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

intolerance; indeed, on this model, even laws expressing favourable sentiments
towards certain groups would be classed as essentially intolerant and that which is
normally called “evidence” would automatically become “proof of intolerance.”
A further objection to King’s model flows from this absolutism: it is unable
to take account of differing degrees of intolerance, which is important when
attempting to assess the overall and developing (or diminishing) extent of
intolerance throughout the fourth century. Moreover, it would be misleading to
apply such a model for this period and in particular, to the Theodosian Code. A
number of laws or letters, which would have been included in this study, have most
certainly been lost to us, either because they were overlooked by Theodosius II’s
commissioners, or because they have been lost in the process ies of textual
transmission; in other words, absence of evidence of intolerance does not
necessarily indicate a lack of intolerance. 4 As such and rather than this ‘blanket’
approach, I attempt to gauge the level of religious intolerance contained in Imperial
statements on what I hope is an essentially practical basis. There are, it seems, a
number of means through which to gauge intolerance; most important is the actual
and practical penalties that each law contained. It seems self evident therefore that
a penalty of death imposed on a group of religious dissidents for some perceived
offence, indicates a level of intolerance towards such a group that is greater than,
for instance, a penalty ordering confiscation of property or a fine, or, no penalty at
all. 5 Secondly, the comprehensiveness of the law is a factor in gauging intolerance;
a long and detailed list prohibiting actions, beliefs or practices of a community is
more intolerant than a law which prohibits only one or two actions. However,
this is not an absolute rule; brevity could also, in certain circumstances, indicate
intolerance. Finally, but to a lesser degree, any rhetoric contained in the law may
also be an important tool with which to gauge intolerance. Referring to a religious
group as impious, wild or criminal indicates a degree of intolerance of such a group.
These criteria are not exhaustive or exclusive when assessing laws and they cannot
4 Matthews (2000) 85-120 is the latest, and most comprehensive, on the state of the Code.
5 Garnsey (1970) 104-178 on penalties. In the capital laws discussed below no distinction between
honestiores and hum iliores is apparent.
3