Intolerance, Religious Violence, And Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity.

8/16/2019 Intolerance, Religious Violence, And Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity.

1/44

Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy in Late AntiquityH.A. Drake*

This article proposes an alternative way to think about the violencethat swept the Roman Empire in the wake of Constantine’s conversionto Christianity. Traditionally seen as the inevitable result of Christianintolerance, recent experience suggests that this violence can be betterunderstood by casting a broader net and including political as well astheological issues. The result shows this violence to be the by-product

of a struggle between emperors and bishops to control access to thedivine. In an age of widespread belief in the active intervention ofdeity in human affairs, this “religious” prerogative was fraught withprofound “secular” implications that make our distinction between“Church” and “State” meaningless. Martyrs play an important role inthis process, but it is a symbolic one. Bishops use martyrs to controlemperors. But, as a famous confrontation between Ambrose of Milanand the emperor Theodosius shows, bishops also relied on their newrole as patrons of a large and volatile constituency. Their efforts were

abetted by significant rethinking of the meaning of martyrdom andpersecution that followed Julian the Apostate’s ill-starred efforts to reinin Christianity without producing martyrs.

Ye e B·L5Ra BRxL·KOR©K Pj 37’KP·;a c©7)R·’7K; Pj SL/7jP·©7La hL©KL lL·ML·La SC itp,okimp,achCe bkOL7/s J·L5RvV7’KP·;e(q’MeRJ(e bL·/7R· )R·’7P©’ Pj KV7’ xLxR· 8R·R ·RLJ LK 3P//7©’a B(5RaL©J WR’K 9RP·27L hKLKR (©7)R·’7K7R’e uVR /7’K Pj j·7R©J’ L©J L(J7KP·’ 8VP OLJR ’(M’KL©K7L/’(22R’K7P©’ jP· 7Ox·P)ROR©K 7’ /P©2a M(K 1 8P(/J MR ·RO7’’ ©PK KP KVL©5 uVPOL’ h7 2P·7qVaSV·7’K7©R -(q5·7K 4L·F(7’a 0PR -RRJPOa L©J O; qP//RL2(R’ 7© KVR c©7)R·’7K; Pj SL/7jP·©7L 4(/K7kqLOx(’ @R’RL·qV 9·P(x 7© -LKR C©K7F(7K;e 1 P8R L ’xRq7L/ JRMK KP KVR ·RjR·RR’ Pj KV7’ NP(·©L/ jP·KVR7· ’x/R©J7J L©J 7©’72VKj(/ q·7K7q7’Oe

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/44

Journal of the American Academy of Religion194

AN ICONIC MOMENT IN THE history of Christianity in the

occurred in 390 CE, when bishop Ambrose of Milan threatened tcommunion to the emperor Theodosius I until he did penancehorrible slaughter of civilians in Thessalonika. Although not amatic at the time as it became in subsequent retellings, the incida precedent for episcopal control over the exercise of imperial autand its impact on the Western imagination can still be gauged bartistic renderings of Peter Paul Rubens and his talented pupil, Van Dyck, more than a millennium later.1 Equally well known bucelebrated is a confrontation between this same emperor and bthat took place a bare two years earlier. In 388, an angry mob Syrian town of Callinicum, an important entrepôt on Rome’s frwith Persia, prodded by their bishop, destroyed the town’s synaWhen the emperor, who was residing in Milan at the time, receivreport from his provincial governor, he ordered the offending bispay the cost of rebuilding, a decision Ambrose deemed unacceFirst in a scolding letter, then at Sunday mass, he challengeemperor to rescind the order and exonerate the bishop, winni

both counts.2Taken together, these two incidents have long served to illustragrowing independence and power of the Church, as Christians the new muscle they gained through the conversion of theChristian emperor, Constantine the Great (r. 306-337). But Thessalonika stands for the moral uplift of the new Christian e

p@(MR©’ü /7jRk’7 RJ JRx7qK7P© Pj COM·P’R ML··7©2 KVR ROxR·P·ü’ R©K·; KP KVR 47/L© VL©2’ 7© KVR 6(©’KV7’KP·7’qVR 4(’R(O 7© w7R©©Le wL© B;q5ü’ OP·R OPJR’J; ’7 RJ ·R©J7K7P©a 8’OL// M(K ’72©7j7qL©K qVL©2R’a 7’ P© )7R8 7© -P©JP©ü’ ELK7P©L/ 9L//R·;e uV7’ J·LOLK7 RJ )R·’7P© PKVR R)R©K j7·’K LxxRL·’ 7© KVR SV(·qV 37’KP·; Pj uVRPJP·RKa 8·7KKR© 7© h;·7L 7© KqR©K(·;e 1© qP©K·L’K KP KVR 8L; /LKR· L2R’ ·RLJ KV7’ ’KP·;a LK KVR K7OR COM·P’R 8L’ jL· O7© V7’ ©R2PK7LK7P©’ 87KV KVR ROxR·P·a L©J KVR MR’K OPJR·© ’K(J; qP©q/(JR’ KVLK’(22R’K7P© KVLK KVR ROxR·P· JP xR©L©qR LqK(L//; 8P·5RJ KP uVRPJP’7(’ü’ LJ)L©KL2Re hRR

Αpiimstpnktt,eDhRR L/’P 6P/M ΑpiH,De AP· J7’q(’’7P© L©J qPOxL·7’P© Pj KVR xL7©K7©2’a WVRR/Pq5 RK L/e Αpii,Da R’xe pfk na p,,kp, e uVR /RKKR· COM·P’R 8·PKR KP uVRPJP’7(’ P© KV7’ PqqL’©PK 7©q/(JRJ 7© KVR KR© MPP5’ Pj qP··R’xP©JR©qR x(M/7’VRJ LjKR· V7’ JRLKVa M(K 8L’ x7©JRxR©JR©K/;e 1K 7’ RJ7KRJ M; gR/ R· ΑpiH De COM·P’R P©/; L//(JR’ KP KVR 7©q7JR©K 7© KV:·LK7P© VR JR/7)R·RJ P© KVR JRLKV Pj uVRPJP’7(’ 7© tin(de obit. Theo. ptkpma fk HDy V7’ JRLadL(/7©(’a x/LqR’ 2·RLKR· ROxVL’7’ P© KVR M7’VPxü’ ·P/R 7© KVR -7jR VR 8·PKR LK KV

C(2(’K7©R Pj 37xxPs vit. Ambr. mea K·L©’e @LO’R; Αpiifs ,nj eDuVR MR’K OPJRO ’K(J; 7’ 4q-;©© ΑpiimDy P© SL//7©7q(Oa ’RR xxe iHktpne AP· COM·P’

RJe gR/ R ΑpiH De uVR R L R 7OxP KL©K J7jjRΑmpDp)R ’7P© Pj R)R©K’a ’RREp Extra coll


3/44

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence , and Political Legitimacy 195

taking shape in the aftermath of that reign, Callinicum encapsulates adarker legacy with which Western historians still struggle—a legacy ofthe violence with which Christian zealots, abetted by the ecclesial hier-archy, ruthlessly suppressed the traditional religions of the classicalworld, while imperial officials frequently condoned or winked at, andsometimes actively fomented, the violence.3

For historians of late Rome or early Christianity, a single word longsufficed to explain this dark turn: intolerance. An argument tracingback to Edward Gibbon’s magisterial Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire holds that Christians, being monotheists, simply could notemulate the easy acceptance of other deities that characterizes a polythe-ist system. Hence, as soon as Constantine put into their hands themeans to do so, Christians were bound to suppress alternative paths todivine truth.4 The imprint of Gibbon’s argument may be tracedthrough the scholarship of the subsequent two centuries; it shows itselfin the once-prevalent master narrative of a “life-and-death” conflictbetween Christians and pagans, and a long argument over the “sincer-ity” of Constantine’s own conversion, the test of that sincerity being thedegree to which he was or was not willing to suppress non-Christians.5

Intolerance surely played a part in these developments, but closerinvestigation has raised questions that this model of tolerant pagansand intolerant Christians cannot answer. Why, for instance, did

th;OOLqV(’a 7© L x/RL jP· ·R’KP·LK7P© Pj KVR C/KL· Pj w7qKP·; KP KVR hR©LKR VP(’R ΑL OP)R L/’PPxxP’RJ M; COM·P’RDa L·2(RJ KVLKUno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum. h;OOLqV(’a Relatio pppep,a RJe 6/R7© Αpif s p,mkp,oDe :© ’(qV RZqVL©2R’a ’RR C©JP ΑpiioDe AP·97MMP©ü’ xP’7K7P©a ’RR ©RZK ©PKRe AP· L /(q7J ·R’KLKROR©Ka ’RR @7)R’ Α ,,nDe 9L/RPKK7 Α ,, DRZqR//R©K ·RqR©K J7’q(’’7P© Pj KVR x·7©q7x/R Pj KP/R·LK7P©y ’RR R’xe xxe ,kn e AP· L ©(L©qRLxx·PLqVa ’RR 6LV/P’ Α ,,is tDe

97MMP© Αpi,ikpma 11s tD x/LqRJ ]7©KP/R·L©K RL/® LK KVR KPx Pj V7’ jLOP(’ /7’K Pj j7)R ·RL’P©’ jP·KVR ’(qqR’’ Pj SV·7’K7L©7K;e uVR jP(· PKVR· jLqKP·’ 8R·Rs ]KVR JPqK·7©R Pj L j(K(·R /7jRa® KVR]O7·Lq(/P(’ xP8R·’ L’q·7MRJ KP KVR x·7O7K7)R qV(·qVa® SV·7’K7L© OP·L/7K;a L©J KVR ](©7P© L©JJ7’q7x/7©R Pj KVR SV·7’K7L© ·Rx(M/7qa 8V7qV 2·LJ(L//; jP·ORJ L© 7©JRxR©JR©K L©J 7©q·RL’7©2 ’KLKR 7KVR VRL·K Pj KVR @POL© ROx7·Re® AP· 97MMP©ü’ 7©KR//RqK(L/ O7/7R(a ’RR dPqPq5 ΑpiiiDe

nAP· RZLOx/R’ Pj ’K(J7R’ 8·7KKR© 7© KVR qP©j/7qK OPJR/a ’RR KVR R’’L;’ 7© 4PO72/7L©P ΑpiotDe4Lq4(//R© ΑpiifD x/LqR’ VRL); ’K·R’’ P© SV·7’K7L© 7©KP/R·L©qRe :üBP©©R// ΑpiffD PjjR·’ JRj7©7K7P©’Pj ]xL2L©® L©J ]SV·7’K7L©® KVLK )7·K(L//; RF(LKR 87KV ]KP/R·L©K® L©J ]7©KP/R·L©Ke® l·P8© ΑpiopD 8

x7)PKL/ 7© ’(22R’K7©2 KVLK qP©j/7qK L/P©R qP(/J ©PK RZx/L7© KVR qP©)R·’7P© Pj KVR @POL© L·7’KPqP© 8V7qV ’RR ©P8 hL/ OL© Α ,, De AP· SP©’KL©K7©Ra l(·q5VL·JK ΑpHH,Da K·L©’e 3LJL’ ΑpimiDaKVP(2V 87JR/; J7’q·RJ7KRJ jP· 7K’ x7qK(·R Pj L© ROxR·P· 8VP’R P©/; qP©qR·© 8L’ xP8R·a 7’ ’K7// 7©

x·7©Ke lL;©R’ Αpi iD L·2(RJ jP· L 2R©(7©R qP©)R·’7P©e -75R l(·q5VL·JKa lL;©R’ (’RJ ·Rx·R’’7P© PjPKVR· ·R/727P©’ L’ V7’ KP(qV’KP©R Pj ’7©qR·7K;a qP©q/(J7©2 KVLK P©/; xP/7K7qL/ qP©’7JR·LK7P©’ ’KLSP©’KL©K7©Rü’ VL©Js ]C’ KVR ;RL·’ xL’’RJa KP/R·LK7P© Pj xL2L©7’O 2L)R x/LqR KP LqK7)R ·Rx·R’’7P©®


4/44


5/44

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy 197

intervention of deity in human affairs that made it harder than it istoday to separate “religious” from “secular” functions.

Comparative study is also useful, and Rome’s great neighbor andadversary, Persia, provides one. The Mazdaean faith that was the officialreligion of Persia’s shahs was not monotheistic but dualistic, positing acosmic struggle between the god of light, Ahura Mazda, who was wor-shipped in temples that preserved his sacred fire, and his evil adversary,Ahriman, each of whom led a supporting cast of lesser deities.Nevertheless, Persian shahs frequently persecuted religious minorities.I will conclude with a brief look at one such instance, a persecutionlaunched by the shah Yazdgard I in 415, that can be fruitfully comparedwith the Ambrose-Theodosius encounter with which this study began.

VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCEWhen scholars decry religious intolerance, more often than not

what really is at issue is the violence that intolerance seemingly pro-duces. Unhappy events of our own time have only served to intensifythis concern (Bellinger 2004). But if there is one tiling the outburst of

religious violence in our day has taught us, it is the peril of using reli-gion alone to explain such situations. Acts performed in the name of areligion by definition have a religious component; but is religion itselfthe cause, or a means of expressing other grievances? However theyanswer this question, most scholars would agree that only looking atone component creates the potential for serious misdiagnosis. For thesereasons, scholars of antiquity have increasingly turned to theories ofidentity formation and boundary maintenance to understand suchviolent episodes.9 Using newer strategies, they have uncovered commonassumptions driving seemingly antagonistic groups (Levinson 2000;Limberis 2000; Frakes and Digeser 2006; Salzman 2006; Sandwell 2007;Sizgorich 2007), and the role of rhetoric and polemic (Davis 2006;Shaw 2006; Kahlos 2009; Stroumsa 2009: 98), and have even cast offtheir traditional reticence about intruding on later fields of study toidentify common components shared by ancient and modem violentacts (Castelli 2004; Shaw 2009).

i3LV© Α ,,mD qP©q/(JRJ j·PO L j·R’V ·R)7R8 Pj KVR x·7OL·; R)7JR©qR jP· ·R/727P(’ )7P/R©qR 7©jP(· -LKR C©K7F(R q7K7R’ KVLK ·R/727P(’ qP©’7JR·LK7P©’ L/P©R qL©©PK RZx/L7© ’(qV qP©j/7qK’e AP’(qq7©qK 7©K·PJ(qK7P© KP KVR 7’’(R Pj 7JR©K7K; jP·OLK7P© L©J MP(©JL·; OL7©KR©L©qRa ’RR


6/44


But there is more that historians of antiquity can contribute. editors of }AAR have recently pointed out, significant differebetween the ancient and modern world-views also need to beinto account(JAAR 2009: 823). And in a recent AHR Conversation religious violence, Stephen Ellis wrote: “even if we were to ideviolent struggle as being motivated largely by religious ideology, need to ask basic questions about why the struggle turns violeparticular time and place” (Benedict et al. 2007: 1448). A numrecent and important studies have addressed these criteria, lookimore aggressive concept of martyrdom that developed in the century (Gaddis 2005; Grig 2005), and an environment condu

religious extremism in general in Late Antiquity(JAAR 2009).The present study is an attempt to further this work by idencircumstances that can lead authorities to condone acts of religiolence. Although I look at some violent episodes that accompancreation of a Christian empire, my aim is not to provide a taxonthis violence but to analyze the environment that led an emperTheodosius to ignore centuries of Roman jurisprudence dealinboth damage to private property and public disorder in order to an aggressive bishop. To anticipate, the solution here proposed on one aspect of the phenomenon hinted at but not pursued by Zemon Davis in her pathbreaking study of religious riots in sixcentury France: the willingness of authorities under certain cstances to turn a blind eye when mobs took the law into thehands (Davis 1973: 65). As will emerge below, the connectionmade in this article between violence and fear of divine retributiif anything, even stronger in Late Antiquity than in the early mperiod But Davis’s focus was on the role of legitimacy in jus

crowd actions; the focus here is on legitimacy in explaining the of authorities. Thus, while violence plays an important role study, the symptoms of violence are not its central concern. Rathto identify conditions that can make authorities unwilling or unassert their jealously guarded monopoly on the use of force (E1980). In what follows, I will suggest that there is a direct link bthis unwillingness to prosecute religious violence and a new ability of Christian emperors to charges of what in modem pwould be called “being soft on paganism.” Not to carry the analfar, this “hard-right” position was significantly abetted by conover the proper definition, and administration, of religious office


7/44

199 Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Theodosius’s willingness to bend to Ambrose’s will over Callinicumserves as a point of entry because it brings together two of the threefigures central to understanding the political dynamics of this newChristian empire, an empire in which emperors like Theodosius sawtheir role as ultimate guarantor of peace and order contested by a newpower elite in the person of the Christian bishop (Fowden 1978;Bowersock 1986; Brown 1992, 2002). Pivotal to this test of wills was thethird figure in this drama, the martyr, or, better, the image of themartyr. It is in the way these three figures interacted that an alternativeexplanation for the outburst of religious violence in Late Antiquityresides.

MARTYRS AND VIOLENCEThe image of the martyrs is what is important for two reasons.

First, with the legalization of Christianity under Constantine, the era ofwidespread persecution officially came to an end, leaving it toChristians to contest among themselves for the right to name and vene-rate martyrs, the exchanges between Donatists and Catholics in North

Africa being but the most famous of such contests (viz. Brown 1963;Shaw 1992). Second, with fewer actual martyrdoms to witness,Christians were free to re-imagine the suffering of these early heroes inways that better suited present circumstances. As will be seen below,this re-imagining was part of a wider process that began in the fourthcentury and strengthened the case for aggressive Christian measures.Thus, even though saints and holy men came to share some of theveneration accorded to martyrs, martyrs and martyrdom remainedcentral to Christian self-definition. As Robert Markus once put it, “Themartyrs were, after the Apostles, the supreme representatives of thecommunity of the faithful in God’s presence. In them the communionof saints was most tangibly epitomised” (Markus 1990: 98).

The importance of the martyr’s role is illustrated in an incidentrecorded by the fifth-century Church historian Socrates. In the 370s,the emperor Valens, whose own Christianity was more heterodox,wanted to visit the famous church of St. Thomas the Apostle in Edessa,without having to share communion with the Nicene congregation thatworshipped there. He gave orders for the church to be cleared and,when the congregation refused, sent his prefect and a body of troops toremove them by force Socrates tells us what happened next:


8/44

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 200

her child by the hand cut through the soldiers’ ranks in her hurryget to the martyr-church. Annoyed, the prefect had the wombrought before him, and said to her, “Where are you running helter-skelter, you wretched woman?” She replied, “To the same plaeverybody else is running.” To which he said, “Haven’t you heard tthe prefect is going to destroy everyone he finds there?” And twoman said, “I have, and that is why I am hurrying, so that I will found there.” When the prefect asked, “And where are you draggthis little child,” she replied, “So that he too may be deemed worthymartyrdom.”10

This response stopped the prefect dead in his tracks. Instead of coing to the church, he reversed course and reported the incideValens, who was wise enough to back off.

Socrates was not an unbiased source (Chesnut 1986: 175Urbainczyk 1996); his usefulness here and elsewhere in this panot for the accuracy of his account or even the reality of the evefor the window he provides into contemporary Christian perspeIn this case, the episode he narrates illustrates the powerful pull otyrdom in the early Christian community, and also the way that f

creating martyrs, and thereby provoking even more unrest, coulan emperor’s hand. Martyrdom was, indeed, a lever Ambrose upry a pardon for Callinicum’s bishop out of Theodosius. Proclahis readiness to accept the punishment of the bishop of Callihimself, Ambrose asked Theodosius, “Are you not also apprehenthe possibility of his [Callinicum’s bishop] speaking out againcount [i.e., the governor]? For in that case the count will have tothe bishop either an apostate or a martyr.”11

The threat of martyrdom could give emperors pause, but claimartyrdom did not go uncontested, as another story told by Soreveals.

In the year 415, some five hundred Egyptian monks swarmeAlexandria in support of their pugnacious bishop, Cyril, who wthat time in conflict with the imperial prefect, Orestes. One zealous monk named Ammonius threw a rock at the prefect, sthim in the head with sufficient force to draw blood. Abandoned guards, Orestes seemed destined to become one more name on th

prisingly large roster of imperial officials in Late Antiquity kill


9/44


urban mobs. But in his case, the unexpected happened. Overcomingtheir own fears, the populace of Alexandria rallied to the prefect’s causeand drove off the monks. Seized and put to the torture (presumably toget him to implicate Cyril), Ammonius heroically held out to the last,and a grateful Cyril responded by eulogizing him from the pulpit as adefender of the faith and immediately enrolling him among the martyrsof Alexandria with a new name, Thaumasius (“Mr. Wonderful”). But inthis case, the ploy failed. Socrates gives the reason: “Moderates[hoi sophronountes},” he writes, “even though they were Christians, did notshare Cyril’s enthusiasm for this cause, for they perceived thatAmmonius had been punished for his rashness, and that he had notdied under torture for refusing to deny Christ. For this reason, evenCyril soon let the matter be forgotten”(HE 7.14.10-14.11).

There is no need here to question Socrates’ definition of a “moder-ate” Christian. What is important about the story of Ammonius/Thaumasius is that his failure to become a martyr serves as a reminderof an easily overlooked truth. Martyrs are such flamboyant figures thattheir own suffering and preparation for death frequently draw the lion’sshare of scholarly attention, but martyrdom is not simply an act of self-fashioning; there is a community involved in the decision. Martyrdomsare not automatic: they must be explained, analyzed, and justified. AsErin Ronsse put it, death is not what makes a martyr “but witnessing,testifying, publicly arguing for and defending the validity of ideas madeone a martyr” (Ronsse 2006: 284). The Ammonius incident capturesthe role played by that broader community, in this case the Christianpopulation of Alexandria, in the validation and legitimation of a mar-tyrdom. This community knew that the traditional criterion for martyr-dom, suffering as witness to Christ’s truth, had not been met in thiscase, and not even a powerful bishop used to having his own way couldfinesse that sentiment.12

Constantine learned a similar lesson. Early in his career as aChristian, he rashly assumed that, as emperor, he had the right todecide who was and was not a martyr. Outraged to learn that Donatistschismatics were hailing those he had punished as martyrs, Constantinewrote his vicar in North Africa, “no-one can obtain the blessings ofmartyrdom in a manner that is seen to be foreign to and incompatiblewith religious truth.” Accordingly, he blustered, “those whom I find tobe opposed to right and religion itself... I will cause to suffer the due


10/44


penalties of their madness and their reckless obstinacy.”13 Constwas soon disabused of this notion, but he worked for the rest reign to control the discourse on martyrdom by constantly prmartyrs for their irenic traits—patience, fortitude, enduranceurging Christians to leave vengeance to God.14

There is another reason for remembering the story of ThaumMonks are frequently cast as the spiritual heirs of the martyrs many ways they were, their training to deny themselves all but thbasic human necessities coming to be seen as a form of self-saequivalent to that of the martyrs. But the analogy can be carriefar, at significant cost to our understanding of the religious violethis age. Monks were at the forefront of many of the most celeincidents, and the anguished cries of their pagan victims have fithe academic psyche the image of a swarming “black-robed tribeat more than elephants,” “men in appearance [who] led the liswine, and openly did and allowed countless unspeakable crimes.”elision, the damage done by monks and the high regard of conteary Christians for ascetic self-sacrifice become conflated, implyinthe violence was as much responsible as the self-sacrifice for the in which ascetics were held. To the contrary, there is significandence of a backlash against monastic violence by the end of the century, of which the fate of Thaumasius is but a single exaAnother is an anonymous dialogue published about the same timincluded an entire chapter devoted to the question, “Why MonkHeld in Contempt by So Many.”16

Indeed, it might well be said that the reverence paid to monwas not because of, but in spite of, the violence they somecaused. Despite Ambrose’s resort to this gambit, for much ofourth century and beyond, martyrdom that was won through thformance of violent deeds did not go uncontested. Sometime icentury—probably earlier than later—a council of Spanish b

13“Cumque satis clareat neminem posse beatitudines martyris eo genere conquirere quod alienuma ueritate religionis et incongruum esse uideatur, eos quos contra fas et religionem ipsamrecognuero.. . sine ulla dubitatione insaniae suae obstinationisque temerariae faciam mérita exitia

persoluere.” Ep. ad Celsum a RJe 4L7R· ΑpiHfkHia pa pinkpioDy K·L©’e bJ8L·J’ Αpiifs pimDepmhRRa Re2ea :xKLK(’a CxxZ i L©J p, 7© 4L7R· ΑpiHfkiD L©J B·L5R Α ,,oDe

pnAP· ]M/Lq5k·PMRJ K·7MRa ’RR -7ML©7(’aOration t,eH Α pro templis Da K·L©’e EP·OL© ΑpiffDs pp,Hy jP· ]’87©Ra® b(©Lx7(’a K·L©’e W·72VK Αpi ps m tDe :© -7ML©7(’ü’ /L©2(L2Ra ’RR h7 2P·7qV Α ,,fsHiki De SV·7’K7L© )7P/R©qR 7’ KVR qR©KR·x7RqR Pj 4Lq4(//R© ΑpiifDe


11/44


meeting in Elvira ruled that Christians who died in attacks on idoltemples should not be received as martyrs. They took this stand, thebishops wrote, because “such actions cannot be found in the Gospels,nor were they ever undertaken by the Apostles.17 This canon of theCouncil of Elvira stands as testimony to an irenic tradition in earlyChristianity that held true belief could not be compelled, for thesimple reason that God could tell the difference between voluntary andcoerced worship.18

JULIAN AND MARTYRDOMAmbrose’s threat of martyrdom for the bishop of Callinicum was a

clear departure from this position, not just because the attack on asynagogue fell squarely outside the boundaries set by the bishops atElvira, but even more because the grounds for his claim to a martyr’scrown was refusal to pay restitution for property damage. LikeAmmonius’s rock-throwing, this act did not exactly amount to a confes-sion of Christ, and Ambrose had to use some pretty fancy footwork tododge this point. Arguing that to benefit Christ’s enemies was tanta-mount to renouncing Christ, Ambrose sought to obfuscate the issuewith a glorious non-sequitur: “If Julian did not avenge the Churchbecause he was an apostate, are you, emperor, going to avenge damagedone to a synagogue because you are a Christian?”19

Ambrose’s use of the specter of Julian, the nephew of Constantinewho upon becoming emperor in 361 threw off his Christian upbringingand announced the restoration of the old gods, points to an additionalreason why emperors like Valens and Theodosius were vulnerable tosuch threats. The tortured centuries of Rome’s relationship withChristianity prior to Constantine left Christian emperors with anespecially heavy burden to carry whenever they used the coercive

pfSL©e o,s h7 quis idola fregerit et ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in Evangelio scriptum non est ñeque invenitur sub Apostolis unquam factum , placuit in numero eum non redpi martyrum. bJe0P©5R·’ ΑpinmDs pHe uVR JLKR Pj KVR qP(©q7/ VL’ MRR© x/LqRJ 7© )L·7P(’ ;RL·’ Pj KVR RL·/; jP(·KVqR©K(·;a M(K 4R72©R ΑpifnD L·2(R’ KVLK KVR qL©P©’ L’ 8R VL)R KVRO L·R L qPOx7/LK7P© Pj )L·7P(’qP(©q7/’ VR/J 7© b/)7·L J(·7©2 K7MR qP(·’R Pj KVLK qR©K(·;e

pHC’ PM’R·)RJ M; l·P8© ΑpiopDe hRR uR·K(//7L©a Ad Scapulam e sSed nec religionis est cogere religionem, quae sponte suscipi debeat, non ui, cum et hostiae ab animo libenti expostulentur, L©Jqje -LqKL©K7(’a Divine Institutes, ne ,e 9LO’R; ΑpiHmD VL’ 7JR©K7j7RJ uR·K(//7L©ü’ L·2(OR©K L’ KVRj7·’K 7©’KL©qR Pj KP/R·LK7P© L’’R·KRJ L’ L x·7©q7x/R 7©’KRLJ Pj L© RZxRJ7R©Ke AP· L OP·R ’5RxK


12/44


mechanisms of the state against members of their own faithproblem was this: because emperors had created martyrs in thoscenturies, every emperor embodied at least the potential of beingsecutor, a maker of martyrs.20 Undoubtedly, what made Valens rhis plan to visit the church in Edessa was the likelihood that any cties from a confrontation would be venerated as martyrs. Althougresisted it, Christian emperors found themselves more, rather thavulnerable to the charge of being persecutors.

Ironically, Julian himself was too shrewd to play the perseInstead, through a flamboyant revival of blood sacrifices—anathChristians—and a diversion of state resources from bishops to pr

a new hierarchy he created for traditional religion, Julian soumarginalize Christians and remove the incentives that drove elconvert. Julian’s Christian upbringing stood him in good stead cast about for wedges that would weaken the faith he had codespise and also isolate it from mainstream culture. The hisAmmianus tells us, for instance, that Julian’s decision to restoredent clergy exiled by his predecessor was not governed by princmuch as by his certainty that “as this freedom increased their dsion, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowhe did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemmankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred oanother.”21

Ammianus might have been projecting his own conclusionsthe emperor in this instance, but Julian showed a shrewd understof Christian weaknesses and how to exploit them in more wayone. By the simple act of banning Christian rhetoricians, for inshe threatened not only the livelihood of Christian teachers bu

Christian access to the training that was thesine qua non of a successfcareer in that elite world, even more than a law degree or MBbecome in ours.22 In a surviving letter, Julian explains his poChristians should not be allowed to teach the classics, he w

] C’ PM’R·)RJ M; h7 2P·7qV Α ,,fsioDs ]W7KV7© KV7’ R)P/)7©2 SV·7’K7L© J7’qP(·’Reee KVR ROR)R© L SV·7’K7L© ROxR·P·[8L’ L/8L;’ L/·RLJ; L xR·’Rq(KP·® Sje 9LJJ7’ Α ,,ns p,,Ds ]8R OL; 8R//qP©J(JR KVLK KVR SV·7’K7L© 2P)R·©OR©K.’ ·R/(qKL©qR KP ROx/P; KVR ’8P·J 7© ’xRq7j7qL

OLKKR·’ ·R’(/KRJ j·PO L qP©’q7P(’ JR’7·R KP L)P7J OL57©2 OL·K;·’ Pj jR//P8 SV·7’K7L©’ 7© L OKVLK O72VK x·P)P5R qPOxL·7’P©’ KP KVR xL2L© xR·’Rq(K7P©’eür21 Quod agebat ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentia a non timeret unanimantem postea


13/44

205 Drake: Intolerance , Religious Violence , and Political Legitimacy

because they do not believe in the gods who populate these works.23Julian says nothing about Christian students, but it would be disingenu-ous to minimize the impact of his law for this reason. Julian’s law effec-tively reclassified a body of literature that had always been regarded aspart of a common cultural inheritance as pagan equivalents ofChristian scripture. In doing so, he strengthened the hand of thoseChristians who also believed contact with these classics should beavoided, thereby making higher status Christians doubly vulnerable.Julian knew exactly what he was doing. With a thorough command ofChristian scripture, he taunted the “Galileans” (as he insisted on callingthem) as hypocrites for coveting wealth, prestige, and power in violationof their master’s teachings.24Inadvertently, Julian contributed to a significant re-definition ofthe criteria for martyrdom that emerged in the second half of thefourth century. His aggressive efforts to restore the traditional reli-gions of the empire and isolate Christians in a political and culturalbackwater prompted a period of introspection and reflection that wasworked out in the language of martyrdom and persecution.25 Bysteering clear of persecution, Julian put Christians in a bind.From Nero onward, emperors hostile to their faith had alwaysused the stick of persecution in their attempts to force conformity,thereby creating the martyrs whose unwavering fidelity inspiredtheir less heroic brethren. Discursively, Christians had developedan elaborate repertoire to deal with such attacks, but they lackedthe tools to deal with a hostile emperor who used carrots instead

tbxe toa RJe Ή K·L©’e W·72VK Αpi tapppsppokp tDe uVR /RKKR· VL’ PjKR© MRR© /7©5RJ KP L ’(·)7)7©2/L8 R©NP7©7©2 O(©7q7xL/ qP(©q7/’ KP ’q·(K7©7 R KVR qVL·LqKR· Pj KRLqVR·’ ΑSuV ptetenDe l(K KVLKqP©©RqK7P© 7’ JP(MKj(/e hRR lL©qV7qV ΑpiitD L©J 4LKKVR8’ Α ,,,s fmk ffDe Sje WLKK’ Α ,,os f,DehRR j(·KVR· 3L·J; ΑpiHoD L©J -7OMR·7’ Α ,,,De :© 0(/7L© 2R©R·L//;a KVR q/L’’7q 8P·5 ·ROL7©’ l7JR Αpit,De hRR L/’P CKVL©L’’7LJ7kAP8JR© ΑpiHpDy hO7KV ΑpiinDe

mhRRa Re2ea ]C2L7©’K KVR 9L/7/RL©’® ,oCa K·L©’e W·72VK Αpi ts 111a tffDs 0R’(’ L©J dL(/ ]©R)R·R)R© VPxRJ KVLK ;P( 8P(/J P©R JL; LKKL7© KP ’(qV xP8R· L’ ;P( VL)Ry jP· KVR; 8R·R qP©KR©K 7j KVR;qP(/J JR/(JR OL7J’R·)L©K’ L©J ’/L)R’e e iSa K·L©’e W·72VK Αpi ts 111a tHnDs ]1j KVR ·RLJ7©2 Pj;P(· P8© ’q·7xK(·R’ 7’ ’(jj7q7R©K jP· ;P(a 8V; JP ;P( ©7MM/R LK KVR /RL·©7©2 Pj KVR 3R//R©R’U® C’4L·5(’ Αpii,s t,Da ©PKRJa KVR J7)7JR PxR©RJ M; 0(/7L© ]OLJR 7K VL·JR· jP· SV·7’K7L©’ KPLxx·Px·7LKR KVR q(/K(·R 8V7qV qLOR KP MR ’RR© L’ KVR x·R’R·)R Pj xL2L© ·R/727P©e® Sje 9LO’R;ΑpiHms ,Ds ]c©K7/ KVR ·R72© Pj 0(/7L© xRLqRj(/ qPOxRK7K7P© 87KV xL2L©7’O VLJ ’RRORJ L 87©©7’K·LKR2;a L©J N(’K7j7LM/;s 87KV KVR L(KVP·7K; L©J j7©L©q7L/ ·R’P(·qR’ Pj KVR ROxR·P· MRV7©J

SV·7’K7L©’a KVR qP©KR’K VLJ MRR© (©RF(L/e®nSje 9LJJ7’ Α ,,ns f,Ds ]B7’qP(·’R’ Pj OL·K;·JPO L©J xR·’Rq(K7P© jP·ORJ KVR ’;OMP/7q/L©2(L2R KV·P(2V 8V7qV SV·7’K7L©’ ·Rx·R’R©KRJa N(’K7j7RJa P· JR©P(©qRJ KVR (’R Pj )7P/R©qRe® uV


14/44


of sticks.26 After Julian’s death, Bishop Gregory Nazianzen ventefrustration with these tactics in his Fourth Oration, an inveagainst the deceased emperor.27 The oration is often cited for itsquent defense of a Christian right to the classical heritage. Moretinent here is Gregory’s complaint that Julian “begrudged the hoof martyrdom to our combatants.”28 Although Gregory insinthat Julian really did use compulsion, he was forced to admit thaemperor managed “not [to] seem to do so, that we might sufferyet not gain honour as though suffering for Christ’s sake.”29 wealth and privilege as the lures, Christians could only show resistance by self-denial, a practice that, virtuous as it was, direach the established standard for martyrdom.

CHRISTIAN SELF-DEFINITIONChristians responded to Julian’s tactics by rethinking their voc

lary, broadening the definition of persecution in a way that allthem to brand even non-coercive measures such as Julian’s witmark of persecution. The change is illustrated by the historian Socwho explained that even though Julian had not, like Diocletian, trforce Christians to worship the old gods, he was still a persebecause “I regard any attempt to disturb the peace[tarattein tous hesu- chazontos] of those who have placed their hope in Jesus Christ as pcution” (HE 3.12). But this more flexible definition of persecutioitself the result of a much more consequential rethinking of wmeant to be a Christian. The change shows itself in the way Grhandled the problem of Christians who had responded positiveJulian’s overtures. In his invective, Gregory aimed to construc

opposition to Julian in such a way as to show that Christians wehis only victims. Hence he began by extending an olive branch totics (ch. 9) and even to non-Christian monotheists (ch. 8). Giveagenda, it comes as a surprise to find Gregory firmly closing theto one group: Christian backsliders.

oAP· L SV·7’K7L© )7R8 Pj xR·’Rq(K7©2 ROxR·P·’a ’RR -LqKL©K7(’a ]:© KVR BRLKV’ dR·’Rq(KP·’®(De mortibus persecutorum Da 8·7KKR© 7© KVR RL·/; ;RL·’ Pj SP©’KL©K7©Rü’ ·R72©K·L©’e S·RRJ ΑpiHmDe 1© 2R©R·L/ KR·O’a 0(/7L©ü’ L22·R’’7)R x·P2·LO KP J7’R’KLM/7’V SV·7’K

OR·R/; j·PO 2P)R·©OR©K M(K R)R© OP·R j·PO R/7KR q(/K(·R VLJ KVR RjjRqK Pj 27)7©2 q·RJ7M7/7 xL·L©P7J L/L·O’ Pj SV·7’K7L© O7/7KL©K’e hRR B·L5R ΑpiioDe 4P·R 2R©R·L//;a dR©R//L ΑpiitDef472©R ΑpHnfDa d9 tnsnt kommy K·L©’e 67©2 ΑpHHHDe hRR j(·KVR· b/O Α pa tDe :©


15/44


One party, one kind of souls, do I exdude from the festive assembly[Gregory proclaimed], though I groan and am pained, and grieved forthem— These be they who having come unto the Word superficially,and through not having depth of earth, forthwith springing up andpeeping forth, upon a brief assault of the Evil One, and a slight blastof persecution, have withered up and died away.30

Gregory was talking about Christians who succumbed to Julian’s temp-tations. Christians who broke under pressure—thelapsi —had been aproblem in previous persecutions, but the rigors of those trials wereunderstood, and provision made for eventual reintegration into thecommunity, even if only on one’s deathbed. Gregory’s rejection of sucha possibility stands in stark contrast to this previous position. He is veryclear about the reason: it was because these lapsed Christians had sue-cumbed to a different kind of pressure. “[F]or the sake of temporarygain,” he explained, or court favour, or brief power, these wretchedfellows bartered away their own salvation.”31

It is not difficult to imagine the class from which these particularChristians came: ambitious local elites carving out careers in the bur-geoning imperial bureaucracy for themselves and their children by

securing a top-notch education in the great law schools of Rome orBeirut, the selfsame elites who had found conversion politically advan-tageous in the decades following Constantine, and whom Julian targetedwith his strategy of isolating Christians educationally and culturally.Although Christian grumbling about these opportunistic parvenus canbe heard as early as Constantine’s last years, there is no indication thatthey were particularly discriminated against prior to Julian. In fact,Robert Markus concluded that prior to Julian a “comfortablemodus vivendi ” had developed between elite Christians and traditional classicalculture (Markus 1974: 4, cf. Swain 2004: 361).32 Yet as part of theintense reflection and re-evaluation that followed Julian, these fairweather Christians came to be regarded as a scandal. Hence Socrates,describing how Julian “induced many to sacrifice, partly by flatteries,and partly by gifts,” concludes, “Immediately, as if [tested] in a furnace,

t,:·e meppe d9 tnsnmpa K·L©’e 67©2 ΑpHHHDs fe

üp:·e meppe d9 tnsnmpa K·L©’e 67©2 ΑpHHHDs fet 1© V7’ Life of Constantine ΑwSDa x(M/7’VRJ ’VP·K/; LjKR· KVLK ROxR·P·ü’ JRLKV 7© ttfa l7’VPxb(’RM7(’ Pj SLR’L·RL RZx·R’’RJ qP©qR·© P)R· KVR](©’xRL5LM/R JRqR7K P© KVRxL·KPj KVP’R 8VP


16/44


those who were Christians in fact and those in name only beapparent to everyone. . . ” (H.E. 3.13).

Thus, Julian’s effect was not only to expand the definition of petion and to polarize Christians and pagans, but also to polarize Chrthemselves. By creating an environment in which aggressive and Christians now shaped the definition between “real” and “nommembers of the faith, his policies were at least partially responsibaligning the definition of Christianity more closely to militant behavThis narrowed range of behaviors that could be accepted as “Christian has hampered our understanding of the momentous chthat took place in the earlier part of the fourth century right down

present day, as evidenced by an obsessive need to separate “real” Chfrom semi, demi, or hemi-Christians (Armstrong 1984; Bonner 198the long and utterly superfluous debate over Constantine’s “sinceritydebate was fueled almost entirely by the premise that “real” Christianintolerant: since there is abundant evidence that Constantine refucoerce others to convert, decriers—of whom Jacob Burckhardt is pstill the best known and most influential—argued that Constantine’version was only meant to serve his political ambitions (Burckhardt Conversely, supporters have had to find grounds to dismiss these siillusory, leading to contortions that would make a yoga master Timothy Barnes, for instance, has refused to accept Constantine’s Ethe Provincials as an edict of toleration—despite phrases such as “Lewho delight in error alike with those who believe partake in the advaof peace and quiet” and “[let all] those who wish to keep themselvehave their temples of falsehood” (VC 2.56.1)—on the groundssince Constantine does not mention animal sacrifice he must have bit, proving his intolerance, and thereby his sincerity.34 Yet, as

Brown once observed, “Nothing, indeed, would have been more distto a member of the late Roman upper classes than the suggestio‘pagan’ and ‘Christian’ were designations of overriding importance style of life and in their choice of friends and allies.”35

ttqjea 9LJJ7’ Α ,,ns i Ds 0(/7L© ](©JR·R’K7OLKRJ KVR xP’’7M7/7K7R’ 7©VR·R©K 7© SV·7’K7LOL·K;·JPO 1j 0(/7L© qP(/J x·LqK7qR L J7jjR·R©K 57©J Pj xR·’Rq(K7P©a KVR SV·7’K7L©·R’xP©J 87KV L J7jjR·R©K 57©J Pj OL·K;·JPOe®

lL·©R’ ΑpiHps p,Da ·RxRLKRJ lL·©R’ ΑpiHos miDe :© KVR OLKKR· Pj ’Lq·7j7qR’a ’RR l·ΑpiimDa b··7©2KP© ΑpiHHDa L©J ©PKR m LMP)Re SP©’KL©K7©Rü’ RJ7qK 7’ 7© b(’RM7(’a De vita ConstantiniemHk eo,a K·L©’e SLOR·P© L©J 3L// Αpiiis pppkppmDe uVR xV·L’R’ F(PKRJ L·R LK wS enoe


17/44

Drake: Intolerance , Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy 209

As part of this process, the role of the martyr as essentially a passivesufferer for the name of Christ expanded to indude more aggressive war-riors who took the battle to the enemy, and it made Christians who suf-fered at imperial hands candidates for martyrdom even if their punishmentwas due to civil rather than religious disobedience.36 The more aggressiveattitude toward martyrdom that evinces itself in Ambrose’s rhetoricappears to be part of this broader trend. To bolster his assertion thatTheodosius would make a martyr of the bishop of Callinicum, Ambrosespecifically cited the example of a martyr “in the time of Julian,... whooverturned an altar and disturbed a sacrifice, [and] was condemned todeath by a judge — ” He might as easily have cited the fate of Bishop

Mark of Arethusa in Syria, who under Julian had refused to makerestitution for a pagan temple he had destroyed, rejecting all efforts at com-promise, and whose suffering in captivity was hailed as a martyrdom.37

RELIGION AND POLITICS: “CHURCH” AND “STATE”To this point, I have used martyrdom symbolically as a means to

uncover the political dynamics of the period. Changes in the wayChristians defined and promoted martyrs exposed some of the broaderchanges that were taking place in the new Christian empire; the factthat, despite occasional missteps such as Cyril of Alexandria’s efforts tocanonize “Thaumasius,” bishops proved to be far more successful thanemperors as arbiters of a potential martyr’s fate goes a long way towardexplaining why Roman officials either sanctioned or turned a blind eyeto acts of religious violence.38 But Ambrose had more arrows than apotential martyrdom in his quiver. After dangling the specter ofunwanted martyrs before Theodosius, he also warned the emperor that

punishing Callinicum’s bishop could provoke civic unrest. “For it isnormal for bishops to restrain crowds and to be lovers of peace,” hewrote, adding archly, “except when they are themselves roused by somewrong done to God, or by an insult to the Church.”39

to9LJJ7’ Α ,,ns pHpD VL’ K·LqRJ L ©R8/; L22·R’’7)R (©JR·’KL©J7©2 Pj KVR OL·K;·ü’ ·P/R KVLK MR2L©KP LxxRL· 7© KV7’ xR·7PJ 7© ’R·OP©’ L©J OL·K;· LqK’ KVLK qR/RM·LKRJ KVR’R VR·PR’ ©PK P©/;JRj7L©qR Pj 7OxR·7L/ L(KVP·7K; M(K L/’P jP· KVR RL/ 87KV 8V7qV KVR; KPP5 KVR MLKK/R KP KVR 9·72 Α ,,nD ·RLqVR’ L ’7O7/L· qP©q/(’7P©e 0P’Rj -'’’/ Α ,,nD J7’q(’’R’ KVR 8L; qP©j/7qK P)R· KVR ·P/R

Pj L’qRK7q7’O 7© KV7’ ’LOR xR·7PJ LjjRqKRJ qP©qRxK’ Pj OL·K;·JPOetfCOM·P’Ra bxe fm Αm,Depfa 7© gR/ R· ΑpiH De AP· l7’VPx 4L·5a ’RR hP POR©a 3b nep, L©J9LJJ7’ Α ,,ns imDe


18/44


This was no idle threat. Only a few years earlier, Ambrose hhad demonstrated the control a bishop could exercise over his cogation. In 385, the empress Justina wanted to allocate one of Mchurches to Arian Christians in her government and military. Amopposed her vigorously, leading to a tense, year-long standoff thatto a head in the subsequent Easter season, when Ambrose’s flockpied the Portian basilica to prevent the court from using it, thenout for days against a military blockade.40 Although Ambrose’s fprints were all over this direct challenge to imperial authority, thelacked the means, or the will, to prosecute him, and the basilica thremained safely in orthodox hands. The mastery of his congre

that Ambrose displayed in this confrontation is the unwritten phis challenge to Theodosius two years later over the synagogCallinicum. That confrontation, in turn, reveals a major diffbetween bishops and the traditional power elites with which emwere accustomed to deal. Whereas the civic elite were compenmeshed in a network held together by the imperial center, theopric had developed independent of, and frequently in oppositithat structure. In all probability, Constantine did not grasp the sicance of this difference when both faith and purpose led him to resources to the clergy as an alternative infrastructure.42Emperors were ultimately responsible for controlling these vurban populations, and guaranteeing public order was the duty emperor. For this reason, such situations were major tests of an eor’s resolve, and even more of his skill: how he responded seimportant signal about how much vigilantism he was willing to toTo relax it, as Theodosius did in the Callinicum case, sent distusignals of an emperor’s willingness to tolerate breaches of public

in the name of religion.Realistically, an emperor had to tolerate quite a lot, for by mstandards the arsenal he had at his disposal for such moments wamingly barren. Ordinarily, emperors relied on an elaboratelystructed web of ceremony and local ties to keep the peace. Whe

m,COM·P’R 27)R’ V7’ )R·’7P© Pj KVR R)R©K 7© L /RKKR· KP V7’ ’7’KR·a Ep. fo Α ,Da 7© gR/ R· ΑpiH D4q-;©© Αpiims pf,kpioD )7R8’ KVR ·RqP·J 87KV L 27O/RK R;Re :© KVR 7OxP·KL©qR Pj KVR d

ML’7/7qLa ’RR SP/7’V Α ,, DempuVR qP©©RqK7P© MRK8RR© R/7KR q(/K(·R L©J xPx(/L· qP©K·P/ VL’ MRR© ’(OORJ (x ’(qh8L7© Α ,,ms tnfDs ]T9I·P(x qPVR’7P© 2(L·L©KRRJ xP8R· P)R· KVR OL’’R’e uVR OL’’R’ xL·K7q7x


19/44


failed, the remaining option was to use urban paramilitary forces—police, in modem terminology. But these were ever scant, and appear tohave been reduced even further in Late Antiquity.43 Hisremaining coer-cive instrument was the army. But to deploy military force was bothclumsy and dangerous, as Theodosius found out in 390 at Thessalonika.In that case, where thousands of civilians were put to the sword bytroops whose general they had lynched, over-reacting was worse thandoing nothing. Yet to do too little threatened to unravel the gossamerbonds of civil order, which were easily broken. Emperors sat on thehorns of a dilemma: too much force turned them into rogue emperors,unfit to govern by the rules ofcivilitas·, too little simply invited

contempt.The trick was to put up with these occasional breakdowns withoutseeming to.45 What was needed was a strong indication of imperialreadiness to exact the harshest punishment, ultimately combined withwillingness to forbear in the face of true repentance. Antioch’s “Riot ofthe Statues” in 387 shows how such a situation could be managed withthe utmost finesse. Angered by imposition of yet another special tax,the citizens of Antioch exploded in an orgy of destruction, getting socarried away that they committed the ultimate act of defiance by defa-cing images of the emperor. These statues carried a heavy symboliccharge, being venerated as the actual presence of the emperor himself.To deface them committed the city to the path of rebellion.46 Withdawn came the awful realization of the extent of their actions and theprobable consequences. Antioch’s elite fled the city, remembering,Libanius tells us, how brutally Diocletian had punished their forebearsfor failing to keep the peace.

What followed was an elaborately choreographed piece of theater

that played out over the course of several weeks. First an investigativecommittee of high court officials arrived, heard pleas for mercy fromsome of the city’s renowned holy men, and imposed certain immediate

mtSLOR·P© (1973: 237)PM’R·)R’ KVLKa L’ L qP©’RF(R©qR Pj KV7’ JRq/7©Ra ]TOI7©P· J7’K(·ML©qR’ PjKVR ’P·K L© RZxR·7R©qRJ L©J Rjj7q7R©K qP·x’ Pj /L8kR©jP·qROR©K Pjj7qR·’ qP(/J VL)R ’RKK/RJ 87KVPJ7jj7q(/K; O72VK O(’V·PPO 7©KP L OLNP· ·7PK® l·LJM(·;(1994) suggestsKVLK OL©; 7OxR·7L/ /L8’8R·R ©R)R· ORL©K KP MR R©jP·qRJa M(K ’7Ox/; KP ’RK L KP©Re

mmAP· L q·7K7qL/ J7’q(’’7P© Pj KVR ’P(·qR’ jP· KV7’ R)R©K L©J 7K’ 7Ox/7qLK7P©’a ’RR 4q-;©© Αpiims

tpnktt,Demnl·P8© Αpii s tnkf,D J7’q(’’R’ KVR JR/7qLKR VL©J/7©2 ’(qV ’7K(LK7P©’ ·RF(7·RJem&:© KVR ’Lq·RJ©R’’ Pj 7OxR·7L/ ’KLK(R’a ’RR 4LqSP·OLq5 ΑpiHps ofDa hO7KV ΑpiifDa L©J


20/44


penalties that included closing the city’s popular leisure sites (btheaters, hippodrome) and suspending its metropolitan status, wmeant the loss of significant prestige and privilege. The commissiidentified and arrested several ringleaders, then sent their reporrecommendations to the emperor. Simultaneously, Antioch’s bisFlavian, hastened to the capital to plead for mercy. While thewaited for news of the decision on which its fate hung, Flavian’s linant, the charismatic John Chrysostom, delivered a series of serthat alternately stoked and calmed their fears.48

The denouement was anti-climactic, Theodosius contenting hiwith the execution of the ringleaders. Still, the importance of such

tries as played out in Antioch must not be underestimated. After cries of empire, theorists had long abandoned discussing the tradicategories of political analysis (monarchy, aristocracy, democracconcentrate on the only form of government that still seemed vmonarchy.49 Accordingly, instead of debating the merits of diffkinds of rule, theorists now concentrated on the merits of the whose virtues were analyzed with the same care formerly given tocussing the merits of the different kinds of governments. Accordan emperor’s most powerful asset was his prestige, bolstered bimage as an all-powerful ruler capable of administering ter

justice.50This concentration on imperial character explains why pre

became so overwhelmingly vital for emperors in Late Antiquity. Yemperor put his prestige on the line every time there was a possithat an order he gave would not be obeyed. This was therefore anbest utilized from afar, through ties to local elites, who regularly ished that image through a constant routine of rituals, ceremonies

mHSV·;’P’KPOa Homilae XXI de Statuts ad populum Antiochenum habitae. 472©R ΑpHnfDa d9 mispnk e u·L©’e hKRxVR©’ ΑpHHiDe

miC’ SLOR·P© Αpiips p iD PM’R·)R’a ]jP· SV·7’K7L©’ L©J xL2L©’ L/75R 7© KVR jP(·KVk L©JqR©K(·; ROx7·Ra 8·7K7©2 LMP(K 2P)R·©OR©K ORL©K 8·7K7©2 LMP(K L© ROxR·P·eee xP/7K7KVR qP©KRZK Pj ROx7·R R©KL7/RJ xL©R2;·7qe® C© RZqRxK7P© 7’ L© L©P©;OP(’ xP/7K7qL(©JR· 0(’K7©7L© 7© KVR ’7ZKV qR©K(·;a 8V7qV L//(JR’ KP qP©KROxP·L·; 7’’(R’ 7© KVR qP(LxxL·R©K/; L·qVL7 7©2 J7’q(’’7P©y RJe 4L (qV7 Α ,, Da K·L©’e lR// Α ,,is p tkpHHDe AP· 7qP©KROxP·L·; ·R/R)L©qRa WV7KM; Α ,,oDe hRR j(·KVR· Α“a4RL·L Α ,, De C MRKKR· qP©K·L4(’/7O KVRP·7’K’a 8VP qP©K7©(RJ KP JRMLKR KVR K·LJ7K7P©L/ qLKR2P·7R’a KVP(2V R)R©

KVLK KVR J7’q(’’7P© 8L’ R©K7·R/; LqLJRO7qe hRR hqV*K·(Oxj Α ,,mD L©J S·P©R Α ,,mDen,uVR locus classicus jP· J7’q(’’7P© Pj KVR KV·RR ’KLKR’ 7’ lPP5 H Pj d/LKPü’ Republic a RqVPRJ MV7’ ’K(JR©K C·7’KPK/R 7©Politicsy lPP5 me 1© KVR ’RqP©JkqR©K(·; lSba KVR V7’KP·7L© dP/;M7(’ 7©


21/44


panegyrics that exalted imperial charisma while simultaneously reinfor-cing their own status as its local intercessors and administrators.51 Forthis reason, Chrysostom’s homilies and Flavian’s intercession need to beseen as twin parts of a single program, with Chrysostom stoking thefires of repentance in Antioch while Flavian soothed tempers inConstantinople.

As Ambrose’s taunt to Theodosius about his peace-keeping abilitiessuggests, bishops had, over the course of the fourth century, emerged asrivals to the civic elites as brokers of imperial power and prestige.Theodosius clearly had to take into account this potential role thebishop could play. Still, Ambrose’s efforts to muddy the waters by

asserting religious principles to sanction vandalism was a clumsy ploythat any first-year law student, then or now, would have easily seenthrough. Ambrose himself evidently did not think much of it, for hewent on to make a disclaimer. Perhaps, he conceded, Theodosius wasconcerned about law and order. In that case, Ambrose asked, “Which ismore important: a semblance of order or the cause of religion?’’ Hisown answer “Civic duties[censura] must yield to sacred ones.”52

This blithe assertion of the priority of the Church’s interests even inthe face of gross violation of basic civic rights seemingly confirms theargument for Christian intolerance. But underlying Ambrose’s argu-ment are certain continuities in ancient thinking about the role of thestate that the model of “tolerant pagan-intolerant Christian” obscures.Because the modem state is based (at least theoretically) on the notionof a “social contract” whereby individuals give up certain rights and pri-vileges in return for privileges and protections provided by the largergroup, it is virtually impossible today to think of “The State” as any-thing other than a secular institution. The role of “The Church” todayis similarly circumscribed, limited primarily to preparation for an

npc©JR· SP©’KL©K7©Ra l7’VPx b(’RM7(’ Pj SLR’L·RLa KVR qR/RM·LKRJ ]ALKVR· Pj SV(·qV 37’KP·;a®’VP8RJ KVLK SV·7’K7L©’ 8R·R ·RLJ; KP x/L; KV7’ 2LOR 87KV L xL©R2;·7q jP· KVR ROxR·P·ü’ uV7·K7RK0(M7/RR 7© tto KVLK N(22/RJ KVR K·LJ7K7P©L/ 7OxR·7L/ )7·K(R’[M·L)R·;a N(’K7qRa q/ROR©q;a L©J x7RK;7© ’(qV L 8L; L’ KP ROxVL’7 R SP©’KL©K7©Rü’ x7RK; L©J x·PNRqK KVR 7OL2R Pj L SV·7’K7L© ROx7·R8V7qV KVR ROxR·P· ·(/RJ L’ L )7’7M/R OL©7jR’KLK7P© Pj KVR h(x·ROR @(/R·e hRR Laus Constantini Α-SD qVLx’e pkp,a RJe 3R75R/ Αpi, s pink ta K·L©’e B·L5R Αpifos Htkp, De uVR ·ROL7©7©2 qVLxKR·’ΑppkpHD L·R xL·K Pj L ’RxL·LKR LJJ·R’’e hRR B·L5R Αpifos t,kmmDe lL;©R’ ΑpitmD 7’ L© 7OxP·KL©KaKVP(2V P)R·’KLKRJa Lxx·Rq7LK7P© Pj KV7’ P·LK7P©ü’ x/LqR 7© 9·RR5 L©J l; L©K7©R xP/7K7qL/ KVP(2VKehRR L/’P 4L·L)L/ Α ,,ps tokofDe :© 7OxR·7L/ )7·K(R’a WLcLqRk3LJ·7// ΑpiHpD L©J EP·R—L Α ,,pDe 1©2R©R·L/a SLOR·P© ΑpiipD L©J L’’L©J·P Α De


22/44


afterlife. The two spheres can, and do, overlap, particularly on queof moral behavior, but in general today we define catastrophes sufamine, fire, or flood as “natural disasters” rather than as signs of intervention.53

The ancient state was founded on an entirely different set of premthat divinity did actively intervene in human affairs on a day-to-daythat these interventions manifested themselves not just in the boucrops but also in victory or defeat on the battlefield, and that it wprimary duty of the leaders of the state to assure that such intervewould be beneficial. When the gods were offended, they punisheentire community, not just the perpetrators; it was therefore incum

upon civic leaders to maintain the goodwill of the gods. Under succumstances, it is misleading to classify divine service as strictly agious” function, doubly so in the case of the Roman emperor, woffices since the time of Augustus, the first emperor, included that otifex maximus, head of the state religion. This worldview explains persecution of Christians far better than the one, preferred by Gand others, that Christians brought it upon themselves by theirintolerance.54 Disaster was so regularly a cause of Christian persecuthe second century that the apologist Tertullian could mock it

Apology addressed to the emperor “If the Tiber floods, or if the doesn't,” he observed in this famous passage; “if there is a droughtearthquake, a famine or a plague, suddenly the cry goes up ‘Christithe lion!’”55 These persecutions serve as a reminder not to read relconflicts in the ancient world through clearly defined categori“Church” and “State,” because in the ancient world these spheresdeeply intertwined: the ancient “state” was also a religious institut“church.” It is not at all clear that the conceptual categories needed

tinguish between “Church” and “State” even existed.Constantine’s Vision of the Cross changed the deity, but didchange the landscape. This continuity is best illustrated by compthe language of one of the most ardent of Christianity’s persecearly in the fourth century with an edict issued more than a celater by the Christian emperor Theodosius II, “Against

ntAP· L ’(qq7©qK J7’q(’’7P© Pj KVR ]’Rq(/L·7 LK7P© KVRP·;® L©J 7K’ RjjRqK P© OPJRO qP©q

]x(M/7q x·7)LKR ·R/727P©a® ’RR SL’L©P)L ΑpiimD R’xe ppktiep LO 2·LKRj(/ KP KVR JAAR’s ·R)7R8R·’ jP·qL//7©2 KV7’ 8P·5 KP O; LKKR©K7P©e

nmhRRa Re2ea 97MMP© Αpi ikpma 11s HfDa ]l(K KVR x·7©qR’ L©J OL27’K·LKR’ Pj L©q7R©K


23/44

215 Drake: Intolerance , Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Samaritans, Heretics, and Pagans.” Just as the persecutor Maximin Daiatook it as self-evident that “it is due to the kindly care of the gods thatthe earth does not refuse the seed sown... [or] that the sea is notswollen and raised on high by blasts of intemperate winds,” and thatthis care was jeopardized by Christian “impiety,” so Theodosius II com-plained that “the embittered perfidy of the pagans” had caused “thesuccession of the seasons [to] be changed, and the temper of theheavens [to] be stirred to anger.” To resolve the problem, he concluded,“the venerable majesty of the Supernal Divinity must be appeased.”56 Inboth cases, the riders assumed the regular intervention of a divineforce, and in both they took for granted their duty to placate that force.

This continuity with ancient thought puts Ambrose’s demand to givepriority to religion in a very different light. To modem ears, it is outra-geous, one further proof of the effect of Christian intolerance. But it con-formed to the logic of late Roman imperial ideology, which stressed aboveall else the emperor’s pietas, which in to n insured the all-importantgoodwill of a divine world that was directly involved in human affairs.Christianity did not create this ideology; its outlines can be discerned inthe policies of the first emperor, Augustus. For a variety of reasons thatare not fully understood but that include a decline in the legitimatingauthority of the Senate, the example of a resurgent and religiously unifiedPersia, and an overall mood of heightened religiosity in the empire itself,this divine tie started to be expressed with particular urgency no laterthan the middle of the third century (Dodds 1965; MacMullen 1976;Rives 1999; Drake 2000: 113-153). It is not mere coincidence that this isalso the period when Christians, for the first time, were subjected toempire-wide persecution. The reasons for this change in imperial policyare still debated, but two cornerstones of late Roman imperial ideology

seem highly likely components. The first of these was that the emperormust demonstrate close ties to a divinecomes or “companion,” thesecond that successful execution of his office demanded unanimous rec-ognition of these ties.57 As in so many other ways, Christianity is bestseen as responding to, rather than initiating, these changes.

This context also clarifies the reason for conflict between bishops andemperors in Late Antiquity: it was not because Christians were asserting a

56pianda est supemi numinis veneranda maiestas. EP)e uVe teHa RJe 4POO’R© L©J 4R;R· Αpio ss fkppDa K·L©’e dVL·· RK L/e Αpin s mi De BL7Lü’ RJ7qK 7’ ·RqP·JRJ 7© b(’ea 3b iefeHa K·L©’e 4q97jjR·K


24/44


claim to the separation of Church and State, or that emperors intruding into territory where they did not belong. It was, rather, ththe first time emperors had to share the privilege of access to the dwith a class that had established its own, independent lines of commcation with that very potent source. Moreover, in these early decadthe Christian empire, the problem was not that bishops asserted an pendent sphere of authority, but that all too often they were contewith emperors for control of the same sphere of authority. Ambrdemand is part and parcel of this ancient conceptual landscape. Inhis whole argument only makes sense in the context of the traditunderstanding of the State as a religious institution, wherein rulers h

duty to maintain the goodwill of divinity. Far from advocating a sation of Church and State, he was, instead, merely arguing for a difset of priorities. To use a domestic analogy, he did not want to remthe house; he simply wanted to rearrange the furniture.

What is palpably different in Ambrose’s demand that the empgive priority to religion over law was his assertion of the bishop’sto decide when God or Church had been offended. Arguably, to mthis case, the most effective club in Ambrose’s arsenal was neitheprospect of martyrdom nor fear of mob action, but his tactical uspace. His letter to Theodosius had succeeded in getting the empecancel the penalty that he had imposed on the bishop of CalliniBut his further pleas to have the entire case dropped evidently unheeded at court (McLynn 1994: 303). Only at Sunday mass dwin the emperor’s attention. Using the Biblical confrontation betKing David and the prophet Nathan in his sermon, Ambrose insina similar role for himself with Theodosius. The emperor gotmessage. “As I descended,” Ambrose wrote his sister, “he [Theodo

said to me: ‘You were talking about us.’”58 The setting is thus thelikely reason Theodosius gave in to the bishop. Faced with an embsing disruption in the rhythm of the mass, where Ambrose wcontrol, the emperor might well have decided that his consent wsmall thing that changed nothing: Callinicum, as Ambrose artimplied, simply was not worth the trouble. Still, the fact thaemperor had put himself into a setting where he could be manipu

pnHCOM·P’R 2L)R L JRKL7/RJ LqqP(©K Pj KVR R)R©K 7© L /RKKR· KP V7’ ’7’KR·sEp extra coüectionem


25/44


so easily speaks volumes about the changes that were taking place inthe ancient power structure.59

Underlying the freedom of speech that Ambrose exercised on thisoccasion was a significant political shift. Under the Principate, senatorsoccasionally were able to assert such freedom because of the centralrole their institution played in confirming imperial legitimacy. With thelegalization of Christianity, and more importantly, with the roleChristianity increasingly played in confirming the emperor’s legitimacy,bishops—especially bishops like Ambrose with Senatorial backgrounds—began to assert their own corporate interests. In this particular sense,Christian bishops had co-opted both the legitimating role and the strong

corporate identity that had characterized the Senate under thePrincipate.60 What this conflict shows, therefore, is that the new situationcreated by Constantine was not that religion was more important in gov-emment affairs than it had been before, but that the emperor now sharedwith bishops the responsibility for maintaining this crucial relationshipwith divinity. Since jurisdiction over sacred matters was now beingshared, the approval of bishops became central to an emperor’s legiti-macy. As bishops jockeyed for control of sacred office with emperors,imaginative re-use of the concepts of martyrdom and persecution becamepotent weapons. In this post-Constantinian world, religious violence isbest seen as part of a larger negotiation.

NATIONAL SECURITYThe failure of emperors to control the discourse of martyrdoiii,

combined with the power of bishops to label emperors as persecutors,goes a long way toward explaining religious violence in Late Antiquity.Thus, even though Julian took pains to avoid the mistakes of the perse-cutors, he ended up in their company when Gregory Nazianzenreshaped the emperor’s hostility into persecution, while others reconfi-gured the criteria for martyrdom to include those aggressive actsonce condemned by bishops at the Council of Elvira. The result was apowerful new tool bishops could use to bring recalcitrant officials to

ni:© KV7’ qVL©2Ra ’RR ©P8 4q-;©© Α ,,ms f,Ds ]uVR qVL©27©2 qR·ROP©7L/ 7©KR·LqK7P©’ MRK8RR©

ROxR·P·’ L©J M7’VPx’ O72VK 7©JRRJ x·P)R L’ 7OxP·KL©K jP· L© (©JR·’KL©J7©2 Pj KV7’ ·R/LK7P©’V7TMRK8RR© }hKLKRr L©J }SV(·qVrI L’ KVR OP·R ©L··P8/; xP/7K7qL/é P· KVR OP·R LM’K·LqK 7JRP/P27qLK·LNRqKP·7R’ KVLK L·R qVL·KRJ 7© KVR ’KL©JL·J LqqP(©K’err


26/44


heel. But as the Thaumasius incident showed, the bestowal of mdom still required the assent of a broader community, and aggreactions by themselves did not always convince that community thinterests were being served. Officials could fend off the demanbishops whose aggressive instincts overstepped community bounds

The value of thinking of the religious challenges of Late Antiquthreats to “national security” is that it helps isolate the role of intolein this period. Intolerance is hardly a monopoly of Christianity, oother religion. Every community identifies behaviors that it belcannot and should not be tolerated, and this is especially true with rto behaviors that appear to threaten the security of that commu

Because religion plays a role in shaping community identity, relivalues frequently become the means of defining such boundaries. Isense, and in this sense only, can intolerance serve as a useful diagtool, albeit one that should not be limited just to Christianity, monotheistic religions more generally. In every other sense, intoleimpedes our ability to understand the process by which militantscontrol of a community, because that process is basically social and cal. At the start of this article, I cited Gibbon for the emphasis he gChristian intolerance; now, near its end, it is time to cite his endcontribution to study of this issue, which was to insist that the stuChristian success must be taken out of the hands of theologians. theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion adescended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity,” he wrote start of chapter 15. “A more melancholy duty is imposed on the histHe must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption wshe contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and derate race of beings” (Gibbon 1909-14, II: 15). Except that he is f

eloquent, Gibbon for this view could be called the father of social scIntolerance is simply too slender a reed on which to hangunderstanding of the coercive turn Christianity took in the aftermConstantine’s conversion. Rather than take such a developmengranted, as the intolerance model encourages us to do, it is betlook for tools that can help us understand how militants gain conta community. By focusing on threats to “national security,” by whmean threats to core community values, we use a more flexible toocan also be applied to a broader range of situations.

A brief look at an incident in the history of Rome’s great earival might help clarify these points.


27/44

219 Drake: Intolerance , Religious Violence , and Political Legitimacy

of the dominant Mazdaen faith. At first, all Yazdgard asked was restitu-tion, but when Abdas refused, Yazdgard sent the bishop to the gallowsand ordered the destruction of his church. Christians in Persia neveragain enjoyed the license they had been given by Yazdgard.61 The situ-ation virtually shouts for comparison with Theodosius’s handling of thedestruction of the synagogue in Callinicum. Like the bishop ofCallinicum, Abdas engaged in an act of property damage, and in bothcases a bishop spumed a demand for restitution. But whereasTheodosius backed down in the face of Ambrose’s threats, Yazdgard’sresponse was swift and unequivocal. What accounts for the difference?The motives of the perpetrators are not the issue: Abdas and theunnamed bishop of Callinicum might have been intolerant or simplyfoolish; in either case, they merely represent the violent elements thatare at large in any society. Instead, what matters in both cases is theruler’s response. In both cases that response was determined at least inpart by pressure from influential clergy. While their aims were different—Ambrose to defend, the Mazdaeans to punish the offender—both sue-ceeded not because one ruler was more or less intolerant than the otherbut because in each case the clergy spoke for a religious establishment

whose role in validating the ruler’s legitimacy could not be ignored.While the bishop of Callinicum benefited from the institutional role ofhis religion, Abdas’s role in confirming Yazdgard’s rule was negligiblecompared with that played by the Mazdaean clergy.

The Persian example shows how broadening the study of religiousviolence in Late Antiquity to include social and political issues can helpus understand both the violence itself and the role of intolerance in itsoccurrence. It is useless to ask whether Theodosius was more or lessintolerant than Yazdgard. The difference is not that Theodosius wasintolerant, but that he was compromised. Like the Mazdaen clergy,Christian bishops in Late Antiquity came to play an important role inlegitimating an emperor’s rule. It is true that emperors learned toburnish their credentials with this constituency by taking, or allowingothers to take, aggressive action against perceived enemies: then as now,it was easier to fend off militants by supporting their agenda than tooffer a reasoned alternative. But rather than simply accept these actionsas the inevitable result of intolerance, it is more useful to ask how

opuVRPJP·RKa 3b netHa RJe hqVR7J8R7/R· L©J dL·OR©K7R· ΑpinmDe uVR·R L·R ·RL’P©’ KP JP(MK KV7’


28/44


militants were able to make such demands in the first place. The ais complex, but one part of it certainly resides in deep-seated Chanxieties about a return to persecution, revived in part by Juliaeven more by the hardening of boundaries that followed in his More elastic definitions of martyrdom and persecution allowed mto seize control of a discourse that had previously been deploysupport of freedom of worship and passive suffering.62

The situation was exacerbated by the novel powers of Chrclergy, which clashed with the traditional prerogatives of Roman eors. In the eastern empire, very strict protocols eventually were oped that clearly delineated the rights and obligations of both emand bishops in a way that maintained the emperor’s charismaticority in the Christian community and blunted episcopal pretenBut in the west the dissolution of imperial authority prevented smodus vivendi from being achieved until relatively recent times,then only by making a radical conceptual break with the premithe ancient state.63 In the interim, confusion about their relativemade it easier for bishops to conflate civic with religious disobeand correspondingly more difficult for Christian emperors to pcivic crimes performed in the name of religion.

Although it sounds chillingly clinical to say so, the religious viof Late Antiquity is best understood as a means of working outnew relationships. Until that happened, imperial legitimacy too became hostage to extremist criteria.

REFERENCESAalders, G. “Nomos empsuchos.” In Politeia und Res

1969 publica. Beiträge zum Verständnis von Politik, Recht und Staat in der Antike, der Andenken Rudolf Starks gewidmet, Palingenesia, Monou. Texte zur Klass. Altertumswiss, 4, P. Steinmetz, 315-329. Hamburg, Germany.

Ando, C. “Pagan Apologetics and Christian Intoler1996 in the Ages of Themistius and August

Journal o f Early Christian Studies 4:171-207.

o AP· L© L·2(OR©K KVLK qP©)R·K’ MR’K x·PKRqKRJ KVRO’R/)R’ j·PO ’(’x7q7P© M; J


29/44

Drake : Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy 221

“The Way and the Ways: Religious Toleranceand Intolerance in the Fourth Century A.D.”Vigiliae Christianae 38:1-17.

Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.

Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.“Julian’s School Laws:Cod. Theod. 13.3.5 and

Ep. 42.” Ancient World 24:5-14.Constantine and Eusebius . Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.“The Constantinian Reformation.The Crake

Lectures, 1984 , 39-57. SackviUe, NB: CrakeInstitute.

Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston,

MA: Beacon Press.“Boundaries and Connections.” InSignifying

Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values , ed. AnthonyP. Cohen, 17-36. London, UK: Routledge.Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, Proceedings of the British Academy,Vol. 15, 341-442. Issued separately in 1931.

2nd ed. London, 1972.“Eusebius and the Christian Empire.” Annuaire de Vlnstitut de Philologie et d ’Histoire Orientale (Mélanges Bidez) 2:13-18.

Religions of Rome , 2 vols. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian: Agapetus, Advice to the Emperor, Dialogue on Political Science; Paul the Silentiary, Description

Armstrong, A. H.1984

Athanassiadi, P. andM. Frede, eds.

1999Athanassiadi-Fowden, P.

1981Banchich, T.

1993Barnes, T. D.

19811986

Barth, F.1969

2000

Baynes, N. H.1929

1934

Beard, M., J. North, andS. Price

1998Bell, P.

2009


30/44


“Religion and Violence: A Bibliography.”The Hedgehog Review 6:111-119.

“AHR Conversation: Religious Identities Violence. American Historical Review 112:1433-1481.

La vie de Julien. Paris, France: Les BellLettres.“The Pagan Revival in the West at the End ofFourth Century.” InThe Conflict Between

Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century9

ed. A. D. Momigliano, 193-218. Oxford, UClarendon.“The Extinction of Paganism and the ChuHistorian.” JEH 35:339-357.“From Emperor to Bishop: The Self-ConscTransformation of Political Power in Fourth Century A.D.”Classical Philology 81:298-307.“Literacy and Power in the Ancient World.”

Literacy and Power in the Ancient Worldy ed.A. Bowman and G. Woolf, 1-16. CambriUK: Cambridge University Press.“Constantine and the Problem of Anti-PaLegislation in the Fourth Century.”Classical

Philology 89:120-139.

“Aspects of the Christianization of Roman Aristocracy.” Journal of Roman Studies 51:1-11.“Religious Coercion in the Later RomEmpire: The Case of North Africa.” History 48:283-305.

Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire . Madison, WI

University of Wisconsin Press.Authority and the Sacred . Aspects of the

Bellinger, C.2004

Benedict, P., et al.2007

Bidez, J.1930

Bloch, H.1963

Bonner, G.1984

Bowersock, G.1986

Bowman, A. and G. Woolf 1994

Bradbury, S.1994

Brown, P.1961

1963

1992

1995


31/44

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence , and Political Legitimacy 223

Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, The Menahem Stern Jerusalem

Lectures. Hanover, NH: University Press ofNew England.“The Riot of AD 387 in Antioch. Journal of

Roman Studies 42:13-20. Die Zeit Constantin’s des Grossen. 2nd ed.Leipzig, Germany: Seemann.

Porphyrius the Charioteer . Oxford, UK:Clarendon.Christianity and the Rhetoric o f Empire: The

Development of Christian Discourse . Berkeley:University of California Press.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine .Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York, NY: ColumbiaUniversity Press.The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient Societyy Protocol of the Thirty-Fifth Colloquy:25 February 1979, ed. E. C. Hobbs andW. Wuellner. Berkeley, CA: Center forHermeneutical Studies.“Socrates Scholasticus, Origenism, Humanism,and Cosmic Sympathy.” Chap. 8 ofThe First Christian Histories. 2nd ed. Macon, GA: Mercer

University Press.A Chronicle of the Last Pagans, trans.

2002

Browning, R.1952

Burckhardt, J.1880

Cameron, Alan1973

Cameron, Av.1991

Av. Cameron andS. G. Hall, trans.

1999Caner, D.

2002

Casanova, José1994

Castelli, E.2004

Chadwick, H.1980

Chesnut, G.1986

Chuvin, P.


32/44


“Why the Portiana? Reflections on Milanese Basilica Crisis of 386.” Journal of

Early Christian Studies 10/3:361-372. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum . OxfordUK: Oxford University Press.“Al-Farabi’s Imperfect Constitutions.” InThe Greek Strand in Islamic Political Thought,

Proceedings of the Conference held at the Institute for Advanced Study ; Princeton, 16-27 June 2003, Mélanges de VUniversité Saint- Joseph , ed. E. Gannagé et al., Vol. 57, 190-22 Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantiumy trans. Jean Birrell. Cambridge, UCambridge University Press. (Orig. pub. 1as Empereur et prêtre: etude sur le ucesaropa-

pismen byzantin . Paris, France: Gallimard.)“The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot Sixteenth-Century France.” Past & Present , 59:51-91.“Teaching Violence in the Schools of RhetorIn Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and

PracticeSy ed. H. A. Drake, 197-204. AldershUK: Ashgate.Tertullian, Apologeticum, Corpus ChristianoruSeries Latina I,77-171. Tumhout, BelgiumBrepols.

The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius and Rome . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pre

Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from

Marcus Aurelius to Constantine . CambridgeUK: Cambridge University Press.

In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius* Tricennial Orations. Berkeley: University of CaliforPress.

Colish, M.2002

Creed, J. L., ed. and trans.1984

Crone, P.2004

Dagron, G.2003

Davis, N. Z.1973

Davis, J. B.2006

Dekkers, E.1954

Digeser, E.2000Dodds, E. R.

1965

Drake, H. A., trans.1976


33/44


“Firmicus Matemus and the Politics ofConversion.” In Qui Miscuit Utile Dulci:

Festschrift Essays fo r Paul Lachlan MacKendrick ,ed. G. Schmeling and J. Mikalson, 133-149.Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy- Carducci.Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of

Intolerance . Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.‘“Measure Our Religion Against Yours’:Constantine’s Concept of Christianity in the

Oration to the Saints.”Studia Patrística 42:107-112.“Explaining Collective Political Violence.” In

Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and Research , ed. T. R. Gurr, 135-166. New York.Repr. in H. Eckstein, Regarding Politics . Essays on Political Theory, Stability, and Change (Berkeley, 1992), 304-340.

Optatus: Against the Donatists , Translated Textsfor Historians 27. Liverpool, UK: LiverpoolUniversity Press.“Functions of Imperial Images in TetrarchicPolitics.”Symbolae Osloenses 78:30-44.“Orthodoxy and the True Philosophical Life:Julian and Gregory of Nazianzus.”Studia

Patrística 37:69-85.

“Hellenism and Historiography: Gregory ofNazianzus and Julian in Dialogue.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33:493-515.“Constantine and the Pagans.”GRBS 29:309-318.

Questions d'un Païen à un Chrétien (Consultationes Zacchaei christiani et Apollonii

philosophi). 2 vols. Sources chrétiennes, 401 and402. Paris, France: Éditions du Cerf.

1998

2000

2006

Eckstein, H.1980

Edwards, M., trans.1997

Ellingson, G.2003

Elm, S.2001

2003

Errington, R. M.1988

Feiertag, J. L. andW. Steinmann, ed. and

trans.1994


34/44


Liberty, Dominion , and the Two Swords: On theOrigins of Western Political Theology (180-398%

Publications in Medieval Studies 28. NDame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press“Bishops and Temples in the Eastern RoEmpire, A.D. 320-435.” Journal of Theological Studies , ser. 2, 29:53-78.“Constantine’s Porphyry Column: The EaLiterary Allusion. Journal of Roman Studies81:119-131.

Religious Identity in Late Antiquity . TorontoCanada: Edgar Kent.

“Things Unbefitting Christians: Violence Christianization in Fifth-Century Panopo

Journal of Early Christian Studies 8:273-295.“‘It Moves Me to Wonder : Narrating Violand Religion under the Roman Emp

Journal of the American Academy of Religion77:825-852.1There Is No Crime for Those Who HaveChristReligious Violence in the Christian

Roman Empire. Berkeley: University California Press.Toleration as Recognition. Cambridge, UKCambridge University Press.“Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity

Persecution and Tolerationy Studies in ChurcHistory 21, ed. W. J. Shiels, 1-27. Oxford, Blackwell.The History of the Decline and Fall of the

Roman Empire , ed. J. B. Bury. 1776-177 vols. London, UK: Methuen. (Orig. pub.)

Making Men: Sophists and Self-Preservation in Ancient Rome . Princeton, NJ: PrincetUniversity Press

Field, L., Jr.1998

Fowden, G.1978

1991

Frakes, R. M. andE. DePalma Digeser, eds.,2006

Frankfurter, D.2000

Frilingos, Chris2009

Gaddis, M.2005

Galeotti, A.2002

Garnsey, P.1984

Gibbon, E.1909-14

Gleason, M.1995


35/44


“Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian’sPersecution of the Church.”Church History 52:133-144.

Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.The Age of Constantine the Great Berkeley:University of California Press.Gewalt und religiöser Konflikt: Studien zu den

Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Christen, Heiden und Juden im Osten des Römischen Reiches (von Konstantin bis Theodosius II), KlioBeihefte, NF 8. Berlin, Germany: AkademieVerlag.Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, griechischen christli- chen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, NF 1. Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.“The Emperor Julian and His School Law.Church History 37:131-143.“Tricennatsrede an Constantin.” In Eusebius* Werke, I, Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Vol.7, 195-223. Leipzig, Germany: J.C. Hinrichs.

Mark the Deacon, The Life of Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

“Roman

Intolerance, Religious Violence, And Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity.

Documents

Transcript of Intolerance, Religious Violence, And Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity.