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

equests or gifts. This latest law could be taken to imply that Valentinian's earlier law,
CTh.16.5.3, had prevented Manicheans from making wills and receiving bequests.
Theodosius' law prevented Manicheans from making wills and gifts and
ordered that any gifts, by bequests or “through any form whatever” made, should be
confiscated by the treasury after due investigations. It also reinforced the earlier ruling
that Manicheans were not allowed to make wills: “we deprive the aforesaid persons
under the perpetual brand of just infamy of all right to make a will.” But bequestees
were only prevented form inheriting “provided that they are connected by
participation in the misdeeds of the aforesaid criminal life.” Moreover, this was to
affect such transfers and bequests made since Valentinian's law of over seven years
earlier. Denying the Manicheans the right to make gifts rendered them second class
citizens in this respect, putting them on a par with other groups who were denied such
a right such as slaves, lunatics, children and women. 177
After the introduction, the first part of the law ordered that its provisions
should be “valid not only for the future, but also for the past.” Retrospective
legislation appears harsh and this was acknowledged by this law “[Imperial laws are]
not customarily prejudicial to previous acts, nevertheless, in this sanction only, since it
is our will that it shall be especially forceful, we recognize by our sense of just
inspiration what an inveterate obstinacy and a pertinacious nature deserve.” That
previous law must also have prohibited assemblies of Manicheans since the
continuance of “ unlawful and profane assemblies, in violation of the aforesaid law”
was given as a further reason for the harshness of this law. Such persons were held “as
guilty of sacrilege” and therefore, the “severity of the present statute” was sanctioned
and justified “not so much as an example of a law that should be established, but as one
that should be avenged.” The fact that the law feels the need to say this is further
evidence to support the view that Roman legislation was issued on an ad hoc basis, to
177 Lieu (1985) 111-112 discusses this law.
217