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

view that the emperor was ‘catching up’ with his militant subjects with the latest
legislation may be advanced the facts that the most notorious of them, Maternus
Cynegius, had died three years before the change in policy and maybe up to five years
after his anti pagan campaign. Moreover, as will be seen, the forthcoming legislation
was to target practices, rather than physical structures. 309 The view that Theodosius
was overcome by a genuine sense of remorse after the massacre in Salonica is weak and
based on no contemporary evidence; Roman emperors were not known for soft-
hearted sentiments. Moreover, the penance that Theodosius performed in front of
Ambrose and his congregation in Milan has been reassessed by McLynn who interprets
it as, with Ambrose’s help, a “public relations triumph for the emperor.” 310 McLynn’s
interpretation is convincing, but unfortunately it does not provide an answer to the
apparent change of policy with regards to paganism after the massacre and penance.
CTh. 16.10.10 of 24 February 391 was the first such law, issued from Milan and
addressed to Albinus, Praetorian Prefect of Rome; it has been referred to as the Nem o
se hostiis polluat, from the opening words. 311 It is worth quoting the text of the law in
full:
“No person shall pollute himself with sacrificial animals; no person
shall slaughter an innocent victim; no person shall approach the shrines,
shall wander through the temples, or revere the images formed by
mortal labour, lest he become guilty by divine and human laws. Judges
also shall be bound by the general rule that if any of them should be
devoted to profane rites and should enter a temple for the purpose of
worship anywhere, either on a journey or in the city, he shall
309
For Maternus’ notorious rampage see Matthews (1998) 140-141; see also Hunt (1993) on this sort of
‘bottom up’ legislation; Fowden (1978)
310
McLynn (1994) 315-330, quote at 323; see especially 323-330 for Theodosius' public penance and its
likely reception by Christians in Milan.
311
By Williams and Friell (1994) 120 and King (1971) 78; Honoré’s (1998) E10 70-73, whom he believes
was the Christian Aurelianus (Aurelianus 3 PLRE 1.128-129).
271