Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
1
Preliminaryissues
1.1.THEOBJECTANDAIMSOFTHEWORK
ANDRESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
Theassumptionadoptedintherelevantliteraturepresumesthatthepost-
classicalperiodwascharacterizedbyaconsiderabledecreaseinthe
knowledgeoflawamonginstitutionswhichappliedit;Romanlawofthat
periodisreferredtoasvulgar,inotherwordscommon,adjustedtocorre-
spondwiththelevelrepresentedbyanaveragecitizen;nevertheless,itstill
remainsavesselofRomanstatetradition.1Inspiteofthefactthatthere-
quirementtoensureefficaciousjudiciarywasakeyissuepreciselyinLate
Antiquity,itwouldbeanexaggerationtoapproachtheLaterRomanEmpire
asaRechtstaatinthemodernunderstanding.2Atthattime,thenotionof
Hlawandorder”wasconstrueddifferentlythanitistoday.Itwasassociated
withtheexistenceofcourtsandjudicialproceduresaswellasprecisedefini-
tionsofindividualstatus,notwiththeprincipleoftheHruleoflaw”orany
notionsoflibertiesguaranteedbythelaw.3Hence,despitesuperficialsimi-
larities,oneshouldnotapproachadministrativestructuresoftheRomanEm-
pirefromtheperspectiveofpresent-dayresearchers,whoiscognizantofthe
___
____
___
__
1OntheoriginsanddevelopmentofHRomanvulgarlaw”seesynthesisbyLiebs(2008c)
withearlierliterature.Thephenomenonwasanaftermathoftheexpandingapplicationof
RomanlawandwidespreadRomancitizenshipfollowingtheConstitutioAntoninianaof212,as
wellasinsitutionswhichevolvedinlocallawswhichpenetratedintoRomanlawandcontin-
uedtobeemployed.Amongthemostrecentworkscf.:Łukaszewicz(1990)and(1993):esp.
9-34;SpagnuoloVigorita(1993):esp.8-12;Garnsey(2004):esp.140-155;Gumiela(2010);
Mélèzè-Modrzejewski(2011).Osuchowski(1963)stillprovesrelevantaswell.
2SeeaptlyWetzler(1997):200-210;Honoré(2004).Ontheattemptstoensureeffectiveness
oflawcf.also:DeMariniAvonzo(1975):69;Fusci(1981)and(1989):255-272,esp.258;
DeGiovanni(2007):333etseq.
3Cf.Matthews(1989):252(incommentarytocivileiustumqueimperiuminAmm.Marc.
14,1,4);Matthews(1992):47etseq.
15