10 Prohibition of Circumcision of Non-Jewish Slaves and of Persecution of Jewish Converts to Christianity
Constantine the Great
21 October 335
This law was given by Constantine the Great on 21 October 335 at Constantinople and promulgated at Carthage on 9 March 336.
Although it has been preserved only in the version addressed to Felix, Praefectus Praetorio of the diocese of Africa, it was certainly issued as a general law, with identical copies sent to the governors of the other dioceses as well. With the exception of one paragraph near its end, the text of the law has been entirely preserved in Constitutio Sirmondiana No. 4. The editors of Codex Theodosianus received the last part of the law and divided it into two texts, both partial and abridged (CTh 16:8:5 and CTh 16:9:1), but sharing the same legislator, addressee, date of issue, place of issue, and date of promulgation. CTh 16:9:1 terminates with the words “and other matters,” while CTh 16:8:5 opens with “after other matters” and terminates with “and other matters.” Both texts were explained in the Visigothic Commentary and received into the Breviarium of Alarie II {CTh 16:8:5 = Brev. 16:3:1; CTh 16:9:1 = Brev. 16:4:1). One short clause from CTh 16:9:1 was incorporated into CJ 1:10:1 (see below, No. 11).The law deals with two matters:
(A) Prohibition of circumcision of non-Jewish slaves purchased by Jewish masters. Circumcised slaves of this kind were to be freed.
(B) Prohibition of persecution by Jews of converts to Christianity. Those found guilty were to be punished according to the gravity of their crime.
The legislator’s statement that this law repeated a previous law should be seen, probably, as a reference to the law he gave on 18 October 329 (No.
8). Granting freedom to circumcised non-Jewish slaves conformed to Constantine’s known tendency to manumit slaves by law (lege), either as recompense or in order to punish their masters,1 and it does not deviate from classical law (see Volterra, pp. 87-89). Theodosius’ editors reworked the protection clause in an ‘accusativus cum infinitivo’ construction, blurring its precise original meaning and opening this law to an erroneous reading and interpretation, as if it granted the Jews protection from converts. Such erroneous interpretation was documented from the early Middle Ages, and even an excellent humanist like Baronius failed to notice that it subverted the authentic content of the law.2Constitutio Sirmondiana 4, ed. Mommsen, pp. 910-911
IMP. CONSTANTINUS AD FELICEM* PRAEFECTUM PRAETORII lam dudum quidem constitutionis nostrae saluberrima sanctio* promulgata est, quam nostrae repetitae legis veneratione geminamus, ac volumus, ut, si quispiam ludaeorum Christianum mancipium vel 5 cuiuslibet alterius sectae mercatus circumcidere non perhorruerit, circumcisus quidem istius statuti* mensura libertatis conpos effectus eiusdem privilegiis potiatur: non fas ludaeo sit qui circumciderit mancipium generis memorati in obsequium servitutis retinere. Illud etenim hac eadem sanctione praecipimus, ut, si quispiam ludaeorum reserans 10 sibi ianuam vitae perpetuae sanctis se cultibus mancipaverit et Christianus esse delegerit, ne quid a ludaeis inquietudinis vel molestiae patiatur. Quod si ex ludaeo Christianum factum aliquis ludaeorum iniuria putaverit esse pulsandum, volumus istiusmodi contumeliae machinatorem* pro criminis qualitate commissi* poenis ultricibus 15 subiugari, Felix parens carissime.* Quare divinitatis affectu confidimus ipsum* in omni orbe Romano qui nostri debita veneratione servata : ac volumus, ut excellens sublimitas tua litteris suis per dioecesim* sibi creditam commeantibus indices* moneat instantissime huiuscemodi debitam reverentiam custodiri.
20 DATA XII KAL.
NOVEMB. PROPOSITA VII ID. MART. CARTHAGINE NEPOTIANO ET FACUNDO CONSS*EMPEROR CONSTANTINE TO FELIX,3 PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO
Indeed, a long time ago was published the most salutary sanction4 of our law, which we renew by the veneration of our repeated law; it is our wish that if one of the Jews shall not be horrified from buying and circumcising a Christian slave or of any other sect whatsoever, the circumcised slave shall be made, by measure of this statute,5 participant in liberty and acquire its privileges; it shall not be lawful for a Jew who has circumcised a slave of the aforementioned kind to retain him in slavery’s obedience. This in fact we order in this same sanction, that if one of the Jews shall unlock for himself the door of eternal life, shall bind himself to the holy cults and choose to be Christian, he shall not suffer ought of harassment or molestation in the hands of the Jews. For if anyone of the Jews shall consider that a Jew who became Christian should be attacked and injured, we want the instigator6 of such contumely to be subjected to avenging punishments commensurate with the nature of the crime committed,7 Felix our dearest father.8 We trust therefore in the Divinity’s love that he... 9 in the entire Roman world, which, maintaining the veneration due to us; and we want your Excellent Sublimity to warn most earnestly the judges,10 in letters circulating throughout the diocese11 entrusted her, that this due reverence should be kept.
GIVEN ON THE TWELFTH DAY BEFORE THE CALENDS OF NOVEMBER, PUBLISHED ON THE SEVENTH DAY BEFORE THE IDES OF MARCH AT CARTHAGE, IN THE CONSULATE OF NEPOTI ANUS AND FACUNDUS.12
Codex Theodosianus, 16:9:1 (= Breviarium, 16:4:1), ed.
Mommsen, pp. 895-896IMP. CONSTANTINUS A. AD FELICEM P(RAEFECTUM) P(RAETORI)O
Si quis ludaeorum Christianum mancipium vel cuiuslibet alterius sectae* mercatus circumciderit, minime in servitute retineat circumcisum, sed libertatis privilegiis, qui hoc sustinuerit, potiatur. Et cetera.
5 DAT. XII KAL. NOV. CONSTANTIN(O)P(OLI); P(RO)P(OSITA) VIII ID. MAI. CART(HAXXINE) NEPOTIANO ET FACUNDO CONSS.·
INTERPRETATIO.
Si quis ludaeorum servum Christianum vel cuiuslibet alterius sectae emerit et circumciderit, a ludaei ipsius potestate sublatus in libertate per- io maneat.
EMPEROR CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS TO FELIX, PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO
If one of the Jews shall buy and circumcise a Christian slave or of any other sect,13 he shall on no account retain the circumcised in slavery, but he who suffered this shall acquire the privileges of liberty. And other matters.
GIVEN ON THE TWELFTH DAY BEFORE THE CALENDS OF NOVEMBER AT CONSTANTINOPLE; PROMULGATED ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE IDES OF MARCH AT CARTHAGE, IN THE CONSULATE OF NEPOTI ANUS AND FACUNDUS.14
COMMENTARY
If one of the Jews shall buy and circumcise a Christian slave or of any other sect, he shall be raised up from that Jew’s power and remain in liberty.
Codex Theodosianus, 16:8:5 (= Breviarium, 16:3:1), ed.
Mommsen, p. 888IDEM A. AD FELICEM P(RAEFECTUM) P(RAETORI)O
Post alia: Eum, qui ex ludaeo Christianus factus est, inquietare ludaeos non liceat vel aliqua pulsare iniuria, pro qualitate commissi istiusmodi contumelia punienda. Et cetera.
5 DAT. XI KAL. NOV. CONSTAN(TINO)P(OLI), P(RO)P(OSITA) VIII ID. MAI. NEPOTIANO ET FACUNDO CONSS.·
Haec lex interpretatione non eget.
THE SAME AUGUSTUS TO FELIX, PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO
After other matters. It shall not be permitted that Jews harass or attack in any kind of injury him who became Christian from Jew. The contumely should be punished according to the nature of the crime committed. And so on.
GIVEN ON THE ELEVENTH DAY BEFORE THE CALENDS OF NOVEMBER AT CONSTANTINOPLE, PROMULGATED ON THE EIGHTH DAY BEFORE THE IDES OF MAY, IN THE CONSULATE OF NEPOTIANUS AND FACUNDUS.15 This law does not require a commentary.
NOTES
1. See particularly C. Dupont, Les constitutions de Constantin et le droit privé au début du IVe siècle, Rome 1968, pp. 47-48; also F. d’Ippolito, “Concessioni pubbliche di libertà,” Labeo, X (1964), pp. 38-46.
2. C. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici ad a.d. 336, par. 75, IV, Bar-le-Duc 1865, p. 303.
3. Felix was Praefectus Praetorio in the diocese of Africa, he followed Lucius Arradius Valerius Proculus, who held this office in the years 331-332, and preceded Gregorius, who served from 21 July 336 until 4 February 337.
Felix’s term of office is documented from 18 April 333 until 9 March 336. See A. Chastagnol, “Les préfets du prétoire de Constantin,” REA, LXX (1968), pp. 346, 352; C. Dupont, “Constantin et la préfecture d’Afrique,” Studi Grosso, II, Turin 1968, pp. 521-522, 525-529; PLRE, I, s.v.4. The general sense of the term ‘sanctio’ is “law,” “decree,” but it appears also in the more limited meaning of an instruction comprised in a law, particularly instructions dealing with the law’s operational aspects, i.e., determination of penalties, prohibition of repeal through later legislation, and grants of impunity in regard to previously enacted contradictory laws.
5. The term ‘statutum’ is analogous to the term ‘constitutio’, “Imperial law” (see above, the beginning of the text). Ulpian employed it as synonymous to “rescript” in a passage dealing with the distinction between Imperial rescript and municipal law: ‘... quia generalia sunt rescripta et oportet imperialia statuta suam vim optinere et in omni loco valere’, “for rescripts are general, and it is necessary that Imperial statutes maintain their force and be valid everywhere” (Dig. 47:12:3:5).
6. Instigator: the term ‘machinator’ here has an unmistakable negative connotation of a conspirator, an instigator of evil and criminal deeds. Compare Ul- pian’s interpretation of the term ‘dolus malus’: ‘Dolum malum Servius quidem ita definit machinationem quandam alterius decipiendi causa, cum aliud simulatur et aliud agitur. Labeo autem... sic definit dolum malum esse omnem calliditatem fallacem machinationem ad circumveniendum fallendum decipiendum alterum adhibitam. Labeonis definitio vera est’. “Servius defined ‘dolus malus’ in this way: a certain machination to deceive another, when a person pretends to do one thing and does the other. While Labeo... defined in this way: ‘dolus malus’ is any act of cunning, deceit, machination destined to mislead, deceive, and ensnare the other. Labeo’s definition is right” (Dig. 4:3:2). The same meaning appeared in legislative texts. Valerian and Gallien defined falsifiers of testaments as ‘machinatores falsi’, in a rescript from 259 (CJ 9:22:8), while Theodosius I defined embezzlers of State revenues as ‘machinatores praedarum’ in a law from 30 November 381 (CTh 10:24:3).
7.style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Crime committed: this passage proves that the legislator considered attacks on Jewish converts to Christianity as both ‘iniuria’ and ‘contumelia’, two terms accepted as synonyms in classical law. He combined, in this way, elements typical to the two original concepts, physical injury as well as moral damages. See M. Bretone, “Ricerche Labeoniane—Iniuria e ΰβρις,” Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica, CIII (1975), pp. 413-429; R. Wittmann, “Die Entwicklungslinien der klassischen Iniurienklage,” ZSSRG, RA, XCI (1974), pp. 285-359.
8. Father: this title is well-documented in Roman legislative texts. See
below, Nos. 35 and 38. It was translated by the Greek term πατήρ βασιλέως; compare the use of this term by Menander the Protector in the sixth century (C. 49, ed. L. Dindorf, Historici Graeci Minores, II, Leipzig 1871, p. 100). The Greek term appears in Gen. R. to Gen. 45:8: pHUDb—ixb ‘»W’ttrn, and in one manuscript (93:11, Theodor-Albeck ed., Berlin 1902/3-1928/29, p. 1160.
9. A corruption due to an omission. The original text certainly expressed, in this place, the legislator’s confidence that that convert should rest secure and unmolested in all parts of the Roman Empire, and that the reverence due to Imperial legislation should be maintained.
10. ‘Judex’ has here the post-Classical meaning of “governor.”
11. At that time the diocese of Africa comprised the following provinces: Valeria Byzacena, Numidia Cirtensis, Numidia Militiana, Mauritania Caesariensis, Proconsularis Zeugitana, and Mauritania Sitifensis. In the years 331-337 it was governed by a praefectus praetorio. See Chastagnol (above, n. 3), p. 346; Dupont (above, n. 3); Kornemann, PW, 1:9, 1903, s.v. Diocesis, Col. 733.
12. Given... Facundus: given on 21 October, promulgated on 9 March 336.
13. Sect: Solazzi classifies this clause with the interpolations added to the text prior to its codification by Theodosius II.
14. Given... Facundus: given on 21 October; promulgated on 8 May 336. The calendric date of the promulgation is corrupt, and should be corrected to 9 March, as in Constitutio Sirmondiana No. 4.
15. Given... Facundus: given on 22 October; promulgated on 8 May 336. Both calendric dates are corrupt, and should be emended as in Constitutio Sirmondiana No. 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Godefroy, VI: 1, pp. 243-244, 270-271; Seeck, “Zeitfolge,” p. 245; P. Krüger, “Beiträge zum Codex Theodosianus, 1:2: Über die Zerlegung der Kon- stitutionen im Codex Theodosianus,” ZSSRG, RA, XXXIV (1913), pp. 7-8; Juster, II, p. 72; Seeck, Regesten, p. 183; Browe, p. 118; S. Solazzi, “Ancora glossemi e interpolazioni nel Codice Teodosiano,” SDH1, NS, XIII-XIV (19471948), pp. 237-238; Seaver, p. 31; Dörries, p. 203; E. Volterra, “Intorno ad alcune costituzioni di Costantino,” Rendiconti, XIII (1958), pp 87-89; C. Dupont, “Le domaine géographique d’application des textes constantiniens,” Iura, XVIII (1967), p. 32; Noethlichs, pp. 36-39; Linder, pp. 107-108, 131-135; Avi-Yonah, pp. 162163; Rabello, Legal Condition, p. 407 n. 137; H. H. Anton, “Kaiserliches Selbstverständnis in der Religionsgesetzgebung der Spätantike und päpstliche Herrschaftsinterpretation im 5. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXXXVIII (1977), p. 44; Reichardt, pp. 21-22, 26; Haehling, p. 356; Vogler, pp. 53-54, 64, 73.