You are on page 1of 34

The Past and Present Society

Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? Author(s): G. E. M. de Ste. Croix Source: Past and Present, No. 26 (Nov., 1963), pp. 6-38 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/649902 Accessed: 23/03/2009 03:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and The Past and Present Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Past and Present.

http://www.jstor.org

WHY WERETHE EARLYCHRISTIS


PERSECUTED?1 THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE ROMANEMPIREHAS

auracted the attention of scholars of many different kinds. The enormous volume of literatureon the subject is partly due to the fact that it can be approached from many different directions: it offers a challenge to historians of the Roman empire (especially of its public administration), to Roman lawyers, to ecclesiastical historians, to Christian theologians, and to students of Roman religion and Greek religion. In fact all these approachesare relevant, and they must all be used together. The question I have taken as a title needs to be broken down in two quitv different ways. One is to distinguish between the general population of the Graeco-Romanworld and what I am going to call for convenience "the government": I mean of course the emperor, the senate, the central oicials and the provincial governors, the key figures for our purpose being the emperor and even more the provincial governors. In this case we ask first, "For what reasons did ordinary pagans demand persecution ?", and secondly, "Why did the government persecute ?". The second way of dividing up our general question is to distinguish the reasons which brought about persecution from the purely legal basis of persecution the juridical principles and institutions invoked by those who had already madE up their minds to take action. But let us not look at the persecutions entirely from the top, so to speak-from the point of view of the persecutors. Scholars who have dealt with this subject, Roman historians in particular, have with few exceptions paid too little attention to what I might call the underside of the process: persecution as seen by the Christians - in a word, martyrdom, a concept which played a vitally important part in the life of the early Church.2 It is convenient to divide the persecutionsinto three distinct phases. The first ends just before the great fire at Rome in 64; the second begins with the persecution which followed the fire and continues until 250;3 and the third opens with the persecution under Decius in 250-I and lasts until 3I3-or, if we take account of the antiChristian activities of Licinius in his later years, until the defeat of Licinius by Constantine in 324. We know of no persecution by the Roman government until 64, snd there was no general persecution

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

until that of Decius. Between 64 and 250 there were only isolated, local persecutions; and even if the total number of victims was quite considerable (as I think it probably was), most individual outbreaks must usually have been quite brief. Even the general persecution of Decius lasted little more than a year, and the second general persecution, that of Valerian in 257-g, less than three years. The third and last gelleral persecution, by Diocletian and his colleagues from 303 onwards (the so-called "Great Persecution"), continued for only about two years in the West, although it went on a good deal longer in the East.4 In the intervals between these general persecutions the situation, in my opinion, remained very much what it had been earlier, except that on the whole the position of the Church was distinctly better: there were several local persecuiions, but there were also quite long periods during which the Christians enjoyed something like complete peace over most of the empire;6 and in addition the capacity of the Christianchurches to own property was recognized, at least under some emperors. But I agree with Baynesffand many others that complete tolerationof Christianitywas never officiallyproclaimed before the edict of Galerius in 3I I. The subject is a large one, and I cannot affordto spend time on the first phase of persecution (before 64), during which, in so far as it took place at all, persecution was on a small scale and came about mainly as a result of Jewish hostility, which tended to lead to disturbances.7 After the execution of Jesus, the organsof govertlment come quite well out of it all: their general attitude is one of impartiality or indifference towards the religious squabbles between Jews and Christians. In consequence of riots provoked by Christian missionary preaching, action was sometimes taken by the officials of local communities. But any Christians who were martyred, like Stephen and James "the Just" (the brother of Jesus),8 were victims of purely Jewish enmity, which would count for little outside Judaea itself. The Sanhedrin acted ukra vires in executing James-and Stephen, if indeed his death was not really a lynching. I do not intend to give a narrative, even in outline, of the second and third phases of persecution, which I shall mainly deal with together. The earliest stages of intervention on the part of the government, before about II2, are particularly obscure to us. We cannot be certain how and when the government began to take action; but, like many other people, I believe it was in the persecution by Nero at Rome which followed the great fire in 64. The much discussed passage in Tacitus which is our only informative source leaves many problems unsolved, but I can do no more here than

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 2 6

summarize my own views, which agree closely with those expressed by Professor Beaujeu in his admirable recent monograph on this persecution.l? In order to kill the widely believed rumour that he himself was responsible for starting the fire, Nero falsely accused and savagely punished the Christians. First, those who admitted being Christiansll were prosecuted, and then, on information provided by them (doubtless under torture), a great muItitude were convicted, not so much (according to Tacitus) of the crime of incendiarism as because of their hatred of the human race ("odio humani generis").12 Tacitus, like his friend Pliny and their contemporary Suetonius,l3 detested the Christians; and although he did not believe they caused the firel4 he does say they were "hated for their abominations" ("flagitia") and he calls them "criminals deserving exemplary punishment".l5 The Christianswere picked on as scapegoats, then, because they were already believed by the populace to be capable of horrid that is worth noticing. (Had not the Empress Poppaea Sabina been particularly sympathetic towards the Jews,ls they might well have been chosen as the most appropriatescapegoats.) And once the first batch of Nero's Christian victims had been condemned, whether on a charge of organised incendiarism or for a wider "complex of guilt'',l7 there would be nothing to prevent the magistrate conducting the trials (probably the Praefectus Urbi) from condemning the rest on the chargefamiliarto us in the second century, of simply "being a Christian" a status which now necessarily involved, by deSnition, membership of an anti-social and potentially criminal conspiracy.

crimes,flagitia:

I now want to begin examining the attitude of the government towards the persecution of the Christians. I propose to consider mainly the legal problems first, because although they involve some highly technical questions of Roman public law, the more important ones can, I believe, be compIetely solved, and we shall then be in a very much better position to understandthe reasonswhich prompted the government to persecute; although before we can finally clarify these, we shall have to consider the other side of our problem: the reasons for the hatred felt towards Christianityby the mass of pagans. The legal problems,l8 from which a certain number of non-legal issues can hardly be separated, may be grouped under three heads. First, what was the nature of the official charge or charges ? Secondly, before whom, and accordingto what form of legal process, if any, were Christians tried? And thirdly, what was the legal foundatiorl for the charges? (For example, was it or a

a lex,

WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED ?

senatusconsultum, or an imperial edict specifically directed against


Christianity, or some more general edict, or an imperial rescript or series of rescripts?) I will deal with the first question now, and then the other two together. First) then, the nature of the charges against the Christians. Here I am going to be dogmatic and say that from at least II2 onwards (perhaps, as we have seen, from 64) the normal charge against Christians was simply "being Christians": they are punished, that is to say, "for the Name", the nomen Christianum. This is quite certain, from what the Christian Apologists say in the second and early third centuries,ls from several accounts of martyrdoms,'? and from the techIiical language used by PliIly and Trajan in their celebrated exchange of letters, probably at about the end of II2,n1 concerning the persecution conducted by Pliny in his pro-ince of Bithynia et Pontus.22 Pliny speaks of the Christians he had executed as "those who were charged before me zuithbeingChristians" ("qui ad me tamquam Christianideferebantur"),and the only question he says he asked these confessors was whether they admitted this charge ("interrogaviipsos, an essent Christiani");23 and Trajan in his reply speaksof "those who had been chargedbefore you as CAlristians" ("qui Chrlstiani ad te delati fuerant"), and goes on to say that anyone "who denies he is a Christian" (4Cqui negaverit se Christianum esse") and proves it 'Cbyoffering prayers to our gods" can go free.24 With the otiler evidence, that settles the matter. Now the delatores who first accused the Christiansas such before Pliny couid not be sure (as we shall see) that Pliny would consent to take cognizance of the matter at all, let alone inflict the death penalty. Since they thought it was worth "trying it on", they evidently kness7 that in the past other officials had been preparedto punish Christiansas such. And in fact Pliny now did so,'- although later on he had second thoughts and consulted the emperor, saying he was doubtful on what charge and to what extent he should investigate and punish, and in particularwhether he should talre the age of the accused into account, whether he should grant pardon to anyone who was prepared to apostatize, and whether he should punish for the NaIne alone or for the abominable crimes associated with being a Cllristian (the "agitia cohaerentianomini"). Trajan explicitly refused to lay down any general or definite rulcs and was very selective in his answers to Pliny's questions. In tWO passages which do him great credit he instructs Pliny that Christians must not be sought OUt t iconquirendinon sunt"), and that anonymous denunciations are to be ignored, "for they create the worst sort of precedent and are quite out of keeping with the spirit of our age".

IO

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

Christianswho are aeeused as sueh, in due form (by a private proseeutor, delator), andareeonvieted mustbe punished, but anyone who denieshe is a Christian, andprovesit "by offering prayers to our gods",is to reeeive"pardon on the seoreof his repentanee" and be set free. In my opinion,Pliny eould justifiably take this to mean that punishment was to be for the Name alone. As I haveshown,I believethatperseeution "forthe Name"began eitherin 64 or at sometime between64 and II2. As an alternative, many writers have broughtforwardeertainpassagesin the New Testament, espeeially the Apoealypse and I Peter,28 and havesought to showthatunderDomitian, if not underNero,emperor-worship was enforeedin Asia Minor, and that the Christian seet was proseribed when Christians refusedto take part in it, the ehargebeing really politiealdisloyalty. I wouldput no weighton sueh eonsiderations; althoughon the evideneeof the Apoealypse I do not doubtthatsome Christians mayhavebeenputto death in Asia(espeeially at Pergamum) for refusingto pay eult to the emperor. (Of eourse,they oughtnot to have been compelled to do anythingof the sort, no emperorbeing offieially numbered amongthe gods of the Romanstate until he was deadandhadbeendulypronouneed divus,eventhoughin praetiee he reeeivedeult in his lifetime at provineiallevel and below.) One often hearsit saidthat the Christians were martyred "forrefusingto worshipthe emperor".2' In faet, emperor-worship is a faetor of almost no independent importanee in the perseeution of the Christians.28It is true that among our reeords of martyrdoms emperor-worship does erop up oeeasionally;29 but far more often it is a matter of saerificing to thegods30 as a rule,not even speeifieally to "the gods of the Romans". And when the eult act involveddoes coneernthe emperor,it is usuallyan oath by his Genius(or in the East by his 'IvscrJ)3l or a saerifiee to the gods on his behalf.32 Very characteristic is the statementof VigelliusSaturninus, proconsulof Afrieain I80, tO the Scillitan martyrs: "Wetoo arereligious, andour religion is simple, and we swear by the Genius of our lord the emperor,and we pray for his welfare,as you also ought to do".33 This is also the situation which is refleeted in the Apologists. Tertullian,addressing himselfin I97 to the Romangoverningelass in the Apologeticus, examinesat greatlengththe chargesagainstthe Christians:he sums them up by makingthe paganssay to the Christians, "Youdon'tworship the gods,andyou don'toffersaerifiee for the emperors".34And thereis ampleevideneeto show that the situationremained substantially the samerightthroughthe thirdand earlyfourthcenturies, even duringthe general perseeutions.35

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANSPERSECUTED

II

I now turn to the nature of the judicial process against the this, I shallgo beyondthe strictlylegal Christians. (In considering sphere from time to time, and look at some of the reasonswhy persecution tookplace.) was in every case that used for The procedure againstChristians the vast majorityof criminaltrials under the Principate:cognitio which I shalldiscussin a moment. extraordinem (or extraordinaria), tookplacebeforethe Capital tria]sunderthis processin the provinces provincialgovernorand no one else. In Rome, the only trials of Christiansabout which we have good evidence were before the none of the known PraefectusUrbi38or a PraefectusPraetorio;37 cases was importantenough to come directlybefore the emperor appealsby although in the earlyPrincipate himself,or the senate,38 elsewhere mayhavegoneto the emperor's Roman citizensfirstaccused court. Now Roman law was surely the most impressiveintellectual achievementof Roman civilization. But what Roman lawyersof privatelaw, todaymeanwhenthey speakof Romanlaw is essentially rights,theirdefinition withproperty a largepartof whichis concerned Marx, in the De Offciis,anticipating andprotection. (Did not Cicero of political communities forthe veryexistence saythatthe mainreason ?)39 Large wasthe securityof privateproperty "ut sua tenerent" areasof Romancriminaland public law, however,were by contrast and one of the worst of these blemisheswas very unsatisfactory, the procedureby which.the large preciselycognitio extra ordinem, publicorum, system (the ordoiudiciorum deficienciesof the quaestio crimes"), of whatmaybe calledsCstatutory regulating the punishment by whichat leastwassubjectto fairlystrictrules,weresupplemented pointed intervention. As Mr. Sherwin-White direct governmental out in his SarumLecturesfor I960-6I, the ratherfew offencesdealt thoseof "highsocietyand with by the quaestio systemwereessentially the "crimesof the commonman" theft the governing personnel"; even at and so forth had largelyto be dealt with extra ordinem, the magistrate Rome.40 In making use of cognitioextra ordinem - even more so, of course, concerned had a very wide discretion4l in criminaltrials than in civil actions, just becauseof the relative extendednot only to law. This discretion vagueness of the criminal Sxing penalties,but even to deciding which cases the magistrate and which-like Galliowhen appealed wouldrecognize as criminal to by the Jewsof CorinthagainstSt. Paul42 he wouldrefuseeven (iurisdictio) belongedto to consider. The right of judicialcognitio as part of their imperium. In the criminal all provincialgovernors

I2

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

sphereit was almostunlimited, savein so far as the rightsof Roman citizens(underthe Lex Iuliade vi publica)43 had to be respected, and in so far as a prosecution might be broughtagainstthe governorat Romeafterhis term of officewas over.44 The spherein whichthe judge might exercisehis discretionwas actuallyat its widest in the earlyPrincipate, beforeit beganto be circumscribed by the imperial constitutions issued moreand morefrequently from Hadrian's time onwards.45 Tacitus, in his famous commenton Antonius }Relix, governorof Judaeain St. Paul's time, can speak of his "royal prerogatives" ("ius regium");46 and, in one of the worst cases of provincial misgovernment on record,a proconsul of Asia,towards the end of the reignof Augustus, couldcongratulate himselfproudlyand in Greek,over the deadbodiesof three hundredprovincials he had executed in a singleday,on havingperformed a kinglyact.4 7 In a sense,the powerto conducta criminal cognitio was partof the power of coercitio inherentin ionperium; but it is quite wrong to conceivethe Christians as being punishedby pure coercitio in the narrowersense, summarilyand without the exercise of proper iurisdictio: coercitio in that sense, exercised(as the lawyersput it) de plano, in an informal manner, was limited to minor offences48 I cannothelpfeelingthatsomeof thosewhohavepersisted in speaking of the proceedings againstthe Christians as "policemeasures" have not fully realized that the trialsin questionwerein no waysummary proceedings by pure coercitio but properlegal trials, involvingthe exerciseof iurisdictio in the fullestsense. The arbitrary andirresponsible character of the cognitio systemwas well understoodby Mommsen,who says contemptuously in his Romisches Strafrecht that it entirelyeludes scientificexposition,its very essence being a "legalisedabsenceof settled form".49 "To Romancriminallaw", says Schulz, "the rule 'nullum crimensine lege, nullapoenasine lege' was and remained for ever unknown".50 Jolowicz,discussingthe criminalsystem of the Principate,rightly pointedout that it "neverpassedthrougha stageof strictlaw",and "the 'rule of law', towardswhich the quaestiones had been a step forward, was neverestablished''.5l To find thatin a veryimportant partof the Romanlegalsystemthe rule of law as we knowit did not existwill surprise onlythosewhofix theireyeson the splendidsystem of civil jurisprudence59 and ignore criminaland administrative law and procedure. Recalcitrant as it is to preciseanalysis, the systemof cognitio extra ordinem has been adequately discussedin the standard textbooks.53 Through his understanding of the natureof the cognitioprocess,

WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANSPERSECUTED ?

I3

Mr. Sherwin-White, in anarticle published in Igs2,54hasbeenableto cut awaya vast amountof dead wood and provideby far the best introduction to the studyof the legalaspectsof the earlypersecutions - althoughI shall arguepresentlythat he is mistaken in one very important point. Sinceourinformation comesalmostentirely fromChristian sources, interestedin recording martyrdoms, the greatmajority of the trials of Christians we knowaboutin detailend in conviction and a death sentence. But the very wide discretion exercised by the provincial governormight on occasionwork in favourof accusedChristians. The mostsignificant evidencecomesfromTertullian's Ad Scapulam, writtenprobably in 2I2, wherewe hearthatthe veryfirstproconsul to shed Christian blood in Africawas VigelliusSaturninus,55 who was in officeas lateas I80;56 andthata wholeseriesof African proconsuls (afterSaturninus, it seems)had gone out of theirway to be friendly to accusedChristians:57 one ofthem helpedthe Christians to conduct theircasein such a wayas to securean acquittal (I only wish we had moredetailsof thatA; another acquitted an accusedChristian outright, apparently on the groundthat to convicthim wouldcausea riot; yet another,reluctantat having to deal with such a case, releasedan accusedChristian who consented undertorture to apostatize, without actuallymakinghim sacrifice;and a fourth tore up thevexatious indictment of a Christian whenhis accuser failedto appear. That shows how things might work in practice. A governor exercising cognitio extraordinaria in a criminal casewas bound(forall practical purposes) onlyby thoseimperial constitutiones andmanL1ata58 which were relevantin his particular areaand were Stiil in force.59 Unfortunately, officialpublicationof imperialconstitutiones seems to have been an extremelyinefficient and haphazard process,60 and a conscientious governor mightoften find himselfin greatperplexity as to whatthe lawwas. This is nicelyillustrated by a letterfromPliny to Trajan dealing with the problem of the status of foundlings (0PEWTof)e61 He can find nothing to the point, he says, in the constitutiones of previous emperors. An edict said to have been issuedby Augustus hadbeenquotedto him,withlettersof Vespasian, Titus and Domitian,addressed to otherpartsof the empire,but he did not enclosecopiesof these,as he xvas not certainof theiraccuracv or even (in some cases)of their authenticity, and he felt sure there would be proper copies in the offices of the emperor'scentral administration.One sentenceis particularly significant: he did not feel that in a matterwhich called for the emperor'sauthoritative decisionhe oughtto be "contentwith precedents''.S2

I4

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

Once Pliny's correspondence with Trajan had been "published" (no doubt by his friends, soon after II7, when he and Trajan were both dead), every educated Roman would be likely to know what instructions Trajanhad given regardingthe Christians;and thereafter any provincial governor might well feel that until official policy towards the Christians changed he had better follow the same procedure. But other governors,at any rate in other provinces, were not absolutely bound by this precedent; and indeed some ten years later we find a proconsul of Asia consulting Hadrian on the treatment of the Christians,and instructionsbeing sent in return to his successor, C. Miliicius Fundanus, the purport of which, unhappily, is not entirely clear from the version which has come down to us through Christian writersfi3 I myself believe this rescript represented no departurefrom the policy laid down by Trajan. The decisions taken by Nero in 64 and Trajan in II2 did not constitute precedents absolutely binding upon provincialgovernorsgenerally. Tertullian's notorious reference to an "institutum Neronianum"64does not refer to a general edict: "institutum" is not a technical legal term, and we must translate "the practice adopted by Nero". We are told by Lactantius that Ulpian (in the early third century) collected and published in his treatise De OfMicio Proconsulis the nefarious imperial rescripts laying down the penalties to be inflicted on Christians.65 I would emphasize that Lactantius speaks of rescripta, not edictaor mandata. Unless he is using the word very loosely, this is another piece of evidence against the existence of a "general law" specifically proscribing Christianity, a notion which, as far as I am aware, no specialist in Roman public law and administration has ever been willing to entertain, popular as it has been among ecclesiastical historians.6fi It is very possible that these rescripts laid down no more definite rules than those we find in Trajan's letter to Pliny or Hadrian's to Fundanus. A rescript of Marcus Aurelius ordered the penalty of relegation to an island to be applied to anyone who did anything to alarm the fickle minds of men with dread of the supernatural;fi7but this is scarcely relevant for our purposes, especially as we never hear of any Christians sufferiIlg under this provision. The Sententiae Pauli include a rule of unknown date, threateningpunishment to those who "introducenew sects or religious practices not founded on rational grounds, so as to influence the minds of men";68but this too seems to me of little importance for us. Nor does it seem at all likely that a governor would wish to commit himself in his provincialedict on such a minor criminal matter as the prosecutionof Christians. And if he was ever in serious doubt about

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

15

the course he ought to pursue, he could always consult the emperor. It is important to remember that the standard procedure in punishing Christians was "accusatory" and not "inquisitorial": a governor would not normallytake action until a formal denunciation a man who was prepared not was issued by a delator, nominis) (delatio merely to inform but actually to conduct the prosecution in person, and to take the risk of being himself arraignedon a charge of calumnia, malicious prosecution, if he failed to make out a sufficient case.69 Trajan, as we have seen, forbade the seeking out of Christians. This principle, however, could be and sometimes was disregarded. The best attested example comes from the savage persecution at Lyons and Vienne in I77, when the governor did order a search to be made for Christians70 and incidentally seems to have punished apostates for what Pliny had called the "flagitia cohaerentianomini", the shocking crimes of which Christians were supposed to be guilty, and which had been alleged against them in this case by their pagan slaves.'l It is wrongto say the governorhere was acting "illegally", becauseof course he was not absolutely bound to follow Trajan's rescript to Pliny; but it looks as if the great majority of governors did follow it. On this occasion the governor actually condemned to the beasts, as a favour to the enragedpopulace, a Christiannamed Attalus, who was a Roman citizen, although the emperor had just given specific instructions to the governor that Christians who were Roman citizens should be beheaded.72 He was exceeding his instructions, certainly; but he could plead political necessity, and there is no reason to think he was taken to task by the emperor, who was Marcus Aurelius. This raises another point: the attitude of the emperor. Christian propagandafrom at least the middle of the second century onwards tried to make out that it was only the "bad emperors"who persecuted, and that the "good emperors" protected the Christians; 3 but there is no truth in this at all. We know, for example, of quite a number of martyrdoms under the first two Antonines in widely separated parts of the empire, and even at Rome itself.74 In reality, persecution went on automatically,if sporadically,whoever the emperor might be; and until the third century at any rate it is better not to think of persecutions primarily in terms of emperors. It was the provincial and governor in each case who played the more significant role even his attitude might be less important than what I must call "public opinion". If the state of local feeling was such that no one particularly wanted to take upon himself the onus of prosecuting Christians, very few governors would have any desire to instigate a persecution. If, on the other hand, public opinion was inflamed

I6

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

against the Christians (aswe shallsee it oftenwas,downto the middle of the third century),then delators would not be lacking, and Christians wouldbe put on trial;and few governors wouldhaveany motivefor resisting stronglocalfeelingdemonstrated in this perfectly permissible way,especially if someof the moreinfluential menin the areawere leadingthe agitation,as they often would be. Imperial instructions (mandata) givento provincial governors badethem take careto rid theirprovinces of "badmen"(malihomines);75 andUlpian saidit was characteristic of a good andserious-minded governor that he keep his province"settledand orderly"("pacata atque quieta"), addingthat he would have no difficultyin securingthis end ifhe diligently sawto it thatthe province wascleared of "malihomines" and soughtthem out accordingly.76The governor was advisedby a Erst-century juristto consider not so muchwhatwasthe practice at Romeas whatthe circumstances required;77 andthe principle thatin the exercise of his criminaljurisdictionthe governorshould act according to the circumstances existingin his particular province was well recognized.?8Probably the mainreasonwhy some martyrdoms -perhaps manymartyrdoms tookplacewasthattheywerethought to be necessarv if the province wereto be kept"pacata atquequieta". Most governors weredoubtless only too *villing to takeactionagainst menwho werestrongly disapproved of by ''allright-thinking people", andwho tendedto become the centreof disturbances. Everyone will remember how Pilateyicldedto the vociferous demandsof the local notables and their followers for the crucifixionof Jesus.8? If a governor, indeed,refusedto do what was expectedof him in this way, not only would he becomeunpopular: the generalindignation againstthe Christians wouldbe only too likelyto vent itself in riots andlynching,as we haveevidence thatit did on occasion;8l andonce violencebegan,anythingmighthappen. Christians mightalsobe suspect,as malihomines, in the eyesof some governors, becausethey worshipped a manwho had admittedly been crucified by a governor of Judaea, as a political criminal,82 whothought of himself as "king of the Jews".83 Their loyalty to the state, whatever they mightsay, couldwell appear doubtful,if only because theyrefusedevento swearan oathby the emperor's Genius.84 They werealwaystalkingaboutthe imminentend of the world;andone of theirbooksspokewith bitterhatredof Rome,thinlydisguisedunder the nameof Babylon, and prophesied its utterruin.85 And furthermorethe secrecyof their rites might well seem a coverfor political conspiracy, or at anyrateanti-social behaviour. A governor whohad suchconsiderations in mindwhentryingChristians mightevendecide
tD

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

I7

to find them guilty of maiestas (treason): this would account for various statements by Tertullian about Christians being accused of that crime88 although I would not take these pieces of rhetoric very seriously myself. In any event, the factors I have just been mentioning would have less and less weight as time went on, and it became clear that Christianshad no political objectives whatever and few particularlyanti-social habits. Sometimes a Christian who was in danger of being put on trial might be able to escape altogether by bribing the intendiIlg delator or the authorities. There is evidence that this was happening in Africa by the early third century at the latest 87 not merely individuals but whole churches had purchased immunity, to the disgust of Tertullian,88who believed that during persecution Christians must stand their ground and neither take to flight nor buy themselves of. This rigorist attitude was only partly shared by the churches of the West, and in the East it seems to have been genera]ly repudiated: flight or concealment during persecution was officially approved everywhere(except in so far as leading clergy might incur disapproval for deserting their flocks); but in the West, though apparently not in the East, the purchase of immunity, at any rate in a form which might give the impression of apostasy, was regarded as a sin, if not a particularlygrave one.89 Our evidence comes mainly from Africa, Spain and Rome during the Decian persecution, when certificates of compliance with the imperial order to sacrifice to the gods were purchased wholesale by the less steadfast members of the Christian community.9? Although we have not yet disposed of all the legal issues, we have at least reached a point from which we can see that the last of my three questions of a legal nature, "What was the legal foundation for the charges against the Christians?", has answered itself, because under the cognitio process no foundation was necessary, other than a prosecutor, a charge of Christianity, and a governor willing to punish on that charge. Theories that the Christian churches could be legally regarded as collegia illicita, unlawful associations, either in the sense of being irremediablyillegal (so that their members were at all times liable to criminal punishment), or merely because they were unlicensed (and liable to be prosecuted if they failed to obey an order to disband), have been strongly attackedin recent years by specialists in Roman public law ;91 and in spite of some texts which suggest there I am convinced that this may have been some technical irregularity,92 issue can have had no real importance: we never hear that any Christianwas ever prosecuted as a member of a collegium illicitum.

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

by Mr. SherwinI wantto dealat thispointwitha theoryproduced in and repeated earlier93 articleI mentioned Whitein the admirable his Sarum Lectures.94Accordingto this theory, once Pliny had did to the Christians attributed generally that theflagitia discovered not exist, the real foundationfor condemningthem was their orderof a magistrate; theirrefusalto obeythe reasonable contumacia, this contumacia was "the and in the secondand earlythirdcenturies core of the officialobjection". Againstthis theory there are five arguments: separate lacking. is stubbornly singlecasethe verywordrequired I. In every Pliny does not use the term contumacia at all: employingentirely sortof thing he sayshe did not doubt"whatever language, untechnical it was they were confessingto, their pertinacityand inflexible andas far as I knowthe essential oughtto be punished";95 obstinacy or any accountof a martyrdom in any authentic wordneverappears other reliableancientsourcedealingwith the persecutions.96This aloneis enoughto put the theoryout of courtin so far as it depends to contumacia. meaning a technical on attaching says,hadrefusedto comply 2. Pliny'svictims,Atr.Sherwin-White order.... the test requiringhomageto the di with "a reasonable The test was reasonable, aIld its refusal reveaIed nostri.... In fact Pliny never says he had asked any selfhe makesit quite clearthat he had to sacrifice: confessedChristians imposed this act only upon those who denied that they were as a test of their sincerity.98This destroysthe whole Christians, of whichis that presupposition of the theory,an essential foundation refused. and contumaciously to sacrifice were ordered the Christians the accusedare 3. It is true that in manylatertrialsof Christians orto do someotheractwhichtheirreligion to sacrifice ordered actually did not allowthemto perform. But even herecontumacia couldnot until afterthe trial had begun. hnd would it makeits appearance anelement of a prosecutiorl to acceptasthe legalground not be absurd andthe had beguxl whichcouldnot even ariseuntilafterproceedings ? accusedwas being questioned 4. The theory we are consideringwould make contumacia the in everypersistentcrime-as essentialelemeIlt,quite gratuitously, to pickout the of courseit is, in a sense;but wouldit not be perverse and hold it up as the essentialpart of the crime? merepersistence of is itself complained Otllyin SQ far as the act or defaultoriginally in it be a crime. The essential criminalcan the mere persistence element in the condemnationof Christiansis the illegality of in courtof the accused,which, not the merebehaviour Christianity,
conlumaci".97

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

I9

could as we have seen, is the only point at which contumacia conceivably come in. We want to know why the government wanted Christians to be brought to trial. The contumacia theory distracts attention from this main issue. 5. Close examination of three legal texts to which Mr. SherwinWhite appeals in defence of his theoryi9 and of the dozens of others in which contumacia (and the corresponding adjective and adverb) are used does not at all support his interpretation;but this question is too techIiicalto be discussed in the body of this article.100 Nor can I accept Mr. Sherwin-White's statement that "the Roman official is indifferent to the religious aspects in the known cases, This is to provided that the Christian sheds his contumacia''.l?l ignore a significant part of Pliny's letter: "It is clear that the temples, recently almost deserted, are beginning to be frequented again, and that the sacred rites, long neglected, are being renewed; also that the flesh of the sacrificial atiimals, which has been finding very few purchasers, is on sale everywhere''.l02 In view of this it can hardly be denied that Pliny was genuinely concerned - whether for what we about the dedine of the should call religious reasons or not! traditional religion in his province, and regarded its revival as a justification of his policy of repression, tempered by mercy to apostates. On the face of Pliny's letter the "obstinacy" of the Christians consisted merely in their threefold confession of Chistiaxiity, in face of a warning (aPterthe first confession) that they would be punished for it. Purther light is shed upon this "obstinacy" by some of the Passions of the martyrs, many of whom either repeat the standard formula, "Christianussum", in reply to all quesiions, or make legally irrelevant replies.
If you will give me a quiet hearing, I will tell you the mystery of simplicity .... I do not recognizethe empire of this world, but ratherI serve that God whom no man sees or can see with these eyes. I have committed no theft; but if I buy anything, I pay the tax, because I recognize my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all peoples .... It is evil to advocate murder or the bearingof false witness.

These are the answers given to the proconsul of Africa by Speratus no doubt, but irritating to a judge and the Scillitanl03-edifying, certainly giving an impression of other-worldly "pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy". My next point concerns what I call "the sacrifice test", used by Pliny in order to give those who denied being Christians a chance to prove their sincerity.l?4 The earliest example we have of the use of

20

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

such a test in the Roman world, as far as I know, is at Antioch early in the year 67, when it was used during a pogrom by the Greeks of that city, to distinguish betsveen Jews and non-Jews.l05 The character of the sacrifice test changed when judicial torture, which until the second century had been used (except in very special circumstances)only on slaves, came to be regularlyapplied to all those members of the lower classes (the vast majority of the population of the empire) who became involved in criminal trials, whether they were Roman citizens or not.l06 Once judicial torture had become a standard practice, the sacrifice test naturally tended to lose its original characteras a privilege, and to become something which was enforced, usually with the aid of torture. But the essential aim was to make apostates, not martyrs. One could say without exaggeration that a governor who really wanted to execute Christians would be careful to avoid torturing them, lest they should apostatize and go free. For there is no doubt that with few exceptions an accused who was prepared to perform the prescribed cult acts was immediately released without punishment. Tertullian, of course, in his barrister's way, makes much of this as evidence that the authorities did not really regard the Christians as criminals at all. 'COthers,who plead not guilty", he cries) "you torture to make them confess, the Christians alone to make them deny''.l?) This was perfectly true, and it must surely count as a lonely anomaly in the Roman legal system. The explanation is that the only punishable offence was being a Christian, up to the very moment sentence was pronounced, not havingbeen one. I certainly know of no parallel to this in Roman criminal law. Tertullian ridicules the situation. NVhat is the use of a forced and insincere denial, he asks scornfully. What is to prevent a Christian who has given such a denial and been acquitted from "laughing at your efforts, a Christian once more ?''.108 I need not spend much time on the question of the supposed abominations with which the Christians were charged as they are called,l?9 meaning of course cannibalism and incest. It is hard to say how seriouslythese chargeswere taken by the government. The Christian Apologists of the second and early third centuries devote a good deal of attention to rebutting such accusations, which were evidently believed by the populace in both the eastern and the western parts of the empire. After the first half of the third century, however, they seem to have died out, although we know from Eusebius that a Roman military commanderin Syria in 3I2, under the bitterly anti-Christian emperor Alaximin, did try to fake charges of immoral behaviour

(flagitia) oveareza cezzrva sat ()icz7Tocetoc ytEt(,

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

2I

publicopinion in orderto inflame of Damascus, aganstthe Christians againstthem.ll? The behaviourof the ordinarypaganduringthe suggeststhat he no longerbelievedsuch slanders. GreatPersecution were Moreover,even for the early period, when these accusations interpretcredited,one may feel that a more filndamental generally ation is necessary. As Macaulaysaid over a hundredyears ago, in whichsomeodiouscrime persecution "Thereneverwasa religious was not, justlyor unjustly,said to be obviouslydeduciblefrom the of flagitia doctrinesof the persecutedparty''.lll The reproaches of somemorerealcomplaint. appendages seemto havebeenessentially weregivensome colourby the factthat these charges Unfortunately, and hereticstendedto fling them at each other, orthodoxChristians .... "Apaganmagistrate remarks, severely a factuponwhichGibbon that theirmutualanimosityhad extorted mighteasilyhaveimagined of their commonguilt''.ll2 the discovery I wantto take BeforeI cometo the finalstageof this investigation, a briefglanceat a long seriesof eventswliichmayhavegivenpagans than to Christianity rathermoregroundfor their activeantagonism we tend to suppose: I refer to what I have called "voluntary martyrdom''.ll3Examinationof it will require us to look at end. for once,mainlyfromthe receiving persecution, that a very appreciated, facrt, as yet not generally It is a significant large numberof sources (Passionsas well as literarytexts) show going far beyond what their churchesoicially intrepidChristians required of them, often indeed offering themselves up to the actingin a provocative andoccasionally oftheirownaccord, authorities study a detailed imagesandso forth. Aftermaking smashing manner, martyrs",I would claim that of the evidencefor these "voluntary wasmuchmore the partthey playedin the historyof the persecutions to than has yet been realized. It seemsto me impossible important wasa factorwhich, martyrdom of voluntary doubtthatthe prevalence of persecution to the outbreak for obviousreasons,both contributed to whatis in being. Contrary andtendedto intensifyit whenalready was by no meansconfinedmainly martyrdom usuallysaid,voluntary and Donatists,but sects suchas Montanists or schismatic to heretical thanis generally was a good dealmorecommonamongthe orthodox admitted. The heads of the churches,sensibly enough, forbade againand again,and wereinclinedto refuseto martyrdom voluntary to this effectcould - passages these zealotsthe verynameof martyr be cited from a dozen different sources, including Clement of at least three bishops (Cyprian Origenand Lactantius, Alexandria,

22

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

and Mensalriusof Carthageand Peter of Alexandria))the Passion of Polycarp, and the Canons of the Council of Elvira.114 Nevertheless, we do hear of an astonishingly large number of volunteers, most of whom, whatever the bishops might say, were given full honour as martyrs, the general body of the faithful apparently regardingthem with great respect. One of the most fascinatingof the Passions of the Great Persecution is that of Euplus, who suffered at Catanain Sicily. It begins
In the consulshipof our lords Diocletian (for the ninth time) and Maximian (for the eighth time) [thatis, in 304] on the 29th of April, in the most famous city of Catana,in the COUtt room, in front of the curtain,Euplus shouted out C'I wish to die, for I am a Christian". His excellency Calvisianus the corrector said, "Come in, whoever shouted". And the Blessed Euplus entered the court room, bearingthe immaculateGospels

and he achieved the end he had sought.llo In the next year, 305, while a festival was being celebrated at Caesarea in Palestine, a false rumour began to spread that certain Christians would be given to the beasts as part of the joyful celebrations. While the governorwas on his way to the amphitheatre, six young mell suddenly presented themselves before him with their hands bound behind them) crying out that they were Christians and demanding to be thrown to the beasts with their brethren. We can well believe Eusebius when he adds that the governor and his entire suite were reduced to a condition of no ordinary amazement. The young men were arrestedand imprisoned, but instead of giving them to the beasts as they had demanded, the merciless pagan condemned them to a speedy death by decapitation.ll6 These are but two of a large number of similar examples. Sometimes the fact that certain martyrs were volunteers, and were not sought out by the authorities, may alter our whole picture of a persecution. For example, the many Christians Eusebius says he himself saw condemned to death in a single day in the Thebaid in Upper Egypt during the Great Persecution are described by him in terms which show that they were volunteers, who, after sentence had been pronounced upon one of their brethren, "leapt up before the judgment seat from this side and from that, confessing themselves to be Christians".117 The seeking out of Christians in this area, therefore,need not have been nearly as vigorous as we might (!therwise have assumed from the evidently large number of victims. Now voluntary martyrdomwas not just a late phenomenon) which appearedonly in the generalpersecutions: we have examples from the second century too-indeed, from the very earliest period at which we have any detailed records of martyrdomsat all: that is to say, fFom

WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED ?

23

the IsoS onwards, including one on quite a large scale from about the year I85, recorded in Tertullian's Ad Scaplxlam. Then Arrius Antoninus, proconsul of Asia, was holding his periodic assize in one of the towns of his province, a whole crowd of Christians presented themselves in a body before him, demanding the privilege of martyrdom-all the Christians of that town, says Tertullian, but we must allow for his customaryexaggeration. The astonishedproconsul ordered a few off to execution, but contemptuously dismissed the remainder, saying to them, "If you want to die, you wretches, you can use ropes or precipices''.ll8 The positive evidence for voluntary martyrdom begins in the Antonine period, about I50. Conceivably, I suppose, it could have been a Montanist practice in origin. But I should like to suggest, with all the reserve necessitated by lack of direct evidence, that in fact it is likely to have begun much earlier, and that the reason why we do not hear of it before the middle of the second century is simply that we have too little specific evidence of any sort about persecution or martyrdom before that time. Here the Jewish background of Christianity,above all the Jewish martyr-literature,is a very material factor. As far back as the Maccabaean period, as Professor Baron has put it, there was born "that great exaltationof religious martyrdom which was to dominate the minds of Jews and Christiansfor countless generations''.lli We have examples of voluntary martvrdom on the part of Jews even before the Christian era, notably the incident in 4 B.C., described by Josephus, when two pious rabbis instigated their followers to cut down the golden eagle set up by Herod over the great gate of the Temple: about forty men were executed, the rabbis and the actual perpetrators of the deed being burnt alive.l0 Now the two most fervent works of Jewish martyr-literature,the Second and Fourth Books of Maccabees, with their unrestrained sensationalism and gruesome descriptions of tortures, both formed part of the Septuagint, and must therefore have been well known to the early Church. And indeed a detailed linguistic study by Dr. Perler has shown it to be very likely that IV Alaccabees exerted an important influence on the thought and writings of Ignatius,121 whose martyrdom must have taken place during the first quarter of the second century. Although there is no evidence of any value that Ignatius himself was actually a voluntary martyr,l22 we may, I think, see him as the precursorof the whole series; for in his letter to the Church of Rome, written while he was being taken from Antioch to the capital for execution, he displays what has often been called a pathological yearning for martyrdom. He describes himself as "lusting for

24

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

death" (e,ouv zov a7ro6havetv)l23 and he admonishes the Roman Christians not to try to do anything to save him. The eager way in which he speaks of the tortures confronting him-"Come fire and cross and encounters with beasts, incisions and dissections, wrenching of bones, hackiIlgof limbs, crushing of the whole body''l24 shows an abnormal mentality. It is difficult to believe that Ignatius was an isolated case, even in his own day. If even a few Christiansof the late first and early second centuries had a similar craving for martyrdom(as so many others certainly did later), and gave practical expression to it, especially if they did so by insulting pagan cults, it would be even easier to understand how persecution quickly became eIldemic in many parts of the Roman world. We are in a position at last to attempt to answer the question confronting us, which, it will be remembered, is twofold: "Why did the government persecute ?", and "Why did the mass of pagans often demand and ixiitiate persecution ?". I propose to take the second question first. The answer is clear: it is given to us over and over again in the sources. It was not so much the positive beliefs and practices of the Christians which aroused pagan hostility, but above all the negative element in their religion: their total refusal to worship any god but their own. The monotheistic exclusiveness of the Christians was believed to alienate the goodwill of the gods, to endanger what the Romans called the pax deorum (the right harmonious relationship between gods and men),l25 and to be responsible for disasters which overtook the community. I shall call this exclusiveness, for convenience, by the name the Greeks gave to it, "atheism" (a0eor77c);l26 characteristically,the Latin writers refer to the same phenomenon by more concrete expressions having no philosophical overtones, such as "deos non colere" (not paying cult to the gods): the word atheusfirst appears in Latin in Christian writers of the early fourth century, Arnobius and Lactantius.l27 Whatever view we may hold about the mentality of educated, upper-class intellectuals, we must admit that the great mass of the population of the Roman empire, in both East and West, were at least what we should call deeply superstitious; and I see not the least reason why we should deny them genuine religious feeling, provided we remember the essential differences between their kind of religion and that with which we are familiar. By far the most important of these was that pagan religion was a matter of performing cult acts ratherthan of belief, or ethics. No positive and publicly enforceable

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

25

obligation, however, rested upon any private individual, whether a Roman citizen or not, or upon a common soldier,l28to participatein any pariicular acts of cult,l29 although magistrates and senators of Rome itself,l30 and magistrates (and perhaps senators) of individual Greek and Roman towns,l3l might be legally obliged to do so; and of course great social pressure might be brought to bear upon individuals who refused (on adopting Christianity or Judaism, for instance) to take part in family or other observances. No compulsion was necessary, because until the advent of Christianity no one ever had any reason for refusing to take part in the ceremonies which others observed-except of course the Jews, and they were a special case, a unique exception. Much as the Jews were detested by the bulk of the Roman governing class, as well as by many humbler Romans and Greeks, it was admitted (by the educated, at any rate) that their religious rites were ancestral, and very ancient. All men were expected piously to preserve the religious customs of their ancestors. And so even Tacitus, who strongly disliked Judaism,could say that the religious rites of the Jews "have the recommendation of being ancient".132 The gods would forgive the inexplicable monotheism of the Jews, who were, so to speak, licensed atheists.l33 The Jews of course would not sacrifice to the emperor or his gods, but they were quite willing, while the Temple still stood, to sacrifice to their own god for the well-being of the emperor; and Augustus, if we may believe Philo,l34 by a happy compromise not only accepted this but himself paid for the sacrifices. Matters were very different with the abandoned their ancestralreligions. Christians, who bad ex hypothesi Gibbon expressed the contrast perfectly when he wrote, "The Jews were a people which followed, the Christians a sect which deserted, the religion of their fathers''.l35 The Christians asserted openly either that the pagan gods did not exist at all or that they were malevolent demons. Not only did they themselves refuse to take part in pagan religious rites: they would not even recognize that others ought to do so. As a result, because a large part of Greek religion and the whole of the Roman state religion was very much a community affair, the mass of pagans were naturally apprehensive that the gods would vent their wrath at this dishonour not upon the Christians alone but upon the whole community; and when disasters did occur, they were only too likely to fasten the blame on to the Christians. That the Christians were indeed hated for precisely this reason above all others appearsfrom many passages in the sources, from the mid-second century right down to the fifth. Tertullian sums it all up in a brilliant and famous sentence in the

26

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 2 6

Apologeticus: the pagans, he says,"suppose thatthe Christians arethe causeof everypublic disaster, everymisfortune that happensto the people. If the Tiber overflowsor the Nile doesn't, if there is a droughtor an earthquake, a famineor a pestilence,at once the cry goes up, 'The Christians to the lion' '.136 The essential point I wantto makeis thatthis superstitious feeling on the part of the pagans was due above all to the Christians' "atheism", theirrefusalto acknowledge the gods andgive themtheir due by payingthem cult. The Christian Apologistshave much to say in replyto this chargel37 - and, by the way,they areaddressing themselves to the educated class,sometimes in theoryto the emperors themselves. The earliest surviving Apologists areof the mid-second century,but there is no reasonto think the situationwas different earlier. We must not confuse the kind of atheism charged againstthe Christians with philosophical scepticism. Tertullianpretendsto be veryindignantbecausephilosophers are permitted pagan superstitions, while Christians are not. openlyto attack "They openly demolishyour gods and also attack your superstitions in writings, and you applaudthem for it", he exclaims.l38 The their vital difference was, of course,thatthe philosophers, whatever they might believe,and even write down for circulation amongeducatedfolk, would havebeenperfectly willingto perform any cult act required of them- and that was what mattered. That the religiousmisbehaviour of certainindividualsshould be thought of by pagansas likelyto bringunselective divinepunishment may seem less strangeto us when we remember that similarviews were held by Jewsand Christians. Orthodox Christians felt towards heretics much as pagansfelt towardsthem. The martyred bishop Polycarp, who (it was said) had actually known the Apostles personally, used to tell how the ApostleJohn, enteringthe bathsat Ephesus, rushed out again when he saw the heresiarch inside, crying, "Away,lest the very baths collapse,for Cerinthus within is Cerinthus the enemyof the truth".l39 Aboutthe middleof the thirdcentury,however, the attitudeof the general run of pagans towards the Christiansbegins to undergo a distinctchange. Whereasuntil then the initiativein persecution seems to havecomefrombelow,from250onwards persecution comes from above,fromthe government, and is initiatedby imperialedict, with little or no sign of persecuting zeal amongthe mass of The beginningof the changeseemsto me to come with the pagans. Decian persecution. The last two recorded major outbreaks of popular fury

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

27

and whichI knowof werethosein Cappadocia against the Christians in 249.l4l The changehas gone Pontusin 235140 and at Alexandria of whenthe majority quitefar by the time of the GreatPersecution, seem to be at least pagans (except in a few places, like Gaza)l42 and few indifferent,some even sympatheticto the Christians,l43 provincialgovernorsdisplay any enthusiasmfor the task. "The government had outrunpagan animosity''.l44The reasonfor the had by now spreadwidelyand change,I takeit, is that Christianity and pagans had come to realize that lost its secretive character, andjustas religious. fromthemselves, Christians werenot so different dislikeof the Christians; I haveignoredminorreasonsfor popular thernon simple but no doubtsomepeoplemightfeel a grudgeagainst economicgrounds:we may rememberhow these are said to have been responsiblefor arousingoppositionto apostolicpreachingat Philippiand Ephesus.l45 the attitudeof the government. For Finally,we cantry to analyse historyforprecedents, earlier Roman onceit is of littleavailto ransack in the hope of discoveringthe principleson which Rome treated posedby Christianity, foreignreligions,l6becausethe greatproblem before Romehad neverencountered its exclusiveness, wassomething except under very differentconditions,in the Jewish national religion. 117 to ourproblem. I do not myselfbelievethatthereis a singlesolution classmayhavebeen members of the governing I believethatdifferent actuatedby differentmotives,and I think that each one of us must to each. I have decidefor himselfhow muchweighthe wouldattach someminorfactors,whichmayin somecaseshave already mentioned played an importantand even a decisivepart: the need to pacify as a conspiratorial public opinion; and suspicionof the Christians malihomines. Butfor my ownpart body, or at least as undesirables, in the long run, I believethat the main motivesof the governlment, were essentiallyreligious in character,accordingto the ancient conception of religion. These religious motives appear in two rather different forms, which some people might prefer to call "superstitious" and "politicai"respectively,thereby avoiding the term "religious"altogether. Some of the governingclass, in the third century at any rate (and I believe from the first), were undoubtedlyinspired by the very motives I have described as characteristic of their subjects. Amongthe persecutingemperors, (on the contemporary in this category we mustcertainly placeGalerius and also Diocletian,who seems to have evidenceof Lactantius),l48

been a thoroughly religious man.l49 About Decius I would reserve my opitiion. It is true that after the and Valerian we find many Severan period soldier-emperorsof little or no education, whom we might suspect of the grosser forms of superstition; and of among the higher officials course such as provincial governors have been a greater there will proportion of uneducated men. But, as it happens,Decius cannot be called a man of that sort, and notValerian. I would concede that even in the third conspicuously afar greater extent in the century, and to second, especially the early mayhave been a significant second, there number of members of the class who did not share the governing bythe masses. But even superstitioushorrorfelt for the Christians such people, I believe, were impelled to persecute-perhaps as vigorously as their less emancipatedbrethren by motives I think we are justified in calling religious,l50in their aim also was always that primarily to break down the refusal to svorshipthe pagan gods, Christian even if the basis from which proceeded they was different. I want to stress two vital pieces of evidence which I do not see how we can explain away. First, there is the fact that except to a limited extent in the time of Valerian, and more seriously under what I have called the positive Diocletian, side of Christianity is never attacked: officially persecution did not extend to any aspect of the Christian religion other than its refusalto acknowledgeother gods. No attempt was ever made, even in the general persecutions,to prohibit Christians from worshipping their own god in private, although Valerianl6l and Diocletianl52 (but not Decius) forbade them to assemble for common worship, and Diocletian also ordered the destruction of churches and the confiscation of sacred books and church property.l53 As the deputy prefect of Egypt said to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria in 257, "Who prevents you from worshipping your own god also, if he is god, a along with the natural sacrifice test continues to be used, gods?''.l59 And of course the and if the Christian complies it goes he free, even in the with general persecutions. Secondly,there is what I believe to have been the immunity complete from persecution of most of the Gnostic sects. Some these of professed doctrines of a recognizably Christian character (heretical in varying degrees as they were) and called themselves Christians. Yet in Roman eyes there was difference between Gnostics and orthodoxevidently a fundamental Christians, if Gnostics were not persecuted. Why ? The Gnostics did not think it necessary to reason can only be that the be exclusive, like the and refuse to pay outwardrespect to the pagangods when theorthodox, necessity

28

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANSPERSECUTED #

29

arose. We are told by orthodoxChristiansourcesthat Basllides, perhapsthe most important of all the Gnosticheresiarchs, permitted his followers to eat meatwhichhadbeen offeredto idols, and in time of persecution"casuallyto deny the faith", doubtlessby accepting the sacrifice test.l55 It appears, then, that although the tenetsofthe Gnosticsmusthaveappeared to the Romangoverning classto be very similarto those of the orthodox,the Gnosticsescapedpersecution precisely because they consentedto take part in pagan religious ceremonies on demand, whenthe orthodox refusedto do so. Whatthen was the attitudeof the moreenlightened pagansamong the governingclass? Why did they too persecute ? Here I think it may be helpfulif I re-tell a story told by Henry Crabb Robinson about the reception by Lord Thurlow, Lord Chancellor of England,of a deputationwhich waited upon him irl I788 to securehis supportin their effortsto bring aboutthe repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. LordThurlow"heard themvery civilly, and then said, 'Gentlemen,I'm againstyou, by God. I am for the EstablishedChurch,damme! Not that I have any more regardfor the EstablishedChurchthan for any other church,but becauseit iS established. And if you can get your damnedreligion established, I'll be for that too' ".156 Lord Thurlow may not have been exactlywhat we should cail todaya religiousman,but his attitudemayhelp us to understand that of some membersof the Romangoverning classof the late Republic andearlyPrincipate thoughof courseI amnot sayingit is the same. Religion,for such Romans, was aboveall the iusdivinum, the bodyof state law relatingto sacredmatters,whichpreserved the pClr deorum by means of the appropriate ceremonial.lJ7 It derived its great value,as Cicerorepeatedly affirms, mainlyfromthe factthatit rested uponthe auctoritas maiorum, 158 the forceof ancestral tradition. As Dr. Weinstock has pointedout,l69St. Augustinewas very much in the Ciceronian tradition when he declared that he wouldnot believe the veryGospelitself,didit notrestuponthe auctoritas of the Catholic Churchl60 a point of view still held today by some Christian churches. Cicero,legislating in the De Legibus for his idealcommonwealth, begins with ius divinum.l6l In the De Natura Deorum he makeshis morescepticalspeaker,Cotta,open his case in Booki by proclaiming thathe is himselfa pontifex) who believesthat "religious rites and ceremoniesought to be maintainedwith the utmost reverence'',l62 and much more to the same effect. He makeshis Stoic speaker, Balbus,echo sentimentshe had expounded himselfin his speechto the senate,De Haruspicam Responsis, to the effectthat

3o

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

the Romans"in religion,thatis the cult of the gods, arefar superior to othernations''.l63 Such passages could be multiplied. It seems to me entirelybeside the point (thoughdoubtlesstrue enough)to object that Cicero rarelyif ever shows any unmistakable sign of "personal religion", as we shouldcallit. And whenProfessor Latte, in his greathistoryof Romanreligion,saysthat one Sndsin Cicero's philosophical worksno "inward participation'',l64 I feel as if I were being invited to note the absence of colour in a black-and-white drawing. The Roman state religion containednothing that was personalto the individual. And as for rationalbelief (or disbelief) in the gods : did it everfigurein the thoughtsof Ciceroandhis kind except when they were playing the Greek game of philosophical disputation ? Contrast the instinctive belief which Cottain the De NaturaDeorum, speaking to Balbus,proclaims in the words,"From you, a philosopher,I am bound to ask for a rationalaccount of religion. Ourancestors I mustbelieve5 evenin the absence of rational explanation".l65These people had a deep emotionalfeeling for Romanreligion,as the ius divinum, the "foundation of our state'',l66 an essentialpartof the wholeRomaxl wayof life. One can still hold this to be true, even if) takingperhapsan uncharitable view (as I would myself), one holdsthat quite a largepart of that religionwas aboveall an instrument by whichthe governing class hopedto keep the reins of powerin its own hands.l67 In the De Legibus, Cicero, hi;xlself an augur,glorifiesthat officebecausepast augurshave been able to aul laws passed by reformingtribunes,to which Cicero refusesthe very nameof law.l68 But such deep-seated expressions of his own interestsand those of his class are far from makinghis conception of religion'cinsincere" or "cynical" - indeed,the reverse is true. I have appealedto CicerobecauseI supposemost people would agreethatthe author of the De Divinatione maywellbe considered one of the least superstitious men in an age which was distinctlyless superstitious thanthe age of the persecutions. For Cicero's spiritual descendants of the earlyPrincipate, Roznan religionwas part of the verystuS of Roman life andRoman greatness; andtheywereprepared to extend their protectionalso to the cults of the peoples of their empire,whose devotionto their ancestral religionsseemedto their rulers only right and proper. Can we imagine that such men, howeverintelleaually emancipatedfrom the superstitionsof the vulgar, wouldhavehadanycompunction aboutexecuting the devotees of a new-fangledsect which threatenedalmost every element of Romanreligion,and indeedof all the traditional cults conductedby

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

3I

the inhabitants of the Roman world ? I would be preparedto speak of persecution so motivated as being conducted for religious reasons, though I realize that other people might prefer to 1lseanother wordpolitical, perhaps. I shall end by quoting what seems to me the most illuminating single text in all the ancient sources, for the understanding of the persecutions. Paternus, proconsul of Africa, is speaking to Cyprian at his first trial in 257, and telling him what the emperors have just decreed. This, it is true, is a special edict, making it incumbent upon the Christian clergy, on pain of exile, to perform certain acts which ordinary folk would not normally be obliged to carry out; but what is enjoined is something any accused Christian might be ordered to perform, and this gives the text general significance. Ishe decree is: "Eos qui Romanam religionem non colunt debere Romanas caerimoniasrecognoscere".l69 I think the sense is brought out best by translatingthe main clause negatively: "Those who do not profess is admitted that there are such peoplethe Roman religion"-it "must not refuse to take part in Roman religious ceremonies".

OSrford New College, NOTES

G.E. M.deSte.Croix

' This article is a revised version of a paper read to the Joint Meeting of the Hellenic and Roman Societies and the Classical Association at Oxford on As I am engaged upon a book on the persecutions,in which I2 August I96I. the mattersdiscussedhere will be treatedin greaterdetail, I have not attempted to supply complete documentation and bibliographies- but I have added a certain number of references. Except when otherwise stated the Passions of the martyrs to which I have referred here can be found in R. Knopf and 3rd edn., (Tubingen, I9o9). Martyrerakten, G. Kruger, Ausgewahlte D See W. H. C. Frend, "The Failure of the Persecutions in the Roman Empire",Past andPresent,No. I6 (Nov., I959), pp. I0-30; "The Persecutions: some Links between Judaism and the Early Church", TI. of Eccles. Hist., ix pp. I4I-58; "The Gnostic Sects and the Roman Empire",7l. of Eccles. (I958), Hist., v (I954), pp. 25-37s In fact the persecutingedict was probablyissued before the end of 249, but there are no recordedmartyrdomsbefore January250. 4 See my "Aspectsof the 'Great'Persecution",Harv. Theol.Rav.,xlvii (I954), pp- 75 ff., at pp. 95-6. 6 Especiallyfrom the reign of Gallienus(260-8) to the beginning of the Great 6 N. H. Baynes,Camb.Anc. Hist., xii, p. 655. Persecution(303). Xiii.45, 50-IXii.I-2, 3-I9iX.I-2; 7 See Act. Apost. vi.8-vii.60; Viii.I-4; xx.2-3; xxi.27 ff. Cf. I Thessal. xvii.5-g, I3-I4; XViii.I2-I7; XiV.2, 4-6, I9-20; Jewish hostility continued, and Terlullian (Scorp., I0) could call the ii.I4-I6. Jewish synagogues "fontes persecutionis". ?9 8 Act. Apost. vi.8-vii.60 (Stephen); xii.r-3; Josephus, Aslt. Tud., XX.9.I, Atltl., XV.44.3-8. Euseb., Hist. kccles., ii.23 (Jarnes). I97-203; (Coll. Latomus,xlix, 10J. Beaujeu,L'Incendiede Romeen 64 et les cSlretiens,
'J Tac.,

32

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

Bruxelles, I960). The other sources are discussed and quoted by L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians,(Columb.Univ. Stud. in Hist. Econ. and Pub. Law, lv, I9I3), pp. 43 ff., I4r ff. A good selective bibliography Up to I934 W1 be found in Camb. Anc. Hist., x, pp. 982-3. 11The imperfecttense, "qui fatebantur",shows that the confession was one of Christiatiityand not of incendiarism. l'Tac., Ann., xv.44.s. Cf. Hist., v.5; Tert., Apologet., 37.8; Cic., Tusc. Disp.,lV.25, 27; Diod. Sic. XXXiV.I.I. 8 Suet., Nero, I6.2. 4 His words "abolendorumori Nero subdidit reos" (44.3) prove that " Ann., xv.44.4, 8. 1 Jos., Ant. 3rud.,xx.8.II, ? I95; cf. Vita 3, ? I6. Jos. describes Poppaea as "God-fearing" (eeoaEpAS). And see Canfield, op. cit., pp. 47-9, on the implicationsof I Clem.,4-6. A. Momigliano,Camb.Anc. Hist., x, pp. 725-6, 887-8. 18 The modern literatureis vast and much of it is worthless. All the works that anyone could wish to consult today are given by Knopf and Kruger, Op. cit. (in n. I above), pp. viii-ix and the bibliographiesfor individual PassionsA. N. Sherwin-White, "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again" 1. of Theol. Stud., N.S., iii (I952), pp. I99-2I3; V. Monachino,Il fondamento giuridico delle persecuzioninei primi due secoli, (Roma, I955, repr. from La Scuola Catrolica, lxi, I953)@ A. Wlosok, "Die Rechtsgrundlagen der Christenverfolgungen der ersten zwei Jahrh.", Gymnasium, lxvi (I959),
19 E.g. Justin, I Apol., 4; *I Apol., 2; Athenag., Legat., I-2; Tert., Apol., I-3 etc.; Ad Nat., i.3; and many similarpassages. '? Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iV.I5.25 and Passio Polyc., I2.I * Passio SS. Scillitan. I0, I4; Passio Apollon., I ff. 21 But perhapsa yearor even two yearsearlier:see R. Syme, Tacitus, (Oxford, I958), i, p. 8I; ii, p. 659 (App. 20). t2 Pliny, Epist., X.96-97. It is a pleasureto be able to welcome at last a really good Eng. trans. of Pliny's Letters,by Betty Radice (Penguin Books, I963). '8 Idem,96.2-3. 24 Idem, 97tI25 Idem, 96-3. 2eEsp. Rev. ii.I0, I3; Vi.9-II; Vii.I3-I4; Xiii.I5; XVii.6; XViii.24; XiX.2; xx.4, I Pet. iV.I2-I9. The dates of both works are still controversial. As regardsI Peter, I agree with F. W. Beare, The First Epistleof Peler, 2nd edn. (Oxford, I958), pp. 9-I9, that it comes from the early second century. 27 Cf. Syme, op. cit., ii, p. 469: "an invincible spirit that denied allegianceto Rome when allegiancemeant worship of Caesar". 28 That this is just as true of the third century as of the second has recently been demonstratedby R. Andreotti, "Religioneufficialee culto dell'imperatore nei 'Libelli' di Decio", Studi in onoredi A. Calderinie R. Paribeni,i, (Milano, I956), pp. 369-76. It is particularlysignificantthat Cyprian never mentions the imperialcult. And "the cult of the emperorspJaysa very subordinatepart in the last great persecution"(Baynes,Camb.Anc. Hist., xii, p. 659). 29As in Pliny, Epist., x.g6.5 (contrast 97.I: "dis nostris"); Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,Vll.I5.2. 3?As e.g. in Pliny, Epist., X.97.I; Passio ustini, v.8; Passio Carpiet al. (Gr.), 4 etc.; Passio Fructuosi,ii.2; Passio Conon.,iv.3-5. 31 As e.g. in Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iV.I5.I8, 20, 2I and Passio Polyc., 9.2, 3; I0. I; Passio SS. Scillitan., 3, 5; Passio Apollon., 3. Contrast Tert., Apol., pp. I4-32.

e.g. in Passio SS. Scillitan., 3- Passio Perper.,Vi.2- and other sources. See also Tert., Apol., I0.I; 28.2 etc. 33 Passio SS. Scillitan., 3. 94 Tert., Apol., IO.I; and see, for discussion of the two charges separately, I0.2-28.I and 28.2-35. Tert. goes on (IO.I) to sum up the two chargesagainst the Christiansas sacrilegium and maiestas,but he is hardlyusing either word in

32-2-3. 32 As

WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED ?

33

its technical sense: his "sacrilegium"seems to be a rhetorical equivalent for is6ms. (For the technical meaning of sacrilegium,see Th. Mommsen Rdmisches Strafrecht,[Berlin, I899] pp. 760 ff.). 35 See n. 28 above. a Justin, II Apol., I-2 (Ptolemaeus,Lucius and another); Passio3'ustini I. 37 Early in the reign of Commodus, Apollonius was tried and sentenced by the PraetorianPrefect Perennis; but the surviving versions of the Passion, and the narrativeof Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,V.2I) are confused, notablywith regardto the role played by the senate, which has been much discussed. A confident explanationis hardly possible: the best so far produced seems to me that of E. Griffe, "Les actes du martyrApollonius", Bull. de litter. ecclds.,liii (I952) pp. 65-76; cf. Monachino,op. cit. (in n. I8 above), pp. 33-9. 38 See the preceding note. 99 Cic. De Offic.,ii.73. '? A. N. Sherwin-Thite, RomanSocietyandRomanLazvin theNew Testament (Oxford, I963)) pp. I3-23 and passim. 41The "arbitriumiudicantis", on which see F. M. de Robertis, "Arbitrium Iudicantise Statuizioniimperiali", Zeitschr. derSavigny-Stlftung fur Rechlsgesch., lix (I939)) Rom. Abt., pp. 2I9-60. 4a Act. Apost. XViii.I2-17. 4a The principaltext is Digest, xlviii.6.7; cf. Sent. Parxli,V.26.I. See esp. A. H. M. Jones, Stud. in RomanGovernment and Law, (Oxford, I960) pp. 54 f5. '4 See P. A. Brunt, "Charges of Provincial Maladministrationunder the Early Principate",Historia,x (I96I)) pp. I89-227. 46 See n. 4I above. 46 Tac., H^st.,v.g. i' Seneca, Dial., iv (De Ira, ii).5.S cf. Tac., Ann., iii.68.I. The proconsul was L. ValeriusMessallaVolesus and the date A.D. I I or I2. 4s The principal text is Dig., xlviii.2.6 ("levia crimina"); cf. i.I6.9.3; xlviii.I8.x8.Io. Several passages in the law-books and elsewhere (e.g. Sen., De Clem., i.s.3) distinguish between a decision given "pro tribunali", as a result of a formal trial, and one given "de plano", informally: the technical terms "cognitio" and "decretum"are reserved for the former type (see Dig. XXXVii.I.3.8; XXXVlii.I5.2.I; XlViii.I6.I.8). The position was much the same in civil cases: see R. Dull, Z.S.-S.R. (n. 4I above), lii (I932) Rom. Abt. pp I70-94. 49 Mommsen, Rom. Strafr., p. 340. 60 F. Schulz, Principlesof Roman Law, (Oxford, I936)) p. I73) cf. p. 247 ("No criminalchargeexcept by a law, no punishmentexcept by a law"). 51H. F. Jolowicz, HistoricalIntrod. to the Study of RomanLaw, 2nd edn., (Cambridge,I952)) p. 4I3. 62 Even in civil jurisdictionthe growth of cognitioextraordinaria resulted in an "assimilation to administrative and police action" (W. W. Buclrland A Text-Bookof RomanLaw, 2nd edn., [Cambridge,I932] p. 663). 53 Notably Mommsen, op. cit., pp. 340-I, 346-5I P. F. Girard, Man. elem. de droitrom.,6th edn., (Paris, I9I8), pp. I084-97 * andin more detail U. Brasiello La repressione penale in dir. rom.,(Napoli, I937). See also Maxime Lemosse, Cognito.Stude sur le role dujuge dans l'instruction du procescivil antique(These de Droit, Paris, I944)) pp. I29 ff., esp. 2I I-57. Useful contributionshave been made in this country by J. L. Strachan-Davidson,Problemsof lhe Roman CriminalLaw, ii, (Oxford, I9I2)) pp. I59-75; Jones, op. cit. (n. 43 above), pp. 53-98; Sherwin-White,op. cit. (n. 4o above), v. Index, s.z. "Cognitio". J4 See n. I8 above. 65 Tert., Ad Scap., 3.4. 58 See Passio SS. Scillitan., I. 47 Tert., Ad Scap., 4.3-4. 58 Mandata, imperial administracive regulations relating mainly to the provinces (some of general application, others not), were technically distinct from constitutiones. The most complete definitionof constitutiones is Ulpian's in Dig., i.4.I.I (cf. Inst.3t.,i.2.6; Gaius, i.s): it can be reduced to epistulaeand subscripliones, edicta, decrera(formal legal decisions), and summary decisions deplano (see n. 48 above). A technicalterm often employed, which cuts across the definition jUSL given, is rescripta:this includes all subscripliones (dealt with throughthe emperor'ssecretarya libellis)and most epistulae (dealtwith through the secretaryab epistulis).

34

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

69 Some modem scholars have held that in strict legal theory imperial constitutiones originallyremainedlaw only during the reign in which they were issued. Yet by the third quarterof the second century Gaius (i.s) could say it had never been doubted that such constitutiones had "the force of law". Cf. Pomponius in Dig., i.2.2.II) I2; Ulpian in Dig., i.4.r.I; also i.4.I.2 explaining that some constitutiones are "personal" and not to be treated as precedents. By the early second century the constitutiones of emperorswere evidently regardedas holding good until reversed by their successors-and this is true not only of "good emperors"such as Augustus (Pliny, Epist., x.7g esp. ?? 2, 4, 5; x.80 and 84), but even of Domitian (who had suffereda "damnatio memoriae"B: see Idem, x.s8 (esp. ?? 3, I0); 60.I; 65-6 (esp. 65.3 66.2), 72cf. Papinianin Dig., XlViii.3.2.I (Domitian) and Gai., i.33 (Nero). See on the whole question Jolowicz, op. cit. (n. 5I above), pp. 374-83. 6?See F. von Schwind, Zar Frage der Ptlblikation im rom.Recht, (Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung, xxxi, I940); and briefly Jolowicz, op. cit. pp. 38I-3; Schulz, op. cit. (n. 50 above), pp. 243-7. Cf. also U. Wilcken, "Zu den Kaiserrescripten",in Hermes, lv (I920), pp. I-42* F. M. de Robertis "Sulla efficacianormativadelle costit. imp.", Annali dellafac. di giurispr.della R. Untv.di Ban, N.S., iv (I94I)) pp. I-I00 28I-374; G. I. Luzzatto, "Ricerche sull' applicaz. delle costit. imp. nelle provincie", Scritti di dir. rom.in onoredi C. Ferrini,ed. G. G. Archi, (Pavia, I946), pp. 265-93. 6' Pliny, Epist., x.6s. 62 On precedentin Romanlaw, see Jolowicz,op. cit. (n. 5I above), pp. 363-5, and the workscited on p. 569. e3 Justin, I Apol., 68 (our texts give Eusebius's Greekversion)*Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iv.g; Rufinus, Hist. Eccles., iv.g. The traditionaldate of Fundanus's proconsulateis I24-5, but it is I22-3 accordingto R. Syme, Tacitus,ii, p. 468 n. 5. I believe this rescript has been misunderstoodby e.g. H. Gregoire, Les persec. dans l'emp. rom., (Mem. de l'Acad. Roy. de Belgique, fdvi, I95 I) pp. I 38 ff.; contrastW. Schrnid,"The Christianreinterpretation of the Rescript of Hadrian", Maia, vii (I955), pp. 5-I3; Canfield, op. cit. (n. IO above), pp. I03-I8; Wlosok, op. cit. (n. I8 above), p. 23 n. 29. The alleged letter of Antoninus Pius, in Euseb., Hist. Eccles., iY.I3, iS certainly fictitious (contrast
ff4 Tert., Ad Nat., i.7. See J. W. Ph. Borleffs, "Institutum Neronianum" Vig.Christ., vi (I952), pp. I29-45, esp. I4I-4. Cf. Cic., In Pis., 30; Ad Att., iV.I8.I; Brut.,269; Tac.,Ann.,XiV.43.I; Inst.., i.2.IO- Suet., Nero,I6.2. 65 Lact., Diu. Inst.,V.II.I9. es Against the historicity of the statementin Scr. Hist. Aug.,Sep. Sev., I7.I

26.IO).

KEepaSaS)-

that Severus forbadeconversionto Christianity("Iudaeosfieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianissanxit"), see the convincing argumentsof K. H. Schwarte, "Das angebliche Christengesetzdes Sep. Sev.", Historia, xii (I963)) pp. I85-208. 67 Dig. XlViii.I9.30. Cf. Marcus Aurel., Med.,i.6. n8 Sent. Pauli, V.2I.269 Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iV.9.3. Idem,V.I.I4. Idem, 33, cf. I4* 72 Idem,50-52 cf. 44) 47 (where arroTugrravlaiilval is explained by alT?T?Ilve SraS

XlVllI. I 9. I 6.9.

73 The first writer we know to have asserted dis is Melito of Sardis: see Euseb., Hist. Eccles., iv.26.g. It soon became "common form": see Tert., Apol., 5 etc. 74 E.g. those of Polycarp,of the Christiansof Lyons, of the Scillitans, and, at Rome, of Ptolemaeus and Lucius, of Justin and his companions, and of Apollonius- to nameonly a few of whomwe possessreasonably reliablerecords. 76 Paulus, in Dig., i.I8.3; cf. Sent. Pauli, v.22.r. 6 Dig., i.I8.I3. pr. 77 Proculus, in Dig., i.I8.I2. 78 See e.g. Ulpian, in Dig., XlVii.II.9, IO (cf. I4.I.pr.); Saturninus,in Dig.,

? WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED

35

79A. Ronconi, "Tacito, Plinio e i Cristiani", Studi in onoredi U. E. Paoli (Firenze, I956), pp. 6I5 ff., at p. 628, gives greatemphasistothe needto satisfy "publie opinion" as a cause of perseeution. 80 Mark XV.I-I5 and parallel passages; and esp. John XiX.I2, I5 81 See e.g. Euseb., Hist. Eccles., v. Praef. I ' I.7- Vi.4I.I-9, 82 See Minueius Felix, Octavius,9.4. 83 Mark XV.2, 9, I2, 26 (and parallelpassages); Luke XXlii.2- John XiX.I2, I5. 85 Rev. xiv.8; XVi.I9; XVii-XViii. 84 Cf. n. 3I above. 86 Tert., Apol., IO.I* 28.3 ff., ete. I2-I4 (written c. 2I2, during Tert.'s 87 Tert., De Fuga zn Persec., 5.5; 8S Idem,I3.5. 89 See my op. cit. (n. 4 above), pp. 87-8. Montanistperiod). See esp. F. M. de Robertis, II diritto associativoromano,(Bari, I938), 366-86; G. Bovini, a proprietaeccles. e la condiz. giurid. della chiesain etAprecostant.,(Milano, I949); Sherwin-White,op. cit. (n. I8 above) pp. 205-6. Contrast P. W. Duff, Personality in Roman Private Law (Cambridge, I938), pp. I69-70: until its recogmtion by Constantine "the Chureh must have appearedto the private law as a collection of unauthorised and thereforeillegal colleges". 92Notably Origen, Contra Celsum,i.I; cf. Pliny, Epist., x.g6.7 (with 33.3; But for the third 34.I); Tert., Apol., 38.I-2; 39 (esp. ?? 20-I); De Ieianio, I3. centurysee Scr. Hist. Aug., Sev. Alex., 49.6; Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,Vii.I3' 30.19. The essence of the theory (though 93 Op. cit. (n. I8 above), pp. 2I0-I2. without aetualendorsementof the view that the crime was called'<eontumaeia'') seems to have been aeeepted by H. Last, Reallex.fur Antike und Christentum ii, (Stuttgart, I954), eol. I208 ff. (see eol. I2I3). 94 op. cit. (n. 40 above), pp. 4, I8, ef. pp. I9-20, 72-3. 95 Epist., x.g6.3: "pertinaeiam. . . et inflexibilem obstinationem". @6 The other examples given by Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. I8 above), pp. 2I0-I2, show nothing more than what he himself calls "the remarkable reluetanee of Roman officials to condemn Christians". For the further has been proved" assertion, "They are only eondemnedwhen their cont?wmacia (p. 2II), there is no evidence at all. The same mistake has been made by other 97 Op. cit. (n. I8 above), p. 2I0. writers, even A. D. Nock, in his mainly admirablearticle in Harv. Theol.R., xlv (I952), pp. I87 ff., at p. 2I8. 98 Pliny, Epist., x.g6.s, cf. 3. Sherwin-White himself admits elsewhere (p. 205) that Pliny did not require "the first batch" of Christiansto sacrificeto di nostrt ! merely inereasespenalties aiready 99 In the first, Dig., XiViii.I9.4, contumacia incurred (cf. Trajan, in Pliny, Epist., x.57.2). The second, Dig., XlViii.I9.5, deals with the condemnationof aceused in their absence: here the contumacia consists in not appearingat the trial, and may involve sentence in absentia. In the third example, the eases deseribed in Coll., XV.2.2, no one doubted that professio of the magic arts was alreadyillegal: all U]pian says is that the Magi, "per eontumaeiamet temeritatem",went from private scientia,which on some earlierviews (see loc. Cil., init.) was not forbidden, to public professio. Ulpian does not make the contumaciaa ground for the subsequent suppression, as Mr. Sherwin-White representshim as doing when he writes (p. 2II), "This says Ulpian, was contumacia. Hence most emperors imposed a total ban"et temeritas incidentally. Ulpian mentions the contumacia 1o0 The words "contumaeia,contumax, contumaciter"occur very frequently in the legal sources-over 40 times in the Digest alone. They are often used quite untechnically(as of the behaviourof chil iren to their parents: Cod. ffust. Viii.46.3; 49.I), and as a rule they simply indicate an attitude of mind, rather than any specificact: in at least I3 of the texts in the Dig. the expressionused is "per contumaciam"and merely signifies that the person concerned is acting
91

pp. 289-9I,

36

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

deliberately,wilfully, defiantly (it will be sufficient to cite Dig., 1.I.I3)) and thereby in many cases incurringan added penalty (see e.g. Dig., XlViii.I9.4). The only texts I have been able to find which use contumacaand its cognatesin anything approaching a technical sense are those referring to men who deliberately refuseto complywith a summonsto appear(or producedocuments), whetherin criminalor in clvil trials: e.g. Dig., xlii.I.s3.pr., I, 2, 3; I.54; Cod. ?Ust., iii.I.I3.2b, 2C, 3, 4, 7 (dealingwith civil cases only); Vii.43.4, 7, 8, 9 etc.Cod. Theod.,ii. I8.2; X.I3.I; Xi.3I.5. This gave rise to what has been called in modern times a "Contumacialverfahren": see Mommsen, Rom. Strafr. pp. 335-6; Kipp in Pauly-Wissowa,Realenc.,iv, cols. II66-70. 101 op. cit. (n. I8 above), p. 2II. 102 Epist., X.96.9-I?109 Passio SS. Scillitan., 4, 6, 7. Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles., V.I.20Passio Conon.,iV.2 - etc. l?4Pliny, Epist., X.96.5. 06 Josephus,Bell.3tud.,vii.3.3, ??s 50-I. For the date, see ? 46. loaThe practice seems to have been well establishedby the reign of Marcus Aurelius(I6I-80): see the referencesin my op. cit. (n. 4 above), p. 80 n. 29. 107 Tert., Apol., 2 (esp. ? IO); cf. Ad Scap., 4.2; Cyprian,Ad Demetrian., r3; Min. Fel., Octav., 28.3-5. 108 Tert., Apol., 2.I7109 Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,V.I.I4; Athenag., Legat., 3, 3I; cf. Euseb., H.E. iV.7.II; V.I.26; iX.5.2; Justin, I Apol., 26; II Apol., I2; Dial. c. Tryph., IO' Tert., Apol., 6.II-7.2 etc.; Min. Fel., Octav., 8-9, 28, 30-I- Orig., c. Cels. Vi.27, 40. llo Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iX.5.2. See H. Last, yl. of Rom.Stud., xxvii (I937), p. 89 n. 63. lla E. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall of the Rom. Emp., (ed. J. B. Bury), ii, ch. xvi pp. 80-I. For examples, see Justin, I Apol., 26; Iren., Adv. Haeres.,i.6.3-424-S; 25.3-5 (and see Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iV.7.9-II); Clem. Alex., Strom.iii, esp. 2, 4, 5; Tert., De leian., I7; Philaster,De Heres.,29 (57), ed. F. Mals. lls For some remarkson this phenomenon,see my op. cit. (n. 4 above), pp. 83 93, IOI-3. I shall give the very considerablebody of evidence for voluntary martyrdomin my forthcomingbook (see n. I above). 114 For some of these references,see my Op. Cit., p. 83 n. 40. llb Passio EuPli) IllB Euseb., Mart. Pal., 3.2-4 (in both Recensions). 117 Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,viii.g.5. 118 Tert., Ad Scap., 5.I, quoting the proconsul'swords in the original Greek. 118 S. W. Baron, A Social and Relig. Hist. of the3rews, 2nd edn., (New York,
1952), 1, p. 230.

l20Jos., Bell. 3rud.,i.33.2-4,

?N 648-55

(cf. ii.r.2-3); Ant. 3rud.,xvii.6.2-4,

"exasperatedagainst Ignatius because he reviled him", and the "Antiochene Acts" of Ignat. (? 2) say he was (KouvicoS ty?noto Trajan at Antioch. But this hardly makes Ignat. a volunteer, and is entirely unreliable anyway: cf. The Apostolic Fathers,ed. J. B. Lightfoot, 2nd edn., (London, I889), ii.2, pp. 363 ff., 383-grn 436 ff., 480-I ff., 575-6. 193 Ignat., Epist. ad Rom., 7.2. 24 Ibid., 4.I-2i 5-2-3125 This subject has been discussed in innumerableworks, of wich I will mention here only W. WardeFowler, TheRelig. Experience of the Rom.People, (London, I9II), pp. I69 ff., 272 ff. 126 See A. Harnack, Der Vorwurfdes Atheismusin den drei ersten3rahrh. (Texte u. Untersuch., xxviii [N.F. xiii].4, I905). Among the texts are Epist. ad Diogn., 2.6; Passio Polyc., iii.2; iX.2; cf. Xii.2 (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., iV.15.6 I8-I9, cf. 26); Euseb., H.E., V.I.9; Justin, I Apol., 5-6, I3; Athenag., Legat., 3, 4-30; Clem. Alex., Strom. Vii.I.I.I; Tert., Apol., 6.IO (note "in quo principaliter reos transgressionis Christianos destinatis")* IO. I-28.2 (esp. 24.I, 9); Arnob., Adv. Gentes, i.29; iii.28; V.30; Vi.27.

? ? I49-67. 121 O. PerIer,"Das vierte Makkabaerbuch, Ignat. v. Antiochienu. die iltesten Martyrerberichte", Riv. di archeol. crist., xxv (I949), pp. 47-72. 122 John Malalas(Chronogr., xi, p. 276, ed. W. Dindorf) speaksof Trajanas

WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED ?

37

127 Arnob., as cited in the precedingnote, each time referring to pagancharges against Christians. Lact. (Epit., 63.2; De Ira, 9.7) uses the word of pagan philosophers only. Cicero (De Nat. Deor., i.63) has the Greek word Feos (appliedto Diagoras),and Min. Fel. (Octav., 8.2) transliterates (acc. "atheon") 128 See Tert., lDe Idolol., I9: for a man serving in a "[militia] caligata vei inferior quaeque"there is no "necessitasimmolationum". 129 See, briefly, Mommsen, Rom. Strafr., p. 568, and on the whole subject Nock, op. czt.(n. 97 above), esp. pp. I89-92, 2I2-3. 130 For Roman senators, see e.g. S.C. ap. Edict. Augusti ad Cyren., r35-6 (S. Riccobono, Fontes Iuris Rom. Anteiustin., i, 2nd edn., [Firenze, I94I] no. 68); Suet., Div. A., 35.3. If Euseb., Hist. Eccles., Viii.I.2, iS to be believed, some Christianofficialsin the provinces in the late 3rd century will have been given an imperial dispensationfrom religious duties. (These men to whom the emperors entrusted sis Tcov(ivxv ily?llovias will hardly have been provincialgovernors: cf. H.E., viii.9.7; I I.2.) 131 If only to take oaths when required: see e.g. the Lex Municipalis Salpensana,xxvi (Riccobono, F.I.R.A., i2, no. 23). The Severi gave Jews holding municipal honoresexemption from religious acts offensive to them: Dig., 1.2.3.3. 132 Tac., Hist., v.s: "antiquitatedefenduntur". Cf. Orig., c. Cels., v.25 ff. And the fact that Jewish cult was aniconic seems to have appealed to some Romans,e.g. Varro(August., De Civ. Dei, iV.3I). 13S For pagans calling Jews "atheists", see J. Juster, Les ?UlBS dam l'Emp. rom.,(Paris, I9I4), i, p. 45 n. I, ? 2. 134 Philo, Leg. ad Gai., I57, 3I7. Contrast Jos., c. Ap., ii.6, ? 77 (and cf. B. ., ii.I0.4, ? I97). For an attempt to explain the contradiction between Philo and Jos., see E. M. Smallwood'sedn. of the Leg. ad Gai., (Leiden, I96I) pp. 240-I. 135 Gibbon, op. cit. (n. I I2 above), ii, ch. xvi, p. 74 (marginai summary). 136 Tert., Apol., 40.I-2 (with 37.2), cf. Ad. Nat., i.g also Fiilian, ap. Cypr., Epist., 1XXV.IO; Cypr., Ad Demetrian., esp. 2-5 Arnob., Adv. Nat. i.I ff. (esp. I3, I6, 26) and passim; August., De Civ. Dei, ii.3 (proverb: "No rain, because of the Christians") etc.- Orig., c. Cels., iii.I5* Comm. ser. in Matt., 39; Maximin Daia, in Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iX.7.3-I4 (esp. 8-9), 8.3. 37 See n. I26 above. 138 Tert., Apol., 46-4 139 Iren., Adv. Haeres. (ed. W. W. Harvey), iii.3.4; Euseb., Hist. Eccles. iii.28.6; iV.I4.6. The same mentality can be found among the Christian emperors: see e.g. Constantine'sletter to Aelafius, of 3I3-4 (Optatus, Append. iii, f. 30b); Cod. Theod.,XVi.5.40.I (A.D. 407); Nov. Theod.,iii. pr., and above all

above. Hist. Eccles., Vi.4I . I-9. The cause of this outbreakis not given. 142 See Euseb., Mart. Pal., 3.I (Long Recension). 143 See esp. Athanasius,Hist. Arian., 64. 144 N. H. Baynes, Camb.Anc. Hist., xii, p. 677. 146 Act. Apost. XVi.I6-24; XiX.23-4I. (Forthe trade in images, see Philostr. Vita Apollon.,v.20.) See also Tert., Apol., 42-3. And cf. Piiny, Epist., x.g6. I0 perhapsin a case such as this the butchersmight be aggrieved! 146 The article by H. Last in 71. of Rom. Stud., XXVii (I937), pp. 80-92, iS neverthelessuseful for its detailed examinationof earlieracts of interferencein religious matters by the Romans. 147 It was perhaps a failure to realise the importance of this factor that led Nock, Op. cit. (n. 97 above), p. 2I7, to makea generalization about the policy of the Roman government in religious matters which seems to me mistaken in regardto Christianity:"To sum up, the state interferednot becausethe Roman gods were failing to get their due but because particularpractices or groups were held to be unsuitableor subversiveor demoralizing. That is in substance true of officialaction againstthe Christiansprior to Decius".

8 (A.D. 438). 40 Firmilian, as cited in n. I36 14 1 Dionys. Alex., ap. Euseb.,

38

PAST AND PRESENT

NUMBER 26

148 Lact., De Mort. Persec.,g ff., esp. I0.6; II.I-4, 8. Galeriusseems to have been the chief instigatorof the Great Persecution:see my op. cit. (n. 4 above),

and note the tone of partsof Dioclet's copious legislation, esp. the long edict concerningmarriage(Mos. et Rom.Leg. Coll., vi.4, esp. ?? I, 2, 6), or that againstthe Matiichees(Idem,XV.3, esp. ? 3) or even the opening of the edict on prices (see Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome,ed. T. Frank, [Baltimore,I940] V, p. 3II). See also Lact., M.P., II.6. 160 In general, I warmly agree with the views expressed by J. Vogt, Zur Religiositat derChristenverfolger imRom.Reich,(Sb. Akad.Heidelberg., Phil.-hist. Klasse, I962). 151 See Passio Cypr., i.7; Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,Vii.II.I0-II. 162 See Euseb., H.E., iX.I0.8; Passio Saturnini et al. Abitin., esp. I, 2, 5-I4 (the best text is by P. Franchide' Cava]ieri,Studi e testi, lav [I935], pp. 49-7I; see also Th. Ruinart,Acta Martyrum, edn. of I859, pp. 4I4 ff.); PassioPhilippi Heracl., 4 (Ruinart, op. cit., p. 44I). 63 The referencesare given in my op. cit. (n. 4 above), p. 75 nn. I-3. 64 Euseb., H.E., vii.II.9 l56Agrippa Castor, ap. Euseb., H.E., iV.7.7; cf. Iren., Adv. Haeres. (ed. W. W. Harvey), i.I9.3; iii.I9.4; iv.s4; Tert., Scorp., esp. I, I5; Clem. Alex., Strom.,iV.4.I6.3 - I7.3; 9.7I.I - 72.4; I2.8I-8. And see Frend, op. Cit. (I954) in n. 2 above. lS Diary, Reminiscences, and Corr. of Henry CrabbRobinson,ed. T. Sadler, 3rd edn., (London, I872)s i, p. I97 (ch. xv). 167 See the remarkby Caecilius, the pagan speakerin Minuc. Fel., Octav., 7.2: all religious ceremonies were invented "vel ut remunerareturdivina indulgentia, vel ut averteretur imminens ira aut iam tumens et saeviens placaretur". 158 Cic., De Nat. Deor., iii.5-g is perhapsthe most illuminatingpassage. See a]so De Div., ii.I48, etc. 159 S. Weinstock, il. of Rom. Stud., li (I96I), pp. 206 ff., at p. 2I0. (I am gratefulto Dr. Weinstock for allowing me, before the delisteryof the paper on which this article is based, to read the MS of his very impressive discussion, then not yet published. I found his para. 3, pp. 208-I0, particularlyhelpful.) 80 August., ContraEpist. Manich., 5. lffl CiC.n De Leg., ii.I8-22. 162 CiC.) De Nat. Deor., i.6I. 163 Ibid, ii.8; cf. De Har. Resp., I9. Among many similar passagesin other authors,see Val. Max., i.I, esp. ? ? 8, 9; Tert., Apol., 25.2. An interestingearly text is S.I.G.3, no. 60I (B.C. I93), and one of the last (and most important)is Symmachus, Rel. iii (ed. O. Seeck, pp. 280-3), of A.D. 384. Other texts are cited in A. S. Pease's edn. of the De Nat. Deor., ii (Cambridge, Mass., I958), p. 567164 K. Latte, Rom.Religionsgesch., 2nd edn., (Munchen, I960), p. 285. 166 Cic.n De Nat. Deor., iii.6. i6S Ibid., iii.s. 167 For 6?lalsalsovia (which in this passage is perhaps best translated "fear of the supernatural") as the very cement of the Roman constitution, see Polyb., Vi.56.7-I2. Varro,the greatestauthorityon Roman religion, thoughtit expedient, as did Scaevola before him, that "states should be deceived in matters of religion": August., De Civ. Dei, iv.27, cf. 3r, 32. See in addition Augustine's attackon Seneca (based on his lost work on Superstition),in C.D. Vi.I0- also Livy, i.I9.4-5Dio Cass., lii.36.I-3. l68 Cic., De Leg., ii.I4, 3I. In the face of conflicting opinions among the experts whether divination really had a supernaturalbasis or was simply a politicalexpedient("ad utilitatem . . . reipublicaecomposita"),Ciceroproceeds (Ibid., 3z-3) to declarehis belief in the divine origin of augury,while lamenting its present declinc. In the later De Div., however, he makes it perfectly clear that he had no belief in the reality of divination (ii, esp. 28-I50), although in public he would keep up a pretence of taking it seriously, as a useful buttress of the constitution and the state religion (ii.28, 70-I). 169 Passio Cypr., i.I.

p. I09. 149 See e.g. Euseb., Vita Const., ii.5 I,

You might also like