Legal engagement
| , ,Provincial negotiation with the imperial legal system
Appealing for the emperor’s justice
Provincial petitions and imperial responses prior to Late Antiquity
Résumé
Visits by Roman emperors provided provincials with exceptional opportunities to present their pleas. Epigraphic evidence from the high imperial period and particularly the 3rd century CE sheds light on this process of petition and response. The aim of the present paper is to study these inscriptions in order to understand the application and reception of Roman justice in the eastern provinces of the empire. Particular attention is devoted to noteworthy testimonies, such as the bilingual minutes from Dmeir (Syria), the petition of Skaptopara in Thrace, and related texts from Lydia. The essay will argue that the presence and legally binding decisions of emperors such as Diocletian could transform the perception of Roman rule among local populations, including the Jews.
Entrées d'index
Texte intégral
- 1 y. Berakhot 3:1, 6a; y. Nazir 7:1, 56a.
- 2 I wish to thank Yael Wilfand of the ERC Judaism and Rome team for the translations.
1In one of the most famous talmudic encounters between a Jewish rabbi and a Roman emperor, R. Hiyya is said to have walked over the graves of the cemetery of Tyre in order to see Diocletian.1 The halakhic teaching following this story specifies that “it is a mitzvah to see the great people of the kingdom, for when the kingdom of the House of David comes, one will know how to distinguish between the kingdoms”.2
- 3 Leadbetter 1998; Kuhoff 2001, p. 17-35; Rees 2004, p. 6-7; Harries 2012, p. 26-33.
- 4 C.J. 4, 10, 3.
- 5 Barnes 1982, p. 49-56.
- 6 For a previous analysis of this evidence, see e.g. Rabello 1984.
- 7 y. Avodah Zarah 1:4, 39d. See also Greenfield 1991, p. 499-502.
- 8 Pan. Lat. 10(2), 14, 1; Lactantius, De mort. 52, 3. Rees 2005, p. 223-239; Harries 2012, p. 82-83.
- 9 On Jewish attitudes towards imperial fairs, see most recently Cohn 2011.
- 10 y. Kilʾayim 9:4, 32c; y. Ketubbot 12:3, 35b. C.J. 9, 41, 9, places Diocletian in Emesa on May 10, (...)
2Regardless of the veracity of this anecdote, the presence of Diocletian in the Levant during his reign can be historically confirmed. Even before the establishment of the Tetrarchy, this ruler was in charge of the provinces in the eastern Mediterranean, while Maximian controlled the West.3 One entry in the Codex Iustinianus specifies, for example, that in May 286 Diocletian issued a resolution from Tiberias concerning debts, while Antioch became a royal residence in the course of the Persian campaigns.4 Diocletian’s stays in Syria were combined with cyclical travels to Egypt; hence the presence of the emperor on the coasts of Phoenicia is virtually certain.5 The traces of his journeys in the talmudic sources should accordingly be studied with attention.6 Indeed, the emperor is said not only to have visited Tyre briefly, but also to have donated a fair to the city. The sugya that discusses the intention of the aforementioned R. Hiyya to buy sandals at this fair records an inscription, allegedly taken from the archives, in which Diocletian dedicates his donation of the fair to the good fortune of his brother Heraclius.7 The last name must correspond to Maximian, who upon his fraternal association to the throne in 285 was paired with Hercules and adopted his divine epithet.8 Diocletian meanwhile became Iovius and exploited the image of Jupiter through imperial propaganda such as gifted fairs, which could be seen as idolatrous in the eyes of the Jews.9 The Tetrarchic emperors were also keen on sponsoring and publicizing major projects, and this attitude may be related to the Sea of Hametz (or Emesa) that the Jerusalem Talmud attributes to Diocletian.10
- 11 Corcoran 2000.
- 12 y. Avodah Zarah 5:3, 44b (see below).
- 13 C.J. 3, 13, 3. Linder 1987, p. 114-117.
3The legislative activity of the new imperial regime was likewise energetic,11 so it is not surprising to see Diocletian reportedly issuing decrees while crossing the Land of Israel.12 Either before or after this dateless journey, the emperor – in the name of Maximian and his own – also responded to the petition of a certain Judah concerning the appointment of judges at the end of 293.13 The aim of this paper, however, is not to debate whether this addressee must be identified with the patriarch Judah III. Likewise, I do not intend to assess the historicity of the talmudic treatment of events from the end of the 3rd century CE. Instead, my discussion will focus on exploring whether the presence of emperors and their administration of justice influenced provincial – not only Jewish – perceptions of Roman rule prior to Late Antiquity.
Traveling petitions
- 14 On the identity of the compiler of the Codex Hermogenianus, Honoré 1994, p. 163-181. On his caree (...)
- 15 Dig. 1, 4, 1, 1.
4The reign of Diocletian offers some of the most vivid illustrations of the administration of imperial justice in the provinces. In 293 and 294, the emperor stayed at Sirmium and traveled around the Balkans while Hermogenian, the head of the office in charge of petitions (magister libellorum), compiled over 970 rescripts.14 As recently discussed by Connolly (2010), the Codex Hermogenianus sheds light on the volume of petitions addressed to the emperor, the lives of the people who relied on this system of justice, and the complex mechanisms that made the system possible. The phenomenon can be explained with reference to Ulpian, another prominent jurist of the early 3rd century CE, who determined that whatever the emperor decreed by letter and subscription (per epistulam et subscriptionem) had the force of law.15
- 16 Nörr 1983.
- 17 Millar 1992, p. 537-549; Sirks 2001, p. 121-135.
- 18 Strabo 10, 5, 3.
- 19 Philo, Legat. 42. Cf. Niehoff 2018, p. 25-46.
- 20 Cassius Dio 69, 6, 3.
- 21 Dig. 48, 22, 1.
- 22 Pliny, Ep. 48; I.Aphr.2007 8, 32 (letter of Augustus to Samos).
- 23 HA, Hadr. 22, 8. Honoré 1994, p. 3-94.
- 24 Hauken 1998, p. 304-305; Coriat 2014.
5Though the Roman ruler maintained the ability to decide legal matters on the spot, without a tribunal (de plano),16 mechanisms of petition and response had by the 2nd century CE become necessary.17 This system could effectively deal with a great number of appeals, but it restricted direct access to the top authority in the Roman judicial system. Many of the petitioners in the Balkans may have preferred to address Diocletian in person but had to wait for resolutions that were not published immediately after their submission. Anecdotes such as that of the fisherman of Gyaros who traveled to Corinth to seek a tax remission from Octavian after Actium are more difficult to find at the end of the imperial period.18 At the same time, those submitting their petitions (libelli) did not normally have to experience the distressing presence of Caligula reported by Philo in his Embassy.19 For their part, emperors – while still responding to legal issues – could avoid angry subjects such as the woman who confronted Hadrian on a journey for not having time to hear her request.20 His reign is when the first mention of a rescript in the Digest transpires.21 Already when Pliny the Younger was governor of Bithynia and Pontus, he reported the dispatch of a request from Apamea to Trajan, and Augustus is attested to have responded to petitions from the provinces.22 However, the creation of the office a libellis is attributed to Hadrian in the Historia Augusta, and its officers first appear only in the prosopography of the 2nd century.23 The system was fully functioning by the Severan age, and the majority of petitions surviving on stone belong to this period or else to the years immediately before or after it.24
- 25 Hauken 1998, p. 258-289.
- 26 E.g., MAMA X 114 (lines 2-4): Imp(erator) Caes(ar) M. [[Iul. P]hi[lippus p(ius) f(elix) Aug(ustus) (...)
- 27 Williams 1974, p. 93-98; Hauken 1998, p. 105-106.
6As noted by Hauken, these epigraphic texts – substantially more informative than the short notices in later legal compilations – normally follow a standard structure, with an address (inscriptio), exordium, narration, and appeal (preces).25 The highly formulaic opening lines served an administrative purpose, stating the names of the emperor(s), the petitioners, and the envoy.26 This sequence confirms that petitions normally were delivered by representatives, such as soldiers who had superior access to the emperor’s residences, as in the famous cases of Skaptopara and Aragua.27
- 28 Robert 1968, p. 569-580.
- 29 I.Eph. 802. Keil 1956. Cf. I.Smyrna 602; IG II2 3707 (Athens).
- 30 Williams 1986. The same procedure was followed in petitions addressed to the provincial governor, (...)
7Travel to Rome from the eastern provinces could be dangerous and costly; indeed, one 3rd-century oracle from Apollo wonders whether such toil was worthwhile.28 Imperial courts of the period were particularly mobile, and even official representatives from big cities such as Ephesus struggled to keep pace with them.29 For this reason, even if the system of petition and response was in principle operational and open to the inhabitants of the empire, access was not straightforward. In addition to travel, petitioners had to wait for the publication of subscriptions, which generally were displayed on public buildings.30 In the meantime, their influence on the final decision was limited. This apparent dearth of imperial audiences made the content of the documents submitted critical, and helps explain the care invested in those texts that have come down to us.
- 31 Legal experts are attested in Philadelphia (TAM V 3, 1454). Jones 2007. Cf. the richer evidence fr (...)
- 32 TAM V 3, 1418 (lines 51-54).
- 33 TAM V 3, 1417 (lines 9-19): “And this we beg you, o greatest and most divine of emperors ever, obs (...)
- 34 2, 375 [Russell – Wilson 1981, p. 88-89].
- 35 MAMA X, 114 (lines 24-27): ὅπως περὶ τούτων ἐκεινήθη σου ἡ θ[ειότης, ἡ ἀντιγραφὴ δηλοῖ ἡ] ἐντεταγμ (...)
8The petitions usually exhibit rhetorical strategies found in treatises from as late as the end of the imperial period, as particularly evidenced by a group of petitions from Lydia. The argumentation and expressions of some extant inscriptions are so elaborate that they suggest the assistance of logographers (and even legal experts) in their redaction.31 The inhabitants of an area near Philadelphia (modern Ağabey), for example, tried to move the emperors by adducing their status as imperial peasants “who will become fugitives from your estates where we were both born and raised and kept, as peasants, faithful to the imperial account from the time of our ancestors”.32 In nearby Kemaliye, on the other hand, the main argument is about coercive regulations and emulation of the just laws given by the emperors’ predecessors.33 This last point is highly evocative of instructions given by Menander the Rhetor, who recommended praising legislative activity (νομοθεσία) in declamations before Roman officials.34 The Lydian petitioners also accused their attackers of unlawful acts, such as the lack of prosecutor (κατήγορος), charge (αἰτία), or even accusation (ἔγκλημα). The aforementioned inscription from Aragua – another rural area in inner Anatolia – includes a reference to Philip the Arab’s position as praetorian prefect and a citation in Latin of one of his previous rescripts.35 From this evidence, it should be inferred that provincials resorting to petitions and responses not only rhetorically appealed for legislation, but also relied on a system of government that could provide them with practical solutions still in the mid-3rd century CE.
The emperor’s presence and delivery of justice
- 36 Peachin 1996, p. 90. Cf. Tuori in this volume.
- 37 SEG 44, 610 (lines 155-164): ἐ̣δεήθησαν πολλάκ̣ις̣ καὶ τῶν ἡγεμό̣νων, ἀ̣λλ̣ὰ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ μέχρις τινῶν (...)
- 38 TAM V 3, 1417 (lines 18-22); TAM V 3, 1418 (lines 18-21).
- 39 Bryen 2013; Feissel – Gascou 1995.
- 40 SEG 44, 610 (lines 108-117).
- 41 TAM V 3, 1418 (lines 30-33).
9Despite the many officials who could have dealt with petitions at the court, provincial trust in the system rested mainly on the authority of emperors, who guaranteed the application of Roman justice.36 The virtually complete inscription from Skaptopara states that the population of that settlement, harassed by constant visits of soldiers from Thrace, “had been forced to appeal to the Augustus” after the commands of the governors were soon ignored.37 The petitioners from Lydia also remarked that they had tried to avail themselves of legal resources in the province before reaching out to the emperor.38 Indeed, complaints concerning violence were supposed to first be addressed to the local representatives of the governor or the governor himself, as illustrated by the papyrological evidence from Egypt and the Euphrates.39 Those resorting to the imperial system of petition and response were aware that the decisions of the emperors ultimately had to be implemented through the provincial apparatus that ruled the petitioners. Aurelius Pyrrhus, the same soldier who had submitted the libellus of the people of Skaptopara in Rome, insisted on delivering a speech before the governor of Thrace because “the divine emperor had referred the investigation of this case to you”.40 In Ağabey, the central plea to the emperor was to make the proconsul of Asia and the equestrian procurators intervene and protect the imperial estate.41 Yet provincials, who were aware of such expected litigation and prelitigation procedures, also knew that the emperor’s decisions had a prevailing and superior effect.
- 42 SEG 57, 1429 (lines 19-29). Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002, p. 74-91; Hurlet 2006, p. 260.
10The system of petitioning by subjects is particularly well illustrated by a dossier of documents from the imperial estate of Takina, in northwestern Pisidia. The inscription is headed by a subscription by Caracalla, who instructs his procurator to take care that soldiers not harass the peasants on the pretext of the proconsuls. Among the documents following is a letter in which Gavius Tranquillus acknowledges having read the imperial rescript (θεῖα ἀντιγραφή) directly responding to the accusations of the people of Takina.42 The governor knows that his authority has been circumvented, but still encourages the prominent display of Caracalla’s response at all times to prevent the abuses of those “defiant and impious” ([πλη]μ̣μελούντων τ̣[ε καὶ] ἀσεβούντων).
- 43 Reynolds 1982.
11A quick look at imperial correspondence recorded in cities of the eastern Mediterranean, such as Aphrodisias, reveals that such solutions were not as effective and final as the monumental inscriptions presumed them to be.43 Yet the population of the empire still sought the authoritative responses of emperors, despite the long journeys, distance, and uncertainty.
- 44 On August 29, 124, Hadrian confirmed to Oenoanda that he endorsed the foundation promised by Iuliu (...)
12As noted above, the increasing itinerancy of the court at the end of the imperial period meant that petitioners did not always have to travel to Rome. Moving emperors, officials, and armies, however, posed more than logistical problems. For the fisherman of Gyaros, reaching Octavian in Greece had been more plausible than engaging in a diplomatic mission to Italy. The provincial population continued to take advantage of the emperor’s movements, as illustrated by the successful foundation of the Demostheneia games in Oenoanda after ambassadors from this southern Anatolian city swiftly met Hadrian in Ephesus.44 Thus the maturation of the office a libellis did not put an end to constant visits seeking the emperor’s favor, but only transformed how the imperial apparatus dealt with the great volume of petitions.
- 45 Williams 1974, p. 92. See P.Col. VI 123.
13The laborious activity attributed to Diocletian in the aforementioned Codex Hermogenianus has a clear precedent in Septimius Severus and Caracalla’s visit to Egypt in 200 CE. Partly on the basis of surviving papyrological evidence, it has been calculated that the ruling duo produced at least three responses (ἀποκρίματα) daily before these were posted on the stoa of the gymnasium of Alexandria.45
- 46 Halfmann 1986, p. 223-224.
- 47 Cassius Dio, 78, 17-18. The historian and senator is extremely critical of Caracalla’s attitude to (...)
- 48 Levick 1969; Baharal 1994.
- 49 I.Pergamon 525. Hostein 2012. On the representation of such imperial visits, see also Bérenger – P (...)
- 50 Blanco-Pérez 2017.
14The sole reign of Caracalla was even more mobile. In 213, having achieved the Victoria Germanica, he set out along the Danube and through the Balkans before reaching Asia Minor in the latter half of 214.46 Cassius Dio, who was staying at Nicomedia when the emperor wintered in the author’s home city, confirms that judicial hearings were supposed to be held.47 Caracalla’s visits emulating Alexander the Great also provided the local population with opportunities to honor and approach the emperor.48 His triumphal arrival (adventus) in Pergamum was lavishly celebrated on the local coinage, and one prominent woman is known to have been greeted by the emperor on three occasions.49 In the Lydian city of Thyateira, the imperial hosts were also extolled because during Caracalla’s stay, the city became the head of a judicial district and he very likely settled a long-running boundary conflict with neighboring Hierocaesarea.50
- 51 Coriat 1997, p. 184-200.
- 52 Cassius Dio, 79, 1.
- 53 This possibility was available to governors as well: Dig. 1, 16, 9, 3; 48, 2, 6; SEG 18, 646 (cf. (...)
- 54 Coriat 1997, p. 99.
- 55 C.J. 9, 51, 1.
15As expounded by Coriat, traveling played a key role in the legal activity of the Severan period.51 This fact must not be seen as limited to historiographical anecdotes such as the story of Caracalla’s settlement of a dispute over a skin of wine.52 Rather, it is linked to emperors’ capacity to issue legally binding decisions on the spot.53 One such decision de plano is clearly attributed to Caracalla in the Codex Iustinianus:54 a man had been sentenced by the provincial governor to deportation, but the emperor determined his restitution during a salutation ceremony prior to the meeting of the council.55
- 56 Suetonius, Life of Augustus 53.
- 57 Pan. Lat. 3(2), 10, 5.
16Suetonius reports that as early as Augustus, the emperor had allowed commoners to present their pleas in public audiences,56 and this rather informal procedure appears to have remained in use even after the promulgation of the Constitutio Antoniniana, when new Roman citizens gained access to less exceptional forms of recourse. Not surprisingly, the physical presence of the emperors was still praised in the 4th century as proof that they saw to the care and comfort of their subjects.57
- 58 Roussel – De Visscher 1942. On the location and physical characteristics of the temple, Brümmer 19 (...)
- 59 Halfmann 1986, p. 225.
- 60 The customary nature of this ceremonial procedure is confirmed by a notice in C.J. 9, 51, 1, refer (...)
- 61 Possibly a descendant of Avidius Cassius. Bru 2011, p. 58.
- 62 Iulianus Aristaenetus can be identified as a famous sophist from Byzantium, mentioned by Philostra (...)
17An exceptional glimpse into the effect of imperial visits on provincial populations and their judicial affairs is offered by a mixed-language inscription carved on the walls of a temple in Dmeir (Syria).58 The Latin heading indicates that Caracalla was present in Antioch on May 27, 216, having traveled from Alexandria to the Syrian capital in advance of launching his final and fatal campaign against Parthia.59 On this day, a judicial session opened with a salutation from the praetorian prefects, the heads of the imperial offices, and a group described as friends (amici).60 Once Caracalla had been seated in an auditorium of unspecified location, he ordered (iussit) a man called Aurelius Carzeus to enter. The man, most likely a very recent Roman citizen thanks to the Constitutio Antoniniana, was acting as defendant (defensor) of the Goharieni people in a hearing (cognitio) against the contractor (manceps) Avidius Hadrianus.61 Both parties were assisted by lawyers (advocati), one of the most interesting aspects of the proceedings. Even if the names of Egnatius Iulianus and Lollianus Aristaenetus were interchanged in the inscribed text, we know that they were not local advocates, but prominent members of the imperial court.62
- 63 Rochette 1997, p. 108-116; Adams 2003, p. 383-390.
- 64 According to Cassius Dio (78, 11, 3-4; 79, 8, 4), he studied philosophy and could even cite Euripi (...)
18The formal preamble to the minutes ends with the formula dixit (he said), which introduces the ensuing speeches delivered in Greek. The document thus sheds light on language usage in the eastern Mediterranean during the high imperial period, when Latin dominated legal procedures and enunciations, but Greek still could be spoken in dealings with the Roman administration.63 In fact, not only did Aristaenetus and Lollianus make their statements in Greek, but so did the emperor Caracalla.64 These court minutes, however, should not be regarded as proof of widespread linguistic proficiency in the ancient Near East, since the speeches were delivered by orators of international fame. Likewise, the inscription of Dmeir cannot be taken as indicative of the level of legal knowledge existing in provinces under Roman administration, but must be read as one possible outcome of presenting a petition (ἀξίωσις, libellus) to an emperor on the move during the Severan period.
- 65 Demosthenes, Against Evergus and Mnesibulus (47) 29. Heath 2004, p. 310-311.
19Caracalla is said to have personally selected this case, from among many other requests submitted to his court, to be read (ἀναγνωσθῆναι). Solely as a result of the imperial decision, the petitioner could witness exceptional advocates deploying a wide and complex array of rhetorical strategies and legal terminology. Aristaenetus opens his statement with παραγράφομαι (I object!), a term attested among classical Athenian orators,65 and his argumentation seeks to exploit procedural flaws that should prevent the emperor from acting as a judge in this case. Lollianus, on the other hand, affirms that it was the emperor himself who ordered the hearing (διάγνωσις). Aristaenetus insists that lawful appeals must first be admitted by the tribunal (δικαστήριον) of the governor, and criticizes Aurelius Carzeus for acting not as an ambassador (πρεσβευτής) or legal representative (σύνδικος) on an official mission, but as a private individual. Lollianus, by contrast, adopts a less legalistic approach and presents the issue as a humble plea (δέησις) by peasants supplicating (ἱκεσία) the emperor after the governor declined to let them appeal.
- 66 Dig. 49, 5.
- 67 Stolte 2003; Tuori 2016.
- 68 Millar 1993, p. 317-319.
20Caracalla appears to lean towards Lollianus’s arguments. Legal flaws may exist, but he still wants to hear (ἀκούσομαι) the case and give his own opinion (γνώμη).66 These words confirm that the authority of the emperor – even if arbitrary – remained superior to any judicial procedure, as argued above.67 Once Aristaenetus’s objections have been dismissed, Lollianus has the floor to describe the events. The rhetor describes the matter as a “contest about piety” (ἀγὼν ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας) and says that for Caracalla nothing is more important than piety. The emperor’s virtues, argues Lollianus, can be demonstrated by a verdict confirming that he is “the most pious king and judge” (line 38). This display of piety could indeed benefit the people of Goharieni, who had a renowned temple of Zeus in their territory, receiving visits and parades.68
The emperor’s justice: an influence on provincial perspectives?
- 69 Penella 1980; Meckler 1999.
- 70 Davenport 2012.
- 71 On the display of Aurelius after 212, Blanco-Pérez 2016.
21From army man to cruel and parricidal tyrant, Caracalla is not among the best-regarded Roman emperors in the historiographical tradition.69 His encounters with Cassius Dio, for example, were not very positive.70 For the Goharieni, though, he could be the ruler who decided to admit their case and give a sympathetic verdict. Even if the inscription from Dmeir is incomplete, we must envisage a scenario similar to that in Takina, where the local population was encouraged to preserve the imperial decision and set up a monumental inscription for its own benefit. Protecting the local temple of Zeus could be considered an act of piety, and many of these Syrians, such as Aurelius Carzeus, may have also regarded the Constitutio Antoniniana as something beneficial and worthy of epigraphic commemoration.71
- 72 IGLSyr 7, 4028. Feissel 1993.
- 73 SB 5, 7696 (lines 98-101). Skeat – Wegener 1935.
22The positive memory of Caracalla’s acts, moreover, was not to be restricted to his reign. The inscribed text surviving today provided a permanent precedent to which locals could refer in later legal disputes. The illustrative case of nearby Baetocaece shows that such imperial decisions – regardless of when they were produced – could still be decisive in preserving privileges in the middle of the 3rd century.72 A law issued during the prosperous stay of Caracalla and his father in Egypt was likewise mentioned in a post-Severan trial,73 and the “archive wall” of Aphrodisias encapsulated the local prestige of rulers from Augustus to Gordian III, and even Trajan Decius, who respected the autonomous status of the Aphrodisians. Provincial perceptions of the emperors were impressible and therefore changeable; one need only read what Cyprian and the Christian sources say about Decius’s persecutions.
23Little is known of Roman legal activity after the 250s. The Byzantine codices are almost silent about the judicial decisions of short-lived emperors plagued by usurpations and external attacks on almost every point of their realm. The golden age of jurisprudence came to an end – the lack of imperial constitutions cannot be explained by a mere lack of sources. The latter half of the 3rd century CE was a time of undisputable crisis, and this necessarily affected the submission of petitions, the provision of responses, and the publication of rescripts. Only an innovative leader such as Diocletian could ultimately turn the tide, and the rise of his Tetrarchic regime had an immediate effect on legal activity. As shown at the beginning of this paper, the period is particularly rich in sources illustrating the emperor’s juridical productivity, in terms of both compilations and epigraphy, both at imperial residences and on the move.
- 74 See y. Terumot 8:11, 46b–c.
24The talmudic tradition echoes Diocletian’s attitudes and provides another provincial perspective on his activities. The Roman emperor may have issued decrees interfering with the Sabbath, gifted idolatrous fairs, and changed the number of biblical lakes in the Near East. Nonetheless, he also managed to restore the efficiency of a system of petition and response on which locals still had to rely for authoritative solutions. Once again, the arrival of the emperor in their cities was an anticipated and momentous occasion, and even justified some neglect of religious scruples about cemeteries and impurity. In sum, Diocletian’s presence and legally binding decisions may have transformed a swineherd into a king whom the Jews perceived as unworthy of contempt.74
Bibliographie
Primary sources
CIL, VI = G. Henzen et al. (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, Reimer, W. de Gruyter, 1876-1989.
I.Aphr.2007 = J. Reynolds, C. Roueché, G. Bodard (ed.), Inscriptions of Aphrodisias 2007, http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007.
I.Eph. = H. Wankel et al. (ed.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos, 7 vols., Bonn, Habelt, 1979-1981 (IGSK, 11-17).
IGLSyr, 7= J-P. Rey-Coquais (ed.), Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. VII. Arados et régions voisines, Paris, P. Geuthner, 1970.
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1873-.
I.Pergamon = M. Fraenkel (ed.), Die Inschriften von Pergamon, 2 vols., Berlin, W. Spemann, 1890-1895.
I.Smyrna = G. Petzl (ed.), Die Inschriften von Smyrna, 2 vols., Bonn, Habelt, 1982-1990 (IGSK, 23-24).
MAMA = Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, 11 vols., London, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1928-2013.
P.Col. VI = W.L. Westermann, A.A. Schiller (ed.), Apokrimata: Decisions of Septimius Severus on Legal Matters, New York, Columbia University Press, 1954.
PLRE = A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (3 vol.), Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1971-1992.
SB = F. Preisigke, F. Bilabel, E. Kiessling, H.-A. Rupprecht, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten, Strassburg, K.J. Trübner, 1915-.
SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Amsterdam, Gieben; Leiden, Brill, 1923-.
TAM V 3 = G. Petzl (ed.), Tituli Asiae Minoris, V. Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. III. Philadelpheia et Ager Philadelphenus, Vienna, Habelt, 2007.
Secondary sources
Adams 2003 = J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge, 2003.
Baharal 1994 = D. Baharal, Caracalla and Alexander the Great: A Reappraisal, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, VII, Brussels, 1994, p. 524-567.
Barnes 1982 = T. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge, 1982.
Bérenger – Perrin-Saminadayar 2009 = A. Bérenger, E. Perrin-Saminadayar, Les entrées royales et impériales. Histoire, représentation et diffusion d’une cérémonie publique, de l’Orient ancien à Byzance, Paris, 2009.
Blanco-Pérez 2016 = A. Blanco-Pérez, Nomenclature and Dating in Roman Asia Minor: (M.) Aurelius/a and the 3rd Century AD, in ZPE, 199, 2016, p. 271-293.
Blanco-Pérez 2017 = A. Blanco-Pérez, Tiatira, Caracalla y la reciprocidad epigráfica en Asia Menor en el siglo III d.C., in Conventus Classicorum: Temas y Formas del Mundo Clasico, II, Madrid, 2017, p. 191-198.
Bru 2011 = H. Bru, Le pouvoir impérial dans les provinces syriennes. Représentations et célébrations d’Auguste à Constantin (31 av. J.-C.-337 ap. J.-C.), Leiden, 2011.
Brümmer 1985 = E. Brümmer, Der römische Tempel von Dmeir. Ein Vorbericht, in MDAI(D), 2, 1985, p. 55-64.
Bryen 2013 = A.Z. Bryen, Violence in Roman Egypt: A Study in Legal Interpretation, Philadelphia, 2013.
Christol 2012 = M. Christol, Caracalla en 214: De Nicomédie à Nicomédie, in Hostein – Lalanne 2012, p. 155-167.
Christol – Drew-Bear – Taşlιalan 2003 = M. Christol, T. Drew-Bear, M. Taşlιalan, Lucius Egnatius Victor Lollianus, Proconsul d’Asie, in Anatolia Antiqua, 11, 2003, p. 343-359.
Cohn 2011 = Y.B. Cohn, The Graeco-Roman Trade Fair and the Rabbis, in JAOS, 131, 2011, p. 187-193.
Connolly 2010 = S. Connolly, Living Lives behind the Laws, Bloomington, 2010.
Corcoran 2000 = S. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284-324, Oxford, 2000.
Coriat 1997 = J. Coriat, Le prince législateur. La technique législative des Sévères et les méthodes de création du droit impérial à la fin du principat, Rome, 1997.
Coriat 2014 = J. Coriat, Les constitutions des Sévères: Règne de Septime Sévère. I, Constitutions datées de la première période du règne (juin 193-automne 197 ap. J.-C.) et constitutions non datées de Septime Sévère cité comme seul auteur de la décision, Rome, 2014.
Crook 1995 = J.A. Crook, Legal Advocacy in the Roman World, London, 1995.
Davenport 2012 = C. Davenport, Cassius Dio and Caracalla, in CQ, 62, 2012, p. 796-815.
Eck 2006 = W. Eck, Der Kaiser und seine Ratgeber. Überlegungen zum inneren Zusammenhang von amici, comites und consiliarii am römischen Kaiserhof, in A. Kolb (ed.), Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte, Prinzipien und Strategien der Administration im römischen Kaiserreich, Berlin, 2006, p. 67-77.
Feissel 1993 = D. Feissel, Les privilèges de Baitokaiké. Remarques sur le rescrit de Valérien et le colophon du dossier, in Syria, 70, 1993, p. 13-26.
Feissel – Gascou 1995 = D. Feissel, J. Gascou, Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.) I. Les pétitions (T. Euphr. 1 à 5), in Journal des Savants, 1995, p. 65-119.
Greenfield 1991 = J.C. Greenfield, An Aramaic Inscription from Tyre from the Reign of Diocletian, in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Rome, 1991, p. 499-502.
Haensch 2006 = R. Haensch, L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus. La rhétorique, la religion et le pouvoir, in B. Klein, X. Loriot, A. Vigourt (ed.), Pouvoir et religion dans le monde romain. Autour de l’œuvre de Jean-Pierre Martin, Paris, 2006, p. 289-302.
Halfmann 1986 = H. Halfmann, Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart, 1986.
Harries 2012 = J. Harries, Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363: The New Empire, Edinburgh, 2012.
Hauken 1998 = T. Hauken, Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors, 181-249, Bergen, 1998.
Heath 2004 = M. Heath, Menander: A Rhetor in Context, Oxford, 2004.
Honoré 1994 = T. Honoré, Emperors and Lawyers, Oxford, 1994.
Hostein 2012 = A. Hostein, La visite de Caracalla à Pergame et à Laodicée du Lykos. L’apport des monnaies, in Hostein – Lalanne 2012, p. 205-227.
Hostein – Lalanne 2012 = A. Hostein, S. Lalanne (ed.), Les voyages des empereurs dans l’Orient romain (époques antonine et sévérienne), Paris, 2012.
Hurlet 2006 = F. Hurlet, Le proconsul et le prince d’Auguste à Dioclétien, Bordeaux, 2006.
Jones 2007 = C.P. Jones, Juristes romains dans l’Orient grec, in CRAI, 151, 2007, p. 1331-1359.
Keil 1956 = J. Keil, Ein ephesischer Anwalt des 3. Jahrhunderts durchreist das Imperium Romanum, Munich, 1956.
Kuhoff 2001 = W. Kuhoff, Diokletian und die Epoche der Tetrarchie: Das römische Reich zwischen Krisenbewältigung und Neuaufbau (284–313 n. Chr.), Frankfurt, 2001.
Leadbetter 1998 = B. Leadbetter, “Patrimonium Indivisum”? The Empire of Diocletian and Maximian, in Chiron, 28, 1998, p. 213-228.
Levick 1969 = B. Levick, Caracalla’s Path, in J. Bibauw (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard, II, Brussels, 1969, p. 426-446.
Linder 1987 = A. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit, 1987.
Meckler 1999 = M.L. Meckler, Caracalla the Intellectual, in E. Dal Covolo, G. Rinaldi (ed.), Gli imperatori Severi: Storia, archeologia, religione, Roma, 1999, p. 39-46.
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002 = E. Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer, Πολιτικῶς ἄρχειν: zum Regierungsstil der senatorischen Statthalter in den kaiserzeitlichen griechischen Provinzen, Stuttgart, 2002.
Millar 1992 = F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World: 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, London, 1992.
Millar 1993 = F. Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337, Cambridge, MA, 1993.
Niehoff 2018 = M.R. Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography, New Haven, 2018.
Nörr 1983 = D. Nörr, Zu einem fast vergessenen Konstitutionentyp: interloqui de plano, in Studi in onore di Cesare Sanfilippo, III, Milan, 1983, p. 521-543.
Peachin 1996 = M. Peachin, Iudex vice Caesaris: Deputy Emperors and the Administration of Justice during the Principate, Stuttgart, 1996.
Penella 1980 = R.J. Penella, Caracalla and his Mother in the Historia Augusta, in Historia, 29, 1980, p. 382-384.
Rabello 1984 = A.M. Rabello, On the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews, in Israel Journal of Jewish Studies, 35-2, 1984, p. 147-167.
Rees 2004 = R. Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, Edinburgh, 2004.
Rees 2005 = R. Rees, The Emperors’ New Names: Diocletian Jovius and Maximian Herculius, in L. Rawlings, H. Bowden (ed.), Herakles and Hercules: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity, Swansea, 2005, p. 223-239.
Reynolds 1982 = J.M. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias Conducted by Professor Kenan T. Erim, Together with Some Related Texts, London, 1982.
Robert 1968 = L. Robert, Trois Oracles de la Théosophie et un Prophète d’Apollon, in CRAI, 112, 1968, p. 568-599. [OMS V 584-615].
Rochette 1997 = B. Rochette, Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’empire romain, Brussels, 1997.
Roussel – De Visscher 1942 = P. Roussel, F. De Visscher, Inscriptions du temple de Dmeir, in Syria, 23.3-4, 1942, p. 173-200.
Russell – Wilson 1981 = D.A. Russell, N.G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor, Oxford, 1981.
Schöpe 2014 = B. Schöpe, Der römische Kaiserhof in severischer Zeit (193-235 n. Chr.), Stuttgart, 2014.
Sirks 2001 = A.J.B. Sirks, Making a Request to the Emperor: Rescripts in the Roman Empire, in L. de Blois (ed.), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam, 2001, p. 121-135.
Skeat – Wegener 1935 = T.C. Skeat, E.P. Wegener, A Trial before the Prefect of Egypt Appius Sabinus, c. 250 A.D. (P. Lond. Inv. 2565), in JEA, 21-2, 1935, p. 224-247.
Stolte 2003 = B.H. Stolte, Jurisdiction and Representation of Power or, the Emperor on Circuit, in L. de Blois (ed.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire, Amsterdam, 2003, p. 261-268.
Tuori 2016 = K. Tuori, The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication, Oxford, 2016.
Williams 1974 = W. Williams, The Libellus Procedure and the Severan Papyri, in JRS, 64, 1974, p. 86-103.
Williams 1986 = W. Williams, Epigraphic Texts of Imperial Subscripts, in ZPE, 66, 1986, p. 181-207.
Wörrle 1988 = M. Wörrle, Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda, Munich, 1988.
Notes
1 y. Berakhot 3:1, 6a; y. Nazir 7:1, 56a.
2 I wish to thank Yael Wilfand of the ERC Judaism and Rome team for the translations.
3 Leadbetter 1998; Kuhoff 2001, p. 17-35; Rees 2004, p. 6-7; Harries 2012, p. 26-33.
4 C.J. 4, 10, 3.
5 Barnes 1982, p. 49-56.
6 For a previous analysis of this evidence, see e.g. Rabello 1984.
7 y. Avodah Zarah 1:4, 39d. See also Greenfield 1991, p. 499-502.
8 Pan. Lat. 10(2), 14, 1; Lactantius, De mort. 52, 3. Rees 2005, p. 223-239; Harries 2012, p. 82-83.
9 On Jewish attitudes towards imperial fairs, see most recently Cohn 2011.
10 y. Kilʾayim 9:4, 32c; y. Ketubbot 12:3, 35b. C.J. 9, 41, 9, places Diocletian in Emesa on May 10, 290. Lactantius, De mort. 7, 8, describes Diocletian’s building policy as a cupiditas aedificandi.
11 Corcoran 2000.
12 y. Avodah Zarah 5:3, 44b (see below).
13 C.J. 3, 13, 3. Linder 1987, p. 114-117.
14 On the identity of the compiler of the Codex Hermogenianus, Honoré 1994, p. 163-181. On his career (PLRE Hermogenianus II, p. 425-426), see also Connolly 2010, p. 56-57.
15 Dig. 1, 4, 1, 1.
16 Nörr 1983.
17 Millar 1992, p. 537-549; Sirks 2001, p. 121-135.
18 Strabo 10, 5, 3.
19 Philo, Legat. 42. Cf. Niehoff 2018, p. 25-46.
20 Cassius Dio 69, 6, 3.
21 Dig. 48, 22, 1.
22 Pliny, Ep. 48; I.Aphr.2007 8, 32 (letter of Augustus to Samos).
23 HA, Hadr. 22, 8. Honoré 1994, p. 3-94.
24 Hauken 1998, p. 304-305; Coriat 2014.
25 Hauken 1998, p. 258-289.
26 E.g., MAMA X 114 (lines 2-4): Imp(erator) Caes(ar) M. [[Iul. P]hi[lippus p(ius) f(elix) Aug(ustus)]] et [[M. Iul. Philippu]]s n[o]bi[l]issimus Caes(ar) M. Au[r. Eglecto] pe[r] Didymum mili(tem) cen(tenarium) frum(entarium) proconsul{e} v(iro) c(larissimo) perspecta fide eorum quae [adlegastis si] quid iniuriose geratur, ad sollicitudinem suam revocabit.
27 Williams 1974, p. 93-98; Hauken 1998, p. 105-106.
28 Robert 1968, p. 569-580.
29 I.Eph. 802. Keil 1956. Cf. I.Smyrna 602; IG II2 3707 (Athens).
30 Williams 1986. The same procedure was followed in petitions addressed to the provincial governor, as illustrated by the Middle Euphrates papyri. Feissel – Gascou 1995.
31 Legal experts are attested in Philadelphia (TAM V 3, 1454). Jones 2007. Cf. the richer evidence from Egypt studied by Crook 1995, p. 155-158. This topic is also discussed by Fournier in this volume.
32 TAM V 3, 1418 (lines 51-54).
33 TAM V 3, 1417 (lines 9-19): “And this we beg you, o greatest and most divine of emperors ever, observing both your laws and those of your ancestors (νόμους τῶν τε προγόνων ὑμῶν) and your peace-giving justice (δικαιοσύνην) for all, and abhorring those whom you yourselves and all your ancestral imperial family always abhorred”. Trans. Hauken 1998, p. 64, slightly modified.
34 2, 375 [Russell – Wilson 1981, p. 88-89].
35 MAMA X, 114 (lines 24-27): ὅπως περὶ τούτων ἐκεινήθη σου ἡ θ[ειότης, ἡ ἀντιγραφὴ δηλοῖ ἡ] ἐντεταγμένη· quae libe[l]lo conplexi esti[s, ad proco(n)s(ulem) misimus] qui dabit operam ne d[iu]tiu{i}s querell[is locus sit]. On Philip as praetorian prefect, Honoré 1994, p. 3.
36 Peachin 1996, p. 90. Cf. Tuori in this volume.
37 SEG 44, 610 (lines 155-164): ἐ̣δεήθησαν πολλάκ̣ις̣ καὶ τῶν ἡγεμό̣νων, ἀ̣λλ̣ὰ̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ μέχρις τινῶν ἴσχυ̣σ̣ε̣ν̣ α̣ὐτῶν τὰ προστάγμα̣τ̣α, με̣τὰ δὲ ταῦτα κατωλ̣ιγορήθη διὰ τὴ̣ν συν̣ή̣θειαν τῆς το̣ιαύτης ἐνο̣χλήσεως· δ̣ιὰ τοῦτο ἀναγκαίως̣ κατ̣έφυγον ἐπὶ τὸν Σ̣ε̣βα̣σ̣τόν.
38 TAM V 3, 1417 (lines 18-22); TAM V 3, 1418 (lines 18-21).
39 Bryen 2013; Feissel – Gascou 1995.
40 SEG 44, 610 (lines 108-117).
41 TAM V 3, 1418 (lines 30-33).
42 SEG 57, 1429 (lines 19-29). Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002, p. 74-91; Hurlet 2006, p. 260.
43 Reynolds 1982.
44 On August 29, 124, Hadrian confirmed to Oenoanda that he endorsed the foundation promised by Iulius Demosthenes to the city on July 24. Wörrle 1988, p. 33.
45 Williams 1974, p. 92. See P.Col. VI 123.
46 Halfmann 1986, p. 223-224.
47 Cassius Dio, 78, 17-18. The historian and senator is extremely critical of Caracalla’s attitude towards these hearings, saying that he skipped many and actually appointed his mother to deal with most of the petitions while he entertained himself with the soldiers. Christol 2012.
48 Levick 1969; Baharal 1994.
49 I.Pergamon 525. Hostein 2012. On the representation of such imperial visits, see also Bérenger – Perrin-Saminadayar 2009.
50 Blanco-Pérez 2017.
51 Coriat 1997, p. 184-200.
52 Cassius Dio, 79, 1.
53 This possibility was available to governors as well: Dig. 1, 16, 9, 3; 48, 2, 6; SEG 18, 646 (cf. 20, 507). Regarding restrictions on the facultas praesidis adeundi, see Dig. 48, 5, 12, 6.
54 Coriat 1997, p. 99.
55 C.J. 9, 51, 1.
56 Suetonius, Life of Augustus 53.
57 Pan. Lat. 3(2), 10, 5.
58 Roussel – De Visscher 1942. On the location and physical characteristics of the temple, Brümmer 1985.
59 Halfmann 1986, p. 225.
60 The customary nature of this ceremonial procedure is confirmed by a notice in C.J. 9, 51, 1, referring to another council decision taken by Caracalla. On the relevance of the emperor’s entourage, Eck 2006; Schöpe 2014.
61 Possibly a descendant of Avidius Cassius. Bru 2011, p. 58.
62 Iulianus Aristaenetus can be identified as a famous sophist from Byzantium, mentioned by Philostratus in his Lives (2, 11), who was honored in Italy (CIL VI, 1511-1512) and may have gone on to become governor of Bithynia and Pontus. Even more remarkable was the career of Victor Egnatius Lollianus, a rhetor who became consul and served three consecutive terms as proconsul of Asia in the mid-3rd century (PIR2 E 36). Christol – Drew-Bear – Taşlιalan 2003; Haensch 2006).
63 Rochette 1997, p. 108-116; Adams 2003, p. 383-390.
64 According to Cassius Dio (78, 11, 3-4; 79, 8, 4), he studied philosophy and could even cite Euripides. Famous Greek intellectuals are known to have played a role in his education (Philostratus, Lives 2, 24-26).
65 Demosthenes, Against Evergus and Mnesibulus (47) 29. Heath 2004, p. 310-311.
66 Dig. 49, 5.
67 Stolte 2003; Tuori 2016.
68 Millar 1993, p. 317-319.
69 Penella 1980; Meckler 1999.
70 Davenport 2012.
71 On the display of Aurelius after 212, Blanco-Pérez 2016.
72 IGLSyr 7, 4028. Feissel 1993.
73 SB 5, 7696 (lines 98-101). Skeat – Wegener 1935.
74 See y. Terumot 8:11, 46b–c.
Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.