The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries ALFÃ#LDY, GÃ#ZA Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1974; 15, 1; ProQuest pg. 89

The Crisis of the Third Century 
as Seen by Contemporaries 

Geza Alfoldy 

I 

"COMPLAINTS OF EVIL TIMES are to be found in all centuries which 
have left a literature behind them. But in the Roman Empire 
the decline is acknowledged in a manner which leaves no 

room for doubt."! This quotation from Jacob Burckhardt shows the 
importance of the historical self-awareness during the period of the 
great crisis of the Roman Empire in the third century. Reflection 
upon contemporary history, in the sense of its consideration and 
interpretation, will make it possible for us to understand a society by 
its capacity or incapacity to recognize its own position as well as its 
moving forces and changes, especially during periods of crisis and at 
turning-points of history. It is not necessary to emphasize the impor­
tance of the crisis of the third century for the history of the ancient 
world and for history in general. 

Burckhardt, it is true, spoke only of a <stormy moment' as far as 
the beginning of this transformation of the Roman world was con­
cerned, although in his work about the age of Constantine he had 
characterized it as the <vital crisis of the Ancient World'; he regarded 
the migration of peoples as the first <genuine crisis' in Roman history.2 
But the <genuine crisis' of the Roman Empire began neither with the 
migration of peoples nor, as A. J. Toynbee saw it, as early as the fifth 
century B.C.,3 but rather with the crisis of the third century (not to be 
understood in the exact chronological sense). This is true even in 
Burckhardt's conception of crisis, viZ' the coincidence of economic, 

1 J. Burckhardt, The Age oj Constantine the Great, transI. M. Hadas (New York 1949) 216. 
This essay, also the subject of a lecture, was written during my stay at the Institute for 
Advanced Study in Princeton in the academic year 1972/73. I am greatly indebted to 
Professor J. F. Gilliam (Princeton) and Miss G. Schoppe (Bochum) for helping me with the 
formulation of the English text. 

2 J. Burckhardt, Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, in Gesamtausgabe VII (Berlin/Leipzig 
1929) 128; cJ id., op.cit. (supra n.1) 215. 

3 A. J. Toynbec. Civilisation on Trial (New York 1948) 227. 

89 



90 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

social, political and spiritual changes causing an accelerated general 
process in the course of which an old system would be replaced by a 
new one. Already late Roman historiography saw this process, in 
particular under Gallienus, almost as a collapse of the Empire: 
Eutropius saw here a catastrophic period, desperatis rebus et deleto 
paene imperio Romano, the author of the Historia Augusta the danger 
that venera bile hoc Romani nominis finitum esset imperium, and Zosimus 

I f · , '.J:" , , 'f3 '(j 4 saw tota con USlon: 7TaV'T"a JLEV 'IV avapxa 'T"E Kat a 01] 1]'T"a. 

But the subject of this essay is to give an account of contemporary 
views, that is to say, from the end of the second century, when this 
crisis developed and became apparent, up to the consolidation of the 
Empire at the turn from the third to the fourth century. The data we 
get from inscriptions and coins, in particular for the attitude of 
official propaganda, e.g. the necessity of a saeculum novum or the 
emphasis of success of emperors in the restitutio orbis, cannot be 
treated here in a satisfactory manner, nor can the papyrological 
evidence. Our main sources for the general attitude of larger groups 
of Roman society towards contemporary history are literary ones. 
The authors of the third century were, on the whole, deeply interested 
in the problems of their own time. Silence about actual problems of 
the Empire (as e.g. in the works of Clement of Alexandria) was not 
typical. History as a science was, however, in decline: after Cassius 
Dio, Herodian wrote fiction rather than history (or, to be more pre­
cise, a series of novels), and a historian such as Dexippus was ex­
ceptional. But non-historians dealt regularly with contemporary 
history-even Christians did, following Tertullian's admonition, 
cursus saeculi intuere, tempora labentia dinumera, metas consummationis 
specta (Spect. 19.2). 

Our preserved literary sources from the third century are quite 
diverse works of pagans and Christians, historians and rhetors, 
apologists and philosophers, written in Egypt, Asia Minor, Africa, 
Rome, Gaul or elsewhere, and their statements are influenced by 
time, place, religion, by the authors' personal interests and by the 

, Eutrop. 9.9.1; SHA, Tyr.Trig. 5.7 (cf. SHA, Aurelian 21.1); Zos. 1.27.1. For ancient 
theories concerning the decline of the Roman Empire see esp. W. Rehm, Der Untergang 
Roms im abendliindischen Denken (Leipzig 1930) 9ff; S. Mazzarino, Das Ende der antiken Welt 
(Mlinchen 1961) llff. Cf. also F. Vittinghoff, "Zum geschichtlichen Selbstverstandnis der 
Spatantike," HZ 198 (1964) 529ff. For the third century see esp. J. Moreau, "Krise und 
Verfall. Das dritte Jahrhundert n. Chr. als historisches Problem," in Scripta Minora (Heidel­
berg 1964) 26ff. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 91 

literary genos.5 This very variety of sources gives some guarantee for 
their representative character for Roman sodety-or, at least, for its 
educated classes. It is noteworthy that the larger part of the known 
literary sources from the third century was written by Christians, 
though they were only a minority of the population. Christians, how­
ever, were not only heavily affiicted by the events of that age (first of 

all by the persecutions, caused in particular by the crisis of the Em­
pire), but also they were interested in contemporary events which 
seemed to support their belief in the highest degree, and their views 
concerning the crisis of the Roman world were not at all so different 
from pagan ideas as they seem at first sight. 

The tradition of Roman pessimism regarding the history of one's 
own time was, as we know, as old as Roman literature itself, and it is 
not the subject of this paper to trace this pessimism back to the time 
of the Republic and early Empire. But it is necessary to make two 
suggestions as to the beginning of crisis-literature in the Severan age. 
First, from the early Empire one could doubtless quote several com­
plaints about decline in politics, ethics and above all in culture; this 
pessimistic idea of decline was not, however, identical with a state­
ment of a general crisis embracing decay in all sections of public life, 
as it was in the third century. Secondly, in the period preceding the 
crisis of the third century, Roman self-reliance had been, in spite of 
isolated laments about a decline, perhaps stronger than ever before: 
one may recall the idea of Florus about the rejuvenation of the 
Empire or the speech of Aristides on Rome. An atmosphere of 
general pessimism emphasizing the present crisis spread only after 
the beginning of military catastrophes under Marcus Aurelius, after 
the political struggle under Commodus, and particularly after the 
collapse of the Antonine monarchy and the ensuing civil wars. 

II 

Already the Sever an age had left no doubt about its feelings of a 
general crisis of the Empire. Mter the fall of Commodus, the ruling 
classes were obviously convinced that the Empire needed to be 
restored: in 193, Septimius Severus, Clodius Albinus, and first of all 
Pescennius Niger in the East proclaimed programmes of restitution, 

5 Cf e.g. the remarks of W. H. C. Frend, "The Roman Empire in Eastern and Western 
Historiography," ProcCambPhiiSoc 14 (1968) 19ff. 



92 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

promising a new age.6 This continued to be the language of imperial 
propaganda for the future, just as it had been in earlier periods; 
nevertheless, the emperors (or at least some of them) saw clearly the 
difficult new situation of the Empire, arising from profound changes 
in its structure which made efforts for stabilization necessary. The 
pressing financial need of the state, ~ 7T[a]pd: TOVC KaLpovc S7]J-Loclovc 

a7Topia, was openly confessed by Severus Alexander in his edict on 
the aurum coronarium, and the emperor emphasized his efforts against 
the financial crisis: Kai7TEp K'KJ-L7]Ka T6 KAl:vov avaA~J-LifJEc()at. 7 At the 
same time, he was the first emperor to be celebrated in epigraphical 
documents clearly as restitutor orbis8 (on coins, this title had already 
appeared under Hadrian). 

Literary sources of the Severan age give detailed evidence of the 
decay. Ulpian and Philostratus emphasized manpower shortage and 
physical degeneration.9 Contemporary history from the death of 
Marcus Aurelius to the reign of Severus Alexander was described by 
Cassius Dio as an age of iron and rust after the golden age of Marcus 
Aurelius,lo and all the political, social, economic and spiritual dis­
turbances of his time caused in his view a crisis of the whole Empire, 
which had been symbolized already by the fire in Rome under 
C d h t • • ~ 1\ ' ~ ~ , '\\', ., -ommo us, t a OUK EV TTl 7T01\€, TO OHVOV CT7]CETat, al\l\a Kat E7Tt 7Tacav 

T~V OlKOVJ-L'V7]V alhfjc ac/>tgETat (72.24.2). This opinion was not confined 
to the upper classes. A few years after Dio had finished his monu­
mental Roman history, the author of the twelfth book of the Dracula 
Sibyllina, a Jew in the East who was loyal to Rome, saw in the present 
age a new, bloody and catastrophic period in the history of the 
Empire which had begun with the reign of Commodus and especially 
with the civil wars following the year 193.11 But men such as Dio and 
Philostratus were still convinced that, in spite of all present evil, the 

6 Cf on this G. Alfoldy. "Das neue saeculum des Pescennius Niger," forthcoming in 
Historia-Augusta-Colloquium Bonn 1973. 

7 P.Fay. 20; see esp. W. Schubart, "Zum Edikt tiber das aurum coronarium," ArchP 14 
(1941) 44ff (text on p.45). Cf also C. Preaux, "Sur Ie deciin de l'Empire au me siecie de 
notre ere: a propos du P.Fayum 20," Cd'E 16 (1941)123ff. 

8 CIL VIII 8797 a=AE 1940, 151 (cf AE 1948 p.86). 
8 Ulp. Dig. 50.6.3; Philostr. Gymn. If and 44. 
10 Casso Dio 71.36.4; cf F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 119ff. 
11 Orac.Sib. 12..2.04ff. Cf esp. J. Geffcken, "Romische Kaiser im Volksmunde der Provinz," 

GottNachr 1901, 183ff, and id., Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig 
1902) 56ff. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 93 

sound world of the past (in Dio's view the Antonine monarchy) could 
be restored: this is the idea of the speech of Maecenas and also of the 
speech of Apollonius of Tyana before Vespasian, as written by 
Philostratus. 

Apart from all religious and philosophical differences, contem­
porary Christian views on the present condition of the Empire show 

interesting similarities. The primitive eschatology of early Christian 
communities, expecting the end of the world in the near future, had 
been abandoned already in the second century except by minor 
groups such as the Montanists. Immediately after the fall of Com­
modus, the Orient, it is true, was swept by a new eschatological 
wave: there are groups attested in Asia Minor, in Syria, in Palestine, 
and perhaps also in Alexandria, who were expecting the Empire of 
Christ on earth in the immediate future.12 The Christian and chiliastic 
way of reflection about contemporary events was the same as in the 
programme of Pescennius Niger, viZ. that one age had ended and a 
new one had begun; this thought was perhaps influenced by the 
oracle in the eighth Sibylline book (dating from the time of Marcus 
Aurelius) predicting the end of the Empire for the 948th year of 
Rome, i.e. for A.D. 195.13 The great representatives of the Church in 
the Severan age, however, did not share this view. Hippolytus of 
Rome and especially Tertullian certainly recognized the situation of 
the Empire, seeing wars, natural catastrophes and persecutions of the 
Church and also all actual necessitates and querellae as prognostics of 
the crisis of the Empire.14 But they expected the end, as Irenaeus and 
Sextus Iulius Africanus did, only in the remote future; to them, 
Rome was the one power which could prevent the end of the world 
in the near future (Tertullian later changed his view under the in­
fluence of Montanism). This opinion was, in the Christian way of 
thinking, more or less the same as the view of Dio: the Empire was 
undergoing a serious crisis, but thanks to its internal vigour it was not 
helpless. Tertullian saw it like this: naturally the fall of Rome must 
come one day, and the present time was already an age in which 
concutitur imperium; but the strength of Rome could still delay the 
clausula saeculi, and thus the mora finis was a real chance, in particular 

12 Hippo!' In Dan. comm. 4.1B.lff and 4.19.1ff; Terr. Adv. Marc. 3.24.4; Euseb. Hist.Eccl. 6.7. 
13 Orac.Sib. B.145ff. Cf A. Kurfess, Sibyllinische Weissagungen (Berlin 1951) 319. 
14 Cf e.g. Hippol. In Dan. comm. 4.51; Terr. Apol. 20.1ff and De animo 30.4 (on necessitates 

artiores, et querellae apud omnes). 



94 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

because Christians were praying to God for the welfare of the Empire 
and for Romana diuturnitas.15 

By the coincidence of barbarian invasions, civil wars, usurpations, 
increasing economic difficulties and natural catastrophes in the mid­
third century, pessimism got the upper hand, obviously among all 
groups of Roman society. In a petition of peasants from Asia Minor 
under Philip, the immediate past is characterized as an age of neces­
sities and upheavals, 7Tov7]pla Ka, S£acELCJLol.16 Some years later, under 
Decius, in a trial in Egypt (the minutes of which are preserved in a 
papyrus) the prefect of the province refused a community's complaint 
about its miserable state, remarking that E-?J7Toplac JLE'TafJoA~ was a 
common fate of cities and villages of the Empire after Septimius 
Severus.17 The speech Etc fJaCtA€a of an unknown rhetor under Philip 
depicts the catastrophic situation under the predecessors of this 
emperor. The Empire was the victim of tyrants; cities were destroyed 
and countries depopulated in civil wars; justice, finances, the army 
and foreign politics were managed in an unsatisfactory and bad 
manner; on the whole, the Empire was like an ill and rotting body, 
or like a bolting horse it was in total confusion, O:7T<XV'TWV JLEV KEKtV7]-

, \ (J , C' II ,.... , C' I_\. I c;::.\ 
JLEVWV Kat JLE £C'TaJLEVWV, WC E7TOC E£7TE£V, EtC E'TEpaV Y7]V, caI\EVOVC7]C OE 

'Tfjc apxfjc evC7TEP €V JLE'yaAce XE£JLWV£ 1j CEtcJL~, it began to sink like a 
ship, and its rulers, being tired and helpless, were not able to find a 
way out; thus there was an increasing fear of the uncertain future.1s 

The rhetor praised Philip as a saviour, as did even the authors of the 
15 Tert. Apol. 31.3, 32.1 and 39.2; Ad Scap. 2.6; De Resurr. 24.18. Cf. also Iren. Adv. haer. 

4.30.3 and 5.24.1ff; Hippol. In Dan. comm. 4.8 and De Christo et Antichr. 28. For the opinion 
of these authors concerning Rome cf. esp. R. Klein, Tertullian und das rlJmische Reich (Heidel­
berg 1968) 30ff; J. Speigl, Der rlJmische Staat und die Christen (Amsterdam 1970) 244ff; 
K. J. Neumann, Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung zu Staat und Welt (Leipzig 1902) llff; 
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (New York 1967) 347f. Cf. 
further A. Lureau, L'histoire du salut cheZ les Peres de rEglise. La doctrine des ages du monde 
(Paris 1914) 94ff, 209ff. 

141 CIL III 14191=IGRR IV 598=OGIS 519; if. A. Schulten, "Libello dei coloni d'un de­
manio imperiale in Asia," RiimMitt 13 (1898) 221ff. 

11 P.Lond. 2565. See esp. T. C. Skeat and E. P. Wegener, "A Trial before the Prefect of 
Egypt Appius Sabinus, c. 250 A.D." JEA 21 (1935) 224ff. 

18 Elc /Iacv..la 7ff, esp. 14 (Keil). As to the problem of the dating of this speech, I follow 
the opinion of E. Groag, "Studien zur Kaisergeschichte II. Die Kaiserrede des Pseudo­
Aristides," WS 40 (1918) 2off; cf. also J. Moreau, op.cit. (supra n.5) 35f, and L. J. Swift, "The 
Anonymous Encomium of Philip the Arab," GRBS 7 (1966) 267ff. According to C. P. Jones, 
"Aelius Aristides, Elc /Iacv..la," JRS 62 (1972) 134ff, the speech is a genuine work by Aelius 
Aristides. But his arguments, which would need detailed reconsideration, do not seem 
convincing. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 95 

petItIon mentioned above, and the prefect of Egypt noted in the 
minutes of the trial that Decius was expected to restore the order of 
the Empire. In official propaganda, most emperors were praised, 
from the time of Gordian III onward, as restitutor orbis or the 
like. 

Herodian, under philip or perhaps under Decius, took a more 

realistic view of things; the work of this author is, notwithstanding his 
lack of exactness in reporting facts, our best source for the views of the 
lower social groups about history in the mid-third century.19 In 
Herodian's conception, the period of Roman history after the death of 
Marcus Aurelius was a continual series of heavy catastrophes, inter­
rupted at best by short breathing-spells which were followed, how­
ever, by worse periods, with the danger that the Empire might 
collapse, apx~ caAeJovca Ka~ napa p.lr}SElIt nw f3ef3atwc lSpvf-L€vYJ (2.8.4). 

But Herodian left no doubt about his opinion that the restoration of 
the Antonine type of monarchy was no longer possible, because only 
hard soldier-emperors, with the aid of the armies, were still able to 
hold the Empire together and to defend it against the barbarians. 
And after the defeat Decius suffered in his war against the Goths, in a 
catastrophic situation around 253, Saint Cyprian noted as a general 
opinion that the collapse of the Roman Empire was at hand: hoc 
etiam nobis tacentibus ... mundus ipse iam loqUitur et occasum sui rerum 
labentium probatione testatur (Ad Demetr. 3). 

Contemporary Christian judgements, too, reflected exactly the 
historical situation. Origen in his later works became increasingly 
interested in his own time and in the future of the Empire; in par­
ticular in his commentary on Matthew, written under Philip, though 
he described the afflictions of his time, he still believed that Rome 
had a future. 2o But some ten years later, Commodianus was con­
vinced that the annihilation of the Empire, beginning with barbarian 
invasions, with military revolts and with persecutions of the Church 
(a vision clearly influenced by contemporary events), was to be 
expected in the near future, perhaps in the seventh year of the reign of 

19 See esp. G. AlfOldy, "Zeitgeschichte und Krisenempfindung bei Herodian," Hermes 99 

(1971) 429ff. In the work ofB. Forte, Rome and the Romans as the Greeks Saw Them (PAAR 24, 
Rome 197Z), there are only few remarks about this very important author (pp.364, 451, 
456). 

20 Cf esp. COl1lm. in .Watth. Ser. 36ff and Contra Ce/sum 7.7Zff; cf L. Atzberger. Geschichte 
der cllristlichcn Eschatologie innerhalb der vorniciinischen Zeit (Freiburg i.B. 1896, repr. Graz 
1970) 427ff. 



96 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

Valerian and Gallienus.21 His contemporary Dionysius of Alexandria 
emphasized under Valerian the decay of the Empire brought about 
by wars, revolts, plagues and manpower shortage, but after the 
seventh year of Gallienus' reign was over and the persecution of the 
Church ended, he became astonishingly optimistic.22 A similar 
attitude can be found in Book XIII of the Christian Oracula Sibyllina: 
the author was in despair of the decay of the Empire through ex­
ternal and internal wars since the time of Gordian III, but he saw in 
the emperor (in Odaenathus and not in Gallienus) the lion sent by the 
Sun, who was able to defeat the Persians and to restore the unity of 
the Empire.23 

Our most valuable Christian source of this time is Saint Cyprian, 
bishop of Carthage. We know the development of his ideas about the 
situation of the Empire for a period of some twelve years (from ca. 
246 until 258), exactly following historical events and changes.24 

Cyprian was not only a keen observer of contemporary history, but 
his correspondence and an <intelligence service' at the imperial court 
enabled him to be very well informed about events in the whole 
Empire; he was able, for example, to communicate to other bishops 
the contents of a secret order of Valerian before it reached the pro­
vincial governors (Ep. 80.1). Most scholars tell us that he had always 
been convinced that the Empire would collapse in the immediate 
future, but this is not true. In his earlier works, Cyprian emphasized 
that the Empire was in a crisis, primarily because of its moral decline; 
but he, like Origen in these years, did not predict its approaching 
end. Even during the first great persecution of the Church under 
Decius, Cyprian did not change his mind, in contrast to his correspon­
dents in Africa and Rome, who saw in Decius already the metator 
antichristi and considered the world almost destroyed.25 A change in 

21 Instr. 1.41.1ff and Cann. 791ff. On the date cf esp. J. Gage, "Le poeme messianique de 
Commodien et Ia crise religieuse de l'Empire romain vers 260 ap. J.C," RHR 159/160 (1961) 
131ff; id., "Commodien et Ie moment millenariste du lIe siecle (258-262 ap. J.c.)," Rev 
RistPhilRel 41 (1961) 355ff; M. Sordi, "Diogini d'AIessandria, Commodiano ed alcuni 
problerni della storia del III secolo," RendPontAcc 35 (1962/63) 123ff. 

22 Euseb. Rist.Eccl. 7.21.lff; 7.22.1ff; 7.23. Iff. Cf M. Sordi, op.cit. (supra n.21), and S. I. 
Oost, "The Alexandrian Seditions under Philip and Gallienus," CP 56 (1961) Iff. 

23 Orac.Sib. 13.9fT; cf esp. Geffcken, Komposition (supra n.ll) 59fT. 
24 See esp. G. AlfOldy, "Der heilige Cyprian und die Krise des romischen Reiches," 

Historia 22 (1973) 479ff. 
25 See on this Cypr. Ep. 22.1; 30.5 and 31.6; for Cyprian's views see esp. his work Ad 

Donatum, further Ep. 11.8; De lapsis 1 and 17f. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 97 

Cyprian's ideas about the fate of the Empire can be discerned only 
after the spring of 251, especially in his excellent treatise on the crisis 
of the Empire, Ad Demetrianum, written in 252 or 253. First the 
splitting of the Church by heretics, then the defeat of Decius, other 
wars, natural catastrophes, plagues, economic hardships and the 
danger of a new persecution led hiIll to believe that all these mala, 
adversa, clades, plagae and strages portended the collapse of the 
Empire-that corruens iam mundus et malorum infestantium turbinibus 
obsessus (De Mort. 25); mundus ecce nutat et labitur et ruinam sui non iam 
senectute rerum sed fine testatur (ibid.); iam mundi finiS in proximo est (Ad 
Demetr. 23); iam mundus totus in deJectione sit et in fine (ibid. 4). But the 
years passed, and one became accustomed to live under adverse con­
ditions; and it seems that Cyprian changed his mind again. It was in 
his 67th letter, written in 254, that he warned the Christians for the 
last time of the approaching end of the world, and in his last writings 
he returned to the view he had expressed under the persecution of 
Decius: the ultionis dies had not arrived yet, and the martyrs had to 
wait for this day in patience.26 

After Gallienus, optimism spread again, especially after the suc­
cesses of the great restitutores orbis, in particular Aurelian, Probus and 
Diocletian. The main theme of the official propaganda at this time 
was that Rome had mastered an immense crisis in her history, by the 
merits of her emperors. In Diocletian's own words, the Empire was 
restored tranquillo orbis statu et in gremio altissimae quietis locato, etiam 
pads bonis, propter quam sudore largo laboratum est.27 Celebrating the 
restitutio, the renovatio, the rebirth of aurea ilia saecula, contemporary 
panegyrists looked back in horror to the mid-third century, of which 
they said sive incuria rerum sive quadam inclinatione fatorum omnibus Jere 
membris erat truncata res publica.28 Even Christians became less pessi­
mistic than before, in spite of the terrible persecution under Dio­
cletian. Arnobius was convinced that also in his time (under Dio­
cletian) urgent tempora periculis plena (Adv. nat. 2.78), and he gave a 
detailed description of the mala of the Empire; but he saw in them 
only evidence for permanent changes in history, and he did not point 
out consequences for the immediate future, as Commodianus or 

26 De bono patientiae 21; similarly in De lapsis IS, dating from 251. 
27 De pret., praef. 5; see the text now in S. Lauffer, Diokletians Preisedikt (Berlin 1971) 90ff. 
28 Paneg. 4 (S) 10.2. Cf also Paneg. 2 (10) 4.2; 3 (11) 5.3; 5 (9) lS.1; 6 (7) 2.2. Aurea ilia 

saecula: Paneg. 5 (9) 18.5. 



98 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

Cyprian had done.29 His pupil Lactantius vehemently denied that in 
his time, when the Empire had become senile already, an aureus 
humanarum rerum status should have been reached.30 But he pointed 
out that the Empire would not come to an end for another 200 years. 
It is noteworthy that the same calculation of 6000 years for the whole 
of universal history had led Cyprian fifty years earlier to a wholly 
different conclusion:31 he had not completely denied the possibility 
of the rebirth of the tempus illud aureum if the pagan world was con­
verted to Christianity (Div.lnst. 5.8.3); and after the edict of Galerius 
he had celebrated the beginning of a new age, restituta per orbem 
tranquillitate, in the same terminology as emperors and panegyrists 
had done (De mort.pers. 1.2). 

III 

This brief chronological survey of some echoes of contemporary 
history during the crisis of the third century shows a uniformity in 
judgement: Roman society was generally convinced that it was living 
in an age of serious transformations, and that the result of these 
changes meant present collapse or future uncertainty for the Empire. 
A general transformation of the traditional order was the basic 
experience of people when considering contemporary events. From 
third-century authors may be derived a catalogue of basic changes in 
the situation of the Empire. 

First, the transformation of the monarchy. In particular Dio and 
Herodian, but also such 'popular historians' as the authors of the 
contemporary libri Sibyllini, described this process, which today is 
called the change from the principate to the dominate (in Herodian's 
terminology, from apLcToKpaTLa to TvpavvLc).32 They related the rise 
of a new type of emperor, ruling in an increasingly authoritarian and 
at the same time military manner; they deplored or recorded how 

29 Adv. nat. l.1ff. Cf E. Rapisarda, Amobio (Catania 1946) 55£[ 
30 Div.lnst. 5.8.8.; cf 7.15.14ff. See also his attacks against Diocletian, De mort.pers. 7.1ff. 
31 Div.Inst .. 7.25.3ff; Cypr. Ad. Fort. praef. 2. Cf H. W. A. van Rooijen-Dijkman, De vita 

beata. Het zevende Boek van de Divinae institutiones van Lactantius (Assen 1967) 101ff; V. Loi, 
Lattanzio nella storia del linguaggio e del pensiero teologico preniceno (ZUrich 1970) 247ff. For 
these calculations cf J. Danielou, «La typologie millenariste de Ia semaine dans Ie chris­
tianisme primitif," VigChr 2 (1948) Iff. 

81 See esp. Casso Dio 71.34.2ff on Marcus Aurelius, and e.g. 77.6.1a on Caracalla; Herodian: 
see AlfOldy, op.dt. (supra n.19) 435ff, and W. Widmer, Kaisertunt, Rom und Welt in Herodians 
M£TO: MapKov pac,),,£tac {cTopia (ZUrich 1967) uff, 28ff; Orac.5ib. l2.l87ff. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 99 

the Senate lost its political power and how rulers became 'bad' or 
even worse from the traditional point of view. Herodian emphasized 
the change from the Antonine to the Severan monarchy by a con­
venient distinction: in his account, young Commodus had been 
instructed that an emperor needed the support of the Senate and of 
all his subjects throughout the Empire, and furthermore that he 
needed the loyalty of his army, and money; when Septimius Severus 
had given instructions to his sons, however, he stressed (as Dio, too, 
relates) that a strong army and money to pay it were the only 
essentials.33 

Second, the instabiliry of the Stare. Almost all authors of the third 
century were deeply impressed by the quick change of emperors, 
raised to power by violence and killed shortly afterwards, and by the 
fact that justice, fairness and security were, on the whole, lost. Dio, as 
also the author of the Elc f3acLAEa, and Saint Cyprian under Philip, 
drew the conclusion that the emperors of their time had lost their 
firm power, even those who were more successful; and Herodian 
began his work with the statement that the stability of the early 
Empire had been followed by an age with an incredibly high number 
of emperors within a short time.34 Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertul­
lian were already so impressed by the political crisis after Commodus' 
death that they predicted, as did Lactantius later, that one day the 
end of the Empire would come through its disintegration into ten 
'democracies'.35 Consequently, panegyrists of the tetrarchy praised 
Diocletian for the restitutio of internal security, though Lactantius 
even reproached him with perturbation of the Empire.36 

Third, the increasing power of the army. Already Dio emphasized 
that since Commodus, and especially since 193, the army had become 
the most important factor in politics.37 Later authors shared this view 
and deplored not only the lack of military discipline, as e.g. the 
anonymous rhetor under Philip did,38 but also the destructive role 
of the army. Herodian expressed what was surely public opinion 

33 Herod. 1.6.6 and 3.13.4; cf Casso Dio 76.15.2. 
34 See esp. Casso Dio 7S.41.1 and S0.7.3; ps.-Aristid. Elc {3act'Ma 7; Cypr. Ad Don. 6,10,13; 

Herod. l.l.5. 

35 Iren. Adv. haer. 5.26.1; Hippo!' In Dan. comm. 4.6 and De Christo et Antichr. 2S; Terr. De 

Resurr. 24.18; Lact. Div.Inst.7.16.1ff. 
36 Paneg. 4 (S) lS.4: securitas restituta. See contra Lact. De mort.pers. 7.2ff. 
37 Esp. 72.9.2ff, 74.8.1ff, 75.2.3, 77.17.2, 78.2S.1ff, 80.17.1. 
38 Elc {3act'Ma 30f. 



100 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

(2.6.14): with the fall of Pertinax and the proclamation of Didius 
Iulianus by the praetorian guard, a period of the rule of the soldiery 
had begun, because this had been the first time that the if07J of the 
soldiers had been corrupted, that they had become undisciplined and 
avaricious, that they had despised their rulers and that nobody had 
been able to curb their political ambitions, which had not even 
shrunk from the assassination of emperors. 

Fourth, the predominance of the provinces, in particular of the 
Danubian provinces, not only in military but also in political respects 
-a fact which must have been obvious since the year 193. It may suf­
fice to cite the famous passage of Mamertinus: quis enim dubitat quin 
multis iam saeculis ... Italia qUidem sit gentium domina gloriae vetustate, 
sed Pannonia virtute ?39 But the JOvwv Ktll~CHC, i.e. the rising importance 
of the provinces and provincials for the internal development of the 
Empire in Herodian's terminology,40 was not only a fact worth 
celebrating. Herodian, perhaps impressed by the propaganda of the 
Genius Illyrici under Decius, emphasized that no power could equal 
the 'D..AVPtK~ ovvafLtc (2.10.8), but he pointed out the disintegrating 
role of such regional powers and at the same time, as Cassius Dio 
already had done, the decline of Italy.41 

Fifth, social change, recognized in some respects more clearly than 
perhaps ever before in ancient history. Already Tertullian had re­
marked, in addition to seeing other problems of the Empire (ex­
ternal and internal wars, natural catastrophes, economic problems, 
manpower shortage, political and cultural decline), that humiles 
sublimitate, sublimes humilitate mutantur (Apol. 20.2), and the same 
statement concerning the social order was made by Cassius Dio, too: 
7TfXVTa avw K(XTW CVVEXV(J7J (80.7.2), with the consequence that men of 
very low social background could receive senatorial posts and com­
mands. Herodian described clearly the impotence of the eupatrides, 
i.e. of members of the ancient senatorial aristocratic families, who 
were not able to undertake the tasks of the moment, for instance 
clodius Albinus (who was cited as a bad example in a speech of 
Severus, which Herodian, of course, fabricated), and who were not 

39 Paneg. 2 (10) 2. 2. Cf. on this esp. A. AlfOldi, Studien z:ur Geschichte der WeItkrise des 3. 
Jahr. n. Chr. (Darmstadt 1967) 228ff. 

40 Herod. 1.1.4 and 3.7.7, cf. 6.3.2. On this see W. Widmer, op.cit. (supra n.32) 49; cf. J. F. 
Stein, Dexippus et Herodianus rerum scriptores quatenus Thucydidem secuti sint (Bonn 1957) 141. 

41 Sec esp. Casso Dio 75.2.4ff; Hcrodian: see AlfOldy, op.cit. (supra n.19) 440f. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 101 

suitable for warfare but only for dancing (3.6.7). At the same time, he 
was convinced (in contrast to Cassius Dio) that it was not aristocratic 
origin but only personal qualities and merits that should be regarded 
as qualifications for men in leading positions (5.1.5f)-so it had been 
in the case of Pertinax, the son of a former slave, who had been the 
best man in Roman history after Marcus Aurelius.42 But we hear 

about other social problems and changes as well, for example, about 
Cra.cELC of the population of cities and of rural areas.43 On the whole, 
the old social order was believed to be largely lost, and radical 
Christians, such as Commodianus, had the vision that the end of the 
Empire would involve a <revolutionary' transformation of the social 
order: quorumque primores, praepositi sive legati, in loco servorum 
rediguntur sanctis iniqui (Carm. 987f). 

Sixth, economic problems, which were by no means underesti­
mated. Difficulties in the financial situation of the Empire, em­
phasized so clearly in the previously mentioned edict of Severus 
Alexander, were a problem treated again and again by Dio and 
Herodian, as well as by the unknown rhetor under Philip.44 Other 
authors, particularly the panegyrists at the turn from the third to the 
fourth century, pointed out the bad consequences of the fact that 
before Diocletian large areas of land had lain waste and that agri­
culture had been in decline.45 They of course praised Diocletian for 
solving this problem, but Lactantius reproached this emperor with 
depopulating the land to the damage of agriculture (De mort.pers. 7.3). 

In Christian literature, the constantly emphasized fames et terrae 
motus et pestilentiae were an old apocalyptic topic. But Saint Cyprian 
gave in his Ad Demetrianum (3) a detailed catalogue of the actual 
economic problems: shortage of food, increasing prices, exhaustion of 
mines and quarries, decline of craftsmanship. 

Seventh, decrease in population and manpower shortage, fre­
quently emphasized in the third century ever since Ulpian suggested 
that the number of men who were able to undertake munera was 
very small in his time (Dig. 50.6.3); Cyprian lamented that decrescit ac 
deficit in arvis agricola, in mari nauta, miles in castris, and Dionysius of 

42 Herod. 2.1.4, 2.3.1f, 2.3.4. 
43 See e.g. Casso Dio 80.2.3; Herod. 7.4.1ff; Paneg. 2 (10) 4.3. 
4~ See e.g. Casso Dio 74.S.4f and 80.12.22; Herod. 4.4.7; Elc /3uCtA€U 16. 
45 Paneg. 3 (11) IS.3; S (9) IS.lff; 8 (S) 6.1ff. 



102 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

Alexandria was shocked by the decrease in population in his city.46 
This problem, together with physical degeneration and decreasing 
duration oflife, was emphasized also by Philostratus, pseudo-Aristides, 
Solinus, Arnobius and Lactantius, and by panegyrists as well, who 
praised the first tetrarchy for the fact that hominum aetates et numerus 
augentur, which was denied, however, by Lactantius.47 

Eighth, the religious and moral crisis. The disregard of the mos 
maiorum in religion and ethics by such unworthy emperors as Com­
modus, Caracalla, and above all Elagabalus (80.11.1ff), was one of the 
main topics in the historiography of Cassius Dio; the necessity to 
restore dJC€{Jela or pietas, religio and mores, was, in the third century, 
always acknowledged by pagan society,48 who saw the main enemy 
of their religious and ethical tradition in Christianity. At the same 
time, the Church blamed the increasing decay of ethics on the pagans. 
But in the view of Christians, especially of Saint Cyprian, time brought, 
in a sense, the decline of Christianity, too: heresy was on the increase 
as it had never been before; many Christians were led astray by the 
temptations of this world; many of them proved to be weak in the 
persecutions.49 And the severe persecutions as such completed the 
apocalyptic forebodings for many Christians: to them they indicated, 
as for instance to Cyprian or to Commodianus, not only a crisis of the 
Church but above all the approaching collapse of the Empire. 

And finally, the barbarian invasions. Authors of the Severan age 
such as Cassius Dio and Tertullian were not yet able to recognize the 
importance of new dangers beyond the imperial frontiers.5o When 
under Severus Alexander the newly established Sassanid Empire 
demanded Rome's eastern provinces, Dio remarked that this would 
hardly have been noteworthy if Roman armies had had better 
discipline (80.3. Iff), and he underestimated the Germans com­
pletely. But two decades later, Herodian saw the Persians and Ger­
mans as equal, or almost equal, enemies to Rome, and after the first 

46 Cypr. Ad Demetr. 3 (cf also ibid. 4); Dionysius in Euseb. Hist.Eccl. 7.21.9f. On the prob­
lem see A. E. R. Boak, Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (Ann 
Arbor 1955). 

47 Philostr. Gymn. 1 and 44; ps.-Aristid. Ele paeLMa 7; Solin. Coll.rer.mem. 1.87 and 1.90; 
Amob. Adv. nat. 2.75; Lact. De mort.pas. 7.2f (cf also Div.lnst. 7.16.14); Paneg. 3 (11) 15.4; 
4 (9) 29.1; 8 (5) 5.4. Cf also Galen. l3.597; Callistratus in Dig. 50.2.12. On the other hand. 
Tertullian (De animo 30.4) lamented the excessive amount of population in his time. 

48 See e.g. Casso Dio in Maecenas' speech: 52.36.1f. 
49 De fccl.cath.un. 16 and 26; Ep. 59.7 and 67.7; De lapsis 5ff; etc. 
50 On Casso Dio cf Millar, op.cit. (supra n.lO) 171. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 103 

two great wars Rome fought with the new enemy in the Orient, he 
remarked that the Persian demand under Alexander was an alarming 
shock (6.2.3ff). Wars against barbarians were, in his view, no longer 
struggles to secure the frontiers but to save the very existence of the 
Empire: ov yap 71"f:pt opwv yfjc ovDe pdOpwv 7ToTapJiJv ~ cpLAOVELKla, 7T€pt 

TOV 7T(WT6c S.! (4.14.6). After the defeat of Decius, Cyprian, although 

living in Africa and being far from endangered frontiers, saw the 
barbarian invasions as catastrophes, as did the author of Book XIII of 
the Oracula Sibyllina; and Commodianus, in his vision of the collapse 
of the Empire, saw it destroyed not by some imaginary apocalyptic 
peoples but by Goths occupying Rome and by Persians killing the 
emperor in battle.51 The successes under the restitutores orbis en­
couraged people, although the high estimation of barbarian power 
remained. Dexippus put words in Aurelian's mouth saying that 
Rome was able to defeat the Germans in spite of their number,52 the 
emperor Probus expressed the hope that already in the near future 
the Empire would not need soldiers any more,53 the panegyrists 
emphasized victories over the enemy and the restoration of Roman 
frontiers,54 and on the Christian side neither Arnobius nor Lac­
tantius attributed the same importance to the barbarian danger as 
the Fathers of the Church had done a generation before. 

IV 
All these changes in the history of the Empire must have convinced 

contemporaries that a general transformation was in process, 
threatening total destruction because all changes were attacks on the 
traditional order. This common thought as to contemporary history 
may allow us to speak of consciousness of crisis (Krisenbewusstsein) in 
the third century: this feeling was more than the recognition of 
decline in only some sections of life, as it had been in the early Empire 
when ethical or cultural or even political decline might have been 
lamented, yet at the same time there had been pride and satisfaction 
as regards successes in foreign politics.55 The patterns of this crisis­
theory can be described in the following way. 

51 Cypr. Ad Demetr. 2,5,10,17, etc.; Orac.Sib. 13.9ft". Commod. Carm. 810ft", 887ft". 
52 Jacoby, FGrHist 100 F 6.10. 
53 Aur.Viet. 37.3; Eutrop. 9.17.3; SHA, Probus 20.3ft". 
54 See esp. Paneg. 2 (10) 5.lft"; 3 (11) 4.1ft"; 4 (8) 1.4ft"; etc. 
55 Thus emphasized still by the author of the Historia Augusta: SHA, Carus 3.2. 



104 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

Many contemporary problems were of course not new, but there 
was the general feeling that they were now becoming catastrophic. 
Cyprian pointed this out clearly. Wars, for example, appeared to him 
under Philip as quite 'normal'. But after the defeat of Decius, to him a 
convincing documentum recentis rei (Ad Demetr. 17), he suggested that 
at present bella crebrius surgant and crebrius continuant than earlier 
(ibid. 2 and 5). The moral and political decline of pagan Rome was to 
him not at all a new phenomenon, and under Philip he saw the 
meaning of Christian life in the ready escape from sinful pagan society 
(Ad Don. 2ff). But some years later the growing internal crisis of the 
Empire appeared to him already so catastrophic that he saw no 
possibility for a 'splendid isolation', for inter ipsa adversa ... vix 
coartata et conclusa anima respirat (Ad Demetr. 9). He admitted that even 
Christians were by no means always honest, but since the time of 
Decius lapsi and heretics had caused a crisis within the Church. Even 
heresy, he said, was getting more dangerous than before: malum 
hoc . .. iam pridem coeperat, sed nunc crevit eiusdem mali infesta clades 
(De eccl.cath.un. 16). 

However, there were other problems which appeared to be com­
pletely new. According to Cassius Dio, the innovations of Elagabalus 
were very dangerous because they made possible a 'revolution' 
against the traditional order of the State (80.7.3). One of the main 
subjects of Herodian's stories was to point out 'new' developments in 
contemporary history: Commodus, the first emperor without any 
merits of his own, had already ruled in an authoritarian way as no­
body had before him; by the fate of Pertinax the political power of 
the army had been demonstrated for the first time; the fall of this 
emperor had been followed by civil wars which had been more 
severe than ever before; under Alexander, Rome had been defeated 
by the Persians more heavily than ever before, etc.56 

The main point in this theory of crisis was, however, that all un­
favourable changes coincided. The Roman Empire was affected, as 
Cyprian said, by all the old and new mala in continuatio and cumulatio; 
sic celeriter, in tanta celeritate, sic granditer, that the present time seemed 
to be the final period of apocalyptic prophecies, in novissimis temporibus 
multiplicari mala et adversa variari et ... magis ac magis in plagas generis 
humani censuram Dei indignantis accendi.57 This view was shared, 

66 Herod. 1.5.5 and 1.15.1,2.6.14, 3.7.7f, 6.5.10, etc. 
67 Ad Demetr. 17 and ibid. 5. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 105 

among others, by Dionysius of Alexandria, who saw the main point 
of the crisis in the CVVEXELC AOtJ.LOL, in the 7TaVTODa7TIXL c/>fJopaL, in the 
7TOtKill.oc Ka~ 7TOII.Vc TenV avOpcfJ7Twv OIl.€OpOC (Euseb. Hist.Eccl. 7.21.9). But 
already Herodian emphasized in his preface the coincidence of 7TolI.lI.a 
Ka~ 7TOtKtll.a ... Ka~ Oav/-LaToc agta in the history of his own time (1.1.5). 

even the coincidence of accelerated changes in all fields of the 
traditional order must have been regarded by contemporaries as a 
total deformation and confusion of the Empire, and this is virtually 
what Burckhardt called' genuine crisis'. This sharp definition did not 
exist in ancient terminology. Nevertheless, what we now call 'crisis' 
was then clearly said in other words: corrupta, immo deleta antiquitas 
(thus Tertullian), T6 KALVOV (thus the emperor Severus Alexander), 
apx~ caAEvovca (thus Herodian, and exactly like this, the rhetor under 
Philip), ElJ7Top{ac J.LETaf3oA~ (thus in a papyrus under Decius), occasus 
saeculi (thus Cyprian), temporum labes or inclinatio fatorum (thus in the 
panegyrics), ruina civitatis Romanae (thus Victorinus of Poetovio), and 
so on.58 

On the whole, it was clearly stated that there was indeed a crisis of 
history in the third century, and people must have drawn their con­
clusions. Naturally, there was widespread discussion about the 
causes of all unfavourable changes; in his commentary on Matthew, 
Origen mocked at this main topic of conversation in the mid-third 
century: amant enim qui in calamitatibus sunt, causas earum discutientes, 
invenire aliquid quod loquuntur (Comm. in Matth. Ser. 39). This criticism 
was, however, unjustified because pagans and Christians, too, were 
unable to find the profundior causa of all afflictions, in spite of the con­
fidence of Origen (ibid. 37). 

It is not necessary to detail the well-known explanation by pagans 
of the decay, namely, that all present evils were caused by the 
Christians, as they refused to worship gods and to sacrifice for the 
salus of the emperor which guaranteed the salus of the whole Empire, 
thus drawing down the vengeance of the gods.59 It must be em­
phasized that this reproach against the Christians was made not only 
by primitive crowds but by well-educated social groups, too, as can 
be seen from Porphyry's famous work against the Christians: HBut 

68 Passages in Tert. Ad nat. 1.10.4; P.Fay. 20 (see supra n.7); Herod. 2.8.4 and ps.-Aristid. 
Elc /3aCLMa 14; P.Land. 2565 (see supra n.17); Cypr. Ep. 58.1; Paneg. 2 (10) 4.2 and 4 (8) 10.2; 
Victorino Comm. in Apoc. 8.2. 

59 Cf A. AlfOldi, op.cit. (supra n.39) 285ff. 



106 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

now people are surprised at the plague which has seized the city for 
so many years, meanwhile Asclepios and the other gods do not ap­
pear. Nobody has seen any god being helpful to the State since Jesus 
was worshipped."60 Contrary to this general pagan view, the whole 
Christian apology laid the blame on pagan society, vehemently 
putting forward very similar arguments: all contemporary evils were 
to be regarded as ultio divina (thus in Cyprian's terminology, referring 
to the defeat of Decius by the Goths) for the religious and moral sins 
of pagan Rome and, indeed, for the weakness and laxity of some 
Christians, toO.61 The basic idea in their argumentation was in both 
cases the same: neglect and refusal of the true religion and ethics had 
the vengeance of a divine power as consequence. 

This was, in the end, the traditional Roman way of interpreting 
history by moral decline.62 Historians attempted to find more 
rational explanations as well. Cassius Dio and Herodian tried to 
explain all evils in contemporary history by errors and mistakes of 
emperors-in particular the young ones, said Herodian (1.1.6)-who 
disregarded the traditional order. The same personalistic attitude 
towards history is to be found frequently. Christian authors such as 
Cyprian or even Lactantius attributed a high degree of responsibility 
for all contemporary mala to bad emperors.63 But this personalistic 
view of history (completely in accordance with the tradition, of 
course) was essentially only a special form of the theory of moral 
decline: decay in religion and ethics was made obvious and was also 
caused mainly by wrong mores of rulers. Even Herodian, a man with­
out profound interests and talent for the philosophy of history, felt 
that these explanations of contemporary history were not quite 
satisfactory. He was inclined, it is true, to explain the first crisis in 
Roman politics after the death of Marcus Aurelius (and so, in the end, 
the whole struggle between Commodus and the Roman elite) by the 
jealousy of a woman, the empress Lucilla when she lost the first place 
in theaters (1.8.3ff); but he conceded that Commodus was rather the 
victim of unfortunate events than their cause. Panegyrics at the turn 
from the third to the fourth century suggested that the crisis of the 

60 KaTer. XpLcnavwv fr.80; see A. Harnack, "Porphyrios 'Gegen die Christen', 15 Bucher," 
AbhBerl1916 Nr.I. 

n See esp. Cypr. De lapsis 1; Ad Demetr. 7, 9fT, 17; cf Ep. 11.1. 
62 On this cf e.g. V. Posch!, "Die romische Auffassung der Geschichte," Gymnasium 63 

(1956) 190fl". 
63 Cypr. Ad Don. 11; Lact. De mort.pers. 4.1ff. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 107 

past was caused not only by the wrong behaviour of emperors, 
divers is regentium moribus, but by an inexplicable inclinatio fatorum as 
well.64 Even if one tried to analyse contemporary history more 
philosophically, one would only be able to take up the traditional 
theory of biological degeneration of the physical and social world. 
Quis enim sapientium dubitat, quis ignorat omnia quae orta sunt occiaere, 

asked Minucius Felix, just as Sallust had done, and Cyprian, suggesting 
the decay of the mundus iam senescens, copied the same source: haec Dei 
lex est ut omnia orta occidant et aucta senescant. 65 Lactantius shared this 
view, taking up Seneca's idea about Rome's biological development 
from infantia through to the necessary interitus.66 That the Empire 
was getting old or ill and tired was a view of Dionysius of Alexandria 
and of pseudo-Aristides, too,67 and moral decline was seen by these 
theoreticians as the main sign of senectus. 

This attitude, which assigned the cause of the crisis to moral decline 
manifesting itself first of all in the depravity of rulers or of single 
social groups (as pagans, Christians or heretics), and which was ex­
plained by the conception of history as a process of biological senes­
cence of mankind, did not on the whole add to the ancient philosophy 
of history. But at the same time this attitude had a very important 
and 'constructive' consequence for contemporary thought about 
future possibilities: the idea that the elimination of all evils was always 
possible and that the crisis could be mastered by the restoration of 
traditional order. On the whole it is astonishing that people in the 
third century were less pessimistic than might have been expected. 
Apart from radical and unorthodox Christian groups, only very few 
Christian authors in what were virtually the worst years of the 
Empire were convinced that its collapse was inevitable as a result of 
the present crisis and that it must come in the near future. On the 
other hand, pagan and some Christian sources as well always ex­
pressed the hope that present evils could be overcome in a short time, 
apart from the constant imperial propaganda for this hope. The theory 
of biological (and moral) decline always allowed, at least in pagan 

64 Paneg. 6 (7) 2.2 and 4 (8) 10.2. 
65 Min. Felix, Oct. 34.2 and Cypr. Ad Demetr. 3, following SaIl. lltg. 2.3. 
66 Div.Inst. 7. 15. 14ff. Cf on this esp. R. Haussler, "Vom Ursprung und Wandel des 

Lebensaltervergleiches," Hermes 92 (1964) 313ff; I. Hahn, "Prooemium und Disposition der 
Epitome des Florus," Eirene 4 (1965) 21ff; P. Archambault, "The Ages of Man and the Ages 
of the World. A Study of two Traditions," Revue des Etudes Altgustiniennes 12 (1966) 193ff. 

67 Dionysius in Euseb. Hist.Eccl. 7.23.3; ps.-Aristid. El, {JaetMa 13f. 



108 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

conceptions, the idea of a possibility of rebirth, corresponding to the 
cyclical conception of historical development in Roman tradition.68 

The only thing that was necessary for this renaissance was the return 
to the right moral order, as Cassius Dio held in the speech of Mae­
cenas, or as the persecutors of the Church demanded, or as pseudo­
Aristides made it clear when he explained that Philip's successes in 
restoring the Empire were due to his programme, namely, the return 
first of all to evce{1e/a.69 Even the so-called linear conception of the 
history of Christianity70 did not exclude this possibility: according to 
Tertullian, Christian piety could at least affect the mora finis, and the 
conversion of pagans to the right religion would 'ameliorate' the 
world, as Origen and Lactantius said.?! 

But the main point of this conception was necessarily the expecta­
tion that emperors would be able to turn the fate of the Empire: 
when the emperor himself manifested and guaranteed moral order, 
the only thing the Empire needed then were brave and clever rulers 
who were willing and able to restore traditional order. This ideology 
was the background of the continual hope that the emperor would be 
the restitutor orbis and the guarantor of a new saeculum blessed with 
prosperity; this was expressed not only by imperial propaganda or by 
panegyrics but also by the most educated groups of Roman society: 
Dio emphasized that Pertinax had succeeded with his programme to 
restore the traditional order of Rome by his moral qualities in a very 
short time, but to stabilize his work (&ccfoa"Awc E7Tavop8ovc8a,) a 
longer reign would have been necessary.72 The reversal of the bio­
logical and moral decline through the virtues of an emperor was 
possible also in the view of Christians, which may be illustrated by 
the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria about Gallienus after he had 

88 Cf. on this J. Gage, "Le 'Templum Urbis' et les origines de !'idee de ·Renovatio· ... 
Melanges Fr. Cumont (Bruxelles 1936) 151ff; R. H. Martin, "The Golden Age and the KVKAOC 

y€Vlc£wv (Cyclical Theory) in Greek and Roman Literature," G&R 12 (1943) 62ff; L. 
Bosing, "Zur Bedeutung von 'renasci' in der Antike," MusHelv 25 (1968) 145ff. 

69 Elc fJaetMa 15. 

70 Cf. O. Cullmann. Christus und die Zeit. Die urchristliche Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung2 

(Zurich 1948) esp. 169ff; J. Danielou, "The Conception of History in the Christian Tra­
dition,"JRelig 30 (1950) 171ff; w. den Boer, "Some Remarks on the Beginnings of Christian 
Historiography," in Studia Patristica IV (Oxford 1961) 348ff. 

71 Tert. Apol. 39.2; Origen, c. Cels. 8.69 (cf. also Comm. in Marth. Ser. 37); Lact. Div.Inst. 
5.8.1ff, 5.8.8. 

72 Casso Dio 74.5.lf and 74.10.3. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 109 

defeated Macrianus: it was as if the Empire put off its old age and its 
former bad situation to flourish in youth.73 

v 
When Burckhardt wrote that Hin the Roman Empire the decline is 

acknowledged in a manner which leaves no room for doubt," this 
observation is particularly valid for the crisis of the third century. 
Contemporaries clearly realized that they were living in a crisis period 
of history. Not only did they record symptoms of that crisis with 
astonishing realism and without failing to notice changes even in the 
social and economic structure, but they also recognized that a general 
transformation of the Empire was in progress, having begun with the 
crisis and collapse of the Antonine monarchy, then intensified by the 
coincidence of several heavy blows starting in the Severan age, and 
threatening the collapse of the Imperium in the mid-third century. 
This was not so self-evident; one could cite the view of Orosius on his 
own time at the beginning of the fifth century: it was the zenith and 
not the worst crisis of Roman history.74 But-and this contrast is 
fascinating-Roman society was not able to explain this transforma­
tion and decay adequately, adapting only traditional theories for a 
quite new situation. A suggestion of Plotinus concerning his own 
philosophy may be generalized: "Our theories are by no means new, 
and they are not of today; they were announced already a long time 
ago, without a development, and we are today only exegetes of these 
old doctrines. "75 The theory of biological and moral decline made it 
possible to hope to find a way out of the present misery with the help 
of energetic emperors, and it would be wrong to underestimate the 
encouraging influence of this hope. But theoretically a solution of this 
problem must have been regarded always as a restoration of the 
traditional order and not as an adequate reform of the Empire.76 

Great emperors such as Severus, Gallienus or Diocletian made 
nevertheless the necessary reforms, always emphasizing that they 

73 Euseb. Hist.Ecc1. 7.23.3. 
74 Hist. adv. pag. 7.34.1ff, etc. 
75 Enn. 5.1.8. 
76 Cf G. B. Ladner, The Idea of Reform , its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age 

of the Fathers (Cambridge [Mass.] 1959) 16ff; whereas the idea of reform was "essentially 
Christian" (ibid. 5). 



110 THE CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 

were measures of restoration and not of 'progress'.77 A suggestion 
such as quantum reformavit saeculum istud, made by Tertullian (De pall. 
2.7), corresponded to Christian and not to Roman views; in pagan 
thought even reformatio was a return to tradition, ad pristinam gloriam 
reformare was the term where the Empire was concerned, and ad 
antiquam firmitatem, as Eumenius said.78 This traditionalism was no 
doubt an immense source of spiritual strength for Roman society, as 
always in history. But it enforced the suppression of all social groups 
which seemed to be enemies of the traditional order, and so in 
particular the persecutions of the Christians caused the most im­
portant social conflict of the Empire during the crisis of the third 
century, just as if there had not been problems of greater urgency. 

The crisis affected, however, not only the conflict between the 
pagan State and the Christian Church. The obvious decay of the 
Empire was of course the subject of exasperated discussion between 
pagans and Christians, as the whole series of the works of apologists, 
or even Porphyry, testifies. But, as may be evident from several 
suggestions made in this essay, there was no fundamental difference 
between pagan and Christian attitudes towards actual problems or 
even towards the fate of the Roman Empire. On the contrary, the 
symptoms of that crisis and its character as a general transformation 
and decay were regarded by pagan and Christian authors in a similar 
manner and sometimes expressed in an astonishingly similar termi­
nology; when explaining the causes they argued against each other, 
but partly with the same arguments, and in arguing they showed also 
similar conceptions of history; and their attitudes towards prospects 
for the future were not unlike. Apart from minor groups, Christians 
lamented the decay of the Empire just as pagans did and felt that 
they were affected by the crisis, as the pagans did as well: cum enim 
concutitur imperium, concussis etiam ceteris membris eius, utique et nos . .. 
in aliquo loco casus invenimur, Tertullian said CApoi. 31.3). And not only 
pagans, but also Christians prayed for the Empire in its crisis, pro 
imperatoribus, pro ministeriis eorum ac potestatibus, pro statu saeculi, pro 
rerum quiete, pro mora finis, or, as Cyprian said, pro arcendis hostibus et 
imbribus impetrandis et vel auferendis vel temperandis adversis rogamus 

77 cf J. Baillie, The Beliefin Progress (New York 1950) 6ff; E. N. Tigerstedt, "The Problem 
of Progress in Classical Antiquity," in The DiSciplines of Criticism. Essays in Literary Theory, 
Interpretation and History for R. Wellek (New Haven/London 1968) 593ff, esp. 611f. 

78 Paneg. 5 (9) 14.4 and ibid. 5.3. 



GEZA ALFOLDY 111 

semper et preces fundimus et pro pace ac salute vestra propitiantes et 
placantes Deum die bus ac noctibus iugiter adque instanter oramus.79 

When the emperor Galerius surrendered to the Church by approving 
of its legality, he did this officially with regard to this function of 
Christian communities: debebunt deum suum orare pro salute nostra et 
rei publicae ac sua, ut undique versum res publica praestetur incoZumis.80 

Agreement, coexistence and cooperation between the Roman State 
and the Christian Church were consequences of the same historical 
process as the great conflict between them previously, that is to say, 
the crisis of the third century. 

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY and RUHR-UNIVERsrrAT BOCHUM 

October, 1973 

79 Tert. Apol. 39.2; Cypr. Ad Demetr. 20. Cf also Acta Procos. 1. 
80 Lact. De mort.pers. 34.5. See 00 this esp. H. U. Iostiosky, Die alte Kirche und das Rei! des 

Staates (Munchen 1963) l3ff.