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

Conclusion: Theodosius and the Church:
In conclusion therefore, there is little evidence in Theodosius' legislation on the
Church and Christianity to justify the persistent image of Theodosius as a staunch
defender of the Church, standing at the vanguard of its interests and inexorably
advancing them towards the summit of power and prestige which it is regarded to be
on the very edge of acquiring at the end of this period. Rather, the Church does not
appear to stand in a significantly more privileged position in 395 than it had in 379.
However, what does emerge in Theodosius' legislation are a number of tendencies
which are often apparent in his legislation: one is that of subtlety, which at times
appears to border on the vague and a second, less common, is that of a heightening of
rhetoric. A good example of both these tendencies is the most famous and emblematic
of Theodosius' laws, the Cun ctos populos of 28 February 380; short and dramatic in its
requirements, as well as novel in its descriptive forms, but unclear in its geographical
scope, hopeful, rather than imperative in terms of compliance, and with undefined
punishments that would take their initiative from God.
In these laws, ambiguity appears to work in two ways: in the case of CTh.
16.2.25 of 28 February 380, which reads like a statement of fact, was potentially highly
intolerant, because it stated that it was sacrilege to offend, either through negligence or
even through ignorance, the “divine law.” The law failed to define “divine law,” as
well as what negligence or ignorance of it might be, and therefore an almost limitless
number of people could have been subject to the caprices of this law. Perhaps the
most significant and concrete contribution of this law to the religious agenda of
Theodosius' government lay in the atmosphere which it may have created amongst the
recipients; it may have been perceived to have reduced the bounds of acceptable
behaviour in religion and hence made more specific (and equally intolerant) legislation
in the future more acceptable. Alternatively however, ambiguity could work the
other way. CTh. 16.2.26 of 31 March 381 was ambiguous in exempting “guardians of
208