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

Intolerance, Religious Violence,
and Political Legitimacy

in Late Antiquity
H.A. Drake*
This article proposes an alternative way to think about the violence

that swept the Roman Empire in the wake of Constantines conversion
to Christianity. Traditionally seen as the inevitable result of Christian
intolerance, recent experience suggests that this violence can be better
understood by casting a broader net and including political as well as
theological issues. The result shows this violence to be the by-product
of a struggle between emperors and bishops to control access to the
divine. In an age of widespread belief in the active intervention of
deity in human affairs, this religious prerogative was fraught with
profound secular implications that make our distinction between
Church and State meaningless. Martyrs play an important role in
this process, but it is a symbolic one. Bishops use martyrs to control
emperors. But, as a famous confrontation between Ambrose of Milan
and the emperor Theodosius shows, bishops also relied on their new
role as patrons of a large and volatile constituency. Their efforts were
abetted by significant rethinking of the meaning of martyrdom and
persecution that followed Julian the Apostates ill-starred efforts to rein
in Christianity without producing martyrs.
Ye e BL5Ra BRxLKORK Pj 37KP;a c7)R7K; Pj SL/7jP7La hLKL lLMLLa SC itp,okimp,a

chCe bkOL7/s JL5RvV7KP;e(qMeRJ(e bL/7R )R7P Pj KV7 xLxR 8RR RLJ LK 3P//7a B(5Ra
LJ WRK 9RP27L hKLKR (7)R7K7Re uVR /7K Pj j7RJ LJ L(J7KP 8VP OLJR (MKLK7L/
(22RK7P jP 7OxP)RORK 7 /P2a M(K 1 8P(/J MR RO7 PK KP KVL5 uVPOL h72P7qVa
SV7K7R -(q57K 4LF(7a 0PR -RRJPOa LJ O; qP//RL2(R 7 KVR c7)R7K; Pj SL/7jP7L 4(/K7k
qLOx( @RRLqV 9P(x 7 -LKR CK7F(7K;e 1 P8R L xRq7L/ JRMK KP KVR RjRRR Pj KV7 NP(L/ jP
KVR7 x/RJ7J LJ 772VKj(/ q7K7q7Oe
Journal of the American Academy of Religiona 4LqV ,ppa wP- fia EPe pa xxe pitk tn
JP7sp,ep,it NLLR/ /jF,om
CJ)LqR CqqR x(M/7qLK7P P :qKPMR na ,p,
? uVR C(KVP ,p,e d(M/7VRJ M; :ZjPJ c7)R7K; dRa P MRVL/j Pj KVR COR7qL CqLJRO; Pj
@R/727Pe C// 72VK RR)RJe AP xRO77Pa x/RLR RkOL7/^ NP(L/exRO77PvP(xeqPO
194
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
AN ICONIC MOMENT IN THE history of Christianity in the West

occurred in 390 CE, when bishop Ambrose of Milan threatened to deny
communion to the emperor Theodosius I until he did penance for a
horrible slaughter of civilians in Thessalonika. Although not as dramatic at the time as it became in subsequent retellings, the incident set
a precedent for episcopal control over the exercise of imperial authority,
and its impact on the Western imagination can still be gauged by the
artistic renderings of Peter Paul Rubens and his talented pupil, Anton
Van Dyck, more than a millennium later.1 Equally well known but less
celebrated is a confrontation between this same emperor and bishop
that took place a bare two years earlier. In 388, an angry mob in the
Syrian town of Callinicum, an important entrept on Romes frontier
with Persia, prodded by their bishop, destroyed the towns synagogue.
When the emperor, who was residing in Milan at the time, received the
report from his provincial governor, he ordered the offending bishop to
pay the cost of rebuilding, a decision Ambrose deemed unacceptable.
First in a scolding letter, then at Sunday mass, he challenged the
emperor to rescind the order and exonerate the bishop, winning on
both counts.2
Taken together, these two incidents have long served to illustrate the
growing independence and power of the Church, as Christians flexed
the new muscle they gained through the conversion of the first
Christian emperor, Constantine the Great (r. 306-337). But where
Thessalonika stands for the moral uplift of the new Christian empire
p@(MR /7jRk7RJ JRx7qK7P Pj COMPR ML72 KVR ROxRP RK; KP KVR 47/L qLKVRJL/
VL2 7 KVR 6(KV7KP7qVR 4(R(O 7 w7RLe wL B;q5 OPR OPJRJ; 7RJ RJ7K7Pa 87KV
OL// M(K 727j7qLK qVL2Ra 7 P )7R8 7 -PJP ELK7PL/ 9L//R;e uV7 JLOLK7RJ )R7P Pj
KVR R)RK j7K LxxRL 7 KVR SV(qV 37KP; Pj uVRPJPRKa 87KKR 7 h;7L 7 KVR O7Jkj7jKV
qRK(;e 1 qPKLK KP KVR 8L; /LKR L2R RLJ KV7 KP;a LK KVR K7OR COMPR 8L jL OPR J7qRRK
7 V7 R2PK7LK7P 87KV KVR ROxRPa LJ KVR MRK OPJR K(J; qPq/(JR KVLK KVR M7VPx
(22RK7P KVLK KVR ROxRP JP xRLqR LqK(L//; 8P5RJ KP uVRPJP7( LJ)LKL2Re hRR 4q-;
hRR L/P 6P/M piH,De AP J7q(7P LJ qPOxL7P Pj KVR xL7K72a WVRR/Pq5 eDtpnktt, spiim
RK L/e pii,Da Rxe pfk na p,,kp, e uVR /RKKR COMPR 8PKR KP uVRPJP7( P KV7 PqqL7P 8L
PK 7q/(JRJ 7 KVR KR MPP5 Pj qPRxPJRqR x(M/7VRJ LjKR V7 JRLKVa M(K 8L xLRJ JP8
7JRxRJRK/;e 1K 7 RJ7KRJ M; gR/R piH De COMPR P/; L//(JR KP KVR 7q7JRK 7 KVR A(RL/
a:LK7P VR JR/7)RRJ P KVR JRLKV Pj uVRPJP7( 7 tin (de obit. Theo. ptkpma fk HDy V7 JRLqP
dL(/7(a x/LqR 2RLKR ROxVL7 P KVR M7VPx P/R 7 KVR -7jR VR 8PKR LK KVR RF(RK Pj
eDC(2(K7R Pj 37xxPs vit. Ambr. mea KLe @LOR; piifs ,nj
uVR MRK OPJRO K(J; 7 4q-; piimDy P SL//77q(Oa RR xxe iHktpne AP COMPR
)R7P Pj R)RKa RR Ep. Extra coll p Dmp RJe gR/R piH De uVRR LR 7OxPKLK J7jjRRqR
MRK8RR KV7 /RKKR LJ KVR PR KVLK 8L x(M/7VRJ L xLK Pj V7 qP//RqKRJ /RKKRa M(K KVRR JP PK
LjjRqK L; Pj KVR xLL2R (RJ VRRe AP J7q(7Pa qPOxL7P LJ R8 KL/LK7Pa RR
-7RMRqV(RK LJ 37// ,,ns fk Ha inkp tDe c/R PKVR87R PKRJa L// KL/LK7P Pj KV7 /RKKR
LR jPO KV7 )R7Pa
Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy
195
taking shape in the aftermath of that reign, Callinicum encapsulates a

darker legacy with which Western historians still strugglea legacy of
the violence with which Christian zealots, abetted by the ecclesial hierarchy, ruthlessly suppressed the traditional religions of the classical
world, while imperial officials frequently condoned or winked at, and
sometimes actively fomented, the violence.3
For historians of late Rome or early Christianity, a single word long
sufficed to explain this dark turn: intolerance. An argument tracing
back to Edward Gibbons magisterial Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire holds that Christians, being monotheists, simply could not
emulate the easy acceptance of other deities that characterizes a polytheist system. Hence, as soon as Constantine put into their hands the
means to do so, Christians were bound to suppress alternative paths to
divine truth.4 The imprint of Gibbons argument may be traced
through the scholarship of the subsequent two centuries; it shows itself
in the once-prevalent master narrative of a life-and-death conflict
between Christians and pagans, and a long argument over the sincerity of Constantines own conversion, the test of that sincerity being the
degree to which he was or was not willing to suppress non-Christians.5
Intolerance surely played a part in these developments, but closer
investigation has raised questions that this model of tolerant pagans
and intolerant Christians cannot answer. Why, for instance, did
th;OOLqV(a 7 L x/RL jP RKPLK7P Pj KVR C/KL Pj w7qKP; KP KVR hRLKR VP(R L OP)R L/P
PxxPRJ M; COMPRDa L2(RJ KVLK Uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum.
h;OOLqV(a Relatio pppep,a RJe 6/R7 pif s p,mkp,oDe : (qV RZqVL2Ra RR CJP piioDe AP
97MMP xP7K7Pa RR RZK PKRe AP L /(q7J RKLKRORKa RR @7)R ,,nDe 9L/RPKK7 ,, D 7 L
RZqR//RK RqRK J7q(7P Pj KVR x7q7x/R Pj KP/RLK7Py RR Rxe xxe ,kn e AP L (LqRJ
LxxPLqVa RR 6LV/P ,,is tDe
97MMP pi,ikpma 11s tD x/LqRJ ]7KP/RLK RL/ LK KVR KPx Pj V7 jLOP( /7K Pj j7)R RLP jP
KVR (qqR Pj SV7K7L7K;e uVR jP( PKVR jLqKP 8RRs ]KVR JPqK7R Pj L j(K(R /7jRa KVR
]O7Lq(/P( xP8R Lq7MRJ KP KVR x7O7K7)R qV(qVa SV7K7L OPL/7K;a LJ KVR ](7P LJ
J7q7x/7R Pj KVR SV7K7L Rx(M/7qa 8V7qV 2LJ(L//; jPORJ L 7JRxRJRK LJ 7qRL72 KLKR 7
KVR VRLK Pj KVR @POL ROx7Re AP 97MMP 7KR//RqK(L/ O7/7R(a RR dPqPq5 piiiDe
nAP RZLOx/R Pj K(J7R 87KKR 7 KVR qPj/7qK OPJR/a RR KVR RL; 7 4PO72/7LP piotDe
4Lq4(//R piifD x/LqR VRL); KR P SV7K7L 7KP/RLqRe :BPR// piffD PjjR JRj77K7P
Pj ]xL2L LJ ]SV7K7L KVLK )7K(L//; RF(LKR 87KV ]KP/RLK LJ ]7KP/RLKe lP8 piopD 8L
x7)PKL/ 7 (22RK72 KVLK qPj/7qK L/PR qP(/J PK RZx/L7 KVR qP)R7P Pj KVR @POL L7KPqLq;a
P 8V7qV RR P8 hL/OL ,, De AP SPKLK7Ra l(q5VLJK pHH,Da KLe 3LJL pimiDa
KVP(2V 87JR/; J7qRJ7KRJ jP 7K x7qK(R Pj L ROxRP 8VPR P/; qPqR 8L xP8Ra 7 K7// 7
x7Ke lL;R pi iD L2(RJ jP L 2R(7R qP)R7Pe -75R l(q5VLJKa lL;R (RJ RxR7P Pj
PKVR R/727P L V7 KP(qVKPR Pj 7qR7K;a qPq/(J72 KVLK P/; xP/7K7qL/ qP7JRLK7P KL;RJ
SPKLK7R VLJs ]C KVR ;RL xLRJa KP/RLK7P Pj xL2L7O 2L)R x/LqR KP LqK7)R RxR7P
tnfy RJea piDe 4PR RqRK/;a lLR piHpD RR SPKLK7R x((72 L )72PP( xP2LO KP
(xxR xL2L7O KVLK 7q/(JRJ L /PKD /L8 ML72 Lq7j7qRe 1 lLR piHos n,Da VR 8PKR
87KV (7KRJRJ 7P;Da ]uVR /L8 xPV7M7K72 xL2L Lq7j7qR 7 KVR /;qVkx7 Pj KVR KVR7 KVLK
SPKLK7R qL7RJ KVP(2V L R/727P( @RjPOLK7Pe
196
tolerant pagans in earlier centuries persecute intolerant Christians?

More importantly, why did Christians in Late Antiquity abandon their
hitherto unshakeable faith in the proposition that true belief could not
be coerced? To the latter question, a common answer is that the change
merely shows that Christians never really believed what they had been
saying for three centuries.6 But long after Constantine, Christians continued to worry about the wisdom of coerced faith7 and, as this article
will show, to resist aggressive actions. The intolerance argument is not
so much wrong as incomplete. As a theological explanation, it is monochromatic; to understand why polytheists as well as monotheists persecute, entire religious systems need to be compared, not simply the
number of gods. More importantly, because it is a theological argument
it ignores the dynamics that the social sciences have helped us to trace
in all groups and organizations. The result is a certain circularity: intolerance explains the religious violence of Late Antiquity, while the violence in turn proves the intolerance.
It is more accurate, and ultimately more rewarding, to recognize
that in Christianity, as in every organization, there are hawks and
doves. To explain how the one prevails over the other calls for political and social, not theological, tools. In the case of post-Constantinian
Christianity, this requires a close look at a worldview shared by
Christians and those adherents to traditional religions that, for convenience, I will label pagans.8 Both groups shared a belief in the active
ohRRa Re2ea hVLjR ,,ms m Da ]97)R KVR )7P/RK R/RORK Pj SV7K7L RqVLKP/P2;a KVR q(/K Pj
OLK;a LJ KVR ORR/; RZxRJ7RK LK(R Pj RL/; SV7K7L P)7P/RqRa 7K VP(/J qPOR L P
(x7R KVLK 8VR KVR SV7K7L 2L7RJ qPKP/ Pj KVR @POL 2P)RORKa KVR; (RJ )7P/RqR
L2L7K KVR7 RRO7R LJ RLqV PKVRe Sje 6LV/P ,,is tDa It 7 7OxPKLK PK KP RLJ RqPJk
LJ KV7JkqRK(; LxxRL/ LLqVP7K7qL//; L JRq/LLK7P Pj (7)RL/ jRRJPO Pj R/727P LJ
KP/RLK7Pe Instead, 7K RRO KVLK SV7K7L LxP/P27Keee 8RR 7KRRKRJ P/; 7 Rq(72 KVR 72VK
Pj KVR7 P8 2P(xe C/KVP(2V JRL/72 87KV KVR RL/; OPJRO xR7PJa dRKKR2RR piios piHD
qPq/(JRJ KVLK KP/RLK7P 8L ]R)R L /PR qRRJe
f1 KVR /7jR Pj KVR RL/; j7jKVkqRK(; M7VPx dPxV;; Pj 9LLa LKK7M(KRJ KP 4L5 KVR BRLqPa
KVRR 7 L R)RL/72 qPjPKLK7P MRK8RR KVR M7VPx LJ V7 P8 xL7V7PRa 8VP PMNRqKRJ KP
KVR )7P/RqR M; 8V7qV dPxV;; OLJR qP)RKs ]l(K POR Pj KVR MR/7R)R L/P L7J (KP KVR VP/;
M7VPx KVLK 7K MRVP)RJ V7O KP RqR7)R PK KVPR 8VP qLOR P(K Pj jRLa M(K KVPR 8VPR x(xPR
8L 2PPJ 37// pipts f De C L LRqJPKR 7//(KLK7)R Pj SV7K7L RK7ORKa KV7 xLL2R 8P(/J
PK MR LjjRqKRJ M; L2(ORK KVLK KVR -7jR 8L LqK(L//; 87KKR L qRK(; /LKRa P 8V7qV RR
4Lq4(//R piifspfm LJ PKR oHDe
HSV7K7L KLKRJ KP (R KVR KRO ]xL2L L L xRNPLK7)R jP PkMR/7R)R 7 -LKR CK7F(7K;a
M(K L/KVP(2V KVR; LR L8LR Pj KV7 M7La qVP/L VL)R P jL jL7/RJ KP qPOR (x 87KV L OPR R(KL/
(MK7K(KR 87KVP(K RPK KP L858LJ q7q(O/Pq(K7Pa (qV L ]xRPx/R Pj KVR x/LqRa SV()7 pii,s
iDe AP8JR piips ppia PKR pDa xPxPRJ ]xP/;KVR7Ka M(K KV7 KRO 72PR KVR xRRqR Pj
7j/(RK7L/ xL2L OPPKVR7K LJ KV( LJVRR KP L R)R OPR 5R8RJ SV7K7L )7R8e hRR
CKVLL7LJ7 LJ ARJR piiiDe 1 BL5R pifos ntknfDa 1 xP7K P(K VP8 b(RM7( Pj SLRLRL qL
qPj(R OPJRO RLJR M; RF(LK72 ]OPPKVR7O 87KV SV7K7L7K; LJ ]xP/;KVR7O 87KV Pk
SV7K7Le
197
intervention of deity in human affairs that made it harder than it is

today to separate religious from secular functions.
Comparative study is also useful, and Romes great neighbor and
adversary, Persia, provides one. The Mazdaean faith that was the official
religion of Persias shahs was not monotheistic but dualistic, positing a
cosmic struggle between the god of light, Ahura Mazda, who was worshipped in temples that preserved his sacred fire, and his evil adversary,
Ahriman, each of whom led a supporting cast of lesser deities.
Nevertheless, Persian shahs frequently persecuted religious minorities.
I will conclude with a brief look at one such instance, a persecution
launched by the shah Yazdgard I in 415, that can be fruitfully compared
with the Ambrose-Theodosius encounter with which this study began.
VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE

When scholars decry religious intolerance, more often than not
what really is at issue is the violence that intolerance seemingly produces. Unhappy events of our own time have only served to intensify
this concern (Bellinger 2004). But if there is one tiling the outburst of
religious violence in our day has taught us, it is the peril of using religion alone to explain such situations. Acts performed in the name of a
religion by definition have a religious component; but is religion itself
the cause, or a means of expressing other grievances? However they
answer this question, most scholars would agree that only looking at
one component creates the potential for serious misdiagnosis. For these
reasons, scholars of antiquity have increasingly turned to theories of
identity formation and boundary maintenance to understand such
violent episodes.9 Using newer strategies, they have uncovered common
assumptions driving seemingly antagonistic groups (Levinson 2000;
Limberis 2000; Frakes and Digeser 2006; Salzman 2006; Sandwell 2007;
Sizgorich 2007), and the role of rhetoric and polemic (Davis 2006;
Shaw 2006; Kahlos 2009; Stroumsa 2009: 98), and have even cast off
their traditional reticence about intruding on later fields of study to
identify common components shared by ancient and modem violent
acts (Castelli 2004; Shaw 2009).
i3LV ,,mD qPq/(JRJ jPO L jRV R)7R8 Pj KVR x7OL; R)7JRqR jP R/727P( )7P/RqR 7
jP( -LKR CK7F(R q7K7R KVLK R/727P( qP7JRLK7P L/PR qLPK RZx/L7 (qV qPj/7qKe AP L
(qq7qK 7KPJ(qK7P KP KVR 7(R Pj 7JRK7K; jPOLK7P LJ MP(JL; OL7KRLqRa RR KVR
RO7L/ RL; M; lLKV pioia ,,,De hRR L/P KVR J7q(7P Pj MP(JL7R 7 lRLJ RK L/e piiHa
ps ppk mmDa LJ KVR 7KPJ(qKP; ROL5 Pj A7/72P ,,iDe AP RZLOx/R Pj K(J7R KVLK OP)R
MR;PJ KVRP/P2;a RR AL5j(KR ,,,Da 8VRR 2RRLK7PL/ J7jjRRqR LR jPR2P(JRJy 1 BL5R
piioD 1 qL// LKKRK7P KP KVR P/R Pj Pq7L/ LJ JROP2LxV7q 7KLM7/7K;e
198
But there is more that historians of antiquity can contribute. As the

editors of }AAR have recently pointed out, significant differences
between the ancient and modern world-views also need to be taken
into account (JAAR 2009: 823). And in a recent AHR Conversation on
religious violence, Stephen Ellis wrote: even if we were to identify a
violent struggle as being motivated largely by religious ideology, we still
need to ask basic questions about why the struggle turns violent at a
particular time and place (Benedict et al. 2007: 1448). A number of
recent and important studies have addressed these criteria, looking at a
more aggressive concept of martyrdom that developed in the fourth
century (Gaddis 2005; Grig 2005), and an environment conducive to
religious extremism in general in Late Antiquity (JAAR 2009).
The present study is an attempt to further this work by identifying
circumstances that can lead authorities to condone acts of religious violence. Although I look at some violent episodes that accompanied the
creation of a Christian empire, my aim is not to provide a taxonomy of
this violence but to analyze the environment that led an emperor like
Theodosius to ignore centuries of Roman jurisprudence dealing with
both damage to private property and public disorder in order to placate
an aggressive bishop. To anticipate, the solution here proposed focuses
on one aspect of the phenomenon hinted at but not pursued by Natalie
Zemon Davis in her pathbreaking study of religious riots in sixteenthcentury France: the willingness of authorities under certain circumstances to turn a blind eye when mobs took the law into their own
hands (Davis 1973: 65). As will emerge below, the connection Davis
made in this article between violence and fear of divine retribution was,
if anything, even stronger in Late Antiquity than in the early modem
period But Daviss focus was on the role of legitimacy in justifying
crowd actions; the focus here is on legitimacy in explaining the actions
of authorities. Thus, while violence plays an important role in this
study, the symptoms of violence are not its central concern. Rather, it is
to identify conditions that can make authorities unwilling or unable to
assert their jealously guarded monopoly on the use of force (Eckstein
1980). In what follows, I will suggest that there is a direct link between
this unwillingness to prosecute religious violence and a new vulnerability of Christian emperors to charges of what in modem parlance
would be called being soft on paganism. Not to carry the analogy too
far, this hard-right position was significantly abetted by confusion
over the proper definition, and administration, of religious office, a situation that, given the importance of deity in the worldview of Christians
as well as pagans, cannot be considered solely a religious issue; it falls
under a category that today we would label national security.
199
Theodosiuss willingness to bend to Ambroses will over Callinicum

serves as a point of entry because it brings together two of the three
figures central to understanding the political dynamics of this new
Christian empire, an empire in which emperors like Theodosius saw
their role as ultimate guarantor of peace and order contested by a new
power elite in the person of the Christian bishop (Fowden 1978;
Bowersock 1986; Brown 1992, 2002). Pivotal to this test of wills was the
third figure in this drama, the martyr, or, better, the image of the
martyr. It is in the way these three figures interacted that an alternative
explanation for the outburst of religious violence in Late Antiquity
resides.
MARTYRS AND VIOLENCE

The image of the martyrs is what is important for two reasons.
First, with the legalization of Christianity under Constantine, the era of
widespread persecution officially came to an end, leaving it to
Christians to contest among themselves for the right to name and venerate martyrs, the exchanges between Donatists and Catholics in North
Africa being but the most famous of such contests (viz. Brown 1963;
Shaw 1992). Second, with fewer actual martyrdoms to witness,
Christians were free to re-imagine the suffering of these early heroes in
ways that better suited present circumstances. As will be seen below,
this re-imagining was part of a wider process that began in the fourth
century and strengthened the case for aggressive Christian measures.
Thus, even though saints and holy men came to share some of the
veneration accorded to martyrs, martyrs and martyrdom remained
central to Christian self-definition. As Robert Markus once put it, The
martyrs were, after the Apostles, the supreme representatives of the
community of the faithful in Gods presence. In them the communion
of saints was most tangibly epitomised (Markus 1990: 98).
The importance of the martyrs role is illustrated in an incident
recorded by the fifth-century Church historian Socrates. In the 370s,
the emperor Valens, whose own Christianity was more heterodox,
wanted to visit the famous church of St. Thomas the Apostle in Edessa,
without having to share communion with the Nicene congregation that
worshipped there. He gave orders for the church to be cleared and,
when the congregation refused, sent his prefect and a body of troops to
remove them by force. Socrates tells us what happened next:
As the prefect was hastening to the martyr-church with a large force of
soldiers to carry out the emperors demand, a peasant woman dragging
200
her child by the hand cut through the soldiers ranks in her hurry to
get to the martyr-church. Annoyed, the prefect had the woman
brought before him, and said to her, Where are you running so
helter-skelter, you wretched woman? She replied, To the same place
everybody else is running. To which he said, Havent you heard that
the prefect is going to destroy everyone he finds there? And the
woman said, I have, and that is why I am hurrying, so that I will be
found there. When the prefect asked, And where are you dragging
this little child, she replied, So that he too may be deemed worthy of
martyrdom.10
This response stopped the prefect dead in his tracks. Instead of continuing to the church, he reversed course and reported the incident to
Valens, who was wise enough to back off.
Socrates was not an unbiased source (Chesnut 1986: 175-198;
Urbainczyk 1996); his usefulness here and elsewhere in this paper is
not for the accuracy of his account or even the reality of the event, but
for the window he provides into contemporary Christian perspectives.
In this case, the episode he narrates illustrates the powerful pull of martyrdom in the early Christian community, and also the way that fear of
creating martyrs, and thereby provoking even more unrest, could stay
an emperors hand. Martyrdom was, indeed, a lever Ambrose used to
pry a pardon for Callinicums bishop out of Theodosius. Proclaiming
his readiness to accept the punishment of the bishop of Callinicum
himself, Ambrose asked Theodosius, Are you not also apprehensive at
the possibility of his [Callinicums bishop] speaking out against the
count [i.e., the governor]? For in that case the count will have to make
the bishop either an apostate or a martyr.11
The threat of martyrdom could give emperors pause, but claims to
martyrdom did not go uncontested, as another story told by Socrates
reveals.
In the year 415, some five hundred Egyptian monks swarmed into
Alexandria in support of their pugnacious bishop, Cyril, who was at
that time in conflict with the imperial prefect, Orestes. One overzealous monk named Ammonius threw a rock at the prefect, striking
him in the head with sufficient force to draw blood. Abandoned by his
guards, Orestes seemed destined to become one more name on the surprisingly large roster of imperial officials in Late Antiquity killed by
p,hPqLKRa 3b mepHenkmepHeHa RJe 3LR piinDe AP L qPOxLLK7)R J7q(7P Pj (qV Rx7PJRa

RR hVL8 ,,iDe 1 LO 2LKRj(/ KP dPje hVL8 jP KVR PxxPK(7K; KP RLJ KV7 LK7q/R 7 K;xRq7xK
ppCOMPRa Ep. fm m,Defe
201
urban mobs. But in his case, the unexpected happened. Overcoming

their own fears, the populace of Alexandria rallied to the prefects cause
and drove off the monks. Seized and put to the torture (presumably to
get him to implicate Cyril), Ammonius heroically held out to the last,
and a grateful Cyril responded by eulogizing him from the pulpit as a
defender of the faith and immediately enrolling him among the martyrs
of Alexandria with a new name, Thaumasius (Mr. Wonderful). But in
this case, the ploy failed. Socrates gives the reason: Moderates [hoi
sophronountes}, he writes, even though they were Christians, did not
share Cyrils enthusiasm for this cause, for they perceived that
Ammonius had been punished for his rashness, and that he had not
died under torture for refusing to deny Christ. For this reason, even
Cyril soon let the matter be forgotten (HE 7.14.10-14.11).
There is no need here to question Socrates definition of a moderate Christian. What is important about the story of Ammonius/
Thaumasius is that his failure to become a martyr serves as a reminder
of an easily overlooked truth. Martyrs are such flamboyant figures that
their own suffering and preparation for death frequently draw the lions
share of scholarly attention, but martyrdom is not simply an act of selffashioning; there is a community involved in the decision. Martyrdoms
are not automatic: they must be explained, analyzed, and justified. As
Erin Ronsse put it, death is not what makes a martyr but witnessing,
testifying, publicly arguing for and defending the validity of ideas made
one a martyr (Ronsse 2006: 284). The Ammonius incident captures
the role played by that broader community, in this case the Christian
population of Alexandria, in the validation and legitimation of a martyrdom. This community knew that the traditional criterion for martyrdom, suffering as witness to Christs truth, had not been met in this
case, and not even a powerful bishop used to having his own way could
finesse that sentiment.12
Constantine learned a similar lesson. Early in his career as a
Christian, he rashly assumed that, as emperor, he had the right to
decide who was and was not a martyr. Outraged to learn that Donatist
schismatics were hailing those he had punished as martyrs, Constantine
wrote his vicar in North Africa, no-one can obtain the blessings of
martyrdom in a manner that is seen to be foreign to and incompatible
with religious truth. Accordingly, he blustered, those whom I find to
be opposed to right and religion itself... I will cause to suffer the due
p WRR/ ,,ms toktfD qP7JR hPqLKR L M7LRJ P(qR M(K JPR PK J7x(KR KVR PxxP7K7P Pj
]POR Pj KVR C/RZLJ7L SV7K7L KP S;7/ x/P;e : R/727P( K(22/R 7 C/RZLJ7La RR
3LL piifs t, kt,HD LJ xL7Oy WLKK ,p,De
202
penalties of their madness and their reckless obstinacy.13 Constantine

was soon disabused of this notion, but he worked for the rest of his
reign to control the discourse on martyrdom by constantly praising
martyrs for their irenic traitspatience, fortitude, enduranceand
urging Christians to leave vengeance to God.14
There is another reason for remembering the story of Thaumasius.
Monks are frequently cast as the spiritual heirs of the martyrs and in
many ways they were, their training to deny themselves all but the most
basic human necessities coming to be seen as a form of self-sacrifice
equivalent to that of the martyrs. But the analogy can be carried too
far, at significant cost to our understanding of the religious violence of
this age. Monks were at the forefront of many of the most celebrated
incidents, and the anguished cries of their pagan victims have fixed in
the academic psyche the image of a swarming black-robed tribe, who
eat more than elephants, men in appearance [who] led the lives of
swine, and openly did and allowed countless unspeakable crimes.15 By
elision, the damage done by monks and the high regard of contemporary Christians for ascetic self-sacrifice become conflated, implying that
the violence was as much responsible as the self-sacrifice for the esteem
in which ascetics were held. To the contrary, there is significant evidence of a backlash against monastic violence by the end of the fourth
century, of which the fate of Thaumasius is but a single example.
Another is an anonymous dialogue published about the same time that
included an entire chapter devoted to the question, Why Monks Are
Held in Contempt by So Many.16
Indeed, it might well be said that the reverence paid to monastics
was not because of, but in spite of, the violence they sometimes
caused. Despite Ambroses resort to this gambit, for much of the
fourth century and beyond, martyrdom that was won through the performance of violent deeds did not go uncontested. Sometime in that
centuryprobably earlier than latera council of Spanish bishops
13Cumque satis clareat neminem posse beatitudines martyris eo genere conquirere quod alienum
a ueritate religionis et incongruum esse uideatur, eos quos contra fas et religionem ipsam
recognuero... sine ulla dubitatione insaniae suae obstinationisque temerariae faciam mrita exitia
persoluere. Ep. ad Celsuma RJe 4L7R piHfkHia pa pinkpioDy KLe bJ8LJ piifs pimDe
pmhRRa Re2ea :xKLK(a CxxZ i LJ p, 7 4L7R piHfkiD LJ BL5R ,,oDe
pnAP ]M/Lq5kPMRJ K7MRa RR -7ML7(a Oration t,eH pro templisDa KLe EPOL piffDs p,fk
p,Hy jP ]87Ra b(Lx7(a KLe W72VK pi ps m tDe : -7ML7( /L2(L2Ra RR h72P7qV ,,fs
Hiki,De SV7K7L )7P/RqR 7 KVR qRKRx7RqR Pj 4Lq4(//R piifDe
16Quae instituta monachorum; vel quare a multis odio habeantur. bJe AR7RKL2 LJ hKR7OL
piims te De uVRPJP7( V7OR/j LKKROxKRJ KP ML7V OP5 jPO SPKLK7Px/Rs CTh poetep
ti,Da Rq7JRJ /R KVL K8P ;RL /LKR (CTh poete De : LKKROxK 7 KV7 xR7PJ KP qPKP/
OP5a RR SLR ,, De AP KVR KRZKs 4POOR LJ 4R;R pio Dy b2e KLe dVL pin De
203
meeting in Elvira ruled that Christians who died in attacks on idol

temples should not be received as martyrs. They took this stand, the
bishops wrote, because such actions cannot be found in the Gospels,
nor were they ever undertaken by the Apostles.17 This canon of the
Council of Elvira stands as testimony to an irenic tradition in early
Christianity that held true belief could not be compelled, for the
simple reason that God could tell the difference between voluntary and
coerced worship.18
JULIAN AND MARTYRDOM

Ambroses threat of martyrdom for the bishop of Callinicum was a
clear departure from this position, not just because the attack on a
synagogue fell squarely outside the boundaries set by the bishops at
Elvira, but even more because the grounds for his claim to a martyrs
crown was refusal to pay restitution for property damage. Like
Ammoniuss rock-throwing, this act did not exactly amount to a confession of Christ, and Ambrose had to use some pretty fancy footwork to
dodge this point. Arguing that to benefit Christs enemies was tantamount to renouncing Christ, Ambrose sought to obfuscate the issue
with a glorious non-sequitur: If Julian did not avenge the Church
because he was an apostate, are you, emperor, going to avenge damage
done to a synagogue because you are a Christian?19
Ambroses use of the specter of Julian, the nephew of Constantine
who upon becoming emperor in 361 threw off his Christian upbringing
and announced the restoration of the old gods, points to an additional
reason why emperors like Valens and Theodosius were vulnerable to
such threats. The tortured centuries of Romes relationship with
Christianity prior to Constantine left Christian emperors with an
especially heavy burden to carry whenever they used the coercive
pfSLe o,s h7 quis idola fregerit et ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in Evangelio scriptum non est
eque invenitur sub Apostolis unquam factum , placuit in numero eum non redpi martyrum. bJe
0P5R pinmDs pHe uVR JLKR Pj KVR qP(q7/ VL MRR x/LqRJ 7 )L7P( ;RL Pj KVR RL/; jP(KV
qRK(;a M(K 4R72R pifnD L2(R KVLK KVR qLP L 8R VL)R KVRO LR L qPOx7/LK7P Pj )L7P(
qP(q7/ VR/J 7 b/)7L J(72 K7MR qP(R Pj KVLK qRK(;e
pHC PMR)RJ M; lP8 piopDe hRR uRK(//7La Ad Scapulam e s Sed nec religionis est cogere
religionem, quae sponte suscipi debeat, non ui, cum et hostiae ab animo libenti expostulentur, LJ
qje -LqKLK7(a Divine Institutes, ne ,e 9LOR; piHmD VL 7JRK7j7RJ uRK(//7L L2(ORK L KVR
j7K 7KLqR Pj KP/RLK7P LRKRJ L L x7q7x/R 7KRLJ Pj L RZxRJ7RKe AP L OPR 5RxK7qL/
RLJ72a RR hKRRKR ,,os ik npDy RR L/P hKP(OL piiHDe : -LqKLK7(a RR B72RR ,,,De
4PR 2RRL//;a A7R/J piiHDe
pibxe f, m,De py Si Iulianus non est ultus ecclesiam quia praevaricator esta tu, imperator,
ulcisceris synagogue inuriam quia Christianus es?
204
mechanisms of the state against members of their own faith. The

problem was this: because emperors had created martyrs in those early
centuries, every emperor embodied at least the potential of being a persecutor, a maker of martyrs.20 Undoubtedly, what made Valens rethink
his plan to visit the church in Edessa was the likelihood that any casualties from a confrontation would be venerated as martyrs. Although they
resisted it, Christian emperors found themselves more, rather than less,
vulnerable to the charge of being persecutors.
Ironically, Julian himself was too shrewd to play the persecutor.
Instead, through a flamboyant revival of blood sacrificesanathema to
Christiansand a diversion of state resources from bishops to priests in
a new hierarchy he created for traditional religion, Julian sought to
marginalize Christians and remove the incentives that drove elites to
convert. Julians Christian upbringing stood him in good stead as he
cast about for wedges that would weaken the faith he had come to
despise and also isolate it from mainstream culture. The historian
Ammianus tells us, for instance, that Julians decision to restore dissident clergy exiled by his predecessor was not governed by principle so
much as by his certainty that as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as
he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to
mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one
another.21
Ammianus might have been projecting his own conclusions onto
the emperor in this instance, but Julian showed a shrewd understanding
of Christian weaknesses and how to exploit them in more ways than
one. By the simple act of banning Christian rhetoricians, for instance,
he threatened not only the livelihood of Christian teachers but also
Christian access to the training that was the sine qua non of a successful
career in that elite world, even more than a law degree or MBA has
become in ours.22 In a surviving letter, Julian explains his position:
Christians should not be allowed to teach the classics, he writes,
] C PMR)RJ M; h72P7qV ,,fsioDs ]W7KV7 KV7 R)P/)72 SV7K7L J7qP(Reee KVR ROxRP[
R)R L SV7K7L ROxRP[8L L/8L; L/RLJ; L xRRq(KP Sje 9LJJ7 ,,ns p,,Ds ]8R OL; 8R//
qPJ(JR KVLK KVR SV7K7L 2P)RORK. R/(qKLqR KP ROx/P; KVR 8PJ 7 xRq7j7qL//; R/727P(
OLKKR R(/KRJ jPO L qPq7P( JR7R KP L)P7J OL572 OLK; Pj jR//P8 SV7K7L 7 L OLR
KVLK O72VK xP)P5R qPOxL7P KP KVR xL2L xRRq(K7Per
21 Quod agebat ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentiaa non timeret unanimantem postea
plebem, nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum expertus.
COO7L( enema KLe @P/jR pif apps , k ,tDe
COO7L( ep,ef LJ neme ,e : KVR 7OxPKLqR Pj KV7 KL772a RR 6LKR piHHDa lP8
pii Da lP8OL LJ WPP/j piimDa LJ 9/RLP piinDe
205
because they do not believe in the gods who populate these works.23
Julian says nothing about Christian students, but it would be disingenuous to minimize the impact of his law for this reason. Julians law effectively reclassified a body of literature that had always been regarded as
part of a common cultural inheritance as pagan equivalents of
Christian scripture. In doing so, he strengthened the hand of those
Christians who also believed contact with these classics should be
avoided, thereby making higher status Christians doubly vulnerable.
Julian knew exactly what he was doing. With a thorough command of
Christian scripture, he taunted the Galileans (as he insisted on calling
them) as hypocrites for coveting wealth, prestige, and power in violation
of their masters teachings.24
Inadvertently, Julian contributed to a significant re-definition of
the criteria for martyrdom that emerged in the second half of the
fourth century. His aggressive efforts to restore the traditional religions of the empire and isolate Christians in a political and cultural
backwater prompted a period of introspection and reflection that was
worked out in the language of martyrdom and persecution.25 By
steering clear of persecution, Julian put Christians in a bind.
From Nero onward, emperors hostile to their faith had always
used the stick of persecution in their attempts to force conformity,
thereby creating the martyrs whose unwavering fidelity inspired
their less heroic brethren. Discursively, Christians had developed
an elaborate repertoire to deal with such attacks, but they lacked
the tools to deal with a hostile emperor who used carrots instead
tbxe toa RJe KLe W72VK pi tapppsppokp tDe uVR /RKKR VL PjKR MRR /75RJ KP L ()7)72
/L8 RNP772 O(7q7xL/ qP(q7/ KP q(K77R KVR qVLLqKR Pj KRLqVR SuV ptetenDe l(K KVLK
qPRqK7P 7 JP(MKj(/e hRR lLqV7qV piitD LJ 4LKKVR8 ,,,s fmk ffDe Sje WLKK ,,os f,De
hRR j(KVR 3LJ; piHoD LJ -7OMR7 ,,,De : 0(/7L 2RRL//;a KVR q/L7q 8P5 ROL7 l7JR
pit,De hRR L/P CKVLL7LJ7kAP8JR piHpDy hO7KV piinDe
mhRRa Re2ea ]C2L7K KVR 9L/7/RL ,oCa KLe W72VK pi ts 111a tffDs 0R( LJ dL(/ ]R)R
R)R VPxRJ KVLK ;P( 8P(/J PR JL; LKKL7 KP (qV xP8R L ;P( VL)Ry jP KVR; 8RR qPKRK 7j KVR;
qP(/J JR/(JR OL7JR)LK LJ /L)Re e
iSa KLe W72VK pi ts 111a tHnDs ]1j KVR RLJ72 Pj
;P( P8 q7xK(R 7 (jj7q7RK jP ;P(a 8V; JP ;P( 7MM/R LK KVR /RL72 Pj KVR 3R//RRU C
4L5( pii,s t,Da PKRJa KVR J7)7JR PxRRJ M; 0(/7L ]OLJR 7K VLJR jP SV7K7L KP
LxxPx7LKR KVR q(/K(R 8V7qV qLOR KP MR RR L KVR xRR)R Pj xL2L R/727Pe Sje 9LOR;
piHms ,Ds ]cK7/ KVR R72 Pj 0(/7L xRLqRj(/ qPOxRK7K7P 87KV xL2L7O VLJ RRORJ L 8772
KLKR2;a LJ N(K7j7LM/;s 87KV KVR L(KVP7K; LJ j7Lq7L/ RP(qR Pj KVR ROxRP MRV7J KVR
SV7K7La KVR qPKRK VLJ MRR (RF(L/e
nSje 9LJJ7 ,,ns f,Ds ]B7qP(R Pj OLK;JPO LJ xRRq(K7P jPORJ KVR ;OMP/7q
/L2(L2R KVP(2V 8V7qV SV7K7L RxRRKRJa N(K7j7RJa P JRP(qRJ KVR (R Pj )7P/RqRe uVR
2RRLK7P KVLK jP//P8RJ 0(/7L PqR 8L qR/RMLKRJ L L xR7PJ Pj ]xL2L R)7)L/a M(K 7 P8 OPR
Lqq(LKR/; RR L PR 7 8V7qV KVR /7R MRK8RR xL2L LJ SV7K7La LJ MRK8RR SV7K7L7K;
LJ q/L7qL/ q(/K(R OPR 2RRL//;a VLJRRJe hRR 4L5( pii,s iD LJ lP8 piins mfDy jP
KVR RL/7R )7R8a l/PqV piotDe
206
of sticks.26 After Julians death, Bishop Gregory Nazianzen vented his

frustration with these tactics in his Fourth Oration, an invective
against the deceased emperor.27 The oration is often cited for its eloquent defense of a Christian right to the classical heritage. More pertinent here is Gregorys complaint that Julian begrudged the honour
of martyrdom to our combatants.28 Although Gregory insinuated
that Julian really did use compulsion, he was forced to admit that the
emperor managed not [to] seem to do so, that we might suffer, and
yet not gain honour as though suffering for Christs sake.29 With
wealth and privilege as the lures, Christians could only show their
resistance by self-denial, a practice that, virtuous as it was, did not
reach the established standard for martyrdom.
CHRISTIAN SELF-DEFINITION
Christians responded to Julians tactics by rethinking their vocabulary, broadening the definition of persecution in a way that allowed
them to brand even non-coercive measures such as Julians with the
mark of persecution. The change is illustrated by the historian Socrates,
who explained that even though Julian had not, like Diocletian, tried to
force Christians to worship the old gods, he was still a persecutor,
because I regard any attempt to disturb the peace [tarattein tous hesuchazontos] of those who have placed their hope in Jesus Christ as persecution (HE 3.12). But this more flexible definition of persecution was
itself the result of a much more consequential rethinking of what it
meant to be a Christian. The change shows itself in the way Gregory
handled the problem of Christians who had responded positively to
Julians overtures. In his invective, Gregory aimed to construct the
opposition to Julian in such a way as to show that Christians were not
his only victims. Hence he began by extending an olive branch to heretics (ch. 9) and even to non-Christian monotheists (ch. 8). Given this
agenda, it comes as a surprise to find Gregory firmly closing the door
to one group: Christian backsliders.
oAP L SV7K7L )7R8 Pj xRRq(K72 ROxRPa RR -LqKLK7(a ]: KVR BRLKV Pj KVR
dRRq(KP (De mortibus persecutorumDa 87KKR 7 KVR RL/; ;RL Pj SPKLK7R R72s RJe LJ
KLe SRRJ piHmDe 1 2RRL/ KROa 0(/7L L22R7)R xP2LO KP J7RKLM/7V SV7K7L7K; PK
ORR/; jPO 2P)RORK M(K R)R OPR jPO R/7KR q(/K(R VLJ KVR RjjRqK Pj 27)72 qRJ7M7/7K; KP KVR
xLLP7J L/LO Pj SV7K7L O7/7KLKe hRR BL5R piioDe 4PR 2RRL//;a dRR//L piitDe
f472R pHnfDa d9 tnsnt kommy KLe 672 pHHHDe hRR j(KVR b/O ,,pa ,,tDe : KVR
J7qP(R Pj OLK;JPOa RR SLKR//7 ,,mDa 9LJJ7 ,,nDa LJ 972 ,,nDe
H:e menHe 472R pHnfDa d9 tnsnHps tes ton marturon times efthonei tois athletais. uLe 672
pHHHs ttDe
i:e menHe 472R pHnfDa d9 tnsnHpy KLe 672 pHHHs ttDe
207
One party, one kind of souls, do I exdude from the festive assembly
[Gregory proclaimed], though I groan and am pained, and grieved for
them These be they who having come unto the Word superficially,
and through not having depth of earth, forthwith springing up and
peeping forth, upon a brief assault of the Evil One, and a slight blast
of persecution, have withered up and died away.30
Gregory was talking about Christians who succumbed to Julians temptations. Christians who broke under pressurethe lapsihad been a
problem in previous persecutions, but the rigors of those trials were
understood, and provision made for eventual reintegration into the
community, even if only on ones deathbed. Gregorys rejection of such
a possibility stands in stark contrast to this previous position. He is very
clear about the reason: it was because these lapsed Christians had suecumbed to a different kind of pressure. [F]or the sake of temporary
gain, he explained, or court favour, or brief power, these wretched
fellows bartered away their own salvation.31
It is not difficult to imagine the class from which these particular
Christians came: ambitious local elites carving out careers in the burgeoning imperial bureaucracy for themselves and their children by
securing a top-notch education in the great law schools of Rome or
Beirut, the selfsame elites who had found conversion politically advantageous in the decades following Constantine, and whom Julian targeted
with his strategy of isolating Christians educationally and culturally.
Although Christian grumbling about these opportunistic parvenus can
be heard as early as Constantines last years, there is no indication that
they were particularly discriminated against prior to Julian. In fact,
Robert Markus concluded that prior to Julian a comfortable modus
vivendi had developed between elite Christians and traditional classical
culture (Markus 1974: 4, cf. Swain 2004: 361).32 Yet as part of the
intense reflection and re-evaluation that followed Julian, these fair
weather Christians came to be regarded as a scandal. Hence Socrates,
describing how Julian induced many to sacrifice, partly by flatteries,
and partly by gifts, concludes, Immediately, as if [tested] in a furnace,
t,:e meppe d9 tnsnmpa KLe 672 pHHHDs fe

p:e meppe d9 tnsnmpa KLe 672 pHHHDs fe
t 1 V7 Life of Constantine wSDa x(M/7VRJ VPK/; LjKR KVLK ROxRP JRLKV 7 ttfa l7VPx
b(RM7( Pj SLRLRL RZxRRJ qPqR P)R KVR](xRL5LM/R JRqR7K P KVRxLKPj KVPR 8VP
/7xxRJ 7KP KVR SV(qV LJ LJPxKRJ KVR jL/RjLLJR Pj KVRSV7K7LLORe b(ea wS menme a
KLe SLORP LJ 3L// piiis pfmDe -LKR 7 KVR qRK(;a C(2(K7R Pj 37xxP M/LORJ /LZ VLM7K
Pj V7 P8 JL; P 7J(/2RqR VP8 J(72 SPKLK7R R72s Ser. ti a J7q(RJ 7 lP8
piins tk mDe
208
those who were Christians in fact and those in name only became
apparent to everyone. . . (H.E. 3.13).
Thus, Julians effect was not only to expand the definition of persecution and to polarize Christians and pagans, but also to polarize Christians
themselves. By creating an environment in which aggressive and defiant
Christians now shaped the definition between real and nominal
members of the faith, his policies were at least partially responsible for
aligning the definition of Christianity more closely to militant behavior.33
This narrowed range of behaviors that could be accepted as truly
Christian has hampered our understanding of the momentous changes
that took place in the earlier part of the fourth century right down to the
present day, as evidenced by an obsessive need to separate real Christians
from semi, demi, or hemi-Christians (Armstrong 1984; Bonner 1984) and
the long and utterly superfluous debate over Constantines sincerity. That
debate was fueled almost entirely by the premise that real Christians were
intolerant: since there is abundant evidence that Constantine refused to
coerce others to convert, decriersof whom Jacob Burckhardt is perhaps
still the best known and most influentialargued that Constantines conversion was only meant to serve his political ambitions (Burckhardt 1880).
Conversely, supporters have had to find grounds to dismiss these signs as
illusory, leading to contortions that would make a yoga master proud.
Timothy Barnes, for instance, has refused to accept Constantines Edict to
the Provincials as an edict of tolerationdespite phrases such as Let those
who delight in error alike with those who believe partake in the advantages
of peace and quiet and [let all] those who wish to keep themselves away
have their temples of falsehood (VC 2.56.1)on the grounds that,
since Constantine does not mention animal sacrifice he must have banned
it, proving his intolerance, and thereby his sincerity.34 Yet, as Peter
Brown once observed, Nothing, indeed, would have been more distressing
to a member of the late Roman upper classes than the suggestion that
pagan and Christian were designations of overriding importance in their
style of life and in their choice of friends and allies.35
ttqjea 9LJJ7 ,,ns i Ds 0(/7L ](JRRK7OLKRJ KVR xP7M7/7K7R 7VRRK 7 SV7K7L OPJR/ Pj
OLK;JPO
1j 0(/7L qP(/J xLqK7qR L J7jjRRK 57J Pj xRRq(K7Pa KVR SV7K7L 8P(/J
RxPJ 87KV L J7jjRRK 57J Pj OLK;JPOe
lLR piHps p,Da RxRLKRJ lLR piHos miDe : KVR OLKKR Pj Lq7j7qRa RR lLJM(;
piimDa b72KP piHHDa LJ PKR m LMP)Re SPKLK7R RJ7qK 7 7 b(RM7(a De vita Constantini
emHk eo,a KLe SLORP LJ 3L// piiis pppkppmDe uVR xVLR F(PKRJ LR LK wS enoep O;
KL/LK7PDe
tnlP8 piins mfDe Sjea EPL lRRJ 7 lRRJ7qK RK L/e ,,fs pmtnDs ]uVR SV7K7L 7JRK7K; Pj
OL; RL/7R xRPx/R VL PjKR MRR qL//RJ 7KP F(RK7P M; OPJR SV7K7L 8VPR q7KR7L LR P
J7jjRRKe e e AP KVR JRMLKR P)R SPKLK7R. ]7qR7K;a RR PKR m LMP)Re
209
As part of this process, the role of the martyr as essentially a passive

sufferer for the name of Christ expanded to indude more aggressive warriors who took the battle to the enemy, and it made Christians who suffered at imperial hands candidates for martyrdom even if their punishment
was due to civil rather than religious disobedience.36 The more aggressive
attitude toward martyrdom that evinces itself in Ambroses rhetoric
appears to be part of this broader trend. To bolster his assertion that
Theodosius would make a martyr of the bishop of Callinicum, Ambrose
specifically cited the example of a martyr in the time of Julian,... who
overturned an altar and disturbed a sacrifice, [and] was condemned to
death by a judge He might as easily have cited the fate of Bishop
Mark of Arethusa in Syria, who under Julian had refused to make
restitution for a pagan temple he had destroyed, rejecting all efforts at compromise, and whose suffering in captivity was hailed as a martyrdom.37
RELIGION AND POLITICS: CHURCH AND STATE

To this point, I have used martyrdom symbolically as a means to
uncover the political dynamics of the period. Changes in the way
Christians defined and promoted martyrs exposed some of the broader
changes that were taking place in the new Christian empire; the fact
that, despite occasional missteps such as Cyril of Alexandrias efforts to
canonize Thaumasius, bishops proved to be far more successful than
emperors as arbiters of a potential martyrs fate goes a long way toward
explaining why Roman officials either sanctioned or turned a blind eye
to acts of religious violence.38 But Ambrose had more arrows than a
potential martyrdom in his quiver. After dangling the specter of
unwanted martyrs before Theodosius, he also warned the emperor that
punishing Callinicums bishop could provoke civic unrest. For it is
normal for bishops to restrain crowds and to be lovers of peace, he
wrote, adding archly, except when they are themselves roused by some
wrong done to God, or by an insult to the Church.39
to9LJJ7 ,,ns pHpD VL KLqRJ L R8/; L22R7)R (JRKLJ72 Pj KVR OLK; P/R KVLK MR2L
KP LxxRL 7 KV7 xR7PJ 7 ROP LJ OLK; LqK KVLK qR/RMLKRJ KVRR VRPR PK P/; jP
JRj7LqR Pj 7OxR7L/ L(KVP7K; M(K L/P jP KVR RL/ 87KV 8V7qV KVR; KPP5 KVR MLKK/R KP KVR RRO;e
972 ,,nD RLqVR L 7O7/L qPq/(7Pe 0PRj -'/ ,,nD J7q(R KVR 8L; qPj/7qK P)R KVR P/R
Pj LqRK7q7O 7 KV7 LOR xR7PJ LjjRqKRJ qPqRxK Pj OLK;JPOe
tfCOMPRa bxe fm m,Depfa 7 gR/R piH De AP l7VPx 4L5a RR hPPORa 3b nep, LJ
9LJJ7 ,,ns imDe
tHC 3PP ,,ms p tD PMR)Ra ]SV7K7L ROxRP 8RR (MNRqK KP L RK Pj LqK7P 7 KVR
RZK 8P/J KVLK O72VK 27)R KVRO xL(R 7 KV7e
tibxe fm m,Deoa 7 gR/R piH Ds sacerdotes ettim turbarum moderatores sunt, studiosi pacts, nisi
cum et ipsi moventur injuria dei, aut ecclesiae contumelia.
210
This was no idle threat. Only a few years earlier, Ambrose himself
had demonstrated the control a bishop could exercise over his congregation. In 385, the empress Justina wanted to allocate one of Milans
churches to Arian Christians in her government and military. Ambrose
opposed her vigorously, leading to a tense, year-long standoff that came
to a head in the subsequent Easter season, when Ambroses flock occupied the Portian basilica to prevent the court from using it, then held
out for days against a military blockade.40 Although Ambroses fingerprints were all over this direct challenge to imperial authority, the court
lacked the means, or the will, to prosecute him, and the basilica thereby
remained safely in orthodox hands. The mastery of his congregation
that Ambrose displayed in this confrontation is the unwritten part of
his challenge to Theodosius two years later over the synagogue at
Callinicum. That confrontation, in turn, reveals a major difference
between bishops and the traditional power elites with which emperors
were accustomed to deal. Whereas the civic elite were completely
enmeshed in a network held together by the imperial center, the bishopric had developed independent of, and frequently in opposition to,
that structure. In all probability, Constantine did not grasp the significance of this difference when both faith and purpose led him to divert
resources to the clergy as an alternative infrastructure.42
Emperors were ultimately responsible for controlling these volatile
urban populations, and guaranteeing public order was the duty of the
emperor. For this reason, such situations were major tests of an emperors resolve, and even more of his skill: how he responded sent an
important signal about how much vigilantism he was willing to tolerate.
To relax it, as Theodosius did in the Callinicum case, sent disturbing
signals of an emperors willingness to tolerate breaches of public order
in the name of religion.
Realistically, an emperor had to tolerate quite a lot, for by modem
standards the arsenal he had at his disposal for such moments was alarmingly barren. Ordinarily, emperors relied on an elaborately constructed web of ceremony and local ties to keep the peace. When that
m,COMPR 27)R V7 )R7P Pj KVR R)RK 7 L /RKKR KP V7 7KRa Ep. fo ,Da 7 gR/R piH De
4q-; piims pf,kpioD )7R8 KVR RqPJ 87KV L 27O/RK R;Re : KVR 7OxPKLqR Pj KVR dPK7L
ML7/7qLa RR SP/7V ,, De
mpuVR qPRqK7P MRK8RR R/7KR q(/K(R LJ xPx(/L qPKP/ VL MRR (OORJ (x (qq7qK/; M;
h8L7 ,,ms tnfDs ]T9IP(x qPVR7P 2(LLKRRJ xP8R P)R KVR OLRe uVR OLR xLK7q7xLKRJ
7 KVR LOR ;KROa LJ R/7KR xP8R JRxRJRJ P KV7 xLK7q7xLK7Pe : KVR P/R Pj KVR M7VPxa RR
SVLJ87q5 piH,Da lP8RPq5 piHoDa lP8 ,, Da LJ @Lxx ,,nDe AP8JR pifHD ROL7 L
7OxPKLK K(J;e
: xP7M/R LJO77KLK7)R OPK7)R jP SPKLK7R RJP8ORKa RR BL5R ,,,s qVLxe HDe
211
failed, the remaining option was to use urban paramilitary forces

police, in modem terminology. But these were ever scant, and appear to
have been reduced even further in Late Antiquity.43 His remaining coercive instrument was the army. But to deploy military force was both
clumsy and dangerous, as Theodosius found out in 390 at Thessalonika.
In that case, where thousands of civilians were put to the sword by
troops whose general they had lynched, over-reacting was worse than
doing nothing. Yet to do too little threatened to unravel the gossamer
bonds of civil order, which were easily broken. Emperors sat on the
horns of a dilemma: too much force turned them into rogue emperors,
unfit to govern by the rules of civilitas, too little simply invited
contempt.
The trick was to put up with these occasional breakdowns without
seeming to.45 What was needed was a strong indication of imperial
readiness to exact the harshest punishment, ultimately combined with
willingness to forbear in the face of true repentance. Antiochs Riot of
the Statues in 387 shows how such a situation could be managed with
the utmost finesse. Angered by imposition of yet another special tax,
the citizens of Antioch exploded in an orgy of destruction, getting so
carried away that they committed the ultimate act of defiance by defacing images of the emperor. These statues carried a heavy symbolic
charge, being venerated as the actual presence of the emperor himself.
To deface them committed the city to the path of rebellion.46 With
dawn came the awful realization of the extent of their actions and the
probable consequences. Antiochs elite fled the city, remembering,
Libanius tells us, how brutally Diocletian had punished their forebears
for failing to keep the peace.
What followed was an elaborately choreographed piece of theater
that played out over the course of several weeks. First an investigative
committee of high court officials arrived, heard pleas for mercy from
some of the citys renowned holy men, and imposed certain immediate
mtSLORP (1973: 237) PMR)R KVLKa L L qPRF(RqR Pj KV7 JRq/7Ra ]TOI7P J7K(MLqR Pj
KVR PK L RZxR7RqRJ LJ Rjj7q7RK qPx Pj /L8kRjPqRORK Pjj7qR qP(/J VL)R RKK/RJ 87KVP(K
J7jj7q(/K; O72VK O(VPPO 7KP L OLNP 7PK lLJM(; (1994) suggests KVLK OL; 7OxR7L/ /L8
8RR R)R ORLK KP MR RjPqRJa M(K 7Ox/; KP RK L KPRe
mmAP L q7K7qL/ J7q(7P Pj KVR P(qR jP KV7 R)RK LJ 7K 7Ox/7qLK7Pa RR 4q-; piims
tpnktt,De
mnlP8 pii s tnkf,D J7q(R KVR JR/7qLKR VLJ/72 (qV 7K(LK7P RF(7RJe
m&: KVR LqRJR Pj 7OxR7L/ KLK(Ra RR 4LqSPOLq5 piHps ofDa hO7KV piifDa LJ
b//72P ,,tDe 4PR 2RRL//;a E7ROR;R pioHDe : KVR 7PKa lP872 pin D ROL7 L P/7J
7KPJ(qK7Pe
mf-7ML7(a Or. piemna RJe LJ KLe EPOL piffs 11a iok ifDe : j/72VK jPO KVR q7K;a RR Or.
t 7 KVR LOR )P/(ORe
212
penalties that included closing the citys popular leisure sites (baths,
theaters, hippodrome) and suspending its metropolitan status, which
meant the loss of significant prestige and privilege. The commissioners
identified and arrested several ringleaders, then sent their report and
recommendations to the emperor. Simultaneously, Antiochs bishop,
Flavian, hastened to the capital to plead for mercy. While the city
waited for news of the decision on which its fate hung, Flavians lieutenant, the charismatic John Chrysostom, delivered a series of sermons
that alternately stoked and calmed their fears.48
The denouement was anti-climactic, Theodosius contenting himself
with the execution of the ringleaders. Still, the importance of such theatries as played out in Antioch must not be underestimated. After centuries of empire, theorists had long abandoned discussing the traditional
categories of political analysis (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) to
concentrate on the only form of government that still seemed viable,
monarchy.49 Accordingly, instead of debating the merits of different
kinds of rule, theorists now concentrated on the merits of the ruler,
whose virtues were analyzed with the same care formerly given to discussing the merits of the different kinds of governments. Accordingly,
an emperors most powerful asset was his prestige, bolstered by his
image as an all-powerful ruler capable of administering terrible
justice.50
This concentration on imperial character explains why prestige
became so overwhelmingly vital for emperors in Late Antiquity. Yet an
emperor put his prestige on the line every time there was a possibility
that an order he gave would not be obeyed. This was therefore an asset
best utilized from afar, through ties to local elites, who regularly burnished that image through a constant routine of rituals, ceremonies, and
mHSV;PKPOa Homilae XXI de Statuts ad populum Antiochenum habitae. 472R pHnfDa d9 mis
pnk e uLe hKRxVR pHHiDe
miC SLORP piips p iD PMR)Ra ]jP SV7K7L LJ xL2L L/75R 7 KVR jP(KVk LJ j7jKVk
qRK(; ROx7Ra 87K72 LMP(K 2P)RORK ORLK 87K72 LMP(K L ROxRPeee xP/7K7qL/ KVRP; 7
KVR qPKRZK Pj ROx7R RKL7/RJ xLR2;7qe C RZqRxK7P 7 L LP;OP( xP/7K7qL/ KLqK 87KKR
(JR 0(K77L 7 KVR 7ZKV qRK(;a 8V7qV L//(JR KP qPKROxPL; 7(R 7 KVR qP(R Pj L
LxxLRK/; LqVL772 J7q(7Py RJe 4L(qV7 ,, Da KLe lR// ,,is p tkpHHDe AP 7K
qPKROxPL; R/R)LqRa WV7KM; ,,oDe hRR j(KVR a4RLL ,, De C MRKKR qPKLK 7 87KV
4(/7O KVRP7Ka 8VP qPK7(RJ KP JRMLKR KVR KLJ7K7PL/ qLKR2P7Ra KVP(2V R)R VRR 7K 7 q/RL
KVLK KVR J7q(7P 8L RK7R/; LqLJRO7qe hRR hqV*K(Oxj ,,mD LJ SPR ,,mDe
n,uVR locus classicus jP J7q(7P Pj KVR KVRR KLKR 7 lPP5 H Pj d/LKP Republica RqVPRJ M;
V7 K(JRK C7KPK/R 7 Politicsy lPP5 me 1 KVR RqPJkqRK(; lSba KVR V7KP7L dP/;M7( 7 lPP5
o Pj The Histories OPJ7j7RJ KV7 OPJR/ M; xP7K72 KVLK KVR )L7P( K;xR (qqRRJRJ RLqV PKVR 7
L 7R)7KLM/R q;q/R Pj qPK7K(K7P KVLK VR KVR (RJ KP RZx/L7 @POR (qqR 7 qPF(R72
KVR RK7R 4RJ7KRLRLe hRR 7 2RRL/ )P A7K pinmD LJ dPJR piipDe : Lq7RK 572V7x
KVRP;a CL/JR pioiDa -LLJP ,,,Da LJ 6P/M ,,,De
213
panegyrics that exalted imperial charisma while simultaneously reinforcing their own status as its local intercessors and administrators.51 For
this reason, Chrysostoms homilies and Flavians intercession need to be
seen as twin parts of a single program, with Chrysostom stoking the
fires of repentance in Antioch while Flavian soothed tempers in
Constantinople.
As Ambroses taunt to Theodosius about his peace-keeping abilities
suggests, bishops had, over the course of the fourth century, emerged as
rivals to the civic elites as brokers of imperial power and prestige.
Theodosius clearly had to take into account this potential role the
bishop could play. Still, Ambroses efforts to muddy the waters by
asserting religious principles to sanction vandalism was a clumsy ploy
that any first-year law student, then or now, would have easily seen
through. Ambrose himself evidently did not think much of it, for he
went on to make a disclaimer. Perhaps, he conceded, Theodosius was
concerned about law and order. In that case, Ambrose asked, Which is
more important: a semblance of order or the cause of religion? His
own answer Civic duties [censura] must yield to sacred ones.52
This blithe assertion of the priority of the Churchs interests even in
the face of gross violation of basic civic rights seemingly confirms the
argument for Christian intolerance. But underlying Ambroses argument are certain continuities in ancient thinking about the role of the
state that the model of tolerant pagan-intolerant Christian obscures.
Because the modem state is based (at least theoretically) on the notion
of a social contract whereby individuals give up certain rights and privileges in return for privileges and protections provided by the larger
group, it is virtually impossible today to think of The State as anything other than a secular institution. The role of The Church today
is similarly circumscribed, limited primarily to preparation for an
npcJR SPKLK7Ra l7VPx b(RM7( Pj SLRLRLa KVR qR/RMLKRJ ]ALKVR Pj SV(qV 37KP;a
VP8RJ KVLK SV7K7L 8RR RLJ; KP x/L; KV7 2LOR 87KV L xLR2;7q jP KVR ROxRP uV7K7RKV
0(M7/RR 7 tto KVLK N(22/RJ KVR KLJ7K7PL/ 7OxR7L/ )7K(R[ML)R;a N(K7qRa q/RORq;a LJ x7RK;[
7 (qV L 8L; L KP ROxVL7R SPKLK7R x7RK; LJ xPNRqK KVR 7OL2R Pj L SV7K7L ROx7R 7
8V7qV KVR ROxRP (/RJ L L )77M/R OL7jRKLK7P Pj KVR h(xROR @(/Re hRR Laus Constantini
-SD qVLxe pkp,a RJe 3R75R/ pi, s pink ta KLe BL5R pifos Htkp, De uVR ROL772 qVLxKR
ppkpHD LR xLK Pj L RxLLKR LJJRe hRR BL5R pifos t,kmmDe lL;R pitmD 7 L 7OxPKLKa
KVP(2V P)RKLKRJa LxxRq7LK7P Pj KV7 PLK7P x/LqR 7 9RR5 LJ l;LK7R xP/7K7qL/ KVP(2VKe
hRR L/P 4LL)L/ ,,ps tokofDe : 7OxR7L/ )7K(Ra WLcLqRk3LJ7// piHpD LJ EPRL ,,pDe 1
2RRL/a SLORP piipD LJ -LLJP ,,,De
n bxe fm m,Depp 7 gR/R piH Ds Sed disciplinae te ratio, imperator, movet. Quid igitur est
amplius? disciplinae species an causa religionis? Cedat oportet censura devotioni. 4; KLe
-7RMRqV(RK LJ 37// ,,ns p,pD KL/LKR KVR j7L/ xVLR OPR q7q(OxRqK/;s ]hR)R7K; P(2VK KP
27)R 8L; KP JR)PK7Pe
214
afterlife. The two spheres can, and do, overlap, particularly on questions
of moral behavior, but in general today we define catastrophes such as
famine, fire, or flood as natural disasters rather than as signs of divine
intervention.53
The ancient state was founded on an entirely different set of premises:
that divinity did actively intervene in human affairs on a day-to-day basis,
that these interventions manifested themselves not just in the bounty of
crops but also in victory or defeat on the battlefield, and that it was the
primary duty of the leaders of the state to assure that such interventions
would be beneficial. When the gods were offended, they punished the
entire community, not just the perpetrators; it was therefore incumbent
upon civic leaders to maintain the goodwill of the gods. Under such circumstances, it is misleading to classify divine service as strictly a religious function, doubly so in the case of the Roman emperor, whose
offices since the time of Augustus, the first emperor, included that of pontifex maximus, head of the state religion. This worldview explains pagan
persecution of Christians far better than the one, preferred by Gibbon
and others, that Christians brought it upon themselves by their rigid
intolerance.54 Disaster was so regularly a cause of Christian persecution in
the second century that the apologist Tertullian could mock it in an
Apology addressed to the emperor If the Tiber floods, or if the Nile
doesn't, he observed in this famous passage; if there is a drought or an
earthquake, a famine or a plague, suddenly the cry goes up Christians to
the lion!55 These persecutions serve as a reminder not to read religious
conflicts in the ancient world through clearly defined categories of
Church and State, because in the ancient world these spheres were
deeply intertwined: the ancient state was also a religious institution, a
church. It is not at all clear that the conceptual categories needed to distinguish between Church and State even existed.
Constantines Vision of the Cross changed the deity, but did not
change the landscape. This continuity is best illustrated by comparing
the language of one of the most ardent of Christianitys persecutors
early in the fourth century with an edict issued more than a century
later by the Christian emperor Theodosius II, Against Jews,
ntAP L (qq7qK J7q(7P Pj KVR ]Rq(/L7LK7P KVRP; LJ 7K RjjRqK P OPJRO qPqRxK Pj
]x(M/7q x7)LKR R/727Pa RR SLLP)L piimD Rxe ppktiep LO 2LKRj(/ KP KVR JAARs R)7R8R jP
qL//72 KV7 8P5 KP O; LKKRK7Pe
nmhRRa Re2ea 97MMP pi,ikpma 11s HfDa ]l(K KVR x7qR LJ OL27KLKR Pj Lq7RK @POR 8RR
KL2R KP KVPR x7q7x/R 8V7qV 7x7RJ LJ L(KVP7RJ KVR 7j/RZ7M/R PMK7Lq; Pj KVR
SV7K7L 7 KVR qL(R Pj K(KVe,
nnCxP/e m,a RJe BR55R pinmDs Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva; si
caelum stetit, si terra movit; si fames, si luesa statim Christianos ad leonem!
215
Samaritans, Heretics, and Pagans. Just as the persecutor Maximin Daia

took it as self-evident that it is due to the kindly care of the gods that
the earth does not refuse the seed sown... [or] that the sea is not
swollen and raised on high by blasts of intemperate winds, and that
this care was jeopardized by Christian impiety, so Theodosius II complained that the embittered perfidy of the pagans had caused the
succession of the seasons [to] be changed, and the temper of the
heavens [to] be stirred to anger. To resolve the problem, he concluded,
the venerable majesty of the Supernal Divinity must be appeased.56 In
both cases, the riders assumed the regular intervention of a divine
force, and in both they took for granted their duty to placate that force.
This continuity with ancient thought puts Ambroses demand to give
priority to religion in a very different light. To modem ears, it is outrageous, one further proof of the effect of Christian intolerance. But it conformed to the logic of late Roman imperial ideology, which stressed above
all else the emperors pietas, which in to n insured the all-important
goodwill of a divine world that was directly involved in human affairs.
Christianity did not create this ideology; its outlines can be discerned in
the policies of the first emperor, Augustus. For a variety of reasons that
are not fully understood but that include a decline in the legitimating
authority of the Senate, the example of a resurgent and religiously unified
Persia, and an overall mood of heightened religiosity in the empire itself,
this divine tie started to be expressed with particular urgency no later
than the middle of the third century (Dodds 1965; MacMullen 1976;
Rives 1999; Drake 2000: 113-153). It is not mere coincidence that this is
also the period when Christians, for the first time, were subjected to
empire-wide persecution. The reasons for this change in imperial policy
are still debated, but two cornerstones of late Roman imperial ideology
seem highly likely components. The first of these was that the emperor
must demonstrate close ties to a divine comes or companion, the
second that successful execution of his office demanded unanimous recognition of these ties.57 As in so many other ways, Christianity is best
seen as responding to, rather than initiating, these changes.
This context also clarifies the reason for conflict between bishops and
emperors in Late Antiquity: it was not because Christians were asserting a
56pianda est supemi numinis veneranda maiestas. EP)e uVe teHa RJe 4POOR LJ 4R;R pio s
s fkppDa KLe dVL RK L/e pin s mi,De BL7L RJ7qK 7 RqPJRJ 7 b(ea 3b iefeHa KLe 4q97jjRK
pHi,s topDe
nfuVR q/L7q LK7q/R 7 EPq5 pimfDe : KVR 7OxPKLqR Pj qPR( 7 /LKR @POL xP/7K7qL/
KVP(2VKa RR -7O piinDe : qVL2R 7 7OxR7L/ R/727Pa 3LL piHtDa @7)R piiiDa LJ hR/72R
,,mDe
216
claim to the separation of Church and State, or that emperors were

intruding into territory where they did not belong. It was, rather, that for
the first time emperors had to share the privilege of access to the divine
with a class that had established its own, independent lines of communication with that very potent source. Moreover, in these early decades of
the Christian empire, the problem was not that bishops asserted an independent sphere of authority, but that all too often they were contesting
with emperors for control of the same sphere of authority. Ambroses
demand is part and parcel of this ancient conceptual landscape. Indeed,
his whole argument only makes sense in the context of the traditional
understanding of the State as a religious institution, wherein rulers have a
duty to maintain the goodwill of divinity. Far from advocating a separation of Church and State, he was, instead, merely arguing for a different
set of priorities. To use a domestic analogy, he did not want to remodel
the house; he simply wanted to rearrange the furniture.
What is palpably different in Ambroses demand that the emperor
give priority to religion over law was his assertion of the bishops right
to decide when God or Church had been offended. Arguably, to make
this case, the most effective club in Ambroses arsenal was neither the
prospect of martyrdom nor fear of mob action, but his tactical use of
space. His letter to Theodosius had succeeded in getting the emperor to
cancel the penalty that he had imposed on the bishop of Callinicum.
But his further pleas to have the entire case dropped evidently went
unheeded at court (McLynn 1994: 303). Only at Sunday mass did he
win the emperors attention. Using the Biblical confrontation between
King David and the prophet Nathan in his sermon, Ambrose insinuated
a similar role for himself with Theodosius. The emperor got the
message. As I descended, Ambrose wrote his sister, he [Theodosius]
said to me: You were talking about us.58 The setting is thus the most
likely reason Theodosius gave in to the bishop. Faced with an embarrassing disruption in the rhythm of the mass, where Ambrose was in
control, the emperor might well have decided that his consent was a
small thing that changed nothing: Callinicum, as Ambrose artfully
implied, simply was not worth the trouble. Still, the fact that the
emperor had put himself into a setting where he could be manipulated
nHCOMPR 2L)R L JRKL7/RJ LqqP(K Pj KVR R)RK 7 L /RKKR KP V7 7KRs Ep. extra coectionem p
D7 gR/R piH Ds Ubi descend ait mihis De nobis proposuist ]Nobis f eDmp 7 ((L//; KL/LKRJ
L L ]P;L/ 8R ];P( 8RR KL/572 LMP(K ORD M(K KVR xP7K Pj COMPR ROP KVLK uVRPJP7(
R)7JRK/; 2PK 8L V7 KR P KVR R/LK7PV7x MRK8RR BL)7J LJ ELKVLa which OL5R ](
OPR LxxPx7LKRe 1 LO 2LKRj(/ KP bO7/; C/M( jP KV7 (22RK7Pa
217
so easily speaks volumes about the changes that were taking place in
the ancient power structure.59
Underlying the freedom of speech that Ambrose exercised on this
occasion was a significant political shift. Under the Principate, senators
occasionally were able to assert such freedom because of the central
role their institution played in confirming imperial legitimacy. With the
legalization of Christianity, and more importantly, with the role
Christianity increasingly played in confirming the emperors legitimacy,
bishopsespecially bishops like Ambrose with Senatorial backgrounds
began to assert their own corporate interests. In this particular sense,
Christian bishops had co-opted both the legitimating role and the strong
corporate identity that had characterized the Senate under the
Principate.60 What this conflict shows, therefore, is that the new situation
created by Constantine was not that religion was more important in govemment affairs than it had been before, but that the emperor now shared
with bishops the responsibility for maintaining this crucial relationship
with divinity. Since jurisdiction over sacred matters was now being
shared, the approval of bishops became central to an emperors legitimacy. As bishops jockeyed for control of sacred office with emperors,
imaginative re-use of the concepts of martyrdom and persecution became
potent weapons. In this post-Constantinian world, religious violence is
best seen as part of a larger negotiation.
NATIONAL SECURITY
The failure of emperors to control the discourse of martyrdoiii,
combined with the power of bishops to label emperors as persecutors,
goes a long way toward explaining religious violence in Late Antiquity.
Thus, even though Julian took pains to avoid the mistakes of the persecutors, he ended up in their company when Gregory Nazianzen
reshaped the emperors hostility into persecution, while others reconfigured the criteria for martyrdom to include those aggressive acts
once condemned by bishops at the Council of Elvira. The result was a
powerful new tool bishops could use to bring recalcitrant officials to
ni: KV7 qVL2Ra RR P8 4q-; ,,ms f,Ds ]uVR qVL272 qRROP7L/ 7KRLqK7P MRK8RR
ROxRP LJ M7VPx O72VK 7JRRJ xP)R L 7OxPKLK jP L (JRKLJ72 Pj KV7 R/LK7PV7x
TMRK8RR }hKLKRr LJ }SV(qVrI L KVR OPR LP8/; xP/7K7qL/ P KVR OPR LMKLqK 7JRP/P27qL/a
KLNRqKP7R KVLK LR qVLKRJ 7 KVR KLJLJ LqqP(Kerr
z aV7 7 xPMLM/; KVR MRK ORL72 KP L72 KP SPKLK7R R72OLK7q LRK7P KP MR ]M7VPx
Pj KVPR P(K7JR (episkopos tn ektnD KVR SV(qV b(ea VC me mD[KVLK VR 8L qRLK72 jP
V7OR/j L xP7K7P KVLK 8P(/J L//P8 V7O KP j(qK7P L primus inter pares 7 KVR Rx7qPxLKRa N(K L
RL/7R ROxRP VLJ VLRJ 7 KVR qPxPLKR 7JRK7K; Pj KVR hRLKRe hRR BL5R ,,,s nk tpDe
218
heel. But as the Thaumasius incident showed, the bestowal of martyrdom still required the assent of a broader community, and aggressive
actions by themselves did not always convince that community that its
interests were being served. Officials could fend off the demands of
bishops whose aggressive instincts overstepped community bounds.
The value of thinking of the religious challenges of Late Antiquity as
threats to national security is that it helps isolate the role of intolerance
in this period. Intolerance is hardly a monopoly of Christianity, or any
other religion. Every community identifies behaviors that it believes
cannot and should not be tolerated, and this is especially true with regard
to behaviors that appear to threaten the security of that community.
Because religion plays a role in shaping community identity, religious
values frequently become the means of defining such boundaries. In this
sense, and in this sense only, can intolerance serve as a useful diagnostic
tool, albeit one that should not be limited just to Christianity, or to
monotheistic religions more generally. In every other sense, intolerance
impedes our ability to understand the process by which militants take
control of a community, because that process is basically social and political. At the start of this article, I cited Gibbon for the emphasis he gave to
Christian intolerance; now, near its end, it is time to cite his enduring
contribution to study of this issue, which was to insist that the study of
Christian success must be taken out of the hands of theologians. The
theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she
descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity, he wrote at the
start of chapter 15. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian.
He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which
she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings (Gibbon 1909-14, II: 15). Except that he is far too
eloquent, Gibbon for this view could be called the father of social science.
Intolerance is simply too slender a reed on which to hang our
understanding of the coercive turn Christianity took in the aftermath of
Constantines conversion. Rather than take such a development for
granted, as the intolerance model encourages us to do, it is better to
look for tools that can help us understand how militants gain control of
a community. By focusing on threats to national security, by which I
mean threats to core community values, we use a more flexible tool that
can also be applied to a broader range of situations.
A brief look at an incident in the history of Romes great eastern
rival might help clarify these points.
The Persian Shah Yazdgard I (399-420) proclaimed a toleration for
Persian Christians that lasted for most of his reign, until Bishop Abdas
of Susa was emboldened to provoke an attack on one of the fire temples
219
of the dominant Mazdaen faith. At first, all Yazdgard asked was restitution, but when Abdas refused, Yazdgard sent the bishop to the gallows
and ordered the destruction of his church. Christians in Persia never
again enjoyed the license they had been given by Yazdgard.61 The situation virtually shouts for comparison with Theodosiuss handling of the
destruction of the synagogue in Callinicum. Like the bishop of
Callinicum, Abdas engaged in an act of property damage, and in both
cases a bishop spumed a demand for restitution. But whereas
Theodosius backed down in the face of Ambroses threats, Yazdgards
response was swift and unequivocal. What accounts for the difference?
The motives of the perpetrators are not the issue: Abdas and the
unnamed bishop of Callinicum might have been intolerant or simply
foolish; in either case, they merely represent the violent elements that
are at large in any society. Instead, what matters in both cases is the
rulers response. In both cases that response was determined at least in
part by pressure from influential clergy. While their aims were different
Ambrose to defend, the Mazdaeans to punish the offenderboth sueceeded not because one ruler was more or less intolerant than the other
but because in each case the clergy spoke for a religious establishment
whose role in validating the rulers legitimacy could not be ignored.
While the bishop of Callinicum benefited from the institutional role of
his religion, Abdass role in confirming Yazdgards rule was negligible
compared with that played by the Mazdaean clergy.
The Persian example shows how broadening the study of religious
violence in Late Antiquity to include social and political issues can help
us understand both the violence itself and the role of intolerance in its
occurrence. It is useless to ask whether Theodosius was more or less
intolerant than Yazdgard. The difference is not that Theodosius was
intolerant, but that he was compromised. Like the Mazdaen clergy,
Christian bishops in Late Antiquity came to play an important role in
legitimating an emperors rule. It is true that emperors learned to
burnish their credentials with this constituency by taking, or allowing
others to take, aggressive action against perceived enemies: then as now,
it was easier to fend off militants by supporting their agenda than to
offer a reasoned alternative. But rather than simply accept these actions
as the inevitable result of intolerance, it is more useful to ask how
opuVRPJPRKa 3b netHa RJe hqVR7J8R7/R LJ dLORK7R pinmDe uVRR LR RLP KP JP(MK KV7
LqqP(Ke hRR wL @POxL; piinDe 4qBPP(2V ,,HLD RR KVR KP; L L ORL Pj RZPRLK72
GLJ2LJe AP GLJ2LJ R/LK7P 87KV SV7K7L q/R2; LJ (R Pj M7VPx 7 V7 LJO77KLK7Pa
RR 4qBPP(2V ,,oa ,,HMDe 9LJJ7 ,,ns pifk ,pD qP7JR KVR LOR Rx7PJR jP 8VLK 7K
R)RL/ LMP(K SV7K7L OLK;JPOe
220
militants were able to make such demands in the first place. The answer
is complex, but one part of it certainly resides in deep-seated Christian
anxieties about a return to persecution, revived in part by Julian, but
even more by the hardening of boundaries that followed in his wake.
More elastic definitions of martyrdom and persecution allowed militants
to seize control of a discourse that had previously been deployed in
support of freedom of worship and passive suffering.62
The situation was exacerbated by the novel powers of Christian
clergy, which clashed with the traditional prerogatives of Roman emperors. In the eastern empire, very strict protocols eventually were developed that clearly delineated the rights and obligations of both emperors
and bishops in a way that maintained the emperors charismatic authority in the Christian community and blunted episcopal pretensions.
But in the west the dissolution of imperial authority prevented such a
modus vivendi from being achieved until relatively recent times, and
then only by making a radical conceptual break with the premises of
the ancient state.63 In the interim, confusion about their relative roles
made it easier for bishops to conflate civic with religious disobedience
and correspondingly more difficult for Christian emperors to punish
civic crimes performed in the name of religion.
Although it sounds chillingly clinical to say so, the religious violence
of Late Antiquity is best understood as a means of working out these
new relationships. Until that happened, imperial legitimacy too easily
became hostage to extremist criteria.
REFERENCES
Aalders, G.
1969
Nomos empsuchos. In Politeia und Res

publica. Beitrge zum Verstndnis von Politik,
Recht und Staat in der Antike, der Andenken
Rudolf Starks gewidmet, Palingenesia, Monogr
u. Texte zur Klass. Altertumswiss, 4, ed.

P. Steinmetz, 315-329. Hamburg, Germany.
Ando, C.
1996
Pagan Apologetics and Christian Intolerance

in the Ages of Themistius and Augustine.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:171-207.
o AP L L2(ORK KVLK qP)RK MRK xPKRqKRJ KVROR/)R jPO (x7q7P M; JROLJ72

L22R7)R LqK7P L2L7K KVR7 jPOR )7R8a RR BL5R piiHDe
1P7qL//;a KVR jL7/(R KP LqV7R)R L modus vivendi /RJ 8RKR qVP/L KP /LMR/ KVR RLKR
;KRO Caesaropapism . AP L VR8J J7RqK7P Pj KV7 KROa RR BL2P ,,tDa Rxe qVLxe iy jP
KVR P/R Pj qRROP;a 7JROa qVLxe kt LJ 4qSPO7q5 piHnDe
221
Armstrong, A. H.
1984
The Way and the Ways: Religious Tolerance

and Intolerance in the Fourth Century A.D.
Vigiliae Christianae 38:1-17.
Athanassiadi, P. and
M. Frede, eds.
1999
Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford,
Athanassiadi-Fowden, P.
1981
Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography.
Banchich, T.
1993
Julians School Laws: Cod. Theod. 13.3.5 and

Ep. 42. Ancient World 24:5-14.
Barnes, T. D.
1981
Harvard University Press.
1986
UK: Oxford University Press.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA:
The Constantinian Reformation. The Crake

Lectures, 1984, 39-57. SackviUe, NB: Crake
Institute.
Barth, F.
1969
Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social

Organization of Culture Difference. Boston,
2000
Boundaries and Connections. In Signifying

Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on
Boundaries and Contested Values, ed. Anthony
MA: Beacon Press.
P. Cohen, 17-36. London, UK: Routledge.
Baynes, N. H.
1929
1934
Constantine the Great and the Christian

Church, Proceedings of the British Academy,
Vol. 15, 341-442. Issued separately in 1931.

2nd ed. London, 1972.
Eusebius and the Christian Empire. Annuaire
de Vlnstitut de Philologie et d Histoire Orientale
(Mlanges Bidez) 2:13-18.
Beard, M., J. North, and

S. Price
1998
Religions of Rome, 2 vols. Cambridge, UK:
Bell, P.
2009
Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian:

Agapetus, Advice to the Emperor, Dialogue on
Political Science; Paul the Silentiary, Description
of Hagia Sophia, Translated Texts for Historians,
Cambridge University Press.
52. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
222
Bellinger, C.
2004
Religion and Violence: A Bibliography. The

Hedgehog Review 6:111-119.
Benedict, P., et al.

2007
AHR Conversation: Religious Identities and

Violence. American Historical Review 112:
1433-1481.
Bidez, J.
1930
La vie de Julien. Paris, France: Les Belles
Bloch, H.
1963
The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the

Fourth Century. In The Conflict Between
Lettres.
Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century9
ed. A. D. Momigliano, 193-218. Oxford, UK:

Clarendon.
Bonner, G.
1984
The Extinction of Paganism and the Church

Historian. JEH 35:339-357.
Bowersock, G.
1986
From Emperor to Bishop: The Self-Conscious

Transformation of Political Power in the
Fourth Century A.D. Classical Philology 81:
298-307.
Bowman, A. and G. Woolf

1994
Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. In

Literacy and Power in the Ancient Worldy ed.
A. Bowman and G. Woolf, 1-16. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bradbury, S.
1994
Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan

Legislation in the Fourth Century. Classical
Philology 89:120-139.
Brown, P.
1961
Aspects of the Christianization of the

Roman Aristocracy. Journal of Roman Studies
51:1-11.
1963
Religious Coercion in the Later Roman

Empire: The Case of North Africa. History 48:
283-305.
1992
Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity:

Towards a Christian Empire. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.

1995
Authority and the Sacred. Aspects of the

Christianisation
of the Roman
World.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2002
223
Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman

Empire, The Menahem Stern Jerusalem
Lectures. Hanover, NH: University Press of

New England.
Browning, R.
1952
Burckhardt, J.
1880
Cameron, Alan
1973
The Riot of AD 387 in Antioch. Journal of

Roman Studies 42:13-20.
Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen. 2nd ed.
Leipzig, Germany: Seemann.
Porphyrius
the
Clarendon.
Charioteer.
Oxford,
UK:
Cameron, Av.
1991
Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The

Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley:
Av. Cameron and

S. G. Hall, trans.
1999
Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine.
Caner, D.
Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority

and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late
Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California
2002
University of California Press.

Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Press.
Casanova, Jos
1994
Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago,
Castelli, E.
2004
Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian

Culture Making. New York, NY: Columbia
IL: University of Chicago Press.
University Press.
Chadwick, H.
1980
The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient

Societyy Protocol of the Thirty-Fifth Colloquy:
25 February 1979, ed. E. C. Hobbs and

W. Wuellner. Berkeley, CA: Center for
Hermeneutical Studies.
Chesnut, G.
1986
Chuvin, P.
1990
Socrates Scholasticus, Origenism, Humanism,

and Cosmic Sympathy. Chap. 8 of The First
Christian Histories. 2nd ed. Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press.
Chronicle of the Last Pagans, trans.
B. A. Archer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
224
Colish, M.
2002
Why the Portiana? Reflections on the

Milanese Basilica Crisis of 386. Journal of
Early Christian Studies 10/3:361-372.
Creed, J. L., ed. and trans.

1984
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum. Oxford,
Crone, P.
2004
Al-Farabis Imperfect Constitutions. In The
Dagron, G.
2003
UK: Oxford University Press.

Greek Strand in Islamic Political Thought,
Proceedings of the Conference held at the
Institute for Advanced Study; Princeton, 16-27
June 2003, Mlanges de VUniversit SaintJoseph, ed. E. Gannag et al., Vol. 57, 190-228.
Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in
Byzantiumy trans. Jean Birrell. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. (Orig. pub. 1996

as Empereur et prtre: etude sur le ucesaropapismen byzantin. Paris, France: Gallimard.)
Davis, N. Z.
1973
The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in

Sixteenth-Century France. Past & Present, 59:
51-91.
Davis, J. B.
2006
Teaching Violence in the Schools of Rhetoric.

In Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and
PracticeSy ed. H. A. Drake, 197-204. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Dekkers, E.
1954
Tertullian, Apologeticum, Corpus Christianorum

Series Latina I, 77-171. Tumhout, Belgium:
Brepols.
Digeser, E.
The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius

and Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
2000
Dodds, E. R.
1965
Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety:

Some Aspects of Religious Experience from
Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge,

Drake, H. A., trans.
1976
In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and

New Translation of Eusebius* Tricennial
Orations. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
1996
Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian

Intolerance. Past & Present, 153:3-36.
225
1998
Firmicus Matemus and the Politics of

Conversion. In Qui Miscuit Utile Dulci:
Festschrift Essays for Paul Lachlan MacKendrick,
ed. G. Schmeling and J. Mikalson, 133-149.
Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.
2000
Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of

Intolerance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
2006
Eckstein, H.
1980
Measure Our Religion Against Yours:

Constantines Concept of Christianity in the
Oration to the Saints. Studia Patrstica 42:
107-112.
Explaining Collective Political Violence. In
Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and
Research, ed. T. R. Gurr, 135-166. New York.
Repr. in H. Eckstein, Regarding Politics. Essays
on Political Theory, Stability, and Change
(Berkeley, 1992), 304-340.

Edwards, M., trans.
1997
Optatus: Against the Donatists, Translated Texts

for Historians 27. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press.
Ellingson, G.
2003
Functions of Imperial Images in Tetrarchic

Politics. Symbolae Osloenses 78:30-44.
Elm, S.
Orthodoxy and the True Philosophical Life:

Julian and Gregory of Nazianzus. Studia
Patrstica 37:69-85.
2001
2003
Hellenism and Historiography: Gregory of

Nazianzus and Julian in Dialogue. Journal of
Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33:
493-515.
Errington, R. M.
1988
Constantine and the Pagans. GRBS 29:309-318.
Feiertag, J. L. and
W. Steinmann, ed. and
trans.
1994
Questions d'un Paen un Chrtien

(Consultationes Zacchaei christiani et Apollonii
philosophi). 2 vols. Sources chrtiennes, 401 and
402. Paris, France: ditions du Cerf.
226
Field, L., Jr.

1998
Liberty, Dominion, and the Two Swords: On the

Origins of Western Political Theology (180-398%
Fowden, G.
1978
Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman

Empire, A.D. 320-435. Journal of Theological
Studies, ser. 2, 29:53-78.
1991
Constantines Porphyry Column: The Earliest

Literary Allusion. Journal of Roman Studies
81:119-131.
Frakes, R. M. and
E. DePalma Digeser, eds.,
2006
Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Toronto,
Frankfurter, D.
2000
Things Unbefitting Christians: Violence and

Christianization in Fifth-Century Panopolis.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 8:273-295.
Frilingos, Chris
2009
It Moves Me to Wonder : Narrating Violence

and Religion under the Roman Empire.
Publications in Medieval Studies 28. Notre

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Canada: Edgar Kent.
77:825-852.
Gaddis, M.
2005
1There Is No Crime for Those Who Have

C hristR eligious Violence in the Christian
Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Galeotti, A.
2002
Toleration as Recognition. Cambridge, UK:

Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity. In
Garnsey, P.
1984
Persecution and Tolerationy Studies in Church
Gibbon, E.
1909-14
The History of the Decline and Fall of the

Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury. 1776-1788.
Gleason, M.
1995
Making Men: Sophists and Self-Preservation in

Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Grig, Lucy
2005
Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity. London,
History 21, ed. W. J. Shiels, 1-27. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.
7 vols. London, UK: Methuen. (Orig. pub.)
University Press.
UK: Duckworth.
227
Haas, C.
1983
Imperial Religious Policy and Valerians

Persecution of the Church. Church History 52:
133-144.
1997
Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and

Social Conflict Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hadas, M., trans.

1949
Hahn, J.
2004
The Age of Constantine the Great Berkeley:

Gewalt und religiser Konflikt: Studien zu den
Auseinandersetzungen
zwischen
Christen,
Heiden und Juden im Osten des Rmischen
Reiches (von Konstantin bis Theodosius II), Klio
Beihefte, NF 8. Berlin, Germany: Akademie

Verlag.
Hansen, G. C., ed.
1995
Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, NF 1.
Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.

Hardy, B. C.
1986
The Emperor Julian and His School Law.

Church History 37:131-143.
Heikel, I. A., ed.

1902
Tricennatsrede an Constantin. In Eusebius*

Werke, I, Die griechischen christlichen
Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Vol.
7, 195-223. Leipzig, Germany: J.C. Hinrichs.
Hill, G. F., trans.

1913
Mark the Deacon, The Life of Porphyry, Bishop

of Gaza. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Honor, T.
2004
Roman Law AD 200-400: from Cosmopolis to

Rechtstaat? In Approaching Late Antiquity:
The Transformation from Early to Late Empire,
ed. S. Swain and M. Edwards, 109-132. Oxford.

2009
Focus Unit: Sanctified Violence in History (An

Introduction). Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 77:823-824.
Jonkers, E. J., ed.

1954
Acta et symbola conciliorum quae saeculo

quarto habita sunt, Textus minores, 19. Leiden,
JAAR
The Netherlands: Brill.
Kahlos, M.
2009
Forbearance and Compulsion: The Rhetoric of

Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Late
Antiquity. London, UK: Duckworth.
228
Kaster, R.
1988
Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and

Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University
King, C. W., trans.

1888
Two Invectives Against Julian the Emperor.

In Julian the Emperor, 1-121. London, UK: G.
Bell and Sons.
Klein, R.
1972
Der Streit um den Victoriaaltar; die dritte

Relatio des Symmachus und die Briefe 17, 18
und 57 des Mailnder Bischofs Ambrosius.
of California Press.
Darmstadt,
Germany:
Buchgesellschaft.
Kolb, F.
1980
Wissenschaftliche
Der Bussakt von Mailand: Zum Verhltnis von

Staat und Kirche in der Sptantike. In
Geschichte und Gegenwart: Festschrift fur Karl
Dietrich Erdmann, ed. H. Boockmann,
K. Jurgensen, and G. Stoltenberg, 41-71.

Neumunster, Germany: Wachholtz.
2000
Herrscherideologie in der Sptantike. Berlin,
Germany.
Lassandro, D.
2000
Levinson, J.
2000
Sacratissimus Imperator. LHmmagine del princes

nelV oratoria tardoantica, Quademi di invigi-
lata Lucernis 8. Bari, Italy: Edipuglia.

Bodies and Bo(a)rders: Emerging Fictions of
Identity in Late
Antiquity.
Harvard
Theological Review 93:343-372.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G.
and C. Hill
2005
Ambrose of Milan: Political tetters and

Speeches, Translated Texts for Historians 43.
Lim, R.
1995
Public Disputation, Power and Social Order

in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of
Limberis, V.
Religion as the Cipher for Identity: The Cases

of Emperor Julian, Libanius, and Gregory
Nazianzus. Harvard Theological Review 93:
373-400.
2000
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
California Press.
Drake: Intolerance., Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy
Lssl, J.
2005
229
An Early Christian Identity Crisis Triggered

by Changes in the Discourse of Martyrdom:
The Controversy between Jerome of Strido and
Vigilantius of Calagurris. In More than a
Memory: The Discourse of Martyrdom and the
Construction of Christian Identity in the History
of Christianity, Annua nuntia Lovaniensis, ed.
J. Leemans and J. Mettepenningen, Vol. 5,

97-117. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
MacCormack, S.
1981
Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley:
MacMullen, R.
1976
Roman Government's Response to Crisis, A.D.

235-337. New Haven, CT: Yale University
1997
Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to

Eighth Centuries. New Haven, CT: Yale
Press.
University Press.
Maier, J.-L., ed.
1987-89
Optatus, Le dossier du Donatisme. 2 vols. TU
Maraval, P.
Eusbe de Csare, La theologie politique de

VEmpire chretien: louanges de Constantin
(Triakontaeterikos). Paris, France: Ed. du Cerf.
2001
Markus, R.
1974
Markus, R. A.
1990
Matthews, J.
2000
134-135. Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag.
Paganism, Christianity and the Latin Classics

in the Fourth Century. In Latin Literature of
the Fourth Century, ed. J. W. Binns, 1-21.
London, UK: Roudedge.
The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge,

Laying Down the Law: A Study of the
Theodosian Code. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Mazzuchi, C., ed. and

trans.
Menae patricii cum Thoma referendario de

scientia politico dialogus, Biblioteca erudita
2002
studi e documenti di storia e filologa 17.

Milan, Italy: Vita e pensiero.
McCormick, M.
1985
Analyzing Imperial Ceremonies. Jahrbuch der

sterreichischen Byzantinistik 35:1-20.
230
McDonough, S. J.
2006
A Question of Faith? Persecution and Political

Centralization in the Sasanian Empire of
Yazdgard II (438-457 C.E.). In Religious
Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and
Practices, ed. H. A. Drake, 69-81. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
2008a
A Second Constantine? The Sasanian

King Yazdgard in Christian History and
Historiography. Journal of Late Antiquity 1:
127-141.
2008b
Bishops or Bureaucrats?: Christian Clergy and

the State in the Middle Sasanian Period. In
Current Research in Sasanian Archaeology; Art
and History, BAR International Series 1810, ed.
D. Kennet and P. Luft, 87-92. Oxford, UK:

British Archaeological Reports.
McGiffert, A. C., trans.
1890
Eusebius: Church History. In A Select Library

of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Churchy ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, 2
ser., Vol. I, 81-387. New York, NY: Christian

Literature Co.
McLynn, N.
1994
Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a

Christian Capital Berkeley: University of
2004
The Transformation of Imperial Churchgoing

in the Fourth Century. In Approaching Late
California Press.
Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to

Late Empire, ed. S. Swain and M. Edwards,
235-270. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Meigne, M.
1975
Concile ou collection dElvire? Revus d*histoire cclesiastique 70:361-387.
Migne, J.-P.
1857
Patrologa cursus completus,
Paris, France: Parisiis.
Senes Graeca.
Momigliano, A. D., ed.,

1963
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity

in the Fourth Century. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Mommsen, Th. and

P. Meyer, eds.
1962
Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus

Sirmondianis
et
Leges
novellae
ad
Theodosianum pertinentes, Vol. 2, 7-11. 3rd ed.
Berlin, Germany: Wiedmann.
Niemeyer, H. G.
1968
Nock, A. D.
1947
Norena, C.
2001
Norman, A. F.
1977
231
Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der

rmischen Kaiser, Monumenta Artis Romanae,
7. Berlin, Germany: Gebr. Mann.

The Emperors Divine Comes Journal of
Roman Studies 37:102-116.
The Communication of the Emperors

Virtues. Journal of Roman Studies 91:146-168.
Libanius, Selected Works, 2 vols, Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.
ODonnell, J.
1977
Paganus. Classical Folia 31:163-169.
OMeara, D.
The Justinianic Dialogue on Political Science

and Its Neoplatonic Sources. In Byzantine
Philosophy and Its Ancient Sources, ed.
K. Ierodiakonou, 49-62. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon.
2002
Penella, R.
1993
Julian the Persecutor in Fifth Century Church

Historians. Ancient World 24:31-43.
Pettegree, A.
1996
The Politics of Toleration in the Free

Netherlands, 1572-1620. In Tolerance and
Intolerance in the European Reformation9 ed.
Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner, 182-198.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pharr, C., et al., trans.

1952
The Theodosian Code and Novels and the

Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton, NJ:
Pocock, J. G. A.
1999
Barbarism and Religion. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK:
Podes, S.
1991
Polybius and His Theory of Anacyclosis:

Problems of Not Just Political Theory. History
of Political Thought 12:577-587.
Ramsey, B.
1997
Paulinus, Life of Ambrose. Ambrose, 195-218.

London, UK: Routledge.
Rapp, C.
2005
Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of

Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition.
Princeton University Press.

Berkeley: University of California Press.
232
Rives, J.
1999
The Decree of Decius and the Religion

of Empire. Journal of Roman Studies 89:
135-154.
2005
Christian Expansion and Christian Ideology,

In The Spread of Christianity in the First Four
Centuries:
Essays
in
Explanation, ed.
C. V. Harris, 15-41. Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rolfe, J. C., trans.

1972
Ammianus Marcellinus. 3 vols. Loeb Classical
Ronsse, E.
2006
The Rhetoric of Martyrs: Listening to Saints

Perpetua and Felicitas. Journal of Early
Christian Studies 14:283-327.
Salzman, M.
The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social

and Religious Change in the Western Roman
Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
2002
Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.
Press.
2006
Rethinking Pagan-Christian Violence. In

Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and
Practices, ed. H. A. Drake, 265-285. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Sandwell, I.
2007
Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks,

Jews and Christians in Antioch. Cambridge,

Scheidweiler, F. and
L. Parmentier
1954
Theodorets Kirchengeschichte. 2nd ed. GCS 44

(19). Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.
Schtrumpf, E.
2004
Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human

Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice,
In The Greek Strand in Islamic Political
Thought, Proceedings of the Conference held
at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton,
16-27 June 2003, Mlanges de l'Universit
Saint-Joseph, ed. E. Gannag et al. Vol. 57,
13-36.
Selinger, R.
2004
The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius

and Valerian. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main,
Germany: Peter Lang.
233
Shafer, G.
2004
Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early

Christianity. In Violence in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam: The Destructive Power
of Religion, v. 3: Models and Cases of Violence
in Religion, ed. J. Harold Ellens, 193-246.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shaw, B. D.
1992
African Christianity: Disputes, Definitions,

and Donatists. In Orthodoxy and Heresy in
Religious Movements: Discipline and Dissent, ed.
M. R. Greenshields and T. A. Robinson, 4-34.
Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
2006
Bad Boys: Circumcellions and Fictive

Violence. In Violence in Late Antiquity:
Perceptions and Practices, ed. H. A. Drake,
179-196. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
2009
State Intervention and Holy Violence*:

Timgad/Paleostrovsk/Waco. Journal of the
American Academy of Religion 77:853-894.
Sizgorich, T.
2007
Not Easily Were Stones Joined by the

Strongest Bonds Pulled Asunder': Religious
Violence and Imperial Order in the Later
Roman World. Journal of Early Christian
Studies 15:75-101.
Smith, R.
1995
Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the

Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate.
Smith, R. R. R.
1997
The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait

Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early
Fourth Century. Journal of Roman Studies 87:
170-202.
Stephens, W. R. W., trans.

1889
Twenty One Homilies on the Statues. In A
New York, NY: Routledge.
Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

of the Christian Church, ed. P. Schaff, ser. 1,
Vol. 9, 317-489. New York, NY: T. & T. Clark.

Streeter, J.
2006
Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity and

Early Christianity. In G.E.M. de Ste. Croix,
Christian
Persecution,
Martyrdom ,
and
Orthodoxy, ed. M. Whitby and J. Streeter,
229-251. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
234
Stroumsa, G.
1998
2009
Tertullian on Idolatry and the Limits of

Tolerance, In Tolerance and Intolerance in Early
Judaism and Christianity, ed. G. N. Stanton and
-G. Stroumsa, 173-184. Cambridge, UK: Cam
.bridge University Press
The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations
,in Late Antiquityy trans. S. Emanuel. Chicago

.IL: University of Chicago Press
Swain, S.
2004
.Sophists and Emperors: The Case of Libanius

In Approaching Late Antiquity:
The
.Transformation from Early to Late Empire, ed
.S. Swain and M. Edwards, 354-400. Oxford
Urbainczyk, Theresa
1996
Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church

and State. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
.Press
Van Rompay, L.
1995
Impetuous Martyrs? The Situation of the

Persian Christians in the Last Years of
Yazdgard I )419-420(. In Martyrium in
Perspective,
Bibliotheca
Multidisciplinary
,Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
ed. M. Lamberights and P. van Deun, Vol. 117,
.Leuven, Belgium: Peeters .363-375
Von Fritz, K.
1954
The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in

Antiquity. New York, NY: Columbia University
Wallace-Hadrill, A.
1981
The Emperor and His Virtues. Historia 30:

298-323.
Watts, E.
2006
City and School in Late Antique Athens and

Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California
2010
Riot in Alexandria: Tradition and Group

Dynamics in Late Antique Pagan and Christian
Communities. Berkeley: University of California
.Press
.Press
.Press
Wessel, S.
2004
Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian

Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a
Heretic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
235
Wheelock, Arthur .,
et al.
1990
Anthony van Dyck. Washington, DC: National
Whitby, M.
2006
Factions, Bishops, Violence and Urban

Decline. In Die Stadt in der Sptantike
Niedergang oder Wandel Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in Mnchen am 30. und 31.
Mai 2003, Historia-Einzelschriften, ed. H.U. Krause and C. Witschel, Vol. 190, 441-461.
Wright, W. C., trans.

1921
Eunapius, Lives of Philosophers and Sophists.
Wright, W. C., trans.

1923
The Works of the Emperor Julian. 3 vols. Loeb

Classical Library. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Zelzer, M.
1982
Ep. extra coll 11 (51), Sancti Ambrosi Opera,
Gallery of Art.
Loeb Classical Library, v. 134. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.
10:3, CSEL 82.3. Vienna, Austria.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intolerance, Religious Violence,

and Political Legitimacy

This article proposes an alternative way to think about the violence

Ye e BL5Ra BRxLKORK Pj 37KP;a c7)R7K; Pj SL/7jP7La hLKL lLMLLa SC itp,okimp,a

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

AN ICONIC MOMENT IN THE history of Christianity in the West

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

taking shape in the aftermath of that reign, Callinicum encapsulates a

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

tolerant pagans in earlier centuries persecute intolerant Christians?

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

intervention of deity in human affairs that made it harder than it is

VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

But there is more that historians of antiquity can contribute. As the

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Theodosiuss willingness to bend to Ambroses will over Callinicum

MARTYRS AND VIOLENCE

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

p,hPqLKRa 3b mepHenkmepHeHa RJe 3LR piinDe AP L qPOxLLK7)R J7q(7P Pj (qV Rx7PJRa

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

urban mobs. But in his case, the unexpected happened. Overcoming

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

penalties of their madness and their reckless obstinacy.13 Constantine

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

meeting in Elvira ruled that Christians who died in attacks on idol

JULIAN AND MARTYRDOM

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

mechanisms of the state against members of their own faith. The

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

of sticks.26 After Julians death, Bishop Gregory Nazianzen vented his

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

t,:e meppe d9 tnsnmpa KLe 672 pHHHDs fe

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

As part of this process, the role of the martyr as essentially a passive

RELIGION AND POLITICS: CHURCH AND STATE

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

failed, the remaining option was to use urban paramilitary forces

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Samaritans, Heretics, and Pagans. Just as the persecutor Maximin Daia

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

claim to the separation of Church and State, or that emperors were

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Nomos empsuchos. In Politeia und Res

u. Texte zur Klass. Altertumswiss, 4, ed.

Pagan Apologetics and Christian Intolerance

o AP L L2(ORK KVLK qP)RK MRK xPKRqKRJ KVROR/)R jPO (x7q7P M; JROLJ72

Drake: Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy

The Way and the Ways: Religious Tolerance

Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford,

Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography.

Julians School Laws: Cod. Theod. 13.3.5 and

Harvard University Press.

UK: Oxford University Press.