THE DIGEST
The Digest was compiled by a committee of jurists headed by Tribo- nian that was appointed to this task by an act of Justinian on 15 December 530 (Constitutio Deo Auctore).
It was promulgated on 16 December 533, and went into effect on 30 December of that year as a valid legal source (Constitutio Tanta). The editors were ordered to compile a unified, comprehensive collection of passages selected from the works of the jurists who were endowed with a ‘ius respondendi’; the collection was to be free of repetitions or internal contradictions, and the editors were allowed to alter, to add, and to delete from the original versions. In its present form it contains passages quoted from the works of 38 jurists, including three texts by Modestin and Ulpian concerning the Jews (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) unknown from any other source. The tradition of the Digest depends exclusively upon the Florentine Manuscript (Littera Fiorentina), which was copied in Italy in the sixth or seventh century. It served as the main source for the study of Roman jurisprudence, and was extensively copied and commented in Europe since its discovery in the eleventh century; it became one of the basic texts in the legal renaissance of the twelfth century.NOTES
1. For a comprehensive introduction to the sources of Roman law, with an excellent bibliography, see L. Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen Rechts, Vienna 1953. See also J. Gaudemet, La formation du droit seculier et de droit de I’Eglise aux IVe et Ve siecles, Paris 1957.
2. Gaius, Institutionum Commentarli Quattuor, 1:5, ed.
B. Kübler, Leipzig 1926, p. 2.3. Dig., 1:4:1; see also Institutiones, 1:2:6.
4. Wenger, (op. cit., n. 1), pp. 424-473.
5. On the legal significance of promulgation, see F. v. Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht—Mit Ausblicken in das altgriechische und ptolemäische Rechtgebiet, Munich 1940, pp. 157-174.
6. Μ. A. de Dominicis, “Le comunicazioni legislative nel Basso Impero,” Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere, Rendiconti, LXXXIII (1950), pp. 1-44.
7. See Leviticus R. : “R. Eleazar said: ‘Even though the Torah was given to Israel as a law at Mt. Sinai, they were not subject to punishment for it until it was taught to them at the Tent of Meeting. This is analogous to a ‘diatagma’: though it is written and sealed and has been brought into the city, the citizens are not subject to punishment under its terms until it is explained to them in a ‘dimosia’ of the city” (1:10). The above seems to echo a clause generally found in the laws, in which the local authorities are ordered to make the text of the law known in public (εις τό δημόσιον). See J. H. Oliver, “On the Edict of Severus Alexander (P. Fayum 20),” American Journal of Philology, XCIX (1978), p. 476.
8. The document released in public opened with the edict of the local governor which informed the public of the Imperial law; the text of the law followed.
9. Seeck, Regesten, pp.
16-17. Gaudemet (supra, n. 1, p. 53) does not accept this distinction, but his arguments are unconvincing.10. J. Gaudemet, “Un problème de la codification théodosienne—Les constitutions géminées,” RIDA, IV (1957), pp. 253-267.
11. On the duration of the validity of the Imperial legislation, see R. Orestano, “La durata della validità dei ‘privilegia’ e ‘beneficia’ nel diritto romano classico,” Studi Riccobono, III, Palermo 1936, pp. 471-487; idem, “Gli editti imperiali—Contributo alla teoria della loro validità ed efficacia nel diritto romano classico,” BIDR, XLIV (193637), pp. 219-331.
12. The question of the validity of the laws in the divided Empire has been widely discussed. Palanque maintains that legislation was separate in each of the two halves of the Empire, and that laws were not recognized as binding in the other half unless they were promulgated there. See J. R. Palanque, “Collégialité et partage dans 1’Empire romain aux IVe et Ve siècles,” REA, XL VI (1944), pp. 291-292. According to Gaudemet, legislation was separate in practice, although in theory the unity of the Empire was universally recognized. He agrees, however, that the legislation of one emperor was not binding in the area of his colleague. See J. Gaudemet, “Le partage législatif dans la seconde moitié du IVe siècle,” Studi de Francisco, II, Milan 1956, pp. 319-354.
13. CTh 1:4:3.
14. Seeck, Regesten, pp.
12-13.15. Ibid., pp. 15-16.
16. On this subject, see P. Noailles, Les collections des Novelles de I’Empereur Justinien—Origine et formation sous Justinien, Paris 1912. On the possibility that an official collection of Novels, which was edited and kept in the Imperial ‘scrinium memoriae’, served as the source for at least the first 125 Novels, see Z. von Lingenthal, “Die Ueberlieferung der Novellen Justinians,” ZSSRG, RA, XII (1892), pp. 94-99.
17. On the titles of the Theodosian and Justinian codes, see T. Mommsen, “Die Benennungen der Constitutionensammlungen,” ZSSRG, RA, X (1889), pp. 345-351 = Gesammelte Schriften, II, Berlin 1905, pp. 359-365.
18. See Seeck, Regesten; T. Mommsen, Codex Theodosianus, Prolegomena; idem, “Das theodosische Gesetzbuch,” ZSSRG, RA, XXI (1900), pp. 149-190 = Gesammelte Schriften, II, Berlin 1905, pp. 371-405; G. G. Archi, Teodosio II e la sua codificazione, Naples 1976.
19. Gesta Senatus Romani de Theodosiano Publicando, in Mommsen’s edition of Codex Theodosianus, pp. 1-4.
20. Dig.,size=1> 1:4:4: ‘Modestinus libro secundo excusationum Αί μεταγενέστεροι διατάξεις ισχυρότεροι τών προ αυτών είσιν’, “Modestinus, in the second book of the Exemptions: the later laws are of greater force than those that precede them.” The fundamental study of the chronology of the laws is still: Seeck, Regesten.
See also P. Krüger, “Beiträge zum Codex Theodosianus, X: Zur Zeitbestimmung der Konstitutionen,” ZSSRG, RA, XLII (1921), pp. 58-67; Μ. J. Higgins, “Reliability of Titles and Dates in Codex Theodosianus,” Byzantion, X (1935), pp. 621-640.21. Thirteen texts on this subject were gathered in CTh 15:14 under the heading: ‘De infirmandis his, quae sub tyrannis aut barbaris gesta sunt’. “On the abrogation of those things done under the rule of tyrants or barbarians.”
22. Gaudemet (supra, n. 9).
23. The study of interpolations in the Theodosian Code has greatly advanced by the preparatory works to Mommsen’s edition, and subsequent to its publication. See, for example, T. Mommsen, “Fränkische Interpolation im theodosianischen Codex,” Gesammelte Schriften, II, Berlin 1905, pp. 408-409; O. Gradenwitz, “Interpolationen im Theodosianus?” ZSSRG, RA, XXXIV (1913), pp. 274-294; idem, “Weitere Interpolationen im Theodosianus,” ibid., XXXVIII (1917), pp. 35-72. See also the general introduction and list of suggested interpolations in Μ. A. de Dominicis, “Registro della alterazioni (glossemi ed interpolazioni) nelle costituzioni del Codice Theodosiano e nelle Novelle posteodosiane segnalate dalla critica,” BIDR, NS, XVI-XVII (1953), pp. 383-442.
24. P. Krüger, “Beiträge zum Codex Theodosianus, V: Über Ergänzung des Theodosianus aus dem Justinianus,” ZSSRG, RA, XXXVIII (1917), pp. 20-34.
25. Mommsen, CTh, Prolegomena, p.
xxxviii.26. For a detailed discussion of the transmission of these Novels, see G. Sche- rillo, “Contributi alia storia delle Novelle Postteodosiane,” Studi Besta, I, Milan 1939, pp. 297-321.
27. Mommsen, CTh, Prolegomena, pp. Ixxxvii-lxxxviii; G. Hänel, Prolegomena ad Lex Romana Visigothorum, p. xx. Compare Μ. Conrat (Cohn), “Westgotischer und katholische Auszüge des sechzenten Buches des Theodosianus,” ZSSRG, Kanonistiche Abteilung,lang=EN-US style='font-size:8.5pt;font-style:normal'> I (1911), pp. 67-125.
28. G. Hänel, Prolegomena ad Lex Romana Visigothorum, p. ix n. 23*.
t 29. Gaudemet reached a similar conclusion on the basis of a comparison of Book 10 of the Theodosian Code—which was directly preserved—and the texts of this Code included in the Breviarium, namely that Alaric’s editors intended to strengthen the individual’s position at the expense of the state. See J. Gaudemet, “Code Theodosien et Bröviaire d’Alaric,” Studi Grosso, IV, Torino 1971, pp. 361-376.
30. J. Juster, “The Legal Condition of the Jews under the Visigothic Kings,” The Israel Law Review, XI (1976), p. 260 n. 5.
31. Novellae Valentiniani, XVIII, ed. T. Mommsen & P. Meyer, Berlin 1905. De Dominicis’ register refers to six interpolations in the laws dealing with the Jews, but only one of these is attributed to Alaric’s editors: CTh 16:7:3 = Brev. 16:2:1.
32. This question has been extensively studied. See H. J. Scheltema, “Les sources du droit de Justinien dans 1’Empire d’Orient,” RHDFE, Series 4, XXX (1952), pp. 1-17. In his opinion Leo the Philosopher did not immediately repeal the Justinian Corpus upon the promulgation of the Basilica about 900, and even after this date it was permitted to use the Justinian Code. See A. Steinwenter, “Was beweisen die Papyri fur die praktische Geltung des justinianischen Gesetzgebungswerkes,” Aegyptus, XXXII (1952), pp. 131-137. In Steinwenter’s view, both the Code and the Novels had the force of law in Egypt, and even though the same may not be said with certainty regarding the Digest, there is no doubt that the latter served for purposes of teaching. See also A. Berger, “Studi sui Basilici, VI: La legislazione di Giustiniano e i Basilici,” lura, V (1954), pp. 87-110. In Berger’s opinion, the promulgation of the Basilica was not accompanied by an explicit abrogation of the Justinian Code, although this was its practical consequence; the Code remained merely a means of interpreting the law in force.
33. Compare Seeck, Regesten, p. 121.
34. On the important contribution of the study of Greek legal commentaries for the reconstruction of the pre-Justinian sources and for a better understanding of the Justinian codification, see S. Riccobono, “11 valore delle collezioni giuridiche bizantine per lo studio critico del ‘Corpus iuris civilis,’ ” Melanges Fitting, II, Aalen 1969, pp. 463497.
35. See M. Kaser’s important work of the major trends in the study of interpolations in the broader context of the history of law during the three hundred years pre- ceeding Justinian’s reform, “Zum heutigen Stand der Interpolationenforschung,” ZSSRG, RA, LXIX (1952), pp. 60-101. Consult also G. Broggini, Index Interpolationum quae in lustiniani Codice Inesse Dicuntur, Cologne 1969.