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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

law. Evidently, the law is more tolerant than Eutropius’ CTh. 16.7.1 of two years earlier in terms of bequeathing, but less so in terms of inheriting. CTh. 16.7.4 of 11 May 391 was issued to Flavianus, Praetorian Prefect of Italy, during his first tenure as Praetorian Prefect, the second being under the usurper Eugenius. 283 This law was severer than the previous two and appears to correspond quite closely to canon law. It ordered that persons who “should betray the holy faith and should profane holy baptism shall be segregated from the community of all men.” They were also disqualified from giving testimony and their inability to bequeath was also restated. 284 The law also stated that apostates were not allowed to inherit and, within the context of this law, it appears that that was also, probably, the sense of the previous law, CTh. 16.7.2. Theodosius stated that he would previously have ordered their expulsion “if it had not appeared to be a greater punishment to dwell among men and to lack the approval of men.” 285 Theodosius went on to state that apostates shall never “return to their former status; the disgracefulness of their conduct shall not be expiated by penitence” nor would any defence of their position be admissible since “fiction and fabrication cannot protect those persons who have polluted the faith they had vowed to God, who have betrayed the divine mysteries.” Whilst the law said that “help is extended to those persons who have slipped and to whose who go astray” in the case of those who 283 Virius Nicomachus Flavianus 15 PLRE 1.347-349. Curiously, during his Prefecture he received only six laws, considerably fewer than normal. See O’Donnell (1978) for Flavianus’ career. Honoré’s (1998) 70-73 E10; Honoré suggests he may have been the Christian Aurelianus 3 PLRE 1.128-129 284 The prohibition on giving testimony was repeated by the commissioners as CTh. 11.39.11 of the same date. 285 ii, qui sanctam fidem prodiderint et sanctum baptism a profan av erint, a con sortio om nium segregati sint, a testim oniis alien i, testam enti, ut ante iam sanxim us, non habeant factionem , nulli in hereditate succedant, a nem ine scribantur heredes. quos etiam praecepissem us procul abici ac longius am andari, nisi poenae v isum fuisset esse m aioris v ersari inter hom ines et hom inum carere suffragiis. 261
“profane holy baptism” they were not to be given any aid “through penitence, which customarily avails in other crimes.” 286 The canons of the c306 Council of Elvira do not mention apostasy as such, but they do include various offences that amounted to apostasy. The first canon ruled that a baptized Christian who sacrificed to idols was never again allowed to receive communion, even at the moment of death. The sense appears to be that such a Christian had thrown himself out of the church and hence was apostate. However, somewhat contradictorily, canon 59 stated that a Christian who went to observe pagan sacrifices was guilty of the same sin and was not to commune until he had completed ten years of penance. To explain this apparent contradiction, it may have been the case that perhaps there was a tacit understanding that observing such spectacles was not quite as sinful as actively supporting them. If so, then this law corresponds quite well with the attitude towards apostates as shown in the Elvira canons. The harshness of the first part of the law applied to those who had “polluted the faith” which is almost certainly a reference to sacrifice, and who could “never… return to their former status.” On heretics, the Elvira canons (22) ruled that they could receive communion after ten years of penance and this is possibly paralleled in the law’s statement that “help is extended to those persons who have gone astray.” Or equally it could be a reference to those who had deliberately witnessed pagan sacrifices, but not actively participated in them. The addressee of the law, Flavianus, was, of course the famous pagan, and therefore it is highly unlikely that he proposed this law which appears to be directed against those who had deserted Christianity altogether, that is, become pagans. In the 286 Sed nec um quam in statum pristinum rev ertentur, non flagitium m orum oblitterabitur paen itentia neque um bra aliqua exquisitae defensionis aut m unim inis obducetur, quoniam quidem eos, qui fidem quam deo dicav erant polluerunt et prodentes div inum m ysterium in profana m igrarunt, tueri ea quae sunt com m enticia et concinnata non possunt. lapsis etenim et errantibus subv enitur, perditis v ero, hoc est sanctum baptism a profanantibus, nullo rem edio paenitentiae, quae solet aliis crim inibus prodesse succurritur. 262
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 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: CTh. 16.7.2 of 20 May 383 was addre
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?