Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:33:34.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Peter Garnsey
Peter Garnsey*
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Toleration Implies disapproval or disagreement coupled with an unwillingness to take action against those who are viewed with disfavour in the interest of some moral or political principle. It is an active concept, not to be confused with indifference, apathy or passive acquiescence. In this paper I reexamine, in the light of this strong definition of toleration, the contrast commonly drawn for the world of classical antiquity between a tolerant paganism and an intolerant Christianity. Toleration implies a degree of acceptance as well as a degree of disapproval. In evaluating the attitudes of pagans to other pagans in antiquity we must satisfy ourselves, first, that ancient polytheistic systems were as open and inclusive as is often assumed, and second, that where mutual acceptance might be said to have prevailed, this was not merely casual acceptance, but entailed compromise between competing gods and rituals. Again where religions can be seen to have been seriously at variance with each other, as were the sundry pagan cults with Judaism and Christianity, where therefore toleration was at least in principle a possible option, we must ask how far pagan authorities and (in so far as this can be discerned) ordinary pagans were inclined to choose that option.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 21: Persecution and Toleration , 1984 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I employ the definition of B. Crick in ‘Toleration and tolerance in theory and practice’, Government and opposition: Ajournai of comparative politics 6 (1971) pp 144–71; cf. P. King, in the same volume, ‘The problem of tolerance’, pp 172–207, and Toleration (London 1976). I have not however found it useful to reproduce their distinction between toleration and tolerance. The literature on persecution in antiquity is large, whereas that dealing with toleration is insubstantial—which gives me a justification for adding to it. But see A. Momigliano in S. Humphreys, Anthropology and the Creeks (London 1978) pp 179—93; [J. A.] North, ‘Religious toleration [in Republican Rome’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society n s 25 (1979)] pp 85–103. Other relevant work that I have read with great profit includes [P.] Brown, [‘Religious coercion in the later Roman Empire: the case of North Africa’, History 48 (1963)) pp 283–305; ‘St. Augustine’s attitude [to religious coercion’, JRS 64 (1974)] pp 107–16; Augustine [of Hippo (London 1967)]; [H.] Chadwick, ‘Gewissen’, [Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum 10 (1978)] pp 1026–1107. I am grateful to G. E. M. de Ste Croix for adding to my collection of references to toleration from his vast knowledge of the literature of late antiquity. My debt is substantial to these and other scholars, especially Richard Gordon, and to Myles Burnyeat and Moses Finley who showed me ways of improving an earlier draft of this paper.

2 On Greek religion see [E. R.] Dodds, [The Creeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 1951)]; [M. P.] Nilsson, [Geschichte der griechischen Religion (3 ed München 1967)]; W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen uni klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977). On Roman religion, see [K.] Latte, [RSmische Religionsgeschichte (München 1960)]; J. Le Gall, La religion romaine (Paris 1975); J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and change in Roman religion (Oxford 1979); [R.] MacMullen, [Paganism in the Roman empire (New Haven 1981)]; [J. A.] North, [‘Conservation and change in Roman religion’, Papers of the British School at Rome 44 (1976)] pp 1–12.

3 Dodds p 189. For references and source-criticism see K. J. Dover, ‘The freedom of the intellectual in Greek society’, Talanta 7 (1976) pp 24 seq Cf. the wide-ranging article of G. W. Clarke, ‘Books for the burning’, Prudentia 4 (1972) pp 67–82. Best on Socrates is [G. X.] Santas, [Socrates (London 1979)].

4 Santas p 6.

5 Ferguson, W. S., ‘Orgeonika’, Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1949) pp 131 Google Scholar; Nilsson pp 833–5 (Bendis), pp 806–8 (Asclepius).

6 Nilsson, M. P., Greek popular religions (New York 1940) pp 84–101.Google Scholar

7 The introduction of the Egyptian God Ammon by the 370s BC is a superficial parallel. But Ammon had an oracle (Delphi was frequently in the hands of enemies of Athens), he had Greek intermediaries (the Cyrenaeans), and he was closely iden tified with Zeus. See H. W. Parke, The Oracles of Zeus (Oxford 1967) pp 217–19; S. Dow, ‘The arrival of Isis at Athens’, Harvard Theological Review 30 (1935) pp 184.

8 IC II2 1283, a third century inscription, refers back to the Athenian decree of 433 which fulfilled an oracle from Dodona. IG II2 337 (333-2 BC) is a decree giving traders from Citium, Cyprus, area for a shrine to Aphrodite, just as the Egyptians have one to Isis.

9 Cic, de leg. 2.37, cf. Aristoph., Wasps9 seq, Birds 875; Dem. 18. 259–61; Nilssonpp 836–7.

10 Dem., 19.281 (execution of Niños, priestess of Sabazios)

11 Tuck, R., Natural Rights Theories (Cambridge 1979) ch 1Google Scholar; Finley, M. I. cf., ‘The freedom of the citizen in the Greek world’, Talanta 7 (1975) pp 1–23 Google Scholar.

12 North p 11. For innovations in general, Latte pp 213–63.

13 See Ogilvie, R, Commentary on Livy I-V (Oxford 1965) pp 674 Google Scholar seq. Citation from Pliny, hist.nat. 28.18.

14 Latte pp 251–62; citations from Livy 29.10, Dion. Hal. 2.19.5.

15 Latte pp 225–7.

16 North ‘Religious Toleration’ with bibliography

17 Jos., Ant.Jud 14.213; cf. Suet., Div. M. 42.3.

18 Pliny, Ep. 10.97. For the position of Christianity with relation to the state see de Ste Croix, G. E. M., ‘Why were the early Christians persecuted?’ in Finley, M. I. ed Studies in Ancient Society (London 1974) pp 210–49 Google Scholar; The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London 1981) pp 396–405; 419–41, etcGoogle Scholar.

19 Ten., Apol. 21.1.

20 e.g. Cic, pro Fiacco 67–9.

21 Momigliano, A., Alien wisdom (Cambridge 1975) p 100 Google Scholar, and in general, pp 97–122; Schurer, E., The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (rev., edn. Vermes, G., Millar, F., M. Black Edinburgh 1973-79)Google Scholar. Other work on the Jews and Romans includes Juster, J., Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain: leurcondition juridique, économique et sociale (Paris 1914)Google Scholar; Smallwood, E. Mary, The Jews under Roman rule (Leiden 1976)Google Scholar; Rabello, A. M., ‘The legal condition of the Jews in the Roman empire’, Temporini, H. ed Aufstieg una Niedergang der rdmischen Welt II Principal 13 (1980) pp 662–762.Google Scholar

22 The main classical texts are Cic., de natura deorum and Académica, and Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism (P. H.). For later sceptics see R. H. Popkin, The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza (Berkeley 1979); [Q.] Skinner, [The Foundations of modem political thought (Cambridge 1979)] esp vol 2, pt 3, ch. 8.

23 Cie. de not. deorum 3.5-9; cf. Sex.Empir., P.H. 1.16-17.

24 Cie, denat. deorum 1.63,115;3.5-7; cf. Sex.Emp., c. Phys. 1.51; Drachmann, A. B., Atheism in classical antiquity (London 1922)Google Scholar.

25 Sex.Empir., P.H. 3.235.

26 Jos. Ant. Jud. 16.31-57.

27 Jos., Ant.Jud. 16.174-78.

28 Castellio, S., Concerning heretics: whether they are to he persecuted, (trans Bainton, R. H. New York 1935)Google Scholar at p 130; Skinner 2 pp 245–8.

29 e.g. Justin, Apol. 1.68.

30 Lactantius, Inst. Dip. 5.19.9-24; 5.20.7-10; Epit.Inst. Div. 47 (52).3-49 (54).7.

31 Jos., c. Apion 2. 73.

32 I emphasise ‘exclusive’. Tertullian was of course capable of employing the familiar argument more appropriate to Jewish apologetic that all others (who turn out to be provinciae or civitates) ire permitted their gods; e.g. Apol. 24.7-10; cf. Athenagoras, Embassy 1. Both Geffcken’s criticism and Crehan’s defence of Athenagoras miss the point. See J. H. Crehan, Athenagoras: Embassy for the Christians (Trans and comm London 1956) at p 123. The standard works on Tertullian do not appear to notice the innovation which I have signalled above.

33 Chadwick, ‘Gewissen’ pp 1066 seq.

34 Donatist arguments are mostly buried under the massive weight of Augustinian scholarship. But see the useful reconstructions of P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique Chrétienne (Paris 1920) 5 pp 309–39. The best discussion is in P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London 1967) chs 19–21, esp 21. W. H. C. Frend, Donatist Church (Oxford 1952) remains a classic; see ch 20.

35 Socrates, HE7.15; 1.23.

36 Salvian, De Gub. Dei 5.2.5-11.

37 Ps.-Dionysius, Ep. 8.5 (MPL 3.1096C-7B). Translation by R. F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Ps. -Dionysius (The Hague 1969) 148–9.

38 See Eusebius, HE 10.5.1-14 with Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 48.1-12.

39 See Eusebius, Vita Const. 2.56. Barnes, T. D., Constatarne and Eusebius (Cambridge Mass. 1981) pp 209 Google Scholar seq, has recently revived the contention that Constantine had earlier in 324 revoked the policy of toleration in an edict which among other things banned pagan sacrifice. He rests his case on Eusebius, Vita Const. 2.45. Jones, A. H. M., Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1966) 1 pp 91–2 Google Scholar, also believes in this law, but is unimpressed by the Eusebius text, preferring to argue from CTh. 16.10.2, 341 (Constans and Constantius II). On the other side, Drake, H. A., In Praise of Constantine (Berkeley 1975) pp 65–6 Google Scholar, attacks only the text in the Code. It would be easier to believe Eusebius, and the sons of Constantine, if the alleged law had been quoted, and if it could be reconciled with the friendlier document issued sub sequently.

40 Optatus, de schism. Don. 9.

41 Chadwick, ‘Gewissen’ pp 1098–9. On intolerance within the Christian (and Jewish) community, see Forkmann, G., The limits of the religious community ; expulsion from the religious community within the Qumran sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within primitive Christianity (Lund 1972)Google Scholar. On hairesis see Glucker, J., Antiochus and the Late Academy (Göttingen 1978) pp 166 esp 167–8, 184–7.Google Scholar

42 Origen, c. Celsum 3.10-12; 5.61; cf. Julian in Amm. Marc. 22.5.3-4; Aug., de util .jejun. 9, PL 40.712-3.

43 Origen, in Mt. comm. ser. 33, Chadwick, ‘Gewissen’ p 1098; cf. Tertullian, monog. 2.3 (another heretic).

44 Constantius: CTh. 16.10.2, 341; 16.10.6, 356. But cf. 16.10.3, 342; Symm, Rei. 3.7; ‘nihil Ule decerpsit sacrarum uirginum priuilegiis, repleuit nobilibus sacerdotio. Romanis caerimoniis non negatiti inpensas …’ Valentinian I was unambiguously for toleration: CTh. 9.16.9. 371 (referring to earlier law); cf. Amm.Marc. 30.9.5. Gratian issued an act of toleration after the disaster at Adrianople, see Socr., HE 5.2.1; Soz., HE 1.1.3; it was rescinded on 3 August 379, from Milan: CTh. 16.5.5. For Gratian’s measures against paganism, see A. Cameron, ‘Gratian’s repudiation of the pontifical robe’, JRS 58 (1968) pp 96–102.

45 Cf.Brown, P., ‘Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman aristocracy’, JRS 61 (1971) pp 1–11 Google Scholar. On the role of Ambrose, see Matthews, J. F., Western aristocracies and imperial court A.D. 364–425 (Oxford 1975) ch 8, esp pp 186–92 Google Scholar. Ambrose was par ticularly upset by the edict on teaching. See Ep. 17.4, on CTh. 13.3.5, 362 with Julian, Ep. 36 (Wright); cf. Amm. Marc. 22.10.7; 25.4.20.

46 Maximin Daia: Eusebius, HE 9.9a. 1–10: not persecution, but persuasion.

47 Themistius, Oral. 5, ed G. Downey, Themistius (Teubner 1965), 1 esp 67b-70c. See [G.] Dagron, [‘Empire romaine d’Orient au IVe siècle et les traditions politiques de l’hellénisme: le témoigne de Themistius’, Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantine 3 (Paris 1968)] pp 1–242, at 163–72 (transi, and dis cussion); Daly, L. J., ‘Themistius’ plea for religious tolerance’, Creek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971) pp 65–79 Google Scholar. A lost Oral. 12 (AD 375–6), see G. Downey and A. Norman, Themistius (Teubner edn 1974) 3 pp 137—44, was held by several Christian commentators to have persuaded Valens to moderate his persecution of the Nicenes. See Dagron p 13 and n 73, pp 22, 186–90. Themistius is omitted in the otherwise useful Croke, B., Harris, J., Religious conflict in fourth-century Rome: a documentary Study (Sydney 1982)Google Scholar.

48 Libanius, Oral. 30.28 (AD 386); Van Loy, R., ‘Le “Pro Templis” de Libanius’, Byzantion 8 (1933) pp 7–39, 389–404 Google Scholar (transi, and comm.); P. Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au IV siècle après Jésus-Christ (Paris 1955) pp 191–216. Libanius is attacking the destructive activity of monks in the train of Cynegius, Praetorian Prefect of the East (384–6).

49 Symm., Rei. 3, ed O Seeck, MGHAuct. Antiq. 6.1 (1883) pp 280–3; R. H. Barrow, Prefect and Emperor (Oxford 1973) (with transi); see also M. Lavarenne’s Bude edition of Prudentius vol. 3, (3 edn 1963), where the Relatio and the reply of Ambrose, Ep. 17–18 may be found together, and also Prudentius, c. Symm.

50 MacMullen p 2.

51 Jos., Ant.Jud. 14.259-61, referring to ‘many great privileges’in the past and present concessions, including a site presumably for worship or communal purposes, and the provision of’suitable food’.

52 Epistola Severi ad omnem ecdesiam, PL 41.821-32; P. Brown, The cull of the saints (London 1981) pp 103–5; E. D. Hunt, ‘St. Stephen in Minorca: an episode in Jewish-Christian relations in the early 5th century AD’, JTS 33 (1982) pp 106–23.

53 CSEL 83 (1981) ep 11 (ed J. Divjak). On Priscillian, see H. Chadwick, Prisciltian of Avila (Oxford 1976).

54 See Brown, Augustine p 247; cf. Chadwick, ‘Gewissen’ p 1074, citing Ps.-Clem. Rom. horn. 1.5; Ambrosiast., quaest. 115.51. See G. Fowden, ‘The Platonist philosopher and his circle in late antiquity’, 7 (1977) pp 359–83 on the coexistence of pagan and Christian intellectuals at Alexandria in the early 3rd century A.D.

55 Citation from Brown, ‘St. Augustine’s attitude’ p 107.