² For example in Thuc. II.5.7, ек τή; χώραΐ is equivalent to ек των άγρών in 14.1; cf. ív то!? dcypoïs in 14.2, and the same expression and κατά τήν χώραν in 16.1.

³ As in Thuc. VI.4.2; Lye, C. Leocr. 1; etc.

⁴ I shall mention the main examples in CSAGW: they include Heracleia Pontica, Zeleia, Priene, Syracuse.

⁵ In The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972) pp 154-5, 313-14.

⁶ Perhaps the best account of this fundamental opposition between town and country in the greek east is in part V (‘The Achievement of the Cities’, pp 259-304) of A. H. M. Jones’ great work, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford 1940) esp 285 et seq. Another major work by Jones, Cities [of the Eastern Roman Provinces] (frequently cited in The Greek City) has been reissued in a second edn (Oxford 1971), with the sections on Palestine in chap 10 (on ‘Syria’, pp 226-94) revised by M. Avi-Yonah. A recent work, limited to the late republic and principate, is [Ramsay] MacMullen, [Roman Social Relations 50 B.C. to A.D. 284] (London 1974): the first two chapters of this (I ‘Rural’, and II ‘Rural-Urban’, pp 1-56) have much well-chosen illustrative material. For the opinions of a scholar who knew the archaeological as well as the literary evidence particularly well, see Rostovtzeff, [M.], [Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire] (Oxford 1957) I, pp 261-73Google Scholar (with II, pp 660 et seq., esp pp 664-6), 344-52, 378-92. For an able account of the social and economic background of the great Jewish revolt in Palestine of AD 66-70, see Kreissig, Heinz, Die sozialen Zusammenhänge des judäischen Krieges. Klassen und Klassenkampf im Palästina des 1. Jahrh. v.u.Z.=Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike no 1 (Berlin 1970)Google Scholar.

⁷ For the history of Palestine in the late hellenistic and early roman period, see the admirable new english version, by [Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), of Emil] Schürer’s [Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi] (3/4 ed 1901-9), of which only vol 1 (Edinburgh 1973) has already appeared. The events of 63 BC to AD 44 are dealt with on pp 237-454.

⁸ See Tcherikover, [Victor], [Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews] (Philadelphia/Jerusalem 1959) pp 90–116 Google Scholar; Jones, Cities, chap 10, esp pp 248-9, 255-9, 269-76; ‘The Urbanization of Palestine’, in JRS 21 (1931) pp 78-85; Rostovtzeff I², pp 269-73, II², 663-6 nn 32-6; Avi-Yonah, M., The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640). A Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966) esp pp 127-80Google Scholar.

⁹ See Jones, Cities pp 282.

¹⁰ Jerusalem appears as a polis in all four gospels. Otherwise, Mark has only Capernaum (which also appears as a polis in Luke and by implication in Matthew); Ephraim and Sychar appear only in John; Arimathea, Bethlehem and Nain only in Luke: Bethsaida (a kōmē in Mk. 8.22-3), Chorazin and Nazareth are found as poleis in Matthew and Luke. Perhaps I should emphasise here that Jerusalem was never at any time a polis in the technical sense, except when hellenising jews attempted to turn it into the polis of ‘Antioch-by-Jerusalem’ during a short period beginning in 175 BC: see Tcherikover pp 153 et seq., esp pp 161-74, 188. If Jerusalem really had a theatre, amphitheatre and hippodrome (alien to the Jewish way of life), it was only because these were provided by that ardent helleniser, Herod the Great - who is also said to have built the same three structures at Jericho, which no one would dream of calling a polis: see Schürer pp 304-5 n 56.

¹¹ It was the capital of the (originally ptolemaic) toparchy of Gaulanitis, and it had been re-named Julias by Philip the tetrarch: see Jones, n 9 above.

¹² Whether ‘he could no longer enter eis ττόλιν’, in Mk. 1.45, means ‘into a city’ or ‘into the city concerned’ (perhaps Capernaum, as in 1.21, but compare 39), it obviously refers to no more than the immediate situation: see 2.1 and much of the following narrative, esp for example 6.56.

¹³ I accept ÍK τών όρΐων Τύρου ήλθεν διά Σώωνο; as a preferable textual reading to καΐ Σιδώνος ήλθεν, though I doubt whether the territory of Sidon was in fact involved; compare [D. E.] Nineham, [Saint Mark] (Pelican Gospel Comm., 1963) p 203.

¹⁴ A curiously roundabout route: see Nineham.

¹⁵ Variant readings exist in each case for the name of the city into the chōra of which Jesus goes at the beginning of the story: the best reading in Mark and Luke is ‘Gerasa’ (els τήν χώραν τών Γερασηνών), in Matthew, ‘Gadara’ (… τών Γαδαρηνών). In some MSS of all three gospels there also occurs the reading ‘Gergesa’ (… τών Γεργεσηνδν): this goes back to Origen, Comm. in Johan. VI.41, p 150, ed E. Preuschen, in the GCS Origen 4, (1903), who realised that the distance from the lake of Galilee of both Gerasa (nearly 40 miles) and Gadara (5 or 6 miles) is considerable, and in order to allow the swine to ‘run violently down a steep place into the sea’ proposed to substitute a place he called Gergesa, πόλΐΐ άρχαία ττερΐ τήν vűv καλουμένην Τιβεριάδα Μμνην, περΐ ήι> κρημνό; τταρακεΐμενοΐ ττ) λίμνη. It has been suggested, however, that Origen was simply exercising his ingenuity on the basis of Gen. 10.16. A place with some such name as Gergesa may have existed: in the 6th century Cyril of Scythopolis (a city of Decapolis) refers to a locality in this area which he calls Chorsia (Vita Sahae 24, p 108.14 ed Schwartz, E., Kyrillos von Scythopolis = TU 49, ii (1939)Google Scholar, and this may correspond with the modern Kursi - which however is said to have no precipice. But there is no trace elsewhere of any ‘Gergesa’, and even if such a place existed it cannot have been more than a kōmē, whereas the whole story demands that it be a polis, and indeed (see Mk. 5.19) a member of the Decapolis, as were Gerasa and Gadara. There was, by the way, another city of the Decapolis, namely Hippos (the old Susitha), lying to the east of the lake of Galilee and possessing a territory which included villages that adjoined the territory of Gadara (Jos., Vita [ix] 42), but it is never mentioned in the new testament.

¹⁶ Nineham pp 219, 228n, is unnecessarily puzzled by the use of the perfectly correct expression kōinē in Mk. 8.23, 26, 27.

¹⁷ Sepphoris (re-founded): Jos. AJ 18. 27. Tiberias: Jos., BJ 2. 168; AJ 18. 36-8; Vita 37; and see Avi-Yonah, M., ‘The Foundation of Tiberias’, in Israel Exploration Journal 1 (1950-51) pp 160-9Google Scholar. For both these cities, see Jones, Cities pp 274-8.

¹⁸ See Jones, Cities p 462 n 67. Compare also Rajak, Tessa, ‘Justus of Tiberias’, Classical Quarterly 67, ns 23 (1973) pp 345-68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp 346-50.

¹⁹ See Jos., BJ 3. 30-4; Vita 30, 38-9, 103-4, 124, 232, 346-8, 373, 394-7, 411. (Tiberias had quite an influential pro-roman element: see Jos., Vita 32-42, 155 et seq., 381, 391; compare 82 etc.)

²⁰ For Tiberias, see Jos., Vita 98-100, 381-9 (esp 384), 392; for Sepphoris, 374, 384; compare 30, 375-80.

²¹ Opinions differ greatly here, and none of the new testament scholars I have read has an approach at all similar to mine. There is some good material in Schille, G., ‘Die Topographie des Markus-Evangeliums, ihre Hintergründe u. ihre Einordnung’, in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 73 (1957) pp 133-66Google Scholar, but his interests too are quite different from mine.

²² The well-known synagogue that has been excavated at Capernaum was built more than a hundred years after the time of Jesus. Josephus, in the whole of his works, makes no reference to Nazareth and at most two to Capernaum: BJ 3. 519 (a mere spring), and perhaps Vita 403 (the village of Kepharnokos).

²³ See esp n 6 above. Here I should like to mention an excellent article which is relevant to the one aspect of this vast subject named in its title: Kreissig, Heinz, ‘Zur sozialen Zusammenstellung der frühchristlichen Gemeinde in ersten Jahrh. u.Z.’, in Eirene 6 (1967) pp 91–100 Google Scholar.

²⁴ This is best brought out, in my opinion, in the admirable recent book by Vermes, [Geza], [Jesus the Jew. A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels] (London 1973)Google Scholar: see esp pp 48-9.

²⁵ In Mk. 2.14 it is Levi the son of Alpheus, and Levi also in Lk. 5.27, 29; in Mt. 9.9 it is Matthew.

²⁶ See Schürer p 358 and n 22.

²⁷ Duncan-Jones, [Richard], [The Economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies] (Cambridge 1974)Google Scholar gives a useful list of 29 of the largest fortunes known to us under the principate, ranging from HS 400 million to about 2 million (App 7, pp 343-4), and a detailed analysis of the wealth of one particular roman of distinction whom we know much better than most: Pliny the Younger (cap 1, pp 17-32).

²⁸ I shall explain how this happened in CSAGW.

²⁹ For example ol τά$ oúoíocs Ιχοντες, ττλούσιοι, παχεϊζ, εύδαίμονε?, γνώριμοι, εύγενεΐς, γενναΐοι, δυνατοί, биуоггсЬтостои

³⁰ For example ol όγαθοΐ, καλοΐ κάγαθοΐ, χρηστοί, έσθλοί, δριοτοι, βέλτιστοι, δεξιώτατοι, χαρίεντε;, επιεικεϊ?. I know of no detailed examination of the use of these greek terms comparable to that of Hellegouarc’h, J., Le vocabulaire latine des relations et des partis politiques sous la République² (Paris 1972)Google Scholar, who studies the use of the corresponding latin terms boni, optimi, optimates etc on pp 484-505, and the equivalent of those given in n 31 below (for example plebs, populus, populares, mali, improbi etc) on pp 506-41. But see Neil, R.A., The Knights of Aristophanes (London 1909) pp 202-9Google Scholar, pp 202-9, app II, ‘Political use of moral terms’.

³¹ For example (a) ol πένητεϊ (sometimes used almost in the sense of ‘the deserving poor’), ônropoi (the propertyless), τττωχοί; (b) ol πολλοΐ, то ττληθθ5, ó όχλθΐ, ò δημος, (c) ol δημοτικοί; (с) о! κακοΐ, μοχθηροΐ, πονηροΙ, δειλοΙ, το κάκιστον. Compare MacMullen app B: ‘The Lexicon of Snobbery’, and the works there cited on p 138.

³² Solon, fr. 24.18-20 (ed E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca I³. 45); compare fr. 23.19-21; fr. 1.33.

³³ Perhaps it will be sufficient if I merely give a few references to the massive work of S.W Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, which cites much modern literature: I² (1952 & repr) pp 152 (with 364 n 25), 262-7, 278 (with 414 n 36); II² (1952 & repr) pp 46, 241-2, 256, 269-74. See below n 33a.

^33a Flusser, D., ‘Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit’, in Israel Exploration Jnl 10 (1960) pp 1–13 Google Scholar. I agree with Vermes p 241 n 53 that Adolph Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 CE. (1922), is ‘a rich mine of information rather than a valid historico-critical assessment of the data’.

³⁴ p 11, compare pp 6-8.

^34a A Particularly interesting is the article by Roberts, C.H., ‘The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. XVII.21)’, in Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948) pp 1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, showing that the much-disputed expression êvTÒs ύμών in Lk. 17.21 is most likely to mean that the kingdom is ‘within your power’ (‘It is a present reality if you wish it to be so’, p 8), rather than ‘within you’ or ‘among you’.

³⁵ Mk. 10.17-31; Mt. 19.16-30; Lk. 18.18-30. For an interesting variant, see the extract from the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, quoted for example by Huck, Albert, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (9 ed, rev by Lietzmann, H., English ed by Cross, F.L., Oxford 1957) p 145n Google Scholar., from Klostermann, E. and Benz, E., Zur Überlieferung der Matthäuserklärung des Origenes=TU 47, 2 (1931) pp 91-2Google Scholar; there is an English trans in James, [M.R.], [The Apocryphal New Testament] (Oxford 1924 & repr) p 6 Google Scholar.

³⁶ In Mark and Luke he says he has observed the commandments Ы vEÓ-rn-ros: it is Matthew who calls him ό νεανΐσκοξ. Incidentally, it is only Mark (10.21) who says that Jesus ‘loved him’ (or is it ‘caressed him’?).

³⁷ For a desperate attempt by a modern christian scholar to retain, here and in the beatitudes, the matthaean version in preference, although realising that the other is much more likely to be the historically true one, see Christophe pp 37-8. Would it be unfair to paraphrase his exegesis by saying that Mark and Luke have what Jesus more probably said, Matthew what a modern Christian feels he must surely have meant?

³⁸ Cadoux pp 61-6 quotes as usual all the texts, even if his interpretations cannot always be accepted.

³⁹ Lk. 1.46-35 (esp 52-3). See [Vogt, Joseph, ‘Ecce ancilla domini’, in Vigiliae Christianae 23 (1969) pp 241-63Google Scholar, repr in] Vogt [Sklaverei u. Humanität] (2 ed=Historia, Einzelschr. 8, 1972) pp 147-64, 168.

⁴⁰ See Thomas Hardy, The Dynasts, After Scene (p 522 of the ‘Papermac’ edition 1965), where the Semi-chorus I of the Pities has the line, ‘Who hurlest Dynasts from their thrones’, and Hardy quotes the greek of the Magnificat in a footnote. The term dynastēs, in the sense of a chief or prince, occurs from the 5th century BC onwards (see for example Thuc. VII. 33.4), and in the hellenistic period becomes almost a technical term for the ruler who is not actually a king. Thus in official formulae referring to ruling authorities, dynasts are linked with kings, cities and peoples (ethnē), in various combinations: see for example OGIS 229.11; 383.172-3, 228-9; 441-129-30, 131-2; SIG ³ 581.64; Diod. XIX.57.3.

⁴¹ Rom. 13.1-7; Titus 3.1; compare I Pet. 2.13-17; I Tim. 2.1-2. There has been a long controversy over the nature of the ‘powers’ (exousiai) to whom every soul is commanded to be subject, in Rom. 13.1. It should be sufficient to refer to Clinton Morrison, D., The Powers That Be (= Studies in Biblical Theology no 29 (1960))Google Scholar, who has exhaustive bibliographies. The reader should be warned, however, that the author is a theologian and not a historian, and that some of his statements are such as no ancient historian could accept - for example p 125: ‘Since the State was part of the cosmic order established by the Ruler of All …, the ancients considered subjection to the State a religious duty, and anarchy was synonymous with atheism. Wise and godly men had no alternative but submission to this order, and no doubt the Christian conscience was largely tempered by this common understanding’. Apologists for Paul must try to do better than this.

⁴² Acts 2.44-5; 4-32-7; 5.1-11; cf. Jn. 12.6; 13.29. I need refer only to [Rudolf] Bultmann, [Theology of the New Testament] (1952 & repr) 1 p 62: ‘It is self-evident that in an eschatological congregation awaiting the near end of the world no special economic system was set up. What is often called the community of property in the earliest Church on the basis of Acts 2:45; 4:34ff. is in reality a practical sharing of property on the basis of love. To call this actual communism is out of the question, for it lacks both a social programme and organized production’.

⁴³ For the ancient greek and latin texts relating to the essenes, see Antike Berichte über die Essener, ed Adam, Alfred=Kleine Texte für Vorlesung und Übungen, no 182 (1961)Google Scholar. There is of course a large literature on the essenes: see the select bibliography in vol 9 of the Loeb edition of Josephus, by L. H. Feldman (1965), App D, pp 561-3. This has been growing since the appearance of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, emanating (in my view) either from the essenes themselves or from a closely related sect. For a useful recent bibliography dealing with all the recent discoveries in the Judaean desert, see Schürer I, pp 118-22. Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls (Penguin, 1962 & repr)Google Scholar is the best English version: see esp pp 29-30. And compare de Vaux, R., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London 1973) esp 129-30Google Scholar. Doubtless jewish influences also lie behind such passages in the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ as Didache 4.8 (contrast 1.5-6; 4.9, 11); Hermes, Shepherd, Vision III.vi.6 (contrast for example Mandate II.4-6; Similitude II.5-10); Barnabas 19.8.

⁴⁴ I shall have a great deal to say about this in CSAGW and can omit the evidence here.

⁴⁵ According to Arist., Pol. I.7, 1255^b35-7, such a man would not even trouble himself with the supervision of his slaves but would entrust it to an overseer.

⁴⁶ The story is given by Tac., Ann. XIV.42-3. It is strange that some standard works, such as Buckland, W.W., The Roman Law of Slavery (Cambridge 1908) pp 95 Google Scholar etc., and Westermann, W.L., The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity=Mem. Amer. Philos. Soc. 40 (1955) p 82 Google Scholar, speak of the S.C. Silanianum as ordering only the torture of the murdered master’s slave household. It is quite clear that if they failed to give aid to their murdered master (whether killed by a fellow-slave or anyone else), all those slaves sub eodem tecto were held to be guilty and were not merely tortured but executed: see CJ VI.xxxv.12 (Justinian, AD 532); and many passages in Dig. XXIX.v, for example i.§§ 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33; 3.§§ 16, 17; 14; and esp 19. Many heirs must have been very angry at being thus robbed of valuable property!

⁴⁷ My treatment of this subject here is somewhat over-simplified, and I have cited little ancient evidence; but there is a much fuller analysis in my CSAGW.

⁴⁸ Fitzhugh, George, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society (Richmond, Va., 1854) p 179 Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ See The Good Old Cause. The English Revolution of 1640-1660, Its Causes, Course and Consequences ². Extracts from contemporary sources, ed Christopher Hill and Edmund Dell (2 ed, rev, 1969) p 474.

⁵⁰ See my The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, p 45.

⁵¹ As it had sometimes been earlier, for example in Arist., Pol. VII.14, 1333^b38ff., esp 1334^a2.

⁵² The source of Cic., De Rep. III.24/36 to 25/37. ed K. Ziegler (6 ed 1964) is often said to be Panaetius, but I agree with Strasburger, H., ‘Poseidonios on Problems of the Roman Empire’, in JRS 55 (1965) pp 40–53 Google Scholar (esp pp 44-5 & n 50) that this is unjustified.

⁵³ It is by Lewis Hanke (London 1959).

⁵⁴ See esp Lk. 17.7-9 (addressing potential slaveowners); also Mk. 12.2-5 (=Lk. 20.10-12; compare Mt. 21.34-6); 13.34; Mt. 10.24-5; 13.27-8; 18.23ff.; 22.3-10 (compare Lk. 14.17-23); 24.45-51; 25.14-30 (compare Lk. 19.13-22); Lk. 12.37-8; 43-8; 15.22, 26; and other texts.

⁵⁵ See for example Bultmann 1, pp 243-5, 246, 249, 331-3, 340-3; 2, pp 205, 214, compare 230-1.

⁵⁶ In the new testament, the only relevant passages I can find are Coloss. 4.1; Ephes. 6.9; also Philem. 10ff. (esp 16-18), a special case, Onesimus having been converted by Paul (10).

⁵⁷ See Ephes. 6.5-8; Coloss. 3.22-4; I Tim. 6.1-2; Titus 2.9-10; I Pet. 2.18-20. Compare I Cor. 7.20-4: here there has been much dispute about the meaning of vv. 20-1, which must certainly be taken as an injunction against seeking manumission, both because of the ei kai (‘even if’: the force of this is missed in the authorised version and by many commentators) and because of the gar at the beginning of v. 22. The sense is, ‘Let each man remain in the calling [occupation] wherein he was called [converted to Christianity]. Were you a slave when you were called [converted]? Don’t let it concern you; but even if you are able to become free, be content with your present condition, for he who was called in the Lord [converted], being a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was called being a free man is a slave of Christ’. Paul’s point is that the believer’s earthly condition, as slave or free, is of no importance.

⁵⁸ In his article, ‘Slavery, Christian’, in Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics 11 (London 1920 & repr) p. 604a Google Scholar, L. D. Agate felt obliged to admit that the church tended, ‘owing to its excessive care for the rights of the masters, even to perpetuate what would otherwise have passed away’. I doubt, however, if slavery would have ‘passed away’ any earlier in the absence of Christianity.

⁵⁹ See Hippol., Apost. Trad. 15 (ed Bernard Botte, Hippolyte de Rome. La tradition apostolique d’après les anciennes versions ²=SC 11^b, 2 ed 1968)=xvi.4 in the English trans by Gregory Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome ² (1968, 2 ed, rev by H. Chadwick). The date of the Apost. Trad. is very close to 215.

⁶⁰ Can. Hippol. X.63 (pp 76-7, ed Achelis, H., TU 6, 4, 1891 Google Scholar); compare the arabic version, with a french trans, in Coquin, R.G., Les canons d’Hippolyte=PO 31, 2 (1966) can. 10, p 95=363Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Strictly, the expression ‘the church’ is a theological rather than a historical concept, for the christians were never anything like a united body, and each sect (including of course the catholics) had a habit of denying the very name of Christian to all ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ - that is to say, those who were not within its communion. But the expression is too convenient to be abandoned entirely.

⁶² Aug., esp CD XIX.xv-xvi.

⁶³ Aug., CD XIX.xv; Ambr., Ep. 77.6 (‘is qui regere se non potest et gubernare, servire debet … pro benedictione igitur huiusmodi confertur servitus’).

⁶⁴ Ambr., Ep. 2.19 (‘quo status inferior, eo virtus eminentior’). Among other passages in Ambrose dealing with slavery, see Ep. 37 passim; 63.112; 75.4-5.

⁶⁵ Syrus, Ephraem, Hymn. de Nativ. XVII.8, p 80 Google Scholar, in the German trans of Beck, E., CSCO 187 (=Syr. 83) 1959 Google Scholar. For this and the passage cited in the next note, see Vogt pp 161-2.

⁶⁶ Syrus, Ephraem, Hymn, de Epiph. IV.6-8 (p 143)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Cadoux p 454 (with the greek text in n 5); Grant, R.M., Augustus to Constantine. The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman World (London 1971) p 301 Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Act. Thom. 83, in Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha II.ii.198-9, ed M. Bonnet (Leipzig 1903). There is a good English trans in James at p 402.

⁶⁹ Dig. I.v.4.1 (Florentinus); XII.vi.64 (Tryphomnus); I.i.4 (Ulpian); Inst. J. I.ii.2.

⁷⁰ See Jolowicz, H.F. and Nicholas, Barry, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law ³ (Cambridge 1972) pp 106-7Google Scholar.

⁷¹ See my The Origins of the Peloponnesian War p 45.

⁷² See Gnomologium Epicteteum 36-7 (pp 486-7 in H. Schenkl’s Teubner text of Epictetus, 1916)=fr. 42-3 Schweighäuser.

⁷³ Epict., Diss. IV.i.40, p 360, ed H. Schenkl (1916).

⁷⁴ Newman, J.H., Lectures on certain Differences felt by Anglicans in submitting to the Catholic Church (London 1850) p 199 Google Scholar; (new and rev ed Dublin 1857) p. 190.

⁷⁵ The conversation occurs in book V, during Pierre’s visit to Andrey at Bogucharovo.

⁷⁶ For Smaragdus, see , R. W. and Carlyle, A.J., A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West I2 (London 1927) pp 208-9Google Scholar; Davis, [David Brion], [The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture] (New York 1966) pp 92-3Google Scholar. There is a great deal of interesting material in the latter work (the best general account of its subject) on Christian attitudes to slavery; compare also Boxer, C.R., Tlie Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415-1825 (London 1969, Pelican 1973)Google Scholar for example pp 20-5, 66 et seq., and esp pp 265-8.

⁷⁷ A text often reprinted: see for example Documents of American Hist.,⁵ ed H. S. Commager (New York 1949) pp 37-8, no 26. And see Davis pp 308-9.

⁷⁸ The bibliography is vast, and I will only refer to Christophe, pp 55-214; and Gaudemet, [Jean], [L’Église dans l’empire roman IV^e-V^e siècles] (Paris 1958) pp 569-73Google Scholar (compare pp 694-8 on almsgiving), who give sufficient references to other modern work. Hands, A.R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London 1968)Google Scholar, deals mainly with the pre-christian world, as does Bolkestein, H., Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege in vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht 1939)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Of many possible examples I will cite only Jerome, Ep. 130.14 (to the very wealthy Demetrias).

⁸⁰ See below, and some of the passages cited in n 33 above.

⁸¹ For Julian, see esp. (1) Ep. 84a (ed J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Iuliani Imp. Epist., Leges etc. [1922]=84a Bidez [Budé]=49 Hertlein=22 W. C. Wright [Loeb III]). 4209c-30a, 430bcd (compare 430d: no Jew is a beggar); (2) Ep. 89b (Bidez-Cumont and Bidez=Wright II.296-339). 305bcd; compare (3) Misopog. 363a; (4) Orat. VII (ad Heracl.). 224bc. I have not been able to make use of Kabiersch, Jürgen, Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropie bei dem Kaiser Julian (Wiesbaden 1960)Google Scholar.

⁸² Alex., Clem., Quis dives salvetur? iv.6 Google Scholar; cf. x.1. The standard edition of this work is by O. Stählin, 2 ed by Früchtel, L., GCS 17²=Clemens Alex. III2 (1970) pp 158-91Google Scholar. English readers will find useful the Loeb ed by G. W. Butterworth (London 1919 & rcpr), in which The Rich Man’s Salvation is printed mainly in Stählin’s text, with a good facing english trans and some notes, on pp 270-367.

⁸³ John Chrys., Hom. II De Stat. 5 (PG 49 (1859) col 40).

⁸⁴ Among very many examples see Aug. Ep. 157.23-39.

⁸⁵ Jerome, Ep. 118, esp §§ 4, 5, 6 (init.), 7 (init.). Compare Ep. 60, to Heliodorus, where the priest Nepotian is said to have lived in practice the life of a monk (§ 10) and thus fulfilled Mt. 19.21.

⁸⁶ Optatus III.3, pp 74.19 to 75.3, ed C. Ziwsa, CSEL 26 (1893). This work was published about 365-6, and a revised edition was issued some twenty years later.

⁸⁷ Compare another apocryphal passage, Tobit 12.9; and, from the old testament itself, Prov. 13.8; Dan. 4.27 (LXX).

⁸⁸ Clem. Alex., Quis dives saluetur? (n 82 above) xxxii.i (p 181); compare xix.4-6 etc. The Greek of the words I have quoted in the text is ώ καλη5 ецтгоріас, ώ θεΐοκ ауораѕ; and the passage continues, ώνεΐται χρημάτων TIS άφβαρσΐαν ... πλεϋσον êirl ταύτην, δν σωφρονηΐ, τήν πανήγυριυ, ώ ττλούσιε κτλ.

⁸⁹ A good brief account of the whole difficult subject of penance is given by Gaudemet pp 78-87, 667-81.

⁹⁰ See for example Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 34. 2, 7, 10 (CSEL 29 pp 303-12).

⁹¹ Pelagius (?), De Divit. ii (p 32, ed Haslehurst: see n 124 below). Yet this is a work which is far more hostile to riches than most: see below.

⁹² See Duncan-Jones pp 17-32, esp pp 18 n 4, 32 n 6.

⁹³ Ibid p 343 (no 21 in App 7).

⁹⁴ See Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1964) 2, pp 554-5Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ See Gaudemet p 573, who alludes to ‘le difficile problème de la mesure’ in this regard. After asking what proportion of his wealth the rich man was expected to spend in charity, he replies, ‘Son superflu doit assurer le nécessaire à ceux qui sont dans le besoin. Notions imprécises dont il serait vain de chercher la détermination’!

⁹⁶ Christophe gives much of the material.

⁹⁷ Four lines in a poem by Greg. Naz. (Carmina Theohgica ILxxxiii.i 13-16) are worth quoting: ‘Cast away all and possess God alone, for you are the dispenser of riches that do not belong to you. But if you do not wish to give all, give the greater part; and if not even that, then make a pious use of your superfluity’ (тоТѕ irepnrols εΰσέβει).

⁹⁸ I have quoted above Chrysostom’s exegesis of Mt. 19.21. As he is often justly remembered as a specially vehement and eloquent denouncer of the very rich, it is worth also recalling his curious defence of the wealth of Dives (in the parable of Lazarus) as God-given: see his Homilies on Lazarus III.4 (PG 48 (1859) cols 996-7); VI.9 (cols 1040-3), summarised by Christophe pp 138-9. See also Plassmann, Otto, Das Almosen bei Joh. Chrys. (Diss., Bonn, 1960)Google Scholar, a collection of material not utilised to much effect.

⁹⁹ He even took ‘Give us this day’ (Mt. 29.11) or ‘day by day’ (Lk. 11.3) ‘our daily bread’ to refer to incorporeal bread, food of the spirit: see his De Orat. (Περΐ εύχή$) 27, pp 363-75 ed P. Koetschau, in GCS Origenes II (1899).

¹⁰⁰ See for example Orig., Comm. in Matlh. XV.14-20, csp 15, pp 391-5, ed E. Klostermann, GCS 40=Origenes X (1935). Compare XV.20 (pp 405-9), where Origen points out that it is only difficult, and not impossible, for a rich man to be saved - though it is clear that in his mind a divine miracle is needed, comparable to getting a camel through the eye of a needle! And see also Orig., C. Cels. VII.18, pp 169-71 ed Koetschau; see n 99 above.

¹⁰¹ See Christophe p 93 for a french translation of the main passage: Hom. in Genes. XVI.5.

¹⁰² The treatment of Basil’s thought is perhaps the best part of Christophe: see his pp 107-29, esp 108-12, 119-21, 123-5, 128-9. Decisive in favour of the view that Basil did not regard the mere ownership of property as an evil is Basil’s so-called ‘Shorter Rules’ no 92 (PG 31, col 1145; Christophe, p 108); compare the ‘Longer Rules’ no 18 (PG 31, col 965; Christophe, pp 128-9).

¹⁰³ By J. Squitieri (Sarno 1946). It will hardly repay the effort of reading it.

¹⁰⁴ It is absurd to pretend, as for example Squitieri and Christophe have done (see Christophe pp 168-74), that in De Offic. I.130-2 Ambrose is simply agreeing with Cicero, and that his ‘usurpatio’ is equivalent to Cicero’s ‘vetus occupatio’ (Cic., De Offic. I.20-22). In § 131 Ambrose makes a first objection to Cicero’s ‘iustitiae primum munus’; and in § 132, whereas Cicero had accepted the rule that while common possessions should be used for the common good, a man could use private possessions for his own good, Ambrose now, with the words ‘next they thought it a form of justice that one should treat common [public] property as public, but private as private’, raises a second objection to the ciceronian position: after the passage beginning ‘sic enim deus’, for which there is no parallel in Cicero, he says, ‘natura igitur tus commune generavit, usurpatio ius fecit privatum’, and he then carefully omits the sentence (‘ex quo … societatis’) at the end of Cicero’s § 21 which is the climax of Cicero’s argument, asserting that it is right for a man to retain what he has acquired and that anyone else who seeks to annex it will be violating a law of human society - a quintessentially ciceronian statement. Ambrose’s use of the word usurpatio too is decisive, and Christophe’s arguments (pp 172-4) against Calafato are obviously worthless. His conclusion that Ambrose is here ‘maintaining the legitimacy of private property’ has no justification. Of course in several other passages, listed by Dudden, [F.] Homes, [The Life and Times of St. Ambrose] (1935) 2, pp 548-50Google Scholar, Ambrose takes private property for granted, although in others again (see pp 545-7) he regards it with aversion.

¹⁰⁵ On the whole I accept the account given by Homes Dudden, 2, pp 545-50. However, when he summarises Ambrose’s attitude (p 547) as ‘But wealth is not only unprofitable: it is positively demoralizing’, most of the passages he proceeds to quote (though by no means all) require the substitution for ‘wealth’ of ‘avarice’ or ‘seeking after wealth’.

¹⁰⁶ Ambr., Expos. Ev. Luc. VIII.70-2, 13, 85 (in CSEL 22.iv).

¹⁰⁷ See Homes Dudden, 2, p 548 nn 5-8.

¹⁰⁸ Ambr., Ep. 63.92, quoting Prov. 13.8 and perhaps also Dan. 4.27 (LXX).

¹⁰⁹ De Helia et ieiunio 76, quoting Tobit 12.9.

¹¹⁰ Ambr., Expos, in Ps. CXVIII, Sermo 8.22; compare De Viduis 4-5; De Nabuth. 2, 11; Expos. Ev. Luc. VII.124, 247.

¹¹¹ See for example Aug., Ep. 157.23-4; compare Serm. XIV.4 etc.

¹¹² See the pelagian De Divit. (cited in n 124 below) ix.1-3 (pp 50-2, ed Haslehurst).

¹¹³ Exod. III.21-2; XI.2; XII.35-6.

¹¹⁴ Iren., Elench. IV.xxx.1-3, ed W. W. Harvey (1857).

¹¹⁵ Greg. Nyss., Vita Moys. II, pp 67-8, ed H. Musurillo, in Greg. Nyss. VII.i (Leiden 1964).

¹¹⁶ See my ‘Aspects of the “Great” Persecution’, in Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954) pp 75-113. at p 84 n 44.

¹¹⁷ See Ibid esp pp 87-8.

¹¹⁸ Clem. Alex., Strom. III (ii) 5.1 to 9.3, pp 197-200 in GCS 52=Clemens Alex. II³, ed O. Stählin and L. Früchtel (1960) esp 6.1 to 8.1.

¹¹⁹ See Heinz Kraft, ‘Gab es einen Gnostiker Karpokrates?’, in Theologisches Zeitschrift 8 (1952) pp 434-43.

¹²⁰ Ps.-Clem., Homil. XV.vii-x, esp vii.4-6, ix.2-3, pp 215-17, ed Rehm, B., in GCS 42 (1953)Google Scholar. The Homilies in their present form date from the fourth century but seem to derive from an original of the third or even second century, which may have emanated from a jewish-christian sect with gnostic tendencies. See also Christophe pp 96-8, using a french translation.

¹²¹ Mansi 2 (1759) col 1102; HL, I.ii (1907) p 1032: the eustathians are said to believe that the rich who do not give up all their property have no hope of salvation. (Compare also the Epilogue to the Canons.) It is interesting to find, both from the Synodal Letter and from Canon 3 of this council (Mansi, col 1101; HL 1034), that the eustathians had also been inciting slaves to leave their masters, apparently to become monks: Can. 3 anathematises anyone who ‘on a pretext of piety, teaches a slave to despise his master and to leave his service, and not to serve him with goodwill and all honour’.

¹²² Cyril Hierosol., Catech. VIII.6-7 (Migne, PG 33 cols 632-3).

¹²³ Epiphan., Panar., Haer. LXI, esp i.1; iii.1 (pp 380, 382, ed Holl., K. in GCS 31 = Epiphan. II, 1922)Google Scholar; compare Aug., De Haeres., Haer. 40; and see also Basil, Ep. 188, can. 1; 189, can. 47; C.Th. XVI.v.7, 11, compare 9; C.J. I.v.5.

¹²⁴ Pelagius (?), Tractatus de Divitiis, ed C. P. Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelalters (Christiania 1890) pp 25-67, repr in PL Suppl 1 (1958) cols 1380 et seq. and by Haslehurst, [R.S.T.], [The Works of Fastidius] (London 1927) pp 30–107 Google Scholar: the last has a good facing English trans. There are other pelagian works touching on the same theme, for example the Epist. II ad Geruntii filias (De contemnenda haereditate), in PL 30 cols 45-50.

¹²⁵ By Haslehurst; Georges de Plinval. Pélage: ses écrits, sa vie et sa réforme. Etude d’hist. littér, et relig. (Lausanne etc., 1943) esp pp 160-2, 189-91, 221-3; Myres, J.N.L., ‘Pelagius and the End of Roman Rule in Britain’, in JRS 50 (1960) pp 21–36 Google Scholar; Liebeschuetz, W., ‘Did the Pelagian Movement have Social Aims?’, in Historia 12 (1963) pp 227-41Google Scholar; Morris, John, ‘Pelagian Literature’, in JTS ns 16 (1965) pp 26–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liebeschuetz, , ‘Pelagian Evidence on the Last Period of Roman Britain?’, in Latomus 26 (1967) pp 436-47Google Scholar; Brown, Peter, Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine (London 1972) pp 183–207, 208-26Google Scholar (the last particularly informative on Pelagius’s circle). None of these works deals exclusively with the De Divit., but they all bear upon it in one way or another.

¹²⁶ The only allusions I notice in the De Divit. (those in x.5, 6) to the earliest apostolic community make no reference to its ‘communism’.

¹²⁷ See pp 26-7 above and nn 82, 88.

¹²⁸ For the use of allegory by Clement, in Quis dives salvetur?, see esp v.2-4; xi.2-3; xiv.1-6; xv-xvii; xviii-xx; xxvi.2-7; xxvi.8 to xxvii.2. The most complete account I have found of allegory, from the beginnings to the time of Augustine and Gregory Nazianzen, is Pépin, Jean, Mythe et allégorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes (Paris 1958)Google Scholar. Hanson, R.P.C., Allegory and Event. A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London 1959)Google Scholar hardly goes back behind jewish and hellenistic allegory (pp 11-64). For the earlier stages, see J. Tate, in Oxford Class. Diet. ¹ (1970) pp 45b-6b (‘Allegory, Greek’, and ‘Latin’), and his articles there cited in Class Rev. 1927 and Class. Quart. 1929, 1930 and 1934.

¹²⁹ I discuss all these questions in CSAGW.

¹³⁰ The evidence for early Christian views on military service and war is most fully set out by Cadoux, pp 51-7, 116-22, 183-90, 269-81, 402-42, 564-96. See also Gaudemet, pp 706-9, who gives a brief summary of the main 4th/5th century views (esp those of Augustine, who went further than many early Christians in defending war), with bibliography. Recent work, including the article by Bainton, R.H., ‘The Early Church and War’, in Harvard Theological Review 39 (1946) pp 189–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is briefly reviewed by Fontaine, Jacques, ‘Christians and Military Service in the Early Church’, in Concilium 7.1 (1965) pp 58–64 Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Itself nicely criticised in Cic., De Rep. III.12/20, ed K. Ziegler (6 ed, 1964) preserved in Lact., Div. Inst. VI.ix.4: it was the means by which the romans gave their aggression the appearance of legitimacy (‘per fetiales bella indicendo, et legitime injurias faciendo’).

¹³² The most convenient English version of the relevant part of Froissart is Froissart’s Chronicles, ed and trans by John Jolliffe (London 1967), caps 73-4, pp 236-52 (esp 237—8). The traditional english version is Froissart’s Cronycles, trans by Sir John Bouchier Lord Berners, 1, 4 (Oxford 1928) pp 1095-1121 (esp 1096-7).

¹³³ Revolutionary Priest. The Complete Writings and Messages of Camilo Torres, ed John Gerassi (1971, paperback in Pelican Latin American Library, 1973).