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

therefore his government had little time to fully consider whatever problem Trifolius
had raised. Probably, for this reason, specific injunctions against teachers and bishops
calling themselves bishops are absent, although such injunctions were probably
regarded as extant and covered under the prohibitions of assembling and discussing.
Similarly the brevity of CTh. 16.5.16 of 9 August 387 to Cynegius. The severity of the
punishment in CTh. 16.5.15 was also probably due to Theodosius' impending absence
from the east and reflected a desire to firmly stamp his authority on his empire, which
he was about to leave for the first time.
Theodosius defeated Maximus on 28 August 388 and restored Valentinian II as
nominal emperor of the West. At the same time, Theodosius installed a number of his
own Eastern officials into the administration and bureaucracy of the West. As such,
although the following laws are issued from western cities, and are place Valentinian as
first in the Imperial college, since he was elevated to the position of Augustus before
Theodosius, they are effectively Theodosian laws. From this point until his death on
17 January 395 the empire was, essentially, again under a single government; the last
time it would be so, and for the longest period since Constantine. It should be noted
that only now was Gratian’s name removed from the other names in the Imperial
college which headed each law, although he had been dead for four years.
CTh. 16.5.17 of 4 May 389 to Tatianus, Praetorian Prefect of the East and
successor of Maternus Cynegius; the law was, as usual, issued in the names of all
emperors and was issued from Milan. 224 It was directed against the Eunomians, whom
it refers to as “Eunomian eunuchs.” Honoré believes that this reference to eunuchs is
not to be taken literally, i.e. the law was not against Eunomians who happened to have
been castrated, but rather the phrase “Eunomian eunuch” refers to their belief that the
Son was not “begotten from the Father” as stated in the Creeds, but instead had been
produced in some other way. It is difficult to be certain whether Honoré is correct or
224 Honoré’s E9 (1998) 58-70 whom Honoré believes, as stated, to be Virius Nicomachus Flavianus 15
PLRE 1. 347-349
237