Why Were The Early Christians Persecuted PDF

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: 18/08/2008 00:50
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.
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 anti-
Christian 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 7
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
8 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 crimes,flagitia: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.
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 a lex, or a
?
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 nomenChristianum.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");23and 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 denieshe 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 delatoreswho
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),andareeonvietedmustbe punished,but anyone
who denieshe is a Christian,andprovesit "by offeringprayersto our
gods",is to reeeive"pardonon the seoreof his repentanee"and be
set free. In my opinion,Pliny eould justifiablytake this to mean
that punishmentwas 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,espeeiallythe Apoealypseand I Peter,28and havesought
to showthatunderDomitian,if not underNero,emperor-worship was
enforeedin Asia Minor, and that the Christianseet was proseribed
when Christiansrefusedto take part in it, the ehargebeing really
politiealdisloyalty. I wouldput no weighton sueh eonsiderations;
althoughon the evideneeof the ApoealypseI do not doubtthatsome
Christiansmayhavebeenputto deathin Asia(espeeiallyat Pergamum)
for refusingto pay eult to the emperor. (Of eourse,they oughtnot
to have been compelled to do anythingof the sort, no emperorbeing
offieiallynumberedamongthe gods of the Romanstate until he was
deadandhadbeendulypronouneeddivus,eventhoughin praetieehe
reeeivedeult in his lifetime at provineiallevel and below.) One
often hearsit saidthat the Christianswere 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 matterof saerificingto 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)3lor a saerifieeto the gods on his behalf.32 Very
characteristic is the statementof VigelliusSaturninus,proconsulof
Afrieain I80, tO the Scillitanmartyrs:"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,addressinghimselfin I97 to the Romangoverningelass
in the Apologeticus, examinesat greatlengththe chargesagainstthe
Christians:he sums them up by makingthe paganssay to the
Christians,"Youdon'tworshipthe gods,andyou don'toffersaerifiee
for the emperors".34And thereis ampleevideneeto show that the
situationremainedsubstantially the samerightthroughthe thirdand
earlyfourthcenturies,even duringthe generalperseeutions.35
?
WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANSPERSECUTED II
I now turn to the nature of the judicial process against the

Christians. (In consideringthis, I shallgo beyondthe strictlylegal
sphere from time to time, and look at some of the reasonswhy
persecutiontookplace.)
The procedureagainstChristianswas in every case that used for
the vast majorityof criminaltrials under the Principate:cognitio
extraordinem(or extraordinaria), which I shalldiscussin a moment.
Capitaltria]sunderthis processin the provincestookplacebeforethe
provincialgovernorand no one else. In Rome, the only trials of
Christiansabout which we have good evidence were before the
PraefectusUrbi38or a PraefectusPraetorio;37 none of the known
cases was importantenough to come directlybefore the emperor
himself,or the senate,38althoughin the earlyPrincipateappealsby
Romancitizensfirstaccusedelsewheremayhavegoneto the emperor's
court.
Now Roman law was surely the most impressiveintellectual
achievementof Roman civilization. But what Roman lawyersof
todaymeanwhenthey speakof Romanlaw is essentiallyprivatelaw,
a largepartof whichis concernedwithpropertyrights,theirdefinition
andprotection. (Did not Ciceroin the De Offciis,anticipatingMarx,
saythatthe mainreasonforthe veryexistenceof politicalcommunities
wasthe securityof privateproperty "ut sua tenerent"?)39 Large
areasof Romancriminaland public law, however,were by contrast
very unsatisfactory,and one of the worst of these blemisheswas
preciselycognitioextra ordinem,the procedureby which.the large
deficienciesof the quaestiosystem (the ordoiudiciorum publicorum,
regulatingthe punishmentof whatmaybe calledsCstatutory crimes"),
whichat leastwassubjectto fairlystrictrules,weresupplementedby
direct governmentalintervention. As Mr. Sherwin-Whitepointed
out in his SarumLecturesfor I960-6I, the ratherfew offencesdealt
with by the quaestio systemwereessentiallythoseof "highsocietyand
the governingpersonnel";the "crimesof the commonman" theft
and so forth had largelyto be dealt with extra ordinem,even at
Rome.40 In making use of cognitioextra ordinemthe magistrate
concernedhad a very wide discretion4l- even more so, of course,
in criminaltrials than in civil actions, just becauseof the relative
vaguenessof the criminallaw. This discretionextendednot only to
Sxing penalties,but even to deciding which cases the magistrate
wouldrecognizeas criminaland which-like Galliowhen appealed
to by the Jewsof CorinthagainstSt. Paul42 he wouldrefuseeven
to consider. The right of judicialcognitio(iurisdictio)belongedto
all provincialgovernorsas part of their imperium. In the criminal
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 prosecutionmight 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
constitutionsissued moreand morefrequentlyfrom Hadrian'stime
onwards.45 Tacitus, in his famous commenton Antonius }Relix,
governorof Judaeain St. Paul's time, can speak of his "royal
prerogatives"("ius regium");46and, in one of the worst cases of
provincialmisgovernment on record,a proconsulof Asia,towardsthe
end of the reignof Augustus,couldcongratulate himselfproudlyand
in Greek,over the deadbodiesof three hundredprovincialshe had
executedin a singleday,on havingperformeda kinglyact.4 7
In a sense,the powerto conducta criminalcognitiowas partof the
power of coercitioinherentin ionperium; but it is quite wrong to
conceivethe Christiansas being punishedby pure coercitioin the
narrowersense, summarilyand without the exercise of proper
iurisdictio:coercitioin that sense, exercised(as the lawyersput it) de
plano, in an informal manner, was limited to minor offences48
I cannothelpfeelingthatsomeof thosewhohavepersistedin speaking
of the proceedingsagainstthe Christiansas "policemeasures"have
not fully realizedthat the trialsin questionwerein no waysummary
proceedingsby pure coercitio but properlegal trials, involvingthe
exerciseof iurisdictio in the fullestsense.
The arbitraryandirresponsiblecharacterof the cognitiosystemwas
well understoodby Mommsen,who says contemptuouslyin his
RomischesStrafrechtthat 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 remainedfor 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 surpriseonlythosewhofix theireyeson the splendidsystem
of civil jurisprudence59 and ignore criminaland administrativelaw
and procedure.
Recalcitrantas it is to preciseanalysis,the systemof cognitioextra
ordinemhas been adequatelydiscussedin the standardtextbooks.53
Through his understandingof the natureof the cognitioprocess,
?
WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANSPERSECUTED I3
Mr. Sherwin-White, in anarticlepublishedin Igs2,54hasbeenableto

cut awaya vast amountof dead wood and provideby far the best
introductionto the studyof the legalaspectsof the earlypersecutions
- althoughI shall arguepresentlythat he is mistakenin one very
importantpoint.
SinceourinformationcomesalmostentirelyfromChristiansources,
interestedin recordingmartyrdoms,the greatmajorityof the trials
of Christianswe knowaboutin detailend in convictionand a death
sentence. But the very wide discretionexercisedby the provincial
governormight on occasionwork in favourof accusedChristians.
The mostsignificantevidencecomesfromTertullian'sAd Scapulam,
writtenprobablyin 2I2, wherewe hearthatthe veryfirstproconsulto
shed Christianblood in Africawas VigelliusSaturninus,55 who was
in officeas lateas I80;56andthata wholeseriesof Africanproconsuls
(afterSaturninus,it seems)had gone out of theirway to be friendly
to accusedChristians:57 one ofthem helpedthe Christiansto conduct
theircasein such a wayas to securean acquittal(I only wish we had
moredetailsof thatA;anotheracquittedan accusedChristianoutright,
apparentlyon the groundthat to convicthim wouldcausea riot; yet
another,reluctantat having to deal with such a case, releasedan
accusedChristianwho consentedundertortureto apostatize,without
actuallymakinghim sacrifice;and a fourth tore up thevexatious
indictmentof a Christianwhenhis accuserfailedto appear.
That shows how things might work in practice. A governor
exercisingcognitioextraordinariain a criminalcasewas bound(forall
practicalpurposes)onlyby thoseimperialconstitutiones andmanL1ata58
which were relevantin his particularareaand were Stiil in force.59
Unfortunately,officialpublicationof imperialconstitutiones seems
to have been an extremelyinefficientand haphazardprocess,60and
a conscientiousgovernormightoften find himselfin greatperplexity
as to whatthe lawwas. This is nicelyillustratedby 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
constitutionesof previous emperors. An edict said to have been
issuedby Augustushadbeenquotedto him,withlettersof Vespasian,
Titus and Domitian,addressedto otherpartsof the empire,but he
did not enclosecopiesof these,as he xvasnot 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 particularlysignificant:he did not
feel that in a matterwhich called for the emperor'sauthoritative
decisionhe oughtto be "contentwith precedents''.S2
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 SententiaePauli 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
?
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
(delationominis)was issued by a delator,a man who was prepared not
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
governor in each case who played the more significant role and
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
againstthe Christians(aswe shallsee it oftenwas,downto the middle

of the third century),then delators would not be lacking, and
Christianswouldbe put on trial;and few governorswouldhaveany
motivefor resistingstronglocalfeelingdemonstrated in this perfectly
permissibleway,especiallyif someof the moreinfluentialmenin the
areawere leadingthe agitation,as they often would be. Imperial
instructions(mandata)givento provincialgovernorsbadethem take
careto rid theirprovincesof "badmen"(malihomines);75 andUlpian
saidit was characteristicof a good andserious-mindedgovernorthat
he keep his province"settledand orderly"("pacataatque quieta"),
addingthat he would have no difficultyin securingthis end ifhe
diligentlysawto it thatthe provincewasclearedof "malihomines"
and soughtthem out accordingly.76The governorwas advisedby
a Erst-century juristto considernot so muchwhatwasthe practiceat
Romeas whatthe circumstances required;77 andthe principlethatin
the exercise of his criminaljurisdictionthe governorshould act
accordingto the circumstances existingin his particularprovincewas
well recognized.?8Probablythe mainreasonwhy some martyrdoms
-perhaps manymartyrdoms tookplacewasthattheywerethought
to be necessarvif the provincewereto be kept"pacataatquequieta". tD
Most governorsweredoubtlessonly too *villingto takeactionagainst

menwho werestronglydisapproved of by ''allright-thinking people",
andwho tendedto becomethe centreof disturbances. Everyonewill
rememberhow Pilateyicldedto the vociferousdemandsof 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 Christianswouldbe only too likelyto vent itself in riots
andlynching,as we haveevidencethatit did on occasion;8landonce
violencebegan,anythingmighthappen.
Christiansmightalsobe suspect,as malihomines, in the eyesof some
governors,becausethey worshippeda manwho had admittedlybeen
crucifiedby a governorof Judaea,as a politicalcriminal,82 whothought
of himself as "king of the Jews".83 Their loyalty to the state,
whateverthey mightsay, couldwell appeardoubtful,if only because
theyrefusedevento swearan oathby the emperor'sGenius.84 They
werealwaystalkingaboutthe imminentend of the world;andone of
theirbooksspokewith bitterhatredof Rome,thinlydisguisedunder
the nameof Babylon,and prophesiedits utterruin.85 And further-
morethe secrecyof their rites might well seem a coverfor political
conspiracy,or at anyrateanti-socialbehaviour. A governorwhohad
suchconsiderations in mindwhentryingChristiansmightevendecide
?
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
may have been some technical irregularity,92I am convinced that this
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
I wantto dealat thispointwitha theoryproducedby Mr. Sherwin-

Whitein the admirablearticleI mentionedearlier93 and repeatedin
his Sarum Lectures.94Accordingto this theory, once Pliny had
discoveredthat theflagitia generallyattributedto the Christiansdid
not exist, the real foundationfor condemningthem was their
contumacia, theirrefusalto obeythe reasonableorderof a magistrate;
and in the secondand earlythirdcenturiesthis contumacia was "the
core of the officialobjection". Againstthis theory there are five
separatearguments:
I. In everysinglecasethe verywordrequired is stubbornlylacking.
Pliny does not use the term contumacia at all: employingentirely
untechnicallanguage,he sayshe did not doubt"whateversortof thing
it was they were confessingto, their pertinacityand inflexible
obstinacyoughtto be punished";95 andas far as I knowthe essential
wordneverappearsin any authenticaccountof a martyrdomor any
other reliableancientsourcedealingwith the persecutions.96This
aloneis enoughto put the theoryout of courtin so far as it depends
on attachinga technicalmeaningto contumacia.
2. Pliny'svictims,Atr.Sherwin-White says,hadrefusedto comply
with "a reasonableorder.... the test requiringhomageto the di
nostri.... The test was reasonable, aIld its refusal reveaIed
conlumaci".97 In fact Pliny never says he had asked any self-
confessedChristiansto sacrifice:he makesit quite clearthat he had
imposed this act only upon those who denied that they were
Christians,as a test of their sincerity.98This destroysthe whole
foundationof the theory,an essentialpresupposition of whichis that
the Christianswere orderedto sacrificeand contumaciously refused.
3. It is true that in manylatertrialsof Christiansthe accusedare
actuallyorderedto sacrificeorto do someotheractwhichtheirreligion
did not allowthemto perform. But even herecontumacia couldnot
makeits appearanceuntil afterthe trial had begun. hnd would it
not be absurdto acceptasthe legalgroundof a prosecutiorl anelement
whichcouldnot even ariseuntilafterproceedingshad beguxlandthe
accusedwas being questioned?
4. The theory we are consideringwould make contumacia the
essentialelemeIlt,quite gratuitously,in everypersistentcrime-as
of courseit is, in a sense;but wouldit not be perverseto pickout the
merepersistenceand hold it up as the essentialpart of the crime?
Otllyin SQ far as the act or defaultoriginallycomplainedof is itself
criminalcan the mere persistencein it be a crime. The essential
element in the condemnationof Christiansis the illegality of
Christianity,not the merebehaviourin courtof the accused,which,
?
WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED I9
as we have seen, is the only point at which contumacia could

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. Sherwin-
White 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,
provided that the Christian sheds his contumacia''.l?l This is to
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
should call religious reasons or not! about the dedine of the
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
the Scillitanl03-edifying, no doubt, but irritating to a judge and
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 beinga 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. NVhatis 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
(flagitia)
abominations with which the Christians were charged
oveareza
cezzrva
sat ()icz7Tocetoc
ytEt(, 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
?
WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED 2I
aganstthe Christiansof Damascus,in orderto inflamepublicopinion

againstthem.ll? The behaviourof the ordinarypaganduringthe
GreatPersecutionsuggeststhat he no longerbelievedsuch slanders.
Moreover,even for the early period, when these accusationswere
generallycredited,one may feel that a more filndamentalinterpret-
ation is necessary. As Macaulaysaid over a hundredyears ago,
"Thereneverwasa religiouspersecutionin whichsomeodiouscrime
was not, justlyor unjustly,said to be obviouslydeduciblefrom the
doctrinesof the persecutedparty''.lll The reproachesof flagitia
seemto havebeenessentiallyappendagesof somemorerealcomplaint.
Unfortunately,these chargesweregivensome colourby the factthat
orthodoxChristiansand hereticstendedto fling them at each other,
a factuponwhichGibbonseverelyremarks,"Apaganmagistrate....
mighteasilyhaveimaginedthat theirmutualanimosityhad extorted
the discoveryof their commonguilt''.ll2
BeforeI cometo the finalstageof this investigation,I wantto take
a briefglanceat a long seriesof eventswliichmayhavegivenpagans
rathermoregroundfor their activeantagonismto Christianitythan
we tend to suppose: I refer to what I have called "voluntary
martyrdom''.ll3Examinationof it will require us to look at
persecution,for once,mainlyfromthe receivingend.
It is a significantfacrt,as yet not generallyappreciated,that a very
large numberof sources (Passionsas well as literarytexts) show
intrepidChristiansgoing far beyond what their churchesoicially
required of them, often indeed offering themselves up to the
authoritiesoftheirownaccord,andoccasionally actingin a provocative
manner,smashingimagesandso forth. Aftermakinga detailedstudy
of the evidencefor these "voluntarymartyrs",I would claim that
the partthey playedin the historyof the persecutionswasmuchmore
importantthan has yet been realized. It seemsto me impossibleto
doubtthatthe prevalenceof voluntarymartyrdomwasa factorwhich,
for obviousreasons,both contributedto the outbreakof persecution
andtendedto intensifyit whenalreadyin being. Contraryto whatis
usuallysaid,voluntarymartyrdomwas by no meansconfinedmainly
to hereticalor schismaticsects suchas Montanistsand Donatists,but
was a good dealmorecommonamongthe orthodoxthanis generally
admitted. The heads of the churches,sensibly enough, forbade
voluntarymartyrdomagainand again,and wereinclinedto refuseto
these zealotsthe verynameof martyr- passagesto this effectcould
be cited from a dozen different sources, including Clement of
Alexandria,Origenand Lactantius,at least three bishops (Cyprian
PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 26
22
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. Some-
times 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
?
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
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);l26characteristically,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
?
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
Christians, who bad ex hypothesi abandoned their ancestralreligions.
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
PAST AND PRESENT
26 NUMBER 2 6
Apologeticus: the pagans,he says,"supposethatthe Christiansarethe

causeof everypublic disaster,everymisfortunethat
people. If the Tiber overflowsor the Nile doesn't, happensto the
a droughtor an earthquake,a famineor a pestilence, if there is
at once the cry
goes up, 'The Christiansto the lion' '.136
The essentialpoint I wantto makeis thatthis
on the part of the pagans was due above allsuperstitious feeling
to the Christians'
"atheism",theirrefusalto acknowledgethe gods andgive them
due by payingthem cult. The ChristianApologists their
say in replyto this chargel37- and, by the way,they have much to
are
themselvesto the educatedclass,sometimesin theoryto theaddressing
themselves. The earliestsurvivingApologistsareof the emperors
century,but there is no reasonto think the situationwas mid-second
earlier. different
We must not confuse the kind of atheism charged
Christianswith philosophicalscepticism. Tertullianpretends againstthe
veryindignantbecausephilosophersare permitted to be
pagan superstitions, while Christians are not. openly to attack
demolishyour gods and also attack your superstitions "They openly
writings,and you applaudthem for it", he exclaims.l38 in their
difference The vital
was, of course,thatthe philosophers,whateverthey might
believe,and even write down for circulationamong
wouldhavebeenperfectlywillingto performany cult act educatedfolk,
them- and that was what mattered. requiredof
That the religiousmisbehaviourof certainindividuals
thoughtof by pagansas likelyto bringunselectivedivine should be
mayseem less strangeto us when we rememberthat punishment
wereheld by Jewsand Christians. OrthodoxChristians similarviews
felt towards
hereticsmuch as pagansfelt towardsthem. The martyred
Polycarp,who (it was said) had actually known the bishop
personally, Apostles
used to tell how the ApostleJohn, enteringthe bathsat
Ephesus, rushed out again when he saw the heresiarchCerinthus
inside,crying, "Away,lest the very baths collapse, for within is
Cerinthus the enemyof the truth".l39
Aboutthe middleof the thirdcentury,however,the attitude
general of the
run of pagans towards the Christiansbegins to
adistinctchange. Whereasuntil then the initiative undergo
in persecution
seems to havecomefrombelow,from250onwardspersecution
from above,fromthe government,and is initiatedby imperialcomes
with little or no sign of persecutingzeal amongthe mass of edict,
The beginningof the changeseemsto me to come with the pagans.
persecution. Decian
The last two recordedmajoroutbreaksof popularfury
?
againstthe ChristianswhichI knowof werethosein Cappadocia and

Pontusin 235140 and at Alexandriain 249.l4l The changehas gone
quitefar by the time of the GreatPersecution,whenthe majorityof
pagans (except in a few places, like Gaza)l42seem to be at least
indifferent,some even sympatheticto the Christians,l43and few
provincialgovernorsdisplay any enthusiasmfor the task. "The
governmenthad outrunpagan animosity''.l44The reasonfor the
change,I takeit, is that Christianityhad by now spreadwidelyand
lost its secretive character,and pagans had come to realize that
Christianswerenot so differentfromthemselves,andjustas religious.
I haveignoredminorreasonsfor populardislikeof the Christians;
but no doubtsomepeoplemightfeel a grudgeagainstthernon simple
economicgrounds:we may rememberhow these are said to have
been responsiblefor arousingoppositionto apostolicpreachingat
Philippiand Ephesus.l45
Finally,we cantry to analysethe attitudeof the government. For
onceit is of littleavailto ransackearlierRomanhistoryforprecedents,
in the hope of discoveringthe principleson which Rome treated
foreignreligions,l6becausethe greatproblemposedby Christianity,
its exclusiveness,wassomethingRomehad neverencounteredbefore
except under very differentconditions,in the Jewish national
religion.117
I do not myselfbelievethatthereis a singlesolutionto ourproblem.
I believethatdifferentmembersof the governingclassmayhavebeen
actuatedby differentmotives,and I think that each one of us must
decidefor himselfhow muchweighthe wouldattachto each. I have
alreadymentionedsomeminorfactors,whichmayin somecaseshave
played an importantand even a decisivepart: the need to pacify
public opinion; and suspicionof the Christiansas a conspiratorial
body, or at least as undesirables,malihomines. Butfor my ownpart
I believethat the main motivesof the governlment, in the long run,
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
characteristicof their subjects. Amongthe persecutingemperors,
we mustcertainlyplaceGaleriusin this category(on the contemporary
evidenceof Lactantius),l48 and also Diocletian,who seems to have
PAST AND PRESENT
28 NUMBER 26
been a thoroughly religious
I would reserve my man.l49 About Decius
opitiion. It is true that after the and Valerian
we find many Severan period
soldier-emperorsof little or no
might suspect of the grosser education, whom we
forms of superstition; and of
among the higher officials course
such as provincial governors
have been a greater there will
proportion of uneducated men.
happens,Decius cannot be called a But, as it
notValerian. I would man of that sort, and
afar greater extent in the concede that even in the third conspicuously
century, and to
mayhave been a significant second, especially the early
second, there
classwho did not share the number of members of the governing
bythe masses. But even superstitioushorrorfelt for the Christians
such people, I believe, were
persecute-perhaps as vigorously as their less impelled to
by motives I think we are emancipatedbrethren
theiraim also was always justified in calling religious,l50in that
refusal primarily to break down the
to svorshipthe pagan gods, Christian
even if the basis from which
proceeded was different. they
I want to stress two vital
we pieces of evidence which I do not see how
can explain away. First,
there is the fact that except to
extentin the time of Valerian, a limited
what and more seriously under
I have called the positive Diocletian,
side of Christianity is never
attacked: persecution did not extend to any officially
religionother than its refusalto aspect of the Christian
wasever made, even in the general acknowledgeother gods. No attempt
from persecutions,to prohibit Christians
worshipping their own god in private,
Diocletianl52 (but not Decius) forbade although Valerianl6l and
worship, and Diocletian also ordered them to assemble for common
the the destruction of churches and
confiscation of sacred books and
deputyprefect of Egypt said to Bishopchurch property.l53 As the
257,
"Who prevents you from Dionysius of Alexandria in
is god,
a along with the worshipping your own god also, if he
natural
test continues to be used, gods?''.l59 And of course the
sacrifice
he free, even in the
it goes and if the Christian complies
general persecutions. with
Secondly,there is what I
believe to have been the
immunity from persecution of most of complete
these the Gnostic sects. Some
professed doctrines of a of
(heretical
in varying degrees as they recognizably Christian character
Christians. were) and called themselves
Yet in Roman eyes there
was
between Gnostics and orthodoxevidently a fundamental
difference
were
not persecuted. Why ? Christians, if Gnostics
The
did not think it necessary to reason can only be that the
Gnostics
refuseto pay outwardrespect to be exclusive, like the orthodox,
and
the pagangods when the
necessity
WHY WERE THE EARLY CHRISTIANSPERSECUTED
# 29
arose. We are told by orthodoxChristiansourcesthat Basllides,

perhapsthe most importantof all the Gnosticheresiarchs,permitted
his followersto eat meatwhichhadbeen offeredto idols, and in time
of persecution"casuallyto deny the faith", doubtlessby accepting
the sacrificetest.l55 It appears,then, that althoughthe tenetsofthe
Gnosticsmusthaveappearedto the Romangoverningclassto be very
similarto those of the orthodox,the Gnosticsescapedpersecution
precisely because they consentedto take part in pagan religious
ceremonieson demand,whenthe orthodoxrefusedto do so.
Whatthen was the attitudeof the moreenlightenedpagansamong
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
Chancellorof England,of a deputationwhich waited upon him irl
I788 to securehis supportin their effortsto bring aboutthe repeal
of the Corporation and Test Acts. LordThurlow"heardthemvery
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 understandthat
of some membersof the Romangoverningclassof 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,whichpreservedthe pClrdeorum
by means of the appropriateceremonial.lJ7 It derived its great
value,as Cicerorepeatedlyaffirms,mainlyfromthe factthatit rested
uponthe auctoritasmaiorum,158 the forceof ancestraltradition. As
Dr. Weinstockhas pointedout,l69St. Augustinewas very much in
the Ciceroniantraditionwhen he declaredthat he wouldnot believe
the veryGospelitself,didit notrestuponthe auctoritas of the Catholic
Churchl60 a point of view still held today by some Christian
churches. Cicero,legislatingin the De Legibusfor his idealcommon-
wealth, begins with ius divinum.l6l In the De Natura Deorumhe
makeshis morescepticalspeaker,Cotta,open his case in Booki by
proclaimingthathe is himselfa pontifex) who believesthat "religious
rites and ceremoniesought to be maintainedwith the utmost
reverence'',l62and much more to the same effect. He makeshis
Stoic speaker,Balbus,echo sentimentshe had expoundedhimselfin
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 passagescould be multiplied. It seems
to me entirelybeside the point (thoughdoubtlesstrue enough)to
object that Cicero rarelyif ever shows any unmistakablesign of
"personalreligion",as we shouldcallit. And whenProfessorLatte,
in his greathistoryof Romanreligion,saysthat one Sndsin Cicero's
philosophicalworksno "inwardparticipation'',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? Contrastthe instinctivebelief which Cottain the De
NaturaDeorum,speakingto Balbus,proclaimsin the words,"From
you, a philosopher,I am bound to ask for a rationalaccount of
religion. OurancestorsI mustbelieve5 evenin the absenceof rational
explanation".l65These people had a deep emotionalfeeling for
Romanreligion,as the ius divinum,the "foundationof our state'',l66
an essentialpartof the wholeRomaxlwayof life. One can still hold
this to be true, even if) takingperhapsan uncharitableview (as I
would myself), one holdsthat quite a largepart of that religionwas
aboveall an instrumentby whichthe governingclass hopedto keep
the reins of powerin its own hands.l67 In the De Legibus,Cicero,
hi;xlselfan augur,glorifiesthat officebecausepast augurshave been
able to aul laws passed by reformingtribunes,to which Cicero
refusesthe very nameof law.l68 But such deep-seatedexpressions
of his own interestsand those of his class are far from makinghis
conceptionof religion'cinsincere" or "cynical"- indeed,the reverse
is true.
I have appealedto CicerobecauseI supposemost people would
agreethatthe authorof the De Divinatione maywellbe consideredone
of the least superstitiousmen in an age which was distinctlyless
superstitiousthanthe age of the persecutions. For Cicero'sspiritual
descendantsof the earlyPrincipate,Roznanreligionwas part of the
verystuS of Romanlife andRomangreatness;andtheywereprepared
to extend their protectionalso to the cults of the peoples of their
empire,whose devotionto their ancestralreligionsseemedto their
rulers only right and proper. Can we imagine that such men,
howeverintelleaually emancipatedfrom the superstitionsof the
vulgar,wouldhavehadanycompunctionaboutexecutingthe devotees
of a new-fangledsect which threatenedalmost every element of
Romanreligion,and indeedof all the traditionalcults 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 word-
political, 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
the Roman religion"-it is admitted that there are such people-
"must not refuse to take part in Roman religious ceremonies".
OSrford
NewCollege, G.E. M.deSte.Croix
NOTES
' 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
I2 August I96I. As I am engaged upon a book on the persecutions,in which
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
G. Kruger, AusgewahlteMartyrerakten,3rd edn., (Tubingen, I9o9).
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
(I958), pp. I4I-58; "The Gnostic Sects and the Roman Empire",7l. of Eccles.
Hist., v (I954), pp. 25-37-
s 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
Persecution(303). 6 N. H. Baynes,Camb.Anc. Hist., xii, p. 655.
7 See Act. Apost. vi.8-vii.60; Viii.I-4; iX.I-2; Xii.I-2, 3-I9- Xiii.45, 50-I-
XiV.2, 4-6, I9-20; xvii.5-g, I3-I4; XViii.I2-I7; xx.2-3; xxi.27 ff. Cf. I Thessal.
ii.I4-I6. Jewish hostility continued, and Terlullian (Scorp., I0) could call the
Jewish synagogues "fontes persecutionis".
8 Act. Apost. vi.8-vii.60 (Stephen); xii.r-3; Josephus, Aslt. Tud., XX.9.I, ?9
I97-203; Euseb., Hist. kccles., ii.23 (Jarnes). 'J Tac.,Atltl., XV.44.3-8.
10J. Beaujeu,L'Incendiede Romeen 64 et les cSlretiens,(Coll. Latomus,xlix,
Bruxelles, I960). The other sources are discussed and quoted by L. H. Can-
field, The Early Persecutionsof 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 subdiditreos" (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 Passions-
A. 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),
pp. I4-32.
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, 97tI- 25 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.,
32-2-3.
32 As 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 sacrilegiumand maiestas,but he is hardlyusing either word in
?
its technical sense: his "sacrilegium"seems to be a rhetorical equivalent for
is6ms. (For the technical meaning of sacrilegium,see Th. Mommsen
RdmischesStrafrecht,[Berlin, I899] pp. 760 ff.). 35 See n. 28 above.
a Justin, II Apol., I-2 (Ptolemaeus,Lucius and another); Passio3'ustiniI.
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-Stlftungfur 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 repressionepenale in dir. rom.,(Napoli, I937). See also Maxime Lemosse,
Cognito.Stude sur le role dujuge dans l'instructiondu 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).
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 constitutioneshad "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 constitutionesare "personal" and not to be treated as
precedents. By the early second century the constitutionesof 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), 72-
cf. 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 Ptlblikationim 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 Christianreinterpretationof 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
26.IO).
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
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.2- 69 Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,iV.9.3.
Idem,V.I.I4. Idem, 33, cf. I4*
72 Idem,50-52 cf. 44) 47 (where arroTugrravlaiilvalis explained by alT?T?Ilve SraS
KEepaSaS)-
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 possessreasonablyreliablerecords.
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.,
XlVllI. I 9. I 6.9.
?
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.
84 Cf. n. 3I above. 85 Rev. xiv.8; XVi.I9; XVii-XViii.
86 Tert., Apol., IO.I* 28.3 ff., ete.
87 Tert., De Fuga zn Persec., 5.5; I2-I4 (written c. 2I2, during Tert.'s
Montanistperiod). 8S Idem,I3.5. 89 See my op. cit. (n. 4 above), pp. 87-8.
91 See esp. F. M. de Robertis, II diritto associativoromano,(Bari, I938),

pp. 289-9I, 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;
34.I); Tert., Apol., 38.I-2; 39 (esp. ?? 20-I); De Ieianio, I3. But for the third
centurysee Scr. Hist. Aug., Sev. Alex., 49.6; Euseb., Hist. Eccles.,Vii.I3' 30.19.
93 Op. cit. (n. I8 above), pp. 2I0-I2. The essence of the theory (though
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".
@6The 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
assertion, "They are only eondemnedwhen their cont?wmacia has been proved"
(p. 2II), there is no evidence at all.
97 Op. cit. (n. I8 above), p. 2I0. The same mistake has been made by other
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!
99 In the first, Dig., XiViii.I9.4, contumaciamerely inereasespenalties aiready
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
professioof 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"-
Ulpian mentions the contumaciaet temeritasincidentally.
1o0The 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
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
deliberatelyrefuseto 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.
101op. 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.20- Passio
Conon.,iV.2 - etc. l?4Pliny, Epist., X.96.5.
06 Josephus,Bell.3tud.,vii.3.3, ??s50-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.I7-
109Euseb., 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.6.3-4-
24-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) I- llB 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,
? ? 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
"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
ApostolicFathers,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 5-2-3-
125 This subject has been discussed in innumerableworks, of wich I will
mention here only W. WardeFowler, TheRelig. Experienceof 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.
?
127 Arnob., as cited in the precedingnote, each time referringto 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?lloviaswill 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
8 (A.D. 438).
40 Firmilian, as cited in n. I36 above.
14 1 Dionys. Alex., ap. Euseb., 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 generalizationabout 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".
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),
p. I09.
149 See e.g. Euseb., Vita Const.,ii.5 I, 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
ReligiositatderChristenverfolger 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. 567-
164 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.I9.4-5- Dio 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.

Why Were The Early Christians Persecuted PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Were The Early Christians Persecuted PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?

Author(s): G. E. M. de Ste. Croix

summarize my own views, which agree closely with those expressed

I now want to begin examining the attitude of the government

Christianswho are aeeused as sueh, in due form (by a private

I now turn to the nature of the judicial process against the

sphereit was almostunlimited,savein so far as the rightsof Roman

Mr. Sherwin-White, in anarticlepublishedin Igs2,54hasbeenableto

Once Pliny's correspondence with Trajan had been "published"

the course he ought to pursue, he could always consult the emperor.

againstthe Christians(aswe shallsee it oftenwas,downto the middle

Most governorsweredoubtlessonly too *villingto takeactionagainst

to find them guilty of maiestas (treason): this would account for

I wantto dealat thispointwitha theoryproducedby Mr. Sherwin-

as we have seen, is the only point at which contumacia could

My next point concerns what I call "the sacrifice test", used by

such a test in the Roman world, as far as I know, is at Antioch early

aganstthe Christiansof Damascus,in orderto inflamepublicopinion

and Mensalriusof Carthageand Peter of Alexandria))the Passion of

death" (e,ouv zov a7ro6havetv)l23 and he admonishes the Roman

We are in a position at last to attempt to answer the question

obligation, however, rested upon any private individual, whether

Apologeticus: the pagans,he says,"supposethatthe Christiansarethe

againstthe ChristianswhichI knowof werethosein Cappadocia and

arose. We are told by orthodoxChristiansourcesthat Basllides,

the Romans"in religion,thatis the cult of the gods, arefar superior

the inhabitants of the Roman world ? I would be preparedto speak

79A. Ronconi, "Tacito, Plinio e i Cristiani", Studi in onoredi U. E. Paoli

91 See esp. F. M. de Robertis, II diritto associativoromano,(Bari, I938),

deliberately,wilfully, defiantly (it will be sufficient to cite Dig., 1.I.I3)) and

You might also like