Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...
Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...
Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
each of <strong>the</strong>ir successors, Ampelius prefect of Rome and Maxim<strong>in</strong>us his vicar. Both<br />
letters named eight associates of Urs<strong>in</strong>us who should also be expelled from <strong>the</strong> city.<br />
Ampelius was prefect from 1 January 371 to at least 3 September 371 and Maxim<strong>in</strong>us<br />
was vicar between 370-371 <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> letters must have been written <strong>in</strong> 371. 94<br />
In his letter to Ampelius Valent<strong>in</strong>ian gave his reasons for <strong>the</strong> expulsion of <strong>the</strong><br />
Urs<strong>in</strong>ians as “favour<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> harmony of <strong>the</strong> Christian people, provid<strong>in</strong>g also for <strong>the</strong><br />
peace of <strong>the</strong> most sacred city,” 95 but at <strong>the</strong> same time Valent<strong>in</strong>ian took some care to<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicate that his l<strong>in</strong>e aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Urs<strong>in</strong>ians <strong>the</strong>mselves was not harden<strong>in</strong>g as such. He<br />
referred to an earlier (and now lost) decision of his to conf<strong>in</strong>e Urs<strong>in</strong>us to Gaul, but had<br />
decided to mitigate that order and <strong>in</strong>stead order that Urs<strong>in</strong>us should not enter Rome<br />
or its suburbs; this is presumably a reference to his letters to Olybrius and Ag<strong>in</strong>atius.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, Valent<strong>in</strong>ian <strong>in</strong>tended that <strong>the</strong> punishment he was about to order was<br />
made <strong>in</strong> “<strong>the</strong> hope of future amendment.” 96 Valent<strong>in</strong>ian also ordered that if <strong>the</strong> eight<br />
named exiles of this letter “thought that our gentleness’ ord<strong>in</strong>ance can be transgressed”<br />
<strong>the</strong>n he should no longer be treated as a cleric, but as an ord<strong>in</strong>ary citizen who might<br />
<strong>the</strong>reby feel <strong>the</strong> full “severity of public punishment.” 97 Presumably <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong><br />
offenders would not be eligible for trial by o<strong>the</strong>r clerics, but would be dealt with by<br />
<strong>the</strong> secular courts. Ostensibly this is a dim<strong>in</strong>ution of <strong>the</strong> Urs<strong>in</strong>ians’ rights as clerics,<br />
but <strong>in</strong> cases of schismatics, or potential schismatics, <strong>the</strong> secular courts may well have<br />
been more lenient than <strong>the</strong> ecclesiastical courts which <strong>in</strong> Rome would certa<strong>in</strong>ly have<br />
been filled with Damasus’ supporters. Therefore Valent<strong>in</strong>ian was able to give <strong>the</strong><br />
impression that he was be<strong>in</strong>g harsh aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Urs<strong>in</strong>ians, and perhaps that he regarded<br />
<strong>the</strong>m as be<strong>in</strong>g ‘non-priests’, but <strong>in</strong> practice he may well have been attempt<strong>in</strong>g to curb<br />
Damasus’ <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> dispute and prevent his supporters from exact<strong>in</strong>g revenge<br />
94<br />
Publius Ampelius 3 PLRE 1.56-57; Maxim<strong>in</strong>us 7 PLRE 1.577-578. Ampelius’ first dated law is CTh.<br />
15.10.1 of 1 January 371 and his last dated law is CTh. 6.7.1 of 3 September 372<br />
95<br />
CSEL 35.11: fav entes con cordiae populi Christiani, quieti etiam urbis sacratissim ae prov identes<br />
96<br />
ac spe em endation is futurae<br />
97<br />
quod si quispiam ex m em oratis sacrilega <strong>in</strong>tention e statutum m ansuetud<strong>in</strong>is nostrae transgrediendum<br />
putauv erit, non iam ut Christianus sed ut legum ac religionis ratione seclusus sev eritatem publicae<br />
anim adv ersionis agnoscat<br />
117