Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:43:18.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

G.W. Clarke
G.W. Clarke*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Rome, the only trials of Christians about which we have good evidence were before the Praefectus Urbi or a Praefectus Praetorio; none of the known cases was important enough to come directly before the emperor himself…

G. E. M. de Ste Croix, ‘Why were the Early Christians Persecuted?’

Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963), 6 ff. at 11

This statement appears to overlook an informative epistle of Cyprian (Ep. 39), written before the termination of the persecution of Decius. Cyprian is still in his self-imposed exile (which ended shortly after Easter—March 23—A.D. 251) and he is writing about events that have taken place during this same Decian persecution. The letter is, therefore, a contemporary document, for the incidents described cannot have occurred—at the maximum—much more than twelve months previously.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 3 , 1969 , pp. 63 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1969

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 How the persecution ended is a mystery—there is no hint of a sudden, general amnesty. Cyprian’s wording suggests it merely petered out (e.g. Ep. 55.6.1 ‘persecutione sopita’). By March, 251, the persecution can be spoken of as over (e.g. Cyp. Ep. 43.4.2 ‘persecutionem denuo exacerbasse’). Decius did not die until several months later (c. June, 251— see Salisbury, F.S., & Mattingly, H., ‘The Reign of Trajan Decius’, JRS 14 (1924), 1 ff. at 18 ff.).Google Scholar One must presume prisoners were released singly or in batches, similarly for the exiled; and with official sanction.

2 Cyprian’s clerical rivals delayed his return until after the Easter celebrations (Ep. 43.4.2, 7.2); they threatened to cause a ‘tumultus maior’ if he came and to break the peace for the Christians. Cyprian was a persona non grata with the crowd (‘ne praesentia nostri invidiam et violentiam gentilium provocet’, Ep. 7.1.1; ‘totiens ad leonem petitus in circo’, Ep. 59.6.1); did the clergy plan on provoking a popular demonstration in the circus such as happened the following year (‘clamore popularium ad leonem denuo postulatus in circo’, Ep. 59.6.1) ?

3 The redactors of the Liber Pontificalis appear to have had a version with the letter addressed (mistakenly) to Pope Cornelius: ‘et ibidem scriptam epistulam de sua confirmatione missa a Cypriano accepit, quam Cyprianus in carcerem scripsit, et de Celerino lectore’ (Lib. Pontif. [ed. Mommsen, Mon. Germ. Hist, ix, Berlin, 1891], 29). The other letter referred to is Ep. 60.

4 The custom of taking confessors into the ranks of the clergy began early (Euseb. HE iii 20.6 [Hegesippus]—confessors before Domitian). Hence Valentinus and Hippolytus were passed over in episcopal preferment in favour of confessors (Tert. Adv. Valent. 4, ‘alium ex martyrii praerogativa loci potitum indignatus’, Hippol, , Philos. 9 11 f.Google Scholar —Pope Callistus). Note Canons of Hippolytus 6.43 ff. on such confessors (confession with torture merits presbyterate, without ordination; confession without torture merits presbyterate, with ordination): Achelis, H., Die ältesten Quellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechtes [Texte und Untersuchungen 6 4 (1891)], pp. 67f. and commentary pp. 164 f., 221–25, 294 f.Google Scholar

5 Namely his paternal and maternal uncles Laurentius and Egnatius, and his grandmother Celerina; all had been martyred (under Septimus Severus?) and figured apparently in the local calendar of martyrs (Ep. 39.3.1,). No trace of them survives, however, in the African Calendar (sixth century): Delehaye, H., Les origines du culte des martyrs2 (Brussels, 1933), p. 374.Google Scholar But note Sermo 48 of Augustine delivered in basilica Celerinae (Migne PL xxxviii 316)ߞwas the Celerina here merely the benefactress? (Delehaye, op. cit. p. 379). Naturally Cyprian passes over Celerinus’ two lapsed sisters (Ep. 21.2.1 ff.ߞthey possibly reappear in the new fragment, Bévenot, M., ‘A new Cyprianic fragment’, Bull. John Rylands 28 (1944), 76 ff. at 80).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Ep. 39.5.1 (other references to the clerics’ monthly stipend in Ep. 35.4.2, 41.3.1, 65.3.1), they were full-time ministers (like their contemporary Roman colleagues, Cornelius ap. Euseb. HE vi 43.11) forbidden to engage in outside employment (Ep. 1.1 f.). This rule was not, however, universal; Council of Elvira Can. 19 (c. 305) assumes, but regulates, clerical business activities (Jonkers, E.J., Acta et Symbola Conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt (Leiden, 1954), p. 9;Google Scholar cf. Cyp. De lapsis 6).

7 By a slip Delehaye, H., Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Brussels, 1921), p. 355Google Scholar puts this ’à Carthage’. It is clear from Ep. 37.1.1 and elsewhere that it was at Rome. A similar error appears in Fichter, J.H., Saint Cecil Cyprian (St. Louis, Mo. & London, 1942), p. 67.Google Scholar

8 Ep. 39.2.1.

9 See Hummel, E.L., The concept of martyrdom according to St. Cyprian of Carthage (Studies in Christian Antiquity 4, Washington, 1946),Google Scholar Chapter 3 (‘Martyrdom as a Spiritual Warfare’), pp. 56 ff.

10 I propose to examine elsewhere the phenomenon of double-trials during this persecution. Ch. Saumagne, ‘La persécution de Dèce en Afrique d’après la correspondance de Cyprien, S.’, Byzantion 32 (1962), 1 ff. at 3 ff.,Google Scholar takes these trials of Aurelius to be ‘le cas typique’; on the available evidence they would appear to be, in several respects, a-typical.

11 Cyprian refers to Decius’ persecution elsewhere in these terms: ‘cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus Dei fanda atque infanda comminaretur’ (Ep. 55.9.1). Zonaras, later, has Decius and his assistant, the future persecutor Valerian, urging each other to persecution ( xii 20.).

12 E.g. Min. Fel. Oct. 27.8 ff., and for abundant parallels and discussion Hummel, op. cit. pp. 73 ff., Pfitzner, V.C., Paul and the Agon Motif (Leiden, 1967), p. 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Ep. 66.4.1, cf. Ep. 59.6.1 ‘in tempestate proscriptus, adplicito et adiuncto episcopatus sui nomine’. Cyprian’s defiance before the proconsul Aspasius Paternus in 257 can be described thus: ‘in acie prima pugnans spiritali gladio diabolum interfecisti’ (Ep. 77.2.1).

14 See n. 5 above. One had actually sacrificed (Ep. 21.2.1), the other had got as far as the Tria Fata (cf. Plin. NH xxxiv 11.22—they stood ‘iuxta rostra’) on her way to sacrifice on the Capitol; she appears, then, to have bribed her way out (‘numeravit ne sacrificaret’), Ep. 21.3.2.

15 In Carthage the examining board consisted of ‘quinque primores …magistratibus… copulati’ (Ep. 43.3.1). In Spain (Lusitania) Bishop Martialis appeared before the ‘procurator ducenarius’ (Ep. 67.6.2). At Smyrna the commission was composed of (Passio Pionii 3 [Krüger-Ruhbach, Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten (Tübingen, 1965), 46])—if this is the correct date for Pionius’ martyrdom. For the local commissions in Egypt, Knipfing, J.R., ‘The Libelli of the Decian Persecution‘, HTR 16 (1923), 345 ff. at 350 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Ep. 22.1.1. On the text see Bayard, L., ‘Notes sur la vita Cypriani et sur Lucianus‘, Rev. Phil, 38 (1914), 206 ff. at 207 ff.Google Scholar

17 In Lact. De mort. persecut. 4.1. Decius is referred to as an ‘execrabile animal’.

18 For Decius’ movements, RE XV i 1267 ff. (Wittig).

19 Lib. Pontif. ed. Mommsen, 27.

20 See Plin. Ep. x 35, 100 for official ceremonies. Reynolds, J.M., ‘Vota pro salute principis’, PBSR, 30 (1962), 33 ff.,Google Scholar published two inscriptions from Cyrenaica which appear to record the vota pro salute principis; the siting of one of these inscriptions (the agora of Cyrene) suggests the record of a public, civic ceremony. Two further examples are published by Reynolds, , in PBSR 33 (1965), 52 ff. (Ptolemais).Google Scholar See further Sherwin-White, A.N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), pp. 611 f.Google Scholar

21 See Mattingly, H., ‘The coins of the “Divi” issued by Trajan Decius’, Num. Chron. 9 (1949), 75 ff.Google Scholar and Mattingly, H., Sydenham, E.A. and Sutherland, C.H.V., Roman Imperial Coinag 4 iii (London, 1949), pp. 117 f. and coins 130 ff.Google Scholar

22 Andreotti, A., ‘‘Religione ufficiale e culto dell’ imperatore nei “Libelli” di Decio’, Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribe, Vol. 1 (Milan, 1956), pp. 369 ff., establishes this point conclusively;Google Scholar cf. Nock, A.D., ‘The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year’ HTR 45 (1952), 187 ff. at 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Against the views of Alföldi, A., CAH 7, pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar (cf. Parker, H.M.D., A History of the Roman World A.D. 138–337 [rev. ed., London, 1958], pp. 159 f.,Google ScholarHealy, P.J., The Valerian Persecution [London, 1905], p. 122);Google Scholar); see the sane observations of Last, H., AJP 41 (1940), 80 ff.Google Scholar

24 Moyses died, still in prison, after a confinement lasting eleven months (Liber Pontif. ed. Mommsen, 27), cf. Euseb. HE vi 43.20 (Cornelius), Cyp. Ep. 55.5.2.

25 Unlike his companions, Nicostratus’ Novatianism seems to have been permanent (Cyp. Ep. 50, 52.1.2). Bayard seems over-cautious in separating the deacon-confessor and the deacon-Novatianist (Saint Cyprien, Correspondance, Vol. ii [Paris, 1961], p. 333).

26 Rufinus is not heard of after Ep. 32.1.1; he can be presumed to have died. The companions may have numbered more—in Ep. 49.2.2 Cornelius speaks of ‘Maximus, Urbanus, Sidonius et plerique fratres qui eis se adiunxerant’. In Eusebius HE vi 43.6 Cornelius adds a Celerinus to the list; that does not appear to be the Celerinus we are discussing (see the remarks of Lawlor, H.J., and Oulton, J.E.L., Eusebius, Vol. 2 [London, repr. 1954], pp. 231 f.).Google Scholar

27 Ep. 37.2.1. I have been unable to consult Ball, M.T., Nature and the Vocabulary of Nature in the Works of Saint Cyprian (Patristic Studies 75 Washington, 1946), on this passage.Google Scholar

28 So Bludau, A., Die aegyptischen Libelli und die Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Decius (Römische Quartalschrift, 27. Supplementheft, Freibourg, 1931), p. 29.Google Scholar Also Faulhaber, L., ‘Die Libelli in der Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Decius’, Z.f. Kath. Theol. 43 (1919), 439 ff. at 449 n. 3.Google Scholar

29 So Moreau, J., Lactance. De la mort des persécuteurs, Vol. 2 (Sources Chrétiennes 39, Paris, 1954), pp. 214 f.Google Scholar

30 Lact. De mort. persecul. 4.2 ‘furere protinus contra deum coepit, ut protinus caderet’ cannot be pressed for data. At least, the second ‘protinus’ is clearly tendentious; Decius’ reign lasted from c. Oct., 249-June, 251 (see F. S. Salisbury and H. Mattingly, art. cit. in n. 1).

31 See the remarks of Hertling, L. and Kirschbaum, E., The Roman Catacombs and their martyrs (Eng. tr. by Costelloe, M.J.London, 1960), p. 145.Google ScholarNelke, L., Die Chronologic der Korrespondenz Cyprians (Diss. Thorn, 1902), p. 17 p.17 n.1, incredibly deduces ‘Celerinus gehörte einer Patricierfamilie an’ from the (standard) form of address ‘Domine frater’ Ep. 22.1.1.Google Scholar

32 Ep. 39.2.2 ‘per decern novem dies custodia carceris saeptus in nervo ac ferro fuit’.

33 Ep. 38.

34 E.g. Saturninus in Ep. 21.4.2 is described as ‘qui et ibi (sc. Carthage) in poena ungularum fortiter est confessus, qui et hic (sc. Rome) nimis rogat et petit’. After his tortures he appears to have been released and gone to Rome. (The Saturninus of Ep. 27.1.1, 4 ought to be distinguished—he appears to be still in prison in Carthage.) Ferrua, A., ‘S. Saturnino martire cartaginese-romano’, Civiltà Cattolica (1939), 436 ff.Google Scholar (unpersuasively) attempts identification with Damasus Epig. 45 and 46 (ed. Ihm). So, too, before summer 250 (Ep. 18.1.2) many of the confessing clergy and laity of Carthage are released (Ep. 13.7.2 ‘nuper cum adhuc essetis in carcere constituti’, cf. Ep. 14.2.3, 20.2.2, 29.1.2).

35 Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. HE vi 41.19 f. (trans. J. E. L. Oulton). This Dioscorus may be the Alexandrian presbyter of the same name eight years later (Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. HE vii 11.24). For aetatis excusatio note Dig. xxix 5.1.32. (Ulpian), xxix 5.14 (Maecianus), xlviii 19.16.3 (Claudius Saturninus).

36 Such as at Alexandria: for an analysis see S. I. Oost, ‘The Alexandrian seditions under Philip and Gallienus’, CP lvi (1961), 1 ff. at 4 ff.

37 In Roman legal theory, at least, imprisonment was merely detentive, not punitive: Ulp. Dig. xlviii 19.8.9 ‘career enim ad continendos homines, non ad puniendos haberi debet’. Ulpian indicates that the theory often broke down in practice.

38 Alföldi, A., in CAH 12, p. 202,Google Scholar and ‘Zu den Christenverfolgungen in der Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts’, Klio n. f. xiii (1938), 323 ff. at 333, argues for two edicts, the second about mid-June (the anniversary of Decius’ dies imperii) calling for more decisive and general action; the first measures were against the leaders of the Church. There is ample evidence to the contrary in the Epistles of Cyprian with lay martyrs, confessors and lapsi well before mid-June, 250 (e.g. Mappalicus, Ep. 10.4.1, 22.2.2, 27.1.1, was martyred in mid-April—19 April, Carthaginian Calendar, 17 April, Calendar of Jerome; the confessor Celerinus appears to be released before early April, 250, Ep. 21.2.1; the wide-spread traffic in libelli pacis for lapsed plebs was well established by the beginning of summer, Ep. 18.1.2, 2.1). No reliance can be placed on the plural edicta feralia (Ep. 55.9.2); the repetition of the phrase in Ep. 58.9.2 (‘ut muniantur aures ne audiant edicta feralia’) in a general hortatory context indicates that the plural is, in all probability, for rhetorical effect (contra Alföldi, art. cit. 324, n. 4)—cf. [Cyp.] Ad Novat. 6 ‘contemnentes edicta saecularium principum’, Novatian ap. Cyp. Ep. 30. 3. 1 ‘propositis adversus evangelium vel edictis vel legibus satisfecisse’.

39 The rites consisted of pouring libation, making sacrifice and tasting the sacred victims—the standard phraseology of the libelli; cf. Gyp. De lapsis 8—eager apostates taking ‘hostia’ and ‘victima’ to the smoking altars. Hence those who complied with the edict are regularly referred to as ‘sacrificati’; there is a unique reference to ‘thurificati’ in Ep. 55.2.1—would this apply to some of the poorer apostates (so DACL IV i [1916], 312)? In most cases the local civitas probably provided the material for the rites.

40 For a list Knipfing, art. cit. 358, nn. 86, 87. Add, e.g., L. Fronza, ‘Studi sull’ imperatore Decio: ii. Problemi di politica interna’, Annali Triestini xxiii (1953), 315 ff. (separate reprint at p. 8).

41 E.g. Frend, W.H.C.Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), p. 407.Google Scholar

42 For the date, Millar, F. ‘The date of the Constitutio Antoniniana‘, JEA 48 (1962), 124 ff.,Google ScholarGilliam, J.F. ‘Dura Rosters and the Constitutio Antoniniana’, Historia 14 (1965), 84 ff. at 90 ff.Google Scholar

43 For exceptions to this rule Condurachi, E. ‘La Costituzione Antoniniana e la sua applicazione nell’ impero romano’, Dacia 2 (1958), 281–316.Google Scholar

44 41 are edited and discussed by Knipfing, J.R. in HTR 16 (1923), 345 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For subsequent corrections and the publication of the further two libelli see Grégoire, H.et al., Les persécutions dans l’empire romain (Brussels, 1950), p. 114.Google Scholar

45 Knipfing, no. 35; see also Winter, J.G.Life and Letters in the Papyri (Ann Arbor, 1933), pp. 141 f.Google Scholar

46 E.g. Knipfing, nos. 32, 33, 36.

47 Knipfing, art. cit. 358.

48 Pap. Michigan iii (1936), 157 (J.G. Winter), cf. Youtie, H.C. ‘The Textual Criticism of Documentary Papyri’, BICS Suppl. 6 (1958), 16 f.Google Scholar

49 Jews were probably exempted—as they were in the Great Persecution; see A.D. Nock, art. cit. 219, n. 125. (Against, unconvincingly, Baer, I.Zion 21 [1956], 1 ff.Google Scholar in summary, p. ii.) The only Christian soldiers who figure as victims are voluntary martyrs (Euseb, . HE 6 41.22 ff.)Google Scholar though religious adherence would be readily detected in barrack life; the authorities may have asked no questions (A.D. Nock, art. cit. 225, cf. Baynes, N.H.CAH 12, pp. 659 f.).Google Scholar Christian soldiers were not expendable.

50 Ep. 15.4.

51 Ep. 55.13.2. Knipfing, no. 33, may illustrate such a sacrifice on behalf of wife, two sons and a daughter (), cf. Oxyrh. Pap. xxxi (1966), no. 2601, a Christian letter where a litigant discovers that at the legal court (11. 9–11); he uses a ‘brother’ as a substitute. This may refer to the first edict of the Great Persecution (Lact. De mort. persecut. 13.1, 15.5).

52 Possibly the ‘nutrix’ of Cyp. De laps. 25 was a slave; she was left in charge of a young child whilst her Christian parents took to flight.

53 See on these gods Frend, op. cit. pp. 405 ff. Cyprian repeatedly emphasizes the world-wide effects of the persecution (e.g. Ep. 19.2.1 ‘totius orbis haec causa est’); we have evidence of the persecution for Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Pontus and very probably Asia (Pionius).

54 E.g. Frend, op. cit. p. 408, ‘Census and tax rolls provided by local officials in each district controlled the number and identity of those who presented themselves to sacrifice’.

55 But note the ideal in Ulp. Dig. 1 15.4.4 (de censibus): ‘In servis deferendis observandum est ut et nationes eorum et aetates et officia et artificia specialiter deferantur’.

56 E.g. Ulpian in Dig. 1 15.3: ‘aetatem in censendo significare necesse est quia quibusdam aetas tribuit, ne tributo onerentur: veluti in Syriis a quattuordecim annis masculi, a duodecim feminae usque ad sexagensimum quintum annum tributo capitis obligantur.’ There were also many immunitates, e.g. Paulus in Dig. 1 15.8. See further Jones, A.H.M. ‘Census records of the Later Roman Empire’, JRS 43 (1953), 49 ff. at 50 f.,Google ScholarDuncan-Jones, R.P. ‘City population in Roman Africa’, JRS 43 (1953), 85 ff at 87 f.,Google Scholar and id., ‘Human Numbers in Towns and Town-Organisations of the Roman Empire: the evidence of Gifts’, Historia xiii (1964), 199 ff. at 201 f.; RE VII A i, s.v. Tributum und Tributes, 68 f. (W. Schwahn). The Egyptian poll-tax (imposed upon non-citizens) seems to have disappeared by this date: Bell, H.I. ‘The Constitutio Antoniniana and the Egyptian poll-tax’, JRS 37 (1947), 17 ff.,Google Scholarde Ste Croix, G.E.M. ‘Aspects of the “Great” Persecution’, HTR 47 (1954). 75 ff at 112 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Knipfing, nos. 5, 10, 18, 20, 21, 28, 35.

58 There is some suggestion that the officials retained a duplicate libellus; two identical libelli have survived for one Aurelia Charts (Knipfing, art. cit., 359 and nos. 11, 26). There are possible traces of archive numbering, A. Bludau, art. cit. in n. 28, at 21.

59 Ap. Euseb. HE vi 41.11.

60 Note, too, the crowds at Carthage, Cyp. De laps. 8: ‘quot illic (i.e. forum) a magistratibus vespera urgente dilati sunt, quot ne eorum differentur interitus et rogaverunt’; ibid. 25 ‘apud idolium quo populus confluebat’ (for the reading ‘idolium’, Andreotti, art. cit., 373, n. 22).

61 Cf. de Ste Croix, art. cit. in n. 54, 97.

62 Cf. under Maximinus Thrax, Cyp. Ep. 75.10.2 (Firmilian): ‘In hac autem perturbatione constitutis fidelibus et huc atque illuc persecutionis metu fugientibus et patrias suas relinquentibus atque in alias regionum partes transeuntibus … ’. Ch. Saumagne, art. cit. 15 ff., errs in assuming that all extorres mentioned by Cyprian have been legally relegated; many are very obviously voluntary exiles: Ep. 66.7.2 distinguishes between those who withdrew voluntarily (‘de medio recederent’) and those who were legally banished (‘in exilium relegati’). In Ep. 58.4.1 f. Cyprian can assume a mass scattering of the flock before the coming persecution of Gallus.

63 Cyp. Ep. 30.8.1 (Novatian).

64 Cyp. Ep. 21.4.1. On Christian Africans in Rome, see further Bardy, G.Irénikon 14 (1937), 113 ff.Google Scholar

65 Cyp. Ep. 7.2 (‘peregrini’).

66 Cyp. Ep. 55.13.2. ‘fratres etiam plurimos qui extorres et profugi recedebant in sua tecta et hospitia recepit’ (contrast the dismissal by Pope Stephen of an embassy of African bishops, Ep. 75.25.1 ‘ … praeciperet fraternitati universae ne quis eos in domum suam reciperet ut venientibus … tectum et hospitium negaretur.’).

67 Migne, PG 46 945DGoogle Scholar (Greg. Nyssa).

68 Dionys, . Alex. ap. Euseb. HE 6 42.2 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Cyp. Ep. 58.4.1 f. for a similar picture of the perils of flight (adding shipwreck to Dionysius’ list).

69 Ep. 55.6.1. Bishops Antonianus (Numidia), Ep. 55.6.1, and Polycarp (Hadrumetum), Ep. 48.2.1, are known absentees.

70 Note, however, the deaths in prison of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Babylas, bishop of Antioch (Euseb, . HE 6 39.2 ff.Google Scholar).

71 Ep. 8.1.1, 2.3; 14.1.2, 2.1; see further Ch. Favez, ‘La fuite de saint Cyprien lors de la persécution de Décius’, REL 19 (1941), 191 ff.Google Scholar

72 E.g. Ep. 5.2.1, 13.4.2; Cyprian assumes his clergy will escape notice: ‘vos, quorum minime illic (i.e. Carthage) invidiosa et non adeo periculosa praesentia est, vice mea fungamini‘, Ep. 14.2.1.

73 Ep. 80.1.2 (Second Rescript).

74 Unless they broke the regulations against holding assemblies or visiting the cemeteries (First Rescript).

75 Jones, A.H.M. ‘The Roman Civil Service (clerical and sub-clerical grades)’, JRS 39 (1949), 38 ff. at 51.Google Scholar

76 It is hard to believe that ‘the penalty for refusal was death’ (Frend, op. cit., p. 407) was of universal application, to judge from Cyprian’s letters; and Cyprian (De laps. 2) does not speak as if the death penalty was primarily envisaged: ‘non praescripta exsilia, non destinata tormenta, non rei familiaris et corporis supplicia terruerunt.’ The purchase of a libellus may not always have ensured peace. Bishops Martial of Emerita and Basilides of Legio and Asturica had not only been defiled with libelli (there is no word of altar and sacrifice); the latter had, in addition, blasphemed against God, the former ‘actis etiam publice habitis apud procuratorem ducenarium obtemperasse se idolatriae et Christum negasse contestatus sit’. It looks as if the mere possession of a libellus was not necessarily sufficient protection for those who had been notorious Christians; their genuineness could be questioned—and further asserverations needed to be made publicly (Ep. 67.6).

77 The case for the libellatici is put in Cyp. Ep. 55.14.

78 Christians readily charged one another with bribery; Cyprian suggests that the favours of those who granted ‘libelli pacis’ could be won with money (Ep. 15.3.2). Christians were used to bribing their way into prisons (Euseb. HE v 1.61); Acts of Paul and Thecla 18, Hennecke, E.New Testament Apocrypha (Eng. tr. by Wilson, R. McL.), Vol. 2 (London, 1965), PP. 357 f.;Google Scholar Novatian contrived his episcopal consecration ‘per ambitum’, Ep. 55.24.2 (vs. Cornelius’ ‘episcopatum non exambitum nee extortum’, Ep. 55.9.1).

79 De fuga 5.5, 12–14.

80 ‘ad magistratum vel veni vel alio eunte mandavi… ’ Cyp. Ep. 55.14.1.

81 The non-extant collection of over 100 epistles of Origen, compiled by Eusebius, might have proved invaluable here (Euseb, . HE 6 36.3).Google Scholar Arguments from silence bear little weight, therefore, on comparative practices in the Eastern and Western Churches for this period.

82 de Ste Croix, HTR 47 (1954), 87 f., 97 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 Ep. Can. 5 (Migne, PG 18 473 f.)Google Scholar (also in Routh, M.J.Reliquiae Sacrae2, Vol. 4 [Oxford, 1846], pp. 28 f.).Google Scholar Bribery as a means of evasion was not condemned, Ep. Can. 12 (Migne, PG 18 500).Google Scholar

84 Art. cit. 87 f.

85 See Knipfing, art. cit. 347.

86 Migne, PG 18 475.Google Scholar

87 (Peter of Alexandria, Migne, PG 18 473);Google Scholar cf. Balsamon, ibid. 475 Zonaras, ibid. 477.

88 Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963), 17.

89 Ep. 52.1.2, 2.5; 59.1.2, 12.1, 14.1; cf. 65.3.1 and Cornelius Ep. 50.1.2 and ap. Euseb, . HE 6 43.8 f.Google Scholar The subject-matter stimulated Cyprian to pen some of his choicest phrases, e.g. ‘matrimonii expugnator alieni’; ‘matrimoniorum multorum depopulator atque corrupter’; ‘avaritiae inexplebilis rapacitate furibundus’.

90 Add to n. 89, Ep. 55.26.1.

91 Ep. 52.2.5. Cf. Tac. Ann. xvi 6 (Poppaea Sabina); Suet. Domit. 22 (Julia).

92 Ep. 75.22.2.

93 Cyp. Ep. 73.19.1 (blasphemy). On the topic see Kelly, J.N.D.Early Christian Doctrines2 (London, 1960), pp. 217 ff.Google Scholar Such rigorism continued; the Council of Elvira (c. 305) has many canons enjoining excommunication without hope of reprieve.

94 Philos. 9. 12 (against Pope Callistus).

95 E.g. De pudicitia 1.6: ‘Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium. Pontifex scilicet maximus, quod est episcopus episcoporum, edicit: “Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta paenitentia functis dimitto”.’ (See Hanson, R.P.C.Tradition in the Early Church [Philadelphia, 1962], p. 149.)Google Scholar

96 Ep. 55.21.1: ‘Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt et in totum paenitentiae locum contra adulteria clauserunt.’

97 de Ste Croix, HTR 47 (1954), 87, n. 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 Art. cit. 12.

99 Cyprian defends his behaviour to Cornelius in Ep. 45 (note especially § 3).

100 Ep. 55.10.2: ‘Explorasse autem collegas nostros scias et verissime comperisse nulla ilium libelli, ut quidam iactant, labe maculatum esse.’

101 Ep. 72.2. For an analysis of Cyprian’s attitude on this topic see Brisson, J.-P.Autonomisme et Christianisme dans l’Afrique romaine (Paris, 1958), pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar

102 E.g. Ep. 55.11.3 (Trofimus), 65.1.1 (Fortunatianus), 67.5.3 (Basilides), cf. 64.1.1 (‘de Victore quondam presbytero’). Peter of Alexandria (Ep. can. 10) upheld the same principle.

103 Ep. 67.5.2 f.

104 Cornelius ap. Euseb, . HE 6. 43.10.Google Scholar