Greek translation of a constitution by Valentinianus II to the praet. prefect Principius from Anaia (Asia)
source date: 386/450 AD
edition published: 2021-11-08
availability: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Φλ.Φλάουιοι Θεοδόσιος καὶ Οὐαλλεντινιανὸς Αὔγουστοι πρὸς Πρινκήπιον ἔπαρχον πραιτωρίου. ἐν τῇ φαιδρᾷ ἡμέρᾳ, ἣν κυριακὴν κυρίως οἱ πρόγονοι εἰρήκασιν, πασῶν τὸ καθόλου δικῶν, πραγμάτων τε καὶ μεθοδιῶν ἐπίτασις ἡσυχαζέτω· ὄφλημα δημόσιον ἢ ἰδιωτικὸν μηδεὶς ἀνυέτω, μήτε δὲ ἐπὶ μεσιτῶν αὐτῶν, αἰτηθέντων ἢ ἑκουσίως αἱρηθέντων, ἐπίτασις ἁψιμαχιῶν τις συνκροτίσθω· οὐ μόνον γὰρ ἄτιμος καὶ ἱερόσυλος κληθήσεται ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ κεφαλικὴν ὑποστήσεται τιμωρίαν.

Edition based on Malay 2020, with different integration at l. 3.

(based on Malay 2020, p. 176, with different reading of the office of the addressee)

“Flavii Theodosius and Valentinianus Augusti, to Principius, praetorian prefect. On the Bright Day, which our ancestors properly called The Lord’s Day, the persecution of all litigation, court business, and suits, shall be entirely suspended. No person shall demand the payment of a public or a private debt, nor shall there be any cognizance of controversies before arbitrators, whether they have been requested or chosen voluntarily. Such a person (i.e. not observing this) shall be adjudged not only infamous and sacrilegious, but shall also be the subject of a sentence of capital punishment”.

(based on the french translation of CTh 08, 08, 03, by Rougé, Delmaire 2009, p. 121)

“Fl. Theodosius e Fl. Valentinianus Augusti à Principius, préfet du prétoire. Que le jour du Soleil appelé à juste titre par nos pères jour du Seigneur, s’arrête la poursuite d’absolument tous les procès, affaires et citations en justice ; que personne n’exige le paiement d’une dette publique ou privée et que même les arbitres demandés ou choisis spontanément n’aient connaissance d’aucun affaire. Quiconque (ne respecte pas ce précepte) sera non seulement reconnu coupable d’infamie et de sacrilège, mais sera également soumis à la peine capitale”.

“Fl. Theodosius e Fl. Valentinianus Augusti a Principius, prefetto del pretorio. Nel giorno luminoso, che gli avi legittimamente chiamarono (il giorno) del Signore, sia completamente sospeso lo svolgimento di tutte le liti giudiziarie, delle cause e delle citazioni in tribunale. Nessuno esiga un debito pubblico o privato, né si svolga alcuna cognizione delle dispute presso arbitri, siano stati questi richiesti o scelti spontaneamente. Chi (non rispetta questo precetto) sia giudicato non soltanto colpevole di infamia e sacrilego, ma sia anche soggetto alla pena capitale”.

The inscription was found in 2019 during excavations of the ancient site of Anaia (today Kadikalesi, Turkey), a small settlement on the Aegean coast, located few kilometres south of Ephesus (Asia). The text, inscribed onto a marble block, was built into the masonry of a Byzantine church in the «West Wall near the Entrance of the Lower Construction» (information provided by Z. Mercangöz, director of the excavations, to H. Malay: Malay 2020, p. 174; the final report of the excavation of the church is not yet available). Traces of an earlier inscription were found on the block. This text has been almost completely erased, and only a few fragments in Latin and Greek has survived (edition in Malay 2020, p. 175): the inscription refers to members of the gens Safinia, a Roman family which is attested in early imperial inscriptions in the area, especially in Samos, but also in Ephesus (see Lazzarini 1984, pp. 327-330; Heil, Mitthof forthcoming). It is possible that the stone was brought to Anaia from one of these two places (Heil, Mitthof forthcoming).

Probably in the 4th or in the 5th Century AD the surface of the block was carefully reworked and given the shape of a tabula ansata, whereupon a new inscription engraved. This inscription is the Greek translation of a law of the emperor Valentinianus II, referring to Sunday as a day of rest. The Latin version is preserved in the Theodosian Code under three different headings: in De Feriis as CTh 02, 08, 18 (only the second part of the text survived in the lost manuscript of Turin), in De executoribus et exactionibus as CTh 08, 08, 03 and in De exactionibus as CTh 11, 07, 13. The law, addressed to the praetorian prefect Principius, suspends various activities on the Lord’s Day, including all trials and collections of debts, both public and private, and prescribes severe sanctions for offenders (with a difference in penalties recorded in the Latin and Greek versions, see below; on the rise of the Christian calendar and the gradual emergence in Late Antiquity of Sunday as a day of rest, first attested in a law of Constantine, see, among others, Bianchini 1986; Hunt 1993; Heil forthcoming).

This extraordinary find, edited by H. Malay in 2020, enriches the dossier on late antique imperial constitutions that have come down to us through epigraphy (the list in Feissel 2009; for the Tetrarchic period see Corcoran 2000; cf. PPRET 53, 56; see also PPRET 28, PPRET 31). Remarkably, this constitution has been found in a part of the Empire that was not under the control of the emperor who issued it, and thus in a praetorian prefecture other than the one administered by the addressee of the text. Moreover, the new inscription offers the possibility of a comparison with the edited version of the same text in the Theodosian Code. But unlike the other 4th Century laws that have survived in both versions (the law of Julian on iudices pedanei = PPRET 53, and the so-called Edictum de accusationibus, on which see Corcoran 2007; Matthews 2000, pp. 254-270; for the relation between the inscription found at Trinitapoli and CTh 01, 16, 11 and CTh 01, 16, 12, see PPRET 56), this inscription gives a Greek translation of the constitution, that was no doubt originally written and circulated in Latin, the language of the imperial chancelleries.

There is little information about Anaia in Late Antiquity (cf. Malay 2020, p. 173, nt. 1). The city is attested as an episcopal seat from the 5th Century AD, and perhaps as early as the 4th (cf. PChBE 03, Paulos 1, pp. 766-767, Modestos 1, p. 701, Zôtikos 2, p. 980). The inscribed slab was found embedded in the wall of a Byzantine church but unfortunately, pending the publication of the excavation report, there is a lack of archaeological data to contextualise the find. However, the (problematic) comparison with the Theodosian version of the text offers elements for developing some hypotheses about the transmission of the document from the western to the eastern part of the empire and then to the province of Asia, in which Anaia was located.

This is the Latin version in CTh 08, 08, 03 (as already said, only the second part of CTh 02, 08, 18 has survived, while CTh 11, 07, 13 has a shortened subscriptio. Apart from minimal variations, the three Theodosian texts all come from the same copy of the law; on the “doublets” in the Theodosian compilation cf. Gaudemet 1957, García Garrido 2005, Sirks 2007, pp. 157-163):

Idem AAA(ugusti) (i.e., Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius, according to CTh 08, 08, 02) ad Principium p(raefectum) p(raetori)o.

Solis die, quem dominicum rite dixere maiores, omnium omnino litium, negotiorum, conventionum quiescat intentio; debitum publicum privatumque nullus efflagitet; ne apud ipsos quidem arbitros vel in iudiciis flagitatos vel sponte delectos ulla sit agnitio iurgiorum. Et non modo notabilis, verum etiam sacrilegus iudicetur, qui a sanctae religionis instinctu rituve deflexerit.

P(ro)p(osita) III Non(as) Nov(embres) Aquileiae, acc(epta) VIII Kal(endas) Dec(embres) Romae, Honorio nobilissimo puero et Evodio v(iro) c(larissimo) conss(ulibus).

Although the two texts are extremely alike, there are (apart from the language) three main differences between the Theodosian version and our inscription: 1) the latter lacks the subscriptio with the date; 2) the Latin and Greek versions record different imperial colleges; 3) a final clause threatening the death penalty for transgressors, engraved in the Anaia inscription, is missing in the Theodosian copy. We can start our analysis from the subscriptio, which survives only in the Theodosian copy and whose reliability must be assessed according to prosopographical criteria.

The chronology and the recipient of the text: the praetorian prefect Principius

The three copies in the Theodosian Code all bear the subscriptio with the date of publication (proposita) of the law, which is: Aquileia, November 3rd, 386 AD. CTh 02, 08, 18 and CTh 11, 07, 13 also register the receiving (accepta) of the constitution at Rome three weeks later, on November 24th, 386 AD. None of them records the date of issue. The date of publication followed by the date of reception can only be found in this law in the Theodosian Code. Th. Mommsen, considering the registration of the public posting (in Aquileia) and the (later) reception by an official (in Rome) as unacceptable, concluded that the subscriptio might have been corrupted (Mommsen 1900, p. 165, nt. 1). However, as suggested by P. Porena, the constitution may have first been sent by the comitatus of Valentinianus II in Milan to the praetorian prefect in Aquileia; the prefect published it in Aquileia and then forwarded it to Rome among other places (Porena 2020, pp. 156-157). This solution is supported by another constitution in the Theodosian Code (CTh 13, 05, 17). The latter, addressed to the same Principius, is registered as coming from Aquileia in April 386 AD, while the imperial court was, also then, located in Milan. Clearly, Aquileia was in 386 AD the seat of the official, who transmitted from there the constitutions he had received from the comitatus in Milan. We also have other evidence of Aquileia being the seat of the praetorian prefect in Italy in this period (see PPRET 69).

The recipient of the constitution was the praetorian prefect Principius. The versions in the Theodosian Code reads, after the imperial college, ad Principium p(raefectum) p(raetori)o, while the Greek text has πρὸς Πρινκήπιον ἔπαρχον πο, with omicron superimposed above pi. This abbreviation has been read by the editor as ἔπαρχον πό(λεως), urban prefect (Malay 2020, p. 176); but, as the same Malay states, there is no doubt that the addressee of the text was the praetorian prefect at the time, nor is any urban prefect (of Constantinople or Rome) called Principius attested under Valentinianus II or Theodosius I. The abbreviation p(raefectus) u(rbis) that occurs just once in another constitution addressed to Principius (CI 01, 48, 02), this time in the Justinian Code, can be disregarded as a late corruption of p(raefectus) p(raetori)o (possibly by the compilers of the collection or by a later copyist: see Jones 1964, p. 86, nt. 2; a different proposal (vicarius?) can be found in PLRE I, Principius 2, p. 726). For this reason, the reading ἔπαρχον π(ραιτωρί)ο(υ) is to be preferred, even if in the 4th Century Greek inscriptions the office of praetorian prefect, when complete, is always written in full (PPRET 30, 35, 43, 44, 58, 61, 68, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90). This unusual abbreviation may depend on the form in which the text was transmitted to the East. It is possible that the Latin copy of the law used for the Greek translation recorded the office of the addressee in an abbreviated form, such as praefectus p.o or even p. p.o, as we find in the Theodosian Code, and that the translators decided to keep “po / πο” without writing πραιτωρίου in full (see below).

Principius is only to us known through the imperial constitutions that were addressed to him by Valentinianus II. However even the inscription from Anaia tells us nothing about his social status. The lack of any other evidence, together with the fact that he is not listed among the correspondents of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, suggests that he was not a member of an aristocratic family, but rather an official who had climbed his way up through the ranks of the bureaucracy. Attested as magister officiorum of the young emperor, probably in 383/385 AD (the only clear evidence on this office is a constitution that, however, registers a publication in Africa in 386 AD: CTh 01, 09, 02; cf. Clauss 1980, pp. 184-186; Olszasniec 2013, pp. 328-332), Principius was then promoted to the position of praetorian prefect (possibly replacing Petronius Probus after his fourth praetorian prefecture: see PPRET 59; on the palatine officials raised to the praetorian prefecture in this period see Porena 2019). His tenure is attested by eleven constitutions that have survived in the Theodosian Code, and that date to between June 385 AD and November 386 AD (see the list in Porena 2020, pp. 156-157, revising PLRE I, Principius 2, p. 726). The places where these constitutions were issued clearly indicate that Principius was the praetorian prefect of Valentinianus II, who ruled in this period over Italy, Africa and Illyricum (in effect the praetorian prefecture of Gauls was under the control of Magnus Maximus). A.H.M. Jones (1964, pp. 85-86; followed by PLRE I) considered Principius to be the praetorian prefect of Italy, Africa and Illyricum. However, since the chronology of his constitutions partially overlaps with that of the laws addressed to another praetorian prefect of Valentinianus II, Eusignius, Jones proposed to pre-date his tenure to 385 AD and to bring forward to that year all four constitutions addressed to the Principius that are dated 386 (CTh 13, 05, 17 issued on April 20th 386 AD, according to the Vatican manuscript; CTh 02, 08, 18 = CTh 08, 08, 03 = CTh 11, 07, 13, i.e. our constitution concerning the Sunday as a day of rest, which was posted on November 3rd 386 AD). Thus he considered Eusignius the successor of Principius (cf. Jones 1964, pp. 85-86; PLRE I, Principius 2, p. 726; PLRE I, Eusignius, pp. 309-310). But the evidence collected by P. Porena to support the existence in these years of an independent praetorian prefecture of Illyricum under the control of Valentinianus II, suggests another possibility: that Principius was praetorian prefect of Italy (and Africa) in 385-386 AD, while Eusignius was praetorian prefect in Illyricum (at least since January 386: see Porena 2020). This solution makes unnecessary any emendation of the chronology of the laws registered in our source. Therefore, we can keep the date preserved in the Theodosian Code for our constitutions concerning the Sunday as a day of rest sent to Principius praetorian prefect and consider it issued by Valentinianus II in Milan a few days before November 3rd 386 AD. That day the law was published by the prefect Principius in Aquileia (to give an example of the time needed, two constitutions of the emperor Gratianus issued in Milan in 379 AD where received by the prefect Hilarianus Hesperius, very likely in Aquileia, after 18 and 29 days: CTh 08, 18, 06 and CTh 16, 05, 05, cf. PPRET 69).

The imperial college and the transmission of the law to the East

Now that the chronology (386 AD) and the office of the recipient (praetorian prefect) has been confirmed, we can look at the imperial colleges recorded in the two texts. When the constitution was issued, there were several emperors: Valentinianus II (Augustus since 375 AD), who had control over Italy, Africa and Illyricum, Theodosius I (A. since 379 AD) and Arcadius (A. since 383 AD) in the East, not to mention the “usurper” Magnus Maximus in Gaul. The memory of Maximus was later erased, but he gained some recognition in this period and one of the two consuls of 386 AD was his praetorian prefect, Evodius (see PLRE I, Evodius 2, p. 297; CLRE, pp. 306-307; Omissi 2016). Apart from the uncertainty as to Maximus’ position, neither text retains the correct college: the Theodosian Code registers (under the formula Idem Augusti) Gratianus, Valentinianus (II) and Theodosius (I); in the inscription of Anaia the issuing emperors are (in this order) Theodosius and Valentinianus.

The omission of Gratianus at Anaia needs no explanation, if the inscription does not depend on the Theodosian copy. This emperor was killed in August 383 AD, while the constitution was issued in October 386 AD, three years later. There is thus no reason why Valentinianus II should have registered the name of his deceased brother as author of this constitution. If we find the name of Gratianus in copies of the Theodosian Code, it is because such copies were not transcriptions of the originals, but rather versions that were written or interpolated, by the compilers of the same code (on this problem, see Bernier 2018). The compilers listed the names of the emperors who issued the law on the basis of the chronology of the texts and, in several cases, made mistakes: such was the case with Gratianus, whose name replaces that of Arcadius in dozens of constitutions included in the collection that are dated after his death to the end of 386 AD (Bernier 2018, pp. 293-302). The omission of Gratianus in the Anaia inscription is absolutely correct, his presence in the Theodosian Code is basically a mistake of the Theodosian compilers.

Less clear are the reasons for the omission of Arcadius and the inversion of the order between Theodosius I and Valentinianus II at Anaia. It may be supposed that the dissemination of the communication in the Eastern part of the Empire was accompanied by the registration of the precedence of the Eastern ruler, Theodosius I, even if this contradicted the real seniority of the Augusti (and also the paternity of the law). But this solution makes the omission of Arcadius’ name even harder to explain. The son of Theodosius I was raised to the position of Augustus by his father on January 19th 383 AD (MGH AA 09, Chron. Min. 01, p. 244 = Cons. Const. s.a. 383). Even if this decision was opposed by the Western court of Gratianus (and, at least initially, of Valentinianus II, as the numismatic evidence suggest, see RIC IX, pp. XIX-XXI, 72-73, 87-89), the omission of Arcadius in an inscription made after November 386 AD is difficult to explain, particularly if we suppose an interpolation of the college after the reception of the text in the Eastern empire.

Another solution has been suggested by Malay: the editor of the inscription has proposed to identify the rulers registered at Anaia as Theodosius II and Valentinianus III, the emperors «under whose joint reign (425-450) the Codex was published in 438, which is thus a terminus post quem for the inscription» (Malay 2020, p. 176). This solution is problematic. A publication after the promulgation of the code should not have entailed the changing of the names of the issuing emperors (cf. Heil, Mitthof forthcoming). Moreover, if the translation had been made after the publication of the Code, then one would not expect to find a variant with the different sanction at the end of the Greek text (but see below).

If we look at the contents of the law, the two texts – Latin in CTh 02, 08, 18, CTh 08, 08, 03, CTh 11, 07, 13, Greek in the Anaia inscription – are strikingly similar. Only one important difference can be found: while the constitution in the Theodosian Code concludes with a reference to iniuria and sacrilegium as a sanction for the offenders (et non modo notabilis, verum etiam sacrilegus iudicetur, qui a sanctae religionis instinctu rituve deflexerit), the Greek copy adds the threat of capital punishment (οὐ μόνον γὰρ ἄτιμος καὶ ἱερόσυλος κληθήσεται ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ κεφαλικὴν ὑποστήσεται τιμωρίαν). There are two possibilities to explain this difference: 1) this threat was in the original text, but was not included in the Theodosian Code (either because the compilers excluded it or because it was already missing in the copy they used); 2) the Greek translation falsified the imperial text (a different proposal in Heil, Mitthof forthcoming, where there is also a discussion on the offence of sacrilegium in the late 4th Century imperial constitutions; for iniuria in Late Antiquity, see Atzeri 2016 and 2021; Riedlberger 2020, pp. 353-393). Although capital punishment may appear an excessive punishment for failure to observe the Sunday day of rest, the second possibility, namely the falsification of the text of an imperial law displayed in a public place, is even more unlikely. This sanction must have been recorded in the law and this difference should also imply that the law was probably engraved before January 439 AD, when, with the promulgation of the Theodosian Code, the editions of the laws included in the collection were made standard (at least to be able to be cited in court or used by a lawyer: see Sirks 2007, pp. 188-189). If so, the inscription must have been made between the issue of the law (around October 386 AD) and the promulgation of the Theodosian Code (January 439 AD).

However, there is one last point that remains unclear and recommends caution regarding the dating of the inscription from Anaia. This law, like most late imperial constitutions, is in the form of a letter addressed to an official. The Greek inscription contains the rule, with the punishment, but it lacks all the formal aspects that we usually find in the non-abridged versions of these imperial pronouncements (the extensive and rhetorical introduction, the order to disseminate the text, the references to the addressee: cf. e.g. PPRET 53: Secunde pareṇ[s cari]ss[ime ad]qu[e] amạ[ntissime]; PPRET 56: Probe parens carissime adq(ue) amantissime; PPRET 28: Marine carissime ac iucundissime). While it is normal for these parts to be missing in the Theodosian version, given that the compilers were told to remove all “superfluous words”, it is all the more surprising that they are not encountered in the inscription from Anaia if it does not depend on the copy of the Theodosian Code. Epigraphic documentation usually reproduces a document that is closer to the original text of the imperial constitution than the version in the Theodosian Code. In this case, however, with the exception of the clause on the death penalty, our document presents a form that is extremely similar to that, already edited in the code. How can we explain this peculiarity?

One possibility is that the constitution was transmitted to the East in an abridged form: either by the imperial court or by the praetorian prefect Principius who, having received the constitution of Valentinianus II in Aquileia, might have communicated it in the territories under his jurisdiction (like the copy received in Rome upon which the version in the Theodosian Code depends), but also to transmit the text to his colleagues in other prefectures, that is to say the praetorian prefects Eusignius, in Illyricum, Maternus Cynegius in the East (on this prefect, see PPRET 75), possibly also Evodius in Gaul. The text might have been transmitted in an abbreviated form, which simply communicated the rule with the penalties (the office of the addressee might also be in an abbreviated form). Having found favour within the Eastern court, this form of the law was disseminated in the territories of the eastern prefecture (whether this required an official confirmation by Theodosius I and Arcadius is unclear: the thesis of the geographically limited validity of constitutions in a partitioned empire has now been challenged by Riedlberger 2020, pp. 77-112; see the comment in Sirks 2021). Whether the text was circulated in the eastern provinces already in a Greek translation is difficult to say. However, it should be noted that near Anaia, in Ephesus, a constitution of Emperor Valens, issued around 10 years before the law to Principius, has survived (IK 11, Ephesus, 01a, 41; on the chronology, see Schmidt-Hofner 2008, pp. 583-585). Engraved in its original Latin form, it was followed by a Greek translation and was presumably made in Ephesus. It is possible that a similar fate befell our inscription: circulated in its Latin, abridged, version in the East, the constitution was publicly displayed in Ephesus, where it was supplemented by a Greek translation. The inscription from Anaia could have been based on this Greek copy.

Another possibility is that the constitution, communicated in the original form, was abridged in the East at the court of Theodosius I and Arcadius, before its dissemination. But the striking similarity between the copy in the Theodosian Code and the inscription from Anaia makes this solution unlikely.

Finally, there is a third possibility that should be taken into account. The inscribed slab was found at Anaia embedded in the wall of a Byzantine church and the text deals with a religious prohibition. Unfortunately, as stated above, there is a lack of archaeological data to contextualise the find. Moreover, the authority that ordered the publication of the Greek translation of the Western law in the city of the province of Asia is unknown. It is possible that the publication of the Greek translation of Valentinianus II’s constitution of 386 AD may have been commissioned by the ecclesiastical authority in Asia, the same that had the inscription engraved close to or inside the church. The inscribed text might not furnish us with the (reduced) text of the original constitution, received in Aquileia by the praetorian prefect Principius in 386 AD, but rather the Greek translation of the Latin text of the Theodosian Code that was used in Asia after January 1st 439 AD. If so, in the final sanctio we have an eastern fragment which provides a textual variant which might well be transmitting a text that was partially different from the western tradition of the Theodosian Code. This hypothesis could perhaps explain why in the protocol of the Anaia inscription, the name of Theodosius precedes that of Valentinianus: the stone cutter ‘updated’ the imperial college in the way that would have been familiar to everybody from 439 AD onwards in the East.

A. Bernier would like to thank Professors U. Heil and F. Mitthof for having generously shared with him their forthcoming article on this inscription.

Malay 2020 (with photo)

Atzeri L., Il lessico dell'infamia nella legislazione imperiale tardoantica (secc. IV-V d.C.), in Pira I. (a cura di), Scritti per Alessandro Corbino, I, Roma 2016, 123-155 Atzeri L., La sanzione dell’infamia e il contrasto alla corruzione e al malgoverno nell’amministrazione tardoantica, in Atti del XXIV Convegno Internazionale dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, Perugia 2021, 605-631 Bernier A., Il problema delle inscriptiones del Codice Teodosiano, Koinonia, 42, 2018, 269-303 Bianchini M., Cadenze liturgiche e calendario civile fra IV e V secolo. Alcune considerazioni, in Atti del VI Convegno Internazionale dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, Perugia 1986, 241-263 (= Ead., Temi e tecniche della legislazione tardoimperiale, Torino 2008, 234-256) Clauss M., Der magister officiorum in der Spätantike (4.-6. Jahrhundert). Das Amt und sein Einfluss auf die kaiserliche Politik, München 1980 Corcoran S., The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284-324, Oxford 2000 (rev. ed.) Corcoran S., Galerius’s Jigsaw Puzzle: the Caesariani Dossier, AntTard, 15, 2007, 221-250 Delmaire R. (éd. par), Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin a Theodose II (312-438), II. Code Theodosien I-XV, Code Justinien, Constitutions sirmondiennes (traduction J. Rougé, R. Delmaire, Paris 2009 Feissel D., Les actes de l’Etat impérial dans l’épigraphie tardive (324–610): prolégomènes à un inventaire, in Haensch R. (hrsg.), Selbstdarstellung und Kommunikation. Die Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der römischen Welt, München 2009, 97-128 (= Feissel D., Documents, droit, diplomatique de l’Empire romain tardif, Paris 2010, 43-68) García Garrido M.J., Similitudines codicum (las geminaciones y similitudes textuales en el Código Teodosiano y las coincidencias con el Código de Justiniano), in Atti del XV Convegno Internazionale dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, Napoli 2005, 463-492 Gaudemet J., Un problème de la codification théodosienne: les constitutions géminées, RIDA (III s.), 4, 1957, 253-267 (= Id., Études de droit romain, I. Sources et théorie générale du droit, Napoli 1979, 301-317) Heil U. (ed. by), From Sun-Day to the Day of the Lord. The Career of a Special Day in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (International Conference, Vienna 2019), forthcoming Heil U., Mitthof F., Missachtung der Sonntagsruhe als Kapitalverbrechen. Einige Bemerkungen zu dem Neufund einer spätantiken Kaiserkonstitution aus Anaia, forthcoming Hunt D., Christianising the Roman Empire: the Evidence of the Code, in Harries J., Wood I. (edd. by), The Theodosian Code. Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity, London 1993, 143-158 Jones A.H.M., Collegiate Prefecture, JRS, 54, 1964, 78-89 Lazzarini M.L., Note onomastiche e prosopografiche, RFIC, 112, 1984, 327-337 Malay H., A New Inscription from Anaia: Greek Translation of Codex Theod. 2.8.18 (On Stopping Litigation on Sunday), EA, 53, 2020, 173–177 Matthews J.F., Laying down the Law. A Study of the Theodosian Code, New Haven-London 2000 Mommsen Th., Das theodosische Gesetzbuch, ZRG, 21, 1900, 149-190 (= Id., Gesammelte Schriften, II, Juristische Schriften, Berlin 1905, 371-405) Olszaniec S., Prosopographical Studies on the Court Elite in the Roman Empire (4th Century AD), Toruń 2013 Omissi A., Damnatio memoriae or creatio memoriae? Memory Sanctions as Creative Processes in the Fourth Century AD, Cambridge Classical Journal, 62, 2016, 170-199 Porena P., “Rebus prosopografico”: considerazioni sui due Syagri, consoli ordinari nel 381 e nel 382, ZPE, 211, 2019, 279-292 Porena P., Ipotesi sull’istituzione di una prefettura del pretorio autonoma d’Illirico nel decennio 378-87, in Bigi F., Tantillo I. (a cura di), Senatori romani nel Pretorio di Gortina. Le statue di Asclepiodotus e la politica di Graziano dopo Adrianopoli, Roma 2020, 143-166 Riedlberger P., Prolegomena zu den spätantiken Konstitutionen Nebst einer Analyse der erbrechtlichen und verwandten Sanktionen gegen Heterodoxe, Stuttgart 2020 Schmidt-Hofner S., Die Regesten der Kaiser Valentinian und Valens in den Jahren 364 bis 375 n. Chr, ZRG, 125, 2008, 498-602 Sirks A.J.B., The Theodosian Code. A Study, Friedrichsdorf 2007 Sirks A.J.B., Could after the Division of Administration in 364 an Emperor Issue a Law for the Entire Empire?, ZRG, 138, 2021, 555-567

ἔπαρχον π(ραιτωρί)ο(υ)