On the so-called Edictum de professoribus attributed to the emperor Julian have been proposed a variety of interpretations and readings, starting in ancient times and until the present day. The study of this act is dealt with on the background the role and policy of the emperor. In the period that followed the Edict of Milan in 313, the foundations are laid for a transition to a society marked by religious autonomy of the state and the potential explanation of the religious sense in the plural. The analysis of the acts of Julian in politics of teaching takes place against this background. CTH 13, 3, 5 presents the rules that do not explicitly concern the Christian teachers, but the generic probatio of teachers, a kind of investiture that was headed, ultimately, to the emperor himself. The literature has instead seen in the letter of Julian 61c a sort of corollary to this rule, which focuses on the contemporary and subsequent polemic against the restrictive educational policy put in place by the emperor. The possibility of a link between the two documents is given only by conjecture that there is a nomos, in which it was an explicit prohibition enacted to Christian teachers to practice. The letter, in fact, recalls the masters of consistency, given that their profession is not only the form but also the substance, and the use of the word 'traditional' can not be separated from ideological adherence. The story of the exploits of the emperor is likely to depend more on the sentence for apostasy from reality, more from a perspective that ward off evil from the data. A certain indication of the context of persecution against Christian teachers do not reach either by the same Julian, who was skillful legislator, nor the contemporary controversy, which does not disclose any clear and specific in this regard. Julian would rather forcefully applied the prerogative that was attributed from the law, to make the probatio of the teachers, resulting in a casual, non-normative, unequal treatment against Christian teachers who did not feel consistent with the basic principles of their profession.
Giuliano imperatore e l'edictum de professoribus. Integrazione e senso della storia / Saggioro, Alessandro. - STAMPA. - (2008), pp. 161-188. (Intervento presentato al convegno La religione come fattore di integrazione tenutosi a Torino nel 29-30 settembre 2006).
Giuliano imperatore e l'edictum de professoribus. Integrazione e senso della storia
SAGGIORO, Alessandro
2008
Abstract
On the so-called Edictum de professoribus attributed to the emperor Julian have been proposed a variety of interpretations and readings, starting in ancient times and until the present day. The study of this act is dealt with on the background the role and policy of the emperor. In the period that followed the Edict of Milan in 313, the foundations are laid for a transition to a society marked by religious autonomy of the state and the potential explanation of the religious sense in the plural. The analysis of the acts of Julian in politics of teaching takes place against this background. CTH 13, 3, 5 presents the rules that do not explicitly concern the Christian teachers, but the generic probatio of teachers, a kind of investiture that was headed, ultimately, to the emperor himself. The literature has instead seen in the letter of Julian 61c a sort of corollary to this rule, which focuses on the contemporary and subsequent polemic against the restrictive educational policy put in place by the emperor. The possibility of a link between the two documents is given only by conjecture that there is a nomos, in which it was an explicit prohibition enacted to Christian teachers to practice. The letter, in fact, recalls the masters of consistency, given that their profession is not only the form but also the substance, and the use of the word 'traditional' can not be separated from ideological adherence. The story of the exploits of the emperor is likely to depend more on the sentence for apostasy from reality, more from a perspective that ward off evil from the data. A certain indication of the context of persecution against Christian teachers do not reach either by the same Julian, who was skillful legislator, nor the contemporary controversy, which does not disclose any clear and specific in this regard. Julian would rather forcefully applied the prerogative that was attributed from the law, to make the probatio of the teachers, resulting in a casual, non-normative, unequal treatment against Christian teachers who did not feel consistent with the basic principles of their profession.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
