WELCOME

BENVENUTI

BIENVENU

BIENVENIDOS

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.


 

Web Design Company Los Angeles
Computaid Web Design
Website Design Los Angeles
Computaid
  Web Design Los Angeles   
Website Design Santa Monica