to some interestingremarks by Augustine (CD 1.16–28) and Ambrose (De Virginibus3.7.32–6) on one particular variety of what I have called ‘religioussuici<strong>de</strong>’.29 Faced with <strong>the</strong> problem of whe<strong>the</strong>r virtuous <strong>Christian</strong>women in danger of being raped by barbarian Vandals might lawfullyescape violation by committing suici<strong>de</strong>, or after being raped mightfollow <strong>the</strong> example of Lucretia, Augustine <strong>de</strong>nounces all such practices;and he enlarges <strong>the</strong> scope of his discussion to inclu<strong>de</strong> even casesin which a <strong>Christian</strong> commits suici<strong>de</strong> to avoid ‘rushing into sinthrough <strong>the</strong> allurement of pleasure or <strong>the</strong> intensity of pain’. However,it is signiWcant of <strong>the</strong> division of opinion on such questions within<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community that he feels obliged to make an honourableexception of certain holy women who, in time of persecution,had drowned <strong>the</strong>mselves in <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>termination to preserve <strong>the</strong>irpudicitia,30 and were honoured as martyrs by <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church.As Augustine uncomfortably says, ‘concerning <strong>the</strong>se I am reluctant tomake any rash comment’; perhaps <strong>the</strong>y acted, like Samson, ‘un<strong>de</strong>rGod’s or<strong>de</strong>rs, not in error but obedient’ (CD 1.26). Augustinemust be referring here to <strong>the</strong> three well-born ladies of Antioch, leftanonymous in <strong>the</strong> narrative of Eusebius (HE 8.12.2–4) whose nameswere traditionally Domnina, Bernice, and Prosdoce. The attitu<strong>de</strong> of29 See above, p. 154. On attitu<strong>de</strong>s towards suici<strong>de</strong> in antiquity, see M. RostovtzeV,The Social and Economic History of <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic World, iii (Oxford, 1941), 1329 n.31; H. A. Musurillo, The Acts of <strong>the</strong> Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, 1954), 236–7. Particularlyinteresting is Tacitus, Agricola 42.4–5. [The subsequent bibliography on this subject islarge. See most recently T. D. Hill, Ambitiosa Mors: Suici<strong>de</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Self in RomanThought and Literature (London, 2004); P. Plass, The Game of Death in Ancient Rome:Arena Sport and Political Suici<strong>de</strong> (Madison, 1995); A. Van HooV, From Autothanasiato Suici<strong>de</strong>: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity (London, 1990); and M. GriYn, ‘Philosophy,Cato, and Roman Suici<strong>de</strong>’ I and II, Greece and Rome, 33 (1986), 64–77 and192–202. On <strong>the</strong> parallels between <strong>Christian</strong> martyrdom and suici<strong>de</strong>, see G. Bowersock,Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge, 1995), 59–74.]30 On con<strong>de</strong>mnation to a bro<strong>the</strong>l as a punishment for <strong>Christian</strong> women, seeEusebius, MP 5.3 following <strong>the</strong> numbering of H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Oulton,Eusebius (London, 1928), i. 327–400; add Ambrose, De Virginibus 2.22–33; JohnChrysostom as cited below n. 35. The actual inXiction of <strong>the</strong> penalty was probablyvery rare in<strong>de</strong>ed.
164 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomAmbrose is even more ambiguous than that of Augustine. Dealingwith <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> virgins had a right to escapeviolation at <strong>the</strong> price of suici<strong>de</strong>, he praises a nameless virgin ofAntioch who refused to save herself in that way when con<strong>de</strong>mnedto a bro<strong>the</strong>l in time of persecution (De Virginibus 2.4.22–33); butwhen he goes on to tell <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>the</strong> suici<strong>de</strong> of certain <strong>Christian</strong>women in similar circumstances he carefully refrains from con<strong>de</strong>mning<strong>the</strong>ir action.31 Jerome is more explicit: only when chastity isendangered should <strong>the</strong> prohibition against suici<strong>de</strong> be relaxed.32O<strong>the</strong>rs, like Eusebius (HE 8.12.2–4, 8.14.16–17) and JohnChrysostom, were warmly sympa<strong>the</strong>tic to those who committedreligious suici<strong>de</strong>.33 Chrysostom <strong>de</strong>voted two panegyrics to Domninaand her daughters,34 and at least one to Pelagia, a virgin of Antiochwho was said to have thrown herself from a roof in or<strong>de</strong>r to escapearrest and possible prostitution.35 (It is worth noting that none of <strong>the</strong>women had been tried, let alone sentenced; and it is diYcult tobelieve that <strong>the</strong>re was any real or immediate threat to <strong>the</strong>ir chastity.)Chrysostom insists that many o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> women had similarlycommitted suici<strong>de</strong> to avoid arrest.36Volunteers and Quasi-VolunteersI shall now present <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for individual acts of voluntarymartyrdom. I do not pretend that this collection is complete, even31 De Virginibus 3.7.33–6; cf. Ep. 37.38 (ad Simplicianum). Ambrose speaks ofPelagia and her mo<strong>the</strong>r and sisters: he seems to be combining <strong>the</strong> stories of Pelagia(see n. 35 below) and of Domnina, Bernice, and Prosdoce.32 Jerome, Comm. in Jonam 1.402 (PL 25.1129A).33 [It is important to note, however, that Chrysostom does not always consi<strong>de</strong>r‘religious suici<strong>de</strong>’ a valid option: ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of martyrs who kill [<strong>the</strong>mselves] is anobvious <strong>de</strong>feat, yet of those who are mur<strong>de</strong>red, a splendid victory’; Hom. in S. Jul. 3,trans. W. Mayer.]34 Hom. in SS. Bernic. etc. (PG 50.629–40); Hom. in Quatrid. Lazarum et SS.Domnina etc. (PG 50.641–4).35 Hom. in S. Pelag. I and II (PG 50.577–84). The ‘Hom. in S. Pelag. II’, ed.P. Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri in Studi e testi, 65 (1935), 301–3 is <strong>de</strong>clared spurious (ibid.281–300). On Pelagia, see H. Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hagiographiques, 4th edn.(Brussels, 1955), 186–95, against H. Usener, Legen<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>r heiligen Pelagia (Bonn,1879).36 Hom. in S. Pelag. 1.2 (PG 50.580), and see Eusebius, HE 8.12.2.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 165within <strong>the</strong> limits I have set myself: it is quite possible that I havemissed a number of examples. Moreover, because of <strong>the</strong> disfavourwith which voluntary martyrdom was regar<strong>de</strong>d by many leadingmembers of <strong>the</strong> Church, it may well be that in some cases a voluntaryact which really occurred was toned down or entirely suppressedwhen <strong>the</strong> written record of <strong>the</strong> martyrdom was compiled. I may saythat I have <strong>de</strong>liberately omitted cases in which I am not satisWedwith <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> voluntary nature of <strong>the</strong> martyrdom—forinstance, when it is recor<strong>de</strong>d in a Passion of unhistorical character,37or an untrustworthy literary source.38 Having regard to what seemsto me <strong>the</strong> excessive veneration of martyrdom in many parts of <strong>the</strong>North African provinces, I have been particularly chary of acceptingstories of voluntary martyrdoms from that area, unless <strong>the</strong>re isparticularly good evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong>m. St Salsa, an alleged volunteerat Tipasa, has been shown by Grégoire to be wholly Wctitious,39 and Iam very suspicious of o<strong>the</strong>r supposed North African volunteers suchas Marciana at Mauretanian Caesarea.40 Nor have I paid any attentionto <strong>the</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rable quantity of <strong>late</strong> and Wctitious Passions inwhich <strong>the</strong> martyrs are ma<strong>de</strong> to behave in a provocative manner andabuse <strong>the</strong>ir judges.1. At <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> trial of Ptolemy before Q. Lollius Urbicus,praefectus urbi about ad 150, a <strong>Christian</strong> bystan<strong>de</strong>r whose name isgiven as Lucius reproached <strong>the</strong> prefect for having given an unjustsentence of <strong>de</strong>ath against an innocent man, and was immediatelyexecuted. Ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> bystan<strong>de</strong>r also came forward to makehis confession and was duly sentenced.412. I have already <strong>de</strong>scribed <strong>the</strong> abortive attempt at voluntarymartyrdom by Quintus <strong>the</strong> Phrygian at Smyrna, just before <strong>the</strong>37 e.g. Rusticus and Proculus in Passio Firmi et Rustici (Ruinart, Acta, 636–42); <strong>the</strong>37 Egyptian martyrs (Ruinart, Acta, 576–8).38 e.g. Philemon in RuWnus, Historia Monachorum 19.4–11 [see <strong>the</strong> critical text ofE. Schulz-Flügel, Tyrannius RuWnus Historia Monachorum sive <strong>de</strong> Vita SanctorumPatrum (Patristische Texte und Studien 34; Berlin, 1990)].39 H. Grégoire, ‘Sainte Salsa, roman epigraphique’, Byzantion 12 (1937), 213–24.40 Her Passio (Acta Sanctorum 9 January (vol. i, p. 569)) seems to preserve morehistorical reminiscences (see P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire <strong>de</strong> l’Afrique chrétienne<strong>de</strong>puis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, iii. 3 (Paris, 1905), 156–8) but cannot betrusted at any point.41 Justin, Apol. 2.2, repeated in Eusebius, HE 4.17.8–13.
166 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomreign of Marcus Aurelius.42 It is often forgotten that Quintus is saidto have prevailed upon o<strong>the</strong>rs to follow his example, kai ...prosel<strong>the</strong>inhekontas [‘and come forward willingly’]. We may perhaps infer that<strong>the</strong>y were duly martyred, but this is left obscure.3. Paeon, who was present in court during <strong>the</strong> trial of Justin ando<strong>the</strong>rs at Rome in ad 165, came forward saying that he was a<strong>Christian</strong> and was behea<strong>de</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> rest.434. At <strong>the</strong> trial of Carpus and Papylus at Pergamum, perhapsduring <strong>the</strong> early part of <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus (ad 161–9),44 a <strong>Christian</strong>bystan<strong>de</strong>r named Agathonice45 ma<strong>de</strong> a voluntary confession and wasburnt to <strong>de</strong>ath, fastening herself at <strong>the</strong> stake according to <strong>the</strong> GreekPassio, ‘un texte beaucoup trop vanté’ [‘a much overrated text’]according to Delehaye.4642 Passio Polycarpi 4.1; Eusebius, HE 4.15.7–8.43 Passio Justini 4.6. The word hestōs (he stood up) is <strong>de</strong>cisive.44 This is <strong>the</strong> date usually accepted, but it is far from certain. The Latin Passio puts<strong>the</strong> martyrdom tempore Decii imperatoris [‘in <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> emperor Decius’]. [On<strong>the</strong> diYculties in dating this text, see T. D. Barnes, ‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, 514–15, who argues that <strong>the</strong> question Principalis es? in <strong>the</strong> Latin recension suggests a 3rdcent.date, since <strong>the</strong>re is a reference to this oYce in <strong>the</strong> Severan period in <strong>the</strong> Digestjurist Callistratus (Dig. 48.19.27.2–28), but this may well be <strong>the</strong> result of Justinianicediting. The Wrst documentary record is CJ 10.48.2 perhaps from 287, on which see S.Corcoran, The Empire of <strong>the</strong> Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD284–324, rev. edn. (Oxford, 2000), 254–5. It is common in <strong>the</strong> Theodosian Co<strong>de</strong> andis attested epigraphically in <strong>the</strong> 4th cent. (e.g. ILS 6623, IRT 559, 564, 567, and 595);see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, andAdministrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), 731 and V. Weber, ‘Die Munizipalaristokratie’,in K.-P. Johne (ed.), Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft <strong>de</strong>s römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rt(Berlin, 1993), 245–317, esp. 303–4. Accordingly <strong>the</strong> use of principalis probablysuggests a date from Diocletian onwards for <strong>the</strong> Latin recension. I would like to thankBenet Salway for his help with this problem. Of course <strong>the</strong> date of <strong>the</strong> Latin recensiondoes not necessarily coinci<strong>de</strong> with <strong>the</strong> actual martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, et al.Onthis, see J. Den Boeft and J. Bremmer, who note that Papylus, a citizen of Thyatira,was tried in Pergamum (one of <strong>the</strong> assize centres of <strong>the</strong> Roman province of Asia),which <strong>the</strong>y argue suggests a date before ad 215, when Caracalla granted <strong>the</strong> right tohold assizes to Thyatira; see <strong>the</strong>ir ‘Notiunculae martyrologicae II’, Vig. Chr. 36 (1982),383–402, at 384–5.]45 The expression used is Agathonikē <strong>de</strong> tīs hestōsa [‘There was a woman namedAgathonicē standing <strong>the</strong>re’]: Passio Carpi 42.46 The Greek Passio Carpi 42–7; Delehaye, Sanctus, 168 n. 5. There may well be alacuna in <strong>the</strong> Greek text: <strong>the</strong> cry of <strong>the</strong> crowd suggests that Agathonice was at any rateduly sentenced (as she is in <strong>the</strong> Latin text of <strong>the</strong> Passio) and did not simply rush into<strong>the</strong> Xames. [See also Den Boeft and Bremmer, ‘Notiunculae martyrologicae II’, 385.]
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 1675. During <strong>the</strong> persecution at Lugdunum (Lyons) in ad 177 twovoluntary martyrs came forward to make <strong>the</strong>ir confession: VettiusEpagethus, who <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d to be heard in <strong>de</strong>fence of his brethren at<strong>the</strong>ir trial and was immediately sentenced (Eusebius, HE 5.1.9–10);and Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, a doctor from Phrygia, who stood by <strong>the</strong> tribunal,encouraging <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s accused by signs to confess, and wasnoticed by <strong>the</strong> crowd, brought before <strong>the</strong> governor, and sentencedto <strong>the</strong> beasts (Eusebius, HE 5.1.49–50).6. When Arrius Antoninus, proconsul of Asia in about ad 184–5,was holding his periodic assize in one of <strong>the</strong> towns of this province, alarge number of <strong>Christian</strong>s—all <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of that town, accordingto Tertullian, but we must allow for his customary exaggeration—presented<strong>the</strong>mselves in a body before him, <strong>de</strong>manding <strong>the</strong>privilege of martyrdom. The astonished governor or<strong>de</strong>red a few oV toexecution, but contemptuously dismissed <strong>the</strong> remain<strong>de</strong>r with <strong>the</strong>words, ‘If you want to die, you wretches, you can use ropes orprecipices.’477. The future Pope and Saint, Callistus, is said by his bitter enemyand fellow-saint, Hippolytus (Elench. 9.12, esp. 7–9), to have ma<strong>de</strong>an attempt at voluntary martyrdom, happily unsuccessful, at a datewhich would be somewhere about ad 190. Hippolytus says thatCallistus, <strong>the</strong> slave of a well-to-do <strong>Christian</strong> (who seems to havebeen an imperial freedman), having embezzled money entrusted tohim in connection with a banking business, tried to escape, wasrecaptured and sent to <strong>the</strong> treadmill, but was soon liberated, apparentlyin <strong>the</strong> hope that he would be able to get some of <strong>the</strong> moneyback. Not being able to do so, according to Hippolytus, he plannedfor himself a hero’s <strong>de</strong>ath: pretending that he was going after his<strong>de</strong>btors, he went to <strong>the</strong> Jewish synagogue on <strong>the</strong> Sabbath and <strong>de</strong>liberatelycreated a disturbance. The Jews brought him before <strong>the</strong>praefectus urbi, who did not sentence him to <strong>de</strong>ath but had himXogged and sent to <strong>the</strong> mines in Sardinia, from which he was soonreleased. This story must be treated with consi<strong>de</strong>rable suspicion. It istold by Hippolytus, unhappily our only authority for <strong>the</strong>se events,with concentrated venom, and <strong>the</strong> Refutation of All Heresies, in whichit occurs, was not published until 30 or more years <strong>late</strong>r, after <strong>the</strong>47 Tertullian, Ad Scapulam 5.1.
168 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>de</strong>ath of Callistus. Döllinger’s explanation,48 that Callistus really wastrying to collect <strong>de</strong>bts from <strong>the</strong> Jews and that <strong>the</strong> disturbance wascreated by <strong>the</strong>ir assaulting him, may well be true. What is importantfor our present purposes, however, is that Hippolytus evi<strong>de</strong>ntlythought it a plausible allegation that a <strong>Christian</strong> who was in a verybad position might <strong>de</strong>liberately court martyrdom by attacking <strong>the</strong>enemies of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church in circumstances which would belikely to bring upon him <strong>the</strong> supreme penalty.498. At Alexandria in ad 202–3 Origen, <strong>the</strong>n a mere boy of 16, wasimpelled by <strong>the</strong> arrest of his fa<strong>the</strong>r Leontes (who was subsequentlymartyred) to rush forward himself to make his confession (and ofcourse be put to <strong>de</strong>ath); but he was prevented, according to Eusebius(HE 6.3.4–5), by his mo<strong>the</strong>r’s hiding his clo<strong>the</strong>s, and he had to contenthimself with writing his fa<strong>the</strong>r a letter in praise of martyrdom, whichhas not survived.50 Origen remained a steadfast confessor until <strong>the</strong>very end of his life (Eusebius, HE 6.39.5), and during <strong>the</strong> persecution atPalestinian Caesarea un<strong>de</strong>r Maximinus in ad 235–7 wrote an Exhortationto Martyrdom, addressed to two of his friends who were confessors.51However, in his more mature years (as we have already seen),52he ceased to approve of volunteering for martyrdom and in<strong>de</strong>ed gave areasoned con<strong>de</strong>mnation of it. This change of attitu<strong>de</strong> may not beentirely unconnected with his self-castration, prompted by a literalinterpretation (too literal, as he himself <strong>late</strong>r acknowledged: Comm. in48 J. Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus; o<strong>de</strong>r die römische Kirche in <strong>de</strong>r erstenHälfte <strong>de</strong>s dritten Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rts (Regensburg, 1853), 117–21 (see also <strong>the</strong> Eng. trans. byA. Plummer, Hippolytus and Callistus; or, <strong>the</strong> Church of Rome in <strong>the</strong> First Half of <strong>the</strong>Third Century (Edinburgh, 1876), 108–12), which is generally followed by RomanCatholic writers. What Hippolytus says is [‘Callistus, having nothing to pay andbeing unable to run away again because he was watched, planned a scheme for his<strong>de</strong>ath on <strong>the</strong> Sabbath in<strong>de</strong>ed (kai sabbatoi); pretending to go out as if to his creditors,he hurried to <strong>the</strong> synagogue of <strong>the</strong> Jews, who were ga<strong>the</strong>red toge<strong>the</strong>r, and created adisturbance among <strong>the</strong>m’]. The position of sabbatoi suggests to me that Hippolytus isridiculing Callistus’ pretext—‘on <strong>the</strong> Sabbath, if you please’.49 Cf. <strong>the</strong> allegations of Mensurius in <strong>the</strong> letter quoted by Augustine, Brev. Coll.3.13.25 (see above, p. 160); also Passio Theodoriti 3 (Ruinart, Acta, 606–7).50 It was still available when Eusebius was writing: see HE 6.2.6.51 [See <strong>the</strong> translation of Henry Chadwick, in J. E. L. Oulton and H. Chadwick,Alexandrian <strong>Christian</strong>ity (London, 1954), 393–429.]52 See above, p. 159.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 169Mat<strong>the</strong>w 15.3) of <strong>the</strong> reference in Mat<strong>the</strong>w 19. 2 to those who have‘ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves eunuchs for <strong>the</strong> kingdom of heaven’s sake’.539. Saturus, Perpetua’s catechist, gave himself up at Carthage in ad203 (Passio Perpetuae 4.3).10. In about ad 205–6, during <strong>the</strong> governorship of SubatianusAquila, <strong>the</strong> virgin Potamiaena, threatened by <strong>the</strong> prefect with apunishment involving violation of her chastity, evi<strong>de</strong>ntly ma<strong>de</strong>some very abusive reply, for which she was immediately put to<strong>de</strong>ath in a very unpleasant manner, being gradually boiled to <strong>de</strong>athwith pitch.54 Potamiaena is thus probably a quasi-volunteer of typeIII. Ano<strong>the</strong>r quasi-volunteer (of type I) is Basili<strong>de</strong>s (Eusebius, HE6.5.5–6), <strong>the</strong> soldier who led Potamiaena to execution. Shortly afterwardshe sud<strong>de</strong>nly refused to swear an oath (a thing which o<strong>the</strong>r<strong>Christian</strong> soldiers must often have been prepared to do) and was<strong>de</strong>nounced and behea<strong>de</strong>d. Yet ano<strong>the</strong>r quasi-volunteer of <strong>the</strong> samevariety is <strong>the</strong> African soldier mentioned earlier in whose honourTertullian wrote his De Corona Militis.5511. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> best known of all voluntary martyrs is <strong>the</strong>eponymous hero of Corneille’s play, Polyeucte, who is credited withtearing down <strong>the</strong> persecuting edict of Decius (ad 250) at Melitene on<strong>the</strong> upper Euphrates. The Latin Passio which appears in <strong>the</strong> BollandistActa Sanctorum (AA SS Feb. II [13 Feb.], 651–2) contains nomention of provocation by Polyeuctes, of which (if it is in<strong>de</strong>edhistorical) <strong>the</strong> compiler may have disapproved; but <strong>the</strong> provocationdoes appear in <strong>the</strong> Greek texts of <strong>the</strong> Passio,56 which, although it isobviously a <strong>late</strong> composition with some characteristic hagiographicaltouches, does, I think, preserve a historical nucleus.53 See Eusebius, HE 6.8.1–2. [The veracity of Eusebius’ anecdote is not universallyaccepted. Sceptics inclu<strong>de</strong> H. Chadwick, Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959), 110,and P. Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for <strong>the</strong> Holy Man (Berkeley, 1983), 89–90. See also M. J. Edwards, Origen Against Plato (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 2002), 12 and 38 n. 4, and,for a more positive evaluation of <strong>the</strong> story, P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Womenand Sexual Renunciation in Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity (New York, 1988), 168 with n. 44.]54 Eusebius, HE 6.5.1–4. Palladius, Lausiac History 3, gives a slightly diVerentstory. Eusebius calls Potamiaena ‘<strong>the</strong> famous mai<strong>de</strong>n’.55 See above, pp. 158–9.56 The best is that published by E. Aubé, Polyeucte dans l’histoire: Étu<strong>de</strong> sur lemartyre <strong>de</strong> Polyeucte, d’après <strong>de</strong>s documents inédits (Paris, 1882). For an Englishtranslation of an Armenian translation of <strong>the</strong> Greek Passio, see F. C. Conybeare,The Armenian Apology and Acts of Apollonius and o<strong>the</strong>r Monuments of Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity(London, 1896), 123–46. See also AA SS Feb. ii. 652–4.
170 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom12. Six or seven volunteers are recor<strong>de</strong>d among <strong>the</strong> victims of <strong>the</strong>Decian persecution at Alexandria in ad 250.57 Besas, a soldier, triedto protect o<strong>the</strong>r martyrs from insult as <strong>the</strong>y were being led away toexecution; he was tried and behea<strong>de</strong>d (Eusebius, HE 6.41.16).13. During <strong>the</strong> Valerianic persecution in ad 258–9 three Palestinians,Priscus, Malchus, and Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, and apparently a Marcionitewoman, <strong>de</strong>liberately sought martyrdom by making a voluntaryconfession before <strong>the</strong> governor (Eusebius, HE. 7.12).14. As Cyprian was being led to execution on 14 September 258, anumber of his Xock cried out, ‘Let us be behea<strong>de</strong>d with him.’58 Therewas little danger, however, of <strong>the</strong>ir pious wish being granted.15. In <strong>the</strong> same persecution, when Marianus, Jacobus, and o<strong>the</strong>rswere being tried at Lambaesis before Aemilianus, who was perhapsacting as provincial governor in place of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ceased proconsul,59 a<strong>Christian</strong> who was present drew attention to himself, quod iam pergratiam proximae passionis Christus in eius ore et facie relucebat[‘because already Christ shone in his countenance through <strong>the</strong>grace of his imminent passion’], proclaimed himself a <strong>Christian</strong>and apparently suVered with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.6016. During <strong>the</strong> years immediately preceding <strong>the</strong> ‘Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’,and perhaps during its course, we hear of several martyrs whowere executed for oVending against military discipline, by refusingto enlist, continue in military service, or obey or<strong>de</strong>rs, owing to57 If, with most scholars, we date <strong>the</strong> martyrdom of Pionius to <strong>the</strong> Decianpersecution, following <strong>the</strong> Passio Pionii, we cannot reckon Pionius a volunteer,even though after being arrested he put chains around his own neck and those ofhis two companions (Pass. Pion. 2.3–4), since Pionius and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs would have beenrequired to sacriWce in any event; but if Eusebius (HE 4.15.47) is right in putting <strong>the</strong>martyrdom un<strong>de</strong>r Marcus Aurelius (as believed, e.g., by Grégoire, Persécutions,108–14, 157 f.), <strong>the</strong>n we should have to count Pionius and his two companions asvolunteers. [See H. Grégoire, P. Orgels, and J. Moreau, ‘Les Martyres <strong>de</strong> Pionios et <strong>de</strong>Polycarpe’, Bulletin <strong>de</strong> l’Académie royale <strong>de</strong> Belgique, Classe <strong>de</strong>s lettres et <strong>de</strong>s sciencesmorales et politiques, 47 (1961), 72–83 for an argument in favour of dating <strong>the</strong> Passionto <strong>the</strong> reign of Marcus Aurelius. It is still normally dated to <strong>the</strong> reign of Decius; see,for example, T. D. Barnes, ‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, 509–31, at 529–31; R. LaneFox, Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s (Harmondsworth, 1986), 460–8; and L. Robert, LeMartyre <strong>de</strong> Pionios, prêtre <strong>de</strong> Smyrne (Washington, 1994), esp. 1–9.]58 Passio Cypriani 5.1.59 Passio Mariani et Iacobi 9.2, with Passio Montani et Lucii 6.1.60 Passio Mariani et Iacobi 9.2–4.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 171<strong>Christian</strong> scruples. There are some four or Wve of <strong>the</strong>se cases, whichwe may conveniently consi<strong>de</strong>r toge<strong>the</strong>r. I do not think that <strong>the</strong>re wasa unanimous consensus of opinion in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church, before<strong>the</strong> reign of Constantine, on <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>smight serve as soldiers. Several prominent early Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong>Church believed that service in <strong>the</strong> army was entirely incompatiblewith <strong>Christian</strong>ity—Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Lactantius.61However, <strong>Christian</strong>s had undoubtedly served in <strong>the</strong> army from atleast <strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> second century, and probably earlier, and<strong>Christian</strong> soldiers must have been numerous by <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> thirdcentury. It is certainly true to say that by that time <strong>the</strong> great majorityof <strong>Christian</strong>s saw nothing intrinsically un-<strong>Christian</strong> in militaryservice. The actions of <strong>the</strong> martyrs listed below were, <strong>the</strong>refore,those of extremists, and <strong>the</strong>y may properly be reckoned among <strong>the</strong>quasi-volunteers of type I.(i) On 12 March 295 <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> paciWst Maximilian was executedat Theveste in what is usually called proconsular Numidia,62for refusing to enlist.6361 See C. J. Cadoux, The Early Church and <strong>the</strong> World (Edinburgh, 1925), 272–80,417–40, 573–92. [See generally J. F. Ubiña, Cristianos y militares: la iglesia antiguaante el ejército y la guerra (Granada, 2000); also <strong>the</strong> survey of J. Helgeland, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>sand <strong>the</strong> Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine’, ANRW ii. 23.1 (Berlinand New York, 1979), 724–834.]62 That part of Numidia at this time was joined to <strong>the</strong> province of Africa andun<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction of its proconsul [on which see T. D. Barnes, The New Empire ofDiocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 212].63 The Passio Maximiliani, in my opinion, is virtually an exact copy of <strong>the</strong> oYcialActa, down to and including <strong>the</strong> sentence of Maximilian. It is a fascinating document,our one au<strong>the</strong>ntic <strong>de</strong>scription of <strong>the</strong> enrolment of a Roman recruit and a veryvaluable historical source from more than one point of view. Yet, as far as Iknow, no English translation has ever been published, and <strong>the</strong> Latin text has notbeen re-edited since it was inclu<strong>de</strong>d in Ruinart’s collection in <strong>the</strong> 17th cent. [Ruinart’sedition was reprinted and trans<strong>late</strong>d into English by H. Musurillo, Acts of <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), 244–9; see <strong>the</strong> more recent critical editions of P.Siniscalco, Massimiliano, un obiettere di conscienza <strong>de</strong>l tardo impero: studi sella PassioS. Maximiliani (Turin, 1974), with text at 159–61; and E. di Lorenzo, Gli Acta S.Maximiliani Martyris: Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento (Naples, 1975), 20–7, who also trans<strong>late</strong>s it into Italian. The reasons behind Maximilian’s refusal to enlisthave received consi<strong>de</strong>rable attention. See among o<strong>the</strong>rs, J. Helgeland, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>s and<strong>the</strong> Roman Army’; P. Brock, ‘Why did St. Maximilian Refuse to Serve in <strong>the</strong> RomanArmy?’, JEH 45.2 (1994), 195–209; and J. Ubiña, Cristianos y militares, 386–98.Delehaye, in an article Wrst published in 1932, also viewed Maximilian as an extremist;‘Réfractaire et Martyr’, in Delehaye, Mélanges d’hagiographie grecque et latine
172 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom(ii) On 21 July 298 Marcellus, centurion of <strong>the</strong> Legio VII Gemina,<strong>the</strong>n serving in Galicia in north-west Spain, threw away his belt andcane and refused to serve in <strong>the</strong> army any longer, on <strong>the</strong> ground tha<strong>the</strong> was a <strong>Christian</strong>. He was tried before <strong>the</strong> provincial governor and<strong>the</strong>n, on 30 October 298, before Aurelius Agricolanus, vicar of <strong>the</strong>Spains, at Tingis (Tangier) in Mauretania. He was executed forinfringement of military discipline: <strong>the</strong> fact that he acted as he didbecause he was a <strong>Christian</strong> was legally immaterial.64 Tacked on to <strong>the</strong>Passion of Marcellus is that of Cassian, who is represented as <strong>the</strong>shorthand writer (excerptor) taking down <strong>the</strong> record of <strong>the</strong> casebefore Agricolanus. Cassian, we are told, when sentence of <strong>de</strong>athwas pronounced, threw his pen and book on <strong>the</strong> ground, <strong>de</strong>claring<strong>the</strong> sentence unjust, and was shortly afterwards executed as a <strong>Christian</strong>.Cassian is referred to as early as 400 or <strong>the</strong>reabouts by Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius(Peristeph. 4.45–8); but, as Delehaye has shown, <strong>the</strong> PassioCassiani is entirely worthless,65 and although <strong>the</strong>re may very wellhave been a martyr named Cassian at Tangier, we must admit that weknow nothing of <strong>the</strong> date or <strong>the</strong> circumstances of his execution.(Subsidia Hagiographica 42; Brussels, 1966), 375–8. The scholarly consensus about<strong>the</strong> value of this Passion has been challenged by David Woods, ‘St. Maximilian ofTebessa and <strong>the</strong> Jizya’, in P. Defosse (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux (CollectionLatomus 279; Brussels, 2003), 266–76. Woods argues that <strong>the</strong> text was producedduring <strong>the</strong> period 724–838 on <strong>the</strong> grounds that <strong>the</strong> lead seal that marked his status asa recruit reXects knowledge of <strong>the</strong> operation of <strong>the</strong> Muslim poll-tax or jizya. Even ifthis claim is not accepted, Woods advances o<strong>the</strong>r arguments against accepting <strong>the</strong>text as a contemporary and accurate account of a real martyrdom.]64 [See <strong>the</strong> edition of G. Lanata, ‘Gli atti <strong>de</strong>l processo contro il centurioneMarcello’, Byzantion, 41 (1972), 509–22, although note <strong>the</strong> comments in F. Dolbeau’sreview, Revue <strong>de</strong>s Étu<strong>de</strong>s Latines, 52 (1974), 570–3 and Barnes, New Empire, 178; seealso Ubiña, Cristianos y militares, 398–411, and <strong>the</strong> English translation inJ. Helgeland, R. Daly, and J. Patout Burns, <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> Military: The EarlyExperience (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 1985), 60–1.]65 See Ruinart, Acta, 345. The oYcial Acta were certainly not used as a source inthis case. The words iis<strong>de</strong>m fere responsionibus, iis<strong>de</strong>mque sententiis, quibus sanctusMarcellus [‘with almost <strong>the</strong> same replies and <strong>the</strong> same opinions as those of SaintMarcellus’] place this beyond any doubt. And <strong>the</strong>re are various touches characteristicof <strong>late</strong>r hagiography: multum iudicem iudicantis cre<strong>de</strong>rent omnes esse Marcellum[‘everyone believed that Marcellus was more truly a judge than <strong>the</strong> one judging’];tremefactus Aurelius Agricolanus exsiliens <strong>de</strong> sella [‘trembling, Aurelius Agricolanussprang up from <strong>the</strong> bench’]; venerabilis Cassianus [‘blessed Cassian’]. The wholedocument is of a totally diVerent character from <strong>the</strong> Passio Marcelli, which reproduces<strong>the</strong> Acta closely. See H. Delehaye, ‘Les Actes <strong>de</strong> S. Marcel le centurion’, AB 41
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 173(iii) It was probably during <strong>the</strong> last years of <strong>the</strong> third century that<strong>the</strong> veteran Typasius and <strong>the</strong> soldier Fabius were con<strong>de</strong>mned to <strong>de</strong>athby <strong>the</strong> dux of Mauretania Caesariensis, <strong>the</strong> former for refusing torejoin <strong>the</strong> colours when or<strong>de</strong>red,66 and <strong>the</strong> latter for <strong>de</strong>clining tocarry a banner in <strong>the</strong> governor’s procession.67 Most <strong>Christian</strong>s wouldhave performed <strong>the</strong>se acts with a clear conscience.(iv) The very curious Passion of Dasius of Durostorum, who wouldnot play his allotted part in <strong>the</strong> Saturnalia, must be largely if notwholly Wctitious,68 and I do not feel able to make any use of it.(1923), 257–87, at 278, who rightly conclu<strong>de</strong>s, ‘Tout le récit est un plagiat; il ne nousapprend rien ni sur S. Cassien ni sur l’audience où fut condamné S. Marcel, et il fauts’abstenir <strong>de</strong> le citer à côté <strong>de</strong>s Actes <strong>de</strong> ce martyr comme un text indépendant’ [‘Theentire account is plagiarized; it tells us nothing about ei<strong>the</strong>r Saint Cassian or <strong>the</strong>audience which con<strong>de</strong>mned Saint Marcel, and one must refrain from citing italongsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> acts of this martyr as though it is an in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt text’]. See alsoN. H. Baynes, ‘The Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, in CAH xii, 1st edn. (Cambridge, 1939),646–77, at 663 and n. 3.66 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’, 111 [above, p. 75]; Monceaux, Histoire littéraire <strong>de</strong>l’Afrique chrétienne, iii. 27, 126–32. [The value of <strong>the</strong> Passio Typasii as a historicalsource has received some attention, particularly with respect to its literary characteristics.J. Fontaine and C. StancliVe have noted parallels with Sulpicius Severus’ lifeof Martin of Tours; see Fontaine, ‘Sulpice Sévère a-t-il travesti Saint Martin <strong>de</strong> Toursen martyr militaire?’, AB 81 (1963), 31–58, at 43–8, and StancliVe, St. Martin and hisHagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus (Oxford, 1983), 144–8.D. Woods has noted <strong>the</strong> parallels with Eutropius’ Breviarium; see Woods, ‘A HistoricalSource of <strong>the</strong> Passio Typasii’, Vig. Chr. 47 (1993), 78–84. Finally, Alan Dearn hasrecently examined it in relation to <strong>the</strong> sectarian problems of 4th- and 5th-cent. NorthAfrica, arguing that ‘<strong>the</strong> way in which Typasius is remembered, or more likely,invented, aims to give legitimacy to <strong>the</strong> spread of monasticism in <strong>late</strong> fourth- orearly Wfth-century North Africa by <strong>de</strong>picting Typasius as a proto-Monk’; Dearn, ‘ThePassio S. Typasii Veterani as a Catholic Construction of <strong>the</strong> Past’, Vig. Chr. 55 (2001),86–98, at 87.]67 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Aspects’, 111 [above, pp. 75–6]; Monceaux, Histoire littéraire <strong>de</strong>l’Afrique chrétienne, iii. 27, 122–6; Franchi <strong>de</strong>’ Cavalieri in Studi e testi, 65 (1935),101–13; H. Delehaye, ‘Contributions récentes à l’hagiographie <strong>de</strong> Rome et d’Afrique’,AB 54 (1936), 265–315, at 300–2. [For <strong>the</strong> possible dates of Fabius’ martyrdom, seeHelgeland, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> Roman Army’, 823.]68 I agree with <strong>the</strong> judgement of H. Delehaye, Les Passions <strong>de</strong>s martyrs et les genreslittéraires, 2nd edn. (Subsidia hagiographica 13B; Brussels, 1966), 230–5; see also his‘Saints <strong>de</strong> Thrace et <strong>de</strong> Mésie’, AB 31 (1912), 161–300, at 265–8. [See <strong>the</strong> more recentedition of R. Pillinger, Das Martyrium <strong>de</strong>s heiligen Dasius: Text, Übersetzung undKommentar (Österreichische Aka<strong>de</strong>mie <strong>de</strong>r Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-HistorischeKlasse 517; Vienna, 1988) with <strong>the</strong> comments of J. Den Boeft and J. Bremmer,‘Notiunculae martyrologicae V’, Vig. Chr. 49 (1995), 146–64, at 159–61.]
174 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomWe now come to <strong>the</strong> martyrs of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong>.17. The earliest is <strong>the</strong> man who tore down <strong>the</strong> Wrst edict ofpersecution on <strong>the</strong> very day it was posted up at Nicomedia, andwas burnt to <strong>de</strong>ath. We have had occasion to refer to him already[above, p. 160]. Soon afterwards <strong>the</strong>re were many o<strong>the</strong>r martyrdomsat Nicomedia, and Eusebius’ source <strong>de</strong>clared that men and women‘leapt upon <strong>the</strong> pyre with a divine and in<strong>de</strong>scribable eagerness’(Eusebius, HE 8.6.6)—a phrase which may, or may not, implyvoluntary martyrdom.18. If Mensurius was speaking <strong>the</strong> truth in his letter to Secundus,quoted above (p. 160), certain African <strong>Christian</strong>s in ad 303–5 hadvoluntarily and unnecessarily <strong>de</strong>nounced <strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> authoritiesas possessing Scriptures which <strong>the</strong>y would not surren<strong>de</strong>r.19. Eulalia, a young fanatic of Augusta Emerita (Mérida)inSpain,iscelebrated in a poem by Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius, written in about 400.69 Accordingto <strong>the</strong> poet, who of course exaggerates and invents freely, Eulalia, a girlof 12, was taken to <strong>the</strong> country by her parents during a time ofpersecution (no doubt in ad 303–4), but escaped, came to town,publicly <strong>de</strong>nounced <strong>the</strong> provincial governor for idolatry, and wheninvited to oVer incense spat in his face, smashed <strong>the</strong> pagan image andtrampled <strong>the</strong> incense un<strong>de</strong>rfoot. Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius, who loves to expatiate on<strong>the</strong> tortures suVered by <strong>the</strong> martyrs he celebrates, gives himself fullscope in <strong>de</strong>scribing what happened to poor little Eulalia before <strong>the</strong>Xames <strong>de</strong>voured her. The whole story may conceivably be invented, but<strong>the</strong>re may well be a historical nucleus, merely embroi<strong>de</strong>red by <strong>the</strong> poet.20. Three o<strong>the</strong>r Spaniards are said to have oVered <strong>the</strong>mselves up to<strong>the</strong> provincial governor during <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong>: Faustus,Januarius, and Martialis in Cordova. Their Passion, however,isinmyopinion an unsatisfactory document, although Delehaye was willing(with some hesitation) to inclu<strong>de</strong> it in his third class of Passions,namelythose having as <strong>the</strong>ir main source a written document based on <strong>the</strong>oYcial Acta or <strong>the</strong> reports of trustworthy eyewitnesses.7069 Peristephanon 3 [On Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius’ account of <strong>the</strong> martyrdom of Eulalia, seeJ. Petruccione, ‘The Portrait of St. Eulalia of Mérida in Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius’ Peristephanon3’, AB 108 (1990), 81–104]. The Passion (BHL i. 405, with Suppl. 3rd edn. 308) isworthless.70 Ruinart, Acta, 556–7; H. Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hagiographiques, 4th edn.(Brussels, 1955), 115, cf. 106–8.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 17521. On 29 April 304 at Catana in Sicily <strong>the</strong>re appeared in <strong>the</strong>governor’s court-room, secretarium, a man named Euplus (or it maybe Euplius) who shouted out, ‘I wish to die, for I am a <strong>Christian</strong>.’ Hewas <strong>de</strong>Wnitely clasping a copy of <strong>the</strong> Gospels, retention of which wasnow, in consequence of <strong>the</strong> Wrst persecuting edict of Diocletian, aserious crime.71 The interrogation which followed immediately, andwas renewed when Euplus was formally tried before <strong>the</strong> governor on12 August 304, centred upon Euplus’ possession of <strong>the</strong> Scriptures: hisstatement to <strong>the</strong> governor par’ emoi eisin, seems to have meant, ‘Theyare here with me, in my heart’; but <strong>the</strong> same words could also mean,‘They are in my possession’, and <strong>the</strong> governor evi<strong>de</strong>ntly un<strong>de</strong>rstood<strong>the</strong>m in that sense. Euplus was <strong>the</strong>n tortured, perhaps to <strong>de</strong>ath—atany rate dying a martyr.7222. According to Basil, Gordius ma<strong>de</strong> a voluntary confession in<strong>the</strong> stadium outsi<strong>de</strong> Caesarea in Cappadocia, presumably betweenad 304 and 312. The <strong>de</strong>tails may be unhistorical, but <strong>the</strong> main factmay well be true.7323. It is evi<strong>de</strong>nt from <strong>the</strong> Canonical Epistle of Peter of Alexandria,quoted above [pp. 160–1], that <strong>the</strong>re had been a number of voluntarymartyrdoms in Egypt by <strong>the</strong> spring of 306.71 [See ‘Aspects’ (above, Chapter 1), p. 36 with n. 3.]72 Passio Eupli 2.2. After <strong>the</strong> words ‘let Euplus be racked and beaten until hepromises to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods’ <strong>the</strong> superior Greek version of this Passion evi<strong>de</strong>ntlyceases to be a transcript of <strong>the</strong> oYcial Acta and nei<strong>the</strong>r it nor <strong>the</strong> inferior Latinversion can be relied on. They both profess to record <strong>the</strong> usual sentence of beheading,but it may be that Euplus died un<strong>de</strong>r torture.73 Basil, Homily XVIII, in Gordium mart. (PG 31.489–508, esp. § 3, col. 497).[Following <strong>the</strong> Byzantine synaxaries, Gordius’ <strong>de</strong>ath is generally dated to 321, and<strong>the</strong> tyrant i<strong>de</strong>ntiWed as Licinius, although <strong>the</strong>re is little compelling evi<strong>de</strong>nce for this;see B. Gain, L’Église <strong>de</strong> Cappadoce au IVe siècle d’après la correspondance <strong>de</strong> Basile <strong>de</strong>Césarée (330–379) (Rome, 1985), 219 n. 280.] Basil’s comment is interesting: ‘<strong>the</strong>re issome vague story which has been transmitted to us preserving <strong>the</strong> manly feats of <strong>the</strong>man in his struggles’. For Basil’s probable lack of real knowledge about Gordius’smartyrdom, see Delehaye, Les Passions <strong>de</strong>s martyrs et les genres littéraires, 139–40.[Also F. Halkin, ‘Un second saint Gordius?’, AB 79 (1961), 5–15, at 5–6. Raymond VanDam has recently reiterated this point, noting that Basil ‘hardly knew what to say’about him, and suggests that <strong>the</strong> commonness of his name in Cappadocia mightindicate that Basil was ‘trying to embellish some local traditions into full <strong>Christian</strong>cults’; see his Becoming <strong>Christian</strong>: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia,2003), 90, and Kingdom of <strong>the</strong> Snow: Roman Rule and Greek Culture in Cappadocia
176 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom24. At <strong>the</strong> trial of Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, probably in 305 or306, a soldier named Philoromus ma<strong>de</strong> a voluntary confession andwas behea<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong> spring of 306.7425. Eusebius, while in <strong>the</strong> Thebaid between <strong>the</strong> years 306 and 312,saw ‘many’ voluntary martyrs con<strong>de</strong>mned to <strong>de</strong>ath ‘in a single day’(HE 8.9.5). The fact that <strong>the</strong>y were volunteers is guaranteed byEusebius’ statement that <strong>the</strong>y ‘leapt up before <strong>the</strong> judgement seatfrom this si<strong>de</strong> and that (epepedon allo<strong>the</strong>n alloi), ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir confessionand received sentence with hymns of thanksgiving’. As I havealready pointed out,75 it is quite wrong to cite this passage, as somany mo<strong>de</strong>rn writers have done, as evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> intensity of thatpersecution. If <strong>the</strong> men in question had not been volunteers, but hadbeen un<strong>de</strong>r arrest already, <strong>the</strong>y would have been brought in un<strong>de</strong>rguard, probably in chains.26. As I have already shown,76 a remarkably high proportion of<strong>the</strong> ‘Palestinian’ victims of <strong>the</strong> ‘Great’ <strong>Persecution</strong>, of whom Eusebiusgives us a complete list in his Martyrs of Palestine,77 were volunteersor quasi-volunteers. Of <strong>the</strong> 91 martyrs mentioned by Eusebius, weknow nothing at all about 44 (mostly Egyptians) who were executedat <strong>the</strong> copper mines of Phaeno. That leaves us with 47. Of <strong>the</strong>se atleast 14 were volunteers proper, and at least ano<strong>the</strong>r 17 were quasivolunteersof types II and III. The following is a brief summary of <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>eds of <strong>the</strong> outright volunteers.(Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 2002), 54–5. Pauline Allen reckons that ‘<strong>the</strong> general veracity of hisaccount ...isguaranteed by <strong>the</strong> fact that in <strong>the</strong> audience <strong>the</strong>re are some who remember<strong>the</strong> event’, but this is surely ra<strong>the</strong>r naïve; see J. Leemans, W. Mayer, P. Allen, and B.Dehandschutter, ‘Let us die that we may live’: Greek Homilies on <strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs fromAsia Minor, Palestine and Syria c. AD 350–AD 450 (London, 2003), 57 (whosetranslation is used above). On <strong>the</strong> context and aims of Basil’s homilies to martyrs,see P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley, 1994), 184–9.]74 Passio Phileae et Philoromi 3.1–3; Eusebius, HE 8.9.7.75 ‘Aspects’ [above, pp. 66–7].76 ‘Aspects’ [above, pp. 64–7]. [See also Barnes, Constantine, 148–63 on <strong>the</strong>historical background.]77 In this work Eusebius concerns himself with Palestinians, wherever <strong>the</strong>y weremartyred, and <strong>Christian</strong>s from o<strong>the</strong>r provinces martyred in Palestine.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 177(i) Alpheus publicly rebuked a large number of fellow-<strong>Christian</strong>swho were sacriWcing at Caesarea,78 and Romanus did <strong>the</strong> same atAntioch.79(ii) Apphianus seized <strong>the</strong> governor of Palestine by <strong>the</strong> arm while hewas pouring a libation (MP 4.2–15). Ae<strong>de</strong>sius, his bro<strong>the</strong>r, violentlyassaulted Hierocles, <strong>the</strong> prefect of Egypt, who, according to Eusebius,had just sentenced some <strong>Christian</strong> virgins to a fate <strong>the</strong>y wouldconsi<strong>de</strong>r worse than <strong>de</strong>ath: he knocked Hierocles down and wenton hitting him and admonishing him as he lay prostrate (MP 5.2–3).Antoninus, Zebinas, and Germanus interrupted <strong>the</strong> governor ofPalestine while he was sacriWcing and exhorted him to cease fromerror (MP 9.4–5).(iii) The most extraordinary inci<strong>de</strong>nt of all took place at Caesarea,early in 305. While a festival was being celebrated, a false rumourbegan to spread that certain <strong>Christian</strong>s would be thrown to <strong>the</strong> beastsas part of <strong>the</strong> joyful celebrations. While <strong>the</strong> governor was on his wayto <strong>the</strong> amphi<strong>the</strong>atre, six young men (Timolaus, Dionysius, Romulus,Paëis, and two named Alexan<strong>de</strong>r) sud<strong>de</strong>nly presented <strong>the</strong>mselvesbefore him with <strong>the</strong>ir hands bound behind <strong>the</strong>m, crying out that<strong>the</strong>y were <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>de</strong>manding to be thrown to <strong>the</strong> beasts with<strong>the</strong>ir brethren (MP 3.2–4). We can well believe Eusebius when headds that <strong>the</strong> governor and his entire suite were reduced to a conditionof no ordinary amazement. The young men were arrested andimprisoned, but <strong>the</strong>y were to be disappointed in <strong>the</strong> manner of <strong>the</strong>ir<strong>de</strong>ath, for instead of giving <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> beasts, as <strong>the</strong>y had<strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d, <strong>the</strong> merciless pagan con<strong>de</strong>mned <strong>the</strong>m to a speedy <strong>de</strong>athby <strong>de</strong>capitation. Eusebius gives not only <strong>the</strong> names of <strong>the</strong> young men78 Eusebius, MP 1.5e–k Long. In citing <strong>the</strong> Long Recension (L) of this work I havefollowed <strong>the</strong> numbering of Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, i. 327–400, who give anEnglish translation of L, from <strong>the</strong> Greek, Latin, and Syriac, si<strong>de</strong> by si<strong>de</strong> with <strong>the</strong> ShortRecension. [Alpheus’ actions seem to be of <strong>the</strong> type countenanced by Peter of Alexandria,Ep. Can. 11 (above, n. 3): ‘And because he saw that at that time laxity and great fearhad fallen upon all men, and many were swept along, as it were, before <strong>the</strong> torrent ofmany waters and were led to <strong>the</strong> foul worship of idols, he consi<strong>de</strong>red how he mightoppose <strong>the</strong> torrent of evil by his fortitu<strong>de</strong>’; MP 1.5 f, trans. Lawlor and Oulton.]79 MP 2; De Resurr.2(PG 24.1097–1100); John Chrys. Laud. in S. Roman. I and II(PG 50.605–18). [Romanus’ actions appear to have been motivated by <strong>the</strong> samereason as those of Alpheus (see above): according to MP 2, he was ‘wont to <strong>de</strong>ter byrebukes those whom terror was dragging down to <strong>the</strong> error of idolatry’, trans. Lawlorand Oulton.]
178 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdombut also <strong>the</strong>ir places of origin: two were Palestinians, two wereEgyptians, one was a Phoenician, and one came from Pontus. It isinteresting to Wnd Eusebius showing no disapproval of <strong>the</strong>ir action,any more than of <strong>the</strong> exploits of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r volunteers he records:in<strong>de</strong>ed, he speaks of <strong>the</strong> young men, especially in <strong>the</strong> Long Recensionof his work, with real enthusiasm.(iv) A fourteenth confessor who is perhaps to be counted among<strong>the</strong> volunteers proper is Valentina (MP 8.6–8), who was so infuriatedby <strong>the</strong> spectacle of a <strong>Christian</strong> woman of Gaza being tortured atCaesarea in about ad 309 that she shouted out to <strong>the</strong> governor, ‘Howlong will you torture my sister so cruelly?’; and on being arrestedstruggled violently and kicked over a pagan altar. The two womenwere bound toge<strong>the</strong>r and burnt alive.At least 17 of <strong>the</strong> remaining martyrs are quasi-volunteers of typeII, who drew attention to <strong>the</strong>mselves by openly visiting or assistingarrested confessors or concerning <strong>the</strong>mselves with <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ad bodies ofmartyrs. Agapius, bro<strong>the</strong>r of Alexan<strong>de</strong>r of Gaza (one of <strong>the</strong> six youngmen mentioned above), frequently visited his bro<strong>the</strong>r in prison, andwas executed at <strong>the</strong> same time, as was ano<strong>the</strong>r man called Dionysiuswho had also been ministering to <strong>the</strong> imprisoned confessors (MP3.4). Theodosia of Tyre approached confessors who were on trial andasked <strong>the</strong>m to pray for her; she was con<strong>de</strong>mned and drowned (MP7.1–2). In 309 certain Egyptian confessors who had been dispatchedto Palestine for penal labour in <strong>the</strong> mines were sent on to Cilicia.Some of <strong>the</strong>ir fellow-<strong>Christian</strong>s set out from Egypt to take food to<strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong>re, but were arrested at Ascalon; some were sent to <strong>the</strong>mines, but two (Promus and Elijah) were behea<strong>de</strong>d, and one(Ares), who may have been guilty of special provocation, was burned(MP 10.1). Five unnamed Egyptian <strong>Christian</strong>s had succee<strong>de</strong>d inescorting <strong>the</strong> arrested confessors to Cilicia, but on <strong>the</strong>ir returnjourney <strong>the</strong>y were arrested at Caesarea. They preten<strong>de</strong>d that <strong>the</strong>ycame from Jerusalem and gave <strong>the</strong>mselves Hebrew names; this is saidto have alarmed <strong>the</strong> governor of Palestine, who thought <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>smust somewhere have established a city hostile to Rome. TheWve were all behea<strong>de</strong>d (MP 11.5–14). Among o<strong>the</strong>rs who werebehea<strong>de</strong>d at Caesarea that same day were four <strong>Christian</strong>s who haddrawn attention to <strong>the</strong>mselves in much <strong>the</strong> same manner as those we
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 179have just noticed. Porphyry, a slave, on hearing sentence of <strong>de</strong>athpronounced against his master Pamphilus, shouted out a request tha<strong>the</strong> might be given <strong>the</strong> body for burial; he was burned alive (MP11.15–19). An ex-oYcer from Cappadocia named Seleucus broughtnews of Porphyry’s <strong>de</strong>ath to Pamphilus, and greeted one of <strong>the</strong>confessors with a kiss; he was behea<strong>de</strong>d (MP 11.20–3). Theodulus,a slave of <strong>the</strong> governor’s household, also kissed a confessor and wascruciWed (MP 11.24). Ano<strong>the</strong>r Cappadocian, Julian, embraced <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>ad bodies of <strong>the</strong> martyrs and was burnt (MP 11.25–8). Soonafterwards Hadrian and Eubulus, who had come from Batanaea tovisit <strong>the</strong> confessors, were given to <strong>the</strong> beasts and Wnally <strong>de</strong>capitated(MP 11.29–30).At least two more of Eusebius’ ‘Palestinian’ martyrs were quasivolunteersof type III, who after being arrested behaved in an unnecessarilyprovocative manner. Procopius, <strong>the</strong> Wrst in Eusebius’catalogue, was arrested and or<strong>de</strong>red to sacriWce to <strong>the</strong> gods. Whenhe refused to pour a libation to <strong>the</strong> four emperors,80 he quoted withapproval <strong>the</strong> famous words of Odysseus in <strong>the</strong> Iliad against a multiplicityof rulers [‘lordship for many is no good thing; let <strong>the</strong>re be oneruler, one king’].81 For this treasonable reXection upon <strong>the</strong> Tetrarchyhe was immediately executed. The woman of Gaza,82 at whose trialValentina ma<strong>de</strong> her protest, had abused <strong>the</strong> emperor while beinginterrogated.Among <strong>the</strong> remaining 16 ‘Palestinian’ martyrs it seems quite likelythat <strong>the</strong>re may have been o<strong>the</strong>r volunteers or quasi-volunteers. Theextraordinary punishment (that proper to parrici<strong>de</strong>s) inXicted uponUlpian at Tyre (MP 5.1 Short Recension) suggests that he had beenguilty of something more than a plain confession of <strong>Christian</strong>ity; and ofDomninus, who was burnt, a punishment not often inXicted uponordinary <strong>Christian</strong> confessors o<strong>the</strong>r than slaves, we are expressly toldthat he was famous for his confessions and his great boldness (MP 7.4).A few religious suici<strong>de</strong>s are recor<strong>de</strong>d from this period, notably ofthose at Antioch who are said by Eusebius to have thrown <strong>the</strong>mselvesdown from <strong>the</strong> roofs of houses in or<strong>de</strong>r to escape arrest and torture80 MP 1.1–2. See H. Delehaye, Les Légen<strong>de</strong>s hagiographiques, 119–39 for <strong>de</strong>velopmentsof <strong>the</strong> Procopius’ story; also BHG (3rd edn.), 218–20.81 Iliad 2.204–5, trans. Lattimore.82 Ennatha according to MP 8.8. L; but cf. 9.6–8.
180 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom(HE 8.12.2); <strong>the</strong> three women of Antioch already mentioned [above,pp. 163–4], who drowned <strong>the</strong>mselves in alleged fear of violation; anda Roman woman of <strong>the</strong> upper classes who stabbed herself to <strong>de</strong>ath toavoid being prostituted to Maxentius (Eusebius, HE 8.14.16–17).With <strong>the</strong> birth of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Empire <strong>the</strong> period in which I amprimarily interested comes to an end—except for <strong>the</strong> short intervalof less than two years, in ad 361–3, when Julian became emperor andpaganism was oYcially restored; I shall presently refer to somevoluntary martyrdoms which took place at that time. My mainconcern is with <strong>the</strong> relationship of <strong>the</strong> early Church in <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire to its pagan environment. I <strong>the</strong>refore propose to say virtuallynothing about <strong>the</strong> persecutions of <strong>Christian</strong>s by <strong>Christian</strong>s, whe<strong>the</strong>rCatholics, heretics, or schismatics, which took place with distressingfrequency from <strong>the</strong> early fourth century onwards, although this strifeof sects also produced its voluntary martyrs.83 Nor do I intend tomake more than a very brief reference to <strong>the</strong> Donatist Circumcellionsof <strong>the</strong> fourth and Wfth centuries, who carried <strong>the</strong> practice of voluntarymartyrdom to <strong>the</strong> most extreme lengths.In Julian’s reign martyrdom at <strong>the</strong> hands of pagans was voluntarilyun<strong>de</strong>rtaken by <strong>Christian</strong>s once more. As Baynes has put it, ‘Julian wasnever a persecutor in <strong>the</strong> accepted meaning of that word: it was <strong>the</strong> mostconstant complaint of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s that <strong>the</strong> emperor <strong>de</strong>nied <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong>glory of martyrdom.’84 Some of <strong>the</strong>m retaliated with acts of <strong>de</strong>liberateprovocation, which provincial governors less tolerant than <strong>the</strong> emperorhimself sometimes punished savagely as acts of civil rebellion.83 To give only one example: in ad 414–15 Amonius, a fanatical Nitrian monk,threw a stone at Orestes <strong>the</strong> prefect (hated by <strong>the</strong> Patriarch Cyril and his partisans)and was tortured to <strong>de</strong>ath. Cyril wished to have him reverenced as a martyr: Socrates,HE 7.14.84 N. H. Baynes, ‘Constantine’s Successors to Jovian: and <strong>the</strong> Struggle with Persia’, inCMH i, ed. H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney (Cambridge, 1911), 55–86, at 80. For anaccount of Julian’s religious policy by a mo<strong>de</strong>rn Roman Catholic writer, see P. <strong>de</strong>Labriolle, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>isme et paganisme au milieu du IVe siècle’, in A. Fliche andV. Martin, Histoire <strong>de</strong> l’Église, iii (Paris, 1936), 177–204, esp. 189–91. [The bibliographyon this subject is substantial. See <strong>the</strong> contrasting interpretations of G. W. Bowersock,Julian <strong>the</strong> Apostate (London, 1978), 79–93; P. Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual Biography(London, 1992), orig. publ. as Julian and Hellenism (Oxford, 1981), 24–7, 161–91;andR.Smith,Julian’s Gods:Religionand Philosophy in <strong>the</strong> Thoughtand Action of Julian <strong>the</strong>Apostate (London, 1995), esp. 179–218.] Complaints in, for example, Greg. Naz. Or.4(contra Julianum I) 58, 61, 84; Theodoret, HE 3.17, cf. 11; Sozomen, HE 5.17 Wn.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 18127. We hear of martyrdoms which may properly be called voluntary,85resulting from <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>struction of pagan temples or images atDurostorum in Moesia,86 and at two places in Asia Minor: Caesareain Cappadocia,87 and Merum in Phrygia.88 Two young <strong>Christian</strong>sinsulted <strong>the</strong> Mo<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> Gods at Pessinus in Phrygia while Julianhimself was <strong>the</strong>re; but what happened to <strong>the</strong>m is not clear—one atany rate was Xogged, but apparently not executed, and we hear of nopunishment of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, although he appeared in court.89 The Wfthcenturyecclesiastical historians, Socrates and Sozomen, give a highlycoloured <strong>de</strong>scription of <strong>the</strong> fate of <strong>the</strong> three martyrs of Merum(Macedonius, Theodulus, and Tatian); while after various tortures<strong>the</strong>y were being roasted on gridirons <strong>the</strong>y begged <strong>the</strong> governor toturn <strong>the</strong>m over, in or<strong>de</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>y said, that <strong>the</strong>y might not be cooked onone si<strong>de</strong> only. Ano<strong>the</strong>r volunteer who was cruelly tortured butappears to have survived was Mark, bishop of Arethusa in Syria,who had <strong>de</strong>stroyed a pagan temple in <strong>the</strong> reign of Constantius.90Or<strong>de</strong>red by Julian to restore <strong>the</strong> temple himself or to pay for itsreconstruction, he at Wrst Xed, but returned when he heard thatvengeance was being taken on his Xock. He was tortured, but herefused, successfully, to pay for <strong>the</strong> rebuilding, even when <strong>the</strong> pagansoVered to accept a very small contribution. O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>s werepunished for oVering public insult to paganism: thus Basil of Ancyrawas martyred, and Busiris of <strong>the</strong> same town was tortured andimprisoned but survived <strong>the</strong> apostate emperor.9185 I have not inclu<strong>de</strong>d here those martyred un<strong>de</strong>r Julian for <strong>de</strong>stroying paganimages un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> earlier <strong>Christian</strong> emperors, e.g. Cyril of Heliopolis (Theodoret, HE3.7) and Artemius (3.18).86 Jerome, Chronicle 2379; Theodoret, HE 3.7; see J. Zeiller, Les Origineschrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes <strong>de</strong> l’Empire romain (Paris, 1918), 126–7.87 Greg. Naz. Or. 4.92; Ep. 58; Basil, Ep. 100.88 Socrates, HE 3.15; Sozomen, HE 5.11.89 Greg. Naz. Or. 5.40. It is possible, but not I think likely, that both were executed.90 Greg. Naz. Or. 4.88–91; Theodoret, HE 3.7; Sozomen, HE 5.10. According toSozomen, Mark was tortured to <strong>de</strong>ath, but from Theodoret, and <strong>the</strong> silence ofGregory, it is clear that he was ultimately released.91 Sozomen, HE 5.11. The Passion of Basil (for a Latin translation see Ruinart,Acta, 599–603) is historically worthless. [This verdict has been contested by D.Woods, who argues that it is ‘on <strong>the</strong> whole . . . a reliable historical source’; see his‘The Martyrdom of <strong>the</strong> Priest Basil of Ancyra’, Vig. Chr. 46 (1992), 31–9, at 36, againstwhich H. C. Teitler, ‘History and Hagiography: The Passio of Basil of Ancyra as aHistorical Source’, Vig. Chr. 50 (1996), 73–80.]
182 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom28. Gregory of Nazianzus, in one of his scurrilous orations againstJulian, tells us of some <strong>Christian</strong> soldiers whom Julian induced toburn a few grains of incense before receiving one of <strong>the</strong>ir customarydonatives, but who <strong>late</strong>r repented, tore <strong>the</strong>ir hair and rushed out into<strong>the</strong> street, crying out that <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>Christian</strong>s and wanted to atonefor <strong>the</strong>ir sin. When <strong>the</strong>y reached <strong>the</strong> palace <strong>the</strong>y uttered execrationsagainst Julian and <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d to be burnt alive, so that <strong>the</strong>y might becleansed by <strong>the</strong> very Wre with which <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>de</strong>Wled <strong>the</strong>mselves in<strong>the</strong> act of oVering incense. Julian con<strong>de</strong>mned <strong>the</strong>m to banishment.The Wfth-century ecclesiastical historian Theodoret gives a moredramatic account in which <strong>the</strong> emperor Wrst passes sentence of<strong>de</strong>ath and only changes it at <strong>the</strong> very last moment: ‘In this’, addsTheodoret, ‘<strong>the</strong> emperor was actuated by <strong>the</strong> most malign jealousy,for he envied <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> glory of martyrdom.’9229. Julian did execute two <strong>Christian</strong> soldiers of his guard, Juventiusand Maximus, who abused him at a banquet as ‘more wickedthan all <strong>the</strong> nations of <strong>the</strong> earth’ and, when brought before him,persisted in <strong>the</strong>ir attitu<strong>de</strong>; but he was careful to proclaim that <strong>the</strong>executions were for insulting <strong>the</strong> emperor and not for religion.93There would undoubtedly have been many more voluntary martyrdomshad Julian not exercised surprising self-restraint in <strong>the</strong> face of<strong>de</strong>liberate provocations of various kinds, as for example when hisattempt to make peace between a <strong>Christian</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r and his apostateson was insolently rebuVed (Theodoret, HE 3.15), or when Maris,bishop of Chalcedon, interrupted him while he was sacriWcing andpublicly rebuked him as an impious man, an apostate and an a<strong>the</strong>ist(Soc. 3.13; Soz. 5.4). Maris suVered severely from cataract, and when<strong>the</strong> exasperated Julian uncharitably taunted him with his blindness,which his God could not cure, Maris replied that he thanked God forit because it prevented him from looking upon <strong>the</strong> face of anapostate. Yet Julian took no action against Maris. Theodoret tellswith great pleasure <strong>the</strong> story of some <strong>Christian</strong> nuns of Antioch who,when Julian passed, sang hymns especially loudly to show <strong>the</strong>ircontempt for him (HE 3.19). When <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s of Antioch were92 Greg. Naz. Or. 4.82–4, and see also Sozomen, HE 5.17; Theodoret, HE 3.16–17.[As Theresa Urbainczyk has noted, such forceful con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Julian is characteristicof Theodoret’s history; see her Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and <strong>the</strong> HolyMan (Ann Arbor, 2002), 30–1.]93 Theodoret, HE 3.15.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 183or<strong>de</strong>red by Julian to remove <strong>the</strong> body of <strong>the</strong>ir third-century martyr,Babylas, from Daphne to Antioch, <strong>the</strong>y did so with a great <strong>de</strong>monstration,as a result of which several were arrested and a young man,Theodorus, tortured but eventually released.94I have said that I propose to <strong>de</strong>al very brieXy with <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions,‘<strong>the</strong> shock troops of Donatism’ as <strong>the</strong>y have been called.95 It is myobject in this paper to show that voluntary martyrdom, far from beingpeculiar to heretics and schismatics, occurred constantly in <strong>the</strong> verybosom of <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church, even though <strong>the</strong> dominant section ofopinion in <strong>the</strong> Church disapproved of it. The Circumcellions, however,are a class apart. Although substantially orthodox in doctrine, <strong>the</strong>ywere extreme schismatics to a man.96 They were a characteristicallyAfrican phenomenon, for it was in North Africa, and especially inNumidia (mo<strong>de</strong>rn Algeria), that <strong>the</strong> cult of <strong>the</strong> martyrs reached itsgreatest intensity. More than one ancient author <strong>de</strong>scribes <strong>the</strong> Circumcellionsas having <strong>the</strong>ir minds Wxed on martyrdom.97 In <strong>the</strong>m<strong>the</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncies which we have seen at work in o<strong>the</strong>r sections of <strong>the</strong>94 Soc. 3.18–19; Soz. 5.19–20; Theod. HE 3.10–11; RuWnus, HE 1.37.95 See W. H. C. Frend, ‘The Cellae of <strong>the</strong> African Circumcellions’, JTS 3 (1952),87–9; also The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa(Oxford, 1952). [The subsequent bibliography on <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions is substantial.Frend continued to work on <strong>the</strong>m and his analogy between <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions andvarious peasant revolts has proved inXuential; see particularly his ‘Circumcellionsand Monks’, JTS 20 (1969), 542–9, repr. in his Town and Country in <strong>the</strong> Early<strong>Christian</strong> Centuries (London, 1980), and ‘Heresy and Schism as Social and NationalMovements’, in Studies in Church History, 9 (1972), 37–56, repr. in his ReligionPopular and Unpopular in <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong> Centuries (London, 1976). It shouldbe noted, however, that a number of scholars had <strong>de</strong>veloped similar approachesin<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ntly of Frend; see <strong>the</strong> bibliography listed in B. D. Shaw, ‘Who were <strong>the</strong>Circumcellions?’, in A. H. Merrills (ed.), Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectiveson Late Antique North Africa (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 2004), 227–58, at 227–31 nn. 1–13. Seealso M. Gaddis, There is no Crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Roman Empire (Berkeley, 2005), 111–24.]96 [Although <strong>the</strong>y would not have consi<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong>mselves schismatics; on some of<strong>the</strong> classiWcatory problems associated with <strong>the</strong> ‘Donatists’, see B. D. Shaw, ‘African<strong>Christian</strong>ity: Disputes, DeWnitions, and ‘‘Donatists’’ ’, in M. R. Greenshields and T. A.Robinson (eds.), Orthodoxy and Heresy in Religious Movements: Discipline andDissent (Lampeter, 1992), 5–34, repr. in Shaw, Rulers, Nomads, and <strong>Christian</strong>s inRoman North Africa (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1995).]97 See Frend, Donatist, 174 V. [Note, however, that consi<strong>de</strong>rable source diYcultiesattend any study of <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions. Brent Shaw has shown recently that ‘externalaccounts’ of <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions, found in handbooks of heresies (among whichhe inclu<strong>de</strong>s Augustine’s Liber <strong>de</strong> haeresibus), are ‘largely useless for any viable
184 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>Christian</strong> Church appeared in an acute and intense form. If no o<strong>the</strong>r<strong>de</strong>ath oVered itself conveniently, <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions might on occasionresort to ritual suici<strong>de</strong>, sometimes in masses, throwing <strong>the</strong>mselves overprecipices or into rivers, or even, we are told, burning <strong>the</strong>mselves alive.O<strong>the</strong>rs would perish in attacks on villas or Catholic churches. Thesemen were greatly honoured by <strong>the</strong>ir fellow Donatists as martyrs.98 Eventhose who did not feel that <strong>the</strong>ir time had yet come to seek martyrdomwere very dangerous to <strong>the</strong>ir enemies, <strong>the</strong> Catholic clergy and <strong>the</strong>Catholic villa-owning aristocracy of North Africa, because of <strong>the</strong> contemptof <strong>de</strong>ath, even <strong>de</strong>sire for <strong>de</strong>ath, which <strong>the</strong>ir outlook engen<strong>de</strong>redin <strong>the</strong>m. The Circumcellions, however, are in reality outsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> Weldwith which I am concerned, and I need say no more about <strong>the</strong>m.It is beyond my ability to <strong>de</strong>al in general with martyrdoms occurringoutsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire; but I have already referred (above, p. 162)to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>struction of a Persian Wre-temple in 420, and I may add thatTheodoret may have known of voluntary martyrdoms during <strong>the</strong>persecution which followed un<strong>de</strong>r Yazdgard I and Vahram V, for hesays that ‘of <strong>the</strong>ir own accord <strong>the</strong>y rushed . . . in <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>sire to gain<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath which brings about in<strong>de</strong>structible life’ (HE 5.39). Sabas, <strong>the</strong>Gothic saint martyred in 372, ma<strong>de</strong> two confessions in which heshowed excess of zeal, and rejected attempts by his fellow villagers toconceal him, before he was Wnally arrested; and even after that hetwice failed to make use of opportunities to escape.99 And <strong>the</strong>re isone o<strong>the</strong>r interesting episo<strong>de</strong> which I must not fail to mention. InMuslim Spain in <strong>the</strong> mid-ninth century, un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Emirs ‘Abd al-Rahman (822–52) and Mohammed I (852–86), <strong>Christian</strong>ity wastolerated and even given a certain oYcial status (as usual in Muslimcountries, at least before <strong>the</strong> Crusa<strong>de</strong>s), <strong>the</strong>re being few restrictionson churches except that <strong>the</strong>y were not allowed to ring bells forservices or organize public processions.100 However, a party centredinvestigation of <strong>the</strong> social phenomenon in Africa’; see Shaw, ‘Who were <strong>the</strong> Circumcellions?’at 257.]98 The Wrst Council of Carthage in ad 348–9 forba<strong>de</strong> that those who <strong>de</strong>stroyed<strong>the</strong>mselves be honoured as martyrs (Conc. Carthag. I, Canon 2); see above, n. 27.99 [See <strong>the</strong> translation of P. Hea<strong>the</strong>r and J. Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, The Goths in <strong>the</strong> FourthCentury (TTH 11; Liverpool, 1991), 111–17.]100 See É.Lévi-Provençal, Histoire <strong>de</strong> l’Espagne musulmane (Paris, 1950), i. 225–39.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 185at Wrst at Cordova and led by Eulogius and Alvar was avid formartyrdom, although this could hardly be obtained except for oVeringpublic insult to <strong>the</strong> Prophet, a crime for which many <strong>Christian</strong>fanatics were executed during <strong>the</strong> last years of ‘Abd al-Rahman II.Such voluntary martyrdom was oYcially proclaimed sinful andtantamount to suici<strong>de</strong> by a Council convened at Cordova in 852;but <strong>the</strong> movement spread and, shortly after <strong>the</strong> Council, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>community at Toledo, evi<strong>de</strong>ntly dominated by more fanaticalelements, even elected Eulogius metropolitan, a choice which MohammedI refused to ratify. In 859 Eulogius, arrested on a charge ofillegal proselytization, publicly insulted <strong>the</strong> Prophet and was duly<strong>de</strong>capitated. The movement continued for a time, but eventuallypetered out in <strong>the</strong> tenth century.101O<strong>the</strong>r Relevant Source MaterialIn this section, as before, I have <strong>de</strong>liberately ignored evi<strong>de</strong>nce which Ibelieve to be valueless, such as <strong>the</strong> clearly unhistorical story in JohnMalalas and John of Antioch of a letter sent to Trajan by Tiberianus,governor of Palestina Prima, complaining of his weariness inpersecuting <strong>Christian</strong>s who ‘will not stop incriminating <strong>the</strong>mselvesin or<strong>de</strong>r to be put to <strong>de</strong>ath’.1021. It is very well known that from <strong>the</strong> earliest times <strong>Christian</strong>ityvenerated its martyrs and conceived of <strong>the</strong>m as occupying a specialplace in <strong>the</strong> future life.103 There is a great <strong>de</strong>al of evi<strong>de</strong>nce, which I101 [See K. B. Wolf, <strong>Christian</strong> Martyrs in Muslim Spain (Cambridge, 1988); J. A.Coope, The Martyrs of Córdoba: Community and Family Conflict in an Age of MassConversion (Lincoln Nebraska, 1995).]102 Malalas, Chronicle 11.5 (273) [trans. E. JeVreys, M. JeVreys, and R. Scott; see<strong>the</strong> recent edition of H. Thurn, Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Corpus FontiumHistoriae Byzantinae 35; Berlin, 2000)]; John of Antioch fr. 111 in FragmentaHistoricum Graecorum, iv (Paris, 1851), 580–1.103 On <strong>the</strong> original signiWcance and <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>velopments of <strong>the</strong> word martus and <strong>the</strong>concept of martyrdom, see H. Delehaye, Sanctus, 74–121; F. Gün<strong>the</strong>r, Martus: DieGeschichte eines Wortes (Berlin, 1941). [See also H. Von Campenhausen, Die I<strong>de</strong>e <strong>de</strong>sMartyriums in <strong>de</strong>r alten Kirche (Göttingen, 1936); N. Brox, Zeuge und Märtyrer:Untersuchungen zur frühchristlichen Zeugnis-Terminologie (Munich, 1961); Grégoire,Persécutions, 238–49; H. Strathmann, ‘Martus’, in G. Kittel and F. Friedrich (eds.),Theological Dictionary of <strong>the</strong> New Testament (London, 1964), 474–508; T. Baumeister,Die Anfänge <strong>de</strong>r Theologie <strong>de</strong>s Martyriums (Münster, 1979); and G. W. Bowersock,Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge, 1995), 1–21.]
186 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomneed not review in <strong>de</strong>tail now,104 showing that confessors awaitingmartyrdom, benedicti martyres <strong>de</strong>signati as Tertullian calls <strong>the</strong>m (AdMartyras 1.1), using <strong>the</strong> technical term for Roman magistrates whohad been elected but had not yet entered upon <strong>the</strong>ir oYce, werepersons of extraordinary consequence among <strong>the</strong> faithful, whovisited <strong>the</strong>m in relays (sometimes exposing <strong>the</strong>mselves in doing so)and brought <strong>the</strong>m food and comforts.105 Confessors, at any ratethose awaiting execution, might sometimes even claim <strong>the</strong> prerogativeof forgiving <strong>the</strong> sin of apostasy on <strong>the</strong> part of weaker brethrenwho had lapsed un<strong>de</strong>r pressure:106 during <strong>the</strong> Decian persecutions of250 this practice was carried to such lengths in Africa that certiWcatesof forgiveness, libelli pacis, were given wholesale by imprisonedconfessors—thousands a day, according to Cyprian (Ep. 20.2), whowas exasperated at <strong>the</strong> aVront to his own authority, and whose lettersare full of indignant complaints about <strong>the</strong>se libelli pacis. The venerationpaid to confessors sometimes went to <strong>the</strong>ir heads: we hear ofcomplaints from Tertullian and Cyprian about iactatio martyris.1072. We have just one work by a pagan author which corroborates, iffrom a hostile point of view, some of <strong>the</strong> things we learn from<strong>Christian</strong> sources about <strong>the</strong> reverential attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> ordinary<strong>Christian</strong>s towards imprisoned confessors. This is The Death ofPeregrinus, written probably during <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 160s by <strong>the</strong> satiristLucian. And as it happens <strong>the</strong> same work also provi<strong>de</strong>s us with anexcellent pagan parallel to <strong>the</strong> voluntary <strong>Christian</strong> martyrs. Peregrinus,or Proteus as he preferred to call himself, was a real historicalcharacter, a citizen of Parium on <strong>the</strong> Hellespont and a very curiousperson in<strong>de</strong>ed. It was in Palestine, according to Lucian, that Peregrinusfell in with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s ‘and picked up <strong>the</strong>ir queer creed. Ican tell you, he pretty soon ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>m look like children: prophet,chairman, organizer—he was everything at once; expoun<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong>ir104 See <strong>the</strong> opening chapter of H. Delehaye, Les Origines du culte <strong>de</strong>s martyrs, 2n<strong>de</strong>dn. (Subsidia hagiographica 20; Brussels, 1933), esp. 15 V.105 See Delehaye, Sanctus, 11–14.106 See Tertullian, Ad Martyras 1.6; De Pudicitia 22.1–2; Cyprian, Ep. 15; 16; 17.2;20.2–3; 21.3; 22.2; 23; 27; 35; 36; Dionys. Alex. ap. Eusebius, HE 6.42.5–6; Peter ofAlexandria, Ep. Can. 5; probably Eusebius, HE 5.2.5. I know of no reference to thispractice after <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution.107 Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 1.4; Cyprian, Ep. 11.1; cf. 13.4, 5; 14.2, 3.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 187books, commented on <strong>the</strong>m, wrote a lot of books himself. They tookhim for a sort of god, accepted him as a lawgiver, and <strong>de</strong>clared him<strong>the</strong>ir presi<strong>de</strong>nt . . . <strong>the</strong> end of it was that Proteus was arrested andthrown into prison. This was <strong>the</strong> very thing to lend an air, in hisfuture career, to <strong>the</strong> storytelling and notoriety he was addicted to.Well, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s took it all very seriously: he was no sooner inprison than <strong>the</strong>y began trying every means to get him out again, butwithout success. Everything else that could be done for him <strong>the</strong>ymost <strong>de</strong>voutly did. Aged widows and orphan children might be seenhanging about <strong>the</strong> prison from break of day. Their oYcials evenbribed <strong>the</strong> gaolers to let <strong>the</strong>m sleep insi<strong>de</strong> with him. Then elaboratedinners were conveyed in; <strong>the</strong>ir sacred writings were read; and ourold friend Peregrinus, as he was still called in those days, became for<strong>the</strong>m ‘<strong>the</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rn Socrates’. From some of <strong>the</strong> Asiatic cities, too, <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> communities put <strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> expense of sending<strong>de</strong>putations, with oVers of sympathy, assistance, and legal advice.The alacrity of <strong>the</strong>se people in <strong>de</strong>aling with any matter that aVects<strong>the</strong>ir community is something extraordinary: in no time <strong>the</strong>y spend<strong>the</strong>ir every penny. Peregrinus, all this time, was making quite anincome on <strong>the</strong> strength of his bondage: money came pouring in.You see, <strong>the</strong>se misgui<strong>de</strong>d creatures have convinced <strong>the</strong>mselves that<strong>the</strong>y are going to be altoge<strong>the</strong>r immortal and live for ever, whichexplains <strong>the</strong> contempt for <strong>de</strong>ath and voluntary self-<strong>de</strong>votion whichare so common among <strong>the</strong>m (par ho kai kataphronousin tou thanatoukai hekontes autous epididoasin hoi polloi)...Nowanadroit, unscrupulouscharlatan, who has seen this world, has only to get among<strong>the</strong>se simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon ma<strong>de</strong>: he plays with<strong>the</strong>m.’108Eventually Peregrinus was released from prison by <strong>the</strong> legate ofSyria and returned to Parium, but his wan<strong>de</strong>ring soon began again.‘The <strong>Christian</strong>s’, says Lucian (De Mort. Peregr. 16), ‘were meat anddrink to him; un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ir protection he lacked nothing, and thisluxurious state of things went on for some time.’ At last <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>sfound him out and excommunicated him. He <strong>the</strong>n became a108 De Morte Peregrini 11–13; I have used <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>lightful free translation of F. G.Fowler, in H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, The Works of Lucian of Samosata: Completewith Exceptions SpeciWed in <strong>the</strong> Preface, iv (Oxford, 1905), 79–95, adapting it slightly.
188 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomCynic philosopher, and at <strong>the</strong> Olympic Games of 161 announced thatat <strong>the</strong> next Games, in 165, he would immo<strong>late</strong> himself on a pyre,a promise which he actually fulWlled (Lucian, De Mort. Peregr. 1–6,20–42; Fugitivi 1–2, 7). Lucian presents him as a man dominated by apassion for notoriety and <strong>the</strong>atricality; but this, of course, is not <strong>the</strong>whole story,109 and evi<strong>de</strong>ntly <strong>the</strong> suici<strong>de</strong> of Peregrinus ma<strong>de</strong> a <strong>de</strong>epimpression at <strong>the</strong> time, as Lucian indirectly admits.110 There werethose who searched <strong>the</strong> burning remains for some precious relic <strong>the</strong>ycould carry away;111 and a venerable disciple of Peregrinus insistedthat immediately after his cremation Peregrinus had appeared to himin white raiment (De Mort. Peregr. 40). It seems merely fortuitousthat Peregrinus did not conceive his plan of self-immolation when hewas still a member of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community. If he had done so,and had chosen a suitable method of inducing <strong>the</strong> authorities to puthim to <strong>de</strong>ath, he might even have achieved a place among <strong>the</strong> saintsand martyrs of <strong>the</strong> Church.3. The distinguishing characteristic of <strong>the</strong> voluntary martyrs is apositive craving for martyrdom for its own sake. This characteristicsometimes appears in martyrs who are not known to have taken109 See M. Caster, Lucien et la pensée religieuse <strong>de</strong> son temps (Paris, 1937), 237–55,with bibliography at 396–7. I agree with Caster’s comment on p. 245 that Lucian istotally lacking in any religious feeling. [It is doubtful whe<strong>the</strong>r Lucian’s religiousfeelings can be inferred so easily from his work. As J. L. Lightfoot has recently argued,‘for all <strong>the</strong> caustic tone of <strong>the</strong> religious satire in Lucian’s . . . works, <strong>the</strong> crucialobservation is that <strong>the</strong>y are not, for <strong>the</strong> most part, up-to-<strong>the</strong>-minute responses to<strong>the</strong> changing contemporary scene, but ra<strong>the</strong>r heirs to a long tradition of comic andphilosophic satire directed against religious Xummery (not necessarily against <strong>the</strong>i<strong>de</strong>a of gods per se)’; see Lightfoot, Lucian: On <strong>the</strong> Syrian God<strong>de</strong>ss (Oxford, 2003),200. See also J. Hall, Lucian’s Satire (New York, 1981), 194–220, and C. P. Jones,Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), 33–45.]110 The suici<strong>de</strong> was copied from Indian mo<strong>de</strong>ls: see Lucian, De Morte Peregrini 25,39; Fugitivi 6–7 (Brachmanes, gymnosophistai). Two such Indian suici<strong>de</strong>s were wellknown in <strong>the</strong> West, that of Calanus at Susa in 324 bc in <strong>the</strong> presence of Alexan<strong>de</strong>r(<strong>the</strong> main sources are Arrian, Anab. 7.2–3; Strabo 15.1.68; Diodorus 17.107.1–5;Plutarch, Alex. 69), and that of Zarmanus or Zarmarus at A<strong>the</strong>ns in 25 bc in <strong>the</strong>presence of Augustus (Cassius Dio 54.9.9–10; Strabo 15.1.4; 1.73; Plutarch, Alex.69.8). [Note that Peregrinus claims <strong>the</strong> Cynic hero Heracles as his mo<strong>de</strong>l; see DeMorte Peregrini 33 and 36. On <strong>the</strong> importance of Heracles in Cynic thought seeR. Höistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King: Studies in <strong>the</strong> Cynic Conception of Man(Uppsala, 1948), 22–73.]111 Lucian, De Morte Peregrini 39. Compare <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> attention to martyrs’relics, <strong>the</strong> earliest evi<strong>de</strong>nce of which appears to be Passio Polycarpi 18.2–3.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 189active steps to realize <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>sire, although in some cases <strong>the</strong>re maybe reason to suspect that in fact <strong>the</strong>y did so. Prominent among <strong>the</strong>seis an important Wgure in <strong>the</strong> history of <strong>the</strong> early Church, who, thoughhe cannot be proved to have been a voluntary martyr, is perhaps <strong>the</strong>precursor to <strong>the</strong> whole series: Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who wasmartyred at Rome, probably between <strong>the</strong> years 110 and 125, butpossibly even as <strong>late</strong> as <strong>the</strong> 160s.In his letter to <strong>the</strong> Church of Rome, written while he was beingtaken from Antioch to <strong>the</strong> capital for execution, Ignatius displayswhat I can only call a pathological yearning for martyrdom.112 Theprospect of being given to <strong>the</strong> beasts at Rome Wlls him with intensepleasure. He <strong>de</strong>scribes himself as ‘<strong>de</strong>siring to die’ (Ep. ad Rom. 7.2),and admonishes <strong>the</strong> Roman <strong>Christian</strong>s not to try to save him. ‘I amwillingly dying for God,’ he says (Ep. ad Rom. 4–5), ‘unless youhin<strong>de</strong>r me. I urge you, do not become an untimely kindness to me.Allow me to be bread for <strong>the</strong> wild beasts; through <strong>the</strong>m I am able toattain to God. I am <strong>the</strong> wheat of God and am ground by <strong>the</strong> teeth of<strong>the</strong> wild beasts, that I may be found to be <strong>the</strong> pure bread of Christ.Ra<strong>the</strong>r, coax <strong>the</strong> wild beasts, that <strong>the</strong>y may become a tomb for meand leave no part of my body behind . . . May I have <strong>the</strong> full pleasureof <strong>the</strong> wild beasts prepared for me; I pray <strong>the</strong>y will be found ready forme. In<strong>de</strong>ed, I will coax <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>de</strong>vour me quickly. . . Fire and crossand packs of wild beasts, cuttings and being torn apart, <strong>the</strong> scatteringof bones, <strong>the</strong> mangling of limbs, <strong>the</strong> grinding of <strong>the</strong> whole body, <strong>the</strong>evil torments of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>vil—let <strong>the</strong>m come upon me, only that I mayattain to Jesus Christ.’113 We do not know <strong>the</strong> circumstances in whichIgnatius was arrested and sentenced. John Malalas (Chron. 11, p. 276)and <strong>the</strong> Antiochene Acts of Ignatius <strong>de</strong>pict him as a volunteer giving<strong>de</strong>liberate provocation;114 but <strong>the</strong>se sources are <strong>late</strong> (<strong>the</strong> AntiocheneActs are probably <strong>late</strong>r than Malalas, whose Wrst edition was112 [Note, however, that he never uses <strong>the</strong> word ‘martyr’; see Bowersock, Martyrdomand Rome, 6.]113 [Trans. B. D. Ehrmann, The Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, i (Cambridge, Mass., 2003),274–7; see also <strong>the</strong> commentary of W. R. Schoe<strong>de</strong>l, Ignatius of Antioch (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia,1985), 175–80.]114 Ed. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, 2nd edn. (London, 1889), ii.ii.477–95, 589–95.
190 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomcompleted c.530), and quite untrustworthy,115 and we cannot pay anyserious attention to <strong>the</strong>m. Any suggestion that Ignatius was a volunteer,plausible as it may seem, must remain unsupported by credibleevi<strong>de</strong>nce. However, although we cannot actually count Ignatius as avolunteer, his letter to <strong>the</strong> Romans is evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> existence in <strong>the</strong>early Church of a trend which was only too likely to lead to voluntarymartyrdom, even at times when <strong>the</strong> authorities were not muchinclined to persecute. I can Wnd no trace of any disapproval among<strong>Christian</strong>s of Ignatius’ attitu<strong>de</strong>. In<strong>de</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> curious and ra<strong>the</strong>r repellentmetaphor about being <strong>the</strong> wheat of God, to be ground into purebread by <strong>the</strong> teeth of <strong>the</strong> wild beasts, is quoted approvingly byIrenaeus in <strong>the</strong> 180s (Adv. Haeres. 5.28.4: though without attributionto Ignatius by name), and no doubt <strong>the</strong> letters of Ignatius didcircu<strong>late</strong> in <strong>the</strong> early Church,116 although, as it happens, <strong>the</strong>y arerarely quoted in <strong>the</strong> surviving literature. There seems little reason tothink that <strong>the</strong> state of mind visible in Ignatius’ letter to <strong>the</strong> Church ofRome was an iso<strong>late</strong>d phenomenon.4. I now wish to refer brieXy to one of <strong>the</strong> most remarkable of allearly <strong>Christian</strong> documents, <strong>the</strong> Passion of Perpetua and her companions,<strong>de</strong>scribed by Delehaye as ‘<strong>the</strong> masterpiece of hagiographicliterature’.117 It is in<strong>de</strong>ed an extraordinary composition. There is noattempt to use <strong>the</strong> oYcial Acta of <strong>the</strong> trial. Nearly half of <strong>the</strong> original115 See <strong>the</strong> thorough analysis of Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, 383–91 (Acts),436–7 (Malalas).116 See esp. Eusebius, HE 3.36.2–15. The evi<strong>de</strong>nce is set out and discussed at lengthin Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs, i. 135–232; P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistlesto <strong>the</strong> Philippians (Cambridge, 1936), 209 V. [C. Munier, ‘Où en est la questiond’Ignace d’Antioche? Bilan d’un siècle <strong>de</strong> recherches 1870–1988’, ANRW ii.27.1(Berlin and New York, 1993), 359–484.]117 Ed. Knopf, no. 8; Delehaye, Les Passions, 63. [See J. Amat’s edition of <strong>the</strong> PassioPerpetuae; Passion <strong>de</strong> Perpétue et <strong>de</strong> Félicité, suivi <strong>de</strong>s Actes (Sources chrétiennes 417;Paris, 1996), with <strong>the</strong> text and French trans. at 98–183. Perpetua’s Passion hasreceived much attention in recent years. See particularly Louis Robert’s classicstudy of her last vision, ‘Une vision <strong>de</strong> Perpétue martyre à Carthage en 203’, CRAI(1982), 228–76, repr. in Robert, Opera Minora Selecta: Épigraphie et AntiquitésGrecques, v (Amsterdam, 1989), 791–839. See also B. D. Shaw, ‘The Passion ofPerpetua’, Past and Present, 139 (1993), 3–45, repr. in R. Osborne (ed.), Studies inAncient Greek and Roman Society (Cambridge, 2004), 286–325; and J. Bremmer,‘Perpetua and her Diary: Au<strong>the</strong>nticity, Family and Visions’, in W. Ameling (ed.),Märtyrer und Märtyrerakten (Stuttgart, 2002), 77–120.]
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 191Latin Passion, in its complete form, consists of Perpetua’s own vividrecord of her arrest, her trial, and her experiences in prison,outstanding among which are her visions. A few more paragraphscontain <strong>the</strong> record of fur<strong>the</strong>r visions, those of Saturus, Perpetua’scatechist and fellow-martyr and a volunteer, <strong>the</strong> only one in thisgroup of martyrs (see above, p. 169). The rest of <strong>the</strong> Passion is <strong>the</strong>work of an editor who was ei<strong>the</strong>r an eyewitness to <strong>the</strong> martyrdom orobtained his material from an eyewitness; and it must havebeen composed soon after <strong>the</strong> events it re<strong>late</strong>s, which took place atCarthage in 203. It is believed by many scholars that <strong>the</strong> editor, whoshows Montanist characteristics, was no less a person than Tertullianhimself, who became a Montanist a few years after Perpetua’s martyrdom.118Recent Roman Catholic writers, however, while admittingdistinct Montanist elements in <strong>the</strong> outlook of <strong>the</strong> editor of <strong>the</strong>Passion, consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> contributions of Perpetua and Saturus <strong>the</strong>mselvessuYciently orthodox, even if <strong>the</strong>y show traces of MontanistinXuence.119 There is certainly no sign that Perpetua and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rswere in any way separated from <strong>the</strong> Catholic community in Africa.However, even if <strong>the</strong> martyrs consi<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong>mselves, and were consi<strong>de</strong>redby <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong>ir community, to be orthodox Catholic<strong>Christian</strong>s, I do not myself see how one can possibly avoid <strong>the</strong>conclusion, which has imposed itself on most scholars, that a distinctMontanist Xavour perva<strong>de</strong>s even <strong>the</strong> passages written by Perpetuaand Saturus. I <strong>the</strong>refore do not think it right to treat <strong>the</strong> Passion astruly representative of <strong>the</strong> outlook of Catholic <strong>Christian</strong>ity. Never<strong>the</strong>less,it was undoubtedly characteristic of what we might call <strong>the</strong>left wing of <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church in Africa, which a century <strong>late</strong>r was118 [Tertullian was Louis Robert’s preferred choice as author, although heconce<strong>de</strong>d that this could not be established with any certainty; see Robert, ‘Une vision<strong>de</strong> Perpétue’, 235 n. 35; against this see T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical andLiterary Study, rev. edn. (Oxford, 1985), 79–80 and 329; and R. Braun, ‘Nouvellesobservations linguistiques sur le rédacteur <strong>de</strong> la ‘‘Passio Perpetuae’’ ’, Vig. Chr. 33(1979), 105–17. Brent Shaw reckons Robert’s caution to be ‘perhaps <strong>the</strong> point...where <strong>the</strong> whole matter ought to be left’; see his ‘The Passion of Perpetua’ at 309 n. 70.]119 Delehaye, Les Origines, 63V., esp. 66–7; P. <strong>de</strong> Labriolle, La Crise montaniste(Paris, 1913), 339–53. [Barnes originally reckoned <strong>the</strong> Passion of Perpetua to be‘Montanist through and through’, but <strong>late</strong>r conce<strong>de</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> visions of Perpetuaand Saturus need to be separated from <strong>the</strong> general tone of <strong>the</strong> text; see his Tertullianat 77–9 and 329, with <strong>the</strong> review of J. Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, JTS 24 (1973), 245–9, at 248–9.]
192 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomto break away in <strong>the</strong> Donatist schism. Moreover, its great popularityshows that it ma<strong>de</strong> a very strong appeal to <strong>Christian</strong>s generally, and itseems to me representative of a signiWcant section of opinion within<strong>the</strong> Catholic Church. The most striking feature of <strong>the</strong> Passion ofPerpetua is its atmosphere of elation, or exaltation, in <strong>the</strong> face ofapproaching martyrdom. The martyrs are greedy for <strong>de</strong>ath: <strong>the</strong>yreceive with joy <strong>the</strong> sentence of execution by exposure to <strong>the</strong> beasts,hilares <strong>de</strong>scendimus ad carcerem (‘we went down to <strong>the</strong> cell joyfully’);and <strong>the</strong>y spend <strong>the</strong> interval before execution in a state of intenseexcitement and pleasurable anticipation, enhanced by comfortingvisions in which <strong>the</strong>y see <strong>the</strong>mselves play a most distinguished part.The brethren who visit <strong>the</strong>m treat <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong> very greatest respect,and <strong>the</strong>ir prayers, for <strong>the</strong> living and for <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ad, are believed to havespecial eYcacy. The act of martyrdom is everything. One of <strong>the</strong>company, Saturninus, is said to have <strong>de</strong>clared while in prison, inwords which remind us irresistibly of Ignatius, that ‘he wished hecould be thrown to all <strong>the</strong> beasts, that he might wear a more gloriouscrown’.5. When Epictetus (Diss. 4.7.6), after speaking of various classes ofmen who have no fear of tyrants (because <strong>the</strong>y wish for <strong>de</strong>ath, arenobly indiVerent to it, or are <strong>de</strong>ranged by madness or <strong>de</strong>spair), goeson to ask ‘if madness can produce this attitu<strong>de</strong> of mind toward <strong>the</strong>things which have just been mentioned, and also habit, as with <strong>the</strong>Galileans, cannot reason and <strong>de</strong>monstration teach a man that Godhas ma<strong>de</strong> all things in <strong>the</strong> universe, and <strong>the</strong> whole universe itself, tobe free from hindrance, and to contain its ends in itself, and <strong>the</strong> partsof it to serve <strong>the</strong> needs of <strong>the</strong> whole?’ He may not be referring to <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong>s at all, but ra<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong> Jewish Zealots;120 and even if he has<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in mind, he may be alluding to <strong>the</strong> steadfastness of<strong>the</strong>ir martyrs in general. However, in <strong>the</strong> Meditations of MarcusAurelius <strong>the</strong>re is a passage which suggests that <strong>the</strong> philosophic120 Thus A. Schlatter, ‘Der Märtyrer in <strong>de</strong>n Anfängen <strong>de</strong>r Kirche’, in Beitrage zurFör<strong>de</strong>rung christlicher Theologie, 19.3 (1915), 226–310, at 241 and 290–1 n. 35. [Seealso M. Hengel, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in <strong>de</strong>rZeit von Hero<strong>de</strong>s I. bis 70 n. Chr (Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1976), 60–1, trans. by D. Smith as TheZealots: Investigations into <strong>the</strong> Jewish Freedom Movement in <strong>the</strong> Period from Herod Iuntil 70 A.D. (Edinburgh, 1989), 58–9.]
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 193emperor thought <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> martyrs guilty of <strong>the</strong>atricality.121 Theaccusation was no doubt thoroughly unjust as regards <strong>the</strong> ordinarymartyrs, but some of <strong>the</strong> volunteers may well have acted in such away as to lend colour to Marcus’ criticism.6. A passage in Origen’s Contra Celsum suggests that <strong>Christian</strong>swould sometimes revile and strike a pagan image in <strong>the</strong>ir eagerness toprove it powerless to avenge such an insult (8.38). Origen, however,reproves such conduct as unseemly and not characteristic of educated<strong>Christian</strong>s (see also 8.41). Ano<strong>the</strong>r passage shows that Celsus,writing in <strong>the</strong> Antonine period,122 had accused <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s ofbeing ‘mad’ and of ‘<strong>de</strong>liberately rushing forward to arouse <strong>the</strong>wrath of an emperor or governor and bringing upon <strong>the</strong>mselvesblows and tortures and even <strong>de</strong>ath’ (Contra Celsum 8.65). OrigenXatly <strong>de</strong>nies this, but he seems to be thinking of acts of outright civildisobedience.Jewish Antece<strong>de</strong>nts of <strong>Christian</strong> MartyrdomThe literature of <strong>the</strong> Jewish resistance movement against AntiochusIV Epiphanes had immediately produced its mythical confessors(Daniel in <strong>the</strong> lions’ <strong>de</strong>n, and <strong>the</strong> three young men in <strong>the</strong> burningWery furnace: Dan. 6 and 7, of 167–165 bc) and soon it was commemoratingits martyrs, actual or mythical. At Wrst, perhaps, <strong>the</strong>ywere a nameless band: thus <strong>the</strong> author of 1 Maccabees, certainlywriting before (probably long before) <strong>the</strong> Roman conquest of Judaeain 63 bc, refers with restraint to anonymous people who chose to diera<strong>the</strong>r than eat prohibited meats (1 Macc. 1: 62–4).123 Tradition121 [11.3, trans. Farquharson: ‘How admirable is <strong>the</strong> soul which is ready andresolved, if it must this moment be released from <strong>the</strong> body, to be ei<strong>the</strong>r extinguishedor scattered or to persist. This resolve, too, must arise from a speciWc <strong>de</strong>cision, notout of sheer opposition like <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s, but after reXection and with dignity, andso as to convince o<strong>the</strong>r, without histrionic display.’ Although see P. Brunt, ‘MarcusAurelius and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature andRoman History, i (Brussels, 1979), 483–520, at 498, who argues that <strong>the</strong> reference to<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s is ‘almost certainly a gloss’.]122 I do not think it possible to be more precise than this. For <strong>the</strong> relevantevi<strong>de</strong>nce, see Chadwick, Contra Celsum, pp. xxvi–xxviii.123 Cf. Revelation, where <strong>the</strong> martyrs are exalted, but only one individual (Antipas)is casually named.
194 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomultimately retained <strong>the</strong> memory of a small company of ten ‘Maccabeanmartyrs’, <strong>the</strong> heroes of 2 and 4 Maccabees, of which <strong>the</strong> formerwas probably written in <strong>the</strong> early Wrst century bc and <strong>the</strong> latter in<strong>the</strong> Wrst half of <strong>the</strong> Wrst century ad (2 Macc. 6–7; 14: 37–46; 4 Macc.5–18).124 A gradual <strong>de</strong>velopment was also taking place in Jewishthought: most of <strong>the</strong> prophets were now credited with having beenmartyrs, or at least confessors who had suVered persecution for <strong>the</strong>irreligion, if only at <strong>the</strong> hands of <strong>the</strong>ir own people.125 The bestknown and one of <strong>the</strong> earliest attested of <strong>the</strong>se legendaryaccretions is <strong>the</strong> tradition that Isaiah was martyred by being sawnin half,126 a tradition certainly known to Justin in <strong>the</strong> 150s (Dial c.Tryph. 120), and possibly to <strong>the</strong> author of <strong>the</strong> Epistle to <strong>the</strong>Hebrews (11: 37).The notion of special rewards for those Jews who perished for <strong>the</strong>irfaith probably emerged during <strong>the</strong> Wrst century bc. 1 Maccabeesknows nothing of a future life;127 but 2 and 4 Maccabees assert aresurrection of at any rate those Israelites who die as martyrs for <strong>the</strong>irfaith.128 Eternal life with <strong>the</strong> Patriarchs,129 ‘in <strong>the</strong> bosom of Abraham’124 The standard texts are those in <strong>the</strong> editions of <strong>the</strong> Septuagint by A. Rahlfs(1935) and by H. B. Swete. For 2 Macc. see Les Livres <strong>de</strong>s Maccabées (2nd edn., 1949),a text of 1 and 2 Maccabees with French trans. and comm.; for 4 Macc. see M. Hadas,The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (1953), a text with Eng. trans. and comm.,and a good select bibliography on pp. 139–41; A. Dupon-Sommer, Le QuatrièmeLivre <strong>de</strong>s Maccabées (Bibl. <strong>de</strong> l’École <strong>de</strong>s Hautes-Étu<strong>de</strong>s, 274; 1939), a French trans.and comm.; O. Perler, ‘Das vierte Makkabäerbuch, Ignat. v. Antiochen und dieältesten Martyrerberichte’, Riv. di archeol. crist. 25 (1949), 47–72. See also H. W.Surkau, Martyrium im jüdischer und frühchristlicher Zeit (1938).125 See H. A. Fischel, ‘Martyr and Prophet (a Study of Jewish Literature)’, JewishQuarterly Review, ns 37.3 (1947), 265–80, and 37.4 (1947), 363–86, 279–80.126 See R. H. Charles, Apoc. and Pseu<strong>de</strong>p. of <strong>the</strong> OT (1913), ii. 155–8, with an Eng.trans. of (and notes upon) <strong>the</strong> Martyrdom of Isaiah, pp. 159–62; The Ascension ofIsaiah (1919).127 ‘All <strong>the</strong> rewards of faithfulness enumerated by <strong>the</strong> dying Mattathias (ii 52–61)are limited to this life’: see R. H. Charles, A Critical History of <strong>the</strong> Doctrine of a FutureLife in Israel, in Judaism, and in <strong>Christian</strong>ity (2nd edn., 1913), 266.128 2 Macc. 7: 9, 14, 23, 29, 36; 12: 44; 14: 46; 4 Macc. 5: 37; 7: 18–19; 13: 17; 15: 3;16: 25; 17: 5, 12, 18; 18: 23. I cannot agree with Charles, Critical History, 275 etc., that2 Maccabees actually presents all <strong>the</strong> righteous as sharing in <strong>the</strong> resurrection; butthree passages in 4 Macc. (5: 37; 13: 17; 18: 23) do conce<strong>de</strong> immortality to <strong>the</strong>forefa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> martyrs (in this work <strong>the</strong>re is no reference to a resurrection of <strong>the</strong>body, as in e.g. 2 Macc. 7: 11; 14: 46).129 4 Macc. 13: 17; cf. 7: 19; 16: 25.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 195to use <strong>the</strong> New Testament phrase,130 is <strong>the</strong> particular privilege of <strong>the</strong>martyrs. ‘Men dying for God’, says <strong>the</strong> author of 4 Maccabees, ‘liveunto God as live Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all <strong>the</strong> Patriarchs’(16: 25; cf. 7: 19);131 <strong>the</strong> martyrs ‘stand besi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> throneof God’ (4 Macc. 17: 18). So in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Apocalypse <strong>the</strong> soulsof <strong>the</strong> martyrs are ‘un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> altar’ (Rev. 6: 9), which is ‘before God’(Rev. 9: 13); <strong>the</strong>y are ‘before <strong>the</strong> throne of God’ (Rev. 7: 15) and<strong>the</strong>y alone have part in <strong>the</strong> First Resurrection, living andreigning with Christ for a thousand years (Rev. 20: 4–6). The earlyChurch saw <strong>the</strong> martyrs as assessors in <strong>the</strong> divine judgement,132and believed that <strong>the</strong>ir ‘baptism of blood’ had wiped away all<strong>the</strong>ir sins,133—even <strong>the</strong> sins of those who, as mere catechumens,had not yet received baptism in <strong>the</strong> ordinary way (Hippol. Apost.Trad. 19.2).The Church saw itself from <strong>the</strong> Wrst as a new ‘Israel of God’,134 aconception which <strong>the</strong> disastrous failure of <strong>the</strong> Jewish revolt and <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>struction of <strong>the</strong> Temple in ad 70 could only streng<strong>the</strong>n.135 Part ofits inheritance from <strong>the</strong> ‘Israel of <strong>the</strong> Xesh’ was <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> towardsmartyrdom, and even some actual martyrs with <strong>the</strong>ir stories. TheMaccabean martyrs, strangely neglected by <strong>the</strong> Pharisaic movement,136were enthusiastically adopted, so that by <strong>the</strong> fourth century130 Luke 16: 22–3. Is it fanciful to Wnd an echo of <strong>the</strong> Eleazer of 2 and 4 Maccabeesin <strong>the</strong> name Lazarus, a colloquial form of Eleazar, given to <strong>the</strong> only character in anyparable of Jesus who receives a name, and who goes to a blessed future life ‘in <strong>the</strong>bosom of Abraham’?131 So in Tacitus, Hist. 5.5 animos proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum aeternosputant [Judaei].132 Hippolytus, Comm. in Dan. 2.37; Dionys. Alex. ap. Eusebius, HE 6.42.5; ando<strong>the</strong>r passages cited by H. Delehaye, Les Origines, 4 n. 6.133 For <strong>the</strong> earliest evi<strong>de</strong>nce on this subject, see H. Windisch, Taufe und Sün<strong>de</strong> imältesten Christentum bis auf Origenes (1908), 414–15, 423, 435, 481–3.134 In <strong>the</strong> NT, see esp. Gal. 6: 16; 3: 7, 9, 29; Rom. 9: 6–8; cf. Eph. 2: 11–13; Phil. 3:3. See also 1 Clem. 29; Justin, C. Tryph. 123, 135, 119–20; Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 4.8.1;5.32.3, 34.1; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.6.28.4; 29.1. I have not been able to gainaccess to A. Oepke, Das neue Gottesvolk, im Schrifttum, Schauspiel, bil<strong>de</strong>n<strong>de</strong>r Kunstund Weltgestaltung.135 See H. J. Schoeps, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit (1950), 153–67.136 It is true that <strong>the</strong> Pharisaic movement became thoroughly alienated from <strong>the</strong>Hasmonaean ruling house from <strong>the</strong> time of John Hyrcanus, towards <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong>2nd cent. bc (see Jos. AJ 13.10.5–6, §§ 288–98); but that is no reason why <strong>the</strong>Maccabean martyrs gloriWed in 2 and 4 Maccabees should have fallen out of favour,
196 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>the</strong>ir cult had spread in a remarkable manner;137 numerous panegyricsin honour of <strong>the</strong>se martyrs—inspired, apparently, by 4 ra<strong>the</strong>rthan 2 Maccabees—were pronounced by <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong>Church.138 John Chrysostom could call Eleazar ‘<strong>the</strong> Wrst martyr of<strong>the</strong> old dispensation, <strong>the</strong> image of Peter <strong>the</strong> chief of <strong>the</strong> apostles’.Many individual elements in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> conception and storiesof martyrs were taken over directly from Judaism, with 2 and 4Maccabees as <strong>the</strong> main source; <strong>the</strong>se works were known in <strong>the</strong> earlyChurch,139 including <strong>the</strong> churches of Smyrna and of Vienne andLyons, from which emanated <strong>the</strong> best known of our earliest survivingPassions, those of Polycarp and of <strong>the</strong> Gallic martyrs of ad 177.140Prominent among <strong>the</strong>se inXuences is <strong>the</strong> habitual use of <strong>the</strong> terminologyof Greek athletic games, and in particular of <strong>the</strong> word athletesas a characteristic <strong>de</strong>signation of <strong>the</strong> martyr or confessor: this we Wndin 4 Maccabees (6: 10; 17: 15–16, cf. 12–13).141 To compare <strong>the</strong>struggle for virtue with <strong>the</strong> games, employing metaphors and similesdrawn from <strong>the</strong> stadium and gymnasium, is of course a Stoic practice,adopted also by Philo;142 but it seems likely that it took rootespecially as <strong>the</strong> author of 2 Maccabees seems himself to have been a Pharisee, and <strong>the</strong>author of 4 Maccabees is not in <strong>the</strong> least interested in <strong>the</strong> political resistancemovement led by <strong>the</strong> Hasmonaeans (which he never mentions) but in <strong>the</strong> purelyreligious victims only. The explanation, I think, must be that in <strong>the</strong> absence of actualcults of <strong>the</strong> martyrs, discouraged by oYcial Judaism, interest in particular martyrswould not be likely to remain alive unless <strong>the</strong>ir teaching, as prophets or Rabbis, hadbeen preserved.137 See Delehaye, Les Origines, 201–2; M. Maas, ‘Die Maccabäer als christlicheHeilige’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wiss. D. Ju<strong>de</strong>ntums, 44 (1900), 145–56;J. Jeremias, ‘Die Makkabäer-Kirche in Antiochia’, Zeitschrift d. neutest. Wiss. 40(1942), 254 V.138 The principal texts are Greg. Naz. Or. 15, in Machab. Laud.; John Chrysostom,Hom. in SS. Maccab. I and II (PG 50.617–28); Hom. 11, <strong>de</strong> Eleaz. (PG 53.523–30);Ambrose, De Jacob et vit. Beat. 2.10.43–12.58; Augustine, Serm. 300, 301 (PL 38.1376–93). Razis very rarely appears, but see Augustine, C. Gau<strong>de</strong>nt. 1.31, 38, and Ep. 204.6–8, where he does not escape reproof for his suici<strong>de</strong> (his <strong>de</strong>ath is <strong>de</strong>scribed asmirabilior quam pru<strong>de</strong>ntior, ‘more marvellous than sensible’).139 For Clement, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian, see E. Schürer, Geschichte <strong>de</strong>sjuud. Volkes, iii (4th edn., 1909); O Machabaeicam matrem in Pass. Montan. Et Luc16.4 (¼ Musurillo, ACM, p. 230) presupposes an audience familiar with 2 or 4Maccabees.140 Perler, ‘Das vierter Makkabäerbuch’.141 There are an astonishing number of o<strong>the</strong>r metaphors drawn from <strong>the</strong> games:see 4 Macc. 9: 23, 11: 20, 13: 14, 16: 16, 17: 11–16.142 Philo, Quod Omn. Pro. Lib.88;De Migrat. Abr.27;De Sobrietat.65;De Somniis 1.59.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 197among <strong>Christian</strong> writers primarily because of <strong>the</strong> exten<strong>de</strong>d use ma<strong>de</strong>of it by <strong>the</strong> author of 4 Maccabees. Among o<strong>the</strong>r elements which<strong>Christian</strong> Passions seem to have borrowed from Judaism are <strong>the</strong>attribution of prophetic and o<strong>the</strong>r visions to <strong>the</strong> martyr beforeexecution;143 <strong>the</strong> miraculous invulnerability or temporary preservationof <strong>the</strong> martyr;144 <strong>the</strong> admiration excited by <strong>the</strong> martyr in hisguards and executioners, who are sometimes converted, even to <strong>the</strong>extent of <strong>de</strong>ciding to die with him;145 <strong>the</strong> angelic radiance of <strong>the</strong> faceof <strong>the</strong> martyr when <strong>de</strong>ath approaches;146 <strong>the</strong> prodigies which oftenaccompanied a martyrdom, including on occasion <strong>the</strong> sud<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>athof <strong>the</strong> persecutor concerned.147The impact of Judaism on <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s inclu<strong>de</strong>d examplesof volunteers for martyrdom. The inci<strong>de</strong>nt about which we are bestinformed occurred early in 4 bc, shortly before <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Herod,and is sympa<strong>the</strong>tically narrated by Josephus (BJ 1.33.2–4, §§ 648–55;AJ 17.6.2–4, §§ 149–64). Two rabbis named Judas and Matthiassuccessfully urged <strong>the</strong>ir disciples to cut down <strong>the</strong> gol<strong>de</strong>n eaglewhich Herod had set up over <strong>the</strong> great gate of <strong>the</strong> Temple at Jerusalem.Some forty of <strong>the</strong>se fanatics were arrested immediately, and <strong>the</strong>ywere all put to <strong>de</strong>ath on Herod’s or<strong>de</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong> two rabbis and <strong>the</strong> manwho had actually pulled down <strong>the</strong> eagle being burnt alive. Eventuallyit became necessary for <strong>the</strong> lea<strong>de</strong>rs of Judaism to check voluntarymartyrdom, because of <strong>the</strong> dangers to Jewish communities byinXaming opinion: giving oneself up to persecutors was authoritativelycon<strong>de</strong>mned.148 A council of rabbis held at Lydda during <strong>the</strong>second great Jewish revolt against <strong>the</strong> Romans in ad 132–5 <strong>de</strong>claredthat a Jew might yield to any compulsion except to commit idolatry,incest, or mur<strong>de</strong>r to save his life.149 Islam also con<strong>de</strong>mned voluntarymartyrdom, which was never<strong>the</strong>less practised from time to time by143 In one or two of <strong>the</strong>se cases it is just possible that <strong>the</strong> borrowing was byJudaism from <strong>Christian</strong>ity. See Fischel, ‘Martyr and Prophet’, 364–71.144 Ibid. 376–7.145 Ibid. 267, 279.146 Ibid. 381–4.147 Ibid. 377–9.148 See J. H. Greenstone, ‘Martyrdom, Restriction of’, in Jewish Encyclopaedia, viii(1904); G. F. Moore, Judaism in <strong>the</strong> First Centuries of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Era (1927), ii. 106n. 4, 107–8; Fischel, ‘Martyr and Prophet’, 268.149 See Moore, Judaism in <strong>the</strong> First Centuries, 30, 106–7.
198 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomfanatics and sectarians,150 areXection of <strong>the</strong> shared heritage andsimilar pressures on <strong>the</strong>se three religions.ConclusionsI believe that I have produced suYcient evi<strong>de</strong>nce to prove that fromat least <strong>the</strong> Antonine period onwards voluntary martyrdom was verymuch more prevalent in <strong>the</strong> early Church than has hi<strong>the</strong>rto beenrealized. It was not a peculiarity of heretics and schismatics, evenif some members of schismatic or heretical sects—Donatists andperhaps Montanists, for example—indulged in it more than <strong>the</strong>orthodox. The main reason for <strong>the</strong> oYcial con<strong>de</strong>mnation of <strong>the</strong>practice, stated with peculiar clarity by Ambrose, was that it mightwell bring down a persecution upon <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> community. As Isaid at <strong>the</strong> beginning of this paper, <strong>the</strong> prevalence of voluntarymartyrdom must have contributed towards <strong>the</strong> outbreak of persecutionand ten<strong>de</strong>d to intensify it when it already existed.But I should like to go fur<strong>the</strong>r than that. The evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>Christian</strong>voluntary martyrdom begins in <strong>the</strong> Antonine period. I wish tosuggest, with all <strong>the</strong> reserve necessitated by <strong>the</strong> lack of evi<strong>de</strong>nce, thatin fact <strong>the</strong> practice probably began very much earlier, and that <strong>the</strong>reason why we do not hear of it before about 150 is that we have toolittle evi<strong>de</strong>nce for any sort of persecution or martyrdom or in<strong>de</strong>edabout <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> Church in general—before <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> secondcentury. Here <strong>the</strong> Jewish background and literature of martyrdom ismaterial. The new ‘Israel of God’ could not have been unaware of <strong>the</strong>Jewish attitu<strong>de</strong> to martyrdom, and it very quickly ma<strong>de</strong> up its mind(as we can see from <strong>the</strong> New Testament) that it too would have to beprepared to suVer persecution. Many <strong>Christian</strong>s must have read andtaken to heart <strong>the</strong> stories of <strong>the</strong> Maccabean martyrs, so much more<strong>de</strong>tailed, concrete, and vivid than <strong>the</strong> vague ‘noble army of martyrs’,‘nameless martyrs’, in Revelations. It is hardly possible to doubt thatIgnatius had read 4 Maccabees, and <strong>the</strong>re is good reason to thinkthat <strong>the</strong> book became wi<strong>de</strong>ly known in <strong>the</strong> Church in <strong>the</strong> second150 See I. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, ii (Halle, 1890), 388–91 [trans.C. R. Barber and S. M. <strong>Ste</strong>rn, Muslim Studies ii, ed. S. M. <strong>Ste</strong>rn (London, 1971),351–4]; F. DornseiV, Archiv für Religionswiss. 22 (1923–4), 151–3.
Voluntary Martyrdom in <strong>the</strong> Early Church 199century.151 Would not many an emotional convert be likely to bepowerfully aVected and react in <strong>the</strong> same way as Ignatius? Thatfamous martyr, if not actually a volunteer, was of <strong>the</strong> very stuV ofwhich voluntary martyrs were ma<strong>de</strong>. As we have seen, his letter to <strong>the</strong>Roman Church shows him as <strong>de</strong>voured by a passionate <strong>de</strong>sire formartyrdom, erōn tou apothanein. Would not rewarding his lettertend to inspire in o<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> faithful something of his own longingfor martyrdom? And a <strong>Christian</strong> who <strong>de</strong>sired martyrdom intenselyenough could easily Wnd it: even before <strong>the</strong> mere nomen <strong>Christian</strong>umbecame a suYcient ground for con<strong>de</strong>mnation, he had only to oVerpublic insult to a pagan image or an oYcial cult (<strong>the</strong> imperial cult inparticular) to be instantly apprehen<strong>de</strong>d and—unless <strong>the</strong> magistrateconcerned happened to take an unusually lenient view of <strong>the</strong> case—sentenced to <strong>de</strong>ath. I would claim that since voluntary martyrdomwas evi<strong>de</strong>ntly practised quite extensively from at least <strong>the</strong> reign ofMarcus Aurelius onwards, and since <strong>the</strong> conditions for its existence(particularly <strong>the</strong> characteristic mentality, found in Ignatius, and aliterature glorifying martyrdom and <strong>de</strong>scribing individual examples151 [The date of 4 Maccabees has been much discussed, and is now most commonlyassigned to around ad 100, although certainty is impossible (<strong>the</strong> books of <strong>the</strong>Maccabees are Wrst mentioned in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 2nd cent., in Clement of Alexandria’sStromata, 5.14.97). <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> may well have been following Elias Bickerman’s datingof ad 19–54; ‘The Date of Fourth Maccabees’, in Louis Ginsberg Jubilee Volume (NewYork, 1945), 105–12, repr. in Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and <strong>Christian</strong> History, i(Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1976), 275–81. The date of Ignatius’ letters is equally uncertain; Eusebiusdates Ignatius’ <strong>de</strong>ath to ad 107, and his letters are generally assigned to <strong>the</strong> early 2ndcent.; see <strong>the</strong> recent discussions of R. M. Hübner, ‘Thesen zur Ech<strong>the</strong>it und Datierung<strong>de</strong>r sieben Briefe <strong>de</strong>s Ignatius von Antiochen’, ZAC 1 (1997), 44–72 with <strong>the</strong>responses of G. Schöllgen, ‘Die Ignatien als pseu<strong>de</strong>pigraphisches Briefcorpus: Anmerkungzu <strong>de</strong>n Thesen von Reinhard M. Hübner’, ZAC 2 (1998), 16–25 and H. J. Vogt,‘Bemerkungen zur Ech<strong>the</strong>it <strong>de</strong>r Ignatiusbriefe’, ZAC 3 (1999), 50–63 (with a fur<strong>the</strong>rresponse by Hübner to come). Similarities between Ignatius and 4 Maccabees should,perhaps, be explained in terms of shared concerns ra<strong>the</strong>r than direct authorialinXuence; see fur<strong>the</strong>r J. W. Van Henten, ‘The Martyrs as Heroes of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>People: Some Remarks on <strong>the</strong> Continuity between Jewish and <strong>Christian</strong> Martyrology,with Pagan Analogies’, in M. Lamberigts and P. Van Deun (eds.), Martyrium inMultidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reekmans (Biblio<strong>the</strong>ca EphemeridumTheologicarum Lovaniensium 117; Leuven, 1995), 303–22; D. Boyarin, Dying for God:Martyrdom and <strong>the</strong> Making of <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Judaism (Stanford, 1999), 115–17. Seealso Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome, 77–81, at 79, who argues that ‘<strong>the</strong> language ofIgnatius and IV Macc. seems clearly to reXect . . . a common origin for both in <strong>the</strong>imperial Greek of Asia Minor.’]
200 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomof it in an emotionally disturbing manner) were equally prevalent in<strong>the</strong> earlier period, from which we could hardly expect any evi<strong>de</strong>nceanyway, we can conclu<strong>de</strong> that <strong>the</strong>re may have been quite a number ofvolunteers in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Wrst and early second centuries.If that were so, it would be much easier to un<strong>de</strong>rstand whypersecution originally became rooted and why <strong>the</strong> mere nomen<strong>Christian</strong>um became punishable. I have <strong>de</strong>alt in a separate paperwith <strong>the</strong> causes and legal basis of <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>Christian</strong>ity,152and all I need do here is to say that in my opinion <strong>the</strong> principal causeof persecution was religious: a fear that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s, by <strong>the</strong>ir‘a<strong>the</strong>ism’ or refusal to recognize <strong>the</strong> Roman gods, would <strong>de</strong>stroy<strong>the</strong> pax <strong>de</strong>orum and bring down <strong>the</strong> anger of <strong>the</strong> gods on <strong>the</strong> wholecommunity, local or imperial. How much more easily would <strong>the</strong>irpagan contemporaries jump to this conclusion if a number of <strong>Christian</strong>swent out of <strong>the</strong>ir way to insult <strong>the</strong> gods <strong>de</strong>liberately, <strong>the</strong>rebyshowing that <strong>the</strong>ir ‘a<strong>the</strong>ism’ was more than a mere withdrawal from<strong>the</strong> worship to which <strong>the</strong> gods were traditionally entitled.152 See Ch. 3.
5Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> in <strong>the</strong> LaterRoman EmpireMy purpose in this chapter is essentially to explain why and how <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Church—or ra<strong>the</strong>r churches—became during <strong>the</strong> fourthand following centuries, and remained for more than a millenniumand a half, <strong>the</strong> greatest organized persecuting force in human history.I shall argue that we can un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong> origin of this situation farbetter if we consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Wrstthree centuries and <strong>the</strong> early years of <strong>the</strong> fourth, as well as persecutionby <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s from <strong>the</strong> fourth century onwards. We can learnsomething about each kind by studying <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r: <strong>the</strong>re are importantelements of continuity between <strong>the</strong> two periods, although <strong>the</strong>reare also some entirely new and important features in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>period. Unfortunately, it seems virtually unknown for a mo<strong>de</strong>rnscholar to treat both types of persecution toge<strong>the</strong>r;1 in<strong>de</strong>ed, as faras I know, <strong>the</strong> only work of any kind that does try to do this is still avery brief article of my own.2 For <strong>Christian</strong>s, naturally, all <strong>the</strong>emphasis tends to be placed upon <strong>the</strong> persecutions of <strong>Christian</strong>ity;<strong>the</strong> much more extensive, long-lasting, and often successful persecutionsby <strong>Christian</strong>s, of pagans, Jews, Manichees, and <strong>Christian</strong> sectso<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong>ir own, are easily overlooked. It is not uncharacteristicthat <strong>the</strong> usually very scholarly and reliable Oxford Dictionary of <strong>the</strong>1 When I wished to do this some years ago, for a paper presented to <strong>the</strong> InternationalColloquium on Ecclesiastical History held at Oxford in 1974, I could Wnd nopublished work of any value on <strong>the</strong>se lines in any of <strong>the</strong> few languages I can read.2 ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity’s Encounter with <strong>the</strong> Roman Imperial Government’, in A. Toynbee(ed.), The Crucible of <strong>Christian</strong>ity: Judaism, Hellenism and <strong>the</strong> Historical Backgroundto <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Faith (London, 1969), 345–51, with bibliography at 357.
202 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>Christian</strong> Church should be most ina<strong>de</strong>quate in its second edition(1974) and scarcely better in its third (1997) in <strong>de</strong>aling with persecutionsin antiquity by <strong>Christian</strong>s.3Before I go any fur<strong>the</strong>r I should say that although <strong>the</strong> term ‘<strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Church’ in <strong>the</strong> singular is a perfectly permissible <strong>the</strong>ologicalexpression, referring to an i<strong>de</strong>al situation which could be contemp<strong>late</strong>din <strong>the</strong> abstract, <strong>the</strong> historian, as distinct from <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologian, isusually obliged to employ <strong>the</strong> plural and speak of ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>churches’; for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologian’s i<strong>de</strong>al of a single Church, sometimesreferred to in a mystical sense as ‘<strong>the</strong> Body of Christ’, never came nearto being realized in practice, even in Apostolic times and far lesswhen <strong>Christian</strong>ity became <strong>the</strong> established religion of <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire. The expression ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church’, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>de</strong>notesstrictly a <strong>the</strong>ological and not a historical concept.4 But <strong>the</strong> term is tooconvenient to be entirely abandoned, especially for <strong>the</strong> fourthcentury onwards when <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s formed, for all <strong>the</strong>ir divisions,<strong>the</strong> one and only important empire-wi<strong>de</strong> organization, or series oforganizations, apart from <strong>the</strong> State itself.5Although we must draw a distinction between persecutions of<strong>Christian</strong>s and persecutions by <strong>Christian</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>re is (as I have alreadyindicated) an important similarity between <strong>the</strong>m. Both were carriedout by a Roman state which un<strong>de</strong>rwent far less change after it hadbecome <strong>Christian</strong> than many ecclesiastical historians believe, whichmakes it all <strong>the</strong> more strange that so few mo<strong>de</strong>rn writers have paidany attention to continuities between pagan and <strong>Christian</strong> persecutors.This continuity resi<strong>de</strong>d above all in a <strong>de</strong>ep-seated belief in <strong>the</strong>3 Although <strong>the</strong> entry ‘<strong>Persecution</strong>s, early <strong>Christian</strong>’ in <strong>the</strong> third edition notes thatfrom Theodosius I onwards <strong>the</strong> State coerced pagans into conversion ‘with morefervour and success than it had shown in suppressing <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, it is still overwhelminglyfocused on persecutions of <strong>Christian</strong>s. Un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> entry ‘toleration,religious’, <strong>the</strong>re is a short reference to ‘<strong>the</strong> increasingly close connection betweenecclesiastical authority and civil power’ after <strong>the</strong> conversion of Constantine, but <strong>the</strong>main focus is on <strong>the</strong> post-Reformation period.4 [See Introduction, pp. 31–2.]5 I am sometimes tempted to compare <strong>the</strong>se, in a strictly functional sense, to whatPresi<strong>de</strong>nt Eisenhower called ‘<strong>the</strong> military-industrial complex’ in <strong>the</strong> United States.[See also <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, The Class Struggle in <strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World: From <strong>the</strong> ArchaicAge to <strong>the</strong> Arab Conquests (1981; corr. imprint, London, 1983), 420. In an interviewpublished in 1988 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> explained this analogy by remarking that <strong>the</strong> earlyChurch ‘was almost a rival to <strong>the</strong> government’; see ‘The Ancient World Today’,Horos, 6 (1988), 123–33, at 130.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 203necessity (to which I shall return shortly) to preserve <strong>the</strong> goodwilland favour of <strong>the</strong> gods, or of God: <strong>the</strong> pagans sometimes called this<strong>the</strong> ‘pax <strong>de</strong>orum’. Accordingly, <strong>the</strong> central characteristic of paganpersecutions of <strong>Christian</strong>s is that <strong>the</strong>y procee<strong>de</strong>d essentially fromreligious motives, and I would argue that <strong>the</strong>re is good evi<strong>de</strong>nce that<strong>the</strong> persecutions by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were, to a consi<strong>de</strong>rable <strong>de</strong>gree,similarly motivated.6 The traditional religions of Rome, enshrinedabove all in what a Roman like Cicero would call ius divinum, <strong>the</strong>corpus of State law governing sacred matters, was for a member of<strong>the</strong> Roman governing class one of <strong>the</strong> very foundations of <strong>the</strong> RomanState, <strong>the</strong> fundamenta . . . nostrae civitatis to use Cotta’s phrase in DeNatura Deorum (3.2.5).7 It was, of course, primarily a matter ofperforming certain prescribed cult acts, and it involved scarcelyanything in <strong>the</strong> way of belief, except in <strong>the</strong> eYcacy of those cultacts.8 It was also completely tolerant of, and in<strong>de</strong>ed would protect,Greek and o<strong>the</strong>r non-Roman cults,9 even if <strong>the</strong>y had not beenadmitted among <strong>the</strong> oYcial sacra populi Romani [‘sacred things of<strong>the</strong> Roman people’], unless <strong>the</strong>y gave rise to behaviour <strong>the</strong> Romangovernment consi<strong>de</strong>red criminal, scandalous, or excessive.106 [<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> justiWes <strong>the</strong> category ‘religious persecution’ in ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early<strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?’ (above, pp. 138–40): even <strong>the</strong> governing classes, he argues,‘were impelled to persecute . . . by motives I think we are justiWed in calling religious,in that <strong>the</strong>ir aim also was always primarily to break down <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> refusal toworship <strong>the</strong> pagan gods’. Note, however, that <strong>the</strong> distinction between religion andpolitics in <strong>the</strong> ancient world has been called into question; see esp. S. R. F. Price,Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 15–19;J. A. North, ‘Religion and Politics, from Republic to Principate’, JRS 76 (1986), 251–8,esp. 257.]7 See <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘The Religion of <strong>the</strong> Roman World’, Didaskalos, 4 (1972), 61–74;also ‘Why were <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong>s Persecuted?’ [above, Ch. 3, pp. 141–3].8 See Introduction.9 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Religion’, 67 cites Minucius Felix, Octav. 6.3 and Arrian, Tact.33.4 V., to which might be ad<strong>de</strong>d Cic. II Verr. 4.113–15; Jos. AJ 19.5.278–91. [It isprobably an overstatement to suggest that <strong>the</strong> Romans felt a commitment to tolerateand protect indigenous forms of worship. On <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>the</strong>y felt no need to suppress<strong>the</strong>m. See Appendix to this chapter on toleration.]10 [Certainly accusations of immorality or criminal behaviour often accompanied<strong>the</strong> suppression of non-Roman religious groups, and <strong>Christian</strong> apologists regularlyfelt <strong>the</strong> need to counter such charges: see, for example, Tertullian, Apol. 2.5, 2.19–20,4.2; Minucius Felix, Octav. 9–10, 28. However, suppression could occur withoutimmoral behaviour or criminal activities speciWed—for instance, nei<strong>the</strong>r Tacitus(Annals 2.85) nor Suetonius (Tiberius 36) suggests that Tiberius’ expulsion of <strong>the</strong>
204 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomWith <strong>the</strong> conversion of Constantine in 312, <strong>Christian</strong>ity became<strong>the</strong> most favoured religion of <strong>the</strong> empire,11 and well before his <strong>de</strong>athin 337 it had become <strong>the</strong> main oYcial religion.12 Before <strong>the</strong> end of<strong>the</strong> fourth century all forms of paganism and all <strong>Christian</strong> sectsexcept <strong>the</strong> Catholic one, by now accepted as Nicene, had beenproscribed and were persecuted in one way or ano<strong>the</strong>r.13 Moreover,<strong>Christian</strong>s generally shared <strong>the</strong> outlook of <strong>the</strong>ir pagan contemporariesto <strong>the</strong> extent of feeling that religious misbehaviour of individualsmight bring down punishment not merely upon <strong>the</strong> individualsconcerned but upon at least <strong>the</strong>ir immediate communities an<strong>de</strong>ven perhaps <strong>the</strong> empire as a whole—especially its rulers. Hence<strong>the</strong> numerous persecuting edicts against heretics, schismatics, Manichees,Jews, Samaritans, and pagans—and to quote a pompousimperial constitution of 423, ‘all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs whose sects it disgustsus to insert in our most pious sanction, all of which have diVerentnames but a single perWdy’ (Cod. Theod. 16.5.60).14 The evi<strong>de</strong>nceJews and Egyptian rites from Rome was a response to immoral or criminal activity.Moreover, whe<strong>the</strong>r immoral behaviour or criminal activity was <strong>the</strong> reason for <strong>the</strong>suppression of non-Roman religious groups is fur<strong>the</strong>r complicated by <strong>the</strong> rhetoricaluse of immorality in polemic. Above all, Roman suppression of non-Roman religiousgroups lacks any clear structure. While at times it seems to have been in response toperceived immorality, at o<strong>the</strong>rs it seems more like a show of power justiWed as aresponse to immorality, as in <strong>the</strong> suppression of <strong>the</strong> Bacchic cult in 186 bc, on whichsee J. A. North’s important study, ‘Religious Toleration in Republican Rome’, PCPS 25(1979), 85–103, repr. in C. Ando (ed.), Roman Religion (Edinburgh, 2003), 199–219.See also M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome,i:A History (Cambridge,1998), 211–44.]11 T. D. Barnes, ‘The Conversion of Constantine’, Échos du Mon<strong>de</strong> Classique, 4(1985), 371–91 [repr. in Barnes, From Eusebius to Augustine (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1994); seealso R. Lane Fox, Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s (Harmondsworth, 1986), 609–62; Beard etal., Religions of Rome, 364–88].12 [Although note that this process was uneven, varying across diVerent parts of<strong>the</strong> empire; see now T. D. Barnes, ‘From Toleration to Repression: The Evolution ofConstantine’s Religious Policies’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 21 (2002), 189–207, esp.200–5.]13 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Class Struggle, 396–405, 419–41, 445–52, 477, 481, 483–4, 495–7;K. L. Noethlichs, Die gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen <strong>de</strong>r christlichen Kaiser <strong>de</strong>s viertenJahrhun<strong>de</strong>rts gegen Häretiker, Hei<strong>de</strong>n und Ju<strong>de</strong>n (Ph.D. diss., Cologne, 1971). Fortranslations of many key texts, see P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman State and <strong>Christian</strong>Church: A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535 (London, 1966).14 [Note <strong>the</strong> comments of T. Honoré, who sees Sallustius, <strong>the</strong> quaestor drafting <strong>the</strong>law, as less i<strong>de</strong>ologically driven than does <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, and interprets <strong>the</strong> formulaquorum sectas sanctioni tae<strong>de</strong>t inserere as a complaint that ‘listing <strong>the</strong> names of
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 205extends from <strong>the</strong> earliest <strong>Christian</strong> times well into <strong>the</strong> Later Empire;<strong>the</strong>re is far too much to quote in bulk and I shall merely select eightrepresentative examples, from <strong>the</strong> Wrst to <strong>the</strong> sixth century.1. Old Polycarp, who was said to have known <strong>the</strong> Apostlespersonally, used to tell a story, which is reported both by Irenaeus(Adversus Haereses 3.3.4) and twice by Eusebius (HE 3.28.6; 4.14.6),of how <strong>the</strong> Apostle John when entering <strong>the</strong> baths at Ephesus caughtsight of <strong>the</strong> notable heretic Cerinthus insi<strong>de</strong> and immediately rushedout shouting, ‘away, lest <strong>the</strong> very baths collapse, for within isCerinthus <strong>the</strong> enemy of <strong>the</strong> truth.’ Even to remain un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> sameroof as such a man was dangerous.152. In <strong>the</strong> mid-third century Demetrianus, a pagan, attributed to<strong>the</strong> impiety of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s <strong>the</strong> plagues, wars, famines, and droughtswhich were <strong>the</strong>n aZicting <strong>the</strong> empire. St Cyprian, in his reply toDemetrianus, also accepted <strong>the</strong>se tribulations as a divine punishment,but of course attributed <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>the</strong> pagans to worship<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> God (Ad Demetrianum 1.5, 7–10, etc.).15 a3. The emperor Constantine aVords numerous examples of <strong>the</strong>attitu<strong>de</strong> I am <strong>de</strong>scribing.16 During <strong>the</strong> winter of 313–14, he wrote aheretical sects is boring’; see his Law in <strong>the</strong> Crisis of Empire: The Theodosian Co<strong>de</strong> andits Quaestors (Oxford, 1998), 109–10. Moreover, whe<strong>the</strong>r this imperial constitution isespecially pompous—at least any more than o<strong>the</strong>r imperial constitutions—is questionable,and attention should be drawn to <strong>the</strong> legitimating function of such language;see W. E. Voss, Recht und Rhetorik in <strong>de</strong>n Kaisergesetzen <strong>de</strong>r Spätantike: EineUntersuchung zum nachklassischen Kauf-und Übereignungsrecht (Frankfurt, 1982);and J. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999), 56–77. None<strong>the</strong>less,this wording <strong>de</strong>monstrates <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s hostility to <strong>late</strong> antique religiouslegislation.]15 The veracity of this anecdote has sometimes been doubted, but to my mind itbecomes much more easily acceptable when we take into account <strong>the</strong> fourth item inmy selection.15 a See <strong>the</strong> recent French edition, with translation and commentary, by J.-C.Fredoville, À Démétrien (Sources Chrétiennes 467; Paris, 2003).16 Most of <strong>the</strong> texts have been admirably <strong>de</strong>alt with by N. H. Baynes, A. H. M.Jones, and T. D. Barnes; see Baynes, Constantine <strong>the</strong> Great and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church,2nd edn., ed. H. Chadwick (London, 1972), esp. 10–14; Jones, Constantine and <strong>the</strong>Conversion of Europe (London, 1948), 80–3, and The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: ASocial, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), 93–7; and Barnes, TheNew Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 238–47. I merelyselect one example for illustration.
206 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomletter about <strong>the</strong> Donatist controversy to AelaWus, if <strong>the</strong> name iscorrectly transmitted, <strong>the</strong> vicar or vice-prefect of <strong>the</strong> civil dioceseof Africa: ‘Since I have been informed that you are also a worshipperof <strong>the</strong> Most High God, I confess to your eminence that I think it in noway right that such disputes and altercations [i.e. <strong>the</strong> Donatistcontroversy] should be concealed from us, when <strong>the</strong>y might perhapsarouse <strong>the</strong> highest <strong>de</strong>ity not only against <strong>the</strong> human race, but alsoagainst myself, to whose care he has by his celestial nod committed<strong>the</strong> regulation of all things earthly...Foronly <strong>the</strong>n shall true and fullsecurity be possible for me, and a hope of <strong>the</strong> best and most prosperousoutcome always and in everything from <strong>the</strong> unstinting benevolenceof <strong>the</strong> most almighty God, when I am aware that all menworship <strong>the</strong> most holy God by <strong>the</strong> due rites of <strong>the</strong> Catholic religion inharmonious and bro<strong>the</strong>rly observance.’17 The emperor felt personallyresponsible to God for <strong>the</strong> empire which God had entrusted to hischarge, and he feared that if he allowed religious error and disor<strong>de</strong>rto exist, God might well punish him, and with him <strong>the</strong> empire.4. Now comes my personal favourite in this list of examples, apassage in <strong>the</strong> Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, a leading <strong>the</strong>ologianof <strong>the</strong> mid-Wfth century, which I have never seen quoted but is,to me at least, highly signiWcant.18 It recalls <strong>the</strong> behaviour of <strong>the</strong>Apostle John when confronted in <strong>the</strong> Ephesus baths by <strong>the</strong> heresiarchCerinthus. In about 374 <strong>the</strong> eastern emperor Valens, who had Ariansympathies, exiled—among o<strong>the</strong>r Catholic bishops—<strong>the</strong> orthodoxand zealously anti-Arian bishop Eusebius of Samosata, whom Theodoretgreatly admired. He was replaced by an Arian bishop, Eunomius,but Eusebius had evi<strong>de</strong>ntly impressed upon his congregationthat if <strong>the</strong>y associated with an Arian bishop <strong>the</strong>y would bring <strong>de</strong>Wlementupon <strong>the</strong>mselves. When Eunomius went down to <strong>the</strong> publicbaths and his attendants shut everyone else out, he graciouslyor<strong>de</strong>red that <strong>the</strong> doors be opened and everyone who wanted tocome in be admitted. Eunomius urged <strong>the</strong>m to come into <strong>the</strong>water with him, but <strong>the</strong>y all held back, which Eunomius attributed17 Optatus, Appendix 3, Ziwsa edn., 206 [trans. M. Edwards, Optatus: Against <strong>the</strong>Donatists (TTH 27; Liverpool, 1997), 183–4].18 [On Theodoret, see T. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and <strong>the</strong>Holy Man (Ann Arbor, 2002).]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 207to <strong>the</strong> natural respect for himself as bishop. When he went oV,however, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs refused to enter <strong>the</strong> bath until <strong>the</strong> water hadbeen drained and replaced, feeling that it had been subject to pollution,agos, by <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> heretic (Theodoret, HE 4.15.2–3).The word agos is very familiar from Greek literature of <strong>the</strong> classicalperiod for, among o<strong>the</strong>r things, <strong>the</strong> curse one brings upon oneself bysacrilegious behaviour.19 According to Theodoret, Eunomius soonrealized how <strong>de</strong>tested he was and left <strong>the</strong> city (HE 4.15.4–7).5. In 428, in his Wrst sermon soon after his election to <strong>the</strong> archbishopricof Constantinople, Nestorius, who was not yet regar<strong>de</strong>d asa heretic, said to Emperor Theodosius II in words that were longremembered, ‘Give me <strong>the</strong> earth purged of heretics and I will give youheaven in return. Destroy <strong>the</strong> heretics with me, and I will <strong>de</strong>stroy <strong>the</strong>Persians with you’ (Socrates, HE 7.29.5).6. Ten years <strong>late</strong>r, in 438, <strong>the</strong> emperors Theodosius II and ValentinianIII <strong>de</strong>clared in a constitution directed against Jews, Samaritans,heretics, and pagans, ‘We perceive that a special responsibility of ourImperial Majesty is <strong>the</strong> pursuit of true religion. If we can hold fast tothis worship, we shall open <strong>the</strong> way to prosperity in human un<strong>de</strong>rtakings’(Nov. Theod. 3.pref.). It would pain me to reproduce <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>generate rhetoric of <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> document,20 and I shall merelysummarize it by saying that <strong>the</strong> emperors attribute <strong>the</strong> recentinclement wea<strong>the</strong>r, which has ruined <strong>the</strong> crops, to divine anger atpagan practices, which <strong>the</strong>y are accordingly obliged to persecute.7. The emperor Zeno’s Henoticon, issued in 482, expresses conW<strong>de</strong>ncethat if God is worshipped in harmony by <strong>the</strong> empire, enemieswill be wiped out, all will submit to <strong>the</strong> imperial rule in peace, and<strong>the</strong> earth will yield its fruits in abundance (Evagrius, HE 3.14).19 e.g. Aesch. Eum. 166–7 (and cf. miasma at 169); Herodotus 6.56, and 6.91.1.There are o<strong>the</strong>r interesting literary passages about <strong>the</strong> fear of being <strong>de</strong>Wled by wateralready used by men un<strong>de</strong>r a curse or in a polluted condition: e.g. Polybius 30.29.3–5(Sicyon, c.165 bc); also Plutarch, De Invidia et Odio (Moralia 538a) for allegedA<strong>the</strong>nian <strong>de</strong>testation of <strong>the</strong> accusers of Socrates in <strong>the</strong> early 4th cent. The Greekwords used in such situations inclu<strong>de</strong>d not only agos, but also <strong>the</strong> closely re<strong>late</strong>dterms miasma (cf. Aesch. Eum. cited above) and miaino: see R. Parker, Miasma,Pollution, and PuriWcation in Early Greek Religion (Oxford, 1983), introd.20 [For more recent approaches to <strong>late</strong> antique legal rhetoric, see n. 14 above.]
208 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom8. In <strong>the</strong> sixth century Justinian shows in several of his laws that heexpected divine punishment of a collective nature to follow <strong>the</strong>commission of certain religious oVences. For example, in a Novel of535 against blasphemy and taking <strong>the</strong> name of God in vain with anoath, he <strong>de</strong>clares that such crimes are a direct cause of ‘famines,earthquakes and plagues’ (Nov. 77.1.1). In a <strong>late</strong>r Novel <strong>de</strong>nouncingmale homosexual practices at Constantinople, Justinian mentionsGod’s ‘just punishment of those in Sodom’ and expresses his fearthat if such crimes are allowed to continue God may be moved towrath again (Nov. 141 of 559). There is a clear implication thatConstantinople may share <strong>the</strong> fate of Sodom if its inhabitants donot mend <strong>the</strong>ir ways.It would be superXuous to quote more of <strong>the</strong> many passages inimperial laws and <strong>the</strong> early Fa<strong>the</strong>rs which similarly anticipate divinepunishment of <strong>the</strong> empire as a whole, or of some part of it, as a resultof heresy, schism, paganism, or some o<strong>the</strong>r form of impiety. Just as<strong>Christian</strong>ity had been seen by pagans as a ‘contamination’, a contagioto adopt one of <strong>the</strong> expressions used by Pliny in his correspon<strong>de</strong>ncewith Trajan (Pliny, Ep. 10.96.9), so to a <strong>Christian</strong> convert like <strong>the</strong>ex-astrologer Firmicus Maternus and in various imperial laws,paganism was a contagio.21 And to most sincere <strong>Christian</strong>s heresy,even schism, was if anything worse.22When persecution took place in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> empire, <strong>the</strong> persecutorsnormally—in<strong>de</strong>ed almost always—<strong>de</strong>nied that <strong>the</strong>ir actionscould be called persecutio, ordiōgmos in Greek, terms which hadbecome standard for <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>Christian</strong>s.23 Of course21 Firmicus Maternus, De Errore Profanorum Religionum 7.1, 12.1, 20.7, 26.2; Cod.Theod. 16.5.56, 62; Const. Sirmond. 6, etc.22 [For instance, it is signiWcant that anti-heretical legislation between <strong>the</strong> 4th and6th centuries vastly outnumbers legislation against pagans; see C. Humfress, ‘RomanLaw, Forensic Argument and <strong>the</strong> Formation of <strong>Christian</strong> Orthodoxy (III–VI Centuries)’,in S. Elm, É. Rebillard, and A. Romano (eds.), Orthodoxie, <strong>Christian</strong>isme,Histoire (Paris, 2000), 125–47.]23 [Although note that <strong>Christian</strong>s use diōgmos and persecutio to <strong>de</strong>scribe persecutionof <strong>the</strong>mselves; we do not have much evi<strong>de</strong>nce for how persecutors of <strong>Christian</strong>s<strong>de</strong>scribed <strong>the</strong>ir behaviour, but note that Pliny, in <strong>the</strong> passage cited above (Ep.10.96.9), speaks of being able to ‘set right’ <strong>the</strong> contagio that is <strong>Christian</strong>ity, languagethat would not be out of place in <strong>the</strong> Theodosian Co<strong>de</strong>. For examples of this use by<strong>Christian</strong>s, see Passio Polycarpi 1.1; Hegesippus quoted in Eusebius, HE 3.20.5.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 209persecution by one’s own sect was not regar<strong>de</strong>d as belonging to <strong>the</strong>category of ‘persecution’ at all, and, as Lactantius could remark in <strong>the</strong>early fourth century, even heretics always consi<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong>ir own sectto constitute <strong>the</strong> true Catholic Church (Divine Institutes 4.30.13).They preferred to speak of just retribution, or <strong>the</strong> like, as whenOptatus retorted against <strong>the</strong> Donatists, who complained about <strong>the</strong>severe treatment <strong>the</strong>y had received in 347, that what <strong>the</strong>y had suVeredwas not persecution but <strong>de</strong>served punishment (3.10). It is importantto un<strong>de</strong>rstand here that <strong>Christian</strong>s, to whatever <strong>de</strong>nomination <strong>the</strong>ybelonged, not only regar<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong>mselves as Catholic and Orthodox,and <strong>the</strong>ir opponents consequently as heretics or schismatics, but alsoalmost invariably refused to recognize as <strong>Christian</strong>s those who werenot in communion with <strong>the</strong>mselves;24 in<strong>de</strong>ed <strong>the</strong>y con<strong>de</strong>mned <strong>the</strong>mall, individually and collectively, to everlasting perdition. ‘Separatedas you are from <strong>the</strong> Church,’ wrote Augustine to a priest of <strong>the</strong>Donatist schism, ‘you will be punished with eternal torment, evenif you were burnt alive for <strong>the</strong> name of Christ’ (Aug. Ep. 173.6).25That is a typical statement by Augustine, justiWed on his own principles,perhaps, but revealing one of <strong>the</strong> viciously sectarian characteristicswhich make it impossible for many of us to join in <strong>the</strong>general <strong>Christian</strong> chorus of praise for that remarkable man.Before <strong>the</strong> empire became oYcially <strong>Christian</strong> <strong>the</strong>re were somesplendid <strong>Christian</strong> pleas for religious toleration, in <strong>the</strong> most absoluteterms.26 The so-called Edict of Milan of 313 is of course one of <strong>the</strong>24 [In general <strong>Christian</strong>s were exclusive, but in certain circumstances, especially inresponse to a challenge or when speaking from a minority perspective, <strong>the</strong>y might bemore accepting of alternative <strong>Christian</strong> points of view. Thus Nestorius, whose hardlinecomment is quoted above (§ 5), in his Egyptian exile came to hold a moreinclusive opinion of <strong>the</strong> opponents whose views he had been confronting during hisPatriarchy (Evagrius 1.7). Evagrius (1.11) <strong>de</strong>veloped a remarkably accommodatingassessment of <strong>the</strong> zigzag progress towards orthodoxy, in response to criticisms ofepiscopal tergiversations at church councils, though he had earlier expressed traditionalhostility towards Nestorius as enemy of Christ (1.1–2).]25 Note, too, Cod. Theod. 16.7.3 for ‘those who have polluted <strong>the</strong>mselves’.26 For example, Tertullian, Apol. 24.5–10; Ad Scap. 2.2; Lactantius, Div. Inst.5.19.9–24 (esp. 11, 22–4); 5.20.7–10 (esp. 9–10); Epit. Div. Inst. 47.52.3 to 49.54.7.See P. Garnsey, ‘Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity’, Studies in Church History,21 (1984), 1–27. [See also n. 9. This probably overstates <strong>the</strong> case: <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rn principleof religious toleration has no commensurate form in <strong>the</strong> ancient world. See Appendixto this chapter.]
210 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdommajor documents in <strong>the</strong> history of human freedom:27 it repeatedlyaYrms most emphatically that liberty of religion ought to be completeand unrestricted. In <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> empire, however, few wereprepared to raise <strong>the</strong>ir voices in <strong>de</strong>fence of any freedom but that of<strong>the</strong>ir own particular sect, and pleas for toleration, from now on, camealmost exclusively from pagans and o<strong>the</strong>r victims of persecution. Of<strong>the</strong> pagan voices, little now survives apart from a few iso<strong>late</strong>d passagesin Julian, Themistius, Libanius, Symmachus, and Ammianus.28I can only give <strong>the</strong> barest summary of <strong>the</strong> many violent, ‘extralegal’actions of enthusiastic <strong>Christian</strong> mobs such as <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>structionof pagan sanctuaries and statues,29 <strong>the</strong> lynching of individual pagans(that of Hypatia in 415 or 416 is only <strong>the</strong> most famous example),30 orof hated <strong>Christian</strong>s (even bishops) belonging to rival sects,31 and <strong>the</strong>massacre of each o<strong>the</strong>r, as when scores of corpses were left on <strong>the</strong>Xoor of <strong>the</strong> Roman basilica on a single day in 366 during <strong>the</strong> factionWghting between <strong>the</strong> supporters of <strong>the</strong> rival popes Damasus andUrsinus, for which we have <strong>the</strong> alternative Wgures of 137 in Ammianus(27.3.13) and 160 from a document preserved in <strong>the</strong> Collectio27 For <strong>the</strong> Edict, see Eusebius, HE 10.5.1–14, with Lactantius, DMP 48.1–12;I think we may continue to speak of ‘The Edict of Milan’, although, of course, asOtto Seeck pointed out as long ago as 1891, <strong>the</strong> document is not an edict, was notpublished in Milan, and was not issued by Constantine [Seeck, ‘Das sogenannte Ediktvon Mailand’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 12 (1891), 381–6 at 381]. See fur<strong>the</strong>rT. D. Barnes, ‘Lactantius and Constantine’, JRS 63 (1973), 29–46, esp. 44 and nn.173–4 [repr. in Barnes, Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity and <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (London, 1984)];also i<strong>de</strong>m, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 318 n. 4.28 See Appendix to this chapter.29 Libanius, Or. 30(Pro Templis) esp. 8–11, 22–3, 54–5; Sozomen, HE 7.15.11 V.(discussed below). [On <strong>the</strong> role of bishops in <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>struction of pagan shrines andtemples in <strong>the</strong> East, see G. Fow<strong>de</strong>n, ‘Bishops and Temples in <strong>the</strong> Eastern RomanEmpire’, JTS 29.1 (1978), 53–78 and for a more general survey of <strong>late</strong> antiquereligious conXict, see Fow<strong>de</strong>n, ‘Poly<strong>the</strong>ist Religion and Philosophy’, in A. Cameronand P. Garnsey (eds.), CAH xiii (Cambridge, 1998), 538–60, esp. 539–43, 548–54.]30 [On Hypatia’s mur<strong>de</strong>r, see A. Cameron and J. Long, Barbarians and Politics at<strong>the</strong> Court of Arcadius (Berkeley, 1993), 59–62; M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria,trans. F. Lyra (Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 83–100.]31 For instance Proterius, installed as patriarch of Alexandria after Chalcedon, andlynched by anti-Chalcedon fanatics in 457; see Evagrius 2.8 [with fur<strong>the</strong>r references inM. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus (Liverpool, 2000),85–9]. W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of <strong>the</strong> Monophysite Movement: Chapters in <strong>the</strong> Historyof <strong>the</strong> Church in <strong>the</strong> Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge, 1972), 154–5. [See below,Ch. 6, p. 317.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 211Avellana (1.7; CSEL 35.1, p. 3).32 Among many interesting narrativeswhich may reXect useful local knowledge, I will mention only Sozomen’saccount of <strong>the</strong> zealous missionary bishop Marcellus of Apameain Syria (HE 7.15.11 V.): Marcellus had been keen to <strong>de</strong>stroy all <strong>the</strong>pagan temples in his diocese, but was eventually caught during one of<strong>the</strong>se exploits by a group of local pagans who found him on his own,without <strong>the</strong> ‘soldiers and gladiators’ in his following, and Wnishedhim oV. A provincial council <strong>late</strong>r refused to allow <strong>the</strong> bishop’s sonsto avenge him, expressing <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>licate feeling that <strong>the</strong> young menwould do better to give thanks to God for having graciously found<strong>the</strong>ir fa<strong>the</strong>r worthy of dying as he did (he had been burnt to <strong>de</strong>ath).Was <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> authorities substantially <strong>the</strong> sameas that of <strong>the</strong> pagan persecutors? To some extent it was: as I haveshown, <strong>the</strong>y were as concerned to maintain <strong>the</strong> pax Dei, if I may call itthat, as <strong>the</strong> pagans had been to secure <strong>the</strong> pax <strong>de</strong>orum. But <strong>the</strong>re werealso two new inter<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt concepts, of enormous importance:heresy and schism; <strong>the</strong>se were in<strong>de</strong>ed something entirely new, that<strong>the</strong> pagan world had never known and, owing to <strong>the</strong> extraordinarilyheterogeneous character of poly<strong>the</strong>ism, could never conceivably haveknown.33 Because of <strong>the</strong>se new notions, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were not32 [For <strong>the</strong> struggle between <strong>Christian</strong> factions early in Damasus’ career, seeA. Lippold, ‘Ursinus und Damasus’, Historia, 14 (1965), 105–28; C. Pietri, Romachristiana: recherches sur l’église <strong>de</strong> Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie <strong>de</strong>Miltia<strong>de</strong> à Sixte III (311–440) (Rome and Paris, 1976), i. 405–18, and i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Damase,évêque <strong>de</strong> Rome’, in Saecularia Damasiana (Studi di Antichità Cristiana 39; VaticanCity, 1986), 29–58; J. Curran, Pagan City and <strong>Christian</strong> Capital: Rome in <strong>the</strong> FourthCentury (Oxford, 2000), 137–42; R. Lizzi Testa, Senatori, popolo, papi: il governo diRoma al tempo <strong>de</strong>i Valentiniani (Munera 21; Bari, 2004), 129–70.]33 [Certainly <strong>the</strong> distinctively <strong>Christian</strong> preoccupation with heresy and schism wasquite new, and unthinkable to a ‘poly<strong>the</strong>ist’—not least because poly<strong>the</strong>ism, unlike<strong>Christian</strong>ity, is a scholarly construct (one that originated in <strong>Christian</strong> polemic), andwas not an institution with members conscious of <strong>the</strong>ir i<strong>de</strong>ntities as members.However, certain non-<strong>Christian</strong> institutions used comparable strategies to maintaindoctrinal orthodoxy. In<strong>de</strong>ed, <strong>the</strong> argument has recently been advanced that <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> concern with orthodoxy arises in response to Platonist criticisms that <strong>the</strong>diversity of <strong>Christian</strong> thought preclu<strong>de</strong>d <strong>Christian</strong>s from discerning <strong>the</strong> truth; seeG. R. Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of its Development from <strong>the</strong>Stoics to Origen (Oxford, 2001), 151–75. See also P. Athanassiadi’s study of <strong>the</strong>institutional and doctrinal strategies used to maintain <strong>the</strong> authority of <strong>the</strong> A<strong>the</strong>niandiadoche, although she views this primarily as a response to <strong>Christian</strong>ity; ‘TheCreation of Orthodoxy in Neoplatonism’, in G. Clark and T. Rajak (eds.), Philosophyand Power in <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman World (Oxford, 2002), 271–91.]
212 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomcontent, as <strong>the</strong> pagans had been, merely to procure acts of outwardconformity. By <strong>the</strong> fourth century, if not long before, most inXuential<strong>Christian</strong>s had formed <strong>the</strong> opinion that <strong>the</strong>re was only one set of truebeliefs in matters divine, and, since salvation itself <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>d uponbelief, <strong>the</strong> nature of belief was all-important. As Pope Leo I said,veritas . . . simplex atque una and varietatem . . . non recipit [‘Truth issimple and one’ and ‘does not admit of divergence’] Ep. 172. False<strong>Christian</strong> belief was heresy; <strong>the</strong> introduction of disunity in <strong>the</strong>organization of <strong>the</strong> Church, as by <strong>the</strong> Novatians and Donatists, wasschism. That was <strong>the</strong> ultimate <strong>Christian</strong> position, but for a long time<strong>the</strong>re was little or no clear distinction between <strong>the</strong> terms.Heresy and schism in <strong>the</strong> new, <strong>Christian</strong> sense go right back to <strong>the</strong>very beginning of Apostolic times. I cannot go into <strong>de</strong>tails here about<strong>the</strong> many usages of <strong>the</strong>se and similar words in Josephus and <strong>the</strong> NewTestament,34 but I would like to recommend <strong>the</strong> two best treatmentsthat I know of <strong>the</strong> evolution of <strong>the</strong>se words and <strong>the</strong>ir cognates,35 and34 Josephus, Vita 10–12; AJ 13.171–3; BJ 2.119–66, cf. 118. Acts 5: 17 (Sadducees),15: 5, 26: 5 (Pharisees), 24: 5, 14; 28: 22; Gal. 5: 20; 2 Pet. 2: 1; Titus 3: 10; Acts 20:29–30. [Although hairesis and schisma feature in <strong>the</strong> New Testament, it is probably anexaggeration to say that <strong>the</strong>y bear <strong>the</strong>ir distinctively <strong>Christian</strong> meaning. It isextremely diYcult to <strong>de</strong>termine precisely when this occurs, and examples of <strong>the</strong>positive meaning of hairesis (as a sect or school) can still be found in 4th-cent. texts,perhaps most signiWcantly in <strong>the</strong> Greek translation of Constantine and Licinius’ letteron <strong>the</strong> restoration of <strong>the</strong> Church (<strong>the</strong> ‘so-called Edict of Milan’) in Eusebius, HE10.5.2 and 10.5.4 and Constantine’s letter to Alexan<strong>de</strong>r and Arius in Eusebius, VC2.71.5 and Socrates, HE 1.7.12. Acts 20: 29–30 is important, in that it shows howdoctrinal and social unity was important among <strong>Christian</strong> communities before <strong>the</strong>articulation of <strong>the</strong> concepts ‘heresy’ and ‘schism’; here Paul tells <strong>the</strong> el<strong>de</strong>rs of Ephesus,in characteristically violent language, that after he has gone ‘savage wolves will comein among you and will not spare <strong>the</strong> Xock’, and ‘even from your own body <strong>the</strong>re willbe men coming forward who will distort <strong>the</strong> truth to induce <strong>the</strong> disciples to breakaway and follow <strong>the</strong>m’. The Wrst appearance of a distinctively <strong>Christian</strong> sense of‘heresy’ is perhaps Ignatius’ letters to <strong>the</strong> Ephesians (6.2) and to <strong>the</strong> Trallians (6.1)from <strong>the</strong> early 2nd cent. It might, however, be safer to date this emergence to <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r2nd cent. and <strong>the</strong> work of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, in which heresy is central to<strong>Christian</strong> historical consciousness. Here we Wnd <strong>the</strong> Wrst genealogies of heresy, whichestablished an opposition between <strong>the</strong> apostolic succession of <strong>the</strong> Church and <strong>the</strong>succession of all heresies from Simon Magus; see for instance Irenaeus, AdversusHaereses, 1.27.4, and in general A. le Boulluec, La Notion d’hérésie dans la littératuregrecque aux IIe–IIIe siècles (Paris, 1985).]35 J. Glucker, Antiochus and <strong>the</strong> Late Aca<strong>de</strong>my (Hypomnemata 56; Göttingen,1978), 166–206; M. Simon, ‘From Greek hairesis to <strong>Christian</strong> heresy’, in W. R.Schoe<strong>de</strong>l and R. L. Wilken (eds.), Early <strong>Christian</strong> Literature and <strong>the</strong> Classical
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 213to draw attention to a list of New Testament passages which refer,often in very strong terms, to religious strife and dissension of manykinds in <strong>the</strong> earliest <strong>Christian</strong> communities.36 Not even in <strong>the</strong> Wrstgeneration do we Wnd <strong>Christian</strong>s as anything like a united body. Wouldit be an exaggeration to say that <strong>the</strong> earliest systematic impulsetowards execrating those who were believed to be proclaiming falseIntellectual Tradition (In honorem Robert M. Grant) (Théologie Historique 53; Paris,1979), 101–16. [The subsequent bibliography on heresy is enormous, and cannota<strong>de</strong>quately be summarized here. One of <strong>the</strong> most inXuential studies of <strong>the</strong> 20th cent.was Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen,1934), trans. by G. Kro<strong>de</strong>l and R. A. Kraft as Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest<strong>Christian</strong>ity (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 1971), who <strong>de</strong>monstrated <strong>the</strong> historical falsity of Eusebius’account of a pristine and orthodox early Church assailed after <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>aths of <strong>the</strong>apostles by heretics, arguing that heresy often prece<strong>de</strong>d orthodoxy; for criticalexaminations of this <strong>the</strong>sis, see R. Williams, ‘Does it make sense to speak of pre-Nicene orthodoxy?’, in i<strong>de</strong>m. (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour ofHenry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989), 1–23, and M. Desjardin, ‘Bauer and beyond: OnRecent Scholarly Discussion of hairesis in <strong>the</strong> Early <strong>Christian</strong> Era’, The SecondCentury, 8 (1991), 65–82. Perhaps most problematic is Bauer’s ra<strong>the</strong>r ‘essential’un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of heresy and orthodoxy as separate entities, such that one couldpossibly prece<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r; see D. Boyarin, Bor<strong>de</strong>r Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-<strong>Christian</strong>ity (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 2004), esp. 2–3. On <strong>the</strong> origins and subsequent <strong>Christian</strong>transformation of hairesis, see also H. von Sta<strong>de</strong>n, ‘Hairesis and Heresy: The Case of<strong>the</strong> hairesis iatrikai’, in B. F. Meyer and E. P. San<strong>de</strong>rs (eds.), Jewish and <strong>Christian</strong> Self-DeWnition, iii: Self-DeWnition in <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman World (London, 1982), 76–100.Attention has also focused on <strong>the</strong> literary techniques by which heresiologies wereconstructed; see particularly A. le Boulluec, La Notion d’hérésie dans la littératuregrecque aux IIe–IIIe siècles (Paris, 1985); for <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r empire, see H. Inglebert,‘L’Histoire <strong>de</strong>s hérésies chez les hérésiologues’, in B. Pou<strong>de</strong>ron and Y.-M. Duval(eds.), L’Historiographie <strong>de</strong> l’Église <strong>de</strong>s premiers siècles (Théologie Historique, 114;Paris, 2001), 105–25, and i<strong>de</strong>m, Interpretatio <strong>Christian</strong>a: les mutations <strong>de</strong>s savoirs(cosmographie, géographie, ethnographie, histoire) dans l’antiquité chrétienne 30–630après J.-C (Collection <strong>de</strong>s Étu<strong>de</strong>s Augustiniennes 166; Paris, 2001), 393–456; AverilCameron, ‘How to Read Heresiology’, Journal of Early Mo<strong>de</strong>rn and Medieval Studies,33.3 (2003), 471–92, now repr. in D. B. Martin and P. Cox Miller (eds.), The CulturalTurn in Late Ancient Studies: Gen<strong>de</strong>r, Asceticism, and Historiography (Durham, NC,2005); on <strong>the</strong> legal setting of <strong>late</strong>r doctrinal disputes, see Humfress, ‘Roman Law,Forensic Argument and <strong>the</strong> Formation of <strong>Christian</strong> Orthodoxy (III–VI centuries)’and Orthodoxy and <strong>the</strong> Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford, forthcoming).]36 Acts 15, esp. 1–2, 5, 7, 24; 20: 29–30; Rom. 16: 17–18; 1 Cor. 1: 10–11, 12–13; 3:3–4, 5–9; 11: 18–19; 12: 25; 2 Cor. 11: 3–4, 12–15; Gal. 1: 6–9; 2: 11–14; 5: 20; 1 Tim. 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20; 4: 1–3, 7; 6: 3–5, 20–1; Titus 1: 9–14; 3: 10–11; 2 Pet. 2: 1–3; 1 John 2:18; 2 John 7; Ju<strong>de</strong> 18–19; Rev. 2: 6, 15–16 (cf. 14), 20–4. The list is by no meanscomplete. Among <strong>the</strong> terms used are hairesis, schisma, hairetikos anthrōpos, antichristos,antilegontes, apodiorizontes, dichostasiai, ergatai dolioi, eris, skandala, stasis,heterodidaskalein, zēlos, zētēsis, pseudapostaloi, pseudodidaskaloi, pseudophrophētai,
214 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomdoctrine came from St Paul and his circle?37 I hope it is clear now whyas a historian, I am so insistent that <strong>the</strong> term ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church’in <strong>the</strong> singular is, after nearly 2,000 years, still in strictness not ahistorical expression but a <strong>the</strong>ological one.38Heresy and schism, <strong>the</strong>n, are <strong>Christian</strong> innovations. Again andagain in <strong>Christian</strong> literature, however, we Wnd an expression of <strong>the</strong>need for unity, both in belief and organization. In paganism, ofcourse, belief mattered little; it was <strong>the</strong> performance of cult actsthat was essential.39 Even those pagan cults that recognized <strong>de</strong>greesof seniority among worshippers (like Mithraism with its seven gra<strong>de</strong>sof initiates) had no uniWed hierarchical organization remotelyresembling that of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s.40This, I suggest, introduced a new element which created an entirelynew situation and ma<strong>de</strong> religious persecution far more likely in <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> Empire. Whereas in pre-<strong>Christian</strong> times <strong>the</strong> emperor, or aprovincial governor, would feel bound to see to <strong>the</strong> maintenance of<strong>the</strong> established cults, he would see no reason at all to interfere witho<strong>the</strong>r systems of cult (o<strong>the</strong>r religiones), of whatever kind, provi<strong>de</strong>d<strong>the</strong>y did not involve Xagitia or <strong>the</strong> like, or, as with <strong>Christian</strong>ity,refusal to pay respect to <strong>the</strong> established gods.41 As soon as <strong>the</strong> empirebecame <strong>Christian</strong>, however, an entirely new factor appeared whichcan be seen very clearly in <strong>the</strong> writings and actions of <strong>the</strong> Wrstlukoi bareis (‘grievous wolves’). [Compare with <strong>the</strong> slightly shorter list in ClassStruggle, 644 n. 26, which catalogues ‘New Testament passages which refer to orforeshadow <strong>the</strong> rise of heresy and schism’.]37 See especially Acts 20: 29–30; Rom. 16: 17–18; and Gal. 1: 6–9.38 [See above, Introduction, pp. 31–2.]39 [See Appendix to this chapter.]40 [This is very probably true, although paucity of evi<strong>de</strong>nce militates againstsecure statements on <strong>the</strong> structure of Mithraic worship. For a comprehensive summaryof 20th-cent. historiography of Mithraism, including diVerent approaches to<strong>the</strong> Mithraic gra<strong>de</strong>s, see R. Beck, ‘Mithraism since Franz Cumont’, ANRW ii. 17.4(1984), 2002–2115, esp. 2089–93. See also R. Gordon, ‘Reality, Evocation, andBoundary in <strong>the</strong> Mysteries of Mithras’, Journal of Mithraic Studies, 3.1–2 (1980),19–99, repr. in Gordon, Image and Value in <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman World (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot,1996). For a minimalist interpretation of <strong>the</strong> possible structure of <strong>the</strong> priestly gra<strong>de</strong>s,see M. Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries, trans. R. Gordon(Edinburgh, 2000), 131–40.]41 [It is slightly misleading to trans<strong>late</strong> religiones as ‘systems of cult’. Religio is anormative term, and a religio would by <strong>de</strong>Wnition not involve Xagitia of any sort. SeeAppendix to this chapter.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 215<strong>Christian</strong> emperor: Constantine felt <strong>the</strong> necessity, for <strong>the</strong> Wrst time,of enforcing unity in worship. With <strong>the</strong> active encouragement of <strong>the</strong>bishops he began to take steps to stamp out Wrst a schismatic sect,<strong>the</strong> Donatists, and a little <strong>late</strong>r heretical beliefs, especially those of <strong>the</strong>Arians, courses of action which, at great cost, proved only mo<strong>de</strong>ratelysuccessful in <strong>the</strong> long run over a large part of <strong>the</strong> empire.42At this point I wish to draw attention to a very signiWcant prece<strong>de</strong>ntfor <strong>the</strong> use during <strong>the</strong> pagan empire of ‘<strong>the</strong> secular arm’ in <strong>the</strong>service of <strong>the</strong> principal <strong>Christian</strong> Church. Even if we disregard a storyabout <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s and <strong>the</strong> popinarii in one of <strong>the</strong> most disreputablelives in <strong>the</strong> Historia Augusta (Severus Alexan<strong>de</strong>r 49.6), we mustcertainly accept <strong>the</strong> account of Eusebius, brief as it is, of <strong>the</strong> successfulappeal of <strong>the</strong> orthodox <strong>Christian</strong> bishops to <strong>the</strong> pagan Aurelian,about 270, that he drive out <strong>the</strong> excommunicated bishop of Antioch,Paul of Samosata, by force and hand over his church to <strong>the</strong> Catholics(HE 7.30.19).43 And so, as Eusebius says, Paul was driven out of <strong>the</strong>church by ‘<strong>the</strong> secular arm’, if I may so trans<strong>late</strong> hē kosmikē archē.There is nothing that need surprise us here. It is true that St Paulhad forbid<strong>de</strong>n <strong>Christian</strong>s to have recourse to <strong>the</strong> civil courts indisputes among <strong>the</strong>mselves (1 Corinthians 6: 1–8). But <strong>the</strong> Catholicsno doubt applied here a most convenient doctrine which <strong>the</strong>y, andmany heretics and schismatics, utilized against each o<strong>the</strong>r un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> empire: <strong>the</strong>re can only be one true <strong>Christian</strong> Church (<strong>the</strong>one, naturally, to which I, <strong>the</strong> person making <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cision, happen tobelong) and a man who has been excommunicated by my bishop hasobviously ceased to belong to <strong>the</strong> Church and need no longer beconsi<strong>de</strong>red a <strong>Christian</strong>. There could be no objection, un<strong>de</strong>r thisdoctrine, to employing <strong>the</strong> resources of civil power against a hereticlike Paul of Samosata. It is worth remembering here <strong>the</strong> command ofSt Paul to <strong>Christian</strong>s to obey <strong>the</strong> civil powers which, as he put it, were‘ordained by God’.44 And it is interesting to note, by <strong>the</strong> way, that <strong>the</strong>42 [Contrast with Drake’s recent argument for Constantine’s ‘mo<strong>de</strong>rate and inclusionistpolicy’; Constantine and <strong>the</strong> Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Baltimore,2000), 451–4, at 452.]43 For <strong>the</strong> date, see F. Millar, ‘Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church,Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria’, JRS 61 (1971), 1–17.44 Rom. 13: 1–7; Titus 3: 1; cf. 1 Pet. 2: 13–17; 1 Tim. 2: 1–2; John 19: 11. SeeC. D. Morrison, The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans
216 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomparticular bone of contention which brought about <strong>the</strong> appeal toAurelian was property: it seems to have been only possession of <strong>the</strong>church building which ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> appeal to civil power necessary.Long before Constantine became interested in <strong>the</strong> Arian controversyhe found himself involved with <strong>the</strong> Donatist schism in NorthAfrica. In<strong>de</strong>ed, this happened almost immediately after his victoryover Maxentius in 312.45 In a whole series of letters written between312 and 316 we Wnd him showing exasperation at <strong>the</strong> existence offactions in <strong>the</strong> African Church; in one he particularly emphasizes his<strong>de</strong>termination to ensure unity of worship, as he puts it ‘in virtue ofmy established policy and of my duty as emperor’, pro instituto meoipsiusque principis munere.46Ironically enough, Constantine Wrst became personally involved in<strong>the</strong> Donatist dispute at <strong>the</strong> insistence of <strong>the</strong> Donatists, who of allschismatic sects enjoyed <strong>the</strong> greatest amount of popular adherence in<strong>the</strong>ir own particular area (mainly Numidia, roughly mo<strong>de</strong>rnAlgeria), but were never able to obtain any positive support from <strong>the</strong>political authorities and could hope for nothing better than a grudgingtoleration, except during <strong>the</strong> reign of Julian (and perhaps whileFirmus and Gildo were in power in Africa). It was <strong>the</strong> Donatists whoWrst proclaimed <strong>the</strong> principles, ‘What has <strong>the</strong> emperor to do with <strong>the</strong>Church?’ ‘What have <strong>Christian</strong>s to do with kings? Or what havebishops to do with <strong>the</strong> palace?’47 But this was only after <strong>the</strong>ir repeatedappeals to <strong>the</strong> ‘secular arm’ of Constantine had resulted in victory for<strong>the</strong> Catholics. Nor were most Donatists averse to using coercion on<strong>the</strong>ir own account in <strong>the</strong> localities, especially in Numidia, where <strong>the</strong>y13.1–7 (Studies in Biblical Theology 29; London, 1960); see also <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early<strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property and Slavery’ [see below, Ch. 7, pp. 343–4 n. 41] andClass Struggle, 398, 432–3, 439–40, 447.45 W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman NorthAfrica (Oxford, 1952); R. A. Markus, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity and Dissent in Roman NorthAfrica: Changing Perspectives in Recent Work’, Studies in Church History, 9 (1972),21–36 [repr. in Markus, From Augustine to Gregory <strong>the</strong> Great (London, 1983); H. A.Drake, Constantine and <strong>the</strong> Bishops, 212–21]. On Constantine’s role, see F. Millar, TheEmperor in <strong>the</strong> Roman World (London, 1977), 584–90.46 Optatus, Append. 7.47 ‘Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?’, Optatus 3.3, where <strong>the</strong> saying is attributedto Donatus himself; ‘Quid <strong>Christian</strong>is cum regibus? Aut quid episcopis cum palatio?’,Optatus 1.22.
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 217were strong enough to do so, in particular—as <strong>the</strong> Catholics werefond of reminding <strong>the</strong>m—during <strong>the</strong> reign of <strong>the</strong> ‘Apostate’ Julian, towhom <strong>the</strong>y had not hesitated to appeal and with whom alone <strong>the</strong>yhad been successful.Again we must not be surprised that <strong>the</strong> Catholics should havema<strong>de</strong> full use of <strong>the</strong> coercive power of <strong>the</strong> State which was sud<strong>de</strong>nlyplaced at <strong>the</strong>ir disposal by Constantine. He had already shown a<strong>de</strong>sire to repress Donatist ‘trouble-makers’ in his letter to <strong>the</strong> bishopof Carthage in <strong>the</strong> winter of 312–13 (Eusebius, HE 10.6.1–5), beforeany appeal was ma<strong>de</strong> directly to him. When he was Wrst invoked, by<strong>the</strong> Donatists, he referred <strong>the</strong> matter to Bishop Miltia<strong>de</strong>s of Rome,for an ecclesiastical <strong>de</strong>cision (Eusebius, HE 10.5.18–20): so far no<strong>Christian</strong> need have felt cause for alarm. But in <strong>the</strong> event, no mereecclesiastical <strong>de</strong>cision, not enforced by <strong>the</strong> secular arm, proved eVective:not even a second verdict, that of <strong>the</strong> Synod of Arles, could cow<strong>the</strong> Donatists into submission, and Constantine’s emissaries, Eunomiusand Olympius, equally failed. It was at this point thatConstantine, without (as far as we know) any objection from within<strong>the</strong> Church at <strong>the</strong> time, took <strong>the</strong> fateful step leading inevitably to‘Caesaro-papism’, which had so much <strong>de</strong>eper roots in <strong>the</strong> practice of<strong>the</strong> Church, as distinct from <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory, than many mo<strong>de</strong>rn scholarshave been prepared to admit. When ecclesiastical <strong>de</strong>cisions failed toinhibit <strong>the</strong> Donatists, Constantine realized that if he wanted to securereligious peace he must intervene personally and use force—his veryimportant letter to Domitius Celsus in <strong>the</strong> winter of 315–16, preservedby Optatus (Appendix 7), is perfectly clear on that point. And<strong>the</strong> letter implies that it is not only <strong>the</strong> Donatists who may need to betaught a lesson, but <strong>the</strong> Catholic bishop Caecilian himself, if he isfound to be in <strong>the</strong> wrong. Of course Constantine has been blamed bychurchmen for reopening ecclesiastical questions already <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>dover and over again by bishops, but what else could he do? Hemust by now have realized that massive force might have to beused in <strong>the</strong> cause of <strong>the</strong> unity of religion, and that bloodshed wasvery likely to result, <strong>the</strong> exact opposite of what he so fervently<strong>de</strong>sired. We cannot blame him for wishing to satisfy himself Wrstthat <strong>the</strong> force would be used on <strong>the</strong> right si<strong>de</strong>.In 316 Constantine did institute <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>the</strong> Donatists:<strong>the</strong>ir churches were taken away from <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong> Donatists
218 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomhonoured as martyrs those who died in <strong>the</strong> resulting conXict. Thiswas <strong>the</strong> moment at which, I believe, <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church, by acceptingimperial aid in <strong>the</strong> repression of its opponents, took <strong>the</strong> Wrst in aseries of fateful steps which were to make of organized <strong>Christian</strong>ity,as I said at <strong>the</strong> beginning, a persecuting force without parallel inhuman history. I suggest, <strong>the</strong>n, that i<strong>de</strong>ally <strong>the</strong> Catholics should haverefused <strong>the</strong> use of force oVered by <strong>the</strong> State to coerce <strong>the</strong>ir Donatistopponents. In taking such a course of action <strong>the</strong>y would have beenjustiWed both in principle and on grounds of expediency: in principlebecause some of <strong>the</strong>m, Lactantius in particular, had proclaimed <strong>the</strong>right of religious liberty in <strong>the</strong> most unqualiWed terms, and ongrounds of expediency, because once <strong>the</strong> coercion that <strong>the</strong> Statecould employ was accepted, in however ‘righteous’ a cause, dissi<strong>de</strong>ntschismatic or heretical sects, equally convinced of <strong>the</strong>ir own righteousness,would inevitably use, and did use, <strong>the</strong> same kind ofcoercion against <strong>the</strong> Catholics <strong>the</strong>mselves, when <strong>the</strong>y could.Actually, after about Wve years of repression in Africa, <strong>the</strong> hardhea<strong>de</strong>dConstantine realized that persecution was only stiVeningDonatist resistance, and that <strong>the</strong> religious peace and uniformity he<strong>de</strong>sired could not be achieved in that area without <strong>the</strong> use of evenmore formidable and bloody measures, which he was not prepared toun<strong>de</strong>rtake. Reluctantly, Constantine completely abandoned <strong>the</strong> persecutionof Donatism. In a fascinating letter to <strong>the</strong> Catholic bishopsand laity of Africa, written probably in May 321, he sadly admits hisfailure to secure peace for ‘<strong>the</strong> most holy bro<strong>the</strong>rhood’ in completeconcord, and advises <strong>the</strong> Catholics to await <strong>the</strong> working of ‘<strong>the</strong>heavenly medicine’, caelestis medicina, and meanwhile to perseverepatiently and leave vengeance to God (Optatus, Append. 9). In oneextraordinary phrase he expresses <strong>the</strong> hope that suVering so enduredwill avail with God as a kind of martyrdom! Finally in 330Constantine wrote to <strong>the</strong> Catholic bishops of Numidia, whereDonatism was still strongest, harping from <strong>the</strong> outset, as always, onhis great <strong>the</strong>me of concord, and urging <strong>the</strong>m again that vengeance beleft to God (Optatus, Append. 10). Since <strong>the</strong> Donatists had seized<strong>the</strong> Catholic basilicas of Cirta (now renamed Constantina after <strong>the</strong>emperor), he promised to build <strong>the</strong>m ano<strong>the</strong>r out of public funds.I have no time here to go into <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>tails of <strong>the</strong> Arian controversy,which involved much persecution on both si<strong>de</strong>s, but I should just like
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 219to draw attention to ano<strong>the</strong>r extraordinarily interesting letter ofConstantine, written to Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> pre<strong>de</strong>cessor of Athanasius aspatriarch of Alexandria, and to Arius, a mere priest (Eusebius, VC2.64–72). As yet Constantine had simply no i<strong>de</strong>a how stronglychurchmen could feel about issues which he regar<strong>de</strong>d as unnecessary,and futile <strong>the</strong>ological quibbles that should never have been raised atall. As always he shows that his mind is Wxed entirely on achievingconcord and harmony, concordia and harmonia.The Catholics showed no sign of being willing to adopt a policy ofreligious toleration at any time when <strong>the</strong>y were able to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>religious policy of an emperor. With very rare exceptions it was only<strong>the</strong> victims, or <strong>the</strong> potential victims, of <strong>Christian</strong> persecution who<strong>de</strong>nounced it. A. H. M. Jones has expressed <strong>the</strong> truth admirably:48The Donatists originally applied to Constantine to settle <strong>the</strong>ir quarrel with<strong>the</strong> Catholics: it was only when <strong>the</strong> verdict Wnally went against <strong>the</strong>m that<strong>the</strong>y evolved <strong>the</strong> doctrine that <strong>the</strong> church ought to be in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt of <strong>the</strong>state ...Athanasius, Hilary and <strong>the</strong> homoousian party in <strong>the</strong> West enunciateda similar doctrine and put forward pleas for religious liberty whenConstantius II was lending his support to <strong>the</strong>ir adversaries. They had raisedno protest when Constantine had ejected <strong>the</strong>ir rivals, and <strong>the</strong>y said nothingabout religious freedom when Gratian and Theodosius I banned all beliefsbut <strong>the</strong>ir own.One may see various factors contributing to this situation. I havealready stressed <strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>the</strong> new concepts of heresy andschism. The physical existence of church property, which expan<strong>de</strong>dseveral times over during <strong>the</strong> fourth century, was ano<strong>the</strong>r factorwhich ten<strong>de</strong>d to make legal coercion necessary: for what was tohappen when, as so often in Africa (and <strong>late</strong>r Syria), and sometimeselsewhere, one and <strong>the</strong> same church building was claimed by tworival sects, each representing itself as ‘<strong>the</strong> Catholic Church’? The onecertain example of an appeal to a pagan emperor by <strong>Christian</strong>s forsettlement of a dispute was when Aurelian was enlisted in or<strong>de</strong>r toeject Paul of Samosata from <strong>the</strong> church of Antioch (Eusebius, HE7.30.19).48 The Later Roman Empire, 934–7, at 935.
220 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomThere is yet ano<strong>the</strong>r factor I would emphasize, which <strong>Christian</strong>snowadays usually prefer to forget: <strong>the</strong> sinister inXuence of OldTestament prece<strong>de</strong>nt, appeal to which was often ma<strong>de</strong>. For <strong>the</strong>early Church <strong>the</strong> Old Testament was <strong>the</strong> Word of God, equally with<strong>the</strong> New, and <strong>Christian</strong>s of all <strong>de</strong>nominations ransacked its pages forsuitably <strong>de</strong>adly missiles to hurl at each o<strong>the</strong>r and at pagans: <strong>the</strong>sewere not diYcult to Wnd.The two earliest works we possess which <strong>de</strong>al approvingly and atlength with persecution by <strong>Christian</strong>s are <strong>the</strong> De Errore ProfanorumReligionum [‘On <strong>the</strong> Errors of Profane Religion’] of Firmicus Maternus,written in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 340s, and <strong>the</strong> work by <strong>the</strong> African bishopOptatus against <strong>the</strong> Donatists (it seems to have no speciWc title), Wrstpublished about 365–6 and reissued in an amen<strong>de</strong>d version sometwenty years <strong>late</strong>r.49 Firmicus is advocating <strong>the</strong> persecution ofpaganism in general; Optatus is <strong>de</strong>aling with a particular <strong>Christian</strong>schism. There are many unspeakably horrifying and bloodthirstypassages in <strong>the</strong> Old Testament which have been invoked to justify<strong>the</strong> punishment of religious crimes. One of <strong>the</strong> nastiest Old Testamentcharacters to earn <strong>the</strong> approval of Optatus is <strong>the</strong> grandson ofAaron, Phineas, who killed Zimri <strong>the</strong> Israelite and his Midianite wifeCozbi, spearing <strong>the</strong> woman through <strong>the</strong> belly, and <strong>the</strong>reby earned <strong>the</strong>warm approval of Yahweh and <strong>the</strong> cessation of a plague which hadapparently caused 24,000 <strong>de</strong>aths (Numbers 25. 6–15).50 Firmicus’justiWed comment on a ferocious passage in Deuteronomy 13 chills<strong>the</strong> blood: ‘God or<strong>de</strong>rs nei<strong>the</strong>r son nor bro<strong>the</strong>r to be spared and hethrusts <strong>the</strong> avenging sword through <strong>the</strong> beloved body of a wife’.51 Theexample of Phineas is <strong>late</strong>r quoted with approval by o<strong>the</strong>rs, including49 Firmicus: see above, n. 21. For discussion of Optatus, see <strong>the</strong> introduction toEdwards, Optatus.50 Optatus 3.5, 7; 7.6, citing for example Exod. 32, esp. 26–9; 1 Kings 18: 17–40;Num. 25: 1–15. Phineas (see Num. 25: 6–15; 1 Chron. 9: 20, Ps. 106: 28–31) is oftenreferred to with admiration by Jewish writers (notably Philo). Compare <strong>the</strong> story ofKorah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16: 1–35 (and cf. 41–50!), 26: 9–11), cited byOptatus at 1.21; 6.1 to justify <strong>the</strong> punishment of <strong>the</strong> wicked; Didascalia Apostolorum23 (ed. R. H. Connolly (1929), pp. 194–7) invokes <strong>the</strong> punishment of <strong>the</strong> adherents ofKorah, Dathan, and Abiram as ‘a monument and example of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>struction ofschismatics’, and adds ‘and everyone who imitates <strong>the</strong>m shall perish even as <strong>the</strong>y’.51 Firmicus, De Errore 28.10 and 29.1–2, on Exod. 22: 20 and Deut. 13: 6–11,12–18; ‘nec Wlio iubet parci nec fratri, et per amata coniugis membra gladiumvindicem ducit’.
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 221St Ambrose, Expositio Psalmorum 118.18.10–11, as a worthy exampleto be followed in <strong>the</strong> suppression of heresy by <strong>Christian</strong>s.52 AnyoneinsuYciently acquainted with <strong>the</strong> Old Testament who feels surpriseat <strong>the</strong> ferocity of such passages should look at some of <strong>the</strong> texts inwhich Yahweh is represented as insisting upon genoci<strong>de</strong> by <strong>the</strong> Israelitesin <strong>the</strong> Promised Land, some of which I have collected.53But what of <strong>the</strong> New Testament? The ‘Parable of <strong>the</strong> Tares’, <strong>the</strong>weeds among <strong>the</strong> wheat (Mat<strong>the</strong>w 13), was used, at least from <strong>the</strong>early third century onwards, and in particular by St Cyprian, tojustify a lenient policy to sinners, until <strong>the</strong> fertile ingenuity of StAugustine, justiWed for once, produced a triumphant counterblast tothis use of <strong>the</strong> parable:54 No, said Augustine, verse 29 (‘lest while yega<strong>the</strong>r up <strong>the</strong> tares ye root up <strong>the</strong> wheat with <strong>the</strong>m’) shows clearlythat only when <strong>the</strong>re is uncertainty and fear of punishing <strong>the</strong> innocentare <strong>the</strong> tares to be allowed to remain until harvest; if <strong>the</strong>re is nodoubt about <strong>the</strong> tares, <strong>the</strong>y are to be rooted out as soon as <strong>the</strong>y arei<strong>de</strong>ntiWed. And it was also left to Augustine to produce <strong>the</strong> one prooftext from <strong>the</strong> New Testament which those who had a taste for <strong>de</strong>viousallegory could regard as justiWcation by <strong>the</strong>ir Lord himself of <strong>the</strong>coercion of heretics and schismatics.55 This was <strong>the</strong> ‘Parable of <strong>the</strong>Great Supper’ in Luke 14, where in <strong>the</strong> command in verse 23 to ‘goout into <strong>the</strong> highways and hedges and compel <strong>the</strong>m to come in’ <strong>the</strong>‘highways and hedges’ were interpreted allegorically as heresies andschisms. This seems to me a conspicuous example of wilfully perverseexegesis. The vital text does not occur in <strong>the</strong> parallel passage inMat<strong>the</strong>w 22 (<strong>the</strong> ‘Parable of <strong>the</strong> Wedding Feast’), and in both cases<strong>the</strong> centre of interest is <strong>the</strong> failure of those originally invited—clearly52 CSEL 62.401–3; contrast Ps.-Dionysius, Ep. 8.5 (cited Appendix, p. 250).53 Class Struggle, 331–2, with 617–18 nn. 9–12. [As noted in <strong>the</strong> Introduction, <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> abhorred <strong>the</strong> Jewish God Yahweh and inten<strong>de</strong>d to examine <strong>the</strong> inXuence of <strong>the</strong>Old Testament on <strong>Christian</strong> intolerance at greater length. An example of <strong>the</strong> signiWcanceof <strong>the</strong> Old Testament in <strong>late</strong> antiquity is Eutychius’ selection by Justinian asPatriarch of Constantinople on <strong>the</strong> basis of his knowledge of Old Testament prece<strong>de</strong>nt:see Evagrius, HE 4.38, p. 187, and Eustratius, Vita Eutychii, ed. C. Laga (Brepols,1992), 613–38 ¼ PG 86.2 § §22–3; on Eutychius, see A. Cameron, ‘Eustratius’ Life of<strong>the</strong> Patriarch Eutychius and <strong>the</strong> Fifth Ecumenical Council’, in G. Clarke (ed.), Reading<strong>the</strong> Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay, 1990), 205–24, repr. in ead., ChangingCultures in Early Byzantium (Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1996), ch. 1.]54 Augustine, C. Epist. Parmen. 3.2.13.55 Augustine, Ep. 93.2.5; 173.10; 185.6.24; 208.7; C. Gau<strong>de</strong>nt. 1.(xxv).28.
222 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdom<strong>the</strong> Jews—to attend <strong>the</strong> Feast.56 Yet <strong>the</strong> text in question, with itscompelle intrare (Luke 14: 23), was appealed to repeatedly right downinto <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages and beyond.It is no won<strong>de</strong>r that a tolerant pagan like Ammianus should saythat ‘wild beasts are not such enemies to mankind as are most<strong>Christian</strong>s (plerique <strong>Christian</strong>orum) in <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>adly hatred of oneano<strong>the</strong>r’ (22.5.4). Ammianus is referring, of course, not to individualbehaviour but to <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> Catholics and o<strong>the</strong>r sects treated eacho<strong>the</strong>r, and he will have had in mind such inci<strong>de</strong>nts as <strong>the</strong> one hehimself re<strong>late</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> bloody strife in Rome between <strong>the</strong> partisansof <strong>the</strong> rival popes Damasus and Ursinus, which I have alreadymentioned.57 Ammianus was not markedly hostile to <strong>Christian</strong>ityin general, and he severely censured his hero, Emperor Julian, forforbidding <strong>Christian</strong>s from becoming teachers of rhetoric andliterature—a form of Berufsverbot which, by <strong>the</strong> way, was retortedagainst <strong>the</strong> pagans by Justinian.58It is sometimes claimed that <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath penalty for religiousoVences was not speciWcally prescribed before <strong>the</strong> last <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong>fourth century. This is far from true. When Constantine or<strong>de</strong>redthat <strong>the</strong> writings of Arius be burnt, he also <strong>de</strong>creed that anyone56 [The exegesis is less perverse than <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> would wish—he was no lover ofAugustine, and was happy to convict him of false interpretation. The Jews werecertainly <strong>the</strong> focus of <strong>the</strong> Parable as it was told by Christ, but it was not illegitimate fora <strong>late</strong>r interpreter to substitute <strong>the</strong> Church for <strong>the</strong> Jews since it could be regar<strong>de</strong>d asrepresentative of <strong>the</strong> body of <strong>Christian</strong>s invited to share Christ’s message; on this basisthose who failed to adhere to <strong>the</strong> Catholic Church, heretics and schismatics, might beequated with those lurking in <strong>the</strong> highways and hedges.]57 [See above, n. 32; see also T. D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and <strong>the</strong> Representationof Historical Reality (Ithaca, 1998), 110.]58 Cod. Just. 1.5.18.4; 1.11.10.2. [On Ammianus’ attitu<strong>de</strong> to <strong>Christian</strong>ity, see <strong>the</strong>contrasting interpretations of J. Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London,1989), 435–51, at 450, for whom ‘Ammianus’ expressed attitu<strong>de</strong> to <strong>Christian</strong>itywas not one of indiscriminate hostility’, and T. D. Barnes, ‘Literary Convention,Nostalgia and Reality in Ammianus Marcellinus’, in Clarke, Reading <strong>the</strong> Past in LateAntiquity, 59–92 at 72, and Ammianus Marcellinus and <strong>the</strong> Representation of HistoricalReality, 79–94. Barnes argues that Ammianus, like Julian, was an apostate <strong>Christian</strong>who sought to marginalize <strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>Christian</strong>ity in his Res Gestae. Forfur<strong>the</strong>r criticisms of Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, see J. P. Davies, Rome’s Religious History: Livy, Tacitusand Ammianus on <strong>the</strong>ir Gods (Cambridge, 2004), 227–33. For a summary of <strong>the</strong>historiography on Ammianus’ attitu<strong>de</strong>s to religion, see R. L. Rike, Apex Omnium:Religion in <strong>the</strong> Res Gestae of Ammianus (Berkeley, 1987), 1–7.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 223concealing such a work should be put to <strong>de</strong>ath.59 O<strong>the</strong>r laws useexpressions like severissimum supplicium [<strong>the</strong> harshest penalty],which would be un<strong>de</strong>rstood as including <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath penalty.60 It istrue that <strong>de</strong>ath was rarely prescribed as a punishment for a purelyreligious oVence, one not involving, for instance, riotous assembly orsome practice tainted with magic. But <strong>the</strong>re was a very good reasonfor this, which is well explained by St Augustine: to put a heretic orschismatic to <strong>de</strong>ath is to send him straight to eternal perdition,without any opportunity for repentance.61 Against this consi<strong>de</strong>ration,however, <strong>the</strong>re was ano<strong>the</strong>r which seemed to many <strong>de</strong>vout<strong>Christian</strong>s to be even more powerful: <strong>the</strong> grave danger of allowing aheretic to corrupt <strong>the</strong> faithful with <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>adly poison of his falsedoctrine and <strong>the</strong>reby perhaps consign <strong>the</strong>m to damnation. Certainly,every conceivable penalty short of <strong>de</strong>ath is imposed in law after law:exile in various <strong>de</strong>grees, many diVerent forms of <strong>de</strong>privation of civilrights, prohibition against assembling, Wnes (sometimes enormous,up to 50 lb. weight of gold), and—for free coloni as well as slaves—Xogging.62 All this was enacted with <strong>the</strong> full consent of <strong>the</strong> bishops,and often doubtless at <strong>the</strong>ir instigation. Even <strong>the</strong> barbarous punishmentof mutilation, very rarely prescribed by <strong>the</strong> Roman criminallaw (cruel as it could be), was used for <strong>the</strong> punishment of purelyreligious oVences, as, for example, when Justinian in a Novel of 536provi<strong>de</strong>d that <strong>the</strong> writings of Severus <strong>the</strong> Monophysite were to beburnt and that anyone who copied <strong>the</strong>m was to have his hand cut oV(Just. Nov. 42.1.2).To sum up, persecution in various forms for purely religiousreasons was oYcially <strong>de</strong>creed by all <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> emperors from59 Socrates, HE 1.9.30–1; Gelasius, HE 2.36.1–2; see P. R. Coleman-Norton,Roman State and <strong>Christian</strong> Church: A Collection of Documents to A.D. 535 (London,1966), iii. 1293, s.v. ‘book-burning’ for some similar edicts—<strong>the</strong> burning both ofheretical and of anti-<strong>Christian</strong> works, especially those of Porphyry, was repeatedlyor<strong>de</strong>red by <strong>Christian</strong> emperors.60 Cod. Theod. 16.8.1.pr. ¼ Cod. Just. 1.9.3 (ad 315, 329 or 339). Cod. Theod. 16.9.2¼ Cod. Just. 1.10.1; cf. Cod. Theod. 16.8.6. Cod. Theod. 16.10.4 (ad 354 or 356); cf.16.10.6 (356). Cod. Theod. 16.5.9.61 Ep. 100.1; 153.1.3, 6.18; cf. 173.1–2.62 See esp. Cod. Theod. 16.5.52.4 (412), 54.7 (414), 65.3 (428); Augustine, Ep.133.2. It is often not only coloni and slaves who are to be Xogged: see Cod. Theod.16.5.21 (392); 40.7 (407); 53 (probably 398); 16.6.4.1 (405).
224 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomConstantine onwards.63 Even Valentinian I (364–75), who was in thisrespect mil<strong>de</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, was not a complete exception.64Invoking <strong>the</strong> assistance of <strong>the</strong> emperor in this manner, in trying tocrush opponents, involved <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s in submitting to <strong>the</strong>emperor’s will in many ways, even in <strong>the</strong> settlement of strictly<strong>the</strong>ological disputes.65 In particular it came to be recognized that aGeneral Council of <strong>the</strong> Church, an ‘Oecumenical’ Council, could besummoned only by an emperor, and when and where he pleased; ifhe wished to inXuence its <strong>de</strong>cisions, he could do so <strong>de</strong>cisively.66It is often assumed that <strong>the</strong> vast mass of imperial legislationagainst religious dissent was not properly enforced—as in<strong>de</strong>ed itsconstant re-enactment may suggest. But, if so, <strong>the</strong> main reason may be63 The best account I know of <strong>the</strong> imperial legislation is to be found scatteredthrough Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: see his in<strong>de</strong>x, s.v. ‘persecutions’,‘heretics’, ‘paganism’, ‘Jews’, ‘Samaritans’, ‘Manichees’, etc. See also Jean Gau<strong>de</strong>met,L’Église dans l’Empire romain, IVe–Ve siècles (Paris, 1958), 593–652. It is seldomsuYciently realized how shamefully <strong>Christian</strong>s treated <strong>the</strong> Jews at various times: seefor example J. Parkes, The ConXict of <strong>the</strong> Church and <strong>the</strong> Synagogue: A Study in <strong>the</strong>Origins of Antisemitism (London, 1934); and <strong>the</strong> inaugural lecture by E. Mary Smallwood,From Pagan Protection to <strong>Christian</strong> Oppression (Belfast, 1979), which, however,scarcely reaches <strong>the</strong> 6th cent. Some of <strong>the</strong> worst known examples come from <strong>the</strong> 6thand 7th cent., especially un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> emperor Heraclius and in <strong>the</strong> Visigothic kingdomin Spain after it became Catholic un<strong>de</strong>r Reccared I in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 580s. For Jewswelcoming <strong>the</strong> Arabs in <strong>the</strong> 630s, see my Class Struggle, 484, with 652–3 n. 39.[The relationship between Jews and <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>late</strong> antiquity has become a veryfertile Weld. While <strong>the</strong> position of Jews in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman Empire undoubtedlybecame more diYcult from Constantine onwards, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s picture is perhaps alittle overdrawn. As Seth Schwartz judiciously notes, ‘Local persecutions, forcedconversions, seizures of synagogues, and so on, which vio<strong>late</strong>d <strong>the</strong> letter but notalways <strong>the</strong> spirit of <strong>the</strong> laws, may have been somewhat less common than has oftenbeen thought (surprisingly few are attested in contemporary sources), but <strong>the</strong>yundoubtedly occurred’; see Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to640 C.E. (Princeton, 2001), 179–202, at 183. See also G. Stroumsa, ‘Religious Contactsin Byzantine Palestine’, Numen, 36 (1989), 16–42; F. Millar, ‘Jews of <strong>the</strong> Greco-Roman Diaspora between Paganism and <strong>Christian</strong>ity’, in J. Lieu, J. North, and T. Rajak(eds.), The Jews among Pagans and <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (London, 1992),97–123.]64 See esp. Ammianus 30.9.5; cf. Cod. Theod. 9.16.9; Socrates, HE 4.1 withSozomen, HE 6.6. His law against <strong>the</strong> Manichees is Cod. Theod. 16.5.3; againstUrsinians, Coll. Avell. nos. 7–12 (CSEL 35.1.49–54), cf. nos. 5–6 (ibid. 48–9).See also Cod. Theod. 16.6.1, and <strong>the</strong> very interesting letter in Theodoret, HE 4.8.65 See Class Struggle, 403–5, and note esp. <strong>the</strong> reference to Chadwick, The EarlyChurch (London, 1967), 132.66 [See below, Ch. 6.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 225simply that <strong>the</strong> governors of <strong>the</strong> provinces and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r leadingoYcials responsible for enforcing such legislation were mainlypagans even in <strong>the</strong> early Wfth century,67 and would feel littledisposition to take action un<strong>de</strong>r persecuting edicts. And of coursemany of <strong>the</strong> edicts may have achieved <strong>the</strong>ir inten<strong>de</strong>d objective, atleast in some <strong>de</strong>gree, merely by <strong>the</strong> threat <strong>the</strong>y represented.68We have no right, however, to expect to Wnd much evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong>enforcement of persecuting edicts in speciWc cases: <strong>the</strong>re are fewsources that would give us that kind of information, and it wouldbe rash to conclu<strong>de</strong>, from <strong>the</strong> rarity of particular examples, that <strong>the</strong>edicts were not enforced. We do have some evi<strong>de</strong>nce, of which I shallcite four specimens. The Wrst of <strong>the</strong>se examples of speciWc cases ofpersecution must date from <strong>the</strong> reign of Constantine: our source isEpiphanius’ <strong>de</strong>scription of how he <strong>de</strong>nounced to <strong>the</strong> bishops, anddrove out, some eighty members of an Egyptian Gnostic sect withpeculiar practices in which he himself had been participating (Panarion26.17.8–9). A second piece of evi<strong>de</strong>nce comes from an inscriptionfrom Sardis in Asia Minor:69 this appears to refer to <strong>the</strong> punishmentof oVen<strong>de</strong>rs against an early law of Justinian (Cod. Just. 1.11.10,presumably of 529–34), which would have had <strong>the</strong> eVect of makingall pagans liable to compulsory baptism, on pain of exile andconWscation of property.Next comes a story with a particularly <strong>de</strong>lightful ending.70 In <strong>the</strong>Wrst quarter of <strong>the</strong> Wfth century <strong>the</strong> Catholic Bishop Theodosius of67 See R. von Haehling, Die Religionszugehörigkeit <strong>de</strong>r hohen Amsträger <strong>de</strong>srömischen Reiches seit Constantins I Alleinherrschaft bis zum En<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>r TheodosianischenDynastie (324–450 bzw. 455 n. Chr.) (Antiquitas iii.23; Bonn, 1978), admirablyreviewed by J. R. Martindale in JRS 69 (1979), 194–6.68 [The eYcacy of <strong>late</strong> antique law has recently come un<strong>de</strong>r consi<strong>de</strong>rable scrutiny.R. Macmullen has argued forcefully that <strong>the</strong>y were not eYcacious, based upon <strong>the</strong>number of references to unenforced laws and ‘stri<strong>de</strong>nt wording’ which, he argues,suggests frustration; see his ‘Social Mobility and <strong>the</strong> Theodosian Co<strong>de</strong>’, JRS 54 (1964),49–53, at 49–50, and more generally Corruption and <strong>the</strong> Decline of Rome (New Haven,1988), 168. For a more positive interpretation, see Harries, Law and Empire in LateAntiquity, 77–98.]69 W. H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson, Sardis, vii: Greek and Latin Inscriptions(Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1932), i. 43–4, no. 19. [C. Foss has dated <strong>the</strong> inscription to some time after539; see Foss, Byzantine and Turkish Sardis (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), 29, withinscription reprinted at 116.]70 Socrates, HE 7.3; copied by Cassiodorus, HE Tripart. 11.3 (CSEL 71.632–3).
226 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomSynnada in Phrygia was a very keen persecutor of <strong>the</strong> Macedonianheretics in his diocese. He even armed his clergy against <strong>the</strong>m, as wellas persecuting <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong> courts and driving <strong>the</strong>m out of <strong>the</strong>district, an example of episcopal behaviour which I am certain wasby no means uncommon. Finding that <strong>the</strong> governors of <strong>the</strong> provincedid not have suYcient enthusiasm for <strong>the</strong> punishment of <strong>the</strong> heretics,he went to Constantinople and persua<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> praetorian prefectof <strong>the</strong> east to issue special edicts stiVening <strong>the</strong> penalties against <strong>the</strong>m.But while he was away Agapetus, <strong>the</strong> local bishop of <strong>the</strong> Macedonians,induced his whole congregation to go over to <strong>the</strong> Catholicfaith. One can imagine <strong>the</strong> consternation of Theodosius when hereturned, to Wnd that Agapetus had calmly usurped his own position.He went oV to Constantinople again in a fury, only to be told by <strong>the</strong>wise Patriarch Atticus that he had better consi<strong>de</strong>r himself (shall Isay?) to have ma<strong>de</strong> himself redundant.My fourth example is not nearly as well known as it <strong>de</strong>serves to be,and it brings out <strong>the</strong> fact that in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Empire exceedinglyunpleasant consequences might attend <strong>the</strong> propagating of a beliefwhich may seem shocking to few people today: that virginity is notinherently superior to marriage. The ex-monk Jovinian discoveredthis when he wrote in favour of that view, and compoun<strong>de</strong>d hisoVence by arguing against <strong>the</strong> perpetual virginity of <strong>the</strong> Virgin Mary,even in partu and post partum, a doctrine which was <strong>the</strong>n beingenthusiastically preached by prominent bishops such as Ambroseand Augustine.71 Jovinian was not only attacked by Jerome in <strong>the</strong>longest of his sometimes ra<strong>the</strong>r scurrilous pamphlets against individualopponents; in addition he was con<strong>de</strong>mned by Pope Siricius71 See conveniently J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome (London, 1975), 180–7; for <strong>the</strong> virginityof Mary, 181 with n. 11. [See also D. Hunter, ‘Helvidius, Jovinian, and <strong>the</strong> Virginity ofMary in Late Fourth-Century Rome’, JECS 1.1 (1993), 47–71; i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Rereading <strong>the</strong>Jovinianist Controversy: Asceticism and Clerical Authority in Late Ancient <strong>Christian</strong>ity’,Journal of Medieval and Early Mo<strong>de</strong>rn Studies 33.3 (2003), 453–70, now repr.in D. B. Martin and P. Cox Miller (eds.), The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies:Gen<strong>de</strong>r, Asceticism, and Historiography (Durham, NC, 2005), 119–35; Y.-M. Duval,L’AVaire Jovinien: d’une crise <strong>de</strong> la société romaine à une crise <strong>de</strong> la pensée chrétienne àla Wn du IVe et au début du Ve siècle (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 83; Rome,2003). On <strong>the</strong> Virgin Mary in <strong>late</strong> antiquity, see now Averil Cameron, ‘The Cult of <strong>the</strong>Virgin in Late Antiquity: Religious Development and Myth-Making’, in R. N. Swanson(ed.), The Church and Mary (London, 2004), 1–21, esp. 7.]
Heresy, Schism, and <strong>Persecution</strong> 227and <strong>the</strong> even more powerful Bishop Ambrose, and by two churchcouncils, at Rome and Milan. And that was not all. The bishops<strong>de</strong>nounced Jovinian at <strong>the</strong> imperial court; <strong>the</strong> result was what <strong>the</strong>great (and pious) historian of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Empire, Ernst <strong>Ste</strong>in, enigmatically<strong>de</strong>scribed as ‘mesures énergiques’.72 To Wnd out <strong>the</strong> peculiarappropriateness of <strong>the</strong> phrase ‘energetic measures’ one must consult<strong>the</strong> Theodosian Co<strong>de</strong>: an imperial constitution issued in 398 refers to<strong>the</strong> episcopal <strong>de</strong>nunciation, con<strong>de</strong>mns <strong>the</strong> sacrilegious meetingsorganized by Jovinian outsi<strong>de</strong> Rome, or<strong>de</strong>rs that Jovinian’s associatesbe <strong>de</strong>ported for life to diVerent islands, and prescribes for Jovinianhimself <strong>the</strong> same punishment, prece<strong>de</strong>d—and here we see just what‘mesures énergiques’ really means—by Xogging with a lea<strong>de</strong>dscourge, <strong>the</strong> terrible plumbum or plumbata whose application couldwell be fatal.73 This may well be why we hear no more of <strong>the</strong> wretchedJovinian, who may well have succumbed to <strong>the</strong> Xogging even if hewas hardly <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>bauched voluptuary <strong>de</strong>picted with such relish byJerome (Contra Jovinian 1.40; 2.21, 36–7).I must draw to an end now, and have no time to <strong>de</strong>scribe <strong>the</strong> bitterstrife that went on and on between those we refer to as Catholics orOrthodox and <strong>the</strong> Monophysites or Miaphysites (and <strong>the</strong> variants onboth si<strong>de</strong>s), which involved much oYcial persecution by <strong>the</strong> Catholicsand some furious popular outbursts, particularly on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rsi<strong>de</strong>.74 An appearance of episcopal unanimity was produced at <strong>the</strong>great Council of Chalcedon in 451, which was dominated by anoverwhelming para<strong>de</strong> of imperial authority in <strong>the</strong> shape of <strong>the</strong> augustlay commissioners who presi<strong>de</strong>d over it. But, as Norman Baynes well72 E. <strong>Ste</strong>in, Histoire du Bas-Empire: <strong>de</strong> l’État romain à l’État byzantin, vol. i, 2n<strong>de</strong>dn. (Paris, 1959), 214. Cod. Theod. 16.5.53, rightly redated to 6 Mar. 398 by Seeck,Regesten <strong>de</strong>r Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr: Vorarbeit zu einerProsopographie <strong>de</strong>r christlichen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart, 1919; repr. Frankfurt, 1964), 28,accepted by <strong>Ste</strong>in, BE i.ii.533–4.73 For <strong>de</strong>ath as a common result of application of <strong>the</strong> plumbum, see Augustine, Ep.10*.4.3 (ed. J. Divjak, CSEL 88 (1981), 48.20–1), and even from ordinary RomanXoggings, Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 60; see fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Class Struggle, 472–3.74 [The main source from <strong>the</strong> Monophysite perspective is John of Ephesus’ Lives of<strong>the</strong> Eastern Saints, whose evi<strong>de</strong>nce provi<strong>de</strong>s <strong>the</strong> basis for <strong>the</strong> discussions in Frend,Monophysite Movement, chs. 6–7, esp. pp. 247–53, 273–6; see also <strong>the</strong> more partisantreatment in S. Ashbrook Harvey, Asceticism and Society in Crisis (Berkeley, 1990);consult in<strong>de</strong>x un<strong>de</strong>r ‘Monophysites, persecution of’.]
228 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomput it, Chalcedon ‘came not to bring peace, but a sword’.75 It seems tome beyond question that <strong>the</strong> persecution of <strong>the</strong> Monophysites greatlyweakened <strong>the</strong> unity of <strong>the</strong> empire and facilitated <strong>the</strong> extraordinarilyrapid conquest of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt by <strong>the</strong> Arabs in <strong>the</strong>630s and 640s.76 I will merely add that <strong>the</strong> chapter on <strong>the</strong> Council ofChalcedon ends with a melancholy story from <strong>the</strong> Syriac Chronicle ofMichael <strong>the</strong> Syrian which shows how vehemently Byzantine rulerspersecuted <strong>the</strong> Monophysitism to which many communities in Syriahad become <strong>de</strong>voted.77I end with a story which seems to me to be a particularly goodillustration of <strong>the</strong> consequences, in medieval Europe, of <strong>the</strong> impositionduring <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire of a great structure of dogmaticand organizational intolerance which was to plague variousparts of <strong>the</strong> world for many centuries. The story, which comes in <strong>the</strong>Wrst chapter of Joinville’s Life of St Louis (King Louis IX of France,who died in 1270), has a peculiarly <strong>de</strong>lightful ending.78 Joinville isretelling a story told to him by <strong>the</strong> sainted king about a greatassembly of <strong>Christian</strong> clergy and Jews held at <strong>the</strong> monastery ofCluny to stage a religious <strong>de</strong>bate. There was a certain lame knight,leaning upon a crutch—one must not forget <strong>the</strong> crutch, since it playsan important a part in <strong>the</strong> story as <strong>the</strong> suspen<strong>de</strong>rs in Kipling’s ‘How<strong>the</strong> whale got its throat’. The knight asked <strong>the</strong> abbot if he could speakWrst, and when <strong>the</strong> abbot agreed <strong>the</strong> knight <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d to have <strong>the</strong>most important and learned of <strong>the</strong> Jewish rabbis brought before him.As soon as <strong>the</strong> Jew had come, <strong>the</strong> knight asked him whe<strong>the</strong>r hebelieved that Mary, <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r of Jesus, was a virgin at <strong>the</strong> time ofhis birth and in truth <strong>the</strong> Mo<strong>the</strong>r of God. The Jew indicatedthat ...no,hedidnotacceptthat. Whereupon <strong>the</strong> knight exclaimed,‘By heaven, I’ll make you pay for it!’, and he lifted up his crutch andstruck <strong>the</strong> Jew such a blow with it over <strong>the</strong> ear that he knocked him75 N. H. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays (London, 1955), 355.76 Class Struggle, 483–4, with 651–3 nn. 32–9 [following Jones, Later RomanEmpire, 1034–5]; H. Kaegi, Byzantium and <strong>the</strong> Early Islamic Conquests (Cambridge,1992).77 [Cf. Ch. 6 below, p. 319.]78 Life of St Louis, in Joinville and Villehardouin, Chronicles of <strong>the</strong> Crusa<strong>de</strong>s, Engl.trans. by M. R. B. Shaw (Harmondsworth, 1963), 175.
Appendix to Chapter 5 229down. The Jews hastily took up <strong>the</strong> woun<strong>de</strong>d rabbi and Xed; <strong>the</strong>reand <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> conference en<strong>de</strong>d, before it had scarcely begun. When<strong>the</strong> abbot protested to <strong>the</strong> knight, <strong>the</strong> knight retorted that <strong>the</strong> abbothad been guilty of even greater folly in calling people toge<strong>the</strong>r forsuch a conference because <strong>the</strong>re were many good <strong>Christian</strong>s <strong>the</strong>rewho, before <strong>the</strong> discussion en<strong>de</strong>d, would have done away with doubtsabout <strong>the</strong>ir own religion, though not fully un<strong>de</strong>rstanding <strong>the</strong> Jewishposition. The sainted king was entirely on <strong>the</strong> knight’s si<strong>de</strong>. ‘So I tellyou’, he said to Joinville, ‘that no one, unless he is an expert <strong>the</strong>ologian,should venture to argue with <strong>the</strong>se people. But a layman,whenever he hears <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> religion abused, should not attemptto <strong>de</strong>fend its tenets except with his sword—and that he should thrustinto <strong>the</strong> scoundrel’s belly, as far as it will go.’APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 5Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity andEarly <strong>Christian</strong>ityJoseph StreeterIn <strong>the</strong> 1999 draft of this paper, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> inclu<strong>de</strong>d a comprehensive list ofevi<strong>de</strong>nce on toleration in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Roman Empire and beyond. Initiallywe planned to incorporate this into <strong>the</strong> body of <strong>the</strong> text, but this provedimpossible. However, <strong>the</strong> collection of evi<strong>de</strong>nce is of value, not least becauseit provi<strong>de</strong>s a good vantage point from which to examine some of <strong>the</strong> salientaspects of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s approach to <strong>Christian</strong>ity, and <strong>the</strong>ir historiography.As I have noted in <strong>the</strong> Introduction, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> contrasts pagan orpoly<strong>the</strong>ist tolerance and <strong>Christian</strong> intolerance. This contrast was mostinXuentially expressed in English by David Hume in his essay ‘Of superstition,and enthusiasm’ (1742), and The Natural History of Religion (1757),although it has <strong>de</strong>eper roots.1 According to Hume, poly<strong>the</strong>ism is tolerant1 The <strong>de</strong>structive eVects of <strong>Christian</strong>ity on social harmony had been explored forsome time before Hume, most signiWcantly in <strong>the</strong> Machiavellian tradition. As notedin <strong>the</strong> Introduction, apart from Hume, ano<strong>the</strong>r important inXuence on Gibbon is
230 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomowing to its falsity: ‘being entirely foun<strong>de</strong>d in vulgar tradition’, it ‘is liable tothis great inconvenience, that any practice or opinion, however barbarous orcorrupted, may be authorised by it.’2 In contrast, mono<strong>the</strong>ism or ‘<strong>the</strong>ism’always tends to intolerance, since each sect regards its own faith and worshipas exclusively true. Accordingly, ‘<strong>the</strong> several sects fall naturally into animosity,and mutually discharge on each o<strong>the</strong>r, that sacred zeal and rancour, <strong>the</strong>most furious and implacable of all human passions’.3 Although Hume didnot, at least in 1757, dispute <strong>the</strong> intellectual foundations of ‘<strong>the</strong>ism’,reckoning that ‘<strong>the</strong> whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author’,4<strong>the</strong> consequence of corrupted <strong>the</strong>ism (intolerance or ‘enthusiasm’) was farworse than that of corrupted poly<strong>the</strong>ism (superstition), because ‘<strong>the</strong>corruption of <strong>the</strong> best things produces <strong>the</strong> worst’.5 Hume’s inXuence onGibbon is clear,6 although Gibbon, like <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, noted Islam’s superiorrecord on religious toleration.7 The inXuence of Hume and Gibbon is stillapparent in contemporary scholarship, with both Ramsey MacMullen andGlen Bowersock asserting <strong>the</strong> inherently tolerant character of poly<strong>the</strong>ism.8Montesquieu’s Considérations, on which see V. <strong>de</strong> Senarclens, Montesquieu, Historien<strong>de</strong> Rome: un tournant pour la réXexion sur le statut <strong>de</strong> l’histoire au XVIIIe siècle(Geneva, 2003). Montesquieu had ma<strong>de</strong> this contrast as early as 1716 in his ‘Dissertationsur la politique <strong>de</strong>s Romains dans la religion’, in Œuvres complètes <strong>de</strong>Montesquieu, ed. M. A. Masson, iii (Paris, 1955), 37–50.2 D. Hume, ‘The natural history of religion’, ed. J. W. Colver, in Hume, The NaturalHistory of Religion and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Oxford, 1976), 23–98,at 58–9. For a clear introduction to Hume’s philosophy of religion, see J. C. A. Gaskin,Hume’s Philosophy of Religion, 2nd edn. (London, 1988); for <strong>the</strong> broa<strong>de</strong>r intellectualand historical context, see P. Harrison, ‘Religion’ and <strong>the</strong> Religious in <strong>the</strong> EnglishEnlightenment (Cambridge, 1990) and K. Haakonssen (ed.), Enlightenment andReligion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge, 1996).3 Hume, ‘Natural history of religion’, 60.4 Hume, ‘Natural history of religion’, 25.5 Hume, ‘Of superstition and enthusiasm’, in Essays Moral, Political, and Literary,ed. T. H. Green and T. H. Grose (London, 1889), 144–50, at 144.6 E. Gibbon, History of <strong>the</strong> Decline and Fall of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire, i. 447 (ed.Womersley); on Hume’s inXuence on Gibbon, see J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Superstition andEnthusiasm in Gibbon’s History of Religion’, Eighteenth Century Life, 8.1 (1982),83–94; D. Womersley, The Transformation of The Decline and Fall of <strong>the</strong> RomanEmpire (Cambridge, 1988), 20–38.7 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, iii. 315; for <strong>the</strong> background to Gibbon’s account of <strong>the</strong>spread of Islam, and particularly <strong>the</strong> use of Muhammad in 17th- and 18th-cent.trinitarian disputes, see D. Womersley, Gibbon and <strong>the</strong> ‘Watchmen of <strong>the</strong> Holy City’:The Historian and his Reputation 1776–1815 (Oxford, 2002), 147–72.8 R. MacMullen, Paganism in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (New Haven, 1981), 1–5; G. W.Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, 1990), 6: ‘Poly<strong>the</strong>ism is by<strong>de</strong>Wnition tolerant and accommodating.’
Appendix to Chapter 5 231While <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> indicts <strong>Christian</strong>ity for its intolerance, he notes, citingTertullian, Lactantius, and <strong>the</strong> ‘so-called Edict of Milan’, that ‘before <strong>the</strong>empire became oYcially <strong>Christian</strong> <strong>the</strong>re were some splendid <strong>Christian</strong> pleasfor religious toleration, in <strong>the</strong> most absolute terms’ and charges post-Constantinian <strong>Christian</strong>ity with failing to follow this prece<strong>de</strong>nt. However,it is unclear that <strong>the</strong>se texts bear this interpretation. Two problems standout: Wrst, we need to ask what <strong>the</strong> phrase ‘toleration in <strong>the</strong> most absoluteterms’ might mean; second, we need to ask whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> texts <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> citesreally establish a prece<strong>de</strong>nt for <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>s.A recent collection of essays, principally by philosophers and political<strong>the</strong>orists, aptly characterizes toleration as ‘an elusive virtue’, and one of <strong>the</strong>contributors, <strong>the</strong> philosopher Bernard Williams, notes that it seems ‘at oncenecessary and impossible’.9 That <strong>the</strong> meaning and consequences of tolerationare still disputed obviously presents signiWcant diYculties to a historianof toleration. None<strong>the</strong>less, toleration ‘in <strong>the</strong> most absolute terms’ mustsurely refer to some positive concept of toleration, which aYrms diversity asinherently valuable. Such an un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of toleration is generally combinedwith <strong>the</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a of human rights, according to which a person is entitledto certain beliefs and practices by virtue of being human, as long as <strong>the</strong>y donot interfere with <strong>the</strong> freedom and dignity of o<strong>the</strong>rs. This is very much amo<strong>de</strong>rn conception, formu<strong>late</strong>d following <strong>the</strong> Reformation and installed asone of <strong>the</strong> fundaments of civil society during <strong>the</strong> eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies.10 Accordingly, ancient and medieval historians should use <strong>the</strong>concept ‘toleration’ with caution. Some have suggested that it has norelevance to <strong>the</strong> ancient world.11 In contrast, <strong>the</strong> argument has recentlybeen advanced that it can be used to <strong>de</strong>scribe pre-Mo<strong>de</strong>rn and non-Westernsocieties, and should not be seen as <strong>the</strong> exclusive preserve of <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rnWest.12 There are certainly problems with starting from a ‘strong’ <strong>de</strong>Wnition9 See D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration: An Elusive Virtue (Princeton, 1996), andB. Williams, ‘Toleration: An Impossible Virtue’, 18–27, at 18.10 This is, of course, a process with a very diVerent momentum in diVerent parts ofEurope. For some of <strong>the</strong> historical background, see <strong>the</strong> essays collected in O. P. Grelland R. Porter (eds.), Toleration in Enlightenment Europe (Cambridge, 2000) and J. I.Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and <strong>the</strong> Making of Mo<strong>de</strong>rnity 1650–1750(Oxford, 2001). See also R. Geuss, History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge, 2001),73–84.11 This has been much discussed in <strong>the</strong> last <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong>. M. Beard, J. North, and S.Price, Religions of Rome, i:A History (Cambridge, 1998), 212, have argued that ‘<strong>the</strong>concept ‘‘toleration’’ is distinctively mo<strong>de</strong>rn and does not apply in this period’.12 See <strong>the</strong> work of John <strong>Christian</strong> Laursen and Cary Ne<strong>de</strong>rman, who have arguedthat historians of toleration need not use a ‘positive’ concept of toleration as <strong>the</strong>ir
232 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomof toleration, since it runs <strong>the</strong> risk of ren<strong>de</strong>ring all societies intolerant until<strong>the</strong>y reach precisely <strong>the</strong> strong <strong>de</strong>Wnition that is <strong>the</strong> starting point. None<strong>the</strong>less,if we do extend toleration, we need to use <strong>the</strong> term carefully; inparticular we need to distinguish intention from eVect. Toleration was nevera positive aim of <strong>late</strong> antique emperors, kings, or bishops, and it was only anaim for <strong>the</strong>ir addressees if <strong>the</strong>y could not maintain <strong>the</strong>ir beliefs or practicesin any o<strong>the</strong>r way. It was a consequence of discourses on <strong>the</strong> exercise ofpower, perhaps most notably clemency which, as we shall see, was often aneVective mask for practical limitations of government, or a rhetorical strategyemployed by those in a position of weakness. As Peter Brown has argued,i<strong>de</strong>as of toleration were not <strong>the</strong> main limitation on religious intolerance in<strong>late</strong> antiquity. Brown himself has emphasized <strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>the</strong> forms ofcomportment bound up with elite pai<strong>de</strong>ia, which encompassed both pagansand <strong>Christian</strong>s and blunted <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>Christian</strong> intolerance, and has shownhow practicalities of government, particularly revenue collecting, could leadto greater tolerance than suggested by <strong>Christian</strong> rhetoric.13 Perhaps <strong>the</strong> maindiVerence between such a society and one based on an explicit concept oftoleration is that <strong>the</strong> limits of intolerance are potentially very fragile, with<strong>the</strong> consequence that once violence breaks out it can quickly esca<strong>late</strong>.The o<strong>the</strong>r central diYculty in referring to ‘religious toleration’ in <strong>the</strong>ancient world is <strong>the</strong> absence of any concept commensurable with ‘religion’.The Latin religio carries quite diVerent connotations, and is better trans<strong>late</strong>das ‘correct practice’, to be contrasted with superstitio.14 As Mary Beard,John North, and Simon Price have argued, religio and superstitio weremeasure, since doing so ren<strong>de</strong>rs all pre-Enlightenment and non-Western societiesintolerant. See Laursen and Ne<strong>de</strong>rman, ‘Problems of Periodization in <strong>the</strong> History ofToleration’, Storia <strong>de</strong>lla StoriograWa, 37 (2000), 55–65; Ne<strong>de</strong>rman and Laursen,‘DiVerence and Dissent: Introduction’, in Ne<strong>de</strong>rman and Laursen (eds.), DiVerenceand Dissent: Theories of Toleration in Medieval and Early Mo<strong>de</strong>rn Europe (Lanham,Md., 1996), 1–16, at 1, restated in Ne<strong>de</strong>rman, Worlds of DiVerence: EuropeanDiscourses of Toleration, c.1100–c.1550 (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 2000), 1–2. See also Laursen(ed.), Religious Toleration: ‘The Variety of Rites’ from Cyrus to Defoe (London, 1999),esp. 1–11; Laursen and Ne<strong>de</strong>rman (eds.), Beyond <strong>the</strong> Persecuting Society: ReligiousToleration before <strong>the</strong> Enlightenment (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 1998), 1–10.13 P. Brown, Authority and <strong>the</strong> Sacred: Aspects of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>isation of <strong>the</strong> RomanWorld (Cambridge, 1995), esp. 29–54, and ‘<strong>Christian</strong>isation and Religious ConXict’,in A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds.), CAH xiii: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425(Cambridge, 1998), 632–64. On limitations of power, see also P. Garnsey, ‘ReligiousToleration in Classical Antiquity’, Studies in Church History, 21 (1984), 1–27, at 9.14 See Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome, i:A History, 215–28; P. Garnseyand C. Humfress, The Evolution of <strong>the</strong> Late Antique World (Cambridge, 2001), 139.
Appendix to Chapter 5 233simultaneously ‘discursive categories which framed religious arguments’and ‘labels of approval or disapproval’.15 The boundaries between religioand superstitio should not be sought objectively. Their precise meaning was<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on context, and was very much in <strong>the</strong> eye of <strong>the</strong> behol<strong>de</strong>r. Whileour concept ‘religion’ is certainly not value-neutral, it is perhaps less explicitlynormative than religio.16 Thus when we speak of ‘religious toleration in<strong>the</strong> ancient world’, we must recognize that <strong>the</strong> concept religio had a muchmore restrictive meaning that ‘religion’, and that many practices that weclassify as religious could equally well be prohibited as superstitio. The ‘socalledEdict of Milan’ is signiWcant because it classiWes <strong>Christian</strong>ity as religio,alongsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> traditional religiones of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire.17 It does not signala commitment to ‘religious toleration’ in anything like <strong>the</strong> sense we mightuse, as superstitiones would still be subject to coercion and prohibition.<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s examples from Tertullian and Lactantius pose more complexproblems. Lactantius has recently been claimed as a supporter of religioustoleration,18 and both he and Tertullian make arguments that overlap with<strong>late</strong>r i<strong>de</strong>as of freedom of conscience.19 Lactantius also inXuenced earlymo<strong>de</strong>rn scepticism, which was an important source of i<strong>de</strong>as for <strong>late</strong>r <strong>the</strong>oriesof religious toleration.20 Tertullian coins <strong>the</strong> phrase libertas religionis atApologeticus 24.6, a passage worth quoting in full:Vi<strong>de</strong>te enim ne et hoc ad inreligiositatis elogium concurrat, adimere libertatemreligionis et interdicere optionem divinitatis, ut non liceat mihi colerequem velim, sed cogar colere quem nolim.15 Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome, i:A History, 215.16 On <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>velopment of <strong>the</strong> category ‘religion’, see T. Asad, Genealogies ofReligion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Islam (Baltimore,1993); and D. Dubuisson, The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledgeand I<strong>de</strong>ology (Baltimore, 2003).17 Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 48.2–12.18 See for instance E. <strong>de</strong> P. Digeser, ‘Lactantius, Porphyry, and <strong>the</strong> Debate overReligious Toleration’, JRS 88 (1998), 129–49, and The Making of a <strong>Christian</strong> Empire:Lactantius and Rome (Ithaca, 2000), 91–114; H. Drake, ‘Lambs into Lions: ExplainingEarly <strong>Christian</strong> Intolerance’, Past and Present, 153 (1996), 3–36, and Constantine and<strong>the</strong> Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Baltimore, 2000), 211; Garnsey and Humfress,Evolution of <strong>the</strong> Late Antique World, 206–7, who recognize <strong>the</strong> contextual limits toLactantius’ tolerance.19 On <strong>the</strong> importance of freedom of conscience in Enlightenment i<strong>de</strong>as of toleration,see J. Dunn, ‘The Claim to Freedom of Conscience: Freedom of Speech,Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Worship?’, in The History of Political Theory andO<strong>the</strong>r Essays (Cambridge, 1996), 100–20.20 On which see L. A. Panizza, ‘Lorenzo Valla’s De vero falsoque bono, Lactantiusand Oratorical Scepticism’, Journal of <strong>the</strong> Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 41 (1978),76–107.
234 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomLook to it, whe<strong>the</strong>r this also may form part of <strong>the</strong> accusation of irreligion—to do away with freedom of religion, to forbid a man choice of <strong>de</strong>ity, so that Imay not worship whom I would, but am forced to worship whom I wouldnot.I have inclu<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> Loeb translation, which shows well some of <strong>the</strong>diYculties that this text poses. If we trans<strong>late</strong> inreligiositas as ‘irreligion’and religio as ‘religion’, all seems clear. The diYculty lies in knowing what anon-<strong>Christian</strong> would have un<strong>de</strong>rstood by libertas religionis. This is presumablyanticipated by Tertullian, when he explains that doing away with libertasreligionis entails forbidding optio divinitatis, a <strong>de</strong>scription that certainlyresembles our un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of religious toleration, and this pluralistun<strong>de</strong>rstanding of religio is supported by his earlier reference to Judaism asa religio licita (Apol. 21.1). In Ad Scapulam 2.2 he argues along similar lines:‘it is ordained by both man-ma<strong>de</strong> and natural law that each person mayworship whatever he wishes’. We must be wary, however, of letting attractiveand, to us, self-evi<strong>de</strong>ntly plausible sentiments cloud our sense of what <strong>the</strong>ymight have meant in context. Tertullian interprets coercion and persecutionof <strong>Christian</strong>s as being about what <strong>Christian</strong>s worship, or at least this is <strong>the</strong>rhetorical strategy that he adopts. However, as <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> argued, it is not <strong>the</strong>positive aspect of <strong>Christian</strong> worship that seems to have angered contemporaries,but ra<strong>the</strong>r its negative aspect, <strong>the</strong> fact that being a <strong>Christian</strong> entailed<strong>the</strong> rejection of ancestral religious practices.21 In<strong>de</strong>ed, if we look at o<strong>the</strong>rreligious groups or practices coerced or prohibited by <strong>the</strong> Roman authorities,attention focuses almost exclusively on <strong>the</strong> manner of worship, and notits object. Although <strong>the</strong> adherents of some <strong>de</strong>ities certainly attractedparticular ridicule,22 <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ity itself is not blamed. When, in 186 bc, <strong>the</strong>Roman senate suppressed <strong>the</strong> Bacchic cult, it regu<strong>late</strong>d, but did not prohibit,<strong>the</strong> worship of Bacchus.23 Late republican and early imperial <strong>de</strong>Wnitions ofreligio are concerned with <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> with which <strong>the</strong> gods are approached,21 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong>s’ [above, Ch. 3, pp. 133–8].22 See for instance Juvenal, Satire 6.522–41 on a priestess of Isis; perhaps alsoApuleius’ account of Lucius’ conversion, Metamorphoses 11, although <strong>the</strong> precisesigniWcance of this text remains controversial and, as John Winkler argued, it isprobably misgui<strong>de</strong>d to look for a Wxed and conclusive meaning; see Winkler, Auctorand Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’s The Gol<strong>de</strong>n Ass (Berkeley, 1985),204–47.23 The senate’s measures are recor<strong>de</strong>d on ILLRP 511 ¼ ILS 18, trans. in Beard,North, and Price, Religions of Rome, ii. 290–1 inscription, with Religions of Rome, i.91–8; on <strong>the</strong> suppression of <strong>the</strong> Bacchic cult, see J. North, ‘Religious Toleration inRepublican Rome’, PCPS 25 (1979), 85–103, repr. in C. Ando (ed.), Roman Religion(Edinburgh, 2003), 199–219.
Appendix to Chapter 5 235and <strong>the</strong> same is true of <strong>de</strong>Wnitions of superstitio or <strong>de</strong>isidaimonia, articu<strong>late</strong>dperhaps most famously in Theophrastus’ sketch of a ‘superstitious man’.24Tertullian’s inconsistent use of religio fur<strong>the</strong>r complicates <strong>the</strong> meaning oflibertas religionis. Earlier in chapter 24 he <strong>de</strong>fends <strong>Christian</strong>ity againstaccusations of treason against Roman religio (crimen laesae maxime Romanaereligionis) on <strong>the</strong> grounds that ‘if <strong>the</strong>y (<strong>the</strong> Roman gods) <strong>de</strong>Wnitely arenot gods, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>de</strong>Wnitely it is not religio’ (si enim non sunt <strong>de</strong>i pro certo, necreligio pro certo est) and goes on to contrast <strong>the</strong> ‘true religio of <strong>the</strong> true god’with <strong>the</strong> ‘crime of true irreligio’ (crimen verae inreligiositatis). In Ad Scapulamhe plays o<strong>the</strong>r games with religio. The assertion nec religionis est cogerereligionem (‘it is not a part of religio to force religio’) allu<strong>de</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> relationshipbetween superstitio and excess, suggesting that <strong>the</strong> urge to force<strong>Christian</strong>s to sacriWce is <strong>the</strong> opposite of religio. It is, <strong>the</strong>n, very unclearhow a non-<strong>Christian</strong> would have un<strong>de</strong>rstood <strong>the</strong> phrase libertas religionis.They would almost certainly have chafed at Tertullian’s temerity in claiming<strong>Christian</strong>ity as religio. Whe<strong>the</strong>r we should expect clear principles from a textlike Apologeticus is doubtful, and it seems to me that Tertullian is playingwith paradoxes ra<strong>the</strong>r than trying to make a coherent argument fortoleration. The most that can be inferred securely from this passage is tha<strong>the</strong> advocates freedom to be a <strong>Christian</strong>.Lactantius’ use of religio is similarly contradictory. Witness Divine Institutes5.19.21:25They (pagans) realise that nothing matters more in human aVairs thanreligio and that it ought to be <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>d with every en<strong>de</strong>avour, but <strong>the</strong>y arejust as <strong>de</strong>ceived in <strong>the</strong> religio itself as <strong>the</strong>y are in how to <strong>de</strong>fend it.In book 4 Lactantius discusses <strong>the</strong> meaning of religio, which he <strong>de</strong>Wnes as‘worship of what is true’, and superstitio, which is ‘worship of what is false’(4.28.11). He is not <strong>the</strong>refore asserting that <strong>the</strong>re are many legitimatereligions: if religio is ‘worship of what is true’, <strong>the</strong>n it can only refer to<strong>Christian</strong>ity. Non-<strong>Christian</strong>s have a sort of primordial un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of <strong>the</strong>importance of <strong>Christian</strong>ity (religio), but are led astray by <strong>de</strong>mons intothinking that <strong>the</strong>ir worship is religio. Elsewhere, however, we Wnd a morepluralist use of religio; in a contrast between <strong>Christian</strong>ity, or ‘our religio’(nostra religio) (5.19.30) and paganism, Lactantius states that ‘when <strong>the</strong>24 Theophrastus, Characters 16; see <strong>the</strong> recent edition with Engl. trans. and comm.by J. Diggle, Theophrastus: Characters (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries43; Cambridge, 2004), 110–13.25 See <strong>the</strong> recent translation and commentary of A. Bowen and P. Garnsey,Lactantius: Divine Institutes (TTH 40; Liverpool, 2003). All subsequent translationswill follow this edition, with some modiWcations.
236 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomsacriWce is over in all its emptiness, <strong>the</strong>y leave <strong>the</strong>ir religio as <strong>the</strong>y found it, in<strong>the</strong> temple and with <strong>the</strong> temple’, and that ‘religiones of that sort (eiusmodi)cannot make people good and cannot be reliable and stable’ (5.19.27–8).There is not necessarily a contradiction between <strong>the</strong>se two uses of religio: <strong>the</strong>job of rhetoric is persuasion, and one way to make a point is to use, andsubvert, <strong>the</strong> discourses through which opponents un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong>mselves.I do not want to downplay <strong>the</strong> potential signiWcance of Tertullian’s andLactantius’ arguments against coercion and persecution, which contrastfavourably with <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s of many leading <strong>Christian</strong>s after <strong>the</strong> conversionof Constantine, although <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>s were able to Wnd scriptural<strong>de</strong>fences of pluralism. However, as Socrates remarked of <strong>the</strong> phrase usedby <strong>the</strong> Arians in 382, ‘<strong>the</strong>y say now many are called and few are chosen—anexpression which <strong>the</strong>y never used when on account of fear and terror <strong>the</strong>majority of people were on <strong>the</strong>ir si<strong>de</strong>’.26 Nei<strong>the</strong>r Tertullian nor Lactantiusma<strong>de</strong> a positive case for toleration. Although <strong>the</strong>y issued pleas againstpersecution, <strong>the</strong>y did so from positions of weakness. They were not interestedin general principles of toleration, but in <strong>the</strong> immediate toleration oforthodox <strong>Christian</strong>s. Both fail what Perez Zagorin, in a slightly diVerentcontext, has called <strong>the</strong> ‘heresy test’, in that nei<strong>the</strong>r accepted diversity within<strong>the</strong> Church.27Organizing <strong>the</strong> sources collected by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> into useful categories hasnot proved easy. The classiWcation I have chosen is threefold, and is <strong>de</strong>signedless with logical coherence in mind than with general context within whichgroups of texts can be un<strong>de</strong>rstood. The Wrst section inclu<strong>de</strong>s explicit pleasfor toleration, which argue for a plurality of legitimate worship (with <strong>the</strong>caveat that ‘legitimate worship’ already presupposes <strong>the</strong> exclusion of manypractices that we would categorize as religious); it will be noticed that <strong>the</strong>seare all issued by non-<strong>Christian</strong>s. The second section comprises materialfrom <strong>Christian</strong> historians (not just Church historians) critical of intoleranceor persecution. While a historian was un<strong>de</strong>r no compulsion to be tolerant or<strong>de</strong>tached, a <strong>de</strong>tached mo<strong>de</strong> of narrative was at least available for use, anddiVerent historians use this to diVerent <strong>de</strong>grees. Openness and toleration isnot common in <strong>the</strong> work of post-Constantinian <strong>Christian</strong>s; it features mostabundantly in works of history. The Wnal section comprises pleas againstcoercion or persecution, which overlap with our un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of toleration,but were generally directed to speciWc problems.26 Cited by P. Brown, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>isation and Religious ConXict’, in A. Cameron andP. Garnsey (eds.), CAH xiii: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425 (Cambridge, 1998),632–64, at 643–4.27 See P. Zagorin, How <strong>the</strong> I<strong>de</strong>a of Religious Toleration Came to <strong>the</strong> West (Princeton,2003), 313–14.
Appendix to Chapter 5 237Support for tolerationOf <strong>the</strong> sources collected by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, <strong>the</strong> three authors who make <strong>the</strong>strongest cases for toleration are Themistius (Orations 5 and 6, 364 and365),28 Symmachus (third Relatio, 384),29 and Libanius (Oration 30, 386).30Although <strong>the</strong> texts proclaim <strong>the</strong> plurality of legitimate forms of worship, it isdiYcult to infer principles or attitu<strong>de</strong>s from <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong> circumstances of<strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>livery must be taken into account. In <strong>the</strong> speech to celebrate <strong>the</strong> startof Jovian’s consulship on 1 January 364,31 Themistius praises Jovian’s ‘legislationon divine matters’32 on <strong>the</strong> basis that ‘<strong>the</strong>re are some matters whichhave escaped compulsion and are superior to threat and injunction, forexample <strong>the</strong> whole question of virtue and, above all, reverence for <strong>the</strong>divine’, adding that it is ‘necessary for whoever intends that <strong>the</strong>y (virtueand reverence for <strong>the</strong> divine) should exist naturally to take <strong>the</strong> lead in <strong>the</strong>segood things, having realized most wisely that <strong>the</strong> impulse of <strong>the</strong> soul is28 Themistius, Or. 5 esp. 67b–70d, with Socrates, HE 3.25.20–1. Eng. trans. byP. Hea<strong>the</strong>r and D. Moncur, Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in <strong>the</strong> Late Fourth Century:Select Orations of Themistius (Liverpool, 2001), 159–73, 180–98, with introductorydiscussion at 149–58, 173–9. See also G. Dagron, ‘L’Empire romain d’Orient au IV esiècle et les traditions politiques <strong>de</strong> l’Hellenisme: le témoignage <strong>de</strong> Thémistios’,Travaux et Mémoires, 3 (1968), 1–242, at 163–98 for discussion and partial Frenchtranslation. Also J. P. Daly, ‘Themistius’ Plea for Religious Toleration’, Greek, Romanand Byzantine Studies, 12 (1971), 65–79; C. Ando, ‘Pagan Apologetics and <strong>Christian</strong>Intolerance in <strong>the</strong> Ages of Themistius and Augustine’, JECS 4.2 (1996), 171–207.29 Latin text and trans. in R. H. Barrow, Prefect and Emperor: The Relationes ofSymmachus A.D. 384 (Oxford, 1973), 34–47. On this episo<strong>de</strong> see <strong>the</strong> collection ofsources, German trans., and comm. of R. Klein, Der Streit um <strong>de</strong>n Victoriaaltar: diedritte Relatio <strong>de</strong>s Symmachus und die Briefe 17, 18, und 57 <strong>de</strong>s Mailän<strong>de</strong>r BischofsAmbrosius (Texte zur Forschung 7; Darmstadt, 1972). For <strong>the</strong> historical background,see J. F. Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364–425 (Oxford,1975), 205–11, and N. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a <strong>Christian</strong>Capital (Berkeley, 1994), 166.30 For <strong>the</strong> content and context see <strong>the</strong> introduction to A. F. Norman’s translationin Libanius, Selected Works ii (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 92–9;and cf. n. 29 above.31 Socrates, HE 4.32.2–5; Sozomen, HE 6.36.6–37.1; Cassiodorus, HE Tripart.8.12.1 (CSEL 71. 484–5).32 There is some <strong>de</strong>bate over whe<strong>the</strong>r Jovian had issued this legislation, or whe<strong>the</strong>rThemistius was urging him to do so. For <strong>the</strong> former position see A. H. M. Jones, TheLater Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey(Oxford, 1964), 150, against which J. Van<strong>de</strong>rspoel, Themistius and <strong>the</strong> ImperialCourt: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Pai<strong>de</strong>ia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor,1995), 148–53. Jones’s position is more likely; see Hea<strong>the</strong>r and Moncur, Politics,Philosophy, and Empire, 154–5.
238 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomunconstrained, and is both autonomous and voluntary’. Themistius <strong>the</strong>nharmonizes <strong>Christian</strong> and non-<strong>Christian</strong> forms of worship: ‘while <strong>the</strong>reexists only one Judge, mighty and true, <strong>the</strong>re is no one road leading tohim’. For Themistius persecution simply will not work, though he also<strong>de</strong>velops arguments for religious diversity on <strong>the</strong> grounds of <strong>the</strong> beneWtsof competition and from comparison to <strong>the</strong> varied composition of <strong>the</strong> army.Although Jovian’s acceptance of toleration might appear to be a rareexample of a person in a position of power rejecting <strong>the</strong> opportunity toimpose <strong>the</strong>ir religious beliefs, <strong>the</strong> policy proclaimed for him by Themistiuscannot bear this weight. Jovian’s position as emperor was in fact shaky, since<strong>the</strong> praetorian prefect Salutius Secundus (non-<strong>Christian</strong>) had comman<strong>de</strong>dsupport in discussions over <strong>the</strong> succession in Julian’s beleaguered army inPersia, and Jovian had not yet reached <strong>the</strong> heartlands of <strong>the</strong> empire toimpose his authority.33 In <strong>the</strong> immediate circumstances, it would havebeen politic for Jovian to avoid causing oVence to inXuential sections of<strong>the</strong> army or administration which he had inherited from Julian; how hisreligious policies might have <strong>de</strong>veloped is beyond speculation, since he diedon 17 February after a reign of less than 8 months.Jovian’s successor in <strong>the</strong> East, Valens, had been elevated by his bro<strong>the</strong>r,Valentinian I, on 28 March 364 and before <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> year he too was beingpraised by Themistius for religious toleration, although this is not one of <strong>the</strong>main <strong>the</strong>mes of Oration 6, which focuses on <strong>the</strong> concordia of <strong>the</strong> two coemperors.34There are, however, signiWcant changes in Themistius’ approachto <strong>the</strong> topic: whereas to Jovian Themistius could present <strong>Christian</strong>ity as <strong>the</strong>religion of <strong>the</strong> Syrians, which had its place alongsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> alternative religionsof <strong>the</strong> Greeks and Egyptians, in addressing Valens Themistius proclaims thatsome religions are better than o<strong>the</strong>rs and nowhere suggests that diversitywithin <strong>Christian</strong>ity might be acceptable. Valens was clearly a committed<strong>Christian</strong> and Themistius will already have been ma<strong>de</strong> aware of his strongpreference for a non-Nicene Christological approach: <strong>the</strong> emperor sooninitiated action against <strong>the</strong> philosophers favoured by Julian, in particularMaximus of Ephesus, and set about returning <strong>the</strong> Church to <strong>the</strong> anti-Nicenesituation which had pertained un<strong>de</strong>r Constantius II. From reports in Socrates(4.32) and Sozomen (6.36.6–37.1), it appears that Valens had to soften his33 For discussion of <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce, see P. Hea<strong>the</strong>r, ‘Ammianus on Jovian, Historyand Literature’, in J. W. Drijvers and D. Hunt (eds.), The Late Roman World and itsHistorian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus (London, 1999), 105–16, at 105–8.34 Hea<strong>the</strong>r and Moncur, Politics, Philosophy, and Empire, 177–8; N. Lenski, Failureof Empire: Valens and <strong>the</strong> Roman State in <strong>the</strong> Fourth Century A.D. (Berkeley, 2002),28–9.
Appendix to Chapter 5 239line on divisions within <strong>the</strong> Church, since both historians complimentThemistius on persuading <strong>the</strong> emperor to mo<strong>de</strong>rate his severity and acceptthat God was honoured more greatly by a diversity of approach. The speech inquestion does not surive, unless Socrates has conXated <strong>the</strong> message of <strong>the</strong>speech to Jovian and so distorted <strong>the</strong> historiographic tradition.35 It is,however, not unduly cynical to suspect that Themistius was merely acting,as usual, as <strong>the</strong> imperial mouthpiece for a policy <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d on o<strong>the</strong>r grounds,36in this case most probably <strong>the</strong> threat posed to Valens by <strong>the</strong> usurpation ofProcopius, which certainly led to a change of heart with regard to <strong>the</strong> Nicenechampion, Athanasius of Alexandria.37Whereas Themistius <strong>de</strong>vised arguments to promote <strong>the</strong> policies of <strong>Christian</strong>emperors, Symmachus and Libanius write as non-<strong>Christian</strong>s broughtup in a world where intellectuals with diVerent beliefs had been more closelylinked to each o<strong>the</strong>r by educational, family, and social ties than separated bya religious divi<strong>de</strong>.38 Libanius in particular <strong>de</strong>monstrates an accommodationwhich can be appealing to mo<strong>de</strong>rn commentators: he wrote letters on behalfof <strong>Christian</strong>s during Julian’s reign (Eps. 724, 763, 819, 1411) and in 364appealed to Priscianus, <strong>the</strong> governor of Palestina Prima, to provi<strong>de</strong> securityfor <strong>the</strong> Manichees ‘who do no harm to anyone but are persecuted by somepeople’ (Ep. 1253 ¼ 132 Norman),39 and commiserated with <strong>the</strong> Jewishpatriarch, perhaps after <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> attack on <strong>the</strong> synagogue at Callinicum(Ep. 914 ¼ 160 Norman).40 There was, however, no question where <strong>the</strong>balance of power lay, and in <strong>the</strong> 380s both Libanius in <strong>the</strong> East and35 From Socrates it passed to Sozomen, and from <strong>the</strong>m to Cassiodorus, HETripart. 8.12.1 (CSEL 71. 484–5).36 For this general interpretation of Themistius, see Hea<strong>the</strong>r and Moncur, Politics,Philosophy, and Empire, 29–42.37 See T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in <strong>the</strong>Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 161–3.38 For <strong>the</strong> context, see J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and ImperialAdministration in <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1972), 224–42; also P. Petit,Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au IVe siècle après J.-C. (Paris, 1955); and,brieXy, P. <strong>de</strong> Labriolle, La Réaction paienne: étu<strong>de</strong> sur la polémique antichrétienne duIer au VIe siècle (Paris, 1934), 429–33.39 See PLRE i. 727, s.v. Priscianus I.40 With regard to <strong>the</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntity of <strong>the</strong> Patriarch, Menahem <strong>Ste</strong>rn argued for GamalielV; see his Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism II: from Tacitus toSimplicius (Jerusalem, 1980), 581–3, with Ep. 914 reprinted with an English translationat 589–90. Otto Seeck and PLRE argue for Gamaliel VI; see Seeck, ‘Gamaliel. 3’,Pauly–Wissowa, RE 7. 690; PLRE i. 385 s.v. Gamalielus. On <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> patriarchatein <strong>late</strong> antique Palestine, see M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman GalileeA.D. 132–212, 2nd edn. (London, 2000), 116–18.
240 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomSymmachus in <strong>the</strong> West had to respond to an increasingly intolerantatmosphere. Symmachus started his <strong>de</strong>fence of <strong>the</strong> Altar of Victory bypraising <strong>the</strong> value of tradition and <strong>the</strong> need to guarantee <strong>the</strong> safety of <strong>the</strong>empire, employing much <strong>the</strong> same strategy as Themistius to Jovian, with asimilar metaphor:it is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really one and <strong>the</strong> same.We gaze up at <strong>the</strong> same stars, <strong>the</strong> sky covers us all, <strong>the</strong> same universeencompasses us. What does it matter what practical systems we adopt inour search for truth? Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendousa secret.41Van<strong>de</strong>rspoel has suggested that both Themistius and Symmachus <strong>de</strong>rivedthis metaphor from Porphyry.42 To suggest that <strong>the</strong>re are many ways to <strong>the</strong>divine does not mean that all are legitimate, nor that all forms of worship areways to <strong>the</strong> divine: this still remains to be said.In <strong>the</strong> East a few years <strong>late</strong>r Libanius <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to petition Theodosius I thatfur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>de</strong>struction of temples should be stopped.43 The commitment of <strong>the</strong>emperor to Nicene <strong>Christian</strong>ity had changed <strong>the</strong> religious balance, partlythrough a series of laws on heretics and non-<strong>Christian</strong>s, partly through <strong>the</strong>creation of a permissive atmosphere in which Nicene champions, who hadbeen on <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensive for half a century, could settle scores with a conW<strong>de</strong>ncethat any mis<strong>de</strong>meanours would be overlooked—a parallel to <strong>the</strong> behaviourof poly<strong>the</strong>ists un<strong>de</strong>r Julian. In contrast to Themistius who had advocated toemperors policies which he already knew <strong>the</strong>y were interested in implementing,or at least discussing, Libanius addresses Theodosius as an outsi<strong>de</strong>r. Hehas to argue from a position of weakness, that non-<strong>Christian</strong>s are notbreaking any law, that <strong>de</strong>struction of temples might enrich those participatingin <strong>the</strong> pillage but will not secure any genuine conversions, and that<strong>the</strong> empire receives beneWts from <strong>the</strong> range of religious practice, includingpoly<strong>the</strong>ist practices which had protected it for centuries (Or. 30). But oYcialssuch as <strong>the</strong> praetorian prefect Cynegius, or bishops such as Marcellus ofApamea or Theophilus of Alexandria knew that <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong>ir actionswere in line with imperial preferences, even if <strong>the</strong>ir methods were not.41 Symmachus, Relatio 3.10, trans. Barrow.42 Pierre Courcelle traced this motif back to Porphyry; see his ‘Verissima philosophia’,in J. Fontaine and C. Kannengiesser (eds.), Epektasis: mélanges patristiquesoVerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris, 1972), 653–9. Van<strong>de</strong>rspoel argues likewise:Themistius and <strong>the</strong> Imperial Court, 24–6.43 For <strong>the</strong> context, see G. Fow<strong>de</strong>n, ‘Bishops and Temples in <strong>the</strong> Eastern RomanEmpire, ad 320–435’, JTS 29 (1978), 53–78.
Appendix to Chapter 5 241Libanius’ stance is directly comparable to that of Tertullian and Lactantiusin <strong>the</strong> pre-Constantinian world: in such circumstances recourse to pleas fordiversity and arguments for toleration are indications of <strong>the</strong> weakness of <strong>the</strong>writer’s position,44 as Ambrose had exploited in his responses to Symmachus’request (Ambrose, Eps. 72–3 (17–18) ). In a period of transition <strong>the</strong>rewill have been a number of <strong>Christian</strong>s like Pegasius, <strong>the</strong> bishop of Ilium,whose alleged respect for <strong>the</strong> old gods is recor<strong>de</strong>d by Julian (Ep. 19).However, <strong>the</strong>re are strong biblical injunctions against worship of o<strong>the</strong>rgods and numerous stories of <strong>the</strong> suVerings of those who did. In anestablished <strong>Christian</strong> society <strong>the</strong>re are unlikely to have been many <strong>Christian</strong>swho would have accepted arguments for a pluralism of legitimate worship.45Ambrose ma<strong>de</strong> quite clear that he regar<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> restoration of <strong>the</strong> Altar ofVictory as entirely illegitimate, tantamount to persecution (72 (17).9), an<strong>de</strong>mphatically rejected any i<strong>de</strong>a of pluralism of legitimate worship by quotingMat<strong>the</strong>w 6: 24: ‘no man can serve two masters’. He followed up his success in<strong>the</strong> Altar of Victory dispute by opposing attempts of Valentinian II and hismo<strong>the</strong>r Justina to grant toleration to Arians (Ambrose, Eps. 20–1). ThemistiusdiVers from Libanius and Symmachus, since <strong>the</strong> arguments he addressesto successive emperors chimed with initiatives <strong>the</strong>y were un<strong>de</strong>rtaking orplanning to un<strong>de</strong>rtake,46 but <strong>the</strong> apparent tolerance of Jovian and Valensmust be interpreted in <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong>ir political vulnerability.47 Most<strong>Christian</strong> emperors believed that <strong>the</strong>y had an obligation to intervene inreligious matters, a view articu<strong>late</strong>d, for example, in <strong>the</strong> Henoticon of Zeno(Evagrius 3.14) or <strong>the</strong> Theopaschite Edict of Justinian (Co<strong>de</strong>x IustinianusI.1.6) and enacted through Theodosius I’s forceful support for Nicene<strong>Christian</strong>ity or <strong>the</strong> role of Marcian in <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon. Even44 There was an analogous situation in A<strong>the</strong>ns in <strong>the</strong> early 4th cent. bc when,although references to oligarchic activities in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 5th cent. were prohibited un<strong>de</strong>rsevere penalty by <strong>the</strong> amnesty sworn at <strong>the</strong> restoration of <strong>de</strong>mocracy, in practicereliance on <strong>the</strong> amnesty as part of a <strong>de</strong>fence of character was a very weak argumentand only adopted when individuals had nothing better to exploit.45 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 166, cites Ambrose, Ep. 72 (17).8, Quod si aliquinomine <strong>Christian</strong>i tale aliquid <strong>de</strong>cernendum putant (‘so, if anyone calling <strong>the</strong>mselves<strong>Christian</strong>s believe such a <strong>de</strong>cree should be passed’), as evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>Christian</strong>s at <strong>the</strong>Milanese court speaking in support of Symmachus, but this is unclear. If <strong>the</strong>re weresuch <strong>Christian</strong>s, we do not know upon what grounds <strong>the</strong>y issued <strong>the</strong>ir support, and itseems as likely that Ambrose is warning Valentinian of <strong>Christian</strong>s who might placesenatorial loyalties before matters religious; see 72 (17).6: ‘I too urge you to respect<strong>the</strong> high character of senators; but beyond doubt, God is to be put Wrst, before allo<strong>the</strong>rs.’46 For this general interpretation of Themistius, see Hea<strong>the</strong>r and Moncur, Politics,Philosophy, and Empire, 29–42.47 The same is true for Julian’s toleration of diversity.
242 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomValentinian I, who is praised by Ammianus for his mo<strong>de</strong>rate approach toreligious diVerences (30.9.5), issued strict legislation against <strong>the</strong> Manichees(Cod. Theod. 17.5.3).<strong>Christian</strong> historians on tolerationIn contrast to <strong>the</strong>se examples of secular preference for toleration favourablereferences to heretics and non-<strong>Christian</strong>s are, of course, hard to come by in<strong>Christian</strong> sources. Two sources which appear to be unusually inclusive areSalvian’s De Gubernatione Dei48 and Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica.49 In hisaccount of heretical barbarians,50 Salvian argues that <strong>the</strong>y are not wilfuldissenters, but have been led astray by false teachings and, though in error,‘<strong>the</strong>y err with a good heart, not in hatred but in love of God, believing that<strong>the</strong>y honour and love God’. Salvian remarks upon <strong>the</strong> perspectival characterof <strong>the</strong> category ‘heresy’51 (although it should be noted that he does not drawany pluralist conclusions from this), <strong>the</strong>n sounds a note of caution,concluding that ‘in what manner, for this erroneous and false belief, <strong>the</strong>yare to be punished on <strong>the</strong> day of judgement, nobody can know but <strong>the</strong>judge’.52 However, Salvian’s barbarian heretics need to be placed in context.In De Gubernatione Dei <strong>the</strong>y have a distinct narrative function, as acounterpoint by which <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>stitute morals of contemporary Romans canbe exposed.53 In juxtaposing simple-min<strong>de</strong>d and virtuous barbarians, unwittinglyled astray from <strong>the</strong> truth, with polished Romans, who un<strong>de</strong>rstandscripture properly but fail to live by it, Salvian does not make a positive casefor barbarian <strong>the</strong>ology, but uses it as a <strong>de</strong>vice to un<strong>de</strong>rmine Roman moralauthority, as <strong>de</strong>monstrated by his citation from Luke 12: 47–8: ‘<strong>the</strong> slave,who does not know his master’s will and does not carry it out will be Xoggedlightly; however, <strong>the</strong> slave who knows his master’s will and does not carry itout will be Xogged severely’.5448 See <strong>the</strong> edition of G. Lagarrigue, Salvien <strong>de</strong> Marseille: Œuvres, ii (SourcesChrétiennes 220; Paris, 1975).49 See <strong>the</strong> edition of C. C. Hansen, Sokrates Kirchengeschichte (Die griechischenchristlichen schriftsteller <strong>de</strong>r ersten Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rte 1; Berlin, 1995). On Socrates, seeT. Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State (Ann Arbor,1997).50 See esp. De Gubernatione Dei 5.2.5–11.51 See esp. 5.2.9: ‘among us <strong>the</strong>y are heretics, among <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong>y are not’.52 Salvian, De Gubernatione Dei 5.2.10.53 On which, see D. Lambert, ‘The Barbarians in Salvian’s De Gubernatione Dei’, inS. Mitchell and G. Greatrex (eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity (London,2000), 103–15.54 Salvian, De Gubernatione Dei 5.2.11.
Appendix to Chapter 5 243<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> regar<strong>de</strong>d Socrates as ‘outstandingly tolerant’, particularly withregard to his doctrinal position, and collected a number of passages from hisHistoria Ecclesiastica to support this view. Socrates certainly criticizes <strong>the</strong>contentiousness of bishops a number of times.55 In <strong>the</strong> preface to book 5 heapologizes to <strong>the</strong> rea<strong>de</strong>r for including an account of wars, partly:so that those reading it do not get weary from a surfeit of only <strong>the</strong> bishops’arguments and <strong>the</strong>ir plots against each o<strong>the</strong>r. But more than <strong>the</strong>se reasons,so that it may be realized that when public aVairs were in turmoil, those of<strong>the</strong> church were also in turmoil, as from some kind of sympathy.56He praises Jovian, who dismissed contending <strong>Christian</strong> factions with <strong>the</strong>words ‘I hate contentiousness, but I love and honour those who si<strong>de</strong> withunanimity’, which apparently subdued ‘those who were <strong>de</strong>sirous of altercation’.57Later he lauds <strong>the</strong> patience of Proclus, bishop of Alexandria, andcontrasts it with that of his teacher, <strong>the</strong> bishop Atticus, who ‘occasionallypractised severities upon <strong>the</strong> heretics’ (7.41.4–7). In <strong>the</strong> next chapter, hepraises Theodosius II for never having approved persecutors (7.42.1). Theheresiarch Nestorius, whose pursuit of heretics while Patriarch of Constantinopleis linked to his rage, vainglory, and mental levity, is presented as awarning against <strong>the</strong> perils of intolerance which stirs up unnecessary troubles(7.29.4–13; 31).58 Moreover, Socrates appears to have allowed for variety in<strong>the</strong> practice of worship, discoursing on regional variations in <strong>Christian</strong>practices of worship, not least Easter, arguing at 5.22.1 that ‘nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ancients nor mo<strong>de</strong>rns who have aVected to follow <strong>the</strong> Jews, have had anyrational foundation for contending so obstinately about it’, and adding that<strong>the</strong>re is no apostolic legislation on <strong>the</strong> date of Easter.59 He regrets <strong>the</strong>trinitarian disputes which <strong>the</strong> Council of Nicaea had failed to resolve, partlybecause <strong>the</strong>se were arguments between people who agreed on <strong>the</strong> importantessentials of a Trinity with <strong>the</strong> Son of God as a distinct member of thatTrinity (1.23.8). Perhaps as a result he refers to Arian Goths as ‘martyrs’.6055 Cf. 1.23.5–8 on Eustathius of Antioch and Eusebius of Caesarea’s dispute over<strong>the</strong> term homoousios; 7.29.4–13.56 Socrates, HE 5. praef. 2–4, trans. Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople, 178.57 Socrates, HE 3.25.4–5.58 His famous pronouncement to Theodosius II, ‘Give me <strong>the</strong> earth purged ofheretics and I will give you heaven in return; <strong>de</strong>stroy <strong>the</strong> heretics with me, and I will<strong>de</strong>stroy <strong>the</strong> Persians with you’, <strong>de</strong>monstrates his arrogance.59 Socrates, HE 5.22.7–11.60 Socrates, HE 4.33.7; on this occasion his views were copied by Sozomen, HE6.37.12.
244 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomSocrates is certainly <strong>the</strong> most tolerant of <strong>the</strong> Wfth-century church historians,and appears to have viewed much of <strong>the</strong> episcopal contention of <strong>the</strong>fourth and early Wfth centuries as based ei<strong>the</strong>r on vanity and unwillingness toconduct <strong>de</strong>bate within <strong>the</strong> context of friendship, or on practical matters thatdo not <strong>de</strong>serve treatment. His near contemporary Sozomen, though oftenfollowing Socrates quite closely, has many fewer clear expressions in favour oftoleration (e.g. 4.26.4) and more characteristic are passages <strong>de</strong>ploring heresies,61while <strong>the</strong> in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who was attacked andultimately <strong>de</strong>posed as bishop by Theodosius II for his doctrinal links withNestorius, criticized secular interference in church aVairs but did not urgetoleration.62 The basis for Socrates’ openness in unclear. Some have argued,on <strong>the</strong> basis of a number of positive references to Novatian and his followers,that Socrates was himself a Novatian and so, as a member of a minoritygroup, more inclined towards tolerance,63 but this is diYcult to proveconclusively:64 although <strong>the</strong> Novatians were among <strong>the</strong> victims of Nestorius’persecution which Socrates con<strong>de</strong>mned (7.29), <strong>the</strong>y were a rigorist sectamong whom toleration might be a surprising attribute. Moreover, it isimportant to note that Socrates rarely values diversity: his solution todoctrinal issues is that <strong>Christian</strong>s should stop <strong>de</strong>bating ra<strong>the</strong>r than try toWnd <strong>the</strong> institutions to maintain doctrinal openness. Jovian is praised forcriticizing contention, not for making a positive appeal to toleration. The keyto Socrates’ attitu<strong>de</strong> may well lie in his ra<strong>the</strong>r novel conception of <strong>the</strong>relationship between Church and State, according to which ‘sometimes <strong>the</strong>troubles of <strong>the</strong> Church happen Wrst and public ones follow’ and ‘sometimes itis <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r way round’.65 This is notably diVerent from <strong>the</strong> relationshipenvisaged by Lactantius and Eusebius, where <strong>the</strong> well-being of <strong>the</strong> Empire is61 Sozomen, HE 6.25.13–14 and 6.26.8; see also 7.12.12. Note, though, that hedoes comment with regard to <strong>the</strong> heretical Apollinarii that <strong>the</strong> dispute might havebeen avoi<strong>de</strong>d if personal hatreds had not caused complications (6.25.13–14).62 For discussion of Theodoret’s Christological position and his Werce argumentswith his opponents, see Ch. 6 below, pp. 294–303.63 See recently M. WallraV, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates: Untersuchungen zuGeschichtsdarstellung Metho<strong>de</strong> und Person (Forschungen zur Kirchen und Dogmengeschichte68; Göttingen, 1997), 251–79, supported in <strong>the</strong> review of S. Rebenich,Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, 4 (2000), 392–5, at 394.64 See H. Leppin, ‘The Church Historians (I): Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoretus’,in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity:Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. (Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 2003), 219–54, at 221–2; Urbainczyk judiciouslyconclu<strong>de</strong>s that ‘<strong>the</strong>re is not enough evi<strong>de</strong>nce for a conclusive judgement’;Socrates of Constantinople, 27.65 On which, see J. Szidat, ‘Frie<strong>de</strong> in Kirche und Staat: zum politischen I<strong>de</strong>al <strong>de</strong>sKirchenhistorikers Sokrates’, in B. Bäbler and H.-G. Nesselrath (eds.), Die Welt <strong>de</strong>sSokrates von Konstantinopel (Munich, 2001), 1–14.
Appendix to Chapter 5 245<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on that of <strong>the</strong> Church.66 The complementary relationship envisionedby Socrates, where struggles between <strong>Christian</strong>s rebound upon <strong>the</strong>condition of <strong>the</strong> Empire, perhaps predisposes him to seek peace by suppressingepiscopal contention, where a Eusebius would see <strong>the</strong> well-being of <strong>the</strong>Empire <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt precisely on <strong>the</strong> constant protection of <strong>the</strong> Church fromheretics. For all this, Socrates’ signiWcance is unclear. Peter Garnsey alsosingled out his tolerance, along with Salvian and Pseudo-Dionysius <strong>the</strong>Areopagite, but noted that <strong>the</strong>y are ‘peripheral Wgures compared with Ambroseand Augustine who dominate <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>bate with pagans and dissenting<strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> crucial <strong>late</strong> fourth and early Wfth centuries’.67Socrates, however, is interesting as a precursor for three sixth-centuryhistorians who inclu<strong>de</strong>d some positive comments on toleration. In <strong>the</strong>tradition of ecclesiastical historiography, Evagrius, writing in <strong>the</strong> 590s,remarks that <strong>Christian</strong> heresies had arisen not because individuals hadinten<strong>de</strong>d to dishonour God but because while striving to worship Himbetter <strong>the</strong>ir attempts to improve on <strong>de</strong>Wnitions of <strong>the</strong> ineVable and inscrutablehad resulted in inappropriate innovations—though even <strong>the</strong>se served toadvance <strong>the</strong> clariWcation of doctrine (HE 1.11); he subsequently commentson <strong>the</strong> smallness of <strong>the</strong> divi<strong>de</strong> between <strong>the</strong> Christological opponents, whichrevolved around a single letter, ek or en (2.5). These statements have to beread in context. The apparent acceptance of <strong>the</strong> inevitability of heresy islocated within a rhetorical <strong>de</strong>fence of <strong>Christian</strong>ity against a notional pagancritic, while <strong>the</strong> minimal diVerence between Chalcedonians and Monophysiteswas an argument in favour of attempts to overcome <strong>the</strong> schism ra<strong>the</strong>rthan a <strong>de</strong>fence of diversity.68 Evagrius also roundly criticizes Nestorius forhis blasphemy which performed <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>vil’s work by disrupting orthodoxy(1.2),69 and praises Gregory of Antioch for bringing Monophysites into <strong>the</strong>orthodox church (6.22), passages which point to <strong>the</strong> limits to his ownacceptance of diversity. At <strong>the</strong> same time, however, he had a strong preferencefor conciliation and believed that <strong>the</strong> dangers of dispute outweighed<strong>the</strong> beneWts of unanimity: thus Emperor Anastasius is praised for preservingtranquillity by tolerating divergent views, whereas Justinian, who struggledthroughout his reign to produce a unifying doctrine, is criticized for <strong>the</strong>disruption which resulted.7066 The arrogant Nestorius shared this attitu<strong>de</strong>.67 Garnsey, ‘Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity’, at 17.68 For discussion of context, see M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of EvagriusScholasticus (TTH 33; Liverpool, 2000), 29–30, 80–1 with 7–8.69 Though Evagrius also recor<strong>de</strong>d Nestorius’ <strong>de</strong>fence of his Christological positionas a compromise that was inten<strong>de</strong>d to reconcile warring factions (1.7).70 See Whitby, Evagrius, pp. xxxviii–xlvii.
246 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomProcopius, too, roundly con<strong>de</strong>mned Justinian’s persecutions, which hepresented as one of <strong>the</strong> emperor’s excuses for <strong>de</strong>stroying mankind (SecretHistory 13.7–8), though, as often with Procopius’ criticisms, <strong>the</strong> opposite isasserted in <strong>the</strong> panegyrical Buildings (1.1.9).71 In Wars (5.3.6–9) Procopiusadvocates a limit to human inquiry:For I think it insane folly to investigate <strong>the</strong> nature of God, what that mightbe. For I think that even human matters cannot be comprehen<strong>de</strong>d exactly byman, and much less what pertains to <strong>the</strong> nature of God. Accordingly <strong>the</strong>sematters have been safely passed over in silence by me (sesiōpēsthō) so as notto discredit what had been honoured. For I would not state anything elseabout God o<strong>the</strong>r than he is completely good and has everything in hispower. But let everyone say whatever he thinks he knows about <strong>the</strong>sematters, both priest and layman.As a classicizing historian who had to grapple with <strong>the</strong> problem ofreconciling <strong>the</strong> omniscience of God with <strong>the</strong> mundane business of causationin <strong>the</strong> world (e.g. 2.10.4–5), it is not surprising that Procopius opted forcautious comments, though it is important to emphasize that his views arefully compatible with <strong>Christian</strong> belief.72 Procopius’ reservations about <strong>the</strong>diYculties of precise investigation are similar to those of Evagrius, but hisinvitation to diverse opinions is more inclusive, a reXection perhaps of <strong>the</strong>long-standing tradition in Greek historiography of accepting diversity ofpractice.73 Procopius’ successor Agathias inclu<strong>de</strong>s a lenient comment onerrors of belief (1.7.3):Therefore all those who miss <strong>the</strong> truth are more worthy of pity thanreproach, and of obtaining complete forgiveness. For without doubt <strong>the</strong>ydo not intentionally slip and fall, but while striving for <strong>the</strong> good <strong>the</strong>y fail in71 For <strong>the</strong> complementary relation between <strong>the</strong> two works, see Averil Cameron,Procopius (London, 1985), esp. ch. 1.72 For Procopius’ <strong>Christian</strong>ity, see Averil Cameron, ‘The ‘‘Scepticism’’ of Procopius’,Historia, 15 (1966), 466–82; Averil and Alan Cameron, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>ity andTradition in <strong>the</strong> Historiography of <strong>the</strong> Late Empire’, CQ 14 (1964), 316–28, bothrepr. in Averil Cameron, Continuity and Change in 6th Century Byzantium (London,1981); ead., Procopius, ch. 7. The attempt by A. Kal<strong>de</strong>llis (Procopius of Caesarea:Tyranny, History and Philosophy at <strong>the</strong> End of Antiquity (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia, 2004), ch. 5) toprove <strong>the</strong> contrary is not convincing: it <strong>de</strong>pends on a sequence of interlockinghypo<strong>the</strong>ses, including <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong> historian Agathias was also a non-<strong>Christian</strong> (see n. 74).73 The classic antece<strong>de</strong>nt is Herodotus’ contrast of <strong>the</strong> burial customs of Greeksand <strong>the</strong> Indian Callatiae, who ate <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>ad (3.38).
Appendix to Chapter 5 247judgment and <strong>the</strong>reafter hold Wrm to what <strong>the</strong>y think, whatever in<strong>de</strong>ed thatmight happen to be.The statement is ma<strong>de</strong> in <strong>the</strong> context of Agathias’ digression on <strong>the</strong> religiouspractices of <strong>the</strong> Alamanni, whose worship of natural features has just beennoted, albeit with <strong>the</strong> qualiWcation that contact with <strong>the</strong> Franks (who wereCatholic <strong>Christian</strong>s) was eVecting a change.74 As with Procopius <strong>the</strong>strong historiographical tradition of relativity may have inXuencedAgathias’ presentation here.75Pleas against coercion and persecutionAccording to Libanius, <strong>the</strong> emperor Julian’s policy towards <strong>Christian</strong>sclosely resembles one of toleration, in that he objected strongly to <strong>the</strong>irbeliefs, but did not feel that he could coerce <strong>the</strong>m to change. In his funeraloration for Julian, Libanius praises Julian’s <strong>de</strong>sire to win <strong>Christian</strong>s over bypersuasion and not force, which he says was motivated by <strong>the</strong> fact thatpersecutions had only streng<strong>the</strong>ned <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> cause.76 A number offactors might account for this. One is imperial clemency, which Julianproclaims in two of <strong>the</strong> letters selected by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>.77 Ammianus (esp.22.5.3–4) suggests pragmatic motives, namely that in allowing each person‘fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own religio (religio sua)’ hewould intensify <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to internecine strife and <strong>the</strong>rebyreduce <strong>the</strong> prospect of facing a united populace.78 The dispute between74 Averil Cameron established Agathias’ <strong>Christian</strong>ity; Cameron, Agathias (Oxford,1970). The recent attempt by A. Kal<strong>de</strong>llis, ‘The Historical and Religious Views ofAgathias: A Reinterpretation’, Byzantion, 69 (1999), 206–53, to question his <strong>Christian</strong>itydoes not withstand scrutiny: Kal<strong>de</strong>llis does not note <strong>the</strong> similarity of Agathias’views in 1.7.3 to those of Evagrius, and he incorrectly suggests that his tolerancere<strong>late</strong>s to animal sacriWce, whereas his comments on sacriWce occupy 1.7.4–5 and areintroduced as a strong exception to <strong>the</strong> tolerance of <strong>the</strong> previous section.75 Ammianus’ preference for toleration (e.g. 30.9.5 on Valentinian) has alreadybeen noted. The majority view of Ammianus as a traditional non-<strong>Christian</strong> commentatoron religious <strong>de</strong>velopments has been challenged by T. D. Barnes, AmmianusMarcellinus and <strong>the</strong> Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca, 1998), ch. 8, whospecu<strong>late</strong>s that Ammianus was an apostate.76 Libanius, Or. 18.121–3.77 See Ep. 40, on disputes between <strong>the</strong> churches at E<strong>de</strong>ssa and Ep. 41, where Juliancontrasts his position with <strong>the</strong> persecution of Constantius (436A) and or<strong>de</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>people of Bostra not to follow <strong>the</strong> clerics in fomenting public disor<strong>de</strong>r (though hesuggested that <strong>the</strong>y might take action against <strong>the</strong>ir bishop).78 Julian may also have calcu<strong>late</strong>d that he had little chance of rapidly overturningsupport for <strong>Christian</strong>ity across <strong>the</strong> Eastern Empire.
248 <strong>Persecution</strong> and MartyrdomValentinians and <strong>the</strong> Arian Church (hē Arianikē ekklēsia) at E<strong>de</strong>ssa wasprobably a consequence of <strong>the</strong> imperial permission for exiles to return to<strong>the</strong>ir cities; Julian punished those involved by conWscation of church property,ostensibly to assist <strong>the</strong> Church to adhere more closely to its i<strong>de</strong>als ofpoverty (Ep. 40), but, with soldiers and <strong>the</strong> imperial private purse as <strong>the</strong>beneWciaries, Julian’s concern for ecclesiastical purity was as pragmatic as hisadvocacy of toleration. This should be read alongsi<strong>de</strong> one of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’sfavourite passages from Ammianus that ‘no wild beasts are such enemies tomankind as are most <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>adly hatred of each o<strong>the</strong>r’(22.5.4), which he coupled with Ammianus’ account of <strong>the</strong> struggle betweenDamasus and Ursinus for <strong>the</strong> bishopric of Rome in 366 (27.3.12–13).79Julian’s letters corroborate Libanius’ account to some <strong>de</strong>gree. Ep. 36, <strong>the</strong>famous rescript on <strong>Christian</strong> teachers, which forba<strong>de</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s from teachinggrammar and rhetoric but not from attending schools as pupils, arguesagainst coercing <strong>Christian</strong> boys to renounce <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>Christian</strong>ity, and similararguments against coercion can be found in letters 37 to Atarbius, <strong>the</strong>governor of Macedonia,80 and 41, where Julian aYrms <strong>the</strong> necessity ofpersuading through reason (logos) and not violence. Certainly Julian wasno persecutor of <strong>Christian</strong>s, and <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> writers had to go to somelengths to <strong>de</strong>monstrate his cruelty, suggesting even that his refusal topersecute was motivated by a <strong>de</strong>sire to <strong>de</strong>ny <strong>Christian</strong>s <strong>the</strong> crown of martyrdom.None<strong>the</strong>less, he did discriminate. Ep. 37, while stating that <strong>Christian</strong>sor ‘Galileans’ should not be executed or abused unjustly, or<strong>de</strong>rs that‘god-fearers’ (<strong>the</strong>osebeis) be given preferential treatment, while Ep. 36wasclearly regar<strong>de</strong>d as unjust and discriminatory by contemporary and <strong>late</strong>r<strong>Christian</strong>s,81 and ‘harsh’ (inclemens) by Ammianus (25.4.20).It would, <strong>the</strong>n, seem judicious to say that Julian opposed coercion ra<strong>the</strong>rthan favoured toleration, and from an imperial perspective a reluctance toengage in enforcement or a certain <strong>de</strong>gree of passive toleration might, inmany circumstances, have been <strong>the</strong> most sensible approach to controlling<strong>the</strong>ir territory at times of imperial weakness.82 Throughout <strong>the</strong> Wfth centurywestern emperors almost always had more pressing matters to attend to thanreligious or doctrinal purity. In 535 <strong>the</strong> new Ostrogothic king Theodahad,an Arian, protested to Emperor Justinian with regard to <strong>the</strong> Catholic convertRanilda that:79 See, for example, Class Struggle, 451; for bibliography on this struggle, seeabove, Ch. 5, n. 32.80 See PLRE i. 120, s.v. Atarbius.81 e.g. Ambrose, Ep. 72 (17).4.82 Even <strong>the</strong> powerful Constantine came to realize that it was pointless to attemptto force <strong>the</strong> Donatists into communion with Catholics.
Appendix to Chapter 5 249I do not presume to exercise judgement in those cases where I have nospecial mandate. For, since <strong>the</strong> Deity allows various religions to exist, I donot dare to impose one alone. For I remember reading that we shouldsacriWce to <strong>the</strong> Lord of our own will, not at <strong>the</strong> command of anyone whocompels us. He who does o<strong>the</strong>rwise clearly opposes <strong>the</strong> heavenly <strong>de</strong>cree.83At <strong>the</strong> time Theodahad was <strong>de</strong>sperate to avoid oVering Justinian groundsfor fur<strong>the</strong>r interference in <strong>the</strong> West.84 Theodahad’s precursor, Theo<strong>de</strong>ric <strong>the</strong>Amal, had maintained good relations with <strong>the</strong> Catholic hierarchy in Romethroughout most of his reign, since this contributed to harmony betweenGoths and Romans, though this changed when <strong>the</strong> danger of a doctrinalrapprochement between Rome and Constantinople and signs of growingeastern interest in western aVairs transformed religious aYliation into apotential matter of political loyalty.85 The beneWts of stability also un<strong>de</strong>rlieexamples of toleration exten<strong>de</strong>d to Jews, unsuccessfully by Theodosius I in<strong>the</strong> famous case of <strong>the</strong> Callinicum synagogue,86 and justiWed in a letter fromTheo<strong>de</strong>ric, datable to <strong>the</strong> period 507–12, concerning a synagogue in Genoa:<strong>the</strong> Jewish community could add a roof, but nothing more in <strong>the</strong> way ofexpansion or ornament, since Theo<strong>de</strong>ric, while con<strong>de</strong>mning ‘<strong>the</strong> prayers oferring men’ admits, ‘I cannot command your faith because no one is forcedto believe against his will’ (Cassiodorus, Variae 2.27).87By <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> sixth century <strong>the</strong> position of <strong>the</strong> eastern empire was coming toresemble that of <strong>the</strong> west a century earlier. Tiberius Constantine (578–82)had a reputation for mo<strong>de</strong>ration and he restrained <strong>the</strong> persecuting zeal of<strong>the</strong> Constantinopolitan patriarchs John Scholasticus and Eutychius, on <strong>the</strong>grounds that he had enough trouble with external wars without arousing aninternal one as well (John of Ephesus, HE 1.37; 3.12); part of Tiberius’justiWcation was that Monophysites, whose persecution he was being asked83 Cassiodorus, Variae 10.26, trans. by S. J. B. Barnish, Cassiodorus: Variae (TTH12; Liverpool, 1992), 140–1; <strong>the</strong> reference is to Psa. 53: 8 (54: 6).84 Thus, <strong>the</strong> risks taken by <strong>the</strong> regime of Valentinian II in opposing <strong>the</strong> CatholicChurch are pointed out in a letter from <strong>the</strong> Gallic emperor Magnus Maximus in 386(Collectio Avellana 39); <strong>the</strong> threat was that Maximus would inva<strong>de</strong> to support <strong>the</strong>Catholics.85 Discussion in J. Moorhead, Theo<strong>de</strong>ric in Italy (Oxford, 1992), 235–45. For abrief summary of Theodahad’s reign, see M. Humphries, ‘Italy, A.D. 425–605’, inA. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby (eds.), CAH xiv: Late Antiquity:Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600 (Cambridge, 2000), 525–51, at 533–4.86 Discussion in McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 298–300.87 In both this letter and that of Theodahad discussed above <strong>the</strong> precise framing of<strong>the</strong> argument must be attributed to Cassiodorus, though in each case he wasproviding appropriate justiWcation for royal policy and it is likely that his argumentswould have become those of <strong>the</strong> ruler, if <strong>the</strong> latter had ever been challenged.
250 <strong>Persecution</strong> and Martyrdomto sanction, were nei<strong>the</strong>r pagans nor heretics. The motives of would-bepersecutors might also be suspect, with greater attention being paid toopportunities for enrichment from conWscations than securing repentancethrough education (John 5.15; 21). Imperial leniency could be pushed toofar, however, and violent reaction provoked. Tiberius’ willingness to tolerateprovision of church services for <strong>the</strong> Arian families of non-Roman soldiersengaged in <strong>the</strong> current Persian War prompted accusations of heresy against<strong>the</strong> emperor himself, and his mildness was <strong>the</strong>n a factor in <strong>the</strong> violent antipaganriots which rocked <strong>the</strong> capital when <strong>the</strong> populace suspected that thoseaccused of sacriWce might not be properly punished (John 3.30–4).88 For <strong>the</strong>remain<strong>de</strong>r of his reign Tiberius had to permit attacks on non-<strong>Christian</strong>s,and his successor Maurice was likewise ma<strong>de</strong> to approve <strong>the</strong> public executionof a so-called magician when <strong>the</strong> Patriarch John Nesteutes overro<strong>de</strong> hispreference for clemency (Theophylact 1.11.15–20).Later examples of this attitu<strong>de</strong> can be found in <strong>Christian</strong> sources, and ofcourse <strong>Christian</strong>s could Wnd a scriptural basis for forbearance. <strong>Persecution</strong>or coercion did not have to be opposed for its inability to dissua<strong>de</strong> pagans orheretics. O<strong>the</strong>r, more practical reasons could be cited. Thus, with regard to<strong>the</strong> trial at Trier of Priscillian by Magnus Maximus, Martin of Tours, whoregar<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> Spanish ascetic as a heretic, opposed <strong>the</strong> execution of Priscillianand <strong>the</strong> aftermath in which Priscillianists in Spain were to be hunted down.Expulsion from <strong>the</strong> Church was suYcient punishment for heretics, while awitch-hunt would aVect many true <strong>Christian</strong>s as well: overall <strong>the</strong> Churchshould be permitted to resolve its own troubles.89 Education was a possiblealternative to coercion. In <strong>the</strong> sixth century, Pseudo-Dionysius <strong>the</strong> Areopagiteadmonished Demophilus for turning away an unholy and sinful manwho had come to <strong>the</strong> monastery in which he lived to ‘heal his evil ways’, andargued against following <strong>the</strong> violent examples of Phineas and Elijah; insteadhe advocated <strong>the</strong> example of Christ, according to which ‘it is necessary toteach, not take vengeance on <strong>the</strong> ignorant, just as we do not punish but lead<strong>the</strong> blind’.90 This approach could be adopted with regard to <strong>the</strong> Jews. In 591–2 Pope Gregory instructed Peter of Terracina and two o<strong>the</strong>r neighbouring88 See I. Rochow, ‘Die Hei<strong>de</strong>nprozesse unter Kaisern Tiberios II Konstantinos undMaurikios’, in Studien zum 7. Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rt in Byzanz. Probleme <strong>de</strong>r Herausbildung <strong>de</strong>sFeudalismus (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 47: Berlin, 1976), 120–30.89 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.50 in <strong>the</strong> new edition of G. <strong>de</strong> Senneville-Grave(Sources Chrétiennes 441; Paris, 1999); Dial. 3.11–13 (esp. 11); for <strong>the</strong> generalbackground, see H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (Oxford, 1976).90 Ps.-Dionysius <strong>the</strong> Areopagite, Ep. 8,MPL 3.1096C–7B, esp. 1096C, Eng. trans.in R. F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and <strong>the</strong> DeWnition of Or<strong>de</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius (The Hague, 1969), 148–9.
Appendix to Chapter 5 251bishops to stop pressurizing <strong>the</strong> local Jewish community by closing <strong>the</strong>irplaces of worship, since kindness and admonition ra<strong>the</strong>r than force wouldwin <strong>the</strong>m over (Gregory, Register 1.34; 2.6), while <strong>the</strong> anti-Jewish actions,which inclu<strong>de</strong>d forced baptism, by King Sisebut in Spain were criticized byIsidore of Seville.91 In <strong>the</strong> early ninth century <strong>the</strong> argument of Ps.-Dionysiuswas exploited by Theodore <strong>the</strong> Studite in a letter to Theophilus of Ephesus(2.152; PG 99, cols. 1481–5). Theodore was reacting against <strong>the</strong> citation of aletter which Symeon Stylites <strong>the</strong> Younger was said to have written to Justin II(565–78) to urge <strong>the</strong> emperor to kill rebellious Samaritans: this letter hadbeen read out at <strong>the</strong> Second Council of Nicaea in 787. According toTheodore <strong>the</strong> emperor could use force against <strong>the</strong> Samaritans if <strong>the</strong>y werein revolt against imperial government, but not on religious grounds alone,citing Ps.-Dionysius against <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> prece<strong>de</strong>nts of Phineas andElijah and urging that Iconoclasts must be taught ra<strong>the</strong>r than killed.9291 Isidore of Seville, Hist. Goth. 60(MGH Auct. Ant. 11.2.291); Chronica 416.92 Brief discussion in Chadwick, Priscillian, 151–2.
This page intentionally left blank
Church Councils
This page intentionally left blank
IntroductionMichael Whitby<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> started working on <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon in <strong>the</strong>1970s. It is clear from scattered remarks in Class Struggle that hehad been intrigued by <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>tail as well as <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>the</strong> materialavailable for its analysis, and that <strong>the</strong> framework for a full treatmentwas already being mapped out mentally. Thus he comments on <strong>the</strong>lack of familiarity with <strong>the</strong> Acta among historians, with even ecclesiasticalhistorians inclu<strong>de</strong>d ‘since a large part of <strong>the</strong> contents is (orought to be) ra<strong>the</strong>r painful reading for those who wish to believe that<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>liberations and <strong>de</strong>cisions of orthodox bishops may be expectedto reveal <strong>the</strong> workings of <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit’ (145–6). Subsequently,when discussing emperors’ powers and <strong>the</strong>ir relations with <strong>the</strong>Church, <strong>the</strong> issue of <strong>the</strong> control of Ecumenical Councils is raisedand reference is ma<strong>de</strong> to how <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>gree of imperial interference isrevealed with ‘startling clarity in <strong>the</strong> proceedings of <strong>the</strong> Council ofChalcedon’ whose <strong>de</strong>liberations were dominated by <strong>the</strong> highpoweredlay commission (403–4). These two passages introduce threekey <strong>the</strong>mes from <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s paper: <strong>the</strong> richness of <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce,which <strong>de</strong>serves to be better known;1 <strong>the</strong> discreditable behaviour ofmany of <strong>the</strong> episcopal atten<strong>de</strong>es; and <strong>the</strong> emperor’s ability to controlproceedings through his commissioners (though <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had notyet singled out <strong>the</strong> signiWcance of <strong>the</strong> chief commissioner, Anatolius).Once Class Struggle had been dispatched to <strong>the</strong> publishers, <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> turned to working up <strong>the</strong>se comments. An early airing for hisviews, perhaps even <strong>the</strong> very Wrst, was at a meeting in London heldun<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> aegis of <strong>the</strong> Society for <strong>the</strong> Promotion of Hellenic Studieson 3 June 1982. <strong>Croix</strong> revelled in <strong>the</strong> ambiguity of his initial title,‘The Council of Chalcedon, 451’, since he suspected that <strong>the</strong> audience1 This point is now <strong>de</strong>veloped much more fully in <strong>the</strong> forthcoming publication ofFergus Millar’s Sa<strong>the</strong>r Classical Lectures, A Greek Roman Empire: Power, Belief andReason un<strong>de</strong>r Theodosius II, 408–50 (2006).
256 Church Councilsmight contain people who had turned up in <strong>the</strong> expectation oflearning about some obscure aspect of <strong>the</strong> Peace of Callias or <strong>the</strong>working of <strong>the</strong> A<strong>the</strong>nian Empire in <strong>the</strong> mid-Wfth century bc—topicson which, thanks to Origins of <strong>the</strong> Peloponnesian War, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’sexpertise was well known, especially to an audience of Hellenists. For<strong>the</strong> sake of clarity he acce<strong>de</strong>d to a request from <strong>the</strong> organizers to add<strong>the</strong> essential ad to <strong>the</strong> date. Thereafter <strong>the</strong> paper was presented atvarious ga<strong>the</strong>rings, including <strong>the</strong> East <strong>Christian</strong> seminar run bySebastian Brock and Kallistos Ware in Canterbury Road, Oxford, in1982 or 1983, where I heard it for <strong>the</strong> Wrst time, <strong>the</strong> seminar of <strong>the</strong>Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies and in Manchester, also in1982/3. Preparations for <strong>the</strong>se seminars generated a <strong>de</strong>nse paperwhich, even with some excisions, easily excee<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> normal60-minute slot, as well as pages of references. In <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s <strong>the</strong>paper was set asi<strong>de</strong> as being reasonably Wnished, although, as with all<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s projects, new i<strong>de</strong>as, additional bibliography, and anyo<strong>the</strong>r material relevant to <strong>the</strong> particular topic were ga<strong>the</strong>red in alever-arch Wle. When in 1986 he reviewed <strong>the</strong> possible contents ofa volume of <strong>Christian</strong> essays, Chalcedon was <strong>the</strong> Wrst item in <strong>the</strong> list,with a comment only about <strong>the</strong> need to i<strong>de</strong>ntify <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>st version of<strong>the</strong> seminar text. The state of <strong>the</strong> text at this stage can be gauged from<strong>the</strong> recent Greek translation of <strong>the</strong> paper as presented in A<strong>the</strong>ns in1987, un<strong>de</strong>r half <strong>the</strong> length of <strong>the</strong> current version (and with only 34footnotes!).2Matters remained thus for <strong>the</strong> next <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong>, with Chalcedon scheduledfor inclusion in <strong>the</strong> Radical Conclusions volume of his gran<strong>de</strong>rtwo-volume <strong>Christian</strong> project. In 1998/9 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> returned to workon <strong>the</strong> text, by which time he had reverted to a slimmed-down singlevolumeversion of his <strong>Christian</strong> researches. There was some tinkeringto <strong>the</strong> original seminar script, with <strong>the</strong> introductory section beingrewritten several times, though without <strong>de</strong>Wnite improvement. Additionalwork on some of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r sections was inten<strong>de</strong>d, since <strong>the</strong> leverarchWlecontainednotesandhintsforissueswhichoughttobepursued.For example in <strong>the</strong> seminar version <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had dismissed<strong>the</strong> complexities of <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners’ connections with2 ˇ ×ÑÉÓÔÉ`˝ÉÓÌˇÓ ˚`É ˙ ÑÙÌ˙: ˜ÉÙˆÌˇÉ, `ÉѯӯÉÓ ˚`É˙Ł˙, ed. D. I. Kyrtatas, trans. I. Kralle (A<strong>the</strong>ns, 2005), 319–65.
Introduction 257<strong>the</strong> words, ‘I prefer to have my prosopography done by someoneelse’; in reality, however, he had started to compile <strong>the</strong> necessarymaterial, or at least left notes to remind himself to do this. The post-Chalcedon reputation of Dioscorus was ano<strong>the</strong>r topic on which hecertainly wanted to add material. I had happened to send him <strong>the</strong>text of a chapter on ecclesiastical historiography after Chalcedon,which I had produced for a Brill volume on Late Antique historiography.3This contained a section on <strong>the</strong> Plērophories (Proofs) of JohnRufus, a Monophysite collection of miraculous proofs of <strong>the</strong> error ofChalcedon and <strong>the</strong> heroic behaviour of its two main opponents,Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus; <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had marked this upwith evi<strong>de</strong>nt enthusiasm, and i<strong>de</strong>ntiWed that it would supplement<strong>the</strong> brief comments he had already ma<strong>de</strong> about <strong>the</strong> Life of Dioscorus.He was also eager for information about <strong>the</strong> presentation of Chalcedonin Evagrius, which I was currently engaged in translating andannotating.4 These more substantial revisions, however, were neverun<strong>de</strong>rtaken.In preparing <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s seminar paper for publication, I havechosen to keep a certain amount of <strong>the</strong> original <strong>de</strong>livery style. Thisappears to have been his intention from <strong>the</strong> various rewritings ofChalcedon on which he embarked in 1999,5 and <strong>the</strong>re is merit inpreserving somewhere in this volume <strong>the</strong> combative style of <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> in full Xow about his ‘beastly’ <strong>Christian</strong>s. I have followed upas many of his suggestions or directions for fur<strong>the</strong>r work as possible;on occasion, for example on subscriptions, <strong>the</strong>re was not much tosuggest exactly what might have been said, but more often <strong>the</strong>general direction has been clear—what one might term in Thucydi<strong>de</strong>anlanguage <strong>the</strong> xumpasa gnōmē of <strong>the</strong> argument.6 I have ma<strong>de</strong>3 As happens with such collaborative enterprises <strong>the</strong> volume was very slow toappear. I had sent a copy of <strong>the</strong> Wnal text to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> in 1998, <strong>the</strong> date of submissionto <strong>the</strong> editor, but publication was <strong>de</strong>layed for Wve years: ‘The Church Historians andChalcedon’, in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Latin Historiography in Late Antiquity(Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 2003), 447–93.4 The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, an English translation withintroduction and notes (TTH; Liverpool, 2000).5 <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> was revising this piece in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> autumn of 1999, so that this wasprobably <strong>the</strong> last paper on which he was working before his <strong>de</strong>ath.6 For <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s important discussion of this term, see his Origins of <strong>the</strong>Peloponnesian War (London, 1972), 7–16.
258 Church Councilsfairly substantial additions, amounting perhaps to between a thirdand a half of <strong>the</strong> whole, but I do not believe that I have introducedanything with which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> would have disagreed;7 <strong>the</strong> centralpoints of <strong>the</strong> argument remain as <strong>the</strong>y were articu<strong>late</strong>d in <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’sseminar presentations. At <strong>the</strong> very few points where I do not accept,or where I want to qualify, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s discussions, I have usedsquare-bracketed notes to indicate as much. Apart from <strong>the</strong>se speciWcpassages, all uses of <strong>the</strong> Wrst-person singular refer to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>.7 D. Harvey and R. Parker, in <strong>the</strong> Editors’ Introduction to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s A<strong>the</strong>nianDemocratic Origins and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays (Oxford, 2004), 3, sensibly refer to <strong>the</strong> temerityof attempting to predict <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s reaction to new information or arguments. Itmay be rash to have tried to round oV and Wll out what <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had left, but it wascertainly his intention to do more work on <strong>the</strong> paper.
6The Council of Chalcedonwith additions by Michael WhitbyThe Council of Chalcedon, in October 451, is one of <strong>the</strong> events inancient history about which we know most: <strong>the</strong> wealth of contemporarysources is altoge<strong>the</strong>r outstanding, in both quantity and quality.1In<strong>de</strong>ed I have sometimes tried to tease colleagues in ‘AncientHistory’ or ‘Classics’ by insisting, half seriously, that we actuallyknow more about <strong>the</strong> council than about any o<strong>the</strong>r event in ancienthistory. Since it will not be as familiar to those who work in <strong>the</strong>1 The prime source is <strong>the</strong> very full Acta in Greek, with a Latin version which ismainly a translation though with some diVerences and additions, edited in six foliovolumes by E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ii.i–vi (Berlin and Leipzig,1932–8). The Greek Acta are in ii.i, <strong>the</strong> Latin in ii.iii; ii.iv contains <strong>the</strong> relevantletters of Pope Leo (also available in PL 54) as well as o<strong>the</strong>r essential documents.There are some indices in ii.vi, which can be supplemented by ACO iv.iii (1974–84).One potential point of confusion is that in <strong>the</strong> Greek Acta <strong>the</strong> second session of<strong>the</strong> council, that of 10 Oct., is presented as <strong>the</strong> third meeting; <strong>the</strong> Latin retains <strong>the</strong>correct or<strong>de</strong>r.There are French translations of substantial sections in A. J. Festugière, Éphèse etChalcédoine: Actes <strong>de</strong>s Conciles (Paris, 1982) and Actes du Concile <strong>de</strong> Chalcédoine,Sessions III–VI (Geneva, 1983); <strong>the</strong> Wrst part of <strong>the</strong> Wrst volume (pp. 27–650)trans<strong>late</strong>s large parts of <strong>the</strong> Acta of First Ephesus, after which <strong>the</strong>re are some imperialletters relating to <strong>the</strong> convocation of <strong>the</strong> council and <strong>the</strong> Acta of <strong>the</strong> Wrst and thirdsessions, while <strong>the</strong> second volume covers <strong>the</strong> second, fourth, Wfth, and sixth sessions(since Festugière’s title accepts <strong>the</strong> numbering of <strong>the</strong> Greek Acta). An Englishtranslation of <strong>the</strong> Greek Acta, with <strong>the</strong> supplementary Latin material and some of<strong>the</strong> key correspon<strong>de</strong>nce immediately before and after <strong>the</strong> council, is being preparedby Richard Price. [This is now published: R. Price and M. Gaddis, TTH 45; Liverpool,2005. I have beneWted from <strong>the</strong> chance to read parts of this translation in draft, andmany of <strong>the</strong> translations of <strong>the</strong> Acta are taken from, or adapted from this draft; I amgreatly in<strong>de</strong>bted to Richard Price for this opportunity to consult and use hisunpublished material, and Richard has also ma<strong>de</strong> many useful comments on andcorrections to this chapter.]
260 Church Councilscentral areas of ancient history, I will begin by giving a brief outline of<strong>the</strong> salient facts one needs to know as background.BackgroundWith <strong>Christian</strong>ity <strong>the</strong>re arose for <strong>the</strong> Wrst time two entirely newphenomena, which could never exist at all in paganism. One washeresy, <strong>de</strong>parture from orthodox belief; <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r was schism, separationfrom <strong>the</strong> single universal Church—which, as I have emphasizedin my book on <strong>the</strong> class struggle, is a strictly <strong>the</strong>ological concept andhas never had any real existence as a historical one, for in reality thoseclaiming to be <strong>Christian</strong>s have never at any time been a single unitedbody: both schism and heresy existed from Apostolic times.2Beginning with Constantine <strong>the</strong>re were repeated attempts by <strong>the</strong>authorities of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Empire to create unanimity, harmony(homonoia, concordia); dissi<strong>de</strong>nts were persecuted on occasion from<strong>the</strong> Wrst, and <strong>the</strong>re were numerous outbreaks of popular fanaticism,sometimes resulting in massacres, and evoking from Ammianus <strong>the</strong>statement that ‘wild beasts are not more hostile to mankind than aremost <strong>Christian</strong>s (plerique <strong>Christian</strong>orum) in <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>adly hatred ofone ano<strong>the</strong>r’ (22.5.4). Ammianus, of course, was thinking in terms ofsectarian ra<strong>the</strong>r than personal hatred.The principal heresy of <strong>the</strong> fourth century, Arianism,3 had beenlargely stamped out by <strong>the</strong> early Wfth century, except among German‘barbarians’, although <strong>late</strong>r it revived here and <strong>the</strong>re for a time. Butnow entirely new Christological controversies broke out in <strong>the</strong> East,beginning with Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople from 428 to431.4 Without making any attempt to <strong>de</strong>scribe his doctrines, I shall2 The Class Struggle in <strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World: From <strong>the</strong> Archaic Age to <strong>the</strong> ArabConquests (1981; corr. imprint, London, 1983), 445 V. (esp. 451–2), with <strong>the</strong> notes,643–4, esp. 644 n. 26. See fur<strong>the</strong>r Introduction, pp. 31–2 above, and Ch. 5, p. 202.[Against dating <strong>the</strong> concepts of heresy and schism to Apostolic times, see Ch. 5 n. 34.]3 See <strong>the</strong> contributions to M. Barnes and D. H. Williams (eds.), Arianism afterArius: Essays on <strong>the</strong> Development of <strong>the</strong> Fourth-Century Trinitarian ConXicts (Edinburgh,1993).4 For narrative of <strong>de</strong>velopments, see W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of <strong>Christian</strong>ity(London, 1984), 752–70; H. Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society from Galilee toGregory <strong>the</strong> Great (Oxford, 2001), 515–68; T. E. Gregory, Vox Populi: Popular Opinionand Violence in <strong>the</strong> Religious Controversies of <strong>the</strong> Fifth Century A.D. (Columbus, Oh.,
The Council of Chalcedon 261only say that, as generally remembered by <strong>the</strong> great majority of <strong>the</strong>faithful, Nestorius was <strong>the</strong> heresiarch who, although willing to call<strong>the</strong> Virgin Mary Christotokos, ‘Mo<strong>the</strong>r of Christ’, refused to <strong>de</strong>scribeher as Theotokos, ‘Mo<strong>the</strong>r of God’, a distinction <strong>the</strong>n possessing greatsigniWcance.5 As early as <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> fourth century <strong>the</strong> cult of <strong>the</strong> VirginMary had come to evoke curiously strong passions, in <strong>the</strong> West aswell as <strong>the</strong> East, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of her perpetual virginity, not merelypost partum, but even miraculously in partu, was already wi<strong>de</strong>ly held.Nestorius was con<strong>de</strong>mned at <strong>the</strong> First Council of Ephesus in 431,where Cyril of Alexandria managed to arrange matters in his favour,and <strong>the</strong>n exiled as a result of intrigues at <strong>the</strong> court of Theodosius II.Cyril, though initially <strong>de</strong>posed by Theodosius after being con<strong>de</strong>mnedby Nestorius’ supporters at Ephesus and strongly challenged over <strong>the</strong>orthodoxy of his anti-Nestorian Twelve Ana<strong>the</strong>mas, emergedtriumphant, thanks to <strong>the</strong> support of <strong>the</strong> Augusta Pulcheria and PopeCelestine as well as enormous bribes lavished on imperial courtiers.A fascinating list of Cyril’s gifts is preserved in <strong>the</strong> Acta of FirstEphesus in <strong>the</strong> form of a letter from an Alexandrian arch<strong>de</strong>aconwho complains that Cyril stripped his enormously wealthy churchof everything (ecclesia Alexandrina nudata) and incurred a <strong>de</strong>bt of1,500 pounds of gold into <strong>the</strong> bargain: <strong>the</strong> bribes inclu<strong>de</strong>d one gift of200 pounds of gold to a eunuch Grand Chamberlain, and some<strong>de</strong>lightful presents such as carpets, pictures, ivory chairs and o<strong>the</strong>rfurniture, not to mention a few ostriches.6 Nestorianism soon lostany importance it had had in <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire when John of1979); P. Allen, ‘The DeWnition and Enforcement of Orthodoxy’, in A. Cameron,B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby (eds.), CAH xiv: Late Antiquity: Empire andSuccessors 425–600 (Cambridge, 2000), 811–34.5 Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heraclei<strong>de</strong>s, trans. G. R. Driver and L. Hodgson(Oxford, 1925), 97–100; Barhadbeshabba, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and Frenchtrans. F. Nau, PO 9 (1913), 489–631, and 23 (1932), 177–343, ch. 21 (PO 9, 531–3);Evagrius 1.2. J. A. McGuckin, St Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, itsHistory, Theology and Texts (Vig. Chr. Suppl. 23; Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1994), ch. 2. For <strong>the</strong> interestof <strong>the</strong> Theodosian dynasty in Marian <strong>de</strong>votion, see K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses:Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982), 147–74.6 ACO i.iv, pp. 222–5; see <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Class Struggle, 177 and 574 n. 13 (with fullreferences); Festugière, Éphèse, does not trans<strong>late</strong> this document. The precise occasionof <strong>the</strong>se bribes within this complex sequence of events is unknown, but <strong>the</strong>y mayhave been <strong>de</strong>ployed after Cyril’s initial rehabilitation while he was struggling to<strong>de</strong>fend his Twelve Ana<strong>the</strong>mas.
262 Church CouncilsAntioch and <strong>the</strong> bishops un<strong>de</strong>r his jurisdiction were persua<strong>de</strong>d toaccept reconciliation with Cyril of Alexandria in winter 432.7The great question now was whe<strong>the</strong>r Jesus Christ should be conceivedas having two diVerent Natures, divine and human, united butfully retaining <strong>the</strong>ir separate i<strong>de</strong>ntities, or whe<strong>the</strong>r, after <strong>the</strong> Incarnation,<strong>the</strong>re was only one Nature, a divine one into which Christ’shuman nature was in some way subsumed.8 For convenience I willrefer to <strong>the</strong> latter as Monophysites, as <strong>the</strong>y are usually now known,9although this term seems not to have been accepted by <strong>the</strong>m or evenregularly applied to <strong>the</strong>m for several generations. Those who held <strong>the</strong>doctrine of <strong>the</strong> Two Natures (and who triumphed at Chalcedon) I willrefer to as Orthodox, as <strong>the</strong>y are regar<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong> great majority of<strong>Christian</strong>s today, including <strong>the</strong> Orthodox churches, Roman Catholics,and Protestants, but not by <strong>the</strong> Coptic and Ethiopic churches,<strong>the</strong> Armenian church, and <strong>the</strong> Syrian Jacobites, who are all what weshould call Monophysites, or at least non-Chalcedonians in varying<strong>de</strong>grees.The next episo<strong>de</strong> to note was in 448 when Eutyches, a Constantinopolitanarchimandrite, was con<strong>de</strong>mned by a local synod chaired by<strong>the</strong> Patriarch Flavian for holding Monophysite i<strong>de</strong>as in what was <strong>late</strong>rto be regar<strong>de</strong>d as an extreme form.10 Attempts were ma<strong>de</strong> to reversethis <strong>de</strong>cision until, in <strong>the</strong> next year, 449, Theodosius II or<strong>de</strong>red <strong>the</strong>case to be consi<strong>de</strong>red at a Second Council of Ephesus. Here Eutycheswas rehabilitated through <strong>the</strong> inXuence and pressure of Dioscorus ofAlexandria, a fervent Monophysite who had succee<strong>de</strong>d Cyril aspatriarch in 444, and was appointed to chair <strong>the</strong> council by imperialcommand. This council is usually referred to as <strong>the</strong> Latrocinium, <strong>the</strong>7 ACO i.i.4, nos. 123, 127, 130; Evagrius 1.6. McGuckin, Cyril, 110–16.8 Festugière, Actes du Concile, 7–16, contains a valuable introduction by HenryChadwick which presents <strong>the</strong> fundamental Christological problems from an essentiallyorthodox perspective. See too <strong>the</strong> ‘Theological Introduction’ to Richard Price’stranslation of <strong>the</strong> Acta of Chalcedon.9 S. Brock, ‘The Christology of <strong>the</strong> Church of <strong>the</strong> East’, in Tradition and Heritage of<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> East: Proceedings of <strong>the</strong> International Conference (Moscow, 1996), 163–4,proposes Miaphysite or Henophysite as more accurate alternatives; although <strong>the</strong>former has now been adopted by some, Monophysite remains <strong>the</strong> recognized term.10 Eutyches’ One Nature views had just been attacked by Theodoret of Cyrrhus inhis Eranistēs, for which see G. H. Ettlinger, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eranistes (Oxford,1975). This provoked retaliation against Theodoret and o<strong>the</strong>r clerics believed to haveNestorian inclinations, but it may also have prompted o<strong>the</strong>rs to attack Eutyches.
The Council of Chalcedon 263‘Brigandage’, ‘Banditry’, or ‘Robber Council’, <strong>the</strong> name given to it in aletter of Pope Leo on <strong>the</strong> grounds that it was characterized byextreme violence which Dioscorus promoted;11 it is not recognizedin <strong>the</strong> oYcial list of ecumenical councils, which began with Nicaea in325 and in which First Ephesus and Chalcedon are reckoned as <strong>the</strong>third and fourth. The proceedings of Second Ephesus are notpreserved intact, though an important Syriac version survives; alsosubstantial sections relating to <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Flavian and <strong>the</strong>failure to admit for discussion what was to become known as <strong>the</strong>Tome of Leo were read out at <strong>the</strong> Wrst session of Chalcedon, and soare preserved in its Acta.12At Second Ephesus <strong>the</strong> Wrst casualties were Flavian of Constantinopleand Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who were con<strong>de</strong>mned for <strong>the</strong>irtreatment of Eutyches, though technically <strong>the</strong> oVence was propoundingadditions to <strong>the</strong> Creed of Nicaea.13 At subsequent sessions anumber of eastern bishops were <strong>de</strong>posed, Ibas of E<strong>de</strong>ssa who wasregar<strong>de</strong>d as a follower of Nestorius’ teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia,Ibas’ nephew, Daniel of Carrhae, and Irenaeus of Tyre, a personalfriend of Nestorius who had accompanied him to First Ephesus; Ibas’cousin, Sophronius of Tella, was also investigated, but judgement wasreserved and he was still in post for <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon. Themost prominent victims were Theodoret bishop of Cyrrhus, <strong>the</strong>leading intellectual advocate of views similar to those of Nestorius,and Domnus of Antioch, who had hoped to escape by acquiescingin <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>position of his subordinates but <strong>the</strong>n found himself withoutsupporters himself. There was a variety of accusations, but<strong>the</strong> common threads were connections, direct or indirect, withNestorius, and opposition to Alexandrian <strong>the</strong>ology: for Dioscorusand his supporters <strong>the</strong>se clergy were irre<strong>de</strong>emably heretical.14 The11 Leo, Ep. 95, sent to Pulcheria on 20 July 451 (ACO ii.iv, no. 51, p. 51 line 4).12 For <strong>the</strong> Syriac version <strong>the</strong>re is a German trans. by J. Flemming, ‘Akten <strong>de</strong>rephesinischen Syno<strong>de</strong> vom Jahre 449, syrisch mit Georg HoVmanns <strong>de</strong>utscher Übersetzungund seinem Anmerkungen herausgegeben’, Abhandlungen <strong>de</strong>r königlichenGesellschaft <strong>de</strong>r Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 15.1 (Berlin, 1917), 1–159;also an Eng. trans. by S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1881).13 On Flavian see H. Chadwick, ‘The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople:A Prologue to <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon’, JTS 6 (1955), 17–34, an illuminatingarticle even if its conclusion on <strong>the</strong> probable date of Flavian’s <strong>de</strong>ath is not accepted.14 See Chadwick, Church, 563–6.
264 Church Councilsunfortunate Theodoret had been both a personal friend of Nestoriusand probably <strong>the</strong> most potent doctrinal opponent for Cyril ofAlexandria, whose anti-Nestorian Twelve Ana<strong>the</strong>mas he embarrassedby probing <strong>the</strong>ir own orthodoxy.15Then, in <strong>the</strong> summer of 450, Emperor Theodosius II died afterfalling from his horse, to be succee<strong>de</strong>d by Marcian, who in religiousmatters was clearly inXuenced by <strong>the</strong> wishes of his formidable wife,Pulcheria, <strong>the</strong> el<strong>de</strong>r sister of Theodosius; she had held <strong>the</strong> rank ofAugusta since 414 and now, at <strong>the</strong> age of 51, married Marcian oncondition that her virginity be preserved.16 Although Pulcheria hadbeen persua<strong>de</strong>d to support Cyril against Nestorius in <strong>the</strong> 430s—herstaV were among <strong>the</strong> recipients of Cyril’s bribes—and so might havebeen expected to favour his successor at Alexandria, Dioscorus, overthose alleged to be tainted with Nestorian views,17 during <strong>the</strong> latteryears of Theodosius’ reign she had lost inXuence and so may havebeen inclined to oppose her bro<strong>the</strong>r’s current doctrinal favourite,Eutyches. She was now a passionate champion of Orthodoxy, andwas already corresponding with Pope Leo about her hostility toSecond Ephesus (Leo, Ep. 60), so that <strong>the</strong> religious policy of <strong>the</strong>imperial house changed drastically, to total support for Orthodoxy.The result was <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon, in October 451, where <strong>the</strong>complete victory of Orthodoxy was secured by a clear expression of<strong>the</strong> imperial will, enforced by a presiding commission of some of <strong>the</strong>highest dignitaries in <strong>the</strong> empire. The Wrst Wve sessions <strong>de</strong>alt with twofundamental issues, <strong>the</strong> fates of Dioscorus (Wrst and third sessions)and of some of his supporters at Second Ephesus (fourth session),and <strong>the</strong> need for a new <strong>de</strong>Wnition of faith (second and Wfth sessions),with <strong>the</strong> imperial couple attending <strong>the</strong> sixth session to ratify15 At <strong>the</strong> Wrst session of Chalcedon <strong>the</strong> Egyptian bishops chanted ‘Theodoretaccused Cyril. We exclu<strong>de</strong> Cyril if we admit Theodoret. The canons have expelledhim. He is rejected by God.’ ACO ii.i.70 § 43, and cf. also §§ 29, 39 for o<strong>the</strong>rexpressions of hostility.16 For references see PLRE ii. 929–30, s.v. Aelia Pulcheria; R. W. Burgess, ‘TheAccession of Marcian in <strong>the</strong> Light of Chalcedonian Apologetic and MonophysitePolemic’, BZ 86–7 (1993–4), 47–68.17 At <strong>the</strong> Wrst session of Chalcedon <strong>the</strong> Egyptian bishops clearly hoped for thiswhen <strong>the</strong>y chanted ‘The Augusta expelled Nestorius. Many years to <strong>the</strong> orthodoxAugusta. The Council does not admit Theodoret’ (ACO ii.i.69, § 33, and cf. also §§31, 39).
The Council of Chalcedon 265<strong>de</strong>cisions so far. Thereafter a fur<strong>the</strong>r ten sessions <strong>de</strong>alt with morespeciWc issues.Sources and DiscussionsThe sources for <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon are, as I have said, extraordinarilyrich, and on this occasion, for once, <strong>the</strong>re is no need forQuellenforschung which is all too often an attempt to get behind realworks which do survive and can be read, to hypo<strong>the</strong>tical ones whichdo not and cannot. In <strong>the</strong> Wrst place we possess very full minutes of<strong>the</strong> proceedings of <strong>the</strong> council, <strong>the</strong> Acta, based on stenographicrecords, which run to over 400 folio pages of Greek text in EduardSchwartz’s remarkable scholarly edition, not to mention a Latinversion (also printed in ACO) which, although it was edited in itspresent form about a century after <strong>the</strong> event, is a very faithfultranslation and in<strong>de</strong>ed contains much good additional material;this runs to well over 500 folio pages. There are also four smallervolumes in Schwartz’s great work which contain a mass of contemporarymaterial, such as letters and petitions, relating to <strong>the</strong> aftermathand reception of <strong>the</strong> council.18 The forthcoming annotatedEnglish translation of <strong>the</strong> full Greek Acta will make this materialmuch more accessible, since Schwartz’s corpus is not exactly easy touse. At present <strong>the</strong> best help is provi<strong>de</strong>d by digests or abbreviatedversions, of which <strong>the</strong> most useful by far is Hefele–Leclercq’s Histoire<strong>de</strong>s Conciles.19 These do, however, lose much of <strong>the</strong> real richness of<strong>the</strong> Acta, especially <strong>the</strong> torrents of invective, so that, for example, onedoes not expect to Wnd in <strong>the</strong>m remarks like that ma<strong>de</strong> in <strong>the</strong> tenthsession by <strong>the</strong> metropolitan bishop of Cyzicus, Diogenes: Diogenes,18 There is work to be done on i<strong>de</strong>ntifying <strong>the</strong> diVerent agendas and audiences of<strong>the</strong> various post-Chalcedon collections of documents. For an illuminating example ofwhat can be done with a collection re<strong>late</strong>d to First Ephesus, see F. Millar, ‘RepentantHeretics in Fifth-Century Lydia: I<strong>de</strong>ntity and Literacy’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 23(2004), 111–30.19 C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire <strong>de</strong>s Conciles: d’après les documents originauxii.i–ii (Paris, 1908), esp. ii. 649–834; this summary is based on <strong>the</strong> text of <strong>the</strong>Acta in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio vi–vii(Florence, 1761–2). There is an English translation from an earlier German versionby Hefele, published as A History of <strong>the</strong> Councils of <strong>the</strong> Church, iii (Edinburgh, 1883),esp. 285–428.
266 Church Councilsone of <strong>the</strong> leading turncoats at <strong>the</strong> council, commented that <strong>the</strong>Ephesians if left to <strong>the</strong>mselves elect as <strong>the</strong>ir bishops salgamarioi, adirect Greek borrowing from <strong>the</strong> Latin word for something like‘pickle-sellers’ (ACO ii.i.411, § 56).20The massive bulk of this collection of evi<strong>de</strong>nce does not, however,mean that we have a complete record of proceedings, since onoccasions it is apparent that some exchanges have been omitted orreor<strong>de</strong>red: thus in <strong>the</strong> second session, <strong>the</strong> Acta represent <strong>the</strong> full textof Leo’s Tome as being read out before certain speciWc objections arerecor<strong>de</strong>d and rejected (ACO ii.i.277–8, §§ 22–6), although it is clearthat <strong>the</strong> objections were registered at speciWc points during <strong>the</strong>formal reading of <strong>the</strong> Tome; <strong>the</strong> compilers of <strong>the</strong> Acta did not wantto enshrine disrespect for <strong>the</strong> Tome by recording repeated interruptions,which may well have been more vehement and protracted than<strong>the</strong> calm account of <strong>the</strong>ir dismissal suggests, an example of <strong>the</strong>important role which <strong>the</strong> controllers of a council played in <strong>de</strong>Wningits memory.21It has been argued, to my mind with some exaggeration, by leadingscholars that <strong>the</strong> procedure for church councils was mo<strong>de</strong>lled closelyon that of <strong>the</strong> Roman Senate; one signiWcant diVerence is thatcouncils worked by consensus, with episcopal unanimity reXectingand <strong>de</strong>monstrating <strong>the</strong> will of God, whereas in senate meetings it waspossible to introduce counter-proposals or at least disagree with <strong>the</strong>20 This Wrst appears in Lid<strong>de</strong>ll and Scott only in <strong>the</strong> 1968 Supplement to <strong>the</strong> 9<strong>the</strong>dition, where <strong>the</strong> single reference given is a 6th-cent. inscription from Corinth. [<strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> ma<strong>de</strong> this point in ‘A Worm’s-Eye View of <strong>the</strong> Greeks and Romans and How<strong>the</strong>y Spoke: Martyr Acts, Fables, Parables and O<strong>the</strong>r Texts’, Latin Teaching, 37.4(1984), 16–30, at 23–4, where he uses <strong>the</strong> energetic and colloquial language of <strong>the</strong>bishops as part of his argument that teachers of classical languages should make moreuse of early <strong>Christian</strong> texts to enliven <strong>the</strong>ir material. The word is recor<strong>de</strong>d in Lampe’sPatristic Greek Lexicon, which also notes <strong>the</strong> Corinth inscription. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s pointreXects <strong>the</strong> frustrating separation of secular from ecclesiastical Greek in <strong>the</strong> mainlexica. The all-round importance of <strong>the</strong> collections of council Acta, including <strong>the</strong>irlinguistic signiWcance for issues such as bilingualism and translation, has beenrecognized by Fergus Millar, ‘Repentant Heretics’, 116, a comment which will be<strong>de</strong>veloped at greater length in <strong>the</strong> forthcoming publication of his Sa<strong>the</strong>r lectures,A Greek Roman Empire: Power, Belief and Reason un<strong>de</strong>r Theodosius II, 408–50.]21 See fur<strong>the</strong>r below for discussion of ‘turncoats’. M. J. van Parys, ‘The Council ofChalcedon as Historical Event’, Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970), 305–20, at 314, notesthat <strong>the</strong> Acta for <strong>the</strong> Wfth session are ra<strong>the</strong>r meagre, but without i<strong>de</strong>ntifying anyobvious reason.
The Council of Chalcedon 267motion un<strong>de</strong>r discussion.22 Fortunately, however, one feature of <strong>the</strong>recording of senatorial procedure was preserved, since <strong>the</strong> Actarecord not only <strong>de</strong>cisions and speeches but vast numbers of acclamations(ekboēseis, acclamationes in Latin), as well as less formalexclamations. As early as Pliny’s Panegyric, <strong>de</strong>livered to Trajan inad 100, <strong>the</strong> acclamationes of imperial speeches were being solemnlyrecor<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> Acta Senatus (Pan. 75).23 The practice increasedduring Late Antiquity and exten<strong>de</strong>d to new venues, such as churchcouncils, not least because emperors had <strong>de</strong>monstrated <strong>the</strong>ir interest:Constantine encouraged provincial ga<strong>the</strong>rings to praise or criticize<strong>the</strong>ir governors through acclamations which were to be reported to<strong>the</strong> emperor himself (Cod. Theod. 1.16.6 of 331), and by 371 provincialson such reporting missions were permitted to use <strong>the</strong> imperialpost (Cod. Theod. 8.5.32). The fact that both laws were inclu<strong>de</strong>d in<strong>the</strong> Co<strong>de</strong>x Theodosianus, which was compiled about a <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> before<strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon, indicates that <strong>the</strong>y were still in force, and<strong>the</strong> Constantinian law in<strong>de</strong>ed was retained in <strong>the</strong> Co<strong>de</strong>x Justinianus.Acclamations might well digress from <strong>the</strong> occasion or event whichhad triggered <strong>the</strong>m. The senatorial Acta which record <strong>the</strong> receptionin Rome in 438 of <strong>the</strong> newly promulgated Co<strong>de</strong>x Theodosianusprovi<strong>de</strong> a good example in a compact series of acclamations whichmove from praise of <strong>the</strong> emperors, particularly in <strong>the</strong>ir capacity aslaw-makers, to requests for <strong>the</strong> consulship to be granted to certainleading senators.24 In <strong>the</strong> Acta of Chalcedon, we have not only <strong>the</strong>conventional shouts in honour of <strong>the</strong> emperor and empress, but alsomany highly charged and even abusive explosions. On occasion <strong>the</strong>reare also comments on, or reactions to acclamations. These mightinvolve <strong>the</strong> assertion that <strong>the</strong> acclamations being recor<strong>de</strong>d did notrepresent a majority view, ‘Only a few are shouting. The council doesnot speak’ as <strong>the</strong> Constantinopolitan clergy respon<strong>de</strong>d to chants at22 F. Dvornik, ‘Emperors, Popes and Councils’, DOP (1951), 3–23, at 4, 18;P. BatiVol, ‘Origines <strong>de</strong> règlement <strong>de</strong>s concils’, in Étu<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> liturgie et d’archéologiechrétienne (Paris, 1919), 84–153, at 85; H. Gelzer, ‘Die Konzilien als Reichsparlamente’,in Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1907), 142–55.23 For a good discussion of <strong>the</strong> prevalence of acclamations, see C. Roueché,‘Acclamations in <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire: New Evi<strong>de</strong>nce from Aphrodisias’, JRS 74(1984), 181–99.24 J. F. Mat<strong>the</strong>ws, Laying Down <strong>the</strong> Law: A Study of <strong>the</strong> Theodosian Co<strong>de</strong> (NewHaven, 2000), 35–49.
268 Church Councils<strong>the</strong> second session for <strong>the</strong> restoration of Dioscorus and o<strong>the</strong>r<strong>de</strong>posed bishops (ACO ii.i.279, § 35). Occasionally <strong>the</strong> presidingoYcials attempted to restrain <strong>the</strong> vehemence of <strong>the</strong> outbursts,‘These vulgar outbursts are not becoming to bishops, nor useful toei<strong>the</strong>r party. Allow everything to be read’ (ACO ii.i.70, § 44), butsuch interventions were rare; <strong>the</strong>y tend to occur when, as on thisoccasion when <strong>the</strong> presence of Theodoret was at issue, <strong>the</strong> councilwas in danger of straying from <strong>the</strong> oYcial agenda. Mutual episcopalmud-slinging was tolerated and at Chalcedon <strong>the</strong> most frequentchant was <strong>the</strong> repeated exō bale, ‘Chuck ’em out’—or perhaps,since <strong>the</strong>se are <strong>the</strong> cries of holy bishops, one should trans<strong>late</strong> ‘Cast<strong>the</strong>m out’.But <strong>the</strong> Acta are very far from being our only source of knowledgeabout Chalcedon. Evagrius, who came from Epiphania in Syria andwas employed in a legal capacity by <strong>the</strong> orthodox bishop of Antioch,Gregory, during <strong>the</strong> 580s, compiled an ecclesiastical history of <strong>the</strong>years 431 to 594 which continued <strong>the</strong> narratives of <strong>the</strong> mid-Wfthcenturytriad of writers, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Evagrius<strong>de</strong>liberately began his account with <strong>the</strong> origins of <strong>the</strong> Christologicaldispute about <strong>the</strong> Natures of Christ by starting with Nestorius’patriarchy and <strong>the</strong> First Council of Ephesus, even though thisentailed some overlap with Socrates (1.2). Chalcedon was crucial toEvagrius’ story, and he provi<strong>de</strong>s a substantial account of proceedingsin two parts, a shorter version within <strong>the</strong> chronological narrative inBook 2 (ch. 4) and <strong>the</strong>n a longer one which is presented as anappendix to Book 2.25 It is clear that Evagrius used a version of <strong>the</strong>Acta, which he summarized reasonably well: at one point heconXated two letters by Pope Leo, at two places he seems to havemisun<strong>de</strong>rstood which si<strong>de</strong> of a complex argument a particularspeaker was supporting, and <strong>the</strong>re are a few errors over <strong>the</strong> or<strong>de</strong>rof arguments and particular names. However, in <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong> sheerquantity of <strong>the</strong> material which he was attempting to summarize, thisrecord is not too bad, and his account is a reasonably brief and25 This occupies 37 pages in <strong>the</strong> standard Bi<strong>de</strong>z–Parmentier text, 9 for <strong>the</strong> initialaccount and 26 for <strong>the</strong> appendix. There are annotated translations, with crossreferencesto <strong>the</strong> relevant sections of ACO, by M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical Historyof Evagrius Scholasticus (Liverpool, 2000) and A. J. Festugière, ‘Évagre, HistoireEcclésiastique’, Byzantion, 45 (1975), 187–488.
The Council of Chalcedon 269informative introduction to <strong>the</strong> key events.26 In <strong>the</strong> main narrativeEvagrius focused on three key issues, <strong>the</strong> reversal of <strong>the</strong> incorrect<strong>de</strong>cisions of Second Ephesus, <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>position of Dioscorus for disciplinaryreasons, and <strong>the</strong> establishment of a new Creed. In <strong>the</strong> appendix<strong>the</strong> focus is even more clearly on Dioscorus, whose misconduct andintransigence are displayed to <strong>the</strong> full, though <strong>the</strong> reputation of PopeLeo is also upheld through <strong>de</strong>monstrations of <strong>the</strong> parallels between<strong>the</strong> views in his Tome and <strong>the</strong> teachings of Cyril of Alexandria.27Inevitably, as a good orthodox writer, Evagrius omitted much of <strong>the</strong>most ‘spicy’ material, but he does not entirely disguise <strong>the</strong> vital roleperformed again and again at critical points in proceedings by <strong>the</strong>emperor himself and <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners who presi<strong>de</strong>d atevery session except <strong>the</strong> formal disciplinary proceedings at whichDioscorus was con<strong>de</strong>mned in his absence.28 In addition to Evagrius<strong>the</strong> Ecclesiastical History of <strong>the</strong> Monophysite Zachariah rhetor preservesa brief account of proceedings from <strong>the</strong> losers’ perspective.The letter collections of Pope Leo and Bishop Theodoret provi<strong>de</strong>important evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> views of two of <strong>the</strong> main participants aswell as of some of <strong>the</strong>ir correspon<strong>de</strong>nts; Theodoret’s letters inparticular reveal interesting links with some central players atChalcedon.29There is no mo<strong>de</strong>rn work on <strong>the</strong> council which, to my mind,provi<strong>de</strong>s a thoroughly acceptable account. Most writing on Chalcedonhas been done by <strong>the</strong>ologians,30 whereas I am a professional26 Whitby, Evagrius, p. xxxix.27 See fur<strong>the</strong>r Whitby, Evagrius, pp. xxxviii–xxxix.28 [To my mind <strong>the</strong> full extent of imperial involvement is only clear in <strong>the</strong> Acta,but it is true that Evagrius does not write <strong>the</strong> commissioners out altoge<strong>the</strong>r.]29 Theodoret, Correspondance, ed. Y. Azéma (Sources Chrétiennes 40, 98, 111;Paris, 1955–65), esp. i. 44–56; <strong>the</strong>re is an ol<strong>de</strong>r Eng. trans. by B. Jackson in NPNF ii.3(Grand Rapids, 1892).30 For an account in English by a <strong>the</strong>ologian, see R. V. Sellers, The Council ofChalcedon, a Historical and Doctrinal Survey (London, 1953); brief and useful<strong>the</strong>ological treatments are provi<strong>de</strong>d by L. R. Wickham, ‘Chalkedon, ökumenischeSyno<strong>de</strong> (451)’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 7 (1981), 668–75, and in H. Chadwick’spreface to Festugière’s Actes du Concile. T. Camelot, Éphèse et Chalcédoine (Paris,1962) does not add much. The massive collection (over 2,700 pages) edited byA. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart (3vols., Wurzburg, 1951–4) is essentially <strong>the</strong>ological and has little of historical value,although <strong>the</strong>re is a useful and accurate historical table covering <strong>the</strong> years 422 to 564 at
270 Church Councilshistorian and a <strong>the</strong>ologian in only a very amateur way—althoughI have tried hard to un<strong>de</strong>rstand all <strong>the</strong> main <strong>the</strong>ological issues, someof which are immensely subtle and complex and diYcult to grasp.I sympathize very much with <strong>the</strong> comments of <strong>the</strong> sixth-centuryhistorian Procopius of Caesarea who, when mentioning an abstruse<strong>the</strong>ological controversy, refused in principle to give <strong>de</strong>tails eventhough he insisted that he thoroughly un<strong>de</strong>rstood it: ‘for I hold it asort of mad folly (an aponoia maniōdēs tis) to research into <strong>the</strong> natureof God. Even human nature cannot, I think, be precisely un<strong>de</strong>rstoodby men; still less can <strong>the</strong> things which pertain to <strong>the</strong> nature of God.So let me shun this peril and pass <strong>the</strong>se things by in discreet silence’(Wars 5.3.5–9). It is probably already clear that I do not myself shareany of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ological opinions of any of <strong>the</strong> great divisions of WfthcenturyChristendom: this does at least enable me to claim completeimpartiality as between Orthodox and Monophysites,31 even if <strong>the</strong>ferocious strife between <strong>the</strong>m, which sometimes, as we shall see, tookon a mur<strong>de</strong>rous character, often makes me feel like repeating <strong>the</strong>dying words of Mercutio in Act 3 of Romeo and Juliet, ‘A plague o’both your houses’.ii. 941–67 which helps to clarify <strong>the</strong> antece<strong>de</strong>nts as well as <strong>the</strong> reception of <strong>the</strong>council. In addition to van Parys, ‘Council’, <strong>the</strong> best mo<strong>de</strong>rn treatments of <strong>the</strong> councilfrom <strong>the</strong> historical point of view are W. <strong>de</strong> Vries, ‘Die Struktur <strong>de</strong>r Kirche gemäss<strong>de</strong>m Konzil von Chalkedon (451)’, OCP 35 (1969), 63–122 (<strong>the</strong>re is a French trans. ofthis article in i<strong>de</strong>m, Orient et Occi<strong>de</strong>nt: les structures ecclésiastiques vues dans l’histoire<strong>de</strong>s sept premières conciles oecuméniques (Paris, 1974) ); see also i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Das Konzil vonEphesus 449, eine ‘‘Räubersyno<strong>de</strong>’’?’, OCP 41 (1975), 357–98, where <strong>the</strong> questionmark in <strong>the</strong> title points to <strong>de</strong> Vries’s overall approach. De Vries’s articles get to gripswith what actually went on at councils, even if <strong>the</strong> author’s commitment to PopeLeo’s outlook and activities can sometimes seem overconW<strong>de</strong>nt. V. C. Samuel,‘Proceedings of <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon and its Historical Problems: A PaperWritten from a Critical Point of View’, Ecumenical Review, 22 (1970), 321–47 is ofsome interest, in that <strong>the</strong> author, a priest in <strong>the</strong> non-Chalcedonian Indian SyrianOrthodox Church, rightly regards <strong>the</strong> council proceedings as eYciently controlled by<strong>the</strong> combined power of Pope and Emperor, but his doctrinal stance leads him to makedubious claims about proceedings at Second Ephesus. [I am sure that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>would also have commen<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> very helpful introductions and annotations to <strong>the</strong>new English translation of <strong>the</strong> Acta.]31 It is diYcult to Wnd in English an account of <strong>the</strong> council, its antece<strong>de</strong>nts, andconsequences from <strong>the</strong> Monophysite perspective. In addition to Samuel, ‘Proceedings’,noted above, see also i<strong>de</strong>m, The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined: A Historicaland Theological Survey (Madras, 1977; repub. London, 2001), which is of greater<strong>the</strong>ological than historical interest.
Some IssuesThe Council of Chalcedon 271At this point I will refer to two or three <strong>the</strong>mes which I will not bepursuing. The <strong>the</strong>ological struggles of <strong>the</strong> period are sometimestreated as essentially a battle for ecclesiastical supremacy between<strong>the</strong> three great Eastern patriarchates, Alexandria, Constantinople,and Antioch. Certainly <strong>the</strong> rivalry of <strong>the</strong> three great sees could be,and sometimes was, a major factor: jealousy of <strong>the</strong> upstart see ofConstantinople might draw toge<strong>the</strong>r Alexandria and sees in AsiaMinor threatened by <strong>the</strong> extension of <strong>the</strong> metropolitan power of<strong>the</strong> capital, or might unite Rome and Alexandria against its universalpretensions. The humbling of John Chrysostom in which Theophilusof Alexandria played a leading part is one instance; doctrine playedno part, whereas episcopal power was crucial.32 Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore <strong>the</strong><strong>the</strong>ologians of Alexandria and Antioch had strong local doctrinaltraditions, though those of Constantinople did not. But to my mindin <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>ological contests what I might call issues of episcopal orecclesiastical geography are secondary, and we must always treat asprimary <strong>the</strong> actual doctrines held by each of <strong>the</strong> participants in thiswhole i<strong>de</strong>ological strife. I do not, however, wish to belittle <strong>the</strong>importance of <strong>the</strong> greatly ad<strong>de</strong>d weight and bitterness which mightbe given to a doctrinal dispute by <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> participants werealso Wghting for <strong>the</strong>ir own ecclesiastical power and <strong>the</strong> prestige of<strong>the</strong>ir sees.33 Ano<strong>the</strong>r issue to be set asi<strong>de</strong> is <strong>the</strong> ambition of <strong>the</strong>odious Bishop Juvenal to turn his see of Jerusalem into a patriarchate,at <strong>the</strong> expense of Antioch, which he succee<strong>de</strong>d in doing at SecondEphesus and <strong>the</strong>n maintained at Chalcedon even though he had toreturn some of <strong>the</strong> ill-gotten territorial gains he had just ma<strong>de</strong>.3432 J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, Army, Church, and State in <strong>the</strong>Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom (Oxford, 1990), chs. 19–20; S. Elm, ‘The Dog that didnot Bark: Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in <strong>the</strong> ConXict between Theophilus ofAlexandria and John Chrysostom of Constantinople’, in L. Ayres and G. Jones (eds.),<strong>Christian</strong> Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community (London, 1998), 68–93.33 Those who wish for an account of <strong>the</strong> episcopal/ecclesiastical aspect of <strong>the</strong>dogmatic disputes could begin with Norman Baynes, ‘Alexandria and Constantinople:A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy’, in Byzantine Studies and O<strong>the</strong>r Essays (London,1955), 97–115. Samuel, ‘Proceedings’, 342–3, sees Pulcheria’s support for opponents ofEutyches as motivated mainly by her <strong>de</strong>sire to secure <strong>the</strong> elevation of her imperial see ofConstantinople at <strong>the</strong> expense of Alexandria, but his extreme cynicism is unjustiWed.34 For his long and generally successful career, see E. Honigmann, ‘Juvenal ofJerusalem’, DOP 5 (1950), 209–79.
272 Church CouncilsNei<strong>the</strong>r do I intend to lay any stress at all on alleged politicalmotives, such as <strong>the</strong> supposed necessity in 451 for Emperor Marcianto take great account of <strong>the</strong> views of <strong>the</strong> 32-year-old senior Augustus,<strong>the</strong> western Emperor Valentinian III,35 as well as of Pope Leo, <strong>the</strong>bishop of his capital city, Rome, which was not in fact Valentinian’snormal resi<strong>de</strong>nce.36 Valentinian resented <strong>the</strong> uni<strong>late</strong>ral proclamationof Marcian in <strong>the</strong> East on <strong>the</strong> grounds that he should have beenconsulted, and did not recognize Marcian as Augustus until 30March 452; during 451 <strong>the</strong> rift was symbolized by a refusal in <strong>the</strong>West to acknowledge Marcian’s consulship, while Marcian may haveclaimed not to have been informed about <strong>the</strong> western consulA<strong>de</strong>lWus.37 In reality, for both emperors Attila <strong>the</strong> Hun provi<strong>de</strong>d amore pressing problem: in 450 Marcian risked his wrath by refusing35 E. <strong>Ste</strong>in, Histoire du Bas-Empire, i (2nd edn., 1959), 312. [Evagrius 2.1, however,may hint at a possible link between Valentinian’s ratiWcation of Marcian’s elevationand <strong>the</strong> summoning of <strong>the</strong> council, though <strong>the</strong> conjunction of events could beinnocent.]36 [<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s comment that Rome was not Valentinian’s normal resi<strong>de</strong>ncereXects <strong>the</strong> standard scholarly view that Ravenna served as <strong>the</strong> western imperialcapital from <strong>the</strong> date of Honorius’ move <strong>the</strong>re in <strong>the</strong> early 5th cent. Although <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> is correct that across <strong>the</strong> whole of his reign Valentinian III spent more time inRavenna than Rome, it has now been pointed out by A. Gillett, ‘Rome, Ravenna and<strong>the</strong> Last Western Emperors’, PBSR 69 (2001), 131–67, esp. 145–8, that <strong>the</strong> imperialcourt was based at Rome on various occasions during <strong>the</strong> 440s and regularly from450; fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, Valentinian and his family provi<strong>de</strong>d Wnancial support for PopeLeo’s buildings in and around Rome, and used ecclesiastical ceremonies to advertise<strong>the</strong>ir attachment to <strong>the</strong> city. I am grateful to Fergus Millar for drawing my attentionto this article.We may assume that Valentinian broadly shared <strong>the</strong> doctrinal views of his Pope,and may have exploited <strong>the</strong> embarrassment of <strong>the</strong> eastern regime over <strong>the</strong> conductand <strong>de</strong>cisions of Second Ephesus, but in spite of Valentinian’s Roman connection <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> is still right not to attach signiWcance to this possible motive for <strong>the</strong> council.Eastern emperors were quite capable of disregarding papal views, as Theodosius IIhad already <strong>de</strong>monstrated. The impetus for <strong>the</strong> council came from <strong>the</strong> East, partlyfrom clerics who believed that Second Ephesus had gone too far or had aVected <strong>the</strong>episcopal balance of power, but much more importantly from <strong>the</strong> imperial pair, who,for example, coerced <strong>the</strong> reluctant eastern bishops into agreeing a new Creed:comparisons with Constantine and Helena were presumably not unwelcome to <strong>the</strong>new regime, and personal as well as religious consi<strong>de</strong>rations may have inXuenced<strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>termination to secure <strong>the</strong> ‘right’ <strong>de</strong>cisions at Chalcedon. Promotion of goodrelations with <strong>the</strong> Pope and <strong>the</strong> West was an advantage, but not such a crucial onethat it would overri<strong>de</strong> eastern interests.]37 R. S. Bagnall, A. Cameron, S. R. Schwartz, and K. A. Worp, Consuls of <strong>the</strong> LaterRoman Empire (Atlanta, 1987), 436.
The Council of Chalcedon 273to continue payments agreed by Theodosius, but Attila had Wrstattacked <strong>the</strong> West where he claimed a share in <strong>the</strong> empire as <strong>the</strong>bri<strong>de</strong> price of Honoria, who had attempted to betroth herself toAttila; during summer 451, as Wnal preparations for Chalcedonwere being ma<strong>de</strong>, <strong>the</strong> western general Aëtius and his Visigothic allies<strong>de</strong>feated <strong>the</strong> Huns at <strong>the</strong> battle of <strong>the</strong> Catalaunian plains. In 450–1Valentinian may have suspected Marcian of exporting <strong>the</strong> Hunnicproblem to <strong>the</strong> West, but by early 452 <strong>the</strong> prospect of an attack onItaly should have encouraged a rapprochement. It does not seem that<strong>the</strong> convocation of <strong>the</strong> council, or even its <strong>de</strong>cisions, had any impacton <strong>the</strong> divi<strong>de</strong>. As far as Pope Leo was concerned, suYcient reassurancethat <strong>the</strong> emperor was now in full sympathy with his views wouldhave been provi<strong>de</strong>d by a synod which convened at Constantinople on21 October 450; this comprised eastern bishops who had not beenparty to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>position of Flavian, plus four western bishops representing<strong>the</strong> pope.38 Nor can I follow <strong>the</strong> great historian Ernst <strong>Ste</strong>in inattributing <strong>the</strong> role of Empress Pulcheria above all to her hatred ofChrysaphius,39 <strong>the</strong> inXuential eunuch chamberlain of Theodosius II,who is so often represented as primarily responsible for <strong>the</strong> religiouspolicy adopted by that emperor; I am very sceptical about this <strong>the</strong>ory,and will not mention it fur<strong>the</strong>r.Secular ControlMy overall <strong>the</strong>sis is that <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon was every bit asmuch an engine of coercion as <strong>the</strong> ‘Robber’ Council of SecondEphesus, and that <strong>the</strong> machinery of compulsion was actually far38 P. Mouter<strong>de</strong>, ‘Fragment d’Actes d’un Syno<strong>de</strong> tenu à Constantinople en 450’,Mélanges <strong>de</strong> l’Université S. Joseph Beyrouth, 15.2 (1930), 35–50; i<strong>de</strong>m, ‘Saint Abundius<strong>de</strong> Côme et ses trois compagnons à un syno<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> Constantinople en 450’, AB 48(1930), 124–9; ACO ii.i.8–10, nos. 9–10 (letters from Marcian and Pulcheria to Leo of22 Nov. 450).39 <strong>Ste</strong>in, Histoire, 310. [I am more sympa<strong>the</strong>tic to this <strong>the</strong>ory than <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>: <strong>the</strong>strong evi<strong>de</strong>nce for hostility between Pulcheria and Chrysaphius is set out in PLRE ii.295–6, as well as for <strong>the</strong> links between Chrysaphius and Eutyches, his godfa<strong>the</strong>r, andfor his hostility towards Flavian of Constantinople; cf. Evagrius 2.2 and Whitby,Evagrius, 26 n. 81. What cannot be proved is that Pulcheria was primarily motivatedby opposition to Chrysaphius ra<strong>the</strong>r than doctrinal conviction, but it is <strong>the</strong> case thatshe came to oppose <strong>the</strong> current champions of Cyrilline <strong>the</strong>ology, in particular ofCyril’s Twelve Ana<strong>the</strong>mas, which she had supported in <strong>the</strong> 430s.]
274 Church CouncilsmorepowerfulatChalcedon,somuchsothatactualforcedidnotneedtobe used, or even visibly threatened, because everyone knew that resistanceto <strong>the</strong> imperial will would result in his ruin: <strong>the</strong> loss of episcopaloYce, and perhaps excommunication and exile to a distant part of <strong>the</strong>empire, as happened to <strong>the</strong> one <strong>de</strong>termined opponent, Dioscorus.40This should not surprise anyone, as it only provi<strong>de</strong>s one more amongmany examples of <strong>the</strong> very high <strong>de</strong>gree of control that a Roman emperorcould exercise (if he wished) over <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> churches in <strong>the</strong> area overwhichhe ruled,evenin<strong>the</strong>sphereofdoctrine.41 Itwaseasiest to enforce aparticular set of <strong>the</strong>ological views by summoning a general Council of<strong>the</strong> Church, which <strong>the</strong> emperor alone had <strong>the</strong> power to do.42 Even PopeLeo <strong>the</strong> Great, who had <strong>the</strong> most exalted i<strong>de</strong>a of <strong>the</strong> importance of hisown Apostolic See, had to admit throughout his correspon<strong>de</strong>nce withTheodosius II, Pulcheria, and Marcian, which fortunately survives, thatit was <strong>the</strong> emperor and <strong>the</strong> emperor alone who <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d whe<strong>the</strong>r, when,and where to summon a general council. Leo changed his own viewabout <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>sirability of a general council more than once between 449and451in<strong>the</strong>lightofchangingcircumstances,butwasunabletoimposehiswishes.In<strong>the</strong>endhehadtobecontentwithhaving hisdoctrinallettertoFlavianofConstantinople,whichiscommonlyreferredtoas<strong>the</strong>Tomeof Leo,43 endorsed at Chalcedon as <strong>the</strong> best statement of <strong>the</strong> true faith.40 Samuel, ‘Proceedings’, 324, claimed that <strong>the</strong> level of imperial interest wasunprece<strong>de</strong>nted, but this forms part of his argument to un<strong>de</strong>rmine <strong>the</strong> legitimacy ofChalcedon as opposed to Second Ephesus, whose <strong>de</strong>cisions he presents as free fromcoercion. J. MeyendorV, Imperial Unity and <strong>Christian</strong> Divisions (New York, 1989),168, saw <strong>the</strong> close imperial involvement as permitting greater freedom of <strong>de</strong>bate thanat previous councils; contrast van Parys, ‘Council’, 317, who urged that imperialinXuence should not be exaggerated and suggests that Marcian exercised sensiblediscretion in leaving doctrinal matters to <strong>the</strong> council. Both <strong>the</strong>se views un<strong>de</strong>restimate<strong>the</strong> extent of imperial direction, which tolerated limited disagreement provi<strong>de</strong>d that<strong>the</strong> emperor’s wishes were approved in due course, and inclu<strong>de</strong>d very Wrm imperialguidance even on doctrinal <strong>de</strong>cisions; see fur<strong>the</strong>r below.41 See, for example, W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of <strong>the</strong> Monophysite Movement,Chapters in <strong>the</strong> History of <strong>the</strong> Church in <strong>the</strong> Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge,1972), ch. 2; Dvornik, ‘Emperors’.42 However, after a council had <strong>de</strong>Wned current orthodoxy, an emperor might havegreater problems in securing <strong>the</strong> imposition of <strong>the</strong>se views on bishops and monksscattered throughout his dominions.43 The best text of <strong>the</strong> Tome (Leo, Ep. 28, PL 54. 755–82) is in ACO ii.ii.24–33, ofwhich <strong>the</strong>re is a French trans. in Festugière, Actes du Concile, 32–7; <strong>the</strong>re is an Eng.trans., from <strong>the</strong> PL text, by C. L. Feltoe in NPNF 2nd ser. 12 (Leo and Gregory <strong>the</strong>
The Council of Chalcedon 275The signiWcance of imperial initiative and of <strong>the</strong> control ofproceedings is revealed by some of <strong>the</strong> ecclesiastical ga<strong>the</strong>ringsof Theodosius II’s reign.44 First Ephesus had been summoned byTheodosius II at <strong>the</strong> request of Nestorius, who hoped to exploitcertain complaints which he had received from Egyptian monksabout Cyril of Alexandria’s behaviour, charges which might allow him<strong>the</strong> opportunity to dispose of a powerful doctrinal rival withoutbecoming locked into a <strong>de</strong>tailed argument about terminology.Nestorius was conW<strong>de</strong>nt in <strong>the</strong> emperor’s favour since Theodosiushad appointed Candidianus, <strong>the</strong> comes domesticorum, to maintainor<strong>de</strong>r and ensure that <strong>the</strong> participants atten<strong>de</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> issues. Candidianuswas a supporter of Nestorius, as is clear from <strong>the</strong> backing hegave to <strong>the</strong> attacks on Cyril which John of Antioch led after hisbe<strong>late</strong>d arrival (ACO i.i.1.120; i.i.5.119–20), but he had not been givenauthority to participate, and this limitation prevented him fromarranging proceedings within <strong>the</strong> council, while a lack of physicalsupport left him unable to oppose <strong>the</strong> partisans organized by Cyril ofAlexandria and <strong>the</strong> local bishop Memnon outsi<strong>de</strong>.45 At First Ephesus<strong>the</strong> community of interest between Pope Celestine and Cyril allowedCyril to claim <strong>the</strong> presi<strong>de</strong>ncy as <strong>the</strong> Pope’s representative on <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>cisive Wrst day (ACO ii.iii.197, § 911, lines 5–6), and Candidianus<strong>the</strong>n lacked authority to halt proceedings. It was only by placingcontrol of a council in <strong>the</strong> right hands that an emperor could becertain of securing <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions that he wanted: even an emperor’srepresentative might be outmanoeuvred if he was not presiding.Great) (London, 1895), 38–43. For <strong>the</strong> Greek trans. which was read at Chalcedon, seeACO ii.i.10–20 (Epist. Coll. M, no. 11), with Schwartz’s observations in ACO ii.i,pp. xiv–xvi.44 For Caesaropapism in <strong>the</strong> Byzantine Empire, see G. Dagron, Emperor and Priest:The Imperial OYce in Byzantium (Eng. trans. by J. Birrel, Cambridge, 2003), ch. 9;although most of <strong>the</strong> discussion is <strong>de</strong>voted to <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Byzantine Empire, pp. 296–7do touch on <strong>the</strong> issues in <strong>the</strong> 5th and 6th cent.45 Candidianus’ brief was to prevent disturbances round about <strong>the</strong> council, but hewas not to meddle in matters of <strong>the</strong> faith since that was not <strong>the</strong> business of a layman;never<strong>the</strong>less he was also to see that no dissensions arising from <strong>the</strong> passion ofargument should disturb <strong>the</strong> consultation and precise search after <strong>the</strong> truth, an<strong>de</strong>nsure that all should hear clearly what was said and speak <strong>the</strong>ir mind without harmso that when, by single propositions and counter-propositions, <strong>the</strong> inquiry had beencompleted, <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions of all might be duly recor<strong>de</strong>d (ACO i.i.1.120).
276 Church CouncilsThe importance of presi<strong>de</strong>ncy is fur<strong>the</strong>r revealed in <strong>the</strong> conXictbetween Flavian of Constantinople and Eutyches in 448/9. Proceedingshad begun in November 448 at a local, or ‘home’ synod ofbishops at Constantinople which Flavian had summoned to consi<strong>de</strong>ra dispute in <strong>the</strong> Church at Sardis; this was naturally chaired byFlavian. The assembly was exploited by Eusebius of Dorylaeum topresent a doctrinal indictment of Eutyches; <strong>the</strong>re may have beencollusion between Flavian and Eusebius, since <strong>the</strong> former is unlikelyto have objected to <strong>the</strong> elimination of this turbulent monk and <strong>the</strong>sequence of events put Flavian in charge of <strong>the</strong> investigation withoutgiving advance warning to Eutyches or his supporters. There waslittle that Eutyches could immediately do to hin<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>velopments:after <strong>the</strong> opening of proceedings on 12 November (ACO ii.i.103, §238) and Eutyches’ refusal to respond to summons on <strong>the</strong> 15, 16, and17, an ultimatum brought him to attend on <strong>the</strong> 22, when he wasaccompanied by ‘a large following of soldiers, monks and membersof <strong>the</strong> prefect’s staV’(ACO ii.i.138, § 463). Emperor Theodosius’ wishto inXuence proceedings is revealed by <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> silentiaryMagnus who read out an imperial missive which <strong>de</strong>creed that <strong>the</strong>patrician Florentius, ‘a man of faith and proven orthodoxy’, wouldattend <strong>the</strong> hearing; Florentius was to be present precisely ‘because <strong>the</strong>discussion was about <strong>the</strong> faith’, a reversal of <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> which hadprevented Candidianus from inXuencing proceedings at Ephesus.The emperor’s simple statement about <strong>the</strong> suYciency of <strong>the</strong> synodsof Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus was fur<strong>the</strong>r proof of hissupport for Eutyches for whom this was almost a catchphrase(ACO ii.i.138, § 468). Flavian appears to have been somewhat tetchyabout <strong>the</strong> presence of Florentius, Wrst asking Eutyches whe<strong>the</strong>r hewanted him to attend and <strong>the</strong>n rejecting Magnus’ request that a clericbe sent to invite him in (ACO ii.i.139, §§ 473–4); Florentius did <strong>the</strong>nshape <strong>the</strong> direction of proceedings to try to enable Eutyches to assentto an acceptable doctrinal formula (ACO ii.i.139–40, 142–4, §§ 478,484, 521, 526, 541, 543), much to <strong>the</strong> annoyance of his accuserEusebius, who feared that this might compromise his own position(ACO ii.i.139–40, §§ 477–85). In spite of this pressure Theodosiuscould not circumvent Flavian’s power as presi<strong>de</strong>nt, and Eutyches wascon<strong>de</strong>mned. Imperial displeasure was displayed in <strong>late</strong> March 449,when Theodosius publicly withdrew from communion with his
The Council of Chalcedon 277patriarch in Santa Sophia, and in April three separate attempts werema<strong>de</strong> to overturn Eutyches’ con<strong>de</strong>mnation by <strong>de</strong>monstrating irregularitiesin Flavian’s proceedings. The record produced by Flavian’snotaries was subjected to <strong>de</strong>tailed scrutiny, and un<strong>de</strong>r extreme pressurefrom Florentius <strong>the</strong>se conce<strong>de</strong>d that it was extremely diYcult toproduce an exact transcription (ACO i.i.153–6, §§ 576–614); accusationsby <strong>the</strong> silentiary Magnus that Flavius had prepared Eutyches’con<strong>de</strong>mnation in advance and so preclu<strong>de</strong>d a fair investigationfur<strong>the</strong>r weakened <strong>the</strong> patriarch’s position (ACO i.i.178, §§ 838–42).46Flavian’s control of proceedings, however, even if challenged, wasnot overturned, and <strong>the</strong> solution for Theodosius was to summon anecumenical council.47 To avoid a repetition of <strong>the</strong> uninten<strong>de</strong>d outcomeof First Ephesus and <strong>the</strong> embarrassment of Flavian’s synod atConstantinople, Theodosius wrote to Dioscorus of Alexandria todirect him to convene <strong>the</strong> synod, with Juvenal of Jerusalem andThalassius of Caesarea in support; he also appointed Helpidius,count of <strong>the</strong> imperial consistory, and <strong>the</strong> tribune Eulogius to controlproceedings. The emperor repeatedly insisted that Theodoret was notto participate and fur<strong>the</strong>rmore clearly <strong>de</strong>monstrated his hostilitytowards Flavian and his treatment of Eutyches: ‘we wrote to thismost God-beloved bishop repeatedly in an attempt to still <strong>the</strong>turmoil he had stirred up . . . We repeatedly pressed this most religiousbishop several times to drop <strong>the</strong> inquiry, lest it be cause ofdisturbance to <strong>the</strong> whole world, but he refused.’48 Theodosius knewwhat he wanted <strong>the</strong> council to achieve and was satisWed with <strong>the</strong>result: when writing to Emperor Valentinian, and <strong>the</strong> empressesLicinia and Galla Placidia to <strong>de</strong>fend himself against protests fromPope Leo, he referred to Flavian as ‘chief cause of contention’ andsaid that peace reigned after his expulsion—‘nothing contrary to <strong>the</strong>rule of faith or of justice had been done <strong>the</strong>re’ (Leo, Ep. 62–4).46 Nestorius, Bazaar, pp. 341–2; ACO ii.i.148–79, §§ 555–849. Chadwick, Church,555, notes <strong>the</strong> impact on Flavian.47 Frend, The Rise of <strong>the</strong> Monophysite Movement, 95 refers to Theodosius’ ‘surenessof touch in ecclesiastical aVairs’ after First Ephesus, but this is not borne out by eventsin <strong>the</strong> capital in 448–9 when, in <strong>the</strong> short term, he was outmanoeuvred by hispatriarch.48 Dioscorus: ACO ii.i.68–9, § 24; Helpidius and Eulogius: ACO ii.i.72, § 49 (andcf. § 189 for Helpidius’ involvement); Theodoret: ACO ii.i.74, § 52; Flavian: ACOii.i.73, § 51.
278 Church CouncilsFinally, <strong>the</strong> preliminaries to Chalcedon provi<strong>de</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r examplesof imperial interest in <strong>the</strong> close control of events. Much was done insupport of <strong>the</strong> Orthodox cause between <strong>the</strong> assumption of power byMarcian and Pulcheria in August 450, over a year before <strong>the</strong> openingof <strong>the</strong> council. First, it is revealed by fragmentary Acta preserved inSyriac that in October 450 <strong>the</strong> new patriarch of Constantinople,Anatolius, who had been appointed after Second Ephesus and <strong>the</strong>expulsion and subsequent <strong>de</strong>ath of Eutyches’ opponent Flavian, andall his bishops had formally subscribed <strong>the</strong> Tome of Leo.49 Supportfor <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ceased Flavian was now a touchstone for orthodoxy, hisname was reinstated in <strong>the</strong> diptychs and his remains were returned toConstantinople. Anatolius was in an awkward position. He had been<strong>de</strong>acon and apocrisarius of Dioscorus (Liberatus, Breviarium 12, 76),who will have presented him to Emperor Theodosius as an acceptablelea<strong>de</strong>r for <strong>the</strong> Constantinopolitan Church in which Eutyches wascurrently prominent; he owed his position to Flavian’s <strong>de</strong>ath andhad also been consecrated by Dioscorus, which all suggest that at <strong>the</strong>time of appointment he was eager to present himself as an opponentof Theodoret and Two Nature Christology. Whe<strong>the</strong>r he saw anopportunity to throw oV an unwelcome subservience to Alexandria,50whe<strong>the</strong>r he simply recognized <strong>the</strong> doctrinal consequences of<strong>the</strong> change of ruler, or whe<strong>the</strong>r pressure had to be applied, Anatoliusswitched Christological si<strong>de</strong>s. Pope Leo’s correspon<strong>de</strong>nce reveals thatboth Anatolius and Maximus, <strong>the</strong> new patriarch of Antioch who hadalso been appointed after Second Ephesus and now also had to<strong>de</strong>monstrate his in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce from Dioscorus, had been using all<strong>the</strong>ir immense inXuence in <strong>the</strong> vast areas in which <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>the</strong>dominant ecclesiastical Wgures, in support of Orthodoxy and <strong>the</strong>Tome of Leo and in con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Eutyches and Nestorianism(Leo, Ep. 88; ACO ii.iv.46–7); Eutyches, brieXy reinstated at SecondEphesus, had again been con<strong>de</strong>mned and banished. Both patriarchswill have known that anything less than enthusiastic commitment to<strong>the</strong> new ecclesiastical direction would leave <strong>the</strong>m vulnerable at afuture council; Anatolius at least had <strong>the</strong> comfort that his expelled49 Mouter<strong>de</strong>, ‘Fragment’, 47; V. Grumel, Les Regestes <strong>de</strong>s Actes du Patriarchat <strong>de</strong>Constantinople i.i (2nd edn., Paris, 1972), 89, no. 116.50 He may have been moving in this direction even before <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Theodosius.
The Council of Chalcedon 279pre<strong>de</strong>cessor had died and he could present himself as a lea<strong>de</strong>r in <strong>the</strong>new doctrinal direction, but Maximus had to be wary of <strong>the</strong> dangerthat Domnus, one of <strong>the</strong> victims of Second Ephesus, might return.The <strong>de</strong>cisive council was initially summoned to meet at Nicaea, torecall <strong>the</strong> Wrst ecumenical council and present this new ga<strong>the</strong>ring asan extension of its work. However, after reports reached court thattroublemakers were ga<strong>the</strong>ring to disrupt proceedings, Pulcheriawrote to <strong>the</strong> governor of Bithynia with instructions that he expelmonks, clergy, and laity who had no business to be present (ACOii.i.29: 17–29). Perhaps most important of all, though rarely evennoticed, Emperor Marcian in a letter dated 22 September 451 ma<strong>de</strong> itclear to <strong>the</strong> bishops at Nicaea that he was <strong>de</strong>termined to crush anyattempt at <strong>the</strong> council by unruly behaviour, stasis or thorubos, tomaintain <strong>the</strong> wishes of <strong>the</strong> people referred to as ‘those who share <strong>the</strong>opinions of Eutyches, or of anyone else’ (ACO ii.i.30: 21–9); Eutychesis here, as frequently in <strong>the</strong> Acta of Chalcedon, regar<strong>de</strong>d as <strong>the</strong>champion of One Nature Christology, though <strong>the</strong> vagueness of <strong>the</strong>expression ‘of Eutyches or of anyone else’ may have been inten<strong>de</strong>d toincrease worries among possible targets.Most mo<strong>de</strong>rn writers simply ignore this imperial letter, whichI would regard as one of <strong>the</strong> most signiWcant of all <strong>the</strong> survivingdocuments relating to <strong>the</strong> council, because it provi<strong>de</strong>s explicit evi<strong>de</strong>ncethat Emperor Marcian, even before <strong>the</strong> opening of <strong>the</strong> counciland <strong>the</strong> expression of any episcopal consensus, had every intention ofcrushing <strong>the</strong> Monophysites. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> crucial <strong>de</strong>cisions were takenby Marcian or his wife Pulcheria is impossible to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>, but <strong>the</strong>upshot was <strong>the</strong> same: <strong>the</strong> emperor had revealed <strong>the</strong> regime’s doctrinalpreferences and <strong>the</strong>se would be enacted. Such <strong>de</strong>termination wasnecessary, since Dioscorus and his supporters challenged <strong>the</strong> imperialredirection of doctrine by ana<strong>the</strong>matizing Pope Leo; it was perhapsthis act of intransigence which persua<strong>de</strong>d Marcian to or<strong>de</strong>r that <strong>the</strong>council be transferred to Chalcedon, immediately across <strong>the</strong> Bosporusfrom <strong>the</strong> capital, although <strong>the</strong> public explanation for <strong>the</strong> switch wasthat urgent public business was <strong>de</strong>taining <strong>the</strong> emperor.51 After51 ACO ii.i.28–9, § 14. Monophysites attributed <strong>the</strong> change of venue to divineintervention which served to preserve <strong>the</strong> reputation of Nicaea: Michael <strong>the</strong> Syrian8.10 (trans. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1901), vol. ii, p. 39); Zachariah of Mitylene, Chronicle,3.1, trans. F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (London, 1899).
280 Church Councilstravelling to Illyricum, Marcian promised that he would not un<strong>de</strong>rtakefur<strong>the</strong>r trips away from <strong>the</strong> capital (ACO ii.i.30, § 16), a fur<strong>the</strong>r<strong>de</strong>monstration that he inten<strong>de</strong>d to keep in close touch with proceedings.The way was being prepared at <strong>the</strong> very highest level for acomplete reversal of Second Ephesus, <strong>the</strong> result which we can seebeing eVected in <strong>the</strong> Acta of Chalcedon.A fur<strong>the</strong>r sign of secular inXuence in preparations for <strong>the</strong> councilis in <strong>de</strong>alings with <strong>the</strong> exiled Nestorius, a most contentious issue forclerics. Evagrius angrily rejected <strong>the</strong> assertion by <strong>the</strong> Monophysitehistorian Zachariah that Nestorius had been invited to attend, arguingthat he was consistently ana<strong>the</strong>matized by <strong>the</strong> council and wasalready <strong>de</strong>ad before proceedings began (2.2). This, however, misrepresentsZachariah’s text, which records that Marcian did or<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong>recall but that Nestorius died while setting out (3.1, p. 42).ConWrmation that Marcian actually did send a message to Panopolisin Egypt to or<strong>de</strong>r Nestorius’ return, but that <strong>de</strong>ath supervened, isprovi<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong> Nestorian history of Barhadbeshabba (ch. 30) and<strong>the</strong> Monophysite collection of Plērophories (Proofs) by John of BethRuWna (33, 36), a Greek text which survives only in Syriac translation.52Quite what Marcian inten<strong>de</strong>d to do with Nestorius is uncertain,since opposition to him provi<strong>de</strong>d one of <strong>the</strong> most powerfulrallying points in <strong>the</strong> current doctrinal arguments. It is possible tha<strong>the</strong> hoped to pressurize him in <strong>the</strong> kind of interview which Dioscorusis presented as having with Marcian and Pulcheria in <strong>the</strong> Life ofDioscorus by Theopistus, ano<strong>the</strong>r Greek work which, inevitablybecause of doctrinal position, is preserved in a Syriac version:53Dioscorus resisted <strong>the</strong> call to acknowledge <strong>the</strong> need to follow <strong>the</strong>52 Barhadbeshabba, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and French trans. F. Nau, PO 9(1913), 489–631, and 23 (1932), 177–343; John Rufus, Plērophories, ed. and trans.F. Nau, PO 8 (1911), 1–208.53 F. Nau, ‘Histoire <strong>de</strong> Dioscore, patriarche d’Alexandrie, écrite par son discipleThéopiste’, Journal Asiatique, 10th ser. 1 (1903), 1–108, 241–310. On <strong>the</strong> work, seeP. Mouter<strong>de</strong>, ‘La Concile <strong>de</strong> Chalcédoine d’après les historiens monophysites <strong>de</strong>langue syriaque’, in Grillmeier–Bacht, Konzil, i. 581–602, at 597–601, and M. Cramerand H. Bacht, ‘Der antichalkedonische Aspekt im historisch-biographischen Schrifttum<strong>de</strong>r koptischen Monophysiten (6.–7. Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rt.). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte<strong>de</strong>r Enstehung <strong>de</strong>r monophysitischen Kirche Ägyptens’, in Grillmeier–Bacht, Konzil,ii. 315–38; Honigmann, ‘Juvenal’, 265, suggested that <strong>the</strong> Plērophories were <strong>the</strong> sourcefor this Life, but <strong>the</strong>re seems to be too much in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt information in <strong>the</strong> latter,and cf. Baynes, ‘Alexandria’, 114–15 for acceptance of au<strong>the</strong>nticity.
The Council of Chalcedon 281Pope’s doctrinal lead, but Nestorius might have been less resilient,especially after more than a <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> of uncomfortable exile. He couldalso have been para<strong>de</strong>d before <strong>the</strong> assembled bishops, placed in <strong>the</strong>middle to await judgement and <strong>the</strong>n subjected to a renewed interrogation;this might have revealed that Nestorius did not hold fully‘Nestorian’ views and that he was prepared to con<strong>de</strong>mn some of <strong>the</strong>more extreme formulations which went un<strong>de</strong>r his name. At any ratehis presence might have allowed <strong>the</strong> council to <strong>de</strong>monstrate itsorthodox cre<strong>de</strong>ntials ei<strong>the</strong>r by welcoming back a long-lost sheep orby con<strong>de</strong>mning a persistently obstinate opponent—but this wouldhave been an imperial ra<strong>the</strong>r than episcopal strategy, since for almostall bishops Nestorius was best left in his remote exile.Such emphasis on secular control of doctrinal issues may disconcertsome, for example those who see <strong>the</strong> council as a provi<strong>de</strong>ntialcorrection for <strong>the</strong> errors of Second Ephesus,54 and an alternativeexplanation might be sought along <strong>the</strong> lines that force was unnecessarybecause almost all bishops at Chalcedon favoured <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisionswhich restored divinely favoured orthodoxy. It is true that mostbishops whose voices can be heard wanted to be on record as <strong>de</strong>eplycommitted to stamping out what was i<strong>de</strong>ntiWed as heresy, but thatshould come as no surprise. Dioscorus, however, had supporters ofwhom some stayed loyal even after <strong>the</strong> contentious Wrst session hadgone against him. Some of <strong>the</strong>se bishops simply absented <strong>the</strong>mselvesfrom <strong>late</strong>r sessions when <strong>the</strong>y might have been coerced intosubscribing a document against Dioscorus: thus <strong>the</strong> third session atwhich Dioscorus was <strong>de</strong>posed was atten<strong>de</strong>d by 204 bishops (ACOii.i.199–204) as opposed to 343 at <strong>the</strong> Wrst session. Reservationsmight also be signalled in <strong>the</strong> way in which bishops subscribed to a<strong>de</strong>cision: thus Amphilochius of Si<strong>de</strong>, whose antipathy to <strong>the</strong>proceedings is clear from his request for a <strong>de</strong>lay before <strong>the</strong> secondsummons to Dioscorus and his subsequent repudiation of <strong>the</strong> council,reluctantly explained his <strong>de</strong>cision to subscribe, ‘It was not mywish to cut oV any member of <strong>the</strong> Church, particularly one of rank;but because Dioscorus, formerly bishop of <strong>the</strong> great city of Alexandria,in addition to <strong>the</strong> charges that certain persons have brought54 e.g. P. Goubert, ‘Le Rôle <strong>de</strong> Sainte Pulchérie et <strong>de</strong> l’eunuque Chrysaphios’, inGrillmeier-Bacht, Konzil, i. 303–21, at 304, 318.
282 Church Councilsagainst him, refused to present himself when summoned for a thirdtime by <strong>the</strong> holy and ecumenical Council and brought down <strong>the</strong>sentence of <strong>the</strong> Council on his own head, he has only himself toblame.’55 This contrasts with <strong>the</strong> majority of acceptances which arebland comments of assent with <strong>the</strong> occasional more expansive statementof episcopal allegiance or o<strong>the</strong>r contextual comment.56 The<strong>de</strong>position was secured, but it is clear that perhaps only just over half<strong>the</strong> bishops at Chalcedon were Wrmly behind this <strong>de</strong>cision.The third session at Chalcedon is exceptional in that it was <strong>the</strong> onemeeting of <strong>the</strong> council at which <strong>the</strong>re was not a secular presi<strong>de</strong>nt: <strong>the</strong>meeting was chaired by <strong>the</strong> papal representative, Paschasinus ofLilybaeum, and <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners commented four days<strong>late</strong>r at <strong>the</strong> fourth session (17 October) on <strong>the</strong> lack of secular input:‘But your <strong>de</strong>votion will give an account to God, both concerningDioscorus who was <strong>de</strong>posed by you without <strong>the</strong> knowledge of <strong>the</strong>most sacred eminence and of us’ (ACO ii.i.305, § 12). This <strong>de</strong>parturefrom normal practice might seem to un<strong>de</strong>rmine <strong>the</strong> argument aboutimperial control, but it is possible that <strong>the</strong> commissioners werecontent to be spared involvement in <strong>the</strong> formal trial of Dioscorusand a contentious <strong>de</strong>cision which would have a serious impact on <strong>the</strong>operation of imperial authority in Egypt.57 In any event <strong>the</strong> bishops55 Zachariah 4.7, Evagrius 2.10. The Greek Acta preserve only <strong>the</strong> names ofsubscribers, but <strong>the</strong> Latin version contains <strong>the</strong> complete subscriptions: ACOii.iii.309, § 94.22; cf. § 94.26 (Onesiphorus of Iconium) for ano<strong>the</strong>r equivocalreference to Dioscorus’ mistakes which avoids a formal statement of con<strong>de</strong>mnation,and contrast § 94.34 for <strong>the</strong> combination of Dioscorus’ behaviour with explicit assentto <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation.56 Standard acceptances: ‘I too concur with <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>clarations of <strong>the</strong> holy fa<strong>the</strong>rs . . .’,‘I too concur with <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation by <strong>the</strong> holy fa<strong>the</strong>rs . . .’, ‘I am in completeagreement with <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cision by <strong>the</strong> holy fa<strong>the</strong>rs . . .’, ‘I assent to <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation by<strong>the</strong> holy fa<strong>the</strong>rs and <strong>the</strong> holy Council . . .’, ‘I make <strong>the</strong> same judgement as <strong>the</strong> most holyfa<strong>the</strong>rs before me . . .’ (ACO ii.iii.313–14, § 94.50–4). Episcopal attachment: ‘I tooassent to <strong>the</strong> sentences <strong>de</strong>livered by <strong>the</strong> most holy bishops Paschasinus and Lucensiusand <strong>the</strong> most <strong>de</strong>vout presbyter Boniface, legates of <strong>the</strong> most holy and blessed bishop ofRome, and by <strong>the</strong> most holy and blessed Anatolius archbishop of <strong>the</strong> capital city ofConstantinople, New Rome, and to all <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>crees of <strong>the</strong> holy and ecumenical Council. . .’ (ACO ii.iii.312, § 94.42; cf. p. 330, § 94.188, 192), which can be contrasted with<strong>the</strong> reference to Anatolius but not <strong>the</strong> papal legates in § 94.37).57 [It should also be noted that <strong>the</strong> session was held on <strong>the</strong> third day after <strong>the</strong>second session, even though that had closed with <strong>the</strong> presiding commissioners<strong>de</strong>claring a Wve-day recess to allow bishops to reXect on endorsing <strong>the</strong> Tome of
The Council of Chalcedon 283ultimately reinforced <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cision to <strong>de</strong>pose Dioscorus along withWve colleagues associated in <strong>the</strong> direction of Second Ephesusannounced by <strong>the</strong> commissioners at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> Wrst session(ACO ii.i.195, § 1068). This <strong>de</strong>position had been pronounced, albeitwith <strong>the</strong> speciWc qualiWcation ‘if <strong>the</strong> emperor agrees’, and <strong>the</strong> bishops’<strong>de</strong>cision at <strong>the</strong> third session to reinstate <strong>the</strong> Wve associates also had tobe referred to <strong>the</strong> emperor for ratiWcation (ACO ii.i.305, §§ 12, 14).58Leo. Samuel, ‘Proceedings’, 346, claimed that <strong>the</strong> papal legates’ intention was toremove one implacable opponent of <strong>the</strong> Pope’s views and so fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> work of<strong>the</strong> council.]58 [I am ra<strong>the</strong>r more suspicious than <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> about proceedings at <strong>the</strong> thirdsession. The session opened with a clear statement of papal supremacy from Paschasinus:‘It is well known to this God-loving council that an imperial letter was sent to<strong>the</strong> blessed and apostolic Pope Leo summoning him to <strong>the</strong> holy council. But sincenei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> custom of antiquity nor <strong>the</strong> necessities of <strong>the</strong> general time appeared toallow this, he has charged my littleness to presi<strong>de</strong> over this holy council in his stead. Itis <strong>the</strong>refore necessary that whatever is brought forward should be examined by oursentence. Therefore let <strong>the</strong> petition that has now been presented by our most Godbelovedbro<strong>the</strong>r and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received by <strong>the</strong> most God-belovedarch<strong>de</strong>acon and primcerius Aetius and be read’ (ACO ii.i.204, § 4). There is noreference to <strong>the</strong> long discussion of Eusebius’ complaint at <strong>the</strong> Wrst session, andPaschasinus appears to treat <strong>the</strong> commissioners’ sentence on Dioscorus as irrelevant.At <strong>the</strong> start of <strong>the</strong> Wrst session <strong>the</strong>re had been signs of tension between <strong>the</strong> commissionersand <strong>the</strong> papal representatives over <strong>the</strong> control of proceedings, and <strong>the</strong>conduct of this third session seems to continue this. It also appears that <strong>the</strong> commissionershad been expected to attend any trial of Dioscorus (ACO ii.i.208, § 31),and Dioscorus was able to argue, when explaining his refusal to present himself forjudgement, that <strong>the</strong> absence of <strong>the</strong> commissioners prejudiced proceedings (ACOii.i.207–10, 221, §§ 22, 36, 70), so that <strong>the</strong> conduct of <strong>the</strong> trial might be thought tolack legitimacy.To my mind <strong>the</strong>re are two signiWcant factors. First is <strong>the</strong> personal grievance which<strong>the</strong> pope had against Dioscorus because of <strong>the</strong> ana<strong>the</strong>ma against Leo recentlypronounced at Nicaea. Second is <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>nce from <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> second sessionon 10 October of episcopal support for <strong>the</strong> reinstatement of Dioscorus and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rbishops <strong>de</strong>posed on <strong>the</strong> Wrst day: this began as a plea on behalf of <strong>the</strong> whole group,but soon resolved into chants for Dioscorus: ‘We have all sinned, forgive us all.Dioscorus to <strong>the</strong> Council. Dioscorus to <strong>the</strong> churches’ (ACO ii.i.279–80, §§ 30–44). Topre-empt any chance of forgiveness for Dioscorus <strong>the</strong> papal representatives perhaps<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to take <strong>the</strong> lead in securing <strong>the</strong> formal con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Dioscorus by hisfellow bishops, a move which <strong>the</strong> commissioners and <strong>the</strong> emperor retrospectivelytolerated since <strong>the</strong> result did not contradict <strong>the</strong>ir own agenda.The suggestion that <strong>the</strong> commissioners absented <strong>the</strong>mselves to protect <strong>the</strong>emperor’s position, and especially his authority in Egypt, is not compelling: <strong>the</strong>secular power was still perceived to be implicated in <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>position of Dioscorusand <strong>the</strong> imposition of a successor at Alexandria.]
284 Church CouncilsOne major issue where <strong>the</strong> application of imperial pressure isclearly visible is <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cision to consi<strong>de</strong>r a new <strong>de</strong>Wnition of faith.The need for a new Creed was raised by <strong>the</strong> presiding imperialcommissioners as <strong>the</strong> major item of business for <strong>the</strong> second sessionon 13 October, but this provoked Werce opposition from <strong>the</strong> bishops:‘This is what we all say. What has already been expoun<strong>de</strong>d is suYcient.It is not permissible to produce ano<strong>the</strong>r exposition’ and ‘Wewill not produce a written exposition. There is a canon which<strong>de</strong>clares that what has already been expoun<strong>de</strong>d is suYcient. Thecanon forbids <strong>the</strong> making of ano<strong>the</strong>r exposition. Let <strong>the</strong> work of<strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs prevail’—in each case <strong>the</strong> chant was a collective one from‘<strong>the</strong> most <strong>de</strong>vout bishops’ (ACO ii.i.274, §§ 5, 7). However, <strong>the</strong>proposal from <strong>the</strong> commissioners that a drafting committee representingeach patriarchy should be constituted was eventuallyaccepted, with <strong>the</strong> proviso of an adjournment of Wve days to permittime for <strong>de</strong>liberations, before <strong>the</strong> meeting dissolved into chaos over<strong>de</strong>mands for <strong>the</strong> readmission of Dioscorus (ACO ii.i.279, §§ 31, 33).At <strong>the</strong> Wfth session on 22 October Anatolius of Constantinoplepresented a draft <strong>de</strong>Wnition through his <strong>de</strong>acon Asclepia<strong>de</strong>s, whichhad clearly been ratiWed on <strong>the</strong> previous day by a general meeting ofbishops (ACO ii.i.319, §§ 2–8), for which no record is preserved.There was opposition from <strong>the</strong> papal legates and bishops from <strong>the</strong>diocese of Oriens over <strong>the</strong> need to inclu<strong>de</strong> speciWc references to Maryas Theotokos, and <strong>the</strong> existence of two natures, divine and human, inChrist (ACO ii.i.319–20, §§ 6, 9–20); during <strong>the</strong> argument <strong>the</strong> legatesasked that imperial instructions be given for <strong>the</strong>ir return to Rome sothat <strong>the</strong> council might be conclu<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong>re. An appeal to MarcianconWrmed <strong>the</strong> stark choice facing <strong>the</strong> bishops, recourse to a newdrafting group of Anatolius, <strong>the</strong> legates, and eighteen eastern bishopsor ‘If your Holiness does not want even this, you are to know that <strong>the</strong>Council will have to meet in <strong>the</strong> western parts, since your Religiousnessis unwilling to <strong>de</strong>Wne here unambiguously <strong>the</strong> true and orthodoxfaith’ (ACO ii.i.320–1, § 22).59 Even this threat did not bring59 It might be questioned whe<strong>the</strong>r Marcian and Pulcheria would <strong>the</strong>mselves havewanted to lose <strong>the</strong>ir tight control of proceedings which a move to <strong>the</strong> West wouldhave entailed; it was possible that <strong>the</strong>y were bluYng <strong>the</strong> bishops, conW<strong>de</strong>nt in <strong>the</strong>ability of <strong>the</strong>ir commissioners to broker a <strong>de</strong>al, or <strong>the</strong>y may have thought that<strong>the</strong> parameters for any discussion at a western council were suYciently tight for <strong>the</strong>switch not to be a threat to <strong>the</strong>ir plans.
The Council of Chalcedon 285immediate acquiescence, since <strong>the</strong> Illyrian contingent shouted, ‘Letthose who dissent make <strong>the</strong>mselves known. The dissenters areNestorians. Let <strong>the</strong> dissenters go oV to Rome’ (ACO ii.i.321, § 25).The commissioners, however, who had been trying to direct <strong>the</strong>bishops to focus on <strong>the</strong> overlap between <strong>the</strong> Tome of Leo, which allhad recently accepted, and <strong>the</strong> proposed additions about Mary and<strong>the</strong> Two Natures, eventually channelled discussions in <strong>the</strong> requiredway (ACO ii.i.320, §§ 13, 15, 17). The episcopal lea<strong>de</strong>rs, for exampleAnatolius of Constantinople, <strong>the</strong> author of <strong>the</strong> unsatisfactory draft,could appreciate <strong>the</strong> consequences of surren<strong>de</strong>ring <strong>de</strong>cisions ondoctrine to a westerner whose abilities <strong>the</strong>y doubted, as well as <strong>the</strong>danger of creating a powerful prece<strong>de</strong>nt for future papal interferencein <strong>the</strong> aVairs of <strong>the</strong> Eastern Church. Although <strong>the</strong> drafting groupcontained Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who had speciWcally opposed <strong>the</strong>need for ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>de</strong>Wnition (ACO ii.i.320, § 19), as well as threeIllyrians from <strong>the</strong> group prepared to dispute even <strong>the</strong> imperialinstruction, a revised version was produced and accepted, apparentlywithout fur<strong>the</strong>r fuss (ACO ii.i.130, § 35). There is certainly noevi<strong>de</strong>nce that physical force was applied to achieve this result, but<strong>the</strong>re is also no doubt that <strong>the</strong> bishops were constrained to accept adocument which was somewhat diVerent from that which <strong>the</strong>y hadprepared, with some reluctance, for <strong>the</strong>mselves.The Mechanics of ControlAgainst this recent background, <strong>the</strong> issue of precisely how controlwas implemented at <strong>the</strong> council should be important, and thisprovi<strong>de</strong>s a good example of <strong>the</strong> great gulf that lies between a <strong>the</strong>ologicaland a historical approach to Chalcedon. For me as a historian,<strong>the</strong> Wrst thing that needs to be examined carefully in <strong>the</strong> proceedingsis <strong>the</strong> way in which it was run by those who presi<strong>de</strong>d: who were <strong>the</strong>y,what was <strong>the</strong>ir attitu<strong>de</strong>—were <strong>the</strong>y impartial, or were <strong>the</strong>y committedin advance to one si<strong>de</strong>? No mo<strong>de</strong>rn work, however, pays nearlyenough attention to <strong>the</strong>se key individuals.60 It has in<strong>de</strong>ed been stated60 R. Delmaire, ‘Les Dignitaires laïcs au Concile <strong>de</strong> Chalcédoine: notes sur lahiérarchie et les préséances au milieu du Ve siècle’, Byzantion, 54 (1984), 141–75,provi<strong>de</strong>s a technical discussion which focuses on issues of secular prece<strong>de</strong>nce anddoes not pursue <strong>the</strong> more interesting investigation of <strong>the</strong> commissioners’ doctrinal
286 Church Councilsthat <strong>the</strong> presi<strong>de</strong>nts were <strong>the</strong> legates of Pope Leo, namely <strong>the</strong> bishopsPaschasinus of Lilybaeum and Lucensius of Ascoli and <strong>the</strong> Romanpresbyter Boniface. Thus <strong>the</strong> current English version of Altaner’sPatrology, in its section on Pope Leo, states that ‘<strong>the</strong> Council ofChalcedon . . . was presi<strong>de</strong>d over by his legates’.61 The confusion isillustrated in <strong>the</strong> successive editions of <strong>the</strong> scholarly Oxford Dictionaryof <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church: in its Wrst edition this makes <strong>the</strong> sameassertion about <strong>the</strong> legates’ presi<strong>de</strong>ncy, but <strong>the</strong> passage was radicallyaltered in <strong>the</strong> second edition to read ‘his legates spoke Wrst at <strong>the</strong>Council of Chalcedon’, and this is repeated in <strong>the</strong> third edition.62 Thisis at least a great improvement, since it no longer falsiWes a centralfact about <strong>the</strong> council, yet <strong>the</strong> entry still ignores <strong>the</strong> issue ofpresi<strong>de</strong>ncy.There is much that needs to be said about those who reallypresi<strong>de</strong>d at Chalcedon, <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners as <strong>the</strong>y areusually called now—appropriately enough since <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>the</strong> directpersonal representatives of <strong>the</strong> emperor and had been appointed byhim.63 The commissioners, of whom most were serving magistrates,64hol<strong>de</strong>rs of major state oYces, have in Greek <strong>the</strong> oYcialtitle of archontes (literally ‘rulers’, but ‘those with power to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>’aYliations. Samuel, ‘Proceedings’, recognized <strong>the</strong> commissioners’ importance but didnot probe <strong>the</strong>ir allegiances, even though this would have bolstered his argument thatChalcedon did not promote a free discussion of doctrinal matters.61 B. Altaner, Patrology (Eng. trans. by H. G. Graef, Edinburgh, 1960), 418; asubsequent edition of <strong>the</strong> German original (Freiburg, 1978), 357 omits this error. VanParys, ‘Council’, 311 states that <strong>the</strong> right to presi<strong>de</strong> belonged to Paschasinus, whoexercised it several times, though he also conce<strong>de</strong>s that <strong>the</strong> commissioners usuallypresi<strong>de</strong>d.62 F. L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Church (Oxford, 1957), s.v. Leo I,St; 2nd edn. (1974); 3rd edn. by E. A. Livingstone (1997).63 Chadwick, Church, 571, brieXy notes that leading secular oYcials presi<strong>de</strong>d at allsessions except one, but does not probe <strong>the</strong>ir allegiances; Allen, ‘DeWnition’, 814,acknowledges that <strong>the</strong> imperial oYcials ensured or<strong>de</strong>rly proceedings, but does notmention more substantive input; MeyendorV, Imperial Unity, 168, notes that <strong>the</strong>commissioners led proceedings, but still manages to call <strong>the</strong> papal legate Paschasinus<strong>the</strong> council’s ecclesiastical presi<strong>de</strong>nt, as if that position was signiWcant.64 Of <strong>the</strong> regular commissioners Martialis was an ex-magister oYciorum, beinglisted immediately after <strong>the</strong> current hol<strong>de</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> oYce, Vincomalus; at <strong>the</strong> sixthsession <strong>the</strong>y were joined by Martialis’ immediate successor (and Vincomalus’ pre<strong>de</strong>cessor)Placitus, who was listed after Martialis. It is not clear why <strong>the</strong> former hol<strong>de</strong>rsof <strong>the</strong> post of magister oYciorum are treated diVerently from o<strong>the</strong>r ex-oYce hol<strong>de</strong>rs,who are recor<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> list of senators.
The Council of Chalcedon 287may in <strong>the</strong> circumstances give a better expression of that function)and in <strong>the</strong> Latin iudices (judges). They numbered seven at <strong>the</strong> three of<strong>the</strong> Wrst four sessions when secular oYcials presi<strong>de</strong>d. On 25 Octoberat <strong>the</strong> climactic and celebratory sixth session, when Marcian andPulcheria were present to add solemnity to <strong>the</strong> unanimous acceptanceby <strong>the</strong> bishops of <strong>the</strong> new Creed and Marcian addressed <strong>the</strong>assembly, ten archontes atten<strong>de</strong>d. At most subsequent sessions farfewer archontes presi<strong>de</strong>d, often only three, though <strong>the</strong>se were Anatolius,Palladius, and Vincomalus, who belonged to <strong>the</strong> top four interms of seniority.65 At each of <strong>the</strong> more important sessions <strong>the</strong>commissioners, doubtless to magnify <strong>the</strong>ir prestige and lend weightto <strong>the</strong>ir interventions, were accompanied by a ra<strong>the</strong>r larger group ofsenior senators, of whom most were not currently holding magistracies;at <strong>the</strong> initial sessions <strong>the</strong> archontes were accompanied by 12senators, though 28 atten<strong>de</strong>d for <strong>the</strong> imperial visit; no senators werepresent for <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r sessions. Collectively <strong>the</strong> combined archontesand senators form <strong>the</strong> most august and powerful body of dignitariesthat I have ever encountered in such a situation in <strong>the</strong> whole ofantiquity and <strong>the</strong>y completely dominated <strong>the</strong> council’s proceedings.At <strong>the</strong> start of each session <strong>the</strong> archontes and senators in attendancewere personally i<strong>de</strong>ntiWed by name as well as by <strong>the</strong> principal oYceseach had held.All members of <strong>the</strong> presiding party had <strong>the</strong> most illustrious titlespossible. Above <strong>the</strong> mere clarissimi, and <strong>late</strong>r <strong>the</strong> spectabiles andillustres, of <strong>the</strong> Wrst four centuries, familiar to all Roman historians,<strong>the</strong>re were now two supremely digniWed groups, magniWcentissimiand, at <strong>the</strong> very top, gloriosissimi, or in Greek megaloprepestatoi an<strong>de</strong>ndoxotatoi.66 Every one of <strong>the</strong> nineteen commissioners at Chalcedonhas both <strong>the</strong>se titles, with only one probable exception who may havebeen merely magniWcentissimus.67 The whole group is referred to65 Apart from one or two slips in <strong>the</strong> record, <strong>the</strong> commissioners are always named inprecisely <strong>the</strong> same or<strong>de</strong>r, because rank and prece<strong>de</strong>nce were, of course, matters of <strong>the</strong>highest importance in <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire. On this see Delmaire, ‘Dignitaires’.66 On senatorial ranks, see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602:A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), 528–30.67 [The position may be more complicated: see Delmaire, ‘Dignitaires’, 157–61, fordiscussion of <strong>the</strong> two titles. In <strong>the</strong> Wrst session <strong>the</strong> Greek Acta record Martialis,Sporacius, and Genethlius with <strong>the</strong> single epi<strong>the</strong>t megaloprepestatos, but at <strong>the</strong> secondsession Martialis and Sporacius are also accor<strong>de</strong>d endoxotatos; Genethlius alone is
288 Church Councilsrepeatedly by very high-sounding phrases such as hoi megaloprepestatoikai endoxotatoi archontes kai hē huperphues sunklētos, or in LatinmagniWcentissimi et gloriosissimi iudices et amplissimus senatus. Itisworth pursuing <strong>the</strong>se individuals a bit fur<strong>the</strong>r.On numerous occasions in <strong>the</strong> Acta we are told that ‘<strong>the</strong> commissioners’,<strong>de</strong>corated with one of <strong>the</strong>ir exalted titles, said something ortook some action.68 Now, nineteen or so people—and not even <strong>the</strong>three who presi<strong>de</strong>d at <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r sessions—do not react to unforeseenand unrehearsed situations in an i<strong>de</strong>ntical way and with i<strong>de</strong>nticalwords. No one, I think, who has studied <strong>late</strong> Roman procedure willdoubt that it would always be <strong>the</strong> senior member of <strong>the</strong> collectivewho would normally speak and take <strong>the</strong> necessary action; <strong>the</strong> restwould simply support him.69 Who, <strong>the</strong>n, was <strong>the</strong> leading commissioneramong <strong>the</strong> nineteen? The name which appears Wrst at <strong>the</strong>beginning of each of <strong>the</strong> fourteen sessions at which he presi<strong>de</strong>d is thatof Anatolius.70 Anatolius is commonly referred to by <strong>the</strong>ologians, on<strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r rare occasions when <strong>the</strong>y do notice his embarrassingpresence at all, simply as a patrician, which in<strong>de</strong>ed he was since itwas a distinguished but not unusual title;71 but had he only beenpatrician he would not have ranked at <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong> team, or even inregularly just megaloprepestatos, which suggests that this is not a mistake. In <strong>the</strong> Latintext, however, at <strong>the</strong> Wrst four sessions all three men are merely magniWcentissimus,and in <strong>the</strong> lists for <strong>the</strong> sixth session, when Emperor Marcian atten<strong>de</strong>d, only <strong>the</strong> mostsenior individuals, Anatolius, Palladius, and Vincomalus as well as <strong>the</strong> fourex-consuls receive both epi<strong>the</strong>ts, which might suggest that <strong>the</strong>re were not yet strictrules about <strong>the</strong> combined usage.]68 By contrast, commissioners and senators do not intervene individually.69 The same is true of Second Ephesus where Dioscorus undoubtedly <strong>de</strong>termined<strong>the</strong> direction taken by <strong>the</strong> Wve leading bishops who were also held to be partlyresponsible for <strong>the</strong> conduct of proceedings and who were brieXy <strong>de</strong>posed at Chalcedon.The junior commissioners probably shared many of <strong>the</strong> views of <strong>the</strong>ir overallpresi<strong>de</strong>nt or were judged to be suYciently impressionable to follow <strong>the</strong> required line.At Second Ephesus Juvenal of Jerusalem was <strong>the</strong> most committed of Dioscorus’associates, whereas Thalassius of Caesarea and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs appear more malleable.70 Numerous references in PLRE ii. 84–6, s.v. Anatolius 10; also Delmaire, ‘Dignitaires’,161–2. Anatolius did not presi<strong>de</strong> at <strong>the</strong> third session when Dioscorus wascon<strong>de</strong>mned by <strong>the</strong> bishops, while Marcian and Pulcheria were present at <strong>the</strong> sixth;session seven in <strong>the</strong> Greek Acta (15 in <strong>the</strong> Latin) was not a proper session of <strong>the</strong>council but a list of <strong>the</strong> canons. Anatolius chaired all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r sessions.71 Patricians were not listed in PLRE ii, but <strong>the</strong> omission was ma<strong>de</strong> good in PLREiii. 1462–6: over 160 individuals are inclu<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> list, of whom at least a dozen wereactive in <strong>the</strong> East in <strong>the</strong> mid-5th cent.
The Council of Chalcedon 289<strong>the</strong> top group of archontes of whom most were serving magistratesactually in oYce at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> council.72 The position whichplaced him among <strong>the</strong> archontes and at <strong>the</strong> top of <strong>the</strong> whole nineteenwas that of magister militum praesentalis, one of <strong>the</strong> two comman<strong>de</strong>rsof <strong>the</strong> central imperial armies, a man <strong>the</strong>refore whose troops werestationed in <strong>the</strong> vicinity of <strong>the</strong> council. As a strictly military man,Anatolius may have been second in <strong>the</strong> whole Eastern Empire only to<strong>the</strong> great Aspar, who, with <strong>the</strong> empress Pulcheria, had been mostresponsible for bringing his former domesticus, or bodyguard,Marcian to <strong>the</strong> throne in <strong>the</strong> previous year.73 But Aspar was not onlyan Alan ‘barbarian’, he was also an Arian and so could not beadmitted to an orthodox <strong>Christian</strong> council. Anatolius, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rhand, was an orthodox <strong>Christian</strong> as well as being a senior comman<strong>de</strong>r;in addition, perhaps even more important, he was also amost distinguished and successful diplomat who, as magister militumper Orientem un<strong>de</strong>r Theodosius II, had negotiated a peace treaty withPersia in 441, and subsequently been selected for missions to Attila<strong>the</strong> Hun in 447 and 450. It is no joke to say that <strong>the</strong> capacity to <strong>de</strong>alwith Attila, who emerges as a very wily negotiator from <strong>the</strong> accountsof embassies in Priscus—and Priscus had participated in one of <strong>the</strong>semissions—had <strong>the</strong> appropriate experience for <strong>de</strong>aling with a ga<strong>the</strong>ringof several hundred bishops and <strong>the</strong>ir attendants.74 Apart from72 Contra Delmaire, ‘Dignitaires’, 161–2, who places Anatolius’ appointment asMM praesentalis shortly after his return from <strong>the</strong> East, which forces him to conclu<strong>de</strong>that he was out of oYce before April 449 when he was acclaimed at E<strong>de</strong>ssa after <strong>the</strong>praetorian prefect Protogenes, <strong>the</strong> quaestor Nomus, and <strong>the</strong> MM per OrientemZenon. Delmaire explained Anatolius’ priority at Chalcedon on <strong>the</strong> grounds thathis earliest holding of a senior title, that of MM, prece<strong>de</strong>d all his colleagues, and tha<strong>the</strong> was <strong>the</strong> only imperial representative to have <strong>the</strong> title of patrician (which he sharedwith <strong>the</strong> ex-consuls among <strong>the</strong> senators). Delmaire’s chronology is wrong, and hefails to observe <strong>the</strong> signiWcance of Anatolius’ current military position as comman<strong>de</strong>rof troops in <strong>the</strong> vicinity; he was in fact <strong>the</strong> only general, or ex-general, to attend <strong>the</strong>council.73 Holum, Empresses, 208–9; Whitby, Evagrius, 60 n. 12; Burgess, ‘Accession’,attributes <strong>the</strong> elevation entirely to Aspar, but his scepticism about Pulcheria’s roleseems excessive.74 B. Croke, ‘Anatolius and Nomus: Envoys to Attila’, Byzantinoslavica, 42 (1981),159–70; repr. in i<strong>de</strong>m, <strong>Christian</strong> Chronicles and Byzantine History 5 th –6 th Centuries(Al<strong>de</strong>rshot, 1992), xiii. [The notion of <strong>Christian</strong> bishops being as much of achallenge as Attila greatly appealed to <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>.]
290 Church CouncilsAnatolius, Wve of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r commissioners and senators are alsoknown to have been sent on oYcial embassies: Tatian (third in <strong>the</strong>lists), Florentius (8th), Senator (9th), Nomus (10th), Constantine(17th).75 The three commissioners who regularly follow Anatolius in<strong>the</strong> lists are men of consi<strong>de</strong>rable experience who between <strong>the</strong>m held<strong>the</strong> three most powerful administrative posts in <strong>the</strong> empire: Palladius,praetorian prefect of <strong>the</strong> east, Tatian, city prefect at Constantinople,and Vincomalus, <strong>the</strong> magister oYciorum for <strong>the</strong> east.76I began this part of my discussion by saying that I was going to givean illustration of <strong>the</strong> gulf between <strong>the</strong> historical and <strong>the</strong>ologicalapproaches to Chalcedon, and I am now in a position to explainexactly what I had in mind. In <strong>the</strong> enormous volume edited byGrillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, a volume whichhas a comprehensive in<strong>de</strong>x occupying 188 double-columned pages,Pope Leo, who did not of course attend <strong>the</strong> council, has almost twowhole columns to himself; Theodoret has nearly four inches, andano<strong>the</strong>r Anatolius, <strong>the</strong> patriarch of Constantinople, has some twoinches—but <strong>the</strong> great Anatolius, <strong>the</strong> man who was primarily responsiblefor running <strong>the</strong> council, is simply not <strong>the</strong>re at all: if <strong>the</strong> in<strong>de</strong>x isnot at fault, and I am sure that it is not, <strong>the</strong>n he is entirely ignored.77Even Frend’s Monophysite Movement, a volume which is more sensitiveto historical issues, does not recognize <strong>the</strong> signiWcance ofAnatolius, and yet Frend was well aware of <strong>the</strong> role of emperors in<strong>de</strong>ciding doctrinal issues:78 Anatolius is mentioned once, in <strong>the</strong>context of acclamations at E<strong>de</strong>ssa in 449, but not in relation to75 Senator and Nomus had been i<strong>de</strong>ntiWed, along with Anatolius, by Attila asacceptable Roman envoys (Priscus fr. 13.1.13–14), and in 450 Nomus had accompaniedAnatolius to Attila (Priscus fr. 15.3, 4); see also Croke, ‘Anatolius’, 167–70.76 In March 452 <strong>the</strong>se three oYcials, along with Valentinian <strong>the</strong> praetorian prefectof Illyricum, received <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>crees of Marcian conWrming <strong>the</strong> acts of <strong>the</strong> council, aswell as its <strong>de</strong>cisions on Flavian and Eutyches (ACO ii.i.479–83, §§ 23–5); <strong>the</strong>ir postscollectively gave <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> range of authority to oversee <strong>the</strong> implementation of itsprovisions. Valentinian, <strong>the</strong> most prominent absentee, was presumably preventedfrom attending <strong>the</strong> council by <strong>the</strong> business in Illyricum which had threatened todistract Marcian.77 [These Wgures are not entirely fair, since most of <strong>the</strong>se massive volumes isconcerned with <strong>the</strong> doctrinal background to <strong>the</strong> council and its aftermath, in bothof which <strong>the</strong> Tome of Leo was crucial so that Leo’s predominance is not surprising;but <strong>the</strong> omission of <strong>the</strong> secular Anatolius is still a signiWcant fact.]78 Frend, Monophysite Movement, 45–6 for Chalcedon, and ch. 2 more generally.
The Council of Chalcedon 291Chalcedon, where Marcian is presented as a prime mover.79 YetAnatolius’ personal position in <strong>the</strong> great <strong>the</strong>ological controversywhich <strong>the</strong> council was summoned to settle can easily be i<strong>de</strong>ntiWedfrom his correspon<strong>de</strong>nce with Theodoret, who was <strong>the</strong> subject of acrucially important <strong>de</strong>cision by <strong>the</strong> commissioners early in <strong>the</strong> Wrstsession at Chalcedon. Anatolius was no neutral. He is <strong>the</strong> closest andmost regular of Theodoret’s secular correspon<strong>de</strong>nts. We possessseven letters to him from Theodoret, of which six were writtenduring <strong>the</strong> period of <strong>the</strong> bishop’s disgrace in <strong>the</strong> latter years ofTheodosius when Theodoret hoped that Anatolius would help toremove <strong>the</strong> various imperial restrictions which had been imposed(Eps. 79. 92) or secure imperial approval for a journey to Rome forjudgement by <strong>the</strong> Pope (Ep. 119). Apart from this signiWcant associationwith Theodoret, Anatolius had a long-standing reputation fororthodox involvement in church aVairs: in 433 Paul of Emesa wroteto him about church unity shortly after <strong>the</strong> reconciliation betweenJohn of Antioch and Cyril had been achieved. In 442 he <strong>de</strong>dicated asilver reliquary for <strong>the</strong> bones of Thomas at E<strong>de</strong>ssa, a sign of <strong>Christian</strong><strong>de</strong>votion, but it might be signiWcant that <strong>the</strong> local bishop was <strong>the</strong>nIbas, who was associated with Theodoret and anti-AlexandrianChristological views (he was a casualty at Second Ephesus). Of courseMarcian, who in principle chose all <strong>the</strong> commissioners, would havetaken particular care over <strong>the</strong> selection of his chief representative andso can retain some claim to be <strong>the</strong> prime mover at <strong>the</strong> council, but hischosen agent <strong>de</strong>serves much more attention than he is traditionallyaccor<strong>de</strong>d: Anatolius was unlikely to be favourably disposed towardsDioscorus and <strong>the</strong> Alexandrian cause.8079 Frend, Monophysite Movement, 67, quoting <strong>the</strong> E<strong>de</strong>ssa acclamation ‘Long live<strong>the</strong> Patrician Anatolius. May he be preserved for Romania’, which is preserved in<strong>the</strong> Syriac Acta of Second Ephesus (Frend’s reference to Flemming is unhelpful: <strong>the</strong>precise location of <strong>the</strong> quote is p. 17, lines 45–6, and <strong>the</strong>re are o<strong>the</strong>r chants forAnatolius at 17.10–12 and 25.45).80 The only possible evi<strong>de</strong>nce that might un<strong>de</strong>rmine this is <strong>the</strong> chant for Anatoliusamong <strong>the</strong> E<strong>de</strong>ssa acclamations of 449 (see above); this <strong>de</strong>monstration was directedagainst Ibas, so that positive comments for a friend of Ibas might seem strange, butAnatolius appears in a sequence of important Wgures (Zeno, Chrysaphius, Strate<strong>late</strong>s,Patricius, Urbicius) and it is likely that <strong>the</strong> anti-Nestorian <strong>de</strong>monstrators wanted toreassure one of Ibas’ more powerful supporters that he was not being inclu<strong>de</strong>d in<strong>the</strong>ir attack on <strong>the</strong> bishop.
292 Church CouncilsIt might be signiWcant that we have letters from Theodoret to twoof <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r commissioners, Vincomalus and Sporacius, and Wve of<strong>the</strong> senators including all <strong>the</strong> Wrst four to be named, Florentius (8),Senator (9), Nomus (10), and Protogenes (11), along with Constantine(17).81 One letter survives from Theodoret to Vincomalus whichconveys thanks for <strong>the</strong> assistance in securing his return from exileafter <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Theodosius II (Ep. 141); <strong>the</strong>refore Vincomalus, likeAnatolius, was a supporter of Theodoret before <strong>the</strong> council wassummoned. Sporacius, <strong>the</strong> uncle of Anatolius, is ano<strong>the</strong>r establishedally; Theodoret had written to him in <strong>late</strong> 448, when he was alreadyun<strong>de</strong>r pressure from Theodosius (Ep. 97); Sporacius also accepted<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>dication of Theodoret’s compendium on heresies, and could be<strong>de</strong>scribed as his patron by Michael <strong>the</strong> Syrian (8.13). Florentius alsoreceived letters in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 440s (Eps. 89, v), but appears to havesupported a diVerent doctrinal stance, since in November 448 Theodosiusappointed him as a person of guaranteed orthodoxy to attendFlavian’s investigation of Eutyches’ views (ACO ii.i.138, § 468; seeabove) and <strong>the</strong>n to participate in <strong>the</strong> subsequent inquiry into <strong>the</strong>seproceedings;82 he does not receive <strong>the</strong> sort of begging or thankingletters addressed to <strong>the</strong> likes of Anatolius, Vincomalus, and o<strong>the</strong>rs.Theodoret had asked Senator to help with a tax remission forCyrrhus in 446/7, and <strong>the</strong>n approached him again in November448 to urge that he listen favourably to bishops who were inConstantinople to plead Theodoret’s case (Eps. 44, 93). Nomus wassent a <strong>de</strong>fence of Theodoret’s orthodoxy in 448 but appears not tohave reacted since in November Theodoret wrote again won<strong>de</strong>ringwhy he had not respon<strong>de</strong>d to earlier letters (Eps. 58, 81, 96). Nomus’position seems to have been ambiguous: he was prepared to lendmoney to two nephews of Cyril of Alexandria, whose relatives cameun<strong>de</strong>r pressure after his <strong>de</strong>ath in 444 from his successor Dioscorus(Theodoret’s most <strong>de</strong>termined enemy), but charged an extortionate81 For full references on all <strong>the</strong>se individuals, see PLRE ii.82 Florentius’ doctrinal views are obscured by <strong>the</strong> problems in <strong>the</strong> record ofFlavian’s proceedings against Eutyches, whose accuracy he questioned rigorously,and he attempted to <strong>de</strong>ny some of <strong>the</strong> statements attributed to him (ACO ii.i.172,§ 778). If Theodoret had regar<strong>de</strong>d him as a potential ally, <strong>the</strong>n he would probablyhave written to him in Nov. 448 along <strong>the</strong> same lines that he did to Sporacius, though<strong>the</strong> lack of such a letter from <strong>the</strong> collection is not <strong>de</strong>cisive evi<strong>de</strong>nce.
The Council of Chalcedon 293rate of interest which he used an imperial oYcial to collect (ACOii.i.216–18, § 57). In 449 he was regar<strong>de</strong>d as close to <strong>the</strong> position ofChrysaphius in supporting Eutyches, ano<strong>the</strong>r of Theodoret’s bitterenemies, over <strong>the</strong> imperial <strong>de</strong>cision to summon <strong>the</strong> Second Councilof Ephesus (Theodore Lector 346). His presence at Chalcedon suggeststhat he was one of <strong>the</strong> numerous secular as well as ecclesiasticallea<strong>de</strong>rs who were prepared to trim <strong>the</strong>ir views according to <strong>the</strong>prevailing imperial preferences; participation was perhaps inten<strong>de</strong>das a test of his allegiance to <strong>the</strong> change of doctrine. In his capacity aspraetorian prefect of <strong>the</strong> east Protogenes received a letter fromTheodoret in 448/9, similar to those sent to Anatolius and Senator,to ask that he ensure he had a fair hearing when <strong>de</strong>fending accusationsof heresy (Ep. 94). Constantine too was PPO, in which capacityhe received a request for tax relief for Cyrrhus, and one subsequentletter (Ep. 42, xix).Theodoret’s links with <strong>the</strong> commissioners are signiWcant, eventhough some of <strong>the</strong> letters originated from <strong>the</strong> sort of contacts thata provincial bishop might be expected to have with high oYcialsresponsible for taxation and security matters.83 The fact that not all<strong>the</strong> connections are positive, however, does help to highlight <strong>the</strong>diVerent nature of Anatolius’ association:84 his contacts with Theodoretare closer than for any of his colleagues.85 Theodoret’s aVairsare not <strong>the</strong> only signiWcant factor relating to <strong>the</strong> commissioners.Tatian, for example, was trusted to act as intermediary betweenPope Leo and Marcian in April 451, which suggests that he was83 Though both Zoilus and Apollinaris (present at Chalcedon as senators) servedas praetorian prefect of <strong>the</strong> east in <strong>the</strong> early 440s, but are not among <strong>the</strong> correspon<strong>de</strong>ntsof Theodoret.84 W. E. Kaegi, Byzantine Military Unrest 471–843 (Amsterdam, 1981), 78 assertedwith regard to leading generals that <strong>the</strong>re was ‘little evi<strong>de</strong>nce of partisanship arisingfrom <strong>the</strong>ir personal religious views’. Overall this statement is true, which makes <strong>the</strong>case of Anatolius all <strong>the</strong> more interesting.85 [<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> recognized <strong>the</strong> importance of Theodoret’s correspon<strong>de</strong>nce, andinvestigated it with regard to Anatolius, but did not pursue it fur<strong>the</strong>r: in his seminarpresentations on Chalcedon he would comment about his lack of interest in <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>tails of prosopography, which he preferred to have un<strong>de</strong>rtaken for him by o<strong>the</strong>rs.Although he might initially have been surprised by <strong>the</strong> presence among <strong>the</strong> commissionersof Theodoret’s former opponents, Florentius and Nomus, this would haveprovi<strong>de</strong>d fur<strong>the</strong>r evi<strong>de</strong>nce for <strong>the</strong> power of imperial patronage to aVect doctrinalviews.]
294 Church Councilsdoctrinally in sympathy (Leo, Ep. 82). Martialis, however, hadatten<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> inquiry in April 449 into Flavian’s treatment ofEutyches, like Florentius, and so is likely to have been sympa<strong>the</strong>ticto One Nature views at that stage. Romanus, <strong>the</strong> former praepositussacri cubiculi and member of <strong>the</strong> presiding group at <strong>the</strong> Wrst, second,fourth, and sixth sessions, was among those who received Cyril’sbribes in 431/2, but <strong>the</strong> trajectory of Pulcheria’s views illustratesthat allegiances could change over two <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong>s. Overall, Anatoliusremains <strong>the</strong> key individual; some of his colleagues might be expectedto oVer strong support to moves in favour of Theodoret and againstEutyches, whereas a few had records which might suggest <strong>the</strong> reversebut whose prominence now might constrain <strong>the</strong>m to acquiescencewith <strong>the</strong> imperial agenda.Theodoret at ChalcedonIn justiWcation of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>sis about <strong>the</strong> high <strong>de</strong>gree of control thatwould be exercised over <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> churches by an emperorwho had <strong>the</strong> inclination and <strong>the</strong> requisite inXuence, I shall concentratenow on a particular event at Chalcedon, <strong>the</strong> admission to<strong>the</strong> assembly of Theodoret. In <strong>the</strong> 430s and 440s Theodoret was <strong>the</strong>leading <strong>the</strong>ologian in <strong>the</strong> Antiochene Christological tradition and,after <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Cyril of Alexandria, he could claim to be foremostin <strong>the</strong> Greek-speaking world. He also produced a history of<strong>the</strong> Church as a continuation of Eusebius; this was probablyWnished by 450, while he was <strong>de</strong>posed from his see, but its coverageonly exten<strong>de</strong>d down to 428, <strong>the</strong>reby enabling Theodoret to eva<strong>de</strong><strong>the</strong> problems associated with <strong>the</strong> patriarchy of Nestorius whichinclu<strong>de</strong>d imperial opposition to his own views. Patriarch Photiuswas complimentary about <strong>the</strong> style, which he found to be appropriate—clear,elevated, and restrained, although <strong>the</strong> use of metaphorswas sometimes excessive (Cod. 31). As to content, it hasbeen noted that Theodoret’s attitu<strong>de</strong> to imperial involvement inchurch aVairs was much more negative than that of <strong>the</strong> twoo<strong>the</strong>r contemporary ecclesiastical historians, Socrates and Sozomen:his account of <strong>the</strong> Council of Nicaea gives Constantine muchless credit than Socrates’ version, or than Eusebius in his Life of
The Council of Chalcedon 295Constantine.86 One fur<strong>the</strong>r work was <strong>the</strong> Historia Religiosa, a collectionof stories about Holy Men (and a few women); most came fromSyria, and Theodoret recor<strong>de</strong>d his own <strong>de</strong>alings with some of <strong>the</strong>more prominent contemporary saints, for example Symeon Stylitesand Jacob of Cyrrhus. Theodoret was a prominent <strong>the</strong>ologian with adistinctive Christological position in an age when <strong>the</strong>ology could be adangerous occupation87—<strong>the</strong> more dangerous in<strong>de</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> moreseriously it was pursued, however harmless it might seem to a mereVicar of Bray, a species which, even in its episcopal form, was not atall uncommon in <strong>the</strong> Wfth century, as we shall see presently.I cannot hope to <strong>de</strong>scribe in a few sentences <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ology ofTheodoret and how it diVered from that of his opponents. All I willsay is that it was characteristically ‘Antiochene’, as opposed to <strong>the</strong>Alexandrian variety espoused by Cyril and Dioscorus, and that Dioscorus,recognizing that Theodoret was his most dangerous intellectualenemy, was keen to have him exclu<strong>de</strong>d from discussions. Thishad been achieved in <strong>the</strong> preliminaries to Second Ephesus whenEmperor Theodosius issued an edict conWning Theodoret to hisown diocese of Cyrrhus. It was a measure of <strong>the</strong> great importanceattached to Theodoret as an intellectual spokesman for <strong>the</strong> opponentsof Dioscorus and Eutyches that <strong>the</strong> edict is said to have beenwritten out in <strong>the</strong> emperor’s own hand, that it was brought personallyto Theodoret, who was apparently at Antioch, by an importantimperial oYcial, <strong>the</strong> comes Rufus, and that a few days <strong>late</strong>r an oYcialof <strong>the</strong> magister militum per Orientem went to Cyrrhus to verify thatTheodoret had gone back <strong>the</strong>re as or<strong>de</strong>red, and to make him sign anacknowledgement that he had received <strong>the</strong> edict (Theodoret, Ep. 79,80). I know of no parallel for such a series of measures directedagainst an individual cleric, not even <strong>the</strong> extremely diYcult Athanasiusof Alexandria who was expelled from his see more than once.8886 H. Leppin, ‘The Church Historians (I): Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoretus’,in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth toSixth Century A.D. (Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 2003), 219–54, at 230–1, 242.87 It is arguable that <strong>the</strong> production of his Eranistēs, with its attack on Eutyches’One Nature Christology, reawakened doctrinal controversy and triggered <strong>the</strong>sequence of events which led to Second Ephesus and hence Chalcedon.88 On Athanasius, see T. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politicsin <strong>the</strong> Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), esp. chs. 3 and 11.
296 Church CouncilsThe Acta of Chalcedon, in <strong>the</strong> section where <strong>the</strong> proceedings ofSecond Ephesus are read into <strong>the</strong> record, preserve two letters fromTheodosius which state that he had forbid<strong>de</strong>n Theodoret to attend<strong>the</strong> forthcoming council at Ephesus unless <strong>the</strong> council itself shouldspeciWcally invite him (ACO ii.i.68–9, 74, §§ 24, 52); <strong>the</strong> texts make itclear that <strong>the</strong> emperor <strong>de</strong>tested Theodoret because of his oppositionto Cyril of Alexandria, whom he had ana<strong>the</strong>matized in <strong>the</strong> 430s, andwhose Twelve Ana<strong>the</strong>mas he had subjected to such searching challengethat <strong>the</strong>ir full acceptance was <strong>de</strong>layed. Theodosius clearlywanted to have Theodoret exclu<strong>de</strong>d from <strong>the</strong> council, which dulyhappened, and in his absence he was virulently attacked, expelledfrom his see, <strong>de</strong>prived of clerical status, and ana<strong>the</strong>matized. The Actaof Second Ephesus, although incompletely preserved, contain <strong>the</strong>edict <strong>late</strong>r issued by Theodosius which not only endorses <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>positionof Theodoret but associates his writings with those of <strong>the</strong>heresiarch Nestorius and even of <strong>the</strong> pagan Porphyry, and or<strong>de</strong>rsthat <strong>the</strong>se are to be <strong>de</strong>livered up to be publicly burnt. We possessseveral of Theodoret’s letters written over <strong>the</strong> following monthswhich show him in a state of great distress at his expulsion from<strong>the</strong> see he had occupied for twenty-six years and where he hadcampaigned energetically against various heresies.89 The burning ofbooks regar<strong>de</strong>d as heretical, or which attacked <strong>Christian</strong>ity as in <strong>the</strong>case of Porphyry, was prescribed by <strong>Christian</strong> emperors from Constantineonwards in <strong>the</strong> case of serious challenges to <strong>the</strong> faith.90 ThatTheodoret should now be singled out for such treatment testiWes againto his importance as a <strong>the</strong>ologian. Theodoret’s absence from SecondEphesus meant that Flavian and o<strong>the</strong>r opponents of Eutyches andDioscorus were <strong>de</strong>prived of <strong>the</strong>ir most eVective potential <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>r,which ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own con<strong>de</strong>mnation a foregone conclusion.9189 Theodoret, Eps. 113–25, esp. 113 to Pope Leo, 119 to Anatolius of Constantinople,and 125 to John of Germanicia.90 P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman State and <strong>Christian</strong> Church (London, 1966), iii.1293 (in<strong>de</strong>x s.v. book-burning). There is a very full treatment by W. Speyer, Büchervernichtungund Zensur <strong>de</strong>s Geistes bei Hei<strong>de</strong>n, Ju<strong>de</strong>n und Christen (Stuttgart, 1981).91 Theodoret did his best by providing Domnus of Antioch with <strong>de</strong>tailed advicebefore his <strong>de</strong>parture to <strong>the</strong> council: Ep. 112; to no avail. At Chalcedon he contributedto refuting objections to <strong>the</strong> Tome of Leo by pointing to useful parallels in <strong>the</strong>writings of Cyril of Alexandria (ACO ii.i.82, § 26).
The Council of Chalcedon 297Then came <strong>the</strong> great change in <strong>the</strong> aVairs of <strong>the</strong> Eastern Churchwhich I mentioned earlier, <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Theodosius, and <strong>the</strong> successionof Marcian in August 450. We possess letters from both Marcianand Pulcheria to Pope Leo, dating from November 450, whichcontain some exceedingly important information that rarely, ifever, is accor<strong>de</strong>d its full weight:92 Marcian proclaims not only tha<strong>the</strong> had personally recalled from exile all <strong>the</strong> bishops who had beenremoved at Second Ephesus but, explicitly, that this had been done sothat <strong>the</strong>y might receive back <strong>the</strong>ir sees by <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cision of a churchcouncil, which was <strong>the</strong>n already in prospect. We also have Theodoret’sletters to three of <strong>the</strong> most inXuential men in <strong>the</strong> empire,Anatolius, Aspar, and Vincomalus, written early in 451 after he hadreceived <strong>the</strong> news of Marcian’s edict, which, plausibly enough, heattributes to Pulcheria also (Eps. 139–41). They all express his <strong>de</strong>lightat what he calls, in <strong>the</strong> letter addressed to Anatolius, <strong>the</strong> righting of<strong>the</strong> wrong done to himself (Ep. 139).93 Now, technically, <strong>the</strong> emperorand empress could not by <strong>the</strong>mselves reinstate Theodoret and <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r victims of Second Ephesus in <strong>the</strong>ir sees: this could only be doneby a church council, preferably an ecumenical council such as Theodorethad been eagerly advocating and <strong>the</strong> imperial pair were nowplanning.94 Theodoret and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, however, now had permissionto return to <strong>the</strong>ir own cities, and since it was known that <strong>the</strong> emperorhad annulled his pre<strong>de</strong>cessor’s edict and brought back <strong>the</strong> menconcerned speciWcally with a view to <strong>the</strong>ir reinstatement as bishops,that was now certain to happen. For Theodoret in early 451, as justmentioned, it was now a foregone conclusion since he can speak of<strong>the</strong> wrong done to himself as having already been righted. Everyonein <strong>the</strong> diVerent sees would have known what was about to occur, andhave adjusted <strong>the</strong>ir behaviour accordingly.9592 Preserved as Leo, Eps. 76–7 (ACO ii.i.1, pp. 8–10 for <strong>the</strong> Greek texts; ii.iii.18–19for <strong>the</strong> Latin).93 Theodoret’s closeness to Anatolius is shown by <strong>the</strong> fact that his letter is farlonger than those to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two supporters, in<strong>de</strong>ed almost matching <strong>the</strong>ir combinedlengths.94 De Vries, Orient, 107.95 [Richard Price argues (‘Letters before Council’, Introduction) that a council wasnot necessary to secure Theodoret’s reinstatement, since Marcian’s edict had alreadyeVected this. This may well be right, but <strong>the</strong> treatment of Theodoret at <strong>the</strong> eighthsession of Chalcedon indicates that his position still required <strong>the</strong> sort of doctrinalvalidation that <strong>the</strong> emperor could not bestow.]
298 Church CouncilsI now come to two very revealing episo<strong>de</strong>s at Chalcedon, on 8 and26 October, which constitute <strong>the</strong> climax in <strong>the</strong> saga of Theodoret. At<strong>the</strong> opening session of <strong>the</strong> council, 8 October 451, <strong>the</strong> nineteenimperial commissioners hea<strong>de</strong>d by Anatolius took <strong>the</strong>ir seats in <strong>the</strong>Church of St Euphemia at Chalcedon, with clerics to <strong>the</strong>ir right andleft—mainly bishops, but in a few cases priests representing <strong>the</strong>irabsent bishops (some absentees were represented by neighbouringbishops). On <strong>the</strong>ir left sat <strong>the</strong> three oYcial papal legates, <strong>the</strong> patriarchsof Constantinople and Antioch with <strong>the</strong>ir subordinate bishopsfrom <strong>the</strong> dioceses (i.e. <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Roman civil dioceses) of Pontica,Asiana and Thrace, and of Oriens, with <strong>the</strong> exception of Palestinewhose bishops sat with <strong>the</strong> bishop of Jerusalem. These bishops werenow prepared without exception to follow an Orthodox line. Onwhat <strong>the</strong> Acta call <strong>the</strong> right sat <strong>the</strong> patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus,with <strong>the</strong> Egyptian bishops, Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem with<strong>the</strong> bishops of Palestine, and bishops from <strong>the</strong> civil diocese ofIllyricum; all of <strong>the</strong>se had recently been allies of Dioscorus, andretained some attachment to him during <strong>the</strong> proceedings of Chalcedonas some of <strong>the</strong>ir interventions reveal.96 This placing represented96 The overall number of bishops at <strong>the</strong> council is somewhat uncertain, since <strong>the</strong>subscriptions vary for <strong>the</strong> diVerent sessions and some bishops certainly had <strong>the</strong>irsignatures ad<strong>de</strong>d after <strong>the</strong> event (for example to <strong>de</strong>monstrate support for <strong>the</strong>con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Dioscorus). An inXated Wgure of 600, roughly double <strong>the</strong> attendanceat Nicaea, was already being mentioned at <strong>the</strong> fourth session of Chalcedon (ACOii.i.113, § 53). However, <strong>the</strong> best atten<strong>de</strong>d session was <strong>the</strong> Wrst, with 340 participatingwhen bishops might have thought <strong>the</strong>re was still some chance to <strong>de</strong>termine <strong>the</strong>overall direction of proceedings, with <strong>the</strong> sixth session, at which <strong>the</strong> emperor waspresent, being next with 324 in attendance. Attendance obviously varied according to<strong>the</strong> bishops’ commitment to <strong>the</strong> particular business of <strong>the</strong> day, with <strong>the</strong> proceedingsagainst Dioscorus at <strong>the</strong> third session only attracting 204. There were also ‘supernumeraries’present at some sessions whose voices at least might contribute to <strong>the</strong>general clamour (ii.i.75, 78, §§ 55, 74), and <strong>the</strong>se may have been inclu<strong>de</strong>d in some of<strong>the</strong> more optimistic calculations by those interested in maximizing support forproceedings. Opponents of <strong>the</strong> council were keen to belittle <strong>the</strong> numbers and statusof those in attendance: see Michael <strong>the</strong> Syrian 8.13 (ii, pp. 98, 102 for <strong>the</strong> assertionthat fewer than 300 atten<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> Wrst session, while no more than 200 were presentfor Dioscorus’ con<strong>de</strong>mnation, with in each case <strong>the</strong> numbers including priests and<strong>de</strong>acons as well as bishops). [<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> suggested that <strong>the</strong>re were several bishops in<strong>the</strong> vicinity who never participated in a session, but it seems implausible that churchlea<strong>de</strong>rs would endure <strong>the</strong> discomforts of travel to Chalcedon and <strong>the</strong> inconveniencesof lengthy absence from <strong>the</strong>ir own sees and yet be content not to appear at anysession. One possible explanation would be that <strong>the</strong>re were unoYcial quotas for
The Council of Chalcedon 299<strong>the</strong> great division between those who called <strong>the</strong>mselves Orthodox,on <strong>the</strong> commissioners’ left, and <strong>the</strong> Monophysites on <strong>the</strong> right. Ofcourse <strong>the</strong> right was always <strong>the</strong> place of honour and <strong>the</strong> left of relative<strong>de</strong>basement;97 but we must un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong> Acta to be referring to<strong>the</strong> right and left of <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners who had <strong>the</strong>ir seatsfacing <strong>the</strong> mass of bishops seated in <strong>the</strong> nave of <strong>the</strong> church. Thebishops would, of course, see <strong>the</strong> placings in <strong>the</strong> opposite way, with<strong>the</strong> Orthodox approved by <strong>the</strong> emperor grouped on <strong>the</strong> right andthose to be disciplined or repriman<strong>de</strong>d on <strong>the</strong> left. The symbolismwas such that when Juvenal <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to switch allegiance at <strong>the</strong> veryWrst session he moved, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> contingent from Palestine,from one si<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> commissioners to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, where <strong>the</strong>y werewelcomed by <strong>the</strong> Orientals, ‘God has led you well, orthodox one.You are welcome’ (ACO ii.i.115, §§ 284–5); <strong>the</strong>y were followed by<strong>the</strong> Illyrican bishops and four from Egypt (ACO ii.i.115–17, §§286–98).Dioscorus had pronounced an ana<strong>the</strong>ma on Pope Leo on arrivingin Asia for <strong>the</strong> council, so that open religious war had been more orless <strong>de</strong>clared between Alexandria and Rome. Immediately proceedingsbegan <strong>the</strong> papal legates protested against his presence as amember of <strong>the</strong> council: ‘We have instructions from <strong>the</strong> most blessedand apostolic bishop of <strong>the</strong> city of Rome, <strong>the</strong> head of all <strong>the</strong> churches,in which he has thought it right to say that Dioscorus should not takea seat in <strong>the</strong> assembly, and that if he presumes to do so, he should beexpelled. This we are obliged to observe. If it pleases your Greatness,ei<strong>the</strong>r he must leave or we will leave’ (ACO ii.i.65, § 5). They alonespoke in Latin, and <strong>the</strong>ir short interventions were usually trans<strong>late</strong>dat once into Greek, often by Veronicianus, secretary to <strong>the</strong> imperialconsistory, though <strong>the</strong> interpreter is not always speciWed. Probablymany of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r bishops un<strong>de</strong>rstood some Latin, however imperfectly,although <strong>the</strong>re were only two bishops from <strong>the</strong> West apartdiVerent dioceses to prevent domination by any one episcopal interest group, with<strong>the</strong> result that a metropolitan might travel with some ‘reserves’. At First Ephesus, forexample, metropolitans had been invited by Emperor Theodosius to attend withlimited numbers of attendant bishops, although this was ignored by Cyril in particular;<strong>the</strong>re is, however, no evi<strong>de</strong>nce for such a provision at Chalcedon, and it is simplestto admit that numbers were much lower than claimed by <strong>the</strong> council’s supporters.]97 Cf. Priscus fr. 13.1.33–5 for arrangements at a banquet held by Attila.
300 Church Councilsfrom <strong>the</strong> papal legates.98 It is possible that at <strong>the</strong> third session, when<strong>the</strong> papal legates were in control, translations were not alwaysprovi<strong>de</strong>d: sometimes <strong>the</strong> involvement of an interpreter is noted(ACO ii.i.206, § 18), but <strong>the</strong> legates may have expected o<strong>the</strong>r Latinpronouncements to be un<strong>de</strong>rstood or have relied on Aetius, <strong>the</strong>arch<strong>de</strong>acon and chief notary, to enact <strong>the</strong>ir instructions or provi<strong>de</strong>suYcient paraphrase of <strong>the</strong>ir words to permit proceedings tocontinue (ACO ii.i.204–6, 211, §§ 4, 8–9, 42–3).After an exchange between <strong>the</strong> legates and <strong>the</strong> commissioners, inwhich <strong>the</strong> latter insisted that <strong>the</strong> speciWc charges against Dioscorus bestated, <strong>the</strong> plea for Dioscorus to be exclu<strong>de</strong>d was refused. It isprobable that <strong>the</strong> complete exchange was not recor<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> Acta,since <strong>the</strong>re are likely to have been fur<strong>the</strong>r interventions, including byDioscorus, before <strong>the</strong> commissioners adopted a sensible compromisewhich <strong>the</strong>y addressed to Dioscorus, ‘If you are acting as judge, youcannot in that capacity plead your cause’ (ACO ii.i.66, § 13):99Dioscorus would not be exclu<strong>de</strong>d, though also he would not sit asa full member of <strong>the</strong> council but in <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> two groups, asan accused person ra<strong>the</strong>r than a judge. The Pope’s representativeshad to accept this <strong>de</strong>cision, and business could continue once Dioscorushad moved to <strong>the</strong> middle ‘and <strong>the</strong> most <strong>de</strong>vout Roman bishopshad also sat down in <strong>the</strong>ir proper places and had ceased speaking’(ACO ii.i.66, § 14). The implication is that <strong>the</strong> papal representativeswere not best pleased with <strong>the</strong> result; in <strong>the</strong> brief tussle for control<strong>the</strong>y had failed to secure <strong>the</strong>ir wishes outright, while <strong>the</strong> commissionershad managed to keep <strong>the</strong> western <strong>de</strong>legates at Chalcedon and<strong>de</strong>monstrate <strong>the</strong>ir own superior authority. Thereupon Bishop Eusebiusof Dorylaeum, a very tough individual who had once been animperial agens in rebus,100 came forward to <strong>de</strong>nounce Dioscorus,98 Aurelius <strong>the</strong> African and Restitianus <strong>the</strong> African (ACO ii.i.64, § 3.341, 343),who may well have now been resi<strong>de</strong>nt in Constantinople, refugees from <strong>the</strong> ArianVandals; invitations had not been sent to western bishops apart from <strong>the</strong> Pope and hisrepresentatives. Note Schwartz’s observations in ACO ii.i, p. xv about <strong>the</strong> lack ofbilingual skills in <strong>the</strong> Church at this time.99 In <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>late</strong>r exchanges it is most unlikely that <strong>the</strong> Oriental bishops didnot chip in with some comments about <strong>the</strong>ir arch enemy or that <strong>the</strong> Egyptians didnot voice support for <strong>the</strong>ir lea<strong>de</strong>r.100 Collectio Avellana 99.4 (CSEL 35.1, p. 441); for <strong>the</strong> position, see Jones, LaterRoman Empire, 578–82.
The Council of Chalcedon 301accusing him of disgraceful behaviour at Second Ephesus and<strong>de</strong>manding that <strong>the</strong> Acta of that council should now be read out.After ano<strong>the</strong>r brief exchange <strong>the</strong> commissioners or<strong>de</strong>red this to bedone. The Acta began with <strong>the</strong> letter of Emperor Theodosius bywhich <strong>the</strong> council was convened and which en<strong>de</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> statementreferred to earlier that Theodoret should be exclu<strong>de</strong>d from <strong>the</strong>council at Ephesus unless it issued a speciWc invitation to him.I suggest that <strong>the</strong> reading of <strong>the</strong> letter in question, which convenientlyen<strong>de</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> question of Theodoret, had been agreed beforehandbetween Eusebius and <strong>the</strong> commissioners, since <strong>the</strong> latterpromptly interrupted and or<strong>de</strong>red that Theodoret should join <strong>the</strong>council: ‘Let <strong>the</strong> most <strong>de</strong>vout Theodoret enter and take part in <strong>the</strong>Council, since <strong>the</strong> most holy archbishop Leo has restored his see tohim, and <strong>the</strong> most divine and pious emperor has <strong>de</strong>creed his attendanceat <strong>the</strong> holy Council’ (ACO ii.i.69, § 26). Now <strong>the</strong> Pope, ofcourse, had no power to intervene in <strong>the</strong> aVairs of an eastern see,except in his own opinion of his universal rights and in so far aso<strong>the</strong>rs might Wnd it useful to invoke his prestige in <strong>the</strong>ir favour; hewas certainly a most useful ally now for <strong>the</strong> proponents of TwoNature Christology. The essential fact was that <strong>the</strong> commissionerswere able to report that <strong>the</strong> emperor had comman<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> admissionof Theodoret. The bishops on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r si<strong>de</strong>, who are <strong>de</strong>scribed asthose of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine, put up a <strong>de</strong>termined Wght,shouting ‘Have mercy, <strong>the</strong> faith is being <strong>de</strong>stroyed. The canonsexclu<strong>de</strong> him. Drive him out. Drive out <strong>the</strong> teacher of Nestorius’—<strong>the</strong> expression exō bale occurs no fewer than fourteen times at thispoint within about a single page of <strong>the</strong> Acta (ACO ii.i.69–70, §§27–40), as well as innumerable times <strong>late</strong>r on. Slogans were shoutedacross <strong>the</strong> Xoor from each si<strong>de</strong>. Theodoret’s opponents were furiousat hearing <strong>the</strong> commissioners accord him <strong>the</strong> title of bishop: ‘Do notcall him a bishop, he is no bishop. He is not a bishop. Drive out <strong>the</strong>enemy of God. Drive out <strong>the</strong> Jew’ (ACO ii.i.70, § 37); <strong>the</strong>y alsoappealed to <strong>the</strong> Augusta Pulcheria, hoping that she would continueto <strong>de</strong>monstrate hostility to Nestorians and not realizing where herallegiance now lay. The Orthodox group was equally violent in itslanguage in <strong>the</strong> opposite direction: ‘Drive out <strong>the</strong> Manichaeans.Drive out <strong>the</strong> enemies of Flavian. Drive out <strong>the</strong> enemies of <strong>the</strong>Faith’, ‘Drive out <strong>the</strong> mur<strong>de</strong>rer Dioscorus’ (ACO ii.i.69, §§ 28, 30).
302 Church Councils‘Jew’ and ‘Manichee’ were standard accusations to be exploitedagainst opponents,101 while Dioscorus could be held responsible for<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Flavian of Constantinople who succumbed while beingled oV into exile after Second Ephesus.Eventually <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners felt that <strong>the</strong>y had givensuYcient rein to <strong>the</strong> mutual animosity of <strong>the</strong> bishops. They insistedthat Theodoret should remain, which he did for <strong>the</strong> present, sittingin <strong>the</strong> middle in his capacity of accuser just as Dioscorus sat <strong>the</strong>re asan accused,102 and that <strong>the</strong> Acta of Second Ephesus should be read;Theodoret’s presence would not be prejudicial to anyone, sinceeveryone had free speech, while Maximus of Antioch could vouchfor his orthodoxy. After fur<strong>the</strong>r exchanges <strong>the</strong>y comman<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong>bishops to be silent, ‘These vulgar outbursts are not becoming tobishops, nor useful to ei<strong>the</strong>r party. Allow everything to be read’ (ACOii.i.70, §§ 35, 44). The Egyptians ma<strong>de</strong> one last eVort, pleading that<strong>the</strong>y would be silent if Theodoret alone were expelled: ‘Our interjectionsare in <strong>the</strong> cause of piety. We speak on behalf of <strong>the</strong> orthodoxfaith’—by which <strong>the</strong>y naturally meant <strong>the</strong>ir own belief in <strong>the</strong> OneNature in Christ. But <strong>the</strong> commissioners overro<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, ‘Let, ra<strong>the</strong>r,<strong>the</strong> hearing be conducted according to God, and allow everything tobe read in or<strong>de</strong>r’ (ACO ii.i.70, §§ 45–6). Long extracts from <strong>the</strong> Actaof Second Ephesus, mainly documents, were <strong>the</strong>n read out byConstantine, magistrianus and secretary to <strong>the</strong> imperial consistory.This revealed a story which reXected great discredit on many of <strong>the</strong>bishops now at Chalcedon, a fact which undoubtedly fur<strong>the</strong>r tilted<strong>the</strong> balance in favour of both <strong>the</strong> commissioners and <strong>the</strong> papallegates, since at Second Ephesus <strong>the</strong> pope’s representative Hilarywas perhaps <strong>the</strong> only participant to emerge with any credit.The complete rehabilitation of Theodoret was never going to bethwarted, but it was not until <strong>the</strong> eighth session on 26 October that<strong>the</strong> process was completed.103 Theodoret’s enemies did ensure that he101 Since Nestorians were alleged to reject <strong>the</strong> full divinity of Christ, to be called‘Jew’ appeared an appropriate insult (cf. Evagrius 1.2), whereas ‘Manichees’ whoaccepted that Christ was special but not equal to God was an insult applicable tothose who were believed to impugn <strong>the</strong> equality of Christ <strong>the</strong> Son with God <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r.102 Presumably Nestorius, if he had survived to obey <strong>the</strong> invitation to attend,would also have been placed in <strong>the</strong> middle to await a <strong>de</strong>cision.103 ACO ii.i, pp. 368–70 (Actio IX (Latin VIII), §§ 4–25).
The Council of Chalcedon 303was ma<strong>de</strong> to swallow a most bitter pill by having to pronounce anana<strong>the</strong>ma against his long-standing friend Nestorius. Theodoret wasmost reluctant to oblige, but as soon as he hesitated <strong>the</strong>re wereferocious cries, ‘This man is a heretic, a Nestorian. Drive out <strong>the</strong>heretic’ (exō bale again). Eventually he had to obey or<strong>de</strong>rs andpronounce a speciWc ana<strong>the</strong>ma against Nestorius (ACO ii.i.368,§ 13), at which point <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners immediatelyweighed in again, insisting that all doubts about Theodoret’s faithwere now removed; Theodoret <strong>the</strong>reafter remained back in post asbishop of Cyrrhus.Episcopal Decision-MakingA moment ago, when I skipped from <strong>the</strong> Wrst to a <strong>late</strong>r session of <strong>the</strong>council, I mentioned that a situation had been revealed at <strong>the</strong> Wrstsession which was most discreditable to many bishops. Chalcedonwitnessed extraordinary changes in <strong>the</strong> dogmatic position of dozensof bishops, which raises <strong>the</strong> question of how so many could bepersua<strong>de</strong>d to change <strong>the</strong>ir allegiance on such a crucial matter asChristology. The bishops known by name to have been present atSecond Ephesus have been shown by Honigmann to have numberedabout 145–50, <strong>de</strong>pending on how <strong>the</strong>y are counted.104 When Flavianof Constantinople was con<strong>de</strong>mned on 8 August, <strong>the</strong> only participantrecor<strong>de</strong>d as speaking against this verdict in <strong>the</strong> parts of <strong>the</strong> Actareread into those of Chalcedon was Hilary, <strong>the</strong> Roman <strong>de</strong>acon whowas <strong>the</strong>n Pope Leo’s legate and would succeed him as Pope in 461: <strong>the</strong>Greek Acta record him as saying kontradikitour, adding ‘that is todissent’ (ACO ii.i.191, § 964), after which he took refuge at <strong>the</strong> altar.Before <strong>the</strong> session on 22 August at which Theodoret and o<strong>the</strong>rbishops were con<strong>de</strong>mned, Hilary had pru<strong>de</strong>ntly <strong>de</strong>parted Ephesus;he <strong>late</strong>r claimed to have feared for his safety (Leo, Ep. 46). With thisexception (and Hilary was not at Chalcedon to take credit for hisprescience), <strong>the</strong> bishops unanimously accepted <strong>the</strong> One NatureChristology associated with Eutyches and Dioscorus, and supported<strong>the</strong> various con<strong>de</strong>mnations. Yet Honigmann has shown that <strong>the</strong> great104 E. Honigmann, ‘The Original Lists of <strong>the</strong> Members of <strong>the</strong> Council of Nicaea,<strong>the</strong> Robber Synod and <strong>the</strong> Council of Chalcedon’, Byzantion, 16 (1942/3), 20–80.
304 Church Councilsmajority of bishops at Second Ephesus, all but about twenty-six, werepresent or represented among <strong>the</strong> larger numbers at Chalcedon,where <strong>the</strong>y all, with <strong>the</strong> exception of Dioscorus, took <strong>the</strong> oppositeline. How many of this group can have been sincere on both occasions?It looks as though dozens of bishops, on one or o<strong>the</strong>r occasion,committed <strong>the</strong>mselves to a <strong>the</strong>ological position which <strong>the</strong>y did nothold and in<strong>de</strong>ed had regar<strong>de</strong>d as heretical immediately before <strong>the</strong>irchange of heart: such inconsistency would, surely, be fatal to <strong>the</strong>irchances of eternal life (see, for example, <strong>the</strong> story in Plērophories 9).One of those who changed <strong>the</strong>ir stance at Chalcedon, Theodore ofClaudiopolis, <strong>de</strong>scribed <strong>the</strong> pressures on bishops at Second Ephesus:<strong>the</strong>se arose partly through <strong>the</strong> fear that people who had receivedbaptism from <strong>the</strong>m would be ruined, partly because of confusedorganization which left many bishops uncertain of what was happening,and partly because of intimidation by Dioscorus’supporters—out of 135 bishops, 42 had been or<strong>de</strong>red to be silentand only 15 were left to oppose <strong>the</strong> actions of Dioscorus and Juvenal(ACO ii.i.76, § 62). Dioscorus was certainly a <strong>de</strong>termined lea<strong>de</strong>r for<strong>the</strong> council: not content with vocal support from <strong>the</strong> assembledbishops, at one point he <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d a show of hands to conWrmwhat was being said (ACO i.i.140, § 494), and all <strong>de</strong>cisions naturallyhad to be subscribed in due course.Respect for authority was one factor: as Theodore of Claudiopoliscontinued, ‘Dioscorus and Juvenal and all those who signed Wrst had,as orthodox, been entrusted by <strong>the</strong> master of <strong>the</strong> world with passingjudgement in matters of <strong>the</strong> faith. Plotting nefariously among <strong>the</strong>mselves,<strong>the</strong>y ma<strong>de</strong> us act as judges, who were sitting <strong>the</strong>re in allinnocence as men ignorant of <strong>the</strong> aVair’ (ACO ii.i.76, § 62): howcould a minor bishop oppose such lea<strong>de</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> Church? Even quitea prominent bishop could proclaim <strong>the</strong> need to follow authority:thus when Dioscorus accused Basil of Seleucia of failing to uphold hisbeliefs at Ephesus, ‘Have you, out of respect for human beings,transgressed what is correct and rejected <strong>the</strong> faith?’, Basil respon<strong>de</strong>dby emphasizing <strong>the</strong> importance of clerical obedience: ‘If I had beenup before secular oYcials I would have borne witness, for I displayedunfettered speech at Constantinople. But if one is judged by one’sfa<strong>the</strong>r, one cannot <strong>de</strong>fend oneself’ (ACO ii.i.94, §§ 179–80). Thisrespect is shown in some of <strong>the</strong> formulae used by subscribing
The Council of Chalcedon 305bishops, where <strong>the</strong> opinion of <strong>the</strong>ir metropolitan, or of leadingpatriarchs, might be cited: ‘It is a most pious rule that one mustobey <strong>the</strong> holy fa<strong>the</strong>rs and heed <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>de</strong>cisions . . .’, ‘I make <strong>the</strong> samejudgement as my metropolitan and <strong>the</strong> holy council . . .’ (ACOii.iii.312–13, 322, §§ 43, 130).105An emphatic exposition of <strong>the</strong> currently favoured doctrinal linewas ano<strong>the</strong>r factor, especially for bishops who were not expert in <strong>the</strong>intellectual gymnastics of advanced Christological <strong>de</strong>bate. At SecondEphesus Dioscorus forcefully pursued <strong>the</strong> plausible argument that itwas wrong to go beyond <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>Wnitions of Nicaea, Constantinople,and First Ephesus, an argument which clearly still resonated with <strong>the</strong>bishops at Chalcedon, since this explained <strong>the</strong>ir very reluctant acquiescencein <strong>the</strong> imperial instruction that a new creed be formu<strong>late</strong>d(ACO ii.i.274, §§ 5, 7).106 If patriarchs and metropolitans expressedsupport for a particular view, <strong>the</strong>n ordinary bishops were likely tofollow; consensus could be achieved by securing <strong>the</strong> support of arelatively small number of key participants. Even an individual withstrong views on <strong>the</strong> faith might be persua<strong>de</strong>d to adapt his terminologyif he had <strong>the</strong> chance to discuss issues in <strong>the</strong> presence ofsomeone in whom he had conW<strong>de</strong>nce, as <strong>the</strong> exchanges betweenEutyches and Florentius at Constantinople in April 448 illustrate:‘The most magniWcent and glorious ex-prefect, ex-consul and patricianFlorentius said: ‘‘Since <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r is consubstantial with us,<strong>the</strong>n in every way <strong>the</strong> Son is consubstantial with us.’’ Eutyches <strong>the</strong>presbyter said, ‘‘Till today I did not say this . . . Before I did notsay this of Him; I am saying to you what, I think, I did not sayoriginally. But now, since your Sacredness has said it, I say it’’’ (ACOii.i.139–44, §§ 478–545, quoting from 521–2).107 Florentius seems tohave been trying to encourage <strong>the</strong> assembly eVectively to leadEutyches through a series of stages <strong>de</strong>signed to produce an orthodox105 See above, nn. 56–7.106 As van Parys, ‘Council’, 309, notes, distaste for innovation was a powerfulconsi<strong>de</strong>ration, so that <strong>the</strong> alleged fear and coercion were not <strong>the</strong> only motivatingfactors at Second Ephesus. For a blanket <strong>de</strong>fence of that council, see Samuel,‘Proceedings’.107 Florentius’ intentions are ma<strong>de</strong> absolutely clear during <strong>the</strong> review of Flavian’sproceedings against Eutyches when, in addition to objecting to certain misrepresentationsof his words in <strong>the</strong> Acta, he explained ‘but because I saw everyone exertingpressure on him, I was urging him to give his assent’ (ACO ii.i.172, § 776).
306 Church Councilsconfession, though this was negated by <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>termination of Flavianand Eusebius to have Eutyches con<strong>de</strong>mned.Disorganization is ano<strong>the</strong>r issue noted by Theodore of Claudiopolis.We know ra<strong>the</strong>r little about <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>tailed procedure of a council.Proceedings were controlled by a presi<strong>de</strong>nt or presi<strong>de</strong>nts who should<strong>de</strong>termine <strong>the</strong> business of <strong>the</strong> day. Each session presumably beganwith a roll-call of those present, since <strong>the</strong> Acta for each session beginwith a list of names which does not necessarily tally exactly withthose who might <strong>late</strong>r subscribe <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions of that session. Participantswere seated, and usually ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir interventions while stillseated, since occasional exceptions are noted in <strong>the</strong> form that so-andso‘stood and spoke’ (ACO ii.i.144, § 546). Moments of high dramawere signalled by <strong>de</strong>partures from this norm, as when Eustathius ofBeirut leapt into <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> meeting, brandishing a book in anattempt to excuse his part in Second Ephesus (ACO ii.i.113, §265).108 Formal complaints or petitions were presented in writing,to be read by a notary, with <strong>the</strong> individual responsible being requiredto come forward into <strong>the</strong> middle, as Eusebius of Dorylaeum on <strong>the</strong>Wrst day at Chalcedon (ACO ii.i.66, §§ 14–15). Proposals to initiateaction or to read items into <strong>the</strong> Acta were usually ma<strong>de</strong> by metropolitanbishops, ano<strong>the</strong>r example of <strong>the</strong> importance of seniority.Exchanges must often have been quite rowdy, with two or moreopposed groups chanting and individuals also attempting to make<strong>the</strong>mselves heard. Although it might sometimes have been convenientto plead <strong>de</strong>afness, <strong>the</strong>re is consi<strong>de</strong>rable plausibility in <strong>the</strong> excuseof Bishop Julian, ‘Because <strong>the</strong>re was an uproar I don’t remember whosaid it’ (ACO ii.i.175, § 814).The presiding oYcials <strong>de</strong>termined <strong>the</strong> agenda for each day. Thus atSecond Ephesus Dioscorus wanted <strong>the</strong> issue of <strong>the</strong> Faith, whichinclu<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> review of Flavian’s con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Eutyches, consi<strong>de</strong>redWrst, and he was able to secure this through pointing to <strong>the</strong>imperial instructions which had convened <strong>the</strong> council (ACOii.i.86–7, §§ 116–20; cf. 221). This permitted him to eva<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue108 [This suggestion is not very plausible, since in a meeting of several hundredbishops and attendants it would have been very diYcult for a prospective speaker toattract <strong>the</strong> attention of <strong>the</strong> presiding commission or to make himself heard to <strong>the</strong>often noisy multitu<strong>de</strong>.]
The Council of Chalcedon 307of Leo’s Tome while appearing not to reject it (ACO ii.i.83, §§ 84–5).At Chalcedon, however, when Dioscorus appears to have embarkedupon a similar strategy by <strong>de</strong>manding that <strong>the</strong> Faith be <strong>de</strong>alt withWrst (ACO ii.i.67, § 21), his request was ignored; similarly whenDioscorus knew that proceedings were going against him, and hesuggested an adjournment on <strong>the</strong> grounds that ‘your magniWcence istired’, which must refer to <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners, <strong>the</strong> proposalwas also disregar<strong>de</strong>d (ACO ii.i.180–1, § 862). Any control over whospoke and in what or<strong>de</strong>r must have been vested in <strong>the</strong> presi<strong>de</strong>nts. Onoccasions <strong>the</strong>y might direct questions at speciWc participants, aswhen Dioscorus challenged one of <strong>the</strong> papal representatives, Julian,to approve procedures at Second Ephesus, or <strong>the</strong> commissioners atChalcedon <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d a response from Dioscorus (ACO ii.i.99, 112,§§ 217, 259); but overall <strong>the</strong>y probably had less chance of regulatingongoing discussions than <strong>the</strong> Speaker on a most ill-tempered Houseof Commons occasion. A well-timed intervention might focusbishops’ attention on a particularly important issue, as when <strong>the</strong>imperial commissioners directed <strong>the</strong> council to give its views on <strong>the</strong>orthodoxy of Flavian’s faith (ACO ii.i.114, § 272), an initiative whichtriggered <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>sertion of most of Dioscorus’ supporters. Someadvance preparation would also have been useful, and it has alreadybeen suggested that <strong>the</strong> commissioners at Chalcedon may haveagreed tactics with Eusebius of Dorylaeum to ensure that <strong>the</strong> issueof Theodoret’s presence was introduced; at First Ephesus two collectionswere read out to provi<strong>de</strong> examples of orthodox doctrine from<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>rs and <strong>the</strong>n of Nestorian errors, and <strong>the</strong>se had clearly beenprepared well before <strong>the</strong> proposal by Flavian of Philippi that <strong>the</strong>y beread (ACO i.i.2.39–52, §§ 59–60).109 On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, suchpreliminary work might appear to pre-empt discussion in <strong>the</strong> council:in 449 Flavian of Constantinople was accused of drawing up <strong>the</strong>sentence of <strong>de</strong>position against Eutyches in advance of <strong>the</strong> meeting of22 November 448 (ACO ii.i.177–9, §§ 829–49).This confusion ma<strong>de</strong> control of <strong>the</strong> recording of a council justas important for its eventual outcome as <strong>the</strong> or<strong>de</strong>ring of actual109 On <strong>the</strong> Wrst day at Chalcedon Dioscorus had clearly prepared a dossier ofpatristic texts to support his doctrinal position (ACO ii.i.117, § 299), although he didnot have <strong>the</strong> chance to read <strong>the</strong>se into <strong>the</strong> record.
308 Church Councilsproceedings, and we have evi<strong>de</strong>nce for several challenges to <strong>the</strong>accuracy of <strong>the</strong> formal Acta which suggest that everything was notalways precisely agreed.110 A perfect record was not easy to achieve.Aetius, who served as senior notary during Flavian’s investigation ofEutyches, subsequently had to <strong>de</strong>fend his record against chargesof falsiWcation by Eutyches and his supporters (ACO ii.i.153–76, §§576–827). Aetius admitted that it often happened that a remarkma<strong>de</strong> by one bishop, or only by one or two, was recor<strong>de</strong>d as a cryof <strong>the</strong> whole synod (ACO ii.i.170–1, § 767); proceedings sometimesbecame heated, and it must have been almost impossible for <strong>the</strong>notaries to sort out exactly what was being said by whom, and byhow many, and in what or<strong>de</strong>r. Aetius also pointed to ano<strong>the</strong>r sourceof distortion when he was challenged over <strong>the</strong> omission of somecomments which narrowed <strong>the</strong> gap between Eutyches and <strong>the</strong> orthodox:‘Many remarks are ma<strong>de</strong> in councils by <strong>the</strong> most God-belovedbishops in <strong>the</strong> course of general discussion and by way of advicewhich <strong>the</strong>y do not permit to be written down’ (ACO ii.i.173, §792).111 Interventions might also be wrongly attributed: Florentiuscomplained that he had been allocated one statement that he had notma<strong>de</strong> since it was not his business to pronounce on matters ofdoctrine, and that in spite of a request to be shown <strong>the</strong> Acta he hadnever received <strong>the</strong>m (ACO ii.i.172, §§ 778, 781). It seems that <strong>the</strong>party in control of a synod, unless <strong>the</strong>re was an exceptional arrangementfor <strong>the</strong> ratiWcation of all comments as at Carthage in 411, hadconsi<strong>de</strong>rable control over what was distributed as <strong>the</strong> acceptedaccount of proceedings, with some material being struck out if itdid not accord with <strong>the</strong> overall objectives of those in control andwords being attributed, perhaps even maliciously, to some who werenot given <strong>the</strong> chance to check <strong>the</strong> record.110 Most revealing for <strong>the</strong> diYcult position of ordinary bishops caught up in <strong>the</strong>rapid changes is <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> unfortunate Ae<strong>the</strong>rius of Smyrna: he was on record asparticipating in <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation of Eutychius at Constantinople in 448, but he <strong>the</strong>n<strong>de</strong>nied this in a ra<strong>the</strong>r disjointed exchange with Dioscorus at Ephesus; at Chalcedon heattempted a fur<strong>the</strong>r exculpation of his behaviour (ACO ii.i.118–19, §§ 308–29). Basilof Seleucia was ano<strong>the</strong>r bishop in a diYcult position (ACO ii.i.179–80, §§ 851–7).111 At Constantinople in 449 <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>acon Constantine asked ‘that my words about arule of faith be erased. I uttered <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong> midst of <strong>the</strong> uproar without beingconscious of what I was saying’ (ACO ii.i.157, § 624).
The Council of Chalcedon 309With regard to Second Ephesus, in a signiWcant exchange triggeredby an objection on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> Eastern bishops at Chalcedon to achant attributed to <strong>the</strong> whole council in 449, Dioscorus was able to<strong>de</strong>monstrate that his notaries112 had not been <strong>the</strong> only ones to keep arecord: ‘Look <strong>the</strong> notary of Bishop Juvenal kept a record, as did <strong>the</strong>notary of Bishop Thalassius and that of <strong>the</strong> bishop of Corinth. Was itonly mine?’ But, at <strong>the</strong> prompting of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, <strong>the</strong>imperial commissioners asked <strong>Ste</strong>phen of Ephesus about his notariesand he claimed that his men had been displaced: ‘My notaries—Julian who is now <strong>the</strong> most <strong>de</strong>vout bishop of Lebedos and <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>aconCrispinus—were keeping a record but <strong>the</strong> notaries of <strong>the</strong> most<strong>de</strong>vout bishop Dioscorus came and erased <strong>the</strong>ir tablets, and almostbroke <strong>the</strong>ir Wngers in <strong>the</strong> attempt to snatch <strong>the</strong>ir pens. I didn’t getcopies of <strong>the</strong> minutes and I don’t know what happened next, but on<strong>the</strong> very day <strong>the</strong> investigation took place we signed <strong>the</strong> sheet and <strong>the</strong>bishops who had not signed it did so un<strong>de</strong>r my guarantee on <strong>the</strong>following day’ (ACO ii.i.87–8, §§ 121–30). It would appear that <strong>the</strong>host bishop had some responsibility to provi<strong>de</strong> professionalrecor<strong>de</strong>rs for <strong>the</strong> diYcult task of compiling an agreed record, though<strong>the</strong> presi<strong>de</strong>nt also had an interest;113 Dioscorus, while permitting112 Later Dioscorus admitted in passing that his notary Demetrianus was incontrol of <strong>the</strong> record when he accused Basil of Seleucia of secretly asking <strong>the</strong> latterto have <strong>the</strong> record changed (ACO ii.i.179–80, § 854).113 Procedures are revealed in <strong>the</strong> Acta of a meeting at Carthage in 411 betweenCatholics and Donatists, even though this event assumed <strong>the</strong> character of a formalcourt case ra<strong>the</strong>r than a standard church council: text by S. Lancel, Actes <strong>de</strong> laConférence <strong>de</strong> Carthage en 411 (3 vols. Sources chrétiennes 194, 195, 224; Paris,1972, 1975); also, i<strong>de</strong>m, in Corpus <strong>Christian</strong>orum Series Latina 149A (Turnhout,1974); discussion of proceedings in M. A. Tilley, ‘Dilatory Donatists or ProcrastinatingCatholics: The Trial at <strong>the</strong> Conference of Carthage’, Church History, 60 (1991),7–19; also B. D. Shaw, ‘African <strong>Christian</strong>ity: Disputes, DeWnitions and ‘‘Donatists’’ ’,in M. R. Greenshields and T. A. Robinson (eds.), Orthodoxy and Heresy in ReligiousMovements: Discipline and Dissent (Lampeter, 1992), 5–34; repr. in his Rulers,Nomads and <strong>Christian</strong>s in Roman North Africa (London, 1995). The tribune and notaryMarcellinus—ano<strong>the</strong>r example of a presi<strong>de</strong>nt with pronounced (anti-Donatist)views—was put in charge by Emperor Honorius, and he provi<strong>de</strong>d lay notaries,while <strong>the</strong> two si<strong>de</strong>s each produced four notaries of <strong>the</strong>ir own; <strong>the</strong>se were divi<strong>de</strong>dinto teams to ensure <strong>the</strong>re were no breaks in <strong>the</strong> shorthand record, and <strong>the</strong> process ofrewriting <strong>the</strong> shorthand notes into a longhand record was supervised by two bishopsfrom each party. A day was left vacant between each meeting to permit <strong>the</strong> full recordto be prepared, but even this was insuYcient since at <strong>the</strong> start of <strong>the</strong> second sessionsome of <strong>the</strong> material was still in shorthand. Once <strong>the</strong> longhand version was ready,
310 Church Councilssome of his allies to keep <strong>the</strong>ir own notaries, had ensured his personalcontrol of <strong>the</strong> crucial account.As an example of possible changes, in <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> Wrstsession at Chalcedon <strong>the</strong> Eastern bishops protested that <strong>the</strong>y hadhad no part in some violent expressions of hatred against Eusebius ofDorylaeum, who had led <strong>the</strong> attacks on Eutyches in 448: <strong>the</strong> Acta ofSecond Ephesus recor<strong>de</strong>d that ‘The holy council said, ‘‘Destroy andburn Eusebius. Burn him alive. May he be split in two. As he hasdivi<strong>de</strong>d, let him be divi<strong>de</strong>d’’ ’ (ACO ii.i.140, § 491), a reference to <strong>the</strong>One Nature of Christ as upheld by <strong>the</strong> Monophysites being divi<strong>de</strong>dinto <strong>the</strong> Two Natures not only of <strong>the</strong> ‘Orthodox’ but also of <strong>the</strong>Nestorians; however, at Chalcedon <strong>the</strong> Eastern bishops asserted,somewhat confusedly, ‘No one said this. Dioscorus said it. TheEgyptians said it’, an accusation which <strong>the</strong> Egyptian bishops werehappy to accept (ACO ii.i.140–1, §§ 496–7). The chant had clearlybeen voiced at Ephesus, but <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>gree of support for it had beenexaggerated in <strong>the</strong> oYcial account. Recording proceedings was anextremely challenging task, and <strong>the</strong> professional skill of Greek shorthandwriters who struggled to distil <strong>the</strong> essence of a mass of confusedcries <strong>de</strong>serves our admiration.114Intimidation, however, is <strong>the</strong> most common <strong>de</strong>fence used toexplain <strong>the</strong> changes of mind, and has already been noted in connectionwith <strong>the</strong> accuracy of <strong>the</strong> Acta. Early in <strong>the</strong> Wrst session, whenTheodoret entered, <strong>the</strong> Egyptians contributed a couple of exō balesto express <strong>the</strong>ir disgust at <strong>the</strong> appearance of this heretic, but <strong>the</strong>Easterners and <strong>the</strong>ir allies respon<strong>de</strong>d: ‘We signed blank sheets.We suVered blows and we signed’ (eis agrapha hupergrapsamen.each bishop signed every remark he had ma<strong>de</strong>, an unusual precaution but sensible in<strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong> highly contentious nature of this <strong>de</strong>bate. Detailed discussion of <strong>the</strong>production of <strong>the</strong> record in E. Tengström, Die Protokollierung <strong>de</strong>r Collatio Carthaginensis:Beiträge zur Kenntnis <strong>de</strong>r römischen Kurzschrift nebst einem Exkurs über dasWort scheda (schedula) (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 14, 1961).114 [Experience of <strong>the</strong> production of <strong>the</strong> record of Parliamentary proceedings in<strong>the</strong> UK indicates that, even with <strong>the</strong> help of tape recordings, it can be diYcult toproduce a complete and accurate record: for example, heavy regional accents, especiallyin a noisy session, are diYcult to transcribe. Deliberate change is not impossible:on one occasion when an un<strong>de</strong>r-prepared Minister answered a straight yes/noquestion <strong>the</strong> wrong way round, <strong>the</strong> record was adapted to ensure that <strong>the</strong> correctinformation was preserved in <strong>the</strong> published proceedings.]
The Council of Chalcedon 311Etuptēthēmen kai hupergrapsamen).115 And <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y too go intoseries of exō bales against Manichees, <strong>the</strong> enemies of Flavian and<strong>the</strong> enemies of <strong>the</strong> faith (ACO ii.i.69, §§ 27–8). There can be nodoubt that some essential information has been left out of <strong>the</strong> Actahere, doubtless owing to <strong>the</strong> fearful episcopal hubbub in this Wrstsession of <strong>the</strong> council, since <strong>the</strong> Eastern bishops were trying to excuse<strong>the</strong>mselves by pointing to <strong>the</strong> compulsion <strong>the</strong>y had been un<strong>de</strong>rwhen, so far as <strong>the</strong> Acta of Chalcedon are concerned, no accusationhad been brought against <strong>the</strong>m.116 Apparently Dioscorus and hissupporters had been pointing out, quite correctly, that <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnationsof Theodoret and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs had been unanimous,117 whichwould have inclu<strong>de</strong>d support from some of <strong>the</strong> Eastern bishops nowfavouring his readmission at Chalcedon; as a result <strong>the</strong> unfortunateEasterners, dismayed at <strong>the</strong>ir own cowardice at Second Ephesus,118but now eager to exculpate <strong>the</strong>mselves and place <strong>the</strong>mselves securelyon what would be <strong>the</strong> winning si<strong>de</strong>, had to explain <strong>the</strong>ir behaviour.They knew <strong>the</strong>y had uttered, or at least signed up to, <strong>the</strong>ologicalexpressions which <strong>the</strong>y had imperfectly un<strong>de</strong>rstood and never perhapsreally held, but now wanted to repudiate everything <strong>the</strong>y hadsaid or subscribed, to secure forgiveness and be allowed to retain<strong>the</strong>ir bishoprics. The beneWts to be gained at Chalcedon fromallegations of intimidation at Second Ephesus mean that <strong>the</strong>seshould be investigated critically ra<strong>the</strong>r than accepted as self-evi<strong>de</strong>ntlytrue, which is <strong>the</strong> usual verdict.115 Few, if any parts of <strong>the</strong> Acta of Chalcedon are as dramatic as <strong>the</strong>se twosentences, brilliant summaries of what must have been a scarcely intelligible babbleof emotional cries.116 Samuel, ‘Proceedings’, 329–30, is suspicious about <strong>the</strong> accusation of signingblank sheets, on <strong>the</strong> grounds that <strong>the</strong> charge does not appear in Eusebius of Dorylaeum’sWrst indictment of Dioscorus and is not mentioned in any of <strong>the</strong> reactions toSecond Ephesus before this Wrst day at Chalcedon. However, this justiWcation onlybecame relevant to excusing <strong>the</strong> bishops’ behaviour at Ephesus when <strong>the</strong>y werepressed to explain <strong>the</strong>ir changes of mind at Chalcedon.117 We only have <strong>the</strong> incomplete record in <strong>the</strong> Syriac Acta for <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnationson 22 Aug. 449 but <strong>the</strong>re is no reason to question that <strong>the</strong>y were in<strong>de</strong>ed agreedunanimously by all those present.118 [The use of <strong>the</strong> words ‘at <strong>the</strong>ir own cowardice’ does reveal that <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> couldslip into <strong>the</strong> traditional assumption that Second Ephesus was in<strong>de</strong>ed a latrociniumwhere many bishops felt unable to uphold <strong>the</strong>ir ‘real’ views.]
312 Church CouncilsIn <strong>the</strong> standard Orthodox picture we are presented with one greatvillain, Dioscorus, who behaved in <strong>the</strong> most arbitrary and tyrannicalway at Second Ephesus. It is worth remembering, however, that hehad presi<strong>de</strong>d by imperial command, and that whatever intimidationactually occurred was supported by Helpidius and Eulogius, <strong>the</strong> twocounts provi<strong>de</strong>d by Emperor Theodosius to keep or<strong>de</strong>r if necessary.Since imperial objectives coinci<strong>de</strong>d with those of <strong>the</strong> leading bishops<strong>the</strong>re could be little doubt over <strong>the</strong> outcome: it was Helpidius whorelayed <strong>the</strong> imperial instruction that Eusebius of Dorylaeum shouldnot be permitted to attend, and who controlled <strong>the</strong> or<strong>de</strong>r of businessin such a way that <strong>the</strong> letter of Pope Leo, <strong>the</strong> future Tome of Leo atChalcedon, was not presented to <strong>the</strong> council in spite of <strong>the</strong> protests of<strong>the</strong> papal representatives (ACO ii.i.97–9, §§ 197–222). These<strong>de</strong>cisions suited Dioscorus’ purpose, though at Chalcedon it wasconvenient for him to stress <strong>the</strong> dominance of <strong>the</strong> secular controller(ACO ii.i.96–7, §§ 189, 193). With regard to <strong>the</strong> subscriptions <strong>the</strong>Eastern bishops at Chalcedon asserted that ‘Soldiers with clubs andswords stood by, and we took fright at <strong>the</strong> clubs and swords. We wereintimidated into signing. Where <strong>the</strong>re are soldiers and clubs, whatkind of Council is it? This is why he [Dioscorus] accepted soldiers’(ACO ii.i.75, § 54; cf. ACO ii.i.180, §§ 858, 861). Coercion exten<strong>de</strong>dbeyond <strong>the</strong> meetings according to <strong>Ste</strong>phen of Ephesus, who referredto a band of Eutyches’ monks and of soldiers led by <strong>the</strong> imperialrepresentatives Helpidius and Eulogius that marched on his episcopalpalace to <strong>de</strong>nounce his reception of some of those now<strong>de</strong>clared heretical (ACO ii.i.75, § 58).119Dioscorus certainly contributed his share to <strong>the</strong> coercion. Hecontrolled <strong>the</strong> record and ensured that <strong>the</strong> necessary subscriptionswere provi<strong>de</strong>d, as already noted, and he had also arranged for <strong>the</strong>council to be atten<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong> zealous Syrian archimandriteBarsauma, who spoke only Syriac and so would not have been ableto contribute much to doctrinal discussions. Barsauma’s role,however, was more physical in that he was said by <strong>the</strong> Orthodox119 I would stress that I am very distrustful of anything said by <strong>Ste</strong>phen, who isrevealed, especially by <strong>the</strong> Syriac Acta, to have taken a positively enthusiastic part inSecond Ephesus in <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation of several orthodox bishops, being one of <strong>the</strong>Wrst bishops to oVer <strong>the</strong>ir opinion on several key issues. Inevitably <strong>the</strong> full evi<strong>de</strong>ncefor this behaviour was not inclu<strong>de</strong>d among <strong>the</strong> sections recited at Chalcedon.
The Council of Chalcedon 313bishops at Chalcedon to have ‘brought a thousand monks against us’(ACO ii.i.312, § 78);120 according to Diogenes of Cyzicus, ano<strong>the</strong>rvery unreliable witness to my mind, he was anxious to mur<strong>de</strong>rFlavian of Constantinople (ACO ii.i.312, § 77). Two Orthodoxbishops, Onesiphorus of Iconium and Marinianus of Synnada,drew a particularly vivid picture of Dioscorus seeking to enforcegeneral conformity with his wishes by exclaiming, ‘Call <strong>the</strong> counts’,‘Bring <strong>the</strong> counts here’, dos tous komētas (ACO ii.i.180–1, §§ 858–61).According to <strong>the</strong>se two bishops <strong>the</strong> counts <strong>the</strong>n brought in <strong>the</strong>irsoldiers with weapons, and <strong>the</strong>se were accompanied by <strong>the</strong> Proconsulof Asia with attendants and chains; Barsauma and his monks were<strong>the</strong>re too, and even <strong>the</strong> fearsome parabalani of Alexandria (ACOii.i.179, § 851). At this point all <strong>the</strong> bishops signed up.Dioscorus, however, <strong>de</strong>nied all <strong>the</strong>se allegations, and <strong>the</strong> parts of<strong>the</strong> Acta of Second Ephesus read out at Chalcedon, unsurprisingly,contain no evi<strong>de</strong>nce for such coercion, nor do <strong>the</strong> discussions preservedin <strong>the</strong> Syriac Acta. Which si<strong>de</strong> was telling <strong>the</strong> truth is diYcultto tell, but <strong>the</strong> accumulation of accusations of intimidation maycontain an element of ‘overkill’. This might have been sensed by <strong>the</strong>imperial commissioners. On several occasions <strong>the</strong> ‘turncoat’ bishopscollectively or individually expressed <strong>the</strong>ir repentance: ‘We all sinned,we all beg forgiveness.’ At one point <strong>the</strong> commissioners respon<strong>de</strong>dra<strong>the</strong>r sharply, ‘Yet you <strong>de</strong>clared earlier that you were forced byviolence and compulsion to sign <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>position of Flavian of sacredmemory on a blank sheet.’ The implication was that <strong>the</strong> bishopswould not be acknowledging a sin if <strong>the</strong>y had really been intimidated;to this challenge <strong>the</strong> Eastern bishops could only respond withano<strong>the</strong>r round of ‘Sin and Forgiveness’ (ACO ii.i.94, §§ 181–4).121One approach to <strong>de</strong>termining <strong>the</strong> truth of accusations of intimidationmight be to consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> representation of Chalcedon in120 [The thousands of monks may have been mobilized against episcopal opponentsin Syria, ra<strong>the</strong>r than at Second Ephesus, but he is very likely to have broughtsome monastic supporters with him.]121 Samuel, ‘Proceedings’, interpreted this second apology as a sign that <strong>the</strong>bishops were indicating acknowledgement of <strong>the</strong> falsehood of <strong>the</strong> accusation about‘blank sheets’, for which <strong>the</strong>y now apologized to <strong>the</strong> commissioners, but that seemstoo precise a reading. The bishops might well have felt, or at least wanted to convey<strong>the</strong> impression that <strong>the</strong>y admitted, that <strong>the</strong>y might have put up more resistance atSecond Ephesus.
314 Church CouncilsMonophysite tradition. Monophysite writers had to explain whymost bishops accepted <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions of <strong>the</strong> council, and it wouldhave served <strong>the</strong>ir purpose to un<strong>de</strong>rline <strong>the</strong> wickedness of Marcianand Pulcheria by pointing to any violence <strong>the</strong>y may have applied to<strong>the</strong> Church. Compulsion is mentioned, but only in general terms, inZachariah’s Ecclesiastical History, where <strong>the</strong> bishops are said to haveaccepted Theodoret’s presence because of royal authority and to havesubscribed un<strong>de</strong>r compulsion (3.1). The Life of Dioscorus also statesthat imperial pressure had to be applied to secure episcopal agreement,though <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>scription of Dioscorus’ <strong>de</strong>alings with <strong>the</strong> imperialpair focuses as much on Pulcheria’s attempted seduction as onMarcian’s exhortation to follow <strong>the</strong> primacy of Rome. In <strong>the</strong>Plērophories most criticism is directed at <strong>the</strong> bishops <strong>the</strong>mselves:Satan predicted that <strong>the</strong> bishops at <strong>the</strong> council would adore him,while Abba Andrew had a vision in which <strong>the</strong> bishops symbolicallyrecruciWed Christ by throwing a pure child into a furnace, a performancefrom which only <strong>the</strong> upright Dioscorus abstained (9, 14).There is a signiWcant diVerence between <strong>the</strong>se texts and what was saidabout physical compulsion at Second Ephesus.In many respects Dioscorus was a convenient scapegoat whoseguilt cleared all o<strong>the</strong>r participants at Second Ephesus. This is certainly<strong>the</strong> line which Thalassius of Caesarea pursued when attempting to<strong>de</strong>fend his role in <strong>the</strong> lea<strong>de</strong>rship at Second Ephesus: ‘I was named in<strong>the</strong> sacra, but I did not know why. . .’, ‘I only know that I did notprevent it, and that I did not have suYcient authority by myself toinsist on <strong>the</strong> reading’, ‘I was not responsible.’122 Dioscorus is acharacter who often evokes <strong>de</strong>testation, with even Norman Baynes,a scholar seldom given to <strong>de</strong>nunciation, referring to him as ‘<strong>the</strong> Attilaof <strong>the</strong> Eastern Church’, with <strong>the</strong> additional comment that ‘This issurely an insult to Attila.’123 The only sympa<strong>the</strong>tic verdict that I havecome across in mo<strong>de</strong>rn literature is that of Otto Seeck, who <strong>de</strong>scribesDioscorus at Chalcedon as <strong>the</strong> one man who ‘behaved like a man inthis collection of howling old women’.124 Among contemporaries122 ACO ii.i.76, 85, 97, §§ 61, 106, 191; <strong>the</strong> commissioners may have tired of suchevasion, since <strong>the</strong> last plea drew <strong>the</strong> sharp response, ‘When <strong>the</strong> faith is being <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d,this is no excuse’ (§ 192).123 Baynes, ‘Alexandria’, 114.124 O. Seeck, Geschichte <strong>de</strong>s Untergangs <strong>de</strong>r antiken Welt, vi (1920), i. 274. Partisanwriters such as Samuel also, naturally, praise Dioscorus.
The Council of Chalcedon 315sources from <strong>the</strong> Monophysite communities naturally upheld hisreputation. The Life of Dioscorus shows that he could evoke <strong>de</strong>epadmiration among his followers, but this text is rarely noticed, whilevarious stories in <strong>the</strong> Plērophories of John Rufus show Dioscorus as alone hero at <strong>the</strong> council, with Timothy Aelurus as his one loyalfollower (14). Dioscorus certainly did not lack courage. Of <strong>the</strong>lea<strong>de</strong>rs at Second Ephesus all except Dioscorus, who alone neverrecanted, were pardoned and reinstated during <strong>the</strong> fourth session;<strong>the</strong>y had confronted <strong>the</strong> choice between loss of position, along withall <strong>the</strong> beneWts that lea<strong>de</strong>rship of a large and rich see could bring, andacceptance of <strong>the</strong> new or<strong>de</strong>r. Juvenal of Jerusalem was a very politicalanimal and managed to negotiate a reasonably good result for himselfand his see, with a separate patriarchal jurisdiction for Jerusalembeing agreed on 23 October and ratiWed by <strong>the</strong> full council on <strong>the</strong>26th (ACO ii.i.109–10, §§ 11–18; ii.i.364–6, §§ 3–17).125 Thalassiusof Caesarea and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs were much weaker individuals, and hadprobably been as ineVectual at Second Ephesus as <strong>the</strong>y were atChalcedon.126 Dioscorus’ Egyptian followers also failed to matchhis courage. Early in <strong>the</strong> Wrst session at Chalcedon <strong>the</strong> Egyptianbishops cried out, ‘Bring Wre and we’ll show you’ (ACO ii.i.76, §64), but <strong>the</strong>y were bluYng: even <strong>the</strong>se Egyptians eventually changedallegiance without <strong>the</strong>re being, on this occasion, any explicit threat ofphysical violence:127 four of <strong>the</strong> bishops abandoned Dioscorus on <strong>the</strong>Wrst day (ACO ii.i.116, §§ 293–6), while <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, after failing toattend <strong>the</strong> third session and oppose <strong>the</strong> attack on <strong>the</strong>ir lea<strong>de</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>napproached <strong>the</strong> council in <strong>the</strong> fourth session in an attempt toaccommodate <strong>the</strong>mselves to <strong>the</strong> world after Dioscorus (see below).The power of an almighty state was irresistible.It is worth remembering that pressures were created not onlyinsi<strong>de</strong> a council and by those present, but that bishops might alsohave to answer back home to <strong>the</strong> clergy and laity of <strong>the</strong>ir diocese.This is revealed by a particularly vivid and arresting scene at Chalcedon,which occupies some four and a half pages of <strong>the</strong> Acta of <strong>the</strong>125 On this see Honigmann, ‘Juvenal’, 245–6.126 Thalassius was ano<strong>the</strong>r bishop to have been involved in proceedings at Constantinoplein 448–9 as well as Second Ephesus and Chalcedon; he appears to havefollowed whatever position was currently dominant (e.g. ACO ii.i.157, §§ 626–7).127 Twelve centuries <strong>late</strong>r Galileo at least had to be shown <strong>the</strong> instruments oftorture by ano<strong>the</strong>r all-powerful <strong>Christian</strong> tribunal.
316 Church Councilsfourth session (ACO ii.i.306–10, §§ 19–62, esp. 48–58). It begins with<strong>the</strong> announcement by <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners that <strong>the</strong>y hadreceived a petition to <strong>the</strong> emperor, signed by thirteen Egyptianbishops, on behalf of all <strong>the</strong> bishops of Egypt. Apart from <strong>the</strong> thirteen<strong>the</strong>re were ano<strong>the</strong>r four Egyptians who had already, literally, crossed<strong>the</strong> Xoor during <strong>the</strong> Wrst session and thus gone publicly over to <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r si<strong>de</strong>, <strong>the</strong> ‘Orthodox’, but <strong>the</strong>se thirteen had not yet publiclydisowned Dioscorus, who had Wnally been <strong>de</strong>posed at <strong>the</strong> previoussession (numbered 2 in <strong>the</strong> Greek Acta).128 These bishops wereterriWed of what might happen to <strong>the</strong>m when <strong>the</strong>y returned homeand it became known that <strong>the</strong>y had <strong>de</strong>parted from <strong>the</strong> Alexandrian<strong>the</strong>ological position and abandoned Dioscorus, doing what everyoneelse at Chalcedon, except Dioscorus, had done: namely, if <strong>the</strong>ysubscribed <strong>the</strong> Tome of Leo, who had been ana<strong>the</strong>matized by Dioscorus,and ana<strong>the</strong>matized Eutyches whom Dioscorus had welcomedback into <strong>the</strong> orthodox communion at Second Ephesus. The Egyptianswere quite willing to hand out o<strong>the</strong>r ana<strong>the</strong>mas and doanything else which <strong>the</strong> council <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d, but <strong>the</strong>se two things<strong>the</strong>y simply could not aVord to do, <strong>the</strong>y said, until a new patriarchhad been installed in Alexandria, a man who would be able to telleveryone what <strong>the</strong> True Faith now was. Eventually <strong>the</strong>y gave way onEutyches, and duly ana<strong>the</strong>matized him, but <strong>the</strong>y continued to refuseto endorse <strong>the</strong> Tome of <strong>the</strong> Pope who had been ana<strong>the</strong>matized by<strong>the</strong>ir patriarch.All <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r bishops in <strong>the</strong> council were insistent that thisconciliatory move was not enough, and that <strong>the</strong> wretched Egyptiansshould be excommunicated; but <strong>the</strong> latter prostrated <strong>the</strong>mselvesbefore <strong>the</strong> bishops, throwing <strong>the</strong>mselves on <strong>the</strong> council’s mercy andbegging for pity on <strong>the</strong>ir grey hairs: ‘By your feet’, nai tōn podōnhumōn, <strong>the</strong>y keep saying. This continues in a highly emotional vein,because, as <strong>the</strong> Egyptians repeat again and again, <strong>the</strong>ir congregationswould simply kill <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y went home having in eVect apostatizedfrom <strong>the</strong> True Faith before <strong>the</strong>re was a new patriarch in Alexandriawho alone could save <strong>the</strong>m by giving an authoritative new expositionof that Faith. Eventually it was <strong>the</strong> imperial commissioners, in128 There were, of course, many o<strong>the</strong>r Egyptian bishops who had not come toChalcedon.
The Council of Chalcedon 317ano<strong>the</strong>r display of <strong>the</strong>ir superior authority, who produced a reasonablesolution, against <strong>the</strong> whole weight of episcopal opinion whoseintolerance might in part reXect <strong>the</strong> zeal of recent conversion, sincenot one bishop is recor<strong>de</strong>d as expressing any sympathy for <strong>the</strong>Egyptians’ plight. The commissioners very sensibly <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that <strong>the</strong>Egyptians could stay at Constantinople until a new patriarch wasinstalled at Alexandria (ACO ii.i.310, § 60). This story is mostinformative about <strong>the</strong> passionate feelings roused in many places,including Egypt, by <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>Christian</strong> doctrine: a bishopwho lapsed, even un<strong>de</strong>r extreme pressure, and subscribed to credalformulae produced by a person whom his own archbishop or patriarchhad ana<strong>the</strong>matized, even if that person was <strong>the</strong> bishop of Rome,might risk being mur<strong>de</strong>red out of hand by his own congregation. Thereality of this danger is revealed by what happened in 457 to Proterius,an Egyptian cleric who was prepared to accept <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions ofChalcedon and was accordingly installed as Dioscorus’ orthodoxreplacement as patriarch of Alexandria. His position in <strong>the</strong> city<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>d on military backing, but when <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of EmperorMarcian was announced, news which will have created uncertaintyabout <strong>the</strong> status of Chalcedon, a mob stormed <strong>the</strong> church in whichhe was preparing to celebrate some baptisms, lynched him in <strong>the</strong>centre of <strong>the</strong> city, inXicted various insults on his corpse includingallegedly <strong>the</strong> eating of his liver, <strong>the</strong>n burnt <strong>the</strong> remains and scattered<strong>the</strong> ashes. The situation in Jerusalem immediately after Chalcedon isano<strong>the</strong>r example: Juvenal was adamant before his <strong>de</strong>parture for <strong>the</strong>council about <strong>the</strong> need to uphold <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions of Second Ephesus,and his U-turn caused consi<strong>de</strong>rable unrest. This was led by a monknamed Theodosius who had himself been appointed bishop andbegan to ordain subordinates of <strong>the</strong> same view; it took almost twoyears before Juvenal reclaimed his see, and <strong>the</strong>n only with powerfulsecular backing (Evagrius 2.5).ConclusionHowever sceptical I may be about <strong>the</strong> traditional story of <strong>the</strong> councilsof <strong>the</strong> mid-Wfth century, it is diYcult to dispute <strong>the</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rableevi<strong>de</strong>nce that points to Second Ephesus being an occasion when <strong>the</strong>inevitable pressures to which bishops would be subjected crossed a
318 Church Councilsboundary of acceptability. Chalcedon was diVerent, but it is utterlywrong to imagine that it was an occasion for simple and honest<strong>de</strong>bate which permitted <strong>the</strong> wrongs of <strong>the</strong> Church to be rectiWed.The signiWcance of <strong>the</strong> wishes of <strong>the</strong> imperial pair, Marcian andPulcheria, <strong>de</strong>termined <strong>the</strong> direction of proceedings, and <strong>the</strong>y foundin <strong>the</strong> great Anatolius a man with <strong>the</strong> diplomatic skill and doctrinalconvictions to ensure that <strong>the</strong>ir preferences were brought into eVect.The very Wrst day <strong>de</strong>monstrated <strong>the</strong> course which discussions wouldtake, and <strong>the</strong>reafter those bishops who did not share all <strong>the</strong> imperialviews were restricted to a damage-limitation exercise, unsuccessful inrespect of <strong>the</strong> new Creed, more successful in securing that only <strong>the</strong>intransigent Dioscorus suVered permanent punishment. But <strong>the</strong>doctrinal <strong>de</strong>cisions were ultimately political in conception and<strong>the</strong> investment of papal authority in <strong>the</strong>se <strong>de</strong>cisions caused fur<strong>the</strong>rproblems, which eventually proved insuperable for <strong>the</strong>ir acceptance.Chalcedon introduced bitter rivalries between Chalcedonianorthodox and Monophysites (with variants on each si<strong>de</strong>), whichinvolved intermittent oYcial persecution by <strong>the</strong> Orthodox andsome furious outbursts, particularly from those exclu<strong>de</strong>d fromimperial favour. The amount of intellectual energy and imperialprestige <strong>de</strong>voted to eVorts to construct a formula of reconciliation,from <strong>the</strong> Henoticon of Zeno in <strong>the</strong> 470s through <strong>the</strong> Theopaschite,Three Chapters, and Aphthartodocest initiatives of Justinian in <strong>the</strong>mid-sixth century, to <strong>the</strong> Mono<strong>the</strong>lete Ek<strong>the</strong>sis of Heraclius of 638 isdiYcult to credit.129 But <strong>the</strong> image of Pope Vigilius being draggedfrom sanctuary to prevent him evading Justinian’s pressure in <strong>the</strong>months before <strong>the</strong> Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), with such forcethat <strong>the</strong> altar rails to which he was clinging were torn away with him(Malalas 18.111), conveys something of <strong>the</strong> intensity of feeling in <strong>the</strong>West: Vigilius knew that he would be required to subscribe to somesigniWcant modiWcations to <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisions of Chalcedon with respectto <strong>the</strong> so-called Three Chapters, <strong>the</strong> term used to <strong>de</strong>note <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnationof Theodore of Mopsuestia, <strong>the</strong> writings of Theodoretagainst Cyril, and <strong>the</strong> letter of Ibas to Maris <strong>the</strong> Persian, and thisslight to <strong>the</strong> perfect authority of <strong>the</strong> council in which Pope Leo’s129 Frend, Monophysite Movement; P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus <strong>the</strong> ChurchHistorian (Louvain, 1981), ch. 2.
The Council of Chalcedon 319views had been endorsed was bound to provoke uproar in <strong>the</strong>western Church.I shall end with a melancholy but characteristic little storyrecor<strong>de</strong>d in Michael <strong>the</strong> Syrian (Chron. 11.6, vol. ii. 422–3), since itshows that even in <strong>the</strong> direst emergency, with <strong>the</strong> Arabs overrunningSyria, <strong>the</strong> orthodox Byzantines refused to tolerate adherents of <strong>the</strong>One Nature Christology who now constituted <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong>inhabitants in Egypt, much of Syria and nor<strong>the</strong>rn Mesopotamia. At<strong>the</strong> great battle of Yarmuk in 636 <strong>the</strong> Byzantine army in Syria wasutterly <strong>de</strong>feated by <strong>the</strong> Arabs un<strong>de</strong>r Omar and, although a few citiesheld out for two or three years longer, Byzantine power in Syria wasnow irretrievably broken. The emperor Heraclius sent an army to<strong>de</strong>fend <strong>the</strong> passes of Cilicia against <strong>the</strong> Arabs, and to it <strong>the</strong>re Xed <strong>the</strong>local Syrian Monophysite bishop, who seems to have been Epiphaniusof Callisura. The Byzantine comman<strong>de</strong>r Gregory questionedhim closely about his faith. When Epiphanius discoursed about <strong>the</strong>One Nature of <strong>the</strong> Divine Word united hypostatically with <strong>the</strong> Xesh,and speciWcally repudiated <strong>the</strong> doctrines of Chalcedon, Gregory cutoV his head.130 Imperial success at Chalcedon exacted a substantialprice from Marcian’s successors over <strong>the</strong> next two centuries.The Council of Chalcedon, which in isolation can be seen as acomplete triumph for Marcian and Two Nature Christology, andwhich has been lavishly praised by some mo<strong>de</strong>rn <strong>the</strong>ologians, hasoften been <strong>de</strong>scribed, rightly in my opinion, as a disaster for <strong>the</strong>Eastern Empire: as Norman Baynes put it, Chalcedon came ‘not tobring peace, but a sword’.131 Monophysite views were far too strongto be suppressed in some areas, above all in Egypt and much of Syriaand Mesopotamia,132 and <strong>the</strong> Orthodox Empire would surely havedone better to be content with doctrinal formulae that would haveaccommodated it, or at least tolerated its existence.130 Cf. W. E. Kaegi, Byzantium and <strong>the</strong> Early Islamic Conquests (Cambridge, 1992),215, and for broa<strong>de</strong>r discussion of <strong>the</strong> impact of religious divisions on <strong>the</strong> Islamicconquests, ibid. 209–17; also <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Class Struggle, 483–4.131 Baynes, ‘Alexandria’, 115.132 The best account of <strong>the</strong>se subsequent <strong>de</strong>velopments is in Frend, MonophysiteMovement; also MeyendorV, Imperial Unity, chs. 7–8, 10.
This page intentionally left blank
<strong>Christian</strong>ity and Property
This page intentionally left blank
IntroductionMichael WhitbyAlthough <strong>the</strong> following essay was reprinted with only minor revisionsto <strong>the</strong> arrangement of material in Class Struggle, wehave<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that it <strong>de</strong>serves a place in this collection as <strong>the</strong> best exampleof <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>mes pursued and approaches adopted by <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> inpreparation for his projected monograph ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>sto Women, Sex and Marriage’. In this chapter <strong>the</strong> word ‘Early’ is vital:<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> begins with <strong>the</strong> settlement structure of Palestine un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong>Hellenistic kings and early Roman empire, and <strong>the</strong>n consi<strong>de</strong>rs <strong>the</strong>evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> Gospels on poverty and property in <strong>the</strong> light of Greekand Roman attitu<strong>de</strong>s. Locating <strong>the</strong> Gospels in <strong>the</strong>ir social, literary,and intellectual contexts is of prime importance,1 whereas much lessattention is paid to <strong>the</strong> equally interesting issues of how attitu<strong>de</strong>s to<strong>the</strong>se matters evolved in <strong>the</strong> expanding Church of <strong>the</strong> second toWfth centuries, especially after imperial recognition by Constantineprovi<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> beneWts and temptations of security and respectability.This approach was taken fur<strong>the</strong>r in a succession of lecture seriesand seminars, most importantly <strong>the</strong> Gregynog Lectures at Aberystwythin 1986, a sequence in Copenhagen in 1987, and <strong>the</strong> TownsendLectures at Cornell in 1988. As an example of how <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s work<strong>de</strong>veloped, St Paul’s <strong>de</strong>claration in Galatians 3:28 that ‘There isnei<strong>the</strong>r Jew nor Greek, <strong>the</strong>re is nei<strong>the</strong>r bond nor free, <strong>the</strong>re is nei<strong>the</strong>rmale nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’, which is allu<strong>de</strong>d tobrieXy in ‘ECAPS’, became <strong>the</strong> focus of exten<strong>de</strong>d treatment. Thepurpose was to ram home <strong>the</strong> message that St Paul, one of <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s trinity of bêtes noires (<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs being Plato and St Augustine),could oVer absolutely no help to feminist <strong>the</strong>ologians eager to1 As <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> put it at <strong>the</strong> start of a seminar in March 1982, ‘To un<strong>de</strong>rstand <strong>the</strong>early <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> to women and marriage, and to discover which of its elementsare new, one needs to know <strong>the</strong> situation in <strong>the</strong> Jewish communities (in <strong>the</strong> Diasporaas well as Palestine) and in <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic and Roman worlds.’
324 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyWnd biblical authority for <strong>the</strong> equality of <strong>the</strong> sexes. The presentationwas susceptible to challenge from two si<strong>de</strong>s: Wrst, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, whilebeing fully in command of <strong>the</strong> classical texts and <strong>the</strong>ir problems ofinterpretation, was not conversant with all <strong>de</strong>velopments in <strong>the</strong>voluminous Pauline scholarship, so that attacks on alleged views ofSt Paul, or <strong>de</strong>monstrations of discrepancies of thought betweendiVerent Pauline texts, might be eva<strong>de</strong>d by appeal to <strong>the</strong> need todistinguish between Pauline and <strong>de</strong>utero-Pauline works; second,although <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> referred to some mo<strong>de</strong>rn scholars for whom<strong>the</strong> Pauline injunction was signiWcant, it is now more common forcontemporary feminist <strong>the</strong>ologians to accept that St Paul himself didnot pursue <strong>the</strong> practical implications of his statement so that hiswords can in fact still provi<strong>de</strong> biblical justiWcation for sexual equality.The <strong>de</strong>sire to <strong>de</strong>monstrate <strong>the</strong> frail basis for <strong>Christian</strong> teaching ono<strong>the</strong>r family matters led <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> to investigate <strong>the</strong> ‘misuse’ ofGenesis 2: 242 in Jesus’ teaching on marriage in Mark 10: 7–9 andMat<strong>the</strong>w 19: 5–6, as well as by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 6: 15–16.Part of <strong>the</strong> discussion centred on <strong>the</strong> apparently divergent view ofmarriage in Luke 16: 18, which introduced a section on o<strong>the</strong>r signiWcantdiscrepancies between Luke and Mark, most notably over <strong>the</strong>expression attributed in Mark to <strong>the</strong> centurion at <strong>the</strong> cruciWxion,‘Truly this man was a Son of God’ (15: 39; cf. Mat<strong>the</strong>w 27: 54).Ano<strong>the</strong>r part was occupied by a full <strong>de</strong>monstration of <strong>the</strong> prevalenceof polygamy in <strong>the</strong> Old Testament, and its continued acceptance in<strong>the</strong> family of Herod <strong>the</strong> Great, practices which Jesus was able toignore since he operated primarily within peasant communitieswhere very few people had ever had <strong>the</strong> wealth to indulge in polygamy.The issue of polygamy acted as a cue to a topic close to <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s heart, St Paul’s obsession with fornication, an aspect of hispersonality which he believed was too often ignored or downplayed.<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s arguments on <strong>the</strong>se topics <strong>de</strong>veloped through <strong>the</strong>various presentations in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1980s, but it would be fair to saythat <strong>the</strong> overall trajectory of <strong>the</strong>se changes was to push <strong>the</strong> balance ofdiscussions away from Early <strong>Christian</strong>ity as such and towards <strong>the</strong>antece<strong>de</strong>nts of <strong>the</strong> New Testament, naturally <strong>the</strong> Old Testament, but2 ‘Therefore shall a man leave his fa<strong>the</strong>r and mo<strong>the</strong>r, and shall cleave unto his wife;and <strong>the</strong>y shall be one Xesh.’
Introduction 325less obviously Plato. With regard to <strong>the</strong> Old Testament, Yahweh and<strong>the</strong> question of prophecies of <strong>the</strong> Messiah attracted attention. As aresult one reasonably polished piece emerged on <strong>the</strong> Immanuelprophecy in Isaiah 7: 14 and its misappropriation in Mat<strong>the</strong>w 1 torefer to <strong>the</strong> Virgin birth of Jesus. The argument that <strong>the</strong> prophecy inIsaiah must re<strong>late</strong> to a contemporary birth is diYcult to refute, butfew o<strong>the</strong>r than fundamentalist <strong>the</strong>ologians would want to disputethis contention in any case. The signiWcant question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>misuse of <strong>the</strong> prophecy in Mat<strong>the</strong>w was an innovation or reXected amore wi<strong>de</strong>spread messianic reinterpretation of various Old Testamentpassages in Wrst-century bc Jewish circles is not broached.Perhaps <strong>the</strong> main interest of <strong>the</strong> piece is <strong>the</strong> indication that <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong> was returning to <strong>the</strong> challenges of his fundamentalist upbringing.3This is pursued much fur<strong>the</strong>r in work re<strong>late</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> issue ofTheodicy, <strong>the</strong> justiWcation of God against objection or criticism,which culminated in a very substantial paper (well over 20,000words) <strong>de</strong>voted to <strong>the</strong> book of Job. This study occupied <strong>the</strong> betterpart of two years in <strong>the</strong> early 1990s, advancing through successivehandwritten drafts with visitors and correspon<strong>de</strong>nts being treated to<strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>st <strong>de</strong>velopments in <strong>the</strong> presentation. <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s central <strong>the</strong>siswas that <strong>the</strong> text of Job as we have it is an amalgam of an anti-Yahwehtract, which reveals <strong>the</strong> behaviour of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ity to be morally objectionablein <strong>the</strong> highest <strong>de</strong>gree, and a limited amount of more traditional‘Yahwehist’ material which came to provi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> outsi<strong>de</strong> layersof what was eVectively a sandwich. Although <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> recognizedthat <strong>Christian</strong> believers (presumably Jews as well) could hardly allow<strong>the</strong>mselves to accept <strong>the</strong> full implications of his remorseless arguments,he was somewhat disappointed by reactions from <strong>the</strong> fewcolleagues to whom he had oVered <strong>the</strong> full piece for comment. What<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had produced was a broadsi<strong>de</strong> against fundamentalistinterpretations of Job, but whose central premises could besi<strong>de</strong>stepped by less doctrinally rigid believers. In a short piece on‘Yahweh/God Almighty’ <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> expressed what had become <strong>the</strong>3 On a very personal note <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> comments on <strong>the</strong> name Maher-shalal-hashbaz(Isaiah 8: 1), ‘one of <strong>the</strong> longest and most ferocious names of a male child in <strong>the</strong>Old Testament’, that its owner may have preferred to keep a low proWle in <strong>the</strong>community, adducing his own experience as <strong>the</strong> possessor of a name exportedfrom France by Huguenots which had naturally excited <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>rision of young boys.
326 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertydriving force for this prong of his intellectual project, <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>sire ‘Afteralmost a whole long lifetime of false politeness towards <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>itywhom I was brought up to worship and adore, . . . to speak and writeexactly as I please about <strong>the</strong> ancient genocidal monster representedby his worshippers as glorifying in <strong>the</strong> mysterious Name of Yahweh’.The o<strong>the</strong>r direction in which <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s concern to uncover <strong>the</strong>full intellectual context for <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s led was to Plato,whom he regar<strong>de</strong>d as essential to his thinking on <strong>Christian</strong> persecution(i.e. persecution by <strong>Christian</strong>s) as well as on sex and familymatters. Plato, as noted above, was one of <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s key targets: hisanimosity was already well formed in <strong>the</strong> early 1950s when KarlPopper had been one of his teaching colleagues at <strong>the</strong> London Schoolof Economics.4 For <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>, Plato’s passionate advocacy of religiouspersecution in Laws 10 (887–910) anticipated <strong>the</strong> behaviour of<strong>Christian</strong> persecutors, just as his views on a judgement of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>adand punishment in Hell5 had little resonance beyond a very fewPlatonist philosophers before <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>velopment of <strong>Christian</strong> eschatologicalthought, while his proposed laws on sexual and family mattersalso foreshadowed Pauline and <strong>late</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> views.In <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> 1980s, in <strong>the</strong> aftermath of <strong>the</strong> Gregynog and Townsendlecture series, <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had been extremely enthusiastic to <strong>de</strong>velophis lectures into <strong>the</strong> inten<strong>de</strong>d book on ‘Sex and Marriage in Early<strong>Christian</strong>ity’, but in spite of presenting his views in more than twodozen universities in North America and Europe he never felt that hehad fully mastered <strong>the</strong> complexities of his subject. The problem wasnot in <strong>the</strong> treatment of legal material, which was fully discussed in<strong>the</strong> lectures, nor in <strong>the</strong> Patristic sections where much more couldcertainly have been said about <strong>the</strong> voluminous documentation. <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s unease centred on origins, and as his writing progressed evena strong <strong>de</strong>sire to ‘nail’ Augustine, <strong>the</strong> third of his bêtes noires, couldnot counteract <strong>the</strong> pull of Plato and Paul, especially when coupledwith <strong>the</strong> chance to revisit some of <strong>the</strong> fundamentalist <strong>de</strong>bates on4 They had, for example, discussed <strong>the</strong> publication of Popper’s Open Society and itsEnemies, which had been rejected by one major University Press on <strong>the</strong> grounds that itwas ‘too disrespectful to Plato’. For his own assessment of Plato as ‘one of <strong>the</strong> most<strong>de</strong>termined and dangerous enemies that freedom has ever had’, see Class Struggle, 284.5 Plato, Gorgias 523a–527c; Phaedo 80d–82b, 107e–108c, 110b–115a; Republic614b–621b.
Introduction 327which he had cut his teeth in <strong>the</strong> 1920s and 1930s. By <strong>the</strong> mid-1990s<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> had virtually admitted that a publication of <strong>the</strong> lectureseries was impossible, and he focused his eVorts on salvaging what hecould from his writings of <strong>the</strong> previous <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong>, but he was perhapsno longer <strong>the</strong> best judge of what was most eVective since papers witha primarily Old Testament focus were prominent in his plannedvolumes of <strong>Christian</strong> essays.It is <strong>the</strong> earlier writing which has stood <strong>the</strong> test of time best and so,although it might have been possible to excavate <strong>the</strong> versions of <strong>the</strong>Gregynog lectures, say, to produce a somewhat revised version of <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s thoughts, it seemed more appropriate to inclu<strong>de</strong> in thiscollection <strong>the</strong> one item which he had seen through to publicationhimself.
7Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property andSlavery1I begin with <strong>the</strong> central fact about <strong>Christian</strong> origins: that although<strong>the</strong> earliest surviving <strong>Christian</strong> documents are in Greek and although<strong>Christian</strong>ity spread from city to city in <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world, itsFoun<strong>de</strong>r lived and preached almost entirely outsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> area ofGraeco-Roman civilization proper; <strong>the</strong> world in which he was activewas not at all that of <strong>the</strong> polis (<strong>the</strong> city) but <strong>the</strong> very diVerent world of<strong>the</strong> chōra (<strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong>). This may require some explanation.In <strong>the</strong> classical period, in Greece itself and in some of <strong>the</strong> earlyGreek colonies in Italy and Sicily and on <strong>the</strong> west coast of AsiaMinor, <strong>the</strong> word chōra was often used as a synonym for <strong>the</strong> agroi(<strong>the</strong> Welds), <strong>the</strong> rural area of <strong>the</strong> polis;2 and sometimes <strong>the</strong> word polisitself, in <strong>the</strong> special limited sense of its urban area, was contrastedFirst published in Studies in Church History, 12 (1975), 1–38.1 This paper is a re-presentation of parts of my book, The Class Struggle in <strong>the</strong>Ancient Greek World (to be published by Duckworth about <strong>the</strong> autumn of 1976),which incorporates <strong>the</strong> substance of <strong>the</strong> J. H. Gray Lectures <strong>de</strong>livered at CambridgeUniversity in February 1973, greatly expan<strong>de</strong>d. Full documentation for those statementsfor which I have not provi<strong>de</strong>d proper references here will be found in thatbook, referred to below as CSAGW.The best collection of early <strong>Christian</strong> views concerning property (from <strong>the</strong> OTdown to <strong>the</strong> early 5th century) is by Paul Christophe, L’Usage chrétien du droit<strong>de</strong> propriété dans l’écriture et la tradition patristique ¼ Collection Théologie, Pastoraleet Spiritualité, no. 14 (Paris, 1964). I have ma<strong>de</strong> much use of this book (although attimes it is uncritical), as of C. J. Cadoux, The Early Church and <strong>the</strong> World (Edinburgh,1925 and repr.). Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Churches i, trans.Olive Wyon (London, 1931), pp. 1–200, has some useful material, but for mypurposes does not lie suYciently close to <strong>the</strong> historical background, and I have notcited it here.2 For example in Thuc. ii.5.7, KŒ ô çò & ×þæÆò is equivalent to KŒ ô &øí Iªæ &øí [‘from<strong>the</strong> Welds’] in 14.1; cf. Kí ôï&Øò Iªæï&Øò in 14.2, and <strong>the</strong> same expression andŒÆôa ôcí ×þæÆí [‘throughout <strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong>’] in 16.1.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 329with its chōra.3 This usage continued in <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic period(roughly <strong>the</strong> last three centuries bc) and un<strong>de</strong>r Roman rule: everypolis had its own chōra in <strong>the</strong> sense of its own rural area. However,except where a native population had been reduced to a subjectcondition4 <strong>the</strong>re was generally in <strong>the</strong> areas just mentioned no fundamentaldiVerence between those who lived in or near <strong>the</strong> urbancentre of <strong>the</strong> polis and <strong>the</strong> peasants who lived in <strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong>, evenif <strong>the</strong> latter ten<strong>de</strong>d to be noticeably less ‘urbane’ (less cityWed) than<strong>the</strong> former; all were Greek and participated in a common culture to agreater or less <strong>de</strong>gree. But in those parts of Asia and Egypt into whichGreek civilization penetrated in <strong>the</strong> time of Alexan<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Great andin <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic period <strong>the</strong> situation was very diVerent. In Asia,from at least <strong>the</strong> time of Alexan<strong>de</strong>r (and probably, as I have argue<strong>de</strong>lsewhere,5 as early as <strong>the</strong> Wfth century bc), <strong>the</strong> terms chōra and polishad come to be used on occasion with a recognized technical sense,which continued throughout <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic period and beyond inAsia and Egypt: in this sense <strong>the</strong> chōra was <strong>the</strong> whole vast area notinclu<strong>de</strong>d in <strong>the</strong> territory administered by any Greek polis; it wasun<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> direct, autocratic rule of <strong>the</strong> kings, <strong>the</strong> successors ofAlexan<strong>de</strong>r, and it was bureaucratically administered, while <strong>the</strong> poleishad republican governments and enjoyed forms of precariousautonomy which diVered according to circumstances. Un<strong>de</strong>rRoman rule <strong>the</strong> same basic division between polis and chōra continued;but <strong>the</strong> great bulk of <strong>the</strong> chōra came by <strong>de</strong>grees un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong>administration of particular poleis, each of which had its own chōra(territorium in <strong>the</strong> Latin west). The cities in <strong>the</strong> strict sense (<strong>the</strong>poleis) were Greek in very varying <strong>de</strong>grees in language and culture;native languages and cultures prevailed in <strong>the</strong> chōra, where <strong>the</strong>population lived mainly in villages, <strong>the</strong> most common Greek termfor which was kōmai. Graeco-Roman civilization was essentiallyurban, a civilization of cities; and in <strong>the</strong> areas in which it was notnative, in which it had not grown up from roots in <strong>the</strong> very soil, it3 As in Thuc. vi 4.2; Lyc. C. Leocr. 1; etc.4 I shall mention <strong>the</strong> main examples in CSAGW: <strong>the</strong>y inclu<strong>de</strong> Heracleia Pontica,Zeleia, Priene, Syracuse.5 In The Origins of <strong>the</strong> Peloponnesian War (London, 1972), pp. 154–5, 313–14.
330 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyremained largely an upper-class culture, parasitic on <strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong>which supported it and to which it gave little in return.6The essential point I want to make is that—apart from Jerusalem, aspecial case—as I shall explain presently—<strong>the</strong> mission of Jesus tookplace entirely in <strong>the</strong> chōra, in its kōmai, in <strong>the</strong> agroi of Palestine.Partly it was conducted altoge<strong>the</strong>r outsi<strong>de</strong> polis territory, in areas ofGalilee and Judaea administered not by cities but directly by HerodAntipas <strong>the</strong> ‘tetrarch’ or by <strong>the</strong> Roman governor of Judaea; but it ishighly signiWcant that on <strong>the</strong> ra<strong>the</strong>r rare occasions when we do WndJesus active insi<strong>de</strong> polis territory, it is never in <strong>the</strong> polis itself, in <strong>the</strong>sense of its urban area, but always in its country district. As we shallsee, whenever we have any speciWc information (as distinct fromvague general statements) <strong>the</strong> terms used are such as to point unmistakablyto <strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong>—<strong>the</strong> kōmai, kōmopoleis, agroi, chōra,also <strong>the</strong> merē, horia, paralios, perichōros. There is of course a greatdispute about how much reliable historical information can legitimatelybe extracted from <strong>the</strong> narratives of <strong>the</strong> Gospels, even <strong>the</strong>synoptics. But I would emphasize that in so far as we can trust <strong>the</strong>6 Perhaps <strong>the</strong> best account of this fundamental opposition between town andcountry in <strong>the</strong> Greek east is in part v (‘The Achievement of <strong>the</strong> Cities’, pp. 259–304)of A. H. M. Jones’s great work, The Greek City from Alexan<strong>de</strong>r to Justinian (Oxford,1940), esp. 285 et seq. Ano<strong>the</strong>r major work by Jones, Cities of <strong>the</strong> Eastern RomanProvinces (frequently cited in The Greek City) has been reissued in a second edn.(Oxford, 1971), with <strong>the</strong> sections on Palestine in ch. 10 (on ‘Syria’, pp. 226–94)revised by M. Avi-Yonah. A recent work, limited to <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> republic and principate, isRamsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (London, 1974): <strong>the</strong>Wrst two chapters of this (I ‘Rural’, and II ‘Rural-Urban’, pp. 1–56) have much wellchosenillustrative material. For <strong>the</strong> opinions of a scholar who knew <strong>the</strong> archaeologicalas well as <strong>the</strong> literary evi<strong>de</strong>nce particularly well, see M. RostovtzeV, Social andEconomic History of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire (Oxford, 1957), i, pp. 261–73 (with ii, pp. 660et seq., esp. pp. 664–6), 344–52, 378–92. For an able account of <strong>the</strong> social an<strong>de</strong>conomic background of <strong>the</strong> great Jewish revolt in Palestine of ad 66–70, see HeinzKreissig, Die sozialen Zusammenhänge <strong>de</strong>s judäischen Krieges: Klassen und Klassenkampfim Palästina <strong>de</strong>s 1. Jahrh. v.u.Z. ¼ Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur <strong>de</strong>r Antikeno. 1 (Berlin, 1970). [For <strong>the</strong> relationship between Hellenistic cities and ruralhinterlands, and <strong>the</strong> impact of Greek inXuences on <strong>the</strong> latter, see G. Shipley, TheGreek World after Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, 323–30 bc (London, 2000); <strong>the</strong>re are also several relevantdiscussions in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic World (Oxford, 2003),esp. ch. 15, ‘Town and Country in Ptolemaic Egypt’ by Jane Rowlandson, and ch. 8,‘The Seleukids and Asia’ by Michel Austin. For <strong>the</strong> situation in Palestine in <strong>the</strong> 1stcent. ad, see F. Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass.,1993), ch. 10. Although its main focus is <strong>late</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>re is also much of relevance inM. Goodman, State and Subject in Roman Galilee, 132–212 (Oxford, 1983).]
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 331speciWc information given us by <strong>the</strong> Gospels <strong>the</strong>re is no evi<strong>de</strong>nce thatJesus ever even entered <strong>the</strong> urban area of any Greek city. That shouldnot surprise us: Jesus, as I indicated at <strong>the</strong> beginning, belongedwholly to <strong>the</strong> chōra, <strong>the</strong> Jewish countrysi<strong>de</strong> of Galilee and Judaea.Palestine, which had been ruled by <strong>the</strong> Ptolemies for over ahundred years after <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>ath of Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, became around 200 bcpart of <strong>the</strong> Seleucid kingdom. Just before <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> secondcentury Judaea achieved a consi<strong>de</strong>rable <strong>de</strong>gree of in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce fornearly a century; but from 63 bc onwards <strong>the</strong> whole of Palestine andSyria was always eVectively un<strong>de</strong>r Roman control, although Judaea(and Samaria) did not actually become a Roman province until ad 6,and Galilee and Peraea until 44.7 In Palestine <strong>the</strong> native language at<strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> era was Aramaic, which was spokenthroughout <strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong> and also by a good proportion of <strong>the</strong>inhabitants of many of <strong>the</strong> cities. By <strong>the</strong> time of Jesus, Palestinecontained a number of genuine poleis, some of which were muchmore Hellenic in character than o<strong>the</strong>rs.8 With <strong>the</strong> exception of Tyreand Sidon, which I shall mention presently, <strong>the</strong> cities on <strong>the</strong> coast(Caesarea, Ascalon, Gaza and o<strong>the</strong>rs) were too far from <strong>the</strong> mainscene of Jesus’s activity to be mentioned in <strong>the</strong> Gospels, and we canignore <strong>the</strong>m here. The cities we need to notice are, Wrst, Sepphorisand Tiberias, <strong>the</strong> only two in Galilee; next Samaria, between Galileeand Judaea, recently re-foun<strong>de</strong>d by Herod <strong>the</strong> Great as Sebaste (butnever mentioned un<strong>de</strong>r that name in <strong>the</strong> New Testament); thirdly <strong>the</strong>well-marked cluster of ten genuine cities administering a large area7 For <strong>the</strong> history of Palestine in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> Hellenistic and early Roman period, see<strong>the</strong> admirable new English version, by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, The History of<strong>the</strong> Jewish People in <strong>the</strong> Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), of Emil Schürer’sGeschichte <strong>de</strong>s jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3/4 edn., 1901–9), of whichonly vol. i (Edinburgh, 1973) has already appeared. The events of 63 bc to ad 44 are<strong>de</strong>alt with on pp. 237–454. [The remaining volumes of Schürer’s History have nowappeared: vol. ii, ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1979); vol. iii.1–2, ed. G.Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh, 1986–7). See also F. Millar, TheRoman Near East 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), ch. 10.]8 See Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and <strong>the</strong> Jews (Phila<strong>de</strong>lphia/Jerusalem,1959), pp. 90–116; Jones, Cities, ch. 10, esp. pp. 248–9, 255–9, 269–76; ‘TheUrbanization of Palestine’, in JRS 21 (1931), pp. 78–85; RostovtzeV i2, pp. 269–73, ii2,663–6 nn. 32–6; M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from <strong>the</strong> Persian to <strong>the</strong> Arab Conquest(536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966), esp. pp.127–80.
332 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyknown as Decapolis, to <strong>the</strong> east and south-east of Galilee and <strong>the</strong>north-east of Judaea; and Wnally one or two cities at <strong>the</strong> periphery of<strong>the</strong> area within which Jesus moved: Caesarea Paneas, foun<strong>de</strong>d in 2 bcby Herod’s son, Philip <strong>the</strong> tetrarch,9 some 25 miles to <strong>the</strong> north of <strong>the</strong>lake of Galilee (and referred to in Mark and Mat<strong>the</strong>w as CaesareaPhilippi), and <strong>the</strong> ancient Phoenician towns of Tyre and Sidon, ofwhich Tyre lay on <strong>the</strong> coast, due west of Caesarea Paneas, with Sidonto <strong>the</strong> north of it.Now <strong>the</strong> word polis is often used by Greek authors (and in <strong>the</strong>Septuagint) in a loose sense, of places which were not true cities butsimply large villages or market-towns which were <strong>de</strong>scribed morecorrectly by o<strong>the</strong>r expressions such as mētrokōmiai, kōmopoleis. In<strong>the</strong> Gospels, Luke especially, <strong>the</strong> term polis is used on dozens ofoccasions for individual named places which were not technicallycities at all: Nazareth, Capernaum, Nain, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Sycharof Samaria, Ephraim, Arima<strong>the</strong>a, Bethlehem—and Jerusalem.10 Thelast is a special case. From <strong>the</strong> early Hellenistic period onwards, Greekauthors such as Hecataeus of Ab<strong>de</strong>ra and Agatharchi<strong>de</strong>s of Cnidos(ap. Jos. C. Apion. i. 197–8, 209) could call Jerusalem a polis, and insome respects it did qualify for that title, although I think it would bepreferable to regard it essentially as <strong>the</strong> administrative capital ofJudaea, of <strong>the</strong> ethnos (<strong>the</strong> ‘nation’) of <strong>the</strong> Jews. In any event, it wasvery far from being a proper Greek polis. Of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r places calledpoleis in <strong>the</strong> Gospels, we might wish to call Bethsaida a ‘town’;11 noneof <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs was really more than a village. And although much of9 See Jones, Cities, pp. 282.10 Jerusalem appears as a polis in all four Gospels. O<strong>the</strong>rwise, Mark has onlyCapernaum (which also appears as a polis in Luke and by implication in Mat<strong>the</strong>w);Ephraim and Sychar appear only in John; Arima<strong>the</strong>a, Bethlehem and Nain only inLuke: Bethsaida (a kōmē in Mk. 8.22–3), Chorazin and Nazareth are found as poleis inMat<strong>the</strong>w and Luke. Perhaps I should emphasize here that Jerusalem was never at anytime a polis in <strong>the</strong> technical sense, except when Hellenizing Jews attempted to turn itinto <strong>the</strong> polis of ‘Antioch-by-Jerusalem’ during a short period beginning in 175 bc: seeTcherikover pp. 153 et seq., esp. pp. 161–74, 188. If Jerusalem really had a <strong>the</strong>atre,amphi<strong>the</strong>atre and hippodrome (alien to <strong>the</strong> Jewish way of life), it was only because<strong>the</strong>se were provi<strong>de</strong>d by that ar<strong>de</strong>nt Hellenizer, Herod <strong>the</strong> Great—who is also said tohave built <strong>the</strong> same three structures at Jericho, which no one would dream of calling apolis: see Schürer pp. 304–5 n. 56.11 It was <strong>the</strong> capital of <strong>the</strong> (originally Ptolemaic) toparchy of Gaulanitis, and it hadbeen re-named Julias by Philip <strong>the</strong> tetrarch: see Jones, n. 9 above.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 333<strong>the</strong> activity of Jesus is said in <strong>the</strong> Gospels to have taken place in <strong>de</strong>sertplaces or by <strong>the</strong> shore of <strong>the</strong> lake of Galilee or elsewhere in <strong>the</strong>country districts, we are sometimes told in very general terms thatJesus went through poleis (Mt. 11: 1; compare Lk. 4: 43), or poleis andkōmai (Mt. 9: 35; Lk. 13: 22), or kōmai, poleis and agroi (Mk. 6: 56).But in such contexts <strong>the</strong> word poleis must be un<strong>de</strong>rstood in <strong>the</strong> veryloose and untechnical sense in which <strong>the</strong> evangelists (like some o<strong>the</strong>rGreek authors) habitually use it. As I said earlier, wherever we have aspeciWc reference to a visit by Jesus to one of <strong>the</strong> genuine poleis,itisinevery single case ma<strong>de</strong> clear that it was <strong>the</strong> country district of <strong>the</strong>polis concerned to which Jesus went.12Let us begin with Samaria. We can forget <strong>the</strong> bogus polis of Sychar(Jn. 4: 5), a mere village of course, and <strong>the</strong> passage in Mat<strong>the</strong>w (10: 5)in which Jesus tells his disciples not to go into a polis of <strong>the</strong> Samaritans.That leaves us with only two passages in Luke: in 17: 11 Jesusmerely goes ‘through <strong>the</strong> midst of Samaria and Galilee’, and in 9: 52he sends messengers ‘to a kōmē of <strong>the</strong> Samaritans’ to prepare for hiscoming, which in fact never took place—Jesus went to ano<strong>the</strong>r kōmē(9: 55). There is never a mention of Sebaste, <strong>the</strong> city foun<strong>de</strong>d byHerod, which was a pagan town, with no large proportion of Jewishsettlers, and <strong>the</strong> only genuine polis in <strong>the</strong> Samareitis.12 aThe Decapolis crops up in two passages in Mark and one inMat<strong>the</strong>w, and <strong>the</strong> manner of its appearance is signiWcant. In Mt. 4:25 crowds from Decapolis (which had a large chōra) and elsewherefollow Jesus. In Mk. 7: 31 Jesus comes from <strong>the</strong> bor<strong>de</strong>rs of Tyre,through Sidon,13 to <strong>the</strong> lake of Galilee, via (as <strong>the</strong> text has it)‘<strong>the</strong> midst of <strong>the</strong> boundaries (or ‘territory’) of Decapolis’.14 But it is12 Whe<strong>the</strong>r ‘he could no longer enter åNò ðüºØí’, in Mk. 1: 45, means ‘into a city’ or‘into <strong>the</strong> city concerned’ (perhaps Capernaum, as in 1: 21, but compare 39), itobviously refers to no more than <strong>the</strong> immediate situation: see 2: 1 and much of <strong>the</strong>following narrative, esp. for example 6: 56.12 a [On <strong>the</strong> Samaritans, see A. D. Crown, The Samaritans (Tübingen, 1989).]13 I accept KŒ ô &øí ›æßøí Ôýæïı MºŁåí & äØa ÓØä &øíïò [‘he came from <strong>the</strong> bor<strong>de</strong>rs ofTyre through Sidon’] as a preferable textual reading to ŒÆd ÓØä &øíïò MºŁåí & [‘he came Sidon’], though I doubt whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> territory of Sidon was in fact involved;compare D. E. Nineham, Saint Mark (Pelican Gospel Comm., 1963), p. 203. [On <strong>the</strong>cities of <strong>the</strong> Decapolis, see Millar, Roman Near East, 408–14; I. Browning, Jerash and<strong>the</strong> Decapolis (London, 1982).]14 A curiously roundabout route: see Nineham.
334 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyMk. 5: 20 which brings out most clearly what I am trying toemphasize: that in <strong>the</strong>se cases Jesus is clearly in <strong>the</strong> country districtattached to a polis and not in <strong>the</strong> actual polis itself. It needs to betaken with its whole context: <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>moniac out of whomwas cast <strong>the</strong> legion of <strong>de</strong>vils (Mk. 5: 1–20; Mt. 8: 28–34; Lk. 8: 26–39),whe<strong>the</strong>r this is to be located at Gadara or Gerasa,15 both of whichwere cities of <strong>the</strong> Decapolis. In all three synoptics Jesus is in <strong>the</strong> chōraof <strong>the</strong> city, and <strong>the</strong> inci<strong>de</strong>nt is pictured as taking place besi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> lakeof Galilee; <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>moniac comes out of <strong>the</strong> city (Lk. 8: 27) and in<strong>de</strong>edwas always ‘in <strong>the</strong> tombs and in <strong>the</strong> mountains’ (Mk. 5: 2–5);afterwards <strong>the</strong> swineherds go into <strong>the</strong> city (Mt. 8: 33), and <strong>the</strong>y tell<strong>the</strong> story in ‘<strong>the</strong> polis and <strong>the</strong> agroi’ (Mk. 5: 14; Lk. 8: 34), whereuponpeople (‘<strong>the</strong> whole polis’: Mt. 8: 34) come out to Jesus (Lk. 8: 35) andbeg him to go away—in Lk. 8: 37 it is ‘<strong>the</strong> whole multitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong>perichōros of <strong>the</strong> Gerasenes’ who do this. When Jesus tells <strong>the</strong> former<strong>de</strong>moniac to go home and publish <strong>the</strong> news of <strong>the</strong> divine work, heproclaims it, in Luke (8: 39), ‘throughout <strong>the</strong> whole polis’, and inMark (5: 20) ‘in <strong>the</strong> Decapolis’.15 Variant readings exist in each case for <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> city into <strong>the</strong> chōra ofwhich Jesus goes at <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> story: <strong>the</strong> best reading in Mark and Luke is‘Gerasa’ (åNò ôcí ÷þæÆí ô &øí ˆåæÆóçí &øí), in Mat<strong>the</strong>w, ‘Gadara’ ( . . . ô &øí ˆÆäÆæçí &øí).In some MSS of all three Gospels <strong>the</strong>re also occurs <strong>the</strong> reading ‘Gergesa’ ( . . .ô &øí ˆåæªåóçí &øí): this goes back to Origen, Comm. in Johan. vi.41, p. 150, ed. E.Preuschen, in <strong>the</strong> GCS Origen 4 (Berlin, 1903) [trans. R. E. Heine, Origen, Commentaryon <strong>the</strong> Gospel according to John Books 1–10 (Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong> Church 80; Washington,1989), 6 §§ 208–11, pp. 225–6], who realized that <strong>the</strong> distance from <strong>the</strong> lake of Galileeof both Gerasa (nearly 40 miles) and Gadara (5 or 6 miles) is consi<strong>de</strong>rable, and inor<strong>de</strong>r to allow <strong>the</strong> swine to ‘run violently down a steep place into <strong>the</strong> sea’ proposed tosubstitute a place he called Gergesa, ðüºØò Iæ÷ÆßÆ ðåæd ôcí í ıí & ŒÆºïıìÝíçí ÔØâåæØÜäƺßìíçí; ðåæd mí Œæçìíeò ðÆæÆŒåßìåíïò ô fi çºßìífi & ç [‘an ancient city near <strong>the</strong> lake whichis now called Tiberias; near it is a cliV which is right next to <strong>the</strong> lake’]. It has beensuggested, however, that Origen was simply exercising his ingenuity on <strong>the</strong> basis ofGen. 10: 16. A place with some such name as Gergesa may have existed: in <strong>the</strong> 6thcentury Cyril of Scythopolis (a city of Decapolis) refers to a locality in this area whichhe calls Chorsia (Vita Sabae 24, p. 108.14 ed. E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Scythopolis ¼ TU49, ii, 1939), and this may correspond with <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rn Kursi—which however is saidto have no precipice. But <strong>the</strong>re is no trace elsewhere of any ‘Gergesa’, and even if such aplace existed it cannot have been more than a kōmē, whereas <strong>the</strong> whole story <strong>de</strong>mandsthat it be a polis, and in<strong>de</strong>ed (see Mk. 5: 19) a member of <strong>the</strong> Decapolis, as were Gerasaand Gadara. There was, by <strong>the</strong> way, ano<strong>the</strong>r city of <strong>the</strong> Decapolis, namely Hippos (<strong>the</strong>old Susitha), lying to <strong>the</strong> east of <strong>the</strong> lake of Galilee and possessing a territory whichinclu<strong>de</strong>d villages that adjoined <strong>the</strong> territory of Gadara (Jos. Vita [ix] 42), but it is nevermentioned in <strong>the</strong> New Testament.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 335The situation is exactly <strong>the</strong> same on <strong>the</strong> two occasions on whichJesus is said to have visited <strong>the</strong> territory of cities outsi<strong>de</strong> his main areaof action. It is not in Caesarea Philippi itself that he is found, but inits kōmai (Mk. 8: 27) or merē (Mt. 16: 13);16 and when he visitsPhoenicia it is to <strong>the</strong> merē or horia of Tyre and Sidon that he goes(Mt. 15: 21–2; Mk. 7: 24, 31), and he is <strong>the</strong>re approached by a woman‘from those horia’. When multitu<strong>de</strong>s come to him on ano<strong>the</strong>r occasionfrom Tyre and Sidon, it is from <strong>the</strong>ir paralios (coastal district,Lk. 6: 17). There is one reference in Mat<strong>the</strong>w (11: 21) and Luke (10:13) to <strong>the</strong> doing of ‘mighty works’ in Tyre and Sidon; but (and thisnicely conWrms what I have been saying) this is simply part of <strong>the</strong>reproach to <strong>the</strong> ‘cities’ (in reality, kōmai) Chorazin and Bethsaida(and Capernaum) that if <strong>the</strong> mighty works which had actually beendone in <strong>the</strong>m had been performed instead in Tyre and Sidon, <strong>the</strong>ywould have repented!16 aIt will have been noticed that I have said nothing so far about <strong>the</strong>Wrst two Palestinian cities which I put at <strong>the</strong> head of my list above:Sepphoris and Tiberias, <strong>the</strong> only two real poleis of Galilee, which hadbeen foun<strong>de</strong>d by Herod Antipas.17 There is <strong>the</strong> best of reasons forthis: just as we hear nothing in <strong>the</strong> Gospels of Sebaste (<strong>the</strong> polis of <strong>the</strong>Samareitis), so we hear not a word of Sepphoris, and Tiberias ismentioned only in <strong>the</strong> fourth Gospel (Jn. 6: 1, 23; 21: 1) in connectionwith <strong>the</strong> lake that bore its name, better known to us as <strong>the</strong> lake ofGalilee. Yet Sepphoris was only about four miles from Jesus’s homevillage of Nazareth, and Tiberias is on <strong>the</strong> shore of <strong>the</strong> lake of Galileeat almost <strong>the</strong> nearest point to Nazareth. One can un<strong>de</strong>rstand thatJesus would not wish to enter Sebaste, a predominantly pagan city;but both Sepphoris and Tiberias were thoroughly Jewish in populationand religion, even if <strong>the</strong>ir civic institutions (those of Tiberias atany rate)18 were of <strong>the</strong> standard Greek pattern, and even if Sepphoris16 Nineham pp. 219, 228 n., is unnecessarily puzzled by <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> perfectlycorrect expression kōmē in Mk. 8: 23, 26, 27.16 a [On Tyre and Sidon, see Millar, Roman Near East, 285–95.]17 Sepphoris (re-foun<strong>de</strong>d): Jos. AJ 18. 27. Tiberias: Jos. BJ 2. 168; AJ 18. 36–8; Vita37; and see M. Avi-Yonah, ‘The Foundation of Tiberias’, in Israel Exploration Journal,1 (1950–51), pp. 160–9. For both <strong>the</strong>se cities, see Jones, Cities, pp. 274–8.18 See Jones, Cities, p. 462 n. 67. Compare also Tessa Rajak, ‘Justus of Tiberias’,Classical Quarterly, 67, ns 23 (1973), pp. 345–68, esp. 346–50.
336 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertywas to be exceptionally pro-Roman during <strong>the</strong> great Jewish revolt of66–70.19 Yet it need not surprise us to Wnd no record of Jesus’spresence in ei<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong>se cities: <strong>the</strong>y were both regar<strong>de</strong>d with hatredby <strong>the</strong> Galilaeans in Josephus’s army in 66,20 and Jesus would nodoubt have seen <strong>the</strong>m as belonging to an alien world. In Mk. 1: 38 itis <strong>the</strong> nearby kōmopoleis (<strong>the</strong> substantial villages) of Galilee in whichhe contemp<strong>late</strong>s preaching: that represents <strong>the</strong> reality.I dare say that some New Testament scholars may object that I havema<strong>de</strong> far too much of topographical evi<strong>de</strong>nce in <strong>the</strong> Gospels which<strong>the</strong>y <strong>the</strong>mselves are in general reluctant to press.21 To this I wouldreply that I am not using any of <strong>the</strong> Gospel narratives for anytopographical purpose: it is a matter of indiVerence to me whe<strong>the</strong>r,for example, <strong>the</strong> pericope containing <strong>the</strong> ‘confession of Peter’ (Mk. 8:27 V.; Mt. 16: 13 V.) is rightly located near Caesarea Philippi ra<strong>the</strong>rthan anywhere else. Nor have I drawn any conclusions from uses of<strong>the</strong> word polis. My one purpose has been to <strong>de</strong>monstrate that<strong>the</strong> synoptic Gospels are unanimous and consistent in locating <strong>the</strong>mission of Jesus entirely in <strong>the</strong> countrysi<strong>de</strong>, not within <strong>the</strong> poleisproper, and <strong>the</strong>refore outsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> real limits of Hellenistic civilization.It seems to me inconceivable that this can be due to <strong>the</strong>evangelists <strong>the</strong>mselves, who (as we have seen) were very likely todignify an obscure village like Nazareth or Capernaum22 with <strong>the</strong> titleof polis but would certainly not ‘down-gra<strong>de</strong>’ a locality by making it acountry district if in <strong>the</strong>ir source it appeared as a polis. I conclu<strong>de</strong>,<strong>the</strong>refore, that in this respect <strong>the</strong> evangelists accurately reXect <strong>the</strong>19 See Jos. BJ 3. 30–4; Vita 30, 38–9, 103–4, 124, 232, 346–8, 373, 394–7, 411.(Tiberias had quite an inXuential pro-Roman element: see Jos. Vita 32–42, 155 et seq.,381, 391; compare 82 etc.)20 For Tiberias, see Jos. Vita 98–100, 381–9 (esp. 384), 392; for Sepphoris, 374,384; compare 30, 375–80. [For Tiberias and Sepphoris, see Millar, Roman Near East,358–9, 369–70.]21 Opinions diVer greatly here, and none of <strong>the</strong> New Testament scholars I haveread has an approach at all similar to mine. There is some good material in G. Schille,‘Die Topographie <strong>de</strong>s Markus-Evangeliums, ihre Hintergrün<strong>de</strong> u. ihre Einordnung’,in Zeitschrift <strong>de</strong>s Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 73 (1957), pp. 133–66, but his intereststoo are quite diVerent from mine.22 The well-known synagogue that has been excavated at Capernaum was builtmore than a hundred years after <strong>the</strong> time of Jesus. Josephus, in <strong>the</strong> whole of his works,makes no reference to Nazareth and at most two to Capernaum: BJ 3. 519 (a merespring), and perhaps Vita 403 (<strong>the</strong> village of Kepharnokos).
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 337situation <strong>the</strong>y found in <strong>the</strong>ir sources; and it seems to me that <strong>the</strong>sesources are very likely in<strong>de</strong>ed to have presented a true picture of <strong>the</strong>general locus of <strong>the</strong> activity of Jesus.Within a generation <strong>the</strong> message of Jesus had been transformedinto what is sometimes <strong>de</strong>scribed (perhaps not unfairly) as Pauline<strong>Christian</strong>ity. This process cannot be un<strong>de</strong>rstood by <strong>the</strong> historian (asdistinct from <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologian) unless it is seen as <strong>the</strong> transfer of awhole system of i<strong>de</strong>as from <strong>the</strong> world of <strong>the</strong> chōra to that of <strong>the</strong>polis23—a process necessarily involving <strong>the</strong> most profound changesin that system of i<strong>de</strong>as. And in my opinion it is in this process oftransformation that <strong>the</strong> most serious problems of ‘<strong>Christian</strong> origins’arise.Jesus, <strong>the</strong>n, lived and taught within an area which was nei<strong>the</strong>rGreek nor Roman but wholly Jewish.24 As I mentioned earlier,Galilee, within which by far <strong>the</strong> greater part of <strong>the</strong> activity of Jesusapparently took place, was not even a Roman province during hislifetime: it was still a Roman ‘client kingdom’, until 39 part of <strong>the</strong>tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, <strong>the</strong> son of Herod <strong>the</strong> Great. Of courseJesus was well aware of <strong>the</strong> Roman imperial power that had alreadyengulfed Judaea as a tributary province and could easily swallow up<strong>the</strong> remaining petty client kingdoms of Palestine whenever it wantedto. But he may well have had virtually no direct contact with <strong>the</strong>Roman imperial administration before his Wnal arrest and trial, on<strong>the</strong> pretence that he was a political agitator, in<strong>de</strong>ed a ‘resistancelea<strong>de</strong>r’. Even <strong>the</strong> ‘publicans’ (publicani in Latin, telōnai in Greek)who crop up in <strong>the</strong> Gospels, such as Mat<strong>the</strong>w (or Levi <strong>the</strong> son ofAlpheus),25 will have been employed by Herod Antipas, <strong>the</strong> tetrarch,and not by <strong>the</strong> Roman governor of Judaea—who by <strong>the</strong> way at thisdate, as we know from a recently discovered inscription, had <strong>the</strong> title23 See esp. n. 6 above. Here I should like to mention an excellent article which isrelevant to <strong>the</strong> one aspect of this vast subject named in its title: Heinz Kreissig, ‘Zursozialen Zusammenstellung <strong>de</strong>r frühchristlichen Gemein<strong>de</strong> in ersten Jahrh. u.Z.’, inEirene, 6 (1967), pp. 91–100.24 This is best brought out, in my opinion, in <strong>the</strong> admirable recent book by GezaVermes, Jesus <strong>the</strong> Jew: A Historian’s Reading of <strong>the</strong> Gospels (London, 1973): see esp. pp.48–9.25 In Mk. 2: 14 it is Levi <strong>the</strong> son of Alpheus, and Levi also in Lk. 5: 27, 29; in Mt. 9:9 it is Mat<strong>the</strong>w.
338 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertynot of procurator but of praefectus.26 How much contact Jesus hadwith Greek culture it is not possible to say, but I think it is likely tohave been minimal.Now <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world was obsessively concerned withwealth and status. In regard to <strong>the</strong> vast majority of <strong>the</strong> members of<strong>the</strong> upper classes whom we happen to know about from literaryevi<strong>de</strong>nce or from honoriWc or funerary inscriptions or o<strong>the</strong>rwise, itis of course <strong>the</strong>ir oYcial careers which are best known to us; weseldom have any <strong>de</strong>tails of <strong>the</strong>ir wealth.27 But wealth was by far <strong>the</strong>most important <strong>de</strong>terminant of status. Ovid put it beautifully inthree words: dat census honores, ‘it is property that confers rank’(Amores iii. viii. 55). In <strong>the</strong> time of Jesus virtually all <strong>the</strong> greatfortunes belonged to Romans ra<strong>the</strong>r than Greeks; but in <strong>the</strong> Greekworld <strong>the</strong>re had always been wi<strong>de</strong> variations of wealth and poverty,and <strong>the</strong>se had become much more pronounced now that <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracywhich had Xourished in <strong>the</strong> Wfth and fourth centuries wasgradually being extinguished by <strong>the</strong> joint eVorts of <strong>the</strong> Greek propertiedclasses and <strong>the</strong> Romans.28The Greeks, from archaic times through <strong>the</strong> Classical and Hellenisticperiods and on into <strong>the</strong> Roman age, habitually expressed politicalcomplexion and social status in a fascinating vocabulary which isan inextricable mixture of socio-economic and moral terminology,with two sets of terms applied more or less indiscriminately to <strong>the</strong>propertied and <strong>the</strong> non-propertied classes respectively. On <strong>the</strong> onehand we have not only words which mean property-owning, rich,fortunate, distinguished, well-born, inXuential,29 but also, as alternativesfor virtually <strong>the</strong> same set of people, words having a basically26 See Schürer p. 358 and n. 22. [For <strong>the</strong> complex interaction between Romanemperors and <strong>the</strong>ir client kingdoms in <strong>the</strong> Levant during this period, see Millar,Roman Near East, ch. 2.]27 Richard Duncan-Jones, The Economy of <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire: QuantitativeStudies (Cambridge, 1974), gives a useful list of 29 of <strong>the</strong> largest fortunes knownto us un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> principate, ranging from HS 400 million to about 2 million (app. 7,pp. 343–4), and a <strong>de</strong>tailed analysis of <strong>the</strong> wealth of one particular Roman ofdistinction whom we know much better than most: Pliny <strong>the</strong> Younger (cap. 1, pp.17–32).28 I shall explain how this happened in CSAGW.29 For example ïƒ ôaò ïPóßÆò Š÷ïíôåò; ðºïýóØïØ; ðÆ÷å&Øò; åPäÆßìïíåò; ªíþæØìïØ;åPªåíå&Øò; ªåííÆ&ØïØ; äıíÆôïß; äıíÆôþôÆôïØ.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 339moral connotation and meaning literally <strong>the</strong> good, <strong>the</strong> best, <strong>the</strong>upright, <strong>the</strong> fair-min<strong>de</strong>d and so forth.30 And on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand weWnd applied to <strong>the</strong> lower classes, <strong>the</strong> poor, who are also <strong>the</strong> many, <strong>the</strong>mob, <strong>the</strong> populace, words with an inescapably moral quality, meaningessentially bad.31 Even Solon, often regar<strong>de</strong>d as <strong>the</strong> foun<strong>de</strong>r of <strong>the</strong>A<strong>the</strong>nian <strong>de</strong>mocracy, could say in one of his poems that he had ma<strong>de</strong>laws equally for <strong>the</strong> kakos and <strong>the</strong> agathos32—for <strong>the</strong> ‘lower class’ and<strong>the</strong> ‘upper class’, of course, ra<strong>the</strong>r than ‘<strong>the</strong> bad’ and ‘<strong>the</strong> good’; butnothing could alter <strong>the</strong> social fact that <strong>the</strong> upper class were ‘<strong>the</strong> good’,<strong>the</strong> lower class ‘<strong>the</strong> bad’. The Roman governing class was as thoroughly<strong>de</strong>voted to property as <strong>the</strong> most wealth-conscious of <strong>the</strong>Greeks. No surviving Greek writer is quite as explicit about <strong>the</strong>overriding importance of property rights as Cicero, <strong>the</strong> earliestknown to me in a long line of thinkers, extending into mo<strong>de</strong>rntimes, who have seen <strong>the</strong> protection of private property rights as<strong>the</strong> prime function of <strong>the</strong> state. In <strong>the</strong> De OYciis, for example, afterasking what greater mischief <strong>the</strong>re could be than an equal distributionof property (aequatio bonorum . . . qua peste quae potest essemaior?), Cicero goes on to <strong>de</strong>clare that states were establishedabove all with <strong>the</strong> aim of preserving property rights (ii.73, compare78, 83–5; i.21).Let us now turn back to <strong>the</strong> Jewish world inhabited by Jesus. Thecontrast between Jewish and Graeco-Roman attitu<strong>de</strong>s to questions ofwealth and poverty comes out vividly in <strong>the</strong> account given in chapter4 of Luke’s Gospel of <strong>the</strong> public preaching of Jesus at Nazareth. (The30 For example ïƒ IªÆŁïß, ŒÆºïd ŒIªÆŁïß; ÷æçóôïß; KóŁºïß; ¼æØóôïØ; âݺôØóôïØ;äåîØþôÆôïØ; ÷Ææßåíôåò; KðØåØŒå&Øò. I know of no <strong>de</strong>tailed examination of <strong>the</strong> use of<strong>the</strong>se Greek terms comparable to that of J. Hellegouarc’h, Le Vocabulaire latine <strong>de</strong>srelations et <strong>de</strong>s partis politiques sous la République2 (Paris, 1972), who studies <strong>the</strong> useof <strong>the</strong> corresponding Latin terms boni, optimi, optimates etc. on pp. 484–505, and <strong>the</strong>equivalent of those given in n. 31 below (for example plebs, populus, populares, mali,improbi etc.) on pp. 506–41. But see R. A. Neil, The Knights of Aristophanes (London,1909), pp. 202–9, app. ii, ‘Political use of moral terms’.31 For example (a) ïƒ ðÝíçôåò (sometimes used almost in <strong>the</strong> sense of ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>servingpoor’), ¼ðïæïØ (<strong>the</strong> propertyless), ðôø÷ïß; (b) ïƒ ðﺺïß; ôe ðº çŁïò; & › Z÷ºïò;›ä& çìïò; ïƒ äçìïôØŒïß; (c) ïƒ ŒÆŒïß; ìï÷Łçæïß; ðïíçæïß; äåغïß; ôe ŒÜŒØóôïí. CompareMacMullen, Roman Social Relations, app. B: ‘The Lexicon of Snobbery’, and <strong>the</strong>works <strong>the</strong>re cited on p. 138.32 Solon, fr. 24.18–20 (ed. E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, i3. 45); compare fr.23.19–21; fr. 1.33.
340 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertypart I am interested in does not occur in parallel accounts in <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r synoptics.) Jesus reads from <strong>the</strong> 61st chapter of Isaiah, openingwith <strong>the</strong> words, ‘<strong>the</strong> spirit of <strong>the</strong> Lord is upon me, because he hasanointed me to preach <strong>the</strong> gospel to <strong>the</strong> poor’ (Lk. 4: 18). Now <strong>the</strong>word for ‘poor’ used here by Luke, as in <strong>the</strong> Septuagint version ofIsaiah, is ptōchoi, a very strong word in<strong>de</strong>ed, which very often inGreek means not just <strong>the</strong> poor but <strong>the</strong> down-and-out, <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>stitute,<strong>the</strong> beggar—Lazarus in <strong>the</strong> parable is a ptōchos (Lk. 16: 20, 22).Classical scholars will remember <strong>the</strong> appearance of Poverty (Penia)as a character in <strong>the</strong> Plutus of Aristophanes (lines 415–612), and howangry she becomes when Chremylus refers to Penia and Ptocheia assisters: no, says Penia, <strong>the</strong> ptōchos has nothing, whereas her man,<strong>the</strong> penēs, may toil and scrape, but he has enough to live on (lines548–54).32 aI must just mention here that although <strong>the</strong> word ptōchoi does alsoappear in <strong>the</strong> Septuagint version of Isaiah 61: 1, it <strong>the</strong>re trans<strong>late</strong>s aHebrew word which is sometimes better ren<strong>de</strong>red—as in<strong>de</strong>ed it is in<strong>the</strong> Authorized Version—by ‘<strong>the</strong> meek’. But this takes us into irrelevantquestions, which I am anyway not competent to <strong>de</strong>al with, of <strong>the</strong>various sha<strong>de</strong>s of meaning of <strong>the</strong> Hebrew words expressing poverty,lowliness and <strong>the</strong> like. Some of <strong>the</strong>se are as ambiguous as <strong>the</strong> Englishword ‘humble’, which can be purely social or purely moral or amixture of <strong>the</strong> two. The only point I need make here is that in <strong>the</strong>Hebrew terminology, unlike <strong>the</strong> Greek, poverty and a lowly station inlife are often associated with <strong>the</strong> moral virtues.33But let us return to Jesus. In Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s version of <strong>the</strong> Beatitu<strong>de</strong>s,in <strong>the</strong> so-called ‘Sermon on <strong>the</strong> Mount’ (Mt. 5–7), Jesus is ma<strong>de</strong> tosay ‘Blessed are hoi ptōchoi tōi pneumati, <strong>the</strong> poor in spirit’ (we mightsay, ‘humble at heart’), ‘for <strong>the</strong>irs is <strong>the</strong> kingdom of heaven’; and‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for <strong>the</strong>y32 a [For <strong>Christian</strong> conceptions of and attitu<strong>de</strong>s to poverty and <strong>the</strong>ir impact on <strong>the</strong>secular classical world, see E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale àByzance (Paris, 1977); P. Brown, Poverty and Lea<strong>de</strong>rship in <strong>the</strong> Later Roman Empire(Hanover, 2002).]33 Perhaps it will be suYcient if I merely give a few references to <strong>the</strong> massive workof S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of <strong>the</strong> Jews, which cites much mo<strong>de</strong>rnliterature: i2 (New York, 1952 and repr.) pp. 152 (with 364 n. 25), 262–7, 278 (with414 n. 36); ii2 (1952 and repr.) pp. 46, 241–2, 256, 269–74. See below, n. 33a.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 341shall be Wlled’ (5: 3, 6); but Luke’s corresponding version, in <strong>the</strong>‘Sermon on <strong>the</strong> Plain’ (6: 17–49), has simply ‘Blessed are ye poor’(ptōchoi, without qualiWcation), ‘for yours is <strong>the</strong> Kingdom of God’,and ‘Blessed are ye that hunger now’ (not ‘hunger after righteousness’),‘for ye shall be Wlled’ (6: 20–1). In both cases, of course, <strong>the</strong>fulWlment of <strong>the</strong> blessings is inten<strong>de</strong>d eschatologically: <strong>the</strong>y willbe realized not in this world but only in <strong>the</strong> Age to Come. An<strong>de</strong>ven <strong>the</strong> Lucan version is echoing <strong>the</strong> large number of passages in <strong>the</strong>Old Testament (especially in <strong>the</strong> Psalms, Isaiah, Proverbs and Job) inwhich <strong>the</strong> poor and lowly as such are treated with special reverence—several diVerent Hebrew expressions are involved. In <strong>the</strong> thoughtworldof Palestinian Judaism, out of which Jesus came, it was not somuch <strong>the</strong> rich and inXuential from whom <strong>the</strong> moral virtues were tobe expected, as in <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world, but <strong>the</strong> poor. Anilluminating recent treatment of <strong>the</strong> Beatitu<strong>de</strong>s by David Flusser33 ashows interesting connections with some of <strong>the</strong> literature of <strong>the</strong> DeadSea sect. Although Flusser is sure that it is Mt. 5: 3–5 which ‘faithfullypreserves <strong>the</strong> saying of Jesus and that Luke 6: 20 is an abbreviation of<strong>the</strong> original text’, he never<strong>the</strong>less insists that ‘Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s ‘‘poor inspirit’’ also has a social content’.34The main element in <strong>the</strong> preaching of Jesus was <strong>the</strong> message,‘repent, for <strong>the</strong> Kingdom of Heaven is at hand’. The meaning ofthis is that <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> whole present dispensation is near: Godwill intervene and bring to a speedy end all <strong>the</strong> powers of this world.In preparation for <strong>the</strong>se earth-shaking events men must repent of<strong>the</strong>ir sins and obey <strong>the</strong> law of God. In ano<strong>the</strong>r sense of <strong>the</strong> expression‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (or ‘Kingdom of God’), that kingdom is withinman’s power to grasp now:34 a if he repents and follows <strong>the</strong> right wayof life, he can to that extent enter into <strong>the</strong> kingdom even before <strong>the</strong>33 a D. Flusser, ‘Blessed Are <strong>the</strong> Poor in Spirit’, in Israel Exploration Jnl, 10 (1960),pp. 1–13. I agree with Vermes p. 241 n. 53 that Adolph Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. (Oxford, 1922), is ‘a rich mine ofinformation ra<strong>the</strong>r than a valid historico-critical assessment of <strong>the</strong> data’.34 p. 11, compare pp. 6–8.34 a Particularly interesting is <strong>the</strong> article by C. H. Roberts, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven(Lk. XVII.21)’, in Harvard Theological Review, 41 (1948), pp. 1–8, showing that <strong>the</strong>much-disputed expression Kíôeò •ì &øí in Lk. 17: 21 is most likely to mean that <strong>the</strong>kingdom is ‘within your power’ (‘It is a present reality if you wish it to be so’, p. 8),ra<strong>the</strong>r than ‘within you’ or ‘among you’.
342 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyWnal cataclysm. Various consequences follow from this. One of <strong>the</strong>most important is that <strong>the</strong> possession of wealth is a positive hindranceto entering into <strong>the</strong> kingdom. ‘It is easier for a camel to gothrough <strong>the</strong> eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter <strong>the</strong> Kingdomof God’, said Jesus, after <strong>the</strong> man seeking eternal life who ‘had greatpossessions’ had gone away disconso<strong>late</strong> on being told to sell all tha<strong>the</strong> had and give it to <strong>the</strong> poor.35 (Inci<strong>de</strong>ntally, this story is commonlyreferred to nowadays as that of ‘The Rich Young Man’, and that iscertainly what Mat<strong>the</strong>w calls him; but Mark and Luke make it clearthat in <strong>the</strong>ir minds young is what he is not!)36 There is one respect inwhich Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s account diVers radically from that of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r twosynoptics: Mat<strong>the</strong>w (19: 21) inserts into <strong>the</strong> command of Jesus <strong>the</strong>qualiWcation, ‘If you would be perfect’ (ei <strong>the</strong>leis teleios einai), whichis not in Mark (10: 21) or Luke (18: 22); and, as we shall see presently,it is in Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s formulation that <strong>the</strong> passage is invariably quoted by<strong>the</strong> early Fa<strong>the</strong>rs.37Luke (16: 19–31) is <strong>the</strong> only evangelist to give us <strong>the</strong> parable ofLazarus—who, as I said earlier, is speciWcally a ptōchos, here quiterightly trans<strong>late</strong>d ‘beggar’. Expositors seldom bring out <strong>the</strong> fact that<strong>the</strong> terrible fate of <strong>the</strong> rich man (Dives, as we usually call him) isclearly seen as a direct result of his great wealth, for he feels (verses27–8) that Lazarus alone will be able to teach his Wve survivingbro<strong>the</strong>rs how to avoid a similar fate. I need not cite any of <strong>the</strong>35 Mk. 10: 17–31; Mt. 19: 16–30; Lk. 18: 18–30. For an interesting variant, see <strong>the</strong>extract from <strong>the</strong> so-called Gospel according to <strong>the</strong> Hebrews, quoted for example byAlbert Huck, Synopsis of <strong>the</strong> First Three Gospels (9th edn., rev. by H. Lietzmann,English edn. by F. L. Cross, Oxford, 1957), p. 145 n., from E. Klostermann and E.Benz, Zur Überlieferung <strong>de</strong>r Matthäuserklärung <strong>de</strong>s Origenes ¼ TU 47, 2 (1931), pp.91–2; <strong>the</strong>re is an English trans. in M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament(Oxford, 1924 and repr.), p. 6. [See also J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament:A Collection of Apocryphal <strong>Christian</strong> Literature in an English Translation based on M.R. James (Oxford, 1993), 10–11.]36 In Mark and Luke he says he has observed <strong>the</strong> commandments KŒ íåüôçôïò:itisMat<strong>the</strong>w who calls him › íåÆíßóŒïò. Inci<strong>de</strong>ntally, it is only Mark (10: 21) who saysthat Jesus ‘loved him’ (or is it ‘caressed him’?).37 For a <strong>de</strong>sperate attempt by a mo<strong>de</strong>rn <strong>Christian</strong> scholar to retain, here and in <strong>the</strong>Beatitu<strong>de</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> Matthaean version in preference, although realizing that <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r ismuch more likely to be <strong>the</strong> historically true one, see Christophe pp. 37–8. Would it beunfair to paraphrase his exegesis by saying that Mark and Luke have what Jesus moreprobably said, Mat<strong>the</strong>w what a mo<strong>de</strong>rn <strong>Christian</strong> feels he must surely have meant?
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 343o<strong>the</strong>r evi<strong>de</strong>nce38 showing that <strong>the</strong> possession of any substantialamount of property was regar<strong>de</strong>d by Jesus as a positive evil, becauseit was only too likely to ensnare its possessor and divert him from <strong>the</strong>primary task of seeking <strong>the</strong> Kingdom of God.There is just one o<strong>the</strong>r New Testament passage, again in Lukealone, which I wish to mention: <strong>the</strong> MagniWcat.39 Here we Wnd aninteresting variant on <strong>the</strong> eschatological conception we have noticedalready, according to which in <strong>the</strong> Age to Come <strong>the</strong> poor and hungrywill be satisWed. We are still within <strong>the</strong> realm of eschatology, but <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>sired result is now conceived—in one form of <strong>the</strong> tradition ofJewish apocalyptic—as having been in some mysterious wayachieved already. ‘He hath put down <strong>the</strong> mighty from <strong>the</strong>ir seatsand hath exalted <strong>the</strong>m of low <strong>de</strong>gree. He hath Wlled <strong>the</strong> hungry withgood things and <strong>the</strong> rich he hath sent empty away.’ In <strong>the</strong> Greek <strong>the</strong>‘mighty’ are <strong>the</strong> dynastai, and Thomas Hardy took his title, ‘TheDynasts’, explicitly from this passage.40 In fact nothing of <strong>the</strong> sort hadactually happened: <strong>the</strong> dynasts were now more Wrmly in control thanever, as <strong>the</strong> Roman principate began its long era of power. Thepicture in <strong>the</strong> MagniWcat, in which <strong>the</strong> events are represented ashaving in a mystical sense occurred already, was a pleasantly harmlessone from <strong>the</strong> point of view of <strong>the</strong> dynasts, who certainly cashed <strong>the</strong>blank cheque Saint Paul <strong>late</strong>r wrote <strong>the</strong>m when he said, ‘The powersthat be are ordained of God’, and enjoined strict obedience to <strong>the</strong>civil authorities.4138 Cadoux pp. 61–6 quotes as usual all <strong>the</strong> texts, even if his interpretations cannotalways be accepted.39 Lk. 1: 46–55 (esp. 52–3). See Joseph Vogt, ‘Ecce ancilla domini’, in Vigiliae<strong>Christian</strong>ae, 23 (1969), pp. 241–63, repr. in Vogt Sklaverei u. Humanität (2nd edn.¼ Historia, Einzelschr. 8, 1972), pp. 147–64, 168.40 See Thomas Hardy, The Dynasts, After Scene (p. 522 of <strong>the</strong> ‘Papermac’ edition1965), where <strong>the</strong> Semi-chorus 1 of <strong>the</strong> Pities has <strong>the</strong> line, ‘Who hurlest Dynasts from<strong>the</strong>ir thrones’, and Hardy quotes <strong>the</strong> Greek of <strong>the</strong> MagniWcat in a footnote. The termdynastēs, in <strong>the</strong> sense of a chief or prince, occurs from <strong>the</strong> 5th century bc onwards(see for example Thuc. vii. 33.4), and in <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic period becomes almost atechnical term for <strong>the</strong> ruler who is not actually a king. Thus in oYcial formulaereferring to ruling authorities, dynasts are linked with kings, cities and peoples(ethnē), in various combinations: see for example OGIS 229.11; 383.172–3, 228–9;441.129–30, 131–2; SIG3 581.64; Diod. xix.57.3.41 Rom. 13: 1–7; Titus 3: 1; compare 1 Pet. 2: 13–17; 1 Tim. 2: 1–2. There has beena long controversy over <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> ‘powers’ (exousiai) to whom every soul is
344 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyI shall waste little time on <strong>the</strong> so-called ‘communism’ of <strong>the</strong>earliest apostolic community, which appears only momentarily in<strong>the</strong> opening chapters of Acts, while <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> church was a singlesmall body,42 and <strong>the</strong>n ceases altoge<strong>the</strong>r, to reappear only withinsingle monastic communities from <strong>the</strong> early fourth century onwards.This situation, which was already characteristic of certain Essene ando<strong>the</strong>r communities among <strong>the</strong> Jews,43 is entirely absent from <strong>the</strong>remain<strong>de</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> New Testament, and even in <strong>the</strong> early chapters ofcomman<strong>de</strong>d to be subject, in Rom. 13: 1. It should be suYcient to refer to Clinton D.Morrison, The Powers That Be (¼ Studies in Biblical Theology no. 29 (1960) ), who hasexhaustive bibliographies. The rea<strong>de</strong>r should be warned, however, that <strong>the</strong> author is a<strong>the</strong>ologian and not a historian, and that some of his statements are such as no ancienthistorian could accept—for example p. 125: ‘Since <strong>the</strong> State was part of <strong>the</strong> cosmicor<strong>de</strong>r established by <strong>the</strong> Ruler of All . . . <strong>the</strong> ancients consi<strong>de</strong>red subjection to <strong>the</strong>State a religious duty, and anarchy was synonymous with a<strong>the</strong>ism. Wise and godlymen had no alternative but submission to this or<strong>de</strong>r, and no doubt <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>conscience was largely tempered by this common un<strong>de</strong>rstanding.’ Apologists for Paulmust try to do better than this.42 Acts 2: 44–5; 4: 32–7; 5: 1–11; cf. Jn. 12: 6; 13: 29. I need refer only to RudolfBultmann, Theology of <strong>the</strong> New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; New York, 1952 andrepr.), i, p. 62: ‘It is self-evi<strong>de</strong>nt that in an eschatological congregation awaiting <strong>the</strong>near end of <strong>the</strong> world no special economic system was set up. What is often called <strong>the</strong>community of property in <strong>the</strong> earliest Church on <strong>the</strong> basis of Acts 2: 45; 4: 34 V.isinreality a practical sharing of property on <strong>the</strong> basis of love. To call this actualcommunism is out of <strong>the</strong> question, for it lacks both a social programme andorganized production.’43 For <strong>the</strong> ancient Greek and Latin texts relating to <strong>the</strong> Essenes, see Antike Berichteüber die Essener, ed. Alfred Adam ¼ Kleine Texte für Vorlesung und Übungen, no. 182(Berlin, 1961; new edn. by C. Burchard, Berlin, 1972). There is of course a largeliterature on <strong>the</strong> Essenes: see <strong>the</strong> select bibliography in vol. 9 of <strong>the</strong> Loeb edition ofJosephus, by L. H. Feldman (1965), app. D, pp. 561–3. This has been growing since<strong>the</strong> appearance of <strong>the</strong> ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, emanating (in my view) ei<strong>the</strong>r from <strong>the</strong>Essenes <strong>the</strong>mselves or from a closely re<strong>late</strong>d sect. For a useful recent bibliography<strong>de</strong>aling with all <strong>the</strong> recent discoveries in <strong>the</strong> Judaean <strong>de</strong>sert, see Schürer i, pp. 118–22.G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Penguin, 1962 and repr.) is <strong>the</strong> best English version:see esp. pp. 29–30. And compare R. <strong>de</strong> Vaux, Archaeology and <strong>the</strong> Dead Sea Scrolls(London, 1973), esp. 129–30. Doubtless Jewish inXuences also lie behind suchpassages in <strong>the</strong> ‘Apostolic Fa<strong>the</strong>rs’ as Didache 4.8 (contrast 1.5–6; 4.9, 11); Hermes,Shepherd, Vision iii.vi.6 (contrast for example Mandate ii.4–6; Similitu<strong>de</strong> ii.5–10);Barnabas 19.8. [The subsequent bibliography on <strong>the</strong> Essenes and <strong>the</strong> Dead Sea Scrollsis very substantial; see, for example, E. Schürer, The History of <strong>the</strong> Jewish Peoplein <strong>the</strong> Age of Jesus Christ, iii, rev. Engl. trans. by G. Vermes et al. (Edinburgh, 1986),380–469; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study(Atlanta, 1990); and from a diVerent perspective, P. F. Esler, The First <strong>Christian</strong>s in<strong>the</strong>ir Social Worlds (London, 1994), ch. 5.]
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 345Acts it is clear that communal ownership was not complete, and inany event had nothing to do with communal production. Laterreferences which have sometimes been taken wrongly as evi<strong>de</strong>nce ofa continuance of community of property are no more than i<strong>de</strong>alizationsof a situation in which charity is conceived as complete, aswhen Tertullian says, ‘omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos, praeter uxores’[‘Among us all things are held in common, with <strong>the</strong> exception ofwives’] (Apol. 39.11), or when Justin boasts that <strong>Christian</strong>s share all<strong>the</strong>ir property with one ano<strong>the</strong>r (I Apol. xiv.2).At this point, before I go on to consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs to<strong>the</strong> question of property-ownership, I want to turn asi<strong>de</strong> and <strong>de</strong>alwith early <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> speciWc problem of slavery,which of course is partly one aspect of <strong>the</strong> larger question of propertyin general, for slaves ranked very high in<strong>de</strong>ed among <strong>the</strong> forms ofproperty consi<strong>de</strong>red essential for <strong>the</strong> good life in classical antiquity.The main organizational diVerence between <strong>the</strong> economy of <strong>the</strong>ancient world and our own is that in antiquity <strong>the</strong> propertied classes<strong>de</strong>rived <strong>the</strong>ir surplus, which enabled <strong>the</strong>m to live as <strong>the</strong>y pleased, notfrom <strong>the</strong> exploitation of free wage labour (which was relatively rareand was never of any great importance in <strong>the</strong> economy) but fromunfree labour44—that of chattel slaves above all, but also to someextent that of serfs (such as <strong>the</strong> Spartan helots or <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong>coloni of <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong>r Roman empire) or of <strong>de</strong>bt-bondsmen. Of course, avery large part of both agricultural production and manufacture wascarried on by small in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt peasants and artisans; but anyonewho wanted to live as a gentleman and have time to spend on suchthings as politics or philosophy45 or just a life of pleasure would haveto rely mainly on exploiting slave labour. (There was hardly anyalternative, except <strong>the</strong> letting of land or houses to tenants.)Now of course in a class society, especially one resting largely onservile labour, <strong>the</strong> governing class will have to keep <strong>the</strong> threat of forceup its sleeve, to ensure <strong>the</strong> subservience of those at whose expense it44 I shall have a great <strong>de</strong>al to say about this in CSAGW and can omit <strong>the</strong> evi<strong>de</strong>ncehere. [For slavery at Rome, see Class Struggle, ch. 3.4; K. R. Bradley, Slavery andSociety at Rome (Cambridge, 1994).]45 According to Arist. Pol. i.7, 1255 b 35–7, such a man would not even troublehimself with <strong>the</strong> supervision of his slaves but would entrust it to an overseer.
346 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertylives; and <strong>the</strong> Greeks, and even more <strong>the</strong> Romans, could treat refractoryslaves with extreme harshness. During <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>bate in <strong>the</strong> Romansenate in 61, on whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re should be <strong>the</strong> traditional mass executionof all <strong>the</strong> four hundred urban slaves of Pedanius Secundus, <strong>the</strong>Praefectus Urbi, who had been mur<strong>de</strong>red by one of his slaves, <strong>the</strong>conservative lawyer Gaius Cassius told <strong>the</strong> nervous senators, ‘You willnot restrain that scum except by terror’; and <strong>the</strong> execution was dulycarried out, in spite of a vigorous protest by <strong>the</strong> common people ofRome, who <strong>de</strong>monstrated violently for <strong>the</strong> relaxation of <strong>the</strong> savageancient rule—which, inci<strong>de</strong>ntally, was still <strong>the</strong> law in <strong>the</strong> legislation of<strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> emperor Justinian Wve centuries <strong>late</strong>r.46 But a ruling classseldom tries to rule by force alone; some kind of i<strong>de</strong>ology is usually<strong>de</strong>vised which both justiWes <strong>the</strong> privileged position of <strong>the</strong> rulersand also seeks to persua<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> ruled that <strong>the</strong> existing state of aVairsis only right and proper and is even in <strong>the</strong>ir ‘own best interests’.Two main types of philosophical justiWcation of slavery wereconstructed by <strong>the</strong> Greeks and Romans.47 The Wrst, <strong>the</strong> famous<strong>the</strong>ory of ‘natural slavery’, which is implicit in Plato’s thought andfully <strong>de</strong>veloped by Aristotle, grew naturally out of <strong>the</strong> historical factthat most Greek slaves in <strong>the</strong> classical period were barbaroi—strictly,non-Greeks, but ‘barbarians’ is normally used as <strong>the</strong> translation of<strong>the</strong> corresponding Greek and Latin words, as it is so convenient inpractice, if often technically incorrect. Aristotle’s <strong>the</strong>ory was basedupon <strong>the</strong> proposition, which he regar<strong>de</strong>d as self-evi<strong>de</strong>nt, that certainpeople (including virtually all barbarians) are slaves by nature, in <strong>the</strong>sense that <strong>the</strong>y are actually better oV when subjected to a master: for46 The story is given by Tac. Ann. xiv.42–3. It is strange that some standard works,such as W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery (Cambridge, 1908), pp. 95 etc.,and W. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity ¼ Mem.Amer. Philos. Soc. 40 (1955), p. 82, speak of <strong>the</strong> S. C. Silanianum as or<strong>de</strong>ring only <strong>the</strong>torture of <strong>the</strong> mur<strong>de</strong>red master’s slave household. It is quite clear that if <strong>the</strong>y failed togive aid to <strong>the</strong>ir mur<strong>de</strong>red master (whe<strong>the</strong>r killed by a fellow-slave or anyone else), allthose slaves sub eo<strong>de</strong>m tecto were held to be guilty and were not merely tortured butexecuted: see CJ vi. xxxv.12 (Justinian, ad 532); and many passages in Dig. XXIX.v,for example 1. §§ 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33; 3. §§ 16, 17; 14; and esp. 19. Many heirsmust have been very angry at being thus robbed of valuable property!47 My treatment of this subject here is somewhat over-simpliWed, and I have citedlittle ancient evi<strong>de</strong>nce; but <strong>the</strong>re is a ra<strong>the</strong>r fuller analysis in my [The Class Struggle in<strong>the</strong> Ancient Greek World: From <strong>the</strong> Archaic Age to <strong>the</strong> Arab Conquests (1981; corr.imprint, London, 1983), 416–18].
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 347such a person, slavery is both beneWcial and just. The essential view ofPlato and Aristotle was nicely expressed, more vividly than by ei<strong>the</strong>rof <strong>the</strong>m, by <strong>the</strong> Virginian slaveowner, George Fitzhugh, in 1854:‘Some men are born with saddles on <strong>the</strong>ir backs, and o<strong>the</strong>rs bootedand spurred to ri<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong>m; and <strong>the</strong> riding does <strong>the</strong>m good’!48 (Fitzhugh,of course, was quoting, and contradicting, some famous wordsspoken on <strong>the</strong> scaVold in 1685 by <strong>the</strong> English radical, RichardRumbold.)49 One passage in Aristotle’s Politics that is particularlyinteresting is <strong>the</strong> one containing <strong>the</strong> advice that all slaves should beoVered <strong>the</strong> reward of ultimate emancipation (vii.10, 1330 a 32–3):Aristotle promises to give his reasons <strong>late</strong>r, but unfortunately neverdoes so. If we read this advice with earlier passages explaining how<strong>the</strong> slave can beneWt from his association with his master, we may seea fairly precise parallel, at <strong>the</strong> individual level, with <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of <strong>the</strong>‘tutelage of backward nations’, one of <strong>the</strong> main planks in <strong>the</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ologyof mo<strong>de</strong>rn western imperialism.The o<strong>the</strong>r type of philosophical justiWcation of slavery, which isparticularly associated with <strong>the</strong> Stoics, has its antece<strong>de</strong>nt in a statementin <strong>the</strong> Politics of Aristotle (i.6, 1255 a 25–6), which <strong>de</strong>nies <strong>the</strong>very name of slave to <strong>the</strong> man who does not <strong>de</strong>serve to be in acondition of slavery—or, as we might say, <strong>de</strong>nies that <strong>the</strong> man whodoes not <strong>de</strong>serve to be in slavery is ‘really’ a slave at all. This, and not<strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of ‘natural slavery’, became <strong>the</strong> standard view of thinkingslaveowners in Hellenistic and Roman times. Even before Aristotlewrote <strong>the</strong>re had been protests against <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis of ‘natural’slavery50 and even against <strong>the</strong> assumption that barbarians are naturallyinferior to Greeks. In<strong>de</strong>ed, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of ‘natural slavery’ is not atall prominent in antiquity after Aristotle’s time, and when it doesreappear it is mainly applied to peoples ra<strong>the</strong>r than individuals.5148 George Fitzhugh, Sociology for <strong>the</strong> South, or <strong>the</strong> Failure of Free Society (Richmond,Va., 1854), p. 179.49 See The Good Old Cause. The English Revolution of 1640–1660, Its Causes, Courseand Consequences2. Extracts from contemporary sources, ed. Christopher Hill andEdmund Dell (2nd edn., rev. 1969), p. 474.50 See my The Origins of <strong>the</strong> Peloponnesian War, p.45.51 As it had sometimes been earlier, for example in Arist. Pol. vii.14, 1333 b 38 V.,esp. 1334 a 2. [For discussion of Aristotle’s concept of natural slavery within <strong>the</strong>context of his overall philosophy, see F. D. Miller, ‘Naturalism’, in C. Rowe and M.SchoWeld (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought(Cambridge, 2000), 320–43, at 332–6.]
348 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyThis may be in a merely rhetorical context, as when Cicero stigmatizesJews and Syrians as ‘peoples born for slavery’ (De Prov. Cons.10), but we also Wnd it seriously stated by a speaker in Cicero’sdialogue De Republica (iii.25/37) that a nation can beneWt frombeing in a state of complete political subjection (servitus) toano<strong>the</strong>r.52 There were, however, some distant but powerful echoesof <strong>the</strong> ‘natural slavery’ <strong>the</strong>ory in much <strong>late</strong>r times, when it played ahighly signiWcant role in <strong>Christian</strong> Spain in <strong>the</strong> controversy concerning<strong>the</strong> rightfulness of enslaving negroes, and <strong>the</strong> Indians of <strong>the</strong>Caribbean and of central and south America, in <strong>the</strong> Wfteenth centuryonwards. At <strong>the</strong> great <strong>de</strong>bate or<strong>de</strong>red by Charles V at Valladolid in1550, to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong> Spaniards might lawfully wage warupon Indians and enslave <strong>the</strong>m, before even preaching <strong>the</strong> faith to<strong>the</strong>m, Aristotle’s doctrine was accepted in principle by both <strong>the</strong>leading disputants: <strong>the</strong> great scholar Juan Gines <strong>de</strong> Sepúlveda and<strong>the</strong> Franciscan friar Bartolomé <strong>de</strong> las Casas. (The main book inEnglish on this topic, upon which I am relying here, bears <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>lightful title, Aristotle and <strong>the</strong> American Indians.)53 The mainpoint of disagreement, it seems, was simply <strong>the</strong> factual questionwhe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> Indians were ‘natural slaves’; it was hardlyquestioned that negroes were.In <strong>the</strong> Hellenistic period onwards, Greek and Roman thought on<strong>the</strong> subject of slavery, with hardly an exception, provi<strong>de</strong>s a set ofuninspired variations on a single <strong>the</strong>me: that <strong>the</strong> state of slavery—like poverty and war, or liberty, riches and peace—is <strong>the</strong> result ofacci<strong>de</strong>nt, of Fortune ra<strong>the</strong>r than of Nature, and that it is a matter ofindiVerence, aVecting externals only; that <strong>the</strong> good and wise man isnever ‘really’ a slave, even if that happens to be his actual condition,but is ‘really’ free; that it is <strong>the</strong> bad man who is ‘really’ a slave, becausehe is in bondage to his own lusts—a won<strong>de</strong>rfully comforting set ofdoctrines for slaveowners. (I fancy that such austere philosophicalnotions are of greater assistance in <strong>the</strong> endurance of liberty, riches52 The source of Cic. De Rep. iii.24/36 to 25/37, ed. K. Ziegler (6th edn., 1964) isoften said to be Panaetius, but I agree with H. Strasburger, ‘Poseidonios on Problemsof <strong>the</strong> Roman Empire’, in JRS 55 (1965), pp. 40–53 (esp. pp. 44–5 and n. 50) that thisis unjustiWed.53 It is by Lewis Hanke (London, 1959).
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 349and peace than of slavery, poverty and war.) Ingenious <strong>de</strong>velopmentscan be found of this or that aspect of <strong>the</strong> standard view I have just<strong>de</strong>scribed, and of course some authors emphasize one aspect of it,o<strong>the</strong>rs ano<strong>the</strong>r; but <strong>the</strong>re is a general dreary similarity of sentiment.I think <strong>the</strong> fourteenth oration of Dio Chrysostom is probably <strong>the</strong>most entertaining example I know of this kind of perverse ingenuity.It is often said that <strong>Christian</strong>ity introduced an entirely new andbetter attitu<strong>de</strong> towards slavery. Nothing could be more false: Jesusaccepted slavery as a fact of his environment,54 just as it is accepted in<strong>the</strong> Old Testament; and his followers accepted and adapted <strong>the</strong>prevailing Graeco-Roman view which I have just <strong>de</strong>scribed. ThesigniWcance of <strong>the</strong> oft-quoted text in Colossians (3: 11), ‘There isnei<strong>the</strong>r Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian,Scythian, bond nor free’ is better un<strong>de</strong>rstood in <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong>parallel text in Galatians (3: 28): ‘There is nei<strong>the</strong>r Jew nor Greek,<strong>the</strong>re is nei<strong>the</strong>r bond nor free, <strong>the</strong>re is nei<strong>the</strong>r male nor female; for yeare all one in Christ Jesus’. There is ‘nei<strong>the</strong>r bond nor free’ in exactly<strong>the</strong> same sense as <strong>the</strong>re is ‘nei<strong>the</strong>r male nor female’: <strong>the</strong>se statementsare true in a strictly spiritual sense; <strong>the</strong> equality exists ‘in <strong>the</strong> sight ofGod’ and has no relation whatever to temporal aVairs. The distinctionbetween slave and master in this world is no more seen asneeding to be changed than that between male and female. ForSaint Paul, Jesus has set all his followers free—from <strong>the</strong> Xesh andall its works.55 The exhortation to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> slave to regardhimself as ‘Christ’s freedman’ (in <strong>the</strong> same sense that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>who is a free man is ‘Christ’s slave’, 1 Cor. 7: 22) may well haveaVor<strong>de</strong>d him greater spiritual comfort than <strong>the</strong> pagan slave couldobtain from <strong>the</strong> familiar philosophic view that if he was a good manhe was ‘really’ free already; but it was basically <strong>the</strong> same view. And if,54 See esp. Lk. 17: 7–9 (addressing potential slaveowners); also Mk. 12: 2–5 (¼ Lk.20: 10–12; compare Mt. 21: 34–6); 13: 34; Mt. 10: 24–5; 13: 27–8; 18: 23 V.; 22: 3–10(compare Lk. 14: 17–23); 24: 45–51; 25: 14–30 (compare Lk. 19: 13–22); Lk. 12: 37–8;43–8; 15: 22, 26; and o<strong>the</strong>r texts. [For an important discussion of <strong>the</strong> limitations to<strong>Christian</strong> radicalism in <strong>the</strong> ancient world, including on <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>the</strong> proprietyof slavery, see P. Garnsey and C. Humfress, The Evolution of <strong>the</strong> Late Antique World(Cambridge, 2001), ch. 9, esp. pp. 206–10.]55 See for example Bultmann i, pp. 243–5, 246, 249, 331–3, 340–3; ii. pp. 205, 214,compare 230–1.
350 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyas by philosophic pagans, <strong>Christian</strong> masters are brieXy enjoined totreat <strong>the</strong>ir slaves fairly,56 <strong>the</strong> yoke of slavery is fastened even moreWrmly upon <strong>Christian</strong> slaves as <strong>the</strong> emphasis on obedience to <strong>the</strong>irmasters becomes even more absolute. Certain phrases in <strong>the</strong> Paulineepistles,57 such as that in Ephesians (6: 5), exhorting slaves to obey<strong>the</strong>ir masters ‘with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as untoChrist’, had sinister implications which were ma<strong>de</strong> explicit in twopost-apostolic works, <strong>the</strong> Epistle of Barnabas (19.7) and <strong>the</strong> Didache(4.11): <strong>the</strong>y expressly tell <strong>the</strong> slave that he must serve his master ‘as acounterpart of God’ (hōs typōi <strong>the</strong>ou), ‘in reverence and fear’. I knowof nothing that goes as far as that in pagan literature. Whatever <strong>the</strong><strong>the</strong>ologian may think of <strong>Christian</strong>ity’s claim to set free <strong>the</strong> soul of <strong>the</strong>slave, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> historian cannot <strong>de</strong>ny that it helped to rivet <strong>the</strong>shackles ra<strong>the</strong>r more Wrmly on his feet.58 It performed <strong>the</strong> same socialfunction as <strong>the</strong> fashionable philosophies of <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Romanworld, and perhaps with <strong>de</strong>eper eVect: it ma<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> slave bothmore content to endure his earthly lot, and more tractable andobedient. Saint Ignatius, in his Epistle to Polycarp (4.3), is anxiousthat <strong>Christian</strong> slaves should be nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>de</strong>spised nor ‘puVed up’56 In <strong>the</strong> New Testament, <strong>the</strong> only relevant passages I can Wnd are Coloss. 4: 1;Ephes. 6: 9; also Philem. 10 V. (esp. 16–18), a special case, Onesimus having beenconverted by Paul (10). [<strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong> expan<strong>de</strong>d his thought on Gal. 3: 28 in one of <strong>the</strong>chapters for his projected volume on ‘Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Women, Sex andMarriage’, although <strong>the</strong> essence of his argument, that <strong>the</strong> Pauline text must beinterpreted solely in a spiritual sense, is encapsu<strong>late</strong>d here. Much of <strong>the</strong> longerversion was to be occupied with arguments against mo<strong>de</strong>rn feminist <strong>the</strong>ologianswhose views, in <strong>Ste</strong>. <strong>Croix</strong>’s judgement, lacked proper historical grounding.]57 See Ephes. 6: 5–8; Coloss. 3: 22–4; 1 Tim. 6: 1–2; Titus 2: 9–10; 1 Pet. 2: 18–20.Compare 1 Cor. 7: 20–4: here <strong>the</strong>re has been much dispute about <strong>the</strong> meaning of vv.20–1, which must certainly be taken as an injunction against seeking manumission,both because of <strong>the</strong> ei kai (‘even if’: <strong>the</strong> force of this is missed in <strong>the</strong> AuthorizedVersion and by many commentators) and because of <strong>the</strong> gar at <strong>the</strong> beginning of v. 22.The sense is, ‘Let each man remain in <strong>the</strong> calling (occupation) wherein he was called(converted to <strong>Christian</strong>ity). Were you a slave when you were called (converted)? Don’tlet it concern you; but even if you are able to become free, be content with your presentcondition, for he who was called in <strong>the</strong> Lord (converted), being a slave, is <strong>the</strong> Lord’sfreedman; similarly, he who was called being a free man is a slave of Christ’. Paul’s pointis that <strong>the</strong> believer’s earthly condition, as slave or free, is of no importance.58 In his article, ‘Slavery, <strong>Christian</strong>’, in Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion andEthics, II (London, 1920 and repr.), p. 604a, L. D. Agate felt obliged to admit that <strong>the</strong>Church ten<strong>de</strong>d, ‘owing to its excessive care for <strong>the</strong> rights of <strong>the</strong> masters, even toperpetuate what would o<strong>the</strong>rwise have passed away’. I doubt, however, if slaverywould have ‘passed away’ any earlier in <strong>the</strong> absence of <strong>Christian</strong>ity.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 351(mē physiousthōsan); that <strong>the</strong>y should ‘serve <strong>the</strong> more, to <strong>the</strong> glory ofGod’; and that <strong>the</strong>y should ‘not wish to be set free at <strong>the</strong> public cost,lest <strong>the</strong>y become slaves of lust’. (I confess that I Wnd <strong>the</strong> last phrasesomewhat inconsequential, nor can I see exactly how an even moreintense <strong>de</strong>gree of labour on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> slave can enhance <strong>the</strong> gloryof God.) The Wfth Canon of <strong>the</strong> Council of Elvira (in <strong>the</strong> <strong>late</strong> thirdcentury or <strong>the</strong> early fourth) punished with no more than seven years’excommunication even <strong>the</strong> intentional Xogging to <strong>de</strong>ath by a womanof her slave-girl—perhaps one who had received <strong>the</strong> sexual attentionsof <strong>the</strong> woman’s husband.58 a And baptism seems to have been refusedto a slave by at least some churches without <strong>the</strong> consent of hismaster—perhaps only at Wrst if a <strong>Christian</strong> one,59 but <strong>late</strong>r even if apagan.60 Such a sacriWce of <strong>the</strong> immortal soul of a would-be <strong>Christian</strong>slave to <strong>the</strong> property-rights of a master seems to me in<strong>de</strong>fensibleon <strong>Christian</strong> premises.The situation changed not at all when <strong>Christian</strong>ity succee<strong>de</strong>d to<strong>the</strong> seats of power in <strong>the</strong> fourth century, and <strong>the</strong> Church61 assumed aposition even in <strong>the</strong> public life of <strong>the</strong> Roman empire of <strong>the</strong> fourthand following centuries which I can only compare, functionally, with<strong>the</strong> role of what Presi<strong>de</strong>nt Eisenhower called ‘<strong>the</strong> military-industrialcomplex’ in <strong>the</strong> United States today.61 a Saint Augustine at leastadmitted that slavery was an evil in principle; but with that extraordinaryperverse ingenuity which never ceases to astonish one, he sawit as God’s punishment upon mankind for <strong>the</strong> sin of Adam.62 (It did58 a [For <strong>the</strong> date of Elvira, see Ch. 2 above.]59 See Hippol. Apost. Trad. 15 (ed. Bernard Botte, Hippolyte <strong>de</strong> Rome: La traditionapostolique d’après les anciennes versions2 ¼ SC 11 b , 2nd edn., 1968) ¼ xvi. 4 in <strong>the</strong>English trans. by Gregory Dix, The Treatise on <strong>the</strong> Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytusof Rome2 (1968, 2nd edn. rev. by H. Chadwick). The date of <strong>the</strong> Apost. Trad. is veryclose to 215.60 Can. Hippol. x. 63 (pp. 76–7, ed. H. Achelis, TU 6, 4, 1891); compare <strong>the</strong> Arabicversion, with a French trans., in R. G. Coquin, Les Canons d’Hippolyte ¼ PO 31, 2(1966), can. 10, p. 95 ¼ 363.61 Strictly, <strong>the</strong> expression ‘<strong>the</strong> Church’ is a <strong>the</strong>ological ra<strong>the</strong>r than a historicalconcept, for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>s were never anything like a united body, and each sect(including of course <strong>the</strong> Catholics) had a habit of <strong>de</strong>nying <strong>the</strong> very name of <strong>Christian</strong>to all ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’—that is to say, those who were not within itscommunion. But <strong>the</strong> expression is too convenient to be abandoned entirely.61 a [For this comparison, cf. Ch. 5, p. 202 n.5]62 Aug., esp. CD xix. xv–xvi. [By contrast, Gregory of Nyssa, in <strong>the</strong> passages fromhis Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes 2: 7 quoted by Garnsey and Humfress, Evolution,
352 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertynot occur to him that it might be thought blasphemous to attributeto an all-just Deity such a singularly indiscriminate method ofcollective punishment.) In thus suggesting that ‘justly was <strong>the</strong> bur<strong>de</strong>nof servitu<strong>de</strong> laid upon <strong>the</strong> back of transgression’ Augustine representedslavery as something divinely ordained, and gave <strong>the</strong> institutionan even weightier justiWcation than it had ever received frompre-<strong>Christian</strong> thinkers since <strong>the</strong> days when <strong>the</strong>ories of ‘natural slavery’were abroad. In<strong>de</strong>ed, Augustine and Ambrose went so far asto think that slavery could actually be good for <strong>the</strong> slave, an instructiveform of correction and a blessing even63—for, as Ambrose put it,‘<strong>the</strong> lower <strong>the</strong> station in life, <strong>the</strong> more exalted <strong>the</strong> virtue’.64 I have notbeen able to Wnd in any early <strong>Christian</strong> writer anything like a <strong>de</strong>mandfor <strong>the</strong> abandonment of slavery or even for a general freeing ofexisting slaves. The nearest thing I know to this is in one of <strong>the</strong>Hymns on <strong>the</strong> Nativity (surviving only in Syriac) of Ephraim ofNisibis and E<strong>de</strong>ssa in Mesopotamia: here Ephraim makes Mary say,‘Let <strong>the</strong> man who owns a slave give him his freedom’.65 But immediately<strong>the</strong>re follow <strong>the</strong> words, ‘so that he may come and serve hisLord’; and in one of his Hymns on <strong>the</strong> Epiphany Ephraim makes itclear that in his eyes it is through baptism that <strong>the</strong> slave and <strong>the</strong> freeman are equated66—<strong>the</strong> standard <strong>Christian</strong> view. I have not even beenable to discover any attack on slavery in heretical works, comparableto <strong>the</strong> Pelagian onslaught on riches which I shall mention presently.At least two <strong>Christian</strong> scholars of mo<strong>de</strong>rn times, C. J. Cadoux and207, asserted that slavery was a sin of pri<strong>de</strong> against God since it had not existed in <strong>the</strong>Gar<strong>de</strong>n of E<strong>de</strong>n and contravened God’s hierarchy of creation. But, as Garnsey andHumfress note, Gregory’s line of argument is exceptional.]63 Aug. CD xix.xv; Ambr. Ep. 77.6 (‘is qui regere se non potest et gubernare,servire <strong>de</strong>bet . . . pro benedictione igitur huiusmodi confertur servitus’ [‘those whocannot control and govern <strong>the</strong>mselves ought to be slaves . . . and so servitu<strong>de</strong> of thistype is given as a blessing’ ¼ M. M. Beyenka, Saint Ambrose, Letters (Fa<strong>the</strong>rs of <strong>the</strong>Church 26; New York, 1954), 47].64 Ambr. Ep. 2.19 (‘quo status inferior, eo virtus eminentior’ [‘<strong>the</strong> more lowly <strong>the</strong>irstatus <strong>the</strong> more exalted <strong>the</strong>ir virtue’, Beyenka 15]). Among o<strong>the</strong>r passages in Ambrose<strong>de</strong>aling with slavery, see Ep. 37passim [Beyenka 54]; 63.112 [Beyenka 59]; 75.4–5[Beyenka 69].65 Ephraem Syrus, Hymn. <strong>de</strong> Nativ. xvii.8, p. 80, in <strong>the</strong> German trans. of E. Beck,CSCO 187 (¼ Syr. 83), 1959. For this and <strong>the</strong> passage cited in <strong>the</strong> next note, see Vogtpp. 161–2.66 Ephraem Syrus, Hymn. <strong>de</strong> Epiph. iv.6–8 (p. 143).
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 353R. M. Grant,67 have <strong>de</strong>clared that <strong>the</strong> gnostic Acts of Thomas 68 attack<strong>the</strong> very institution of slavery on <strong>the</strong> ground that all men are equalbefore God. In <strong>the</strong> text I see nothing of <strong>the</strong> sort, but only an expressionof sympathy for slaves whose masters lay bur<strong>de</strong>ns on <strong>the</strong>m as brutebeasts and refuse to treat <strong>the</strong>m as men like <strong>the</strong>mselves.In <strong>the</strong> Roman lawyers (apparently pagans to a man), from <strong>the</strong>second or third century of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> era to <strong>the</strong> sixth, we sometimesWnd <strong>the</strong> admission that slavery was contra naturam, iurinaturali contraria.69 (Slavery in<strong>de</strong>ed seems to have been regar<strong>de</strong>dby at least some of <strong>the</strong> lawyers as <strong>the</strong> only feature of <strong>the</strong> ius gentiumthat did not form part of ius naturale.)70 This is a line of thought thatcan be traced right back to <strong>the</strong> unnamed thinkers of <strong>the</strong> Wfth orfourth century bc who are said by Aristotle to have <strong>de</strong>clared thatslavery, because it was based on force, was contrary to nature andwrong—not merely ‘not according to nature’ (ou kata physin) but‘contrary to nature’ (para physin), a signiWcant diVerence.71 This lineof thought may or may not have <strong>de</strong>scen<strong>de</strong>d to <strong>the</strong> Roman lawyersthrough <strong>the</strong> Stoics. Certainly some Stoics—<strong>the</strong> ex-slave Epictetus, forexample72—may occasionally have spoken as if <strong>the</strong>y actually disapprovedin principle of possessing slaves. But this is all ultimatelyunreal, part of <strong>the</strong> smokescreen of plausible i<strong>de</strong>as by which <strong>the</strong> morefastidious thinkers of antiquity concealed from <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong> unpalatabletruth about a ruthless world of which <strong>the</strong>y were trying tomake <strong>the</strong> best <strong>the</strong>y could, according to <strong>the</strong>ir lights. The unreality ofall this talk emerges most clearly from Epictetus’s <strong>de</strong>scription of <strong>the</strong>67 Cadoux p. 454 (with <strong>the</strong> Greek text in n. 5); R. M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine:The Thrust of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> Movement into <strong>the</strong> Roman World (London, 1971),p. 301.68 Act. Thom. 83, in Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha ii.ii.198–9, ed. M. Bonnet(Leipzig, 1903). There is a good English trans. in James at p. 402. [For <strong>the</strong> Syriacversion, with Engl. trans., see A. F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text,and Commentary (2nd edn., Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 2003).]69 Dig. i.v.4.1 (Florentinus); xii.vi.64 (Tryphoninus); i.i.4 (Ulpian); Inst. J. i.ii.2.70 See H. F. Jolowicz and Barry Nicholas, Historical Introduction to <strong>the</strong> Study ofRoman Law3 (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 106–7.71 See my The Origins of <strong>the</strong> Peloponnesian War, p. 45.72 See Gnomologium Epicteteum 36–7 (pp. 486–7 in H. Schenkl’s Teubner text ofEpictetus, 1916) ¼ fr. 42–3 Schweighäuser. [Although it is very unlikely that thiscollection of aphorisms preserves genuine words of Epictetus, this does not aVect <strong>Ste</strong>.<strong>Croix</strong>’s point that a Stoic expressing ‘Epictetan’ views articu<strong>late</strong>d this opinion.]
354 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyex-slave who ends up by becoming a senator: he is <strong>the</strong>n subject, saysEpictetus, to ‘<strong>the</strong> fairest and sleekest slavery of all’!73 If being asenator was slavery, it was slavery in a Pickwickian sense, a kind ofslavery which <strong>the</strong> vast majority of <strong>the</strong> population of <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world would have embraced eagerly enough.72 aIn early <strong>Christian</strong> thought, <strong>the</strong>n, I have been able to Wnd little ornothing that goes even as far in rejecting slavery as <strong>the</strong> purely<strong>the</strong>oretical statements of <strong>the</strong> Roman lawyers to <strong>the</strong> eVect that it is‘contrary to nature’. And at this point I must mention one thing thathas long puzzled me. I realize that on <strong>Christian</strong> principles a good casecan perhaps be ma<strong>de</strong> for accepting <strong>the</strong> condition of slavery for <strong>the</strong>slave, in <strong>the</strong> way that Stoics and Epicureans accepted it, as well asSaint Paul and so many of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r early <strong>Christian</strong>s, as somethingexternal and unimportant. This is so, even for those who might notgo all <strong>the</strong> way with Cardinal Newman when he <strong>de</strong>clared that accordingto <strong>the</strong> teaching of his church ‘it were better for sun and moon todrop from heaven, for <strong>the</strong> earth to fail, and for all <strong>the</strong> many millionswho are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far astemporal aZiction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should belost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilfuluntruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing withoutexcuse.’74 But what of slavery as it aVects <strong>the</strong> master? Surely <strong>the</strong><strong>Christian</strong> who prays not to be ‘led into temptation’ should proceedto renounce <strong>the</strong> total irresponsible domination over fellow humanbeings which belongs to <strong>the</strong> master of slaves and is only too likely tolead him (as we know it did) into <strong>the</strong> gravest temptation, to commitacts of cruelty and lust? I do not know when this was Wrst realized;but it was evi<strong>de</strong>nt to <strong>the</strong> genius of Tolstoy, who in a remarkablepassage in War and Peace makes Prince Andrey tell Pierre that what ismost evil about serfdom is its eVect upon those masters who have <strong>the</strong>power to punish <strong>the</strong>ir serfs as <strong>the</strong>y please, and who, in doing so, ‘stiXe<strong>the</strong>ir remorse and become har<strong>de</strong>ned’.75 I can only conclu<strong>de</strong> that what72 a [For discussion of Stoic views of slavery, see Bradley, Slavery, 134–40; P.Garnsey, I<strong>de</strong>as of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (Cambridge, 1995), ch. 9.]73 Epict. Diss. iv.i.40, p. 360, ed. H. Schenkl (1916).74 J. H. Newman, Lectures on certain DiVerences felt by Anglicans in submitting to<strong>the</strong> Catholic Church (London, 1850), p. 199; (new and rev. edn., Dublin, 1857), p. 190.75 The conversation occurs in book V, during Pierre’s visit to Andrey at Bogucharovo.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 355prevented <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> church from admitting <strong>the</strong> dangerous, brutalizingeVect of slavery (and serfdom) upon masters was <strong>the</strong>irresistible force of social reality—what I would call, with Marx,<strong>the</strong> class struggle:75 a <strong>the</strong> absolute necessity for <strong>the</strong> dominant classesof <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world to maintain those social institutionsupon which <strong>the</strong>ir whole privileged position <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>d, and which<strong>the</strong>y were not willing, or even able, to forgo.I cannot speak from personal knowledge of <strong>Christian</strong> literaturemuch after <strong>the</strong> sixth century; but I would say that I know of noabsolute con<strong>de</strong>mnation of slavery as an institution by any <strong>Christian</strong>writer during <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages: statements I have seen quoted fromTheodore <strong>the</strong> Studite, Smaragdus Abbas and o<strong>the</strong>rs always havesome particular limited application.76 I dare say it is only my ownignorance, but I know of no general, outright con<strong>de</strong>mnation ofslavery inspired by a <strong>Christian</strong> outlook, before <strong>the</strong> petition of <strong>the</strong>Mennonites of Germantown in Pennsylvania in 168877—a sect verylike <strong>the</strong> Quakers, outsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> main stream of <strong>Christian</strong>ity. <strong>Christian</strong>writers have often emphasized attempts by <strong>Christian</strong>s to prevent or atleast discourage enslavement; but <strong>the</strong>se eVorts were rarely if everexten<strong>de</strong>d for <strong>the</strong> beneWt of those outsi<strong>de</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> fold, andwriters who have drawn attention to <strong>the</strong>m have often failed tomention that con<strong>de</strong>mnation of <strong>the</strong> sin of enslaving <strong>Christian</strong>s iscommonly accompanied by <strong>the</strong> tacit admission that enslaving nonbelieversis permissible, and even praiseworthy if enslavement isfollowed by conversion to <strong>the</strong> faith—a conversion which perhaps insome cases could hardly be attained by o<strong>the</strong>r means.So much for slavery. I turn now to <strong>the</strong> more general problem of <strong>the</strong>attitu<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> early fa<strong>the</strong>rs to <strong>the</strong> question of property-ownership.7876 For Smaragdus, see R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval PoliticalTheory in <strong>the</strong> West, i2 (London, 1927), pp. 208–9; David Brion Davis, The Problem ofSlavery in Western Culture (New York, 1966), pp. 92–3. There is a great <strong>de</strong>al ofinteresting material in <strong>the</strong> latter work (<strong>the</strong> best general account of its subject) on<strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s to slavery; compare also C. R. Boxer, The Portuguese SeaborneEmpire 1415–1825 (London, 1969; Pelican 1973), for example pp. 20–5, 66 et seq., an<strong>de</strong>sp. pp. 265–8.77 A text often reprinted: see for example Documents of American Hist.,5 ed. H. S.Commager (New York, 1949), pp. 37–8, no. 26. And see Davis pp. 308–9.78 The bibliography is vast, and I will only refer to Christophe, pp. 55–214;and Jean Gau<strong>de</strong>met, L’Église dans l’empire romain IV a –V a siècles (Paris, 1958),
356 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyThere are of course consi<strong>de</strong>rable diVerences of emphasis, but I thinkit would be true to say that with hardly an exception all <strong>the</strong> orthodoxwriters seem to have no serious qualms in accepting that a <strong>Christian</strong>may own property, un<strong>de</strong>r certain conditions, <strong>the</strong> most important ofwhich are that he must nei<strong>the</strong>r seek it avidly nor acquire it unjustly;that he ought not to possess a superXuity but only a suYciency; andthat what he does have he may use but must not abuse: he must holdit as a kind of trustee79 (if I may be permitted to use that peculiartechnical term of English law) for <strong>the</strong> poor, to whom he must givecharity. This last condition, <strong>the</strong> necessity for almsgiving, is <strong>the</strong> oneupon which <strong>the</strong>re is most insistence: <strong>the</strong> whole conception of course<strong>de</strong>scen<strong>de</strong>d direct to <strong>Christian</strong>ity from Judaism;80 and here <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>churches do seem to have gone far beyond <strong>the</strong> ordinary paganstandard. (There are some interesting remarks about <strong>the</strong> absence ofsimilar organized activities among <strong>the</strong> pagans, in <strong>the</strong> works of <strong>the</strong>emperor Julian.)81 Occasional anticipations of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> i<strong>de</strong>asI have just outlined can be found in earlier Greek authors, as whenEuripi<strong>de</strong>s makes Jocasta say that mortals do not hold <strong>the</strong>ir propertyas <strong>the</strong>ir own private possession: it belongs to <strong>the</strong> gods, and mortalsmerely have <strong>the</strong> care of it; <strong>the</strong> gods, whenever <strong>the</strong>y want it, take itback again (Phoen. 555–7).I shall return in a moment to <strong>the</strong> question of almsgiving, which isworth special attention, and I shall also have something to say on <strong>the</strong>question of suYciency or superXuity of property. But I must Wrst adda ri<strong>de</strong>r to what I have said about <strong>the</strong> general early <strong>Christian</strong> view ofpp. 569–73 (compare pp. 694–8 on almsgiving), who give suYcient references too<strong>the</strong>r mo<strong>de</strong>rn work. A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome(London, 1968), <strong>de</strong>als mainly with <strong>the</strong> pre-<strong>Christian</strong> world, as does H. Bolkestein,Wohltätigkeit und ArmenpXege in vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht, 1939). [For commentson <strong>the</strong> divergent Stoic views on private property, see J. Annas, ‘Cicero on StoicMoral Philosophy and Private Property’, in M. GriYn and J. Barnes (eds.), PhilosophiaTogata, i (Oxford, 1989), 151–73, at 167–70.]79 Of many possible examples I will cite only Jerome, Ep. 130.14 (to <strong>the</strong> verywealthy Demetrias).80 See below, and some of <strong>the</strong> passages cited in n. 33 above.81 For Julian, see esp. (1) Ep. 84a (ed. J. Bi<strong>de</strong>z and F. Cumont, Iuliani Imp. Epist.,Leges etc. [1922] ¼ 84a Bi<strong>de</strong>z [Budé] ¼ 49 Hertlein ¼ 22 W. C. Wright [Loeb iii]).429c–30a, 430bcd (compare 430d: no Jew is a beggar); (2) Ep. 89b (Bi<strong>de</strong>z–Cumontand Bi<strong>de</strong>z ¼ Wright ii. 296–339). 305bcd; compare (3) Misopog. 363a; (4) Orat. vii(ad Heracl.). 224bc. I have not been able to make use of Jürgen Kabiersch, Untersuchungenzum BegriV <strong>de</strong>r Philanthropie bei <strong>de</strong>m Kaiser Julian (Wiesba<strong>de</strong>n, 1960).
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 357property-ownership. The words of Jesus to <strong>the</strong> rich man seekingeternal life, which I discussed earlier, were not entirely disregar<strong>de</strong>d;but it seems that <strong>the</strong> unqualiWed version of Mark and Luke wasconveniently forgotten and <strong>the</strong> words of Jesus were always quotedin Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s formulation (19: 21), in which <strong>the</strong> direction to sell alland give to <strong>the</strong> poor was prefaced by <strong>the</strong> qualiWcation, ‘If you wouldbe perfect’. Out of scores of passages I have come across in <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rsI have not found one that even notices <strong>the</strong> discrepancy between <strong>the</strong>Matthaean text and that of Mark and Luke. So complete was <strong>the</strong>refusal to recognize <strong>the</strong> existence of any o<strong>the</strong>r version than that ofMat<strong>the</strong>w that when Clement of Alexandria, in his Quis dives salvetur?,sets out Mark’s narrative of <strong>the</strong> whole story in extenso in his owntext, explicitly as his source, he inserts Mat<strong>the</strong>w’s ei <strong>the</strong>leis teleioseinai, at <strong>the</strong> point that corresponds to Mt. 19: 21, without anyindication that <strong>the</strong>se words are not in Mark.82 Saint John Chrysostomis even at pains to put <strong>the</strong> conditional clause in <strong>the</strong> forefront andto make out that Jesus did not merely say to <strong>the</strong> rich man, ‘Sell whatyou have’: he actually rubs it in, expanding <strong>the</strong> words of Jesus into‘I lay it down for your <strong>de</strong>termination. I give you full power to choose.I do not lay upon you any necessity’.83 Thus, by quoting <strong>the</strong> statementof Jesus in its qualiWed, Matthaean form, <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs were able tomake use of <strong>the</strong> standard distinction between ‘precept’ and ‘counsel’:<strong>the</strong> command to sell all became literally a ‘counsel of perfection’.84And I think it would be true to say that after <strong>the</strong> rise of monasticismin <strong>the</strong> fourth century <strong>the</strong>re was a ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to take ‘If you would beperfect’ to refer essentially to <strong>the</strong> adoption of <strong>the</strong> monastic life: thuswhen Jerome presses on his rich friend Julian <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>sirability ofridding himself of all his possessions (again of course on <strong>the</strong> basisof <strong>the</strong> Matthaean text we have been consi<strong>de</strong>ring), he is clearlyadvising him to become a monk.8582 Clem. Alex. Quis dives salvetur? iv.6; cf. x.1. The standard edition of this work isby O. Stählin, 2nd edn. by L. Früchtel, GCS 172¼Clemens Alex. iii2 (1970), pp.158–91. English rea<strong>de</strong>rs will Wnd useful <strong>the</strong> Loeb edn. by G. W. Butterworth (London,1919 and repr.), in which The Rich Man’s Salvation is printed mainly in Stählin’s text,with a good facing English trans. and some notes, on pp. 270–367.83 John Chrys. Hom. II De Stat. 5(PG 49 (1859), col. 40).84 Among very many examples see Aug. Ep. 157.23–39.85 Jerome, Ep. 118, esp. §§ 4, 5, 6 (init.), 7 (init.). Compare Ep. 60, to Heliodorus,where <strong>the</strong> priest Nepotian is said to have lived in practice <strong>the</strong> life of a monk (§ 10) and
358 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyWe can now return to almsgiving. There is an enormous amountof evi<strong>de</strong>nce of <strong>the</strong> high value attached to almsgiving by early <strong>Christian</strong>thinkers which it would be superXuous to quote, and I shallconcentrate on two passages, one from a Latin and one from a Greekfa<strong>the</strong>r, both of which emphasize <strong>the</strong> expiatory character of almsgivingand thus <strong>de</strong>monstrate <strong>the</strong> Jewish roots of <strong>Christian</strong> thinking inthis Weld. Optatus, in his work against <strong>the</strong> Donatists, had occasion toallu<strong>de</strong> to almsgiving when speaking of <strong>the</strong> visit of certain imperialemissaries (Macarius and o<strong>the</strong>rs) to Africa in 347, in or<strong>de</strong>r to makecharitable distributions provi<strong>de</strong>d by <strong>the</strong> emperor Constans.86 He Wrstclaimed, on <strong>the</strong> strength of Proverbs 22: 2, that it was God who hadma<strong>de</strong> both <strong>the</strong> poor and <strong>the</strong> rich, and he <strong>the</strong>n procee<strong>de</strong>d to explainthat God had a very good reason for establishing this distinction: itwould of course have been perfectly possible for him to give to bothclasses at once, but if he had done so, <strong>the</strong> sinner would have had nomeans of atoning for his faults (si ambobus daret, peccator quae sibisuccurreret invenire non posset). To drive his point home, Optatusnow quotes what was for him ano<strong>the</strong>r inspired and canonical work,Ecclesiasticus (3: 30): just as water quenches Wre, so do alms atone forsin (sic eleemosyna extinguit peccatum).87 Later, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ology of almsgiving—ifI may call it that—may have become more subtle (that isbeyond <strong>the</strong> scope of this paper), but whenever almsgiving is beingdiscussed, <strong>the</strong> notion that it can be an atonement for sin is seldomabsent. This is certainly true of <strong>the</strong> second example I said I would giveof <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> concept of almsgiving, from a Greek fa<strong>the</strong>r. Thiscomes from <strong>the</strong> work by Clement of Alexandria, usually referred toby its Latin title, Quis dives salvetur?, which is actually <strong>the</strong> earliestthus fulWlled Mt. 19: 21. [For <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s to property and its uses, see P.Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity (Madison, 1992), ch. 3, esp. pp. 89–100; i<strong>de</strong>m, Poverty, esp. ch. 3; W. J. Sheils and D. Wood, The Church and Wealth(Studies in Church History 24, 1987; brief discussion in G. Clark, <strong>Christian</strong>ity andRoman Society (Cambridge, 2004), 107–11). For a heretical exception to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>acceptance of property, see Garnsey and Humfress, Evolution, 197–203, for discussionof a Pelagian text.]86 Optatus iii. 3, pp. 74.19 to 75.3, ed. C. Ziwsa, CSEL 26 (1893) [M. Edwards,Optatus: Against <strong>the</strong> Donatists (TTH; Liverpool, 1997), 63]. This work was publishedabout 365–6, and a revised edition was issued some twenty years <strong>late</strong>r.87 Compare ano<strong>the</strong>r apocryphal passage, Tobit 12: 9; and, from <strong>the</strong> Old Testamentitself, Prov. 13: 8; Dan. 4: 27 (LXX).
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 359treatise to provi<strong>de</strong> a <strong>de</strong>tailed justiWcation of property-ownership by<strong>Christian</strong>s, and is perhaps <strong>the</strong> most important work of its kind.Clement puts most eloquently <strong>the</strong> argument that almsgiving canactually purchase salvation, and he exclaims, ‘What a splendid commerce!what divine trading!’88 Needless to say, almsgiving oftenplayed an important part in penance.89 Too often, however, itseems to have been resorted to as a means of self-advertisement,90contrary to <strong>the</strong> admirable prescription of Jesus in Mt. 6: 1–4.The early <strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong> to property-ownership, as I have<strong>de</strong>scribed it, is open to criticism from more than one direction. Ishall concentrate on two respects in which it can now be seen to beunsatisfactory: Wrst, <strong>the</strong> exceedingly important role it allotted toalmsgiving; and secondly, its notion that a suYciency of wealth washarmless enough, even if a superXuity was dangerous.Until quite recently, of course, charity was accepted by <strong>the</strong> greatmajority as an entirely admirable thing; and it is only in our owngeneration that a large number of people have begun to criticizepowerfully <strong>the</strong> whole principle of organized charity within <strong>the</strong> communityas a remedy for social evils, not only because it provi<strong>de</strong>s <strong>the</strong>giver with a moral justiWcation of his privileged position but alsobecause it is increasingly felt by <strong>the</strong> recipient as something <strong>de</strong>grading,as a <strong>de</strong>rogation from human dignity—a feeling with which, I mustsay, I myself entirely sympathize. (In <strong>the</strong> conception of <strong>the</strong> ‘welfarestate’, such as it is, everyone contributes if he can; and he receiveswhat he does receive not as charity, but as a social right—a fundamentallydiVerent principle.) The almsgiving upon which <strong>the</strong> early<strong>Christian</strong>s so pri<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>the</strong>refore, appears to many of usnowadays in a very much less attractive light than it did in its owntime and for centuries afterwards. My o<strong>the</strong>r criticism of <strong>the</strong>early <strong>Christian</strong> position concerning property-ownership is that <strong>the</strong>concept of a ‘suYciency’ of property, whenever it was introduced,88 Clem. Alex. Quis dives salvetur? (n. 82 above), xxxii. 1 (p. 181); compare xix.4–6etc. The Greek of <strong>the</strong> words I have quoted in <strong>the</strong> text is J ŒÆº &çò KìðïæßÆò; J ŁåßÆòIªïæ &Æò; and <strong>the</strong> passage continues, Tíå&ØôÆØ ÷æçìÜôøí ôØò IöŁÆæóßÆí::: ðºå &ıóïíKðd ôÆýôçí; ií óøöæïí fi çò; & ôcí ðÆíÞªıæØí; J ðºïýóØå Œôº.89 A good brief account of <strong>the</strong> whole diYcult subject of penance is given byGau<strong>de</strong>met pp. 78–87, 667–81.90 See for example Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 34. 2, 7, 10 (CSEL 29, pp. 303–12).
360 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertywas always left vague and was no better <strong>de</strong>Wned than by some suchimprecise formula as non plus quam necesse est [‘no more than isnecessary’],91 with <strong>the</strong> result that anyone except <strong>the</strong> ancient equivalentof a multi-millionaire could feel that he had no superXuity. Pliny<strong>the</strong> Younger could claim that he had no more than a ‘mo<strong>de</strong>st fortune’(Sunt qui<strong>de</strong>m omnino nobis modicae facultates [‘our resources arein<strong>de</strong>ed quite mo<strong>de</strong>st’], Ep. ii.iv.3), yet he cannot have been worthmuch less than twenty million sesterces92 and counts among <strong>the</strong> twoor three dozen richest Romans we happen to know about during <strong>the</strong>principate,93 even if his assets were hardly more than a Wfteenth or atwentieth part of those attributed to <strong>the</strong> richest men of all, who mayhave owned three hundred or even four hundred million—and who<strong>the</strong>mselves did not approach <strong>the</strong> great imperial families in wealth.The great fortunes became greater still in <strong>the</strong> fourth and Wfth centuries,94and in those days it was even easier for <strong>the</strong> well-to-do to feelthat <strong>the</strong>y were possessed of only ‘mo<strong>de</strong>st fortunes’.95The orthodox <strong>Christian</strong> position that I have outlined was heldwith only minor variations by virtually all <strong>the</strong> great names:96 in <strong>the</strong>west, Irenaeus (who of course thought and wrote in Greek), Tertullian,Cyprian, Lactantius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Augustine, andJohn Cassian; in <strong>the</strong> east, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa,Gregory of Nazianzus,97 John Chrysostom,98 and Theodoret. So far91 Pelagius (?), De Divit. ii (p. 32, ed. Haslehurst: see n. 124 below). Yet this is awork which is far more hostile to riches than most: see below.92 See Duncan-Jones pp. 17–32, esp. pp. 18 n. 4, 32 n. 6.93 Ibid. p. 343 (no. 21 in app. 7).94 See A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964), 2, pp. 554–5.95 See Gau<strong>de</strong>met p. 573, who allu<strong>de</strong>s to ‘le diYcile problème <strong>de</strong> la mesure’ [‘<strong>the</strong>diYcult problem of proportion’] in this regard. After asking what proportion of hiswealth <strong>the</strong> rich man was expected to spend in charity, he replies, ‘Son superXu doitassurer le nécessaire à ceux qui sont dans le besoin. Notions imprécises dont il seraitvain <strong>de</strong> chercher la détermination’! [‘His surplus had to provi<strong>de</strong> necessities for thosein need—vague notions which it would be futile to try to pin down!’]96 Christophe gives much of <strong>the</strong> material.97 Four lines in a poem by Greg. Naz. (Carmina Theologica ii.xxxiii.113–16) areworth quoting: ‘Cast away all and possess God alone, for you are <strong>the</strong> dispenser ofriches that do not belong to you. But if you do not wish to give all, give <strong>the</strong> greaterpart; and if not even that, <strong>the</strong>n make a pious use of your superXuity’(ôï&Øò ðåæØôôï&Øò åPó›âåØ).98 I have quoted above Chrysostom’s exegesis of Mt. 19: 21. As he is often justlyremembered as a specially vehement and eloquent <strong>de</strong>nouncer of <strong>the</strong> very rich, it is
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 361I have found only three partial exceptions among <strong>the</strong> non-hereticalwriters. The Wrst, Origen, I do not yet feel that I know well enough tobe able to give a fair summary of his attitu<strong>de</strong>. But I have noticed thatOrigen refused, for example, to countenance prayers for temporalbeneWts of any sort,99 and that, unlike Clement, he did not try toallegorize away those biblical texts which attack wealth, while interpretingliterally those usually quoted as permitting it—very much <strong>the</strong>reverse, in fact.100 I would say that <strong>the</strong> very i<strong>de</strong>a of wealth ten<strong>de</strong>d tomake Origen feel uneasy. And he is insistent that priests must give upall property.101 Much <strong>the</strong> same is true of my second exception: Basil,in whose writings contradictions are found which cannot be resolve<strong>de</strong>xcept by admitting that Basil, whose whole thought was of a thoroughlymonastic cast, sometimes applied to <strong>the</strong> outsi<strong>de</strong> worldprecepts which were really applicable only to a monastic community,in which <strong>the</strong> renunciation of all individual property was possible in away that was simply impracticable in <strong>the</strong> Graeco-Roman world atlarge.102 My third exception, perhaps a ra<strong>the</strong>r surprising name in thisconnection, is no less than Ambrose, certainly in <strong>the</strong> social sense oneworth also recalling his curious <strong>de</strong>fence of <strong>the</strong> wealth of Dives (in <strong>the</strong> parable ofLazarus) as God-given: see his Homilies on Lazarus iii.4 (PG 48 (1859), cols. 996–7);vi.9 (cols. 1040–3), summarized by Christophe pp. 138–9. See also Otto Plassmann,Das Almosen bei Joh. Chrys. (Diss., Bonn, 1960), a collection of material not utilizedto much eVect.99 He even took ‘Give us this day’ (Mt. 29: 11) or ‘day by day’ (Lk. 11: 3) ‘our dailybread’ to refer to incorporeal bread, food of <strong>the</strong> spirit: see his De Orat. (—åæd åP÷ &çò)27, pp. 363–75 ed. P. Koetschau, in GCS Origenes ii (1899).100 See for example Orig. Comm. in Matth. xv.14–20, esp. 15, pp. 391–5, ed.E. Klostermann, GCS 40¼Origenes x (1935) [also R. Girod, Commentaire surl’Évangile selon Matthieu (Paris, 1970)]. Compare xv.20 (pp. 405–9), where Origenpoints out that it is only diYcult, and not impossible, for a rich man to be saved—though it is clear that in his mind a divine miracle is nee<strong>de</strong>d, comparable to getting acamel through <strong>the</strong> eye of a needle! And see also Orig. C. Cels. vii.18, pp. 169–71 ed.Koetschau; see n. 99 above.101 See Christophe p. 93 for a French trans. of <strong>the</strong> main passage: Hom. in Genes.xvi.5.102 The treatment of Basil’s thought is perhaps <strong>the</strong> best part of Christophe: see hispp. 107–29, esp. 108–12, 119–21, 123–5, 128–9. Decisive in favour of <strong>the</strong> view thatBasil did not regard <strong>the</strong> mere ownership of property as an evil is Basil’s so-called‘Shorter Rules’ no. 92 (PG 31, col. 1145; Christophe p. 108); compare <strong>the</strong> ‘LongerRules’ no. 18 (PG 31, col. 965; Christophe pp. 128–9). [For discussion of <strong>the</strong>complexities of Basil’s writings on ascetic matters, see P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea(Berkeley, 1994), ch. 6, esp. pp. 196–201.]
362 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyof <strong>the</strong> most exalted of all <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs—he was amember of <strong>the</strong> senatorial aristocracy, <strong>the</strong> son of a praetorian prefectof <strong>the</strong> Gauls and, at <strong>the</strong> time of his appointment to <strong>the</strong> bishopric ofMilan in 374, <strong>the</strong> governor of <strong>the</strong> province of Aemilia and Liguria, ofwhich Milan was <strong>the</strong> capital. (I know of no o<strong>the</strong>r early fa<strong>the</strong>r whocould be consi<strong>de</strong>red his social equal, except Paulinus of Nola.)102 aNow Ambrose is far from consistent in his attitu<strong>de</strong> to property rights;and some recent continental commentators, in <strong>the</strong>ir anxiety torescue him from any such heinous oVence as a belief in ‘communism’(one monograph is entitled, Il preteso comunismo di San Ambrogio),103have given ra<strong>the</strong>r perverse interpretations of some of hiswritings, in particular a famous passage in <strong>the</strong> De OYciis Ministrorum(i.132) containing <strong>the</strong> words usurpatio ius fecit privatum[‘taking possession ma<strong>de</strong> private rights’].104 The fact is that in suchpassages Ambrose shows great uneasiness on <strong>the</strong> whole question of102 a [On Ambrose in general, see N. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Courtin a <strong>Christian</strong> Capital (Berkeley, 1994), although <strong>the</strong>re is no speciWc discussion of hisattitu<strong>de</strong>s to property rights.]103 By J. Squitieri (Sarno, 1946). It will hardly repay <strong>the</strong> eVort of reading it.104 It is absurd to pretend, as for example Squitieri and Christophe have done (seeChristophe pp. 168–74), that in De OYc. i.130–2 Ambrose is simply agreeing withCicero, and that his ‘usurpatio’ [‘taking possession’] is equivalent to Cicero’s ‘vetusoccupatio’ [‘long-standing occupation’] (Cic. De OYc. i.20–22) [<strong>the</strong>re is a Frenchtrans. of <strong>de</strong> OYciis Ministrorum: M. Testard, Saint Amboise, Les Devoirs, i (Paris,1984), 158]. In § 131 Ambrose makes a Wrst objection to Cicero’s ‘iustitiae primummunus’ [‘<strong>the</strong> Wrst function of justice’]; and in § 132, whereas Cicero had accepted <strong>the</strong>rule that while common possessions should be used for <strong>the</strong> common good, a mancould use private possessions for his own good, Ambrose now, with <strong>the</strong> words ‘next<strong>the</strong>y thought it a form of justice that one should treat common public property aspublic, but private as private’, raises a second objection to <strong>the</strong> Ciceronian position:after <strong>the</strong> passage beginning ‘sic enim <strong>de</strong>us’ [‘for thus God’], for which <strong>the</strong>re is noparallel in Cicero, he says, ‘natura igitur ius commune generavit, usurpatio ius fecitprivatum’ [‘<strong>the</strong>refore nature created communal rights while taking possession ma<strong>de</strong>private rights’], and he <strong>the</strong>n carefully omits <strong>the</strong> sentence (‘ex quo . . . societatis’) at <strong>the</strong>end of Cicero’s § 21 which is <strong>the</strong> climax of Cicero’s argument, asserting that it is rightfor a man to retain what he has acquired and that anyone else who seeks to annex itwill be violating a law of human society—a quintessentially Ciceronian statement.Ambrose’s use of <strong>the</strong> word usurpatio too is <strong>de</strong>cisive, and Christophe’s arguments (pp.172–4) against Calafato are obviously worthless. His conclusion that Ambrose is here‘maintaining <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of private property’ has no justiWcation. Of course inseveral o<strong>the</strong>r passages, listed by F. Homes Dud<strong>de</strong>n, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose(Oxford, 1935), 2, pp. 548–50, Ambrose takes private property for granted, althoughin o<strong>the</strong>rs again (see pp. 545–7) he regards it with aversion.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 363property rights.105 Yet he can allegorize away <strong>the</strong> statement of Jesuscontained in all three synoptics (Mk. 10: 25; Mt. 19: 24; Lk. 18: 25)that it is easier for a camel to pass through <strong>the</strong> eye of a needle than fora rich man to enter <strong>the</strong> Kingdom of God; he can say that not allpaupertas is sancta [‘poverty’ is ‘sacred’] nor all divitiae necessarilycriminosae [‘riches’ necessarily ‘evil’], and that in good men richescan be adiumenta virtutis [‘aids to virtue’];106 and of course heaccepts almsgiving as <strong>the</strong> great panacea through which <strong>the</strong> taint ofriches can be removed:107 thus alone can riches become ‘<strong>the</strong> ransomof a man’s life’ and ‘<strong>the</strong> re<strong>de</strong>mption of <strong>the</strong> soul’,108 for almsgiving‘purges from sin’.109 And so, when Ambrose says that God inten<strong>de</strong>d<strong>the</strong> whole earth and its produce to be <strong>the</strong> common possession of allmen,110 and continues, sed avaritia possessionum iura distribuit [‘butgreed apportions <strong>the</strong> laws of possession’], he never<strong>the</strong>less goes on toaccept <strong>the</strong> existing situation, provi<strong>de</strong>d <strong>the</strong> property-owner gives to<strong>the</strong> poor. His attitu<strong>de</strong> is very nicely brought out in a passage in <strong>the</strong> DeHelia et ieiunio (76), where he tells <strong>the</strong> sinner to re<strong>de</strong>em himself fromhis sins with his own money, thus using one poison to subdueano<strong>the</strong>r: Et venenum frequenter antidoto temperatur, hoc est venenovenenum excluditur, veneno mors repellitur, vita servatur [‘and poisonis often tempered by an antidote; that is to say that poison is drivenout by poison, that <strong>de</strong>ath is driven away and life is preserved bypoison’]—wealth itself is a poison, but almsgiving, which re<strong>de</strong>emsfrom sin, turns wealth into sin’s antidote!Augustine seems not to have been troubled about property rights.With characteristic ingenuity he extracts an argument in his favoureven from <strong>the</strong> parable of Lazarus: Lazarus, we are told, went to105 On <strong>the</strong> whole I accept <strong>the</strong> account given by Homes Dud<strong>de</strong>n 2, pp. 545–50.However, when he summarizes Ambrose’s attitu<strong>de</strong> (p. 547) as ‘But wealth is not onlyunproWtable: it is positively <strong>de</strong>moralizing’, most of <strong>the</strong> passages he proceeds to quote(though by no means all) require <strong>the</strong> substitution for ‘wealth’ of ‘avarice’ or ‘seekingafter wealth’.106 Ambr. Expos. Ev. Luc. viii.70–2, 13, 85 (in CSEL 22.iv).107 See Homes Dud<strong>de</strong>n, 2, p. 548 nn. 5–8.108 Ambr. Ep. 63.92 [Beyenka 59], quoting Prov. 13: 8 and perhaps also Dan. 4: 27(LXX).109 De Helia et ieiunio 76, quoting Tobit 12: 9.110 Ambr. Expos. in Ps. cxviii, Sermo 8.22; compare De Viduis 4–5; De Nabuth. 2,11; Expos. Ev. Luc. vii. 124, 247.
364 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and PropertyAbraham’s bosom; well, Abraham was rich!111 (As this and manyo<strong>the</strong>r such passages show, <strong>the</strong> level of argument in this Weld is notalways high, and some may feel some sympathy for <strong>the</strong> Pelagian whoturned one of Augustine’s own favourite weapons against him byadvocating a Wgurative interpretation of Abraham in <strong>the</strong> parable!)112Sometimes in <strong>the</strong> fourth century <strong>the</strong> poor are warned that <strong>the</strong>y mustnot think <strong>the</strong>y can take <strong>the</strong> initiative and <strong>de</strong>mand even <strong>the</strong> necessaryminimum of subsistence from those <strong>Christian</strong>s who had vast possessions.Two centuries earlier Irenaeus, citing <strong>the</strong> scriptural parallel of<strong>the</strong> Israelites ‘spoiling <strong>the</strong> Egyptians’ at <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> Exodus,113 ha<strong>de</strong>xpressed some sympathy for <strong>the</strong> man who, after being compelled togive years of forced labour to ano<strong>the</strong>r, makes oV with some smallportion of his property.114 But now Gregory of Nyssa is careful toshow that no such initiative can be justiWed by an appeal to <strong>the</strong>‘spoiling of <strong>the</strong> Egyptians’ in Exodus as a prece<strong>de</strong>nt.115At this point I should like to mention one minor passage which isnot very well known generally and in<strong>de</strong>ed may come as a surprise tothose who remember <strong>the</strong> con<strong>de</strong>mnation by Saint Cyprian and <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r western bishops of <strong>the</strong> libellatici of <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution,who had purchased certiWcates falsely stating that <strong>the</strong>y had compliedwith <strong>the</strong> imperial or<strong>de</strong>r to sacriWce, and were treated as lapsi, thoughof a less serious kind than those who had actually sacriWced or oVeredincense. The text I have in mind is <strong>the</strong> twelfth ‘canon’ in <strong>the</strong> CanonicalLetter issued at Easter 306, during <strong>the</strong> ‘Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’, bySaint Peter, bishop of Alexandria,116 acquitting of any religiousoVence those who had purchased immunity from sacriWcing, on<strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong>y had sustained a loss of property in or<strong>de</strong>r tosave <strong>the</strong>ir souls. It is interesting to Wnd here a very diVerent (andsurely much more sensible) attitu<strong>de</strong> from that which had prevailed in<strong>the</strong> west during <strong>the</strong> Decian persecution just over half a century111 See for example Aug. Ep. 157.23–4; compare Serm. xiv.4 etc.112 See <strong>the</strong> Pelagian De Divit. (cited in n. 124 below) ix.1–3 (pp. 50–2, ed.Haslehurst).113 Exod. 3: 21–2; 11: 2; 12: 35–6.114 Iren. Elench. iv.xxx.1–3, ed. W. W. Harvey (1857).115 Greg. Nyss. Vita Moys. ii pp. 67–8, ed. H. Musurillo, in Greg. Nyss. vii.i(Lei<strong>de</strong>n, 1964).116 See my ‘Aspects of <strong>the</strong> ‘‘Great’’ <strong>Persecution</strong>’, in Harvard Theological Review, 47(1954), pp. 75–113, at p. 84 n. 44 [above, Ch. 1, p. 46].
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 365earlier. As it happens, our evi<strong>de</strong>nce from <strong>the</strong> west in this respect is for<strong>the</strong> Decian persecution only and from <strong>the</strong> east for <strong>the</strong> ‘Great <strong>Persecution</strong>’only; but I have argued elsewhere that we can put all thisevi<strong>de</strong>nce toge<strong>the</strong>r and conclu<strong>de</strong> that in <strong>the</strong> east <strong>the</strong> purchase ofimmunity from sacriWcing was not regar<strong>de</strong>d as sinful in ei<strong>the</strong>rpersecution.117If we may ignore some passages in early Judaeo-<strong>Christian</strong> writings,it is only in <strong>the</strong> mouths of heretics that we Wnd an unqualiWed<strong>de</strong>nunciation of private property ownership. Usually, of course, weknow nothing of <strong>the</strong>ir arguments, all our information being <strong>de</strong>rivedfrom orthodox con<strong>de</strong>mnations of <strong>the</strong>ir views. In this category are atleast four or Wve strains of heretical thought. First, <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong>second-century work On Justice ascribed by Clement of Alexandriato Epiphanes and attacked by Clement as a Carpocratian gnosticproduct which advocated not only equality and community of propertybut also community of women118—although I must say, I accept<strong>the</strong> view recently advanced that Clement’s biographical and historicalinformation about <strong>the</strong> author of this work, Peri dikaiosunēs, isworthless, although his actual quotations from it are genuine;119I believe it may have nothing to do with gnosticism or <strong>Christian</strong>heresy. I need only give <strong>the</strong> briefest mention of <strong>the</strong> unimportant, ifmuch discussed, Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, <strong>the</strong> Wfteenth of whichespecially has some material <strong>de</strong>nying to those who have chosen <strong>the</strong>heavenly kingdom <strong>the</strong> right to property in anything except bread andwater and a single garment, and insisting that in <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> possessionof o<strong>the</strong>r property would be a sin, which could only be taken away by<strong>the</strong> abandonment of that property.120 Among genuine <strong>Christian</strong>heretics <strong>the</strong>re are <strong>the</strong> followers of Eustathius of Sebaste con<strong>de</strong>mnedin <strong>the</strong> Synodal Letter of <strong>the</strong> mid-fourth-century council of Gangra for117 See Ibid. esp. pp. 87–8 [above, Ch. 1, pp. 49–50].118 Clem. Alex. Strom. iii (ii) 5.1 to 9.3, pp. 197–200 in GCS 52 ¼ Clemens Alex.ii3, ed. O. Stählin and L. Früchtel (1960), esp. 6.1 to 8.1.119 See Heinz Kraft, ‘Gab es einen Gnostiker Karpokrates?’, in Theologisches Zeitschrift,8 (1952), pp. 434–43.120 Ps.-Clem. Homil. xv. vii–x, esp. vii.4–6, ix.2–3, pp. 215–17, ed. B. Rehm, inGCS 42 (1953). The Homilies in <strong>the</strong>ir present form date from <strong>the</strong> 4th century butseem to <strong>de</strong>rive from an original of <strong>the</strong> 3rd or even 2nd century, which may haveemanated from a Jewish-<strong>Christian</strong> sect with gnostic ten<strong>de</strong>ncies. See also Christophepp. 96–8, using a French translation.
366 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Property<strong>de</strong>nying <strong>the</strong> possibility of salvation to rich people who do not give upall <strong>the</strong>ir possessions;121 <strong>the</strong>re are also <strong>the</strong> fourth-century dualists<strong>de</strong>nounced by Cyril of Jerusalem, who rejected <strong>the</strong> ownership ofproperty, with all o<strong>the</strong>r physical things, as belonging to <strong>the</strong> provinceof <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>vil;122 and Wnally <strong>the</strong>re are <strong>the</strong> various ascetic sects <strong>de</strong>scribedas encratites and Xourishing especially in Asia Minor, such as <strong>the</strong>apostolics or apotactites who are attacked in <strong>the</strong> 370s in <strong>the</strong> Panarionof Epiphanius for preaching that complete abstention from property(as well as marriage) was a necessity for all <strong>Christian</strong>s.123 Unfortunately,we have no <strong>de</strong>tails of <strong>the</strong> arguments by which any of <strong>the</strong>sesects sought to justify its interpretation of scripture against <strong>the</strong>orthodox position. I have been able to discover only one singlesurviving work which argues at length that <strong>the</strong> mere possession ofwealth creates a ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to sin and that it really is best to divestoneself of all one’s possessions. This is a work probably written in <strong>the</strong>Wrst <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Wfth century, <strong>the</strong> De Divitiis, one of a groupof Pelagian works published by Caspari in 1890.124 This has beenattributed by <strong>de</strong> Plinval to Pelagius himself, and by o<strong>the</strong>rs to one of121 Mansi ii (1759), col. 1102; C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire <strong>de</strong>s Conciles;d’après les documents originaux, i.ii (Paris, 1907), p. 1032: <strong>the</strong> Eustathians are said tobelieve that <strong>the</strong> rich who do not give up all <strong>the</strong>ir property have no hope of salvation.(Compare also <strong>the</strong> Epilogue to <strong>the</strong> Canons.) It is interesting to Wnd, both from <strong>the</strong>Synodal Letter and from Canon 3 of this council (Mansi, col. 1101; Hefele-Leclercqii.ii, 1034), that <strong>the</strong> Eustathians had also been inciting slaves to leave <strong>the</strong>ir masters,apparently to become monks: Can. 3 ana<strong>the</strong>matizes anyone who ‘on a pretext ofpiety, teaches a slave to <strong>de</strong>spise his master and to leave his service, and not to servehim with goodwill and all honour’.122 Cyril Hierosol. Catech. viii.6–7 (Migne, PG 33, cols. 632–3).123 Epiphan. Panar. Haer. lxi, esp. i.1; iii.1 (pp. 380, 382, ed. K. Holl. in GCS 31 ¼Epiphan. ii, 1922); compare Aug. De Haeres., Haer. 40; and see also Basil, Ep. 188,can. 1; 189, can. 47; C. Th. xvi.v.7, 11, compare 9; CJ i.v.5. [See Garnsey andHumfress, Evolution, 192–7, for brief discussion of some 4th-cent. radical ascetics,and more generally P. Brown, ‘Asceticism: Pagan and <strong>Christian</strong>’, in Averil Cameronand P. Garnsey (eds.), CAH xiii: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425 (Cambridge, 1998),ch. 20, 601–31.]124 Pelagius (?), Tractatus <strong>de</strong> Divitiis, ed. C. P. Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen undPredigten aus <strong>de</strong>n zwei letzten Jahrhun<strong>de</strong>rten <strong>de</strong>s kirchlichen Altertums und <strong>de</strong>m Anfang<strong>de</strong>s Mittelalters (<strong>Christian</strong>ia, 1890), pp. 25–67, repr. in PL Suppl. 1 (1958), cols. 1380et seq. and by R. S. T. Haslehurst, The Works of Fastidius (London, 1927), pp. 30–107:<strong>the</strong> last has a good facing English trans. There are o<strong>the</strong>r Pelagian works touching on<strong>the</strong> same <strong>the</strong>me, for example <strong>the</strong> Epist. ii ad Geruntii Wlias (De contemnenda haereditate),inPL 30, cols. 45–50.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 367<strong>the</strong> followers of Pelagius: Fastidius, Coelestius or Agricola. It has beenmuch discussed in recent years.125 I will only remark that althoughthis remarkable treatise does recommend divesting oneself of allproperty (thus ‘transferring it from earth to heaven’, xix.4), it doesnot actually con<strong>de</strong>mn suYcientia [‘suYciency’], and it regards evenwealth not as an actual sin (vii.5) but as a peccandi occasio [‘anopportunity for sin’] (xix.3), something that is very likely in<strong>de</strong>ed toresult in sin; if we keep <strong>the</strong> commandments of <strong>the</strong> New Testament,<strong>the</strong>n per divitiarum contemptum, peccatorum aufertur occasio[‘through contempt for riches <strong>the</strong> opportunity for sins is removed’](x.1). The most radical passage goes so far as to treat <strong>the</strong> existence of<strong>the</strong> few rich as <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong>re are so many poor: pauci divitespauperum causa sunt multorum; and so tolle divitem et pauperem noninvenies, ‘get rid of <strong>the</strong> rich and you won’t Wnd any poor’ (xii.2).There is, however, not a word to suggest that this <strong>de</strong>sirable end can beachieved by anything but religious persuasion; and—ra<strong>the</strong>r strangely,perhaps—<strong>the</strong>re is no appeal to <strong>the</strong> ‘primitive communism’ (if I maycall it that) of <strong>the</strong> earliest apostolic community at Jerusalem,126 andin<strong>de</strong>ed no advocacy at all of community of property, even as a<strong>the</strong>oretical i<strong>de</strong>al. I know of no evi<strong>de</strong>nce that any Pelagian everadvocated <strong>the</strong> reform of secular institutions. I will only add thatthis work, <strong>the</strong> De Divitiis, in spite of some over-ingenious argumentsand <strong>the</strong> usual inXated rhetoric, seems to me a far better approximationto <strong>the</strong> thought of Jesus, as expressed in <strong>the</strong> synoptic Gospels(Luke especially), than at any rate <strong>the</strong> principal work on <strong>the</strong> orthodoxsi<strong>de</strong>, Clement’s Quis dives salvetur?, from which I quoted earlier.127Clement, of course, makes adroit use, here as elsewhere, of <strong>the</strong>125 By Haslehurst; Georges <strong>de</strong> Plinval. Pélage: ses écrits, sa vie et sa réforme. Étu<strong>de</strong>d’hist. littér. et relig. (Lausanne etc., 1943), esp. pp. 160–2, 189–91, 221–3; J. N. L.Myres, ‘Pelagius and <strong>the</strong> End of Roman Rule in Britain’, JRS 50 (1960), pp. 21–36; W.Liebeschuetz, ‘Did <strong>the</strong> Pelagian Movement have Social Aims?’, Historia, 12 (1963), pp.227–41; John Morris, ‘Pelagian Literature’, JTS ns 16 (1965), pp. 26–60; Liebeschuetz,‘Pelagian Evi<strong>de</strong>nce on <strong>the</strong> Last Period of Roman Britain?’, Latomus, 26 (1967), pp.436–47; Peter Brown, Religion and Society in <strong>the</strong> Age of St. Augustine (London, 1972),pp. 183–207, 208–26 (<strong>the</strong> last particularly informative on Pelagius’s circle). None of<strong>the</strong>se works <strong>de</strong>als exclusively with <strong>the</strong> De Divit., but <strong>the</strong>y all bear upon it in one wayor ano<strong>the</strong>r.126 The only allusions I notice in <strong>the</strong> De Divit. (those in x.5, 6) to <strong>the</strong> earliestapostolic community make no reference to its ‘communism’.127 See pp. 26–7 [p. 357] above and nn. 82, 88.
368 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyallegorical method of interpretation which had been inventedby pagan Greek scholars in <strong>the</strong> classical period and perfected byHellenistic Judaism in regard to <strong>the</strong> Old Testament (Philo provi<strong>de</strong>ssome extraordinary examples); this type of exegesis Xourishe<strong>de</strong>xtravagantly at Alexandria in particular.128 Clement does not scrupleto make use of <strong>the</strong> argument (cap. 13) that only if a man possessessome property can he do <strong>the</strong> things <strong>the</strong> Lord requires: feed <strong>the</strong>hungry and give drink to <strong>the</strong> thirsty, clo<strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> naked and entertain<strong>the</strong> homeless—as Zacchaeus and o<strong>the</strong>rs entertained <strong>the</strong> Lord himself(Lk. 19: 1–10). ‘What sharing (koinōnia) would be left among men,’he asks, ‘if nobody had anything?’ This at least is not quite as feeble as<strong>the</strong> passage in which Aristotle (Pol. ii.5, 1263 b 5–14) pretends that <strong>the</strong>very great <strong>de</strong>light of doing a kindness to friends or guests or comra<strong>de</strong>sis possible only when <strong>the</strong>re is private ownership of property—as if generosity or liberality could be expressed only in <strong>the</strong> form ofmaterial beneWts.It is time to sum up. Why did early <strong>Christian</strong>ity so signally fail toproduce any important change for <strong>the</strong> better in Graeco-Romansociety? Why did slavery and kindred forms of unfree labour suchas <strong>the</strong> colonate persist, without <strong>Christian</strong>s even realizing that <strong>the</strong>ywere evil in <strong>the</strong>mselves and that <strong>the</strong>y ten<strong>de</strong>d to brutalize both slavesand masters? Why after <strong>the</strong> empire became oYcially <strong>Christian</strong>, did<strong>the</strong> extremes of wealth and poverty throughout <strong>the</strong> Roman world(and especially in <strong>the</strong> west) become even greater, with enormouswealth concentrating in <strong>the</strong> hands of <strong>the</strong> senatorial class, andtaxation becoming <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>dly more oppressive? Why did punishmentsbecome even harsher and torture even more prevalent?129128 For <strong>the</strong> use of allegory by Clement, in Quis dives salvetur?, see esp. v.2–4; xi.2–3;xiv.1–6; xv–xvii; xviii–xx; xxvi.2–7; xxvi.8 to xxvii.2. The most complete account Ihave found of allegory, from <strong>the</strong> beginnings to <strong>the</strong> time of Augustine and GregoryNazianzen, is Jean Pépin, My<strong>the</strong> et allégorie: Les Origines grecques et les contestationsjudéo-chrétiennes (Paris, 1958). R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of <strong>the</strong>Sources and SigniWcance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London, 1959) hardlygoes back behind Jewish and Hellenistic allegory (pp. 11–64). For <strong>the</strong> earlier stages,see J. Tate, in Oxford Class. Dict.2 (1970), pp. 45b–6b (‘Allegory, Greek’ and ‘Latin’),and his articles <strong>the</strong>re cited in Class Rev. 1927 and Class. Quart. 1929, 1930 and 1934[see also A. Louth, Discerning <strong>the</strong> Mystery (Oxford, 1983), 96–131].129 I discuss all <strong>the</strong>se questions in CSAGW.
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 369The standard answer to all <strong>the</strong>se questions is familiar to all of us:Jesus himself and <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong>s were concerned exclusivelywith <strong>the</strong> relations between man and man, or man and God, andnot at all with social, economic or political institutions—with <strong>the</strong>relations between men and men, if I may use that expression. Thatdoes not seem to me a very good answer, even as far as it goes, foralthough <strong>the</strong> New Testament writers (like <strong>the</strong> early fa<strong>the</strong>rs) concentrateon questions of individual morality and make no attempt toprescribe a general co<strong>de</strong> of economic or political behaviour, <strong>the</strong>y domake a series of statements on political and economic questionswhich <strong>the</strong> Church duly accepted as canonical and inspired: SaintPaul’s disastrous ‘The powers that be are ordained of God’, which Iquoted earlier, is only one among many such pronouncements.But can <strong>the</strong> traditional <strong>Christian</strong> position, which I have outlined,provi<strong>de</strong> a satisfactory answer to my questions, even if it is adjusted insuch a way as to shed those unpleasant features of early <strong>Christian</strong>thought such as <strong>the</strong> acceptance of slavery and of political autocracywhich so many <strong>Christian</strong>s today are unwilling to endorse? This ofcourse is a matter of opinion. I will only say that in my opinion it wasprecisely <strong>the</strong> exclusive concentration of <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong>s upon <strong>the</strong>personal relations between man and man, or man and God, and <strong>the</strong>ircomplete indiVerence, as <strong>Christian</strong>s, to <strong>the</strong> institutions of <strong>the</strong> worldin which <strong>the</strong>y lived, that prevented <strong>Christian</strong>ity from even havingmuch eVect for good upon <strong>the</strong> relations between man and man.I suggest that <strong>the</strong> relations between man and man in any organizedhuman society are severely conditioned by <strong>the</strong> relations between menand men—between diVerent states, and between diVerent classes andgroups within states, relations governed as a rule by criteria verydiVerent from those which can be applied between man and man. Ithas often been realized that <strong>Christian</strong>ity has been conspicuouslyunsuccessful in preventing wars between nations. It took <strong>the</strong> Churcha long time to evolve a doctrine of <strong>the</strong> ‘just war’130—although130 The evi<strong>de</strong>nce for early <strong>Christian</strong> views on military service and war is most fullyset out by Cadoux, pp. 51–7, 116–22, 183–90, 269–81, 402–42, 564–96. See alsoGau<strong>de</strong>met pp. 706–9, who gives a brief summary of <strong>the</strong> main 4th/5th century views(esp. those of Augustine, who went fur<strong>the</strong>r than many early <strong>Christian</strong>s in <strong>de</strong>fendingwar), with bibliography. Recent work, including <strong>the</strong> article by R. H. Bainton, ‘TheEarly Church and War’, in Harvard Theological Review, 39 (1946), pp. 189–212, is
370 <strong>Christian</strong>ity and Propertyinci<strong>de</strong>ntally even <strong>the</strong> early Roman republic had had a doctrine of <strong>the</strong>bellum iustum, <strong>de</strong>rived from <strong>the</strong> principle of fetial law: that no warwas acceptable to <strong>the</strong> Roman gods unless it was a <strong>de</strong>fensive war,waged to protect Rome or her allies.131 And <strong>the</strong> doctrine of <strong>the</strong> justwar has never come to very much, because any country that goes towar can always justify itself easily enough in its own eyes. As for whatI would call <strong>the</strong> class struggle, I cannot see that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Christian</strong>churches have done much more than ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>de</strong>plore it in principleor ignore its very existence; and all too often <strong>the</strong>y have explicitlyun<strong>de</strong>rwritten <strong>the</strong> existing social and economic or<strong>de</strong>r in its cru<strong>de</strong>stform. ‘The rich man in his castle’—but I need not go on. Pope PiusXI’s encyclical, Quadragesimo anno, of 1931, admits that <strong>the</strong> classstruggle had been a serious danger forty years before, but <strong>the</strong>nproceeds to speak of this danger as having been largely dispelled byLeo XIII’s Rerum novarum—an opinion which has hardly beenconWrmed by <strong>the</strong> events of <strong>the</strong> years since 1931. There have, needlessto say, been a few striking exceptions within <strong>the</strong> churches who havebroken right away from <strong>the</strong>ir oYcial policy, from John Ball in 1381132to Camilo Torres in our own time.133When <strong>the</strong> early Hebrew prophets, or Plato and Aristotle, tried toformu<strong>late</strong> a vision of <strong>the</strong> good society, <strong>the</strong>y thought Wrst in terms of<strong>the</strong> Israelite nation or of <strong>the</strong> Greek city: for Plato and Aristotle, <strong>the</strong>society as such had Wrst to be good, to have good institutions, beforemen could lead <strong>the</strong> good life within it. Their successors, in both cases,brieXy reviewed by Jacques Fontaine, ‘<strong>Christian</strong>s and Military Service in <strong>the</strong> EarlyChurch’, in Concilium, 7.1 (1965), pp. 58–64. [For <strong>de</strong>tailed consi<strong>de</strong>ration, see J. F.Ubina, Cristianos y Militares: La iglesia antigua ante el ejército y la guerra (Granada,2000); brief discussion in M. Whitby, ‘Emperors and Armies, 235–395’, in S. Swainand M. Edwards (eds.), Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early toLate Empire (Oxford, 2004), 156–86, esp. 175–9.]131 Itself nicely criticized in Cic. De Rep. iii.12/20, ed. K. Ziegler (6th edn., 1964)preserved in Lact. Div. Inst. vi.ix.4: it was <strong>the</strong> means by which <strong>the</strong> Romans gave <strong>the</strong>iraggression <strong>the</strong> appearance of legitimacy (‘per fetiales bella indicendo, et legitimeiniurias faciendo’).132 The most convenient English version of <strong>the</strong> relevant part of Froissart isFroissart’s Chronicles, ed. and trans. by John JolliVe (London, 1967), caps. 73–4, pp.236–52 (esp. 237–8). The traditional English version is Froissart’s Cronycles, trans. bySir John Bouchier Lord Berners, I, 4 (Oxford, 1928), pp. 1095–1121 (esp. 1096–7).133 Revolutionary Priest: The Complete Writings and Messages of Camilo Torres, ed.John Gerassi (1971; paperback in Pelican Latin American Library, 1973).
Early <strong>Christian</strong> Attitu<strong>de</strong>s to Property 371ten<strong>de</strong>d to <strong>de</strong>spair of creating a good society: for <strong>the</strong>m, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>individual man (<strong>the</strong> Stoic, in particular) had to discover how best tolive his personal life in an indiVerent if not hostile world, or else <strong>the</strong>rewas a Good Time Coming, but it would be achieved by somesupernatural agency. In <strong>the</strong> latter case one could comfort oneself byimagining (as in Jewish apocalyptic) that in some mysterious way <strong>the</strong><strong>de</strong>sired result had been achieved already: <strong>the</strong> passage in <strong>the</strong> MagniWcatwhich I quoted earlier provi<strong>de</strong>s a good example. At <strong>the</strong> presenttime <strong>the</strong>re is a <strong>de</strong>bate going on among <strong>Christian</strong>s whe<strong>the</strong>r (to use <strong>the</strong>language I have employed) it may not be absolutely necessary toreform <strong>the</strong> relations between men and men—in particular <strong>the</strong> relationsbetween states and between classes within states—in or<strong>de</strong>r that<strong>the</strong> relations between man and man may not be for ever distortedand damaged. Among <strong>the</strong>se relations between men and men, I wouldsuggest that a central role is played by property relations, including inparticular <strong>the</strong> ownership of property and <strong>the</strong> way in which productionis organized. Those of us who watch <strong>the</strong> <strong>de</strong>bate within <strong>the</strong>churches, even from <strong>the</strong> outsi<strong>de</strong>, may feel that careful study ofwhat actually happened in <strong>the</strong> early <strong>Christian</strong> centuries, both in <strong>the</strong>Weld of i<strong>de</strong>as and in actual social life, might well shed some usefullight on current problems and controversies, and as a result mighthave a powerful eVect upon <strong>the</strong> future of man.
This page intentionally left blank
In<strong>de</strong>x of PassagesActa Conciliorum OecumenicorumI.iv 261–2II.i.29:17–29 279II.i.30:21–9 279II.i.65, §§5 299II.i.66, §§13–14 300II.i.69–70, §§26–4 264, 301–2,310–11II.i.70 §§43–6 264, 268II.i.73, §51 277II.i.75, §54 312II.i.76, §61–4 304, 314–15II.i.87–8, §§121–30 309II.i.94, §§179–84 304, 313II.i.97, §§191–2 314II.i.103 276II.i.115, §§284–5 299II.i.138, 276II.i.139–40 276II.i.140, §491 310II.i.140–1, §§496–7 310II.i.142, §§521–2 305II.i.153–6, §§576–614 277II.i.157, §624 308II.i.172, §776 305II.i.173, §792 308II.i.175, §814 306II.i.178, §§838–42 277II.i.180–1, §§858–61 312–13II.i.191, §964 303II.i.204, §4 283II.i.274, §§5–7 284, 305II.i.277–8 266II.i.279–80, §§30–44 268, 283II.i.305, §§12–14 282–3II.i.306–10 316–17II.i.312, §78 313II.i.320, §22 284II.i.321, §25 285II.i.368, §13 303II.i.411 266II.ii.24–33 274II.iii.312, §94.42–3 282II.iii.313–14, §94.50–4 282Acta of Second Ephesus, p.17.45–6291AE 1942/43.81 74, 861955.81 87–8Agathias, History 1.7.3 246–7Ambrose, Expositio in Ps. 1188.22 363<strong>de</strong> Helia et Ieiunio 76 363Letters 2.19 35272.9 241<strong>de</strong> OYciis Ministrorum1.130–2 362–32.30.153 162<strong>de</strong> Virginibus 3.7.32–6163–4Ammianus Marcellinus22.5.3–4 222, 247, 26027.3.12–13 210, 248Aristophanes, Plutus 415–612 340Aristotle, Politics 1255a25–6 3471330a32–3 347Athanasius, Apologia <strong>de</strong> fuga sua22 161AugustineBrev.Coll. 3.13.25 49, 74, 83, 160,174City of God 1.16–28 16319.15–16 351–2
374 In<strong>de</strong>x of PassagesAugustine (cont.)c. Cresconium 3.27.30 49, 85c. Epist. Parmen. 3.13 221adv. Fulgentium 26 51–2Letters 93 221157.23–4 357, 363–4173.6 209173.10 221Sermones 326.2 75Aurelius Victor, <strong>de</strong> Caesaribus39.30 69, 71Basil. Homily 18 175BibleColossians 3.11 349I Corinthians 7.22 349–50Ephesians 6.5 350Galatians 3.28 323, 350Luke 1.46–55 3434.18 3406.17–49 3418.26–39 3349.52 33314.23 22216.19–31 340, 34217.11 3332 Maccabees 1944 Maccabees 194–7Mark 5.1–20 3347.31 333Mat<strong>the</strong>w 5.3–6 340–18.24–34 33419.21 342, 35722 221–2Cassiodorus, Variae 2.27 24710.26 248–9Cicero, <strong>de</strong> Natura Deorum 1.611423.2.5 2033.5–9 141–2<strong>de</strong> Legibus 2.14 1432.18–22 142<strong>de</strong> OYciis 1.20–2 3622.73 113–14, 339<strong>de</strong> Re Publica 3.25/37 348CIL 8.2345–7 (ILS 631–3) 748.5526 (ILS 651) 758.4764 (ILS 644) 53, 86, 888.6700 52, 74, 85, 898.4766 87Clement of Alexandria, Quis divessalvetur? 4.6 35713 36832.1 358–9Stromateis 4.4.17.1–3 1584.10.76.1–77.3 1587.11.66.3–67.2 158Cod. Theod. 16.5.34 3916.5.60 20416.7.3 209Collatio Mosaicorum et RomanorumLegum 15.2.2 126Commodian, Instructiones 2.21 159Council of Ancyra, Canons 1 63–41–9 47Council of Arles, Canons13–14 92–3Council of Elvira, Canons 101–21 93–52–4 90–15 35125 9345–6 9155 9159 9160 91–2, 15973 92CyprianAd Demetrianum 205De Lapsis 3 59–607–8 44–5
In<strong>de</strong>x of Passages 375Letters 43.31 6081.1.4 159Didache 4.11 350Digest 1.5.4.1 3531.18.3 1211.18.13 12148.2.6 11548.19.4–5 12648.19.30 119Ephrem, Hymns on <strong>the</strong> Epiphany4.6–8 352Hymns on <strong>the</strong> Nativity 17.8 352Epictetus, Diss. 4.1.40 3544.7.6 192Epistle of Barnabas 19.7 350Eusebius,HE 3.28.6 139, 2054.9 1204.14.6 139, 2054.15.7–8 157–8, 166, 1704.17.8–13 1655.1 120, 128, 1676.3.4–5 1686.5.5–6 1696.41.11 607.11.9 1408.1.2 1348.6.6 84, 1748.6.8–9 848.6.10 37, 828.9.5 66–7, 83, 131, 1768.13.11 718.13.12–13 708.30.19 215–169.10.8 31, 14010.5.18–20 21710.6.1–5 217MP 1.1–2 43, 1791.5 1772.1 443.1 38, 433.2–4 131, 1774.1 624.6–8 618.6–8 17811 178–911.31 6413.1 6513.11 6413.12 59, 79–80Oratio ad Sanctos 24–5 73Eutropius 9.2610.1 71Evagrius 1.11 2452.5 245, 3172.10 2823.14 207, 241Firmicus Maternus, <strong>de</strong> Errore28.10 22029.1–2 220Gesta apud Zenophilum 92Gregory <strong>the</strong> Great, Register1.34 251Gregory of Nazianzus Orations4.82–4 18243.6 161Carm. Theol. 2.33.113–16360Hippolytus, Elenchus 9.12 45,167–8Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp 4.3350–1Letter to Romans 4–5 133, 1897 133, 189Irenaeus, adversus Haereses3.3.4 137, 205
376 In<strong>de</strong>x of PassagesIrenaeus (cont.)Elenchus 4.30.1–3 364John Chrysostom, Homily II on <strong>the</strong>Statues 5 357, 360Joinville, Life of St Louis 228–9Julian, Ep. 36 24837 24840 24841 248Justin, 1 Apol. 68 118–19Justinian, Novel 42.1.2 223Lactantius,De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.2 698.3–4 69–7011.8 3913.2.3 16017.3–4 72–317.8 7318.1–7 73–4Divine Institutes 4.28.11 2354.30.13 2095.19.21 235–6Leo, Ep. 62–4 27788 278172 212Libanius, Ep. 914 239–401253 239Lucian, The Death ofPeregrinus 186–8Malalas, Chronicle 11.5 18511.10 132–3, 189–90Marcus Aurelius, Meditations11.3 146, 192–3Michael <strong>the</strong> Syrian, Chronicle11.6 319Novel of Justinian 77.1.1 208141 208Novel of Theodosius 3, pref. 8 207Optatus,1.13 521.15 521.22 70, 96, 2162.25 523.3 216, 3583.5–7 2203.8 52, 85Appendix 1 39Appendix 2 51, 84Appendix 3 206, 209Appendix 7 216–17Appendix 9 218Appendix 10 218Origen, Comm. In Johannem6.41 33428.23 159Contra Celsum 8 193PassioAbitinan Martyrs 48, 140of Agape 47of Carpus 166of Cassian 172of Crispina 54–5, 81–3of Cyprian 144, 159, 170of Dasius 173of Euplus 56, 130, 175of Fabius 75–6of Justin 166of Marcellus 172of Marianus and Jacob 170of Maxima, Donatilla &Secunda 76of Maximilian 171of Perpetua 169, 190–2of Phileas and Philoromus 176of Philip of Heraclea 43, 47–8of Pionius 170
In<strong>de</strong>x of Passages 377of Polycarp 157–8, 166of Polyeuctus 169of Scillitan martyrs 112, 127,147of Theodoret 45of Typasius 75, 173Pelagius, Tract. <strong>de</strong> Divitiis 366–7Peter of Alexandria, Canonical Letter5–7 638–11 45, 155, 160–111 6512 50, 364Pliny, Letters 10.65 11810.96 42, 110–12, 123–4,126–7, 146, 148–50, 20810.97 40, 110, 112, 148–9Praxagoras of A<strong>the</strong>ns 71Procopius, Buildings 1.1.9 246Secret History 13.7–8 246Wars 5.3.5–9 246, 270Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius, Peristephanon 3 1744 172Ps.-Dionysius <strong>the</strong> Areopagite, Ep.8 250Salvian, De Gubernatore Dei5.2.5–11 242Sententiae Pauli 5.21.2 119–20Socrates, EH 4.32 238–94.33.7 2435, preface 2435.22.1 2437.3 225–67.15.11 2117.29.4–13 2437.29.5 2077.41.4–7 243Sozomen, EH 7.15.11 211Suetonius, Nero 16.2 108, 147Symmachus, Relatio 3.10 240Tacitus, Annals 14.42–3 34615.44.3–8 108–9, 148Histories 5.5 1355.9 115Tertullian, ad Nat. 1.7 119ad Martyras 1.1 186ad Scapulam 2.2 2345.1 131–2, 167Apologeticum 2.17 12824.6 233–527.2.3 14639.11 34540.1–2 13646.4 136<strong>de</strong> Corona Militis 1.4.4–5158–9Themistius, Or. 5, 67b–70d237–8Theodore <strong>the</strong> Studite, Ep.2.152 251Theodoret, EH 3.15 1824.15 206–75.39 182, 184Zachariah, HE 4.10 282
General In<strong>de</strong>xAbd al-Rahman II, emir 184–5Abdas 162Abiram 220Abitinan Martyrs 48, 69, 74, 81, 83Abthunga 52Acts, Passions; see individualmartyrsA<strong>de</strong>lWus 272Ae<strong>de</strong>sius 65, 177AelaWus 137, 206Aemilia, province 362Aemilianus 170Ae<strong>the</strong>rius of Smyrna 308Aetius, arch<strong>de</strong>acon 300, 308Aetius, patrician 273Afra of AugustaVin<strong>de</strong>licorum 57–8, 69Africa 49, 54–6, 70–2, 74–6, 79,81–2, 88–9, 94–5, 97, 117, 123,144, 158, 165, 173–4, 183–4,191, 206, 216, 218–19, 358Proconsularis 49, 51–2, 79, 82,84–5African Passions 54, 75–6Agape of Thessalonica 38, 47Agapetus of Synnada 226Agapius 65, 69, 177Agatharci<strong>de</strong>s of Cnidus 332Agathias, historian 246–7Agathonice 166Agricola (Pelagian) 367Agricolanus, Aurelius 172Alamanni 247Alan, Alans 289Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, doctor fromPhrygia 167Alexan<strong>de</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Great 188, 329, 331Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, Palestinian martyr 170Alexan<strong>de</strong>r of Alexandria 212, 219Alexan<strong>de</strong>r of Gaza, volunteer 177–8Alexan<strong>de</strong>r, volunteer atCaesarea 177Alexandria 60, 67, 137, 168, 170,210, 264, 271, 278, 283, 299,313, 316–17, 368Patriarch’s power 261Almsgiving, see <strong>Christian</strong>s, charityAlpheus of Caesarea 44, 65, 85, 177Altar of Victory 240–1Alvar 185Ambrose 162–4, 198, 221, 226–7,241, 352, 361–3Ammaedara (Haidra) 79–81Ammianus Marcellinus 25, 210,222, 247–8, 260Amonius 180Amphilochius of Si<strong>de</strong> 281Anastasius, emperor 245Anatolius, magister militum 255,287–94, 297, 318connection withTheodoret 291–3Anatolius of Constantinople 278,282, 284–5, 290, 296Ancyra, Council of 47–8, 50, 63, 95,97–8Andrew, Abba 314Antioch 84, 127, 133, 163–4, 177,179–80, 182–3, 215, 219, 271,295, 298Antiochus IV Epiphanes 193Antonines 41, 121, 132, 193, 198
General In<strong>de</strong>x 379Antoninus, Arrius 131, 167Antoninus, Valerius 87Antoninus, volunteer 65, 177Anullinus 54–5, 67, 83, 85–6Apollinarii, heretics 244Apollinaris, senator 293Apollonius, martyr 69, 113Apollonius of Sioout 161Apologists 112, 128–9, 136, 203Apostasy, Apostates; see un<strong>de</strong>r<strong>Christian</strong>ityApphianus 65, 177Aphthartodocetist 318Aqua Viva 86Aquila, Subatianus 169Arabs 224, 228, 319Aramaic 331Arcadius, martyr 75Ares, martyr 178Arian controversy, Arians 97, 206,216, 218–19, 236, 241, 243, 248,250, 260, 289, 300Arima<strong>the</strong>a 332Aristotle 346–8, 353, 370Arius, heresiarch 212, 219, 222Arles, Council of 48, 92, 95–8,103, 217Armenian Church 262Arnobius 134Artabius, governor 248Artemius, martyr 181Ascalon 178, 331Asclepia<strong>de</strong>s, <strong>de</strong>acon 284Asclepius, Palestinian martyr 65Asia, continent 329Asia, province 115, 118, 131,166–7, 313Asia Minor 72, 111, 225, 271, 299,328, 366Asiana 298Aspar 289, 297Asturica (Astorga) 94Athanasius of Alexandria 64, 161,219, 239, 295A<strong>the</strong>ism 11Atticus of Constantinople 226, 243Attila <strong>the</strong> Hun 272–3, 289–90,299, 314Augusta Vin<strong>de</strong>licorum 57Augustine 11, 75, 141, 143, 159,162–4, 209, 221, 223, 226,351–2, 360, 363–4allegory in 221–2, 364bête noire 222, 323, 364Augustus 114, 117–18, 135Aurelian, emperor 215–16, 219Aurelius <strong>the</strong> African 300Auxentius 65Babylas, martyr 183Bacchanals, Bacchic cult 151,204, 234Bagai 87Balbus 141Balkans 38, 70–2Ball, John 370Barbarians 242, 260, 289, 346Barhadbeshabba 280Barnes, T.D. 19, 23, 88, 99, 103–4,158, 166, 191, 247Barsauma, archimandrite 312–13Basil of Ancyra 181Basil of Caesarea 175, 361Basil of Seleucia 304, 308Basili<strong>de</strong>s, Gnostic 140Basili<strong>de</strong>s, soldier 169Bassus 47Baynes, Norman 28, 37, 107, 180,227–8, 271, 314, 319Beatitu<strong>de</strong>s 340–2bellum iustum 369–70Bernice 163–4
380 General In<strong>de</strong>xBesas, soldier 170Bethlehem 332Bethsaida (Julias) 332, 335Bithynia 110, 279Boniface, presbyter 282, 286Books; see un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>ity; alsotraditioBosporus 279Bostra 247Bowersock, Glen 19, 230Boyarin, Daniel 33Britain 55, 70, 72, 96British Israelites 10Brown, Peter 17, 24, 26, 157, 232Bury, J.B. 24Busiris of Ancyra 181Byzacena 49, 72, 82Caecilian 96, 217Caecilius 141Caesaraugusta (Saragossa) 94Caesarea (Cappadocia) 78, 175, 181Caesarea (Palestine) 43–4, 61, 63–5,84–5, 131, 168, 177–8, 331Caesarea Paneas 332Caesarea Philippi 332, 335–6Calanus 188Callinicum 239, 249Callistus, Pope 167–8Calvisianus, corrector 56, 130Cameron, Averil 24–5, 246–7Candidianus, comesdomesticorum 275–6Capernaum 332–3, 336Cappadocia 137, 175, 179Caracalla 166Carpus 166Carthage 51, 60, 74, 159, 162, 169,191, 217Councils at 83, 162, 184, 308–9Casae 86Cassian, excerptor 172Cassiodorus 249Cassius, Gaius 346Castellum Elephantum(RouVach) 85Catana 130, 175Catholic, see OrthodoxCatulinus 92Celestine, Pope 261, 275Celsus 193Celsus, Domitius 217Cephalitan estate 76, 79–80Cerinthus 137, 205–6Chalcedon, Council of 102, 210,227–8, 241, 255, 259–319chanting, noise at 267–8, 301–3,306, 308, 310–13Church of Euphemia 298–9coercion at 272–4commissioners at 268–9, 282–94,298–303, 307, 316–18Creed of 272, 284, 287, 305, 318Fifth Session 284First Session 264, 281, 298,315–16, 318Fourth Session 282, 315–16interruptions 266numbers at 281–2, 298, 304provi<strong>de</strong>ntial role 281recording of 307–10seating 298–9Second Session 268, 283Sixth Session 264, 288, 298sources for 265–70subscriptions to 281–2, 298,304–5Third Session 264, 281–3, 288,298, 315Chalcedonians 245Charity, see <strong>Christian</strong>sCharles V 348
General In<strong>de</strong>x 381Chione 38, 47chora, see Countrysi<strong>de</strong>Chorazin 332, 335<strong>Christian</strong> Church 31–2, 38, 202,214–15, 260, 351, 369–70<strong>Christian</strong>ity, <strong>Christian</strong>sabominations, crimes,Xagitia 109, 111, 120, 128–9,145, 148–51, 203allegory 27, 221–2, 364, 368apostasy, apostates 41–2, 44–6,48, 50, 84, 90, 94, 117, 120, 123,127, 149, 157, 177, 182, 186ascetics, monks 8, 312–13,357–8, 361beastly 257books 45, 47–9, 52–3, 56, 76–7,80, 84, 92, 140, 160, 174catechumens 90–1charges against 14–15, 122–3,128–9, 144; see also<strong>Christian</strong>ity, abominations,namecharity 356, 358–60, 363clergy 37, 92, 123, 144, 184communion, exclusionfrom 90–4, 187, 274, 316–17confessors 59–60, 63, 93, 154, 186<strong>de</strong>btors 45, 160<strong>de</strong>plorable, repellentattitu<strong>de</strong>s 68, 190, 325–6<strong>de</strong>structive eVects of 229–30,318–19exaggerations 68, 122–3, 131,167, 174exclusivity of 16, 133–4, 139–40factions, feuding 129, 209,212–13, 216, 219, 222, 240, 243,260, 271, 301–2fanaticism 7, 158, 183–5, 192Xight of 64, 123, 161fundamentalist 325hostility towards 11, 67–8,108–9, 122, 129, 136–8i<strong>de</strong>ntity 33–4immunity 49–50, 123, 364; seealso libellatici, libelli pacisintolerance of 4–7, 16, 18, 133–4,152, 228, 234, 243lapsi 47–8, 59, 94–5, 97, 155, 364magistrates, service as 95name 110–11, 146, 148–9, 152,199–200obstinacy of 15, 54, 124–7, 144–7persecution by 5, 7, 17–18, 180,201–4, 208, 211, 214, 217–29,243, 247–50, 326priesthoods (pagan) 90–1property, p<strong>late</strong> 47–8, 84, 92, 140,215–16, 219, 328, 344–5, 351,355–71provoke Jews 107–8, 150rhetoric 17–18, 128, 232, 235sacriWcing 42, 44–9, 51–4, 59–63,67, 83–4, 90–5, 98, 241, 364stantes 60, 62–3upper class 44, 180, 184use secular powers 215–19, 224see also sacriWce test, Slavery,Volunteer MartyrsChristology 262, 268, 303, 305Alexandrian 263, 271, 295, 316Antiochene 271, 291, 294–5One Nature 261, 279, 294–5,302–3, 310, 319Two Nature 262, 278, 284–5, 301,310, 319Chrysaphius 273, 291, 293Cicero 141–3, 203, 339, 348, 362Cilicia 178, 319Circumcellions, see DonatistsCirta 51, 53, 59, 87, 218
382 General In<strong>de</strong>xCities, poleis 328–33Class Struggle 255, 355, 370–1Clement of Alexandria 130, 158–9,357–61, 365, 367–8Cluny 228Co<strong>de</strong>x Theodosianus 166, 204, 267Coelestius 367cognitio extra ordinem 14, 113–14,116, 145Commodian 159Commodus 113Confessors; see <strong>Christian</strong>ityConstans 358Constantine I 24, 46, 73, 77, 96–7,100, 103, 106, 171, 204–5,212, 236, 248, 260, 267, 272,294, 296coercion by 215, 217–18, 223–5support for Catholics 216–19Constantine, commissioner 290,293Constantine, <strong>de</strong>acon 308Constantine, magistrianus 302Constantinople 208, 226, 271, 273,276, 298, 304Council of (381) 276, 305Council of (553) 318Synods of 448/9 276–7, 294, 305,307–8Constantius I Chlorus 54–5, 70,95–6Constantius II 181, 219, 238, 247contumacia; see <strong>Christian</strong>ity,obstinacyCoptic Church 262Cordoba (Cordova) 185Corinth 114, 266Cotta 141, 203Councils (Church) 255, 274, 277;see also individual locationsacclamations at 267–8, 309Acts, accuracy, completeness of266–7, 277, 284, 296, 308–10compilation of 310subsciptions to 298, 310–12control of 268, 270, 275–81,284–7, 294, 297pressures at 272, 284, 301, 304,310–13procedures 306–7translation at 299–300violence, disruption at 268, 275,278, 309–14Countrysi<strong>de</strong>, chora 328–31, 333–7Cozbi <strong>the</strong> Midianite 220Crispina of Thagora 54–5, 58, 76,80–3Crispinus, <strong>de</strong>acon 309Crispus 96Cynegius, prefect 240Cynics 188Cyprian 44, 49, 59, 94, 130,144, 155, 159, 162, 170, 186,360, 364Cyril of Alexandria 180, 262, 264,269, 275, 291–2, 294, 299at First Ephesus 261Twelve Ana<strong>the</strong>mas 261, 264,273, 296Cyril of Heliopolis 181Cyril of Jerusalem 366Cyril of Scythopolis 334Cyrrhus 292–3, 295Damascus 129Damasus, Pope 58, 210–11, 222, 248Daniel of Carrhae 263Danube 70, 72Daphne 183Dasius of Durostorum 173Dead Sea Sect, see EssenesDecapolis 332–4
General In<strong>de</strong>x 383Decius, emperor; Decianpersecution 12, 21, 40, 42, 44,50, 59–62, 64, 67–8, 73, 93–4,106–7, 123, 137–40, 166,169–70, 186, 364–5<strong>de</strong>latores, <strong>de</strong>lation 92–3, 110–11,120–1, 123Delehaye, H. 28, 156, 166, 172,174, 190Demetrianus 205Demetrianus, notary 309Demophilus 250dies turiWcationis, turiWcatio 46, 49,51–3, 76–7, 85, 89dies traditionis 46, 89Digest 126Dio Chrysostom 349Diocletian 16, 37, 42, 53–4, 58, 65,69–74, 77, 107, 130, 139–40,160, 166Edict, First 35, 38–9, 41–3, 49,51, 55, 67, 84, 92, 96, 175Edict, Second 37, 42, 44, 92Edict, Third 37, 44, 52Edict, Fourth 20, 38, 41–4, 46,49–51, 53–6, 58–9, 61–3, 68, 72,74, 79–81, 83, 86–8, 92, 98, 104health 72–3superstitions 73Diogenes of Cyzicus 265–6, 313Dionysius of Alexandria 60, 140Dionysius, prison visitor 178Dionysius, volunteer 177Dioscorus of Alexandria 257,263–4, 274, 277–84, 291,295–6, 298–304, 317at Second Ephesus 262, 288–300,305–6, 309–13at Chalcedon 307, 312–16<strong>de</strong>position of 268–9, 281–3,299–300, 316, 318Disasters 133, 136, 205Domitian, emperor 12, 111, 117–18Domnina 163–4Domninus, martyr 65, 179Domnus of Antioch 263, 279, 296Donatists, Donatist controversy 48,50–2, 70, 77, 81, 96–89, 130,162, 180, 183–4, 192, 198, 206,209, 212, 215–19, 248, 309, 358Donatus 66Donatus of Calama 49Donatus of Mascula 51, 53, 85Doro<strong>the</strong>us 84Durostorum 181Easter 243E<strong>de</strong>ssa 247–8, 289–90, 352Egypt, Egyptians 55, 60, 66, 77–8,131, 140, 175, 178, 204, 209, 225,228, 239, 280, 282–3, 319, 329Egyptian bishops 264, 298, 301–2,310, 315–17Egyptian martyrs 65–7, 131, 176, 178Egyptian monks 275Eisenhower, Presi<strong>de</strong>nt 202, 351Eleazar 195–6Elijah, martyr 178Elijah, prophet 250–1Elvira, Council of 80, 89–104, 130,159–60, 351Emerita (Merida) 94, 174emperorsCaesaropapism 217, 275<strong>de</strong>cisions of 69–71, 118, 120–1,239–40Genius, Tyche of 112, 122relations with Church 204,206–7, 214–19, 223–4, 227,237–41, 249, 255, 260, 264, 270,272, 274–81, 284–5, 294, 297,301, 305
384 General In<strong>de</strong>xemperors (cont.)worship of 111Engels, F. 9, 11Ennatha of Gaza 65Epagethus, Vettius 167Ephesus, Ephesians 137–8, 205–6,212, 266, 303First Council of 261, 263, 268,275–7, 299, 305, 307Second, ‘Robber’, Councilof 262–4, 269–73, 277–8,280–1, 283, 288, 291, 293,296–7, 301–8, 310–17Ephraim 332Ephraim of Nisibis 352Epictetus 192, 353–4Epicureans 354Epiphanes 365Epiphanius 225, 366Epiphanius of Callisura 319Essenes 341, 344Ethiopic Church 262Eubulus of Batanaea 179Eulalia of Merida 92, 98, 174Eulogius of Toledo 185Eulogius, tribune 277, 312Eumeneia 67Eunomius, bishop 206–7Eunomius, envoy 217Euplus of Sicily 56, 130, 175Eusebius of Caesarea 37, 46, 59,61–6, 71, 79–80, 129, 131, 157,160, 164, 176–9, 205, 212–13,215, 244, 294Eusebius of Dorylaeum 263, 276,283, 285, 300–1, 306–7,309–11Eusebius of Samosata 206, 309–11Eustathius of Beirut 306Eustathius of Sebaste 365Eu<strong>the</strong>rius 160Eutyches, archimandrite 263–4,271, 273, 276–8, 290, 292–6,303, 305–8, 310, 312, 316Eutychius of Constantinople 221,249, 262Evagrius of Epiphania 245–6, 257,268–9, 280Fabius, soldier 75–6, 173Fastidius 367Faustus, volunteer 56, 92, 98, 174Felix, Antonius 114Felix of Abthunga 51Felix of Acci 103Felix of Thibiuca 48, 54, 74Firmilian, governor 66, 136Firmus 216Fitzhugh, George 347Flavian of Constantinople 262–3,273–4, 276–8, 290, 292, 294,296, 301, 303, 305–8, 311, 313Flavian of Philippi 307Xogging, see tortureFlorentius, patrician 276, 290,292–3, 295, 305, 308Florian of Lauriacum 57Florus, Valerius, governor 51–3,74–5, 80, 84–9Foucault, Michel 33Franks 247Frend, W.H.C. 5, 19, 26, 49, 79–85,87, 89, 99, 290Fundanus, C. Minucius 118–19Fundanus of Abitina 48–9Furni 49Gadara, Ga<strong>de</strong>ra 44, 334Galerius, emperor 21, 54, 61, 70–4,77, 107, 139Galicia 172Galileans 192, 248
General In<strong>de</strong>x 385Galilee 330–7Galileo 315Galillenses 147Galla Placidia 277Gallic martyrs 196Gallienus 38, 76, 78Gallio 14Gallonius 74games 90, 131, 177, 196–7Gangra, Council of 365–6Garnsey, Peter 31, 232, 245Gaul 55, 70–2, 96Gaulanitis 332Gaza 137, 178–9, 331Geertz, CliVord 31–2Genethlius 287Genoa 249Gerasa 334Gergesa 334Germantown, Pennsylvania 355Germanus, volunteer 65, 177Gibbon, Edward 4, 6–9, 30, 129,135, 159, 230Gildo 216Gnostics 4, 140, 158, 225, 353, 365Gordius of Caesarea 175Gorgonius 84Goths 243, 249government 40, 63, 106–7, 109,138, 148–51; see also emperors,provincesineVectiveness, limitationsof 117, 224–5, 232Gratian, emperor 219Great Syrtis 72Greece 71Grégoire, Henri 28, 89, 97, 100, 165Gregory, comman<strong>de</strong>r 319Gregory, pope 251Gregory of Antioch 245Gregory of Nazianzus 161, 182, 360Gregory of Nyssa 360, 364Hadrian, emperor 114, 118–19Hadrian, martyr 179Hadrumetum 72, 74Hardy, E.G. 13, 26, 28, 151–2Hardy, Thomas 343Harnack, Adolf 26Hecataeus of Ab<strong>de</strong>ra 332Helena 272Helpidius, count 277, 312Heracles 188Heraclius, emperor 25, 224, 318–19heresy, heretics 137, 183, 209,211–15, 218–19, 221–3, 245,248–50, 351, 365; see alsoArians, Marcionites,MontanistsHermes 47Herod <strong>the</strong> Great 132, 197, 324,332–3, 337Herod Antipas, <strong>the</strong> Tetrarch 330,335, 337Herodotus 246Hierocles, prefect 177Hilary, pope 302–3Hilary of Poitiers 219, 360Hippolytus 167–8, 171Hippos (Susitha) 334historians, history 156, 202, 255,337, 350ecclesiastical 17, 25–6, 105,119, 202Oxford 25, 28–9Roman 25–9, 34, 105–6Homer 43, 179Honigmann, E. 303Honoria, Augusta 273Honorius, emperor 309Hopkins, Keith 31Hume, D. 7, 229–30
386 General In<strong>de</strong>xHuns 273Hypatia 210Ibas of E<strong>de</strong>ssa 263, 291, 318Iconoclasts 251idols, breaking, striking of 153, 174,181, 193, 199, 210Ignatius of Antioch 132–3, 189–90,192, 199, 212, 350Illyricum 71, 280, 290bishops of 285, 298–9, 301images, see idolsImmanuel prophecy 325immunity; see libellaticiincense 51–3, 84–5; see also diesturiWcationisInnocentius 75interpreters 299–300Irenaeus 190, 205, 212, 360, 364Irenaeus of Tyre 263Irene 38Isis 151, 234Islam 197–8, 230Italian martyrs 57–8Italy 56–7, 70, 72, 95, 97, 273, 328ius divinum 141–2, 203Jacobites 262Jacob of Cyrrhus 295Jacobus, Numidian martyr 170James <strong>the</strong> Just 108Januarius, volunteer 56, 92, 98, 174Jerome 162–4, 226–7, 357, 360Jerusalem 178, 271, 298, 315, 317,332, 367Jesus 333–43, 349, 357, 359, 369–70Jews 8, 17, 33, 114, 127, 135, 137,193–8, 201, 222, 224, 228–9,234, 239, 243, 249, 251, 323,326, 330, 333, 335–6, 344, 348–9hostility to <strong>Christian</strong>s 27, 107–8inXuence on martyrs 19–20, 132,195–8martyrs 19, 132, 193–8synagogues 167–8use as insult 301–2Job 325John, apostle 137, 205–6John Cassian 360John Chrysostom 164, 196, 271,357, 360John Nesteutes 250John Rufus 257, 280, 314–15John Scholasticus 249John of Antioch, bishop 261,275, 291John of Antioch, historian 185John of Germanicia 296Joinville 228–9Jones, A.H.M. 23, 25Josephus 132, 197, 212Jovian, emperor 237–9, 243–4Jovinian, monk 226–7Judaea 115, 122, 193, 330–2, 337Judas, rabbi 197Julian, emperor 78, 180–3, 216, 222,238–41, 247–8, 356Julian, friend of Jerome 357Julian, slave 179Julian of Lebedus 309Justin, Roman martyr 121, 166, 212Justin II, emperor 251Justina 241Justinian, emperor 208, 221–3,225, 241, 245–6, 248–9,318, 346Juvenal of Jerusalem 271, 277, 288,298–9, 304, 309, 315, 317Juventius, guardsman 182Koch, H. 89, 93–5, 100Korah 220
General In<strong>de</strong>x 387Lactantius 39, 46, 66, 69, 71, 96,119, 130, 134, 139, 160, 171,209, 218, 231, 233, 235–6, 241,244, 360Lamasba 87Lambaesis 86–7, 170Lane Fox, Robin 79, 99Last, Hugh 24, 29, 148,Law, Roman 113–16, 118–22, 128,145, 353–4access to 36enforcement of 224–5processes of 113–20, 123–4rhetoric of 204–5, 207savagery of 223Legio (Leon) 94Leo, I, Pope 264, 268–9, 272–4, 277,279, 283, 286, 290, 299, 301,303, 319Tome of 263, 266, 278, 282–3, 285,290, 293, 296–7, 307, 312, 316Leo XIII, Pope 370Leontes 168Letters of communion 93Levi, son of Alpheus 337Libanius 210, 237, 239–41, 247–8libellatici 49–50, 364libelli pacis 186Liberius of Emerita 96–7Licinia Augusta 277Licinius, emperor 24, 106, 175, 212Liguria 363Louis IX 228–9Lucentius of Ascoli 286Lucian 144, 188Lucilla of Cirta 82Lucius, martyr 113, 121, 165Lucretia 163Lugdunum, see LyonsLusitania 96Lyons 120–1, 167Macabees 132, 193–9Macarius 52, 358Macedon 71Macedonia 248Macedonians (heretics) 226Macedonius of Merum 181MacMullen, Ramsay 225, 230Macoma<strong>de</strong>s 75, 86–8MagniWcat 343, 371Magnus, silentiary 276–7Magnus Maximus 249–50maiestas (treason) 122–3, 235Malalas, John 185, 189Malchus, Palestinian martyr 170Manichees 39–40, 139, 201, 204,224, 239, 242, 301–2, 311Marcellinus, pope 58, 76–7Marcellinus, tribune 309Marcellus, soldier 172Marcellus of Apamea 211, 240Marcian, African martyr 75Marcian, bishop 51Marcian, emperor 264, 272–4,278–80, 284, 288–91, 293, 296,314, 317–18at Chalcedon 287, 290letters, instructions of 102, 279,283, 297Marcian, African martyr 75Marciana of Caesarea 165Marcion, Marcionites 33, 170Marcuclius 92Marcus Aurelius 41, 119–20, 146,157, 166, 170, 192–3, 199Marianus, Numidian martyr 170Marinianus of Synnada 313Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae 49Maris of Chalcedon 182Maris <strong>the</strong> Persian 318Mark of Arethusa 181Martialis, ex-magister 286–7, 294
388 General In<strong>de</strong>xMartialis, Spanish volunteer 56, 92,98, 174Martin of Tours 173, 250Martyrs; see un<strong>de</strong>r individual namesveneration of 130, 157, 185–6Marx, Karl 9, 11, 113, 355Marxism 9Mary, virgin 226, 228, 261, 285Christotokos 261Theotokos 260, 284Mascula 87Maternus, Firmicus 208, 220Mat<strong>the</strong>w 337Matthias, rabbi 197Mauretania 82, 165, 172Mauretania Caesariensis 75–6, 173Mauretania Tingitana 97, 100Maurice, emperor 250Maxentius, emperor 59, 97, 100,180, 216Maxima, Donatilla & Secunda 76,80–1Maximian, emperor 54–5, 57–8,69–73, 75–6, 96, 130Maximilian 171–2Maximinus Daia, emperor 38,61–2, 72, 129, 136Maximinus Thrax, emperor 168Maximus, guardsman 182Maximus of Antioch 278–9, 302Maximus of Carthage 51Maximus of Ephesus 238Meigne, M. 101–3Meletius 47Melitene 37Memnon of Ephesus 275Menalius 52Mennonites 355Mensurius of Carthage 45, 49, 67,130, 160, 168, 174Merum (Phrygia) 181Messianic prophecy 325Miaphysites; see MonophysitesMichael <strong>the</strong> Syrian 228, 298, 319Milan 227, 241, 363Edict of 209–10, 212, 231, 233Milevis 52–3, 76, 85, 89military service, see soldiersMillar, Fergus 14, 23Miltia<strong>de</strong>s of Rome 58, 217Mithras, Mithraism 88, 214Moesia 181Mohammed I, emir 185Momigliano, Arnaldo 24Mommsen, Theodor 12, 14, 27, 115Monophysites 227–8, 245, 249, 262,270, 279–80, 298, 310, 314–15,318–19Mono<strong>the</strong>letes 318Montanists 130, 132, 155, 158,191, 198Montesquieu 4, 6–8Musurillo, H.A. 145Nain 332Nazareth 332, 335–6, 339Neocaesarea, Council of 97–8Nepotian, priest 357Nero, emperor 12, 108–9, 111,117, 119Nestorians, Nestorian views 261,278, 280, 284, 301–2, 307, 310Nestorius 207, 209, 243–5, 260–1,263–4, 268, 275, 280–1, 294,296, 302–3Newman, Cardinal 354Nicaea 279, 283First Council of 98, 103, 243,263, 276, 305Second Council of 251Nicene <strong>Christian</strong>ity 204, 240–1; seealso Orthodoxy
General In<strong>de</strong>x 389Nicomedia 35, 67, 70, 73, 84,160, 174Nile 136Nisibis 352Nock, Arthur Derby 138Nomus, quaestor 289–90, 292–3Noricum 56–7Novatian, Novatians 212, 244Numidia 52, 59, 74, 82–9, 183,216, 218bishops of 51–2, 74Numidia Cirtensis 53, 75, 87–9Numidia Militiana 74, 85–8Numidia Proconsularis 54–5, 171Old Testament, sinister inXuenceof 220–1Olympius, envoy 217Omar 319Onesiphorus of Iconium 282, 313Optatus, Aristius 77Optatus of Milevis 52, 209, 220, 358Orestes, prefect 180Oriens 298bishops of 284, 299–300, 309–13Origen 130, 158–9, 168, 171, 193,361Orthodox, Orthodoxy 17, 137, 204,206, 209, 212, 217–19, 227–8,249, 262, 264, 270, 278, 280,289, 298–9, 301, 309–10,318–19Ossius (Hosius) of Cordoba 97–8,102–3Ovid 338Oxyrhynchus 78Paëis, volunteer 177Paeon 166Pagans 15, 17, 19, 27, 30, 204, 250;see also Poly<strong>the</strong>istscompassion for <strong>Christian</strong>s 64cult acts 150–1, 203, 214religious feelings 112, 127,134–6, 138–9, 142, 202–5, 208pai<strong>de</strong>ia 232, 239Palestine 53, 61, 64–6, 80, 131,177–8, 185, 239, 323, 337bishops of 298–9, 301Palestinian martyrs 64–6, 176–9Palladius, praetorian prefect 287–8,290Pamphilus, owner of Porphyry 65,179Pamphilus, Palestinian martyr 65Pannonia 58, 70, 72Panopolis 280Papylus of Thyatira 166Parables, Gospel storiesGreat Supper 221–2Lazarus 342, 361, 363–4Rich Young Man 342, 357, 363Tares 221Paschasinus ofLilybaeum 282–3,286Passions 42, 68–9, 165Paternus, governor 144Patricius 291Paul of Cirta 49, 59, 92Paul of Emesa 291Paul of Samosata 215, 219Paul of Tarsus 11, 33, 14, 212–15,324, 343, 349–50, 354, 369apologists for 344bête noire 323Paul, Palestinian martyr 65Paulinus of Nola 362pax <strong>de</strong>i 211pax <strong>de</strong>orum 15–16, 133, 200,203, 211Pegasius of Ilium 241Pelagia 164Pelagians 352, 364, 366–7
390 General In<strong>de</strong>xPeraea 331Peregrinus (Proteus) ofParium 186–8Perennis, prefect 113Pergamum 166Perpetua 169, 190–2<strong>Persecution</strong> 23, 31, 106, 121,201–4, 208–10, 217–18,238, 248–50, 326machinery, mechanics of 60–8,127phases 12, 16, 106, 144religious motivation 4, 15, 30, 34,127, 133–8, 143, 150–2, 200,203, 211targets 38Persia, Church in 162, 184Pessinus 181Peter of Alexandria 46, 50, 63, 95, 98,130, 155, 158, 160–1, 175, 364Peter of Terracina 251Peter, imperial slave 84Peter, Palestinian martyr 65Phaeno 65–6, 176Phileas of Thmuis 176Philemon 165Philip of Heraclea 43, 47–8Philip <strong>the</strong> Tetrarch 332Philippi 138Philo 135, 368Philoromus 176Philosophers 136, 142, 346–8,350, 353Phineas, grandson of Aaron 220,250–1Phoenicia 178, 335Photius, patriarch 294Phrygia 67, 157, 165, 181, 226Pi<strong>late</strong>, Pontius 122Pionius 60, 69, 170Pius XI, Pope 370Placitus, ex-magister 286Plato, 325–6, 346–7, 370bête noire 323Plerophories, see John RufusPliny <strong>the</strong> Younger 28, 42, 108,110–11, 117, 119–20, 124–7,144, 146, 148–51, 208, 267,338, 360Polycarp 121, 130, 137, 157–8,196, 205Polyeuctus of Melitene 169Polygamy 324Poly<strong>the</strong>ism, Poly<strong>the</strong>ists 211,229–30, 240; see also PagansPontica, diocese 298Pontus 71, 110, 137, 178poor, see povertyPoppaea Sabina 109Popper, Karl 326Porphyry, philosopher 296Porphyry, slave 179Potamiaena 169poverty 363–4, 366–8Greek attitu<strong>de</strong>s to 340Jewish attitu<strong>de</strong>s to 340–1moral connotations of 339, 341Priscillian 250Priscus, historian 289Priscus, Palestinian martyr 170Proclus of Alexandria 243Procopius, historian 246–7, 270Procopius, quasi-volunteer 42,65, 179Procopius, usurper 239Procopius of Scythopolis 84Proculus 165Promus 178Property; see <strong>Christian</strong>ity, propertyProsdoce 163–4Proterius of Alexandria 210, 317Protogenes, prefect 289, 292–3
General In<strong>de</strong>x 391provinces,governors of 12, 14, 28, 39, 43–4,65–7, 75, 106, 114–22governors’ attitu<strong>de</strong>s 16, 128,131–2, 167, 177, 180, 214,225–6, 339Pru<strong>de</strong>ntius 57, 98, 174Ps.-Dionysius <strong>the</strong> Areopagite 245,250–1Ptolemy, Ptolemaeus, martyr 113,121, 165Ptolemies 331public opinion 121, 129, 138,150, 157Pulcheria 261, 264, 271, 273–4,278–80, 284, 287–9, 294, 296,301, 314, 318Puritans 10Quintianus, Aurelius 53, 75, 86–9Quintus 157, 165–6Raetia 56–7Ramsay, W.M. 13, 28.Ranilda 248Ravenna 72, 272Reccared I 224records; see un<strong>de</strong>r Councils, Actsrelics 188, 291religio, religiones 31, 214, 232–6Restitianus <strong>the</strong> African 300Restituta 75Rhine 70riches, see Wealthriots 107, 150anti-<strong>Christian</strong> 122<strong>Christian</strong> 210–11, 279, 317; seealso <strong>Christian</strong>ity, factionsRobinson, Henry Crabb 141Roman Empire 12, 16, 26, 69,244–5, 329Roman religion 15, 141–4, 203–4,235, 370study of 27, 29, 202–3, 232Romanus, commissioner 294Romanus, martyr 44Romanus, volunteer 65, 84, 177Rome 58, 77, 100, 106, 108, 113,121–2, 133–4, 148, 151, 166,189–90, 227, 248–9, 267, 271–2,284–5, 291, 299, 314, 317Romulus, volunteer 177Rufus, count 295Rumbold, Richard 347Rusica<strong>de</strong> (Philippeville) 87Rusticus 165Sabas, Goth 184SacriWcatio; see un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>Christian</strong>ity,sacriWcingsacriWce certiWcates 59–63; see alsolibellaticisacriWce test 33, 40–2, 125, 127–8,140, 147Said, Edward 33Sallustius, quaestor 204Salsa of Tipasa 75, 165Salutius Secundus 238Salvian 242, 245Samaria 331, 333Samaritans 204, 251, 333Sardinia 147, 167Sardis 225Saturninus, companion ofPerpetua 192Saturninus of Abitina 54, 74Saturninus, Vigellius 112, 117Saturus 169, 191schism, schismatics 183, 211–15,218–21, 260, 351Scillitan martyrs 69, 112, 121, 147Scythia, Scythian 349
392 General In<strong>de</strong>xSebaste (Samaria) 331, 333Secundus, Pedanius 346Secundus of Tigisis 74, 160, 174Seeck, Otto 314Seleucids 331Seleucus, ex-oYcer 179Senate, senators 36, 134, 241,266–7, 287, 354Senator, envoy 290, 292–3Sepphoris 331, 335–6Severans, Severan period 41, 139, 166Severus, Septimius 119Severus, Tetrarch 58, 72, 97Severus of Antioch 223Sherwin-White, A.N. 14, 114, 116,124–6, 144–51Sicily 56, 175, 328Sidon 331–3, 335Silvanus of Cirta 39Siricius, Pope 226Sirmium 70Sisebut 251slavery, slaves 167, 323, 345–55, 368as punishment 36<strong>Christian</strong> attitu<strong>de</strong>s to 349–55, 369punishments of 167, 223, 242,346, 351Smaragdus Abbas 355Smyrna 158, 165, 196Socrates, historian 181, 236, 238–9,242–5, 268, 294soldiers 75, 158–9, 169–73, 182,312–13, 369Solon of A<strong>the</strong>ns 339Sophronius of Tella 263Sou<strong>the</strong>rn, Richard 29Sozomen, historian 181, 211,238–9, 244, 268, 294Spain 49, 56, 70–2, 79, 82, 90–1,93–8, 100, 103–4, 123, 172,174, 184, 250–1Sparta 345Speratus <strong>the</strong> Scillitan 127Sporacius 287, 292<strong>Ste</strong>in, Ernst 273<strong>Ste</strong>phen, protomartyr 108<strong>Ste</strong>phen of Ephesus 309, 312Stoics 141, 347, 353–4, 371Strate<strong>late</strong>s 291Suetonius 108, 147–8, 203suici<strong>de</strong>religious 154, 163–4subscriptions; see Chalcedon,subscriptions tosuperstitio, superstition 31, 134–7,139, 143, 145, 147–52, 232–3Sychar of Samaria 332–3Syme, Sir Ronald 23Symeon Stylites 295Symeon Stylites <strong>the</strong> younger 251Symmachus 210, 237, 239–41Syria, Syrians 37, 44, 53, 71,77–8, 129, 181, 187, 211,219, 228, 239, 295, 313,319, 348Syrian Orthodox Church 270Tacitus 108, 135, 147–8, 203Tarraco 100Tatian, city prefect 290, 293Tatian of Merum 181Taurus 72taxation, taxes 77–8, 232, 292–3temples 94, 126<strong>de</strong>struction of 162, 181–2,210–11, 240Tertullian 112, 119, 122–3, 128,131, 136, 155, 158–9, 167,169, 171, 186, 191, 231,233–6, 241, 360Tetrarchs, Tetrarchy 42, 69–72,95–6, 179
General In<strong>de</strong>x 393Thalassius of Caesarea 277, 288,309, 314–15Thamugadi, Timgad 74, 86–7Thebaid 66, 82, 131, 176Thecla, Palestinian martyr 65Themistius 210, 237–40Theodahad 248–9Theo<strong>de</strong>ric <strong>the</strong> Amal 249Theodore of Claudiopolis 304, 306Theodore of Mopsuestia 263, 318Theodore <strong>the</strong> Studite 251, 355Theodoret of Cyrrhus 162, 182, 184,206–7, 244, 264–5, 311, 360correspon<strong>de</strong>nce of 269, 291–3,296–7exclusion from SecondEphesus 263, 277, 295–6, 301restoration at Chalcedon 268,294–8, 301–3, 307, 310, 314Theodosia of Tyre 178Theodosius I, emperor 202, 219,240–1, 249Theodosius II, emperor 207, 243–4,261–2, 264, 272–8, 289, 291–2,295–7, 299, 301Theodosius, monk 317Theodosius of Synnada 225–6Theodoulus of Merum 181Theodulus, slave 179Theologians, Theology 27, 269–71,285, 288, 319, 325, 337, 350Theopaschite formula 241, 318Theophilus of Alexandria 240, 271Theopistus 280Theveste 54, 171Thessalonica 38, 71Thibilis (Announa) 87Thomas of E<strong>de</strong>ssa 291Thrace 70, 298Three Chapters 318Thurlow, Lord 141Tiber 136Tiberianus, governor 185Tiberias 331, 335–6Tiberius, emperor 203Tiberius Constantine,emperor 249–50Ticinum 100Timolaus, volunteer 177Timothy, martyr 65Timothy Aelurus 257, 315Tingis (Tangier) 172Titus 118Toledo 185toleration 152, 202–3, 209–10,218–19, 229–51Tolstoy 354Torres, Camilio 370torture, judicial 36, 41–2, 53, 63, 66,76–7, 95, 117, 127–8, 157,174–5, 178, 181, 227, 368traditio, traditores 46–9, 51–3, 74,95–6, 98Trajan 25, 40–1, 110–11, 117,119–20, 132, 144, 148, 151–2,185, 208, 267Trier 72, 250Tripolitania 74, 82turiWcatio; see dies turiWcationisTypasius, veteran 75, 173Tyre 179, 331–3, 335Ulpian, jurist 117, 119, 121, 126Ulpian, martyr 65, 179Urban, governor 66Urbicius 291Urbicus, Q. Lollius 165Ursinus 210, 222, 248Vahram V 184Valens, emperor 206, 238–9Valens, Palestinian martyr 65
394 General In<strong>de</strong>xValentina, volunteer 178–9Valentinian I, emperor 224, 239,242, 247Valentinian II, emperor 241,249Valentinian III, emperor 207,272–3, 277Valentinian, prefect ofIllyricum 290Valentinians 248Valerian, emperor 36, 40, 68, 93,107, 139–40, 145, 170Valerius of Caesaraugusta 98Valladolid 348Vandals 163, 300vengeance, divine; see wrathVerona List 74, 85Veronicianus, secretary 299Vespasian, emperor 118Victor of Cirta 39Victor of Rusica<strong>de</strong> 49Vienne 120, 196Vigilius, pope 318Vincentius, arch<strong>de</strong>acon 56, 98Vincomalus, magister oYciorum286–8, 290, 292, 297Visigoths 224, 273Volunteer Martyrs 33–4, 44–5, 56,65–8, 81–5, 93, 129–33, 145,150, 153–93, 197–200dangers of 155, 162, 197–8oYcial disapproval of 32, 45,91–2, 130, 155–62, 165, 168war, Just; see bellum iustumwealth, riches 338–9, 341–3,356–71basis for charity 358–60, 368moral terminology for338–9suYciency of 356, 359, 367Weinstock, Julius 141Williams, Bernard 231wrath, divine 136–7, 200,204–8, 218Yahweh 10, 325–6Yarmuk 319Yazdgard I 162, 184Zacchaeus 368Zacchaeus, martyr 44, 65Zachariah rhetor 269, 280, 314Zama 49Zarmanus, Zarmarus 188Zealots 192Zebinas, volunteer 65, 177Zeno, emperorHenoticon 207, 241, 318Zeno, magister militum 289, 291Zimri <strong>the</strong> Israelite 220Zoilus, senator 293
REVELATION