Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Question about Marcus Aurelius.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Sunday, 14th October 2007
I think I read somewhere that the much-revered stoic emperor once had a slave murdered because his wife passed favourable comments on the unfortunate mans' good looks.
I could be completely mistaken or got it mixed up with another emperor.
Anybody able to help? -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 14th October 2007
According to the Historia Augusta, MA's wife Faustinia fancied a gladiator who she happened to see one day passing by. Later, when sick and feverish, she confessed her passion to MA. MA ran to the Chaldeans (oracle of the month with MA), whose advice was that Faustinia should be made bathe in his blood and then "couch" with MA.
The story is told to add some explanation to the fact that MA's son Commodius Antoninus was something of a clutz compared to his old fellah, and even went on to partake in a thousand gladiatorial combats himself, as a diversion it seems, while waiting to be emperor. It is reported as gossip widely believed by the public at the time, but the author admits it was "plausible". Yeah, right. -
Message 3
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Thanks for the reply. I knew that MA had carried out fairly nasty persecutions of Christians. In some peoples views he is regarded as some sort of a sage, this seems to indicate that, like Commodus, he was a man of his times.
-
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 19th October 2007
But just bear in mind that the story, even according to the near contemporary source that it came from, was presented only as a belief that was "common amongst the general public". Gossip in other words, salacious enough to have gained currency and with all the right ingredients of an urban myth. It also only gained that currency (and probably originated) during the early reign of the son, since it was first and foremost related to his character, and not the ould fella's.
Personally I've always had a soft spot for the Christian-persecutors myself. A very troublesome infestation and much more trouble than they were worth! I wasn't aware that MA made a point of it, but I am sure their eradication would have appealed to his sense of public order. He did a lot for the drains as well, I believe. -
Message 5
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Nordmann, and how exactly were the Christians 'trouble'? Giving alms to widows and orphans? Holding meetings in houses and praying? Singing too loudly?
Marcus mentioned the Christians in his 'Meditations', but only to express disapproval at the theatricality they displayed when dying in the arena.
Deaths of some Christians are known about from his reign, including the condemnation of some in a trial conducted by a judge who was a personal freind of the emperor. Still, there is nothing to suggest that the persecution was any worse than under other emperors. -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 19th October 2007
They got in under the foundations and nibbled away at the infrastructure of the place. Absolutely useless at an orgy by all accounts. And when they were out and about on the streets their smug "holier-than-thou" attitude was enough to spark a tumultus civilis even amongst mild-mannered Roman gentlefolk. No one likes that superiority crapology, especially performed by beggars and low life. Very offputting! Lousy entertainment value at the the amphitheatre as well - MA was spot-on there!
-
Message 7
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Here is an interesting question, you can get away with making light of the horrendous persecution of people if it is 2000 years ago, but presumably you would not get away with some jibes at the Jews for the way they treated those nice Nazis. My question is, where is your cut-off point? Is laughing at the unjustly persecuted if they live 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or what?
-
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 19th October 2007
What a very interesting question indeed. And so revealing! Thank you for that, fascinating.
Personally I don't really know what you mean by "getting away with" humour in relation to "horrendous persecution of people". I could digress into a polemic debate about what exactly the christians represented in the context of the early Roman empire as opposed to later propagandised versions of their activities, and we could all have a jolly subjective time of it assuming our views are better or worse than the next person. Or for that matter we could choose not to get our knickers in a twist over an argument that was largely settled in the "persecuted's" favour a long, long time ago (and boy, see how settled it was!).
If on the other hand you want to discuss history as a source of humour it might be an idea for you to show some wit of your own based on historical events etc, and then we could see where we're coming from, if you know what I mean!
But first and foremost, seeing that this is something that has taxed your brain already, can you give me a "timeline" of acceptable humour, thanks. Oh - and a list of other topics that you might not approve of? After all, I wouldn't want to offend the wrong people - just the ones intended. -
Message 9
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Hi Nordmann,
Christians trouble? Too bloody right - they were a intolerant cult of law-breaking atheists, disloyal to both the state and the Emperor. The Romans had every right to persecute them, and if I'd have been in their sandals, I'd have created a whole new volume of the 'lex maiestas' to deal with them...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 10
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 19th October 2007
RF - I will treat your rubbish post with the contempt it deserves. Look up the meaning of the word 'atheist', then humbly ask the moderator, with apologies, to have your blight of a posting expunged.
Nordmann,
all your verbiage and no answer to my question, which was a simple one. But you appear to be indicating that all events of history, even ones where people were tortured to death by the thousand, should be treated as a source of humour. Presumably you make jokes about car accidents and deaths among your relatives. Not to my taste.
Do tell me what the christians represented in the context of the Early Roman Empire. It has always been a mystery to me why the Romans persecuted them. -
Message 11
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
I don't think practitioners of Christianity, in any guise, can be regarded as blameless when it comes to the persecution of dissidents.
-
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Fascinating - of course I didn't answer your question in the manner you demanded - that would have been silly. And indeed it was a simple question. You learn quickly. As to the demise of my relatives and the propensity of cars to collide on occasion, well, there is probably a source of amusement in either or both depending on circumstances but you would really have to elucidate your thoughts on the matter a little more before I could properly comment on them. They strike me as a little esoteric as expressed (and amazingly knowledgeable about my family's lousy driving skills - how DID you know about that????)
RF - I will treat your insightful post with the respect it deserves. I looked up the meaning of the word "atheist" and you are quite right. I will now humbly ask the moderator, with suitable comment. to have your illumination of a posting elevated to the prominence it merits. -
Message 13
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
I see, you are incapable of answering any of my questions.
-
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Incapability can have many grounds.
My own in this instance resides in advice I received fom a certain Marcus Aurelius; "In discourse thou must attend to what is said, and in every movement thou must observe what is doing. And in the one thou shouldst see immediately to what end it refers, but in the other watch carefully what is the thing signified." -
Message 15
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
The Christians were persecuted for a number of reasons, ranging from social to political, but perhaps the most obvious point would be the religious; in this sense the Christians appeared to the Romans as atheists, and were thus a subversive group within the Roman Empire.
-
Message 16
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
The Romans looked on their society as being all. if you adopted their ways then you were a Roman pretty much regardless of birth.
The early christians effectivly removed themselves from being considerd Roman by not following the accepted religions. The Romans then seem to have followed the "If your Not With us your agin us" school of thought and treated them as dangerous subversives. If you want a comparison look at the way the west has taken to regarding Muslims in the last few years. -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
The relationship between Rome and Christianity was always a little more complex than that bttdp. In fact there are many aspects to the Christians' presence in Rome that are generally overlooked or downplayed when Christians themselves review their history.
By far the most important one is that Christianity, for all its great success later in the political arena that Rome provided, was for a long time regarded by the Roman administration as simply another Jewish sect. If you look at the pattern of discrimination levelled against their number you will find an overlap with that directed against Judaism at the same time, and if you look further you will see that this also corresponded in large measure to political events in Judaea, concerning Judaea, or instigated by people sympathetic to Judaean political causes - nearly all of which were "subversive" in the Roman sense since they directly threatened secession from the Roman empire, an unpalatable prospect for the tax farmers who, with the military, effectively ran the Roman state.
As the years progressed the impact of Judaism - largely because it had its geocentre in Judaea with regard to identity and impetus - was effectively nullified through repeated punitive measures undertaken by successive Roman administrations, many of which outdid in cruelty and scope anything levelled against the Christians. If Christians want to see just how cruel and effective the Romans could be when they set their mind to it they need only compare their own fate to that of their spiritual relatives.
Judaism, while not annihilated as a religious cult within the Roman world, was politically crushed, and at a human cost that puts the estimation of Christian deaths - even by later propagandists - in the ha'penny place.
That their fates differed is not that surprising. In the beginning the Romans must even have presumed that in crushing the Jewish revolts they would rid themselves of this cult as well, and this misunderstanding of the cult's self-perceived "separateness" to its Jewish parent actually helped Christianity establish itself at the empire's heart. The cult, with its foothold in the capital and well-forged links early on with the hellenistic network that played a fluctuating, but broadly influential role in the Roman empirical system, managed first to avoid annihilation, and then to slowly but surely work its way up through the social ranks. In a society that had (despite later Christian propagandistic attempts to refute) a rather flexible, if not liberal, attitude to personal religion, Christian influence could propagate - albeit covertly for much of its natal stage - to the extent that enough sympathy could be mustered amongst enough social classes to guarantee at first its survival, and then its movement to centre-stage. This was facilitated by the fact that Roman empirical deification over centuries gradually led to an acceptance of monotheism, and then in a period of mounting pressure on the whole regime that threatened Rome's political survival the philosophy of this cult began to appeal to the top end of the administration itself (though it did not occupy the position alone, and its adoption by the top level was a little stop-start at first).
Georges Dumezil's exhaustive tome "Archaic Roman Religion", investigating the development of religious philosophy in Rome right from Etruscan times, is considered by some to be a little out-dated in its definition of theistic function within the state religion. But his painstaking assembly of how the disparate elements came to be included within that system has never been equalled. One statistic that he cites is pertinent to any discussion regarding Christianity's rise to prominence, and especially when discussing the persecution of Christians.
This is that Rome, as it grew, absorbed upwards of an estimated four thousand different cults, of which probably only twenty "made it" to the homeland and found expression within the polytheistic Roman religion. Of the rest only a tiny fraction survive, even in reference. They were effectively eliminated "at source", and while this elimination must have been achieved often simply by the locals pragmatically converting their faith along with their political allegiance, others were ruthlessly destroyed, adherents and all (for political, it must be said, rather than religious reasons). Christians, and indeed Jews, tellingly escaped this fate.
Another point he made related to why they did so, and it is one that Christian histories tend to downplay, or even ignore. Judaism, in so far as it was tolerated, was allowed to exist as a monotheistic cult within the Roman world largely because one of its central tenets was a policy of non-conversion. The Jews were "chosen people". The rest were gentiles. Rome could live with this religiously, but politics was another matter. Christianity, at first perceived as just a variation on a known and tolerated religious theme, took root at around the same time as Judaea was in revolt and the Jews were beginning to be taken seriously as a political menace. Tiberius, seeing the antipathy displayed by Jews towards this cult and assuming that it also would only ever be confined to elements of the "chosen people", even tried to have it legalised as a permitted Roman faith (something that required senate sanction, which was not forthcoming). His intention was purely political of course. It was to sow dissent within the Jewish "sector", and as emperor he simply ignored the senate in any case and encouraged toleration of the sect. Chistianity, in other words, arrived in the capital as a political tool, and up until Nero's reign it never lost its political usefulness to the higher powers. Its adherents must have known this too, and it paid them from the beginning to be politically aware. In this sense it was unique, a politicised monotheistic entity receiving state protection at a crucial point in its establishment. All the persecution it later underwent failed to eradicate the advantage it had obtained from this beginning, however fortuitously that advantage might have been obtained.
Why they should have been persecuted, fascinating, is no mystery at all. They were Jewish, and a dangerous version of it once the true nature of their committment to converting others became evident. The real mystery is how on earth they managed to be tolerated at the time, and Dumezil answers that question politically, and therefore, I feel, correctly. -
Message 18
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Nordmann, the Jews, with their monotheistic religion, were tolerated not just in Israel, but basically across the rest of the Roman world. In fact they were priveledged in the sense that they exempt from the poll tax.
Roman antipathy toward the Jews came almost entirely for political reasons, specifically the armed revolts by Jews against Romans. These were crushed and the entire state of Israel destroyed eventually. But there was no anti-Jewish policy as such. There was no expulsion of the Jews from the city of Rome, for example. Even after the destruction of Israel, Jews around the Empire were able to practice their religion.
You seem convinced that the Romans accepted the monotheistic Jews but did not accept the monotheistic Christians (at least you are not calling them atheistic - that's progress!) because the Christians were proselitysers. I am not convinced by that. If you look at the famous letters from Pliny to Trajan about the treatment of the Christians (these very letters set the precedent for the treatment of members of cult for that next 200 years), we see that the Christians met and worshipped in their houses, out of sight of others, and that there was a whispering campaign against them, partly fuelled by the very fact that they did not worship in public. Putting slaves under torture could get some of them to say what the accusers wanted to hear. Pliny says something like 'their very stubborn-ness deserves punishment'; the authorities were disposed against the Christians for deciding to invent a new God (it seemed) when everybody else was worshipping the established ones. The situation in Bythinia, where Pliny was governer, was crucial. The province had been very unsettled, and the emperor did not want to allow any associations of anybody among the provincials, because he felt they would be seed-beds for sedition. Hence his refusal to allow a citizen fire brigade, even a skeleton version of the same, which Pliny himself wrote in support of.
With Pliny's hostility, and Trajan's extreme nervousness of any associations in a rebellious province, a policy was drawn up toward Christians that would be used across the Empire, despite the very different circumstances in most provinces.
But the inherent heroism of the Christians, displayed magnificently so many times in the arena, and the inherent injustice of the vicious sentences imposed on these innocent and harmless people, won so many converts that even the rulers became adherents of the new faith.
I would be very glad if you would tell me the source which indicates that Tiberius was keen to tolerate the Christians. -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
You seem convinced that the Romans accepted the monotheistic Jews but did not accept the monotheistic Christians (at least you are not calling them atheistic - that's progress!) because the Christians were proselitysers.
Ìý
I did not say that. By the time the Christians were resented for their proselytising the Jews had also very much lost the tolerance they had enjoyed also. And it is important to remember that contemporary Romans regarded the conversion of a Roman to either as a crime against the state in which the charge of abandoning the gods was a 'res ipsa loquitor' against which no defence could be made. The Jewish god (and by extension, the Christian) was not - according to the state - anything but a delusion.
these very letters set the precedent for the treatment of members of cult for that next 200 years
Ìý
Not a precedent, but perhaps a tone. Pliny was describing something, not setting state policy. In any case that tone was anything but a stable element in Roman society afterwards. Prevailing attitudes towards Christians fluctuated - otherwise periods such as those instigated by Diocletian would not stand out in Christian history, and as I'm sure you're aware, they do.
But the inherent heroism of the Christians, displayed magnificently so many times in the arena
Ìý
This definitely impressed Christians, as we well know. There are many instances however of how their "stoic" attitude simply dismayed or even disgusted Romans, and not because it "showed up" the Romans as cruel baiters of innocent people, but because it demonstrated the absolute danger of being led by folly. To the Romans, whose sense of obedience due to the state was always stated ahead of that to one's individual needs(hypocritical and all as that might well have been sometimes), Christians represented the depths people could sink to if they subscribed to deity ahead of duty. They were regarded as childish and incredibly selfish, and their chosen willingness to die simply confirmed that suspicion for many Romans (though some gave them credit for courage, despite their obvious flaws in other respects).
I would be very glad if you would tell me the source which indicates that Tiberius was keen to tolerate the Christians.
Ìý
Many early Christian writers mention this, though they admittedly phrase it differently - probably depending on their then audience and the exact relationship that audience had with Rome. Tertullian recounts the refusal of the senate to advocate Tiberius' suggestion, and most definitely overstates Tiberius' reason for making it in the first place. But regardless of whether the alleged facts occurred as Tertullian and others recorded them, what they were all trying to explain was how a cult that later invoked such antipathy from Romans managed to survive the fate that others - like the Bacchus and Isis cults that met with brutal repression from the same authorities around the same time - incurred upon its arrival in the capital. Dumezil prefers to believe the reference to Tiberius is grounded in a political reality, and to me it makes sense as well. It certainly fits in with Tiberius' policies elsewhere. It also deftly answers that other great imponderable - how a community of thousands could exist secretly in a city where everyone lived on top of everyone else, where vigilance against heresy was a political responsibility of the citizen, and where no one else in history had ever managed to keep a secret for longer than a few minutes! Not having recourse to believe in divine protection myself, I am afraid I have to fall back on speculation based on realistic grounds. -
Message 20
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
RF - I will treat your rubbish post with the contempt it deserves. Look up the meaning of the word 'atheist', then humbly ask the moderator, with apologies, to have your blight of a posting expunged.Ìý
Thanks, but I think you'll find that they were accused by the Romans of atheism numerous times. Look up the usage of "Atheist" by contemporary Roman sources and feel free to express your lack of understanding. If I don't understand something I don't instantly dismiss it as rubbish without engaging my mind first, i.e. I do a bit of research. Anyway, when you've checked the usage of "atheist" and how it was applied to the Christians by the Romans, I'll be waiting with a nice big slice of humble pie for you.
As for the rest of my post
Christians trouble? Too bloody right - they were a intolerant cult of law-breaking atheists, disloyal to both the state and the Emperor.Ìý
Intolerant? Yup, they wouldn't accept the existence of any other god. In general, the Romans had no problem with people worshipping any god (there are exceptions such as the Bacchanalia of 186BC), and were happy as long as you didn't upset the worshippers of any other god or go recruiting for your monotheistic god. That would be subversive and troublesome you see...
Atheists? Yup, they wouldn't accept the existence of gods apart from their own. As I said above, check the Roman use of atheist...
Disloyal to the Emperor? Yup, for one thing, they wouldn't sacrifice to him. With the role the Emperor had, this would in effect be disloyalty to the state.
Law-breaking? Yup - see all of the above.
Now reading my post from a Roman perspective, do you have more of an understanding why they were so unpopular? The above are just a few of the problems they had with Christians - can you now begin to see why they were persecuted? When all things are considered, I think the Romans were really quite tolerant to what they would have perceived as a stupid little cult...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Looking back, don't you now feel your post was a bit rubbish?
-
Message 21
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Just a quick point - there were actually measures taken against Jewish religion and expulsions of Jews from Rome in antiquity: Tiberius repressed Jewish rites in Rome in 19 CE (Suetonius Tiberius 36) whilst Claudius expelled the Jews from the city in 49 CE (Suetonius Claudius 25). The Jews were also affected by the numerous laws dealing with magic which were issued from the early empire onwards, many of which expelled practitioners of unsanctioned religions; indeed, the Jews were famed in Roman literary circles for their magical skills (one thinks of Pliny as the most obvious example of this, but Josephus testifies to it as well).
-
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
You're quite right Barry_Monkey2. In terms of the political radar Jews figured - Christians didn't for a very long time. Both were legislated against, but one as the "religious wing" of a potentially dangerous focal point for anti-Roman aggression from within the empire. The others were simply regarded pretty much as a "looney fringe" of that element. That the Romans really didn't understand, or care to understand, either group's obsessions is obvious from the descriptions used and the misunderstandings of their capabilities.
It was a classic situation of two incompatible superstitions in conflict. The Christians, due to fluke as well as doggedness, survived to be in an advantageous position when the emperor cult itself had allowed the Roman imagination to encompass monotheism, but it was by no means a well-planned coup on their part, or indeed planned at all, I would say, until the very end of their exclusion from official sponsorship. Their superstitions eventually became amenable to inclusion amongst the larger group's superstitions through the vagaries of personal taste and political expediency exercised by plutocrats with the power to make it official. -
Message 23
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Hi Nordmann,
I heard in a lecture that one possible reason for the Jewish approach to monotheism being more acceptable to the Romans than Christianity, was simply because the Jewish religion was so old. Old equated somewhat with wisdom and commanded respect, whereas new equated to the Roman equivalent of Scientology.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Jewish religion, to many Romans who cared about these things (and that did not always include the powers that be), represented a philosophy with ancient roots. Romans were aware that they lacked in this respect when compared even to their near neighbours, the Greeks. When Judaism was explained - such as Josephus with his Contra Apionem - to a Roman audience and with direct reference to known Greek philosophical works (and in Josphus' mind, favourably), it helped reinforce this reverence. And Josphus was by no means the only interpreter of Judaism for Roman minds - Philo of Alexandria also enjoyed a high reputation for his writings which used Platonic logic to justify Jewish thinking.
So in that sense you are right, RF. But it is important to remember that despite these notable efforts at apology the practitioners of Josephus' and Philo's faith were not tolerated once their presence - be it in Judaea or Rome - was felt politically. Josephus saw examples of this at close quarters and changed his political tune considerably with time. It is speculated that the same descent into public odium in Rome has robbed us of the works of many other Jewish writers and thinkers. The advent of Christianity to a position of political might simply guaranteed this loss to posterity. It is ironic, but the few scraps that we have of these writers we owe to Muslim preservation, not to Roman or Byzantine. -
Message 25
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
Putting slaves under torture could get some of them to say what the accusers wanted to hear.Ìý
I might be wrong, but I think that at least at one point in Roman history, that a confession from a slave was only legal if it had been extracted from them under torture.
But the inherent heroism of the Christians, displayed magnificently so many times in the arena, and the inherent injustice of the vicious sentences imposed on these innocent and harmless people, won so many converts that even the rulers became adherents of the new faith.Ìý
Are you saying that the "inherent heroism" and "inherent injustice" was what converted the rulers, or they joined the faith because of the sheer weight of number of converts?
Also remember that the tales of "the inherent heroism of the Christians, displayed magnificently so many times in the arena" often comes from later and/or favourably biased (and exaggerated) sources. Some of the tales of the martyrs that were read aloud in churches in the 4th-5th centuries were basically just tittilating snuff-pron.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 26
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
Here are some sources for the use of the term "Atheist" being applied to Christians by the Romans, and other accusations of breaking the law.
Christians are called "impious and atheist, for throwing up their ancestral gods," by Porphyry, in Euseb., Praep. ev. 1.2.2, and by various accusers at other times, cf. some sources in MacMullen (1981) 176, including evidence of danger to overt atheists (and add the incident at Rome in 308/9, Zos. 2.13.1).Ìý
SOURCE : "Christianizing the Roman Empire" Ramsey Macmullen pg 128
(Note 12 to pages 14-15)
The passage from Eusebius referred to above is from the second paragraph of Chapter II of his "Praeparatio evangelica", (the chapter's title being "The charges usually brought against us by those who try to slander our doctrines").
What then may the strangeness in us be, and what the new-fangled manner of our life? And how can men fail to be in every way impious and atheistical, who have apostatized from those ancestral gods by whom every nation and every state is sustained? Or what good can they reasonably hope for, who have set themselves at enmity and at war against their preservers, and have thrust away their benefactors? For what else are they doing than fighting against the gods?Ìý
The third paragraph is also interesting in respect to the Romans' persecution of Christianity - specifically the phrase "And to what kind of punishments would they not justly be subjected..."
And what forgiveness shall they be thought to deserve, who have turned away from those who from the earliest time, among all Greeks and Barbarians, both in cities and in the country, are recognized as gods with all kinds of sacrifices, and initiations, and mysteries by all alike, kings law-givers and philosophers, and have chosen all that is impious and atheistical among the doctrines of men? And to what kind of punishments would they not justly be subjected, who deserting the customs of their forefathers have become zealots for the foreign mythologies of the Jews, which are of evil report among all men?Ìý
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph should also be noted:
And must it not be a proof of extreme wickedness and levity lightly to put aside the customs of their own kindred, and choose with unreasoning and unquestioning faith the doctrines of the impious enemies of all nations? Nay, not even to adhere to the God who is honoured among the Jews according to their customary rites, but to cut out for themselves a new kind of track in a pathless desert, that keeps neither the ways of the Greeks nor those of the Jews?Ìý
The seventh (and final) paragraph of the chapter, specifically the final sentence, shows the accusations from Romans of Christians openly breaking the law:
Moreover they say that we very absurdly welcome with the greatest eagerness the charges against their nation for the sins they committed, but on the other hand pass over in silence the promises of good things foretold to them; or rather, that we violently pervert and transfer them to ourselves, and so plainly defraud them while we are simply deceiving ourselves. But the most unreasonable thing of all is, that though we do not observe the customs of their Law as they do, but openly break the Law, we assume to ourselves the better rewards which have been promised to those who keep the Law.Ìý
SOURCE: "Praeparatio evangelica" Eusebius, Book I, Chapter 2.
I can't find the exact Zosimus, but do have "Paganism in the Roman Empire" by MacMullen, which is referred to in the first quote. If you feel that the above isn't enough evidence for you of Roman accusations of atheism towards Christians, I'll quite happily (although quite pointlessly in my opinion) provide you with further sources.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 27
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
Of course the Romans accused the Christians of atheism. They also accused them of drinking the blood of murdered babies and of obscene sexual practices. But they were WRONG.
-
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
RF said tittilating snuff-pron Ìý
(by which I presume you meant titillating snuff-porn)
You know, until that remark, I was starting to take you seriously. I am naive like that.
Possibly in 2000 years there might be somebody (possibly called Rainbow-Nazi) on whatever passes for message boards at that time will be denying the holocaust and pointing to the film evidence of the death camps as titillating snuff-porn. -
Message 29
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
Of course the Romans accused the Christians of atheism. They also accused them of drinking the blood of murdered babies and of obscene sexual practices. But they were WRONG.Ìý
No - the Romans weren't wrong on the accusation of atheism. By the Roman definition they were completely correct. And before you start on modern definitions, as the Romans made the accusation, the only correct definition that can be used of the word "atheist" is that used by the Romans.
It is nice to see that you now acknowledge that the Romans accused the Christians of atheism, instead of replying with dumb knee-jerk reactionary nonsense as in your original reply to me.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 30
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
Nordmann (reply to your message 19).
he Jews had also very much lost the tolerance they had enjoyed Ìý
Really? Can you point to trials of Jews, where the accusation was only that they were illegally practising the Jewish religion?
Not a precedent, but perhaps a tone. Pliny was describing something, not setting state policy.Ìý
Well of course Pliny, as a mere governer, could not set a state policy. It was the Emperor Trajan's reply to him that set the precedent. You will be aware that an imperial reply to an official's query on policy (a rescript), had in effect the force of law.
In any case that tone was anything but a stable element in Roman society Ìý
Trajan's policy was that the Christians were to be prosecuted, but were not to be sought out. That was the 'tone', or policy, that almost all succeeding emperors employed. The specific precedent I was talking about was Trajan's decision that being a practising Christian was criminal behaviour.
Regarding the deaths of the Christian martyrs, yes we have some writings of a few Romans who were scathing of the Christians and the manner of their deaths. But the fact remains that, notwithstanding the horrendous tortures and deaths inflicted upon them, their numbers steadily increased, so they must have impressed somebody. All those snide, silly remarks about their being 'childish and selfish' and unfounded accusations, counted for nothing in the end.
You seem to lay a lot of store from a remark by Tertullian. I am willing to bet that you do not accept all that he, or any other early Christian fanatic, wrote as factual. Given that Christianity as a movement would be quite tiny during the reign of Tiberius, I would need some convincing that he even became aware of it. But you do obviously know a lot more about this aspect than i do, so your conclusions in this regard might be true. -
Message 31
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
RF, in that posting you said that the Christians were atheist, a word you did not put in quotes, nor attribute to the Romans, nor did you say 'the Romans said' they were atheists. YOU said that they were atheists.
-
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
Actually the baby's blood reference is an interesting one as it originated with a certain Marcus Minucius Felix who was, in fact, very much a Christian. In his "Octavius" he writes a fictional dialogue between two philosophers (with himself as a sort of referee) both of whom get themselves into logistical knots arguing the pros and cons of polytheism, only for MMF to jump in at the end, denounce the pair of them as outdated oafs, and use their stupidity as evidence that the only intelligent way forward is to cut veneration down to one god, preferably his one. It is in that context that he has one of his conversationalists recount the charges that "fascinating" above wants to attribute to real people.
The rhetorical device is an old one. It is called hyperbole and would have been well recognised as such by MMF's readers. By grotesquely exaggerating one facet of Christianity's detractors it was hoped to indicate that all such detraction, even of a milder variety, should be regarded as suspect. The real targets of the passage were those Romans who were uncomfortable with the implied notion of cannibalism during communion with the Christian god. By lampooning their objections he actually avoids having to answer them.
That his lampoon should now be held up as factual documentation now would probably dismay him on two levels. His intention was to "kill the argument", not have it perpetuate uncomfortably throughout Christianity's tenure (which was not to be that long, if you remember - these guys were all convinced they had a good chance of their god coming to visit everyone during their lifetime). He would also be a little troubled by the fact that even after two thousand years people found fact and fiction hard to separate. But he has probably only himself to blame - his gory reference was titillating enough to be memorable long after the rest of his essay was forgotten, even by Christians (as "fascinating" shows). -
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
RF said
tittilating snuff-pron
(by which I presume you meant titillating snuff-porn)Ìý
Have you heard of the "Peristephanon" ("Crowns of Martyrdom") by Prudentius from the 4th/5th centuries? I'm assuming you haven't so here's a link to the Wikipedia page on him:
Before giving you a link to one of the poems, I'd urge you to read the following paragraph from the Catholic Enclopedia describing it. Note the final sentence and in the previous sentence, the words "current taste" which indicates that Prudentius wrote in a style his Chritian audience desired:
The "Peristephanon" is dedicated to the glory of the martyrs... Taken altogether, it is an endeavour to endow Christianity with a lyrical poetry independent of liturgical uses and traditions. Unfortunately, neither Prudentius's talent nor current taste favoured such an enterprise. The narratives are spoiled with too much rhetoric.Ìý
Anyway, here's a link to the poem regarding Hippolytus - as far as I'm concerned, as it's written to excite and it involves the violent death and torture of an individual it's nother more than snuff-porn. Personally, I find it abhorrent and repulsive to use the death of an individual as titillation:
Possibly in 2000 years there might be somebody (possibly called Rainbow-Nazi) on whatever passes for message boards at that time will be denying the holocaust and pointing to the film evidence of the death camps as titillating snuff-porn.Ìý
No, I think in 2000 years it's far more likely that there might be somebody (possibly called Fasci-nazi) on whatever passes for message boards at that time, who will be denying the Holocaust, unwilling to accept the film evidence of the death camps. Whereas Rainbow-Ffolly will be pointing to the film evidence of the death camps as explicit documentary evidence of the Holocaust.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned "holocaust" should be capitalized. Show some respect to the millions of innocent people that died in one of the biggest atrocities ever committed by humankind.
You know, until that remark, I was starting to take you seriously. I am naive like that.Ìý
You naive? Never...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 34
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Tuesday, 23rd October 2007
From the Roman's point of view the Christians were indeed atheists, as the above evidence/sources demonstrate.
Whatever we think of the merits of Christianity, we should strive to restrict the impact that ones faith may have on our historical studies. There is no room for fundamentalism in historical study in my opinion. -
Message 35
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
OK, you misunderstood my original message, which I thought was extremely clear (and nobody else appears to have misunderstood it and I explained everything clearly a few posts later), but these things happen. I'm sure you're a very nice guy/gal and I've never had any problems with you before (apart from you not exactly agreeing when I said I wished Seutonius's "Lives of Famous Whores" had survived from antiquity!) so I'm more than happy to call a truce. Just don't reply to any post of mine with a response like your first one!
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I would have used a "Dove" smiley but as far as I'm concerned they're nothing but pigeons in smart suits... -
Message 36
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hi again fascinating. I'm beginning to think your views, and probably all you know about Christianity's early years have been derived from the "potted version" which has sufficed for the majority of Christians themselves. As you must realise by now such accounts were only half intended as histories (and contained huge variation depending on source and audience) and half intended as justification for the belief that their faith was the only valid one (and the 'histories' excel in this respect, if one were to believe them as the full truth). Of course the absence within them of any truly critical analysis of Christianity's true purposes, methodology, and even congregational statistics should at least suggest that the version as traditionally approved of and handed down via the church establishment for mass consumption (pardon the pun) is bound to be left wanting as a factual record. Fortunately enough contemporary sources exist to shed a little light on things, but even then there are huge holes in the testament that have often been filled with nothing more concrete than wishful thinking and invention which has acquired a patina from age that lends it a respectability not warranted by factual examination.
Regarding the deaths of the Christian martyrs, yes we have some writings of a few Romans who were scathing of the Christians and the manner of their deaths. But the fact remains that, notwithstanding the horrendous tortures and deaths inflicted upon them, their numbers steadily increased, so they must have impressed somebody.
Ìý
We actually don't know the growth rate - Christians were hardly likely to stick that down under the "religion" heading on census day. So we don't know whether bouts of intense persecution significantly reduced their numbers for periods afterwards or ironically acted as a recruitment agent to increase them. We have only absolute guesstimates as to how many Christians there were as compared to other religionists when they eventually got to be number one in the god stakes, and these are all by Christians who had a point to make afterwards (namely why they should still be number one in the god stakes). Their numbers went up over three hundred years, that is true. But all that we know for a fact was that there were sufficient numbers to be rounded up by the authorities when the situation demanded it, but yet enough that were "overlooked" for the sect to survive. We know also that by the time of Decius they had organised themselves in a visible and efficient pattern with high profile bishoprics that reflected the Roman urban network. Decius in fact was the first to have a stab at counting them but gave up. During Diocletian's reign they were reckoned to account for one fifth of hellenes, three fifths of Africans and about one tenth of the rest of the Roman urban population. But this is a Christian reckoning (made later to estimate the numbers Diocletian's administration had executed), and probably an overstatement. We don't know, and we especially don't know if they increased "steadily" as you suggest.
You seem to lay a lot of store from a remark by Tertullian. I am willing to bet that you do not accept all that he, or any other early Christian fanatic, wrote as factual.
Ìý
No, but he wrote what would be credible to his audience and pretended that it was history. His testimony reveals accepted tradition rather than fact, but tradition starts somewhere, and in this case for a political reason, according to Dumezil and other classicists. Tertullian's (and others') claim about Tiberius can therefore be adduced to have reflected some level of truth - not in how he portrayed the events, but in what they really signify. In this case the toleration and encouragement of a splinter sect to cause disunity in a larger body that threatened Rome's stability. Or to put it another way, if something similar didn't happen, then no good explanation has yet to be put forward regarding how and why a heretical and treasonable outfit (no non-Roman god could supplant the emperor) infiltrated Rome's capital in large numbers and didn't get themselves butchered on day one. Such heresies were stamped out normally with great vigour. By the time that vigour was applied to Christians they were apparently too organised to be easily eradicated. -
Message 37
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hi Barry_Monkey2,
Whatever we think of the merits of Christianity, we should strive to restrict the impact that ones faith may have on our historical studies. There is no room for fundamentalism in historical study in my opinion.Ìý
I don't particularly have anything against Christianity, but when discussing history I feel that one should keep one's faith and/or beliefs as far away as possible (I should stress I'd also feel the same way about Judaism, Islam, Paganism etc.). History is never simply polarities of black and white (or good and bad) it's infinite shades of grey. When I hear someone say "this is black" or "this is white" it triggers warning bells that they're not attempting to be objective, and letting their own prejudices come into play.
An example would be that I feel that persecution is a very bad thing, but I also feel that the early Christians were responsible in part for bringing about their own persecution - the evidence, to my mind at least, points to the mistakes, either intentionally or unintentionally, the Christians made. Remember that this is the society that had the Catilline conspiracy, the assassination of Julius Caesar, Caligula, Nero, Domitian and countless failed conspiracies - to be secretive was to invite suspicion, and it's a few small steps from there to persecution. I won't reiterate some of the points that Nordmann has made on other related areas (or claim he feels the same way), but in my mind they add weight to the argument that the Christians were in part responsible for their own persecution.
The early history of the Christian church is not something that I think any modern Christian should, or could, be entirely proud about - undoubtedly there's good as well as bad, but to ignore the bad is well... simply blinkered ignorance and stunts and destroys the credibility of any argument. For example, from at least the late 3rd century, I think it's incredibly important to question the motives of the men who would become influential in the church. Would men of eloquence and aristocracy who desired power (some subsequently beatified like Ambrose of Milan for example), honestly have chosen a career in the church if the traditional routes of miltary and senatorial careers had not become virtually worthless for a man of undoubted ambition?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 38
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Nordmann, Alright the baby's blood reference was from M M Felix. So it was mere hyperbole? Well, you may wish to see it as that, but I doubt it. At the persecution of Lyons, the Christians were accused, among other things of incest and cannabilism. (Yes I know that the writer of the report on this was Eusebius, a Christian, but that does not make him automatically wrong). So Felix's reference to accusations of drinking baby's blood, while he may POSSIBLY have been garnishing the truth a little, was pretty close to the actualite.
Your mock-horror at deigning to mention something that Felix said, when poor Felix never meant (you say) to be taken seriously, I cannot take seriously.
I note you make the assumption I am a Christian. I am not. -
Message 39
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
RF, I note you start your 'olive branch' posting by making an accusation at me, saying 'you misunderstood my original message' not 'I did not make my original message clear'. Your message explicitly stated that the Christians were atheists. This was and is wrong. And we did not even get started on your explicit wish to introduce new laws against them.
-
Message 40
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hello all,
Can I ask everyone here to remember to show respect to each point of view expressed. Disagree and dispute by all means -but that's a world away from personal hostility.
If members have attempted to settle a debate it's best to make the most of that opportunity to cool off and maybe take a step back before resuming posting.
Issues like this may touch on the deeply held beliefs of individuals reading/posting - I don't believe it is anyone's motive to attack them but perhaps sensibilities can be overlooked in the heat of debate.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 41
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 42
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hi Andrew,
Sorry, I didn't see your post as at the time I was writing my reply to Fascinating's unwillingness to agree to calm things down. It wouldn't have been posted if I'd read your post, and unless severely provoked I won't post anything like that again.
Cheers and apologies,
RF -
Message 43
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Can we all not at least agree that, to the Romans, the Christian's probably did appear to be atheists?
-
Message 44
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Nordmann - reply to your message 36.
Firstly, you are (and so is RF) far more well read than I am on these matters. But what I do find is that, when you consider evidence, you discount what does not suit your views and set great store on the scraps you can find that support your outlook.
Here you launch into a criticism of the idea of growth of the numbers of Christians. I never said that we know the rate of growth of their numbers, only that their numbers did grow, despite thousands being condemned to horrible, and despite what you say about how the Romans regarded the manner of their dying. I accept that the growth may not have been 'steady', it may have been in spurts, with some regression periods.
Do we have to argue round the houses about such a matter? We both accept that, despite vicious penalties (possibly only imposed sporadically) and despite the Romans being unimpressed by the Christians, their numbers grew.
I accept I have a very 'broad-brush' view of history. On the other hand, I think you lose sight of the big picture by scrutiny of minutiae. Eg, your learned rendition of Felix's words and meaning of his 'baby's blood' writings may cause us to lose sight of the all-too-believable facts: a judicial system which used torture as a means of gathering evidence, and the most vicious punishments, is going to stop at nothing in making the most vile accusations against anybody it sees as a legitimate target. Moreover, I would guess, Nordmann, that if you had decided (for whatever reason) that you wanted to believe that this specific accusation was regularly made, you would write something like 'Felix, while using hyperbole, would have to list an accusation that was at least credible to his readers, and it is more than possible, given what is written of actual trials, that such an accusation was often used'. -
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
I note you make the assumption I am a Christian. I am not.
Ìý
Not at all, nor did I mean to imply it. I worried only that you might be rather subjective in your approach to distinguishing fact from alleged fact. Not all of the latter is spurious in itself, but where an agenda has been established, and long since recognised in that light, the facts alleged to correspond with that agenda deserve much more critical scrutiny than normal.
(Yes I know that the writer of the report on this was Eusebius, a Christian, but that does not make him automatically wrong). So Felix's reference to accusations of drinking baby's blood, while he may POSSIBLY have been garnishing the truth a little, was pretty close to the actualite.
Ìý
Well again, I am afraid, you are falling victim to an absence of critical application to the alleged facts. Not only is the "Persecution of Lyons" known to us only through the works of an unashamed apologist for the Christian faith, but it is, according to him, based on the testament of a letter (lost to us) sent by this beleaguered community to fellow Christians in their parent congregation in Phyrgia. Yet the letter, even as he cites it (and Eusebius was no ditherer when it came to beefing up other peoples' alleged testimonies if they were needed to make his case) is littered with inaccuracies, incredibilities and some things that are just impossible (that a Lyons congregation would regard itself as the child of one in Phrygia notwithstanding).
Eusebius (and the letter) mention a specific law against Christians. In fact many people today, on the strength of such propaganda, are convinced that such a thing existed in Roman Law. In the 2nd century no such law existed. Furthermore the account of what allegedly happened has, as one of its dramatic highpoints, the arrival in Lyons of the governor, who instructs that the Christian prisoners be executed in accordance with this (non-existent) law. Yet where is the "delatio nominis"? Without making one the governor himself is liable to be done for treason to the state (according to a law that DID exist!). And why is there no delator? No governor, even prepared to run the risk of official disfavour back home, could have proceeded without one.
The impossibilities mentioned in the letter and Eusebius' account we can ignore or credit to the usual Christian inclination to inflate banality to the point of miracle in order to stress the spirituality or sacredness of their plight. But the departures from a reality that even Eusebius' contemporaries would have known applied are, from an historical viewpoint, more intriguing. That 50 people were the victims of mob-instigated violence in Lyons might well have been true. That they were all Christians might even also be true. But that they were good burghers of Lyons punished for their faith, and that their punishment was condoned and facilitated by the Roman authorities, is out of step with how Christians in other parts of Gaul were being treated. And that the punishment took the form that it does in Eusebius' account - for all its gory salaciousness and capability to invoke shocked outrage and sympathy for the victims, even now - defies not only Roman custom but Roman law. The practise within the provinces was to send Christians to Rome for trial and punishment. No explanation is provided by any 'source' why this did not happen here.
We have however two other sources for life in Lyons at the time. One is via the governor himself, Epagathus, the villain of the piece. He actually went on to petition an early release from the province to resume a military career. The senate investigated his tenure as governor and found nothing untoward, allowing him to resign. Even more tellingly, Iranaeus, the man who was appointed bishop of Lyons immediately after the alleged martyrdom (and even the church histories don't try to hide this rather stupendous and incredulous fact), was a prolific writer whose treatises against Gnosticism are well respected even today. His works are littered with references to the Christian community in Gaul. Guess which martyrdom he somehow fails to mention, even once? -
Message 46
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Do we have to argue round the houses about such a matter? We both accept that, despite vicious penalties (possibly only imposed sporadically) and despite the Romans being unimpressed by the Christians, their numbers grew.
Ìý
Sorry, the debate moved onwards and upwards while I was writing!
We don't have to argue around any houses, but in accepting that Christian populations grew over three hundred years, can we also accept that their (sporadic or otherwise) persecutions in the interim might itself be a matter best not taken at face value? -
Message 47
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Nordmann, I think I can agree with that, but I am wondering what you are implying?
If the endurance of death by the early Christians did not win new converts, then what did? Probably the hope of a nice life ever after, and dread of eternal damnation. But, I ask again, what convinced them to listen to this Christian view of eternity? -
Message 48
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
One accepted view which makes sense to me is that Christianity appealed as a religion to people who were excluded from others, or felt that they were.
It was free to join (and that was by no means true of its competitors). It nominally elevated poor people to high status, at least in the matter of blessedness. At the time it was more conducive to female participation at a high level and as intellectual equals, something almost unique at the time. Also, as opposed to the Roman and Greek religions, which elevated fortune above virtue and in which the gods' own fickleness could undo all that a mortal planned, Christianity had a simple moral contract. Do what you're told according to the rules and, no matter if you haven't a pot to ... well, you get the drift ... you'll get your reward.
A telling fact is that, at the height of proscriptions against Christians, being "thrown to the lions" (whether to the extent advertised or otherwise) came to be regarded as the 'typical' fate of a martyr. Yet that punishment could not be used against a Roman citizen of whatever status. If it was truly a norm, then it indicates that the Christian congregation was overwhemingly in the non- or sub-citizen classes. An estimated 90% of Rome was there with them, so they could - even in Diocletian's day - have quadrupled as a congregation and still not have had a single householder amongst them! If ever a religion could be tailored to appeal to the poorest element then Christianity hit the perfect formula for the job. The real imponderable is how such a philosophy could, in so short a time, have been so totally corrupted into what it is now. That's the historical aspect that fascinates me, fascinating! -
Message 49
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hi Fascinating,
If the endurance of death by the early Christians did not win new converts, then what did? Probably the hope of a nice life ever after, and dread of eternal damnation. But, I ask again, what convinced them to listen to this Christian view of eternity?Ìý
As far as the poor were concerned (and not just the poor), it wasn't so much the hereafter that was of interest, but simply, the church provided for the needs of the present. In some cases, when the money and food ran out, so did the congregation, to follow which ever god (or gods) would provide best for them. I'm not saying that material considerations would have been the only factors in conversion, but in a number of cases they played a massive part.
As far as the aristocracy was concerned, the two traditional routes for ambitious men to follow (the Senate and Military) were of no real benefit anymore. True power lay with the church, and some bishops are said to have had more money than governors. Again, I wouldn't state that these were the only factors in conversion, but incredibly important nevertheless.
Don't assume that it was purely the central ideas of the religion itself that converted people. Self-interest played a huge part..
Cheers,
RF -
Message 50
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
Hi Nordmann,
A telling fact is that, at the height of proscriptions against Christians, being "thrown to the lions" (whether to the extent advertised or otherwise) came to be regarded as the 'typical' fate of a martyr. Yet that punishment could not be used against a Roman citizen of whatever status. If it was truly a norm, then it indicates that the Christian congregation was overwhemingly in the non- or sub-citizen classes. An estimated 90% of Rome was there with them, so they could - even in Diocletian's day - have quadrupled as a congregation and still not have had a single householder amongst them!Ìý
Wouldn't this also in effect rule out a large number of slaves whose masters were Pagan? I think I read somewhere that (at least under one emperor) the master of the house had the right to impose his religious beliefs on his slaves.
Cheers,
RF
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.