A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

The use of the law to provide a respectable cover for the isolation of dissidents
is familiar to us today, but it breached some very ancient conventions of the
Greek and Roman worlds and marked a new departure in Roman law. As
Caroline Humfress has demonstrated, in traditional Roman law there was no
category of ‘wrong belief’. 2 There were, however, laws against astrologers and
diviners, and those accused of maleficium, sorcery: emperors were deeply
suspicious of those who might foment unrest through foretelling the future. The
Manicheans, for instance, had always been regarded with suspicion because
reading the stars was an important part of their ritual. If heretics could be
accused of maleficium, then they could be dealt with within existing law.
A key case in the development of a new approach was that of the Spanish
Christian Priscillian. Priscillian set himself up as a prophetic leader who
enjoined strict asceticism on his followers and who held independent and
original ideas on the origin of the soul. Like so many charismatic figures, he
soon built up an enthusiastic following, especially among upper-class women.
He even gathered enough support to be ordained as Bishop of Avila in 380,
despite having been condemned by Church leaders. Although a journey to Rome
to gain the backing of Bishop Damasus ended in failure, Priscillian’s return to
Spain via Milan gained him some influence at court among those who opposed
the growing power of Ambrose, who had sided with the Spanish bishops in
rejecting Priscillian. In Spain he also had the support of the emperor’s deputy,
the vicarius. Priscillian might have been an outcast from the Church, but with
the state on his side his position appeared impregnable.
Then everything changed. When Priscillian was condemned once more by a
council of bishops meeting in Bordeaux, he appealed directly to Maximus, who
had seized power in Gaul and set up court at Trier, in the hope that the new
‘emperor’ would offer him support. But the bishops launched their own
prosecution of Priscillian before Maximus, which was taken up by one of
Maximus’ court prosecutors with the charge of offences associated with sorcery.
The maleficium consisted of showing an interest in magical studies, holding
nocturnal meetings with women and praying naked, but these flimsy charges
could hardly conceal the fact that Priscillian was being targeted because he
threatened the Church’s authority. Maximus, uncertain of his own status, and
wanting to attract the goodwill of Theodosius, chose to support the bishops, and
Priscillian was found guilty and executed. This was the first time since
Constantine’s grant of toleration that a secular court had condemned a Christian
to death primarily for his religious beliefs. It was only the beginning. ‘By the end