Jewish judicial patrons and advocates in the Western Roman Empire (5th century)
p. 195-212
Résumé
This paper investigates the very concrete circumstances in which Jewish litigants were exposed to Roman law, raising questions about those individuals, mainly Jewish judicial patrons and advocates, who bridged Jewish communities and the world of the courts. Focusing on the Western part of the empire at the onset of the 5th century, it addresses the social origins, intellectual education, and professional careers of these intermediaries. Jewish judicial patrons and advocates were considered threats by Christian opponents. Eventually, the latter convinced the central government to banish them from the judicial and legal world of the West.
Entrées d’index
Keywords : Jews, judicial patron, advocate, municipal council, curial, functionary, imperial constitution, Codex Theodosianus, legal education, rhetoric, forensic education
Texte intégral
We ought to avoid, though, the companionship not only of the pagans but also of the Jews, with whom even a conversation is a great contamination. For with their artfulness they ingratiate themselves with people, get into homes, enter into the palaces of governors, and disturb the ears of judges and of the common folk, and the more shameless they are the more influential they are.1
1In the 4th and 5th centuries, Jewish litigants engaged in civil and criminal lawsuits that not only settled instant cases at the municipal and provincial levels, but also led to decisions (constitutiones) from the central government. A few examples of litigation by provincial Jews have been preserved thanks to these imperial constitutions, mainly through edicts and letters to officials conserved in the Theodosian Code (438–439). Most of the cases involve synagogues, which as private associations (collegia) enjoyed the ability to bring action (ius agendi).2 We also find in the sources other Jewish formal communities – iudaeorum universitas (C.J. 1, 9, 1), iudaeorum corpus (C.Th. 13, 518) – and individuals.3
2The imperial constitutions tell us about both the procedures Jewish litigants used and the nature of the cases. A dispute between private Jews and representatives (primates) of a synagogue in an unknown city of the Eastern part of the empire was ended by a constitution of April 17, 392 (C.Th. 16, 8, 8), with the private Jews obtaining an imperial rescript ordering the court of the governor (iudex) to cancel their banishment from the synagogue. The primates had appealed (querella) the judgment given by the provincial iudex to the tribunal of Tatianus, the praetorian prefect based in Constantinople.4 As the first decision was taken on the basis of an imperial rescript (editio rescripti), the primates pleaded that the rescript had been surreptitiously obtained (rescriptum subreptum). Confronted with the complexity of the case, the praetorian prefect Tatianus asked for an imperial decision (C.Th. 16, 8, 8), most probably through the legislative procedure of the suggestio.5
3Another example is provided by a set of three constitutions issued in Constantinople in 423 (C.Th. 16, 8, 25, 26 and 16, 10, 24). Synagogues in Palestine, looted and torched by monks led by Barsauma, submitted an action for compensation from those responsible. C.Th. 16, 8, 26 says that the authorities of the synagogues first addressed several miserabiles preces (that is, supplicationes) to obtain imperial rescripts.6 These procedures ended with the three above constitutions, which condemned the monks.
4These two instances show that synagogues and other Jewish litigants were able to avail themselves of various judicial and legislative procedures. Sometimes they sued their adversaries in the court of the provincial governor, and sometimes, to enhance their chances of success, they asked the central government for a rescript to be reproduced in the governor’s audientia (editio rescripti). In some other cases, they did not use judicial means, but instead directly suggested (with suggestiones) to the central government a decision to be published in the province as an edict.7
5In these procedures, synagogue collegia probably chose judicial patrons to argue their cases. Fergus Millar gives a detailed example of the intervention of such intermediaries in the legislative procedure of the suggestio. In Libya, Bishop Synesius of Ptolemais, a highly educated local landowner, wrote a letter in 410/411 to Duke Anysius on behalf of a group of forty Danubian soldiers, who feared that they might lose their special status and be classified as ordinary local troops ranked limitanei. Synesius therefore asked the dux to send a submission (anaphora, suggestio) to the emperor. Millar underlines “how extraordinary this procedure is,” inasmuch as barbarian soldiers approached the bishop to request that he ask the dux to send a submission to the distant emperor.8
6Millar’s remark is similarly relevant to synagogue collegia and other Jewish litigants who could reach out to the central government – not only for serious matters, but also for relatively minor, local issues, as we shall see – thanks to intermediaries acting as judicial patrons. Thus in C.Th. 16, 8, 8 (392), we find that Jewish patriarchi of senatorial ranks (clarissimi and illustres) defended a case on behalf of the primates of a synagogue.9 They may have not only drafted the constitution, but also pleaded it themselves, as the emperor could admit to the imperial auditorium any person he wished to hear.10 Thanks to the addresses of the aforementioned constitutions of February 15, 423 (C.Th. 16, 8, 25), April 9, 423 (C.Th. 16, 9, 5), and June 8, 423 (C.Th. 16, 8, 27) and the Vita of Simeon Stylites, we understand that it was the praetorian prefect Asclepiodotus who suggested the imperial decisions. He probably pleaded them in front of the Imperial Council on behalf of the Jewish victims.11
7Patrons were chosen for their ability to exercise influence based on rank, office, or personal connections. They often had rhetorical and legal skills, a result of education and careers in public administration. However, Jean-Michel David insists that although patrons provided their clients with assistance, they did not do so ex officio. For this reason, professionals were needed in the proceedings.12 Even though Augustine of Hippo prepared case dossiers himself, for example, he had to solicit the advice of the iurisconsultus Eustochius to interpret several thorny imperial constitutions.13 Hence we must distinguish between judicial patrons and other actors providing legal and judicial support.14 Only the latter acted ex officio; most were legal experts (iurisconsulti, iurisperiti, nomikoi) who drew on their knowledge of the law, while others were representatives (tutores, curatores) appointed to act in a lawsuit on behalf of parties who lacked legal capacity, such as children; or representatives supporting the parties in court through forensic pleadings (advocati, causidici).15 We should add to this list the defensor civitatis, whose office was created in the latter half of the 4th century,16 and the defensor ecclesiae, first attested in 367.17
8The sources attest to the involvement of Jewish patrons and advocates in several cases. In the following, we consider Jewish patrons and advocates, focusing on their origins, education, and careers, and on their activities before provincial courts and before the central government. The inquiry is limited to the Western part of the empire at the onset of the 5th century for two reasons. First, Western epigraphical, legal, and literary sources of the era attest activity by both Jewish patrons and Jewish advocates. Although such activity is attested in Constantinople as well, it was in the West that Jewish patrons and advocates were considered a danger by their Christian opponents in the government, possibly because of the several successes of the Jews in the chancelleries of Milan and Ravenna. Thus it is in the West that those opponents obtained against them the first imperial constitutions that forbade Jews administrative and legal functions. The second reason is noted by Pierluigi Lanfranchi and Paul Verheyden: in the context of the relationship between imperial power, Christians, and Jews, regional and local circumstances were crucial.18 This is especially true concerning the fate of Jewish patrons and advocates, which depended on the particular political and religious conditions of the Western provinces.
The Jewish judicial patrons
9In Orthodoxy and the Court in Late Antiquity, Caroline Humfress asserts:
Leading ecclesiastics and “theologians” were skilled in a variety of forensic contexts and applied their techniques, case-by-case, in the service of the Church […] The forensic training of ecclesiastics helped them to participate in the Legal hierarchy of the imperial bureaucracy: pleading at the imperial court for privileges and exemptions, arguing for the extension of case-specific rescripts before prefects and proconsuls, seeking the promulgation of new imperial legislation and then transforming its content by applying it to analogous cases.19
10Humfress insists that because leading bishops, such as Augustine, Alypius, and Ambrose, received a high-level education in forensic rhetoric and sometimes in law and had careers in public administration, they were particularly well prepared for advocating the orthodoxy and the Church’s interests in general. Were the origins, education, and occupations of the Jewish patrons adequate to challenge them?
11In the Western provinces, the disputes in which Jews engaged are quite similar to those in which the ecclesiastics did. The first four cases in table 1 relate to requests for municipal and imperial immunities. Jewish litigants brought proceedings before the provincial governors to obtain the annulment of charges (munera) imposed upon them by their cities. In a previous paper, we concluded that these Jewish litigants did not ask for complete curial immunities, which would have excluded them from city councils and consequently from the politics of their cities. Instead, they asked for immunity from a few personal munera to have time to better handle their functions both in the city councils and in their communities.20 Yet were they competent enough to successfully litigate cases against powerful adversaries?
12The profile of these litigants is similar to that of Jewish patrons: all belonged to the same milieu. We know few of these patrons by name, but what is important is that they appear to have held public offices in cities. In Hispania Tarraconensis, the Jew Theodorus, and after him Caecilianus, were elected defensores of the city of Magona on the island of Minorca. Afterwards, they were designated patrons of the city.21 In the province of Apulia, in southern Italy, the inscriptions on the graves of the Jews Marcellus and Auxanius indicate that they too held the title of patron of the small city of Venosa.22
13Elisabetta Folcando undertook a systematic study of the patronage system in Calabria and Apulia based on epigraphic evidence and investigated patrons’ social origins and statuses. Of the seventeen patroni she identified from the 4th and 5th centuries, she determined the origins of seven, including the Jews Marcellus and Auxanius. Since they were patrons of a community in a small city, Venosa, they did not hold dignities and functions in imperial ranks, but belonged to the curial ranks.23 Francesco Grelle compares the Jewish patrons from Magona with those from Venosa, and concludes that the Hispanics belonged to the same curial milieu as the Italians.24 We can conclude from their inquiries that Jewish litigants did not enjoy the protection of the most powerful and effective patrons. Indeed, individuals and communities had an interest in choosing patrons in the ranks of high officials and governors rather than in the milieu of municipal magistrates and curials of modest cities.
14Most of the Jewish patrons came from municipal middle-class origins, which could explain why the litigants from the cities of Apulia and Calabria lost their cases even if they offered robust legal arguments. The matter in dispute was immunities that Jewish curials claimed to hold by virtue of their offices in synagogues. A constitution given on February 13, 398 (C.Th. 12, 1, 158), indicates that the Jewish curials – or rather their patrons and advocates – put forward a convincing legal argument, saying that just as the officials of the synagogues of the East enjoyed immunities based on a constitution of July 1, 397 (C.Th. 16, 8, 13), issued in Constantinople on behalf of Emperor Arcadius, so those of the West had to have the same right, in the name of the principle of unanimitas.25 As Humfress points out, Jewish litigants, like the ecclesiastics, were capable of “seeking the promulgation of new imperial legislation and then transforming its content by applying it to analogous cases”.
15The praetorian prefect Flavius Mallius Theodorus himself seems to have dealt with this thorny legal problem. This prominent high official may have written a suggestio to the imperial chancery of Milan refusing to grant immunities to the personnel of the synagogues.26 It is no wonder that Jewish curial patrons lost against such a powerful adversary.
16In another case, Western synagogues offered their support to apostoli sent by the patriarch of Galilea to collect a tax from the Jewish population. However, certain Jewish individuals – designated as the iudaeorum populus – took legal action against the synagogues, stating that they refused to pay the tax. In the first instance, on April 11, 399, they won the case (C.Th. 16, 8, 14; see table 2, lines 5-6).27 What kind of patron did the iudaeorum populus solicit for support? It may have been a defensor civitatis, whose role was to defend citizens against tax oppression.
17Apart from patrons chosen because they held municipal office, we find one private Jewish patron, following Claude Lepelley’s distinction between classical or traditional patrons and private ones, the latter of whom were not officially designated as such and held no dignity or public function.28 Lepelley here describes the role newly undertaken, from the last quarter of the 4th century, by ecclesiastics, mostly bishops. The name of the private Jewish patron is Annas, and he achieved important successes in the name of the leaders of the Jews (maiori iudaeorum) whom he represented in Ravenna, as attested by three imperial constitutions given in 412, 415, and 416.
18The political context is fundamental. These constitutions were issued after the Catholic Olympius was dismissed in 410. As magister officiorum, Olympius had imposed a policy that was unfavorable to the Arian, pagan, and Jewish elites in the cities and administration. After he was dismissed, the climate in the chancery of Ravenna became favorable to non-Catholics.29 Thus Annas obtained recognition of Saturday as an official day of rest for Jews (July 26, 412; C.Th. 16, 8, 20), the condemnation of Catholics charged with the crime of calumnia against Jews (November 6, 415; C.Th. 16, 9, 3), and sanction for a baptized Jew in order to make him/her return to his/her community (September 24, 416; C.Th. 16, 8, 23; see table 2, line 7; table 3, lines 8-10).30 It seems extraordinary that these favorable decisions were obtained by a person with no public function. Clearly there was a new political atmosphere in Ravenna – but Annas must have received other support as well, as we presently shall demonstrate.
19There are several reasons to believe that Jewish patrons holding municipal office, such as Theodorus and Caecilianus of Magona, and Marcellus and Auxanius of Venosa, and private patrons, such as Annas, had some legal knowledge. It is perhaps no accident that Annas presented himself to the imperial administration with the title of didascalus, a teacher of Jewish law,31 and Theodorus of Magona was called a doctor legis by Bishop Severus.32 It is unlikely that they taught Jewish law while completely ignoring leges and ius. Also possible is that as members of synagogues (patēr paterōn, iudaeorum pater), patrons such as Theodorus, Caecilianus, Marcellus, and Auxanius developed forensic competencies in settling internal disputes.33 Like the Christian communities, which had from pre-Constantinian times encouraged their members to settle disputes in audientiae episcopalis, the synagogues and other Jewish groups, such as rabbinic ones, had their own way to arbitrate internal disputes.34 This practice in settling internal disputes may have given the heads of the synagogues and other charismatic leaders some forensic and legal expertise needed to handle Roman trials. Yet most significant of all, Theodorus and Caecilianus of Magona were elected defensores civitatis, indicating that the citizens of Magona trusted them to defend ex officio their interests before the imperial courts. Moreover, at the civic level, defensores were judges for civil and criminal cases, and at the provincial level, they investigated for civil and criminal cases.
20However, apart from the defensores civitatis, patrons were not professionals, meaning that they did not provide judicial and legal support ex officio. Let us now focus on the professionals.
The Jewish advocates
21Jewish advocates are mentioned in a constitution issued in Ravenna on March 10, 418 (C.Th. 16, 8, 24), that expelled Western Jews from the centers of imperial power – namely, the army (militia armata) and the civil bureaucracy of Ravenna (militia palatina). The date of the decision is significant. A month before, in February 418, Theodorus and Caecilianus of Magona had been forcibly converted to Christianity by a mob led by Bishop Severus. From then on, the patrons in Minorca were solely Christians.35 News of this spectacular act of force against Jewish patrons – the first time in the history of the Roman empire that Jews were forcibly baptized – doubtless traveled to Ravenna. Meanwhile, the political climate in the imperial palace had changed in 417, when Catholics took back power thanks to the marriage of the pious Galla Placidia with General Constantius.36
22Jewish civil servants affected by the imperial constitution came from one or several of the following bureaus (scrinia): the scrinium memoriae (which may have dealt with requests to the emperor), the scrinium epistularum (which may have answered to the consultationes or relationes of judges in the provinces), and the scrinium libellorum (which may have received the supplicationes, investigated them, and drafted rescripts to individuals and communities).37 The respective roles of these three bureaus are difficult to clearly distinguish, but we can safely say that the bureaucrats who worked there were those in charge of the instruction of the supplicationes, consultationes, and suggestiones, and that they drafted the rescripts and imperial edicts and letters. Thus it may be that somehow Didaschalus Annas enjoyed the backing of Jewish palatines during the years of his judicial and “legislative” successes against the Christian party (412–416). C.Th. 16, 8, 24, then could be interpreted as revenge by the latter.
23The constitutio directly addresses the Jewish civil servants, whose defense of their prerogatives is echoed in the text of the constitution. The banned bureaucrats apparently challenged the decision as being disproportionate, because it affected their personal status, disgracing them with a mark of infamy. Thus we read at the end of the decision:
We do not exclude Jews educated in the liberal studies from the freedom of practicing as advocates, and we permit them to enjoy the honor of the curial liturgies, which they possess by right of their birth’s prerogative and their family’s splendor. Since they ought to be satisfied with these, they should not consider the interdiction concerning the State Service as a mark of infamy.38
24Thanks to this passage, we know about the origin, education, and careers of the Jewish civil servants banned from Ravenna. They were from curial families, educated in rhetorical studies (artes liberales), and trained as advocates. This accords with what we know of the origins of most advocates, who were mainly drawn from the middle ranks of society, for the most part curial ranks.39 Such was the situation of Jews coming from “splendid” families of curials, to whom the career of advocate offered the prospect of promotion in the sacra scrinia. Like Jewish patrons, Jewish imperial functionaries and advocates came from the urban middle class.
25Equally unsurprising is that these individuals received a liberal education in schools of rhetoric, rather than specialized legal training. Law schools were developing in this period, especially in the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Beirut, Caesarea, Alexandria, and Athens), as well as in Italy (Rome, Milan, and Naples), Africa (Carthage), Gaul (Toulouse, Marseille, Arles, and Lyon, and possibly Narbonne, Bordeaux, Besançon, and Autun) and Hispana (Verona). However, they were concentrated in a few cities and expensive, so that apparently only young men from noble and wealthy families could afford the studies. Young Augustine and his childhood friend Alypius, who later served as assessor (iurisperitus) to the prestigious court of the imperial fisc before becoming bishop of Thagaste (Numidia), could not afford the same education. While the latter could leave Africa, travel to Rome, and study in its law school, the former, sired by a curial father, could leave the small city of Thagaste after finishing grammatica school and travel to Madaure, but could not hope for more than the school of rhetoric in Carthage.40
26There seems to have been a school of rhetoric in every mid-sized city of the West. Henri-Irénée Marrou provides a list, but insists that they undoubtedly were even more densely distributed.41 Caroline Humfress and Ralph Evêque underline that the late Roman schools of rhetoric provided practical training meant to equip forensic advocates to plead in court.42 Students were trained to prepare declamationes based on controversiae on unlikely and convoluted events, but they nevertheless received the practical training required for the bar, as they needed rhetoric more than technical legal knowledge.
27Considering only the cases involving Jewish litigants that appear in the Codex Theodosianus, it is likely that advocates had to consult iurisperiti before the cases reached the courts and the chancery. They had to plead immunities from imperial and civic munera (table 1, lines 1-4), a dispute regarding financial privilege (table 2, lines 5-6), a dispute on debt and the right of asylum (table 3, line 7), litigation related to a conflict between Roman and biblical law (table 3, line 8), a claim for damages (table 3, line 9), and a criminal accusation of calumnia (table 1, line 10). These cases required expert knowledge of previous imperial constitutions (leges) dealing with financial law, criminal law, and the broad sphere of immunities and privileges. Nevertheless, the cases in which Jewish litigants were involved related mostly to political and religious issues, because as noted above, powerful Christian adversaries often were implicated. Against such adversaries, Jewish advocates needed legal knowledge less than forensic rhetorical skill and solid networks.
28It seems that from 418 this network was deliberately weakened by the Catholics from the Western imperial chancery. From that time, middle-class Jews versed in forensic rhetoric would need to content themselves with the profession of advocate and the rank (honor) of curiales. After their studies, they could enroll to plead before courts at the municipal and provincial levels, but no longer in the matricula, and the three bureaus in Ravenna now were closed to them.
29In the years that followed, the onslaught against Jewish patrons and advocates escalated. In C.Th. 16, 8, 24, the chancery of Ravenna protested that the Jews were not infames. However, the African Church entered the breach. On May 25–30, 419, the Council of Carthage, over which Bishop Aurelius presided in the presence of Augustine of Hippo and Alypius of Thagaste, stated that Jews, along with actors, heretics, and pagans, were infamiæ maculis aspersi. Canon 129 (voted on May 30) drew up a list of those forbidden, due to being infames, to accuse clerics in front of the audientia episcopalis. Since the issuance of an imperial constitution given in Ravenna on December 11/13, 411/12 (Sirm. 15), clerks had enjoyed a privilegium fori permitting their victims to sue them only before the audientia episcopalis.43 Taking away the ius accusandi from specific categories of individuals was a decision influenced by Roman law, but adding heretics, pagans, and Jews to the list of the incapables was an innovation of the African bishops.44 Nevertheless, the ius accusandi was not taken away from direct victims of clerks. Canon 129 specified that victims could sue suam suorumque iniuriam. For example, the Jew Licinius had recourse to the audientia episcopalis.45 In reality, the function of Canon 129 was to forbid some categories of individuals from accusing on behalf of others, reflecting the fact that in the ancient world, accusations of public crimes often were assumed by patrons on behalf of the victims.46 Once again, Jewish judicial patrons were targeted.
30A few years later, on August 6, 425, the government of Galla Placidia, acting for young Valentinian III, issued in Aquileia a constitution containing a variety of measures against heretics, schismatics, and pagans. It not only confirmed that Jews were banned from the Western army and imperial civil bureaucracy (militiae), but also rescinded their right to litigate (causam agere; Sirm. 6). According to Jean Gaudemet, this meant that Jews and pagans were forbidden from litigating with Christians; according to Amnon Linder, they were denied the right to practice law.47 Such interpretations seem too radical. Given the context revealed above, the constitution most probably targeted not Jewish litigants in general, but only Jewish patrons or advocates.
Conclusion
31In the West at the onset of the 5th century, Jewish individuals and collegia, the latter mostly synagogues, obtained judicial and legal support before municipal and imperial courts from patrons and advocates.
32According to the few available inscriptions and legal sources, Jewish patrons and advocates were not of high rank, but came from curial families in small cities. Some of them were pursuing municipal careers. Some were also involved in community life at the synagogues. Their experience in internal dispute settlement may have given the heads of the synagogues some forensic and legal expertise needed to handle imperial trials.
33There are several indications that these Jews received an education in law. As was the custom for young people from curial families of Western cities, they attended schools of rhetoric, which provided them with pragmatic training for pleading in court as forensic advocates. After their studies, they could enroll to plead before courts at the municipal and provincial levels. Some are known to have entered the bureaus of the chancery in Ravenna.
34Jewish patrons and advocates, together with synagogues, appear to have been the main target of the Catholics. Imperial policy under Olympius and again after 417 was to weaken both the status of the synagogues and Jewish patrons and advocates, surely because these patrons and advocates were dangerous adversaries of the Catholics.
Appendix
Table 1 – Disputes between Jews and the curia of their cities.
Constitution | Claimants | Defendants | Cause of dispute | Outcome | |
1 | Constantinus Dec. 11, 321 C.Th. 16, 8, 3 | Agrippina Colonia curials | Jews obnoxii curiales | Nomination to municipal charges (munera) of civil and imperial nature | Immunity in favor of the curial Jews |
2 | Gratian Apr. 18–19, 383 C.Th. 12, 1, 99 | A curia from an unknown city | Jews obnoxii curiales | Nomination to municipal charges (munera) of civil and imperial nature | Condemnation in favor of the curia |
3 | Honorius Feb. 13, 398 C.Th. 12, 1, 158 | Curias from cities in Apulia and Calabria | Jews obnoxii curiales | Nomination to municipal charges (munera) of civil and imperial nature | Condemnation in favor of the curia |
4 | Honorius Apr. 22, 404 C.Th. 16, 8, 16 | Curia from an unknown city | Jews agentes in rebus | Flight of curials to the central imperial administration | Condemnation in favor of the curia |
Table 2 – Disputes between Jews and synagogues.
Constitution | Claimants | Defendants | Cause of dispute | Outcome | |
5 | Honorius Apr. 11, 399 C.Th. 16, 8, 14 | Private Jews designated as iudaeorum populus | Archisynagogi and presbyteri | Refusal to pay gold and silver to the Galilean patriarch Gamaliel | Condemnation in favor of the unknown Jews |
6 | Honorius Jul. 25, 404 C.Th. 16, 8, 17 | Archisynagogi and presbyteri | Individual Jews | Refusal to pay gold and silver to the Galilean patriarch Gamaliel | Privilege in favor of the synagogues |
7 | Honorius Sept. 24, 416 C.Th. 16, 8, 23 | Heads of the Jews (and Didascalus Annas) | Jewish debtors | Asylum in Churches to escape creditors | Condemnation in favor of the Jewish creditors |
Table 3 – Disputes between synagogues and Christians.
Constitution | Claimants | Defendants | Cause of dispute | Outcome | |
8 | Honorius Jul. 26, 412 C.Th. 16, 8, 20 and 2, 8, 26 | A Christian (?) | A Jew | Illicit refusal to appear before a court | Privilege in favor of the Jews |
9 | Honorius Jul. 26, 412 C.Th. 16, 8, 20 | Heads of the synagogues (and Didascalus Annas) | Christian activists | Occupation and destruction of synagogues | Condemnation in favor of the synagogues |
10 | Honorius Nov. 6, 415 C.Th. 16, 9, 3 | Christian activists | Heads of the synagogues (and Didascalus Annas) | Illicit conversion of Christian slaves | Condemnation in favor of the synagogues |
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Abbreviations
C.J. = Justinian Code.
CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum.
C.Th. = Theodosian Code.
PL = Patrologia latina.
Sirm. = Sirmondian constitutions.
SDHI = Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris.
Primary sources
Bradbury 1998 = S. Bradbury, Severus of Minorca: Letter on the Conversion of the Jews, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.
Linder 1987 = A. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1987.
Noy 1993 = D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, I, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
10.1017/CBO9780511520631 :Ramsey 1989 = B. Ramsey, The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, New York, Newman Press, 1989.
Secondary sources
Belayche 2003 = N. Belayche, En quête de marqueurs des communautés « religieuses » gréco-romaines, in N. Belayche, S. Mimouni (ed.), Les communautés religieuses dans le monde gréco-romain. Essais de définition, Turnhout, 2003, p. 9-20.
10.1484/behe-eb :Bianchini 2009 = B. Bianchini, Per l’interpretazione di CI 10.48.2, in M. Bianchini (ed.), Temi e tecniche della legislazione tardoimperiale, Turin, 2009, p. 333-342.
Connoly 2010 = S. Connoly, Lives behind the Laws: The World of the Codex Hermogenianus, Indianapolis, 2010.
David 1992 = J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la République romaine, Rome, 1992.
10.3406/befar :De Giovanni 2015 = L. De Giovanni, Imperatori, corti, attività legislativa nella tarda antichità, in Le corti nell’alto medioevo, Spoleto, 2015, p. 357-384.
Evêque 2018 = R. Evêque, La balance et le caducée. L’enseignement du droit dans les écoles de rhétorique à Rome durant la République et l’Empire, in Cahiers Jean Moulin, 2018, https://revues.univ-lyon3.fr/cjm/index.php?id=626.
10.4000/cjm.626 :Gaudemet 1969 = J. Gaudemet, La première mesure législative de Valentinien III, in Iura, 20, 1969, p. 129-147.
Ginzburg 1992 = C. Ginzburg, La conversione degli ebrei di Minorca (417-418), in Quaterni Storici, 1, 1992, p. 277-289.
Honoré 1998 = T. Honoré, Law in the Crisis of Empire: 379-455 AD, New York, 1998.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198260783.001.0001 :Jones 1964 = A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, I, Oxford, 1964.
Laquerrière-Lacroix 2018 = A. Laquerrière-Lacroix, Ius et Iustitia aux IVe-Ve siècles, in S. Kerneis (ed.), Une histoire juridique de l’Occident. Le droit et la coutume (IIIe-IXe siècles), Paris, 2018, p. 16-71.
Lenski 2001 = N.E. Lenski, Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine, in R.W. Mathisen (ed.), Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2001, p. 83-97.
10.1093/oso/9780199240326.001.0001 :Lepelley 1998a = C. Lepelley, Le patronat épiscopal aux IVe et Ve siècles. Continuités et ruptures avec le patronat classique, in Lepelley 1998b, p. 17-33, https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5099_1998_act_248_1_5341.
Lepelley 1998b = C. Lepelley (ed.), L’évêque dans la cité du IVe au Ve siècle. Image et autorité, Rome, 1998.
Linder 1987 = A. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit, 1987.
Marrou 1948 = H.I. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité, Paris, 1948.
Millar 2007 = F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450), Berkeley, 2007.
10.1525/9780520941410 :Nau 1927 = F. Nau, Deux épisodes de l’histoire juive sous Théodose II (423 à 438) d’après la vie de Barsauma le Syrien, in Revue des études juives, 83, 1927, p. 184-203.
10.3406/rjuiv.1927.5553 :Nemo-Pekelman 2013-2014 = C. Nemo-Pekelman, Pouvoir et réseaux des juges juifs dans les provinces orientales de l’Empire romain. À propos de la constitution XVI, 8, 9 du Code Théodosien (17 avril 392), in Revue des études tardo-antiques, supp. 1, 2013–2014, p. 289-304, https://www.revue-etudes-tardo-antiques.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Nemo-Pekelman.pdf.
Nemo-Pekelman 2018 = C. Nemo-Pekelman, The Involvement of Jews in Municipal Life during the Late Roman Empire, in K. Berthelot, J. Price (ed.), In the Crucible of Empire: The Impact of Roman Citizenship upon Greeks, Jews and Christians, Leuven, 2018, p. 249-265.
Nemo-Pekelman forthcoming = C. Nemo-Pekelman, The Didascalus Annas: A Jewish Political and Intellectual Figure from the West, in R. Naiweld, J. Schlanger, D. Stökl (ed.), Diversity and Rabbinization: Texts and Societies in Late Antique Judaism between 400 and 1000 CE, Cambridge, forthcoming.
Noy – Rajak 1993 = D. Noy, T. Rajak, Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue, in Journal of Roman Studies, 83, 1993, p. 75-93.
Pergami 1995 = F. Pergami, Sulla istituzione del defensor civitatis, in SDHI, 61, 1995, p. 413-431.
Puliatti 2015 = S. Puliatti, Ottenere giustizzia. Linee dell’organizzazione giudiziaria dioclezianea, in Ravenna capitale: giudizi, giudici e norme processuali in Occidente nei secoli IV-VIII, Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna, 2015, vol. 1, p. 11-47, https://www.ravenna-capitale.it/images/libro/2015/RC_2015_Puliatti.pdf.
Rivière 2002 = Y. Rivière, Les délateurs sous l’Empire romain, Rome, 2002.
Sotinel 1998 = C. Sotinel, Le personnel épiscopal. Enquête sur la puissance de l’évêque dans la cité, in Lepelley 1998b, p. 105-126, https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5099_1998_act_248_1_5347.
Wolff 2015 = C. Wolff, L’éducation dans le monde romain. Du début de la république à la mort de Commode, Paris, 2015.
Notes de bas de page
1 Maximus of Turin (died under the reign of Honorius, 398–423), Sermo 64, 3 (CCSL, 23); trans. Ramsey 1989, p. 156.
2 Belayche 2003, p. 9-20.
3 Linder 1987, p. 108, 183, 216.
4 C.Th 16, 8, 8; trans. Linder 1987, p. 187-188: Imppp. Theod(osius), Arcad(ius) et Honor(ius) AAA. Tatiano p(raefecto) p(raetori)o Iudæorum querellæ quosdam auctoritate iudicum recipi in sectam suam reclamantibus legis suæ primatibus adseverant, quos ipsi iudicio suo ac voluntate proiciunt. Quam omnino submoveri iubemus iniuriam nec eorum in ea superstitione sedulus coetus aut per vim iudicum aut rescripti subreptione invitis primatibus suis, quos virorum clarissimorum et illustrium patriarcharum arbitrio manifestum est habere sua de religione sententiam, opem reconciliationis mereatur indebitæ.
5 Nemo-Pekelman 2013–2014, p. 287-304.
6 Linder 1987, p. 287-301.
7 Jones 1964, p. 504-505; Bianchini 2009, p. 333-342; Connolly 2010; Puliatti 2015, p. 11-47.
8 Millar 2007, p. 59-62.
9 See n. 4.
10 Laquerrière-Lacroix 2018, p. 17-18.
11 Nau 1927, p. 184-203.
12 David 1992, p. 49.
13 Divjak 24, 11. See Humfress 2007, p. 74.
14 David 1992, p. 49.
15 In the West, we must distinguish between lawyers and advocates. In the East, the two professions merged, but in the West, according to Humfress, the classical distinction remained, the iurisperitus and the advocate being active in distinct spheres of the same court cases. In a letter written in 414, Augustine distinguishes between advocates and iurisperiti: “the advocate is paid for providing a just defence, and the iurisperitus for providing sound advice” (Ep. 153, 23; PL, 3, 663-664). A constitution of Valentinian III issued in Rome in 452 maintains the contrast between causidicus and iurisconsultus. See Humfress 2007, p. 69.
16 Pergami 1995, p. 413-431.
17 Sotinel 1995, p. 110-112.
18 Lanfranchi – Verheyden 2018, p. 1-5.
19 Humfress 2007, p. 152.
20 Nemo-Pekelman 2018, p. 249-265.
21 Ep. Severi, 6, 2-3; trans. Bradbury 1996, p. 84-85: Siquidem apud illos legis doctor et, ut ipsorum utar verbo, pater pateron fuit. In civitate autem cunctis curiae muniis exsolutis, et defensor iam extiterat et etiam nunc patronus municipum habetur. Ep. Severi 14, 6-8; trans. Bradbury 1997, p. 108-109: vir honestus, et non solum inter Iudaeos verum etiam in civitate usque adeo praecipuus, ut etiam nunc defensor civitatis electus sit.
22 Noy 1993, p. 145-148, n°114, 115, and 116.
23 Folcando 1994, p. 51-99.
24 Grelle 1994, p. 139-159.
25 C.Th. 12, 1, 158; trans. Linder 1987, p. 212-215: Idem AA. Theodoro Praefecto Praetorio. Vaccillare per Apuliam Calabriamque plurimos ordines civitatum comperimus, qui Iudaicae superstitionis sunt et quadam se lege, quae in Orientis partibus lata est, necessitate subeundorum munerum aestimant defendendos. C.Th. 16, 8, 13; trans. Linder 1987, p. 201-204. On the efficiency of the principle of unanimitas, see Honoré 1998, p. 131. For an opposing viewpoint, see Gaudemet 1979, p. 21-24.
26 On Mallius Theodorus and the constitution of February 13, 398, see De Bonfils 2010, p. 11-16, 110-113. Mallius Theodorus converted to Christianity in Cassiciacum, together with his protégé Augustine (Aug., Civ. Dei 18, 54). He was associated with Ambrose and the Catholic party of Milan.
27 C.Th. 16, 8, 14; trans. Linder 1987, p. 215-217: Idem AA. Messalae Praefecto Praetorio. Superstitionis indignae est, ut archisynagogi sive presbyteri Iudaeorum vel quos ipsi apostolos vocant, qui ad exigendum aurum adque argentum a patriarcha certo tempore diriguntur, a singulis synagogis exactam summam adque susceptam ad eundem reportent. Qua de re omne, quidquid considerata temporis ratione confidimus esse collectum, fideliter ad nostrum dirigatur aerarium: de cetero autem nihil praedicto decernimus esse mittendum. Noverint igitur populi Iudaeorum removisse nos depraedationis huiusmodi functionem. Quod si qui ab illo io depopulatore Iudaeorum ad hoc officium exactionis fuerint directi, iudicibus ofierantur, ita ut tamquam in legum nostrarum violatores sententia proferatur.
28 Lepelley 1998a, p. 17-33.
29 On the activities of Didascalus Annas in Ravenna, see Nemo-Pekelman forthcoming.
30 C.Th. 16, 8, 20, 2, 8, 26 and 8, 8, 8, trans. Linder 1987, p. 263-265; C.Th. 16, 9, 3, trans. Linder 1987, p. 272-273; C.Th. 16, 8, 23, trans. Linder 1987, p. 275-276.
31 We find in the addresses of C.Th. 16, 9, 3 and 16, 8, 2, the appellation didascalus Annas. In Western Jewish inscriptions, the titles mathētēs, mathētēs sophōn, several times nomomathēs, and nomodidaskalos also appear. As noted by Scott Bradbury (1996, p. 30-31), “the variety of titles referring to teachers and students of the Law attests that study of the Law was a central activity for diaspora Jews”.
32 Ep. Severi, 6, 2-3; trans. Bradbury 1996, p. 84-85.
33 Ep. Severi, 6, 2-3; trans. Bradbury 1996, p. 84-85: Siquidem apud illos legis doctor et, ut ipsorum utar verbo, pater pateron fuit. In civitate autem cunctis curiae muniis exsolutis, et defensor iam extiterat et etiam nunc patronus municipum habetur.
34 On the practices of rabbinic dispute settlement, see Lapin 2012, p. 98-125. On arbitration in rabbinic Judaism, see Natalie Dohrmann’s paper in this volume.
35 Ginzburg 1992, p. 277-289.
36 Stein 1959, p. 269-274.
37 Jones 1964, p. 504-505; Delmaire 1995, p. 66-70; De Giovanni 2015, p. 357-384.
38 C.Th. 16, 8, 24; trans. Linder 1987, p. 281-282: Sane Iudæis liberalibus studiis institutis exercendæ advocationis non intercludimus libertatem et uti eos curialium munerum honore permittimus, quem prærogativa natalium et splendore familiæ sortiuntur. Quibus cum debeant ista sufficere, interdictam militiæm pro nota non debent æstimare.
39 Jones 1964, p. 510-513.
40 Aug., Conf. 2, 3, 5; 3, 1, 1; 3, 4, 7; 4, 16, 28; 4, 8, 13. See Marrou 1948, p. 103.
41 Marrou 1948, p. 102-105. For the early empire, see Wolff 2015, p. 219-227.
42 Humfress, p. 94; Evêque 2018.
43 Jones 1964, p. 491.
44 David 1992, p. 525.
45 Aug., Ep. 8 (CSEL, 88, Vienna, 1981). See Lenski 2001, p. 85.
46 Rivière 2002, p. 355-381.
47 Gaudemet 1969, p. 129-147; Linder 1987, p. 301-313.
Auteur
Centre d’Histoire et anthropologie du droit, Université Paris Nanterre - capucine.nemo-pekelman@parisnanterre.fr
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge
Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle
Didier Boisseuil
2002
Rome et la Révolution française
La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)
Gérard Pelletier
2004
Sainte-Marie-Majeure
Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)
Victor Saxer
2001
Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)
Charges, hommes, destins
Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)
2005
La politique au naturel
Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle
Fabrice D’Almeida
2007
La Réforme en France et en Italie
Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes
Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)
2007
Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge
Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)
2007
Souverain et pontife
Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)
Philippe Bountry
2002