¹ For the stages: CT I. I. 5 (26 March 429) repeated Gesta Sen. 4 (December 438); CT I. I. 6 (20 December 435); Nov. Theod. I (15 February 438).

² On this the standard work is Honoré, Tony, Tribonian (1978)Google Scholar, esp. chs. I, 2, 5–7.

³ Not. Dig. Or. 12 and Occ. 10.

⁴ CJ I. 14. 3, cited below. This was part of a long oratio addressed to the Roman Senate on 7 November 426. Excerpts from it are scattered through the Theodosian and Justinianic Codes, and include the famous, or notorious, ‘Law of Citations’ at CT I. 4. 3 on how the opinions of the jurists were to be treated by trial judges.

⁵ For a clear statement of the point that ‘eloquence is one of the main requirements of the ancient administrator’, applied to the early Empire, see Purcell, N., ‘The Arts of Government’, in Boardman, J., Griffin, J. and Murray, O. (edd.), The Oxford History of the Classical World (1986), 589Google Scholar.

⁶ Jones, LRE, 368.

⁷ Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (1977)Google Scholar, passim.

⁸ On edicta, Millar observes (ERW, 257) that we have no examples of general imperial edicts recorded on inscriptions between the Flavian and Tetrarchic periods. However, under Constantine large numbers of edicts are attested and ‘it would not be unreasonable to see this as suggesting a real change in the nature and ambitions of government’ (ERW, 258). Millar does not seem to commit himself on this very broad issue. However, he does accept a connection of some kind between changes in administrative structures and ‘the nature and ambitions of government’: if the change was real, ‘the striking fact remains that we cannot trace even in this period any officials or secretaries in the imperial entourage who were specifically concerned with edicts, even though both the original composition of them and the making of large numbers of copies must have involved considerable labour’. As will be argued below for the late Empire, the quaestor was known to be concerned with edicts and their publication was the job of other officials and the scribes of the scrinia. The question of whether the change was ‘real’ or not is one that may be pursued by others.

⁹ On the difficult problem of the relationship of imperial responses to individual cases and general rules, see Millar, F., ‘Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status’, JRS 73 (1983), 76–96Google Scholar. His introductory remarks are especially relevant: ‘it can be suggested with some justice that to concentrate on the form or occasion of typical Imperial pronouncements is to miss the extent to which these pronouncements did in fact have the function of formulating general rules’ (p. 76).

¹⁰ CJ I. 14. 3 (see above, n. 4).

¹¹ Honoré, , ‘The Making of the Theodosian Code’, ZSS Röm. Abt. (1986), 133–222Google Scholar.

¹² Voss, W. E., Recht und Rhetorik in den Kaisergesetzen der Spatantike. Eine Untersuchung zum nachklassichen Kauf—und Ubereignungsrecht (Forsch. zur Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 9, 1982)Google Scholar.

¹³ PLRE I Fl. Eupraxius, pp. 299–300; Decimius Magnus Ausonius 7, pp. 40–1; Virius Nicomachus Flavianus 15, pp. 347–9. In support of the PLRE dating of Flavianus’ quaestorship to 388–90 see Tony Honoré, ‘Some writings of Nicomachus' Flavianus’, backed by John Matthews, ‘Nicomachus Flavianus' quaestorship: the historical evidence’, in Xenia, ed. W. Schuller (forthcoming).

¹⁴ Honoré, art. cit. (n. 11), also uses the German term ‘Textstufen’ in deference to Wieacker, L., Textstufen Klassicher Juristen (1960)Google Scholar, thus evoking the wider scholarly context of the analysis of the texts of the Justinianic corpus.

¹⁵ Not. Dig. Or. 12 and Occ. 10, ‘insignia viri illustris quaestoris’.

¹⁶ CT II. 39. 5, minutes of the consistory for 23 March 362, ‘adstante Iovio viro clarissimo quaestore’; Amm. Marc. 28. 1. 25 for the quaestor Eupraxius in consistory. See below, p. 158.

¹⁷ Three constitutions about challenges to the quaestor's control of the laterculum minus between 416 and 424 comprise CT I. 8. 1–3, ‘De Officio Quaestoris’.

¹⁸ Not. Dig. Or. 12, ‘officium non habet sed adiutores de scriniis quos voluerit’, with Occ. 10, ‘habet subaudientes adiutores memoriales de scriniis diversis’. These are the scrinia of the secretariat, cf. CJ 12. 28. 1, ‘in illis qui in scriniis nobis, id est memoriae epistularum libellorumque versati sunt’ (29 Oct. 314).

¹⁹ Lactant., de mart. pers. 46. 5.

²⁰ Dig. 29. I. 40 pr.

²¹ Testamentum Porcelli, p. 243. 3. This is first referred to by Jerome, Comm. in Isai. 12 pr. and Cont. Ruf. 1. 17. It may therefore date from the fourth century. See Baldwin, B., ‘The Testamentum Porcelli’, most accessible in his Studies in Late Roman and Byzantine History, Literature and Language (1984), 137–48Google Scholar.

²² Jer., Ep. 36. 9. 2; Symm., Ep. 1. 23. 4; Sid. Ap., Ep. 1. 11. 1 and for other refs. Thesaurus, s.v. ‘dicto’, coll. 1009–14.

²³ Not. Dig. Or. 19. 13.

²⁴ See below, p. 164.

²⁵ Amm. 28. 1. 10.

²⁶ CT 16. 5. 17 (4 May 389); 18 (17 June 389); 19 (26 Nov. 389).

²⁷ Millar, ERW, 203–6 (on orationes); ‘that not all emperors approached the distinction of Julius Caesar, and that some received assistance in composition is less important than the expectation itself’ (p. 206).

²⁸ Fronto, De Eloq. 1. 5 and for discussion, Champhn, E., Fronto and Antonine Rome (1980), 122–5Google Scholar. For the other side see Fronto, Ad Verum Imp. 2.1.5 for (exaggerated) allegations of borrowed eloquence, e.g. ‘Nerva facta sua in senatu verbis rogaticiis commendavit’; ibid. 7 on emperors from Gaius to Vitellius, ‘quis eorum oratione sua aut senatum adfari, quis edictum, quis epistulam suismet verbis componere potuit?’

²⁹ Eus., V.C. 4. 8, γράμμα also V.C. 4. 32; 4. 29. 2; 2. 47, with Millar, ERW, 205–6.

³⁰ Amm. 15. 1. 3.

³¹ Honore, Tony, ‘“Imperial” Rescripts A.D. 193–305: Authorship and Authenticity’, JRS 69 (1979), 51–64Google Scholar.

³² Zos., Hist. Nov. 5. 32. 6.

³³ Amm. 14. 11. 14, ‘Taurus quaestor ad Armeniam missus’ and ‘inter quos Leontius erat…ut quaestor’; Amm. 14. 7 for Montius as quaestor.

³⁴ Jones, LRE, 104.

³⁵ Talbert, R. J. A., The Senate of Imperial Rome (1984), 163–84Google Scholar.

³⁶ In general, see Cébeillac, M., Les ‘Quaestores Prindpis et Candidati’ aux Ier et IIème Siècles de l'Empire 1972)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Ulpian at Dig. 1. 13. 1. 2. and 4, ‘verum excepti erant candidati principis: hi enim solis Iibris principalibus in senatu legendis vacant. (4) Ex his, sicut dicimus, quidam sunt qui candidati principis dicebantur quique epistulas eius in senatu legunt’.

³⁸ e.g. T. Flavius Postumius Titianus 9, PLRE 1, pp. 919–20, who was quaestor candidatus, praetor and suffect consul before becoming corrector of Italia Transpadana in 291; he was then cos. ord. in 301 and PUR in 305–6.

³⁹ CT 6. 4. 1 (9 March 329) protecting quaestors under 16. On senatorial careers in general, see Chastagnol, A., ‘La carrière sénatoriale du Bas-Empire’, Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, Tituli 4 (1982), 167–93Google Scholar. For quaestores candidati after Constantine see ibid., 173 21.

⁴⁰ Anth. Pal. 16. 48 (epitaph of Proclus).

⁴¹ Cass., Var. 6. 5, ‘quaesturam toto corde recipimus, quam nostrae linguae vocem esse censemus’.

⁴² AE 1934, 159, Rome 364/7.

⁴³ CT 1. 1. 5, ‘Antiochum virum inlustrem quaestorem sacri palatii’.

⁴⁴ CIL VI. 1782 = ILS 2947.

⁴⁵ CIL VI. 1783 = ILS 2948.

⁴⁶ Chastagnol, art. cit. (n. 39), 175–80.

⁴⁷ In support of this I quote, by kind permission of author and recipient, Tony Honoré's letter to John Matthews, which responds to doubts about the ‘QSP’ raised by the present writer, ‘in a sense the phrase QSP never becomes the official designation of the holder of the office; thus Cod. Just, I. 30 De Officio Quaestoris. Nevertheless CTh 1. 1. 5 (429) line 30 Antiochum virum inlustrem quaestorem sacri palatii seems to have been copied quite a lot e.g. CJ 7. 62. 32 (440), 7. 62. 34 (Justin), 12. 19. 15 (527), C. Tanta (530) pr. Triboniano…ex quaestore sacri nostri palatii. I can't trace the expression back beyond 429 but cf. archiatri sacri palatii CTh. 13. 3. 14 (387), universis officiis atque sacri palatii ministeriis CTh. 7. 4. 35 (423). In other words, you can if you want to make it sound grand add sacri palatii to any palatine office, and the temptation to do so is not just a modern fad’.

⁴⁸ Amm. 14. 11. 14.

⁴⁹ Amm. 14. 7. 12–18.

⁵⁰ Amm. 14. 11. 14.

⁵¹ Amm. 20. 9. 4 with PLRE I Leonas, p. 498. Also Nebridius I, p. 619.

⁵² Soc, HE 7. 20. 1: Theophanes, Chron. Anno Mundi 5921. Helion also stood in for Theodosius II when Valentinian III was made Caesar (424) and Augustus (425).

⁵³ Sid. Ap., Ep. 5. 16. 1 (codicils of patriciate for Ecdicius); 3. 7. 2–4 (embassy to Euric of Visigoths); PLRE II Licinianus I, p. 682.

⁵⁴ On evolution of the consistory under Constantius II, see Vogler, C., Constance II et l'Administration imperiale (1979), 216–20Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ e.g. L. Crepereius Madalianus, PLRE 1, p. 530, comes Flavialis c. 337.

⁵⁶ CT 12. 1. 33 (5 April 342). See PLRE I Vulcacius Rufinus 25, pp. 782–3, Vogler, op. cit., 218.

⁵⁷ PLRE I Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus, pp. 651–3. Rufinus was PPO Gall, in 354 and It. Illyr. et Afr. in 356–8. Orfitus was PUR in 353–5 and 357–9.

⁵⁸ CIL VI. 1764 = ILS 1255 (Trajan's Forum). For all refs., PLRE I Saturninius Secundus Salutius 3, pp. 814–17.

⁵⁹ Julian, , Letter to the Athenians, 281C and 282CGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ CT 11. 39. 5, minutes of the consistory, 23 March 362, ‘adstante Iovio viro clarissimo quaestore, Anatolio magistro officiorum, Felice comite sacrarum largitionum’.

⁶¹ No direct evidence for Constantius (see below n. 63 for first attestations of v.i. and v.s.). The four palatine ministers on the consistory are spectabiles in Valentinian's fixing of orders of precedence, CT 6. 9. 1 (372). For later comites consistoriani as spectabiles, CT 6. 12. 1 (399), ‘ut eos qui tranquillitatis nostrae consistorii dici comites meruerunt, proconsularibus aequari generaliter iuberemus’.

⁶² Aus., Praef. I. 35, ‘ego comes et quaestor’; Eubulus (quaestor 435), CT 1. 1. 6. 2, ‘Eubulus inlustris ac magnificus comes et quaestor noster’; Martyrius (quaestor 438), Nov. Theod. 1. 7, ‘Martyrius v. inl. comes et quaestor’.

⁶³ Chastagnol, art. cit. (n. 39), 176. First attested v.i. CT 11. 30. 31 (363); first attested v.s. is proconsul of Africa in 365 (CT 7. 6. 1).

⁶⁴ CT 6. 9. 1 (5 July 372), ‘eorum homines qui sacrario nostro explorata sedulitate oboediunt, hac volumus observatione distingui, ut quaestor atque officiorum magister nec non duo largitionum comites proconsularium honoribus praeferantur’.

⁶⁵ CT 6. 9. 2 (25 May 380) and 6. 26. 2 (29 March 381) and 4 (28 February 386).

⁶⁶ Chastagnol, art. cit. (n. 39), 184–9.

⁶⁷ Amm. 27. 6. 14, ‘his dictis solemnitate omni firmatis, Eupraxius (Caesariensis Maurus) magister ea tempestate memoriae, primus omnium exclamavit, ‘Familia Gratiani hoc meretur’ statimque promotus quaestor…’.

⁶⁸ See below, section III.

⁶⁹ PLRE 1 Maternus Cynegius 3, pp. 235–6; Florentinus 2, p. 362.

⁷⁰ On Cl. Lachanius as quaestor, Rut. Nam., de red. suo, 1. 579–80, with PLRE I, p. 491; on Cl. Postumus Dardanus, PLRE II, pp. 346–7; on Rufius Antonius Agrypnius Volusianus 6 as quaestor, Rut. Nam. 1. 171–2, ‘huius facundae commissa palatia linguae, primaevus meruit principis ore loqui’, with PLRE II, pp. 1184–5. For Eubulus, PLRE II, p. 403, cited in 429 (CT 1. 1. 5) as ‘v. sp. ex magistro scrinii.’

⁷¹ CIL VI. 1782 = ILS 2947. To Flavianus as ‘historico disertissimo’. CIL VI. 1783 = ILS 2948 (of 431) includes an oratio ad senatum in which Theodosius I is represented as hoping for the dedication of the Annales: ‘et usque ad annalium quos consecrari sibi a quaestore et praefecto suo voluit’.

⁷² e.g. Aus., Epig. 92 on a gay lawyer with an unfaithful wife, citing, in four lines, Leges Papia, Iulia, Scantinia and Titia.

⁷³ Amm. 20. 1. 25, ‘qui (senatores) cum intromissi in consistorium haec referrent, negantem Valentinianum se id statuisse…moderate redarguit quaestor Eupraxius, hacque libertate emendatum est crudele praeceptum supergressum omnia diritatis exempla’. The ‘crudele praeceptum’ had arisen from a relatio of Maximinus on treason trials conducted by him as praefectus annonae in 369 (Amm. 28. 1. 10–11), for which see further below, p. 169.

⁷⁴ Amm. 26. 7. 4–5; also Zos., Hist. Nov. 4. 6. 2.

⁷⁵ See the edition of Grégoire, H. and Kugener, M.-A., Marc le Diacre, Vie de Porphyre, Évêque de Gaza (Budé, Coll. Byz., 1930Google Scholar), introduction, xii–xxxvii in defence of its accuracy.

⁷⁶ Vit. Porph. 50. The text was then ‘subscribed’ (51) by an unknown; texts composed by the quaestor should have been subscribed by the emperor.

⁷⁷ The functions and status of the a memoria under the early Empire are uncertain. See Millar, ERW, 264–6.

⁷⁸ Not. Dig. Or. 19. 14, ‘officium autem de ipsis nemo habet sed adiutores electos de scriniis’.

⁷⁹ ibid., 6–7, ‘adnotationes omnes dictat et emittit, et precibus respondet’.

⁸⁰ ibid. 8–9, ‘legationes civitatum, consultationes et preces tractat’.

⁸¹ ibid. 10–11, ‘cognitiones et preces tractat’. For the continuing legal character of the magister libellorum, see Voss, op. cit. (n. 12), 31–3. The absorption of the cognitiones by the libelli may be signalled in the career of Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius, PLRE I, pp. 15–16. His inscription, CIL VI. 510 = ILS 4152 (of 376), gives mid-career offices as ‘item magister libellor. et cognition, sacrarum [combining libelli and cognitiones], magister epistular., magister memoriae…’.

⁸² As pointed out by Honoré, discussing the tension that could arise between scrinia and quaestor, ‘Ausonius and Vulgar Law’, lura 35 (1984, publ. 1987), 75–85, esp. 75 and 80Google Scholar.

⁸³ CT 1. 1. 5, ‘Antiochum virum iniustrem exquaestore et praefectum elegimus, Antiochum virum iniustrem quaestorem sacri palatii, Theodorum v.s. comitem et magistrum memoriae, Eudicium et Eusebium v.s. magistros scriniorum, Iohannem v.s. ex comite nostri sacrarii, Comazontem atque Eubulum v.s. ex magistris scriniorum et Apellem virum disertissimum scholasticum’.

⁸⁴ But we do not know which office composed edicts under the principate or under Diocletian, on which see Millar, ERW, 258–9.

⁸⁵ PLRE 1 Fl. Claudius Antonius 5, p. 77. Symm., Ep. I. 89, ‘sed magnis rebus accommodatam et maiestatis scriptis aptatam gloriam, quam magisterio ante quaesisti, recens auxit oratio’.

⁸⁶ Symm., Ep. I. 95 (to Syagrius). PLRE I Proculus Gregorius 9, p. 404.

⁸⁷ Symm., Ep. 3. 17.

⁸⁸ Honoré, , ‘Scriptor Historiae Augustae’, JRS 77 (1987), pp. 156–76Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ SHA, Vit. Cat. 8. 4.

⁹⁰ SHA, Vit. Claud. Goth. 7. 1–2Google Scholar, ‘exstat ipsius epistula missa ad senatum, legenda ad populum…quae talis est: “Senatui populoque Romano Claudius princeps”; haec autem ipse dictasse perhibetur, ego verba magistri memoriae non requiro’.

⁹¹ PLRE 1 Fl. Mallius Theodorus 37, pp. 900–1.

⁹² CT 11. 16 (18 March 380).

⁹³ Claud., Theod. 38–41, ‘hinc sacrae mandantur opes orbisque tributa / possessi quidquid fluvius evolvitur auri / quid luce procul venas rimatur sequaces / abdite pallentis fodit sollertia Bessi’.

⁹⁴ e.g. by Voss, op. cit. (n. 12), 36.

⁹⁵ See also Symm., Ep. 4. 50, associating laws with quaestorship, ‘quid quod te magis quaesturae honor et condendarum sanctionum usus excoluit?’ On oracula, see Symm., Ep. 5. 54 to Felix, quaestor 396–7, ‘quaeso te, cogites quid de augusto adyto, cuius loqueris oracula, decet impetrari’.

⁹⁶ See above, n. 69.

⁹⁷ For Claudian as tribunus et notarius, CIL VI. 1710 = ILS 2949. For the marriage of Palladius and Celerina and Palladius' powerful father-in-law, the primicerius notariorum, see Claudian, Carm. min. 25.

⁹⁸ Ruf., HE II. 16. For ‘decreta’, compare language Symm., Ep. 2. 13. 3.

⁹⁹ Vit. Porph. 50, see above p. 158.

¹⁰⁰ Lactant., de mort. pers. 46. 5, see above, p. 151.

¹⁰¹ Soz., HE 7. 13. 5–7. For Sozomen's use of the Theodosian Code (and possibly private archives) to improve Eusebius' account of Constantine, see my ‘Sozomen and Eusebius: the lawyer as Church historian in the fifth century’, in Holdsworth, C. and Wiseman, T. P. (edd.), The Inheritance of Historiography (1986), 45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰² Const. Sirm. 6.

¹⁰³ CT 16. 2. 47; 5. 64 (to Bassus, CRP); CT 16. 5. 62 (to Faustus, PUR); CT 16. 2. 46; 5. 63 (to Georgius, procos. Africae), discussed by Seeck, Regesten, 5. For stylistic variations between epistulae based on the same lex generalis, see CT 15. 7. 4 (dat. 24 April 380, to PUR) and CT 15. 7. 9 (proposita Carthage, 28 August 381, to procos. Afr.).

¹⁰⁴ Above p. 150.

¹⁰⁵ CT 1. 15. 3 (?357) shows suggestiones and relationes being forwarded from provinces through the office of the vicarius. For suggestiones about new laws, CJ 1. 14. 11 (474), ‘necessaria est tarn suggestio iudicantis quam sententiae principis auctoritas’.

¹⁰⁶ CT 1. 8. 1–3 shows the quaestor suggerens on the subject of his control of the laterculum minus. It would be interesting to know how the idea of creating a ‘Theodosian Code’ first arose.

¹⁰⁷ CT 6. 30. 8.

¹⁰⁸ Nov. Theod. 21.

¹⁰⁹ CJ 12. 19. 5 is addressed to Tatianus, mag. off., on the privileges of clerks of the scrinia relayed through Proculus, the mag. mem, ‘quod ex ipsorum adiutorum petitione idem magnificae memoriae Proculus ad nos rettulit’.

¹¹⁰ Const. Sirm. 10. I; CT I. 29. 1; CJ 1. 50. 2.

¹¹¹ CT 7. 17. 1. (28 January 412) on requisitioning of Danube river craft; CJ 1. 29. 4 (Anastasius, undated), request for report on troop movements in Illyricum. For a similar request from Zeno, CJ 12. 35. 17.

¹¹² Although even Theodosius II took short trips on occasion. For one such see Nov. Theod. 23, data 22 May 443 at Aphrodisias but responding to petitions presented to Theodosius personally by the citizens of Heraclea when he visited them.

¹¹³ Rel. 8. 3, ‘superest ut ea, quae serenitas vestra patribus deliberanda legavit, cognito senatus consulto lex augusta confirmet’; and 4, ‘haec aeternitas vestra venerabilis cum senatui statuenda mandaret, referri ad se protinus imperavit ut placita cunctis immortali lege solidentur. iussis paruimus; expectamus oraculum, quo salutariter, ut vestro numini familiare est, patrum decreta firmetis’.

¹¹⁴ For pertinent remarks on comites and travelling emperors, see Millar, F., ‘Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations, 31 B.C. to A.D. 378’, Britannia 13 (1982), 1–23, esp. 4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁵ CJ 1. 14. 8 (17 October 446), discussed by Honoré, ‘The Making of the Theodosian Code’ art. cit. (n. 11), 136–7.

¹¹⁶ Honore, loc. cit., implies that all discussions took place in consistory. The wording does not require a formal consistory meeting before the law is read out and subscribed and leaves open the opportunity for wider consultations, which need not have involved the emperor until a late stage.

¹¹⁷ The Gesta Senatus (25 December 438) are printed in Mommsen's edition of the Theodosian Code 1. 2 (1905), 1–4. On panegyric and imperial ceremonial, see MacCormack, S., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1081), introd. and ch. 1Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ ‘p.p. Romae XVI Kal. Mai. (16 April), Valente V et Valentiniano AA conss.’ I take it that the subscription is not textually corrupt, although Mommsen found parts of the main body of the constitution to be suspect.

¹¹⁹ PLRE I, p. 578, ‘it must belong to the copy of the PPO Italiae’ seems doubtful. The PUR, not the PPO It. had authority in Rome on judicial matters and up to the 100th milestone beyond. And the copy of the law to the PPO It. would have been addressed to him by name (see n. 99 above).

¹²⁰ Amm. 28. 1. 43, ‘ad nutum Maximini et voluntatem eisdem ministris velut apparitoribus gerebantur’. ibid. 56, ‘haec agitante cum adesset, perque emissarios, cum procul ageret, Maximino…’ ibid. 41, ‘auctusque praefectura praetoriana nihilo lenior fuit, etiam longuis nocens, velut basilisci serpentes’. CT 9. 6. 1–2 (prop. or dat. 15 March 376) are (is) addressed to Maximinus in Gaul but may arise out of questions over the witness of freedmen and slaves raised by trials in Rome.

¹²¹ See n. 99 above.

¹²² There are a number of legal technicalities not discussed here, for which see Honoré, art. cit. (n. 82).

¹²³ CT 9. 19. 2 (25 March 320/6), ‘petitori tamen possessorive momentum prolatorum instrumentorum conferret auctoritas ut tune civili iurgio terminate secunda falsi actio subderetur’. In the forgery suit, the onus of proof did not lie with the accuser (as in criminal proceedings) but was neutral.

¹²⁴ Dig. 48. 2. 7 (Ulpian), ‘si cui crimen obiciatur, praecedere debet crimen subscriptio, quae res ita inventa est, ne facile quis prosiliat ad accusationem, cum sciat inultam sibi accusationem non futuram’.

¹²⁵ First mentioned CT 9. 10. 3 = CJ 9. 12. 7 (6 October 319), ‘non ignarus eam se sententiam subiturum si crimen obiectum non potuerit comprobare, quam reus debet excipere’. See also CT 9. 1. 9 = CJ 9. 46. 7 (25 November 366) which insists on the lodging of an inscriptio before a trial is begun. For a plea for leniency over the consequences of inscriptio for a failed accuser, see Symm., Rel. 49.

¹²⁶ In Constantine's law the onus of proof in the forgery suit was neutral. If the same applied here, the defendant would be put yet further at risk.

¹²⁷ As Honoré believes, art. cit. (n. 82), 80.

¹²⁸ Whereas Ausonius was a friend of Symmachus, who was to rejoice publicly at the fall of Maximinus and his cronies, Or. 4. 10–11; Ep. 10. 2. 2–3. One of the cronies, the Pannonian Leo, was probably replaced as mag. off. by a friend of Ausonius.

¹²⁹ Amm. 28. 1. 6, ‘post mediocre studium liberalium doctrinarum defensionemque causarum ignobilem’.

¹³⁰ Seeck, , Regesten, 246Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Also cited, a ‘rescript of Antoninus Pius’, which cannot be identified with any certainty.

¹³² Amm. 28. 1. 11 (above, n. 73).

¹³³ ibid. 10, ‘relatione maligna docuit principem non nisi supplicibus acrioribus perniciosa facinora scrutari posse vel vindicari…’.

¹³⁴ Rut. Nam., de red. suo 1. 172, ‘primaevus meruit principis ore loqui’.

¹³⁵ CT 4. 4. 3. The jurist was Cervidius Scaevola.

¹³⁶ CT 1. 4. 3 (known as the ‘Law of Citations’) + CJ 1. 14. 3 + 1. 2. 13 + 1. 19. 7 + 1. 22. 5.

¹³⁷ CJ 7. 62. 32. The court was to hear appeals from the judgements of spectabiles indices, i.e. proconsuls, the praefectus Augustalis, the comes Orientis and vicarii.

¹³⁸ Nov. Val. 19. 1 praef. (10 December 445), (quaestor) ‘quem custodem statuimus esse iustitiae qua nullum carere debet oraculum.’

¹³⁹ CT 13. 3. 8 (30 january 368). The emphasis on Praetextatus differs from that of Honoré on Eupraxius, art. cit. (n. 11), 200–1.

¹⁴⁰ Procopius, Bell. Pers. 1. 24. 16.

¹⁴¹ Nov. Theod. 1. 7: ‘it is a long task to record what has been contributed to the completion of this undertaking through their wakeful labours by Antiochus, eminent in all respects, formerly prefect and consul, by Maximinus, v.i. formerly quaestor of our palace, outstanding in every branch of letters, by Martyrius, v.i., comes and quaestor, the faithful exponent of our clemency…’.