Five Lessons about Religious Freedom from Ancient Rome

Although I am tempted to cross-post this whole article, instead I will just post a link:

http://ldsmag.com/five-lessons-about-religious-freedom-from-ancient-rome/

I wish I had known it was published earlier.

A.D. 430

The year 430 is noted for the death of Augustine. He died at the age of 75 when the town where he served as bishop, Hippo, was besieged by the Vandals.

Augustine was a typically hedonistic youth. He had prayed:

Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo. "Give me chastity, but not yet." (Augustine, Confessions 8.7).

When he was nineteen he read Cicero's Hortensius and decided to study philosophy. Yet, as Peter Brown notes, he was "the only Latin philosopher to fail to master Greek." (OCD 148). Still, it was a conversion. He would later convert to Manichaeism, and then to Neo-Platonic Christianity. "Augustine developed his ideas with an independence that disquieted even his admirers" (OCD 148). In part this is because "Augustine's major works are landmarks in the abandonment of classical ideals." (OCD 148).

Some people celebrate Augustine, others disdain him. I worry a bit when I see some who claim to be Christians who worship Augustine.

A.D. 410

This date is generally considered to mark the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. A.D. 410 was the year that Rome fell to the Visigoths.

Back in 382, the nominally Roman emperor Theodosius I (who actually ruled from Constantinople) signed a treaty with the Visigoths that made the Visigoths part of the Roman empire. While the Romans considered the Visigoths now part of the empire, the Visigoths thought differently. They despised Rome and thought of themselves as independent of it.

It was the general Flavius Stilicho's job to keep the Visigoths under Alaric I out of Italy. Alaric, however, persuaded Stilicho that if he would help Alaric, Alaric would help him capture Illyricum (basically Greece and Macedonia) for the Western empire. While they were preparing for the invasion, Alaric crossed the Rhine and invaded Gaul. So Stilicho called the invasion of Illyricum off and stuck Alaric with the bill. At that point, both Stilicho and Alaric thought that the other had double-crossed them.

In 408, Honorius, son of Theodosius I and the Western Roman Emperor, got into the act. Honorius and Stilicho had a fight about whether or not Stilicho would allow Honorius to go to Constantinople. Things escalated until Stilicho was deposed, took refuge in a church, but was hewn down anyway. The reprisals against Stilicho's followers and slaves who had been brought to Italy by him resulted in many of them fleeing to Alaric, swelling his army. By the end of 408 the Visigoths invaded Italy and besieged Rome.

The Senate tried to get Honorius to settle with Alaric, but Honorius kept reneging on his agreements and insulting Alaric.

Finally, on 24 August 210, the Roman slaves opened the gates to the Visigoths who plundered Rome for three days.

The Visigoths thus plundered the Roman empire from the inside. Rome probably could have been spared were it not for the treachery and double dealing of the ironically named Honorius.

A.D. 328

A.D. 328 was the official consecratio of the new capital of Constantinople, the symbol of the new direction in which Constantine was taking the Roman empire. Constantine had planned it for some time, and construction had actually been proceeding for a couple of years. Now, it was official. Constantine rejected the old capital of Rome, and indeed, had always neglected it. Four years later, the bread distributions that had been a staple of Rome were transferred to Constantinople; the grain revenues that had supported Rome for so long now flowed in a different direction, just as the sources for that revenue began to dry up (quite literally, the canal system in the Fayyum was clogging up from neglect).

Indications of Constantine's new direction could be seen from a number of items.

In A.D. 311 Galerius issued an edict of toleration in the Eastern Roman Empire which stopped the active persecution of Christians. In A.D. 313 Constantine made Christianity legal. This is sometimes known as Constantine's edict of tolerance, but it turns out not to have been so tolerant. In 324, in the Egyptian city of Panopolis, Horion, son of Horion, applied for the familial post of prophet of the temple of Min. Constantine's government, however, rejected the application, and forced the whole family to relinquish their ancestral occupation (and the revenues) and find employment elsewhere. (The story is told in this book.) Christianity might be tolerated but the priesthood of Min would not be.

Actually, even Christianity would not be tolerated. Philosophical differences in the church of Alexandria caused a division in the Church. Constantine decided to settle the dispute, even though he was neither a philosopher nor a Christian, and did not really know anything about the subject. As a result of Constantine's meeting in A.D. 325, half of the Christians were condemned to persecution by their fellow Christians. The Christian world was also burdened with having to figure out and explain a poorly-thought-out and incoherent philosophical term.

Eusebius, a partisan of Constantine and his beneficiary, writes of Constantine in glowing terms, as though Constantine were the greatest thing to ever happen to Christianity, and had single-handedly ushered in the millennium. Alas, it did not prove to be such.

A.D. 311

In A.D. 311 the emperor Galerius ended his persecution of Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire. It was also the year he died. The edict was one of partial toleration, and there was an ulterior motive behind it. Galerius had become ill and wanted everyone to pray for him. If that meant stopping his persecution so that the Christians might pray for him so be it. What was most important, for him, was that he be healthy. It did not work. He died that same year.

A.D. 293

The year A.D. 293 sticks out as the year that Diocletian established the tetrarchy. The Roman Empire was ruled by two emperors (Augusti), each assisted by a Caesar. Diocletian was Augustus in the East, with Galerian as his Caesar, while Maximian was Augustus in the West, with Constantius Chlorus as his Caesar. As Mattingly and Warmington explain:

The tetrarchy was an attempt to provide each part of the Empire with a ruler and to establish an ordered, non-hereditary succession. It broke down when his dominating personality was removed (OCD 346).

The tetrarchy was inherently unstable and when Diocletian left the scene, civil war immediately broke out.

Oddly enough, through the entire period of the tetrarchy Rome was neglected. The imperial residence might be in Nicomedia, or Treviri, or Sirmium, but Rome, the origin of the empire, was a neglected afterthought. To be sure, the tetrarchy gave lip service to Rome, but not much more. But this was nothing new as Rome had been neglected for years, through most of the third century in fact. H. H. Scullard notes that "while the armies played the game of emperor-making, the security and unity of the Empire was nearly destroyed" (OCD, 932). The economy largely did and so did politics. So much for Rome as an ideal. The fact that Aurelian (270-275) had to build a wall around Rome showed that while the emperor might reign from the oceans to the stars (Virgil, Aeneid I.287), there were plenty to molest and make afraid. Scullard notes "increasing difficulties in communication, and above all the general sense of insecurity and lack of confidence" (OCD, 933).

Nevertheless, the tetrarchy had a convenient scapegoat, and they could always blame their personal failures on the Christians and use it as an excuse to persecute them. Christians ever after would remember this time as the great persecution. Their fondness for Constantine, who later replaced Constantius in the tetrarchy saved the tetrarchy from bearing the appropriate brunt of the ill will of the people. Diocletian alone would be remembered for it, even if it was his right-hand man, Galerian, who was probably more behind the persecutions.

A.D. 282

For the events of A.D. 282, it is worth quoting Harold Mattingly's entry on Carus from the older Oxford Classical Dictionary (p. 210):

Carus, Marcus Aurelius (PW 77), born at Narbo, praetorian prefect of Probus, rebelled in Raetia in A.D. 282, and, after Probus had been murdered by his troops, announced to the Senate his accession as Emperor. Leaving Carinus as Caesar in the west, Carus marched east against Persia with his younger son and Caesar, Numerian. On the way he defeated the Quadi and Sarmatae on the Danube. Carus invaded Persia and captured Ctesiphon, but, venturing on a further advance, was killed, perhaps by treachery on the part of Aper, the praetorian prefect.

Don't these Roman Emperors learn anything?

A.D. 276

When Aurelian died in A.D. 275, the senate appointed Marcus Claudius Tacitus as emperor in his stead. Tacitus was already elderly at the time, which makes one wonder if he accepted the post because he was power-hungry, or merely senile. In A.D. 276, Tacitus was murdered by his own troops at Tyana. Perhaps he should have treated them better.

This left a power vacuum which was filled by the Marcus Annius Florianus (commonly known as Florian), who was the praetorian prefect of Tacitus. When Tacitus died, Florian seized control of the empire and was recognized as emperor everywhere except Syria and Egypt, which were under the control of Marcus Aurelius Probus. Probus demoralized Florian's troops to the point that they killed Florian.

So Probus outflanked Florian at Tarsus and became the sole emperor. Probus owed his position at emperor to the army, but he too had to deal with several rebellions by the army, such as those of Saturninus in the East (277-78), Proculus and Bonosus in Gaul (280), and a revolt in Britain. So the army was not exactly happy with Probus's rule. In 282, Probus was killed by his own troops, after some of his troops deserted to Carus, who was proclaimed emperor by army renegades.

Roman history of this time period begins to sound like the same thing over and over with only the names changing.

A.D. 275

In A.D. 275, the emperor Aurelian set out against the Persians. On the way, in Caenophrurium, he was assassinated, abetted by his secretary who bore the provocative name of Eros.

Aurelian, himself rose to power in 268 by aiding the military plot to destroy Gallienus. For his help in the conspiracy, he was appointed to be the chief commander of the cavalry by Claudius II. Only two years later he became the emperor by ousting Quintillus after the death of Claudius.

So after forty years of disastrous rule, Rome under Aurelian considered herself restored to her rightful place, which lasted all of five years. Aurelian had a couple of problems to deal with. Roman money was now essentially worthless. But Aurelian tried to meet the problem by being an absolute tyrant noted for his ruthlessness. When he died, he was plotting to renew persecution of the Christians.

This might be the only time in history when Christians were saved by Eros.

AD 250

In the year AD 250 the roman emperor Decius issued his famous edict against the Christians. All Roman citizens were required to demonstrate their personal loyalty to the Roman emperor by sacrificing to the Roman gods. They were then issued a legal certificate to attest to their act. Such a certificate was called a libellus, and a few of these have survived. Those who refused would be killed. Christians were in a quandary because they could not in good conscience obey the law.

Decius had come to power because the group of soldiers he was in charge of had rebelled against the policies of Philippus and they proclaimed him emperor. After Philippus was killed, in AD 249, the empire merely capitulated to the earlier revolt.

So, once in power, an illegitimate ruler used his imperial might to persecute and punish believers.

AD 247

In AD 247, Julius Philippus, the Roman emperor, was victorious over the Carpi. Philippus had been born in Arabia and had come to the throne only three years earlier. And therein hangs a tale.

The emperor before him was Gordian III who began to rule in 238 at the age of 13. Gordion had appointed Philippus to be his praetorian prefect in 243 after the previous praetorian prefect, Timistheus, had died in battle. Seeing an offer of the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, Philippus gladly gave his soul for it. Using a shortage of food as a pretext, Phillipus told his men that it was better to be ruled by a man than by a boy. And so, in 244, Philippus had Gordion assassinated in Zaitha and himself proclaimed emperor. For six years he ruled the "civilized" world, until his own soldiers killed him in a battle in Verona.

Later tradition honoured Philip as the first Christian Emperor, but this was certainly false. (OCD, 816).

 After all, what in the conduct of Philippus would lead one to the conclusion that he was Christian?

The Interconnected Ancient World I: Chinese Influence on Roman Policy

The late Hugh Nibley once observed: “There are no fields—there are only problems!”—meaning that one must bring to the discussion and solution of any given problem whatever is required to understand it: If the problems calls for a special mathematics, one must get it; if it calls for three or four languages, one must get them; if it takes twenty years, one must be prepared to give it twenty years—or else shift to some other problem.[1]

Fields of study compartmentalize the ancient world into discrete areas that make study more manageable. Once one has learned Latin, for example, a brave new world of literature has been opened to view. Thousands of previously inaccessible works await the eager reader. One can make a discipline of Latin studies and limit it to works written in Latin. Everything is neat and discrete and contained. The only problem is that the ancient world was never neat, discrete and contained. Anyone who has studied much Latin can tell you that Latin was constantly interacting with Greek, to the point that classics majors find they must study both Greek and Latin to understand the Roman world where the vast majority of the bureaucratic apparatus was established by the Greeks and simply taken over by the Romans who continued it mostly in Greek.

But surely the Roman world, centered on the Mediterranean, was isolated from remote regions such as Xin Dynasty China! Alas, such was not the case. Therein lies a tale.

After the death of the dissolute Han emperor Aidi (7-1 BC), Wang Mang took charge of China. After his two puppet emperors died untimely deaths, he made himself emperor of a new dynasty, the Xin dynasty. Wang Mang initiated a number of reforms such as redistributing the land and banning the sale of slaves, both of which he was forced to take back because many of his “reforms did not actually improve the economic position of any class.”[2] They made him so unpopular that when a rebellion broke out in AD 23 he found himself without friends and was killed.

One of Wang Mang’s reforms is of particular interest. The emperor took gold money out of circulation and insisted that all gold must be exchanged for copper. The effect of this regulation was to take gold out of circulation and concentrate it in the hands of the emperor. Indeed, when Wang Mang died the Chinese treasury held more gold than the entire supply in circulation in Medieval Europe.[3]

In the Roman world, gold coins started to be used in 46 B.C., after the Romans had siphoned off the precious metals of the Mediterranean and the gold coins of “Macedon, Carthage, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Gaul had ceased to circulate.” [4] Gold coins became the norm when one wanted to convey large sums of money, or to more easily conceal one’s money, or when one wanted to trade outside the Roman Empire.[5]

By the Han Dynasty, eastern China was producing a wide variety of silk which, as a light and easily transported luxury good, found its way from Korea to Syria.[6] By the first century B.C. a fortified silk road had developed between China around the Taklimakan desert to the Sogdians and Parthians took over and took the silk to the Roman empire.[7] Alternate trade routes developed, partially as a means to insure trade in case the Parthians and Romans were at war, which they frequently were.[8]

The Roman writer Seneca wrote, “I see silk clothes, if they can be called clothes, which can protect neither the body nor the modesty.”[9] The emperor Tiberius complained that the women’s dress was diverting Roman wealth to foreign nations.[10] In the middle of the first century, Roman taste for exotic imports cost the empire 100,000,000 sesterces to the East of which 55,000,000 sesterces went to India alone.[11] Since the Romans had nothing besides gold that the Chinese wanted and the Chinese would not allow the gold to circulate, gold going to China was gold going into a black hole. Under such circumstances, Tiberius supposedly banned the wearing of silk.[12] The Chinese emperor was affecting decisions by the Roman emperor.

Even in the ancient world, the world was interconnected and a change in one part of the world could cause a chain reaction elsewhere.

---

[1] Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2009), 49.

[2] Homer H. Dubs, “Wang Mang and his Economic Reforms,” T’uong Pao, 35/4 (1940): 220.

[3] Ann Paludan, Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors (London: Thames & Hudson, 1998), 42-43.

[4] Christopher Howgego, “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 B.C. to A.D. 300,” The Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992): 2, 5, 10.

[5] Howgego, “Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World,” 11-12.

[6] Michael Loewe, “Spices and Silk: Aspects of World Trade in the First Seven Centuries of the Christian Era,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2 (1971): 169.

[7] Loewe, “Spices and Silk,” 172.

[8] J. Thorley, “The Development of Trade between the Roman Empire and the East under Augustus,” Greece and Rome 16/2 (1969): 215-16.

[9] Seneca, De Beneficiis, 7.9.5.

[10] Tacitus, Annals 3.53.

[11] Loewe, “Spices and Silk,” 173.

[12] Paludan, Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors, 43.

Reading the Gospel of Judas VII: Contemporary Conspiracy

If Dante consigned Judas to the lowest circle of hell, gnawed by the devil himself, two other figures shared the same fate: Brutus and Cassius.[1] In the time of Jesus these two were the most recent and thus best known examples of treachery. Because of the pivotal role they played in Roman history, they would continue to be well-known figures inspiring such literary works as Dante and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Gaius Cassius and Marcus Brutus were Roman senators. Julius Caesar, the first Roman emperor, did come off occasionally as arrogant. The Roman Senate felt that Caesar insulted them by not standing to greet them.[2] Though Caesar had declined the title of king, some of the senators wanted to press the title anyway.

Because his enemies shrank from agreeing to this proposal, they pressed on with their plans for his assassination. Several groups, each consisting of two or three malcontents, now united in a general conspiracy.[3]

And so,

More than sixty conspirators banded together against him, led by Gaius Cassius and Marcus and Decimus Brutus.[4]

The latter two Caesar had treated like adopted sons since their mother was his favorite mistress.[5]

And so, on March 15, when Caesar was visiting the Senate for a meeting, he was stabbed twenty-three times. The physician Antistius concluded at the autopsy that the second wound, to the chest, killed Caesar. That blow had been delivered by Marcus Brutus, to whom Caesar is said to have spoken his last words: “You, too, my child.”[6]

The death of Caesar, however, had not been the end of the plot:

It had been decided to drag the dead man down to the Tiber, confiscate his property, and revoke all his edicts; but fear of Mark Antony, the Consul, and Lepidus, the Master of Horse, kept the assassins from making their plans good.[7]

Instead the result was another Roman civil war where one adopted son, Octavius, defeated the other adopted son, Brutus, and went on to become the emperor Augustus, in whose days Jesus was born (and likely others of the apostles as well).

This would have been the story of treachery that would have come to the mind of most citizens and subjects of the Roman empire when Judas betrayed Jesus.

---

[1] Dante, Inferno 34.61-69.

[2] Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 78-79. I will quote from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Casears, trans. Robert Graves (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1957).

[3] Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 80.

[4] Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 80.

[5] Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 50.

[6] Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 82.

[7] Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 82.