It is important to note at the outset that the Byzantines did not recognize a separation between Church and state and, consequently, there was no strict distinction between secular and ecclesiastical legislative authority and jurisdiction.

According to Byzantine legal theory, secular and canon law constituted in essence a single legal order: the canons of the Church were received and incorporated into the law of the state; at the same time, the Church gave imperial legislation a ‘canonical charactersize=2>’ not only by adjusting its own law to the law of the state but also by receiving ecclesiastical law created by imperial authority as its own or by resorting to such law in order to regulate its own affairs.

After all, the emperor was the only officially recognized ‘universal’ legislative authority, even for matters of the Church, after the end of the period of the Ecumenical Councils in the East.

The nucleus of Church law was formed by the decisions (kanones) promulgated at Church councils, which have been preserved in a great variety of collections.^{^[636]} A special type of work are the so-called nomocanons (nomokanones), a term alluding to the fact that Church and state were inextricably bound up with one another. The emperor could intervene in the affairs of the Church and vice versa, with the result that both Church and state might have issued legislation on a particular problem, so that both kanones and statutes were relevant. From the end of the seventh century the role of the kanon in the development of canon law was taken over by the decisions of the patriarch of Constantinople and the authoritative commentary on the existing body of canon law. Although canon legislation did not restrict itself to purely ecclesiastical matters, and the Church courts increasingly concerned themselves with issues of civil law, civil legislation covered a much broader field. In the following paragraphs the emphasis will therefore be on the sources of civil law and in particular the enactments of the emperors, the chief source of law during the Byzantine era.

Until the twelfth century Byzantine imperial legislation was similar in form to the imperial legislation of the Justinianic period^{^[637]} and enactments of a general character (leges generales) in the form of Novels (novellae constitutiones or nearai diataxeis) continued to be issued after the manner of the edicts of the Roman emperors.^{^[638]}^{^[639]} A general law was preceded by a preamble (praefatio), in which reference was made to the position of the emperor as God’s representative on earth, supreme lawgiver and protector of his people; this was followed by the description of the situation which the law aimed to rectify (narratio), the main text of the law (dispositio), and the conclusion; the latter contained the penalties (sanctiones) which the violation of the law entailed and prescribed the scope of the law and the manner of its publication. Similar to the earlier mandata were the diatyposes, internal directions given by the emperor to officials in his service (especially to provincial authorities).

The earlier rescripta were replaced by the lyses, answers given by the emperors to inquiries of officials on matters of administrative law, and the semeioses, responses of the emperors to petitions concerning matters of civil or ecclesiastical law. From the twelfth century the term chryso- voullos logos was used to denote an imperial enactment of a general character, whilst the lyses and the semeioses were superseded by the prostagmata or horismoi^ The majority of the imperial laws were concerned with public administration and matters of socio-economic policy. Moreover, a number of laws were enacted which introduced innovations in the fields of criminal and family law. In general, Byzantine imperial legislation was ‘humanitarian’ in character, aiming to protect those whom it considered weak against those whom it considered strong,^{^[640]}and greatly influenced by Christian ethical principles. At the same time it continued the move away from formalism, although this move was accompanied by a decline in technique.

During the Byzantine era custom continued to play a part as a secondary source of law. Despite the general reluctance of Justinian and subsequent emperors to recognise the validity of customary law, numerous customary norms found their way into various imperial enactments and official compilations of the law. Some of these norms had their origin in Greek and Hellenistic institutions of much earlier ages; others were formed in later years, especially after the twelfth century, and reflect the influence of trade practices introduced into Byzantium by the Venetians and other western powers.

6.2.1

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis G.. Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition. Springer,2015. — 339 p.. 2015

It is important to note at the outset that the Byzantines did not recognize a separation between Church and state and, consequently, there was no strict distinc­tion between secular and ecclesiastical legislative authority and jurisdiction.

More on the topic It is important to note at the outset that the Byzantines did not recognize a separation between Church and state and, consequently, there was no strict distinc­tion between secular and ecclesiastical legislative authority and jurisdiction.:

It is important to note at the outset that the Byzantines did not recognize a separation between Church and state and, consequently, there was no strict distinction between secular and ecclesiastical legislative authority and jurisdiction.

More on the topic It is important to note at the outset that the Byzantines did not recognize a separation between Church and state and, consequently, there was no strict distinction between secular and ecclesiastical legislative authority and jurisdiction.: