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

the Church. As such, the Theodosian Code is the main source, but also included
are laws from Justinian’s code which are absent from that of Theodosius’ as well as
other relevant Imperial correspondence or communications; in particular,
Constantine's correspondence in connection with the Donatist dispute as well as
Valentinian's in the Ursinian dispute. 2
A scientific and precise definition of “intolerance” is not attempted here.
King has attempted a definition of intolerance which “implies the conjunction of a
negative disposition and a negative act, wherein the latter may range from smirks to
insults, discrimination, physical abuse, or even extermination.” He goes on to
argue that an act is an essential indication of intolerance, without an “act,” there is
no intolerance. 3 He argues that the opposite of intolerance is not tolerance, but
rather indifference; if one is tolerant of a group, practice or belief then that
tolerance presupposes that one has some objection to such phenomena, but is
prepared to ignore or disregard that objection to a greater or lesser degree, but,
crucially, without omitting it wholly from one’s thoughts or opinions, whether
expressed or not. Consequently, according to King’s model, only by
demonstrating indifference (if such is not an oxymoron) can intolerance be avoided.
This model is highly theoretical, and in a strict and absolutist sense probably has
considerable merit. However, it is not, I believe, particularly helpful for ancient
historians. In this thesis, the “act” is almost always the law or statement issued by
an emperor on a particular subject. Without that “act,” we would invariably be
ignorant of the Imperial attitude towards particular religious groups (since almost
no other source exists) and this model would force a conclusion that, because the
“act” exists, each emperor would, thereby, be expressing intolerance whenever a
law or statement was issued in his name which affected a particular religious group.
Any recognition of difference or diversity hence becomes an indication of
2 Translations of the Theodosian Code are all from Pharr (1952), except where indicated; those of
Justinian’s Code are from Scott (1932), except where indicated; those from other sources are from
Coleman-Norton (1962) except where indicated. There is a large bibliography on law in Late
Antiquity and on the Code; the most useful are: Honoré (1986); Turpin (1987); the chapters edited
by Harries and Wood (1993), particularly those by Harries, Matthews and Sirks; Honoré (1998),
especially chapter 6; Harries (1998) (1999a) (1999b); Matthews (2000) and Honoré (2004).
3 King (1976) 189-195, quote at 190
2