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

court, and to have received criticism as such from Libanius, it remains very difficult to
assess the extent and commitment of the Christianity of these men and therefore the
religious ‘flavour’ of his court. 181 As much as can be reasonably assessed is that it was
mixed. Although it is not possibly to see this law as being a assault on paganism in
general, it may conceivably be seen as one official trying to achieve some advantage
over his rivals in the mixed court. But it is evidence of the degree of intolerance that
could be achieved from one official, Taurus, probably to enhance his own standing
before the emperor and in the court. By categorising augurs with soothsayers and
other already established ‘fringe’ practitioners, Taurus may have been trying to
persuade Constantius of the malevolence of all auspicial practices, including hitherto
legitimate ones still practised in the religious lives of the cities; a persuasion that may
well have had a high possibility of success in an emperor who was easily persuaded by
his officials and during the aftermath of the recent Scythopolis trials.
Taurus’ manoeuvrings had come at a pertinent time; the emperor was about to
leave the west and return to Constantinople after a not particularly successful Council
of Ariminum. Taurus had apparently been offered a counsulship if he secured a
successful council. 182 However, during the course of the council, which lasted until
probably late July, a majority of the council members came to reject the so called creed
of 22 May 359 drawn up by a number of eastern bishops in the presence, and
presumably with the agreement of, Constantius. Moreover, and going beyond their
writ, which had been to endorse the 22 May creed, this majority decided to condemn a
number of anti-Nicene bishops. The Nicene bishops did eventually bend to the
emperor’s preferences by rejecting their condemnation of their rivals and by adopting
a revision of the 22 May creed, but this only happened almost three months later on 10
October. Therefore Taurus may have suggested CTh 9.16.6 as a means to display his
180 CIL 6.1686 in Beard et al (1998) 329
181 Salzman (2002) 101-102 citing Libanius Or 1.39; Barnes (1994) has attempted to classify the consuls
and prefects of 317-361 according to religion, but the classifications he makes often fail to convince and
are often based on suppositions; see for example the case of Flavius Florentius PLRE 1.365, Barnes
(1994) 7
182 Barnes (1993) 145 Taurus became consul in 361
47