We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The persecution instituted by the emperor Valerian (AD. 253–260) long has presented modern scholars with several important problems. One of the most pressing questions concerns the reasons behind Valerian's sudden shift in religious policy in 257. Prior to that time the church was largely undisturbed, but the years 257–258 witnessed a series of increasingly severe imperial edicts directed against Christianity. What prompted this sudden reversal of imperial religious policy in 257? Moreover, given the change in the official position, what was the nature of this revised religious policy? The overall picture that emerges out of an attempt to answer these questions indicates that the primary motives behind this persecution were, in fact, religious. Further, the government's religious outlook also encompassed certain related social aims. In order to deal with these issues effectively, however, one first must compare Valerian's religious policy to those of his predecessors from 249 to 253.
1. Salisbury, F. S. and Mattingly, H., “The Reign of Trajan Decius,” Journal of Roman Studies 14 (1924): 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. The literature on the Decian persecution is vast; among the most important recent studies are Clarke, G. W., “Double-Trials in the Persecution of Decius,” Historia 22 (1973): 650–663;Google Scholaridem, “Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius,” Antichthon 3 (1969): 63–77; Keresztes, Paul, “The Decian libelli and Contemporary Literature,” Latomus 34 (1975): 761–781;Google ScholarMolthagen, Joachim, Der römische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1970), pp. 61–84;Google ScholarSage, Michael, Cyprian (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 165–266;Google Scholar and Sordi, Marta, “La data dell'editto di Decio e il significato della persecuzione anticristiana,” Rivista della Chiesan Itatia 34 (1980): 451–461.Google Scholar
3. Zosimus 1. 27. 1–2; Zonaras 12.21. 3–16.
4. The plague carried off Decius's youngest son, Hostilian, in Rome (Victor, Aurelius, Liber de Caesaribus 30.2;Google Scholar Epztome de Caesarzbus 30.2). For the effects of the plague in the provinces, see Cyprian, , de Mortalitate 4, 14, 16;Google Scholar Zosimus 26. 2.
5. Gallus seems to have continued minting the series of coins dedicated to previously consecrated emperors which was begun by Decius. See Alföldi, M. R., “The Consecration Coins of the Third Century,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (1955): 57–70;Google ScholarMattingly, Harold, “The Coins of the ‘Divi’ Issued by Trajan Decius,” Numismatic Chronicle (1954): 53–61.Google Scholar
6. Cyprian, , Epistula 60.1, 61.1.Google Scholar The numbering of Cyprian's letters followed here is that found in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiaslicorum Latinorum, vol. 3, Pt. 2.
7. Eusebius, , Historia Ecclesiastica (trans. Oulton, J. E. L.)Google Scholar 7.1.1 (hereafter cited as HE).
8. Zosimus 1.28. 1–29.1; Eutropius, , Breviarium 9.6.Google Scholar See also Mattingly, H., “The Reign of Aemilian: A Chronological Note,” Journal of Roman Studies 25 (1935): 55–58;CrossRefGoogle Scholar“The Reigns of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian and of Aemilian,” Numismatic Chronicle (1946): 36–46.Google Scholar
9. Zosimus 1.29.2.
10. Cyprian, , Epistula 64.1, 70.1;Google Scholar letter of Dionysius quoted in HE 7.5.1; HE 7.9.2. For recent discussions of Philip's religious policy, see Crouzel, Henri, “Le christianisme de l'empereur Philippe l'Arab,” Gregorianum 56 (1975): 545–550Google ScholarElia, F., “Ancora sul cristianesimo di Filippo l'Arabo,” Quaderni Catanesi di Studi classici e medievali 1 (1979): 267–283;Google ScholarPohlsander, Hans A., “Philip the Arab and Christianity,” Historia 29 (1980): 463–473.Google Scholar
11. HE 7.10. 2–6.
12. Acta Proconsularia Sancti Cypriani 1. 1.
13. Certain laymen were condemned to the mines along with bishops, priests, and deacons (Cyprian, , Epistulae 76–79Google Scholar).
14. Acta Proconsularia 1. 4; HE 7. 11. 10.
15. Acta Proconsularia 1. 7; HE 7. 11. 4.
16. Cyprian, , Epistula 80. 1.Google Scholar See also Clarke, G. W., “Prosopographical Notes on the Epistles of Cyprian III: Rome in August, 258,” Latomus 34 (1975): 437–448;Google ScholarKeresztes, Paul, “Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian,” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975): 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Cyprian, , Epistula 80.1;Google ScholarAugustine, , Sermo 273.7;Google ScholarActa Proconsularia 2–5.
18. Alföldi, Andreas, “The Invasions of Peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea,” The Cambridge Ancient History, 12 vols. (Cambridge, 1939), 12:146–151.Google Scholar
19. Zosimus 1.37. 1–3.
20. Cyprian, , Epistula 62.Google Scholar See also Clarke, G. W., ‘Barbarian Disturbances in North Africa in the Third Century,” Antichthon 4(1971): 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Zosimus 1.29.2; Dexippus, , Scythia, fragments 28–29.Google Scholar
22. Zosimus 1.31.1–35.2. For the effects of these raids on the populace, see the Canonical Epistle written about 258 by Gregory Thaumaturgus.
23. Hopkins, Clark, The Discovery of Dura-Europos, ed. Barnard, Goldman (New Haven, 1979), pp. 71, 242–247.Google Scholar
24. Webb, Percy H., ed. The Roman Imperial Coinage, 9 vols. (London, 1927), vol. 5Google Scholar, pt. 1, Gallienus, no. 453 (hereafter cited as RIG).
25. Zosimus 1.37.3.
26. For the financial crisis of 256–258, see RIG, vol. 5, pt. 1, pp. 7–8;Google ScholarOertel, F.Google Scholar, “The Economic Life of the Empire,” Cambridge Ancient History, 12:259–270; Webb, Percy H., “Third Century Mints and Marks,” Numismatic Chronicle (1921): 228;Google ScholarButtrey, Theodore V. Jr, “A Hoard of Sestertii from Bordeaux and the Problem of Bronze Circulation in the Third Century AD.,” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 18 (1972): 33–58;Google ScholarCrawford, Michael, “Finance, Coinage, and Money from the Severans to Constantine,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Principat, ed. Hildegard, Temporini and Wolfgang, Haase (Berlin, 1975), 2:560–593.Google Scholar
27. Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), p. 315.Google Scholar
28. This interpretation is most succinctly set forth in Alföldi, Andreas, “The Crisis of the Empire,” Cambridge Ancient History, 12:171, 204–205Google Scholar, which is a summary of points elaborated more fully in Alföldi, , “Zu den Christenverfolgungen in der Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts,” Klio 31 (1938): 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Alföldi's view is followed, in the main, by Parker, H. M. D., A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138–337 (New York, 1939), p. 170;Google Scholar and by Sage, , Cyprian, p. 338.Google Scholar
29. Blois, Lukas de, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden, 1976), pp. 184–185.Google Scholar
30. Cyprian, , Epistula 80.1.Google Scholar
31. One of the earliest and most outspoken proponents of this economic interpretation was George Oborn, T., “Why Did Decius and Valerian Proscribe Christianity?” Church History 2 (1933): 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar While describing the Decian persecution, Oborn goes so far as to say, “The primary and fundamental cause of the imperial action taken by Decius was economic. It does not matter in the least whether he was fully conscious of the fact or not” (p. 68). Other scholars are more circumspect in their support for the economic interpretation: Frend, , Martyrdom and Persecution, p. 316;Google Scholar Joseph Vogt, Reallexikon für Antike und Christenturn, s.v. “Christenverfolgungen”; Oost, Steward I., “The Alexandrian Seditions under Philip and Gallienus,” Classical Philology 61 (1961): 7;Google ScholarKeresztes, , “Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian,” pp. 91–94.Google Scholar
32. One exception is HE 7.11.18, but see also Clarke, , “Prosopographical Notes III,” p. 444.Google Scholar
33. Clarke, , “Prosopographical Notes III,” p. 444.Google Scholar After the pogrom of Domitian, Nerva restored the property of those who had been exiled (Cassius Dio 68.2.1; HE 3.20.8).
34. Cyprian, , Epistula 80.1Google Scholar, quotes Valerian's edict as especially calling for the punishment of senatores vero et egregii viri et equites Romani as well as matronae.
35. This is the view of Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire, 284–602, 2 vols. (Norman, OkIa., 1964) 1:33–34;Google ScholarMillar, Fergus, “The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions,” in Willem den, Boer, ed., Le Culte des souverains dans l'Empire Romaine (Geneva, 1972), p. 164;Google Scholarde Ste. Croix, G. E. M., “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?” Past and Present 26 (1963): 24–28;Google Scholar and Molthagen, , Der römische Staat und die Christen, pp. 87–89.Google Scholar For the concept of the pax deorum, see Fowler, W. Warde, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (1911; reprint ed., New York, 1971), pp. 169–174.Google Scholar
36. See Alföldi, , “The Crisis of the Empire,” p. 204.Google Scholar
37. Supplicationes were offered after the terrible defeat at Lake Trasimene in 217 B.C (Livy 22. 10.8).
38. Cassius Dio 52.36.2–3. One might object to this interpretation on the grounds that Valerian did not order supplicationes in 253, after a period of similar invasions and civil wars. However, these upheavals were the means by which he acquired the throne and instead demonstrated (to Valerian at least) the providentia deorum. In 257, on the other hand, his own administration was threatened.
39. The contemporary sources include Cyprian, , Epistulae 76–81;Google Scholar the letters of Dionysius quoted in HE 7.10–12; the Acta Proconsularia Sancti Cypriani; the Passio Fructuosi Episcopt, Auguri, et Eulogi; and the Oracula Sibyllina 13.155–161. Fourth-century histories may also be consulted, but with caution. For the coinage of the years 253–260, see RIC, vol. 5, pt. 1, pp. 27–128. This includes the coinage of Gallienus up to 260, since father and son often shared reverse types and legends.
40. Valerian's view of his role as the restorer of past glories is also reflected in the coin legends RESTITVTOR ORBIS and RESTIVT[OR] GENER[IS] HVMANI (RIC, Valerian 45, 117–118, 149, 171–172, 220).
41. RIC, Valerian 7–8, 20, 22, 39–40, 72, 73, 76, 83–85, 94, Gallienus 298, Salonina 4,9, 13,37, 68.
42. Θεούς τούς σωξοντας αύτωῶν τήν ßασιλείαν (HE 7.11.7).
43. Passio Fructuosi 2.6.
44. The god Vulcan appears as a coin type in 258 for the first time in nearly two hundred years (RIC, Valerian 1, 5).
45. Acta Proconsularia 1.2, 4.1; HE 7.11.7–9; Passio Fructuosi 2.3–6; Pontius, , Vita Cypriani 17;Google Scholar see also Millar, , “The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions,” pp. 150–163.Google Scholar
46. Zosimus 1.14.1; Historia Augusta: Gordiani: Tres 9.7; Prosopographia Imperii Romani, pt. 5, fasc. 1, no. 258; see also Syme, Ronald, Emperors and Biography (Oxford, 1971), pp. 163–165.Google Scholar
47. Historia Augusta: Valerian: Duo 5.1–7; Zonaras 12.20.4–5.
48. Zonaras 12.20.6 goes so far as to say that “they urged one another on to persecution” (αύτικα άλλέους εις Θεομαχιαν παρακροτήσαντες).
49. In the same breath, however, they also make reference to his “ill-fortune” (Historia Augusta:Aurelianus 42.4; Eutropius, Breviarium 9.7; Zosimus 1.29.2).
50. RIC, Valerian 284–285.
51. Charlesworth, M. P., “The Virtues of a Roman Emperor,” Proceedings of the British Academy 23 (1937): 113;Google Scholar see also Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, “The Emperor and His Virtues” Historia 30 (1981): 298–323;Google ScholarFears, J. Rufus, “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Principat, ed. Hildegard, Temporini and Wolfgang, Haase (Berlin, 1981), vol. 17, Pt. 2, pp. 828–948.Google Scholar
52. Sometimes it was RELERIGIO (RIC Valerian 114, Salonianus 29).
53. Acta Proconsularia (trans. Mursurillo, Herbert)3.4, 4.1;Google ScholarPassio Fructuosi 2.3; HE 7.11.7–9. In the latter account, the prefect Aemilianus argues with Dionysius that he is not required to give up the worship of the Christian god, but only that he perform sacrifice to the “natural gods.”
54. Several third-century authors make reference to contemporary instances of προσκυνησις (Cassius Dio 58.11.2; Herodian 3.11.18; Είς Βαςιλέα 19).
55. “Aemilianus said … ‘They gave you the opportunity of safety if ye were willing to turn to that which is according to nature and worship [προσκυνεîν] the gods which preserve their empire…’ Dionysius replied: ‘Not all men worship [προςκυνουσι] all gods, but each one certain whom he regards as such.…’ Aemilianus: ‘And who prevents you from worshipping [προσκυνεīν] this god also, if he be a god, along with the natural gods. For ye were bidden to worship [σέßειν] gods, and gods who all know.’ Dionysius replied ‘We worship (προσκυνουμεν) no other god.’” HE 7.11.7–9; compare Passio Fructuosi 2.6.
56. de Blois, p. 117; Jones, , Later Roman Empire, p. 34;Google Scholar compare Origen, , Contra Celsum 3.9.Google Scholar
57. Cyprian, , Epistula 80.1;Google ScholarLiber Pontificalis 30; Clarke, , “Prosopographical Notes III,” pp. 439–443.Google Scholar
58. Zosimus 1.36.1–2; Lactantius, , de Mortibus Persecutorum 5;Google Scholar see also Ensslin, W., “The Persian Wars with Rome,” Cambridge Ancient History, 12:135.Google Scholar
59. HE 7.13.1. For Gallienus's motives in extending a de facto toleration, see de Blois, pp. 58, 180–185; and Coleman-Norton, P.R., Roman State and Christian Church, 3 vols. (London, 1966), 1:13–16.Google Scholar
