2. The Early Centuries: The Common History
Although there are good grounds for making the history of Byzantine law begin with the completion of the Justinianic codification, it is impossible to leave out the preceding centuries.
Indeed, precisely since the Justinianic codification is at one and the same time the final restatement of the Roman law of antiquity and the point of departure for Byzantine law, a treatment of Byzantine law which does not incorporate the Roman antecedents is unthinkable.In the Justinianic codification, Roman and Byzantine law are bound up inextricably. The difference between the Romanist and the Byzantinist lies merely in the direction of their view: the Romanist is inclined to see the Justinianic legislation as the storehouse of materials from which to construe the classical past - and is therefore usually less interested in the Novels — whereas the Byzantinist will look at what happened after the promulgation of the codifcation — that is, the Novels and much else.
Since Kaiser’s chapter (119—48) deals with Justinian and the Corpus iuris civilis, it may suffice here to refer the reader to his words (indeed to much of this book) as the indispensable prologue to what followed. In one respect, however, yet another prologue is required. The Byzantine state was a Christian state. Just as it is impossible to write its political and cultural history without taking into account the role of the Church, it is equally unthinkable to restrict a survey of Byzantine law to secular law. Byzantine law was founded not only on the Justinianic heritage, but also on the legislative work of the first four ecumenical (and various local) councils. In the present context, however, this will be left to one side insofar as it is not connected with Roman law.