Fontes Minores 08 (1990) [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

'Ρωμαϊκαϊ άγωγαί

Two Byzantine Treatises

ση

Lega1 Actions

by

Roos

MEIJERING

PREFACE

The text edited here under the title of " 'Ρωμαϊκαϊ άγωγαί" ίΒ prίmarily that found ίτι codLaurentianus 80-2, fo1. 3r-46r (L). Ιτι the τοετιιιεοτίρτit followsthe index titulorum ofTheophilus' Paraphrasis Institutionum and precedes the glossae nomicae edited by L. Burgmann ία this book, and Theophilus' Paraphrasis (see ρ.287). Ιτι this llth-century maηuscήΡt,unfortunately, the title ofthe treatise ίΒ the fίrst of several passages not completely legible, owing to water damage 1 : we get strandedat έκλογη κατα σύνοψινπερ![έ]νοχ[, afterwhich traces of at least ten characters are visible. περί ένοχων και άγωγων seems a plausible conjecture, or at any rate it would be ίη accordance with the contents of the treatise. Such a title does not immediately suggest a lexicon. Indeed an alphabetical order ίΒ neither consistently nor ΡήmarilΥ maintained ίη this maηuscήΡΙ Οτι the other hand, the alphabet does determine the arrangement ίη the strongly related, incomplete text ofthe 14th century cod. Ρaήsinus supp1.gr.624 (foΙ 1r-17v, the remainder of the manuscript being lost: Ρ). This text ίΒ entitled έξήγησιςτων ρωμαϊκων άγωγων έλληνισΤΙ κατα άλφά.βητον, which accounts both for the title chosen for the present edition and for ίιΒ occurrence ίη this collection of Byzantine legallexica. In fact it will be seen ίη νετίοιιε ways and degrees to be related to the lexica edited below. The existence of two maηuscήΡts with dissimilar versions ofthe text gives ήse to several questions: 1 what ίε the exact arrangement of lemmata ίη Ρ; 2 what ίε the alternative arrangement underlying the text as preserved in L; 3 which of them ίΒ the older arrangement and what ίΒ the relationship with other legal texts; 4 why should one choose to edit the L version rather than Ρ; 5 are there other differences between Ρ and L and how should they be dealt with ίη this edition? 1 The legibility of L ίΒ worst ίn the upper, lower and outer margins of folia 3-8. and fol.310st a piece of the upper comer too.

Das Le:xikon αύσηθ νοη

LUDWIG BURGMANN

Unter den in diesem Band prasentierten lexikographischen Texten vertritt das Lexikon αϋσηϋ als einziges den Regeltyp der νοη den Byzantίnernals λέξεις 1 ρωμΙΧϊκΙΧί bezeichneten lateinisch-griechischen Glossare zu Rechtstexten. Zwar berίihrt sich seine Text- und ύberlieferungsgeschichtean einem Punkt mit derjenigen der in Abhandlung Ι edierten 'Ρωμιχϊκιχι άγωγΙΧί, doch ist davon nur e ίη e Fassung eigener Rezension (L), nicht hingegen die Vώgatrezensiοn (a) des Lexikons betroffen. RezenSΊon a

Diese Rezension tritt ihrerseits in drei Fassungen auf, die sich in der Abfolge der Glossen nur geringfίigig,im Bestand aber erheblich voneinander unterscheiden. Gemeinsam ist den drei Fassungen ein Grundstock νοη etwa 250 Glossen. Fassung Β Β

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Baroccl 173,

Π. Teil,

12. Jhdt., fol. 350r/v.

Κontext: SynopSΊs Basilicorum maior Appendix Α 2 Oberschrift: Λέξεις ρωμιχϊκιχι κιχτα στοιχείον έν τφ νόμφ,

Der Glossenbestand ist mit dem gemeinsamen Grundstock νοτι Rezension a nahezu identisch. Β hat lediglich vier Sonderglossen unbestίmmbarerHerkunft: Β 15-16, Π 37, Ρ 19. Fassung Ε Ε

Escorial R. Π.12, 13.Jhdt., foll.251v-254v. Synopsis Basilicorum maior Appendix Α Oberschrift: Λέξεις ρωμΙΧϊκιχι κειμεναι ΈV τφ νόμφ κιχτα στοιχείον.

Κontext:

Die Leιnmata - mit Ausnahme νοτι Α 5 sogar die griechischen (Ε 2 und 22, Κ 1 und 5) - sind mit lateinischen Buchstaben geschrieben, denen nur selten und regellos griechische Buchstaben sowie Akzente und Spiritus untergemischt sind ι Zur Gattung vgl. FM Π 87-113. Die Κlassitikation hier und im folgenden nach Ν. G. SVORONOS, Lα Synopsis mαjor des ΒαΒϊ­

2

liques et ses

αppendices,

Paris 1964.

The Lexicon Μαγπίπιουν by BERNARD Η. STOLTE Ι. Introduction In 1961 Triantaphyllopou1os communicated to the XIIth Intemational Congress of Byzantine Studies the eXΊstence of a manuscript with glossαe nomicαe that had been discovered ίn Basel by Abbondanza1• An edition was announced, but has not appeared 80 far. The leXΊcon concemed ίΒ a special case in several respects and was omίtted by Burgmann from his survey of more than 110 manuscripts.of Byzantine juridicalleXΊca: Ι refer the reader to that paper for general information about this genre2• The accuracy of the transliteration of Latin words into Greek and the quality ofthe explanations attached to these lemmata make the leXΊcon ΜαγκίΠ10υν stand out high among these compilations. Interestin it has been expressed not only by Byzantinists, but al80by students of legal humanism, in the latter case as it ίΒ connected with Alciatus' 'Graecus legum interpres'. The 16th century saw the restoration of the Greek passages in the Corpus iuris civilis, passages that had either been transmitted in corrupt form or had been omίttedaltogether3• Until the edition (jfthe codex Florentinus ofthe Digest by Laelius Taurellus in 1553 scholars helped th~mselves as best they cou1d and continued to do 80for the other parts of the Corpus for a very long time. One of the means employed by the Italian humanist Andreas Alciatus was to consu1t,in his ownwords, an 'innominatus Graecuslegum interpres', a text which had been brought from Crete and given to him by Stephanus Niger·, Alciatus was very· 1 J. TRIANTAPHYLLOPOULOS, 'Le maηuscήt de gloses noιniques Μιχγκ(π\ουν de la Biblioth~que Universitaire de B41e (G 2 Ι 37 Ν. 7)', Actes du XIle Congres Internαtionαl des Btudes Byzαntines Π (Belgrade 1964), 519-523. 2 L.BURGMANN, 'Byzantinische RechtsleΣika', FM Π (1977),87-146. 3 See, e.g., Η.Ε. TROjE, Grαeca leguntur. Die Aneignung des byzαntiniBchen Rechts und die

Entstehung eines

humαnistischen

Corpus iuris civiliBin der Jurisprudenz des 16. Jαhrhunderts

(=Forschungen zur Neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte 18), Cologne-Vienna 1971. • Οη A1ciatus Βθθ R. ABBONDANZA, 'Andrea A1ciato" Dizionαrio Biogrαfico degli ItαΙiαBϊ 2 (1960) 69-77 (with bibliography); TROjE, ορ. cit. (η. 3). Οη Stephanus Niger, mainly noted for the fact that he was a pupil ofDemetrios Chalcondyles, Βθθ Μ.Ε. COSENZA, Biogrαphicαl Dictionαry οι the ItαΙiαB Humαnists αnd the World οι Clαssicαl Scholαrship in Itαly, 1300-1800, Boston 1962 and SuppLement, ibid. 1967. Οη the legum interpres Βθθ TRIANTAPHYLLOPOULOS, ορ. cit. (η. 1) and esp. Η.Ε. TROjE, 'Arbeitshypothesen zum Thema "Humanistische Jurisprudenz": Anhang. Vetus graecus legum interpres', TR 38 (1970), 555-563.