Published in 2011 but originating in a conference held in Münster in 2005, this volume illustrates the ever increasing interest in religious violence in Late Antiquity. It focuses on a classic subject, the destruction of temples, which, as the introduction argues, symbolizes the violent side of the transition from a pagan to a Christian world in Late Antiquity. One can take issue with this starting point (see L. Lavan's introduction to L. Lavan and M. Mulryan (eds), The Archaeology of Late Antique Paganism (2011)), but the volume approaches the topic from an original angle: how did the Roman state respond to the destruction of temples, and more broadly, to religious violence? For such a research question much hinges on what one understands by ‘state’. In particular, Anglo-Saxon scholars such as J. Harries, C. Kelly, F. Millar, and J. Matthews have underlined the complexity of the functioning of the later Roman state. Even if emperors did have some general ideas and intentions, government often happened through response to specific situations. Moreover, the ‘state’ was composed of different, often competing, actors such as the emperor(s), palatine officials, governors, and generals — to name but a few.

This complexity is well brought out by E. Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer and J. Hahn. Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer offers what may well become the definitive treatment of the rôle of the governor in religious conflicts. Because of their precarious position within the state structure (often embattled in their province but envious to rise in the ranks), they were generally hesitant to execute imperial laws that might cause unrest. Hahn cautions against using the Theodosian Code as evidence for imperial policy, as it creates an idealized, post-factum image of imperial actions. At the same time, laws were needed as bishops who wanted to proceed against temples needed legal justification. Not everyone in the volume, however, takes this methodological perspective on board. G. Bonamente's useful catalogue of fourth-century policy on the confiscation of temple land by the state seems predicated on a reading of the Codex Hahn counsels against. In line with much recent scholarship, violence is especially attributed to the actions of Christian bishops, thus generating the image of a passive state that responds to new social groups. This is most strongly put by U. Gotter, who draws a contrast between the ‘imperial tradition’ that rejected violence as a solution for conflict and the later Empire that condoned acts of violence from Christians. He then relates this contrast to the opposition between an inclusive paganism and an exclusive Christianity. The contrast seems overdrawn (see, e.g., the events in Alexandria under Claudius and Caligula) and neglects the fact that the ancient Church also principally rejected violence outside the context of warfare (illustrated by Libanius’ jibe that Christians should not become governors because they do not want to execute anybody (Or. 30.20)). It may simply be the consequence of the scope of the volume that the complexity on the side of the Church is underestimated: violence against the ‘other’ is not as natural as it may seem. Moreover, the essay of Bonamente provides evidence that emperors and high officials could condone acts of violence and even initiate them, thus suggesting that their attitude was not always so passive. An argument in this direction was provided by N. McLynn, ‘Christian controversy and violence in the fourth century’, Kodai: Journal of Ancient History 3 (1992), 15–44 (= item II in Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity (2009)), which is not referred to by any author in this volume.

Another strand in the volume is the counsel against generalizations of the evidence, be it Eusebius (M. Wallraff), Libanius (H.-U. Wiemer), or archaeology (B. Ward-Perkins). In particular Ward-Perkins warns against the use of archaeological evidence as proof for violent destruction: it is hard to tell human from natural violence in an excavation. F. Trombley contributes a useful survey of survivals of the imperial cult until the end of the fourth century. All in all, then, the volume will provide an important starting point for future research on religious violence in Late Antiquity. If anything, it complicates our access to the sources and demonstrates that we cannot approach the subject without raising our awareness of the categories with which we analyse the events.