Books by Karol Kłodziński
Officium a rationibus: the Office and Officials Responsible for the Imperial Treasury, Leuven 2024, pp. 419 (The Journal of Juristic Papyrology series, vol. 46), 2024
Interest in the great empires, including the early Roman Empire, never wanes. And yet, to this da... more Interest in the great empires, including the early Roman Empire, never wanes. And yet, to this day, it is not fully understood how the Roman Empire was administered. Successive generations of researchers must address questions about how the administrative structures of such a vast empire were organised, how it was managed, who the imperial officials were, and what their duties and responsibilities were.
This book is devoted to the office a rationibus, the main central institution responsible for imperial finances, and to the officials who staffed the office. The study not only presents one of the most important elements of the administration of the early Empire but also provides valuable insight into the functioning of that administration as a whole. Despite having been described by scholars since the 19th century, the officium a rationibus has never been the subject of a monograph unto itself. The publication almost every year of epigraphic sources and the need to reinterpret the well-known sources (mainly narrative) and opinions from historiography both warrant a new look at how this office functioned.
FONTES HISTORIAE ANTIQUAE, vol. 49, 2020
Lex de imperio Vespasiani is the conventional, contemporary name defining the only legal act from... more Lex de imperio Vespasiani is the conventional, contemporary name defining the only legal act from the period of the early Roman Empire regulating the foundations of imperial power to have survived until our times. The inscription is currently kept in the Capitoline Museums in Rome. Together with the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Monumentum Ancyranum), it is one of the two most important public inscriptions from the Principate era. Dated at the end of 69CE or the beginning of 70CE, the inscription confirms the granting of some or all of the imperial powers to Vespasian and the legality of his actions (the name Vespasian was mentioned three times - lines 25, 28, 30). Although this document regulated the legal position of the new emperor and legitimized his decisions as "useful for the state", in the case of most of its clauses, it referred to the prerogatives of his three predecessors (the divine Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius, who had a privileged position). However, it was not so much a legislative as an ideological exercise. Its aim was to emphasize explicitly a kind of continuity in the strong political position of the “good” emperors from the Julian-Claudian dynasty, especially Augustus, and Vespasian's superior position with regard to the Senate. This distinction of the founder of the principate should not come as a surprise, since the ideology of Vespasian power was characterised by the creation of a second Augustus.
In the Roman Empire of the Principate an efficient system of central administration was the pill... more In the Roman Empire of the Principate an efficient system of central administration was the pillar of its public authority. Imperial household offices (officia maxima) have been investigated by historians as well as Roman law specialists from the second half of the 19th century. Typically, the research on the imperial secretariats has explored their structure, law-making activities, the competences of their officials and to a lesser extent their prosopography. The officers of the imperial household, or officia maxima, were often presented as the emperor’s advisers and key figures on the political scene in the early Principate. Due to the type of the sources available and their limited number, the office a memoria is often seen by scholars as problematic. Although there are many works on the subject, the competences of its officials have not been conclusively determined. Furthermore, the time when the office a memoria was established is also a matter of much debate. Drawing on the works written at the end of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century, some scholars tend to replicate fallacious findings made by their predecessors; a new up-to-date research should be conducted in view of the sources discovered in the second half of the 20th century (mainly inscriptions). For researchers investigating this issue, inscriptions, legal sources and ancient literary works are still the principal sources. The aim of the second chapter of the present book is to describe persons holding the office a memoria in the period from Augustus to Diocletian, in particular to analyse their onomastics and examine their competences, using the prosopographical method. The chapter consists of two parts: a prosopography and a detailed description of the competences of the officials. Detailed prosopographical research sheds some light on additional responsibilities assigned to them. Their clerical activities were without a doubt uncomplicated and most certainly unconnected with legislation. In the course of time, the officials a memoria became responsible for writing down the emperor’s speeches and possibly also letters. They may also have fulfilled archiving duties. Furthermore, the introductory part of the second chapter gives consideration to different views on the origins of the a memoria office in contemporary historiography. Many scholars recognized Hadrian as the originator of the office after the discovery of the inscription representing Ti. Claudius Aesius; their opinions should be verified and included in the history of historiography. It appears that the inscription should dispel doubts over the originator of the office, pointing to either Claudius or Nero. Yet, taking into account the emendation of Justus Lipsius, the issue appears to be both more complex and contentious. In the opinion of the author, the office a memoria was created during the reign of Augustus, the originator of the Principate, which corresponds to Justus Lipsius’s emendation. However, it should also be noted that the earliest epigraphic mention of the office is from the first half of the 1st century. The studies of the imperial secretariats in the early Roman Empire have their origins in the second half of the 19th century with the works of such scholars as Émile Egger, Joachim Marquardt, Otto Hirschfeld, Theodor Mommsen, Johan Nikolai Madvig, Jean-Baptiste Mispoulet, Édouard Cuq, Otto Karlowa,
Ernst Herzog, Wilhelm Liebenam, Ludwig Friedländer or Pierre Willems. The first chapter describes the beginnings of the research on Roman administration and presents the views of the 19th century historiographers on the question of imperial secretariats. It is necessary to take into consideration previous studies of the administration in the Roman Empire, since sources and research methods have not changed and many older findings still remain valid. I also examine the views of Polish scientists on the question of imperial secretariats (the issue was discussed almost exclusively in academic textbooks). Modern nomenclature
used to describe the imperial secretariats in the Principate as well
as semantic analysis of the Latin words — officium and scrinium,
have not been described in detail in the literature on the subject.
These issues will be discussed extensively at the beginning of this
chapter. We can say that only the terms officia maxima and principes officiorum are confirmed in the sources from the Principate period in the context of imperial central administration. In this period Tacitus wrote about ministeria principatus. By contrast, the term officia palatina was used to describe court offices of the early Roman Empire by historiographers of the late Roman Empire. This book aims to represent the complexity of research issues related to imperial secretariats. The variety of topics presented in the first chapter stems from the methodology of historical research on Roman imperial administration. Although the history of the a memoria office has a form of case study, general observations made in the book could be useful for a scholar who intends to study other so far not described imperial court offices of the Principate.
Papers by Karol Kłodziński
Epigraphica, 2023
M. Abid, K. Kłodziński, Munus promissum a patre suo. Un edicule dédiée au dieu Mercure a Musti (E... more M. Abid, K. Kłodziński, Munus promissum a patre suo. Un edicule dédiée au dieu Mercure a Musti (El Krib, en Tunisie), Epigraphica. Periodico Internazionale di Epigrafia 85, 2023, p. 19-29.
A new epigraphic dedication to Mercurius Augustus, from Mustis (El Krib, Tunisia), was executed post mortem by the son of a Roman citizen, registered in the tribe Quirina, probably from Sicca Veneria (El Kef), mentions the offering of an unspecified munus.
Epigraphica, 2023
K. Kłodziński, Ex auctoritate et sententia Imperatoris. A controversial phrase in four cippi from... more K. Kłodziński, Ex auctoritate et sententia Imperatoris. A controversial phrase in four cippi from Jebel Bou Khil (near Mustis) in Africa Proconsularis, Epigraphica 85, 2023, 269-283..
The involvement of emperors in boundary disputes in the Principate is unclear in many cases. Even less well understood are their judicial verdicts on such matters. The direct, judicial involvement of emperors in boundary matters was sporadic and occurred only in disputes between different provinces or jurisdictions, or when there was no governor holding jurisdiction, or such was ineffective. The cippus published in 2021 by H. Abid encourages us to look anew at the reasons and circumstances behind Antoninus Pius’ delivery of a verdict (sententia) in the establishment of the official boundary description (determinatio) for the public territory of Mustis (Municipium Iulium Aurelium Mustitanum) in Africa Proconsularis. I conclude that the intervention was determined by formal factors and the special status of that municipium.
Palamedes: A Journal of Ancient History , 2021
The relationship between ‘secretarial’ and ‘domestic’ freedman courtiers and the external world i... more The relationship between ‘secretarial’ and ‘domestic’ freedman courtiers and the external world in the Principate, especially with provincial society and administration is still unclear. I aim to analyze traces of freedman courtiers’ activities outside of Rome and present some ties between the court and local administrations and societies.
![Research paper thumbnail of Procurator di[oecesis]? Reinterpretation of CIL VIII 14727 = ILPBardo 229 and the Beginnings of the Administration of Imperial Domains of Africa Proconsularis](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/87820827/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, 2022
Descriptions of the administration of imperial domains in Africa Proconsularis share much common ... more Descriptions of the administration of imperial domains in Africa Proconsularis share much common ground in their interpretations. The literature features a widespread emphasis on the special role of the governments of Trajan and Hadrian in reorganising the imperial domains in this province-and especially in the Bagradas Valley, which has furnished us with exceptional epigraphic material in the form of agrarian inscriptions. While the 2nd-century administrative operations of imperial domains are fairly well understood-mainly due to this category of inscriptions-the 1st century remains something of a mystery. Researchers have dated the beginning of fundamental changes to how domain administration was organised to the times of the Flavians, after the great confiscations of Nero. However, a re-interpretation of a procuratorial title from CIL VIII 14727 = ILPBardo 229 and a broader analysis of the epigraphic material shed new light on the beginnings of the administration of imperial domains in Africa Proconsularis, and especially in the grain-growing region of Byzacium; there, perhaps even in the mid-1st century, there was an imperial administration and a domain district (diocese) modelled after another grain province of Egypt.
Palamedes. A Journal of Ancient History (Studies dedicated to Professor Adam Ziółkowski), 2019
Domitian's damnatio has been looked into many times and from many angles; following the path of s... more Domitian's damnatio has been looked into many times and from many angles; following the path of senatorial historical writings, researchers have often emphasized the totality of the results of the senate decree which ordained it. Based on an analysis of narrative sources, epigraphic evidence, images and statues of Domitian, monuments, and coins, the authors tried to verify that simplistic opinion, pointing out his posthumous popularity in some social circles.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 2021
EOS CVI, 2019
Review Article: Mohammed Abid, Esclaves et affranchis impériaux en Afrique proconsulaire sous le... more Review Article: Mohammed Abid, Esclaves et affranchis impériaux en Afrique proconsulaire sous le Haut-Empire romain. Notices prosopographiques du personnel subalterne et étude de son rôle
administratif, Tunis: Latrach Edition, 2017, 543 pp.
Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, 2020
The way patrimonial procuratorships (of the patrimonium, ratio privata, and res privata) function... more The way patrimonial procuratorships (of the patrimonium, ratio privata, and res privata) functioned at the beginning of the 3rd century CE remains controversial. A recently published inscription from Proconsular Africa featuring a new equestrian procurator rationis patrimonii of ducenarius rank, combined with re-interpreting the patrimonial procuratorships held by M. Aquilius Felix, argues convincingly that the reform of the administration of imperial property carried out at the beginning of Septimius Severus’ reign may have been more comprehensive than previously believed.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 2020
Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 2019
The role of freedman procurators in Roman administration of the principate period is still unclea... more The role of freedman procurators in Roman administration of the principate period is still unclear. While the division into equestrian and freedman procuratorships is well documented and studied (particularly by H.-G. Pflaum and P. R. C. Weaver), neither the explanation behind it nor adopting the criterion of less important (freedman) or more important (equestrian) procuratorships is entirely convincing. Reducing the work of freedman procurators (having the same titles as equites) to merely assisting equestrian procurators (under ‘unequal collegiality’) can be disputed as well. By re-interpreting the career of the imperial freedman Ulpius Paean and calling upon other careers, the article argues that some imperial freedmen could have held equestrian procuratorships as their superiors.
Pallas. Revue d'Études Antiques, 2018
The creation of the procurator summarum rationum and Beryllus’ title rationalium vicarius listed ... more The creation of the procurator summarum rationum and Beryllus’ title rationalium vicarius listed in IRCPacen 121 have been major arguments in favour of accepting that changes were made to the financial administration in the second half of the 2nd century, and that a reform of the officium a rationibus was carried out by Marcus Aurelius (between 166–169), because from then on a procurator a rationibus (trecenarius) and a procurator summarum rationum (ducenarius) subordinate to him were to act as the rationales. I attempt to demonstrate that the claim about a collegium (or officium) rationalium being active from the reign of Marcus Aurelius over-interprets the data. The reform of the officium a rationibus ought to be dated, not to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but rather of Septimius Severus.
Palamedes. A Journal of Ancient History, 2016
Zapiski Historyczne. Poświęcone Historii Pomorza i Krajów Bałtyckich, 2019
The article presents the biography and scientific achievements of the outstanding researcher of a... more The article presents the biography and scientific achievements of the outstanding researcher of ancient culture, Margarete Bieber (1879-1978). At the same time, it is an example of women’s emancipatory aspirations in this region at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The article describes the less-known Pomeranian roots of Margarete Bieber. She came from Przechowo (Schönau, Świecie district) in former Western Prussia. Bieber was the first woman from Western Prussia to pass high school final examinations in Toruń in 1901. Then, despite all kinds of difficulties arising from her gender and ethnicity, she made an excellent academic career in Germany and the United States. The article also describes in detail the Pomeranian Bieber family living in Przechowo and their property status (until the sale of the mills in 1921). Jacob Bieber, Margarete’s father, the owner of “the most important mills in Pomerania – Przechowo”, who perhaps was interested in ancient art himself, supported the scholar’s research for a long time. The high financial and social status of the family was important for her educational opportunities, but it was not recognized in the article as the most important reason for her success. First of all, her personality features, talent and great diligence were emphasized.
Zeszyty Prawnicze 17.1 / 2017, 2017
The article presents an analysis of two formal and very important
aspects of the inscription on t... more The article presents an analysis of two formal and very important
aspects of the inscription on the Epistula ad Saepinum (CIL IX 2438 =
FIRA I2 61), which dates back to 169–172 AD. Both are connected with the operations of the officium a rationibus, the chief Roman office handling imperial finances. I use the Saepinum inscription to discuss the administrative activity of this office and the controversies connected with the administrative status of the imperial freedman Cosmus. In my opinion Cosmus was the head of the a rationibus office, not a lower-rank officer.
Eos CII 2015, fasc. 1, p. 95-128.
Abstract: This article provides a detailed analysis of modern historiographical discourse on the ... more Abstract: This article provides a detailed analysis of modern historiographical discourse on the administrative position of the a rationibus office in the Roman imperial government, based on the findings of Friedländer, hirschFeld, MoMMsen, lieBenaM, cuq and others, in order to investigate the origins of disparate opinions on the office of a rationibus. The author also analyses the process of updating the terminology used to describe the office and comments on two dominant views of imperial administration (bureaucratic and non-bureaucratic) in historiographical works that have shaped the contemporary scholarship on the subject.
Uploads
Books by Karol Kłodziński
This book is devoted to the office a rationibus, the main central institution responsible for imperial finances, and to the officials who staffed the office. The study not only presents one of the most important elements of the administration of the early Empire but also provides valuable insight into the functioning of that administration as a whole. Despite having been described by scholars since the 19th century, the officium a rationibus has never been the subject of a monograph unto itself. The publication almost every year of epigraphic sources and the need to reinterpret the well-known sources (mainly narrative) and opinions from historiography both warrant a new look at how this office functioned.
Ernst Herzog, Wilhelm Liebenam, Ludwig Friedländer or Pierre Willems. The first chapter describes the beginnings of the research on Roman administration and presents the views of the 19th century historiographers on the question of imperial secretariats. It is necessary to take into consideration previous studies of the administration in the Roman Empire, since sources and research methods have not changed and many older findings still remain valid. I also examine the views of Polish scientists on the question of imperial secretariats (the issue was discussed almost exclusively in academic textbooks). Modern nomenclature
used to describe the imperial secretariats in the Principate as well
as semantic analysis of the Latin words — officium and scrinium,
have not been described in detail in the literature on the subject.
These issues will be discussed extensively at the beginning of this
chapter. We can say that only the terms officia maxima and principes officiorum are confirmed in the sources from the Principate period in the context of imperial central administration. In this period Tacitus wrote about ministeria principatus. By contrast, the term officia palatina was used to describe court offices of the early Roman Empire by historiographers of the late Roman Empire. This book aims to represent the complexity of research issues related to imperial secretariats. The variety of topics presented in the first chapter stems from the methodology of historical research on Roman imperial administration. Although the history of the a memoria office has a form of case study, general observations made in the book could be useful for a scholar who intends to study other so far not described imperial court offices of the Principate.
Papers by Karol Kłodziński
A new epigraphic dedication to Mercurius Augustus, from Mustis (El Krib, Tunisia), was executed post mortem by the son of a Roman citizen, registered in the tribe Quirina, probably from Sicca Veneria (El Kef), mentions the offering of an unspecified munus.
The involvement of emperors in boundary disputes in the Principate is unclear in many cases. Even less well understood are their judicial verdicts on such matters. The direct, judicial involvement of emperors in boundary matters was sporadic and occurred only in disputes between different provinces or jurisdictions, or when there was no governor holding jurisdiction, or such was ineffective. The cippus published in 2021 by H. Abid encourages us to look anew at the reasons and circumstances behind Antoninus Pius’ delivery of a verdict (sententia) in the establishment of the official boundary description (determinatio) for the public territory of Mustis (Municipium Iulium Aurelium Mustitanum) in Africa Proconsularis. I conclude that the intervention was determined by formal factors and the special status of that municipium.
administratif, Tunis: Latrach Edition, 2017, 543 pp.
aspects of the inscription on the Epistula ad Saepinum (CIL IX 2438 =
FIRA I2 61), which dates back to 169–172 AD. Both are connected with the operations of the officium a rationibus, the chief Roman office handling imperial finances. I use the Saepinum inscription to discuss the administrative activity of this office and the controversies connected with the administrative status of the imperial freedman Cosmus. In my opinion Cosmus was the head of the a rationibus office, not a lower-rank officer.
This book is devoted to the office a rationibus, the main central institution responsible for imperial finances, and to the officials who staffed the office. The study not only presents one of the most important elements of the administration of the early Empire but also provides valuable insight into the functioning of that administration as a whole. Despite having been described by scholars since the 19th century, the officium a rationibus has never been the subject of a monograph unto itself. The publication almost every year of epigraphic sources and the need to reinterpret the well-known sources (mainly narrative) and opinions from historiography both warrant a new look at how this office functioned.
Ernst Herzog, Wilhelm Liebenam, Ludwig Friedländer or Pierre Willems. The first chapter describes the beginnings of the research on Roman administration and presents the views of the 19th century historiographers on the question of imperial secretariats. It is necessary to take into consideration previous studies of the administration in the Roman Empire, since sources and research methods have not changed and many older findings still remain valid. I also examine the views of Polish scientists on the question of imperial secretariats (the issue was discussed almost exclusively in academic textbooks). Modern nomenclature
used to describe the imperial secretariats in the Principate as well
as semantic analysis of the Latin words — officium and scrinium,
have not been described in detail in the literature on the subject.
These issues will be discussed extensively at the beginning of this
chapter. We can say that only the terms officia maxima and principes officiorum are confirmed in the sources from the Principate period in the context of imperial central administration. In this period Tacitus wrote about ministeria principatus. By contrast, the term officia palatina was used to describe court offices of the early Roman Empire by historiographers of the late Roman Empire. This book aims to represent the complexity of research issues related to imperial secretariats. The variety of topics presented in the first chapter stems from the methodology of historical research on Roman imperial administration. Although the history of the a memoria office has a form of case study, general observations made in the book could be useful for a scholar who intends to study other so far not described imperial court offices of the Principate.
A new epigraphic dedication to Mercurius Augustus, from Mustis (El Krib, Tunisia), was executed post mortem by the son of a Roman citizen, registered in the tribe Quirina, probably from Sicca Veneria (El Kef), mentions the offering of an unspecified munus.
The involvement of emperors in boundary disputes in the Principate is unclear in many cases. Even less well understood are their judicial verdicts on such matters. The direct, judicial involvement of emperors in boundary matters was sporadic and occurred only in disputes between different provinces or jurisdictions, or when there was no governor holding jurisdiction, or such was ineffective. The cippus published in 2021 by H. Abid encourages us to look anew at the reasons and circumstances behind Antoninus Pius’ delivery of a verdict (sententia) in the establishment of the official boundary description (determinatio) for the public territory of Mustis (Municipium Iulium Aurelium Mustitanum) in Africa Proconsularis. I conclude that the intervention was determined by formal factors and the special status of that municipium.
administratif, Tunis: Latrach Edition, 2017, 543 pp.
aspects of the inscription on the Epistula ad Saepinum (CIL IX 2438 =
FIRA I2 61), which dates back to 169–172 AD. Both are connected with the operations of the officium a rationibus, the chief Roman office handling imperial finances. I use the Saepinum inscription to discuss the administrative activity of this office and the controversies connected with the administrative status of the imperial freedman Cosmus. In my opinion Cosmus was the head of the a rationibus office, not a lower-rank officer.