¹ Millar, F., The Emperor the Raman World (1977), esp. 240–52; 537–49Google Scholar; Williams, W., ‘The Libellus Procedure and the Severan Papyri’, JRS 64 (1974), 86–103;Google Scholar D. Nörr, ‘Zur Reskriptenpraxis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit’, ZRG 98 (1981), 1–46; Honoré, Tony, Emperors and Lawyers (1981)Google Scholar. For a discussion of recent work, see Millar, F., ‘L'Empereur romain comme décideur’, in Nicolet, Claude (ed.), Du Pouvoir dans l'antiquité (1990), 207–20Google Scholar.

² See esp. Huchthausen, L., ‘Soldaten des 3. Jahrhunderts u. Z. als Korrespondenten der kaiserlichen Kanzlei’, in Altertumswissenschaft mit Zukunft: dem Wirken Werner Hartkes gewidmet (1973), 19–51Google Scholar; ‘Herkunft und ökonomische Stellung weiblicher Adressaten von Reskripten des Codex Iustinianus (2. und 3. Jh. u. Z.)’, Klio 56 (1974), 199–228; ‘Kaiserliche Rechtsauskünfte an Sklaven und in ihrer Freiheit angefochtene Personen aus dem Codex Iustinianus’, WZRostock 22 (1974), 251–7Google Scholar; ‘Zu kaiserlichen Reskripten an weibliche Adressaten aus der Zeit Diokletians (284–305 u. Z.)’, Klio 58 (1976), 55–85.

³ G. Wesener, ‘Reskriptprozess’, RE Suppl X (1965), 866: ‘Die Prozessreskripte ersetzen auch die Rechtsgutachten der Juristen’; Kaser, M., Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (1966), 352Google Scholar: ‘Jede Partei kann den Princeps mit der Bitte um seine gutachtliche Äusserung zu ihrem Streitfall anrufen, die er ihr mit rescriptum erteilt’; Kunkel, W., Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History (2nd edn., 1973), 79Google Scholar: ‘legal opinions which the emperors gave in concrete cases in answer to the inquiries of private persons’; Honoré, op. cit. (n. 1), 24–6; viii–ix: ‘… the Roman ruler provided a free legal advice service. A private citizen could deliver a written petition (libellus) to his emperor with a request for a ruling about his legal problems’; J.-P. Coriat, ‘La technique du resent à la fin du principat’, SDHI 51 (1985), 322: ‘Le rescrit est l'instrument privilégié d'un veritable service public du droit’.

⁴ Honoré, op. cit. (n. 1), passim, argues that subscriptions were written by the secretaries a libellis, and tries to identify the styles of the different holders of that office. Honoré's methods are controversial, and it may be that he goes too far in attributing stylistic changes to individual secretaries rather than to the chanceries as a whole; see the review by Alan Watson, TRG 50 (1982), 409–14. See also D. Liebs, ‘Juristen als Sekretäre des römischen Kaisers’, ZRG 100 (1983), 485–509. For the present discussion the important point is that imperial subscriptions can no longer be treated as if they were written by the emperors themselves.

⁵ That there is at least some element of fiction in the headings of imperial constitutions is clear from the fact that in a joint reign laws are said to be issued by both emperors. Historians can be reluctant to recognize the existence of legal fictions, but their existence is sometimes made explicit even in the sources themselves; in Ptolemaic Egypt petitions submitted to the king received formal replies in his name without ever leaving the offices of local administrators, cf. Seidl, E., Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte (1962), 89Google Scholar; Wolff, H. J., Das Justizwesen der Ptolemäer (1962), 166Google Scholar.

⁶ So, rightly, Honoré, op. cit. (n. 1), 24; Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1977), 538; cf. idem, ‘Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status’, JRS 73 (1983), 76–96.

⁷ cf. for example Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1990), 214: ‘… on ne peut pas en déduire tout simplement que les souscriptions énoncées par les Empereurs restaient inconnues. Car c'est évident que les juristes … connaissaient un grand nombre de souscriptions impériales’.

⁸ The best survey of the evidence is G. Rotondi, ‘Studi sulle fonti del codice giustinianeo’, BIDR 26 (1913) and 29 (1916), rpt. in idem, Scritti Giuridici (1922), 1, 110–265; briefly, Wenger, L., Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (1953), 534–6Google Scholar. For the arguments which follow, see W. Turpin, ‘The Purpose of the Roman Law Codes’, ZRG 104 (1987), 620–30.

⁹ There is much uncertainty about the extent and the efficiency of the imperial archives, but it seems clear both that imperial officials did keep records of the subscriptions they issued, and that these records could be used only with difficulty. See Premerstein, ‘Commentarii’, RE IV.I (1901), 739; Wenger, op. cit. (n. 8), 438–41; Cencetti, G., ‘Tabularium principis’, Studi Cesare Manaresi (1953), 133–66Google Scholar; Nörr, op. cit. (n. 1), 13. For the inadequacies of the imperial files see Pliny, Ep. X.65–6 and the striking conclusions of Seeck, O., Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste (1919), 2Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Nörr, op. cit. (n. 1), 31 n.92; see, more generally, Wilcken, U., ‘Zu den Kaiserreskripten’, Hermes 55 (1920), 1–42Google Scholar.

¹¹ e.g. Orestano, R., Il potere normativo degli imperatori e le costituzioni imperiali (1937), 15Google Scholar and passim; Nörr, op. cit. (n. 1), 37–45; Honoré, op. cit. (n. 1), 43–4.

¹² Gaius 1.5: ‘Constitutio principis est quod imperator decreto vel edicto vel epistula constituit. Nec umquam dubitatum est, quin id legis vicem optineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat’. IJ 1.2.6; ‘Sed et quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem, cum lege regia, quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem concessit’ etc. Cf. also Theophilus, Inst. 1.2.6.

¹³ Dig. 1.4.1.Pr.–1: ‘Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege regia, quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat. (1) Quodcumque igitur imperator per epistulam et subscriptionem statuit vel cognoscens decrevit vel de piano interlocutus est vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat. Haec sunt quas vulgo constitutiones appellamus’.

¹⁴ e.g Wenger, op. cit. (n.8), 428 n. 34. Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1977), 206. See, however, the translation of MacCormick in Th. Mommsen, Paul Krüger, and Alan Watson (eds), The Digest of Justinian (1985), I, ad loc.

¹⁵ Bas. 11.6.2: “. The Basilica, though published much later than the Digest, mostly used a Greek summary of the Digest made in the sixth century, the Anonymous Summa; see N. Van der Wal and J. H. A. Lokin, Historiae iuris Graeco-Ramani delineatio (1985), 46–9 and 81–2.

¹⁶ Dig. XVIII.1.1.1; the passages quoted are Il. VII.472; VI.234 and Od. 1.430. Other quotations of Homer are in Gaius III. 141 and IJ III.23.2. See, in general, F. Stella Maranca, ‘Omero nelle Pandette’, BIDR 35 (1927), 1–53.

¹⁷ Dig. XLVIII.3.6.1 (Marcianus): ‘Sed et caput mandatomm exstat, quod divus Pius, cum provinciae Asiae praeerat, sub edicto proposuit…’ The mandata in question are presumably those given by the emperor Hadrian, but Marcianus seems to regard their authority as derived from the fact that Pius, as proconsul, was responsible for publishing them; see also the petition from Aragua (discussed below), which cites a subscription given by Philip the Arab when he was still praetorian prefect.

¹⁸ Dig. XLVIII.24.1.

¹⁹ Dig. XXIII.2.57.a. For the extent of the jurists' acquaintance with imperial legislation, see G. Gualandi, Legislazione imperiale e giurisprudenza (1963), II, 18–26. See also Gaius II.221, where Gaius admits that he knew a relevant constitutio of Hadrian only at second-hand: ‘… quae sententia dicitur divi Hadriani constitutione confirmata esse’. Nothing else seems to be known of Hadrian's decision.

²⁰ Dig. XXXIV. 1.13.1 = CJ VI.37.1 (n.d.): ‘Imp. Antoninus A. Pius libertis Sextiae Basiliae. Quamvis verbis his: “ut quoad cum Claudio Iusto morati essetis”, alimenta vobis et vestiarium legatum sit, tamen hanc fuisse defuncti cogitationem interpretor, ut et post mortem Iusti eadem vobis praestari voluerit’. CJ IX.41.1 (196) is quoted in Dig. XLVIII.18.1.16 (Ulpian), but the addressee, S<ul>picius Antigonus, is almost certainly a judge, cf. PIR III, no. 578. CJ IV.65.1 (213) is quoted at Coll. X.9 (Paul), but here too the addressee, Iulius Agrippinus, is likely to be an official; a later Iulius Agrippinus, who may be a descendant, appears as a v.c. in an epistle of 259, CG 11.2.3 = FIRA ii², 656ff. CJ VI.23.1 (n.d.) and VI.26.1 (146) are referred to at IJ 11.10.7 and 11.15.2 respectively, but they too are probably epistles to officials, and in any case could have been known from one of the codes rather than independently.

²¹ It is true that most of the subscriptions collected by the Diocletianic compilers were issued after the real heyday of juristic writing. But the Codex Justinianus contains about 175 subscriptions of Septimius Severus, and it seems significant that the Severan subscriptions found in the Classical jurists are all different from them; Coll. XII.7.6 (Ulpian); Dig. XVI.1.2.3 (Ulpian, in Greek); Dig. XVII.2.52.5 (Ulpian); Dig. XVIII.2.16 (Ulpian); Dig. XXIII.3.40 (Ulpian); Dig. XLVII. 10.40 (Macer). Dig. XLVIII. 18.1.16 (Ulpian) is likely to be an epistle.

²² Frag. Vat. 245.

²³ Dig. IV.2.9.3: ‘… Et Pomponius scribit in negotiis quidem perfectis et exceptionem interdum et actionem competere, in imperfectis autem solam exceptionem. Sed ex facto scio, cum Campani metu cuidam illato extorsissent cautionem pollicitationis, rescriptum esse ab imperatore nostro posse eum a praetore in integrum restitutionem postulare, et praetorem me adsidente interlocutum esse, ut sive actione vellet adversus Campanos experiri, esse propositam, sive exceptione adversus petentes, non deesse exceptionem. Ex qua constitutione colligitur, ut, sive perfecta sive imperfecta res sit, et actio et exceptio detur.’ See T. Honoré, Ulpian (1982), 15–17.

²⁴ Dig. XIX.2.15.5.

²⁵ Dig. XXV.3.5.14.

²⁶ Dig. XXV.3.5.7.

²⁷ For a list of leges geminatae from the second and third centuries in the Codex Justinianus, see Honoré, op. cit. (n. 1), 35 n. 77.

²⁸ See, for example, Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1977), 244–5.

²⁹ W. Turpin, ‘Apokrimata, decreta, and the Roman Legal Procedure’, BASP 18 (1981), 145–60.

³⁰ CJ VII.62.1 (209): ‘Sententia divi Severi data in persona Marci Prisci idibus Ian. Pompeiano et Avito conss. Severus A. dixit: Prius de possessione pronuntiare et ita crimen violentiae excutere praeses provinciae debuit. quod cum non fecerit, iuste provocatum est’. It is easy to imagine that this might be quoted by a jurist under a heading such as Imp. Severus A. Marco Prisco, and mistaken for a subscription.

³¹ See SB V. 7696 = T. C. Skeat and E. P. Wegener, ‘A Trial before the Prefect of Egypt Appius Sabinus, c. 250 A.D.’, JEA 21 (1935), 224–47, lines 100–1, where a lawyer describes what is apparently a decretum of Severus as having been ‘posted up’ in Egypt ‘in the days when the cities were flourishing’. Much clearer is the evidence for the public posting of the decreta of provincial governors; CIL II. 4125 = FIR no. 186 and P. Paris 69 = W.Chr. 41, col. III, lines 17ff.

³² P. Tebt. II. 286 = James Oliver, H., Greek Constitutions of the Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (1989), no. 72Google Scholar.

³³ The first version known was that of P. Mich. IX. 529, the second is P. Berol. inv. 7216 = Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 267. Both texts are printed by Lewis, N., ‘Further Thoughts on the Michigan-Berlin Apokrima’, in Pintaudi, R. (ed.), Miscellanea Papyrologica (1980), 127–33Google Scholar; see also idem, ‘The Michigan-Berlin Apokrima: Iterata Invita’, APF 23 (1987), 49–53.

³⁴ I have omitted from this discussion subscriptions of Diocletianic date because the ones that survive in papyrus, all in Latin, seem to have been derived from the Diocletianic codes. See PSI I. 111 = C.Pap.Lat. 240; P.Amh. II. 27 = M.Chr. 380. For a survey of the evidence see R. Taubenschlag, ‘The Imperial Constitutions in the Papyri’, JJP 6 (1952), rpt. in idem, Opera Minora II (1959), 3–28.

³⁵ For the use of collections of material by lawyers in Egypt, see R. Katzoff, ‘Precedents in the Courts of Roman Egypt’, ZRG 89 (1972), 256–92, esp. 279; ibid., ‘On the intended use of P. Col. 123’, Proc. XVI Int. Congr. Pap. (1981), 550–73.

³⁶ P. Oxy. XLII. 3018 = Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), nos 105, 241, 242. The original editors took lines 1–10 as comprising a single decision, but see the review of J. H. Oliver, AJPh 96 (1975), 230.

³⁷ Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 242 assumes that the emperors missing from line 6 are the same as those named in the preceding document. But there is ample space for one of the shorter headings which were characteristic of subscriptions; cf. P. Tebt. II. 285, discussed below.

³⁸ P. Tebt. II. 285 = M.Chr. 379 = FIRA i², 90 = Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 288 = Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 280. As the editors point out, CJ VII.16.15 (293) is very similar: ‘Idem AA. et CC. Palladio. Nec omissa professio probationem generis excludit nec falsa simulata veritatem minuit. cum itaque ad examinationem veri omnis iure prodita debeat admitti probatio, aditus praeses provinciae sollemnibus ordinatis, prout iuris ratio patitur, causam liberalem inter vos decidi providebit’.

³⁹ Katzoff, op. cit. (n. 35, 1981), 570, n. 41; for registration of births in Egypt, see Youtie, H. C., ‘APATORES: Law vs Custom in Roman Egypt’, Hommages Claire Préaux (1975), 723–40Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Lukaszewicz, A., ‘A Petition from Priests to Hadrian with his Subscription’, Proc. XVI Int. Congr. Pap. (1981), 357–61Google Scholar = SB.12509.

⁴¹ The translation is by Lukaszewicz, except that instead of translating πϱοτεθήτωι (‘let it be posted’) I have assumed that the text had the more customary πϱοτεθήτων (‘posted’).

⁴² See Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1977), 537–8. The unidentified emperors may be Diocletian and Maximian, who gave particular attention to athletes; cf. CJ X.54.1 (n.d.) and P.Lips. 44 = M.Chr. 381.

⁴³ ‘… I have fallen at your feet, lords of the world and saviours of myself, a humble person who has suffered much. For as a contestant for twenty-eight years until now I have been going to the competitions held in honour of your victory and the eternity of your rule, and because I was supported by them I prayed continually to Olympian Zeus that he preserve and increase your rule, and that as a result I receive a benefit from yourselves. For since I am now passing beyond my fiftieth year and am on the verge of old age, I approach you for the sake of this petition, asking that, if it seems good to you, you grant me the post of Greek herald in the Heptanomia…’

⁴⁴ Originally published by Parsons, P. J., ‘Petitions and a Letter: The Grammarian's Complaint’, in Hanson, Ann Ellis (ed.), Collectanea Papymlogica, 11, 409–46Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ ‘… since, being occupied with children, one cannot continually persist in demanding payment, I find myself compelled to bring this supplication to your feet, most divine Emperors, a supplication not damaging to the city fund, yet in all justice beneficial to me, namely that your supreme Genius should order that there should be given to me an orchard in the city, within the walls, known as the Garden of Dictynus, along with the trees there, and the water for irrigation, an orchard which brings in 600 atticae on lease, so that I may have from this source what satisfies my needs and so may be able to have ample time for teaching the children …’

⁴⁶ The best collection of this material, with ample discussion, is W. Williams, ‘Epigraphic Texts of Imperial Subscripts: a Survey’, ZPE 66 (1986), 181–207. The identification of the sacrae litterae of Severus and Caracalla known from eight different inscriptions in the East remains controversial; see most recently Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 256 A–B. Williams, op. cit., 194–8, argues that the text is a subscription, largely because of its brevity, but see Drew-Bear, T., Eck, W., and Herrmann, P., ‘Sacrae Litterae’, Chiron 7 (1977), 355–83Google Scholar. In my view the crucial question is whether or not a document labelled as an ‘Exemplum sacrarum litterarum’ is likely to be a subscription. Williams observes that the villagers of Scaptopara use the words θεîα γϱάμματα to refer to the reply they were expecting from their petition to Gordian (see below), but they were not giving an official description of the document; the legal sources, by contrast, use ‘exemplum sacrarum litterarum’ only to identify imperial epistles, CJ IX.16.4 = Coll. 1.10.1 (290); CJ III.3.3 (294); Coll. VI.4.1 (295); CJ IX.2.8 and XI.55.1 (n.d. Diocletian and Maximian). For the same reason I am doubtful of the argument of Mourges, J.-L., ‘The So-called Letter of Domitian at the End of the Lex Irnitana’, JRS 77 (1987), 78–87Google Scholar, who identifies as a subscription a text labelled as ‘Litterae datae IIII idus Apriles Circeis recitatae v. idus Domitianas Anno M(ani) Acili Glabrionis et M(arci) Ulpi Traiani co(n)s(ulum)’.

⁴⁷ The bulk of this document was published by H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the ‘Rijkstnuseum van Oudheden’ at Leyden (1958), no. 58; it was republished with additions by G. Petzl, ‘Urkunden der smyrnäischen Techniten’, ZPE 14 (1974), 77–87. For identification as a petition with its subscription, see W. Williams, ‘Two Imperial Pronouncements Reclassified’, ZPE 22 (1976), 235–45.

⁴⁸ Text in J. Keil and G. Maresch, ‘Epigraphische Nachlese zu Miltners Ausgrabungsberichten aus Ephesos’, JöAI 45 Beibl. (1960), pp. 81–2 = AE 1966, no. 430 = IvE II, no. 212, lines 10–14 = Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 265: ‘I join with all cities and all peoples in praying that they obtain benefits from my sweetest son the emperor, but especially for your city, on account of its size and beauty and the rest of its contribution and because there is a college there for those arriving from everywhere at the school’. For identification as a subscription, see Nörr, op. cit. (n. 1), 10–11, n. 26.

⁴⁹ Text and translation by Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome (1982)Google Scholar, no. 13 = Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 1. For the date — between 31 and 20 B.C. — see F. Millar, ‘State and Subject: The Impact of Monarchy’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (1984), 42 and 58 n. 9Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Text and translation by Reynolds, op. cit. (n.49), no. 14 = Oliver, op. cit. (n. 32), no. 48.

⁵¹ CIL VI, no. 3770 ( = 31330) = IG XIV, no. 1059 = IGR I, no. 145 = IGUrbRom I, no. 35.

⁵² So Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1977), 246; Williams, op. cit. (n. 46), 191. For a petition which quotes a subscription, see the inscription from Aragua, OGIS no. 519, discussed below.

⁵³ CIL VIII, nos 10570 and 14464 = FIRA i², 103 = Ancient Roman Statutes no. 265 (translation). See Millar, (n. 1, 1977), 246; Wenger, op. cit. (n. 8), 466.

⁵⁴ CIL III, no. 14191 = OGIS, no. 519 = FIRA i², 107 (no petition) = Ancient Raman Statutes, no. 289. See also the original publication by J. G. C. Anderson, ‘A Summer in Phrygia: I’, JHS 17 (1897), 417ff., and idem, ‘A Summer in Phrygia: Some Corrections and Additions’, JHS 18 (1898), 340 ff. Rostovtzeff, M. I., The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire² (1957), II, 741–2Google Scholar, makes important improvements.

⁵⁵ ‘Proco[n]sule v.c. perspecta fide eorum quae [adlegastis, si] quid iniuriose geratur, ad sollicitudinem suam revocabit. [v]a[l]e.’ The restoration of ‘vale’ at the end of this text has led scholars to assume that it is an imperial epistle. But the original stone has only XA or AA, as was observed by Williams, op. cit. (n. 1), 87 n. 13. We might just as easily read [d]a[t]a, either of which would be consistent with the identification of this text as a subscription.

⁵⁶ CIL III, Suppl., no. 12336 = FIRA i², 106 = IGBulg. IV, no. 2236 = Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 287.

⁵⁷ IGBulg IV. 2236, lines 73–107.

⁵⁸ IGBulg IV. 2236, lines 167–9: ‘Id genus qu[ae]rellae praecibus intentum an[te] iustitia pr[aesi]dis potius super his quae adlegabuntur instructa discinge<re> quam rescripto principali certain formam reportare debeas.’ Modern editions print instructa discinge which I have trouble translating. The Latin is clearly awkward, but it seems to me that there are two parallel constructions: potius discinge<re> [sc. debeas] … quam … reportare debeas.

⁵⁹ IGBulg IV. 2236, lines 108–22.

⁶⁰ CIL III, no. 184 = ILS I, no. 540 = IGRR III, no. 1020 = Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 291.

⁶¹ CIL III, no. 411 = FIRA i², 82 (no petition) = Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 253 (translation, no petition). See Millar, op. cit. (n. 1, 1977), 247.

⁶² ‘Sententiam divi patris mei, si quid pro sententia dixit, describere tibi permitto.’

⁶³ This was suggested by Professor Honoré, in a paper read at Oxford in May 1978.

⁶⁴ For the technical terms used by the jurists, see above, n. 10.

⁶⁵ e.g. Kaser, op. cit. (n. 3), 412: ‘Unter Konstantin finden wir dagegen mit der Neuorientierung, die das gesamte Rechtsdenken erfasst, auch die Prozessordnung deutlich verändert. In den Gesetzen dieses Kaisers tritt uns das neue Verfahren mit seinen typischen Akten und Fristen bereits als vollendete Schopfung entgegen; ihre Anfänge bleiben allerdings im Dunkeln.’

⁶⁶ W. Turpin, ‘The Law Codes and Late Roman Law’, RIDA3 22 (1985), 339–53.

⁶⁷ CTh. 1.2.9 (385).

⁶⁸ CJ 1.19.3 (329).

⁶⁹ CTh 11.4: ‘de denuntiatione vel editione rescript’. By contrast, CTh. 1.2, ‘de diversis rescriptis’, is devoted not to the role of rescripts in legal procedure but to their validity as sources of law, much as in the passages of Gaius, Ulpian, and Justinian's Institutes discussed above, nn. 12–13.

⁷⁰ The summons which the compilers had in mind was a process of a very particular kind. The ordinary litis denuntiatio, by which a Roman litigant normally demanded that his opponent appear in court, required no direct official involvement. But a litigant could also request the help of imperial officials in presenting his summons, which could then be referred to as a denuntiatio ex auctoritate. See Leonhard, ‘Litis denuntiatio’, RE XIII (1927), 780–3; Kaser, op. cit. (n. 3), 371–2; Talamanca, G. Foti, Ricerche sul processo nell' Egitto Greco-Romano. II. L'introduzione del giudizio, 1 (1979), 25–64Google Scholar. The details of this process are obscure, but it seems clear that at least one way of obtaining this help was to petition for it: cf. Frag. Vat. 167 (Ulpian): ‘et petendum, ut denuntietur ex auctoritate, cum denuntiaverit et non venerit. Libellos det et litteras petat’. The punctuation is that of Lenel, O., Palingenesia iuris civilis, II (1889), 902Google Scholar.

⁷¹ CJ 1.20: ‘Quando libellus principi datus litis contestationem facit’.

⁷² CTh 11.4.4 (385): ‘Post celebratam denuntiationem seu edicto seu editione rescripti, quod tamen sit iure impetratum, lis exordium auspicatur inter iustas videlicet legitimas que personas…’.

⁷³ See also CTh 1.2.6 (333): ‘Etsi non cognitio, sed executio mandatur, de veritate precum inquiri oportet, ut, si fraus intervenit, de omni negotio cognoscatur’; CTh 1.2.10 (396): ‘Dubium non est contestationem intellegi etiam si nostrae fuerint tranquillitati preces oblatae, easque adversus heredem quoque eius, in quem porrectae sunt, vel ab herede eius, qui meruerit exerceri …’.

⁷⁴ Symm., Ep. X.33.2–3.

⁷⁵ Another case introduced by rescript is reported in Symm., Ep. X.19.

⁷⁶ Kaser, op. cit. (n. 3), 353 n. 47: ‘Von einem besonderen “Reskriptprozess” wird sich in dieser Periode [i.e. second and third centuries] noch nicht sprechen lassen’; Wesener, op. cit. (n. 3), 866: ‘Eine Anzahl von Reskripten erscheint als blosse Gutachten …; in späterer Zeit gewinnen die Prozessreskripte den Charakter von Instmktionen an den Richter’; Palazzolo, N., Potere imperiale ed organi giurisdizionali nel II secolo D. C. (1974), esp. 233Google Scholar: ‘È perciò da respingere la tesi che pretende di anticipare all'età immediatamente successiva ad Adriano il c.d. “processo per rescritto”’. The fullest study of the late evidence is E. Andt, La Procédure par rescrit (1920).

⁷⁷ This is especially clear in A. Fliniaux, ‘Contribution à l'histoire de citation au Bas-Empire. La postulatio simplex’, RD 9 (1930), 199: ‘trois phases successives de l'histoire de la postulatio simplex … correspondent aux trois grands monuments législatifs’.

⁷⁸ Frag. Vat. 32 (312); 33 (? 313); 34(313); 273 (315); 274 (315); 287 (318); 290 (n.d.); 291 (n.d.); Cons. 9.2 (365); 9.5 (365); 9.6 (364).

⁷⁹ This important point is made by D. V. Simon, Konstantinisches Kaiserrecht (1977), 5–10. Contrast, e.g. MacMullen, R., Corruption and the Decline of Borne (1988), 110Google Scholar: ‘By the first half of the second century, after many generations in which they had gradually become familiar, rescripts had established themselves in regular, frequent use. Then under Diocletian they tapered off very abruptly and soon ceased. No similar form of access replaced them. The natural consequences followed.’

⁸⁰ e.g. Dig. IV.4.18.4: ‘Sed et si ab imperatore iudex datus cognoscat, restitutio ab alio nisi a principe, qui iudicem destinavit, non fiet’.

⁸¹ PS v.5.1: ‘Res iudicatae videntur … ab his, qui ab imperatore extra ordinem petuntur …’

⁸² CJ 1.22.l (293).

⁸³ Dig. 1.18.8.

⁸⁴ Dig. 1.18.9.

⁸⁵ CJ 1.21.1 (232): ‘Imp. Alexander A. Caperio. Licet, postquam supplicasti, priusquam rescriptum impetrares, praeses provinciae vir clarissimus pronuntiaverit, cum tamen a sententia non provocavens, rescriptum, quod postea secutum esse suggeris, ad retrahenda quae decreto terminata sunt non patrocinatur’; cf. also CJ VII.30.2 (231); CJ VII.27.1 (Severus Alexander, n.d.). For the Justinianic usage, see CJ 1.19: ‘De precibus imperatori offerendis et de quibus rebus supplicare licet vel non’.

⁸⁶ Kaser, op. cit. (n. 3), 352; 432–3.

⁸⁷ Ammianus XXVII.7.8 complains that Valentinian would reject petitions from litigants who were afraid that judges were prejudiced against them: ‘siquis eum adisset, iudicium potentis inimici declinans, aliumque sibi postulans dari, hoc non impetrato, ad eundem quem metuebat, licet multa praetenderet iusta, remittebatur.’

⁸⁸ For the contents of the petitions which prompted the subscriptions in the legal sources, see esp. CJ VI.37.12 (240), referring to and quoting an opinion of Papinian included in the petition. See also CJ III.33.2 (205); CJ X.11.2 (238).

⁸⁹ See, briefly, J. David Thomas, ‘Subscriptiones to Petitions to Officials in Roman Egypt’, in E. Van 't Dack, P. Van Dessel, and W. van Gucht (eds), Egypt and the Hellenistic World (1983), 369–82. For petitions to officials outside Egypt, see the petition from Aragua, discussed above, and CJ VII.571. Dig. XLVIII. 10.29.

⁹⁰ Boak, A. E. R., ‘A Petition for Relief from a Guardianship. P.Mich. Inv. No. 2922’, JEA 18 (1932), 60–76Google Scholar = Sel.Pap. II. 260, lines 35–8: ‘Announce to the relatives of the orphan who petitioned me that your request has been approved. If the outcome of the judgement … the guardianship, you are aware that as regards the past you have withdrawn at your own risk’; P.Oxy. XII. 1466, line 10: ‘If you do not have the right to another guardian I give you the guardian you request’.

⁹¹ U. Wilcken, ‘Aus der Strassburger Sammlung’, AFP 4 (1908), 115–47, no. 2 = W.Chr. 52 = Sel.Pap. II. 301, line 21: ‘If there is no detriment to any public or private interests, I give permission’; BGU II. 648 = Sel.Pap. II. 284, line 26: ‘Submit your case to the strategos, who will do what is in his competence’.