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

expectation for the future progress of the law, reported by Sozomen, indicates further
the advisory and expectatory nature that it was intended to convey.
Nevertheless, despite this apparent certainty of Sozomen that the law should
indeed be empire-wide, there does seem to be some doubt as to the geographical scope
of the law. Indeed it even appears to be contradictory; it is addressed to the people of
Constantinople, but then immediately begins “all peoples who are ruled by the
administration of Our Clemency…” which can only be taken to refer to the whole of
the Eastern empire. The lack of clarity may have been deliberate; Theodosius was an
unknown quantity in the east and therefore, although he maintained unambiguous
clarity in his own religious position, the maintenance of some ambiguity as to the
geographical extent of the law and also the degree to which it would be enforced, may
have allowed his subjects (outside Constantinople) some time to consider their new
emperor’s religious position and, as such, whether they might wish to adjust their
own. Similarly the punishments were also vague and probably deliberately so;
Theodosius had insulated himself against any negative reaction by safely allowing God
to take the initiative which Theodosius would then follow. This ambiguity allowed
Theodosius the fullest possible freedom of action in his future religious policy; should
there be significant reaction to his religious position, he might follow the (lack of)
“divine judgement” and decide that punishment was, therefore, inappropriate.
Although this was a convenient tactic for the government, it would be a
mistake to regard it as an excessively cynical one. This tactic marks an increase in
ideological power behind the guise of legislation. By allowing God to take the
initiative which Theodosius would follow, the Imperial government was aligning itself
with the will of God in a most intimate way and was basing its future actions on
heavenly wishes. Moreover, God was the “ideal judge,” and in following that
judgment Theodosius would thereby become an “ideal judge” and as such would be
immune from human weaknesses, including lack of knowledge of the true intricacies
168