Talk:Roman diocese/Saved refs from rev 871592599

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saved refs from rev 871592599[edit]

This is a subpage of Talk:Roman diocese intended to be used as a resource for developing the article after a large rollback.

In looking ahead to a new, streamlined version of the article, we may wish to have a list of sources and references from an earlier version at our disposal. These are preserved in the history of the article, of course, but extracting them as a list and placing them here makes access easier.

in numerical order[edit]

References in revision 871592599 by DuckeggAlex (talk · contribs) of 04:09, December 2, 2018, in numerical order:

These are in numerical order: the same order they appear in that version of the article:

numerical list of refs in rev 871592599
References
  1. <ref>{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Cicero |display=Cicero § Marcus Tullius Cicero |volume=6 |page=353 |first=Albert Curtis |last=Clark}}</ref>
  2. <ref>Cambridge Ancient History, XII, The Crisis of Empire, Second Edition, p. 161, ISBN 978-0-521-30199-2</ref>
  3. <ref>R. Malcolm Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, 2006, p. 261–262, ISBN 978-0-8078-3038-3</ref>
  4. <ref>Pat Southern and Karen R Dixon, The Late Roman Army, 1996, p. 59 {{ISBN|0-300-06843-3}</ref>
  5. <ref>Roland Delmaire, Les largesses sacrees et res privata, 1989, pp. 171–205</ref>
  6. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit pp. 206–209; also A.H.M Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 411-437 ISBN 0-8018-3285-3 - for the SL and RP </ref>
  7. <ref>The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, English Edition, 2016, p. 92 note 23 </ref>
  8. <ref>Constantin Zuckermann, "Sur la Liste de Verone...", Travaux et Memoires 14 Melanges Gilbert Dagron, 2002, pp. 618–637</ref>
  9. <ref>K. L. Noetlichs, 'Zur Entshehung der Diozesen als Mittelinstanz des spatromischen Verwaltungssystems,' Historia 31, 1982 p. 75 quoting the French historian Cuq </ref>
  10. <ref>Zuckerman, op. cit. pp. 636-637</ref>
  11. <ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 40-41</ref>
  12. <ref>William G. Sinnigen, 'The Vicarius Urbis Romae and the Urban Prefecture,' Historia, vol 8, No. 1 1959 p. 98 </ref>
  13. <ref>Kelly op. cit. p. 185; cf. CTh. 11, 30, 9 = CJ 7, 62,16 (321); CJ 1, 54, 6, 2; CTh. 1, 15, 7 (377); Cledonius, “Tu autem vicarius dixeris et tua privigelia non reliquia, quando propria est jurisdictio quae a principe datur. Habes enim cum praefectis aliquam portionem,” 6, 15; Pallu de Lessert op. cit. p. 10 cites the Theodosian Code and Cassiodorus. He states the authority of the vicars derives from the emperor’s supreme judicial power and not from the prefects,”La vicaire jouit en ces matieres d’une competence proper; il n’est pas un delegue du prefet du pretoire;” “representatives with equal rights” Noetlichs, op. cit. p. 74 </ref>
  14. <ref>Danielle, Slootjes, The Governor and His Subjects in the Later Roman Empire, 2006, p. 25</ref>
  15. <ref>J-M Carrie et D. Feissel, Les gouverneurs dans l'antiquite tardive,' Antiquite Tardive, 2002 </ref>
  16. <ref>Slootjes, pp. 79–104; Jones. op. cit. p. 399-400, on gubernatorial extortion and under-the-table deals, although all by no means were corrupt</ref>
  17. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 197, 204, 245 </ref>
  18. <ref>Lallemand, Jacqueline, L’aministration civile de l’Egypte de l’avenement de Diocletian a la creation du diocese (284-382) 1964, p. 86 </ref>
  19. <ref>Delmaire, p. 244–245</ref>
  20. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991 </ref>
  21. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 204–205, 244–245</ref>
  22. <ref>Delmaire, p. 204 </ref>
  23. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991</ref>
  24. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991 </ref>
  25. <ref>Jones, LRE op. cit. p. 485-487</ref>
  26. <ref>Franks, op. cit. pp. 990-992</ref>
  27. <ref>by 337 according to Jacek Wiewiorowksi, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016, pp. 62-73 </ref>
  28. <ref>Delmaire op. cit. p. 171; Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 55, note 71 quoting CTh. 2, 26, 1 of 330 </ref>
  29. <ref>L. Edward Alexander Franks, Review of Wiewiorowski, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2016, Band 109, Heft 2, 992 </ref>
  30. <ref>A.H.M. Jones, LRE, 1964, p. 207–208 for pace of commutation; pp. 401-410 'Centralisation' and the rise of the prefects; for and overview of administrative developments, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Law and Society,' Christopher Kelly, p. 184–204, The Cambridge Ancient History, XIII, The Late Empire A.D. 337-425, 'Emperors, government and bureaucracy,' pp. 138–184, Christopher Kelly; and Peter Heather, 'Senators and senates,' 'Institutional change,' p. 188–189, David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 180-395, 1994, pp. 367-372 </ref>
  31. <ref>Kelly, Christopher (2006). "Bureaucracy and Government". Ed. Lenski, Noel. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-52157-4; Morrison, Cécile, ed. (2007), Le Monde byzantin, tome 1: L'Empire romain d'Orient, 330-641 (in Greek), Athens: Polis Editions. ISBN 978-213-0595595; Timothy Barnes, Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Roman Empire, 2011, pp. 293–298 </ref>
  32. <ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 301 </ref>
  33. <ref>Denis Feissel, 'Vicaires et proconsuls d'asie du iv au v siècle, Antiquite Tardive 6, 1998, pp. 103–104; the rise of the prefecture in the last decades of the 4th century that contributed to the decline of the Treasury and the Crown Estates after a 60-year struggle, Roland Delmaire, Les Largesses sacrees et res private, 1989 vols I & II, pp. 703–714 </ref>
  34. <ref>Wiewiorowski puts forth this thesis which sees the emperors' and highest officials' loss of confidence in the judiciary of the vicars in the very last years of the 4th century so they were mere embellishments after first few decades of the 5th, pp. 292–293, p 299 but he does not examine the fiscal role of the vicar; Franks for a review of first and appeal authority of vicars., ibid, pp. 91-93; for a different and favorable assessment of Constantine's expedited appellate system, John Noel Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, Law, Communication and Control, 2012; and Franks, op. cit. p. 991 suggests the increase in the importance of the vicars' fiscal role post-325 and the various procedural and regulatory means of control available to vicars over the administration counterbalanced any defects on the judicial side - vicars were in their 'salad days' into the early decades of the 5th century); or inability to control governors and territories too large to manage, Noetlichs, 'Zur Entstehung der Diocese als Mittelinstanz des Spatantiken Verwaltungssystem,' Historia 31: 70-81, 1982 </ref>
  35. <ref>Wiewiorowski, op.cit. pp. 298-303 </ref>
  36. <ref>Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, Roger Rees, 2004, pp. 22–23, 27, 90; "working steadily towards its intended goal; or perhaps it suggests a rather arbitrary series of makeshift reactions"..."Whether or not there was nay coherent political philosophy, or indeed government collegiality, are controversial questions," p. 39 </ref>
  37. <ref>Cam Grey, Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside, 2011 pp. 185, 189, 195–196</ref>
  38. <ref>R. Mitthof, Annona Militaris: Die Heresvorsorgung im spatantiken Aegypten, 2001, pp. 276–287; the classic work is, D. van Berchem, L'anonne militaire, Memoires de la Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France, X, 117–20</ref>
  39. <ref>CAH XII, p. 123</ref>
  40. <ref>For a review of Diocletian's measures, CAH XII, The Crisis of Empire 193-337; Roger Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 2004; Alan Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 999; David Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 180-395, 2004; Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine from Severus to Constantine.</ref>
  41. <ref>Jones. op. cit. p. 410</ref>
  42. <ref>Jones pp. 725. 732, 749; CAH XII, pp. 365-366.</ref>
  43. <ref>Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, 1948, p. 592</ref>
  44. <ref>Crete was detached in 294 and joined to Achaia</ref>
  45. <ref>Delmaire, R. Les largesses sacrees et res private, Parte I, 1989, pp. 171, 181–182</ref>
  46. <ref>CAH XII, Alan K. Bowman, 'Egypt from Septimius Severus to the Death of Constantine', p. 320</ref>
  47. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 181</ref>
  48. <ref>Delmaire, pp. 183–185; pp. 171–204 on the regional-level fiscal officials</ref>
  49. <ref>more specifically the lands leased were the Res Privata; those under direct imperial management were called the patrimonium</ref>
  50. <ref>A.H. M. Jones, LRE, Vol. II, 1964 pp. 1414–1416; P.S. Barnwell, Emperors, Prefects and Kings, The Roman West, 395-565, 1992, p. 31</ref>
  51. <ref>C. E. King, The Sacrae Largitiones: Revenues, Expenditure and the Production of Coin, BAR International Seris, 1980, pp. 141–173</ref>
  52. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. </ref>
  53. <ref>Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350–425, 1996, pp. 118–125</ref>
  54. <ref>Noel Lenski, Failure of Empire, Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century, 2002, pp. 264-307</ref>
  55. <ref>Christopher Kelly 'Law and Society,' Noel Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, p. 191; 184–192 for a general description of administration changes in the years 284–337</ref>
  56. <ref>P.S. Barnwell, Emperors, Prefects and Kings, The Roman West, pp. 703-714; Jones, Later Roman History, pp. 279–283</ref>
  57. <ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 445, 460-462</ref>
  58. <ref>Jones, p. 412</ref>
  59. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 197. 204, 245</ref>
  60. <ref>CTh. 11, 30, 28 of 359 refers to an earlier lost law; 14 of 327 and 18 of 329</ref>
  61. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 208–209, 213</ref>
  62. <ref>Delmaire, pp. 204–205</ref>
  63. <ref>CTh. 1, 15, 7 378</ref>
  64. <ref>Delmaire p, 171; Wiewieorowski, op. cit. p. 55, note 71 quoting CTh. 2, 26, 1 of 330</ref>
  65. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 413, Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 703–14</ref>
  66. <ref name="Jones414">Jones. op. cit. p. 414</ref>
  67. <ref name="Jones414"/> Eventually the Res Privata fell under the power of the Palace senior chamberlain.<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 710-714</ref>
  68. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 64-65, 68</ref>
  69. <ref>A. Giardina, Aspetti della burocrzia nel basso imperio, 1977 pp. 59-60</ref>
  70. <ref name="Jones414"/>
  71. <ref name="Jones414"/>
  72. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 713-714</ref>
  73. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 371</ref>
  74. <ref>Kelly, op. cit. pp. 188–190 for these changes; cf. David D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, pp. 71–172</ref>
  75. <ref>dating Delmaire, op. cit. p. 703 </ref>
  76. <ref>Jones. op. cit. p 411</ref>
  77. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 163, 199, 204–205, 243–244 </ref>
  78. <ref>Southern, op. cit. p. 270 </ref>
  79. <ref>> Jones, op. cit. p. 405)</ref>
  80. <ref>Kelly, op. cit. p. 191 </ref>
  81. <ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 243 </ref>
  82. <ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 487-489 </ref>
  83. <ref>Jones, p. 389</ref>
  84. <ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 490-491 </ref>
  85. <ref>Franks, op. cit. pp. 992 </ref>
  86. <ref>Kelly, op. cit. p. 186 </ref>
  87. <ref>Joachim Migl, Die Ordnung der Amter, Pratorianer und Vikariat in der Regionsverwaltung des Romishcen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentiischen Dynastie, 1994; for the view that they correspond to Constantine's dynastic ambitions, Timothy Barnes, Constantine, Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, 2011, for the thesis the prefectures reflect emperors' dynastic concerns less than administration and administrative growth in the 340s, pp. 292–298; Malcom Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, 2006, pp. 261–262 dates the rise of prefectures post-364 stating "the Constantinan Dynasty, favored, on the one hand, a regionally-based centralism, and on the other, the gradual separation of the regions," pp. 262–263; P. Porena, Le origini della prefettura del pretorio tardoantica, 2003, believes the prefectures came into full territorial and administrative effect between 325 and 330</ref>
  88. <ref>A. H. M. Jones, LRE, 1964, p. 207–208 for pace of commutation; pp. 401-410 'Centralisation' and the rise of the prefects; for and overview of administrative developments, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Law and Society,' Christopher Kelly, p. 184–204, The Cambridge Ancient History, XIII, The Late Empire A.D. 337-425, 'Emperors, government and bureaucracy,' pp. 138–184, Christopher Kelly; and Peter Heather, 'Senators and senates,' 'Institutional change,' p. 188–189, David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 180-395, 1994, pp. 367–372</ref>
  89. <ref>R. Delmaire, Les largesses sacrees et res privata, L'aerarium imperial et son administration du IV au VI siècle, 1989, pp.703–714; M.F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, 300–1450 A.D. 1985</ref>
  90. <ref>Zuckermann, op. cit. pp. 627, 636</ref>
  91. <ref>D. Bowder, The Age of Constantine, 1978, p. 37</ref>
  92. <ref>Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, 1982, p. 110 </ref>
  93. <ref>Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, 2001 p. 164–165</ref>
  94. <ref>Southern, op. cit. 165</ref>
  95. <ref>Richard Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire, 1994 pp. 33-46; Kenneth W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 1996, pp. 212–228; Garnsey, Peter & Whittiker, C.R., CAH XIII, p. 316, "The whole bureaucratic machinery seems to have been intended to maximize efficiencies to ensure that the revenues from private and state land were collected and channel in accordance with government policies. The impression given in the legal codes is that the interests of the state were primarily fiscal," ibid </ref>
  96. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 373</ref>
  97. <ref>B. Palme, 'Die Officia der Statthalter in der spatantike,' Antiquite Tardive 7, 1999, pp. 97-98</ref>
  98. <ref>Jones, p. 373</ref>
  99. <ref>The Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Bureaucracy and Government,' Christopher Kelly; Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, 2004, on "the organizing principles of irregularity," pp. 208–209 i.e. overlapping adminsitrations; David. S Potter, The Empire at Bay, 180-395, pp.367–377; Cambridge Ancient History, volume XII, pp.170–183 </ref>
  100. <ref>Kelly op. cit. p. 145;'The impression conveyed in the legal codes is that the interests of the state were primarily fiscal"..."In general, the concerns of the government were narrow," Peter Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker, CAH XIII, p. 316 </ref>
  101. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 457</ref>
  102. <ref>CAH XII, p. 181, quoting Delmaire, p. 181, 'The Emperor and his new Administration,' Elio LoCascio </ref>
  103. <ref>Stephen Williams p.110</ref>
  104. <ref>Franks op. cit. p. 991</ref>
  105. <ref>Wiewiorowski analyzes the judicial in detail pp. 109–235 and lists 70 laws deal with "more or less important criminal and civil cases, lawsuits related to tax obligations, or issues concerning religion"..."criminal law 9, family law and affairs 9, protection of property 6, and inheritance 5," op. cit. pp. 206–214, 294-95 4 laws he examines deal with tax matters; Franks identifies 47 "on a broad spectrum of fiscal matters" of which 32 suggest major vicariate roles in a wide range of budgetary and fiscal policy oversight, liturgies, tax collection supervision (8), and 2 in direct intervention (replacement of governors' supervision), op. cit. p. 1991; the remainder deal with imperial staff, guilds, municipalities, building construction and repairs and a miscellany of other government concerns </ref>
  106. <ref>Lenski, op. cit. p. 267</ref>
  107. <ref>Franks, p. 991</ref>
  108. <ref>R. Malcolm Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, pp. 261–262</ref>
  109. <ref>Jacek Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 72</ref>
  110. <ref>cf. for an overview, Wiewiorowski, op. cit. English Edition, 2016, pp. 52–74; A. H. M. Jones, LRE pp. 104–105; Clemence, Dupont, Constantin et Les Dioceses,' Studi in Onore de. G. Donatuti, vol. 3, 1973, pp. 309–336</ref>
  111. <ref>Jones, LRE, pp. 128, 449-452, 457, 586</ref>
  112. <ref>Giardina, Andrea, Aspetti della burocrazia nel basso imperio, 1977, pp. 54-68</ref>
  113. <ref>M.F. Hendy, Economy and State in Late Rome and Early Byzantium, 1989, pp. 373-379</ref>
  114. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 481-482 </ref>
  115. <ref>Jones op. cit. p. 47) and "duplicated" the work of prefects (Wieworowski, op. cit. p. 301</ref>
  116. <ref>Franks, op. cit. pp. 990-991; Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 88 does not examine the relationship</ref>
  117. <ref>J.C. Mann, 'Duces and Comites in the Fourth Century,' in D.D. Johnston (ed.) The Saxon Shore (C.B.A Research Report 18) 1977, 11–15</ref>
  118. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 481-482</ref>
  119. <ref>Jones, op. cit. 377; cf. Kelly Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 186–231, "...blurred spectrum of responsibilities;" "...waste of time caused by duplication, cross-checking, the transfer of personnel, the short tenure of posts, the uncertainties of appointment and advancement, and the arbitrary division of tasks..." p. 229; T. F. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society: Roman-Byzantine Bureaucracies viewed from Within, 1971</ref>
  120. <ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 377</ref>
  121. <ref>Pallu de Lessert, Vicaires et Comdtes D'Afrique: De Diocletien A L'Invasion Vandale, 1892, pp. 74-74 believes elevation to senatorial rank occurred around 320, “Je crois avoir montre, dans l’introduction, contrairement a l’opinion commune, que cette mesure parait remontier a l’annee 320 environ;” Delmaire, op. cit. p. 39 “depuis” from CIL 1407 and at the latest in 344 CTh. 8, 10 2</ref>
  122. <ref>Jones p. 481-83; Wiewiorowksi, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016 p. 41; for an argument that the competencies were not sorted out until the mid-4th century, Joachim Migl Die Ordnung der Amter, Pratorianer und Vikariat in Der Regionalverwaltung des Romischen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentinischen Dynastie, 1994, pp. 64-65, 67; Seston, Diocletian et la tetrarchie, 1946, pp. 339; on the uncertainty of the vicars' degree of subordination in judicial matters to prefects, Christopher Kelly, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Law and Society,' Christopher Kelly, p. 185</ref>
  123. <ref>Jones, op. cit. 485-486</ref>
  124. <ref>John Noel Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, 2012 p. 248–258; Wiewiorowski op. cit. for a detailed analysis of the laws and other documents on the judicial role of vicars passim and p. 293 for his thesis that the vicars' poorly defined judicial authority was fatal to their success</ref>
  125. <ref>Jones, op. cit. 496</ref>
  126. <ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 293</ref>
  127. <ref>William G. Sinnigen, 'The Vicarius Urbis Romae and the Urban Prefecture,' Historia, vol 8, No. 1 1959 p. 98, "technically independent"; "the degree of subordination of these officials to the Praetorian Prefects, at least in some judicial matters is also uncertain" (Kelly op. cit. p. 185</ref>
  128. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 990</ref>
  129. <ref>Slootjes, op. cit. p. 47; Potter, op. cit. p. 371; Bransbourg, op. cit. p. 274; Southern, op. cit. p. 165; John Haldon who is of the opinion that the dioceses were primarily fiscal in nature, warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 1999, p. 8; Liebeschuetz, Antioch, City and Imperial Administration, 1972, p. 110 is of the opinion the count of the Orient duties were mainly judicial</ref>
  130. <ref>Jones op. cit. p. 451 and Williams op. cit. p. 110</ref>
  131. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 992</ref>
  132. <ref>Gilles Bransbourg, 'Fiscalite imperial et finances municipals au iv siècle,' Antiquite Tardive 6, 2008, pp. 255–296; Gaudemet p. 197–205 suggested the fiscal were the "main object of activities of diocesan vicars," 'Les constitutions au vicaire Dracontius,' Melanges d'histoire ancienne offerts a W. Seston from Wiewioroski, op. cit. p 174</ref>
  133. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991</ref>
  134. <ref>Sinnigen, op. cit. 100–109</ref>
  135. <ref>Geoffrey Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, 980, pp. 199–201</ref>
  136. <ref>Morosi, Rpberto, 'Il princeps officii e la scola agentum in rebus,' Humanitas, 31/32, 1979/80, pp. 23-70</ref>
  137. <ref>Gianfranco Purpura, 'I curiosi e la schola agentum in rebus,' Annali del Seminario Giuridico della universita di Palermo, 34, 1973, pp. 165–273</ref>
  138. <ref>Andrea Giardina, op. cit. pp. 58-64</ref>
  139. <ref>Giardina, op. cit. p. 64</ref>
  140. <ref>A. Piganiol, L'Empire chretien (325-395), 1947, p. 321</ref>
  141. <ref>B. Palme, 'Die Officia der Statthalter in der spatantike,' Antiquite Tardive 7, 1999, pp. 108</ref>
  142. <ref>W. G. Sinnigen, Three Administrative Changes attributed to Constantius II, AJP, 83, 1962, pp.369–383</ref>
  143. <ref>R.M. Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, pp. 261–262</ref>
  144. <ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 288-301 sees signs of judicial decline in the 360s with more pronounced tilt at the very end of the 4th century; Franks op. cit. passim sees the first signs of decline at the end of the century due to centralization with a transition plateau to 425, slight decline picking up post-450; Sinnigen, op. cit. pp. 108–109; Jones op. cit. 280–283 for the post-450 decline but who offers only a few general remarks about vicars</ref>
  145. <ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 74</ref>
  146. <ref>M. Kulikowski, 'The Career of the 'comes Hispaniarum' Asterius, Phoenix 53, pp. 123–141</ref>
  147. <ref>S. Barnwell, Emperor, Prefects & Kings, The Roman West 395-565, 1992 p. 69</ref>
  148. <ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 992</ref>
  149. <ref>Jones op. cit. pp. 280–283</ref>
  150. <ref>P. S. Barnwell, pp. 163–164, p. 223 notes. 62–66</ref>
  151. <ref>Wiewiorowski, pp. 299–301</ref>
  152. <ref>Jones op. cit. pp. 280–292; Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 299–301; Delmaire, op. cit, pp. 703-714; Franks, p. 992</ref>
  153. <ref>For discussions of vicars' judicial powers, Jacek Wiewiorowski, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016; John Noel Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, 2016; in general, Christopher Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, 2004 pp.208–214; A.H.M. Jones, later Roman Empire, 1964, pp. 450–462 (financial), 481–486 (judicial), decline of dioceses pp. 280–283; P.S. Barnwell, Emperor, Prefects & Kings, The Roman West, 395-565 for administrative history of the period; for an assessment which stresses the importance of the diocesan fiscal responsibilities, Franks, op. cit. pp. 989–992 and Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 17, 39, 55, 83, 89, 174–175 no 2 whose study mentions, p. 55, but does not include an examination of the relationship between vicars, the SL and RP</ref>
  154. <ref>Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 1993, p. 62 on Diocletian's municipalization of Egypt's lower administration; and quoting Bowman, 'The Town Councils of Roman Egypt' Cam.Stud.Pap. 1, who says this "policy of amateurism was a failure, in the sense that it combined ineffectiveness and oppression"</ref>
  155. <ref>A.H.M. Jones, LRE p. 606</ref>
Sources

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Rome § History" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 23 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 655–684.

in alphabetical order[edit]

References in revision 871592599 by DuckeggAlex (talk · contribs) of 04:09, December 2, 2018, in alphabetical order:

alphabetical list of refs in rev 871592599

Note: this is not the original order of references from the article. Use of ibid may be highly misleading.


<ref name="Jones414"/>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 710-714</ref>
<ref name="Jones414"/> T
<ref name="Jones414"/>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 713-714</ref>
<ref name="Jones414">Jones. op. cit. p. 414</ref>
<ref>{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Cicero |display=Cicero § Marcus Tullius Cicero |volume=6 |page=353 |first=Albert Curtis |last=Clark}}</ref>
<ref> Jones, op. cit. p. 405)</ref>
<ref>A. Giardina, Aspetti della burocrzia nel basso imperio, 1977 pp. 59-60</ref>
<ref>A. H. M. Jones, LRE, 1964, p. 207–208 for pace of commutation; pp. 401-410 'Centralisation' and the rise of the prefects; for and overview of administrative developments, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Law and Society,' Christopher Kelly, p. 184–204, The Cambridge Ancient History, XIII, The Late Empire A.D. 337-425, 'Emperors, government and bureaucracy,' pp. 138–184, Christopher Kelly; and Peter Heather, 'Senators and senates,' 'Institutional change,' p. 188–189, David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 180-395, 1994, pp. 367–372</ref>
<ref>A. Piganiol, L'Empire chretien (325-395), 1947, p. 321</ref>
<ref>A.H. M. Jones, LRE, Vol. II, 1964 pp. 1414–1416; P.S. Barnwell, Emperors, Prefects and Kings, The Roman West, 395-565, 1992, p. 31</ref>
<ref>A.H.M. Jones, LRE p. 606</ref>
<ref>A.H.M. Jones, LRE, 1964, p. 207–208 for pace of commutation; pp. 401-410 'Centralisation' and the rise of the prefects; for and overview of administrative developments, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Law and Society,' Christopher Kelly, p. 184–204, The Cambridge Ancient History, XIII, The Late Empire A.D. 337-425, 'Emperors, government and bureaucracy,' pp. 138–184, Christopher Kelly; and Peter Heather, 'Senators and senates,' 'Institutional change,' p. 188–189, David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 180-395, 1994, pp. 367-372 </ref>
<ref>Andrea Giardina, op. cit. pp. 58-64</ref>
<ref>B. Palme, 'Die Officia der Statthalter in der spatantike,' Antiquite Tardive 7, 1999, pp. 108</ref>
<ref>B. Palme, 'Die Officia der Statthalter in der spatantike,' Antiquite Tardive 7, 1999, pp. 97-98</ref>
<ref>by 337 according to Jacek Wiewiorowksi, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016, pp. 62-73 </ref>
<ref>C. E. King, The Sacrae Largitiones: Revenues, Expenditure and the Production of Coin, BAR International Seris, 1980, pp. 141–173</ref>
<ref>CAH XII, Alan K. Bowman, 'Egypt from Septimius Severus to the Death of Constantine', p. 320</ref>
<ref>CAH XII, p. 123</ref>
<ref>CAH XII, p. 181, quoting Delmaire, p. 181, 'The Emperor and his new Administration,' Elio LoCascio </ref>
<ref>Cam Grey, Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside, 2011 pp. 185, 189, 195–196</ref>
<ref>Cambridge Ancient History, XII, The Crisis of Empire, Second Edition, p. 161, ISBN 978-0-521-30199-2</ref>
<ref>cf. for an overview, Wiewiorowski, op. cit. English Edition, 2016, pp. 52–74; A. H. M. Jones, LRE pp. 104–105; Clemence, Dupont, Constantin et Les Dioceses,' Studi in Onore de. G. Donatuti, vol. 3, 1973, pp. 309–336</ref>
<ref>Christopher Kelly 'Law and Society,' Noel Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, p. 191; 184–192 for a general description of administration changes in the years 284–337</ref>
<ref>Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, 1948, p. 592</ref>
<ref>Constantin Zuckermann, "Sur la Liste de Verone...", Travaux et Memoires 14 Melanges Gilbert Dagron, 2002, pp. 618–637</ref>
<ref>Crete was detached in 294 and joined to Achaia</ref>
<ref>CTh. 1, 15, 7 378</ref>
<ref>CTh. 11, 30, 28 of 359 refers to an earlier lost law; 14 of 327 and 18 of 329</ref>
<ref>D. Bowder, The Age of Constantine, 1978, p. 37</ref>
<ref>Danielle, Slootjes, The Governor and His Subjects in the Later Roman Empire, 2006, p. 25</ref>
<ref>dating Delmaire, op. cit. p. 703 </ref>
<ref>Delmaire op. cit. p. 171; Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 55, note 71 quoting CTh. 2, 26, 1 of 330 </ref>
<ref>Delmaire p, 171; Wiewieorowski, op. cit. p. 55, note 71 quoting CTh. 2, 26, 1 of 330</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit pp. 206–209; also A.H.M Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 411-437 ISBN 0-8018-3285-3 - for the SL and RP </ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 163, 199, 204–205, 243–244 </ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 181</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 197. 204, 245</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 204–205, 244–245</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. p. 243 </ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. </ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 197, 204, 245 </ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 208–209, 213</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 64-65, 68</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, p. 204 </ref>
<ref>Delmaire, p. 244–245</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, pp. 183–185; pp. 171–204 on the regional-level fiscal officials</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, pp. 204–205</ref>
<ref>Delmaire, R. Les largesses sacrees et res private, Parte I, 1989, pp. 171, 181–182</ref>
<ref>Denis Feissel, 'Vicaires et proconsuls d'asie du iv au v siècle, Antiquite Tardive 6, 1998, pp. 103–104; the rise of the prefecture in the last decades of the 4th century that contributed to the decline of the Treasury and the Crown Estates after a 60-year struggle, Roland Delmaire, Les Largesses sacrees et res private, 1989 vols I & II, pp. 703–714 </ref>
<ref>Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, Roger Rees, 2004, pp. 22–23, 27, 90; "working steadily towards its intended goal; or perhaps it suggests a rather arbitrary series of makeshift reactions"..."Whether or not there was nay coherent political philosophy, or indeed government collegiality, are controversial questions," p. 39 </ref>
<ref>For a review of Diocletian's measures, CAH XII, The Crisis of Empire 193-337; Roger Rees, Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, 2004; Alan Watson, Aurelian and the Third Century, 999; David Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 180-395, 2004; Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine from Severus to Constantine.</ref>
<ref>For discussions of vicars' judicial powers, Jacek Wiewiorowski, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016; John Noel Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, 2016; in general, Christopher Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, 2004 pp.208–214; A.H.M. Jones, later Roman Empire, 1964, pp. 450–462 (financial), 481–486 (judicial), decline of dioceses pp. 280–283; P.S. Barnwell, Emperor, Prefects & Kings, The Roman West, 395-565 for administrative history of the period; for an assessment which stresses the importance of the diocesan fiscal responsibilities, Franks, op. cit. pp. 989–992 and Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 17, 39, 55, 83, 89, 174–175 no 2 whose study mentions, p. 55, but does not include an examination of the relationship between vicars, the SL and RP</ref>
<ref>Franks op. cit. p. 991</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 990</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991 </ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991 </ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 991</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 992</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. p. 992</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. pp. 990-991; Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 88 does not examine the relationship</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. pp. 990-992</ref>
<ref>Franks, op. cit. pp. 992 </ref>
<ref>Franks, p. 991</ref>
<ref>Geoffrey Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, 980, pp. 199–201</ref>
<ref>Gianfranco Purpura, 'I curiosi e la schola agentum in rebus,' Annali del Seminario Giuridico della universita di Palermo, 34, 1973, pp. 165–273</ref>
<ref>Giardina, Andrea, Aspetti della burocrazia nel basso imperio, 1977, pp. 54-68</ref>
<ref>Giardina, op. cit. p. 64</ref>
<ref>Gilles Bransbourg, 'Fiscalite imperial et finances municipals au iv siècle,' Antiquite Tardive 6, 2008, pp. 255–296; Gaudemet p. 197–205 suggested the fiscal were the "main object of activities of diocesan vicars," 'Les constitutions au vicaire Dracontius,' Melanges d'histoire ancienne offerts a W. Seston from Wiewioroski, op. cit. p 174</ref>
<ref>Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350–425, 1996, pp. 118–125</ref>
<ref>J.C. Mann, 'Duces and Comites in the Fourth Century,' in D.D. Johnston (ed.) The Saxon Shore (C.B.A Research Report 18) 1977, 11–15</ref>
<ref>Jacek Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 72</ref>
<ref>J-M Carrie et D. Feissel, Les gouverneurs dans l'antiquite tardive,' Antiquite Tardive, 2002 </ref>
<ref>Joachim Migl, Die Ordnung der Amter, Pratorianer und Vikariat in der Regionsverwaltung des Romishcen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentiischen Dynastie, 1994; for the view that they correspond to Constantine's dynastic ambitions, Timothy Barnes, Constantine, Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, 2011, for the thesis the prefectures reflect emperors' dynastic concerns less than administration and administrative growth in the 340s, pp. 292–298; Malcom Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, 2006, pp. 261–262 dates the rise of prefectures post-364 stating "the Constantinan Dynasty, favored, on the one hand, a regionally-based centralism, and on the other, the gradual separation of the regions," pp. 262–263; P. Porena, Le origini della prefettura del pretorio tardoantica, 2003, believes the prefectures came into full territorial and administrative effect between 325 and 330</ref>
<ref>John Noel Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, 2012 p. 248–258; Wiewiorowski op. cit. for a detailed analysis of the laws and other documents on the judicial role of vicars passim and p. 293 for his thesis that the vicars' poorly defined judicial authority was fatal to their success</ref>
<ref>Jones op. cit. p. 451 and Williams op. cit. p. 110</ref>
<ref>Jones op. cit. p. 47) and "duplicated" the work of prefects (Wieworowski, op. cit. p. 301</ref>
<ref>Jones op. cit. pp. 280–283</ref>
<ref>Jones op. cit. pp. 280–292; Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 299–301; Delmaire, op. cit, pp. 703-714; Franks, p. 992</ref>
<ref>Jones p. 481-83; Wiewiorowksi, The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, 2016 p. 41; for an argument that the competencies were not sorted out until the mid-4th century, Joachim Migl Die Ordnung der Amter, Pratorianer und Vikariat in Der Regionalverwaltung des Romischen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentinischen Dynastie, 1994, pp. 64-65, 67; Seston, Diocletian et la tetrarchie, 1946, pp. 339; on the uncertainty of the vicars' degree of subordination in judicial matters to prefects, Christopher Kelly, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Law and Society,' Christopher Kelly, p. 185</ref>
<ref>Jones pp. 725. 732, 749; CAH XII, pp. 365-366.</ref>
<ref>Jones, LRE op. cit. p. 485-487</ref>
<ref>Jones, LRE, pp. 128, 449-452, 457, 586</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. 377; cf. Kelly Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 186–231, "...blurred spectrum of responsibilities;" "...waste of time caused by duplication, cross-checking, the transfer of personnel, the short tenure of posts, the uncertainties of appointment and advancement, and the arbitrary division of tasks..." p. 229; T. F. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society: Roman-Byzantine Bureaucracies viewed from Within, 1971</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. 485-486</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. 496</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 371</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 373</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 377</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 413, Delmaire, op. cit. pp. 703–14</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 457</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 481-482 </ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. p. 481-482</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 293</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 445, 460-462</ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 487-489 </ref>
<ref>Jones, op. cit. pp. 490-491 </ref>
<ref>Jones, p. 373</ref>
<ref>Jones, p. 389</ref>
<ref>Jones, p. 412</ref>
<ref>Jones. op. cit. p 411</ref>
<ref>Jones. op. cit. p. 410</ref>
<ref>K. L. Noetlichs, 'Zur Entshehung der Diozesen als Mittelinstanz des spatromischen Verwaltungssystems,' Historia 31, 1982 p. 75 quoting the French historian Cuq </ref>
<ref>Kelly op. cit. p. 145;'The impression conveyed in the legal codes is that the interests of the state were primarily fiscal"..."In general, the concerns of the government were narrow," Peter Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker, CAH XIII, p. 316 </ref>
<ref>Kelly op. cit. p. 185; cf. CTh. 11, 30, 9 = CJ 7, 62,16 (321); CJ 1, 54, 6, 2; CTh. 1, 15, 7 (377); Cledonius, “Tu autem vicarius dixeris et tua privigelia non reliquia, quando propria est jurisdictio quae a principe datur. Habes enim cum praefectis aliquam portionem,” 6, 15; Pallu de Lessert op. cit. p. 10 cites the Theodosian Code and Cassiodorus. He states the authority of the vicars derives from the emperor’s supreme judicial power and not from the prefects,”La vicaire jouit en ces matieres d’une competence proper; il n’est pas un delegue du prefet du pretoire;” “representatives with equal rights” Noetlichs, op. cit. p. 74 </ref>
<ref>Kelly, Christopher (2006). "Bureaucracy and Government". Ed. Lenski, Noel. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-52157-4; Morrison, Cécile, ed. (2007), Le Monde byzantin, tome 1: L'Empire romain d'Orient, 330-641 (in Greek), Athens: Polis Editions. ISBN 978-213-0595595; Timothy Barnes, Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Roman Empire, 2011, pp. 293–298 </ref>
<ref>Kelly, op. cit. p. 186 </ref>
<ref>Kelly, op. cit. p. 191 </ref>
<ref>Kelly, op. cit. pp. 188–190 for these changes; cf. David D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, pp. 71–172</ref>
<ref>L. Edward Alexander Franks, Review of Wiewiorowski, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2016, Band 109, Heft 2, 992 </ref>
<ref>Lallemand, Jacqueline, L’aministration civile de l’Egypte de l’avenement de Diocletian a la creation du diocese (284-382) 1964, p. 86 </ref>
<ref>Lenski, op. cit. p. 267</ref>
<ref>M. Kulikowski, 'The Career of the 'comes Hispaniarum' Asterius, Phoenix 53, pp. 123–141</ref>
<ref>M.F. Hendy, Economy and State in Late Rome and Early Byzantium, 1989, pp. 373-379</ref>
<ref>more specifically the lands leased were the Res Privata; those under direct imperial management were called the patrimonium</ref>
<ref>Morosi, Rpberto, 'Il princeps officii e la scola agentum in rebus,' Humanitas, 31/32, 1979/80, pp. 23-70</ref>
<ref>Noel Lenski, Failure of Empire, Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century, 2002, pp. 264-307</ref>
<ref>P. S. Barnwell, pp. 163–164, p. 223 notes. 62–66</ref>
<ref>P.S. Barnwell, Emperors, Prefects and Kings, The Roman West, pp. 703-714; Jones, Later Roman History, pp. 279–283</ref>
<ref>Pallu de Lessert, Vicaires et Comdtes D'Afrique: De Diocletien A L'Invasion Vandale, 1892, pp. 74-74 believes elevation to senatorial rank occurred around 320, “Je crois avoir montre, dans l’introduction, contrairement a l’opinion commune, que cette mesure parait remontier a l’annee 320 environ;” Delmaire, op. cit. p. 39 “depuis” from CIL 1407 and at the latest in 344 CTh. 8, 10 2</ref>
<ref>Pat Southern and Karen R Dixon, The Late Roman Army, 1996, p. 59 {{ISBN|0-300-06843-3}</ref>
<ref>Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, 2001 p. 164–165</ref>
<ref>R. Delmaire, Les largesses sacrees et res privata, L'aerarium imperial et son administration du IV au VI siècle, 1989, pp.703–714; M.F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, 300–1450 A.D. 1985</ref>
<ref>R. Malcolm Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, 2006, p. 261–262, ISBN 978-0-8078-3038-3</ref>
<ref>R. Malcolm Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, pp. 261–262</ref>
<ref>R. Mitthof, Annona Militaris: Die Heresvorsorgung im spatantiken Aegypten, 2001, pp. 276–287; the classic work is, D. van Berchem, L'anonne militaire, Memoires de la Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France, X, 117–20</ref>
<ref>R.M. Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, pp. 261–262</ref>
<ref>Richard Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire, 1994 pp. 33-46; Kenneth W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 1996, pp. 212–228; Garnsey, Peter & Whittiker, C.R., CAH XIII, p. 316, "The whole bureaucratic machinery seems to have been intended to maximize efficiencies to ensure that the revenues from private and state land were collected and channel in accordance with government policies. The impression given in the legal codes is that the interests of the state were primarily fiscal," ibid </ref>
<ref>Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 1993, p. 62 on Diocletian's municipalization of Egypt's lower administration; and quoting Bowman, 'The Town Councils of Roman Egypt' Cam.Stud.Pap. 1, who says this "policy of amateurism was a failure, in the sense that it combined ineffectiveness and oppression"</ref>
<ref>Roland Delmaire, Les largesses sacrees et res privata, 1989, pp. 171–205</ref>
<ref>S. Barnwell, Emperor, Prefects & Kings, The Roman West 395-565, 1992 p. 69</ref>
<ref>Sinnigen, op. cit. 100–109</ref>
<ref>Slootjes, op. cit. p. 47; Potter, op. cit. p. 371; Bransbourg, op. cit. p. 274; Southern, op. cit. p. 165; John Haldon who is of the opinion that the dioceses were primarily fiscal in nature, warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 1999, p. 8; Liebeschuetz, Antioch, City and Imperial Administration, 1972, p. 110 is of the opinion the count of the Orient duties were mainly judicial</ref>
<ref>Slootjes, pp. 79–104; Jones. op. cit. p. 399-400, on gubernatorial extortion and under-the-table deals, although all by no means were corrupt</ref>
<ref>Southern, op. cit. 165</ref>
<ref>Southern, op. cit. p. 270 </ref>
<ref>Stephen Williams p.110</ref>
<ref>Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, 1982, p. 110 </ref>
<ref>The Age of Constantine, Ed. Noel Lenski, 'Bureaucracy and Government,' Christopher Kelly; Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, 2004, on "the organizing principles of irregularity," pp. 208–209 i.e. overlapping adminsitrations; David. S Potter, The Empire at Bay, 180-395, pp.367–377; Cambridge Ancient History, volume XII, pp.170–183 </ref>
<ref>The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, English Edition, 2016, p. 92 note 23 </ref>
<ref>W. G. Sinnigen, Three Administrative Changes attributed to Constantius II, AJP, 83, 1962, pp.369–383</ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski analyzes the judicial in detail pp. 109–235 and lists 70 laws deal with "more or less important criminal and civil cases, lawsuits related to tax obligations, or issues concerning religion"..."criminal law 9, family law and affairs 9, protection of property 6, and inheritance 5," op. cit. pp. 206–214, 294-95 4 laws he examines deal with tax matters; Franks identifies 47 "on a broad spectrum of fiscal matters" of which 32 suggest major vicariate roles in a wide range of budgetary and fiscal policy oversight, liturgies, tax collection supervision (8), and 2 in direct intervention (replacement of governors' supervision), op. cit. p. 1991; the remainder deal with imperial staff, guilds, municipalities, building construction and repairs and a miscellany of other government concerns </ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski puts forth this thesis which sees the emperors' and highest officials' loss of confidence in the judiciary of the vicars in the very last years of the 4th century so they were mere embellishments after first few decades of the 5th, pp. 292–293, p 299 but he does not examine the fiscal role of the vicar; Franks for a review of first and appeal authority of vicars., ibid, pp. 91-93; for a different and favorable assessment of Constantine's expedited appellate system, John Noel Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, Law, Communication and Control, 2012; and Franks, op. cit. p. 991 suggests the increase in the importance of the vicars' fiscal role post-325 and the various procedural and regulatory means of control available to vicars over the administration counterbalanced any defects on the judicial side - vicars were in their 'salad days' into the early decades of the 5th century); or inability to control governors and territories too large to manage, Noetlichs, 'Zur Entstehung der Diocese als Mittelinstanz des Spatantiken Verwaltungssystem,' Historia 31: 70-81, 1982 </ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 301 </ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. p. 74</ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 288-301 sees signs of judicial decline in the 360s with more pronounced tilt at the very end of the 4th century; Franks op. cit. passim sees the first signs of decline at the end of the century due to centralization with a transition plateau to 425, slight decline picking up post-450; Sinnigen, op. cit. pp. 108–109; Jones op. cit. 280–283 for the post-450 decline but who offers only a few general remarks about vicars</ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski, op. cit. pp. 40-41</ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski, op.cit. pp. 298-303 </ref>
<ref>Wiewiorowski, pp. 299–301</ref>
<ref>William G. Sinnigen, 'The Vicarius Urbis Romae and the Urban Prefecture,' Historia, vol 8, No. 1 1959 p. 98 </ref>
<ref>William G. Sinnigen, 'The Vicarius Urbis Romae and the Urban Prefecture,' Historia, vol 8, No. 1 1959 p. 98, "technically independent"; "the degree of subordination of these officials to the Praetorian Prefects, at least in some judicial matters is also uncertain" (Kelly op. cit. p. 185</ref>
<ref>Zuckerman, op. cit. pp. 636-637</ref>
<ref>Zuckermann, op. cit. pp. 627, 636</ref>

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_diocese/Saved_refs_from_rev_871592599&oldid=872354377"