countjulian

People familiar with the study of late antiquity and its religious scene may be familiar with the common anti-Christian claim that the emperor Valens persecuted paganism and pagan philosophers for piety in the manner of their forefathers. The more astute scholars out their among you may know that his was not a persecution of paganism per se, but was more a persecution of magical practices seen as malicious or harmful. Those familiar with Roman history will know that previous emperors had engaged in such persecutions and hostilities. In fact, the persecution of the followers of Christ and Bacchus may be seen as a mere broad part of this effort, however misguided. A mere example would suffice: during the witch hunts of 371 and 372, John Chrysostom and a friend were walking down the side of river, and found a book with magical symbols in it, which they were deathly afraid of being caught with, for "who would believe that we had found that book in the river when everybody was being arrested, even the least suspicious?"

Now, surely other emperors had taken extreme measures, going so far as to burn some of the famous Sybillene Oracles, and the Apelius of fame had to defend himself on charges of witchcraft. But still, the repression of Valens, with its burning of books and decapitating of philosophers, was one of the most severe and outtrageous of such repressions in history. My questions, then, are three fold:

(1) Was the persecution of Valens the worst of all the Roman Emperors?
(2) Did the faith of Valens, e.g. Exodux 22:18 and thought derived therof, have anything to do with the outrageous overeaction and hysteria of Valens?
(3) In what ways did this persecution forshadow or have to do with later attempts to rid the Empire of all paganism what so ever?

The last one presents chances for some particularly nuanced responses, sine later Medieval caricatures of paganism presented it as nothing more than black magic and witchcraft (feeding into todays wiccans), which came from Christian polemecists' attempts to portray paganism as such, compounded by the fact that Mediterranean (especially Roman) paganism was very contractually, and focused on supernatural favors and auspices from the gods.

Thanks in advance.

andrewcriddle

I'm not an expert here but I'll try my best.

1/ Valens' persecution seems to have been local affecting mainly courtiers and those in the vicinty of the court. As such local imperial persecutions go it seems to have been severe but not uniquely so.

2/ I don't think there is clear evidence that Valens' Christianity contributed to his hysteria on the subject. Valens seems to have been a weak insecure man whose belief that some of those around him were wishing him dead caused him to act in ways that made his belief a self-fulfilling prophesy. (Maximus of Ephesus, Julian's guru and among the most prominent of Valens' victims, does seem to have been pressurised into prophesying the Emperor's death.)

3/ I think the difference between sorcery and mainstream paganism was clear enough for Valens' actions not to be a precedent for later measures against all forms of paganism. However the theurgy associated with the neo-Paganism of Julian et al did blur the line between sorcery and religion. and Valens' persecution probably did permanently marginalise theurgic forms of paganism. It may also have served as a precedent for the killing of the Christian Priscillian on sorcery charges and possibly also for measures against mystery cults such as that of Mithras.

Andrew Criddle