On the nature of Roman imperial legislation and codifications: a reaction to a recent approach

Summary Roman legislation was generally a reaction to events, but that does not mean that if encapsulated in a codification, similar events had to have happened to justify its inclusion (it would be impossible for an entire code). A legal rule purports to cover future similar cases and only if these do not present themselves for a long period, the rule goes into abeyance. Further, such rules usually fit an existing legal framework and a codification continues this framework. Hence Justinian’s Code (but already Theodosius’) must be considered as a systematical body. Consequence of this is, that for an analysis of the imperial agrarian policy all texts regarding this must be taken into account, and in as far as gathered in a title, they should be considered as a systematical whole, which implies that the chronology in any title is of no importance. This goes also for the title on the coloni seu agricolis censitis , cj 11,48. Another point is the communicative function of laws. Indeed, notwithstanding that most of them are adressed to a high functionary, the ultimate addressees lie behind that functionary. But in order to know to whom and what was communicated, one best relies on the preambles. Where these are absent, the ultimate addressees can usually only be deduced from the contents of the rule.