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

confirmed as was the arrangements Damasus proposed for bishops and metropolitans
outside Italy. Gratian’s silence on the issue of granting Damasus’ the right of trial by
emperor only indicates that he was not totally subservient to the Catholic Church, but
equally neither he, nor his ministers were able to extricate themselves from this
situation other than by ignoring the request; that omission stands incongruously
beside the almost complete acquiescence to Damasus’ other requests. However, the
refusal to grant this privilege to the Bishop of Rome did mean that in practice Damasus
and his successors would not be able to exercise complete authority over all their
fellow bishops since Damasus too would in practice remain liable to stricture from
other bishops.
Rhetorically, Gratian referred to the Ursinians in the same terms as Valentinian
had done. The “madness of Ursinus;” was of “obstinate madness” and he practised a
“polluted religion.” 280 Hisac, Ursinus’ follower was “mad.” 281 The Bishop of Parma
merely “disturbs the church.” 282 Florentius of Pozzuoli was apparently worse and was
condemned of a “shameful offence,” 283 in appealing to Gratian from a conviction; he
attempted to “form illegal congregations” 284 and “depraves a multitude.” 285 No
invective was directed against Claudianus, Donatist Bishop of Rome, but perhaps that
he performed “an erroneous religious rite” was sufficient in itself. 286 Notably Gratian
does not appear to have been concerned with the wider movements that at least
Ursinus and Claudianus represented; in this letter most of his concern is that such
people were in Rome and were an affront to Damasus, the accepted leader of the
Christian community there.
280
35.13.2 Ursini…am entia; pertinax furor; profanata religione
281
35.13.6 v esanus
282
35.13.6 exagitat..ecclesiam
283
35.13.7 im proba offensione
284
35.13.7 congregationes illicitas facere
285
m ultitudinem deprav at
286
35.13.8 profanare m ysterio
164