Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against Christians in the Second Century

Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against Christians in the Second Century1 ANDREW McGOWAN Christians were accused of a variety of crimes, including cannibalism, during the second century. Since recent anthropological discussions encourage a degree of skepticism when dealing with accusations of cannibalism, this paper considers the charges as instances of "labelling," whereby social relations are expressed using a symbolic stereotype, rather than relying on the traditional explanation of a misunderstanding of eucharistic "body and blood" imagery, or of a mistake in the identification of real cannibals. Examination of Greek and Roman sources reveals that there were many ancient "cannibals," who for the purposes of anal- ysis can be conveniently classified as "philosophical," "exotic," "mythical" and "political." The various attributes of these "cannibals" are also found in the charges against Christians, which represent a perceived threat to society as a whole, expresssed in terms of the human body as depicted in the fantastic sto- ries of ritual murder. CHRISTIAN CANNIBALS Many attempts to explain the accusations of cannibalism made against the early Christians have looked straight to the "flesh and blood" imagery applied by the Gospel accounts to Jesus' last supper and employed in reference to continuing eucharistic meals.2 Yet the obvious symbolic corre- 1. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Seminar of the Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, and to the Annual Meeting of the North American Patristics Society at Loyola University of Chi- cago, in February and June of 1994 respectively. Thanks go to many who offered comments and suggestions, especially to Prof. Blake Leyerle, Mr. Peter Scaer, and an anonymous JECS reader. 2. Thus J.-P. Waltzing, "Le Crime rituel reproche aux chretiens du lie siecle," Musee Beige 29 (1925): 209-38; for the continued appearance of this idea in general works Journal of Early Christian Studies 2:3, 413-442 © 1994 The Johns Hopkins University Press. 414 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES spondence may not be as important as it appears. Other charges of canni- balism have arisen in many situations, including Greco-Roman antiquity, without such handy similarities. Some of these other ancient cannibals have been mustered by scholars in attempts to explain the characterization of Christians as cannibals, more or less by way of mistaken identity; although Christians did not eat people, other people did. Similarities of conduct or provenance are then called upon to account for the shift of identity from groups whose practice supposedly did justify the label.3 Rather than remaining content with theories of mistaken identity, this study attempts to consider the allegations against Christians in relation to the attribution of cannibal practice to various individuals and groups in Greek and Roman sources. Consideration of how and why such accusa- tions are made may shed light on the nature of the charges against Chris- tians and on the place that they were seen to occupy in the Roman Empire in the time of the apologetic writers from Justin to Tertullian. The People-Eating Myth Since eating and death are both human experiences of fundamental impor- tance, it is not surprising that the idea of eating dead people stirs the emotions and attracts a profound response. If depth of feeling can safely be anticipated when cannibalism is practiced or thought to be practiced, little more can be taken for granted. Although in contemporary western society, as in western antiquity, cannibalism is taboo, anthropology suggests that a wide variety of ideas and practices has existed in other cultures with regard to eating human flesh. Anthropological texts go so far as to provide sche- mata which divide reported practices into "endo-" and "exo-" cannibal- ism, depending on just who is eaten, and "gastronomic," "ritual" and "mortuary" cannibalism, depending on why. Not long ago the basis of such conceptual arrangements was threatened when it was seriously suggested that cannibalism was a myth; that al- though isolated cases related to starvation or criminal insanity were not to despite recent discussions emphasizing different aspects of the accusations, see (e.g.) Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, 2 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 1.9-10. 3. Particularly important ritual parallels have been drawn by F. J. Dolger, "Sacramen- tum Infanticidii," Antike und Christentum 4 (1934): 188-228 and Albert Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual and the Alleged Crimes of the Early Christians: A Reconsideration," Kyriakon: FestchriftJ. Quasten (Munich: Aschendorff, 1970), 1.18-35. Dolger ("Sac- ramentum Infanticidii," 201-2) also refers to a suggestion made in the seventeenth century by Christian Worms that the custom of funerary meals gave rise to the charges. See n. 55 below for other suggestions as to the identity of the "real" cannibals. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 415 be denied, there was no such thing as a culture in which cannibalism was a normal and socially regulated occurrence. Reports of cannibalism by mod- ern anthropologists were all based on hearsay and continued an assump- tion, traced back to the ancient world, that cannibalism was the expected practice of primitives and foreigners.4 The dust has still not entirely settled in the ensuing debate, and while few have accepted the radical position that cannibalism has not been an ac- cepted practice anywhere, this challenge to orthodoxy has led to increased scrutiny of the evidence. Although many anthropologists seem to be satis- fied that at least some of the accounts can be verified, less attention has been given to the implications of the fact that many such stories cannot be treated as trustworthy. What is most important for now is that attention has been drawn to the actual phenomenon of discourse about cannibalism. Cannibalism can be studied as a factor in the life of societies that do not practice it but talk about it.5 Even in a society where references to canni- balism seem to be based wholly in the imagination, or at most in some vestige of archaic practice left in the social memory, talk about cannibalism can be very much alive. This attributed cannibalism seems to be far more prevalent than the literal ingestion of human flesh, and it is such a case of attribution or accusation with which we are dealing in considering the charges against Christians in the second century. The difference between perception and reality regarding supposed cannibals ought not to be col- lapsed into a matter of mere mistaken identity, malicious rumor or some other kind of error on the part of the accuser, but deserves consideration in itself. An accusation of cannibalism may be very poor evidence for the victuals normal to a group but may be good evidence for the relation between accuser and accused. The very origins of the word "cannibal" are not exactly what one might expect and perhaps quite revealing in this regard. The term dates from Columbus's voyage to the "New World." The ex- plorer learnt of the horrendous practices of the Carib people, whose name was corrupted into "Cannibales," from their Arawak neighbors, accord- ing to whom the Cannibals not only ate people but looked like dogs and visited an "Amazon" society, also nearby, for sex.6 4. W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979). Among the many responses, see M. Sahlins, "Cannibalism: An Exchange," New York Review of Books 26/4 (1979): 45-7. 5. Some attention is given to this by Peggy Reeves Sanday in Divine Hunger: Canni- balism as a Cultural System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), especially 196-231, but not in such a way as can be directly applied here. 6. See Arens, The Man-Eating Myth, 45-9. 416 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Cannibalism, real or perceived, may not have the same significance in every society. I am inclined nevertheless to think that its meaning may be more than that of one point in a system of opposed signs as Levi-Strauss would seem to have it.7 The suggestion of Mary Douglas that bodily symbolism tends to be used as a means of presenting the situation of a society has proved fruitful in the study of early Christianity before, and offers a way into this topic.8 Although we may not be in a position to judge the cross-cultural claims that different anthropologists may make, a con- struct such as "natural symbolism" invites use and further evaluation in this case. The natural symbolism of cannibalism would seem to suggest that characterization of a group as devourers of human flesh means that they are perceived as a threat to human society. What follows is also a consideration of the accusations against the Christians as "labelling," as a process of name-calling which uses stock ideas to place individuals or groups within the social construction of real- ity.9 To call someone a cannibal means something, and in this case at least t hat is obviously something bad. Of course there is no word "cannibal" to use as a label in the ancient world.10 I continue to use it here because, as I hope to demonstrate, these accusations involve a recognizeable complex of ideas whose relatedness ought to be acknowledged.11 Sources of the Accusations Most of the anthropological discussion of cannibalism considers it as part of the life of a whole society rather than distinguishing between the atti- 7. Claude Levi-Strauss, Le Cru et le cuit (Paris: Plon, 1964); see especially 107-41. 8. See Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon, 1970). 9. The concept is applied to the New Testament in Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and Deviance Theory," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 97-122. 10. One could perhaps make more of words such as Androphagoi and Anthro- pophagoi. The former tends to be used as an ethnic designation, and hence is arguably equivalent to the original rather than the contemporary meaning of "cannibal"; some instances will be discussed below. The latter seems much more general, being often applied to animals who eat human flesh: Aristotle, HA 2.1 = 501bl, 7.5 = 594a29; Antiphanes fr. 68 (in J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, 3 vols. [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959], 2.194); even when applied to humans who eat human flesh it can be rather matter-of-fact (e.g., Plutarch, Luc. 11.1). Latin does not, to my knowledge, have an equivalent; Pliny the Elder uses anthropophagi in the Natural Histories (e.g., 7.9-10). 11. Whether any similarity in scope between these ancient ideas and the scope of a word coined in the fifteenth century is coincidental or not is an interesting question, but one that cannot be answered here. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 417 tudes and roles that different groups might adopt. These approaches in- clude characterization of cannibalism as a "cultural system" as well as psychogenic or materialist explanations of cannibalism.12 While I will also look at ancient attitudes in general terms, the social unit at issue here, i.e., the Roman Empire, is much larger and more complex than those usually considered in such anthropological studies. The fact that we are dealing with an accusation by one group against another necessitates some initial consideration of the source of the allegations, since what they mean de- pends upon the world-view from which they arise. The accusations against Christians have generally been seen as origi- nally coming from (other) Jews during the first century.13 The evidence for this is not overwhelming: Origen, writing somewhat later than the period when the debate was fiercest, attributes the charge to Jewish opponents (Cels. 6.27). Justin had referred to conflicts that could be interpreted this way but does not seem to understand them to be relevant in his own time (Dial. 10, 17, 108). It is clearer that the brunt of the accusations was borne by both Chris- tians and Jews. Josephus repeats a story about Jewish human sacrifice which bears comparison with the charges against Christians (Ag, Ap. 2.89-102). A very specific allegation, that Jews worshipped a donkey's head (Tacitus, Hist. 5.4; Damocritus, Fr. Hist. Gr. 4.377) also comes up in connection with Christians and cannibalism in Minucius Felix' Octa- vius.14 It is more likely, therefore, that the "Jewish origin" of the charges of cannibalism is the Jewish origin of, and continued interaction with, early Christianity. Christians were characterized in such terms both before and after other inhabitants of the Empire distinguished them from Jews. The 12. Sanday, Divine Hunger, especially 27-55; Eli Sagan, Cannibalism: Human Ag- gression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1974); Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures (New York: Random House, 1977). 13. Waltzing, "Le Crime rituel," 211-6; Dolger, "Sacramentum Infanticidii," 197; Henrichs, after judging Origen's statement to be "a mere guess" and Justin's testimony as "far from being clear" ("Pagan Ritual," 19 andn. 5) concludes, purely on the basis of the shared nature of the accusation and the evidence for conflict among Jews in first century Rome, that there is "no plausible alternative" (23). But the point is not how we might "believe that any pagan should have bothered at all to free the Jews of suspicion and to cast it upon the Christians" (23 n. 28), since no such motive or effect is required, only that Christian practice was capable of such interpretation. 14. Lucian in De Morte Peregrini regards the Christians as a Jewish sect (e.g., with regard to food law, ch. 16). See further W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 273-4. On the donkey's head and ritual murder charges, see E. Bickermann, "Ritualmord und Eselskult," Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wiss- enschaftdes Judentums 71 (1927): 171-87. 418 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES reason the charges took on momentum against the Christians in particular will be discussed further below. In any case, if an accusation of cannibalism is to be understood not merely as a slander or mistake but as an indication of social relations, an account of its specific origins is arguably less impor- tant than consideration of how it was received. It is therefore the understanding of cannibalism in Greek and Roman sources which we need to explore in order to interpret the charges against Christians. Christians were described as engaging in acts which are also prominent in Classical and Hellenistic mythology, ethnography, history and philosophy. Comparisons with such sources enable us to consider the meaning of the accusations in terms beyond those of criminality or immo- rality that are generally acknowledged. To try and develop our under- standing of the charge that Christians ate people, I first want to consider the accusations and their refutation by the Apologists, who provide us with an introduction to this other ancient discourse about cannibalism. Thyestian Feasts The early Christians were, we know, accused of practicing cannibalism and incest during their assemblies.15 The beginning of these accusations cannot be pinpointed, but the charge seems to have become increasingly detailed and increasingly ritualistic in character. Tacitus accuses the Chris- tians of unspecified flagitiae (Ann. 15.44), which is also the term Pliny uses in describing the practices he investigated in northern Asia Minor. Pliny seems to associate reports of the "crimes" with meals, taking an otherwise unexplained interest in what Christians were having for dinner and noting that the food consumed at an evening gathering was "promiscuum tamen et innoxium" (Ep. 10.96). The idea of Christians eating human flesh first appears explicitly in Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 26; 2 Apol. 12). Justin (c. 150 c.e.) alludes to an accusation of cannibalism combined with one of sexual immorality, both made possible by the turning over of lamps (1 Apol. 26). The scenario 15. The incest/promiscuity aspect of the accusation will not be pursued in detail here, but I think certain broad conclusions apply to this as well as to cannibalism: incest symbolizes disorder, is represented in archaic myths and is also attributed to others who are seen as subversive. The common conclusion that it was based on a misunderstanding of the use of terms of address such as "brother," "sister" (e.g., Waltzing, "Le Crime rituel," 215) is similar to that which sees the cannibalism accusations as based on "flesh" and "blood" symbolism in the Eucharistic meals and should be viewed critically. The incest aspect of the accusations has been discussed recently by Kathleen Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 24-79, especially 75-8. Corley provides evidence for other accusations that arose from women's participation in meals. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 419 seems to be the aftermath of a banquet, still the setting (in many instances at least) for the Christian ritual meal, whether we care to call it Agape or Eucharist. Justin's attack on exposure of children in the next section may suggest that a child victim was envisaged. In his second Apology, Justin refers specifically to the drinking of the blood of a human victim. Justin attempts to turn the tables by laying similar accusations at the door of Greco-Roman religion with its blood sacrifices, and by reference to the moral foibles of the Olympian gods. Tatian, said to have been Justin's pupil, produces a similar and fairly simple report and rebuttal: while the Christians are said to eat human flesh, this charge ought to be made against the Greeks, among whom Pelops is served to the gods, Kronos eats his own children and Zeus devours Metis (Orat. 25). These mythical and religious comparisons seem to be made often (to different effect) by both sides in the argument and ought not to be dismissed too lightly as mere rhetoric. They may suggest that we understand the accusation in terms of deeply held beliefs about human and divine spheres and the importance of participa- tion in sacrifice. Whatever else, comparison with the gods means that such practices, real or imagined, were somewhat awe-inspiring and not without possible religious or magical significance for the accusers. Athenagoras, writing around 177 c.e., expands the range of mythical allusions in using the colorful description "Thyestian feasts [and] Oedi- pean couplings," {Leg. 3) which also occurs in the near-contemporary report of the martyrdoms at Lyons preserved in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 5.1). Whatever literary relationship there may be between these two, the fa- mous phrase may well reflect the actual accusation. Given its less than complementary overtones and apparent use of the accusers' terminology in the report of the Lyons accusations, we would be justified in treating it not as a literary flourish by one of the Christian writers but as a pagan characterization and therefore a more direct example of the accusations.16 Like Justin, Athenagoras also discusses the charge in close proximity to an attack on the pagans for the exposure of children, but once again we cannot be sure that an accusation of murder of children is involved. Around the same time (c. 180) Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, joins in the defense (Autol. 3.4-5,15), again associating the accusations of canni- balism with those of incest and more generally a "community of women." In comparing Christian morals with pagan, his recourse is less to mythol- 16. Of course we cannot be certain. Henrichs sees it as a Christian term, citing the tendency to use pagan myth as a counter-argument: "Pagan Ritual," 18-35. On the relationship between Athenagoras and the report on the Martyrs of Lyons, see R. M. Grant, "The Chronology of the Greek Apologists," VC 9 (1955): 29; L. W. Barnard, "The Embassy of Athenagoras," VC21 (1967): 89-90. 420 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES ogy than to more recent instances, although he does mention Thyestes and Tereus (ch. 15). In a philosophical theme, Zeno, Diogenes and Cleanthes are all presented as examples of pagans who enjoin cannibalism; He- rodotus is accused of having fantasized with regard both to the fate of the supposed cannibal Harpagus, a Persian general, and to the mortuary can- nibalism of Indians.17 This catalogue significantly enhances the range of cannibal characters: the "ethnic" cannibal whose bizarre diet seems ap- propriate to distant and dimly known places; the philosophers, near in time and space but still arguably somehow out of the ordinary; and the political cannibal Harpagus, whose diet is related to the part he is willing to play in momentous events. The accusations are given in their fullest form in the defenses of Min- ucius Felix and Tertullian.18 It is clear that they both respond to an explicit charge not merely of murder and cannibalism but of an initiatory ritual involving killing and eating an infant. According to Minucius, Christians are accused of initiating converts by tricking them to stab to death an infant hidden in sacrificial meal or flour. The resulting spilt blood and divided limbs are then consumed (Oct. 9). Minucius also indicates that one Fronto, apparently M. Cornelius Fronto (cos. suff. 143) had played a part in spreading these accusations, and it is likely that Fronto's charges are reflected in the words of the pagan Caecilius in this dialogue. Like his predecessors, Minucius finds pagan examples which he argues are more appropriate if such behavior is to be sought out and condemned; in this instance, however, the examples include alleged recent and even contem- porary cultic practices as well as mythical narratives. In some parts of Africa infants are sacrificed; among the Tauri of Pontus and in Egypt, human sacrifice has been practiced; the Galli offer human victims to Mer- cury; the Romans bury the living; and "to this day Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder"—the execution of a criminal.19 The subversive Catiline is mentioned as a devotee of such practices (a reference to a whole set of accusations examined further below), and Bellona "steeps her rites with a draught of human gore and taught men to heal epilepsy 17. Herodotus, 1.108-119 (Harpagus), 4.26 etc (Indians). 18. Dependence (of Tertullian on Minucius) is argued for by J.-P. Waltzing, "Le Crime rituel," 209-38, but not accepted by others such as Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual," 24-6. I tend to think the agreement is due to their dealing with similar (not identical) accusations rather than to a direct literary relationship. 19. Of these, the non-Roman examples are all drawn from Cicero, Rep. 3.9.15; the Roman ones refer to an extraordinary event (the burial) and something otherwise unknown (the sacrifice to Jupiter). MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 421 with the blood of a man" (Oct. 30).20 The categories look familiar for the most part; most noticeable are the further religious and magical instances, including even an apparent medicinal application. Tertullian enters the fray with characteristic vigor and venom. He takes delight in providing the most colorful of the Apologists' versions of the allegedly orgiastic Agape, in which the activity of the dogs turning over the lamps is described as "pimping," and the devotees have to observe care- fully before the lights go out just where their mothers and sisters are reclining so as to avoid the awkwardness of not committing incest during the ensuing romp. As to the feast itself, Tertullian also indicates that this was supposed to be an initiatory event and that a child is said to have been involved (Ad Nat. 1.15). He does not mention flour, but indicates that the participants allegedly dip loaves in the blood (Ad Nat. 1.7; cf. Apol. 7 and 8). Although he refers to Thyestes and Oedipus, Tertullian needs to do little more than describe the charges in his inimitable way to make the point. Such behavior, he concludes, would make Christians ethnic curi- osities, a "third race" or monstrous "Cynopae" (dog-eyed people) and "Sciapodes" (umbrella-feet) (Apol. 8; Ad Nat. 1.8).21 There are other instances of the accusation, but it has clearly passed the peak of its acceptance early in the third century. This may be because the gap between perception and reality could not be sustained indefinitely, or because Christians no longer fulfilled the characteristics which led to the application of the "label." It seems reasonable to conclude, in any case, that for some time these charges were made often and taken seriously. The involvement of a major public figure such as Fronto seems to confirm this, not to mention the fact that the allegations seem to have played a part in specific trials and persecutions. The accusations seem to have developed somewhat, from the un- specified flagitiae of Tacitus to the full-blown picture of ritual infanticide in Minucius Felix. Between the first explicit reference to cannibalism in Justin and these last versions, the emphasis on the specific nature of the crime as the ritual killing and eating of an infant appears, or at least becomes much 20. Cassius Dio refers to jars thought to contain human flesh being found in a temple of "Bellona" destroyed in 48 BCE; this shrine seems to have been associated with Egyptian cultus rather than the Roman goddess Bellona (42.26.2). 21. "Cynopae" seems originally to have had the moral sense of shamelessness (i.e., one who stares like a dog; see //. 1.159) rather than the obvious zoomorphic one, although in context and especially in conjunction with the "Sciapodes" (a Libyan people with feet big enough to shade them when they lay down; see Aristophanes, Birds 1553) it seems to have the monstrous sense here. 422 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES more clear. So too the banquet at which these events are supposed to have occurred becomes more clearly a ritual event rather than mere carousal. The defenses provided by Christian writers have already provided us with a beginning concerning most aspects of the idea of "cannibal" as it applied in the ancient Greco-Roman world. It remains to look at the different aspects of this symbol more systematically. Before doing so, the question of the relationship between eucharistic meals and the forms of the accusations can now be considered more clearly with the evidence of the Apologists in mind. From Communion to Cannibalism? The links between the accusations and what we know or assume about Christian worship are surprisingly tenuous, given the frequent dependence on these for explanation of the charges. The accusers know that there is a meal; in the form presented by Justin it might be argued that eucharistic bread, identified with the "body of Christ," (1 Apol. 66) is confused with human flesh. Yet in the most detailed versions, i.e., the accounts of Ter- tullian and Minucius Felix, there is little sign of direct confusion between eucharistic meals and cannibal rituals. Minucius describes both an initiatory event, which is the cannibal meal, and a debauched banquet. It is the former, the occasional and initiatory event, which ought to be equivalent to baptism, where the alleged slaugh- ter and eating takes place; the details such as the pretense with regard to the victim and the use of flour correspond to pagan sacrificial practice. Granted that a second-century baptism might have been expected to have included a eucharistic meal, the description of the banquet itself has no such accusation attached, but rather that of debauchery.22 Tertullian's account mentions bread, which may indicate more knowledge of Christian meal practice on his opponent's part; but of course this excludes the sup- posed confusion of bread called "body of Christ" and human flesh.23 Thus while the correspondence of eucharistic imagery with flesh and blood cannot be ruled out as a factor in the accusations, it is difficult to demon- strate. Consideration of other cannibal allegations will suggest further that 22. It may be objected that this would be an Agape, without the imagery of the body and blood of Christ applied to the meal. Although this is possible, there is less evidence for a universal separation of Eucharist and Agape at this time than people sometimes assume; and where, in this case, is the regular Eucharist itself referred to in the accusa- tions? 23. The fact that blood is drunk in this version is nothing remarkable given the other examples already discussed. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 423 these issues do not seem as important as the other factors which led, in this and other cases, to charges of eating people. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CANNIBALISM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD24 The Philosophical Cannibal Among the Greek philosophers, both vegetarian and cannibalistic advo- cates seem to have crossed important social and symbolic boundaries, especially those envisaged as set between animal, human and divine in sacrificial practice. Greek and Roman understandings of animal sacrifice and its place in religion seem at times to hark back to a (real or imagined) archaic practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism. There was a well- known (if not general) understanding that animal sacrifice was a kind of historic compromise between human sacrifice and a vegetarian ideal in which sacrifice would be unnecessary.25 This idea of a historical change is most explicit in Theophrastus' treatise On Piety: humanity was originally vegetarian, and cannibalism had itself been forced on humans through dire need. Use of animals was later substi- tuted in diet and sacrifice (Fr. 13).26 Plutarch also argues that flesh-eating had not always occurred, and that the human physique requires vegetari- anism, lacking the means of tearing flesh or of proper digestion (Moralia: de esu carnium 1.993b, 994f; Bruta animalia ratione uti 988). He inter- prets one of the mythical stories involving cannibalism (Dionysus and the Titans) as allegorizing human behavior towards animals, the predators 24. The various references to cannibalistic behavior in Greco-Roman sources cannot be neatly divided into self-contained areas. In what follows I have arranged material according to the present interest in the accusations against the Christians, and in order to emphasize the variety of aspects that seem to contribute to a complete picture of the Greco-Roman cannibal. Some overlap will be obvious. 25. For discussion of this motif of substitution see Dennis D. Hughes, Human Sacri- fice in Ancient Greece (London 8c New York: Routledge, 1991), 82-92. 26. In the edition of W. Potscher, Theophrastos: TIEPIEYLEBEIAL, Philosophia Antiqua 11 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), 172-4. The Gospel of Philip reverses this idea: "For if man is [saved, there will not] be any sacrifices . . . and animals will not be offered to the powers. Indeed the animals were the ones to whom they sacrificed. They were indeed offering them up alive, but when they offered them up they died. As for man, they offered him up to God dead, and he lived" (N.H.C. II 54.34-55.5). "God is a man-eater. For this reason men are [sacrificed] to him. Before men were sacrificed, animals were being sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were no gods" (62.35-63.4, translation from The Nag Hammadi Library in English, eds. James M. Robinson et al., 3rd ed., [San Francisco: Harper 8c Row, 1988]). 424 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES representing humanity and the victim innocent beasts (De esu carnium 1.996c). The affinity between humans and animals was affirmed by Py- thagoras, specifically in reference to the impropriety of killing and eating (Iamblichus, Vita Pyth. 82). Empedocles represents a most firm position on the immorality of animal sacrifice as equivalent to eating one's own family members.27 Later, such authors as Varro (cited by Arnobius, Ad- versus nationes 7.1) and Seneca (in Lactantius, Inst. 6.25.3) illustrate a continuation of the Greco-Roman tradition that animal sacrifice is unnec- essary (cf. Isa 1:11, 66:3). Not all the philosophers were so scrupulous about eating flesh, or even human flesh. On the contrary, as the apologist Theophilus of Antioch pointed out, some Stoics felt cannibalism was allowable in desperate cir- cumstances or even an appropriate response to the death of a close rela- tive, and Cynics were as indifferent to the prospect of this transgression as to any other. Chrysippus enjoined eating dead parents, or the killing and eating of those who refused such acts of filial piety (SVF 3.750, 752). The prescription of death for the one who refuses to participate is inter- esting, since the Christians who were condemned for their diet were also refusing to participate in a sacrifice.28 It seems highly unlikely that such cannibalistic injunctions were ever acted upon, since the tradition pre- serves the shocking suggestions but no shocking descriptions. These more liberal (?) positions do not, however, necessarily represent common belief any more than did Pythagorean vegetarianism. All, in one way or an- other, confirm the general horror of cannibalism. It might be said that despite the contrast with the Pythagorean tradition, such arguments are still based upon an understanding of affinity between human and animal life and meat: if we can eat animal flesh, why not that of the rational laughing animal? The Stoic qualification and Cynic rejection of the taboo stem from 27. Fragments 120,122,124,125 in the arrangement of M. R. Wright, Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981), corre- sponding to 139, 136, 137 and 138 in H. Diehls and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1961). See also Plutarch's comment on the meaning of a lost fragment of Empedocles in his De esu carnium 1.996c. 28. See also Diogenes Laertius, Life of Zeno (Lives of the Famous Philosophers 7) 121, Sextus Empiricus Pyrrh. Hypot. 3.24; Diogenes Laertius, Life of Diogenes (Lives of the Philosophers 6) 73. Also Maria Daraki, "Les Fils de la mort: La Necrophagie cynique et stoicienne," La Mort, les morts dans les societes anciennes, ed. G. Gnoli and J.-P. Vernant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). There are a number of connections between early Christianity and Cynicism, but these do not appear to have directly influenced the allegations. The Apologists seem to be responsible for bringing philosophy into the debate. See Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, 274-6. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 425 extraordinary individuals with a greater concern for individual autonomy than for social cohesion. Pythagoras and Empedocles (and later Apol- lonius of Tyana) as well as Chrysippus were all seen as quasi-divine figures by followers, but were likened by their detractors to beasts.29 Ironically, the vegetarian Pythagoreans seem often to have been accused of cannibal- ism; their rejection of the use of animals for food or sacrifices seems to have led to a belief that they had fallen back to the other side of the historic divide separating the civilized world from a cannibalistic past.30 Thus there is not just one but a whole series of cannibal philosophers in the kitchen, present with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Their food pre- scriptions seem to reflect their views of society and attempts to change boundaries, extending them to include animals (Pythagoreans, who thus risk being labelled as bestial and cannibalistic themselves), arguing for their transcendence by the autonomous sage (Stoics) or by abolishing boundaries altogether (Cynics, whose label as popularly understood speaks for itself).31 The eating of people may symbolize sought after autonomy (for Stoics and Cynics) or be the attributed result of exercizing this autonomy in eating or other activities (for Pythagoreans). Both of these elements may be discernable in the perception of Christians by pa- gans. The Exotic Cannibal The Apologists provide a number of references to the idea that inhabitants of distant places are not unlikely to be cannibals. There are plentiful examples in other literary sources, from which the Apologists themselves had also drawn. Tertullian's scorn at the idea that the Christians might be 29. Daraki, "Les Fils de la mort," 156-9. Jesus' characterization as "divine man" (see H.-D. Betz, "Jesus as Divine Man," Jesus the Historian, ed. F. Thomas Trotter [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968], 114-33), which seems to bear comparison with the presentation of the Greek sages as crossing the boundaries set between animal, human and divine, may help account for the possibility or acceptability of cannibalistic lan- guage, given the awkward fact that texts like the "words of institution" (Mark 14:22-5 and parallels) and the discourse on the Bread of Life (John 6) do indeed employ canni- balistic language (see also Gos. Phil. 54.34-55.5; 62.35-63.4). J. Fenton, "Eating People," Theology 94 (1991): 414-423, raises questions only partly met by R. Morgan, "A Response to John Fenton," Theology 94 (1991): 423-425 and M. Casey, "No Cannibals at Passover!" Theology 96 (1993): 199-205. 30. For details see further below on Apollonius of Tyana and P. Vatinius, "political" cannibals. Cicero's accusation against Vatinius makes the Pythagorean-cannibal link look like a commonplace. 31. Aristotle suggests this structure in Politics 1.1.9. Compare Gos. Phil. 55.1-2: "Indeed the animals were the ones to whom they sacrificed." There is, presumably, some reference to zoomorphic idols here. 426 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES the kind of exotic monsters described in ancient ethnography seems to reflect anxiety that such "people" could be found in the midst of the civilized world. Herodotus provides us with a good deal of information about supposed cannibals. No fewer than six peoples are said by him to have eaten people. Of these the Indian Issedones (4.26) and Callatiae (3.38) were what con- temporary anthropology would call mortuary cannibals, while the Mas- sagetae (1.216) and Padaei (3.99), the latter another Indian group, antici- pated such practice by killing the very old while they were still sure to be edible. Scythian warriors had to drink the blood of the one whom they first killed in battle (4.64), while the way of life of the Androphagoi not far away from Scythia was the most barbarous imaginable (4.106). These groups are all on the fringes of the Greek world, if not even further afield. The tendency to attribute cannibalistic behavior and other oddities to the literally outlandish is already visible in the Odyssey, where Poly- phemus the Cyclops is a model of the monstrous man-eater in a group lacking in social organization (Od. 9.114-5). After Herodotus other writers claiming to present factual information continue this pattern of exotic and chaotic anthropophagy. Strabo reports (as the testimony of someone else) that the people of the Caucasus indulge in twin vices compa- rable to those of the accusations against the Christians; they have sexual intercourse in public and eat their relatives (15.1.56). The tradition re- garding the Scythians is shared by Aristotle (Pol. 8.3.4), Pomponius Mela (Chronographia 2.1.2) and Pliny the Elder (N.H. 7.9-10) and later this vague part of the world is the setting for cannibal stories that add color to the novel-like Martyrdom of Matthew (12) and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias. Egypt and its hinterland was also seen to harbor cannibals. In the somewhat fantastic account of the journeys of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus speaks of Ethiopians tribes "Nasamonians, Man-eaters (An- drophagoi again), Pygmies (and) Umbrella-feet" (Vita. Apoll. 6.25) These last are the Skiapodes already mentioned by Tertullian. Aristotle regarded those who lived outside the boundaries of society as necessarily tending towards divinity or bestiality (Pol. 1.1.9). These canni- balistic characters have elements of both non-human natures. It seems then that cannibalism was an appropriate activity to ascribe to those who live far away from the "civilized" world as well as to those who exist on the margins of human life itself—in fact the monster figures seem to combine geographical and behavioral liminality. Armchair travellers might see distant flesh-eaters as a curiosity rather than a threat, but the relative comfort of reading Herodotus or Strabo MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 427 would be lost when such are perceived as being within the society rather than outside where they belong, which would seem to be the case with the Christians. What is at issue may be seen in terms of concern for purity and maintenance of order and boundaries.32 The Mythical Cannibal33 The myths involving cannibalism disclose not merely the deep-seated hor- ror of cannibalism among the Greeks but cultic elements that confirm and extend the conclusions already drawn from the "philosophical" examples about disruption of the structures of the world that separate animal, hu- man and divine. Comparison with these figures and stories suggests that the Christians were being accused not merely of a deviant diet but of specifically religious practices involving human sacrifice. Thyestes is the most famous cannibal of Greek myth. According to legend he was brother to Atreus and uncle of the Homeric King of My- cenae, Agamemnon. In return for Thyestes' treachery, Atreus killed his nephews and fed them to the unsuspecting father. The enormity of this crime was thought to have had cosmic repercussions, reversing the direc- tion of the sun.34 The popularity of this particular story may stem from (and be reflected by) its having been the subject of tragedies by Euripides and Sophocles, both lost.35 It was, however, far from unique; in an early example of extended intergenerational dysfunction, this was actually a reprise of an episode in which Tantalus, grandfather of Thyestes and Atreus, had tried to feed his son (their father) Pelops to visiting Gods.36 In this case the unhappy youth was of course reconstituted and went on to 32. See M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966); B. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 37-44; Jerome H. Neyrey, "Bewitched in Galatia," CBQ 50 (1988): 77-80. 33. See in general Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977); Violent Origins, ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), which includes further comment and retractationes from Burkert and Girard; Dennis D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece, especially 71-138. 34. Plato, Sph. 269a; Euripides, fr. 861 and Or. 1001-4. 35. A version by Seneca survives; there are allusions to the story in Aeschylus' Agamemnon (1090-7 etc.) and Euripides' Electra and Orestes. For full references see Burkert, Homo Necans, 104 n. 3. The story makes no appearance in the Homeric epics. 36. Maggie Kilgour comments that "... the members of the house of Atreus . . . can never be totally sure what—or who—is for dinner." From Communion to Canni- balism: An Anatomy of Metaphors of Incorporation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 22. 428 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES continue the troubled dynasty.37 In another very similar story Lycaon (no relation), ancient King of Arcadia tried to sacrifice and feed a boy—his son or grandson in some versions—to Zeus and other gods visiting.38 Tereus King of Daulis was said to have been served his son Itys by his wife Procne in revenge for the rape and mutilation of her sister Philomela.39 Both cannibalism and incest are prominent in myths concerning the origins of the Gods: as the Apologists pointed out, Kronos and Zeus are both credited with devouring children. The story of the god Dionysus having been torn apart and devoured by the Titans while an infant was also linked to continuing cultic practice.40 It seems that these stories may have had significance in the classical period beyond their value for entertainment or moral instruction. The meals prepared by Tantalus, Lycaon and Procne were all associated with continuing cultus.41 Pelops was worshipped at Olympia, where Pausanias saw his shrine (5.13-14). The shoulder blade which Demeter had gnawed before Tantalus' crime was uncovered had once, it was said, been on display, but was no longer there in Pausanias' time. This was the most explicit link between the cultus and the myth of Tantalus' feast for the gods. Details given by Pausanias and Pindar (O/. 1.90-3) suggest a noctur- nal and morbid emphasis, in contrast to the other important Olympian cult, that of Zeus. The blood of sacrificial victims—black rams were appropriate—was poured into a pit. A sacrifice to Pelops punctuated the events at the end of a day at the Olympiad, the victor of the foot race firing the already prepared animal in the dark. These elements are perhaps com- parable to the secret and nocturnal nature of the Christian assemblies which were the subject of the investigations and speculations under con- sideration here. The cult of Lycaean Zeus in Arcadia was more clearly linked with the cannibalism of its accompanying myth. Plato records as well known a rumor that human entrails were included in the mixture of victims' inter- nal organs at this shrine (Rep. 565d). This is reported as fact in Minos, a pseudo-Platonic dialogue (315c) and by Theophrastus, who compares the 37. Mentioned by Pindar, Olymp. Odes 1.26-7, 47-53; Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris 386-8. See further Burkert, Homo Necans, 99 and 99 n. 32. 38. This story is most fully rendered by Ovid in his Metamorphoses (1.198-239), but it appears already in Hesiod (fr. 163). For the various identifications of the boy see Burkert, Homo Necans, 86 n. 13. 39. These were subjects of a tragedy by Sophocles of which only fragments survive; the story is re-told by Ovid, Met. 6. 40. Burkert, Homo Necans, 112 n. 15, and 123. 41. Burkert (Homo Necans, 107) also guesses at a cultus involving Thyestes at his grave, described by Pausanias. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 429 festival of the Lycaea with Carthaginian sacrifices to Moloch (in Porphyry, Abst. 2.27). Pausanias says that the cult was secret and best left alone (8.38.7) but elsewhere refers to the tradition that the participants ate human flesh (6.8.2). Tereus was worshipped at Megara during the classical period (Pausanias 1.48.8-9), and the cultus of Athena at Daulis was linked to the myth.42 These stories have features that further suggest cultic significance rather than mere murderous behavior. Most important are the revelation of the identity of the victim by keeping aside his head and feet and the method of cooking the unfortunate. The former seems to provide an important dra- matic element, since the discovery of the crime is the climax of the horrific plot. The feet, however, contribute nothing to this. Numerous testimonies indicate that in Greek religion the head and feet were very often kept for the god.43 As for methods of preparation, the odd combination of partial boiling and partial roasting occurs again and again in these and other macabre banquets.44 This may also be an indicator of a specifically sacrifi- cial meal.45 The pattern found in these myths also appears in fictional works com- posed in the historical period. A novel which survives only in fragmentary form is the Phoenician Story of one Lollianus. Here the hero Androtimus seems to have been captured by a group of cultic initiates who kill a boy and apparently prepare his heart to be eaten with meal. They swear an oath of loyalty to one another before eating it, and then proceed to various kinds of debauchery during which the blood of the victim is drunk.46 The romance of Achilles Tatius has its heroes, Leucippe and Cleitophon, fall into the hands of Egyptian pirates called boukoloi—herders or cow- people. These sacrifice Leucippe (or rather appear to—she is safe, gentle reader) to the accompaniment of an incantation and roast the internal organs and eat them (3.15). The story has a historical connection of sorts, since Cassius Dio reports that in 172 c.e. these pirates (who did exist) fell 42. Burkert, Homo Necans, 182-4; Hughes, Human Sacrifice, 96-107. 43. See (e.g.) W. Dittenberger, SIG3 1042; F. Jacoby, FgrH no. 327 (Demon) fr. 1. 44. For Lycaon, Ovid. Met. 1.228-9; Thyestes, Seneca Thyestes 765-7; Tereus, Ovid Met. 6.645-6; Harpagus, Herodotus 1.119. 45. Burkert, Homo Necans, 89 n. 29; 99 n. 32. Some reference should be made to Ovid's telling of many such stories involving both cannibalism and incest in his Meta- morphoses. His interests seem to have been regarded as subversive, but may also reflect a general sense of moral and social uncertainty accompanying the enormous changes in Roman society at the end of the Civil War. For literary discussion, see Maggie Kilgour, From Communion to Cannibalism, 27-45. 46. Text and translation of the relevant portions in Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual," 29- 32. 430 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES upon a Roman official and ate the innards of one of his party in conjunc- tion with an oath (71.4.1). Achilles Tatius' story may have been based on reports circulating at the time.47 Both these stories place the groups and the sacrificial ritual they purport to describe in exotic settings,48 and while that has something to do with the nature of the ancient novel it also fits the familiar patterns of attributing cannibalism to those who are in far away places and who are somehow not altogether human—compare Achilles Tatius' "cow-people" to Tertullian's "dog-faced people" and other canni- bals already mentioned. These myths and stories suggest certain implications of attributing can- nibalistic behavior to individuals or groups. What is envisaged in model- ling an accusation on such banquets is less likely to be simply monstrous criminality than a particular kind of religious or magical practice, which may be a more serious crime than mere murder and ingestion of human flesh.49 The Christians may, like Thyestes, threaten the cosmic order itself with their rituals.50 Whether they refer to the primordial emergence of the gods or the age of the heroes, these stories may also represent a threat 47. Henrichs uses this story as the basis for his version of the "mistaken identity" explanation of the accusations against the Christians (in "Pagan Ritual" and "Human Sacrifice in Greek Religion"); the traditional literary character of the episode and hence its probable irrelevance for actual cultus is argued by J. Winkler, "Lollianos and the Desperadoes," JHS 100 (1980): 155-81. 48. Compare this title, "Phoenicica," with the "Aethiopica" of Heliodorus, the "Babyloniaca" of Iamblichus and the "Ephesiaca" of Xenophon, other examples of the genre. 49. Sorcery is connected with child-sacrifice (not necessarily cannibalism) in other cases as well, including that of the fictional or at least composite figure of Canidia in Horace, Epode 5 etc.; see E. Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), 62-5. See also CIL 6.19747, a funerary inscription for a child thought to have died as a result of sorcery. For the connection with the accusations of cannibalism against the Christians, see F. J. Dolger, "Sacramentum Infanticidii," 211-7. More could be said about the witchcraft aspect of the accusations. I am content for the moment to point out that the accounts envisage use of magical force as well as oaths and conspiracies; Douglas' characterization of the "witchcraft society" does not fit with what is discussed here (Natural Symbols, 111): "I am thinking of small, closed communities mid-way along the OB line . . . ," referring to the axis displaying tendency towards "strong group." The Galatian Christian community a century earlier provides the scale and other characteris- tics necessary: see Jerome H. Neyrey, "Bewitched In Galatia," 91-6. Peter Brown, in "Sorcery, Demons and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages," Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, ed. M. Douglas (London: Tavistock, 1970), 17-45, gives due credit both to the "ubiquitous sorcery beliefs" of the ancient world and to specific eruptions of concern (20). See also Douglas, Purity and Danger, 101-113, where a contrast is suggested between explicit power wielded by officials and unconscious, uncontrollable power (witchcraft) by those whose status is ambiguous. 50. "Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in rura, si caelum steit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim 'Christianos ad leonem'" (Tertullian, Apol. 46.4). MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 431 based in understandings of time: cannibalism, incest and other disordered practices belong in the distant past, and pose no threat there. In the pre- sent, to behave as gods or heroes did would be disastrous. The instances from the novels are applications of this model, albeit in fiction. Like the allegations against the Christians, these examples make the instigators willing participants rather than unwitting transgressors;51 there is clearly a sense in which they participate in a community-forming ritual. We will return to the question of whether and how Christians may have been seen as participants in subversive oath sacrifices. For the moment, this leads us to another aspect of the accusations, the political. The Political Cannibal Herodotus tells a story that is virtually identical to that of Thyestes, this time in the historical realm of the Medes and Persians, about one Har- pagus, whose son is killed and fed to him by Astyages (1.108-119), the head and feet preserved separately to reveal the victim (partly boiled, partly roasted) as a climax to the crime. Harpagus' own transgression was that of having refused to participate in a conspiracy against the future Great King Cyrus. While the story of Atreus and Thyestes is associated with cosmic disruption, that of Harpagus and Astyages has sweeping historical consequences, leading to the hegemony of the Persians over the Medes (1.129). In Rome, public action was taken against the rites of the Bacchanalia in 186 BCE after these "occulta etnocturna sacra" were alleged to have led to various forms of crime and immorality, including cases of murder where an implication of dismemberment, if not of cannibalism, can be seen in Livy's account. This cult is described as a coniuratio (Livy 39.8-19).52 Another and more famous political example is that of L. Sergius Catilina (Catiline), the foe of M. Tullius Cicero. Cicero exposed a planned coup by Catiline and other senatorials to seize power (63 b.c.e.), and took the drastic and controversial step of executing the chief conspirators. Canni- balistic allegations appear early in the historical accounts of these events. Sallust, writing a couple of decades later, says that the conspirators drank a mixture of human blood and wine to seal their pact (Cat. 22). How the 51. But note the ignorance of the initiate in Minucius Felix's version of the Christian cannibal meal. Contrary to modern sensibilities, knowledge and intention are no de- fense in the mythical cases. Both Thyestes and Oedipus, whose names are lent to the accusations, sin without knowing it. 52. Accusations made in that case about sexual misconduct may have expanded to fit a stereotype; see M. Gelzer, "Die Unterdriickungder Bacchanalien bei Livius," Hermes 71 (1936): 275-87. 432 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES blood was obtained is not specified. Plutarch, however, in his Life of Cicero says that they sacrificed a human being (of unspecified age) and ate the flesh (10.4). The final version, which comes even later in the History of Cassius Dio, makes the sacrificial victim a boy and goes into sufficient detail for us to know that the intestines, in a clearly sacrificial pattern, were the subject of an oath and shared by the conspirators (37.30). In these accounts Catiline is cast in the role of Tantalus/Atreus/Lycaon/Procne in serving such a meal, but like the Christians and the shady gangs of the novels he also partakes of it. Like the accounts we can reconstruct from the Apologists, the accusations against him thus also developed towards the ritual infanticide whose model is provided in the myths.53 Cicero himself, whose position was somewhat precarious and who had most to gain from sharing knowledge of any such crimes, barely hints at unspeak- able events in his extended speeches In Catilinam. He does make an accu- sation of child sacrifice (without any indication about ingestion) against another political opponent, P. Vatinius (In Vatinium 6.14).54 Vatinius is maligned in connection with his Pythagorean beliefs (see above), but for political reasons, in the course of the trial of Cicero's friend and ally Milo. There are other instances corresponding to the different stages of the growth of the Catiline story. Scythians' blood-drinking has already been mentioned; Herodotus also tells of Greek mercenaries who kill boys and drink their blood mixed with wine (3.11.2-3). A story similar to the more developed form told of Catiline is presented by Diodorus Siculus: that one Apollodoros who planned a coup in Cassandreia sacrificed a boy and served the entrails and wine mixed with blood (22.5.1). Finally, similar accusations of child sacrifice were made against the sage and miracle- worker Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius' trial is described as having been for sorcery, but the purported aim of the conspiracy of which he was accused before Domitian was the early promotion of the Emperor-to-be Nerva (Vita Apoll. 7.11, 20, 23; 8.5).55 These accounts seem to be political equivalents of the cosmic disruption attributed to the events transacted by Thyestes and family; in these cases the social order is overturned, or sought to be overturned, by conspirators. The sacrifices discussed do sometimes involve witchcraft but also tend to 53. This development is outlined by Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual," 33-4. 54. ". . . tu, qui te Pythagoreum soles dicere . . . cum puerorum extis deos manes mactare soleas. ..." 55. The alleged conspiracy with Nerva is mentioned in each of these passages except that (8.5) cited by Henrichs ("Pagan Ritual"), who accordingly emphasizes that Apol- lonius' sacrifice was said to be an act of sorcery rather than an "oath-sacrifice" in the manner of Catiline and the fictional gangs, and ignores the explicit political element. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 433 emphasize oath-making, serving to bind the participants together over and against the rest of the world. Drinking blood is especially prominent in these cases; although it appears almost interchangeably with eating flesh, particularly in a sacrificial and oath-making context, it may have nuances of its own: the texts suggest that blood is seen as having medicinal or magical qualities that give power to the drinker for engaging in war and political struggle. The accusations against the Christians seem to have much in common with these examples; even Pliny's reference to a sacra- mentum comes to mind. An allegation of this sort amounts to a statement that those who act in such ways turn the world upside down. CHRISTIANITY AS A CANNIBAL SOCIETY Interpreting the Ritual Parallels The importance of the symbolic connections between pagan ritual and the alleged activities of Christians has been recognized before now. The signifi- cance of the link has not, however, been exhausted by modern interpreters. Most recent major discussions are still largely content to see the correspon- dence of detail between the attacks on the Christians and the other canni- balistic rituals as identifying the real culprits in a case of mistaken identity; it is supposed that other groups against whom charges are made did in fact commit such ritual crimes, and other specific places (Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor) are identified and treated as the real locations of the crimes.56 While we cannot rule out the possibility that ritual infanticide was taking place anywhere in the Roman Empire in the second century c.e.,57 it would be more prudent to acknowledge that the evidence for any of the acts of cannibalism discussed here is even weaker for the other candidates 56. Thus Stephen Benko in Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1984), 54-78, who is rather generous in seeing historical fire behind every literary cloud of smoke, and who makes Epiphanius' Phibionites {Pan. 26.4-5) or their predecessors the culprits here. The interpretation of W. Speyer exem- plifies the tendency to blame Gnostics and other heretical groups, repeating rather than interpreting the process of labelling: "Zu den Vorwiirfen der Heiden gegen die Christen," Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 6 (1963): 129-35. Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual," 33-5, emphasizes pagan parallels and the Lollianus novel in particular. Henrichs' more recent and more general article, "Human Sacrifice in Greek Religion: Three Case Studies," he Sacrifice dans Yantiquite (Geneva: Vandoevres, 1980), 195- 235 is more nuanced, but in any case Lollianus is no more important to understanding the issue than are other texts. 57. See for instance Shelby Brown, hate Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 3 (Shef- field: JSOT Press, 1991). Archaeological evidence makes it seem reasonable to think that there was some sacrifice of infants in Phoenician culture. 434 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES than it is for the Christians. The same should at least be the starting point for discussion of later charges against Gnostics, Montanists and others. Insofar as we are concerned with explaining the accusations against the Christians, the most important correspondences are not those with other near-contemporary charges, but those with the mythical and other ele- ments of the social construction of cannibalism. That is to say, other "historical" instances where cannibalism is reported do not explain the phenomenon but rather provide comparative examples of the process whereby particular deviants are labelled as cannibals. The key causal issue is not the fact of the initial slander against the Christian communities or just who made it first, but the ways in which the life of the Christians was seen to have fit the already existing construct of ritual infanticide and cannibalism and those in public authority acted against this threat. If the accusation against Christians had not existed, someone would have had to invent it. Eating People In Greco-Roman society at this time cannibalism (and incest or promis- cuity) by some seems to have symbolized compromised identity for all. It was natural (perhaps inevitable) and of less consequence that those on the literal, geographical margins of the social body, Scythians or Indians, should act in such ways. It was problematic, however, for there to be a growing number of people in the midst, in Rome and the great cities of the Empire, who behaved in such a way as to invite characterization as de- vourers of Romans and of Romanitas itself. Certain characteristics can be seen to have been common to the various cases of "cannibalism" discussed above, but there may not be a single feature that links them all, apart from the perception of a threat. In each specific instance a "selection of topics" has been made according to cir- cumstance. The accusations represent threats based in understandings of time, both from year to year (the archaic threat represented in the the- ogonic and heroic myths and in the philosophical discourse about archaic cannibalism) and hour to hour (the danger of what is done secretly in the night rather than openly in the day), of place (the threat of invasion by what belongs far away), of differentiation of species (the dangers of divine and bestial natures impinging on the human), and of social arrangement (chaotic practice, inversion of political norms). To be a "cannibal" meant to be lawless, primitive, foreign, immoral, secretive and violent. As time goes on, the accusations seem to be cast more and more in terms of status-transforming rituals that induct the participants into member- MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 435 ship of such a group, rather than continuing ceremonies.58 Christians and their initiates were transformed through these bloody rituals into for- eigners, primitives, witches and subversives. All these characteristics are modelled in the idea of devouring the body, which represents society as a whole. As a metaphor of incorporation and destruction of the body, canni- balism is itself even stronger than, and gives energy to, the subsidiary images of invasion and compromise. Drinking blood may also be seen as a compromise of social integrity and appropriation of power for use against the social order.59 The Symbolism of Infanticide Although we can identify various connections between the elements of the Greco-Roman construction of cannibalism and the allegations against the Christians, the tendency towards a picture of ritual infanticide stands out. The significance of this particular threat is not easily interpreted in terms of the general body symbolism suggested by Mary Douglas. Douglas' model is based on the concrete body and concerns about purity as an image of the society, but the cannibal accusation involves a fantastic body, that of the child who seems to represent the society in the hands of the Other.60 It does seem, however, that the child may somehow model generalized social concerns, given the recurrence of perceived threats to children in particular (and also via children in magical practice).61 It might be worth considering whether the child represents an especially abstract human being, without 58. Although I have used "ritual" up to this point in the general sense (". . rit- uals . . . are action patterns used as signs, in other words stereotyped demonstrative action," Walter Burkert, "The Problem of Ritual Killing," Violent Origins [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987], 150), the distinction sometimes made between ritual (as unique and status-transforming) and ceremony (as repeatable and confirming exist- ing situations) is important: see Mark McVann, "Rituals of Status Transformation in Luke-Acts: The Case of Jesus the Prophet," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, 332-60, especially 332-41, and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship," also in The Social World of Luke- Acts: Models for Interpretation, 361-387, and especially 361-74. 59. Kathleen Biddick, discussing depictions in art of the medieval blood libel against the Jews notes that "blood marks a crisis of exteriority and interiority" ("Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of the Visible," Speculum 68 [1993]: 401). 60. Celsus provides a sort of demythologized version of this accusation when he alleges that Christians make converts of children, and also of women (Origen, Cels. 3.55-7). This seems to be an attempt to depict Christians as naive rather than to imply any more nefarious purpose, but the anxiety over the loss of these human resources may be similar. 61. On children and sorcery see n. 49 above. 436 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES further characteristics such as social status, achievements or even neces- sarily gender, and therefore a universal model of threatened humanity.62 Although children could sometimes be treated in ways that seem quite callous to moderns,63 they were also objects of great care, not only in terms of familial affection but as the future materiel of the society itself. Intricate strategies for the continuation of family bear witness to the levels of anxiety that could be involved when continuation of the society through the fundamental unit of the household was threatened.64 Devouring the Social Body If these accounts do not tell us much about the diet of Christians or of other groups and individuals so accused, they do tell us something of their perceived place in society. Not all the particular dimensions of the threat that have been identified need be connected in any concrete way with the life of the Christian communities; rather, in a sort of "redundancy," partic- ipation in one aspect of the construct brought with it many or all of the other symbolic expressions of vulnerability, so that the central image of eating human flesh brings with it subsidiary metaphors that say the same thing again and again: "Christians are a threat to our society." Some aspects of the accusations do have more or less obvious connec- tions with the social life and history of the Christian communities. There was a perception that the Christians were literally foreign or influenced by foreign culture,65 which as we have seen is an important element of many cannibal stories. Despite the pride of someone like Celsus in the antiquity 62. Cf. Artemidorus, Onirocriticon 4.29: "Members of a family and especially chil- dren signify the whole family; whatever else they may have signified otherwise, they also represent the whole race." Artemidorus' interpretation of dreams offers further material that may suggest broadly accepted symbolic connections. On children, see also 1.13- 16, 4.11,20, 24. 63. It is interesting that the child is such a locus of concern in a society which practiced wholesale exposure of children; see John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renais- sance (New York: Pantheon, 1988) for an overview. This idea of the child as society in the hands of the "other" has also been applied to the form of accusations made by medieval Christians against Jews: Kathleen Biddick, "Gender, Bodies, Borders," 401- 12, especially 409. 64. See Mireille Corbier, "Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies (Le Divorce et l'adoption 'en plus')," in Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (Canberra and Oxford: Humanities Research Centre and Clarendon Press, 1991), 63-74, and Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 112-3. 65. The prosopography of the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons suggests a strongly Greek and Asian element: see Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, 2-5. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 437 of the pagan "true doctrine," the acknowledged great age of Jewish tradi- tion (with which Christianity was still very closely linked) may also have encouraged the application of the construct; cannibalism was, as the myths indicate, perceived to be characteristic of times before food was "civilized." Further, Moses the Jewish founder was well known as a magi- cian (Origen, Cels. 5.41), and Jesus was characterized in these terms also (Cels. 1.28). Other possible connections with the traits of the typical can- nibal may be readily discernable. We cannot, in all probability, draw con- clusions from all the particular images involved in the accusations about anything more than how Christians were perceived. This perception was fantastic, though not inexplicable, and real enough to those sought out and punished for their marginal status. Occulta et Nocturna Sacra The continued expansion of Christianity may be assumed as a factor in the growth of the threat, and perhaps a more important one than any other in contributing to an insecurity attested from Gaul to Pontus. Yet of more interest here are qualitative aspects of early Christian practice that may be considered to have contributed to their characterization as cannibals. Many of these are related to eating and meals, including the fact of nocturnal and secret meetings, the refusal to take part in animal sacrifice and the related limits placed on commensality (the sharing of meals) and of course the acknowledged participation in a sacramentum (sacred oath) with the convenient imagery of flesh and blood. Whether or not Christians were understood to have avoided commen- sality with Gentiles in the same way as did (other) Jews,66 from the earliest times restrictions were placed on Christian participation in meals that followed sacrifice to pagan gods (1 Cor 8 and 10; Acts 15:28-9). The social significance of sharing or not sharing food has been discussed else- where; it suffices here to say that groups create and maintain boundaries by means of those with whom they choose to eat.67 Maintenance of such dietary exclusions amounted to the formation of a kind of alternative society, a foreign body within the social body. Perhaps (although there is nothing specific to verify this) a refusal to participate in animal sacrifice 66. Philip Esler makes a strong case in his Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 76-86 for this having been the rule rather than the exception; and in any case the evidence from Greek and Roman sources leaves no doubt that this was the overwhelming impression gained by pagans. 67. Argued definitively by Mary Douglas, "Deciphering a Meal," Myth, Symbol, and Culture, ed. C. Geertz (New York, W. W. Norton and Co., 1971), 61-81. 438 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES implied a rejection of the sub-cannibalistic compromise of eating animal flesh, and a return to the primordial human sacrificial practice referred to in mythology and philosophy alike. Although this may seem equally in- credible in the case of powerless Christians as in that of vegetarian Pythag- oreans, it need not be so surprising that a perceived threat to the bound- aries of the social body is expressed in terms of the consumption of an imaginary particular body. Although I have suggested that the imagery of the Christian ritual meal was not of fundamental importance in these accusations, this is by no means to say that ritual was unimportant. The substitution of a secret ritual for one that was socially constitutive, to the point that the religious practitioners felt the economic impact, was crucial. The priests and politi- cians may have approached this threat cynically, but it seems that many others experienced it in terms of the fantastic stories discussed here. If the texts that have been discussed do express deeply held beliefs about the structures of reality, a public rejection of the proper relations between human and divine actors may have led to belief in other such violations. If these people were rejecting the eating of sacrificial meat, what were they doing instead? Thus despite the secondary importance of the flesh and blood symbolism, the ritual practice of early Christians may indeed have been of primary importance in fitting them for the allegations discussed here. In fact what was most important was not what they ate but what they did not eat. These eating habits do help explain how the accusation arose against Christians and Jews in antiquity. They do not perhaps explain quite how Christians became for a time the ancient cannibals par excellence.68 A more specific account of historical developments in Roman society would be necessary to see how a generalized threat became cause for a response as acute as the persecutions of the second century.69 This is not the place where such an account can be undertaken fully, but I offer some prelimi- nary comments by way of acknowledging unfinished business. 68. There were other religious groups whose practices were cause for concern. The Emperor Commodus is said to have killed a man in Mithras-worship: Historia Augusta (Commodus) 9. More reliably, Druidism was widely thought to involve human sacrifice, and at face value the evidence is relatively strong, or at least widespread: Caesar, B.G. 6.16;DiodorusSiculus5.31.3;Suetonius,Div. Claud. 25.5;Tacitus, Ann. 14.30.3;Pliny N.H. 30.13. The response to these and other examples of "persecution" are discussed by H. Last, "The study of the 'Persecutions,'" JRS 27 (1937): 80-92. 69. Events as specific as plagues and wars (which we do know were happening) should perhaps be considered in this connection, but I think the task that remains involves dealing with the development of this perception over decades and not just in particular years. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 439 Imperial Unease If there were aspects of the Christians' practice that made them eminently suited to be labelled as cannibals, there remains another side to the ques- tion of why the accusations multiplied how and when they did: what may have been contributing to a feeling of unease which found voice in the allegations? As was indicated earlier, not only is the character of the charges very much in keeping with pagan ideas, but pagan individuals are far better candidates than Jews for their active pursuit. The role of the statesman and philosopher Fronto is one most specific example not only of judicial but propagandist activity. The events at Vienne and Lyons provide some detail: magistrates tortured slaves in order to gain evidence, so pagans were involved at every (known) point.70 In Pontus, the refusal to buy sacrificial meat had threatened the priests economically.71 The fact that these in- stances show powerful figures pursuing political ends might well be unre- markable given that the evidence concerns public trials and campaigns, but it makes sense in terms of what has already been said about the meaning of the accusations: the behavior of which the Christians are accused jeopardizes the whole social structure, and its punishment must be pursued by those who are responsible for, and gain from their ruling place in, the social order.72 This is not to say these individual members of the elite began or always believed the rumors, but they had an interest in their pursuit. Ironically, the clearest concentration of the charges seems to coincide with what is generally presented as a rather stable and successful period (at least for those who were not Christians), that of the Antonine emperors. Perhaps the growth of the accusations is itself evidence for currents be- neath the surface of the tranquillitas ordinis; such anxiety which focussed on those whose membership of the society was questionable or even de- nied by their non-participation in the formative rituals and ceremonies of the society suggests a certain insecurity. These new arrivals, ambiguous and ill-defined, were seen to exercise a negative power which was naturally 70. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 5.1. 71. Pliny Ep. 10.96. 72. See further Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and Deviance Theory," especially 100-110. Henrichs also sees Roman offi- cials as primarily responsible for the campaign, pointing out that the necessity of torture does not suggest that there was even a universal belief of the rumor among the common people ("Pagan Ritual," 21). The charge might not, however, have otherwise been well known in Gaul (the other instances are all further east, and Irenaeus makes no mention of it). 440 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES brought into conflict with its opposite, the religious and political power of the state. The conflict would arise from the growth of Christianity and in particular from the correspondingly greater number of high status individ- uals, even people with secular responsibility, who were Christians.73 Closer examination of the evidence for the roles which Christians were undertaking in economy and society at this stage would be necessary to confirm this suggestion. We may also link the accusations with the growth in importance of the imperial cult, which seems to have increased in prominence and popularity through the second century.74 The ascription of divinity to the living em- peror (and not simply to his attributes or tutelary spirits) grew clearer, especially in the West.75 The pagan philosopher Celsus could claim that the emperor was a sort of satrap for the (other) gods, and that he was the source or conduit for all good things received in earthly life (Origen, Cels. 8.67). As the tendency to associate loyalty and social stability with obser- vance of the cult grew, so too the Christians, who refused to participate, became more clearly alien. If they were so perverse and outlandish in this public sense, what conclusions were to be drawn about their obscure gatherings? It is intriguing that the accusations petered out, as far as the "main- stream" of Christianity is concerned, after the authors mentioned here, even though persecutions did not. The growth which contributed to the perceived threat of Christianity may also have made it increasingly diffi- cult for these particular charges to remain credible; although it seems to have been a horrifying prospect for many to have had Christian neighbors, it seems also to have been more difficult to sustain indefinitely such out- landish fantasies about those close at hand. The clearer emergence of what we may call "catholic Christianity" and the increasingly well-defined structures of the Church also contributed to a shift in perception; such changes would seem to make such Christians less likely to fit the picture of ambiguous power associated elsewhere with witchcraft accusations. These are some of the issues which need further consideration if we take seriously the process of relating the accusations against Christians to the health of the social body, and the possibility that an upsurge in such 73. Douglas, Purity and Danger, 101-113; Brown, "Sorcery, Demons and the Rise of Christianity," 21-3. The rash of educated Christian apologists is evidence for the increased prominence of Christians at various levels of society, as is the appearance of the True Doctrine of Celsus. 74. On the imperial cult, see Albino Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines: A History of the Roman Empire a.d. 14-192 (London: Methuen, 1974), 468-9,522-6, 705-8. 75. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines, 468-9. MCGOWAN/EATING PEOPLE 441 allegations and persecutions may be an indicator not only of religious and philosophical debates, but also of anxiety about the state of Roman society. CONCLUSION It is not surprising or unreasonable that various scholars have sought to explain the cannibal accusations against Christians in terms that suggest "mistakes" made with a certain level of ill-will, leading to confusion of harmless groups, foods, or behaviors with less benign people or things. None of these answers, however, is quite satisfactory even in its own terms. The traditional explanation of a mistake about the nature of the eucharist, resulting in confusion of food with flesh, is reasonable enough until we see how many other people and groups were similarly "confused" without good reason. To suggest that there may have been other groups, somehow geographically or religiously capable of being confused with "main- stream" Christianity and who really did eat flesh and drink blood, is similarly to fail to take into account the quantity and variety of cannibal accusations. The anthropological debate about the reality of cannibalism has pro- vided a sort of hermeneutic of suspicion for interpretation of these charges against Christians, one which enables us to go beyond the sort of analysis that follows from an assumption of mere "mistakenness" on the part of the accusers as to Christian ritual practice. Examination of Greek and Roman literature confirms the suggestion that cannibalism might be a traditional way of talking about threats to society, and it is possible to see how early Christians arranged their lives in ways which may have led to perceptions of alienness and menace. It would be a further mistake, however, to try and produce a correlation between every aspect of the cannibal construct and the forms of Christian life and practice, if by doing so we sought merely to produce another, more sociological, version of the argument that somehow someone made a terrible error, confusing miracle with magic, bread with body, Christian with Gnostic and so forth. It is much more important to acknowledge that Christians and many of these other "cannibals" were probably nothing like the picture of them widely promulgated and accepted; such "label- ling" expresses a fantasy whose real substance is the anxiety thus ex- pressed about the internal structure and external boundaries of society. By accepting the fantastic nature of the allegations we are, in fact, enabled to take them more seriously, and to at least begin to see how they are evidence for social relations. To wonder at the naivety of such beliefs is understand- 442 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES able; to wonder for too long is perhaps itself a sign of naivety. Labels and stereotypes are not matters of ancient history alone. The actual beginnings of the rumors must remain opaque to us. Even if we cannot be sure what part specific confusions and misunderstandings may have played in the process, we can consider the accusations as histori- cally significant in themselves. This significance lies in what they reveal of the interaction between pagans and Christians, and particularly how Christians were perceived by pagans at a time in which the social relations between the two groups were undergoing important changes, as was Ro- man society itself. Andrew McGowan is a graduate student in the Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame