Law and Empire in Late Antiquity

247 Pages·1999·1.15 MB·English

by  Jill Harries

MMMM
This page intentionally left blank
LawandEmpireinLateAntiquity
ThisistheWrstsystematictreatmentinEnglishby anhistorianofthe
nature,aimsandeYcacyofpubliclawinlateimperialRomansociety
from the third to the Wfth century ad. Adopting an interdisciplinary
approach,andusingthewritingsoflawyersandlegalanthropologists,as
wellasthoseofhistorians,thebookoVersnewinterpretationsofcentral
questions: what was the law of Late Antiquity? How eYcacious was
late Roman law? What were contemporary attitudes to pain, and the
function of punishment? Was the judicial system corrupt? How were
disputes settled? Law is analysed as an evolving discipline, within a
frameworkofprinciples,bywhicheventheemperorwasbound.While
law,throughitslanguage,wasanexpressionofimperialpower,itwas
alsoameansofcommunicationbetweenemperorandsubject,andwas
usedbycitizens,pooraswellasrich,toservetheirownends.
Jill Harries isProfessorofAncientHistoryintheUniversityof St
Andrews.SheistheauthorofSidoniusApollinarisandtheFallofRome
(1994) and, with Brian Croke, of Religious ConXict in Fourth-Century
Rome(1982).Sheisco-editor,withIanWood,ofTheTheodosianCode:
StudiesintheImperiallawofLateAntiquity(1993).

Law and Empire
in Late Antiquity
JillHarries
         
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
http://www.cambridge.org
©Jill D. Harries 2004
First published in printed format 1999
ISBN 0-511-03731-7 eBook (Adobe Reader)
ISBN 0-521-41087-8 hardback
ISBN 0-521-42273-6 paperback
Contents
Preface page vii
Introduction 1
1 ThelawofLateAntiquity 6
Confusionandambiguities?Thelegalheritage 8
Hadrianandthejurists 14
Constitutions:theemperorandthelaw 19
Rescriptsaslaw 26
Customanddesuetude 31
2 Makingthelaw 36
Inconsistory 38
Makingthetext:theimperialquaestor 42
Suggestio 47
Judgesandcourts 53
3 Theconstructionofauthority 56
‘Magisteriumvitae’:theTheodosianCode 59
Acclamationandresponse 65
Actapublica:theauthorityofthewrittenword 70
4 TheeYcacyoflaw 77
Repetition:lawandtime 82
Context:lawandplace 88
Enforcement 93
EYcacyandaccountability 96
5 Incourt 99
Denuntiatiooreditio 104
Thehearing 107
Appellatio 110
Vicesacraiudicans:SymmachusasPrefect,384ce 114
v
vi Contents
6 Crimeandtheproblemofpain 118
Accusation 119
Quaestio 122
7 Punishment 135
ThejustiWcationsofpunishment 144
8 Thecorruptjudge 153
Iniuriaiudicis 158
Theliabilityofthejudge 161
Gratia 163
Theaccountabilityoftheiudex 167
9 Disputesettlementi:outofcourt 172
Arbitration 175
Petitionsanddisputes 184
Negotiation 187
10 Disputesettlementii:episcopalisaudientia 191
Conclusion 212
Bibliography 217
Index 227
Preface
This bookshouldbe sub-titled‘travellinghopefully’.Its routehas been
planned in the light of long-standing preoccupations of my own, with
some help from friends. The Theodosian Code has long been used as
evidenceforlateRomanhistory,withoutmuchattentionbeinggranted,
atleastbyhistorianswritinginEnglish,tothestatusofthatevidence.The
conferenceontheTheodosianCodeheldattheUniversityofStAndrews
in 1990 and the resulting publication, edited by myself and Ian Wood,
were a start in that direction. This book takes some points further, in
particular in relation to how imperial law was made, and how and
whetheritworkedasintended.Thisenquirywillentailare-examination
ofwhatwearetomakeoftherhetoricofthelaws:ifacertainscepticism
overgovernmentpronouncementsisinordernow,therecansurelybea
case made for subjecting imperial legal propaganda and its motives to
similar scrutiny. But we should not focus only on the centre, where
imperiallaworiginated;itsreceptionandusebythecitizensofthewider
Empire is of equal importance. Two perspectives must, therefore, be
used,thatof the legislator,and that of thosewhoused the law for their
ownpurposes.
In order to arrive at the end of this journey at all, many attractive
by-ways have been, regretfully, ignored. I have nothing to say about
‘vulgarlaw’–exceptthattheconceptrequiresare-examinationIshallnot
attempt.NorcanItakeaccountofthedistinctivecultureofJewishLaw.I
alsoomitdiscussionoftheformationofcanonlaw,andtheinXuenceof
imperial law-making procedures on the quasi-legislative activities of
Church Councils. There is also, I suspect, something to be done on
Christian attitudes to the Mosaic Law as part of the evolution of late
antiquelegalcultureingeneral.Alltheseareprojectsforthefuture.Ihave
restrictedthe main focus of the study to the period between Diocletian
andthedeathofTheodosiusIIin450–thusgivingacentralroletothe
Code of Theodosius, rather than that of Justinian – although I stray
outside it as far as Hadrian (117–38) in one direction and Justinian
(525–65)intheother.
vii
viii Preface
IWrstbecameinterestedinlawinitssocialandculturalcontextinthe
1980s, inspired in part by my then colleague, John Richardson’s, re-
searchesonthelawoftheRomanRepublic.Bytheendofthedecadeit
wasclearthattheTheodosianCode,longneglectedbyRomanlawyers,
wasapotentialgrowth-industryamonglateantiquehistorians.Thecon-
ferenceatStAndrewswasarecognitionofthisandIowemuchtoallwho
participatedinitandtothosewhocontributedtothesubsequentpublica-
tion.IamespeciallygratefultoBoudewijnSirks,SimonCorcoran,Judy
Evans Grubbs, Peter Heather, David Hunt, GeoVrey Rickman and
MichaelWhitbyfortheirhelpatthetimeandacademicinspirationsince,
and to Ian Wood, who brought his formidable mediaeval talents to the
joint-editorshipofthepublishedversion.JohnMatthews,astarcontribu-
tortotheconference,will,Iamsure,induecourseproduceasigniWcant
studyoftheTheodosianCode;hissupportandhelpovertheyearshave
beeninvaluableand,withouthim,thisbookwouldnothavebeenposs-
ible.
Progresswasmuchacceleratedinthelasttwoyearsbythekindnessof
various benefactors. In 1995, the Principal of the University of St An-
drewsallowedmetoplanfor‘thinkingtime’;Ihopetheproductmaybe
some return for his astringent encouragement. The Leverhulme Trust
madegenerousprovisionformyteachingreplacementatStAndrewsfora
yearofResearchLeavein1996–7.FortheWrstpartofthatyearIhadthe
privilegeofholdingaVisitingFellowshipatAllSoulsCollege,Oxfordand
placeonrecordheremyprofoundgratitudetotheWardenandFellowsof
theCollege,who providedtheidealcombinationof academicstimulus,
materialopulenceandcontemplativequiesforthepursuitandcompletion
ofinter-disciplinaryresearch.Individualacknowledgementsforconcep-
tual and bibliographical assistance with matters legal are due to Peter
BirksandStephenCretneyandtomyfellow-visitors,GregandJoyParr,
and, on the anthropological side, to the Warden of All Souls, and to
DavidParkin.Thinkingwasalsoassistedinentirelynon-academicways
byfourgreysquirrelsandtheunrivalledbeautyofthetreesofBeechwood
andIZeyTurn.
Iamalsogratefultomanycolleaguesfortheirhelpwith,andcriticism
of,variouschaptersofthisbook,asvariantsofthemsawthelightofdayin
the shape of papers delivered in Oxford, Cambridge, CardiV, Milton
KeynesandtheUniversityofSouthCarolinaatColumbia.Amongthem,
I would especially thank Chris Kelly, whose forthcoming work on (the
absence of) corruption in Late Antiquity will be very relevant to some
suggestions oVered here; also Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins, GeoVrey
Greatrex,KateCooperandConradLeyser,RichardMiles,JanetHuskis-
son and Andrew Lintott. Special thanks are due to Gillian Clark, for