Abstract
The Greek-speaking lawyer Priskos of Panion (410/420-after 472) took part in an embassy sent by the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II to the court of Attila in 449 AD. This adventure was recounted in his Byzantine History, covering the period 434-474, and was handed down to us in the chapter on embassies in the Excerpta Constantiniana, an anthology of historians compiled by Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus (912-959).
In 449, Attila, leading a composite army, threatens the Roman Empire. In late summer, the embassy arrives at the court of this feared enemy, probably in present-day Serbia. Waiting with the other members of the embassy to be received by Attila's second-in-command, Onegesis, and to present him with gifts, Priskos hears Greek spoken : the dialogue begins with a former merchant from Viminacium in Mesia, who became a slave of the Huns, then one of their own after fighting on their behalf. The latter criticizes Roman society and its laws, the better to highlight the virtues of the Huns. Priskos' response is in praise of the law. The founders of the Roman politeia, he says, decided on a division of labor (protectors of the law, warriors, farmers) : this description is, in fact, at odds with the republican ideology of the soldier-peasant citizen. It's more akin to Plato's ideal city. But it's the Empire from Diocletian onwards that Priskos is talking about, with the reform of military recruitment. His discourse is rich in references to legal practice and imperial ideology, as Priskos responds to criticism that justice was poorly exercised in the Roman Empire. When he speaks of " persons who must see to the execution of sentences, to prevent the sentence from remaining unapplied or being applied with too much severity ", he is referring to the exsecutores, one of the figures of the judicial organization of Late Antiquity, taking up the definition of their functions from the imperial constitutions(C., 7, 53, 8; C., 7, 65, 5). As for the length of the trials, this is due - it's always Priskos who responds to the criticisms of his interlocutor - to the scrupulous requirement of the judges to establish the truth. Finally, to demonstrate equality before the law, Priskos points out that the emperor himself is subject to it. This principle, which distinguishes monarchy from tyranny, is often repeated by emperors(I., 2, 17, 8; C., 6, 23, 3).
