31.12.2012 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!