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

influence of Christianity and this beneficent law doubtless increased the prestige of the
Church in Rome, but its provisions are not confined to Christians: members of all
religious groups were included. It should also be noted that since imprisonment was
not a punishment in itself in the Roman Empire, those released would probably have
been either awaiting trial or were convicted criminals awaiting execution in the arena,
transportation to the mines or the Imperial estates. 37 Since the law did not apply to
those already under such routine sentences, and hence not in prison, the overall
beneficence of this law is quite limited. As with CTh. 9.40.8 this latest law may well
have been more symbolic of the beneficence of the emperor than of much practical
benefit to many of the citizens of Rome and the large number of serious criminals who
were to remain in prison ensured that those most serious to the physical, political and
moral security of the state would have no opportunity to re-offend.
Viventius was Prefect of Rome during the riots between the supporters of
Damasus and Ursinus over which of them should become the next Bishop of Rome in
366-367. Ammianus writes that Viventius, an “upright and wise Pannonian” was
“unable to end or abate the strife” and because of the violence had to leave the city for
the suburbs. Ammianus indicates that the violence was such that on one day 137
people were killed in the basilica of Sicininus. Ammianus does not record how the
rioting ended, but he implies that it was done so with violence: “and it was only with
difficulty that the long-continued fury of the people was later brought under
control.” 38 As such it seems quite possible that this law was issued to release those who
had been arrested and imprisoned by the authorities during those disturbances. The
injection of a Christian element into the law would have reminded such Christians
that the emperor too was a Christian, and in a sense therefore ‘one of them’; (“On
36 Ob diem paschae, quem intim o corde celebram us, om nibus, quos reatus adstringit, carcer inclusit, claustra
dissolv im us. Adtam en sacrilegus in m aiestate, reus in m ortuos, v eneficus siv e m aleficus, adulter raptor
hom icida com m unione istius m uneris separentur
37 Millar (1984) 125, 130-132 on the reluctance to use prison as a punishment. However, cf Acts 24.27
which indicates that St. Paul was in prison for over two years.
38 Amm. Marc. 27.3.11-13: integer et prudens Pannon ius; nec corrigere sufficiens Viv entius nec m ollire;
efferatam que diu plebem aegre postea delenitam .
102