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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ecause this amnesty refers to free<strong>in</strong>g prisoners <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>es as well as those <strong>in</strong> exile, it<br />

must have had a wider applicability than previous laws and <strong>the</strong>refore Antioch<strong>in</strong>us<br />

must have been vicar of ei<strong>the</strong>r Thrace, Macedon or Pontus, ra<strong>the</strong>r than of<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>ople. 86 As such this amnesty shows greater Christian <strong>in</strong>fluence than<br />

previous amnesties.<br />

CTh. 12.1.115 of 31 December 386 addressed to Cynegius, (<strong>the</strong> addressee of<br />

CTh. 9.17.7 of 26 February 386) attempted to buttress <strong>the</strong> resources of <strong>the</strong> councils<br />

aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> liturgical exemptions enjoyed by clerics. 87 Theodosius' previous law on <strong>the</strong><br />

relationship between clerics and councils (CTh. 12.1.104 of 7 November 383 to<br />

Postumianus) had granted <strong>the</strong> clerics no room for manoeuvre and <strong>in</strong>formed <strong>the</strong>m that<br />

<strong>the</strong> emperor did not regard as suitable for <strong>the</strong> priesthood those who sought f<strong>in</strong>ancial<br />

ga<strong>in</strong>. In this latest law to Cynegius, Theodosius avoided any moralis<strong>in</strong>g language, but<br />

at <strong>the</strong> same time seemed to imply much. The open<strong>in</strong>g words “Clerics who belong to<br />

municipal councils” appears to imply fairly unambiguously that membership of <strong>the</strong><br />

clergy did not automatically mean exemption from <strong>the</strong> councils and as such, despite<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir status <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Church, clerics were still on <strong>the</strong> councils and <strong>the</strong>refore liable to<br />

perform liturgies. 88 Earlier legislation had tended to give <strong>the</strong> impression that clerics<br />

(once rendered of slender resources) were exempt from <strong>the</strong> councils. 89<br />

The law <strong>the</strong>n cont<strong>in</strong>ued to say that if clerics wished “to rema<strong>in</strong> exempt from<br />

services, by <strong>the</strong>ir patrimony <strong>the</strong>y must make o<strong>the</strong>rs adequate to replace <strong>the</strong>ir presence<br />

and <strong>the</strong>ir persons <strong>in</strong> undergo<strong>in</strong>g compulsory public services when <strong>the</strong>y withdraw to<br />

86<br />

The Notitia Dignitatum is deficient on <strong>the</strong> city of Constant<strong>in</strong>ople and does not record whe<strong>the</strong>r it had<br />

a vicar; however s<strong>in</strong>ce it was <strong>the</strong> ‘New Rome’ it seems extremely likely that it had an official structure<br />

parallel to that of Rome. See <strong>the</strong> 1962 repr<strong>in</strong>t of Seeck’s 1876 edition of <strong>the</strong> Notitia, 229-243<br />

87<br />

Also attributed by Honoré (1998) to his quaestor E6<br />

88<br />

clerici ad curiam pert<strong>in</strong>entes<br />

89<br />

See <strong>in</strong> particular Constant<strong>in</strong>e's CTh. 16.2.3 of 18 July 320 and to a lesser degree Valens’ 16.2.19 of 17<br />

October 370<br />

186

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!