sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aemilianus, Commodus, Decius, Domitian, Galerius, Gallienus

1

Acknowledgements

This Thesis is by far the longest and most dense paper I have ever written, and I would not have been able to complete it without the support, enthusiasm, and inspiration of many individuals. I want to first thank my high school and history teacher, Mr. David Jackson, for instilling in me a love of . Without his influence, I would have never majored in history and at this awesome University, and would have never had the chance to write this paper. I would also like to extend my thanks to my friends and family, especially my older brother McCabe. His enthusiasm for the ancient world matches my own, and his interest in my research has kept me engaged. In addition, I must give praise to my fellow honors students. I had the pleasure of seeing several of your presentations, and I was blown away by how thorough and interesting your research was. You guys make history interesting for those who might find it boring. I want to think Mr. Jonathan Scholl and Dr. Andrea Sterk for keeping us all afloat the last eight months. The constant emails, reminders, advice, and assistance were crucial in helping us to stay organized and alert. And finally, I want to thank Dr. Andrea Sterk again as my thesis advisor. She has been so patient and supportive from day one, and her suggestions and attention to detail helped me to continuously improve this work each time I sent her a new chapter or draft. I fear what this paper might look like without her mentorship.

- Connor Harrison, April 23rd, 2014

2

Table of Contents

Introduction: How would Flourish in the ’s Darkest Time 3

Chapter I: Analysis of a Conflicted and the Decentralized 8 Model of Religion in the Pre-Barracks Age

Chapter II: , The First Christian Emperor? 15

Chapter III: , Christian Villain or Pagan Champion? 23

Chapter VI: , The True Villain and , The True Ally 35

Conclusion: How Structural Unification Set the Stage for Christian Prosperity 46

Bibliography 49

3

Introduction: How Christianity would Flourish in the Rome’s Darkest Time

The Church as the vehicle of salvation must exhibit unity as well as purity, as a mark of its true and enduring transcendental character, uncontaminated by the world’s that is a sign of its metaphysical disorder awaiting renewal.1 – Allen Brent

The and its rise to prominence over the course of the Roman

Empire is to this day shrouded in mystery. There are many different historical perspectives on how and why Christianity was able to take a foothold in the and finally be championed by Constantine, Theodosius, and other late rulers. While Christianity did not become publically accepted by the centralized government until those rulers in the fourth century

A.D., it nonetheless had been spreading throughout the Mediterranean world since the crucifixion of Christ circa 33 A.D. during the reign of Rome’s second emperor, .

From that point, there were many significant figures, emperors among them, who influenced the development of Christianity. This paper will focus on four emperors of the barracks period of the mid-third century—Marcus Junius Philippus (Philip the Arab), Decius,

Valerianus (Valerian) and Licinius Gallienus--and explore how their policies and attitudes towards Christianity shaped the church during this period.

The barracks period, from 235 A.D. to 284 A.D., was a tumultuous period in the history of Imperial Rome, a period during which much territory was lost. It saw the quick succession of military rulers with several coups and uprisings by both Romans and non-Romans occurring in many different parts of the empire. Due to lack of sources and considerable ambiguity with regard to territory and succession, this period is quite complicated for to navigate compared to the Augustan age, the era of the five-good emperors, or the and later

1 Allen, Brent, A Political History of Early Christianity (London: T & T Clark, 2009), 263. 4 emperors. However, these four rulers, while mysterious and perhaps less significant in the overall scope of Roman imperial history, were crucially significant when examined through the of Christianity. Each had his own unique perspective on the religion, and their consequent actions would indirectly cause Christianity to prosper in this time.

My overall argument in this thesis is that the imperial polices of each of these emperors enabled Christianity to spread and to become structurally unified during this period. These emperors’ policies were heavily influenced by two different factors. First, a decentralized, unregulated religious situation throughout the empire prevailed at the beginning of this period2; hundreds of religions, including Christianity, were free to exist throughout the empire without much fear of . Second, this was a period of economic and militaristic upheaval. These emperors implemented or policies of toleration because they believed that action or inaction towards the could pacify the empire along the borders and secure a more stable reign for themselves. Thus, while this was the darkest period for the Roman Empire before its eventual fall with regard to land, wealth, and political stability, this upheaval would end up being a blessing in disguise for the Christians. I will attempt to provide evidence for this claim by examining the four emperors’ reigns in turn, followed by a conclusion.

In the first chapter, I will discuss the various sources that form the basis of my analysis and offer an analysis of the historiography itself. This is especially important because the sources for this particular period of Roman history are scant, incomplete, biased, and in some cases contradictory; additionally, most were written significantly later than the events they describe.

While these factors pose obvious obstacles for the , the conflicting nature of these

2 J.B. Rives, Religion and Authority in Roman from and Constantine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 113.

5 sources actually provides for some interesting analysis allowing scholars to view these emperors from multiple perspectives. In the second part of the first section, I will explain in more detail the de-centralized environment of religion that existed in the empire before the barracks period. In order to fully understand the policies of the four emperors and their effects on Christianity, it is important to understand the kind of religious model that had permeated the empire up until their time.

The second chapter will focus on Philip the Arab. Philip, who ruled from 244- to 249

A.D., was known to be tolerant of the Christians, but some historians suggest he was himself actually a full Christian. for this belief is of , who claimed that at one point during his rule, Philip attended Easter Mass and repented of his sins.3 However, during

Rome’s 1000th anniversary celebration, which occurred in 247 A.D., Philip was said to have held lavish pagan games.4 I will analyze Philip’s motivations for being either a Christian, or a dual

Christian and pagan, how his unique beliefs reflect a continuation of the decentralized religious model, and how those beliefs may have provoked the hostility of his successor, Emperor Decius, towards Christianity.

The third chapter will focus on the reign of Decius. Decius, who ruled from 249 to 251

A.D., is known as the first emperor to conduct systematic, empire-wide persecutions of the

Christians. He achieved this through his forcing all Roman citizens to carry around libelli, or documents which pledged that they would to the pagan Gods.5 I will analyze Decius’ motivations for his edicts. Here the decentralized religious environment is especially important

3 Eusebius, and Paul L. Maier, Eusebius--The Church History: A New Translation with Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 231. 4 , James. J, Buchanan, and Harold T., Davis, Zosimus: Historia Nova; The Decline of Rome (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1999), 15-16. 5 Brent, Early Christianity, 258. 6 to understand because Decius wished to recentralize religion to create unity across the empire.

While Decius did persecute Christians, it may not have been that he hated Christians but rather that he championed paganism. I will discuss why he ultimately failed in this goal of recentralizing religion, and how his policies actually strengthened Christianity by spearheading a movement led by to unify the Christians under the authority of the .6 I will also suggest that regardless of Decius’ impact on the church, the vitriolic reactions of post-

Constantinian Christian commentators such as Eusebius and were overblown.

The fourth section will focus on Valerian and Gallienus, father and son, who ruled from

253 to 260 A.D., and 253 to 268 A.D. respectively. Unlike Decius, who seemed concerned with simply unifying the empire under pagan worship, Valerian aimed his edicts directly at the church, even persecuting Christian nobles and political figures in Rome herself in a top-down attack on the religion in which he may have hoped to destroy it completely. However, when

Valerian was abruptly captured by the in 260 A.D., his son Gallienus quickly abolished his fathers’ laws and actually established a period of peace for Christians which lasted until the persecutions of the tetrarchy.7 I will analyze Valerian’s motivations for his edicts, to what extent he was successful, and why Gallienus all of a sudden abandoned his father’s policies and established toleration; I will also assess how that toleration allowed the Christians to further prosper before the later persecutions of the tetrarchy.

In my conclusion, I will survey the expansion and unification the church was able to experience over the course of these four emperors Although Christianity’s success in the Roman

Empire was most heavily influenced by its adoption by at the beginning of

6 Rives, Religion and Authority, 297. 7 Bernard, Green. Christianity in : the first three centuries. (London: T & T Clark, 2012), 161, 166.

7 the fourth century, I will argue that the policies of these four pre-Constantinian emperors actually paved the way for Christianity’s expansion and eventual triumph ] Through the darkness,

Christianity emerged and became the central religion of the empire.

8

Chapter I: Analysis of a Conflicted Historiography and the Decentralized

Model of Religion in the Pre-Barracks Age

Whereas several periods of imperial Roman history are quite well documented, i.e. the

Augustan Age by or , the barracks period was unfortunately a dark age, not only in terms of its economic and militaristic implications, but also for its effect on Latin

Literature. As a result, the sources available for this period are quite varied and have limitations.

Some are obvious, for example the work of Eusebius, the famous church historian, while I have used others because they are among the few sources that deal with the questions I am rasing and are therefore prevalent to the arguments presented in the secondary material (e.g. , the fifth- century pagan historian, Zosimus). Some display clear , while others have stances that are vague and debated by the secondary sources. The incomplete and sometimes contradictory nature of these is simply an unfortunate product of the time; there are no two or three general primary sources that cover the reigns of these emperors. While a lack of evidence is an obvious obstacle in drawing any hard and fast conclusions, the biases and contradictory nature of the historiography are in some cases actually valuable for the analysis of this period. For example, Zosimus is said to have disliked both and Christians, which might explain why his description of Philip paints him in a rather unflattering light, but it is curious that he did not mention Philip’s Christianity whatsoever. Thus, some secondary historians, such as Glen

Bowersock, have interpreted Zosimus' silence on the matter as evidence against Philip's alleged

Christianity.8 It is the interaction between these primary sources and the secondary sources

8 Glen, Bowersock. Roman Arabia. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 126. and the Arabs in the Fourth Century. (Classical Review 36, 1986), 111-17. 9 which use them that forms the basis for many of my arguments and help me to answer some of the more “black and white” questions as best I can.

While there are several different primary sources used in this work that are analyzed in secondary on which I depend, there are three major sources which I will use directly for all of the emperors. First, and perhaps most significantly, is Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian and the foremost historian of the Constantinian era, who chronicled the rise of

Christianity and its interaction with the pagan world in his Historia Ecclesiastica, or Church

History, published around 325 A.D.. From his history we derive complete with his unashamed , a very biting account of the reigns of Decius and Valerian, and expected praise for Philip and Gallienus. Eusebius’ work represents an extreme Christian bias; several secondary sources contradict his claims that Philip was definitely a Christian, or that Decius definitely aimed his edicts against the Christians.9 However, beyond sparking many counter-arguments in the secondary compendium, Eusebius’ work contains several valuable passages from earlier sources, such as letters from Dionysius of during the persecutions of Decius. The second main primary source used, in the same vein of Eusebius, was Paulus Orosius, a fifth-century Latin who interacted with the redoubtable St. Augustine, and produced the work Historiarum

Adversus Paganos Libri Septem, or Seven Books of History against the Pagans. His work covers pre-Trojan War biblical times all the way through Theodosius, a span of two millennia. Orosius’ work is right in line with that of Eusebius in terms of perspective, but less helpful since his accounts are much briefer and he seldom incorporates other sources.

Another important, Christian figure for this paper is the work of Caecilius Cyprianus, bishop at Carthage in the A.D. While he did not write any histories, he lived through the

9 Robin Lane Fox. Pagans and Christians. (New : Knopf, 1984), 457. 10 reigns of all of these emperors,was affected directly by their policies, and was executed under

Valerian’s reign in 258 A.D. His unification of the church (discussed in the Decius chapter) is analyzed in the secondary scholarship on the basis of his De Lapsis, De Ad Demetrianum, and

De Mortalitate, and is a central to the argument of this paper concerning why Christianity was able to unify in this period. In addition, his De Lapsis preserves the two separate edicts of

Valerian.10

Pagan accounts of this period are more difficult to find. Generally, Eusebius’ and

Orosius’ histories focus less on the military endeavors of these emperors, and more on the implications of their actions in a Christian context (i.e. Valerian was captured by Shapur because he invoked the wrath of God).11 A helpful non-Christian account comes from the fifth- and sixth-century historian Zosimus, who wrote under the east Anastasius. Unlike most other post-Constantinian historians, Zosimus attempted to write his Nova Historia or New

History (concerning the fall of the Roman Empire) from a pagan perspective. His work not only provides competing perspectives to those of the Christian historians, but it is also better in providing the political and military background of each reign since it preserved some contemporary barracks historians such as . Zosimus bases his work on the writings of contemporary barracks authors such as Dexippus, and he is considered one of the only

“polytheistic” authors who has a surviving account of this particular period. However, as stated earlier, Zosimus himself had his biases. According to historian Irfan Shahid, Zosimus may have disliked both Christians and Arabs, and so his unflattering account of Philip the Arab has

10 Green, Christianity In Ancient Rome, 162-163. 11 Paulus Orosius, and Roy J. Deferrari. The Seven Books of History against the Pagans. (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 314. 11 prompted significant debate, which in turn helps to address the question of whether Philip was a

Christian.12

There are, of course, many other primary sources I reference for the reigns of particular emperors. However, the other sources are analyzed more fully in the secondary scholarship from which I draw. The secondary literature will be used to help contextualize the barracks period, the reigns of specific emperors, and the interregnum periods.

Before diving into the reign of the emperors themselves, it is necessary to consider the religious environment of the Roman Empire from Augustus to the beginning of the

“barracks” period. From the beginning of imperial Rome, this era lasted from 27 B.C. to about

235 A.D. In that time, the Roman world moved away from a centralized, pagan religious environment that had been so prominent during the Republican era toward a more decentralized, pluralistic, and heterogeneous environment. Although the emperor had a large amount of religious authority, via and other powers that had been made commonplace by Julius

Caesar and Augustus,13 he rarely was able or wanted to enforce his influence. According to historian J.B. Rives, he was not able to exert his authority effectively because there were so many different colonies in the empire, each with a wide variety of unique cults, influenced mostly by the elites living in that colony. They may have instituted official cults symbolically, namely the imperial cult of the emperor himself. In this cult, which began with Augustus, the emperor was basically worshipped as if he were a God. Beyond that, however, there were

12 Irfan, Shahîd.Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of Byzantium and the Arabs (Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984), 114-115. 13 The term “imperium” was very broad, but it translates as power and indicates the sovereignty of the state over the people. The emperor, wielding imperium as an agent of the state over many aspects of the Roman world, would certainly have the power to alter matters culturally. For more information on imperium, see: Max, Cary, A Down to the Reign of Constantine, 3rd ed. (New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1976). 12 generally no uniform religious requirements from colony to colony.14 One case study Rives uses to illustrate the importance of the local elite in colonies is that of Thugga, an African city southwest of Carthage. Rives asserts that Thugga, only loosely bound by the local laws of the ordo decurionum and sacra publica of Carthage was able to set up its own, private cults, including the exclusively Punic cult of Ba’al.15 In fact, beyond the imperial cult, Thugga did not set up any actual Roman cults as Carthage had.

Sometimes, the emperor was simply ambivalent. This was actually the mindset of most emperors in this time period, not only towards the fact that their world was quite decentralized as far as religion went, but also towards Christianity specifically, which was considered the most nonconformist of all the different types of worships.16 As the emperor Trajan (98-117) wrote in a letter to his friend : “it is impossible to lay down a general rule for a fixed formula.”17 In this letter, Trajan is approving of Pliny creating his own rules for persecution and pardon of Christians. Rives extrapolates from this exchange that there were generally no set rules for Christians according to the emperor himself, and that the dealings with Christians were carried out on an ad hoc basis by individual governors and local rulers18. Trajan’s delegation of these judgments to Pliny illustrates his ambivalence; he did not even try to make the persecution of Christians a centralized issue. Many of his predecessors and successors in the pre-barracks period shared Trajan’s mindset with regard to religion. As historian Reinhard Selinger observes:

14 J.B. Rives, Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus and Constantine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 113. 15 Carthage, unlike Thugga, was bound by the ordo decurionum, a body of local elites which tended to influence what the community as a whole would worship in the form of sacra publica, public cults. In the Augustan age, these local elites would adopt, generally, the cults of Rome herself, i.e. the Capitoline triad of Juno Optimus Maximus, Juno, and . Thus, Carthage through these particular elites was tied more closely to Rome..The elites in Thugga, however, were more free of this influence. For more information, see: Rives, Relgion and Authrotiy, 32-33. 16 Rives, Religion and Authority, 245. 17 Pliny the Younger, Epistles, 10.97 as cited by Rives, Religion and Authority, 239. 18 Rives, Religion and Authority, 243. 13

“[Before Decius]…collisions between the authorities and Christians were rare and isolated…Conflicts [with Christians] were characterized by their local and ad hoc nature.”19 In fact, the only known direct conflict between the emperor and the Christian community in the pre- barracks period was ’s use of Christians as a scapegoat for the great fire of 64.20

The combination of inability and ambivalence on the part of the emperors allowed this decentralization to last and expand. By the third-century, the religious environment in some places had even moved beyond local control and become individualized. Decade to decade the number of religious options any given individual could create for him or herself grew rapidly.21

Even within any given religious practice, i.e. a cult, there were a multitude of variations on the exact process of worship. An episode from Apuelius’ magnum , the Metamorphoses or

Golden Ass, provides an apt illustration of this phenomenon. Towards the end of this work, the main character Lucius is initiated into the mysteries of Osiris at Corinth, associated with the Cult of . However, the tell him that each temple across the world dedicated to Isis functioned as a separate unit, and that the (materially symbolic) robes associated with his initiation and the exact process by which it occurred were specific to that particular temple.22

Apuleius’s inclusion of this exact description in his novel is significant because it is indicative of this local if not individualized model. As summates: “[Lucius was] a stranger to the temple but a native to the cult.”23 Thus, there were practically dozens of variant religious practices or cults within each whole religion, creating even more variety. This was the religious

19 Reinhard Selinger, The mid-third century persecutions of Decius and Valerian (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 2002), 11. 20 Selinger, The mid-third century persecutions, 11. 21 Rives, Relgion and Authroity, 249. 22 Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 11.23 as cited by Rives, Religion and Authority, 262. 23 Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 11.23 as cited by Rives, Religion and Authority, 262 14 environment that existed at the beginning of Philip’s reign, and it dramatically influenced the policies of these four emperors.

15

Chapter II: Philip the Arab, The First Christian Emperor?

Philip the Arab, the first of these four barracks emperors whose lives and polices became interwoven with the young Christian religion, ruled according to most sources from 244-249

A.D., beginning his reign just nine years after the fall of the Severan . Most sources agree that Philip had abandoned the anti-Christian mentality of his predecessors such as Maximunus

Thrax,24 but the ever passionate Eusebius claimed that Philip himself was a full-fledged

Christian.25 If this claim was true, it would mean that he was the first emperor to embrace the new religion, over a half century before Constantine, who of course is generally recognized as the first, true Christian emperor. This claim is supported and countered by primary and secondary analysis alike, and the truth of Philip lies somewhere in the middle of the religious spectrum between Christian and pagan. By analyzing pagan accounts such as that of Zosimus, and taking a closer look at Christian sources such as Eusebius himself and Orosius and how secondary sources interpret these ancient scholars, especially through the major event of the

Saeculares vis-a-vis the 1000th anniversary of Rome,26 I will establish Philip as both a pagan and a sympathizer of the Christian religion, and someone whose lack of policies, unlike the hindering legislations of Decius & Valerian, were intended to allow Christianity to flourish in a sustained decentralized system.

According to Zosimus, Philip became praetorian of his young predecessor

Gordianus III and eventually used this appointment to take the throne through deception. He forced supply ships away from where Gordianus was stationed in Carrhae near the Parthian boarder, prompting a famine which caused a mutiny of the soldiers. Philip then won those

24 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 15. 25 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 231. 26 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 15. 16 soldiers over, was declared emperor, marched towards Rome where he already had friends in the senate, and told them that Gordianus had died of a disease. Additionally, he appointed family members to posts to the east, moves which may have indirectly caused his downfall since they were unpopular and greedy (especially the appointment of his brother Priscus, who was made commander of the armies in ). Philip was eventually killed by his general Decius after losing a pitched battle near .27

While Zosimus’ history is valuable from a military standpoint, his silence on Philip as a

Christian is also worth noting. Zosimus is said to have disliked both Arabs and Christians, which might explain why his description of Philip paints him in a rather unflattering light, but it is curious that he did not mention Philip’s Christianity whatsoever. Some historians, such as Glen

Bowersock, have interpreted Zosimus' silence on the matter as evidence against Philip's alleged

Christianity. Others, like historian Warwick Ball, argue just the opposite, suggesting that

Zosimus’ unflattering description of Philip was an indirect attack against his Christianity.28 Irfan

Shahid gives a great argument for the latter stance by comparing Zosimus’ narrative on Philip to his narrative of ; Zosimus is very complimentary of the militaristic Severus even though his mother was from Emessa, a major Syrian city, making Severus part Arab.

Shabid concludes that Zosimus would have never written negatively about a pagan emperor, even one that had Arab ancestry such as Severus. Thus, this is evidence for Philip’s

Christianity.29

27 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 15. 28 Warwick, Ball. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire (London: Routledge, 2000), 418. 29 Shahîd,Rome and the Arabs, 114-115. 17

Nonetheless, while Philip’s reign was marred in coups and conflicts, especially against the Carpii in the ,30 the economic toil and mass land loss that characterized this era had not manifested themselves quite so dramatically yet; thus, Philip was lucky to enjoy a reign of at least some stability. He had time for a few significant events in Rome herself, namely the 1000th anniversary of Rome’s founding.31 This event is perhaps the most significant evidence we have for Philip as a man caught somewhere in the middle, and I will revisit this after discussing Eusebius, who was the first historian to suggest that Philip was a Christian.

Consistent with most of his commentaries, Eusebius does not offer much regarding the rise and fall of emperor’s reigns in a military since, but rather just discusses their relationship with Christianity. His account of Philip is actually very brief:

After six years of a Roman emperor, Gordian died…Philip succeeded him. Word has it that he was a Christian and wanted to join with believers in the prayers of the church on the day of the last Easter vigil. But the prelate of the time would not let him enter until he confessed publicly and joined those who were judged sinful and were occupying the place in church for penitents. Otherwise, had he not done so, he would never have been received due to the many charges against him. It is said that he readily obeyed, showing by his actions how genuinely and piteously disposed he was toward the fear of God.32

The usually confident Eusebius uses language here that indicates his uncertainty about

Philip’s Christianity such as the phrase “word has it.” This is significant because the claim of that Philip was a Christian was originally attributed to him, so his equivocations set the historical tone for generations of scholars to come. Eusebius’ account at least supports Philip’s benign attitude, however, as his little anecdote refers to Philip trying to participate in Easter. As the story goes, Philip tried to pray, but was forced by the bishop to confess his sins along with the

30 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 16. 31 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 15. 32 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.36, 231. 18 rest of the penitents, and Philip obeyed. That is the extent of Eusebius’ direct commentary on

Philip, and like much of his Church History, he expects us to accept it at face value.

However, Eusebius does mention in a brief passage that (noted theologian and teacher) was said to have sent his teachings in the form of letters (extant, claims Eusebius) to both Philip and his wife Severa Octacilia, whom other sources claim was indeed a Christian.33

While this account of Origen proves nothing about Philip’s own convictions, it suggests that he was willing to listen to Origen, or that Origen at least felt comfortable sending these letters to the emperor without fear of persecution. This account corresponds well with the commentary of the bishop Dionysius, who wrote in a letter in 262 that Philip was kind to the Christians and referred to him among a group of emperors who were said to have been Christian very openly.34 At the very least, based on the combination of these passages, it is not hard to believe Philip was a

Christian sympathizer.

Further evidence for Philip’s benign attitude towards Christianity comes from the succession of Decius. While Eusebius’ claims that Decius fought Philip on a battlefield outside

Verona out of hate for the Christians is likely false, it is plausible to suggest that the reason

Decius was so obsessed with reviving the old-tradition cults was because he wanted to distance himself Christianity. By purging any Christian sympathy from the imperial family, Decius was more easily able to achieve his goal of uniting the whole empire under the “pagan” cults, which in his mind was likely the means by which he would secure a long, prosperous rule. Decius would have no obvious motivation to do this if there had not been widespread, contemporary rumors that his predecessor had been a Christian in at least some capacity.

33 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.36, 232. 34 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.36, 232. 19

Another Christian source that deals briefly with Philip is Orosius’ history, which introduces us to another event that touches on the issue of Philip’s true religious allegiance: the

1000th anniversary of Rome:

He was the first of all emperors to be a Christian and, after a third year of his rule, the thousandth year after the was fulfilled. Thus the most majestic o all past years, this anniversary year was celebrated with magnificent games by a Christian emperor. There is no doubt but that Philip obtained the favor of such devotion as this for Christ and the Church, and since no author shows that there was any procession to the Capitol nor any sacrifice of victims according to custom.35

Naturally, Orosius agrees with fellow Christian Eusebius that Philip was a Christian rather than just Christian sympathizer, but Eusebius mentioned nothing about Rome’s 1000th anniversary, the most significant event of Philip’s reign. Philip returned to Rome in 247 when he was able to conduct the celebrations the following year, but it is peculiar he assumed that these games were in support of Christianity. The Ludi Saeculares or were a pagan celebration of sports, , and performances that had originated in the mid-Republic and were famously revived by Augustus in 17 A.D.36 They were undoubtedly a pagan tradition.

Philip, like before him, whose reign had fallen during the 900th anniversary, celebrated this particular festival in April of 248. In addition to lavish games and theatrical presentations throughout the city, in the , in what had been originally prepared for

Gordian III’s planned over the Persians, more than 1,000 were killed along with hundreds of exotic animals including hippos, leopards, lions, giraffes, and one rhinoceros.37 Most secondary scholars assume that Philip officiated over the Ludi as pontifex

35 Orosius, Deferrari, History against the Pagans, 314. 36 Max, Cary, A History of Rome, 329. 37 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 15. 20 maximus, the chief priest, a pagan position which dated all the way back to the kingship of Numa

Pompilius.

While Orosius’ description of sacrifice probably does not apply to gladiatorial games, and he likely meant sacrifice in the sense of pagan animal sacrifice to the gods, it is somewhat peculiar that he did not bother to mention the Colosseum in his brief account, which according to

Zosimus appears to have been one of the “highlights” of the games this year. However, this also reaffirms the unsurprising notion that Philip did not sacrifice any Christians in the Colosseum, which famously occurred during the reigns of Nero and perhaps . Interestingly,

Christian leaders around Philip’s time such as Cyprian, , were said to have condemned the games vehemently, a view which is very different from that of the post-

Constantinian Christians such as Orosius, who generally approved of the games.38 However, none of those contemporary Christians mentioned Philip in the context of games. This could indicate that either they did not think it was worth disparaging a pagan Philip or that he was getting some sort of pass. However, it seems unlikely that contemporaries would simply accept

Philip’s involvement with the games, especially if he were acting as , if he were a true Christian.

The fullest description of the games actually comes from Zosimus, who does not mention

Philip at all in his description of them. According to Shahid, Zosimus had praised Augustus,

Claudius, , and others for their celebration of the games and their upholding of traditional, pagan rites. In addition, there was an implication in his texts that by upholding pagan tradition and celebrating something such as the Ludi Saeculares, those emperors were ensuring the prosperity of the empire. Also, in his narrative on Constantine, Zosimus criticizes him

38 Hans, Polsander. Philip the Arab and Christianity (Historia 29:4, 1980), 463–73. 21 harshly for having ended the Ludi Saeculares and blames its discontinuation for the fall of the empire. This created an incongruity for Zosimus’ history. First, the period after Philip’s reign was hardly prosperous disrupting Zosimus belief that the Ludi guaranteed prosperity. Second, it would have weakened his criticism of Constantine for discontinuing the games because Philip’s alleged Christianity notwithstanding, he was still the last emperor to fully embrace the Ludi, which, again, was supposed to foreshadow prosperity.39 Philip, perhaps the very first emperor to embrace Christianity, was the very last to celebrate one of the most prominent pagan rites more lavishly and spectacularly than any of his pagan predecessors.

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence regarding Philip’s true religious allegiance.

There is no extant evidence from the man himself where he explicitly embraces a particular religion, and contemporary sources are scant. This debate taken on by the secondary scholars is based primarily on ancient scholars who wrote much later, such as Eusebius and Zosimus.

However, I am of the mind that it is not necessary to place Philip in any one category. He seemed to be a man who was open and interested in Christianity, but also very much a pagan as well. In a strange way, he was both. For the purposes of this is paper, this is significant because it means he was not monitoring any religious activity or passing any laws. There are no extant policies of Philip, his silence with respect to religion and seeming tolerance of Christianity, at the very least, would have had two effects. First, it allowed that decentralized religious environment to sustain itself. Secondly, it allowed Christian authors of his day to flourish without fear of persecution (e.g., the letters from Origen addressed to Philip). Christian were perhaps still vulnerable to local persecution as they had been for centuries, but under Philip they were perhaps safer from the centralized government than they ever were before. This, of course, all changed

39 Shahîd,Rome and the Arabs, 114-115.

22 under the infamous Decius. Philip’s tolerant reign was essentially the gateway to Decius’ persecutions.

23

Chapter III: Decius, Christian Villain or Pagan Champion?

He owed his position to a mutiny and ...it was in this situation…that Decius did something unprecedented. He called on the whole empire to join in an act of worship to the gods. What was unprecedented was, first that it was an empire wide religious act ordained by religious authority and, secondly that it required the participation of everyone, men, women, and children, registered by individual certificates of compliance. In both respects, this was a very odd thing for him to have done.40 – Bernard Green

During his brief reign from 249 until 251, Decius had an adverse stance towards

Christianity, passing edicts which required all citizens throughout the empire to carry around libelli, or documents which swore that they practiced sacrifice to prove their allegiance to the traditional gods. This was obviously at odds with the monotheistic mindset of church, which saw the traditions of , the other Olympians, and other cult gods to be false and sacrilegious. To many subsequent generations of Christians, Decius was one of the greatest enemies of the

Roman church in antiquity.

Why exactly Decius shifted the imperial government’s stance on this disconnected religious scene to centralize it was somewhat vague. His desire to bring back the more traditional gods as a centralized religion for the empire represents a dramatic shift from that of the earlier rulers of the first and second centuries who made minimal efforts to curb this ever-growing decentralization. Decius, nonetheless, felt the need to revamp this ultra-varied, ultra- individualized model of religion. To understand his motivations, it is first necessary to consider the political and military setting of his reign.

Under Philip, Decius had served as a general and was sent to quell the revolt of

Pacatianus and that rival’s troops in and , only to be persuaded to march against

40 Bernard, Green. Christianity in ancient Rome: the first three centuries. (London: T & T Clark, 2012), 142. 24

Philip. He reluctantly defeated Philip at Verona in 249, and in his own reign was faced with revolts by the on the . He died fighting them at Abrittus in 251, the first emperor to die on battle lines41. Decius was very much in the muck of Rome’s territorial upheaval, and based on Zosimus’ account had little desire to march against Philip. Continuous warfare contributed to other issues such as a poor economy, the spread of disease, and a lower morale of the citizenry as a whole.42

Due to the course of previous history, the Roman populous collectively had an expectation that the empire would undo itself from crisis and rise to prominence again. The most vivid example of this “rise from ashes” occurred in the transition from the late Republic to the

Augustan era. Rome transitioned from the corrupt, violent era of to Marc Antony, to the

Golden Age of the Julio-Claudians, which lasted in longer terms, save minor speed bumps in 69 and 96, all the way through the five good emperors until the time of Commodus (180-192).43

Two historians of the late third century, and , pinpointed the collapse of the empire to 192 and 235 respectively. 192 is of course right there with the end of the five good rulers (though includes Commodus), and 235 goes through the Severans (and the collapse began with , generally seen as the first barracks ruler).44

Decius was under an immense amount of pressure not only to protect himself, but to once again lead Rome out of rust and tyranny. To begin his reign, Decius issued sacred to emperors of the past, excluding ‘bad’ emperors such as Tiberius, Nero, Domitian, and

Elagabalus. The depicted an eagle juxtaposed with the emperor’s name rising from the funeral bier, a manifestation of his soul departing to heaven and become deified. This tradition

41 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 16-17. 42 Brent, Early Christianity, 252. 43 Brent, Early Christianity, 253. 44 Brent, Early Christianity, 253. 25 had ended with Alexander Serverus, incidentally where Herodian pinpoints the fall of the empire. Thus Decius, as an agent of the gods, styled himself the “restitutor sacrorum”, or

“restorer of sacred rites”.45

Unfortunately, there are no extent copies of Decius’ edicts in existence today. Rives describes this historiographical conundrum: “Our evidence for Decius decree comes from four main sources. First are the so-called libelli, second are the writings of Cyprian, especially the letters that he wrote in hiding, third are Eusebius’ extensive quotations, lastly, an account of

Matyrdom in …none of them attest to the decree itself…we must deduce the contents of the decree from the results.”46

Historian Allen Brent styles Decius’ edicts as supplicatio. A supplicatio was a day of public prayer which traditionally had two purposes, either as a rite of thanksgiving, or to avert

“anger” in times of crisis and obtain the ‘the peace of the gods’. While supplicatio had traditionally been local, Decius was the first emperor to make these rites universal around the empire. He enforced his edicts through commissions set up in major cities. When any given citizen performed these sacrifices to the gods of the Roman state, he would receive libelli from these commissioners, documents which affirmed that the citizen had sacrificed.47

There are 44 extent examples of libelli, all from , dating between June 12th and July

14th of 250.48 The following is a typical example:

To those appointed commissioners superintending the sacrifices, from Aurelia Ammonarion of the village of Thesdelphia, and always as one who customarily offers sacrifice and shows reverence to the Gods as well as my children, who are surnamed Aurelii Didymus and

45 Brent, Early Chistianity, 257. 46 J.B. Rives, “The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire,” The Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 137-138, http://www.jstor.org/stable/300738 47 Brent, Early Chistianity, 258. 48 Brent, Early Chistianity, 259. 26

Nouphius and Taas, we have completed the declaration even now in your presence, in accordance with the Decree we have poured libations and sacrificed, and of the sacred victims we have tasted, and I request of you to issue a certificate to this effect on my behalf. With kind regards. We Serenus and Hermas Aurelius have seen you offering the sacrifices. I Hermas certify it.49

In this particular , the ritual conditions appear to be quite strict, and there are three significant implications. First, the one sacrificing swore that he or she “always” and

“customarily” performed sacrifices; his or her worship was not simply aberration brought on by

Decius’ laws. Second, each of the member of any given household had to perform the act separately, and that it was not sufficient, for instance, for a mother or father to compensate for the children. Finally, it was necessary that both libations and animal sacrifices were performed, and one without the other did not fulfill the demands of the commission. However, this strictness was not common to every individual libellus. For example, some did not require each individual member of the household to sacrifice. Even more significant was that some libelli simply called for those sacrificing to simply offer incense, or thurificati. Thurificati had been the same requirement of sacrifice for Christians during the time of Pliny the Younger.50 In addition, there was also proof via these libelli that the edicts did not target Christianity or any religious group in particular. One extent libellus concerns an Aurelia Ammonous (her name is similar to the

Aurelia in the libelli above, but they are not the same), a priestess of the crocodile-god,

Petesouchous.51 Between both the lenient requirements of some of the libelli and the diversity of the individuals to whom they are attributed, it is clear that Decius was not on a Christian witch- hunt, but that his mission was to achieve the peace of gods in order to correct their chaos which

49 Roasenda, Libellatici, no. 4 as cited by Brent, Early Christianity, 259. 50 Brent, Early Christianity, 259. 51 Brent, Early Christianity, 260. 27 in his mind had attributed to the crisis of the third-century.52 The Christians just happened to be one of the many antagonist groups that Decius was trying to squeeze into the old tradition.

In order to come to the conclusion that Decius “failed” to significantly bite into the

Christian community (even if that was not his primary objective), it is necessary to observe both the limited nature of Decius’ policies and the contemporary Christian reaction. First, the time frame is significant; most sources agree that Decius’ issued his policies at some point in the winter of 249 or 250. He did not live past the year 251. Unlike Valerian (253 – 260) and members of the tetrarchy (293-305) who were also avid persecutors, Decius had a very small window of time, giving him hardly any time to adjust or rework his policies. Secondly, the libellus confirm that not only were the Christians not the exclusive target of the (i.e. the

Petesouchous case), but that within the sphere of what constituted proper sacrifice, they had options (i.e. the thurificati sacrifice). Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the ‘gods’ to whom

Decius demanded sacrifice were very vague. The gods to whom people were required to sacrifice may have well been the gods of their own city, and not necessarily the gods of the city of Rome

(such as the Capitoline triad that had made its way to Carthage), or even the god as the cult of the emperor.53 It seems Decius was less concerned with the specific gods themselves (though there must have been a requirement for gods in the sphere of the old Roman tradition as the Christian

God was obviously not acceptable) and more concerned with making sure that everyone empire- wide was taking part in sacrifice as a direct result of his policies. Thus, even before considering the Christian response, it is clear that Decius’ edicts created a lot of ambiguity and lenience that

Christians and other religious groups could operate under.

52 Brent, Early Christianity, 260. 53 Green, Christianity Ancient Rome, 143. 28

The contemporary Christian reaction to the policies of Decius is described mostly in the writings of the Christian writer Cyprian, who became bishop at Carthage in 249, the same year

Decius took up the emperorship. His description of the Christian response helps to evaluate to what extent Decius was successful in hindering their worship. From his writings, it becomes clear that the Decius was actually successful in splitting the church between those who either did not or very unwillingly complied with the edicts and those who did so without hesitation. The leniency of his edicts is significant because it allowed for this split; there were no set rules for what should be done with those who did not comply. Some were tortured, others were imprisoned, others imprisoned and later let go. Such variety allowed for the Christian community to be divided. Ultimately, however, Decius’ decree would actually influence Christian unity for years to come.

Cyprian wrote at length about the people of Carthage willingly complying to the edicts:

“They did not wait to be interrogated and to ascend the Capitol under arrest in order to deny

Christ…they did not allow themselves only unwillingly to be seen sacrificing to idols…of their own accord they rushed into the .”54 In other words, there were several Christians who did not even try to put up a fight. To Cyprian, this was a horrible crime, and these individuals were damning themselves.55 He himself was heavily criticized for fleeing Carthage and maintaining correspondence from afar, but he maintained that this was necessary, declaring his self-imposed exile a brand of martyrdom.56 For those who willingly complied, they argued that they were compelled by an overwhelming urge.57 This urge was prompted not only by their individual fear of torture or death for not complying, but also by a desire to appease, like their pagan

54 Cyprian, De Lapsis, 8.148-55 as cited by Brent, Early Christianity, 260. 55 Cyprian, De Lapsis, 8.158 as cited by Brent, Early Christianity, 261. 56 Brent, Early Christianity, 264. 57 Cyprian, De Lapsis, 8.155-57 as cited by Brent, Early Christianity, 261. 29 counterparts and even Decius himself, the metaphysical world.58 As Brent observes: “They felt a high state of and enthusiasm for a universal supplicatio that would bring divine peace and order into a discorded world at war with itself.”59 The Christians who readily complied were willing to proceed with an ambiguous mindset when it came to pagan or non-pagan worship since in their minds it meant calming the metaphysical chaos. Even Cyprian agreed with his pagan contemporaries that the world had departed from what called a Golden Age, and was in a state of collapse.60 However, Cyprian, among other more devout Christians, did not agree that Decius’ supplicatio was the means by which the chaos would be calmed and how they would resurface from that collapse. He styled the troubles of the times as signaling the biblical apocalypse: “The kingdom of God, most beloved brothers, has begun to be imminent. The reward of life and the joy of eternal salvation are now coming with the passing of the world…”61

This particular view was very significant because it prompted the church to exhibit purity and unity, and to shatter those lines of ambiguity through which Christians had been associated with pagans.62 Cyprian, seeking out this unity, shifted his personal view on those who had sacrificed, rewarding many with readmission into the church. He also established the idea that only the bishop had the power to forgive sins, and only through him could a person satisfy God.

As Rives explains: “If the bishop is identified with the church, and there can be no salvation outside the church, there can be no source of authority opposed to the bishop.”63 Cyprian’s new policy and authority were solidified when he received backing from the powerful clergy at

Rome. By strengthening the power of the bishop, he was also strengthening the unity of the

58 Brent, Early Christianity, 262. 59 Brent, Early Christianity, 261. 60 Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum, 4.76-80 as cited by Brent, Early Christianity, 263. 61 Cyprian, De Mortalitate, 2.29-37 as cited by Brent, Early Christianity, 263. 62 Brent, Early Christianity, 263. 63 Rives, Religion and Authority, 297. 30 church: “the Church forms a unity, however far she spreads and multiplies…just as the sun’s rays are many, yet the light is one.”64

Thus, while Decius was initially successful in dividing up the church between those willing and not willing to comply with his policies, and even influenced the former group to agree that his supplicatio was a means to saving the world, he ultimately, indirectly united the church via powerful leaders such as Cyprian under a network of . If there were no persecutions of Decius, perhaps the church would have never have had true motivation to be purely united, bureaucratically and spiritually. With harsh times under Valerian and the tetrarchs on the horizon, that bond established under Decius was essential.

Despite the fact that Decius sentiments should more accurately be described as pro-pagan or pro-Roman rather than anti-Christian, he nonetheless had later Christian critics such as the

Eusebius and Orosius. These two authors put forth a biased view against Decius that would persist among Christians for years to come.

From Eusebius, we receive a very biting account of the reign of Decius. Specifically, his account of Decius’ rise to the throne is strikingly dissimilar to the account of the non-Christian

Zosimus. In the beginning of his account of Decius in Book 6, Eusebius writes: “After a reign of seven years Philip was succeeded by Decius. Because of his hostility to Philip, he began a persecution against the churches.”65 This description stands in stark contrast to Zosimus who claimed that Decius, a general under Philip, was reluctant to become emperor, and that he only marched against Philip after the troops of (the rival general whom Decius had

64 Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesia as cited by Rives, Religion and Authority, 298. 65 Eusebius, Maier, Church History, 6.39, 233. 31 defeated) urged him (with difficulty) to do so.66 Eusebius’s account is void of all these militaristic circumstances, and he does not offer rebuttals to other historians regarding Decius’ loyalty to Philip and reluctance to take up the throne.

The comparison between Zosimus’ and Eusebius’ accounts of Decius’ rise is significant, but unfortunately the eye-witness accounts of the actual effects of Decius’ edicts are only preserved in Cyprian, and a few letters of Eusebius.67 Thus, they are exclusively from a Christian perspective. Nonetheless, Eusebius accounts are still valuable to indicate how and why Decius was scorned in the post-persecution (after the tetrarchy) era. His most valuable proof as to the villainy of the imperial government as maintained by Christians is expressed in a few letters of

Dionysius (contained within the Historia Ecclesiastica), a bishop of Alexandria. Dionysius expresses this view of villainy through accounts of the mercy of God to Christians as well as horrific acts to Christians themselves.

Interestingly, Dionysius notes that the persecution in Egypt did not begin with the edict, but had been brewing for a year before they were imposed via riots in the cities: “no road, no highway, or alley could we use either by night or day: everywhere there was shouting that whoever did not join in the chorus of blasphemy must be dragged up in burn.”68 This particular description in the narrative of Dionysius letters occurs before the edict arrived69. Most sources claim that Decius’ issued his edicts in the winter of 249 or 250, and extent libelli, the majority of which are from Egypt, are all dated to the summer of 250. It seemed Egypt may have been a “hot spot” for persecutions both before and after the actual edict. Eusebius conveniently choose a

66 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 16-17. 67 Green, Christianity Ancient Rome, 143. 68 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.39, 236. 69 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.39, 236. 32

Christian eye-witness who lived in the very region of the empire where Christians were the most severely targeted.

In the first letter, Dionysius describes his own experience with persecution, claiming that he was able to simply live at home while the frumentarius (provincial centurion with police powers) pursuing him was struck blind by God, allowing Dionysius to escape. Later in the letter,

Dionysius describes how he and his friends, who were staying at some town during their escape, were encountered by another group they thought were robbers, but were actually individuals God had sent to warn them to flea as they were being pursued.70 Through these two miracles, the frumentarius being struck blind and the strangers coming to warn Dionysius’ group, Eusebius conveys God’s distaste with the persecutions by defending his followers.

Eusebius also expresses villainy through some horrific displays of torture, also through more letters of Dionysius. In one letter Dionysius accounts the post-edict martyrdoms of a few contemporaries at Egypt: “Besas, that gallant warrior of God, was brought to trial and…was beheaded…another man, Macar, resisted all efforts by the judge to deny the faith, and was burned alive. Nemeion, another Egyptian, [endured] twice as many tortures and floggings, and burned him.”71 Dionysius mentions another dozen men and women who suffered similar fates.

These martyrdoms were of course celebrated by contemporary Christians such as Dionysius,

Cyprian and historically by Eusebius and other post-Constantinian wrtiers. Dionysius also makes mention of those Christians who died trying to escape, and met their ends by starvation, thirst, the weather, diseases, or wild animals.72

70 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.41, 234. 71 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.41 237. 72 Eusebius, Maier, The Church History, 6.41, 238. 33

Dionysius’ letters account for the vast majority of Eusebius’ proof for the villainy of

Decius, but they all occurred in one specific region, a hotbed of violence for the Christians, and were witnessed through the eyes of one of the supposed victims. Not only is Eusebius’ account of Decius rise a stark departure from Zosimus, but his description of the persecutions themselves is scant and one-dimensional evidence wise.

Unlike Eusebius, Orosius does not cite any contemporaries of Decius time, and instead leaves only a brief, personal description of him: “Decius, after the two Philips were killed, seized power…he immediately, in which he showed he had killed Philip on account of this, sent out deadly edicts…for the killing of Christians…and he sent a great many saints from their crosses to receive crowns from Christ.”73 Thus, Orosius concurs with Eusebius that Decius had killed

Philip as a direct result of Philip being a Christian, and proved his anti-Christian sentiments through his edicts, which of course were directed entirely at the Christians. Orosius, like

Eusebius, differ from Zosimus’ account of Decius uprising. Interestingly, Orosius does mention that Decius was killed by barbarians74, perhaps showing that he acknowledged the militaristic circumstances somewhat (rather than suggesting that Decius died as a result of God’s wrath).

Orosius’ account is too brief to dissect, but even his cursory description of Decius illustrates his utter distaste and willingness to paint him in an awful light. These accounts from Eusebius and

Orosius establish the post-Constantinian disdain for Decius that would persist through the ages.

In their minds, he was simply another heathen in a line of persecutors that lasted through the tetrarchy.

Decius could be styled somewhat of a tragic figure in the of history. Through this lens, he rose reluctantly to the and gold in Rome’s darkest time, passed edicts which he

73 Orosius, Deferrari. Against the Pagans, 315. 74 Orosius, Deferrari, Against the Pagans, 315. 34 thought would allow the world to reemerge from that darkness by calming the heavens, inadvertently aided in the unity of Christianity, but was for centuries after hated by the Church. If he had not died on the battle lines in 251, we can only imagine how he might have further altered the course of history. Would he have been successful in leading Rome out of the darkness (in historical hindsight)? Would he have come to some peace with the Christians? Would he still be as hated by Church as he is in reality? Unfortunately, we will never know. Nonetheless, his brief and vague reign is endlessly fascinating for the way it interacted with the ever-growing religion of Christianity.

35

Chapter IV: Valerian, The True Villain and Gallienus, The True Ally

Galerius Maximus: "Are you Thascius Cyprianus?" Cyprian: "I am." : "The most sacred Emperors have commanded you to conform to the Roman rites." Cyprian: "I refuse." Galerius: "Take heed for yourself." Cyprian: "Do as you are bid; in so clear a case I may not take heed." Galerius, after briefly conferring with his judicial council, with much reluctance pronounced the following sentence: “You have long lived an irreligious life, and have drawn together a number of men bound by an unlawful association, and professed yourself an open enemy to the gods and the religion of Rome; and the pious, most sacred and august Emperors ... have endeavored in vain to bring you back to conformity with their religious observances; - whereas therefore you have been apprehended as principal and ringleader in these infamous crimes, you shall be made an example to those whom you have wickedly associated with you; the authority of law shall be ratified in your blood." He then read the sentence of the court from a written tablet: "It is the sentence of this court that Thascius Cyprianus be executed with the sword." Cyprian: "Thanks be to God."75

Decius, who died fighting the Goths in 251 A.D., was succeeded by two minor emperors

– , who ruled with his son until 253 A.D. before being killed in a mutiny by his own troops, and then Aemilius , who ruled with his son for mere months in 253 before he too was killed by his own troops. This two-year period was of course characterized by problems on the borderlands; in the north, there were continuous problems with the Goths

(Trebonianus gave them an enormous bribe to back off following Decius’ defeat76), and in the east, the Persians under , in the recently established Sassanid Empire, had dissolved the

Mesopotamian peace made by Philip the Arab eight years earlier, and had advanced as far as

75 W.H.C. Frend. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1967), 130. 76 Green, Christianity In Ancient Rome, 161. 36

Antioch in Syria. Publius Licinius Valerianus arose from this mayhem. He appointed his son,

Gallienus to deal with issues in the west, while he himself would spend his whole reign in the eastern theater, attempting to quell the Persian invasion. In 259 or 260, after a crushing defeat at

Edessa, Valerian made a truce with Shapur to negotiate peace terms. Shapur betrayed the truce, literally captured Valerian, and as legend has it, used the old emperor as a foot stool by which he mounted his horse. Decius was the first emperor to die in battle; Valerian was the first to die in captivity of an enemy. Gallienus ruled solely until 268 B.C.77 This 15-year period from 253 A.D. to 268 A.D. was perhaps the darkest and most volatile of the whole barracks era, and perhaps the darkest in Roman imperial history until the fifth century A.D. It was also one of the very darkest times for the Christians, who were direct targets of Valerian.

Valerian, unlike Decius, initiated his reforms directly against the Christians. Whereas

Decius focused on restoring paganism, Valerian aimed to destroy Christianity and became the first emperor since Nero to persecute Christians directly. Valerian’s motivations are very unclear, but according to Eusebius, via a letter from Dionysius of Alexandria to Hermammon, he had actually been quite amicable towards the Christians before being influenced otherwise by a man, probably his financial officer, named Macrian:

…both aspects of Valerian are astonishing. His earlier conduct was mild and friendly to God’s people: no emperor before him was mild and friendly to God’s people: no emperor him was so kindly disposed toward them, not even those said to have been Christians, as he clearly was in receiving them in close friendship at the start. Indeed he filled his whole with godly people making it a church of God. But the teacher and leader of the assembly of Egyptian magicians [Macrian] persuaded him to persecute and kill holy men as rivals…he encouraged him to perform unholy rites…such as cutting the throats of boys…as if shredding God’s handiwork would bring them happiness…when he became manager of the imperial accounts, he showed neither a logical nor a catholic mind…therefore he has become an enemy of his , estranged from God’s mercy, and banished himself as far as possible from his own

77 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 16-17. 37 salvation…[Macrian] put fourth his two sons, who therefore inherited his father’s sins…he wiped off on them his own wickedness and hatred of God.78

So, while Decius appeared to have political motives for his religious reform (i.e. a united empire would help to insure a lengthier reign), Valerian, in the eyes of ancient scholars, seemed to be emotionally motivated by this deep-seated hatred instilled by Macrian.

Valerian’s amicable attitude towards the Christians earlier in his reign, namely from the years 252 to 255, is worth mentioning because it actually allowed the Christians some noted prosperity. In 253, 66 African bishops were able to meet in to discuss an issue over the baptism of infants. Two years later, another 33 western bishops met to discuss baptism and heretics. The church also flourished in the east, with bishops there openly celebrating an unprecedented level of peace. In general, there were many converts in this time, and Christianity was rapidly growing.79 This cluster of four years foreshadowed the 30 year peace that would occur after Valerian died, but that would not come about before the three darkest years for

Christian in the barracks period.

There are three different theories as to why Valerian suddenly changed from his peaceful attitude to his witch hunt of persecutions, and all occur against the backdrop of militaristic and economic upheaval. Whereas the first four years of his reign were relatively peaceful, especially for the barracks period, the last four were mired in tribal revolts in the west and an encroaching

Persian presence in the east. The first theory suggests that some Christians in the east were pro-

Persian and represented another force that threatened the borders of the empire. The edicts therefore were instituted in order to combat the Church as if it were a military threat. The second

78 Eusebius, Maier, Church History, 7.10, 258. 79 Christopher J. Haas, “Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian’s Peresecution of the Church, A.D. 257-260,” Cambridge University Press 52 (1983): 135, http//www.jstor.org/stable/3166947 38 theory suggests that Rome, in economic turmoil due to the revolts, sought to replenish the imperial treasury by seizing church properties and all its moneys (which were one aspect of the edicts). However, there is not much evidence for the widespread seizure of properties, so this is probably senseless. The third and most likely theory is that Valerian simply wanted to please the pagan Gods via supplicatio because he thought it would bring peace to the empire. In other words, he was trying to do exactly what Decius had done, although his attempts, judging by how much harsher they were than Decius’ efforts, were far more desperate. Valerian began his reign treating the Christians as Philip did, but when matters became direr on the frontier, he changed course in regards to his toleration of Christianity, believing it would help to secure his boards.

While the idea of Valerian having some deep-seated hatred for the Christians due to his advisor

Marcian makes for a more dramatic story, evidence for this is ill-founded and hyperbolic. Most likely, he had the exact mindset of his predecessor, although he did attack the Christians directly.80

His reforms occurred in 257 and 258. The exact reforms of 257 are vague, but they sought to forbid Christian worship, meetings, and burials, and required governors and various magistrates across the empire to seek out the Christian leadership (bishops and presbyters) and force them to conform to the old Roman religion. Cyprian and Dionysius both have court records for this year that indicate that they were sent into exile. However, the lower classes were also targets. Cyprian mentions that in Numidia nine bishops and a handful of deacons and lay people

(including women and children) were sentenced to the mines. Thus, Valerian was actively targeting Christianity from the top of the pyramid all the way to the bottom.81

80 Haas, “Imperial Religious Policy,” 138-139. 81 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 162. 39

The reform of 258 is far less vague, and far harsher. It was a rescript of the laws of 257 sent as a letter to the Senate, intended to elaborate on what exactly Valerian wanted with the laws of 25782. Cyprian gives the details in one of his Epistles:

Valerian, in a rescript to the senate, had ordered that bishops, presbyters, and deacon should be executed at once; that senators, men of rank and Roman knights should be deprived of their status and goods and that if they continued, despite this, to say they were Christians, that they should be put to death; that matrons should be deprived of their goods and sent into exile; that members of the imperial household who had confessed Christ previously or confessed Christ now should have their goods confiscated and should themselves be put in irons and assigned to the imperial estates.83 This obviously maps out a much more extreme picture than the measures that had occurred a year prior. However, what is most significant about this rescript is that it was addressed to the Senate in the capital for the purpose of dealing with individuals especially within the capital itself. The rescript was intended to punish specifically the elite – the middle and upper class nobility, rich widows, and even the imperial household. As Valerian focused on

Persia, he had the Senate focus on crushing the Christian church in the capital itself, eliminating its leadership by ousting those in positions of power and influence.84 However, Cyprian states in the second part of his description of the rescript that Sixtus himself, the bishop of Rome, was a direct target:

Know that Sixtus was executed in the cemetery on the 6 August with four deacons. The in the city press this persecution more actively each day, executing those who are handed over to them and confiscating their goods into the treasury.85 Cyprian’s mention of Sixtus not only confirms Valerian’s thirst for a top-down purge of

Christianity, but it also indicates that the decree of 257 had not been very effective; it was reportedly in the catacomb of St. Callistus that Sixtus and four of his deacons were arrested. The

82 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 162. 83 Cyprian, Epistles, 80.1.1-4 as cited by Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 163. 84 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 163. 85 Cyprian, Epistles, 80.1.1-4 as cited by Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 163. 40 fact that those catacombs were open at all indicates that the “forbidding of Christian burials” part of the 257 decree had not been carried out by the senate. In addition, Sixtus’ pro-Christian actions, continuing unhindered into the following year, may have been what actually caused the senate to request the rescript from Valerian. On June 29, 258, Sixtus may have instituted a feast to celebrate the apostles Peter and Paul in three separate places: at their martyrdom sites on the

Vatican, on the road to Ostia, and in the catacombs of St. Sebastian, where they had been venerated for centuries.86 Less than six weeks following this celebration, the rescript reached

Rome, and he was executed.87

In 258, Cyprian himself was condemned to death. While previously he had simply gotten away with hiding out during the reign of Decius and experienced exile during

Valerian’s first edict of 257, he eventually faced execution. He was said to have gone out triumphantly, with a chanting crowd of faithful, weeping followers throwing towels and handkerchiefs down before him to catch his blood.88

While Valerian’s intentions may have truly been to destroy the church, and while there are obviously many instances of persecutions within this three or four year period, he was ultimately unsuccessful in striking any serious blows. The authorities who were actually carrying out his orders were not always so steadfast in their efforts, and this is especially evident within

Rome itself. The seizing of the cemeteries, whether that particular action was reinforced by the second edict or not, seems to have come to pass since Sixtus and his deacons appeared to have still been buried there. In addition, the senate itself seems to have merely wanted to purge the

Christians and weaken them rather than destroy them completely; there is no record of any

86 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 164. 87 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 164. 88 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 166. 41 penalties being exacted on those select groups in Rome, i.e. rich widows or other noble households. In the short run, they achieved exactly what the second edict had demanded, which was to topple church leadership in Rome, and remove them from political and social significance within the mother city.89 Valerian’s persecutions seemed to be so focused on Rome, and were in the hands of authorities far away from his direct control while he was in the east, that his own intentions were not carried out to the fullest. Perhaps most importantly, however, is that he had no time for his persecutions to get off the ground. He was captured four years after his first edict and his policies were immediately reversed by his son.

Regardless of Valerian’s success or failure in his persecutions, these persecutions of

Valerian were the climax of this horrendous period: “With the persecution, particularly that of

Valerian later in 257 A.D., the time of the was approaching.”90 Valerian, in their minds, fittingly faced the judgment of God:

Valerian, the author of the abominable edict, the emperor of the , being immediately captured by Shapur, grew old among the Persians in the most humiliating slavery, for he was condemned to this menial service as long as he lived.91

However, God was not satisfied with simply condemning Valerian to a miserable life among the Persians, and the strife of the times would continue through the reign of his son

Gallienus:

The captivity of one wicked person, although perpetual and abominable beyond measure, did not compensate for the measure of the injury and vengeance against so many thousands of tortures of the saints, and the blood of the just cried out to God asking that it be vindicated in the same land where it had been shed…it was just that [in addition to Valerian] the performers of the judgment, the informers, the accusers, the spectators, and the judges…be struck by the same

89 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 166. 90 Brent, Early Christianity, 263. 91 Orosius, Deferrari. Against the Pagans, 316. 42 blow of vengeance. Suddenly from all sides by the will of God, the nations located on the boundaries of the Empire…left there for this purpose…and rushed into territory of the Romans.92

Gallienus, Valerian’s son and Co-Augustus beginning also in 253 A.D., took over the whole empire upon his father’s death in 260 A.D. Due to his long reign (obviously uncharacteristic for the time) as a co-ruler and sole ruler, Gallienus dealt with more foreign invasions than perhaps any emperor before him. He spent much of his time on the front, and was quite successful against the Germans, but he also fought along the Danube and in

Illyricum. From 258 to 260 alone, he had to deal with several rival claimants to the throne, among them in Pannonia and in Illyricum, as well as invasions into from the , , and Alamanni. The Alamanni became the first barbarian tribe since

Hannibal 500 years earlier to successfully break into the Italian Peninsula and get within a few dozen miles of Rome. The senate put together an impromptu army, and Gallienus was able to defeat them at their retreat at . However, despite all his success, Gallienus was not able to stop the formation of a separate empire within the western world. This sub-empire, known as the , was set up by , a legate in lower Germany. The Gallic empire would encompass, at its apex during the remainder of Gallienus’ reign, Britain, ,

Gaul, and parts of Germany. This occurred right around the time of Valerian’s death, and the second half of Gallienus’s reign was consumed with unsuccessfully trying to reacquire those provinces. He died when he was betrayed by one of his officers, Aureolous, who had been put in charge of the fight against Postumus, but had intentionally let him retreat so that Aurelous could march against Gallienus.93

92 Orosius, Deferrari. Against the Pagans, 317. 93 Zosimus, Buchanan, Historia Nova, 16-17. 43

Gallienus, according to Eusebius, immediately reversed the policies of his father on request from Dionysius:

The Emperor Publius Licinius Gallienus Pius Feix Augustus to Dionysius, Pinnas, Demetrius, and the other bishops. I have commanded that the benefit of my bounty be proclaimed throughout the world. They [non-Christians] must leave all places of [Christian worship], and therefore you may also use the provisions of this decree against any who would trouble you. This, your freedom of action, has long been granted by me, and therefore Aurelius Quirinus, my chief minister, will enforce this ordinance of mine.94

In addition to his actions outlined here, Eusebius claims to have another letter from

Dionysius in which Galleinus handed back church property and declared the first true edict of toleration.95 It makes sense that Gallienus would abandon the policies of his father. Of the several reasons Valerian may have had for carrying out his edicts, his main motivation was most likely religious, and that he thought by attacking the Christians and purging them from positions of authority, he would appease the Gods, and secure prosperity of the empire. Gallienus, witnessing this approach completely backfire as he heard of his father’s capture at the hands of one of Rome’s most dangerous border enemies, opted to support the Christians. Not only did he feel he was appeasing the heavens, but he may have also been seeking out support of the

Christians against the eastern usurper Macrianus and preventing Christians from being seduced by Persian toleration. 96

94 Eusebius, Maier, Church History, 7.13, 262. 95 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 167. 96 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 167. 44

Orosius, of course, cites Gallienus’ fear as his reason for peace: “And Gallienus, indeed, being terrified by such an evident judgement of God and moved by the wretched example of his colleague, restored peace to the church with anxious reputation.”97

Whatever his exact intentions, what resulted from Gallienus’ benign stance was a 30-year armistice of peace and prosperity for the Christians, which lasted until the persecutions of the tetrarchy. In general, this was a time of great prosperity for the church in which the Christians peacefully coexisted with the Romans and were increasingly integrated into Roman society. The church for the first time even asked a Roman emperor to arbitrate an internal dispute. In 272, after Paul of Samosata was accused of heresy but refused to be deposed as bishop of ,

Aurelian ruled in favor of his successor, who was in good standing with the church hierarchy.98

At Rome itself, another Dionysius became bishop there in 260 and carried out several structural changes; he set up a system of parishes in Rome, placed the cemeteries under the control of the priests, and placed dioceses in the vicinity of Rome under his control. He even entered into an open debate with his namesake at Alexandria about whether or not Jesus Christ was of the same heavenly substance as God. These administrative efforts and open dialogue were indicative of a

Christian church that was allowed to enjoy peace, and of Christians who not have to hide in the shadows to practice their faith. In these years, the Christians continued to lay down the foundations by which they were able to make themselves a sensible and structurally sound religion that would be appealing for Constantine and later emperors to adopt.99

It is not fair to say that Gallienus simply “did not persecute” the Christians. He took steps which allowed them an outlet for to flourish. There is a significant difference between remaining

97 Orosius, Deferrari. Against the Pagans, 317. 98 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 168. 99 Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome, 168. 45 quiet on the matter of persecution, as Philip probably was, and sending out imperial edicts granting them toleration to the extent of telling non-Christians to stay out of their way. Gallienus, was, therefore, as much of a friend to the Christians as his father was a villain.

46

Conclusion: How Structural Unification Set the Stage for Christian Prosperity

It is peculiar that Christianity was able to find prosperity in a time that was so trying for

Imperial Rome economically and militaristically. This 50-year alleyway from 235 to 284 A.D. was by far the darkest time in the history of the Roman empire before its eventual fall in the west two centuries later. It is peculiar, but it is not a coincidence. I have attempt to show that

Christianity’s growth and structural unification over the course of the reigns of Decius, Valerian, and Gallienus can be directly attributed to the policies of those emperors who were influenced by the darkness of the times. This unification was also aided dramatically by the decentralized nature of religion that already existed: there were hundreds of cults spread across the empire which had, for the most part, enjoyed the ability to practice whatever they wished, at the very least in secret, without fear of any major persecutions or witch hunts. This model of religion was championed by Philip, who seems to have been tolerant of both pagan and Christian worship, if not openly embracing both. He substantiated freedom of religion and gave Christians an advantage heading into the storm of Decius and Valerian.

Decius, believing he could lengthen his own reign and pacify the empire via religious unification manifested by worship for the pagan gods and the cult of the emperor, required all those in the empire to prove via documents, libelli, that they were carrying out the appropriate sacrifices. The dichotomy between those Christians who submitted to the sacrifices and those who did not created the need for an authority figure to unite both groups and hand out forgiveness to the former. Cyprian spearheaded this movement by convincing fellow elites and bishops that the bishops themselves should have full control over repentance. Thus, the bishop became the central, authoritarian figure in Christianity, and the church established a strict, 47 structural foundation, the first step in its rise to becoming the mainstream, central religion of the

Roman world.

Valerian also wished to lengthen his reign and pacify the empire, and he, perhaps equipped with some deep-seated hatred for the Christians, and believing the heavens would grant peace to the world were he to target and destroy the church directly, passed two of the harshest edicts the church ever had to face. He focused on Rome itself, wishing for the senate to purge

Christians from positions of authority and attack elites in Rome. Sixtus, the bishop there, was executed. Cyprian met a similar fate months later. While it appears Valerian’s top-down attack on Christianity may have been partially successful, ultimately he could not count on those in power so far away to carry out exactly what he wished. Christians were merely weakened in

Rome, not destroyed, and his attacks on Christians in other part of the empire were short-lived and unsuccessful. Eerily enough, Valerian was captured by the Persians, one of the prime enemies against whom his religious policies might protect the empire.

Gallienus, witnessing his father’s policies backfire so brutally, immediately rescinded the edicts, gave the Christians their property back, and granted religious toleration for the church by which Christians could practice their religion openly without pagan intrusion. The structural unification that had begun under Decius and continued during the early reign of Valerian now became full-throttle. In this period known as the “30 Years Peace,” Christianity was strengthened at Rome under Bishop Dionysius, Christians themselves became more integrated into Roman society, and the emperor himself even mediated a Christian dispute. By the time of the tetrarchs, Christianity had become one of the most unified and structurally sound religions in the world, and its model would later be the best candidate for Roman unification in general during the reigns of Constantine and later emperors. 48

It is impossible to say whether or not Christianity would have become Rome’s main religion under Constantine if it had not prospered during the barracks period. Perhaps its triumph would have occurred later and not as dramatically. But in a world with hundreds of different sects, cults, and religions, the Christian figures of the tumultuous third century are the ones who rose up in opposition to the policies of the empire, refused to preach in secret, and found ways in which to strengthen their religion so that they could persist through the ages. The barracks period of Rome, despite all its darkness, was somehow a blessing for the church. It would become the dominant religion of Rome and later of the world.

49 ecclesia