Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
oligarchy,constitutionalismandabsolutism,monarchyandrepublic,unita-
rismandfederalism,boastsantiqueorigins”,andthatdespitethefactthat
neitherthosenoranyothertermsdonotHalignthemselvesinhistoricalinsti-
tutionalsequences,theystilldetermineourperceptionofcontemporary
times,providinguswithacontinuallypresentnotionalapparatus.”34
Currently,onehasabandonedtheconceptwhichhadbeenthemostpower-
fullyestablishedinRomantradition,i.e.thestrivingtoachieveemperor’smo-
nopolyinenactingandinterpretinglaw,whichinthepastwasusedtolegiti-
mizevariousabsolutistsystems.Oneconcepthasnonethelessbeenretained,
thatofthelesshighlightedbutneversurrenderedinRomansources:Republi-
canideaoflimitedpowersofanofficial-theRepublicanmagistratefollowed
byimperialofficialsandtheemperorhimselfinthestatewhichcontinuedto
bedefinedasrespublica,despitethesystemhavingtransformedintoamo-
narchy.35
Intermsofchronology,theworkcoverstheperiodfromtheestablish-
mentofdiocesesunderDiocletian(reigning284-305)andtheinitialstagesof
developmentofitsgovernancetotheendofthereignofConstantinethe
___
____
___
__
34Giaro(2014):120.Cf.alsoashortlistingofvaluescontributedbyRomanlawtopoliti-
caalsystemsinLitewski(2001):187-197,aswellasremarksbyLongschampsdeBérier(2009):
regardingusefulnessofRomanpubliclawinresearchandteaching.Theconceptofemploying
RomanexperienceinadministrativelawhasrecentlybeenadvocatedbyAntonioFernández
deBuján(see.e.g.ibidem[2011]).SeealsotheattempttoincorporateRomanexperiencein
publiclawinZamoraManzano(2012).Theobservationsofsomeauthorsvergeonbeingridic-
ulous,astheypassionatelyjuxtaposeantiqueinstitutionsdirectlywiththeircontemporary
equivalents.Suchcombinationmaybefounde.g.inDymowski(2013),whodescribesthe
secretserviceoftheLaterRomanEmpireandtheEarlyByzantineEmpireastheprecursorof
thecontemporaryPolishspecialservice-theInternalSecurityAgency[AgencjaBezpie-
czeństwaPublicznego](sic!).
35Seeesp.C.1,14,4(a.429):HImperatoresTheodosius,ValentinianusAA.adVolusianum
pp.Dignavoxmaiestateregnantislegibusalligatumseprincipemprofiteri:adeodeauctoritate
iurisnostrapendetauctoritas.Etreveramaiusimperioestsubmitterelegibusprincipatum.Et
oraculopraesentisedictiquodnobislicerenonpatimurindicamus.D.III.id.Iun.Ravennae
FlorentynoetDionysioconss.”,whichcontradictstheopinionwhichoriginallyappliedonlyto
maritalissues,containedinD.1,3,31:HUlpianuslibro13adlegemIuliametPapiam.Princeps
legibussolutusest:Augustaautemlicetlegibussolutanonest,principestameneademilli
privilegiatribuunt,quaeipsihabent.”Cf.aboutmedievaldevelopmentsoftheconceptprinceps
legibussolutus:Pennington(1993):77-90.Whileanalysingasourceconcerningcourtproceeding
takingplacein457,theconstraintstowhichtheemperorwassubjectareaptlydescribedby
Prostko-Prostyński(2008):67:H[ł]itisabsolutelyunthinkablethattheemperorcouldhave
suggestedtheverdicttooneofthehighest-rankingstateofficialsbeforethetrial,evenless
withoutatrial.”Ontheusageofthetermofrespublica,alsowithouttheattributRomanato
denotetheRomanstate,bothinEastern(untilthedownfalloftheEmpirein1453),aswellas
Westernsources(untiltheeleventhcentury),nexttoimperiumRomanumandotherdenomina-
tionsseeProstko-Prostyński(1994):78-80withfurtherliterature.
24