Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

under Valens. 202 Lenski’s argument would have been strengthened if he had also noted
that the addressee of the law, Secundus Praetorian Prefect of the East, (also the
addressee of Valens’ CTh. 13.1.5 of 17 April 364) was a pagan, a friend of Julian to
whom the late emperor addressed his eighth oration and who had held his
Praetorianship through the reigns of Julian, Jovian and Valens. 203 Despite the
motivation given by Zosimus, it seems unlikely that either of the emperors would
have issued an avowedly anti-pagan law to the pagan Secundus, particularly as he
appears to have been trusted by Valentinian, and with good reason; Secundus, along
with Arintheus a tribune and Dagalaif the commander of the cavalry, had ensured
Valentian’s accession to the throne, according to Philostorgius, after the death of
Jovian. Ammianus indicates that after the death of Julian, Secundus had been offered
the throne, but had declined the offer. 204 The fact that he maintained his influence
over the new regime is illustrated by Zosimus: he states that Secundus had persuaded
Valentinian at the beginning of his reign that the illness which was affecting him was
not the result of witchcraft brought about by Julian’s friends. 205
However, the law does appear to be evidence that there was an inclination in
government to view some pagan cults, which had hitherto been regarded as
inoffensive, in the same light as illegal, nocturnal activities which had always been
regarded as wrong. Alternatively, this law which has survived as just twenty-six words
(and may, in its unedited, original form have been shorter than most laws), could have
been issued hurriedly with little thought as to its full implications and was perhaps
done so when Valentinian was still mindful of his recent illness (in March / April 364)
and was therefore trying to enact an extra precaution. Nevertheless, whatever the
motivations, the successful intervention of Praetextatus indicates that essentially
neither of the emperors had a substantive wish to assault paganism.
202 Lenski (2002) 217-218 n 36 and 37 for references.
203 Soc 3.19; Julian Or. 8 esp. 252 A-D
204 Lenski (2002) 21 n48 and 49; Eun. Fr. 30, Philost 8.8, Joh. Mal. 13.28; Amm. Marc. 26.2.1
205 Zos. 4.1.1; although he was later dismissed by Valens (Zos 4.2.3), as a result of machinations by
Valens’ father in law (Amm. Marc. 26.7.4), but this was a year after the issuing of this law, see Lenski
(2002) 105-106
143