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

exercise an undue influence, or power over the weak and powerless, an influence
which had to be curbed. Even if the more pertinent concern at the time was the
necessity of securing enough people to run and work in the factory, the fact that the
law chose to dwell on religious concerns rather than on manpower concerns would
indicate an even greater degree of anti-Jewish intolerance.
Evagrius may well have decided to submit his suggestio to Constantius in the
hope that he and his con cilium would reply more favourably than Constans either
because Constantius was regarded as a bigger anti-Semite than Constans or because he
would have been more indulgent to the requests of an official who was not absolutely
a member of his own area of rule. Agreement to the request favoured both emperor
and official: Evagrius could be fairly certain that the Eastern emperor could not resist
the opportunity to display his power in the West and to extend or strengthen his
network of potential allies. At the same time, Evagrius was able to indulge his anti-
Semitic prejudices as well as allying himself with the leading emperor. 121
The section of this law preserved at 16.9.2, which deals with the purchase and
conversion of non-Jewish slaves by Jewish owners is restrained in its rhetoric. The
section that deals with the women of the weaving establishment (CTh 16.8.6) has
greater rhetorical bluster. It speaks of women being “led by Jews into the association
of their turpitude”. 122 Con sortium is used in the code to indicate marriage or a
fellowship of like-minded individuals, either religious or secular. 123 Turpitude is
therefore perhaps not the best translation to give to con sortium ; in this context
fellowship or community may be better. More importantly, the law does talk of Jews
uniting Christian women to “their villainy” 124 . Flagitium means disgraceful or
shameful and is synonymous with n efas or crim en . Although the law is not actually
121 Linder (1987) 146-7 maintains that the law was issued by Constantine II, emperor of Britain, Gaul and
Spain. With the date seemingly secure, however his argument seems to rest on the understanding that
Eastern emperors were only able to issue laws while resident in Constantinople.
122 CTh 16.8.6 quas Iudaei in turpitudinis suae duxere consortium
123 Linder (1987) 150
124 suis iungant flagitiis
32