{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01730624529721595, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009029345372460496, 'mean_word_length': 4.884955752212389, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judge Julia Domna? A Historical Mystery and the Emergence of Imperial Legal Administration

ABSTRACT This article analyses a problematic passage from Cassius Dio (78.18.2–3) where Julia Domna is depicted as answering petitions and correspondence on behalf of her son, Caracalla, in AD 214–215. Through a reading of the relevant sources and the emerging tradition of Roman imperial adjudication, the article seeks to answer the question: what did this reference to an empress using imperial power mean? Was it merely a sign of the emperor's ineptitude or could it be seen as a reference to the centrality of answering appeals in the duties of the emperor? Is it even possible that she should be seen as a judge of some kind? By analysing the conventions of imperial jurisdiction, the article maintains that there was an ambiguity where responding and judging on behalf of the emperor or posing as the emperor involved many different figures in the administration. It is argued that while an official role was not likely, it is possible that Julia Domna would have held a supervisory position in the administration as well as acting as an interlocutor, but that like others who were appointed to judge in the place of the emperor, her work would have been largely invisible, noted only by petitioners expecting to meet the emperor.