Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Antiquitywereavesselofthecurrentviewsofthelegislatorandtherefore
representanimportantsourceofknowledgeaboutthevaluesheldbythe
emperorsandtheirenvironment,whichtheysoughttopropagate(hencethe
sophisticatedlanguage,whichwasintendedasaninstructiontosubjectsand
imperialfunctionaries,aswellasmultiplerepetitionsofsimilarcontentsin
variousact,whichisoftenerroneouslyquotedasproofofinefficiencyofthe
imperiallaws).70Asameansofcommunicationbetweentheemperorand
thesubjects,theconstitutionwereasingularlysignificantmethodofdissem-
inatingthoselawsinaworldwithoutthemediaweknowtoday,whichtook
placedespitetherelativelyhighilliteracyandlinguisticheterogeneityof
antiquity.71
1.2.2.Non-legalsources
Thefundamentaliconographicsourceemployedinthisworkarerepresenta-
tionofinsigniaofauthorityofdiocesanadministratorspreserveinNotitiaom-
niumdignitatumetadministrationumtamciviliumquammilitarium(Laterculus
maius),originatingfromtheturnofthefifthcentury.72Notitiadignitatum
___
____
___
__
70SeeHonig(1960),wheretheauthorremarksonthesignificanceofhumanitasinconstitu-
tions;Voss(1982):esp.generalremarks33-81;Harries(1999):56-98-inthecontextofsignifi-
canceofconstitutionsforreinforcingimperialauthorityandtheiractualefficacy,withacri-
tiqueofviewsclaiminglackofsucheffectiveness,alsothoseexpressedbyinfluentialauthors,
e.g.Jones(1964):741,752;MacMullen(1976):71-95;MacMullen(1988):168.SeealsoCañizar
Palacios(2005)-onvariouspropagandisticaspectsinC.Th.;Millar(2006):esp.7-13,34-38;
Stachura(2011),whereheremarksontheso-calledlinguisticaggressioninimperialacts;Dil-
lon(2012):5etseq.,35-118,156-159(primarilyinthecontextofConstantine’slegislation).On
thedistinctivestyleofthelateantiqueconstitutionsincomparisonwiththeeraofthePrinci-
pateseealsoEich,Eich(2004).Despitetheeffortsofthecommissionsforcodification,which
strovetoharmonizetheconstitutions,internaldiscrepanciesarefoundintheTheodosianand
Justinian’sCodealike.TheproblemhadalreadybeennotedintheAntiquity,whichiswhythe
ancientssoughttoadopttheirHofficial”interpretations.SeeNoethlichs(1996).
71Onthedegreeofliteracyanditssignificancefortheawarenessandcompliancewiththe
lawseeFröschl(1987);Harris(1991):thesameissueinLateAntiquity285-322;Kompa(2011):
583etseq.Onthechangesbroughtaboutbywritinginthestructureofculturaltradition,albeit
predominantlyinthecontextofGreekcultureseealsoGoody,Watt(2011).Ontheissueof
multilingualisminAntiquityseee.g.Adams(2003);Parca(2008)withfurtherliterature.
Cf.alsoabouttheproblemofusingthewrittentextinsocietiesofilimitedliteracyingeneral
Ong(2002):esp.90-99.
72Seeck(1876)isthemostpopularedition.ThismonographalsoreliedonFaleiro(2005)
andNotitiadignitatum(Sammelhandschrift)-BSBClm10291,Speyer,1542(http://daten.digitale-
sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00005863/images/).AnindexofabundantliteratureconceringNotitia
dignitatummaybefoundathttp://members.ozemail.com.au/~igmaier/notitia.htm.Onthe
difficultiesassociatedwithanalysesofthissourceseee.g.Kulikowski(2000b).Thedatingofits
35