CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PLINY AND TRAJAN
PLINY’S LETTER TO TRAJAN AND THE EMPEROR’S “RESCRIPT”--GENUINENESS
OF CORRESPONDENCE
INTRODUCTORY
A flood of light is poured upon the early history of Christianity in
the correspondence which passed between the Emperor Trajan and his
friend and minister Pliny the Younger, who had been appointed to the
governorship[18] of Bithynia and Pontus, the district lying in the north
of Asia Minor.
The letter of Pliny, containing his report of the trial and inquiry
into the matter of the accused Christians of his province, and asking
for direction, was written to the Emperor Trajan in the autumn of
A.D. 111; and the reply of Trajan, which contained the famous
_rescript_ concerning the Christian sect--an ordinance which regulated
the action of the government of Rome towards the disciples of Jesus for
many long years--was dispatched a few months later.
The correspondence was quoted and commented upon at some length by
the Latin Father Tertullian before the close of the second century.
Eusebius again refers to it, translating the quotations of Tertullian
from a Greek version of the celebrated Christian Father.[19]
For various reasons, some critics have thrown doubt upon the
genuineness of these two famous letters. The main cause of the
hesitation in receiving them is the strong evidence contained in the
correspondence bearing upon the existence and influence and great
numbers of the Christian sect at the beginning of the second century.
That a _pagan_ author should supply us with the information--and
especially a pagan author of the rank and position which the younger
Pliny held--the adversaries of the Faith misliked.
These very doubts, however, as in other cases of doubt respecting the
authenticity of some of our Christian and pagan writings bearing on the
facts of very early Christianity, have established the genuineness of
the pieces in question, the doubts requiring an answer, and the answer
involving a careful and thoughtful investigation. It is singular, in
their scarcely veiled hostility to the religion of Jesus, how some
scholars attempt to discredit all the references to the Christians in
early heathen writers.
In this case the investigation has completely proved the genuineness of
the correspondence in question. Bishop Lightfoot, in the course of his
thorough and scholarly examination, does not hesitate to write that the
genuineness of the important Letters “can now only be questioned by a
scepticism bordering on insanity.”
Amongst other critics who completely brush away all doubts here, he
quotes Aldus Manutius, Mommsen, and the French writer (no friend
to Christianity) Renan. The same view is also unhesitatingly taken
by Allard and Boissier in France, and Ramsay in England. In any
controversy which may arise here obviously the attestation of
Tertullian in the last years of the century in which the Letters were
written is of the highest value.[20]
I
THE CHARACTER OF TRAJAN
When Domitian was assassinated, and Nerva was proclaimed Emperor, a new
spirit was introduced into the occupants of the imperial dignity. Nerva
represented the old conservative and aristocratic spirit of the Roman
Senate. He only reigned a short two years, but his great act was the
association in the supreme power of one who in all respects would and
could carry out the ancient traditions of Roman government, of which
Nerva was a true representative.
Nerva died early in 98, and his associate Trajan at once became
sole Emperor. In many respects this Trajan was the greatest of the
despotic masters who in succession ruled the Roman world. At once a
renowned soldier and a far-seeing statesman, his complex personality is
admirably and tersely summed up by Allard (_Histoire des Persécutions_,
i. 145), who writes of him: “On eût cru voir le sénat romain lui-même
prenant une âme guerrière et montant sur le trône.”
* * * * *
As a rule, writers of sacred history treat the memory of Trajan with
great gentleness. The Christian writers in the second half of the
second century shrink from seeing in him a persecutor of the Church.
They were, of course, biassed in their judgment, being loth to think
of a great Emperor like Trajan as a persecutor of their religion. As
we have already remarked, the written Acts of Martyrs were very few
during the first and second centuries; and the name and memory of the
earliest brave confessors of the Name, save in a few very notable
instances, quietly and quickly faded away; so the recollections of
the second-century Fathers in the matter of the State policy in the
past, with regard to Christianity, were somewhat vague and uncertain.
Later, in the early and middle years of the fourth century, Eusebius,
though in his time the fact of continuous persecution in the past had
become generally known, tries to exculpate the memory of Trajan as a
persecutor, but with very doubtful success.
This favourable and somewhat generous view of Trajan held its own
through the early Middle Ages. A striking and beautiful story
illustrative of these estimates is told of Pope Gregory the Great
(A.D. 590-604) by both his biographers, Paul the Deacon (close
of eighth century) and John the Deacon (close of ninth century). The
Bishop of Rome once, walking through the Forum of Trajan, was attracted
by a sculptured bas-relief representing the great Emperor showing pity
to a poor aged widow whose only son had perished through the violence
of the Emperor’s soldiers.
Struck by this proof of the just and loving nature of Trajan, the Pope,
kneeling at the tomb of S. Peter, prayed earnestly that mercy might be
showed to the great pagan emperor. The prayer, so runs the story, was
granted; and it was revealed to Gregory that the soul of Trajan was
released from torment in answer to his intercession. The beauty and
noble charity which colour the legend are, however, spoiled and marred
by the words of the traditional revelation which follow. The generous
Pope, while hearing that his prayers were granted, was warned never
again to presume to pray for those who had died without holy baptism.
Not a few modern scholars, however, read the famous interposition of
Trajan at the time of Pliny’s request for guidance as manifesting
a hostile spirit towards Christianity; so, to quote a few of
the better-known writers, interpret Gieseler, Overbach, Aubé,
Friedlander, Uhlhorn, etc., while Renan (_Les Évangiles_) perhaps more
accurately writes: “Trajan fut le premier persécuteur systématique de
Christianisme”; and again, “à partir de Trajan le Christianisme est un
crime.”
The truth, however, really lies between these two divergent opinions.
The “rescript” of Trajan promulgated no _new_ law on the subject of
the treatment of the Christian believers. It evidently presupposed
the existence of a law, and that a very stern and very harsh mode
of procedure. From it Trajan neither subtracted anything _nor_
added anything; still, as has been very justly said, the humane and
upright character of the Emperor and his minister Pliny--Pliny, by his
evident, though carefully veiled, advice and suggestions based upon his
protracted inquiries into the tenets and customs of the sect; Trajan,
by his formal imperial “rescript”--secured some considerable mitigation
in its enforcement.
* * * * *
The story of the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the
Emperor Trajan, which was fraught with such momentous consequences to
the Christians of Rome and the Empire generally, is as follows:
When Pliny, about the middle of the year 111, came to the scene of his
government,--the provinces of Bithynia and Pontus,--apparently somewhat
to his surprise he found a very considerable portion of the population
members of the Christian community. The religion professed by these
people, Pliny was well aware, was unlawful in the eyes of the State,
and the sect generally was unpopular; and evil rumours were current
respecting its traditional practices.
The new governor knew of the existence of the sect in Rome, but little
more. He was clearly aware that these Christians had been the object of
many State persecutions and judicial inquiries, “cognitiones” he terms
them, and no doubt knew something, too, of the public severity with
which these adherents of an unlawful religion had been treated by the
State when convicted of the crime of Christianity.
The horrors of the amphitheatre in the case of these condemned ones
could not have been unknown to one like Pliny. But the great world in
which Pliny lived and moved and worked, cared little for human life or
human suffering in the case of a despised and outlawed community.
The Roman teacher and patrician of the days of Trajan held human life
very cheaply. The amphitheatre games, to take one phase only of Roman
life in the days of the Empire, were an evil education for Rome. The
execution, the sufferings of a few score Christian outlaws, however
frequently repeated, would attract very little attention in Pliny’s
world.
But now in his new government he was brought face to face with
grave difficulties occasioned by the practices and teaching of this
Christianity. And when he discovered in addition how numerous a body
these followers of the forbidden religion were, Pliny set himself in
good earnest to investigate the Christian question.
More than fifty years had passed since S. Peter first preached the
gospel and laid the foundation stories of the Christian Church in these
northern provinces of Asia Minor. The religion of Jesus had rapidly
taken root in these districts. This we gather from the First Epistle of
Peter, which he wrote to the followers of Jesus in the north of Asia
Minor from Rome in the closing years of his ministry; and now Pliny
found in his province no novel faith growing up, but a faith which had
taken deep root in the hearts of the population, not only in the towns,
but also in the more remote villages (_neque enim civitates tantum sed
vicos etiam atque agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est_),
with the result that the old pagan cult was being gradually abandoned.
The temples were being fast deserted (_prope jam desolata templa_), the
sacred rites were being given up, and what evidently excited bitter
complaints on the part of the traders who suffered, there was no
longer any market for the fodder of the beasts sacrificed (_pastum ...
victimarum quarum adhuc rarissimus emptor inveniebatur_).
From the report of Pliny to the Emperor, it is evident that there had
been several judicial inquiries (_cognitiones_), conducted by him as
the responsible governor of Bithynia and Pontus, into the charges
brought against the adherents of the unlawful faith.
In the first “cognitio” the more prominent Christians were brought
before him. These all at once avowed their religion. Three times they
were interrogated by Pliny. As they persisted in the avowal that they
were Christians, the provincials were at once condemned to death. Those
who claimed Roman citizenship were sent to Rome for their sentences to
be confirmed.
The publicity of these first inquiries stimulated further accusations;
various degrees of guilt were alleged, and subsequently an anonymous
paper was put before the governor implicating a whole crowd of persons.
Of these, some denied that they were, or ever had been, Christians.
These, on offering incense before the image of the Emperor and cursing
Christ, were at once liberated.
Others confessed, but professed repentance. These he reserved for the
decision of the Emperor. It is not explicitly said that of this second
and larger group of “accused,” some persisted in their adherence to the
“Name.” There is no doubt that such were treated as in the first group,
some being put to death; others, as Roman citizens, reserved for the
imperial decision.
It was then that Pliny, especially disturbed at the numbers of accused
Christians, determined upon a more searching investigation into the
manners and customs of these numerous adherents of the unlawful
religion. He would learn for himself more of the “detestable” rites and
other crimes with which these persons were charged.
Two Christian deaconesses are mentioned as being examined under
torture; others were closely questioned, and the result of the
inquiries to Pliny was startling.
He satisfied himself that the monstrous charges were absolutely
unproven. All their rites were simple, perfectly harmless, and
unostentatious. Pliny in the course of his inquiry found that they
were in the habit of meeting together, on a day appointed, before
sunrise; that they would then sing together a hymn to Christ as God;
that they would bind themselves by a solemn vow--_sacramentum_ (Pliny
was evidently not aware that the _sacramentum_ in question was the Holy
Eucharist; indeed the whole narrative is evidently told by one who
very imperfectly grasped the Christian idea, although it is strangely
accurate in many of the details). The purport of the vow was that they
would commit neither theft nor adultery; that they would never break
their word; never betray a trust committed to them.
The just magistrate was evidently deeply impressed with the result
of his careful and searching examinations. This strange sect, he
was convinced, was absolutely innocent of all those dark offences
with which they were commonly charged--like another and more sadly
notorious Roman judge sitting in another and more awful judgment-scene,
who after hearing the case, _from that time sought to release the
pale prisoner before him_. So at once after hearing the Christian
story, Pliny too, convinced of the perfect innocence of the accused,
altered his opinion concerning Christians; but for State reasons would
not release them, and while acquitting them of all wrong-doing, in
the ordinary sense of the word, chose to see an evil and exaggerated
superstition colouring all their works and days.[21] Innocent though
they were of anything approaching crime in the ordinary sense of the
term, the Roman magistrate deemed the inflexible obstinacy of the
Christian deserved the severest punishment that could be inflicted,
even death; for when the individual Christian in question was examined,
he proved to be immovable on questions of vital importance. He refused
to swear by the genius of the Emperor. He would not scatter the
customary grains of incense on the altar of Rome and Augustus, or of
any of the pagan gods. His religious offence was inextricably bound up
with the political offence. He stood, as it had been well expressed,
self-convicted of “impiety,” of “atheism,” of “high treason.”
Still, after all these points had been taken into consideration, there
is no doubt that Pliny was deeply moved by what he learned from his
close examination of the Christian cause; and this new, this gentle,
this more favourable estimate of his concerning the “outlawed” sect of
Christians, was scarcely veiled in his official report of the case when
he asked for the Emperor Trajan’s advice and direction.
He was, we learn, especially induced to write to the Emperor when he
became aware of _the vast numbers_ of Christians who had been, or were
about to be, brought before his tribunal. The numbers of the accused
evidently appalled him. How would the Emperor wish him to deal with
such a multitude?
Very brief but very clear was the answer of Trajan to his friend and
confidant the governor of Bithynia and Pontus. This answer contained
the famous imperial “rescript”--which in the matter of the Christians
was “to run” not only in Rome itself, but in all the provinces of the
wide Empire, and which, as is well known, guided the State persecution
of Christians for many a long year.
The “rescript” bore unmistakably the impress of Pliny’s mind on the
subject; and severe though it was, it inaugurated a gentler and more
favourable interpretation of the stern law in the case of convicted
Christians than had prevailed from the days of Nero onward.
The following are the principal points of the “rescript.” In the first
place--and this point must be pressed--_no fresh law_ authorizing any
special persecution of the Christians was needed or even suggested by
Pliny. They had evidently for a long period, apparently from the days
of Nero, been classed as outlaws (_hostes publici_) and enemies to the
fundamental principles of law and order, and the mere acknowledgment on
the part of the accused of the name Christian was sufficient in itself
to warrant an immediate condemnation to death.
Trajan’s reply, which constituted the famous rescript, was studiedly
brief, eminently courteous, but imperious and decisive. The friendly
bias of Pliny’s report and unmistakably favourable opinion of the
Christian sect, lives along every line.
He begins with a few graceful words approving Pliny’s action in the
matter. (“Actum quem debuisti mi Secunde ... secutus es.”)
Then follow the stern, unalterable words which attach the penalty of
death to any person who persisted in claiming the name of Christian.
But extenuating circumstances, such as youth, may be taken into
account, if the magistrate please to do so.
Any approach to repentance, accompanied with compliance with the law of
the Empire, in the matter of offering incense on the pagan altars, is
to be accepted, and the offender at once is to be pardoned.
The magistrate is by no means to search for Christians; but if a formal
accusation be made by an open accuser, then inquiry must follow; and
if the accused recognizes the justice of the charge, and declines to
recant, then _death must_ follow.
The accusation of an anonymous person, however, must _never_ be
received; the Emperor adding his strongest condemnation of all
anonymous denunciations. “This kind of thing does not,” writes Trajan,
“belong to our age and time.”
Tertullian (closing years of second century) quotes and sharply
criticizes Trajan’s “rescript.” He writes somewhat as follows:
“What a contradictory pronouncement it is. The Emperor forbids the
Christians should be searched for--he therefore looks on them surely
as innocent persons; and then he directs that if any are brought
before the tribunal, they must be punished with death as though they
were guilty ones! In the same breath he spares them and rages against
them. He stultifies himself; for if Christians are to be condemned as
Christians, why are they not to be searched for? If, on the other hand,
they are to be considered as innocent persons and in consequence not to
be searched for, why not acquit them at once when they appear before
the tribunal?... You condemn an accused Christian, yet you forbid him
to be inquired after. So punishment is inflicted, not because he is
guilty, but because he has been discovered,--though anything which
might bring him to light is forbidden.” (Apology 2.)
The brilliant and eloquent Latin Father, with the acuteness of a
trained and skilful lawyer, lays bare the illogical character of the
imperial rescript. The truth was that after carefully weighing the
facts laid before him by Pliny, the Emperor clearly recognized that
such an organization--so far-reaching, so numerous and powerful,
was contrary to the established principles of Roman government. The
Christian sect must be discouraged, and if possible suppressed;
but Trajan saw at the same time that the spirit of the Christians,
their teaching and practice, were absolutely innocent, even morally
excellent; so he shrank from logically carrying out the severe measures
devised by the Roman government in such cases. In other words, his
really noble and generous nature prevented him sanctioning the
wholesale destruction which a strictly logical interpretation of the
Roman law would have brought upon a very numerous body of his subjects.
But in spite of the evident goodwill of the great Emperor and his
eminent lieutenant, the sword of persecution was left hanging over the
heads of the Christian sect suspended by a very slender cord. How often
the slender cord snapped is told in the tragic story of the Christians
in the pagan empire during the two hundred years which followed the
correspondence between Pliny and Trajan.
* * * * *
The information supplied by these Letters respecting Christianity at
the beginning of the second century, emanating as they do from so
trusted a statesman, so distinguished a writer, as the younger Pliny,
supplemented by a State communication containing an imperial rescript
of far-reaching importance from the hands of one of the greatest of
the Roman Emperors, is so weighty that it seems to call for a slightly
more detailed notice than the particulars which appear in the foregoing
pages of this work.
There is no doubt but that “Letters” such as those written by Pliny
during the eventful period extending from the days of the Dictatorship
of Julius Cæsar to the reign of Honorius--a period roughly of some four
hundred and fifty years--occupied in the literature of Rome a singular
and important position.
They were in many cases most carefully prepared and designed for a far
larger “public” than is commonly supposed. Long after the death of
the writer these Letters, gathered together and “published” as far as
literary works could be published in those ages when no printing-press
existed--were read and re-read, admired and criticized, by very many in
the capital and in the provinces.
The first great Letter-writer undoubtedly was Cicero, who flourished as
a statesman, an orator, and a most distinguished writer from the days
of the first consulship of Pompey and Crassus, in 70 B.C.,
down to the December of 43 B.C., when he was murdered during
the proscription of the Triumvirate.
Of the multifarious works of the great orator, possibly the most
generally interesting is the collection of his Letters, a large portion
of which have come down to us.
The art of “Letter-writing” suddenly arose in Cicero’s hands in Rome
to its full perfection. It has been well and truly said that all the
great letter-writers of subsequent ages have more or less consciously
or unconsciously followed the model of Cicero.
But it was in the Roman Empire that the fashion was most generally
adopted; of course, in common with so much of classical literature, the
majority of this interesting and suggestive literature has perished,
but some of it--perhaps the best portion of it--has survived. The great
name of Seneca is specially connected with this form of literature.
L. Annæus Seneca wrote the _Epistolæ Morales_, probably “publishing”
the first three books himself _circa_ A.D. 57. Among these
precious reliquiæ the “Letters of Pliny,” including his famous Letter
to Trajan and the response, are very highly prized by the historian and
annalist.
The younger Pliny was the nephew and adopted son of the elder Pliny.
He was a successful lawyer, and was highly trained in all branches of
literature. During his brilliant career he filled most of the public
offices of State in turn, and in the end became consul. Of the Emperor
Trajan he was the trusted and intimate friend. Trajan appointed him, as
we have seen, imperial legate of Bithynia and Pontus, and when holding
this important post the famous correspondence between the Emperor and
his friend took place. Pliny died some time before his imperial master,
not many years after the famous letter respecting the Christians in his
province was written.
His was a charming character,--kindly, beneficent, charitable,--deeply
impressed with the grave responsibilities of his position and fortune.
Carefully educated and trained under the auspices of the elder
Pliny,--a profound scholar and one of the most weighty writers of
the early Empire,--the younger Pliny, as he is generally called, won
distinction at a comparatively early age as a forensic orator. He
became Prætor at the age of thirty-one. During the reign of Domitian,
however, he took no share in public life. Under Nerva he again was
employed in the State service. Trajan loved and trusted him, and we
read of Pliny being consul in A.D. 100. He subsequently obtained the
government of the great provinces of Bithynia and Pontus, and during
his tenure of office there must be dated the correspondence between
Trajan and Pliny which has come down to us as the tenth Book of the
“Letters of Pliny.”
This Pliny has been described as the kindliest of Roman gentlemen, but
he was far more than that. He was a noble example of the trained and
cultured patrician, an ardent and industrious worker, an honest and
honourable statesman of no mean ability,--very learned, ambitious only
of political distinction when he felt that high rank and authority
gave him ampler scope to serve his country and his fellows. He was, we
learn from his own writings, by no means a solitary specimen of the
chivalrous and noble men who did so much to build up the great Empire,
and to render possible that far-reaching “Pax Romana” which for so many
years gave prosperity and a fair amount of happiness to the world known
under the immemorial name of Rome.
What we know of Pliny and his friends goes far to modify the painful
impressions of Roman society of the first two centuries which we
gather from the pages of Juvenal and other writers, who have painted
their pictures of Roman life in the first and second centuries of the
Christian era in such lurid and gloomy colours.
* * * * *
It is in the “Letters of Pliny” that the real story of his life and
work has come down to us. These letters are no ordinary or chance
collection. They are a finished work of great deliberation and thought.
About a century and a half earlier, the large collection of Cicero’s
correspondence was given to an admiring and regretful world. A renowned
statesman, a matchless orator, and even greater, the creator of the
Latin language, which became a universal language--the Letters of
Cicero set, as it were, a new fashion in literature. They were really
the first in this special form of writing which at once became popular.
The younger Pliny was a pupil of Quintilian, who was for a long
period--certainly for twenty years--the most celebrated teacher in the
capital. Quintilian is known as the earliest of the Ciceronians. The
cult of Ciceronianism established by Quintilian, Pliny’s tutor, was
the real origin of the wonderful Pliny Letters.
Pliny was one of the ablest scholars of his age. He, like many of
his countrymen, was ambitious of posthumous fame--he would not be
forgotten. He was proud of his position--of his forensic oratory--of
his statesmanship--of his various literary efforts; but he was too
far-seeing to dream of any of his efforts in forensic oratory, or in
the service of the State, or even in his various literary adventures
which amused his leisure hours, winning him that posthumous fame which
in common with so many other earnest pagan Romans he longed for.[22]
Pliny was an ardent admirer of Cicero; but Cicero the statesman and the
orator, he felt, moved on too high a plane for him to aim at emulating;
but as a writer of Latin, as a chronicler of his own day and time, as a
word-painter of the society in which he moved, he might possibly reach
as high a pitch of excellence as Cicero had reached in his day.
To accomplish this end became the great object of Pliny’s life. To
this we owe the inimitable series of Letters by which the friend and
minister of Trajan has lived, and will live on.
In some respects the Letters of Pliny are even more valuable than the
voluminous and many-coloured correspondence of Cicero. Cicero lived in
a momentous age. He was one of the chief actors in a great revolution
which materially altered the course of the world’s history. Pliny lived
in a comparatively “still” period, when one of the greatest of the
Roman sovereigns was at the helm of public affairs; so in his picture
we find none of the stress and storm which live along the pages of
Cicero’s correspondence.
It is an everyday life which Pliny depicts with such skill and vivid
imagery, the life, after all, which “finds” the majority of men and
women.
But it was the bright side of ancient society which Pliny loved to
describe. Without his Letters we should have had no notion of the
warm and tender friendships--of the simple pleasures--of the loving
charities--of the lofty ideals of so many of the _élite_ of Roman
society in the second century.
It has been well said that Pliny felt that he lacked the power to write
a great history, such as that which Tacitus, with whom he was closely
associated, or even his younger friend Suetonius in an inferior degree,
have given us. So he chose, fortunately for us, to strike out another
line altogether, a perfectly new line, and in his ten Books[23] of
Letters he gives us simply a domestic picture of everyday life in his
time.
* * * * *
They were no ordinary Letters; we can without any great effort of
imagination picture to ourselves the famous Letter-writer touching and
retouching his correspondence. Some modern critics in judging his style
do not hesitate to place his Latinity on a level with that of Cicero.
Renan, no mean judge of style, in words we have already quoted, speaks
of “la langue précieuse et raffinée de Pline.”
The subjects he loved to dwell on were sometimes literature, at others,
the beauties of nature, the quiet charms of country life--“me nihil
æque ac naturæ opera delectant,” he wrote once. He eloquently describes
the Clitumnus fountain, and the villa overlooking the Tiber valley;
very elaborate and graceful are his descriptions of scenery; yet more
attractive to us are his pictures of the “busy idleness” of the rich
and noble of his day.
Curious and interesting are the allusions to and descriptions of the
reading of new works, poems, histories, correspondence, etc., before
large gatherings of friends. Some of these “readings,” which evidently
formed an important feature in the society of the Empire, must often
have been sadly wearisome. Our writer, for instance, describes Sentius
Augurinus reciting his own poems during three whole days. Pliny
expresses his delight at this lengthy recitation, but he confesses that
these constant and lengthy recitations were deemed by some tiresome.
His own Letters were read aloud to an appreciative audience, who would
suggest corrections and changes.
Pliny was quite conscious when he wrote these famous Letters, that he
was writing for no mere friend or relative, but for a wide public. He
evidently hoped that they would live long after he had passed away; it
is doubtful, though, if he had ever dreamed that they would be read
with interest and delight for uncounted centuries. For instance, he
naively expresses his delight that his writings were sold and read in
Lyons, on the banks of the distant Rhone.
He has been accused by some, not otherwise unkindly critics, of
writing for effect--of putting upon paper finer feeling than was
absolutely natural to him; some of his descriptions of nature, for
instance, savoured of affectation. There may be some truth in this
criticism. But it only proves, what we have taken some pains to assert,
that this intensely interesting correspondence was most carefully
prepared--revised and redacted possibly several times--that he wrote to
impress the public. Indeed, throughout the whole collection there are
numerous marks of the most careful arrangement.
At the same time there are many natural touches in which his very
faults are curiously manifest; so in reading these letters, in spite of
occasional bursts of a possible artificial enthusiasm, we are sensible
that his inner life, his real self, live along his charming pages; for
instance, his curious conceit in his own literary power comes out in
such passages as that in which he compares himself not unfavourably
with his dear friend, that greatest master of history, Tacitus. There
were other writers of great power and of brilliant genius, but “You,”
so he writes to Tacitus, “so strong was the affinity of our natures,
seemed to me at once the easiest to imitate, and the most worthy of
imitation. Now we are named together; both of us have, I may say, some
name in literature; for as I include myself, I must be moderate in my
praise of you.”
In the midst of these striking pictures of the day and of the
society of the quiet and comparatively happy times of the Emperor
Trajan--in the last and perhaps the least interesting Book of his
correspondence--the one generally known as the tenth Book, which
contains his semi-official Letters to the Emperor, and some of Trajan’s
replies,--stands out the great Christian episode in his government of
Bithynia and Pontus, by far the most valuable notice that we possess
of the numbers and of the influence of the Christian sect in the first
years of the second century, only a few years after the death of S.
John.
The reference in Tacitus to the cruel persecution of Nero, and the yet
briefer notices in Suetonius, are, of course, of the highest value;
but the detailed story of Pliny, where he tells the Emperor actually
what was taking place in the province of which he was governor, and
gives us his own impressions of the works and days of the Christians,
is and ever will be to the ecclesiastical historian the most precious
testimony of a great pagan to the position which the Christians held in
the Roman Empire some eighty years after the Resurrection morning.
We have already, it will be remembered, dwelt at some length on what
was evidently in Pliny’s mind on the subject--on the impressions,
after a careful and lengthy investigation, which this unpopular sect
made upon him. He tells his imperial friend and master exactly what he
thought; and it is clear that the great Emperor was strangely moved
by Pliny’s words, and framed his famous rescript upon the report in
question on the gentler lines we have dwelt upon above.
The value of such a picture of very early Christian life, painted by
an eminent pagan statesman and scholar in the midst of such a work,
so carefully arranged, so thought out, prepared, as we have seen,
for posterity, as the Letters of Pliny were, can never be too highly
valued.
II
VOGUE OF EPISTOLARY FORM OF LITERATURE
How Pliny was admired and copied in the Roman world of literature we
learn from the subsequent story of Roman literature preserved to us.
With the exception of the writings of Suetonius, Pliny’s friend, for
a lengthened period after the reign of Trajan, an age splendidly
illustrated by the writings of Tacitus and Pliny, little literature has
come down to us; very silent, indeed, after Trajan’s age seems to have
been the highly cultured and literary society of Rome of which Pliny
writes in such vivid and appreciative terms.
Thoughtful men seem to consider that in the Roman Empire, under
Hadrian, under the noble Antonine princes and their successors, “the
soil, the race, the language were alike exhausted.” Be that as it may,
there is no doubt that from the time of Trajan until the latter days
of the wondrous story of Rome, late in the fourth century, apart from
a group of purely Christian writers, Latin literature was practically
extinct; certainly it produced nothing worthy to be transmitted to
later ages.
Perhaps a solitary but not a very notable exception might be made in
the few fragments that have come down to us of Fronto, the tutor and
dear friend of Marcus Aurelius. These fragments are chiefly pieces of
his correspondence with his pupils Marcus and his shortlived colleague
in the Empire, Lucius Verus. It is not, however, probable that these
letters were ever intended for publication or for general reading. It
has been said with some truth that the Emperor Marcus and his scholar
friend and tutor wrote to each other with the effusiveness of two
schoolgirls.[24] In one particular these correspondents evidently
agreed--they both disliked, and tried to despise, the fast growing
Christian community.
Towards the close of the fourth century, however, when the great
Emperor Theodosius was fast fading away, worn out with cares and
anxieties for the future of an empire which even his splendid abilities
were powerless to preserve even for a little season, in a period which
has been graphically compared to the “wan lingering light of a late
autumnal sunset,” arose a few, a very few distinguished writers, whose
works posterity has judged worthy of preservation.[25]
With two of the best known of these, the pagan poet Claudian, whose
splendid claims for posthumous fame are undoubted, and somewhat later
the half-pagan, half-Christian poet Ausonius, we are not concerned in
this study; they were purely poets. Two other authors, however, in
this late evening of Roman story especially interest us, as they carry
on the tradition on which we have been dwelling,--the love for and
interest in “letters,” in carefully studied “correspondence,” which the
Letters of Cicero and Pliny made the fashion in the literary society of
imperial Rome.
Symmachus, in the last years of the fourth century, and Sidonius
Apollinaris, some half-century later in the fifth century, were close
imitators of Pliny. Their Letters have come down to us; and the
popularity which they enjoyed in their own time, a popularity which has
endured more or less in all succeeding ages, tells us what a powerful
and enduring influence the correspondence of Pliny must have exercised
over the old world of Rome.
Both these writers belonged to the highest class in the society of
the dying Empire. Q. Aurelius Symmachus had held some of the highest
offices open to the patrician order, he had been governor of several
important provinces, prefect of the city, and consul; in his later
years he was regarded and generally treated as the chief of the Senate,
for whose privileges he was intensely jealous at a time when the
despotic rule of the Emperor had reduced the once proud assembly to a
group of shadowy names whose principal title to honour and respect was
the splendid tradition of a great past.
This Symmachus, statesman and ardent politician, was a writer of no
mean power. Like Pliny, whom in common with all the literary society
of Rome he admired and longed to imitate, he determined to go down to
posterity as a writer of Letters.
These Letters of his were read and re-read in his day and time; his
contemporaries classed him as on a level with Cicero, and loved to
compare him with the younger Pliny, whom Symmachus adopted as his
model. Many copies were made of his correspondence; his letters were
treasured up in precious caskets, and after he had passed away, his
son, Memmius Symmachus, collected them all together, dividing them,
as Pliny’s had been divided, into ten Books. Nine of them, like the
compositions of the great writer whom he strove to imitate, are mainly
concerned with private and domestic matters; the tenth, as in the case
of Pliny, being made up of official communications which had passed
between his father and the reigning Emperor.
It is somewhat dull reading this “Symmachus” correspondence, but it
gives us a picture of the nobler and purer portion of Roman society in
the closing years of the fourth century. He was too good a scholar, too
able a man, not to see his inferiority to Pliny; and evidently he had
his doubts respecting the claim of his correspondence to immortality,
and he apologizes for their barrenness of interesting incident; but
his contemporaries and his devoted son thought otherwise, and to their
loyal admiration we owe the preservation of his carefully prepared and
corrected, though somewhat tedious, imitation of the charming Letters
of Pliny.
Sidonius Apollinaris, who flourished a little more than half a century
later, belonged also to the great Roman world; he was born at Lyons
about A.D. 430, and partly owing to the elevation of his
father-in-law Avitus to the imperial throne, was rapidly preferred
to several of the great offices of the Empire--amongst these to the
prefecture of Rome. His undoubted ability, his high character, and
great position and fortune led to his election by popular voice to the
bishopric of Clermont (though not in Holy orders), the episcopal city
of his native Auvergne in Gaul. In his new and to him strange position
there is no doubt that he fulfilled the expectation of the people who
chose him as bishop; and when, some fifteen or twenty years after his
election, in the great Auvergne diocese, he passed away, he was deeply,
even passionately, mourned by his flock. He had been their devoted
pastor, their helper and defender in the troublous and anxious period
of the Visigothic occupation of Southern Gaul.
Sidonius Apollinaris was a poet of some power, and a graceful and
fluent writer of panegyrics of great personages which in that age were
much in vogue. He was also deeply read in the literature to which so
many of the leaders of Roman society in the late evening of the Empire
were ardently devoted.
But it is from his “_Correspondence_” that this eminent representative
of the patrician order in the last days of the Empire will ever be
remembered. We possess some hundred and forty-seven of his letters.
They were collected and revised by him after he became Bishop of
Clermont. Their publication is usually dated between the years 477
and 488. The letters were divided according to ancient models, Pliny
being the principal model, into nine Books. (There was no tenth Book of
official correspondence in his case.)
In their present form, revised and redacted by the writer himself,
very many of the letters read as though intended for a public far
wider than the individuals to whom the communications were originally
addressed; and it is more than probable that from a comparatively
early period, Sidonius intended to follow a well-known practice, and
wrote many of his letters with a view to their being preserved as
pieces of literature. He even tells us he proposed to be an imitator
of Symmachus, his predecessor in this special form of writing by some
fifty or sixty years; and Symmachus, we know, was an ardent admirer and
imitator of Pliny.
The Letters, however, of Sidonius possess a far wider interest for
us than the correspondence of Symmachus. Symmachus is dull and
even prosy, partly from his exaggerated attention to Pliny’s rule
which he suggested to one of his correspondents on the subject of
letter-writing. The letter-writer, said Pliny, must aim at a style
at once compressed and accurate in its form of expression (_pressus
sermo purusque ex Epistolis petitur_). Sidonius, on the other hand,
is diffuse and often picturesque, and his language is enriched or
disfigured by an ample and often a barbarous vocabulary, drawn from
the popular dialect into which the Latin of Cicero and Pliny was fast
declining when the Bishop of Clermont wrote. His correspondents were
many and various, including, it appears, some seventeen contemporary
bishops.
On the whole, the Letters of Sidonius give a vivid and even a brilliant
picture of the highly cultivated life of the noble and upper classes of
the fast fading Empire of the fifth century.
* * * * *
Briefly to sum up what we have said in this second study of Pliny’s
Letters. We have dwelt on the great importance of Pliny’s picture of
Christianity in the first years of the second century; for it was
1st. A picture painted by a great Roman (pagan) statesman; and
2nd. Though it appears in a letter, the letter was one of a
collection of Letters intended for future generations. Pliny
here copied Cicero, who really may be said to have “invented”
this novel and peculiar form of literature, _i.e._ letters
written not merely for private friends and officials, but for
the public, and intended to be handed down, if they were found
worthy, to after ages.
The “silence” of all Latin literature after the age of Pliny for some
two hundred and seventy years, of course prevents citing any examples
of such letters, written for public use and for posterity, during this
“silent” period.
But _after_ this “silence,” a brief renaissance of Latin literature
took place.
In this renaissance the works of only two prose writers of great
reputation have been preserved for us. Both these were most
distinguished men in the political world and in the world of
literature.
And these two chose to copy Pliny’s plan of letter-writing, _i.e._,
letters composed for public use and intended for posterity.
The two were Symmachus and Sidonius Apollinaris.
After this brief renaissance of Letters a veil of darkness fell over
the Roman world.
III
VOGUE OF EPISTOLARY FORM IN LITERATURE--THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES
When we consider how in the first century of the Christian era it
was a frequent custom to clothe literature of all kinds in the
letter form, and how popular amongst all classes and orders was this
method--so to speak--of literary expression, when associated with it
were, among a crowd of comparatively undistinguished authors, such
personalities as Cicero, Seneca, and Pliny, whose letters as pieces
of literature obtained at once an enormous popularity which has never
really waned,[26] it becomes a grave and interesting question: Did
this fashion, this method, this singularly popular form of writing,
affect the great New Testament writers, and induce them to cast their
sublime inspired thoughts in this special form, which certainly, when
the apostles put out their writings, was a loved and admired literary
method?
The fact of so large a portion of the New Testament writings being cast
in “letter form” is striking; it is quite different from anything that
we find in the Old Testament Scriptures, where, save in one solitary
instance (Jer. xxix.), nothing in the letter form appears in that
wonderful compilation which embraces so many subjects, and which in the
composition spread over many centuries; but we are so accustomed to the
New Testament writings, that the fact of a very large portion of the
collection of its inspired writings being in “letter” form does not at
first appear strange or unusual.
We may preface the few suggestions which follow with the remark,
that whether or no the suggestion be entertained as a possible, even
as a probable thought, the fact of “inspiration”--the fact of the New
Testament writings referred to being “the word of God”--is not in
the slightest degree affected. For it is the substance of the divine
message, not the “colour” or “material” of the clothing of the message,
which is of such paramount importance.
The question of the “colour” and “material” of the message’s clothing,
the consideration in what it is clothed, is deeply interesting; but,
after all, is nothing more.
The “message” which we believe to be from God remains the same--be it
enclosed in a “pamphlet,” in a “treatise,” in a “study” (_étude_), or
in a “letter” form.
Nothing like an analysis of the New Testament Epistles, some of which
will be briefly referred to in the course of this study, will be
attempted. Such an analysis would not, of course, enter into the scheme
of the present work.
We would first indicate some at least of the New Testament Letters
which certainly seem to be more than letters in the ordinary sense of
the word--which, indeed, are “settings” to short theological treatises
containing statements of the highest doctrinal import.
These “Letters” were evidently intended for a far more extended circle
of readers than the congregations immediately addressed.
We have already in a previous section quoted the three Epistles of S.
Paul written during his first imprisonment,[27] A.D. 61-3
(viz. the Epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, and Ephesians), as
embodying some of the more weighty and important doctrinal teachings
of the great apostle put out during the period in which S. Paul
preached to the Christians of the capital, and thus and then earned his
well-known and acknowledged claim to be one of the two “founders” of
the Church of Rome--S. Peter being the other.
One of the reasons, no doubt, of the vast and long-enduring
popularity of the “letter” form of literature was the introduction
of quasi-confidential remarks, which gave a freshness, a breath of
everyday life to the composition; or, to use another image, the
“Letter” might even be termed a picturesque and attractive “setting” to
the graver, the more serious thoughts contained in the writing.
This is well exemplified in the famous collection of the correspondence
of Cicero, of whose Letters it has been happily written that the
majority are “brief confidential outpourings of the moment.” The same
purely human colouring is manifest in the Letters of Seneca, written
from the year 57 and onwards; this is even more especially noticeable
in the Letters of the younger Pliny.
There are, however, certain of the Pauline Epistles which partake more
closely of the nature of _private_ letters, and which scarcely seem
intended for public circulation--notably the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians and the little letter to Philemon.
Professor Deissmann, of Heidelberg, who has written at some length on
the subject, differs somewhat from the general view taken here of S.
Paul’s writings; but while expressing his doubts as to whether any of
the Pauline Epistles were really written by the apostle with a view to
publication, he unhesitatingly decides that amongst the New Testament
writings the Epistle to the Hebrews, the First Epistle of John, the
First Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of James and Jude, were most
certainly written in “letter” form for general circulation.
As early certainly as the third century, the Christian Church placed
the so-called Catholic Epistles as a group apart among the canonical
writings and termed them “Catholic” or universal, as addressed to no
one special congregation. This is absolutely true in the cases of the
Epistles of 1 Peter, James, Jude, and 1 John, above referred to.
The First Epistle of _Peter_ is addressed to a vast number of the
“Dispersion,” who, the apostle says, were sojourning in the provinces
of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia,--these provinces almost
covering the region now popularly known as Asia Minor.
_James_ wrote to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
_John_ in his First Epistle gives no address at all, leaving his Letter
perfectly general--or universal.
_Jude_, too, names no particular congregation, but simply writes to
those that are “sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus
Christ and called.”
In the Epistle “to the Hebrews” the writer is unnamed, and there is no
mention of those to whom the anonymous “Letter” is addressed. It is,
however, clear from the tenor of the “Letter” that it was addressed to
Jewish Christians, and probably to Jewish Christians settled in Rome.
The “Pastoral” Epistles, so called (including 1 and 2 Timothy and
Titus), were evidently intended for general circulation.
We may therefore conclude that the greater number of the New Testament
Letters--certainly the four principal “Catholic” Epistles and the great
Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistles of S. Paul with the exceptions
above noted, influenced by the analogy of other collections of Letters
made in the same age, were written in “letter” form, but were intended
for a large group of readers. This particular “letter” form being
adopted owing to the great popularity, throughout the Roman Empire, of
this special description of literature.
Thus it is evident that the great Christian teachers to a certain
extent adopted the most loved popular literary forms of the age in
which they lived, especially choosing the letter form which such
distinguished writers as Cicero, Seneca, and a little later the younger
Pliny adopted.
While the “_Acts_ of the Apostles” more or less followed the literary
method of profane historical literature, with its picturesque
insertion of “speeches,” “letters,” and “official papers”; while the
“Revelation of S. John” more or less followed the method adopted in
Jewish apocalyptic literature of the famous Alexandrian school: alone
the _Gospels_ are absolutely an original form--a literary form which
originated _within_ Christianity itself--a literary form which stands
out alone. It imitated nothing, it followed no classical or Jewish
examples--no models, however beautiful, attractive, or popular; nor has
it ever been imitated in all the Christian ages, stretching over more
than eighteen centuries, simply because it is inimitable.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
And when the Catholic Church judged, and as we see now wisely judged,
that the Voice of Inspiration was hushed, we find that the literary
remains of the primitive age of Christianity which have been preserved
to us are cast in the same “letter” form, those few literary remains
which have received the lofty title of “Apostolic.” The word comes to
us from Ignatius, and seems to bear the meaning that the writers of
these “remains” were historically connected with the apostles.
These writings properly so styled come from four persons--from (1)
_Clement_ (of Rome), of whom the tradition, constant and definite,
tells us he was the disciple of Peter and also of Paul.
(2) From _Ignatius_, whose early date and connexion with Antioch, a
chief centre of apostolic work, render, as Lightfoot well urges, his
personal intercourse with apostles at least probable. The earliest
tradition represents Ignatius as the second of the Antiochene bishops.
His martyrdom must be dated _circa_ A.D. 110. He was evidently
then an old man. He was certainly a younger contemporary of some of the
apostles.
(3) From _Polycarp_, whose close connexion in youth with S. John is
indisputable, since his own disciple, the well-known Irenæus, tells
us that Polycarp was a scholar of the beloved disciple; and that he
(Irenæus) had heard from his master, Polycarp, many anecdotes of the
apostles, which he had treasured up in his memory.
(4) From _Barnabas_, whose immediate connexion with the apostle is less
certain; but the early date of his Epistle, written apparently during
the days of the Flavian dynasty, would render the ancient traditions of
this connexion at least highly probable.
These writings, few and humble, which have come down to us, are all
we can with any certainty ascribe to “Apostolic” men; and they _are
all cast in “letter form,”_ viz., the one somewhat lengthy Epistle
of Clement, the seven authentic Epistles of Ignatius, the one brief
Epistle of Polycarp, the one (of considerable length) Epistle of
Barnabas. These Epistles are genuine “Letters,” and “represent the
natural outpouring of personal feeling arising out of personal
relations”; but they contain doctrinal statements of the deepest
importance, notably emphatic or positive statements bearing on the
Godhead of Jesus Christ.[28]
These Epistles[29] were obviously meant by the writers for a far more
extended circle of readers than the congregations of Corinth, Philippi,
Rome, etc., to whom the Letters were formally addressed.