ABSTRACT
The accusation of persecution was an efficient rhetorical weapon in the fourth-century relations between the emperor and the ecclesiastical leaders. Roman emperors were constantly at risk of being labeled as persecutors when they took sides in the disputes between Christian sects such as the long-drawn-out doctrinal controversy between Nicenes and Homoians.
In their writings, Nicene bishops and church historians depicted Emperor Valens (r. 364–378) as a persecutor. This image has prevailed and endured, even in the modern accounts of Valens’ reign. In recent decades, however, R. M. Errington, Noel Lenski, and Susanna Elm have questioned this interpretation and viewed the policies of Valens in a more nuanced light. Such recent scholarship even questions whether we should categorize the emperor as an “Arian.” Instead, we could interpret Emperor Valens as attempting to calm the mutual conflicts of Christian sects, for instance, by banishing rabblerousing bishops; therefore, his policy of exiling Nicene bishops can be seen as a continuation of the age-old Roman tradition of keeping order in the cities by banishing troublemakers. From the imperial government’s perspective, the internal disagreements within the church threatened the much-craved unity in the Empire. Accordingly, imperial religious policies were dictated by the need to maintain civic peace.
This chapter examines how the image of Emperor Valens as a persecutor of Christians was construed by fourth- and fifth-century ecclesiastical writers, bishops, and church historians. An emperor could be slandered as a persecutor if he did not show himself effectively enough as a champion against “paganism” or “heresy.” For instance, Theodoret of Cyrrhus claimed that Valens permitted everyone except the Nicenes to worship in any manner they wished. Therefore, according to Theodoret, various pagan practices flourished under Valens’ reign. Gregory of Nazianzus declared Valens a new Julian and a pseudo-Christian. Valens’ denigration increased after the devastating defeat of Adrianople in 378 and the subsequent death of the emperor during the battle. For instance, in his campaign against Homoian Christianity, Ambrose of Milan explained military defeats, especially that at Adrianople in 378, as God’s punishment for Emperor Valens’ “Arianism.” Rufinus also made a similar connection between Valens’ (supposed) “Arianism” and his defeat at the hands of the Goths.
