Arduum res gestas scribere

Church leaders against banqueting at martyria and at tombs           

Maijastina Kahlos

(Published in Ad itum liberum, essays in honour of Anne Helttula, eds. O. Merisalo & R. Vainio, Jyväskylä 2007, 13-23). 

 

 

Revelling and drunkenness (comissationes […] et ebrietates) are considered so acceptable and tolerable that they are practiced in honour of holy martyrs not only on feast days […] but even every day.

 

In this way Augustine of Hippo complains of Christian banqueting at the tombs of martyrs in a letter to Aurelius, the bishop of Carthage (ep. 22 in 390). This corruption was not only disgraceful but also sacrilegious, and still, it was called honouring martyrs (honor martyrum) when it was practiced in holy places, Augustine complains.[1]

Augustine’s grievance is one example of the negative attitudes of ecclesiastical leaders towards popular feasting within the Christian martyr cult as well as the funerary cult in Late Antiquity. Fourth- and fifth-century bishops criticized their parishioners for dancing, abundant eating and heavy drinking at Christian tombs and martyria. Ambrose of Milan reproached his fellow Christians for heavy drinking at the martyrs’ tombs and Paulinus of Nola complained that people celebrating in honour of S. Felix imagined that saints were delighted to see their tombs flooding with wine.[2] Furthermore, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine even grumble about dancing in honour of martyrs.[3]

Furthermore, several church councils condemned banquets at the tombs.[4] In the council of Carthage in 401 it was complained that people did not fear to celebrate convivia even on the anniversaries of martyrs and in sacred places and that it was the pagans who forced Christians to celebrate these banquets.[5]

 

Church leaders opposed  popular practices

Church leaders opposed the popular feasting at tombs and martyria. In the above quoted ep. 22 Augustine insists that, even if this immense shame could not be suppressed on private occasions, it should at least be kept away from the tombs of the saints, the places of sacraments and the houses of prayers.[6] To strengthen his demand Augustine argues that these practices had already been rooted out everywhere else except Africa. He advises Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, to suppress drinking and luxurious feasting in Christian cemeteries – not harshly but with mildness. The Christian people should be taught and guided rather than commanded and threatened. This was the best method to deal with the multitude; nevertheless, individuals should be treated with severity.[7] Offerings to the spirits of the departed should not be too sumptuous but instead be appropriate to the memory of the departed. Moreover, the poor should also be remembered in these offerings.[8] Thus, new interpretations for grave offerings were brought forth: gifts were taken to mean not food for the deceased, but alms for the poor. In his letter to Alypius (see below), Augustine writes that he has replaced the banquets in honour of St. Leontius with reading of Scriptures and singing of psalms. Instead of corporeal forms of celebration, there should be spiritual feasting.[9]

Later (405) Augustine refers to Aurelius who had succeeded at least in suppressing dances at the nocturnal festival in honour of S. Cyprian. Songs and dances had been replaced by sanctae vigiliae.[10] In Milan Ambrose prohibited food and wine offerings to the martyrs’ tombs and at least such a person as Augustine’s mother Monnica complied with the proscription.[11]

V. Saxer argues that the foremost preoccupation of fourth century church fathers such as Augustine and Ambrose was the immoral excesses of the banquets belonging to the cult of the dead or martyrs.[12] Ambrose prohibited Christians from offering food and wine at the tombs and explained his prohibition with two motives – as Augustine reports in his Confessions – first, there ought not to be any opportunity for drunkenness, and second, the habit of bringing food and wine to the martyrs – as if it were a celebration of the Parentalia – was too similar to the superstition of pagans.[13] According to Augusto Fraschetti, the feasts at the tombs and martyria were condemned because they were regarded as a continuation of pagan funerary banquets during the Parentalia and Feralia.[14] Thus, scholars point out either moral excesses or idolatrous practices as the reasons for the prohibitions – both explanations already given by Ambrose and Augustine. For his part, Peter Brown has analyzed the issue of funerary banquets as a conflict between two rival systems of patronage. He interprets the dispute as a power struggle between the Christian lay elite and the ecclesiastical elite in which bishops attempted to bring the martyr cult under the control of the church.[15]

 

Scoffed at by outsiders

Christian celebrations at the tombs and martyria were also observed and derided by outsiders. Emperor Julian mocked the Christian martyr cult, writing that Galileans (that is, Christians) filled the whole world with graves and sepulchres even though it was by no means ordered in the Christian Scriptures that they should grovel among the tombs and pay them homage.[16] Faustus of Milevis, a Manichaean bishop, scoffed at the Christian feasts at martyrs’ tombs, claiming that Christians placated the shadows of the deceased with wine and food offerings. They only adjusted pagan rituals for Christian use, for instance transforming pagan sacrifices into love feasts (agapae) and idols into martyrs. Faustus concludes that Christianity was merely a schismatic movement within paganism, not a religion in its own right.[17]

In these circumstances it is understandable that ecclesiastical leaders, recognizing the force of such an accusation, wanted to suppress feasting at the tombs. A label of revelry and drunkenness was by no means flattering. The idea that, in the eyes of outsiders as well as Christians themselves, the Christian funerary and martyr cults should not be much different from the pagan ones caused great unease for fourth-century church leaders. Therefore, they aimed at redefining proper Christian conduct and proscribing what was regarded as not properly Christian cult and behaviour. It is imperative to examine the different viewpoints that arose in the reactions of church fathers. In literary replies such as Augustine’s Contra Faustum or City of God, Christian opinion leaders set out to assure their opponents of the chastity and soberness of the Christian funerary and martyr cult, whereas, in their intensive preaching, they recurrently condemned their fellow Christians for excessive junketing. Augustine, for example, complains that many of those called Christians were still getting drunk (among other things) exactly as the ungodly.[18] He asserts that celebrating the epulae at the martyria was not proper conduct for better Christians.[19] It was important to Augustine to stress that the altars at martyrs’ shrines were not dedicated to them as if they were deities.[20]

 

Excuses and counter-arguments

In the admonitions of church fathers we can observe the echoes of the counter-arguments of the Christian people. Ordinary Christians taking part in local popular feasting at the tombs and martyria regarded their funerary customs and martyr cult as completely and properly Christian. Ambrose complains that some people considered their drunkenness a sacrificium.[21] North African Christians thought that they were acting appropriately according to the Christian tradition. Had the church leaders, who had not previously forbidden these customs, not been Christians?, Augustine’s parishioners asked him.[22] In the minds of the Christian people these rituals were long-established customs.[23]

I do not take any stand here on the antiquity or novelty of the funerary banquets within Christian death rituals: the issue is beyond the scope of this article. Neither do I take any position on the question whether banquets were a pagan influence or not. Instead of accepting the writings of the church fathers as straightforward and precise accounts of wie es eigentlich gewesen, I shall concentrate on how fourth-century Christian writers described the state of the affairs and argued for a certain representation of reality. These constructions served to redefine and reinforce the sort of Christian identity that these church leaders spoke for. To reinforce proper Christian conduct was to cordon off what was defined as pagan.[24] In the case of the funerary and martyr cults, the need to draw boundaries in the fourth century led church leaders to condemn funerary banquets as inappropriate for Christians. The funerary customs or rituals of the cult of martyrs that they disapproved of for various reasons were labelled as pagan, superstitious and demonic practices. According to Augustine, for example, the dances at the martyria were performed to worship and delight demons (that is, the demonized Greco-Roman gods).[25]

 

The tradition under dispute

In a letter to Alypius (ep. 29 in 395; see above) Augustine discusses the popular feasting in honour of St. Leontius, a local saint, and insists that excessive banqueting  be abolished. He labels banquets in honour of martyrs as pagan customs, introduced by the crowds of recent converts in the aftermath of  the conversion of Emperor Constantine. In their weakness these ex-pagans  had not been able to give up the excessive banqueting and drunkenness (in abundantia epularum et ebrietate) which had traditionally characterised their feast days. Augustine depicts these practices as pernicious and ancient (perniciosissimis sed tamen vetustissimis voluptatibus) as well as characteristically pagan. In these circumstances church leaders made a concession to these recent, weaker converts, allowing them to incorporate their previous practices to the martyr cult so that they would be able to continue their celebration practices but not their sacrilege (non simili sacrilegio quamvis simili luxu). This would ease their way into Christianity. However, circumstances had now changed:  they had become established Christians and  should adopt the rules of sobriety, giving up further excesses.[26]

Defining and redefining the concept of being Christian was an issue of authority.[27] With his episcopal authority Augustine redefines what was appropriate behaviour for Christians. What he is inclined to dislike is interpreted as a pagan ritual that has recently been introduced into church life.[28] To convince his parishioners, he argues that banquets in honour of martyrs are an innovation from the Christian point of view. Consequently, he represents a pure and true Christianity as a historical fact dating back to pre-Constantine times. As Peter Brown writes, Christian opinion leaders used their authority to define even what polytheism had been and how much of it survived in the religious practices of the church.[29]

 

Legitimation by scriptures

The issue of spiritual and ecclesiastical power is perceived in the choice of arguments taken from the Scriptures. Influential bishops such as Augustine interpreted passages from the Old Testament as supporting their attacks against banquets. In this argumentation the Christian tradition was thought to stem from the age of the Hebrew Patriarchs onwards. According to Augustine, the writings of the Old Testament showed that the Hebrews – even though they had been carnal people (in contrast to the Christian people) – had never held even sober feasts and far less drunken ones in the name of religion.[30] In a sermon Augustine stresses that the offering to the deceased was a pagan habit not suitable for the offspring of the patriarchs:

consuetudinem hanc esse paganorum, non venire de propagine illa et vena iustitiae patrum nostrorum patriarcharum.

The Scriptures were also used for counter-arguments as Augustine complains: some people invoked a passage from the Book of Tobit (Tob. 4:18: Lay out thy bread and thy wine upon the burial of a just man) in order to justify their feasting at the tombs. Augustine again uses his authority to reject this interpretation. The passage does not suit this discussion, he asserts, and Christian believers well understood the meaning of  this passage, knowing what was suitable in honouring the memory of the departed in accordance to religion (religiose erga memorias suorum).[31]

 

Revelling Donatists and sober Catholics

The attacks against funerary banquets were also useful as a weapon against rival Christian groups; in North Africa, against the Donatists. The comparison with the construed depravity of adversaries reinforced one’s own group identity. Augustine stresses in a triumphant tone that, while he and other ecclesiastical leaders had suppressed the abundant feasting at the martyria of the Catholics, popular banqueting continued in Donatist cult places.[32] Augustine constructs a binary opposition between the revelling and promiscuous Donatists and the sober and chaste Catholics: Donatists prolonged went on banqueting, whereas Catholics now concentrated on preaching and singing psalms. The Catholics’ feasting was spiritual while the Donatists were engaged in carnal excesses. Augustine states that it was the contrast with the intemperance of Donatists that made the behaviour of Catholics look even lovelier, just as the beauty of the day is enhanced when contrasted to the darkness of the night, and the purity of white seems even brighter when placed next to black.[33] 

 

Pure Christianity and pagan contamination

The narrative (e.g. Augustine, ep. 29) of the contamination of the original, pure Christianity by pagan ritual, presented in such forceful terms by the church fathers, convinced not only their contemporaries but also modern scholars.[34] It has been a commonplace in modern research to interpret the feasting at the tombs and martyria as influences and even as superstitions conveyed by people whom scholars tend to call semi-Christians.[35] However, the process seems to have been less straightforward and unambiguous than that constructed by ecclesiastical writers. Paul-Albert Février, for instance, has cast doubts on the idea of a mere fourth-century development avec l’afflux de nombreux convertis venus de la gentilité. Instead of this schema, he asks whether we should speak of an earlier evolution of ritual that was common both to the Christian community (or rather: communities) and the outside world.[36]

Instead of perceiving ancient Christianity as something static and motionless – untainted and original – we should observe boundaries in continuous fluctuation within a constant re-demarcation of frontiers. In altered circumstances with altered needs of self-identification, practices earlier been regarded as neutral technology of life[37] were re-examined and condemned as pagan, demonic or superstitious. The Christian attitudes varied to a large extent: in the eyes of fourth-century legislators and emperors, many practices were valuable for maintaining societal coherence.[38] For Christian laity, local traditions such as banquets at the tombs and martyria were manifestations of social duty and devotion. However, for ecclesiastical leaders the reassessment of rituals of death and the martyr cult functioned as the reinforcement of Christian distinctiveness during identity crises.

——————————————————————————–

[1] Aug. epist. 22.3: Comissationes enim et ebrietates ita concessae et licitae putantur, ut in honore etiam beatissimorum martyrum non solum per dies sollemnes […] sed etiam cotidie celebrentur. Quae foeditas si tantum flagitiosa et non etiam sacrilega esset, quibuscumque tolerantiae viribus sustentandam putaremus. […] cum frequentatur in sanctis locis, honor martyrum nominatur?; also 22.6: istae in coemeteriis ebrietates et luxuriosa convivia.

[2] Ambr. Helia 17.62: Et haec vota ad deum pervenire iudicant sicut illi qui calices ad sepulchra martyrum deferent atque illic in vesperam bibunt; aliter se exaudiri posse non credunt. Paul. Nol. carm. 27.555-557. Paulinus demands that funerary meals at saints’ tombs should be replaced by other kinds of celebrations, profane songs by hymns.

[3]Ioh. Chrys. hom. 19.1; Greg. Naz. epigr. (Anthol. Graeca 8.166); Aug. sermo 311.5. Other grievances on feasting at the tombs and martyria: Sidon. Apoll. epist. 5.17; Ps. Cypr. Dupl. Martyr. 25: annon videmus ad martyrum memorias Christianum a Christiano cogi ad ebrietatem? Aug. mor. eccl. 1.34.75; Aug. in psalm. 48.1.15: Tollent panem et merum ad sepulcra, et invocabunt ibi nomina mortuorum. Putas quantum invocatum est nomen illius divitis postea, quando inebriabant se homines in memoria ipsius, nec descendebat una gutta super linguam ipsius ardentem?; Basil. hom. 14.1; Greg. Naz. epigr. (Anthol. Graeca 8.167-169; 174-175). For the complaints of church leaders, see A. Fraschetti, La conversione. Da Roma pagana a Roma cristiana. Biblioteca universale Laterza 562. Roma 1999, 311, P.A. Février, ‘Approches de fêtes chrétiennes (fin du IVe s. et Ve s.)’, La fête, pratique et discours d’Alexandre hellénistique a la mission de Besançon. Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 42. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 262. Paris 1981, 149-164 and J. Quasten, ‘”Vetus superstitio et nova religio”. The Problem of refrigerium in the ancient church of North Africa’, Harvard Theological Review 33/1940, 253-266.

[4] E.g., Conc. Turonense (in 567) can. 23, CC 148 A, p.191. For the prohibitions and restrictions by church councils, see K.L. Noethlichs, ‘Kaisertum und Heidentum im 5. Jahrhundert’, J. van Oort ─ D. Wyrwa, hrsg.,  Heiden und Christen im 5. Jahrhundert.  Studien der patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 5. Leuven 1998, 21 and Février 160.

[5] Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta: conc. Carthag. can. 60 (CCSL 149, p. 196-197): […] ita ut nunc a paganis christiani ad haec celebranda cogantur. […] maxime cum etiam natalibus beatissimorum martyrum per nonnullas civitates et in ipsis locis sacris talia committere non reformident.

[6] Aug. epist. 22.3: Sed feramus haec in luxu et labe domestica, et eorum conviviorum quae privatis parietibus continentur, accipiamusque cum eis corpus Christi, cum quibus panem edere prohibemur; saltem de sanctorum corporum sepulcris, saltem de locis sacramentorum, de domibus orationum tantum dedecus arceatur.

[7] Aug. ep. 22.5: Sed quod erat tunc dolendum nunc auferendum est; non aspere, sed sicut scriptum est, in spirito lenitatis et mansuetudinis. Dant enim mihi fiduciam litterae tuae indices germanissimae caritatis, ut tecum tanquam mecum audeam colloqui. Non ergo aspere, quantum existimo, non duriter, non modo imperioso ista tolluntur; magis docendo quam iubendo, magis monendo quam minando. Sic enim agendum est cum multitudine: severitas autem exercenda est in peccata paucorum.

[8] Aug. ep. 22.6: Sed quoniam istae in coemeteriis ebrietates et luxuriosa convivia, non solum honores martyrum a carnali et imperita plebe credi solent, sed etiam solatia mortuorum; mihi videtur faciliusillis dissuaderi posse istam foeditatem ac turpitudinem, si et de Scripturis prohibeatur, et oblationes pro spiritibus dormientium, quas vere aliquid adiuvare credendum est, super ipsas memorias non sint sumptuosae, atque omnibus petentibus sine typho, et cum alacritate praebeantur: neque vendantur; sed si quis, pro religione aliquid pecuniae offerre voluerit, in praesenti pauperibus eroget. According to Augustine, the offerings should be in harmony with the memory of the deceased but nonetheless it is to be believed that these offerings really are of some use – vere aliquid adiuvare.

[9] Alms: Aug. ep. 22.6. Psalms: Aug. ep. 29.11: legebatur alternatim et psallebatur. Aug. sermo 280.6.6: unde solemnitates eorum, sicut facimus, devotissime celebramus, sobria hilaritate, casta congregatione, fideli cogitatione, fidenti praedicatione. For Augustine’s reform, see V. Saxer, Morts martyrs reliques en Afrique chrétienne aux premiers siècles. Théologie historique 5. Paris 1980, 141-149 and H. Kotila, Memoria Mortuorum Commemoration of the Departed in Augustine. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 38. Roma 1992, 65-73. Kotila characterizes the reform as a cautious compromise: private commemoration with feasting was permitted to continued – though in a more moderated style – while the public martyr cult was suppressed under the control of ecclesiastical leaders.

[10] Aug. sermo 311.5.

[11] Aug. conf. 6.2.

[12] Saxer 135. Saxer 37, 101, 135 states that, similarly to Augustine and Ambrose, third-century bishop Cyprian’s principal anxieties were depravities in funerary feasting, whereas Tertullian (c. 155-220) condemned the funerary cult because of its idolatrous character. Saxer’s analysis should, however, be specified: in ep. 67.6 Cyprian castigates the bishop Martialis for long frequenting the disgraceful and filthy banquets of a funerary college and even burying his sons in the sepulchres of the same college (Martialis quoque praeter gentilium turpia et lutulenta convivia in collegio diu frequentata et filios in eodem collegio exterarum gentium more apud profana depositos et alienigenis consepultos). Here Cyprian’s main concern is clearly Martialis’ lapse into idolatric practices or, as I would put it, the lack of segregation from the surrounding society and its institutions.

[13] Aug. conf. 6.2.2: […] praeceptum esse ista non fieri nec ab eis qui sobrie facerent, ne ulla occasio se ingurgitandi daretur ebriosis, et quia illa quasi parentalia superstitioni gentilium essent simillima.

[14] Fraschetti 311.

[15] P. Brown, The Cult of the Saints. Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity.  The Haskell lectures on history of religions N.S. 2. Chicago 1981, 32-36.

[16] Iul. Gal. 335C. Cf. Liban. or. 62.10.

[17] Apud Aug. c. Faust. 20.4: […] sacrificia vero eorum vertistis in agapes, idola in martyres, quos votes similibus colitis; defunctorum umbras vino placatis et dapibus. Sollemnes gentium dies cum ipsis celebratis, ut Kalendas et solstitia. De vita certe mutastis nihil: estis sane schisma a matrice sua diversum nihil habens nisi conventum. Other debates with outsiders on the issue of banquets: Aug. mor. eccl. 1.34.75.

[18] Aug. in epist. Ioh. 4.4: […] Sic multi vocantur christiani, et in rebus non inveniuntur; quia hoc quod vocantur non sunt, id est in vita, in moribus, in fide, in spe, in caritate. […] Unusquisque vestrum qui iam pie vivit, qui contemnit saecularia, qui non vult ire ad spectacula, qui non vult se inebriare quasi solemniter, et, quod est gravius, accedente patrocinio, sanctorum dierum fieri immundus …?

[19] Aug. civ. 8.17.

[20] Aug. sermo 313A.5 (= sermo Denis 14.5): Non enim aram constituimus, tamquam Deo, Cypriano, sed vero Deo aram fecimus Cyprianum; Aug. sermo 335H.2: Non enim eos tamquam deos colimus; civ. 8.17.2; 8.27.1. Other defences of the cult of the martyrs: Hier. epist. 109; Ambr. ep. 77 de obitu Theodosii.

[21] Ambr. Helia 17.62: Stultitia hominum, qui ebrietatem sacrificium putant.

[22] Apud Aug. ep. 29.8.

[23] Christian funerary banquets are attested before the fourth century. For archaeological evidence and general discussion on the Christian funerary customs before the fourth century, see, e.g., Kotila 1992, 35-59, 62-63; Février 1981, 149; Février, P.A., ‘Le culte des morts dans les communautés chrétiennes durant le IIIe siècle’, Atti del IX congresso internazionale di archeologia cristiana, Roma 21-27 settembre 1975 1. Studi di antichità cristiana 32.  Roma 1978, 211-274: esp. 241-256, 271-274; C. Lepelley, ‘Formes païennes de sociabilité en Afrique au temps de Saint Augustin’, F. Thélamon, éd.,  Sociabilité, pouvoirs et société. Actes du Colloque de Rouen 24/26 nov.1983. Publications de l’Université de Rouen 110. Rouen 1987, 99-103: 101. Février 226, discussing Christian second-century rituals of death, ponders whether scholars should speak of une evolution conjointe rather than of mere pagan influence; similarly, Brown 24. At the council of Elvira in which some other funerary customs (can. 34-35, e.g., women holding vigils at tombs) were forbidden, feasting with food and wine offerings is not mentioned and perhaps not felt as a problematic issue. Nevertheless, one should be cautious of drawing hasty conclusions from this argumentum e silentio.

[24] In a similar manner fourth century ecclesiastical leaders redefined the Christian attitudes towards traditional festivals of Greco-Roman communities as well as urban spectacles; see M. Kahlos, Debate and Dialogue – Christian Rhetorical Strategies against Pagans in the Roman West, c. 380-430, Aldershot 2007, 129-136 and M. Kahlos, ‘Pompa diaboli – The Grey Area of Urban Festivals in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries’, Collection Latomus 287 (2005), 467-483.

[25] Aug. sermo 311.6: Cum ergo modo hic ista Deo propitio non fiant, quia non celebramus daemoniis ludos, ubi solent ista fieri in eorum delectationem qui coluntur, et immunditia sua solent suos depravare cultores, sed celebratur hic sanctitas et solemnitas martyrum.

[26] Aug. epist. 29.9: Verum tamen ne illi qui ante nos tam manifesta inperitae multitudinis crimina vel permiserunt vel prohibere non ausi sunt, aliqua nobis affici contumelia viderentur, exposui eis, qua necessitate ista in ecclesia viderentur exorta. Scilicet post persecutiones tam multas, tamque vehementes, cum facta pace, turbae gentilium in christianum nomen venire cupientes hoc impedirentur, quod dies festos cum idolis suis solerent in abundantia epularum et ebrietate consumere, nec facile ab his perniciosissimis et tam vetustissimis voluptatibus se possent abstinere, visum fuisse maioribus nostris, ut huic infirmitatis parti interim parceretur, diesque festos, post eos quos relinquebant, alios in honorem sanctorum martyrum vel non simili sacrilegio, quamvis simili luxu celebrarentur: iam Christi nomine colligatis, et tantae auctoritatis iugo subditis salutaria sobrietatis praecepta traderentur, quibus iam propter praecipientis honorem ac timorem resistere non valerent; quocirca iam tempus esse, ut qui non se audent negare christianos, secundum Christi voluntatem vivere incipiant, ut ea quae ut essent christiani concessa sunt, cum christiani sunt, respuantur. Kotila 70 points out that Augustine’s explanation foreshadows the bishop’s later acceptance of religious coercion: the justification for religious intimidation is encountered in periods of change. 

[27] For the issue of authority, see P. Brown, ‘Christianization and religious conflict’, A. Cameron ─ P. Garnsey, eds.,  The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425. The Cambridge Ancient History 13.  Cambridge 1998, 662-663; P. Brown, Authority and the Sacred. Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman World. Cambridge – New York 1995, 23-24; and T.E. Klutz, ‘The Rhetoric of Science in The Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark’s Sociological Account of Christianization’, JECS 6.2/1998, 183-184.

[28] In ep. 22.4 to Aurelius, Augustine outlines the situation in a different way, arguing that while  in some places these practices had never existed, in other places they were either of recent or long standing but had been abolished by bishops.

[29] Brown 662-663; Brown 662: […] a generation of articulate clergymen created the notion of Christianization with which we still live.

[30] Aug. ep. 29.4.

[31] Aug. sermo 361.6: Et quod obiciunt quidam de Scripturis: ‘Frange panem tuum, et effunde vinum tuum super sepulcra iustorum, et ne tradas eum iniustis’; non est quidem de hoc disserendum, sed tamen posse dico intellegere fideles quod dictum est. Nam quemadmodum ista fideles faciant religiose erga memorias suorum notum est fidelibus; […]

[32] Aug. epist. 29.11: in haereticorum basilica audiebamus ab eis solita convivia celebrata; c. Petil. 1.24.26: bacchationes ebrietatum.

[33] Aug. epist. 29.11: […] illi in poculis perdurarent, dixi diei pulchritudinem noctis comparatione decorari, et colorem candidum nigri vicinitate gratiorem; ita nostrum spiritalis celebrationis conventum minus fortasse futurum fuisse iucundum, nisi ex alia parte carnalis ingurgitatio conferretur, […]

[34] The ecclesiastical leaders’ accounts of the paganization of Christianity have regularly been taken for granted in research, e.g., S. Lancel, Saint Augustin. Paris 1999, 228-229; C. Gnilka, Kultur und Conversion. Chrêsis. Die Methode der Kirchenväter im Umgang mit der antiken Kultur 2. Basel 1993, 82-83; C. Andresen, ‘Altchristliche Kritik am Tanz – ein Ausschnitt aus dem Kampf der Alten Kirche gegen heidnische Sitte’, H. Frohnes – U. Knorr, hrsg., Die alte Kirche.  Kirchengeschichte als Missionsgeschichte 1. München 1974, 344-376: partic. 362-363; A.A. Barb, ‘The Survival of Magic Arts’, A.A. Momigliano, ed.,  The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century. Oxford-Warburg studies. Oxford 1963, 100-125: 105-108. Instead, Lepelley 100 speaks cautiously of popular festivities born en marge du culte chrétien officiel.

[35] For a critique of the term semi-Christian, see M. Kahlos, ‘In-Between Figures in Christian Literature’, F. Young – M. Edwards – P. Parvis, ed.,  Studia Patristica XL. Leuven – Paris – Dudley MA 2006, 215-220: 215-217.

[36] Février 214.

[37] Neutral technology of life is a term used by R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians. London 1986, 22.

[38] For the changes and redefinitions of festivals and rituals in the fourth and fifth centuries, see R.A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge 1990, 125-135.