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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

conversion ceremony itself, and performed when a Christian slave had renounced his Christianity prior to becoming a Jew. Such an interpretation would fit well in this law; as Jews were forbidden from purchasing Christian slaves in the first part of this law and could not continue to possess Christian slaves that they may have obtained in another way in the second part of this law, so too they were prevented from converting Christian slaves to Judaism in that first part (even if such slaves had renounced their Christianity and were therefore, perhaps, not technically Christians). Hence, in the second part, the law made provision for such converts from the date of this law to be removed from Jewish ownership; the law was not, therefore, strictly speaking retrospective, although it arguably was so in practice. Essentially, the law provided a ‘solution’ for every circumstance in which a Jew might have found himself in possession of a Christian as a slave. In terms of intolerance the law is fairly balanced. Of course, Cynegius would not tolerate Jews owning any Christian slaves, but is noticeably silent on whether Jews could own pagan slaves. Therefore, this law may be more indicative of an enhanced status for Christians, as opposed to a reduced status for Jews, that is, of reducing their status by removing their right to own certain categories of slaves. Although purchase of a Christian slave was described as a “crime,” it was only to be punished suitably. The final clause ordering an appropriate financial recompense for the Jewish owner would correspond to the sense that this law raises Christians without necessarily implying a reduced status for Jews. Although, it does show, that the authorities were keen to maintain strict boundaries between religious groups and that the natural power balance in a slave-master relationship should not be allowed to affect, nor even be in a position to affect, an individual’s religion. 251
CTh. 3.7.2 of 14 March 388 was also issued to Cynegius and it is the second of Theodosius' laws which affected Jewish-Christian relations. 252 This law was less subtle and prohibited marriage between Jews and Christians. Anyone who “should commit an act of this kind, the crime of this misdeed shall be considered as the equivalent of adultery.” 253 Moreover, it was open to anyone to bring, and not just immediate relatives as had been the case previously. 254 In practice, as such marriages were regarded as adultery under this law, then they could be punished in the severest manner. The penalty for adultery was death; initially under Augustus by the sword, but since Constantius’ CTh. 11.36.4 of 29 August 339 the punishment had been death by fire. 255 Linder points out that Canon law had forbidden marriage and sexual relationships between Christians and Jews since the beginning of the fourth century and that this unhappy extension of Church law into State law and policy, with all the power that could thereby be brought to enforce it, was probably due to Ambrose’s “personal influence.” 256 Linder cites Ambrose’s letter to Vigilius of 385 in which the Bishop of Milan recommended certain courses of action to Vigilius now that Vigilius had been ordained a bishop. However, in that letter Ambrose counselled against all mixed marriages between Christians and non- Christians and not just between Christians and Jews; he, in his defence, does not appear to have been sensitive to any possibilities of a loss of Christian self identity or being fearful of any sense of contamination, that Jews in particular may have been thought to pose. Moreover, the canons of the Council of Elvira which Linder cites, 252 Attributed by Honoré (1998) 56-57 to his E8. This law is word for word identical with CTh. 9.7.5; Honoré (1998) 152 points out that such repetition occurred in 1 per cent of cases and was deliberate since the individual law covered more than one category laid down by Theodosius II’s commissioners. 253 ne quis christianam m ulierem in m atrim on ium iudaeus accipiat, neque iudaeae christianus con iugium sortiatur. nam si quis aliquid huiusm odi adm iserit, adulterii v icem com m issi huius crim en obtin ebit, libertate in accusandum publicis quoque v ocibus relaxata 254 Constantine's CTh. 9.7.2 of 25 April 326 had ordered that only fathers, brothers and cousins should have the right to bring charges of adultery. 255 Augustus’ Lex Iulia de adulteriis of 18 BC 256 Linder (1987) 178-182, quote at 178; he cites the decrees (16 and 78) of the 306 Council of Elvira forbidding mixed marriages. The texts of the Canons, with an English translation and discussion are given by Laeuchli (1972); Sivan (2001) 208-219 also discusses this law. 252
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 and 274: property. Like that previous law, t
Page 275 and 276: Although it does not actually say s
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: Theodosius and Judaism Theodosius o
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?