Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:43:26.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Imperial’ Rescripts A.D. 193–305: Authorship and Authenticity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Tony Honoré
Tony Honoré
Affiliation:
All Souls College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article summarizes some of the results of an inquiry into third-century rescripts which has been proceeding for the last seven years but of which nothing has so far been published. The main source, the Codex Justinianus, contains some 2491 items dated between A.D. 193, when we first have a substantial number of texts, and 305, which are certainly or probably private rescripts, as I shall call them, i.e. subscriptiones. These were written answers given by the emperor to petitions by private individuals on points of law. If these written answers, which were in some sense the concern of the imperial office a libellis, are reassembled from the titles under which they are grouped in the Codex, and are read in complete chronological order, the reader is struck by the fact that their style is consistent over a period which varies from a few months to several years.The periods of consistent style, however, do not coincide with the reign of a particular Augustus or Augusti. Some twenty such periods and hence some twenty third-century composers of rescripts, who are clearly not emperors, can be distinguished in this way. In half a dozen cases there is evidence, again drawn from the style of composition, that the composer is one of the jurists known to us independently from the pages of Justinian's Digest; for example, Papinian, Ulpian, Menander, Modestinus or Hermogenianus. In two cases the evidence for the identification is set out in some detail below. It seems, therefore, that the composition of rescripts of any importance was the responsibility of professional lawyers, acting in their capacity of imperial secretaries a libellis, an office which Papinian at least is known to have held.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 69 , November 1979 , pp. 51 - 64
Copyright
Copyright ©Tony Honoré 1979. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

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

References

1 A fuller version will appear in Emperors and Lawyers (1980). The basic research was carried out in 1972–3.

2 The term subscriptio is evidenced only for the second century: Gaius, Inst. 1. 94; CJ 7.43.1; D. 4.8.32.14; Wilcken, U., Hermes 55 (1920), 1;Google Scholar A. v. Premerstein, RE IV. 739; Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (1977), 243–52Google Scholar.

3 Table below, p. 56.

4 Below, p. 56, and Appendix, p. 63.

5 D. 20.5.12 pr. (Tryphoninus, VIII disputationum).

6 Emphasized by Millar, op. cit. (n. 2), esp. 240–52.

7 Volterra, E., ‘Sulle inscriptiones di alcuni costituzioni di Diocleziano’, BIDR 76 (1973), 245Google Scholar; ‘II Problema del testo delle costituzioni imperiali’, Atti del II cong. int. della soc. ital. di stor. del diritto (1971), 821.

8 Despite the scepticism of Birley, A., Septimius Severus (1971), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar and C. E. van Sickle, ‘The Headings of the Rescripts of the Severi in the Justinian Code’, Class. Phil. 23 (1928), 270, only CJ 7.12.1 (Sev. et Ant., 16 June 161) has a clearly wrong date and should probably be attributed to 213 (‘Antonino et Balbino conss.’ for ‘Antonino et Vero’).

9 C. Haec (13 Feb. 528) 2; C. Summa (7 Apr. 529) 1, 3.

10 The ‘Caesar’ referred to by Atilicinus (D. 8.3.35; Millar, ERW, 465) is more likely to be Claudius or Nero than Augustus, given that Atilicinus was Proculi aequalis: Lenel, Pal. 1. 71.

11 D. 1.2.2.49.

12 D. 48.5.39.10 (Pap. 36 qu.: ‘et hoc ita Tiberius Caesar rescripsit’).

18 L. Volusius Maecianus (CIL XIV. 5347; Lenel, Pal. 1. 575–88) is the first attested equestrian jurist to hold the office, to Pius under Hadrian in A.D. 138; Pflaum, Carrières procuratoriennes, no. 141; Millar, op. cit. (n. 2), 103.

14 Inst. 1.5.

15 D. 1.4.1 pr., 1 (1 institutionum).

16 CJ 9.23.1 (212); 1.18.1 (25 April 212); 5.41.1.1 (25 July 213); D. 48. 22. 16 (Antoninus). All stem from Caracalla, and seem to belong to the tenure of Arrius Menander. Below, p. 55.

17 CJ 7.62.2 (Alexander); 1.21.1 (232). Pace Crook, J. A., Law and Life of Rome (1967), 21Google Scholar, they are not appeals.

18 CJ 1.21.1 (232).

19 D. 42.1.32 (Callistratus, lib. in cognitionum).

20 D. 49.5.4 (Macer, lib. 1 appellationum).

21 Corp. Iur. Civ. 11 11 (ed. P. Krueger), 489.

22 CJC 11, 492.

23 CJ 2.23.1 (194); 4.28.4(201); 5.53.1 (205); 3.34.1 (211); 5.43.1; 6.3.4; 6.21.1 (all 212); 10.40.1 (Antoninus); 9.12.2 (15 Feb. 213).

24 CJ 2.3.7. (30 July 213); 4.21.1 (9 Sept. 213); 8.40.4 (17 Sept. 213); 6.37.7; 6.31.2; 6.54.4 (all 215); 4.57.1(222); 5.55.1(223); 6.26.4(225); 4.31.4; 5.5.1; 7.4.6; 9.47.7 (all Alex.); 2.19.3 (238); 1.50.1(240); 5.37.12,8.40.16 (241); 10.39.3 (Philip); 1.23.2 (270). The earliest text, if correctly dated, is App. leg. Rom. Wis. 1.3 (26 July 213). CJ 5.16.3 (4 March 213) is not a real exception, since si modo there qualifies the facts of the case, not the statement of the law.

25 CJ 7.66.4; 8.42.4; 7.66.5 (all 238); 6.30.3 pr. (18 Aug. 241); cf 2.52.2 (238, ‘in fata concessit’).

26 CJ 4.10.1 (242); 6.22.1 pr. (243); 6.20.6 (244, Gordian); 6.42.12 (244, Philip); 8.50.4.1 (290).

27 CJ 2.11.14 (238); 5.64.1.1 (239); 8.50.2.1 (12 June 241); 2.19.7 (293).

28 CJ 6.40.1 (20 July 241); 6.42.11 (31 Dec. 241); 2.11.17 (242); 5.43.8 (244); 2.26.3; 4.28.6 pr. (245); 6.21.10 pr. (246); 6.23.7 (16 Jan. 290); 7.43.7 (30 March 290); cf. 11.34.2 (Gordian); 7.57.6; 7.53.6 (both Philip); 9.51.9 (Diocl. et Max. AA); 7.35.4 (Diocl. et Max. AA, epistula).

29 CJ 10.11.2 pr. (238); 9.35.3(239); 9.19.1(240).

30 CJ 6.50.9 (238); 3.35.2; 5.62.14.1 (both 239).

31 CJ 3.32.8; 4.2.4.1 (both 246); 9.49.5 (Philip).

32 CJ 2.43.3; 8.40.18 (both 244); 5.37.14 (245); 6.42.13 (246); 7.2.8, 9.49.5 (Philip).

33 CJ 3.37.1 pr.; 4.50.1; 5.54.3 (all 213); 4.49.1 (215); 2.18.8 (218); 8.35.3 (Antoninus). CJ 2.18.8 of 27 July 218 may indicate that Elagabal reappointed Caracalla's secretary a libellis.

34 CJ 2.40.1 (229); 9.9.20 (5 Oct. 290); 9.9.23 (1 Nov. 290); 7.13.1 (7 Dec. 290); 6.35.9(291); cf. 10.33.1 (Diocl. et Max. AA).

35 CJ 6.49.4; 8.53.15.1; 8.53.18 (all 293); 5.18.8; 6.35.10.1; 6.36.6; 8.41.5 (all 294).

36 Too many to set out here: see von Mayr, Vocab. Cod. Iust. 1, 731.

37 CJ 4.5.4; 4.15.4; 5.34.5; 2.21.5.1; 8.4.2 (all 293); 5.62.18 pr.; 6.50.17; 6.36.5 (all 294).

38 CJ 6.26.8.1; 5.51.7; 4.5.5; 8.53.11 pr.; 8.13.14; 9.20.9; 3.36.19; 8.1.3 (all 293); 2.56.1 pr. (294).

39 CJ 6.50.2 (197); 6.29.1 (213); 6. 11. 2. 1; 9.33.1; 9.9.14; 8.40.17; 7.55.2 (all 242); 3.33.7 (243); 4.29.11; 6.42.12 (both 244); 3.28.15; 3.32.7 (both 245); 6.20.7; 6.21.12 (both 246); 6.58.3 pr. (250); 2.5.1; 5.14.6, 4.5.7 (all 293); 4.26.9 (294); cf. 7.50.1 (Gordian); 3.36.11; 10.39.3 (both Philip). CJ 4.2.1 (204) has ‘cum sit explorati iuris.

40 CJ 8.18.1 (209); 3.32.1; 8.53.1(210); 7.59.1; 6.45.1 (211); 8.43.1 (11 Feb. 212).

41 CJ 2.53.1; 8.17.2; 6.24.2; 8.44.4; 5.43.1; 5.37.3; 6.21.1 (all 212); 9.12.2; 8.35.3; 5.54.2 pr.; 3.31.5; 2.3.5; 6.29.1 (all 213, before 30 July).

42 CJ 7.71.1 (22 Nov. 223); 5.55.2; 6.54.5 (both 224); 4.55.5; 9.23.4; 3.18.1; 4.24.6 (quae); 6.42.8; 9.22.5 (quod—all 225).

43 Below, nn. 140–8.

44 Seventeen such endings in sixty-five rescripts: CJ 9.41.1; 3.15.1; 4.26.2; 3.38.2; 7.32.1 (all 196); 2.11.2; 5.54.1; 2.50.1; 6.46.1; 6.50.2; 2.18.2; 8.16.1 (all 197); 4.28.3; 4.28.2 (both 198); 5.4.1; 6.47.1; 6.25.9 (all 199).

45 CJ 8.19.1 (230); 9.34.1; 7.30.2; 4.19.3 (all 231); cf. 2.41.1 (232, ‘quod prospexerit).

46 Above, n. 39.

47 e.g. habere actionem, CJ 5.12.2 (30 July 213); 7.73.3 (30 Dec 213); 6.54.4; 6.2.3 (215); 2.18.7 (216); 8.37.2 (24 Feb. 217).

48 e.g. CJ 2.4.4 (226, ‘nullam… nisi… non ambigitur… nisi’). Of forty-eight rescripts in 226–8 only eight are expressed positively.

49 Below, n. 77–84.

50 CJ 8.449 (22 Dec. 222); 6.30.2; 7191; 4.48.2.1; 8.35.4; 6.33.2; 3.41.1; 4.56.2 (all 223). The earliest text is CJ 2.18.2 (197) and the next after 223 is CJ 922.4 (227).

51 Below, n. 132.

52 Above, n. 41.

53 CJ 2.3.12 (230); 4.13.1.1(238); 10.3.2(239); 4.10.5; 4.26.7.1; 7.60.2; 4.49.8; 6.2.12.1; 7.16.22 (all 293); 8.13.20; 4.6.8; 6.57.2.1; 5.62.18.1; 3.37.5; 7.33.8.1; 5.42.4 (all 294); cf. 7.4.11.1; 7.45.7.1 (both Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

54 CJ 2.3.1 (200); 6.35.2 pr. (208); 2.53.2. (215); 6.22.1 (243); 7.16.12; 1.22.1; 6.23.11; 716.23; 4.38.6 (all 293); 4.38.9; 2.4.25; 2.18.20.2; 5.12.2.1; 3.33.24; 6.36.4; 716.35; 1.18.9; 4.21.12; 7 16.38 (all 294); cf. 9.51.8 (Val. et Gall.), 4.38.12 pr.; 4.38.13; 4.44.12 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

55 CJ 9.9.16.1 (256, ‘erras tu marite’); 6.25.5 (257,‘reprehendenda es’); 9.22.7 (‘ipse significas’).

56 p. 63.

57 Appendix, p. 63f.

58 Only three rescripts of Commodus as sole ruler are clearly attested: D. 12.3.10 (Callistratus, lib. 1 quaestionum), 35.3.6 (idem, lib. IV cognitionum), 49.14.31 (Marcianus, lib. iv institutionum).

59 Above, n. 16. Since these rescripts all fall in the tenure of secretary no. 4—Arrius Menander, below n. 66—it is debatable how far these derogations reflect the emperor's personal intervention.

60 P. Col. 123; Westermann, W. L., Schiller, A. A., Apokrimata (1954)Google Scholar; Youtie, H. C., Schiller, A. A., ‘Second Thoughts on the Columbia Apokrimata’, Chron. d'Egypte 30 (1955) 327CrossRefGoogle Scholar = SB 9526.

61 D. 20.5.12 pr. (lib. VIII disputationum). Frag. Vat. 9 shows that this was indeed Papinian's opinion.

62 D. 37. 14. 17 pr. (Ulpian, lib. XI leg. Iul. et Pap.). Marcus here after consultation decided to depart from one of his own previous rescripts. Millar op. cit. (n. 2), 249 takes ‘cuius sententiam nos quoque secuti sumus, cum rescriberemus..’ to mean that Marcus and Verus had themselves composed the previous rescript. But since, formally speaking, rescripts were imperial acts, the emperor could hardly express himself otherwise.

63 Suetonius, Galba 5.1: ‘inter liberales disciplinas attendit et iuri.’

64 Herodian 4.12.1.

65 Above, nn. 23–4.

66 CJ 5.75.1.2; 5.16.1; 2.12.5; 6.24.2; 5.43.1; 5.37.3; 8.44.5; 4.29.1; 9.50.1 (all 212); 10.3.1; 9.12.2; 6.21.2; 5.54.21; 3.37.1 pr.; 5.16.3; 6.25.2; 5.14.2; 4.30.2; 5.51.2; 2.3.5 (all 213, before 31 July), cf. 7.26.1 (13 Aug. 213, overlap). This habit makes it possible to identify the composer as Arrius Menander, who wrote de re militari (Lenel, Pal. 1 695–700).

67 Only three instances in 105 rescripts: CJ 6.31.2 (214); 4.26.3; 5.50.1 (both 215).

68 CJ 4.21.1

69 Apparuerit texts are CJ 4.28.4 (201); 7.8.1 (205); 4.21.1 (9 Sept. 213, final); 6.37.5 (same, final); 4.26.4 (215, final); 5.18.3 (215); 6.50.3 (222); 5.63.1 (223); 2.4.3 (223); 8.29.4 (240); cf. 4.61.3 (Sev. et Ant.), 4.32.9 (Ant.), 11.39.1 (Alex.).

70 Herodian 3.10.2; Hist. Aug., Severus 16.8.

71 Herodian 3.14.9.

72 Probably on 26 December 211. Barnes, T.D., ‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, JTS 19 (1968), 552Google Scholar.

73 Advent before 1 Dec. 222: CJ 4.65.4.1.

74 Murder some considerable time before May/June 224: Pap. Oxy. xxxxi, no. 2565.

75 RE VII. 364, 366; His. Aug., Gord. 23.5.6.

76 CJ 4.26.1 (196).

77 Below, n. 83.

78 CJ. 2.3.2 (12 Feb. 202).

79 CJ 8.2.1 (197).

80 CJ 4.30.1 = 8.32.1 (197).

81 CJ 4.15.1 (197, pignoris capio), 4.55.1; 4.55.2 (both 200, manus iniectio).

82 CJ 6.54.3 (196, ius praetorium).

83 CJ 2.23.1 (194); 6.39.1; 2.18.1; 4.26.1 bis; 3.28.2 (all 196); 2.11.2 ter; 5.18.1; 3.28.3; 2.30.1; 4.30.1; 3.36.1 (all 197); 2.18.3 bis (199); 6.2.1 ter; 4.55.2 (all 200); 5.58.1; 5.12.1 quinq., 2.18.4 (all 201).

84 The rate of such citations is about double that for any subsequent tenure.

85 CJ 5.47.1; 8.2.1 (both 197); 2.11.4; 6.53.1 (both 198); cf. 6.39.1 (196, ‘probatura es’); 7.4.1.1. (197, ‘si docueris’); 2.3.2 (12 Feb. 202, ‘si probare potueris’); 4.30.1 (197, ‘probaturus es’); 3.31.2 (200, ‘si liquido probaretur’).

86 Seventeen rescripts out of sixty-five: below, nn. 87–94 and CJ 2.11.2; 5.54.1; 2.50.1 (all 197); 4.283. (198).

87 CJ 9.41.1(196); 6.46.1(197); 6.47.1; 6.25.1 (both 199). In view of this trait the last clause in 6.46.1 is clearly interpolated.

88 CJ 3.15.1 (196).

89 CJ 4.26.2 (196).

90 CJ 3.28.2 (196).

91 CJ 7.32.1 (196); 2.18.2 (197).

92 CJ 6.50.2 (197).

93 CJ 8.16.1 (197); 4.28.2 (198).

94 CJ 5.4.1 (199).

95 CJ 2.23.1 (194); 4.19.1; 6.39.1 (both 196); 4.26.1 (197); 3.31.2(200).

96 CJ 2.23.1

97 CJ 2.3.2.

98 CJ 8.16.1; 4.28.2.

99 CJ 4.52.2.

100 CJ 11.36.1.2.

101 D. 23.2.34 pr.(Papinian, lib. IV responsorum), 23.3.69.1 (idem, IV resp.), 29.5.21.1 (idem, VI resp.); 31.66.4 (idem, XVII quaestionum); 28.5.49.2 (Marcianus, IV institutionum); 48.21.2 pr. (Macer, 11 publicorum).

102 D. 20.5.12 pr., cf. Frag. Vat. 9. On Papinian, Lenel, Pal. 1 803–946; Kunkel, W., Herkunft und Soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (1967), 224Google Scholar; Pflaum, H. G., Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le haut-empire romain (1960–1961), no. 220Google Scholar.

103 CJ 6.2.1 (200).

104 D. 31.70.1 (Papinian, XX quaestionum).

105 D. 22.1.9 pr. (Papinian, XI respotisorum).

106 CJ 4.32.3 (200).

107 CJ 2.38.1 (198, referring of course to evidence, not style).

108 CJ 4.30.1 (197).

109 CJ 4.19.1(196).

110 D. 20. 4. 1 pr. (Papinian VIII quaestionum: ‘numeratio impleta est’).

111 CJ 2.23.1 (194).

112 D. 50.7.8 (Papinian I responsorum).

113 Voc. Iur. Rom. II 98, 11–15; Kalb, W., Bekannte Federn in Reskripten römischer Kaiser. Commentationes Woelfflianae (1891), 329Google Scholar.

114 CJ 2.50.1 (197); 2.3.1(200); 7.21.2(205); cf. 7.21.1 (Sev. et Ant.). Vita cessisse, CJ 3.28.3 (197) only.

115 D. 35.1.102 (Papinian, IX responsorum), CJ 3.28.31 (197).

116 CJ 2.23.1, above n. III.

117 CJ 2.3.1.

118 D.37.11.11 pr. (Pap. 13 qu: ‘propter incertum condicionis’).

119 CJ 2.3.2; above, n. 116.

120 D. 21.2.66.2 (Papinian, XXVIII quaestionum: ‘agetur’), 22.1.9.1 (Pap., XI responsorum: ‘opponetur’), 26.7.37.1 (Pap., XI quaestionum: ‘convenietur’), 39.6.42 (Pap., XIII responsorum: ‘opponetur’), cf. CJ 3.1.2. (210, ‘uteris’), perhaps evidence of a connection (historically plausible: they were associates of Geta: nn. 71, 72) between secretary no. 3 and Papinian. CJ 8.15.1 (22 Oct. 194) has ‘non inutilis erit exceptio’.

121 Herodian 3.10.2; Hist. Aug., Severus 16.8; Dio 76.1.1.

122 Seven years, 140 days: no. 2 held office for seven years, 38 days.

123 We have less of his compositions than of Gaius, more than of Modestinus.

124 Krueger-Mommsen-Studemund, , Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani III (1890)Google Scholar; Cenderelli, A., Ricerche sul Codex Hermogenianus (1965)Google Scholar; Rotondi, G., Scrittigi uridici 1 (1922), 111Google Scholar.

125 Stein, E., Geschichte des spätromischen Reichs 1 (1928), 98Google Scholar.

126 Corp. Iur. Civ. 11. 495 n.1.

127 Thirty-two of forty-one dated texts. Voc. Cod. Iust. 1 2457.

128 CJ 2.3.12 (230); 4.13.1.1 (238); 10.3.2 (239); 4.10.5; 4.26.7.1; 7.60.2; 4.49.8.1; 6.2.12.1; 7.16.22 (all 293); 8.13.20; 4.6.8; 6.57.2.1; 5.62.18.1; 3.37.5; 7.33.8.1; 5.42.4(all 294); cf. 7.4.11.1; 7.45.7.1 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

129 CJ 2.3.1 (200); 6.35.2 pr. (200); 2.53.2 (215); 6.22.1 (243); 7.16.12; 1.22.1; 6.23.11; 7.16.23 (all 293); 4.38.6; 4.38.9; 2.4.25; 2.18.20.2; 5.12.2.1; 3.32.24; 6.36.4; 7.16.35; 1.18.9; 4.21.12; 7.16.38 (all 294); cf. 9.51.8 (Val. et Gall.), 4.38.12 pr.; 4.38.13,4.44.12 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

130 CJ 2.41.1.1 (232); 4.44.4; 7.33.3; 7.16.18; 7.22.1; 4.65.21; 4.44.8 (all 293); 4.44.11.1; 4.44.13 (294); cf. 7.34.1 (Diocl. et Max. AA), 10.48.6 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

131 Too numerous to set out here. Voc. Cod. Iust. 1.731.

132 CJ 4.44.4; 4.19.10; 5.12.11; 516.17; 7.16.13; 8.44.21.1 (all 293); 8.40.22 (294); cf. 10.43.1 (Car., Car. and Num.).

133 CJ 6.30.7 (293); 2.4.28.1 (294); cf. 4.31.10 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

134 CJ 5.70.4 (293).

135 CJ 8.13.13; 8.42.11 (both 293).

136 CJ 8.53.10; 7.16.15; 4.24.10; 4.1.7(all 293); cf. 7.1.3,8.48.4 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

137 CJ 8.42.4 (238); 7.29.2; 7.1.2 (both 293); 2.12.20; 4.50.9 (294).

138 CJ 8.19.3; 4.24.12 (both 294).

139 CJ 5.31.3 (215); 4.31.2 (223); 5.75.2 (224); 5.42.3 pr. (287); 3.19.1 (293); 4.15.5; 8.47.7; 8.47.8; 3.37.5; 2.26.5; 6.56.2; 9.12.5; 7.72.8; 6.2.18 (294); cf. 7.2.5 (Alex.), 9.49.4; 9.51.6 (both Gord.); 4.38.13 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

140 CJ 2.11.6(203); 3.37.3(224); 5.38.2(226); 3.42.5 (239); 6.49.2 (244); 5.44.3 (265); 5.44.4 (267); 5.30.1 (290); 5.30.2; 4.44.4; 7.16.18; 6.58.5; 4.65.23 (all 293); 7.52.5; 2.19.6; 4.19.21 pr.; 4.35.16; 2.39.2; 7.14.12; 2.17.4; 4.19.22 (all 294); cf. 10.61.2 (Gord.); 7.14.10 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

141 CJ 2.4.19; 4.16.4 (both 293); 2.4.29 (294).

143 CJ 8.50.12; 7.35.6; 8.50.18 (all 293).

144 CJ 5.37.12 (241); 5.12.11; 5.16.17; 9.33.4; 6.2.11 (all 293); 3.35.6 (294).

144 CJ 2.35.1,11.312 (both 294).

145 CJ 4.49.15 (294); cf. 10.43.4 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

146 CJ 4.8.2; 5.12.16 (both 294).

147 CJ 7.60.1; 7.60.2 (both 293); 5.71.17 (294). cf. 3.36.11 (Phil.).

148 CJ 7.32.1 (196); 7.32.8; 3.34.11; 5.39.5 (all 294), cf. 4.32.4 (Sev. and Ant.).

149 CJ 6.20.12.2 (294).

150 CJ 4.17. 1 (294), cf. 9.49.6 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

151 CJ 4.5.4; 4.15.4; 5.34.5; 2.21.5.1; 8.4.2 (all 293); 5.62.18 pr.; 6.50.17; 6.36.5 (all 294).

152 CJ 7.23.1 (294); cf. 7.14.9 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

153 CJ 7.33.5; 7.14.6 (both 293); 6.29.2 (294).

154 CJ 5.12.20 (294); 8.53.24 (299): ‘Mani festissimi iuris’; CJ 4.13.3 (294).

155 CJ 7.60.2; 7.75.4 (both 293); 2.4.26 (294).

156 CJ 5.57.2 (225); 9.22.6 (249); 4.9.2; 7.27.2; 4.26.7 pr.; 6.20.11 (all 293); 3.22.4; 5.34.10 (both 294); cf. 7.3.3 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

157 CJ 6.26.8.1; 5.51.7; 4.5.5; 8.53.11 pr.; 8.13.14; 9.20.9; 3.36.19; 8.1.3 (all 293); 2.56.1 pr. 7.4.10.1 (260); 6.55.3; 6.55.4 (all 293); 9.35.8; (294).

158 CJ 6.46.1 (197); 8.15.6; 2.42.3.3; 8.30.3 4.2.15; 6.23.14 (all 294).

159 CJ 4.16.7 (294).

160 CJ 6.30.7; 4.16.4 (both 293).

161 CJ 4.12.3; 3.36.17 (both 293); 4.8.2(294).

162 CJ 3.32.19 (293); 6.31.3(294); 3.36.25(295).

163 CJ 5.6.1 (215); 7.20.1(290); 2.4.23; 2.4.27; 1.18.7; 7.16.30; 2.4.35; 6.19.1; 9.9.26; 7.50.2.1; 2.6.4 (all 294).

164 CJ 9.20.14 (294).

165 CJ 4.49.8 pr.; 1.18.5 (both 293); 4.39.10; 4.22.2; 7.16.27.1 (all 294).

166 CJ 4.21.11 (294).

167 CJ 7.16.15 (293).

168 CJ 4.44.3 (293).

169 CJ 8.48.3 (293).

170 CJ 8.48.3 (293).

171 CJ 6.26.8 (293, ‘precibus tuis manifestius exprimere debueras’), 8.39.2 (293, ‘exprimere debueras precibus tuis’).

172 CJ 4.10.11 (294).

173 CJ 3.37.5 (294).

174 CJ 7.16.22 (293).

175 CJ 4.6.8 (294), 4.32.22 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

176 Above, nn. 127–9.

177 See Table on p. 56.

178 CJ 3.34.8.

179 CJ 4.29.6.1 (228); 3.34.8 (293); 8.47.9 (294).

180 CJ 6.2.18. Twenty of thirty-one dated texts with impersonal declarare fall in 293–4.

181 CJ 8.42.25. Probationis onus is found only in CJ 4.19.15 bis (293); 4.19.20; 8.42.25(294); cf. 7.16.5.2 (Alex.); 4.30.10 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

182 CJ 5.72.3 (18 March 295); 3.36.25 (13 Apr. 295); 8.53.24 (5 Feb. 299); 9.45.6 (29 June 299); 3.21.1 – 4.50.7 – 7.72.9) (19 Aug. 299); 7.21.8 (22 Nov. 299); 9.21.1 (12 Feb. 300); 7.22.2 (26 March 300); 3.28.25 (4 July 301); 4.12.4 (23 Aug. 301); 2.30.4 (6 Jan. 303); 9.1.18 (28 Feb. 304).

183 CJ 3.36.25 (respuere, above, n. 162).

184 CJ 3.21.1 – 4.50.7 – 7.72.9 (eum contra quem supplicas: eleven of fourteen texts with this expression, or th e plural supplicastis, come from 293–4).

185 CJ 4.12.4 (minime prohiberis); 6.2.4 (222); 9.25.1 (293); 4.38.6; 5.18.7; 2.4.24; 3.35.6 (all 294); 4.12.4 (301), urgueri (twenty-four of twenty-seven dated texts from 293–4).

186 CJ 8.53.24 (manifestissimi iuris est, above, n. 154).

187 CJ 2.30.4 (highly condensed construction).

188 CJ 7.22.2 (26 March 300, salubris iam pridem ratio), 3.28.25 (7 July 301 inofficiosi eo modo actionem) have a separation of noun from adjective or noun object which are contrary to no. 20's habit.

189 Frag. Vat. 315 (18 Feb. 291, Dorocortorum, convenit above, n. 131).

190 Frag. Vat. 292 (21 Dec. 295, Mediolanum, ratio dictaverit cf. only CJ 6.23.10, 293, dictat iuris ratio); 313 (31 March 296, Aquileia, quam commemoras, above n. 132); 41(10 March 298, Carthago); commemores only in CJ 7.19.5; 8.53.11; 7.16.16 (all 293); 4.12.3 (301).

191 CJ 3.7.1 (15 Oct. 284, invitus agere vel accusare nemo cogitur) points to no. 20 (below nn. 216–18) and is ascribed to Diocletian.

192 E. Stein, op. cit 1, 94.

193 Liebs, D., Hermogenians Iuris Epitomae (1964)Google Scholar.

194 D. 4.4.17 (1 iur. epit.); 47.19.5 (11 iur. epit.); 40.15.3 (VI iur. epit.); cf. above, n. 129.

195 D. 49.1.26 (11 iur. epit.); 25.2.16 (11 iur. epit.); 35.2.40 (IV iur. epit.); cf. n. 140 above.

196 D. 37.4.18 (11 iur. epit.); cf. n. 141 above.

197 D. 41.2.50 (v iur. epit.); cf. n. 148 above.

198 D. 36.4.11.1 (IV iur. epit.); cf. n. 131 above.

199 D. 19.2.33 (11 iur. epit.); 24.1.60 (11 iur. epit.); 40.16.5 (v iur. epit.). Eleven of seventeen dated CJ texts with praetextu come from 293–4.

200 D. 39.4.10.1 (v iur. epit.); cf. CJ 8.4.2 (293), a hapax.

201 D. 2.14.45 (11 iur. epit.). Ten of fourteen dated CJ texts are from 293–4. Voc. Cod. Iust. 1, 1799–1800.

202 D. 29.2.96 (III iur. epit.); 21.3.3.1 (VI iur. epit.). Nineteen of twenty-three dated texts in CJ are from 293–4. Voc. Cod. Iust. 1, 1634.

203 D. 40.9.27.1 (1 iur. epit. bis); 2.4.15 (II iur. epit.); 37.10.15 (III iur. epit.); 21.3.3 pr. (VI iur. epit.). Nineteen of twenty-eight dated CJ texts are from 293–4. Voc. Cod. Iust. 1, 1951.

204 D. 26.7.48 (1 iur. epit.), cf. CJ 7.18.1 pr. (239); 8.17.8 (30 Apr. 293); 2.18.20 pr. (24 Apr. 294); 7.23.1; 6.44.5 (18 Nov. 294).

205 D. 39.5.33.1 (VI iur. epit.), cf. CJ 2.4.35 (294). a hapax. CJ 5.38.6 (294) has tutelae translatio.

206 D. 29.4.30 (III iur. epit.).

207 CJ 4.43.1(294).

208 D. 50.4.17 (1 iur. epit.). Six of eight dated CJ texts are from 293–4. Voc. Cod. Iust. I, 652.

209 D. 41.1.61 pr. (VI iur. epit.); cf. CJ 8.44.20.1 (293), a hapax.

210 D. 37.14.21.1, 4 (III iur. epit.); cf. CJ 9.22.12 (293); 7.34.3 (294); 4.30.10 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

211 D. 42.1.53 pr. (1 iur. epit.); 47.10.45 (v iur. epit.), 48.15.7 (VI iur. epit.), cf. CJ 3.15.1 (196); 9.16.6 (294).

212 D. 26.7.48 (1 iur. epit.).

213 CJ 4.30.10 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC), hapax.

214 D. 37.14.21 pr. (in iur. epit.); cf. 1.3.35 (1 iur. epit., iura servantur).

215 CJ 7.27.3 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

216 D. 42.1.46 (11 iur. epit.); cf. CJ 8.46.8 (294), a hapax, bu t contrast prohibitum non est, CJ 7.41.1 (239); non prohibitum est, CJ 2.4.18 (293).

217 D. 28.7.12 (III iur. epit.).

218 CJ 8.53.10(293).

219 CJ 3.37.5. Five of seven dated CJ texts with invitus and a negative maxim come from 293–4: CJ 5.53.2 pr. (212); 3.7.1 (15 Oct. 284, above n. 191); 8.53.10; 4.44.6 (both 293); 3.37.5; 8.41.6; 5.62.20 (all 294); cf. 4.39.2 (Ant.), 4.38.13 (Diocl. et Max. AA et CC).

220 CJ 5.5.2; 6.24.7 (both 285); 8.46.6 (287). The patriotic edict on incest of 1 May 295 (Mos. et rom. leg. collatio 6.4.1) is by the same hand.

221 Wieacker, F., ‘Uber das Verhältnis der römischen Fachjurisprudenz zur griechisch-hellenistischen Theorie’, Iura 20 (1969), 476Google Scholar.

222 Orestano, R., Introduzione allo studio storico del diritto romano2 (1961), 119Google Scholar; de Marini Avonzo, F., Critica testuale e studio del diritto2 (1973), 45Google Scholar.

223 See Appendix.