Polemic Rhetoric: The Formation of Christian Identity in Late Antiquity Part 3
Discover more from Hearth of Hellenism
Polemic Rhetoric: The Formation of Christian Identity in Late Antiquity Part 3
This is the last part of a paper I wrote on the formation of Christian identity and the role of polemic rhetoric. Part 1 is here & Part 2 here
If this behavior had occurred evenly throughout Christianity, I doubt paganism would have come under the attack that it did from Christians with the means to attack it. However, because this was a new religion that wrestled with its own identity and place in society, a society that was hostile in the eyes of Christian thought leaders tolerating incerti within your congregation threatens the overall integrity of the congregation and religion as a whole. If Christians are associating with pagans then paganism can trickle into the Church or pagan ideas could threaten the church. There has to be more control over ideas and behaviors for a ‘proper’ Christian faith to flourish.
It is because of this motivation to have a clear Christian identity and message which motivated Christians to legislate the suppression of paganism along with the persecution of “heretical” forms of Christianity. Because there was no actual religion called paganism or people who called themselves pagan, these are terms invented by Christians, it was difficult how to go about suppressing it, instead Christian emperors suppressed it by banning features of paganism.
One famous case from Late Antiquity of suppression of elements of paganism was the removal of the Altar of Victory from the senate-house in Rome by Constantius II in 357, restored by Julian, and removed once more by Gratian in 382. After Gratian died, the pagan senators rallied behind Symmachus to represent them and their desire to have the altar restored. Symmachus wrote to the new emperor in the west Valentinian II:
Allow us, we beseech you, as old men to leave to posterity what we received as boys. The love of custom is great…We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road.[1]
Symmachus’ plea would in the end be denied and the senate-house would forever remain without the altar of victory. It is in this situation we can see the power of the Church over the young emperor. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, heard of the letter sent to Valentinian II and demanded to see it, threatening the young emperor with excommunication if he refused to give it.
In his reply to the emperor, Ambrose reminds him of his duty as a good Christian to defend the true religion. If the emperor were to compromise with the pagans he would be guilty of participating in pagan sacrifice himself. Ambrose does everything in his power to convince the young emperor that the only correct option for him as a Christian emperor is to deny the pagans their request.
What will you answer a priest who says to you, "The church does not seek your gifts, because you have adorned the heathen temples with gifts. The Altar of Christ rejects your gifts, because you have made an altar for idols, for the voice is yours, the hand is yours, the subscription is yours, the deed is yours. The Lord Jesus refuses and rejects your service, because you have served idols, for He said to you: 'Ye cannot serve two masters.' The Virgins consecrated to God have no privileges from you, and do the Vestal Virgins claim them? Why do you ask for the priests of God, to whom you have preferred the profane petitions of the heathen? We cannot take up a share of the errors of others."[2]
Imperial legislation against polytheism became more significant and oppressive from the 390’s and onward. Heretical Christian groups such as the Arians were by this point dealt with more or less and the Orthodox Christian hegemony (now with a clearer identity of correct Christianity) turned their focus on the traditional cults more dramatically.[3] A law in 391 outlawed sacrificed, visiting temples. In 392 specific practices (features) were outlawed, such as honoring the lar with fire, a genius with wine, penates with incense, the burnings of candles, or the use of wreaths.[4] Such laws likely were the cause that emboldened zealous Christians to go and attack temples in record numbers during this time when more oppressive laws were passed.[5] Despite the laws however, pagans could still hold magistratures, even high offices such as consulate, praetorian prefecture, and urban prefecture. Christian emperors had to appease their hardline clergy and slowly over time that appeasement added up to the point where paganism was outlawed via a slow death that targeted different elements of paganism.
After all that I have read, what I am newly convinced of was that Julian’s attempt to return traditional religion fueled the Christian backlash of the late 4th century and onwards that I just described. Kahlos notes, “[Julian] did polytheists quiet a disservice by polarizing and aggravating relations between polytheists and Christians…His version of a universalizing Hellenism offered Christian polemicists exactly what they needed: an easily defined and identifiable target on which to concentrate their firepower.”[6] Ambrose, in his letter to Valentinian II, mentions Julian. “They petition you to grant them privileges, who by the last Julian law denied us the common right of speaking and teaching…”[7] The specter of Julian haunts history long after his death and I believe what he did motivated Christians from ever allowing it to happen again. In their fear of another Julian, they became more oppressive to polytheism to secure their power and privileges.
In conclusion, through powerful rhetorical skill and imperial influence, Christians were able over time to form their own new identity and make it appealing to a large amount of the population in the empire. They came to dominate the empire in the end by a combination of oppressive legislation which incentivized conversion along with true genuine conversions. Not everyone was exclusionary in their behavior as Christians and still participated in the wider Roman culture which the Church found problematic. Over time as Christian identity solidified and the Orthodox majority prevailed, paganism came under greater assault as a semi-unconscious survival method due to in part of Julian’s campaign to reverse the gains of Christianity and restore paganism.
[1] Symmachus, Relation 3 https://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/sym-amb/symrel3f.html#:~:text=All%20things%20are%20indeed%20filled,producing%20a%20fear%20of%20sinning.
[2] Ambrose, Ep.17 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340917.htm
[3] Maijastina Kahlos, Forbearance and Compulsion: The Rhetoric of Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Late Antiquity, 90.
[4] Maijastina Kahlos, Forbearance and Compulsion: The Rhetoric of Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Late Antiquity, 91.
[5] Maijastina Kahlos, Forbearance and Compulsion: The Rhetoric of Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Late Antiquity, 90.
[6] Maijastina Kahlos, Forbearance and Compulsion: The Rhetoric of Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Late Antiquity, 75.
[7] Ambrose, Ep.17 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340917.htm
Polemic Rhetoric: The Formation of Christian Identity in Late Antiquity Part 3
I enjoyed reading this essay. Angelo thank you for introducing me to the concept of incerti. The concept/identity excellently explains the ground level reality of most people's lives during and after the second century crisis in the Roman Empire. The reality of things are not clear cut and this concept presents this perfectly. Life is confusing and it was especially confusing in late antiquity when so many lines had been blurred.