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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

these two laws is almost identical; the last sentence on this law reads: “In short, they shall have nothing in common with the world.” 228 To a large degree this law is repeating the provisions of CTh. 16.5.7 of 8 May 381 and applying them to the city of Rome. It differs in the respect that it went further and did not allow children of Manicheans to inherit if they themselves were not Manicheans, nor for that matter, any other non-Manichean. Like the previous law on Eunomian eunuchs (CTh. 16.5.17), it could be taken to imply that all property belonging to them was to be confiscated, but also like that law, the sense of this law seems to imply that the property would only be confiscated upon the deaths of the Manichean owners. Like that previous law, no punishments were given, other than confiscation of property. CTh. 16.5.19 of 26 November 389 was addressed to Tatianus; it was directed against eastern heretics. 229 Like the previous, it has survived as a short law (one reasonably long sentence) but it was also comprehensive, even if it did lack specific details. It was directed towards the leaders of heretical groups and ordered that “if any persons retain the leadership of perverse dogma, that is bishops, priests, deacons and lectors, and if any under the pretence of the clergy attempt to impose a blot upon religion, or if any are established under the name of any heresy or false doctrine whatever, they shall by all means be driven from their funereal meeting places” whether in “the City” or in any suburban district. 230 228 quicum que sub nom ine m anichaeorum m undum sollicitant, ex om ni quidem orbe terrarum , sed quam m axim e de hac urbe pellantur sub interm ination e iudicii. Voluntates autem eorundem , quin im m o ipsae etiam facultates populo publicatae n ec v im testam entorum ten eant nec derelinqui per eos aut isdem fas sit. nihil ad sum m um his sit com m une cum m undo. 229 Also Honoré’s (1998) E9 230 qui scaev i dogm atis retinent principatum , hoc est episcopi presbyteri diacones adque lectores et si qui clericatus v elam ine religioni m aculam conantur infligere, sub cuiuslibet haeresis siv e erroris nom in e con stituti ex funestis con ciliabulis, seu intra urbem seu in suburbanis esse v ideantur, om ni m odo propellantur. 241
Although it does not actually say so, the law was, presumably, concerned with heretics gathering to worship and ordered their expulsion from “the City.” As such it was similar to earlier Theodosian legislation on heretics worshiping in cities and it followed the previous laws in ordering their expulsion. It should be noted that they did not have to be tried and convicted of being heretics, but only of being “established” as heretics, although in practice this may have amounted to the same thing; it should also be noted that the law was only directed against the leaders of the heresies, not the laity. Also, it was only apparently applicable to one unnamed city and as such is more tolerant than previous laws. CTh. 16.5.20 of 19 May 391, was termed by the commissioners a “Copy of a Sacred Imperial Letter,” and was issued from Rome and, like the previous two laws was short, but also comprehensive. 231 It was a general law against heresies, without specifying any particular group and therefore it is not possible to reconstruct the area for which it was applicable. It ordered that “polluted contagions of the heretics shall be expelled from the cities and driven forth from the villages.” That first sentence contained the substance of the law; the next two sentences of the law reinforced the point: “no opportunity shall be available to them for any gatherings, so that in no place may a sacrilegious cohort of such men be collected. No conventicles, either public or hidden shall be granted to the perversity of such persons as retreats for their false doctrines.” 232 The law appears to follow on from the previous one to Tatianus (CTh. 16.5.19); that law had expelled heretical leaders from an unnamed city and this one expelled their congregations from all urban areas. As such, therefore, CTh. 16.5.20 may have been issued to Tatianus, prefect of the east. Evidently, the law is intolerant 231 Honoré (1998) 70-73 assigns this law to his E10, whom he thinks may have been the Christian Aurelianus 3 PLRE 1.128-129 232 Exem plum sacrarum litterarum . haereticorum polluta contagia pelli urbibus, v icis proturbari ac nullis penitus iubem us patere conv entibus, ne in quoquam loco sacrilega cohors talium hom inum colligatur. nulla eorum perv ersitati v el publica conv enticula v el latentiora erroribus secreta tribuantur 242
Page 1 and 2:
Religious Intolerance in the Later
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
The Valentiniani: Valentinian I 364
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
intolerance; indeed, on this model,
Page 11 and 12:
commissioners in an equally short a
Page 13 and 14:
cannot be excluded, with the conseq
Page 15 and 16:
Constantine and the Church CTh. 16.
Page 17 and 18:
CTh. 16.2.4 of 3 July 321 was addre
Page 19 and 20:
emphasis on local elites serving th
Page 21 and 22:
laws.” 32 Then the law changed it
Page 23 and 24:
superstitioni an official stamp of
Page 25 and 26:
tones; there was little room for fa
Page 27 and 28:
and not to “heretics and schismat
Page 29 and 30:
natural law. The law also refers to
Page 31 and 32:
existing (lost) law. The law prohib
Page 33 and 34:
addressees own sensibilities certai
Page 35 and 36:
little to suggest that Constantius
Page 37 and 38:
does say in simpler terms). But wha
Page 39 and 40:
exercise an undue influence, or pow
Page 41 and 42:
valued moderation in law. An inscri
Page 43 and 44:
16.10.2 that the earlier prohibitio
Page 45 and 46:
that Magnentius was favourable to p
Page 47 and 48:
August 339. The language of the law
Page 49 and 50:
poen a capitis “capital punishmen
Page 51 and 52:
CTh 9.16.5 of 4 December 357, which
Page 53 and 54:
high rank” were exempt from tortu
Page 55 and 56:
loyalty to his faith and emperor an
Page 57 and 58:
privilege and also to the types of
Page 59 and 60:
and therefore as exempt because it
Page 61 and 62:
the use of fraudulent tricks,” 20
Page 63 and 64:
administrative arrangement such as
Page 65 and 66:
Conclusion The surviving legislatio
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 2: Constantine and the Dona
Page 69 and 70:
confined to the east, ordered sacri
Page 71 and 72:
their deaths as well as organising
Page 73 and 74:
Constantine ordered the restoration
Page 75 and 76:
eferences to clerics who did not co
Page 77 and 78:
that, considering the letters prese
Page 79 and 80:
pronounced Caecilian’s good name
Page 81 and 82:
had not conformed to the judgement
Page 83 and 84:
sacred religion”. It looks as if,
Page 85 and 86:
intensity and range of such ‘shar
Page 87 and 88:
of God was such that even at this l
Page 89 and 90:
and therefore Caecilian’s enthron
Page 91 and 92:
Donatists’ case against Caecilian
Page 93 and 94:
Although in this letter the bulk of
Page 95 and 96:
the instructions of a greater (and
Page 97 and 98:
Nevertheless the next step was inde
Page 99 and 100:
was not an agent for the Church, bu
Page 101 and 102:
possibly to impose a curfew on them
Page 103 and 104:
Therefore, the persecutions proved
Page 105 and 106:
e under, although he did draw atten
Page 107 and 108:
Church was always regarded as valid
Page 109 and 110:
“heresy and schism proceeds from
Page 111 and 112:
Chapter 3: The Valentiniani Jovian:
Page 113 and 114:
Alexandria and, moreover, Jovian sa
Page 115 and 116:
clerics who had been banished by Co
Page 117 and 118:
unknown, but Jovian did receive suc
Page 119 and 120:
n ecks of his subjects to his ow n
Page 121 and 122:
also included those of “adequate
Page 123 and 124:
determine whether “such extreme h
Page 125 and 126:
account of the day of Easter, which
Page 127 and 128:
From his legislation it seems fairl
Page 129 and 130:
Continents” from visiting the hom
Page 131 and 132:
CTh 16.2.21 of May 371 was addresse
Page 133 and 134:
that Ursinus himself was exiled, bu
Page 135 and 136:
In order for the “greatest harmon
Page 137 and 138:
Olybrius and Aginatius and the dupl
Page 139 and 140:
each of their successors, Ampelius
Page 141 and 142:
either by divine providence or by n
Page 143 and 144:
ark was worse than its bite, is mos
Page 145 and 146:
he was about to launch a campaign a
Page 147 and 148:
province, and it’s grain, against
Page 149 and 150:
Valentinian and Heretics CTh 16.5.3
Page 151 and 152:
Urban Prefect, but it may well be r
Page 153 and 154:
for his cruelty when he was Procons
Page 155 and 156:
AVGGG. No title is given for Euther
Page 157 and 158:
to in CTh. 9.16.9. Also, and at the
Page 159 and 160:
Valens 364-378 In contrast to his b
Page 161 and 162:
the clergy who engaged in business
Page 163 and 164:
The effects of CTh 16.2.19 may well
Page 165 and 166:
under Valens. 202 Lenski’s argume
Page 167 and 168:
evealed a bigger plot by an ex gove
Page 169 and 170:
two cases show that Constantine's C
Page 171 and 172:
Modestus returned the next day to e
Page 173 and 174:
Conclusion Modestus thus appears to
Page 175 and 176:
CTh 16.2.23 of 17 May 376 was issue
Page 177 and 178:
CTh. 15.7.8 of 8 May 381 was issued
Page 179 and 180:
have been necessary for the actress
Page 181 and 182:
The law “condemn[ed] the false do
Page 183 and 184:
matters of ecclesiastical disciplin
Page 185 and 186:
deserved” 273 which was that he s
Page 187 and 188:
More interesting though is the atta
Page 189 and 190:
stated in this law, would have been
Page 191 and 192:
property to another who would then
Page 193 and 194:
facilitating the conversion of Chri
Page 195 and 196:
Heretics appear to have been the gr
Page 197 and 198:
against apostates; 5 nine were on p
Page 199 and 200:
“smitten first by divine vengeanc
Page 201 and 202:
expectation for the future progress
Page 203 and 204:
sanctity of the divine law commit s
Page 205 and 206:
9.38.3 of 367 Valentinian had order
Page 207 and 208:
have been disinclined to give him o
Page 209 and 210:
emperor said that “A bishop is no
Page 211 and 212:
Constantinople council also arrange
Page 213 and 214:
contributed to its composition. Ind
Page 215 and 216:
Const. Sirm. 3 of 4 February 384 to
Page 217 and 218:
laws prescribe” i.e. with torture
Page 219 and 220:
ecause this amnesty refers to freei
Page 221 and 222:
eaction to a perceived assault on t
Page 223 and 224: loyalty to Theodosius. It would be
Page 225 and 226: for replacements on the councils. 1
Page 227 and 228: dismissive attitude towards Christi
Page 229 and 230: advantage and all judges that it sh
Page 231 and 232: interestingly, the law (or more acc
Page 233 and 234: monasteries had been established in
Page 235 and 236: disadvantageous to clerics, but at
Page 237 and 238: Tatianus. 151 The law prohibited ap
Page 239 and 240: also “ignored the admonition of t
Page 241 and 242: Conclusion: Theodosius and the Chur
Page 243 and 244: the legislation on monks in the cod
Page 245 and 246: Theodosius and Heretics. As has alr
Page 247 and 248: giving a list of bishops as had bee
Page 249 and 250: hold unlawful assemblies within the
Page 251 and 252: espond to an immediate need and was
Page 253 and 254: einforce the illegality of such ass
Page 255 and 256: monasticism. In its introductory pa
Page 257 and 258: control of the west from the usurpe
Page 259 and 260: opening: om n es om n in o “all p
Page 261 and 262: The law then went on to detail the
Page 263 and 264: ishops if they had fraternised with
Page 265 and 266: and without the Catholic faith “w
Page 267 and 268: eginning of Theodosius' reign. Firs
Page 269 and 270: although it should be noted that no
Page 271 and 272: whether the law should indeed be ta
Page 273: property. Like that previous law, t
Page 277 and 278: with clubs and condemned to deporta
Page 279 and 280: CTh. 16.5.23 of 20 June 394 was iss
Page 281 and 282: natural loss of the texts (which do
Page 283 and 284: Theodosius and Judaism Theodosius o
Page 285 and 286: CTh. 3.7.2 of 14 March 388 was also
Page 287 and 288: een welcomed by both communities, e
Page 289 and 290: forbidden by no law.” As such, Th
Page 291 and 292: society, they were, in some sense,
Page 293 and 294: CTh. 16.7.2 of 20 May 383 was addre
Page 295 and 296: “profane holy baptism” they wer
Page 297 and 298: this law, were members of Flavianus
Page 299 and 300: eign, to genuinely attempt to maint
Page 301 and 302: protect all festivities that were t
Page 303 and 304: aspect of this law is that Dexter i
Page 305 and 306: immediately be compelled to pay fif
Page 307 and 308: “political clumsiness in the timi
Page 309 and 310: Such a manner of reading this law m
Page 311 and 312: cities. Decurions and defenders wer
Page 313 and 314: Conclusion - Theodosius As has been
Page 315 and 316: matter and nature of the law, then
Page 317 and 318: thereby, perhaps, it was thought th
Page 319 and 320: Mommsen, T. (1870) “Carm en codic
Page 321 and 322: The Interlinear King James V - New
Page 323 and 324: Secondary Sources Adler, C. and Sin
Page 325 and 326:
Wisconsin. (1982) Society an d the
Page 327 and 328:
Edwards, M. (2004a) “Rom anitas a
Page 329 and 330:
Green, R.P.H. (1991) The Works of A
Page 331 and 332:
55 (1949) “The Roman civil servic
Page 333 and 334:
Lockwood, R. (1989) “Poten s et F
Page 335 and 336:
al.294-303. Nixon, C.E.V. (1998)
Page 337 and 338:
Shaw, B. (1992) “African Christia
Page 339 and 340:
Wiseman, T.P. and Holdsworth, C. (e
Page 341 and 342:
emphasised that they amount to less
Page 343 and 344:
A non-partisan emperor or individua
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?