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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Valent<strong>in</strong>ian and Heretics<br />

CTh 16.5.3 of 2 March 372, addressed to Ampelius, Prefect of <strong>the</strong> City, was<br />

Valent<strong>in</strong>ian's first extant law aga<strong>in</strong>st heretics. Ampelius had earlier received CTh.<br />

16.2.21 of May 371. This latest law was directed aga<strong>in</strong>st Manicheans and ordered that<br />

teachers of Manichaeism should be punished by a “heavy penalty” whenever one of<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir “assemblies” or “throngs” was found. 145 Those tak<strong>in</strong>g part <strong>in</strong> such assemblies<br />

were to be “segregated from <strong>the</strong> company of men as <strong>in</strong>famous and ignom<strong>in</strong>ious” 146<br />

Properties <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> “profane doctr<strong>in</strong>e” was taught, were to be forfeited to <strong>the</strong><br />

treasury. 147<br />

The law only sanctioned a punishment for <strong>the</strong> teachers of <strong>the</strong> heresy, it did not<br />

seek to punish <strong>the</strong> attendees of Manichaean assemblies. Nor did it prescribe any<br />

particular punishment for <strong>the</strong> teachers, only an unspecific sanction that <strong>the</strong> penalty<br />

should be “heavy”. This presumably allowed <strong>the</strong> enforcers of <strong>the</strong> law to exercise a<br />

considerable degree of discretion whenever a teacher of Manichaeism had been<br />

convicted. Similarly <strong>the</strong> order that those who assembled should be considered<br />

“<strong>in</strong>famous and ignom<strong>in</strong>ious” also allowed any enforcer a considerable degree of<br />

latitude <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretation when decid<strong>in</strong>g what measures, if any should be brought.<br />

In fam is has no religious connotations and at worst means no more than “disreputable”<br />

or “disgraceful”. Similarly, probrosis, mean<strong>in</strong>g shameful, also has no religious<br />

overtones. Both <strong>the</strong>se <strong>in</strong>sult<strong>in</strong>g words may <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>the</strong> activities of <strong>the</strong><br />

Manichaeans <strong>the</strong>mselves were not considered by Valent<strong>in</strong>ian’s government to be<br />

primarily religious offences. Whereas <strong>the</strong> Manichean <strong>in</strong> stitutum was labelled profan us<br />

which of course did have religious connotations of impiety or wickedness. Evidently,<br />

on a scale of “unacceptableness”, and <strong>the</strong>refore of official <strong>in</strong>tolerance, <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e itself<br />

was considered to be more unacceptable than <strong>the</strong> adherents of <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e.<br />

Valent<strong>in</strong>ian had drawn a careful demarcation between <strong>the</strong> morality of people who<br />

145 Manichaeorum conv entus v el turba huiusm odi repperitur, doctoribus grav i cen sion e.<br />

146 Qui conv eniunt ut <strong>in</strong>fam ibus atque probrosis a coetu hom <strong>in</strong>um segregatis<br />

147 dom us et habitacula, <strong>in</strong> quibus profana <strong>in</strong>stitutio docetur<br />

127

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!