of the case that this should be so. For the settlement was itself the result, not of any attempt to solve the ethical problem on its merits, but of a more or less fortuitous combination of circumstances. During the period when the conditions of life in the Empire and the Church relieved all but a very few of the need of making a personal decision which involved any conflict with the State, with the result that the problem in its different bearings dawned on the Christian mind only fragmentarily and by slow degrees-during that period, I say, the simple-mindedness of some, the worldliness of others,1 and the charitable tolerance (not necessarily the approval) of the rest, were already silently determining what the result was to be. The consequence was that, when the events of the years following 313 A.D. suddenly called upon the Church to come. down definitely on one side of the fence or the other, she found that a free decision was no longer open to her. Her joy at the deliverance Constantinus had wrought for her was so great that it put her off her guard. She found herself compelled by the eagerness with which she had welcomed him, and by her own immaturity of thought and inconsistency of practice, to make his standards of righteousness in certain respects her own. Henceforth it was out of the question for her to insist on an ethical view and practice, on which her own mind was not clearly made up, and which her great protector would naturally regard as dangerous disloyalty to himself. Official Christianity was now committed to the sanction of war—so far as the practical conduct of Christian men as citizens was concerned-whenever the State chose to wage it. Further than that, the decision not only settled the practical question for the moment and doomed the dissentient voices-many as they still were-to ultimate silence, but it tied up the freedom of Christian thought, and made any unfettered discussion of the problem on its merits next to impossible for centuries to come. GLADIATORIAL AND OTHER SHOWS.-Several reasons were given by leading Christian teachers why Christians should not frequent ἀλλὰ προσευκαιρεῖν ταῖς ἐκκλησιαστικαὶς χρείαις ἢ πειθέσθω οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ποιεῖν ἢ καθαιρείσθω· οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν, κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν παρακέλευσιν), 83 (Επίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος στρατείᾳ σχολάζων καὶ βουλόμενος ἀμφότερα κατέχειν, ̔Ρωμαϊκὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν διοίκησιν, καθαιρείσθω· τὰ γὰρ τοῦ Καίσαρος Kaloapı, Kal Tà Tоû ОEOû Tŵ ƉEW); P. Onslow in DCA ii. 1183f; J. B. Mullinger in DCA ii. 2030; Moffatt in DAC ii. 672b n; Cadoux in The Ministry of Reconciliation (1916), 44f. 1 De Jong 26 ("de toenemende verwereldlijking van 't Christendom had natuurlijk ook het aantal Christen-soldaten doen toenemen"): cf. Isaac Taylor, Spiritual Despotism, 57 ("In the next age learned theologians may be seen wasting their oil in confirming from scripture, practices of which knaves were the inventors "'). any of the public amusements of the pagans: but the wanton bloodshed of the gladiatorial games was the chief count in the case of one very popular class of exhibition. The common feature of manslaughter connected warfare and the amphitheatre closely in Christian minds. Taking first the criticisms of Christian authors in regard to these shows-Novatianus, after mentioning the occasional occurrence of a human sacrifice at the games, proceeds: "Amid the pleasures of the spectators, the death of some men is asked for, so that, by means of the bloody spectacle, savagery may be learned, as if a man's own private frenzy were too little for him, unless he learn it also in public. A mad wild-beast is nourished with delicacies for the punishment of a man, so that he may rage the more cruelly under the spectators' eyes. The trainer teaches the brute, which would perhaps be too mild if a master more cruel (than itself) had not taught it to be savage." "1 Arnobius asks: "Did (God) send souls for this, that those (souls), which had long been mild and had not known (what it was) to be moved by feelings of ferocity, should make for themselves shambles and amphitheatres, places of blood and public impiety, in one of which they should see men devoured and torn to pieces by animals (and should see) themselves kill others, not because of any desert (on their part) but to gratify and please spectators, and should spend in general rejoicing and consecrate with festal hilarity those very days on which such great wrong was committed; and in the other (of which) they should tear asunder the entrails of wretched animals . . . ? ” 2 "What," asks Lactantius, can the robber or gladiator ask for when sacrificing, except that they may kill?" Speaking of the philosophers, he says: "When they have eloquently exhorted us to despise earthly things, and urged us to gaze heavenwards, yet they (themselves) do not despise these public spectacles. And so they delight in them, and attend them freely but since the (shows) are the greatest incitements to vicious acts and have a most powerful tendency to corrupt (our) minds, they ought to be taken away from (? or, by) us: for not only do they contribute nothing to a happy life, but they are also very injurious. For he who reckons it a pleasure that a man, even though deservedly condemned, should be slain in his sight, defiles his own conscience, just as if he looked on at and took part in an act of homicide committed secretly. And yet they call these (shows) in which human blood is shed, games.' Thus far has humanity departed from men, that when they destroy 2 Arnob. ii. 41. 3 Lact. Inst. v. xix. 31. 1 Novat. Spect. 5. the lives of men, they think they are at play, (while they are) greater offenders than all those (the shedding of) whose blood they regard as a pleasure. Now I ask whether they can be pious and just men who, (when they see) men placed beneath the stroke of death and begging for mercy, not only allow (them) to be killed, but demand it, and give cruel and inhuman votes for (their) death, and are not satisfied with (their) wounds nor content with (their) blood. Moreover, they order them, when smitten and prostrate, to be attacked again and their corpses to be destroyed by blows, lest any one should delude them by feigning death. They are angry too with the fighters, if one of the two is not speedily killed, and they hate delay, as if they are athirst for human blood. They demand that other fresher combatants should be given to them, so that they may satisfy their eyes as soon as possible. Imbued with this practice, they have lost their humanity. And so they do not even spare the innocent: but they practise upon all what they have learnt in the slaughter of the wicked. It is not befitting, therefore, that those, who are striving to hold (to) the way of justice, should be accomplices and participators in this public homicide.1 If, therefore, it is nowise lawful to commit homicide, it is not granted (to us) to be present at all (at gladiatorial shows), lest any blood(shed) should permeate the conscience, seeing that that blood (shed) is exhibited to the people." 2 4 The public shows, both gladiatorial and athletic, were also condemned on account of the waste of money,3 the idolatry, the idleness, and the obscenity, which they involved. Arnobius derides the shows, including the dramatic performances in the theatre, as occasions on which the pagans insulted their gods, or else foolishly thought to entertain them.5 Lactantius attacks the indecency of the stage, and the foolish excitement and idolatrous character of the chariot-races.6 Turning now to the practice of Christian people, while it is evident that some did attend the theatres and amphitheatres for their amusement, such pleasure-seeking was very widely regarded as culpable laxity; and the stricter and more consistent Christians 1 Lact. Inst. VI. xx. 8-15. 2 Lact. Inst. VI. XX. 26. Cf. Commod. Carm. 209f (Agonia inmittit [sc. diabolus], spectaculis ire cruentis Aut nimis obscenis, inpudica nosse pudicis). Lact. Inst. VI. xi. 22, xii. 15, 19f, 39f. Novat. Spect. 2-5; Commod. Carm. 209f (see note 2 above); Arnob. vii. 33. Arnob. iv. 35f, vii. 33, 36. Lact. Inst. VI. XX. 27–36, xxi. 1f. insisted that the faithful should keep away from them altogether.1 Nor was it tolerated that a Christian should take part in such shows as a performer. Our sources are unanimous on that point. In the case of a converted actor, who wished to continue in his calling and to instruct boys in the histrionic art, Cyprianus laid down the law very emphatically the man was not to be allowed to communicate with the Christians until he had given up his trade. If poverty was the cause of his wishing to carry it on, he was to receive a small allowance from the church-funds.2 Christians condemned in the persecution to undergo a boxing contest, went on hunger-strike, and refused to submit themselves to the necessary training.3 The Canons of Hippolytus' and the 'Egyptian Church-Order,' which represent the practice at least of Syrian and Egyptian Christianity, possibly that of Italy also, during our period, definitely forbid an actor, charioteer, or gladiator to be admitted to the Church. The western Synods of Illiberis and Arelate at the close of our period lay down similar rules. Those enacted by the latter reveal the fact that there were Christians who had actually taken part in chariot-races and dramatic performances. 5 While on the part of serious-minded Christians, attendance at or participation in the public shows seems to have been definitely and unanimously discountenanced, yet no objection seems to have been felt to using metaphors drawn from the world of athletics to describe the experiences of the Christian life. This fact is interesting as serving to show how little the use of illustrative metaphors can be taken as a guide to the views of those who use them in regard to the rightness or wrongness of that from which they draw them. 1 Novat. Spect. passim; Commod. Instr. ii. 16 (Cum caterua Mali pergis ad spectacula uana, Licere persuades tibi, quodcunque placebit . . Et choros historicos (? histronicos) et cantica musica quaeris, Cf. Didasc. II. lx. 2, lxi. If, lxii.; Clem. Hom. iv. 19 (pevktéov dǹ toùs tOLOÚTOVS μύθους αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ θέατρα καὶ τὰ βιβλία). 2 Cypr. Ep. 2 (60). 3 Eus. Mart. vii. 4, viii. 2f. 4 See above, p. 442 n 3. Can. Illib. 62 (Si auriga aut pantomimus credere voluerit, placuit ut prius artibus suis renuntient et tunc demum suscipiantur, ita ut ulterius ad ea non revertantur: qui si facere contra interdictum tentaverint, proiciantur ab ecclesia); Can. Arel. 3 (see above, pp. 588f n 4), 4 (Ut aurigae dum agitant excommunicentur. De agitatoribus qui fideles sunt, placuit eos quamdiu agitant a communione separari), 5 (De theatricis, et ipsos placuit quamdiu agunt a communione separari). See also above, p. 503 n 4, 5, p. 504 n 1 for Can. Illib. 2, 3, 55. Cypr. Zel. Liv. 16, Fort. pref. 2; Pont. Vit. Cypr. 16. The tendency to draw fallacious practical inferences from such metaphors certainly existed as long ago as the times with which we are dealing; and Novatianus found occasion to controvert it. He tells us of Christians who justified themselves for attending the games, not only from the fact that it is not forbidden in Scripture and on the ground of certain fanciful scriptural analogies (such as David dancing before the ark and Elijah being the charioteer of Israel !), but also on the plea that "the apostle also in his struggle puts before (us) the contest of the cæstus and of our wrestle against the spiritual things of wickedness. Again, when he takes examples from the stadium, he also brings in the reward of the crown. Why, therefore, should it not be lawful for the Christian believer to look at what it was lawful to write in the Divine letters?" The author proceeds to urge quite rightly that this was an utterly illegitimate use of Scripture. The illustrations were given to incite us to be as zealous in regard to real spiritual benefits as the heathen are in regard to things of no advantage.1 The accession of a Christian Emperor to supreme power did not mean an immediate or even a speedy abolition of the gladiatorial shows. Constantinus himself had exposed great numbers of barbarian prisoners to wild beasts in the amphitheatre; but this was apparently in his earlier years. An edict forbidding gladiatorial games was issued at Berytus in 325 A.D.; but it certainly was not enforced in Italy, and may have been applicable to Phoenicia only. No gladiatorial games were ever allowed in Constantinopolis, chariotraces becoming there the great source of public amusement. It was not till 404 A.D. that gladiatorial shows were suppressed at Rome.2 CHAPTER VIII THE INSTITUTIONS OF FAMILY-LIFE, PROPERTY, FAMILY-LIFE. In regard to the position of women, it is to be noticed that Christianity-in contrast to Mithraism, which reached its 1 Novat. Spect. 2; cf 3. Lecky ii. 35ff; DCB i. 637a, 643b; Westcott TE 218f. On the attitude of Christians generally during this period towards the public shows and amusements of pagans, cf. Bigelmair 279–293. |