The Orcistus dossier (CIL III, 352)

Typology: Imperial letter (?)

Original Location: Orcistus, Asia Minor (Doganay, Turkey).

Current Location: Now destroyed. Fragments survive in the Afyonkarahisar Archaeological Museum, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.

Date: 331 CE

Centuries: 4th CE

Material: Stone (?)

Measurements: Width:  64 (base) – 49 cm  Height: 158 cm Depth:  38 cm

Languages: Latin

Category: Roman

Publications: CIL III, 352; MAMA VII, 305

Description: Stone pillar, now largely destroyed, with mouldings above and below. The Latin inscription is inscribed on three sides: panel 1 on the front of the pillar, panel 2 on the right and panel 3 on the left.

Diplomatic:

Panel 1


 


[ ]AC LI[ ]R HAE QVAE IN PRECEM CON[ ]LIS[ ]        


 


ET DIGNITATIS REPARATIONEM IVRE QVA[ ] 


 


RE PROINDE VICARI INTERCESSIONE QVA[ ] 


 


[ ]ILATA AD INTEGRVM PRISGI HONORIS R[ ] 


5


CIMVS VT ET VOS OPPIDVMQVE DILIG[ ] 


 


TVM EXPETITO LEGVM ADQVE APPELLATIONIS S[ ] 


 


PERFRVAMINI INFRA SCRIBI 


 


HAVE ABIABI CARISSIME NOBIS 


 


INCOLE ORCISTI IAM NVC OPPIDI ET 


10


CIVITATIS IVCVNDAM MVNIFICIEN 


 


TIAE NOSTRAE MATERIEM PRAEBVE 


 


RVNT ABLABI CARISSIME ET IVCVNDISS[ ] 


 


ME QVIBVS ENIM STVDIVM EST VRBES VEL N[ ] 


 


VAS CONDERE VEL LONGAEVAS ERVDIRE VEL IN 


15


TERMORTVAS REPARARE ID QVOD PETEBATVR ACC[ ] 


 


PTISSIMVM FVIT ADSERVERVNT ENIM VICVM SVVM 


 


SPATIIS PRIORIS AETATIS OPPIDI SPLENDORE FLORV 


 


ISSE VT ET ANNVIS MAGISTRATVM FASCIBVS ORN[ ] 


 


RETVR ESSETQVE CVRIALIBVS CELEBRE ET POPVL[ ] 


20


CIVIVM PLENVM ITA ENIM EI SITV AD[ ]VE INGENIO


 


LOCVS OPPORTVNVS ESSE PERHIB[ ]TVR VT EX QV 


 


ATTVOR PARTIBV[ ]O TOTIDEM IN SESE CONFLVAN[ ] 


 


VIAE QVIBVS OMNIBVS PVBLICIS MANSIO TAMEN [ ] 


 


TILIS ADQVE ACCOMO[ ] ESSE DICAT[ ]R AQVARV[ ] 


25


IBI ABVNDANTEM AFLV[ ]TIAM LABACRA QVOQV[ ] 


 


PVBLICA PRIVA[ ]E FORVM ISTATVIS VETERVM 


 


PRINCIPVM ORNATVM POPVLVM COMM[ ]NENTIVM 


 


ADEO CELEBREM [ ]DILIA [ ]AE IBIDEM SVNT [ ] 


 


CILE CONPLEANTVR PR[ ]EA EX DECVRSIBVS 


30


PRAETERFLVENTIVM [ ]QVARVM AQVIMLIN[ ] 


 


RVM NVMERVM COPIOSVM QVIBVS CVM OMNI 


 


BVS MEMORATVS LOCVS ABVNDARE DICATVR C[ ] 


 


[ ]IGISSE ADSERVERVNT VT EOS NACOLENSES SI[ ] 


 


[ ]DNECTI ANTE ID TEMPORIS POSTVLARENT QVO[ ] 


35


[ ]T INDIGNVM TEMPORIBVS NOSTRS VT TAM O[ ] 


 


[ ]ORTVNVS LOCVS CIVITATIS NOMEN AMITTAT 


 


ET INVTILE COMMANENTIBVS VT DEPRAEDA 


 


[ ]IONE POTIORVM OMNIA SVA COMMODA VTILIT[ ] 


 


[ ]QVE DEPERDANT QVIBVS OMNIBVS QVASI 


40


QVIDAM CVMVLVS ACCEDIT QVOD OMNES 


 


[ ]BIDEM SECTATORES SANCTISSIMAE RELIGI 


 


ONIS HABITARE DICANTVR QVI CVM PRAECA 


 


RENTVR VT SIBI IVS ANTIQVVM NOMENQVE 


 


CIVITATIS CONCEDERET NOSTRA CLEMENTIA 


45


SICVTI ADNOTATIONIS NOSTRAE SVBIEC[ ]A 


 


CVM PRECIBVS EXEMPLA TESTANTVR HVIVS MO 


 


DI SENTENTIAM DEDIMVS NAM HAEC QVAE IN PRE 


 


CEM CONTVLERVNT ET NOMINIS ET DIGNITATIS 


 


 


 


Panel 2


 


REPARATION[ ] 


 


RVNT OBTINERE P[ ] 


 


VITATIS TVAE INTE[ ] 


 


QVAE FVERANT MV[ ] 


5


[ ]D INTEGRVM PRISGI [ ] 


 


[ ]DVCI SANCIMVS VT ET [ ] 


 


[ ]PPIDVMQVE DILIGENT[ ] 


 


[ ]VITVM EXPETITO LEGVM [ ] 


 


[ ]VE APPELLATIONIS SPLEN 


10


[ ]ORE PERFRVANTVR PAR ES[ ] 


 


[ ]GITVR SINCERITATEM TVAM I[ ] 


 


[ ]VOD PROMPTISSIME PRO TEM[ ] 


 


[ ]S NOSTRI DIGNITATE CONCES 


 


[ ]MVS ERGA SVPPLICANTES FES 


15


[ ]NANTER IMPLERE VALE ABLA[ ] 


 


[ ]RISSIME AC IVCVNDISSIME N[ ] 


 


EXEMPLVM PRECVM 


 


[ ]D AVXILIVM PIETATIS VESTRAE 


 


[ ]VGIMVS DOMINI IMPP CONSTANTINE 


20


[ ]ME VICTOR SEMPER AVG ET CRISPE ET 


 


[ ]STANTINE ET CONSTANTI NOBB CAESS 


 


[ ]A NOSTRA ORCISTOS VETVSTI[ ] 


 


[ ]VM OPPIDVM FVIT ET EX ANTIQVIS[ ] 


 


[ ]IS TEMPORIBVS AB ORIGINE ETIAM 


25


[ ]ITATIS DIGNITATEM OBTINVIT 


 


[ ]T IN MEDIO CONFINIO GAL[ ]TIAE PRI[ ] 


 


IAE SITVM EST NAM QVATTVOR VIAR[ ] 


 


[ ]RANSITVS EXHIBET ID EST CIVITA[ ] 


 


[ ]ESSINVNTESIVM QVAE CIVITA[ ] 


30


[ ]T A PATRIA NOSTRA TRICENSIM[ ] 


 


[ ]APIDE NECNON ETIAM CIVITAT[ ] 


 


[ ]AITANORVM QVAE ET IPSA EST A [ ] 


 


[ ]OSTRA IN TRICENSIMO MILIARIO E[ ] 


 


[ ]ATIS AMORIANORVM QVAE POSITA 


 


 


 


Panel 3


 


[ ]CR PRID 


 


KAL IVLIAS 


 


[ ]ONSTANTINOPOLI 


 


IMP CAES CONSTA[ ]TINVS 


5


MAXIMVS GVTH VICTOR AC TRIVM 


 


FATOR AVG ET FL CLAV CONSTANTINVS 


 


ALAMAN ET FL IVL CONSTIVS NNBB 


 


CAESS S[ ]VTEM DICVNT 


 


ORDINI CIVIT ORCISTANORVM 


10


ACTVM EST INDVLGENTIAE NOS 


 


TRAE MVNERE IVS VOBIS CIVITA 


 


TIS TRIBVTVM NON HONORE MODO 


 


VERVM LIBERTATIS ETIAM PRIVI 


 


LEGIVM CVSTODIRE ITAQVE NA 


15


COLENSIVM INIVRIAM VLTRA IN 


 


DVLGENTIAE NOSTRAE BENEFICIA 


 


PERDVRANTEM PRAESENTI RE 


 


SCRIBTIONE REMOVEMVS IDQVE 


 


ORATIS VESTRIS PETITIONIQVE 


20


DEFERIMVS VT PECVNIAM QVAM 


 


PRO CVLTIS ANTE SOLEBATIS IN 


 


FERRE MINIME DEINCEPS DEPENDA 


 


TIS HOC IGITVR AD VIRVM PERFE 


 


[ ]TISSIMVM RATIONALEM ASIA 


25


NAE DIOECESEOS LENITAS NOSTRA 


 


PERSCRIBSIT QVI SECVTVS FOR 


 


[ ] INDVLGENTIAE CONCESSAE 


 


VOBIS PECVMAM DEINCEPS PR[ ] 


 


SVPRA DICTA SPECIE EXPETI A VO 


30


BIS POSTVLARIQVE PROHIBEB[ ] 


 


BENE VALERE VOS CVPIM[ ] 


 


BASSO ET ABLABIO CONS 


 


[

Edition :

Panel 1

            [S]ac(rae) li[tte]r(ae)(?) haeI quae in precem con[tu]lis[tis et nominis]         

            et dignitatis reparationem iure qua[erunt obtine]-

            re proinde vicari intercessione qua[e fuerant mu]-

            [t]ilata ad integrum prisgi(!) honoris r[educi san]-

5          cimus ut et vos oppidumque dilig[entia tui]-

            tum expetito legum adque appellationis s[plendore]

            perfruamini infra scrib(s)i(!)

            have Abiabi carissime nobis

            incole Orcisti iam nu(n)c oppidi et

10        civitatis iucundam munificien-

            tiae nostrae materiem praebue-

            runt Ablabi carissime et iucundiss[i]-

            me quibus enim studium est urbes vel n[o]-

            vas condere vel longaevas erudire vel in-

15        termortuas reparare id quod petebatur acc[e]-

            ptissimum fuit adserverunt enim vicum suum

            spatiis prioris aetatis oppidi splendore floru-

            isse ut et annuis magistratum fascibus orn[a]-

            retur essetque curialibus celebre et popul[o]

20        civium plenum ita enim ei situ ad[q]ue ingenio

            locus opportunus esse perhib[e]tur ut ex qu-

            attuor partibu[s e]o totidem in sese confluan[t]

            viae quibus omnibus publicis mansio tamen [u]-

            tilis adque accomo[da] esse dicat[u]r aquaru[m]

25        ibi abundantem aflu[en]tiam labacra quoqu[e]

            publica priva[taqu]e forum istatuis(!) veterum

            principum ornatum populum comm[a]nentium

            adeo celebrem [ut se]dilia [qu]ae ibidem sunt [fa]-

            cile conpleantur pr[aeter]ea ex decursibus

30        praeterfluentium [a]quarum aquim(o)lin[a]-

            rum numerum copiosum quibus cum omni-

            bus memoratus locus abundare dicatur c[on]-

            [t]igisse adserverunt ut eos Nacolenses si[bi]

            [a]dnecti ante id temporis postularent quo[d]

35        [es]t indignum temporibus nostr(i)s ut tam o[p]-

            [p]ortunus locus civitatis nomen amittat-

            et inutile commanentibus ut depraeda-

            [t]ione potiorum omnia sua commoda utilit[a]-

            [tes]que deperdant quibus omnibus quasi

40        quidam cumulus accedit quod omnes

            [i]bidem sectatores sanctissimae religi-

            onis habitare dicantur qui cum praeca-

            rentur ut sibi ius antiquum nomenque

            civitatis concederet nostra clementia

45        sicuti adnotationis nostrae subiec[t]a

            cum precibus exempla testantur huius mo-

            di sententiam dedimus nam haec quae in pre-

            cem contulerunt et nominis et dignitatis

 

Panel 2

            reparation[em iure quae]-

            runt obtinere p[roinde gra]-

            vitatis tuae inte[rcessione]

            quae fuerant mu[tilata]

5          [a]d integrum prisgi(!) [honoris]

            [re]duci sancimus ut et [ipsi]

            [o]ppidumque diligent[ia sua]

            [t]uitum expetito legum [ad]-

            [q]ue appellationis splen-

10        [d]ore perfruantur par es[t]

            [i]gitur sinceritatem tuam i[d]

            [q]uod promptissime pro tem[po]-

            [ri]s nostri dignitate conces-

            [si]mus erga supplicantes fes-

15        [ti]nanter implere vale Abla[bi]

            [ca]rissime ac iucundissime n[obis]

            exemplum precum

            [a]d auxilium pietatis vestrae

            [conf]ugimus domini Impp(eratores) Constantine    

20        [maxi]me Victor semper Aug(uste) et Crispe et

            [Con]stantine et Constanti nobb(ilissimi) Caess(ares)

            [patri]a nostra Orcistos vetusti[s]-

            [sim]um oppidum fuit et ex antiquis[si]-

            [m]is temporibus ab origine etiam

25        [civ]itatis dignitatem obtinuit

            [e]t in medio confinio Gal[a]tiae P(h)ri[g]-

            iae situm est nam quattuor viar[um]

            [t]ransitus exhibet id est civita[tis]

            [P]essinunte(n)sium quae civita[s dis]-

30        [ta]t a patria nostra tricensim[o fe]-

            [re l]apide necnon etiam civitat[is Mi]-

            [d]aitanorum quae et ipsa est a [patria]

            [n]ostra in tricensimo miliario e[t civi]-

            [t]atis Amorianorum quae posita

 

Panel 3

            [s]cr(iptum) prid(ie)

            Kal(endas) Iulias

            [C]onstantinopoli

            Imp(erator) Caes(ar) Consta[n]tinus

5          Maximus Guth(icos)(!) Victor ac trium-

            fator Aug(ustus) et Fl(avius) Clau(dius) Constantinus

            Alaman(nicus) et Fl(avius) Iul(ius) Const(ant)ius nn(o)bb(ilissimi)

            Caess(ares) s[al]utem dicunt

            ordini civit(atis) Orcistanorum

10        actum est indulgentiae nos-

            trae munere ius vobis civita-

            tis tributum non honore modo

            verum libertatis etiam privi-

            legium custodire itaque Na-

15        colensium iniuriam ultra in-

            dulgentiae nostrae beneficia

            perdurantem praesenti re-

            scribtione removemus idque

            oratis vestris petitionique

20        deferimus ut pecuniam quam

            pro cultis ante solebatis in-

            ferre minime deinceps dependa-

            tis hoc igitur ad virum perfe-

            [c]tissimum rationalem Asia-

25        nae dioeceseos lenitas nostra

            perscribsit qui secutus for-

            [mam] indulgentiae concessae

            vobis pecumam deinceps pr[o]

            supra dicta specie expeti a vo-

30        bis postularique prohibeb[it]

            bene valere vos cupim[us]

            Basso et Ablabio cons(ulibus)

            [------

English translation:

The translation is taken from Van Dam, Raymond, The Roman revolution of Constantine  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) p. 371.© Raymond Van Dam 2008, published by Cambridge University Press.
 
Panel 1: front of pillar
 
Sacred Letter (?). These concerns that you mentioned in your request rightly demand (that you) obtain the restoration of your name and rank. Therefore, we decree that through the intercession of the vicar whatever has been diminished to be restored to the wholeness of the ancient honour, so that both you and your town, protected by diligence, might enjoy that splendour you requested of the laws and of your name. Below I have signed (?).
 
Greetings, Ablabius, you who are most dear to us.
The inhabitants of Orcistus, which is already now a town and a city, have offered a pleasing opportunity to our munificence, most dear and delightful Ablabius. [For us] whose desire is either to found new cities or to civilize ancient cities or to revive lifeless cities, this petition was most welcome.
They have claimed that during the period of an earlier age their village had flourished with the splendour of a town, so that it was ornamented each year with the symbols of magistrates and that it was celebrated for its decurions and filled with a population of citizens. Its location was said to be advantageous because of its natural site and human ingenuity, so that as many roads converged together there from four directions. On these [roads] it is said to be a suitable and convenient way station for all public [magistrates]. [It is said that there is] a splendid abundance of water there, as well as public and private baths, a forum decorated with statues of former emperors, a population of inhabitants so numerous that the seats there are easily filled, and in addition a large number of water mills on account of the torrents of passing streams.
Although the aforementioned place is said to abound with all these [amenities], they have claimed that it happened before this time the people of Nacolea demanded that they be joined with them. This is unworthy of our times, that such an advantageous place should lose the title of city. This is also injurious for the inhabitants, that they should lose all their privileges and amenities through the plundering of the more powerful. Added to all these [misfortunes] is this culminating [characteristic], as it were, that all are said to reside there as supporters of the most holy religion.
Since they requested that our clemency grant them their ancient legal standing and the title of the city, we provided an opinion of this sort, as indicated by the copies of our decision attached below with their requests. For those concerns that they mentioned in their request…
 
Panel 2, right side
… rightly demand that they obtain the restoration of both their name and their rank. Therefore we decree that through the intercession of your dignity, whatever has been diminished be restored to the wholeness of the ancient honour, so that both they and their town, protected by their own diligence, might enjoy that splendour that they requested of the laws and of their name. It is proper therefore that your sincerity rapidly fulfil for these petitioners what we have most promptly decided on behalf of the dignity of our reign. Farewell Ablabius, you who are most dear and most delightful to us.
 
Copy of the requests.
We have fled to the aid of your piety, Lords and emperors, Constantine Maximus Victor, always Augustus, and Crispus, Constantine and Constantius, [all three] most noble Caesars.
Our homeland of Orcistus was a very old town, and from very ancient times, in fact, from its foundation it held the rank of a city. It is located in the middle of the borderland of Galatia and Phrygia. It offers passage on four roads; that is, from the city of the people of Pessinus, which is a city about thirty milestones distant from our homeland; also from the city of the people of Midaion, which is also thirty milestones distant from our homeland; also from the city of the people of Amorium, which is located…
 
 
Panel 3, left side
Emperor Constantine Maximus Gothicus, Victor and celebrator of triumphs, Augustus, along with Flavius Claudius Constantine, conqueror of the Alamanni, and Flavius Julius Constantius, most noble Caesars, sends greetings to the council of the city of the people of Orcistus.
Through the gift of our indulgence it has been granted to you to protect not only the right of a city attributed as an honour but also the privilege of liberty. Therefore, through the present rescript we remove the wrongdoing of the people of Nacolea that has endured beyond the benefits of our indulgence, and we grant this to your pleas and petition, that you no longer pay the levy that you were previously accustomed to pay for the cults. Our gentleness has written this to the rationalis of the diocese of Asiana, a most distinguished man, who will follow the formula of the indulgence that has been granted to you and will then prevent the levy to be sought or demanded from you for the aforementioned pretext. We wish you to be well. [Issued] during the consulships of Bassus and Ablabius.

Commentary:

The Orcistus dossier is a group of four related texts that were inscribed on three sides of a stone pillar, which was set up in the small town of Orcistus, in the mountainous region between Phrygia and Galatia in Asia Minor (modern Ortakoy, Turkey). Although Orcistus was a small and insignificant place, the inscribed pillar contains two petitions and the emperor Constantine’s favourable responses to them; they are an important example of late imperial resolution of injustices in the provinces, as well as demonstrating the importance of the cities of the empire, their maintenance, and welfare in Constantine’s political agenda.

Although the pillar now survives only in a few fragments, it was once a large and impressive monument that advertised the importance of Constantine’s replies to Orcistus’s complaints, and by extension the good relationship enjoyed between the town and the imperial court. The pillar was originally inscribed with four separate texts, which were found on three sides; the right side of the pillar, Panel 2, contained the first petition (Document 3), which was submitted to Constantine between early November 324 and May 326 CE (for discussion of the debate surrounding these dates, see. Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine, p. 368-372. The ‘document’ numbers given here follow his scheme, p. 152-153). The front of the pillar was inscribed with Constantine’s decision, or adnotatio, about this petition (Document 1), which appears at the top of the front panel, with his discussion of it in a letter to one Ablabius, the vicarius (“vicar”) of the region, who would then in turn convey the decision to Orcistus (Document 2). On the left side of the pillar was inscribed the fourth text, a further reply from Constantine (Document 4), dated June 30th 331 CE, to what must have been a second petition from Orcistus reiterating the same complaints, but which was not also inscribed on the pillar.

Only part of the first petition, document 3, was added to the right side of the panel; it contains the official greetings to the emperor and a few lines, before it comes to an end abruptly and mid-sentence at the bottom of the pillar, meaning that we must turn to Constantine’s response in order to piece together the issue about which they were complaining. The general issue of the petition was that Orcistus had once held the status of a city, but it had been reduced to that of a town, and as a result was being unfairly treated by its neighbouring city Nacolea; Orcistus requested that they be reinstated as a city, in part because of the civic attributes of the place, but also because of its strategic location and religious practices. The most detail for this can be found in document 2, the letter to Ablabius that followed Constantine’s official response or adnotatio; the letter begins with the affirmation that the emperor has awarded the civic status requested in the petition: “already now a town and city” (panel 1, lines 9-10: iam nunc oppidi et  / civitatis). Following this is a brief statement (lines 13-16) on the importance of cities in the empire, and the desire of the emperor “either to found new cities or to civilize ancient cities or to revive lifeless cities” (urbes vel no/vas condere vel longaevas erudire vel in/termortuas reparare); this was a key facet of Constantine’s politics, which sought to encourage applications for the imperial house’s generosity and munificence towards their welfare. This idea was promoted in other inscriptions, such as the rescript to the Italian town of Hispellum, which had sought, and won, permission for the construction of a new shrine and to rename the town after the gens Flavia, as well as in literary texts celebrating Constantine, such as in the panegyrics of Nazareth (Pan. Lat. 4[10].38.4). As Noel Lenski has stated, this “was not mere rhetoric, but represented the emperor and his subjects uniting around a common discourse of civic promotion” (Constantine and the Cities, p. 98). Constantine’s letter to Ablabius then goes on to list the attributes for which Orcistus deserves its reinstatement as a city; it was formerly “ornamented each year with the symbols of magistrates and that it was celebrated for its decurions and filled with a population of citizens” (spatiis prioris aetatis oppidi splendore floru/isse ut et annuis magistratum fascibus orna/retur essetque curialibus celebre et populo / civium plenum), indicating a large and thriving population that already understood the principles of self-government that city status involved. The location of the city at a point where many roads converged together (lines 21-23) was also highlighted as advantageous, and the general appearance and facilities of the town were also noted and praised: “public and private baths, a forum decorated with statues of former emperors, a population of inhabitants so numerous that the seats there are easily filled, and in addition a large number of water mills on account of the torrents of passing streams” (lines 24-31). Orcistus was clearly well-equipped with the means by which to support a thriving population – a road that facilitated trade and communication, as well as a good water supply – and also looked like a Roman city, with features such as public baths and statues of the emperors and imperial court that were “rhetorically reconstructed in accordance with idealised norms that prevailed across the empire” (Lenski, Constantine and the Cities, p. 99. For discussion of the architectural features mentioned here, see Van Dam, Roman Revolution of Constantine, p.157-158).

Constantine’s letter to Ablabius ends with a discussion of the final complaint made by the inhabitants of Orcistus, namely that they were suffering from the poor treatment they received from the neighbouring city of Nacolea (lines 33-42); this was a large and impressive city, which had many smaller villages as its dependents. The exact origins of the dispute between Orcistus and Nacolea cannot now be known, but it is likely that following Diocletian’s reorganisation of Phrygia, in which the territory was split into two provinces, Orcistus had somehow fallen in status and become one of these dependencies, which had resulted in a loss of privileges “through the plundering of the more powerful” (lines 37-40: ut depraeda/tione potiorum omnia sua commoda utilita/tesque deperdant; see Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine, p. 159-60, esp. n. 17). Particular attention has been paid to lines 40-42 of Constantine’s letter to Ablabius, as it appears to suggest a religious motivation for granting the city status. It states that: “added to all these [misfortunes] is this culminating [characteristic], as it were, that all are said to reside there as supporters of the most holy religion” (quibus omnibus quasi / quidam cumulus accedit quod omnes / ibidem sectatores sanctissimae religi/onis habitare dicantur). Numerous scholars have interpreted this line as an indication that Orcistus was a Christian city, and that part of the problem with Nacolea was some form of punitive treatment because the larger city remained pagan, which Constantine sought to remedy by rewarding the smaller Christian city. André Chastagnol in fact proposed that the town had lost its status under Maximinus Daia or Licinius, who objected to the extent of its Christian practice (“Remarques à propos de l’inscription constantinienne d’Orcistus (Phrygie),” p. 399-402). Raymond Van Dam however, in an argument disputed by Noel Lenski, suggested that – like the supposed reference to sacrifice in the Hispellum inscription – the “most holy religion” was presented here in terms too vague to refer specifically to Christianity; even if such a term were used in the original petition, it may have been deliberately employed to mask a lingering devotion to paganism without having to explicitly say so (The Roman Revolution of Constantine, p. 176-183). Lenski conversely noted that the petition was sent shortly after Constantine had defeated Licinius “in a battle tinged with pro-Christian politics,” and that sanctissima religio (“most holy religion”) was a term used by Constantine himself in a letter preserved as Appendix 3 of Optatus and on four occasions in Eusebius’s Greek translations of his letters (Life of Constantine III.17.2; IV.9.1; History of the Church X.5.22; X.6.1). Sanctissima lex was also used to describe Christianity in a letter of 314 and a law of 326 CE, suggesting that this was “a thoroughly Constantinian construction that clearly referred to Christianity, as the Orcistans must have known,” and in reference to which they wrote accordingly (Lenski, Constantine and the cities, p. 100-101).

Whatever the religion of Orcistus actually was, this cannot have been the motivating factor behind Constantine’s grant of permission to the town to raise its status to that of a self-governing city; just as in the case of the proposed shrine to the imperial house in Hispellum, Constantine was more concerned with preserving and supporting the city as a civic institution than involving himself in their religious affairs. Following the massive expansion and centralisation of the late Roman government, the advancement of cities became a top priority, with the success of individual urban centres providing the frame around which the empire could build its networks of power (Lenski, Constantine and the cities, p. 88). Thriving cities with established bodies of self-government were vehicles of peace, contributing financially – in the form of regular taxation – and physically, through the contribution of labour towards the maintenance of the imperial road and water systems, to the empire as a whole (Lenski, Constantine and the cities, p. 93). It was in Constantine’s interests to acquiesce to the request of a city that was so keen to place itself at the forefront of this imperial system, highlighting the means by which it already identified itself with larger polities of the empire and clearly eager to operate on a similar municipal scale.

Constantine’s adnotatio (document 1), which was inscribed above this long, detailed letter on the front of the pillar emphasised the special relationship that had been established between the emperor and the town as a result of the petition; it confirmed the special privileges that he had bestowed on them, which were reiterated in the inscription on the left side of the panel (panel 3, document 4), in response to a second petition some years later. In this second response, Constantine again reiterated the significance of his concern for the inhabitants of Orcistus, referring back to the special favour of his original adnotatio as examples of indulgentia three times, in lines 10, 15-16 and 27. The term demonstrated Constantine’s particular concern for the welfare and fair treatment of the Orcistans, which he himself was willing to personally guarantee, going so far as to openly chastise “the wrongdoing of the people of Nacolea that has endured beyond the benefits of our indulgence” (Na/colensium iniuriam ultra in/dulgentiae nostrae beneficia / perdurantem praesenti re/scribtione removemus); the importance of this fact to Orcistus can be seen from their inscription of his adnotatio on the most visible and prominent part of the pillar, on the front and at the top, completely out of chronological sequence with the text below it and on the right side (panel 2), but in the most important and discernible position (Lenski, Constantine and the Cities, p. 101). Although a small entity, Orcistus had entered into dialogue with the emperor in a process of petition and response that not only generated a favourable outcome for them, but which also established a personal relationship with the figure of the emperor; at a time when these small cities were being subsumed by the increasingly centralised and bureaucratic administration of the late empire, the citizens of Orcistus had seized upon the opportunity to revive the traditional behaviour of provincial capitals and cultural centres in its invitation to the emperor to demonstrate his generosity and sense of justice.

Keywords in the Original Language:

Thematic Keywords:

Bibliographical References:

Related sources:

Realised by:

Caroline Barron
Print or save to pdf

How to quote this page

The Orcistus dossier (CIL III, 352)

Author(s) of this publication: Caroline Barron

Publication date: 2024-12-24 11:38:38

URL: https://heurist.huma-num.fr/heurist/judaism_and_rome/web/7/240

Judaism and Rome
Re-thinking Judaism's Encounter with the Roman Empire