Talk:Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire

Thinking bolder

After reflecting on the recent arguments about the title, I think the question merely scratches the surface of a much more fundamental problem: The framing of this article's subject is conceptually flawed—both because "pagan" is an inherently ad hoc and POV designation, and because the focus on "late" or "Christian" Roman Empire (the name of which could not be agreed upon) seems contrived as a reaction to the corollary article, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.

We have a content fork on our hands and I think that the only true solution would be to merge this article out of existence.

Some key points I have in mind:

• Focusing on the "late" Roman Empire is entirely arbitrary and relational to Christianity. There was quite a history of religious persecution in the Roman Empire before Christ was even born that provides critical context for what follows and should not be separated. For example, the Senate's suppression of the Bacchanalia in 186 BCE and the imperial abolition of the druids in Gaul after ~50 BCE (saw through to completion under Claudius 100 years later).
• In the "late" Roman Empire, we see different scenarios unfold for different "pagans". For example, even within just Gaul there were different treatments of the Romano-Celtic religion vs. Mithraism (which for some reason doesn't even get mentioned in this entire article). I think this really highlights the problem of how "pagan persecution" has been conceived in this context.
• The conflict that began between "paganism" and Christianity in Rome by no means ended with it. This article does touch on the ongoing relationship after a point that most would consider the "fall" of "Rome", which is good. But it ends with the 6th Century, which is an arbitrary cutoff as far as the relationship between Christianity (and what contemporaries would have conceived of as "the Roman Empire") and Paganism is concerned.

Some suggested ways to reframe coverage of the topic:

1. I think "Religious Persecution in the Roman Empire" is a more satisfactory and holistic way to frame the subject. It would put the events in their full context and solve the problem of using the "pagan" designation for coverage prior to the fall of Rome. An article exists for that, although it may need substantial overhaul as well as a merger from this article.
2. Since "paganism" only exists in relation to Christianity, the scope of an article about Christian persecution thereof should reflect that. The relationship between the two was spread over a huge geographic area and time frame. Focusing on the Late Roman Empire in this regard is arbitrary, since the relationship only began in that period and was not anywhere close to ending in it. An overview of the relationship between the two should be inclusive of successive iterations of the "Christian Roman Empire"—i.e., Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires in the Medieval period.

— Uiscefada (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Uiscefada: Not really much to do with what you just said, but this article was originally created as a containment zone for large amounts of original research which a now-banned editor added at Religious persecution in the Roman Empire back in 2007. Rather than simply remove it, another editor in 2011 unwisely split the content into multiple articles, not only the current one, but also Religious policies of Constantius II, Restoration of paganism from Julian until Valens, Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire, and Persecution of pagans under Theodosius I. They are all in a dismal state and I think they should just be deleted. The current article is in better condition because people have worked on it, but maybe it just needs to be deleted too. Avilich (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Now to address some of your concerns, you're right that 'late Roman Empire' is impertinent here. The article's original title was 'Persecution of pagans by the Christian Roman Empire', but opponents of this formulation have argued that 'Christian Roman Empire' doesn't exist and that 'Late Roman Empire' should be preferred because of googlehits (though they are unrelated concepts).Avilich (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Avilich If this article began as a literal content fork, then that would explain the root issue. I won't touch on the other articles you mention, since I haven't evaluated them and they should be addressed case-by-case at their respective talk pages.

It looks like much has changed since 2011, so I think the next step for this article is to take our time to go over it with a fine-toothed comb and determine what material, if any, needs to be merged into the main "Religious persecution in the Roman Empire" article. Then, if there is any good leftover material that doesn't already have a home elsewhere on Wikipedia, we will need to find the right home for it. Once those steps have been completed, then I would probably agree with deleting this particular article.

I want to emphasize the importance of taking our time to handle the process thoroughly, because any rash changes will only create another decade-long headache for future Wikipedians like what you say happened in 2011.

As far as immediate actions, we could probably slap a banner on this article to notify that it's being reviewed for merger due to being a content fork or something to that effect. — Uiscefada (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Uiscefada this is interesting. These are some of the same points Avilich was referring to when trying to change the title of this article. They all seem valid to me, hence my not so hasty assertion that consensus does not yet actually exist. What we actually have is simply inertia.
    • * Focusing on the "late" Roman Empire is entirely arbitrary and relational to Christianity... I think this really highlights the problem of how "pagan persecution" has been conceived in this context. Exactly. Absolutely. No disagreement on my part with anything said in these two paragraphs. So far, however, when previously attempting to shift focus in this manner, accusations of bias about Christianity and non NPOV start blasting around. Don't ask me how or why that even makes any sense. I can't explain it. But that's what happens.
    • But it ends with the 6th Century, which is an arbitrary cutoff as far as the relationship between Christianity (and what contemporaries would have conceived of as "the Roman Empire") and Paganism is concerned. Not completely arbitrary. This is a partial explanation of the timing, but periodization is not 'fixed' and is therefore adaptable if there is adequate reason: [1] I would be willing to listen to arguments.

• • "Religious Persecution in the Roman Empire" will never do as a title because then the entire article of Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire would have to be included and that would be monstrous. It's simply undoable. So a hard no on this one imo.
  • An overview of the relationship between the two should be inclusive of successive iterations of the "Christian Roman Empire"—i.e., Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires in the Medieval period. That article already exists as Christianization. This one focused on a more narrow time frame, which is legitimate, but perhaps Avilich is correct and it should simply be deleted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Jenhawk777

    'Religious Persecution in the Roman Empire' will never do as a title because then the entire article of Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire would have to be included

    Well, Religious persecution in the Roman Empire is already an article that exists! And it solves the length problem by having a summary section of the persecution against Christians accompanied with a link to the full "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire" sub-article. That seems perfectly fine to me. Do you have an issue with that arrangement?

    when previously attempting to shift focus in this manner, accusations of bias about Christianity and non NPOV start blasting around.

    I took a glance at some of the archived discussions, and it seems like the crux of the "NPOV" issue circulated around whether the events in question qualified as "persecution" or not. I think that issue is totally beside the point.

    What I outlined above seems like a better basis for why this article probably should just not exist. If we focus on that line of reasoning, then the article can instead be partly merged into the existing "Religious persecution in the Roman Empire" article, which hopefully will satisfy both camps.

    That article [covering Christianity and Paganism's relationship beyond the fall of Rome] already exists as Christianization.

    Indeed you're right, although that article is not without its issues (what article isn't?)

    Since that's the case, why don't we just look into also merging the relevant bits of this article into that one—or more likely, whatever relevant sub-articles fall beneath it (since it's largely just a series of summaries with links to sub-articles)?

    I haven't yet looked into what processes/policies exist for how to proceed with merge reviews and whatnot, but if you guys agree with merging into those two articles (and any pertinent sub-articles), then I think we could move forward with getting that sorted out.

    — Uiscefada (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the time myself, but I'm not opposed to a merger at all, if it can be accomplished. I do agree with you that the current title is very bad, and that some sort of solution to that needs to be worked out, regardless of whether the content will be merged. Avilich (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll start reviewing it and post updates as needed on this talk page. — Uiscefada (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Persecution of pagans by pagans

The only problem I see with this page is that it does not differentiate between the different pagan religions, paganism is a "junk drawer", and if we go to the origins of this "anti-pagan legislation" we see that it has a "pagan origin", for example the prohibition made by the pagan Romans against human sacrifices performed by pagan Celts and Germans. Same with divination, Tiberius (pagan emperor) made several decrees against this practice. Religious prohibitions in Rome existed since its origin. Also it's forgets to mention the evolution that Roman paganism underwent from polytheism to a quasi-monotheism in which it closely identified with Christianity (for example in the concept of Logos and the Trinitarian concept), thanks in part to the Neoplatonic influence. 83.47.19.95 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree Luxporphyra (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I also agree in principle. Rives has a long discussion of the difficulty of finding an adequate alternative, and scholars still generally use it - mostly just because it's easy and short. That of course does not make it right, so I would advise you to "Be bold" and add and modify with good sources and page numbers at your pleasure. I am sure the article will benefit from these additions which are both accurate and could be made pertinent to the topic. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be a disservice not to describe the religious conflict that existed as being between two competing religions. The pagans you mention didn't want to eradicate paganism in general, they just had gripes against some specific rituals or aspects of it. That's like saying Catholic-Protestant conflicts were "Persecution of Christians". We can clearly see that's not an accurate description. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, pagan Romans wanted to eradicate many cults, again, paganism is an umbrella-term, many cults were based in that specific rituals of worshipping, if those rituals were prohibited and its practitioners were persecuted, that cult went extincted. 83.58.26.9 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Deconsecration/Desacralisation

Prinsgezinde The problem here appears to be from a rewriting of Bayliss' original work. I used the original 2001 version, his doctoral thesis, that became his first book, which has now been rewritten into a two volume work so that the relevant pages are not in the newer version in the same manner. So I am copying it here.

In the article by Richard Bayliss, Provincial Cilicia and the Archaeology of Temple Conversion, in the original version that I read, the section titled "Temple Deconsecration" begins on page 36.

On page 37 he refers to Mambre saying there is "a distinction between the destruction of a pagan site ... and the Christianisation of pagan sanctuaries."

"the deconsecration process certainly appears to have involved the removal of icons and imagery from the interior of the temple and the removal of specifically “pagan” sculpture and relief from the built elements of the structure itself. ... Occasionally imagery was simply obscured rather than removed outright..."

On page 39: "According to Prudentius, writing let us remember, when the empire was supposedly heaving with temple-destroyers, the purification of a temple and its contents was assured solely by the prevention of blood sacrifice at the site. The Law Codes from around the same time as Prudentius was writing reflect the same ideology. Temples that were considered to be “empty of illicit things” were to suffer no further damage and idols were only “illicit” if they were still venerated."

pages 39-40; "In principal, the deconsecration of a temple therefore merely required the removal of the cult statue and altar. However, this was often extended to the removal or even destruction of other statues and icons, votive stelae and all other internal imagery and decoration. Such objects were not always destroyed by zealots or lime-burners. Some were relocated and displayed as works of art. In addition, the chisel could be applied to the more permanent sculptural imagery to accomplish either the defacement or Christianisation of the pagan gods and heroes depicted. These physically detectable means of purification were undoubtedly accompanied (or perhaps preceded) by chanting and ritual purification undertaken by holy men. Once the temple daimones had been ejected, their return could be prevented through the uses of crosses and Christian symbols, particularly around the entrances".

On page 21 of Bowersock describes deconsecration as a ritual, and desecration as a violence.

On page 355 of Lavan writes that "while some temples might have been razed to the ground, ... most were simply deconsecrated ..., To expel the demonic spirits, crosses could be carved." In the intro of this book, on pages xxiv, xxv, xxx, xxxiv, he describes the rarity of violent events against the temples, saying desacralisation was the alternative to violence which was actually rare.

Page 300 of has it.

Page 108 in the middle of the second column, and on 196 it's in fn.19 mentions deconsecration as a ritual.

At the bottom of page 58 in there is a mention of deconsecration.

It was the alternative to total destruction and was used more often apparently. It should be left in the article as it is.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting explanation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well alright. If there's an actual source for it that's fine. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Magic and paganism aren't the same thing

What I see by reading this article is that many "anti-pagan" edicts were not against polytheism, but in the realization of magic, adivination, astrology, sacrifices and other rituals that were already persecuted by pagan Romans. I think the title of the article should be changed and the text should be more specific about what cults or religious-philosopical schools were actually persecuted, because being paganism an umbrella-term and having as title 'Persecution of pagans' give the idea of a permanent persecution and genocide of anyone that wasn't christian, which is completely false. 83.58.26.9 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire → Religious policies in the late Roman Empire – More correctly, not all policies were against pagans and not all pagans were treated by the same edicts. 83.58.26.9 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a valid topic, and its scope is defined by the title. Its current contents are consistent with that title. If you change the title, you change the article's scope drastically, and essentially convert it into a different article about a different topic—which would be inconsistent with its contents.

Together with your edits to other articles, removing references to the closing of pagan temples by Christian emperors, and the religious beliefs/associations of pagan rulers, along with the similar requested move at Talk:Persecution of pagans under Theodosius I, I can only see this as an attempt to "sanitize" the records of various rulers and movements in order to absolve them of responsibility for paganism or its persecution—and that is inconsistent with WP:NPoV, a core policy of the encyclopedia. P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Aculeius summed it up pretty well.★Trekker (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: it's true that not all late-roman religious policies aimed at persecuting pagans, but late-roman persecution of pagans is still a perfectly valid topic for an article. This move would significantly change the scope of the article for no clear reason Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.