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.

A non-partisan emperor or <strong>in</strong>dividual official should not be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as<br />

an <strong>in</strong>dividual who was blasé, or unconcerned with religious affairs. It is perhaps<br />

often assumed that because an <strong>in</strong>dividual followed one faith, he had <strong>the</strong>refore to be<br />

automatically and resolutely opposed, <strong>in</strong> both thought and deed, to any faith that<br />

was divergent, contrary or simply different from his own. Moreover, it is also<br />

perhaps assumed, as a corollary to that position, that those who have <strong>the</strong> power to<br />

enforce religious compliance will <strong>in</strong>variably choose to do so with force.<br />

These assumptions are not supported by exam<strong>in</strong>ation of <strong>the</strong> detailed<br />

evidence. The emperors offered consistent and certa<strong>in</strong> support for Christianity <strong>in</strong><br />

this period, testament to <strong>the</strong>ir belief <strong>in</strong> its superiority to o<strong>the</strong>r faiths. However, a<br />

desire to curtail <strong>in</strong>correct beliefs and practices did not translate <strong>in</strong>to a desire to<br />

demand correct beliefs and practices; and <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong>re is no empirical and logical<br />

reason why <strong>the</strong> latter should necessarily follow <strong>the</strong> former. Theodosius came<br />

closest to demand<strong>in</strong>g conformity with his Cun ctos populos law, but crucially he<br />

appears to have lacked <strong>the</strong> will to actively ensure compliance and as such <strong>the</strong> degree<br />

to which he demanded and desired conformity to this law may be seriously<br />

questioned. To heretics Theodosius repeatedly said ‘thou shalt not,’ but that was<br />

not coupled with a serious effort to <strong>the</strong> effect of ‘thou shalt.’ Moreover, very little<br />

of Jewish practice (with <strong>the</strong> exception of CJ 1.9.7 of 30 December 393) was actually<br />

prohibited. Similarly, <strong>the</strong> same applied to paganism, with <strong>the</strong> exception of<br />

div<strong>in</strong>ation. Com pelle <strong>in</strong> trare (Lk. 14.23), a phrase later to be so misunderstood and<br />

misused, was not perceived as a b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g commandment by any fourth century<br />

emperor.<br />

The practicalities of demand<strong>in</strong>g (as well as enforc<strong>in</strong>g) total adherence to <strong>the</strong><br />

emperor’s faith probably weighed heavily on <strong>the</strong>ir decision (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Theodosius’)<br />

not to do so. But equally, it has been shown that heretics were <strong>the</strong> subject of <strong>the</strong><br />

most hostile attention of <strong>the</strong> emperors; if emperors had demanded religious<br />

conformity from all <strong>the</strong>ir subjects, <strong>the</strong>n one should expect to f<strong>in</strong>d as much and<br />

270

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!