BETWEEN EMPEROR, COURT, AND SENATORIAL ORDER: THE CODIFICATION OF THE

For Jochen Bleicken

Most sacred emperor, when the defenses of the State have been prop- erly provided both at home and abroad with the assistance of Divine Providence, one task designed to cure our civilian woes awaits Your Serene Majesty: Throw light upon the confused and contradictory rulings of the by a judgement of Your August Dignity and put a stop to dishonest litigation. For what is so alien to decent conduct as to give vent to one's passion for strife in the very place, where the decisions of Justice distinguish what is due to every single man?1 With this piece of advice an unknown author, presumably a well-educated and high ranking civil servant, closes his memorandum De rebus belli- cis. At this stage, legal affairs seem to have been suffering a fundamen- tal crisis due to the vast number of confused or even contradictory laws. What was the solution? In the final chapter of his libellus the Anonymus, for his part, called for decisive state intervention: The «most sacred Emperor», as he addresses him, should attempt to solve the legum vel iuris confusio by means of an august and solemn decision. The author of the memorandum calls for the legal order to be founded anew on a firmly institutionalized base consisting of a canon of normative texts authorized and legitimized by the Emperor. The Anonymus hereby develops a concept which led to the code being the one and only legitimate repre- sentative of the normative canon2.

1 De reb. bell. 21: Divina providentia, sacratissime imperator, domi forisque rei publicae praesidiis comparatis, restat unum de tua serenitate remedium ad civilium curarum medicinam, ut confusas legum contrariasque sententias, improbitatis reiecto liti- gio, iudicio augustae dignationis illumines. quid enim sic ab honestate consistit alienum quam ibidem studia exerceri certandi ubi, iustitia profitente, discernuntur merita singulo- rum? M. BRETONE, Geschichte des römischen Rechts, München 1992, p. 239-240; E.A. THOMPSON, A Roman Reformer and Inventor, Oxford 1952, p. 1-21; H. BRANDT, Zeitkritik in der Spätantike, München 1988, p. 125-133, 150. Cf. Jill HARRIES, The Back- ground of the Code, in: Jill HARRIES – I. WOOD (eds.), The Theodosian Code, London 1993, p. 1-16, 1. This paper is dedicated to Jochen Bleicken (Hamburg) on the occasion of his 75th birthday (September 3, 2001). 2 Aleida ASSMANN – J. ASSMANN (eds.), Kanon und Zensur. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, München 1987, p. 7-27; J. ASSMANN, Das kulturelle 284 D. SCHLINKERT

For a few years, however, this project remained a mere political scheme. Yet, the crisis of continued and juridical uncertainty increased3. Throughout the fourth decade of the fifth century an attempt was made in the eastern part of the Empire to solve the problems caused by the overall diversity of legislation. In March 429 Theodosius II appointed two commissions to codify the laws valid at that time which had been enacted since the reign of Constantine. It was an ambitious and time-consuming project, requiring almost a decade from 429 until 438 to complete. The Emperor justified his decision by «the mass of imperial constitutions which shut off from human ingenuity a knowledge of them- selves by a wall». The abundance of these constitutions appeared to him, «as though they were submerged in a thick cloud of obscurity». Fur- thermore, he declared that he had «completed a true undertaking of the times and […] dispelled the darkness and given the light of brevity to the laws by means of a compendium»4. In order to achieve this objective he delegated the main responsibility for the task to a small group of noble senators, who attained key positions in organizing and collecting the code from different sources, particularly from centrally maintained or local archival collections and other intermediate sources5. Who were these

Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen, München 1992, p. 103-129. Cf. D. SIMON, Verordnetes Vergessen, in: G. SMITH – A. MARGALIT (eds.), Amnestie oder die Politik der Erinnerung in der Demokratie, Frankfurt 1997, p. 21-36: «Denn Kodifikationen des Rechts huldigen dem Mythos des Neuanfangs. Gleichgültig ob sie — mehr rückwärtsgerichtet — die bestehende als Unordnung emp- fundene Lage beseitigen und klare normative Verhältnisse schaffen wollen oder ob sie — die Zukunft fest im Blick — Gesellschaftsentwürfe durch Gesetze zu verwirklichen beab- sichtigen: Immer wähnen sich die Ingenieure der Kodifikationen in der Stunde Null. (…) Die Stunde Null ist aber eine memoriafeindliche Konstruktion, die vom Pathos des Vergessens zehrt». 3 S.-A. FUSCO, Constitutiones principum und Kodifikation in der Spätantike, Chiron 4 (1974), p. 612-616; O. SEECK, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Stuttgart 1920, VI, p. 131-183. J. BLEICKEN, Das römische Recht, in: J. MARTIN (ed.), Das alte Rom, Gütersloh 1994, p. 154ff. 4 NTh I 1 (438): quod ne a quoquam ulterius sedula ambiguitate tractetur, si copia inmensa librorum, si actionum diversitas difficultasque causarum animis nostris occurrat, si denique moles constitutionum divalium, quae velut sub crassa demersae caligine obscu- ritatis vallo sui notitiam humanis ingeniis interclusit, verum egimus negotium temporis nostri et discussis tenebris conpendio brevitatis lumen legibus dedimus (…). Cf. the metaphor of light at the end of I 1: quae singula prudentium detecta vigiliis in apertum lucemque deducta sunt nominis nostri radiante splendore; 1.4 and CTh I 1.6 (435): quod ut brevitate constrictum claritate luceat, adgressuris hoc opus (…). 5 On the controversy on central versus local archives as main sources for the codifi- cation see J. MATTHEWS, The Making of the Code, and B. SIRKS, The Sources of the Code, in: J. HARRIES – I. WOOD, Theodosian Code (n. 1), p. 19-44 and 45-67. BETWEEN EMPEROR, COURT, AND SENATORIAL ORDER 285 nobiles viri?6 What were their interests?7 Were they able to bring out the process of canonization by codification? Arcadius died in May 408, leaving the throne to his seven-year-old son Theodosius. Contemporary historians agree that he reigned rather than ruled. He was apparently a puppet controlled by his influential sis- ter Pulcheria, his wife Eudoxia, as well as by other powerful counselors at court as well. He even seems to have played the fool for a camarilla of castrated men under the direction of the omnipotent court Anti- ochus and, later on, Chrysaphius8. This image of the Emperor is without any doubt the result of prejudice and is probably misleading9. Neverthe- less, even under a weak emperor the political order of could obviously remain stable. An emperor’s dominant character was no longer indispensable to the stability of the empire. Far more important was the imperial court, which was the political ‘command module’ of the Empire and was in a position to guarantee, or undermine, monarchical sta- bility and continuity. Especially the example of the ‘weak infant emperor’ Theodosius proves that the imperial court (sacer comitatus) was already so firmly established and functioning as the leading political institution in Constantinople10, that the Emperor himself scarcely emerges as a personality or force. We do not know if he actually ruled or was ruled or whether he ruled at all. Be that as it may, the persons serving at his court

6 D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo senatorius und nobilitas. Die Konstitution des Senatsadels in der Spätantike, Stuttgart 1996 [hereafter Ordo]. 7 Marie Theres FÖGEN, Die Enteignung der Wahrsager, Frankfurt 1993, p. 14: «Kaiser und ihre Beamte sind mächtige, aber keine kommunikativ isolierten Repräsentanten ihrer Gesellschaft. Was sie in hochoffiziellen Dokumenten artikulieren, ihre Meinungen, Wün- sche und Bedürfnisse, haben auch sie erworben und gelernt. Wir müssen also fahnden nach den Kollaborateuren». Cf. D. NÖRR, Zu den geistigen und sozialen Grundlagen der spätantiken Kodifikationsbewegung, ZRG 80 (1963), p. 128-130. 8 A. LIPPOLD, art. Theodosius II., in: RE Suppl. XIII (1973), col. 1040-1044; A.H.M. JONES, The Later , Oxford 1964, p. 173-174, 177-182 [hereafter LRE]; D. SIMON, Lobpreis des Eunuchen, München 1994, p. 6-9. Cf. Jill HARRIES, ‘Pius princeps’: Theo- dosius II and Fifth-Century , in: P. MAGDALINO (ed.), New Constantines, Aldershot 1994, p. 35-44. 9 D. SCHLINKERT, Der Hofeunuch in der Spätantike: Ein gefährlicher Außenseiter?, Hermes 122 (1994), p. 342-359; Helga SCHOLTEN, Der Eunuch in Kaisernähe, Frankfurt 1995; D. SCHLINKERT, Gnomon 69 (1997), p. 226-230; ID., Ordo, p. 237-284. 10 D. SCHLINKERT, Vom Haus zum Hof. Aspekte höfischer Herrschaft in der Spätantike, Klio 78 (1996), p. 454-482; A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 49-51, 366-373. Cf. A. CHASTAGNOL, L’évolution politique, sociale et économique du monde romain de Dioclétien à Julien, Paris 1982, p. 191-193; J.H.G.W. LIEBESCHUETZ, From to the Arab Conquest, Nor- folk 1990, p. 457-459; K.L. NOETHLICHS, Strukturen und Funktionen des spätantiken Kaiserhofes, in: A. WINTERLING (ed.), Comitatus, Berlin 1998, p. 13-49. J. MARTIN, Das 286 D. SCHLINKERT were the ones who dictated the imperial policies for a long time11. It is in this inner circle of the imperial family, intimates and friends, that we have to look for those who called the Emperor’s attention to defects in judicial practice. They advised him to solve the legal crisis by codifying general laws12. Where else if not in the «sacred council» (sacrum ), the center of politics and communication between the «most sacred Emperor» and his administrative élite at court, should this decision have been made?13 At the core of the political system was the sacrum consistorium. It was the institution where the exclusive group of the comites consistoriani, the leading organ of the state apparatus in Late Antiquity, assembled14. Its members were viri illustres and some of the noblest men of the senatorial aristocracy. It is to them, as Theodosius himself once put it, that «the state is customarily entrusted […] for guidance». They had learned to take imperial service for granted and considered it as part of their life- and mentality. The «responsibility for the best guidance of the state does not forsake» them15. From his point of view, the comites

Kaisertum in der Spätantike, in: J. SZIDAT –Fr. PASCHOUD (eds.), Usurpationen in der Spät- antike, Stuttgart 1997, p. 62. 11 A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 173-175; A. LIPPOLD, art. cit. (n. 8), col. 1007-1011, 1040- 1044, and J. HARRIES, art. cit. (n. 1), p. 3-4. 12 M. BLOCH, Apologie der Geschichte oder der Beruf des Historikers, München 1974, p. 115: «Denn in vielen Gesellschaften war die Anwendung und in hohem Maße auch die Erarbeitung der Rechtsregeln das besondere Werk einer Gruppe von Fachleuten, die in dieser Rolle (die sie natürlich mit anderen sozialen Funktionen verbinden konnten) autonom genug waren, ihre eigenen Traditionen zu besitzen und oft auch eine eigene Denkmethode zu praktizieren. Als eigenständige Wissenschaft könnte mithin die Geschichte des Rechts nur als eine Geschichte der Rechtsgelehrten bestehen, was für einen Zweig einer Wissenschaft von den Menschen wohl keine so schlechte Existenzform darstellt. Wird Rechtsgeschichte in diesem Sinne verstanden, dann beleuchtet sie sehr ver- schiedenartige und doch einem einheitlichen menschlichen Tun unterworfene Phänomene unter einem zwar notwendig begrenzten, aber immerhin sehr aufschlußreichen Aspekt». Cf. M. BRETONE, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 29-33. 13 On the dominant role of the court in the political practice of Theodosius II: CJ I 14.8 (446); A. LIPPOLD, art. cit. (n. 8), col. 1007-1009; W.E. VOSS, Recht und Rhetorik in den Kaisergesetzen der Spätantike, Frankfurt 1982, p. 25 and T. HONORÉ, Some of the Reign of Theodosius II, in: J. HARRIES – I. WOOD, Theodosian Code (n. 1), p. 74. 14 D. SCHLINKERT, Dem Kaiser folgen. Kaiser, Senatsadel und höfische Funktionselite (comites consistoriani) von der “Tetrarchie” bis zum Ende der constantinischen Dynastie, in: A. WINTERLING (ed.), Comitatus (n. 10), p. 133-160; F. KOLB, Herrscherideologie in der Spätantike, Berlin 2001, p. 118-119, 39-42; P. WEISS, Consistorium und comites consistoriani, Würzburg 1975; A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 333-341. 15 NTh XV 1 (439): ne curialis ad senatoriam dignitatem vel ad aliquem honorem adspiret (tit). splendidissimo coetui vestro, patres conscripti, placere confidimus, si civitatum commodis consulatur. vestrum nempe est velle civitates augeri. vos curiis peculiariter BETWEEN EMPEROR, COURT, AND SENATORIAL ORDER 287 consistoriani were «associated with our labors» and had «gained the right to be admitted into the secret chamber of our consistory and to participate in the official acts and to approach our oracle»16. The court council consisted of senators who were noble men by birth as well as established ‘upstarts’. They obtained senatorial rank by being granted the imperial gift of the dignitas senatoria, which was awarded for merits obtained in public service17. Not only because of their close proximity to the “holiest Emperor” did these comites consult with him about major issues of internal and foreign policy, but they also formulated, discussed and passed laws with the sacri palatii, who was, for the most part a high-ranking senator himself, presiding over them. The court coun- cil thus played the central role in legislative procedure for a long time18. One might have expected that this small group of noble advisers at court determined that the law should be codified. And indeed, it was the aris- tocratic members of the consistorium that planned the project. Moreover, they never permitted its supervision to be transferred to any other insti- tution. Once they had taken over the project, they were determined to keep it. On the 26th of March 429 Theodosius decreed that a commission be established for the purpose of finding and collecting general laws into two different codes (CTh I 1.5). This «task of great importance» (tantum opus) was delegated to a task force of nine persons renowned as «men of unique trustworthiness and most brilliant genius». The qualifications required of them were loyalty to the Emperor as proved in the course of prospicere consuestis, si quidem vobis nostro iudicio res publica solet gubernanda committi. nam etsi otio frui vos quodam tempore patiamur, ne labore videamini fatigari continuo, non tamen ideo cura vos deserit optime regendae rei publicae. 16 CTh XI 18.1 (409): (…) et ceteras similes comitum laboribus nostris socias digni- tates eiusdem praestationis sors teneat; VI 22.8 (425): quin et de consistorianis comitibus hoc nobis universi placere cognoscant, ut his (…) praecedant, qui admitti intra consistorii arcanum meruerunt et actibus interesse et nostra adire responsa (…). Cf. VI 9.1 (372): eorum honores, qui sacrario nostro explorata sedulitate oboediunt, hac volumus observa- tione distingui (…); VII 8.3 (384): (…) ex comitibus consistorianis, qui participantes augusti pectoris curas agendo claruerunt, ex praepositis quoque sacri cubiculi, quos tanta et tam adsidua nostri numinis cura inter primas posuit dignitates; VI 9.2 (380). 17 D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 84-116, 192-219; A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 179-180. 18 W.E. VOSS, op cit. (n. 13), p. 22-38; T. HONORÉ, The Making of the Theodosian Code, ZRG 103 (1986), p. 136-144; Jill HARRIES, The Roman Imperial Quaestor from Constantine to Theodosius II, JRS 78 (1988), p. 151-153, 164-169; EAD., art. cit. (n. 1), p. 7-8; D. SCHLINKERT, art. cit. (n. 10), p. 465-471. 19 CTh I 1.5 (429): ad tanti consummationem operis et contextendos codices (…) deli- gendi viri sunt singularis fidei, limatioris ingenii (…).hos a nostra perennitate electos eru- ditissimum quemque adhibituros esse confidimus (…). Cf. NTh I 1.7 (438): (…) electis viris 288 D. SCHLINKERT

First Commission Second Commission Third Commission (March 429) (December 435) (February 438)

ANTIOCHUS ANTIOCHUS CHUZON ANTIOCHUS CHUZON vir illustris, ex quaestor amplissimus et cuncta sublimis, ex et praefectus gloriosissimus praefec- praefecto et consule torius et consularis ANTIOCHUS CHUZON EUBULUS MAXIMINUS vir illustris, quaestor vir inlustris ac magnificus vir inlustris, ex quaestore sacri palatii et quaestor noster nostri palatii MAXIMINUS MARTYRIUS vir inlustris insignibus vir inlustris, comes et quaestoriae dignitatis quaestor ornatus SPERANTIUS SPERANTIUS vir spectabilis, comes vir spectabilis, comes sacri consistorianus nostri consistorii APOLLODORUS APOLLODORUS vir spectabilis, comes vir spectabilis, comes consistorianus sacri nostri consistorii THEODORUS THEODORUS vir spectabilis, comes vir spectabilis, comes sacri consistorianus nostri consistorii SEBASTIANUS vir spectabilis, comes consistorianus MARTYRIUS vir spectabilis, comes consistorianus ALYPIUS vir spectabilis, comes consistorianus ERON vir spectabilis, comes consistorianus THEODORUS MAXIMINUS vir spectabilis, comes et vir spectabilis, comes et magister memoriae magister scrinii EUDUCIUS EPIGENES EPIGENES vir spectabilis, magister vir spectabilis, comes et vir spectabilis, comes et scrinii magister scrinii magister memoriae EUSEBIUS PROCOPIUS PROCOPIUS vir spectabilis, magister vir spectabilis, comes et vir spectabilis, comes et scrinii magister scrinii magister libellorum IOHANNES DIODORUS vir spectabilis, ex comite vir spectabilis, comes et nostri sacrarii magister scrinii COMAZONTES vir spectabilis, ex magistro scrinii EUBULUS vir spectabilis, ex magistro scrinii APELLES EROTIUS vir disertissimus vir spectabilis, ex vicariis, scholasticus iuris doctor NEOTERIUS vir spectabilis BETWEEN EMPEROR, COURT, AND SENATORIAL ORDER 289 civil service as well as legal expertise19. A member of the senatorial aris- tocracy ‘inevitably’ acquired this kind of knowledge during his education and embellished it in imperial service20. In all the commissions, well- educated senators represented common members, whereas juridical spe- cialists, as it turned out, were to be the exceptions21. Theodosius II selected his staff with regard to personal affinity and legislative experience. Therefore he chose persons from his court who were close and loyal to him as well as responsible for a special part of administration tradition- ally involved with the execution of legislative procedure. Potential members of the first commission were ranked according to a list which took the following criteria into account: their personal honor (digni- tas) gained in previous administrative offices and their individual role in the commission (CTh I 1.5). Except for one, all of those who finally participated in the commission were noble senators, two viri illustres, six viri spectabiles. In addition, all were members of the court council, comites consistoriani. No changes were made to the selection process. The following com- mission of 435 was enlarged, while the personnel fluctuated (CTh I 1.6). However, the court senators of the sacrum consistorium continued to direct the process of codification22. The head of the second commission consisted of three senatorial aristocrats with the social status of viri illus- tres: firstly the high-ranking and «most glorious» Antiochus, secondly, the noble and «splendid» Eubulus, who held the court office of «minis- ter of justice», and, finally, the noble Maximinus, quaestor designate for the following year23. Seven other members of the Emperor's council nobilibus exploratae fidei, famosae doctrinae (…); NTh I 7 (438): (…) quid Martyrius vir inlustris ex quaestore nostri palatii eminens omni genere litterarum (…). Cf. T. HONORÉ, art. cit. (n. 18), p. 161-168, 171-175 (“legal expertise”) and J. MATTHEWS, art. cit. (n. 5), p. 23-24. 20 P. BROWN, Macht und Rhetorik in der Spätantike, München 1995, p. 51-94; J. HAR- RIES, art. cit. (n. 18), p. 158-160; P. HEATHER, New Men for New Constantines? Creating an Imperial Elite in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: P. MAGDALINO (ed.), New Constantines, Aldershot 1994, p. 17-18; D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 214-216. 21 Exceptional figures in the commissions of 429 and 435 were the jurists Apelles (CTh I 1.5: virum disertissimum scholasticum) and Erotius (CTh I 1.6: vir spectabilis ex vicariis iuris doctor): PLRE, Apelles 2, 109; Erotius 401. See the different views of J. GAUDEMET, Aspects politiques de la codification théodosienne, in: Istituzione giuridiche e realtà politiche nel Tardo Impero, Milan 1976, p. 264; D. NÖRR, art. cit. (n. 7), p. 109-140; P.E. BIELER, Kodifikation als Mittel der Politik im frühen Byzanz, in: W. HÖRANDNER (ed.), Byzantios, Wien 1984, p. 247-260; M. BRETONE, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 247 and T. HONORÉ, art. cit. (n. 18), p. 183: The Code «is the work of lawyers and administrators». 22 G.L. FALCHI, Il ‘consistorium’ imperiale e la codificazione del diritto romano nei secoli V e VI, in: Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, Napoli 1995, p. 195-212. 23 T. HONORÉ, art. cit. (n. 13), p. 89-90: Eubulus; 90-91: Maximinus. 290 D. SCHLINKERT worked under their guidance and were themselves high-ranking men (viri spectabiles). More than half of the members were recruited from the ‘functional élite at court’24. This fact demonstrates how closely the sec- ond commission was linked to the sacrum consistorium. This attribute also characterized the last commission, which completed the difficult task of producing a code of over 2500 general laws of the previous 120 years (NTh I 7) in 438. Since 429 none of the principles regarding the recruit- ment of members for the three commissions from the peer group of sen- ators engaged in the «holy consistory» had been changed. One man stood apart from all those who belonged to the commissions: Antiochus. He was the head of the codification, a noble senator, who most likely planned, initiated, organized, and oversaw the project25. He was quaestor at the beginning of the codification campaign and was made «min- ister of justice» upon his appointment to the first commission, a position he held for three consecutive years. In his person two functions were joined together: direction of the usual legislative procedure as well as of the first codifying commission. This position at the head of the codification campaign was anything but detrimental to him. In December 430 he became praefectus praetorio Orientis, shortly afterwards he advanced to the con- sulate, a widely coveted office which bestowed greatest prestige and fame on those who had obtained it. Throughout the entire process, the codifica- tion of the law seems to have been Antiochus’ personal mission. For more than a decade he participated in all of the commissions dedicated to this task. Hardly any senator at court demonstrate comparable continuity, although their political careers also depended in part on the codification process. Working on the code could very well mean promotion, as the political biography of Theodorus shows. He is the only vir spectabilis who, along with Antiochus, ‘served the full term’ of codifying. In 429 Theodorus started off as vir spectabilis and comes et magister memoriae, by 435 he was made comes consistorianus, a position he held until 43826. Eubulus, vir spectabilis and magister scrinii of the first codifying commission, managed to rise to the status of a in November 434. In spring of 436 he even advanced to the of Illyricum27. Being vir

24 For the concept of ‘functional élite at court’ see D. SCHLINKERT, art. cit. (n. 14), p. 157ff. 25 PLRE II, Antiochus 6, p. 102-104; T. HONORÉ, art. cit. (n. 18), p.187-188; 165: Antiochus is «a key figure in the history of the code. He, and alone he, saw the work through from the beginning to end»; ID., art. cit. (n. 13), p. 81-85. 26 PLRE II, Theodorus 24, p. 1090. 27 PLRE II, Eubulus p. 403; T. HONORÉ, art. cit. (n. 13), p. 89-91. BETWEEN EMPEROR, COURT, AND SENATORIAL ORDER 291 spectabilis as well as comes nostri sacrarii in March 429 and having per- formed the office of the only for a short time, Ioannes’ advancement continued on at an awesome speed. In May 429 he became comes sacrarum largitionum and two years later magis- ter officiorum28. Careers like these were only possible in the early days of codification. After 435 advancement became much more difficult. At the end of the project Martyrius, comes consistorianus in the rank of a vir spectabilis, was advanced to the rank of a vir illustris and comes et quaestor. He held these offices from January 438 until December 43929. Other senators were not so fortunate. Apollodorus, Sperantius and Theodorus were not promoted, but remained viri spectabiles comites sacri consistorii. Only Epigenes managed to become quaestor sacri palatii some two years later30. Participation in a commission therefore proved in some cases advantageous for a successful political career. The work of codification was obviously an attractive proposition for ambitious aris- tocrats, because it offered those who served at court the opportunity of acquiring and increasing their individual capital of honor (dignitas, honor), the base of their nobility31. The project of concentrating legal traditions in a normative canon was the achievement of distinguished senators at the court of Theodosius II. By imperial command and under the direction of Antiochus, they planned, orga- nized, and carried out the codification of law. The question is, however, whether the codex also reflected senatorial politics32. Did the senators at the imperial court manage to leave their imprint on the new legal canon? Let us change the perspective of the historical actors involved in the codification. In the normative texts Theodosius II stressed the value of the past for the present in the normative texts. He presented himself as the heir to the legal tradition of his imperial predecessors33. At the same time, his successful realization of the codification transformed him into a

28 PLRE II, Iohannes 7, p. 595; Iohannes 12. 29 PLRE II, Martyrius 2, p. 731-732.; T. HONORÉ, art. cit. (n. 13), p. 94. 30 PLRE II, Apollodorus 5, p. 120; Sperantius, p. 1025; Theodorus 24, p. 1090; Epi- genes, p. 396. 31 D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 84-94, 202-204, 217-219; H. LÖHKEN, Ordines Dignitatum, Köln 1982, p. 2ff., 13ff. Cf. P. HEATHER, art. cit. (n. 20), p. 20-24. 32 A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 347-353, 351: «In ordinary routine matters the emperor nat- urally relied on his departmental ministers. Not only did he leave the day-to-day admin- istration of their departments to them: he also normally relied on their initiative in the formation of policy»; 352: «It was normally the ministers of the comitatus whose sug- gestions were embodied in legislation». 33 A. LIPPOLD, art. cit. (n. 8), col. 1010. 292 D. SCHLINKERT restorer of the law. Theodosius II, or whoever from among his court cir- cle was responsible for formulating the laws, gave them an individual accent, especially in regard to the urban élite, the decurions. During the first years of his reign Theodosius continued the policy of his predeces- sors and renewed the ties binding the curials to their communities34. He who was born a decurio was obliged to remain one for life with all the obligations which the state and his town imposed upon him (CTh XII 1.178). Finally, in 418, Theodosius forbade the promotion of decurions to the rank of senator (CTh XII 1.183). But this measure did not prove effective in the long term. As a result, in April 436 he made a compro- mise (CTh XII 1.187). The curials who had managed to become members of the aristocracy were allowed to enjoy the privileges of this rank. But in future this group was obliged to pay the munera curialia and the munera senatoria, i.e. a double burden. Accordingly, they lost the advan- tage which the rise to the senatorial aristocracy should have brought them. Shortly afterwards this compromise was declared invalid. Theodosius returned to the principle of compulsory inheritance — “Erbzwang”35. Hereafter no curial should ever be able to escape curial duties by receiv- ing senatorial rank or an official post in the imperial administration36. Using all means at his disposal as lawgiver, the Emperor sought to block the social rise of the decurions to the status of aristocratic senators. In addition he continued to issue many laws defining the status of decu- rions. The senators, to be sure, were interested in securing the tax income of the municipal élite and the cities. Of equal importance for them was to defend the privileges of their rank, in particular the fiscal immunity and

34 CTh XII 1.168 (409): universarum civitatum ordinibus consulentes retro principum statuta firmamus, ut nemo nexui curiae mancipatus ad cuiuslibet militiae sacramentum audeat aspirare vel hoc admisso mox abstractus militia obsequiis oppidaneis mancipetur. Cf. XII 1.177 (413); A. LIPPOLD, art. cit. (n. 8), col. 1023-1025; P. HEATHER, art. cit. (n. 20), p. 22-25. 35 For discussion of “Erbzwang” and “Zwangsstaat” see W. SCHUBERT, Die Sonder- stellung der Dekurionen in der Kaisergesetzgebung des 4.-6. Jhs., ZRG 86 (1969), p. 287- 291, 295-297; R. RILINGER, Die Interpretation des späten Imperium Romanum als “Zwangsstaat”, GWU 35 (1985), p. 321-339; A. HEUSS, Das spätantike römische Reich kein “Zwangsstaat”?, GWU 37 (1986), p. 603-615; D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 18-20, 55- 61; M.Th. FÖGEN, op. cit. (n. 7), p. 149-151; J. MARTIN, Spätantike und Völkerwanderung, München 1995, p. 89-91, 193-195. 36 NTh XV 1 (439) tit.: ne curialis ad senatoriam dignitatem vel ad aliquem honorem aspiret. XV 1.2: lege itaque perpetuo valitura decernimus nullum posthac curialem senatoriae sibimet dignitatis infulas usurpare, nulli curiali licentiam dari clarissimo se permiscendi consortio. See M. WHITTOW, Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City, P&P 129 (1990), p. 9-10. BETWEEN EMPEROR, COURT, AND SENATORIAL ORDER 293 exemption from curial burdens37. It was inevitably one of their aims to defend their rank against pressure exerted by «honorati without honor»38 in order to preserve the exclusive nature of the aristocracy. What method was more effective than to channel the social rise of the decurions to the senatorial order or, if possible, to prevent admission to senatorial order?39 The court senators pursued this aim in various stages of the Theodosian legislation. Theodosius II, or the men behind him, used the law to pre- vent the integration of the decurions into the aristocracy. How far can we see the codification of the law in the context of a policy of protecting interests of the ordo senatorius or nobilitas? It is certainly not an accident that all of the commissions for the Theo- dosian codification of law were composed of leading members of sena- torial rank. Nor should it be forgotten that the emperor and the members of the senatorial aristocracy at his court decided to collect and codify many laws of the past which served the same end. The codex is the prod- uct of the political problems which emerged under the emperors of the late fourth and early fifth century and culminated during the long reign of Theodosius II. It was a crisis in law which produced a constantly expanding chaos of laws and a crisis of political and social order. It mani- fested itself in dramatic social mobility at all levels of society in Late Antiquity40. The ‘weak infant Emperor’ and the ‘mighty senators’ at his court responded to these crises with repressive laws regulating the status of the decurions and other social groups41. They reacted with new laws

37 A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 535-542; A. LIPPOLD, art. cit. (n. 8), col. 1023-1026; P. HEATHER, art. cit. (n. 20), p. 26-27; W.E. VOSS, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 204-207. 38 J. MARTIN, op. cit. (n. 35), p. 95; cf. 197-198. 39 On the ‘image’ of the senatorial aristocracy represented in the normative texts of Codex Thedosianus and Codex Justinianus see D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 55-156. Cf. R.W. MATHISEN, Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian . Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition, Austin 1993, p. 9-16. 40 A.H.M. JONES, The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and Chris- tianity, in: A. MOMIGLIANO (ed.), The Conflict of Ideas between Paganism and Christianity, Oxford 1963, p. 17-37; H. LÖHKEN, op. cit. (n. 31), 62-68, 96-111; Fr. VITTINGHOFF, Späte Kaiserzeit, in: ID. (ed.), Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 1990, p. 349-365; P. HEATHER, art. cit. (n. 20), p. 21-26. Michele R. SALZMANN, Competing Claims to Nobilitas in the Western Empire of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001), p. 361-362. On the imperial court as «busy channel of social mobility» in the reign of the Valentinian dynasty see J. MATTHEWS, Western Aristocracy and Imperial Court, Oxford 1975; D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 34-39. 41 A. LIPPOLD, art. cit. (n. 8), col. 1023-1026. On the fundamental reorganisation of the internal hierarchy of the sacer comitatus connected with an enormous increase in social value of the ‘functional élite at court’ see e.g. col. 1033-1037. 294 D. SCHLINKERT as well as with the codification of old ones. The setting up of the 192 constitutions de decurionibus is presumably to be seen in this context. The representatives of the senatorial nobility at court relied upon a written and codified law to defend the interest of their social rank as well as to solve the immediate crisis42. Was the strategy successful? Many objectives of the ‘holiest Emperor’ and his senators were turned into laws. However, not everything that they wanted was put into practice and became reality. The normative texts reflect no more than the political will of the Emperor and his court. The reality and social practice lay beyond the laws. It is scarcely possible for a modern historian to reconstruct them43. It is worth remembering what Ramsay MacMullen reminded historians and, above all, legal historians twenty-five years ago: «The laws concerning the obligations of one's rank were not respected. A number of examples have been given of indi- vidual infractions without penalty or embarrassment, along with other evidence which, in a less definite way, suggests the same casual wrong- doing. All this lies outside the Code. If we next look within it, we meet, over and over again, the proof of this unconcern, in legislation reiter- ated, in unwilling concessions, in angry descriptions of just how and how often the emperor’s will is flouted. Contemporaries criticize (…) the laws’ loopholes and want authority, which on so important a question as social movement separate the Code from the life it claims to control. The Code certainly reveals what the emperors intended, but it should be used with great caution by anyone seeking to describe the realities of the times»44.

D–38102 Braunschweig Dirk SCHLINKERT Böcklerstraße 234

42 On aristocrats acting as a «pressure group» at court and exerting «the most power- ful influence on the government» see A.H.M. JONES, LRE, p. 362-365. Cf. D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 225-227 with n.12: «Die vornehmen Herren des Senatorenstandes wurden nur in geringem Maße vom “absolutistischen Zwangsstaat” reglementiert. Der ordo senato- rius ist in dieses moderne Deutungsschema nicht integrierbar, sondern bildet eine Aus- nahme, welche die Interpretation des spätantiken Staates als “Zwangsstaat” erheblich in Frage stellt». Cf. also M.Th. FÖGEN, op. cit. (n. 7), p. 149-150. 43 D. SCHLINKERT, Ordo, p. 42-45, 220-236; M.Th. FÖGEN, op. cit. (n. 7), p. 79-88, 148-150. 44 R. MACMULLEN, Social Mobility and the Theodosian Code, JRS 54 (1964), p. 53. See M.Th. FÖGEN, op. cit. (n. 7), p. 84-86 and D. LIEBS, , in: CAH XIV (2000), p. 239-240.