Bribe and punishment: to the question of persistence of pagan cults in late antiquity

The authorities of the late Roman Empire tried to regulate the public life of its citizens. This was reflected, among other, in legislative ban on the activities of dissident religious movements. Legislators have been particularly zealous confronting various pagan cults. The imperial authorities regularly updated and toughened anti-pagan legislation. At least twenty-one edicts were issued against paganism and pagans since the final ban on all forms of pagan cult under Emperor Theodosius I in 391 and up to the reign of Justinian I.1

The very fact of a constant repetition of edicts aimed at eradicating paganism testifies to the ineffectiveness of the religious policy of the empire: during the 4th– 6th centuries pagan worship continued among the lower stratas of the roman soci- ety as well as in the ranks of the members of the elite. In 438, Emperor Theodosius II confessed that the pagans could be corrected neither by “a thousand terrors” of the promulgated laws, nor by the threat of an exile (Nov. Theod. III.8).

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the survival of pagan cults, the sources, illustrating the life of the empire in of the end of the 4th – the beginning of the 6th centuries practically do not mention cases of judicial proceedings of facts of violation of religious legislation.2 An eloquent example of the actual attitude of the government to paganism is the reaction of the emperor Arcadius (who was responsible for several harsh anti-pagan laws3) on the news of continued sacrifice in one of the cities of Palestine cited by Mark the Deacon: “I know that that city is prone to idolatry, but it is willing to pay its dues in public taxes, bringing in substantial amounts. Therefore, if we suddenly instill fear in them, they will take flight and we will lose this great amount of tax income”4 (Marc. V. Porph. 41 trans. Head). While verbally lashing paganism out in the edicts, the government and provincial administration turned “blind eye” at the facts of preservation of ancient religious practices.

The reason for this discrepancy between legislation and legal practice is found in different circumstances. According to F. Trombley, the administrative apparatus of the empire was simply unable to implement the legislation that radically contradicted the established social practices.5 For A. S. Kozlov and M. Maza the lack of real repressions against the pagans was caused by the authorities’ unwillingness to antagonize pagan aristocrats, who still were very numerous.6 Both the military and bureaucratic administration were interested in maintaining contacts with the regional nobility, which forced them to put up with its religious predilections.

Finally, despite the repeated prohibition to accept the followers of the ancient cults for state service,7 a significant part of high ranking civil and military personnel remained faithful to the religion of their ancestors during the 5th-6th centu-ries.8 The numbers of crypto-pagans, who had formally accepted baptism but remained true to paganism in their hearts, was probably much larger.9 Obviously, these office-holding pagans and crypto-pagans weren’t eager to implement legislation directed against their coreligionists.

Without denying the importance of the above-mentioned factors for the preservation of ancient cults, it should be noted that the reasons for the existence of paganism in the Christian empire were not confined to them. The purpose of this article is to highlight another feature of the socio-political life of Later Roman Empire, which contributed to the long-term preservation of traditional cults, namely, corruption of the state administration and the Christian clergy.

Literary sources of the 5th-6th centuries give several examples of the pagans purchasing the right to worship their gods in traditional manner.

The first of them, which occurred in Gaza, was described by Mark the Deacon in the Vita Porphyrii.10 During the 4th century Gaza, along with such Palestinian cities as Raphia11 and Scythopolis12 remained a stronghold of paganism. At the turn of the century, the Christian community of this important city comprised of less than three hundred members (Marc. V. Porph. 19). Despite the fact that the laws of the emperors Theodosius and Arcadius provided severe punishments for any pagan religious activities (СTh. XVI.10-13), in the last years of the 4th century the pagans of Gaza continued to visit temples openly, make sacrifices and perform ceremonies in honor of their gods.

An attempt to alter this situation was made by Bishop Porphyry, who became the head of the Gazan Christian community around 395 AD. Despite some progress achieved by Porphyry in the Christianization of Gaza in the first years of his ministry, in general his preaching did not bring the expected results. Most of the city's population and all of the members of the local curia continued to hold to the ancestral customs. At the same time, even the most modest growth of the Christian community strengthened the anti-Christian attitudes of the pagans. Mark the Deacon stated that “the idol-maniacs did not cease to harry the blessed man and the other Christians. When they got hold of a pagan magistrate, they secretly persuaded him, either with bribes or with help of their godless cult, to oppress the Christians”¹³ (Marc. V. Porph. 21 trans. Head).

Unable to solve the situation by his own means, Porphyry looked for support of the higher authorities. Around 398 AD14 he sent an envoy to the Patriarch of Constantinople John Chrysostom,15 pleading his help in a struggle against the pagans of Gaza. Thanks to the assistance of the omnipotent favorite Eutropius, John managed to get the emperor’s order to close all the pagan sanctuaries of Gaza. The execution of this law was entrusted to some Hilarius – an administrator subordinate to Magister officiorum. He arrived in Gaza accompanied by a military escort and, threatening death to the curials, succeeded in closing the city's temples. However, after receiving a large bribe, he allowed the pagans to practice their rites and rituals in the temple of the head of the local pantheon – Zeus-Marnas (ibid. 27). This bribe delayed the end of the open pagan worship in Gaza by several years. Only the second embassy of Porphyry in Constantinople, orga- nized around 401, was able to obtain the emperor’s sanction for the destruction of local temples.16

Two examples of the administration's taking bribes from pagans are known from the works of Egyptian hagiography: “Panegyric on Makarios of Tkow” 17 and “The Life of Moses of Abydos”. The first of the testimonies refers to the cult of the god Kothos worshiped in the vicinity of Panopolis in Thebaid. During the 4th-5th centuries Panopolis was one of the largest centers of “Hellenism” (both cultural¹⁸ and religious¹⁹) in Upper Egypt.²⁰ Despite the bitter struggle waged by the monastic communities against local cults, paganism was still widespread in the territory of the Panopolitan chora.²¹

Kothos22 was among the most venerated deities in the region. According to the Coptic “Panegyric on Makarios of Tkow,” attributed to Dioskoros of Alexandria, the locals continued to perform religious ceremonies and sacrifice in honor of their god up to the middle of the fifth century. From the name of the high priest (Homer) it can be assumed the priesthood of Kothos was composed of the members of local Hellenized aristocracy.23 It is most likely that it was thanks to the in-

Mikhail Vedeshkin / ΣΧΟΛΗ Vol. 12. 1 (2018) 265 fluence and support of the local landholding aristocracy paganism persisted among some of the rural inhabitants of the region.

After being seized by the authorities during the ritual, the worshippers of Ko-thos were soon released and the sacrifices resumed. Author of the Panegyric stated that it was made possible because the “the authorities of this nome were greedy”²⁴ (Ps. Diosc. Pan. Mak. 10). In other words, as in the case with Hilarius in Gaza, the officials were simply bribed. The cult of Kothos was put to an end only after the monks of White Monastery took the initiative in their own hands. They have organized a “crusade” against the pagan village, slaughtered the priest and burnt the temple to the ground (ibid. 14).

The second evidence of pagans bribing the administration of Thebaid, was preserved in the “Life of Moses Abydos,” which described the religious situation in the city of Abydos. During the late antiquity, Abydos was one of the most important centers of worship of the god Bes, whose oracle was located in one of the temples of the city (Amm. XIX.12.3-4). The oracle was quite famous; prophesies of Bes were sought by the highest administration, local nobility and cultural elite of Late Roman Egypt (Ibid. XIX.12.9-12). In 359, the oracle was closed by order of the Emperor Constantius.25 At the same time, it can be assumed that two years later Emperor Julian reopened the sanctuary.

According to the "Life of Moses of Abydos," pagan cults persisted in the region up to the second half of the fifth century: local pagans and Christians were convinced that the Bes lived in their temple (V. Mos., p. 83, ed. Moussa), and on a hill next to the city stood a temple of Apollo, which continued to function as religious city, run by the numerous priesthood (ibid., p. 77-80). According to the Life , the pagans were “neither afraid of God nor ashamed before the piety of the righteous rulers. Since the governors who were holding office at that time were avaricious, they purposely overlooked [the pagans]” (ibid., p. 77, trans. Moussa). It appears that, like in the above discussed cases, the local pagans used bribes to protect their cults. The pagan cult came to a halt only in the last quarter of the 6th century, after the destruction of the Temple of Apollo and the killing of its priests by monks led by appa Moses (ibid., p. 80).

Not all members of Christian clergy were as zealous as the hermits of the Upper Egypt. The clergy was often no less willing to deal with adherents of pagan cults than the secular administration. For example, at the Second Synod of Ephesus (Robber Council), Bishop Daniel of Carrhae-Harran was accused of accepting bribes from pagans, who committed “the sin of offering sacrifice,” “lets them off the offence, treating it as another opportunity for profit” (S. Chalc. X.73.17. Trans. Price, Gaddis). The degree of reliability of the charges brought against Daniel can’t be established. The case of Daniel was tried at a council controlled by the Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus in context of the investigation of the acts of his uncle Bishop Ibas of Edessa, who was an open opponent of Alexandrian Christol-ogy and therefore of an Alexandrian Pope.26 Thus, the church “party” that prevailed at the council was interested in eliminating Ibas’ Harranian protégé. At the same time, the religious situation in Carrhae in the 4th-6th centuries AD suggests that the charges brought against Daniel were not completely groundless.

Carrhae-Harran was the largest center of pagan cults of Eastern Syria. The loyalty of the local population to traditional cults was already noted in the 4th century. During his Persian campaign Julian the Apostate, refused to stay in Edessa on the pretext of the Christian sympathies of the local population, but willingly stopped in nearby Carrhae to honor the city’s shrines (Amm. XXIII.3.1-2; Soz. VI.1; Theod. HE III.26). Egeria the Pilgrim, who had visited the city in the last quarter of the 4th century, noted that: “In that city I found scarcely a single Christian excepting a few clergy and holy monks – if any such dwell in the city; all are hea-thens”27 (Egeria. Itin. 21). Fifty years later Theodoret named Harran “a barren spot full of the thorns of heathendom” (Theod. HE. IV.15).28 The adherence of the Har-ranian population to local Semitic cults was also mentioned in the latter half of the 5th century by Jacob of Serugh and Isaac of Antioch.29 Even in the 6th century, Procopius of Caesarea stated that most of the inhabitants of Carrhae were

«not Christians, but of the old faith» (Procop., B.P. II.13.7). In general, Carrhae remained a pagan city even under the Arab rule.30

Only regular bribe of local pagans to bishops and civil administrators can explain ignoring of open pagan worship by the authorities of the Christian Empire up to the reign of Maurice.31 Daniel probably wasn’t the only bishop who accepted “gifts” from the pagans of Harran. For obvious reasons, the local pagans as well as the venal clerics sought to prevent the dissemination of information about the religious situation in Carrhae and only the vulnerable position of the Daniel at the Second Synod of Ephesus made it possible to reveal these inconvenient facts to the public.

Evidence of the clergymen taking bribes from the pagans of Menouthis was preserved in the work of Zacharias of Mytilene Vita Severi . The local temple of Isis was known as one of the largest Egyptian oracles already at the turn of the 2nd-3rd centuries.³² The anti-pagan campaign unleashed by the patriarch Theophilus³³ at the end of the 4th century did not affect the shrine of Menouthis, and even contributed to the popularity of the local cult: the destruction of the temples of Alexandria and Canopus made Menouthis the only major pagan religious center in the Delta.

In the beginning of the 5th century the local orgiastic cult of Isis, perceived as a goddess of healing and female fertility flourished. The temple of Isis retained professional priesthood, and the oracle was known and popular not only among the pagans of Menouthis but also among their coreligionists in Alexandria. According to Cyril of Alexandria, the blessing Isis was sough even by some “Chris-tians”.34 The temple itself was hidden from prying eyes – a certain devout wor- shiper of the goddess, who sought to protect the sanctuary, covered it with sand, and thereby made its finding almost impossible for an uninitiated person (Zach., V. Sev. 20). In addition, the security of the temple and the priesthood was provided by regular bribes in gold, which the pagans gave to local clerics (Zach., V. Sev. 30-32). The fact that bribes were given in gold means that at least some of the followers of the cult of Menouthisian Isis belonged to the upper strata of late Roman society – most likely to the influential pagan intelligentsia of Alexandria.35

The destruction of the cult of Isis in Menouthis was made possible by the failed usurpation of Illus and Leontius. Thanks to the activities of the Illus’ emissary Pamprepius, who promised that the victory of his patron would result in the restoration of pagan worship, some of the Alexandrian pagans supported the mu-tiny.36 After the suppression of the rebellion, the pagan community of Alexandria, having compromised itself by its ties with the usurper, became vulnerable to increasing pressure from the Christian Church. Shortly after the defeat of Illus and Leontius, the Alexandrian bishop Peter Mongus organized a pagan pogrom, using the conflict of pagan students with the newly converted young men Paralius, who dared to ridicule publicly the Menouthis’ cult, as a pretext (Zach., V. Sev. 25-26).37 The culmination of the anti-pagan campaign was the march of a part of the Alexandrian Christians and monks living in the vicinity of the Egyptian capital on Menouthis. The sanctuary was destroyed, a significant part of the ritual objects were brought to Alexandria and publicly burned,38 and the captured priest of Isis was forced to admit that he served the devil himself (Zach., V. Sev. 26-35).39

Another case of “buying” the right to worship was revealed in the last years of the 6th – beginning of the 7th century during the attempts of Pope Gregory the

Great to Christianize the island of Sardinia. By the end of the 6th century, the traditional cults were still widespread in many regions of the island, and even dominant among barbaricini – inhabitants of the mountainous Barbagia, located in the central part of Sardinia. The letters of the pontiff show that the religious situation in Sardinia attracted his close attention. Nine pastoral letters addressed to the local clergy and officials encouraged them to participate more actively in the Christianization of the Sardinian peasants and the barbaricini highlanders40. Eventually the campaign had some success: Gregory would mention the significant increase of the number of Sardinian Christians (Greg. Dial. Ep. XI.12). However, Christianity could not achieve complete victory on the island for several centuries.41

The preservation of Sardinian paganism was a consequence of the fact that the Church did not receive the expected support from the administration of the island, which almost openly sabotaged the policy of Christianization of the population. In a letter to Empress Constantina, Gregory noted indignantly that the Sardinian praeses was bribed by local pagans to allow them worshiping their gods (Greg Dial, Ep. V.38). We do not have data about who gave bribes to the praeses . It can be assumed that these were members of the local tribal aristocracy and priesthood, who did not want to lose their habitual leverage on their fellow tribesmen.

***

The motives of the pagans who were giving bribes are clear. With money or gifts, they sought to preserve the traditional forms of worship and, at the same time, to avoid punishment for participating in prohibited rituals. The most common reason for taking bribes was the acute need for money of the lower ranks of late Roman bureaucracy. The large number of those wishing to get rid of the fiscal and liturgical burden by occupying a position in the system of state administration contributed to the expansion of the practice of suffragium and, as a consequence, to the growth of the expenses of the candidates to the official posts.42 It was a common practice to sell nearly all one’s property to pay for a desired position.43 Due to the frequent change of personnel typical for the system of state administration of the Roman Empire in the 5th-6th centuries, newly appointed officials had only a few years to improve their shaken financial position.44 These circumstances forced the newly appointed bureaucrats to use any means, including illegal, in order to compensate promptly the costs of their office. As it was noted by Libanius of Antioch: “...one bought the post of governor, having paid the cost of his father's estate, returned the amount spent due to abuse of power”45 (Lib. Or. XLVIII.11). This practice was so common that the governors even justified their bribery by the high cost of their offices. The correspondence of Gregory the Great preserved the answer of the above-mentioned Sardinian praeses to the papal emissary, who had accused him of accepting bribes from the pagans: “He replied that he promised to repay such a large suffragium that he could fulfill his obligations only by resorting to such measures”46 (Greg Dial. Ep. V.38).

It can be assumed that bribe-taking clergy was moved by similar motives. The steady rise of Christianity, the strengthening of socio-economic position of the clergy and the increase of the Church’s incomes contributed to the influx of people, driven exclusively by mercantile considerations, into the Church organization. Since joining the clergy gave immunities similar to those held by the state offi-cials,47 the desire of the representatives of provincial elites, burdened with fiscal and liturgical obligations, to become a bishop or at least a priest, commonly had the same motives as the desire of their colleagues to get a post in the civil admin-istration.48 A consequence of this was the spread of simony, the scale of which grew steadily throughout the 4th-6th centuries.49 For example, at the synod organized by John Chrysostom, several bishops convicted of simony tried to justify themselves by the fact that they had considered the purchase of consecration a legal mean to free themselves from the curial burden (Pallad., V. Chrys. XV). Like the acquisition of a bureaucratic post, “buying of consecration” required substantial financial investments, which, however, could be compensated for by the Church’s income or various extortions. As it was stated by the bishops accused by the Constantinopoli-tan patriarch: “…we may receive back the money we have paid. For some of us have given furniture belonging of our wives”50 (ibid. trans. M.V.).

Thus, corruption contributed to the impotence of the religious legislation of Later Roman Empire. Bribe giving was a common way to support the survival of traditional pagan cults. It was equally common among the pagans belonging both to the aristocracy and the lower strata of the population. Bribes from pagans were accepted by officials who served in the emperor’s court, the municipal as well as provincial administration and even the clergy. Pagan offerings to officials both secular and religious were one of the significant factors that secured the preservation of traditional cults in the Christian empire up to the sixth century and even later.51