occurred (ritual prostitution at two temples of Aphrodite is noted by Eus. V. Const.
3.55). Christians were excused from attending pagan rituals that they found offen-
sive, such as lustral sacrifices (CTh16.2.5). Yet these pagan rituals were continued
with state monies and Christians attended them, along with the games and circuses
offered at state expense.
Constantine’s tolerant policy on paganism was adopted by his heirs, Constans and
Constantius II, who, however, increased restrictions on the public cults. A code of
342 ce, directed to the prefect of Rome by these two Augusti, specifies certain
sanctions imposed for the first time on Rome: “all superstitions must be completely
eradicated”; but this code also stipulates that pagan religious sites and rituals be upheld:
“Temples outside the city walls shall remain untouched since certain plays or spec-
tacles of the circus or contests derive their origin from some of these temples” (CTh
16.10.2). This code justifies the maintenance of such buildings because of the “regular
performance of long-established amusements for the Roman people.” In an attempt
to neutralize the paganism of these rituals, the code redefines them as amusements
(voluptates). Hence, this code supports much of what I have discussed as part of the
public religious koine; the games, circuses, holidays, and temples are protected and
continued, even as the emperors attempt to desacralize the activities associated with
them. Hence, I would argue, contraMarkus (Markus 1990: 1–17), that imperial
propaganda attempted to widen the range of the secular by making the games
and circuses into mere “amusements.” This effort at desacralization, as I will show,
continued under imperial guidance throughout the fourth century.
Once Constantius had gained sole control of the empire by the mid-350s, he
broadened the definition of the public religious koinethat was no longer acceptable.
A code (CTh16.10.6) dated to 356 ceprohibited sacrifice and the veneration of
pagan images upon pain of death; another code (CTh16.10.4), dated 356 – 61 ce,
also closed the pagan temples. The language of the codes, widely promulgated, ex-
pressed in more vehement fashion the reasons for these prohibitions. Nonetheless,
Constantius did not put an end to public cult or to the celebrations that formed part
of the public calendar of the city of Rome or of its empire. Indeed, independent
literary and archaeological evidence attests to the policy of toleration for paganism
and for continued public sacrifice at Rome: Libanius, in Oratio30.33 – 4, dated to
386 ce, observed that “They [the officials] have not yet dared rob Rome of its
sacrifices.” The toleration of sacrifice and the ongoing funding for public cult at Rome
can also be observed in other cities of the empire; much depended, I would con-
tend, on local magistrates and local politics. In Athens, for instance, Praetextatus,
as proconsul, convinced Valentinian I to allow the celebration of sacrifices at night
(Zosimus, Historia Nova 4.3.2–3). Christian administrators could take a more
restrictive position vis-à-vis public cult worship, but similarly, pagan administrators
could take more tolerant ones (Salzman 1987: 172– 88). In essence, then, the key
components of the public religious koinewere still in place in the middle of the fourth
century.
Constantius’ attempts to redefine the public games and ceremonies as entertain-
ment not religion is important. If this approach succeeded, it would deny any shared
religiosity to pagans and Christians. This approach, however, did have a positive
Religious Koineand Religious Dissent 117