Carmen adversus paganos

I mentioned that Brian Croke and Jill Harries had put together a volume of documents around the fall of paganism and the final establishment of Christianity during the fourth century, entitled Religious Conflict in Fourth-Century Rome.  Some pages of this have reached me, and I have been pretty impressed.

Among the texts translated for the first time is the Carmen contra paganos which I was considering getting translated a little while ago.  Since it is short, I think I may quote it in full as an example of the truly vivid impression that the book made on me (or at least those bits I saw).  I’ve abbreviated the copious notes so that the general reader may still understand; but the notes are full and highly useful.

Anonymous, Carmen contra paganos (Poem against the Pagans)

Tell me, you people who worship the sacred groves and cave of the Sibyl and the thicket of Ida; the lofty Capitol of thundering Jupiter, the Palladium and the household gods [Lares] of Priam, the chapel of Vesta, and the incestuous gods, the sister married to her brother,[1] the cruel boy [Cupid], the statues of unspeakable Venus, you whom only the purple toga consecrates, you to whom the oracle of Phoebus has never spoken true, you whom the delusive Etruscan diviner forever mocks; this Jupiter of yours, overwhelmed with love for Leda, did he mean to cover himself with white feathers so as to change into a swan, when desperately in love to flow all at once to Danae as a golden shower, to bellow through the straits of Parthenope [Naples] as an adulterous bull? If these monstrous rites find favour are no hallowed things modest? Is the ruler of Olympus [Saturn] forced to retreat, in flight from the arms of Jupiter?  And does any suppliant venerate the temples of the tyrant, when he sees the father compelled to fight by his own son? Finally, if Jupiter himself is ruled by Fate what advantage is it to wretched men to pour forth prayers already foredoomed? The handsome young man, Adonis, is mourned in the temples, naked Venus weeps, Mars the hero rejoices, Jupiter in the middle does not know how to bring about reconciliation and Bellona urges on the quarrelling gods with her whip.

Is it fitting for senators to hope for safety from sacred leaders such as these? Should they be allowed to settle your quarrels? Tell me, what benefit to the City was your prefect, when, a plunderer in ceremonial attire, he had reached the throne of Jupiter, whereas [in fact] he scarcely atones for his crimes by a protracted death? This man who feverishly purified the whole city for three months finally came to the limits of his life. What madness of spirit was this, what insanity of mind? He was certainly able to disturb your Jupiter’s peace! Who, most beautiful Rome, provoked your suspension of public business? Was the populace, long since a stranger to them, to resort to arms?

But there was no one on earth more hallowed than he whom Numa Pompilius, the chief diviner among many, taught by an empty rite outrageously to pollute the altars in the blood of cattle with putrefying carcasses [2]. Is this not the very same man who once betrayed the wine of his country[3] and ancient households, overturning the towers and residences of the nobility, since he wished to bring destruction on his city, adorned his doorposts with laurel, gave banquets, offered unclean bread tainted with the smoke of incense, asking in jest whom he would give over to death, who was ever accustomed to put on the sacred garments, forever ready to corrupt the unfortunate with some new deceit?

How, I ask you, did your priest help the city? He taught the [Greek] priest to seek the Sun beneath the earth,[4] and when a grave-digger from the countryside happened to cut down a pear tree for himself, would say that he was a companion of the gods and mentor of Bacchus, he, a worshipper of Serapis, always a friend to the Etruscan diviners, the one who sought eagerly to pour for the unwary his draughts of poison, who sought a thousand ways of harming and as many contrivances. Those whom he wished to ruin he struck down — the ghastly snake! — ready as he was to fight the true God, in vain, he who always mourned in silence the times of peace, unable to proclaim his own deep grief.

Which initiate of the taurobolium persuaded you to change your clothes so that you, a puffed-up rich man, should suddenly become a beggar covered in rags and having been made a pauper by your small contribution sent underground, stained with bull’s blood, dirty, corrupted, to preserve your bloodied garments and hope to live pure for twenty years? [5] You set yourself up as a censor to cut down the life of your betters, henceforth trusting that your own actions would lie hidden, although you had always been surrounded with the dogs of the Great Mother,[6] you whom the licentious band (O horror!) accompanied in your triumph. The old man of sixty remained a boy,[7] a worshipper of Saturn, constant friend of Bellona, who persuaded everyone that the Fauns,  companions of the nymph Egeria, and the Satyrs and Pans are gods. He is a companion of nymphs and Bacchus and priest of Trivia,[8] whom the Berecynthian Mother inspired to lead the choral dances, take up the staffs of effeminacy and clash the cymbals; whom powerful Galatea [Venus], born of lofty Jove and endowed with the prize of beauty through the judgement of Paris, commanded. Let no priest be allowed to keep his shame when they are in the habit of chanting in falsetto in the Megalensian celebrations. Thus in his madness he wanted to damn many worshippers of Christ were they willing to die outside the Law, and would give honours to those he would ensnare, through demonic artifice, forgetful of their true selves, seeking to influence the minds of certain people by gifts and to make others profane with a small bribe and send the wretched people below with him to Hell. He who wanted pious agreements to replace the laws had Leucadius put in charge of the African farms, to corrupt Marcianus so that he might be his proconsul. [9]

What was the divine custodian of Paphos [Venus], the matron Juno and elderly Saturn able to provide for you, their priest? What did the trident of Neptune promise you, O madman? (90) What responses could the Tritonian maiden [Minerva] give? Tell me, why did you seek the temple of Serapis by night? What did deceitful Mercury promise you as you went? What do you gain from having worshipped the Lares and two-faced Janus? What pleasure to you as priest did our parent Earth give, or the beautiful mother of the gods? (95) What barking Anubis; what the pitiable mother Ceres, and Proserpine below; what lame Vulcan, weak in one foot? Who did not laugh at your grieving, whenever you came bald to the altars as a suppliant to beseech rattle-bearing Faria [Isis] and when, after lamentation, you carried the broken olive branch when mourning wretched Osiris, [as Isis] sought the one she would lose again when found? We have seen lions bearing yokes wrought in silver, [10] when joined together they pulled creaking wooden wagons, and we have seen that man holding silver reins in both his hands. We have seen eminent senators following the chariot of Cybele which the hired band dragged at the Megalensian festival, carrying through the city a lopped-off tree trunk,[11] and suddenly proclaiming that castrated Attis is the Sun. While through your magic arts, alas, you seek the honours of princes, pitiable man, you are thereby brought low with the gift of a small tomb. Yet only the promiscuous Flora rejoices in your consulship, the shameful mother of games and mistress of Venus, to whom but recently your heir Symmachus [13] constructed a temple. You, stationed in the temple, continually worshipped all those monstrous things while your suppliant wife with her hands heaps up the altars with grain and gifts and prepares to fulfil her vows to the gods and goddesses on the threshold of the temple, and threatens the divine powers, desiring to sway Acheron with magic verses, yet sent him wretched headlong down to Tartarus. Leave off weeping after such a spouse, a sufferer from dropsy, he whose wish was to hope for salvation from Latian Jupiter.

[1] Juno and Jupiter.

[2] This refers to the augural ritual and the feast of the Parentalia (Prudentius, Contra Symmachum II.1107-8).

[3] This is apparently an allusion to some tampering with the wine supply during the City prefecture of Flavianus in 383 (Mommsen, ‘Carmen Codicis Parisini 8084’,. p. 363).

[4] Mithras as Sol.

[5] The initiation of the taurobolium was normally meant to last for twenty years according to contemporary inscriptions from Rome (e.g. CIL VI. 502, 504, 512).

[6] A reference to the dog masks worn at the festival of the Great Mother, the Megalensia. For similar instances: Carmen ad senatorem line 31 and Carmen ad Antonium lines 117-18.

[7] The word efebus here may refer to a grade of worship of the cult of Hercules.

[8] Trivia = Hecate. 

[9] Leucadius was an imperial financial official in Africa at the time. See ‘Leucadius 2′, PLRE I, p. 505. Marcianus became Prefect of the City of Rome in 409. After the defeat of Eugenius and Arbogast in September 394 Marcianus was compelled to pay back the salary he had acquired as Flavianus’ pronconsul in Africa (‘Marcianus 14’, PLRE I, pp. 555-6).

[10] The lions of Cybele; see M. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis, London 1977, pp. 96ff.

[11] The pine trunk was carried in procession through the city on 22-23 March each year (ibid., p. 115).

[12] Attis was declared the Sun at the annual feast of the Hilaria, held on 25 March.

[13] This refers to the younger Flavianus who had married the daughter of Symmachus, rather than Symmachus’ son (‘Q. Fabius Memmius Symmachus 10’, PLRE II, p. 1047).

 I didn’t agree with all the footnotes; e.g. why introduce Attis, when Mithras is the Sol worshipped under the earth in a thousand inscriptions?  I wasn’t sure how we know that Attis was identified with the sun either. 

But … a tour de force.  Recommended.

Share

Hunting the wild (mis)quotation

As I wander around the web, I come across supposed quotations which slap me in the face and shriek at me “fake”.  Today I found this:

The following creed is that of a church at Constantinople around the time of the “Council of Nicea”:

“I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with the Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.”

DO you think that this religion (constantinianism) is what Yeshua wanted us to become entangled in

This is a canon of Nicaea I?  It sounds like a personal confession of faith.  The poster, of course, gave no reference.  But a google search on I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews gave me this link at Fordham.edu, which said nothing about Nicaea and gave “From Assemani, Cod. Lit., 1, p. 105″ as the reference, and “from James Parkes:  The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, (New York: JPS, 1934), 394-400.”

Assemani was an oriental scholar, publishing texts from Syriac at Rome in the 18th century, most of them medieval.  So this also is not in accord with the starting post.

Adding Assemani to the Google search brought up a slew of material such as this, headed Constantine’s and Romes Christian Creed, giving “Stefano Assemani, Acta Sanctorium Martyrum Orientalium at Occidentalium, Vol. 1, Rome 1748, page 105” as the reference for the very same paragraph.

We’re clearly in the realm of the polemical quote, when we have two references for the same thing.  Of course “Sanctorium” is itself a typo, but suggestive of someone who has repeated, rather than checked, the data. 

Is the book online?  Not in google books or archive.org — not  a good start.

What about the “Cod. Lit.” reference?  This site tells us that J. A. Assemani published, inter alia:

“Codex liturgicus ecclesiae universae in XV libros distributus” (Rome, 1749-66). — This valuable work has become so rare that a bookseller of Paris recently issued a photographic impression of it.

So the “quote” has two references, neither readily accessible, both in Latin at best. 

Volume 8 of the codex liturgicus is here, and several others are accessible.  Is volume 1, I wonder?  After a lot of searching, I found it here.  Page 105 is p.162 of the PDF.  The renunciation starts at the top of p.106, and starts as per the quote.

But … it’s misleading.  For this is not the whole statement.  A huge chunk has been omitted from the middle, without being marked.  For it should at least indicate the omission: “in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom …. and if afterwards I shall wish to deny”.  In fact the sentence before the break is truncated, and the one afterwards starts before the ‘and’.

in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, legalism, custom and rite; and above all he who is expected by all the Jews in the shape and dress of Christ, I renounce Anti-Christ, and join myself to the true Christ and God.  And I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; the holy and consubstantial and individual Trinity; I profess the dispensation where one of the holy trinity, the Word of God took flesh and became man; …

and later:

…if I pretend to be a Christian and then I wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition….

I don’t have time to translate the whole confession, but the extracts are more than a little misleading.

The other question — is this Nicene? — must be answered in the negative.  There is no trace of such a statement in all this.  No, this is a medieval Greek catechism, for someone converting to Christianity from Judaism. 

Quite why the Christians should not require a Jew professing conversion to be sincere, of course, we are not told by the original post.

Share

Gregory of Antioch – a sixth century figure of whom I knew nothing

Gregory of Antioch began as a monk in the monastery of the Byzantines in Jerusalem, or so we learn from Evagrius Scholasticus.  He was transferred by the emperor Justin II (565-578 ) to Sinai.  He was abbot there when the monastery was attacked by Arabs.  John Moschus mentions he was also abbot of Pharan in Palestine.  In 569-70 he became Patriarch of Antioch after Justin II deposed the Patriarch Anastasius.  Gregory was an influential figure, who quarrelled with the Count of the East and was subjected to official harassment and “enquiries” in consequence, including a appearance in court in Constantinople some time before 588.  The charges were trumped up, it seems, and he was acquitted.  When Roman troops fighting the Persians mutinied in the time of the emperor Maurice, Gregory was asked to mediate.  When Chosroes II of Persia was obliged to flee to the Romans for safety early in his reign, Gregory of Antioch and Domitian, metropolitan of Melitene, were sent to meet him.  His services were evidently acceptable; when Chosroes regained his kingdom, he sent Gregory the cross which had been earlier carried off from Sergiopolis by Chosroes I.  After this, Gregory made a tour of the border lands to convert Monophysites to the Chalcedonian definitions.  He died in 593-4 from taking a drug, intended to relieve gout.  His predecessor Anastasius then become Patriarch once more.

A small number of homilies have reached us, mostly under other names, which are also extant in various oriental languages.  He seems to have been a gifted speaker.  Three of these homilies (CPG 7385-7) were preached on successive Sundays.  The address to the army or oratio ad exercitum (CPG 7388) preserved in Evagrius Scholasticus seems to be by Evagrius himself.  Finally there is a homily on the first martyr, Stephen (CPG 7389) extant only in Georgian, which is perhaps a letter rather than a sermon.

The homilies can be found in PG 10, 1177-89; PG 61, 761-4; PG 88, 1848-66; and PG 88 1872-84.  The homily of Stephen is in PO 19 (1926) 689-99, with an encomium following in 699-715.

Share

A novel from the Theodosian Code

The emperor Theodosius II drew up a legal code in the 430’s AD, which reduced Roman law to a manageable proportion.  Further enactments were known as “novels”, and were added on the end.  This one caught my eye, while browsing the English translation by Pharr.

Notice how the emperor blames those he intends to persecute for his own actions.  Notice also what he says about the destruction of the economy caused by over-taxation and the stripping of the soil to provide food for the dole-fed mobs in Rome and Constantinople.

The list of heresies is also interesting, containing not just Manichaeans — perceived as a security risk for their links to Persia — but also various flavours of Montanists.   The Priscillianists were a rigorist group from the west.  The Borborites were a gnostic group of filthy morals.

TITLE 3: JEWS, SAMARITANS, HERETICS, AND PAGANS (DE JUDAEIS, SAMARITANIS, HAERETICIS, ET PAGANIS)

Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian Augustuses to Florentius, Praetorian Prefect.

Among the other anxieties which Our love for the State has imposed upon Us for Our ever watchful consideration, We perceive that an especial responsibility of Our Imperial Majesty is the pursuit of the true religion. If We shall be able to hold fast to the worship of this true religion, We shall open the way to prosperity in human undertakings. This We have learned by the experience of Our long life, and by the decision of Our pious mind We decree that the ceremonies of sanctity shall be established by a law of perpetual duration, even to posterity.

1. For who is so demented, so damned by the enormity of strange savagery, that, when he sees the heavens with incredible swiftness define the measures of time within their spaces under the sway of the divine guidance, when he sees the movements of the stars which control the benefits of life, the earth richly endowed with the harvests, the waters of the sea, and the vastness of this immense achievement confined within the boundaries of the natural world, he does not seek the author of so great a mystery, of so mighty a handiwork? We learn that the Jews, with blinded senses, the Samaritans, the pagans, and the other breeds of heretical monsters dare to do this. If We should attempt by a remedial law to recall them to the sanity of an excellent mind, they themselves will be blameworthy for Our severity, since they leave no place for pardon by the obstinate wickedness of their unyielding arrogance.

2. Wherefore, since according to the ancient maxim no cure must be employed for hopeless diseases, in order that these deadly sects, oblivious of Our age, may not spread too wantonly into the life of Our people like an indistinguishable confusion, We finally sanction by this law destined to live in all ages, that no Jew, no Samaritan, who does not rely on either law shall enter upon any honors or dignities; to none of them shall the administration of a civil duty be available, nor shall they perform even the duties of a defender. Indeed We believe that it is wrong that persons hostile to the Supernal Majesty and to the Roman laws should be considered the avengers of Our laws under the protection of a surreptitious jurisdiction; that they should be protected by the authority of a dignity thus acquired; that they should have the power to judge or to pronounce whatever sentence they may wish against the Christians and very often against the bishops themselves of the holy religion, as if they were insulting Our faith.

3. With an equally reasonable consideration also, We prohibit any synagogue to arise as a new building, but license is granted to strengthen the ancient synagogues which threaten immediately to fall in ruin.

4. To these regulations We add the provision that if any person should seduce a slave or a freeborn person, against his will or by punishable persuasion, from the worship of the Christian religion to an impious sect or ritual, he shall suffer capital punishment, together with the forfeiture of his fortune.

5. If any person of these sects, therefore, has assumed the insignia of office, he shall not possess the dignities which he has acquired, and if he has erected a synagogue, he shall know that he has labored for the profit of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if any of these persons has stolen into a position of honor, he shall be considered, as previously, of the lowest condition, even though he should have obtained an honorary dignity. If anyone of them should begin the building of a synagogue, not with the desire merely to repair it, in addition to the loss of fifty pounds of gold, he shall be deprived of his audacious undertaking. Besides, he shall perceive that his goods are proscribed and that he himself shall immediately be destined to the death penalty, if he should overthrow the faith of another by his perverted doctrine.

6. Since it behooves Our Imperial Majesty to embrace all contingencies in such a provision that the public welfare may not be injured in any way, We decree that the decurions of all municipalities and also the gubernatorial apparitors, shall be bound to their onerous duties, even those of the imperial service, or to the various obligations of their resources and the duties of their personal compulsory services, and they shall adhere to their own orders, of whatsoever sect they may be. Thus We shall not appear on account of the contumely of corrupt solicitation to grant the favor of exemption to men who are execrable, since it is Our will that they shall be condemned by the authority of this constitution.

7. The following exception shall be observed, namely, that apparitors who are members of the aforesaid sects shall execute the sentences of judges only in private suits, and they shall not be in charge of the custody of prisons, lest Christians, as customarily happens, may at times be thrust into prison by the hatred of their guards and thus suffer a second imprisonment, when it is not certain that they appear to have been rightfully imprisoned.

8. Hence Our Clemency perceives that We must exercise watchfulness over the pagans also and their heathen enormities, since with their natural insanity and stubborn insolence they depart from the path of the true religion. They disdain in any way to practice the nefarious rites of their sacrifices and the false doctrines of their deadly superstition in the hidden solitudes, unless their crimes are made public by the nature of their profession, to the outrage of the Supernal Majesty and to the contempt of Our times. A thousand terrors of the laws that have been promulgated, the penalty of exile that has been threatened, do not restrain them, whereby, if they cannot be reformed, at least they might learn to abstain from their mass of crimes and from the corruption of their sacrifices. But straightway they sin with such audacious madness and Our patience is so assailed by the attempts of these impious persons that even if We desired to forget them, We could not disregard them. Therefore, although the love of religion can never be secure, although their pagan madness demands the harshness of all kinds of punishments, nevertheless We are mindful of the clemency that is innate in Us, and We decree by an unshakable order that if any person of polluted and contaminated mind should be apprehended in making a sacrifice in any place whatsoever, Our wrath shall rise up against his fortunes, against his life. For We must give this better victim, and the altar of Christianity shall be kept inviolate. Shall we endure longer that the succession of the seasons be changed, and the temper of the heavens be stirred to anger, since the embittered perfidy of the pagans does not know how to preserve these balances of nature? For why has the spring renounced its accustomed charm? Why has the summer, barren of its harvest, deprived the laboring farmer of his hope of a grain harvest? Why has the intemperate ferocity of winter with its piercing cold doomed the fertility of the lands with the disaster of sterility? Why all these things, unless nature has transgressed the decree of its own law to avenge such impiety? In order that we may not hereafter be compelled to sustain such circumstances, by a peaceful vengeance, as We have said, the venerable majesty of the Supernal Divinity must be appeased.

9. It remains to be said, O Florentius, dearest and most beloved Father, that all inaction shall cease and that the regulations shall be put into swift execution which have been issued in innumerable constitutions against the Manichaeans, always odious to God, against the Eunomians, authors of heretical folly, against the Montanists, the Phrygians, the Photinians, the Priscillianists, the Ascodrogians, the Hydroparastatae, the Borboritae, and the Ophitans.

10. Therefore, since it is dear to your heart to exercise implicit obedience to both the divine and the imperial commands, Your Illustrious and Magnificent Authority, by duly posting edicts of Your Excellency shall cause to come to the knowledge of all that which We have decreed for the insatiable honor of the Catholic religion. You shall also direct that these commands shall be announced to the governors of the provinces, so that by their like solicitude they may make known to all the municipalities and provinces what We have necessarily sanctioned.

Given on the day before the kalends of February at Constantinople in the year of the sixteenth consulship of Our Lord Theodosius Augustus and the consulship of the one who is to be announced. 19 January 31, 438.

INTERPRETATION: This law specifically orders that no Jew and no Samaritan can attain any honor of the imperial service or of an administrative office. In no manner can they undertake the office of defender or be guards of a prison, lest perchance under the pretext of any duty they may dare to harass with outrages on some occasion the Christians or even their priests, or lest the above mentioned persons who are enemies of Our law might presume to condemn or to judge some person by Our own laws. They shall not dare to construct a synagogue anew. For if they should do this, they shall know that this structure will profit the Catholic Church and that the authors of the construction must be fined fifty pounds of gold. But they shall know that the concession is made to them that they must repair the ruins of their synagogues. The regulation is also specifically included in this law that no Jew shall dare to convert a Christian, either slave or freeborn, to his own religion by any persuasion whatsoever. If he should commit this offense, he shall forfeit his resources and suffer capital punishment. As for the remainder, this law condemns the sects whose names are listed and contained in the law.

Share

Notes on the Theodosian Legal Code (438 AD)

I’ve been reading the French translation by Elisabeth Magnou-Nortier of book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus, the law book compiled under Theodosius II from rescripts or letters issued by preceding emperors.  A couple of passages struck my eye, and I translate these here with a few of the footnotes:

Under the empire, custom (mos) continued to play a role as a creator of law.  The emperors naturally also created law.  The jurisconsult Gaius distinguished three forms of imperial intervention, although there were in fact four in the early Empire. 

Edicts (edicta), similar to those issued by the magistrates of the Republic, were formal laws, which had to be posted up in public places.  Mandates (mandata) were addressed to functionaries, especially governors of provinces.  Decrees (decreta) were judgments given by the emperor in court cases that came before him, either directly or as the last resort of appeal.

Rescripts (rescripta, epistulae) were responses written by the emperor to functionaries who had particular problems on points of law.  It has long been thought that “constitutions” were the normal legislative activity of the emperors.  But today a re-evaluation has concluded that “the source which is quantitatively the most important of imperial legislation … is not the general law …. but the rescript, a reply from the emperor to a question on a precise point, mostly arising from judicial activity.  The editorial methods of the imperial chancellery give these ad-hoc responses a general character; the reply of the emperor never includes … either the name of the person, nor the place concerned.  This voluntary reticence contributes to place in high relief the juridical solution, which alone is important.” [1] …

[Despite the conversion of Constantine to Christianity] material continued to accumulate in the imperial chancellery, often self-contradictory.  The rupture introduced by the conversion of Constantine into the legislative activity of the emperors is so perceptible that none of the laws gathered in the Theodosian code is earlier than 312 AD.

The emperors faced a primary difficulty.  Since the 2nd century, the jurisconsults had produced a huge volume of legal material and commentary on case law which did not agree among itself.  In order to put an end to this endless process, Constantine decided, in 321, to give full authority to the notes of Paulus and Ulpian on Papinian.[2]  A still more profound reform was made by Theodosius II and Valentinian III in 426, in a law headed “On Citations”.[3]  This law confirmed the authority of five jurisconsults; Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Gaius.  If these disagreed, the judge should follow the majority; if they were equally divided, the opinion of Papinian should be used.

An urgent need to intervene was becoming evident.  The first collections of laws appear at the end of the 3rd century, with the Codex Gregorianus and at the start of the 4th century, the Codex Hermogenianus which contained the laws of Diocletian.  The need for a precise law led Theodosius II to initiate in 429 an ambitious programme, which was cut short.  He tried again in 435 in a more modest way.  The work was completed on 15 February 438, when the Codex Theodosianus was published in the East.  … It was divided into 16 books, the first 5 of which are unfortunately full of gaps where material has not reached us. …

The 16th book has been the subject of discussion by specialists.  … Book 16 was composed in the years preceding the publication of the Code.

If we compare the imperial legislation concerning the heresies and sects with that which concerned itself with paganism, a difference of tone is apparent.  The law against the first is striking in its density, certainty, indeed a pitiless harshness against those who directly menaced the spiritual unity of the Empire, such as Arianism, Donatism, or Manichaeism.  But the laws of chapter 9 show only a limited ambition.  They repeat the prohibition of blood sacrifices of animals during ceremonies, first at night and then day and night (364 and 382 AD), because all animal sacrifices for a Christian are as cruel as they are useless.  Some prescribe the preservation of temple fabric (399), the upkeep of popular celebrations (399) or again the destruction of rural temples on the condition that this does not provoke trouble or disorder (399).

Certainly a law of 392 indeed prohibited, or more accurately attempted to prohibit, the domestic pagan rites, but we may doubt whether it had any real force.  Others order the closure of all the temples, the destruction of sculptured images of the Olympic gods (392 and 395), suppress the privileges and incomes of the pagan priests (396), annex the property of the temples to the state treasury and the income in kind to the army (407). Leaving aside the statue of victory in the Senate … all historians agree that the destruction of the temples, above all in the East, such as Zeus at Apamea in 388, the Serapeum at Alexandria in 391, and numerous temples in Egypt, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and Syria at the end of the 4th and start of the 5th centuries, are the work of enterprising bishops and above all extremist monks.  “The destructive zeal of the monks could go well beyond what was authorised, as when they burned in 388 the synagogue of Callinicum.”   … The emperors and their counsellors quickly assessed the degree of alienation and resistance by the ancient cults, their rites and festivals, which they judged less threatening to the unity of the empire than the new heresies or the sects, since they were old and above because they could be reused by Christian activities, these offering numerous favourable opportunities to acculturate the new religion in the urban and rural population.  However neither magic, nor occultism, nor divination ever disappeared from the socities which called themselves Christian.

[1] Magnou-Nortier, Le Code Theodosien, Cerf 2002, p. 16-17.  This quotation is given from G. Giordanengo, “Le pouvoir legislatif du roi de France”, in Bibl. Ec. des Chartes, vol. 147, 1989, p. 288.  Magnou-Nortier gives further references, although not directly to the statement of Gaius.
[2] Cod. Th. 1, 4, 1 (321).
[3] Cod. Th. 1, 4, 3 (426).

Share

Go tell the Spartans: Plutarch’s “Moralia” online

I had not realised that so much of Plutarch was already online.  The excellent Attalus has compiled an index of the essays in the Moralia which are online, thanks to Bill Thayer at Lacus Curtius and others.

Among these is the Sayings of the Spartans.  These are easy to read, and worth reading.  Here are a few.

Once upon a time the Ephors said to Agis the son of Archidamus, “Take the young men and march against the country of this man here. He will himself guide you to its citadel.” “And how, sirs,” said Agis, “is it right to entrust so many youths to a man who is betraying his own country?”

Being asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”He said that the Spartans did not ask ‘how many are the enemy,’ but ‘where are they?’

When someone inquired how many Spartans there were, he said, “Enough to keep all bad men away.”As he was going about among the walls of the Corinthians and observed that they were high and towering and vast in extent, ehe said, “What women live in that place?”

He came alone on an embassy to Philip [of Macedon], and when Philip exclaimed, “What is this? Have you come all alone?”, he said, “Yes, for I came to only one man.”

Archidamidas, in answer to a man who commended Charillus because he was gentle towards all alike, said, “And how could any man be justly commended if he be gentle towards the wicked?”

Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus, when Philip, after the battle of Chaeroneia, wrote him a somewhat haughty letter, wrote in reply, “If you should measure your own shadow, you would not find that it has become any greater than before you were victorious.”

Being asked how much land the Spartans controlled, he said, “As much as they can reach with the spear.”

When someone said to Astycratidas, after the defeat of Agis their king in the battle against Antipater in the vicinity of Megalopolis, “What will you do, men of Sparta? Will you be subject to the Macedonians? he said, “What! Is there any way in which Antipater can forbid us to die fighting for Sparta?”

Damis, with reference to the instructions sent from Alexander that they should pass a formal vote deifying him, said, “We concede to Alexander that, if he so wishes, he may be called a god.”

When Alexander caused proclamation to be made at Olympia that all exiles might return to their own land, save only the Thebans, Eudamidas said, “The proclamation for you, men of Thebes, is unfortunate, but very complimentary; for it is you only that Alexander fears.”

Herondas was at Athens when a man there was found guilty on a charge of not having any occupation, and when he heard of this, he bade them point out to him the man who had been convicted of the freeman’s crime!

When Leo, the son of Eurycratidas, was asked what kind of a city one could live in so as to live most safely, he said, “Where the inhabitants shall possess neither too much nor too little, and where right shall be strong and wrong shall be weak.”

Seeing that the runners at Olympia were eager to gain some advantage in starting, he said, “How much more eager are the runners for a quick start than for fair play!”

Xerxes wrote to Leonidas, “It is possible for you, by not fighting against God but by ranging yourself on my side, to be the sole ruler of Greece.” But he wrote in reply, “If you had any knowledge of the noble things of life, you would refrain from coveting others’ possessions; but for me to die for Greece is better than to be the sole ruler over the people of my race.”When Xerxes wrote again, “Hand over your arms,” he wrote in reply, “Come and take them.”

When someone was reviling Lysander, he said, “Talk right on, you miserable foreigner, talk, and don’t leave out anything if thus you may be able to empty your soul of the vicious notions with which you seem to be filled.”

The suitors of his daughters, when after his death he was found to be a poor man, renounced their obligations; but the Ephors punished them because when they thought he was rich they courted his favour, but when they found from his poverty that he was just and honest they disdained him.

When he [Paedaretus] was not chosen as one of the three hundred, which was rated as the highest honour in the State, he went away cheerful and smiling; but when the Ephors called him back, and asked why he was laughing, he said, “Because I congratulate the State for having three hundred citizens better than myself.”

Pleistoanax, the son of Pausanias, when an Attic orator called the Spartans unlearned, said, “You are quite right, for we alone of the Greeks have learned no evil from you.”

Some people, encountering Spartans on the road, said, “You are in luck, for robbers have just left this place,” but they said, “Hell, no, but it is they who are in luck for not encountering us.”

A Spartan being asked what he knew, said, “How to be free.”

While the games were being held at Olympia, an old man was desirous of seeing them, but could find no seat. As he went to place after place, he met with insults and jeers, and nobody made room for him. But when he came opposite the Spartans, all the boys and many of the men arose and yielded their places. Whereupon the assembled multitude of Greeks expressed their approbation of the custom by applause, and commended the action beyond measure; but old man, shaking his head grey-haired and grey-bearded and with tears in his eyes, said, “Alas for the evil days! Because all the Greeks know what is right and fair, but the Spartans alone practise it.”

This is but a small selection.  All praise to Bill Thayer for typing this up and making it available online!

Share

Hunting the wild quote 2: Metrodorus of Chios talks about life on other planets

In the comments on my last post, commenter ikkoki offered this quotation from Metrodorus of Chios (4th c. BC):

Also I remember that quote [from Xenophanes] coming up especially in conjunction with Metrodorus of Chios (4th century BC) of how “expecting life to exist only on Earth is like seeding a field and expecting only one plant to sprout” whenever alien life comes in the news.

And: 

Metrodorus has a wikipedia article, the quote I gave you before according to the English wikipedia is from Aëtius, Placita i.5.4. According to the Greek wikipedia he was first published in “Griechische Anthology”, Editions H. Stadtmüll, Leipzig 1894-1896 and he was translated in English in Loeb in 1915-1917.

A search in Google on the quote produces a number of versions.  Popular Science in 1984 gives us this:

The belief that intelligent life might exist elsewhere in the universe … was not subjected to a truly scientific enquiry until recently.  Yet it undoubtedly antedates recorded history and was stated as early as the fourth century B.C.  It was then that Metrodorus of Chios wrote in his book On Nature that “to suppose that earth is the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to believe that in an entire field sown with millet, only one grain will grow.”

Several people reproduce the quote online.  Others prefer this, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Science:

To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field of millet, only one grain will grow.

As with so much that calls itself “scientific” online, no reference for the claim is given on that site.

By chance I now find “book 2 of Plutarch, On Nature” online here.  In chapter 1 it says:

Pythagoras was the first philosopher that called the world [Greek omitted], from the order and beauty of it; for so that word signifies. Thales and his followers say the world is one. Democritus, Epicurus, and their scholar Metrodorus affirm that there are infinite worlds in an infinite space, for that infinite vacuum in its whole extent contains them. Empedocles, that the circle which the sun makes in its motion circumscribes the world, and that circle is the utmost bound of the world. Seleucus, that the world knows no limits. Diogenes, that the universe is infinite, but this world is finite. The Stoics make a difference between that which is called the universe, and that which is called the whole world;—the universe is the infinite space considered with the vacuum, the vacuity being removed gives the right conception of the world; so that the universe and the world are not the same thing.

In chapter 15 he also says:

Anaximander, Metrodorus of Chios, and Crates assign to the sun the superior place, after him the moon, after them the fixed stars and planets.

But I then find this book which tells me that “Pseudo-Plutarch (Aetius), Placita Philosophorum, reports that Anaximander, Metrodorus of Chios and Crates placed the sun highest of all, then the moon, then the planets and fixed stars.”  Going back to the “Plutarch” and up a level here I find the work is in fact “Sentiments concerning nature with which philosophers were delighted”, which sounds like Placita Philosophorum to me, and “Text derived from The complete works of Plutarch : essays and miscellanies, New York : Crowell, 1909. Vol.III” which must be the Moralia or “ethical essays”, and can be found on Google books here.  But if the Wikipedia article tells us that this work, book 1, 5:4 contains our quote, it must be here.

To Metrodorus it seems absurd, that in a large field one only stalk should grow, and in an infinite space one only world exist; and that this universe is infinite is manifest by this, that there is an infinity of causes. Now if this world be finite and the causes producing it infinite, it follows that the worlds likewise be infinite; for where all causes concur, there the effects also must appear, let the causes be what they will, either atoms or elements.

The interesting point about this is that Metrodorus is not expressing an opinion about life on other planets, as the original “quote” suggested.  All he says is that if the universe is infinite then there must be multiple worlds.

It is interesting to discover Plutarch’s Moralia does exist in English, in five volumes, by Goodwin, and better yet that it is on Google books!  It’s a mine of useful excerpts.

Share

Steven Hijmans on the iconography of Sol

Unknown to most people, and hidden on a Dutch website, is a set of PDF’s for a two volume book by Steven Hijmans, whose work is all about Sol and Sol Invictus.  It’s here.  Ignore the Dutch text, and click on the Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 links.  Despite the titles, nearly all the PDF’s are in English.  Vol. 2 is plates.

I came across this while searching online for information about the temple of Sol and Luna near the Circus Maximus in Rome.  This brought up a link to vol. 1 chapter 5, which contains details on all the temples of Sol in Rome, all excellently footnoted against the sources.

Here’s an abbreviated list of the contents of vol. 1.  It’s impressive!

Chapter 1. Sol in the Roman Empire: Previous Research, General Trends 1
Chapter 2. Classical Art, Roman Religion, and Visual Meanings 31
Chapter 3. Description and Discussion of the Iconography of Sol 71
Chapter 4. The Images: Catalogue and Discussion 103
A. Sculpture: life-size or larger 107
B. Sculpture: small-scale 125
C. Relief sculpture 135
C1. Architectural reliefs 135
C2. Votive reliefs and other religious reliefs 146
C2a-b. Sol alone and Sol with Luna 146
C2c. Mithraic reliefs 152
C2d. Jupiter Dolichenus 186
C2e. Jupiter-giant pillars 190
C2f. So-called “Danubian Riders” 195
C2g. Hosios kai Dikaios 217
C2h. Saturnus 219
C2i. Planetary deities 233
C2j-C2x. Various deities 245
C3. Funerary reliefs 253
C4. Other reliefs 270
C5. Identity of Sol doubtful 275
D. Mosaics and Opus Sectile 280
E. Wall-paintings and stucco decorations 289
F. Decorated plates and vessels 294
G. Lamps 301
H. Intaglios 322
H1. Sol on quadriga to the left 322
H2. Sol on quadriga to the right 327
H3. Sol on frontal “split” quadriga 327
H4. Sol on frontal or three-quarter quadriga 330
H5. Sol/Usil on frontal triga 331
H6. Sol standing 332
H7. Head or bust of Sol to the left 341
H8. Head or bust of Sol to the right 353

H10. Sol as minor figure 355
H11. Sol and Luna as minor figures 358
H12. Sol riding on horseback 361
H13-H18. Varia 361
HA. Intaglios in ancient rings 364
I. Cameos 386
J. Jewellery, costume (including ependytes), personal ornaments 386
K. Minor objects 394
L. Coins (selection) 411
Chapter 5 Temples of Sol in Rome 467
Chapter 6 Not all Light Comes from the Sun. Symbolic Radiance and Solar Symbolism in Roman Art 509
Chapter 7 Sol-Luna Symbolism and the Carmen Saeculare of Horace 549
Chapter 8 Image and Word: Christ or Sol in Mausoleum M of the Vatican Necropolis? 567
Chapter 9 Aurelian, Constantine, and Sol in Late Antiquity 583
Conclusion 621

The work was originally done as his thesis, in Dutch, 20 years ago, but Hijmans has reworked it.

Share