56 Prohibition on Service of Jews and Samaritans in Public Administration; Inferior Status to Heretics, Jews, and Samaritans in Litigation with Orthodox Christians Justin with Justinian Between April and July 527

This law was given by Justin and Justinian between 1 April 527, when Justinian joined Justin as a second Augustus, and 1 August 527, the date of Justin’s death. Its text, preserved in Bas.

The two rulers initiated in this law a policy of persecution of all religions and sects distinct from Orthodox Christianity. They spe­cifically mentioned the Jews and the Samaritans in this context, emphasizing that they but reiterated old legislation long fallen into desuetude. The law dealt with two principal matters:

(A) With the exception of the obligatory duty of Cohortalins, non-Orthodox were to be barred from serving in the Imperial and municipal administration and from practicing law. Specific fines and punishments were to be imposed on convicted heretics and on negligent officials.

(B)  Orthodox parents were given preferential legal standing in disputes with their spouses concerning the Christian education of their common children. The economic position of Orthodox chil­dren in dispute with their non-Orthodox parents was guaranteed.

The two legislators declared that the law was to be applied throughout the Empire, and they called on the ecclesiastical au­thorities to ensure that it was fully applied by the Imperial admin­istration. Its immediate application was evident in the harsh per­secution of the Manichaeans in Constantinople by 527, and the persecution of the Samaritans (see also below, No. 58), which resulted in the Samaritan revolt of 529/530 and its draconian re­pression. It is reasonable to assume that the clauses concerning the Jews received the same treatment.

Codex Justinianus, 1:5:12, ed. Kruger, pp. 53-55

[Αύτοκράτορες ’Ιουστίνος καί ’Ιουστινιανός ΑΑ.]*

...Τούς αιρετικούς ήμείς μέν διά τούτο καί συιέναι καί προσηγορίαν* έχειν ιδίαν συνεχωρήσαμεν,* ϊνα την καρτερίαν ήμών αίσχυνθέντες σωφρονήσωσιν έκόντες καί προς τά καλλίω μεταβάλωσιν. Τούς δέ 5 είσήλθέ τις ούκ άνεκτή τόλμα, καί τής των νόμων άμελήσαντας παραγ­γελίας στρατείαις,* &ν ούκ έα μετεϊναι τοϊς τοιούτοις αύτά τά των βασιλικών συμβόλων* δηλοϊ γράμματα, παρενέβαλον αύτούς.

’Αλλά τούς μέν Μανιχαίους, ώσπερ είρήκαμεν, οΰτω καί άπελαύνεσθαι δει καί μηδέ τήν προσηγορίαν αύτών ύπομένειν μηδένα μηδέ περιοραν, εϊπερ έν τώ^αύτφ διάγοι τοίς άλλοις ό τήν άθείαν ταύτην νοσήσας άνθρωπος, άλλά καί τοϊς εις έσχατον τιμωρίαις ύπάγεσθαι τόν όπουδή 15 γης* φαινόμενον Μανιχαίον.

ΤΗΕ Εα\¥5

οΰτε στρατιωτικήν ούτε είς τάξιν τελείν ούδεμίαν, πλήν της των καλουμένων κοορταλίνων (ταύτη γάρ έκ γένους ύποκειμένους αύτούς •ένέχεσθαι βουλόμεθα, ώστε μένοντας αύτούς έπ’ αύτής καί πάντα ³⁰ πληροΰντας έξ άνάγκης καί παν βάρος ύπομένοντας, δπερ έστι της αύτης στρατείας, εΓργεσθαι τούτο μέν προκοπής, τούτο δέ τού κατά των όρθοδόξων Χριστιανών έκβιβασμού* δημοσίων καί Ιδιωτικών ένεκεν χρεών) προστάττομεν.

καί άπογράφεσθαι,* τούτοις, εί μαθόντες τό πέπλα νημένον αύτοΰ τής δόξης δμως προσήκαντο* καί ούκ άντεϊπον ούδέ άπήλασαν, ποινήν έπιτίθεμεν χρυσίου λίτρων η'. Ού μην ούδέ τάς άρχάς άθώους άφίεμεν, εΓπερ, οϋς έκ των κεκωλυμένων ύφ’ ήμών όντας γινώσκουσι, τούτους άνασχοιντο ταις οίκείαις έναριθμεϊσθαι τάξεσιν (ύπεξηρημένης δηλονότι τής των κοορταλίνων στρατείας), άλλα ποινήν καί παρ’ αύτών ν' χρυσίου λίτρων είσπράττομεν. Έφ’ όπόσοις δέ άν των είρημένων κεφαλαίων άρμόσαι συμβαίη την ποινήν, ό μεγαλοπρεπέστατος κόμης τού ίερωτάτου ταμείου τήν άπαίτησιν αύτής ποιήσεται* καί τοίς θείοις είσοίσει πριβάτοις. *Εννοιαν μέντοι λαμβά- νοντες, ότι Γότθους πολλάκις τοίς καθωσιωμένοις έγγράφομεν φοιδεράτοις,* οϊς ούτε ή φύσις ούτε ό φθάσας βίος τούς τοιούτους ένέθηκε λόγους συγχωρήσαί τι τής άκριβείας αύτοΐς συνείδομεν* καί γινομένων άνέχεσθαι φοιδεράτων καί τιμωμένων, δν άν ήμίν παρασταίη τρόπον. Είδότες δέ, ώς διάφοροι πολλάκις τοίς ούκ όρθοδό- ξοις γονεύσιν αί γνώμαι γίνονται, τού μέν πατρός ή τής γε μητρός τή των όρθοδόξων πίστει προσενεγκεϊν τούς κοινούς παΐδας βουλομένου, θατέρου δέ άντιτείνοντος, ίσχυροτέραν είναι καί τοίς δλοις έ- πικρατεστέραν τήν γνώμην προστάττομεν τού προς τήν όρθόδοξον πίστιν τούς παΐδας άγοντος· μεθέξει τε γάρ έν μέρει τό γινόμενον τής των τεκόντων γνώμης καί προσέσται τό τά βελτίω νενικηκέναι. Βοηθοΰντες δέ κάκείνοις τοίς παισίν, οϋς οί μή μετέχοντες τής εύαγοΰς ήμών πίστεως μισοΰσι πατέρες, άμάρτημα μέν ούδέν έχοντες έγκαλέσαι των έν τοίς νόμοις κεκωλυμένων, διότι δέ τής των γονέων αισθανόμενοι πλάνης, τής εύαγούς ημών μετέχοντες πίστεως, διά τούδε τού θείου πραγματικού νόμου* θεσπίζομεν καί τροφής τον πατέρα τοις τοιούτοις μεταδιδόναι προς τό τής ούσίας τής έαυτοΰ μέτρον καί τών άναγκαίων εις τήν άλλην δίαιταν, άλλα μή καθάπερ τιμωρίαν άπαιτοΰντα, διότι τήν ψυχήν έπηνωρθώθησαν, λιμώττοντας περιοράν καί τών είς τον βίον άπορούντας, καί που δΓ ένδειαν έ- πανελθεΐν έπί τήν έμπροσθε πλάνην, δ μηδέ λέγειν καλόν, άναγκαζομέ- νους. ’Αλλά προίκα ταις διά τούτο λελυπηκυίαις θυγατράσι* καί τάς πρό τών γάμων δωρεάς τοίς άρρεσιν,* οϊς ούδέν έτερον έγκαλεϊν δύ- νανται τών έν τοίς νόμοις άπηγορευμένων, έκ παντός έπιδιδότωσαν τρόπου, καθάπερ ό τής ούσίας αύτών λόγος έφίησι, καί συνοικίζειν τάς μέν άνδράσι, τούς δέ γυναιξί κατά τον νόμον, όρθοδόξοις μέντοι προσώποις καί τού πράγματος άξίοις. Δεινόν γάρ καί παντελώς άνό- σιον τούς έν τοίς άλλοις άπασιν ύπό τών παίδων θεραπευομένους έκ

τσιαύτης χαλεπαίνειν αύτοίς προφάσεως, ήν άμείνους ήσαν ζηλοΰντες, ούκ Αμυνόμενοι. Προνοήσουσι δέ των προστεταγμένων τούτων ύφ* ήμών έπί μέν τής μεγίστης ταύτης πόλεως οί τάς ένδόξους έχοντες 105 άρχάς, χαθάπερ έκάστφ διαφέρει, κατά δέ τάς έπαρχίας οί τούτων ήγούμενοι είτε μείζους είτε έλάττους, καθάπερ έκάστφ πρόσφορον. Επιμελές δέ καί τφ μακαριωτάτω άρχιεπισκόπφ καί πατριάρχη τής μεγίστης ταύτης πόλεως καί τοϊς όσιωτάτοις έπισκόποις έσται τών άλ­λων πόλεων τοϊς τε τούς πατριαρχικούς καί τοϊς τούς μητροπολιτικούς no έχουσι θρόνους καί τοϊς έλάττοσι τό συμπαρατηρεϊν καί συνεπισκοπείν, εί βεβαίως ταύτα διασώζεται, καί μηνύειν έφ’ ήμάς, όπως καί μετά πλείονος, εί δέοι, σφοδρότητος τοϊς βφθυμοΰσι τών περί τής όρθοδόξου πίστεως διορισθέντων έπεξερχώμεθα.

THE TWO EMPERORS² AND AUGUSTI JUSTIN AND JUSTINIAN

While we have permitted³ the heretics to assemble as well as to have their proper name,⁴ for this reason, that put to shame by our pa­tience they shall come to their senses and change for the better; they, on the other hand, have been seized by an insufferable effron­tery, and heedless of the laws’ command infiltrated public offices,⁵ although the very documents of the Imperial appointments⁶ clearly forbid men such as these to share in them. Indeed we call heretics all the others, such as the accursed Manichaeans and those resem­bling them, and it is right that they shall not be called by name, at least in this way, neither appear anywhere at all, nor defile those whom they shall touch. But it is necessary that the Manichaeans, as we have announced, shall thus be expelled, and that no one shall suffer their name nor allow it, if indeed a man diseased with such godlessness shall live with the others, but wherever on earth⁷ the Manichaean shall apear he shall be subjected to the harshest punish­ments. As for the other heretics, of whatever error or name they might be (for we call heretic everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox and holy Faith), as well as the pagans who try to introduce polytheism, the Jews and the Samari­tans, we intend not only that what was already laid down in the laws shall be recalled and made firmer through this present law, but also that more shall be declared; through which greater security, also honour and esteem shall envelope those sharing in our pure faith. It shall then be possible for all to perceive, as we said, that even what pertains to the human advantages is withheld from those who do not worship God rightfully. We order, therefore, that none of the above-mentioned shall share in any honour whatsoever, nor shall he put on an official belt, neither civil nor military, nor belong to any office, with the exception of that of the so-called Cohortalins (we want them to be subject to it as bound by origin, so that they shall remain in it, fulfilling all duties by compulsion, submitting to any burden which pertains to that office, excluded on the one hand from promotion, and on the other hand from execution⁸ of public and private debts against Orthodox Christians). It is clear that their children are bound to the same order,⁹ and that they themselves, if they were meanwhile able, nevertheless, to abscond, shall be fetched back to it. They shall have some exemption because of their wrong belief.¹⁰ We do not agree that those heretics shall share in the office of Ekdikos or in that of City-Father, in order that they shall not use the indemnity derived from them as pretext to treat inso­lently the other Christians and in particular the bishops most be­loved of God, or to acquire some power to judge their case or condemn them, in contravention of the laws already passed before our reign. Neither do we allow them to be joined to the most learned advocates, who are distinguished by their correct perception of the divine doctrines more than many other men, for they too pass their life in studies. Indeed we order that those who are heretics, and above all the pagans, Jews, Samaritans, and those similar to them, if they take part in any of all those we have already recalled, having obtained an honour, inscribed in the advocates’ list, taken an office or put on an official belt, they shall be thrown out on the spot from participating in these. For we want all the above-mentioned to be purged from association with such as these now and for ever, not only in this glorious city,¹¹ but in practically every province and every place. There is absolutely nothing new in this, for at least the Divine belt-documents given for most of the offices contain the specification that the recipient should be Orthodox.¹² Unless this shall be seen to be ours, which we have restored and did not neglect as it was before, when it was unheeded by some and barely survived save in documents alone. For things are not considered to be as peculiar to their first discoverers as to those who use in the best way what has already been discovered.¹³ And if some wrong shall be done in violation of what we have decreed, we proclaim that not only shall the seized forbidden office be of no profit out of the seizure, and utterly forbid him to partake of the office, but we also punish him with a fine of thirty gold pounds. Those, however, whose duty it is to inscribe and register such as these in the public register,¹⁴ if they have known about the error of his belief but nev­ertheless ratified him,¹⁵ did not oppose nor expel him, we inflict on them a fine of eight gold pounds. Neither do we let the magistrates scot-free if they shall know these men to be of those excluded by us yet suffer them to be inscribed in their proper services (the office of the Cohortalins excepted), and we fine them too to the amount of fifty gold pounds. The Most Illustrious Count of the Most Sacred Treasury shall make formal exaction¹⁶ against such that shall happen to fall under punishment on the above-mentioned heads, and enter the proceeds in the Divine Private Property. Bearing in mind, how­ever, that we frequently inscribe Goths in the devoted Allies,¹⁷ and that neither their nature nor their past life accustomed them to such rules of conduct, we have decided¹⁸ to remit to them some of the severity and to allow them to become Allies and decorated with honours, in any way that shall occur to us. Seeing, furthermore, that differences of opinion frequently arise between Orthodox and non­Orthodox parents, when a father or a mother wants to bring their common children to the faith of the Orthodox but the other parent opposes it, we decree that the opinion of the parent that leads the children to the Orthodox faith is the stronger and certainly the more predominant. He shall take part, therefore, in his turn in his par­ents’ opinion, and venture to win the better things. We come to the aid of those children hated by parents who do not share our pure faith, and while the parents cannot accuse them of any transgression concerning those things prohibited by the laws, still, because they perceive their parents’ error yet share our pure faith, we order in this Divine pragmatic law¹⁹ that a father shall provide sustenance to such as these according to the measure of his own property and to that of the needs of the other manner of life; furthermore he shall not abandon them to starve and be in want of life necessities, so that they shall be forced by indigence—and one hates even to mention it—to return to their former error,²⁰ just as if he was seeking to punish them for having remedied their souls. Moreover, they shall give dowry²¹ in any way whatsoever to daughters distressed by this, and prenuptial gifts²² to men, to those that cannot be charged with anything save those matters prohibited by the laws, exactly as the value of their property shall permit, and give their daughters to men, and their sons to women according to the law, indeed to persons who are Orthodox and worthy of the transaction. It is in­deed terrible and utterly impious, that those who are cherished by their children in all the other things, become angry with them for such a reason as this, while they could have been better by emulat­ing them in this, not by punishing them. The holders of illustrious offices in this, the greatest city, shall take care, therefore, according to what is proper to each of them, of these matters legislated by us, and the same shall be done throughout the provinces by their gover­nors, the greater and the smaller, each according to his office. The most blessed Archbishop and patriarch of this, the greatest city, as well as the most holy bishops of the other cities, those holding patriarchal and metropolitan Sees, also the smaller ones, shall take care and observe at the same time if these matters are firmly up­held, and inform us in order that we shall prosecute with greater vehemence, if neccessary, those who neglect what was determined concerning the Orthodox faith.

NOTES

1.        See Basilica, ed. G. E. & C. W. F. Heimbach, I, Leipzig 1833, pp. 21­23.

2.        Emperors: Krüger’s reconstruction of the inscription is based on the fact that CJ 1:5:18, whose location in the chapter points to a date prior to 529 (the date of CJ 1:5:19), refers clearly to our law: Έπί δε ταΐς άλλαις άπάσαις αίρεσεσιν... τον ήδη τ εθέντα νόμον παρά τε ήμ ών καί τού τής θείας λήξεως πατρός ήμών κρατεΐν βουλόμεθα’. “And as for all the other heresies... we wish the law formerly given by us and our father of blessed memory to remain in force”; see Krüger, p. 57. Furthermore, our law was given prior to CJ 5:3:20, promulgated between 531 and 533 (see below, n. 22). For the use of the term αυτοκράτωρ as synonym to ‘Imperator’, see Wifstrand’s study (above, No. 55, n. 4).

3.        Permitted: a reference to the concessions granted in 529 to the heretics, and in particular to the Arians, following the intervention of Pope Johannes I, who transmitted Theodorich’s demands on this matter to Constantinople. See Stein, II, pp. 260-261.

4.        “Name” here designates “religion,” “sect.” Compare the use of this term to designate Christianity by Clemens of Alexandria: ‘οί πιστοί... καί τής προσηγορίας ’άξιοι, ήν ώσπερ διάδημα πεχεινται’. “All those who believe ... and are worthy of this name are crowned with it as with a diadem.” See Τις ό σωιζόμενος πλούσιος, ed. Ο. Stählin, GCS, XVII, 1909, p. 183. See also Cyril of Jerusalem: ‘τότε Χριστού προσηγορίαν λάβητε’. “Then you shall grasp the name of Christ.” See Προκατηχήσις, 15, ed. A. A. Touttee, PG, XXXIII, Col. 357.

5.        Offices: while in classical Greek the meaning of the term στρατεία was limited to the military domain, and should be translated as “military service,” “mili­tary appointment,” its scope has been widened in later usage, and it signified all public offices, both civil and military. It was equivalent, therefore, to the Latin term ‘militia’ in its wide meaning. This is the legislator’s meaning in this passage, although the term appears in our law in both meanings, the limited and the more general. For the use of the term στρατεία or στρατία to designate non-military public office in the sixth century see Johannes Malalas: ‘Θεοδόσιος... ποιήσας διάταξιν μή είσέρχεσθαι εις άξίας συγκλητικών ή πατρικίων τους ευνούχους κουβικουλαρίους μετά το πλήρωμα τής αυτών στρατείας’. “Theodosius... legislated, that eunuchs serving as Cubicularii shall not be entered into the Senatorial or Patrician orders after they had completed serving in their office.” See Χρονογραφία, XIV, ed. L. Dindorf, PG, XCVII, Col. 537. See also Dorotheus of Gaza: ‘ Ώσπερ γάρ έν τώ παλατίω έισί μεγάλαι καί λαμπροί στρατιαί, ύπόθου την σύγκλητον, τους πατρικίους, τους στρατηλάτας, τούς ύπαρχους, τούς σελεντιαρίους είσί γαρ αυται πολύτιμοι στρατιαί. Έισί δε καί άλλοι τινες έν τώ αυτώ παλατιώ στρατευόμενοι όλίγων νομισμάτων 'όμως λέγονται καί αυτοί στρατεύεσθαι τώ βασιλεΐ’. “For just as there are in the Palace great and illustrious offices, such as the Senate, the Patricians, the army commanders (‘magistri militum’; see Novel 38 from 536), the Prefects and the Silentiarii, and these are the most important offices, we find in the Palace others who serve for a few coins, and they too are called the Emperor’s officials.” See Διδασκαλίαι ψυχωφελείς διάφοροι, ed. J. Grynaeus, XXIII, PG, LXXXVIII, Col. 1836. Similar examples in the writings of Johannes Lydus, e.g., Περί άρχών τής 'Ρωμαίων πολιτείας, III: 8, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, ed. R. Wiinsch, Leipzig 1903, pp. 93, 109, 113, 116, 117, also in other legislative texts.

6.        For the use of ‘σύμβολον’ to designate a document of appointment to office—in Latin: ‘codicilli’—see Novel 8 from 535: ‘θεσπίζομεν ... αλλά προίκα μεν κομίζεσθαι τάς άρχάς, μέτρια δε παρέχειν προφάσει τών υπέρ έκάστης διδόμενων συμβόλων τε καί χαρτών’. “We legislate... and while the offices are to be received gratis, only moderate payment shall be made for the appointment­documents and the documents given with the offices.” See ed. Kroll, Chap. I, p. 67. The Authenticum’s Latin translation indeed reads there: ‘... sancimus... sed gratis quidem sumere administrationes, pauca vero praebere occasione horum quae pro singulis dantur cingulis, codicillis et chartis’ (ibid.). See also Novel 81 from 539 concerning ύπατικοΐς συμβόλοις, “consular appointment-documents,” ibid., p. 398.

7.         Wherever on earth: correction of όποιδή, the version of the Basilica.

8.        Execution: for the meaning of έκβιβασμός compare: ‘Πας άνθρωπος έιτε θείαν κέλευσιν έιτε άρχικήν πρόσταξιν έκβιβάζων... Ό δέ έκβιβασμός καί έγγράφως καί άγράφως γίνεται’. “Every one that executes a Divine order or a magistrate’s order.... the execution is carried out with a document or without a document.” See CJ 12:60:7.

9.         For the meaning of τύχη as “order” compare Justinian’s law from 531: ‘ειγε ταξεωτικής τύχης έτύγχανεν ών’, “if indeed he shall be of the order of the Cohortalins” (CJ 1:3:52:1). See also the law from 529: ‘όποιας άν έίησαν τύχης ή άξίας’, “of whatever order or rank he shall be” (CJ 9:5:2). Compare also CJ 4:20:15:1 from 527.

10.      Belief: this passage does not accord, obviously, with the intention the legislator expressed so clearly earlier on. Kruger emends by adding καί μή at the beginning of the sentence and its transposition in its entirety after the word βουλόμεθα above. The emended sentence reads: “(We want them to be subject to it as bound by origin, and they shall have no exemption because of their wrong belief), so that they shall remain in it, etc.” It is possible, however, that this Greek text preserved the old limited exemption from liturgies which the Jews enjoyed whenever that duty was considered to be incompatible with their religion; the term ‘superstitionem eorum’ transmitted by Ulpian, is translated here as ‘[έκ τής] κακής αυτών δόξης’ (see above, Nos. 1, 2, 4).

11.      City: Constantinople. Although our text obviously derives from the text promulgated in Constantinople, the law was general, not limited to the capital.

12.      Orthodox: an oath sworn by all officials on their entry into office, which comprised a declaration of membership in the Orthodox Church, is known from Justinian’s 8th Novel from 535. We do not know, however, of an appointment document which specified that the Orthodoxy of the appointed official was an obligatory condition to his appointment. The texts of appointment documents quoted by Cassiodorus (Variae, Libri VI-VII) in the West and Johannes Lydus (De magistratibus, 111:29:30) in the East lacked specific Christian content. According to the appointment document issued by Marcus Aurelius to the office of Procurator Ducenarius, the appointee was expected to exhibit the virtues of ‘experientia’ “ex­perience,” 'diligentia’, “diligence” and ‘innocentia’ “probity.” See H. G. Pflaum, “Une lettre de promotion de 1’empereur Marc Aurdle pour un procurateur duc6naire de Gaule Narbonnaise,” Bonner Jahrbücher, CLXXI, (1971), pp. 349­366. It seems that the traditional text of the appointment documents was main­tained essentially unchanged into the sixth century, and that the traditional classical virtues were not yet replaced by the obligation to adhere to the Orthodox Church. The dispatch of the pertinent form of oath in 535 to the Praefectus Praetorio of Illyricum might indicate that it was an innovation introduced at that time, although Justinians’ express statement in our law is a weighty argument for the existence of such an oath in appointment documents issued before 527.

13.      Discovered: a similar idea was expressed in the appointment document of the editorial board of the Digest from 15 December 530: ‘. .. qui non suptiliter factum emendat, laudabilior est eo qui primus invenit’. “He who reforms what was done in an inaccurate way, deserves more fame than the first discoverer.” See Constitutio Deo Auctore. The similarity between the two passages can be taken as an indication of the indentity of this law’s draftsman.

14.      Public Register: our law dealt with officials employed by the three bu­reaux (scrinia) of the central government—‘memoria’, ‘epistulae’, and ‘libelli’—to issue probations to appointments (probatoria). A document from 472, partially preserved in CJ 12:59:10, testifies to the wish of the central government to retain exclusive control over this type of administrative activity. Each of its three bureaus was entitled to issue probations to certain well defined groups of officials. A law promulgated by Leo between 457 and 470, which imposed certain restrictions on the number of the Executive Agents, informs us about the registration procedures of newly appointed officials: ‘Nemo autem sine divali probatoria, quam codices in sacro nostro scrinio memoriae positi debeant inserendam accipere, militaribus eius­dem devotissimae scholae stipendiis vel privilegiis potiatur’. “And no one shall dare to acquire the military payment or military privileges of that most devoted schola without Divine probation, which must be accepted and included in the books of our Divine bureau of the memoria” (CJ 12:20:3).

15.    Ratified him: for this meaning of προσηκείν compare Theodoras Stu- dytes (from 809): ‘H ÖE Tib^r] taOra ou TtQoaqxaTo’. “Rome did not approve it.” See Epistulae, 1:38, PG, XCIX, Col. 1044.

16.      Exaction: compare H. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrus- urkunden, I, Berlin 1925, pp. 151-152, and the additional material by Kieseling there p. 27.

17.      Allies: 0oiÖˆpaTOi (foederati) was the traditional designation of units of barbarians serving in the Roman army under their own commanders for a period of time defined in a contract. During the sixth century, however, one observes changes in the meaning of the term and in the reality it reflected. The ‘Allies’ became regular units, composed mainly of barbarians, who took their place along­side the ‘comitatenses’ and the ‘scholae’ as a regular element in the imperial army effectives. See Jones, Empire, pp. 663-666.

18.      Decided: for the use of the term ouveiöav in the meaning of “to de­cide,” “to determine,” in the sixth century, see also CJ 1:4:29:8 from 530.

19.      Divine Pragmatic Law: in the late Empire this term designated only legislation of particular importance and of a general and perpetual validity. See Zeno’s definition in a law from 477: ‘Pragmaticas praeterea sanctiones non ad singulorum preces super privatis negotiis proferri, sed si quando corpus aut schola vel officium vel curia vel civitas vel provincia vel quaedam Universitas hominum ob causam publicam fuderit preces, manare decernimus’. “Furthermore we decide, that Pragmatic Laws shall not be granted on requests of individuals and on private business, but they shall be issued when a body, schola, administration, curia, city, province or some organization of men shall present its petition on a public matter” (CJ 1:23:7).

20.      Former error: although Justinian justified the right of converted children to parental support on religious grounds, the present law conformed to the overall trend of Justinian’s legislation to reinforce the mutual dependence of family mem­bers in this sphere. See E. Albertario, Sull diritto agli alimenti—Studi di diritto romano, Milan 1933, pp. 249-279.

21.      The dowry given by the father of the bride in her name to the bride­groom (res uxoria or dos).

22.      Prenuptial gifts were given by a man to his affianced before marriage (donatio ante nuptias). Justinian reinforced, in a law he promulgated between 531 and 533, the woman’s rights on these gifts, by assimilating their legal status to that of the dowry. He marked this change by a corresponding terminological change, replacing ‘donationes ante nuptias’, “prenuptial gifts” by ‘donationes propter nup­tias’, “gifts dependent on marriage.” See CJ 5:3:20; Institutiones, 2:7:3. The tradi­tional term ‘ante nuptias donatione’ still appeared, however, in a law from 534 (see below, No. 61).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Juster, II, pp. 251 n. 7, 252, 262, 264; Browe, p. 129; Stein, II, pp. 261, 369, 370; A. A. Vasiliev, Justin the First—An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, Cambridge, Mass. 1950, pp. 241-250; A. Berger, “La concezione di eretico nelle fonti giustinianee,” Rendiconti, Series 8, X (1955), pp. 353-368; Seyberlich, pp. 74-75; S. Winkler, “Die Samariter in den Jahren 529/30,” Klio, XLIII-XLV (1965), pp. 449-453; G. Bassanelli, “La legislazione processuale di Giustino I,” SDHI, XXXVII (1971), pp. 147-152; Avi-Yonah, pp. 212-213; Y. Dan, “Jewish- Samaritan Relations in Eretz Israel in the Late Byzantine Period,” Zion, XL VI (1981), pp. 67-76 (in Hebrew).