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

Romanus, the Count of Egypt. 319 It ordered that no one had the “right to perform
sacrifices; no person shall go around the temples; no person shall revere the shrines.
All persons… are excluded from profane entrance into temples by the opposition of
our law.” If anyone “should attempt to do anything with reference to the gods or the
sacred rites, contrary to our prohibition” then he would not be exempted from
punishment by any “special grants of Imperial favour.” If any judge “should rely on
the privilege of his power, and as a sacrilegious violator of law, should enter polluted
places” then he would be fined 15 lbs of gold and his staff the came amount unless they
had opposed him “with their combined strength.” 320
Again, like the previous law, this one was concerned with blood sacrifice,
which is curious; not only do we have Libanius assertions that blood sacrifice was no
longer practised, but also blood sacrifice does not appear to have played an important
role in traditional Egyptian religion at any period and as such, its impact may have
been very limited. 321 Like the previous law, it may be appropriate to read the
prohibitions as applicable to government officials, since only they (and their staff)
were mentioned in the schedule of punishments, and as such it should perhaps be
understood to be targeting them in their official capacities and any sacrifices they may
have continued to carry out. As such, it could be tentatively suggested that sacrifice
performed by them in their private capacity, or indeed by any private person, was not
prohibited under this law. 322
319 Evagrius 7 PLRE 1.286 and Romanus 5 PLRE 1.391; Also Honoré’s (1998) E10 70-73
320 nulli sacrificandi tribuatur potestas, nem o tem pla circum eat, nem o delubra suspiciat. interclusos sibi
nostrae legis obstaculo profanos aditus recognoscant adeo, ut, si qui v el de diis aliquid contra v etitum sacrisque
m olietur, nullis exuendum se indulgentiis recognoscat. iudex quoque si quis tem pore adm in istrationis suae
fretus priv ilegio potestatis polluta loca sacrilegus tem erator intrav erit, quindecim auri pondo, officium v ero
eius, nisi collatis v iribus obv iarit, parem sum m am aerario nostro inferre cogatur.
321 See Frankfurter (2000) 24-25
322 However, against that reading should be noticed the apparently pivotal role that Eunapius gives to
Evagrius and Romanus in the destruction of the Serapeon (the same year as this law) Eun. V. Soph.
6.2.2, but against that see more restrained accounts by Socrates 5.16.10 and especially Sozomen 7.15.5
275