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

More interesting though is the attack that Gratian made upon his previous and
present officials in Rome throughout the letter. They should have been in no doubt
that the emperor was deadly serious about clearing the city of non-Catholic Christians,
or at least their leaders. There is no evidence in this letter that Gratian was concerned
to maintain correct relations with his fellow elites in Rome based on the appreciation
of a shared elite culture, in which Gratian, unlike his father, would have been
thoroughly versed. This letter indicates instead that it was more important for the
emperor to ensure that he had a correct relationship with the Bishop of Rome. 287 In
terms of practical effects the letter prescribes nothing worse than that which had been
done before; but in practice, because the necessity of taking action had been impressed
upon Aquilinus with such vigour, the individuals and communities mentioned in the
letter may well have come under greater pressure from the authorities than hitherto.
CTh 16.5.5 of 3 August 379, was possibly (as the letter to Aquilinus is undated),
the first law of Gratian on religious affairs to be issued after the battle of Adrianople
and the appointment of Theodosius as eastern emperor. It was addressed to Hesperius
(who also received CTh. 13.1.11 and CTh. 16.5.4) in his new capacity as Praetorian
Prefect of Italy and Africa. This law is considerably longer than most earlier laws on
religious affairs, but although it may reasonably be considered to be intolerant, its
intolerance relates only to the attitudes that it articulates rather than to what it
actually prescribes or demands.
It began with an absolute: “All heresies are forbidden by both divine and
imperial laws and shall cease forever.” Any “profane man [who] by his punishable
teachings should weaken the concept of God” was not to teach such “noxious
doctrines” to others and “to their hurt.” 288 After this opening sentence most of the rest
of the law is apparently directed against the Donatists, although they are never named
287 See Brown (1992) 89-103 for the rise of bishops in civic politics and the corresponding eclipse of the
traditional civic elites.
165