Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:52:31.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

P. R. L. Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps the most significant feature of the end of paganism in Rome is that we do know about it; in the words of one of the earliest students of this death of a religion, Beugnot, ‘L'histoire n'a daigné qu'assister aux funérailles du paganisme.’ That this is so is due largely to the central position occupied in the religious history of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, by the senatorial aristocracy of Rome.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 1-2 , November 1961 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © P. R. L. Brown 1961. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 Beugnot, A., Histoire de la destruction du paganisme en Occident, Paris 1835, Vol. 1, 2.Google Scholar

2 Symmachus, Ep. I, 52.

3 See, generally, Lécrivain, , Le Sénat Remain depuis Dioclétien, Paris 1888Google Scholar; and de Francisci, P., ‘Per la storia del senato Romano e della curia nei secoli V e VI,’ Atti pont. Acc. ser. iii, XXII, 1946–1947, 275–317.Google Scholar

4 Especially Klingner, F., Vom Geistesleben Roms des ausgehenden Altertums, Halle, 1941.Google Scholar

5 He has received two detailed monographs in Dutch and Flemish respectively: Nicolaas, Praetextatus, Nijmwegen, 1940 and Lambrechts, P., Op de grens van Heidendom en Christendom, het grafschrift van Vettius Agorius Praetextatus en Fabia Aconia Paulina, Med. Kon. Vlaamse Ak. XVII, 3, 1955.Google Scholar For a convenient summary of the career and reputation of Nicomachus Flavianus, see Guey, J., Rev. Ét. Anc. 52, 1950, 77–89.Google Scholar For a general survey: Piganiol, A., L'Empire chrétien, Paris, 1947, 234–239Google Scholar and Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte 2, Munich, 1960, 366–371.Google Scholar

6 Bloch, H., ‘A new document of the Last Pagan Revival in the West, A.D. 393–394.’ Harvard Theol. Rev. 38, 1945, 199–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar and table of priesthoods. Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia, Oxford, 1960, esp. 211–213 and 388–403.Google Scholar

7 See especially Mazzarino, S., Aspetti sociali del quarto secolo, Rome, 1951Google Scholar; and Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ History 40, 1955, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Harmand, L., Le Patronat sur les collectivités publiques, Paris, 1957.Google Scholar Note the analysis of the ‘imponderable’ elements in the authority of the Prefects of Rome, in Chastagnol, A., La Préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire, Paris, 1960, 459–462.Google Scholar

9 Seeck, O., Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi VI, 1), Berlin, 1883Google Scholar; McGeachy, J. A., Quintus Aurelius Symmachus and the Senatorial Aristocracy of the West. Dissertation, Chicago, 1942Google Scholar (Typescript); Romano, D., Simmaco, Palermo, 1955.Google Scholar

10 No. 5, Epigrammata Bobiensia, 11, ed. F. Munari, Rome, 1955, p. 55. See Speyer, W., ‘Naucellius u. sein Kreis, Studien zu den Epigrammata Bobiensia,’ Zetemata, Heft, 21, Munich, 1959.Google Scholar

11 Prudentius, Contra Symm. 11, 608 ff.

12 An exception, of course, is Sir Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, 1898, esp. Book 1, chapter 1, ‘The pagan aristocracy and the confusion of parties.’

13 Chastagnol, o.c. (n. 8) part iii, ‘Les Préfets,’ 1–457

14 Jullian, C., Hist. de la Gaule VII, 1926, 317.Google Scholar

15 For instance, Demougeot, E., ‘Flavius Vopiscus est-il Nicomaque Flavien?’ Antiquité Classique 22, 1953. 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Esp. Alföldi, A., Die Kontorniaten; ein verkanntes Propagandamittel d. stadtröm. heidnischen Aristocratie in ihrem Kampf gegen das christl. Kaisertum, Budapest, 1943.Google Scholar See the criticisms of Toynbee, J. M. C., JRS XXXV, 1945, 115–121Google Scholar and the wider remarks in Mazzarino, S., Doxa 4, 1951, 121–148.Google Scholar

17 An interpretation suggested by Malunowicz, L., De Ara Victoriae quomodo certatum sit, Wilno, 1937, 108–119Google Scholar, fully developed by McGeachy, o.c. (n.9), 129–152, and criticized by Baynes, , JRS XXXVI, 1946, 173–7Google Scholar = Byzantine Studies, 361–6.

18 Piganiol, A., Journ. des Savants, 1945, 28.Google Scholar

19 On the authority of Mommsen, , Hermes, 1870, 350–363.Google Scholar This has been challenged, in my opinion successfully, by G. Manganaro, ‘La reazione pagana a Roma nel 408–9 d.c. e il poemetto anonimo “contra paganos”’, Giorn. it. filol., anno XIII, no. 3, 1960, 210–224.

20 CIL VI, 1783. See esp. Solari, , Philologus 91, 1936, 357 sq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Symm. Ep. 11, 36 to Flavian. See Bloch, art. cit. (note 6), 217–8, who interprets this issue as illustrative of a difference in spiritual outlook between the two currents in Roman paganism.

22 Esp. Mazzarino, S., Stilicone, Rome, 1942, 231–249.Google Scholar Generally, Demougeot, E., De l'unité à la division de l'Empire Romain, Paris, 1951, 448–487Google Scholar, and G. Manganaro, art. cit. (note 19), 219–223.

23 As in a recently-discovered inscription: Ann. Épig. 1950 no. 30; see Degrassi, A., Boll. Comm. Arch. 72, 1946, 33–44.Google Scholar

24 See Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire 11, 44.

25 Sundwall, , Weströmische Studien, 1915, 150–161.Google Scholar Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire 1, 337–347.

26 ‘Ep. adversus Andromachum,’ ed. Pomarès, G., ‘Gélase Ier, Lettre contre les Lupercales et dix-huit Messes du Sacramentaire Léonien,’ Sources Chrétiennes, no. 65, 1959.Google Scholar

27 For a full analysis of the ideals and chronology of this movement as it affected Rome: Gordini, D., ‘Origine e sviluppo del monachesimo a Roma,’ Gregorianum 37, 1956, 220–260.Google Scholar

28 See de Cavallera, F., S. Jérôme, sa vie et son œuvre, Louvain, 1922, esp. 1, 1, 84–120.Google Scholar

29 e.g. Ep. 108 to Eustochium on the death of Paula (404); Ep. 127 to Principia on the death of Marcella (413).

30 Jerome, Ep. 49, 12, CSEL 54, 367–9, with a characteristic complaint: ‘Delicata doctrina est pugnanti ictus dictare de muro et, cum ipse unguentis delibatus sis, cruentum militem accusare formidinis’!

31 Jerome, Ep. 133, 3, CSEL 56, 246. For these significant omissions see Murphy, F. X., ‘Melania the Elder: a biographical note,’ Traditio V, 1947, 59–77 at p. 59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 In Jerome, Ep. 107 ‘ad Laetam’.

33 An excellent guide to the chronological distribution of Jerome's letters is in Cavallera, o.c. (n. 28), 1, 2, 153–165, Regesta Hieronymiana.

34 Jerome, Ep. 66, 2–3, CSEL 54, 648–9.

35 CIL VI, 1756.

36 See Meiggs, o.c, (note 6), p. 400.

37 Augustine, Epp. 92 and 99, CSEL 34, 436–444; 533–5., where she is a widow, with sons, interested in the property of the ‘clarissimus et egregius iuvenis’ Julianus, adjacent to the church in Hippo. He may be the Julianus who died without issue mentioned in Sermo 355, 4. For his house in Hippo, , Marec, , Libyca, 1, 1953, 95–108.Google Scholar

38 John Chrys. Ep. 170: PG 52, 709 sq. This letter is significantly placed between letters to two known members of the Anicii, Proba and Iuliana, at a time when their close relative, Anicius Probus, was consul.

39 Symm. Ep. IX, 40.

40 ‘Valeri Faltoni Adelfi v c et in et Aniciae Italicae.’ N.S. 1953, p. 170 n. 32. See Meiggs, o.c. (n. 6.), 212–3.

41 [17 letters?] ‘ et cons ord et Italica inl. f.’ Riv. arch. crist. 33, 1957, 95–8, Ann. Epig. 1959, n. 237.

42 See the attempt of the Emperor Alexander Severus to trace his descent from the Metelli, SHA Vita Alex. Sev. c. 44: cf. the caustic comments of Jerome, Ep. 130, 3, CSEL 56, p. 177 ‘ut ramorum sterilitatem radix fecunda compenset, quod in fructu non teneas, mireris in trunco’.

43 Aug. De Fide et Operibus 21, 37, CSEL 41, p. 80.

44 See the excellent study of Chastagnol, A., ‘Le sénateur Volusien,’ Rev. Ét. Anc. 58, 1956, 241–253Google Scholar, with a revised stemma on p. 249.

45 Macrobius, Saturnalia 111, 4, 12; VI, 1, 1.

46 Jerome, Ep. 107, 1: CSEL 55, p. 291.

47 ibid.

48 As supposed by Weigand, , Jahrb. deutsch. archäol. Inst. 52, 1937, 128–9.Google Scholar

49 See CIL VI, 1779.

50 See some acute remarks on the position of these clarissimae feminae in Mazzarino, S., La fine del mondo antico, Milan, 1959, 135–143.Google Scholar But it must be remembered that the most obvious feature of this emancipation, the relaxation of the divorce-laws, shocked Christian sentiment: see Ps. Aug. Quaestiones, CXV, 12 and 16, CSEL 50, 322 and 323. Yet Jerome can get over even this stumbling-block in the character of his heroine, the divorcée, Fabiola: Ep. 77, 3, CSEL 55, p. 38–9: ‘aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecepit’!

51 See Petit, P., Libanius et la vie municipale d'Antioche au IVe siècle, Paris, 1955, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Canivet, P., L'histoire d'une entreprise apologétique au Ve siècle, 1957, esp. 21–41Google Scholar; and Festugière, A. J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne, Paris, 1959.Google Scholar

52 Prudentius, Peristephanon 11, 524 ff. CSEL 61, 315: Marucchi, O., ‘La vestale cristiana,’ Nuovo boll. di arch. crist. 1899, 207.Google Scholar

53 See Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 11, 16, on the negotiations between Constantius II and Liberius, in which Liberius is accused of having snubbed the Emperor ‘to please the Senate’.

54 See Murphy, art. cit. (note 31), p. 60 and stemma p. 63.

55 For Italian connections equally distributed between pagans and Christians at the end of the fourth century, see the list of ‘Patroni ex origine’ of Italian towns in Harmand, o.c. (n. 8), 204–5.

56 CIL VI, 1706.

57 Rut. Namat, De Reditu suo 1, 415 ff.

58 Marcellinus to Augustine, Ep. 136, 1: CSEL 44, p. 94. But Volusianus was hardly in a position to push his objections to Christianity to extremes at that time; his criticism of the political relevance of Christian morality is notably subdued, see Ep. 136, 2, CSEL XLIV, 95.

59 Augustine, Enchiridion 34, 10.

60 Photius, cod. 230 ed. Becker p. 271, B. 29. This has been taken by Seeck, o.c. (n. 9), p. CLXXXI to imply that Rufius Albinus was a Christian. E. Liénard, ‘Un courtisan de Théodose,’ Rev. belge de philol. 13, 1934, 73 ff. has built upon this assumption the ingenious theory of a politic conversion, in 389, as a sequel to the defeat of Maximus by Theodosius.

61 For the fate of Augustine's answers to Volusianus, see, Courcelle, P., Rev. de l'Hist. des Religions 146, 1954, 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 The Latin Vita in Analecta Bollandiana, 8, 1889, 19–63 [L]; the Greek in ibid. 22, 1903, 7–49 [G].

63 Vita L. 11, 22, p. 53. G. c. 53 p. 37.

64 Vita L. 11, 23, p. 53. G. c. 53 p. 37.

65 Vita L. 11, 19, p. 51. G. c. 50, p. 35.

66 Vita L. 1, 12, p. 29. G. c. 7, p. 12. On his death, see the reassuring opinion of Augustine: Ep. 94, 3, CSEL 34, 2, p. 499 ‘maternae humilitatis nobilitatem, si veste non gesserit, mente praetulerit’. In his relations with Augustine he had shown himself nothing if not scrupulous, Epp. 46 and 47, CSEL 34, 123–136.

67 Vita L. 1, 11–13, pp. 28–31 and G. c. 11–13, pp. 14–16. The date of this interview with Serena, 404, does not coincide with the evidence for the death of Publicola, mentioned there, but ascribed to 407–8 on the basis of the correspondence of Augustine with Paulinus. Courcelle, , Rev. Ét. Anc. 53, 1951, 276Google Scholar, n. 1, has, therefore, rejected the account given in the Vita Latina. The date of the interview is taken as resting on other evidence—on the ages of the couple and the coincidence of their marriage with the return of Melania the Elder to Rome, in 397.

68 Zosimus V, 38. Only the Vita G. (c. 14, p. 17) mentions the good relations between Pinianus and Serena.

69 Vita L. 11, 1, p. 42. G. c. 19, p. 19–20. See Manganaro, art. cit. (n. 19), p. 221 where the ‘mors tracta’ of this unknown pagan of the ‘adversus paganos’ may refer to this lynching of the Prefect, Pompeianus.

70 Pelagius, Ep. ad Demetriadem, c. 30, pl. 30, 45. ‘Recens factum est, et quod ipsa audisti, cum ad stridulae buccinae sonum Gothorumque clamorem, lugubri oppressa metu domina orbis Roma contremuit. Vbi tunc nobilitatis ordo ? ubi certi et distincti illius dignitatis gradus? Permista omnia et timore confusa, omni domui planctus et aequalis fuit per cunctos pavor. Vnum erat servus et nobilis. Eadem omnibus imago mortis.’

71 Jerome, Ep. 130, 6, CSEL, 56, p. 181.

72 See Courcelle, , ‘Propos antichrétiens rapportés par S. Augustin.’ Rech. augustiniennes 1, 1958, 140–195.Google Scholar Only later was Gelasius, l.c. (n. 26), 31, able to place the pagan argument on its head by saying that the decay of Rome was due to the survival of pagan practices.

73 CIL VI, 1756; Prudentius, Contra Symm. 1, 552 ff.

74 Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii, cc. 5 and 8 (see c. 25 for evidence of the inordinate respect of the author for the potentia Probi).

75 Edited Schenkl, , CSEL 16, 1888, 569–609.Google Scholar

76 See Amm. Marc. XXVII, 11 and esp. XXX, 5, 4. ‘non ut prosapiae suae claritudo monebat, plus adulationi quam verecundiae dedit’; and A. Momigliano, ‘Gli Anicii e la storiografia del VI° secolo d.C., Atti Accad. Lincei, Rendiconti, cl. mor. stor. e filol., ser. 8, 11, 1956, 279–280, for the same pattern of intimacy with semi-barbarian politicians such as Aëtius.

77 Delbrueck, E., Die Consulardiptychen, Berlin, 1929, n. 1, 84–7Google Scholar, where he calls himself the ‘famulus’ of the Emperor.

78 F. Ermini, Il centone di Proba e la poesia centonaria latina, 1909.

79 Jerome, Ep. 53, 7, CSEL 54, 453–4.

80 Isidore of Seville, De vir. illustr., c. 18, PL 83, 1093: ‘cuius quidem non miramur studium, sed laudamus ingenium’!

81 II. 680–694.

82 See Marrou, H. I., ‘Une catacombe paganochrétienne découverte à Rome,’ Bull. Soc. Ant. 1956 [1958], 77–81.Google Scholar

83 Paulinus, Carm. XXI, 230–238, CSEL 30, 165–166.

84 See Koethe, H., ‘Zum Mausoleum d. weström. Dynastie bei Alt-Sankt-Peter,’ Röm. Mitt. 46, 1931, 9–26.Google Scholar

85 Leo, Epp. VII and VIII (Constitutio Valentiniani 111), PL 54, 620–624. See Chastagnol, o.c. (n. 8), 177–8 on the previous reduction of the religious jurisdiction of the Prefect of the City in favour of the Pope.

86 See esp. Paulinus, Ep. 13, 15, CSEL 29, 96: which emphasizes his isolation ‘Poteras, Roma, illas intentas in apocalypsi minas non timere, si talia semper ederent munera senatores tui’.

87 Pelagius, Ep. ad Demetriadem, c. 22, PL 30, 38.

88 Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886, 1, 238. See Antonelli, , Riv. arch. crist. 1935, 173–5.Google Scholar

89 Liber Pont. 1, p. 531: ‘Demetrias Amnia virgo’.

90 Prandi, A., Il complesso monumentale della basilica celimontana dei SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Rome, 1955, P. 475–7.Google Scholar

91 See Greg. Turon, Hist. Franc. 11, 7 (MGH Script, rer. Merov. 1, 69–70).

92 Leo, Sermo 82, 1, PL 54, 422–3.