¹ Jean de Joinville, Vie de St. Louis (Michaud, and Poujoulet, , Mémories pour servir à l'histoire de France, Vol. i (Paris, 1836), 184)Google Scholar. Other examples of rulers of different periods who made themselves accessible to their subjects will be found in Toynbee, A. J., Experiences (London, 1969), 361–2:Google Scholar a Muslim of the Samanid dynasty, an eighteenth-century Christian king of Georgia and a Turkish provincial governor in 1948.

² Millar, F., JRS lvii (1967), 9,Google Scholar citing an anecdote in Dio lxix, 6, 3. But it is told also of Philip II (Plot, ., Demetr. 42, 7;Google ScholarMor. 179 C) and Antipater (Stob, ., Flor. 13, 28)Google Scholar.

³ e.g., Commodus (SHA, Vita Comm. 13, 7)Google Scholar and Carinus (id.Vita Cari 16,8); see Millar, art. cit. 13.

⁴ Seneca, , Ad Polyp. 6,5:Google Scholar ‘audienda sunt tot hominum milia, tot disponendi libelli.’

⁵ An example of such an excerpt is to be found in Cod. lust. x, 61, 1: ‘pars edicti imperatoris Antonini A.’ The excerpt may now be compared with the full text of a Greek version preserved (in part) in P. Giessen 40, ii, 11. 1–15 (revised text in Heichelheim, F., JEA xxvi (1940), 10Google Scholar ff.).

⁶ On this topic see Van Sickle, C. E., ‘The headings of the rescripts of the Severi in the Justinian Code’, CPh xxiii (1928), 270–77Google Scholar.

⁷ The point is made by Premerstein in RE s.v. ‘libellus’, col. 35; see also the general remarks of Kunkel, , Roman Legal and Constitutional History (Oxford, 1966), 199Google Scholar.

⁸ Wilcken, U., ‘Zu den Kaiserreskripten’, Hermes lv (1920), 1–42Google Scholar (this article will be referred to in subsequent footnotes as Reskripten). Wilcken answered the objections raised by Dessau, , Hermes lxii (1927), 205–224,Google Scholar in a second paper, ‘Zur propositio libellorum’, APF ix, 15–23. His discussion superseded earlier ones, such as those of Faass, B., Archiv für Urkundenforschung i (1908), 185–272,Google Scholar and of Preisigke, F., Die Inschrift von Skaptoparene (Strassburg, 1917)Google Scholar. His conclusions were widely accepted, e.g. by Premerstein in RE, art. cit., coll. 37–43.

⁹ CIL iii, 411= ILS 338 = IGRR iv, 1397 = FIRA i², 82. It is misleading to describe this as a ‘rescriptum ad Smyrnaeos’, as Riccobono does. The Latin text is clearly that of a subscript addressed to Acutianus as an individual, and not as an emissary of Smyrna, and the last lines of the Greek text which preceded the Latin on the stone end with an appeal typical of a petition from an individual, δι΄ ὔ, φιλόθεε καὶ φιλάνθρωττε Καῑσαρ, κελεῦσαι δοθῆναί μοι τἀ ἀντίγραφα (11. 6–7). The fragmentary lines of Greek which preceded these must have contained the main body of the petition which led up to δι᾿ ō; they cannot have been part of a decree of the city of Smyrna, as Boeckh proposed (a proposal taken over by CIL, IGRR, etc.), because a city would have addressed an epistle directly to the emperor and had it conveyed by a group of ambassadors or forwarded by the proconsul.

¹⁰ CIL viii, 10570 + 14464 = ILS 6870 = AJ III = FIRA i², 103. This is addressed to Lurius Lucullus ‘et nomine aliorum’, and the preceding petition uses the first person plural. Another, very fragmentary, copy of this subscript is to be found in CIL viii, 14451, and the remains of a similar petition from another group of African coloni and of a subscript of Commodus in CIL viii, 14428.

¹¹ CIL vi, 3770 = 31330 = IG xiv, 1059 = IGRR i, 145 = Moretti, , IGUrbRom. i, 53Google Scholar. In each case the Greek text of a petition was followed by a short Latin subscript. The attribution of the second one to Caracalla appears to be pure conjecture; it should have been issued in a joint reign, since the preceding petition is addressed to emperors in the plural.

¹² CIL iii, 12336 = IGRR i, 674 = Syll.³ 888 = 4 7 139 = FIRA i², 106 (no text of the petition) = IGBulg. iv, 2236. The subscript is addressed to ‘vikanis per Pyrrum mil. conpossessorem’ (1. 166).

¹³ CIL iii, 14191 = OGIS 519 = IGRR iv, 598 = 47 141 = FIRA i², 107 (no text of the petition). The imperial rescript is addressed to ‘M. Au[r. Eglecto] pe〈r〉 Didymum mili. generum’ (11. 2–3; for the reading, see note 87 below). Wilcken believed that the Latin text was that of an imperial epistle because it ended with the greeting ‘vale’ and because it preceded the Greek text of the petition on the stone, instead of following it (Reskripten 10, with n. 1). However, ‘vale’ is only a restoration based on two letters, the first of which was very uncertain (possibly XA or AA), and it can be rejected as a conjecture based on the false assumption that this must be an imperial epistle; and the order of the documents on the stone may well be the work of the mason, who could have reversed those on the text he was copying in order to put the more weighty first. The probable absence of a greetings formula in the address, the use of an intermediary to deliver the petition, the brevity of the imperial reply, and, above all, the fact that it is a reply in Latin to a Greek text which is described as a petition, not an epistle, all suggest that this must have been a subscript.

¹⁴ CIL iii, 14203, 8–9 = IG xii, v, 132 = Syll.³ 881 = AJ 132. The inscription came from Paros and contained both Greek and Latin texts of the imperial rescript. The heading ‘sacrae litterae’ was probably added because the imperial titles and the address are omitted, and has no official standing as a technical description of the document. It was probably a subscript for the following reasons: (a) the reply must have been in Latin in the original, although it was addressed to an individual whose native tongue was presumably Greek, since he lived in Paros; (b) the place of issue is recorded in the locative (Greek dative) and not in the ablative (Greek genitive) which was standard for epistles (see n. 64 below); (c) the curt ‘videris ignorare’ echoes phrases used in several Severan subscripts in the Code (Cod.Iust. iv, 14, 1; v, 69, 1; vi, 50, 1, all ‘scire debes’, and iii, 28, 7, ‘ignorare non debes’).

¹⁵ CIL iii, 184 = ILS 540 = IGRR iii, 1020 = AJ 147 = IGLS vii, 4028. The emperors confirm the ancient privileges of a Syrian shrine; there are no formulae of greeting or of farewell, and the subscript is addressed not to a corporate body but to a group of individuals, ‘Aurelio Marea et aliis’ (1.9), for which cf. the subscript of Commodus to the coloni quoted in n. 10.

¹⁶ Either or both of the words appear in the documents referred to in notes 9–12. That ‘recognovi‘ was used by the a libellis to show that he had checked a fair copy written by a subordinate, before it was submitted to the emperor, who would add ‘rescripsi’, is a deduction from the presence of four different hands and from the spacing of the formulae in the original papyrus text of an epistle of Subatianus Aquila, Prefect of Egypt (SB 4639 = David and Van Groningen, Papyrological Primer, no. 7): see Wilcken, Reskripten 6 with n. 3, and Wenger, L., Die Quellen des römischen Rechts 417, n. 125Google Scholar.

¹⁷ The main evidence for the system of posting imperial subscripts is the heading of the Skaptopara inscription (see n. 12): ‘descriptum et recognitum ex libro libellorum rescriptorum a domino n. … et propositorum Romae in portico thermarum Traianarum’ (11. 2–5). There are similar cases of the publication of governors' subscripts in the papyri: for these and for the taking of copies by the petitioners, see nn. 52, 107–109 below.

¹⁸ Not only Pliny in the private letters of Book 10, but also Aurelius Horion of Alexandria in 200 (P.Oxy. iv, 705 = Wilcken, Chrestomathie 153 and 407). For a list of imperial epistles to private individuals, see note 63 below.

¹⁹ See IGBulg. iv, 2236, 11. 8–11, and CIL iii, 14191, 11. 5–9 (see nn. 12–13). Coloni addressed the emperor in the documents cited in note 10, and villagers in those just cited.

²⁰ Reskripten 21–27.

²¹ e.g., Severus' own epistles to Aurelius Horion (cited in n. 18); see Reskripten 24.

²² The formula is προετέθη ἐν Άλεξανδρείᾳ η΄ (ἔτους), and is to be found in P.Amherst 63, 11. 6 and 11–12, BGU 267, 11. 13–14 = P.Strassburg 22, 1. 9, P.Flor. 382,1. 4, and P.Oxy. 1405,11. 12–13, and, without the regnal year, in P.Flor. 382, 11. 15–16 and P.Oxy. 1020, 11.6 and 8.

²³ viz., BGU 473, P.Oxy. 899, verso, 11. 18–21, P.Flor. 382, 17–23 and 24–26. At the end of the text in P.Flor. 382, 11–12, neither date nor declaration of publication is to be found, but, since it is preserved with a series of five subscripts, it is reasonable to assume that it is also a subscript, and, in view of traces of Severus' name in 1. 10, that it was issued at the same date and place as the others.

²⁴ Reskripten 22.

²⁵ Hasebroek, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus (Heidelberg, 1921), 118–124Google Scholar.

²⁶ In ZRG xlii (1921), 138, n. 2;Google ScholarAPF vii, 84–5, and ix, 21–2. In APF vii, 84, n. 2, Wilcken suggested that the subscript preserved in BGU 473 might have been issued at a conventus held in the Thebaid and that in 1. 10 of this text the emperor was referring to his being ‘on the frontier’ of the Empire (τοιγαροῦν ἐπιτέρμου (ἐν ἐπιτερμίῳ Wilcken) χώρᾳ καθιστα[—). However, the subscript in P.Oxy. 1405 was published at Alexandria in the same month, Pharmouthi (1.13), as BGU 473 (1.12), and it seems unlikely that the imperial court would have got from Alexandria to the Thebaid in a period of at most some three weeks. The date of the subscript in P.Strass. 22, 1. 9, would show that Severus was still at Alexandria on 24 Pharmouthi, but a much earlier date for the same text is found in BGU 267 (see below).

²⁷ P.Col. 123, 11. 1–3: ἐν Άλεξανδρείᾳ ἀντίγραφα ἀποκριμάτων〈προ〉 τεθέντων ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τοῦ γυμνασίου η΄ (ἔτους) Φαμενὼθ ιη΄. The word ‘apokrima’ itself is a general term for a decision, not a precise translation of ‘subscriprio’: see Schiller, Apokrimata 42–45.

²⁸ Two papyrus texts are omitted from this list, because it is not certain that they contain subscripts. The first, P.Berol. 7346 (published by Frisk, H., Aegyptus ix (1928), 281–4Google Scholar = SB 7366), was issued at Alexandria on 4 March, 200, and the fragmentary text resembles a subscript in several respects, but it is described as an ἀπόφασις τῶν κυρίων (11.19–20), a term which is used elsewhere to describe an imperial decretum issued at the end of a court case (e.g., P. Tebtunis 286 = FIRA iii, 100, ll. 11, 17 and 24). The second papyrus is P.Corn.inv. i, 76, published by Lewis, N., BASP vi, 17–19Google Scholar. It contains the text of a petition to which was prefixed the texts of two pronouncements of Severus and Caracalla; in the light of the use of subscripts as precedents by other petitioners in the papyri to be discussed below it is probable that these were in fact subscripts issued in 199–200. However, since the addresses and final formulae of both decisions are lost, one cannot be certain that they may not have been edicts, epistles or decreta, nor that they were issued at Alexandria during the emperors' visit.

²⁹ First published by W. L. Westermann, with legal commentary by Schiller, A. A., in Apokrimata: Decisions of Septimius Severus on legal matters (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, a text which was reproduced as Sammelbuch 9526. Important revisions were made to the text by H. C. Youtie, with revised commentary by Schiller, , in ‘Second Thoughts on the Columbia Apokrimata’, CE xxx (1955), 327–345Google Scholar (this article will be referred to hereafter as Second Thoughts); this revised text was reproduced by E. Schönbauer, AAWW 1957, 167–8. The dates are the result of new readings by Youtie: ιθ᾿ at the beginning of 1. 21 and κ᾿ at the beginning of 1. 40; for the first date see the lines quoted in note 27.

³⁰ See P.Oxy. vi, pp. 225–6. The editors do not publish a continuous text of the verso because it is so damaged, but only quote the legible lines. The lines preceding the imperial titulature contain a petition from one Herakleia of A.D. 201, claiming immunity from γεωργία (the recto ( = Wilcken, Chrest. 361) is much better preserved and contains a similar petition of 200 from a woman named Apollonarion). L. 18 of the verso reads Αὐτοκράτωρ Καἰσαρ Λούκ. Σεπτίμ. Σεουῆρος Εὐσεβ. and line 21: γυναιξὶν δικαίας παραιτήσεως, followed by the date: η΄ Φαρμοῦθ. ιη΄.

³¹ Revisions of Wilcken's original text were proposed by Mitteis both in Bruns⁷ and in Chrestomathie. Further restorations were proposed by Wilcken, himself in APF vi, 421,Google Scholar and these are reported by Riccobono, , FIRA i ², 396Google Scholar. Above all Wilcken withdrew his restoration of a final greeting, ἕρωσο, after the date in 1.12, when he recognized that the text was not an epistle but a subscript: Reskripten 22. This restoration stands in all the texts listed above and is translated in Johnson, A. C. and others, Ancient Roman Statutes (Austin, 1961)Google Scholar no. 271.

³² The only one of significance is that between βεβαιοῦται in 1. 12 of BGU 267 βοηθοῦνται in 1. 7 of P.Strass. 22: the latter makes no grammatical sense and the former must be the correct text.

³³ A possible explanation of the discrepancy will be suggested in section 4.

³⁴ viz., P.Amh. 63, 5d6 = p.Col. 123, 8–10, and BGU 267 = P.Strass. 22, 1–9.

³⁵ The petitioner did not reach the age of 70 until 20 June, 222 (1. 78), and the Prefect addressed by him, Aedinius Iulianus, is not recorded after 223 (Reinmuth, , BASP iv (1967), 113)Google Scholar.

³⁶ The petition it contains is addressed to a strategos mentioned in another papyrus which Grenfell and Hunt dated to between 220 and 256 (P.Oxy., vol. xii, p. 1).

³⁷ CPR 20 = Wilcken, , Chrest. 402,Google Scholar col. i, 1. 15: ὑπάρχει ἐκ τῶν νόμων καὶ τῶν θείων διατάξεων.

³⁸ P.Par. 69 = Wilcken, , Chrest. 41,Google Scholar col. iii, 11. 20–21.

³⁹ P.Flor. 382, 11. 29–30, 34–5, 43–4, and 55.

⁴⁰ P.Oxy. 1405, 1. 25: κατὰ τὴν προκειμένην θείαν [διάταξιν].

⁴¹ BGU 473,11. 13–14 and 15. The text is probably that of a petition to a strategos rather than that of a letter from the epistrategos to the strategos (as Wilcken, originally suggested, BGU, vol. ii, p. 129)Google Scholar, because of the parallel cases already discussed, and especially P.Oxy. 1405.

⁴² See note 30, and compare the report of a lawsuit of 154/5 quoted by Apollonarion in her petition (P.Oxy. 899, recto, 11. 20–32); she presumably did not have the imperial subscript available because she was writing in 200.

⁴³ Juristische Papyri, no. 17. L. 2 reads – – – τῷ ἐπιστρατήγῳ ἔντυ [Χε].

⁴⁴ In fact an advocate speaking before Subatianus Aquila in 207 probably refers to the imperial subscript, 1. 18: διατάξεις εἰσἰν τῶν κυρίων.

⁴⁵ As suggested by Riccobono, , FIRA i ², p. 439,Google Scholar and by Schiller, Apokrimata 99, n. 137.

⁴⁶ By Honoré, A. M.SDHI xxviii (1962), 164Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ The best evidence for the existence of such professional copyists and hunters out of precedents is an account of c. 150 from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 1654). It gives details of payments to νομογράφοι for carrying out a search in the ὑπομνηματισμ(οὺς) β΄ τοῦ ἀρχιδικαστοῦ (1. 9) and for copying documents (1. 3). Most striking of all is a payment to a ‘researcher in the Prefect's archive’, αίρέτης ἡγεμονικῆς βιβιοθμκ. (11. 5–7), who has no parallel. However, the debate over whether the νογράφοιwere notaries in private practice or state officials is unresolved: see RE Suppl. vii, cols. 575–7.

⁴⁸ The first subscript is the same as apokrima no. 2, but the text of the papyrus is too damaged to allow a reconstruction of the contents of the second.

⁴⁹ See notes 27 and 29 above.

⁵⁰ Apokrimata 90–101.

⁵¹ Schiller, Second Thoughts 345; A. D'Ors, Symbolae Taubenschlag ( = Eos xlviii (1956)), vol. iii, 85–6Google Scholar.

⁵² cf., ‘descriptum … ex libello proposito cum aliis’, PSI 1026 = CIL xvi, 13 = CPapLat. 117 = Smallwood, , Documents of Nerva, etc. 330, 1. 1Google Scholar.

⁵³ ‘The Severan Lawyers: a preliminary survey’, SDHI xxviii (1962), 162–232,Google Scholar and especially 168–70.

⁵⁴ See Millar, F., JRS lvii (1967), 17Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Honoré art. cit., 174. The point was made by Schiller, Apokrimata 48–9, and by Pringsheim, F., Symbolae Taubenschlag vol. i, 237Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ See the passages cited in nn. 24 and 26.

⁵⁷ Reskripten 24–6. Even so, such epistles could be those addressed to the Prefect by people other than the emperor, and it would make good sense if both epistles from persons of higher status and petitions from humbler provincials were filed together. Other scholars held that the epistles were the Prefect's own (see the references in RE, s.v. ‘libellus’, col. 43).

⁵⁸ See nn. 25–26.

⁵⁹ See, for example, RE s.v. ‘libellus’, col. 38; Honoré, art. cit., 164 and 177; A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny 716–7 (but see his remarks in Roman Civilization, ed. J. P. V. D. Balsdon, 91, ‘the only redress available to the ordinary man … lay in the submission of a written petition to the Emperor himself. This too involved difficulty and expense in dispatching the petition to Rome, unless a friendly official allowed them the use of the imperial postal service’).

⁶⁰ e.g., P.Col. 123, 1. 13: Κ.λ.[‥]δις τῷ καὶ Μίδᾳ διὰ Φιλοκράτους υἱοῦ; 1. 18: …[.]θαλγη Άμβρήλου διὰ Άβρομάνχου υἱου; 1. 52: [΄Ισ]ιδώρῳ τῷ καὶ Ήρακλ[είδ]ει [διὰ Ά]πολλων〈ί〉ου; P.Oxy. 1020, 1. 7: Προκόνδῃ Έρμαίου δι΄ Έπαγάθ[ο]υ ἀπελευθέρου; BGU 267, 1.6 Ίουλιανῇ Σω[σθ]ενιανοῦ διὰ Σωσθένους ἀνδρός.

⁶¹ e.g., FIRA i², 103, iv, 11. 3–4, ‘Lurio Lucullo et nomine aliorum’, and FIRA i², 106, iv, 11. 1–2, ‘vikanis per Pyrrum mil. conpossessorem’; for no. 107, see n. 87 below.

⁶² They cited as a parallel the edict of Caracalla from P.Giess. 40, ii, 11. 1–15 (see note 5 above), which was published at Alexandria seven months after its publication at Rome.

⁶³ Severus received epistles from Aurelius Horion of Alexandria (P.Oxy. 705: see n. 18), and Wilcken himself showed that these were epistles, Reskripten 24. Other examples of imperial epistles to private individuals in the provinces are Nero's to Menophilus of Aizanoi (OGIS 475), Trajan's to Claudianus of Pessinus (Buckler, W. H., RPh 63 (1937), 105–111)Google Scholar, Caracalla's to Aurelius Iulianus (Syll.³ 883) and Gordian III's to Aurelius Epaphras of Aphrodisias (Erim, and Reynolds, , JRS lix (1969), 56)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ e.g., E. M. Smallwood, Documents of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, no 61, 1. 16; no. 73, 1. 15; no. 453,11.19–20; IGRR i, 146,1. 14; 149,1.11; iv, 575, 1. 12.

⁶⁵ e.g., FIRA i² 82, 1. 9, ‘Romae’; 106, col. i, ‘Romae’; the Greek form is found in several of the Severan subscripts, see n. 22 above.

⁶⁶ It was shown above (p. 93 and n. 57) that P.Hamburg 18, ii, 1. 6, which was interpreted by Wilcken as a record of his system in operation, can very well be interpreted quite differently.

⁶⁷ As was recognized by Wilcken, Reskripten 20, with n. 1. On the other hand, Premerstein cited Plin, ., Epp. x, 48, 59 and 81Google Scholar (the last with reservations) in addition to 106 as cases of petitions delivered to the governor for forwarding to the emperor (RE s.v. ‘libellus’, col. 38).

⁶⁸ Plin, ., Epp. x, 47Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ ibid. 58–59.

⁷⁰ ibid. 81, 5.

⁷¹ ibid. 83.

⁷² See Williams, , Historia xvi (1967), 475Google Scholar ff.

⁷³ Plin, ., Epp. x, 106;Google Scholar presumably the girl's mother was a peregrine (see Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny 715).

⁷⁴ Published by W. Seston and M. Euzennat, CRAI 1971, 468–90; see 11. 6–9, and 17–19, and Sherwin-White, , JRS lxiii (1973), p. 86Google Scholar. ff.

⁷⁵ See notes 9–12 for references for these documents.

⁷⁶ e.g., those of Pius to the Thracian koinon quoted by Ulpian (Dig. xlix, i, i, 1–2) and of Alexander to the Bithynian koinon quoted by Paulus, (Dig. xlix, 1, 25)Google Scholar. These jurists were writing in Latin, so that they must have quoted the epistles in Greek because that was the language of the originals. Pius' epistle to the Asian koinon, quoted by Modestinus, (Dig. xxvii, 1, 6, 2, 7 and 8)Google Scholar, must also have been written in Greek: Modestinus' treatise was itself written in Greek but he quoted Latin texts in the original, as passages from Paulus and Ulpian in the same excerpt show.

⁷⁷ The division probably became permanently established under Marcus; see Townend, G. B., Historia x (1961), 373–381Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ For Latin subscripts to Greek petitions see the documents cited in nn. 9 and 11–13 above.

⁷⁹ FIRA i², 103, col. ii, 11. 15–20.

⁸⁰ e.g. Claudius (ILS 214), Vespasian and Domitian (IGLS v, 1998Google Scholar = SEG xvii, 755, revised by Lewis, N., RIDA xv (1968), 135–142)Google Scholar, and Trajan (Plin, ., Epp. x, 45–6, 64, 120–1)Google Scholar.

⁸¹ e.g., Vespasian (FIRA i ², 74,Google Scholar 11. 12–13), Hadrian (Syll ³833, 11. 10–13) and Marcus Aurelius (Heberdey, , Forsch.Ephesos ii, 23,Google Scholar 11. 5–8).

⁸² Dig. i, 18, 8.

⁸³ FIRA i², 106 = IGBulg. iv, 2236, 11. 167–9: ‘id genus querellae praecibus intentum ante … iustitia praesidis potius super his quae adlegabantur instructa discinge quam rescripto principali certam formam reportare debeas;’ FIRA i², 107, 11. 3–4: ‘proconsule v.c. perspecta fide eorum quae [allegas, ne] quid iniuriose geratur, ad sollicitudinem suam revocabit.’

⁸⁴ Cod.Iust. v, 36, 1, i; vii, 53, 3 (references to governors); iv, 56, 1 (to the Praefectus Urbi); ii, 12, 3, 1 (to the praetor); ii, 1, 7; iv, 55, 3; vi, 3, 1; vii. 73. 4 (to imperial procurators); and v, 32, 1 (to city magistrates).

⁸⁵ The phrase is that of Jones, speaking of the fate of the vicar's court in the later Empire: it came to be by-passed, because appeals could be made directly from a governor's decision to the Praetorian Prefect, whose decisions were inappellable, whereas appeals could be made from a vicar's to the emperor (Later Roman Empire, Vol. i, 374).

⁸⁶ All are quoted in n. 60; the exception is P.Col. 1. 52, and in this case Sid is a restoration so that the name in the genitive might be that of the petitioner's father and not of an agent.

⁸⁷ Of the texts cited in n. 13, CIL and FIRA read ‘per Didymum mili[t]e[m f]rum(entarium)’, a conjecture of Hülsen. The stone probably had MILIGENERUM (see CIL iii, 14191), and ‘per mili(tem) generum’ is a perfectly satisfactory reading: the Skaptopara inscription (quoted in n. 12) and the Code (e.g., v, 16, 2; vi, 21, 1-3; iv, 61,3) show that the status of a soldier was recorded in the addresses of imperial subscripts, and the evidence of the papyri (see last note) that the relationships of agents to petitioners were recorded as well.

⁸⁸ The address of the subscript is quoted in n. 12; the formula at the head of the petition reads, ‘dat. per Aur. Purrum mil. coh. X … convicanum et conpossessorem’ (IGBulg. iv, 2236, 11. 6–7). Wilcken was right to hold that this must have been added at the top of the original text of the petition by the staff of the a libellis (Reskripten 39); had it been inserted by Pyrrus to emphasize his own services, as Faass suggested (art. cit. (n. 1), 237), one would have expected it to be in Greek, which was presumably his native language as it was that of his fellowvillagers. Wilcken's suggestion, ‘dat(us)’, in agreement with libellus understood, is also superior to the usual ‘dat(um)’. However, Wilcken's hypothesis that the formula had been intended to record the date of the delivery of the petition to the emperor, and that therefore an actual date at the end of the formula must have been carelessly omitted from the copy or the inscription, is superfluous, if the formula simply recorded the fact the status of the person delivering the petition has been checked, as has been proposed here.

⁸⁹ P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire 65–6: ‘it was plainly more difficult and expensive for a provincial than for an Italian or a Roman, and for a poor provincial than for a rich one, to bring his grievance in person to the Emperor’. But a passage on p. 67 implies that things were easier for petitioners than for litigants: ‘the ordinary provincial with a grievance … would send off a libellus’.

⁹⁰ Reskripten 19–20.

⁹¹ Plin, ., Epp. x, 107Google Scholar.

⁹² See the passage quoted in n. 17.

⁹³ CRAI 1971, 470–2, 11. 22–40; the text is reproduced by Oliver, , AJP xciii (1972), 336–8,Google Scholar and by Sherwin-White, , JRS lxiii (1973), 86–7Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ The document actually forwarded through Pliny must have been headed ‘descriptum et recognitum ex commentario’, as that in the Tabula Banasitana was (1. 22). I therefore suggest (very tentatively) that some phrase which included ‘descriptum’ or ‘descripti’ probably lay behind the ‘rescripti’ of the first printed texts. See also Sherwin-White, art. cit. 89.

⁹⁵ See n. 17.

⁹⁶ See P.Col. 123, 11. 1–3 (quoted in n. 27) and P.Flor. 382, 11. 15–16, ἐν Άλ[ε]ξ[α]νδρ[είᾳ π]ρὸς τῶι ἡγουμένῳ πυλῶνι τοῦ [γ]υμνασί[ο]υ. For the places where subscripts of the legate of Palestine and of the Prefect of Egypt were published, see the documents listed in nn. 52, 107–8.

⁹⁷ Reskripten 36 ff.

⁹⁸ See nn. 27 and 29.

⁹⁹ Wilcken, loc. cit. The date at the end of col. 2 of the Smyrna text (see note 9) is preceded by ‘ac(tum)’. This word is regularly used to date copies made from official texts, and is placed with the date at the end of such a copy before the names of the witnesses to its accuracy (e.g., FIRA i², 47, 11. 25 ff.; CRAI 1971, pp. 41–2, 11. 38 ff; without the lists of witnesses, Smallwood, , Documents of Nerva, etc., 330, 11. 24–5;Google Scholar 475, 1. 22). Had the date at the end of col. 2 been that of the issue of the original subscript, it would have been preceded by ‘dat.’, which Wilcken admitted was the normal term used for this purpose (Reskripten 41). Besides the evidence from the Code mentioned by Wilcken, the epigraphic text of a subscript of Severus to a resident of Paros shows that ‘dat.’ (Greek, ἐδόθη) was used for subscripts as well as epistles (see n. 14).

¹⁰⁰ See Josephus, AJ xix, 291 and P.Oxy. 1100, 1. 4, both cited by Wilcken, , Reskripten 35, n. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ See the description of BGU 267 and P. Strass. 22 on p. 90 above.

¹⁰² I owe this description of the procedure to Mr. Sherwin-White, whose criticism evoked the restatement of Wilcken's hypotheses which follows.

¹⁰³ The Copy of an excerpt from the imperial commentarii inscribed on the Tabula Banasitana (n. 93) was made by an imperial freedman, Asclepiodotus, as the result of a petition; but this was an exceptional case in which a procurator had forwarded the petition of a provincial to Rome, and the copy was made for despatch to the procurator, not to be handed to a petitioner then in Rome.

¹⁰⁴ Hermes lxii (1927), 207–8:Google Scholar he believed that this liber was made up of copies of subscripts, the originals of which had been handed over to the petitioners.

¹⁰⁵ Reskripten 36–7 and Propositio 19–20. The implication of Wilcken's argument is that subscripts were only posted at intervals of several days, but the Columbia papyrus shows that, at times at least, it took place daily (see nn. 27 and 29). However, four or five petitions with subscripts, stuck together side by side, could still be described as a liber (the equivalent of a τεῦχος συνκολλησίμων βιβλειδίων referred to in the papyri listed in nn. 107–108).

¹⁰⁶ See n. 52 for references.

¹⁰⁷ e.g. P.Oxy. 2131 = Hunt, and Edgar, , Select Papyri 290, ll. 2–5,Google Scholar ἐμαρτύρατο ἑαυτὸν Τοτοῆς … διὰ τῶν ὑπογεγραμμένων μαρτύρων ἐξειληφέναι καὶ προσαντιβεβληκέναι ἐκ τεύχους συνκολλησίμων βιβλειδίων ἐπιδοθήντων Σουβατιανῷ Άκύλᾳ … προτεθέντων ἐν Άντινοουπόλ., and BGU 970 (+ 525) = Mitteis, , Chrestomathie 242, 11. 3–5Google Scholar. For the Latin equivalent of the formula, see 11. 5–6 of the copy of Domitian's edict on the immunity of veterans (CIL xvi, 12 = FIRA i² 76), ‘testatus est se descriptum et recognitum fecisse’.

¹⁰⁸ See the text quote d in th e last note and BGU 970, 11. 4–5, ἐκ τεύχους βιβλειδίων Τίτου Πακτουμηίου … προτεθέντων σὺν ἑτέροις ἐν Ίουλιοπόλει. For the phrase προτεθέντων τῇ ἐνεστώσῃ ἡμέρᾳ, see P.Oxy. 35, 11. 12–13 as restored by Wilcken (Reskripten 32, and Propositio 17), and now the Cornell papyrus published by Lewis, N., BASF vi (1969), p. 17,Google Scholar 1. 4 (this also has a fragment of an affidavit formula in 11. 2 f.).

¹⁰⁹ p Yale 61, 11. 11–16: ἵνα οἱ βουλόμενοι τὰ διαφέροντα ἑαυτοῖς ἐκλαβ〈ε〉ῑν δύνωνται … ὅπως εἰ τυγχάνῃ τις ἐπιδοὺς βιβλίδια ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν μητροπόλιν τὴν ἔκλεμψιν ποιήσηται.

¹¹⁰ RE s.v. ‘libellus’, col. 42: ‘eine Entlastung für die kaiserliche Kanzlei’. Wilcken, Reskripten 17, envisaged unofficial help from a clerk of the a libellis for Acutianus of Smyrna in preparing his copy, but there seems to be no good reason for assuming something which, he admits, is certainly never made explicit in the texts.

¹¹¹ Wilcken, Reskripten 20–1, referring to Karlowa; cf. F. von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht 167–8.

¹¹² Wilcken, loc. cit., did suggest that a system introduced for ‘Prozessreskripte’ later spread to other libelli, but did not pursue the idea.

¹¹³ Of the epigraphic texts cited in nn. 9–13, all but those from North Africa (n. 10) have petitions in Greek.

¹¹⁴ U. Wilcken, ‘Über den Nutzen der lateinischen Papyri’, Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Firenze 1935, III–112; his argument was directed against A. Stein in particular (see RE s.v. ‘libellus’, col. 38). For Severus' epistles to Aurelius Horion, see nn. 18 and 63 above.

¹¹⁵ That the Greek texts are official translations posted at Alexandria is shown by the description added at the top of P.Col. 123, ἀντίγραφα ἀποκριμάτων 〈προ〉 τεθέντων (1. 2), which surely excludes the possibility that these were texts translated by the copyist. The department of the a libellis had presumably no translators regularly attached to it (see p. 96 above); the translations may well have been supplied by members of the Prefect's staff, for whom this must have been a regular task (it was they who presumably translated Hadrian's letter to the Prefect Rammius Martialis extending the privileges of soldiers before it was posted in the legionary camp: see BGU 140 = Smallwood, Docs, of Nerva, etc., no. 333, 11. 1–9).

¹¹⁶ Westermann, Apok. 11–13; E. Schönbauer, AAWW 1957, 196–7 (I have not seen the article in which he promised to argue for his view, p. 196, n. 43).

¹¹⁷ Schiller, Apok. 47 and passim in his commentaries on each apokrima; F. Pringsheim, Symbolae Taubenschlag ( = Eos, xlviii (1956)), vol. i, 239–40,Google Scholar where he gives a list of Schiller's proposed translations of Latin phrases (some of which must be removed in the light of Youtie's revised text).

¹¹⁸ David, M., Mnemosyne xi (1958), 85Google Scholar. Examples of such Latinisms are τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἡλικίας βοήθιαν for ‘aetatis auxilium’ (P.Oxy. 1020, 11. 5 and 7; P.Col. 123, 1. 54; see P.Oxy. vol. vii, p. 148) and τοὺς γεγραμμένους κληρονόμους for ‘heredes scripti’ (P.Col. 123, 1. 29; see Schiller, Second Thoughts 338).

¹¹⁹ Cod.Iust. ii, 8, 1; ii, 6,1. D'Ors' view (Symbolae Taubenschlag, vol. iii, 83) that τὰ ἐγνωσμένα is used in a technical sense found in the Ptolemaic period may therefore be ruled out (already rejected by Schiller, Apok. 55).

¹²⁰ Cod.Iust. vi, 46, 1; 47, 1; viii, 28, 1 (Severus himself); v, 60, 1; vii, 72, 1; ix, 47, 3 (Caracalla).

¹²¹ Cod.Iust. ii, 11, 3; vii, 46, 1 (Severus). Schiller, Apok. 57–63 suggested that οὐ δικαίως ἀξιοῑς (P.Col. 123, 1. 15) represent ‘contra ius postulas’, but all the parallels he cites from the Code date from the Diocletianic period; the nearest examples from Severus himself are ‘neque aequam neque usitatam rem desideras’ (iv, 2, 1) and ‘incivilem rem desideratis’ (vi, 2, 6).

¹²² Hadrian's edict: P.Cairo 49359 = 49360 = P.Oslo 78 = FIRA i², 81 = Smallwood, Docs. Nerva, etc. 462. Caracalla's edict: P.Giess. 40, col. ii, 11. 1–15 (cf. n. 5).

¹²³ For translators on his staff, see n. 115.

¹²⁴ I am grateful to the editor's readers and to Mr. Sherwin-White for criticisms of a first version of this paper, which have produced what it is hoped are improvements, and to my colleague Leo Rivet for his vigilant scrutiny of the style.