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

“political clumsiness in the timing and occasion of these laws” by which they mean
that the law would have been debated in the Consistory in which Flavianus would
have been present. But in fact, the timing may have been precisely perfect and may
have suited both Theodosius and the pagan establishment of Rome. Enforcement of
this law would have been easier with the direct presence of the emperor, but issuing it
from Milan, and when the Imperial court would have been about to depart over the
summer for the east arguably reduced the immediacy of the law’s enforcement. That
is not to say that the new prohibitions could have been blatantly disregarded in their
totality, but without the near physical presence of the fount of the prohibitions, their
strength may well have been undermined. 316 This may have been understood by both
Theodosius, and, more importantly, by the pagan establishment who were the targets
of the law.
Nevertheless, the prohibition of state blood sacrifices in the ancient capital was
a significant event; having discounted the reasons provided by King and Williams and
Friell, only two other possibilities present themselves: the first is that it was a much
delayed rebuke to the Roman establishment for its support of the usurper Maximus; a
delayed response to an arguably understandable ‘mistake.’ 317 Equally, it could have
been designed as a forceful reminder of who was in charge of this part of the empire,
which had only recently come into Theodosius de facto, but not, it should be
emphasised, de iure, control; the lawful ruler remained Valentinian II. 318
CTh. 16.10.11 of 16 June 391 extended similar prohibitions to Egypt.
Unusually, it was jointly addressed to two officials, Evagrius, Augustal Prefect and
316 See Harries (1999) 66 for the importance of the Imperial presence (albeit virtual in this instance).
317 Symmachus had represented the Senate for the celebrations surrounding Maximus’ consulship in 388
where he delivered a panegyric to the usurper Soc. 5.14.6, Matthews (1998) 223, see 229-232 for his and
Flavianus’ rehabilitation under Theodosius.
318 Cf Constantius’ CTh 16.10.4 of 1 December 354 ordering the closure of temples; pagan practices had
apparently been allowed during the usurpation
of Magnentius in Rome.
274