Emperors and Caesariani inside and outside the Code1
p. 265-284
Résumés
Les Caesariani étaient des fonctionnaires de la Res privata, dont les excès en matière de corruption firent l’objet de plusieurs lois à la fin du troisième et au début du quatrième siècles. On attribue la plupart de ces quelques lois insérées dans le Code Théodosien à Constantin et elles semblent faire partie intégrante de sa politique permanente visant à contrôler les abus en matière de fiscalité. Néanmoins, divers textes épigraphiques ayant trait au même sujet nous sont également parvenus. Non seulement ils ne sont pas inhabituels en tant que longues déclarations faites dans l’Orient grec, mais ils figurent parmi les rares textes dont on peut trouver de multiples copies sur des sites de cette contrée. Les seules informations qu’ils fournissent en terme de datation, tout comme les rapports qu’ils ont entre eux, sont qu’ils ont été publiés durant l’été 305 par Galère et ont été activement promulgués en un tout cohérent et appliqués dans sa partie de l’Empire. L’un de ces textes, l’Edictum de Accusationibus est également attesté dans le Code Théodosien (IX, 5, 1), attribué à Constantin en 314. Des incohérences dans les détails du Code et l’interprétation correcte des preuves épigraphiques démontrent qu’on doit rejeter à la fois date et empereur tels qu’ils sont donnés dans le Code. Cela nous rappelle les problèmes que pose le fait de se reposer si entièrement sur le Code Théodosien. Ainsi, une grande partie de la législation de Constantin nous est parvenue, contre seulement une partie infime de celle de Galère, ceci en raison d’une grave lacune quant à nos sources pour la période antérieure à 313, date qui marque le début de la rédaction du Code Théodosien. Qui plus est, en raison des altérations et des confusions déjà présentes dans le texte et des décisions en matière de rédaction prises ultérieurement par les juristes de Théodose, les textes qui apparaissent dans le Code, tout particulièrement leurs suscriptions et les souscriptions, peuvent faire l’objet de la plus grande circonspection.
The Caesariani were officials of the Res privata, against whose corrupt excesses several laws of the late third and early fourth centuries were directed. Most of the few such laws in the Theodosian Code are attributed to Constantine and appear part of his consistent policy of controlling fiscal abuses. However, there survive also various epigraphic texts on the same subjects. Not only are they unusual as long Latin pronouncements erected in the Greek East, but they are among the very few texts present in multiple copies and are found at overlapping sites. The only dating information they give and other correlations between them suggest that they were issued in the summer of 305 by Galerius and actively promulgated as a coherent dossier in his portion of the Empire. One of these texts, the Edictum de Accusationibus, is also attested in the Theodosian Code (IX, 5, 1), attributed to Constantine in 314. Inconsistencies in the Code details and the correct interpretation of the epigraphic evidence mean that both date and emperor as given in the Code must be rejected. This serves to remind us of the problems of relying so much upon the Theodosian Code. Thus there survives much legislation of Constantine, but little of Galerius due to a large lacuna in our evidence for the period prior to 313, the start-date of the Theodosian Code. Further, because of the corruptions and confusions already present in the material and the subsequent editorial decisions of the Theodosian commissioners, the texts that appear in the Code, especially their headings and subscripts, may be extremely unreliable.
Texte intégral
1In the 430s, the Theodosian compilers chose to include in the Code a title De Caesarianis (CTh X, 7), but this contained only two texts. One of 317 attributed to Constantine (CTh X, 7, 1); and a second of Valentinian from 364, the only attestation of the term after the reign of Constantine (CTh X, 7, 2). The Theodosian title may well be «antiquarian», rather than reflecting current usage. Elsewhere in the Code there are only three other texts mentioning the Caesariani, all Constantinian (CTh IX, 42, 1; X, 1, 5; X, 8, 2). Certainly by the sixth century the term is obsolete, and only occurs in copies of older texts or scholia upon them2. The Justinian Code contains just three references, one in a text of Diocletian presumably taken from the Gregorian Code3, and two from Constantinian material of Theodosian Code origin, one of which has acquired an explanatory gloss stating that Caesariani are now equivalent to «catholiciani»4.
2Who are these Constantinian Caesariani? Are they the vestiges of the familia Caesaris, the emperor’s slaves and freedmen within the administration5? Although the term Caesariani itself denoting members of the emperor’s household is found as far back as the late first century6, it only seems to become more common in the third century, even as the familia Caesaris itself disappears from view. Under Valerian’s persecution edict of 258 Caesariani were to lose their property and be sent to the imperial estates, indicating that imperial freedmen were being returned to slavery, or that high-ranking slaves with large peculia were being «rusticated»7. Diocletian ordered something similar under the terms of the first persecution edict of 303, although the account of his measures does not use the term Caesariani8. But if Valerian and Diocletian were perhaps dealing with members of the imperial familia in its wider sense, the Caesariani we meet in other material of this period appear almost exclusively in the context of financial administration, indeed more narrowly as officials of the priuata, dealing with imperial property9. By the early fourth century, the civil service was completing its transformation into a militia, and it seems that by this time the posts held by slaves or freedmen had come to be reduced in number and importance. That cohabiting with imperial slaves, however, was still an attraction for women of free birth is suggested by legislative tinkering with the terms of the senatusconsultum Claudianum10. The Sententiae of Paul (probably to be dated c. 30011) refer to the permissibility and so presumably the importance of delation by fiscal slaves, as well as punishment for those who collude with or corrupt them12. It might seem entirely appropriate, therefore, to think that, if there were such slaves performing these duties in the service of the fiscus13, they formed at least part of the Caesariani, given the existence of related texts on fiscal abuses. But it seems that those officials called Caesariani were by now freeborn. Since Licinius allowed equestrian rank to retired Caesariani (CTh X, 7, 1) and equestrian rank required free birth, the Caesariani can hardly have routinely included freedmen any longer14. While it is not entirely clear how this change happened, we may suppose that during the third century, when imperial control over the administration may have faltered on account of weakness at the centre, the posts formerly held by imperial freedmen (e.g. as tabularii) had been gradually transferred to freeborn officiales, either by hereditary succession of freeborn sons to freedmen fathers’ posts, or by the freeborn joining the lucrative imperial service, perhaps even paying for the privilege15. Thus the composition of this group of administrators shifted until it ceased to have any direct connection to the imperial familia16. The early fourth-century Caesariani are simply the officiales of the financial administration. While their title might once have denoted members of the imperial familia, now it showed only their close connection with the emperor’s property and financial claims. Although it is prominent in our early fourth century texts, this title was finally superseded some time later in the century.
3The late third and early fourth century legislative texts which refer to the Caesariani present them in a very negative light as dishonest and greedy officials. Complaints against administrative abuse are, of course, common to all periods. Imperial coloni in particular were ready to commemorate such complaints epigraphically against both soldiers and financial officials17. A recently revised inscription from Karamanlı in Lycia, probably early third century, contains complaints against an imperial freedman tabularius and his subordinates18, while in the 240s the coloni of an imperial estate at Aragua in Phrygia petitioned Philip and his son and now include the Caesariani in their list of abusive officials19. Diocletian went so far as to suppress entirely one corps of unruly military officials, the frumentarii20. It is no surprise that he is also critical of the Caesariani and permitted people to resist them by force if necessary should they attempt to seize property in the name of the fiscus without specific imperial letters (CJ 10, 1, 5, 284/292). Constantine refers three times to the Caesariani, each time presuming that they are intrinsically corrupt and fraudulent. Thus in 319 (CTh X, 8, 2) he tells the rationalis Priscus that inventories of property claimed by the fiscus must be submitted to the comes priuatae to ensure the Caesariani have not abstracted anything. In 321 (CTh IX, 42, 1), he allows certain property of the condemned to be passed to or kept by others, such as wives, but excludes the Caesariani from this generosity. They can only transmit property once the emperor has signed off on their accounts. Finally, in 326 (CTh X, 1, 5), he rules that, while fiscal claims cannot be enforced until after proper enquiry, this is not the case for the Caesariani, who are presumed to be fraudulent and therefore a priori in possession of property that they should not have. A fourth text is an edict addressed to the Bithynians in 317 (CTh X, 7, 1), and so a law of Licinius21. This text states that the accounts of retiring Caesariani need to be properly audited before they can be granted equestrian rank. While not specifically critical, even this shows that where the Caesariani were concerned, nothing was taken on trust. Indeed, it is only the late isolated text of Valentinian (CTh X, 7, 2) that cannot be read in a critical light, although this may be chance. As the Caesariani disappeared or were re-named, their successors were perhaps not so different. In a famous incident recounted by Ammianus from the 360s, a band of brigands was able to enter Apamea and carry off property by posing as officiales of the rationalis22.
4The examples above provide everything that the Codes have to offer about the Caesariani. The majority of these texts is attributed to Constantine, and may be seen as part of that emperor’s policy of controlling fiscal abuses. This reputation is not undeserved. That he legislated against fiscal delation, abusive Caesariani and anonymous libelli is not in dispute (discussed further below)23. The Theodosian Code and the panegyrics provide enough evidence. The Theodosian Code, however, is part of the problem. Its very starting date of 313 provides generous material for the study of Constantine, but leaves a significant legislative lacuna before it. The mass of Diocletianic material deriving from the Gregorian and Hermogenian Codes (mainly in the Justinian Code) becomes very thin after 294, and ceases entirely after 30524, so that the years 306-312 are blank in the legal sources25. Further, there is also a contrast both in nature and focus between the surviving material for Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy, whose legal texts are largely private rescripts deriving from the two earlier Codes, and the rather different edicts and letters of the Theodosian Code. Yet it is precisely for this lacuna that epigraphic material is relatively plentiful and provides a supplement and corrective to the uneven literary record26. This is the era when there appears to be a pattern of imperial texts in Latin inscribed in the eastern provinces. What is more, these are often in multiple copies, an otherwise rare phenomenon27.
5So it is in epigraphic copies of texts that further laws dealing with the Caesariani can be found. There are three such texts (full details of which are given in the Appendix). There is what I call the First Caesariani decree (Appendix n. 1), in the form of a letter (with unidentified second person plural addressees) of Constantius and Galerius, dating from before 19 September 30528. It exists in both the original Latin as well as a Greek translation. The decree seeks to protect the innocent and the provincials (Tlos 1 C, ll. 1 and 19) and control the abuse of adnotationes, which are documents authorizing seizure of property for the fiscus. The Caesariani are identified as the key officials responsible for this abuse and are characterized by their kakoêtheia and temeritas (Athens 1 A, ll. 24-25; Tlos 1 C, ll. 2 and 11-12). Another text (Appendix n. 2) is a preamble to a letter (also with unidentified second person plural addressees), which deplores the desperatio of the Caesariani, which afflicts all humankind (Padua 2 C, ll. 33-34), and this is almost certainly the opening section of the First Decree. Then there is the Second Caesariani Decree (Appendix n. 4), an edict of fiscal indulgentia, which deals with the restoration of goods held by the fiscus, and again the chief culprits in excessive misappropriation include the Caesariani. This time it is their temeritas and auaritia that are deplored (Lyttus 4 B, ll. 12, 35-36). Finally, we can associate with them a fourth text, the Edictum De Accusationibus (Appendix n. 3), famous as one of the few legal texts known from both the epigraphic and literary sources. It enacts a package of measures29. First, it regulates criminal accusations by threatening punishment against failed accusers, in particular torture in cases of maiestas. Then it seeks to repress fiscal delation altogether. Next it orders crucifixion for slaves or freedmen engaging in accusation (criminal) or delation (fiscal) against masters or patrons. Finally it orders the destruction of anonymous bills of denunciation. It variously manages to deplore both temeritas and desperatio (Lyttus 3 C, ll. 19, 33, 45), and expresses concern for the provincials in general and the innocent in particular (Lyttus 3 C, ll. 6 and 36). Although the text does not mention the Caesariani, it is very much concerned with protecting people from the consequences of malicious legal actions and is particularly firm in repressing fiscal delation, the activity most likely to involve the collusion of the Caesariani. The Edictum is clearly attributed to Constantine in the Theodosian Code as a letter addressed to the urban prefect Maximus and dated to January 314. Thus here we have four measures promulgated epigraphically over a decade (305-314) to combat various abuses regarding fiscal claims, with a particular focus on the Caesariani as the chief malefactors.
6The date of the Edictum, however, raises a problem typical of the Theodosian Code (and indeed other legal sources) regarding the headings and subscripts of its constitutions. Either the addressee in the heading or the date in the subscript must be wrong, since an urban prefect called Maximus was not in office in January 314. Different solutions have been suggested. Most popular is emending the date to January 320 as preferred by Seeck, to coincide with the period in office of an urban prefect called Maximus (Valerius Maximus Basilius, 319-323)30. The other solution is to identify Maximus the recipient as someone else: for instance, not as the urban prefect, but as his deputy. Following the preponderance of eastern inscribed copies, and the presence of crucifixion as a punishment (banned by Constantine), Barnes assigned the law to Licinius, as a measure designed to restore calm after the overthrow of Maximinus and the blood-letting that had followed it. Thus Barnes kept the date of 314, but identified Maximus as an otherwise unattested praetorian prefect of Licinius31. However, these two principal choices, between the urban prefect Maximus posting up the text in 320 and another Maximus posting up the text in 314 but not as urban prefect, are not the only options available32. Recent work on inscriptions has opened up other possibilities.
7The important point to stress here is that since 1995 the number of copies of these various laws identified in the epigraphic material has increased, thus expanding also the range of possible interpretations. This is largely due to the brilliant scholarship of Denis Feissel, especially arising out of his preparatory work for the corpus of late antique inscriptions of Ephesus33. Until 1995, there were known to be two copies of the First Caesariani decree, one of the Caesariani Preamble, one of the Second Caesariani Decree and five of the Edictum de Accusationibus. As can be seen from the Appendix, however, there have now been identified three copies of the First Decree, three of the preamble, two of the Second Decree, and seven of the Edictum. What is more, the copies tend to occur at the same sites or at least in the same provinces. Thus, two of the texts appear on the «Padua» inscription (3 D with 2 C), three in Crete (2 B, 3 C, 4 B), two at Tlos in Lycia/Pamphylia (1 C, 3 G), and in Asia all four occur at Ephesus (1 B, 2 A, 3 B, 4 A) with another at Pergamum (3 E). This cannot simply be a matter of a long standing practice of general epigraphic publication. For instance, while all the Caesariani texts are known from Asia, it is notable that there is no Asian copy of the Prices Edict yet attested. Conversely, the eleven copies of the Prices Edict known from Phrygia/Caria are not matched there by any examples of the Caesariani texts34. This suggests that the governor in office at a particular time was the key figure affecting how energetically a measure was promulgated (e.g. Fulvius Asticus in Phrygia/Caria in 301)35. Thus the first point highlighted by the epigraphy is that the appearance of these Caesariani texts at related sites is a sign that the texts themselves are indeed interrelated.
8The second point is dating evidence. The only epigraphic indication of date is to the reign of Constantius and Galerius, most clearly in the text of the First Decree, which refers to 19 September 305. By associating four fragments at Ephesus (1 B, 2 A)36, Feissel has identified the presence of the First Decree there, giving it both a Second Tetrarchy titulature (1 B frag. a = AE 1995, 1478 frag. a) and attributing to it a fragment of the Preamble (2 A = AE 1995, 1478 frag. b)37, previously known only from Padua (2 C). Thus the three known copies of the First Decree and the three copies of the preamble can be merged to give five copies in all of the First Decree (Athens [1 A], Ephesus [1 B plus 2 A], Lappa [2 B], Padua [2 C], Tlos [1 C]). For a long time, until the discovery of the Lyttus text (3 C) in the late 19th century, the Caesariani preamble in the Padua text was presumed to be the last paragraph of the Edictum De Accusationibus, since it carries on seamlessly from it (3 D to 2 C). The original stone does not survive, but Pinelli’s transcriptions of it give no indication that these might be two texts published at separate times or by different emperors. Thus it would be natural to suppose that the two documents are of the same date. John Matthews has observed that, without the Theodosian Code version and its subscript date, the Edictum De Accusationibus would naturally, following Feissel’s identification, be associated with the First Caesariani decree and dated to 30538. This view is strengthened if my reconstruction of the Corcyra text (3 A) as the opening of the Edictum, and bearing clear Second Tetrarchy titulature, is correct39. Therefore, a date of 305 for at least the First Decree and the Edictum seems almost certain.
9The third point is the description in the texts of how the measures are being promulgated. The Edictum and the Second Decree list the same officials as recipients of letters: the praetorian prefects, the provincial governors, the rationalis, and the magister priuatae:
Edictum de Accusationibus (= Lyttus text, 3 C, lines 46-50) | Second Caesariani Decree (= Lyttus text, 4 B, lines 42-46) |
Super his itaque omnibus tam ad praefectos nostros quam etiam ad praesides et rationalem et magistrum priuatae scripta direximus, quorum exempla alio edicto nostro subdita cuiusmodi legem statutumque contineat plenissime declaratur. | etenim ut tum et is uniuersisque palam fieret quid super omnibus tam praefectis nostris quam etiam praesidibus prouinciarum rationali quoque et pribate magistro scripserimus exempla subesse praecipimus ut isdem quoque omnibus cognitis prouinciales nostri per beniuolentiam nostram consultum sibi esse laetentur. |
And so on all these matters we have sent letters both to our prefects as also to the governors, rationalis, and magister priuatae, copies of which subjoined to our other edict give the fullest exposition of what sort of law and statute it contains. | So that what we have written both to our prefects as also to the provincial governors, rationalis, and magister priuatae may be made plain both to them and to all, we have commanded that copies should be appended, so that, when all this is known as well, our provincials may rejoice at the thought taken for them by our benevolence. |
10This might be taken to show a standard formula for promulgation, which is the type of material most likely to be excised in later copies in the Code or elsewhere, and so not otherwise well attested40. But in fact the texts are subtly different. The Second Decree talks of copies of the letters (scripta) having been appended to itself. The Edictum talks of copies of the letters being appended to another edict (alium edictum)41. If that «other edict» is the Second Decree42, we can then propose that the First Decree represents the letters. Thus we can suggest that what is preserved in the epigraphic remains is a dossier of three related texts. First, a letter addressed to the praetorian prefects (including one called Maximus?)43 and other officials dealing with the abuse of adnotationes and, since it is incomplete, perhaps other matters as well. Secondly, an edict of indulgence dealing with the restoration of goods held by the fiscus, to which the letter is appended. Finally, a more general edict dealing with how accusations, criminal or fiscal, are to be dealt with in the future. All of these texts date to the summer of 305 and were issued by Galerius, being epigraphically promulgated only in the area under his immediate control (the Balkans and Asia Minor).
11Galerius may appear an improbable legislator on these matters. But we must remember that we have virtually no legislation of his for comparison. Until recently only his palinode ending the persecution survived44, although there has now been published a letter granting civic status to Heraclea Sintica in Macedonia45. Even the First Caesariani decree, known from his territory, has been used to boost the reputation of Constantine, by being seen as primarily an initiative of Constantius, the theoretical senior in the imperial college, and so part of a consistent fiscally mild policy of the Second Flavian Dynasty46. It is relatively easy to construct a favourable view of Constantine’s legislation, precisely because we have Theodosian Code material dating to his reign. A strong case can be made on this basis for Constantine issuing the Edictum de Accusationibus47. Many of its provisions are mirrored elsewhere in his legislation: for instance, repression of delatores and destruction of anonymous denunciations48. Indeed, Constantine’s general policy is one set against fiscal abuses. In addition to the Caesariani legislation discussed earlier, he also controlled fiscal delation by insisting that such claims were now the sole preserve of the aduocati fisci (CTh X, 10, 3), who in turn were threatened with punishment should they commit abuses49. Further, by abolishing the provisions of the Lex Papia Poppaea, he reduced the opportunity for fiscal claims to bona caduca50. The panegyrics also comment favourably on similar measures51.
12Since for Galerius we have neither panegyric nor legislation, our image of him is coloured by Christian hostility, especially the invective of Lactantius in his De Mortibus Persecutorum52. For him, Galerius is a greedy and cruel barbarian or beast. Yet, even if we accepted this characterization as broadly true, we would hardly expect it to be reflected in Galerius’s own pronouncements. Whether an emperor is cruel or kind, his rhetoric will always be that of imperial benevolence. Indeed this is precisely reflected in Lactantius, since he is a master of putting a reverse spin on imperial propaganda, whether it is the «brotherhood» of Diocletian and Maximian53; mockery of Diocletian’s reasons for the Prices Edict54; or his setting the portrait of a barbarian Galerius against Galerius’s studied Roman stance in the palinode55. We may, therefore, see Lactantius’s account of the ruthless census of 306 as intertextual, with the references to «vexationes» and to slaves informing on their masters as deliberate satirical echoes of these matters as presented in the Edictum de Accusationibus56. In Lactantius’s view, bad emperors are seen to blame misgovernment and abuse on everyone else except themselves, with whom the real blame should lie.
13Attributing the Caesariani dossier to Galerius in the summer of 305 makes political sense. He had become Augustus only on 1 May 305, on the abdication of Diocletian. Incoming rulers often issue acts of indulgence or reform57, but for Galerius this may have seemed more crucial in that he was attempting to take control of the tetrarchic system. Ever since his great victory over Narses in 297-298, the pride of Galerius had grown. His ambition was to play Tiberius to Diocletian’s Augustus and maintain the tetrarchic settlement, but on his own terms. It seems as if the original succession plans, as perhaps settled in 303, envisaged a college of Constantius, Galerius, Constantine and Maxentius58. Given Galerius’s dislike of his son-in-law Maxentius59, this proposal would have left him isolated in the new college. So he set out to overturn this settlement by bullying and manipulating Diocletian and Maximian. Thus, when the abdication finally took place, the two new Caesars were now Galerius’s nominees: his nephew, Maximinus, and a close military buddy, Severus. The Caesariani decrees, therefore, were issued in the summer of 305 just as Galerius sought to establish his dominance in the new imperial college and marginalize Constantius, the theoretical senior, whose worsening health may already have been apparent. The promulgation of laws in multiple epigraphic copies may even be a peculiarly Galerian phenomenon, since almost all such copies can be attributed to his sphere of influence, even perhaps while still Caesar: thus not only the Caesariani dossier, but even the Prices Edict in 301; and a possible edict of 31060. Two Latin multiple-copy texts were published within a year of his death61, but other near contemporary examples are not known to have been promulgated epigraphically62. This leaves only one further isolated later fourth-century example, confined to a single province63. This is therefore not a general feature of Tetrarchic government over several decades but of Galerius’s energetic style of government over a single decade64. Indeed, there is perhaps an irony here. Galerius may have been behind both the Prices Edict and the anti-Christian persecution65, with their ambitious and extensive attempts at enforcement, and each measure no doubt acted as a prime generator of accusations, whether malicious or not, by those with a keen eye for their targets’ property. So it may well have been such abuses spawned from his own earlier legislative programmes that the incoming Augustus sought to control and reduce with his new array of benevolent measures.
14There is now, therefore, a very strong case for the existence of a Galerian dossier of three related texts issued in the summer of 305. This relies upon a complex scaffolding of argument for how the scattered epigraphic remains relate to one another and why they trump the contradictory Code evidence. Other interpretations are still possible. It has been suggested that the Second Caesariani decree, whose interrelationship with the other two measures is less secure, could be an enactment of Licinius connected to the restoration of Christian property in 31366. But in fact the Second Decree only restores property held by the fiscus, while protecting what had been sold or granted to private owners (Lyttus 4 B, ll. 1-7). There was no such protection under the restoration measures of either Licinius in 31367 or Constantine in 32468. Even if the three measures are not the closely intertwined dossier I have argued, but separate acts, their associated inscription is still best explained by attributing them to Galerius during a relatively short period in 305-306. Certainly the case for attributing the Edictum de Accusationibus to Constantine, which invested excessive confidence in the Theodosian Code attribution, and drew upon comparative Code material that starts only in 313, must now be viewed with deep scepticism. Relying so much as we do on the undoubted richness of the Code, we must still remember its limitations and distortions. It has long been recognized that some Licinian material is preserved unacknowledged in the Code, including one text mentioning the Caesariani69. But the Code also contains at least one text from before 313, and that not of Constantine: namely the letter of Maximinus to Eusebius, governor of Lycia and Pamphylia, dating from 311 or 31270. It may not be so hard, therefore, to imagine a process of copying and editing, both before and after the text of the Edictum came into the hands of the Theodosian Code commissioners, that corrupted and obscured its true origins. The erasure of damned emperors (Galerius, Maximianus, Severus, Maximinus) from a Second Tetrarchy heading might well leave just Constantius, easily miscopied as Constantinus. Or did «Constantius et Maximianus» even become «Constantinus ad Maximum»? The Theodosian commissioners had to create realistic headings and subscripts, but it is not clear how far they were prepared to give their imaginations free rein, given their problematic source material71. Thus an edict of Galerius issued under the aegis of the Second Tetrarchy came to rest in the Code as a letter attributed to his nemesis, Constantine.
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
Barnes 1976
T. D. Barnes, «Three imperial edicts», ZPE, 21, 1976, p. 275-281.
Barnes 1982
T. D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge Mass., 1982.
Barnes 1996
T. D. Barnes, «Emperors, panegyrics, prefects, provinces and palaces (284-317)», JRA, 9, 1996, p. 532-552.
Barnes 1998
T. D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality, Ithaca and London, 1998 (Cornell Studies in Classical philology, 56).
Barnes 2002
T. D. Barnes, «From toleration to repression: the evolution of Constantine’s religious policies», SCI, 21, 2002, p. 189-207.
Barnes 2006
T. D. Barnes, «The Young Constantine as judged by his contemporaries», dans A. Demandt, J. Engemann (éd.), Konstantin der Grosse: Geschichte, Archäologie, Rezeption, Trier, 2006, p. 13-20 (Schriftenreihe des rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier, 32).
Barnes 2010
T. D. Barnes, Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History, Tübingen, 2010 (Tria Corda, 5).
Bruns 1909
K. G. Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, Tübingen, 1909 (7th ed. rev. O. Gradenwitz).
Caravale 2001
M. Caravale, «Frammenti del Codex Theodosianus conservati presso la Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e presso lo Staatsarchiv di Zurigo», dans Iuris Vincula: Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca, I, Napoli, 2001, p. 433-487.
Castellanos 2003
S. Castellanos, «The political nature of taxation in Visigothic Spain», Early Medieval Europe, 12, 2003, p. 201-228.
Connolly 2010
S. Connolly, «Constantine answers the veterans», dans S. MacGill, C. Sogno, and E. Watts (éd.), From the Tetrarchs to the Theodosians: Later Roman History and Culture, 284-450 CE, Cambridge, 2010, p. 93-114 (Yale Classical Studies, 34).
Corcoran 1993
S. Corcoran, «Hidden from History: the Legislation of Licinius», dans J. D. Harries, I. N. Wood (éd), The Theodosian Code. Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity, London, 1993, p. 97-119.
Corcoran 2000a
S. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284-324, Oxford, 2000 (revised ed.).
Corcoran 2000b
S. Corcoran, «A fragment of a tetrarchic constitution from Crete», ZPE, 133, 2000, p. 251-255.
Corcoran 2002
S. Corcoran, «A tetrarchic inscription from Corcyra and the Edictum de Accusationibus », ZPE, 141, 2002, p. 221-230.
Corcoran 2004
S. Corcoran, «The publication of law in the era of the tetrarchs: Diocletian, Galerius, Gregorius, Hermogenian», dans A. Demandt, A. Goltz, and H. Schlange-Schön (éd.), Diokletian und die Tetrarchie: Aspekte einer Zeitenwende, Berlin/New York, 2004, p. 56-73 (Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr., 1).
Corcoran 2006
S. Corcoran, «The Tetrarchy: policy and image as reflected in imperial pronouncements», dans D. Boschung, W. Eck (éd.), Die Tetrarchie: Ein neues Regierungssystem und seine mediale Präsentation, Wiesbaden, 2006, p. 31-61 (ZAKMIRA Schriften, 3).
Corcoran 2007
S. Corcoran, «Galerius’s jigsaw puzzle: the Caesariani dossier», AntTard, 15, 2007, p. 221-250.
Crawford, Reynolds 1975
M. H. Crawford, J. Reynolds, «The publication of the Prices Edict: a new inscription from Aezani», JRS, 65, 1975, p. 160-163.
Cuvigny 2000
H. Cuvigny, Mons Claudianus. Ostraca graeca et latina, III. Les reçus pour avances à la familia (O. Claud. 417 à 631), Le Caire, 2000 (IFAO, 852, Documents de Fouilles, 38).
Delmaire 1989
R. Delmaire, Largesses sacrées et res privata. L’aerarium impérial et son administration du ive au vie siècle, Rome, 1989 (Coll. EFR, 121).
Di Benedetto 1998
F. Di Benedetto, «Un codice epigrafico di Ciriaco ritrovato», dans G. Paci and S. Sconocchia (éd.), Ciriaco d’Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell’Umanesimo. Atti del convegno internazionale di studio (Ancona 1992), Reggio Emilia, 1998, p. 147-167 (Collana Progetto Adriatico, 2).
Feissel 1995
D. Feissel, «Les constitutions des Tétrarques connues par l’épigraphie: inventaire et notes critiques», AntTard, 3, 1995, p. 33-53.
Feissel 1996
D. Feissel, «Deux constitutions tétrarchiques inscrites à Éphèse», AntTard, 4, 1996, p. 273-289.
Feissel 1999a
D. Feissel, «Épigraphie administrative et topographie urbaine: l’emplacement des actes inscrits dans l’Éphèse protobyzantine (ive-vie s.)», dans R. Pillinger, O. Kresten, F. Krinzinger, E. Russo (éd.), Efeso Paleocristiana e Bizantina: Frühchristliches und Byzantinisches Ephesos, Vienna, 1999, p. 121-132 (Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 282).
Feissel 1999b
D. Feissel, «Epigraphik», JÖAI, 68, 1999, p. 34 (Jahresbericht 1998).
Festy 1999
M. Festy, Pseudo-Aurélius Victor, Abrégé des Césars, Paris, 1999.
Fezzi 2007
L. Fezzi, «Una nuova tabula dei privilegi per i soldati e i veterani», ZPE, 163, 2007, p. 269-275.
French 2004
D. French, The Inscriptions of Sinope, Bonn, 2004 (IGSK, 64).
Giacchero 1974
M. Giacchero, Edictum de Pretiis Rerum Venalium, I-II, Genova, 1974.
Giglio 2002
S. Giglio, «PS. 5.13-15, edictum de accusationibus e giurisdizione criminale nel tardo impero romano», SDHI, LXVIII, 2002, p. 205-263.
Habicht, Kussmaul 1986
C. Habicht, P. Kussmaul, «Ein neues Fragment des Edictum de accusationibus », MH, 43, 1986, p. 135-144.
Haensch 2006
R. Haensch, «Von den Augusti liberti zu den Caesariani », dans A. Kolb (éd.), Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte, Prinzipien und Strategien der Administration im römischen Kaiserreich, Berlin, 2006, p. 153-164.
Harrison 1993
G. W. M. Harrison, The Romans and Crete, Amsterdam, 1993.
Hauken 1998
T. Hauken, Petition and Response. An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors 181–249, Bergen, 1998.
Herrmann 1990
P. Herrmann, Hilferufe aus römischen Provinzen: ein Aspekt der Krise des römischen Reiches im 3. Jhdt. n. Chr., Hamburg, 1990.
Horsley 2007
G. H. R. Horsley, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Burdur Archaeological Museum, London, 2007 (RECAM V = BIAA Monograph, 34).
Jones 1954
A. H. M. Jones, «Notes on the genuineness of the Constantinian documents in Eusebius’Life of Constantine», JEH, 5, 1954, p. 196-200 (repr. dans P.A. Brunt (éd.), The Roman Economy. Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, Oxford, 1974, p. 257-262).
Jones 1964
A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, Oxford, 1964, 4 vol, [repr. 1973, 2 vol].
Liebs 2005
D. Liebs, Römische Jurisprudenz in Africa, Berlin, 2005, (Freiburger rechtsgeschichtliche Abhandlungen, n. F., 44).
Matthews 2000
J. F. Matthews, Laying Down the Law. A Study of the Theodosian Code, New Haven and London, 2000.
Milner 1998
N. P. Milner, An Epigraphical Survey in the Kibyra-Olbasa Region Conducted by A. S. Hall, London, 1998 (RECAM III = BIAA Monograph, 24).
Moreau 1956
J. Moreau, «Fragment, découvert à Sinope, de l’édit de Constantin de accusationibus », Historia, 5, 1956, p. 254-256.
Pilhofer 2000
P. Pilhofer, Philippi, Band II: Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi, Tübingen, 2000 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 119).
PLRE I
A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I. AD 260–395, Cambridge, 1971.
Rivière 2000
Y. Rivière, «La procédure criminelle sous le règne de Constantin», RHDFE, 78, 2000, p. 401-427.
Rivière 2002
Y. Rivière, Les délateurs sous l’empire romain, Paris, 2002 (Coll. EFR, 311).
Şahin 1994
S. Şahin, Die Inschriften von Arykanda, Bonn, 1994 (IGSK, 48).
Seeck 1919
O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, 1919.
Sirks 1996
A. J. B. Sirks, Summaria Antiqua Codicis Theodosiani. Réédition, avec les gloses publiées dans Codicis Theosodiani fragmenta Taurinensia (éd. P. Krueger), Amsterdam, 1996.
Sironen 1997
E. Sironen, The Late Roman and Early Byzantine Inscriptions of Athens and Attica, Helsinki, 1997.
Souris, Haensch 2009
G. Souris, R. Haensch, «RECAM III 112 (SEG 48, 583): Abuse of Power by Members of the Roman Administration and the Imperial Reaction», dans R. Haensch (éd.), Selbstdarstellung und Kommunikation: Die Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der Römischen Welt, München, 2009, p. 349-365 (Vestigia. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, 61).
Spagnuolo Vigorita 1984
T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, Exsecranda pernicies. Delatori e fisco nell’età di Costantino, Napoli, 1984 (Pubblicazioni della Facoltà giuridica dell’Università di Napoli, 213).
Spagnuolo Vigorita 1987
T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, «Prohibitae delationes: il divieto della delazione fiscale nel panegirico di 313», dans Hestíasis: studi di tarda antichità offerti a Salvatore Calderone III, Messina, 1987, p. 337-371.
Spagnuolo Vigorita 1988
T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, «Imminentes legum terrores: l’abrogazione delle leggi caducarie augustee in età costantiniana», dans G. Crifò, S. Giglio (éd.), AARC, VII, Napoli, 1988, p. 251-265.
Weaver 2005
P. Weaver, «Phaon, freedman of Nero», ZPE, 151, 2005, p. 243-252.
Annexe
The Inscriptions
1 1st Caesariani decree (before? 19 Sept. 305) [two Latin copies and one Greek]
A) Athens (Greek): IG II-III2, 1121; re-ed. Feissel 1996, p. 278 = AE 1996, 1403 (cf. SEG XLVI, 146); see now Sironen 1997, p. 40-47, n. 2
B) Ephesus (Latin): Feissel 1995, p. 51-53 and 1996, p. 274-277 = AE 1995, 1478a, c and d [associated by Feissel with 2A]
C) Tlos (Latin): CIL III, 12134; re-ed. Feissel 1996, p. 282 = AE 1996, 1498
2 Caesariani letter (preface of 1st decree?) [three Latin copies]
A) Ephesus: Feissel 1995, p. 51 and 1996, p. 276 = AE 1995, 1478b [associated by Feissel with 1B]
B) Lappa: I. Cret. II, 16, 34; re-ed. Corcoran 2000b, p. 252 = AE 2001, 2061
C) Padua (original provenance uncertain): CIL V, 2781 lines 31-34 = Bruns 1909, n. 95; re-ed. Feissel 1995, p. 51-52 [preceded by part of the Edictum de Accusationibus 3D]; known only from the 16th c. transcriptions by Giovanni Vincenzo Pinelli
3 Edictum De Accusationibus (314 in CTh) [seven Latin copies, plus law code extracts]
A) Corcyra: CIL III, 578 (cf. AE 1995, 1386) and IG IX/4, 797; re-ed. Corcoran 2002, p. 224-225 = AE 2002, 1302 [preceded by the fragmentary conclusion of an unidentified text]
B) Ephesus: Feissel 1996, p. 287-288 = AE 1996, 1469
C) Lyttus: CIL III, 12043, I. Cret. I, 18, 188; opening re-ed. Feissel 1995, p. 50 = AE 1995, 1629 [located at the same site as 4B]
D) Padua (but true provenance uncertain): CIL V, 2781 [followed by the opening of the Caesariani letter 2 C]; known only from the 16th c. transcriptions by Giovanni Vincenzo Pinelli
E) Pergamum: Habicht, Kussmaul 1986, p. 136
F) Sinope: Moreau 1956 = AE 1957, 158; re-ed. by French 2004 n. 95, plus a new fragment n. 96
G) Tlos: CIL III, 12133 [with an edict of 310 on the right-hand edge of the stone (Barnes 1976, p. 277-279)]
In addition there are extracts in the law codes
H) CTh IX, 5, 1, whence CJ 9, 8, 3
Heading: «IMP. CONSTANTINVS A. AD MAXIMVM P (RAEFECTVM) V (RBI)»
Subscript: «PP. KAL. IAN. VOLVSIANO ET ANNIANO CONSS. » (Posted up on 1 January 314).
4 2nd Caesariani decree [two Latin copies]
A) Ephesus: Unpublished transcript and photograph from 1958; discovery announced by Feissel 1999b; edition forthcoming in his Inscriptions protobyzantines d’Éphèse (ive-vie s.). I: Les actes des empereurs et de l’administration impériale.
B) Lyttus: CIL III, 13569 and I. Cret. I, 18, 189 [located at the same site as 3 C]72
Notes de bas de page
1 I should like to thank Pierre Jaillette and Sylvie Crogiez-Pétrequin for inviting me to take part in the Lille conference. I gratefully acknowledge the comments and feedback from those present, as also from those who heard the reprise at the Constantine anniversary conference in York (July 2006). Special thanks are also due to Tim Barnes, Denis Feissel, Rudolph Haensch and Benet Salway. A fuller paper on Galerius and the Caesariani dossier has appeared as Corcoran 2007.
2 For example the Summaria Antiqua in the Vatican manuscript of the Theodosian Code. See Sirks 1996, p. 24 on CTh IX, 42, 1 and p. 32 on CTh X, 8, 2. For some slight new manuscript evidence for the Caesariani title CTh X, 7, see Caravale 2001, p. 462-463 and 486-487.
3 CJ 10, 1, 5.
4 CJ 9, 49, 9, 3: «Exceptis dumtaxat Caesarianis, id est catholicianis… » (from CTh IX, 42, 1 subsumed into a text of Arcadius and Honorius from 396); cf. Basilica Scholia LX, 52, 16, 7 (ed. Scheltema p. 3912). The other text is CJ 9, 1, 7 (from CTh X, 1, 5). A further rare reference to Caesariani may also occur, if a recently proposed emendation is accepted in the Acta Maximiliani, describing an official as « praepositus Caesariani» (Barnes 2010, p. 381). Uncertainties over the dating of this heavily layered text make it unclear whether the reference, even if correct, would be an authentic late third-century survival from the heyday of the Caesariani or a late fourth-century addition relating to a vanishing rank. Nor is it clear how or why Caesariani would be involved with military recruitment procedures.
5 For the change from familia Caesaris to Caesariani, see now Haensch 2006.
6 E.g. Martial IX, 79, 8 and T. Vindol. III, 645 ll. 8-9; cf. the Greek equivalent at O. Claud. I, 125 and III, 417 and 547-554; Epictetus, Diss. I, 19, 19; III, 24, 117; IV, 13, 22; and Gnomon Idiologi 109. See Cuvigny 2000, p. 60-64 and Weaver 2005, p. 251.
7 Cyprian, Ep. 80, 2. Haensch 2006 p. 162-163 considers these Caesariani to be freeborn, but of reduced status.
8 This is the usual interpretation of Eusebius, HE VIII, 2, 4. See Jones 1964, p. 564-565.
9 Jones 1964, p. 600; Delmaire 1989, p. 215.
10 CTh IV, 12, 3 (Constantine) and 5 (Julian).
11 For this date, see Liebs 2005, p. 45-50.
12 Paul, Sententiae V, 13, 2. This passage is only known from the Breviary, where the term serui fiscales is also used in the interpretatio (LRV Paul V, 15, 2 Int.). As can be seen from the next note, however, this does not represent Visigothic emendation, even if its meaning later shifted. Fiscal slaves in the Visigothic kingdom were neither simply royal slaves, nor treasury servants, but seem to have developed into a large land-owning class obligated to the crown. See Castellanos 2003, p. 204-208.
13 Thus Rivière 2002, p. 119. The serui fiscales are not simply imperially owned slaves, but slaves actually serving the fiscus. See De Iure Fisci 6 [FIRA II, p. 628]; CTh IV, 12, 3; cf. Eusebius, VC II, 34, 1.
14 A prediction of reasonable high status is also implied by Firmicus Maternus’s reference to procuratores, rationales and those with the nuntiandi potestas (Mathesis III, 3, 16), which latter could well be the Caesariani.
15 See in general Haensch 2006. Note an earlier example of a freeborn man going off to become «a freedman of Caesar» (P. Oxy. XLVI, 3312).
16 Haensch 2006, p. 162-163 suggests that the Caesariani had some form of reduced status, like the numerarii condicionales of the fourth century (CTh VIII, 1, 7), so that they could be disciplined as under Valerian’s edict. However, this would seem to conflict with the idea that they could acquire equestrian status (CTh X, 7, 1).
17 See Herrmann 1990 and Hauken 1998.
18 Milner 1998, p. 45 = RECAM III, 112 (SEG XLVIII, 1583) with Souris, Haensch 2009.
19 MAMA X, 114, l. 31. Note also a funerary monument, on which the Caesariani are one group (along with milites and pagani) considered likely to violate the tomb (AE 1952, 223; now: Pilhofer 2000, n. 716).
20 Aurelius Victor, Caes. 39, 44-45.
21 Corcoran 2000a, p. 193 and 283.
22 Ammianus, XXVIII, 2, 11-14.
23 See especially Spagnuolo Vigorita 1984, 1987 and 1988.
24 On the two Codes, see briefly Corcoran 2000a, ch. 2. The latest pre-Theodosian Code material in the Justinian Code dates to the Second Tetrarchy in 305 (Corcoran 2000a, p. 142-143).
25 The sole exception is Fragmenta Vaticana 32 from August 312, if the date is correctly transmitted.
26 See the survey of tetrarchic epigraphic constitutions in Feissel 1995.
27 See Corcoran 2000b, 2002 and 2006, p. 52-53.
28 It is not entirely clear if the date in the text, 19 September 305, is prospective or retrospective, but I think the former more likely. See Feissel 1996, p. 286.
29 Full discussion in Rivière 2000 and 2002, p. 131-137.
30 Seeck 1919, p. 169; PLRE I, Maximus 48, p. 590.
31 Barnes 1976, p. 275-277; 1982, p. 127-128; 2002, p. 197; cf. Corcoran 2000a, p. 190-191.
32 Matthews 2000, p. 266-267 canvasses but rejects two other possibilities: that «p.u. » stands for « perfectissimus uir» rather than « praefectus urbi»; and that the recipient Maximus was Constantine’s praetorian prefect of 326-329 (PLRE I, Maximus 49, p. 590).
33 Feissel 1995, 1996 and 1999a.
34 For the geographical spread of the Prices Edict, see Giacchero 1974, I, p. 37-86 and 127-132, with Corcoran 2002, p. 227, note 23.
35 The number of provinces where the Edict was epigraphically published is quite limited, despite the large overall number of copies. This was demonstrated by Crawford, Reynolds 1975 and has tended to be confirmed by the trickle of new finds since then. Note that in Achaea the translation into Greek of the Prices Edict tariff list (but not the preamble) and of the First Caesariani Decree may be a sign of either continuing administrative practice or the same governor in office in both 301 and 305 (Crawford, Reynolds 1975, p. 163, note 13; Corcoran 2000a, p. 231-232 and 2002, p. 228).
36 Feissel 1995, p. 51-53 and 1996, p. 273-287.
37 Since this fragment begins with the word Caesares, this is consistent with a Second Tetrarchy date and at least suggests a period of time when the imperial college included multiple Caesars (293-307 and 317-337). For the imperial colleges, see Barnes 1982, p. 4-8.
38 Matthews 2000, p. 264 and 269.
39 Corcoran 2002; now accepted by Barnes 2006, p. 14, note 5. The more sceptical may not be persuaded that there is sufficient overlap between the texts.
40 For a survey of promulgation information, see Matthews 2000, p. 180-187.
41 Note the suggestion that the Code extracts of the Edictum addressed to Maximus are the «scripta», so that essentially the same text was circulated but in different formats (Habicht, Kussmaul 1986, p. 138-142). This might also be used to explain the textual variants between Code and inscriptions. However, this is unlikely to be the case. The Code shows no evidence of the «fullest exposition» promised, whilst its variants misrepresent the epigraphic text. See Rivière 2000, p. 407-408 and Corcoran 2000a, p. 199-200.
42 Thus Spagnuolo Vigorita 1987, p. 358, note 63 and Feissel 1996, p. 289.
43 For letters to the college of prefects, see CJ 9, 42, 10; CTh VI, 27, 1; VII, 13, 1; 21, 2; VIII, 4, 5; 7, 4-6; XII, 1, 14. We do not know the names of the praetorian prefects in 305. In 307, Severus’s prefect was possibly Anullinus, and by 310 Galerius’s prefect was Tatianus Andronicus (Barnes 1982, p. 126). The urban prefect from February 305 to March 306 was Postumius Titianus (PLRE I, Titianus 9, p. 919), although the « praefecti» of the edicts in fact refers only to praetorian prefects. Note that in the Padua preamble of the First Decree (2 C), « urbis Romanae» is a phonetic miscarving of « orbis Romani», so that this text should not be seen as concerning the city of Rome or its urban prefect (Feissel 1995, p. 51-53).
44 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 34, 1-35, 1; Eusebius, HE VIII, 17, 3-10 (Greek translation); Rufinus, HE VIII, 17, 3-10 (Latin retrotranslation of Eusebius’s version). The limited Second Tetrarchy material from 305 in the Justinian Code should be attributed to Maximinus as Caesar in Oriens: CJ 3, 12, 1 (given at Edfu); 5, 42, 5; 6, 9, 7; possibly 7, 16, 40 (probably addressed to the governor of Syria). See Corcoran 2000a, p. 35, 142-143, 271 and 341.
45 AE 2002, 1293. This also makes him a more plausible issuer of the acephalous Tymandus letter often attributed to Diocletian (MAMA IV, 236).
46 Spagnuolo Vigorita 1987, p. 355-357 and 366-371.
47 Thus note recently Rivière 2000 and 2002, p. 131-137 and Giglio 2002, p. 207-215.
48 CTh X, 10, 1-3 (delatores); IX, 34, 1-4 (libelli); cf. Rufinus, HE X, 2.
49 CTh VIII, 10, 1; X, 15, 1; cf. X, 4, 1.
50 CTh VIII, 16, 1. See also Spagnuolo Vigorita 1988.
51 See, for instance, Pan. Lat. IV(10), 33, 7 and 38, 4-5; XII(9), 4, 4.
52 The breviarists are rather kinder, ignoring the persecution, and reflecting favourably upon Galerius’s military prowess: thus Eutropius IX, 24-5 and X, 2; Festus, Brev. 25; Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 39, 26-8; Epitome de Caesaribus 40, 15-17 (see Festy 1999, p. 182). Galerius’s personal reconnaissance of the enemy position during the Persian war is even cited by Ammianus (XVI, 10, 3) as an exemplum of fitting imperial behaviour (Barnes 1998, p. 179).
53 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 8, 1-2 compared with Pan. Lat. X (10), 9 and 11 and XI(3), 11-12.
54 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 7, 6-7 compared to the rhetoric of the the Prices Edict preamble (Giacchero 1974, I, p. 134-137).
55 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 9, 2; 21, 2 and 23, 5 contrasted with Galerius’s own text reproduced verbatim at De Mort. Pers. 34.
56 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 23; Corcoran 2004, p. 67, note 47.
57 For example at Diocletian’s accession: P. Oxy. LXIII 4352 frag. 5, ii, 18-28; CJ 9, 43, 2 and 9, 51, 9.
58 This interpretation of the fate of Diocletian’s succession plans largely follows Barnes 1996, p. 544-546.
59 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 18, 9; Epit. de Caesaribus 40, 14.
60 Suggested at Corcoran 2007, p. 225-226. The two possible copies are 1] Sinope: CIL III, 6979 and ILS 660; with AE 1995, 1424 and AE 1999, 1502; now French 2004, n. 94; and 2] Tlos: CIL III, 12133 (on the right of the Edictum de Accusationibus) with Barnes 1976, p. 277-279 and 1982, p. 21-22.
61 Licinius’s letter on military privileges published on bronze in two copies to different addressees (June 311) at 1] Brigetio (AE 1937, 232), and 2] probably a Danube fort in Lower Moesia (Fezzi 2007). Maximinus’s rescript on the Christians (312), 1] Arykanda: CIL III, 12132, revised AE 1988, 1047, now Şahin 1994, n. 12; and 2] Colbasa: AE 1988, 1046, now RECAM V, 338 = Horsley 2007, p. 240; 3] Tyre: Eusebius, HE IX, 7, 3-14. Note that both the surviving epigraphic copies come from the same province (Lycia/Pamphylia).
62 Licinius’s letter of restitution (313) is known only from literary sources: 1] Nicomedia: Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 48, 2-12; and 2] Palestine: Eusebius, HE X, 5, 2-14. Constantine’s letter to the provincials of Palestine (324) is known from Eusebius (VC II, 24-42) and a papyrus fragment from Egypt (P. Lond. 878; Jones 1954).
63 Julian’s letter to Secundus (362), both copies being from the province of the Islands: 1] Amorgos (AE 2000, 1370), and 2] Mytilene (CIL III, 14198). Note also that Constantius II’s letter on Philippus from Ephesus (AE 1967, 478 = I. Ephesos I, 41) seems to be attested additionally in a copy of uncertain provenance recorded by Cyriac of Ancona (Di Benedetto 1998, p. 158-159).
64 Corcoran 2002, p. 229; Corcoran 2004, p. 66-70 and 2006, p. 52-53.
65 For Galerius as the prime mover of persecution, see Eusebius, HE VIII, 16, 2 and App. 1 and Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 10, 6.
66 A Christian context for the Second Decree is suggested by Harrison 1993, p. 299, although his analysis is eccentric and unreliable.
67 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 48, 8-9 and Eusebius, HE X, 5, 9-10: property to be restored but with compensation for private owners.
68 Eusebius, VC II, 35-41: property to be restored without compensation.
69 CTh X, 7, 1. On Licinius, see Corcoran 1993 and Corcoran 2000a, p. 274-291, 341 and 349-352. Note that at the time I followed Barnes in attributing the Edictum de Accusationibus (CTh IX, 5, 1) and the Second Caesariani Decree to Licinius (Corcoran 2000a, p. 190-191 and 288-291).
70 CTh XIII, 10, 2. See Corcoran 2000a, p. 151-152. Barnes 1982, p. 69 note 102 assigned CTh VII, 20, 2 to 307, followed now by Connolly 2010, p. 86-98.
71 The significant discrepancies between the main text of CTh IX, 5, 1 and the inscribed versions has generally been ascribed to the form in which the Code compilers found their material, rather than to their active intervention. See Matthews 2000, p. 256-270 and Rivière 2000, p. 405-408.
72 There are some intelligent proposed textual emendations in Spagnuolo Vigorita 1987, p. 363-364, note 81-82.
Auteur
Projet Volterra, Department of History, University College London
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Les entrepreneurs du coton
Innovation et développement économique (France du Nord, 1700-1830)
Mohamed Kasdi
2014
Les Houillères entre l’État, le marché et la société
Les territoires de la résilience (xviiie - xxie siècles)
Sylvie Aprile, Matthieu de Oliveira, Béatrice Touchelay et al. (dir.)
2015
Les Écoles dans la guerre
Acteurs et institutions éducatives dans les tourmentes guerrières (xviie-xxe siècles)
Jean-François Condette (dir.)
2014
Europe de papier
Projets européens au xixe siècle
Sylvie Aprile, Cristina Cassina, Philippe Darriulat et al. (dir.)
2015