Corpus Juris Civilis (Justinian’s Code)

The Corpus Juris Civilis, “Body of Civil Law”, is the name later given to the collection of legal works produced under Emperor Justinian I in Constantinople. It was not written as a single book. Three compilations were issued as law under Justinian: a Code of imperial laws, a Digest of the writings of classical Roman jurists, and the Institutes, a textbook for first-year law students. Justinian’s later laws, the Novels, survive in private collections and are conventionally counted as a fourth part.

Justinian himself did not use the title Corpus Juris Civilis. It became standard after 1583, when the French jurist Dionysius Gothofredus (Denis Godefroy) published the four parts together under that name. In Roman legal terminology, ius civile meant the law particular to a community, especially Rome, as distinct from the ius gentium (law of nations) and natural law; in later European usage “civil law” also distinguished Roman law from the church’s canon law.

The purpose of the project was to put an enormous and confusing body of Roman law into order. Roman law had been growing for about a thousand years. Imperial decisions contradicted one another, and the writings of the great jurists filled hundreds of books that few people could read in full. Justinian ordered his experts to collect, cut, harmonise and update this material, and then declared that only the new books had legal force.

The Code (Codex Justinianus) collected the laws of the emperors from the time of Hadrian in the second century onward. Justinian set up a ten-member commission in February 528. It worked from three earlier collections, the unofficial Gregorian and Hermogenian Codes and the official Theodosian Code of 438, and from later laws. The first Code was issued in April 529. It was replaced in 534 by a revised second edition, divided into twelve books: book 1 on church law, sources of law and high offices; books 2–8 on private law; book 9 on crimes; books 10–12 on administration. Only the second edition survives; of the first, almost nothing is left except a fragment of a table of contents on an Egyptian papyrus.

The Digest, also called the Pandects (from a Greek word meaning “all-containing”), is the largest part and the main source for our knowledge of classical Roman law. In December 530 Justinian ordered Tribonian to compile extracts from the writings of the classical jurists, who had worked mainly in the first to third centuries. Tribonian led a commission of seventeen: himself, one other senior official, four law professors and eleven advocates. They finished in three years. The Digest is arranged in fifty books, most of them divided into titles on particular subjects, and each extract is labelled with its author and original work. Ulpian alone supplied roughly a third of the extracts.

The Institutes are a short introduction for students, organised in four books under the headings of persons, things and actions; “things” here means a person’s assets in the widest sense and also covers succession and obligations. They were modelled closely on the Institutes of the second-century jurist Gaius. Unusually, this textbook was also given the full force of law. It opens with a definition that has been repeated for centuries: justice is the constant and perpetual will to give each person what is theirs.

The Novels (Novellae constitutiones, “new laws”) are the laws Justinian issued after 534. A planned official collection was never completed; they survive in several private collections. Most were issued in Greek, by then the main language of government in Constantinople, though some were in Latin or both languages – a sign of how the legal world was changing even as the compilation was completed.

Justinian was born around 482 in the Balkans, in a Latin-speaking family of modest origins, and rose to power through his maternal uncle, Emperor Justin I. He ruled from 527 to 565 with ambitions to restore the greatness of the Roman Empire: his generals reconquered North Africa and Italy, and he rebuilt the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. His wife, the empress Theodora, was an influential partner in government until her death in 548.

The legal work was directed by Tribonian, a lawyer of great learning. He served on the first Code commission in 528 and then led the Digest, the Institutes and the revised Code. He was quaestor, the minister responsible for drafting laws, when the Digest project began in 530; the promulgating texts of 533 call him master of offices and former quaestor. The historian Procopius praised his ability but accused him of greed. He worked with teams of officials, professors from the law schools of Constantinople and Berytus (Beirut), and practising advocates. Two professors, Theophilus and Dorotheus, helped him write the Institutes.

The emperor presented the project as his own, and the introductory laws that promulgated each part speak in his voice. But the actual reading, cutting and editing of thousands of texts was the achievement of these teams, who completed in a few years what earlier emperors had not managed at all.

The compilers were not simply copying. They were authorised to shorten, combine and change the old texts so that the result would be consistent and fit for the law of their own day. Obsolete institutions were removed, contradictions resolved and some rules altered. Justinian also issued a series of rulings known as the Fifty Decisions (530–531) to settle long-standing disputes among the jurists before the Digest was finished. Changes made by the compilers to the original texts are called interpolations.

According to Justinian’s own account in the law announcing the Digest, the commissioners read almost two thousand books containing about three million lines and reduced them to around 150,000. Whatever the exact figures, the scale of the reduction was enormous, and much of classical legal literature survives today only in the extracts chosen for the Digest.

Once the books were finished, Justinian forbade judges and lawyers to cite the old works directly and prohibited commentaries on the Digest, allowing only literal Greek translations (kata poda) and short summaries and notes (paratitla). His aim was a closed, authoritative body of law. In practice, Greek translations, teaching summaries and explanatory notes soon developed to support the study and use of the Latin compilations, and the first commentaries appeared within Justinian’s own reign.

Lawyers and historians refer to the Corpus with a compact system of numbers. A reference such as D. 1.1.10 means the Digest, book 1, title 1, fragment 10; a longer reference may add a paragraph number. C. stands for the Code, Inst. (or I.) for the Institutes, and Nov. for the Novels. Medieval lawyers used a different system, citing the first words of a title and a fragment instead of numbers, so older books can look puzzling to modern readers.

Each fragment of the Digest begins with an inscription naming the jurist and the work from which it was taken, for example a book of Ulpian’s commentary on the praetor’s edict. This labelling is what allows scholars to reconstruct lost works of the classical jurists by gathering all the fragments of one book, and it is also the evidence on which theories about the commission’s working method are based.

Reading the Corpus is therefore a little like reading a carefully edited anthology. The voice of a second-century jurist and the voice of a sixth-century editor can sit in the same sentence, and part of the skill of Roman legal history lies in hearing both.

Much of the Corpus deals with private law: the status of persons (free and slave, citizens, children under a father’s power), marriage and dowry, property and possession, inheritance and wills, and obligations arising from contracts and from wrongs. Roman jurists had developed precise concepts here, such as the difference between ownership and possession, the types of contract formed by consent, and the idea of fault in causing damage. These concepts are what later European lawyers found most useful.

The Corpus also reflects its own society. Slavery was fully part of the legal order, although Justinian’s laws made manumission easier. Book 1 of the Code begins with laws on the Holy Trinity and the Catholic faith and includes laws restricting heretics, pagans, Jews and Samaritans. Some Novels, often linked with Theodora’s influence, improved the legal position of women in matters such as dowry and inheritance, and protected actresses and women forced into prostitution.

Public and criminal law take up less space than private law, but the Digest and Code include rules on crimes, punishments, the duties of officials and taxation. Some passages took on a life far beyond their original setting. A rule of the Code requiring every co-guardian’s consent to an act that would end the guardianship (C. 5.59.5.1–2) closes with the words “what touches all must be approved by all”; medieval canon lawyers turned this into a general maxim, which later became a political principle, while the statement that the emperor is not bound by the laws (D. 1.3.31) was debated by later political thinkers, who used both for very different purposes.

The compilation was carried out in years of crisis and ambition. In January 532, while the Digest commission was at work, the Nika riots broke out in Constantinople. Rioters demanded the dismissal of unpopular ministers, including Tribonian, and much of the city centre was burned. Justinian’s troops crushed the revolt with great bloodshed, and within weeks he began rebuilding Hagia Sophia, completed in 537. That same year, 532, Justinian made the so-called Endless (or Eternal) Peace with the new Persian king Khosrow I, paying 110 centenaria of gold so that he could turn his armies west. The peace broke down in 540, when Khosrow sacked Antioch.

At the other end of Eurasia, rulers also used written law to strengthen their states. In Korea, the Samguk sagi records that King Beopheung of Silla promulgated a law code in 520. This offers a comparison with Justinian’s project, although the two developed independently and the surviving evidence tells us far less about Silla’s code. Later East Asian legal compilations drew chiefly on Chinese models, rather than Roman law.

During the seventh century the Tang dynasty in China developed influential penal and administrative codes. A clear example of their reception is Japan’s Taihō Code of 701, modelled on Tang codes; Silla also adopted elements of the Chinese system. No direct borrowing between Justinian’s compilation and these East Asian codifications has been established, but comparing them shows two very different answers to the same problem: how to turn the scattered rules of a vast state into an authoritative written text.

In the East, Justinian’s law remained in force but was increasingly used through Greek translations and summaries. Around 900, under Emperor Leo VI, it was reworked into a large Greek legal collection known as the Basilica, which served Byzantine courts for centuries.

In the West, the situation was different. After Justinian’s reconquest, his law was introduced in Italy, but the Lombard invasions soon cut most of the peninsula off from Constantinople. The Institutes, the Code and the Novels remained known, but the Digest almost disappeared from use for about five centuries. The sixth-century Littera Florentina is the principal early manuscript of the Digest, but medieval copies also drew on at least one other, now lost, manuscript, so it is not the only witness to the text. Its early history is uncertain; it was in Pisa by the twelfth century and was taken to Florence as war booty in 1406, where it remains.

In the late eleventh century the Digest returned to use in Italy: it is cited in a legal plea of 1076. Later tradition credits Irnerius with teaching Justinian’s texts at Bologna and explaining them with short notes (glosses) written between the lines and in the margins. A lawyer generally identified with him appears in documents between 1112 and 1125, but these do not prove his teaching, whose date and nature are debated. Bologna’s glossators attracted students from across Europe and contributed to the rise of the University of Bologna. In the thirteenth century Accursius gathered the glosses into a standard commentary, the Glossa ordinaria, which was printed alongside the text for centuries.

From Bologna, the study of Roman law spread to universities in France, Spain, Germany and beyond. Combined with church law and local customs, it formed the ius commune, the common legal learning of medieval and early modern Europe. Lawyers trained in it served kings, cities and the church, and its concepts shaped legal argument everywhere.

Humanist scholars of the sixteenth century began to study the Corpus historically, trying to recover the original Roman law behind Justinian’s edits. In the nineteenth century, the German Pandectist school built a highly systematic legal science on the Digest. The great national codes, especially the French Civil Code of 1804 and the German Civil Code (BGB), enacted in 1896 and in force from 1900, drew heavily on this tradition. Roman-law concepts then reached other countries by different routes. Japan’s Civil Code (1896–1898) drew on French law and on the first draft of the German Civil Code. South Korea promulgated its Civil Code in 1958 and brought it into force on 1 January 1960, replacing the Japanese civil code that had been applied under colonial rule and retained after liberation.

Even in common-law countries such as England, which did not adopt Roman law as a system, the Corpus influenced legal thinking, church courts, admiralty law and the vocabulary of jurisprudence. International law also borrowed Roman ideas, such as the ius gentium, the “law of nations”. Today the standard scholarly text is the critical edition prepared in the nineteenth century by Theodor Mommsen, Paul Krüger, Rudolf Schöll and Wilhelm Kroll.

Because the compilers were allowed to alter texts, historians of classical Roman law must ask of every Digest passage how much of it reflects the original jurist and how much the sixth-century editors. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many scholars hunted for interpolations with great enthusiasm, marking suspicious words and phrases as later insertions. Catalogues of suspected interpolations were compiled. Since the mid-twentieth century this approach has been widely criticised as excessive; many supposed interpolations are now thought to reflect changes already made in late antique editions of the jurists, or simply to be genuine classical language. Most scholars now judge each case more cautiously.

A second debate concerns how the Digest commission actually worked in only three years. In 1820 the German scholar Friedrich Bluhme noticed that within most titles the extracts fall into recurring sequences of works. He proposed that the commissioners divided the material into groups of works, the so-called “masses” (Sabinian, Edictal and Papinian, plus an appendix), each handled by a subcommittee, and then merged the results. Bluhme’s “mass theory” is still broadly accepted, though other details of the compilers’ working methods, such as Tony Honoré’s attempt to assign work to individual compilers, remain uncertain.

Scholars also debate how to understand the whole project. Some emphasise its conservative, classicising character: Justinian looked back to the golden age of the jurists and preserved it. Others stress its innovation: the compilers changed the law and imposed a single authoritative text. Both sides agree that the project combined the preservation of classical legal writing with substantial revision for sixth-century use.

Roman or Byzantine? Justinian and his subjects called themselves Romans, and their state the Roman Empire. The word “Byzantine” is a later label. Historians who stress continuity present the Corpus as the culmination of Roman law; others emphasise that it belongs to a Christian, Greek-speaking East with its own priorities, visible in the Novels and in the religious laws of the Code. How one frames the Corpus shapes whether it is seen as an ending or a beginning.

A European inheritance? Traditional accounts describe the Corpus as the foundation of “Western” law. More recent work points out that it was compiled in a city between Europe and Asia, drew on jurists from across the Mediterranean (Ulpian, for example, came from Tyre in modern Lebanon), and was later received in very different ways in Byzantium, western Europe, the Slavic world and, through modern codes, in East Asia and Latin America. Japanese and Korean civil law, for example, reached Roman concepts through European codes and legal scholarship rather than directly.

Justice for whom? The Corpus is admired for its reasoning, but it also maintained slavery, the power of fathers over their families and restrictions on religious minorities, even as it preserved reforms that eased manumission and simplified release from paternal power. Justinian’s laws against pagan teachers are often linked with the end of the Neoplatonic school in Athens around 529, although scholars disagree about how direct that connection was. Some historians celebrate Theodora’s role in laws protecting women; others warn that this picture relies partly on hostile or idealising sources. A balanced reading keeps both the intellectual achievement and the social limits of the law in view.