Saturday, April 30, 2011
Apple Airport Extreme WAN, Verizon DSL Westell and Mac Book
We received the give of a 6 year old but quite useable Mac Book. I have spent a total of 30 hours trying to get it to connect
to the Internet either via Wi-Fi or Ethernet cable. It works fine at my step-mother's both with cable and on Wi-Fi.
Our Verizon Westel 327W is about 8 years old. There are certain things we might try, like making it into a bridge or doing a firmware update but we risk losing all Internet for days or even weeks and the expense of Verizon technicians.
Someone gave us an Apple Airport Extreme Router which is actuall a WAN with a WAN port. The idea is to plug an ethernet cable from your Westell (or other brand of) router into the WAN port and then configure the Airport using your Mac which senses it via Wi-Fi. I watched two Wi-Fi Lan experts (who do it for a living) try everything under the sun bur it just would not work.
There was some suspicion that the Airport Extreme Router was defective so I took it to Best Buy and exchanged it. The going price is $175. I learned something very interesting from the sales rep, namely, that no matter where you go in the city, a Mac Book Pro will cost the same. There are no bargains in the world of Apple except for corportate discounts on volume purchases.
The Airport Extreme device has a WAN port and 4 ethernet ports as well as a USB. You may attach a USB hub to that USB and have a number of USB hubs which you may use to share printers and scanners among computers in the Wan/Lan.
It MIGHT be possible to make the Verizon Westell compatible via a firmware upgrade but that might also render it useless.
Our decision is to purchase Time-Warner RoadRunner since we already have cabling for the television in the building. We will purchase their cheapest package which does not include Wi-Fi. Then we will configure the Airport Extreme device to provide Wi-Fi. I went to some trouble to make calls to the Time Warner Cable support staff to learn that our router/modem will be an RCA 325. Once we see that Road Runner works then we will cancel the DSL. I am told that DSL is a dying beast anyway. Verizon Fios would require and entire day of cabling and Uninterruptibe Power Supply (UPS) installation. The Time Warner tech just has to connect a box and configure it. IF we were to ask them for Wi-Fi they would charge us a lot more and the quality would quite possibly be inferior to Airport Extreme.
The Time Warner sales rep first quoted $49.95 installation and $49.95 per month, but then hesitated and said he had a deal for $29.95 for the first 12 months.
I shall post updates to all this. My wife wants a Mac in the bedroom so she may listen to all her Catholic prayer programs and services of which there are so many on the Internet.
I would simply like to learn MAC after all thes years of Windows and some Linux. Whenever I wonder how to do a PC type thing on the Mac, I smiply google and it tells me the equivalent. AND there are so many Youtube tutorials.
My Soul Doth Magnify The Lord
Friday, April 29, 2011
Notions of Incarnation
The Logic Behind the Lust
1. He shall not give his daughter to a man belonging to the same Gotra (family).
2. Nor to one related within six degrees (six preceding generations) on the mother's or the father's side. - Apastamba Sutras (Prasna II, Patala 5, Khanda 11, Verses 15/16)
Historian switching from Spreadsheet to MySQL
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Professional Historian wants to develop app in MySQL for document analysis
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Have BILLIONS been lifted from poverty?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Mathematical Proof of the Resurrecton
Racial Tensions in Hungary
The evacuation of some 300 Roma women and children from the village of Gyöngyöspata over the Easter weekend has made the news around the world. This is not the first instance of racial conflict in Hungary in recent years. Never-heard-of place names of relevance include Olaszliszka, Galgagyörk, Tamásipuszta, Nagycsécs, Tatárszentgyörgy, Tiszalök, Kisléta, and now Gyöngyöspata. Ask any Hungarian, and they will not be able to locate these towns and villages on the map one by one, but they will know these are the battlegrounds of racial strife between Hungarians and Roma. Odds on, they will blame the Roma for it exclusively.
Clear and present danger of racial warfare presented itself last week in Gyöngyöspata, where criminals identified as Roma by the victims have been terrorizing the non-Roma villagers for years now. With practically no police presence in the area, the self-proclaimed “peace marshals” of the extreme right, this time calling themselves “Véderő” (Defensive Force), descended upon the village and set up a military training camp: all that WITHOUT guns. With Hungary’s extremely strict gun laws, there was no threat of a shoot-out, yet the situation did develop into a crisis serious enough to prompt the Red Cross to evacuate some 300 Roma women and children for the weekend to children’s camps in Csillebérc and Tiszaliget. They also gave the current Fidesz government a diplomatic way out by calling it a pre-organized tour and an Easter gift. The media nonetheless descended upon the village and all parties turned on their respective fear mongering engines. For the umpteenth time, a dangerous racial conflict developed into a media show, and will be treated as an isolated event.
Conflicts between Hungarians and Roma have been around for centuries: the two lifestyles do not seem to match. However, in the meantime, the world has moved forward and methods of handling racial and ethnic conflicts have been developed and made available. Most Hungarian politicians and intellectuals are well aware of this; thus, the fact that these conflicts remain unresolved indicates that the race card is part of the permanent political election campaign Hungary has been mired in since 2001. Hungarians do not consider themselves racist and they fail to understand that racist slur is actually racism. One of my biggest frustrations as a university lecturer comes from my inability to help most of my students understand that “race” is a social construct, just like “ethnicity” and “nation”. What makes race particularly dangerous is that it is supposed to be based on “clearly visible facts” (people do look different) and that it is ALWAYS used to discriminate. This is one of the pitfalls of all the education reforms we have had since 1989, combined with no attempt to teach kids how to debate and resolve conflicts. Instead, a fake narrative of political correctness took over the debate on race and one’s perceived political orientation defines where one stands (or is supposed to stand) on these issues. The three basic positions are those of the “left”, the “right”, and the radical/extreme right. Conspicuously missing is the Roma take on all this.
The “progressive left” in Hungary (the socialists, who are the former communist party, and the “liberals”, who are more like libertarians) has introduced the PC language of the American 1990s without explaining the differences: in their universe, the Roma issue is the same as the African-American one was in the Sixties, although the Roma were never kept as slaves and no institutionalized, legal segregation ever existed in (independent) Hungary. Their rhetoric was that Fidesz is fascist, or that Fidesz turns a blind eye to the extreme right; thus, all Hungarians who support Fidesz are racists (and anti-Semites). They continue to state this in media events and interviews abroad, instead of carrying on the debate at home.
The “right”, represented now by Fidesz and holding a 2/3 majority in the Parliament, has stood up to the indiscriminate importation of PC language and insisted on calling things by the name and grabbing the bull by the horns. They have come to emphasize the fact that poverty is not simply a Roma problem and many Hungarians live a life just as poor as their Roma counterparts and they still do not become criminals. The trope of “Roma crime” was born on the right, but was later monopolized by the extreme right. Fidesz promised a solution to unemployment, poverty, crime, and racial conflict, but they appear to treat the problem not as a social-economic crisis shaking the very foundations of Hungarian society but as a string of isolated incidents.
The radical right, currently represented by Jobbik, has simplified the rhetoric to “Roma crime” against Hungarians. Their suggestions include camps for the reeducation of the Roma as well as ghettos and (school) segregation. The radical right media demands a racial showdown, claims that Roma crimes are ignored by the mainstream media, and that the government (both MSZP-SzDSz previously and Fidesz now) fails to address the “real issues”: unwillingness to assimilate, incest and crime among the Roma, and the fact that they will take over the country by 2025/2050 because of their high birth rate.
What appears to be the case matches none of these narratives. There is extreme poverty and a terrible crime rate in Hungary, but subsidies paid to the Roma and Roma criminals are small change compared to government-level white-collar crime that brought down the economy by 2008 and the previous government. Roma people hardly make up of 5% of the total population: according to the census of 2001, some 190,000 people identified themselves as Roma. Even if we factor in unwillingness to identify with an unpopular minority group and birth rate, their number cannot be larger than about 500,000. By sheer numbers, the Roma cannot be THE problem. Most of them live in extreme poverty and Roma male life expectancy is estimated at 48 years. It is true that most of them show little if any respect for the majority society, but why should they? They are NEVER asked what their preferences are, they have no jobs or job opportunities, and the majority cannot offer them a lucrative vision worthy of assimilating into. There is, of course, no such thing as “Roma crime”, as there is no “good Roma” and “bad Roma”: the inclusion of the racial identifier indicates racist motives from the start. There are Roma involved in criminal activities, often organized crime, and some of them consider this as payback to the majority society of Hungarians (“gádzsók”). If, once in every blue moon, they are asked by the media, they say they consider themselves victims and scapegoats. Roma organizations and elected bodies of self-government DO exist in Hungary, but most of the rather significant funds poured into various affirmative action programs have been embezzled by their own “representatives” and “leaders”. This is indeed a ticking time bomb, but not because of “Roma crime” or sheer numbers, but because of the unresolved racial conflict.
The lynching in Olaszliszka of Lajos Szögi on October 15, 2006 by an angry mob of Roma people is quickly being turned into a Roma Tiszaeszlár (the founding anti-Semitic myth in Hungary) by the extreme right. It has directly led to the ugliest crime spree of four neo-Nazis shooting innocent Roma victims with stolen guns in 2008-2009. MSZP, then in power, blamed the opposition, Fidesz, although at least one of the four criminals had direct links to the Hungarian military intelligence of the very government they themselves were running. Conspiracy theories abound on all sides as the first actual violent crimes against the Roma since the Holocaust are under investigation (the four shooters were arrested in Debrecen on August 20, 2009). Proposing a “Roma strategy” for this solves nothing. Hungary has about two dozen minority groups and any one of them could become the next target.
Fear mongering is picking up steam in all three camps. The “progressive left” points to the “silent partnership” between Fidesz and Jobbik while Jobbik accuses both Fidesz and MSZP of not being willing to deal with the “real issues”, and Fidesz claims this is an inherited problem and they are doing their best to resolve it, they even initiated an EU-level Roma strategy. The “progressive left” was indeed in power between 2002 and 2008 and if they really had the panacea they should have applied it. Instead, they pursued a policy of pitting various dispossessed groups in society against one another, and used the Roma for their own political gain. They and their supporters are as racist as anybody else in Hungary: in their thinly veiled hate campaign against Orbán they have described him not only as Hitler, Mussolini, Gömbös, Horthy, Stalin, and Kádár but also as a Jew and a Roma.
Jobbik is a different cup of tea. It emerged out of the defunct extreme right that surfaced in Hungary after 1989, from some disappointed Fidesz voters, and from the electoral base of MSZP, especially in northeast Hungary. Jobbik represents a unique coalition of extreme right and left. As has been explained above, they see the Roma as a direct threat to the peaceful majority and establish self-defense military organizations (Magyar Gárda in its various reincarnations) to patrol the streets of villages under the perceived threat of “Roma crime” and with no police visible in these settlements. In light of the 2008-2009 shootings, the fear is legitimate that these organizations might one day become violent.
But real responsibility lies with the current Fidesz government holding a 2/3 majority in Parliament. If they have a policy, now is the time to implement it. Jobbik represents an interesting dilemma to them. It is a handy scapegoat for extreme right wing movements and ideas in Hungary and it takes away much of the (unfounded) campaign of the “left” that tries to designate Fidesz as the new fascists. But they also know that the 2/3 majority they now hold will not be guaranteed even if they win the next election and they need votes form the right, too. This duplicity manifested itself in many of the Fidesz campaign promises and in the new constitution.
The previous “progressive left” government has deconstructed the state and, most importantly, its monopoly for guaranteeing domestic tranquility. One key fallout from the events of 2006 (as I explained in my post on the new constitution) was the total loss of faith on the part of much of the population in the police. The Hungarian police had to deal with the uncomfortable legacy of the communist era (when blonde jokes were policeman jokes) and the last thing they needed was the PR nightmare of being seen as cronies of the MSZP-SzDSz government. By 2009, a fully armed private security firm, In-Kal Security, assumed the task of securing public government events. Meanwhile, the unarmed “peacekeeping force” of Jobbik, the Magyar Gárda, was dissolved by the courts on the grounds that peacekeeping is the exclusive monopoly of the state. This contradiction was exposed by both Fidesz and Jobbik in the 2010 campaign, and Fidesz promised to “restore law and order” within two weeks of coming to power and send at least one policeman to every village. This partial nod towards the radical right was repeated in the process of drafting the new constitution: it guarantees equal rights and protection to all minorities, but gay marriage is excluded, although, as I explained in my answer to the questions on the post on the constitution, this is a restriction of certain rights. Similarly suspicious measures include life sentence without parole or early release in cases of violent crime (a measure to compensate for the “loss” of the death penalty) and guaranteeing no protection to minority languages. I am becoming more and more curious as to how the Cardinal Acts will really outline the new system of government and elections.
As regards the actual performance of the current Fidesz government, in this matter it leaves a lot to be desired. Radical right wing media still claim that “Roma crimes” are not even reported and the promise of sending at least one policeman to every village has not materialized. When this “Véderő” organization showed up in Gyöngyöspata, no action was taken for days, until the international media began to circulate a largely one-sided version of the events. Fidesz then went into troubleshooting mode, and even Minister of the Interior Sándor Pintér visited the village. As the 300 Roma were being evacuated, the “Véderő” people were arrested and a government decree was issued to declare any unauthorized peacekeeping activity, armed or unarmed, a crime. Meanwhile, the media began to report that the evacuation was actually a Red Cross charity initiative and/or a project started by an American who funded the LMP campaign in 2010, and that it had been under way ever since Tuesday (as if the crisis had struck this Tuesday). Pintér radiates control and authority, and a local crisis has probably been averted. The problem: we need to address the whole issue of racism.
When you come up with any form of criticism the first thing you are asked to provide is solutions. In Hungary, this must be good and must NOT cost any money, as it is money we do not have. I have suggestions, but they do take some financial effort. Firstly, fear mongering must stop and genuine conversation must start. I understand most Hungarian intellectuals refrain from making public statements (I have been one of them but I have had enough) because the very moment you criticize someone, you are dubbed as a “crony of the other side”. It is true that some liberal intellectuals have displayed a considerable amount of arrogance and alienated much of the population during the past 20 years, but now is the time to step up and take responsible action. Continued pressure on Fidesz will simply confirm their feeling (and strategy) of being a “fort under siege” and bring about more defiance and inaction. We must discuss problems honestly among ourselves (Roma included) and without PC language terrorism. Secondly, we must immediately reconsider our education strategy and include debating skills and crisis management on the lowest levels. Thirdly, we need our government to use its 2/3 majority and begin to handle poverty, unemployment, and crime with no regard to racial background. As regards crime: if we really have so many people wanting to wear a uniform, draft them into the police force, train them properly in crisis management as well, and send them to every village in task forces of three: one fully trained policeman and two understudies: one Hungarian and one Roma.
It is part of the Hungarian ego to try to come up with a NEW solution for everything, and Fidesz is pretty good at this in every sense of the word. This time, however, we do not need to invent the wheel, that wheel has already been invented
The dead who appeared during the crucifixion
This thread was posted around Easter midnight
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; ---- ____________So, at the moment that photo was taken it wasn't a time for smiling.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Women as sexual objects
Friday, April 22, 2011
Salvation and this secular world
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Republic/Conservative/Right v. Democrat/Liberal/Left
Comic Book Nostalgia
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Wrote Memorization and Top Ten Lists
What does it mean to "create jobs"
Monday, April 18, 2011
One Key Requirement for Leadership is Lacking
Everywhere I look I see students reading books about leadership and Companies writing manuals about leadership. Everyone wants to be a leader. What would happen if EVERYONE succeeded in becoming a great leader? Allow me to explain. We would be a nation of leaders with no followers. We should be stressing what it means to become a great follower. A leader is a director but a follower is a doer; an achiever. If you lead then surely you are not the one doing but the one directing someone else who does the actual doing. A follower is capable of independent thinking "outside the box." If we were a nation of great followers we would not be so messed up. We are always looking for some clown of a leader to bail us out of our messes and when that fails we blame our mess on our leadership. If the leader is not the one doing but the follower then how can the leader bear all the responsibility?
If you were marooned on a desert island alone for 40 years then tell me what good would your leadership skills do you? You would have to rely upon YOURSELF. You would have to be SELF-RELIANT. Self-reliant people do not require as much supervision. They do what is necessary and they do it correctly.
A Flag as Toilet Paper
Does each generation view Ayn Rand in the same way
Friday, April 15, 2011
In emergency ward
Thursday, April 14, 2011
EU Media Standards & Free Speech
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Swearing Oaths in Court
Separation of Church and State – by William Buell
November 1, 2010
Unfortunately, some people see religious freedom as the freedom to force religion upon those who are not interested. Why should one be required to raise their RIGHT hand (or any hand at all) and swear and invoke God to “tell the truth?” I would think that this practice discriminates against those who are amputees or who were born “thalidomide babies.” So if they can testify without raising their hand then what is the purpose except that it is some religious superstition. Now why do we SWEAR if Jesus said not to swear by anything but “let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.” Now you may reply that those who find swearing objectionable may opt to solemnly affirm. The main thing is that we answer questions under penalty of perjury. But what is “the truth?” If I ask you “how much is 2 + 2″ you will answer 4, but is that “the truth.” It is my understanding that an actual proof in symbolic logic that 2 + 2 = 4 would have about 250 steps. A Godel or an Alfred North Whitehead might be able to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but for most of us it is simply hearsay. Personally, I believe that I do not have access to “the truth.” I do believe that I know when I am lying and I know when I am committing a lie of omission. Should the court suspect that I have perjured myself then they will rule and impose a penalty. Such a ruling does not PROVE that I perjured myself but is simply the courts decision. To say that someone is guilty “beyond a shadow of a doubt” is not to say that we have some knowledge of their truth or innocence. What does it mean to say that doubt has a shadow? It is an imprecise figure of speech. I would think it is sufficient for a witness to simply state that the testimony they give is under penalty of perjury and if the court deems that they are lying or concealing then they shall pay the penalty of perjury. What is “a jury of my peers?” Is Joe the Plumber my peer? In what sense is he a peer. Would he ask the questions that I would ask. Does he value what I value for the reasons that I value? Does he admire what I admire and loathe what I loathe?
February 13, 2010
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and submitted Aug. 5, 1989 and decided Dec. 19, 1985.
You do affirm upon pain and penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give in this deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
“I understand that I must accurately state the facts” in place of “I understand that I must tell the truth.” That would also suffice, so long as Gordon acknowledges that he understands he is testifying under penalty of perjury
Now the scripture says ‘Let God be true though every man be a liar.’ I’m simply saying that since we’ve all lied in the past and we’ve lied once or twice today and we’re going to lie in the future, why kid ourselves by saying we tell the truth when in fact we do not. It’s my position I would be guilty of perjury the moment I said ‘Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God’ and I say ‘I do’ I’m committing a lie.”
Fed.R.Evid. 603 states that every witness “shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so.” The advisory committee notes to Rule 603 illustrate that an affirmation need take no particular form: “The rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with religious adults, atheists, conscientious objectors, mental defectives, and children. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to tell the truth; no special verbal formula is required.” Fed.R.Evid. 603 advisory committee note.
This reasoning should also apply to affirmations at depositions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We therefore conclude that any statement indicating that the deponent is impressed with the duty to tell the truth and understands that he or she can be prosecuted for perjury for failure to do so satisfies the requirement for an oath or affirmation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d). Deponents, furthermore, need not raise their hand when they state the words necessary to satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d) if to do so impinges on sincerely-held religious beliefs. This flexible approach is consistent with the constitutional obligation to protect the free exercise of religious beliefs by using the least restrictive means to further compelling state interests that impinge on such free exercise. See Callahan, 736 F.2d at 1273.
- form of Roman imperial legislation (in constitutiones principum (Roman legislation))
...or legislation issued by the ancient Roman emperors. The chief forms of imperial legislation were (1) edicta, or proclamations, which the emperor, like other magistrates, might issue, (2) mandata, or instructions to subordinates, especially provincial governors, (3) rescripta, written answers to officials or others who consulted the emperor, in particular on a point of law,...
The following is a selection of items (artistic styles or groups, constructions, events, fictional characters, organizations, publications) associated with "mandata"
- constitutiones principum (Roman legislation)
"mandata." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 09 Apr. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/361604/mandata>.
mandata. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/361604/mandata
CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY-THE RISE OF THE SARACENS AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE
ROMAN LAW is not merely the law of an Italian Community which existed two thousand years ago, nor even the law of the Roman Empire. It was, with more or less modification from local customs and ecclesiastical authority, the only system of law throughout the Middle Ages, and was the foundation of the modern law of nearly all Europe. In our own island it became the foundation of the law of Scotland, and, besides general influence, supplied the framework of parts of the law of England, especially of marriage, wills, legacies, and intestate succession to personalty. Through their original connection with the Dutch, it forms a main portion of the law of South Africa, Ceylon and Guiana, and it has had considerable influence in the old French province of Louisiana. Its intrinsic merit is difficult to estimate, when there is no comparable system independent of its influence. But this may fairly be said: Roman Law was the product of many generations of a people trained to government and endowed with cultivated and practical intelligence. The area of its application became so wide and varied that local customs and peculiarities gradually dropped away, and it became law adapted not to one tribe or nation but to man generally. Moreover, singular good fortune befell it at a critical time. When civilization was in peril through the influx of savage nations, and an elaborate and complicated system of law might easily have sunk into oblivion, a reformer was found who by skilful and conservative measures stripped the law of much antiquated complexity, and made it capable of continued life and general use without any breach of its connection with the past.
Sir Henry Maine has drawn attention to its influence as a system of reasoned thought on other subjects: “To Politics, to Moral Philosophy, to Theology it contributed modes of thought, courses of reasoning, and a technical language. In the Western provinces of the Empire it supplied the only means of exactness of speech, and still more emphatically, the only means of exactness, subtlety, and depth in thought”.
Gibbon in his 44th Chapter has employed all his wit and wealth of allusion to give some interest to his brief history of Roman jurisprudence and to season for the lay palate the dry morsels of Roman Law. The present chapter makes no such pretension. It is confined to a notice of the antecedents and plan of Justinian’s legislation, and a summary of those parts of it which are most connected with the general society of the period or afford some interest to an English reader from their resemblance or contrast to our own law. Unfortunately a concise and eclectic treatment cannot preserve much, if anything, of the logic and subtlety of a system of practical thought.
The sources of law under the early Emperors were Statutes (leges), rare after Tiberius; Senate's decrees (senatus consulta), which proposed by the Emperor took the place of Statutes; Edicts under the Emperor’s own name; Decrees, i.e. his final decisions as judge on appeal; Mandata, instructions to provincial governors;Rescripta, answers on points of law submitted to him by judges or private persons; the praetor’s edict as revised and consolidated by the lawyer Salvius Julianus at Hadrian's command and confirmed by a Senate's decree (this is generally called The Edict); and finally treatises on the various branches of law, which were composed, at any rate chiefly, by jurists authoritatively recognized, and which embodied the Common Law and practice of the Courts. By the middle of the third century AD the succession of great jurists came to an end, and, though their books, or rather the books written by the later of them, still continued in high practical authority, the only living source of law was the Emperor, whose utterances on law, in whatever shape whether oral or written, were calledconstitutiones. If written, they were by Leo's enactment (470) to bear the imperial autograph in purple ink.
Diocletian, who reformed the administration of the law as well as the general government of the Empire, issued many rescripts, some at least of which are preserved to us in Justinian’s Codex, but few rescripts of later date are found. Thereafter new general law was made only by imperial edict, and the Emperor was the sole authoritative interpreter. Anyone attempting to obtain a rescript dispensing with Statute Law was (384) to be heavily fined and disgraced.
The imperial edicts were in epistolary form, and were published by being hung up in Rome and Constantinople and the larger provincial towns, and otherwise made known in their districts by the officers to whom they were addressed. There does not appear to have been any collection of Constitutions, issued to the public, until the Codex Gregorianus was made in the eastern part of the Empire. (Codex refers to the book-form as opposed to a roll). This collection was the work probably of a man named Gregorius, about the end of the third century. In the course of the next century a supplement was made also in the Eastern Empire and called Codex Hermogenianus, probably the work of a man of that name. Both contained chiefly rescripts. A comparatively small part of both has survived in the later codes and in some imperfectly preserved legal compilations. During the fourth century, perhaps as Mommsen thinks in Constantine’s time, but with later additions, a compilation was made in the West, of which we have fragments preserved in the Vatican Library. They contained both branches of law, extracts from the jurists Ulpian, Paul, and Papinian, as well as Constitutions of the Emperors.
Reform of Law by Theodosius II
At length the need of an authoritative statement of laws in force was so strongly felt that the matter was taken up by government. Theodosius II, son of the Emperor Arcadius, having previously taken steps to organize public teaching in Constantinople, determined to meet the uncertainties of the law courts by giving imperial authority to certain text writers and by a new collection of the Statute Law. The books of the great lawyers, Papinian, Paul, and Ulpian and of a pupil of Ulpian, Modestinus, were well known and in general use. Another lawyer rather earlier than these, of whom we really know nothing, except his name (and that is only a praenomem), Gaius, had written in the time of Marcus Antoninus in very clear style a manual, besides other works of a more advanced character. The excellence of this manual brought it into general use and secured for its author imperial recognition on a level with the lawyers first named. Another work in great general use was a brief summary of the law by Paul known under the name of Pauli Sententiae. All these lawyers were in the habit of citing the opinions of earlier lawyers and often inserting extracts from them in their own works. Theodosius (with Valentinian, then seven years old) in AD 426 addressed to the Senate of Rome an important and comprehensive Constitution, intended to put what may be called the Common Law of Rome on a surer footing. He confirmed all the writings of Papinian, Paul, Gaius, Ulpian, and Modestinus, and added to them all the writers whose discussions and opinions were quoted by these lawyers, mentioning particularly Scaevola, Sabinus, Julian, and Marcellus. The books of the five lawyers first named were no doubt in the hands of judges and advocates generally, but the books of the others would be comparatively rare, and a quotation from them would be open to considerable doubt. It might contain a wrong reading or an interpolation or even a forgery. Theodosius therefore directed that these older books should be admitted as authorities, only so far as they were confirmed by a comparison with manuscripts other than that produced by the advocate or other person alleging their authority.
But Theodosius went further. If the writers thus authoritatively recognized were found to differ in opinion, the judge was directed to follow the opinion of the majority, and if the numbers on each side were equal, to follow the side on which Papinian stood and disregard any notes of Paul or Ulpian contesting Papinian’s opinion, but Paul’s Sententiae were always to count. If Papinian’s opinion was not there to decide between equal numbers of authorities, the judge must use his own discretion.
The great portion of law which had been set forth in text-books as reasonable and conformable to precedent and statute having thus been sanctioned, and rules given for its application, Theodosius turned his attention to the Statute Law itself. The jurists had in their various treatises taken account of the pertinent rescripts, edicts, etc., already issued and it was therefore only from the time when the series of authoritative jurists ended that the imperial constitutions required collecting. The books of Gregorius and Hermogenianus (Codices Greg, et Herm.) contained those issued down to Constantine’s time, which was therefore taken as the starting-point for the additional collection. Theodosius in 429 appointed a Commission of eight, and in 435 another larger Commission of which Antiochus the praefect was named first with other officials and ex-officials of the Record and Chancellery departments and Apelles, a law professor, power being given to call other learned men to their aid. He instructed them, following the precedent of Gregory and Hermogenianus’ books, to collect all the imperial Constitutions issued by Constantine and his successors which were either in the form of edicts or at least of general application, to arrange them in the order of time under the known heads of law, breaking up for this purpose laws dealing with several subjects, and while preserving the enacting words to omit all unnecessary preambles and declarations. When this is done and approved they are to proceed to review Gregory, Hermogenianus, and this third book, and with the aid of the pertinent parts of the jurists’ writings on each head of law to omit what was obsolete, remove all errors and ambiguities, and thus make a book which should “bear the name of the Emperor Theodosius and teach what should be followed and what avoided in life”.
The Theodosian code, technically called, as Mommsen thinks, simply Theodosianus, was published in Constantinople 15 February 438 and transmitted to Rome at the end of the year. The consul at Rome holding the authentic copy in his hands, in the presence of the imperial commissioners, read to the Senate the order for its compilation, which was received with acclamation. We have an account of this proceeding with a record of the enthusiastic shouts of the senators and the number of times each was repeated, some 24 or 28 times. Exclusive authority was given to the code in all court-pleadings and court-documents from 1 January 439, the Emperor boasting that the code would banish a cloud of dusty volumes and disperse the legal darkness which drove people to consult lawyers; for the code would make clear the conditions of a valid gift, the way to sue out an inheritance, the frame of a stipulation, and the mode of recovering a debt whether certain or uncertain in amount.