Michele Renee Salzman (University of California Riverside)
After the twenty-year Gothic War ended in 554 CE, senatorial aristocrats were eager to recover their estates in Italy. Those who were in exile in Constantinople petitioned the emperor Justinian (527-565) for assistance. In response to their request and those of their aristocratic bishop, Vigilius, the emperor issued 27 constitutions, today known as the Pragmatic Sanction. Most of the constitutions deal with the restoration of property, livestock, and people. But the last constitution – the focus of this paper – allowed the “Most Illustrious and magnificent senators, who wish to attend court, to come to it [Constantinople] without any impediment.” (Viros etiam gloriosissimos ac magnificos senatores ad nostrum accedere comitatum volentes sine quocumque impedimento venire concedimus.” Hänel 1873, p. 185) Justinian’s permission to travel back and forth from Italy to Constantinople in 554 - and the omission of any residential requirements for senators in Rome – is a striking break with pre-existing restrictions on the movements of senators. As I argue in this paper, constitution 27 further undermined the position of the Senate in Rome, which demise, within 50 years, followed logically from this and other new policies affecting senators in Italy.
To demonstrate the radical nature of constitution 27, in part I of this paper I outline the changing laws from the third through the sixth centuries that modified but retained restrictions on the most powerful senators to encourage their retaining a domicile in Rome or, in fourth century, in Constantinople. I thus argue against Chastagnol’s interpretation of Pauli Sententiae I 7 (1992, pp. 311-314 ) as it relates to senatorial residency requirements. Rather, as laws of 383 (C.Th. 6.2.13) and 426-442 (CI 12.1.15) indicate, only new men who entered the Senate through appointment to office in the fourth century, and then the lowest ranked senators (illustres) in the fifth century, no longer had residency requirements (La Rocca and Oppedisano 2016, pp. 185-87). Residency and travel restrictions were important, I argue, for they retained the influence of its Senate in Rome and encouraged rebuilding in the city into the late fifth and early sixth-centuries
In part 2 of this paper, I demonstrate the negative impact of Justinian’s constitution 27 on the Senate and on the city of Rome. An analysis of the letters of Pope Gregory (590-603 CE) along with the information about office holders between 554-604 CE shows how senatorial aristocrats used their newly granted freedom to travel and also reside in Constantinople to advance their political and economic interests far from the city of Rome and its Senate. The case of the wealthy heiress Rusticiana and her brother Symmachus is illustrative of this changed pattern for senatorial aristocrats (Gregory, Epp. 9.8; 11.26; and 13.26). Thus, constitution 27, while bringing significant changes to the senatorial aristocracy in the west, is nonetheless consistent with Justinian’s policies which were aimed at limiting the political influence of wealthy, senatorial landowners and provincial elites in the east (Miller and Sarris 2018, pp. 42-47).