Fragmenta Vaticana

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fragmenta (iuris) Vaticana ( fragmenta quae dicuntur Vaticana ; short: Vat. ) Are the remnants of a more extensive legal private work from the 4th century, in which legal writings ( iura ), so named by legal historians , became known through the manuscript of the Vatican. as well as imperial decisions ( leges ) were compiled.

history

In the post-classical period of the 4th century, a move was made to create a new genre of literature from the great masses of classical legal literature, compilations with quotations. New literature was hardly ever created and jurisprudence had lost its influence on the emperors to the military. Parallel to these events, the literature was deliberately compressed to a few recognized opinions, which was summarized in the citation laws. The masses of material had become too big and confusing for them not to have to be shortened and summarized. In addition, the provinces, in which legal literature was often lacking, should be equipped. The Vatican fragments described here represent a typical representative of this genre.

They were discovered in 1820 or 1821 by Cardinal Angelo Mai , who had made a name for himself as an expert in manuscript research in the 1810s . From 1819 he was the Prefect of the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana . During his work he came across a fragmentary work inscribed on palimpsest leaves, which received the name of the place where it was kept and the sigla “ Vat. Lat. 5766, fol. 17–24, 58–63 and 82–100 ”.

Almost nothing is known about the whereabouts of the work, created in 320 AD, until its discovery. In the 8th century, the only known specimen disappeared from the Benedictine monastery of St. Columban in Bobbio , which was founded in 614 and which belonged to the Lombard territory established after 568 . The work, which originally contained excerpts from the classic legal literature of Papinian , Paulus and Ulpian , had been overwritten with texts by Johannes Cassianus . Under Pope Paul V it came to the Vatican in 1618 , before Angelo Mai took up the manuscript about 200 years later.

Which authorship compiled the work lies in the scientific darkness. All that is known is that it was a private and not an officially authorized collection of texts. Indications of origin and promulgation information (in the 4th / 5th centuries laws were regularly promulgated in the Trajan's Forum ) point to Rome . The compilers encountered various difficulties, because the years between 305 and 319 were characterized by the intricate coexistence and opposition of imperial legislative actions, which are likely to have had an impact on their inscriptions. Abdication, reactivation, expulsion, divinization , condemnation and re-deification were the order of the day, which led to omissions, insertions, quotation changes and re-imports. Maximian's memory, for example, was inconsistently erased (addenda). The damnatio memoriae of the emperor Licinius was serious , because not only the inscriptions but also the subscriptions had to be interfered with. Inconsistencies led to different ways of handling Augustus titles to be stamped out .

The Fragmenta iuris Vaticana fall in the early phase of the Christianization that was just establishing itself , roughly the time of the Constantinian turning point . At the time of another anonymous collection under private law, which is run as the Collatio , Christianity was already the state religion . Both works are considered to be important forerunners of the extensive Justinian law collection of the middle 6th century, the later so-called Corpus iuris civilis .

Content of the collection

Interrupted partly by very large, partly by smaller gaps, the content of the work demonstrably dealt with the classic topics of Roman private law : representation , purchase , usufruct , dowry , guardianship and donation . Due to its conception and the loss of large parts of the script, it is assumed that the collection - comparable to the Justinian digests - was large and originally covered all known areas of law. Neither the beginning nor the end of the collection are original. It was and is controversial whether the manuscripts were intended for judicial practice or for teaching purposes. The reason for this was the intensity of the problem discussions held in the writings ( disputationes and quaestiones ). Today, however, it is largely recognized that mainly practical literature was excerpted, although isolated (later added) scholia point to legal instruction. There was a clear need for education in relation to the title of the revocation of donations . The work is structured very independently, based on the teaching works of the Severan late classics , and is not subject to any of the common forms of the edict , digest or codex system.

The compilation contained around 54 imperial constitutions, which are essentially spread over the years 205-320. Two further laws date from the years 330 and 369, which therefore did not belong to the original inventory. They bear the handwriting of the emperors Constantine and Valentinian and dealt thematically with the legal figure of the forfeiture of emancipation in the event of a donation revocation or with a law amending the sales law.

According to the state of research, only the aforementioned lawyers Papinian, Paulus and Ulpian were excerpted from the lawyers; there were also a few pseudo- Pauline sentences . Here, too, improvements were made at a later point in time. Few of the inscriptions - such as those for usufruct - are out of line with the parallel material because they are very detailed and thus represent a stylistic break with the formal context. They indicate a later addition. Clarifications were added to the titles of the rejection of guardianship and the revocation of donations . In contrast to what was later known as the Corpus iuris civilis , the texts were not changed, but glossemes that had already penetrated were included.

The epitomized passages of the codices Gregorianus and Hermogenianus form only a small part of the work . Research shows that there are only sparse references from the books in the Vatican scripts and that, in a large number of rescripts, only eight are by Emperor Diocletian from the early 290s.

The scope must have extended to about 600 pages DIN A5 , which would correspond to about 20 normal libri . However, there was no libri , but rather unnumbered titles (running headers).

literature

  • Jan Dirk Harke : Roman law. From the classical period to the modern codifications . Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-57405-4 ( floor plans of the law ), § 1 no. 21 (p. 16 f.).
  • Herbert Hausmaninger , Walter Selb : Römisches Privatrecht , Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001) (Böhlau-Studien-Bücher) ISBN 3-205-07171-9 , p. 48.
  • Philipp Eduard Huschke , Emil Seckel , Bernhard Kübler , in: Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae reliquias II 2 (Leipzig 1927), ( Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ), pp. 191-324.
  • Wolfgang Kunkel , Martin Schermaier : Roman legal history , 14th edition. UTB, Cologne / Vienna 2005, § 12 ( The Law of the Late Roman Period , Chapter 4, The Renaissance of Classical Law ), p. 192.
  • Detlef Liebs : Jurisprudence in late antique Italy (260-640 AD) , Freiburg legal-historical treatises, new series, volume 8, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, pp. 150-162.
  • Theodor Mommsen : Codicis Vaticani N.5766. in quo insut iuris anteiustiniani fragmenta quae dicuntur Vaticana. Exemplum addita transcriptione notisque criticis edidit. Berlin 1860, in: Treatises of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin, Philol.-hist. Class, 1859, p. 265 ff; 381 f. with classification of the work pp. 379–408.
  • Theodor Mommsen [editor]: Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani in usum scholarum , Volume 3: Fragmenta vaticana mosaicarum et romanarum legum collatio. , published by: Paul Krüger , Berlin 1890.

Remarks

  1. ↑ a b c d e f Detlef Liebs : The Jurisprudence in Late Antique Italy (260-640 AD) , Freiburger Rechtsgeschichtliche Abhandlungen, New Series, Volume 8, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, pp. 150-162.
  2. ↑ a b Theodor Mommsen : Codicis Vaticani N.5766. in quo insunt iuris anteiustiniani fragmenta quae dicuntur Vaticana. Exemplum addita transcriptione notisque criticis edidit. Berlin 1860, in: Treatises of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin, Philol.-hist. Class, 1859, p. 265 ff; 381 f. with classification of the work pp. 379–408.
  3. ↑ Uwe Wesel : History of the law. From the early forms to the present . 3rd revised and expanded edition. Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-406-47543-4 . Marg. 156.
  4. ↑ a b Jochen Bleicken : Constitutional and social history of the Roman Empire. Volume 1, UTB Paderborn, et al., Schöningh 1981, ISBN 3-506-99256-2 , p. 272.
  5. ^ Edition: Paul Krüger / Theodor Mommsen / Wilhelm Studemund : Collectio Librorum Juris Anteiustininae , III, p. 1 ff.
  6. ↑ Laktanz : De mortibus perscutorum (The types of death of the persecutors) , 41.2 (translated and introduced by Jakob Speigl , Turnhout 2003), see CIL II 1439.
  7. ↑ Vat. 34 and 35 : Licinius is there only in the plural of the partial sum of his titles: consulibus ,
  8. ↑ Vat. 32, 33 and 274.
  9. ^ Wolfgang Kunkel / Martin Schermaier : Römische Rechtsgeschichte , 14th edition. UTB, Cologne / Vienna 2005, § 12 ( The Law of the Late Roman Period , Chapter 4, The Renaissance of Classical Law ), p. 192.
  10. ^ Judiciary: Wilhelm Felgentraeger : On the history of the origins of the Fragmenta Vaticana , p. 28 ff. (Based on this: Detlef Liebs); Education: Franz Wieacker , text levels of classical lawyers , 147 plus fn. 65; Max Kaser , On the Current State of Interpolation Research , in SZ 69 (1952) 77.
  11. ↑ Final number of scholia for purchase, dowry and gift rights: Vat. 5 (purchase); Vat. 108, 112, 113 and 121 (dowry); Vat. 249.6 (donation); no scholion available for the titles substitution, usufruct and rejection of guardianship (compiled in: Detlef Liebs: Die Jurisprudenz im Late Antique Italy (260-640 AD) , Freiburg Legal History Treaties, New Series, Volume 8, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, P. 154.).
  12. ↑ Final number of scholia only for the revocation of a donation: Vat. 266a, 269, 270, 271, 272 (bis), 273, 280, 281, 282, 285, 286, 288, 294, 295, 296, 297, 312, 313 (bis), 314, 315 and 316 (compiled in: Detlef Liebs: Die Jurisprudenz im Late Antique Italy (260-640 AD) , Freiburg Legal History Treatises, New Series, Volume 8, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, p. 154.).
  13. ↑ Detlef Liebs: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Volume II 15, S 234 f. with reference to the rejection of Theodor Mommsen's opposing view; Reference is made to the teaching works of the late and epic classics Paul , Marcian, Modestin and Florentin.
  14. ^ Jan Dirk Harke : Roman law. From the classical period to the modern codifications . Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-57405-4 ( floor plans of the law ), § 1 no. 21 (p. 16 f.).