31.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

eign, to genu<strong>in</strong>ely attempt to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> some sense of harmony. 294 It should be noted<br />

that this is Theodosius' first law on religion.<br />

CTh. 16.10.7 of 21 December 381 was issued to Florus, Praetorian Prefect of<br />

<strong>the</strong> East. 295 It ordered that any “madman or sacrilegious person” who would “immerse<br />

himself <strong>in</strong> forbidden sacrifices by day or by night, as a consulter of uncerta<strong>in</strong> events”<br />

and if such “should employ, or th<strong>in</strong>k that he should approach, a shr<strong>in</strong>e or a temple for<br />

<strong>the</strong> commission of such a crime” <strong>the</strong>n he would be “subject to proscription, s<strong>in</strong>ce we<br />

give warn<strong>in</strong>g by our just provision that God must be worshipped by chaste prayers<br />

and not be profaned by dire <strong>in</strong>cantations.”<br />

This law was evidently directed aga<strong>in</strong>st private div<strong>in</strong>ations and <strong>in</strong> particular,<br />

nocturnal ones, and was not a general prohibition on pagan cult. Nocturnal activities<br />

<strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g sacrifice, especially those associated with div<strong>in</strong>ation, had always generated<br />

suspicion (see Valens’ CTh 9.16.7 of 9 September 364 and, to a lesser extent,<br />

Valent<strong>in</strong>ian's CTh 9.16.9 of 29 May 371 on <strong>the</strong> magic trials). Valens’ previous law<br />

may have demanded <strong>the</strong> death penalty for such offences, as had been consistent with<br />

earlier legislation and practice on <strong>the</strong> subject, whereas this law orders that <strong>the</strong> accused<br />

would be “subject to proscription” which suggests that <strong>the</strong> penalty for <strong>the</strong>se offences<br />

under Theodosius was worse. Proscription implies not only <strong>the</strong> death penalty and<br />

confiscation of wealth and property, but also that <strong>the</strong> offender had been condemned,<br />

or marked out for punishment, before (or <strong>in</strong>stead of) a trial. But that should be<br />

understood to relate to ‘fr<strong>in</strong>ge’ and potentially subversive religious activities, ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />

than to ‘ma<strong>in</strong>stream’ paganism.<br />

CTh. 16.10.8 of 30 November 382 to Palladius, dux Osdroen ae, <strong>the</strong> frontier<br />

region to <strong>the</strong> east of <strong>the</strong> Euphrates. The law may orig<strong>in</strong>ally have been addressed to<br />

294 Lib. Or 1.109, however cf his Or. 30.51 stat<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong>re were only four temples still <strong>in</strong>tact at <strong>the</strong><br />

time of writ<strong>in</strong>g: Fortune, Zeus, A<strong>the</strong>na and Dionysus.<br />

295 Florus 1 PLRE 1.367-368; Honoré’s (1998) E2 45-47<br />

266

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!