Cyprian and Roman Carthage [Illustrated] 0521515475, 9780521515474

Citation preview

CYPRIAN AND ROMAN CARTHAGE

l'hascius Caecilius Cyprianus believed fervently that his conversion experience had been a passage from the darkness o f the world o f Wraeco-Roman paganism to his new vision o f Christianity. But Cvprian’s response as bishop to the Decian persecution was to be informed by the pagan culture that he had rejected so completely. His view o f Church O rder also owed much to Roman jurisprudential principles o f legitim ate authority exercised within a sacred boundary spatially and geographically defined. Given the highly fragmented state o f the non-Christian sources for this period, Cyprian is often the only really contem porary primary source for the events through which he lived. In this book, Allen Brent contributes to our under­ standing both o f Roman history in the m id third century and o f the enduring model o f Church O rder that developed in that period. a l l e n b r e n t is an affiliated lecturer in die Faculty o f Divinity at the University o f Cambridge· He has published many books on the history o f Christianity, most recently A Political History o f Early Christianity (2009).

CYPRIAN AND ROMAN CARTHAGE A LLEN B R E N T

ü

C ambridge UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sio Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.oig Information on düs tide: www.cambridge.01g/9780521515474 © Allen Bient 2010 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any pan may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2010 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A cataloguerecordfor thispublication is availablefrom the British Library LibraryofCongress Cataloguingin Publication data Brent, Allen. Cyprian and Roman Carthage / Alien Brent, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-521-51547-4

i. Cyprian, Saint, Bishop of Carthage. 2. Church history —Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 3. Carthage (Extinct city) - Church history. 4. Church discipline. 5. Church polity. I. Title. BRI72O.C8B74 2010 270.1092 -dc22 2010029484 ISBN 978-0-521-51547-4 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Caroline Penrose Bammel, FBA, in piam m em oriam

Contents

page viii xi

U st o f plates Preface List o f abbreviations

m»

XU

1

Introduction 1 Cyprians life and controversies

2

2 Cyprian’s background in Roman Carthage

*3

3 Historiography in the age of Decius

7*

4 Decius’ religious policy and political rhetoric

117

5 The Decian persecution

193

6 The Church of the Martyrs

250

7 Stephen’s challenge to the sacramentum unitam

290

8 A final postscript: Cyprian’s legacy

328

Works cited Indices

330 343

··

vu

Plates

2.1 Ara Pacis Augustae: Carthage, Pax relief. © Slide Collection, Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge. 2.2 Ara Pacis Augustae: Rome, Pax relief, phot. Allen Brent. 2.3 Altar of the gens Augusta: Hedulus, veiled, in procession, Poinssot, LAutel de la Gens Augusta ä Carthage (Notes et documents: Direction des antiques et arts 10; Protectorat frantais, Gouvernement tunisien; Paris: Vuibert 1929), Plate

pageyi 33

36

II.

2.4 Altar of the gens Augusta: Apollo with the tripod and Aeneas panel, Poinssot, LAutel de la Gens Augusta ä Carthage (Notes et documents: Direction des antiquit6s et arts 10; Protectorat fran^ais, Gouvernement tunisien; Paris: Vuibert 1929), Plate VI.

37

2.5 Altar of the gens Augusta: Roma Panel - General view, Poinssot, LAutel de la Gens Augusta ä Carthage (Notes et documents: Direction des antiquitas et arts 10; Protectorat han^ais, Gouvernement tunisien; Paris: Vuibert 1929), Plate 1. 1.6 Altar of the gens Augusta: Aeneas and Roma panels, Poinssot, LAutel de la Gens Augusta ä Carthage (Notes et documents: Direction des antiquitas et arts 10; Protectorat franfais, Gouvernement tunisien; Paris: Vuibert 1929), Plate iv. 2.7 Aeneas with Anchises and Ascanius and the holm oak, Poinssot, LAutel de la Gens Augusta ά Carthage (Notes et documents: Direction des antiquitas et arts «9·

VIII

38

39

List o f plates io; Protectorat fran^ais, Gouvernement tunisien; Paris: Vuibert 1929), Plate ix. 2.8 Altar o f the gens Augusta: Roma panel - close-up of serpents, Poinssot, L A utel de la Gens Augusta ä Carthage (Notes et documents: Direction des antiquit6s et arts 10; Protectorat ftanfais, Gouvernement tunisien; Paris: Vuibert 1929), Plate xi (a). 4.1 Philip I; proclamation o f new age: SAECVLVM NOVVM, Roma in hexastyle temple, RIC iv.3, p. 71 nos. 24 (a) and 25 (b). © The Trustees o f the British Museum. : L. IVL(ius) AVR(elius) SVLP(icius) VRA(nius) ANTONINVS; SAECVLARES AVGG, with column for his first consulship, RIC iv.3, p. 205 no. 7*. © The Trustees o f the British Museum. i Philip I; millennial games: SAECVLARES AVGG, she-wolf and Romulus and Remus, RIC iv.3, p. 70 no. 15 (b) and 12* (b). © The Trustees o f the British Museum. 4.4 Philip I; millennial games: SAECVLARES AVGG, lion walking, RIC iv.3, p. 70 no. 12* (a) and (b). © The Trustees of the British Museum. 4.5 Pacatianus (ad 248); millennial games: Romae Aetemae anno mille et primo, RIC iv.3, p. 105 no. 6*. ©Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.wildwinds.com/coins 4.6 Valerian; RESTITVTOR ORBIS, RIC v.i, p. 47 no. 119. © The Trustees o f the British Museum. 4.7 Decius’ diui series: DIVO AVGVSTO; CONSECRATIO, RIC iv.3, p. 130 no. 77. 5.1 Christ-Apollo, Vatican necropolis, tomb of the Julii, Mausoleum M. Photo by kind permission of Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano. 5.2 The Morning Star (Lucifer), Vatican Necropolis, Mausoleum u. Photo by kind permission of Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano. 5.3 The Fisherman, Vatican necropolis, tomb of the Julii, Mausoleum m . Photo by kind permission of Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano.

ix 39

42

154

154

159

159

ifio 167 171

230

231

232

List o f plates 5.4 Jonah, Vatican necropolis, tomb o f the Julii, Mausoleum m . Photo by kind permission o f Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano. 6.i Cemetery of St Callistus: tombs o f the popes, PCAS CAL 22. ©Photo Pont. Comm. Arch. Sacra. 6.2 Crypt of Lucina: tomb of Cornelius, PCAS CAL C 42. ©Photo Pont. Comm. Arch. Sacra. 6.3 Epitaph of Pope Fabian: OABIANOC ΕΠI(σκοποί) Μ(ά)Ρ(τυ$), ICUR rv. 10694. ©Photo Pont. Comm. AnJi. Sacra. 6..t Epi: vh: CORNT.LIVS MARTYREP(iscopus), • 327. ©Photo Pont. Comm. Arch. Sacra. • Cyprian, PCAS CAL C 49. ©Photo V»ch. Sacra.

. · v -pr Kus, PCAS CAL C 50. ©Photo ·

Sacra.

Preface

This book is the latest outcome o f my research programme ‘Continuity ind Change in the Transformation of Pagan, Classical Culture’, begun with research grants from the British Academy (1996-7) and the Leverhulme Trust (1998-2000) that have funded a number of periods at the British School at Rome. Since my retirement in 2002 1 have been a member f, and more recendy an Affiliated Lecturer in, the Faculty o f Divinity, \ deceptively. The judge? But he passes sentence for money. He who takes his λ for the purpose of punishing crimes allows them. In order that the innocent - ndant might be ruined, the judge makes himselfthe guilty party... One judge idulendy replaces a will; another draws up a false document for criminal fraud. • the one hand children are summoned to court for their inheritances, on the r hand strangers are granted their property... There is no fear of the law, •nxiety about the judges office or that of the president of the court.. .The ates have come to allow crimes, and what is generally done begins to become ■P

r.c bronze tablets proclaiming justice no doubt stood at the entrance • I this basilica. But Cyprian had clearly witnessed there the bribery of judges, and the neglect by patrons of die causes of their clients that it was their proper social role to defend, in terms of die patronage system. Rut with what moral justification did the lictors, attending the proconsul, carry thefasces securesque that were the symbols of the authority to execute capital and corporal punishment? Those badges of office were now marks of injustice: ‘those things that you think to be honours, the rods of magisterial office (fasces), the extravagance in being rich, the power that lies in a military command, the purple that reflects the magistrates* splendour, the Cyprian, Epistulae 17.2.1.29-31.

71 Cyprian, Ad Donatum 10.203-17.

Cyprian's background in Roman Carthage power that resides in the unrestricted freedom of being in government. Nevertheless the poison of wickedness that charms you is a concealed poison.7* Clearly Cyprian has no argument with the moral basis of the laws of the Twelve Tablets on which the Roman constitution is founded. Cyprian's argument is with a society and a generation that has fallen short of the ideals set out there. In this respect he differs from Augustine when the latter writes the De duitate Dei and claims that the Roman Empire never was a true state, and therefore never was founded on justice.71*73 Cyprian may speak of apostates ‘returning from the Devil’s altars'74 and of the sacrilegious sacrifices of pagan religion. He may also refer to submission to Decius' ‘death bringing... and sacrilegious edicts’ as worshipping ‘the image of the beast',73 and to compliance ‘with Decius’ edict’ as submission ‘to the Lord of this age'.76 But he never speaks of leges diaboli as he does of the arae diaboli. We shall see in the next chapter how Cyprian shares a common perspective with a pagan such as Demetrian in terms of Stoic natural law.77 The law of society, reflecting the law of nature, was an expression of right reason as the universal divine spirit permeating all things and impos­ ing its moral order in both nature and society. Cyprian, along with his contemporaries, understood both the natural and the social calamities of the third century in terms of a decline in die metaphysical fabric of things that needed to return to its original primal and perfect state. The lack of respect for law in bribery and corruption and fraud was a reflection of that metaphysical decline. We find, therefore, that Cyprian’s physical encounter with the material fabric of Roman civilization was intertwined with the contemporary discourse in law and ethics that gave meaning to those arte­ facts in the total context of that civilization, in which both Cyprian the pagan and Cyprian the Christian shared. That encounter with the material fabric of Roman Carthage and its sustaining ideology was to continue to the end of his life in martyrdom. Cyprian finally was confronted with the familiar scenes of the Forum and its judicial basilica, in which his perspective, whether pagan or Christian, had been fundamentally formed. It was in the Forum at Carthage itself that Cyprian was condemned, under Valerian s legislation, first to exile and then to death. As we also saw in our previous chapter, it was here that the 71 Cyprian, Ad Donatum 10.224-7. 7} Augustine, De atritate Dei 19.11. 74 Cyprian, De lapsis 15.297-8, see also 8.164 (diaboli abort). 7* Cyprian, Ad Fortunatum 12.58-9. 76 Cyprian, De lapsis 27.531-2. 77 Chapter j, sections c.1-2.

Thefoundation o f Roman Carthage

51

proconsul Aspasius Patemus, ‘in his council chamber {in secretario) within the basilica that housed the lawcourts, read out the decree of Valerian and his son Gallienus on 30 August 257/* and ordered Cyprian to be exiled to Cumbis.79 In our first chapter, we mentioned the vision of his martyrdom that Cyprian recorded at Curubis to Pontius. In that vision, the new procon­ sul, Galerius Maximus, who had replaced the deceased Patemus, tried Cyprian in the praetorium off the Forum where the former ‘was seated at his tribunal’.80 As we shall see later (section c), the chair {sella curulis) on which the proconsul sat was the possession of those bearing supreme constitutional authority (imperium), and an icon whose associations and assumptions were to be significant for Cyprian’s own understanding of ecclesiastical authority. When finally he appeared at the praetorium, the judicial basilica whose remains have been excavated at Carthage, on the morning of 14 September a d 258, the proconsul did in fact sit on his sella curulis in the Sauciolum forecourt {in atrio Sauciolo) of his basilica.8* As Cyprian processed forth to his place of execution, as when he had entered before sentencing, he passed the temple of the gens Augusta that stood next to the basilica, which we have argued itself to be a significant pan of the social construction of reality of imperial Carthage.81 The praetorium in which these events took place, and whose material fabric defined their public and institutional significance, had been located in the Forum that stood almost at the centre of a grid-work street plan. I he streets contained insulae (or housing blocks) of uniform size. The two uin streets crossed one another at the point where the Forum was located, here the decumanus maximus ran from the NW to the NE, and the cardo i.ximus from the SW to the SE. The residence of the chief of police was situated between die Venetian (i Salutarian gates of the city itself.83 Following his previous appearance ihe praetorium the day before on the way to the house of the chief of lice Cyprian had passed Carthage’s circus or racetrack (stadiumJ.84 Thus For the precise wording of the edict and its implications see below, Chapter 4. Actaproconsularia 2.1. *° Pondus, Vita 11.3. ®' Actaproconsularia ).z. Rives, Religion and Carthage, Map 1: Antonine Plan of Carthage, p. xiv. See also above, section B.3. Acta proconsularia 2.5. Corippus, De bellis Libycis 6.60 describe nine gates at the time of the governorship ofJohn Troglitas (ad 546-63) but only one gate has been excavated, the Bab d Rih. Sec H. R. Hurst and S. R Roskams, Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission t.t. The Avenue du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo: The Site and Finds Other than Pottery (Institut National d'Archtelogie et d’Art de Tunisic and British AcademyCarthage Committee; Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology 1984), p. 37. 114 Pontius, Vita 16,4,

Cyprian's background in Roman Carthage we come to the amphitheatre and to the theatre, both o f which were also reflected in Cyprian s comments on the life o f pagan Carthage. E j.j The amphitheatre and the theatre (odeon) The circus stood in the SW comer o f the city, some three blocks from the cardo maximus, and at the NW comer, one block from the decumanus, stood the amphitheatre. It was in these two places that Cyprian describes the crowd crying for him to be thrown to the lions during sacrifices that had been ordered by public edict in order to avert the plague that had broken out in 251. Referring to himself in the third person, Cyprian had spoken of a bishop... calmly serving moral order (disciplina), outlawed while the gale of persecution raged, with the name of his bishops office (episcopatus) inserted and attached on the list, so often they demanded him for die lion in the circus, in the amphitheatre honouring him by his witness to the Lord who deigned him worthy... the outcry of the mob condnually demanded him to be thrown to the lions in the circus on account of the sacrifices that the people are under orders to offer by the edict that was posted up.85 It was in the same amphitheatre that Perpetua, Felicitas, and their compan­ ions had suffered martyrdom, and had pleaded not to be dressed if male as priests of Saturn, and if female as priestesses o f Ceres, Saturn's daughter and com goddess.86 The execution of condemned criminals in the arena was clearly viewed in pagan culture in terms o f the myth o f Satum, who devoured his own children, and thus made part o f the celebration of its religious cults. Cyprian, however, as a notable Roman citizen was beheaded in the grounds of the villa o f Sextus, as we saw in the last chapter.87 To the NE of the city, about three blocks from the cardo maximus, stood the theatre and odeon.88 Here was the place condemned by Cyprian for its promulgation of pagan values through the enactment o f its pagan mythology. He begins with an attack on art as producing corrupting images of the truth that is not new, but was begun by Plato.89 As Cyprian says: Theatre scenes, for example,.. .should cause you distress and shame... It is fright­ ening how tragic plays90 relive ancient outrages in their verse on the subject of 85 Cyprian, Epistulae 59.6.1, on the occasion for which see Clarke, Letters in, p. 246. 86 Passio Perpetuae i.z.18. *7 Chapter 1, section E.2. ** K. E. Ros, ‘The Roman Theater at Carthage’, AmericanJournalo fArcheology 100.3 (1996). pp. 44989. ** Plato, RespubUca 10. 90 Cothurnus est tragicus. Cothurnus literally is the high boot worn by an actor in a tragedy as opposed to the soccus worn by the comic actor, extended to refer to the tragic play itself, cf. Juvenal. Saarn 15.28.

Thefoundation o f Roman Carthage

53

family murders and in acts of incest the ancient horror is replayed by the portrayal of an image of the truth. Then there is the pleasure in the teaching of vile prac­ tices in these mimic productions.. . . You learn to commit adultery while you are looking at it... the matron {matrona), who perhaps had gone to the play chaste (pudica), returns from the play unchaste.9' The excavations of the theatre at Carthage have brought to light the remains of a statue (from the Antonine period) of Pudicitia on which Cyprian s pudica matrona may have modelled herself. Holding pomegranates and ears of wheat she may be identified with a priestess of Ceres.91 Cyprian wishes to highlight what he sees as the hypocrisy of those who gather in the presence of iconography expressing such values to see performances that degrade them. But it is significant that, at the early period immediately following his conversion when he writes to Donatus, he does not give any justification for his moral censorship in terms of divine revelation, such as the prophetic condemnation of sexual immorality. Rather his moral condemnation is in terms of an implied Stoic view of natural law: Next, as a result, what moral collapse (morum labes) ... The suggestive movements of the actor cause defilement. You are gazing at, contrary to the covenant and law ofones birth (foedus iusque nascendi,), lustful submission in process of elaboration, to an unchaste, vile practice... An actor pleases his audience there the more, when he diminishes his masculinity by behaving in a feminine fashion. . . 9} Such effeminate movement and gestures are contrary to the covenant and law of ones birth (foedus iusque nascendi). We shall see in the next chapter how the concepts offoedus and ius refer ion o f th e u n ity o f a u n iv e rs a l R o m a n E m p ire .170 ^ t ha" been a fu n d a m e n ta l p a r t o f o u r a rg u m e n t th a t th e age o f C y prian :> reflected s u c h a n e sc h a to lo g ic a l c o n te x t (C h a p te r 3, sectio n Λ.2).

and VCearc

v seein g , fro m th e e p ig ra p h y a n d co in a g e o f b o th G o rd ian 1Π

and Pl>' rule, i' have! Urani·it wen deveK discou

1, th a t th e sa m e e sc h a to lo g ic a l im ag ery , leg itim atin g im perial rearin g in th e p o litic s o f th e c risis o f th e m id th ird century. W e ihese th e m e s c o n tin u e d a fte r D e c iu s b o th by V alerian a n d by to n in u s. T h u s w e sh a ll sh o w th a t D e c iu s d o es n o t in h a b it, as isolated is la n d in th e m id s t o f th e c u rre n ts o f a th ird -c en tu ry ; o f p o litic a l th e o lo g y , a n d in su la te d fro m w h o le areas o f th e his im m e d ia te p re d e c e sso rs a n d successors, as R ives im plies.171

RjVl

m p la in t a b o u t th e la c k o f e v id en ce th a t D eciu s u n d ersto o d

the sig. hcarian

will th u s p ro v e h ig h ly u n fo rtu n a te .172 O u r a rg u m e n t is th a t, i f

the frag

ntary e v id e n ce o n ly re c o rd s th e u se o f so m e o f th e co n cep ts b y

some of

5nee o f th e m ille n n ia l g a m e s c la im e d b o th b y P h ilip

the

1 and

claim an ts a n d n o t o th e rs , th o se th a t a te u sed , because th e ir

logic forms p a n o f th e lo g ic o f a la n g u a g e g am e th a t th ey share, im p ly those that are u n u sed . D e c iu s, w e sh a ll a rg u e , w as v ery m u ch ‘o n message* with his co n tem p o rary riv al c la im a n ts to p o litic a l pow er. For the m o m en t le t u s n o te th a t Q u in tu s D eciu s V alerianus, sh o rd y as emperor to tak e th e a d d itio n a l n a m e o f T rajan , cru sh ed Pacatianus and. on 28 M ay 2 4 9 , th e le g io n s h a d p ro cla im e d h im em peror. C o n ­ sequently he d efeated P h ilip I, o n w h o se o rd ers h e h a d originally marched, near V ero n a.173 J o ta p ia n u s m e t h is e n d a t th e h an d s o f h is ow n soldiers. We leave aside fo r th e m o m e n t D ecius* relig io u s pro g ram m e a n d its ideology, w hich w e sh all n e e d to d isc u ss in g re a te r d e ta il, w ith in th e co n tex t that we are d raw in g fo r h is p red e ce sso rs a n d successors, a n d w ith in w hich his own claim s are to b e u n d e rs to o d (c .2 ). Let us therefore p u rsu e n e x t th e e sch ato lo g ical claim s o f D ecius’ im m e­ diate successors, in o rd e r to re c o n s tru c t th e rh eto rical co n tex t in w hich that program m e is to b e p la c e d , a n d w ith w h ich w e shall argue a logical consistency.

n Brent, Imperial Cuu, pp. 310-28. n River, ‘Decree of Decius’, p. 148.

m Rim. ‘Decree of Deciu$\ pp. Ki-2. r * Potter, Prophecy and History, pp. 40-1.

i6 i

Decius *religious policy a n d political rhetoric

C.1.4 The post-Decian eschatology ofU ranius A ntoninus and Valerian Following Decius1 death at the hands o f the G oths at Abrittus in June 25! his surviving second son, H ostilian, was n o t to succeed him: Trebonius Gal­ lus was instead proclaimed em peror by the legions. H e adopted Hostilianus as Caesar, a tide that he gave to his own son, Volusianus, too. Hostilianus died in the plague in 251. Gallus and Volusianus reigned only until 253. It was in that year that P. Licinius Valerianus was proclaim ed emperor on the Rhine. T he third contender for the purple from this period, Uranius Antoninus ( a d 248-54), was to survive Decius, only finally to be put down by Valerian when he marched East and recovered Syria in 254.174 Both Trebonianus Gallus and the contender Uranius Antoninus, and their final successor. Valerian, were to continue to claim legitimacy in terms o f the rhetoric o f a political eschatology th at they combined with the cultic significance o f the em peror in the context o f that ideology. The common third-century themes to which both D io and Herodian bear witness were continued, in which the figure o f the em peror was seen to have a central, cultic, role, as augur and pontifex maximust o f setting right the metaphysical order in its last age o f decline before renewal, as restitutor or σω τήρ. But it had its roots in the original, Augustan, project of the princeps a diis electus as the sign and seal o f the saeculum aureum.175 But clearly the expectations and claims o f the Philippi have developed further this theme, and made the expectation o f the renewal more imme­ diate, and its fulfilment more specific. T he celebratory games o f the 1,000year-old history o f Rome are to m ark the beginning o f a saeculum nouum, in which the metaphysical order is set right by the em peror as restitutor. the fulfilment was pressing and immediate. T he tide restitutor orbis unites the coinage o f Valerian with the epig­ raphy o f Gordian 111 and Philip 1, and w ith their general imperial pro­ gramme o f the renewal o f the saeculum experiencing its final senectus,176 Valerian is hailed, in a marble fragm ent found at Rome in the Forum of Clodius, as ‘blessed unconquered Augustus {felici inuicto Augusto), pontifex m axim us. . . restorer o f public security and liberty {restitutori publicae saecuritatis ac libertatis)*.177 But on the coinage we have the by now usual 174 CAH xn, pp. 165-9. 175 J. R. Fears, Princeps a Diis Electus: The Divine Ejection o f the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome (Papers of the American Academy at Rome 26; Rome: 1977). 176 For a further discussion and bibliography regarding these references and those of the last two notes see G. Alfbldy, ‘Dic Krise des Imperium Romanum und die Religion Roms' (= Alföldy. Ausgewählte Beiträge, pp. 349- 87). PP· 35*-9 · 177 OL M.3310: FEUCI INVICTO AVG PONTIFICI MAXIMO... RESTTTVTOR1 PVBUCE SAECVRITATIS.

P olitical rhetoric a n d pagan eschatology

16}

eschatological reference to restitutor orbis.178 T hus both the claim ant Uranius Antoninus, and Trebonius an d Valerian, were to continue the ideology of the saeculum nouum . Let us now see the details o f these claim s and the presuppositions with which they are made. C14.1 Uranius A ntoninus a n d eschatologicalprophecy We find on coins o f Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian the legend SAECVLVM N O W M along w ith the m ore customary ROMAE ALTERNAE and PAX A ETER N A .179 Iulius Aurelius Sulpicius Uranius Antoninus, before his defeat by Valerian in 254, portrays an eschatolog­ ical ideology too th at is clearly continuous w ith that o f Philip 1 and his successors. He too lays claim to the SAECVLARES AVGG (Plate 4.2).180 We have, furtherm ore, since the beginning o f 1970, a new hoard o f ‘reformed’ Syrian tetradrachm as o f U ranius A ntoninus.181 His coins here continue the themes o f F ortuna Redux, w ith a star on her right arm and a cornucopia on her left, seated on a throne.182 T his eschatological theme is associated with com bined Rom an and Syrian deities. Thus we have images on the reverse o f coins depicting Tyche Atargatis also, like Fortuna Redux, with a star on the right and a cornucopia on her left, or Minerva-Allath on a throne with lance and shield in her right and left hands respectively, and wearing a Macedonian helm et.183 We have also depictions o f Sol-EJagab ndiate, with a crescent and two small horns.184 This iconography is also significant in view o f the fact that Uranius attempted to revive Elagabalus* cult o f the sun god o f Syrian Emessa, where he based the centre o f his abortive empire. We have the legend SOL ELAGABALVS on one coin, which d e p ic t in altar with a jug below, parasols on the right and left, and on the i; t a:· eagle on a sacred stone.118517 171 RICV.I, p. 42 no. 50; p. 47 nos. 116-9; p. 50 no. 14··; 179 RICiv.3, p. 169 nos. 90-1, cf. no. 89, and p. 166 n. . ·i, ;r p. 91 no. 296.

·:*τιj-iss— 7· ^ ORBIS ■«na i2,

Political rhetoric a n d pagan eschatology

\(η

Plate 4.6 Valerian; RESTITVTOR ORBIS unconquered Sun* (SOLI IN V IC T O ),201 and also ‘to the com panion o f the Sun’ (SOU C M T IA V G ), w ith Pegasus galloping.202 There is, however, w ith Valerian, a new elem ent introduced into the discourse o f political legitim ation th at adds the em perors divinity to the political eschatology. In pursuance o f w hat we shall see to be a Decian theme, we have a consecratio legend com m em orating the ceremony o f the divinization o f an em peror after he has died, w ith an eagle depicted bearing the emperor’s genius to heaven.203 Valerian II was to have coins bearing the legend CONSECRATIO, w ith the obverse showing his dead father bare­ headed, and him self draped w ith the legend there DIVO VALERIANO CAES.204 Valerian, in a d 256, has coins inscribed CONSECRATIO in celebration o f the divinization o f his second wife, Mariniana: DIVAE MARINIANAE.205 These have various depictions o f the peacock as a symbol of immortality. Furthermore, during Gallienus’ later, sole, reign, we have DEO AVGVSTO206 for the em peror himself, and for his son, Aurelian, we have on the obverse o f a coin ‘to the em peror god and lord Aurelian Augustus* (IMP DEO ET D O M IN O AVRELIANO AVG), and ‘to Aurelian having been bom god and lord’ (D E O ET D O M IN O NATO AVRELIANO AVG).207 At this point, clearly, there is no longer a distinction between the word for ‘god’ (deus), and th at for a divine or divinized person, a diuus. But along with this increased emphasis on the divinity o f the emperor went

” Ä/Cv.i, p. 140 no. «9, p. 156 no. 286, p. 185 no. An. p t8A no. A20. cf. p. 187 no. 640 1NV1CTV5 with Sol running left holding a whip, or INVICTO ji IN’VK'TVS AVG with the same decoration, p. 189 no. 658. “ RICv.i, p. 182 no. 583. RICv.i, p. 38 no. 4 “* RICv.i, pp. 116-17 nos. 7-10. Cf. also pp. 118-19 no». 24-8 and «, p. 120 no. 35, p. 121 nos. 41-3. p. 160 no. 337; Band, Bronzi imperiali t. p. 293 nos. 1- 4. Band, Bronzi imperiali 1, p. 220 nos. 1-5. 106 RICv 1. p 1u no. 18. 107 RICv.i, p. 299 nos. 305 and 306.

168

Decius* religious policy a n d political rhetoric

a continuation o f the eschatological them es o f restitutor orbis, which ^ coins just m entioned bear on their reverse along with others.208 Thus the pagan eschatological them es occur in the coinage of Dccj^ predecessors and successors and in epigraphical remains. There are, in adjj. tion, two literary sources illustrating those themes, one the panegyric of Philip I and the other Oracula SibyUina 13 in its reference to Uranius Antoo. inus. The difference between these two groups is the theme of cornea^ and therefore o f the em peror s divinity. As the origin of this difference is dearly Decius’ reign w ith its ideology, which dearly has left its on this critical difference, it is to this reign that we must now tumour attention. W hen Valerian and his successors added this particular feature to the rhetoric o f political legitim ation, they were developing further the theme of a series o f coins that had been issued by Decius, to the detailsand significance o f which we m ust now turn.

C.2 Decius*political rhetoric

1have chosen to consider the ideology o f D edus’ successors as well ashis predecessors before considering Decius him self for a reason, namely the sceptidsm o f Rives regarding our ability to recover Dedus’ motives for his religious policy in view o f the paudty o f sources. Both Herodiao and Cassius Dio end their accounts before his reign, and the MS transmissionof the text o f the dubious Scriptores Historiae Augustae has left us with a gap between Maximus (Pupienus) and Balbinus, who attempted to succeed the three Gordians, and Valerian. Dio ended his work with his second consulship (ad 229), and Herodian, in a d 238, with his account of the succession o f Gordian 111. In order to interpret Decius' intentions it may therefore be thought that we are simply thrown back on the iconography of the coinage, some incondusive monum ents, and the general character of a sacrifice on the accession o f an emperor known as . applicatio. But Dedus’ evidence, though fragmentary, nevertheless, 1maintain, does allow us to construct his real intentions. The iconogrup!’. and inscriptions that have survived yield concepts that are intelligible . . the context ofa language game whose logic can be observed from th >.av in which his contemporary rivals were also playing that game w h ncir iconography and inscriptions too. Such iconographical and epign< material should not be understood apart from each other, and each > .in isolated and particular meaning in the particular mind* o f theii deal possessor **· RICv.i, pp. Z97-9 nos. 287-306.

Political rhetoric and pagan eschatology

^ surviving lite ra ry

169

a n d n o n -lite ra ry e v id e n c e re g a rd in g th e G o rd ia n s,

* ... jt Pacatianus, U ranius A ntoninus, and Valerian forms a pattern / «mine that underlies a shared discourse in which they as individuals 0* Spared: we see a clearly constructed and developing agenda o f political Intimation to which Valerian, moved by its logic, succeeded. Αρ*κ fr°m die coinage, artefacts indicative o f Decius* religious policy (tmain are unfortunately sparse. We have an inscription unearthed (in (953) in the course o f Am erican excavations at Cosa in southern Etruria pear Rome. Babcock deciphered this inscription from the base o f a statue had been cut off and reused in order to construct a narrow platform built along the back wall o f a cella o f a pagan temple on the north-eastern jidc of the Forum o f this tow n.209 T he name o f the imperator to whom the ^tue is dedicated has been obliterated, but Babcock restored it as that o f Gaius Messius Q uintus Traianus. One of this imperators other tides, com m only shared with most emper­ ors, is that o f pontifex maximus, high priest o f the state religion and thus o f the acts of augury byw hich the paxdeorum vm to be secured. Furthermore, the statue was originally 'dedicated to his divine numen and his majesty' [dicata numini maiestatique eius). N um en is an epithet also already used in the Severan eta, and com m on throughout the third century. Restitutor is a typical tide, as we have seen, used by Decius' contemporary rivals, and the addiuon of Ubertatis is also a feature shared with many o f the soldier emperors. But in this case we have the unique epithet restitutor sacrorum et libertatis.“ ° Thus we have w hat I have described as the language game o f political legitimacy being played o u t between Decius and his rivals. He will use some of the concepts and their logic already used in the 'game', but will develop new applicadons and new usages. Here the restitutor is to be 'o f sacred rites’ {sacrorum). But in view o f what and to what purpose? The context, as we have argued, is eschatological, and Decius’ intentions must be discerned against that third-century backcloth unfolded in Chapter 3. Rives doubts the possibility that Decius, by his edict, could have had 'in mind’ the celebration o f Rome’s first millennium, and the nouum saeculum being inaugurated, as had Philip I and Pacatianus. 'There is not’, he claims, ‘the slightest scrap o f evidence to suggest that interest in Rome’s millennium carried over into his reign.’211 But the fragmentary evidence for the reign o f Decius, expressing thus a fraction o f the discourse that “’ C.L Babcock, ‘An Inscription of Trajan Decius from Cosa’. American journal of Phitolan 81 (1961), pp. 147-58.

* Babcock, ‘Inscription', p. 153.

ω Rives. ‘Decree of Decius’ p. 148.

170

Decius ’ religious policy an d p o litica l rhetoric

he used« does contain appeals to the nouum saeculum o f the restitute sacrorum, as well as pax Augusti. Each o f these term s and others will exhibit his playing o f a language gam e, whose logic portrayed the intention of Philip 1and Pacatianus in those celebrations, and were evocative o f simile images. D ecius' participation in th at language game will thus reveal a program me with sim ilar intentions as theirs, and was expressed within die same conceptual pattem . C .2.I The ideology o f rise coinage Decius issued an edict for sacrifices to the gods o f the Roman state, and also issued a series o f coins celebrating the dead and deified emperors that were his predecessors, with the exception o f those who had suffered a damnatio memoriae. But were those coins, issued probably from the m int of Milan,Ui o f particular significance for D ecius' religious policy, or were they minted in such a western m ilitary outpost to emphasize the soldiers oath to the emperor? I make no claim to be able to interpret the inner m ind' o f Decius, who has left us no personal literary reflections on the events o f his time. The ‘m ind’ o f Decius, like any other individual m ind, is hardly accessible in any case to anyone in any straightforward way. But in examining the iconog­ raphy o f his predecessors and his successors, I have sought to bring out the interpersonal, conceptual backcloth to the discourse exhibited by him and his contemporaries. We cannot, therefore, interpret his behaviour in the light o f an alleged political ‘realism' based upon our post-Enlightenmcnt assessment o f the ‘mechanism’ o f politics and the ‘levers’ o f power that he m ight possess beyond ‘hypocritical spin', o r o f his materialist drives whose m otivation was ultimately economic. T he context in which his acts had meaning both for him and for his contemporaries, as with both his pre­ decessors and successors, was in a pagan and popularly Stoic eschatology about the decline o f the golden age into iron that necessitated a restitu­ tor orbis or σ ω τήρ τη ς οίκουμένης, who would be the agenr of Fortuna Redux. Thus a saeculum nouum would be bom along with i paxaetema. Public sacrifices and other festivities would m ark this event such as had been the case in the millennial games (SAECVLARES AVG< · *>f Philip I and Pacatianus. The restitutor orbis would be a new Sun god (νεόςΉ λιος). 1' -zing back the kingdom o f Saturn, as predicted in the first edition o f Or«· Sibyllina 13, written in the apocalyptic genre o f a prophecy from the π which “ As argued by Mactinglcy in RIC tv.3, pp. 107-S.

P o litic a l rh eto ric a n d p a g a n eschatology

171

Plate 4.7 Decius* d iu i senes: DIVO AVGVSTO; CONSECRATIO the ch ao s a n d d e c l in e o f t h e p r e s e n t w o u l d b e tr a n s f o r m e d i n t h e fe lic ity

of a c o m in g r e ig n . C l e a r l y w e h a v e r e f le c te d i n t h i s o r a c le t h e S o l o f th e coinage o f U r a n iu s ( P l a t e 4 .2 ) , w h i c h b l e n d s w i t h t h e im p e r ia l d is c o u r s e of th e saeculares a u g u sti t h a t h i s c o i n s s h a r e w i t h th o s e o f P h ilip I . C le a r ly it was th e r o le o f U r a n i u s a s t h e p r i e s t t o o r d e r ‘t h e w o r ld w i t h o u t o r d e r . D eciu s T r a ja n w a s t o p e r p e t u a t e t h i s p a g a n m il le n n ia lis t e x p e c ta tio n . H is own v e rsio n w a s t o s e e t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e saeculum nouum* n o t in h is own in d iv id u a l p e r s o n , b u t i n t h e p e r s o n s o f t h e d e a d a n d d e if ie d e m p e r o r s of th e im p e ria l c u l t . T h u s h e i s s u e d im a g e s o f t h e d iv in e e m p e r o r s (d iu i) t h a t were o n th e f a m o u s s e r ie s o f c o i n s f r o m t h e m i n t o f A n t i o c h . T ib e r iu s , N e r o , D o m itian , a n d E la g a b a lu s a r e o m i t t e d , h a v in g b e e n g e n e r a lly c o n s id e r e d bad e m p e ro rs .213 E la g a b a lu s , f u r t h e r m o r e , w a s t h e r o le m o d e l a n d p u ta tiv e ancestor o f h is S y r ia n r iv a l, U r a n i u s A n t o n i n u s . O n t h e re v e rs e o f e a c h coin, th e re is a n a l t a r w i t h a n e a g le t h a t is t h e c h a r a c te r is tic s ig n o f th e d iv in izatio n o f t h e d e a d e m p e r o r o n h i s f u n e r a l b ie r . E a c h o f th e s e im a g e s in d u d es th e d e s c r ip tiv e w o r d , C O N S E C R A T I O , w h ic h is th e L a tin w o r d for ‘d e ific a tio n * . T h e s e r ie s e n d s w i t h S e v e r u s A le x a n d e r, a n d th u s a g re e s w ith H e r o d ia n , w h o s a w t h e ‘tr a n s f o r m a tio n * ( μ ε τ α β ο λ ή ) o f t h e E m p ir e a s starting w ith t h e u s u r p a t i o n o f M a x i m i n u s r a t h e r t h a n a f te r C o m m o d u s , as C assius D io h a d c la im e d . W e m u s t e m p h a s iz e t h a t D e c i u s , i n is s u in g t h e d iu i s e rie s o f c o in s , w a s in te n d in g m o r e t h a n a v a g u e d e f e r e n c e t o p a s t g o o d ’ e m p e r o r s . F u rth e r* m ore, h is t id e o f re stitu to r sacrorum w a s a ls o m a k in g a d e f in ite e s c h a to lo g ic a l dflim- I t is n o t s i m p ly t h a t h e o m i t t e d t h o s e e m p e r o r s w h o h a d s u ffe re d

damnatio m em oriae s u c h a s N e r o , D o m i t i a n , a n d E la g a b a lu s . A s P o tte r h a s p o in ted o u t, D e c iu s w a s r e w r i t i n g t h e p;n«: in th e is s u e o f t h e d iu i b u t w ith a for m o re i m m e d ia te p u r p o s e . N o t 0 1 Ψ r j C l a u d i u s a n d P e r tin a x o m it* ted, b u t so a ls o a r e t h e t h r e e G o r d i a n s am .’ P h i l i p

RIC iv.3, pp. 130-2 nos. 77—99·

1.

D e c iu s is c la im in g b y

172

Decius ’religious policy and political rhetoric

this list legitimacy that he is seeking to deny to his immediate predecessor, and rivals.214 Additionally his coins celebrate the PAX AVGVSTI,215 the VIRTVj AVGVST1,2*6 FELICITAS SAECVLI,2'7 as well as SAECVLV^ N O W M .ui We have also a rem inted coin o f Philip II, young son of Philip I, with the name o f his own elder son and heir on the obverse si^ Herennius Etruscus, who died w ith him in batde in 251. Accompanying Philip Is image we have SECVLARES AVGG.“ 9 Decius thus appropriates and uses generally the political discourse that he shares with his rivals, but develops that discourse in his own unique way. The sign and seal of the return o f the golden age, and the restitution o f the world from the chaosof iron, do not come from the act o f a single divine emperor, like Philip I (or Pacatianus), commencing the second m illennium o f Romes foundation (or continuing it) with games and sacrifices. Rather, the sign and seal ofhis tide to be emperor is that he reigns in succession to the dead and deified emperors, the diui, who patendy produced the pax deorum before the age o f gold had degenerated into decline. In this way they were nevertheless associated with the gods o f the Roman state and their expiation. We must now ask what specifically Decius* empire-wide decree to all imperial subjects to make a sacrifice {supplicatio) had to do both with the revival o f the imperial cult as witnessed by the d iu i coinage, and with the sacramental means to achieving the general eschatological goal of bringing back the golden age. C.2.2 Supplicatio as a m odelfor the sacrifice o f Decius’edict Selinger has persuasively argued that Decius* edict was modelled on, and reflected, the time-honoured procedure and ceremonies for the accession o f an emperor to the Prindpate, the dies im perii. Rives shared Ftends scepticism regarding D edus’ succession as the occasion for his decree: he objected that the evidence o f the libelli ruled out a specific date and time for the sacrifices.220 However, it is to be emphasized that such ceremonies, known as supplicationes, would not necessarily take place at a fixed date or time. They would follow the recognition o f an emperor's 'accession, so that, if the succession were disputed, such recognition wou!o take placeat different times in different places. 114 D. S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, ad iS o -ffl (London: Routledge 20' a * RICiv.3,p. 134 no. 107, p. ij 6 no. 125. u6 R1C rv.j, p. 134 no. 109, p. 1 07 Ä/Civ.3, p. i35no. 115*. 1,8 RIC iv.3, p. 128 no. 67, p. 14S no. 205*. *** RIC rv.3, p. 141 no. 162. 00 W. C. H. Fiend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Eariy Church (Oxford: Bl Rives, 'Decree of Dedus’, p. 147 and n. 73.

-44·

:>)60 . p. 4O“

Political rhetoric a n d pagan eschatology

173

Some places c a m e s o o n e r th a n o th e r s u n d e r th e c o n tro l o f th e successful ^ptestant, w h o m ig h t s till b e b a c k in g h is riv a l, w h e th e r freely o r u n d e r duress·111 T h e d a te o f th e e le c tio n b y th e le g io n s, o r so m e o f th em , w o u ld ^ quite d iffe re n t fr o m th e d a te o n w h ic h th e S e n ate fin ally acknow l-

edged the accessio n a s th e dies im p erii T h u s D e c iu s w as su m m o n ed to th e purple by th e le g io n s in D o n a u in J u n e 2 4 9 . T h e S en ate o n ly recognized him follow ing h is v ic to r y o v e r P h ilip I in S e p te m b e r/O c to b e r th e sam e year. W hat, th e re fo re , w a s a supplicatio , a n d w h a t d id it involve? In R ep u b ­ lican tim es, th e S e n a te d e c re e d a supplicatio o n its o w n in itiativ e, w ith letters sen t to th e p ro v in c e s p u b lis h in g th is a c t. U n d e r th e E m p ire, p ro ­ gressively, it b e c a m e a p e rs o n a l in itia tiv e b y th e re ig n in g em peror, d u ly rubber-stam ped b y th e S e n a te . In th e p ro v in ce s, p ro co n su ls issued edicts proclaiming a la w fu l a c c e ss io n , w ith m a g istra te s in local to w n s c o n d u ct­ ing celebrations o n th e ir o w n in itia tiv e , o r so m e tim es in stru c te d by th e proconsuls le tte r e n c lo s in g th e d e c re e . F ree c itie s se n t am bassadors w ith letters c o n ta in in g th e ir d e c re e s, w h ic h d re w fo rth letters o f th an k s w ith renewals o f priv ileg es.* 23 I n th is re s p e c t a supplicatio w as p a n o f th e p ro ­ cess o f b o th p u b lis h in g a n d le g itim a tin g th e accession o f an em p ero r to power. A supplicatio in v o lv e d sa c rific e s, a lo n g w ith g ifts su ch as th e p resen tatio n of golden cro w n s, p ro c e ssio n s, g a m e s, e tc . B u t w h a t specifically w ere such sacrifices m ea n t to ach iev e? T h e y w e re th an k sg iv in g s fo r deliverance from political d iso rd er a n d s trife th a t w e re c o n sid e re d p a n o f th e m etaphysical disorder o f th e n a tu ra l w o rld , fo r re a so n s th a t w e have show n (C h ap ter 3, section a ) . T h e sa crificial rite s o f th e supplicatio, i f n o t stric d y ap o tro p aic in their purpose, w ere n e v e rth e le ss a t le a st reassu ran ces th a t th e peace o f th e gods {pax deorum) h a d re p la c e d th e ir a n g e r (ira), in resp o n se to a d ifferen t, apotropaic, rite w h ic h th e augures p e rfo rm e d .224 Let us lo o k first a t a n a c c o u n t o f a supplicatio a n d its p u rp o se in a less specific co n tex t th a n th e a c c e ssio n o f a n em p ero r. In 181 bc , d u rin g a m in o r c o n flic t w i t h C a rth a g e in v olving M assinissa, a plague had b ro k e n o u t, a c c o m p a n ie d by s u c h p o rte n ts as show ers o f blood, in die p recin ct o f th e te m p le o f V u lcan a n d C o n c o rd . In consequence:

*“ Sdinger, Mid-Third Century Persecutions. pp. j i v.'mgcr. Religionspolitik, pp. 57-61. 111 Sdinger, Religionspolitik, pp. 41-2. u* For full bibliography and a collection of prim j. pp- JtH.

ijhrbuchfr

D edu s’edict

187

paean prodigies indicated such a decline on both occasions in the ^ of a cyclic historical developm ent. Part o f the Augustan ideology, iP ^ n te d generally in th e historiography, was that, in the century pie­ rc e * the Principate, th e cultus superintended by republican magistrates ^b eliev ed to have failed to secure th e pax deorum. According to D io, J u s tu s succeeded by his act o f augury in perform ing the augurium ^T w h eie republican m agistrates had previously failed. Prodigies had f\L # e d towards the end o f the R epublic, as Livy claimed, w ith records o f ^«successful auguria. Vergil, m oreover, regarded such events as indices o f \L tological cyclic decline before th e return o f the saeculum aureum. Cer. iy Lucan works w ith th e aid o f a Stoic eschatology when he describes ^ civil war reflected in natura discors, reflected in haruspicia which tum t hostile, which the Principate had restored to divinely predestined order·2*5 Cassius Dio himself, as 1 have argued, had such a cyclic theory o f history gud believed his own epoch to be p art o f a cyclic decline. So, interestingly gjough, both Cyprian and Dionysius o f Alexandria shared pardy in such a view of decline, as we saw in C yprians case in C hapter 3 (section c.2.1). pionysius of Alexandria inform s us th at Decius, on his succession, or very soon after, issued a decree th at testified to a metaphysical shift in the order of history: Immediately there was an announcement of a change (μεταβολή) of the rulership that had treated us kindly and the great fear of what threatened us hung over us. And of course the edict (τό πρόσταγμα) arrived.286 Thus Philip Is ‘kindly reign was at an end, w ith a radical change in the situadon (μεταβολή) on his defeat and possible m urder by Decius.2*7 The term fo r‘change* (μεταβολή), in this passage has, as we saw from the examples of Cassius D io and H erodian, a metaphysical and eschatological significance in contem porary historiography: it pointed to a predestined moment in die historical process, w hen the age o f gold turned into that of bronze or o f iron. Dionysius, too, is an example o f W ittgensteins moral rebel, arising w ithin a ‘form o f life*, and deploying the logic o f the fundamental assum ptions o f his contem porary discourse to argue his

B«nt, Impend Cub, pp. 69-70. M Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, νι.41.9-10. For a discussion of the doubtful claim of Philip I s supposed Christianity see J. M. York, ‘The h»age of Philip the Arab’, Historia 21 (1972). pp. U4-6; H. Crouzel, *Le christianisme de lanpereur Philippe PArabe’, Gregorianum 50 (19-V. p p . sis-so: Pbhlsandcr, ‘Philip the Arab’. pp. 463-73; Potter, Prophecy and History, p. z('~. I ·■ IVuus and the death of Philip I see above, 1148 .

rtg

Decius ’religious policy andpolitical rhetoric

‘disagreement in opinion* with his pagan contemporaries. Dionysius thus argues that the metaphysical shift was not, as Decius claimed, a μεταβολή from decline and senectus to millennial renewal, but rather the reverse. It was thus that this Christian w riter parodied Decius’ claim. Cyprian’s response was equally eschatological, and reflected earlier Chris­ tian apocalyptic. The faithful martyrs, Cyprian assures us in his own exhor­ tation on the subject, ‘have not adored the image (imago) of the beast, nor have agreed to his death-bringing and sacrilegious edicts (edicta)\m Cyprian condemns someone who lapsed in the persecution on the grounds that ‘he has served the lord o f this age, he has obeyed his edict (edictum), he has submitted to a human political authority (imperium) rather than to God’.289 We saw in our last chapter that Cyprian shared with his contemporaries a belief that the world was in a state o f senility (the senectus mundi) awaiting metaphysical transformation. That transformation was to be understood in terms o f a Stoic metaphysic that justified belief in portents, whether in pagan superstition, or in the signs o f Christian Apocalypse, witnessing the break-up of the natural order. We thus see that Decius’ edict is to be read in the context o f a development o f traditional religious ideas in general, and of pagan political theology in particular, in application to a new situation regarding new procedures. The bearing o f various sacred images, imperial as well as traditional, is now adapted to serve a universal sacrifice or apotropaic supplicatio as the cultic means o f securing the pax deorum in nature and society that will mark, and in some sense secure, the returning golden age. We shall see in our next chapter how specifi­ cally that apotropaic function o f the developing ceremonial in an escha­ tological context is reflected in the text and implementation of the libelli themselves. For the moment, let us summarize where this chapter has taken us. E CONCLUSION

There was no existing specifically anti-Christian legislation against which we could interpret Decius’ intentions in flaming his edict. There was no specific law emanating from Nero, Domitian, or even Trajan in terms of which Decius’ edict might be understood, as Borlefls, Keresztes, and Lane Fox had been the latest to argue. Nor was there a due process o f coercitio as suggested by Mommsen. We have thus followed Sherwin White, De m Cyprian, Ad Fortunatum X2 . 5S - 9 .

** Cyprian, De lapsis27.531-3.

Conclusion

189

Stc. Croix» and Barnes to th e effect th at it was the contumacia indicative o f 0V cult threatening th e pax deorum th a t constituted the legal grounds for persecutions o f the C hristian C h u rch w hich were at all events spasmodic In one way, if there h ad been previous legislation aimed specifically at Christianity, our case for th e different an d m ore general intendons o f Decius' edict would be stren g th en ed I f there had been a previous edict or edicts against C hrisdanity, th en n o new one w ould be required. B ut whether or not there was already such existing and enduring legislation, Decius’ intentions in issuing his edict h ad a q uite different focus. Even M olthagen. who, as we saw, had accepted th e case for previous anti-C hristian legislation, had regarded D ecius’ edict for a universal sacrifice th at could include within its scope a priestess o f Petesouchos as a distinctively new policy (B.i.3-4). We have argued, against Rives, th a t it is possible to discern Decius’ par­ ticular intentions in th e innovations th a t he m ade, w ithout recourse to a sociological explanation th a t th e latter an d his contem poraries would n ot have understood ( B . 2 ) . W e have sought to discern Decius’ intentions by looking at the concepts an d vocabulary o f political legitim ation found on his fragmentary coinage, an d o th er artefacts, in order to establish the logic of the language game th a t h e was playing w ith his opponents. T he "dis­ agreement in opinion w ith th em was against th e background o f "agreement in a form of life’, w hich h ad also been th e essential precondition to the developing C hristian-pagan dialogue. As we have seen, the senectus mundi, and the metaphysic o f decline according to the lex diuina, were agreed upon: the conditions an d m eans fo r its renew al in a returning saeculum aureumwere not. W e have seen th a t such an eschatological context th at we witnessed in Cyprian’s C h ristian w ritings (C hapter 3, section c.2-3) was reflected, in a pagan form , in th e political rhetoric o f his contem poraries. Decius’ act in issuing b o th his decree fo r a universal supplicatio, and his series of dint coins, fitted well in to th e p attern o f legitim ation established bythe pagan eschatological discourse o f his contem poraries (c.1-2). It is in the light of that discourse th a t w e can u nderstand D ecius’ policy as deeply religious, and penetrating to th e roots o f how he and his contem poraries understood both the n atu ral w orld, an d social and historical developm ent and change. In our post-seventeenth-century perspective, we see the decline marked by political upheaval an d u n rest as d u e to econom ic causes, w ith im pli­ cations for the strengths an d weaknesses o f b o th sides. W e use, therefore, a form of explanation th a t im plies th a t such events can be understood in

190

Deans* religious policy an dpolitical rhetoric

terms o f a machine driven by m aterial causes, such as purely psychological drives o f greed and am bition, w ithout reference to any divine order or destiny. We have seen, however, in o u r third chapter, th at such social and political decline was viewed by the inhabitants o f the social construction o f reality o f the third century as rather an index o f a general and cosmolog­ ical, metaphysical decline. As we saw, Cassius D io had dated the decline from a golden age to one o f iron from the reign o f Commodus (ad 180). Herodian had seen in Maximinus* accession in a d 235 a μεταβολή into tyranny. Clement o f Alexandria dates the μεταβολή horn the change from the reign o f Philip I to that o f Decius Trajan (a d 249).290 At all events, the years between the reign o f M aximinus and the accession o f Diocletian were to provide a period o f extreme political instability. We have argued that Decius’supplicatio continued such imperial themes, and embodied such imperial claims about the metaphysical character of political order (d ). I had argued (in C hapter 3) th at the perceived crisis facing the £mpire was one o f cosmic collapse at the end o f a process of metaphysical decline in nature and society, to which a Christian writer such as Cyprian can also bear witness. As such Decius’ intentions were to establish his case for the legitimacy o f his accession in terms of the traditional ideology o f political legitimacy that had endured since Augustus and the inauguratio o f the Ara Pads. Like Augustus, following the age of dedine and chaos that reflected the ‘anger’ (ira) and not the peace’ (pax) o f the gods, he was to seek that pax by supernatural and even sacramental means (d .i ). But Decius performed no augurium pacts as Augustus had. Rather he developed a new sacramental means to this end, suggested by Caracallas law, which made almost all members o f the Roman Empire its dozens. Decius’ legislation aimed at achieving a universal sacrifice, in which all such dozens participated, that was at once a thanksgiving for his accession, and an apotropaic rite banishing the forces o f disorder and chaos both in nature and in society (c.2.2). Thus he proposed a universal cult, now organized by his edict, centrally and not locally, superintending a rite whose purpose was to avert the forces o f metaphysical chaos and to re-establish the pax deorum, in a returning saeculum aureum,. Decius’ policy, like that of Philip I and Pacatianus before him, and Valerian and Gallienus after him, had this purpose, and its universalistic and individualizing tendency is but an index o f the extent o f the metaphysical dedine, and the drastic measures needed to remedy it: no source anywhere o f such dedine in the390 390 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica6.41.9 and also above. Chapter 3, section α,ζ.

Conclusion

191

^iversal and social im perial order (th at th e natural order would o f course pileet sympathetically) m ust be left unaddressed and unreached; every individual must be shown positively in participation in the supplkatio to Ijj ^-operating in the act o f achieving th e pax deorum (d.2). Decius thus shared in the im perial ideal whose iconography we saw to l^ve been displayed on th e A ra Pads a t Rom e and in its near replica at Carthage, along with the associated im agery o f the altar o f thegens Augusta (Chapter 2, section B.3). T h e divine images, both o f the ancestral gods o f the state, and of the dead and deified em perors, borne in the procession of his mpplicatio, possessed the apotropaic power that was at the heart o f that rite: to produce the pax deorum in nature and society (d.2). Thus he could do what the G ordians and Philip I had failed to do, and what the Uranius Antoninus o f the original version o f Oracula Sibyllina 13 was still trying to do, namely, as rector orbis, to banish the forces o f disorder and chaos of a nature at variance w ith itself’ {natura discors), by establishing the f>tix deorum (c.1.3.1). T hus he could achieve, w ith his supplkatio, the mulum nouum in the m illennial anniversary o f Rome’s foundation that Philip I had achieved no m ore th an Pacatianus, for all their rival claims to havecelebrated the m illennial games (c.2). Rives, as we saw, was sceptical about Decius’ acknowledgment o f the eschatological significance o f those games in claims to political legidmacy (m). But the remindng o f a coin o f Philip I in honour o f his young son (Philip II) with Decius’ own elder son, H erennius Etruscus, showed that at least those who reminted such a coin firm ly believed that the prerogative tohold such games, and to achieve w hat they celebrated, belonged by right 10Decius and not to Philip I (c.1.3). W e have insisted that Decius shares withhis contemporaries a com m on language game, in which he argues his position of imperial legitimacy against theirs. When, therefore, the inscription at Cosa refers to him as restitutor sacro· rum, or when his equally fragm entary coinage makes reference to his teign as the pax Augusti, o r the filk ita s saeculi, or as the saeculum nouum, we are met with terms th at cannot have a merely idiosyncratic meaning for Decius alone (c.2). These words from his discourse imply a logical connected pattern w ith those th at both his predecessors and his succes­ sors used in terms o f a shared com m on discourse, with a shared pattern of meaning. We witnessed, in the ideological conflict between Philip I, Pacatianus, Uranius A ntoninus, Trebonianus Gallus, and Valerian, the generation of a new theology o f political legitimacy and its accompa­ nying pagan religious rituals nevertheless crafted from older materials (c.j.3.2).

ip2

Decius'religiouspolicy andpolitical rhetoric

Decius was thus celebrating an apotropaic supplicatio, whose aim was to produce the pax deorum at a particular stage in the metaphysical decline o f the cosmos, particularly associated with the culdc office o f the emperor himself and his dead and deified legitim ate predecessors. Let us now exam­ ine how the unique arrangements for the implementation o f the supplicatio, and the underlying purpose that we have described, are reflected in the duly analysed texts o f the libelli themselves.

CHAPTER 5

The Decianpersecution

tHe i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

o f th e

d e c re e a n d

C y p r i a n ’s r e s p o n s e

gave himself the nam e o f T rajan’ when he made his entrance into g o m e in triumph in the last m onths o f a d 249. He did this in order, « e a rg u e d , to identify him self not simply with the greatness o f the past in c o n tr a s t with the present, but as the representative o f what had been acco rd in g to Cassius Dio the last Antonine golden age o f peace in nature and in society, before the transform ation o f nature and society into the iron age of die world’s senectus (Chapter 3, section a . 2 and Chapter 4, section d . z . i ) . Decius’ act expressed the pagan religious significance o f a true emperor, who acted with the augural power o f Augustus whose name he c la im e d . His apotropaic supplicatio was a special remedy for the senectus ntundi. His novel means was the edict or decree requiring a universal sacrifice throughout all territories in the Roman Empire that would be certified in each individual case by a board o f local officials who would issue a certificate (Ubellus) to this effect. Decius was seeking, as emperor in a sacerdotal role, for all citizens of the Empire to join him in sacrificing. At least this was how emperors were represented iconographically. Decius was engaged in the dynamic development of a concept according to which the rites o f Roman religion were to be conducted wherever in the Empire the emperor happened to be. As Gordon has pointed out, this message was conveyed on triumphal arches and on coins, even though statues o f emperors veiled for sacrifice are, after Augustus’ death, extremely uncommon.1 On triumphal arches the emperor is represented as the fixus of the sacrificial scene. On the arch o f Septimius Severus at Lepcis in North Africa (ad 203), the emperor stands to the left o f an altar before which he is

p e c iu s

1R. (lordon, 'The Veil of Power Emperors, Sacrificeis, and Benefactors’, in Paptn Priests: Religion oxd Power in the Ancient World, edited by M. Beard and J. North (London: Duckworth 1990), P- 211.39

I93

194

The D ecian persecution

offering his prelim inary libation. Julia D om na, his wife, stands to the right offering incense. T he presence o f a sm all cow, whose throat a uictimariw is slitting, is alm ost incidental to the scene th at is focused upon the emperor and his consort, w ith the goddess Rom a standing behind her. Around them cluster thirty-five figures, both m ilitary and civilian. As Gordon says: The dominant meaning o f the sacrificial scene is to preserve the imperial house, to maintain the continuity o f key imperial institutions and to bring these in to relation with the social hierarchy in Lepcis. Apart from the figure of Roma, the religion of Rome in a narrow sense no longer signifies. It is through the emperor and his family that the periphery is connected with the center, and one of the crucial means of integration is sacrifice.1 Decius’ decree, ordering a universal sacrifice, is therefore, despite its unique­ ness, to be seen as a further step along a path already well mapped out: the emperor, perform ing Roman rites in all places, is the effective sign of the unity o f a com m on empire. G ordon also points to a general feature o f coins th at continue to the very end o f the Principate in which, in illustration o f the them e pietas Augusti, the emperor is depicted as sacrificing w ith specific sacrificial implements, which are however indicative o f no one single rite. A coin struck during the Persian campaign o f G ordian III (a d 242-4) shows a temple, perhaps at Antioch, with an architraval inscription to Νίκη Ο πλοφ όρος (Victoria Augusti). T he emperor is pouring a libation, whilst the uictimanus does his work, but, behind the form er two, fasces are depicted. As Gordon concludes: Once more, die ‘religion of Rome’ is now seen to be conducted wherever the Princeps happens to be, and in relation to the central political and military needs of each successive regime.3 It was a small step from the image o f the em peror sacrificing according to Roman rites, wherever in the Empire he m ight appear, to Decius com­ m anding by edict all his subjects to join him in a universal sacrifce by those prescribed rites, even though he was in person absent. But how practically could such a measure have been implemented, and should we not seek some other explanation for the certificates of sacrifice {libellt) that have come to light in relation to the edict itself? Given the novelty o f such a procedure, how specifically did that measure compare* * Gordon, 'Veil of Power’, pp. 214-15, and p. 215 Fig. 25. 5 Gordon, 'Veil of Power’, p. 216 and p. 218 Fig. 29.

Cyprian s response to Decius* measures

195

with. and differ fr°m> drc religious policy o f previous emperors? Granted t|ie general character o f such notions as supplicatio and pax deorum in relation to Roman religion, w hat new significance did the unique and new character of the general com m and give to such ancient concepts and ritual practices? We have already discussed the views o f Rives and Molthagen, which we have defended against Keresztes and Sordi (C hapter 4, section b .i ). The general aim of Decius’ legislation possessed this novel character, even if, as Molthagen would argue, there was already in existence anti-Christian legislation with which it had n o thing directly to do. I am proposing in this chapter to recover, in less general and m ore specific detail, the nature of Decius’ innovation by m eans o f a detailed analysis o f the texts o f the UbelH themselves. Following the initial discovery o f very m any o f the papyri copies o f the libelli (in 1925), one w riter was to po in t to a specific relationship between the means of Decius’ im plem entation o f his edict and the intentions o f his polity. De Regibus saw th at w hat the libelli made clear was not only that the problem with which D ecius was seeking to deal was that o f imperial prestige and Roman patriotism in th e face o f'th e introduction ofavarietyof rites and oriental cults’. In addition, adherence to such cults threatened the newdeal between the em peror and the new citizens expressed in Caracallas Constitutio Antoniniana nam ely th at the price o f their citizenship was not merely paying taxes, b u t 'returning’ to the traditional gods: Theveryimperial prestige and Roman patriotism seemed threatened by such cults, not that many were accustomed to make distinctions between Jehovah and Baal, between Mithras and Serapis or Jesus Christ respecting the consequences of the Romanpoint of view.4 Decius’ project was one o f securing from each o f the emperors subjects a libellus duly certifying their participation in an apotropaic rite (supplica­ tio), It was no accident, therefore, th at it should reflect the intentions of Caracalla in extending citizenship as a m eans o f asserting imperial unity by common worship o f the gods o f th e state. T he Constitutio, extending cit­ izenship, had involved census roles and corresponding tax returns. It was, surely, not therefore accidental th at, in the process o f redoing Caracallas religious policy with m ore hope o f success, Decius should have availed

4Mytranslation, L De Regibus, ‘Dedo e la arid deil’impero Romano nd m secolo’, in DiJaskaUion M(1925). p. 4·

196

The Decian persecution

himself of the model o f a census, given that he shared religious aims sim­ ilar to Caracallas. Decius replicated the means o f implementing the aims of Caracallas census return as part o f his central organization of the cult around traditional Roman gods and the divinized emperors of the diui coinage. Rives, as we have seen, saw the key to understanding Decius’ uniqueness in the failure o f locally organized cults to produce imperial unity due to the local character o f worship that survived any interpretatio Romana (Chapter 4, section B.2). It is against a detailed analysis o f the contents o f the Ubelti and their implication that we will need to test my claim that Decius was moved by the express intention of exercising the traditional sacerdotal role performed by the emperor in seeking the pax deorum in the specific context ofa world at the point of cosmic decline into the age o f iron, as part of the cyclic process of world-renewal. In the process o f our analysis we shall show parallels between the libelli and Caracallas census, and extension of the citizenship, and the aim o f gaining the favour o f the gods upon the Empire through a supplicatio. Frend had claimed, as we shall see, that Decius’ provisions for the certified general sacrifice were only made possible by the existence of census registers established by the Constitutio Antoniniana (Λ .2 .1 ). We have seen that some scholars have seen the relationship with taxation registers problematic, on the grounds o f the alleged ‘administrative nightmare’ of its universal implementation. Keresztes had, therefore, argued that issuing of libelli had been provided as an escape clause for a minority of Christians alone, and, more plausibly, Sordi, following Foucart, had argued that, though intended for a minority, they were provisions for a minority of pagans as well as Christians who had not managed to be present when the populations of their towns and cities had gathered initially to celebrate the suppHcatto (Chapter 4, section B.1.3). Presumably in such cases the persons in question would have simply been accused o f non-participation or absence by those who had noticed this, and who had themselves simply sacrificed, and been publicly witnessed by everyone as $0 doing, without needing certification. Clarke, as we shall see ( a .2 ) , was to find the notion that census rolls would not have included non-citizens particularly problematic, but believed that certificates were in fact required to be issued to everyone, who would simply give their names on the spot and wait to be called to sacrifice. Rives is of the opinion that such arguments about administrative nightmares have been overrated, and he points to evidence of, as in Egypt, census taking, record­ keeping, and tax collection’ existing ‘in general outline throughout the

D ecius*e d ic t: fo r m a n d im p le m en ta tio n o ire

f

197

b y m e a n s o f ‘w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d , b u r e a u c r a t i c p r o c e d u r e s '.5 T h u s t h e

jng o f U belli g e n e r a lly , a n d n o t s i m p l y t o o n e g r o u p o f r e c a lc itr a n ts , w a s

not th e j of

b u r e a u c r a tic i m p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e t h e s e s o f K e re s z te s , o f L a n e F o x , S o rd i s u g g e s te d ( C h a p t e r

4 ,

s e c tio n

B .1 .3 ) ,

w h o w e r e c o m p e lle d , i n

consequence, to p r o c e e d w i t h t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t t h e y d i d . R iv e s p o i n ts l0 [he c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n t h e f o r m o f t h e U bellus a n d a c e n s u s r e t u r n , a n d the o r i g i n s o f t h e l a t t e r i n C a r a c a l la 's c it i z e n s h i p la w .6

Thus we s h a ll e m p h a s i z e t h e r e l i g io u s m o tiv e s o f t h e d e c r e e , w h ic h a c c o rd in g ly

a tta c h th e m s e lv e s t o t h e c e n s u s a r r a n g e m e n ts , j u s t a s th e y h a d

earlier i n C a ra c a lla 's su p p lica tio n es , w h o s e c e l e b r a ti o n s h a d b e e n o r g a n iz e d locally, i n e a c h c it y o f t h e R o m a n £ m p i r e ( Λ . 2 . 1 ) , a n d n o t f r o m t h e c e n tr e , a$ in D eciu s’ c a se . C e n s u s r e t u r n s f o r t a x a t i o n p u r p o s e s c o u ld p la y a r o le in identifying r e c u s a n ts a n d a b s e n t e e s i f a c c u s e d , w i t h o u t b e in g r e q u ir e d f o r willing p a r tic ip a n ts , f o r t h e l a r g e n u m b e r s o f w h i c h t h e r e is e v id e n c e f r o m Cyprian ( A . 2 . 2 ) . H e r e w h a t R iv e s d e s c r i b e d a s ‘a c u s to m a r y b u r e a u c r a tic procedure’ c o u ld a s s is t w i t h t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a n e d ic t w i t h a n o v e l religious p u rp o s e . Let us th e r e f o re a t t e m p t a d e t a i l e d a n a ly s is o f t h e te r m s o f t h e lib e lli that have c o m e d o w n t o u s , a n d t h e s p e c if ic f e a tu r e s o f t h e i n te n t io n s o f Decius in h is r e lig io u s p o l i c y r e f l e c t e d t h e r e ( s e c t i o n a ). W e s h a ll t h e n b e in a position to c o n s id e r f u r t h e r t h e r e a c t i o n t o t h a t p o lic y o f b o t h C y p r ia n ’s com m unity a n d o f C y p r i a n h i m s e l f ( s e c t i o n b ) .

A

THE FORM OF D E C IU S ' E D IC T AN D ITS IM PLEM ENTATION

Both D io n y siu s o f A l e x a n d r ia a n d C y p r i a n p r o v i d e u s w i t h e v id e n c e t h a t Decius issu e d a d e f i n i te d e c r e e ( π ρ ό σ τ α γ μ α / ed ictu m ) f o r a ll t o s a c rific e . We have a rg u e d f r o m t h e p a g a n e v id e n c e t h a t s u c h a s a c r if ic e in v o lv e d participation i n a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y su p p lica tio , w h o s e i n t e n t i o n w a s t o s e c u r e the pax deorum a n d t h e d r e a m o f i t s m i l l e n n i a l p e r m a n e n c e ( C h a p te r 4 , section d . i ). F o r s u c h a su p p lic a tio , i t w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n t t h a t p ie c e m e a l arrangem ents f o r a c k n o w l e d g in g a n d c e l e b r a t i n g D e c iu s ’ s u c c e s s io n s h o u ld be left to lo c a l in it i a t i v e . In o rd e r to b a n is h t h e a g e o f i r o n , a n d t o h e r a l d b a c k t h e nouum

saeculum, it w a s n e c e s s a r y t o o r g a n i z e a n a l m o s t u n iv e r s a l a p o tr o p a ic r ite . Thus D io n y siu s o f A le x a n d r i a r e f e r s t o a n ‘i m p e r ia l e d i c t ’ ( β α σ ιλ ικ ό ν

s J. B. Rives, The Decree of Decius and the Religion o f the Empire’, Journal o fRoman Stadia 89 (1999)· P· »fO. u Rives,

Decree of Decius*, pp, 148— 9.

198

The D ecian persecution

π ρ ό σ τα γμ α ) in his graphic description o f th e scene in the Forum of ^ city when the edict arrived: And so o f course the edict (τό πρόσταγμα) arrived...and so all stood frozen. . . O f the many personae insignes some immediately came forward in their fear, while others in public service (δημοσιεύοντες) were induced by the nature of their duties, and others still were dragged by their companions. Summoned by name, they approached the profane and unholy sacrifices.7 A t one point Cyprian refers to ‘savage edicts’ (edicta firia la ).8 Indeed, at three other points in Cyprian’s letters w hen laws (leges) are mentioned, once alone, and twice in conjunction w ith edicta, the words are not those o f him self but o f his correspondents.9 Cyprian is therefore more precise in his legal term inology than his less educated correspondents: a decree (edictum) o f the emperor, while having the force o f law (lex), was not expressed as a formal statute. Dionysius therefore agrees with him in using the Greek term for ‘decree*, π ρ ό σ τα γ μ α . Dionysius* description raises for us, in other ways, questions regarding the process o f im plem enting the decree. H e m entions in this passage the behaviour only o f ‘distinguished individuals* (personae insignes), amongst whom Cyprian included himself. But those who thus conformed he here groups into three categories: (i) those who presented themselves as sacrifices ‘in their fear'; (ii) ‘public servants’ (δημοσιεύοντες) w ho could n o t continue in the daily affairs o f their office w ithout so acting; and (iii) others ‘dragged’ by physical com pulsion. W hen Dionysius says that they were ‘called by nam e’, does this mean that members o f each group were called o u t by the com m issiones superintend· ing the sacrifices from a citizen roll such as m ight be used in a taxation census? O r does it mean simply that (i) and (ii) came forward willingly so that only (iii) needed to be pointed out, n o t by virtue o f being read off from a list o f names, but because they were sufficiently well known both visually and by reputation? We will draw many similarities between the provisions o f the edict and those for a tax return, and for com piling general citizenship rolls for this purpose following Caracallas famous legislation. We shall suggest that, although clearly there was no need to consult such lists in the case of 7 Eusebius (Dionysius of Alexandria, Ad Fabiamm), Historia ecclesiastica 6.41.10-11. * Cyprian, Epistulae 55.9.2.158-9. 9 Cyprian (Roman clergy), Epistulae 30.3.1.57-8: aduenus euangelium uel edictis uel legibus satisfrissc Cyprian (Moses, Maximus, and the Roman confessors), Epistulae 31.5.1.85: nefarias centra uerisetm legesi 31.3.55: humanis et sacrilegis legibus contrafidem non oboedisse.

D ecius* edict: fo rm a n d im plem entation

199

^ s e who s u b m itte d w illin g ly a lb e it i n f e a r ((i) a n d (ii)), in th e c a se o f

^ose compelled a g a in s t t h e i r w ill ( iii) s u c h lis ts m a y h a v e h a d a ro le to play. Though a ll c itiz e n s w e r e r e q u ir e d t o s a c rific e a n d b e e n ro lle d f o r a supplicatio by a n a lo g y w i t h a ll c itiz e n s e n r o llin g f o r a ta x c e n su s, th e supplicatio w as n o t a ta x c e n s u s . A s a n a p o tr o p a ic r ite , b y its v e ry n a tu re ,

no one needed to b e e x c lu d e d o r e x e m p te d fro m th e supplicatio s im p ly because only c itiz e n s o n a c itiz e n r o ll c o u ld a c tu a lly b e id e n tifie d as n o n ­ conformists. T h u s , as w e s h a ll s e e (A .2 .2 ), th e p re s e n c e o f classes o f p e rs o n s in the category o f n o n - c itiz e n s m e n tio n e d in C y p r ia n ’s le tte rs as sa c rific in g is not a good re a so n f o r d e n y in g a n y c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e libelli a n d census returns. Let us begin w ith an exam ple o f a libellus, an d w hat its clauses presup­ posed about the detailed p u rp o se o f th e lo st edict. W e find those clauses preserved in the papyrological rem ains o f th e libeUi: each citizen was to obtain a libellus in order to certify th a t h e h ad com plied. Slaves, if they participated, did so w ith o u t an y d u e process existing th at could have com­ pelled them to do so ap art fro m th e w ishes o f th eir m asters. Indeed, their masters might consider th at, in sacrificing, they were acting by proxy on their slaves’ behalf so th a t th e la tte r need n o t do so themselves, as we shall see (A.4). We have fo rty -fo u r such lib elli from Egypt, dated between 12June and 14 July 250.10 T h e ir form is in alm ost identical, stereotypical language, of which we m ay give as an exam ple the libellus o f a lady, Aurelia Ammonarion:11 [firsthand] i

5

toTs έπΐ

τω ν θυσιών ήρημένοις π(αρά) Αύρηλία$ Άμμωναρίου άττό κώ(μη$) Θεαδελφείας καί άει μεν θύουσα καί εύσεβουσα Tots θεοΐς συν τέ(κνοις) Αύρηλίοι* Διδύμου καί Νουφίου καί Ταατος διετετελέκαμεν καί νυν έττί πα ρόντω ν ύμών κατά τ ά π ρ ο σ τα χθ έν -

* Molthagen, Römische Staat, pp. 61-3. Bor teas o f forty-one see Knipfing, ‘Dedan Persecution*, pp. 343-90; Ledercq, ‘Certificats’, pp. 32-60,188-201; Roasenda, ‘Libeiiatid’, pp. 31-68. For the fast to be discovered seeJ. Schwartz, ‘Une dldaration de sacrifice du temps de Dice’, RevueBiblique 54 (1947), pp. i—ii, and P. Oxy. 41.2990; H. Grigoirc etaL, L a Perskutiom dam I'empire rnmam (Acadimie Royale de Belgique: Classe des Lettres LVi.5: Mdmoires; Brussels: Palais des Acaddnics), pp. 114— 15; R. Andreotti, ‘Religione ufficiale e culto deirimperatore nei “libelli* di Decio’, in Studi in onorediAristide Calderim e Roberto Paribeni 1 (Milan: Ceschina 1956), pp. 369-76; P. Keresztcs, ‘The Decian LibeUi and Contemporary Literature’, Latomus 34.3 (1975). pp. 761-81. " Knipfing, ‘Decian Persecution’, p. 368 no. 7; Roasenda, ‘Libeiiatid*, no. 4.

The Decian persecution

200

ίο

τα έσττίσαμεν καί έθύσαμεν καί των Ιερείων I γευσάμεθα καί άξιώ ύμδς Οποσημίοοσασθαί μοι διευτυχεΐται“

[second hand] 15

Αύρήλιοι Σερηνος καί Έρμα* είδα μεν υμάς θυσιάσοντος.13

[third hand] ΕΡΜΣ - ΕΣΗ - Μ - [Έρμος σεσημείωμαι].14 [first hand] (Ιτοντς) ά aÖTOKpötTopos Καίσαρο* Γαίου Μεσαίου Κυίντου Τραϊανού Δεκίου Ευσεβούς Ευτυχούς Σεβαστού ΠαΟνικ-.15

20

Clearly the certificate reflects, in the stereotyped language it shares with the others, the exact provisions o f Decius* lost decree (9-10: κατά τά προσταχθέντα) that appeared to have contained clauses to the effect: I. Commissioners (1: tois . . . ήρημένοις) are to be appointed expressly for superintending the sacrifice (1: frrl τω ν θυσίων), the actual dates for

i

J

10

To those appointed commissioners superintending the sacrifices from Aurelia Ammonarion of the village ofTheadelphia and always as one who customarily offers sacrifice and shows reverence to the gods together with my children who are sumamed Aurelii sons of Didymus and Nouphius and Taas we have completed the declaration even now in your presence in accordance with the decree we have poured libations and sacrificed and of the sacred victims we have tasted and I request ofyou to issue a certificate to this effect on my behalf With kind reguds.

We Serenus and Hennas Aurelius have seen you offering the sacrifices. 14 I Hennas certify it *5 The first year of the emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajan Dedus Pius FelixAugustus 14.6.[ad 250]

D ecius’edict: fo rm a n d im plem entation

201

which th ey a re to c h o o s e , f o r a supplicatio th a t in D e c iu s’ case d e a rly lasted several m o n th s .16 j. The in h ab itan ts o f a p a r tic u la r m u n ic ip a lity a re b o th to m ak e a lib a tio n or drink o fferin g (ίο : Ι σ π ίσ α μ ε ν ) , a n d t o o ffe r a n a n im a l sacrifice (9 -1 0 :

έβύσαμεν), a c tu a lly e a tin g o f w h a t th e y h a v e o ffe re d (11-12: τ ω ν εγευσάμεθα).

Ιερείω ν

They are to m ak e a d e c la ra tio n p r io r to sa c rific in g th a t th e y have alw ays made th e sacrifices (3 -5 : ά ε ι . . . θ ύ ο υ σ α . . . T o ts fo o ts) th a t th e y are about to m ake. 4. For the w ords o f th e ir d e c la ra tio n , a n d th e sacrifice th a t th e y m ak e in th e presence o f th e c o m m is s io n e rs (8 - 9 : ν υ ν έ π ΐ π α ρ ό ν τ ω ν υ μ ώ ν ), th e y are to request a sig n e d c e rtific a te (13: ύ π ο σ η μ ίω σ α σ θ α ί μ ο ι), w h ic h is given them (17: Έ ρ μ ο ς σ ε σ η μ ε ίω μ α ι). Let us now lo o k a t e a c h o f th e s e in d iv id u a l clau ses a n d th e ir im p lica tio n s.

A .i The commission The num ber o f c o m m issio n e rs a p p e a rs to h a v e v a rie d . T h irty -fiv e o f th e M / are from T h e a d e lp h ia , as in th e e x a m p le o f A u relia A m m o n ario n , duly certified b y th e h a n d o f th e gram m ateus o r secretary , w h o se h a n d w rit­ ing constitutes th e first h a n d (1 -1 4 a n d 18 -2 1 ), o f a co m m issio n co n sistin g of two, Serenus a n d H e rm a s (15).17 H e n n a s also fre q u e n tly signs in h is own, second, h a n d , as h e re (17).18 H e re , th e re fo re , th e su p erin ten d en ce of the sacrifices, a n d th e issu in g o f c e rtific a te s, w ere in th e h an d s o f tw o commissioners.19 I n N a rm o u th is , th e c o m m issio n c o n siste d o f six perso n s, four of w hose n am es a re d e c ip h e ra b le .20 In O xyrhynchus a n d A le x a n d ro u N e so s w e h av e m e n tio n o f tw o w it­ nesses to th e sacrifice, o n e o f w h o m o c c u rs as A u reliu s S yrus, w ith a th ird hand, not h illy d e c ip h e ra b le , r e a d in g * . . . ο ν ο ς’. T h e re is n o reaso n h e re to believe th at w e h ave o n ly o n e c o m m issio n e r, sin c e th e th ird h a n d m ig h t n o t have had his n a m e re c o rd e d b y th e se c o n d as h e w as sig n in g , lik e H erm as,

* Knipfing, ‘Decian Persecution, p. 354 points out that a supplicatio normally had a time limit of fiftydays. R. Selinger, The M id-Third Century Persecutions o fDecius and Valerian (Frankfurt: Peter Lang 2002), pp. 42-4 concurs that there was no specific date. 17 E.g. Knipfing, ‘Decian Persecution’, p. 366 no. 5, p. 371 no. n . p. 371 no. 15. * Lg. Knipfing, ‘Decian Persecution’, pp. 367-8 nos. 6-7, p. 369 no. 10, p. 370 no. 11, p. 371 no. t6. Knipfing, ‘Decian Persecution’, p. 331; Selinger, M id-Third Century Persecutions, p. 54. 10 These are Sarapadorus, Patos, Serapion, and Itonin, found legible with two further names, see W. L leadbetter, ‘A Libellus of the Decian Persecution', in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity* edited by G. H. R. Horsley (Sydney: Macquarie University 1982), pp. 180-5 no. 105.

202

The D ecian persecution

in h is o w n rig h t as gram m ateus, b u t, u n lik e H e n n a s , n o t tw ice over.21In ^ case o f A rsin o e , th e prytanis a p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n th e o n ly com m ission^ sin c e o n ly h is n a m e is m e n tio n e d , e v e n th o u g h h e is req u ested for J^’ sig n a tu re in th e s te re o ty p e d p lu ra l ( ά ξ ιώ ΰ μ ά ς ύ π ο σ η μ ία χ τ α σ Ο α ί μ ο ι)^ W as th is b e ca u se th e fo rm u la a p p e a re d th u s in th e e d ic t so th a t it could n o t b e c h a n g e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith lo c a l c irc u m s ta n c e s, o r because there w ere in fa c t tw o c o m m issio n e rs a n d o n e s im p ly le f t i t to th e o th e r to sign? F ro m C h ris tia n so u rc e s w e fin d c o rro b o ra tio n o f th e a c tu a l nu m b er and a p p o in tm e n t o f th e c o m m issio n e rs b e in g le f t to lo c a l ch o ice. T h e Decian e v en ts, d e sc rib e d in th e M artyrdom o f Pionius, a re to b e d a te d 12 March a d 250, d e sp ite S o rd is a tte m p ts to d a te th e m la te r.23 I n th e acco u n t o f his m a rty rd o m , w e h av e referen ce to P io n iu s a n d h is c o m p a n io n s arrested in a cco rd an ce w ith ‘th e d ecree ( τ ό δ ιά τ α γ μ α ) o f th e e m p e ro r to the effect th a t h e o rd e rs y o u to sacrifice to th e gods*.24 T h u s:

At die conclusion of the prayers and when they had taken holy bread and water, on the Sabbath, Polemon the neokorosand those commissioners with him stood over them charged with seeking out and dragging forward the Christians to sacrifice (έπιθύειν) and eat their defiled food/5 ‘C harged* (τ τ τ α γ μ έ ν ο ι) a p p ea rs to re fe r to th e d u ly a p p o in te d commis­ sio n ers u n d e r th e e d ic t, a n d to h av e in c lu d e d o n e T h e o p h ilu s, whose rank is magister equitum ( Ι π π α ρ χ ο ς ) , a n d also th e a ssista n ts o f th e magistrates in m atters o f secu rity ( δ ιω γ μ ΐτ α ι) , w h o se activ ity , th o u g h n o t th eir precise n u m b er, is m e n tio n e d later.26 W e h av e a lre ad y e arlie r co m m ented upon th e ro le o f th e so p h ist, P o lem o n , as neokoros h e re .27 A t C arth ag e th e re w ere, a cc o rd in g to C y p ria n , five com m issioners, and d iese h e co m p ared to th e five p resb y ters w h o o rig in a lly o p p o sed his election as b ish o p . T h ese h a d n o w sid ed w ith th e p a rty o f Felicissim us, w ho was ad v o catin g in sta n t ab so lu tio n fo r th e ap o states. C y p rian said o f th e problem raised b y d ie laxist p arty : ** Knipfing, 'Decian Persecution’, p. 36) no. 1, where in line 13one Aurelius Diogenes son ofSabatous’ presents his petition to more than one commissioner with the second person plural: άξιώ ύ[μά$]. Thus I do not see why Leadbeatter, ‘Libellus1, p. 182 and Selinger, Mid-Third Century Persecutum, p. 54 have to conclude only one commissioner in this case. In Sdinger’s second case (p. 54 a 101) he dies his no. 88 found in an English translation on pp. 154-5 (= P- Oxy. 41.2990), which not only is fragmentary but makes no reference to Alexandrou Nesos. “ Knipfing, ‘Decian Persecution’, p. 377 no. 25.8. Despite Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 4.15.47, c£ L Robert, G. W. Bowersock, and C. RJones (eds), Le Martyre de Pionios, pritre de Smyme: idiU, traduit et commenti (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks 1994), pp. 2-7. See also above, Chapter 4, section B.1.4. ** Martyrium Pionii 3.2. ** Martyrium Pionii 3.1. ** Martyrium Pionii 15.1:6 ικωκάρος Πολέμων. 17 See above. Chapter 4 a. 166 and associated text.

D ecius edict: p r m a n d im plem entation

203

is another p e rse c u tio n (persecutio) a n d a n o th e r tria l ( temptatio), a n d th o se

T . hispreSbyters are n o th in g o th e r th a n th o s e fiv e le a d in g c itiz e n s w h o w ere Jo in ed ^ Jjjlv by the e d ia to th e m a g istra te s in o rd e r th a t th e y m ig h t b rin g o u r fa ith *)ο*η in ru‘ns · · · d ie p la n M Cyprian, Epistulae 39.1.3.33-5. Cyprian, Epistulae 39.1.3.36-40, with reference to John 10:14-9.

282

The Church o f the M artyrs

Having reached that point in his praise o f Celerinus, Cyprian now engages in bureaucratic footwork to avoid the logic o f where his discourse has lead him. He now shifts the focus from the scars o f Christ’s sufferings to the magistrate’s dais, and compares this with the pulpit horn which the Reader reads the Gospels. Celerinus comes renowned for his witness that caused the amazement o f the magistrate who had persecuted him. And so, where else should he be placed than upon the pulpit, that is to say on the Church’s equivalent to the magistrate’s dais?UJ In this way, supported by his more elevated position, and visible to the general congregation as befits the fame for which he is thus honoured, he might read the precepts and Gospel of the Lord that he has bravely and faithfully followed. In these tasks his voice that has confessed the Lord should be heard daily in the words that the Lord has spoken.“4

Thus it is not, after all, a cruciform reflection o f die absolving Christ offering his sacrifice that informs Celerinus’ present ministry, but rather the making o f the words of Christ heard again from the Gospels in the voice that confessed him. The skilful bureaucrat will nevertheless offer his carrot to Celerinus if he accepts this redefinition o f the office for which his confessorship has made him fit. The presbyterate, denied him for the moment, may be granted later at Cyprian’s episcopal pleasure: It is for the future whether there might be a higher grade (gradus) in the Church to which he can progress. There is nothing with which a confessor profits the brothers more than that whoever is listening should imitate (imitetur) die frith of the Reader while the Gospel reading is being heard from his mouth.“1

Thus Celerinus is to be promised in the future the ordination to the presbyterate by the imposition o f the bishop’s hands that Cyprian has im pliddy denied is his per confossionem. It is to ordination as Reader that Cyprian has decided that confessorship has admitted him! Celerinus was ordained Reader together with Aurelius in Cyprian’s hide­ away. Aurelius was a Carthaginian rather than Roman confessor, on whose behalf Lucianus had composed libellipacis because he was illiterate: 'In the name o f Aurelius, who had suffered torture, many certificates (libelU) were issued in the handwriting o f the selfsame Lucianus because die former did not know how to write.’“6 Thus a libellus issued 'in the name o f . . .a young U5 ‘Magistrates’ dais' = tribunal, used generally for any officer, but in particular the tribunus milium. 114 Cyprian, Epistulae 39.4.1.62-8. ,,J Cyprian, Epistulae 39.4.2.68-71. 1,6 Cyprian, Epistulae 27.1.2.21-3.

Cyprian ’s new theology o f martyrdom

283

man who had suffered tortures’ had been the action of someone possess­ ing the presbyterate by virtue of his physical suffering. In commending Aurelius, Cyprian cannot resist shifting surreptitiously the focus from his physical sufferings by including in what made him a confessor the fact of his exile without physical suffering:“7 He has been a contester in a double athletic contest, he has been twice a confessor and twice won glory through the victory of his confession, both when he was victor in the racecourse when he was sentenced to exile {extorris), and when next he boxed in a tougher match, only to celebrate a triumph {triumphator), and to be victor in a fight that cost him the pain of suffering."* Thus Cyprian reminds us of his doctrine that exile too can make someone a confessor, though it does not amount to sufferings beyond a castigatio domestica that would confer presbyteral or diaconal orders without impo­ sition of episcopal hands. As with Celerinus, so too with Aurelius, the sufferings ofa martyr warrant a ministry analogous with public profession of the faith, but not with that of the cruciform-suffering and absolving Christ Cyprian graciously concedes: Aperson of this quality would normally merit the higher grades ofclerical ordina­ tion {clericae ordinationis ulterioresgradus), and greater advancements that should be calculated not from his years but from his merits. But meanwhile, we resolve that he should begin with the office of Reader... that after his sublime words that have spoken forth his witness to Christ, he read the Gospel of Christ from whence martyrs ate made, that after die magistrates dock he should approach the pulpit“9 His courage as a confessor suggests that he has qualities that will lead the bishop later to lay hands on him for die presbyterate, but his youth does not allow this. Thus the ministry of the confessor is not to be self-authenticating, but subject to Cyprian’s episcopal control and favour. Only Cyprian, by his episcopal authority, can admit Aurelius even to die lower ranks of the clergy. It is time and further, lengthy, examination that, with the necessary imposition of episcopal hands, will admit him later to the diaconate or the presbyterate: all is subject to Cyprian’s placet. Those who have come over to Cyprian’s side from die Church of the Martyrs will nevertheless, in a bureaucratic master stroke, suffer no material "7 The process involving both exile and then actual torture has been much discussed; for a summaiy of this see Clarke, Letters n, p. 181n. 9. "* Cyprian, Epistulae38.1.1.9-1j. "* Cyprian, Epistulae38.iJ.16-8,31-3.

284

The Church o f th e M artyrs

loss: the Reader-confessors will be treated in terms o f material remuneration as if they were presbyters: Nevertheless you should note that we have considered them worthy already of the honour of the presbyterate. In consequence they are both receiving honocuy allowances (sportulae) with the presbyters, and a monthly allocation of identical amount to the latter, and they are destined, in the future, to take their seats with us when their years have progressed to maturity.120 Cyprian had provided from his place o f exile lavish patronage from his personal fortune that his opponents could not match, as a good episcopal patronus supporting his clientes, and receiving from them the support and subservience owed in such a relationship in a Roman cultural and political context.121 We should note one further example of a Carthaginian presbyter Numidicus, clearly amongst the confessors who had survived stoning and already acknowledged as a presbyter by Cyprian. Clarke found it strange that Cyprian should decide that Numidicus already bearing the title pres­ byter should be by Cyprian now ‘enrolled (adscribatur) in die number of the Carthaginian presbyters, and should sit with us in the ranks of the clergy’.122 He is not described as ‘ordained* {ordinatur) but simply as ‘placed on the roll* {adscribatur). But my account has now resolved this problem. Numidicus was presbyter by virtue of his suffering stoning that was clearly more than a mere castigatio dom estica. Leaving, as Aurelius and Celerinus had done, the Church of the Martyrs, Numidicus had already assumed presbyteral functions though the other two had n ot So he now joined Cyprian’s group without any imposition of hands, and was enrolled in the ranks of the clergy that received Cyprian’s remuneration and that were accordingly his clientes. Felicissimus and his group objected to such proselytizing activity on Cyprian’s part, and their strong reaction is indicative of the dear suc­ cess of such a policy. With a fine display of injured innocence, Cyprian will complain from his place of hiding to the four derics to whom he writes: While it has always been my intention and wish to maintain our whole brother­ hood in safety.. . in accordance with that which charity demands.. .you now report that Felicissimus has set to work on a variety of questionable acts of treachery... Though I sent you as my deputies to settle financially the mat­ erial needs of our brothers from the resources for that purpose... Felicissimus... “° Cyprian. Epistulae 39.5.2.91-4. Cyprian. Epistulae 40.1.1.8-9.

111 See above. Chapter a, section o.

C yprian 's new theology o f m artyrdom

285

actually threatened our brothers, who were the first to step forward for such finan­ cial support, with a display of illegitimate power and with an aggressive terrorism in his declaring that those who were willing to submit to us should not be in communion with his group ‘on the mountain’ {secum in monte) ... 1 give thanks that so many brothers have withdrawn from his impertinence, and have preferred to find their peace with you, so that in consequence they continue to be with Mother Church, and to reap die income {stipendia) that a bishop pays out.119 Cyprian speaks here at one point as though Felicissimus was trying to detach a group from his Church, but was not succeeding, when he talks of them continuing with M other Church’. But the remainder of this passage belies that assumption.

Felicissimus has the allegiance of a group within a definite precinct of the city near the summit of the Byrsa on the mountain {in m onte).174 It was here that the Church of the Martyrs had its own principal support. Cyprian had pursued a policy of detaching members of that group by offering them the kind of funding Cstipendia ) available to his group with which Felicis­ simus own could not compete. They had retaliated by threatening with excommunication from the Church of the Martyrs anyone who accepted such funds. As Lucianus had claimed, it was Cyprian’s group that needed to submit to the Church of the Martyrs and not vice versa. Cyprian thus shows us how to appear to agree with the martyr tradition regarding self-authenticating ordination, whilst in practice negating all possibility of actually following that tradition. The formally ordained clergy were to absorb into their numbers the confessors in Cyprian’s own terms, and to assimilate the image of the martyr to that of the priest. That Cyprian felt the force of such a tradition is further evidenced in the way in which he is prepared to ordain confessors - usually to die minor order of Reader, though in the case of Numidicus to the presbyterate itself - and so to extinguish the possibility of a sacramental ministry qua confessor and not qua cleric. Celerinus had represented the Roman confessors who, unlike their Carthaginian counterparts, had sympathized with Novatian initially. Sub­ sequently he had associated himself with the Carthaginian martyrs, whose support Felicissimus and his group had claimed: he had recourse to Lucianus and the Carthaginian martyrs for the absolution of his lapsed sisters that their counterparts at Rome had refused. The Roman Novatian Cyprian, Epistulae 41.1.1.5-7,1.2.12-14 and 21-24,2.1.29-31. 1,4 For a further discussion of this term and this group see W. K. Wisduneyer, ‘Gcdesia in Monte', Studia Patristica 19.23 (1989), pp. 130-8.

286

The Church o f th e M artyrs

m artyrs h ad m ad e peace w ith C o rn e liu s, so C y p ria n h a d successfully d etach ed th em fro m th e ir su p p o rt fo r N o v a tia n .

Now Celerinus could be an instrument in detaching the Carthaginian martyrs from the support they gave in their case to Felicissimus: his personal biography reveals his connection with both camps. Thus Celerinus ordination as Reader, subsequent to his returning to Carthage, was a major coup in Cyprian’s propaganda war. He was therefore the ideal figure to represent the process of reconciliation, but o f course on Cyprian s terms. The return at Rome to the Church of Cornelius of such martyrs as Moy­ ses, Nicostratus, and Rufinus from the schism of Novatian must have been doubly pleasing as Carthaginian confessors that were the support of the laxist group around Felicissimus were also now coming over to Cyprian. Cyprians consummate political strategy had thus had this double success. The council of early spring a d 253, moreover, was to confirm both his theology of bloodless’ martyrdom, and to affirm his denial of the validity of absolution from the martyrs.“ 5 D CONCLUSION

Cyprian could no doubt now believe that he had successfully completed his strategy commenced at his council of Easter a d 251, in which his new model of Church Order had triumphed over rival and, arguably, in some cases, more traditional claims. But the pleasure that he experienced was a cynical pleasure. He had crushed the Church of the Martyrs by undermining its theology of order. The Novatian rigorists had still left the Church, but he was to demolish their claims to validity by recourse to pagan jurisprudence, in which there could be only one episcopal sella curulis over a defined and sanctified sacred space (pom erium ).126 He had thus created an ecdesiasdcal jurisprudence that was to define the organization o f the Catholic Church of late antiquity, and of the medieval period, and that still functions today at the basis of canon law based upon territorial dioceses in churches governed by bishops. Initially he had achieved the recognition of Cornelius on the basis of the claims of such ecclesiastical jurisprudence, and the acceptance of those claims by an extensive network of territorially based bishops throughout the Roman Empire of Valerian and his successors. According to his model of Church Order, ordination was to be solely through the imposition of hands of a territorially located bishop, whose jurisdiction over a defined 1,5 Cyprian, Epistulae J7.4.1-3 (83-104).

116Chapter 2, section c.

Conclusum

287

^graphical space w as ack now ledged b y a netw ork o f bishops spread

jjiroughout the im p erial w o rld . T h ese m utually recognized each other in ^cir shared b o n d o f in terco m m u n io n . They were to meet in council from time to time, lib that which had jjhcn place at Carthage, in spring a d 251, on the issue of the lapsed, in order that fundamental issues of doctrine and discipline could be settled by mutual agreement. To be a member of the Body of Christ, you needed to be in communion with an episcopally ordained presbyter whose bishop was incommunion with all other valid bishops throughout the Roman wodd. No longer was it sufficient to establish a teaching succession between a bishop and his predecessor going back to the aposdes guaranteeing the authenticity of true Christian doctrine, as Irenaeus had taught,117 or a looser 'family resemblance' (consanguinitas) between what bishops on the one hand and the apostles and their associates on die other had rangln- or wereteaching, as Tertuffian had claimed.128Now each had to be territorially grounded according to the model of pagan jurisprudence, and its concept of jurisdiction in terms of im perium . But his initial victory was to prove a pyrrhic one. If Cyprian s true objective had been to create an a\X\n: Geoffrey Chapman 1966) Chapter 3· pp. 22-7 ff. " Cyprian, Epistulae 68.5.2.111-14.

294

Stephens challenge to ike s a c ra m e n tu m u n ita tis

C learly C y p rian does n o t b eliev e in th e in fa llib ility o f th e b ish o p o f Rome, despite his ack n o w led g m en t o f a P e trin e p rim a c y in so m e sense.11 Indeed, if Stephen breaks w ith th e co n sen su s o f C y p ria n ’s ap p ro v ed episcopal netw ork, th e n h e ceases to b e in d w e lt b y th e H o ly S p irit. A lthough stu d ies o f C y p ria n te n d to d w ell o n th e p ra c tic e o f th e rebap­ tism o f h eretics as c e n tra l to th e a rg u m e n t b e tw e e n h im a n d Stephen, the exam ples o f M arcian u s o f A rles, a n d o f M a rtia lis a n d B asilides, b o th show th a t w h at d iv id ed th em w as m o re g e n eral th a n th a t: i t w as C y p rian ’s model o f ch u rch u n ity itself. F ro m th e w ay in w h ic h h e a c te d , S tephen clearly d id n o t believe in C y p rian ’s rig id d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n w h a t w as inside, and w hat w as o u tsid e, th e san ctified g e o g ra p h ica l sp ace w ith in w h ich legitimate ecclesiastical a u th o rity c o u ld a lo n e b e ex ercised , in a n e tw o rk w ith other holders o f such a u th o rity w ith in th e ir o w n se p a ra te sa n ctifie d geographical space. W e m u st rem in d ourselves th a t M a rc ia n u s’ o ffen ce, i f i t w ere such, as was N ovatian’s, was n o t to have d e p a rte d fro m creed al orthodoxy, any m ore th an h ad M artialis a n d B asilides a t lea st in resp ect o f w hat they form ally tau g h t as d o c trin e. C y p ria n h a d n e e d , as w e have argued, o f a different arg u m en t to estab lish th e c la im o f C o rn e liu s a g ain st N ovatian in the first place.13 C y p rian m ay w ell h av e a p p e a re d to S te p h en an innovator, departing from trad itio n a l p rac tic e in th is a n d o th e r resp ects rath er than in fact follow ing it. T h is issue o f tra d itio n a n d th e q u e stio n o f h eresy th a t involved hetero­ doxy, an d schism th a t d id n o t, w ere to re a p p e a r in th e d isp u te over the rebaptism o f heretics th a t w e sh all n o w co n sid er.

B STEPHEN AND THE REBAPTISM OF HERETICS: THE ARGUMENT T h e issue was n o t w h eth er a fo rm er m e m b er o f a M a rc io n ite o r Valentinian o r o th er heretical sect n eed ed re b a p tiz in g b u t w h e th e r th o se from the N ovatian schism w ished to be reco n ciled w ith th e C a th o lic C h u rch . I f so, d id th ey need to be reb ap tized , o r c o u ld th e b ish o p sim p ly lay hands on them as an effectual sign o f th e ir rec o n ciliatio n ? W h a t in d ee d were the theological im p licatio n s o f e ith e r co u rse o f a ctio n ? L et us firstly exam ine C y p rian ’s case, a n d th e n , as fa r as w e can, recon­ stru c t S tephen’s reply.

“ Chapter 2, section c.3.3 and n. 157 and associated text. 0 Chapter 2, section c.3.1 and n. 127 and associated text.

The rebaptism o f heretics: the argument

295

B.I Cyprian ’s case: neither baptism nor salvation outside the Church Cyprian w rote h is first le tte r o n th is subject to M agnus, w hose id en tity and status is otherw ise u n k n o w n . In response to th e latter's inquiry, C yprian rejects N o v atian s acts o f b ap tizin g as sim ply a ‘profane w ashing' {profanum

lauacrum).14 T h ey are ‘o u tsid e th e sanctuary’ (profanum) because they are outside the o n e C h u rc h described in Song o f Solom on as ‘one dove', and likened to a ‘garden enclosed’, to a ‘sealed fo u n tain ’, an d to a well o f living water’.15 The act o f b ap tizin g is th e exercise o f legitim ate authority (potestas) and of legal right (ius), b o th o f w hich N ovatian lacks.16 As we have seen, potestas and ius could only b e exercised in a legitim ate com m and (imperium) w ithin a sanctified geographical space (prouincid). As such, an act o f baptism performed o u tside th e C h u rch lacked sanctification: it was profanum o r outside th e san ctu ary '. A follow er o f N ovatian seeking to com e to the Church outside o f w hich h e h ad been allegedly baptized needed ‘to be baptized and sanctified in th e C atholic C hurch by a legitim ate, true, and one baptism o f th e C h u rc h '.17 T h e N ovatians therefore were n o t sim ply com m itting rebellion a n d acts o f hostility (rebelles et hostes) by invading the lawful territory (provincia) o f th e bishop-m agistrate: they were com m itting sacrilege as w ell. T heir altars are false, th e offices o f their sacred bishops are contrary to divine law, an d th eir sacrifices are sacrilegious.12 T heir baptism m ust also be sacrilegious a n d o u tside th e sanctuary' (profanus):

If also the well of living water is the same one as that which is on du inside (intus), someone located on the outride (finis) cannot be made alive and sanctified from that water, the the entire use of which, including drinking, is granted to those alone who are on die inside. Therefore, in consequence, since he has, within die Church alone, the life-giving water, and the authority (potestas) to giant baptism and to wash dean a human being, he who says that someone can be baptized and sanctified in Novatians company, let him first demonstrate convincingly that Novatian is in the Church, or that he prerides over die Church. For the Church is one which, as one, cannot be both on the inride and on the outside (quae urn et intus esse etforts non potest).19 But C yprian also argues th a t th e baptism th a t sanctifies m ust convey the Holy Spirit.

* Cyprian, Epistulae69.1.1.5. ,J SongofSol. 6:8,4:11 and 15,and Cyprian,Epistulae690x37-40. 16 Cyprian, Epistulae 69.1.1.10-n. 17 Cyprian, EpistuLu 69.1.1.5-7. '* Cyprian, Epistukt 69.14.3x-j. *» Cyprian, Epistulu 69.M.44-7 and3.1.61-7.

i$ 6

Stephen s challenge to the sa c ra m e n tu m u n ita tis

A t th is p o in t i t m ig h t b e th o u g h t th a t h is se c u la r a n d jurisdictional view

o f b a p tism b e in g v a lid ly p e rfo rm e d only by so m e o n e holding legitimate a u th o rity {potestas) fails to yield th a t c o n c lu sio n a b o u t th e S p irit One c o u ld , a fte r all, b e leg ally a m e m b e r o f a collegium b u t Jack som e o f its gifts. C y p rian is co n v in c ed th a t th e S p irit c an b e g iv en o n ly w ith in th e Church, a n d i t m ig h t b e th o u g h t th a t th e ex eg etical basis fo r th a t conclusion is based p u re ly o n S c rip tu re , u n c o n ta m in a te d b y a p a g an jurisdictional and secu lar p ersp ectiv e. F o r h im th e b rea d o f th e F u d ia ris t th a t C h rist offered

as a sacrifice is a n effective sig n th a t th e C h u rc h o f m an y m em bers is the o n e B o d y o f C h rist:

And finally Christian unity of spirit, bound together by the bond of a secure and indivisible love, the very dominical sacrifices themselves declare. For when the Lord calls the bread his own body from the kneading together of many grains into one whole, he indicates that our people whom he bore are joined as one. And when he calls the wine his blood, pressed out fiom very many dusters of individual grapes and squeezed into one, he signifies that we his flock are joined together by the commingling of a number of individuals into one. If Novatian has been joined with this dominical bread, if he has been commingled with the cup of Christ, he could be considered to be capable of obtaining the grace of the one baptism, but only if he can establish that he holds to the Church's unity.20 B u t even h e re C y p rian n eed s to e stab lish th e tig h t co n n ectio n between receiv in g th e S p irit in b a p tism , fo rgiveness o f sin s, a n d m em bership o f the c o rp o ra te body. H e w ill, ad d itio n ally , th ere fo re ap p eal to th e Johanninc P en teco st in w h ich th e rise n C h rist b reath es th e H oly S p irit in to the c o m p a n y o fd isc ip le s in th e U p p e r R o o m o n th e e v en in g o f th e resurrection, a n d w ith th e H o ly S p irit g ra n ts to th e c o m m u n ity th e p o w er o f absolution.21 B u t th e re is n o specific reference in th a t passage to th e S p irit and the forgiveness o f sin s b e in g conveyed th ro u g h a b a p tism al rite . O n c e ag ain w e m u st n o tic e, as b efo re, th a t C y p rian 's exegesis makes its p o in t a g ain st h is c u ltu ra l b ack g ro u n d g ro u n d e d in a S to ic m etaphysic.22 T h e S p irit is p re se n t in a c o m m u n ity liv in g in pax, concordia, unanimitas, e tc . because th ese are th e q u alities o f a saeculum in fu se d w ith th e λόγος έ ν δ ιά θ ετο ς p e rv a d in g all th in g s, a n d g iv in g to th e m th e ir o rd e r an d coher­ en ce. T o claim, th erefo re, th a t in d iv id u a ls are u n ite d in to o n e harm onious b o d y w ith su ch q u alities is to p ro claim a m etap h y sical o rd e r in w hich the w o rld S p irit o r Λ ό γ ο ς dw ells. N o v a tia n , in sc a tte rin g a n d dividing the C h u rc h , in b reak in g th e ‘b o n d o f u n ity ’ (unitatis uinculum), is showing 20 Cyprian, Epistulae 69.5.1.101-16. u John 20:21-3 and Cyprian, Epistulae 69.1.1.225-33, c£ 73.7.2.119-126. 21 See above, Chapter 3, section a.

The rebaptism o f heretics: the argument he is Pa rt

297

d*e P re se n t ag e, a n d c o n trib u te s to th e d isin te g ratio n

1 ruin o f a w o rld n o w la p se d in to its senectus. S u ch a w o rld h a d lo st th e > tu a l order o f th e λ ό γ ο ς Ε νδ ιά θετο ς. ^ It is precisely su c h a n e sch a to lo g ic al c o n te x t in w h ic h N o v a tia n s o p p o sition can now b e p la c e d , so th a t h is g ro u p , in its divisiveness, scatterin g

the flock, c a n n o t m ak e a n y c la im to th e o n e Λ ό γ ο ς. H e q u o tes Jo h n as claiming th a t th e 'm a n y a n tic h rists1, as fo re ru n n e rs o f A n tich rist, w ere th e heretics and sch ism atics w h o h a d d e p a rte d fro m th e C h u rc h a n d th u s ^nailed th a t it w as th e ‘la st h o u r1:13 Ν»

Similarly the blessed apostle John did not distinguish between any one heresy or

schism and another, nor did he place any in separate categories, but he called all ot them who had departed from the Church and who acted against the Church antichrists’ ... In consequence it is clear that it is established that they all are the l ord s adversaries that have withdrawn from the charity and unity of die Church u, cmtate atque ab u n itate ecclesiae).H

The characteristic A frican sy m b o l o f th e C h u rc h w as th e A rk o f N o ah , which in itself w as u se d fo r b a p tism in an eschatological co n tex t in th e New T estam ent.15 C y p ria n in c lu d e d in su ch a co n te x t also th e im age o f Rahab in th e O ld T e sta m e n t, g a th e rin g all h e r h o u seh o ld to g eth er in to h e r house to escape d e stru c tio n .16 T h u s: ‘By th is typology (quo sacramento) it is declared th a t th ey sh o u ld g a th e r to g e th e r in o n e h o u se, w ith th e in te n tio n of remaining alive a n d o f escap in g th e d isso lu tio n o f th e w o rld .117 T h o se who divide th e C h u rc h a n d sc atter its flocks are b u t signs, th erefore, o f the break-up o f a w o rld w h o se senectus has com e, a n d w h o , in w h at L ucan described as a n a tu re a t v arian ce w ith itse lf’ (natura discors), lacked th e right order o f th e Λ ό γ ο ς.18 Let us now a tte m p t to re c o n stru c t S tep h en ’s reply.

B.2 Stephen appeals to the Church’s tradition Stephen s ow n le tte rs have n o t survived a n d so, to som e ex ten t, w e are dependent fo r o u r re c o n stru c tio n o f h is case o n C y p rian s (an d F irm ilians) replies in Letters 6 9 -7 5 . H ow ever, w e d o have preserved, am ongst Cyprian s spuria, a n an o n y m o u s tra c t, th e De rebaptismate, w h ich seem s to represent S te p h e n s case. I f n o t w ritte n b y S tep h en him self, th is tra c t does,li

li i John 2:18-19. 14 Cyprian, Epistulae 69.1.3.19-22 and 26-8. ** 1Pfet. 3:20-1. * Cyprian, Epistulae 69.4.1.79-84 and Josh. 2418-19. 17 Cyprian, Epistulae 69.4.2.84-6. a Brent, Imperial Cub, pp. 44-50 and above. Chapter j, section Λ.2.

298

Stephen's challenge to the sacram en tu m u n ita tis

nevertheless, re fle a his p o sitio n as rep resen ted , a n d n o d o u b t caricatured, in C yprian’s relevant letters. Stephen’s fundam ental p o sitio n w as fo u n d ed u p o n th e tradition that sanctioned n o t rebaptizing (som e) h eretics, b u t receiving th em w ith the im position o f episcopal h ands in stead , by m eans o f w hich th ey were held to receive th e Spirit. It sh o u ld , th erefo re, be n o te d from th e outset that both sides w ere agreed th a t th e S p irit h a d n o t been received in heretical baptism : n eith er side asserted th a t h eretical b ap tism b y itse lf constituted the com pleted sacram ent o f salvation. T h e p o in t is

whether, according to the most ancient custom that is the Church’s tradition, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church (forts) indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, it should be sufficient that only hands should be laid upon them by a bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the repeated and completed sign of faith.29 Stephen continually claim s th e a u th o rity o f tra d itio n in his attitude to w hich C yprian, in reply, is a t his m o st self-co n trad icto ry . A t one p o in t C yprian appeals to a co u n cil h e ld u n d e r A grippinus "in the provinces o f A frica an d N u m id ia’,30 o f w h ich n o th in g fu rth e r is known. In th e lig h t o f th a t council, h e can c o n fid e n d y assert th a t th e decision of his council o f eighty-seven bishops is n o n ew ju d ic ia l decision {senten­

tiam . . . non nouam) . . . b u t o n e lo n g ago d e te rm in e d b y o u r predecessors {sedetiam iampridem ab antecessonbus nostris)’.31 H e m ig h t seek su p p o rt from T a m ilia n earlier,31 a n d fro m his contem ­ porary, D ionysius o f A lexandria, a lth o u g h th e la tte r’s decisio n o n w hat was d early d isp u ted before w as as recen t as h is o w n . B u t D ionysius admits C y prian’s influence:

I have leamt this also that die Africans did not slip in this practice for die first time, but that long before us, in the days of the bishops that were before us in the most populous Churches and synods of the brethren in Iconium and in many places, this was the resolution. And I will not tolerate... overturning their decisions.33 D ionysius is d e arly im pressed w ith C y p rian ’s rh e to ric as h e seeks to estab­ lish a mos maiorum by d o th in g it w ith a h a lo o f lo n g a n tiq u ity . H e repeats, in his w ords lo n g before us’, C y p rian 's expressions su c h as sed etiam iam

pridem ah antecessoribus nostris. B u t th e d a te o f th e sh ad o w y A grippinus is19* 19 De rebaptismate 1. Cyprian, Epistulae 71.4.1.77-80; 73.3.1.46-54. p Cyprian, Epistulae 70.1.2.21-1. J1 Tertullian, De baptismo 15.2; Depudicitia 19.5. # Eusebius (Dionysius ofAlexandria), Historia ecclesiastica 7.7.5.

The rebaptism o f heretics: the argument

299

minuted as a ro u n d a d 230.34 C y p ria n th e rhetor, p lead in g his case, m ight therefore assert: ‘T h e y ears a re m an y , a n d th e p e rio d long, since under lu p in u s , a m an o f fin e m em o ry , a g rea t m an y b ish o p s, assem bling as one, made th is ruling.*35 B u t h o w m an y th e re actually w ere is im possible to substantiate, a n d th e ‘lo n g b e fo re u s’ (longa aetas) w as b u t tw enty-six years

before! C yprian h as b e e n e a rn e d aw ay b y th e sam e rh eto ric w ith w hich he has influenced o th ers. Hrmilian, as a w illin g d isc ip le, w as certain ly w ell versed, in a slavishly repetitive way, in C y p ria n s p o sitio n th a t h e regurgitates in full. B ut even he has to ad m it, fo r all h is e n th u sia sm fo r th e C yprianic doctrine, th at Cvprian was a ctin g c o n tra ry to cu sto m : You Africans are able to reply to Stephen that, having found the truth, you have left the error of mere custom . Nevertheless, we combine custom with truth, and vt set in answer to th e custom o f die Romans die custom o f the truth. This principle, we have m aintained, is from die beginning because it has been handed down in the tradition from C hrist and from die apostles.36 Here, it m ust b e co n ced ed , C y p rian w as a t his m ost self-contradictory. H e had himself, at a n o th e r p o in t, breath tak in g ly in view o f past argum ents, claimed th at reason m u st overrule tra d itio n , o r rather reveal it to be merely human custom : ‘N o r o u g h t cu sto m th a t has insidiously crept into the company o f certain perso n s to provide an obstacle th at prevents tru th conquering a n d prevailing. F o r custom w ith o u t tru th is an error dressed in old clothes.’37 O n e can now , in th e lig h t o f reason, declare any tradition mere custom , b y g o in g b a ck to Scripture:

For if we turn bade to the source {caput) and fountain head (orxgo) of divine tradition, human error ceases, and, as a result of die rational examination of the heavenly mysteries {sacramenta), whatever lay hidden in darkness under the shadow and mist of the gloomy regions is exposed to the light of truth... If in any matter truth should have begun to be shaken and blown about, we must return to truth’s source {origo) in the Lord, and to die evangelical and apostolic tradition, and from where the reason for our action is derived, and its arrangement and birth {ordo et origo) has arisen.38 But Stephen has n o desire to follow C yprian’s ‘reason for our action’ {actus ratio) regarding a baptism al act. H e cannot accept Cyprian’s exegesis of Scriptural texts th a t is founded upon an ultim ately pagan notion o f a sanctified sacred space th a t endow s a bishop w ith a legitimate potestas. H For a full discussion see Clarke, Letters iv, pp. 196-7 n. 4. * Cyprian,Epistulae73.3.148-50. ,s Cyprian, Epistulae 73.19.3.377-82. ** Cyprian, Epistulae74.9.2.179-82. ** Cyprian, Epistulae 74.10.2.205-8 and 10.3.218-21.

Stephen s challenge to the s a c ra m e n tu m u n ita tis

300

S te p h e n d o e s n o t lo o k to a S to ic m e ta p h y s ic o f u n ity , to w h ic h oneness and in d iv isib ility a re a g u a ra n te e o f th e d iv in e o rd e r o f th e λ ό γ ο ς ένδιάθετος. S u c h a ju s tific a tio n is fo r h im th e in n o v a tio n th a t re q u ire s co n d em n atio n . S te p h e n re a d ily w ill n o w ju s tify h is p ra c tic e in th e lig h t o f its o rig in and so u rc e in th e p ra c tic e o f o u r L o rd a n d h is a p o stle s. S c rip tu re , h e w ill now a sse rt, s u p p o rts th e C h u rc h ’s c o n tin u in g tr a d itio n . I t w ill th u s be Cyprian w h o is th e in n o v a to r (innouare).39

B .2 .I

Stephen V argumentfrom Scripture

I f w e b e g in w ith th e o rig in o f C h ris tia n b a p tis m in th e m in istry o f John th e B a p tist, w e fin d a b a p tis m o f re p e n te n c e fo r th e forgiveness o f sins, b u t w ith o u t th e H o ly S p irit. J o h n sa id :

1 b a p tiz e y o u

w ith w ater, h e who

c o m e s a fte r m e . . . w ill b a p tiz e y o u in th e H o ly S p irit a n d in fire.’40 John h a d b a p tiz e d th e a p o stle s in w a te r, a n d la te r, a c c o rd in g to C h rist’s prom ise, th e y w ere to receiv e o n th e d a y o f P e n te c o st th e H o ly S p irit w ith o u t being re b a p tiz e d . C y p ria n m ig h t p ro te s t th a t in o rd e r to b e b o m anew , o n e m ust b e b o m b y w a te r a n d th e S p irit as C h ris t sa id to N ic o d e m u s. B u t S te p h e n m ig h t r e to r t th a t th e b a p tis m o f w a te r a n d th a t o f the S p irit d id n o t n ecessarily o c c u r to g e th e r a t th e sa m e tim e : all th a t the passag e sh o w ed w as th a t 'b a p tis m o n ly p ro fits o n e in w h o m th e Holy S p irit c a n d w e ll’.41 B u t th is d id n o t m e a n th a t b a p tism w ith w ater if v a lid also in v o lv e d b a p tism w ith th e S p irit. O f c o u rse i t c o u ld happen th a t, as w ith th e b a p tism o f Je su s, th e H o ly S p irit d escen d s im m ediately fo llo w in g b a p tism , b u t c le a rly fro m S c rip tu re b a p tis m a n d th e S pirit are n o t n e ce ssa rily b ro u g h t to g e th e r in th is w a y i t th e sa m e tim e . S te p h e n d o e s n o t o b je c t to th e n o tio n th a t th e p e rso n b e in g baptized in th e C a th o lic C h u rc h receives th e S p irit a t th e sam e tim e . H e does not, th e re fo re , o b je c t to C y p ria n ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e b ish o p ’s im p o sitio n o f h a n d s , a n d sig n in g o f th e cro ss in o il, is p a r t o f th e b a p tism al rite, and, th e re fo re , p a r t o f th e re c e p tio n o f th e H o ly S p irit in b a p tism : T h is is also now o u r practice th a t those w ho are baptized w ith in die Church are b ro u g h t before those in au th o rity over th e C h u rch , an d they acquire the Holy S pirit th ro u g h th e prayer we offer, an d th e laying o n o f o u r hands, and they are m ade com plete w ith this seal o f th e L ord {signaculo dominicoJ.4* S te p h e n w ill ag ree th a t, in th e case o f b a p tis m w ith in th e C a th o lic C hurch, th e r ite is e n tire a n d w h o le:

39 De rebaptismate I. 40 Matt. 3:11; Mark 1.7; Luke y.16. 41 Cyprian, Epistulae 73.9.1.151-5.

41 Derrbaptismate).

The rebaptism o f heretics: the argument

301

0ur salvation is grounded in th e b a p tism o f th e S p irit, w h ich is co m b in ed •‘ 0ften w ith th e b a p tism o f w ater, if in d eed th e b ap tism h as com e dow n oUch us, let it b e sealed in its en tirety , a n d co n ferred in its in teg rity a n d w ith l. e ritual' and w ith every w ritte n p rescrip tio n , a n d le t it b e h an d ed dow n w ith o u t ^ovingfrom it any d etail.43 gut Stephen w ill a d d th a t, i n a n e m e rg e n c y , a d e a c o n o r o th e r in fe rio r cleric might a d m in is te r th e r ite , f o r e x a m p le a t a sic k b e d , a n d , th e re fo re , V v\th no ep isco p al im p o s itio n o f h a n d s , w h ic h m a y ta k e p la c e i f th e p e rs o n •n question reco v ers, o r m ay , i f h e d ie s , h a v e to b e le ft to G o d .44 S te p h e n might co n tin u e:

s;0ne of u s . . . objects, co n trary to divine law o r to tru th , to th e principle o f performing rites th a t are co m p lete in th e ir entirety, an d th a t are observed by us continually, in accordance w ith th e d u e process o f o u r discipline. B ut, in th e sam e 1'estament, th e very subjects w h ich w e discover in th is process o f exam ination, joined together o n various occasions, are som ehow placed ap art an d separated, an d usually set out like th a t, a n d as if th ey really w ere individual cases. W e should, therefore, look carefully a t w h eth er individual exam ples a t o n e tim e isolated m ight be able to be regarded as th o u g h th ey w ere n o t tru n cated , b u t were rather w hole and complete.45 Thus we fin d th a t, th o u g h a t C h ris t’s b a p tis m b a p tism o f w a te r a n d o f th e Holy Spirit cam e to g e th e r a n d c o m p le te d th e rite in its e n tirety , in th e case of the disciples th e S p irit "was n o t y e t b ecau se ]esu s w as n o t y e t glorified*. Even th o u g h th e y b a p tiz e d o th e rs , th e d iscip les h a d n o t b e e n b a p tiz e d by C hrist b u t b y Jo h n .46 T h u s , b e fo re th e d a y o f P e n tec o st, th e y h a d to await the c o m p le tio n o f th e rite so th a t b a p tism , w ith o u t th e im p o sitio n of valid episcopal h a n d s , w as n o t a n e x am p le o f th in g s ‘tru n c a te d ’ so m u c h as things ‘p laced a p a rt a n d se p a ra te d ’, a n d re q u irin g jo in in g fo r b e c o m in g whole a n d c o m p lete ’. C yprian h as o f c o u rse to tr y to a v o id th e im p lic a tio n s o f S tep h en ’s tex ts. Thus he claim s th a t Jo h n th e B a p tist h a d received d ie s p irit o f E lijah a t his b irth a n d th u s h a d th e rig h t to b a p tiz e , ev en th o u g h th e tex ts m ake no m en tio n o f h im h a v in g receiv ed th e H o ly S p irit, w h ic h h e w o u ld th e n have been th u s ab le to co n v ey th ro u g h b is b a p tism a l acts, b u t ra th e r th e reverse 47 C y p ria n h a s a stro n g e r case w h e n h e ap p eals to th e fac t th a t those at E p h esu s b a p tiz e d b y J o h n w ere also (re)b a p tiz ed b y P au l, o n th e grounds th a t th e y h a d receiv ed o n ly Jo h n ’s b a p tism : th ey w ere n o t b a p tize d with th a t o f Jesus. P a u l th e re fo re b a p tiz e d th e m in th e n am e o f Jesus, a n d De rebaptismate io.

44 De rebaptismate io.

46 De rebaptismate 4 and John 4:1-2 and 7:39-40.

411 De rebaptismate y 47 Cyprian, Epistulae 73.2.5.1.445-9.

Stephen s challenge to the sa c ra m e n tu m u n ita tis

302

la id h a n d s o n th e m fo r th e m to receiv e th e H o ly S p ir it48 B u t this, for S te p h en , leads to exeg ed cal co n seq u e n ce s th a t C y p ria n n o m o re than he c an accep t: th e a p o stles b a p tiz e d b y J o h n a lo n e w ere n o t p ro p erly baptized. F u rth e rm o re , ev en h e re , S te p h e n ’s c o n te n tio n is su p p o rte d th a t th e Spirit, received th ro u g h th e im p o sitio n o f h a n d s a n d b a p tism , is ‘in th e nam e of Jesu s’: th e re are tw o p a rts to a rite th a t c an b e se p ara ted o r can be brought to g eth er. S te p h en ’s d e b a te w ith C y p ria n to o k p lac e o b v io u sly befo re an historicoc ritic a l stu d y o f th e b ib lical lite ra tu re th a t m ig h t d isallo w th e im position of a n artificial, sy stem atically th eo lo g ical, re a d in g o f m aterial derived from d iffe re n t early C h ristia n c o m m u n itie s w ith d iffe re n t theological agen­ d as. S tep h en w ill rep ly w ith a c o u n te r-ex a m p le , th a t o f P h ilip and the S am aritan s.49 T h e fo rm er evangelizes th e la tte r, a n d th e y are baptized ‘in th e n am e o f Jesus’. I t is o n ly su b seq u e n tly th a t P eter a n d Jo h n are sent by th e ap o stles to lay h a n d s o n th e S am aritan s, w h o have n o t y et received the H o ly S p irit. C y p rian ’s response is th a t P h ilip w as w ith in th e C h u rc h , although he seem s to have acted sem i-in d ep en d en d y , a n d so h is acts o f baptism cannot b e h e ld to b e, lik e th o se o f N o v a tia n a n d o th e r h eretics, o u tsid e (forts) the C h u rc h .10 B u t S tep h en can still m ak e h is p o in t, y e t again from Acts, that th ere are tw o co m p o n en ts to C h ristia n in itia tio n th a t can be separated fro m each o th er, w hereas C y p rian , th o u g h co n ced in g a n im posidon of h a n d s as p a rt o f th e b a p tism al rite , w ill still in sist:

For water alone is unable to purge away sins and to sanctify humanity without it also containing die Holy Spirit. Wherefore either they should concede the point that the Spirit is present at the point where they say there is a baptism, or there is not a baptism where the Spirit is not present, on the grounds that a baptism cannot exist without the Spirit.51 S tep h en m ig h t, in exasperarion, n o w re to rt th a t h e has clearly shown, fro m th e G ospels a n d in p arricu lar th e A cts o f th e A posdes, th a t there is a d istin c tio n betw een ‘b a p tism in th e n am e o f Jesus’, a n d receiving the Spirit th ro u g h th e im p o sitio n o f th e aposdes* h an d s. T h is d istin c tio n is present in ap o sto lic p ractice a t th e v ery so u rce a n d o rig in o f th e trad itio n th at he is sim p ly c o n tin u in g , as can b e seen in th a t d o c u m e n t. A m o d em w riter su ch as L am pe m ig h t, a t th is p o in t, leap to Cyprian’s defen ce, arm ed w ith th e to o ls o f h isto rical a n d literary criticism . Lampe arg u ed ag ain st m o d em , ‘H ig h ’ A n glican, th eologies o f confirm ation that41* 41 Cyprian, Epistulae 73.24.3439-40 and Acts 19:3-7· 49 De rebaptimate 4. 50 Cyprian, Epistuke 73.9.1.139-47 and Acts 8:12-16. * Cyprian, Epistulae 74.5.4.106-10.

The rebaptism o f hernia: the argument

303

([,e author o f A cts’ defective view o f th e S p irit h a d m isled p ro p o n en ts o f ^ traditional a rg u m en t. In A cts th e S p irit is represented, defectively; as a Jivine force rath e r th a n as a p erso n , a n d fo r th a t reason th e d istin c tio n that Stephen draw s fro m its te x t is also defective.51 C y p rian has n o su ch l^torico-critical to o ls w ith w h ic h to d efen d his p o sitio n . R ath er h e m u st defend, in o th er w ays, h is d o g m a o f o n e co rp o rate body, w ith a sanctified hierarchy able to tra n sm it th e S p irit w ith in a n d n o t o u tsid e itself. Thus C yprian n o w appeals to th e Jo h a n n in e P entecost, in w hich th e r)Sen C hrist b reath es in to th e disciples th e H o ly S p irit, a n d gran ts th e power to forgive sins: ( rom this statement we understand th at it is unlawful for those who are not placed ,n authority in the C hurch, and supported by the law o f die Gospel, and by w hat the I ord has laid down, to baptize or to grant absolution from sins. It is impossible f.>r anything to be bound or released outside the C hurch’s official boundary (forts), where there is no one who can bind or release.55 Rut this passage does n o t m en tio n b ap tism . C y p rian can o n ly so co n n ect it by arguing th a t th e S p irit is in b reath ed in to a m ystical co m m u n ity w ith a corporate an d m etaphysical oneness th a t m arks its validity. B u t h ere th a t metaphysical oneness is p arasitic u p o n C y p rian s pagan b ackground, as we have argued. ‘U n ity ’ im plies th e absence o f d isin teg ratio n o f a w o rld collapsing in to ru in in its senectus. F u rth erm o re, h is claim th a t th e trans­ mission o f th e H o ly S p irit is an a ct o f potestas w as a pagan, ju risp ru d en tial, one: potestas can o n ly b e exercised w ith in , a n d n o t o u tsid e (forts), a sanc­ tified sacred space o r imperium. C y p rian can n o t form th e logical p a tte m on which his arg u m en t relies for its co n v ictio n ag ainst S tep h en s clearly biblical argum ent w ith o u t o rd erin g th e d ata o f revelation w ith in su ch a pagan m atrix. Stephen does n o t accept such a secularization o f theological arg u m en t as the basis for a valid S criptural exegesis. In consequence, h e can claim the Johannine P entecost as su p p o rtin g h is tra d itio n o n rebapdsm , since, once again, th e disciples h ad been baptized fo r th e rem ission o f th e ir sins by John, b u t only now w ere receiving th e H o ly S p irit in th e U p p er R oom on the day o f th e resurrection a t th e Jo h an n in e P entecost.54 B u t S tephen has a m ore theologically elaborate ju stificatio n o f ‘b ap tism in th e nam e o f Jesus’ th at is focused o n th e ‘pow er o f th e nam e’.

u C,.W. H. Lampe, The Sealefthe Spirit;Λ Stuety in the DoctrmeefBaptimaitdCuitfmatimM the New Testament and in Oh Fathers (London: SPCK1967), pp. viii-xiv and Chapter 7. w John lO '.n and Cyprian, Epistulae 73.7.2.122^, vith his theory by communicating with bishops who were not part o f the of episcopal interrelationships, and requiring submission from bishops generally regarding his baptismal practice. Thus Cyprian at this tim e produced a new version o f this passage, with aview now of refuting not Novatians claims, but those o f Stephen:105 In order that he might reveal their unity, he ordained by his own authority that the source of that same unity should begin from the one who began die series (unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit). The remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership both of honour and of power {pari consortio praediti et honoris tt potestatis), but the starting point from which they begin is from their unity (sed exordium ah imitate proficiscitur) with him in order that the Church of Christ might be exemplified as one.106 The source of unity (origo unitatis) is now the see o f Rome simply regarded as the starting point (exordium), and Peter as bishop is the one that began the series (ah urn incipientem ), The aposdes/bishops were quodfitit Petrus, not simply because they were examples of the unity given by the see o f Peter to the whole Church, but because they were pari consortio praediti et honoris etpotestatis, The unity is no longer simply the unitas Petri but the unitas ecclesiae. When Stephen proceeded to excommunicate whole provinces on the rebaptism issue, then clearly Cyprian could no longer maintain that the remainder should hold to the unity of Peter. Rather it was Stephen who, in not acting in equal consort with bishops possessing the same potestas (pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis) , whose series his see and its predecessofs had begun (exordium ab unitate proficiscitur), was therefore not holding to the unitas ecclesiae. Whether that excommunication took place before or after Cyprian’s second edition of the text o f De unitate 4-5 is difficult to determine. It can be read as earlier and in response to Stephen’s Petrine claim to which, as we have said, the letter to Quintus makes reference.107 O r it could be read in the light of Stephen’s decision to make the baptism issue one of excommunication. 105 M. Wvenot, St. Cypriani De Unitate Chap. 4 in the Light Above, n. 78 and associated text. "9 Cyprian, Epistulae 74.2.1.22— 6.

3i8

Stephen’s challenge to the sacramentum unitatis

Whether as a response to the threatening tone o f Stephens lost letter, and the arguments preserved in the De rebaptismate, or in reaction to Stephens excommunication o f whole dioceses, Cyprian now called a second council in the autumn o f a d 256. C.4 Second council o f ad 256: the council ofeighty-seven bishops Eighty-seven bishops gathered at Carthage on 1 September ad 256, the hill transcript o f which has survived in both Greek and Latin versions.120 Cyprian addressed the company o f bishops, gathered from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania, together with his presbyters and deacons, and ‘with the majority o f the laity being present* {praesente etiam plebes maxima parte). Iubaianus’ request to Cyprian was read out, along with Cyprian’s surviving reply.121 O ther letters o f Iubaianus on the subject were also read out.122 Cyprian’s contention, to which all were to give their consent with brief comments under their own names, was that ‘we have given our considered opinion, once, twice, and often, that heretics, coming to the Church, ought to be baptized and sanctified with the Church’s baptism*.129 Either because Stephen’s excommunication of any diocese found to rebaptize heretics had already been carried out, or because it had been threatened and was in prospect, the Council added: ‘In publishing our decision (sententia), we are not passing judgment on anyone nor removing from anyone o f contrary opinion the right (ius) to share our communion.’124 Clearly the reference here is to excommunication, whether actual or in prospect, as the Greek translation o f ‘the right to share our communion’ (iure communicationis), άκοινωνήτου, makes dear. There then follows a general prescription, but with a veiled reference to Stephen in particular

For neither should any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops (episcopus episcoporum), nor by a tyrannical act, inspiring terror, should he force his colleagues by external compulsion, when every bishop should keep to his own opinion in defence of the free exercise of his liberty and his authority, and he is just as unable to be judged by another as he can himselfjudge another.125 “° Sententiaeepiscoporumnumeroixxxvridehaereticisbaptizanda (CCLS3.E.4). SeealsoJ. A. Fischer, ‘Das Konzil zu Karthago im Spätsommer 256’, Annmrium Historiae Conciliorum 16.1 (1984), ΡΡ· ι- 39· m Sententiaeepiscoporum3-6, c£ Cyprian, Epistulae 73, see above, n. 109and associated ten. m Sententiae episcoporum6-n. UJ Sententiae episcoporum 13-15. m Sententiae episcoporum19-20. Sententiaeepiscoporum 21-6.

The Councils o f Carthage against Stephen

319

The threatened or actual act o f excommunication has become ‘an instru­ c t of tyrannical terror’, and a claim o f the Roman see to be that o f a ‘b is h o p o f bishops’ (episcopus episcoporum). The latter charge ofAfrica against a bishop o f Rome had a recent history, 2nd one bound up with the development o f a monarchal episcopacy at gome at the turn o f the third century. C.$ Stephen s claims and the origins o f episcopal monarchy a t Rome Around ad 2i7Tertullian had described Callistus I, sarcastically, as episcopus episcoporum, and, with an equally offensive term , pontifex maximus, which was at this time a purely pagan tide o f the high priest of Roman pagan religion.126 As such Tertullian had made common cause with the Hippolytan community at Rome that mirrored the attitudes o f a Montanism in which Tertullian shared, as a member o f a group that had not yet bro­ ken irrevocably with the Catholic Church. Callistus had begun his move to create a monarchical episcopate from a fractionalized community o f housechurches at Rome, here criticized by Tertullian. Callistus’ plan was only to be ultimately fully successful under his successor but one, Pontian.127 Callistus’ underlying legitimizing theology for such a move was a monardiianism in the Trinity that subordinated all to a single, universal power, and that led him to accuse his opponents o f ditheism in asserting two or three persons in the godhead. As such his action had reflected, in a Chris­ tianized form, the policy of the emperor Elagabalus, who had attempted abordvely to institute a universal pagan religion on the basis o f the sun’s disc, as legitimating theologically one empire combining a variety o f cul­ tures within the Severan ideal o f an imperial whole.128 This Roman imperial ideal was to triumph only later in the reign o f Aurelian, in which Plotinus was to flourish with his own, pagan, philosoph­ ical justification o f that ideal. But its seed, in a reversed, counter-cultural image, was to grow within the Roman Christian community also. One pointer to the bishop o f Rome as an imperial monarch was undoubtedly the real dates o f the succession and deaths o f bishops of Rome, witnessed by the chronographer o f 334. Pontian (d. 23$), and all subsequent bishops, have their deaths and the names o f their successors recorded at various times, as opposed to the quite artificial allocation o f deaths and successions ** Tertullian, Depudicitiai.6 S and Brent, Hippolytus,pp. jot-6, *7 -3· 293 68.J.I41-6· *7 68. ).249-5°· 293 68.5. UOJ-IO* 293 68.5.2.111- 14· 293 69-75· 297 69. U-3-7· >7 69.1.1.5. 295 69.1X5-7. 295 69.t1.10-n, 29$ 69.1.1.225-33, 296 69x349-22 and 26-8, 297 69.1.3.19-29, «3 69x4.31-3· 29$ 69x1.37-40, 295 69.2.144-7, 17, 29$

6931.62-7, 295 69.34.62-74, 17 337

M odem authors Grfgpiie, H., Orgels, E, Moreau, J., and Maricq.A., 199»337 Gros, E» 48» 337 Guarduca, M., 234» *37»337 Halkin, L , 174.337 Hali, S . G ., 315.337 HaJsberghc, G . H ., 1 6 4 ,3 3 7

Harnack. A . v o n ,

2 3 6 ,3 3 7

Hirzel, R -, 85.338 H übner, S ., 2 6 7 ,3 3 8 H urst, H ., 4 0 .3 3 6 3 3 8 .3 4 * H urst, H . and R oskaros, S· R , jJ.

338

lo a n , J. and A lfbldi-R osenbaum , E , 183,338 Jam es, M . R ., u i,

338

K am pm ann, U ., 186,338 K eil, B ., 9 9 , 3 3 0 K enan, E , 183,338 K eresztes, P., 1 2 3 -9 ,1 3 0 -2 , 133.1 3 4 - 9 . H i. *4 *. 1 8 8 ,1 9 5 ,1 9 6 1 9 7 » *9 9 . * ° 3 . 218, 219» 228, 3 3 8 K ienast, D ., 186,338 K nipfing, J. R ., 130,132,134. *9 9 . 2 0 1 ,2 0 4 ,2 0 7 ,

246.338 Krebs, F., 130,131,132,338 K uM m ann, P. A ., 2 0 6 ,3 3 8 Lane F or, R ., 1 2 9,133,188,197,338 Leadbetrer, W . L , 2 0 1 ,2 0 2 ,3 3 9 L edercq, H ., 1 9 9 . 3 3 9 L ong, A . A ., 9 7 ,3 3 9 L oriot, X ., 175.339 L otz,J.-P ., 4 ,1 8 6 ,3 3 9 M acM ullen, R ., 7 6 ,3 3 9 M erlin, M ., 3 5 . 3 7 . 3 3 9 M eyer, K M ., 130,339 M illar, E , 83,339 M itch ell, S ., 183,339 M olth agen , J ., 18,123,128,130,135,137,141, 1 4 2 -4 ,1 8 9 ,1 9 5 ,1 9 9 ,2 0 3 ,2 0 5 ,2 2 8 ,3 3 7 M om m sen, T h -, 125,188 M oorhead, J ., 2 7 0 ,3 3 9 N eu m an n , K. J ., 110,339 N o c k ,A .D „ 183,339 N 0U 6, M . K . an d J .. 186,339 O liver, R , 1 5 1 ,2 0 6 ,3 3 9 O sb o m , E E , 6 2 ,9 3 ,3 3 9

Pidcch, R, 85,339 Pellegrino, M., 251.339

3*3

Pbhlsander, Η. A., 09,129,185,187, 339

Poinssot,L, 35,339 Popper, K., 83,339 Potter, O. S., 119,149,158,161,165,171,172, 340 Rad, G. von, 306,340 Ramsay, W., 233,234,340 Reekmans, L , 321,340 Rimondon, R., 77,340 R6veillaud, M., 136,340 Rist, J. M., 86,97,340 Rives, J.B., 18,20,23,34,35,51,78,120, m , 127, 130,142,143,144.145,146-7.148.1 4 9 .161, 168,169,172,177,189,191,195,196-7,228, 244.340 Roasenda, E, 132,199,340 Robert, L , 185,186,340 Robert, L , Bowersock, G. W., and Jones, C R, 138.183.184.202.332.340 Romanclli, R, n 8 ,340 Ros, K. E , 52. 53. 54.340 RostovtzefF, M., 35,38,340 Ruggiero, E , 156,336 Ruysschaert, J., 321,340 Sage, Μ. M., 2,18,23,45,96,99, n 8 ,119,129, 164,266,340 Saumagne, C , 271,340 Sauron, G., 179,340 Schäfer, T , 61,341 Schoenaich, G., 131.341 Schölgen, G., 263,341 Schwartz, J., 199.341 Selinger, R., 148,149,172,173,175,176,177.180, 182.185.201.202.207.341 Sherwin-White, A. N., 127 Soldi, M., 123,124,134,136,137,138,139,141, 1 9 5 .1 9 7 .1 1 9 .2 4 2 .3 4 1

Spaeth, B.S., 32,33,341 Spannern, M., 100,105,341 Squires, J. X, 89,341 Stewan-Sykes, A., 73,341 Swift, L J., 151,341 Syme, R., 118,341 lestini, R, 341 Toynbee, J.C ., 35,341 Walbank. E W., 82,83.341 Wallace-Hadrill, A.. 43,69.342 Weber. M., 79,81.147,148,342 Wilson, R. J. A., 40,342 Wischmeyet, W. K., 283,342

Indices

364

York, J. Μ., 187, 342 Youcie, Η. G , 212,341

Augural Law, 56 Avercius, inscription, 233-3,237-9

Zanket R, 32.35»43*342

baptism, of heretics, 17,18

π Subjects Alexander son of Antonius inscription, 233,238 altar, ofgensAugusta* 47 Antichrist, 109,110-13 and false bishops, 316 and false teachers, 307 and schismatics, no, 112,113,312 and Stoic metaphysics, no Decius, 280 Dedus as forerunner, no imminent, in in the Church, m ,n3 spirit of, U3 Valerian, m apostolic succession, 4,17,38-9,62, 253,236,239,266,287» 291» 319-21 apottopaic act, 218 character ofsupplicatio, 173,176,180,184, 204 effect, 213,244 dement, 183 emphasis, 177 function, 174,188 imagery, 186 intention, 248 interpretation, 176 meaning, 174 object, 249 objective, 203 offering, 214 power, 191,219 purpose, 178,248 response, 249 rite, 178,190,193,197,199,207» 216,217,233, 240,243,246,230 sacrifice, 204,213 significance, 177 strategy, 176 supplicatio, 188,192,193,204,213,240,248, 249 Ara Gentis Augustae, 33,37 Ara Pacis at Carthage, 24,29,31,32,37,56 at Rome, 24,29,30,31,32,33,37,43,36,37, 130,133,157» 179. *90,19*

cardo maximus, 32 Carthage amphitheatre, 4,28,43,32,71 basilica, 21,43,46,47-9,50,31 Carthago Nova, 24,29,33,38 Colonia Concordia Iulia Carthago, 31,33, 57

odeon, 52 theatre, 4,28,45,52,53,54,74 cemetery of Callistus, 20,320,321,325 of Zephyrinus, 863 Church Order, episcopal network, 17 cursus honorum, 2 Dedan edict, 13,50» 52, no, m , Π7,120,170,172, 177,180,181,182,184,190,193,211-14, 213-16,221,224,248,327 Enlightenment European, 26,29,78-9,145,146,132,170, 174,181,206,224,227,306 episcopal order, geographical basis, 17 eschatology, 1,14,22,88-9,92,105,112, U3, u6, 117,161,188,189,297 Feriale Cumanum, 144 Fetiale Duratum, 144 Eorum, at Carthage, 3,4,7,20,28,29,34,40, 43-8, jo-ι, 54,64,68,69,70,71,100, 136,198,204,213,225,239 Cosa, 169 Rome, 28,46,87,156,162 gens Iulia, 36,38 hierarchy, 4,9,10,12,13,19,82, no, 139,141, 143,144,151,194,231-3,236-7,260,261, 270,274,275-6,303 jurisprudence, t, 1,65,286-7,289,303,329 martyrdom, 273-3 and absolution, 269 and exile, 10,274 and ordination, 9,10,273,276 and the plague, 106 and triumph, 321 as exile, 238

Subjects js physical suffering, 10,258 at Lyons and Vienne, 259 collective interpretation of, 251 «tension of the concept, 274,276,280, }22

ofAurelius, 280 of Callistus, 263 of Celcrinus, 280

ofCornelius, 275,276,323 ofCyprian, 2*3»6*18,20,23»JO»5t» 327 ofFabian, 138,259,320,324 ofUmnos, 138 ofNumidicus, 280 of Perpetua and Felicitas, 52 ofPionius, 136,138,183,202 of Pionius and Sabina, 138 of Polycarp, 260 ofXystus Π, 327 without blood, 286 mimesis, 259,261,279 Mons Capitolinus, 46,47 natural law. Stoic viewof, 50,53,98,101, 103 NewCarthage, 29,30,43,44 Odeon, at Carthage,

52

patron-diem relationship, 4.22,25,28,49,69, 72,242

and episcopal power, 3,17,25,73,74,75,247, 253,284 and imperial power, 152,153 and political advancement, 71 mutual obligations, 69-70,71-3 penitential discipline, 9-12,13,15,59,73,139, 182,213,224,254,25s, 265,288 Scipio, curse of, 24,29-30,31,34,38,42,44,55, 56*57*74 Sextus, villa of, 21,52,327

365

social consttucdon ofreality, 24,26,51,76,79, 80,104,117,120,152,190,226,227,238, 248 Sol, 171 Elagab, 163,164,166 Elagabalus, 163,164,166 Invictus, 78,156,160,161,165,166,230,235, 236,239 at Antioch, 194 atCosa, 169 Capitoline, 45-8 hexastyle ofPhilip 1, 153,158 ofAesdcpius, 47 ofArtagads, 235 of Christ, 308 of Echmoun, 38 of Faustina, 156 oigm Augusta, 34,51 ofgnu Iulia, 24 of imperial cult, 47 of Isis, 88 ofJanus, μ, 179-80 ofJuno Caelestis, 40 of Magna Mater, 156 ofVulcan and Concord, 173 of Zeus in Arcadia, 85 to Alexander the Great, 63 theatre, at Carthage, 52 TwelveTables, 44,45· jo Valerian, edict of 18,19,20 Wittgenstein's philosophy agreement form oflife, 26,42,81,104,152,187 in opinion, 42,89,104 in opinion, 42,89,104,122,152,187 languagegame, 42,122 moral rebel, 122,187