stephan huller

There is as far as I can see no evidence to suggest that Septimius Severus instigated an Imperial persecution of the Church during his reign. Yet more importantly, there were many Christians in his Imperial household and he was close to the inner circle of Commodus which had at least some prominent Christians. I can't tell which reign Irenaeus's Book III of Against Heresies was written and its reference to 'many' Christians in the Imperial court (AH 3.30). Most date it to the end of Commodus's reign but it could be a reflection of Septimius Severus too.

Here's what I am thinking about today. Commodus wasn't simply a mad Emperor. Modern scholars have argued that there is very good evidence to support the idea that his policies were very popular with the common man but because of this he was hated by the Senate and most of our information comes from the educated elite.

The stories of his spending all day in the arena pretending to be Hercules may well be based on something true but Dio's reports are exaggerations. Best known is the incident at which the emperor allegedly assembled all those inhabitants of the urbs who had lost their feet, gave them serpentlike appendices, and then slaughtered them with either club or bow and arrows, pretending they were the mythological giants. Only marginally less striking is a previous story that Commodus advertised that he was going to 'put on' Hercules and the Stymphalian birds, only for the masses to avoid the arena so as not to get shot (Dio 73.20.2–3; HA Commodus 9.6).Dio may have smiled at this (though it will have been ill-advised to do so openly), but it did show an emperor who, at least symbolically, gave himself heroic status, far above that of any senator, or indeed the senate as a whole.

Nor do the masses seem to have shunned these performances. Rather the opposite, if Herodian is to be believed. He explicitly mentions Commodus' popularity 'with the mob' in the context of the imperial performances, and writes about spectators coming to Rome 'from all over Italy and the neighbouring provinces', making sure the amphitheatre was packed with people. It is for this apparent popularity of the emperor's behavior with the masses, and some indications of a favorable reception of his new image with the praetorians, various other legionaries, and inhabitants of the provinces, that modern authors have argued for a considered change in imperial self-fashioning, aimed at the plebs and the legions (Hekster (2002) 92–177; von Saldern (2003) 180–89)

There are, at the same time, indications that the urban prefect and first successor to Commodus, Publius Helvius Pertinax, may have pre-planned the affair. That might explain the convenient timing (on the first of January, soldiers would not carry weapons, disabling the loyal praetorians) and the rapid reactions of several key players after the emperor's assassination (Birley (1969)). Whatever his involvement in the plot to kill Commodus, Pertinax' own reign did not last long. He may have won over senators (notwithstanding his relatively low birth as son of a freedman) by emphasizing his position as 'princeps senatus,' but he spent little on donatives, and emphasized stringent military discipline. He was murdered by members of his own bodyguard less than three months after coming to power, the first Roman ruler to have been 'overthrown by purely military discontent because he could not satisfy the expectations of his troops'

Two senators, Tiberius Flavius Sulpicianus and Marcus Didius Julianus, then made a bid for the throne, leading to an infamous bidding-war in which the one tried to outmatch the other in the rewards they offered the praetorians for supporting their respective bids. Julianus won, and interestingly included a promise to restore Commodus' reputation (senators had lost no time in damning the latter's memory after his death) in his bid, indicating the former emperor's posthumous popularity amongst these troops. Julianus did not last long either. Where Pertinax had lacked military support, Julianus' way of coming to power was abhorred by senate and populace alike. Towards the end of April 193 Pescennius Niger was proclaimed emperor in Antioch. Slightly earlier, on April 9 of the same year, Septimius Severus was proclaimed in Carnuntum by his troops. There might even have been yet another contender to the throne, but through a shrewd move Severus bound the governor of Britain, Didius Clodius Albinus, to himself by appointing him Caesar before he further developed ambitions of his own - though he would later bid for the throne.

Ultimately, Severus won through and would reign until 211, but he had to march on Rome to establish his power – only the second time in imperial history for this to happen. Dio, who describes Julianus almost as negatively as he had Commodus, ridicules the former's attempts at preparing Rome for siege: 'We laughed particularly when Julianus strengthened the palace with latticed gates and strong doors' (Dio ). But none of Dio's banter takes away from the severity for many in the capital of Rome becoming an actual battlefield for the first time in well over a century.

Severus may have later tried to overcome this memory by emphasizing military victories outside of Rome, and by embellishing the capital with monuments, many of which are visible in the well-known Severan Marble Plan – a map of Rome claiming to indicate 'every temple and warehouse, street and alleyway, shop, courtyard, bathing complex, and residences in the city.' Like many emperors had done before him, Severus used different means at his disposal to guarantee and display a new dynasty. In fact, he would prove to be the last emperor up to Constantine to create dynastic continuity for a substantial period of time. It was, however, difficult for him to re-establish central authority, following Commodus' attempts to elevate the emperorship, and the military auction which had brought Julianus to power (Morgan (1999) 31).

One way in which he tried to strengthen his reputation was by adopting himself, retroactively, as Marcus' son, and Commodus' brother. In 195, at about the time when Clodius Albinus was proclaimed Augustus, Severus 'found' himself a new father by being posthumously adopted into the Antonine family. From that moment onwards he presented himself as the son of Marcus Aurelius and brother of Commodus, whom he even deified, restoring Commodus' memory in the process. Caracalla was renamed Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and it is probable that this new Severan dynastic claim spurred Albinus into action. What good was it to be Caesar of a ruler who was openly establishing a dynasty (Baharal (1996) 21)? At the same time, however, it may well have been for fear of Albinus' superior ancestry that Severus constructed his own lineage in the first place;

Herodian claims that senators preferred Albinus 'because he traced his nobilitas to a long line of ancestors.' Being able to trace his own invented ancestry back to so many esteemed rulers must have sounded like a good idea. Central coinage broadcast the message (RIC 4.1, 686, 700–702a, 712) and exactly a century after Nerva's dies imperii the new 'Antonine' ruler set up an honorary inscription referring back to his self-defined atavus or great-great-great grandfather. Provincial elites took the emphatic hint, and set up similar inscriptions in turn, even before a perhaps somewhat hesitant senate accepted the new genealogical situation (CIL8.9317, 10.7271; Cooley (2007) 385–87). Dio lamented that Severus 'caused us especial dismay by constantly styling himself the son of Marcus and the brother of Commodus' (Dio 76.7.4), but senators had little say in the matter.

It is striking that Severus explicitly emphasized, his new position as brother of divus Commodus, instigating the first ever renovatio memoriae and going so far as to rename Jerusalem the Colonia Aelia Capitolina Commodiana Pia Felix during a visit of the Severan family in 201 (Kadman (1959)). This may indicate that continuing popularity of Commodus in some quarters influenced Severus' actions, though the status advantage of being able to refer to many popular emperors as ancestors and the legal-financial advantage of being the unchallenged heir to private Antonine wealth probably outweighed anything else (Hekster (2002) 189–91).

In general terms, Severus' style of government was somewhat removed from that of Marcus: strong attention to the domus divina, subjects referring to the living emperor as a god, and army units being called Severiana rather brought to mind Commodus's emperorship. Like Marcus Aurelius, Severus was succeeded from within the family, fictitiously continuing the gens Aurelii. As is well known, Caracalla got rid of his brother and co-ruler Geta in December 211. Shortly afterwards (and perhaps in connection to it) he issued the Constitutio Antoniniana, granting Roman citizenship to almost all free inhabitants of the Empire. Causes and consequences of the constitution are much discussed.

One minor but highly visible result was that the new citizens took on the official nomen gentile of the emperor who granted them this enormous right. Overnight Aurelius became the most common name in the east of the Empire, and a close second in the west (after the much longer established Julius) (Potter (2004) 139; Hekster (2008) 47–50). Just over 30 years after Marcus Aurelius' death, many in the Empire ended up carrying his name. It will not have been what he had in mind when advising his men at his deathbed on how to keep his 'memory alive for ever' (Herodian 1.4 6).

There is also the Prosenes sarcophagus -- which may date to within decades, as it is securely put in 217 CE, 87 may have a similar “dual face” or multiple face to the world. The inscription on the front of Marcus Aurelius Prosenes’ sarcophagus is from his freedmen, who provided their patron, a freedman of Marcus Aurelius who became an imperial chamberlain (a cubiculo Aug.) under Commodus (termed divus Commodus!) and procurator of treasuries, inheritances and wine, withthis sarcophagus (patrono piissimo liberti benemerenti sarcophagam de suo (For the comparison, see also McKechnie, “Christian Grave-Inscriptions from the Familia Caesaris,” 434- 35, 439-440)

stephan huller

Maybe this isnt clear enough. god the father (= mark aurelius), god the son (= luke commodus). "adoption" is the purpose of baptism. There are parallels. The Father god and Son god are dead and the adoption ritual established severus as the "brother" of the dead Son god. I just wonder outside of Christianity what sort of precedent there was for a dead adoptive brother-making rite. Also the great number of christians in his inner circle some embracing the divus commodus as part of their faith. Odd

la70119

Indeed it is odd, stephan. We have been fed a line of malarkey that Christianity was criminalized and persecuted almost right from the start up until Constantine who made it a legal and then favored religion.

Of course, it also shoots mountainman's 'theory' full of holes...

mountainman

There were many christians in the imperial court because that's what Eusebius claims Irenaeus to have written.

The manager of the imperial gladitorial games, Marcus Aurelius Prosenes, was a Christian.

I for one dont think so.



The Prosenes Inscription


The Prosenes inscription is no evidence for Christianity.
It is a combination of inventive licence and wishful thinking.

stephan huller

Prosenes receptus ad deum = a christian inscription

la70119

What else could it be?

I went to mountain man's link showing various inscriptions. As I see it, it can only be argued that about half could have been non-Christian, and even then, they would likely be Jewish or of whom and what the Jews back then called the gerim (God-fearers).

Toto

Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Peter Lampe p. 331:More at the google books preview

stephan huller

It should be noted also that Lampe's conclusions are only the most detailed. The sarcophagus has been consistently identified as Christian since the nineteenth century:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EDM...iption&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TTM...iption&f=false

stephan huller

I have sent an email to Lampe. If he answers my questions I will publish them here.

mountainman

Read the description of the inscription. The original inscription to Prosenes had nothing to do with Christianity. Prosenes himself is reported by some accounts to have been the manager of the imperial gladatorial games. How is is that we are conjecturing that the manager of the imperial gladatorial games was a christian?

WTF?
:realitycheck:


The answer seems to be provided with the added inscription "welcomed before god" which was scratched on the original NON CHRISTIAN inscription to Prosenes by another later hand.

One explanation is that it may have been scrawled by a person who had lost their father or mother or brother or sister to the gladatorial games, perhaps as food for the wild beasts. Whoever wrote that Prosenes was "received before god" might be commenting that Prosenes would be judged for his crimes against humanity, in his capacity as the manager of the games.

There are many possibilities why someone would scrawl this "received before god" and not all of them automatically denote we are looking at a comment by a christian mind.



All the more reason to critically question the identification, especially since it most likely derives from the efforts of Pope Pius IX and his trained archaeological lap dog Giovanni de Rossi ....