Nero's persecution of Christians and the policy of the Flavian emperors towards them

See article: “The Christian Church in the Roman Empire in the first two centuries,” I issue. “Christ. Readings" for 1894 Nero's persecution of Christians is the first act in which the attitude of the Roman government towards Christians was clearly revealed. Until then, the government ignored their very existence, either by not attaching any political significance to them, or simply by not distinguishing them from the Jews. This attitude towards Christianity was very favorable for its spread, and we know how the preachers of the Gospel repeatedly took advantage of it, resorting in cases of need and unjust oppression to the protection of Roman law. Ap. Paul in Philippi directly referred to the Roman law, which ensured the inviolability of the person of a Roman citizen, which caused extreme embarrassment to the local governors, who exceeded their authority in punishing preachers who turned out to be Roman citizens. The same thing happened in Jerusalem or Caesarea, where he, not satisfied with the justice of the provincial authorities, appealed to the court of the Roman Caesar, as the supreme bearer of Roman law. But this attitude continued precisely until Christianity emerged as a special and, moreover, extremely unique community, which did not resemble any of the previously existing religious communities. Rome by this time had already become a completely cosmopolitan city, and in it one could meet all sorts of religious communities and sects - from crude Druidism to the mysterious Eastern mysticism - but all these communities and sects had one thing in common: they easily tolerated the Roman state cult and had no claim to worldwide distribution. Christianity alone shunned any interaction with the outside world, did not recognize the state Roman cult, considering the idolization of emperors to be complete blasphemy, and boldly declared its claim to complete triumph in the world. This feature of Christianity, of course, was at first more noticeable to society than to the government, since it was precisely individuals, carried away by the preaching of the Gospel, who severed their previous ties, became alienated from family and social relations, ceased to make ordinary sacrifices and take part in amusements and bloodthirsty spectacles, and in general were so transformed in their lives and in their views that they became incomprehensible and strange to their former family and social circle, in which suspicion was first aroused whether these individuals were carried away by some new strange foreign superstition? There were many examples of such passion. Languishing from spiritual emptiness as a result of complete disbelief in the Roman gods ridiculed by philosophers, many really turned with longing to the eastern mysteries, believed various Chaldeans and charlatans who promised to give complete satisfaction to those thirsting for spiritual truth, and themselves participated in various wild bacchanalian meetings, where various frenzied dances were performed to the sounds of the mysterious sistrum with its nerve-shattering chatter; but all this was not the same. Individuals who were carried away by these superstitions did not degenerate so much as to become completely at odds with the entire society, and therefore, although the Roman government looked askance at such hobbies and even more than once subjected all these Chaldeans, astrologers, mathematicians and other charlatans to expulsion from Rome, it did not attach much importance to this movement at all. It was a different matter for the Christians, who completely tore out the people who were infatuated with them from family and society and therefore brought extreme discord into family and social relations. Obviously, this is some kind of particularly evil sect, the people reasoned, a sect possessing some incomprehensible spell to completely take over people. Since Christians and everyone who was carried away by them gathered in secret meetings, had some kind of conventional symbols among themselves, then, obviously, this is some kind of extremely dangerous sect, and its meetings are hidden from the eyes of the uninitiated only because dangerous conspiracies take place there, or even more likely, outrageous immoral orgies, which actually attract weak people to it. Such absurd views began to spread early among the Roman people in relation to Christians, and by the time of Nero they had already taken root so much that they could serve as the basis for the government for its own attitude towards Christians, as was proven by Nero's bloody attempt to exterminate Christians under the plausible pretext of ensuring public safety. The closest reason for the outbreak of persecution of Christians was, as we know, a huge fire, which caused enormous disaster to the Roman population. Although Nero made some efforts to alleviate the plight of the affected population, many signs clearly showed that he was not innocent of this great disaster. Many saw how, at the very time when a terrible fiery element was raging over Rome, devouring its buildings and causing unimaginable misery to the population distraught with grief and ruin, Nero, from the height of the balcony of his country palace, admired the terrible conflagration with undisguised delight and, dressed in a luxurious theatrical cloak, played on the harp an ode he himself composed about the fall of Troy. The spark of suspicion that sunk into the grief-stricken and enraged soul of the people threatened to flare up into a terrible political fire, and since Nero had already managed to sufficiently irritate the people with his crazy antics, he was in great danger. It was necessary to avert this danger at all costs, and for this it was necessary to give satisfaction to the simmering feeling of vengeance in everyone towards the unknown culprit of the disaster. And it was then that Nero, taking advantage of the hostile mood of the people towards Christians, which was obviously already known to him, decided to shift all the blame for the disaster onto the latter as enemies of humanity, and they were accused of arson, and carried out a terrible and bloody execution on them. Its description was preserved by Tacitus, and since that description is the first written evidence of the attitude of the Roman government towards Christianity, it deserves careful study. This is the famous testimony 1. “Neither human help, nor the generosity of the state, nor the propitiation of the gods eliminated the shameful rumor that the fire was a matter of order. Therefore, in order to destroy this rumor, Nero framed the culprits and applied the most exquisite punishments to people hated for their abominations, whom the mob called Christians. The culprit of this, namely Christ, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and, suppressed for a time, the destructive superstition burst out again and spread not only throughout Judea, where this evil began, but also throughout Rome, where they flock from all sides and where all the abominations and shamelessness are widely applied to the matter. Thus, first those who recognized themselves (Christians) were captured, then, at their direction, a huge number of others, and they were convicted not so much of the crime of fire as of hatred of the human race. Their execution was accompanied by mockery: they were covered with the skins of wild animals so that they would die from being torn apart by dogs, or they were nailed to a cross, or burned on fire, and also, when the day ended, they were burned for night illumination. Nero offered his park for this spectacle and gave games in the circus, where he mingled with the common people dressed as a charioteer or driving a chariot. Therefore, although Christians were guilty people and deserved extreme punishment, regret was born towards them, since they were exterminated not for public benefit, but for the sake of the cruelty of one person” 2. When examining this famous testimony, the question of its historical significance in comparison with Pliny’s report involuntarily arises. As for authenticity, there can be no question about it, and if some doubts were raised, as probably and will always be accidentally raised, then they belong, in Ramsay’s opinion, to the curiosities of literature rather than to the essence of the matter. In this respect, the report of Pliny and the testimony of Tacitus are of equal importance; but then significant differences between them begin. First of all, the very purpose of the origin of both documents attracts attention. Pliny wrote his report as a state dignitary, expressing his views and doubts solely for the emperor - he stated, therefore, with the aim of producing a certain literary effect; and from here the question naturally arises: how far did he remain grounded in a reliable description of the event and how far did he succumb to the passion for rhetoric? Then, if Pliny’s report treats a contemporary, so to speak, existing, subject to verification, then Tacitus wrote more than 50 years after the events described, which took place while the historian was a child, and, therefore, when describing these events he had to rely entirely on the testimony of others. Hence, many have an involuntary doubt as to whether he brought into his description those views and feelings that prevailed in his time, which was already relatively distant from the events, and, in any case, undoubtedly, Tacitus, with all his efforts, could not, of course, completely free himself from the influence of his own time, from that everyday experience that had accumulated during the half-century that had passed since the events described. Regarding the first point, the question of the veracity and accuracy of Tacitus' testimony can hardly bother us. The historian, undoubtedly, tried in every possible way to find the most reliable sources, compared them with each other in order to present the event as it happened in reality, and in general to be a very careful follower and accurate chronicler, although the pursuit of literary effect often throws some veil over his presentation. Everyone agrees on this. Another thing is the question of how much Tacitus' story is colored by the circumstances of his own time. Very different opinions were expressed here. According to some, Tacitus, when describing the Christians of Nero's time, used materials contained in Pliny's letter: he borrowed the term fatebantur (recognized), strengthened Pliny's expression superstitio prava immodica into superstitio exitiabilis (pernicious superstition) and used the expression flagitia (abominations), also used by Pliny to explain popular hatred of Christians. Others, on the contrary, argue that Tacitus did not at all take advantage of the data found in Pliny’s report, and, in general, strictly adhered to the ignorant testimony of his contemporaries towards Christians, which he used when compiling his historical writings 3 . “We will not,” says Ramsay, “neither accuse Tacitus of not knowing what Pliny knew, nor attribute to him the introduction of Plinian views into the depiction of a period to which they are alien. We will try to see if Tacitus can be trusted when he claims to have described the state of public sentiment and opinion in the year 64, although without losing sight of the fact that he was probably quite familiar with Pliny’s research and its results. We hold the view that Tacitus wanted and tried to describe the events of 64 (years), as well as other years, exactly as they happened; although we fully admit that he could not completely free himself from the influence of subsequent times, and probably would not have written everything exactly as he wrote it if his Chronicle had been compiled by him during the reign of Nero.” Both in view of this circumstance and due to the significant participation of subjectivity in the expressions of Tacitus, their explanation is much more difficult than the explanation of Plinyev’s report, and therefore, to understand the essence of the matter, it is necessary to turn to the independent testimony of other historians about the same event. Fortunately, other historians also described Nero’s behavior towards Christians on the basis of sources completely independent from Tacitus, and among them the testimony of Suetonius deserves special attention. Suetonius was, as we know, a contemporary of Tacitus and a friend of Pliny the Younger, therefore, he was in close contact with the authors of the two most important documents on the subject under consideration. As a historian, he became especially famous for his writings about the 12 Caesars, when presenting whose lives he constantly noted outstanding facts from their administrative and political actions and orders. Being undoubtedly familiar with the historical works of Tacitus, he directly used them in places, as, for example, this is clear from the life of Vespasian, which speaks of the general expectation that prevailed at that time that a ruler would emerge from Judea who would rule the world 4 . But he also has independent messages, and, moreover, on issues of internal life and politics, making it possible to check and understand Tacitus. Thus, in the biography of Nero, he talks about various administrative measures to maintain public order in Rome, and here, by the way, he mentions the punishment of Christians, as a special class of people distinguished by a new and harmful superstition 5 (6). He obviously considers the measures he outlined to be a model of good administration, and they all have the character not only of temporary, but of permanent administrative and police regulations in the form of maintaining good order and decency. Thus, he mentions regulations against excessive luxury, the replacement of public tables for the needy people with the correct distribution of provisions (sportula), the prohibition of the sale of all ready-made and cooked food, except vegetables, the prohibition of the ugly antics of charioteers, etc. All these decisions have the character of permanent measures aimed at establishing a certain order or suppressing a certain abuse. If among these measures the punishment of Christians is also mentioned, then it would be strange if Suetonius, among the permanent measures indicated by him, also included a random measure against Christians who were punished for arson. It is much more natural and logical to understand the words of Suetonius in the sense that he meant to characterize Nero as an administrator who, due to his duty to maintain peace and order in the capital, took certain general measures against classes of people dangerous to public peace, and these measures were part of the general, permanent system of administration. This is so clear that if the 16th paragraph of Suetonius were the only surviving passage of a pagan writer on the subject under consideration, the view expressed would probably be accepted by everyone - and it, as is obvious, is in complete agreement with the state of affairs that emerged from consideration of Pliny’s report. To be even more convinced of this, one has only to compare with this the same Suetonius’ story about Claudius’s event on the occasion of the unrest that occurred among the Jews in Rome around 52 6. This event, which was obviously an isolated act on a separate occasion and did not entail the establishment of a general rule, is mentioned by him next to such actions of the imperial government as taking away freedom from Lydia, granting the rights of liberty to Rhodes, forgiving the arrears of the Ilians, allowing the German envoys to sit next to the Armenian and Parthian ambassadors in the honorary part of the theater (orchestra). All these are orders that relate to individual particular cases and do not affect the general principle applicable to all cases of a certain kind. From a comparison of these two passages of Suetonius it is clear that he considered Nero's action to be different in nature from that of Claudius. The latter expelled all Jews from Rome; but, as we know from other sources, this was simply a single, separate event and did not constitute a general judgment on the Jews. Meanwhile, Nero established a general principle regulating the attitude of the government towards a certain class of people, in this case - towards Christians, and such a conclusion would undoubtedly have been drawn by all historians, if not for the authority of Tacitus, who is usually interpreted in a sense contrary to the view that naturally arises from a careful examination of the evidence of Suetonius. But even if the words of Tacitus were really in such contradiction with these views, as is usually thought, then, in any case, in view of the fact that Suetonius, in all likelihood, being familiar with the opinion of Tacitus, however deliberately diverged from him, then his independent opinion as a historian who used excellent sources should be taken into account. In reality, however, the description given by Tacitus was partly misunderstood, and, delving into the essence of the matter, it must be said that there is no serious contradiction between these two historians, but only a slightly modified and unequal in detail transmission of the same facts. Suetonius simply gives a brief testimony of the established administrative principle into which Nero's action in relation to the Christians passed, and Tacitus prefaces his account of the same result with a description of the very origin and gradual development of Nero's actions, and the picture he painted is so impressive and vivid that it completely focuses the attention of the reader, distracting him from the final stage and implied result of this action of the emperor. But let us turn to the story of Tacitus and try to understand the facts as they are portrayed by him. To do this, we must try, as far as possible, to look at the matter from the point of view of Tacitus himself and to assimilate for ourselves the tone and those feelings with which, from the calm height of his philosophical speculation, he looked at the base works and concerns, at the enthusiastic errors of what he considered pitiful Christians. According to Tacitus, Nero wanted to ward off the popular indignation that flared up everywhere against him as the culprit of the terrible devastating fire in Rome in 64. For this purpose, he took advantage of the people's dislike for the new sect of fanatics, whom everyone disliked for the heinous crimes they allegedly committed, and who were known among the people under the nickname Christians. He placed all the blame for the terrible fire on them as enemies of society in general, ready to harm the capital in every possible way. Therefore, they began to look for Christians. Those of them who openly admitted to belonging to Christianity were put on trial. Then, based on the information that emerged at the trial, 7 many others were captured, 8 not so much on charges of arson, but on charges of hatred (or hostility) towards the human race 9 . Their executions were turned into popular entertainment, and they, for example, were forced to play the role of Actaeon, torn to pieces by his dogs, they were nailed to crosses, in order to then set them on fire and make them into a kind of torches to illuminate the night festivities in the Vatican gardens. But the search and punishment of Christians continued even after any thought about their complicity in the arson was abandoned. The very safety of the people, as its trustees argued, required that these enemies of society be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law, and other more general charges were brought against them that they used illegal means to seduce their victims among the people and to alienate them from their fatherly moral customs - which charges were proven without much difficulty. There can be no doubt that this kind of accusation was at first popular among the mob. They gave her an object onto which she could direct and temporarily pour out all the frenzied rage aroused by the great fire, especially since the people were already hostile against Christians in advance. But as Tacitus clearly says and as Pliny later testified, the mob did not remain forever blinded in its view of the cause of the fire: it sensed that the real culprit was Nero, and not these unfortunate victims. Finally, the mood of the people turned around, and the Roman public began to feel pity for the Christians. True, they were guilty and fully deserved punishment; but the people understood that they were exterminated not so much for the public good, but for the purpose of satisfying the bloodthirstiness of one person 10 . In order to understand the course of Nero’s actions, it is necessary to clearly and accurately interpret what is actually meant by the “hatred of the human race” of which Christians were accused. They were accused not just of a certain abstract mood, but of actions in which this mood was manifested. For the Romans, the “human race” - genus homanum - does not mean humanity in general, but the Roman world itself, - people who lived according to Roman customs and laws; all other peoples were enemies and barbarians. Christians in this case were the enemies of civilized man and the customs and laws by which civilized society lived. They sought to weaken the ties that held society together, caused divisions in families, set children against their parents, and achieved this goal by malicious means, acting on the minds of their followers through magical spells 11 . They did all this with the aim of being able to commit their abominations (flagitia) more freely. Given the excited state of the people, such an extensible accusation, of course, was not difficult to prove. Christians were indeed hostile to certain customs freely practiced in Roman society, as they considered them vicious or contrary to religion, and in view of this the general conclusion was easily drawn that he who is hostile to one part of social relations is hostile to all mankind. Christians, according to this logic, sought to destroy civilization, and civilization, for the sake of self-defense, must exterminate them 12. The crime of using magic spells to achieve their disgusting goals was closely connected with this and was even easier to prove. The extraordinary influence which the new religion acquired over its adherents, the miraculous change it wrought in its converts, the enthusiastic devotion and unshakable determination of the whole community - all this was adduced as proof that the Christians had recourse to supernatural means and forbidden charms in their actions. The reliability of Tacitus' testimony has been criticized on the grounds that there is no authoritative evidence to prove that such "abominations" were attributed to Christians before the second century. But, not to mention the fact that already in the first letter of the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 2:12) these current accusations of Christians are clearly hinted at in the expression “you are slandered as evildoers” 13, we can answer that, judging by many historical examples, such crimes could very easily be attributed to Christians in their secret meetings from the very beginning. It is truly difficult to understand how such a person as Fronto, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, could believe the popular rumor about these “abominations”; but that Tacitus is truthful, attributing such a rumor to the popular mob in 64, there is no need to prove this. In his very words we find clear proof that he is conveying in his chronicle the current views of the people in 64, and not his own opinions and convictions. At the same time, there is no need to assume that such a thorough researcher himself believed such rumors, especially since he deliberately and carefully limits faith in general in popular rumors and in legends about the past. There are other points in the testimony of Tacitus that need clarification. Thus, especially keen interest was aroused by the true meaning of the expression he used: qui fatebantur - “confessed.” What exactly did the arrested Christians confess to? The issue was resolved differently by different critics, depending on the general meaning that they relied on as the basis of the very view of the attitude of the Roman government to Christianity. The newest criticism, reflecting the tendency of the general trend of anti-church thought, is trying to prove that the Roman government was too tolerant to persecute for religion itself, and therefore the expression of Tacitus “confessed” should be understood not in the sense that those who simply admitted to belonging to Christianity were punished, but those who admitted to arson, therefore, to a criminal offense that was fair and entailed severe punishment from the government 14. Ramsay strongly rejects this view. Credat judaeus Apella - he exclaims. “To me it seems absolutely incredible.” This view assumes that Christians were actually, at least partially, involved in the crime of arson, and this is completely impossible. Not only that, such a view directly contradicts the very narrative of Tacitus. If indeed many of the Christians confessed to the crime of arson and, moreover, during the trial they convicted many more of their brothers in faith of the same thing, then their complicity in the terrible crime would necessarily be accepted by popular opinion. Meanwhile, even after this, the people remained unshaken in their conviction regarding the real culprit of the crime, and the revolution in public opinion, thanks to which many changed their attitude towards Christians and began to feel sorry for them, obviously occurred precisely as a result of the increasingly clear and growing conviction that Christians were innocent of the crime charged against them and were unjustly subjected to cruel punishment. Such a conviction would never have arisen if many Christians had actually admitted to the crime of arson. Thus, the expression “recognized” must be understood in a different sense. The difficulty in truly understanding it, which confuses even critics who are free from a certain kind of tendency, occurs due to the compression of Tacitus’s style; but it disappears by itself if we understand the thought that is in the soul of the author and which he himself assumes in the soul of his readers, namely, that “Christians were accused.” With this idea in mind as being implied by the context, Tacitus then continues: “those who confessed (to being Christians)” were punished. This form of expression, according to which the thought arising from the very circumstances of the matter is only meant, and not expressed directly in words, is completely in the style of Tacitus. In the story of Tacitus, just like in the report of Pliny, a distinction is made between two classes of Christians - some of whom did not make a secret of their religion, but openly admitted belonging to it, and perhaps even preached it, while others maintained it secretly, so that even their closest neighbors did not know about them that they were Christians. The latter, as one can probably conclude, were incomparably more numerous, and they, obviously, in all external relations had to avoid everything that could show their difference from their pagan neighbors. Moving among a society in which countless little details of everyday life were in close connection with the state religion, they, of necessity, had to conform in appearance to the nature of this life and sometimes perform such customs that, in a strict sense, were recognized as a pagan cult 15. And so, if those who openly recognized themselves as Christians were the first to be captured and given over to the vengeance of the people’s fury, then at the trial under torture many of those who were hitherto unknown were convicted of belonging to Christianity as such, since in everyday life they were no different from their pagan neighbors. In this respect there is a very great similarity between Tacitus and Pliny; but to conclude from this that Tacitus, to depict the state of things during the reign of Nero, used colors borrowed from Pliny and depicting the state of things already in the 2nd century, would be completely unfair. We find even more analogies between Pliny’s mode of action and the mode of action of the ruler of Gaul Lugdunskaya in 177. But this similarity did not depend at all on borrowing, but on significant similarities in the very circumstances of the case. Now the question arises, what was the actual nature of Nero’s persecution and what was its duration and prevalence. If we take the words of Tacitus by themselves, then there is nothing in them that could indicate that the persecution of Christians under Nero continued for several years; but on the other hand, there is nothing in them that disagrees with the conclusion that follows from the testimony of Suetonius. Tacitus, as we have seen, argues that "vast multitudes" of Christians were condemned because of their supposed hatred of the human race or hostility to Roman society. The persecution continued until the Roman population became tired of it and began to feel pity for the sufferers. Here we have the only expression in the entire chapter that can serve as an indication of the scope of the persecution. The expression ingens multitudo (huge multitude), taken by itself, could well be interpreted by such a writer as Tacitus, and in the sense that the number of those captured was large in view of the crime of arson itself, in which there are usually not many accomplices. But, on the other hand, it was necessary to capture a truly considerable number of accused and it took a lot of time to satiate the population with the horrors of executions, which was accustomed to finding its highest entertainment in public bloodshed, often committed on a colossal scale. Therefore, those writers who try in every possible way to minimize the extent of the persecution and look at it as the execution of only a few Jews, encounter great difficulty here. To think so means not to take into account the character of the Roman population, and if the testimony of Tacitus is true that even this population was disgusted with the massacre carried out on Christians, and was imbued with a feeling of pity for them, then, consequently, the persecution to which they were subjected was indeed terrible in its bloodthirstiness and did not last for a short time. From here we can partly conclude that the persecution of Neronovo, begun with the goal of turning people’s attention away from the main culprit of the disaster that befell the capital, continued afterwards as a permanent administrative event in the form of a general persecution of Christians as people dangerous to public well-being. From Pliny's report, as was clarified earlier, it follows that the attitude of the Roman government towards Christians was determined by a general principle that had already been established and was in action before the time of Trajan. Now the question arises: is this not the same principle that was introduced by Nero? The answer must be given in the negative. Pliny and Tacitus both stand on the idea that Christianity, in itself, is a crime deserving punishment by death. According to their position, no inquiries are made, no investigations are carried out regarding crimes committed by Christians; one recognition of oneself as a Christian (recognition of one’s name) is enough for immediate condemnation to follow. This was not the case under Nero. They were put on trial and condemned not for their name, but for those outrageous “abominations” that were associated in the general imagination with this name 16. These abominations or crimes were considered, first of all, arson and then hostility towards civilized society, expressed in the use of harmful magic spells and in the violation of established customs of public life. Although the clarity of the presentation was partly influenced by the rhetoric of Tacitus, in any case this does not undermine the reliability of his testimony, and, relying on it, we can draw a distinctive line between the persecutions of Nero and those that occurred in the time of Trajan. The mode of action attributed by historians to Nero is indeed significantly different from the politics of Trajan's time, and if Tacitus, being familiar with the latter, describes Nero's mode of action as different from it, then this means that in his presentation he was guided by some more ancient sources. And if these sources were not completely convincing for him, then he, of course, would have portrayed Nero’s policy as being in use towards Christians in his own time. The chapter we are considering actually describes an event that occurred in the year 64, and Nero reigned for another four years after that. Thus, there is an opportunity for the transition of anti-Christian politics from the stage described by Tacitus (at which, in order to condemn a Christian, proof was required that he had committed some action hostile to society) to a further stage, depicted by Pliny (at which it is assumed that all Christians are guilty of such hostility and can be immediately condemned upon recognizing the name of Christians). Did this further step thus take place precisely in the later years of Nero’s reign? During the reign of Nero there was hardly enough time for such developments in policy towards Christians. The persecution began in 64 and it seems to have stopped when Nero left Rome towards the end of 66 17 . The emperor continued the persecution even after the people had ceased to sympathize with him, and when his personal influence was eliminated, the persecution itself could hardly be carried out on the same scale any longer. Flavius ​​Sabinus, who was the prefect of the capital at that time, was not the kind of person who could energetically continue the persecution, especially since it was already running counter to the mood of the people. True, Sulpicius Severus, whose story about Nero’s persecution is based on Tacitus and is conveyed in almost the same words, continues: “This was the beginning of harsh measures against Christians. Afterwards, this religion was prohibited by formal laws, and the profession of Christianity was declared illegal by specially issued decrees” 18. But the value of this later testimony depends entirely on its source, and there can be no doubt that its author had no other sources before him than Tacitus, and therefore it should be looked at precisely as the testimony of the latter, set forth by him in one of the later (not extant) chapters of his Chronicle, and if he speaks of positive laws against Christians, then this, in all likelihood, dates back to the time of subsequent reigns. Nevertheless, as we saw earlier from the testimony of Suetonius, Nero made the persecution of Christians based on principle. Is this conclusion compatible with the testimony of Tacitus? The answer must be in the affirmative. In any particular trial there must be a general principle that certain acts of which all Christians have been found guilty deserve the penalty of death. Even after Nero left Rome, the prefect of the city had to consider it his duty to follow the example given by the emperor, since neglecting him or challenging his justice would be high treason. And the legend that St. Paul suffered martyrdom in 67 or 68, which is an indication that the persecution of Christians continued partly in the absence of Nero, supported by his representatives, probably the prefect of the city. If in this way a certain principle was established in Rome in relation to Christians, then it is quite natural to assume that the rulers of the provinces tried, as far as possible, to conform to the views and mode of action of the imperial power. For this there is no need even to assume the issuance of a general edict or formal law. In any case, when a Christian was subject to accusation, it was possible to refer to precedents in the capital. The accusations, which in many places were leveled at the ap. Paul, undoubtedly, were often targeted at others, and the emperor’s view of Christians, which was so bloodily revealed in Rome, certainly set the tone for the actions of the provincial authorities. “We therefore conclude,” says Ramsay, “that the attitude of the Roman government towards Christians became more clearly defined between the years 68 and 96, and at the same time the very view of them changed, so that in judicial proceedings proof of the commission of certain crimes was no longer required, but the recognition of a name alone was considered sufficient for conviction. Nero treated Christians as criminals and punished them for their crimes; Pliny and Trajan, on the contrary, look at them as lawless people and robbers, and punish them without any regard to their crimes.” Finally, it is interesting to consider what data the actual contemporary Christian documents provide for resolving the issue. In the Apocalypse and the First Epistle of St. Peter, we see already the second stage in the development of the Roman government’s policy towards Christians, and the latter suffer in them for their name. As for the other New Testament books, there is still no hint of persecution for the name. The persecution itself is clearly spoken of, but it has not yet taken the organized form prescribed by the government. Advice given by the ap. Paul, regarding the attitude of Christians to the pagan society among which they have to live, are in complete agreement with the position that they occupied, according to the above description, during the reign of Nero. According to this advice, they were to, as far as it was compatible with their religion, avoid any encroachment on the existing social order. Thus, slaves must still obey their masters, and in everyday life all the requirements of customs must be observed, even if they sometimes have a religious character. The most clearly expressed ap. Paul's view of this subject is in 1 Tim.6:1, where he says that slaves who are under the yoke should consider their masters worthy of all honor, so that there is no blasphemy against the name of God and the teaching, and in Titus 2:4,5, where young wives are advised to strictly observe the established relations of family life, so that the word of God is not reviled. In both cases, the position of Christians in pagan households is not only not excluded, but is the subject of special attention. The established social order, as far as possible, had to be respected, because any attempt to violate it could only give rise to slander and accusations against Christians who bear the name of God, as well as against the teachings they preach. The same meaning is found in James 2:6,7: Do not the rich oppress you, and do they not drag you into courts? Are they not the ones who dishonor the good name by which you are called? Here, too, the “name” does not yet have the character and meaning that were associated with it twenty years later, when it became almost a technical term. In the years 65–70, teachers of Christianity warned Christians only against this danger, so that, due to their tactlessness, slander and false accusations would not be spread against them among the people, for which they could later be prosecuted. All this exactly corresponds to the policy of the end of Nero’s reign, as it is depicted by us 19. From all that has been said, the general position follows that with Nero a new era began in the relations between the Roman government and Christianity, or, more precisely, the imperial government then for the first time took a definite position in relation to the new religion. Suetonius clearly testifies to this, and Tacitus does not disagree with him. Until then, the Roman rulers generally treated Christians with indifference or even with some favor, although with an admixture of contempt (as was revealed especially, for example, in Ephesus and Corinth - before the tribunal of the noble Gallio - Acts 18:13). If they sometimes acted harshly, then they were influenced by the hostility towards Christians instilled in them by noble Jews, or they subjected Christians to punishment for those unrest and disorders that were in one way or another associated with the presence and actions of Christians. But after 64, the example set by the emperor necessarily served as a guide for all Roman officials in their relations with Christians. And yet religion itself was still not criminalized in itself. This happened after him, under the subsequent emperors of the Flavian house. Moving on to the consideration of the policy of the Flavian house in relation to Christians, it must be said that its development is fraught with great ambiguities, and in the absence of direct evidence one has to largely limit oneself to hypotheses. During the first two years after the death of Nero, the ensuing anarchy was naturally not conducive to clarifying the attitude of the imperial government towards Christians, but it was clearly revealed with the consolidation of the Flavian house on the throne, and, according to Ramsay, a new stage in the policy of the Roman government towards Christians began already under Vespasian, after several years of his reign. It may seem somewhat strange that this policy could be established precisely under Vespasian, who, as is known, was distinguished by a great gentleness of character and even, as they say in one unfortunately spoiled passage in Suetonius, “never felt pleasure from the death of anyone, and even in the case of deserved punishments, he cried and groaned” 20. But upon closer examination of the matter, it turns out that this very phrase may indicate Vespasian’s attitude towards Christians. Indeed, it is somehow strange to imagine the matter as if Vespasian, this valiant Roman, a proven warrior, accustomed to bloodshed during his wars in Britain and Judea, cried and groaned at every need to sign a death sentence even over a deserving criminal. Such a presentation of the case is inconceivable, and the evidence indicated clearly indicates Vespasian's attitude towards some special class of people, whose punishment he considered necessary due to the established principle of the state, although he personally regretted it. And this special class of people were, of course, Christians. As a gentle, highly humane sovereign, he personally could have nothing against Christians and even regret them as erring, requiring fatherly care for their conversion to the true path; but as emperor he had to enforce the principle of state policy towards them and punish them as followers of a religion harmful and dangerous to Roman society - a policy that, in addition to any edicts, could, due to the natural development of the basic principle laid down by Nero, come to its logical consequence, so that Christianity began to be considered not only as capable of producing criminals, but as criminal in itself, in its very essence. And it was the contradiction between personal feeling and public duty that put such a humane and gentle emperor as Vespasian in a state in which he “cryed and groaned.” It is clear that this very condition of the emperor could partly slow down the further development of this policy; but nothing hindered this development when Domitian ascended the Roman throne (after the short reign of Titus), in whose very character there was no longer room for humane feelings, but, on the contrary, the soulless principle of a cruel and unyielding sovereign in his policy appeared in all its strength. Domitian is forever immortalized in the memory of the Christian world as one of the fierce persecutors of the church; his name in the ancient Christian view always stands inseparable from the name of Nero, and there are many indications of his persecution both in the New Testament books of his time and in the most ancient monuments of Christian literature. Unfortunately, ancient pagan literature is not so rich in its evidence in this regard. She is almost completely silent about his persecution, and we have only one place where it is directly stated that Domitian subjected certain persons to punishment on the basis of religion. This passage appears in an abbreviated account of the history of Dio Cassius, made by the monk Xyphilinus in the 11th century. It specifically says that in the year 95, the consul of that year and the emperor's cousin, Flavius ​​Clymenus, and his wife Flavia Domitilla, the emperor's niece, were tried on charges of sacrilege, or more precisely, atheism (ἀϑέοτης). Clement was executed and Domitilla was exiled. At the same time and on the same charge, “many others” were subjected to death or confiscation of property, and among them Atsilius Glabrion, consul of 91, who after his consulate was sent into exile. Dio Cassius mentions that the persons against whom such an accusation was leveled “fell into error according to the customs of the Jews.” With all the uncertainty of this evidence, it is clear in any case that several Roman citizens changed their religion and that the charge on the basis of which they were tried was that they had committed sacrilege or fallen into atheism. Now the question arises, what was the religion to which these noble Romans converted? In the absence of clear instructions, this issue was resolved in different ways; but one can hardly doubt that this religion was Christian. Of course, Judaism also intensively carried out propaganda among Roman society and found many proselytes among it - both in the lower and upper classes of society, and even in the very palace of the Caesars. But here, obviously, there is a different religion. Judaism was a religion permitted by the government and recognized as a known cult, i.e. service to God and, therefore, the name “atheism”, for which these noble Romans were actually condemned, does not apply to it. Christianity is a different matter. Both the people and the government itself looked upon it with hostility as an incomprehensible and outrageous movement, hardly having even the semblance of a religion. The worship of some kind of Christ crucified for his rebellious behavior, the rejection of all external worship of God and the associated hatred of any social welfare, of the entire human race - all these features made Christianity in the eyes of the Romans precisely some kind of outrageous “atheism,” so that the cries: “Down with the atheists!” - were a common expression of the rage of the pagan mob towards Christians. And such godlessness could only be imputed to high-ranking Roman dignitaries as a crime, for which they were subjected to cruel punishment. This assumption is fully confirmed by the legend, which forever preserved the memory of Domitilla as a martyr; the catacomb on the Ardeatine road, where she was buried, began to be called after her. Eusebius also says that she was a Christian, and in general in this regard there is so much evidence in tradition that to question them would be contrary to all the rules of sound criticism 21. It remains strange that Cassius Dio does not say this directly, but expresses it vaguely: “they fell into error according to the customs of the Jews.” But this can be explained without much difficulty. Although he wrote already in the 3rd century and, no doubt, was well aware of the existence of Christians, he, like other writers of the same kind, carefully passed them by in silence, deliberately ignoring their very existence and considering them too pitiful and insignificant a phenomenon to do them the honor of mentioning them in their creations that claimed immortality. Not wanting to stain and spoil their creations with barbaric provincialisms, Greek highly intelligent writers therefore avoided including on their pages such a vulgar name as χριστιανὸς, used only among simple, dark people, and Dio Cassius undoubtedly belonged to the number of these pompously squeamish writers, as a result of which he, even knowing well what was the matter, preferred write a vague phrase: “they fell into error according to the customs of the Jews”... And that the government by the end of the 1st century did not yet distinguish Christians from Jews, as some researchers try to assert, 22 this assumption is absolutely incredible, since the Roman government was always distinguished by amazing administrative foresight, to which, in fact, it owed its enormous success in the Romanization of conquered peoples. Then it is known that both the people and the government well distinguished Christians from Jews as early as 64; so the blame for the great fire fell precisely on the first, without affecting the Jews at all. If this was already the case during the reign of Nero, then there is no need to say that during the reign of Domitian the government was well acquainted with Christianity and had already managed to clearly define its attitude towards it. In this case, the whole matter is presented in the following form. If in the past the government, in its relations with Christians, so to speak, only applied to the popular mood regarding them and to popular rumors, which spread all sorts of slander about them as people committing various abominations and harboring hatred for the human race, then in the next thirty years after the reign of Nero it had already managed to develop its own view of them, and since this view essentially did not differ at all from the popular one, and Christianity was considered even by the highest representatives of the Roman intelligentsia with a harmful and ugly superstition, then the government acted in relation to Christians in accordance with precisely this view. A harmful superstition must be eradicated, people imbued with this superstition and therefore harboring hatred of the human race and hostility to the established social order must be exterminated - this was the principle of the Roman government. For a comfortable life, in the opinion of the government, they were just as dangerous as, for example, robbers, and therefore should be subject to unrelenting persecution like the latter 23. And this view intensified as the autocratic power of the emperors grew stronger and stronger. Under Domitian, she found an unyielding spokesman who, possessing an arrogant, intolerable and suspicious character, crushed everything in her name with tyrannical cruelty. And since Christianity, in turn, spread and strengthened, the struggle, the most fierce struggle between them became inevitable, and under Domitian it was precisely this that was expressed in the executions of even the highest Roman dignitaries suspected of belonging to what he considered to be a criminal class of people. The sharpness of this struggle was also given by the fact that Domitian, feeling the precariousness of his position due to the dissatisfaction of the people and the nobility with his despotic rule, was extremely afraid of conspiracies, especially among the nobility, who had the opportunity to present rivals to him. Moreover, he was so jealous of the interests of his autocracy that he was suspicious even in general of philosophers and writers who treated the old republican times, and in 93 he expelled teachers of philosophy from Rome, and even put to death many Romans who were interested in philosophy. Finally, in the same vein of strengthening imperial power, Domitian was especially concerned about restoring the national Roman cult. In this regard, he adhered to the policy of the founder of the empire, Augustus, and, like him, looked at the imperial cult as an integral part of the national, state religion. He liked to identify himself with Jupiter and accept worship as Providence embodied in human form, and it is known that he, along with two other emperors - Caligula and Diocletian, liked to call himself Dominus et deus - sovereign and god. Although one cannot help but see in this partly manifestations of personal whim, they were still based on a general governmental system, according to which religion formed an essential part of the governmental machine. Hence, non-recognition of the state religion was naturally placed on the same level as treason against the state. Of all the religions, only the Christian one resolutely opposed the adoption of the imperial cult as contrary to its very essence, irreconcilable with the idolization of man, and since it had already managed to arouse the government’s suspicions against itself, now the state attacked Christians as people intolerant in a well-ordered state. The conversion of Clement and other noble Romans to this religion was tantamount to treason against their emperor, and therefore the imperial power mercilessly subjected them to death or exile. And if this is how the government treated the highest Roman dignitaries, then there is nothing to say about ordinary mortals, who were exterminated by the hundreds as enemies of the state and society, and if such prim writers who valued their literary fame, like Cassius Dio, considered it beneath their dignity to deal with such vulgar events (as they did not, for example, deal with the story of how the government grabbed and crucified thieves and robbers), doing With the exception of only a few noble persons, the people's memory forever preserved the memory of this terrible time and the name of Domitian was immortalized as the name of one of the three worst persecutors of Christianity 24. And thus, under Domitian, the nature of the relationship between the Roman government and Christianity, which we see in Pliny’s report, fully developed. The state views Christians as politically harmful and therefore intolerant people, and considers it its duty to persecute them all in general, without regard to private crimes. The government did not consider it necessary to even consider the question of whether certain crimes were actually committed by Christians. For him, the name Christian is enough to expose those who bear this intolerant name to persecution or death. All Christians were placed outside the law that protected the rights and advantages of people, and the entire course of legal proceedings against them was limited only to inquiry in order to make sure whether the person was really a Christian, and once this was found out, his fate was decided. It was no longer possible to go further than this in the denial of Christianity, and to what extent this attitude was maintained after Trajan, this will be discussed in the next final article, which will give a general view of the reasons and scope of the persecution of Christians in the first two centuries. We present it in the translation by V.I. Modestov, who, in our opinion, gives the most authoritative interpretation of this passage of Tacitus, based on a thorough study of the best commentators of the famous Roman historian. Works by Korn. Tacitus in trans. V.I. Modestov, vol. II, Chronicle, chapter. XV, 44, pp. 490–491. That Tacitus knew about Christians no less than any other Roman of his time, there can be no doubt, because 1) he was the proconsul of Asia, this main stronghold of Christianity, around 112-116, before the compilation of the Chronicle (see the Milasian inscription, cited in Lull. de Corresp. Hell. 1890, p. 621); 2) he, as is known, made great efforts to collect the best data for his history, and consulted with Pliin on another subject when compiling his earlier great work. Wed. Vesp. 4 with Tac. Hist. V, 13, where the rumor is conveyed almost literally by both historians. Genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maieficae. Ner. 16. Exitlabilis superstitio – says Tacitus in turn. Cloud. 25. Here, according to the generally accepted view, we have proof that Christians during the reign of Claudius were still considered simply a Jewish sect, and the differences between Christians and Jews were viewed by the authorities used by Suetonius as “constant discord among the Jews.” In the original indicio eorum (“according to their instructions” in Prof. Modestov’s translation); the word indicium - “indication” was obviously used by Tacitus not in the strict sense of testimony given by a criminal who betrays his accomplices due to the impunity promised to him, and we cannot assume that the first arrested Christians voluntarily drew the attention of the judges to their other brothers; hence, by “indication” we must understand the data obtained from them during the trial against them. Here the expression in Tacitus is rather unclear - convicti sunt (according to the translation by Mod. “convicted”). Many understand here conjuncti, and Boissier even corrects it, in conjuncti reperti sunt (“accomplices were revealed”). The rhetoric of Tacitus is to blame for this ambiguity. But there is no need to resort to guesswork and corrections. One must adhere to the authentic reading, as it appears in the manuscript. Tacitus does not directly say in precise terms that the accused were convicted: “they were brought to trial and subjected to newly invented refined punishments.” If he had said just this, then it would be impossible not to understand him: everyone would understand the rhetorical device here, according to which the author, leaving the essential point of the accusation for the consideration of the reader himself, hastens to move on to the description of the final scene. But in order to portray this even more effectively between the two assumptions describing trial and punishment, he inserts another sentence regarding the second category of criminals, and from this the following form is obtained: “first several people were put on trial, then others suffered the same fate: they were executed,” etc. The expression here is very significant: haul perinde in crimine incendii (“not so much in the crime concerning the fire” according to M.’s translation). This expression must be interpreted by analogy with the same expression in XIII, 21, where Agrippina, defending herself against Silana’s accusation that she had plotted against her own son Nero, says: neque proinde a parentibus liberi quam ab impudica adultery mutantur - “it is not so easy for parents to change their children, as for a depraved woman to change her lovers,” i.e. Although Agrippina does not deny the possibility that parents do not become alienated from their children from time to time, the latter cases occur immeasurably more often. So in this case, Tacitus does not want to assert that no Christian was already involved in the crime of arson and was not convicted of this particular crime; but the accusation based on another circumstance he indicated was much more common. History knows similar cases of how the mob, greedy for everything unusual, is able to immediately pour out its rage on an object that has aroused its suspicion, and how it is then able to quickly change its view and repent of the cruelties it has just committed. This is exactly what happened in England in 1679, during the massacres carried out among the Roman Catholic population over the so-called “Popish Plot”. Odium generis humani is the crime of poisoners and wizards. The punishments to which Christians were subjected under Nero were exactly those that were established for wizards. Paulius, Sentent. V.23.17: Magicae artis conscious summon supplicio affici placuit, id est bestiis obici aut cruci suff gi. Ipse antem magi vivi exuruntur. By order of Constantine the Great, those who practiced magic - feralis pestis absumat (Cod. Theod. IX, 16.5); Haruspices were also burned (ibid. IX, 16.1). In this regard, the phrase: utilitate publica (for public benefit) becomes important. Obviously, Nero used public benefit as the basis for his constant persecution of Christians. Καταλαλοῦντες ὑμῶν ὡ; χαχοποιῶν. This is precisely the view expressed in our literature by the Kyiv prof. Yu. Kulakovsky in his publ. Lectures "The Christian Church and Roman Law during the First Two Centuries"; but he met ardent opponents in the person of the anonymous author of polemical articles in “Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academy" for 1892, as well as in the person of prof. V.I. Modestov - in his article about Tacitus in “Journal. Min. N. Pr.” for Dec. 1893 For a note about it, see “Ts. Vestn." No. 51 of 1893, p. 815. This probably explains the fact that the pagan formula D(is) M(anibus) is sometimes found on Christian tombs. There was even a lot of controversy about this in the ancient church. And the question has been repeatedly raised and resolved to what extent such external fulfillment of pagan customs is consistent and reconcilable with the dignity of a Christian, and where is the dividing point beyond which the conditionality of observing pagan customs turns into the recognition of paganism itself as a religion. Flagitia cohaerentia nomini. This does not mean that executions of Christians stopped completely, but that they were carried out sporadically. The general fact remained that Christianity, as a source of unrest for society, was opposed and persecuted by the state whenever any outstanding phenomenon reminded the government of it. Negative criticism, however, tries in every possible way to distance the New Testament books from the times of Nero and uses all possible means to do this. So, Goltsman tries to attribute I last. to Timothy by the 2nd century on the basis that in 1 Timothy 2:2 it is prescribed to pray not for the king, but for kings (ὐπὲρ βασιλέων, pro regibus) and, therefore, its composition must be attributed to the time when two Caesars reigned together, namely M. Aurelius and L. Ver. But such subtleties do not stand up to positive criticism, and the plural form of this word, used without a member, does not at all indicate “the emperors who are reigning at the present time,” but means “kings in general.” It is remarkable that in the Slavic text, regardless of the Greek, it is precisely “for the king” (singular). In Russian translation, “for the kings.” Suetonius, Vesp. 15.Neque caede cujusquam umquam [laetatus est et] justis suppleciis inlacrimavit etiam et ingemuit. Some fill the gap marked by brackets with one word laetatus, but neque, standing at the beginning of a phrase, always necessarily presupposes et in the subsequent development of thought. Important data in this regard are also presented by De Rossi's discoveries, the essence of which see Lightfoot, Clement I, p.35 et seq. In Eusebius in Ts.I. III, 18: at Sinkell's in Bonn. Ed. Page 650; also see Acta Nerei et Achillei. The same, although with less clarity, applies to Acilius Glabrio, who aggravated his guilt by the fact that during his consulship he fought in the arena and thus insulted the “greatness of the Roman power” (laesa majestas). Neumann and others, and behind them the Kyiv prof. Yu. Kulakovsky. Characterizing the attitude of the Flavian house towards Christians, Mommsen aptly says: “The persecution of Christians at this time was as constant and common as the persecution of robbers.” Provinces of the Rom. Empire, English translation II, p. 199. It is interesting to note that in a look at Domitian’s policy towards Christians, the English. prof. Ramsay is a determined opponent of the Kyiv. prof. Kulakovsky and thus, with his high authority, once again exposes the latter’s unfounded, albeit arrogant, liberalism. Wed. brochure of the Kyiv anonymous “Chron. C. and Rome. law” p.61 et seq.