ABSTRACT A RHETORICAL STUDY OF CERTAIN PAULINE ADDRESSES by Desmond Ford This study examines seven typical discourses of the Apostle Paulunalnely 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians. and Philemon. As addresses conceived to meet emergency situations, and being originally read aloud to Christian congregations as public speeches, these epistles are rhetorical rather than literary in nature, and have been analyzed as such according to the appropriate classical canons . Chapters one and two sketch time-and—place factors, with Special emphasis upon the main currents of first century thought in the realms of government, philosophy, ethics, religion, and education. In the third and fourth chapters, the life and influence of the Apostle are reviewed; and specific attention is paid to the factors which shaped Pauline oratory. The analyses of the discourses according to standard criteria of invention and arrangement constitute chapter five, while consideration of Paul's style is reserved for the chapter which then follows. Because a primary objective of the investigation has been to evaluate Paul's manifestation of ethos, and to compare it with the ethos recommended by recent homiletic theory, an entire chapter, the seventh, has been devoted to this phase of the study. Chapter eight is an inquiry into the relevance of Paul's ethical values for modern communication, and the concluding chapter summarizes the foregoing and evaluates Paul's contribution to rhetoric. . no. .-o--.W ‘9 .a' .. ‘ A. _,... ‘.-...-.ao¢ 0-0 '- ' . . . I . - by- 3- by ‘g. ._... I ,“. \.‘.-a no . . . '.',.. .. 0.... p ”o 'o- ' ...._.....l u... .e:... o ---oo: . . . b; . .n. .‘F‘ -‘~ " "l-l n1...‘. “log y. ’ o I - O. I -. ,.. o. ' I‘IO. fl-..:\t.' ... .UQ _ F o O . ~.-~ ‘ . .9 “ aobau.."..? . n m- -- '¢ 'v~s . ._ .= .~ . - OI-J‘v.| ’0‘. - to... -..,_. . ‘ .. . . I. '. - ‘ y. ‘ it «.. h ""o.. -L ‘ To...» ;‘ . . ‘ u-o~‘ .v I It.» ‘ "\ 9‘ I . .~~‘-~....‘ ._ . s... .‘n.....9a. . .. u o- .u . 4. 7 -. ‘\“H-.. ‘ "..v0. ' \‘e..«.\ " :4..__. Desmond Ford The aIlalyses revealed that while Paul was too much of an individualist to conform in every way to the patterns of presentation recommended by the classical rhetoricians, on the whole his discourses do exemplify the chief requirements of Attic oratory. The epistles show the Apostle to have been resourceful in invention, with the evi- dences of his logical and psychological powers manifest in each address. It is, however, in his revelation of ethos that we find Paul's distinguishing characteristic. He ever conveyed himself, not ideas merely. Probably no other discourses of antiquity or modern times are so reflective of the competence, virtue, and affections of the orator concerned as the Pauline epistles. The Apostle thus exemplifies both the modern homiletic stress on the preacher's incarnation of truth, and Quintilian' s conception of the "good" orator. It is in this exemplifi- cation of the ancient classical dictum and the modern homiletic concept that the Apostle' s chief contribution to rhetoric consists. He reminds us anew that "as a rule we trust men of probity more, and more quickly, about things in general, while on points outside the realm of exact knowledge, where Opinion is divided, we trust them absolutely. " The consideration of the ethical decline in major areas of modern communication also suggested that the ethical factors which enabled Paul in a morally degenerate age to influence beneficially his own world and all subsequent culture are urgently required by our own civilization if modern communication is not to duplicate certain unsavory trends of the Sophistic tradition. Copyright by DESMOND FORD 1961 c.--.-.0PI' P’..T,. I . .. .-.-«u~".~ V.“ ' .-' v- I ., A " ‘1‘:- f. \ gm \'l.~'.. oateeol“; I e _ ...:~"~"~ " " ._...G. .i- C '- ‘aooho ' I .'.. . .4. o r ~ Doc - :- .V.\ 4). “v- '0 a 1": b. o O I. A RHETORICAL STUDY OF CERTAIN PAULINE ADDRESSES By Desmond Ford A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1960 Of all the men of the first century, incomparably the most influential was the Apostle Paul. No one man exercised anything like so much power as he did in molding the future of the Empire. . . . Had it not been for Paul--if one may guess at What might have been--no man would now remember Greek and Roman civilization. . . . Barbarism proved too powerful for the Graeco-Roman civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that civilization was preserved, or interest in it maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form. (emphasis ours) William M.Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, pp. 53, 100 What they [Cicero and Demosthenes] lacked was not yet revealed--the higher reaches of ethics and a more comprehensive kindness. "Oratory, " The New International Encyclopaedia, Vol. XVII. ii ' “0" A. . \ .a -0' o - . _ _ - '- D‘ It". "r‘ o .u. ..n--. s \' " ' . . .I . .._v-o:.;~.;n._ ."r o "--¢~‘s..oon. a...» o . . .,,_ _ - . .,' .~._~'..O~n.. 3' -I~~..-.-....... .go“ :0 - . _-... ... .‘ _ .-- .ap-m .c .' .-- ‘n '0»-..\ J‘sxb a. . . \‘ ' I - n o J, . v .‘°""‘ 'IOM-u-: $1.. -.... 0 -a‘. . "F o . o. o .- ... l V... I ”*0 I04 \ .. 4. v. . "o .... - '-—-.' "‘5 4"" ". ‘ . "‘~- I... O.‘- .' - vu to ' u o ‘ . ... _ f . . 'U 4. _ . .._ h .....': Q . d h- ”. o‘ht)~«;.‘:(‘ r ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer owes an incalculable debt to Dr. Kenneth G. Hance whose kindly and scholarly counsels throughout classwork and research have made "the rough places plain. " His untiring guidance and encouragement matched the theme of the study in rendering the penning of these pages an enjoyable and rewarding task. Special thanks are due to Dr. David C. Ralph and Dr. Richard E. Sullivan who, in conjunction with Dr. Hanc e, reviewed this manu- script in process and made valuable suggestions. In addition, the following instructors are gratefully mentioned as the sources of inspiration which contributed to the development of the following study--Dr. Gordon L. Thomas, Dr. Donald H. Ecroyd, Dr. Frederick G. Alexander, and Dr. Petr B. Fischer. >:< >§< 2:: >:< X: >,'< 9,: >‘,< >1: >{c >:< >}< iii . 'I . I. I. a... n .~;O ._-... ~-"‘OIF-."‘I ' \ b--~---doo‘ru . O I . ..-.----—\ ”9. 0‘ ... “d . ' n w“ d...- _..~~ v... . ..- - .c ' . ;.. :' .. . . “" c..vo.o.~~.. . . -k - ' u - -" ‘;’r>.‘ nus 0.. '_‘"'V‘O‘ oa ...., . u .— ~v O... P v e.. s... “- ‘ '~ - - . l. ‘ 4 --". - ”““' " v. ‘. -..-- g. A... “'0“ .. -u on. . '_. \. ¢_.,,. . -I~0 5. .'..- L... .' \ h *‘01. .._ v. C V. 0....- ...\'H . ‘ - ‘s . l?\o‘\ """/\.. -----~ l‘: .fl" \ .. ‘ ‘~o. ‘. V I‘II- A..- .‘—. ' or... .‘ . . "an . .0Ho.\,..~ .M--‘ .‘k n..- \ q."\‘v~- 7‘ s \ ‘3 \ \ ‘ ‘- \,, \ .r. '..'l0u“ '.I --.3 . .‘. . u . . ."‘:) PF ‘.r .\‘,' IV J... 1.“. ' “I. C . a . C N. . . ‘ - o 0 ‘1 Q . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapte 1‘ INTRODUCTION.............. ....... THE WORLD OF PAUL'S DAY ....... . ..... The Historical Background to the First Century A. D. PhiIOSOphy in the Graeco-Roman World . . . . . . . Religion in the Graeco-Roman World . . . . . . Morals of Graeco-Roman Society . . . ..... . . 11. ' THE ERA OF THE SECOND SOPHISTIC. ........ III. SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND INFLUENCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL O O O O O O O O C O O O O O ..... IV. ELEMENTS WHICH SHAPED THE ORATORY OF PAUL V. THE CRITICAL ANALYSES OF SEVEN PAULINE DISCOURSES.................... . First Discourse to the Christians at Thessalonica . Second Discourse to the Christians at Thessalonica. The First Discourse to the Corinthians ...... The Second Discourse to the Corinthians . . . . . . The Discourse to the Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . The Discourse to the Philippians . . . . . . . . The Discourse to Philemon and the Church at His House..................... .. VI. THE STYLE OF THE DISCOURSES . . . . . . . . . . . VII. PAULINE ETHOS COMPARED WITH THE ETHOS OF LATE AMERICAN PREACHING THEORY . ..... VIII. THE RELEVANCE OF PAULINE ETHICS FOR MODERN COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . ........ . . APPENDIX C O I O O 'O O O O O O O O I I O O O O ........ BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... ,iv 1 26 44 63 75 96 107 120 123 137 143 188 251 332 373 406 433 453 493 517 531 VITA The writer was born at Townsville, Queensland, Australia on February 2-. 1929. High School requirements were completed in Sydney, New South Wales, in 1943, and for three years there- after positions in the Composing and Editorial departments of Associated NewsPapers, Sydney, were filled. In 1947, the writer decided to train for the Ministry and Spent the next four years at the Australasian Missionary College, New South Wales. From 1950 to 1957, he was engaged in evangelistic and pastoral ministry, and then returned to the Australasian Missionary College to com- plete the B. A. degree. This was followed by the M. A. at Potomac University, Washington, D. C. In 1959, studies for the Ph. D. were begun at Michigan State University. .‘ ' o-‘ I ' ' ' -s r..- ' -. ..-.' ‘ ' D . .- O - o -a. ‘ A . p. t. ' ‘O _ . 0-..—. .X . . ' -.‘-¢ uv-o .. . -. _ .. 1.. .- ‘ .m... 3". . . -‘- "‘ .. u..- .-.-... g . o A - v.0p. ~.;. .. ' .. . p T i I. '*‘ on .u; ..a-- ’ I ' ' v. . u 0-. . _ _. -. r... v- .- r... z....-- .,, M. ‘ I. — " ' a- n i -. 9°. _ \--. 1.. v I o u . . .. . H .. h .' I'u' '- l ~.d-.....g_.. .. ' n_ . ' . . . .... A .. .‘ . H i . I. J. v- v- .5. ‘-.“"‘“¢-- .- . o ‘ I t‘..., ' ‘I . x . ' .-° v‘o . . J \-. -..~. -.¢._.: . ‘ “‘Vb n " .‘ ..A h - ‘ o -- .. .- -‘ . I..-“ nus-Q -.:.0\' O . ‘. . . . . ... .-‘. :__ -. h-“ r.- it‘. qq.|-O‘....I 5 ,.. . "x. n'o’ 7-. .’_ - I..n.5~‘ VI ~‘.', ~ "Q. a.,-_- a.-o,_. .. , ~ ‘ .‘ I oo.._. _.-“‘; “.' -_ . .. . . .,_ t. I. oi‘ . x 'D go..- -o.\_ C ‘ . Che . ¢ ‘ .“'.. ‘ . . ..‘ .. 4 O “.5 ”J; «C o .' .0 ~o e...'. ' t \' "FA . ‘-:._‘- v.-.‘ : ~\.. U». V. S J O. .._ ‘ ‘.‘~ V - .- ..-.“: ‘I-..t .. . wen-‘~ . _.q" o ..‘.. ‘ INTRODUCTION 1. The Title of the Study: "A Rhetorical Study of Certain Pauline Addresses'l II. Purpose and Justification of the Study: One of the most well-known orators of the ancient world is also the least studied for his art. While the public speaking of the Apostle Paul was largely re3ponsible for the spread of those values which have moulded much of Western thought, the man himself has been virtually disregarded from the standpoint of rhetoric. It should be remembered that orators such as Augustine, Luther, Wesley, and others began their careers as a result of insPiration from the words of Paul, and the homiletics of almost twenty centuries has been con- siderably influenced by the same source. While numerous literary and Speech critics have asserted that Paul's mind was "eminently oratorical, "1 study concentrated on this aspect of the man has been Slight, deSpite the fact that, as we Shall see later, we have highly reliable transcripts of some of Paul's addresses--conceivably more accurate transcripts than we have of men such as Chatham, Sheridan, and Fox. At this juncture it Should be pointed out that we are not limited to the Six Speeches of the Apostle recorded in Acts for Specimens of Paul's oratory. Most of his epistles are public addresses which he desired to be delivered to specific church audiences. They were 1John Franklin Genung, A Guidebook to the Biblical Literature (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1919), p. 623. vi . u. , , - .Q' .4," 4t ‘ -' ‘ -o 0' . ‘ 4U . o .‘ . o - a» __,.....o-.-ju . , "' . .o ‘9' _. _- . . ‘ I-J .....~o—-I ‘ o . l . I I- _ I . ;;— T. J.» out I. A q...-o —-..—‘O . -O .5 ' 4" O h .. ...- . ~. .-.-. or ‘ V‘ o . ,-o -O - .s s V« b ...- .‘nu-.-o u. . 0.. . » . o . . "v'.- :0. '-_ 0 . '0. —. «Q ..'.s 0. no.- 0 ' cu . -~-. I -. ". u. ‘ hud-“O loo‘i . 4‘. g V‘_ -I I, H V ‘ - v A "‘ '— ~n. . ‘ "' t " . '9' .-. s..-..__ _ I.. n . . o n . _ .. .., ,... . . . -! I . ‘ - ' ." v .c... ... .‘.‘V t . . .., v \ ‘1‘ -n .__ 1 " x—. ‘ u.“ .. .. ~.""‘lo O ‘ ‘ . o.._‘- . - .._ m..‘ IF 7‘ -. " '°’~a. w... I . I , l " -., _ . ~ '_ " v--..~ :‘ b i " Q .4 .. . I . -._ z ‘. V " --.f_ g'“ n - ' , .a..‘\ ‘-.. . ,.. ..._ .D ‘u' .1. I ‘. .. \a,_ b A’"‘ . l‘~““ " ...‘ '. ‘I I. I . ... , ‘;.. ~ 1 . '.. p. ' . ' 0.... . . - ."a, y\‘ ‘ A a never intended by Paul as "literature. " To him, their sole purpose was persuasion towards certain courses of action in order that local exigencies might be met. I It is this fact that explains why Paul used Koiné Greek instead of the classical Greek of literature. 2 This custom of Paul's [dictating] is not without significance for the style of his letters. In reading them we must bear in mind that Paul usually, perhaps always, Spoke these sentences aloud, and that they were intended to be read aloud in the assembly of the church. . . . Hence the kernel of the epistles to the churches consists of a Speech by the Apostle. . . . Thus in many reSpects the style of the Pauline letters is that of spoken language. . . . But there was not lacking the conventional correctness which was to be found in any case of public Speech in Greek. . . .3 The concept which conceives of some materials as being ”rhetorical" (rather than literary) irreSpective of their status as written or spoken is not new. The following is an attempt to define a Speech as a literary form. A speech as a literary form then is a prose composition of varying length, fashioned for a specific or generic audience, usually but not necessarily spoken and listened to, written or recorded in some way on brain, paper, or tape for permanence, in which are inter-related author, reading or listening audience, theme and occasion; it has ethical appeal - and universality, moving force and fluency, its design is artistic and its purpose is to direct the reader or listener to a conclusion selected by the composer. Isocrates' Areopagiticus was not delivered, was not 1Adolf Gustav Deissman, Paul; A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. William E. Wilson (New York: Harper, 1957), pp. 8, 13. 2Kathleen E. Innes, The Bible as Literature (London: J. Cape, 1930), p. 281. 3Thomas S. Kepler, Contemporary Thinking About Paul (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), p. 178. vii .‘ ‘ .. - .. ‘ . . r n.- 0" ‘. ~‘ -t.o -4-4 .--' .0 . ..-o . ‘ ‘ . If»... u. ..¢. - o -O ' \..". ‘ .u. I o o 0 ' " l - .. -o I v -‘ u". - ;' - , . k. . o- _._,—....-I- ' O -- ~.--' -:°. 4 Al O .u A u 90...... p“‘ , _ ' . .0 o . .- . ~- ..¢..I . o 5 ....... I. - -. ...-‘~.c' -" . ' 'o-. W. -‘ ” . .. .>0 0 v 9 ‘- ud...s.-oo---¢ .-c- a-o . I o . .l .. , 0-. _o ...\.‘.._.-. no.co a a ., ..- -- , .0 ' ' 'rtu (\ 0 <--.o--n..., . . . . .. . I ... 'u.olv'l n .. . “'I"-“' I.‘ ’I v... vi .. ' o . 0’ vs ' Us A as. .. '._ " ~ 0. ~o o __.. ‘t " '0‘. ..n o- .,_ ‘ . O. .- pi .‘ o.__, '- v‘ 3 .- . v; I‘.fl .: .I- a o I‘ , — ‘ " a " 9 a 'I. Q nae"... ‘. .. . '0 é“;—o ' -._- ~--, . n. 0‘ 51“. .\ _I‘ .. I - . ' u '- ."' U- . - -H- .‘ I u “. 'O. ' n . -.. ..__ - 4. ...e U ~ . u . , Q o ‘ - 'p'o-c. ... ’ . '“‘ ~.." . r _. 'io.‘.‘ \ I‘ ‘ows...0 I . s. I .-". - _ . .Og‘I'.‘ ' _’_ . ' -_..3. pg .., . '-~ It 'DQ .v-n . ' In "‘.t .5" 0., '5 '1“ ‘9‘. . .H " ‘ 9 ‘0». intended to be delivered, but it has served as a model Speech for 2300 years. . . . Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, when under con- sideration for censure by the Senate, released a speech which was front-paged across the country. He was so busy he did not actually speak it but had it ”inserted in the RECORD. "1 We are reminded also that Wilbur Gilman analyzed Six of Milton's tractates and found that they had "all the elements of a delivered address, except delivery itself." In Herbert A. Wichelns' article "The Literary Criticism of Oratory" we read as follows: If now we turn to rhetorical criticism . . . we find that its point of view is patently single. It is not concerned with permanence, nor yet with beauty. It is concerned with effect. It regards a Speech as a communication to a specific audience and holds its business to be the analysis and appreci- ation of the orator's method of imparting his ideas to his hearers.2 The criteria Specified in these quotations are fully met by cer- tain of Paul's epistles, which originated in the desire, not of adding to literature, but to influence specific groups of peOple in emergency situations. There are certain characteristics which make the Pauline records of more than ordinary interest to students of oratory, eSpecially in these days when the Special study of ethos seems to be looming larger than ever in the minds of many Speech critics. 1. It is likely that the Pauline epistles contain the best example of ethos in all ancient oratory. No Speech records extant present a Similar interweaving of the personality of the source. Commentator 1Richard Murphy, "The Speech as a Literary Genre, " Quarterly Journal of Speech, XLIV (April, 1958), p. 119. 2Studies in Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor of James A. Winans (New York: The Century Co., 1925), p. 2.09. viii o . o a ,.-- _ o _ ...--""-'{,35-" . ..: ,_._~- . 4 ' . . I | . .O‘ . . ' . ‘..o'~_‘ .. - on a' " ‘..v ‘ , a . .- ,.- .0 D' ". i'. 3 a . ... - _..- .. fi““”. 3 1: .....~. . . -- o ., . "‘t’ '0‘ _. _. .fl-‘LOI 'L‘-‘ ‘ I n. u. -..-a"" - ti. w.A .o- v -o d t, u...... u... o\'—“ . 0 . . - - 0 ~ . ."' ‘ ’y u a“ on. . ....-e. c. “0‘ H‘ r. x. - r -. ".I‘.;;‘DI-..h ‘ .9 -. '-~-.....n.-. snao~ ‘-' -. ..- -O . -\5 '“o .0. o h. -' 'I n~~uu I..~.n-u4~O-- ' ‘- - ‘ 1 . . “":. V I I .,|I ' --..‘ .4. 5‘ o ... u . .v i u no. ,. ‘0. I- II I I‘. x.‘ .n .. ._ ‘s. ’ ' ~-.-..| 4 E s ’ u . - VJ‘. .. ~. ‘ u-o ‘ . ‘ 'I . . ...... 3,": " s" . . - .“ ..I.L . .~ .\ .“ n... ' \ . ‘--'f.:\" 0... \ . ‘°'-oo a... _ ‘ O ‘n.' - -- . 5-. . hu 0 . . . .- ..“““‘-.«.. ‘t.o., . ‘ . .—. -1 -'.'..‘ -o ' ~.'\~ H :v ‘ O - .nJu 4" a. "4" D l 0" .l ‘3. I ‘- .0 " .Qtlm... ‘ O ‘.. after commentator remarks at the way in which Paul delivers himself rather than merely a message. 2. It is also likely that in Paul we have one of the best available illustrations of Quintilian's Ideal Orator—-"A Good man skilled in speaking. " 3. Though these records come from the age of the Second Sophistic, they reveal a style entirely different from that which was characteristic of the age. On this ground alone it is interesting to seek the reason for this divergence from the norm of that day. 4. These materials are also distinctive in that they reveal a unique blending of two rhetorical cultures, the Greek and the Hebraic. 5. Furthermore, these addresses of Paul contain many Signifi- cant references to speech which have influenced the attitudes and values of many orators since his time. 6. That Speech style which concentrates on matter rather than f2_r__m, and yet which frequently soars into sublime expression finds abundant illustration here. Paul does not always follow orthodox rhetorical method but his procedures can be evaluated only when his particular objectives are taken into account. About thirty years ago in discussing the theory of George Campbell, William P. Sandford declared that the former's concept of Speech ends, with its inevitable corollary that the means by which the orator Shall accomplish his purpose must differ according to the nature of the effect desired, and that whatever material is introduced into the speech must be judged according to its 'subserviency or want of subserviency to that end'. . . .1 lWilliam P. Sandford, English Theories of Public Address, 1530- 1828, p. 146, cited by Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1948), p. 135. ix _ e .- ,'It .. v. r a ' c .0'0 ' ....,.-._ ‘ ....' 3.. ‘. ‘e... solo-‘90 . o ‘ .. - -—o- ' . a a... P .o o- —o v ou-D\-I- .. . . .. _.. - au- ‘0‘ ‘~.,. e...a¢ 05“- "...."; :U ,‘. h.u~.‘..., ,. g ‘ . '-' .. e , .. "- ‘9- ‘”‘I .. Loos ‘bv ' .n: .‘I. -- , 3‘ h .- . e... , b I. -~ _.';. . -.. u n . ‘ ~ a '-n _ 'p.‘ h . "'~ . o . .. o 0- 0 ' .- ." 9-. no. . - ‘. ‘- .. a 3n- 0 . .‘O’l I K - U on . . w.’ ' ,. O ‘flbc-o\. '- . n. g . e-...s ,.f~f ' .- ._ .gyo-Q .‘ . -~s... ‘_.U 1 o . -' III- " ‘Joo\.‘ _ . v v- H \..c.‘ a.' b . ‘ .‘jg *.‘.v “e. iii.“ _ b \n J.e Sandford asserts that this 'Strikes the keynote of modern theories of Speech composition.’ Probably it was this thought that inspired the dissertation of John G. Rudin entitled "The Concept of Ethos in Late American Preaching. " Here it is indicated that preach- ing differs from secular Speaking in its added emphasis upon ethos. Rudin asserts, for example, that the preaching theory which he is studying embodies the concept that truth Should be conveyed not only by logic but by what he terms 'incarnation. '1 Every reader of the epistles of Paul ultimately becomes aware that this concept of preach- ing is strongly Pauline. While Rudin's dissertation dealt with late American homiletical theory this present work aims at giving emphasis to the same concept of ethos but this time illustrating from the opposite end of the era. Concerning the conclusions of Rudin we might ask--Are they true of preaching in general, or only of pulpit artistry in recent decades ? The earliest preacher who could possibly be studied to test the matter is the Apostle we are considering. As Wild has pointed out, Paul is the only Biblical writer to employ the Greek rhetorical mode. 2 The present dissertation analyzes certain of the Pauline epistles with the Specific purpose in mind of discovering whether this ancient preaching was Similar to or different from that which is required by the modern homiletical theory studied by Rudin. An attempt is made to ascertain whether those attributes of preaching iInplicit in the body of homiletic theory surveyed by the recent investigator are also present and to a similar degree in the preaching of the first Christian 1John G. Rudin, "The Concept of Ethos in Late American Preach- ing" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Northwestern University), p. 471. zLaura H. Wild, A Literary Guide to the Bible (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1922), p. 265. X _ O .-.'- '"- I. '.'..'-. 9':. "-.‘.- V # D. ‘. - l ' . -0 ‘ ' cg" 'V. U; n . 0“. .u- v-““' _‘ . . .. o- - ~-‘ " " "'1" ¢~ f, ...n.A- " ~..n... -0 ' .. .e.- b;‘ 10 a . . ——~...—. h‘461'.. b. erv'. ;;on~y.> ‘ ~' —.. .;-r.‘n. .o-VI-O '. ’ “ ‘v 9‘..v.-,;.‘ .. v; c '9‘ -.-..... co. 1. . 'l‘o v I . .-pc-.... ’5'. ‘ ,‘ . . .0.-..... .c’ . ..... . n . .. . ,. __ ‘ . ---- .‘h‘ v t- s - ........,a me C' . . ". ‘ I 0".I - r -_ . a I’ ‘ b. ._ ..,. 0-5 "‘" h . . ‘ ‘ l~ -~-'; '0', 0 -’ ““‘-s tone ..1. I." D -. 9-...) u.- .—o ., h. - 54- ..\‘.‘ ... . e -9 'l t l”-‘- .. .. . O‘ ' ‘~ I ' I o., ‘ ,,.~ 4 ‘9‘. n- . l ""‘cn.. . I 5 . o u o.._ - ‘o.‘."-‘ Ns- ; - .‘a.. . n .. 4‘ .. 3..» I I . ‘9. . . . ‘. '-~...: 3 J ‘.‘. 0..., . . v“. ‘e...'_ I -. . ‘.~"' a- ‘-..3. ff‘- 0.. C I . ‘3... .‘L . r, - T. r. .' o ' M. F " o ' ~ A_ “a t- .. g. . " ‘QO minister. to employ Greek rhetorical forms. If such is the case, it will have been demonstrated that the concept of ethos discussed by .Rudin applies to a much broader field than merely late American homiletical theory. Likewise, the whole question of ethos, its importance and method, should have some further light cast upon it by the analysis of Paul's rhetorical practices. Furthermore, some recent writings on speech criticism have stressed anew the ethics involved in the Speech Situation. For example, when Edwin Black discussed Plato's emphasis on morality in public Speaking, he made the following significant statement. When in recent history we find the clamorous Spirit of fanaticism at large in the world sustained by rhetorical dis- course; when we contemplate the undiminished and undiminish- ing potentiality for savagery latent in all men, waiting to be triggered by suasive language; and when we observe the Sophists of our time, rationally discredited but thriving still, we may begin to suspect that after all Plato was even wiser than we had thought. 1 Inasmuch as Paul, more than any other, was reSponsible for the proPagation to the western world of the values referred to above, it cannot but be profitable to examine at the source this speaker's own concepts regarding communication and the values inevitably associated with it . Summary of Objective S The objectives of the present study are: To study Paul's rhetorical method from certain of his epistles. To examine particularly the ethical proof which seems to dominate his addresses. lEdwin Black, "Plato's View of Rhetoric, " Quarterly Journal of Speech, XLIV (December 1958), p. 374. xi v - v I... '. .-~-;v; ’,. I ‘0. .005 0": ....---.‘ o ..,..-.-- .‘.~ 4 -DU‘p-.‘O-nl. ' I . ............ .. 0,. ‘ ‘ 9‘: .e ..’——.....C so. moon. I , . . -.- -\ , g ‘0 p -.4’. I..-CI u vI' . . i O o ' b 0 w|‘- - _ | ~ - . p ’ n:oo--.o.....,, g. -.. _ ._ ' 4‘ u " , ‘ "’l‘-~.de.. __. .“ o . u .- 0. _. ‘._ . u 8’ r . . ‘- .— -~o..~ d._ ‘. ~- . v '_..r O . . t. u- , -~,_.t ..- ‘ p. . ' - u... '_‘ ‘ " a. ...,_ .IJ."‘ :' o- " ‘0‘ no 7 e.-.... ‘.. ' . "' v . ..‘Q ~- 0 . ‘l "s.- '.-- P... 0-. n ‘ .“.‘. oer, . o u - ,_ ~ _ _ -‘ 'do~._t‘§ .- o . II. .'O Q —. " l'.l'_ ' _ . ‘~ .‘ N ‘ Us 0. ‘ ,0 u. ‘ .‘o . _ - ,~~ . .‘ ~N.: -‘ . " ' L....|. . .., ‘ ' ‘ ‘ ..u 3 _a ‘\" ‘.C ~ . . n.4'.-..-Iu- . ‘~.. .v .. ...__‘ ‘H C' e e.. ‘ o ‘s. S s. u .- -....':.: Q . 4 ‘ a... ‘5 ' o .. ‘ u "‘ J': ‘ge‘e- . .sL.‘ 1 . ‘ 'u I. K:: .,. ' 0., ‘ “at , \k. ‘1 . a " I .- ~-.. --_‘:..."l.. -v- .I‘ 0‘. . - “I i v 04‘ .' .‘.'Ib..a‘- 0. ..=..Q*'... ‘ .‘.o.- .:1"--'.. “\h . I To compare the former with the conclusions of Rudin in his dissertation. To examine in this situation Quintilian's concept of the orator as "a good man Skilled in Speaking. " To substantiate or otherwise from this Pauline study the case for emphasis on ethics in communication. Only those epistles which the majority of modern critics acknowl- edge as Pauline have been considered, and from among these there have been selected those addressed to Specific audiences in answer to some local problem. The first criterion eliminated Hebrews and Colossians; and the second negated the use of Romans, Ephesians, and the pastoral epistles. Romans is more in the nature of a treatise and bears none of the usual marks of urgent composition in response to a local emergency. Many scholars hold that Ephesians was more in the nature of a circular letter as it contains no personal allusions whatever to the members of a distinct congregation. The pastoral letters were not intended to be read aloud to a group. Rather, they contain personal counsel to ministerial friends. The following remain as subjects for study. 'Galatians--written to reclaim churchmembers who were back- Sliding into a Judaizing heresy. l CorinthianS--written to rebuke schism and irregularities in church procedure. 2 Corinthians--written to defend Paul's apostolic authority against the slanders of false teachers. Philemon--written on behalf of a runaway slave to the church group meeting at the home of the Slave-owner. l ThessalonianS--written to encourage those who, while antici- pating Christ's soon return, had been saddened by the death of friends. xii g . -;; - ‘. to.“ . , .. _.. v- _..o I--" ‘ . ..... -‘V . F '......Q — ._.... - O "m- ... o- a- . . I '- . . n. O. .- -° - 5...-...‘ ’ I .-_e¢4l“i e.. a- - o .4 o . to“... yae4ao . . 0 ~ . . - - -cp. o ‘-’u‘-P r" .-.u‘..u‘b .5 ‘-ou - - ... .u... -. e . ' .r v ~vv.---‘o4.4t . o I‘ C .r. .o . v e "' ' to t. - . 4 ‘" '--- a. ...t 2 ' . .- o “‘ ”c... "‘b-o. .‘ ‘.. U -. I ._ , . 'd' ~ .. " - .' n...” . O- A “ I -¢. u- -, . ~.,.: -’ 0' O. 9'- ubqn.§ ‘. ‘..C v. voo‘, £:-... ~ . " . fi‘. . -.. u : E ‘. ... . . O 0 g. i". , ~.C,-‘. g-.. _ "t a. , ~ __“ a ..;v‘ o I -.e., .~';°.. 4 '». u ‘.-‘v.‘. u."- .. ‘ngi. .0 ‘0 o... ._ D .- e., .g I ‘~ ‘ .. O.“.l *- 4 ‘.‘-.— - .. o.‘ . 2 Thessalonians--written to rebuke those who had forsaken their normal occupations on the assumption that Christ was soon to appear. Philippians--written to give thanks for gifts sent to him in prison and to plead for unity and steadfastness in the church. The average length of these epistles is such that about half an hour would be required to read aloud to a congregation a typical Pauline message. Only Philemon falls much below this, and 1 Corinthians at the other 'end of the scale would constitute an address approximately one hour in length. Materials and Sources The writings of Paul as translated in various versions and with some reference to the original Koiné Greek forms have been the basic sources for this study. In addition, all available commentaries on Paul's letters and a number of recognized works of rhetorical theory have been consulted. Historical texts have been used to provide further background materials, and Rudin's dissertation "The Concept of Ethos in Later American Preaching" served to provide comparison for certain a8pects of the investigation. It will be noticed that there is no lengthy consideration of the question of textual problems. Such an omission does not imply that such problems are non-existent in this instance, but rather that they are so slight as to be insignificant for our purposes. The following quotations are pertinent: . . . let us notice what a favorable position is occupied by the New Testament in comparison with other authors of antiquity. The New Testament writings are separated from their earliest manuscript by about 200 years. Virgil is next with an interval of about 350 years; Livy has 500 years; Terence, 700; Horace, 900; Demosthenes, 1200; Plato, 1300; while the great Greek dramatists have an interval of 1400 years or more. Then again, consider the number of extant manuscripts. There is only one xiii extant copy of the Greek Anthology; the plays of Aeschylus sur- vive in only fifty manuscripts, none of which is complete; those of Sophocles, in about a hundred; Euripides, Cicero, Virgil, and some of the others have several hundred. But when we come to the New Testament, we find 4000 extant manuscripts of all or parts of it in the Greek, to say nothing of 10, 000 c0pies of a translation of it into Latin and numerous manuscripts of translations into other languages.1 The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough compu- tation, then seven- eighthsd the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitute the whole area of criticism. If the principles followed in this edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. . . . setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our Opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one-sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.z (emphasis ours) Organization The setting of Pauline oratory (time and place factors) is dis- cussed in an overall view of life in the first century of our era. Such is the content of chapters one and two. The Specific background of each discourse, however, is presented with the correSponding rhetorical analysis in chapter five. 1Samuel A. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1951), p. 19. ZWestcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. II, p. 2, cited by Cartledge, p. 21. Since these statements were made, New Testament criticism has advanced still further. The distance now separating the original New Testament from the earliest fragmentary MS available is less than half a century. xiv o . Z. ‘0 .p.: BL“. 3!.....--- ~ I u v . . .. - -o i!" n ...' ..:..’ » ..". ""-' o. s-' ‘ ,....v .4 .. . U . o- . .., .nn.' "n‘ .’ -‘ .¢.ou o i D. C... I. ._._.n. . . “ ‘-"~'.,.‘ 0' o, . C to I. \Ql‘.‘ulb v . . . " . -.'...;..n- .‘..' §.o~.«.;..‘ neg..- s . “"o - b .‘.. .. ---. t‘ , , I ’ ‘ U .9 u ' . v; ’ ,. ‘ .v‘...‘.. M. ‘CI. ~ 0 . ‘ -’ -.b. . . I, ' ..\-.p '. ‘ * --.¢c..,._.‘..‘b. . . ’u, ,. .- ‘. A! a ‘u..; '- ""o.... ' - . ' . ‘ ;-.-. g '. . nus-n... -.¢§n-‘ \"‘n '0‘. . 0 *.b‘ - ‘ I. 4 o.. run. J. ‘ . '. ‘- . ou<.r.‘....L ‘.‘- ‘b. . ___ '. "t-~o ~.-.,:. . P 't. ~ . ....,. . . “.. ‘\I_ .v- . ‘ h. v ‘ . u . . u... .4 O. ‘ E5pnt.“ c.. 9' n. . . . . .. ‘.. _ .‘ "a- .. O o ' ' C .‘; ;- . . ..~.H.t W! 3.. . “.49.., Between these sections of history and the case studies has been placed a view of the Apostle in the light of succeeding centuries, and a summary of the main influences which shaped his oratory. Such is the content of chapters three and four. Because references to style would be largely duplicative if placed under each epistle, a separate chapter has been reserved for the detailed consideration of this canon. Other objectives of the study are fulfilled in chapters seven and eight, which deal re3pectively with Pauline ethos as compared with that of recent homiletic theory and the relevance of Pauline ethics for modern communication. In the closing chapter an endeavor is made to draw the strands together by indicating the significance of the investigation as a whole. _ It is inquired whether Pauline oratory has some significance for rhetoric in general, and secondly whether it has particular significance for that branch of oratory, known as preaching, and finally, whether there are some implications for the general field of communication. XV ... .. _ I 0-0.4 _ n . o- A ' . " '. r~_ . ~. .--...s»..- -. g - ~ . I . o . ,.. \ ' ‘ ' o O‘-- .v.~ . ‘It ‘ . -:' ‘I«~o"'.' 0 Ju .....,. .3 . ‘J . . ‘ - 1" --I. . Q .., v . ‘ . - ‘ so .0 u‘.’ E ‘ .9‘5‘ ‘2‘ u ._ '. 3 . ‘CG- . _ ' ' ill. 0 L...... .' . u. 0-. . . ‘ r .- .". 0‘ 9 c ya...‘ -.. ._. O . \.: .. ‘- . u....-.':‘ *F‘ .O'v . . .. . ‘ .'"...._ , '\._‘ H o.. . ‘c. I. c ,' ._ . . N ~.c~~ CHAPTER I THE WORLD OF PAUL'S DAY The Historical Background to the First Century A. D. It is impossible to view the first century of our era, or any other century, by itself. Like every point in time and event in space it is sequential, a harvest as well as a sowing, consequential as well as causal. By 14 A. D. civilization had described a semi-circle. Beginning somewhere in the Fertile Crescent, later manifested in the Aegean islands, it moved westward to the Eur0pean continent. Greece became the fountain of the classical tradition which was to help mold the thought and life of the West for all succeeding centuries. The age of Augustus saw the peak of classical civilization, the zenith of attainment of the ideals of Pericles, Aristotle, Plato, and Alexander. Undeniably, Roman culture was essentially Greek. The Romans usually implemented rather than invented, and this proved particularly true of their culture. To begin to understand the scene in the Roman Empire, therefore, it is vital to trace, cursorily at least, the outlines of the immediately preceding centuries with particular reference to Hellenic and Hellenistic thought which became the inheritance of the Latin conquerors of the Mediterranean. Five hundred years before Christ, the Athenian Greek represented the appearance of a new human type. The flowering simultaneously of genius and democracy brought forth the fruit of Humanism, which is the . ..-t.- -0 ‘* ' "' "‘ - I . ‘ u‘ ..... . .' ;_ :..--.s at -_,.o-- ~ l ‘ . . .0 - o- . '. ...._o~' . fl. tgv,~- .. ._...... u... r. . a . ,. o.:..~-O vorv-_O- 9 ,J’.:. -. "'.". v. non-on ~ g . _..;......-..u I.V -V"‘ , -.~o.-.-‘Ju ‘00!— “u? n 6 I , . O .. ._ . o“ 9. I.. “V ._q.' u.......o._.‘ ._ d.... _ 7;‘~—_--c; ‘ r .. ~ ->~...¢ -.c‘ J-.- t.-.. .1 u . - . ., a...“ ...’..,‘ .. v o ' . Mg...“ n_.| _.~ .“. " I. ‘ . .. fl . .a........' .“L ..¢-., . c . .l I- ‘fi. V “I: .4'3 'u- .’. ,..- . ' . “ ‘at k... z -. t- _ 0‘: '.. :.‘O, . '0.‘ c " . "“35 *.;- '. ‘ .Ia "-Al.‘ "‘a..'\ _ .‘ u»... ’ .b-‘g - .' "--~-.t'. . .1 ‘c- '2» ‘ .. \.\“‘~. ~. "“0 h . v a.. ~‘. ... -. ‘~.. ."q . . ‘ "N ra- 4‘ G“ 03. '- . O . - ""~oo ‘ ’C 4,..- chief characteristic of what we call Classicism. The Greek shook off the shackles of subservience to the hierarchy of superstition, and asserted the right of man to frame his own destiny. Most Athenians refused to accept the pessimistic determinism of some of the Sophists, and chose rather to believe that man could, by balanced personal development and bold endeavor, mold his environment aright. While in religion they were far behind the monotheistic Jews, in every other aSpect of culture the Greeks transcended their contemporaries. We think and feel differently because of what a little Greek town did during a century or two, twenty-four hundred years ago. What was then produced of art and of thought has never been surpassed and very rarely equalled, and the stamp of it is upon all the art and all the thought of the Western world. 1 The city state was the cell and microcosm of ancient Greek life. Here it was demonstrated, before Aristotle wrote it, that ”man is a political animal. ” The Greeks were the first to understand the meaning of citizenship, and each of the institutions of the city state spelled out the reSponsibility of every free Greek to participate in city life. The contribution of every man's best, the act of participation in civic activity, would lead to the betterment of all and the flowering of in- dividual abilities. A great cr0p of brilliant literature, art, and archi- tecture bore testimony to the apparent accuracy of this philosophy. The names of Pindar, Aeschylus, SoPhocles, Euripides, AristOphanes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Hippocrates, Protagoras, do not all stem from Athens, but each is representative of the Greek genius which contributed to Western thought. DeSpite the glory and success here suggested, however, there existed in Greek thought a fundamental concept which invited disaster. lEdith Hamilton, The Greek Way to Western Civilization (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. , 1959), p. 70 . ‘0 " .- _... Ky .-. r. J. - to... A ' . 1. , . A. - ... - .‘wuo u... .~ ”- .000‘ 0-H“ -- - o" o A -1» 0" ' .u. d...-‘ ‘ -o p . " "u- .. ‘ . - o .- . *-.... O .1 -' ”t Dob...:s _. .. -t . .._ . o-fi ‘ n V ‘ ‘a-Iqu I IOQY‘vq , .. . ~c. ' ‘ .. “ n... .u ‘.c‘ ‘0 0.. I.. .‘ :uo. _ . u... . . .....:.,‘.t.\ 1‘ . '. - a L- ‘s“: _' .‘ n.__ a e . .. ' Id..‘.. “of w . ‘ r-ool. 6-. ‘D F‘ ‘ . - i-. . s,“ .~ 9.2" _ ‘ '“*‘D:-'{ .u-r 0'. . _. V is a 0.. . Hit R- "' ' yvtot._l". I -. .,- '0 ‘ 5. ~ . s..'. O. .-- . "IJ . r ‘ ‘ '0. .‘\g.-' u w, w. ‘Hl.. ..L- .' u I-. n I ' ‘\ A. -‘ .0. " J. . 1" v- “‘ \. I. x o o ~\.‘.~‘ ..‘. o ‘ “o A.... 1’. ' .4. ‘ .1. The basic flaw of Classicism was made manifest in the anti- climax of Greek history which succeeded the glories of Marathon and Salamis. The bloody Peloponnesian wars, and the prolonged disorders which followed, demonstrated that man, for all his brilliance, was not such a creature who could be governed by pure reason. The Greeks, who prided themselves on their sense, were never sufficiently rational . to establish a lasting unity among themselves. While the Hellenes were, for the most part, linked by the common bonds of ancestry, religion, and culture, the forces of disruption were ever stronger than those of centralization. The spirit of rivalry and separation, although illogical to the extreme in view of their common Greek problems, overwhelmed the weaker tendencies to agreement and unity. Pericles had been responsible for the political, economic, and cultural aggression of Athens which had provoked the fear and hate of other Greeks. During his leadership the political center of gravity was transferred from the Council of 500 to the Assembly. From this time the Magistrates merely discharged the will of the ever variable Assembly. It is to this deteriora- tion in the final form of her democracy that Athens owed her failure and fall. The menace of imperial Athens was one of the causes for the Greek failure to create a form of government which could reconcile the peculiar characteristics of the nation with the conditions necessary for the continued existence of a powerful state. The fourth century contrasted unfavourably with the preceding. No real civic discipline existed, and the preference for the interest of the majority was a thing of the past. A levelling tendency, with its consequent fomenting of suSpicion and hasty, cruel action, prevailed. Socrates was one who fell before the tyrannous Spirit which had resulted from failure, fear, and panic. The race for money and power, begun in the Periclean Age, was now accelerated; and the ancient Athenian o -..o-..'l ,- 0 c w- .. -‘ " allot... can -..~— “..~...o.-:. . . . . ..-. q. .. -.‘ ' . " v s g—n—‘o- Ito-govt. --.oibs o r I . .q~ . ‘0. ' b’.‘ . o n.‘\ “C. ‘ I‘. . "" ‘ »o a . ' . ’9- uu-o‘..., J. . ‘. r. ’. . -. O .- - r... 0 - ..-- ‘4'.'~ .. ~-~-‘-_‘ .. . . . "'~ . ' ~ . ~--. ' "F .".'s " ‘I . ...-... I‘D. ‘.~.. . ‘ . ~ . ‘ " D. ' u..., ._ . ‘- ~‘ “A. ’. ' 0‘ .. o- .' .. .. ‘ u" a ‘.-.‘. “-‘ . v. . _. w ‘ no...,“”‘. . .0. :- ~ I I. \— .r . ‘ I .‘ u «u. - h. . il ’- .- _ I - vwé‘: O ..'. u..\ . -I . values disintegrated for many. A bureaucracy replaced democracy. Economic decline, social tension, intellectual confusion, sophistry, and intercity strife have been rightly labelled as the characteristics of the fourth century in Greece. In the Spirit of reaction and disillusionment, there arose some new political and philosophical schemes. A new Panhellenism, for example, was espoused and promulgated by Isocrates particularly. He incorporated the distinguishing ideals of Hellenism into an educational system which was to train many of the world's thinkers for at least two millenniums. Plato also had lived through the tragedy of the Pe10pon- nesian wars. He hated the democracy which had brought strife to Greece, and the Sophists who had set up false ideals. He put in writing the idealism of Socrates as elaborated, and at least partly transformed, by his own thinking. In The Republic Plato pictured the model-state as one ruled by a philosopher-king. In his System of philosophy he rebelled against such teachings as those of Heraclitus,‘ that all things are in a continual flux, and he protested also against the dictum of Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things. Aristotle, Plato's successor, never entirely freed himself from the idealism of his teacher, but his own writings were more scientific than metaphysical. The scientific examination of life gave Aristotle the basis for his own system of metaphysics. He believed in a teleological view of life with God as the great overall End or objective. 1 Philip of Macedon, an enthusiastic admirer of Greek civilization, had seen the necessity for unity of government, and he had implemented this belief in his own country. Philip and Isocrates were in touch with one another through correspondence. The latter wrote to the king urging the necessity for the unification of all Greek cities. "As a lover of 1Plato and Aristotle are discussed in the section on Philosophy. “" tv '- ou' . . 0 . - 9' 0' “ _,...-.o"-‘O " ‘ ‘- ‘ p; '. .,‘..~‘o s-.. - - ‘ I q. .- a30- uu-‘o ’ i . _ a - ~45" “' 'r-r " ‘. .u.» . .4000. “a s». y u - . - - - .g. 1.00 a .V; -." ‘ .-.»..- ~- .-.0.H" - :" -\-.-O.-.O Op-A - \ h. ..\.-' .-.¢s u... - . ‘O -o‘ ... p-n-u . . . , _ _ .. " ..¢.I \vv-nJau » . o v . . ' . .. . _ . .IQ' ‘- H. n ‘ - 0" “~‘ v. 5 h..." u - O o I In V. ' ‘ ~... . . ~._;‘_ s ,. ‘9'. a ' .. 3" 0'».JS. . . ‘ ‘ I > s u. ---o..'. . c. tr... -0 a.» g. h . ;‘-.... . “"- h' to” "a .. r' ‘ ' .‘oa ' . ct. I. __._.§ . .. _ ‘§| :0 ‘0‘, .‘ o. .“5‘ -..-‘. .v ~ 6.L“ In... In \. .. ‘h- I" 5.- ' ~ ‘. " -~.‘ "4." .u'. ' “\on' . \ (I s. s "V‘Aq .',, _ “u ‘u.. . ‘ . . . -.. D: ,_ .. ._ . . on. - ‘. fi ‘ 9-,. lo. ‘\ . ._ “s _ .. . . 'J. I‘:'- ‘ v ~ ~.. .- ~_‘Q:, I- .. SA.,_ », ,. . . .I I“ - 'u ' . ‘~..~c Rh. .: too... O-.. .-' a .3 . “N . .. . “A 1‘,“- 2‘\~. "tr, '7‘“ ‘ Hana" A .‘e '. _ ‘¢ Athens, he begged Philip to be friendly with that great city; if they worked together they could extend Greek culture over the world. "1 . . . Philip had introduced Greek culture into his country. Guests from Greece and other countries found the royal Court at Pella, his capital, conducted with so much dignity, style and luxury that the social life and manners of the Macedonian aristocracy compared favorably with those of Athens. 7‘ The rise of Philip's son was also the rise of Plato's philosopher- king. Reared under the tutelage of Aristotle, nourished on Homer, and sharing ‘his father's admiration of Hellenism, Alexander went forth as a reincarnated Achilles to conquer the world and bless it with the legacy of Hellenism. He it was who was largely responsible for the Hellenistic age with its welding of Greek and oriental thought. He was not only one of the great military geniuses of all times, but due to the influences of his father's court he was also a missionary of the Hellenes. While it cannot be held that Alexander was entirely responsible for the spread of Greek ideas, his conquest gave an impetus to the eXpansion of Greek influence which for centuries had been under way. "AS the pioneer of Hellenic cultivation, " wrote Edward Freeman, "he became in the end the pioneer of Christianity"; . . . "the victories of Christian Emperors, the teaching of Christian Fathers, the abiding life of the tongue and arts of Greece far beyond the limits of old Hellas, perhaps the endurance of Greek nationality down to our own times, all Sprang from the triumphs of Alexander. "3 This founder of a new civilization was the ideal ruler as far as the following centuries were concerned--a superman who could through 1Agnes Savill, Alexander the Great and His Time (London: Rockcliff Publishing Corporation, 1955), p. 5. zIbid. 3T. R. Glover, The World of the New Testament (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931), p. 57. -—A. out..-« ~ m ,.. -u» ,..... oo- "_~~-~ r .,‘ g. .3 a: .3. .o - his ability and virtue solve the problem of disunity and create a peace- ful world. . . . Alexander is one of the supreme fertilizing forces of history. He lifts the world into new habits of mind and brings in a new epoch. He gives Science and civilization a new Sc0pe. . . . Incidentally, he gave Greece a new Speech, for the koiné is the outcome of his blending all Greek breeds and dialects in a new distribution over a wider world. He brings in also the craving for a new Spiritual unity. The ideal city- state was still of interest to his teacher--a curious illustration of the detachment of the academic mind; for, while Aristotle speculated, Alexander was in fact so acting as to change the face of the world and to make the city- state a mere anachronism; and the King was providing that stimulus from the actual world which prompted the Stoic to conceive of another ideal state altogether the cosmos, the city of Zeus, the greatest conceivable unity of all. Two of the chief of Alexander's thoughts survive to this day--the divine kingship seen in Caesar and POpe; and that universalism in thought, philosoPhy and religion, which we meet first in Stoicism and then in our own religion. 1 Ta'rnhas made a similar summary regarding the influence of Alexander: . . . , whatever else he was, he was one of the supreme fertilising forces of history. He lifted the civilised world out of one groove and set it in another; he started a new epoch; nothing could again be as it had been. He greatly enlarged the bounds of knowledge and of human endeavour, and gave to Greek science and Greek civilisation a sc0pe and an opportunity such as they had never yet possessed. Particularism was replaced by the idea of the 'inhabited world', the common possession of civilised men; trade and commerce were internationalised, and the 'inhabited world' bound together by a network both of new routes and cities, and of common interests. Greek culture, heretofore practically confined to Greeks, Spread throughout that world; and for the use of its inhabitants, in place of the many dialects of Greece, there grew up the form of Greek known as the koiné, the 'common Speech.' The Greece that taught Rome was the Hellenistic world which Alexander made: the old Greece counted for little till modern scholars re-created Periclean Athens. So far as the modern world derives its civilisation from Greece, it largely owes it to Alexander that it had the opportunity. If he 1Glover, ibid., pp. 62-64. .... u “Ishu‘QHKICOO‘. a . ......-,--0-~'* . . . . -—...- --.;. . 4. o... . .—..¢. .¢. ~o...¢ J. n... - . v . . I , ;.v‘u.- .0 - '- .. .‘ 2 --‘---v v. .Q‘ba a..‘-.. . . "- °._;‘; .‘éuv .-— .- ...... m... k. v. -s- .- - n ‘ -DD~~ I n . . - . - . a as u- t . h-‘l .nuu .b u- .5. ".h .- uO . . u... as K ‘... l "‘ O ' ca... 0. .. ‘ 1 ‘ ’ - ' ‘ ' ‘“ '0 Colvscb. so .1 . ‘u; .. ‘ .4. A .. . ~.-..~. fl .,_ *a‘? . --.. _, . .‘ n~ ». o»...- .g-.. g..“ ‘- l . ‘r .‘h. ““'-‘...|.. ' . '\ 5 .4 '~"‘ ‘0‘....\ ‘5 could not fuse races, he transcended the national State; and to transcend national States meant to transcend national cults; men came to feel after the unity which must lie beneath the various religions. Outwardly, this unity was ultimately satisfied in the official worship of the Roman Emperor, which derived from the worship of Alexander after his death; but beside this external form there grew up in men's hearts the longing for a true Spiritual unity. And it was Alexander who created the medium in which the idea, when it came, was to Spread. For it was due to him that Greek civilisation penetrated western Asia; and even if much of the actual work was done by his successors, he broke the path; without him they would not have been. Consequently, when at last Christianity showed the way to that Spiritual unity after which men were feeling, there was ready to hand a medium for the new religion to Spread in, the common Hellenistic civilisation of the 'inhabited world'; without that, the conquests made by Christianity might have been as slow and difficult as they became when the bounds of that common civilisation were overpassed. But if the things he did were great, one thing he dreamt was greater. We may put it that he found the Ideal State of Aristotle, and substituted the Ideal State of Zeno. It was not merely that he overthrew the narrow restraints of the former, and, in place of limiting men by their Opportunity, created Opportunities ade- quate for men in a world where none need be a pauper and restrictions on population were meaningless. Aristotle's State had still cared nothing for humanity outside its own borders; the stranger must still be a serf or an enemy. Alexander changed all that. When he declared that all men were alike sons of one Father, and when at Opis he prayed that Macedonians and Persians might be partners in the commonwealth and that the peoples of his world might live1 in harmony and in unity of heart and mind, he pro- claimed for the first time the unity and brotherhood of mankind. 1 With the passing of Alexander, the chief bond of his empire was dissolved. His own strong person had been the guarantee of international unity. Contesting generals now warred for over a score of years until a settlement of a kind had been reached with Antigonus I occupying the Greek peninsula, Ptolemy inheriting Egypt, and Seleucus taking over 1W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge: University Press, 1951), pp. 145, 147. -4 -.: n. ._ - a o a - -o..o..¢- n .., .. r :- In. .I ,- . Io. ,..‘ .- “ " \v " . . ..- . .n-..-m..‘. ‘_... | 2. l'-‘ . . . - ._ ‘ ‘ "“‘~- " " ‘r- 5‘ I. ~-.'.-_'.-II. "I (l' “I t! ' 7 most of the eastern part of the empire. While Alexander's asPirations were given partial reality in the history of his immediate survivors by the wideSpread nature of Hellenistic civilisation, the constant strife of the years following his death demonstrated that the world was still with- out the key to universal peace and orderly government. The Empire of the Romans was to fulfill this need. The seat of world power which had long been in the Orient was to shift to EurOpe, where the concepts of the world's essential unity and the value of the individual were to find their mature expression. Rise of Rome and Its Empire The rise of the Roman Empire seems almost accidental. Certainly there was no imperial vision among the early Latins, and control of the world came almost as a Shock to the citizens on the Tiber. One of the miracles of the ages is the skillful reconstruction of social processes accomplished by the Romans in the first century in order successfully to cope with their unanticipated inheritance. Before discussing the idealistic motivation which led to this reconstruction, we would briefly trace the rise to supremacy of this ancient pe0ple. When Greek civilization reached its peak, the Romans were still leading a tribal life. Probably it was contact with the early Greek colonists and traders which awakened the Latins. In the fifth century B. C.' occurred a conflict Similar to that which had tranSpired previously between the commoners and the aristocrats of Athens, and which had resulted in the adopting of the laws of Draco and Solon. The Romans also received a written code of laws, and the ordinary freeman found a form of representation in the person of the tribune. It Should ever be remembered that Rome from an early age diSplayed considerable gift for government. The citadel of that name had in early times offered ' ~o .. .,...-.«.r‘.- o ‘ '- -‘ ..l ‘ ' :..,....‘...‘ W: .‘. ¢ - . .- 'w; 3;..r v. . a ‘ 'Jut. uu.‘o'b '3‘. "' ° ’ . Q . -. . _ . -. . ...‘ ,~. ‘1 ' a...” not". ‘.-..,- s - ~. . . . . ’. . '. .u n. ‘ I ‘ v '- .. ,. . H , I. u-I ~ . s.-—-o gooasauov. 0‘ ' ' I 0 -.-.;....‘«a . ,. .. o, K-II ~..u ea ....\0 no .- V' a " :..;O .’ -..- - .. 9-5 .A..l . ‘QI\ \ ---I ' ..- . . - 'U'. . . , o'- .. ‘~.v ' “" ‘ . T a u..- ‘IC‘I4\‘.- ,. I, . u - ‘ " -I . . - -.~:.. " P‘u ' ‘ "‘ ‘A05 5 .. ., - . '. .pfip.I ". I.' ._ ".II“‘~ k... . . '-~' ‘~: '_ ."‘.~ -. .. "‘w-C . . a 'L . i . - _ - "a D.. Q - 'n. 1 .— ... I h’"" J‘. 4"! Vu.,..I . L '- .,‘ - I. un-Q-L' .‘Q "‘- ' n I . -v' G ' O o .." ‘ Q. . I 1". l I ‘.":t-F 3" fl - . . ' '- . l 1-..,6‘“ .0 -'_I Q ... .__II "l h. I . ‘ ..'::\ J. ‘u. 5. . ~‘ ,. fix .Ag.. :J . “~ I.‘- ._ h.-. ._‘:I.: o. P a u, h CJ,.:...r‘.. v- - . , ‘Z‘Ln .- L 0 ‘~ I ‘:‘ A."‘.~‘- ‘ ‘ ti.‘kfl 3‘. ’\ a ‘ \ . .‘ “"of‘ ‘ ..‘.3_ ‘ “‘- 1r 1‘ I ~ ’uI.‘ . ... . :J" \'a I A U‘ . “I, a-" . .. 1 ..- ‘ ' 3.” ; . .~ ' -~ " . ,I . a. 5 ; \' "‘ § . 5’.“ 30 P ‘ ‘ 'V'v- - \J.."‘ . A “ Q’V-I I L- ‘.-.. ‘ - .. \‘u 'b. refuge to surrounding Latin tribes in times of crisis, and eventually thelatter became partners with the Roman citizens in a common republic. Thus, almost from the beginning, it seemed to be Rome's foreign policy to accept aliens on near equal terms. Through the pur- suit of this principle, Rome had unified the whole of Italy by 264 B. C. when her first conflict with Carthage began. The great Punic commercial center of North Africa saw in Rome a rival for the markets of Sicily and the southern coasts of France. The result of the ensuing conflict of twenty-four years' duration was the defeat of Carthage and the addition of Sicily to Rome's possessions. In the very nature of things it seemed that one power or the other must be eradicated from the scene, and two subsequent wars in 218-201 and 149-146 wiped out Carthage and left Rome as the supreme power of the West. Between 200 and 146 B. C. the remnants of Alexander's great empire had come largely under Roman control. When Hannibal sought the aid of the kings of Macedonia and Syria, he paved the way for the ultimate absorption of these territories by his enemies. Syrian armies were defeated by Roman arms near Magnesia about forty years before the outbreak of the Third Punic War, and Asia Minor became a Roman protectorate in consequence. After the third Macedonian War, that country was divided by Rome into four independent republics, and Illyria into three. In Egypt, native revolts against Greek rule had begun about 230 B. C. , and it was a somewhat deSpairing Ptolemy who had sought the help of Rome against threats from Macedonia and Syria. When Antiochus IV invaded Egypt during the third Macedonia war, an ambassador of the Roman Senate peremptorily ordered him to go home again. l - - ‘ . _-. a --' -".‘oo '0 'w' ' D. ‘1‘ o e I ‘ ‘. 5.: “.nc" - 1- '. -_. -¢- ‘- O '.".’ G .4 ..'l ..-~~v. . , - .‘ .v'rlo"".-.‘~.. . . '.'fl ‘- --.I-I -..-..--...-o.- . . ‘ - .- .-.. .""3. .TN . -h‘ I‘."‘. soon :1 0- . , . ..... .,’-’o ._ -9 2.. ’ o‘ I - . »»-—- ...a....a -g u.. ...~. 0‘ . , -' o . -, . '-,. - ‘t'... ““'I‘u~ ‘-.V.. M c . . . . “‘ C. . .. ..,. _. ' .- I . . . '--J“...'--, 'u.. h I ' l - - ,Iu' ..._ _. .._..-.. 4v ...,., a. .u. .- g I .. . . I .-_.p_"'o. o‘.‘ ~ p. I .-----.-s... us.» ‘. , y . ~ I ‘ . a I‘.. I“ . . . .4 .“s ._..‘I IIhI..I , n l ‘a- ’ a. 1.. u",.-O.. I; . '-.r‘. a . any}. M. US' . ' . 0". - h- _ ., ‘. . u... ‘~': . I -g 0 f .;;~.,,_. . . . ..‘.. h":=ut- .- '.' .. -. ‘II CLO...‘ It. i" : .;."" ‘0 . m..._‘.;I . .0... ’I I. 'hM“: .. - so. . Q. . u b “-1... .I 423 : . .~ - \ “‘o 4 I .5 I .-‘I.,:.c . b “’ 5-. f -.(I . ‘- 't 01... . . 0‘. .L 10 At first the Senate refused to annex defeated territories such as Macedonia, Greece, and Syria, because the burden of direct govern- ment of these areas seemed too heavy to assume. By the middle of the century, however, the policy had changed, and the ensuing annexation led to the creation of an extended empire which made of the Mediterranean a Roman lake. Thus by the mysterious outcome of the centuries, the simple residents of a backward Latin city had been thrust into the unsought yet reSponsible position of leadership of the world. Underneath the glory in which Rome now basked because of her conquests lay the manifestations of rather inglorious conditions in Italy itself. ProsPerity, as always, brought its problems. The Republic was flooded with the profits of war. A new aristocracy of wealth arose, and this class invested in land and slaves. As for the freeborn farmer of a lower financial status, he found that he could no longer compete with the large landowners who worked their estates by slave-labor. Thousands of these smaller farmers forsook the country for the cities, particularly for the city of Rome. Here they became constituents ' of the Roman mob, eager to listen to the promises of any revolutionary. Old-time aristocratic patriots like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus attempted to bring about the needed reforms, but neither was permitted to live very long. Professional soldiers named Marius and Sulla next vied with one another for leadership. Each of these men claimed a large following, with the former representing the disinherited freemen, and the latter advocating the views of the landowners. Sulla increased his glory by defeating Mithradates, king of Pontus, who had sought to rally the natives of the East against Roman engulfment. During Sulla's absence, Marius had marched on Rome, assassinated enemy Senators, and had himself elected as Consul. Within a matter of days, however, Marius was dead. . . -. . :v'rrz'x ” "'L" A.'-.--.o.so .- ‘0. a. . o - n . , ., -- '. " -.;|’~.- 0-. 9-.“ -'I--o. .C-o-d ‘_. .... ' . a — __ . PC . -'- “ ‘05 g . A ,..~ .., .. a UN. . _ - ' I p- .......-.._’. J.t o......__._ . , . ... ”V .5. .. .“ .- u.._.. ._,. .__0. ..‘ "n. "l. I . n.0-..I.. n'. a .. ~QDO ~~... ’ ,,' \ ..“. ‘4‘ ' a. a CI . ._. ' h. , ._'. ' >- ‘ . .‘I. ‘..~‘ .r.‘ . .- a “"‘o.._ __ ' I ' :0... n ‘ 0-,... . Q u \u-~ . o 0-. ‘ 0.. ' v.1-“ ., . 4! t“‘ .‘.‘.v4 ..‘ ‘0»... 6 ‘ O ‘ Q g~‘ "a. I ’~., . ugu.‘ I- ., .‘_ . -.. 00“..~;. ‘ 11 Upon Sulla's return there was another period of extermination which nearly truncated the career of Julius Caesar. The ensuing dictator- ship of Sulla lasted for three years, and in 79 B. C. he resigned. Shortly afterwards he died in retirement at Naples. There was nothing permanent about the constitution for which Sulla had been responsible, and the years which followed witnessed a succes- sion of remarkable individualists who sought by all available means to take over the helm of the Republic. "Most of these new leaders had been under thirty when Sulla died; they began to fill important offices about 70; and they remained in power until the death of Caesar a quarter of a century later. "1 In Spain, the Marian leader Sertorius had provoked a revolt in 80 B. C. with much initial success. After the death of Sulla, Pompey by command of the Senate, replaced the Roman generals who had proved unsuccessful against the rebels. By 71 B. C. the revolt had been quelled and Spain pacified. En route to Rome the victorious Pompey gave the last stroke in the liquidation of the slave army led by Spartacus, a project successfully prosecuted up to that time by the wealthy Crassus. These two Roman generals now campaigned for the consulship, and both were elected in 70 B. C. as a result of the persuasive effects of the presence of their trooPs. In private life each consul feared and detested the other. In the same year, the equestrian scholar and orator Cicero con- ducted a masterly prosecution of the Sicilian extortioner Verres. By successfully defending soon afterwards the governor of Transalpine Gaul against similar charges, his reputation was established, and his rapid advance in politics apparently guaranteed. lJoseph Swain and William Armstrong, The Peoples of the Ancient World (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), pp. 384,- 385. ‘,_ . o -. ....~ \vn- "‘ . o ‘ ’ .> s. ' - -.'....- - " h f. .. scat U1. ’ ,. -... . 0... 31:7. v: -' . .x. t C Q . -‘. - ‘ . ’ H“"."".'o-\ ‘ ,I...... 5...... - - ‘ s ‘ ' -..- 0’6 w- o ' ‘--v-. .. 9—0.- 5.. .-4 ‘ "‘_-.| “ .,.".'. I ' ' «‘- I50 4.. h " . .,,__.~. : "‘O I - -.... . ,2“ A--. . _. on .. ' ”“‘ J~~ ....'J r- ' \- I 'Q- v wi‘ .' . “v *0. V .~ ‘~~ nJA,...‘_. s . H n - . . .H ._.. .. , ‘ 0.. - 0‘. v._. 0‘0. . “ 3. .~. h. .O- . "‘ 500': ~ ' *- -.. _.. ‘ o. n- . . . i". Oaé‘le r). 9" - ~.u 12 After the joint consulship of Crassus and Pompey was over, the former returned to the business of augmenting his wealth, and the latter, within two years, was placed in command of the armies fighting the energetic Mithradates in Asia Minor. Pompey successfully drove the rebel back into the mountains, where he committed suicide. Meanwhile, back in Rome, Crassus and others had their fears that Pompey would return to Rome as a new Sulla. Fearful of proscrip- tion should this occur, Crassus entered into an alliance with Julius Caesar, who had become well-known in Rome both through his oratorical powers and his former position as quaestor. In 65 B.C. Crassus and Caesar were accused of being implicated in the unsuccessful plot of Catiline to murder the consuls and seize government, but the entire affair seems to have been carefully hushed up without too much loss to either Crassus or Caesar. A noteworthy result of the plot, however, was the further prestige it gave to Cicero, who had boldly exPos ed Catiline. Pompey returned in 62 B. C. and to the relief of the Senate, he disbanded his army. But two years later, enraged with the apparent ingratitude of the government, Pompey joined with Caesar and Crassus to form the first Triumvirate. Soon afterwards Crassus lost his life in warfare against the Parthians. As for Caesar, he decided to increase his influence and fame by the conquest of Gaul. When he later heard that Pompey had been appointed as Dictator for life, Caesar made the momentous decision to cross the Rubicon, despite the command of the Senate. The Roman people hailed him as a hero and savior, and by 47 B. C. Pompey was dead, and the remaining member of the Triumvirate absolute monarch except in name. Julius Caesar proved more than a great soldier. He was a far- sighted and able statesman. He extended citizenship to aliens in distant places, planted colonies, and restored Corinth and Carthage. He made ...In; "" 2.. ' ~ u... ~v““‘“'.'.. 0c ' y ..- .v-o u r ..t-o ' ’ “..."... .‘:~..uo 00‘ u". 1 - . ~';:w"" -.-‘| ...,....-oao ‘..::’- if...‘ 0" -,...,--ol- 5..- . 0 ' :::“;-'&'A*“* ‘ ' o......~o 0.45.. - ' U. ‘ -.--o . ‘- a O ' ‘I ., Hp ‘..-\| ...- »;3. as ... . .. . . “n‘ . l ‘1 :0‘0P~ 4 0. u~ .- O unu§--..4u.- H‘J " r anrtz~ 9-» . ' ......s....| |\J0 .9... v‘ . n. o- ' u~ .. .- ., r 'V" I. '~ -'.. 5.- ...C lto". s ’5 s ‘co 0.. a 'tlfi-k... .'. . ...... .....J...t ... c , ~a "_ ‘- " ‘unu. ‘.-.. ' ' ‘ ‘ A. .. n ’3"' an out ”I. can .. 0-0. " “t :tf? I s 13 plans for the codification of Roman law and for the reorganizing of the provincial system. He believed that the latter should not be a mere military despotism. Strabo says that Caesar was always a lover of Alexander, a sentence which does one good to keep in memory, linking the great. He has, as Mr. Heitland says, a large imperial mind; he is a statesman above all men in antiquity. No man is more essentially Roman, but he has shared Greek culture, and he has lived in the larger world; and, like Alexander, he wished to keep and to combine in a larger union everything that has been proved of value. He seems to have thought of a world reorganized on the basis. of the monarchy that the Hellenistic kingdoms had been developing. The central idea is a government answering to the real facts. A sentence in Suetonius' life of him tells us how Caesar reformed the Roman calendar, which was ninety days wrong. "He fitted the year to the course of the sun," says Suetonius. The sun, after all, is the final authority for any calendar; and the calendar of Julius was used for centuries, and was only superseded in Russia about 1917. In a very similar way Caesar fits the government ofrthe world to the great essential facts of the world. He is a realist, says Mommsen, and he develops what is essentially a monarchical system--monarchical, though not royal--where, at the head of all, there is one brain, and a great brain, where all others responsible for the adrninis- tration have to answer to the man, in whose hands are gathered all the threads of government. Everything points to the greatness of this man. 1 Caesar had named as his heir the eighteen year old Octavian. Nevertheless, Mark Antony attempted to seize power after the fateful event on the Ides of March 44 B. C. To counter this intended coup, Octavian had the Senate appoint himself as general, and thereafter he brought his army into Rome to procure for him the further office of consul. His next step was to form a triurnvirate with Antony and Lepidus, his rivals, in order to crush the republican forces under Brutus and Cassius. The year 42 B. C. witnessed the ensuing battle of Philippi, lGlover, pp. 147- 148 . . . n_ “ ., .... n‘s‘ ,. o ....r— , ' a ‘ ‘ '4: .. .u-‘b V"‘ o .A .. . .. o -.- ... O- .. l. ‘ . ‘ . . ' . -..; 3.“... '--.o!.u-, - o . . - ...-......z...‘ I" 4 3.......:.n-.-. ..... o ‘ I n‘...-o.- t... -‘. v‘. ‘ ... ~-......-.......u...l ~Il .. a v . . . h tn v.. n I '-',,0a;0u-~ 3.'_- “- 1.... n...‘ .9... ~ . ~— . ~,¢<.;. 2...... ......vg'. ., .. “*"C I'd-~..L.o.>4o..\ .. .. _ u . -. ..... .__ . .. . . .. _ . F'. 0': r6' '“"‘-'¢ .... ...-..os . s.._, . J. ‘. ~o- ....O- .. . d"."" to‘...l 9'-~.. . ‘: I“ 0......- ‘r ‘ - nus-c .g“. .“ K ... ‘v- ‘--. . o~-. . _ P "I m...,‘_.‘ ‘r m a... .’ - H“ "‘~ 5. : ... “u n.... ~' ."‘ ‘.. " 4. .r' . 5.5 , N v ‘ .“'"‘-~ A'. ... ‘1 s . .. ‘ “a.“l pa. 5 w . ‘5. - . VA-J.{'I‘§ ' ' -/s . r. - \" _ a I;._ '-.. i 'I-._ cu..“‘c‘ .-.. _- . s- ' 0 at. . T- - ‘J P. h . s 5“: y ' '0‘ u‘tt’: .r. ‘r “,1 . ... '\‘ ‘0.- .. ‘ Q. a 3'5"“ ,. c ‘ - \ a a. s. ., A ‘\Z' .... v 9-' “st‘ l‘.‘. ‘ ‘ " Jl.r~ - ;;: 4‘ ar‘. “ ' -~- ‘ ,4. ‘~J. in ~ 1.1. 3" ... . q ‘J‘.;Ch 1‘ . ‘A l4 and the successful triumvirs divided the world among themselves. Antony was to have Gaul and the eastern provinces. To Lepidus went Africa, and to Octavius, Italy and Spain. Soon afterwards Lepidus gave Africa to Octavius, and after the latter defeated Antony at Actium in 31 B. C. he stood without a rival in the place that had been Caesar's. The Empire which he inherited stretched approximately from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, and from the Danube and the Rhine to the Nile. The pOpulation of this area was somewhere between eighty and one hundred and twenty million pe0p1e. For the first time in centuries, this region was now to enjoy comparative peace. Emerging from the tensions and losses of a terrible internal crisis, the unprepared Roman conquerors now urgently required a solution to the problems of universal government. Did they have the personal resources to meet such a challenge? What was the nature of the typical Roman who by circumstances had been thrust into the position of representative of the leadership of a world empire? He was a new type in the world. Alexander and his Successors had represented a type differing from the old Greek standards. This was a third kind of man, a variety unfamiliar, and not too welcome. It is the legal mind in the soldier, the administrator, the supreme administrator who conquers and who keeps what he conquers.1 To the Greek who really took the trouble to study him, the Roman was a very curious and interesting character.Z The Greek would adorn his city with statues and edifices of beauty; the Roman provided his city with a system ~of sewers.3 'Ibid., pp. 89-90. ZIbid., pp. 92-93. 31bid., p. 94. . ,. -.-,“ fl . . I. . d .1. ,.: 3"... . . Q - O ' -‘ 0r;9 9,. . -_ .. ‘ -. .:‘;¢ow:fico Dali-V y...‘ I ‘ '- 'IO I... . . .... ..t: .;-- .5 .. _ , . fl _ ... .. ...; -. a." o. “b. .9..- . ’ .- . ‘_ . ‘ n.‘IRI‘ ’5. to ~ ‘~ ‘ 'l "I ...--....." ‘ . l . . V . nIIl< .93. v'-" ’t .. .... ...... is... ... ... ' a .” I W ,_ "IV‘9'J. ‘ n .. I-;9.b;.~ .. h - .-~....,‘_ ~. .- ' -. ‘._ .. . F p“..-~; ‘ ’. .us...4.n.c~ k... .. .. -' “v-b... . .-. ‘00‘ ..AJ.‘. ..‘ .-...-..' . .- . . . .._. - .- ..t. ‘ 0.... h , ‘ vs. s“... .-‘ -.. 15 It is a ain a pe0p1e, as Plutarch notes, meticulously careful in al that refers to ritual or the divine, in strange con- trast to the slovenly ways of the Greek in handling his city's religion. 1 These last few lines are significant. They help to answer the question--What was the underlying concept which motivated Roman emperors and peoples to successful government? The answer must also throw light upon the life and thought of Roman society in the first century A. D. Rome's Inheritance of the Classical Tradition The resources which finally enabled Rome to stabilize her Empire were Spiritual and moral much more than they were material. It was the conviction that fate had destined them to propagate classical civili- zation which gave impelling power to both Princeps and pe0p1e. Through the influence of religious concepts and a borrowed Greek culture, these ideals were primarily manifested; and ultimately they were Spread abroad by the poets of Rome as guiding stars for the new missionaries of Classicism. The historical fact that there was considerable religious skepticism among the upper classes of Rome has often led to the diSparagement of the significance of Roman religion in the Augustan age. Some well documented and carefully prepared studies in recent years have indi- cated, however, that it was resPect for Roman religion which energized the implementation of classical ideals in the Empire. The evidence indicates that at the beginning of the Christian era the Romans recast their way of life to accomplish the final shaping of classical civilization. Furthermore, they were apparently motivated to do this by the religious conviction that it was their divinely appointed destiny to rule mankind lIbid. , p. 95. .. - . II- 0" ... . v ‘ J.—kcv ”cu-4‘0 mu . , . IN _. . 0. ~ ' uP "‘ '5' ~':_“.‘.. s... ,..-..~~| U ' . - a. " l........ ; 9.: H‘ . u - __. ‘.....o.nug . I .- n: ;--- ..c -h-~~ Iso-IJO‘O -. - . o -p ... . .- - “c o .. but. ‘. I5 I- O a . , ... - ‘ o.- .1 ... f, -. _ O-Iv tut 0‘ Atut. ‘O 0| ”v 20.; an:- “D .0 ‘ ... ..-. .... -..h-h .. . 2 ~ up ”...-In, .0 cu...“ -..-n A... -.....s. . . _ t’.~. ... . _ - > ov" t '0- L-u -. Ulr- ...“ ... ngsx . -' . .. .. . . _ Ia " "4 *A. . ' e ‘ Iunsd |.o-.\ .k . . g .- .. tp";,,..’ M .. . ‘h-so-“osgo on»... g‘ . . l ""5 - . on. I- 0~ 0 “-.‘ 16 with justice and peace, in order that all men might be free to pursue the good life. Because this view is contrary to that expressed by some older historians, we draw heavily by way of citation from some modern influential scholars. To take one point before others, so much is plain, that cult, the kernel of Roman religion, has a far wider importance for state and politics than has generally been supposed. The careful and unremitting worship of the gods will in that case have been the necessary condition for the rise and rule of Rome. . . . The idea that it is the gods who fix the destiny of Rome and therewith hold it in their hands appears everywhere in unmis- takable form.1 The question is always being raised whether it is proper to speak of a religion of the age of Augustus, at least of one that deserves the name in the strict and pr0per sense and that derives its powers from something more than political motives. As in the forms of the state, so too in the reorganization of religion and cult, scholars have thought that they could recognize a mere creation of the Emperor himself. Dictated by the will of the Emperor not merely to restore the state, but to build it up in such a way that the person of the 'Princeps' should be the real centre of support for its structure, that order seemed to have taken shape entirely under the influence of expediency and calcu- lation. Of a true and deep relation to religion, in the Emperor at least, there need, it was thought, be no question. It might appear as a confirmation of this view that the age itself seemed incapable of an original religious movement. The last years of the Republic had set the seal on the recoil from the gods of tradition. The philosoPhy of Epicurus, which banished them to a blissful middle kingdom, not to be reached by any human appeal, could at the beginning of this age count the best Romans among its adherents. Hence it seemed impossible to credit the following age with a belief of the old kind. Whatever was offered in the way of outward glories, whether solemn ceremonies of cult, grand new buildings or restoration of the old, could only be designed to work externally on the great masses of the pe0p1e. For the others, the philosoPhic Speculations about the nature and activities of the gods--above all, the theology of the Stoa-- 1Franz Altheirn, A History of Roman Religion, trans. Harold Mattingly (London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1938), p. 423. n¢vu"-" ...-... ' .sosod-‘C O Db - . . ... ~.-.. 2-.. ‘0‘ .' u. ..--.. b...‘ no. . ;‘—;0wu-o'.v‘0 .... na--.h~...‘ andb ... - . I D . ‘ U- u ». ow, ‘ ‘p 0’” .- . "‘ *"v uhoa on. - . a ';v; -~'-‘. .... . ' —-¢. -l~__..“... . .. b - ..-...’,, ... ‘ a ~p......' 4.. (.0 A 7' . . ”';':."— mo Op- . '- .. 4 t:-‘O‘..vtl a. ..‘\ . - ..~ '9‘ -~. . h... ' b o ‘.- ‘ “ ""“ ~.b-..‘ , . ... 'G “'o -,-‘ ~ ‘m! .‘9' 5" ~ ..-4 -.‘._ “ . ‘ .-..- . _‘~ , ...! ' I u.. \VL... ~.‘_““ v-o ‘, .... - ‘ ~~...‘.i . ~ . a 'I. . 'o 1,-- ‘- ;.~".” '0‘ ...-......9:‘ . p' \- 17 supplied a practical means of diSposing of the inherited con- ceptions. Such is the view that still finds supporters to-day, that may even, if we disregard a few exceptions, rank as orthodox. 1 But, the epoch and its religion are not something that simply occurred, something that ripened to full growth; their appearance is linked in time with the appearance of the ruler; the new element is there overnight. First, we find a heyday of the teachings of Epicurus, an elegant scepticism or, at best, a philosoPhic in- terpretation of the popular belief--and, a few years later, a complete change of heart--what had before been scorned not only taken seriously, but almost recognized as the meaning of human existence.2 Altheim significantly refers to Horace and Virgil as "those two great men who determined the Spiritual state of the Rome of their day. "3 Everything that we have learned to describe as the meaning of the system of Augustus, the 'will to order, clarity, moderation, health, conservatism, consistency'--all that is to be found in the poets before ever it was manifested in the renewal of the state by Augustus.4 Glover's statement regarding the Aeneid supports this: . . . out of it come three things: the worth once more of that .Italian race, the value of human character as seen in Aeneas, and of the ImPerium that God has given to the Roman people.5 Cochrane also agrees with this viewpoint when he points out that the classical idealism of Greece, popularized by Romans such as Cicero prior to the days of Augustus, received its dynamic in the poetry of Virgil. 131113;, pp. 369, 370. z_1_13_ig_._, p. 371. 33333:, p. 377. 433119;, p. 384. 5Glover, p. 113. Iv-‘- 'vv‘ .. 40.... “'4 F D-un.‘ .p... § _; "' “t 'UJJI.~—o .. . _. l_ . ,__ . ‘0 . ‘ . Q d .o ,- nt‘.4-uu-g .“.. . h o- , . I . .. ' '_ ‘ s. . . tn... flu.) ...‘t b.\ ";”.\-u-....-._’_ [N- ~~ r‘ a I . a... 4"... “.... y . I - I >.~‘I~ "_‘. ... . '46... g n ‘ "“ on; ._. '.;:..;‘. I - av. .-..»yW .“t ' 90* J. .h . . IA - ~c’ -... n;~ ".6. ‘"_ . 8 Dub l“. l‘ I. ' A -.'!.I . ~T v -.. . -‘~ “ - i" 0.. u - ““ c¢.“ - .‘h‘ 18 It is a truism to say that ideas have no legs; by themselves they do not march. Something, therefore, in the nature of a dynamic was needed in order to impart to Ciceronianism the vitality which it lacked; something to win it acceptance and make it what it was destined to become--the common coin of posterity. This dynamic it was the function of Vergil to provide. In provid- ing it, he supplied the final ingredient to the ideology of the Augustan age. 1 Those who like Cicero believed in the classical virtues saw in the failure of Pompey and Caesar the result of character defects. Cicero believed in the existence of a definite distinction between right and wrong. He opposed with all his might the doctrine of Lucretius. This is important if we accept the view of scholars such as Cochrane, who asserts that Cicero ”was the medium for the propagation of those ideas which in- formed the law and institutionsof the empire. "2 There is a moral influence in great literature, whatever its theme; and it is indeed to be felt as you read Cicero. He is always the advocate of a higher life, a moral and reflective life, conscious- ly and deliberately the advocate of it, and unconsciously, for his belief in the best informs all he does. With all his weaknesses, says Mr. Heitland, there hangs about him ”a certain atInOSPhere of truth, of goodness andof nobility. " He was the most highly cultivated man of antiquity, says Mr. Warde Fowler. He loved all that was beautiful--a beautiful house, works of art, poetry. He dreamed that he could write. verse, and Juvenal laughed at him for it, but Virgil read Cicero's verse and learned something. If he was no poet, he certainly could write prose. In his personal ideals and endeavours, far more than in his successes, Cicero sets conscience on the throne of life. He was the Latin world's teacher in philosophy.3 "It was through Cicero that Greek thought reached the world. "4 Cicero also believed that: 1Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 61. 21bid., p. 39. 3Glover, pp. 109-110. 41pm., p. 111. , - . .C. L . . ....-co.-.. .*'~ . —~CA‘>‘|O.¢C co. .0 ; we. "v-P :-~v-.,O.' ....g.... a..- . .... ~ . . a»... o- -m‘ ..V. .. ' ,r s 03.5 .. a .ru ..J\I§Io‘. .c -o- ... '. R A:- .. . t In. "“--‘ .*p. ""V- -n.¢.-oo .... ., , '.~~..-.. .. _. to ... ,_ " p... ..¢..~ r. ..“. ... -o. u . u."‘ n‘. . . '-l.... _" A ., . pr iIIIQ“ J‘ J . ‘ I’u .. I '. ' . i s. __ ...: «- ...;a ‘. a _. ‘.”" 4‘ J 4 .r . . . ,I ‘9 '. ~-. _ .I I I ‘.-‘F . l v -aa‘....:“.. ‘F... - I“ u n - o. _. . ' u 'd n \ “' . . ‘ I J 0‘... .r ~Vfi" - 1‘. "" v I ."- x‘v .. \ t A . “‘¢ . ‘ . ‘V C '1' f" ' . o- ‘_ . . . . 1'04 Jt : ...-‘H . _ "v‘.,,‘ . ‘ o . "‘ a .- ‘ n ‘ J‘ ~."‘-.0. ‘ x, ._ . ..‘J5-4. . lo 19 . . . sentiments like loyalty and justice (pietas et justitia), upon which the life of organized society depends, had their ultimate basis in religion and that they could survive only if this fact were recognized. Accordingly, he rejected the facile identification which scientific materialism had made between religion and superstition, and maintained that the true alterna- tive to superstition was a form of high religion, i. e. of religion purified and illuminated by the knowledge of nature. 1 It is De Officiis which best expresses this philosopher's concept of the purpose of life. He declares that men exist in order to attain the complete potential of being by the faithful discharge of obligations to themselves and to others. The moral ideal of Plato is elevated as a guide. Particular stress is given to the duties of magistrates. He sum- marizes the duties of public office as follows: (1) to maintain the rights of property; (2) to abstain from burdensome taxation; (3) to ensure to every one an abundance of the necessities of life; (4) to be scrupulously clean-handed, above the suSpicion of greed or corruption. 2 We have already referred to the estimates placed upon the De Officiis by great modern authorities. In this essay the author gives final utterance to his conviction that the end for which nature has designed mankind is the achievement of what may be called empirical selfhood, and that the purpose of organized society is to promote its deveIOpment by establishing and maintaining adequate social controls. In so doing, Cicero proclaims an ideal of excellence not unworthy of human beings. At the same time, he insists upon their capacity to realize that ideal through a self- imposed discipline in which the passions are subjected to the con- trol of reason; and in this he sees a possibility of transcending the limitations of barbarism and of 'civilizing', without supressing, the ego.3 Such concepts as this led to the Roman ideal that its First Citizen should be a kind of "superman”--a philosopher and ruler combined as 1Cochrane, p. 41. 211014., p. 54. 31bid., pp. 56-57. .- .-... ... y -n 3 ’4. . ...:u.‘ ..;--| g. nu... -; 2; "-2' 2" V r J'... u. ‘..o- ads-a. a - . . . o ..---a..- .. ..,I h ' . I - . l‘~"'.. IJ""~:“II J4 . . . I ' ‘ . v-O‘vvs ..O 4...- .- .t‘.l.o..\.-O. I ;~... . . ' .-. u. '- 0 . *“J-o‘.‘ ’ fi . ‘. “- betJ. .‘ ,- 20 pictured by Plato. He must of necessity be a man of supreme virtue as well as great ability in order that the gods might work through him. Augustus looked back to Cicero for the justification of his power. The writings of Horace and Virgil gave their support to the picture of the Princeps as a worthy constituent and representative of the gods. It need hardly be stressed that both Virgil and Horace voiced a sentiment and attitude that is absolutely in harmony with the order of Augustus. It has, however, recently been emphasized that it was not merely the presence of that order that moved the poets to preach the things that bound them in their hearts to the work of the princeps. It is now suggested that at a time when the new elements were scarcely beginning to show themselves, not to Speak of reaching their final form, they found their expression in the word of the poets. 1 Grenier also has seen the relationship between the poets and the new age. . . . Poetry, above all, lent its lustre to the new patriotism and ensured its diffusion. The Muse defined Octavian's policy and placed herself at his service. Horace and Virgil were the heralds of this national reaction. 7‘ Cruelly though these hopes have been disappointed, this idea of the Roman Peace extending its blessings over the world is truly a great and noble conception. It was only an aspiration, no doubt, only an ideal, but it is all to the honour of the Roman people that they ever conceived it. It roused genuine enthusiasm in a whole generation, chiefly among humble, simple people, all those who were most helpleSs in the presence of public calamities and had the most to hope'from a social rebirth. Virgil, the poet of shep- herds and the son of peasants, gives this ideal a religious and miraculous colour. Earth, of herself, without labour, will offer her gifts to man; all ills, all perils will fade away; the lion will no more be the terror of the flocks; the serpent will die, the poisonous plants will die; there will be flowers and fruit everywhere. When Horace, in his skilfully chiselled lines, expresses the popular lAltheim, pp. 383-384. zAlbert Grenier, The Roman Spirit in Religion, Thought, and Art (London: K. Paul, French, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1926), p. 293. . ... ; O~ 0“ nv;o—-‘ at 0...:- OJ .. {'E’ 07'. 0'" 6-"'- u ‘A..‘.‘ .‘ ..... 0.; h;'--.'.- b" o c . ...... J-u...-.. - .. -..a... .',. 1. 6 ' - ' r-.\ C .. ..¢;o- 4‘ ' 1 . 'Dv'--- .- - A~-’ ' ' ~I-O.— sub J‘.:S W; ‘V ~~ | -. on \ ‘ . :'“;' '. 9h u . I ' u "‘ ~O u -- .""'“tl a. D‘ . u... _‘ , ;..:‘ ~' 9 ""I- I. . “as... 1 . ... ... .-I-‘ " I.» I ‘5 ......g ~u “N‘- -..vl - ‘. l‘.u-..‘ ‘ ' v \'_:'~" 0 h ” '- ’° 4», ’ '. .' 0..., J I ‘ ~»-. .’V;-‘-‘- . 0.." I w. ...- . . v I\d...c' be... h N. _ \ ..,g. u I \ .;.';"-. . -. . "...: ...," - J._.‘..: “ .._ ‘ c... .. r . ‘.'I/ I. .“_ .: .--. , ‘ ‘ “ ~34): ‘ an“, . , I ‘I . ' “.... I Q 4. ~ .. A "'1c:. “. 21 feeling, he tries to make it clear in more realistic pictures. He finds the elements of them in the sights of country life and in the beautified memories of the past of Rome. The peace of Augustus is the ox cutting his furrow, the god Faunus going through the byres and folds and heaping his blessings on the beasts and their young, or the ploughman happily enjoying his supper in the midst of his family. It is also the revival of the glorious days of Romulus, Regulus, Fabius, Cato, the days when everyone, it was thought, had been wise and good, and the gods, content with the piety of the pe0p1e, had given Rome unmingled glory. 1 According to the Aeneid, it is destiny which ordains all things. From eternity it had been decided that the dominion of the world should be given to Rome, the heiress of Troy. Throughout the story the hero Aeneas is pictured as one who abandons himself wholly to the gods who direct and protect him. "The whole epic is dominated by a majestic finality, as flattering to Roman pride as it was consoling to the conquered. "2 With right, the Aeneid became the great national work, not only for Rome itself, but for the whole of the Graeco-Roman artistic tradition was gathered up in a new and living form, the memories of the old Republic were united with the noblest asPirations of the new Empire, the purest Latin patriotism was allied with a generous phiIOSOphy of Mediterranean history, Latium and Italy were extolled but reconciled with Africa while the origins of their glory were linked with Asia, and the practices of the old worship were associated with the mystical asPirations of contemporary religious feelings. In details of workmanship, the idealism and conventionalizing methods of great classical poetry were enhanced by realistic touches and minute accuracy, while the myth was studded with pictures of present-day life and localized in a fundamentally true landscape. By its very complexity, Virgil's epic answered to the most diverse tendencies of the individuals and pe0ples pacified and brought together by the Empire. It was truly the poem of Imperial Rome, the epic of the world and the new age.3 ‘Ibid., pp. 296-297. zlbid., p. 309. 31bid., p. 314. . a pw-‘n'rQ.‘ : ' . ‘ .P v p . Op ' n ' 5 C .‘du 00- _-‘..nuu-‘ L..- .o ' ‘ ‘ .-... o- ....no u... t , p . . l _ Q . ' ... ...... .‘..o 'u -. p... .- ' «.2- . ...w -s 41.... w. o . . . . «n... .. I'- A. ‘ .«g-.‘.;....contv i."- '4 . -- u-uo. . . r. ...c .L..,_. . ... ... .0 . I. p'p , ". .... ...”..4- J. - n- n _ C ‘ ‘ nun—... 4.. ~,. _‘_ ~ ‘ I. a . ‘ . Iv‘.I‘~ Q; i. . "~un»n... ..._ c \o ','_ .. '9- -..'.. .’ , . . q ' r ‘ F as c~5ofiQ *~.:“‘w'-. n 'l u- - , a " 9-“ ~i~o ._ __ n .I...... a. ‘ u i “ .._‘ t 0 h" 5.- H I h‘ 2' . - .9. A ‘. ... . “5.. ..‘z k9 , '- ~ . ... I «a... - . v- I‘ .' V”... >' . . h “0tc‘...‘ o ...._‘ cs.‘\.- _, o no. . ..~..‘- . ‘ I ‘ u I "ha-Ha -- .. . ‘ d " 5. "I. V 'L" ‘>. ‘ ‘- fl ‘- . ‘ ‘ ~~ “‘-.‘.\‘ ‘. .D- ‘ . C v. ‘-.k v a 'N, ‘-'...~‘ 22 Augustus, the true hero of the poets, was himself profoundly religious. According to Suetonius, the Princeps carried fear of the gods to the point of superstition. For defense against lightning Rome's First Citizen wore an amulet of seal's skin. Omens and auspices were seriously taken into account by him on all occasions. That the religious tendencies of Augustus were profoundly sincere cannot be doubted. That they were reinforced by a political purpose also appears evident. Augustus saw in religion one of the essential elements of Roman tradition, and he deliber- ately modelled his attitude on that of the old Roman magistrates. Like them, for example, he made a fundamental distinction between the official worships consecrated by Roman usage and innovations. He evinced profound re3pect for the former and disdained the latter. In Athens he had been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, but in Egypt he had refused to look at the ox Apis, and when his grandson travelled in Judea he congratulated him on having refrained from offering prayer in the Temple of Jerusalem. 1 Thus it is that we find in the will of Augustus the record that he had caused eighty-two of the ancient temples to be repaired. He also elevated the dignity of the priestly offices and announced that had he a daughter he would have proudly made her a Vestal Virgin. When the picture is fitted together, it seems evident that Augustus manifested to the Empire the ideals and the sense of divine mission which Cicero and thelpoets had eXpressed in writing. The Romans were brought to view themselves as the inheritors of all that was good in the past, in order that by virtue and diligence they might fulfil the will of the gods in establishing a universal realm of peace and justice. The two Hellenic types of human excellence, "that of the 'hero' and that of the 'citizen' were reconciled by Eternal Rome. ..2 Plato and Aristotle had met together in the new Empire. lIbid., p. 373. zCochrane, p. 86. . o: n *.'._..~..qp .qu- ‘ .....a'an ' a. 'v'- ‘ I l- .0- Op- H.’ '. i P on P. n- .....1410- Loot ‘ . ...- .'...’ -c‘ . h.¢ ... ‘0 .‘." 3...... fiw§tl ‘ I - _-ls . ...... . ‘ __. 4-..: *uv‘b, 9 use a - ... .z. .-_.,, ,- *9“ at... ....u .§.u.. no u... ' I. -"““ gm; ’c p. g n . 'V .o I... p..o...cau s I n- - . , . . -v. ..__ . -~ . 4!. '. " . ' —h\ .. -..uu J. \50. ~n- ~- . tn- ~;- u'.‘ On 2". .c.J.-..4 ‘1‘- ...} .... . . :.. 9...: -. -.., ... .. . I... h‘., ‘- v. e ... .. . . D - . .. 0.... \I.;_.,_...-_ ""~* an out .‘ovn.\~.. ‘ - ‘ Q ';:._-tu...c . ,. "-~~a- up sous an“... n. ..- ; . ‘ _ r ~-. - . .....n. -C:..C .4 .V "d a ‘ ‘vm- .. L" a -~ . x...” ..“...‘~ J. k . . . ...." o ..‘ - ...—‘- .. P' a-.. I . - 'd““c¥~ 9‘ \'.|.‘~ . ..- A. . 4:9?- "12-24... ... _,..“_.k ‘0 . ... ... ...~ “6" ‘ I" 9-- - ... 23 In summary it might be said that: . . . despite the perils and uncertainties to which it gave rise, the crisis which issued in the principate may be regarded as, on the whole, a crisis of adjustment, during which men never quite lost faith in the possibility of conserving the essential elements of the classical heritage. This, indeed, was precisely the aim of Augustus; his work marks a herculean effort to solve the problems of his age in terms consistent with the thought and aspiration of classical antiquity. From this standpoint, his problem was to associate the notion of power with that of service and thus, at one and the same time, to justify the ascendancy of Rome in the Mediterranean and that of the Caesars in Rome. To see it in this light is not merely to credit the founder with a sincere desire to reconcile the new demands of empire with the ancient claims of civic freedom; it is also to discover the possibilities of Classicism as a basis for the good life in what has been characteristically described as the happiest and most prosPerous period in the history of the human race. 1 General Characteristics of the Empire What was the external picture of Roman life in the first century? We would briefly sketch its characteristics under the headings of a positive set and a negative. The first of the benevolent characteristics of the Empire was that of peace. The Pax Romans. fulfilled mankind's ancient dream. The faction-fighting which had marked many of the Hellenistic cities was discontinued. As for the Mediterranean, it was a peaceful lake. The Roman army was reduced to a minimum, for Augustus decided against trying to extend the Empire by further wars. Secondly, the triumph of Rome marked also the triumph of law and justice. Undoubtedly there were some governors who presumed on the basis of their powers, but these usually paid the ultimate price of lIbid., p. 3. . ..- 3 a 1.. . IO.- --.¢ u- ‘ . s- - pH 0 , - .... ’ “.1‘ .’ ' "’ - --o. yum-A C“ i' , . .g a... .. .4 -v‘l. a a n '3‘ wt __......Ju ...t A A -_....-.o-. bm.a.--\. . - . “""--c .n - .,... . as. -—-¢~.~- Jo ~g-u at: I... . ' . .z‘h ugn go. .5 ”““"Co-. “at.... ‘. in .. ‘ -. a“ .. ...-g -.. v ....u... 5‘ -. ... . . 0“ . “" ~v- . -;._ F" 3. --.; I .. .. , :- u- .‘h ... ;. -0~.QOP mus... 4 ,. ' 6 o..- 5..., u .- n. . .. l I' . “-.. I: t“. H‘“- . . Jr‘- _ v‘. ' . -., l. - 3 , 4, .. . . 4" n-. 24 recall and disgrace. The world had never before known such wide- spread equity in legal and financial matters. Similarly, a public administration now existed which was uniquely efficient. This was accomplished, admittedly, by the emphasis of Augustus upon the stabilization of classes and their functions. The two citizen classes, the knights and the proletariat, had their ambitions and services pre- determined for them. However, the senatorial and equestrian orders "were by no means closed castes; the way lay open to able and success- ful men for advancement from the lower to the higher grades. "I A corollary of the above was the new safety of life. Pirates and brigands were put down, and there were a freedom and security in travel that had been unknown before. Ideas also were permitted comparatively free circulation. Undoubtedly Rome tended more to the Greek rather than the Oriental culture, but in the distant provinces of the east as elsewhere there was freedom to pursue local customs and to believe in local cults. As shall be noticed later, many of the Oriental religious ideas penetrated even the West. The extension of Hellenic culture was another gift of the Empire. The famous line of Horace regarding the manner in which the conquered Greek took his masters captive is a true description of what actually occurred. Finally, this list should include Rome's introduction of progress to hitherto backward nations. Britain and Gaul were led out of barbarism, the helots of Sparta were freed, and like transformations occurred throughout all the distant provinces. Particularly important was Rome's encouragement of city life, a feature later re3ponsible for the develOpment 1Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D. 4th ed. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955), p. 267. .... .5 . - _.. ...-I. -n‘ I , | - W rnv.«; -v-'u--D- Q ' , .&.-.0. ...-Down“, “ow-0‘ O .- .p .. . . . '. I.— - up: .O-r . ,4” .n Ahd... ... 5... o" ‘ a . n-.-.- . a Q o - > - '0' Cw ’ .... ...L ..‘s -... a . .. . ‘ n.._. . -. . a " n. - - 9 ...... D‘u . . "~o """Oo‘.=. .... , -- '-o. . ' , u‘ 1. ‘b...’ ”.1” * “~0- ‘. ‘ , . “ 'J- " § _ '. .. N . .. ~._.:. '- ..‘, Q 9‘ -v....‘. on I . “.¢J. .— ‘- n... '- -..._ ...... u ‘ t “a: i: I". -. 'ot. « *‘J:' I-.- . ~.._ '- tx." ‘ ...‘_ ¢p... ‘- Q ~ 0 .... - o-. . ‘I:"a. ‘0 ‘»-: J. .b;ne ‘ ‘a- 4"" O " ‘— -- .z'. '- II. ‘ .. - ~ "t; " A. ~ ‘ o. ' 2‘ *4: " 25 of influential missionary centers of the early Christian church. Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth ranked in importance with the city of Rome itself. The negative set of characteristics of the Empire was- in some cases the almost inevitable accompaniment of imperialism. For example, the captive races knew no self-determination. They were subjects of the Roman Empire, and along with their inheritance of the good came the realization that they were no longer free to shape their own national destinies. International rivalries bring their advantages as well as their drawbacks, but there was no scope for such competition in the first century A. D. While there was a new honesty in financial matters wherever it could be enforced, there also existed some disastrous economic habits in the areas of trade and taxation. As the years went by, oppression by tax-collectors increased, robbing the vitality of provincial workers, although in the first century taxation in most places was still compara- tively light. The extent of trade in luxuries from the East reached the amount of almost two million dollars a year. This much money went to the Orient, but little gold and silver travelled in the other direction. The institution of slavery did not, of course, originate with the Roman Empire, but it is certain that the conquests which established the new rule multiplied the numbers of human beings in bondage in Italy particularly. This led to what Walbank calls "the complete stagnation of technique. "1 Slaves naturally did not have any incentive to make technological improvements. Furthermore, where labour was cheap it was natural that freemen should come to look down upon such occupations as could be discharged by menials. Worse still was the consequent 11“. W. Walbank, The Decline of the Roman Empire in the West (London: Cobbett Press, 1946), p. 27. « -.. .. n-O" : P . O .-.- ... a... I... 00“ (I) .... .... ‘ . ' s‘ ,. *9“ "o '9 ... ...... nobulh J.na»' \u.’ - ‘ ‘ ‘ ... I...- . - h-d.-.| . a. 5...: o - -- ‘ - v o. ... _ t- h. ....u-u‘ 4‘ ..‘t " ... u w - . a" “-nu-- .. - 'Nv-../..l figs . 26 deterioration of character which accompanies a slave-system. In the section on morals this point will be elaborated. PhilosoPhy in the Graeco-Roman World It is what men believe that inevitably Shapes their institutions and habits. For this reason we would attempt to picture the intel- lectual climate of the Graeco-Roman world. PhilosoPhy was the particular gift of Greece to the Western world. With the inhabitants of the Aegean was born the conviction that human reason, efficiently directed, could arrive at the determination of truth. Such a concept stands in contrast to earlier Oriental concepts that truth came by way of supernatural revelation or that truth came by partici- pation in cosmic processes. Cicero is our most reliable witness regarding the major philoso- phies current in his age. Himself an eclectic, he had not only read widely, but in his youth he travelled to Athens to receive the best Greece had to offer. In his treatise on the gods he mentions the four Schools of philosoPhy of significance in his day. They are enunciated as follows: (1) The Epicureans, (2) the Stoics, (3) the Academics, (4) the Peripatetics. The Peripatetics belonged to the School of Aristotle, but they had augmented their store by some Stoic concepts. Ultimately the Peripatetics were absorbed into Neo-Platonism. The Academics represented the School of Plato, but they also had made some significant additions. In Cicero's dialogue it is the skeptic Cotta who represents this group. Because the Peripatetics and the Academics were the least influential of these four Schools in the first century, we shall discuss the teachings of their founders before considering Stoicism and Epicureanism. 1'} F.- . “.... . ~ .. _. . so. 1 . I an...» .. on ol—t . -' I ‘- - - -.u .- .... '. .‘ht.’ F ...-... “-.. ... . . ‘ no "rah. ., .. - . u. j". ._' V “0.. .5 '-A ‘ O w-o. . .. a ' -""‘ 3 - ... ' .. n o.--_.‘ ' ‘ ‘ . 4...... had .. .‘. .. |. - I s .. U. . V 4’ . , cho.... ' . I'... a. I"... l I — “ih'”. " ‘ to Q on. . . “V “ 45.. ~— ~ h. . . u- ‘0 |._ . ~.. .- .- .- s..., ~ U h. ““ 5.3....\. ~...,. . {A ' \ - - '--... u ‘.,";o..‘- a. ' "“;‘0.: I ' o..., .- D ‘- u-,M . .“~v.“ _ ~ ‘ oacs...‘ ,4: 3 '. _ ... ...” d. . . . .' . ~. . , .~.~. :.’-.._‘ ._ . '5- ‘...£ ‘, ‘ .d . ‘ 1a.. 0‘ I ~ . .I .hn- .: i... ...‘M. 27 Plato Of that unique man Whose name is not to come from the lips of the wicked. Theirs is not the right to praise him-- Him who first revealed clearly By word and by deed That he who is virtuous is happy. Alas, not one of us can equal him. Arist., Frag. 623 (Rose, 1870)1 Born at Athens 428-27 of a distinguished family, Plato was later educated in the traditions of the Periclean regime. He became a devoted disciple of Socrates. The latter might be called the founder of moral science, inasmuch as before his time philos0phy had been largely physical, seeking for an eXplanation of nature. Thus it was from Socrates that Plato inherited many of the features which were to characterize his own system. Like Socrates, Plato refused to believe the View of the SoPhists that truth is relative. In the Theaetetus he challenges the theory of Protagoras that knowledge is perception, and that what appears to be truth to an individual may be such for him only. Typical of his arguments is that of Socrates in reply to the dictmn of Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things. " He [Socrates] points out that the majority of mankind believe in knowledge and ignorance, and believe that they themselves or others can hold something to be true which in point of fact is not true. Accordingly, anyone who holds Protagoras' doctrine to be false is, according to Protagoras himself, holding the truth [i. e. if the man who is the measure of all things is the individual man. ]2 Plato predicted that true knowledge is a knowledge of universals not of sensible particulars. He believed that for every class of objects 1Frederick COpleston, A History of Philosophy (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1953) vol. 1, p. 261. 21bid., p. 145. . v n. » ..-... v“ "' ' ‘.‘.. ~ 0‘ ‘ f‘ " '“V .... .. --u- at. so.» 5 . o ‘ . ... ... |,.- .n-- . Op § I 0‘ -... .s a. fig... 0d~fi . o .... -;-~;‘~0‘ {I :‘v- - ...-... .4 an... .... . t ‘I‘ g ’ . v‘r\4' . " .2." ' . - .-.-u...‘ J. I‘d‘l- 0«A. .- cl.-.. . I ‘ ‘ ' .... .* Q... . ’ ' .‘ : -.. ....--‘u ...: 2" . \..... ' n .0: “. -..... .- ~‘ ..‘p .A .J ... I . on». uV . I-‘u. .. -o- .. :; :“‘; u‘ .- . ' 'C b-..- . . .I‘ I ...- 28 there also existed in the metaphysical realm a perfect "form" or "idea. " It is this ”idea" which is the true reality. The individual discernible objects of any particular class are temporary. They are mere shadows of the invisible perfect "idea. " Thus, true knowledge is the result of rational appreciation of the Spiritual rather than what is gained through the senses. The famous illustration of the cave brings us closer to Plato‘s meaning. Plato asks us to imagine an underground cave which has an Opening towards the light. In this cave are living human beings, with their legs and necks chained from childhood in such a way that they face the inside wall of the cave and have never seen the light of sun. Above and behind them, i. e. between the prisoners and the mouth of the cave, is a fire, and between them and the fire is a raised way and a low wall, like a screen. Along that raised way there pass men carrying statues and figures of animals and other objects, in such a manner that the objects they carry appear over the top of the low wall or screen. The prisoners, facing the inside wall of the cave, cannot see one another nor the objects carried behind them, but they see the shadows of themselves and of these objects thrown on to the wall they are facing. They see only shadows. These prisoners represent the majority of mankind, that multitude of peOple who remain all their lives in a state of eihasia, beholding only shadows of reality and hearing only echoes of the truth. Their view of the world is most inadequate, distorted by "their own passions and prejudices, and by the passions and prejudices of other people as conveyed;to them by language and rhetoric. " And though they are in no better case than children, they cling to their distorted views with all the tenacity of adults, and have no wish to escape from their prison- house. Moreover, if they were suddenly freed and told to look at the realities of which they had formerly seen the shadows, they would be blinded by the glare of the light, and would imagine that shadows were far more real than the realities. However, if one of the prisoners who has escaped grows accustomed to the light, he will after a time be able to look at the concrete sensible objects, of which he had formerly seen but the shadows. This man beholds his fellows in the light of the fire (which represents the visible sun) and is in a state of pistis having been "converted" from the shadow-world of eihones, a s ._ . . ‘- ‘ .‘-.O3 u o- 0 41-: no...-s.--.U » o ' O ' ' 0-1 ......'a -‘ Q ~:' '0‘. ..u-.-C¢‘ .. ‘ Q ‘ l '-- :--.-;o... l . ""'v-“~On‘. .' . . ' o ‘o; -:..-. .p.. 0.... ; b. ~O'u axon. ...- _ v . av- ’ u . ,_1 -p — o r- n " ~‘b.h0~' «.3- 5.. ~- 0 .' ‘ ' O. I .. a . . a“ ,4" cu ' . ...... no-4. cast. I, 0 1 u ... u . -. ‘p. a. . .- .O‘ . o . '-U C“) u‘.‘ ... an. i ' u- ‘ b- n - . ' .‘~-. 0 "' " . ...h“'°. . va-cl, 0-. -'°--c ..' ', - .- . u»-..“‘_.' t . .... a.-. ' I n . ' ‘_‘ v- . ‘. .... ' n A a. .. , _. . . R‘ If 2“ V“. - o o ‘v ... '.. ' ‘ . ‘I..- c . i g. " ‘C-O k- . "‘-\. ‘t‘ - 5 " ° u .. .. .. 29 prejudices and passions and SOphistries, to the real world of _z§_a_._, though he has not yet ascended to the world of intellig- ible, nonsensible realities. He sees the prisoners for what they are, namely prisoners, prisoners in the bonds of passion and s0phistry. Moreover, if he perseveres and comes out of the cave into the sunlight, he will see the world of sun- illumined and clear objects (which represent intelligible reali- ties), and lastly, though only by an effort, he will be able to see the sun itself, which represents the Idea of the Good, the highest Form, ”the universal cause of all things right and beautiful--the source of truth and reason. " He will then be in a state of noésis . . . Plato remarks that if someone, after ascending to the sun- shine, went back into the cave, he would be unable to see prOperly because of the darkness, and so would make himself “ridiculous"; while if he tried to free another and lead him up to the light, the prisoners, who love the darkness and consider the shadows to be true reality, would put the offender to death, if they could but catch him. Here we may understand a reference to Socrates, who endeavoured to enlighten all those who would listen and make them apprehend truth and reason, instead of letting themselves be misled by prejudice and SOphistry. 1 This illustration indicates that Plato believed that true progress is made through patient, enduring effort. He insisted therefore, on the importance of education by which the young might be trained to believe in the invisible but eternal realities. Particularly was such education vital for those who were to be statesmen. As we study the moral theory of Plato, we find that along with Soc rates he believed that the summuxn bonum was the develOpment of virtue and the attainment to a knowledge of God. The "ideas" or "forms" of which Plato Spoke so often were, after all, the ”ideas" of God; and by becoming aware of these, men could become akin to Deity. Plato also believed in a future life and the immortality of the soul. Because of his emphasis upon the soul, the material body seemed to be 1C0pleston, pp. 160-162. ’ l - I .... —.r- 0". “._ .vv 4 ... ' ;r’:. -... bgoc- .1 .av- . -. . » '>o.-- ~'\’ - d- . ' c . .... ..-“ ..4 1 n . . . ., ..--v ;_ '93. ... . _.,..;‘ u sacs . 0-.- . . ~-~.;;..o; D-c- 0.: ~. L -.--us... on oauL-L - . ~ - ... , I o--»--.~...-o.... .. . v- —' 4 --l‘v-~§..‘..‘.'IO J. ‘.o 9 i o ' q o. - - . . I‘— H. 1.-' - ’1‘ .. o—uos . . .‘ta;.. a. .0 . . -. . I .l ... ‘fl . ‘ n-uo nu--..u sJ . a- _. _. 1 - -~ .. . .. u . h. .>.. “-0~-. -. L.- ...- t- ' - .’ . "“"‘“vo , ...! -~ . . I ‘5; ‘ ‘1‘w—ou or-..l ' 3O diSparaged; and this paved the way for the asceticism of offshoot Christian movements in the early centuries of our era. It may be that Plato's weakness was history, for it is certain that deSpite the tragic end of the preceding Periclean age, he accepted that identification of virtue with knowledge made first by his master. In the Protagoras Socrates shows, as against the SOphist, that it is absurd to suggest that justice can be impious or piety unjust, so that the several virtues cannot be entirely diSparate. Furthermore, the intemperate man is one who pursues what is really harmful to man while the temperate man pursues what is truly good and beneficial. Now, to pursue what is truly good and beneficial is wise, while to pursue what is harmful is foolish. Hence temperance and wisdom cannot be entirely dis- parate. Again, true valour or courage means, e.g. standing your ground in battle when you know the risks to which you are exposed; it does not mean mere foolhardiness. Thus courage can no more be separated from wisdom than can temperance. Plato does not, of course, deny that there are distinct virtues, distinguished according to their objects or the parts of the soul of which they are the habits; but all these distinct virtues form a unity; inasmuch as they are the expressions of the same knowledge of good and evil. The distinct virtues are, therefore, unified in prudence or the knowledge of what is truly good for man and of the means to attain that good. It is made clear in the Meno that if virtue is knowledge or prudence, it can be taught, and it is slfown in the Republic that it is only the philosopher who has true knowledge of the food for man. It is not the SOphist, content with "popular" notions of virtue, who can teach virtue, but only he who has exact knowledge, i. e. the phi1050pher.l This concept is an important feature of the Classical heritage. The classicists believed that man by his own resources could create a perfect world. Plato' s insistence that true education would bring virtue as an inevitable accompaniment was to influence men through all succeeding centuries, and only the shocks of recent global wars have availed to shake faith in this concept. llbid” pp. 218-219. . .. . k ' .. ‘ '0 --“ " 3 ~ Jt ‘o~‘ ..- .....- .....— K ..c~'.l'-- . ‘6 .- ' ‘l- or ‘ d-O ...-a..— . ‘. . .- O ‘. V .o‘r. s v 'i'..-‘ "’ \....o~ :...;—.o.. v0 .— ' --O--- P , .-.. .... ;-.. F ,.'. ' .l -.-.~ot¢¢” ._‘.. n . .‘vu‘nl .> . -...-.. ‘ . §‘ . 0-. , ._ ._' .,;......... son-s "“""o.¢--~ ‘.;— ‘, . - ‘...... a . -..... . ..g g. . .- - u- ,. 1. . ,. ‘ .- . ”.o-w L ...: - .ucn.-...o./- , ' h n... ‘~..-‘..- ’ ... . """‘ ~v\--~-\ L...- . O >--.. . . _‘_‘ . ' ’.’ , g'. ..D ~.-¢.ba yd.¢§o~‘\.. . . . ' . ...A .a.l . . . g: ‘ w . , ' “~u m.3‘ o - “a. f“ . as ...;9 0“. . ... - . . tic-....-. . ¥‘;-¢‘... ' n. . ... . ‘ I Py- 1 .. ' tic ...C “‘2'. ' ..." « . p .-.. , .. a. '.‘. ~\ ‘ 1: . "" \o . :_ ' '. ’- .... ‘ A .1 J. G “‘c \ . ... ‘ . 9., - ' . -. .‘~ ‘. I ~' h.én-I J. kit 0‘ ~ . 3‘:- . tog. :V“~a ....“ o J..“ J5 ‘ " ' s v2 ..., . - 6-..». ..“: ‘. C'- I ‘ O . h . V ' ..."! V a, a ..uk..e. .l 31 It should also be pointed out here that while Plato apparently taught many principles that bordered on the later Christian teachings, in this matter of virtue and the possibility of transforming the nature of man by education he differed radically from Christianity. Paul and his associates taught the gOSpel of Christ, which declared that only the intervening grace of God could transform a man's bias towards evil. Furthermore, we should not endeavour to equate the life result- ing from Socratic ethics with that which develops from the Christian heritage. Consider, for example, the implications of Socrates' frank and unashamed words concerning his desire for the young man Charmides. Oh rare'. I caught a sight of the inwards of his garment, and took the flame, then I could no longer contain myself. I thought how well Cydias understood the nature of love, when, in Speak- ing of a fair youth, he woos someone 'not to bring the fawn in the sight of the lion to be devoured by him', and I felt that I had been overcome by a sort of wild-beast appetite. But I con- trolled myself, and when he asked me if I knew the cure of the headache, I answered but with an effort, that I did know.1 As mentioned on page 26, Platonism as it existed in the first century A. D. was not identical with that of the fourth and third centuries B. C. Plato's own evolution of thought with its final emphasis upon Orphic and Pythagorean teachings, and its strong religious and ethical tendencies, pointed the way in which Platonism was to develop. Members of the "Old Academy" largely dr0pped the doctrine of "Ideas, " and like Pythagoras emphasized the mystic lore of numbers. This was followed by the switching of attention to religion and ethics. The "New Academy" stressed probability rather than idealism. Ultimately eclecticism became the universal practice; and the Neoplatonism in 1Cited by Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand (Boston: w. A. Wilde Co., 1945), p. 238. v- - .. . -- uu; p"‘ re . , n ' t .. ...- A't“ " ..--4 . . a. ._‘-._~_ ...... ‘0 "“‘uuo . &.-‘ wt :,,,...¢...‘-.Anl. ..- ‘ pun . . '...- ...:o o-u-O 0‘ who' u--. "t "' . - b-.' - In u's r" \ ~'>0~..a- «a n ...«O‘. ,‘ .- ~~~.... -‘ . ‘ .' u. .- ‘ '- -o 0,. - .—~ -... J. ‘..t '1_' s . . -- -. I , ' v;-. _ . , - , ‘uu__.-.c ..‘ Q‘- - . o . . . . m: "i'" J ”NH-Hot 5 ZS" \ d -a u _ .-. mug: -, u::l- u y C gate. ”I"... ire». 1.1.5 3‘36» ““JTEF I," -. ‘ wrr: t;- V. “rifles ‘. “ wk 0‘ t e “ .. T ‘ ...-:3: .... ‘ ;:_‘- DEUSE-“ -‘:'I‘;>~ . ' t..c . 57"“ no 315131.; ..q_ .3: 6‘ . ‘ he ; o :“o ‘ Sc‘e:r 32 the time of the Empire was a synthesis of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristoteleanism, and Stoicism, plus some elements from the Oriental cults. In the first century A.D. , Platonism, as such, had slight appeal. Only as fragments of it reappeared in Stoicism and other syncretistic systems did it have Significant‘influence. Aristotle The son of the physician of the Macedonian king, Aristotle was born in Thrace in 384-3 B. C. At the age of seventeen he went to Athens and became a member of Plato' 3 Academy. While in later years Aristotle's own scientific interests came more and more to the fore, the influence of the metaphysics of Plato never entirely left him. In 343-2, Aristotle was entrusted with the educating of Alexander. When the latter ascended the throne, his tutor returned to Athens and founded his own school in the north-east sector of the city, at the Lyceum. This school was also known as the Peripotos and thus its members were called Peripotetikoi. A. year after the death of Alexander the Great, Aristotle also died. The writings of this philosoPher fall into two groups, (1) the esoteric, and (2) the pedagogical works. Despite the emphasis upon the empirical and scientific, Aristotle ever retained his interests in metaphysics. Wisdom, therefore, deals with the first principles and causes of things, and so is universal knowledge in the highest degree. This means that it is the science which is furthest removed from the sense, the most abstract science, and so is the hardest of the sciences as involving the greatest effort of thought. ”Sense-perception is common to all and therefore easy and no mark of Wisdom. " But, though it is the most ab— stract of the sciences, it is, in Aristotle's view, the most exact of the Sciences, "for those which involve fewer principles . ..;~~‘; ex$:: .. a o a gym-do. so) '1 . 'v~'bu-.‘...' .0- . V - :.&. coon--..».Lok ... . a .. 1 .. 0” Q ... . . “no-...- u... .Aa. -u . " ' ’ O O '0 or.-. a. "fi 'v‘ ~¥....‘ ... u.» 0.. .. o v .. . .-;;..a .. - .. . .“" .‘ _, 2...; . . s n W .- '*‘-b u..-......(__. . - ..\- . ‘ “..--_ . ~... 1 . p--._ ‘ -, P D o “~O~....{4. ‘ b > ... “.1; " ~~ -. .¢.C ' K F ... “ "'uo. O. \ '- . 9‘ ‘0— IAI“' I. H- . II. ~. 1., 9 A. 9,. -.5‘ I. —‘ ."‘ g.‘ H K a ‘ V...‘ D 6' ‘--.° .az‘. n-o . ““uC. .,_ ‘ . ¢.. . N o: . v. .“ 9 _ ‘ " ‘ '5. T“ c - . ...‘ . \_ . .._ . x. - “-... ..-‘c: .. _ ‘ m a -- s.. ‘0. I a- . \. u _ “‘~'C. _,‘ 8‘--“; u . ' u ‘.‘l. R. - - J'Cn 13‘ . ~¢ .‘.~fiv~ H ‘. fi.‘ J" u. . “"'C" s. - - 5 Q ~\)". _‘ '5 a «C... o o. - ‘ . ‘n. .- . '5‘ ‘- c -c: ._~ _ , ' “‘A‘ . . Q - v}- \ ; ... ‘ o . C“\ ‘0'. 9- a . ' ‘ ..- . ‘~ ‘\=: ‘3’- ! 5‘ A’ 1': ‘C‘ J: t‘.‘ 5‘- . .. h“~=~“t« Q‘Jgh ’ . ....“ . ¢ “L,- -J . . . e . L - 1‘ C- ’- 4'..- . n'_:h‘_ . ‘-“-‘H z‘ ‘o v g L. 33 are more exact than those which involve additional principles, e. g. arithmetic than geometry. " Moreover, this Science is in itself the most knowable than their applications (for these depend on the first principles, and not vice versa), though it does not follow that they are the most knowable in regard to us, since we necessarily start with the things of sense and it requires a considerable effort of rational abstraction to proceed from what is directly known to us, sense-objects, to their ultimate principles. 1 The ethics of Aristotle are teleological in nature. Whatever tends to the attainment of good on a man's part is "good. " At the end of his Nicomachean Ethics he discusses the ideal life, and suggests that it is a life of conduct in accordance with virtue. . . . virtue, in Aristotle's eyes, is a mean between two extremes, the extremes being vices, one being a vice through excess, the other being a vice through defect. Through excess or defect of what? Either in regard to the feeling of confidence, the excess of this feeling constitutes rashness--at least when the feeling issues in action, and it is with human actions that ethics are concerned--while the defect is cowardice. The mean, then, will be a mean between rashness on the one hand and cowardice on the other hand: this mean is courage and is the virtue in resPect to the feeling of confidence. Again, if we take the action of giv- ing of money, excessin regard to this action is prodigality-- and this is a vice--while defect in regard to this action is illiberality. The virtue, liberality, is the mean between the two vices, that of excess and that of defect. Aristotle, therefore, describes or defines moral virtue as "a diSposition to choose, consisting essentially in a mean relatively to us determined by a rule, i. e. the rule by which a practically wise man would determine it. "2 It is evident from this quotation that Aristotle clings to the Socratic concept that virtue and knowledge are linked. The two attributes when combined would make man an effectual "political animal" as well as a happy individual. Little wonder, then, that when the great Roman 1COpleston, p. 288. zlbid” p. 336. r - 1 . .".. a- ‘U ";2 .CS i..- ' “'.‘_..a-U .... '. . -.- .. .v 3' "'-"- c at. L ..u- .... ... . ‘ v OI I I --- --_ fi-.'- ‘ . . . ,:::.:;..- t-....t.- I ' "P .23.: .. ,. '- :‘E...:-..~ v. ,. . . '~ .--0 ...- ’." .h.. . a "‘ ‘-‘d‘-‘ a- .4.. u..- . - . - . ".' -'; ...:L.‘ i. 5 out I "“" ...- ”.....- .. - . ‘u-u- . - l . U.- a .4 .tm-u-=.'..-’u._..\ . . . - ”3;.-‘p o _-‘_; .. ’ I. ICOU¥Cc ‘~‘.\“. .‘ . . v s, ......m ;.,.,_g . . ...‘..‘.1 -““‘L .“. ‘ ... ~ . -~.. ,. . -.:. ‘1, . .- P2 ., .- .. v-A‘. -‘-¢.5‘ ..._- .. \. t ‘ "Ht-.... . ‘I' -‘ u“~ a. “ . . ‘CI‘"“‘,~:‘ .4. ‘5 . A‘ ‘ "..- . ‘ . - I .u""'-Iuc " E‘~ V - e at ‘0‘ ‘ . o.._: . ~- "21"3J'v“ D" ..- _ “ s . I ..lJ-snt .\..‘ fl." ‘ I u -. . . I -. ‘ g .- ..‘. “so - . .x4~¥..a...:ut. ‘ 34 poets depicted the role of the Empire, it was with emphasis upon these two features as the ideals which could implement a Utopia. Virgil and Horace were both students of the writings of the ancient Greeks and entirely familiar with the emphases of Plato and Aristotle. Nevertheless, Aristoteleanismis S_l_l_glr-l_, like Platonism, had little impact upon the first century A. D. After the philosopher's death, his treatises were lost for over two hundred years; and as a result the Peripatetic school rapidly forgot the Spirit of its master and developed a logical tradition of its own. Some influential teachers in the Lyceum swung far away from their master in certain teachings. Aristoxenus denied the immortality of the intellect, and Strato re- pudiated the existence of God. A gradual division of scientific effort also characterized post-Aristotelian phiIOSOphy. Even when the works of Aristotle were recovered (80 B.C.), they were regarded more as a body of complete knowledge than as a stimulus to inquiry. Aristotelianism affected classical antiquity much less than did the tradition of Plato, and during the time of the development and stabilization of the Empire it was the Latin poets who expressed far more of the sentiments of the age than did its philosoPhers. The Epicurean and .Stoic contemporaries of the classical poets, however, looked in other directions. It is these two schools which are particularly mentioned in the New Testament, and this alone is indicative of the pre-eminence assumed by them in the first century.l Epicureanism After Aristotle, the tendency to Speculation declined, and philosophy became more practical in essence. Virtue and happiness 1See Acts 17 . o V , -0 .._..v-- ,o.;. ..c“: v: t ...-n... ' h . . - ¢"'..’ - -- -. ., .- t u... ...v ‘Oh‘ ...--- "__ . . ..- nw ' v. ".'-r- .k -_o .w-"" v .19 — '. u». " ..I ‘ ~ Jvaana's" . .— ..... “—0.. ~- ‘ — --.-...-.u| dtt‘tt-A ...- ~-..o,.. . . . .-..J."-.- "o: '* ' ' .nb‘ a. s...» kb4 ‘ 'a' ;6..-. ... ‘ c..-o-,~. f'nfios‘. ~‘:a:.oa: .. .. ‘~ - .: ..’:.: ‘,. _'_ _. 7 “‘Uw-n» ‘.\C c U. a. .-tAv . .‘I ..- 4- ~H-~‘ods "" ' ‘ ‘ so» J.. . o . " h‘A - _. ...._~ v-‘v -- . . . " ta.utoa{... ’ _ . I V A 0._ - - — na-~. ‘ .“ u- . - ~i~~‘.J‘ figs :0 ‘ ...- O ‘h:.. v '~._.~. . 0' .‘ U ‘. I D ‘~ ... but ' ... - ....~ . I “'r-I‘.. .c-‘ .’ ‘ . . -.‘.t. ‘;r 09-“ .aak. ‘L‘ h IA \.:'3:;b "L V. ' We ‘ - ‘ out . " ' .O I... . ‘ 35 were its themes, and the problem of human life on earth was the basis of discussion. Religious questions, including those of providence and the existence of evil, came to the fore. There was a new stress upon the significance of the individual. When we look for the causes of this changed direction, it seems apparent that the political revolu- tions of the times as described earlier were re3ponsible. The collapse of the Greek political communities, the conquests of Alexander, the new familiarity between East and West with consequent fusion--all these contributed to the change in the mode of thinking. No longer did the old political systems appear as the center. of man's life. At this time, the emphasis given by Socrates to ethical inquiry was. reaffirmed. , Epicurus was born a generation later than Aristotle in 341 B. C. Early in his eXperience he studied under the followers of Plato and Democritus, but by 307 B. C. he had opened his own School at Athens. While Epicurus was a voluminous writer, only fragments of his work remain. It is in the Latin poet Lucretius (91-51 B. C.) that we have the populariser for the Roman world of the thought of the Aegean philosopher. The many extant manuscripts of the poet witness to the wide-Spread favor he received in his own day. For Epicurus, life's main concern was Ethics. Even his theories of physics were significant only in so far as they subserved the princi- ples of the conduct of life. He believed that all knowledge came via the senses, and that the ultimate reality in the universe was matter. In effect his scheme amounted to practical atheism. While he believed in the gods, they were beings who in no wise influenced the world. It is the atomic theory of Democritus, asserted Epicurus, not the gods, which explains the origin of the universe. To this philos0pher, the first fundamental criterion of truth is Perception, and the second is provided by Concepts or memory-images. The third criterion grows ' O . '1‘. . l ., D ...... n : ot5"". .on ,.......M , I ' --l w' ’ . ... -¢9 ‘ "t 'P ’t....‘ Jo Jo--- .. I..- 0- ~ . . i ... - .A- n ‘2‘. U.- U ‘ ' - ' a. ......n- u.‘.. ...“ ... , - u v."’.';-‘ ‘D; L P Ft Ions-ytndplfi. -.a- bo- . v . n t . . v'r. .. n 3:, - .. .‘fla-§OOOUOI -o .- ~ I - o .- ... .. ’. .. . .. ‘ ' G - ....- nug A... a-.. v . - -0. .. .. _ ‘p ‘5. ‘ -‘~-\---. ...I_. «t o . 'Q. ... _ .' . ' ' ...- A‘ ~ . F,. J . -“‘ " Ioo\ ' 'fi .0 0p. . _ ‘ " . .J".‘ “0‘ hen-aaLl-‘u‘ o O~ o..- N_ ... .. ‘v . ‘ a n ... ‘h 90“ \ I. . ..‘, . \ v~o “v:- : ‘.‘ “‘ . .. "‘--vu: 36 logically out of the'preceding. It is the feelings which afford criteria for conduct. The feeling of pleasure indicates what we should choose, while the feeling of pain warns us as to what should be avoided. Thus Epicurus could say that "the criteria of truth are the senses, and the preconceptions, and the passions. "1 Superstition was the great enemy of mankind, according to Epicurus and his followers. Lucretius says, "He (Epicurus) passed on far beyond the flam- ing walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and Spirit the immeasurable universe whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can and what cannot come into being; in Short, on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deepest boundary mark. Therefore religion (as p0pularly understood) is put under foot and trampled upon in turn; his victory brings us level with heaven. " 2 Superstitious fears interfere with peace of mind and prevent pleasure, which is the true good, says this philOSOpher. Such an assertioh made it inevitable that, like other founders of thought, Epicurus be often misconstrued. He neither urged or himself practiced extreme sensual or licentious conduct. The question then arises what Epicurus understands by pleasure, when he makes it the end of life. Two facts are to be noted: first, that Epicurus meant, not the pleasures of the moment, individual sensations, but the pleasure which endures throughout a lifetime; and secondly, that pleasure for Epicurus consisted rather in the abs e'nce of pain than in positive satisfaction. This pleasure is to be found pre-eminently in serenity of soul (5 tés psuchés ataraxia ‘). With this serenity of soul Epicurus c-onjs-i-ned also health of body, but the emphasis is rather on intellectual pleasure, for, while very severe bodily pains are of short duration, less severe pains may be overcome or rendered endurable by intellectual pleasures. ". . . A correct theory . . . 1Copleston, p. 403. Diog. Laert., 10, 31. 2Shirley Jackson Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1927), pp. 258-259. n . .-.-:g a ’3‘. ;‘--‘ " v " ’J.'.o. ... ....-lbd b D . . . un- ' ..-... ~ -- .- - ‘- ... .1 ‘ "f ;:..”|— t .44.... i-uvhb- ‘. o. . . .V I . - o . o - .' '," :‘V' P It to" "--~.--..~ ops-0.5 y..5 .. ' 0 q . ‘o-.-0-. - , k ‘ ' I ’v- 0- L. o """hwb. u» a... . , ‘ ....q . w. l. I; .’,' ' hu... v v.4». ".‘ 0‘ s - -.. .. '. "’ up- _. .- ..“'~-- . ‘\\ h . -‘\b~.v ..f" F... . WK . A. Moor‘.‘ .- .1. . h o .- p \I..-_: J. P" ‘l. ' 0 . .05.. p. ‘ t ' -~ 6 ._ “ "W--. . Q . . ...,_.;u .‘J- ,'~ .’ , u._ ... ‘.. . ~ _'~.,‘ . '~ :vf' 9-. "" “- v.3" ‘ " 2 H4“ ‘ ‘ ...»Vt.‘ 3" . s ‘ . \“d‘ a-" "H J. E‘- O- ‘ . t o 5" ..:> v ‘9 37 can refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and the freedom from disquietude of the soul. ” ". . . at times we pass over many pleasures when any difficulty is likely to ensue from them; and we think many pains better than pleasures when a greater pleasure follows them, if we endure the pain for a time. ”1 Some aSpects of the moral teaching of Epicurus were less selfish or egocentric than the theoretical foundations of his ethic might indicate. For instance, he believed it was more pleasant to do a kindness than to receive one. With the passing of years, however, it was inevitable ‘ that many who called themselves Epicureans should practice their phiIOSOphy on a lower level. The masses could understand better the concessions implied by this philos0phy rather than its somewhat demand- ing ideals. When Montesquieu asserts that some of the corruption of the Roman world in the first century could be attributed to the spread of Epicureanism, he is not without supporters.2 "The founders of this school led virtuous lives, but the doctrine contained no motives of sufficient power to restrain in the passions of men generally, and, in the progress of time, showed its real tendencies. "3 The extent to which Epicureanism pervaded the Graeco- Roman world in the first century A. D. is difficult now to determine. The school certainly maintained itself on down to the fourth century of our era. It doubtless had a considerable following still in the first century, for no other sect stood so positively by its original tenets, refusing to yield to the eclectic tendencies prevalent in that age. It continued to be the relentless foe of superstition, as we learn in the second century lC0pleston, p. 407. 2Montesquieu, Considerations on the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans, trans. by Jehu Baker (New York: D. Apple- ton and Company, 1882), p. 197. 3'George P. Fisher, The Beginnings of Christianity (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1877), p. 162. Hereafter referred to as Beginnings. ..-.-' 4 I ." ‘sO‘ot .0; ' - .--v;v Q...- .- . » .' _ __ r .-b'v'_.‘.' .‘flcl‘; .H: N... ......t . . a ‘ ‘ at fie”; oo‘ ....- o L . . . ... .- -I'- r‘ .-‘ v,‘- w.- -p...- ‘.... .no ..oa. - v n ...... ... .. '~-- ‘. v ¢.;t. Oil D-g‘.u. a . . -. . . o n; -;“O“; “ " . .us .b&.-‘u J. I.- . ... I Q ....‘_._,. . . “a I A" ‘. o)..¢..o...-..g a..- 9- .‘. o Q ‘ . .... ... . _’ _ _ ‘oyn ‘0’; -- ‘O~---OUo .. d..a-..... ... ... ' I ...““’ V"" ~4 . a . . ‘ n“ v "- . u. ‘ ‘ ‘ . ' ‘.~-~ J. . ... -. ».l . ...._ ...: .Q‘ 0...; v 5.. ... § :; . u .' a. ‘ h, ...... .u ."c ~._;. ‘ o.._. \. . » .; $‘u- _ .-...c~:tv~o-.‘.v. ’ . . 5- , _- \y: .. "I 7.-. .. h p, . 5“,), “‘: :-:_.“- .VH. D' .4 38 when Lucian makes the Epicureans bitter enemies of the charlatan Alexander. Probably its greatest religious signifi- cance lies in its severe protest against popular superstition, it being in this reSpect the precursor of Christianity. But the Epicurean method of removing the malady proved quite inade- quate for popular needs. . . . 1 The records of history indicate that it was the phi1030phies of Epicureanism and Stoicism particularly which undermined the belief of influential Romans in the classical system of values. The result was a paralysis of community Spirit and its consequent contribution to the deterioration of the Empire. Stoicism This was the most influential and popular of all philosophical systems in the first century A.D. Seneca (4-65 A. D.), Epictetus (60-110 A.D.), and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.) were able representatives of Stoicism in the early days of Christianity. ‘Zeno, the founder of the early Stoic school, was a contemporary of Epicurus, but he was not a Greek. He was born in Cyprus about 336-35 B.C. , and came to Athens about 315-313 B. C. He became successively the admirer of Socrates and of Crates the Cynic, and then in the year 300 B. C. Zeno established his own school. According to tradition he committed suicide about 264-3 B. C. at Athens. In order to form a correct conception of Stoicism we must remember (1) that it is not merely a phi1030phy and a system of ethics, but a religion raised upon the ruins of p0pular polythe- ism; (2) that its founder and its most ardent disciples trace their origin either to Semitic Asia or to Roman Italy; (3) that it is not the work of a single individual, but a collection of doctrines from different sources which meet in one and the same channel like the tributaries of a river. Hence its conservatism in religion and its dogmatism in metaphysics. Hence also its practical turn, and, finally, the complex and wholly eclectic nature of its teachings.Z lCase, p. 262. 2Alfred Weber, History of Philos0phy, trans. by Frank Thilby (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896), p. 141. ' _,...‘0 nnwfi‘l'v- . ..I. K..-a..l-" -‘h“‘ a . . . " '. n h \D~"~‘ .'- -..;nmv-Ik - a ..-. r 0 ...-0;. " ‘4 g I L“- I . I .. t.. ’ _,..;..c_-p nv'flfi' ' ~ohouoc ‘L~ H' "' . o . . «...... 4"”,2. -~ I .. ...--.. '- Qoos u-.~ . . . A - r":"‘.- R '1} c..- ...-roach ‘. a, » - . ._ , 5;... .- .’ .. Dvo.~.a‘. .Jp".a v... . . .. . .‘ '. 3 - ... ’0' - C‘ ‘ 0......‘ ...».n . u ‘ v - ° I 0.. -... ... n ‘ v- “: us;.e “- v! ‘.: . .. .. .....-g _' k.- “...; M-I'C.0-nc.. ‘2' ~ ; "“' H.n.-.'. ' 6"" 90...... . n .. . "‘ ..-_.‘ .-L - - ~ -“ at ~~~O . - ,__ ...”... ,. _‘. ... . . r‘ ' o I..- , ';-o-. .W .' . I . . _ .-«o‘ J:..C-: J: o E... -- . . u " 9'. ~‘ "‘\c 3‘ ‘-.- :‘V ~ _ g a g - lung-co.» J. sects-:2 .u' 9 "'-b. . 0- ~ . its:§._r‘s 3. ‘,. . ‘ ll-.. ‘ ‘§ ... t p v... __~ ‘1. .“‘ a. c. ‘- II . “k-.¢. .D‘ .. “:5" ~1~.,_ v‘ . ‘0‘ ~ u EVA-4‘ .‘6 . I no A. ‘: .... “It.“ t‘Oc tfl‘g; _ t q. ' '5... . Nb: a...” h‘ I 1 as.. “ t .0, ‘ V It ... H; ‘v- .v‘...“ 3. v .. ‘0. ‘ l .k ‘5— ;'..‘V-\ ’ ' a O _ \n.‘t fier .1. _ . v 0“ ..IC . Fl‘ ‘ ~G -.- ““ Qua. .“ .. J..._, ...."'V ‘I. “'u. x: H 9" Z A. .. . en, a”. r a.“ ‘, ‘ Ade o-‘ . ‘4- LJALISV‘H‘ J : . .. «J; Jib... eit‘sm p‘ 1a.- I . |bJ O‘K. b " 1‘; .‘ .i \‘ .. .4 ”A; u ‘ H‘) CW.” ‘ \g Q‘ \,L\.~ . \‘tt, ‘ti ‘ Q S Q 1‘w-{_ \ “ '.‘ _‘ a. ... w: "-. ‘ , ._ 39 Lightfoot compares the systems of Epicurus and Zeno thus: Stimulated by the same need, Epicurus and Zeno strove in different ways to solve the problem which the perplexities of their age presented. Both alike, avoiding philosoPhy in the proper sense of the term, concentrated their energies on ethics: but the one took happiness, the other virtue, as his supreme good, and made it the starting-point of his ethical teaching. Both alike contrasted with the older masters in building their systems on the needs of the individual and not of the state: but one strove to satisfy the cravings of man, as a being intended by nature for social life, by laying stress on the 'claims and privileges of friendship, the other by expanding his Sphere of duty and representing him as a citizen of the world or even of the universe. Both alike paid a certain respect to the waning beliefs of their day: but the one without denying the existence of the gods banished them from all concern in the affairs of men, while the other, transforming and utilizing the creations of Hellenic mythology, identified them with the powers of the physical world. Both alike took conformity to nature as their guiding maxim: but nature with the one was interpreted to mean the equable balance of all the impulses and faculties of man, with the other the absolute supremacy of the reason, as the ruling principle of his being. And lastly; both alike sought refuge from the turmoil and confusion of the age of the inward calm and composure of the soul. If Serenity (ataraxia) was the supreme virtue of the one, her twin sister Passionlessness (apathia) was the sovereign principle of the other.1 We shall concern ourselves chiefly with Stoicism as it was in the days of Seneca, remembering that this is a modification of the earlier Stoicism of Zeno and Chrysippus. The Stoicism of the first century A. D. was a fOrm of pantheistic materialism. Plato's "forms" are emphatically rejected. Mind and body are simply two a5pects of one and the same reality. As for the universe, it is a living being, it is God, and it governs our destinies. "The world, proceeding by evolution from the primitive fire, eventual- ly returns to its source through a universal conflagration, and the 1J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (London? Macmillan and Company, 1882), pp. 251-252. 0'. n. .. .... ... . . ... . .P. . P. . n F v 0 ..o .a o; .s.‘ w. o .. ... Os .u 0 . O .t o. o . .u. .- . . (N .. x .: a. .. . \. ... . .v. .. a. .s .u. t .. . . ... .v .. .h . . .. ... ”J on .u. e . . ... . u“ o. 9. o. uu F. . H; .. ... .J 5. . A4. .5 .. ... .4 —. . . ,n _. .. .3 ... .... .-. c ... . .u. . . .a- C. r n‘q .a ._~ .r- .. v. .. .k. u“ .c ._‘o ”C as. .“ .oo 0 s ... . uh.“ ... .0“ ...u u... ._ .... ..\.. .. o. é.» .. . \u. . ~w p . .M V‘. ~FM I: .. . . __ ... ... .n . an o . . . . v” . ... . .. .. . .... .. .. .. J“ .J. t u 1 ..~ .wo 9- . i .. ... .. . . a . o . . . ‘ p .- ... . . ... .. . 40 same process is to be renewed in an endless series of cycles. "1 Because every man is a part of Deity, the chief end of his existence is virtuous living. Virtue is conformity to the Will of the Universe, and in the Logos, divine Reason, is to be found the com- mon bond uniting all mankind. "Since God is thus the father of all, all men are brothers, and all class distinctions are only artificial barriers to be removed by religion rather than by social revolution. "2 Stoicism asserts that the truly wise man will show little concern for apparently unfavourable circumstances, for these are transitory, and viewed in the context of all time, they are in reality benevolent. According to Seneca, whatever happens is to be accepted as a reve- lation of the divine will. Thus the way to freedom is the attainment of virtue by the will's acquiescence to all of life's disturbances. Happy is the sage, who, versed in the secrets of nature, knows himself and others; whom this knowledge frees from the guardian- ship of men, the times, social prejudices, and the laws them- selves, in so far as they are the products of human caprice and not of reason. . . . He alone is truly free; he has overcome the world as well as his own passions. Nothing can affect him nor make him falter; neither the happenings of the world nor the storms in his own heart. Let come what come may, he is re- signed; for everything is decreed by Nature and Fate; and Nature and Fate are synonymous with Reason, Providence, and good Will. Hence, the supreme rule which he observes in all things: sequi naturam, to follow nature, that is, the law which is identical with the law that governs the world. . . .3 The serenity aimed at by the Stoic could be attained only by eradicating the passions as much as possible. Such a belief was the logical consequence of the determination to follow Reason. 1Fisher, p. 162. 2Case, p. 269. 3Weber, p. 146. P‘ 2‘. "‘." ' ...... A o ' ' - -v- .' --.... J. ' ‘ ~ ’- J .-.. --’ c -..-”~- - . .-..-»o~. " u~ ‘ "...: .: ...-o... .. ...-a . c- - '- 0 '- . .9. r e- h‘ b I. ‘0 O - . . . , . _ '- .r a . -’ utoo in- .\u s a . u . . _ "'." D' a- .- o- .v . ‘t.s “5.- h.) ..J‘ '.—" " -v- "‘I-o‘ b V¥..-'t o.: 7... t J . 0 "':" " ~ . O~ l-a-d.o “--. L, ._ ""Q . . . .""r" h v'. .ngt......‘, .a. y n . I u ‘ .. - ‘ u u n - g p r ‘CL C.... “1;... ...-o. . ‘ :~.~as.J:. \;:‘._‘ L 9» .':, ...: «'::t ”... r~ CIocv-“ «I... " - ' 4 "IH-.. 5‘. "~r . u ‘.I“.: S‘Jf‘ . ‘Sn- _ . v s. .t. .J,,” .. ... o F.¢‘ 3.0:: ' ‘ , 2 ' “‘ snL ‘ . w n ,' . .4 3a,: ‘60 .P r “ O .0: g. ' ' "o. u . . ~‘U.,' ‘Iuo “can“... 3: "v - ‘ ‘.n.. 1 ““ I 4.». b. .“c - ‘fi‘ ‘ ”'c‘ ...“ ~._ “it. u;- Q . .... ‘c :0 0,: Q 5.: g L 'n‘, . ~ . s ‘ A; o. . .‘ "‘ u “* a. ..C‘...C:. .‘ 41 Thus mirth, sorrow, anger, and their kindred are weaknesses of which a good Stoic should be ashamed, but for the fact that the feeling of shame is unstoical and is therefore also to be eschewed. When the Stoic directed his gaze toward the future, he again found himself at variance with popular tradition. Of hell and its terrors he had no fear. These morbid fancies were held to be impossible for the phiIOSOpher who did not believe in any black darkness awaiting the dead--"there is no prison house, no lake of fire or river of forgetfulness, no judgment, no renewal of the rule of tyrants. " The fate of man's soul after death is determined by the nature of the soul's con- stitution. Since it is a part of the ethereal substance called the divine mind, or God, it must be immortal in the same sense that divine substance is immortal. This fundamental notion left room for wide variations of Opinion as to the different stages in the soul's career. 1 The belief in the common brotherhood of man led the Stoics to entertain many benevolent and humanitarian ideals. These come very close to the maxims of Christianity. Probably such ethics owed their origin more to the Socratic Schools than to the Stoic physical and meta- physical theories. Typical of Seneca's statements regarding the social relations of man are the following: You must live for another, if you would live for yourself. For what purpose do I get myself a friend? That I may have one for whom I can die, one whom I can follow into exile, one whom I can shield from death at the cost of my own life. I will so live, as if I knew that I was born for others, and will give thanks to nature on this score. They are slaves, you urge; nay, they are men. They are slaves; nay, they are comrades. They are slaves; nay, they are humble friends. They are slaves; nay, they are fellow- slaves, if you reflect that fortune has the same power over both. Let some of them dine with you, because they are worthy; others, that may become worthy. 1Case, p. 276. . .-.~ .0 ‘b»-- ° “ :"e . 4-:.: .1 :.-~ " . .. ' 0 ,"....o- 0".2' a“ a~:\: uv ov“" .”'.I-‘-V ~2".' h.u.s.ou-°‘ """- U I . - _ ~‘h‘ " " o " .5-..¢ ....C.- o. v-" -- ’ .. ...CO -9~ ...C no: \ n .- ~ -‘ 0Q ... - “ 5 v . -'V ".-‘ 5. o~._-¢~‘. .90.. . h l . v .....~ - o -. _ .- 4 p- v- o~¢m..y.-h.‘a do n-- O .' I . s .- . p. c ...,‘I “" 'i-Aobo. \g.»| ot‘l. ’0 - ..‘ .-- . , v . -v- , s ..4- ~.suot-:c--o, ' . . ! r 0a.]; ...-H . -.. - F'- _. ' ~$ ...-not v. u. . pa. ,. ”... ~-...~~. J... 42 He is a Slaye, you say. Yet perchance he is free in Spirit. He is a Slave. Will this harm him? Show me who is not. One is a Slave to lust, another to avarice, a third to ambition, all alike to fear. 1 Concerning many parallels which exist between statements from Seneca and others from the New Testament, Lightfoot has written: The first impression made by this series of parallels is striking. They seem to Show a general coincidence in the fundamental principles of theology and the leading maxims in ethics: they exhibit moreover Special resemblances in imagery and expression, which, it would seem, cannot be explained as the result of accident, but must point to some historical connexion. Nevertheless a nearer examination very materially diminishes the force of this impression. In many cases, where the parallels are most close, the theory of a direct historical connexion is impossible; in many others it can be Shown to be quite unnecessary; while in not a few instances the resemblance, however strildng, must be condemned as illusory and fallacious. 2 Possibly in Seneca we have an illustration of the fact that Stoicism while high-sounding in theory was somewhat less in practice. Seneca was a despicable man. . . . he was a cowardly man, and in consequence an odious flatterer; and he used his position to acquire enormous riches, a fact which made his perpetual references to the simple life academic, even though he did not live a self-indulgent life himself. Having flattered Claudius as long as he lived, he lost no time, after the Emperor's death, in writing a funny but Spiteful skit on his experience in Hades. In fact Seneca had great talent but no sincerity. . . . 3 Beyond all doubt, examples could be multiplied of those who failed to abide by the Christian philosophy eSpoused in the same century, but the evidence indicates that Christianity generally brought with it a moral power and motivation that transcended Stoicism and'all other contemporary philosoPhy or religions. lLightfoot, p. 263. 21bid., pp. 272-273. 3Lawrence Waddy, Pax Romana and World Peace (London: Chapman and Hall, 1950), p. 211. I.... ._ " ‘ A‘ ‘rh- -- .' ...- o. .4-..':_-,_1' ‘ . o..,' __ ' . v .n- . .— . n s '- u-A... -.‘u an... ;, ap- . h' , _ .-:'~::--—;r.-l. “.“.V”"“fiu . ‘v ' . ;..._ _ - ‘1. ‘ I ° ». _ mouth. ‘ b“ ~ v I.. o 7.. ;-o.._" , , "0...: Z ‘I;..' .. _ _ IS‘L..C V - f... . . ' .4- “~ “'1: 3:1“!- ... w p.. " w . ~p. .3 "Nu ~‘4"‘- -- -:_~‘ ' . ."-.\ “1"“. ‘ . “l‘;‘.‘ PP.-. - kaACc. ...: .1. A21\"“- ‘ ‘pI. ‘ Qv. . ‘::~\.~.. ‘5. I¢.ua . . ‘ 6‘“ u: - 'u “0. '“«:.“'e I- V ‘~ r- pc‘d-~:;E I._ , . . ti 1- -o.o I-‘UQ -_‘ n- .' . ‘oo‘- ...-'5‘... J. 0.5—0 .. .‘-..D-.. .0 - I ‘ a .l 0 ' : u..-.o.L at § v“ - . Q 0 . - - a .I.'.; 1“ h‘f" '. “,5 . u‘ “d’o na- . . . . a -- - .. a. A ,1 rl‘ v 5.4- .... ... ... tun—A. - . . . - n;:.;'- 0—...“ O'- ‘ D- -....s s-Iu..4 5.. -. o. -..-... n a.--.., . .. .O -n ‘ ‘ ‘0‘.\¢~.JD .\ ... 43 The Greek 50phia was entirely devoid of power over the will and heart of mankind. It remained purely theoretical and abstract: it could do nothing for men, it was the property of a few, and had no effect, or a miserably inadequate effect on the life and character of those few. Where it did to some degree touch the heart and affect the life of some rare individual, it produced a philosoPhic and affected prig rather than a true man; and in the case of some of its most elegant exponents, such as Seneca, there was a woeful contrast in Spirit between their words and their life. 1 The relationship between the fundamental premises of the promi- nent schools of philOSOphy and the higher ethics sometimes inculcated was actually a fragile one. There were unresolved contradictions within the basic theories. For example, while Epicureanism saw the folly oqueeking after the short-term pleasures and inculcated, instead, long term gratifications, this was done with the awareness that life's brevity might cheat man at last. The greater the "long view" of pleasures, the greater the threat from nature that the realization of these joys might be interrupted. Such uncertainty could not but con- tribute to the paralysis of the moral life, for no argument exists to convince the unbeliever in immortality that death is a long-term pleasure. The following words apply not only to the Greeks but also to the Roman devotees of Epicureanism and Stoicism. In the Greek Anthology, Hope and Fortune are two companion goddesses who make a Sport of human life. The future indeed hung like a heavy cloud over the ancient world, charged with catastrophes, reversals. of fortune, the wreck of states, the breaking up of homes, exile and death. In the face of these uncertainties the virtue of the Greeks was Resignation rather than Hope, a cheerful acceptance of the godS' will, without any joyful or assured anticipations.‘2 lSmith, p. 237. 2Ibid., p. 243. . _ _',- o. 1-..J--£ .. f'...'-~---r~ .h: fl'l _ ... ~40 v.“ 0“ E s ;.o.: ‘V‘.’; .L'... v.» :- s.u.. -.nv. a“... nno'I - u 0 “'I;-w-;' *c' 0r" ."‘ m- «a... .6 boon \ co~ . . . ‘ ...,:,, .-.... 3.. "‘r- rs.— .« ....i. .3... ‘ L¢.\ .- ~ - e '5 ...». . 0‘ O ‘3 . v'~ ho '- '\ ...J:-. 1.5 ‘l. - V .- , “F.:., . ”“‘ ‘Itsaak. . '£‘ ‘~;. -~" DAL... “n~- . , . ..F D“‘ ~-n.».......[ v Q»- -~o. . n o. . u...s..v.;s ~_ " --...‘., A, ““i a khan: a: n... V v. \ .;' - ‘ . ‘Ib 1.1" CJ.;: ‘t’ 1:?zhv . -.- ‘~.l Carts, C (..h . .J3.c\ e: F... fl . , . ‘ ” " J1 1:. ...; I. ‘le . “ ~ I L3 £321.: Dr‘e:- ‘- ¢ \ " - ,‘ o u... 1..ec: G11. "‘u ‘ . ‘MJ'ZD ‘ .V _‘ :1: 3. L56 :3: T'Ya .; ‘ “(nu It CIJ‘ r: F‘ . u‘ " ‘3JL 0"“... tq‘:‘lt r—_-‘ -—'-__ __'-—" __ _ — 44 Those in the first century who had the greatest insight into the Sig- nificance of the basic postulates of the current phiIOSOphieS are also to be numbered amongthe most pessimistic of all thinkers. Concluding the review of this phase of men's thought in the first century, we would repeat that philosoPhy was not then a great force. While it is true that many elements reappeared in syncretistic creedS, for the most part the chief. Greek philosophies had been relegated to the background by the pressures of scepticism, sterility, and material- ism. Abstract thought had little appeal for the proletariat, and most Roman aristocrats preferred to listen to the verses of Horace and Livy rather than concentrate upon the somewhat involved doctrine of Plato or Aristotle, or, to a lesser. extent, of Zeno or Epicurus. Nevertheless, the philosophy of the age had several Significant historical functions to perform as indicated in the following reference. The Greek PhilosoPhy was a preparation for Christianity in three ways. It dissipated, or tended to dissipate, the super- stitions of polytheism; it awakened a sense of need which philos0phy of itself failed to meet; and it so educated the intel- lect and conscience as to render the Gospel apprehensible, and, in many cases, congenial to the mind. It did more than remove obstacles out of the way; its work was positive as well as nega- tive. It originated ideas and habits of thought which had more or less direct affinity with the religion of the Gospel, and which found in this religion their proper counterpart. The pr0phetic element of the Greek philosoPhy lay in the glimpses of truth which it could not fully discern, and in the obscure and unconscious pursuit of a good which it could not definitely grasp. 1 Religion in the Graeco-Roman World Some general comments regarding Roman religion have been made in the discussion concerning the motivation which lay behind the new lFisher, p. 140. . ‘| ~-": ML 0 " In ‘3 )5 ..-G“' -‘-. - ... oh ‘ .‘-Q"" .- v,., .I . . o ‘ _. vi" . ”.0 ."'L- d..- - .-. ' -Q U . . ..C'. c 0_ ';..~ ----~ : J ' . , . I" .-o...-. O ...... ,- ' . V - 0 U. .... .A‘u“. ‘0 .4“... .' ‘ . - .0 -O..- 0 Oh -'--‘-‘n , ‘- n~ooduo .1. 5.0: u‘\vo'oo o . . o: - .-- .. ,. ‘ I ... - fl 9.. ... And-..-..- LIA . ~ to .. ' tray. ‘. . .. . ;~ .’ h. .. ..........-..¢ fi - ‘ ‘ n‘otu- ~v-0 ‘. '... 'E.= m-¢‘-0‘ J‘ " ' . " 1 can; u a ‘ ' P ‘ \.~.4c £. o~ , ‘ \- ~ ‘ . fl - ”s- Q". \hg-vu -.. - n o u h . ' n-b- - o " -' “ ~ 3 l . ‘ oy.a.s. U. Goo tho 0. 'w- .-...a .9 but... ‘osuv‘b ..na —.. I. ‘- ‘ ‘;:--.'~ ... n G‘- c\--u.-.‘ ... 1 . . 'A ’ . . ~ k‘ .-...A.._.‘ , ~v-o-a.~t.. . .. .v .. ‘ .- \9.. ‘F , . . O" . ... u :IJIK‘.‘ 1;: _ .- \u"“€'- fit Or- va...\.:k. ... \ ‘. 9. ' . s ... "x p Ry. . «.15.. AT fi'" In ' ‘-‘I .‘v .- . A‘.-- Eflu ‘. ~6sb.::.\ :: 1r. ' a... T4 “Zia “.2“:~-' 'N v.4. _' .s‘kbgg‘. :\ ;;--,. ~. ' ‘ ‘I‘~V“ h \ p- ' ... one .Cta 'l)‘ I ;~.' . ‘ ‘6 K.“ ha. ‘ . ‘ M..\ "0’; -. .- a “'“¢w, ...: “~ -‘ ‘ U.,: E? v: 4 .3 c p . ‘ u~. ‘\A s‘. \ 43-; ‘ ,M v.‘ . ‘ . ' “J r- " “is . ‘ A4 in . I“ -="-.°. . ..V..Q. a: no 45 order of Augustus. We Shall now consider in some detail the nature of the official religion of Rome, and the Spreading international faiths, with particular emphasis upon Judaism and Christianity. Early forms of religion in the Italian peninsula were animistic in nature. All natural forces and processes were viewed as the eXpression of the activity of supernatural Spirits. These Spirits were incalculable, impersonal, forces. The Romans called them numina, and so we might use the term "numinism" to describe Roman animism. When such numina were thought of as personalities with definite names they became ”gods", dei, and this stage of religious development is called ”deism". —B-e-cause the primitive Roman gods were the Spirits of an earlier age, for a long tMe the Romans worshipped them without images or temples. But each divinity was regarded as residing in a certain locality and only there could his worship be conducted. The true Roman gods lacked human attributes: their power was admitted but they inspired no personal devotion. Consequently the Romans had no cosmogony or mythology of their own and Roman theology consisted in the knowledge of these deities and their powers and of the ceremonial acts necessary to influence them. 1 The practical Romans viewed religion as a system of contractual relations. The idea of loving their gods would never have occurred to them for they worshipped, not in order. to be made good, but to be made prOSperouS. Ritual, therefore, occupied a place of primary importance, and success or failure in the projects of life was believed to depend upon faithfulness in religious ritual. Sacrifice was the essential of ritual, but usually it was the offering of fruits and grains, rather than of blood. It is in the cult of the household that we can beSt see the true Roman religious ideas. The ‘chief divinities of the house- hold were: Janus, the Spirit of the doorway; Vesta, the Spirit of the fire on the hearth; the Penates, the guardian Spirits of the store-chamber; the Lar Familiaris, which we may perhaps lBoak, p. 71. ,- - ... ‘. ...: .- q~ ,v ; .~...o- v- 5“" “ c -o-p- .0 ‘ , .---g. :‘r’ahl' ‘ .*‘ ...... a-od\o~lh~a I . . on .' _. . '- ....— O‘h Li ...J-v. aha-cu ~ '4 P'.” , .. .tat»--n:o‘ a an o c Q n ... ca 0” h . .- 0 g . ...» Jo h.-C cl- ud- .. .a . . . . h-w;"’b-. —- "-2“ b . ~.i...-.'.¢ ...-o. Jt . a ‘2‘. ... Op .- --—~ -- ...: than: . ‘ 0 ~""" I .. n ‘ b 4' ... P—I .- J:—. ‘_.‘ 3”_ ‘ ._ '1,_.' . --‘ I-t: 0'- fi,. . . d"“ ~ Moe kn... w. “J; --..-.’,; ‘ ... ~.. ' ~ v- .J“:“F’u" " 5.--. ..- ... ‘ :-“‘-;_.. . ”"Uoi . :"V‘." ,_ I ‘f‘t~t...: __ a h u- ‘ v \ 4 ‘ g. c .'L s...Jt ,‘._- _ . “‘~‘ .4 -.., 46 regard as the spirit of the cultivated land tranSplanted within the house to be the guardian of the family fortune; and the Genius or guardian spirit of the life of the family as a whole, later associated with the head of the household as his Spiritual ' double. Besides these numina there were many others which were considered to be in control of the manifold aspects of the life of the household and its individual members including birth, marriage, and death. Although the male head of the household may be regarded as its priest, the worship of cer- tain of the powers revered within the house was carried out by his wife and daughters. 1 Besides the cult of the household, the public or state cult Should also be considered. The calendar traditionally attributed to Numa probably represents the first attempt to systematize the old religion, and it can be dated about the time of the beginning of the Republic. At this stage the state religion was that of an essentially agri- cultural community and consisted mainly in the performance of certain rites of the household and of the farm by or for the pe0ple as a whole. The state cults of Vesta and the Penates, as well as the festival of the Ambarvalia, the annual solemn purification of the fields, were of this nature. But, in addition, the state religion included the worship of a number of divinities whose personalities and powers were conceived of with greater distinctness than the numina venerated in the house and in the fields. The chief place among these gods was held originally by the triad Mars, Jupiter, and Quirinus, but by the time of the dedication of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill (508 B. C.) these had given way to a new triad: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Jupiter Optimus Maximus, called also Capitolinus from his place of worship, was originally a god of the sky, but adorned with other attributes was finally revered as the chief protecting divinity of the Roman state. Juno was the female counterpart of Jupiter and was the great patron goddess of women. Minerva, as we have seen, was the patroness of crafts- men. Mars, originally a god of agriculture as well as of war, became in the state cult of the Republic essentially the patron deity of warlike, "martial, " activities and gave his name to the military training ground of Rome, the Campus Martius or Field of Mars. 7' llbid., pp. 72-73. 21bid., pp. 73-76. P— . ’ ‘ 0 " -..~;- a \ v ... no .‘Haws‘ a. __. - ...ol 4 ' .péc. . ,C . F. , 04-. ‘44- ‘5 '5...‘ ' - v , I ...»~..- ' ". - . ._ . _. ”a..n..-..-.,. .. ... . .--....u...¢.Cn | ‘44L -v . ... . . p‘vo- 0...... . or. "“°‘| ~.s....’.‘..C.\ be: ' I .L..:¢e ‘3 .‘.,_’_ 2,... ... 5“. o¥.¢‘ann hora o . ... ' s . . ‘-...:.-.-_ ... _ - - F ..-‘ ,4 ... .‘**‘¢ but .~o.g I. . ’1 D n- - -- _ ‘1'.-. C ‘ - '0‘ .F.. " ‘ os‘v SEA; ‘4.» M. . .. ~Q as;- -- - “-n ... N .. ‘ A F In : E - a..- i. 9‘ o ‘ I "i‘; ‘. “"-' a. o. :“ -‘-‘ n“. ‘ a. c.:J D. “a.“ 4‘ ~ - b 0‘ m ‘ 47 Through the state-worship, foreign religions first became Significant in Italy. Someone has said that Rome was as anxious to conquer gods as! cities, and it is certain that hOSpitality rather than hostility was early offered to the gods of foreigners. Gods absorbed through war were added to those of native Italy and those that had been introduced by the Greek colonists of Southern Italy in the eighth century. Ultimately the Romans set up the College of Pontifices to regulate religion and ritual. The Pontifices were religious magistrates who adjusted the calendar every year, and organized the festivals. To them also fell the duty of deciding regarding the admission of foreign gods and where new temples and their priests Should be estab- lished. One important priestly college of: Rome was that of the augurs, who were Specialists in interpreting omens and in divination. It is also important to notice the influence of Greek mythology upon Roman religion. Rome was early brought into intercourse with the old Greek cities of Southern Italy, which at length were incorporated under her rule. In the time of the Tarquins, the Sibylline books, which explained the rites pr0per to be practised in exigencies not provided for by the ordinary ritual, were introduced from Cumae. Also, the worship of Apollo was brought from this oldest of the Greek settlements, and acquired a constantly increasing influence until at length this Greek god, whose heal- ing power was supposed to go forth upon the body and the Spirit, received honors second only to those paid to Jupiter. In early times, the Romans had resorted to the oracle at Delphi for counsel; and after the capture of Veii, they sent there a votive offering. Recognizing the Greeks as kinsmen, and identifying the Hellenic divinities with their own, they incorporated into their creed the myths and legends of the Greek mythology, and, more and more, elements of the cultuS associated with them. This fusion went on at a rapid pace in the two or three centuries that immediately preceded the Christian era. 1 1Fisher, pp. 123- 124. I .‘ ‘ r! 7 . ‘ " .64.: o . ”I .‘I‘ - ‘J.C...| ..a . ...... . ‘ ..- :... ...- a” ' II'I udl ...‘. \- -‘u.. . . . . o . . -. r- .. I; ‘5' ‘O‘CCGI‘. "‘ . in»... a“. U.- . . I - ""ar 0-} . ......” ‘_Jacn Ht‘ _\"‘ .~ . . L ' I ‘. "'""“ .« .1. g 0".‘OOQ lt..k. .. h o ’A 7 - , — ‘i'. F . " .. v. .. a 44.1““. . ~ . v tp-n..,_.‘ .P l - Innkbod-tt' ‘.‘L L . I on-g‘a..__ ‘. . ...: dic:tl.\‘€ J. . . .‘_ - ‘ ... . ‘P’ ‘,‘ .‘ q . u~5-.} ¢c‘t;.l-.H u h . u‘.. ‘ . Q h ‘ ._ - choc hate ‘:1. I?“ ‘ , - “ou .: . \ u _ not- ‘ J. fin‘¢\ r. r. . ‘L. . ‘ ~‘n._ ‘ . I- I JyoteJ.e ‘ctt‘ o - ‘- a .‘l' ..., .0... ‘ M . . _ ‘ AA.\ Aao bndt \zm - ‘. « I r-‘h... . ‘ ' ‘J ' "u . ' . u.“ a“: snag. ' \ ‘\' i. - ‘ at ‘Q h‘.‘.e - “u \a.‘ a ‘t _.J9» Vs 48 Undoubtedly many widely-travelled and philoSOphical Romans had become sceptical concerning the popular religion by the time of Augustus. But this Should not be construed as signifying that their attitude had Spread to the greater number of the pe0p1e. Such was not the case. Most of the pOpulace . . . had at home, in their houses and in their fields, gods whom they knew, invoked, feared, or loved. Between the in- dividual religion of the thinkers and the official worship there was a popular religion made up of the Simple fancies, the pious traditions, the earnestness, and the emotion natural to man in the presence of the unknown. It formed the deep stratum which, even among the most highly cultivated, was always cr0pping up at some point. On this p0pular religion Augustus based, at least in part, his national restoration. 1 The form and the vitality of this religious sentiment are chiefly revealed to us by the recent discovery at Delos of a number of monuments of family worship belonging to the Roman colony which settled in the island in the first half of the Ist century B. C. These modest monuments agree, in general, with the information supplied by many paintings from Pompeii, most of which date only from the Ist century A. D. , and are therefore later than the Augustan restoration. They thus form a link in the chain which connects the religion of the Imperial epoch with that of the early centuries of Rome, and, as such, are of quite Special interest.2 The great influx of religious and philosophical ideas from the East did not confuse the great majority of the Romans. Beneath the brilliant but superficial facing of cosm0politan intellectual life, beneath the more vulgar stratum of Graeco- Oriental mysticism complicated by magic and astrology, we must not forget the profound, vigorous life of the mass of the Italian pe0p1e. History, being wholly aristocratic and political, hardly noticed them. For they lived outside history, so to Speak, con- tent to be alive under a sunny sky, on a land which they loved. They needed no more than a few very simple ideas inherited from lGrenier, The Roman Spirit, pp. 366-367. 21bid., p. 367. ' , Q - ' ..'.'._.;’o‘o-c-. .: 0.9:... ail..-.“ . . . ' V. fl. _. F ‘ v A .....c ..-... v" ' .- u I. .o< ’ ' ' ' ‘_. "¢_P, . ' 3...“... .0... ~00. \ u , .. 0.- . - " .. 'n r‘ ‘7 '1 a... . 50M~§"."'. . . . .c .- . . ..- :. ' ‘ .~.0‘.» .uccg oD' " .. 1 c« . . - - o a" .pc '5' " . -..-.. ha .‘.“° 5. Q‘ 0 ' '- b; --- O -O .n w. I on» .‘o- J; u.--pv'»- . .u. ‘ ' , m- .o .....5 7 d; "'3'" " .1 IQI- Jo val‘O-~‘ -L- q P - ‘A~- .- - ‘“‘ ¢\Jaaca: ’ “.93: I .U‘ ‘ 4‘51... I ‘.~ ‘;‘:-\.. " J ._ .- ) . . v.0... ‘(.. If'. ‘F 0 w hhfld. . ... ... \‘n.,:_ I‘ l- 0 .I z. - o g : ‘v'ds v L . u; - . , n ‘A. , "“~’-:a:€ ...... ‘ 49 their forefathers and a few homely rites to give them con- fidence and joy. A loyal, courageous race, feeling no dread in the presence of the unknown and, at bottom, not caring much about it, when the thoughts and fancies of the Mediterranean came pouring in they kept alive the original conceptions and religious acts of the first masters of the Italian soil. At the unextinguished fire: of their humble altars the religion of Imperial Rome was rekindled.1 The cult of Emperor worship also had its beginnings in the first century, but its prominence was reserved for a later period. The Oriental Religions The Roman conquests in the East had the result of reinforcing the inroads that oriental cults had already made in Italy. They offered men personal fellowship with personal deities, and gave promise of immortality. Most of the influential cults were mystery religions with elaborate rituals of initiation and worship which appealed to the senses and to the emotions. At first the Roman government was tolerant of the new beliefs and interfered only when orgiastic practices interfered with Roman conceptions of morality. During the last century of the Republic, the Senate endeavoured to drive the cult of Isis from Rome, but in 42 B. C. the triumvirs erected a temple to this goddess. Augustus banished Isis worship, but by 70 A. D. it had become re-established in Rome. First in time came the worship of the Great Mother of Pessinus, also known as Cybele. Believed to be the source of all life in nature, like Demeter, her rites correSpondingly were orgiastic in character. Attis, her consort, personified the death and resurrection of nature in winter and Spring. . The myth tells of his dying by self-multilation, llbid. , pp. 271-272. "-«v a V ‘ t . .. , ... .-P~ ’ u... p.,: h“: . ‘-.. A- --"‘V‘«‘.- .\ ... '1. ‘v uld.‘.c V.‘ Q ~,. ‘ h -- l&.~ Q.‘ .. . I 1 ‘5‘. “"‘3 . {5“ . ~.' ..._ ~ 64:3 J. thtr., W ... :55: 5 ~ .4 1 ~a, “‘18 15‘: . I» ‘ ‘ The 15;:C sbtcaw-le a E.“ Q, . J‘I' ‘ Q 1.Jmt:1e \. L ‘L‘ I . -‘c . T c J: 86" ‘t1;\_i “ “ .‘h ‘ ‘52.- It“ k“e h Part 2; «1‘1- . gr, ‘0 ...! r . -| 0-, ‘ .... 50 and the goddess mourns until he is revived. On the basis of this belief was established a ritual by which believers could also attain to a similar victory over death. The cult was familiar to the Greeks by the Sixth century B. C. , but it was not until 204 B. C. that the wOrShip of Cybele was introduced into Italy. The occasion waS one of crises during the conflict with Hannibal. After the sacred stone of Pessinus was solemnly installed on the Palatine, the Romans achieved victory over Carthage, and the position of Cybele seemed henceforth secure. It was not, however, until the first century A. D. that her worship really thrived in Rome. Other cults such as that of the Babylonian Ishtar, the Phoenician Ashtart, and the Greek Aphrodite duplicated many of the essential features of the Magna Mater worship. Similar duplication is found in such parallels as the Greek counter- parts of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, namely Demeter, Dionysus, and Apollo. ISiS and Osiris were the chief figures in the mysteries of Egypt. Their myth is somewhat Similar to that of Cybele and Attis, involving the story of death, mourning, and resurrection. Serapis, who is often associated with Isis, may have been identical with Osiris. . The Isiac worship had conquered the Greek world before it became a power in Italy. In the fourth century B. C. traders " from the Nile had their temple of Isis at the Peiraeus; in the third century the worship had been admitted within the walls of Athens. About the same time the goddess had found a home at Ceos, and Delos, at Smyrna and Halicarnassus, and on the coasts of Thrace. 1 ’ ’ For seven centuries from the time of its importation into Athens the worship of Isis prospered in Europe. It probably arrived in Italy through the ports of Campania and there are indications that a temple lSamuel Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (London: Macmillan and Company, 1925), pp. 560-561. 51 of Serapis existed at Puteoli as early as 150 B. C. Similarly, the temple of Isis destroyed in the earthquake of 63 A. D. was established about the beginning of the first century B. C. The cult of Isis had indeed very various attractions for dif- ferent minds. But for the masses, Slaves, freedmen, and poor working pe0p1e, its great fascination lay in the pomp of its ritual, and the passionate emotion aroused by the mourning for the dead Osiris, and his joyful restoration. It is this asPect of the worship which is assailed and ridiculed by the Christian apologists of the reign of Alexander Severus and of the reign of Constantine. The goddess, one of whose special functions was the care of mothers in childbirth, appealed eSpecially to female sensibility. As in the cult of Magna Mater, women had a prominent place in her services and processions, and records of these sacred dignities appear on the monuments of great Roman ladies down to the end of the Western Empire. The history of a great religious movement in conflict with a reactionary conservatism, of cosmopolitan feeling arrayed against old Roman sentiment. 1 The Oriental cult destined to become the most important was that of Mithraism. This religion had an Iranian origin. Mithra, in Zoroastrian theology, was the agent of the god of light against the god of darkness. As a result of Babylonian and Greek influence, Mithra later was identified with the Sun- god. Dill says of Mithraism that: It is perhaps the highest and most striking example of the last efforts of paganism to reconcile itself to the great moral and spiritual movement which was setting steadily, and with growing momentum, towards purer conceptions of God, of man's relations to Him, and of the life to come. It is also the greatest effort of syncretism to absorb, without extinguishing, the gods of the classic pantheon in a cult which was almost monotheistic, to transform old forms of nature worship and cosmic symbolism into a system which should provide at once some form of moral discipline and real satisfaction for Spiritual wants. 2 ‘Ibid., pp. 564-565. zlbid., p. 585. 52 By the end of the first century A. D. Mithraism had become influential in Rome. Mithra was known as the god of battles and thus became a patron deity of the legions. It is impossible to ascertain the exact time when this cult was introduced into Italy but a passage from Plutarch's life of Pompey indicates its existence in the West in 70 B. C. Not until the second and third centuries, however, did Mithraism become a serious rival of Christianity. At that time "Mithra, the Unconquered, the god of many lands, and dynasties from the dawn of history was a fascinating power. But, at his best, he belonged to the order which was vanishing. "1 ’ Such, in broad outlines, were the redemption-religions of the Graeco-Roman world. In details they exhibit varying characteristics, but they all alike seek to meet the widespread demand for an individual salvation to be procured primarily by the aid of the deity. The demand for this type of religion was particularly strong in Hellenistic times, when national ideals were disappearing and the individual was thrown more Specific- ally upon his own resources in a vast and varied world. The human spirit, conscious of its frailty and helpless at the loss of older sanctions, eagerly turned toward those cults which offered a personal salvation based upon a divine redemptive transaction. Among the oriental religions of redemption which attempted to meet this Situation, Christianity was the last to arise, but it ultimately triumphed over all its rivals. 7' Ancient tradition suggests that even the Druid worship which penetrated the western lands of Britain, Gaul, Spain, etc. , had its origin in the Orient. Characteristic of the Druids was the practice of nature worship and the belief in’the transmigration of souls. The very popularity of these Oriental mystery religions among the Romans reveals the soul-hunger of the times. The State religion with its formalism and remoteness supplied little for the emotions or 1Ibid., p. 626. zCase, p. 330. . . u .. wn-n’ ' m y- r- .r‘ ° ......J..;.-.‘: 3. Laaeado H 0‘;- .. .. 7 ; - , '5.5 D.’ 3‘: O I Q as Wt of . ...—SJ 5“. ....J ...1.. F‘ o . . . -:n-:T‘.~b: ‘2E“ ‘41: Sert'- . a u 32' ie ...-...} Q .7 , . ..., . p-o ' 5‘- ... .... . .1, a... C.::c..:.: '. . -... .. ,, \\ "‘.""“‘l ' v I. ‘ .. “ pun. “~‘“D.e:d-‘pl‘ .... ‘ ‘~ 'g ‘ I H‘- -. “"o~~ ' I'. “ n 0 " ":;C:\e .. V h _ . - we ftufllf‘.t.~: s..~. ~;-~ D: accented .‘v~0 A; g ba. -L (6".H u‘. "\u. ‘ 5112‘1'5 ‘ time t v e. . ,_ ‘5 0f YEELI-g :_ ttsldh ‘ ‘ Jr:- V» 0 d (Dire? 34;: em ‘ r 3:.- ‘ ple “Oh“ ‘ ‘- ':.re a a: °‘ a‘1 x...” “"35 :I; “‘02:." 53 deep longings of men. Even the protest of Augustus against such worship as that of Isis proved ineffectual, and steadily most of the mystery cults grew in strength. To consider the common features of most of the cults, emotional appeal and preoccupation with the fate of the soul etc. , is to become aware of the Spirit of stultification, uncertainty, and dissatisfaction which prevailed in the Empire. It was this Spirit which presaged the Shattering of the classical dream, and which suggested the readiness with which a religion such as Christianity might be accepted. Judaism When the first century is considered from the viewpoint of our own age, possibly neither the Greek or the Roman was the most important racial type of his day. The ubiquitous Jew has overshadowed them both in terms of influence. From this despised race came the primary elements and the progenitors of Christianity. Strict monotheists, and posses sors of a revelation and a history they believed to be supernatural, the Jews did not Share the syncretis- tic tendencies of their neighbours. Instead, they Shared with a hungry world their own belief in a coming Messiah. In the days of Augustus Caesar, synagogue scholars in every part of the world were pointing to the pr0phecies of their sacred Scriptures and declaring it was time for the promised Sun of Righteousness to dawn upon the world. Had not the ninth chapter of Daniel the prOphet foretold that at the close of the seventy weeks of years from the rebuilding of the Temple (457 B. C.) the Messiah would come? Had not Haggai foretold that the glory of the rebuilt Temple would be greater than that of Solomon's because the "Desire of all Nations" would stand within its precincts? So the scribes affirmed. v c- ' ' ‘ _ _" g d; giqu "‘C O “...-5.5... AI. 0., 1'235123..J'3".I‘.Z .SE 3.}. 4 , v rqI-.---q .g- —,-.,. «uh-ant: ... Mac sec J.c\4 (. . “: «: .... r: .1. fa , __' ‘ . ' .-. .7. .... 3.. .“c ':C 2: ' U I II I ‘ c.’. to "v-I nIJ‘»..J.-:. C‘IF - Q v.. N‘ . ~. :3 Pena" I O J".OJ.‘ a,” .1" ‘ - I. “.9 u .h‘“: I.‘ f'I ..‘ler Llas Se q. . -\a‘ “if \I 1"; . . “\- r ‘ D‘aSDOr- ' Q d I ‘h “l.‘ k‘. I 4 54 In Palestine itself, independence from Greek rule had been secured following the Maccabean rebellion against Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B. C. By 60 B. C. , however, the country was under Roman control. Herod Antipater was the first of a line of kings which was to govern parts of Palestine for over a century. After a rebellion in A.D. 6 against Archelaeus, one of the sons of Herod the Great, Judea and Samaria were henceforth governed by a Roman procurator whose headquarters were at Caesarea. Never did the Jews of Palestine take kindly to Roman rule. The Zealot party represented most strongly the Jewish hatred for the foreign overlords. Constantly these rabid nationalists endeavoured to stir up rebellion, and they were not without some success in such projects. The climax came in A.D. 70, when the Temple was des- troyed by Titus during the Siege of Jerusalem. Other influential Jewish parties included the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The last-named was an ascetic sect which lived in small monastic communities. Representative of these was the group who dwelled at the northwest Shore of the Dead Sea and whose library was discovered in 1947. The Pharisees were the con- servative interpreters of the Torah and reSponsible for the line of Rabbis who produced the Midrash and the Talmud. Next in importance to these religious leaders of Israel were the aristocratic Sadducees, who possessed the priestly offices. While the Pharisees found their following among the village peasants, the Sadducees claimed the wealthier classes. Naturally, the two parties constantly vied with one another. The Dia8pora which resulted in the far-flung synagogue system began in the eighth century B. C. , when Assyrian armies transported multitudes of Jews to the far East. Other migrations followed in the 55 third and second centuries B. C. During the former many moved to Alexandria, and during the latter large numbers settled northward around Antioch and in Cilicia. In 63 B. C. Pompey brought back to Rome a host of Jewish captives. Adventurous Jewish colonists Spread to every part of the Empire, and in our day the existence of over one hundred and fifty such communities has been traced. These colonies never lost their allegiance to Jerusalem and all for which the city stood, and even in foreign lands they successfully proselytized. Josephus could, boast that: Among the masses there has long been much zeal for our religion; nor is there any city, Greek or barbarian, nor a Single nation where the custom of our seventh day of rest from labour has not come into vogue; and the fasts and the lamp-lightnings and many of our prohibitions regarding food are observed. 1 The philosopher Seneca complained that: "So far has the usage of the accursed race prevailed that it is now received throughout all lands; the conquered have given laws to the conquerors. ..2 Nevertheless, the Jews themselves in many areas had been greatly influenced by Hellenistic culture but ”whatever the Jews took over from the Greeks was in form only, not in essence. "3 It was at Alexandria that the Jews came the closest to merging with surrounding cultures. Here an unorthodox type of Jewish theology arose which was a curious blend of the Old Testament with Platonic philosophy. Philo, born about 20 B. C. , was the principal exponent of this School. DeSpite this compromise in thought, the Jews in other ways stubbornly affirmed their own distinctness, and at Alexandria as elsewhere they proved a lContra Apion II 39. Cited by David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper [n.d.]), p. 6. 2Cited by Augustine in 123 Civitas Dei vi. 11. 3W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, A History of Israel (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 402. ‘ I ‘ . . ‘ -.n- -9 a ‘ .‘n -v 0I- ‘ . t " t x. J. g- -.-... ...C .. , . .. . . . ‘ ... .... ”.... - .-’;D‘."' _: JtnAbcac .05..“ ‘Oficcl 2, ... .L . F... , ;:_::2 Janet“ ...c ... t. , ’"m" o.) W ‘zepa; -. ‘— .. ..."... u 4. .. . F --‘A-.\: r,- I I O Lace-cu. K4..- . I, ‘ .' 'F‘vv '. Q’. . , >- : H buyout a. 6. Inc \ - I cm" at ’~: -... I‘J."‘ undue“. ‘ a . ".:~’ a: .‘ . . - “Wu J. LL: .' c2; .- .. . _ . . I I 3‘. brad: t:: .I\ 6'1 ‘v ' ' ‘I‘ .- «.lth, % D-,:‘L t 656 r.£::: L . ' S-alD 'ae :‘\e ‘ I ‘.O ea y no 3“" 0:6 3? m - g. A. . 56 thorn in the side of governing officials, as well as being obnoxious to the Gentile inhabitants of the area. Time and again there were clashes between the Greeks and Jews at Alexandria, reaching a climax in the pogrom of the days of Caligula. . . . Claudius charges the Alexandrians to 'offer no outrage to them [i. e. the Jews] in the exercise of their traditional worship, but to permit them to observe their customs as in the time of Divus Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have confirmed.‘ In one of the two edicts of Claudius, quoted by Josephus, it is said; 'I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews be not deprived of their rights and privileges . . . but that those rights and privileges, which they formerly enjoyed, be preserved to them, and that they may continue in their own customs.‘ In the other edict these rights and privi- leges are accorded to all Jews throughout the Roman empire. That these rights and privileges did not include those of citizen- ship we have already seen, and the letter of Claudius bears this out. One of most important point for the Jews resulted from this; their synagogues were not desecrated by statues of the emperor, which had been the initial cause of the trouble. 1 As for the Jewish community at Rome, the first time that anything in the nature of a persecution of the Jews took place Was in the reign of Tiberius. This was owing to the action of an imposter, a renegade Jew, who had been driven out of his own country for some crime, and had come to Rome posing as a teacher of wisdom; he, with the help of three other rogues, persuaded a noble lady, named Fulvia, a convert to Judaism, to make a gift of gold and purple to the Temple at Jerusalem; but having got hold of these gifts the four thieves kept them. When this came to the ears of Tiberius he ordered all Jews to be banished from Rome. According to Philo, the banishment was really due to Sejanus, a high Roman official; on his death, Tiberius ordered that all the Jews, -where-soever residing, were to be permitted full enjoyment of religious free- dom; though he does not say anything about allowing the Jews to return to Rome, he evidently intended that this should be so, as, not very long after, a Jewish community is implicitly stated to have been in Rome again; for Claudius, at the beginning of his reign, put forth an edict confirming all the rights and privileges ‘Ibid., Vol. II, p. 403. . . I --..- ,5. A :5 :o ‘.Jn Jso‘\ Ado ' o A . p . \r O...- ..., A .:t.CA: J. $.. ' o 0-" ... H - -, ‘-v‘ o“)oo. .4 Cak\)u... I ‘ ' :‘gv '- v— 0". 't. clot»- u 4.4 5..» g . :v'w-3*w-e --~¢-~— ...... .\J... . Guca. . a ‘ . \..;t-....: duvquo‘n. ... . . ‘00 . . p'v * . h Aunt out LAUdJ..\-.- 'tl ' 5 Q - ":‘fiv'O - . u ' .--b..“‘lJ ’g .‘ u l ...} 3‘ “‘3‘ -Ix 5 I In 4""- vv- . F 0 e . .. . :nrc -r- - - ' ' .' “ _ v 4 0a - . ..-)»c-.ncfi.:t 1;“ ;n-..,o.‘. ' F "..-.JNJ: 3i-"' " ‘ . v.1LK \ ‘,po ‘) ‘\:;3 E). 4 57 of the Jews throughout the empire, 'and this grant I make', he says, 'not only for the sake of the petitioners, but as judging those Jews for whom I have been petitioned worthy of such a favour, on account of their fidelity and friendship to the Romans' . Later on in the reign of Claudius the Jews were again banished ' from Rome, according to Acts xviii. 2; this is also mentioned by Suetonius . 1 That the trouble-makers at Alexandria and Rome were not en- tirely representative is indicated by the fact that in the East the great majority of the Jews of the DiSpersion led quiet and lawn-abiding lives.2 However, it was also in the area of Asia Minor that some of the Jews showed themselves different from those of other areas by their adoption of Graeco-Oriental cults. But things like this were aberrations and not typical of the Jews of the DiSpersion in general; the great mass, wherever settled, loyally adhered to the ancestral religion; as Tarn says, apart from the cults just mentioned, 'anything Jews took from Hellen- ism was only outward form; few learned anything of its Spirit. Whether a Jew adopted or rejected Greek forms he remained a Jew, a man whose ideals were not those of the Greek, even if expressed in the same word. '3 The synagogues which had Sprung up during and after the Exile were everywhere the centers of Jewish instruction and worship. Every town of the Roman empire of any considerable size contained a synagogue. These were managed by "elders, " and every sabbath day witnessed the gathering together of all faithful Jews for prayer and study of the Torah. Despite the hatred excited by their exclusiveness, the Jews made many proselytes from among the Gentiles, as witnessed to by non-Jewish writers. These they instructed in their Law and in their hope of a soon-coming Messiah who they believed would throw off the Roman yoke and give victory and rest to Israel. lIbid., p. 414.. 21bid., p. 421. 31bid., p. 424. I: €22.15 be remen: Dz . . ‘.. 0"- ' .... V' ,{ ... ::.aA¢’ A.-\e 54.x . g A.- Iclif. 31:13 DT.-C.c...'?‘. . u- - v"~ O. - h .41., ~£t?€\c.' ..".L"» - . . , . ""““‘H“ 0. . .. F I A V " Khan-hon». L..C.a canto? . ‘r hu‘ .I . . . -.I £1: up.st.»1:c or): t" a:::: 1116 Greek; " 3:. 'I “3--" ‘ .‘L .....lft.1 DC. ”1‘... 1.. 4. \ f: -. . _ . uh... ‘ 5“: are” L ‘ ‘ ~n :1. :Etk: a: \‘m H ~ ~ V v t.. d: n.s ks'z‘,‘ I...“- . .‘uu ,H-O. ‘ ‘- Ih ;: “at ‘*..‘ . okcn‘gl‘u‘ (I: "H A l 4:“: 3o C“ f. N ‘ N P - - e U“-‘-CLQ.D ‘\4.. ‘u . "... . . n u U. tne cn“:.;‘ 4 “mar. Zn ‘1 ‘ V .f‘l‘u. ‘w\er ‘K.a\. . 58 It should be remembered that the Dispersion of the Jews greatly facilitated the diffusion of Christianity. The heralds of the GOSpel were themselves Jews, and their mission, like their Lord's was not to overthrow the ancient faith but to proclaim its fulfilment. It was no small advantage that, wherever they went, they found an audience which could understand their message; and in every town which they visited, they repaired immediately to the Jewish synagogue, and there preached the glad tidings. The GosPel was indeed a message of universal grace, but the providence of God had prescribed the apostolic procedure--'both to the Jew, in the first instance, _ and to the Greek. '1 Paul hiInself belonged to the Dispersion, and his birthplace and early training prepared him for the task of persuading Romans and Greeks as well as his own countrymen. Christianity It is not without cause that some historians have seen in many phases of the Graeco-Roman world a providential preparation for the Spread of the Christian gospel. The Pax Romana, the ease of travel, the universal use of a common language (Koiné Greek), the stress on individuality which caused men and women to become more concerned regarding their eternal destinies, the wide-Spread diSpersion of the Jews and their sacred Scriptures, the gradual unveiling of the fatal flaws of Classicism--all these, and other elements of life in the first century, paved the way for the acceptance of a gOSpel whose idealistic monotheism surpassedanything known before. The New Testament enshrines for us a revelation of early Christian preaching. One of its most striking features is the elevation of virtues which were not p0pular in that age, virtues such as humility and lDavid Smith, Life and Letters of St. Paul, p. 7. . a i a. - V't.‘ ... o ‘H :c* a 331:.(‘3‘ bu ...» - ;O\' ' 1 -o.'- ‘ - ... P~-~.~Ha....\ i-i‘nd ;. VAAC “' l .,.o' ‘ . - . . ' H i"; A. :u"c: ‘ 3Q:C“ ‘ .i ..«M' . . - ‘. .. t ~On- ounc‘ nr': 7‘ , 4" H “...: aqhét “C; "J‘ ‘ t1-. : ,. 2. c. .4 .13.. 3. 2.53.5 ~o5~~ V p . «~04 ‘ F :I‘A‘v o - “. ~ ‘ --:4 5‘ 3‘ :Ddlokubov 0. l on ~ " v‘ A . ‘, .«vp-a . oh- ‘F 0 .v‘ «~:CA. Mg: )J-4 3. .l. .. fi‘:C’-".~:“W~I‘Q‘ ._ V""" ‘HCL ‘0‘: ..A.:s. .. .. _ ‘ . . '-"“ «r y- a... n,._ “-‘u 3- f-Cu 9.3.x... ‘O - V. n F ...—Q. ‘_ .‘V’ “...; C\\C.J. :4“; ‘J\: ' y . 2.413.“ . , . ‘~ 6-— - “‘ - ...: Hunt. ..j ‘ ‘ ~ . «. .‘, ‘ ‘ . ~ I" h“. ‘b~ ,‘ ‘.J‘€bJ“‘ LQQL Scat :3. 'A .". ... "1‘ ~ . ‘Ju W. F ,—- F DKM De D‘CQ\.. ‘ {:3 B¢¢e 59 meekness. These were strange and new to paganism. Nevertheless, the center of the new religion was not a set of ideals or a creed but a Person. Christianity was different from all preceding systems of belief in that it based salvation, not upon the observance of outward rituals or the performance of prescribed good works, but rather upon relationship to a Person. Faith in Jesus Christ was the ”one thing needful. " True, the faith if genuine would result in beneficient works, but the fruit was not to be confused with the root. Also of great significance is the claim of Christianity to uni- versality of application. The Jewish Rabbi of Galilee had called Himself "the Son of Man" rather than ”the Son of Abraham“ in order to stress that His mission was for all men, not merely for the Jews. He had spoken about the many who would come from the east and the west to accept His gospel (Mt.8: 11), while His own race would reject both Him and His teachings (Mt. 21:33-43). With great assurance He had foretold that the day would come when His gosPel of the kingdom of God would be preached throughout all the world as a witness to all nations (Mt. 24:14). When a prostitute in repentance anointed His head with oil, the Rabbi had declared that the story of that occurrence would be told throughout the coming ages beyond the rise and fall of mighty empires (Mt. 26:13). He seemed ever assured that against the universal fellowship of believers He was establishing, the gates of death and the grave would never prevail (Mt. 16: 18), deSpite schisms, apostasies, and persecutions (Mt. 13:24-30; 7:22, 23; 24:9-12). The first disciples, however, did not have the same world vision. The early Church began at Jerusalem, and may have remained there, but for the Jewish persecution described in Acts which scattered the believers. l The book of Acts is a chronicle of some of the missionary ‘Acts 8: 1. 60 activity of Christ's followers, but it is also a record of the initial reluctance of Jewish Christians to share their new treasure with the Gentiles. Yet the introductory words in Acts of the Apostles assert that the risen Christ had given a program of world-wide evangelization. ”Ye shall receive power . . . and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, . and in Samaria, and unto the utter- most part of the earth. " 1 Acts 1:8. The remainder of this chronicle of Luke's describes the progress of the GosPel in the areas and in the order named in this verse. The record of apostolic preaching begins with a proclamation of Christ in the capital city of Judaism, and it closes with the Apostle to the Gentiles proclaiming the same faith in Rome, the capital of the world. Early Christians had not only a common faith. In some instances they shared a common treasury. Most important of all, they shared a love for all men, even their persecutors. They were a new genre on earth. Undoubtedly there were failures and backslidings, but the dynamic influence of this ethic upon believing Jews and Gentiles was undeniable. The new faith did not appeal merely to the uneducated, and we find Paul boasting of converts even in the palace of the Caesars. Men reared in the wisdom of the Greeks found in Christianity a more sublime phiIOSOphy. Second only to Christ Himself, stands the person of Paul. He it was who began the evangelization of the West after his own astonish- ing volts-face. From his glowing pen came discourses, intended to be read aloud in local churches, which along with the Old Testament Scriptures and other writings of the apostles, became the sacred books of the new faith. How was this new religion viewed by the leaders of the Empire? 1Unless otherwise stated, all texts are cited from the King James Version of the Bible. ,, . '- R , .90- - . x"- . "I, "VC nJ...C.1 vac-V "__-. ...-U0 —. -n ...... -.-- \ 0"- o ‘ :..:. 2J'\C...."..C... C U ,. . a .c , . -.~: .:- \. a.- c (1. ~ ~ —Auh.u.h~ Ce “4; ..-‘. . l I ' 'I I '1 "\I‘I ~ og- ...a q - - ...J;J.\ ed: “a :I 5 J2: .1 o iffil‘ New in 60 A. '7 n v I. . ‘Atpq . ”' 'vn. 5~gam_-.. - V ' fl‘a mu-.. . . _ A "‘ Ody taluxt4 galth s- I‘ '- ‘S \. a a m-.. ,. 3A ‘IAG.. GT. 4-: Cféature Of “L”- .- ’U 4* (I! “U 5‘. (J' 61 At the first, Roman officials considered Christianity as merely a Jewish sect; and consequently it attracted little Special attention from the imperial government. Only when the Jews in city after city began to persecute the followers of "the way" was it manifested that Christianity was distinct from the older form of monotheism. Probably the first Roman persecution of the followers of Christ was that by Nero in 60 A.D. It should be noticed that while some parallels between Christian- ity and classical thought have often been noticed, there were differences that are much more significant. Particularly is this true in the matters of the nature of man and of history. Humanistic Classicism saw in man a creature of reason who by the proper exercise of his powers could create a Utopia. But Christianity viewed man as a fallen being whose character was perverted as a result of original Sin. The doctrine of sin and grace marks, in its most acute form, the breach between Classicism and Christianity. It had been the considered judgement of Aristotle that 'virtue and vice are both alike in our own power'. 1 For Christians "the classical ideal of perfectability through knowledge or enlightenment was wholly illusory. "2 For if there was any single thing to which Christian teaching pointed, it was to a recognition of the authority of the Master as the one avenue to truth. This authority was conceived as absolute and exclusive. As such, it involved consequences of the most far-reaching chara'cter, the full significance of which was certainly not apparent, at any rate during the ante-Nicene period. But this much, at least, was evident, that it meant a departure from what, as we have elsewhere tried to Show, was the conventional classical approach to the problems of human life, that is, through 'nature and reason'. At the same time lCochrane, p. 451. 2Cochrane, p. 452. lb ~u~~""/‘ ‘ 1,:._;c:.c- a ..t: a» u: 1 .q - “i|”"‘3‘ '- ~. u'r ck~:‘C\- \garJ.a... ‘ l . " ‘r‘n u‘-9'h L. .3... ahAA‘ “-6. ' _, 4‘ 54: \olum“ L1. "2"« ,:.'-- ' “a: 3.1 “::3C~-o .-. n ‘5‘.- .J.I:‘?";.v . o...~. ‘ “~— ~ .‘ ‘ ‘n. o q. ‘1ch ‘ “a . . ‘ -\.J:§ ‘. vs~ I t u F‘C\ 4"“ 4 \v-sJ“..‘ . '- 6""- . r4 \- .fi‘. 62 \ it suggested a new ideal and a new method of thought to be achieved through 'dependence' on Christ. 1 To begin with, B'Christianity] affirmed that the historical Christ was the 'only Son' of the Father and so, quite literally, the God to end gods. It thus underlay what was commonly regarded as 'Christian atheism'. For to accept this thesis was to reject as fraudulent the multifarious deities of secularism and, in particular, the claim to divinity put forward on behalf of the 'virtue' and 'fortune' of Caesar. At the same time it was to dissociate oneself from the hopes and fears embodied in theAugustan empire. It thus accounts for that sense of aliena- tion which led the Christian to describe himself as a pilgrim or foreigner in imperial society, and for his absolute refusal to participate in many of its most significant activities. It also explains why he found himself denied the easy toleration which was normally accorded to ‘unlicensed cultS'. 2 Similarly, the Christian view of time was different from that of the Roman or Greek. He did not believe in endless cycles, but instead he asserted that time was moving towards a definite objective which he called ”the kingdom of God. " Providence, not the gods of chance, was directing in the affairs of history. After all, had not the New Testament promised in over three hundred places that Christ would return in glory? Thus envisaged, human history emerges as indeed a 'conflict of opposites', but the elements of opposition are not what Classic- ism had supposed. For they constitute no reflection of contend- ing physical forces, in the clash of which mankind plays a dubious and uncertain role as the 'Subjective factor of an objective process' . Nor do they mark a revulsion of man from nature, the subject from its object, a conflict for the realization of material or ideal, i. e. merely human and subjective, goods which recede forever from the grasp. PrOperly understood, history is the , record of a struggle, not for the realization of material or ideal values but for the materialization, embodiment, the registration in consciousness of real values, the values of truth, beauty, and goodness which are thus so to Speak thrust upon it as the very condition of its life and being. In these terms and in these terms lIbid., p. 224. zlbid., p. 225. p. I ,U. ..¢ .. "I" .— V‘ - G ‘- 0:8...tu’ n'.‘ v . . g . . . 9"“; . rh":."4r‘.' .443. .u V.A.a~sob.... ' ¢ ‘ u o. ‘ .5. ' -.. r‘ ._ ...... tu¢e ths * ‘ufiou‘ : .- ._.._.‘.._..' - . -‘: ‘ ...l..3?‘.c?\ IC..£Z;=' . '.. a. . . ‘ ""- n- ' . . V‘ ”-0 .... ~~4451t "‘ N n~ ..mhc.l\e'u ... \r- .\ .V-j‘ ~—~. - 63 alone can the secular effort of the human Spirit be exPlained and justified, for only thus does it become intelligible.l Thus in Christianity we trace the emergence of concepts which in all future ages would significantly shape the thinking of mankind. It seems impossible to understand Western culture, or to follow the thread of mediaeval and modern history, without recognizing in this revolutionary religion of lowly origin the most potent of all forces which have influenced mankind. Morals of Graeco-Roman Society In every age you will find the two sorts of men, those who are sure that they are the heirs of all the ages in the foremost files of time, and those who are convinced that we are going to the dogs. In every historical period two other historical periods exist, the primal Golden Age forever Vanished, and the blessed Millennium towards which we tend. 2 Our concept of the morals of a particular society will influence our. evaluation of that society. However, as pointed out in the preced- ing quotation, it is well-nigh impossible to deve10p a truly impartial view of any age; and furthermore, it is absolutely impossible for any man's summary to please all reviewers. Beyond all doubt the moral conditions of the early Roman Empire have been both grossly exaggerated in some cases and greatly under- stated in others. In Rome's worst days there were men and women reflecting probity and virtue. Innumerable families were bound together by chaste affections, and the histories of the time are not with- out examples of courage and altruism. AS one reviews the writings of men like Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, and Marcus Aurelius, it is obvious lIbid. , p. 513. zEdward Kennard Rand, The Building of Eternal Rome (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), p. 178. "*iaahers reis. . .. .. o-fih ,1“: va~ l . o I v , ...-- --tqu ‘ehafl 0* 0;... ‘.y.- :uyIaJCsoabl hale evuoo- . u o a. run ".yfirv' O'O‘Q ,. ~ . -.16 c e -.. oto‘nv'b “‘9‘ .4 g ' ' n i . . o 9 o . _‘ . .. .‘1 ...—1'. . 53 t“. 3. . - - LEVJE :uatatzsn. . . 64 that the philosophers reflected, in their discourses at least, tenets which approached the ethics of Christianity, and these could not have been without influence. A hint of the two-fold aSpect of Roman life is indicated in the following quotation. Roman luxury did go to extreme lengths sometimes, and Suetonius, as well as the satirists, loved to give elaborate accounts of it. It is he who tells us of the flamingos' tongues, mackerel livers, pheasant and peacock brains, and lampreys which Vitellius caused to be collected by his fleet for a banquet. But over against Vitellius can be set the moderate and abstemious Vespasian, who after all proved to be a truer Roman. The elder Pliny disliked all forms of excess, and tells us with a shake of the head that ”Clodius the son of AeSOp the tragedian, having been left by him very well off . . . used to give each of his guests a dissolved pearl to drink, " a very unlikely piece of gossip. These, and POppaea the Empress travelling with a herd of asses large enough to assure her of a daily milk bath, are the kind of stories which have led to the wideSpread opinion that the Romans were extreme hedonists. 1 While Waddy thus protests against the overdrawing of the picture of Roman morals, he also says: The minds of the Empire Romans, as Shown in their literature, were unimpressive. There was also a failure of Spiritual power which was just as telling. The religion and morality of the Empire makes a Sad study. There is not indeed so abrupt a deterioration to record as in the field of literature; for whereas Roman literature had a great age from which to decline, Roman religion in the later days of the Republic was already losing its integrity. But under the Empire we find a steady crutnbling of nerve and will, which was a great factor in the Romans' inability to survive. Half-hearted remedies, from time to time applied, never looked like checking the decline. 2 . . . Rome's self appointed mission was to make the world decent and comfortable. Her citizens were unblushing material- ists, and their concentration on mere tangible things was an overemphasis which cost them their survival.3 lWaddy, p. 174. 2lbid., pp. 215-216. 31bid., p. 169. ‘H . ~ 65 Despite these words from Waddy, it is not true to assert that all Romans were materialistic. As shown elsewhere, many citizens cherished religious and phiIOSOphical ideals which led them to look beyond the'things of sight and touch. Nevertheless, the above generalization from Waddy is substantially correct and is repeated by many historians of the age. This prevailing attitude inevitably led to what adherents to the Christian ethic would consider as demoralization. To see the world in its worst estate we turn to the age of the satirists and of Tacitus, when all the different streams of evil, coming from east, west, north, south, the vices of barbarism and the vices of civilization, remnants of ancient cults, and the latest refinements of luxury and impurity, met and mingled on the banks of the Tiber. 1 Most races have always c0pied their gods, and the deities of the Pantheon had set examples somewhat less than lofty. Thus Plato could say about the stories in Homer: "They are likely to have a bad effect on those who hear them; for everybody will begin to excuse his own vices when he is convinced that similar wickednesses are always being perpetrated by the kindreds of the gods. "7‘ ”Neither Purity nor Humanity nor Mercy has a seat at the Olympian board. Often had Zeus fallen a victim to Aphrodite. So in reprisal (Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite) he fills her with a passion for the comely mortal youth Anchises. In all these epics the avowal of concupiscence is made with absolute frank- ness, as by the suitors of PenelOpe, or as between Odysseus, Kirke, Kalypso. "3 Next to the gods, the philos0phers may be considered the most influential in the matter of ethics. In Rome, the philosophy of 1.‘Iowett, Epistles of St. Paul, p. 75, cited by Fisher, Beginnings, p. 195. 2Fisher, Beginnings, p. 195. 3Ernest G. Sihler, cited by Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 236. a..- -. z .- ... ‘..-...Ic.-.fl.$?‘.’l “v.5 226.6 * s . . r. . o A , a. Q v - . o 1 w 9 v 315:5 1:6 Cisse 0: tie :- . y I l \ O —- . .. .:.:C .3 2::ch 3'. the I , ,; ' mtg-“5:655 a: 1; -‘-‘o. .. ..g - ' ' .4...” ‘aI‘JIE GS 1311:“ 5 C 1" ' u Wan” as. ' Q .AAbaAuE $0 be ‘J‘;:&‘ I Q Q ‘ . - p. o o :‘JQ ‘. the ‘h‘ h‘ “. v ‘ I. ....nld ,~‘n“ A 3 H _'_~ g. ' . ..u. 31‘ amine“: " o. O 66 Stoicism manifested ideals, but these did not reach the masses. Epicureanism was more successful. Said Montesquieu: "I believe that the doctrines of EpicuruS--which were introduced into Rome towards the close of the republic--did much towards corrupting the mind and the heart of the Romans. "1 An eye-witness of the age with superior perceptual and analytical ability wrote as follows concerning the morality of his day: Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, andthe men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing Shameless acts with men and receiv- ing in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to impr0per conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. Rom. 1:22-32 RSV. Paul, of course, had his prejudices, but we find that Seneca paints a similar picture (ll-)3 {Eii‘ 8). The Stoic philOSOpher, in a lengthy catalogue, specifies the forms of immorality rampant in his day. These include the same unnatural crimes to which the Apostle referred. It hardly seems sufficient to say that every age has its infamy and that our own society has its share. In contrast to the ‘lBaker's translation of Montesquieu, p. 197. ,Iq' V'A.‘ 1 t 1 v. z- . "-u- ‘ CPA .vw-n . ‘:...- 3. ..lc .....J“ L , . ~ 09 \-';‘Ka"_‘n ..- ‘J‘HL‘HJU, \n. o bl»,-..p-“.‘.o - uzu 3.Jdgnl d e. ‘ "Si-J- ur- av' Acoc‘oJat, net--2. C "it. tauv an: :15. ff; ' m.... r“ ‘ QL“'J:L unharc . ’n ..l‘. I‘ 0 ‘ ‘ Lu U.g ‘rflx.'\ ‘o C". .. ‘V at 0:13;... 1;: t..‘- : ..‘ i..e wfhkn I “fixed, L 36:6 #1", :15. E 67 record of the Empire, history indicates that before the Punic Wars, Rome had housed a community marked by temperance and industry. It would seem indiSputable that the heady wine of victory and luxury changed the national character. The extinction of the free civic life of Greece, the conquests of Macedon, the foundation of the world-wide empire of Rome, ,had wrought a momentous moral change. In the old city- state, religion, morals, and political duty were linked in a gracious unity and harmony. The citizen drew moral support and inSpiration from ancestral laws and institutions clothed with almost divine authority. Even Plato does not break away from the old trammels, but requires the elders of his Ut0pia as a duty, after they have seen the vision of God, to descend again to the ordinary tasks of government. But when the corporate life which supplied such vivid interests and moral support was wrecked, the individual was thrown back upon himself. Morals were finally separated from politics. 1 Some particulars will now be considered under general headings. The Character and Position of Women Constituting as they do half of the race, women in their character and status mirror the essential nature of their times. According to the old Roman law, a woman ;with all her property, by marrying came completely under the power of her husband or of his father, if the latter was alive. This form of marriage, however, disappeared under the Empire. With it there disappeared other aspects of marriage. The standard of marital fidelity was not lower than now, but it was confined to the woman. There is no trace of a demand for a similar standard for the man. The primitive view, in some ways reasonable enough, was held that the fidelity of the man is not necessary, because his infidelity does not bring bastards into the family. The extra-marital connections of the man, lDill, p. 291. n . Pu. n y 9 2 . ‘sb‘ . w-P". ~y .- , v u ‘u~~.~4 K ‘. - ,a a C Q' "nO Org. a;-A“¢¥GIAL hers.» I . (II a . ‘ - - I I‘vow-A ..neu. - J-d:o “.3: tools b.\ O" €t323TTllC 17.29:: .."i. - . ‘ ‘ . uD...e:dtcC 1:": V“ . | llmarrzcc 527;: mvi _ . f‘n— 1 Mt .ower 2": . g.‘ a... ‘ _ f, the CUHCLLD‘": ‘ ‘L ....‘E: \ _.- e q‘ntdllgn 352;”, . :5...5L Cont-em r. v- AA¢.“..: n b 2].“:— 68 whether casual or permanent, were regarded as natural. It is significant that a religious inscription from Asia Minor, which otherwise inculcates a morality with which any one may be satisfied, expressly permits connections with women who have already lost their chastity. Against such connections there was not the moral ostracism which, in spite of changing conditions, still constitutes a powerful deterrent, and slavery gave every facility for keeping women for the satisfaction of lust. The evil went deeper than merely prostitution for the poor, and mistresses for the rich. The dissolution of the legal forms of marriage, which was brought about by women's demand for economic independence, supported by their fathers and relations, obliterated the Sharp distinction between the married and the unmarried state, which, in Spite of everything, is maintained by modern peoples.1 Some of the most distinguished Emperors, like VeSpasian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius, lived in concubinage. In the lower grades of society the distinction between marriage and concubinage must have been negligible. 2 These quotations come from an author who, by carefully warning us against condemning "unjustly the immorality of the Empire, " lays claim to personal objectivity.3 Certain of the laws of Augustus bear witness in this regard. He endeavoured to promote marriages by legal bribes but with little success. Even when marriages took place, the parties preferred to remain almost or altogether childless. "If a tithe of what Juvenal and contemporary writers say on this matter is true, licentiousness per- vaded all ranks of Roman society. " 4 1Martin P. Nilsson, Imperial Rome, trans. S. C. Richards (London: S. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1926), pp. 323-324, zIhid., p. 324. 3Ihid., p. 320. 4‘Fisher, Beginnings, p. 202. P .u’ p'_ Y" _ ,2.- .31: u.6E‘C3‘1‘\~‘ ; F ...... ...-o...e ..5 o . A . §~ -.-J.v‘~l\.~o~‘\ J. g .'.- O V 211523.“; 3; 5:65:54". . 1"- ‘ ‘ 9' . ... 341'“er ...".L' " Went sexce *0 n:.:.".‘.p, 1&9“; . ' V on: 10\'e--‘xe'e serve: to . :‘4 ' .- E.: lECELCCIV: : f‘ .F ' 0* u.€€Ce 13:, I: i"./“£N W \Lae‘e .‘-.~'r‘ 'l ‘. C15 marl-zed: and s 1 I t a. .he 3001;; people. Lilia ... 100k I001 312’; :- '.C,, p53,; 4.. g t‘ 1 ' elent (3.00:3) .- “"‘1Chthe 53“.; 69 In the GraecobRoman world the practice of homosexuality was not provocative of gossip. Philosophers like Plato could refer to it quite casually. In Greece the passion for beautiful boys (paiderastia) was relieved, in some Slight degree, of its grossness, by an in- fusion of aesthetic sentiment. This kind of love, Springing in part from the adoration of beauty, assumed all the char- acteristics of a sentimental attachment between persons of different sexes. Assiduous devotion to the object beloved, rivalship, jealousy, deSpair--all the phenomena of courtship and love-~were connected with this unnatural relation, and served to cloak, even to the eyes of phiIOSOphers, the shame- less indecency that belonged to it. There is scarcely a writer of Greece who directly condemns it. One effect of it was to disincline men to marriage, as both Plato and Plutarch re- marked; and so this disgusting vice contributed to the reduction of the p0pulation of Greece, as well as to the moral ruin of her people. Like most other Greek vices, this form of impurity took root and flourished in Rome. Statesmen, judges, generals, and emperors were guilty of it. At the end of the Sixth century, A. U. C. , Polybius states that many Romans paid as high as a talent ($1000) for a beautiful boy. Cicero Speaks of a case in which the sons of Senators, and youth from the highest families, obtained from the judges an acquittal, which a bribe of money could not procure, by this Species of prostitution. Slaves were more commonly the victims of this base affection. All pains were then taken to stunt their growth and preserve their fresh and effeminate appearance; and the same thing was done in the case of free persons. The fact that stories imputing the vice of which we are Speaking to a man like Julius Caesar, were in circulation, and formed a matter for jesting, even if the stories were false, Shows the measure of toleration that was granted to practices which in modern times; would render the perpetrator of them an outcast and an object of loathing. l Thus this practice also prevented the institution of marriage from occupying in society the place which later Christians would assign it.- 1Ibid. , pp. 205-206 -1 ‘ “ A - - _ ,3: enificntc :u --n-u psi '1‘. _ P-‘v~‘- 25131 SE? 31113.53 ILL . .. p - -... . ‘1’ 3.33 '3". : Q‘nzv Or —-- o .1 annals .v A s- . - n z- ' Y ' . _\: ‘1..J" 3: ‘d‘ 1 y” Y‘ .ne Lra‘:7, t.- c - . “ I n r _ N. eed, LC TAU\P O —‘ A u q 70 The evidence seems sufficient to demonstrate not only that woman did not occupy the Sphere to which ”Christian" society would assign her but also the failure in this regard Spawned other significant moral problems for that age. The Evaluation of Life The Empire, through its Pax Romana and its policing of land and sea, did much to make life safer than hitherto. Nevertheless, the estimate placed upon the right to existence was not high. The Augustan age itself had been ushered in by considerable bloodletting; and if Plutarch's estimate of the million slain by Caesar in Gaul is only half exaggerated, we find a barbarism, though not a skill, which equals that of an atomic age. The cheapness of a slave's life will be considered in a later section. Here we shall refer only to infanticide, the glada- torial contests, and the practice of suicide. Regarding infanticide one has written: The right of parents to destroy the offSpring which it was not thought expedient for them to bring up, was recognized in law and practice. Sometimes such children were left by the Greeks to perish by starvation in some desolate place; some- times they were killed outright. The moral teachers of Greece did not rise above the pOpular feeling on this subject. Aristotle approves of the custom of exposing infants where it is desired to prevent an excess of population; and, if, in any state, this is forbidden, he recommends abortion as a substitute. Plato, in the Republic, holds that children of bad men, illegitimate children, and children of parents too far advanced in years, should be destroyed by exposure; the state is not to be burdened with them. Among the Romans there had been originally a law forbidding the destruction of infants; but this law became practically obsolete. 1 lIbid. , pp. 207-208. - 1 - -~ 'n‘ ‘n l v- 8 fl . 1.1. 33.5! u: JuJ w- . ‘ I -O-- ~'v-'- ”'4'? , v ' .4 .. ...: ‘1...C: u...‘- o a a i ~ ~--. 9' . A...‘.-'.Q.. - u. but. Lac ant—a). ‘5‘ J. I . t. . . , 'TV‘Q‘ . . _. . ..‘chnd \Qr‘i“ C " ~ no.“ ‘9‘“... ' I V "w «o n- 4 me a. m ”,~, p -" Q 1. Al. — ...? 3_ kC:tt:I¢“:< iii-filial: . 01's ‘1. ha, .-.:C&Q€ Of lava St‘aih r . . ..15 m 1.1:“ C0 . . “ n‘esLSy 95"": . l 71 AS for the gladatorial contests, it is almost impossible to picture the large scale on which these were conducted. Julius Caesar had as many as 320 pairs in conflict, but 10, 000 joined in the combats of the games under Augustus. In addition to the games conducted under the authority of the government, there were others provided by private individuals. The massive Coliseum, which was erected towards the end of the first century, witnesses to the public appetite for these bloody contests. Most of the gladiators were prisoners of war, Slaves, or criminals under sentence. Some wealthy individuals kept their own gangs of contestants, either exhibiting them themselves, or renting them out to others. In various places, gladatorial schools existed for the training of those dedicated to the arena. Such Schools were run by a veritable corps of officials including physicians, surgeons, fenc- ing masters etc. The training was rigid, including a measured diet and nightly confinement to cells. Pompeii's ruins revealed the Skeletons of gladiators who, chained to their prison, were unable to escape the cascade of lava. Strains of instrumental music preceded and accompanied the contests, which were introduced by a procession of gladiators around the arena, when the greeting may have been addressed to the Emperor: ”Ave, Caesar, Imperator, morituri te salu- tant'. " When a combatant was t‘S.tTUCk down, the victor appealed to the assembly of Spectators to decide the fate of his fallen antagonist. Menials touched the slain with hot irons to see that death was not Simulated. They were dragged out to the dead- room, where those in whom life was not extinct were deSpatched. At intervals, servants appeared to Spade up the ground, saturated with blood and to Spread over it a new coating of sand. The diversions of the amphitheatre were far from being limited to conflicts between men, or between men and animals, or among animals themselves. By ingenious and elaborate machinery, a stage could be made to rise from beneath the ground, and then suddenly, with the men, and beasts and whatever else was upon it, to sink out of sight. At the appointed moment, a platform ‘ would fall to pieces, and the man, who was standing upon it, .- 'I .....-- , .. a- 4.3:) ...»4 V.“ . ym-fi "‘ d . h' ‘ ...)..L’ to 9.6.55 Dfi. and 1:111:31: or c ' , 3..-, -n oF" . S:C».Gksct “‘ ‘ " o 2': t3 3% 212.26 fit if Q . ‘ ...-..” ,- - L- .. mi:C¢5Lfi “a: Alton. 3.. :’-'. Y‘n-l... :1..E 3. Lake r u\ “.2. 2318315 501116 1'5 01 "J 3 r 4 . - .s‘. .1 -. a v- . --...3o...c a. h.: a I 9 ...» '- i‘hen we find 1:... ififitplace for ..a‘ :e combats.2 72 would drop into a cage of wild beasts, and be instantly torn to pieces before the eyes of all. The boys and girls would be pleased with the gilded apparel and bright crown of one who came forward in the arena, when they would see the flames burst forth from his dress, and behold him leaping and writhing in agony until death ended his torture. 1 Spectacles involving bloodshed on a larger scale were also offered to the voracious Romans. Augustus, for example, caused an artificial lake to be made near the Tiber, and here a sea-fight involving three thousand was held. Years later, a great multitude witnessed from the shore of Lake Fucinus a sanguinary combat between the nineteen thousand soldiers of two fleets. The Emperor Claudius presided, with Agrippina at his side. We gain some impression of the morals of the day when we find that Ovid prescribed the seats of the amphitheatre as a fit place for a lover to further his suit during the intervals between the combats. 2 Chester G. Starr suggests that ”the attitude of an age toward suicide is often a touchstone by which its individualism may be measured. "3 In the Roman Empire the right of a man to kill himself was almost universally accepted. The treatment of suicide as a right first became evident when old group attitudes broke down in the Greek world from the fifth century onward. In Stoic theory suicide was even at times a duty--like the death of Cato--to diSplay or preserve one's free- dom. In the Empire Pliny the Elder termed suicide ”the supreme boon god has bestowed on man among all the penalties of life, " and it was often preceded by public debate as to one' S justification. Only as a new concept of the individual's place in the world emerged did pagan (and Christian) thought begin to deny men this means of exit.‘ 1Ibid., pp. 215—216. 2lbid., p. 218. 3Chester G. Starr, Civilization and the Caesars: The Intellectual Revolution in the Roman Empire (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1954), p. 271. 4Ibid., pp. 271-272. ‘ ' '0‘ Fa: -¢.. - ~ -- n g 7.,“ ‘c c 5.. ,s \ ‘4 .u ...—..I'uay 3. bu . . "“‘nrc W‘ .‘ - \ “‘9‘~ccu‘a oafinL-oo s ”mailman“? ' ~.‘:E "‘w‘p, ’ . : “Wig/6‘s 30 C 2‘. ‘ ~s-A. fin- ..... = u C..9 -.. dale» ‘hctt A: “16.110 me 01 v- _. 73 Slavery The institution of slavery is discussed in the introduction to the analysis of the Epistle to Philemon. Some things, however, should also be stated here. Every Roman of even moderate means owned some Slaves and numerous households had as many as 500. On the great estates up to twenty thousand might labour as field-hands. The conditions under which Slaves existed in the Empire varied so broadly that it is difficult to make a brief summary concerning them. While in some instances household slaves were so well treated that their devotion to their masters was unquestionable, and they had considerable freedom, in other cases, they worked in chains. Examples of the latter are found in the many underground workhouses which existed in Italy, where large numbers of slaves in fetters toiled at the mills. As for old or sick slaves--these were commonly carried to an island in the Tiber and left to die of starvation. Not until the time of Hadrian was there any limitation of a master's power for life and death over a Slave, and the advent of humanitarian legislation in the age of this Emperor probably sprang from the in- creasing difficulty of augmenting the slave complement. Prior to Hadrian: The stern character of the Roman law appeared in the powers which it gave to the slaveholder. He was clothed with absolute authority; he could beat, maim, and kill his Slave with impunity. The slave could own no property, he could contract no marriage; whatever connection he was allowed to form with a woman was dissolved at the command of his owner. Slaves, when they were allowed Or forced to give testimony, were ex- amined under the torture. If a master was murdered by a slave, the Vengeance of the law was visited upon all the slaves of his household, who were crucified without mercy.1 1Fisher, Beginnings, p. 209. m _ >0.- 74 When we consider the almost irresistible tendency to demorali— zation among the slaves themselves, the temptations to perfidy, licentiousness, and almost every other vice to which they were exposed, and when we consider the baleful influence which fell, from the unlimited control of all these human beings, upon the masters, and the contamination of the young by their familiarity with slaves, from the beginning of life, we shall feel that the amount of evil resulting from Roman slavery is beyond calculation.l These are some of the aSpects of Roman society which the subse— quent Western culture was to decry. The picture from the viewpoint of most moderns is heavily shaded, if not entirely black. Reviewing this brief outline of life in the first century, we are compelled to admire the achievements of Greek culture and Roman energy.7‘ It is apparent that the Empire possessed a greater degree of glory than any powers which preceded or followed it; but as in the case with other cultures, its glory was tarnished and proved superficial at last. This was the challenging world into which Saul of Tarsus was born. AS Paul the Apostle, he was destined to be the chief agent in transmitting to the West the main elements of a new and enduring culture. 1lbid., p. 211. 2Education in the Graeco—Roman world is discussed in the chapter "The Age of the Second Sophistic. " Similarly, other pertinent historical details are included throughout the analyses of the Pauline addresses. CHAPTER II THE ERA OF THE SECOND SOPHISTIC What need there of long speeches in the Senate when the best men are soon of one mind, or of endless harangues to the people when political questions are decided not by an ignorant multitude, but by one man of pre-eminent wisdom ? Tacitus. "Dialogue Concerning Oratory. " Great thoughts, great achievements, and significant and artistic expression seem linked together. Each mountain peak in sociological development has been usually accompanied by a Significantly high- 1evel expression in the arts. The age of Pericles, the zenith of the Roman Republic, the eras of the Renaissance and the Reformation, the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries in imperial England, and the nineteenth century in the United States, witnessed a burgeoning of the arts which set lofty standards for succeeding years. Similarly we find a resultant povery of aesthetic expression in eras of social degeneration and decline. Probably the field of rhetoric offers more historical illustrations of the foregoing generalizations than can be found elsewhere. The classical age in Greece gave birth to the principles of rhetoric which, because of inherent worth, have been constantly reasserted from that age to this. Following the death of Aristotle however, there came a change for the worse. 75 Whereas 1:: In: I ‘ ' swash V'"“"‘ 3" ...‘u'h o ‘50 v'e‘ -.' . ..'.‘« ,9 C.‘€3.lle .. -‘- . ...: .. unw- - . 3n).- e;1...c C . , .. nO-- o c- . ~- \ p4 ...:Q. coo get..\' I' - ... dudifiagc:1t 1m: .- 1 . . S““‘lcre"’ “ '1 h.... s . ~.u¢(3rs:‘l0 a: A“ 1., . hang“ \ 2::6 D 1“ ' ‘ 1:.2 ‘ixfld eadVant—- . E .331): 2 5325 Th; ‘ . ,d. \1 p. 98 76 Whereas in the better days of Greek achievements the virtue of moderation and balance had been distinguishing marks of creative effort, now the tendencies toward excess and affect- ation became apparent. This unhappy circumstance asserted itself in Hellenistic prose, and particularly in oratory. About 250 B. C. , Hegesias of Magnesia became the leader of the ”Asiatic" school of thought. In violation of Aristotelian and Isocratean standards, this school produced an artificial style which, in the words of Atkins, ”depended for its effects on epigrams, strained metaphors, false antitheses, over-elaborate rhythms, and the like." This style, which Atkins claims was "a breakdown of earlier traditions, rather than a fusion of the Asiatic and Hellenic geniuses, " exercised considerable influence throughout the third and second centuries B. C.1 Similarly, when the Roman Republic merged into the thinly guised dictatorship» of Augustus, and democratic oratory was greatly lessened, there occurred the inevitable decline of classical rhetoric. Thonssen and Baird declare that "This decline was well under way by Quintilian's time. He tried to revive the spirit of Ciceronianism while protesting the false tastes that were taking hold of the age. ”2 This new era has been named "the second sophistic. " By the time of Tacitus in 81 A. D. , the trend towards ”Asianism" had become per- vasive; and hereafter it dominated education and public speaking practice for several centuries. Before considering the nature and causes of the "second sophistic" it would be advantageous to summarise the ideals and precepts of classical rhetoric. Only against such a background can the character- istics and values of the sophistic trend be appraised. It cannot be overemphasized that thus to consider the status of rhetoric in these centuries is simultaneously to measure the standards of the prevailing education in these times. In the words of Donald Lemen Clark: lThonssen and Baird, Speech Criticism, p. 96. 2Ibid., p. 98. 77 . . . in the Greco—Roman schools education was almost exclu- sively education in rhetoric, which the ancients considered an adequate preparation for life for free men, whom custom debarred from handicrafts and all activities involving manual dexterity. 1 Similarl Thonssen and Baird lainl state that ”the entire educational Y P Y plan centered about rhetoric. ”2 In Rome, as in the Greek- speaking countries, there were three successive steps in instruction. Normally these correspond to the three types of school taught by three Special teachers. At seven the child entered the primary school, which he quit at eleven or twelve for the school of the grammaticus. When he was of age to receive the toga virilis, about fifteen, he passed to the school of the rhetor. The advanced studies normally lasted till he was about twenty, although they might be prolonged.3 The work of the ancient Grammar school in theory was to give instruction in all of the seven liberal arts. Literature, rhetoric, dia- lectics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music constituted the learning field. In practice, however, emphasis upon the mathematical arts was left for special schools, and instead the trivium's language arts were kept to the fore. In his Epilog, Clark once more stresses the almost synonymous nature of rhetoric and ancient education. . . . I wish to recall and emphasize the habitual association of rhetoric in the best of ancient schools with all the liberal arts which went to make up encyclopedic learning (encyclios paideia) or cycle of instruction. The same teacher, whether in grammar school or school of rhetoric, who taught the arts of speaking and writing, also read great poems, histories, and public addresses of earlier ages with the boys. The Roman schools did not suffer 1Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric in Greco—Roman Education. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), pp. 64-65. Z"Thonssen and Baird, p. 98. 3C1ark, p. 60, citing Marrou‘s Histoire de l'education dans l' antiquit é . 78 fromdepartmentalization as ours do. Rhetoric was not something to be taught as a separate and isolated skill, but an organic art, at work "discovering all possible means to persuasion in any subject. "1 What then were the principles that were stressed when classical rhetoric reigned in the ancient schools ? Aristotle, Cicero and Quin— tilian provide the answer. While Quintilian lived during the second sophistic he was essentially a classicist. Cicero in his De Partitione Oratoria tapped rhetoric with a silver hammer so to Speak, causing it to fall into three divisions. (1):}: oratoris i. e. the Speaker's resources as a Speaker; (2) m i. e. the Speech itself; and (3) quaestioi. e. the Speech situation, which involves both the nature of the subject and the audience. Let us consider each of these primary divisions. The vis oratoris included five subdivisions. While these are implicit in Aristotle they are not formally set out. Before the days of Cicero, however, it became fashionable among rhetoricians to discuss: (l) Inventio: Discovery of Speech materials; (2) DiSpositio: Arranging of Speech materials; (3) Elocutio: Or the clothing with language of the assembled materials; (4) Memoria: The fixing of the Speech in memory; (5) Pronuntiatio: Or the delivery of the discourse. AS for oratio this also had been divided into parts. Many followed the suggested six parts named by the Ad Herennium. They were (1) Exordium: An initial approach designed to make the audience attentive and friendly. (2) Narratio: A statement of facts Slanted in favor of the Speaker. (3) Divisio or Partitio: A preview of the main points the speaker intends to elaborate. (4) Confirmatio: Affirmative proof. (5) Confutatio: Refutation or rebuttal. (6) Conclusio or Peroratio: Conclusion. lIbid. , p. 263. 79 Turning to quaestio, or the Speech- situation, we find that Cicero suggested that this could be one of two kinds. Either the speech situation involved a general discussion or it was concerned with particular persons or occasions. The latter, called causa or ”case" covered the Aristotelian categories of forensic, epideictic and deliberative Speaking. We shall next consider these parts individually, but necessarily treat them with brevity. Among the five resources of the speaker, Inventio was pre- eminent. The weight of matter transcends its dress in importance, and therefore as many of the pertinent facts as possible Should be investi- gated. To help oneself in this matter required that the status of the case be determined. This was the vital hinge on which the main issues turned. Such questions as: whether a thing is, what it is, of what kind is it, are the most helpful. Does the matter depend upon a question of f_aE£,_ of definition,or of quality? The next step will be to decide how to apply his facts so as to persuade his audience. Aristotle had suggested that the primary modes of persuasion were three. The first kind reside in the character of the Speaker; the second consist in producing a certain attitude in the hearer; the third appertain to the argument pr0per, in so far as it actually or seemingly demonstrates. . . . The character of the Speaker is a cause of persuasion when the speech is so uttered as to make him worthy of belief; . . . . Secondly, persuasion is effected through the audience, when they are brought by the speech into a state of emotion; for we give very different decisions under the sway of pain or joy, and liking or hatred. . . . Thirdly, per- suasion is effected by the arguments, when we demonstrate the truth, real or apparent, by such means as inhere in particular cases. 1 lAristotle, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, trans. Lane Cooper (New York: Appleton-Century, Inc., 1932) 1:2. -"l 80 The "places" or "tepics" of argument gave more detailed assistance in devising arguments. This involved the asking of the questions of how, what, where, when,and why? Cicero listed as places of argument the following: definition, contrast, similarity, dissimilarity, consistency, inconsistency, conjunction, repugnancy, cause and effect, distribution as of genus and species, or of past and present time, or of magnitude (more, equal, or less).1 Regarding diSpositio, this involved not only the familiar divisions of exordium, statement, proof and refutation, and peroration, but also the manner of marshalling the vital arguments. Most rhetoricians felt that the strongest arguments should appear first, with some out- standing ones reserved for the peroration, and the rest placed in the body of the Speech. Cicero, however, particularly stresses that the method of arrangement should always be adapted to the purpose of the speech. For example, the sequence adopted for an epideictic speech might be chronological. Elocutio at its best embraced the four virtues of correctness, clearness, embellishment, and appropriateness. The usual analysis of styles stressed the grand, the medium, and the plain, which adjectives explain themselves. Memoria included both learning a speech by heart or the master- ing of its substance in order to Speak extemporaneously. Quintilian felt that the former was best if the speaker was blessed with both a good memory and ample time. Otherwise the second procedure must be followed. Pronunciatio includes both the use of the voice and the use of gesture in delivery. Demosthenes is the classic example of the import- ance of this element. Cicero declared that delivery has "the sole 1Cicero, De Partitione Oratoria, ii.7. -~‘_-_._~. 81 and supreme power in oratory. "1 According to Quintilian's doctrine, voice and diction, like literary style, should be pure, clear, embellished, and appro- priate. Speech must be pure and correct Latin with no trace of the foreign or provincial. Speech must be clear through careful enunciation and observance of pr0per pauses. It should be em- bellished and can be if the voice has pleasing quality and is well controlled. Beauty of Speech will be aided by careful avoidance of such vices as monotony, straining, excessive rapidity or slowness, panting, Spraying saliva; chanting, and Singing. Voice and diction will be apprOpriate if they are adapted to the subject of the Speech. And he gives shrewd advice on how to use the imagination in stimulating emotions the speaker does not feel. "In representing such feelings, the first requisite is to impress ourselves as much as possible, to conceive lively ideas of things, and to allow ourselves to be moved by them as if they were real; and then the voice, as an intermediate organ, will convey to the minds of the judges that impression which it receives from our own. ..2 Having briefly touched upon the Speaker's resources, let us now con- sider the Speech itself. The most well-known summary of the traditional division of a Speech is found in De Oratore: . . . I had been taught that before we speak on the point at issue, the minds of the audience should be conciliated; next, our case should be stated; then the point in controversy Should be estab- lished; then our allegations should be confirmed and those ad- vanced refuted; and that at the conclusion of our speech what is in our favour should be amplified and expanded,what favors the adversary should be weakened and demolished.3 Aristotle had pointed to the need for an appropriate Exordium when he asserted that "It is plain that introductions are addressed not lCicero, De Oratore trans. J. S. Watson (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), iii. 56. ZClark, p. 11 l . 3Watson, trans. De Oratore, I. xxxi. 143. L 82 to ideal hearers but to hearers as we find them. "1 Quintilian suggests that: . . . he who is going to Speak Should reflect what he has to say, before whom, at what time or place, under what circum- stance, under what pre-possessions of the public; what opinion it is likely that the judge has formed previous to the commence- ment of the pleadings; and what the speaker has to desire or deprecate. Nature herself will lead him to understand what he ought‘to say first. "7‘ The same authority summarises the nature of the statement by declar- ing that it is an exposition adapted to persuade of what has been done, or is supposed to have been done.3 Obviously it is chiefly the forensic speech which requires a statement of facts. The usual school formula for narratio was that of Isocrates, that the statement of facts Should be brief, clear, and plausible. The following quotation lays down a consideration of primary importance regarding our next division, that of proof or confirmatio. When we consider proof in rhetoric, we must be careful to remember that rhetoric does not concern itself with scien- tifically demonstrated truths, about which there is no debate, but with such contingent and approximate truths as lead to dif- ferences of opinion. We do not argue or persuade in favor of the probability of a proposition in Euclid. We demonstrate. Hence the Latin use of confirmatio as the term for rhetorical proof is less misleading than our habitual use in English of the one word, proof, both for scientific demonstration and for persuasive argument used in support of the probability of one side of a debatable issue.4 lC00per, trans. The Rhetoric of Aristotle, III. 14. 2Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, trans. J. S. Watson (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1903), IV.i.52. 31bid., IV.ii.31. 4Clark, pp. 117-118. 83 The materials of proof us ed in the art of rhetoric fall into two cate- gories, the enthymeme, with the maxim included in-this category, and secondly, the example. An enthymeme can be an incomplete syllogism with the major or minor premise omitted. In the enthymeme of Aristotle's conception, however, the conclusion may be drawn from a premise based on general opinion, rather than one of universal application. Here the argument is based on probability. It seems apparent that Quintilian did not believe that oratory should consist of mere logical chains. After discussing deductive reasoning, he adds: It seems to me that I have gone through the sacred ritual of those who deliver precepts on rhetoric. But one must exercise judgment in using the precepts. For though I do not think it unlawful to use syllogisms occasionally in a speech, yet I should by no means like it to consist wholly of syllogisms, or to be crowded with a mass of epicheiremata and enthyrnemes, for it would then resemble the dialogs and diSputations of logicians, rather than oratorical pleadings. . . . For what true orator has ever spoken in such a way?1 Regarding the use of examples Cicero wrote: The greatest support of a probability is furnished by first an example, then the introduction of a parallel case (Similitude); sometimes a fable, even if it be incredible, nevertheless influences people. 2 Aristotle felt that examples were best used in the form of supplementary evidence after the stating of an enthymeme. If they follow the enthyrnemes, they have the effect of witnesses giving evidence, and this always tells. For the same reason, if you put your examples first you must give a large number of them; if you put them last, a Single one is sufficient.3 lInstitutes, v. xiv. 27,32. zDe Oratore, XI. 40. 3Cooper, trans. The Rhetoric II. 20. 'x. ‘— 44, , 84 In their discussion of the peroration most of the ancients recommend similar principles. The thoughts of brevity and surnmarization pre- dominate. Aristotle also suggests devices of conciliation, amplifi- cation, and appeals to the feelings. 1 Finally we have in the speech Situation the third major aSpect of the rhetorical art as viewed by the classicists. Herein is included an investigation into the nature of the subject, the Speaker's purposes and the method of adapting the Speech to the Specific audience addressed. Hermagoras is credited with distinguishing between the quaestio infinita, the thesis or general question, and the quaestio finita, question which is limited by certain definite Specifications of time, place, and person. This latter is also called the cause or case. In the Orator, Cicero gives this advice: Whenever he can, the orator will divert the controversy from particular persons and circumstances to universal abstract questions, for he can debate a genus on wider grounds than a species. Whatever is proved of the whole is of necessity proved of the part. A question thus transferred from specific persons and circumstances to a discussion of a universal genus is called a thesis. 2 It Should be remembered that in his younger years Cicero had asserted in De Inventione that the orator should be concerned only with the cause. In De Oratore, however, he points out that all controversies can be and Should be related to the essence and nature of a general question.3 Clark declares regarding this mature view of Cicero: Thus Cicero, in enlarging on the thesis as a legitimate literary form adapted to the discussion of many questions not related to the law courts or the senate, was enabled to find a place for a number of his own literary works, including all his 11bid., 11. 18. 2De Oratore, XIV. 45-46. 31bid., II. xxxi. 133-134. ... l1- 85 discussions of the nature, value, and use of oratory and his essays on duty, politics, philosophy, friendship, old age, and the nature of the gods. By the very nature and variety of his own interests he was forced,almost as Isocrates was, to take a broad view of rhetoric or the philosophy of the word and to include a great deal that Aristotle's narrow view of rhetoric excluded. 1 Aristotle had dealt only with the limited question or cause under the headings of the epideictic, the deliberative, and the judicial. Occasional oratory is concerned with praise or blame and is delivered from the standpoint of the present. Aristotle recognized that this epideictic Speech often bordered on other types. He said ”To praise a man is in one respect akin to urging a course of action. ” That rhetoric which is called deliberative has also been referred to as political, advocating as it does some course of action relative to the future. According to Cicero the objective of deliberation is utility. This will be agreeable to the audience. The Speaker will ask such questions as--Is the proposed course of action possible? IS it necessary? Is it expedient or profitable in a material way? IS it honorable? As a Speech must be adapted, not alone to the truth, but also to the opinions held by the audience, we must first realize that the people are of two kinds, one uneducated and uncultivated who prefer utility to honor, and the other humane and cultivated who place honor above all things. 2 The third kind of rhetoric has to do with the justice of actions which took place in the past. Forensic rhetoric belongs to the advocate, and its ideal theater is in the court of law. The matters of the status and of the fivefold division of the speech particularly apply to judicial oratory. Particular attention should be given by the forensic Speaker to the study of motivation and of all laws, civic and natural. 1Clark, p. 132. 2De Oratore, I. 90. 86 We have briefly named most of the essentials of classical rhetoric. How influential were these? To what extent did they pervade learned society? Although these precepts of ancient rhetoric are clearly designed primarily to train boys and young men to win audiences by addressing them orally in public, we must recall. that from the earliest time, these precepts also guided those who addressed the public in writing. The epistles of St. Paul and Seneca, whether read aloud to groups or passed from hand to hand in manuscript, derive thdir structure and style from the same precepts of rhetoric as do the speeches of Demosthenes or Cicero. So do the verse epistles of Horace and the political, moral, and philosophical essays (or ”written speeches") of Isocrates and Cicero. Indeed all ancient literature, verse and prose, was ran- sacked by the professors of grammar and rhetoric to furnish models of rhetorical style for schoolboys; and the precepts of style elaborated by the rhetoricians guided all writers of Greek and Latin, who in their boyhood had received instruction in the schools of grammar and rhetoric. l (emphasis ours) Having considered the nature of classical rhetoric, we would now enquire into the nature of the rhetoric of the age of the second sophistic. On page 76 the cause of the new rhetoric was intimated. This should first be expanded before analysing the constituents of p0pular oratory in this era. Baldwin has well said that s0phistic is ”. . . the historic demonstration of what oratory becomes when it is removed from urgency "2 By so declaring, Baldwin would refer us to the age of subject matter. that succeeded Cicero's impeachment of Verres. Democracy faded and the voice of the people was no longer heard in deliberative affairs. Government became "top heavy, " and the officials of the Emperors, under the guidance of their masters, made all the necessary decisions. Neither deliberative or forensic oratory could flourish as before, and 1Clark, pp. 142-143. 2Charles Sears Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1959), p. 7. o u ‘e. 'o I e a,. p ‘ .,.‘ .“ ‘\<. It! 87 thus the field of occasional oratory with its encomium, or panegyric, was the only field left available for public Speakers. Here was an area of address which catered to personal trimnphs and exhibitionism, and these soon came to the fore. Under the dictatorship of the principate freedom of discussion in the school and in the forum ceased. It was not safe to dis— cuss live issues. The more remote from reality or fictitious a theme was, the safer it was. Rhetoric is a living force only under some form of democratic or republican government. It dies or is emasculated under tyrannies, absolutisms, or dictatorships. 1 Clark also refers to Harry Caplan's study ”The Decay of Eloquence at Rome in the First Century. "2 After quoting at length from those first century writers who discussed oratory's decline, Caplan says ”We learn that some of these clearly realized that eloquence flourishes best on soil dedicated to free institutions. "3 The new rhetorical practice came to control the theory of edu- cation; and thus seed was planted for an enduring harvest. Apart from Quintilian and Tacitus, there were to be few effective critics of sophistic for several centuries. Even Augustine's disparagement of it was only indirect, as he pointed to a better way. Turning now to the nature of sophistic we are first impressed with the fact that the rhetoric of this age was an end in itself rather than a means. It was Asianism revived. Its purpose was to give effective- ness to the speaker, whereas the purpose of classical rhetoric was to give effectiveness to truth. While Invention had headed the list of the lClark, p. 216. 2Studies in Speech and Drama in Honor of Alexander M. Drummond, pp. 295-325. 31bid. IJ ‘-.. .‘u o a .“ '~ 88 former canons of rhetoric, and Style and Delivery had been placed in the opposite position, this was reversed by the sophistic tendency. The new custom placed Style and Delivery in the position of primacy and almost ignored Invention, except as it existed in ready-to-hand forms. As previously mentioned, it seemed as though the compulsion of great themes which demanded eXpreSSion had ceased. Had Aristotle or Isocrates been able to behold the new trend, it would have seemed to them that the whole world was now but one vast play-house and that every Speaker's platform had become a stage. Declamation was not now an exercise to aid one striving towards perfection, it was, instead, an opportunity for exhibitionism. Virtuosity was the only real virtue. Instead of training youth to lead in public policy and to secure justice for individuals, declamatio had become an end in itself, the rhetor's own kind of oratory. As an exhibition of skill it was his easiest means of winning pupils, and of holding them by letting them exhibit themselves. The inherent vice of arti- ficiality, which Quintilian admits by implication, he nevertheless assigns entirely to perverted educational practise. He would recall declamatio from invention to actuality, and from diSplay to exercise. 1 This reference to declamation as Quintilian found it points out the direction of emphasis in his time. The young people of the day had to have their natural and national liking for the beauty of the Spoken word satisfied. The declamation as a work of literary art had become an end in itself. 7‘ The criticism of Petronius, written about the middle of the first century A. D. agrees with the picture depicted above when it declares that: ". . . the net result of all these high-flown themes and the empty thunder of their platitudes is that, when the pupils make their (19133.5. in the 1Charles Sears Baldwin, Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1959), p. 71.‘ 2Thonssen and Baird, p. 99, citing W. A. Edward's Suasoriae of Seneca the Elder, pvaiii-xix. IA' 89 courts, they feel themselves translated into a foreign world. "1 It would seem that the exercises departed further and further from reality and the more fantastic and unreal the themes, the better they suited the new declaimers. It is significant that Tacitus, a contemporary of Quintilian, declares the old-fashioned method of teaching to have been vastly superior to the methods used in the schools of declamation of his day.2 Donald Lemen Clark of our own day con- tends that even the declamations under the Empire served good purposes when taught by "sensible and experienced teachers. "3 Clark adds however, that in this Opinion he differs from Bossier, Bornecque, Summers, Caplan, and Baldwin. Probably, however, he misunder- stands the latter, who were ridiculing declamation only as taught by soPhists and not that kind of declamation approved by Quintilian and other classical writers. Let us look more closely at the exercises which were introductory to declamation. The work of Hermogenes is probably the best known as regards the progymnasmata. He wrote in the second century and belonged to the university city of Tarsus. In Hermogenes there are in all twelve exercises which introduce the boys to the rudiments, at least, of all three kinds of rhetoric. Deliberative rhetoric is represented by fable, tale, chreia, proverb, thesis, legislation; judicial rhetoric by confirmation and refutation, and commonplace; epideictic rhetoric by encomiuzn, impersonation, comparison, and description. 4 lIbid., citing Petronius: The Satyricon, p. l. 2‘Tacitus, "A Dialogue on Oratory, " 30-35, The Complete Works of Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: The Modern Library, 1942), pp. 758-764. 3Clark, p. 251. 41bid., p. 181. ”‘1 There an N.‘ teacher :0 Sent . 9 n.3,-..” "r. .AG».C.S%A . Act 1261' were YES"; 5631162211035 551‘. cevelauznz the: grammar, Li's 3111 there 31.-g; Pdgm wart-g.- . h: let “Other 5 “it: that 1119,. g- 35312111ar, Practice 1:1 .- 153318 es. oAss a s of Eu c : ' 51-0133 Whlc AA' ...: .is .' . in \51 "Or t r,_ .3 he prof $103.1; 90 There are several very interesting things for the modern teacher to note in these ancient Greco-Roman elementary exercises in Speaking and writing. For one thing, the earliest of them, those practiced while the boys were still studying in the grammar school, were closely related to the study of literature. The boys paraphrased and retold stories which they were reading. They were trained to utilize proverbs and sententious sayings from the poets as amplifying material in developing themes. They were trained to make Similar use of episodes from history and from biography. . . . Another interesting thing to notice is the preoccupation with religion, morals, and right conduct. With the Greeks and Romans, Homer and other early poets took the place the Bible has with us. Consequently the teachers of grammar, with whom the boys read these poets, took on something of the function of the Sunday school teacher as well as those of the teacher of grammar, literature and composition. Of course pagan morals were taught. There was nothing about faith, hope and charity; but there was frank and thorough inculcation of the cardinal pagan virtues of fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance. 1 Yet another striking characteristic of the progymnasmata was the fact that they mainly dwelled upon the general rather than the particular. Practice in declamation followed the completion of the elementary exercises. As a school exercise declamation fell into two divisions-- the suasoria which used historical or quasi-historical settings, and had for its objective the persuasion of one individual or of a group towards or away from a course of action; and secondly, the controversia,which was related to the forensic oratory of the law courts. In this latter exercise fictitious legal cases were engaged in, with the student acting either for the prosecution or the defense. Controversia was held by the Romans to be the more important of the two kinds of declamation. The themes for Declamatio were Similar and in some cases identical to those employed by Seneca. Typical ones were lClark, pp. 208- 209. -5... - .q I - ~,O‘ O .... .11: 11:6 3. 3.." a L ...-m... 7‘ ...,r. -:--:..A:»13-4. U. ...] ‘ n ' .... - . Pfiw‘r'qt W‘.‘ 0" ~~ 3d J......‘C.. talc L . 91 historical or semi-historical such as "Demosthenes swears that he did not take the bribe, " and ”Should the trOphies erected by the Greeks be taken down?" Fictitious themes included "The man who fell in love with a statue" and "The Magician who wished to die because he was unable to kill another magician, an adulterer. "1 It should be noted that the classical schools were in agreement with the use of both the elementary exercises and the practice of declamation. During the age of the second sophistic these were still the prominent methods of instruction; but they had changed in purpose as witnessed to by Quintilian, Tacitus, Petronius, and other writers. Quintilian conjectures that Demetrius Phalereus invented the declamation on fictitious subjects. Originally a school exer- cise, it soon became little more than a showpiece permitting display and exhibitionism. Quintilian approved of the declamation, as he understood it, but not as it was practiced about him. He admitted that the "practice has so degenerated through the fault of the teachers, that the license and ignorance of declaimers have been among the chief causes that have corrupted eloquence. " So he recom- mended its use as an exercise having "a very close resemblance to reality, " even though admitting that the current practice was out of gear with his intentions. Z This misuse of declamation illustrates best the most striking characteristic of the SOphistic, which was virtuosity. The accompany- ing stress upon improvisation, memory and delivery reveals this same characteristic. A later quotation from Lucian of Samosata indicates the emphasis upon these elements by sophistic orators. Baldwin describes the customary methods of improvisation: The improvisation was mainly of style. It consisted of fluency of rehandling, of variations upon themes, and in patterns, so common as to constitute a stock-in-trade. It permitted the use over and over again not only of stock examples and illustrations, lBaldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, pp. 10-11. 2Thonssen and Baird, p. 98. ,.,.;.. T‘he sarne *ol‘t Au ' 9:.» °' ‘. .- “-uoh 9" ' ' " ‘ ””5: 31521653. er, ' o. .- ..... .. , 55.6iJU-DUO . Q “ — a 9H «m FJrLuECU .g- .- ‘ ':.‘. . ’.-‘ Sec 411.8 CS. - ' . ;‘~~ the rnznc ..0.. . , . .-J ' 3.212 1118 Clix. . ~-‘. “n.1,: :. EJCA. b‘JbJILQV\ . ‘ n ~ 0 a;,,.;_ 0" \ ‘0 GH‘A‘I'I ,:' g:..1.:..q, 0‘ Inuli‘gqll. : posed 110331 St ' 1 umformlv re: Country was 1 products, 1:. learning and indeed the Wk“ The element \ .riial habits of f The fourth a stain is the ele \ 4:119. literary 6.1 it 1‘ ..a1 ,and vehe: his in an e ; d‘QQ :1,- ’1'! 92 but of successful phrases, modulated periods, even whole descriptions. It was the art of a technician, not of a composer. l The same writer tells us that dilation, after virtuosity, was the next characteristic feature of the soPhistic. Dilation depended upon the devices of ecPhrasiS, with both higher and lower levels of decorative description. The third characteristic of the oratory of this age was that of pattern. For the composition of the whole Speech SOphistic generally had little care. That planned sequence, that leading on of the mind from point to point, which is the habit of great orators and the chief means of cogency, presupposes urgency toward a goal. Sephistic often had no goal. The audience need be won only to admiration, not to decision. . . . As if to mark the lack of individual planning for cogency, SOphistic is commonly com- posed upon set patterns. No other body of oratory has so uniformly resigned itself to forms. . . . The encomium of a country was expected to deal with its situation, climate, products, its race, founders, government, its advancement in learning and literature, its festivals and its buildings, unless indeed the whole encomium were based on one of these topics. 2 The elementary exercises referred to earlier also illustrate the typical habits of form or pattern in sophistic oratory. i The fourth and final characteristic of sophistic suggested by Baldwin is the elaboration of style. The devices employed for this include literary allusion and archaism, decorative imagery, balance, clausala,and vehemence. It is in an essay of Lucian of Samosata (c. 180 A. D.) written to caricature contemporary Speaking practices that we find a graphic, if overdrawn, picture of the sophistic trend. Contrast his counsel with the classical model which has been previously outlined. Regarding qualifications and rules he has the following to offer: 11bid., p. 15. zBaldwin, pp. 20-21. them, unre- be hah’isgmg the thickest used by the . )011 ’10 li- -Q Demgsther‘t the 3‘18!) “ft: PiECes the: . S‘PPI) Of :3: theans. EEC}, 93 Bring with. you, then, as the principal thing, ignorance; secondly, recklessness, and thereto effrontery and Shameless— ness. Modesty, respectability, self-restraint, and blushes may be left at home, for they are useless and somewhat of a hindrance to the matter in hand. But you need also a very loud voice, a shameless Singing delivery, and a gait like mine. . . . Let your clothing be gaily-coloured. . . . Have also many attendants, and always a book in hand. 1 . . . pay especial attention to outward appearance, and to the graceful set of your cloak. Then cull from some source or other fifteen, or anyhow not more than twenty, Attic words, drill yourself carefully in them, and have them ready at the tip of your tongue. . . . Whenever you Speak, Sprinkle in some of them as a relish. Never mind if the rest is inconsistent with them, unrelated, and discordant. Only let your purple stripe be handsome and bright, even if your cloak is but a blanket of the thickest sort. Hunt up obscure, unfamiliar words, rarely used by the ancients. . . . AS for reading the classics, don't you do it--either that twaddling Isocrates or that uncouth Demosthenes or that tiresome Plato. No, read the speeches of the men who lived only a little before our own time, and these pieces that they call 'exercises,‘ in order to secure from them a supply of provisions which you can use up as occasion arises. 2 Concerning Invention the counsel of Lucian is to avoid effort by all means. Eschew hard themes and the classical writers. In the moral realm this avoidance of stern endeavour will lead to personal effrontery and a sordid private life, in short--the reverse of what classical writers would have urged as cultivating e_th_qs. AS for _l_<_)_g_p_s_, Lucian warns against logical sequence or reasoned presentations. In their stead strained analogies and odd precedents should be employed. "If you are Speaking of a case of assault or adultery at Athens, mention instances in India or Ecbatana. " 1Thonssen and Baird, p. 104. Citing Lucian, The Loeb Classical Library, IV, 155. 21bid., pp. 104-105. Citing Lucian, ibid., 155-159. . ..., enzvfiuo: :‘r. C. . infioonlh r h u Iaie :0 pen: a ,. 1: 11:5: I’D . 7 n1 , D U It ielivery 5'. u h.‘lt slalu‘.‘ sophistic is 1‘: excess anj ,4. be Escaped. SUCh ‘3': Skill is a‘fail. and PrOgr ESE 0f Words C 311‘. cepthn. T t: it 94 Regarding Arrangement, Lucian urges: Take no pains at all that the first thing, just because it really is first, shall be said at the appr0priate time, and second directly after it, and the third after that, but say first what- ever occurs to you first. . . .1 This caricature emphasizes style and delivery as the chief ingredients in the presentation which will give fame to the Speaker. The delivery Should be such as to fascinate the audience, rendering the orator the cynosure of their attention constantly. To this end the sophistic Speaker should frequently slap his thigh, parade the platform, and manifest all kinds of extreme bodily actions. Baldwin summarises excellently when he says: It is the drum that marks sophistic. Few of the devices of style so carefully cultivated are sophistic in themselves. What is sophistic is the use of them all, as from a classified store, in excess and with insistent emphasis. The sophistic style cannot be escaped. It is always saying, Here is style. Such rhetoric is not worthless. Some of its technical Skill is available for better ends. But as other arts, to survive and progress, must be more than technics, so eSpecially the art of words cannot go far without being animated by power of con- ception. Technic is promotive and educative only as it gives free course to motive and vision. As a system of education, therefore, sophistic was hollow. This is the issue raised by Plato; and he is justified by history. SOphistic could use its many devices only to exhibit skill, not to guide either the state or the individual. ’- Thus before us we have pictured a system of rhetoric that was shallow because it consisted of forms instead of Spirit. Its primary motive of self- exaltation made sophistic unworthy, and only the new inspiration emanating from the emerging sect of "the Christians" would prove sufficiently powerful ultimately to bring regeneration to rhetoric. 1lbid., p. 159. zBaldwin, p. 50. it: era 0: me sex;- ‘ u-;p o ,"'“‘-[“ P""""‘.’ 0" ...c‘:.\ H.LAC.CAAL A5- 4 95 Later it will be Shown that while in terms of time Paul belonged to the era of the second sophistic, his attitudes and practices were entirely different from what has been delineated in this chapter. urn”. ‘kLn A r“ 1:: even tha‘daht: . :51: is that it is 1 .:e :ztilizatzan 0: :zascstle t0 the C- Of all the It influential x thing like 5 Empire. , what might Roman civi Barbar zation unai through WEI maintained Of Its COUI‘ 1522", :131th MOIIOd .1 Should an}. bEen the s CHAPTER III SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND INFLUENCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL Paul is a man whom it is impossible to ignore. Whether we conceive of him as a deluded fanatic or as a saint makes no difference, for every thoughtful man must confess that his own immediate environ- ment is what it is in some reSpects because of Pauline influences. The civilization of the West would be entirely different had there been no apostle to the Gentiles. Wrote Sir William Mitchell Ramsay; one of the most brilliant scholars of classical learning: Of all the men of the first century, incomparably the most influential was the Apostle Paul. No one man exercised any- thing like so much power as he did in molding the future of the Empire. . . . Had it not been for Pau1--if one may guess at what might have been--no man would now remember Greek and Roman civilization. Barbarism proved too powerful for the Graeco-Roman civili- zation unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that civilization was preserved, or interest in it maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form. 1 Adolphe Monod in his French lectures gave the following Opinion: Should any one ask me to name the man who of all others has been the greatest benefactor of our race, I should say without 1William M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, pp. 53, 100, cited by Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand (Boston: W. A. Wilde Co. , 1945), pp. 246-247. 96 ..‘1‘ : :rt 1:; not all “M a: . I HY ' . “ l -cruent' *6 Che Q T1 was th res; . ~n “0:16 1': Roman ‘ . . , ' Y‘a’ Onent by D. we Ouuewt Tn ...".1' on “ . ‘ N to the present One half 0 :5 friend Luke m3 . ‘I '7‘ .33: the apostle t «l izence on civiliz. lie: written about listory, Christ indebted to him his of genius u”: "-3? 3% Augu 6‘. _ S tint k #333 near Milan :;;.‘y'r Beside hit: \- 4118, Augustin 97 hesitation the Apostle Paul. His name is the type of human activity the most endless, and at the same time the most use- ful, that history has cared to preserve. 1 While not all will agree with Monod, it is impossible to dispute Stalker's statement: "We owe to him hundreds of ideas which were never uttered before. "7- Kuist's following declaration is also undeniably factual. It was the result of his extensive teaching-travels throughout the Roman world that a Jewish sect became a world religion. His work was so important that some have even called him the second founder of the Christian church. He united the Occident and the Orient by bringing to Europe a religion which originated in the Orient. In this one way he predetermined the history of EurOpe to the present day.3 One half of the most influential book in the world, the New Testa- ment, owes its origin to Paul. He himself wrote a quarter of it, and his friend Luke wrote another quarter providing the only information about the apostle that we have outside of the Epistles. Nor does his influence on civilization stop with the New Testament. .More books have been written about this man and his ideas than about any other character in history, Christ excepted. In yet another way the world's literature is indebted to him because he was the Spark which kindled many later minds of genius who subsequently influenced Western culture. In the year 396 Augustine, with troubled mind and heart, was walking in a garden near Milan when he heard the voice of a child singing "Take, read'." Beside him was a copy of Paul's letter to the Romans. On Open- ing this, Augustine's eye fell on a passage so appr0priate to his present 1Adolphe Monod, Lucile ou La Lecture de la Bible, cited by Howard Tillman Kuist, The Pedagogy of St. Paul (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1925), p. 136. zJames Stalker, The Life of St. Paul (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), p. 93. 3Kuist, p. 141. F) 1::sirxilar to that re: two hundred b gated into one of l . it mine an :75: the field pr (3 ‘: lulque Chara. 1‘ 1.. Abram it “er, 1928); 98 condition and mood that his whole life was thereupon changed. There are millions today who believe that the new Augustine became an incalculable blessing to the whole Christian world. In a monastery cell centuries later, a miner's son turned priest read the same letter of Paul's. According to the historian Lindsay: "It was this contact with the Unseen [through the Epistle of St. Paul] which fitted Luther for his task as the leader of men in an age which was longing for a revival of moral living inspired by a fresh religious impulse. "1 John Wesley, the man who saved England from a bloody revolu- tion similar to that in France, the founder of Methodism and author of over two hundred books, found his way to service as a result of insight gained into one of Paul's major concepts. Wesley wrote as follows concerning this experience. In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate, where one was reading Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation, and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death—.”2 Even the field preaching of Methodism found its Spur in the example of the ancient Apostle.3 In;the field of oratory and rhetorical criticism the influence of this unique character has been no less marked. Every volume or set 1Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928), Vol. I, p. 204. ZThe Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. , Nehemiah Curnoch (ed.) 8 vols. (London: The Epworth Press, 1938), Vol. I, pp. 475-476. 3Abram Lipsky, John Wesley--A Portrait (New York: Simon 81 Schuster, 1928), p. 286. .; ‘ ”r org. '7‘1‘2165 ,3“? fireon, Beecher Tiers would imp-'3' -1 ' ‘ }_- niltbls be t .e c Tilerfarce, Brzg Eient artzcles 1r. :1: employed by he-A. .....‘Lasm. Thi (I) :eiugrnented by tan endeavour By Chrys 3: iii: more rec 6 When he s; quickens u 99 of volumes purporting to represent in some way the world‘ 3 great orators lists an impressive number of Speakers who as preachers, or as social reformers, have taken their cue from the Jew of Tarsus. To erase from the records of eloquence such names as Chrysostom, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Bernard, Wycliffe, Latimer, Knox, Luther, Calvin, Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Fenelon, Baxter, Wesley, Spurgeon, Beecher, Brooks, Talmadge, Fulton Sheen, and countless others would impoverish the history of oratory; but how much more would this be the case were the names of secular speakers like Wilberforce, Bright, and William Jennings Bryan also to vanish'. Recent articles in speech journals testify that the Pauline values are still employed by many as measuring rods in certain areas of speech criticism. This brief allusion to Paul's influence upon rhetoric could be augmented by similar allusions to his influence in most fields of human endeavour. By Chrysostom, Paul was called ”The Heart of the World. " A far more recent writer has asserted similarly. When he speaks to us, mysterious powers awaken in us. He quickens us, kindles us, arouses us to aspire and dream. We have to reckon with him as a world force. He is a potent factor in social evolution. He is one of the determining in- fluences in our Western civilization. The prints of his fingers are on our institutions. His ethical ideals stand in the market— place. His ideas are running in our blood. He has woven him- self into the fiber of our consciences and conduct. We are influenced by him even when we are least conscious of him. . . . The whole world would to-day be different had Saul of Tarsus never lived.1 We turn now to a brief sketch of Paul's life. The discussion of those elements in his early years which particularly shaped his oratory is reserved for a separate chapter. For the story of this life 1C. E. Jefferson, The Character of Paul (New York- Macmillan, 1923), p. 375. 7 ,_._,_ ., u; .-~ My 1;! , o “-n ~. 4‘ 4. . f r’ 100 the only major sources available are the Epistles and the book of Acts, and the following reconstruction is based upon the information in these. Tarsus of Cilicia, at the eastern boundary of the Mediterranean, was the birthplace of Saul the Jew. Probably he received his Gentile name of Paul simultaneously with his Hebrew patronymic. The occasion preceded the birth of Christ by about a year. In all likelihood, the Roman citizenship inherited from his father had its origin at the time of special services to the State by some of his ancestry. Judging from the accounts of historians of the day, not all the citizens of Tarsus had the same privilege. While this city was a rival of Athens and Alexandria as regards education, there is no evidence that Paul Spent any signifi- cant period attending the university of the Gentiles. To his birth and early residence in Tarsus may be traced the urbanity which the apostle at no time laid aside, and of which he was frequently a perfect model, many insinuating turns which he gives to his epistles, and a more skilful use of the Greek tongue than a Jew born and educated in Palestine could well have attained. 1 Paul's education came chiefly from Jewish sources. First, he was trained in the home for about six years; and then he began to attend the school of the local synagogue. During these years preceding his teens, Paul was instructed in the trade of tentmaker not because his parents were in poor circumstances but because it was Jewish custom that every boy should learn practical skills by which he could support himself if necessary. At the commencement of his teens, the boy journeyed to Jerusalem literally to sit at the feet of the Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22: 3). His instructor was later ranked among the seven greatest teachers of Israel. 1"Paul, .. Cyc10paedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, lst ed. Vol. VII (eds.) John McClintock and James Strong (New York: Harper 81 Brothers, Publishers, 1877),- 10 Vols. and 2 supplementary vols . #L W L kH‘ ‘4- ~_ 101 While personally tolerant and candid and well acquainted with Greek literature, Gamaliel remained an ardent Pharisee. Thus Paul could claim that he had been "taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (Acts 22:3). Scripture and tradition were his lesson books augmented by the parabolic ritual of the temple. Possibly at this time began the moral struggles characteristic of any earnest Jew who found his natural mind and heart at enmity with the strict moral requirements of the Torah. The New Testament makes its first mention of Paul when it notes that he was a witness of the martyrdom of Stephen. On that occasion he held the clothes of those who threw the stones, and the historian calls him a neanias --a young man, which probably means about the age of thirty to thirty-five (Acts 7:58). His ardent, intolerant nature fitted him for an Inquisitor, and the next mention of him in Acts depicts him as persecuting the infant church with all vigour. ”As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. ” Acts 8:3. Thus he endeavoured to compensate for the moral inadequacy experienceiby all who strove to comply with the multitudinous requirements of the Rabbis. Expecting to find at Damascus numerous believers in o 8dos-- "the way"—-Saul with helpers and authority from the chief priests set off for that city. Then occurred the crisis of his exPerience resulting in the persecutor's becoming apostle. The favorite of the Sanhedrin henceforward was to be the chief object of Jewish hatred. In three places in Acts, Luke tells the story of the transformation, twice using the testimony of Paul as given before his captors. While men may differ in their interpretation of what actually happened on the Damascus road, one thing is certain. Paul himself believed he saw a vision of the risen Christ entrusting him with a commission of the Gospel to all - . 102 the world. If he was deluded in this, we must attribute to coincidence the strange conformity of his later history and achievements to the message he believed Christ gave him that day. It is hardly sufficient to say that Luke invented the story, for most fabricators would have been far more careful to make the three accounts apparently harmonious in every detail. It is the very carelessness of the chronicler in this regard that suggests the honesty of his narration. Certainly the phenome— non of the Epistles requires a cause which if not identical with that given in Acts, must be yet as miraculous. Luke continues his story by saying that the blinded pharisee was led by the hand to the house of one of those whom he had planned to persecute. Upon his host's praying for him, the new convert found his sight restored and heard from Ananias the words: "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see the Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. " (Acts 22:14). Every word in this address strikes some chord which we hear sounded again and again in Paul' s Epistles. The new convert is not, as it is so common to say, converted from Judaism to Christianity--the God of the Jewish fathers chooses him. He is chosen to know God's will. That will is manifested in the Righteous One. Him Saul sees and hears, in order that he may be a witness of him to all men. The eternal will of the God of Abraham; that will revealed in a righteous Son of God; the testi- mony concerning him, a Gospel to mankind--these are the essentially Pauline principles which are declared in all the teaching of the apostle, and illustrated in all his actions. 1 Paul was baptized, broke his three days' fast, and began to preach in the synagogues that the expected Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus Christ. The greater part of the succeeding three years was spent in Arabia in a period of seclusion and study characteristic of the pre- paratory work of many Biblical figures. lMcClintock and Strong, Art. Paul. I... 4|» .>l \. ... . ‘u. . . ‘. . A '. v -. u. \- r' .‘. 103 His Damascus preaching was resumed after this period until "the Jews took counsel to kill him” (Acts 9:23). Learning of the plot to murder Paul, the local Christians supervised his escape over the city wall in a basket. Arriving at Jerusalem, he found that the leading clergy were suspicious of him because of his prior reputation. Barnabas became his Sponsor, relating the news from Damascus to his cautious fellow- labourers. Paul's preaching at the capital had an effect similar to that at Damascus and once more he fled. In his home city of Tarsus he pro- claimed his message until Barnabas arrived, suggesting that together they should preach at Antioch, where a great number had been converted to the faith. In this group Gentiles predominated, and possibly at this time Paul began to consider future plans for proclaiming to these non- Jews the message his own countrymen were rejecting. After a little more than a year, Paul was “ordained" and sent forth with Barnabas on a Gentile mission with the blessing of the local church leaders, who believed that the Holy Spirit had decreed the planned advance. This was the first of the three missionary journeys of Paul which are described at length in the book of Acts. On this occasion Cyprus was first visited, and here Sergius Paulus, the pro-consul was converted. Next they preached throughout Pisidia and Lycaonia. The cities of Antioch (not to be confused with the Antioch of Cilicia), Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe heard the earnest voices of the Jewish preachers. The record declares that in one city the people called Paul "Mercurius, because he was the chief Speaker. " While the earlier chapters of Acts spoke of ”Barnabas and Paul, " following the latter's ordination the order is reversed; and it is "Paul and Barnabas" henceforward. The usual pattern of events in each community con- Sisted of either a riot or revival as the result of the new preaching. 104 Some scholars place next in Paul's history the Jerusalem council described in Acts 15. On this occasion it was decided once and for all that the requirements of the ceremonial law should not be laid upon Gentile converts. It was also agreed that while Peter Should lead in the work among the Jews, Paul was to be the missionary to the Gentiles. In his second tour the Apostle was accompanied by Silas, and Timothy joined him at Lystra. The converts in Eastern Asia Minor were revisited and churches established in Galatia and Phrygia. At Troas he received the famous Macedonian call and crossed to Europe. In Philippi a church was planted which remained the most loyal of all to Paul throughout the remainder of his career and to which he wrote the New Testament letter bearing their name. Following his imprisonment at Philippi he preached at Thessalonica, which was the chief city of Macedonia. Renewed persecution drove him to Athens, where he debated with Stoics and Epicureans and gave the address from Mars Hill. The following eighteen months were spent at Corinth, the rich, prOSperous city which had arisen from its ruins. Probably it was from there that he wrote his two epistles to the Church at Thessalonica. A short stay at Ephesus climaxed this second tour; and he returned to Antioch his headquarters, via Caesarea and Jerusalem. Not for long, however, did he interrupt his travels. Taking the land route for the commence- ment of his third tour, he crossed Asia Minor to Ephesus, where he laboured for nearly two years. The letter to the Galatians had its birth here, and likewise the first epistle to the Corinthians. From Ephesus he went to Philippi and a subsequent three months stay in Greece during which he sent his famous letter to the Romans. His desire was to be at Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. Thus he decided to sail by Ephesus and bid farewell to the elders of that church during a brief stOp at Miletus. —__ L _ 105 The Jerusalem visit was the beginning of the end for Paul. In his anxiety to be "all things to all men” so far as loyalty to Christ permitted, he ventured into the temple to demonstrate that he had no prejudices against the laws of Moses. A mob was roused against him, and he would have died on the spot had not Roman soldiers intervened. For two years he was held at Caesarea and then embarked for Rome as the result of his appeal to Caesar. In Acts 27 we have the most famous account of any ancient ship- wreck, as Luke describes Paul's being cast ashore on the island of Malta. On arrival in Italy he was cheered by an escort of enthusiastic Christians en route to Rome. His ambition to preach at the heart of the Empire was on the eve of its fulfilment but in a different fashion from that he had conceived. While under the surveillance of the Praetorian guard, he was allowed to teach in his own hired rooms all who wished to visit him. Even some from among "Caesar's household" became his converts. During this period he dictated his messages to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and the Philippians, and to Philemon. The Pastoral Epistles--I and II Timothy and Titus—-suggest that Paul was released at his first trial. Most scholars believe that he visited Macedonia again and Asia Minor twice. It is even possible that he journeyed as far as Spain. We are not told the circumstances leading to his second im- prisonment; but about the year 67 A. D. he was martyred, probably by beheading at Nero's command. Shortly after his death the temples of Rome and of Jerusalem, the Capitoline Jupiter, and the sanctuary on Mount Zion, were destroyed; "as if to signalize the death of the hero of the faith, who had smitten with a fatal blow the stupendous fabrics of Gentile and Jewish worship. "1 1George P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church (London: Hodder 81 Stoughton, 1887), p. 30. 106 No man living in that age stands on so high a plane, intellect- ually and morally, as the Apostle Paul. No fact in the history of that period is more sublime than the unfaltering constancy of his faith. 1 llbid. , p. 29. ELEMENTS ‘ ‘ .— a Lafillltn (1: 25:31: regard”. ‘ _ - .n‘ l stair an enquiTB‘ grader, temper These influe L26 training and ;':.e Torah and J :::of learning a Ezla‘n'necl overto- l'iing and style First of all iiershe‘lm's Cha' 517-est in part it Excitable, parable, p, .'- ..... CHAPTER IV ELEMENTS WHICH SHAPED THE ORATORY OF PAUL Inasmuch as all oratory reflects to some degree the orator, the question regarding the elements which shaped the oratory of Paul is actually an enquiry into the formative influences reSponsible for the character, temperament, and peculiar genius of Paul. These influences mainly consist of his natural inheritance, the home training and city environment of Tarsus, the continued education in the Torah and Jewish traditions at Jerusalem, the practical instruc- tion of learning a trade, and most of all the climactic experience which he claimed overtook him on the Damascus road. Every phase of Paul's thinking and style can be traced to one or more of these influences. First of all he was born ”a Hebrew of the Hebrews. " To read Edersheim's characterization of this "peculiar people" is to understand at least in part what this involved. Excitable, impulsive, quick, sharp-witted, imaginative; fond of parable, pithy sayings, acute distinctions or pungent wit; reverent towards God and man, reSpectful in the presence of age, enthusiastic of learning and of superior mental endowments, most delicately sensitive in regard to the feelings of others; zealous, with intensely warm Eastern natures, ready to have each prejudice aroused, hasty and violent in passion but quickly assuaged. 1 Such was Paul by inheritance. He was born into a family of the Pharisees about a year or two before the birth of Christ. The Pharisees "deSpite too frequent intolerance and traditionalism, comprehended most that lEdersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ, p. 89, quoted by Kuist, p. 22. 107 V\< :11: at his birth iii, the Hebrew :ezei their only isms he had or. Silt name by W: 35201t01d, bu- 5:35.111 Rome‘s 2’90” of the ‘3 Jews belie The mod authOritV wistm ; miding to t: "‘Q'nCise his his The Cl: T‘sh 1"itual. r- l was godly and all that was patriotic in the later Judaism. "1 Probably it was at his birth that the names of Saul and Paul were given him. Saul, the Hebrew name, means ”asked for, " and possibly the parents viewed their only son as an answer to prayer. The New Testament tells us he had one sister but no other children are mentioned. "Paul" is the name by which he would be known among the Gentiles. "Paulus" is Roman rather than Greek and signifies "little. " Possibly from infancy he was small in physical form, but centuries later one Chrysostom was to describe him by saying "Three cubits in stature, he touched the sky. " Apparently he did not possess the kind of physique advantageous to a public figure, but this very drawback may have acted as a spur to his early ambitions. How Paul‘s father came by Roman citizenship we are not told, but the extension of the franchise was not uncommon to some in Rome's conquered lands. This part of his inheritance opened the doors of the whole Roman world to Paul. The significance of Paul's early years cannot be overestimated. The Jews believed that the home stood supreme as an educational institution. This is apparent in Paul's later writings. (Cf Eph 5:22-33; 6:1-4; Col 3:18-20) The modern Rousseauian theory that parents must win their authority over their offSpring by the superiority of parental wisdom and goodness found no place in Hebrew thought. On the contrary, parents ruled by divine right.z According to the Talmud the primary duties of the father were to circumcise his son, teach him the Torah, and have him instructed in a trade. The child's curiosity was constantly aroused by some phase of Jewish ritual, and his questions were answered by narratives from 1David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper and Brothers, n.d.), p. 21. 2F. H. Smith, Education in Ancient Israel from Earliest Times to 70 A.D. , cited by Kuist, p. 31. I'll I‘ 108 u '\ 109 sacred history. Object lessons were found in the pathway of everyday duties, and at set seasons of the year such as Passover and Pentecost the symbolic instruction was multiplied. »Pervaded by a continuous sense of the reality, holiness, purity, and graciousness of Jehovah in the manner and atmosPhere of his home life, the child's religious consciousness was awakened, stimulated, and nurtured. 1 From the dawn of understanding Jewish children were taught to memorize the sacred precepts until these were engraved upon the heart. This immersion in the Scriptures continued at the elementary school attached to the local synagogue where the child was sent at the age of seven and later still when he sat at the feet of some learned Rabbi if, like Paul, he was sent to the holy city. This concentration upon the Old Testament is one of the most evident influences upon Paul traceable in his oratory and writings. In his epistles alone he quotes from the Old Testament over ninety—five times (excluding quotations in Hebrews) and makes references to these same writings on about half as many occasions. Such results were inevitable when we recall that his race believed that one who could not read was no true Jew and consequently the Old Testament was used as the spelling book in hundreds of synagogues and schools throughout the whole Roman empire. We need to recall the pedagogical and rhetorical elements of the Hebrew Scriptures if we are rightly to trace their influence on the Apostle to the Gentiles. First there is Moses, who according to Laurie in his Pre-Christian Education2 was the greatest of schoolmasters. Paul quotes from, or refers to, Moses twenty-five times. He was aware that Moses had been an orator par excellence. How often he had read 1Kuist, p. 33. 2S. S. Laurie, Historical Survey of Pre-Christian Education, p. 66, cited by Kuist, p. 24. 110 the seven sermons from the mount given by Moses and recorded in Deuteronomy'. He would have observed that this first of Israel's preachers had a personality which actually radiated the truth of his messages (Ex 34:27-35). Furthermore Moses had taught by the power of example (Num 12:3, 7; Heb 3:2, 5) as well as by word, symbol, command, and act (Ex 19:1-6; Deut 1:1, 9-17; Ex 7:8-13; Ex 14:10-31; Ex 15: 1-18). Also in the Old Testament he found some that taught by an appeal to the feelings primarily. These were the Priests with their significant linen robes, grave demeanour, and colourful symbolic ceremonies. From the Psalmists with their sublimity and tenderness Paul "was prepared to teach the 'universal language of religious emotion. "'1 Most of all the PrOphets contributed to his ideal. They were the masters of the art of persuasive speech. They faced the task of opening blind eyes and deaf ears to the per- ception of truth. Theirs was the mission to impel weak wills to right living. They rubbed shoulders with their fellows and knew and understood them. They knew how to teach. They won attention not only because their enthusiasm was contagious but because they called for and expected it. They introduced their lessons with: "Ho'. " "Come near'. " "Hear ye! " "Behold'. " ”Listen'. " ”Awake, awake'. " "Arise, shine'."' (Isa 29: 1:55: 1; 34: 1; 1:10; 44:1; 46:3; 48:1, 12; Jer 2:4; Isa 24:1; 32:1; 42:1; 59:1, etc; 49: 1; 51:9, 17, etc. 52: 1; 60:1). They utilized likely occasions to impart truth. (Jer 7:1-7; 20: 1-6; 26:1-7.) They found points of contact in their immediate circumstances. (Eze 24:15-18). They chose concrete illustrations from life all about them, from nature (Jer 8:7; 12:8-10; 13:23; 14:2-6) and from history (Micah 7:18-20; Hosea 11:1-4). They used pointed questions to probe sluggish minds (Isa 40:6, 12, 27, 28; 53:1 etc. ). They proceeded from the known to the unknown (Ia 28:23-29). They used proverbs (Eze 18:1-4ff; Jer 31:29), parables (Isa 521-7; 27:2-6; Eze 17:1-24; 24:1-5), figures of speech (la 48: 18, 19; Jer 2:13, 17:1 etc), to accommodate their truth to the understanding of their hearers. They employed visions (Jer 1:11, 12, 13ff; 24:1-10; Eze 1, 2, 37: 1-14 'Kuist, p. 26. l‘fi their “'er 210W with This leng: 1113215 Char“ Ct liraC'el‘iStic s a}: ‘ Z 5' Prophets , “ fa'fi’liliar wi 111 etc.), symbols (Eze 4:1-4; 19:1-9 etc.), object lessons (Jer 13: 12-14; 18: 1-4ff; 36: 1-8ff; Ezek 4:4ff., 9ff; 5:1ff., 21:1-7), and dramatic actions (Jer 13: l-7ff., 16:1-4, etc.) to stir the imagination and touch the conscience. They cast their messages into acrostics (Lamentations 1-5) and poetic form, choosing the meter best adapted to their message (Cf Swift, Education in Ancient Israel, p. 36). They atmosphered all their contacts with tremendous earnestness (of which 1 Kings 18 is typical). They met adverse situations with a courage that defied their antagon- ists (Jer 38:1-13; 21:9, etc.). They spoke not because they had to say something, but because they had something to say (As C. Alphonso Smith, What Can Literature Do for Me? New York, 1918, p. 18). They were the spokesmen of Jehovah (Isa 6:6ff.; Jer 1:17 ff; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2: 1,4, 6, etc). They clothed their words with a ring of authority that made their message glow with conviction (Isa 44:6, 21; 45:1, 14; 48:17). 1 This lengthy quotation is given because it best summarizes not only the characteristics of the preaching of the prophets but also the characteristics of Paul's oratory. Deissmann rightly placed Paul among the prophets. 2 Like them he sprang from among the common people and was familiar with daily toil. Like them he faced the task of opening the blind eyes and deaf ears to the perception of truth. He had a similar enthusiasm and conviction of divine call, and a compelling earnestness. It is beyond question that Paul's study of the prophets was one of the chief elements which shaped his own mesSages. While at Jerusalem studying under the Rabbi Gamaliel, Paul would have been subjected not only to the Old Testament but to the vast accumulation of Jewish lore and wisdom which later became known as the Talmud. lKuist, pp. 26-27. 2St. Paul, p. 6. The Til-'3" Iteasures '1'32116 rfu‘. andthe if many \‘31U -3:k of a gartance. by othe :S of the WOI Every 36 :ihaman folly it me from tl :aitions attei :aiating fro ‘irire of Ta: Einade son ii was fam ilfe corner: It language ilpetent in ’m, . \.~ . the 1131111 “L‘s Rome. Tarsus tapital of the lithe peak 0 iamile ire l ‘9'1808 112 The Talmud, that great written museum containing untold treasures of a civilized world of six bygone centuries, that wonderful and universal encyclopaedia, which with the Mishna and the Midrash which follow in its train, presents twice as many volumes as the Encyclopaedia Brittanica . . . Not the work of a few individuals, but a work of great scientific im- portance. It is a work by the whole Jewish nation, as well as by others who indirectly contributed to that remarkable gazette of the world. . . .1 Every Gentile reader of the Talmud knows it to be a monument of human folly as well as a storehouse of truth. Apparently Paul sifted the one from the other for we do not find him citing from the Jewish traditions after the manner of the Rabbis of his day. Nevertheless there are areas in Paul's arguments which reflect the rabbinical mode of discussion. So far the influences we have been considering have been those Also to be considered is the Graeco-Roman emanating from Judaism. culture- of Tarsus upon Paul. It should be remembered that this culture had made some impingement even upon Judaism. For example while Paul was familiar with the Scriptures in the Hebrew language, he was mOre conversant with the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. The language of his infancy was Koiné Greek, although he was also competent in handling the vernacular Aramaic of Palestine. Paul was thus the native of a city mainly Greek in pOpulation and incorporated with Rome. Tarsus is called by Paul ”no mean city. " It was the western capital of the united province of Syria-Cilicia, and- in Paul's day it was at the peak of its fame and prosPerity. Situated only three-quarters of a mile from the sea, it enjoyed lucrative commerce through her port at the mouth of the river on which the main city was situated. lIrnber, U. S. Commissioner of Education Report, 1894-95, Vol. II, p. 1808, cited by Kuist, p. 29. ‘ I x gating to I): 1:316 Strabo-- ”A f: -, 1" U .eep;y that they place the 113 According to Dr. David Smith "she was at that period the world's principal seat of learning!‘ He quotes the geographer Strabo to this effect, as does almost every commentator on the early life of Paul. Wrote Strabo-- So deeply are the people there imbued with zeal for philosophy that they have surpassed Athens and Alexandria and every other place that can be mentioned. And Smith adds-- And she possessed this proud distinction which Alexandria alone shared--thathersavants were all natives. Students flocked to her schools from other lands, but she had no need of alien teachers. On the contrary, she had no room for the multitude of her learned sons, and she sent them abroad to enlighten the world. 'Rome eSpecially can learn the multitude of the city's savants; for she is full of Tarsians and Alexandrians. '1 We naturally ask-—did Paul ever attend the university of Tarsus ? Did he imbibe through Gentile teachers hellenistic thought? This has long been debated, but the weight of the evidence today in scholarly circles suggests that Paul's education was strictly Jewish with no formal training of length from Gentiles. Admittedly his Rabbi Gamaliel was almost unique in Jewish circles for his study of the writings of the Greeks, and admittedly Paul on at least three occasions quotes from these sources. Nevertheless Paul' S knowledge of the pagan world and thought came primarily from his mixing with men rather than with books, and the fragments he quotes from heathen authors- are those which would have been known to any man in the street regardless of whether he could read. Farrar says on this point-- But who that has read St. Paul can believe that he has ever studied Homer, or Aeschylus, or Sophocles? If he had done so, would there--in a writer who often "thinks in quotations"-- 'David Smith, Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper and Brothers, n.d.), p. 18. enerEV 3'13 '13: babe D1 gsne thr 31; Sophists o :3: then was 13 :Jgraphers of l :giined either :s:rictors of I Firs-11y, i ;;istle to the C ii men of all tend to all. its the gospel farlsalem, But ther L“: had been t 114 have been no touch or trace of any reminiscence of, or allusion to, epic or tragic poetry in epistles written at Athens and at Corinth and besides the very tumuli of Ajax and Achilles ? . . . Nothing can be more clear than that he had never been subjected to a classic training. . . . It is-rdoubtful whether the incomparable energy and individuality of his style and of his reasoning would not have been merely enfeebled and conventionalised if he had gone through any prolonged course of the only training which the Sophists of Tarsus could have given him. 1 What then was the main influence of Tarsus upon Paul? Most modern biographers of Paul who can claim to be scholarly reject the idea that he gained either literary tastes or the Stoical philosophy from the instructors of Tarsus. What then remains ? Firstly, it was his citizenship of Tarsus which gave the future apostle to the Gentiles his cosmopolitan outlook. He learned to mix with men of all classes and of all nations, and his sympathies were to extend to all. It was peculiarly fitting that this man who was to communi- cate the gospel to EurOpe was not born in Palestine, or reared at Jerusalem. But there was something else Paul learned from Tarsus. This city had been the fitting burial place of Julian the apostate. It was counted by its contemporaries among the tria kappa kahista, i. e. the ”three wicked K's" of the day, and these were Kappadokia, Kilikia, and Krete. (Tarsus being a main metropolis of Cappadocia). Culture had not brought moral renovation to Tarsus. Instead it was the center of orgiastic idolatry. Impurity, gluttony, and brutality characterized the syncretistic worship of the city. Paul would have seen the statue of Sardanapalus, traditional founder of Tarsus. This figure is repre- sented as cynically snapping his fingers while uttering the sentiment inscribed upon its pedestal--"Eat, drink, enjoy thyself; the rest is lFrederic W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul (London: Cassell and Company, Limited, 1908), pp. 22-23. Henceforward referred to as St. Paul. o . 1' ’P -‘ LIV ...-n: . ...-A... a i ' A n ”_ ‘ I . H‘:.AC~ :1:an his 15'an there impelled to issible fOr t rifle he lean :rzgin in Part lit} . .\ Lplaces rllme ”all t] 11.35“. The ~ . . v ‘Ici‘cl ‘u and the 115 nothing. " The earnest Jewish lad must early have been impressed that the highest culture, the most thorough education, without a knowl- edge of God, could not banish the darkness of the soul. He would realise, from the best that paganism had to offer, man's helplesness when bereft of divine revelation. Later these convictions were to find expression in burning words in such passages as Romans 1:22-32. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise. . . . They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. RSV One cannot help enquiring--What would the future history of the world have been if this Jewish lad had conformed to the pattern of the Tarsian majority? Paul probably laboured at his trade of tent-making in Tarsus following his years of rabbinical training in Jerusalem. In all liklihood he was there during the years of Christ's ministry in Palestine. Thus compelled to join the practical world of men and things it was im- possible for the Jewish scholar to become a bookish recluse. At his trade he learned many things that books can never teach. The sober commonsense so apparent in his counsel to troubled churches owed its origin in part at least to his intercourse with the Gentiles in the marketplaces of Tarsus. Here the foundation was laid for him to become "all things to all men. " This too had its influence on the oratory of Paul. The Speaker in this instance is one who is also “mighty in deeds" and the energy of his labours enters into every word he utters. The most 5 :::::sic'ere