CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS

THE CHANGING POSITION OF CHRISTIANS IN THE THIRD CENTURY A.D.

LUKAS DE BLOIS*

There is no evidence from before the second half of the second century A.D. of any serious, in-depth reflection among Christians on the Roman state and emperorship. They paid their taxes and did not participate in revolts, but no more. Christian communities were still very much governed by eschatological notions and tended to keep to themselves. Right from the start, already in the first generation of , some Christians thought that the was the katechon, the power that upheld the com- ing of the realm of the antichrist which was to precede the Second Coming of the Lord and the creation of a new earth. Many Christians interpreted a passage in a letter of St. Paul in this way.1 At the end of the first century A.D., after the first persecutions of Christians, some Christian authors began to consider the Roman Empire an evil state, an instrument of the Prince of Darkness.2 Christians did not fight in the armies and preferred not to be involved in local government because they did not want to kill people and were unwill- ing to take part in the imperial cult or the worship of Roman state gods; it was hardly possible to avoid such religious obligations in army camps and council chambers. In practice, this aloofness of the Christians was winked

* L. de Blois is professor of Ancient History at the University of Nijmegen. Translations from ancient texts are borrowed from existing editions such as those in The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass. etc.), Penguin Classics (Harmondsworth) and the series Fathers of the Church. 1 See St. Paul’s second letter to the Christian community in Thessalonica, 2: 3-8. Cf. Ire- naeus, Adversus Haereses, book 5, passim. He refers to the book Daniel, ch. 7, in the Old Testament. I owe thanks to Olivier J. Hekster, who brought this passage to my attention. 2 See P.W. van der Horst, ‘Het christendom in het Romeinse rijk in de eerste eeuw’, Hermeneus, 58 (1986), 2, p. 66. 106 L. DE BLOIS at; there were enough others who were willing to fight and perform admin- istrative duties.3 Towards the end of the second century A.D., however, things started to change. From A.D. 161, the Roman Empire had to wage onerous wars and from A.D. 166 epidemics were reducing the population.4 In 161, war broke out in the East and from 168 new strong enemies appeared at the Northern frontiers. The Roman Empire had to contend with troublesome wars within its own borders, from and Noricum to Northern Italy and it had to cope with the inevitable consequences, such as foraging, plunder, devas- tation, famine and plague, which caused people to leave their homesteads and join roving bands of robbers, deserters and barbarians who had stayed behind when the army moved on. In 185, five years after the last major campaigns against the Marcomanni, Quadi and other tribes, war-stricken areas and adjoining regions were infested by wandering bands of deserters

3 See H. von Campenhausen, ‘Der Kriegsdienst der Christen in der Kirche des Alter- tums’, in Tradition und Leben: Kräfte der Kirchengeschichte, ed. idem a.o. (Tübingen, 1960), pp. 203 ff. Cf. K. Aland, ‘Das Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat in der Frühzeit’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt [= ANRW], II, 23, 1 (Berlin and New York, 1979), p. 226 ff.; p. 245 f.; L. de Blois and G.H. Kramer, Kerk en vrede in de oudheid (Kampen, 1986), pp. 22- 34; Van der Horst, ‘Het christendom in het Romeinse rijk’ (see n. 1), p. 64 f.; F. Unruh, Das Bild des Imperium Romanum im Spiegel der Literatur an der Wende vom 2. Zum 3. Jh. n. Chr. (Bonn, 1991), pp. 177-186, esp. p. 181. 4 On the so-called Third Century crisis in the Roman Empire and the preceding period of warfare which had started in 161, see G. Alföldy, Die Krise des Römischen Reiches – Geschichte, Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbetrachtung: Ausgewählte Beiträge (Stuttgart, 1989), pp. 319-342 (= ‘The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contem- poraries’, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 15 (1974), pp. 89-111); B. Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschrei- bung: Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras (Munich, 1992); K. Strobel, Das Imperium Romanum im ‘3. Jahrhundert’ (Stuttgart, 1993); L. de Blois, ‘Emperor and Empire in the Works of Greek-Speaking Authors of the Third Century A.D., ANRW, II, 34, 4 (Berlin and New York, 1998), 3394-3404; P. Cosme, L’état romain entre éclatement et continuité: L’empire romain de 192 à 325 (Paris, 1998), pp. 29-174; J.-M. Carrié and A. Rousselle, L’empire romain en mutation: L’empire romain des Sévères à Constantin (Paris, 1999); Chr. Witschel, Krise-Rezession- Stagnation?: Der Westen des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (Frankfurt am Main, 1999). On the preceding decades, see A.R. Birley, : A Biography (London, 19872); in German: idem, Mark Aurel (Munich, 1977); idem, The African Emperor, (London, 19882). CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 107 and bandits. Their leader, Maternus, even besieged the legio VIII Augusta in its camp at Strasbourg and then invaded and plundered Italy5. Unavoidable depopulation in border areas meant less production, smaller food surpluses, less tax income and a weakened logistical basis in the hin- terland of important armies. The plague, which raged all over the Empire from 166, must have diminished the population in many of its parts. The decline in population must have resulted in a more uneven distribution of people: more soldiers, fewer farmers. Marcus Aurelius had to replenish depleted legions and auxilia and created two new legiones Italicae. In his monography on this emperor, Anthony Birley describes his difficulties in finding recruits: Marcus had to enlist all kinds of people, even slaves.6 A sure sign that there were no longer men to be found who could be missed in agrarian and other economic activities. The situation slowly improved after 180 but from 193, after the violent death of the Emperor , recurring warfare and civil strife contin- ued to cause damage and put imperial finances and logistics under heavy strain. Septimius Severus eliminated his rivals, gained the throne, beat the Parthians and added the province of to the Empire. At the end of his reign he successfully waged war in Britain. Septimius Severus created three more legions, the legiones Parthicae, he raised the soldiers’ pay from 300 to 450 denarii per annum and improved their bonus payments. From this point onwards soldiers were allowed to marry, they were paid extra allowances in cash and kind and were granted a plot of land in their own frontier region.7 These measures, added to an ambitious building pro- gramme which was to enhance the prestige of the new dynasty, cost Septimius Severus a great deal of money. He acquired a handsome war booty in his wars against Parthia, he confiscated goods of senators who had supported his

5 On Maternus and his army of bandits, see I, 10; Scriptores Historiae Augus- tae [= SHA], Commodus 16, 2; Niger 3, 4; Année Epigraphique [= AE] (1956), p. 90. See F. Grosso, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Turin, 1964), p. 437 ff.; C.R. Whittaker, Herodian, I (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1969), p. 62 f., n. 1; G. Alföldy, ‘Bellum desertorum’, in Alföldy, Die Krise des Römischen Reiches (see n. 4), pp. 69-80 (first pub- lished in Bonner Jahrbücher, 171 (1971), pp. 367-376). 6 On the recruitment of new legions by Marcus Aurelius and the ensuing increase in expenditure, see A.R. Birley, Mark Aurel (see n. 4), p. 291 ff. 7 On the military reforms of Septimius Severus, see Cosme, L’état romain (see n. 4), p. 75 ff. 108 L. DE BLOIS rivals and raised tax income by adding a new province to the Empire but in spite of this he was compelled to tamper with the silver . He did not have enough plate or tax income to maintain the existing weight and fine- ness of this coin denomination.8 Why did Septimius Severus take upon him- self the heavy burden of a 50% rise of the soldiers’ pay? He was a capable administrator and must have known the risks. Probably he had no choice. Recruits were already scarce and Severus had to make military service more attractive. This may have been a precondition of survival of the Empire, as also declared. Some authors, like Duncan-Jones and Cosme, think that in this way Severus compensated his soldiers for the slow inflation which had taken place since the beginning of the second century A.D.9 Severus was succeeded by his son, , who reigned from A.D. 211 until 217. He bought off the Alamans in order to concentrate his forces in the East, where he lost his life during a rather unsuccessful campaign against the Parthians. If we may interpret remarks and invectives of Cassius Dio and Herodian in a more neutral way, he continued his father’s policy of making military service more attractive by granting large donativa, thus depleting his treasuries even further, which forced him to find new ways to raise his income. According to Cassius Dio, a contemporary senator who wrote a his- tory of in eighty books, Caracalla demanded many gold crowns from the communities in the Empire (Cassius Dio 77.9). He also created a new silver coin, the antoninanius, nominally a double denarius which actually contained only 1.6 times the quantity of precious metal, and lowered the weight of the to 6.59, a 9.3 % reduction. Denarii and aurei had been stable standard silver and gold coins for almost 250 years.10 The furnishing of gold crowns, in Latin the aurum coronarium, became a heavy burden on all communities in the Roman Empire.

8 On the reign of Septimius Severus, see Birley, Mark Aurel (see n. 4). On the debase- ment of the denarius and other coins in the period of the Severi, A.D. 193-235, see R.F. Bland, ‘The Development of Gold and Silver Coin Denominations, A.D. 193-253', in Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, 25.-27.3.1993, ed. C.E. King and D.G. Wigg (Berlin, 1996), p. 63 and pp. 67-70; K.W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C.to A.D. 700 (Balti- more and London, 1996), pp. 126-136. 9 See R. Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1994), p. 29 and p. 32; Cosme, L’état romain (see n. 4), p. 77. 10 See Bland ‘Development’ (see n. 8), p. 68 f. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 109

In 217, Caracalla was murdered and after a period of civil war came to power. In 218 already, he disappeared and was replaced by a young boy, , a so-called illegitimate son of Caracalla. The reason was that the military did not like Macrinus. In book 78, chapter 36, of his Roman History, Cassius Dio tells us that, in utter despair, the unfortunate Macrinus wrote a letter to Maximus, prefect of the city of Rome, in which, after mentioning various matters of a routine nature, he stated that even the newly-enlisted soldiers insisted on receiving everything that the others had been getting and that these other soldiers, who had not been deprived of anything, made common cause with the new recruits in their anger at what was being withheld from them. And, he said, of all the many means devised by Severus and his son (= Caracalla) for undermining military discipline, it was, on the one hand, impossible to give the troops their full pay in addition to the donatives that they were receiving and, on the other hand, impossible not to give it. He thought that Caracalla had spoiled the soldiery by giving them one benefit after the other. Elagabalus dedicated himself completely to his Syrian religious solar rites and neglected his administrative duties. In 222, he was murdered and replaced by his cousin, . The reign of Severus Alexander was characterised by a serious endeavour to return to traditional Antonine policies and good government in appointments, the administration of justice, the presentation of imperial power and monetary policies.11 This emperor tried to maintain the average weight and fineness of gold and silver coins and produced good copper money (sesterces and asses). The depicts his reign as a benign interlude between periods of military tyranny. This Vita, however, is not a reliable source. It belongs more to the literary genre of mirrors-of-princes than to serious historiography. Even so, a few

11 On the reign of Severus Alexander, see Herodian, book VI, and SHA, Alexander Severus, passim. See also Aurelius , Caesares 24, 1-7; , Breviarium 8, 23; 1, 11-12. The fourth century sources, i.e. the works of and Eutropius, describe Severus Alexander’s severity towards the soldiers (probably wishful thinking), the influence of the learned jurist and Alexander’s mother Mamaea, and the emperor’s glorious war against the Persians (also wishful thinking). Like Herodian (book VI), a contemporary writer, Zosimus, a historian who wrote in the beginning of the sixth century A.D. in Constantinople, is more nuanced. They criticize Severus Alexander’s dependence on his mother and his excessive thrift. On Ulpian’s career and death see T. Honoré, Ulpian (Oxford, 1982), pp. 6- 41. 110 L. DE BLOIS tangible improvements are discernible. This emperor tried to alleviate the burdens of local communities in the Empire, a not unnecessary action. A problem that pervades Greek literary works of the first half of the third cen- tury A.D. is the exceedingly heavy burden of taxation. In a recurring com- monplace, bad emperors are accused of feasting on money wrung from the poor and of robbing the rich to satisfy the soldiers.12 Greek-speaking local notables, the main readers of these works, must have recognised this com- monplace. They had already come into financial straits at the end of the sec- ond century and financial pressure continued to harass them in the follow- ing decades. In a letter which is still extant in a papyrus text from , Severus Alexander admits that the communities of the Empire could not pay more than they already do.13 Severus Alexander could not afford to lose the loyalty of the military but he was probably not really on their side. His connections with senators and jurists were good. A contemporary writer, Herodian, even calls the reign of Severus Alexander an ‘aristokratia’, because he listened more to aristocratic senators than to the soldiers. Severus Alexander and his advisers tried to avoid wars that would deliver them to the whims of the armies and deplete their coffers and favoured a policy of peace and appeasement, buying off wars rather than fighting the enemies. After choosing an aristocratic type of rule instead of strong military govern- ment, alleviating the burdens of local communities and choosing a rather conservative monetary policy, Severus Alexander could do no more. In this way, he saved money and did not become too dependent on the military cadre. According to Herodian, the soldiers called Severus Alexander names like ‘sissy emperor’ and accused him and his dominant mother Mamaea of meanness.14 Severus Alexander’s policy of avoiding war came to an end in A.D. 230. Great wars were impending in the East, North and West. The New Persian kingdom of the Sassanids came into being about A.D. 226 and

12 See Cassius Dio 52, 28-29; 72, 3.3 f.; 73, 16.2 f.; 75, 8.4 f.; 77, 9 and 13-16; 78, 9-14; Herodian 3, 8 f.; 6, 1.8 f.; 7, 3.1 ff.; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 5, 36; Ps.-Aelius Aristides, Eis basilea 16 and 30 ff.; Pap. Lond. inv. 2565 (= papyrus texts from the Lon- don collection, inventory nr 2565); Pap. Fayum. 20 (= nr 20 in the collection of papyrus texts from the Fayum oasis). See Cosme, L’état romain (see n. 4), pp. 86-95. 13 See Pap. Fayum 20. On Pap. Fayum 20 see J.H. Oliver, ‘On the Edict of Severus Alexander (P. Fayum 20)’, American Journal of Philology, 99 (1978), pp. 474-485. 14 On the excessive thrift and cautious diplomacy of Severus Alexander, Mamaea and their advisers, see Herodian VI, 1, 8; VI, 2, 3 ff.; VI, 4, 4; VI, 7, 9. Cf. Pap. Fayum 20. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 111 started to attack Roman vassals like Hatra and the Roman and Palmyrene strongholds along the river . Severus Alexander assembled a great army from all parts of the Empire and marched into hostile territory. The outcome was undecided. Some years later, the Persian king, Ardashir, took Hatra and other fortresses which provoked another big war in 242.15 In 233, new strong enemies threatened to cross the at and the Emperor had to hurry to the West, where he was murdered in 235 by mutinous, dis- appointed troops who then proclaimed Emperor16. Maximinus was originally a career officer and his policies were quite dif- ferent. According to Herodian, he successfully attacked Germanic tribes in their own homelands. Milestones and other findings have demonstrated that this emperor was very active in strengthening military infrastructures. This policy must have cost him a great deal of money. We may have some confidence in Herodian’s rather rhetorical and exaggerated stories about Maximinus’ greed, which, in Herodian’s view, amounted to world-wide plunder on an unprecedented scale.17 Even the soldiers’ relatives, he tells us in book 7.3.6, began to complain about it and not even temples and holy places were safe. Hard-pressed landowners in Northern rose in rebel- lion in A.D. 238. The old Gordian and his son, who was of the same name, were proclaimed and .18 The senate in Rome followed suit and another civil war broke out. Maximinus lost his throne and his life and so did the Gordians and the two emperors who had been appointed in Rome by the senate. In the end, Gordian III, a young grandson of Gordian I, came to power with the help of the soldiers in Rome.

15 On the Roman-Persian wars of the third century A.D., see E. Kettenhofen, Die römisch-persischen Kriege des dritten Jahrhunderts n.Chr. nach der Inschrift Schapurs I. an der Ka’be-ye Zartost (Wiesbaden, 1982). 16 On the history of the years 235-284, see Cosme, L’état romain (see n. 4), pp. 99-141. On the wars at the Northern frontiers, see E. Demougeot, La formation de l’Europe: Les invasions barbares des origines germaniques à l’avènement de Dioclétien (Paris, 1969). 17 On Maximinus’ efforts to improve military infrastructures, see B. Isaac, ‘Milestones in Judaea: From to Constantine’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly,110 (1978), p. 54 ff. On Maximinus’ campaign in and his harsh methods of tax raising and requi- sitioning supplies, see Herodian 7, 2-3. 18 On the rebellion in the province of Africa in 238, see Herodian 7, 4-9; SHA, Gord. 7-8; F. Kolb, ‘Der Aufstand der Provinz Africa Proconsularis im Jahre 238 n. Chr.’, Historia, 26 (1977), p. 440 ff., esp. p. 476 f.; M. Peachin, ‘Once more A.D. 238', Athenaeum, n.s. 67 (1989), pp. 594-604; Cosme, L’état romain (see n. 4), 103 ff. 112 L. DE BLOIS

The emperors who reigned from 238 did not restore political or mone- tary stability. They had to fight invaders in the Balkans and from 242 a new series of great wars broke out on the Eastern borders. The emperors again produced debased silver money, the so-called antoniniani, and progressively lowered the weight and fineness of other coins. Diminishing the purchasing power of military pay in this way, they must have undermined military dis- cipline. The Emperor Philip the Arabian tried in vain to revert to the less expensive peaceful policy of Severus Alexander.19 In the third quarter of the third century A.D., war, followed by hunger and epidemics, became an all- encompassing feature in the Roman Empire of those times. Enemies crossed all borders in the East and North and Roman armies, competing for scarce supplies, fought one another to put their own candidates on the imperial throne. From 250 to about 285, the plague played havoc with the popula- tion of the Roman Empire. Emperors were not safe either. In 251, the Emperor , a persecutor of the Christians, lost his life in a battle at the river , in the Dobrudscha and in 260, the Emperor , another persecutor of Christians, was taken prisoner by the Persians. In 270, the Emperor II Gothicus succumbed to the plague. The Emperor , who reigned together with his father from 253 to 260 and as sole emperor from 260 to 268, and the soldier-emperors who succeeded him (268-284) saved the Empire and restored some order but they were unable to bring back good times: misery was widespread, above all in war-stricken areas and hinterlands of big, demanding armies. The monetary system col- lapsed completely.20 The emperors who reigned from 238 were unable to restore military dis- cipline either. Quite a few of them were killed by their own soldiers or by military men serving their rivals. Complaints of a lack of means, caused by military foraging and plunder, recur with distressing regularity in petitions

19 On the reign of the Emperor Philip the Arabian, see L. de Blois, ‘The Reign of the Emperor Philip the Arabian’, Talanta, 10-11 (1978-1979), pp. 11-43; Chr. Körner, Philippus Arabs: Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-severischen Prinzipats [diss., Bern, 2000]. 20 On Roman history of the period 235-284, see Cosme, L’état romain (see n. 4), pp. 99- 141. On the Third Century crisis in general, see the works mentioned in note 4. On the debasement of the coins, resulting in the collapse of the monetary system, see Harl, Coinage (see n. 8), p. 129 ff.; and Bland, Development (see n. 8), p. 71 f. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 113 and literary sources.21 Actual heavy warfare, shifting from one border region to another, resulted in frequent transfers of military units which must have caused much damage. Soldiers travelling over the military highways foraged, looted and demanded transport facilities. Petitions from the reign of Cara- calla and from the second quarter of the third century, like those from Skap- topare in the Balkans and from Takina and Aragoe in Asia Minor (see note 21), reveal the misery caused by military misbehaviour. The problem may have been more widespread than available evidence indicates. After about 240, the number of inscriptions declined greatly. Plundering armies and groups of soldiers were also passing through northern border regions, which presumably produced fewer petitions than the Greek-speaking regions in the Balkans and Asia Minor so we do not see much of their complaints. In this situation of manifold crisis, groups that kept aloof from the rest of the population and did not participate in public religion and in fighting the enemies were far more conspicuous than before. In the belief that Christians who refused to participate in traditional cults angered the gods, which could bring about more war and plague, the pagans no longer tolerated them. Christian communities became the scapegoat in times of tension and mis- ery. In A.D. 249 in Alexandria in Egypt, before Decius implemented his great empire-wide persecution (, Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 41) the mob attacked the Christians. Decius’ edicts followed in 250. The idea that pagan religiosity was on the wane in the third century is completely false. On the contrary, in this tense atmosphere traditional rites became more popular.22 Meanwhile, Christendom had started to expand, also among the

21 Petitions and complaints: L. Robert, ‘Sur un papyrus de Bruxelles’, Revue de Philologie, 17 (1943), p. 115 ff.; idem, Comptes rendues de l’Académie des Inscriptions (1952), p. 589 ff.; idem, Opera Minora Selecta V (Amsterdam, 1989), p. 596 ff.; S. Mitchell, ‘Requisitioned Transport in the Roman Empire: A New Inscription from Pisidia’, Journal of Roman Studies, 66 (1976), p. 114 f.; P. Herrmann, Hilferufe aus den römischen Provinzen: Ein Aspekt der Krise des römischen Reiches im 3. Jh. n.Chr. (Hamburg, 1990), nrs. 4, 6 and 8 (4 = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) suppl. 12336 = Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas pertinentes (IGR) I 674 = Dittenberger, Sylloge 888, from Skaptopare; 6 = Orien- tis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS) 519 = IGR IV 598, from Aragoe); F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 19912), p. 646 (= Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum [SEG] 37, 1987, 1186). 22 See G. Alföldy, ‘Die Krise des Imperium Romanum und die Religion Roms’, in idem, Krise (see n. 4), pp. 349-389. 114 L. DE BLOIS higher classes.23 To give only one example: the parents of the Egyptian her- mit Antonius, whose date of birth may be about A.D. 251, were important, well-to-do people.24. Tertullian (ca A.D. 160-225), a well-educated Christian jurist and lawyer from North Africa, says: ‘We are but of yesterday, and we have filled everything you [the ] have – cities, islands, forts, towns, villages, military camps, tribal communities, town halls, the imperial palace, the senate house and the Forum, the centre of Rome’ (Apologeticum 37.4). This expansion in numbers may have annoyed traditionalist emperors, the military and traditionalist upper class people. Emperors like Decius and Valerian, who tried to rally the population of the Empire behind a reviving veneration of the old gods of Rome, started empire-wide general persecu- tions of the Christians, in 250 and 257 respectively. Already at the end of the second century A.D., the Platonist reproached the Christians for taking advantage of the peace and order in the Empire to travel and preach the gospel, while refusing to help the Emperor to keep out the barbarians or to share the burdens of local government. We should remember that local magistrates and members of communal councils were not paid, but had to pay for all kinds of euergesia and public services from their own pockets. Besides, they had to pay a summa honoraria to the local bursar for the honour of being a magistrate. In war-stricken areas, local councils had to deliver food, means of transportation and other logistical support to passing armies, which must have depleted their coffers. So local notables who had become Christians and who refused to bear their share of

23 See W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), p. 304 ff.; p. 347; p. 397 f.; R. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400 (London and New Haven, Conn., 1984), pp. 25-42; p. 105 ff.; R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (London 1986), pp. 265-280; pp. 293-309. Lane Fox is rather sceptical about the growth in numbers of Christianity until the reign of (p. 268 ff.; p. 317; p. 335; p. 556 ff.; p. 666), though not on good grounds. He has not been suc- cessful in demolishing the sound evidence of Frend, Martyrdom, pp. 440-476. Cf. F. Mil- lar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977, 19922), pp. 566 and 575; and J. Guyon, ‘Le décor des cimetières chrétiens de Rome au tournant du IVe siècle: Reflet et miroir d’une “nouvelle société”?’, in Crise et redressement dans les provinces européennes de l’empire, ed. E. Frézouls (Strasbourg, 1983), pp. 49-61. 24 See Athanasius, Vita Antonii 1, 3.2, ed. G.J.M. Bartelink, Sources Chrétiennes, 400 (Paris, 1994). See X. Loriot and D. Nony, La crise de l’empire romain 235-285 (Paris, 1997), p. 247 f. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 115 the burden must have added considerably to the problems of their peers. And if ever growing numbers of new Christians refused to fight, that must have diminished the potential number of recruits for the armies, in times in which recruits had already become scarce, as we have seen above. Celsus’ argument was that if everybody acted like the Christians the Emperor would remain alone and hosts of barbarians would conquer the Empire.25 Celsus may also have sensed that Christians had severed the tradi- tional bond between religion and ‘nation’ or people; he saw in Christianity a ‘privatising’ of religion, the transferral of religious values from the public sphere to a private association; a bad thing in times of renewed public piety towards the old state gods. ’s answer came half a century later. This Christian philosopher, who lived ca A.D. 184-254, was one of the greatest minds of those days. In Contra Celsum 8, 68-69 and 8, 73, he says that the Christians brought the emperor divine assistance by praying for him as recommended by the apos- tle Paul (first letter to Timothy 2:1-2). Origen writes:

‘While the others battle as soldiers they [the Christians] fight as priests and servants of the Lord and they keep their right hands clean but fight by praying to God to favour those who go to battle for a just cause and him who rules as a king, so that everything that is hostile to those who act justly can be defeated’ (8.73).

Remarkable indeed: the struggles of the emperor are a good cause, something to pray for! Even if the priority is still with the Christian community, Chris- tian prayer and the fight against the devil, as it is in these chapters of Contra Celsum, this statement is really a step forward in Christian political involve- ment. Tertullian allots the Christians a similar task: according to him, they battle in their prayers against demons, the true enemies (Apologeticum 37.9). In Contra Celsum 8.75 Origen deals with Celsus’ other reproach concern- ing involvement in administrative affairs. The Christians, Origen writes, do not take part in the administration of the earthly empire because they have a better, higher field of activity in the rule of Christian communities. So

25 See Origen, Contra Celsum 8, 68-75. See R.L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans saw them (London and New Haven, Conn., 1984), p. 124 f. 116 L. DE BLOIS

Origen began to think about imperial affairs, though keeping strictly to tra- ditional Christian views and priorities. This is even clearer in Contra Celsum II 30, a passage in which Origen writes about the coincidence of the com- ing of Christ and the reign of Augustus, who brought peace and unity to the Roman world. He writes:

‘God was preparing the nations for his teaching, that they might be under one Roman emperor, so that the unfriendly attitude of the nations to one another, caused by the existence of a large number of kingdoms, might not make it more difficult for ’ apostles to do what he commanded them when he said, “Go and teach all nations”. It is quite clear that Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus, the one who reduced to uniformity, so to speak, the many kingdoms on earth so that he had a single empire. It would have hindered Jesus’ teaching from being spread through the whole world if there had been many kingdoms, not only for the reasons just stated, but also because men everywhere would have been compelled to do military service and to fight in defence of their own land. This used to happen before the times of Augustus and even earlier still when a war was necessary, such as that between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, and sim- ilarly in the case of the other nations which fought one another. Accordingly, how could this teaching, which preaches peace and does not even allow men to take vengeance on their enemies, have had any success unless the international situation had everywhere been changed and a milder spirit prevailed at the advent of Jesus?’

This idea of the pre-ordained coincidence of the peace of Augustus and the coming of Jesus Christ had already been formulated by Bishop Melito of Sardes during the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) in a peti- tion to the Emperor which is quoted in Eusebius’ History of the Church:

‘Our way of thought first sprang up in a foreign land, but it flowered among your own peoples in the glorious reign of your ancestor Augus- tus, and became to your empire especially a portent of good, for from then on, the power of Rome grew great and splendid. To that power you have most happily succeeded; it will remain with you and your CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 117

son26 if you protect the way of thought that began with Augustus and has grown to full stature along with the empire. Your ancestors respected it, as they did the other cults, and the greatest proof that the establishment of our religion at the very time when the empire began so auspiciously was an unmitigated blessing lies in this fact – since the reign of Augustus the empire has suffered no damage, on the contrary everything has gone splendidly and gloriously and every prayer has been answered.’ (Historia Ecclesiastica IV 26).

In Melito’s and Origen’s views, the Empire was only an instrument which had facilitated the spread of the right faith. In their opinion, the emperors should not be angry about this because Christian prayer had brought pros- perity to the Empire. In the border regions, for instance in the East and in North Africa where many Christians lived, a different attitude arose among more humble Chris- tians who did not write learned treatises or petitions to the emperors. Cer- tainly after the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and probably already under his rule, Christians were drafted for service in local militias or in the regular armies in threatened areas. We have seen above that Tertullian mentioned forts and military camps among the places where Christians had become numerous. In his History of the Church, Eusebius tells us that prayers of the Christians in a legion from Melitene were answered with sudden rainfall when Emperor Marcus’ army happened to be suffering from thirst (Historia Eccle- siastica 5.5). Cassius Dio, not a Christian at all, knows of this marvel story and ascribes the miracle to an Egyptian sorcerer (71.8.4). The miracle was really famous: it was perpetuated in relief work, which is still now to be seen in the Vatican Museum. It may have become a commonplace story, how- ever. In book 75, chapter 7, Cassius Dio records a similar phenomenon in his account of the battle at Issus, where, in 193, Septimius Severus con- quered his rival . Like Severus, he was a pretender to the throne in the civil strife which had arisen after the Emperor Commodus had been killed at the end of the year 192. One could conclude from this that Christians participated in warfare in those times.

26 I.e. Commodus (A.D. 180-192). 118 L. DE BLOIS

In his De Corona, Tertullian tells us that a Christian soldier in North Africa refused to wreathe himself at a pagan festival with concomitant impe- rial cult. His Christian colleagues (!) tried to dissuade him from this strict attitude, reminding him of the ugly consequences he would bring on them if he persevered in his refusal. They did not object to participating in the imperial cult and were of a less rigorous mentality. They cannot have objected to fighting and killing either. During the years of the Third Century crisis, Christian leaders in war- stricken border regions were frequently confronted with problems ensuing from wars and invasions. In his Canonical Letter, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus, expresses his viewpoints regarding Chris- tians who profited from the misery caused by marauding and Borans who had been invading that area since 253.27 There were Christians who traded booty or who ‘found’ the possessions of other people. On the other hand, there were also heathens who guided the barbarians to the houses of Christians. According to Lane Fox, this Canonical Letter heralds the impor- tant part to be played by bishops in arbitration and the administration of justice in the course of the fourth century A.D. In his opinion, Christian leaders were already starting to fill vacuums created by secular authorities who had left their posts.28 In this way, Christian leaders began to take part in local and regional public activities. Christian bishops could already become the natural leaders of people in distress. In 253, the Persians attacked and took in , at the river Orontes, and deported part of the popu- lation. A Christian bishop soon became the leader of a group of deported people.29 The conclusion must be that Origen’s traditional Christian views were already overtaken by Christians who started to participate in fighting and in public activities30 during the many wars which had to be fought from about A.D. 161 and in the years of the Third Century crisis.

27 Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Epistula Canonica, canones 1-11, Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, 10 (1857), 1019-1047, esp. 1037 ff. On the raids of the barbarian tribes into Northern Asia Minor in the middle of the third century A.D., see Kettenhofen, Die römisch-persischen Kriege (see n. 15), p. 90 ff. 28 Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (see n. 23), p. 539 ff. 29 See Se’ert, Chronica, in J. Gagé, La montée des Sassanides et l’heure de Palmyre (Paris, 1964), p. 315 f.; cf. L. de Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden, 1976), p. 184 f. 30 See De Blois, ‘Emperor and Empire’ (see n. 4), 3436 f. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 119

In the third century, if we are to believe Eusebius, the Christian faith began to attract attention at the imperial court. From the first decades of the second century A.D., Christians had tried to get into touch with the impe- rial court; they had defended their faith against pagan attacks, in writings addressed to the emperors and, like Melito, had sent petitions to emperors to rid them of persecution. In the third century, however, some emperors may have been interested in Christian ideas and works of Christian authors and may on their own initiative have sought to meet Christian intellectuals. However, the evidence is dangerously meagre: all stories about this phe- nomenon come from Eusebius’ History of the Church and may amount to wishful thinking. Origen is said to have maintained contacts with Mamaea, the mother of the Emperor Severus Alexander, and with Philip the Arabian (A.D. 244-249) and his wife Otacilia Severa. Later rumours suggested that this emperor, Philip the Arabian, had really been the first Christian emperor. Eusebius tells us:

‘He [Philip], there is reason to believe, was a Christian and on the day of the last Easter vigil he wished to share in the prayers of the Church along with the people; but the prelate of the time would not let him come in until he made open confession and attached himself to those who were held to be in a state of sin and were occupying the place for penitents. Otherwise, if he had not done so, he would never have been received by him in view of the many accusations brought against him. It is said that he obeyed gladly, showing by his actions the genuine piety of his attitude towards the fear of God’ (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica VI 34).

Chr. Körner has demonstrated, however, that this is not a convincing story.31 In Eusebius’ own century, the fourth century A.D., stories like these must have been told to enhance the status of the Christian clergy and to tell about praefigurationes of pious Fourth Century emperors, with the message that they too had to submit to God’s Word and His clerical servants.

31 See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 21 (Mamaea) and VI, 36 (Philip the Arabian and Otacilia Severa); cf. Georgius Syncellus 675 and 682. See Körner, Philippus Arabs (see n. 19), pp. 227-238. 120 L. DE BLOIS

In the history of Third Century persecutions there is a commonplace, a topos. Reigns of emperors who sympathise with Christianity are followed by reigns of persecutors: the persecutor Maximinus Thrax succeeds Severus Alexander and Philip the Arabian is succeeded by Decius.32 Stories about philochristian attitudes of emperors who precede the reigns of persecutors are not very trustworthy. Very soon after the days of the Emperor Philip the Arabian, the Chris- tians in Egypt were persecuted, first by the Emperor Decius (A.D. 250) and then by Valerian (257-260). Between the periods of persecution, Christians became more active than ever in approaching the emperors with petitions, not only to get rid of the persecutions, but now also to reclaim confiscated goods and properties.33 In this way, they became openly involved in worldly matters and disputes. On the other hand, emperors learned more about Christian communities. Decius’ persecution hit all Christians without dis- crimination but Valerian tried to eliminate Christian leaders and Christian upper class people, in the expectation that Christian communities would consequently fall apart.34 In A.D. 260, a year of great disasters, Christians in Alexandria unwillingly became involved in a civil strife that was connected with the struggle for the throne between the Emperor Gallienus and a number of rival pretenders. In 260, the Emperor Valerian was taken prisoner by the Persian king, Shapur I, against whom he had taken the field. Valerian’s son and co-emperor Gallienus, a Platonist and friend of Plotinus,35 the founding father of Neo-Platonism, stopped persecuting the Christians, probably because he considered this activ-

32 See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 28 and 39. 33 See Millar, Emperor in the Roman World (see n. 23), p. 571, who quotes papyrus texts as evidence. 34 On the persecutions, see Frend, Martyrdom (see n. 23), pp. 389-439. According to Cyprian, Epistula 80, 1-2, Valerian in 257-258 attacked Christian senators, knights, decurions, servants of the emperor, rich ladies and clergy first. 35 Plotinus (A.D. 205-268/9) is the founding-father of Neo-Platonism. Like Origen, he came from Alexandria in Egypt, where he had been trained by the Platonist, Ammonius Saccas. From A.D. 244 to the end of his life, he was a teacher of Platonist philosophy in Rome. On his life see Porphyry, Vita Plotini. On Gallienus and Plotinus, see De Blois, Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (see n. 29), p. 185 ff.; idem, ‘Plotinus and Gallienus’, in Fructus centesimus: Mélanges offerts à Gerard J.M. Bartelink à l’occasion de son soixante- cinquième anniversaire, ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen a.o. (Steenbrugge and Dordrecht, 1989), pp. 69-82. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 121 ity a waste of energy. He had to fight dangerous enemies in all border regions of the Empire and even in Italy. Gallienus had an ally in the East, the vassal prince of , Odaenathus, whom he dearly needed to face rival pre- tenders, first the Macriani, persecutors of the Christians, who fell in 261, and then Aemilius , the prefect of Egypt, who was not a Christian-lover either. Aemilianus was eliminated by Gallienus’ admiral, Theodotus, in 262.36 Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria in those days, wrote about the events of those years in his Letters to Hermammon, which Eusebius quotes in full in his History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica VII 10-23, passim). The letters form a first-rate contemporary eye-witness report. First came the per- secution of Decius and then the plague, during which the Christians made a good impression. Simultaneously, while the pestilence was still raging, civil strife broke out in Alexandria. Bishop Dionysius seems to have taken sides with the reigning Emperor Gallienus, because in 260 he stopped the perse- cution of the Christians that had been inaugurated by his father and prede- cessor, Valerian, in 257. In Historia Ecclesiastica VII 13, Eusebius tells us:

‘Not long afterwards Valerian became the slave of the Persians (A.D. 260). His son, who now found himself sole ruler, showed more pru- dence in his conduct of affairs. One of his first acts was to issue edicts ending the persecution against us. To those responsible for the Word he granted freedom to perform their normal duties. This is the word- ing of the decree: “The Emperor Caesar Publius Gallienus Pius Felix Augustus to Dionysius, Pinnas, Demetrius and the other bishops. The benefit of my bounty I have ordered to be proclaimed throughout the world. All places of worship shall be restored to their owners; you bishops, therefore, may avail yourselves of the provisions of this decree to protect you from any interference. The complete lib- erty of action which you now possess has long been granted by me;37

36 See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica VII, 10-13 and 21-23. See S.I. Oost, ‘The Alexan- drian Seditions under Philip and Gallienus’, Classical Philology, 56 (1961), pp. 1-21 On the history of , see A.K. Bowman, Egypt after the Pharaohs 332 B.C.- A.D. 642: From Alexander to the Arab Conquest (Berkeley, 1986). On Gallienus, see De Blois, Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (see n. 29). 37 This letter was published in 262, in the province of Egypt which had just been con- quered by Gallienus through his victory against the Macriani and Aemilianus, pretenders to the throne. The edict seems to have been two years older. 122 L. DE BLOIS

accordingly Aurelius Quirinius, my chief minister, will enforce the ordinance given by me.” [Eusebius continues:] To make the meaning clearer, the decree here quoted has been translated from the original Latin [into Greek]. We also possess another enactment of the same emperor addressed to other bishops, permitting them to recover the ground occupied by cemeteries.’

A Roman emperor sends a message to Christian bishops and goes into details of the property rights of their communities! A momentous event indeed. Eusebius tells us about Bishop Dionysius:

‘Communicating again by letter with Hermammon and the Egyptian community, he has much to say about the criminal folly of Decius and his successors, and recalls the peace under Gallienus. It will be worth while to hear what he has to say about these things [Here fol- lows a quotation from a Letter to Hermammon:] “Macrian, after goading one of his emperors and attacking the other, suddenly disap- peared root and branch with his whole family, and Gallienus was pro- claimed and recognised by all. He was both an old emperor and a new; he both preceded and followed them. For, in accordance with the message given to the prophet Isaiah: See, the earliest things have come about and new things shall now arise.38 You know how a cloud sweeps under the sun’s rays and for a time screens and darkens it and is seen in its place; then when the cloud has gone by or melted, the sun reappears, shining as it did before. In the same way Macrian, after pushing himself forward and insinuating himself into the imperial prerogatives of Gallienus, is no more (he never was!), while Gallienus is just as he was before, and as if it had cast off its old age and purged away its former dross, the monarchy flourishes now as never before, is seen and heard over a wider sweep, and spreads in all directions.” [Here ends the first quotation from the Letter.] He goes on to indicate the time at which he wrote this [now follows a second quotation from the Letter to Hermammon:] “It occurs to me to take another look at the length of the various reigns. I observe that the wicked emperors

38 Isaiah 42:9. CHRISTIANS AND ROMAN IMPERIAL POLITICS 123

who were once famous have quickly been forgotten, while the one who became more religious and devoted to God has passed the seven- year mark and is now completing a ninth year, in which we may indeed keep festival” [A.D. 262].’ Here ends chapter 23 of book VII of Eusebius’ History of the Church. This is partisan language. Gallienus is almost ‘our emperor’ to this Christian writer, the man who had beaten the ungodly persecutors, the Macriani. Those enemies of God had turned out to be ephemeral pretenders, whereas Gallienus’ lawful reign lasted much longer. In this Letter to Hermammon, Bishop Dionysius reproduces the language of the imperial cult and com- pares Gallienus’ authority to the rays of the Sun, a much revered god among Third Century emperors.39 He combines this terminology with quotations from the prophecies of Isaiah. More than any Christian writer before him, he integrates the interests of his community and of Christians in general with the successes of a Roman emperor. This happened more than half a century before Constantine the Great gave liberty and legitimacy to the Christian Church and Faith and it happened first in Alexandria in Egypt.

SUMMARY

Christians and Roman Imperial Politics: The Changing Position of Christians in the Third Century A.D. In the third century A.D., particularly in war-ridden areas and especially during the years of crisis (249-284), Christians became involved in worldly matters, in fighting at the borders of the Empire and in public life, particularly in regions where Christians were numerous. Christian writers like Origen still stuck to tradi- tional views and aloofness but were overtaken by daily practice. On their side, Roman emperors learned a lot about Christian communities, their leaders and their properties. Already in 260, Christians in Alexandria in Egypt took sides with the Emperor Gallienus, who had stopped persecuting the Christians, against anti- Christian pretenders to the throne. Their bishop, Dionysius, describing this emperor’s victory, started to use terminology which he borrowed from formulas of imperial propaganda and the imperial cult. In this way, the integration of the Christians in Roman political life started, more than fifty years before Constantine the Great inaugurated the first Christian age in the history of the Roman Empire.

39 See M. Bergmann, Die Strahlen der Herrscher: Theomorphes Herrscherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Mainz, 1998), p. 267 ff.