Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
ImperialconstitutionswerepreservedchieflyinfragmentsintheTheo-
dosianandtheJustinianCodes,thoughnotalwaysintheoriginalwording,
becausewhenbothcodeswerebeingcompiled,theactsincludedunderwent
editorialmodifications.63Inthecaseofthefirstcode,mostconstitutionsorig-
inatedprobablyfromtheresourcesofimperialarchivesinConstantinople
andRavenna;atplaces,theeditorsclearlyindicatedthatagivenfragmentis
apartofalargerwhole,thereforeitisassumedthatitsfurthersectionswere
includedelsewhereinthecompilation(thefactwasdenotedbytheuseof
formssuchaspostalia,etcetera,pars).64Onlythosetwoofficialcollections
andthelaterprivatecompilations,comprisingnovelsissuedafterpromulga-
tionofbothcodes,containeitherfragmentsorcompletetextsofimperial
constitutionsconcerningdiocesanvicars.
___
____
___
__
imitativeanalysisofvariousaspectsofC.Th.;Giomaro(2001)-seebelow;Schlinkert(2002)-
onthecircumstancesofcodificationworkunderTheodosiusII;Sirks(2003)-onlegesgenerales;
Errington(2006):87-93-generallyabouttheCTh.Sirks(2007b)-recapitulatingauthor’spre-
viousstudiesofC.Th.-seealsothethoroughandcriticalreviewoftheworkinLiebs(2010);
DeGiovanni(2007)-anoverview,discussinge.g.theissueofsystematizinglawinLateAn-
tiquity;Lokin,vanBochove(2011):99-118-incodificationunderJustinian;collectivestudy
Crogiez-Pétrequin,Jaillette(2012)-mainlyonvariousaspectsofC.Th.(includingdeBonfils
[2012],whoanalysestwoWesternRomanconstitutionwhichcouldnothaveappliedinthe
easternEmpire).BrieflyontheissueandoutcomesofcodificationofRomanlawinthepost-
classicalperiodalsoinLiebs(2000):244-252.Cf.inPolishwritingsIlski,Maciejewski(1996)-
detailedobservationsonthelegislativemethodwhilediscussinganti-Nestoriallegislation;
Prostko-Prostyński(2008):esp.36-49-inconnectionwithremarksonC.Th.9,1,13(a.376).
SeealsoareviewofliteratureinRinolfi(2003).SeveralworksonC.Th.werebroughttoPolish
readerbyStachura(2006).ThedisseminationofC.Th.intheWestandmanuscriptsaredis-
cussedindetailbyAtzeri(2008):223-286.InthatrespectseealsoSalway(2012).
63SeeVolterra(1971):1019-1027.Theauthorappositelysummeduptheessenceofbothcol-
lection,statingthat:HICodicisonoinrealtadeimosaicidiframmentididisposizioniimperiali,
sceltiinguisadaracchiudereinciascunointaliframmentifrasiacuiattribuireilvaloredidis-
posizioninormativeodienunciazionidiprincipigeneraliodimassimeecollocati,secondola
materiainessicontentuta,neivarititolidicuisicompognoisingolilibrideiCodici”(ibidem:
1094).Comparisonofbothcollectionstocontemporarycodificationsisthereforeadoubtfulprac-
tice.Seepertinentobservationsin:Pieler(1984);Kronenberg(2007).Foralistingofsuggested
interpolationinC.Th.andpost-Theodosiannovels,seeDeDominicis(1953)and(1964).
64OnthematerialsusedduringcompilationofC.Th.,seeMommsen(1905a):XI;more
recentliteratureincludesMatthews(2000):55-84;Schlinkert(2002);Sirks(2007b):109-177;Liebs
(2010):530-534;Sirks(2012).Onformulassuchaspostalia,seeMommsen(1905a):CCIX-CCCVI;
Prostko-Prostyński(2008):31-33.Gothofredus(1736-1745)remainsaninvaluablesourceof
knowledgeaboutconstitutioninCodexTheodosianus.Manyofhisremarksstillholdvalid,while
hiscommentaryprovidedastartingpointfordeliberationsonthemajorityofactsincorporated
inthatcode.Inturn,observationsontheversionsofimperialconstitutionsconveyedinCodex
IustinianustookadvantageofthecommentaryofBrunnemannus(1699),arepresentativepiece
summingupthereflectiononthatcompilationinWesternEuropeanlegaltraditionfrombeforethe
eighteenthcenturycodification.
33