Turin institutional glossary

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The so-called Turin Institutional Glossary (also: Florentiner Rechtsbuch , Turin Manuscript ) is a commentary on the Institutiones Iustiniani of the late ancient Emperor Justinian , written in Latin , based on private law . It is predominantly assumed that the work, which is not named and written in free order, was written in Rome between 543 and 546 AD .

history

The gloss of the eponymous National Library of Turin has been handed down in a marginal glossy apparatus ( glossa marginalis ) on a manuscript of the institutions that introduced the Justinian set of laws in the 6th century, later known as the Corpus iuris civilis . This template was based on the collection of writings created as a beginner's textbook for law lessons by the high-class jurist Gaius , the Institutiones Gai , in the middle of the 2nd century. The pedagogical purpose of the gloss will not have deviated from the initial character of the Gaian intention, because a number of notes are noted in key words and thus fit the conception of a teacher who is preparing a lesson. The comments are not listed in keywords, but rather draped around the underlying text as a "wreath of glosses". The individual glosses refer to one another by means of reference signs.

The gloss apparatus became known through a few references by HE Schrader and only to a small audience. Friedrich Carl von Savigny , who, turning away from traditional natural law , examined a legal-philosophical approach based on the sense of justice that had grown historically in the Volksgeist and assumed its roots in (Roman) customary law , published the collection for the first time in 1822. Further publications followed, in 1868 by Paul Krüger and in 1933 by Alberto Alberti . Since the Turin glossary had never been included in any of the collections of Roman law ancillary sources, it was almost forgotten after the Second World War , because hardly any of the important legal history researchers of the time and thus Fritz Pringsheim , Fritz Schulz , Ernst Levy , Max Kaser and Wolfgang Kunkel - had used the source in his own legal books.

Much has remained controversial in research on the history of the gloss. The question of whether a single factory event can be assumed, or whether the collection should be broken down into its individual components, because it actually has to be traced back to different authors and in truth forms a conglomerate of different text layers, can hardly be answered. Also unanswered is the question of where the gloss was written and when. Franz Wieacker assumes that it originated in the 7th century, thus following an earlier handwriting of the institutions from the 6th century, the Theophilius Paraphrase .

Contardo Ferrini assumed that the collection was of Western Roman origin. Regardless of this, Roman teaching methods in the 6th century would have applied equally to the schools of law in Beirut and Constantinople . In his opinion, the schools of law had used the same Gaian text basis, possibly in a Greek translation with a Greek scholia apparatus . Max Conrat, on the other hand, found linguistic inconsistencies, from which he concluded that it was more a question of a translation of a Greek scholism apparatus made in the east of the empire , which, comparable to the Epitome Iuliani , should benefit the western provinces. Alberto Alberti interjected that the old gloss must already have consisted of different layers, because text passages that were later subject to citation bans, for example, were still included, which would speak for the respective resumption of proceedings in the arrangements; however, younger layers cannot be localized. For Detlef Liebs , the work originally proves to be a work unit, which he attaches to the existing cross-references. However, he takes up Paul Krüger's statement that the work is the bottom of about fifteen layers on top, which he considers to be the work of glossators and commentators from the time between the 10th and 15th centuries.

About three fifths of the “old” gloss apparatus have been preserved. From the first book the entire beginning to the 12th title is missing, from the second there is a larger gap between the 20th and 23rd title, while almost the entire third book has been preserved and from the fourth only the commentary on the first 16 paragraphs. The missing part was the late Middle Ages suppliert . Glosses inserted later are distributed irregularly over the work. Quotations from the works of Justinian general legislation can be traced, for example four Codex , eight Digest and five Novellae passages and one passage from the Lex Decisiones, which has since been banned .

There is consensus among research that the glossary contains many legal errors. Thus the condictio ex causa furtiva from the theft law is actually exaggerated. In deviation from the original text, the gloss does not only allow conditional rights against the thief or, if necessary, his heir, but also makes every owner liable. In Lieb's opinion, the original text was also misunderstood in terms of accresence , usufruct , stipulation or lien .

Similar gloss apparatus

The Turin manuscript does not seem to have been the only glossary apparatus for Justinian legislation that was put into circulation, because the few fragments of the " Bamberg Institutional Manuscript ", which cannot be reliably dated, are ascribed to this period, as is the brief synopsis from Book 6 of the CJ (6.4 , 4.) In the “ Pistoj Codex Gloss ”.

Fragments of a “ Veronese Palimpsest ” probably go back to the early 7th century , and fragments of the “ Berlin Rosnyanus ” to the 9th century .

literature

  • Max Conrat (Cohn): History of the sources and literature of Roman law in the early Middle Ages . Hinrichs, Leipzig 1891, p. 118 f.
  • Max Conrat (Cohn): The Florentine legal book. A system of Roman private law from the time of the Glossators , reprint of the Berlin 1882 edition, Scientia Verlag Aalen 1969.
  • August von Bethmann-Hollweg : The Germanic-Romanic civil process in the Middle Ages. Volume II, Bonn 1873, p. 312 f.
  • Hermann Fitting : About the so-called Turin institutional gloss and the so-called Brachylogus. A contribution to the history of Roman law from the sixth to the eleventh centuries. Pp. 13–27 (dating) and 27–32 (location)
  • Detlef Liebs : Jurisprudence in late antique Italy (260-640 AD) (= Freiburg legal-historical treatises. New series, volume 8). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, pp. 195-220.
  • Friedrich Carl von Savigny : History of Roman Law in the Middle Ages. Volume III, Heidelberg 1822, pp. 671-717.
  • Johann Friedrich von Schulte : The history of the sources and literature of canon law from Gratian to the present , 1st volume, published 1875–80, p. 217 ff.
  • Franz Wieacker : Text levels of classical jurists (= treatises of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, philological-historical class. 3rd episode, No. 45). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1960 (literature on text level problems).

Web links

Remarks

  1. ^ Max Conrat (Cohn): The Florentine legal book. A system of Roman private law from the time of the Glossary , reprint of the Berlin edition in 1882, Scientia Verlag Aalen 1969, introduction, page XII: In the absence of self-denomination and in the absence of literature references to the work, would come according to Conrat's view (based on August von Bethmann-Hollweg and Johann Friedrich von Schulte ) only the title “Summa” or “Summa legum” into consideration.
  2. ↑ a b Hermann Fitting : About the so-called Turin institutional gloss and the so-called Brachylogus. A contribution to the history of Roman law from the sixth to the eleventh centuries. Pp. 13–27 (dating) and 27–32 (localization) ( online ).
  3. ↑ August von Bethmann-Hollweg takes a different view : The Germanic-Romanic civil process in the Middle Ages. Volume II, Bonn 1873, p. 312 f.
  4. ↑ This means that metatextual revisions have been written to the margins of the templates.
  5. ↑ a b c d e Detlef Liebs : The jurisprudence in late antique Italy (260-640 AD) (= Freiburg legal-historical treatises. New series, volume 8). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, pp. 195-220 (195 f. And 202 f.).
  6. ^ Friedrich Carl von Savigny : History of Roman law in the Middle Ages. Volume III, Heidelberg 1822, pp. 671-717.
  7. ^ Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History , Volume 7, 1868, pp. 44–78.
  8. ^ Alberto Albert: La Glossa Torines e le altre glosse del ms. D. III.13 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Torino. Turin 1933, 225 pages.
  9. ^ A b Franz Wieacker : Roman legal history. Source studies, legal education, jurisprudence and legal literature . (= Handbook of Classical Studies , Section 10, Part 3); Volume 1: Introduction, Source Studies, Early Period and Republic , Beck, Munich 1988, ISBN 978-3-406-32987-6 .
  10. ↑ CJ 5.31.8; 6,58,11; 6,2,22; and 1,4,30;
  11. ↑ for example in D. 1,5,7 in No. 1 Sav .; 10,4,12 § 3 in No. 67 Sav.
  12. ↑ two of them from the year 535, otherwise from the years 536, 539 and 543.
  13. ↑ CJ 8.47.10.
  14. ↑ Compare: Inst. 2,1 § 26 (gloss) with Gai. 2.79.
  15. ^ Max Conrat (Cohn): History of the sources and literature of Roman law in the early Middle Ages . Hinrichs, Leipzig 1891, p. 118 f .; Hermann Fitting: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History / Romance Studies Department 7 (1886) issue 2, p. 7 f.
  16. ↑ Detlef Liebs: Roman jurisprudence in early medieval Italy. The Veronese Scholien on the Codex Justinianus and the Pistojer Codex Glossary , reprints from the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg ( online ).