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)