Otherness outside: Making pagans

The concept of ‘pagans’ was used by ancient Christian writers to refer to religious others. ‘Pagans’ is a relational concept and it only exists in relation to the concept of ‘Christians’. Its development illustrates the evolving Christian self-consciousness. In the Christian construction of paganism, a wide variety of Greek, Roman, and other cults, beliefs, and practices were grouped together. References to pagans and pagan beliefs and practices cannot be taken at face value. The ‘pagans’ in Christian sources had different functions, and often several overlapping functions. Rhetorical, literary, or theological pagans served in Christian self-perception as the mirrors for being Christian, and flesh-and-blood individuals are quite removed from these phantoms. The pagan label, or defamation by association with paganism, was one of the most frequently employed weapons against ecclesiastical or political opponents. Ecclesiastical writers could also refer to real individuals in factual everyday situations by following the literary conventions.

The bishops and the dissenters

This chapter discusses the various ways in which bishops and church councils coped with religious diversity, attempting to enforce conformity of beliefs and rituals within Christianity. In their struggle to achieve religious unity, bishops enhanced the notion of religious unity, whether it was meant to exclude the option of other religions or the option of other Christian inclinations. In the relationship between imperial and ecclesiastical powers, there was both collaboration and rivalry. Emperors and bishops had shared interests as well as conflicting ones. The bishops made ample use of the means that the imperial power had at its disposal in disciplining and chastising religious dissidents through coercion, whether they were pagans outside the church or heretics within it. This does not mean that the emperors always fell neatly under the influence of bishops. The different aims frequently led to collisions of interests between the imperial government and the ecclesiastical establishment.

Introduction: Rhetoric and realities

The introduction defines several concepts that are used throughout the book. The religious dissidents in late Roman society were pagans and heretics. These terms are only shorthand: ‘pagans’ for non-Christians, and ‘heretics’ for deviant Christians. They are relational, meaning that there would have been no pagans without the viewpoint of Christians. Similarly, the question of who was a heretic depended on the perceiver. The period under scrutiny saw the Christianization of imperial and ecclesiastical discourses of control. Imperial power is understood as the emperors in both the East and the West, the imperial courts, and the administration. Ecclesiastical power refers to church leaders—mainly bishops, whose authority was increasing during the fourth and fifth centuries. There was no uniform church, and Christian congregations were miscellaneous assemblages of adherents.

Sacred times and spaces

During the fourth and fifth centuries, Christian festivals gradually developed and were merged into the life of cities and villages. At the same time, many traditional local celebrations important to the communal life of these localities continued. This chapter examines the late antique bishops’ condemnations from the viewpoint of discursive boundary-marking in which the borders of ‘pagan’, ‘Christian’, ‘cultic’, and ‘civic’ were constantly shifting. The same persons took part in both pagan and Christian festivities. Practices that in the eyes of bishops appeared incompatible with Christian conduct were not irreconcilable for the participants themselves. One of the most popular feasts was the celebration of the New Year, which remained popular in the Christian Empire. Christian emperors did not prohibit festivals of this kind, which they defined as a common pleasure for all. The imperial government defined the content of urban celebrations in a manner that diverged from the delineations of ecclesiastical leaders.

Sacred places and spaces

This chapter discusses not only the rivalry between Christians, pagans, and Jews in regard to sacred places and spaces, but also how these were shared. Even though many groups maintained the separateness and uniqueness of their sacred sites, they could easily move into locations held by other groups. Late antique people commuted between spaces or between different interpretations of the same space. Attention is also drawn to the contradictions between the triumphalist declarations made by church leaders about the destruction of cult places in some regions and the archaeological evidence, which reveals a less dramatic picture, such as the continuity of cult practices or the natural abandonment and decay of shrines. Furthermore, emperors issued laws to protect temples from attacks and plundering. They were regarded not only as cult places, but also as civic monuments, and they were valued as aesthetic objects.

Deviance or otherness inside: Construing heretics

In internecine Christian struggles, differences and disagreements existing within Christianity were taken as deviance and heresy. Heresy and orthodoxy are relational concepts, which means that they are defined in relation to one another. Orthodoxy and heresy are best seen as a process in which councils and bishops set the boundaries of the norm and the deviant. On the one hand, church leaders reduced the variety of rival Christian groups to a single collective term of ‘heretics’. On the other hand, councils and legislators were almost obsessed in their care in naming, listing, and classifying specific heretical inclinations. This chapter introduces three heresies as examples of the construction of deviance. ‘Arianism’ represents the mechanisms by which doctrinal disagreements were deduced into a fundamental heresy. ‘Donatism’ stands for local disagreements that ecclesiastical leaders at first categorized as a schism but later defined as a heresy. ‘Pelagianism’ exemplifies the competition for resources between Christian groups.

The emperor and the dissenters

This chapter discusses the imperial power discourse in relation to religious dissidents. Imperial authority was reinforced with the rhetoric of public welfare. The well-being of the empire was thought to be based on the maintenance of good relations with the divine. Consequently, religious unity and the correct form of religion were presented as a matter of state security, and the emperor was put forth as the guardian of the correct religion. In the Christian Empire, Christianity was considered the instrument that protected humankind, and it was the responsibility of the emperor to guarantee the correct interpretation of the nature of God. Thus, imperial power was intrinsically linked with the unity and harmony of Christianity. Accordingly, the very presence of religious dissident groups was taken as an offense to Christian unity and the emperors.

The transformation of practices

After questioning and deconstructing the ancient and modern use of the categories ‘pagans’ and ‘heretics’, this chapter puts forward a local religion model as a means of interpreting the local practices condemned and censured by ecclesiastical leaders. The purpose is to show how late antique people were not passive recipients of change but instead actively took part in creative interaction. Many traditional rituals and local communal practices went through a series of metamorphoses in the fourth and fifth centuries. This chapter explores the transformation of rituals, with the focus on the much-disputed topic of sacrifices, including their alleged continuities and disappearances. Late antique church leaders labelled the local forms of religiosity as magic, pagan survivals, or heretical distortions. These interpretations have also influenced modern scholars, who often continue to classify the alternate expressions of religiosity into these three categories.

Individuals, groups, and plural possibilities in Late Antiquity

This chapter questions the categories ‘pagans’ and ‘heretics’ that were built and maintained as a given in imperial and ecclesiastical discourses. It discusses the construction of an identity as an abstract and universal process, but profoundly embedded in specific historical, cultural, social, and material environments. Groups, but also individuals, have a propensity to mould their identities. Thus, despite an individual being classified as a Christian by late antique bishops, being Christian was not the only available alternative. An individual could activate and deactivate identities in a given situation from a situational selection of identities. The category ‘pagans’ developed by Christian writers should not be taken for granted. Instead, scholars ought to analyse the processes by means of which the late antique writers used categories such as ‘pagans’ and ‘heretics’, as well as ‘Christians’, to make sense of their world. The boundaries between groups such as late antique pagans and Christians were continuously shifting, negotiated, and redefined.

The realities of legislation

This chapter explores the development of the legal status of religious dissidents. The imperial rhetoric of alienation and aggression is counterbalanced by a discussion of the limits of power, such as the realities of making laws. Late antique legislation was articulated in uncompromising and moralizing language. Religious groups were condemned with harsh, insulting terms. The morally charged language of the legislation implies severe imperial authority. However, the authoritative language of legislation was used not only to manifest imperial power, but also to reinforce it. Furthermore, there was no imperial programme of efficient and organized coercive legislation from Constantine until Theodosius II and beyond. Instead, there was a great deal of incoherence and ambivalence. Moreover, the existence of harsh legislation does not necessarily imply that laws were widely obeyed. The prohibitions were renewed again and again, and punishments became more severe. Enforcement of laws often depended on regional circumstances and the initiatives of local leaders such as bishops.