In the late 4th century the Roman Empire was diverting its state subsidies from the customary pagan cults to the Christian church. At the same time the public space was evolving from one where tokens of pagan piety were being replaced with witnesses to the Christian tradition. The pagan elites resisted this change, and it is from this period we have some dialogues between elites from both intellectual traditions. I was discussing with a friend recently how in late antiquity Christianity was a progressive and anti-traditional force, overturning norms which stretched back into the pre-literate past, passed from generation to generation. Today where Christianity and conservatism are seen to be coterminous this might seem peculiar, but it illustrates how conservatism is context specific. What might be conservative in one age is radical in another. Additionally, I would with some trepidation add that when some Christians appeal to the a priori Truths of their religion as the source of their views on how a Good Society should be ordered, it is in some ways as constructivist as the outlook of proposition nation proponents. Instead of an organically evolving society which changes incrementally from generation to generation, a Big Idea can reorder the constellations as the scales fall from one’s eyes.
Below are two sections of a debate between Symmachus, a pagan aristocrat, and St. Ambrose, which illustrates the peculiar late antique juxtaposition.
Symmachus:
But it is our task to watch on behalf of your Graces. For to what is it more suitable that we defend the institutions of our ancestors, and the rights and destiny of our country, than to the glory of these times, which is all the greater when you understand that you may not do anything contrary to the custom of your ancestors? We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last do so.
…
Let us now suppose that Rome is present and addresses you in these words: “Excellent princes, fathers of your country, respect my years to which pious rites have brought me. Let me use the ancestral ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws, these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the capitol. Have I been reserved for this, that in my old age I should be blamed? I will consider what it is thought should be set in order, but tardy and discreditable is the reformation of old age.”
We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.
…
May the unseen guardians of all sects be favourable to your Graces, and may they especially, who in old time assisted your ancestors, defend you and be worshipped by us. We ask for that state of religious matters which preserved the empire for the divine parent of your Highnesses, and furnished that blessed prince with lawful heirs. That venerable father beholds from the starry height the tears of the priests, and considers himself censured by the violation of that custom which he willingly observed.
St. Ambrose:
Let, then, that invidious complaint of the Roman people come to an end. Rome has given no such charge. She speaks with other words. “Why do you daily stain me with the useless blood of the harmless herd? Trophies of victory depend not on the entrails of the flocks, but on the strength of those who fight. I subdued the world by a different discipline. Camillus was my soldier, who slew those who had taken the Tarpeian rock, and brought back the standards taken from the Capitol; valour laid those low whom religion had not driven off. What shall I say of Attilius [Regulus], who gave the service of his death? Africanus found his triumphs not amongst the altars of the Capitol, but amongst the lines of Hannibal. Why do you bring forward the rites of our ancestors? I hate the rites of Neros. Why should I speak of the Emperors of two months,’ and the ends of rulers closely joined to their commencements. Or is it perchance a new thing for the barbarians to cross their boundaries? Were they, too, Christians in whose wretched and unprecedented cases, the one, a captive Emperor, and, under the other, the captive world made manifest that their rites which promised victory were false. Was there then no Altar of Victory? I mourn over my downfall, my old age is tinged with that shameful bloodshed. I do not blush to be converted with the whole world in my old age. It is undoubtedly true that no age is too late to learn. Let that old age blush which cannot amend itself. Not the old age of years is worthy of praise but that of character. There is no shame in passing to better things. This alone was common to me with the barbarians, that of old I knew not God. Your sacrifice is a rite of being sprinkled with the blood of beasts. Why do you seek the voice of God in dead animals? Come and learn on earth the heavenly warfare; we live here, but our warfare is there. Let God Himself, Who made me, teach me the mystery of heaven, not man, who knew not himself. Whom rather than God should I believe concerning God? How can I believe you, who confess that you know not what you worship?
…
But, he says, the rites of our ancestors ought to be retained. But what, seeing that all things have made progress towards what is better? The world itself, which at first was compacted of the germs of the elements throughout the void, in a yielding sphere, or was dark with the shapeless confusion of the work as yet without order, did it not afterwards receive (the distinction between sky, sea, and earth being established), the forms of things whereby it appears beautiful? The lands freed from the misty darkness wondered at the new sun. The day does not shine in the beginning, but as time proceeds, it is bright with increase of light, and grows warm with increase of heat.
The moon herself, by which in the prophetic oracles the Church is represented, when first rising again, she waxes to her monthly age, is hidden from us in darkness, and filling up her horns little by little, so completing them opposite to the sun, glows with the brightness of clear shining.
The earth in former times was without experience of being worked for fruits; afterwards when the careful husbandman began to lord it over the fields, and to clothe the shapeless soil with vines, it put off its wild disposition, being softened by domestic cultivation.
The first age of the year itself, which has tinged us with a likeness to itself as things begin to grow, as it goes on becomes springlike with flowers soon about to fall and grows up to full age in fruits at the end.
We too, inexperienced in age, have an infancy of our senses, but changing as years go on, lay aside the rudiments of our faculties.
Let them say, then, that all things ought to have remained in their first beginnings, that the world covered with darkness is now displeasing, because it has brightened with the shining of the sun. And how much more pleasant is it to have dispelled the darkness of the mind than that of the body, and that the ray of faith should have shone than that of the sun. So, then, the primeval state of the world as of all things has passed away, that the venerable old age of hoary faith might follow. Let those whom this touches find fault with the harvest, because its abundance comes late; let them find fault with the vintage, because it is at the close of the year; let them find fault with the olive, because it is the latest of fruits.
So, then, our harvest is the faith of souls; the grace of the Church is the vintage of merits, which from the beginning of the world flourished in the Saints, but in the last age has spread itself over the people, that all might notice that the faith of Christ has entered minds which were not rude (for there is no crown of victory without an adversary), but the opinion being exploded which before prevailed, that which was true is rightly preferred.
“I was discussing with a friend recently how in late antiquity Christianity was a progressive and anti-traditional force, overturning norms which stretched back into the pre-literate past, passed from generation to generation.”
That’s essentially the argument that Charles Freeman make in “The Closing of the Western Mind.” (Freeman also observed how religious asceticism is similarly iconoclastic.) Freeman points out that pagans eyed the Christians as being promiscuous. It seems religious conservatives of all stripes love to demonize sex.
I am curious how the early church can be termed a ‘progressive and anti-traditional force’? There is very little original in Christianity. Virtually every doctrine and mythology associated with it, including most aspects of Jesus, can be traced back to clear antecedents in the earlier pagan religions. Christianity, and Judaism before it, imported vast swaths of tradition and theology from their predecessors. Christian doctrine recast and built on what was already familiar. How great a change from polytheism is there in Christianity with its trinity, saints, angels and the like? Like all its predecessors, as it grew in influence and acceptance it insinuated itself into governmental power. If anything, it preserved and carried forward the past, albeit in mutated form. It’s relatively rapid and wide ranging adoption speaks to continuity, and perhaps intensification of religiosity, rather than radical change. The great changes of the era arose more from the political strains and ultimate collapse of the centuries old order of the Roman Empire. Christianity provided a psychological refuge from that chaos in the form of metamorphosed continuity.
Interesting point and counterpoint. Symmachus asks to “Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free.” He asks for peace and harmony with other beliefs: “We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one.” He offers “favourable guardians” and respectfully addresses “your Graces.” He asks that the Empire be continued and “preserved.”
Interesting to note that while the Edict of Milan (St. Ambrose WAS the Bishop of Milan) did not make Christianity the State Religion in fact, it did so in deed. Constantine favored the religion in almost all decisions and with exceptions, indulgences and financial assistance. Constantine was a consummate politician and while favoring Christianity, never abdicated his position as Pontifex Maximus, the head of the “Old Religion.” Also interesting that the Empire lasted, from the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) to Alaric’s sacking in 410, a mere 97 years.
In Ambrose’s reply he “hates” the Rites of Nero’s i.e., the “Old Religion.” He ridicules the Old as “being sprinkled with the blood of beasts” but sees no hypocisy in the rite of consuming the flesh and blood of Christ. Sees no hypocisy in “Whom rather than God should I believe concerning God?” As if the gods of the Old Religion did not make the same claims concerning themselves.
As Christianity settled on the bones of Empire and the skeletons of the Old Religion that underpinned it, Christianity takes over the once “pagan” holy places, building cathedrtals on umphaloi, constructing churches on Old Religion sacred plots and borrowing from all that came before them.
In the end, the result is the same – all religion is politics and all politics are about the achievement of power. An un-holy trinity.
jrb: Virtually every doctrine and mythology associated with it, including most aspects of Jesus, can be traced back to clear antecedents in the earlier pagan religions.
The simple refutation can be found from a founding father; Elias Boudinot’s Age of Revelation, the excellent refutation of theist Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason.
harry flashman: In Ambrose’s reply he “hates” the Rites of Nero’s i.e., the “Old Religion.” He ridicules the Old as “being sprinkled with the blood of beasts but sees no hypocisy in the rite of consuming the flesh and blood of Christ.”
And sacrifice of human beings unto the emperor. The catholic eucharist is not written in scripture.
As if the gods of the Old Religion did not make the same claims concerning themselves.>
Where is the reliable transmission compared to the Bible? Where is the fulfillment of prophecy in any literature comparable with the Bible?
all religion is politics and all politics are about the achievement of power.>
Christianity is not a religion in that sense. It is about a person.
Interesting to note that while the Edict of Milan (St. Ambrose WAS the Bishop of Milan) did not make Christianity the State Religion in fact, it did so in deed.
This is false. Christianity was not the State Religion, the Senatorial elite remained mostly pagan until 400. Subsidies to the pagan temples remained until the late 300s. The initial pagan objection to Christianity’s role in the state was partly fueled by the fact that progressively more assertive Christian Emperors began to switch the flow of subsidy from pagan institutions to the Christian church. Eventually in the reign of Theodosius in the last decade of the 4th century the state began tacitly condoning violent attacks on pagan temples (e.g., Serapeum in Alexandria) and de jure banning private pagan practice. But as late as the reign of Zeno, a century after Theodosius, enough pagans remained that there were hopes (albeit, unrealistic ones) for a resurrection of the old religion. For quantitative data please see The Making of the Christian Aristocracy.
HuH?
OK – “Eventually in the reign of Theodosius in the last decade of the 4th century the state began tacitly condoning violent attacks on pagan temples (e.g., Serapeum in Alexandria) and de jure banning private pagan…
Who destroyed the the greatest repostitioum of human knowledge in the history of human existience?
Who destroyed the Library of Alexandea?
“Christianity is not a religion in that sense. It is about a person.”
So, indeed, it is cult?
jrb & harry flashman
There is something innovative in the specifics of Christianity, the choice of the “victim” subverts the traditional mechanism and role of sacrifice.
Who destroyed the Library of Alexandea?
several groups and people.
Christianity, and Judaism before it, imported vast swaths of tradition and theology from their predecessors
this can be true without refuting the contention that the switch from pre-christianity to christianity signaled a particularly rapid and somewhat traumatic cultural shift. christians may have adopted greek philosophy and roman organization, but they adhered to the relatively late jewish position of monotheism where other gods were false, whether non-existent, or manipulative demons (prior to this the jews were henotheistic). the christian contempt and disrespect toward pre- or non-christian ways exceeded in scope prior pagan attitudes (the roman persecution of druids, who were both a counter-roman institution and engaged in abhorrent practices such as human sacrifice, show that the persecutive impulse is not the monopoly of the religions of abraham).
many aspects of antiquity were absorbed into christianity, whether in its beliefs (mind-body dualism and the idea of heaven as opposed to bodily resurrection at the end of times) or customs (baptism which resembled the rites of mithraism). but with the rise of christianity many classical customs, traditions and folkways were banished or suppressed as ‘pagan.’ among these were the oracle of delphi, the olympic games and the vestal virgins. great public monuments which had a pagan association were also allowed to fall into disrepair because of the perception that they were haunted by demons (the old gods). what christianity did not absorb died and whithered. i point to three examples above, but these are almost certainly the merest surface layers of cultural streams. christianity was both assimilative and a channel for classical antiquity down the generations, and a significant rupture with the customs & traditions of numerous peoples who had evolved slowly through a process of assimilation of foreign ideas with their indigenous substrate.
Excellent post! This is the best post I’ve seen at Secular Right. Let’s have more like this!
If I were living in St. Ambrose’s time I’d have been on the side of the pagan aristocrat fighting against the establishment of Christianity, for the reasons he gave. Those are the same reasons that Western conservatives today need to defend our inheritance, our Christian civilization, which means defending traditional Christianity against its secularist and liberal enemies.
Perhaps the lesson here is a conservative one. Perhaps we should carefully ponder the function of religion as we race towards the first truly secular society since the days of pre-human hominids.
Perhaps we should carefully ponder the function of religion as we race towards the first truly secular society since the days of pre-human hominids.
i doubt we will be the first truly secular society. in any case, remember that there are societies orders of magnitude more secular than the united states (sweden, japan, estonia, etc.). but even in this cases the majority of people would probably be categorized as religious or supernaturalistic in inclination.
Also interesting that the Empire lasted, from the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) to Alaric’s sacking in 410, a mere 97 years.
That was the Western Empire, and it actually toddled on another 66 years, with Romulus Augustus’ deposition in 476. Until then, it was still able to field armies that could defeat Atilla in 451. After that, not so much.
The Eastern Empire kept going for another 1,000 years until its end in 1453.
Christianity was effectively declared the State Religion in the Byzantine Empire. Until Constantine, Christianity was a shadow cult of slaves and the lowly.
Arguably, it was also a lot more selective, self-consistent, and non-hypocritical. The only people accepted into the arms of the faith were those who believed enough to risk execution as a consequence. It was also completely pacifistic and relatively unauthoritarian.
Once Constantine converted, and becoming a nominal believer was necessary to hold positions of political or worldly power, it’s clear the Empire ‘converted’ very rapidly. Whether the original message was preserved is less obvious.
Christianity was effectively declared the State Religion in the Byzantine Empire. Until Constantine, Christianity was a shadow cult of slaves and the lowly.
this is probably empirically false. the highest probability is that christianity was a cosmopolitan urban cult of the broad lower middle classes. there is enough extant information to confirm that christianity was not very successful among the upper reaches of society, but its strength as a collective organization which was the cement behind a state-within-a-state implies that they couldn’t have mostly been slaves, who would lack freedom to organize in such a manner. additionally, christianity was mostly an urban phenomenon.
rguably, it was also a lot more selective, self-consistent, and non-hypocritical. The only people accepted into the arms of the faith were those who believed enough to risk execution as a consequence. It was also completely pacifistic and relatively unauthoritarian.
there’s a good amount of scholarship to suggest that the idea that by becoming christian one risked one’s life is highly exaggerated. as exaggerated as say the death toll of the inquisition in spain. additionally, there were periodic flair ups of persecution (nero in rome, decius, and diocletian’s great one), but most of the time christians were distrusted but left alone.
Once Constantine converted, and becoming a nominal believer was necessary to hold positions of political or worldly power, it’s clear the Empire ‘converted’ very rapidly. Whether the original message was preserved is less obvious.
this is false. again, see making of a christian aristocracy, which presents quantitative data on the religious composition of the senatorial class. it is likely more than 50% were pagan until the year 400. paganism persisted longest among older wealthy families who had independent sources of power & prestige from the emperor. ancient autocrats simply did not have stalinistic powers, so their fiat could only go so far.
this is false. again, see making of a christian aristocracy, which presents quantitative data on the religious composition of the senatorial class. it is likely more than 50% were pagan until the year 400.
What effect did the Gothic takeovers have? Even though the Goths were mostly Arian, I’d still imagine that led to a far more dramatic reduction in paganism in the West than even Constantine’s edict.
What effect did the Gothic takeovers have? Even though the Goths were mostly Arian, I’d still imagine that led to a far more dramatic reduction in paganism in the West than even Constantine’s edict.
i don’t think much on the religious dynamics. after the battle of frigidus theodosius switched from a modus vivendi with paganism to outright hostility and suppression. there were plenty of prominent pagan families in the early 5th century, and theodosius ii had to repeal a ban on pagans in the officer corp of the army because of resignations of pagan generals. but the velocity was now picking up in christianization, and the pagan aristocrats who sponsored explicitly pagan cultural production were already in decline by the time that barbarians were running roughshod through the interior lines of the empire.
one interest sidepoint is that the german general arbogast was a greco-roman pagan. this suggests that there was an alternative path to romanization through pagan high culture which persisted right until the point that public sponsorship and toleration of paganism was suppressed in the year 400 (remember that wealthy aristocrats could still of course sponsor paganism on their private estates, so public proscription did not mean the immediate cessation of pagan activity). after this point the only viable path to romanization for barbarians would been christianity, in particular athanasian (non-arian) christianity. we don’t know much about men like arbogast because pagan high culture disappeared in subsequent generations, and it seems to me likely that traditionalist roman pagans like symmachus would have had little interest in commenting on arrivistes.
p.s. christianity was much more common among governors and elites on the fringe of the empire n the 4th century, probably because many ascended to power explicitly through imperial patronage. in contrast, the old senatorial families in the “core” areas like italy and africa tended to be mostly pagan until the end of the 4th century.
harry flashman: So, indeed, it is cult?
It depends if the person is God or not.
David Hume: the highest probability is that christianity was a cosmopolitan urban cult of the broad lower middle classes.
Is it possible the early Christians believed Jesus was God, i.e. by inerrant reading of the scriptures?
Is it possible the early Christians believed Jesus was God, i.e. by inerrant reading of the scriptures?
They probably did, but by the virtue that he was mad and vainglorious enough to think it himself.
“ancient autocrats simply did not have stalinistic powers, so their fiat could only go so far”
Yet Constantinople had Christian churches in its basic design, while providing no facilities for pagan worship whatsoever. At the same time, the pagan temples in other cities were closed, and their funds used to support Christian worship, although it is said that this was done by the people out of fear more than because of action on Constantine’s part.
I think perhaps we have different standards as to what ‘quickly’ means.
Polichinello: They probably did, but by the virtue that he [Jesus] was mad and vainglorious enough to think it himself.
You would need evidence to back up that assertion, or the current interpretation predominates.
Yet Constantinople had Christian churches in its basic design, while providing no facilities for pagan worship whatsoever.
This is false. Yes, some Christians claimed that there were no pagan facilities or dedications. But newer scholarship has falsified this both via textual and archaeological sources. You earlier claim that Constantine was a “nominal” believer, so you will not be surprised that he did allow for pagan dedications with the founding of Constantinople to augur in fortune (though I think it is grossly simple to term Constantine a “nominal” Christian, and suspect his own views evolved and hardened over time).
. At the same time, the pagan temples in other cities were closed, and their funds used to support Christian worship, although it is said that this was done by the people out of fear more than because of action on Constantine’s part.
Again, this is false. Most of the suppressing and closing occurred in the second half of the 4th century, and in particular in the second half of the second half of the 4th century. Constantine died in 337. Most high officials during the reign of Constantine remained pagan. In fact, they did so until the second half of the 4th century. Again, see The Making of the Christian Aristocracy.
If ‘quickly’ = the reign of Constantine, false
If ‘quickly’ = 1 century, you are correct
Yet Constantinople had Christian churches in its basic design, while providing no facilities for pagan worship whatsoever.
I’m pretty sure most of this impression comes from Eusebius. Though it is obviously true that Constantinople was a Christian city, while Rome remained a fundamentally pagan one until 400, Eusebius was attempting to burnish Constantine’s reputation as a righteous Christian monarch when he made claims about the uniform Christianity of Constantinople.
“You earlier claim that Constantine was a “nominal” believer,”
No, I didn’t. I claimed that the majority of converts to the faith after Constantine took over were nominal.
I will look into your statements regarding the presence of pagan temples in Constantinople. It is entirely possible that new evidence has arisen since the sources I learned from were compiled.
The things I remember about my studies of the relevant time and place contradict those claims, and so do my attempts to verify your assertions with online sources.
I’ll stop by the university library and look for your specific source, but at the moment I am not particularly impressed.
Pingback: A particular universalism « Entitled to an Opinion
Pingback: Secular Right » From Christendom to the West