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

valued moderation in law. An inscription of his from Numidia begins: “Mirae iustitiae
atq[ue] eximiae moderationis”. 129
One feature of CTh 16.10.2 which has attracted interest is that it appears to
provide evidence that Constantine had legislated to abolish sacrifice: “for if any man in
violation of the law of the sainted Emperor, our father, [i.e. Constantine] and in
violation of this command of our clemency, should dare to perform sacrifices…” 130
This apparent law of Constantine is unfortunately not preserved with certainty in the
Code. Barnes has linked this reference with a law of Constantine that is paraphrased
by Eusebius in his Life of Con stan tin e, 131 and views it as one element in a general anti-
pagan campaign in the aftermath of his victory over Licinius in 324. 132 A campaign
which, however, appears to have been directed exclusively towards the east. 133 The
ongoing debate on whether Constantine did or did not ban sacrifice appears to be an
irresolvable question, 134 but whatever reliance is placed on Eusebius, should be
balanced with evidence that Eusebius was not always an accurate paraphraser of
Imperial legislation. 135 Also, it should be noted that Sozomen, when referring to the
laws passed by Constantine in favour of the Church and Christianity, only refers to
legislation on celibacy and on privileges granted to the Church 136 and deliberately
omits any mention of laws which he regarded as unimportant. 137 He makes no
mention of a comprehensive ban on sacrifice and his only reference to a ban on
sacrifice was restricted solely to a shrine in Palestine venerated by pagans, Jews and
129 CIL 8.5348
130 nam quicum que contra legem div i principis parentis nostri et hanc nostrae m ansuetudinis iussion em ausus
fuerit sacrificia celebrare
131 Barnes (1984) 69-72, Eus. VC 2.45.1 See also the detained criticism of Barnes interpretation of this
alledged law by Drake (1982) 465-6; and also Errington (1988) 309-318, again disagreeing with Barnes,
and his persuasive suggestion (315) that Constantine’s letter at VC 2.48-60, To the Eastern Prov incials was
a tacit repeal of any anti-sacrifice law that had been issued.
132 Barnes (1981) 210
133 Drake (1982) 465
134 Recently added to by Bradbury (1994)
135 Warmington (1993) for evidence that Eusebius was “a careless and perhaps tendentious reporter of
recent legislation” and therefore should be treated with caution.
136 Soz. 1.9
137 Soz. 1.8
34