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

peaceful situation in Rome, and his actions to remove the dispute from the Church
courts show that he did not wish the affair to be perpetuated and for bitterness to
become a feature of it.
Valentinian and Paganism
CTh 16.1.1 of 17 November 365 is the only surviving law of Valentinian that
touched upon paganism. 116 addressed to Symmachus, the Prefect of the City. 117 This
second law of Valentinian dealing with religious matters ordered that “neither the life
nor the fortune will be spared” of an official who appointed a Christian to be a
“custodian” of a temple. 118 This was the only law of Valentinian which ordered a
specific punishment for a religious offence and indeed ordered two penalties, one of
which was, of course, the most severe possible. Although it should be noted that it did
so with a tone of restraint and moderation. Furthermore, the law was only dealing
with one aspect of pagan Christian relations. It should be reasonably assumed that the
law as given and recorded in the Code is not, unusually, similar either in detail or in
substance with any suggestio that Symmachus may have proposed, since Symmachus
himself was a pagan. Rather the unique and specific severity of this law may be related
to the revolt of Procopius, the situation on the Rhine frontier and Valentinian’s
response to the revolt. 119
Valentinian received news of Procopius’ highly organised, and unnervingly
unusual revolt at the beginning of November while he was in Paris and on the day that
116 There is a dispute over whether the law was issued in 364 or 365. Mommsen favours 365, but points
out that Symmachus may well have completed his tenure as Prefect by this date. Ammianus
Marcellinus (26.5.2) however states that Valentinian was in Paris in Novermber 365 whereas the law
itself stated that it was issued from Milan. As such, some commentator, including Seeck, have reckoned
the correct date to be 364 when other evidence attests Valentinian’s presence in Milan. However,
Mommsen is probably right. The law records that it was issued during the first consular year of
Valentinian and Valens (ie 365), if it had been issued in November 364 then its consular date would have
been given as that of Jovian.
117 L . Aurelius Avianus Symmachus signo Phosphorius 3 PLRE Vol 1 863-865
118 sciat non saluti suae, non fortunis esse parcendum . Custodiam is translated by Pharr as custodian
119 Procopius 4 PLRE Vol 1 742-3
122