168 | CHAPTER 6
the whole community,” had declared Cicero; and to that oracle, even or espe-
cially when he ventured forth for a walk in the forum, all citizens had re-
course on any conceivable business.^16 Although Roman law is more resistant
than Aristotelianism to categories such as “prophecy” and “scripture,” still
the deposit of early laws, notably the Twelve Tables, attracted durable rever-
ence and commentary, while the imperial Roman jurists can reasonably be
labeled exegetes. But by the end of the third century, the emperor’s growing
absolutism and role as unique source of law was eclipsing the jurists, who
gave way to codifiers and the compilers of anthologies and summaries, nota-
bly under Diocletian (284–305).^17 The two most important instantiations of
this tendency were the Gregorian code (c. 292 with later additions) gathering
imperial rescripts from Hadrian to 291, and the Hermogenian code (295 with
later additions) assembling rescripts issued by Diocletian in 293–94.^18
These at least semiofficial codes simplified the hunt for precedents in
chronologically arranged archives on rolls; they were also symptomatic of
Diocletian’s wish to install a revised and rationalized Romanitas after the tur-
bulence of the mid- third century. They deployed the now fashionable codex
form,^19 a crucial First Millennium technolog y and index of Romanization,
having originated in Rome in the first century CE.^20 We already saw Origen
and Eusebius using it, again to facilitate scholarly compilations scanning
broad conceptual horizons in an easily accessed format. No doubt the popu-
larity of the codex also marks a significant shift away from oral transmission
in the Roman legal tradition, perhaps in the Church too. But as we shall see,
orality remained central to Judaism and, later, Islam. That strengthened the
scholarly guild’s monopoly compared to the less predictable and controllable
circulation of books, but it also intensified the vividness of the tradition and
the conviction it carried. It was rarely an either/or choice, though. Recitation
and reading coexisted. “Qurʾān” means both.
Diocletian’s project to revive Romanity was not unrealistic given the
progress made by Augustus, Hadrian and, not least, the Severan jurists, in
consolidating a sense of Roman identity, a “Romanocentric consensus.”^21
Tensions had long been apparent, though, and they came out into the open
16 Cicero, On the orator [ed. A. S. Wilkins (Oxford 1902); tr. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham (Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1942)] 1.45.200, 3.33.133.
17 D. Johnston, “Epiclassical law,” CAH 12.202–6.
18 S. Corcoran, The empire of the Tetrarchs (Oxford 2000, revised ed.) 25–42; S. Connolly, Lives
behind the laws: The world of the Codex Hermogenianus (Bloomington, Ind. 2010) 39–45. Recently dis-
covered Latin fragments of the Gregorian code: S. Corcoran and B. Salway, “Fragmenta Londiniensia
Anteiustiniana”, Roman legal tradition 8 (2012) 63- 83. Syriac fragments of both codes, not always noticed
in the scholarly literature: W. Selb, Sententiae syriacae (Vienna 1990) 189–96.
19 Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte [6:10] 1.135–37.
20 Bagnall, Livres chrétiens [6:4] 90–93; cf. M. Nicholls, “Parchment codices in a new text of
Galen,” Greece and Rome 57 (2010) 378–86.
21 Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium [5:6] 45–61, 79.