第58章（2 / 2）

  [16]As the title shows，the Farmer’s Law consists of extracts from a law-book of Justinian，and the problem has arisen as to whether they come from the legal works of Justinian I（despite the fact that they actually deal with what is predominantly new law，while the parallels which can be found in Justinian I’s law appear to be comparatively insignificant：cf.W.Ashburner，op.cit.，32，p.90 ff.，and F.Dolger，‘Nomos Georgikos’35 ff.），or whether they are extracts from an unknown law-book of Justinian Ⅱ.The older research after Cujacius’time supported this latter view，but it was lost sight of when other views were championed.Mortreuil，Histoire du droit byzantin Ⅰ（1843），395，and C.W.E.Heimbach，‘Gesch.des griech.-romischen Rechts’in Ersch und Gruber，Enzyklop.d.Wiss.86（1868），278 f.，thought that the title of the Farmer’s Law referred to the legal work of Justinian Ⅰ.Of still greater influence were the views of Zacharia Geschichte 250 ff.；he was led by the close relationship of the Farmer’s Law to the Ecloga o Leo Ⅲ and Constantine Ⅴ to attribute it to these Emperors，but then he was particularly partial to the iconoclast rulers（his‘favourites’，as Ashburner says，op.cit.，vol.32，p.73）and gives them credit for a number of other works for which we now know that they could not have been responsible.As in many other problems，Zacharia’s authoritative word secured the acceptance of his view for some time，in spite of the reasoned criticisms of such scholars as Pancenko，‘Krestjanskaja sobstvennost’（Peasant proprietorship），24 ff.，and Ashburner，op.cit.，32，p.87 ff.The discussion took a new turn when G.Vernadsky，‘Sur l’origine de la Loi agraire’，B 2（1925），127 ff.，more recently put the case for attributing the work to Justinian Ⅱ.His suggestions were supported by Stein，‘Vom Altertum’162 and BZ 31（1931），355，Vasiliev，Histoire Ⅰ（1932），325（cf.History（1952），245），Bréhier，Institutions 176，Ostrogorsky，BZ 30（1929-30），396，and B 6（1931），240;cf.also H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），642.They were not accepted by F.Dolger，HZ 141（1930），112 f.，and‘Nomos Georgikos’21 ff.，or by E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskoe krestjanstvo i slavjanskaja kolonizacija’（The Byzantine peasantry and Slav colonization），Viz.Sbornik（1945），100 ff.Of the manuscripts of the Farmer’s Law so far known，only one（Paris.gr.1367，twelfth century）gives a clear reference to the legal works of Justinian Ⅰ，and here the title is somewhat peculiar and the copyist cites the Digest and Institutes as well as a number of unidentified writings.But the inscriptions in the other manuscripts，with some unimportant variations，read：，（on the MS.tradition see Ashburner，op.cit.，30，p.85 ff.，and J.de Malafosse，‘Les lois agraires à l’époque byzantine’，Recueil de l’Acad.de Législation 19，1949，11 ff.）.The use of the singular formis significant，for it precludes any reference to Justinian I which would have been followed by the pluralOf the six MSS.cited by Ashburner（in addition to the Paris.gr.1367），only the twelfth-century Marc.gr.167 gives the plural form，while the other five（including the three oldest，and probably independent，copies of the eleventh century）agree in reading（or）.This fact（as I stated in my first edition of this book and in my‘Agrarian Conditions’198）seems to me to be a vital point in settling this much disputed question.Nevertheless Dolger，‘Nomos Georgikos’30 f.，does not recognize its force，although he cannot refute it.It could only be invalidated if we had a Byzantine legal work which showed from its title that it was obviously referring to Justinian I’s Corpus and cited this asτo’.But the Ecloga，which is in all probability a near contemporary of the Farmer’s Law，shows the usual way of making such reference in cases of citation from Justinian I’s Corpus;it was in fact a selection from his legal works and the inscription clearly describes it as an.In opposition to Zacharia’s view（Geschichte 250 ff.）that the Farmer’s Law was an official work，Dolger，‘Nomos Georgikos’，attempts to show that it was a private compilation.But whether the Farmer’s Law which has come down to us was in origin official or unofficial，the‘Book of Justinian’from which these extracts regulating everyday peasant life are taken was certainly an official compilation，and evidence all points towards a legal work of Justinian Ⅱ.The question of the date of the Farmer’s law is，however，more important than the question of authorship，and Dolger（‘Nomos Georgikos’48）finally concludes that it most probably belongs to the end of the seventh century or the first quarter of the eighth century.Cf.Dolger，‘Harmenopulos und der Nomos Georgikos’，（1951）.See also Lemerle，‘Histoire agraire’，219（i），p.53 ff.The article by J.Karayannopulos，‘Entstehung und Bedeutung des Nomos Georgikos’，BZ 51（1958），357 ff.，which attempts to show that the Farmer’s Law‘Keine Neuerungen ausweist’but‘nur alteres Recht wiedergibt’is a complete failure. ↑返回顶部↑