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

presents them with considerable dramatic effect, but tacitly admits that there were few
actual victims of the trials; but he does report that the fears that the trials and
investigations inspired were widespread. 173 There is no evidence in Ammianus that the
trials were anti-pagan as such and this is reflected in CTh 9.16.9 which also appears to
have recognised the fears which Ammianus reports and to have gone to some lengths
to allay them. 174 The law, in which, unusually, Valentinian spoke in the first person at
the beginning, and then more normally in the first person plural, decreed that there
was no connection between magic and divination. 175 Furthermore, the law went on to
declare that neither divination (haruspicin am ) nor anything similar which had been
allowed by previous generations was a criminal act. 176 The only practice that this law
did prohibit was that of “harmful” divination, which, of course had frequently been
the subject of censure, not least by Constantine. 177
This law contains further evidence in support of Ammianus’ view that
Valentinian’s religious policy was one of tolerance. It contains a reference to earlier,
and now lost, laws of Valentinian which reportedly allowed full religious freedom: “Of
this opinion [that Valentinian did not consider divination or earlier lawful practices to
be a crime] the laws [not extant] given by me in the beginning of my reign are
witnesses, in which free opportunity was granted to everyone to cultivate that which
he had conceived in his mind” 178 The repetition of this sentiment here almost amounts
to a declaration of toleration for Valentinian’s subjects. It is, of course unfortunate
that these laws have not survived; however it should be noted that if the law for the
protection of graves and the imperial expectation that previous rites should continue
(CIL 6.31982) was indeed Valentinian's then this may well be one of the laws referred
172 Amm. Marc. 28.1.1-57; Lenski (2002) 218-223; Matthews (1975) 56-61; (1989) 209-217
173 Amm. Marc. 28.1.24: cernebantur in paucis, om nibus tim eri sunt coepta
174 Lenski (2002) 222 n63 estimates that possibly as many as three of the Senators convicted were
Christians he notes that one was certainly either a Christian or a Jew.
175 Haruspicinam ego nullum cum m aleficiorum causis habere consortium iudico
176 neque ipsam aut aliquam praeterea concessam a m aioribus religionem genus esse arbitror crim inis
177 Nec haruspicin am reprehendim us, sed nocenter exerceri v etam us; Constantine’s CTh 9.16.3 of 23 May
317-319; for earlier prohibitions see Tac. Ann 2.32; Sue. Tib. 36
134