{"title":"人的实践与皇帝的颁布:遗嘱机制变化的动力","authors":"E. A. Meyer","doi":"10.55740/2023.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the historical accuracy of a statement made in Justinian's Institutes about the development of the late-antique tripartite will, and finds that the enactments of emperors are given too much credit, and the practice of men too little. The paper follows the chronologically uneven and geographically disparate ways in which writing came to be used in wills, and notes the ways in which the problems writing could pose were systematically ignored by imperial enactments until very late.","PeriodicalId":151901,"journal":{"name":"Roman Legal Tradition","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Practice of Men and the Enactments of Emperors: Dynamics of Change in the Mechanics of Testaments\",\"authors\":\"E. A. Meyer\",\"doi\":\"10.55740/2023.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper analyses the historical accuracy of a statement made in Justinian's Institutes about the development of the late-antique tripartite will, and finds that the enactments of emperors are given too much credit, and the practice of men too little. The paper follows the chronologically uneven and geographically disparate ways in which writing came to be used in wills, and notes the ways in which the problems writing could pose were systematically ignored by imperial enactments until very late.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Roman Legal Tradition\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Roman Legal Tradition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55740/2023.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Roman Legal Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55740/2023.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Practice of Men and the Enactments of Emperors: Dynamics of Change in the Mechanics of Testaments
This paper analyses the historical accuracy of a statement made in Justinian's Institutes about the development of the late-antique tripartite will, and finds that the enactments of emperors are given too much credit, and the practice of men too little. The paper follows the chronologically uneven and geographically disparate ways in which writing came to be used in wills, and notes the ways in which the problems writing could pose were systematically ignored by imperial enactments until very late.