Primary Source Reading – History of Christianity

September 27, 2020September 27, 2020

Excerpts from St. Benedict’s Rule

St. Benedict delivering his Rule to St. Maurus and other Monks of his order. Manuscript 1129 C.E. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1424456

These excerpts were taken from the 1935 translation of the Rule by Leonard J. Doyle and edited by Dom Cuthbert Butler. ¹ If you are interested in seeing the full text, Project Gutenberg has it available in several formats here: St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries.²

The Rule is set up in chapters, but each chapter is then broken into readings that are to be read three times a year. The dates that you see indicated in these excerpts are indicating these three readings. These readings were done while the monks ate, and also included

Prologue

. . .

Jan. 7 — May 8 — Sept. 7

And so we are going to establish a school for the service of the Lord. In founding it we hope to introduce nothing harsh or burdensome. But if a certain strictness results from the dictates of equity for the amendment of vices or the preservation of charity, do not be at once dismayed and fly from the way of salvation, whose entrance cannot but be narrow. For as we advance in the religious life and in faith, our hearts expand and we run the way of God’s commandments with unspeakable sweetness of love. Thus, never departing from His school, but persevering in the monastery according to His teaching until death, we may by patience share in the sufferings of Christ and deserve to have a share also in His kingdom.

Chapter 1: On the Kinds of Monks

Jan. 8 — May 9 — Sept. 8

It is well known that there are four kinds of monks. The first kind are the Cenobites: those who live in monasteries and serve under a rule and an Abbot.

The second kind are the Anchorites or Hermits: those who, no longer in the first fervor of their reformation, but after long probation in a monastery, having learned by the help of many brethren how to fight against the devil, go out well armed from the ranks of the community to the solitary combat of the desert. They are able now, with no help save from God, to fight single-handed against the vices of the flesh and their own evil thoughts.

The third kind of monks, a detestable kind, are the Sarabaites. These, not having been tested, as gold in the furnace, by any rule or by the lessons of experience, are as soft as lead. In their works they still keep faith with the world, so that their tonsure marks them as liars before God. They live in twos or threes, or even singly, without a shepherd, in their own sheepfolds and not in the Lord’s. Their law is the desire for self-gratification: whatever enters their mind or appeals to them, that they call holy; what they dislike, they regard as unlawful.

The fourth kind of monks are those called Gyrovagues. These spend their whole lives tramping from province to province, staying as guests in different monasteries for three or four days at a time. Always on the move, with no stability, they indulge their own wills and succumb to the allurements of gluttony, and are in every way worse than the Sarabaites. Of the miserable conduct of all such men it is better to be silent than to speak.

Passing these over, therefore, let us proceed, with God’s help, to lay down a rule for the strongest kind of monks, the Cenobites.

Chapter 2: What Kind of Man the Abbot ought to Be

. . .

Jan. 11 — May 12 — Sept. 11

Therefore, when anyone receives the name of Abbot, he ought to govern his disciples with a twofold teaching. That is to say, he should show them all that is good and holy by his deeds even more than by his words, expounding the Lord’s commandments in words to the intelligent among his disciples, but demonstrating the divine precepts by his actions for those of harder hearts and ruder minds. And whatever he has taught his disciples to be contrary to God’s law, let him indicate by his example that it is not to be done, lest, while preaching to others, he himself be found reprobate, and lest God one day say to him in his sin, “Why do you declare My statutes and profess My covenant with your lips, whereas you hate discipline and have cast My words behind you?” And again, “You were looking at the speck in your brother’s eye, and did not see the beam in your own.”

Jan. 12 — May 13 — Sept. 12

Let him make no distinction of persons in the monastery. Let him not love one more than another, unless it be one whom he finds better in good works or in obedience. Let him not advance one of noble birth ahead of one who was formerly a slave, unless there be some other reasonable ground for it. But if the Abbot for just reason think fit to do so, let him advance one of any rank whatever. Otherwise let them keep their due places; because, whether slaves or freemen, we are all one in Christ and bear an equal burden of service in the army of the same Lord. For with God there is no respect of persons. Only for one reason are we preferred in His sight: if we be found better than others in good works and humility. Therefore let the Abbot show equal love to all and impose the same discipline on all according to their deserts.

. . .

Chapter 4: What are the Instruments of Good Works

Jan. 18 — May 19 — Sept. 18

In the first place, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole strength.
Then, one’s neighbor as oneself.
Then not to murder.
Not to commit adultery.
Not to steal.
Not to covet.
Not to bear false witness.
To respect all men.
And not to do to another what one would not have done to oneself.
To deny oneself in order to follow Christ.
To chastise the body.
Not to become attached to pleasures.
To love fasting.
To relieve the poor.
To clothe the naked.
To visit the sick.
To bury the dead.
To help in trouble.
To console the sorrowing.
To become a stranger to the world’s ways.
To prefer nothing to the love of Christ.

Jan. 19 — May 20 — Sept. 19

Not to give way to anger.
Not to nurse a grudge.
Not to entertain deceit in one’s heart.
Not to give a false peace.
Not to forsake charity.
Not to swear, for fear of perjuring oneself.
To utter truth from heart and mouth.
Not to return evil for evil.
To do no wrong to anyone, and to bear patiently wrongs done to oneself.
To love one’s enemies.
Not to curse those who curse us, but rather to bless them.
To bear persecution for justice’ sake.
Not to be proud.
Not addicted to wine.
Not a great eater.
Not drowsy.
Not lazy.
Not a grumbler.
Not a detractor.
To put one’s hope in God.
To attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good one sees in oneself.
But to recognize always that the evil is one’s own doing, and to impute it to oneself.

Jan. 20 — May 21 — Sept. 20

To fear the Day of Judgment.
To be in dread of hell.
To desire eternal life with all the passion of the spirit.
To keep death daily before one’s eyes.
To keep constant guard over the actions of one’s life.
To know for certain that God sees one everywhere.
When evil thoughts come into one’s heart, to dash them against Christ immediately.
And to manifest them to one’s spiritual father.
To guard one’s tongue against evil and depraved speech.
Not to love much talking.
Not to speak useless words or words that move to laughter.
Not to love much or boisterous laughter.
To listen willingly to holy reading.
To devote oneself frequently to prayer.
Daily in one’s prayers, with tears and sighs, to confess one’s past sins to God, and to amend them for the future.
Not to fulfil the desires of the flesh; to hate one’s own will.
To obey in all things the commands of the Abbot, even though he himself (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord’s precept, “Do what they say, but not what they do.”
Not to wish to be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that one may be truly so called.

Jan. 21 — May 22 — Sept. 21

To fulfil God’s commandments daily in one’s deeds.
To love chastity.
To hate no one.
Not to be jealous, not to harbor envy.
Not to love contention.
To beware of haughtiness.
And to respect the seniors.
To love the juniors.
To pray for one’s enemies in the love of Christ.
To make peace with one’s adversary before the sun sets.
And never to despair of God’s mercy.

These, then, are the tools of the spiritual craft. If we employ them unceasingly day and night, and return them on the Day of Judgment, our compensation from the Lord will be that wage He has promised: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, what God has prepared for those who love Him.”

Now the workshop in which we shall diligently execute all these tasks is the enclosure of the monastery and stability in the community.

Chapter 5: On Obedience

Jan. 22 — May 23 — Sept. 22

The first degree of humility is obedience without delay. This is the virtue of those who hold nothing dearer to them than Christ; who, because of the holy service they have professed, and the fear of hell, and the glory of life everlasting, as soon as anything has been ordered by the Superior, receive it as a divine command and cannot suffer any delay in executing it. Of these the Lord says, “As soon as he heard, he obeyed Me.” And again to teachers He says, “He who hears you, hears Me.”

Such as these, therefore, immediately leaving their own affairs and forsaking their own will, dropping the work they were engaged in and leaving it unfinished, with the ready step of obedience follow up with their deeds the voice of him who commands. And so as it were at the same moment the master’s command is given and the disciple’s work is completed, the two things being speedily accomplished together in the swiftness of the fear of God by those who are moved with the desire of attaining life everlasting. That desire is their motive for choosing the narrow way, of which the Lord says, “Narrow is the way that leads to life,” so that, not living according to their own choice nor obeying their own desires and pleasures but walking by another’s judgment and command, they dwell in monasteries and desire to have an Abbot over them. Assuredly such as these are living up to that maxim of the Lord in which He says, “I have come not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

. . .

Chapter 6: On the Spirit of Silence

. . .

Therefore, since the spirit of silence is so important, permission to speak should rarely be granted even to perfect disciples, even though it be for good, holy, edifying conversation; for it is written, “In much speaking you will not escape sin,” and in another place, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

For speaking and teaching belong to the master; the disciple’s part is to be silent and to listen. And for that reason if anything has to be asked of the Superior, it should be asked with all the humility and submission inspired by reverence.

But as for coarse jests and idle words or words that move to laughter, these we condemn everywhere with a perpetual ban, and for such conversation we do not permit a disciple to open his mouth.

Iona Abbey – dating back to the 6th c. On the Isle of Iona off the west coast of Scotland. By RAY JONES, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14196772 This was not a Benedictine Abbey, but would have followed somewhat similar practiced only in the Celtic tradition probably adopted from the Rule of St. Columbanus which was stricter than the Rule of St. Benedict including more fasting and an emphasis on mortification or punishment of the flesh.

Chapter 7: On Humility

. . ..

Jan. 26 — May 27 — Sept. 26

The first degree of humility, then, is that a person keep the fear of God before his eyes and beware of ever forgetting it. Let him be ever mindful of all that God has commanded; let his thoughts constantly recur to the hell-fire which will burn for their sins those who despise God, and to the life everlasting which is prepared for those who fear Him. Let him keep himself at every moment from sins and vices, whether of the mind, the tongue, the hands, the feet, or the self-will, and check also the desires of the flesh.

. . .

Feb. 3 — June 4 — Oct. 4

The sixth degree of humility is that a monk be content with the poorest and worst of everything, and that in every occupation assigned him he consider himself a bad and worthless workman, saying with the Prophet, “I am brought to nothing and I am without understanding; I have become as a beast of burden before You, and I am always with You.”

Feb. 4 — June 5 — Oct. 5

The seventh degree of humility is that he consider himself lower and of less account than anyone else, and this not only in verbal protestation but also with the most heartfelt inner conviction, humbling himself and saying with the Prophet, “But I am a worm and no man, the scorn of men and the outcast of the people. After being exalted, I have been humbled and covered with confusion.” And again, “It is good for me that You have humbled me, that I may learn Your commandments.”

. . .

Chapter 23: On Excommunication for Faults

Feb. 28 (29) — June 30 — Oct. 30

If a brother is found to be obstinate, or disobedient, or proud, or murmuring, or habitually transgressing the Holy Rule in any point and contemptuous of the orders of his seniors, the latter shall admonish him secretly a first and a second time, as Our Lord commands. If he fails to amend, let him be given a public rebuke in front of the whole community. But if even then he does not reform, let him be placed under excommunication, provided that he understands the seriousness of that penalty; if he is perverse, however, let him undergo corporal punishment.

. . .

Chapter 29: Whether Brethren Who Leave the Monastery Should Be Received Again

Mar. 6 — July 6 — Nov. 5

If a brother who through his own fault leaves the monastery should wish to return, let him first promise full reparation for his having gone away; and then let him be received in the lowest place, as a test of his humility. And if he should leave again, let him be taken back again, and so a third time; but he should understand that after this all way of return is denied him.

Child entering a monastery as an oblate from a late Medieval Manuscript.

Chapter 30: How Boys Are to Be Corrected

Mar. 7 — July 7 — Nov. 6

Every age and degree of understanding should have its proper measure of discipline. With regard to boys and adolescents, therefore, or those who cannot understand the seriousness of the penalty of excommunication, whenever such as these are delinquent let them be subjected to severe fasts or brought to terms by harsh beatings, that they may be cured.

. . .

Chapter 33: Whether Monks Ought to Have Anything of their Own

Mar. 11—July 11—Nov. 10

This vice especially is to be cut out of the monastery by the roots. Let no one presume to give or receive anything without the Abbot’s leave, or to have anything as his own—anything whatever, whether book or tablets or pen or whatever it may be—since they are not permitted to have even their bodies or wills at their own disposal; but for all their necessities let them look to the Father of the monastery. And let it be unlawful to have anything which the Abbot has not given or allowed. Let all things be common to all, as it is written, and let no one say or assume that anything is his own.

But if anyone is caught indulging in this most wicked vice, let him be admonished once and a second time. If he fails to amend, let him undergo punishment.

. . .

Chapter 39: On the Measure of Food

Mar. 18 — July 18 — Nov. 17

We think it sufficient for the daily dinner, whether at the sixth or the ninth hour, that every table have two cooked dishes, on account of individual infirmities, so that he who for some reason cannot eat of the one may make his meal of the other. Therefore let two cooked dishes suffice for all the brethren; and if any fruit or fresh vegetables are available, let a third dish be added.

Let a good pound weight of bread suffice for the day, whether there be only one meal or both dinner and supper. If they are to have supper, the cellarer shall reserve a third of that pound, to be given them at supper.

But if it happens that the work was heavier, it shall lie within the Abbot’s discretion and power, should it be expedient, to add something to the fare. Above all things, however, over-indulgence must be avoided and a monk must never be overtaken by indigestion; for there is nothing so opposed to the Christian character as over-indulgence, according to Our Lord’s words, “See to it that your hearts be not burdened with over-indulgence.”

. . .

Chapter 40: On the Measure of Drink

Mar. 19 — July 19 — Nov. 18

“Everyone has his own gift from God, one in this way and another in that.” It is therefore with some misgiving that we regulate the measure of other men’s sustenance. Nevertheless, keeping in view the needs of weaker brethren, we believe that a hemina of wine a day is sufficient for each. But those to whom God gives the strength to abstain should know that they will receive a special reward.

If the circumstances of the place, or the work, or the heat of summer require a greater measure, the Superior shall use his judgment in the matter, taking care always that there be no occasion for surfeit or drunkenness. We read, it is true, that wine is by no means a drink for monks; but since the monks of our day cannot be persuaded of this, let us at least agree to drink sparingly and not to satiety, because “wine makes even the wise fall away.”

But where the circumstances of the place are such that not even the measure prescribed above can be supplied, but much less or none at all, let those who live there bless God and not murmur. Above all things do we give this admonition, that they abstain from murmuring.

. . .

Chapter 48: On the Daily Manual Labor

Mar. 28 — July 28 — Nov. 27

Idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore the brethren should be occupied at certain times in manual labor, and again at fixed hours in sacred reading. To that end we think that the times for each may be prescribed as follows.

From Easter until the Calends of October, when they come out from Prime in the morning let them labor at whatever is necessary until about the fourth hour, and from the fourth hour until about the sixth let them apply themselves to reading. After the sixth hour, having left the table, let them rest on their beds in perfect silence; or if anyone may perhaps want to read, let him read to himself in such a way as not to disturb anyone else. Let None be said rather early, at the middle of the eighth hour, and let them again do what work has to be done until Vespers.

[And then follow several paragraphs describing how the hours for work, reading etc. will change with the seasons.]

. . .

Chapter 53: On the Reception of Guests

Apr. 4 — Aug. 4 — Dec. 4

Let all guests who arrive be received like Christ, for He is going to say, “I came as a guest, and you received Me.” And to all let due honor be shown, especially to the domestics of the faith and to pilgrims.

As soon as a guest is announced, therefore, let the Superior or the brethren meet him with all charitable service. And first of all let them pray together, and then exchange the kiss of peace. For the kiss of peace should not be offered until after the prayers have been said, on account of the devil’s deceptions.

. . .

After the guests have been received and taken to prayer, let the Superior or someone appointed by him sit with them. Let the divine law be read before the guest for his edification, and then let all kindness be shown him. The Superior shall break his fast for the sake of a guest, unless it happens to be a principal fast day which may not be violated. The brethren, however, shall observe the customary fasts. Let the Abbot give the guests water for their hands; and let both Abbot and community wash the feet of all guests. After the washing of the feet let them say this verse: “We have received Your mercy, O God, in the midst of Your temple.”

In the reception of the poor and of pilgrims the greatest care and solicitude should be shown, because it is especially in them that Christ is received; for as far as the rich are concerned, the very fear which they inspire wins respect for them.

Apr. 5 — Aug. 5 — Dec. 5

Let there be a separate kitchen for the Abbot and guests, that the brethren may not be disturbed when guests, who are never lacking in a monastery, arrive at irregular hours. Let two brethren capable of filling the office well be appointed for a year to have charge of this kitchen.

. . .

The guest house also shall be assigned to a brother whose soul is possessed by the fear of God. Let there be a sufficient number of beds made up in it; and let the house of God be managed by prudent men and in a prudent manner.

On no account shall anyone who is not so ordered associate or converse with guests. But if he should meet them or see them, let him greet them humbly, as we have said, ask their blessing and pass on, saying that he is not allowed to converse with a guest.

. . .

Notes

1. Benedict of Nursia, abbot of Monte Cassino, and Leonard J. Doyle Translator. St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1948.

2. Benedict of Nursia, abbot of Monte Cassino and Leonard J. Doyle translator. St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1935. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50040/50040-h/50040-h.html

Except where otherwise noted, Excerpts from St. Benedict’s Rule by Nicole V. Jobin is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

July 19, 2020July 19, 2020

Accounts of the Sack of Rome

In 410 C.E., Rome was sacked by Visigoths under the leadership of Alaric. This was the first time in close to 800 years that the city fell to a foreign enemy, though she had sometimes been divided by civil war. At this point, Rome was no longer the official capital city of the Western Empire, but it was still an important center for Christianity and Roman culture. While the Western Empire would continue under the leader of a Western Emperor until 476 C.E., the immediate consequence of the sack of Rome was to divide the city’s Christian and Pagan communities even further. Both sides viewed the event as bolstering their claims of divine support. For pagans, the calamity happened because the people had turned away from the old gods. For Christians, it was due to their sins. Setting religious differences aside, the sack of the city was also a tremendous blow to Rome’s image as a tower of civilization that had subdued the barbarian lands surrounding it – or was it?

Alaric in Rome – Wilhelm Lindenschmit – Public Domain Note that in this 19th c. romanticized image, the theme of Christianity is still prominent as part of the visual representation of Rome’s fall.

Jordanes, excerpt from Romana

This account comes from Jordanes’ Romana written in Constantinople around 551 C.E. – over a century after the events described. Although it is a later account, it is more of a traditional history and gives us a sense of how later Romans remembered these events. Of Gothic origins, Jordanes served as a secretary or notary to a noble family of Goths in military life in the Eastern Empire. From scarce biographic information in the text, it also appears that he was in Constantinople at the time the text was written and that he was a Christian, perhaps even a bishop. How might his origins, political affiliations, and religious identity be seen in this historical account? ¹

”But after Theodosius, the lover of peace and of the Gothic race, had passed from human cares, his sons began to ruin both empires by their luxurious living and to deprive their Allies, that is to say the Goths, of the customary gifts. The contempt of the Goths for the Romans soon increased, and for fear their valor would be destroyed by long peace, they appointed Alaric king over them. He was of a famous stock, and his nobility was second only to that of the Amali, for he came from the family of the Balthi, who because of their daring valor had long ago received among their race the name Baltha, that is, The Bold. Now when this Alaric was made king, he took counsel with his men and persuaded them to seek a kingdom by their own exertions rather than serve others in idleness. In the consulship of Stilicho and Aurelian he raised an army and entered Italy, which seemed to be bare of defenders, and came through Pannonia and Sirmium along the right side. Without meeting any resistance, he reached the bridge of the river Candidianus at the third milestone from the royal city of Ravenna. …

”[W]hen the army of the Visigoths had come into the neighborhood of this city, they sent an embassy to the Emperor Honorius, who dwelt within. They said that if he would permit the Goths to settle peaceably in Italy, they would so live with the Roman people that men might believe them both to be of one race; but if not, whoever prevailed in war should drive out the other, and the victor should henceforth rule unmolested. But the Emperor Honorius feared to make either promise. So he took counsel with his Senate and considered how he might drive them from the Italian borders. He finally decided that Alaric and his race, if they were able to do so, should be allowed to seize for their own home the provinces farthest away, namely, Gaul and Spain. For at this time he had almost lost them, and moreover they had been devastated by the invasion of Gaiseric, king of the Vandals. The grant was confirmed by an imperial rescript, and the Goths, consenting to the arrangement, set out for the country given them.

”When they had gone away without doing any harm in Italy, Stilicho, the Patrician and father-in-law of the Emperor Honorius,–for the Emperor had married both his daughters, Maria and Thermantia, in succession, but God called both from this world in their virgin purity–this Stilicho, I say, treacherously hurried to Pollentia, a city in the Cottian Alps. There he fell upon the unsuspecting Goths in battle, to the ruin of all Italy and his own disgrace. When the Goths suddenly beheld him, at first they were terrified. Soon regaining their courage and arousing each other by brave shouting, as is their custom, they turned to flight the entire army of Stilicho and almost exterminated it. Then forsaking the journey they had undertaken, the Goths with hearts full of rage returned again to Liguria whence they had set out. When they had plundered and spoiled it, they also laid waste AemiIia, and then hastened toward the city of Rome along the Flaminian Way, which runs between Picenum and Tuscia, taking as booty whatever they found on either hand. When they finally entered Rome, by Alaric’s express command they merely sacked it and did not set the city on fire, as wild peoples usually do, nor did they permit serious damage to be done to the holy places. Thence they departed to bring like ruin upon Campania and Lucania, and then came to Bruttii. Here they remained a long time and planned to go to Sicily and thence to the countries of Africa.

”Now the land of the Bruttii is at the extreme southern bound of Italy, and a corner of it marks the beginning of the Apennine mountains. It stretches out like a tongue into the Adriatic Sea and separates it from the Tyrrhenian waters. It chanced to receive its name in ancient times from a Queen Bruttia. To this place came Alaric, king of the Visigoths, with the wealth of all Italy which he had taken as spoil, and from there, as we have said, he intended to cross over by way of Sicily to the quiet land of Africa. But since man is not free to do anything he wishes without the will of God, that dread strait sunk several of his ships and threw all into confusion. Alaric was cast down by his reverse and, while deliberating what he should do, was suddenly overtaken by an untimely death and departed from human cares. His people mourned for him with the utmost affection. Then turning from its course the river Busentus near the city of Consentia–for this stream flows with its wholesome waters from the foot of a mountain near that city–they led a band of captives into the midst of its bed to dig out a place for his grave. In the depths of this pit they buried Alaric, together with many treasures, and then turned the waters back into their channel. And that none might ever know the place, they put to death all the diggers. They bestowed the kingdom of the Visigoths on Athavulf his kinsman, a man of imposing beauty and great spirit; for though not tall of stature, he was distinguished for beauty of face and form.
“When Athavulf became hing, he returned again to Rome, and whatever had escaped the first sack his Goths stripped bare like locusts, not merely despoiling Italy of its private wealth, but even of its public resources. The Emperor HOnorius was powerless to resist even when his sister Placidia, the daughter of the Emperor Theodosius by his second wife, was led away captive from the city. But Athavulf was attracted by her nobility, beauty and chaste purity, and so he took her to wife in lawful marriage at Fum Julio, a city of Aemilia. When the barbarians learned of this alliance, they were the more effectually terrified, since the Empire and the Goths now seemed to be made one.” (XXIX-XXXI)²

From Jordanes, we move back in time to two responses to the events of the early 400s by people living through them, though again, neither were eyewitnesses. St. Jerome was living near Bethlehem and St. Augustine was in North Africa (modern-day Algeria), yet word of what had befallen the city obviously travelled quickly.

St. Jerome

St. Jerome is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin which later became known as the Vulgate. He also wrote commentaries on the Gospels and is recorgnized as a Doctor of the Church for his contributions to theology. When the sack of Rome occurred, he was living an ascetic life of prayer and writing outside Bethlehem. In these excerpts from letters written around the time of Rome’s fall, Jerome laments first the ransom, then the sack of Rome. For Jerome, who or what are the enemies and why did Rome fall to them? ³

Letter 123 – to Ageruchia (409 C.E.)

”I shall now say a few words of our present miseries. A few of us have hitherto survived them, but this is due not to anything we have done ourselves but to the mercy of the Lord. Savage tribes in countless numbers have overrun all parts of Gaul. The whole country between the Alps and the Pyrenees, between the Rhine and the Ocean, has been laid waste by hordes of Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Herules, Saxons, Burgundians, Allemanni and-alas! for the commonweal!-even Pannonians. For ‘Assur also is joined with them.’ The once noble city of Moguntiacum has been captured and destroyed. In its church many thousands have been massacred. The people of Vangium after standing a long siege have been extirpated. The powerful city of Rheims, the Ambiani, the Altrebatae, the Belgians on the skirts of the world, Tournay, Spires, and Strasburg have fallen to Germany: while the provinces of Aquitaine and of the Nine Nations, of Lyons and of Narbonne are with the exception of a few cities one universal scene of desolation. And those which the sword spares without, famine ravages within. I cannot speak without tears of Toulouse which has been kept from failing hitherto by the merits of its reverend bishop Exuperius. Even the Spains are on the brink of ruin and tremble daily as they recall the invasion of the Cymry; and, while others suffer misfortunes once in actual fact, they suffer them continually in anticipation.

”I say nothing of other places that I may not seem to despair of God’s mercy. All that is ours now from the Pontic Sea to the Julian Alps in days gone by once ceased to be ours. For thirty years the barbarians burst the barrier of the Danube and fought in the heart of the Roman Empire. Long use dried our tears. For all but a few old people had been born either in captivity or during a blockade, and consequently they did not miss a liberty which they had never known. Yet who will hereafter credit the fact or what histories will seriously discuss it, that Rome has to fight within her own borders not for glory but for bare life; and that she does not even fight but buys the right to exist by giving gold and sacrificing all her substance? This humiliation has been brought upon her not by the fault of her Emperors who are both most religious men, but by the crime of a half-barbarian traitor who with our money has armed our foes against us. Of old the Roman Empire was branded with eternal shame because after ravaging the country and routing the Romans at the Allia, Brennus with his Gauls entered, Rome itself. Nor could this ancient stain be wiped out until Gaul, the birth-place of the Gauls, and Gaulish Greece, wherein they had settled after triumphing over East and West, were subjugated to her sway. Even Hannibal who swept like a devastating storm from Spain into Italy, although he came within sight of the city, did not dare to lay siege to it. Even Pyrrhus was so completely bound by the spell of the Roman name that destroying everything that came in his way, he yet withdrew from its vicinity and, victor though he was, did not presume to gaze upon what he had learned to be a city of kings. Yet in return for such insults – not to say such haughty pride – as theirs which ended thus happily for Rome, one banished from all the world found death at last by poison in Bithynia; while the other returning to his native land was slain in his own dominions. The countries of both became tributary to the Roman people. But now, even if complete success attends our arms, we can wrest nothing from our vanquished foes but what we have already lost to them. The poet Lucan describing the power of the city in a glowing passage says:

‘If Rome be weak, where shall we look for strength?’
we may vary his words and say:
If Rome be lost, where shall we look for help?
or quote the language of Virgil:
“Had I a hundred tongues and throat of bronze
The woes of captives I could not relate
Or ev’n recount the names of all the slain.”

”Even what I have said is fraught with danger both to me who say it and to all who hear it; for we are no longer free even to lament our fate. and are unwilling, nay, I may even say, afraid to weep for our sufferings.”

Letter 128 – to Gaudentius (410 C.E.)

”The world sinks into ruin: yes! but shameful to say our sins still live and flourish. The renowned city, the capital of the Roman Empire, is swallowed up in one tremendous fire; and there is no part of the earth where Romans are not in exile. Churches once held sacred are now but heaps of dust and ashes; and yet we have our minds set on the desire of gain. We live as though we are going to die tomorrow; yet we build as though we are going to live always in this world. Our walls shine with gold, our ceilings also and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ dies before our doors naked and hungry in the persons of His poor.”

Letter 127 to Principia (412 C.E.)

”Rome had been besieged and its citizens had been forced to buy their lives with gold. Then thus despoiled they had been besieged again so as to lose not their substance only but their lives. My voice sticks in my throat; and, as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken; nay more famine was beforehand with the sword and but few citizens were left to be made captives. In their frenzy the starving people had recourse to hideous food; and tore each other limb from limb that they might have flesh to eat. Even the mother did not spare the babe at her breast. In the night was Moab taken, in the night did her wall fall down. ‘O God, the heathen have come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have made Jerusalem an orchard. The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.’ (Psalm 79)

”Who can set forth the carnage of that night?
What tears are equal to its agony?
Of ancient date a sovran city falls;
And lifeless in its streets and houses lie
Unnumbered bodies of its citizens.
In many a ghastly shape doth death appear.”

St. Augustine – City of God Book One, Ch. 1 – Of the adversaries of the name of Christ, whom the barbarians for Christ’s sake spared when they stormed the city.

This excerpt, similar to St. Jerome’s letters, comes from a work that was written fairly closely to events. The City of God was written in the aftermath of the destruction of Rome as a response to the arguments that swirled around about the cause of the disaster. St. Augustine chose to see the hand of God not in the destruction, but in what was saved. Look for how he describes the looting and violence here, as well as where he says it stopped.

”For to this earthly city belong the enemies against whom I have to defend the city of God. Many of them, indeed, being reclaimed from their ungodly error, have become sufficiently creditable citizens of this city; but many are so inflamed with hatred against it, and are so ungrateful to its Redeemer for His signal benefits, as to forget that they would now be unable to utter a single word to its prejudice, had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled from the enemy’s steel, that life in which they now boast themselves. Are not those very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians through their respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ? The reliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostles bear witness to this; for in the sack of the city they were open sanctuary for all who fled to them, whether Christian or Pagan. To their very threshold the bloodthirsty enemy raged; there his murderous fury owned a limit. Thither did such of the enemy as had any pity convey those to whom they had given quarter, lest any less mercifully disposed might fall upon them. And, indeed, when even those murderers who everywhere else showed themselves pitiless came to these spots where that was forbidden which the licence of war permitted in every other place, their furious rage for slaughter was bridled, and their eagerness to take prisoners was quenched. Thus escaped multitudes who now reproach the Christian religion, and impute to Christ the ills that have befallen their city; but the preservation of their own life—a boon which they owe to the respect entertained for Christ by the barbarians—they attribute not to our Christ, but to their own good luck. They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to that divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners of men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions the righteous and praiseworthy,—either translating them, when they have passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still on earth for ulterior purposes. And they ought to attribute it to the spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to the custom of war, these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, and spared them for Christ’s sake, whether this mercy was actually shown in promiscuous places, or in those places specially dedicated to Christ’s name, and of which the very largest were selected as sanctuaries, that full scope might thus be given to the expansive compassion which desired that a large multitude might find shelter there. Therefore ought they to give God thanks, and with sincere confession flee for refuge to His name, that so they may escape the punishment of eternal fire—they who with lying lips took upon them this name, that they might escape the punishment of present destruction. For of those whom you see insolently and shamelessly insulting the servants of Christ, there are numbers who would not have escaped that destruction and slaughter had they not pretended that they themselves were Christ’s servants. Yet now, in ungrateful pride and most impious madness, and at the risk of being punished in everlasting darkness, they perversely oppose that name under which they fraudulently protected themselves for the sake of enjoying the light of this brief life.” ⁴

Questions:

What was the purpose and nature of these three authors different accounts of events? How does this purpose and their point of view affect your understanding of events?
Is there anything in these three accounts that gives you a sense for what Romans thought about their place in the world and their role in war by the 400s – 500s? What about the non-Roman point of view?
What is the role of religion in these discussions of war?

Notes

Jordanes, The Gothic History Charles Christopher Mierow, translator, (Princeton: University Press, 1908), 2-10. ↩
Jordanes, The Gothic History Charles. C. Mierow (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1908) 92-95. ↩
A Select Library of Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church vol. VI, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace editors, (New York: The Christian Literature Company 1890) 236-7, 257, 260. ↩
St. Augustine, The City of God vol . 1, Marcus Dods M.A> translator (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1871) 2-3. ↩

Accounts of the Sack of Rome by Nicole V. Jobin is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

July 18, 2020January 25, 2021

St. Augustine of Hippo – Just War

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.), or St. Augustine, was a theologian and Bishop of Hippo Regius in Roman North Africa. His most famous writings include The City of God (413-426 C.E.), which he wrote after Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410, and Confessions (c. 397 C.E.), a sort of spiritual biography.

Augustine – earliest portrait of St. Augustine 6th c. Fresco, Lateran, Rome. CC-PD.

He wrote far more, however, than these two famous books. The main text below comes from his anti-Manichaean writing Reply to Faustus the Manichaean (c. 400-404 C.E.) where he discussed and refuted several beliefs and arguments of the Manichaean heresy which he had followed before becoming a Christian in 386 C.E. The ideas here have been influential on Christian and secular thought about the rationale for war all the way down to the present day. While the language of the translation here can be a bit old fashioned, focus your attention on what Augustine would use as the criteria for “just” as opposed to “unjust” war.

Reply to Faustus the Manichaean – excerpts

“According to the eternal law, which requires the preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, some actions have an indifferent character, so that men are blamed for presumption if they do them without being called upon, while they are deservedly praised for doing them when required. The act, the agent, and the authority for the action are all of great importance in the order of nature. For Abraham to sacrifice his son of his own accord is shocking. His doing so at the command of God proves him faithful and submissive.
“Now, if this explanation suffices to satisfy human obstinacy and perverse misinterpretation of right actions of the vast difference between the indulgence of passion and presumption on the part of men, and obedience to the command of God, who knows what to permit or to order, and also the time and the persons, and the due action or suffering in each case, the account of the wars of Moses will not excite surprise or abhorrence, for in wars carried on by divine command, he showed not ferocity but obedience; and God, in giving the command, acted not in cruelty, but in righteous retribution, giving to all what they deserved, and warning those who needed warning. What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way. Otherwise John, when the soldiers who came to be baptized asked, ‘What shall we do?’ would have replied, ‘Throw away your arms; give up the service; never strike, or wound, or disable anyone.’ But knowing that such actions in battle were not murderous, but authorized by law, and that the soldiers did not thus avenge themselves, but defend the public safety, he replied, ‘Do violence to no man, accuse no man falsely, and be content with your wages.’ [Luke 3:14] …[and ] hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordering this money to be given to Caesar, which John tells the soldiers to be content with. ‘Give,’ He says, ‘to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.’ [Luke 20:25] For tribute-money is given on purpose to pay the soldiers for war. Again, in the case of the centurion who said, ‘I am a man under authority, and have soldiers under me: and I say to one, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it,’ [Matthew 8:9] Christ gave due praise to his faith: He did not tell [the centurion] to leave the service. But there is no need here to enter on the long discussion of just and unjust wars.
“A great deal depends on the causes for which men undertake wars, and on the authority they have for doing so; for the natural order which seeks the peace of mankind, ordains that the monarch should have the power of undertaking war if he thinks it advisable, and that the soldiers should perform their military duties in behalf of the peace and safety of the community. When war is undertaken in obedience to God, who would rebuke, or humble, or crush the pride of man, it must be allowed to be a righteous war; for even the wars which arise from human passion cannot harm the eternal wellbeing of God, nor even hurt His saints; for in the trial of their patience, and the chastening of their spirit, and in bearing fatherly correction, they are rather beneﬁted than injured. No one can have any power against them but what is given him from above. For there is no power but of God,4 who either orders or permits. Since, therefore, a righteous man, serving it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty belonging to his position in the State in ﬁghting by the order of his sovereign,—for in some cases it is plainly the will of God that he should ﬁght, and in others, where this is not so plain, it may be an unrighteous command on the part of the king, while the soldier is innocent, because his position makes obedience a duty, – how much more must the man be blameless who carries on war on the authority of God, of whom everyone who serves Him knows that He can never require what is wrong?
”If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare, because in after times it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also,’ [Matthew 5:39] the answer is, that what is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart, and such were the hearts of our fathers, the righteous men of old. But order required such a regulation of events, and such a distinction of times, as to show first of all that even earthly blessings (for so temporal kingdoms and victory over enemies are considered to be, and these are the things which ‘the community of the ungodly all over the world are continually begging from idols and devils) are entirely under the control and at the disposal of the one true God. …Thus the name martyrs, which means witnesses, was given to those who, by the will of God, bore this testimony, by their confessions, their sufferings, and their death. The number of such witnesses is so great, that if it pleased Christ – who called Saul by a voice from heaven, and having changed him from a wolf to a sheep, sent him into the midst of wolves – to unite them all in one army, and to give them success in battle, as He gave to the Hebrews, what nation could withstand them? What kingdom would remain unsubdued? …God… sends His disciples as sheep into the midst of wolves, and bids them not fear those that can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, and promises that even the body will be entirely restored, so that not a hair shall be lost. …
”It is therefore mere groundless calumny to charge Moses with making war, for there would have been less harm in making war of his own accord, than in not doing it when God commanded him. And to dare to ﬁnd fault with God Himself for giving such a command, or not to believe it possible that a just and good God did so, shows, to say the least, an inability to consider that in the view of divine providence, which pervades all things from the highest to the lowest, time can neither add anything nor take away; but all things go, or come, or remain according to the order of nature or desert in each separate use, while in men a right will is in union with the divine law, and ungoverned passion is restrained by the order of divine law; so that a good man wills only what is commanded, and a bad man can do only what he is permitted, at the same time that he is punished for what he wills to do unjustly. Thus, in all the things which appear shocking and terrible to human feebleness, the real evil is the injustice; the rest is only the result of natural properties or of moral demerit. This injustice is seen in every case where a man loves for their own sake things which are desirable only as means to an end, and seeks for the sake of something else things which ought to be loved for themselves. …This being the case, and as the judgments of God and the movements of man’s will contain the hidden reason why the same prosperous circumstances which some make a right use of are the ruin of others, and the same afflictions under which some give way are proﬁtable to others, and since the whole mortal life of man upon earth is a trial, who can tell whether it may be good or bad in any particular case – in time of peace, to reign or to serve, or to be at ease or to die – or in time of war, to command or to fight, or to conquer or to be killed? At the same time, it remains true, that whatever is good is so by the divine blessing, and whatever is bad is so by the divine judgment.” (Book 22, Ch. 73-77) ¹

Folio 1r from a manuscript of Augustine’s, City of God (De Civitate Dei) (New York Public Library, Spencer Collection MS 30) from 1470. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=312751

City of God – excerpts

Two other quotes are often pointed to from Augustine’s work to highlight his view on war. This first is a quotation from The City of God taken from a section of the work titled Of the cases in which we may put men to death without incurring the guilt of murder. ²

“However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder.” (Book 1, Ch. 21)

This second piece is also from The City of God, this time from a section titled Of the diversity of languages, by which the intercourse of men is prevented; and of the misery of wars, even of those called just. The phrase “just war” may have originated with this work, though from this quote it seems that he expects his readers to follow the concept without much explanation. ³

“For though there have never been wanting, nor are yet wanting, hostile nations beyond the empire, against whom wars have been and are waged, yet, supposing there were no such nations, the very extent of the empire itself has produced wars of a more obnoxious description—social and civil wars—and with these the whole race has been agitated, either by the actual conflict or the fear of a renewed outbreak. If I attempted to give an adequate description of these manifold disasters, these stern and lasting necessities, though I am quite unequal to the task, what limit could I set? But, say they, the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrong-doing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be matter of grief to man because it is man’s wrong-doing. Let every one, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.” (Book 19, Ch. 7)

Questions

In these excerpts, what does St. Augustine point to as justifying war or indicating that a war is fought for good reason? Under what circumstances is war unjust?
How does St. Augustine reconcile the act of war with Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” (as it is often put)?
How do these ideas about what makes a war just from the 4th – 5th c. C.E. compare with ideas about what justifies war in modern times?

Notes

Philip Schaff ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York : Scribner, 1898), 300-303. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158006718877. ↩
Aurelius Augustine, The City of God: Volume I, A Project Gutenberg EBook., accessed July 17, 2020, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45304/45304-h/45304-h.htm. ↩
Aurelius Augustine, The City of God: Volume II A Project Gutenberg EBook.,” accessed July 17, 2020, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45305/45305-h/45305-h.htm. ↩

St. Augustine of Hippo – Just War by Nicole V. Jobin is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

July 8, 2020July 18, 2020

Documentary Evidence and the History of Early Christianity

One of the difficulties in studying the history of Christianity is the fact that very little direct contemporary evidence for the formation of early Christianity exists. The oldest buildings and artwork that are identifiably Christian date from the late 2nd century at the earliest. Jesus himself did not write anything that survives, and the earliest writings from the Christian community come from New Testament authors such as Paul (50-64 C.E.) or the writers of the Gospels (66-110 C.E.) several years after Jesus’ death. Aside from these “insider” accounts, we have only a little evidence of what the Roman world saw when it looked at the developing Christian religion.

Fractio Panis 2nd c fresco from the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome – Unknown author. Photographer: André Held, akg-images. One of the earliest Christian images from this catacomb.

In Early Christianity: A Brief History, historian Joseph Lynch poses the question, “if those non-Christian sources were all that survived, what would we know?” ¹ Please think about his question while reading the following primary source excerpts.

Josephus (37 – c. 100 C.E.)

These first two excerpts come from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. ² Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote his histories after having been captured and enslaved by the Roman Emperor Vespasian during the First Jewish War. The Antiquities, written around 94 C.E., was a history of the world from a Jewish perspective, and it offers us our earliest glimpses of a non-Christian view of the new religion and its followers.

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (Book 18, Ch. 3)

“Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; . . . he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, or, some of his companions; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” (Book XX, Ch. 9)

The first mention of Jesus above is often considered somewhat suspect as Josephus was Jewish, but not a known follower of Jesus. The pro-Christian tone has been interpreted as being a later adjustment to Josephus’ text by a scribe from the time after Christianity had become the dominant religion in the West, likely during the third century. ³ Such changes in texts by copyists were made frequently during later antiquity and the early Middle Ages in order to make the text fit a Christian interpretation of events. The second mention of Jesus above is mainly given as a reference point to identify James.

Pliny the Younger ( 61-113 C.E.)

While serving as the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (in present-day Turkey), Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan in about 112 C.E. To ask what he should do about Christians who were anonymously denounced to him. This exchange between Pliny and Trajan serves as our second-oldest mention of Christ and the Christians.

”It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate’ in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighboring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers. From all this, it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.” (Letter to Trajan XCVII) ⁴

Th following was Trajan’s response.

”You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to be received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.” (Letter from Trajan XCVIII)note that the numbering of the letters in the Project Gutenberg edition is off by one in comparison with other more recent editions

Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 120 C.E.)

Tacitus was a historian and senator who lived from around 56 C. E. to around 120 C. E. He produced two well-known works, portions of which survive, known as the Annals (c. 109 C.E.) and the Histories (c. 105 C.E.). His are the third set of references we have to Christians or Christianity, though they recount events that occurred over 40 years before Pliny’s exchange with Trajan. This first excerpt comes from the Annals and might seem, at first, to have little to do with Christianity.

“Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished lady, wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation, was accused of some foreign superstition and handed over to her husband’s judicial decision. Following ancient precedent, he heard his wife’s cause in the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, her legal status and character, and he reported that she was innocent. This Pomponia lived a long life of unbroken melancholy. After the murder of Julia, Drusus’s daughter, by Messalina’s treachery, for forty years she wore only the attire of a mourner, with a heart ever sorrowful. For this, during Claudius’s reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was afterwards counted a glory to her.” (Book XIII, Ch. 32) ⁵

Over time, some historians have taken the description of Pomponia being “accused of some foreign superstition” to be an obscure reference to her being a Christian. This idea was perhaps most prominently put forward by the 19th-century scholarship of archaeologist Giovanni Battista de Rossi when he discovered the Catacombs of Callixtus in 1854. These catacombs contained inscriptions linking later members of Pomponia’s family to the site. Rossi identified Pomponia with Saint Lucia (which was believed to be her baptismal name), a donor of the oldest part of the catacombs, though this identification is impossible to prove definitively.

This second set of excerpts from the Annals is far more famous and contains a much more direct reference to Christianity. Here Tacitus is recounting the history of Emperor Nero’s rule, and he begins with the following description of the horrendous fire that burned in the city of Rome for over five days.

”A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus. For here there were no houses fenced in by solid masonry, or temples surrounded by walls, or any other obstacle to interpose delay. The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the city, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them, it outstripped all preventive measures; so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the city, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets, which characterized old Rome. Added to this were the wailings of terror-stricken women, the feebleness of age, the helpless inexperience of childhood, the crowds who sought to save themselves or others, dragging out the infirm or waiting for them, and by their hurry in the one case, by their delay in the other, aggravating the confusion.” (Book XV Ch. 38)⁶

Tacitus’s description goes on to detail how Nero was absent from the city and did not return to Rome until the fire neared his own palace. This was, in fact, destroyed and Nero later rebuilt on a much more grandiose scale over ground cleared by the fire. Tacitus recounts multiple rumors circulating about this unpopular emperor including that the emperor appeared on a private stage during the destruction of the city, singing songs comparing the fire in Rome to the destruction of ancient Troy and that he actually had a hand in setting the fire in order to help clear the city for his new construction. In the face of these rumors, Nero felt the need to find another person or group upon which to cast blame.

”But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

”Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” ⁷

Suetonius (c. 69 – after c. 122 C.E.)

Finally, the historian Suetonius, in Lives of the Caesars very briefly recounted an event during Claudius’ reign that also shows Christians as potential scapegoats, this time as the cause of quarrels and contention between groups living in Rome. Suetonius was writing about these events in the 120s C.E. about 70 years after they happened.

”He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.” (Claudius Ch. 25) ⁸

Now that you have seen the main non-Christian, Roman sources that mention Christ or Christians in the earliest century after Jesus’ death, what conclusions can you draw about Jesus, what he taught, or what his followers do or believe? What would your outline for a story of early Christianity look like if these were the only sources you could rely on?

Assignment

Using text, pictures, maps, timelines, or any other way of presenting information that seems useful to you, make a representation of the history of early Christianity revealed in these primary sources.
Be sure to put the information we do have into context and point out where the information comes from and how it relates internally (to other pieces of information in the sources) and externally (to information about the classical Roman world) to other pieces of information about the time.
For now, leave aside information from known Christian sources such as the writings in the Bible or from early Christian believers. We will do another history based on these sources soon.
Finally, note both the strengths and weaknesses in this documentary record. What questions does it leave you with? What other ways of examining the past (archaeology, art history, other?) might be useful to answering these questions?

Notes

Joseph H Lynch, Early Christianity: A Brief History (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). ↩
Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, (Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg, 2009), retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0003 ↩
Joseph Lynch, Early Christianity: A Brief History, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) p. 1-2. ↩
Pliny, The Letters of Pliny F.C.T. Bosanquet ed, William Melmoth translator, (, 2001) accessed Project Gutenberg [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2811/2811-h/2811-h.htm#link2H_4_0206]. ↩
Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb ed. (New York: Random House, Inc., reprinted 1942) accessed at Persius Project http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D13%3Achapter%3D32 ↩
Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb ed. (New York: Random House, Inc., reprinted 1942) accessed at Persius Project http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D38 ↩
Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb ed. (New York: Random House, Inc., reprinted 1942) accessed at Persius Project http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44 ↩
Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Cesars: An English Translation, J. Eugene Reed ed., Alexander Thompson, (Philadelphia, Debbie & Co. 1889), accessed at Persius Project http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0132%3Alife%3Dcl.%3Achapter%3D25 ↩

Except where otherwise noted, Documentary Evidence and the History of Early Christianity by Nicole V. Jobin is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0