Timeline: from the PreteristArchive.com
Modified from: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1882_schaff_history_38.html
Educated guesses by scholars as to date of writing:
1-1000AD
Modified from: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1882_schaff_history_38.html
1-1000AD
ProphecyHistory.com website stands in agreement with these men regarding the supreme authority of Scripture over all councils, creeds, rulings or writings:
Saint Athanasius, Defender of orthodoxy, Council of Nicaea A.D. 325, LINK
"The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth."
Saint Augustine, LINK
"I am not bound by the authority of [Cyprian’s] epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission."
"I have learned to give this reverence and honour to those books of Scripture alone which are now called canonical, as firmly to believe that no one of their authors erred in writing anything ... but I so read the others, that however excellent in purity of doctrine, I do not therefore take a thing to be true because they thought so; but because they can persuade me, either through those canonical authors, or probable reason, that it does not differ from the truth. Nor do I think that you, my brother, are of a different opinion. I say further, I do not suppose that you wish your books to be read as if they were the writings of the prophets or apostles, which beyond a doubt are free from any error."
John Wycliffe, LINK
"Chapter 15
Why every man should know and obey the scripture, which is the scripture of peoples, as Jerome says.Christ said that the gospel should be preached in all the world, and David said of the Apostles and their preaching, "the sound of them went out into each land, and the words of them went out into the ends of the world." And David also said, "the Lord shall reveal his truth in the scriptures of peoples, and of the princes that were in Zion," that is, in the church, as Jerome explains in his commentary on this verse. He also explains that scripture is here called "the scriptures of peoples" because it was intended that all nations should know the scriptures, and he explains that the "princes" of the church spoken of in this verse are the Apostles who had the authority to write scripture, for it is because the Apostles wrote their scriptures by this authority, and by the confirmation of the Holy Spirit, that it is holy scripture, and the authoritative basis of our Christian faith. And no man has been given this authority after them, however holy or wise he may be, as Jerome declares in his commentary on that verse."
Jean Calvin, LINK
"What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure. But you are bringing them all (it will be said) under subordination, and so leaving everyone at liberty to receive or reject the decrees of councils as he pleases. By no means; but whenever the decree of council is produced, the first thing I would wish to be done is, to examine at what time it was held, on what occasion, with what intention, and who were present at it; next I would bring the subject discussed to the standard of Scripture. And this I would do in such a way that the decision of the council should have its weight, and be regarded in the light of a prior judgment, yet not so as to prevent the application of the test which I have mentioned. I wish all had observed the method which Augustine prescribes in his Third Book against Maximinus, when he wished to silence the cavils of this heretic against the decrees of councils,
- 'I ought not to oppose the Council office to you, nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, or you by that of the former. Let thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all.'
In this way councils would be duly respected, and yet the highest place would be given to Scripture, everything being brought to it as a test."
Philip Schaff
The Creeds of Christendom, published by Baker Book House.
“In the Protestant system, the authority of (creeds), as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not coordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian Faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case, a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s Word. The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute (authority), the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. Any higher view of the authority of (creeds) is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. (Creedolatry) is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living Pope. It is apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to promote rationalism and infidelity.”
Francis Turretin, LINK
"The orthodox (although they hold the fathers in great estimation and think them very useful to a knowledge of the history of the ancient church, and our opinion on cardinal doctrines may agree with them) yet deny that their authority, whether as individuals or taken together, can be called authoritative in matters of faith and the interpretation of the Scriptures, so that by their judgment we must stand or fall. Their authority is only ecclesiastical and subordinate to the Scriptures and of no weight except so far as they agree with them" (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, p. 163).
B. B. Warfield, LINK
"This church-doctrine of inspiration differs from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people of God from the first planting of the church until today; in that it is not a protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but from the beginning has been the church’s constant and abiding conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed to her keeping" (Works, vol. 1, p. 52).
John William Burgon, LINK
"... the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it (where are we to stop?) every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High! ... Well spake the HOLY GHOST by the mouth of the many blessed men who wrote it. The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it more, some part of it less; but all alike the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne, absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme."
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., LINK
"Statement of Faith: Scripture: We believe the Bible alone (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God. It is "God-breathed" and therefore verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) and is the final authority on all issues pertaining to life and faith."
From the earliest times following the generation of Jesus & His Apostles, many, many Christians have regarded the dead in Christ as having become very much alive and exalted to positions of authority over the Church and the World, having supplanted the former principalities & powers of Ephesians 6:12. Such doctrines are a tacit witness to the position of global, historic Christianity that some form of the First Resurrection occurred around the time of the disappearrance of the Apostles.
From the earliest times following the generation of Jesus & His Apostles, many, many Christians have regarded the dead in Christ as having become very much alive and exalted to positions of authority over the Church and the World, having supplanted the former principalities & powers of Ephesians 6:12. Such doctrines are a tacit witness to the position of global, historic Christianity that some form of the First Resurrection occurred around the time of the disappearrance of the Apostles.
From the earliest times following the generation of Jesus & His Apostles, many, many Christians have regarded the dead in Christ as having become very much alive and exalted to positions of authority over the Church and the World, having supplanted the former principalities & powers of Ephesians 6:12. Such doctrines are a tacit witness to the position of global, historic Christianity that some form of the First Resurrection occurred around the time of the disappearrance of the Apostles. even though the Resurrection of the Rest of the Dead yet remained future, at the end of the Millennium in which they saw themselves living. Around the time of the Council of Nicea in 325AD, such beliefs came into full bloom throughout global, historic Christianity and are strongly held throughout the bulk of Christianity even today: (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Anglican, etc.) It is partly what is meant in the Apostles' Creed,"I believe ... in the communion of the Saints." This accords well with the 56AD predictions of Christ's persecuted Apostle Paul and with what Christ's exiled Apostle John had foreseen around 63AD in the predictive vision of the book of Revelation. It was all expected to shortly come to pass after the New Testament was written.
1 Corinthians 6:2-4 ~written around 56AD by Christ's persecuted Apostle Paul to the Church at Corinth
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
NKJV
Revelation 20:4-6 ~foreseen around 63AD in the predictive vision to Christ's exiled Apostle John about "those things shortly to come to pass," Rev 1:1 & Rev 4:1
4 And I foresaw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I foresaw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
NKJV
From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm
A formula containing in brief statements, or "articles," the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, and having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.
Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles. This legend dates back to the sixth century (see Pseudo-Augustine in Migne, P.L., XXXIX, 2189, and Pirminius, ibid., LXXXIX, 1034), and it is foreshadowed still earlier in a sermon attributed to St. Ambrose (Migne, P.L., XVII, 671; Kattenbusch, I, 81), which takes notice that the Creed was "pieced together by twelve separate workmen". About the same date (c. 400) Rufinus (Migne, P.L., XXI, 337) gives a detailed account of the composition of the Creed, which account he professes to have received from earlier ages (tradunt majores nostri). Although he does not explicitly assign each article to the authorship of a separate Apostle, he states that it was the joint work of all, and implies that the deliberation took place on the day of Pentecost. Moreover, he declares that "they for many just reasons decided that this rule of faith should be called the Symbol", which Greek word he explains to mean both indicium, i.e. a token or password by which Christians might recognize each other, and collatio, that is to say an offering made up of separate contributions. A few years before this (c. 390), the letter addressed to Pope Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P.L., XVI, 1213) supplies the earliest known instance of the combination Symbolum Apostolorum ("Creed of the Apostles") in these striking words: "If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate." The word Symbolum in this sense, standing alone, meets us first about the middle of the third century in the correspondence of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia, the latter in particular speaking of the Creed as the "Symbol of the Trinity", and recognizing it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Migne, P.L., III, 1165, 1143). It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. Still, in the first two centuries after Christ, though we often find mention of the Creed under other designations (e.g. regula fidei, doctrina, traditio), the name symbolum does not occur. Rufinus was therefore wrong when he declared that the Apostles themselves had "for many just reasons" selected this very term. This fact, joined with the intrinsic improbability of the story, and the surprising silence of the New Testament and of the Ante-Nicene fathers, leaves us no choice but to regard the circumstantial narrative of Rufinus as unhistorical.
Among recent critics, some have assigned to the Creed an origin much later than the Apostolic Age. Harnack, e.g., asserts that in its present form it represents only the baptismal confession of the Church of Southern Gaul, dating at earliest from the second half of the fifth century (Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, 1892, p. 3). Strictly construed, the terms of this statement are accurate enough; though it seems probable that it was not in Gaul, but in Rome, that the Creed really assumed its final shape (see Burn in the "Journal of Theol. Studies", July, 1902). But the stress laid by Harnack on the lateness of our received text (T) is, to say the least, somewhat misleading. It is certain, as Harnack allows, that another and older form of the Creed (R) had come into existence, in Rome itself, before the middle of the second century. Moreover, as we shall see, the differences between R and T are not very important and it is also probable that R, if not itself drawn up by the Apostles, is at least based upon an outline which dates back to the Apostolic age. Thus, taking the document as a whole, we may say confidently, in the words of a modern Protestant authority, that "in and with our Creed we confess that which since the days of the Apostles has been the faith of united Christendom" (Zahn, Apostles' Creed, tr., p, 222). The question of the apostolicity of the Creed ought not to be dismissed without due attention being paid to the following five considerations:
(1) There are very suggestive traces in the New Testament of the recognition of a certain "form of doctrine" (typos didaches, Romans 6:17) which moulded, as it were, the faith of new converts to Christ's law, and which involved not only the word of faith believed in the heart, but "with the mouth confession made unto salvation" (Romans 10:8-10). In close connection with this we must recall the profession of faith in Jesus Christ exacted of the eunuch (Acts 8:37) as a preliminary to baptism (Augustine, "De Fide et Operibus", cap. ix; Migne, P.L., LVII, 205) and the formula of baptism itself in the name of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19; and cf. the Didache 7:2, and 9:5). Moreover, as soon as we begin to obtain any sort of detailed description of the ceremonial of baptism we find that, as a preliminary to the actual immersion, a profession of faith was exacted of the convert, which exhibits from the earliest times a clearly divided and separate confession of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, corresponding to the Divine Persons invoked in the formula of baptism. As we do not find in any earlier document the full form of the profession of faith, we cannot be sure that it is identical with our Creed, but, on the other hand, it is certain that nothing has yet been discovered which is inconsistent with such a supposition. See, for example, the "Canons of Hippolytus" (c. 220) or the "Didascalia" (c. 250) in Hahn's "Bibliothek der Symbole" (8, 14, 35); together with the slighter allusions in Justin Martyr and Cyprian.
(2) Whatever difficulties may be raised regarding the existence of the Disciplina Arcani in early times (Kattenbusch, II, 97 sqq.), there can be no question that in Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Augustine, Leo, the Gelasian Sacramentary, and many other sources of the fourth and fifth centuries the idea is greatly insisted upon; that according to ancient tradition the Creed was to be learned by heart, and never to be consigned to writing. This undoubtedly provides a plausible explanation of the fact that in the case of no primitive creed is the text preserved to us complete or in a continuous form. What we know of these formulae in their earliest state is derived from what we can piece together from the quotations, more or less scattered, which are found in such writers, for example, as Irenaeus and Tertullian.
(3) Though no uniform type of Creed can be surely recognized among the earlier Eastern writers before the Council of Nicaea, an argument which has been considered by many to disprove the existence of any Apostolic formula, it is a striking fact that the Eastern Churches in the fourth century are found in possession of a Creed which reproduces with variations the old Roman type. This fact is full admitted by such Protestant authorities as Harnack (in Hauck's Realencyclopädie, I, 747) and Kattenbusch (I, 380 sq.; II, 194 sqq., and 737 sq.). It is obvious that these data would harmonize very well with the theory that a primitive Creed had been delivered to the Christian community of Rome, either by Sts. Peter and Paul themselves or by their immediate successors, and in the course of time had spread throughout the world.
(4) Furthermore note that towards the end of the second century we can extract from the writings of St. Irenæus in southern Gaul and of Tertullian in far-off Africa two almost complete Creeds (Transc. Note: hyperlink to Acreed2.gif) agreeing closely both with the old Roman Creed (R), as we know it from Rufinus, and with one another. It will be useful to translate from Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 50, 51) his tabular presentation of the evidence in the case of Tertullian. (Cf. MacDonald in "Ecclesiastical Review", February, 1903):
THE OLD ROMAN CREED
AS QUOTED BY TERTULLIAN (c. 200)
De Virg. Vel., 1 | De Praecept., 13 and 26 | |
(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world, | (1) We believe one only God, | (1) I believe in one God, maker of the world, |
(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ, | (2) and the son of God Jesus Christ, | (2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ, |
(3) born of the Virgin Mary, | (3) born of the Virgin, | (3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her |
(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate, | (4) Him suffered died, and buried, | (4) fastened to a cross. |
(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead, | (5) brought back to life, | (5) He rose the third day, |
(6) received in heaven, | (6) taken again into heaven, | (6) was caught up into heaven, |
(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father, | (7) sits at the right hand of the Father, | (7) set at the right hand of the Father, |
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead | (8) will come to judge the living and the dead | (8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire, |
(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost. | (9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit, | |
(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8) | ||
(12) through resurrection of the flesh. | (12) restoration of the flesh. |
Such a table serves admirably to show how incomplete is the evidence provided by mere quotations of the Creed, and how cautiously it must be dealt with. Had we possessed only the "De Virginibus Velandis", we might have said that the article concerning the Holy Ghost did not form part of Tertullian's Creed. Had the "De Virginibus Velandis" been destroyed, we should have declared that Tertullian knew nothing of the clause "suffered under Pontius Pilate". And so forth.
(5) It must not be forgotten that while no explicit statement of the composition of a formula of faith by the Apostles is forthcoming before the close of the fourth century, earlier Fathers such as Tertullian and St. Irenæus insist in a very emphatic way that the "rule of faith" is part of the apostolic tradition. Tertullian in particular in his "De Praescriptione", after showing that by this rule (regula doctrinoe) he understands something practically identical with our Creed, insists that the rule was instituted by Christ and delivered to us (tradita) as from Christ by the Apostles (Migne. P.L., II, 26, 27, 33, 50). As a conclusion from this evidence the present writer, agreeing on the whole with such authorities as Semeria and Batiffol that we cannot safely affirm the Apostolic composition of the Creed, considers at the same time that to deny the possibility of such origin is to go further than our data at present warrant. A more pronouncedly conservative view is urged by MacDonald in the "Ecclesiastical Review", January to July, 1903.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent apparently assumes the Apostolic origin of our existing Creed, but such a pronouncement has no dogmatic force and leaves opinion free. Modern apologists, in defending the claim to apostolicity, extend it only to the old Roman form (R), and are somewhat hampered by the objection that if R had been really held to be the inspired utterance of the Apostles, it would not have been modified at pleasure by various local churches (Rufinus, for example, testifies to such expansion in the case of the Church of Aquileia), and in particular would never have been entirely supplanted by T, our existing form. The difference between the two will best be seen by printing them side by side (Creeds R and T):
R. | T. |
(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty; | (1) I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth |
(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; | (2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; |
(3) Who was born of (de) the Holy Ghost and of (ex) the Virgin Mary; | (3) Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, |
(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; | (4) Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; |
(5) The third day He rose again from the dead, | (5) He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; |
(6) He ascended into Heaven, | (6) He ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; |
(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father, | (7) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. |
(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. | (8) I believe in the Holy Ghost, |
(9) And in the Holy Ghost, | (9) The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints |
(10) The Holy Church, | (10) The forgiveness of sins, |
(11) The forgiveness of sins; | (11) The resurrection of the body, and |
(12) The resurrection of the body. | (12) life everlasting. |
Neglecting minor points of difference, which indeed for their adequate discussion would require a study of the Latin text, we may note that R does not contain the clauses "Creator of heaven and earth", "descended into hell", "the communion of saints", "life everlasting", nor the words "conceived", "suffered", "died", and "Catholic". Many of these additions, but not quite all, were probably known to St. Jerome in Palestine (c. 380.--See Morin in Revue Benedictine, January, 1904) and about the same date to the Dalmatian, Niceta (Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, 1905). Further additions appear in the creeds of southern Gaul at the beginning of the next century, but T probably assumed its final shape in Rome itself some time before A.D. 700 (Burn, Introduction, 239; and Journal of Theol. Studies, July, 1902). We know nothing certain as to the reasons which led to the adoption of T in preference to R.
Although T really contains more than twelve articles, it has always been customary to maintain the twelvefold division which originated with, and more strictly applies to, R. A few of the more debated items call for some brief comment. The first article of R presents a difficulty. From the language of Tertullian it is contended that R originally omitted the word Father and added the word one; thus, "I believe in one God Almighty". Hence Zahn infers an underlying Greek original still partly surviving in the Nicene Creed, and holds that the first article of the Creed suffered modification to counteract the teachings of the Monarchian heresy. It must suffice to say here that although the original language of R may possibly be Greek, Zahn's premises regarding the wording of the first article are not accepted by such authorities as Kattenbusch and Harnack.
Another textual difficulty turns upon the inclusion of the word only in the second article; but a more serious question is raised by Harnack's refusal to recognize, either in the first or second article of R, any acknowledgment of a pre-existent or eternal relation of Sonship and Fatherhood of the Divine Persons. The Trinitarian theology of later ages, he declares, has read into the text a meaning which it did not possess for its framers. And he says, again, with regard to the ninth article, that the writer of the Creed did not conceive the Holy Ghost as a Person, but as a power and gift. "No proof can be shown that about the middle of the second century the Holy Ghost was believed in as a Person." It is impossible to do more here than direct the reader to such Catholic answers as those of Baumer and Blume; and among Anglicans to the very convenient volume of Swete. To quote but one illustration of early patristic teaching, St. Ignatius at the end of the first century repeatedly refers to a Sonship which lies beyond the limits of time: "Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father", "was with the Father before the world was" (Magn., 6 and 7). While, with regard to the Holy Ghost, St. Clement of Rome at a still earlier date writes: "As God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, the faith and hope of the elect" (cap. lviii). This and other like passages clearly indicate the consciousness of a distinction between God and the Spirit of God analogous to that recognized to exist between God and the Logos. A similar appeal to early writers must be made in connection with the third article, that affirming the Virgin Birth. Harnack admits that the words "conceived of the Holy Ghost" (T), really add nothing to the "born of the Holy Ghost" (R). He admits consequently that "at the beginning of the second century the belief in the miraculous conception had become an established part of Church tradition". But he denies that the doctrine formed part of the earliest Gospel preaching, and he thinks it consequently impossible that the article could have been formulated in the first century. We can only answer here that the burden of proof rests with him, and that the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers, as quoted by Swete and others, points to a very different conclusion.
Rufinus (c. 400) explicitly states that the words descended into hell were not in the Roman Creed, but existed in that of Aquileia. They are also in some Greek Creeds and in that of St. Jerome, lately recovered by Morin. It was no doubt a remembrance of I Peter, iii, 19, as interpreted by Irenaeus and others, which caused their insertion. The clause, "communion of saints", which appears first in Niceta and St. Jerome, should unquestionably be regarded as a mere expansion of the article "holy Church". Saints, as used here, originally meant no more than the living members of the Church (see the article by Morin in Revue d'histoire et de litterature ecclesiastique. May, 1904, and the monograph of J. P. Kirsch, Die Lehre von der Gemeinschaft der Heiligen, 1900). For the rest we can only note that the word "Catholic", which appears first in Niceta, is dealt with separately; and that "forgiveness of sins" is probably to be understood primarily of baptism and should be compared with the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" of the Nicene Creed.
As already indicated, we must turn to the ritual of Baptism for the most primitive and important use of the Apostles' Creed. It is highly probable that the Creed was originally nothing else than a profession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of the baptismal formula. The fully developed ceremonial which we find in the seventh Roman Ordo, and the Gelasian Sacramentary, and which probably represented the practice of the fifth century, assigns a special day of "scrutiny", for the imparting of the Creed (traditio symboli), and another, immediately before the actual administration of the Sacrament, for the redditio symboli, when the neophyte gave proof of his proficiency by reciting the Creed aloud. An imposing address accompanied the traditio and in an important article, Dom de Puniet (Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique, October, 1904) has recently shown that this address is almost certainly the composition of St. Leo the Great. Further, three questions (interrogationes) were put to the candidate in the very act of baptism, which questions are themselves only a summary of the oldest form of the Creed. Both the recitation of the Creed and the questions are still retained in the Ordo baptizandi of our actual Roman ritual; while the Creed in an interrogative form appears also in the Baptismal Service of the Anglican "Book of Common Prayer". Outside of the administration of baptism the Apostles' Creed is recited daily in the Church, not only at the beginning of Matins and Prime and the end of Compline, but also ferially in the course of Prime and Compline. Many medieval synods enjoin that it must be learnt by all the faithful, and there is a great deal of evidence to show that, even in such countries as England and France, it was formerly learnt in Latin. As a result of this intimate association with the liturgy and teaching of the Church, the Apostles' Creed has always been held to have the authority of an ex cathedra utterance. It is commonly taught that all points of doctrine contained in it are part of the Catholic Faith, and cannot be called in question under pain of heresy (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II:1:9). Hence Catholics have generally been content to accept the Creed in the form, and in the sense, in which it has been authoritatively expounded by the living voice of the Church. For the Protestants who accept it only in so far as it represents the evangelical teaching of the Apostolic Age, it became a matter of supreme importance to investigate its original form and meaning. This explains the preponderating amount of research devoted to this subject by Protestant scholars as compared with the contributions of their Catholic rivals.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus | |
---|---|
Marble bust of Pompey the Great |
|
Born | September 29, 106 BC Rome |
Died | September 28, 48 BC Egypt |
Occupation | Politician and military commander |
Spouse | Antistia Aemilia Scaura Mucia Tertia Julia Cornelia Metella |
Pompey, Pompey the Great or Pompey the Triumvir [1] (Classical Latin abbreviation: CN·POMPEIVS·CN·F·SEX·N·MAGNVS[2], Gnaeus or Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus) (September 29, 106 BC–September 28, 48 BC), was a distinguished military and political leader of the late Roman Republic. Hailing from an Italian provincial background, after military triumphs he established a place for himself in the ranks of Roman nobility, and was given the cognomen of Magnus—the Great—by Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
Pompey was a rival of Marcus Licinius Crassus and an ally to Gaius Julius Caesar. The three politicians dominated the Late Roman republic through a political alliance called the First Triumvirate. After the death of Crassus, Pompey and Caesar became rivals, disputing the leadership of the Roman state in what is now called Caesar's civil war. Pompey fought on the side of the Optimates, the conservative faction in the Roman Senate, until he was defeated by Caesar. He then sought refuge in Egypt, where he was assassinated.
( 106BC - 48BC ) His father Pompeius Strabo was an extremely wealthy man from the Italian region of Picenum but his family was not a part of the ancient families who had dominated Roman politics. Nevertheless, his father had climbed through the traditional cursus honorum being quaestor in 104 BC, praetor in 92 BC, and consul in 89 BC. Pompey had scarcely left school before he was summoned to serve under his father in the Social war. He fought under him in 89 against the Italians, at the age of seventeen, fully involved in his father's military and political affairs, and he would continue with his father until Strabo's death two years afterward. According to Plutarch, who was sympathetic to Pompey, he was very popular, and considered a look-alike of Alexander the Great.
His father died in 87 BC, in the conflicts between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, leaving young Pompey in control of his family affairs and fortune. For the next few years the Marian party had possession of Italy; and accordingly Pompey, who adhered to the aristocratic party, was obliged to keep in the background. Returning to Rome he was prosecuted for misappropriation of plunder but quickly acquitted. His acquittal was certainly helped by the fact that he was betrothed to the judge's daughter, Antistia. Pompey sided with Sulla after his return from Greece in 83 BC. Sulla was expecting trouble with Gnaeus Papirius Carbo's regime and found the 23-year-old Pompey and the three veteran legions very useful. When Pompey (displaying great military abilities in opposing the Marian generals by whom he was surrounded) succeeded in joining Sulla, he was saluted by the latter with the title of Imperator. This political alliance boosted Pompey's career greatly and Sulla, now the Dictator in absolute control of the Roman world, persuaded Pompey to divorce his wife and marry his stepdaughter Aemilia Scaura, who was pregnant by her current husband, in order to bind his young ally more closely to him.
Although his young age kept him a privatus (a man holding no political office of—or associated with—the cursus honorum), Pompey was a very rich man and a talented general in control of three veteran legions. Moreover, he was ambitious for glory and power. During the remainder of the war in Italy Pompey distinguished himself as one of the most successful of Sulla's generals; and when the war in Italy was brought to a close, Sulla sent Pompey against the Marian party in Sicily and Africa. Happy to acknowledge his wife's son-in-law's wishes, and to clear his own situation as dictator, Sulla first sent Pompey to recover Sicily from the Marians.
Pompey easily made himself master of the island in 82 BC. Sicily was strategically very important, since the island held the majority of Rome's grain supply. Without it, the city population would starve and riots would certainly ensue. Pompey dealt with the resistance with a harsh hand, executing Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and his supporters. When the citizens complained about his methods he replied with one of his most famous quotations: "Won't you stop citing laws to us who have our swords by our sides?" Pompey routed the opposing forces in Sicily and then in 81 BC he crossed over to the Roman province of Africa, where he defeated Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Numidian king Hiarbas, after a hard-fought battle.
After this continued string of unbroken victories, Pompey was proclaimed Imperator by his troops on the field in Africa. He earned the nickname adulescentulus carnifex ("teenage butcher" or "The Butcher Boy") at this time due to his savagery in dealing with the remnant Marians. On his return to Rome in the same year, he was received with enthusiasm by the people, and was greeted by Sulla with the cognomen Magnus, (meaning "the Great"), with most commentators suspecting that Sulla gave it as a cruel and ironic joke; it was some time before Pompey made widespread use of it.
Pompey, however, not satisfied with this distinction, demanded a triumph for his African victories, which Sulla at first refused; Pompey himself refused to disband his legions and appeared with his demand at the gates of Rome where, amazingly, Sulla gave in, overcome by Pompey's importunity, and allowing him to have his own way. However, in an act calculated to cut Pompey down to size, Sulla had his own triumph first, then allowed Metellus Pius to triumph, relegating Pompey to a third triumph in quick succession, on the assumption that Rome would become bored by the third one. Accordingly, Pompey attempted to enter Rome in triumph towed by an elephant. As it happened, it would not fit through the gate and some hasty re-planning was needed, much to the embarrassment of Pompey and amusement of those present.
Pompey's reputation for military genius, and occasional bad judgment, continued when, after suppressing the revolt by Lepidus (whom he had initially supported for consul, against Sulla's wishes), he demanded proconsular imperium (although he had not yet served as Consul) to go to Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula, comprising modern Spain and Portugal) to fight against Quintus Sertorius, a Marian general. The aristocracy, however, now beginning to fear the young and successful general, was reluctant to provide him with the needed authority. Pompey countered by refusing to disband his legions until his request was granted. However in Hispania Sertorius had for the last three years successfully opposed Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, one of the ablest of Sulla's generals, and ultimately it became necessary to send the latter some effectual assistance. As a result, the Senate, with considerable lack of enthusiasm, determined to send Pompey to Hispania against Sertorius, with the title of proconsul, and with equal powers to Metellus.
Pompey remained in Hispania between five and six years 76–71 BC; but neither he nor Metellus was able to achieve a clean victory or gain any decisive advantage on the battlefield over Sertorius. But when Sertorius was treacherously murdered by his own officer Marcus Perperna Vento in 72, the war was speedily brought to a close. Perperna was easily defeated by Pompey in their first battle, and the whole of Hispania was subdued by the early part of the following year 71.
In the months after Sertorius' death, however, Pompey revealed one of his most significant talents; a genius for the organization and administration of a conquered province. Fair and generous terms extended his patronage throughout Hispania and into southern Gaul. While Crassus was facing Spartacus late in the Third Servile War in 71 BC, Pompey returned to Italy with his army. In his march toward Rome he came upon the remains of the army of Spartacus and captured five thousand Spartacani who had survived Crassus and were attempting to flee. Pompey cut these fugitives to pieces, and therefore claimed for himself, in addition to all his other exploits, the glory of finishing the revolt. His attempt to take credit for ending the Servile war was an act that infuriated Crassus.
Disgruntled opponents, especially Crassus, said he was developing a talent for showing up late in a campaign and taking all the glory for its successful conclusion. This growing enmity between Crassus and Pompey would not be resolved for over a decade. Back in Rome, Pompey was now a candidate for the consulship; and although he was ineligible by law, inasmuch as he was absent from Rome, had not yet reached the legal age, and had not held any of the lower offices of the state, still his election was certain. His military glory had charmed people, admirers saw in Pompey the most brilliant general of the age; and as it was known that the aristocracy looked upon Pompey with jealousy, many people ceased to regard him as belonging to this party, and hoped to obtain, through him, a restoration of the rights and privileges of which they had been deprived by Sulla.
Pompey on December 31, 71 BC, entered the city of Rome in his triumphal car, a simple eques, celebrating his second extralegal triumph for the victories in Hispania. In 71 BC, at only 35 years of age (see cursus honorum), Pompey was elected Consul for the first time, serving in 70 BC as partner of Crassus, with the overwhelming support of the Roman population.
In his consulship (70 BC), Pompey openly broke with the aristocracy, and became the great popular hero. By 69 BC, Pompey was the darling of the Roman masses, although many Optimates were deeply suspicious of his intentions. He proposed and carried a law, restoring to the tribunes the power of which they had been deprived by Sulla. He also afforded his powerful aid to the Lex Aurelia, proposed by the praetor Lucius Aurelius Cotta, by which the judices were to be taken in future from the senatus, equites, and tribuni aerarii, instead of from the senators exclusively, as Sulla had ordained. In carrying both these measures Pompey was strongly supported by Caesar, with whom he was thus brought into close connection. For the next two years (69 and 68 BC) Pompey remained in Rome. His primacy in the State was enhanced by two extraordinary proconsular commands, unprecedented in Roman history.
In 67 BC, two years after his consulship, Pompey was nominated commander of a special naval task force to campaign against the pirates that controlled the Mediterranean. This command, like everything else in Pompey's life, was surrounded with polemic. The conservative faction of the Senate was most suspicious of his intentions and afraid of his power. The Optimates tried every means possible to avoid it. Significantly, Caesar was again one of a handful of senators who supported Pompey's command from the start. The nomination was then proposed by the Tribune of the Plebs Aulus Gabinius who proposed the Lex Gabinia, giving Pompey command in the war against the Mediterranean pirates, with extensive powers that gave him absolute control over the sea and the coasts for 50 miles inland, setting him above every military leader in the East. This bill was opposed by the aristocracy with the utmost vehemence, but was carried.
The pirates were at this time masters of the Mediterranean, and had not only plundered many cities on the coasts of Greece and Asia, but had even made descents upon Italy itself. As soon as Pompey received the command, he began to make his preparations for the war, and completed them by the end of the winter. His plans were crowned with complete success. Pompey divided the Mediterranean into thirteen separate areas, each under the command of one of his legates. In forty days he cleared the Western Sea of pirates, and restored communication between Hispania, Africa, and Italy. He then followed the main body of the pirates to their strongholds on the coast of Cilicia; and after defeating their fleet, he induced a great part of them, by promises of pardon, to surrender to him. Many of these he settled at Soli, which was henceforward called Pompeiopolis.
Ultimately it took Pompey all of a summer to clear the Mediterranean of the danger of pirates. In three short months (67-66 BC), Pompey's forces had swept the Mediterranean clean of pirates, showing extraordinary precision, discipline, and organizational ability; so that, to adopt the panegyric of Cicero:[3]
The quickness of the campaign showed that he was as talented a general at sea as on land, with strong logistic abilities. Pompey was the hero of the hour.
Pompey was employed during the remainder of this year and the beginning of the following in visiting the cities of Cilicia and Pamphylia, and providing for the government of the newly-conquered districts. During his absence from Rome (66 BC), Pompey was nominated to succeed Lucius Licinius Lucullus in the command, take charge of the Third Mithridatic War and fight Mithridates VI of Pontus in the East. Lucullus, a well-born patrician, made it known that he was incensed at the prospect of being replaced by a "new man" such as Pompey. Pompey responded by calling Lucullus a "Xerxes in a toga." Lucullus shot back by calling Pompey a "vulture" because he was always fed off the work of others, referring to his new command in the present war, as well as Pompey's actions at the climax of the war against Spartacus. The bill conferring upon him this command was proposed by the tribune Gaius Manilius, and was supported by Cicero in an oration which has come down to us (pro Lege Manilia). Like the Gabinian law, it was opposed by the whole weight of the aristocracy, but was carried triumphantly. The power of Mithridates had been broken by previous victories of Luculus, and it was only left to Pompey to bring the war to a conclusion. This command essentially entrusted Pompey with the conquest and reorganization of the entire Eastern Mediterranean. Also, this was the second command that Caesar supported in favor of Pompey.
On the approach of Pompey, Mithridates retreated towards Armenia, but he was defeated; and as Tigranes the Great now refused to receive him into his dominions, Mithridates resolved to plunge into the heart of Colchis, and thence make his way to his own dominions in the Cimmerian Bosporus. Pompey now turned his arms against Tigranes; but the Armenian king submitted to him without a contest, and was allowed to conclude a peace with the republic. In 65 BC Pompey set out in pursuit of Mithridates, but he met with much opposition from the Iberians and Albanians; and after advancing as far as the River Phasis (now Fax or Rioni River), he resolved to leave these districts. He accordingly retraced his steps, and spent the winter at Pontus, which he made into a Roman province. In 64 BC he marched into Syria, deposed the king Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, and made that country also a Roman province. In 63 BC, he advanced further south, in order to establish the Roman supremacy in Phoenicia, Coele-Syria, and Israel. After that he captured Jerusalem. At the time Judaea was racked by civil war between two Jewish brothers who created religious factions: Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. The civil war was causing instability, and it exposed Pompey's unprotected flank. He felt that he had to act. Both sides gave money to Pompey for assistance, and a picked delegation of Pharisees went in support of Hyrcanus. Pompey decided to link forces with the good-natured Hyrcanus, and their joint army of Romans and Jews besieged Jerusalem for three months, after which it was taken from Aristobulus. Aristobulus was crafty, though, and later succeeded in temporarily usurping the throne from Hyrcanus. Subsequently, King Herod I executed Hyrcanus in 31 BC.
Pompey entered the Holy of Holies; this was only the second time that someone had dared to penetrate into this sacred spot. He went to the Temple to satisfy his curiosity about stories he had heard about the worship of the Jewish people. He made it a priority to find out whether or not the Jews had no physical statue or image of God in their most sacred place of worship. To Pompey, it was inconceivable to worship a God without portraying him in a type of physical likeness, like a statue. What Pompey saw was unlike anything he had seen on his travels. He found no physical statue, religious image, or pictorial description of the Hebrew God. Instead, he saw the Torah scrolls, and was thoroughly confused.
It was during the war in Judea that Pompey heard of the death of Mithridates.
With Tigranes as a friend and ally of Rome, the chain of Roman protectorates now extended as far east as the Black Sea and the Caucasus. The amount of tribute and bounty Pompey brought back to Rome was almost incalculable: Plutarch lists 20,000 talents in gold and silver added to the treasury, and the increase in taxes to the public treasury rose from 50 million to 85 million drachmas annually. His administrative brilliance was such that his dispositions endured largely unchanged until the fall of Rome.
Pompey conducted the campaigns of 65 to 62 BC and Rome annexed much of Asia firmly under its control. He imposed an overall settlement on the kings of the new eastern provinces, which took intelligent account of the geographical and political factors involved in creating Rome's new frontier on the East.
His third Triumph took place on the 29 September61 BC, on Pompey's 45th birthday, celebrating the victories over the pirates and in the Middle East, and was to be an unforgettable event in Rome. Two entire days were scheduled for the enormous parade of spoils, prisoners, army and banners depicting battle scenes to complete the route between Campus Martius and the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. To conclude the festivities, Pompey offered an immense triumphal banquet and made several donations to the people of Rome, enhancing his popularity even further.
Although now at his zenith, by this time Pompey had been largely absent from Rome for over 5 years and a new star had arisen. Pompey had been busy in Asia during the consternation of the Catiline Conspiracy, when Caesar pitted his will against that of the Consul Cicero and the rest of the Optimates. His old colleague and enemy, Crassus, had loaned Caesar money. Cicero was in eclipse, now hounded by the ill-will of Publius Clodius and his factional gangs. New combinations had been made and the conquering hero had been out of touch.
Back in Rome, Pompey deftly dismissed his armies, disarming worries that he intended to spring from his conquests into domination of Rome as Dictator. Pompey sought new allies and pulled strings behind the political scenes. The Optimates had fought back to control much of the real workings of the Senate; in spite of his efforts, Pompey found their inner councils were closed to him. His settlements in the East were not promptly confirmed. The public lands he had promised his veterans were not forthcoming. From now on, Pompey's political maneuverings suggest that, although he toed a cautious line to avoid offending the conservatives, he was increasingly puzzled by Optimate reluctance to acknowledge his solid achievements. Pompey's frustration led him into strange political alliances.
Although Pompey and Crassus distrusted each other, by 61 BC their grievances pushed them both into an alliance with Caesar. Crassus' tax farming clients were being rebuffed at the same time Pompey's veterans were being ignored. Thus entered Caesar, 6 years younger than Pompey, returning from service in Hispania, and ready to seek the consulship for 59 BC. Caesar somehow managed to forge a political alliance with both Pompey and Crassus (the so-called First Triumvirate). Pompey and Crassus would make him Consul, and he would use his power as Consul to force their claims. Plutarch quotes Cato the Younger as later saying that the tragedy of Pompey was not that he was Caesar's defeated enemy, but that he had been, for too long, Caesar's friend and supporter.
Caesar's tempestuous consulship in 59 brought Pompey not only the land and political settlements he craved, but a new wife: Caesar's own young daughter, Julia. Pompey was supposedly besotted with his bride. After Caesar secured his proconsular command in Gaul at the end of his consular year, Pompey was given the governorship of Hispania Ulterior, yet was permitted to remain in Rome overseeing the critical Roman grain supply as curator annonae, exercising his command through subordinates. Pompey efficiently handled the grain issue, but his success at political intrigue was less sure.
The Optimates had never forgiven him for abandoning Cicero when Publius Clodius forced his exile. Only when Clodius began attacking Pompey was he persuaded to work with others towards Cicero's recall in 57 BC. Once Cicero was back, his usual vocal magic helped soothe Pompey's position somewhat, but many still viewed Pompey as a traitor for his alliance with Caesar. Other agitators tried to persuade Pompey that Crassus was plotting to have him assassinated. Rumor (quoted by Plutarch) also suggested that the aging conqueror was losing interest in politics in favor of domestic life with his young wife. He was occupied by the details of construction of the mammoth complex later known as Pompey's Theater on the Campus Martius; not only the first permanent theater ever built in Rome, but an eye-popping complex of lavish porticoes, shops, and multi-service buildings.
Caesar, meanwhile, was gaining a greater name as a general of genius in his own right. By 56 BC, the bonds between the three men were fraying. Caesar called first Crassus, then Pompey, to a secret meeting in the northern Italian town of Lucca to rethink both strategy and tactics. By this time, Caesar was no longer the amenable silent partner of the trio. At Lucca it was agreed that Pompey and Crassus would again stand for the consulship in 55 BC. At their election, Caesar's command in Gaul would be extended for an additional five years, while Crassus would receive the governorship of Syria, (from which he longed to conquer Parthia and extend his own achievements). Pompey would continue to govern Hispania in absentia after their consular year. This time, however, opposition to the three men was electric, and it took bribery and corruption on an unprecedented scale to secure the election of Pompey and Crassus in 55 BC. Their supporters received most of the important remaining offices. The violence between Clodius and other factions were building and civil unrest was becoming endemic.
The triumvirate was about to end, its bonds snapped by death: first, Pompey's wife (and at that time Caesar's only child), Julia, died in 54 BC in childbirth; later that year, Crassus and his army were annihilated by the Parthian armies at the Battle of Carrhae. Caesar's name, not Pompey's, was now firmly before the public as Rome's great new general. The public turmoil in Rome resulted in whispers as early as 54 that Pompey should be made dictator to force a return to law and order. After Julia's death, Caesar sought a second matrimonial alliance with Pompey, offering a marital alliance with his grandniece Octavia (future emperor Augustus's sister). This time, Pompey refused. In 52 BC, he married Cornelia Metella, daughter of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Scipio, one of Caesar’s greatest enemies, and continued to drift toward the Optimates. It can be presumed that the Optimates had deemed Pompey the lesser of two evils.
In that year, the murder of Publius Clodius and the burning of the Curia (the Senate House) by an inflamed mob led the Senate to beg Pompey to restore order, which he did with ruthless efficiency. The trial of the accused murderer, Titus Annius Milo, is notable in that Cicero, counsel for the defense, was so shaken by a Forum seething with armed soldiers that he was unable to complete his defense. After order was restored, the suspicious Senate and Cato, seeking desperately to avoid giving Pompey dictatorial powers, came up with the alternative of entitling him sole Consul without a colleague; thus his powers, although sweeping, were not unlimited.
While Caesar was fighting against Vercingetorix in Gaul, Pompey proceeded with a legislative agenda for Rome, which revealed that he was now covertly allied with Caesar's enemies. While instituting legal and military reorganization and reform, Pompey also passed a law making it possible to be retroactively prosecuted for electoral bribery—an action correctly interpreted by Caesar's allies as opening Caesar to prosecution once his imperium was ended. Pompey also prohibited Caesar from standing for the consulship in absentia, although this had frequently been allowed in the past, and in fact had been specifically permitted in a previous law. This was an obvious blow at Caesar's plans after his term in Gaul expired. Finally, in 51 BC, Pompey made it clear that Caesar would not be permitted to stand for Consul unless he turned over control of his armies. This would, of course, leave Caesar defenseless before his enemies. As Cicero sadly noted, Pompey had begun to fear Caesar. Pompey had been diminished by age, uncertainty, and the harassment of being the chosen tool of a quarreling Optimate oligarchy. The coming conflict was inevitable.[4]
In the beginning, Pompey claimed he could defeat Caesar and raise armies merely by stamping his foot on the soil of Italy, but by the spring of 49 BC, with Caesar crossing the Rubicon and his invading legions sweeping down the peninsula, Pompey ordered the abandonment of Rome. His legions retreated south towards Brundisium, where Pompey intended to find renewed strength by waging war against Caesar in the East. In the process, almost unbelievably, probably thinking that Caesar would not dare, neither Pompey nor the Senate thought of taking the vast treasury with them, which was left conveniently in the Temple of Saturn when Caesar and his forces entered Rome.
Escaping Caesar by a hair in Brundisium, Pompey regained his confidence during the siege of Dyrrhachium, in which Caesar lost 1000 men. Yet, by failing to pursue at the critical moment of Caesar's defeat, Pompey threw away the chance to destroy Caesar's much smaller army. As Caesar himself said, "Today the enemy would have won, if they had had a commander who was a winner" (Plutarch, 65). According to Suetonius, it was at this point that Caesar said that "that man (Pompey) does not know how to win a war." With Caesar on their backs, the conservatives led by Pompey fled to Greece. Caesar and Pompey had their final showdown at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC. The fighting was bitter for both sides but eventually was a decisive victory for Caesar. Like all the other conservatives, Pompey had to run for his life. He met his wife Cornelia and his son Sextus Pompeius on the island of Mytilene. He then wondered where to go next. The decision of running to one of the eastern kingdoms was overruled in favor of Egypt.
After his arrival in Egypt, Pompey's fate was decided by the counselors of the young king Ptolemy XIII. While Pompey waited offshore for word, they argued the cost of offering him refuge with Caesar already en route for Egypt. It was decided to murder Caesar's enemy to ingratiate themselves with him. On September 29, his 58th birthday, the great Pompey was lured toward a supposed audience on shore in a small boat in which he recognized two old comrades-in-arms, Achillas and Lucius Septimius. They were to be his assassins. While he sat in the boat, studying his speech for the king, they stabbed him in the back with sword and dagger. After decapitation, the body was left, contemptuously unattended and naked, on the shore. His freedman, Philipus, organized a simple funeral pyre and cremated the body on a pyre of broken ship's timbers.
Caesar arrived a short time afterwards. As a welcoming present he received Pompey's head and ring in a basket. However, he was not pleased in seeing his rival, once his ally and son-in-law, murdered by traitors. When a slave offered him Pompey's head, "he turned away from him with loathing, as from an assassin; and when he received Pompey's signet ring on which was engraved a lion holding a sword in his paws, he burst into tears" (Plutarch, Life of Pompey 80). He deposed Ptolemy XIII, executed his regent Pothinus, and elevated Ptolemy's sister Cleopatra VII to the throne of Egypt. Caesar gave Pompey's ashes and ring to Cornelia, who took them back to her estates in Italy.
To the historians of his own and later Roman periods, the life of Pompey was simply too good to be true. No more satisfying historical model existed than the great man who, achieving extraordinary triumphs through his own efforts, yet fell from power and influence and, in the end, was murdered through treachery.
He was a hero of the Republic, who seemed once to hold the Roman world in his palm only to be brought low by his own weak judgment and Caesar. Pompey was idealized as a tragic hero almost immediately after Pharsalus and his murder: Plutarch portrayed him as a Roman Alexander the Great, pure of heart and mind, destroyed by the cynical ambitions of those around him.[citation needed]
The historical character of Pompey plays a prominent role in several books from the Masters of Rome series of historical novels by Australian author Colleen McCullough.
Pompey's rivalry with Julius Caesar supports the plot in George Bernard Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra (play).
Pompey's entry into Jerusalem and the desecration of the Temple is depicted in the opening scene of Nicholas Ray's biblical epic King of Kings. Pompey is played by Conrado San Martín.
Pompey is one of the key antagonists in the fourth season of Xena: Warrior Princess, portrayed by Australian actor Jeremy Callaghan. In the series, Pompey is beheaded by Xena in battle who then gives the head to Brutus to return to Julius Caesar, telling Brutus to claim Pompey's death for himself without mentioning her role.
A fictionalized Gnaeus Pompey Magnus also plays a key role in the first season of the HBO/BBC television series Rome, where he is played by Kenneth Cranham.
An opera seria composed during the baroque era, Handel's Giulio Cesare, is based on Cesare's reaction to Pompey's assassination (since the opera begins after the murder has occurred, Pompey never actually appears as a character--only his severed head when presented to the horrified Cesare). Typically, works composed in the genre of opera seria were intended to present lessons of morality while depicting aristocracy in a flattering light. In the case of Handel's Giulio Cesare, the Roman emperor prevails in the administration of justice against the evil Tolomeo (Ptolemy).
Preceded by Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura and Gnaeus Aufidius Orestes |
Consul of the Roman Republic with Marcus Licinius Crassus 70 BC |
Succeeded by Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus and Quintus Hortensius |
Preceded by Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus and Lucius Marcius Philippus |
Consul of the Roman Republic with Marcus Licinius Crassus 55 BC |
Succeeded by Appius Claudius Pulcher and Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus |
Preceded by Marcus Valerius Messalla Rufus and Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus |
Consul of the Roman Republic with Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio 52 BC |
Succeeded by Marcus Claudius Marcellus and Servius Sulpicius Rufus |
[hide]
|
|
---|---|
The Works | Parallel Lives · The Moralia · Pseudo-Plutarch |
The Lives |
Alcibiades and Coriolanus1 · Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar · Aratus of Sicyon & Artaxerxes and Galba & Otho2 · Aristides and Cato the Elder1 · Crassus and Nicias1 · Demetrius and Antony1 · Demosthenes and Cicero1 · Dion and Brutus1 · Fabius and Pericles1 · Lucullus and Cimon1 · Lysander and Sulla1 · Numa and Lycurgus1 · Pelopidas and Marcellus1 · Philopoemen and Flamininus1 · Phocion and Cato the Younger · Pompey and Agesilaus1 · Poplicola and Solon1 · Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius · Romulus and Theseus1 · Sertorius and Eumenes1 · Tiberius Gracchus & Gaius Gracchus and Agis & Cleomenes1 · Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus1 · Themistocles and Camillus |
The Translators | John Dryden · Thomas North · Jacques Amyot · Philemon Holland · Arthur Hugh Clough |
1 Comparison extant · 2 Four unpaired Lives |
Persondata | |
---|---|
NAME | Pompey |
ALTERNATIVE NAMES | Pompeius Magnus, Gnaeus; CN·POMPEIVS·CN·F·SEX·N·MAGNVS |
SHORT DESCRIPTION | Roman general |
DATE OF BIRTH | September 29, 106 BC |
PLACE OF BIRTH | Rome |
DATE OF DEATH | September 28, 48 BC |
PLACE OF DEATH | Egypt |
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2008 | 106 BC births | 48 BC deaths | Ancient Roman senators | Ancient Roman generals | Assassinated Roman politicians | Correspondents of Cicero | Polytheists | Pompeii (gens) | People from Marche | Roman Republican consuls | Piracy | Roman governors of Hispania