17 Prohibition on the Possession and Proselyting of Christian Slaves by Jews

 (Gratian, Valentinian II with) Theodosius September 384

This law, given by Theodosius in his name and in those of Gratian and Valentinian II, was addressed to Cynegius, Praefectus Praeto­rio in the East.

The first fragment is a prohibition on the purchase of Christian slaves by Jews and their proselyting. Those found guilty shall suf­fer the loss of the slaves and an “appropriate punishment.”

The second part established that Christian slaves owned by Jews, and Christian slaves converted to Judaism by their Jewish owners, should be redeemed from slavery by Christians, who were to pay their right price.

Some commentators attempted to explain the contradiction be­tween the two parts of the law on chronological grounds, interpret­ing the first part as applicable to the future and the second part to past activities, that is to slaves bought before the promulgation of the present law. This interpretation is unsatisfactory, on linguistic and on historical grounds, for possession of Christian slaves by Jewish owners—and even more so their conversion to Judaism— had been forbidden since 339 (see above, No. 11). The Visigothic Commentary, on the other hand, explained the second part of the law by a reference to another law, promulgated prior to the pre­sent law and invalidated by it. As the Visigothic Commentary was based on a version of the Theodosian Code that frequently di­verged from the version preserved in the Breviarium, it is probable that the Commentary referred, in this case, to a law known to the author of the Commentary either from the Theodosian Code or from another source.

The law was given by an Eastern Augustus, and it was addressed to an Eastern praefectus praetorio. Its reception in Regium, a city lying outside the jurisdiction of both, was therefore quite unusual. It can be explained, however, by the guardianship Theodosius exer­cised over Valentinian II during his minority, a guardianship which was manifested, among other things, by the introduction of Eastern legislation to the West.¹ Juster tried to solve this problem by identi­fying Regium with Thracian Regium, east of Constantinople, and his solution was accepted by Noethlichs.

Codex Theodosianus, 3:1:5, ed. Mommsen, pp. 128-129

IDEM AAA? CYNEGIO* P(RAEFECTO) P(RAETORI)O

Ne quis omnino ludaeorum Christianum conparet servum neue ex Christiano ludaicis sacramentis adtaminet. Quod si factum publica in­dago conpererit, et servi abstrahi debent et tales domini congruae atque ⁵ aptae facinori poenae* subiaceant, addito eo, ut, si qui apud ludaeos vel adhuc Christiani servi vel ex Christianis ludaei repperti fuerint, soluto per Christianos conpetenti pretio ab indigna servitute redimantur. ACCEPTA X KAL. ÎÑÒÎÂ. REGIO RICHOMERE ET CLEARCHO CONSS.·

INTERPRETATIO

io Convenit ante omnia observari, ut nulli ludaeo servum Christianum habere liceat, certe nullatenus audeat, ut Christianum si habuerit, ad suam legem transferre praesumat.

15 lutione ludaica, sciret sibi pretium quod dederat a Christianis esse red­dendum, ut servus in Christiana lege maneret

THE SAME THREE AUGUSTI² TO CYNEGIUS,³ PRAEFECTUS PRAETORIO On no account shall a Jew buy a Christian slave, neither shall he contaminate him with Jewish sacraments and convert him from Christian to Jew. If it shall be revealed in a public investigation that this was done, the slaves must be taken away and such owners should suffer a punishment commensurate and appropriate to the crime.⁴ Furthermore, if slaves who are still Christian, or Christian slaves who have become Jews, shall be discovered in possession of Jews, they shall be redeemed from a shameful slavery through the payment by Christians of the right price.

RECEIVED ON THE TENTH DAY BEFORE THE CALENDS OF OCTOBER AT REGIUM, IN THE CONSULATE OF RICHOMER AND CLEARCHUS.⁵ COMMENTARY

It behoves to take care, above all, that no Jew shall be permitted to have a Christian slave, and certainly he shall on no account dare to presume to convert a Christian slave, if he shall have one, to his own law. If he shall do this, he should know that he shall suffer a punishment commensurate with such a crime and his slaves shall be taken away; for it had been decreed before this law was given, that he shall be paid by Christians the price he had given for a Christian slave, if that slave was contaminated with the Jewish pollution, in order that the slave shall abide in the Christian law.

NOTES

size=1 color=black face="Times New Roman">1.      See Seeck, Regesten, pp.

2.      Although promulgated in the names of the three Augusti, this law was given by Theodosius, as it is addressed to Cynegius, Theodosius’ Praefectus Praeto­rio in the East. Theodosius travelled to the West in the second half of 384, and on 31 August was in Verona, where he met Valentinian. He returned to Constantino­ple probably about mid September. Vera rejects this reconstruction of Theodosius’ itinerary and maintains that Theodosius did not visit Italy in 384 at all. See D. Vera, “I rapporti fra Magno Massimo, Teodosio e Valentiniano II nel 383-384,” Athenaeum, NS, LIII (1975), pp. 267-301.

3.       Maternus Cynegius, probably of Spanish origin, served as Praefectus Praetorio of the East from 384 till his death in 388. A militant Christian, he adopted an aggressive policy towards the pagans, Jews, and heretics in the Eastern provinces. A relative bearing the same name was responsible for the closure of Marnas temple in Gaza in 401. See J. F. Matthews, “A Pious Supporter of Theodo­sius I—Maternus Cynegius and his Family,” JThS, XVIII (1967), pp. 438-446: G. Fowden, “Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire a.d. 320-435,” JThS, N.S. XXIX (1978), pp. 62-63; Haehling, pp. 72-73; P. Petit, “Sur la date du ‘Pro Templis’ de Libanius,” Byzantion, XXI (1951), pp. 298-304; PLRE, I, s.v.

4.      The last known law on this subject was issued by Constantine II in 339 (see above, No. 11). It imposed the loss of all slaves on Jews purchasing Christian slaves, and capital punishment on Jews circumcising non-Jewish slaves or convert­ing Christian female slaves.

5.      Given... Clearchus: 22 September 384. Vera cites this law expressly as typical to the erroneous dating of the laws addressed to Cynegius; see his article (above, n. 2), p. 272 n. 20.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Godefroy, I, pp. 284-285; Juster, II, p. 73; Seeck, Regesten, pp. 80-81, 265; Solazzi, “Fra norme,” p. 401; Seaver, p. 48; J. Gaudemet, “Le partage législatif dans la seconde moitié du IVe siècle,” Studi de Francisci, II, Milan 1956, p. 349; Noethlichs, pp. 182-184; Lippold, PW, Suppl. XIII, 1973, Col. 869; Langenfeld, pp. 83-84; Reichardt, p. 32.