ARTICLES
LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS AND IMPERIAL
LEGISLATION IN THE FOURTH CENTURY
By Angelo Di Berardino
The 49 Christians arrested
one Sunday in 304 during the celebration of the Eucharist in the
city of Abitina, near Carthage, were charged with being in violation
of an imperial decree. In response they declared to the proconsul
Anulinus that they could not live without the Eucharist: “For
the supper of the Lord cannot be abandoned, according to the command
of the law”; “since we cannot do without the supper
of the Lord, according to the command of the law”1.
The reason they give is that it is inconceivable to think of being
a Christian without the Eucharistic meal, and that there is no
Eucharistic meal without the Christian.2
The first day after the Sabbath, a designation based upon
the Hebrew week, was called by the Christians kyriake hemera
(dies dominica), and dates back to apostolic times.
3 For
the Christians this designation brought to mind the resurrection
of the Lord. Sunday, “the queen and most important of days”
(Ps. Ignatius: PG 5,769) was the weekly Easter, the “feast
of feasts” because of its theological significance. This
is reflected in the statement of an anonymous writer: “it
is called the day of the Lord, because it is the lord of the days.”
4 The
weekly Eucharistic celebration of the Christians on Sundays dates
to the earliest years of Christianity; no other celebrations existed,
for the yearly Easter celebration will not arise and develop until
the second century. The primitive Christian calendar was based
upon a Sunday rhythm, and subsequently upon the celebration of
Easter; these celebrations commemorated the resurrection of Christ
but also made reference to the creation of the world at the beginning
of time. This calendar was enriched from the second century on
with the commemoration of the great martyrs, this taken place
above all on the local level. This rhythm of time was properly
speaking Christian, not modeled on the pagan calendar, which was
based upon other foundations. It gave the Christian community
an identity distinct from that of the pagans or Jews.
These feast
days of the Christians differed in religious character from the
Jewish or pagan festivals, but served the spiritual and religious
growth of the individual faithful and the community, “since
every day is the day of the Lord, a feast day” (cfr. Origen,
Hom. in Gen. 10,3). The feast days did not have a specific
qualitas, in so far as there was no distinction between
days sacred and profane. This according to Origen: “If some
were to object to these words, insisting that our celebrations
occur on specific days, Sundays, Easter, or Pentecost, it is necessary
to retort that the perfect man [ . . . ] finds all days the days
of the Lord, every day a Sunday” (Contra Celsum
8,22). Jerome goes to great lengths to explain this: “every
day is the same; every day the resurrection of Christ is celebrated,
but some days have been set aside for gatherings so that the faith
of the people may not weaken and enable them to have greater joy
in being together; to sum it up: Non quo celebrior sit dies
illa in qua convenimus, sed quo quacumque die conveniendum sit,
ex conspectu mutuo laetitia maior exoriatur (Ep. ad Galatas
2,4: PL 26,404; cfr.In Ps. LVIII,13, PL 24,596).. Even
the Christian terminology to designate the days of the week, still
in use in liturgical books of Latin Church, indicates that every
day had a festive character: feria secunda , feria tertia.
. .
The organization
of the social and religious time of a community or people is done
according to a system of values or beliefs proper to that community.
It is a measure for tracking the evolution of that society, since
if the values change, so also does the social time, that is to
say, the public calendar of the community. The organization and
rhythm of the social and religious time of the Roman Empire was
articulated in its calendars, which conferred an identity upon
both community and individual. Besides a general and official
calendar for the army and the administration, there were many
local calendars, especially in the East (Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria).5
Religious observances and calendars varied from city to city.
The Jewish community followed their own social and religious seasons,
well known and visible, marked by Sabbath rest and cult; it was
recognized and accepted by Imperial authority, though it was not
without its pagan critics.
Christians
organized their religious and social life according to their religious
beliefs, marked by the Sunday celebration. It was for this reason
that they were considered anti-social, not participating in the
rhythm and requirements of civic life, not contributing to the
pax deorum by their absence. Minucius Felix states the
charge accordingly: “But in the meantime, in your anxious
state of expectation, you refrain from honest pleasures: you do
not go to our shows, you take no part in our processions (pompae),
you are not present at our public banquets, you shrink in horror
from our sacred games, from foods ritually dedicated by our priests,
from drink hallowed by libation poured upon our altars [...] You
do not bind your head with flowers”.6
The pagan cult, along with its familiar forms, saw public expression:
in the streets, in the squares, in the theaters and in the temples.
The Christian cult was intimate, personal, taking place within
houses, thus not publicly visible. Christians stood out by their
abstention from the public cult and other social manifestations;
yet they did follow the local calendar for the other rhythms of
their social life.
Christians,
before the time of Constantine, gathered on Sundays, a workday
unless a pagan festival happened to fall on Sunday. After gathering
for worship, they then went to work. Accordingly, they had to
meet early in the morning, as Cyprian tells us: Nos autem
resurrectionem Domini mane celebramus (Ep. 63,16,2) at the
hour of resurrection, or infrequently on Saturday7
or Sunday evening. 8
Sunday was also the principal day for preaching and Christian
instruction. Thus, since the Christians over the course of three
centuries had been obliged to meet under difficult time restraints,
often finding their gatherings disrupted9,
they felt the need to be able to worship undisturbed and without
worries that would compromise the joy of the day. 10
Numerous laws from the fourth and fifth century are concerned
with Christian liturgical time. 1) Some concern the designation
of Christian festivals as feriae publicae. Such legislation
was inaugurated by Constantine and continued by his successors,
resulting in an increasing number of publicly recognized feast
days. 2) Other laws concerned the designation of certain days
or periods of the year during which certain acts were to be carried
out or refrained for ratione temporis (e.g., Lent). 3)
The removal or destruction of pagan idols from temples with the
consequent elimination of festivals connected to them. 4) The
abolition of feriae linked to pagan celebrations, making
such days dies iuridici, ordinary or workdays.11
5)The prohibition of spectacles on Christian feast days. 6) The
preservation and secularisation of spectacles for public entertainment
(not the gladiatorial games already abolished). 7) Creation of
a civic ritual to replace former pagan religious ritual.
Here we
will consider those laws that directly concerned the liturgical
celebrations on feast days, in particular, those laws that treated
the Christians feasts as feriae publicae and those which
prohibited spectacles on such days since there is one time
for prayers and another for pleasure (aliud esse supplicationum
tempus, aliud voluptatum ([CTh 15,5,5 of 425]).
Christians feasts as feriae publicae.
From 312 on Constantine granted the Christians privileges and
economic help and favoured them in a variety of ways. In 32112
he passed two laws on their behalf, favouring their liturgical
assemblies, closely connected and issued within a few months of
each other. They concerned rest on the dies solis: Codex
Iustinianus 3,12,3 (March 3) and Codex Theodosianus 2,8,1 (July
3). 13
The emperor decreed that on the dies solis judges were
to abstain from work, with the suspension of all trials, it would
be a day of rest for the urban population. He qualified the dies
solis as a dies festus, a festival day (holiday).
Work in the fields was permitted as were the manumission of slaves
and emancipation with the accompanying legal acts.14
Both laws were addressed to Elpidius, vicarius urbis Romae,
but it is clear from the subscriptiones that they were
issued at different times. Analogous copies of the two Constantinian
laws were addressed to the “governors of every province,
commanding them to show reverence for the day of the Lord”
((Eusebius, Vita Const. 4,23 ), first only in the West
and after 324 in the East as well. One hypothesis proposes that
the two selections were part of the same legislative disposition,
but it does not explain why the two laws preserve different extracts
from the same text, although they both regard the same matter.
The Constantinian
legislation introduces two new aspects into the organization of
the social and civic calendar of the Roman cities: the planetary
week became the official basis for marking collective time, with
the imposition of a weekly day of rest, of Jewish derivation.
Up until this point the employment of the planetary week had a
primarily astrological function, for the regulation of the private
life of individuals but not of the community. The law, which was
resisted judging from the repetition of the norm many years later,
favoured the pastoral mission of the Christian community and their
festive assemblies.
What were
the real motivations behind this Constantinian innovation of great
import and social impact? The introductions for both laws are
not intact and would have explained both the motivations and expected
outcomes that Constantine desired from their application. A number
of scholars consider the imperial norms ambiguous, both because
of terminology (dies solis and not dies dominica)
and the fact that he and his family practiced the solar cult.
15
At the time, the use of the planetary designations for the days
of the week was common not only for pagans, but for Christians
as well, 16
who will continue to use it despite contrary voices until it finally
becomes common usage. 17
Besides, the pagans to whom these laws were addressed would
not have understood any other terminology. In their legislation
the emperors will continue to employ over a long period of time
the expression dies solis to refer to dies dominicus;
the expression was standard in the imperial chancery until the
end of the fourth century. 18
It will not be until 386 that the expression dies dominicus
will appear for the first time in a legislative text, rather
as an explanation for the traditional term of dies solis,
the standard expression in official discourse: quem dominicum
rite dixere maiores (CTh 2,8,18).
The emperor
Constantine considered it beneath the dignity that people to be
involved in disputes in the day of the Sun, a day illustrious
for special veneration: diem solis veneratione sui celebrem
(CTh 2,8,1); venerabili die solis (CI 3,12,1). As Pietri
notes, these two expressions were not understood in a pagan, but
rather in a Christian way;19
the Visigoth interpretation substitutes the expression dies
solis with dies dominicus. The dies solis was
not strictly speaking a day of cult, not even among the followers
of Mithraism.20
In the planetary week, Sunday was the second day of the week;
while in Judaism and Christianity it was the first day. It is
in Constantine’s reign that we find the first evidence of
this new ordering of the days; it comes from a pagan source. 21
It is peculiar
that Constantine, at the time he was abandoning the use of solar
symbols, would have wanted to honour the dies sol Invictus
with a day of the week. After Aurelian, the solar cult was
widespread, especially during the reigns of Constantine and Licinius,
22
but more as an imperial ideological symbol than a popular cult.
This is the case with a dedication made by Licinius, commemorated
by a statue that establishes 18 November as the date for an annual
commemoration.23
The adoption of the solar symbolism on the part of Constantine
and Licinius was, in fact, a sign of their break with the ideology
of the tetrarchy rather than a profession of a religion.24
There is sparse literary or epigraphic evidence in contrast to
an abundance of coins that bear the inscription in a variety of
forms Soli Invicto Conservatori. On these coins Constantine
is identified with the Sol Invictus, though after 323
the representation of the sun disappears,25
as do the pagan expressions such as Mars Conservator and/or
Propugnator. These are replaced with abstract terms (Providentia
Augusti, Spes, Salus,, etc.); but even
after 323 he will employ solar symbols, as M. Wallraff26
has recently reported. A college of pontifices existed,
we have evidence of it until 387, 27
but after 323 the solar cult lost imperial support.
With the
institution of a weekly cycle marked by the dies solis as
a day of rest, did Constantine intend to favour the solar cult
or the Christian Sunday? He was certainly acting out of religious
motivation - but what were they? The two legislative texts preserved
from 321 are not intact and so do not report the motivations nor
intentions of the emperor. Thus one can only offer hypotheses
based upon the fragments. It is significant that the emperor calls
for only a spiritual cult and not the sacrifices nor spectacles
normally associated with pagan rites. This already marks a significant
change in mentality and religious sensibility, a prelude to the
abolition of all animal sacrifice. Throughout those years the
various solar symbols were ambiguous, in particular the halo of
the emperor, since it was a solar and thus divine attribution.
28
Eusebius and Sozomen
saw the Constantinian law as favouring the Christians. In those
same years, perhaps before 324, in Gall, the Laudes Domini,29
a little Christian poem was composed that saluted Constantine emperor
as showing clemency and being a teacher of life. “He sanctions
the law you created—quae lex tibi condita sanci - we
pray that he may be “happy and victorious.” The law
effectively met a Christian pastoral need since it favoured their
liturgical assemblies held Sunday mornings. City dwellers could
arrange
their time more freely, especially dependent workers.
For Christians the day of rest as such was not what was important;
in fact, the preaching does not speak about repose but about participation
at worship. The need for time free for worship was longstanding,
but now it was felt more deeply, on account of increased conversions
and the construction of large places of worship. Accordingly,
pastoral and liturgical activity could be expanded, reflected
in the increase and lengthening of liturgical celebrations.
Previous
to this law Christians had had an exclusively religious calendar
that was individual to them; it was detached from any public calendar
and marked out the weekly and festive gatherings in a way that
paralleled the public calendar. The Sunday assembly distinguished
the Christians from others and created cohesion and identity within
the community. This was not only because it was the occasion for
their common worship but also because it was used for catechesis
and care for the needy; there was a sense of communion created
by shared worship and shared community. In the fourth century
their calendar, through imperial laws, gradually became the society’s
calendar, taking the place of the previous pagan calendar. The
Constantinian law initiated a total transformation of the Roman
system for marking civic time, and rhythm of urban, social, political,
administrative, and scholastic life. Successive laws did not call
for Sunday repose for artisans and field workers; nor did the
bishops demand a complete day of rest.30
They were looking for participation at worship, occasions for
preaching, and abstention from the spectacles. And why ought a
pagan or Jew rest if they did not participate in Christian worship?
What were they to do on those days since there was no organized
free time?
What was
the pagan reaction to this change in the organization of public
and social time? We do not have witnesses in this regard but certainly
the change encountered much resistance, since other laws were
issued, some no longer extant, seeking to impose a rhythm of social
time based upon the Christian calendar. If the hypothesis of Mommsen
is correct, who acknowledges a lacuna of 16 laws between 321 and
3 November 386 (CTh 2,8,18), and these laws were directed to the
authorities, it seems clear that they were the first not to observe
the new calendar. Thus this last law31
prohibits not only that there be no procedural or investigative
activity on Sunday but prohibits likewise the payment of public
or private debt as well as all public or private judicial inquiry.
Violators, that is, the authorities, were designated as notabilis
or sacrilegus. Some years previous the emperor
Valentinian, in a law addressed to the governor of Venetia,
had ordered that neminem christianum be obliged to pay
taxes on the dies solis. 32
The intent of the two laws is evident: provide free time for undisturbed
participation at the Sunday liturgy. The scope was not only a
public day of rest on the dies solis, but above all,
to provide for peace and tranquillity on that day. Patristic writings
help us in this case to understand the spirit of the imperial
constitution. With few exceptions, the Fathers do not call for
a Sunday rest as such, but rather for participation at the Sunday
assembly. The law sought to create the social conditions to render
this possible.
In 389
(CTh 2,8,19 ),33
Theodosius published a constitution during his visit to Rome which
expanded the rest period of tribunals to include the two weeks
connected with Easter, along with the dies solis: […]
We count in the same category34
the holy Paschal days, of which seven precede and seven follow
Easter; likewise the Days of the Sun35
which revolve upon themselves at regular intervals.
The Visigoth
interpretatio also adds the Christian celebrations of
Christmas and Epiphany, feasts which fell on fixed days; they
were inserted after 389; but the law has not come down to us and
we don’t know when they were recognized as feasts.36
By the
end of the fourth century the two weeks connected with Easter
had assumed a great importance in the liturgy, both as immediate
preparation for the Christian community as well as for those to
be baptised and likewise for the continued instruction of the
newly baptised. In this case too the civic calendar reflects the
evolution of the Christian calendar, as happened for Lent by specific
laws. In 389 the quoted law (CTh 2,8,19) was issued in the West,
while in Constantinople in 392 (CTh 2,8,21)37
Theodosius once again promulgated legislation concerning the 15
Paschal days: The same Augusti to Tatian, praetorian prefect.
All legal actions whether public or private shall be excluded
from the fifteen Paschal days. This text is likewise preserved
in the Justinian Code, with some change in wording (3,12,7) and
the addition of the possibility for the legal manumission [of
slaves] and emancipation of those not sui iuris during
those days. In 469 the emperor Leo I published a complete re-elaboration
of the Sunday legislation, calling it an inviolable day (dominicum
itaque diem semper honorabilem); it prohibits all theater
and circus spectacles, all judicial and fiscal procedures on Sunday,
including payment of taxes.38
The anonymous author of the Liber iuris Syro-Romanus,
who attributes this law to the emperor Leo, writes that “he
increased the honour of the day of our Lord’s resurrection,
that is, Sunday, he ordered the cessation of judicial process
and decreed that magistrates and the powerful must not exercise
their office, but everyone should gather in humility in the church
of Christ. He ordained that on Sunday no one may press charges
against an associate nor initiate judicial process for any reason
whatsoever, not for a debt nor for a crime committed nor for any
other reason”. 39
To whom else but the authorities would such a law be addressed?
By around
the year 380, the feast of the Ascension, as distinct from Pentecost,
was already commemorated in various regions; with the supposition
that its institution predates this by some years. In a sermon
Augustine notes: “let us celebrate this holy fortieth day
(the Ascension); in fact, the whole world celebrates it together
with us”.40
John Chrysostom offers another witness (PG 50,456 e 463; 50,441-452:
a sermon preached on the feast) saying, “It is a universal
and ancient feast”41.
At the beginning of the fifth century, the Ascension, though it
was a religious feast celebrated on a Thursday, forty days after
Easter and ten before Pentecost, is not made mention of in any
ancient law, not even that of Justinian’s Code.
The prohibition of spectacles on Christian religious feasts
Public entertainment remained an essential part of life in the
Greco-Roman cities, even in late antiquity: in the cities abundant
spectacula42
even at the beginning of the fifth century.43
Yet the typically religious pagan feasts, to which the spectacles
were often linked, were in decline by reason of a lack of economic
support, or by the loss of their followers, and imperial prohibition
(CTh 2,8,22 of 395). Public spectacles had had a religious character
that was associated with pagan cult, above all in connection with
the god of the city; they were now fast becoming social and “secular”
in opposition to what was considered religious, which was taking
place in other places and often on other dates.44
This phenomenon likewise is new: the spectacles are becoming secularised,
losing their particular character as a religious celebration,
yet they remained occasions for socialization, common gathering,
and civic cohesion. Rich citizens continued to support and organize
public spectacles. Even the Christian emperors considered the
spectacles essential for urban life; a law of the emperor Honorius,
addressed to the governor of Africa, Apollodorus, decreed: “Just
as We have already abolished profane rites by a salutary law,
so We do not allow the festal assemblies of citizens and the common
pleasure of all to be abolished. Hence We decree that, according
to ancient custom, amusements shall be furnished to the people,
but without any sacrifice or any accursed superstition, and they
shall be allowed to attend festal banquets, whenever public desires
so demand” (CTh 16,10,17; CI 1,11,4, of 29th August
399). This law does not address feast days, rather it treats of
the spectacles without a religious aspect, as entertainment for
the people and to be maintained. The policy of a separation of
spectacle and religion, and accordingly a secularisation of entertainment,
began with the emperor Constance (CTh 16,10,3 of 346 [342]). The
voluptates publicae were a government responsibility,
and saw frequent government intervention (CTh 15,7,1-5; CTh 15,7,13).
In some cases restoration [of the games] was required so as not
to cause tristitia through excessive restriction (CTh
15,7,3); and to sit voluptas “complete”
(CTh 15,7,3); 45
one even finds the case of Christians who opposed such being required
to participate in public convivia46
- persecutio altera fieri occulte videatur - and to oblige
them to participate in spectacles, in particular members of associations
(magno terrore coguntur ad spectacula convenire).47
We know
that the bishops were against spectacles of any kind for both
religious and ethical reasons.48
By the end of the fourth century, even though the spectacles
had lost almost all of their religious content, Christians ethical
objections remained because of their immorality.49
For this reason, the bishops severely criticized those who participated
in them. When the bishop during the Easter vigil asked those about
to be baptized: Do you renounce Satan and all his pomps?
--Everyone understood what he was referring to;50
this kind of entertainment, still in full vigour at the end of
the fourth century, was enjoyed by most Christians. “Today
there’s only a small number [of faithful] . . . The crowd
that comes for the great feasts - how crowded are the churches
then! People are, on those occasions pressed against the walls.
They push and are pushed so as not to be suffocated in the crowd.
During the games these very same people hurl themselves into the
amphitheatre (Enar in Ps. 39,10).
The Christian
people, facing the embarrassing choice of worship or spectacle,
usually chose the latter. In previous centuries the pagan citizen
would not have felt the same embarrassment, since the spectacle
was at the same time both civic and religious in nature. But the
Christian was divided since his participation was doubly challenged
by religious and ethical reasons. The Christian faced choices
unthinkable in pagan society. On the occasion of munera or
other kinds of spectacles, Christians, considering them occasions
of sin and dissoluteness, instituted fasts in order to pray for
the pagans, but also for their fellow Christians who participated
in them. 51
The bishops
often lamented the absence of the faithful at liturgical gatherings,
complaining that the people preferred to go to the spectacles.52
For this reason the emperors published a series of laws, some
preserved in the Theodosian Code, that prohibited spectacles to
be held on Christian feasts, in particular on Sunday and other
such occasions (Religionis intuitu: CTh 2,8,24 of 400
[405]). The first law to prohibit Sunday spectacles is that
of 20 May 386 (CTh 15,5,2)53
issued by Theodosius. It regulated the presence of governors at
public spectacles, restricting the days and hours: they could
only participate at games celebrated on the occasion of the emperor’s
birthday and their dies imperii; it also established
that spectacles were not to be held on Sundays (dies solis),
making reference to a previous law no longer extant.54
If this particular law was not issued in 386 but later (in 39255
or 395), then the lost text could the that of CTh 2,8,20 of 17
April 392, issued at Constantinople. The emperor prohibited theatrical
spectacles and circuses and any other entertainment on festis
solis diebus, while they were permitted for the birthdays
of reigning emperors, even if the date fell on Sunday (this is
the precision of 399), though the law does not prescribe how they
are to be celebrated: We issue the forewarning that no person
shall transgress Our law (not extant) which We formerly
issued, namely, that no one shall give a spectacle for the people
on the Day of the Sun or disturb divine worship by holding such
celebrations. Subsequently the two weeks attached to the
Easter celebration and the two fixed feasts, Christmas and Epiphany,
will be added: Out of respect for religion We provide and
decree that on seven days of Quadragesima and on the seven Paschal
days, when trough religious observances and fast men’s sins
are purged, and also on the Birthday (Natalis dies) and on Epiphany,
spectacles shall not produced (CTh 2,8,24 del 400 [405]).
The law
of 386 is important also for showing the development of the organization
of the calendar regarding social time and the development connected
to the days for the organization of public games, since the presence
of the governors rendered official only the spectacles celebrated
on those two days, conferring upon them prestige and importance.
As a result, all the other days that commemorated the anniversaries
of dead and divinised emperors were thereby suppressed. Such a
step regarding the reform of public life in its typical manifestations
of spectacles supposes that much ground had already been covered
regarding the political and social consequences of the possible
acceptance of such a law, the application of which in successive
decades will remain very weak. Why was the law issued? It would
appear that with the prohibition of the governor’s presence
the very organization and carrying out of the spectacles was indirectly
compromised. Further, during pagan times the authority played
a precise role, very clearly illustrated by Tertullian in his
De idololatria and De spectaculis. When and
how did this pagan ritual come to be substituted in the following
period? To what extent were the spectacles, which had had a religious
character, losing it and what, subsequently was the role of the
president and of the assistants? The problem was already posed
at the council of Elvira (about 304 AD).
This final observation (nec divinam
venerationem confecta sollemnitate confundat) is important
for indicating the new mentality, regarding how one conceived of
the festival day: the day of the pagan feria had a specific
quality inherent to the day, it was a part of the temporal calendar
reserved for the gods, and it was nefastus for the human
beings; if someone worked on that day, they committed a fault, (not
a sin), and thus had to expiate the fault by performing a purification
rite or even by celebrating another feria (See Macrobius,
Saturnalia 1,16,10). In any case, the question was debated
among pagan writers. The solemnitas of the Christian dies
solis, on the other hand, is different from the pagan solemnitates;
it was worthy of a divina veneratio, since Christ rose
on that day, but it had no inherent quality; it was on that day
that the Christian mysteries
were celebrated (CTh 2,8,20; 15,5,2), and every
day is the day of the Lord. Further, it was a day of prayer but
the prayer took place within a specific place of worship. The
pagan festival involved sacrifices; they took place outside the
temple and were public, done in the presence of all; they were
accompanied by a series of other manifestations that were considered
essential to the life of the ancient city and local governments,
including the spectacles. The Christian feast, on the other hand,
was worth of a veneratio, which was expressed by religious
cult, without entertainment or spectacle. It is true that Roman
tradition distinguished between feriae (festival days)
and ludi; the feriae could also take place without
the ludi, but in fact games were held, and in practice,
the days set aside for ludi, even if not feriae,
were considered festival days.
The law
of 392 (CTh 2,8,20)56
is Western in origin; it states: The same Augusti to Proculus,
Prefect of the City. Contests in the circus shall be prohibited
on the festal day of the Sun, except on the birthdays of Our Clemency,
in order that no concourse of people to the spectacles may divert
men from the reverend mysteries of the Christian law. This
law prohibits only the circus on Sunday, a very popular form of
entertainment among the people.57
The reason adopted by the prohibition is the attendance at the
spectacles (spectaculorum concursus) impedes the celebration
of the Christian divine mysteries: both because some Christians
prefer the spectacles to participation at worship and because
the great public involvement and disturbances in the streets impeded
a correct carrying out of worship within the churches.58
The same concept is found in the law of 386 (CTh 15,5,2): Divine
worship is not to be disrupted by the carrying out of spectacles.
The motivation for such a prohibition indicates the new thinking
concerning how a festival day is now being regarded: the day of
the pagan feria had a specific quality inherent to the
day; it was time reserved to the gods. On the other hand the solemnitas
of the Christian dies solis differs from the pagan
solemnitates by reason of the fact that the cult took
place inside a specific building and was reserved to those already
initiated. It not only did not envision spectacles, but its clergy
were peremptorily prohibited from taking part. The dies dominicus
does not have any inherent quality; it is only a day for
worship.
The prohibition
of spectacles on the Lord’s Day, in so far as its very name
calls for reverence, is repeated in 399 by Arcadius in a law issued
at Constantinople.59
According to some authors, John Chrysostom was the inspiration
behind the law.60
The law prohibits any type of spectacle, not only circuses, because
they are stimulus for the corruption of souls. Yet they are permitted
even on Sundays when it coincides with the birthday of the emperors.
In the West on 1 April 409 Honorius legislated on the same matters
(CTh 2,8,25): Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augusti to
Jovius, Praetorian Prefect. On the Lord’s day, which is
commonly called Day of the sun, we permit absolutely no amusements
to be produced, even if by chance, as the year’s ends return
upon themselves, on this day either the beginning of our sovereignty
shall have shone or the solemnities due the birthday are allotted.61
This Western
law, issued from Ravenna, differs from its Eastern counterpart
of 399 (CTh 2,8,23) by reason of its greater restriction. In fact,
while the law of Arcadius permitted the celebration of spectacles
on the occasion of imperial feasts, even Sundays, that of Honorius
(CTh 2,8,25) required its transfer to another day, out of respect
for the Christian feast day. It was a sign of the importance of
Sunday, that it took precedence even over celebrations for the
emperor. In addition, the law of Honorius can be considered a
response to a request from the Council of Carthage of 401 (can.
60: CCL 149, p. 196s): the bishops had sent a delegation to the
emperor to ask that, since public convivia were still
being organized, Christians not be obliged to take part
– persecutio altera fieri occulte videatur - and
further, that on the occasion of martyr’s feasts or other
Christian feasts, there should be no convivia nor scandalous
dancing. Further, it requested (can. 61: CCL 149, p. 197) that
theatrical spectacles be prohibited as well as any kind of ludi
on Sundays and other Christian feast days, but above all
during the two weeks before and after Easter. In these two weeks,
which were still feriae days, benefactors continued to
sponsor spectacles. In addition, these two weeks were intense
in their liturgical demands. The reason given for the request
was quia sanctae Paschae octavarum die populi ad circum magis
quam ad ecclesiam conveniunt. The African bishops were realists;
they were not asking for their suppression but only suggesting
that such spectacles be transferred to another convenient day
(trasferri devotiones eorum dies, si quando ocurrerint),
as we will see indicated by Honorius in 409. They insist that
Christians should not be forced to participate in them, especially
in their organization, in particular those who are members of
the associations (magno terrore coguntur ad spectacula convenire),
for men are provided with free will (homo libera voluntate
subisistat)). As has already been seen, laws already existed
in this regard, for example, that of 386 (CTh 15,5,2) and that
of 392 (CTh 2,8,20 ) issued by Theodosius; that of 399 (CTh 2,8,23)
in the East by Arcadius, and the law of 400 by Honorius (CTh 2,8,24)
for the West. Since specific laws already existed, either these
were not known to the African bishops, given that they are making
such a request, or else, although known they were not being applied
in Africa. We must suppose that at least at Ravenna and Constantinople,
both cities advanced in their Christianization, in the presence
of two Christian courts, the laws were observed there; regarding
the other cities a detailed and specific study would be interesting.
Sources are not abundant in this regard.
To continue,
on 1 February 425 (CTh 15,5,5) Theodosius II issued from Constantinople
a disposition which reorganized the entire system of the calendar
regarding the days in which the spectacles were prohibited based
upon the Christian liturgical calendar: aliud esse supplicationum
tempus, aliud voluptatum. The number of Christian feast days
in which spectacles were prohibited was given definitive precision:
Sunday, the feast of Epiphany and Christmas - two feasts which
in 425 were celebrated both in Rome and in Constantinople - and
the days surrounding Easter. 62
The
same Augustus and Valentinian Caesar to Asclepiodotus, Praetorian
Prefect. On the following occasions all amusements of the theatres
and the circus shall be denied throughout all cities to the people
thereof, and the minds of Christians and of the faithful shall
be wholly occupied in the worship of God: namely, on the Lord’s
day, which is the first day of the whole week, on the Natal Day
and Epiphany of Christ, and on the day of Easter and of Pentecost,
as long as the vestments that imitate the light of the celestial
font attest to the new light of holy baptism63;
at the time also when the commemoration of the Apostolic Passion,
the teacher of all Christianity, is duly celebrated by everyone.
If any persons even now are enslaved by madness of the Jewish
impiety of the error and insanity of stupid paganism, they must
know that there is a time for prayer and a time for pleasure.
No man shall suppose that in the case of spectacles in honour
of Our Divine Majesty he is, as it were, under some major compulsion
by reason of the necessity in his duty to the Emperor, and that
he will incur for himself the displeasure of Our Serenity unless
he should neglect the divine religion and should give attention
to such spectacles and if he should show less devotion to Us than
customary. Let no one doubt that the especially is devotion paid
to Our Clemency by humankind, when the reverence of the whole
earth is paid to the virtues and merits of the omnipotent God.
Given on the calends of February at Constantinople in the year
of the eleventh consulship of Theodosius Augustus and the first
consulship of Valentinian Cesar (February 1st 425).64
The law
is also recorded in Justinian’s Code (3,12,6, under the
title De feriis), with the interpolation of excerpts
from another two laws, that of 389 and the other of an unknown
date. It takes up the prohibition of 386 regarding spectacles
(CTh 8,8,3 issued at Aquileia by Valentinian II), to update it
in the light of the evolution of the civil and religious calendar
that took place after 389 (CTh 2,8,19) regarding the days, which
allow for the administration of justice. The Justinian re-elaboration
is consistently attributed to Valentinian II and dated 389. It
cites an excerpt, source unknown, which requests to differ, during
the fifteen days of Easter, the injunction of debt payment (compulsio),
the paying of the dole (annona), and the paying of public
and private debts.65
In this case also, the intent is to leave citizens in peace
during the Easter days, so that they might give their minds to
the liturgical celebration. The law includes among the iuridici
(legal) days the two fixed celebrations of Christmas and
Epiphany, an inclusion which perhaps had already taken place at
an unknown date, in which from 400 (or perhaps 405) on spectacles
were prohibited on these days (CTh 2,8,24). This last law does
not concern the judicial calendar, in as much as some years before,
precisely in 395 (CTh 2,8,22) a constitution of a general character
had been promulgated, addressed to Heraclianus, governor of Paflagonia,
in which it states that pagan solemnities ought no longer be numbered
among festival days on the basis of a preceding law. 66
The constitution
of 425, issued in the East, prohibits the carrying out of festivals
on Christian feast days. They are: 1) Sunday, the first day of
the week, a typically Christian expression (not part of the weekend
nor the end of the week). 2) Christmas and Epiphany (the plural
is used: epiphaniorum Christi). 3) The days of Easter
(the week before and after). 5) Quinquagesima, a Latin
translation of the technical term Pentecost, not indicative of
a period of time but of a specific day.67
The newly baptized wore white only during the first week following
Easter, putting off their robes on the Sunday after Easter (called
in albis or “of St. Thomas”).68
But what does the expression commemoratio apostolicae passionis
mean? There are two opinions: either the period after Easter
when the Acts of the Apostles were read,69
or the feasts of the apostles. Justinian (CI 3,12,3), uniting
this law to that of 389 (CTh 2,8,19), without correcting the text,
leads to the second interpretation: the week before Easter, the
Easter octave; Christmas and Epiphany; Commemoratio apostolicae
passionis, meaning feast of the apostles. This is how the
Basilici understood it.70
The imperial legislation permitted spectacles during Lent, even
if some bishops lamented that during a time of fasting people
took part. For example, Gregory Nazianzenus rebuked the governor
Celeusius for not only not fasting during Lent but for organizing
spectacles (Ep. 112: PG 37,209).71
Trials and torture were suspended during Lent (CTh 9,35,4 of 3
March 380 [CI 3,12,5]; CTh 9,35,5 of 6 September 389; cfr. 9,35,7)
but the spectacles were never prohibited.
Even as
late as 692 the council in Trullo held in Constantinople, asked
that spectacles not be celebrated during the Easter octave (can.
66): thus the norm was not fully applied, perhaps because the
urban population wanted spectacles during the Christian holidays.
The law,
even if the text has not come down intact, gives ample explanation
for the prohibition during the Christian feast days: the minds
of Christians and of the faithful should be occupied wholly with
God’s worship; and regarding both pagans and Jews they
must know that there is a time for prayer and a time for pleasure
(aliud esse supplicationum noverint tempus, aliud voluptatum).
Beyond this the law threatened punishment for the transgressors,
who would not be the common citizens but the organizers of the
spectacles. The emperor did not oblige people on the feast days
to go to church to pray, that would have been too much, but he
created the social conditions for a climate that encouraged participation
at Christian worship. The quality of the days of the new calendar
likewise now regulated civic time. The laws, issued by the imperial
authority, gradually developed as Christian society grew; if on
the one hand they are indicative of these social and religious
changes, on the other hand they favoured these changes.
The new
calendar reflects the profound turn around in values in late antique
society: a world was dying and a new one was being born. The new
organization of civic and religious time provides us with a key
to understanding society at the beginning of the fifth century.
It, in fact, ordered and prioritized social time according to
a new system of values, those of the Christians, creating a rupture
with the regulation of social time in previous centuries. In the
fourth century we have a break up of social and religious time
with the simultaneous observance of multiple calendars.72
Now the new calendar system establishes a different normative
time and in so doing sums up the principal characteristics of
the new society, differentiating it from its predecessor. Beyond
that it becomes a privileged instrument for the Christianization
of the population.
1 Quia non potest intermitti dominicus.
Lex sic iubet (cap. 10 ed 11); Quoniam sine dominico
non possumus (cap. 12), ed. P. Franchi de’Cavalieri,
Note agiorgrafiche, Studi e Testi 65, Roma 1935,
p. 57 and p. 58. On these martyrs cfr. Augustine, Brev.
Conl. cum donatistis 3,2,32 (PL 43,643) (cfr. P. Franchi
de Cavalieri, op.cit. pp. 3ss; for other Sunday gatherings
during the persecution, cfr. p. 24, note 3).
2 Cap. 13: Quasi christianus sine dominico
esse possit, aut dominicus sine christiano celebrari…
in dominico christianum et christiano dominicus constitutum,
nec alterum sine altero valere aut esse, ed. P. Franchi
de’ Cavalieri, op.cit., p. 60.
3 Apocalypse 1,10; Didachè
14,1; Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magnesios 9,1-2 (SC
10,88-89).
4 Pseudo Eusebius of Alexandria, Sermo
16: PG 86,416 (cfr. W. Rordorf, Sabato e domenica nella
Chiesa antica, Torino1979, n. 135).
5 A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology.
Calendars and years in classical Antiquity, München
1972, pp. 171-177.
6 Octavius 12,5-6 (The Octavius
of Marcus Minucius Felix, translated and annotated
by G. W. Clarke, New York 1974, p. 70).
7 Second Apocalypse of John, 7:
Revue Bibl. 11(1914)209-221, see p. 215: the text says that
God blesses the one who keeps Sunday observance; stopping
work at the ninth hour on Saturday, he goes to church in
the evening of the holy Sunday (according to the Syrian
understanding, the day begins on Saturday evening). This
apocalypse belongs to a group of texts that propose the
observance of Sunday and the obligation of rest (cfr. Rev.
Bib. 11[1914] p. 213, note 4 and p. 215 n. 4).
8 E. Dekkers, L’Église ancienne
a-t-elle connu la messe du soir?, in : Miscellanea
Liturgica in honorem L. C. Mohlberg, Roma 1948, I, pp. 238-257;
Idem, La messe du soir à la fin de l’antiquité
et au moyen âge. Note historique : Sacris
Erudiri 7(1955)98-130.
9 Hippolytus, Comm Dan. 1,20 (SCh
14,10ss): "For when the two peoples (Jews and pagans)
conspire to destroy any of saints, they watch for a fit
time, and enter the house of God while all there are praying
and praising God, and seize some of them, and carry them
off, and keep hold of them, saying: Come, consent with us,
and worship our gods; and if not, we will bear witness against
you. And when they refuse, they drag them before the court
and accuse them acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar,
and condemn them to death”. Tertullian mentions the
practice to pay the police in order to be not disturbed
by them during the meetings (De fuga 14,1).
10 Tertullian wrote: Nos vero, sicut
accepimus, solo die domicae resurrectionis non ab isto tantum,
sed omni anxietatis habitu et officio cavere debemus, differentes
etiam negozia, ne quem diabolo locum demus. Tantundem et
spatio Pentecostes, quae eadem exultationis sollemnitate
dispungitur (De oratione 23,2). Dididascalia.
Apostolorum, ed. R. H. Connolly, Oxford 1929, p. 124;
Const. Apost. 8,33,1-5 Abstention from work
is recommended making it possible to participate in worship
and in learning the faith.
11 CTh 2,8,22: Emperors Arcadius and
Honorius Augusti to Heraclianus, Governor of Paphlagonia.
We call to remembrance that We formerly commanded by law
[not extant] that the ceremonial days of pagan
superstition should not considered among holydays (year
395).
12 See also M. Wallraff, Christus Verus
Sol, Münster 2001, pp. 96-102.
13 In the text of this last citation, the
verb videbatur is used. According to Calderone
(Costantino e il Cattolicesimo, Firenze 1962, p.
329), the imperfect tense refers to a previous law.
14 Already from 316, the manumission was
given in church (Cod. Iust. 1,13,1); and that was
repeated in 321 to Ossius of Cordova (Cod. Theod.
4,7,1).
15 M. Bianchini, Cadenze liturgiche e
calendario civile fra IV e V secolo. Alcune considerazioni:
Atti Acc. Romanistica Costantiniana 6,1986, pp. 241-263,
especially pp. 242-244 (with bibliography).
16 The inscription, studied by J. Carcopino,
of the Christian martyr, Victorinus of Tipasa, was made
on May eighth, a Sunday: octavo Idus maias die solis
hora octava (Note sur une Epitaphe de Martyr récemment
découverte à Tipasa de Marétanie,
in: Recueil des Notices et Mémoires de la Soc. Archéol.
du départment de Constantine 66[1948], pp.87-101).
Cfr. Dictionnaire d ‘Archéol. Chrétienne
et Liturgie 4,873 ; H. Rahner, Miti greci
nell’interpretazione cristiana, Bologna 1971,
p. 126s.
17 Ch. Pietri, Le temps de la semaine
à Rome et dans l'Italie chrétienne (IVe-Ve
siècle), in: Le Temps chrétien de
la fin de l'antiquité au moyen âge IIIe-XIIIe
siècles, Paris 1984, 63-97, now in: Christiana
respublica, Éléments d'une enquête sur
le christianisme antique, Rome 1997, pp.201-249, cfr.
L’appendice pp. 94-97.
18 A. Di Berardino, La cristianizzazione
del tempo nei secoli IV-V: la domenica: Augustinianum
42(2002) pp. 97-125.
19 Ch. Pietri, op. cit. p. 213.
20 Cf. Rordorf, Le Dimanche, source de
la plénitude du temps liturgique chrétien,
in: Cristianesimo nella storia 5(1984), pp. 1-9; U. Bianchi,
ed., Mysteria Mithrae, 1979, pp. 32-38. Aurelian
sets the Dies Solis as the beginning of the week,
although previously it began with the Dies Saturni (P.
Schmitt, Sol Invictus, in: Eranos Jahrbuch 10(1943),
pp. 169-52, esp. 220-230). Ausonius writes: primum supremumque
diem radiatus habet soles (De nominibus spetem
dierum, Ecoglae 8, Loeb p. 182).
21 W. Rordorf, Le christianisme et la
semaine planétaire. A propos d’un goblet trouvé
à Wettingen en Suisse: Augustinianum 19(1979)189-196,
qui p.195s.
22 Gaston H. Halsberghe, The cult of
Sol Invcitus, Brill, Leiden 1972, pp.166-167; F. Heim,
Solstice d’hiver, solstice d’été
dans la predication chrétienne du Ve siècle.
Le dialogue des évêques avec le paganisme,
de Zénon de Vérone à saint Léon :
Latomus 58(1999)640-660.
23 Gaston H. Halsberghe, op. cit., p. 166,
nota 10.
24 P. Bruun, The Roman Imperial Coinage,
vol. VII, Constantine and Licinius, London 1966,
p. 61.
25 Patrick Bruun, The Disappearance of
Sol from the Coins of Constantine: Arctos 2(1958)15-37
from 320; after the victory over Licinius every reference
to sun worship disappears: cf. J. Lafaurie, Dies imperii
Constanitni Augusti, Mélanges d'archéologie..
A. Piganiol II, Paris 1966, 802-803.
26 M. Wallraff, Constantine’s Devotion
to the Sun after 324, in: Studia Patristica,
vol.34, Leuven 2001, pp. 256-269.
27 CIL VI,1778. Even at the beginning of
the fifth century, Augustine preached against sun worship
(Sermo 12,12; 50,8; En. in psalmos 24,
sermo 2,3).
28 Cfr. A. Di Berardino, La cristianizzazione
p. 122; P. Bruun, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol.
VII, Constantine and Licinius, London 1966, pp.
61-62.
29 Cfr. A. Salzano, Laudes Domini,
intr., testo, trad. e commento, Napoli 2001; versi 145 e
146.
30 Cfr. W. Rordorf, Sunday, The History
of the Day of Rest and worship in the Earliest Centuries
of the Christian Church, Philadelphia 1968, pp. 154-173;
Idem, Sabato e domenica nella Chiesa antica, Torino
1979, p. XIX and note 54. They criticized those that followed
Sabbath rest, accusing them of a “judaizing”
tendency.
31 This law is found three times in the Theodosian
Codex, a sign of its importance: 2,8,18 under the rubric
De feriis; 8,8,3; under the rubric De executoribus,
where the visigothic interpretatio is also found;
11,7,13, (yet there is no reference here, as in the other
two texts to the reception of the law in Rome) under the
rubric De exactionibus.
32 CTh 8,8,1 ((368? 370? 373? APR. 21).
33 The main purpose of the law is the organization
of the dies iuridici, that is, of the days in which
justice could be administered.
34 That is, the category of the feriarum
dies.
35 In this law from 389 Theodosius and Valentinianus
do not use the Christian expression of dies dominica,
but the traditional expression: dies solis, qui repetito
in se calculo revolvuntur.
36 In the West, already in 400 [405] shows
or performances were forbidden on the feasts of Christmas
and Epiphany (CTh 2,8,24).
37 CTh 2,8,21 Idem AAA. Tatiano praefecto
praetorio. Actus omnes seu publici seu privati diebus quindecim
paschalibus sequestrentur. Dat. VI K. Iun. Constantinopoli
Arcadio A. II et Rufino Conss. (392 May. 27).
38 Codex Iust. 3,12,9 of December 9; cfr.
Theodore the Lector, Hist. ecc 1,14: PG 86,173.
39 Parag. 118, in: J. Baviera, J. Furlani,
edd., Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani, Firenze
1968, vol. II, p. 794.
40 Sermo Lambot 25,4, Rev. Bén.
62(1952)97-100 (=PLS 2,830; Nuova Bib. Agost., 265F,4, vol.
33, p. 984).
41 In one case, speaking of the great feasts,
only the Epiphany, Easter and Pentecost are named in order
(PG 50,454). The Apostolic Constitutions, from the area
of Antioch, give one of the first indications of the feast
of the Ascension (5,20,3).
42Augustine, for Carthage, Enarr. In
ps. 103, sermo 1,13. Cfr. A.-M. La Bonnardière,
Les Enarrationes in psalmos prechées
par saint Augustin à Carthage en décembre
409: RechAug. 11(1976)52-90.
43 R. A. Markus, The end of ancient Christianity,
Cambridge 1990, pp. 107-129 (Secular festivals in Christian
times?).
44 Again Augustine sees the shows in tight
connection with pagan worship: De civitate Dei
I,31-34; II,8,13; IV,26.
45 Cassiodorus, Variae 3,51,: CCL
96,133-136; Justinian, Novella. 105,1, del 536.
46 Sermon 62 of Augustine, preached in Carthage
perhaps in 399, exhorts Christians not only not to participate
in the convivia that were celebrated in pagan temples
for the Genius of Carthage, and also asks them
to disobey the authorities that obliged them to participate
(Sermo 62,6,9; 6,10; 7,11-12; 8,13, etc.).
47 Council of Cartagine (401), can. 61: CCL
149, p. 197 (ed. C. Munier); cfr. Claude Lepelley, Trois
documents méconnus sur l'histoire sociale et religieuse
de l'Afrique romaine tardive retrouvés parmi les
spuria de Sulpice Sévère: Antiquité
Afriq. 25(1989)235-262.
48 Often the Fathers and the legal texts
use the term, spectacula, although, in reality
that term could refer to various kinds of amusement (theaters,
shows, games, circus races, dance, pantomimes, etc.),
which brought laetitia to the people.
49 Christina C. Schnusenberg, The Relationship
between the Church and the Theatre. Exemplified by Selected
Writings of the Church Fathers and by Liturgical Text until
Amalarius of Metz - 775-852, Univ. Press of America,
Lanham/New York/London 1988; M. Harl, La dénonciation
des festivités profanes dans le discours épiscopales
et monastique en Orient chrétien, à la fin
du IVe siècle, in: Ead., Le déchirment
du sens..., Paris 1993,433-453 ; .
50 Chrysostom writes that at the time of
baptism “the priest has you say: - I renounce
you, Satan, your pomps, your service and your works- “.
The angels are invisible witnesses of the contract (II Catechesis
20: SC 50, p.50); “The pomps of Satan are theaters,
race tracks, every sin, the observance of certain days,
casting sorts and fortune telling” (PG 49,239). Cyril
of Jerusalem: “The pomp of the Devil is the craze
for the theatre, the horse races in the circus, the wild
beast hunts, and all such vanity, from which the saints
prays to God to be delivered in the words” (Cath.
Myst. 1,6, The Works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Washington
1970, vol. 2, p. 156). Cfr. H.M.Riley, Christian Initiation.
A comparative study of the interpretation of the baptismal
liturgy in the mysthagogical writings of Cyril of Jerusalem,
John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of
Milan, Washington 1974, passim; Jean Daniélou, Bible
and Liturgy, London 1960, pp. 26-34.
51 Solemus dicere quod ieiunia per istos
dies festos paganorum ad hoc exercenda sunt, ut pro ipsis
paganis rogemus Deum. Sed ita multorum infelices luxurias
perhorrescimus, ut vos hotemur, fratres, pro quibusdam fratribus
christianis orare nobiscum, ut ab ista nequitia se aliquando
emendari et corrigi paiantur... (Sermo Dolbeau 22,26,
in: Augustin d’Hippone, Vingt-six sermons au peuple
d’Afrique, éd. Par F. Dolbeau, Paris 1996,
p 578 (sermon delivered at Carthage Saturday 12 December,
op. cit., p. 640).
52 Ambrose says: alius circensibus ludis
aut theatralibus sollicitatus voluptatibus, aut ceteris
vanitatibus occupatus ecclesian non frequentat; alium ruris
exercitia delectant, eaque de causa ad eccelsiam rarus accessus
est (Exp. In ps. 118,16,45 (CSEL 62,377).
S.C. Mosna, Storia della domenica dalle origini agli
inizi del sec. V Problema delle origini e sviluppo. Culto
e riposo. Aspetti pastorali e liturgici, Roma 1969,
271; 301; 327s; G. Cuscito, Giochi e spettacoli nel
pensiero dei Padri della Chiesa, in: Spettacolo
in Aquileia e nella Cisalpina Romana, Udine 1994, pp.
107-128.
53 Some scholars do not accept the date,
386, placing it rather in the years: 392-395.
54 Illud etiam praemonemus, ne quis
in legem nostram, quam dudum tulimus, committat, nullum
solis die populo spectaculum praebeat, nec divinam venerationem
confecta sollemnitate confundat.
55 O. Seeck proposes 394 as the date, cfr.
O. Seeck, Regsten der Kaiser und Päpste für
die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr., Stuttgart 1919, p. 94.
56 CTh 2,8,20 Imppp. Valentinianus, Theodosius
et Arcadius AAA. Proculo praefecto Urbi. Festis solis diebus
circensium sunt inhibenda certamina, quo christianae legis
veneranda mysteria nullus spectaculorum concursus avertat,
praeter clementiae nostrae natalicios dies. Dat. XV K. Mai.
Constantinopoli Arcadio A. II et Rufino Conss. (392 apr.
17).
57 Alan Cameron, Circus Factions. Blues
and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford 1976; John H.
Humphrey, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Charriot Racing,
London/ Berkeley 1986; Karl W. Weber, Panem et circenses,
la politica dei divertimenti di massa nell'antica Roma,
Milano 1986, ora in: Antike Welt 25(1994)1-180: with a large
number of illustrations.
58 For the tension and irrationality that the
ludi circenses create: Cassiodorus, Variae
3,51,11-13,: CCL 96,135-136
59 CTh 2,8,23 Idem AA. (impp. Arcadius
et Honorius) ad Aurelianum praefectum praetorio. Die dominico,
cui nomen ex ipsa reverentia inditum est, nec ludi theatrales
nec equorum certamina nec quicquam, quod ad molliendos animos
repertum est, spectaculorum in civitate aliqua celebretur.
Natalis vero imperatorum, etiamsi die dominico inciderit,
celebretur. Dat. VI K. Sept. Constantinopoli Theodoro v.c.
Cons. (399 Aug. 27).
60 B. H. Vandenberghe, Saint Jean Chrysostome
et les spectacles: Zeit f. Rel. und Geistg. 7(1955)34-46,
qui p. 42; O. Pasquato, Gli spettacoli in S. Giovanni
Crisostomo. Paganesimo e cristianesimo ad Antiochia e Costantinopoli
nel IV secolo, Roma 1976, p. 319. For the pastoral concerns
about the times when a christian feast and a pagan celebration
coincide, cfr. S.C. Mosna, Storia della domenica dalle
origini agli inizi del sec. V Problema delle origini e sviluppo.
Culto e riposo. Aspetti pastorali e liturgici, Roma 1969,
185ss; cfr. Rordorf, op.cit., pag. 203; 209.
61 CTh 2,8,25: Impp. Honorius et Theodosius
AA. Iovio praefecto praetorio. Post alia: dominica die, quam
vulgo solis appellant, nullas edi penitus patimur voluptates,
etsi fortuito in ea aut imperii nostri ortus redeuntibus in
semet anni metis obfulserit aut natali debita sollemnia deferantur.
Dat. Kal. April. Ravenna Honorio VIII et Theodosio III AA.
Conss. (April 1° of 409).
62 In Egypt and Jerusalem, only the feast of
the Epiphany was celebrated as the day of birth of Christ.
63 White robes were only worn in the week following
Easter, not for the Easter season, ending at Pentecost.
64 CTh 15,5,5 Idem A. et Valentinianus
Caes. Asclepiodoto praefecto praetorio. Dominico, qui septimanae
totius primus est dies, et natali adque epifaniorum christi,
paschae etiam et quinquagesimae diebus, quamdiu caelestis
lumen lavacri imitantia novam sancti baptismatis lucem vestimenta
testantur, quo tempore et commemoratio apostolicae passionis
totius christianitatis magistrae a cunctis iure celebratur,
omni theatrorum adque circensium voluptate per universas urbes
earundem populis denegata totae christianorum ac fidelium
mentes dei cultibus occupentur. Si qui etiamnunc vel iudaeae
impietatis amentia vel stolidae paganitatis errore adque insania
detinentur, aliud esse supplicationum noverint tempus, aliud
voluptatum. Ac ne quis existimet in honorem numinis nostri
veluti maiore quadam imperialis officii necessitate compelli
et, nisi divina religione contempta spectaculis operam praestat,
subeundam forsitan sibi nostrae serenitatis offensam, si minus
circa nos devotionis ostenderit quam solebat, nemo ambigat,
quod tunc maxime mansuetudini nostrae ab humano genere defertur,
cum virtutibus dei omnipotentis ac meritis universi obsequium
orbis impenditur. Dat. Kal. Feb. Constantinopoli Theodosio
A. XI et Valentiniano Caes. I conss. (425 febr. 1).
65 In quindecim autem paschalibus
diebus compulsio et annonariae functionis et omnium publicorum
privatorumque debitorum differatur exactio.
66 Impp. Arcadius et Honorius AA. Heracliano
correctori Paflagoniae. sollemnes paganorum superstitionis
dies inter feriatos non haberi olim lege reminiscimur imperasse.
Dat. V Non. Iul. Constantinopoli Olybrio et Probino conss.
(3 di luglio del 395).
67 In the Justinian version, the prohibition
of shows was reduced to the two weeks connected with Easter
because the day of Pentecost, which fell on a Sunday, was
already included.
68 Baptism was administered especially at Easter,
but in some places or circumstances, was also administered
at Pentecost. In Antiochia and Constantinople, baptisms were
not administered at Pentecost (cfr. John Chrysostom,
In acta Apot. 1,6: PG 60,22)..
69 Augustine says that after Easter they read
the Acts of the Apostles: actus apostolorum testes
sunt, ille liber canonicus omni anno in ecclesia recitandus
anniuersaria solemnitate post passionem domini nostis illum
librum recitari (In Iohan. Evang. Tract. 6,18).
70 Zacharias von Ligenthal, Jus graeco-romanum,
Leipzig 1857,3,469-470; Librorum LX Basilicorum,
edd. C. Ferrini et I. Mercati, Studi e Testi 25, Roma 1914,
p. 80.
71 Cfr. John Chrysostom, In Genesim
5: PG 53,54.
72 That is the case of the Feriale Campanum
of 387, which includes the permission of the Christian emperors
to celebrate pagan rites at Capua. For the text: CIL 10,3791;
ILS 4918; A. Degrassi, Fasti anni Numiani et Iuliani,
Inscr. Italiae XIII.2, Roma 1963, p. 46. Cfr. D. E. Trout,
Lex and Iussio: The Feriale Campanum and Christianity
in the Theodosian Age, in: Law, Society, and Authority
in Late Antiquity, ed. by Ralph W. Mathisen, Oxford 2001,
pp. 162-178.
|
