DEFENSOR CIVITATIS. - A civic magistrate for the defense of the humble classes against the abuses and excessive power of local magistrates.
It was created at the beginning of the 4th century, when the fabric of the Empire was already showing signs of weakening. The office of the d. c. received its own regulation, at least for Illyricum, in 368 from Valentinian I.
The d. c. had had a precedent in the patronus civitatis or coloniae, but it was neither a continuation nor a simple replacement of it. The patronus acted as an intermediary between the colony and the Senate or the central authorities; the d. c., on the other hand, was an institutum of social assistance, a State advocacy office to defend the rights of the poor and the oppressed before the local authorities. The d. c. met with great favor. Not only cities, but every community capable of rights soon had its d.: associations, gentes, the Senate, the treasury. The office of the d. c. was at first for life (d. perpetuus), then it was reduced to five years, and by Justinian (527-65) to two.
The d. c. was to show fatherly solicitude for those under his protection: imprimis parentis vicem plebi exhibem, says Justinian (Cod. Inst., I, 55, 8). Interesting are the data offered by the papyri, in which one encounters a man who turns to the d. c. to be freed from imprisonment, where he is held for debts, and another who asks to be freed from torture (cf. P. De Francisci, Storia del diritto romano, III, 1, Milan 1943, p. 153).
To carry out his functions more easily, the d. c. had free access to the praeses, the praefectus praetorio, the magister equitum and even to the emperor, to whom he could directly denounce abuses. Originally the d. c. was appointed by the praefectus praetorio and chosen from among persons of the ordo senatorius who had held important offices. But it was not easy to find a sufficient number of capable, worthy and disinterested persons, so that in 387 Theodosius I resorted to the system of election. The d. c. was proposed by the city concerned through a decision of its own senate (Cod. Theod. 1, 29, 6). Honorius in 409 entrusted the election to the bishop together with the three classes of the primores civitatis. The election was then approved by the praefectus praetorio, by disposition of Majorian, by the emperor and, under the Ostrogoths, by the kings.
Despite all these reshufflings, limitations and precautions, the d. c. achieved its purpose only in rare cases. The imperial officials understood that it was a weapon against them and gradually annulled its power, making it an instrument of their own interests and increasingly limiting the action of the d. c. to the judicial field for cases of minor importance. Justinian made a last attempt to save the institution, increasing its power and prestige, but the situation does not appear to have improved. A sign of this can be seen in the fact that for quite some time the poor and the oppressed no longer had confidence in the d. c. and turned to the protection of the Church. A canon of the Council of Carthage of 401 denounces «afflictionem pauperum quorum molestias sine intermissione fatigatur Ecclesia» (Conc. Carth. V, can. 9; Mansi, Conc. ampl. coll., III, 778), for which the same Council resolved to ask the emperors for the appointment of a d. pauperum for the protection of the rights of the poor, thus with attributions similar to the d. c. This goes to show that the d. c., already at the beginning of the 5th century, had lost much of its importance and also reveals the tendency of the Church to place alongside the action of the d. c., exercised by laymen, the pastoral action of the bishops. The organs created in the ecclesiastical sphere gradually came to replace those of the Empire, as the latter fell away.
Bibliography5 works
Annibale Bugnini