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

the Church.” 90 Therefore the law appears to imply that there is no inconsistency for
clerics to serve as councillors in principle, but at the same time, it reinforces the earlier
practice, that clerics should transfer their wealth to others in order that the councils
might continue to function. Thus the likeliest scenario that can be reconstructed from
this law is that clerics desired membership of the councils, and did indeed serve as
curiales, but also wished to avoid the financial obligations. 91 Hence, individuals could
be both clerics and also council members, provided they had enabled someone else to
carry their financial burdens. By implication therefore, only clerics from wealthy
backgrounds could also serve on the councils; clerics from poor backgrounds were
excluded. It should be noted that potential clerics only had to transfer enough funds
to “make others adequate to replace their presence and their persons;” so presumably
they were still allowed to keep some of their wealth, as had been stated before. 92
CTh. 16.4.2 of 16 June 388 was to Tatianus, Praetorian Prefect of the East. 93 It
ordered that no man should “go out to the public and to argue about religion or to
discuss it or to give any counsel.” If anyone did this with “flagrant and damnable
audacity” or should “persist in his action of ruinous obstinacy” then he would be given
a “due penalty and proper punishment.” 94 Presumably it allowed private discussions to
continue, i.e. between priests, especially in councils, but not public ones which appear
to have been rife in this period. 95 It is difficult to understand how this law could have
been enforced, although it was directed at ‘persistent offenders.’ It was possibly a
90
In full this law reads: clerici ad curiam pertin entes sciant ex patrim onio suo, si ipsi im m unes cupiunt
perm anere, alios idon eos esse faciendos, qui recedentum praesentiam personam que restituant in publicis
m uneribus subeundis
91
This may be a consequence of the close mirroring between the Imperial structure of organisation and
that of the Church, see Hunt (1998) 241
92
By Constantius’ CTh. 12.1.49 of 29 August 361
93
Flavius Eumolius Tatianus 5 PLRE 1.876-878; Honoré’s (1998) 56-57 E8
94
nulli egresso ad publicum v el disceptandi de religion e v el tractandi v el consilii aliquid deferendi patescat
occasio. et si quis posthac ausu grav i adque dam nabili contra huiusm odi legem v eniendum esse crediderit v el
insistere m otu pestiferae persev erationis audebit, com petenti poena et digno supplicio coherceatur.
95
See Gregory of Nyssa’s experience in Constantinople in his Or. De deitate Filii et Spiritus San cti (PG
46.557); Jones (1964) 964-965
187