Standing on Higher Ground: The History of the Papacy

[Trollheart]

So, I hear you all moan, he's lost it at last. After vampires, serial killers, histories of this country and that country, animation and aviation he's reduced to the most boring topic of all time: popes.

What? Boring did I hear you say?

Boring?

Let me tell you, nothing could be farther from the truth! The history of the papacy is littered with lies, corruption, sex, racism, misogyny, wars, betrayal, and power hungry men who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted. Boring? It's like the Roman Empire, only without the sex. Well, okay, with the sex. But without the war. No, wait a minute, it has that too. Well, without the betray - okay, basically the long, two thousand year plus story of the papacy is just like the history of the Roman Empire, but with just the one god.

It's also incredibly amusing that because one man who may or may not have been the son of God (who himself may or may not exist) gave authority to another over his people, this authority has carried through two millennia and continues to hold sway over the faithful, sending them into paroxysms of ecstasy whenever he even appears before them. But the real question is: how did this institution , which was originally intended to be the idea of a shepherd leading his flock and caring for them, turn into century after century of men setting themselves up as little less than kings and emperors, and lining their own coffers while the ministration to the faithful could go fuck itself? And how, after so many corrupt popes, did the whole thing - on the surface, at least - turn itself back to the business of looking after God's people?

I feel the history of the Papacy should be a very interesting thing to research - not always; surely there were Popes who did little in their term, just spent their time nodding off and calling for mugs of milky tea, but certainly in the earlier days they all but reigned like kings or emperors, so there should be a lot of meat there. And while of course the "bad Popes" are going to be more interesting to write about, I don't intend this to be a hatchet job: many of the Popes supported the arts, were patrons of literature and architecture, even helped the poor and contributed to world history in a positive way. So I will be taking the good with the bad, and trying to draw a picture of what the Papacy has looked like over the now two thousand years and counting of its existence. As you probably all know, I am a non-believer, but my intention is not to denigrate or jeer at the institution of the Papacy, and I will give as balanced and fair an account as I can manage.

But it should not and cannot be overlooked that it was the Catholic Church that instigated the Crusades, the Inquisitions and who ordered certain books - and many people - to be burned, the Church which actively held back advances in science because they did not fit in with their teachings and were therefore seen as heretical, and who kept women and minorities down, believing this to be the "will of God." Popes often sponsored or even commanded armies, wars and land grabs, allowed loveless marriages for the sake of alliance building, and helped to keep Europe in the Dark Ages. On the flip side, as noted, and certainly during the Renaissance, they were the patrons of the arts, builders of cathedrals, hospitals, schools and of course churches, and provided for the poor and the destitute.

Whether true or not we shall see, but the TV series The  Borgias implied that Popes were not just elected - at least, at that time in history - but could buy, bribe, threaten or even murder their way into the job. In many ways (and again, how much of this is fantasy, distortion of the truth or pure lies I don't know at the moment) the Vatican seems to have been, for some considerable time, almost a forerunner of the Mafia, with hired killers, poisonings, suppression of the truth and, of course, twisted sexual practices. I'd like to say that was just a few bad apples, but this is not something I know, so you'll have to find out as I do, as we descend into the murky forgotten dusty crypts of the Vatican and unearth the stories of the men behind the office down through almost two millennia.

Of course, I say the Vatican, but the independent city-state was only established less than a century ago, in 1929. Prior to that, all popes presided from Rome (though there were a few exceptions as we will see) as this was of course the centre of the Roman Empire, which changed from a pagan worship to a Christian one on the conversion of the Emperor Constantine the Great, allowing the new sect, which had up till then been persecuted by the Romans, its adherents tortured and killed, its priests hunted down, to be practiced in public and in safety.

[Trollheart]

Part I: Foundations (1st to 10th Century)

Chapter I: Upon This Rock: The Founding of Christianity and the Beginning of the Papacy

FIRST CENTURY

Total popes: 5
Oldest:TBA

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
(Matthew 16:18)

Papal Name: Saint Peter
Actual Name: Shimon Bar Yonah
Born: c. 1 AD
Year elected: c. 30
Country: Israel (Judea)
Region: Capernaum
Duration of Papacy: approx. 34 years
Roman Emperor(s) in his time:Caligula, Claudius, Nero (talk about a baptism of fire!)
Bulls: n/a
Achievements: Established Christianity
Enemies: Romans, Jews, other religions, almost everyone
Wars Engaged in or Supported: n/a
Died: c. 64-68
Death: By crucifixion (said to be upside-down)
Buried: Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome, where the Vatican now stands

Even if you, like me, doubt that Jesus Christ was or is the Son of God and that he rose from the dead, there is good historical evidence that a man of that name lived and preached in the area around Judea in what we have come to call AD 30 or so, and that he had followers, of which Simon Peter is said to have been one. As noted in the quote from The Gospel of Matthew above, Jesus is reputed to have told Peter (then called Simon, or Shimon) that he was to lead his church after Jesus's death, and for this reason he renamed him Peter, or the rock. No, not that one. As a result of this, Peter is seen in Christian belief as being the first ever pope. It might not be the greatest endorsement of him that he denied even knowing his master three times (as Jesus prophesied) but then, we all do things we later wish we hadn't when we're scared, and who among us has not lied to protect his own skin, so maybe we can forgive him that little slip.

The Bible (the only semi-historical record we have of events leading up to Jesus's death) tells us that after his rabbi was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane the Apostles, the followers and disciples of Jesus, legged it and split, all heading in different directions, hiding from the Romans, whom they feared would arrest them too. It's fair to say that, while Peter had his long dark night of the soul, punctuated with a dreadful full stop by the crow of the cock, none of the other Apostles were exactly rushing to give themselves up either. After all, when it comes right down to it they were just men, and simple men at that: their leader, whom they had hoped and believed would change the world, had just been taken by the military force occupying their country, and to them it must have been something like expecting to hang around while the Nazis took Anne Frank. Well, nothing like that, but certainly you didn't rush up to the SS and say "Here I am! Arrest me too!"

No. To give its authors credit, there are no wild stories invented about how the Apostles all stuck with Jesus, surrounding him and stopping his arrest, and giving themselves up too. While Peter did literally strike a blow for freedom in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him and allowed himself to be taken. The Bible, whether you believe it or not, has no reason to lie about this. The authors could have made out there had been a glorious standoff, a popular uprising that swept Jesus to power. Or that, being the Son of God, he had simply vanished, or his captors had been cowed by his majesty and divinity, and fallen on their knees before him. This is not what we're told happened. The story given is brutal and honest, without frills or fables, without miracles or daring escapes. Jesus, when it came down to it, was taken without resistance, and the Christian sect lost its leader.

And after Jesus had been crucified (if you wish to believe he appeared to the Apostles, including Peter, three days later, that's your right, but I don't) Peter set about carrying out the mammoth task his master had set for him, that of carrying on and spreading the faith, taking the Good News to all nations, scattering the seed Jesus had sown far and wide. He would find this was harder than it seemed.

Christians being Christians, and men being men, almost immediately the new sect (not yet a church) began to disagree on various points of dogma. It should be perhaps noted that there is no record of Jesus, the undeniable (for Christians) head of the new church, ever specifying who could and could not "join up". In fact, he said that "anyone" who believes in me, shall have eternal life. He did not say "any Jew" or "any Gentile" (non-Jew) or even "anyone but the Romans". He said everyone, which included everyone; everyone of every faith who was prepared to believe in and follow his teachings could be considered a Christian, and was allowed enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

His followers, however, didn't quite see it that way.

A row broke out between Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. James believed that Christians (I'm not sure if they were called that yet, but you know what I mean) should adhere, um, religiously to the traditions of Judaism. Paul in particular believed that in order to be accepted into the new sect, which he saw as Jewish (which it pretty much was, then) converts must follow Jewish law, the Law of Moses. This included, inevitably, a popular Jewish operation in the trouser area. But not too many of those who wanted to switch sides had much interest in losing their foreskin, and Paul was of the belief that "no snip, no service, no salvation", or words to that effect. Peter, on the other hand, pointed out that Jesus - remember him? Our master? Died on the cross, returned from the dead, ascended into Heaven? Oh come on! You must remember him! Nice guy, long hair, beard, wouldn't hurt a fly? Yeah, yeah, that's the one, you remember now - had never set these preconditions on being accepted as part of his flock. While travelling Judea preaching, had he ever once asked to see a fore - well, let's not go there, but basically the point being made was that if Jesus had not ordered it then it was all cool. All friends together, and even Moses might have agreed.

But on such points of disagreement schisms develop, and so it was with the fledgling religion. Only barely born, not even able to talk or do anything for itself, it was already throwing tantrums and demanding this and that. Peter decided to take the dispute to the only one left on Earth who could be said to be related to Jesus (the only male; females of course did not count, despite the inclusion of Mary Magdalene into the Apostles by Jesus), his brother, James, called the Just. He ruled as follows:

"My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
— Acts 15:7–11

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
— Acts 15:19–20

In other words, basically what I said: if Jesus didn't demand this of his followers, then what do you think gives you the right to? Chill out man, and let them keep their fucking foreskins. It's their souls we want, their hearts and minds. What is it with you and genitalia anyway? You some sort of queer or something?

Well, maybe not the last. But the decision was made, and so Gentiles would be allowed to become Christians without having to sacrifice their best friend's overcoat. Paul, of course, was not going to take this lying down, and thundered in a letter to the Galaxians, sorry Galatians "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat the Gentiles (sorry, sorry: that's eat WITH the Gentiles. Ah, the difference one word can make! From potential cannibal to a nice cup of cha). But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. (Sounds like some sort of self-support group). The rest of the Jews joined in this charade and even Barnabas was drawn into the hypocrisy." (Oh no! Not Barnabas! All right, I'll stop now).

It seems that Paul was losing support, and the schism between the two leaders began to widen. Theological scholars and experts disagree about a whole lot of things, including the possibility that the Peter mentioned as having a face-off with Paul was not that Peter but another one. There are differing opinions as to how the two men got on in later life - some even postulate that they were both martyred at the same time. None of that really concerns us, as I intend to concentrate on the popes and not Saint Peter, but he has to be covered as he was the first pope. I make no claims as to theological knowledge about the man, and admit that all we know about him comes from the Bible and either his own writings or those of other Apostles, some of whom, like Paul, may have been predisposed towards blackening his name and placing himself in the best light possible. Good luck to them both: I don't care. I'm just trying to position Peter historically as to what he did to kick off the original GOP that now all but rules the Earth.

Peter is said to have served as Bishop of the ancient Greek city of Antioch, now in modern Turkey, for seven years, then headed over to what would eventually - after a very long time, and long after he was dust himself - become the centre of Christian power, the Italian capital city and stronghold of the Roman Empire, Rome itself. Before even Antioch though, Peter would have a confrontation with a man who would challenge his power, and provide him with his first major challenge since the death of Jesus.

[Trollheart]

Simon Magus

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is the great power [Gr. Dynamis Megale] of God."[17] And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." But Peter said unto him, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought [Gr. Epinoia][18] of thine heart may be forgiven thee, for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Then answered Simon, and said, "Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."
— (Acts 8:9–24)

Reading the above it can be seen that while Simon Magus, a Samaritan, wished to be an Apostle he coveted the power rather than the desire to convert. He even went so far as to try to pay for the power, which really ticked Peter off, and he kicked him out of the city and denounced him. On arriving in Rome (before Peter) he seems to have set himself up as Jesus, telling everyone that he was the saviour, and performing "miracles" - he is said to have been a magician and a sorcerer (what's the difference? Dunno) and to have been able to levitate himself off the ground. Unlike (or, perhaps archly, like) the man he was impersonating, he fell in with a bad woman by the name of Helen, and the Romans clapped at his magic and even made him a god.

It's quite amazing the myths that grew up around this guy. I mean, some writers seem to have believed he actually was God. I mean, literally. The Big Cheese, old Scarypants himself, as Rik Mayall once said, though he was referring to the Devil at the time. Epiphanius (from whom, I wonder, is it possible we get the word epiphany?), Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote that - oh wait just one tension-popping moment! I've heard of this guy. Wasn't he the one who refuted Origen in my journal about the Devil, moaning that he was wrong about his interpretation of God or something? And it seems that he didn't believe what I'm about to relate, but did in fact refute it in his Panarion (it means bread-basket - why did he title it so?) which is a work basically demolishing all Christian sects whose specific beliefs he did not agree with. Spent a lot of his time refuting, did our Epiphanius; seems to have been pretty much all he did. Nobody could refute like him. A dab hand at the old refuting, this lad.

So then, Epiphanius tells and then refutes (see?) the story that God was sitting around bored one day, long long ago, so long ago that even I don't remember what I was doing. Long before he had the spiffing idea of creating a universe, even. And a thought popped into his head, known as his First Thought, and for some unfathomable reason given a name and even a sex, female. The thought was called Ennoia (which, I have to be honest, sounds very close to annoy doesn't it?) and gave him this idea, literally translated from the pages of Panarion:

"Fuck me but I'm bored sitting around here with nothing to do. I am great after all. Why isn't somebody here praising me? I need to be praised, and constantly too. No point in hiring some dumbos who will drop in twice a week for a quick "Hosanna" and then feck off home, leaving me lonely and bored and un-praised. Nah, I need full-time staff. See to it will you Ennoia?"

(Okay I lied. Back to Ennoia and her great thought):

And so she did. She made herself into an idea, this thought called Annoy ya and this thought was this: where in the name of blue jumping fuck am I going to find professional sycophants for this guy? Congress hasn't been invented, Trump is trillennia from being born, and this copy of God News is three months old! I know! I'll make them, I will. What a good idea."

And so she did. Down to - well, I really don't know. Down to nowhere really. If this was, as the account suggests, the Beginning, then really nothing should have existed, should it? There should have been nowhere to go. What does it say in that bestseller of fiction? "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and something something was without form something." I don't know: I haven't opened a Bible since I was a kid, and even then I was bored. But religion - especially Christianity - is full of these paradoxes, and they're never explained, mostly because they can't be. The old f-word is used so often  - no, not that one! Faith I mean - it becomes a catch-all for everything that's too hard, or even impossible to explain, sort of "a wizard did it" kind of thing.

Anyhoo, this thought went somewhere, and created the angels. Masterstroke. Smashed it. God will be really happy now, thought Ennoia, and headed back up to tell him the Good News. Well, tried to anyway. Seems the angels, for some reason, according to this account, were none too pleased to have been created. Kind of like your annoying teenage son fuming "I didn't ask to be born!" Well, they didn't, and they were, on the whole, pretty pissed off about it. They grabbed Enoia - of whom, it is said, they were jealous - and jammed her into a female body.

Now, again, help me out here. Man had not been created, much less woman. The angels were the first living beings to be made by God, or his thought at any rate, so without the actual concept of male and female, how did they manage to...? Look, let's just leave all this inconvenient logic behind us, yeah? Go crazy otherwise. So they put poor old Ennoia into a female body and proceeded to, um, humiliate her down through the ages, as Man came swaggering onto the scene, much later. The angels, according to this account (which might have been part of the reason poor old Epiphanius spat out his unleavened bread or whatever he was eating and said "Oh no you fucking don't lads!") created the world as a prison for Ennoia, gave her the finger, said, "That'll teach you to create us, you bitch!" and slouched off to Heaven, where God greeted them, not with joy or love, but with a sharp glance at his watch and a frown, asking "where the hell have you guys been? Get to work immediately and don't expect any fucking lunch break!"

Maybe the angels had a point in not having wanted to be born. I mean, when your entire existence consists of telling one ageing white guy how great he is, you might as well be in Donald Trump's staff! Anyway at some point God must have thought "Where the hooting heck is that thought of mine?" and the angels shrugging uncomfortably and changing the subject by commenting loudly on how shiny his hair was, and how he only look a quadrillion gazillion years old and they could not believe he was so much older than that, surely not, he decided the only thing he could do was get up off his divine ass and lever himself up off of the couch (with the assistance of an infinite number of angels, all of whom did groan and grunt and sweat most profusely but yea, did refrain from suggesting the old guy sign up for a gym membership or maybe take more walks) and go looking for her.

In perhaps the first ever instance of finding yourself, this account goes on to say he discovered her on Earth, and was mightily pissed. He descended to Earth, possibly making admiring remarks about the architecture, and found his thought Ennoia was in the body of a woman called Helen. He came to her in the shape of (thought I'd forgotten, didn't you? Thought my mind was wandering again) Simon Magus, speaking thus:

"And on her account," he says, "did I come down; for this is that which is written in the Gospel 'the lost sheep'. - Epiphanius, Panarion, 21.3.5

His explanation then seems to have been a little, shall we say, distracted as he went on.

"For as the angels were mismanaging the world, owing to their individual lust for rule, he had come to set things straight, and had descended under a changed form, likening himself to the Principalities and Powers through whom he passed, so that among men he appeared as a man, though he was not a man, and was thought to have suffered in Judaea, though he had not suffered."

Right. Glad we got that sorted then. But he wasn't finished, oh no.
"But in each heaven I changed my form," says he, "in accordance with the form of those who were in each heaven, that I might escape the notice of my angelic powers and come down to the Thought, who is none other than her who is also called Prunikos and Holy Ghost, through whom I created the angels, while the angels created the world and men."

Oh-kay. Well, it's no wonder Eipihanius blew a fuse, is it? While it's a given that trying to figure logic into religion is a waste of time, there are some basic details here  that seriously challenge standard Christian dogma.

First: the idea of God's thoughts, or any part of him, being female. Surely this is not what the Church, an institution which delights in keeping women down and which, through its teachings via the Bible, holds all of womanhood liable for humanity's unceremonious ejection from the Garden of Eden, wants to preach? God is a man. There is no argument. God is superior. Man is superior. Therefore, God must be a man. QED. How dare anyone suggest any part of him be female? And his thoughts? As we all know, the brain is the seat of the human personality, so what is being suggested here is that the most important part of God - his brain - is (at least in part) female, which is tantamount to saying God is female!

Heresy!

Second: the account claims that this female thought created the angels, not God. Well, I mean, yes, essentially it's still God, but I can imagine Epiphanius fuming at the idea of "any part of God being female" and that part being given the glory of bringing the angels into being. I doubt he would have been amused.

Heresy!

Third: The angels create Earth and imprison Ennoia (God, basically) there. What happened to "God moved on the waters" or whatever? Everyone knows the big man made the Earth, no damn angels. Angels are good at singing and praising and occasionally fighting for the Lord, doing the odd Annunciation to unsuspecting virgins, but creating the Earth? Do me a favour, son. Next you'll be asking me to believe there's more than one God!

Heresy!

Fourth, and finally: God comes down to Earth, not as Jesus, not to take on the sins of men (well, women really, but we'll give them a pass - for now) and to bring eternal salvation, but to save his whore?

Heres - well, you get the picture.

So Epiphanius roundly condemned and branded Simon Magus as a heretic, as had Hippolytus, another well respected theologian, a century before when he wrote, rather more damningly, "But the liar was enamoured of this wench, whose name was Helen, and had bought her and had her to wife, and it was out of respect for his disciples that he invented this fairy-tale."

You've got to wonder, don't you, if this "wench Helen" (sometimes called Helena) is linked to or based on or in any way related to she of the Trojan War, that "face that launched a thousand ships" and who is of course blamed by Homer for the war, continuing a longstanding tradition of putting it all on the woman. Women aren't allowed on ships because they're bad luck. Women for a long time couldn't vote, or own property. Women married to kings were blamed if they couldn't get pregnant, or, if they did, if they lost the child. Women were burned as witches (seldom ever men) and women were stalked  by killers like Jack the Ripper. All the way back to poor unfortunate Eve, who after all was just a bit peckish and took the Yelp review of the  big tree from that nice snakelike fellow, women have been oppressed, put upon, blamed and punished for almost every evil that has befallen man.

At any rate, Hippolytus goes on to describe how Peter (yes I know, we're getting there, we're getting there) took on the heretic: Until he came to Rome also and fell foul of the Apostles. Peter withstood him on many occasions. At last he came ... and began to teach sitting under a plane tree. When he was on the point of being shown up, he said, in order to gain time, that if he were buried alive he would rise again on the third day. So he bade that a tomb should be dug by his disciples and that he should be buried in it. Now they did what they were ordered, but he remained there until now: for he was not the Christ.

Oops! I suppose there's such a thing as believing your own press too much, huh? I can just see the poor old disciples of Simon, standing around, looking at their watches (yes, yes!) and turning to each other after four days, shrugging and slowly dispersing. Backed the wrong horse again.

[Trollheart]

Not surprisingly, there are several accounts of Simon Magus's death, and many of his encounters both with Saint Peter and Saint Paul, who seem to have put their theological and ideological differences aside at least long enough to team up against the common enemy. One story tells of Magus riding a chariot through the air pulled by demons (uh-huh) which the two saints bring crashing to the ground by the power of prayer, killing Magus or, as it puts it in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (346 AD) "their prayers brought him to earth a mangled corpse." Then there were the Acts of Peter, believed written by Photoshop sorry Photios (c. 810/820 - 893) in which Peter actually challenges Magus to what amounts to I guess a magical smackdown. Magus is performing magic such as levitating himself from a tower (which might be slightly - but only slightly - more believable and explainable than riding through the air in a chariot pulled by demons!) and declaring he is going to Heaven. Peter throws down the gauntlet, praying to God to fix this imposter, and so he does. Magus falls mid-flight and breaks his leg in three places. Reading between the lines, it seems the inefficiency or ineptitude of the local doctors exacerbated the problem, and he died in pain.

The Acts of Peter and Paul, not to be confused with the above, author unknown but sometimes attributed to some head called Marcellus, note that the emperor Nero was a believer in Magus and had Peter and Paul imprisoned for three days, expecting Simon Magus to rise, Jesus-like, after three days. Needless to say, he was ever so slightly disappointed, so much so that he ordered the crucifixion of the two lads.

Though he didn't cheat death, necessitating the stowing by a crestfallen and angry Nero of the banner WELCOME BACK SIMON MAGUS I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN YOU and his cancellation of the ticker-tape parade, there are many accounts of Simon Magus's supposed magic. Mind you, it's important to be careful here. We have about as much evidence for them as we do for the works or miracles of Jesus, and who can say for sure what, if anything, happened, especially given that the accounts are all written by friendly hands, men who would want to place their leader in the best possible light? With that in mind though, here's what Magus is reputed to have done.

Seizing the chance to take over from him while he was away in Egypt at some magic symposium or other, one of his followers took it into his head to pronounce himself the leader, or as Simon Magus had described himself, the Standing One (I would assume some early Biblical times version of last man standing?) and when Simon came back and challenged him, here's what apparently happened.

"Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One), moved with rage, when they met as usual at the school, seized a rod, and began to beat Simon; but suddenly the rod seemed to pass through his body, as if it had been smoke. On which Dositheus, being astonished, says to him, 'Tell me if thou art the Standing One, that I may adore thee.' And when Simon answered that he was, then Dositheus, perceiving that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped him, and gave up his own place as chief to Simon, ordering all the rank of thirty men to obey him; himself taking the inferior place which Simon formerly occupied. Not long after this he died."

From what I can work out, this account comes from something called Histories and Recognitions, by a guy called Clement, who is believed either not to have existed or to have been someone who just wrote stuff down without any proof. They call this a "romance", which I guess is as close as it comes to describing it as fiction. He also (Magus, not the possible Clement) did a Dorian Grey by enslaving the soul of a young boy to act as his familiar, keeping it trapped by use of the boy's image in his room. Right.

When Simon Magus again debates Peter on the nature of Jesus, and how he, Simon, is better placed to know the mind of the Saviour (despite having, he says, only conversed with him in dreams and visions, whereas Peter has spoken to him literally in the flesh - and denied him, though I think he leaves that part out) Peter takes him apart philosophically and theologically thus:

"But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman."

And mic drop.

But we have got a little off the beaten path here, and this is supposed to be about Saint Peter. His battles, both physical and philosophical, with Simon Magus are only a small part of his story, though they do come near its end, as he ends up being crucified a matter of days after Simon's death. But let's not forget Simon Magus was in Rome long before Peter, who was hanging out at Antioch for seven years. What did he do in that time, between kicking out Simon Magus and later facing him down in the final confrontation? Well he seems on the face of it to have been quite a pragmatic man. Judaism is notorious for its insistence on adherence to its rites - no Jew can eat pork, all Jewish boys must go through the Bah Mitzvah and so on, but this wasn't Judaism, or if it was, it was a new offshoot of it, and Peter must have known that, like every new idea, it was going to take some persuading before people would try it.

For one thing, you have to consider the times. Jews had clung desperately to their religion in the face of an occupying force who believed in multiple gods, and while in general the Empire recognised that to try to force all Jews to convert would kick off riots across the entire region, they were still made to feel like they were ignorant, superstitious fools. So, considering how important their religion was to them, is it any wonder they resisted the idea of another new guy on the block, who seemed to take the best of their religion but add some of its own, and asked them to convert? They wouldn't exactly have been lining up, especially since the new sect was already outlawed and unrecognised by Rome, given that its now-dead leader had been classified and executed as an enemy of the state. Why should they ally themselves with such rebels and bring trouble down on their heads, when the Romans were - grudgingly - allowing them to pursue their own religion?

If he was to get anyone to sign up, Peter must have realised that he had to make it as attractive as possible, and placing restrictions on membership was not going to help. Besides, Jesus had not mentioned any such terms and conditions, had he? So while Jews had to eat "kosher" meat, why should Christians? Was it necessary for Christians to be circumcised? This was a big bone (sorry) of contention between Peter and Paul, the latter of whom thought the snip was definitely in order, but Peter knew most men would not go for this, and would then say "nah you're all right mate I'll stay where I am". Of course then Jews converting were going to be pissed, as they would already have lost their outer shell, as it were, and would probably resent that the new guys hadn't to go through the same no doubt painful process (so much more for them, one would shudderingly imagine, than for the Jewish lads, who would not even remember the ceremony, having been babies at the time).

So Peter did what he could to make joining up as easy and hassle-free as possible, though of course there were still rules that had to be followed. One god, lads. Just the one. Leave the others behind. No, you fucking can't have just Mercury too. I don't give a toss if he's only a little one, he's not welcome. Aphro-what? Goddess of love? Do me a favour.

Paul did not agree. Paul was, I guess what we'd call a hardliner, a traditionalist. Not forgetting of course that all the Disciples were Jews originally, Paul believed all Jewish traditions and conditions should be brought forward into the new religion, making it more an offshoot of Judaism than a totally new religion. He therefore reviled the Gentiles (non-Jews) who refused to do the things mentioned above, and more, and decreed they should be shut out of the new religion, not allowed to follow Jesus. But as I say, Paul and Peter obviously reconciled, or at least declared a truce, as they're depicted as working together for much of the accounts that mention them.

They are, for instance, both said to have founded the Church of Corinth (in ancient Greece) and Rome: "You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time" - (Dionysius of Corinth, Fragment of a Letter to the Roman Church, Chapter III). However there may be doubt about this, as apparently in his Epistle to the Romans, Paul namechecks his homies in Rome but Peter is conspicuous by his absence. Three to five years later, about AD 60 - 62, again no mention of Peter during Paul's two-year stay in Rome.

The death of Peter  or rather, his acceptance of it -  is commemorated in story and in a painting by the fifteenth-century artist Annibale Carrachi, which depicts the legend. Christ is seen carrying his cross towards Rome, while Peter, under sentence of death, is getting out of Dodge. He asks his master "Domine, Quo Vadis?" (Lord, where are you going?) to which Jesus replies "Eo Romam vado iterum crucifigi" (I am going to Rome to be crucified again). On realising that Jesus has to die twice because of his cowardice (what?) Peter decides to return to Rome and face his fate. All highly idealised, as is the idea he was then crucified upside-down, possibly due to the incompetence of Lucius Malefistus Stupidus, an intern on his first day on the job who had held the instructions the wrong way up. Or, according to various Christian dogmas, because he did not believe himself worthy of dying as Christ did, or again to illustrate that the Romans had everything upside-down, arse-about-face, and that he was, even right up to the end, a fucking clever clogs who never knew when to shut his fool mouth.

Whatever the truth, that was the end (at least, the human end - don't ask me about what happened next, if anything) of Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope of the new Christian Church. Of course, back then the word pope was not even invented and the Church was still a persecuted sect, but later, when things cooled down and it became accepted, legal and then official, and eventually the most literal example of local boy done good as Christianity became the biggest religion in the entire world, there was time to write about Saint Peter and to adopt him as being the very first pope.

As something of a postscript to this, in 1939 fragments of bone were unearthed in what was believed to be a shrine just beneath St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, said to be the grave of the saint himself. Now, it was apparently the current pope at the time, Paul VI, who confirmed the bone fragments were those of Saint Peter. What exact skill a pope has in archeology, forensics or anthropology I don't know, but he was seen as the central authority and almost thirty years after their excavation the bones were pronounced as being those of the first pope of the Christian Church. More tricky was working out whether this was indeed the place of the saint's burial or just the site of his execution, and that, well, they're still working on that. Still, it does seem to prove, if nothing else, that the man actually existed. Of course, technically speaking these bones surely can't be identified (DNA would be useless, as I doubt the Roman Empire kept a database to check it against) so they could in all likelihood be the bones of anyone. Like almost everything to do with the Church, and religion in general, I guess it's a matter of faith. You either believe or you don't.

Following Peter the line of succession is a little blurred, a lot disputed and not very well documented, but in general these are the more or less agreed-upon men who took up the baton, sometimes called the "shadow popes", which, though it sounds like some sort of cabalistic organisation working dark deeds in the Vatican, merely refers to their doubtful provenance. I suppose as the Christian Church was then a) new and b) under persecution by Rome, the chances of anyone writing down for instance minutes of meetings wherein a new pope was elected were slim, and even if anyone did, they're lost to history now, so we go with what we have.

[Trollheart]

And next we have this guy.

Papal Name: Linus
Actual Name: Linus
Born: c. AD 10
Year elected: c. AD 67
Country: Italy
Region: Volterra
Duration of Papacy: 9 years
Roman Emperor(s) in his time:Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian (that's a LOT of arses on the Imperial throne, but then, this was the time of the Four Emperors)
Bulls: None
Achievements: Not really an achievement, but witness to the sacking and burning of Jerusalem
Enemies: Roman Empire, all Peter's inherited enemies
Wars Engaged in or Supported: None, though he lived and ruled during the Jewish-Roman War
Died: c. AD 76
Death: Probably from natural causes. There are those who claim he was martyred, but this is believed unlikely.
Buried: (possibly) Vatican Hill

Like I say, there's very little to go on with the first batch of popes, as I guess they spent their time moving around and avoiding the Romans, but what we do know of Linus is that he's agreed to have been the second pope, ordained by Saint Peter (and later canonised himself, in a move which would become almost a posthumous perk of the office) and (remembering that there are differing views and you really don't want to get bogged down in these theological arguments and debates) is said to have been with Saint Paul near the time of his death or perhaps even when he died, in Rome. What is almost certainly not in doubt though is that Linus was the first Italian pope, and that virtually every other pope for two thousand years would be from that country, with a very few small - but often important - exceptions.

Can you then, I wonder, describe Linus as the first Roman pope? Italy being the heart of the Roman Empire, I think you could, and this then seriously predates the later conversion of Constantine the Great to Christianity and the wider acceptance of, and indeed imposition of the world's favourite religion throughout Rome, and later the world. I suppose the idea of travelling to Rome to set up the new Church was to "beard the dragon in its lair", so to speak, or even walk into the lion's den, almost literally. Rome was the centre of the empire's power, so if Christianity was to flourish it would have to take on the control and command centre of the religion which worshipped false gods, and in so doing take on the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. Like they say, go big or go home.

An interesting point about Linus is that, if the dates given are correct (and of course they may be off a year or two here or there, but are generally accepted to be more or less accurate) then he would have been the first pope to see Jerusalem, the centre of Jewish - and later Christian - faith destroyed by General, later to be Emperor Titus in AD 70. Following the Jewish Riots of 66 (get your kicks, huh?) when Jewish forces seized control of Jerusalem, the First Jewish-Roman War was initiated, and when Nero died in 68 there was a mad scramble for power, as the Year of the Four Emperors began the first Roman civil war. As you might expect from the name, 69 was the year that four separate emperors sat on the imperial throne - Galba, Otho, Vitellius and finally Vespasian, who would rule for ten years before being succeeded by his son, Titus.

As a general, Titus distinguished himself in the Jewish-Roman War and it was he who was responsible for sacking the city and burning the temple in 70, and also he who oversaw the completion of the new amphitheatre which was to become known as the Colosseum. He would also live through the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79, a matter of a few months after he had taken the throne. Titus, then, though feted both as a Roman general and emperor by history (his rule was said to be one of the wisest and most benign in decades, particularly after the cruelties and insanities perpetrated by Nero and Caligula before him) was a hated figure among Jews, and also the burgeoning new Christian religion, for his destruction of Jerusalem and his sacrilegious burning of the temple.

Linus would have found himself under immense pressure, trying to keep his faith and his people together in the face of such barbarity, and while the Christians were presumably not involved in the Jewish-Roman War, he must have felt for and sympathised with them. I mean, I don't know how the new sect felt about the war, whether they had any stake in it, but they surely would not have been on the side of Rome, and having been only less than a century ago most likely Jews themselves, it must have hit hard. To some extent, you could perhaps compare Linus to the guy who's entrusted with the keys to the office for the first time only to have the place turned over. The old adage was true, and all roads did indeed lead to Rome. Rome was the cultural, religious, military and artistic centre of the world, so any new religion wanting to spread its message would have to set up here.

I find it surprising, yet when I think about it now perhaps I should not, that early Christianity jostled and jockeyed for position with other new religions and sects, all of which wanted to attract the attention of the people, and all of which based themselves in Rome. In a way, I get the feeling of a kind of reality show idea - Last Religion Standing!? - where the one that could attract the most converts would be the one to survive, while the others would fade away or at least be less popular and not spread as far.

How very Darwinian, huh?

[Trollheart]

Papal Name: Anacletus
Actual Name: Anacletus
Born: c. AD 25
Year elected: c. AD 79
Country: Greece
Region: Athens
Duration of Papacy: 13 years
Bulls: None
Achievements: Divided Rome up into 25 parishes
Enemies:
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: c. AD 92
Death: Probably natural causes
Buried: St. Peter's Basilica

Also known as Cletus, and the first one who calls him a slack-jawed yokel will... make me laugh. Yeah, there's very little written about this third pope other than that he established various parishes in Rome itself. The first Pope to come from Greece. The only one? I guess we'll find out as we go along.  Again, there are claims he was martyred, but no details, and historians in general reckon this is a load of bullpucky.

Papal Name: Clement I
Actual Name: Clement
Born: c. AD 35
Year elected: c. AD 88
Country: Italy
Region: Rome
Duration of Papacy: 12 years
Bulls: None, but he is agreed to have written the first existing example of Christian writing, I Clement.
Achievements: Established the authority of bishops over deacons and other lower officials of the church
Enemies: Rome (remember, Rome was an enemy to Christians, ruled by emperors, and would be for another 250 years or so)
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: c. AD 99
Death: Probably natural causes, though there is a belief he was martyred (see below)
Buried: St. Peter's Basilica

Clement is known as the first of the "Apostolic Fathers", a title usually taken to mean that the person knew or met the original Disciples or Apostles of Jesus. Clement is certainly believed to have known Peter, and it is quite possible that, like his forebear under Nero, Clement had to guide his people through the persecution of Roman Emperor Domitian. Clement is the first pope (as it were) that I see whose name would be taken by further popes down the centuries. I don't know when the tradition began of, when being elevated to the papacy, taking a name usually reflecting the new pope's admiration for, wish to emulate or devotion to a previous holder of the office, but there were about ten Pope Clements down the ages.

One of Clement's epistles (letters) to the Corinthians asserts the apostolic authority of bishops or presbyters over the church, thereby establishing, if slightly tenuously, the power of the men who would later be called pope. Legends surround his final days, one in particular relating to a miracle and his supposed martyrdom. Having been banished from Rome by the emperor Trajan, he was sent to a penal colony where he was put to work in a stone quarry. Everyone was dying of thirst so Clement - it is related - prayed for water and when he saw a lamb on a hill went there and dug with his pickaxe, releasing a fresh stream. Due to this miracle, many of the prisoners and some of the inhabitants of the colony were converted to Christianity.

The Romans were not amused, and again according to legend (refuted by most scholars but it gives me something to write about) tied him to an anchor and threw him into the sea. What a bunch of anchors! Sorry. Legend goes on to say (as legends do) that every year that part of the Black Sea where he is supposed to have been drowned ebbs mysteriously to reveal an underwater shrine. Whether it supports the legend, or spawned it, or has nothing to do with it, it's said that Saint Cyril brought what he believed to be the bones of Clement to Rome, found on dry land in the Crimea and attached to... an anchor.


Papal Name: Evaristus
Actual Name: Evaristus
Born: Unknown
Year elected: c. 99
Country: Israel
Region: Bethlehem
Duration of Papacy: 7 years
Bulls:
Achievements:
Enemies: Roman Empire
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: c. 107
Death: Unknown; said to have been martyred
Buried: St. Peter's Basilica

Even less is known about Evaristus than is known about Anacletus, not even a birth date. Interesting how he is said to have come from the very city that would become sacred both to Jews and Christians, Bethlehem, where Jesus is supposed to have been born.

[Trollheart]

SECOND CENTURY


Papal Name: Alexander I
Actual Name: Alexander
Popes who have subsequently taken this name: 6 (And one Antipope)
Born: January 10 75
Year elected: 107
Country: Italy
Region: Rome
Duration of Papacy: 7 years
Bulls:
Achievements: Said to have introduced the blessing of holy water; said to have converted Hermes (the Roman governor, not the god) and all his household - approximately 1,500 people - in what is regarded as a miracle.
Enemies: Roman Empire
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: 115
Death: Possibly martyred, though it seems this is confusing him with another Alexander, who was beheaded and canonised.
Buried: Freising, Germany

If for no other reason, Alexander I is notable as it was his papal name which one of the most notorious of the line ever to sit in the Vatican took, this of course being the Borgia pope, Alexander VI. As noted above, this Alexander is said to have invented or at least implemented the idea of using holy water to protect the homes of Christians from evil, and of adding water to sacramental wine, perhaps to weaken its alcoholic strength, perhaps to bring together the two symbols of the transubstantiation, water and wine, one changed into the other during the Mass. Or maybe he was a publican in a previous life. It's also believed he was the first to use the narrative of the Last Supper in the Mass, something we all remember from our childhood, if we're Catholic that is. That god-damn bell! Which one do you kneel down at, first or second? Nobody ever seemed to know.

Papal Name: Sixtus
Actual Name: Sixtus or Xystus
Popes who have subsequently taken this name: 4
Born: 42
Year elected: 115
Country: Italy
Region: Rome
Duration of Papacy: 9 years
Bulls:
Achievements:
Enemies: Roman Empire
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: 125
Death: Unknown, though as per usual he's said to have been martyred, without any details
Buried: St. Peter's Basilica, possibly

Sixtus instigated a "hands off" policy on sacred vessels for all but priests and "sacred ministers", decreed that any bishop summoned to the Holy See (Rome) had to present an Apostolic Letter before they could be allowed to resume their position in their diocese. What? Did he think that somewhere along the way these bishops were being replaced by pod people or something, and they had to have a "Guaranteed Roman" certificate signed by the pope to weed out imposters? Or is this, more likely, just some overblown churchy nonsense? There was and is certainly enough of that to go around. Oh, and he ensured priests had to sing some sacred hymn called the Sanctus after the preface of the Mass. A priest's work is never done, huh?

What the hell do I know about it, but someone who knows a lot more than me (wouldn't be hard) points out that the emperors ruling Rome around this time - Hadrian and then Antoninus - didn't really hassle the Christians or the Jews during their reign, so it might seem even more unlikely that Sixtus was martyred. Still, Nicholas Cheetham, in his Keeper of the Keys: A History of Popes from Peter to John Paul II does admit that the odd martyrdom did occur, and the lad who follows was one of those unlucky enough to buck the general trend.

Papal Name: Telesphorus
Actual Name: Telesphorus
Popes who have subsequently taken this name: 0
Born: Unknown
Year elected: 126
Country: Italy
Region: Calabria
Duration of Papacy: 11 years
Bulls:
Achievements: Said to have instigated the practice of the Christmas Midnight Mass, Easter being always on a Sunday, the custom of Lent and the singing of the Gloria. As usual, these are all disputed by some scholars.
Enemies: Roman Empire
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: 137
Death: Martyred
Buried: Unknown

As mentioned above, it is in either the first years of the emperor Antoninus or the last of Hadrian that Telesphorus is believed to have been martyred, although there are no details as to his actual death. If the additions above to the mass are true (and many think or believe there is good reason to doubt them) then he would seem to be the first pope since Peter to really shake up the Church, holding that Easter should always fall on a Sunday, allowing congregations to attend a midnight mass, and introducing the tradition of Lent. As far as his martyrdom goes, and its being something of a conflict with the fact that neither of these two emperors actively persecuted Christians, it should probably be borne in mind that Telesphorus was pope at the time of the Second Jewish War, and he may have come under fire as a result of that, even though he would not have been considered a Jew. Perhaps the emperor (either one) was just striking out to try to assert his authority over all "pagans".

Papal Name: Hyginus
Actual Name: Hyginus
Popes who have subsequently taken this name: 0
Born: Unknown
Year elected: 136
Country: Greece
Region: Athens
Duration of Papacy: 6 years
Bulls:
Achievements:
Enemies: Valentinus
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: 142
Death: Said to have been martyred
Buried: St. Peter's Basilica

Not the only Greek pope, then. Hyginus is said to have introduced the idea of godparents, who would be present at baptisms and stand for the child, agreeing to take charge of it should the parents die or be otherwise incapacitated. He's also credited with the organisation of the clergy into a hierarchical structure, and with decreeing that all churches should be consecrated (blessed). Another said to have been martyred, and another without any evidence or details of this. Seems like it went with the territory. He had run-ins with the Gnostics, a kind of spinoff sect or cult who had very different ideas about Jesus and the Heavens, in fact believing God was and is female, and their leader Valentinus made life difficult for him. Especially every February 14. Sorry.

Papal Name: Pius I
Actual Name: Pius
Popes who have subsequently taken this name: 10
Born: late first century
Year elected: 140
Country: Italy
Region: Aquilaeia
Duration of Papacy: 14 years
Bulls:
Achievements: Excommunicated the heretic Marcion of Sinope, built Santa Pudenziana, oldest Church in Rome
Enemies: Valentinians, Gnostics
Wars Engaged in or Supported:
Died: 154
Death: Unknown; rumours of martyrdom but not supported
Buried: Unknown

With a name like Pius, it's perhaps not that surprising that later popes would take his name, as the tradition grew not to use your own name. I don't know why this is done, but I expect it's something to do with leaving your old life behind and dedicating your new one to God and the papacy? Pius appears to be the first pope who may have been a slave, though that has not been proven, and whose family also figure in his biography - such as it is. His brother, Hermas was a literary man, who wrote a tract on redemption and salvation called The Shepherd. He is the second pope I read of who took on "heretics", ie those who thought about the Bible and God differently than mainstream Christianity did, as opposed to actual pagans who did not believe in God at all.

The Gnostics were the nemesis of the accepted face of the Church, always banging on about nonsense like how Jesus was married, God was a woman, and Black Sabbath's best album was Sabotage. Idiots. Anyway a bunch of their heretic leaders rocked up to Rome during his papacy, among them Valentinus (who is, I presume, not to be confused with St. Valentine?), Cerdo and Marcion. He sent them on their bikes, excommunicating Marcion for good measure. WHAM! POW! KA-BLAM! You're OUT, son!

[Trollheart]

Tell you what, before we go any further, let's check these dudes out.

Chapter II: The Other Side of the Mirror: Catechism, Schism and Seeing Things Through a Different Prism

Not my Christianity! Gnostics, Iconoclasts and Other Heretics

Heretics of the First Millennium

Heresy! It's a hate-filled, panic-stricken, trembling-with-indignation accusation hurled at anyone who does not believe - usually implicitly - in a powerful religion. Islam doesn't necessarily use the word, calling unbelievers infidels, but it's the same thing. Protestants and Lutherans believe Catholics to be heretics, and vice versa. And if there is one thing any Church cannot stand, it's the h-word. It was the reason the Spanish, Italian and other Inquisitions were set up by the Catholic Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Essentially a medieval version of the McCarthy trials, during which the panel of Inquisitors would ask the leading question "Are you now, or have you ever been?" But unlike McCarthy's witch-hunt of communists in the 1950s, these were actual witch-hunts, which usually ended as witch-hunts do, in fire and pain.

Religion, you see, seems to be unable to grasp the idea of "live and let live", and if you don't believe in their specific god or gods, then you're only good for the fire. The Romans were the same, though through amassing, via their conquests, a smorgasbord of peoples with differing beliefs, the various emperors usually chose - wisely - to allow their new subjects to practice their preferred religion, as long as they paid passing obeisance to their gods and didn't get into trouble. Some, of course, did not take that path, leading to the persecution of the Jews by various emperors, and later the Christians, though as ever throughout history, this was often a mere smokescreen to divert attention away from their own blunders and poor governance.

But it must be said, nobody did heresy like the Catholic Church. Michael Palin was completely wrong. Everyone expected the Spanish Inquisition; everyone feared it. Like the later Gestapo, its eyes and ears were everywhere, and you just had to say the wrong thing to land in the Inquisition's tender clutches. Sometimes you didn't have to say anything at all; an accusation was enough, and let's be honest here, torture will get a man or woman to confess anything. The hypocrisy of the Inquisitions of course is that they purported to be saving the souls of heretics, when most of the men giving the order were as corrupt as could be, and deserved more to be in the dungeons having various bodily parts extracted and violated than did their unfortunate and often innocent victims.

It seems that the first thing a new religion does is to splinter. There's always someone who disagrees with some part of the doctrine, and they go off and form their own version of the religion. Almost before Jesus had finished saying "I will be with you always" squabbles broke out among his followers, as we have seen above with the feud between Peter and Paul over circumcision. As the news of Christianity spread across the Middle East and into Europe, the message began to get warped and twisted, edited and amended, changed until often what was called Christianity bore little or no resemblance to the instructions Jesus apparently left for his Apostles in the manual for Christianity V1.0. Here, then, are some of the major diversions from that manual, all of whom are or were characterised as heretical by the orthodox Church.

Gnostics

The best-known of these - especially following the sensationalist publication and then filming of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code - and ten-times winners of the Christian, and later Catholic Church's Most Hated Heretic Award are the Gnostics, whose main difference with the "proper" Church teachings seems to be a big one, leaving little or no room for compromise. Gnostics believe not in one God, but in two, and further believe that one of these Gods, the one who created the Earth, is imperfect, and even evil. They call this God the demiurge, and believe that the true God in Heaven will one day destroy the Earth and release all humans from their material shells, revealing them to be the divine beings they are inside.

Sin and repentance, two of the cornerstones of Christianity, or at least orthodox Christianity, seem to have little or no value or relevance to Gnosticism, which is concerned more with the search for enlightenment. Interestingly, from what I can see, Gnostics were considered heretics not just by Christians but by Jews as well, and even Romans, at least, those involved in Hellenic philosophy. Prejudiced against all others, eh? Or at least, hated by all others. Indeed, Gnosticism is believed to have even predated Christianity, beginning back in the time before Christ himself, though nobody can truly trace its origins. Gnostics do appear to have had the dubious honour of being the first Christian sect to be declared as heretics.

Instead of one God who created the universe, Gnosticism believes in seven archons, each assigned to one planet - The Moon (yeah), Mercury, Venus, The Sun (uh-huh), Venus, Jupiter and Saturn - who prevent humans from leaving their physical shells and seeking enlightenment beyond. The planets of the ancient world were laid out as the only seven celestial objects visible in the night sky to the naked eye, one reason why both the Moon and Sun - which we obviously know not to be planets at all - are included, and Earth is not. Together, the Archons are known as the Hebdomad, and make up the Prince of Darkness. They're not nice people, as you might have guessed, being said to have impregnated Eve and brought to mankind knowledge of idolatry, sacrifice and bloodshed, all in the service of keeping humans ignorant and in their imperfect mortal form.

Gnostics believe Jesus to be an angel, also called an aeon and the Holy Spirit to be his consort, female. They hold that the angel Jesus, most high and powerful and first created of the archangels, was sent down to Earth by God, but was not his son. They say he was sent not to redeem mankind from sin but from ignorance, to allow them to see the truth so that they could find their way to the bright shining realm in which God resides. To some extent, and to this guy ignorant of theology, this sounds a little like what the Christian Jesus says: "I am the way and the light; anyone who believes in me, even though he die, shall have eternal life." Also, if ignorance is seen as a sin, then in a symbolic though not literal way Jesus could be said to be coming down to save mankind. Take it a step further: maybe he did not die on the cross, but the Gnostics are looking to the old Norse sagas and legends, where Odin, All-Father of the Gods, hangs on the tree Yggdrasil to obtain knowledge.

Babylonian, Iranian, Alexandrian and Jewish origins have all been proposed for Gnosticism, though as usual there's no real consensus. One Israeli philosopher and historian called Gnosticism "metaphysical anti-Semitism", while another author labelled it "Anti-Judaism". The idea of Heaven in Gnosticism seems to be more ethereal than real. Christians believe they will literally go through the Pearly Gates and meet God when they die, whereas Gnostics appear to be more of the almost "attaining Nirvana" style of thinking. As Lenny once said in The Simpsons: "Maybe it's a metaphor; maybe the cabin is in each one of us. Aw, they said there'd be sandwiches!"

So far as I can understand it, Gnostic tradition has no place for the Virgin Mary, or indeed a Virgin birth, Christ being an angel (or aeon) and all that, but their version of the mother of, well, everything, Sophia, is believed to have birthed the demiurge spoken of above, and that demiurge, lonely and feeling isolated, perhaps like a child wanting company, created the archons and some shower that wander around on the face of one of the planets it created and think they're the cat's pyjamas. This demiurge is generally opposed to the God, the real god which they call I think the Godhead, and is identified with various versions of Satan. A big difference here though is, as already mentioned, the demiurge (Satan) creates the universe, and men, rather than God. This therefore makes him seem much more powerful than the fallen angel of Abrahamic belief, almost on a par with God himself.

Hell, there are even separate schools of thought within Gnosticism that declare that Jesus was not divine, merely a human who attained enlightenment, and one that accuses him of perverting the teachings of John the Baptist and being a false messiah. Who knew? As you might expect, a major schism of Christianity like Gnosticism has many offshoots, a total of more than forty in the first millennium, with more to come in the second - nearly another thirty - but I'll listen to every album Lily Allen ever made before I'll list them all, much less write about them. My original intention had been to explore three of them, but after reading about only one my head hurts and I have no clue what the hell they're talking about. Thank God I'm an atheist, is all I can say! Instead, I'm going to check out the three men who figure in the most prominent Gnostic sects.

Valentinus (c. 100 - c. 160)

If any "heretic" ever opposed the early Church with as much success and fame, it was Valentinus, who is said to have been born in Egypt and studied in Alexandria, one of the largest centres of Christian learning at that time. He became a follower of Theudra, who himself had known and followed Saint Paul, and learned from him of what he called the "secret knowledge" Paul possessed. The initial idea of Valentinus's striking out on his own seems to have been something of a case of sour grapes. He was in line for the bishopric at Rome but was passed over, took his ball home and did a Bender on it: "Ah who needs ya! I'm gonna create my own religion! With blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the religion!" He didn't though. Forget the religion that is, and formed his own sect of followers which he called, with typical self-effacement, Valentinians.

"Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent"

Mind you, this was written in a book specifically called Adversus Valentinianos (Against the Valentinians), so it's hardly unbiased. Our buddy Epiphanius reckons he lost it after being shipwrecked. Neither reason sound a good one to start your own sect, but there you go.

Marcion of Sinope (c. 85 - c. 160)

The son of a bishop, Marcion was said to have been a mariner and tried to buy his way into the Church (a tactic that would sometimes later be adopted by higher-ranking clergy) but when he began going around saying God was not the father of Jesus, the Church told him to take his money back and go to Hell, excommunicating him as a heretic. He hung around with Valentinus too, which would not have helped, as that guy was on Rome's hit list as well, and it seems that his major beef was kind of understandable. He couldn't reconcile the God of the Old Testament, who amused himself with a spot of city burning, flooding and inciting his people to war, with the one in the New Testament, all peace and love, man, and forgiveness. Bollocks to that, he thought, and wrote: this guy ain't no father to Jesus. This then led him to the Gnostic idea of there being two Gods - a lower and a higher - something the orthodox Church was not having, not on its watch.

He got on the Jews' wick as well, asserting that Judaism was incompatible with Christianity, and asking some fairly understandable questions, such as, if God is all-knowing, how was it he's said to have had to ask for directions to find Adam in the Garden of Eden? It's a fair point, if a somewhat pedantic one. So Marcion decided the God of the Jews (Yahweh) was the demiurge of Gnostic belief and that the Christian God was the Big Cheese. He also believed Jesus never took material form, though he did disagree with his buddy Valentinus about the parentage of the Saviour. Of course, this far from made him any friends with the Church, as, since he said Jesus had no physical body, he could not die on the cross, and therefore could not rise from the dead. And that's kind of the central tenet of Christianity, so not surprisingly the pope was miffed about that.

Still, this Marcion guy must have had some skill with weapons, as it says he invented the first Christian cannon. Oh no wait: that's canon, with one "n". My bad. Hah. Canon then, being a set of books, in his case an abridged and edited Gospel of St. Luke, leaving out all that tiresome nonsense about Jesus's virginal birth and tedious death of course, and a bunch of epistles from his boy, Saint Paul, whom he believed was the only real Apostle. "I'm the real Apostle, all you other Apostles are just imitaters, so would the real Apostle please stand up, please stand up?"

[Trollheart]

Adoptionists

Sounds like someone who might take a child into care, doesn't it? Not so. Adoptionists, apparently, unlike our friend Marcion, believed that Jesus did have a human body, but not that he had been divine prior to this. The whole idea of adoptionism (religious arguments send Homer to sleep) seems to hinge on the idea that God chose a human to carry out his will on Earth and then after that human (Jesus) had died, having fulfilled his will, adopted him as his son and thereby raised him to the status of divinity. This theme is in accordance with the Gospel of Mark, in which there is no mention of Jesus's immaculate conception and birth, nor any appearance by Jesus after he dies.

Paul doesn't have any reference to the virgin birth either in any of his epistles, nor did our friend Hermas in The Shepherd, who simply calls Jesus a "virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the Son". There must also have been links with Gnosticism, as Theodotus of Byzantium, a prominent Valentinian, believed that while Jesus had been born of a virgin, and that "the Christ" had come down to him when he had been baptised by John the Baptist, he only "became" God after his death. More support for this idea came from the Ebionites, an early Jewish Christian sect, who held that although Jesus was the Messiah, he had not been born of a virgin and he was not in fact divine, just a holy man. They didn't much care for Paul either, these Ebionites, calling him an apostate. That's someone who turns against his own religion, basically, though it's more complicated than that.

Even the hyper-Catholic Spanish were at it, though admittedly they came late to the party. In the 8th century Bishop Elephant Panda, sorry Elipandus of Toledo preached that Jesus was only the adopted son of God, and another bishop, Felix Unger, sorry Felix of Ungel, agreed. The Church, unsurprisingly, did not, and both men were excommunicated.

Apollonarists

This one didn't last long. Came into being near the end of the fourth century and was gone by the time the fifth began. Apollonarists believed that Jesus was a game of two halves, having a human body and soul but a divine mind.

Arabici

These didn't last long either. A small sect, they believed the soul died with the body, but would be resurrected on Judgement Day. By 250 though they had seen the error of their ways and were welcomed back into the Church with open arms.

Arianists

Although this sect was called Arianism, and despite the temptation to, it's not linked or connected in any way with the Aryan ideal espoused by Hitler and other racial thinkers. Arians did not believe in the Holy Trinity, holding that Jesus was subordinate to his father and came into being later, and so could not be seen to be eternal and divine, as he would then have a beginning, which God did not. Abilene Christian University's Everett Ferguson noted "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it." No shit. I never did understand it, and I never will. Three beings who are one but yet separate? And still one can separate off and head down to Earth to live as a man without diminishing the whole left behind? Get away from me with that shamrock! What's that supposed to prove?

This sect did markedly better than the others, numbering bishops, priests, even kings and emperors among its adherents. Constantine the Great, the man responsible for the legitimisation and acceptance of Christianity from the fourth century onwards, wasn't having it. "In addition",he wrote in 325, "if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ..."

Despite this stark warning, Arianism spread after Constantine's death, extending to Spain, where it persisted till the late sixth century, and even into North Africa. Arius himself tried to lay out his case in a letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia, who had actually baptised the emperor Constantine: "Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning."

A subtext you can read here in modern parlance is a spreading of the hands and "Come on guys! It's fucking obvious isn't it? Why fight against it?" It's also amusing - though not in any way surprising - that Arian, seen as a heretic by the Church, describes its followers as heretics. All in the eye, or belief, of the beholder, I guess. Much of the reason for the lenient stance later taken by the Church towards Arianists was due to the ascension of Constantine's son, Constantius II, who reversed his father's edict and welcomed Arianists into the Church. The new emperor even went so far as to dismiss the Pope and install what is known to history as an Anti-Pope, Felix the Cat, sorry Felix II. The Cat. No, seriously. Nobody would make a cat a pope. Well, maybe Caligula...

His efforts culminated in the Seventh Arian Confession (later called the Sirmium Blasphemy) at the Third Council of Sirmium in 357, which stated that "since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding".

So that was that, then. Well of course not. Once Constantinus II kicked it, the next emperor was no fan of Chrisianity. "Fuck all these differences you mad dudes have," he is reported most definitely not to have said, "I'm off back to our own gods. At least you know where you are with Jupiter. Offend him - thunderbolts! BAM! No wishy-washy is-he-isn't-he-divine shite. Enjoy your false god, Christian dudes. You're not illegal, but you're not the official game in town any more. Now where's my chariot? I could have sworn I parked it - hey! You! Come back with that!"

So now Christians, demoted to a tolerated but not dominant religion, were left to thrash it out for themselves. Rome no longer cared. "Let them belt seven shades of shite out of each other," unreliable sources quote Emperor Julian as saying. "Why aren't these grapes peeled? Off to the crucifixions with you! Can't get the staff these days." Valen, sorry Valens succeeded Julian, and went back to favouring the One God, and indeed the  Arian idea of One God, until he was killed by the Goths (probably because he said Robert Smith couldn't sing or something) and replaced by the nineteen-year-old Gratians, but he was too young and had to co-rule with Theodosius, and together they put paid to Arianism forever.

At least, it did among the Romans. But the Goths didn't give a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys what the Romans worshipped or believed in. For them, it was Arianism or nothing. Jesus was subordinate to God, had been for centuries of their faith, and that was just how they liked it. However it did begin to lose ground around the fifth century, most notably under Clovis I, the legendary first King of the Franks, and by the eighth it was gone altogether.

Collyridians

This one is good. A sect made up entirely of women, the very existence of which is disputed by some scholars. They worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess (the sect, not the scholars) and offered her tributes. They seem to have been confined - if they existed at all - to Arabia. They did not, however, unlike some later adherents to Islam, believe Mary to be part of the Divine Trinity. To quote the great theologian and philosopher, Montius Pythonus, that would just have been silly.

Docetists

They believed that the human form of Jesus was an illusion. Well, if it was, how come he couldn't disappear off the cross when they - sorry, sorry. I'll let Wiki explain this one: Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.

This meant that Docetists did not take Communion, as thundered by Ignateus of Antioch in his letter to the Smurfs sorry Smyrnaeans: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."

Luciferans

Imagine a man with a name like Lucifer going into the Church! Not only that, Lucifer of Caligari became a bishop and then, probably not surprisingly, though likely his name had little if anything to do with it, was declared a heretic. It seems he had the bad fortune to live and work in the reign of Constantius II, son of Constantine the Great, who was a big supporter of Arianism. Lucifer was not, and argued against it, leading to the wonderful quote "Constantius confined Lucifer for three days in the imperial palace". Unable to get him to recant, the emperor exiled him not once, not twice, but thrice! First to Germanica (Turkey), then Palestine and finally Egypt. In letters surely not seen to be helping his case, Lucifer declared he was ready to be martyred for his beliefs. He didn't get his wish though.

After Constantius died and was replaced by Jerome the Apostate, the empire no longer cared who believed what, and it was left to the bishops to fight it out among themselves. Lucifer fought against the readmittance of bishops who followed the Arian teachings (all friends now, all forgotten, and let's have no more talk about the war) and, though allowed back from exile himself, his intransigence may have had him excommunicated. Either way, he fucked off back to his homeland and died there in 370.

Macedonians

Also known as the Pneumatomachi, which means "combators of the spirit", and not that they were obssessed with bicycle tyres, they denied that the Holy Ghost was part of God. Another buddy of good old Constantius, Macedonius was a bishop of Constantinople (today's Istanbul) who had close links with the Arians, and was no friend of the Christians or their friends the Novatians. In fact, he was a little more hands-on that most of the heretics we've read about to date. He was said to have forced baptism on unwiling women and children, thrown his enemies in jail, used torture and coercion in a way which would not be seen for another thousand years under the Inquisition, and knocked down any churches he didn't like. Nice.

Finally the Novatians had had enough, and rebelled. His legions were defeated and slaughtered, and when he dug up the body of Constantinus's father, the emperor Constantine (not sure why; maybe it just sounded like a good idea at the time) he was judged to have gone too far, and dismissed from his post. What? Oh yeah: murder innocent people, force them to be baptised, wreck their churches and torture them, and you're all good. Emperor will look the other way. But dig up daddy and now you're just asking for trouble. Macedonius died around 364. His sect did not survive him long.

Melchisedechians

Also known as the A Thing Annoy, sorry Athinganoi, they were another of the school of thought that believed Jesus was adopted, and human. They believed he was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, and that God adopted him after his baptism by John the Baptist. These guys went further though, holding that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (helloooooo Dan Brown!) and that they had a son, Eybas, whom St. Paul had, for some reason, blinded. Although they accepted that Jesus had risen from the dead, they did not believe he ascended into Heaven, but instead hung out with Mary seeing the sights of the world. They semed to have some sort of aversion to touching, as explained in a letter written by Timotheus, Presbyter of Constantinople around 600: They will not touch any man. If food is offered to them, they ask for it to be placed on the ground; then they come and take it. They give to others with the same precautions"

Monarchianists

They didn't believe in the Holy Trinity, believing God was all one, indivisible, and not three separate-but-joined individuals. Frankly, I don't blame them: the Trinity is a bitch to understand and I don't think that many holy men even get it. Nevertheless, going against Church dogma - even if the Church can't adequately explain or justify it - makes you a heretic. Monarchianism didn't last beyond the fourth century.

Monophysitists

Rather than a single sect, this seems to have been a kind of catch-all description for those who didn't believe in the two natures of Christ - human and divine - and includes some of the sects we have already covered, such as the Docetists and the Apollonarians.

Monothelitists

And these guys believed that Christ only had one will. Probably pissed that he didn't leave them anything in that will. Honestly, the in-fighting and sniping and accusations, condemnations and often close to bloody wars fought over issues of the smallest difference makes me wonder how the Christian Church ever survived to grow to the bloated, unopposed monster it is today. Shower of fucks.

Nestorianites

Getting a little bogged down here. This appears to be another umbrella term to describe any cult or sect which held that Christ had two natures, human and divine, and that each were separate from the other.

Patripassianists/Sabellianites

An interesting idea which holds that God is not separate from Jesus, so he suffered himself when Jesus died on the cross. It's considered heretical because "it simply cannot make sense of the New Testament's teaching on the interpersonal relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit." Well who the fuck can? Still, if that's the case why did he cry "Father forgive them"? Oh he didn't? The Bible is a work of what? Well then: off to the dungeons with you, my fine fellow!

Psilanthropists

Basically yet another catchall for those who deny the virgin birth of Jesus. Our friends the Ebionites are one of these sects.

Trithesits

Those who believe that God is three separate beings and which denies the unity of the Trinity.

Right, I've had enough of all these bloody heresies, which mostly seem to be differences of opinion about something on which no human can claim to be the definitive authority. Like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how Jacob's get the figs into the fig rolls. Jesus, probably, wept. Back to the world of popes we go. 

[Trollheart]

Chapter III: Martyrs to the Cause: The Ultimate Test of Faith

Before we do, though, let's consider the position of these early popes. Far from being the men of power, wealth and respect they would be in later centuries, in the beginning these men were really nothing more than the leaders of a bunch of rebels in the eyes of the ruling power of the time. It's even possible that Rome considered them as terrorists, though I find it highly unlikely they were sanctioning the killing of Roman officials or the disruption of the Roman state. I could be wrong, but I assume that all early Christians wanted, at the start, was to be left alone to practice their religion.

But of course, in concert with most religions, this wasn't really enough, was it? Christians were so proud of their new beliefs that they thought really everyone should share in them, and so did their best to convert anyone they could. Well, in fairness, that was the instruction their boss had left before he ascended back to his father, wasn't it? Go, and spread the good news. It would be Christianity's sacred and enduring mission down through the ages, and I guess there's no reason to believe it didn't start that way. The problem with conversion is that in order for someone to be swung your way, he has to abandon his old ways, or to put it in simpler terms, what the Christian god won the Roman gods lost. And Romans were not at all accustomed to losing, especially when it came to their gods. For them, any attempt to sway a true Roman from his worship of Hera, Aphrodite, Apollo or any of the others would be seen as heresy.

It's important to keep in mind, too, that for the first three hundred years or so, Christianity was outlawed as a dangerous new sect, and those practicing it subject to punishment under Roman law, that punishment probably different, depending on who occupied the throne at the time, but invariably likely to be nasty, and often fatal. The result of that was that, as we can more or less see from the popes we have looked at, there wasn't exactly a pension plan that came with the job, and few if any of these men got to retire to the country and live out their days in peace and comfort.

In other words, most of them ended up as martyrs.

But to really understand what that means, I think it might be a good idea to look into the whole idea of martyrdom. What exactly was it, and why was it so popular among, not only Christians, but other faiths?

The Making of a Marytr: Do You Have What it Takes?

Of course, it would be foolish to think either that martyrdom was an exclusively Christian thing, or that it began with them. Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or, as Reverend Lovejoy once dismissively claimed, miscellaneous, people had been getting martyred for centuries before a carpenter's son came along. So what is a martyr? These days, it's entered the language as a much more watered-down expression, taken to mean anyone who puts up with something they should not be expected to: "I'm a martyr to me back" or "Don't be such a martyr!" But in reality, a martyr is, quite simply, someone whose faith - be it in a god or gods, an idea, an organisation or a way of living - is so unshakable that not even the threat of death can dislodge it.

The only real end for a martyr is death, and usually a very painful one. Death is where it all begins for a martyr: there is no such thing as a living martyr, just can't happen. The most basic requirement is that you die, and usually at the hands of your enemies. Torture often figures in it, too, where the person is encouraged to change their views through the application of excruciating pain, but refuses, and eventually is put to death. Most religions (though not all) hold that a martyred person is eligible for sainthood: it's kind of, to quote Lord Alan Sugar, the ultimate job interview: if you pass all the tests, you're in with a good chance of being canonised, or made a saint. Your name will be revered and loved by the faithful, and you will, theoretically anyway, take one of the choice seats in Heaven.

But not just in Heaven, because even now, martyrs are made on Earth. Someone executed for their beliefs who has followers - obviously the most important here is Jesus Christ, but for more modern martyrs think maybe Bobby Sands, who died of hunger strike in the Maze Prison in the 1970s, a victim (some hold) of the intransigence and callous disregard of the Thatcher government, and who thereafter became a martyr to the Republican cause. Or the men who died in the 1916 Rising, who even today have streets and parks named after them. Joan of Arc, of course, is the most famous name that springs to mind, but there are I'm sure plenty others. Often, the worst thing you can do is make a martyr out of someone, because, as the old saying goes, you can't kill an idea, and the person's death - seen as unfair and perhaps illegal, certainly an injustice - will only bring more people to their cause.

But that's modern martyrs. Back when we're talking about, the early years of Christianity, while the same thing happened it was much more prevalent, and the Romans didn't seem to grasp the concept of martyrs, and just kept making them, bringing more and more people over to the idea of Christianity and creating, seemingly unbeknownst to themselves, all but a recruitment drive provided by the Roman Empire. They're not, however the only ones, and as I say, the notion of martyrdom goes back a long way before Christ happened on the scene. Almost 400 years before, in fact.

396 BC is the first recorded martyr, where a Greek philosopher called Socrates died for his ideals, and then we have of course John the Baptist, who died refusing to renounce the word of the Lord. It appears another criterion for being a martyr is not only to die for your beliefs, but to realise and accept that by continuing in your present behaviour, you invite death. It's not as if you welcome it, but you don't shy from it. As a martyr, you're basically expecting and prepared to die. I have written about other religious figures (in another journal) who when basically asked what they wanted to achieve in life replied that they wanted to be martyred, but whether or not that makes them a true martyr - assuming they did die in such a way - I really don't know.

It is clear that the highest compliment, let's say, you could pay the Christian God was to say I believe in you so fully, my faith is so total that I am prepared to die rather than renounce you. In some ways, this kind of casts the man who would be the very first pope, Peter, in a bad light, doesn't it? After Jesus had been taken, rather than profess his solidarity with him and take what was coming, Peter denied his old mucker just to save his own skin. Hardly the kind of conduct one expects from the "rock upon which I shall found my church", now is it?

Of course, nobody ever said being a martyr was easy, and as Edmund Blackadder (yes, him again) once observed "Sir Thomas Moore, executed for refusing to recant his faith, must have been kicking himself as the flames leapt higher that it never occurred to him to say I recant my faith!" Under the most extreme of pressures, it would of course be easy to do so (whether or not it would save the life of the person is doubtful) but Christians were taught to see the body as a sort of temp agency; the real job was waiting in Heaven, and you only got that if you proved your worth. So, to use a slightly different but almost identical metaphor, on Earth and in life you were on probation. If you failed to come up to snuff then don't expect a job to be waiting for you when you cross over. Christianity, in the first three hundred years at least, was a tough gig, and only the strong, and the totally committed survived.

It stands to reason then, does it not, that the men tasked with leading the flock would be very much expected to lay down their lives for them, and as a result we are likely to find that, certainly up to the time of Constantine (and perhaps after it, when as we've already read, things got a bit blurry) most of the popes died the death of a martyr. Not an easy job, being the pope. Of course, their ancestors, as it were, the original Apostles, were all or most martyred too, with Stephen, later canonised and pretty much unremarkable otherwise, hardly even mentioned in the Gospel, being the unlucky first. The only real mention of him prior to his death is that, as far as I can see, he was a sort of distributor of food to the poor. He's seen as the Christian protomartyr, which I'm sure you don't need me to explain.

Stephen's death kind of mirrors that of Jesus, though without, you know, the scourging and the crown of thorns and, oh yes, the cross. But in other ways it's very similar, as he was apparently preaching - or trying to preach - to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council of priests, who also made sure Jesus was put to death, and their beef seems to have been the same with both men: we interpret scripture this way, you interpret it that, we're right and you're wrong so we're going to have you killed. Stephen would of course only be the first, though despite that he would still be outshone and overshadowed (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) by his new boss, Peter, soon to be Saint Peter. This, despite Stephen's being totally dedicated to God while Peter, well, had to be convinced by his boss on the road to Rome, apparently.


"Jesus Christ!"
"What?"
"Watch where you're going with that thing! You nearly had my eye out!"
"Peter?"
"Um... yeah. Funny story, you'll like this..."

Martyrdom was and is of course not confined to Christianity, with Islam taking its meaning a bit more literally, ensuring anyone who dies for the faith by, um, blowing the heathen up, or killing them in various horrible ways, will be made a martyr in the next life. Mohammed was not available for comment at the time of writing. But because we're concerned here with popes, I'm trying not to stray too far from the beaten path, and so will concentrate here on Christian martyrs only.

And there were a lot.

In fact, the early years, as in, those before the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of Rome, are actually known as The Age of Martyrs. I am surprised to find that this is not taken as beginning, as we say here in Ireland, from the year dot - in other words, to paraphrase Evil from Time Bandits, not "Day one - martyrs!" Rather, the Age of Martyrs is agreed to have begun with the reign of the emperor Nero, around 70 AD. It's quite possible that this seventy-year gap can be accounted for because, up until that point, if you like, there was no Christian brand, and all followers of Jesus Christ were considered by the Romans to be Jews. So while Jews may have been persecuted, technically this doesn't qualify as a Christian purge.

Which is not to downplay the many horrors that were perpetrated against the Jewish peoples by the Romans, and others, but since this is a journal tracing the history of the Christian (and later, Catholic) papacy, I can't be sidetracked into discussing any Jewish martyrs, though I know there were many. In terms of Christians "splitting-off" from the main Jewish religion then, striking out on their own and establishing their own identity, the rough period of 70 seems to be the point this is recognised as happening, and this, as I said, coincided with the reign of one of the most infamous and cruel of all the Roman emperors, Nero.

[Trollheart]

Nero (37 - 68)

As mentioned above, Christians weren't really recognised as such until around 70, which would have been the end of Nero's reign, but they were around, annoying the empire as a troublesome sect. They were still lacking a proper name outside of the sect, being called "Chrestians", seen as followers of "Christus", but were being separated from the Jews by dint of their "superstitious practices" and "strange rituals", though they were still largely believed to be part of Judaism. One thing they were tailor-made for, as would their later offshoot, Catholics, was blame, and when Rome burned in the Great Fire of 64 - yes, the one in which the emperor is said to have played the fiddle as the fires took the great city - it was time to shift the blame onto the Christians. According to accounts, almost 1,000 were killed, some savaged by dogs, some crucified. I think it's probably fair to say that it was the first major execution of Christians, and also surely the first persecution, even if it was somewhat isolated. Almost exactly 600 years later, Christ's followers would again be blamed when the same thing happened in London.

Oh, and in case you don't know, the letters of Nero's name apparently spell out 666, so he's seen in Christian religion as the Antichrist, the one fated to return and whose birth will kick off Armageddon. If nothing else though, Emperor Nero has his claim to infamy as the man who executed and therefore martyred two of Christ's disciples, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. We've already gone into the rather theatrical death of the former, when he demanded to be crucified upside-down, but what about the man who was born Saul until that fateful day on the road to Damascus? Well, we've heard again how he had his disagreements, shall we say, with Peter, and how he all but caused the very first schism in the newly-founded religion, but unlike Peter he did not take up the mantle of pope (or at least, is not included in the list of popes, a list which Peter heads), choosing instead to travel and bring the gentiles (non-Jews) the word of God.

This seems to have somewhat miffed the Jews, particularly those from Asia when he visited Jerusalem, and they kicked up a ruckus that got the Romans involved. Because, perhaps, Paul was a Roman citizen, justice was not swift, and everyone passed the buck, Paul eventually getting his wish to be tried as a Roman citizen in the capital. He had been held for two years in Caesarea, then got shipwrecked on his way to Rome, spent another two years there under house arrest before finally... something happened to him. As usual, sources disagree but the general idea seems to be that he was beheaded, so that would then be two apostles to Nero's tally, making him certainly one of the very first persecutors of Christians and also the agent by which two of the Apostles found martyrdom.

The next one to really bother Christians was this guy.


Domitian (51 - 96)

Then again, it seems perhaps not. Though he was, like all or most of the emperors, treated as a god and of course worshipped the Roman gods, it looks as if he was one of those who tolerated other religions as long as they didn't sing too loudly at night waking him up, or forget the key and start banging on the door at all hours. In other words, if Christianity didn't bother him, he wouldn't bother Christianity. The accounts I read say different, but when you have Catholic sources from this century talking of a "false narrative" and "flimsy, put-together evidence" being part of an attempt to stitch him up by our good friend Eusebius, I think you have to listen. Had these sources been maybe ancient Roman, then we might take them with a grain, but if Catholic writers can look at Decius and say, you know what? Guy was all right, didn't bother us, then I think we leave it there and move on. Minds immeasurably superior to mine - certainly in terms of religious study - have spoken. So our next stop is during the reign of


Hadrian (76 - 138)

Yes, he of the wall. No persecutor of Christians, though; in fact, he wrote to the proconsul of Asia, warning that they should not be prosecuted - and certainly not persecuted - simply for being Christians. They must have committed an offence, and if anyone accused one without proper evidence, or accused them merely by virtue of their being Christian, that person or persons would themselves have to stand trial. So while not a friend, as such of Christians, he certainly was not an enemy of them, and did not instigate, or indeed tolerate, any persecution of them.

The next emperor to trash these ideas and send Christians on a more-or-less direct route to constant persecution was


Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180)

We have some famous martyrs in his era, and given that this was only 30-odd years after the end of the reign of Hadrian, what went wrong? Was there a spark that lit a fire of retribution against Christians? Did Marcus Aurelius just hate them, or was it political scapegoating? Also, given that he is known as "the last of the Five Good Emperors" and presided over the pax Romana, an era of peace and stability in the empire, this sudden shift in attitude seems disconcerting and hard to explain, so let's investigate.

Okay well the general consensus seems to be that, though persecution of Christians did increase during his reign, he himself is not held to have had any part in it, and the empire was a big place, so I guess governors and proconsuls and praetors and whatever were pretty much free to make their own decisions, and even laws. Perhaps that's what happened? According to what I read, Marcus Aurelius even praised the Christian god, before he was emperor, when it seemed his legion had been saved from thirst on the battlefield as "water poured down from Heaven" (think it's called rain, Your Imperial Highness!) and he sent a letter to Rome asking them to lay off the Christians.

Nevertheless, it appears that what are generally accepted to be the first African martyrs lived in his reign, four Christians, at least one a slave, called Namphano, and three others whose standing is not clarified but are named Miggin, Lucita and Samae. I can't really find out anything about them, but at this time too we read about the Scillitan Martyrs, a larger group of twelve African Christians, seven men and five women. Their names are recorded as  Speratus, Nartzalus, Cintinus (Cittinus), Veturius, Felix, Aquilinus,[3] Laetantius, Januaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata, and Secunda and it seems the proconsul of was responsible for their deaths, though unusually no torture was involved, just straight executions. This occurred in the last year of Marcus Aurelius's reign, and so even if he had been involved he was probably too busy dying to have been to blame. Hmm, and yet we have an account of his having thousands of Christians executed in the Colosseum when they refused to pray to the gods for the end of a plague. Oh well, you know these ancient historians: nothing they like better than a good argument.

In Lugdunum, where Lyons is now, a sort of foreshadowing of the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany took place when Christians were first banned from certain public places, but later arrested and tortured and put to death. Perpetua and Felicity are perhaps remarkable as martyrs as the former was a noblewoman while Felicity was her slave. Both were martyred in Carthage again, around 203, but apart from vague references to fighting wild beasts in the arena, no details are given for how they died.

It's always hard to know who's telling the truth, who's bending it and who's twisting it to suit their own political views or agenda, or those of whoever was in power at the time. Another account I read about Marcus Aurelius calls him "fiercely anti-Christian", so, you know, make up your own minds. One more to go though till the big one.



Septimus Severus (145 - 211)

Again, hard to separate fact from fiction, reality from propaganda, but some historians and Christian scholars hold that he persecuted Christians, issuing an edict that punished those who converted either to Judaism or Christianity, though it doesn't say whether this was punishable by death or not. He's said to have favoured the basic integration of all religions into the Roman one, a sort of Emperor Borg, to some extent? Others, though, contend that though they allow persecutions did indeed take place during his reign, these were more than likely undertaken by governors and other local officials, whether with his permission or not is unclear. One source speaks of his intervening to save some of his noble Christian mates from a mob, the actual text seeming to read "And lo! Spake the Emperor to the crowd, who were much afeared to see him in the flesh: it's all right lads, I know these dudes. Go find some other Christians to hassle. I think I saw a bunch of them over at the Appian Way."

As ever, one says this and one says that, and I suppose give it a thousand years - if we last that long - there may be accounts that claim Hitler was misunderstood and really like Jews, or that Trump helped trans women, depending on who writes the histories. You can never say with any certainty if someone is reporting the pure facts in a businesslike, professional manner, or whether they're trying to either curry favour or sling mud, depending on their politics and/or religion. It's not disputed though that a lot of Christians suddenly found themselves, as Basil Fawlty once remarked, closer to their maker than they had anticipated being.

Even so, to use the language of the time, these guys were all potati minim compared to the emperor who persecuted so many Christians that they actually named the pogrom after him.


Decius (201 - 251)

Looking at the dates, it must have been one hell of a year, as Decius ordered his edict in 250 and died the following year, so perhaps as they say, a lot to pack into that year! Perhaps unhappy with the more tolerant attitude paid towards Christians of his predecessors, Decius decreed that every person in the empire must offer sacrifices to the gods. The real gods, you know? Those lads and ladies up on Olympus, who assure bountiful harvests and help emperors win wars and so on? The ones that had been somewhat neglected as this upstart Jesus sent his followers out to turn people away from them? Yeah, those ones: sacrifice, or else.

Unless you're a Jew. The Roman empire and the Jews, we got us this understanding, see? But everyone else, as the famous producer of sportswear, Tiberious Nikius would have it, just do it. Decius was, however, diabolically clever, and he was not going to trust people to just say or swear they had sacrificed. After all, anyone can do that. Yep, did it just before you knocked, mate. Just back from the temple I am. Buzzin' it was, loads of people there. Fancy some wine?

Yeah, that wasn't going to fly, not when Decius was in charge. So he ordered that anyone who made a sacrifice had to have it witnessed by one of his magistrates, who would then sign a certificate to say that, yes, he had seen this person sacrifice, and jolly good it was too. I have a rather amusing piece I wrote in one of the other journals, which I'll reproduce here as it's relevant, and also amusing. It helps to put into context the idea pretty much of an edict thrust upon the Roman bureaucracy which, frankly, they weren't expecting.

This is it.

The sacrifice had to be witnessed; it wasn't the sort of thing where the Romans could knock at your door, Monty Python-like and say "Here you: sacrificed?" And you would nod and say "Sure," and they'd go away. No. Every sacrifice had to be witnessed by a Roman magistrate, and you then got a certificate (no, really) to say you had done your duty and obeyed the law. One like this:

To the commission chosen to superintend the sacrifices. From Aurelia Ammonous, daughter of Mystus, of the Moeris quarter, priestess of the god Petesouchos, the great, the mighty, the immortal, and priestess of the gods in the Moeris quarter. I have sacrificed to the gods all my life, and now again, in accordance with the decree and in your presence, I have made sacrifice, and poured a libation, and partaken of the sacred victims. I request you to certify this below.

Jews were a special case, and were exempted. Respecting their tradition - and probably trying to avoid yet another costly uprising (do you know the price of wood these days? We can't just be building hundreds of crosses every day!) Julius Caesar had established a precedent whereby Jews were allowed to practice their own religion and were not expected to sacrifice to, or even recognise, the gods of Rome. Christians, on the other hand, were the new kids on the block, and Rome did not take them seriously. Well, be fair here: Judaism had been around for thousands of years, whereas Christianity at this point wasn't even 250 years old. So it was looked on as more a sect, a cult than a religion, and therefore not allowed any exemption. Christians could go and do their superstitious little practices, but they had better service the real gods or there would be trouble.

And there was. There is no surviving record of how many Christians were killed for disobeying the edict, though large numbers of them did do as they were told, causing something of a schism in the fledgling religion, as those who had fled rather than compromise their faith, remembering the braver (or slower or less organised) ones who had died for their God, sneered at and reviled the weak ones, and refused to let them back in to the club, as it were. Dark a period as this was in the history of Christianity, it is nevertheless amusing to me to read that the city of Carthage was overwhelmed with requests for forms needed to perform the sacrifice, and many had to be told to come back tomorrow. Bureaucracy, huh? "Nah nah mate, you need a form 19 A! That's a 19F! What? Over there, just beyond the armed guards. Nah they won't touch you. Just tell them you need a 19A Form. Yeah. Next!" Or picture the face of the aghast Carthaginian civil servant on his first day: "Nobody told me it was going to be like this! I turned down a position in Rome because I thought this would be quieter! Where have all these people come from? Sorry? You need a what? Let me go get my supervisor..."

Of course I fully accept that thousands of people being brutally tortured, mutilated and killed is no laughing matter, but sometimes this researching gets a bit dry and boring, and I need to spice it up, if for nobody else but myself. But to leave the humour to one side, what actually happened? Well, first, let's look at how Rome viewed Christians (usually through the slot in the cell door. Sorry) and how, to them, they differed from Jews. Also, why exactly Jews were not subject to having to sacrifice.

It goes back to the Romans' love of and respect for tradition, which we know was big with them. You followed in your father's footsteps, you respected the empire, you worshipped the emperor, all as your ancestors had done. Previous emperors were routinely deified, so you had to worship them, too. Judaism went back thousands of years, and so to the Romans this was, to use a simple phrase, an acceptable belief, and they had some sort of sympathy with it. Until, of course, the Jews rebelled, but that was different. Then it wasn't a matter of worship or a difference of opinion about whose god or gods was the best, but a military matter, dealt with appropriately.

Christians, now: they were a different kettle of pisces. Christians had only been around, to use an Irish term, a wet day. Sure hadn't the Romans only just crucified their leader last Wednesday, in historical terms? Some of them probably met or at least had heard of this Jesus guy, so how could he be a god? Sure, emperors were gods, but only after they had died, and only at the sufferance of the real gods. This guy was just a loudmouth rebel, or something. Must have been a reason why they nailed him up, not theirs to reason why or question orders. But the idea of a religion developing around a man who had been alive in most of their lifetimes probably seemed ridiculous to them.

Allied to that, Christians were, simply put, mostly Jews who had put their previous religion behind them to follow Christ. Romans just did not do that. Not only because there was no other Roman religion to follow, but just because it wasn't the done thing. So they saw the Christians as being disloyal, breaking with tradition and denying their god (even if it was, technically, the very same god) to join this new sect, which they didn't see as a religion at all. It's been pointed out that many of the tenets of this new sect/religion/faith might have seemed repugnant to Romans. I mean, when their leader exhorts his followers to eat his body and drink his blood, well, you can see how misunderstandings could arise, can't you? And as for "suffer little children"...

Clear to see that the Romans had no love for the Christians, and so Decius's edict very definitely applied to them. No figures are available for how many were killed, though estimates range from 3,000 to 3,500, but the Decian persecution, as it came to be named, must have been very extensive and savage, as it caused a large percentage of Christians to "lapse", i.e., give in and sacrifice to save their lives, therefore turning their back on their religion. These people, as we will see, did not fare so well when the persecutions finally ended. We have some fairly famous people martyred in this period, including at least one pope, but we'll deal with him when we finally make our torturous and winding way back to the list. For now, we have two more emperors to check out.

[Trollheart]

Valerian (c. 199 - 260/264)

Persecution by remote? Sort of. Emperor Valerian was away in Asia Minor fighting those pesky Persians when he sent two edicts back home: the first more or less reinstated Decius's "Sacrifice or else!" one (which his successor had rescinded) but the second went further, stating that all bishops and high-ranking Christians were to be executed, that any holding Roman office - including senators - were to be stripped of said offices and, further, if they refused then to sacrifice, they were to be executed. Talk about the stick or the stick eh? Where's the carrot? WIIFM, as they say, other than being able to live a life of possible poverty?

We have the record of one such attempt, which resulted in the martyrdom of Cyprian, who, so far as I'm aware, was not a pope, so we can discuss him here. No, he was a bishop. Bishop of Carthage, as it goes. This, then, is it.

Galerius Maximus: "Are you Thascius Cyprianus?"
Cyprian: "I am."
Galerius: "The most sacred Emperors have commanded you to conform to the Roman rites."
Cyprian: "I refuse."
Galerius: "Take heed for yourself."
Cyprian: "Do as you are bid; in so clear a case I may not take heed."
Galerius, after briefly conferring with his judicial council, with much reluctance pronounced the following sentence: "You have long lived an irreligious life, and have drawn together a number of men bound by an unlawful association, and professed yourself an open enemy to the gods and the religion of Rome; and the pious, most sacred and august Emperors ... have endeavoured in vain to bring you back to conformity with their religious observances; whereas therefore you have been apprehended as principal and ringleader in these infamous crimes, you shall be made an example to those whom you have wickedly associated with you; the authority of law shall be ratified in your blood." He then read the sentence of the court from a written tablet: "It is the sentence of this court that Thascius Cyprianus be executed with the sword."
Cyprian: "Thanks be to God."

And so poor Cyprian went to meet his maker possibly. I imagine it must have been very frustrating and annoying to the Romans, all these Christian martyrs-to-be so smug and happy that they were going to be killed. Even those under torture, not a bother. I mean, where's the fun in that? In terms of martyrs during his time we have Saint Prudent, Saint Romanus Ostiarius, Saint Lawrence, Saint Patroclus, Saint Fructose sorry Fructuosus, Pontius, Eugenia and no less than three Saints Denis. Oh, and poor old Pope Sixtus II, but we'll get to him in due course.

Anyway that leads us to what was pretty much the last time the Christians had to deal with mass persecutions, and again, this was a big one.




Diocletian (242/245 - 311/312)

You'd think a man nicknamed "Jovius" would be a happy, pleasant fellow, wouldn't you? You would, of course, be wrong. Jovius didn't mean back then what it does today. Well, Jovius doesn't mean anything now, does it? It's not even a word. But you look at it and you can't help but think of the word jovial. Not so. Jove was Jupiter, head honcho in the pantheon of Roman gods (think Zeus, just, you know, not Greek) and so what I assume they were saying about Diocletian - or, possibly, what he was saying or causing/ordering to be said about himself, more likely - is that he was like the god Jove. He wasn't highborn, but worked his way up the ranks through exemplary military service, and was proclaimed emperor in 284, sharing the empire with his old mucker Maximian, who ruled the eastern empire while he took care of the western one.

He split the rule of the empire between him and Maximian only two years after ascending the throne, and then in 293 further subdivided the rule, splitting the empire in four quarters, in what became known as the Tetrarchy, for obvious reasons. Now I don't know, but I will find out, but generally speaking I don't think emperors were fond of sharing power (witness the long line of them, one behind the other, dagger raised in that "Oh dear! You got in the way of my knife!" manner, each ready to take over as soon as the guy in front of him dropped) so I don't know whether Diocletian was insecure, unable to rule for some reason, was pressured into sharing or did it for some political motivation.

Tell you what: let's find out, shall we? Okay it seems initially it was a strength-in-numbers kind of deal. The previous emperor had been assassinated (how surprising!) so Diocletian thought if there's two of us there are two targets, plus if they go after one and even get him, the second will seek revenge, and if they go after one and don't get him, then the assassin will have two angry emperors out looking for him. Makes sense I guess. But if two heads are better than one, are four better than two? Doesn't really say, and though I will of course be going into more detail about him in my Roman emperors journal, this isn't it, and we don't really need to know.

As far as persecuting the Christians went, it seems, from what I read, there was rather a silly precedent. When Diocletian's priests tried to make a sacrifice in order to answer a question he had asked about the future (kind of thing Roman emperors did, apparently) they couldn't make head or tail of the entrails, so to speak, and - wait for this - blamed the Christians in the imperial household, essentially saying I guess they were blocking the signal from the gods! Oh no, seriously, at least, that's how I read it. I do so hope it was a rooster they were sacrificing, as then the Christians could be called cock blockers. Sorry. So the emperor issued an edict (another thing emperors - and kings - did a lot) that everyone in the empire must make the same sacrifice.

And that's where things got a bit tricky for Christians.

It seems that Diocletian wasn't a rabid Christian-hater. Far from it: in his book The Age of Martyrs; Christianity from Dioceltian (284) to Constantine (337), Abbott Giuseppe Ricciotti points out that the emperor's daughter and wife were both pro-Christian (or at least not anti; they probably thought them "quaint") and Diocletian himself was somewhat in awe, even fear of them, given that their god had died and come back to life. But the Abbott also notes that Diocletian was weak and easily led, so perhaps there were others behind his later persecutions of the followers of Christ.

Diocletian even had Christian servants in his palace, including eunuchs, who were considered some of the most important and valued, as they got to spend "imperial time" with the boss the most. Christians had been allowed to occupy positions in government and had built their own church in Nicomedia, with no interference from the emperor. The main architect of the persecution seems to have been Galerius, who was one of the emperors-come-lately who got a fourth share of the empire. His mother was a priestess and so her business dried up once Christianity rolled into town, and so she urged her son to do all he could to use his power and his influence over Diocletian to get revenge for her. In addition to this were other voices, mostly from, again, out-of-work priests, shamans and various people whose main product was sacrifice, which the new boys were gradually undermining. Man can't make a living with these fucking Christians, they complained to the gods, who told them to talk to the emperor, which they did. Leave it with me, lads, said he, and went off to whisper poison into Diocletian's ear.

There was a further problem, one Galerius could capitalise on, and that was the proliferation of Christians in the Roman army. Their being enlisted - or, probably more likely, conscripted - into the army put Christians in a conundrum, one which does not seem to have persisted for very long: should a follower of Christ kill? Ask the Crusaders, matey! But at the time this was a real dilemma for the new sect. Also, as soldiers of the empire they were expected to follow orders, and if these orders included sacrificing to pagan gods, how could they then reconcile their faith in Jesus and the One God with these orders? It was almost, though not quite, the same quandary English Catholics found themselves in a thousand years and more later, when they were required to swear an oath to the English Crown, and aver that Henry VIII or Elizabeth or James, or whoever was on the English throne at the time, was the true head of the Church, and not the Pope.

It's quite astounding to me, but thanks to this Abbott Giuseppe we have the actual account of a Christian, a guy called Maximilian, being martyred rather than join the army.

The Proconsul began the interrogation by asking Maximilian his name.

"Why do you ask my name? I cannot be a soldier for I am a Christian."

The Proconsul took no notice and ordered that he should be inspected medically and measured to see if he was suitable as a recruit.

"I cannot be a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian."

The Proconsul repeated the order to measure him. It was done and an assistant announced— "Five feet and ten inches."

"Mark him," continued the Proconsul. A conscript, when he had been accepted, was stamped on the flesh with a red-hot iron with the initial of the emperor, and a leaden seal carrying the imperial effigy was hung around his neck.

Maximilian only replied, "I cannot be a soldier."

Marveling at his obstinate refusal, the Proconsul became angry.

"Be a soldier, or die."

"I cannot be a soldier. Cut off my head; I cannot be a soldier of this world. I must serve only under my God."

"Who has given you these ideas?"

"My soul and he who has called me."

The Proconsul then turned to the boy's father: "Persuade your son," he ordered. But the father did not want to enter into the matter for, almost certainly, he approved of his son's resolution.

He replied, "He has a mind of his own; he knows what he is doing."

The Proconsul turned once more to the son.

"You must be a soldier and accept the seal" (of the emperor).

"I will not accept it. I already have the seal of Christ, my God."

"I will send you straight to your Christ."

"Do it immediately. It will be my glory."

"Mark him," ordered the Proconsul. The assistants took hold of him but he fought back shouting:

"I will not receive the seal of the world. If you put it around my neck I will break it, for I put no value on it. I am a Christian; I cannot carry a leaden seal at my neck for I already carry the sacred seal of Christ."

The Proconsul continued to insist and urged that many of the soldiers were Christians.

"In the sacred company of our lords Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and Maximum [i.e., Galerius] there are Christian soldiers and they are not afraid to fight."

"They do what they think is right. As far as I am concerned I am a Christian and cannot do evil."

"Do those who fight in our armies do evil therefore?"

"You know what they do."

Further persuasion and threats of death failed to move the conscript. The Proconsul then had his name canceled on the register and turning to him pronounced sentence:

"Since indevoto animo [with disloyal spirit] you have refused military service you will be punished as an example to others."

He then read the sentence from the book— "Maximilian, who has been found guilty of insubordination by not accepting military service, will be punished by the sword."

Maximilian replied, "Deo gratias."

He was taken immediately to the place of execution and when he arrived there turned to the other Christians and said: "My dearest brethren, hasten with all your strength and desire to gain the vision of God and to merit a similar crown." Then smiling, he asked his father to give his new uniform as a conscript to the executioner. He was immediately beheaded. A matron called Pompeiana had the body transported on her own litter to Carthage where it was buried near the tomb of St. Cyprian. His father, Victor, returned home full of joy and thanking God for what had happened.

I mean, the last line is kind of shocking, but does show the depth of the faith these people had (his father was obviously a Christian too). Imagine, though, being proud of your boy, who has just been executed for being, in Roman eyes, a coward. No divided loyalties there, no dilemma, no doubt whatsoever in the mind of either that what the son had done was the right thing to do.

The thing was, Diocletian had already butted heads with the Manchieans, an Iranian sect, many of whose tenets seemed to align, simplistically anyway to this simple guy, with those of another bothersome sect: impugning Roman morals, denying the gods, not being Roman etc. So after he had finished with them - leaders to be burned alive, followers to be put to the sword and anyone left to be sent to the mines - he turned his attention on the Christians. First one in line, so far as I can see, was a lad called - perhaps ironically - Romanus of Caesarea. Diocletian wasn't too happy that this guy went around causing trouble at sacrifices while the emperor was away, berating people for worshipping false idols, and on his return he ordered he be burned alive.

He was most upset when either God sent rain to douse the flames or Romanus was just lucky and it was a completely natural occurrence (delete as per your faith), but strangely enough, rather than just waiting till the rain had stopped and they could bank up the fire again, the emperor said "Fuck it. Cut the bastard's tongue out then. And while you're at it, have him tortured. What do you mean, and then executed? Of course fucking executed!" And so he was. Tortured most horribly (you ever known anyone to be tortured nicely?) and put to death, becoming the first Christian, if I'm right, to be killed under Diocletian's reign, the first martyr of that time, and kicking off this whole Age of Martyrs gig.

Because you know how it is: once you execute one Christian you just want to do it again and again. Like Chinese food, you're hungry an hour later. And Diocletian was very hungry. Hungry for blood, if that's not a contradiction, but you know what I mean. Not that anyone cares or that it matters now, but to appease any passing Roman historians, let me state that apparently the big wheel in the persecutions is accepted by some as not having been Diocletian, who just wanted to ban the Christians from all the good jobs, but his co-co-co-ruler, Galerius, who sneered "Nah, mate. Only good Christian is a dead Christian, take it from me." Luckily they had an oracle handy, and heading to her shrine they asked her advice. Now I mean, an oracle of the gods whom Christianity proposed to put on the dole is hardly a bipartisan source, is it? Natch, she told them "off with their heads. And arms. And legs. And dangly bits. Burn them too, why not. Don't worry; the gods got your back, son."

Even so, Diocletian probably realised - he wasn't a stupid man - that Galerius was manipulating the priestess of the oracle to ensure it gave him the answer he wanted, and still reluctant to start a bloodbath, he demurred. Galerius declared that "all who refused to sacrifice should be burned alive", but had to be content for now with Christians being stripped of office, imprisoned and tortured and their churches burned down. Hey, he probably thought grumpily, it's a start.

And so the Roman equivalent of kristallnacht began in 302, except it wasn't just one nacht, oh no. This persecution - rightly or wrongly attributed to Diocletian, though he doesn't seem to have questioned the words of the oracle, which for all he knew could have been uttered by Galerius, hiding behind the statue and putting on a squeaky voice - went on for so long it attained the sobriquet "age". Not the Year of Martyrs, not the Decade of  Martyrs, not even the fucking Century of Martyrs. This was the Age of Martyrs, and it would last for over two hundred years. It began with the burning down of a Christian church, and many more burnings to come, both of buildings and of people. They also burned their holy scrolls and writings, so although there was little doubt that it would happen, the famous quote that "where they burn books they will soon burn people" applies.

In a trick later filched by the leader of the Third Reich, part of the imperial palace burned down, and Galerius said to his co-co-co-emperor "See! What did I fucking tell you, dude? Poxy Christians! Can't trust 'em! I mean, burn down a few of their churches and their childish writings, and they dare to assault your own home! You're too lenient on them, son!" An investigation found no evidence of collusion between Christians and the eunuchs of the palace, so that was that. People were executed, and one man in particular probably deserves a mention, due to the nature of his death, whether martyred or not I don't know. He could have been a eunuch. Anyway, he was stripped, hoisted, flogged, had salt and vinegar rubbed into his wound and then slowly boiled over an open flame. They took their executions seriously, these Romans. Well, they were the ones who invented crucifixion, perhaps one of the cruellest and most lingering deaths devised by man.

It's recorded that Diocletian, an old, frightened man by now, easily manipulated and convinced of the evil of these Christians, became very paranoid and viewed everyone with suspicion, to the extent that even his wife and daughter were told, ditch these Christian beliefs or you can find out just exactly what it feels like to be a martyr. Since neither fancied facing the fire, they both recanted and, one would assume, the Christians in the palace lost a valuable ally who might otherwise have been able to plead for leniency for them, if not for sanity itself. Galerius though had worked on his boss too well, and now the old guy was jumping at shadows, scared of his own shit and ready to scream "Christian!" at every unwelcome event.

[Trollheart]

We also have an account of how things, in the very words of the chronicler maybe, got totally fucking out of hand and well to hell. Sort of. Here: "Priests and ministers were arrested and without any crime or confession were condemned and taken with all their families to execution. People of both sexes and of all ages were cast into fire; not one at a time but whole groups of them were bound together and burned; slaves were flung into the sea with a great stone tied to their necks. The persecution raged with no less violence over the other citizens. The magistrates were positioned in the various temples and everyone was forced to offer sacrifice. The prisons were full to overflowing while new kinds of torture were an hourly invention. Lest justice should be inadvertently administered to a Christian, altars were put up in the law courts and before the tribunals so that the participants in trials could offer sacrifice before their causes were discussed."

Totally turned around now on what we could probably call, with some justification, the Christian Question, Diocletian sent word to Maximian in the east to do as he was. "Way ahead of ya, bro!" came back the reply, with much detailed information as to how the Christians were finding life in the east of the empire just as untenable as life in the west. There really was nowhere for them to hide now, and I suppose the only good thing you could say is that if martyrdom was your thing, well you were in luck because the want ads section of The Daily Tribune was full of great opportunities to sacrifice yourself for a god no Roman believed in.

An uprising in Syria, in which it's generally believed Christians had no part - a centurion proclaimed himself emperor, though he did not last long - resulted in even harsher (?) edicts against the new sect. In 303 it was ordered that all religious leaders be imprisoned and torture be used to make them bend to the imperial will and do the damned sacrifices, come on dudes, we're not kidding this time. Another account tells us how this went.

"Everywhere numberless people were imprisoned; jails which had been built for murderers and violators of tombs were now so full of bishops, priests, deacons, lectors and exorcists that there was no longer room for common criminals. . . . No one can say how many suffered martyrdom in the various provinces. The persecution was especially severe in Africa and Mauretania, in the Thebaid and in Egypt. From this last place some moved on to other cities and became famous in their death."

To be totally fair and objective though, the ranks of Christians weren't filled with saints and people desperate to quit this mortal coil. Like any group of people, there were those whose, let's be kind, spirit may have been willing but whose flesh was certainly weak. They're referred to in rather damning terms here, with also a kind of indictment on how, with peace in abundance (before the persecutions, of course), the Christians slid into something of a lull in being, well, Christian.

"As always happens when there is abundance of liberty our lives became indolent and careless; we envied one another and did harm to our brethren; any wretched excuse was sufficient to start a war of arms— as it were— with the spearthrust of words; leaders poured ill fame on other leaders; nation rose against nation; pretence and damned hypocrisy seemed to reach the limit of their evil height. . . . Like senseless people we did not trouble to make our God propitious and benevolent toward us but like certain atheists who consider that human affairs are neither guided nor watched over (by God) we piled wickedness on wickedness. Those who were supposed to be our pastors disdained the paths of divine piety and inflamed their hearts in contests one with another, only adding thus to the quarrels and threats, the rivalry, the envies and hates of the times. They filled their time in striving for position in no different a manner from the princes of this world"

Sounds like the way later popes would behave, doesn't it? I suppose it's heartening - or depressing - to see that such materialism over spirituality was not unique to the men who sat in Rome during the Middle Ages and later. Basically, religion has always been a crutch for people, and some prefer to lean on a golden rather than a wooden one. What am I talking about? How am I supposed to know? My brain's turning to mush with all these Latin expressions. Mea Culpa! Mamma Mia! Possibly. The rather shocking conclusion Abbott Giuseppe comes to here unsettlingly echoes the words of Hitler, that man needs war to survive, because in his (the Abbott's) view, peacetime had not been kind to Christians: it had not only made them soft, but had allowed them to start breaking a whole host of laws and pay only the most cursory lipservice to God. Some of the things they were obliquely accused of, or at least incarcerated under house arrest and forbidden from doing, included to frequent public markets; clerics must not practice usury; no women must live in the houses of bishops or clerics except for a sister or a daughter who must be virgins consecrated to the Lord; idolatrous worship may not be offered by the baptized faithful; Christians are not allowed to place money ad aleam id est tabulam, that is, on games of chance; the Christian woman who has separated from her husband because of his adultery may not marry another*; the wife who in the absence of her husband has conceived in adultery and then committed infanticide is to be punished very severely for her double crime; young Christians guilty of fornication must do adequate penance before they marry; the daughters of Christians must not be given in marriage to pagan priests.

*Fucking Jesus! So a woman's husband is unfaithful to her, and she gets punished, having to remain his wife until she dies?

The very fact that these holy men were forbidden to indulge in such practices implies that they had been doing just this; after all, one doesn't forbid a man from, say, kicking his neighbour's dog, unless he has been caught doing just that. No smoke without fire and so on. That shows then that the very people who were supposed to be leading the new Christians on their path of enlightenment were somewhat more concerned with their own physical enlightenment in matters of worldly wealth, entertainment and of course that old favourite, fornication.

The perhaps ironic thing is that two weeks after all these summary executions, another fire occurred at the palace, whereupon brave Galerius fucked off, considering the city not safe for one such as he. Or, possibly, he had had a hand in the fires and was getting out of Dodge. Either way, Diocletian, possibly thinking he may have gone too far, wasn't far behind him. Diocletian was not to return to the empire, falling physically ill and then either senile or metnally ill, he was persuaded, threatened and cajoled by Galerius into abdicating, and with him he had to take Maximian. The other co-emperor was replaced and power rested now entirely in the hands of Galerius.

You backstabbing, turncoat, untrustworthy... what can I call you? Oh yeah!

A quick aside before we continue: it's really gratifying and often quite surprising the little nuggets of information you can come across, unlooked-for, when researching. I've just discovered that those Christians who were ordered to turn over their holy Scriptures were ordered to with the word tradere, to surrender. Those who obeyed were accused by their people of surrendering, and were labelled traditor - you can see where this is going, can't you? That word, of course, quickly metamorphosed into traitor, the word we now use for someone who betrays. I must also note this line, which should serve as an indictment of all fascists, when Abbott Giuseppe bewails "But as always, fanaticism could see its way only by the light of such bonfires." You tell 'em, abbott! I will, with characteristic lack of humility, add my own: fascists can only see through the darkness they themselves have created by the very fires of Hell itself. Not bad, eh? What do you mean, crap? Get out of my journal! No, no wait! I didn't mean it. Come back...

Very interesting, too, the attitude of the bishops when certain of the more extreme Christians - the abbott calls them "the extreme right - fanatics" - went to boast to the authorities that they had codices (sacred books) and texts but, unlike the lily-livered ones who had handed theirs over, these guys weren't for turning. "Nya nya nya!" They jeered. "We have the scriptures and you ain't getting them. Go on: kill us! We don't care! We'd rather die!" The hierarchy did not consider them martyrs, because, as I think I mentioned some time above, anyone who goes seeking martyrdom rather than having it thrust upon them, as it were, ain't no martyr. Don't poke the bear, son. If you do, don't expect us to praise you. You're not martyrs, you're just idiots.

There's even room for a little humour in these dark times for Christians. A particular bishop called Mensurians, getting the loud knock on the door, was already prepared. He had taken the scriptures somewhere else, and replaced them with works Christians considered heretical. The dopey Romans, unable to read Hebrew, took them all and didn't even realise they were in fact helping the guy. Luckily he didn't give the game away by saying "Take, take! They're crap anyway and I hate them. Can you manage a few more? What about this slave? He can take two or three more volumes, surely? Okay, suit yourself!"

Others were equally as inventive, one bishop handing over reams of medical texts, another all his personal letters, none of which the Romans could, or wanted to, distinguish from the religious scriptures they had been tasked with finding. Not in the same league by any means, but still mildly funny is Victor of Rusicade, who went so far as to go "Right you are, guv! Got any matches? Oh no wait: they haven't been invented yet, have they? Well, torch? Ta muchly!" and set fire to one of his own codices. He later explained "Look lads, the fucking thing was fallin' to bits. Sure burnin' it was no big deal really." He only did it to save his skin though.

As you might expect, while there were basically three options - obey, disobey and flee, flight was one option a lot of Christians took, and they found refuge in places like Armenia and Persia (Iran) where fellow Christians took them in. The Persian empire was still one of the largest in the known world, despite Rome's attempts to shrink it, so Christians would be more or less safe there. Armenia I don't know, but given that it's part of Asia perhaps it would have been under the protection of the Ottomans or someone. Not sure; I may check. But the accounts say that persecuted Christians fleeing the empire found sanctuary there, so Rome must not have held any sway in those parts, as the orders given by Diocletian, and now expanded and enforced by Galerius, covered the entire empire.

I usually don't favour copying out blocks of text from the books I read, preferring instead to paraphrase the account and maybe put my own spin on it, but as I read this it's so amusing that I think something might be lost in the translation if I tried to explain it myself, so let me allow the abbott to regale you with these stories of almost Pythoneseque Christian fervour.

There was a little town in Phrygia where the whole population including the "curator" and the municipal magistrates were all Christians. Everyone refused to offer incense and they fled to the shelter of their church. This made it simpler for the Roman officers to dispose of them— they burned the church with the Christians, men, women, and children inside (cf. Lactantius, op. cit. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., viii, 11, 1–2). Such methods, as Eusebius quite rightly observes, could be expected during war but did not seem an essential part of the ordinary administration of justice. Since the story of Eusebius continues without any break it would seem that among this multitude of martyrs was found a certain Adauctus of Italian origin who had held a high position in the administration of the privy purse of the Emperor and was then attached to the Treasury. This last office did not prevent his sharing the flames with the rest of the Christians in the church.

During the persecution of Maximin it was the custom to go along the streets calling the people out of their houses according to a prepared list and then to put out search parties for those who did not answer the call. When the roll call was finished everyone was taken off to the nearest pagan temple to offer incense. Such wholesale methods are still favored by tyrants.

Some magistrates were more interested in making apostates than in destruction and death. They are mentioned by Lactantius as being apparently milder and more persuasive. They put their victims to the torture but in small doses over a long period in the hope that this painful repetition would sap the moral strength of the patient and lead him to surrender; they cared for the wounds and bruises of one day so that the pain of their opening again the following day would be more excruciating. One of these magistrates boasted that in many years of office he had not executed a single Christian, but had always aimed at breaking down the constancy of his victims. A governor of Bithynia was filled with happiness when one day he saw signs of weakening in a Christian who had been receiving measured treatment for two years. Sometimes magistrates claimed a victory where there had been none; sometimes the intervention of relatives and friends of the victim made what would in other circumstances have been an amusing scene. The accused proclaimed his Christian faith in a loud voice while his friends shouted him down asserting that the magistrate must not listen to him and assuring the bystanders that he had already offered sacrifice or was willing to do so. In order to gain another victory the magistrate would listen to those who shouted the loudest and write down the accused as an apostate. Scuffles sometimes took place between the Christian and his friends. The latter, to save him from the death to which his obstinacy would condemn him, would carry him bodily to the altar; sometimes they would gag him to avoid any contradiction; having tied his hands they would put some incense in his palm and hold it over the tripod; in the scuffle some of the incense would fall into it and behold the poor man had sacrificed. It was quite useless to attempt to explain things to magistrates later for retractions were not accepted. Here is a description of such a scene by Eusebius:

"A certain Christian who had been forced bodily to offer impure and filthy sacrifices was then dismissed as if he had really sacrificed although this had not been the case. Another one who had not been anywhere near or touched anything impure was said to have sacrificed. Since he heard calumny in silence, he was allowed to go away. Yet another was taken up half dead and flung to one side as if he were a corpse. Another lying on the ground was dragged by his feet for a long distance and was counted among those who had sacrificed. One made a great commotion and shouted out in a loud voice that he refused to sacrifice and another proclaimed himself a Christian, boasting in his confession of the life-giving name; another asserted with vigor that he had not sacrificed and would never do so. These also were struck on the mouth frequently by soldiers who gathered to torment them, and reduced to silence, bleeding on their mouths and faces, they were violently thrown out"

I mean, you have to laugh, don't you? Guiltily, yes, but it's amusing, as the author himself notes, as if an abbott can find humour in a situation such as this, as Annie Lennox once sang, who am I to disagree? Eventually, though, as usually happens, people got tired of the slaughter. Hey, even the Nazis found shooting people in large groups wearing and demoralising, and there was no Zyklon-B available in ancient Rome, so slowly but with increasing frequency, death sentences for Christians began to be commuted to labour in the mines. This had two immediate effects (well, three, if you include saving Christian lives): the morale of the poor persecutors, which had taken a serious hit, began to climb, and so did the wealth-o-meter at the imperial palace, since good-for-nothing Christians were now finally working to earn their keep. Not as if they got paid, of course, but they were bringing in the readies, and Rome was always about the cash. Just ask Crassus.

Of course, before we start slapping the Romans on the back and saying "Good man, knew you had it in you" let's remember that this was hardly a holiday camp. As in Nazi Germany, a ready-made slave labour class was great and all, but these guys would keep dying. And while there were certainly plenty more to replace them, if you were a Christian then up to the point you died, to use a South Park phrase

Some of them in fact might have preferred a quick death, though then again, not too many of the deaths handed out were that quick. Remember Peter Cubicalicus? Well, prisoners sentenced to the mines first of all had to get there, and that meant walking under the burning sun to a very desolate place, far from even the most basic amenities (without knowing it, Abbott Giuseppe makes a joke, noting that the prisoners only got "the bare necessities of life"!), their wives and children having to go with them, and no special consideration given to how they would keep up. If they dropped, they'd be left there to die. Reminiscent of the forced death marches the Nazis and indeed the Japanese drove their prisoners of war on as the war reached its conclusion. In addition to this, prisoners had their tendons cauterised to prevent them escaping (similar, one would assume, though possibly worse than hobbling, a practice carried out in the Deep South on slaves, for the same reason), their right eye was cut out for some reason, and the wound burned with a hot iron, and some of the younger males were castrated.

[Trollheart]

Now, far be it from me to prevent the sadistic Romans having their fun, but apart from a basic level of humanity being absent here, this surely doesn't make good sense? It's like my argument about Christ - and other convicted felons - carrying their cross to the execution site. Did the Roman guards really want to follow a broken, beaten line of men as they trudged slowly through the streets hauling a massive wooden cross? Was that time well spent? In the same way, if you want someone to work, why cut out his eye? Why castrate him? Of course, you could I suppose ask the same questions of Hitler, if he wasn't roasting in Hell. Some decisions, apart from being evil and inhuman, just don't make any sort of sense.

Like, I don't know, John, who was blind and they still burned out his right eye! "Sorry, son. Orders is orders. Can't be making exceptions. What? No, no, I realise you can't see, and burning your eye out does nothing but cause you pain, but if me supervisor heard I'd not done me job, well, you know how it is. Now hold still, this might smart a bit." As it turned out, John didn't need his eyes to be able to recite scripture, as he had what must have been an eidetic memory and could "read" as if he had the books in front of him.

Amazingly, all this torture and mistreatment wasn't enough for the Roman governor of the province, who visited and more or less accused the person in charge of the mines of being too soft on the prisoners! Brings to mind this sketch, really.

He decided to snitch to the emperor, and Galerius's bully-boy in that area, one Maximin, agreed. He told the governor to give orders to break up the group, sending them to various areas. He also had the most prominent among the prisoners burned alive, and had those too weak to work beheaded. This, sadly, included blind John, who I guess then became a martyr.

Dark and horrible a time as it was, and whether intentionally or not, the abbott's accounts (not written by him but by contemporary chroniclers, almost minutes of the tortures) read as almost humorous at times. You get the definite impression of a man (proconsul) doing his level best to get the Christians to recant and save their lives, and every single one of them, despite undergoing hideous tortures (all pretty graphically described, almost torture porn in a way) saying "do your worst." Each of them seemed, and of course were, eager to be martyred, and the idea of the poor, knackered proconsul and his torturers (one of the accounts tells us the torturer had to be replaced because he was worn out!) all but pleading "Come on, guys! It's been a long, long day and I want to get home. Someone confess! Please? Ah, go on! What is wrong with you people?" The proconsul in the end essentially throws up his hands and says, "Fuck it! Back to the cells with them and we'll execute them tomorrow. I need to get some rest!" Almost more torture, it seems, for the Romans than for the Christians.

Look, you have to stand in awe of these people. Stretched on the rack, torn with iron hooks, subjected to every devilish instrument of pain the Roman empire had at its disposal, they never once wavered. I mean, we're all only human, surely? Imagine Christians doing that today! What? You'll take my smartphone and destroy it? You'll cut off my internet access? Nooooo! Please! I'll repent! Who is this Jesus fellow anyway? But back then, I guess either they were made of sterner stuff or they had far stronger faith. Just to give you an idea TRIGGER WARNING here is a short account of the many ways Christians were tortured:

Spoiler

"What words would be sufficient to describe the bravery and courage of these Christians in their peculiar torments? For indeed, liberty to persecute was given to anybody; some they beat with clubs; some with rods; some with straps and some with cords. The methods of persecution differed, but were always as cruel as possible. Some with their hands tied behind their backs were hung from a post and by means of winches their limbs were pulled in all directions; while they were still hanging the executioners in obedience to orders used their tools on their bodies— not just on their sides as with assassins, but over all their parts, their belly, their legs and faces. Others were hung by one hand from a doorway and suffered the greatest torment from the stretching of their joints and limbs. Others were bound in pairs, face to face, to columns in such a way that their feet were off the ground; the cords were thus tightened by the weight of their bodies. It is beyond power of words to describe the outrages and torments suffered by the martyrs of the Thebaid. They were scraped with shells instead of iron hooks all over their bodies until they died. Women were tied by one leg and hauled up into the air by winches; they were left hanging upside down completely naked and presented the worst and most cruelly inhuman spectacle of all. Some died tied to trees and stumps. Strong trees were bent together by winches until they met at the top; a leg of the martyr was fixed to each tree and then the trees were allowed to spring back to their former position. This torture had been discovered to tear the sinews of the limbs of those who suffered it. And all these deeds were practiced not for a few days or for a short time, but for years. Sometimes ten were killed at the same time, sometimes twenty or more; at other times not less than thirty and sometimes nearly sixty. Once in the space of one day a good hundred men with women and children were all executed after having endured various prolonged tortures.

"We ourselves were witness of the great crowd who in the space of one day endured beheading or the punishment of fire; the orgy went on so long that the murderous blade became blunt and killed by its weight. The executioners themselves became exhausted and took turns at their work. We also saw the most marvelous inspiration, a force which was truly divine, and the readiness of those who had faith in the Christ of God. Immediately, when sentence had been pronounced on one group, another party came before the tribunal from the opposite side acknowledging themselves Christians and remaining unmoved before dangers and torments of all kinds. Indeed, they reasoned bravely and clearly concerning the service of God of the Universe; and lighthearted and happy, they received with joy the final sentence of death. They sang hymns and offered thanksgiving to the God of all until their last breath."

And in Pontus, on the Black Sea, it appears that there was a special form of almost competitive cruelty and sadism among the judges, as they sought to come up with the most painful and inventive tortures: "Terrible to hear were the agonies suffered by those (Christians) of Pontus. Some had sharpened reeds thrust under their fingernails; others had boiling lead poured over their backs and their most vital parts burned in this way; still others suffered in their private parts tortures which were shameful, callous, and impossible to describe; these torments were inflicted by noble judges who respected the law; they made show of cruelty as if it were a wise virtue and in a wretched competition for new tortures attempted to beat their rival judges as if they were striving for a prize"

[close]

It's heartening to hear that the Christians weren't always left to their fate. Pagans, outraged and disgusted at the treatment meted out to these people, often tried to help them, and hide them, like some Egyptians did. Of course, as Abbott Giuseppe points out, Egypt was no friend to Rome, the latter having conquered the former, so there may have been an ulterior, or at least secondary motive here. I'm sure, though, that the Christians they helped didn't much care about their motivation.

Kiss of death: paying lip service

Seems even feeling sympathy for Christians was a good way to lose your head. After a bunch of them had been executed, a servant asked for the bodies so he could bury them. Suspicion swung his way, and when he admitted that he too was a Christian, they tortured him and then set him alight. Apparently it didn't bother the guy, who went to his death singing the praises of God. And you do have to wonder, what kind of god allows his chosen people to be all but sacrificed in this horrible way? Didn't one of them say that God demands no sacrifices, forbids them? Well he sure wasn't stopping these, was he?

Worse was to come. As the martyrs waited to be, well, martyred, one of them was kissed by a messenger, also a Christian - sort of "Congrats on your coming martyrdom, bro!" The governor of Palestine didn't like this one little bit, and decided to teach the kid a lesson by seeing how he could manage without a head. Another Christian followed his example, but he didn't get off so easily, being crucified while a third lad, Julian, literally danced for joy (it says) when he was told that his fate was to be burned alive on a slow fire like the first guy. The Romans must have shook their heads and thought, again, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Don't they fear anything? The final ignominy for the governor came when he ordered that the bodies of all the martyrs be left where they had been killed, and that no relatives be allowed claim them for four days, hoping that the carrion birds and the wild beasts would do for them, but whether by divine intervention or not, no animal came near the corpses and the governor had to grumpily allow them to be reclaimed by their relatives.

I mean, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but surely some of this must be Christian propaganda, intended to bolster their cause and show how hopeless it was to try to dissuade them? This account from Tyre, written by apparently a man who witnessed it, our old mate Eusebius:
"We assisted personally as such happenings . . . the devourers (wild beasts) of men did not dare for a long time either to touch or even to approach the bodies of the friends of God although they sprang accurately enough on the outsiders (the pagans) who were urging them on with pointed sticks. It was only the holy athletes who were untouched although they stood still and naked and beckoned to the beasts with their hands, as they had been told to do. And if one of the animals sprang towards them, it seemed to be pushed back by divine power and at once went away from them. This went on for a long time and produced no little wonder among the spectators, for when the first beast had retired in this way, a second and third did the same. All were dumbstruck by the fearless constancy of these saints and the unbreakable resolution of those young bodies. You would see a young man of not yet twenty years of age who stood without movement although unbound with his hands outstretched in the form of a cross. He prayed for long with untroubled and tranquil mind to the Divinity, neither moving nor going away from his place while bears and leopards, breathing rage and threats of horrible death, were almost touching him. But in some way, I know not how, by a divine and hidden force their mouths were closed and they finally ran away from him. Such was one case. Others you would have seen, there were five in all, exposed to an infuriated bull who tossed in the air the other outsiders (the pagans) who were urging him to the martyrs, and wounded them so seriously that they were picked up half dead. When the bull rushed against the holy ones (the Christians) with all fury and menace he suddenly stopped and could approach no nearer but pawed the ground and tossed his horns here and there breathing anger and fear towards those who were goading him with hot irons. He had been stayed by Divine Providence and could inflict no harm on the martyrs. Other beasts were set against them without success. Finally after all these terrible and varied trials they were all slaughtered with the sword and instead of being buried in the earth or in sepulchres they were all flung on the waves of the sea"

The idea being offered here is that God protected his people and that the Romans, despite wanting to make the deaths of the Christians as horrible and vile and painful as they could, eventually had to give them all a quick death. I would take with the regulation pinch of a certain condiment, but it must have made for impressive reading.

Most people - even me - know the story of Saint Sebastian. Sebastian was an official at Diocletian's court, loved by the old emperor, but converted, and used his position to help Christians. When Diocletian heard this, he was none too pleased, and ordered that Sebastian be slain by arrows. Though he was pierced many times, and left for dead, he didn't die, and when he had recovered, perhaps rather foolishly, went to tell the emperor off. This time Diocletian made sure the job was done properly, and had him flogged to death. Proving the old maxim, you might cheat death once, but twice is at best unlikely. Or, more simply, don't poke the bear, especially if he happens to sit on the imperial throne. Or, finally, don't push your luck.

[Trollheart]

Girls allowed... to become martyrs

In a world and a time when women were all but silent, treated as property and bartered for marriage and status, as would happen really for about another 1700 years, it might be surprising that there were some female martyrs. As I come across any I will do my best to relate their stories. The first I find, thanks to Abbott Giuseppe, is a woman (described as a matron, so possibly a mother?) called Crispina. He describes the path to her martyrdom in an exchange she had with the Roman official, the proconsul, after she had told them where they could stick their incense and refused to sacrifice in the temple: "Do you know what is commanded by the sacred edict?"

"I do not know this edict."

"It commands you to sacrifice to our gods for the safety of our rulers in obedience to the law given by the pious Augusti Diocletian, etc."

"I shall never offer this sacrifice. I offer sacrifice to one God only and his Son our Lord Jesus Christ who was born and suffered."

"Abandon this superstition and bow your head before our gods."

"I venerate my God every day and I know no other gods but him."

"You are being very obstinate and difficult. You will soon find out to your cost the force of our laws."

"Whatever happens to me I will suffer it willingly for my faith."

"You will lose your head if you do not obey the orders of our lords the emperors to whom you owe obedience. They have power over all Africa and you know it."

The accused replied to this and the Proconsul answered. The conversation now becomes colored by theological dispute and quotations from the Bible and perhaps this is a later addition. To make her more amenable the Proconsul ordered that her beautiful hair should be cut off. Crispina said, "Let your gods speak and then I will believe them. If I had sought my safety I would not be standing before your tribunal."

The give and take of the interrogation went on and finally the Proconsul became impatient and sentenced her to death by beheading.

Next we have, believe it or not, children. Two young girls, fourteen years of age, and one only twelve. In the city when the order to sacrifice was given, every single Christian tugged their forelock and said "Yes sir! Where can we do this sir, and can you show us how?" They all gave in. Which is not for me to cast aspersions on, as if it had been me I'd have been polishing statue butt with my tongue if it kept me off the rack. Plus, anyway, I don't believe. But these three girls refused, and were singled out. You'd think that the Proconsul would have said, two or three out of hundreds or thousands ain't bad, let's just gloss over this one, but no: an example had to be made apparently.

According to the account, Secunda, the twelve-year-old, willingly sacrificed herself by joining the two girls, Maxima and Donatilla, as they were being led away, giving the Proconsul one extra kid to worry about. If he had been worried about torturing and executing two young girls in the first place. After interrogating them and offering them a chance to sacrifice (at which they all said "No thanks pal: Jesus is our saviour and you can take that to the imperial bank") he sentenced them all to die in the arena, but later commuted this to, um, beheading. Not so sure the Romans understood the term mercy really. Well I suppose it was a quicker death than being torn apart by wild animals. Maybe he was afraid their god would step in, and the big cats would become little cats and just play with the kids, a la Daniel in the Bible?

In Palestine, it seems, they were a little more forceful, these women. One (unnamed) was tortured for complaining that she was to be sent to a brothel by the local judge, and attacked him. While she was being tortured, her sister showed up. Abbot Giuseppe, through the chronicler Eusebius, takes up the story: "While this torture was going on, another woman called Valentina, a native of Caesarea and a vowed virgin, raised her voice from the crowd. She was only a little thing and not much to look at, but had plenty of spirit. "How long," she called to the judge, "are you going to torture my sister so cruelly?" She was arrested and when she was conducted into the middle of the hall "she enlisted," says Eusebius, "under the mighty name of the Saviour." That is, she put on her arms for the coming battle.

At first the judge, with pleasant talk, tried to persuade her to sacrifice but when this had no effect she was dragged bodily to the altar. When she finally arrived there, instead of offering the ritual incense she dealt a number of well-directed kicks and pushed over the altar with everything on it and the tripod with the fire. The judge was furious and after this new rebel had been tortured he condemned her to be burned alive with her sister."

Women were of course easy prey, and as in the witch-hunts of the later seventeenth century could be accused without any evidence. A woman called Ennathas, having caught the eye of a Roman soldier and refusing his advances, was stripped and whipped by him without any authority, but nobody said anything to him. He conveyed her to the judge, concocted some story and the poor woman was burned alive. It doesn't even say if she was a Christian. In Caesarea Theodosia only popped in to say hi to the Christians waiting to be martyred, wish them well and all that. On her way out she was arrested, tortured and martyred herself by being flung alive into the sea.

Antioch was apparently a real hotbed of misogyny, where the governor basically took any women he fancied, and his subordinates did the same. When the Christian purges began, women were specifically targeted, and three in particular, Domnina and her two daughters Berenice and Prosdoche, having escaped the city but been betrayed by Domnina's husband (possibly, though possibly not, under torture) and were being taken back to Antioch when they all three flung themselves in the river to escape their fate.

You could call it self-martyrdom I guess, but apparently if it was done for the right reasons - to prevent themselves being sullied, they all three being virgins consecrated to God, it was acceptable. Hold on! How could a mother with two daughters be a virgin? Oh, silly me: I forgot it was Christianity I was writing about, the most contradictory religion of them all. So we have the story of Pelagia, again in Antioch, who threw herself off the roof of her house rather than be raped by the soldiers who came to ostensibly convey her to the court. She asked for time to make herself pretty and presentable, and you must imagine the two legionnaires looking at each other afterwards and saying "Not another one! You know what, Lucius Stupidus Maximus? We really must stop falling for that!"

One martyrdom our friend Eusebius places little stock in is, wait for it, the story of Theodotus and the seven virgins! Chortle. Something about asses laden down with wine. Yeah, sounds a bit dodgy to me too, mate. One he does believe is that of Julitta the widow, a rich woman who had the bad fortune to make an enemy of a jealous neighbour, who took her possessions and land.

Julitta took him to court, but the clever cunt demanded she must sacrifice to the gods before her testimony could be heard. The judges agreed, and it turned out poor Julitta was a closet Christian. This not only gave her no rights, but also meant she would be killed, as she was. Perhaps she should have tried to settle out of court. In Thessalonica, we come across three sisters, Agape, Irene and Chione, all three of whom had hidden scriptural texts and two of whom were sentenced to be burned alive. The fate of the third sister, Irene, was different.

She had been found to have concealed some scriptures (whether she knew they were there in the house or not is unknown, but she did not deny it) and the governor, angry that she would not submit, sentenced her to be thrown into the brothel. This backfired, however, as (according to the account) nobody would dare sully her, and so she was left alone. Eventually, back to the governor she was called. This time, he saw no other choice and so she went to the fire like her sisters, no doubt smiling and singing the praises of God.

Inevitably, too, we have stories of former prostitutes finding God and following his teachings, and naturally paying the price for their conversion. One such is Afra, who, when the judge sneered that as a harlot (I'll have you know, that's ex-harlot, sir!) she had no hope of being redeemed, reminded (or told) him of the story of a prostitute washing Jesus's feet with her tears and being forgiven. "Oh yeah," agreed the judge. "Think I heard that somewhere, all right. Well, off to the fire with you." And she was burned alive.

Agnes is a big one, possibly because she was martyred in the heart of the empire, Rome itself, the eternal city. Accounts though vary - some say she was beheaded, some burned, but all seem to agree that the reason for her martyrdom was her wish to remain a virgin. Lamb of God, indeed.

A final postscript to the Diocletian/Galerian persecution would surely give Christians some comfort, if pride and exulting in the travails of an enemy were not sins, that is. Towards the end of his life, Galerius fell really ill. Let's not dwell on the details, but just note that the chances of him fathering any further children were out the palace window. His whole body was wracked with disease, and in a final act of cowardice and I guess you might even say treachery to his own gods, Galerius turned to the Christian god. What had he to lose, after all? Though if he truly believed - which he almost certainly did not; this was literally a Hail Mary - how he could imagine the God whose children he had slaughtered and into the hands of his torturers he had delivered so many would have any sympathy at all with him, is probably an indication of how little he understood the whole Christian thing.

In a last desperate act, Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration, which boiled down to its basics, reads "Soz about all the killings and beheadings and burnings alive and, well, you know, the whole martyring thing dudes, but I am not well and if you guys could see your way clear to talking to this god of yours into healing me, why that would be spiffing altogether and we'll forget all the tortures and mutilations and as long as you lads behave yourselves you can be Christians again, what do you say? P.S. Ask your God to hurry the fuck up: I am in some serious pain!"

It was hardly a retraction, a realisation he had been wrong or even an apology, and predicated entirely on his own desire to survive. Further, it was a boon asked of people he had jeered, condemned (literally), mocked and had killed, so it's not too surprising he wasn't exactly turning crowds away from his palace doors. Unless it was those who had turned up to make sure he did die. Which he did, a few days later. The problem he left behind him was that his edict had promised toleration of Christianity, and while it could be said no prayers were said for him and so the edict was void, that wasn't something anyone could prove, so it stood. Besides, by this point everyone was probably happy to see the back of the bloodthirsty bastard anyway.

That was more or less the end of the Age of Martyrs, as Constantine soon arrived to take over and generally made persecution of Christians illegal. One of Galerius's co-emperors, though, Maximin, who had received the self-serving Edict of Toleration but careless put it down and lost it down the back of the sofa so nobody could know about it, did all he could to keep the persecutions going. Unfortunately for him, bad harvests led to famine and plague, and in the midst of all this it was the Christians who offered help, who buried the bodies nobody else would touch, who fed the hungry and comforted the dying. These acts by themselves said more than any anti (or pro)-Christian propaganda could; people could see with their own eyes how these people literally practiced what they preached, and any sort of appetite for seeing them as enemies began to diminish. Unwilling to accept what was happening though, Maximin took on the new emperor and his co-emperor Licinius, and was roundly defeated, dying alone in his castle.

The full stop, as it were, to the Christian persecution and the end of the Age of Martyrs was marked in The Edict of Milan, issued jointly by Licinius and Constantine when they met there: "We have thought for a long time that religious liberty cannot be denied and that everyone should be given permission to regulate himself in matters of religion according to his own opinion and preference. We therefore ordain that anybody— including the Christians— may observe the faith of their sect and cult. Since in the earlier rescript granting this later additions and conditions were made, many may have been hindered in the observance of their religion."Having met under favorable auspices at Milan, we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, have discussed all things pertaining to the public safety and utility. Among those things which appear to please the majority of our peoples we wish to put first the honor given to the Divinity. We therefore give to Christians and to all others, the freedom to follow their own religion. In this way all that is divine in Heaven may be placated and will assist us and all those who are under our government. With salutary and evident proof we see fit to decide that no one should be denied the practice or observance of Christianity or of whatever religion to which anyone may have dedicated himself according to his opinion. The highest Divinity among whose worshippers we number ourselves will therefore show his usual favor and benevolence. Your Excellency [the magistrate to whom the document is directed] may know in consequence that we are pleased to remove all conditions which were contained in earlier letters from this office in regard to the Christians; such conditions seem utterly hateful and alien to our clemency. Anyone now who is pleased to hold with the Christians may do so with all liberty and freedom and without hurt or hindrance. We see fit to communicate all this to your Solicitude so that you may know that we ourselves have given free and absolute permission to the Christians to practice their religion. Since this has been given to them your devotion will understand that similar open and free observance of their own religion has been allowed to others so that in matters of the divinity all may have free choice. This has been done so that it may not seem that we wish to detract anything from the honor or the religion of anyone.

"Furthermore we judge it opportune to decide in the matter of those places where the Christians were in the past accustomed to have their meetings. If they have been taken over in obedience to earlier letters from this office and have been confiscated by our Treasury or any other body they are to be restored to the Christians freely without any charge, objection or fear; those who may have received them as gifts must restore them to the Christians immediately. If those who have been given Christian buildings or bought them wish compensation, they may apply to our Vicar who will see to this out of our clemency. Everything must be given back to the Christians immediately and without delay. It is known that besides the places where the Christians were accustomed to meet they also had other buildings belonging by right to their society— not however to individual persons. These are to be included in the order. You are to order that they be restored without any delay or hesitation to the Christians or to their society or church, being mindful however, of the principle that those who make restitution in this way without indemnity may hope for something from our benevolence. In all these matters you must hasten with your powerful mediation so that our Command may be fulfilled in regard to the Christians with the greatest speed and in this way ensure the public peace through our clemency. As we have said earlier the divine favor which has already been seen in our regard will thus continue for all time toward all our efforts for the public good.

"So that the words of this ordinance of our benevolence may come to the notice of all, it will be convenient for you to show this rescript everywhere on your notice boards; in this way all may know about it and the evidence of our graciousness may not remain hidden."

The year was 313. In 380 Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman empire.