Christian Ecclesiastics As Roman Legal Actors
Most of the time, people just go along in their daily routines without reflecting on [the] law that has shaped these routines, their social relationships and attitude...
The specific relevance or irrelevance of law usually crops up only when people have to deal with problematic situations, with disputes and in processes... that aim at changing routines and the law structuring them.66Late Roman ecclesiastics were not only writers of texts; they were also, to varying extents, ‘doers’ of Roman law. Clerics owned property (including land and slaves), paid taxes, some inherited as heirs, some married and divorced, some engaged in business and trade, and so forth. One reason, then, why Roman law appears in early Christian writings is because early Christian writers used Roman law and Roman legal institutions in everyday contexts. From at least the early fourth century, however, the position of the Christian Church within Roman law and society began to change. From the emperor Gallienus onwards, Christians who had had property confiscated under the ‘great’ persecutions were entitled to have it restored. Moreover, emperors began to donate property to ecclesiastical officials, as well as granting other gifts, legal privileges, exemptions from personal and civic munera, and remissions from certain taxes to Christian clerics. In many cases these imperial grants were in response to requests from within the church hierarchy. The institutional development of the late Roman church was thus guaranteed and supported by the Roman imperial authorities (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on context and situation).67 Two extant Constantinian laws, however, specify that all such legal privileges and exemptions are to benefit catholic clergy only: it had apparently come to the emperor’s attention that ‘heretics’ were nominating ‘catholics’ for public liturgies.68 Trying to ensure that imperial privileges and exemptions only benefited ‘catholic’ clergy appears as an ongoing concern in late Roman legislation and necessitated legal decisions over who was ‘catholic’ and who was not.
Legal capacities to gather in voluntary assemblies or to hold lawful councils, along with rights to establish churches, ‘by private or public undertakings’ and to practise rituals and ceremonies, were all variously restricted by late Roman imperial constitutions. Behind such ‘anti-heretical’ laws, of course, lie innumerable pleas and petitions addressed to the imperial authorities by ecclesiastics themselves. From the early fourth century onwards, Christian clerics helped to shape new principles of Roman law relating to the church, ecclesiastical jurisdiction and Christian doctrine: ‘Patristic texts transmit not only exempla of religious legislation promulgated by Constantine and later emperors, but also instances of ecclesiastical officials urging the enactment of specific legislative measures.’69Late Roman Christian writings, then, are more than just potential extra-legal sources to be quarried for references to Roman legal texts and principles. Some were intended as direct interventions in concrete legal cases and contemporary disputes and controversies.70 Christian clerics were involved in concrete legal cases on a number of different levels. Alongside acting as (delegated) judges and formal arbitrators - an activity referred to in modern sources under the umbrella term episcopalis audientia or ‘bishop’s hearing’ - some clerics advised individual members of their congregation on concrete cases, for example property or inheritance disputes, as well as seeking advice themselves from legal experts (iurisconsulti/iurisperiti). The text of a letter written by Augustine, c. AD 422, to a practising North African iurisconsultus named Eustochius begins: ‘Since you owe honest responses to all those who consult you, how much more do you owe such to us, the ministers of Christ’.71 Augustine then asks Eustochius for responsa on a number of detailed legal points concerning slavery and the status of the children of coloni, and also specifies that he would like to know what has been established either in jurisprudential writings or by imperial constitutions concerning those who function as managers.
These questions had been prompted by certain imperial laws that had been brought to Augustine’s attention; moreover, Augustine states that he has had these imperial constitutions copied and is attaching them to his letter for Eustochius to read. That Augustine was also accustomed to looking up previous cases in the municipal and proconsular records himself, and then applying them to pressing legal matters, is also evident from Augustine’s (‘New’) Letters 28* and 29*.Some late Roman ecclesiastics also sought to develop creatively new socio-legal principles, as and when concrete situations demanded. For example, in his Letter 83 Augustine discusses the case of a certain Honoratus, who had been a monk at Thagaste in North Africa (Augustine’s home town), before he was ordained as a priest in the neighbouring town of Thiava. Around AD 405 Honaratus had died intestate, without any family that could claim the right of legal succession to his goods. An equitable solution to the problem had been proposed by Alypius, then bishop of Thagaste: part of Honoratus’ goods should be granted to the church at Thiava and the other part would be given to his former monastery. The citizens of Thiava, however, had objected to this split and Alypius appealed to Augustine to mediate. Augustine (eventually) decided against the monastery and in favour of the church: Honoratus’ goods should devolve to the church in which he had been ordained, but in future cases concerning clerics or monks where legal heirs to their property did exist, the inheritance should pass to them in accordance with the rules of Roman civil law. Augustine also states that the right of a monastery’s succession to the goods of one of its monks should be allowed only in the case of express testamentary stipulations to that effect. Papyrological evidence provides a number of examples of such monastic wills and testaments from Byzantine Egypt.72
As discussed in Section 2, the use of early Christian writings as extralegal sources poses specific challenges and problems to the legal historian, some peculiar to individual texts and some relevant to ‘Patristic’/‘Early Christian’ literature in general.
Nonetheless, alongside papyrological evidence, this type of source material can offer a wealth of information in terms of how Roman law was (mis-)understood, ignored, invoked, adapted and manipulated in concrete historical situations and contexts. Early Christian writings can help us to frame important questions from various ‘sociology of knowledge’ perspectives: How did legal texts circulate and in what form at any given time and place? Were there circles of legal book-copyists or lenders within particular regions, or did individuals look beyond provincial boundaries for particular texts? For example, Augustine asked Alypius, bishop of Thagaste and a former assessor (legal expert) to the court of the comes largitionum Italicarum, to check for a copy of an (anti-heretical) law whilst he was on a visit to Rome - Augustine wanted to circulate the imperial constitution and make it more widely known (Letter 10*.4). In addition, Augustine’s writings detail numerous problems in actually getting provincial magistrates to enforce the imperial laws that were brought to their attention: ‘The laws were not lacking, but slept in our hands as if they did not exist’.73 How widespread was access to legal knowledge within specific cities and provinces? Were legal experts available for consultation by letter and in person in all towns and/or villages? What role did notaries play in urban life, and when did individuals seek them out to draft documents and give legal advice?These are not just questions concerning (late Roman) law in practice or law in action. Early Christian writings also help us to see how law and socio-legal authority, in any given locality at any given time, is shaped from the ground up as well as from the top down. The sheer breadth of early Christian literature allows us to ask questions such as why given individuals might have chosen to mobilize late Roman courts or ecclesiastical legal processes when they did (there were always alternatives).
This focus leads, in turn, to an exploration of choice-making and behaviour in terms of multiple socio-legal contexts. For example, the anonymous Life of Alexander ‘the Sleepless', probably written down in the Eastern Empire during the late fifth/early sixth centuries, narrates the life and conduct of the blessed Alexander, a wandering Christian ‘holy man’ who ‘feared neither imperial authority, nor the threats of magistrates, nor the accusations of the populace, nor the wicked recommendations of bishops’ (Alexander had apparently himself served as a clerk on a prefect’s office staff before conversion).74 Chapters 40-49 of the life narrate some of the troubles that Alexander encountered when he stayed in Antioch, including a sub-deacon named Malchus who complains that people now take their disputes to the holy man instead of him: ‘my authority in the court was the one source of revenue that I had’. Malchus seeks permission from his bishop to drive Alexander out of the city, but in the meantime has the holy man beaten up. The people of the city protest to the bishop, and the bishop in turn petitions a military commander to exile Alexander to Chalcis in Syria. The military commander agrees, but later in the narrative we find Alexander being tried for heresy before an imperial magistrate. In this (hagiographical) narrative, then, legal or ‘quasi-legal’ authority is attributed to the holy man, the sub-deacon, the bishop, the military commander and the imperial magistrate. More importantly, the narrative highlights the strategic choice-making activity of Malchus (and to a lesser extent the people of Antioch) as they negotiated between various options on the ground. Early Christian texts like the Life of Alexander ‘the Sleepless' can thus help us to understand legal practice as one aspect of a much broader repertoire of social and cultural behaviour.If we approach early Christian texts according to the localities and times in which they were written, rather than as a single genre of ‘early Christian literature’, and then combine them with other relevant literary, documentary, numismatic and material evidence, we may be able to build up pictures of regional variation and multiple local ‘Roman’ cultures and traditions.
These local cultures and traditions, moreover, do not just provide the background or ‘unavoidable social context’ for legal behaviour; they structure legal behaviour itself.75 As the anthropologist Tim Jenkins puts it, ‘laws are not, in the local instance, primary’.76 Legal historians may be tempted to assume that ‘the law is there and [that] disputants meet in a landscape naked of normative habitation’; but in fact, on the ground, we find a ‘landscape populated by an uneven tangle of indigenous law. In many settings the norms and controls of indigenous ordering are palpably there, the official law is remote and its intervention is problematic and transitory.’77 Early Christian texts, written from particular standpoints in concrete times and places, may not grant us unmediated access to Roman law(s), but they do enable us to recognize that normativity is itself an aspect of social practice.Notes
1. On the technical distinction between patrology and patristics, see O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (Freiburg, 1902—1932, reissued 2007).
2. B. Biondi, Il Diritto Romano Cristiano, 3 vols. (Milan, 1952—1954); E. Dovere, Ius Principale e catholica lex (secolo V) (Naples, 1999); L. de Giovanni, Istituzioni scienza giuridica codici nel mondo tardo-antico. Alle radici di una nuova storia (Rome, 2007); and K. M. Girardet, Kaisertum, Religionspolitik und das Recht von Staat und Kirche in der Spätantike (Bonn, 2009).
3. J.-P. Coriat, LePrinceLegislateur (Rome, 1997), 897. SeealsothechapterbyWinkel, 11—13.
4. See http://giurisprudenza.unipg.it/index.php/2013-03-19-10-54-24 (last accessed 7 October 2014).
5. R. Bruno Siola, S. Giglio, and S. Lazzarini, eds., Auctores latini egraeci tardae aetatis (saec. IV—VI a. D) quorum scripta ad propositum opus utilia videntur. (Milan, 1985; 2nd revd. edn. by G. M. Facchetti, 2000).
name=bookmark561>6. Z.B. Carusi, ‘Diritto romano e patristica’, in Studi giuridici in onore di Carlo Fadda (Naples, 1906), vol. 2, 79; also J. Gaudemet, ‘L’Apport du Droit Romain a la Patristique Latine du IVe Siecle’, Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae 6 (1983): 166.
7. J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003), 356.
8. Compare Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. AD 213—c.270), Address of Thanksgiving to Origen, 7.
9. On the Gospels and Pauline texts, see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963) and O. Eger, ‘RechtswörterundRechtsbilder in den Paulinischen Briefen’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 18 (1918): 84—108. Cf. J.W. Martens, One God. One Law. Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (Boston, 2003) and S. Lieberman, ‘Roman legal institutions in early Rabbinics and in the Acta martyrum’, Jewish Quarterly Review 35 (1944): 1—57.
10. The secondary literature is extensive; see, esp., A. Beck, Römisches Recht bei Tertullian und Cyprian. Eine Studie zur frühen Kirchenrechtgeschichte, 2nd edn. (Aalen, 1967); R. D. Sider, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (Oxford, 1971); I. Cadoppi, ‘Sul lessico giuridico nell’Apologeticum di Tertulliano’, Acme 49 (1996): 153—165.
11. The juristic fragments are collected by O. Lenel, Palingenesia iuris civilis (Leipzig, 1889),vol. 2, cols. 341—343. See nowJ. Harries, ‘Tertullianus & Son?’, in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne, ed. Z. Rodgers et al. (Leiden, 2009).
12. On Christian authors in the late Latin West, see J. Gaudemet, Le droit romain dans la litterature chretienne occidentale du III au V siecle (Milan, 1978); D. Liebs, Römische Jurisprudenz in Africa, mit Studien zu den pseudopaulinischen Sentenzen (Berlin, 2005); D. Liebs, Römische Jurisprudenz in Gallien (2. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Berlin, 2002); D. Liebs, Die Jurisprudenz im spätantiken Italien (260—640 n. Chr.) (Berlin, 1987); and D. Liebs, ‘Römische Provinzialjurisprudenz’, ANRWII.15 (1976): 288-362.
13. Zacharius Scholasticus, Life of Severus, ed. M. A Kugener, Patrologia Orientalis 2 (1907): 46-92.
14. J. Modrzejewski, ‘Gregoire le Thaumaturge et le droit romain. A propos d’une edition recente’, RHDFE 49 (1971): 321-22.
15. Gaudemet (n. 12), 30.
16. B. D. Shaw, ‘Judicial nightmares and Christian memory’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (2003): 549. See also M. Z. Kensky, Trying Man, Trying God. The Divine Courtroom in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (Tübingen, 2010), 293—342.
17. See C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (Oxford, 2007).
18. On Roman law and Rabbinic texts, see C. Hezser, ‘Roman Law and Rabbinic Legal Composition’, in The Cambridge Companion to The Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. C.E. Fonrobert and M.S. Jaffee (Cambridge, 2007), 144—163.
19. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 1.27.
20. Origen, Against Celsus IV.73. Compare Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel; Asterius ofAmasea, Sermon 5.13—15; and Julian, Againstthe Galileans, 141D and 184B.
21. Augustine, City of God 2.16; cf. Livy 3.31.8—3.33.7.
22. Collatio 7.1 (FIRA 2.562). See now R. M. Frakes, Compiling the Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2011).
23. See, in general, A. Arjava, Women and Law in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 1998).
24. Ep. 77.3, ed. I. Hilberg, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 55 (Vienna, 1912), 39.
25. Gregory of Nyssa, De Virginitate, ed. W. Jaeger, J. P. Carvanos and V. W. Callahan, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera ascetica, vol. 8, pt. 1 (Leiden, 1952), 261.
26.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> G. L. Falchi, ‘L’influenza della patristica sulla politica legislativa de nuptiis degli imperatori romani dei secoli IV e V’, Augustinianum 50.2 (2010): 351—407.
27. Augustine, Sermon 52.9 (translation by Edmund Hill, slightly modified).
28. A. Yoshiko Reed, ‘ “Jewish Christianity” as Counter-History? The Apostolic Past in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies’, in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, ed. G. Gardner and K. L. Osterloh (Tübingen, 2008), 210.
29. See D.G. Hunter and S.A. Harvey, The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008).
30. Jerome, continuation of Eusebius’ Chronicle, ed. R. Helm, Eusebius Werke 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (1956), 240; Augustine, City of God 6.9.1.
31. G. Rotondi, ‘Indice dei richiami al diritto nei testi extragiuridici latini dei secoli IV—VII’, in Scritti Giuridici, ed. V. Arangio-Ruiz and P. de Francisci, (Milan, 1922), vol. 1, 554.
32. J.-P. Coriat, ‘La palingénesie des constitutions impériales. Histoire d’un projet et méthode pour le recueil de la législation du principat’, Mélanges de l’Ecolefran^aise de Rome, Antiquité 101.2 (1989): 894.
33. P. Silli, Testi Costantiniani nelle Fonti Letterarie (Milan, 1987); M. Sargenti and R. Bruno Siola, Normativa Imperiale e Diritto Romano negli Scritti di S. Ambrogio (Milan, 1991); F. Pergami, La Legislazione di Valentiniano e Valente (364—375) (Milan, 1993); P. O. Cuneo, La Legislazione di Costantino II, Costanzo II e Costante (337—361) (Milan, 1997); and P. Stefania, Religio e Ius Romanum nell’epistolario di Leone Magno (Milan, 2002). Also, on Julian, E. Germino, ‘La legislazione dell’imperatore Giuliano: primi appunti per una palingenesi’, Antiquité Tardive 17 (2009): 159—174.
34.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Coriat (n. 32), 903, noting Augustine City of God 5.17; John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles 48.1; Sidonius Apollinaris, Letter I.6.2.
35. For both texts, see J. de Churruca, ‘Un rescrit de Caracalla utilisé par Ulpien et interprété par Saint Augustin’, in Collatio Iuris Romani. Etudes Dédieés à Hans Ankum, ed. R. Feenstra et al. (Amsterdam, 1995), vol. 1, 71-80.
36. S. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284—324, revd. edn. (Oxford, 2000), 33, 127.
37. See T. D. Barnes, Early Christian Historiography and Roman History (Tübingen, 2010).
38. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.13. See, in general, Silli (n. 33) and T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass. 1981).
39. Corcoran (n. 36), 19.
40. See J.-L. Maier, ed., Le Dossier du Donatisme, 2 vols., (Berlin, 1987-1989).
41. See F. Millar, ‘Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third Century Syria’, JRS 61 (1971): 1-17.
42. Les Lois Religieuses des Empereurs Romains de Constantin à Théodose II. Volume I: Code Théodosien XVI (Sources Chrétiennes, vol. 497), ed. J. Rougé et al. (Paris, 2005); Les Lois Religieuses des Empereurs Romains de Constantin à Théodose II. Volume II: Code Théodosien 1—XV, Code Justinien, Constitutions Sirmondiennes (Sources Chrétiennes, vol. 531), ed. J. Rougé et al. (Paris, 2009). See also E. Magnou-Nortier, Le Code Théodosien, Livre XVI et sa Réception au Moyen Age (Paris, 2002); J.-N. Guinot and F. Richard, eds., Empire Chrétien etEglise aux IVe et Vesiècles. Intégration ou ‘concordat’? Le Témoignage du Code Théodosien (Lyon, 2008).
43. O. Guenther, ed., Epistolae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum Inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque DLIII datae Avellana Quae Dicitur Collectio (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 35). (Prague - Vienna - Leipzig, 1895).
44. S. Lancel, Actes de la Conférence de Carthage en 411 (Sources Chrétiennes 194, 195, 224 and 373). (Paris, 1972-1991).
size=1 color=black face=Garamond>45. G. Barone-Adesi, Richerche sui Corpora Normativi dell' Impero Romano (Turin, 1998), vol. 1, 101-105.
46. See R. Price and M. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon I—III (Liverpool, 2005); R. Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy (Liverpool, 2009). F. Millar, ‘Un dossier d’accusation déposé auprès du praeses de Syrie seconde pour transmission à Justin Ier’, Antiquité Tardive 18 (2010): 231-242 gives a brief overview.
47. Quoted from T. Graumann, Reading” the first council of Ephesus 431’, in Chalcedon in Context. Church Councils 400—700, ed. R. Price and. M. Whitby (Liverpool, 2009), 28 n. 5.
48. M. Vessey, ‘The Origins of the Collectio Sirmondiana: A New Look at the Evidence’, in The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity, ed. J. Harries and I. Wood, 2nd edn. (London, 2010), 178-199.
49. A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2010), 69.
50. F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408—450) (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2006).
51. See P. Bianchi, Iura-Leges. Un'Apparente Questione Terminologica della Tarda Antichità. Storiografia e Storia (Milan, 2007).
52. Gaudemet (n. 12), 22.
53. Carusi (n. 6), 91; V. Marotta, Ulpiano e l'Impero II: Studi sui libri de officioproconsulis e la loro fortuna tardoantica (Naples, 2004), vol. 2, 81-83.
54. On possible postclassical revision(s) see H.J. Wolff, ‘Ulpian XVIII ad edictum in Collatio and Digest and the Problem of Postclassical Editions of Classical Works’, in Scritti Ferrini, ed. A. Gemelli (Milan, 1949), vol. 4, 64-90.
lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;line-height: 107%'>55. In addition to works already cited above see on Cyprian: T. G. Fogliani, T. C. Cipriano. Contributo alla ricerca di riferimenti legali in testi extragiuridici del III sec. d.c. (Modena, 1928);A. Hoffmann, Kirchliche Strukturen und römisches Recht bei Cyprian von Karthago (Paderborn, 2000); on Lactantius, Arnobius and Minucius Felix: C. Ferrini, ‘Le cognizioni giuridiche di Lattanzio, Arnobio e Minucio Felice’, Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Modena, ser. II, 10 (1894): 195-210; F. Felice, ‘Su le idee giuridiche contenute nei libri V e VI delle Istituzioni di Lattanzio’, Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali e discipline ausiliarie 5 (1894): 581—586; on ‘Ambrosiaster’: O. Heggelbacher, Vom römischen zum christlichen Recht. Iuristische Elemente in den Schriften des sogenanntes Ambrosiaster (Freiburg, 1959); on Jerome: G. Violardo, Il pensiero giuridico di San Girolamo (Milan, 1937); on Augustine: E. Albertario, ‘Di alcuni riferimenti al matrimonio e al possesso in Sant’ Agostino’, Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica, suppl. to vol. 23 (1931): 367-376; M. Roberti, ‘Contributo allo studio delle relazioni fra diritto romano e patristica tratto dall’esame delle fonti Agostiniane’, Rivista di Filosofia Neo-scolastica, suppl. to vol. 23 (1931): 305-366; D. Nonnoi, ‘Sant’Agostino e il diritto romano’, Rivista Italiana per le Scienze Giuridiche 12 (1934): 531—622; F.G. Lardone, ‘Roman Law in the Works of St. Augustine’, Georgetown Law Journal (1956): 435-456; on Isidore of Pelusium: E. Lyon, ‘Le droit chez Isidore de Péluse’, Etudes d'histoirejuridique offertes à Paul Girard (Paris, 1913), vol. 2, 209—222; on Asterius of Amasea: E. Volterra, ‘Considerazioni teologico-giuridiche di Asterio di Amasea’, Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche n.s. 4 (1929): 3—10; on Peter Chrysologus: N.J. Ristuccia, ‘Law and legal documents in the Sermons of Peter
Chrysologus’, Journal of Late Antiquity 4.1 (2011): 124—156; on monastic works:
C. Neri, ‘Ci sono testimonianze giuridiche nelle fonti monastiche?’, AARC 15 (2005): 107—117.
56."Times New Roman"'> Gaudemet (n. 6), 166.
57. See K.M. Girardet, Kaisergericht und Bischofsgericht. Studien zu den Anfängen des Donatistenstreites (313—315) und zum Prozeß des Athanasius (328—346) (Bonn, 1975);
D. Liebs, Vor den Richtern Roms, Berühmte Prozesse der Antike (Munich, 2007), 159-168.
58. Augustine, Against Cresconius 3.81.
59. See Liebs (n. 57), 169—178; and K.M. Girardet, ‘Trier 385. Der Prozess gegen die Priszillianer’, Chiron 4 (1974): 577-608 on Priscillian. Also G. Puglisi, ‘Giustizia criminale e persecuzioni antieretiche (Priscilliano e Ursino, Ambrogio e Damaso)’, Siculorum Gymnasium 43 (1990): 91-137; A. Coskun, ‘Der Praefect Maximinus, der Jude Isaak und der Strafprozeß gegen Bischof Damasus von Rom’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 46 [2003] (2005): 17—44.
60. See also Lucifer of Cagliari, Libellus Precum (= A. Canellis, Supplique aux Empereurs (Sources Chretiennes vol. 504) (Paris, 2006), 224—226.
61. D. Feissel, ‘Petitions aux Empereurs et formes du rescrit dans les sources documentaries du IVe au Vie siecle’, in La Petition ä Byzance, ed. D. Feissel andJ. Gascou (Paris, 2004), 45—49 (nos. 15—20; 21—29; and 37—39). On conciliar acta and early ‘canon law’ see the chapter by Helmholz, 396—8.
62. See K. Uhalde, Expectations of Justice in the Age of Augustine (Philadelphia, 2007);
B. A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures (Oxford, 2006).
63. S. Elm, ‘A Programmatic Life: Gregory of Nazianzus’ Orations 42 and 43 and the Constantinopolitan Elites’, Arethusa 33.3 (2000): 418—419.
64. A. Steinwenter, ‘Der Einfluss des römischen Rechtes auf den antiken kanonischen Prozess’, in Congresso Internationale di Diritto Romano (Rome, 1935), vol. 2, 228.
65. C. Humfress, ‘Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity. How (Not) to Make Sense of the Legal Evidence’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 19.3 (2011): 375—400.
66. F. von Benda-Beckmann and K. von Benda-Beckmann, ‘The dynamics of change and continuity in plural legal orders’, Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial law 53—54 (2006): 24.
67. See further E. Herrmann-Otto, Ecclesia in re publica. Die Entwicklung der Kirche von pseudo-staatlicher zu staatlich inkorporierter Existenz (Frankfurt, 1980).
68. C.Th. 16.2.1 (possibly 31 Oct. AD 313, no place or addressee recorded); see also
C. Th. 16.2.6 (addressed to Ablabius PP, issued 1 June AD 329, according to Seeck).
69. Barone-Adesi (n. 45), 85.
70. Humfress (n. 17), esp. Part III.
71. Augustine, Ep. 24*, trans. Eno (1989).
72. L. MacCoull, ‘Apa Abraham: Testament of Apa Abraham, Bishop of Hermonthis, for the Monastery of St. Phoibammon near Thebes, Egypt’, in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, ed. J.P. Thomas (Washington, D.C., 2000), 51—58; also R. Bagnall, ‘Monks and property: rhetoric, law, and patronage in the Apophthegmata Patrum and the papyri’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 42 (2001): 7—24.
73. Augustine, Against Cresconius 3.47.51.
74. D. Caner, Wandering Begging Monks. Spiritual Authority and the Promotion ofMonasticism in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002), 251—252.
75. lang=EN-US> N. Mezey, ‘Law as Culture’, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 13 (2001): 35.
76. T. Jenkins, The Life of Property (New York, 2010), 116.
77. M. Galanter, ‘Justice in Many Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering, and Indigenous Law’, Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 19 (1981): 23 [underline in original].
8