The Breaking Point of Societal Norms in Religious Persecution at Ancient Rome

Lucia Garber Economics, Political Science, and Classical Humanities, University of Wisconsin — Madison Class of 2023

This essay discusses the importance of social norms and religious persecution in multiple events during the periods of the late Roman Republic and the early Empire. Religion was harnessed to profess hate and discord in the societies of the Ancient Mediterranean and throughout history. The persecution events discussed in this essay compare the ways in which different religions were targeted by Roman officials by examining the experiences of the early Christians, members of the Bacchanalian mystery cult, and Jews in Rome. This essay finds social norms to be the breaking point for Roman toleration of disparate religious practices. Throughout history, minority religions have seen a higher probability of being tolerated if their social norms align with those of the dominant society, and this is also observable in the modern world. The danger that groups face is also heavily determined by the perception of how well they correspond with dominant social expectations. This essay examines the ways in which societies are threatened by groups that operate differently, and the lengths they will go to in order to extinguish that threat.

Throughout their history, the Romans considered their civic religion to be integral to their polity’s survival, first as a kingdom, then as a republic, and finally as an empire. The Romans cultivated a close relationship with divinity stemming from their civilization’s origins. Romulus, the founder and first king of Rome, and his twin brother Remus, were fabled to be the sons of Mars, the god of war.1 In the two centuries after Romulus, proper observance of religion in Rome became akin to a civic duty, not unlike paying taxes or serving in the military. The Romans viewed their great military success and wealth as a direct result of worshipping the gods.2 The deification of rulers after Romulus likely reinforced the idea that the Romans’ lives were intertwined with those of the Roman gods. This civic religion largely revolved around the pantheon of gods and goddesses and was led by the pontifex maximus, or “high priest.” In 12 A.D., Augustus further connected the Roman government and religion by unifying the positions of pontifex maximus and princeps. 3 The role of women in Roman religion was highly regulated by the male priests; while women were permitted to become Vestal Virgins, who held important religious responsibilities, they were also subject to extreme punishment should they betray their vows of chastity.4 When new religious ideas appeared that challenged not just Roman religious practices, but also their social norms, particularly those surrounding gender and sexuality, the consuls and heads of state viewed it as a threat to their status as a military power. However, the Romans did hold a certain amount of clemency for ideas and cultural practices different from their own, on the condition that loyalty to Roman law and the Roman polity would never be compromised. Given that the Romans held loyalty to the gods, the state, and the family as essential values, when a collective of people brought in new ideas which challenged traditional customs integral to Roman society, the tolerance of the Roman officials waned. The Cult of Bacchus and the rise of Christianity are two instances in Roman history when the challenges to Roman values instigated the persecution of religious dissidents.

In 186 B.C., the Bacchanalian Affair appeared to threaten the state of Roman religion, and therefore, threaten the Republic. Livy reports that the Cult of Bacchus arrived in Italy in the form of a “nameless Greek… priest of secret rites performed by night.”5 Cult worship was already a vital aspect of Roman state polytheism, but the Cult of Bacchus was viewed as sexually violent and morally corrupt. The Cult of Bacchus was said to have first gained popularity and followers in Etruria before spreading to Rome by means of the aforementioned priest who was said to have been knowledgeable not in the venerated traditions of Greek intellectualism and scholarship, but rather in subjects that were looked down upon in Rome, such as prophecy.6 Rumors of its increasingly strange and dangerous initiation rites, including ritualized sexual exploitation and alcohol consumption, spread until they gained the attention of the Consul, Spurius Postumius Albinus. In response, he gave an address to the public about the cult’s corruption of society. Livy reported the consul to have said, “the conspiracy thus far has no strength, but it has an immense source of strength in that they grow more numerous day by day.”7 Postumius implies here that the Cult of Bacchus would become increasingly threatening as more of the Roman population became indoctrinated into the organization. The Bacchanalian Affair became an issue that merited the attention of a consul because many of the worshipping practices were so incongruent with the societal norms of Rome surrounding gender and sexuality that it was seen as a threat to their way of life and the stability of the Republic. Livy’s account offers many details of the cult’s purported acts of depravity and how they violated the ideals of decency and social norms in the Roman Republic. Livy writes:

There were initiatory rites which at first were imparted to a few, then began to be generally known among men and women. To the religious element in them were added the delights of wine and feasts, that the minds of a larger number might be attracted. When wine had inflamed their minds, and night and the mingling of males with females, youth with age, had destroyed every sentiment of modesty, all varieties of corruption first began to be practised, since each one had at hand the pleasure answering to that to which his nature was more inclined.

In the Cult of Bacchus, a large number of young men were engaging in the passive role in sex, which carried a significant stigma in ancient Rome. In his address about the conspiracy of the Cult of Bacchus, Postumius said, “Romans, can you think youths initiated under such oaths as theirs, are fit to be made soldiers?”9 Postumius was trying to explain to his citizens that men who have been sexually violated were not fit to serve in the military, and thus, these customs not only endangered the Roman way of life but put the entire military and physical safety of the state in peril.10 He spoke of it as a danger to the core of Roman society, initiating the arrest of many cult members. The Cult of Bacchus also challenged the notions of Roman societal and gender norms. In the Roman state religion, the highest position a woman could hold was as a Vestal Virgin, though only six women from patrician families were permitted to hold this position at any one time. The Vestal Virgins were highly regulated in their actions due to their vows of celibacy and were subject to the rule of the male pontifices. 11 However, in the Cult of Bacchus, “a great part of [cult officials] [were] women, and they [were] the source of this mischief.”12 The women in this cult were not only awarded social power via positions of leadership, but also sexual power and ownership over their bodies. The fact that the main priestess who initiated sexual acts with and between other cult worshippers was female deeply conflicted with the organization of Roman society and gender hierarchy. This new Cult was viewed as a threat to Roman society because it challenged fundamental ideas about how the Romans viewed sexual relationships between men and traditional gender hierarchies, thus posing a risk to Rome’s military might. As a result of the inquiry into the Cult of Bacchus, Livy’s account reported that thousands of men and women were arrested and executed for their participation in the organization.

The trend of repressing groups with threatening new religious ideas continued over two hundred years later with the emergence of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the order of Pontius Pilate in 30-33 A.D. was an indication of the relationship that the Romans would eventually have with the early Christians. Over the next two centuries, as the Roman Empire continued to expand with fervor, domestic discord grew steadily between these two very different religions.13 One of the earlier examples of anti-Christian sentiment within the Roman Empire was in 64 AD when the Emperor Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome on the Christians and punished them accordingly.14 Tacitus’s Annals included perhaps some of the first mentions of Christians in the Roman Empire by a Roman author.15 He wrote that the religion “had been temporarily suppressed, but it was starting to break out again, not just in Judaea, the starting point of that curse, but in Rome…”16 The purges of Christians from the city continued sporadically until their peak under the reigns of Decius in 249 A.D. and Diocletian in 275 A.D.17 Apart from the theological incongruence of Christian beliefs with those of the Roman civic religion, gender and social norms also clashed with the ancient practices of the Romans. A main issue that presented itself in the relationship between the Romans and early Christians was how the latter approached the role of gender in hierarchical organizations of the early church. Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia and Pontus from 111-113 A.D., wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan describing his attempts to deal with followers of the Christian faith, writing that “the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities, but also to the villages and farms.”18 The fear of the religion spreading across the Empire, similar to those fears about the Cult of Bacchus, made it clear that the Romans believed these religious ideas could set dangerous precedents for other citizens. Pliny also made it clear that women could hold leadership roles in the emerging Christian church, which was not in accordance with typical Roman customs. Pliny reported to Trajan that in order to gain information about the religion, he had “tortur[ed] two female slaves who were called deaconesses.”19 Pliny’s writing thus reveals that two enslaved women were allowed to become religious officials in this organization, which would not have been generally allowed in Roman civic society.20 Amongst other restrictions on their freedoms, Roman women were not allowed to hold public office or vote, though they were permitted to own wealth and land under certain conditions. Roman hierarchical institutions placed nearly all women below the men to whom they were bound either by marriage or by blood. Because the women in Pliny’s account were enslaved, this further complicated the affront to Roman ideals of gender; the Roman system of chattel slavery viewed enslaved people as possessions to be owned, not individuals with legal and social rights.21 Pliny and Trajan likely viewed the inclusion of women, especially those enslaved, into positions of power as dangerous because it set a precedent that was very different from their own hierarchical structure. Thus, Pliny continued the campaign to arrest Christians who admitted to worshipping Christ.

llustrated by the legacy of Agrippina the Elder, the celebrated wife of Germanicus, who lived in the first century A.D. She was revered as a wife and a mother who successfully raised many children while living with her husband on the frontlines of battles in Germany. Her story was retold by Tacitus, who described her as highly loyal to both her husband and to the Roman empire.23 Tacitus discusses her flaws as well as her attributes by writing, “Agrippina herself was somewhat irascible, but by her virtue and love for her husband she could turn her indomitable spirit to good effect.”24 Agrippina was held as an example of how women ought to behave in Rome; they were meant to listen to their husbands and raise their children to serve the Roman empire. Such an example is highly contradictory to the type of women that were given power in early Christianity. Roman leaders feared that if Christianity were to spread throughout the empire, they would lose the type of loyal women who served Rome in the style of Agrippina, thus putting the empire at risk.

The events that occurred as a result of the Cult of Bacchus and early Christianity reveals the type of new religious notions that the Romans found threatening. The perceived danger of new religious ideas which simultaneously challenged Roman social and gender norms, triggered violent arrests and executions in a display of the limited tolerance of ideas opposing those of the Romans. For the Romans, female empowerment was viewed as highly dangerous because it could threaten the patriarchal social order. Both the Cult of Bacchus and the Christian faith permitted females to hold roles as high priestesses, creating tension with Roman society. Men engaging in the passive role in sex as in the Cult of Bacchus were also viewed as a threat to society. The Romans viewed these actions to be debasing oneself, thus limiting the power of potential soldiers and even the entire military.

While these new religious ideas spurred a violent reaction from Roman institutions, there were other cases where this did not happen. Jewish people were continually a target of persecution and antisemitism in Ancient Mediterranean civilizations, but there were actually very few documented cases of violence against Jews in ancient Rome.25 There are multiple accounts of Jewish populations in Rome gathering together to protest policies that they believed to be unfair and included such issues as excessive taxation of Jews in Asia Minor as well as redirecting funds sent by Roman Jews for the upkeep of the Temple of Jerusalem, which were policies made by the former governor of Roman Asia, L. Valerius Flaccus in 59 B.C.26 The phenomenon of Roman Jews being permitted to express their thoughts about unfair policies made by Roman leaders shows the level of freedom of expression awarded to the Jews of Rome. Many scholars argue about the true degree of acceptance Jewish peoples acquired in Rome, but accounts like these protests appear to support at least a small level of tolerance held for Jews by Roman officials. Writers such as Flavius Josephus documented the wars in Judaea as well as Jewish life in Rome.27 The Romans did not view the Jewish religion as a domestic threat, and they also did not believe that they would be overtaken by the Jewish soldiers in Judaea, where the Romans were fighting. Flavius Josephus wrote about the Emperor Nero’s reaction to a Roman loss during the first Judaean War:

When Nero was informed of the Romans’ ill success in Judea, a concealed consternation and terror, as is usual in such cases, fell upon him; although he openly looked very big, and was very angry, and said that what had happened was rather owing to the negligence of the commander, than to any valor of the enemy

The wars in Judaea were largely motivated by military expansion rather than religious subjugation. The documentation about Jews in Rome typically describes them as a group whose beliefs were different, but who did not push them onto others, nor did they outwardly challenge Roman social norms; they also upheld the civic duties required of them as citizens. The dynamic between the Romans and the Jews was clearly oppositional to the reactions towards the Cult of Bacchus and Christianity. The Romans were relatively tolerant towards new religious institutions unless they challenged their own. The relationship that the Romans maintained with the Jewish population living in Rome was one of acceptance, but not embrace.

Both the early Christians and followers of the Cult of Bacchus held the goal of converting others to their beliefs. In Christianity, this is known as proselytism or evangelism and is an integral aspect of the religion. There are many passages in the Bible instructing followers to attempt to convert those they meet or go out and seek people for the sole purpose of converting them to Christianity. Romans 3:9 reads, “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.”29 This passage reveals a sentiment held by followers of certain Christian sects: followers of other religions are going to Hell and must be saved. This is the root of proselytism, and was also a major factor in the intent to expunge Rome of Christians in the first three centuries, A.D. The Cult of Bacchus held similar aims to increase their numbers and introduce more members to their organization; at the height of their impact in Rome, the high priestess of the Cult of Bacchus “[…] held the rites by night and not by day, and instead of a mere three days a year she had established five days of initiation in every month.”30 The Romans viewed loyalty to the state-sponsored religion as a virtue and so the concept of attempted conversions of their citizens to either a new type of religious cult that engaged in harmful behaviors or an entirely new religion was incredibly threatening and worrisome to Roman officials. In contrast, there is a far less important tradition of proselytism in Judaism. The Jews were viewed as a non-threatening group in part because of their reputation to remain self-contained and not venture into the Roman population for the purpose of finding potential converts.31 It is evident that the Roman consuls, senators, and emperors perceived growing organizations like the Christian Church and the Cult of Bacchus as morally corruptive for Roman citizens. These leaders viewed their own roles as crucial to halting the threat of abandoning traditional religious values. To desert the mos maiorum, or custom of the ancestors would be akin to renouncing one’s identity as a Roman citizen; therefore, the Romans carried out executions, expulsions, and persecutions for the sole purpose of preserving what they believed to be the only religion the gods favored, and thus save the military might and political standing of the Empire.

The Roman empire was a dominant power in the Ancient Mediterranean during a period of time in which religions and religious factions sprung up in that region, which instigated conflict. It is clear that the Romans tolerated religions, such as Judaism, that were different from their own until they perceived it as a potential threat, as they did the Christians and the Bacchanalians. There is clearly a point at which Roman tolerance waned and the response to new religious ideas became violent and oppressive. In the case of the Romans, the social norms of gender and sexuality appear to be such a breaking point. When male members of the Cult of Bacchus engaged in acts of sexual passivity, Roman leaders viewed this as them playing the role of females in sex and thus not being fit for military service. Likewise, the transgression of traditional gender roles in the same cult as in early Christianity was construed by the Romans as allowing women to take on roles that would eventually replace the idyllic female place in society, which was personified by women like Agrippina the Elder. These factors of societal indiscretion as perceived by the Romans contributed to the persecution and execution of these new types of worshippers.