Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:04:02.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individuality in the Imperial Constitutions: Hadrian and the Antonines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Wynne Williams
Wynne Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Classics, University of Keele
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A considerable number of texts of official pronouncements of Roman emperors (which will be referred to, rather inaccurately, as constitutions, for the sake of brevity) have been preserved on inscriptions, in papyri and in the writings of the classical jurists and the imperial Codes. Such texts provide the kind of documentary evidence which is regarded by historians of more recent periods as primary material, as narrative histories and biographies are not. Such rigour is not possible in Roman history, but it is clearly desirable to make the best use of these documents, especially in a period such as that between Hadrian and Commodus, when they are especially plentiful but, as far as literary sources go, there is not even the doubtful light of a panegyric to supplement the glimmerings of an epitome. But the kind of use to which they are put depends on the question of their authorship: are they to be treated as the work of the individual emperors in whose names they were issued, or of a civil service which continued to operate in much the same way while emperors came and went? The latter hypothesis has commonly been taken for granted until recently, even if not explicitly stated and argued for. In 1967 Millar showed that all the external descriptions of the methods of work of the emperors took it for granted that the emperors normally dealt in person with problems presented to them and produced the constitutions issued in their names themselves: hence those who wished to uphold the second hypothesis described above would have to prove that ‘vast ranges of imperial business were handled by the bureaux in private, systematically concealed from the view of our literary sources.’

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 66 , November 1976 , pp. 67 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Wynne Williams 1976. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A constitution is strictly not a type of document but any utterance, oral or written, of an emperor, which can be taken as a binding precedent in law (Gaius i. 5; Ulpian, Dig. i. 4. 1. 1). Not all written documents issued in the emperor's name contained what would be regarded as constitutions, but it is a convenient term to use to cover all the different kinds of documents issued by emperors, which in fact were the main sources of constitutions in the strict sense, and it will be used here to avoid any clumsy periphrasis such as ‘official pronouncements in a written form’.

2 e.g., Elton, G. R., Political History, Principles and Practice (1970), 72–81Google Scholar, and especially the comments on p. 74.

3 JRS lvii (1967), 19. This view is supported with fuller arguments in Millar's book, The Emperor in the Roman World, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me to see and to refer to the relevant passages in advance of publication.

4 Most recently, an epistle of Marcus to Miletus (see nn. 90–1 below).

5 JRS lii (1962), 114–30 = The Letters of Pliny, 536–46.

6 The Letters of Pliny, 544; Millar pointed out that in a private letter (Epp. x. 7 and 10) Pliny repeated the terms of a letter from Trajan (JRS lviii (1968), 223).

7 For the distinction between edicts of universal and of local application see ZPE xvii, 43–8; cf. Millar, , The Emperor, 252–9Google Scholar, but he is more cautious about the representative nature of our sample (p. 257, ‘we can only surmise, but cannot firmly conclude, that general edicts were in fact a relatively minor part of imperial business’).

8 See Millar, op. cit., 363–4; 375–85.

9 See Historia xvi (1967), 471–2, 474–5.

10 Only one case of the ‘forwarding’ formula survives from a later date than Pius' reign (AE 1926. 95 = IGBulg. ii. 659).

11 For cases of the former procedure, see ZPE xvii, 58–62, and for the latter, JRS lxiv (1974), 93–8.

12 Millar, op. cit., 242, cites the only evidence for discussion between the emperor and petitioners, three anecdotes in the Sententiae Hadriani (Corp, Gloss. Lot. iii, p. 31, 11. 45 ff. = p. 387, ll. 22 ff.; p. 32, ll. 33 ff. = p. 387, ll. 47 ff.; p. 34, ll. 6 ff. = p. 388, ll. 48 ff.). In general, one would have supposed that the rambling verbosity of the petitions which have survived made it impractical to have them read out in the emperor's presence (see CIL viii. 10570 = FIRAi2 103, cols. 2–3; IGBulg. iv. 2236, ll. 8–165; CIL iii. 14191 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 141, ll. 5–34; and idem., nos. 142–4). On the other hand, it might well have taken almost as long to bring these often humble and perhaps awestruck petitioners to the point, if they were invited to express their request orally.

13 Dig. xlii. 1. 33, ‘exemplum libelli dati mihi a Iulio Tarentino mitti tibi iussi’ (the rest is quoted in n. 23); xlviii. 6. 6, ‘exemplum libelli dati mihi a Domitio Silvano nomine Domitii Silvani patrui subici iussi’ (the rest in n. 80), and P. Rendel Harris 67 (quoted in n. 81 below).

14 Aufstieg u. Niedergang d. rom. Welt II (forthcoming).

15 See Kunkel, W., Herkunft u. soziale Stellung d. rom. Juristen2, 174–6, 222–4, 224–9 and 246Google Scholar.

16 JRS lxiv (1964), 92–3; Millar, op. cit., 240 f.

17 P. Tebtunis 286 = FIRA iii. 100. ll. 4–9: [κ]αὶ π[ρ]ώην σοι ἀπεφηνάμην ὄτι τὸ ἐ[π]ίκριμά μου βοηθεἴ [σ]οι [κ]αὶ [τὴν] Φιλωτέραν δὲ οἴμαι κρατίστην οὖσαν καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ἀ[ρίστῳ] ἐμοὶ γνωρίμην οὐδέν σε ἀδικήσειν καὶ μάλιστα εἰδ[υἴαν] ὅτι νομὴ ἄδικος [οὐ]δὲν εἰσχύει, σὺ δὲ περὶ τῶν οὐ ζη[τ]ουμένων ἐνοχλεῖ〈ν〉 μοι θέλεις ἔχων τὸν ἐπίτροπον [τ]οῦ {τοῦ} δανιστοῦ ὄς ἀποκαταστήσει σοι τὰ σώματα. This text is described in l. 1 as an apokrima, a term used in P. Columbia 123 to describe imperial subscripts to petitions, while the earlier imperial decision had taken the form of an epikrima, that is of a decretum pronounced at the end of a judicial hearing. See Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Am. Stud. Pap. xiii), 126–31Google Scholar.

18 Dio lxix. 6. 3, and JRS lxiv (1974), 86, nn. 1–2.

19 Dig. xxvii. 1.15.17: ‘Si…pater autem eius…in hoc artificio perseveravit, existimo te huic fraudi recte occursurum, ut et filius et ipse ad tutelam liberorum Clementis gerendam compellantur.’

20 Dig. xxii. 5. 3. 3. The proconsul was Iunius Rufinus (PIR 2 I 805).

21 This fact strengthens the argument for regarding the section of the epistle quoted in the Digest, at least, as Hadrian's own work: a secretary would surely be less likely to refer in such detail to a matter which was no direct concern of the person being addressed.

22 ‘Quibus apud me locus non est (nam ipsos interrogare soleo)…’.

23 Dig. xlii. 1. 33: ‘tu, si tibi probaverit conspiratione adversariorum et testibus pecunia corruptis oppressum se, et rem severe vindica, et, si qua a iudice tam malo exemplo circumscripto iudicata sunt, in integrum restitue.’

24 cf. Trajan's remark, ‘in universum a me non potest statui’ (Plin., Epp. x. 113), and Severus' answer quoted in Dig. i. 16. 6. 3.

25 Dig. xxii. 5. 3. 2: ‘quae argumenta ad quem modum probandae cuique rei sufficiant, nullo certo modo satis definiri potest’.

26 The precise meaning of this phrase is not clear to me: does the consensus of public opinion refer to the character of the witnesses or to the matter at issue itself?

27 Dig. xxii. 5. 3. 1: ‘tu magis scire potes quanta fides habenda sit testibus….’ For the stress on the rank and influence of witnesses in these passages, see Garnsey, P., Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (1970), 210–12Google Scholar.

28 See the remarks addressed to Gabinius Maximus: ‘alia est auctoritas praesentium testium, alia testimoniorurn quae recitari solent: tecum ergo delibera, ut, si retinere eos yelis, des eis impendia’ (Dig. xxii. 5. 3. 4). A very similar use of language is found in the epistle to Valerius Verus: ‘alias numerus testium, alias dignitas et auctoritas, alias veluti consentiens fama confirmat rei de qua quaeritur fidem’ (ibid. 2). It may therefore be a favourite idiom of Hadrian's own, and thus evidence that he composed both these texts himself.

29 With the cases in Dig. xxii. 5. 3. 3 and xlii. 1. 33, compare the epistle of Pius in xlviii. 6. 6, and his standard reply to petitioners, ‘eum qui provinciae praeest adire potes’ (i. 18. 8).

30 Collatio xi. 7. 1–2 (FIRA ii, pp. 571–2) Dig xlvii. 14. 1. pr. ( = section 1 of the former), both quoted from Ulpian's de officio proconsulis.

31 Vergil, Georg. iii, 408, with Servius, ad loc.; Varro, RR i. 16. 2; and n. 33.

32 The final passage of the excerpt quoted in Coll. xi. 7. 2 puzzled Ulpian himself, with its apparent suggestion that despatch to the mines was a harsher penalty than execution. Mommsen, , Röm. Strafrecht, 1040, n. 1Google Scholar, suggested that at this point the text had been corrupted, presumably before it reached Ulpian. Garnsey, , Social Status, 131, n. 4Google Scholar, and 185, n. 1, apparently accepts Ulpian's own solution that by ‘ad gladium’ Hadrian was referring to gladiatorial combat, and not execution. It may be that, if Hadrian had dictated an epistle and then added a final rider without checking the whole text, he got muddled himself: I have argued that just such a procedure can be detected in the new text of Marcus from Athens (see ZPE xvii, 50–1 and 55–6).

33 Coll. xi. 6. 1.

34 Les empereurs romains d'Espagne (1965), 245.

35 Social Status, 158, n. 2.

36 Coll. xiii. 3. 1–2 and Dig. xlvii. 21. 2; for the discrepancies between the two texts, see Garnsey, op. cit. (n. 27), 156, n. 1; for the innovation of imposing criminal penalties, idem, 170; and for the addressee, D. Terentius Gentianus, RE s.v. ‘Terentius’ (48).

37 e.g., Smallwood, Documents of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, nos. 61, 73, 449a, 452, 454b.

38 Robert, , Hellenica vi, 81–2Google Scholar = Smallwood 453, ll. 8–9: δίκαια ἀξιοῦν μοι δοκεῖτε καὶ ἀναγκαῖα ἄ[ρ]τι γεινομένῃ πόλει.

39 IG ii.2 1102 = Smallwood 445, ll. 10–11: ἴστε ὡς πάσαις χρῶμαι προφάσεσιν τοῦ εὖ ποιεῖν καὶ δημοσίᾳ τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἰδίᾳ Ἀθηναίων τινάς. The remainder of the text is very fragmentary, but it may have announced the gift of a gymnasium to the young of Athens (cf. Paus. i. 18. 9).

40 Smallwood 454b: in his covering letter to Aizanoi, enclosing a copy of Hadrian's letter to himself, Avidius Quietus wrote of Hadrian μείξας τῷ φιλανθρώπῳ τὸ δίκαιον (l. 7), and he presumably knew how the emperor liked to be pictured.

41 BGU 140, revised by Wilcken, , Hermes xxxvii, 84 ffGoogle Scholar. = FIRA i.2 78 = Smallwood 333. On the legal issue, see Schulz, Classical Roman Law, 227–36, and Kaser, , Rom. Privatrecht i 2, 700Google Scholar. That it teas a reply to an enquiry, and not part of a programme of concessions launched by Hadrian to counteract the hostility aroused by the execution of the ‘four consulars’ (as was suggested by Alexander, P. J., HSCP xlix (1938), 144–6Google Scholar), is strongly suggested by (a) the fact that the decison was made public in an epistle to a governor, instead of an edict of universal application (cf. the edicts of the future Augustus and of Domitian on the privileges of veterans, FIRA i2 56 and 76), and (b) by certain phrases in the text itself: for instance it begins with ἐπί[σ]ταμαι, Ῥἀμμιέ μου, which seems to me to imply ‘there was no need for you to spell it out at length in your letter’, and it later refers to the emperor's delight in taking the opportunity to mitigate the effects of the law (see n. 42). The concession could subsequently have been extended to all legionaries by the insertion of a new chapter in the mandata of the governors in command of legions (in the way that Trajan's concession on the wills of soldiers was: Dig. xxix. 1. 1. pr.).

42 ll. 15–16: ἤδιστα δὲ αὐτὸς προ{ε}ίε〈μ〉αι τὰς ἀφορμὰς δι’ ὧν τὸ αὐστηρότερον ὑπὸ τῶν πρὸ ἐμοῦ αὐτοκρατόρων σταθὲν φιλανθρωπότερον ἐρμηνεύω.

43 ll. 28–33: ταύτην μου τὴν δωρεὰν καὶ τοῖς στρατιώταις ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῖς οὐετρανοῖς εὔγνωστόν σε ποιῆσαι δεήσει, οὐχ ἕνεκα τοῦ δοκεῖν με αὐτοῖς ἐνλογεῖν, ἀλλὰ ἵνα τούτῳ χρῶνται, ἐὰν ἀγνοῶσι.

44 P. Cairo 49359 and 49360 (published in REG xxxiii (1920), 375–402 = SB 6944) and P. Oslo iii. 78; see FIRA i.2 81 and Smallwood 462.

45 See the new reading of l. 24 of P. Cairo 49359 by Guéraud, reported in P.Oslo.

46 ὅμως ᾠήθην ἀν[ἁγκην εἰ]ναι ποιήσασθαί τινα πρὸς τοὺς γεωργοὺς φιλανθρωπίαν.

47 [εἰ] καὶ τοῖς προτέροις ἔτεσι ἑξῆς οὐ τελείαν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ μείζω σχέδον [ὄσ]ην οὔπω πρότερον ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἀνάβασιν [καὶ πᾶσ]αν τὴν χώραν ἐπελθὼν αἴτιος ὐπῆρξεν αὐτὸ[ς] τοῦ [πλ]είστ[ους κ]αὶ καλλίστους καρποὺς ἐξενεγκεἴν.

48 καίτοι προσδοκῶν–σὺν θεῷ δὲ εἰρήσθω–τῶν ἐπιόντων ἐτῶν, καὶ εἴ τι νῦν ἐ[ν]εδέησεν, ἀναπληρώσειν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Νεῖλον καὶ τὴν γῆν ……

49 τὴν φύσιν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὡς ἐ〈κ〉 μὲ[ν] εὐροίας καὶ πολυκαρπίας εἰς ἔνδειαν μεταβαλεῖν, ἐ〈κ〉 δὲ τῆς ἐνδείας εἰς ἀφθονίαν. The precise connection between this passage and that quoted in the last note is obscure because of gaps in the papyri.

50 REG xxxiii (1920), 391. The formula occurs between the preamble and the main body of an Athenian decree of as late as c. A.D. 220 (Syll. 3 885, l.9).

51 See Plaut., Poen., 1. 16; FIRA i.2 53, 1. 4; Suet., Div. Iul. 80. 2; Vitell. 14. 4; Tertull., De Pud. i. 7.

52 See Westermann, JEA xi (1925), 177; D'Orgeval, L'empereur Hadrien, 117.

53 See ἵστε (l. 16). The peasants of Egypt had no political organization, such as a provincial council, through which they could make known to the emperor their difficulties; they could only submit petitions to the Prefect as individuals when he visited the nomes (and they did so in great numbers: see P. Yale 61, ll. 5–7, for 1804 handed in during two and a half days at Arsinoe). But the Prefect could not grant a moratorium on taxes on his own responsibility and would have had to consult the emperor (see Chalon, G., L'édit de Tib. Iulius Alexander, 234–5Google Scholar, and ll. 9 and 62–5 of the text).

54 For his illness, see Dio lxix. 17. 1–2 and 23. 2; HA, Had. 23. 1–8. For similar imperial edicts, see Plin., Epp. x. 58. 7–10 (Nerva), P. Giessen 40 and AE 1948 109 (Caracalla), P. Fayum 20 (Severus Alexander).

55 IBritMus. iii. 491 ( = Syll 3 850) and 492; the text of a third epistle about Vedius, to the council of Asia (idem 493), is very fragmentary.

56 ll. 7–9: [τ]ὴν φιλοτιμίαν ἤν φιλοτιμ[εῖται πρὸς ὑμ]ᾶς Ο[ὐήδιος] Ἀντωνεῖνος ἔμαθον οὐχ οὕτω[ς ἐ]κ τῶν ὑμετέρω[ν γραμ]μάτων ὡς ἐκ τῶν [ἐκ]είνου.

57 Although the full text of this sentence includes extensive restorations by Hicks, the original sections on their own suffice to make the general drift certain: καὶ ἄπεδεξάμην ὅτι [οὐ] τὸν [πολλῶν τῶ]ν πολειτευομένων τρόπον, οἴ τοῦ [παρ]αχρῆ[μα εὐδοκιμ?]εῖν χά[ρ]ιν εἰς θέα[ς κ]αὶ διανομὰς καὶ τὰ τῶ[ν ἀγώνων θέματα? δαπαν]ῶ[σιν? τὴ]ν φι[λοτιμ]ίαν, ἀλλὰ δι’ οὗ πρὸς τὸ [μέλλον συνοίσει?, σ]εμνο[τέραν ποιή]σειν τὴν πόλιν προῄρ[ηται]. (ll. 14–17).

58 IBritMus. iii. 492, ll. 11–15: Εἰδότι μοι δηλο[ῦτε τὴν φι]λοτι[μίαν] ἤν Οὐή[δ]ιος Ἀντ[ω]ν[εῖνο]ς φιλοτιμεῖται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὅ[ς] γε κα[ὶ τὰς] παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ χάριτας εἰς τὸν [κόσ]μον ἁ[πάσ]ης πόλεως [κα]τέθετο.

59 IBritMus. iii. 489(= 490) = Syll849, ll. 8–15: Περγαμηνο[ὺς ἀπεδε]ξάμην ἐν τοῖς π[ρὸς ὑμᾶς γρ]άμμασιν χρησαμένο [υς το]ῖς ὁνόμ[α]σιν οἴς ἐγὼ χρῆσθαι τὴν πόλιν τὴν ὑμετέρα[ν ἀπ]εφ [η]νάμην· οἶμαι δὲ καὶ Σμυρναίους κατὰ τύχην παραλ [ελ]οιπέναι ταῦτα ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς συνθυσίας ψηφίσματι, τοῦ λοιποῦ δὲ ἑκόντας εὐγνωμονήσειν ἐάν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν τοῖς πρὸς αὐτοὺς γράμμασιν ὄν [π]ροσήκει τρόπον καὶ κέκριται τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν [φαίνησθ]ε μεμνη[μ]ένοι.

60 Dig. xxvii. I. 6. 2, 7 and 8. For Pius' modifications of the existing rules, see Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, 34–40Google Scholar, and Nutton, V., JRS lxi (1971), 52–63Google Scholar. Of the three excerpts quoted by Modestinus only that quoted in the next note exhibits any obvious trace of the emperor's personal style. Nutton, art. cit., 56, suggests that the concession of immunity to τοὺς ἄγαν ἐπιστήμονας, which is reported by Modestinus from Paulus, who had himself cited Pius (Dig. xxvii. I. 6. 10), ‘offers a similar deflation of sophistic claims, and that “great” or “excessive learning” aptly denotes those sophists whose knowledge was too refined to profit the city by their employment and who might best be left to antiquarian scholarship.’

61 Dig. xxvii. I. 6. 7: Nutton, art. cit., 56, n. 43, notes that the same joke is used by Papinian (Dig. i. 5. 8. 4).

62 Dig. iv. 1. 7. pr.

63 Dig. xxvi. 5. 12. a: ‘non est novum quosdam, etsi mentis suae videbuntur ex sermonibus compotes esse, tamen sic tractare bona ad se pertinentia, ut, nisi subveniatur is, deducantur in egestatem — nam aequum est prospicere nos etiam eis, qui quod ad bona ipsorum pertinet, furiosum faciunt exitum.’

64 Dig. i. 6. 2 = Coll. iii. 3. 1–3 (both from Ulpian, de officio proconsulis 8) = Inst. Iust. i. 8. 2 (clearly from the same source): ‘quod si meae constitutioni fraudem fecerit, sciet me admissum severius executurum’ (quod, Coll.; qui, Dig.; qui, Sabinus, Inst.).

65 Dig. xlviii. 6. 6: ‘motus querella eius, qua significavit filium suum ingenuum, iuvenem admodum, raptum atque conclusum, mox verberibus ac tormentis usque ad summum periculum adflictum, Gemine carissime: velim audias eum et, si compereris haec ita admissa, rem severe exequaris.’

66 P. Rendel Harris 67, col. ii., ll. 13–16: ἀντίγραΦον …… For parallel formulae in Latin, cf. n. 13. My attention was drawn to this document by Millar, op. cit. (n. 3), 243.

67 For the translation, see 1. 11: ἑρμηνεία Ῥωμα[ῖ]κῶν κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. This was therefore an epistle in Latin to an imperial official, almost certainly the Prefect of Egypt. The name of the recipient given in 1. 12 is that of an Egyptian peregrine, Usenophis son of D[…]; this must be the result of some error in the process of copying and translating.

68 Coll. iii. 5–6: ‘itaque et ipse curare debes iuste ac temperate tuos tractare, ut ex facili requirere eos possis, ne, si apparuerit vel inparem te inpendiis esse vel atrociore dominationem saevitia exercere, necesse habeat proconsul v.c, ne quid tumultuosius contra accidat, praevenire et ex mea iam auctoritate te ad alienandos eos conpellere.’

69 ‘Consultus a quibusdam praesidibus provinciarum,’ Gaius i. 53 ( = Inst. i. 8. 2 = Dig. i. 6. 1. 2); for the precedents, see Buckland, , Roman Law of Slavery, 36–8Google Scholar.

70 Dig. iv. 1. 7. pr: ‘etsi nihil facile mutandum est ex sollemnibus tamen ubi aequitas evidens poscit, subveniendum est.’

71 Dio Cass. lxx. 1–2; HA, Had. 24. 5; Ant. 2. 5, 5–1.

72 P. Würzburg 9, ll. 38–9 (Wilcken, APAW 1933, no. 6):

73 IGRR iii. 467, with new readings of ll. 11–17 by Bean, G. E., Journeys in Northern Lycia (TAM Ergänzungsbände iv), no. 14Google Scholar (cf. BE 1972. 439):

74 Philostratus, Vit. Soph. ii. 5 (570–1); i. 25 (534–5).

75 Heberdey, , Opramoas (1897)Google Scholar = IGRR iii. 739 = TAM ii. 905, sections 37–42, 44, 46–51 (section 39 is entirely lost, and six other texts are very damaged).

76 JRS xix (1929), 55; two of the decrees of the Lycian council in Opramoas' honour which were sent to Pius refer to Opramoas' distant relationship to a Roman senator: (section 59, ll. 6–8; cf. 63, ll. 11–12).

77 In view of the known characters of the co-regents, and of the fact that the same features appear in documents from the whole period 161–80, it can be assumed that, if these were the work of an emperor at all, they were the work of Marcus.

78 The second of five fragmentary epistles of Hadrian to Delphi occupied at least 80 lines of middling length, according to the latest reconstruction (Fouilles de Delphes iii. 4, 302). The elaborate regulations for the exchange monopoly at Pergamum (OGIS ii. 484 = Smallwood 451) are often called ‘a rescript of Hadrian’, but they cannot be dated to a particular reign, and could well be the decision of a proconsul of Asia, acting with the advice of a consilium.

79 First published by Oliver, J. H. in Hesperia, Supplement xiii, 1–9Google Scholar; important revisions by C. P. Jones, ZPE vi, 161–83; rejoinders by Oliver, ibid, xiv, 265, and xvi, 315.

80 ZPE xvii, 37–55.

81 The post of ab epistulis was divided for good c. 166: Townend, , Historia x (1961), 373–81Google Scholar. Despite Townend's contention that the ab epistulis Graecis remained at Rome to handle business from the eastern provinces during Marcus' Danubian campaigns, that official was certainly with the emperor on the Danube: see Philostratus' account of how Alexander Peloplaton was summoned there to receive his appointment, V.S. ii, 5 (571).

82 ll. 94–6:

83 See ZPE xvii, 52–6.

84 Forsch. Ephesos ii. 23, reproduced, with some revisions, by Oliver, , Hesperia, Suppl. vi, 93–4Google Scholar. The section analysed below occupies ll. 28–40.

85 Dig. xxv. 4. 1. pr.: ‘novam rem desiderare Rutilius Severus videtur… et ideo nemo mirabitur si nos quoque novum consilium et remedium suggeramus.’ For an example of the other, more common, procedure, see the terms of the epistle to Voconius Saxa (Dig. xlviii. 18. 1. 27): ‘prudenter et egregia ratione humanitatis, Saxa carissime, Primitivum servum…damnasti…nec frustra fuit tam prudens consilium tuum…potes igitur…’

86 Dig. i. 18. 14.

87 ibid xxxvii. 14. 17. pr., discussed at greater length in ZPE xvii, 75–7.

88 Inst. Iust. iii. 11. 1: ‘et ne huius rescriptionis nostrae emolumentum alia ratione irritum fiat, si fiscus bona agnoscere voluerit, et hi qui rebus nostris attendunt scient commodo pecuniario praeferendam libertatis causam…’

89 JRS lxiv (1974), 10–14.

90 P. Herrmann, 1st. Mitt, xxv (1975), 149–66.

91 art. cit., 150, ll. 12–20:

92 Forsch. Ephesos ii. 23, 1. 36: τὸ δὴ προσα[γορευόμενον πε]κούλιον. The correctness of the restoration is confirmed by the new Athenian text (n. 93).

93 l. 36 of the text cited in n. 79: [τῶν] καλουμένων κωδικίλλων.

94 See Townend, op. cit. (n. 81).

95 Oliver, Hesp., Suppl. xiii, 20–3; for this use of εὐΥενήϛ. cf. Dio liv. 16. 2, lv. 31. 1, and for ἐγγενήϛ, see Chalon, L'édit de Tib. Iul. Alexander, 162, n. 17, with ll. 33–4 of the edict, and Gnom. Id. Log. 29.

96 Herrmann, op. cit. (n. 90), 156–7.

97 Plin. Epp. x. 118–19; Smallwood 450, l. 21.

98 Herrmann, op. cit. (n. 90), 150, ll. 29–32: ‘desiderant autem Milesii certamen [c. 16 letters…sa]crum antiquitus dicatum in eo constitui iure [quo…c. 12 letters…certam]ina ex quibus reduces patriam suam [? invehi possunt?].’ For the restorations, see 156–7, nn. 25 and 27.

99 ll. 87–94: . Neither the text nor the translation is entirely secure: I have mainly followed Jones in both (ZPE vi, 181–2). For a rejoinder by Oliver on ll. 88–9, see ZPE xvi, 315–6.

100 cf. ll. 23–7, where the appeal of one Athenodorus is delegated to the Quintilii, ἴνα μὴ μετὰ τοσοῦτον τοὺς καιροὺς ἐν οἶς ἐξέσται μοι κοὶ παρὰ τὰς στρατιωτικὰς πράξεις τὰ κρίσ[εως δε]όμενα ἐκδικάζειν ἀναγκασθῇ περιμένειν.

101 See Philostratus' account of Herodes' behaviour before the imperial tribunal, and of the Athenian decree which began ‘Happy are those who died in the plague’, VS. ii. 1 (561).

102 Philos., VS. i. 25 (534–5); ii. 5 (571).

103 loc. cit.; idem, ii. 9 (582).

104 Dig. xxviii. 4. 3; xl. 5. 37; 1. 1. 24; and compare the terms in which Voconius Saxa was commended (note 85 above).

105 ll. 33–4: εἰς [δὲ] τὸ μέλλο[ν κατὰ] τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὰ πάτρια ἔθη παραφυλαχθήσεται.

106 Dig. xviii. 1. 71; xxii. 5. 3–6.

107 CRAI1971, 470–2 = AE 1971, 534, ll. 4–5: ‘quamquam civitas Romana nisi maximis meritis provocata in <dul>gentia principali gentilibus istis dari solita sit,…’

108 Syll 873 = IG ii.2 1110; F. Schindler, Die Inschriften von Bubon (SAAW 278, 3), no. 2; ILS 6870 = FIRA i.2 103, col. 4.

109 See D. J. Geagan, Hesp., Suppl. xii, 187–93 = Oliver, Hesp., Suppl. xiii, no. 4. For fragments of an epistle to Athens, see Hesp., Suppl. viii, 287–8 = AE 1952. 6, and for those of another subscript from North Africa, see CIL viii. 14428.

110 See the indices in Krüger's edition (Corpus Iuris, vol. 2, p. 489) and in Hänel's, Corpus Legum (P. 3)Google Scholar.

111 Gualandi, G., Legislazione imperials e giurisprudenza, i, 103–54, 155–6, 157Google Scholar.

112 Much of the material in this article was presented in a paper to the Cambridge Philological Society in October 1975, and I am grateful to the members of the society who were present for their comments on it.