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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

sanctity of <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e law commit sacrilege.” 23 No religious group was even mentioned<br />

and no punishments prescribed. Whereas <strong>the</strong> previous law was ambiguous, this law<br />

appears to be simply vague. However, as with CTh. 16.1.2, <strong>the</strong> lack of clarity may<br />

have served Theodosius' <strong>in</strong>terests; without specify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> “persons” nor even def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>the</strong> actions that could be deliberately or <strong>in</strong>advertently committed, but which<br />

never<strong>the</strong>less led to <strong>the</strong> crime of “sacrilege,” a larger number of people and religious<br />

groups could have fallen foul of this law than would have been possible if Theodosius<br />

had specified <strong>in</strong>dividual groups or modes of behaviour. As such, despite its brevity and<br />

apparent simplicity, this law is one of <strong>the</strong> most <strong>in</strong>tolerant and potentially most<br />

threaten<strong>in</strong>g to religious groups who may have <strong>in</strong>curred <strong>the</strong> displeasure of <strong>the</strong><br />

government or one of its officials. As with CTh. 16.1.2, all options of future action<br />

were reserved to <strong>the</strong> government.<br />

Pharr raises <strong>the</strong> possibility that <strong>the</strong> div <strong>in</strong> a lex aga<strong>in</strong>st which persons might<br />

offend could be <strong>in</strong>terpreted ei<strong>the</strong>r as <strong>the</strong> law of <strong>the</strong> emperor or <strong>the</strong> law of God. 24<br />

Aga<strong>in</strong>, such ambiguity was probably not accidental. However, contemporaries may<br />

have <strong>in</strong>terpreted div <strong>in</strong> a lex as referr<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> emperor’s law ra<strong>the</strong>r than God’s<br />

(assum<strong>in</strong>g that contemporaries would have noted any difference between <strong>the</strong> two types<br />

of law). The crime <strong>in</strong> CTh. 16.2.25 was sacrilege which had only been mentioned <strong>in</strong><br />

two previous laws (CTh. 16.8.7 of 352 and CTh. 9.38.3 of 5 May 367 of Valent<strong>in</strong>ian)<br />

and one letter (Constant<strong>in</strong>e's letter to Bishop Macarius on <strong>the</strong> shr<strong>in</strong>e at Mamre).<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>e's letter said that it would be “sacrilege” (ajsebew) if pagan worship<br />

cont<strong>in</strong>ued on <strong>the</strong> site after <strong>the</strong> erection of a church. In Constantius’ CTh. 16.8.7<br />

sacrilege was only used to describe ga<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>gs of Jews; sacrilegis coetibus. More<br />

substantive is Valent<strong>in</strong>ian's CTh. 9.38.3 grant<strong>in</strong>g an amnesty except for those who<br />

were “guilty of sacrilege aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Imperial majesty” adtam en sacrilegus <strong>in</strong> m aiestate.<br />

23<br />

Qui div <strong>in</strong>ae legis sanctitatem aut nesciendo confundunt aut neglegendo v iolant et offendunt, sacrilegium<br />

com m ittunt<br />

24<br />

Pharr (1952) 444 n75 notes that offend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> “sanctity of <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e law” (div <strong>in</strong>a lex) could be<br />

<strong>in</strong>terpreted as ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> law of God, or of <strong>the</strong> emperor.<br />

170

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!