No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 November 2014
1 I am told that both the editors and the contributors are blameless in this matter and that the excessive delay is due to the collapse of the original publication arrangements and the necessity of finding a new publisher.
2 “ Provinciales, gentiles, and marriages between Romans and barbarians,” JRS 99 (2009) 140-55Google Scholar.
3 See Mommsen, Th., Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis 1.2 (Berlin 1904) 10-11 and 126-66Google Scholar.
4 These interpretationes were added c.A.D. 500 by the compilers to those laws of the Theodosian Code that they included in the Breviarium Alarici: see Matthews, J. F., “Interpreting the interpretationes of the Breviarium ,” in Mathisen, R. W. (ed.), Law, society and authority in late antiquity (Oxford 2001) 11–32 Google Scholar.
5 Emended from the transmitted theodorum.
6 That is, May 28 in either 370 or 373: the imperial brothers were consuls together for the third time in 370 and for a fourth in 373, but it is impossible to decide in which of these two years the law was issued, since Theodosius was promoted magister equitum in 369 (Amm. Marc. 28.3.9) and retained this title until his execution in the winter of 375/376 (the evidence is collected in PLRE 1 [1971] 902-4, s.v. Theodosius 3). Since Theodosius participated in campaigns against the Alamanni and Alani and on the Danube before being sent to N Africa to suppress the rebellion of Firmus, it is also impossible to decide where he was when he received the law.
7 Pharr, C., with Davidson, T. S. and Pharr, M. B., The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Princeton, NJ 1952) 76 Google Scholar.
8 See now Pferdehirt, B. and Scholz, M., “Die Gründe für die Constitutio Antoniniana und ihre langfristigen Folge,” in Mathisen, R. W. (edd.), Bürgerrecht und Krise. Die Constitutio Antoniniana 212 n.Chr. und ihre innenpolitischen Folgen (RGZM Mainz 2012) 85-88 and 100 Google Scholar. On the date of Caracalla’s Edict (approximately September A.D. 212), see Barnes, T. D., “The date of the Constitutio Antoniniana once more,” Mathisen, R. W. (edd.), Bürgerrecht und Krise. Die Constitutio Antoniniana 212 n.Chr. und ihre innenpolitischen Folgen (RGZM Mainz 2012) 51-52 and 95 Google Scholar, arguing from Tituli Asiae Minoris 5.1.122 (first published by Herrmann, P., “Überlegungen zur Datierung der ‘Constitutio Antoniniana’,” Chiron 2 [1972] 519-30)Google Scholar.
9 So too does Lee, A. D., From Rome to Byzantium AD 363 to 565. The transformation of ancient Rome (Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome, 2013) 131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Contrast, for example, the attempt by Sivan, H. S. (“Why not marry a barbarian? Marital frontiers in late antiquity: the example of CTh 3.14.1,” in Mathisen, R. W. and Sivan, H. S. [edd.], Shifting frontiers in late antiquity [Aldershot 1996] 135-45)Google Scholar to date the law to A.D. 373 and to connect it with Theodosius’ campaigns in N Africa.
10 My translation modifies slightly that offered by Mathisen, (at JRS 99 [2009] 140)Google Scholar.
11 On the use and meaning of barbarus in the post-Roman law codes, see Chauvot, A., “Approche juridique de la notion de barbare,” in Rouche, M. and Dumézil, B. (edd.), Le Bréviaire d’Alaric. Aux origines du Code civil (Paris 2009) 27–40 Google Scholar. He argues (27-28) that the interpretatio of CTh 3.14.1 “voit une amplification de l’usage de barbarus par rapport au texte initial”.
12 Matthews, J., Laying down the law. A study of the Theodosian Code (New Haven, CT 2000) especially 264 and 269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Corcoran, S., “A tetrarchic inscription from Corcyra and the Edictum de Accusationibus,” ZPE 141 (2002) 221-30Google Scholar.
14 See the strictures of Sealey, R. (“The great earthquake in Lacedaemon,” Historia 6 [1957] 368-71)Google Scholar on the chronology of the Third Messenian War proposed by Hammond, N. G. L. (“Studies in Greek chronology of the sixth and the fifth centuries B.C.,” Historia 4 [1955] at 371-81)Google Scholar. The following observations by Sealey are particularly pertinent to the Edictum de accusationibus and its two attested dates: “Wherever the evidence offers two divergent accounts of the same event, it is theoretically possible that two events took place. … In particular applications this method may be tempting, but once its general purport is appreciated, it will be rejected. It solves every problem by solving none” (368).
15 Potter, D., Constantine the emperor (New York 2013) 175 Google Scholar. Potter supports his unconvincing postulate in a rambling endnote (331-32 n.13) where he strangely fails to cite Corcoran’s article of 2002 (also missing from his bibliography).
16 See Barnes, T. D., “The Theodosian Code and the personality of Constantine,” JRA 26 (2013) at 892-93Google Scholar, reviewing Dillon, J. N., The justice of Constantine: law, communication and control (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The opening sentence of that review misreports the middle name of Timothy Gordon Barnes, for which I apologise most profusely.
17 Note Bonfils, G. De, “La legislazione di Valentiniano e Valente,” Index: Quaderni Camerti di studi romanistici 24 (1996) 393–406 Google Scholar; Bonfils, G. De, “La legislazione di Valentiniano e Valente,” Omnes … ad implenda munia teneantur. Ebrei curie e prefetture fra IV e V secolo (Bari 1998) 74–75, n.55Google Scholar. The former is a review article, in which Bonfils (398, 405 n.42) scolds Pergami, F. (in La legislazione di Valentiniano e Valente [364-375] [Milan 1993])Google Scholar for his failure to cite Libanius in connection with CTh 4.6.4.
18 See, e.g., Barnes, T. D., “From toleration to repression: the evolution of Constantine’s religious policies,” SCI 21 (2002) 189–207 Google Scholar.
19 For earlier translations of this passage, see Norman, A. F., Libanius’ Autobiography (Oration I) (London 1965) 85 Google Scholar; Barnes (supra n.18) 191. My interpretation diverges from Norman’s on one significant point: the run of the sentence seems to me to identify the subject of the verb ᾔσθετo as Valens, not Libanius’ Τύχη, as Norman assumes, since at this point Libanius has not yet invoked his Fortune.
20 Norman (supra n.19) 191: “the chronological order of the work demands that this edict should be C.Th. 4.6.4 of A.D. 371”.
21 Pharr et al. (supra n.7) 86-87. On the contributions of others to this translation, see Hall, L. J., “Clyde Pharr, the women of Vanderbilt, and the Wyoming judge: the story behind the translation of the Theodosian Code in mid-century America,” Roman Legal Tradition 8 (2012) 1–42 Google Scholar.
22 Pharr translates “he should have begotten natural children”, but the Latin susceperit surely refers primarily to the acknowledgement by the father that a new-born child is his (OLD 1888, s.v. suscipio 4a).
23 The Turin palimpsest preserves the law in a lacunose state, but its intent is clear in its first sentence (Le[gibus] Constantini et genitoris nostri praeceptis edoc[ti prae]cipimus, ut exclusis naturalibus filiis ad fiscum tr[ansfe]ratur, quod ab ipsorum persona decidit), which Pharr [87] translates as: “Instructed by the laws of Constantine and by the ordinances of our father, we command that natural children shall be excluded, and all property shall be transferred to the fisc in so far as it becomes caducous as a consequence of their legal status”. In the present context there is no point in quibbling over the precise meaning of decidit, since it does not impinge in any way on the law’s exclusion of bastards from inheriting.
24 Gualandi, G., “Privilegi imperiali e dualità legislativa nel Basso Impero alla luce di alcuni testi di Libanio,” Archivio giuridico “Philippo Serafini” 156 (1959) especially 19-21 and 26–30 Google Scholar.
25 Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (Oxford 1964) 472-73Google Scholar.
26 Millar, F. G. B., A Greek Roman Empire: power and belief under Theodosius II, 408-450 (Berkeley, CA 2006) 5 Google Scholar.
27 Zuckerman, C., “Two reforms of the 370s: recruiting soldiers and senators in the divided empire,” RÉByz 58 (1998) 79–139 Google Scholar; Errington, R. M., Roman imperial policy from Julian to Theodosius (Chapel Hill, NC 2006) 79–110 Google Scholar.
28 Libanius also appears to be ignored in the long study by Lepore, E., “Un problema ancora aperto: i rapporti legislativi fra Oriente e Occidente nel tardo impero romano,” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 66 (2000) 343-98Google Scholar, despite S. Pietrini’s discussion (“Sui rapporti legislativi fra Oriente e Occidente nel tardo impero romano,” ibid. 54 [1998] at 523-24) of its relevance to Valens’ acceptance of his brother’s change in the law.
29 On Cimon, who was also called Arabius, see Seeck, O., Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geordnet. Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F. 15.1-2 (Leipzig 1906) 81–82 Google Scholar, s.v. Arabius II; PLRE 1 (1971) 92–93 Google Scholar, s.v. Arabius.
30 For Valens’ movements, see Barnes, T. D., Ammianus and the representation of historical reality (Ithaca, NY 1998) 247-54Google Scholar.
31 Matthews, J. F., “The making of the text,” in Harries, J. and Wood, I. (edd.), The Theodosian Code: studies in the imperial law of late antiquity (London 1993) 19–44 Google Scholar; Sirks, A. J. B., “The sources of the Code,” in Harries, J. and Wood, I. (edd.), The Theodosian Code: studies in the imperial law of late antiquity (London 1993) 45–67 Google Scholar; Matthews (supra n.12) 55-84; Sirks, , The Theodosian Code: a study (Friedrichsdorf 2007) 109-77Google Scholar. Let me note here that Sirks’ book exists in two editions which both state their place and date of publication as “Friedrichsdorf, 2007”: the earlier, which is full of misprints, was published by the “Éditions du Quatorze Septembre”, while the later corrects the misprints, adds additional paragraphs, and appeared in the series Studia Amstelodamensia 39, published by the “Éditions Tortuga”.
32 Salway, B., “The publication and application of the Theodosian Code. NTh 1, the Gesta senatus, and the constitutionarii,” MEFRA 125.2 (2013) 1–40 (see http://mefra.revues.org/1754 at §29)Google Scholar.
33 Matthews (supra n.12) vii.
34 Harries, J., “Legal culture and identity in the fifth-century West,” in Mitchell, S. and Greatrex, G. (edd.), Ethnicity and culture in late antiquity (London 2000) at 48 Google Scholar.
35 Sirks (supra n.31, revised edn.) 198-214.
36 On this man’s career, see PLRE 2 (1980) 452-54Google Scholar, s.v. Faustus 8, with Orlandi, S., Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente romano. VI. Roma. Anfiteatri e strutture annesse con una nuova edizione e commento delle iscrizioni del Colosseo (Vetera 13, 2004) 28 Google Scholar (on CIL VI 32090).
37 Atzeri, L., “ Gesta senatus Romani de Theodosiano publicando: the session of the Roman Senate in 438 A.D. and the introduction of the Codex Theodosianus in the West,” in Sirks, B. (ed.), Aspects of law in late antiquity dedicated to A. M. Honoré on the occasion of the sixtieth year of his teaching in Oxford (All Souls College, Oxford; privately printed 2008) 15–33 Google Scholar; Gesta senatus Romani de Theodosiano publicando. Il Codice Teodosiano e la sua diffusione ufficiale in Occidente (Berlin 2009)Google Scholar. No-one before Atzeri appears to have commented on either the oddity, not to say impropriety, of the senate meeting on Christmas Day, or the implication of a remarkably long delay before the Code was presented to the senate.
38 Salway (supra n.33) §28.