Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
eddirectlywiththeprovincegovernor,onlytoreachtheemperor,hisconsis-
toriumandadvisersthroughdiocesanvicarsorpraetorianprefects.Upon
completionofafairlycomplexprocedurewiththeparticipationofmembers
oftheconsistoryandthesenate,theemperorwouldgivehisresponse;itwas
readoutintheconsistorium,signedandaddressedtotheofficialwho,de-
pendingonemperor’swill,wasdeemedthemostappropriategiventhesub-
stanceoftheconstitution,andwhowasalsoobligedtodisplayittopublic
view.61
Fromthemomentofinclusionoftheconstitutiontotheofficialcompila-
tionofCodexTheodosianusin438(enteringintoforcefrom1January439)and
CodexIustinianusin534(enteringintoforcefrom29December534)andtheir
officialpublication,itmaybeassumedthatagivenconstitutionbecameuni-
versallybindinglawthroughouttheempire(lexgeneralis),unlessthecontent
andthecontextinwhichitwasissuedindicatedunequivocallythatithad
previouslypossessedsuchaquality.62
___
____
___
__
thelistofPPOfollowingthefindingsofSeeck(1919);Palanque(1933)andStein(1934)with
responsefromM.Palanque.
61Onthepossiblestagesofdraftingaconstitution:Voss(1982):26etseq.;Graves(1985):
177etseq.;Honoré(1986):135-145;Matthews(2000):67etseq.Debatesonthatissuewere
presentedtoPolishreadersinOlszaniec(2007b):55etseq.Onthemandatorypromulgationof
constitutionsbyadressees-theimperialofficials-bywayoftheirownedictandonoccasion
bywrittenconfirmationofreceiptseeClassen(1977):94-97.Officialscanalsopublishtheir
ownedictswhentheywerenotcontrarytoimperialenactments.Cf.e.g.Olszaniec(2014):
107-114(theexampleofPPOItaliae).OneofthevicarsofAfrica,Macedonius,whocorre-
spondedwithSt.Augustine,wastoissuesuchanedict(Aug.Ep.155,17).Cf.Maier(1989):185
etseq.OnMacedonius,seeChapter5.2.
62Amongrecentworksonbothcodificationssee:Archi(1970)and(1974),whichdiscuss
variousaspectsofC.;Archi(1976b)-ancross-sectionalstudyofvariousaspectsofC.Th.;
Gaudemet(1976)-onthepoliticalcircumstanceswhichsurroundedthecreationofC.Th.;
Bianchini(1979)and(1980)-ontheissueoflegesgenerales;Fusci(1981)-onthedistinctfea-
turesofattemptsatcodificationinbothpartsoftheEmpire;Manfredini(1983)-aboutthe
actualC.Th.comparedwiththeinitialdesignofcodification;Turpin(1985),whooffersan
opinionofthereligiousmotivationsofTheodosiusIIwhichresultedintheinclusionofacts
issuedafter312inthecollection;Matthews(1986)-onthetechniquesusedbycompilerswork-
ingonC.Th.;Sirks(1983)-onlegalvalidityofconstitutionscontainedinC.Th.;Sirks(1986)-
ontheevolutioninlegislator’sapproachtoenactinglawintheperiodbetweenthecreation
C.Th.andC.;Falchi(1989)-across-sectionalcomparisonofpremiseswhichunderlaythe
preparationofC.Th.andC.;Harries,Wood(1993)-acomprehensivepresentationofC.Th.
(collectivework);Sargenti(1995)-onthedifficultiesinanalysingC.Th.andpracticalimplemen-
tationoflegislativeprojectsofTheodosiusII;Koptev(1996)-oncollectionscompiledpriorto
C.Th.;GonzálezFernández(1997)-onvariousaspectsofC.,withoutanysensationalcontri-
butions;Honoré(1998)-chieflyinthelightofparticipationofquaestoressacripalatiiindrafting
textsofconstitutionsincludedinC.Th.;Harries(1999):esp.36-98,onthecreationofimperial
acts,theirsignificanceandbindingforce;Matthews(2000)-monumental,thoughsometimes
32