IGII25 13249 Edict of Constantius and Galerius against the Caesariani (tax collectors)

Edict of Constantius and Galerius against the Caesariani (tax collectors)

IG II² 5 13249 Date: 305 AD

A: Text known from Latin copy at Ephesos (Ephesos Museum inv. 4642) [Imperator Caes. Flavius Valerius Constantius pius felix invic]- [tus Augustus pontifex max. Germ. max. quint. Sarm. max. tert.] [Persic. ma]x. iter. [Brit. max. iter. Carp. max. quint. Armen. max.] [Med. max. Ad]iab. ma[x. tib. pot. – cons. – imp. – p. p. procons. et] (5)[Imperator Ca]es. Gal[erius Valerius Maximianus pius felix - - -] [- - -]SṂ[- - -]

B: Text known from Latin copies at Ephesos (Ephesos Museum inv. 940) and Lappa, and quotation in CIL V 2781 (1)Caesares vac. [ dicunt:] fidem rebus gestis conscientia vestra, quae testis est, praebet eam summam clementiae [nos]trae prospectibus et fuisse senper et esse curarum, ut beatitudo ⟨o⟩rbis Roman[i, quae nutibu]s nos- (5)tris obtemperat, adversus omnes omnino calumnias, quas in universum [h]ọ[minum genu]s Caesarianorum desperatio porri- gebat firmissimis munita securitatibus rep[aretur - - -] esse etsi ex aliiṣ [- - -] quae recenti[- - -]tu sunt in tr[- - -] (10)[. . .]eṛitissị[- - -]

C: Text known from Latin copy at Ephesos (Ephesos Museum inv. 326) (1)[- - - mo]ḷesṭịa [- - -] [- - -]iae sive m.[- - -] [- - -]r inflic[- - -] [- - - co]nsort[- - -] [- - -]p̣us p̣ṛ[- - -] [- - -]

D: Text known from Latin copies at Tlos (CIL III 12134) and Ephesos (Ephesos Museum inv. 4055) [- - -] iustam e. . [diligente]r pendentes, ne qua forte [- - -]tata latuisset, cuius occasio temeritati supra [memoratorum insidiandi pec]uniis innocentium aliquam tribueret (15)facultatem, [competentibus remedi]is censuimus corrigendam. placet itaque ut, quicu[mque in diem XIII kal. Octobres] consulat⟨u⟩s scilicet nostri Constanti et Maximiani [Augg. V, ex adnotationibu]s eo- rum, qui adversae fortunae arbitriis subiugati{o} locum [fisco fecerant], [calumnias] sustinebant, hi piaetatis nostrae beneficiis libe- (20)rentur [nec deinceps ullas o]mnino huiusquemodi fiscales mo- lestias pertimescant, si [enim iniquum liberalitat]is nostrae sensibus visum sit ex his scripturis aliquos con[venire, quas aut in]- [imicus ulc]iscendi se etiam post obitum studio infensus adscribsit au[t tamquam in semen luc]rorum seu etiam praedationum immode- (25)rata Caesarianorum [nequitia et exsecranda con]menta est. et quo hui- usmodi inquetudinum tituli s[tirpitus amputati semper consopiant]ur, noscite sanctionis nostrae processisse mandat[a, ut omnes] [omnino adnotatio]nes, quae in diem supra memoratum penes fis- ci office[a remansissent in libellis, seu membranis seu] etiam chartis aut in (30)quibuslibet instrumentis, [ilico ad comitatum nostrum]m mitterentur, sci- licet ne{c} etiam post ista nost[rae pietatis beneficia, re]- [manentibus h]uiusquemodi instrumentis penes officia sup[ra dicta], [more consueto semper spoliand]i provinciales nostros Caesaria- nis imperti⟨r⟩et[ur occasio, nec postea nisi ex manifesti]s (35)pro⟨b⟩ationibus et cautionibus rite conscripti[s in fiscale] [iudicium vocar]etur, illis etiam significationum nostrarum in[structio]- [ne mandatis, ut, si quae deince]ps pari casu fisci nostri rationibus adnotationes s[uppeditarentur, nullo earum nomine inter]- [p]ellato, omnes ad comitatum nostrum ilico dir[igentur. unde] (40)[perspicitur iuxta consti]tutam nostrae clementiae sanctionem, si ⟨c⟩ui [ex hoc] [titulo adnotationum molestia commota sit, deber]e eum prae[sidis aut etiam praefectorum iudicium pe]tere, quo[rum sententia pro]- [lata et ei, qui iniuria]m susti[nuerit, prospiciatur et in eos], [quos in priore p]ervicaci[a permanere constiterit, competenti severitate] (45)[vi]ndicetur.

Previous - IG II² 5 13248 Next - IG II² 5 13250
Translated text

References:

IG II² 5 13249 (Translated text) (PHI) (AIO)

IG II² 1121 (PHI)

SEG 46.146 (PHI)

CIL V 2781, ll. 31-34 (EDCS)

CIL III 14195, 18

CIL III 12134 (EDH)

I Cret. II 34 (EDH)

IK Ephesos 1328 (PHI)

IK Ephesos 1808, 3

EDH HD050420 (EDH)

EDH HD047240 (EDH)

EDH HD051001 (EDH)

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Edict (emperors)

A - Findspot: Ephesos, west side of the Agora (Ephesos Inscriptions Museum 2596 inv. 4642)
B - Findspot: Ephesos, south stoa of the Agora (Ephesos Inscriptions Museum 1239 inv. 940)
B - Findspot: Lappa
B - Findspot: Quotation in document recorded at Padua (Lost)
C - Findspot: Ephesos, orchestra of the Theatre (Ephesos Inscriptions Museum 2596 inv. 4642)
D - Findspot: Ephesos, Hanghaus II (Ephesos Inscriptions Museum 2596 inv. 4642)
D - Findspot: Athens, Panagia Pantanassa in Monastiraki (EM 10556)
D - Findspot: Tlos, southeast of the Acropolis (Lost?)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual note: This text has been reconstructed from a Greek text from Athens and four other copies preserving parts of the original Latin text. These consist of four fragments from Ephesos (HD051001), one from Tlos in southwestern Asia Minor (CIL III 12134 = EDH HD050420, now lost), one from Lappa in Crete (I Cret. II 34 = EDH HD047240), and a portion quoted in another edict recorded at Padua in the sixteenth century, whose original location is uncertain (CIL V 2781, ll. 31-34, now lost). The Latin text was reconstituted by D. Feissel, Antiquité Tardive 4, 1996, 273-287 and is reprinted in IG II² 5. AIO's translation draws on both the Greek and Latin texts. We incorporate three modifications by S. Corcoran, ZPE, 133, 2000, 251-255 based on the Lappa copy: pros]pectibus (“those looking to”) rather than respectibus (“those respecting”) in B, l. 2 , rep[aretur rather than [tuta sit ("[may be secure]") and -tu sunt in tr- … in B, l. 9.

This is the most complete of three edicts at Athens from the period of the Tetrarchy (293-324 AD), during which the Roman empire was administered by two 'Augusti', each supported by a subordinate 'Caesar'. It was dispatched between 1 May 305 and 24 July 306, when the Augusti were Constantius Chlorus (father of Constantine) in the West and Galerius in the East, with Severus and Maximinus respectively as their Caesars (D. Kienast, W. Eck, and M. Heil, Römische Kaisertabelle,⁹ 2017, 272-75). Constantius is named first in A, ll. 1-5 as the senior Augustus, but the findspots of the copies strongly suggest that the edict was an initiative of Galerius. The other Tetrarchic edicts from Athens are IG II² 5, 13248 and probably 13250. Most edicts from this period are inscribed in Latin, but all three Athenian examples are close translations of original Latin texts.

This edict seeks to rein in the Caesariani, the agents of the Imperial Fisc in the late third and early fourth century AD. Specifically, it seeks to prevent them from engaging in malicious prosecutions (calumnia) based on fraudulent warrants (adnotationes). These were documents ordering someone brought before a court, exiled, or imprisoned (A. Berger, Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, 1968, 250). All adnotationes issued up to 19 September 305 were to be sent from the Fisc to the Imperial Court to be registered and reviewed. People who had lost cases due to a fake adnotatio would be exonerated somehow (C, ll. 15-25). In future, the Caesariani would not be allowed to rely upon adnotationes dated before 19 September 305 in court unless they had been sent to the Imperial Court (C, ll. 34-36). Any new adnotationes would have to be sent to the Imperial court as soon as they were issued (C, ll. 37-39) and any future cases relying on them had to be judged by a governor or praetorian prefect, rather than the courts of the Fisc (C, ll. 39-45).

Copies of the edict are frequently found with two other edicts: one restoring property illegitimately seized by the Caesariani (CIL III 13569) and another ‘On Accusations’ (de Accusationibus, FIRA² I 94), which legislated against malicious prosecution for treason. S. Corcoran suggests that these formed a single dossier, although there are chronological difficulties with this (in S. Crogiez-Pétrequin & P. Jaillette, Société, économie, administration dans le Code Théodosien 2012, 265-84). Further laws to control the Caesariani, with similarly invective language, were issued by Diocletian (Codex Justinianus 10.1.5), Licinius (Codex Theodosianus 10.7.1), Constantine (Cod. Theod. 9.42.1, 10.1.5, 10.8.2). After Constantine they fade from the historical record. [2] It is unclear whether 19 September 305 is a prospective deadline or a date that has already passed. [3] C, ll. 22-24 seem to be dealing with interventions by the Caesariani in inheritance, but it is unclear why this specific issue is introduced here. Elsewhere in the text, the Caesariani are motivated by greed rather than vendettas. [4] The conditional clause in ll. 21-25 ought to conclude with an apodosis/consequence that any appearance of Imperial support for injustices resulting from the fraudulent warrants was mistaken, but this seems to have been omitted. [5] The Praetorian Prefect was the chief official of the Imperial administration, directly subordinate to the emperor. In this period, there was one for each of the Augusti and perhaps one for each of the Caesars too.

Added: 6 Mar 2026
Updated: 6 Mar 2026
Feedback

ID: AIO_3695