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

province, and it’s grain, against the possibility of an invasion by Procopius. 134 He also
promoted the com es rei m ilitaris of Illyricum, Flavius Equitius, to the rank of com es et
m agister m ilitum to ensure his loyalty. 135
Therefore CTh 16.1.1 was issued at the very beginning, and during the most
uncertain period of, the Procopius revolt. Valentinian, unsure of the fate of his
brother and whether the eastern provinces were still loyal to his newly created
dynasty, or to what had remained of the old, carried out a series of measures to secure
the west and those parts which he knew were not yet under the control of Procopius.
Italy and Rome were certainly not on the front line, but equally they were closest to
Pannonia and of course controlled access between Gaul and the rest of the empire.
More importantly, Procopius is reported to have received embassies from the West,
including Italy and to have spread rumours that the senior Augustus was dead. 136 As
such a robust assertion of the emperor’s authority in Rome was probably felt to be in
order. Furthermore, Zosimus informs us that the emperors and in particular
Valentinian, carried out a minor purge against officials of Julian’s regime as soon as he
came to power. 137
At the same time we know that Symmachus had been in high favour with
Julian. By contrast, as we have seen, Valentinian and Valens had offered to resign their
positions rather than serve under Julian, according to Socrates. 138 In his letter to
“Nilus, surnamed Dionysius”, which was a criticism and rebuke for Nilus, Julian
contrasted the offensive behaviour of Nilus with the exemplary behaviour of
Symmachus: the “beautiful Symmachus” who “would never willingly tell a lie, since he
134 Flavius Neoterius PLRE Vol 1 623; Masaucio PLRE Vol 1 566; Amm. Marc. 26.5.14
135 Flavius Equitius 2 PLRE Vol 1 282; Amm. Marc. 26.5.10
136 Them. Or. 7..91d-92a; Amm. Marc. 26.7.2; noted in Lenski (2002) 74-5, and see 109-110 for evidence
that Procopius’ followers tended also to have been followers of Julian, and like Julian and Procopius
himself, to have been men of high culture and education.
137 Zos. 4.2; Matthews (1975) 40; Lenski (2002) 105-8 calls it a “period of political terrorism” with several
former ministers accused of embezzlement and punished, usually with massive fines and exile, designed
to force Julian’s associates into a “squalid impotence.”
125