Libanius' Characterization of Christian Monks in His Oration "For the Temples"

In his oration to the Roman Emperor Theodosius I, the pagan Libanius characterizes Christians as an unruly mob. His primary concern, as the title suggests, is the desecration and destruction of pagan temples by Christians. In contrast to the humble and ascetic monks described in monastic literature, Libanius describes the monks as a "black-robed tribe, who eat more than elephants and, by the quantities of drink they consume, weary those that accompany their drinking with singing of hymns" (Libanius 109).

Theodosius I was a Christian Emperor who succeeded the last pagan Emperor of the Roman Empire, Emperor Julian. Although Constantine was the first Christian Emperor, it was not until Theodosius' heir, Theodosius the Second, became Emperor that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Libanius (314-394 A.D.) was a renowned pagan scholar and much to his chagrin some of his students, such as John Chrysostom, became important Christian bishops.

In this oration, he pleads to Theodosius to protect pagan temples, which he claims are being desecrated by Christians.

Whereas in monastic literature the monks are portrayed as being free from the desire of worldly goods, according to Libanius they irreverently and greedily loot temples. As he describes, "estate after estate, shrine after shrine has been wiped out by their insolence, violence, greed, and deliberate lack of self-control" (Libanius 121).

Libanius hopes to convince Emperor Theodosius to suppress the destruction of temples by punishing Christians who do so. Although the Christians may claim that they destroyed the temples because criminal sacrifices were being made there, as Libanius points out, "it was their job to show that the accused deserved to be punished, but it was the magistrates' job to impose the penalty" (Libanius 123). In taking the law into their own hands, the Christians themselves became criminals.

Not only does Libanius argue that the destruction of shrines and temples is a criminal act, but he also argues that the Emperor should be compelled to halt these crimes because it is destroying imperial property. As imperial property, the Emperor should protect these structures as he would protect any other imperial structure in a city.