AGORA

[L_CORNELIUS_CETHEGUS]

Just to add something to the political arguments for persecution...

I was recently reading how Domitian executed his cousin Flavius Clemens as well as the consul Acilius Glabrio on the charge of 'atheism' - a charge which made no distinction between monotheistic groups (i.e. jews and christians) and 'non-believers'. This charge would often lead to confiscation of property if not death. Given the range of conspiracies real and perceived during Domitian's reign, it seems reasonable to see these as more political than religious maneuvers. Since not only civic and judicial authority but also full religious authority was vested in the emperor, I find it easy to see how this might be a convenient card to play in domestic politics.

The interesting questions for me would be how much these top-down actions of religious tolerance/persecution were perceived by the general population or the Roman establishment. Also, I'd be curious whether there were differences in the handling of religious minorities in Italy versus the provinces. I might also want to know if there were differences in this regard between provinces with centuries of urban mingling (i.e. greece, africa, egypt) and those without (i.e. Hispania, Gallia Lugdunensis, etc.).

--Kelsey

[Narukami]

It is recorded that the Jews and the Greeks were in regular and seemingly constant friction, fighting each other in Alexandria and cities in Judea, but as for the Roman government, their actions seem more pragmatic than ideological. They needed to move people to Sardinia so they selected a group least likely to cause undue trouble. It was matter of practicality and politics more than one of dogma or ideology.

There are always exceptions to be sure, but generally speaking the Romans seemed tolerant so long as you paid due respect to the civil religion, which is to say the cult of the Emperor.

However, Jona is quite right, no group has a monopoly on intolerance.

As Jacob Bronowski pointed out, it is a question of Certainty Vs. Knowledge.

"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. This is false, tragically false. Look for yourself.
This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond
were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by
dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how
they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods." The Ascent of Man p374 (emphasis added)

:|

Narukami

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Very well put !

M.VIB.M.

[john m roberts]

Does anyone know why the Greeks and the Jews fought so much in Alexandria?

[Jona Lendering]

Does anyone know why the Greeks and the Jews fought so much in Alexandria?

I wonder if they did. Philo gives the impression that it was terrible, and it certainly was; but prior to Agrippa's ill-timed vision, tensions appear to have be low. Perhaps it was just Agrippa?

[Epictetus]

The New York Times reviewer seems to like it.

Hypatia, a humanist and an intellectual, finds herself threatened from all sides. And though her predicament is sometimes laid out in heavy thematic speeches, it is also very moving. This is partly because Ms. Weisz is such a sympathetic presence and adept at showing how her character’s combination of wisdom and unworldliness makes her vulnerable to the guile, cowardice and opportunism of others. But it is also because Mr. Amenábar and Mr. Gil do not stack the odds in her favor. Films about ideological strife in the past frequently reassure modern audiences with a vision of progress in which ignorance is at least partly vanquished and enlightenment is allowed to prevail.

As does the Guardian.

Rachel Weisz gives an outstanding performance as the mathematician and philosopher Hypatia. This movie proposes her as a pioneer of modern astronomy and martyr to rational thought: she demonstrates the heliocentric nature of the universe, thus anticipating Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, all without benefit of telescopes, and is finally slaughtered by woman-hating early Christians.

Tyler Cowen is surprised there isn’t more controversy about it.

It is the most pro-science, pro-rationalist, anti-Christian movie I have seen -- ever. -- and it does not disguise the message in the slightest… It offers a Voltairean portrait of Judaism, as an oppressed rabble, most of all responsible for the crime of having birthed Christianity. There are some not-so-subtle parallels shown between the early Christians and current Muslim terrorists.

The visual rendering of antiquity is nicely done and without an excess of CGI.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I liked it a lot, though it reaffirmed my hatred for any dogmatic religion.

M.VIB.M.