Today we know that the recovery of Justinian texts and the medieval revival of jurisprudence were not sudden phenomena. Both came at the end of a long and participated process. Not a single protagonist, but many different actors who played on different theaters. Nevertheless, the study of the manuscript tradition – which in recent decades has been conducted in a systematic manner and with modern methods – offers some reasons to confirm the old tradition according to which Irnerio played in any case a specific and non-negligible role in this process. In particular, two cases will be examined here: that of the recovery of the three proemial constitutions to the Justinian’s Code (Haec quae necessario, Summa rei publicae and Cordi nobis) and that of the singular refusal expressed by Irnerio with respect to the Authenticum. The reading of the glosses that can be related with relative certainty to the irnerian teaching clarifies how, in both cases, the attention to the philological data (i.e. the correct reconstruction of a 500-year-old text) did not derive only from an erudite interest. Instead it was aimed at demonstrating how Justinian’s texts possessed that auctoritas that made them immediately and necessarily applicable to contemporary society. Irnerio also took care to clarify what should be the attitude of the new emperors (also entitled to legislate) with respect to the rules of the late antique legislator.

Loschiavo, L. (2020). Irnerius and the imperial legislation, between Justinian and Henry V. TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR RECHTSGESCHIEDENIS, 88(3-4), 367-391.

Irnerius and the imperial legislation, between Justinian and Henry V

Luca Loschiavo
2020

Abstract

Today we know that the recovery of Justinian texts and the medieval revival of jurisprudence were not sudden phenomena. Both came at the end of a long and participated process. Not a single protagonist, but many different actors who played on different theaters. Nevertheless, the study of the manuscript tradition – which in recent decades has been conducted in a systematic manner and with modern methods – offers some reasons to confirm the old tradition according to which Irnerio played in any case a specific and non-negligible role in this process. In particular, two cases will be examined here: that of the recovery of the three proemial constitutions to the Justinian’s Code (Haec quae necessario, Summa rei publicae and Cordi nobis) and that of the singular refusal expressed by Irnerio with respect to the Authenticum. The reading of the glosses that can be related with relative certainty to the irnerian teaching clarifies how, in both cases, the attention to the philological data (i.e. the correct reconstruction of a 500-year-old text) did not derive only from an erudite interest. Instead it was aimed at demonstrating how Justinian’s texts possessed that auctoritas that made them immediately and necessarily applicable to contemporary society. Irnerio also took care to clarify what should be the attitude of the new emperors (also entitled to legislate) with respect to the rules of the late antique legislator.
Loschiavo, L. (2020). Irnerius and the imperial legislation, between Justinian and Henry V. TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR RECHTSGESCHIEDENIS, 88(3-4), 367-391.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11590/384796
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact