Adam Świętoń
Verbal aggression in the legal
language of The Late Roman Empire
-the case of -the constitutions
preserved in the book 16 of "Codex
Theodosianus"
Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 25, 51-64
2014
Adam Ś w iętoń
K a te d ra P ra w a R zym skiego i P orów naw czego W ydział P ra w a i A d m in istracji UWM
Verbal aggression in the legal language
of the Late Roman Empire
- the case o f the constitutions preserved
in the book 16 of Codex Theodosianus
In tr o d u c tio n
In th e course o f th e 4th c e n tu ry th e c la sh b e tw e e n th e C h ris tia n ity an d th e tr a d itio n a l relig io u s sy ste m of th e a n c ie n t R o m an w orld k in d le d s tro n g m u tu a l anim osity. W h en th e C h ris tia n re lig io n h a d a ttr a c te d a tte n tio n an d th e ap p ro v al o f th e R o m an a u th o ritie s , th e ir a ttitu d e to w a rd s old relig ion s becam e m ore a n d m ore u n fa v o u ra b le - till th e clim ax d u rin g th e re ig n of e m p e ro r T heod osius th e G re at. A long w ith th e p a g a n i also o th e r en e m ie s of th e n ew o rd e r a p p e a re d - a p o sta te s an d h e re tic s. T h is p a p e r b riefly p re s e n ts th e q u e stio n of th e v e rb a l a g g ressio n t h a t m a rk e d th e la te R o m an im p e ria l leg islatio n . It is clea rly visible in th e law s p u b lish e d to w a rd s all th o se who w ere in opposition to a n e x istin g o rd e r a n d sy ste m of v a lu e s p re fe rre d by th e im p e ria l court. I w ill focus h e re only on th e in v ectiv es a n d m a n ife sta tio n s of in to le ra n c e o cc u rrin g in th e im p e ria l c o n s titu tio n s p re se rv e d in th e 16th book of th e C o d e x T h e o d o s i a n u s devoted to relig io u s issues.
Im p e ria l c o n stitu tio n s w ere n o t only th e tool of th e d isse m in a tio n of th e law, b u t also e sta b lis h e d th e c h a n n e ls of co m m u n icatio n b e tw e e n th e e m p e ro r a n d h is officials. In th is m a n n e r th e ideological m essag e s p re a d according to th e sh a p e of th e la te R o m an p ro p a g a n d a . T h erefo re th e la te im p e ria l law m ay be tr e a te d (to som e e x te n t) as e x p ressio n of th e g o v e rn m e n ta l o rd ers a n d w ish es th a n as re a l te stim o n y of th e social a n d po litical s itu a tio n in th e L a te R o m an E m p ire. R e se a rc h of su c h sch o lars as Tony H onore, F erg u s M illar, J ill H a rrie s on th e sty le o f th e leg al la n g u a g e in th e lite ra ry , r h e to r i cal a n d h isto ric a l co n tex t ex a m in e d its ideological an d p ro p a g a n d a la y e r an d
allow to come to th e in te re s tin g conclusions ab o u t th e role o f th e law in e s ta b lis h in g a n d developing th e lin k b e tw e e n th e em p ero r a n d h is s u b je c ts1.
L a te R o m an im p e ria l p ro p a g a n d a left its m a rk on th e process of c re a tio n a n d d is trib u tio n th e law - esp ecially in re la tio n to key a re a s of th e e m p e ro r’s a u th o rity su ch as econom y a n d ta x e s, succession o f th e power, m e c h a n ism of th e a d m in is tra tio n a n d th e q u e s tio n o f C h ristia n ity . In th is p erio d th e v e rb a l a g g ressio n ac com pan ied b y in s u lt a n d t h r e a t w as in c re a sin g - it is clea rly e v id e n t for th e a re a s o f social life t h a t w ere th e m o st v u ln e ra b le to d isru p tio n a n d d isin te g ra tio n . E m p e ro r’s a tte n tio n w as focused on th e efficiency of th e a d m in is tra tio n th re a te n e d b y co rru p tio n , n e fa rio u s
s u f f r a g i u m , n e p o tism a n d on th e u n ity of th e C h ris tia n w orld e n d a n g e re d by h e re tic s, u n o rth o d o x m o v em en ts, a p o s ta te s a n d p a g a n s. T h u s th e aim o f law w as n o t only to o rd e r a n d to d e m a n d b u t also to ed u c ate. E d u c a tio n a l role on law is visible in th e co n stru c tio n of inv ective w h ich is acco m p anied by th e a p p e a ls for b e tte rm e n t. S om etim es t h r e a t w as ad d ed - b u t as a rh e to ric a l c o m p lem en t to th e e m p e ro r’s re p rim a n d r a th e r th a n c rim in a l san ctio n . F o r in sta n c e in h is fam ous c o n stitu tio n e m p e ro r C o n s ta n tin e called th e officials to stop th e co rru p tio n : “T he ra p acio u s h a n d s o f th e officials s h a ll im m e d ia te ly cease, I say, th e s h a ll cease”2 ( c e s s e n t i a m n u n c r a p a c e s o f f i c i a l i u m m a n u s , c e s s e n t i n q u a m . . . ) , a n d th e n “if they, a fte r th is w a rn in g , do n o t cease, th ey s h a ll be c u t off b y th e sw ord” ( n a m s i m o n i t i n o n c e s s a v e r i n t , g l a d i i s p r a e c i - d e n t u r...)3. C u ttin g off th e h a n d s w as in th is case r a th e r a k in d of h a r s h rh e to ric a l figure t h a n a n n o u n c e m e n t of th e p u n is h m e n t for th e d iso b ed ien t officials. Specific fu n c tio n in th e sp re a d in g of th e p ro p a g a n d a , e d u c a tio n of th e su b jects a n d co m m u n icatio n b e tw e e n th e m a n d th e h ig h e s t a u th o rity h a d p r a e f a t i o (e q u iv a le n t of th e m o d e rn p ream b le). T he co m pilers o f th e
C o d e x T h e o d o s i a n u s a n d C o d e x I u s t i n i a n u s h a d s h o rte n e d th e te x ts of con s titu tio n s a n d rem oved th e p r a e f a t i o n e s before th e y p u t th e e x tra c t in th e 1 J. Harries, L aw a n d E m pire in Late A n tiq u ity, Cambridge University Press 1999; idem,
Legal Culture a nd the Id en tity in the Fifth-C entury West, [in:] S. Mitchell, G. Geoffrey (eds.),
E th n ictity a nd Culture in Late A n tu q u ity, Duckworth, London 2000, p. 45-57; idem, R om an L aw Codes a nd the R om an Legal Tradition, [in:] J.W. Cairns, P.J. du Plessis (eds.), Beyond Dogmatics. Law a nd Society in the R om an World, Edinburgh University Press 2007, p. 53-82; T. Honoré, Em perors a n d Lawyers, Duckworth, London 1981; idem, L aw in the Crisis o f Em pire 3 7 9 -4 5 5 AD. The Theodosian D ynasty a n d its Quaestors, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998; F. Millar, Em perors a t Work, “The Journal of Roman Studies” 1967, no. 57, p. 9-19. As for literature about the ideological and legislative role of the constitutions see also M. Stachura,
Foreword to: Codicis Theodosiani Liber Sextus Decimus, A. Caba, (transl.), M. Ożóg, M. Wójcik (eds.), Wydawnictwo Akademii Ignatianum, Kraków 2014, p. XIV, n. 5.
2 All cited translation of the constitutions denoted as CTh. follows C. Pharr (transl.), The Theodosian Code a nd Novels a nd the Sirm o n d ia n constitutions. A translation w ith commentary, glossary a n d bibliography, Princeton University Press 1952.
3 CTh. 1.16.7. For detailed analyze of the constitution see. M. Stachura, Wrogowie porząd k u rzymskiego. S tu d iu m zjaw iska agresji językowej w Kodeksie Teodozjusza, Nowelach Postteodo- zjańskich i K onstytucjach S irm ondiańskich, “Historia Iagellonica”, Kraków 2010, p. 64f.
C odes4, b u t in som e cases th e re m a in s of p ro p a g a n d a a n d ad m o n itio n p e n e tr a te d p a r ts of th e te x ts w hich w ere p re se rv e d in th e Codes.
L egal la n g u a g e of la te a n tiq u ity w as q u ite specific a n d in com p ariso n w ith th e law of classical e r a w as p e rm e a te d w ith th e v e rb a l ag g ressio n 5. As M ichał S ta c h u ra s ta te s in h is w ork, 29% of te x ts p re se rv e d in th e C o d e x T h e o d o s i a n u s c o n ta in s one offensive w ord a n d alm o st 3% of th e m co n tain five o r m ore offensive expressio n s. As for th e P o st-T h eo d o sian N ovels w hich w ere u n to u c h e d by th e com pilers a b o u t 76% o f th e m a te r ia l c o n ta in one in s u ltin g or ag g ressiv e e x p ressio n a n d n e a rly 24% c o n ta in five o r m ore in v ectiv es6. T he re la tiv e ly h ig h d iv e rsity o f inv ective a n d also a h ig h degree of r e p e a ta b ility is distin ctiv e. So th e q u e stio n a ris e s a b o u t th e h a r s h sty le of th e c o n stitu tio n s w h ich n o t su rv iv ed in its o rig in al form.
C o n cern in g m isb e h a v io u r of th e su b jects su ch as c o rru p te d officials, a p p a rito rs , im p e ria l a g e n ts or ju d g e s su ch p h ra s e s a re u se d as b a n d itry (l a t r o-
c i n i u m ) , ro b b ery ( r a p a c i t a s ) , v io len t action, a s s a u lt ( i m p e t u s ) , p lu n d e r (d e - p r a e d a t i o ) . T h e y a r e d r iv e n b y g re e d , n e f a r io u s a m b itio n ( a v a r i t i a , c u p i d i t a s ) , h a te or en v y ( i n v i d i a ) , a u d a c ity ( a u d a c i a ) , in solen ce ( i n s o l e n t i a )
or m a d n e ss ( f u r o r ) . S o m etim es a p p e a rs th e a sso c ia tio n w ith th e d esp ised a n im a ls - for ex am p le th e efforts of th e officials p ro m o ted u n law fu lly to h ig h e r g ra d e s a re d efined as s u b r e p t i o w h ich su g g e st s lith e rin g in to th e w orld of priv ileg es like a sn a k e or v ip e r7. A p p a rito rs a re v e rb a lly b ra n d e d as w icked, a rro g a n t ( s u p e r b u s ) a n d n efario u s ( n e f a r i u s ) 8 . W rongdoers a n d a n t a g o n ists a re describ ed as public en e m ie s ( h o s t e s p u b l i c i ) for in s ta n c e so rcerers
( m a g i ) a n d so o th say ers ( h a r u s p i c e s ) a re sh ow n as th e en e m ie s of m a n k in d
( i n i m i c i h u m a n i g e n e r i s)9. Som e law s d ep ict th e m as i n i m i c i : “a n en em y alik e of th e fisc a n d of th e w om en” ( f i s c i e t m u l i e r i s i n i m i c u s ) o r “th e public en em y a n d O u r ow n en em y ” ( p u b l i c u s a c n o s t e r i n i m i c u s ) . In th is la tte r in sta n c e em p ero r C o n sta n tin e II is co n sid ered h o stile to th e P eople a n d a t th e sam e tim e p e rso n a lly to th e e m p e ro r C o n s ta n tiu s 10.
4 Ibidem, p. 45.
5 As for the distinctions between the legal terminology of the classical and post-classical age see: ibidem p. 38-42.
6 Ibidem, p. 63.
7 E.g. CTh. 1.15.10, CTh. 1.16.3, CTh. 1.16.7, CTh. 1.28.3, CTh. 1.32.32, CTh. 5.14.31, CTh. 6.4.22.3, CTh. 6.29.5, CTh. 6.35.11, CTh. 8.4.28.3, CTh. 10.4.1, CTh. 11.1.32, CTh. 11.7.3, CTh. 13.11.11. See also M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 109f, 112f, 132f.
8 CTh. 1.16.7.
9 CTh. 6.4.22.3, CTh. 9.16.6. The term h u m a n u m genus means all human kind which lives on the world - orbis terrarum (after enlargement of the territory of the Roman State described often as orbis R om anus or orbis noster). H u m a n u m genus is opposed to animals (see D. 1.1.1.3). For more precise interpretation of the term see L. Janssen, “Superstitio" an d the Persecutions o f the C hristians, “Vigiliae Christianae” 1979, no. 33, p. 144f.
10 CTh. 10.11.1, CTh. 11.12.1. M. Stachura points out the difference between the words
inim icitia and hostilitas. Inim icitia appears in the sources in relation to the personal unfriendli ness inside the Roman community (it is antonym of am icitia). H ostilitas (antonym of societas)
V erb al a g g r e s s io n to w a r d s h e r e t ic s a n d p a g a n s
As for th e im p e ria l c o n s titu tio n s re la te d to relig io u s issu e s th e v erb al a g g ressio n tu rn e d a g a in s t som e g ro u p s of su b jects w hich ca n be g en e rally d escrib ed (as in som e c o n stitu tio n ) b y th e e x p ressio n “en e m ie s o f th e C a th o lics”11. T he b u lk of leg al te x ts re fe rre d to th is p ro blem is p re s e rv e d in th e follow ed title s of 1 6 th book of th e C o d e x T h e o d o s i a n i u s : title 5 (D e h a e r e t i c i s )
a n d title 10 (D e p a g a n i s , s a c r i f i c i i s e t t e m p l i s ) from w h ich th e title d evoted to th e h e re tic s is th e m o st m a rk e d by v e rb a l violence.
T h e en d of th e fo u rth c e n tu ry in th e R o m an E m p ire w as a perio d o f th e c o n so lid atio n o f th e s ta te ’s religious policy. Its n u c le u s w as th e orthodox C h ris tia n ity w ith th e e m p e ro r in its c e n tre a s th e g u a r a n to r a n d p ro te c to r of th e C h ris tia n religious u n ity a n d th e le a d e r o f th e C h ris tia n w o rld 12. T h e odosius II saw th e role o f th e e m p e ro r j u s t “as a s o rt o f m e d ia to r b e tw e e n God a n d M an, who receiv ed form God th e d u ty to ru le in o rd e r t h a t th e r e be h a rm o n y b e tw e e n th e religious a n d te m p o ra l life of th e peo ple”13. T h u s th e concept o f th e “only tr u e fa ith ”(u n a c a t h o l i c a v e n e r a t i o 14) w as h a rm o n iz e d w ith th e id e a o f th e one ab so lu te (in th e se c u la r a n d relig io u s sense) r u le r of th e s ta te t h a t w as m u ltic u ltu ra l b u t u n ite d in God.
O ne of th e m o st fu n d a m e n ta l ru le w hich c h a ra c te ris e s a n d a t th e sam e tim e ex p lain s th e a ttitu d e th e C h ris tia n orthodox to w a rd s th e d is s e n te rs w as
c r e d o of N icene. E m p e ro rs re p e a te d ly ackno w ledg ed th e N icene C reed a s th e g ro u n d of th e “tr u e fa ith ”. In th e ir c o n s titu tio n a d d re sse d in 380 AD to th e people of C o n sta n tin o p le ( th a t is th e people o f th e R o m an E a s t) 15 em p ero rs T heodosius th e G re a t, V a le n tin ia n II a n d G ra tia n d rew u p th e d is tin c t line
is applies to the situation of hostility in the relationships outside the Roman state. But someti mes these two words were used as a synonyms. M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego...,
p. 84, 87 n. 339 and p. 87-92.
11 CTh. 16.5.42 (Eos, qui catholicae sectae su n t in im ic i...), CTh. 16.5.62, CTh. 16.5.64. It is worth to note that this hostility might move from internal relationships to external - the majority of Goths, Vandals and Ostrogoths that invaded Roman territory was Arian faith. M. Wójcik, „Szaleństwo A ria n " ja ko przestępstw o godzące w jedność państw a, [in:] A. Dębiński, H. Kowalski, M. Kuryłowicz (eds.), S a lu s rei publicae suprem a lex. Ochrona interesów państw a w praw ie karnym starożytnej Grecji I R zym u , Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin 2007, p. 367.
12 Bishop Ambrosius praised Gratian and Theodosius the Great as a head of Christian community (Am brosius, De obitu Theodosii 51). Theodosius I deserved with absolute certainty to be remembered as promoter of the Christian faith. On the one hand he supported fides Catholica, on the other actively and radically fought off the heretic movements and controver sies. In this respect his reign was landmark. See I. Fargnoli, M any F aiths an d One Emperor. R em arks about the Religious Legislation o f Theodosius the Great, „Revue Internationale des droits de l’Antiquité” 2005, no. 52, p. 146f.
13 M.R. Salzman, The evidence for the conversion o f the Rom an empire to the C hristianity in book 16 o f the “Theodosian Code", “Historia” 1993, no. 42, p. 362.
14 CTh. 16.5.38.
15 CTh. 16.1.2. See G.G. Archi, Teodosio I I e la sua codificazione, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli 1976, p. 159.
b e tw e e n C a th o lic s16 a n d th e r e s t “w hom We ad ju d g e d e m e n te d a n d in s a n e ”17. T hose w ho do n o t a d h e re to th e N icene C reed th e c o n s titu tio n a s c ri b ed th e fo olishness a n d u n c o n tro lla b le m a d n e ss ( d e m e n t i a , v e s a n i a ) a n d op posed th e m to th e b eliev e rs of th e f i d e s C a t h o l i c a - th e only tr u e a n d official re lig io n 18. T hey w ere u n d o u b te d ly h e re tic s a n d a p o sta te s, b u t in w id er sense b esid es th e C h ris tia n d isse n te rs th e c o n s titu tio n also b ra n d e d th o se who w o rsh ip p e d th e old R o m an gods. N e x t y e a r (381 AD) T heodosius th e G re a t issu e d a n o th e r c o n s titu tio n t h a t s tre n g th e n e d th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e C atho lic fa ith by th e su p p o rtin g th e N icene C reed a n d m ad e th e C ath olics its protec- to r s 19. T he law is also th e g re a t ex am p le of th e e la b o ra te inv ective a g a in s t u n o rth o d o x sects (see below). B o th c o n stitu tio n s w ere in clu d ed by T heodo siu s II in h is C o d e x as a le g e s g e n e r a t e s a n d a lm o st h u n d re d y e a rs la te r by J u s t in i a n in h is Code. T h e ir locatio n in th e s tru c tu re o f th e 1 st book of th e J u s t in i a n Code in d ic a te s t h a t th e s e law s c o n s titu te d one of th e m o st im p o r t a n t p rin cip les of th e s ta te policy in th e field relig io us a n d ideological a ffa ir s 20 a n d d efin ed R o m an E m p ire as a n ortho do x C h ristia n .
T he relig io u s policy b u ilt on th e conception of th e one tr u e re lig io n w as by d efin itio n in to le ra n t a n d u n frie n d ly to a n y m is re p re s e n ta tio n s . I t m u s t be also re m e m b e re d t h a t h o stile a ttitu d e to th e h e re tic s a ro u se d du e to th e c h a ra c te r of som e religious d isp u te s a n d q u a rre ls. N o t a ll of th e m took place in a n a tm o sp h e re of in te lle c tu a l d eb a te s. Som e co n tro v e rsies w ere discu ssed in th e w ay of th e rio ts a n d s tr e e t fig h ts. C o n seq u en tly th e h e re tic s w ere seen as serio u s t h r e a t to th e p ublic o rd e r21.
T he im p e ria l law on th e relig io u s a ffairs w as c h a ra c te ris e d by stro n g a n ta g o n ism . O n th e one side th e re a re C atho lics on th e o th e r fou r g ro u p s of sub jects m ay be d istin g u ish e d : h e re tic s a n d sch ism atics ( h a e r e t i c i e t s c h i s m a - t i c i , th o se who u n d e rm in e th e o rtho dox dogm as), a p o s ta te s ( a p o s t a t a e , tho se
16Catholici were Christians which confessed the dogma of “the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty of the Holy Trinity” (hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicam que doctrinam p a tris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub p a rili m aiestate et sub p ia trinitate credam us [CTh. 16.1.2]). Therefore they were loyal to the catholicum “the general principle” (see s.v. catholicum, P.W. Glare (ed.),
Oxford L a tin Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996, p. 285) which was the Nicene Creed. According to T. Honoré Catholici represented “the whole body of the church” (T. Honoré, Law in the Crisis o f E m pire 379-455 AD. The Theodosian D ynasty a nd its Quaestors, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998, p. 5).
17 CTh. 16.1.2 (reliquos vero dem entes vesanosque iudicantes...).
18 G.G. Archi, op. cit., p. 159.
19 CTh. 16.5.6, CTh. 16.5.6.2 (Is autem nicaenae adsertor fidei, catholicae religionis verus cultor accipiendus est...).
20 The constitution CTh. 16.1.2 opens first book of the Justinian Code. The law promulga ted by Theodosius I in 381 (CTh. 16.5.6) comes after. As for the Justinian’s religious policy in relation to fides Catholica see S. Kursa, Ochrona ortodoksyjnej wiary w ustaw odaw stw ie J u sty niana, “Zeszyty Prawnicze UKSW” 2012, z. 12.2, p. 7f.
21 A. Dębiński, U stawodawstwo karne rzym skich cesarzy chrześcijańskich w sprawach religijnych, Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, Lublin 1990, p. 50.
w ho a b a n d o n th e C h ris tia n fa ith - q u i e x c h r i s t i a n i s p a g a n i f a c t i s u n t22), J e w s a n d p a g a n s ( p a g a n i , th o se who c u ltiv a te old R o m an w orship). O u t of th e m th e h e re tic s w ere tr e a te d w ith th e s tro n g e st a g g ressio n . I t m ay be ex p la in e d by th e a w a re n e ss of th e th r e a t c a u se d b y th e h e re tic a l d o ctrin e s to th e ideological u n ity of th e s ta te (a n d th u s also political). L egal la n g u a g e of th e c o n stitu tio n s re flects th is a n x ie ty - th o se w ho d im in ish “tr u e re lig io n ” a re “a u th o rs of s e d itio n ”, “d is tu rb e rs of th e peace of th e C h u rc h ” a n d “d is tu r b e rs of th e C ath o lic fa ith ”23. I t th is w ay th e y also v io late th e d ig n ity p re stig e a n d a u th o rity ( a u c t o r i t a s ) of th e e m p e ro r24. T he n u m b e r of is s u e d a n d p re s e rv e d c o n stitu tio n s d e m o n stra te s th e co ncern of th e R o m an a u th o ritie s over th e p ro b lem of h e re tic s. C o d e x T h e o d o s i a n u s co n tain s 66 c o n s titu tio n s a g a in s t h e re tic s c o m p ared w ith 25 re la te d to p a g a n s a n d o nly 7 re la te d to s c h ism a tic s (b u t i t m u s t be re m e m b e re d t h a t th is p ro p o rtio n s show th e scope of s itu a tio n in th e f ir s t h a lf of th e 5 th c e n tu ry w h e n th e Code w as p ro m u lg a te d )25.
It sh o u ld be also n o ted t h a t d esp ite th e ag g ressiv e, in to le ra n t a n d in s u l tin g ov erto n es of th e law th e orthod ox C h ris tia n ity k e p t th e door o p en for th e r e p e n ta n t sin n e rs. H a r s h in v ectiv es in th e la n g u a g e o f th e law -m a k ers a n d in te lle c tu a ls w ere accom panied b y th e a p p e a ls for p a tie n t a n d g en tle ac tio n s to b rin g h e re tic s, a p o s ta te s a n d p a g a n s b ac k to th e bosom of th e C h u rch . L a c ta n tiu s in h is w ork D i v i n a r u m I n s t i t u t u i o n u m l i b r i V I I recom m en d ed to a c t in m o d e ra tio n a n d p a tie n tly 26. E v en th e ra d ic a l le g isla tio n of T heod osiu s th e G re a t w as in fact o rie n te d to th e re s to r a tio n of th e h e re tic s to th e o rthod ox C h u rc h a n d only in th e case of fa ilu re th e sin n e rs sh o u ld be defin itiv ely s e p a ra te d from th e C h ris tia n society27.
L eg al sources do n o t propose th e ex plicit d efin itio n of th e w ord “h e re tic ” o r “h e re s y ”. S o m etim es th e leg isla tio n u se d th e n a m e of p a r tic u la r h e re s y in o rd e r to c larificatio n 28. In th e y e a r of 395 em p ero rs H o n o riu s a n d A rcad iu s in clu d ed am ong th e h e re tic s all th o se who “d ev iate, ev en in a m in o r p o in t of do ctrin e, from th e te n e ts a n d th e p a th of th e C ath o lic re lig io n ”29. I t is
22 CTh. 16.7.1.
23 CTh. 16.1.4 (ut seditionis auctores pacisque turbatae ecclesiae...) = CTh. 16.4.1 (seditio- n is auctores pacisque turbatae ecclesiae...), CTh. 16.4.3 (et fid em catholicam turbat...).
24 CTh. 16.4.4.
25 See M.R. Salzman, The evidence for the conversion..., p. 375.
26 E. DePalma Digeser, Lactantius, Porphyry, a n d the Debate over Religious Toleration,
“The Journal of Roman Studies” 1998, no. 88. p. 124. On the religious tolerance and intolerance see. A.H. Armstrong, The Way a nd the Ways: religious tolerance a nd intolerance in the fourt century AD , “Vigiliae Christianae” 1984, no. 38, p. 1-17.
27 I. Fargnoli, op. cit., p. 150.
28 M. Wójcik, Szaleństw o A rian... p. 371. See eg. CTh. 16.5.6, CTh. 16.5.11, CTh. 16.5.12, CTh. 16.5.65.
29 See CTh. 16.5.28. The meaning of the word “heretic” was enlarged by Theodosius II (and in consequence by Justinian) through the reception of the constitution promulgated in 380 AD by Theodosius I (CTh. 16.1.2 = C. 1.1.1) and covered also pagans and Jews (A. Dębiński,
difficult to co n sid er th is view as com plete a n d sufficien t d efin itio n esp ecially as it do n o t d is tin g u is h th e h e re tic s from th e sch ism atics (th e difference w hich w as see n by th e co n te m p o ra rie s30).
H e re tic s w ere co n sid ered as a h e tero g en eo u s g ro u p of th e m em b ers of th e co m m u n ities o u tsid e of th e m a in O rthodox C h ris tia n C h u rc h su p p o rte d by th e s ta te . O n th e o th e r h a n d from th e legal p o in t of view th e R om an a u th o ritie s saw th e m as hom ogeneous body a n d th is is a tte s te d by th e g o v ern m e n tal religious policy (for exam ple, th e re is only one title in Codex T h eo d o sian u s devoted to th e v a rio u s h e re tic m o v em en ts)31. A policy w hich re a c h e d its clim ax d u rin g th e re ig n of th e T heodosius th e G reat.
H e re sy as su ch is describ ed a s c r i m e n, s a c r i l e g i u m. T his is d e n o ta tio n of th e crim e in th e leg al se n se 32, fu rth e rm o re by u sin g th e w ord of s a c r i l e g i u m
in a rh e to ric a l fig u res th e h e re tic s w ere s tig m a tiz e d as w icked m en , w ro n g doers, m a l e f i c i e q u a l to tr a ito r s to th e s ta te a n d e m p e ro r (b ecau se of id e n tifi ca tio n of th e c r i m e n l a e s a e m a i e s t a t i s w ith th e crim e of s a c r i l e g i u m in th e R o m an c rim in a l law )33. Som e th e c o n s titu tio n s c o n ta in th e e x p ressio n w hich am plify th e m e a n in g th e w ord o f c r i m e n. Term of s c e l u s is u se d to describe th e c rim in a l ac tiv ity as ex tre m ely atro c io u s34.
Herezja ja ko przestępstw o praw a rzymskiego, [in:] A. Dębiński, H. Kowalski, M. Kuryłowicz (eds.), S a lu s rei publicae..., p. 49; M. Stachura, Foreword to: Codicis Theodosiani Liber Sextus Decimus, p. XXXI). In short heretics follows the “heresy” which is very opposite of the “orthodo xy” (“true”, “correct”, “right”, “appropriate” doctrine). See N. Widok, Ortodoksja, herezja, schi zm a - wyjaśnienie pojęć, [in:] F. Drączkowski, J. Pałucki, P. Szczur, M. Szram, M. Wysocki, M. Ziółkowska, Ortodoksja, herezja, schizm a w kościele starożytnym , Polihymnia, Lublin 2012, p. 16. For more comparison between these two terms see F. Zuccotti, „Furor haereticorum S tu d i su l trattam ento giuridico della follia e sulla persecuzione della eterodossia religiosa nella legislazione del Tardo Im pero Rom ano, Giuffre Editore, Milano 1992, p. 186f.
30 In the early Christian writings words of “heretic” and “schismatic” were used as a synonyms but probably as soon as in the fourth century in the East these two words gained different meaning. See N. Widok, op. cit., p. 29, 32. The difference is visible in the phrases contained in constitutions CTh. 16.5.1 (haereticos autem atque schism aticos...), CTh. 16.5.62
(M anichaeos haereticos schism aticos sive m athem aticos.om nem que sectam catholicis inim i- cam...) and CTh. 16.5.64 (Manichaeos haereticos sive schism aticos om nem que sectam catholicis in im ica m...). Interesting constitution of Arcadius, Honorius and Theodosius II issued in the year of 405 (CTh. 16.6.4) attests the awareness of such distinction: the schism is quite different from heresy (quae, ne haeresis vocaretur, appellationem schism atis praeferebat), but heresy can be born out of the schism (Ita contigit, u t haeresis ex schism ate nasceretur).
31 M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzym skiego..., p. 188
32 Eg. CTh. 16.5.34. A. Barzano (ed.), Il cristianesim o nelle leggi di Rom a imperiale,
Paoline Editoriale Libri, Milano 1996, p. 91. Regarding to the heresy as a crime of sacrilege see A. Dębiński, U stawodawstwo karne rzym skich cesarzy chrześcijańskich..., p. 83f; idem, „Sacrile- g iu m " w praw ie rzym skim , Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, Lublin 1995, p. 168f; idem, Herezja ja ko przestępstw o... , p. 45f.
33 See A. Dębiński, Sacrilegium ..., p. 113f.
34 CTh. 16.5.7, CTh. 16.5.34.1, Nov. Val. 18. Term of scelus emphasizes the inhumanity of the act. In the legal sense there is no dissimilarity between crimen and scelus at least as for the constitutions preserved in the 16th book of the Theodosian Code. See M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 145.
T h e te rm of h a e r e t i c u s is th e inv ective on p a r w ith th e n a m e o f th e specific h e re sy (like th e A ria n s, th e E u n o m ia n s th e M a n ic h a e a n s, P ep yzites, M aced o n ian s e tc .35). In th e c o n stitu tio n from th e y e a r of 381 T h eodosius th e G re a t d ec la red t h a t th e v ery n a m e of th e fo u n d e r o f h e re s y is o m inous as b a d o m en ( p r o d i g i u m ) 36. C h ris tia n s opposed th e n a m e s o f fo u n d e rs of h e re sy to th e N a m e o f C h rist.
As it h a s b ee n m en tio n ed above th e co n stitu tio n s reflect th e fe a r of h e re sies because of th e th r e a t to sec u rity of s ta te a n d public order. A ssem blies
( c o n v e n t u s ) o r com m unities of h eretics w ere co m pared w ith noisy rebellious crow d w hich is accom panied by bu stle, q u arrels, v erbal sk irm ishes an d scuffles. E m p erors V alentinian an d Valens p u t in 372 AD in th e law a g a in st assem blies of M anicheans w ord t u r b a 37. T here w as alw ays a d an g e r of th e tran sfo rm atio n th e qu iet discussion into th e noisy q u a rre l accom panied by th e riots, b u t th e m a in in te n tio n o f th is exp ressio n w as to associate th e h eretics w ith th e savage crow d of aggressive p lu n d ere rs. T he p a rtic ip a n ts of th e h e re tic a l assem blies w ere seen as riotous “d is tu rb e rs ” of th e peace (not only of s ta te b u t also C hurch) w hich ac te d “w ith fla g r a n t a n d d a m n a b le a u d a c ity ”38. P a rtic ip a tio n i n su ch m e e tin g w as co n sid ered as in c ite m e n t to w a rd s th e C ath o lic fa ith a n d society39. A n o th e r law s d escrib ed co n g reg atio n s o f h e re tic s as tu m u ltu o u s 40.
H e re tic s w ere also n a m e d a s im pio us ( p r o f a n u s ) . F o r T h eodosius I th e M a n ic h a e a n s w ere defilers a n d c o rru p te rs of th e C h ris tia n d o ctrin e ( p r o fa - n a t o r a t q u e c o r r u p t o r c a t h o l i c a e d i s c i p l i n a e ) , w ho “leav e th e co m m u n ity of good people” a n d choose “se c re t tu r b u le n t g a th e rin g s ” (s e c r e t a t u r b a). In th e law o f H o n o riu s a n d T heodosius II p ro m u lg a te d in 408 AD h e re tic s are describ ed “a s h o stile to C ath o lic s”4 1 .
Invectiv es w ere ap p lied also in o rd e r to h u m ilia te th e h e re tic a l d o ctri n es. A ccording to th e rh e to ric a l s tru c tu re s th e p ro p a g a tio n a n d te a c h in g of h e re sy b rin g d isc re d it on God ( i m m i n u t i o D e i 42), offend H is m ig h ty n am e a n d in s u lt H is d iv in ity 43. T hey w ere d efined as im p io u s (like th o se o f M
ani-35 CTh. 16.5.11 (id est Eunom iani, A rriani, M acedoniani, P neum atom achi M anichaei, En- cratitae, Apotactitae, Saccofori, H ydroparastatae...), CTh. 16.5.12 (Vitiorum institutio deo atque hom inibus exosa, E unom iana scilicet, A rriana, M acedoniana, A pollinariana ceterarum que sec- tarum ...), see also CTh. 16.5.59 and 16.5.60.
36 CTh. 16.5.6.
37 CTh. 16.5.3 (U bicum que m anichaeorum conventus vel turba huiu sm o d i repperitur...).
38 CTh. 16.1.4 (ut seditionis auctores pacisque turbatae ecclesiae...), CTh. 16.4.2 (Et si quis posthac ausu gravi adque dam nabili contra huiu sm o d i legem veniendum esse crediderit...).
39 CTh.16.4.3 (et fid em catholicam turbat et populum ...).
40 CTh. 16.4.4 and 16.4.5.
41 CTh. 16.5.9pr, CTh. 16.5.42 (Eos, qui catholicae sectae su n t inimici...).
42 CTh. 16.5.5.
43 CTh. 16.5.15 (Omnes diversarum perfidarum que sectarum , quos in deum miserae vesa- nia conspirationis exercet...), CTh. 16.5.26 (audeat coetus illicitos congregare profanaque mente om nipotentis dei contam inare m ysterium ...), Nov. Val. 18 (detestandam d ivin ita s iniuriam ...).
c h a ean s), p ro fan e ( i n s t i t u t i o p r o f a n a44), false ( r e lig i o f a l s a45), vicious ( i n s t i - t u t i o n e f a r i a 46), p erfid io u s (p e r f i d i a)47, p ro fan e te a c h in g ( p r o f a n u m p r a e c e t -
p u m )48, s u p e rstitio n ( s u p e r s t i t i o 49 - so m etim es th e m e a n in g w as am p lified by ad d in g th e adjectives: p e rv e rs e or n e fa rio u s - s u p e r s t i t i o p e r v e r s a , s u p e r s t i t i o n e f a r i a 50), e r ro r (erro r)51. D isse m in a tio n of th e h e re tic a l d o ctrin es w as e q u a te d w ith w id e sp re a d in g p e stilen ce ( p e s t i s)52. In one o f th e c o n stitu tio n s em p ero rs s ta te d t h a t h e re tic s a re h a te fu l to God a n d m a n ( v i t i o r u m i n s t i t u ti o d e o a t q u e h o m i n i b u s e x o s a ) 53. A ccording to th e rh e to ric a l sty le th e y ta k e p a r t in “r itu a l p erfo rm an c e of th e ir ow n p erfid y ” or “cerem onies o f th e ir dire co m m union ”54.
T eachers a n d p ro p a g a to rs o f th e h e re s ie s w ere re fu se d to th e access to th e co m m u n ity of a ll h u m a n - for in s ta n c e by p ro m u lg a tio n of th e law of V a le n tin ia n a n d V alens in 372 AD55. T h ey sh o u ld live - as T heodosius,
44 CTh. 16.5.3. 45 CTh. 16.5.4. 46 CTh. 16.5.5.
47 CTh. 16.5.25, 16.5,63. Perfidia is the antonym of fides and in general sense means the lack of loyalty and untruthfulness. Perfidious person is untrustworthy (see s.v. perfidia, perfi- diosus, perfidus, [in:] P.W. Glare, (ed.), Oxford L a tin Dictionary, p. 1338). Here perfidia means the betrayal of the fides C hristiana. M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 138.
48 CTh. 16.5.24.
49 CTh. 16.5.10 (ad n u lla m tam en ecclesiam haereticae superstitionis turba conveniat...),
CTh. 16.5.34 (Eunom ianae superstitionis clerici...), CTh. 16.5.39 (Donatistae superstitionis ha- ereticos...), CTh. 16.5.51, CTh. 16.5.54, CTh. 16.5.56, CTh. 16.5.65.1, CTh. 16.5.66, Nov. Val 18.
Superstitio meant irrational and unreasoning attitude to religion, religious exaltation (see s.v.
superstitio, [in:] P.W. Glare, (ed.), Oxford L a tin D ictionary, p. 1878; M.R Salzman, “Superstitio" in the Codex Theodosianus an d the persecution o f pagans, “Vigiliae Christianae” 1987, no. 41, p. 173). For Livy superstitio was the perversion (pravitas) hostile to the Roman order which was represented among other things by the traditional worship. In the early Roman empire Christian superstitio threatened to the Pax D eorum and exposed all citizens to the wrath of the Gods. Heretical superstitio was hostile to the late Christian community just as the Christian
superstitio was hostile to the early Roman state of the Nero and Domitian (A. Barzano (ed.), Il cristianesim o nelle leggi..., p. 25f; L. Janssen, op. cit., p. 151f; M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 127). At the turn of the third century this term appeared in the pejorative sense in the technical legal language (with reference to the Jewish faith). During the fourth century its meaning was getting more and more offensive - at first in relation to the paganism (during the reign of the Constantine) and then in relation to each religion different from the orthodox Christianity. Lactantius put the false superstitio in opposition to the true Christian faith (M.R Salzman, “Superstitio"..., p. 174f). In the late antiquity term superstitio was used also in relation to the Jewish religion (D. 50.2.3.3, CTh. 2.1.10, CTh. 12.1.158, CTh. 16.8.24, CTh. 16.8.28). For more detailed survey of term superstitio in the legal language see also M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 169f and the literature cited there.
50 CTh. 16.5.5, CTh. 16.5.48.
51 CTh. 16.5.11 (Omnes omnino, quoscum que diversarum haeresum error exagitat.. '.), CTh. 16.5.20 (Nulla eorum perversitati vel publica conventicula vel latentiora erroribus secreta tribuan- tur), CTh. 16.5.21 (In haereticis erroribus...). Sometimes error was synonym of heresy, see CTh. 16.5.19 (sub cuiuslibet haeresis sive erroris nom ine constituti...).
52 CTh. 16.5.44. 53 CTh. 16.5.12. 54 CTh. 16.5.12. 55 CTh. 16.5.3.
V a le n tin ia n II a n d G ra tia n o rd e red in th e y e a rs o f 384 a n d 388 - fa r aw ay from th e good a n d h o n e s t m en, city w alls (it m u s t be re m e m b e re d t h a t in th e A n tiq u ity “th e city” m e a n t “th e civ iliz atio n ”) a n d co m m u n ity o f th e s a in ts 56. T h e sam e em p ero rs sa id h a r s h ly a b o u t M an ic h a e a n s: “In s h o rt, th e y sh all h av e n o th in g com m on w ith th e w orld” (m ore p recisely it m e a n t pro b ab ly C h ris tia n w orld)57. In th e leg al la n g u a g e it m e a n t b a n is h m e n t (in th e sp h e re of th e public law ) an d d e p riv a tio n of som e rig h ts in th e s p h e re of th e p riv a te law (e.g. t e s t a m e n t i f a c t i o a c t i v a ) . T he te c h n ic a l sen se o f th e s e law s w ere covered by rh e to ric a l invective w h ich b ra n d e d h e re tic s as o u tc a s t of th e C h ris tia n society.
T h ro u g h th e u se of th e in v ectiv es leg isla to rs th re w d o u b t on th e m e n ta l ab ilitie s of th e h e re tic s. A ccording to th e offensive ex p ressio n s th e y re m a in e d in th e s ta te of m e n ta l w e a k n e ss w h ich is d escrib ed as d e m e n t i a h a e r e t i c o - r u m 5 8 , f u r o r59, f u r o r r e l i g i o n i s 6 0 , i n s a n i a h a e r e t i c o r u m 61 or v e s a n i a 62. D e m e n t i a is a s ta te of m e n ta l confusion ca u sed by s tu b b o rn re m a in in g in e r r o r, th e foolishness cau sed by th e p o llu te d m in d 63, th e “d e ra n g e m e n t of th e m in d ”64. F u r o r is a s ta te o f to ta l confusion ca u sed by s tru g g le b etw e en irra tio n a l p a ssio n a n d in te lle c t in w hich th is l a t t e r w as d efe a te d 65. T he h e re tic a l f u r o r is also a s ta te of b lin d an d a rro g a n t t r u s t in th e pow er r a tio n a lis tic m in d t h a t ca u se m isg u id a n ce66. I t a p p e a rs t h a t so m etim es d e m e n t i a a n d f u r o r w ere sy n o n y m s67.
E x ce lle n t ex a m p le of p erfec tly c o n stru c te d in vectiv e is th e c o n s titu tio n o f T heodosius th e G re a t w hich w as p ro m u lg a te d in 381 AD j u s t before th e C h ris tia n O rthodox C ouncil a t C o n sta n tin o p le 68. I t defen d ed th e N icene C reed a n d w as aim ed a t h e re sie s - by its pro vision s th e h e re tic asse m b lies w ere p ro h ib ite d an d th e h e re tic cu lts s tig m a tiz e d . In th is law th e su g g estio n
56 CTh. 16.5.13 (in aliis locis viva n t ac p en itu s a bonorum congressibus separentur...), CTh. 16.5.14 (Apollinarianos ceterosque diversarum haeresum sectatores ab om nibus locis iube- m us inhiberi, a m oenibus urbium , a congressu honestorum , a com m unione sanctorum ...).
57 CTh. 16.5.18 (N ihil ad su m m u m h is sit com m une cum mundo...).
58 CTh. 16.5.24, see CTh. 5.16.32 “foolishness of Eunominas” (dem entia E unom ianorum ).
59 CTh. 16.5.31, 16.5.32; in both constitutions: quorum furor ta n tu m su a sit errorem...; see also CTh. 16.5.60. Term furor appears also in early Christian writings - for example in relation to the “madness of Arius” (M. Wójcik, Szaleństw o A rian..., p. 360). Arians were styled by Ambrosius as mad or foolish men (ibidem, p. 367).
60 CTh. 16.5.25. 61 CTh. 16.5.65 pr.
62 CTh. 16.5.15, CTh. 16.5.25.
63 CTh. 16.5.6 pr (nulla a d exercendam a n im i obstinatioris dem entiam p a tea t occasio),
CTh. 16.5.26 (eorumque sanctissim a nom ina po llu tis m entibus usurpare).
64 See s.v. dem entia, [in:] P.W. Glare (ed.), Oxford L a tin Dictionary, p. 511.
65 M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 125f. For more explanation of the term see ibidem, p. 124-131.
66 Ibidem, p. 130.
67 See CTh. 16.5.32, where dem entia is equal to furor.
a p p e a r t h a t h e re tic s are d iffe re n t k in d of m e n . T he scorn fu l p h ra s e “th is k in d of m e n ” ( h u i u s m o d i h o m i n u m g e n u s) d istin c tly d is tin g u is h th o se d riv en by f u r o r h a e r e t i c o r u m from C h ris tia n s . I t is w o rth to n o te t h a t in a n o th e r la w 69 th is “o th e r k in d of m e n ” is opposed to o rth od ox C h ris tia n co m m un ity called sim ply “a good m e n ” (b o n i). T h u s we h av e h e re sim ply d istin c tio n b e tw e e n good a n d evil, m o ra l a n d u n m o ra l. N ex t com es th e rh e to ric a l con s tru c tio n by w hich e m p e ro r e x p resses h is ex ten siv e d isg u st a t “c o n ta m in a tio n o f th e P h o tin ia n 70 p estilen ce , th e poison71 o f th e A ria n sacrileg e, crim e of th e E u n o m ia n 72 perfidy, a n d th e s e c ta ria n m o n stro sitie s, ab o m in ab le b e ca u se of th e ill-om ened n a m e s of th e ir a u th o rs ”73. H e re sy is sin iste r, p o llu te d a n d d a n g e ro u s lik e a venom of sn a k e . T he co n tac t of th e C h ris tia n w ith th e h e re tic is as d a n g e ro u s as co n tac t w ith th e v ip e r o r w ith th e in fe c te d by th e p la g u e 74. H e re th e s tro n g c o n tra s t is visib le b e tw e e n h e re tic a l o u tc a st a n d orthodo x C h ris tia n w ho is describ ed as “a d efen d er of th e N icene fa ith a n d as a tru e a d h e re n t of th e C ath o lic religion who confess t h a t A lm igh ty God a n d C h ris t th e S on of God a re O ne in n a m e , God of God, L ig h t o f L ig h t, who does n o t v io late by d e n ia l th e H oly S p irit w h ich we hope for a n d receive from th e S u p re m e A u th o r of th in g s; t h a t m a n who e ste e m s, w ith th e p e rc e p tio n of in v io la te fa ith , th e u n d iv id ed su b sta n c e of th e in c o rru p t T rinity...”75.
Im p e ria l c o n stitu tio n s a g a in s t p a g a n s w ere le ss h a r s h in th e v e rb a l an d le g a l co n tex t. T he range a n d in te n s ity of th e in s u lts w ere n o t so la rg e as in th e case of th e h e re tic s. In th e la te fo u rth c e n tu ry th e b e lie f in th e old R om an gods w as no t a crim e. A crim e w as only th e sacrifice offered to th e gods a n d p a rtic ip a tio n in som e tra d itio n a l cerem onies (like a u s p i c i a ) . T he religious policy to w ard s th e p a g a n s focused m ain ly on th e places of cult, tem p les an d sh rin e s a n d a n o th e r m a n ife sta tio n s of p a g a n w orship. As M. S ta c h u ra says th e R om an law c re a te d th e category of th e “q u ie t p a g a n s ” w ho liv es i n accordance w ith th e law . H ow ever, a s M . S a lz m a n p o in ts o ut, th e in te n tio n of th e to ta l
69 CTh. 16.5.11.
70F otiniani were followers of the doctrine of Fotinus, bishop of Sirmium. A. Barzano (ed.), Il cristianesim o nelle leggi..., p. 365; Codicis Theodosiani Liber Sextus Decim us, p. 43*, note D.
71 The word of “venom” (venenum ) is more appropriate because of the association with snake or viper.
72 An extreme Arian sect. A. Barzano (ed.), I l cristianesim o nelle leggi..., p. 365; Codicis Theodosiani Liber Sextus Decim us, p. 44*, note A.
73 CTh. 16.5.6.1 (Fotinianae labis contam inatio, A rria n i sacrilegii venenum , Eunom ianae perfidiae crimen et nefanda m onstruosis nom inibus auctorum prodigia sectarum ab ipso etiam
aboleantur a u d itu).
74 As for the rare comparison of the heretics with venomous snakes and vipers see M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., pp. 77, 132-133.
75 CTh. 16.5.6.2 (Is autem Nicaenae adsertor fidei, catholicae religionis verus cultor acci- p ien d u s est, qui om nipotentem deum et C hristum filiu m dei uno nom ine confitetur, deum de deo, lum en ex lum ine: qui spiritum sanctum , quem ex sum m o rerum parente speram us et accipimus, negando non violat: a p u d quem intemeratae fid ei sensu viget incorruptae trin ita tis indivisa su b sta n tia...).
conversion w as h id d e n b e h in d th e offensive la n g u a g e 76. A t th e b e g in n in g of th e fo u rth c e n tu ry th e a u th o ritie s ’ policy w as re la tiv e ly m o d e ra te 77. In th e course of y e a rs th e m ore d isc rim in a tiv e a p p ro a c h a p p e a re d - th e p a g a n s w ere d e b a rre d from m i l i t i a a r m a t a a n d m i l i t i a c o h o r t a l i s ( p a l a t i n a ) , in th e s ix th c e n tu ry th e y lo st am on g o th e r t e s t a m e n t i a c t i o78.
D e sp ite th e fa ct t h a t p a g a n s w ere n o t th e object of th e sev ere a g g re s sion, th e leg al la n g u a g e tr e a te d th e m w ith som e co n tem p t. T he te rm p a g a - n u s describ es th e m a n w ho lives in th e co u n try sid e a n d it h a s p ejo rativ e co n n o ta tio n - in th e w orld of a n tiq u ity th e re w as a c le a r o pp ositio n b etw e en to w n co m m u n ity a n d th e c o u n try dw ellers. In th is co n tex t th e p a g a n u s who lived on th e o u ts k irts of civ ilizatio n w as co n sid ered as a n u n civ ilized sim p le ton. T he offensive c h a ra c te r of w ord o f p a g a n u s is visible on th e social b ackg round. In th e la te fo u rth c e n tu ry tra d itio n a l R o m an cults w ere still su p p o rted to som e e x te n t by th e elite of th e R om an society, especially by m em b ers of se n a to ria l o rd e r in Rome a n d p o t e n t i o r e s in th e w est o f E m p ire 79.
T h e old w o rsh ip is d escrib ed as s u p e rs titio n ( p a g a n a s u p e r s t i t i o ) - b u t only w ith re fere n ce to th e p a g a n sacrifice a n d rite s , as in th e law o f 320 AD a n d of 323 AD80. By p ro m u lg a tio n th is fo rm e r C o n s ta n tin e d e b a rre d th e
h a r u s p i c e s from th e religious life of R om an. T his l a t t e r fo rb ad e to com pel th e C h ris tia n s to p erfo rm an c e o f lu s tr a l sacrifice - d escrib ed h e re as r i t u s a li e - n a e s u p e r s i t i o n i s81. O nly so m etim es te rm s u p e r s t i t i o re la te s in g e n e ra l to th e p a g a n re lig io n s82. F o r ex a m p le c o n s titu tio n of T heodosius I o f 381 AD83 c o n ta in p h ra s e “m a d a n d sac rile g io u s” ( v e s a n u s a c s a c r i l e g u s ) in o rd e r to d escrib e th e p a g a n who offer th e sacrifice to th e old gods, b u t th is is still less
76 M.R Salzman, The evidence for the conversion... , p. 368; M. Stachura, Wrogowie po rzą d k u rzymskiego..., p. 191.
77 As for the policy of Constantine and his successors towards pagans see. T. D. Barnes,
C hristians a nd Pagans in the Reign o f Constantius, [in:] F. Vittinghoff, E. P. Meijering, W.H.C. Frend and others (eds.), L ’Eglise et l’E m pire au IVe siècle, Genève 1989, p. 322f; R.M. Errington,
C onstantine a nd the Pagans, “Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies” 1988, no. 29.3, p. 309f. 78 A.H.M. Jones, The L ater R om an E m pire 284-602. A social economic a nd adm inistrative survey, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1964, p. 938.
79 One of the most eminent representatives of paganism in the West was Symmachus. As for the pagan senators see M. Piechocka-Kłos, Chrześcijanie i poganie. R o zkła d sil w senacie rzym skim p od koniec I V wieku, “Studia Warmińskie” 2013, no. 50, p. 285f. See also I. Fargnoli, op. cit., p. 154; A.H.M. Jones, The Social B ackground o f the Struggle between P aganism and C hristianity, [in:] A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism a n d C hristianity in the Fourth Century, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1963, p. 18f; idem, The L ater R om an E m pire 284 602... , p. 938-943.
80 CTh. 9.16.1, CTh. 16.2.5.
81 As for the prohibition of the sacrifice which were treated as superstitio see also law of Constantine promulgated in 341 AD (CTh. 16.10.2) moreover those of Theodosius (CTh. 16.10.12.2, 392 AD), Arcadius and Honorius (CTh. 16.10.18, 399 AD).
82 As in the law promulgated in 353 AD (CTh. 16.10.5), 395 AD (CTh. 2.8.22) 399 AD (CTh. 16.10.16) and in 415 AD (CTh. 16.10.20).
offensive th a n te rm f u r i o s u s u s e d w ith re fere n ce to th e h eretics. T he te rm of
h o s t i s f i d e i C h r i s t i a n a e a p p e a rs in th e c o n s titu tio n o f V a le n tin ia n III (445 AD) to w a rd s M a n ic h a e a n s 84 - th e y a re sty led a s h o stile to C h ris tia n fa ith a n d public o rd e r85.
C o n c lu sio n s
S tu d y o f M. S ta c h u ra on th e invective in th e la te a n tiq u ity show t h a t th e v e rb a l ag g ressio n re la te d m a in ly to th e h eretics. T hey w ere th e m o st con d em n ed social g ro u p in th e C h ris tia n R o m an e m p ire 86. T he ab u siv e la n g u age w as u se d n o t only to stig m a tiz e th e m as th e en e m ie s o f th e p ub lic order, b u t also to d istin g u is h th e m from th e C h ris tia n com m unity. By th e c re a tio n of th e visible division in to “good m e n ” a n d “m a d m e n ” th e em p ero rs trie d to d isa rm th e d a n g e ro u s pow er of th e h e re tic a l d octrin es. Im p e ria l c o n s titu tio n s w hich a re devoted to th e religious issu e s h av e c re a te d s a c r i l e g i u m as a religious crim e, b u t also h av e d ivided th e R o m an co m m u n ity a n d h ave assig n e d th e h e re tic s a n d a p o s ta te s to th e place on th e o u ts k irts of th e co m m u n ity o f “good m e n ”. W h e n T heodosius I o rd e re d to expel h e re tic s an d th e ir m a d n e ss o u tsid e th e w alls of th e cities (C Th. 16.5.6.3, a n d CTh. 16.5.14), h e sym bolically rem oved “a n o th e r k in d o f m e n ” from th e civilized com m unity. I t m u s t be re m e m b e re d t h a t h e re sie s ra is e d d is p u te s a n d q u a r re ls w h ich so m etim es ca u sed religio us reb ellio n s. In th is w ay th e h e resies h av e u n d e rm in e d th e u n ity of th e C h ris tia n w orld. T h u s th e h a r s h an d offensive form s of co m m u n icatio n s a re m ore u n d e rs ta n d a b le as th e only w ay of dialo gue w ith th e en e m y w ith in .
S tr e s z c z e n ie
A g resja ję zy k o w a w te k sta c h a k tó w p ra w n y c h z okresu pó źn eg o ce sa rstw a rzym skiego n a p r z y k ła d z ie k o n stytu cji zach ow an ych
w 16 k sięd ze Codex Theodosianus
Słowa kluczowe: herezja, pogaństwo, Codex Theodosianus, późne cesarstwo rzymskie, wczesne chrześcijaństwo.
C ech ą c h a ra k te ry s ty c z n ą późnego c e s a rs tw a rzym skieg o je s t se ria fu n d a m e n ta ln y c h zm ia n w o bszarze p olityki, a d m in is tra c ji, ekonom ii i życia społecznego. P rz e m ia n y w życiu relig ijn y m w zb u d zały najw ięcej k o n tro w e rsji
84 Nov. Val. 18. M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 83. It is interesting that Manicheans are styled as pagans and their religion as pagan superstition (superstitio p a g a n is).
85 Nov. Val. 18 (inim ica publicae disciplinae et hostis fidei C hristianae...). 86 M. Stachura, Wrogowie porządku rzymskiego..., p. 202, 205.
i w sposób n ajb ard ziej is to tn y zm ien iły oblicze I m p e r i u m R o m a n u m . N a p ię cia i ta rc ia społeczne n a tle re lig ijn y m n a siliły się d ra sty c z n ie w m om encie, gdy re lig ia c h rz e śc ija ń sk a o sią g n ę ła s ta tu s „państw ow ej” i zaczęła przyciągać uw ag ę c e sarsk iej władzy. Je d n o ść re lig ijn a sta n o w iła d la rz y m sk ich cesarzy ch rz e śc ija ń sk ic h isto tn y problem . W o k resie pom iędzy IV a VI w. podjęli oni sze reg d z ia ła ń m ający ch n a celu u trz y m a n ie spójności ideologicznej do gm a tów re lig ii ch rześc ijań sk ie j. W iele w yd an y ch w ty m czasie reg u la cji p ra w n y ch m iało c h a r a k te r dyskrym inacyjn y, m .in. n a g ru n c ie p ra w a p ry w a tn eg o (np. za k a z sp o rz ą d z a n ia te s ta m e n tu przez herety k ó w ) i publicznego (w ty m k a r nego - j a k sk lasy fik o w a n ie h erezji ja k o p rz e stę p stw o s a c r i l e g i u m ) . P rze k az w z m a cn ian y był p rzez zasto so w an ie n ac echo w any ch a g re s ją sform ułow ań, k tó re sty g m aty zo w ały za ch o w a n ia sprzeczne z w izją sp ołeczeń stw a rz ą d z o n e go p rzez je d y n ą p ra w d z iw ą religię. W n in iejszy m a rty k u le a u to r b a d a sk alę i in ten sy w n o ść ag re sji językow ej w ję z y k u p ra w a w k o n tek ście społecznym i histo ry czn y m . A nalizie p o d d an e zo stały c e sa rsk ie k o n sty tu cje zachow ane w 16 k sięd ze K odeksu Teodozjańskiego ze szczególnym u w z g lę d n ie n iem t y t u łu 5 (O h e r e t y k a c h ) i 10 (O p o g a n a c h , o f i a r a c h i ś w i ą t y n i a c h ) .
