Maxwell situates her book in the scholarship on the social imaginary of Late Antiquity. She focuses on late antique Christian views of humility and simplicity, two Christian virtues that contradict traditional Roman images of social prestige. She asks how bishops in the second half of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century interpret humility and apostolic simplicity and how they reconcile their own mostly privileged position with the socially radical views of the New Testament. She analyses texts by the three Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostom, Epiphanius of Salamis and the church historians of the fifth century. Maxwell examines both how Christianity transformed the mindset of social elites and how Christian bishops as members of the elite still adhered to traditional social values.
In the course of the book, Maxwell’s careful interpretation of texts convincingly shows that an author’s take on simplicity and humility is influenced by the choice of literary genre, the audience addressed and, not least, the author’s own social background. She resists the temptation to resolve inconsistent views in different works of the same authors, instead explaining how different social settings and different literary genres can lead one and the same author to express very different opinions on the same topics.
Chapter 1 gives an overview on Roman and early Christian attitudes towards social and economic divisions. Maxwell underscores that the stratification of Roman society is more complex than the dichotomic representation of most ancient authors makes it seem. She sketches the attitudes and social values of the Roman “upper-class”, against which the Christian ideals of simplicity and humility have to be interpreted: Manual labour and poverty are generally viewed as negative by traditional “upper-class” Romans. In contrast, the world of Jesus and the Early Christians is largely one of “ordinary people” and some biblical texts have a certain potential for social radicalism. Maxwell then outlines how authors of the second and third century reconciled revolutionary tendencies in the Scripture with traditional “upper-class” norms of social hierarchy.
Chapter 2 focuses on Christian attitudes towards social and economic divisions in late antiquity. Maxwell outlines the socioeconomic background of the authors whose works she examines. In her interpretations, she argues that the difference in socioeconomic status between the Cappadocians and the church historians on the one hand, and Epiphanius and John Chrysostom on the other, is a significant factor that contributes to their different approach to the apostolic ideals.
Maxwell shows that the discourses on almsgiving and asceticism are two ways of channeling the radical potential of biblical texts. The discourse on almsgiving does not aim at a radical change of the social hierarchy, but at a new attitude towards poverty and wealth. While almsgiving shares many traits with traditional euergetism, Christian authors both widen the group of people that should give alms and the group of people that should receive them. Maxwell shows how discussions on almsgiving often continue negative stereotypes on the poor.
The portrayal of ascetics in the fourth century shows a new positive view of manual labour. This is another way of channelling the potential of New Testament texts: Work and manual labour are in most cases not generally re-evaluated, but this new attitude is confined to the group of ascetics.
In Chapter 3 Maxwell traces how bishops deal with the apostles’ low social status. She shows that the Cappadocians follow two different models of leadership in different situations. Bishops draw on apostolic simplicity as an ideal for leadership before a broader audience, especially because of the challenges posed to their authority by charismatic ascetics. At the same time, they are trying to maintain their social status in Roman society in the discourse between peers. However, John Chrysostom is much more at ease representing the apostles as simple men without fearing for his own status.
In Chapter 4 Maxwell analyses the portrayal of classical education or lack thereof in theological debates. The church historians adhere to traditional Roman categories of social prestige in their portrayal of fourth-century bishops. Depending on their “orthodoxy” they are either presented as highly educated and socially prestigious men or as lacking a proper education and social status. In contrast, Epiphanius of Salamis judges overeducation and ambition to be the main source of heresy.
Simplicity is presented both as an ideal of Nicene authors and as a danger: Nicene authors argue that their faith is in accordance with the simple faith of the apostles, while heretics distort this primitive and simple faith by sophistic argumentation. At the same time, “simple” people are presented as easily seduced by the rhetoric of heretics. This is, in part, a continuation of the dispute between sophists and philosophers.
Chapter 5 examines different representations of humility as a Christian virtue in radical asceticism, the Cappadocians and John Chrysostom. The ascetics choose a radical path renouncing wealth and status to put the ideal of humility into practice, whereas Basil presents the humility of the rich as a real virtue, imitating Christ’s condescension. At the same time, Basil adheres to traditional Roman values in his letters when addressing high status correspondents or attacking opponents. Gregory’s Funeral Oration for Basil and his Life of Macrina are presented as two case studies of humble nobility, “a mix of lowliness and privilege” (p. 144): Gregory portrays both Basil and Macrina, members of the social elite, as being humble without completely renouncing their role in society. The exception here is, again, John Chrysostom, to whom humility is especially a trait of simple people. He exhorts his rich and prominent hearers to embrace their low-status brothers and sisters. The reason for this difference is, in Maxwell’s eyes, John’s detachment from his family, whereas the Cappadocians remain connected to the social elite.
At the end, Maxwell concludes that the fourth and fifth century are a time of a “mental revolution”: While Christian authors do not overthrow the social hierarchies of Roman society, they produce new attitudes towards ordinary people, poverty, wealth, simplicity and humility. Maxwell attributes the integration of traditional values with new Christian ideals to the “confirmation bias” of most “upper-class” authors. She also points out the importance of asceticism for the promotion of the ideals of simplicity and humility. The more radical aspects of Christianity could be confined to a separate group without threatening the social status quo. At the same time, charismatic ascetics challenged the authority of bishops who in turn put a strong emphasis on simplicity and humility. In this way, Christianity had a slow, but lasting transformative effect establishing and promoting new attitudes and ideals.
It could have been profitable if Maxwell had applied her interpretative skills to some of the texts she cites in Chapter 1. This becomes especially striking in the case of Tertullian’s view on the simplices (p. 28-9). Tertullian uses the term simplices in Adversus Praxean 3 not to describe a socioeconomic group, but to attack the opponents of his trinitarian theology.[1] In contrast, he presents the simplices as wiser than the educated in De testimonio animae 1,6. This inconsistent treatment in apologetic contexts and intra-Christian discourse is not new to the fourth century but continues earlier developments.
In some cases, the reader would have profited from a more precise discussion of the ancient terminology. One example is the term “the masses”. Maxwell notices that Cynic and Stoic philosophers develop egalitarian ideals, while still holding “the masses” in contempt (p. 19). She sees a similar inconsistency in the Pelagian Letter to Celantia (p. 47 n. 58). However, polemics against “the masses” in these cases are not motivated by negative stereotypes against the “lower classes”. Rather, “the many” are giving a bad example which should not deter “the few” from their path of moral improvement.[2] Maxwell mentions another interesting example only in a footnote (p. 41 n. 29): It could have been interesting to discuss the terminology used by contemporary Christians to describe the “middling groups” between the very rich and the very poor.
While chapter 4 presents convincing examples of simplicity as both an ideal of Christian faith and a potential problem, it seems reductionist to label it as a “Nicene ideal” or “Nicene problem”. Rather, the simple faith appears as an ideal and problem in non-Nicene authors, too.[3]
Maxwell convincingly shows that the Cappadocians present different views in different literary genres. The most striking differences can be seen between their correspondence, in which they mostly adhere to traditional values, and their homilies. It would have been interesting to take a glimpse at the Correspondence of Chrysostom under this viewpoint.[4]
On a bigger scale, she could have taken a closer look at pagan philosophical discussions of related topics. The difference between an ideal of a simple life and high social status is not only a problem posed by the New Testament. Similar problems arose for “upper-class” philosophers calling for a simple life (see Seneca’s De vita beata). It would have been interesting to compare those philosophers’ strategies for dealing with this “cognitive dissonance” with the Christian discourse.
Unfortunately, many citations of ancient sources are imprecise, slightly incorrect or in few cases missing. I include a list of corrections and specifications to enable a better understanding and judgement of Maxwell’s interpretations of the ancient texts:
p. 29 n. 73: Add: Tertullian, De testimonio animae 1,6
p. 38 n. 12: See also Soc., HE 3.16.8-27; n. 15: See also Theod. epist. 113 (SC 111, 66,3-7)
p. 45 n. 50: On Divine Providence 6 (PG 83, 656-660)
p. 46 n. 53: Hom. 21.8 (PG 31,554-556)
p. 53 n. 88: On the Work of Monks 25.32-33; n. 90: Read: (PG 31, 945-948)
p. 65 n. 33: (PG 35, 1058)
p. 75 n. 75: In 1Cor. hom 20.5; n. 76: Read: In 1Cor. hom. 20.5-6
p. 76 n. 77: In Matt. hom. 69.2-3; n. 78: Contra Iud. et gent. 12; n. 79: Contra Iud. et gent. 9 (PG 48, 825).
p. 77 n. 80: In Matt. hom. 33.3; n. 82: In Gen. hom. 28.5; n. 83: In Rom. hom. 2.5; In Matt. hom. 33.4
p. 78 n. 84: In 1Cor. hom. 3.4 (PG 61, 27-8); n. 85: In 1Cor. hom 3.4; n. 88: De stat. hom. 19.1
p. 79 n. 89: De stat. hom. 19.2; n. 90: In 1Cor. hom. 4.2; n. 91: In 1Cor hom. 5.6; n. 92: In 1Cor. hom. 5.6
p. 80 n. 96: (PG 47, 367-8); In Eph. hom. 21.2
p.81 n. 97: (PG 47, 368-70); n. 98: ibid. (PG 47, 370)
p. 85 n. 1: Life of Constantine 2.69.2-3; Soc., HE 1.7.5-6.
p. 88 n. 11: PG 46, 557B = GNO 10.2, 121,3-12
p. 92 n. 28: maybe: pan. 31.31.1-5
p. 93 n. 31: Pan. 3.4
p. 100 n. 61: Soc. HE 2.35.5-6; n. 65: pan. 76.2.1-3
p. 109 n. 103: HE 1.4.2; HE 2.10.2
p. 111 n. 113: HE 7.29.2
p. 112 n. 116: HE 5.4.3 (see also 5.4.4); n. 119: HE 5.35.3, 5
p. 113 n. 120: HE 4.25.5
p. 128 n. 42: Hom. 20.1 (PG 31, 525D-528A); n. 43: Hom. 20.4-5 (PG 31, 532B-536B); n. 45: Hom. 20.6 (PG 31, 536BC), 46: (PG 31, 536C)
p 129 n 48: Hom. 20.6 (PG 31, 537A); n. 49: Hom. 20.7 (PG 31, 537A); n. 50: Hom 20.7 (PG 31, 537B)
p. 130 n. 52: (PG 31, 764C); n. 53: (PG 31, 788B); n. 54: (PG 31, 792C);
n. 55: (PG 31, 796A); n. 56: (PG 31, 769A); n. 57: (PG 31, 772D-773A); n. 58: (PG 31, 825D-828A); (PG 31, 837C)
p. 131: n. 59: (PG 31, 856A); (PG 31, 860A)
p. 132 n. 63: Ep. 251.4; n. 64:Ep. 262.1; n. 65: Ep. 191.1; n. 66: Ep. 219.2
p. 135 n. 76: Ep. 73.1; n. 77: Ep. 73.3; n. 78: Ep. 239.1
p. 136 n. 80: Ep. 239.2
p. 142 n. 107: Vit. Macr. 7
p. 145 n. 117: De Laz. 6.6; n. 118: De Laz. 6.3
p. 146 n. 120: (PG 51, 314-5); n. 122: (PG 51, 319-320)
p. 148 n. 128: In 1 Cor. hom. 20.5; n. 129: In 1 Cor. hom. 20.6
Despite these remarks, Maxwell’s book draws attention to many interesting texts and developments and provides insightful interpretations, which makes it an enjoyable and fruitful read. Maxwell interprets a wide variety of texts from different genres and contexts and makes useful and interesting observations. She shows great attention to detail and discusses many examples from the sources, at the same time she manages to draw bigger conclusions from her detailed interpretations. Despite the abundance of details, this prevents the reader from losing the thread and provides a great reading experience.
Notes
[1] See Gregor Schöllgen, Ecclesia Sordida? Zur Frage der sozialen Schichtung frühchristlicher Gemeinden am Beispiel Karthagos zur Zeit Tertullians (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband 12), (Münster 1984) 270-286.
[2] See Seneca’s definition of vulgus in De vita beata 2,2!
[3] Eunomius defends “the more simple faith” (ἡ … ἁπλουστέρα … πίστις [apol. 6; 38 Vaggione]) and the Fourth Formula of Sirmium argues that the fathers have introduced the term “substance” in a “too simple manner” (διὰ τὸ ἁπλούστερον [Soc., HE II 37,23; 155,3 Hansen]).
[4] The pseudo-Chrysostomian letter 125 (PG 52, 681-685) shows how Chrysostom inspired a new type of invective by his radical critique of the rich and his idealization of the humility and simplicity of Jesus and the apostles.