Imperial largess in the papyri

The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Dec 1999

Naphtali Lewis

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://czashum.hist.pl/media//files/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology-r1999-t29/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology-r1999-t29-s45-50/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology-r1999-t29-s45-50.pdf

Imperial largess in the papyri

- Naphtali Lewis "... the communities, cities and leagues of the empire had from the beginning employed certain established modes of diplomatic contact with the emperor, depend[ing] on him alone for their rights and privileges." F e r g u s Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, p. 462. I Jof this Journal, wrote on "Die kaiserlichen Privilegien im Rechte der Papyt is almost half a century since Raphael Taubenschlag, the esteemed founder ri."1 In that paper he surveyed and analyzed the substantial evidence of the papyri, focusing particularly on the imperial legislation. The present paper reviews the comparable non-legislative evidence;2 the viewpoint is, accordingly, sociopolitical rather than juristic, and the findings herein constitute a harmonious complement to Taubenschlag^. A privilege granted by a Roman emperor was termed a beneficium, or (less frequently) an indulgentia. In Greek versions these terms are rendered by δωρεά, ευεργεσία, φιλάνθωπον or χάρις, and the privilege, once obtained, was often characterized as a δίκαιον. 1 ZRG 70 (1953) 277-298, following upon JJP 6 (1952) 121-142 = Opera Minora Π, pp. 45-68 and 3-28. 2 Papyri are almost completely ignored in V. SCARANO USSANI Le forme del privilegio. Bénéficia e privilégia tra Cesare e gli Antonini, Napoli 1992. The author tells us, moreover (p. 31 n. 9), that he treats "il beneficium — inteso nella sua più ampia accezione di favore, elargizione graziosa anche di cariche a di doni", which results in a panorama that touches en passant the point, without the matter or parameters, of the present paper. Ulpian's classic definition clearly distinguishes the emperor's actions that had legislative force from his " p e r s o n a l " benefactions, which applied only to the recipient: Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem... plane ex his quaedam sunt personales пес ad exemplum trahuntur, nam quae princeps alicui ob merita induisit... personam non egreditur,3 In other words, such a grant was not an act of imperial legislation, but one of imperial largess. As Fergus Millar aptly phrased it, there was a "clear distinction between the E m p e r o r ' s function in formulating rules [= legislation], and his role as dispenser of individual benefits. The tension between rule and exception is fundamental to the nature of imperial lawgivi n g . " 4 Or, as Ranon Katzoff has expressed it (in an e-mail), " i n m o s t of these bénéficia the emperor is not really making law but derogating from it." Recognized, and widely sought, as expressions of the princeps's pleasure, but not among his constitutiones, how long were the personal bénéficia valid? Specifically, did such bénéficia expire with the "life of the grantor?5 II (a) A Vienna papyrus published in 1987, and reprinted as SB XVIII 13775, contains a letter of A D 241/2 in which Gordian III assured the citizens of Antinoopolis that " y o u would reasonably even n o w be exempted [from certain taxes] unless either an imperial order, or a judicial decision in conformity with such, h a d m a d e any revision in [Hadrian's] b e n e f a c t i o n . " 6 H a d r i a n ' s χάρις, Gordian plainly states, could be a m e n d e d (or, by implication, even rescinded) b y or pursuant to an order of Hadrian or a later emperor; but, absent such action, it would endure. This appears to answer our specific question with a specific negative. But is it truly applicable to our question? The privileges of the Antinoites were incorporated into their city's foundation charter,7 while personal benefactions were bestowed by imperial letters addressed to the beneficiaries. 3 Digest 1.4.1 = Inst. 1.2.6. 4 /RS 73 (1983) 77. 5 We may note en passant that legal scholars are not agreed even about the duration of constitutiones: cf. e.g. A. A. SCHILLER, Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development, pp. 514-24. 6 SB XVIII 13775.8-10, είκότως αν εϊητ[ε] καν νυν άπηλλαγμένοι, εί μή [τι] ή αύτοκράτορος πρόσταξις ή κατά ταύτην κρίσις ένεωτέρισεν [εις τ]ήν χάριν. η U. WiLCKEN, Ρ. Würz. ρ. 62 (top) inclines to a similar view in another context. For a summary of what we know about the privileges of Antinoites see M. ZAHRNT, ANRW X.L (1988), pp. 690-98, esp. 691 (διάταξις). A second type of evidence enters into consideration, namely, letters in which emperors confirm bénéficia granted b y predecessors.8 The heady, festive times of an accession were particularly suited for such indulgences; in s o m e instances that association is stated expressis verbis, in others it is apparent from the date of the emperor's letter.9 O f those confirmations that are recorded in published p a p y r i the best known, b y far, is the one that is found in Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians, P. Lond. VI 1912 = Select Papyri 212 = CPJ 153, dated in A D 41, the year of his accession. The long letter deals with a number of matters, including the friction between Alexandrians and Jews domiciled in the city. Significant for our present purpose is the statement in lines 5 (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://czashum.hist.pl/media//files/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology-r1999-t29/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology-r1999-t29-s45-50/The_Journal_of_Juristic_Papyrology-r1999-t29-s45-50.pdf

Naphtali Lewis. Imperial largess in the papyri, The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 1999, pp. 45-50, Volume 29,