Porphyry on Asclepius’s and the Gods’ Departure from Rome

Abstract

Eusebius transmits a fragment of Porphyry’s Contra Christianos in which the philosopher claimed that a disease or plague (νόσος) had seized the city for many years because there was no longer any sojourn (ἐπιδημία) of Asclepius and the gods there. Since Jesus was honored, no one experienced any public help from the gods. Porphyry’s claim that Asclepius and the gods no longer dwelt in Rome resembles one of the elements of the ancient Roman ritual of evocatio, in which the tutelary deities were called out of a city by a Roman commander. It is only an analogy, since the Christians did not promise the tutelary deities that their images would be carried to their own city and given a cult, and they certainly did not make use of an obscure Roman military ceremony. Whether or not the ritual was practiced in the Imperium is not the central question of this article. Instead I wish to show that the implicit debate between Eusebius and Porphyry alludes to similar arguments between pagans and Christians in antiquity and that there are important analogies between Porphyry’s argument about the departure of Rome’s tutelary gods due to the presence of worship of the Christian deity in the city and the ritual of evocatio.

1. The Contra Christianos of Porphyry1

Porphyry’s Contra Christianos (Against the Christians) only survives in brief fragments, allusions, and testimonies (Becker 2016). It created such a furor in ancient Christianity that Constantine claimed it had been destroyed, like the works of Arius. Socrates—based on his source Athanasius—transmits this excerpt from a letter of Constantine ca 332/333 to the bishop and the people, which includes the sovereign’s edict against Arius.

Ὥσπερ τοίνυν Πορφύριος ὁ τῆς θεοσεβείας ἐχθρὸς συντάγματα ἄττα παράνομα κατὰ τῆς θρησκείας συστησάμενος ἄξιον εὕρατο μισθόν ἄξιον εὕρατο μισθόν … ἀφανισθῆναι δὲ τὰ ἀσεβῆ αὐτοῦ συγγράμματα οὕτως καὶ νῦν ἔδοξεν Ἄρειόν τε καὶ τοὺς αὐτῷ ὁμογνώμονας Πορφυριανοὺς μὲν καλεῖσθαι … πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ εἴ τι σύγγραμμα ὑπὸ Ἀρείου συντεταγμένον εὑρίσκοιτο, τοῦτο πυρὶ παραδίδοσθαι, ἵνα μὴ μόνον τὰ φαῦλα αὐτοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀφανισθείη, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ὑπόμνημα αὐτοῦ ὅλως ὑπολείποιτο. Ἐκεῖνο μέντοι προαγορεύω, ὡς, εἴ τις σύγγραμμα ὑπὸ Ἀρείου συνταγὲν φωραθείη κρύψας καὶ μὴ εὐθέως προσενεγκὼν καὶ πυρὶ καταναλώσας, τούτῳ θάνατος ἔσται ἡ ζημία· παραχρῆμα γὰρ ἁλοὺς ἐπὶ τούτῳ κεφαλικὴν ὑποστήσεται τιμωρίαν.

Just as indeed Porphyry the enemy of godly religion who has composed some lawless treatises against religion found a suitable reward … his impious writings have been obliterated, so know it seems fitting that Arius and those who are like-minded should be called “Porphyrians” … and in addition to this, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, this is consigned to the flames, so that not only the evils of his teachings should be destroyed but that there should no longer be any memory at all of him. This consequently I decree, that if anyone should be detected hiding a treatise written by Arius who does not immediately bring it forward and destroy it, the penalty for this individual will be death. For immediately after condemnation (s)he will be subjected to the capital penalty

(Socrates, Hist. eccl. 1.9.30–31 = Smith 1993, 38T [p. 30] = Opitz 1934, Urkunde 33 [pp. 66–68]; cp. Cook 2000, p. 125).

Since it was clearly illegal to have a writing of Arius in one’s possession, it is quite possible that it was also illegal to have a copy of the Contra Christianos.2 In an edict of 17 Feb. 448, Theodosius II and Valentinian wrote:

θεσπίζομεν τοίνυν ὥστε πάντα ὅσα Πορφύριος ὑπὸ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ μανίας ἐλαυνόμενος κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς θρηισκείας τῶν Χριστιανῶν συνέγραψε, παρ’ οἱωιδήποτε εὑρισκόμενα πυρὶ παραδίδοσθαι·

We decree therefore that all the things that Porphyry, driven by his madness, has written against the religion of the Christians—in whoever’s possession they be found—shall be consigned to the flames.

(Smith 1993, 40T [p. 32] = Acta conciliorum oecuminicorum 1.1.4 [Schwartz 1927, p. 66] = Codex Iust. 1.1.3.1)

It is apparent that copies of the document had survived after Constantine’s statement that it had been destroyed. However, the action of the Byzantine sovereigns in 448 probably destroyed the complete copies that still existed, and we are left with a puzzle that Adolf von Harnack attempted to solve in his edition of 1916 and which Matthias Becker has recently and very ably edited in 2016, although many questions remain unanswered.

Eusebius of Caesarea was one of the few patristic writers who actually knew the Greek version of the original and who responded to Porphyry with a twenty-five-book treatise. Jerome wrote, “Eusebius published innumerable volumes, among which are these: … Against Porphyry, who wrote in Sicily during that time as some believe, twenty-five volumes (Jerome, Vir. illustr. 80 Eusebius … edidit infinita volumina, de quibus haec sunt … contra Porphyrium, qui eodem tempore scribebat in Sicilia ut quidam putant, libri uiginti quinque; cf. von Harnack 1916, 17T). Eusebius’s work has unfortunately perished, and there is little reason to believe that Porphyry wrote in Sicily (see Morlet 2010, pp. 12–14).3

2. The Fragment of the Contra Christianos in Eusebius on Asclepius

Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica includes this text from Porphyry:

περὶ δὲ τοῦ μηκέτι δύνασθαί τι κατισχύειν τοὺς φαύλους δαίμονας μετὰ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν εἰς ἀνθρώπους πάροδον καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς τῶν δαιμόνων προήγορος ἐν τῇ καθ’ ἡμῶν συσκευῇ τοῦτόν που λέγων μαρτυρεῖ τὸν τρόπον· “Νυνὶ δὲ θαυμάζουσιν εἰ τοσοῦτον ἐτῶν κατείληφεν ἡ νόσος τὴν πόλιν, Ἀσκληπιοῦ μὲν ἐπιδημίας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν μηκέτι οὔσης. Ἰησοῦ γὰρ τιμωμένου οὐδεμιᾶς δημοσίας τις θεῶν ὠφελείας ᾔσθετο.” Ταῦτα ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πορφύριος.

Concerning the powerlessness of evil demons to rule any longer after the passage of our savior among people, so the defender of demons4 in our time bears witness in his propaganda piece against us in this manner: “And now they wonder that for so many years the plague (or “disease”) has gripped the city, Asclepius and the other gods no longer dwelling5 there. For since Jesus has been honored no one has perceived any public help from the gods.” These are the very words of Porphyry.

(Praep. evang. 5.1.9–1 = Becker 2016, 65F [p. 367] = von Harnack 1916, fr. 80 [p. 94]).6

Porphyry believed that Jesus was a mortal, so of course, the worship of Jesus was unacceptable. This is clear from his comments on the nature of Jesus in De oraculis haurienda.7 If Porphyry is serious and not merely evoking a rhetorical flourish, then he accepts the thesis that the gods have left Rome because of the worship of Jesus. There was an Aedes Aesculapii (temple of Aesculapius) built in Rome after a plague there ca 293 B.C.E. According to the legend, a serpent from the god’s shrine in Epidaurus had crawled onto the Roman delegation’s ship. In Rome, it escaped and crawled onto the island known then as the Insula Tiberina.8 When the snake arrived on the island, the plague ended.9 Lawrence Richardson notes that a number of inscriptions have been found from “grateful suppliants” of Aesculapius, but “few seem to have been found in the vicinity of the church of S. Bartolomeo which is believed to stand on the site occupied by the temple”.10 In Eusebius’s fragment, the tale is reversed: Jesus’ worship has driven Asclepius out as the plague rages in the city, presumably Rome.

3. The Gods as Demons

Eusebius’s charge that the gods are evil demons was one frequent in ancient Christianity. Justin, in a defense of Christianity against the charge of impiety, noted Socrates’ attempt to move people away from demons (i.e., the false gods of Greek polytheism) and the charge of atheism that he consequently incurred (a common charge against ancient Christians; cf. Schäfke 1979, pp. 627–30):

οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἐν Ἕλλησι διὰ Σωκράτους ὑπὸ λόγου ἠλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου, μορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος, ᾧ πεισθέντες ἡμεῖς τοὺς ταῦτα πράξαντας δαίμονας οὐ μόνον οὐ θεοὺς εἶναί φαμεν, ἀλλὰ κακοὺς καὶ ἀνοσίους (5) δαίμονας–οἳ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀρετὴν ποθοῦσιν ἀνθρώποις τὰς πράξεις ὁμοίας ἔχουσιν.

And not only among the Greeks were these things through Socrates condemned by reason [logos], but also among the non-Hellenic peoples by the Logos Himself, who assumed a human form and became man, and was called Jesus Christ. Through our belief in Him we claim that those who do these things are daimones, not only are they not gods but they are evil and ungodly daimones, whose actions should not be compared with those of virtue-seeking people

(Justin 1 Apol. 5.4; trans. modified of Falls 1948, p. 38; cp. the edition and trans. of Munier 2006, pp. 140–41).11

Celsus was likewise scandalized by the Christian identification of the Roman gods with demons:

ἀλλὰ συνθήσονται μὲν εἶναι ταῦτα ἐπὶ τιμῇ τινων ἢ ὁμοίων ἢ ἀνομοίων τὸ εἶδος, οὔτε δὲ θεοὺς εἶναι, οἷς ταῦτα ἀνάκειται, ἀλλὰ δαίμονας, οὐδὲ χρῆναι θεραπεύειν δαίμονας ὅστις σέβει θεόν.

But, although they will agree that these things [i.e., images] are intended for the honor of certain beings, whether they resemble their shape or not, yet they think that those to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but daemons, and that no one who worships God ought to serve daemons

(Origen, Cels. 7.62; trans. of Chadwick 1953, p. 447).

Tatian (Oratio 13.2–3) makes a similar denunciation in a treatment of the soul’s search for truth, “seeking God in error it formed many gods following the resisting devices of daemons” (ζητοῦσα τὸν θεὸν κατὰ πλάνην πολλοὺς θεοὺς ἀνετύπωσε τοῖς ἀντισοφιστεύουσι δαίμοσι κατακολουθοῦσα). This principle of ancient Christianity can be traced back to Paul (1 Cor 10:20) and even further back to the Septuagint (Ps 105:37).12 Asclepius himself did not escape this charge and was identified in a text of Jerome as one who does not heal souls but destroys them. Origen identified him as a demon (Cels. 3.25 quoted below in § 5), just as Eusebius does.13 This sort of investigation could proceed far into late antiquity.

4. Christians as the Cause of Disasters, Including the Plague

Porphyry’s charge that the Christians and their faith were the cause of the plague was commonplace in antiquity. Tertullian famously wrote that pagans “take the Christians to be the cause of every disaster to the State, of every misfortune of the people” (existiment omnis popularis incommodi a primordio temporum Christianos esse in causa): “Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in rura, si caelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim ‘Christianos ad leonem’” (If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky doesn’t move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is plague, the cry is at once: “The Christians to the lion!”).14 Cyprian, in his response to a certain pagan named Demetrianus, faces a similar charge:

Sed enim cum dicas plurimas conqueri et quod bella crebrius surgant, quod lues, quod fames saeviant, quodque imbres et pluvias serena longa suspendant nobis imputari, tacere ultra non oportet …

But yet, when you say that very many are complaining and are blaming us because wars are arising more frequently, because the plague, because famine are raging, and because long droughts are suspending rains and showers, I should be silent no longer …

(Ad Demetrianum 2.2; trans. Deferrari 1958, p. 168).15

This plague—the so-called plague of Cyprian—is the one that Porphyry witnessed for so many years in Rome.16 Arnobius in the first book of his Adversus nationes (1.3) responds to the pagans’ charge that Christians are responsible for the disasters that afflict humankind. He mentions plagues in the following passage:

Sed pestilentias, inquiunt, et siccitates, bella frugum inopiam locustas mures et grandines resque alias noxias, quibus negotia incursantur humana, dii nobis inportant iniuriis vestris atque offensionibus exasperati.

“But pestilence”, they say, “and droughts, wars, famines, locusts, mice, and hailstorms, and other harmful things with which human affairs are visited, are brought upon us by the gods in their anger at your wrongs.”17

This debate between pagans and Christians was clearly quite lively in antiquity.

5. Asclepius as a God of Healing in the Contest Between Paganism and Christianity

Porphyry’s charge that Asclepius had left the city (probably Rome) was also important because of the god’s intrinsic importance in the Greco–Roman world where for centuries, he had been known as a healer. For example, a famous inscription from Epidaurus (IG IV², 1, 121–22) from around 350–300 B.C.E. details many cures wrought by the god.18 For centuries, the god was associated with healing in the Mediterranean, as one may see from the large collection of testimonies gathered by Edelstein and Edelstein (1946). The god was not only associated with healing, however. In one of Artemidorus’s dream analyses, he describes the consequences of seeing Asclepius’s statue in motion: κινούμενος δὲ ἢ προσιὼν ἢ εἰς οἰκίαν εἰσιὼν νόσον καὶ λοιμὸν μαντεύεται· τότε γὰρ μάλιστα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δεῖ τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου (When in motion, however, either approaching or entering a home, he forebodes sickness and plague; for at that time especially people stand in need of this god).19 Asclepius’s fame lasted into late antiquity. The emperor Julian wrote, “At any rate, when I have been sick, Asclepius has often cured me by prescribing remedies” (ἐμὲ γοῦν ἰάσατο πολλάκις Ἀσκληπιὸς κάμνοντα ὑπαγορεύσας φάρμακα).20

Porphyry probably alludes implicitly to the obvious comparison between the healing miracles ascribes to Jesus and those ascribed to Asclepius. Justin, by the middle of the second century, responds to the pagans’ argument: ὅτε δὲ πάλιν ἔμαθον προφητευθέντα θεραπεύσειν αὐτὸν πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ νεκροὺς ἀνεγερεῖν, τὸν Ἀσκληπιὸν παρήνεγκαν (Then, too, when they found out that it has been prophesied that he would cure every illness and raise the dead to life, they brought forward Asclepius).21

The god appears several times in Celsus’ critique of Christianity. Origen notes these instances:

Eἶτα πανταχοῦ μὲν ἢ πολλαχοῦ δυνάμεις ἐγίνοντο, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς παρατίθεται Ἀσκληπιὸν εὐεργετοῦντα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προλέγοντα ὅλαις πόλεσιν ἀνακειμέναις αὐτῷ, οἷον τῇ Τρίκκῃ καὶ τῇ Ἐπιδαύρῳ καὶ τῇ Κῷ καὶ τῇ Περγάμῳ …

Again, if miracles have occurred everywhere or in many places, as even Celsus thinks, quoting later the instances of “Asclepius who did good and foretold the future to whole cities which were dedicated to him such as Tricca, Epidaurus, Cos, and Pergamum” …22

Celsus appeals to the Greek heroes:

Διοσκούρους καὶ Ἡρακλέα καὶ Ἀσκληπιὸν καὶ Διόνυσον ὀνομάζει, τοὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων πεπιστευμένους παρ’ Ἕλλησι γεγονέναι θεούς, καί φησιν οὐκ ἀνέχεσθαι μὲν ἡμᾶς τούτους νομίζειν θεούς, ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἦσαν καὶ πρῶτον, καίτοι πολλὰ ἐπιδειξαμένους καὶ γενναῖα ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων· τὸν δ’ Ἰησοῦν ἀποθανόντα ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων θιασωτῶν ὦφθαί φαμεν·

… [he] mentions “the Dioscuri, Heracles, Asclepius, and Dionysus”, men who were believed by the Greeks to have become gods. He says that we “do not tolerate the opinion that they are gods because they were human in the first place, even though they performed many noble acts on behalf of humankind; yet we say that after Jesus died he appeared to his own confraternity”.

Celsus seems to believe that Asclepius is a healer:

Καὶ πάλιν ἐπὰν μὲν περὶ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ λέγηται ὅτι πολὺ ἀνθρώπων πλῆθος Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ βαρβάρων ὁμολογεῖ πολλάκις ἰδεῖν καὶ ἔτι ὁρᾶν, οὐ φάσμα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἀλλὰ θεραπεύοντα καὶ εὐεργετοῦντα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προλέγοντα, πιστεύειν ἡμᾶς ὁ Κέλσος ἀξιοῖ …

Again, when it is said of Asclepius that “a great multitude of people, both of Greeks and barbarians, confess that they have often seen and still do see not just a phantom, but Asclepius himself healing people and doing good and predicting the future”, Celsus asks us to believe it …23

Origen grants Asclepius’s premise for the sake of argument, but then affirms that those individuals who perform the cures are actually evil:

Ἵνα δὲ καὶ δῶ ἰατρόν τινα δαίμονα θεραπεύειν σώματα τὸν καλούμενον Ἀσκληπιόν, εἴποιμ’ ἂν πρὸς τοὺς θαυμάζοντας τὸ τοιοῦτο ἢ τὴν Ἀπόλλωνος μαντείαν ὅτι, εἴπερ μέσον ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν σωμάτων ἰατρικὴ καὶ πρᾶγμα πίπτον οὐκ εἰς ἀστείους μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ φαύλους, μέσον δὲ καὶ ἡ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων πρόγνωσις–οὐ γὰρ πάντως ἐμφαίνει τὸ ἀστεῖον ὁ προγινώσκων –, παραστήσατε πῶς οὐδαμῶς μέν εἰσι φαῦλοι οἱ θεραπεύοντες ἢ οἱ προγινώσκοντες αντὶ δὲ τρόπῳ ἀποδείκνυνται ἀστεῖοί τινες …

However, supposing I grant that a daemon called Asclepius possesses the power of healing and cures bodies, I would say to people who admire this or Apollo’s power of divination, that if the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent and a gift which happens to be given not only to good people but to bad, and if foreknowledge of the future is a thing indifferent also (for the man who has foreknowledge does not necessarily manifest goodness), show me then how those who perform cures or who possess foreknowledge are not bad at all …24

Origen grudgingly accepts Asclepius’s power to heal but classifies him as a demon and indicates that the people who heal in Asclepius’s name may actually be evil. Arnobius takes a different approach to the problem of Asclepius’s healings. He argues that Asclepius could only cure a few:

Et quoniam beneficia salutis datae aliorum numinum comparatis et Christi, quot milia vultis a nobis debilium vobis ostendi, quot tabificis adfectos morbis nullam omnino rettulisse medicinam, cum per omnia supplices irent templa, cum deorum ante ora prostrati limina ipsa converrerent osculis, cum Aesculapium ipsum datorem ut praedicant sanitatis, quoad illis superfuit vita, et precibus fatigarent et invitarent miserrimis votis?

And since you compare the other deities and Christ with respect to the benefits of health given them, how many thousands of sick people do you want us to show you; how many suffering from wasting diseases whom the applications of no medicine restored, although as suppliants they went through all the temples; although they prostrated themselves before the faces of the gods and swept up the thresholds themselves with kisses; when, as long as life remained, they wore out with most piteous prayers Aesculapius himself, the giver as they call him of health?25

This debate was resolved in favor of Jesus simply by Asclepius’s disappearance from the stage in late antiquity. The debate regarding miracles carried out by pagans and Christians continued into the fourth century. Alessandro Capone has recently argued that Jerome’s Vita Hilarionis intentionally depicted the life of Hilarion with his many miracles as an alternative model to the miracle-worker Apollonius, in whom pagans (and Christians) continued to retain a lively interest.26

6. Asclepius’s and the Gods’ Departure and the Ritual of Evocatio

According to Porphyry, this disappearance began with the worship of Jesus. He insists not only the god’s help, along with the help of other gods, is absent, but that Asclepius himself and the other gods no longer dwell in the city. There is an obscure Roman rite called evocatio that displays some similarities with Porphyry’s claim. The literature regarding this rite is massive: see Wissowa 1907; Basanoff 1947; Kapp and Meyer 1931–1953, p. 1054, 44–61; Bruun 1972; Le Gall 1976; Rüpke 1990, pp. 162–64; Blomart 1997; Beard et al. 1998, pp. 1.132–34; Gustafsson 2000; Kloppenborg 2005; Rutledge 2007; Gephardt 2009; Ferri 2010; Grandi 2015/2016; Isaenko 2017; Champion 2017, pp. 141–43; Musiał and Gillmeister 2018; Dillon 2020, Cairo 2021. Festus, the second century epitomist of Verrius Flaccus, alludes to the ceremony in a text that is particularly relevant to the fragment under discussion:

Peregrina sacra appellantur, quae aut evocatis dis in oppugnandis urbibus Romam sunt + conata +, aut quae ob quasdam religiones per pacem sunt petita, ut ex Phrygia Matris Magnae, ex Graecia Cereris, Epidauro Aesculapi: quae coluntur eorum more, a quibus sunt accepta.

We call foreign cults those that are dedicated to gods that have either been “summoned” to Rome from beleaguered cities or imported at time of peace on the basis of particular religious considerations. They include Mater Magna from Phrygia, Ceres from Greece, and Aesculapius from Epidaurus, and are celebrated according to the tradition from which they came.27

Varus’s reference to Asclepius in Rome may well indicate that Porphyry’s reference to Asclepius’s former presence in “the city” also refers to Rome. Instead of “dedicated to gods”, one can justifiably translate evocatis dis as, “gods who have been evoked”. Pliny refers to the ritual:

Verrius Flaccus auctores ponit, quibus credat in obpugnationibus ante omnia solitum a Romanis sacerdotibus evocari deum, cuius in tutela id oppidum esset, promittique illi eundem aut ampliorem apud Romanos cultum. et durat in pontificum disciplina id sacrum, constatque ideo occultatum, in cuius dei tutela Roma esset, ne qui hostium simili modo agerent. defigi quidem diris precationibus nemo non metuit.

Verrius Flaccus cites trustworthy authorities to show that it was the custom, at the very beginning of a siege, for the Roman priests to call forth [“evoke”] the divinity under whose protection the besieged town was, and to promise him the same or even more splendid worship among the Roman people. Down to the present day this ritual has remained part of the doctrine of the Pontiffs, and it is certain that the reason why the tutelary deity of Rome has been kept a secret is to prevent any enemy from acting in a similar way.28

Pliny’s remark, made during the early imperial period, that evocatio remains part of the disciplina (doctrine) of the Roman pontiffs is important for establishing the existence of the cultural memory of the rite during the Imperium.29

Aeneas recounts the introduction of the Trojan horse in his native city of Troy in Vergil: Instamus tamen immemores caecique furore / et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce (yet we press on, heedless and blind with rage, and set the ill-omened monster on our hallowed citadel).30 María Emilia Cairo remarks that Vergil’s lines “point to the fact that the Trojans have been abandoned by their gods …” (Cairo 2021, p. 3). Servius Danielis (the extended version of Servius) comments:

sane si peritiam, Vergilii diligenter intendas, secundum disciplinam carminis Romani, quo ex urbibus hostium deos ante evocare solebant, hoc dixit; erant enim inter cetera carminis verba haec eique populo civitatique metum, formidinem, oblivionem iniciatis: unde bene intulit “inmemores caecique furore,” tamquam quos dei perdiderant.

Certainly if you try to diligently observe the skill of Vergil, according to the doctrine by the Roman rite, by which they customarily evoked [“called forth”] the gods of their enemies’ cities, this is what he meant; for among the rest of the words of the rite there were these: “and may you strike that people and community with fear, terror and oblivion.” Therefore he well included, “heedless and blind with rage,” as though [speaking of] of those whom the gods have destroyed.31

“May you strike with terror, fear, and forgetfulness” occur in the spell, as depicted by Macrobius in the text quoted below. A bit later in the Aeneid, Vergil includes this telling statement of Aeneas, “excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis/di, quibus imperium hoc steterat” (all the gods on whom this empire was stayed [or “had stood”] have gone forth, leaving shrine and altar).32 It is interesting that Vergil’s lines, from an Augustan author, bring the rite of evocatio to the mind of the ancient commentator, Servius, and the tradition of Servius Danielis (in brackets):

EXCESSERE quia ante expugnationem evocabantur ab hostibus numina propter vitanda sacrilegia. [[inde est, quod Romani celatum esse voluerunt, in cuius dei tutela urbs Roma sit. et iure pontificum cautum est, ne suis nominibus dii Romani appellarentur, ne exaugurari possint. et in Capitolio fuit clipeus consecratus, cui inscriptum erat “genio urbis Romae, sive mas sive femina.” et pontifices ita precabantur “Iuppiter optime maxime, sive quo alio nomine te appellari volueris”: nam et ipse ait <IV 576> sequimur te, sancte deorum, quisquis es.]]

THEY WENT OUT since before a city was stormed the gods were called forth by the enemy in order to avoid sacrilege. [[That is why the Romans wanted kept secret the identity of the deity under whose protection the city of Rome is, and it is forbidden by pontifical law to call the Roman gods by their own names, so that they cannot be summoned forth. And in the Capitol there was a shield dedicated upon which it was written “To the spirit of the city of Rome, whether it be male or female.” And the Pontiffs prayed as follows: “Jupiter best and greatest, or by whatever other name that you have decided to be called.” For he himself says “We follow you; holy one among the gods, whoever you are. [A. 4.576]”]].33

Presumably Vergil’s use of excessere (they went out) is what indicated the ritual of evocatio to Servius. Toward the end of the epic, Juno—who had been so hostile toward the Trojans—assents to Jupiter’s promise about the destiny of the Aeneas and his people: adnuit his Iuno et mentem laetata retorsit./interea excedit caelo nubemque relinquit (Juno assented to this and joyfully changed her purpose; then she leaves heaven and quits the cloud).34 Servius’s comment is:

MENTEM LAETATA RETORSIT iste quidem hoc dicit; sed constat bello Punico secundo exoratam Iunonem, tertio vero bello a Scipione sacris quibusdam etiam Romam esse translatam.

SHE JOYFULLY CHANGED HER PURPOSE. He indeed said this; but it is certain that during the Second Punic War Juno was won over/persuaded [“exorated”]; and during the Third War she was even transferred to Rome by Scipio by certain religious proceedings (or “sacred rites”).35

Servius refers to Scipio’s use of evocatio to transfer Juno from Carthage to Rome. Macrobius gives a far more complete explanation of the rites that Scipio used to call forth Juno from Carthage:

(3.9.7) est autem carmen huius modi quo di evocantur cum oppugnatione civitas cingitur: Si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor venerorque veniamque a vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca templa sacra urbemque eorum relinquatis, (8) absque his abeatis eique populo civitati metum formidinem oblivionem iniciatis, proditique Romam ad me meosque veniatis, nostraque vobis loca templa sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit, mihique populoque Romano militibusque meis praepositi sitis ut sciamus intellegamusque. si ita feceritis, voveo vobis templa ludosque facturum.

The following is the spell used to call the gods forth when a city is surrounded and under siege: I call upon the one in whose protection are the people and community of Carthage, whether it be a god or a goddess, and upon you above all, who have undertaken to protect this city and people, and ask you all for your favor: may you all desert the people and community of Carthage, leave their sacred places, temples and city, and depart from them, (8) and upon this people and community heap fear, dread, forgetfulness, and come to Rome, to me and my people, with kindly spirit, and may our sacred places, temples, city be more acceptable and approved in your sight, and may you be well disposed to me and the Roman people and my army. If you all should do these things so that we know and understand them, I vow that I will make temples and games for you.36

One imagines that Macrobius’s antiquarian interest in a ritual of the Roman Republic probably cannot be used to make the assertion that such a spell was used in all cases where the Romans besieged cities. It is doubtful that the rite was used in the Imperium. Gabriella Gustafsson, for example, finds no evidence in her survey that the ritual was used during the empire (2000, pp. 42–62).37 Karl Joachim Marquardt, however, is far more willing to make the general statement, “First, it was a religious conviction of the Romans that a city could only be conquered if its patron god had first been persuaded to leave it.”38 Kloppenborg (2005) and Musiał and Gillmeister (2018), however, have argued that the rite was used in the Roman siege of Jerusalem. The question is whether there really is any explicit evidence that the ritual existed during the time of Titus and Porphyry. The last apparent historical reference to the spell occurs in an inscription that refers to P. Servilius Vatia’s conquest Vetus (Bozkir) in 75 B.C.E. Kloppenborg believes it alludes to evocatio (2005, p. 439):

P(ublius?)] Serveilius C(ai) f(ilius) imperator/hostibus victeis Isaura vetere/capta captiveis venum dateis/sei deus seive deast quoius in/tutela oppidum Vetus Isaura/fuit votum solvit

P(ublius?) Servilius, son of Gaius, imperator, having conquered the enemies when Isaura Vetus was captured, when the prisoners were consigned for sale, whether it was god or goddess in whose protection Vetus Isaura was, fulfilled his vow.39

Instead of building a temple in Rome, however, the temple was apparently built “in the provincial territory”—which implies a changing concept of evocatio in the late Republic (Beard et al. 1998, p. 1.133–34; cf. Le Gall 1976, pp. 523–24). For an analysis of the inscription as evocatio, see Le Gall 1976; Blomart 1997, p. 101; Ferri 2010, p. 38; Dillon 2020, pp. 68–69. Gustafsson 2000, pp. 60–61 is only willing to conclude that the inscription implies a “ceremony similar to evocatio”.

Examples of evocatio during the Republic comprise well-trodden ground.40 There is no clear example of the rite during the Imperium.41 Titus’s siege of Jerusalem is intriguing because it took place during Vespasian’s reign, long after the last known use of the rite in Isaura Vetus. What is so problematic about the thesis of Kloppenborg (2005) and others who use evocatio to understand the siege is that none of the ancient authors—namely Tacitus and Josephus—use the language of evocatio in their descriptions of the event. One important text of Tacitus quotes by Kloppenborg (2005, p. 445) follows below. It describes the plight of the besieged in Jerusalem:

Evenerant prodigia, quae neque hostiis neque votis piare fas habet gens superstitioni obnoxia, religionibus adversa. visae per caelum concurrere acies, rutilantia arma et subito nubium igne conlucere templum. apertae repente delubri fores et audita maior humana vox, excedere deos; simul ingens motus excedentium.

Prodigies had indeed occurred, but to avert either by victims or by vows is held unlawful by a people which, though prone to superstition, is opposed to all propitiatory rites. Contending hosts were seen meeting in the skies, arms flashed, and suddenly the temple was illumined with fire from the clouds. Of a sudden the doors of the shrine opened and a superhuman voice cried: “The gods are departing”: at the same moment the mighty stir of their going was heard.42

But Tacitus does not indicate that the gods in the temple were evoked (evocari). None of the words from the spell found in Macrobius occur in the text either. The sole potential indication is the historian’s use of excedere (the same verb Vergil used to describe the departure of Troy’s tutelary gods).43 This is slender evidence, and James Rives doubts there is a reference to evocatio here: “It is not impossible, although rather unlikely, that Titus employed this ritual in the siege of Jerusalem. Yet it was for practical purposes unnecessary, since a story had apparently gained currency that the Jewish god had already vacated his Temple” (Rives 2005, p. 149). Giorgio Ferri similarly concludes “I can confirm that there is no direct evidence for this [evocatio] in the imperial age.”44 Josephus has a text that includes a tradition close to Tacitus’s:

(6.299) κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἑορτήν, ἣ πεντηκοστὴ καλεῖται, νύκτωρ οἱ ἱερεῖς παρελθόντες εἰς τὸ ἔνδον ἱερόν, ὥσπερ αὐτοῖς ἔθος πρὸς τὰς λειτουργίας, πρῶτον μὲν κινήσεως ἔφασαν ἀντιλαβέσθαι καὶ κτύπου, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα φωνῆς ἀθρόας “μεταβαίνομεν ἐντεῦθεν”. (300) τὸ δὲ τούτων φοβερώτερον, Ἰησοῦς γάρ τις υἱὸς Ἀνανίου τῶν ἰδιωτῶν ἄγροικος πρὸ τεσσάρων ἐτῶν τοῦ πολέμου τὰ μάλιστα τῆς πόλεως εἰρηνευομένης καὶ εὐθηνούσης, ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἐν ᾗ σκηνοποιεῖσθαι πάντας ἔθος τῷ θεῷ, κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν (301) ἐξαπίνης ἀναβοᾶν ἤρξατο “φωνὴ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς, φωνὴ ἀπὸ δύσεως, φωνὴ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, φωνὴ ἐπὶ Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ τὸν ναόν, φωνὴ ἐπὶ νυμφίους καὶ νύμφας, φωνὴ ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν πάντα.”

Moreover, at the feast, which is called Pentecost, the priests on entering the inner court of the temple by night, as their custom was in the discharge of their ministrations, reported that they were conscious, first of a commotion and a din, and after that of a voice as of a host, “We are departing hence”. But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war [ca 62 C.E.], when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who, standing in the temple, suddenly began to cry out, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against the people.”45

The deity (and the heavenly host?) who is departing from the temple departs of its own accord, according to Josephus, and not as a result of any ancient Roman spell (carmen).

Titus does not explicitly use the rite, but he does not know of any deity that still dwells in the temple of Jerusalem:

μαρτύρομαι θεοὺς ἐγὼ πατρίους καὶ εἴ τις ἐφεώρα ποτὲ τόνδε τὸν χῶρον, νῦν μὲν γὰρ οὐκ οἴομαι, μαρτύρομαι δὲ καὶ στρατιὰν τὴν ἐμὴν καὶ τοὺς παρ’ ἐμοὶ Ἰουδαίους καὶ ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, ὡς οὐκ ἐγὼ ταῦθ’ ὑμᾶς ἀναγκάζω μιαίνειν.

I call the gods of my fathers to witness and any deity that once watched over this place—for now I believe that there is none [literally, “for now I do not know (of any)”]—I call my army, the Jews within my lines, and you yourselves to witness that it is not I who force you to pollute these precincts.46

The crucial difference between this and the ritual of evocatio is that Titus never says he called upon the deity who watched over the temple to depart from it—despite the similarity of some of his words to a phrase from the carmen of the ritual: “si deus si dea est cuius in tutela oppidum est …”47 However, that Latin phrase itself appears in contexts other than evocatio rituals. In one of the acts of the Arval brethren (8 Feb. 183), for example, one finds the phrase sive deo sive d<e>ae in cuius tutela hic lucus locusve/est oves (duas) (whether it be to god or goddess in whomever’s protection this sacred grove or place is, [two] oxen).48 Consequently the formula (si deus si dea) occurs in contexts far outside the purview of an evocatio.49

The phrase’s presence in the Isaura Vetus inscription is in a much different context because Servilius Vatia states that he had fulfilled a vow (votum solvit)—perhaps the building of a temple for the tutelary deity of the city in its own province (and not in Rome), as discussed above. There is no implication that Titus fulfilled any vow to the tutelary deity of the Jerusalem temple—either in Palestine or in Rome.50 In Josephus, Titus’s words assume that the deity has left the temple, but not by any ritual Titus himself has invoked. In the larger context, Josephus makes it clear that the god who watched over Jerusalem departed of God’s own accord and not because of an invocation. Perhaps Titus knew the tradition mentioned by Josephus, μεταβαίνομεν ἐντεῦθεν (we are leaving hence), if his words are historically accurate and not put into his mouth by Josephus. It is important that Josephus does not use the Greek cognate for evoco or evocatio (ἐκκαλέω, ἔκκλησις).51 In Tacitus, at least there is a verb that occurs in Vergil’s description of Troy’s loss of the gods that upheld its imperium. Josephus includes no other explicit indications of evocatio or evoco. What is important for the interpretation of Eusebius’s fragment of Porphyry is the presence in Tacitus and Josephus of the motif of a tutelary deity deserting a temple and/or city. That motif begins with the earliest examples of evocatio, a ritual that probably ended with the republic, and continues on into the Imperium.

7. Conclusions

Despite the absence of evocatio in the imperial age, one of the major elements of the ritual is present in the fragment of Porphyry—namely, the departure from Rome of Asclepius and the other gods. Of course Porphyry does not state that the Christians “evoked” (evocavisse or ἐκκεκλῆσθαι) their departure, which is a major difference between his statement and the Roman spell used in evocatio. However, his claim that the gods, including the god of healing, Asclepius, have departed is a somewhat shocking statement for a deeply spiritual pagan philosopher. It does not present the indications of a merely rhetorical flourish to make an argumentative point. After the brutal years of enduring the plague of Cyprian in Rome, where according to his own admission, Porphyry himself had lived, the charge lay easily at hand—namely, that the gods had deserted the city and that the worship of Jesus was the direct cause of their desertion.52