NOTES

Nora A (/>. af)

Only our knowledge of the Roman forms is less; our reports are often silent as to the symbolic acts. We cannot go into details here. There is as yet no work corre­sponding to Grimm’s Rechtsaliertumer.

. Nora B (p. 28)

A consecratio (Macrob. Sat. 3. 9. rof.; cf. Wissowa, 384, n. 6): ‘Carthaginem exercitumque, quern ego me sentio dicere... quos me sentio dicere... si haec ita faxitis, ut ego sciam sentiam intellegamque....* Votum of ver sacrum (Liv. 23.10. 2 f.): ‘Si res publica populi Romani... sicut velim sentiamque’ (this or sciatnque must be read)' salva servata erit.... ’ Dedicaiio and consecratio of a temple (ILS 4908): '... quam me sentio dedicare....’ The clause is already completely stereotyped in the vota of the Arvai brethren (Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium, 100 f.): *... im­peratorem Caesarem... Traianum... quern nos sentimus dicereI’ On these clauses: Wissowa, 398, n. 4; Appel, De Romanorum precaiionibus (1909), 146; Haegerstrom, Das magistratische ius, &c. (above, p. 13, n. 1), 53, n. 3; Norden, Aus altrom. Priesterbuchern, 55.

Nora C (p. 30)

Twelve Tables, 4. 3: ‘Si pater filium ter venum duit, filius a patre liber esto.’ From the late ceremonies of emancipation and adoption of a person alieni iuris it does not follow (as is generally supposed, e.g.

Nora D (p. 38)

Meaning thereby the movements of the Greek spirit from Alexander to Augustus: Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Hellenist. Dichtung in d. Zeit des Kallimachos, i (1934), 2. A satisfactory account of Hellenism has not and cannot yet be given; only particular aspects have been treated of. The study of the Hellenistic scientific movement has only been begun. The capital work (in spite of all deficiencies) remains J. Kaerst, Gesek, d. HeUenismus, especially vol. ii (ed. 2, 1926), 80 ff. The further literature, which is scattered and has never been collected, cannot be cited here. An introduc­tory orientation is given by Otto, Kuliurgesch. d. Altertums (1925), 94; V. Ehrenberg,

Der griech. u. d. hellenistische Stoat (Gercke-Norden, EM. in d. Altertumswissensch. iii, Heft 3, 1932) giving literature; Momigliano, ‘Genesi storica e funzione attuale del concetto di ellenisino’ (Giom. crit. della jilosofia italiana, xvi (1935), ¹⁰ literature, p. 30). Many works on literary history have dealt with the relations between Rome and Hellenism. Schanz-Hosius, i. 45, 179, 636, n. x, collects the literature. The Hellenistic sections in Jacob Burckhardt’s Griech. Kulturgesch. remain as masterly as ever. Important is Ed. Fraenkel, Rome and Greek Culture (»935)> 5-26·

Note E (p. 44)

Servius Sulpicius began by wishing to be an advocate, like Cicero. Cf. Cic. Brut. 41. 151: ‘in isdem exercitationibus ineunte aetate fuimus.’ This does not exclude the possibility that he was an auditor of Q.

Note F (p. 44)

Cic. Brut. 89. 306: ‘ego autem in iuris dvilis studio multum operae dabam Q. Scaevolae Q.F.’ That means the augur, not the pontifex, since the latter was ‘P(ublii)F(ilius)’.Karlowa,RGi.48r,is therefore wrong. Cic.Deam. x.i:‘Q. Mudus augur multa narrare de C. Laelio socero suo memoriter et iucunde solebat.... ego autem a patre ita eram deductus ad Scaevolam sumpta virili toga, ut, quoad possem et liceret, a senis latere nunquam discederem, itaque multa ab eo prudenter dis­putata, multa etiam breviter et commode dicta memoriae mandabam fierique studebam dus prudentia doctior; quo mortuo me ad pontificem Scaevolam contuli.... sed de hoc alias, nunc redeo ad augurem. Cum saepe multa, tum memini domi in hemicyclio sedentem, ut solebat, cum et ego essem una et paud admodum familiares.... ’ We shall have to return to this vivid picture below when dealing with legal education.

Note G (p. 49)

Cic. De orat. 3.33.133 (the speaker is the orator L. Crassus, 140-91 B.C.): ‘M’. vero Manilium nos etiam vidimus transverso ambulantem foro; quod erat insigne eum, qui id faceret, facere civibus suis omnibus consilii sui copiam. Ad quos olim et ita ambulantes et in solio sedentes domi sic adibatur, non solum ut de iure civili ad eos, verum etiam de filia conlocanda, de fundo emendo, de agro colendo, de omni denique aut ofiido aut negotio referretur.’ Perhaps rather a rosy picture of the good old times, but that cavere was one of a jurisconsult’s duties is definitely stated by

. notes 335

the orator Antonius in De oral. i. 48. 212: ‘Sin autem quaereretur, quisnam iuris consultus vere nominaretur, eum dicerem, qui legum et consuetudinis eius, qua privati in civitate uterentur, et ad respondendum et ad agendum et ad cavendum peritus esset, et ex eo genere Sex. Aelium, M’. Manilium, P. Mucium nominarem.’

Note H (p. 49)

Testator wishes to leave someone a legacy subject to what is called a negative potestative condition—stock example: ‘Titio, si in Capitolium non ascendent, heres meus centum dare damnas esto? From this Titius can derive no personal benefit, since the realization of the condition can only be ascertained when he dies. Hence

Q. Mucius pant, advised the following form: ‘Titio, si caverit se legatum, si in Capitolium ascendisset, cum fructibus restituturum, heres meus centum’ rell. This, nothing else, was Q. Mucius’ cautio·. Beseler, Z xlvii (1927), 60. The text-books are mostly wrong. For Q. Mucius’ cautelary jurisprudence in connexion with sacra·. Cic. De leg. 2. 20. 51, on which Kubler, Z ii (1881), 37 ff.; Lepointe, Q. Mucius Scaevola (1926), 100 ff. Bruck, Seminar III (1945), 1 ff.

Note I (p. 49)

(1) For a case in which four jurisconsults (Cascellius, Ofilius, Trebatius, Labeo) were consulted see D. (28. 6) 39 pr. Trebatius’ cautelary jurisprudence: Cic. Ad fam. •j. 6: *tu, qui ceteris cavere didicisti, in Britannia ne ab essedariis (fighters in war­chariots) decipiaris caveto? Caesar thanks Cicero for having sent him Trebatius, because till then there was no one by him who could draft a vadimonium: Cic.

Note J (p. 54)

Let us give a correct translation of Cicero’s pronouncements on Q. Mucius’ oratory. Cicero uses technical terms, which must, of course, be taken in their technical sense. On the terminology: Emesti, Lexicon terminologiae latinorum rhetoricae, Leipzig, 1797 (not entirely superseded); Ch. Causeret, £t. sur la langue de la rMtorique et de la critique littiraire dans Ciciron, Paris, 1886; P. Geigenmfiller, Quaestiones Dionysianae de vocabulis artis criticae (Diss. phiL Leipzig, 1908). Brut. 39.145 f.: ‘an exceedingly acute legal thinker; his language very terse and admirably suited to legal discussion(l). An incomparable interpreter of the law, but in the matters of emotional appeal, oratorical embellishment and debate a formidable critic rather than a marvellous orator? Ibid. 52.197: ‘ knowing and versed in the law, terse and pithy, sufficiently(i) ornate, and very exact, clear and simple’ (‘breviter et presse et satis ornate et pereleganter’, eleganter meaning not ‘elegance’ but clarity and correct choice of words, but with avoidance of all rhetorical, and especially emotional, appeal: Geigenmuller 30). Brut. 30. 115- ‘clear and polished, as always, but deficient in the force and amplitude demanded by the nature of the suit and the importance of the case’. De or. r. 39. 180: ‘profoundly learned in the civil law and a most acute legal thinker, his language refined and unadorned’ (jnaxime limatus atque subtilis, subtilis meaning logyos — in plain terms: Causeret, 153). De or. 1. 53. 229: ‘as his manner was, without adornment, plainly and clearly.

to be deceived by the polite terms in which Cicero thinks proper to refer to his former teacher, one sees that he thought nothing of Q. Mucius as a rhetorician. All his judgments come to this, that he considered him as a speaker too brief, too objective and unemotional, in short too much of a lawyer.

, Note Ê (p. 54)

In Cic. De or. i. 55. 23-6 the orator Antonius says: ‘Nunc vero iuris consultum sine hac eloquentia,de qua quaerimus, fateris essepossefuissequeplwrimos’ Of Crassus, who advocated the combination of jurisprudence and rhetoric, he says: ‘novo et alieno omatu velis omare iuris civilis scientiam.’ Cicero’s judgment on the jurists as orators is uniformly unfavourable. We have just quoted him on Q. Mucius pant. Of Rutilius Rufus’ speeches he admits the sobriety, their excellent law, their acuteness and art, but regards them as dry and unattractive to the vulgar (Brut. 30. 114). Q. Aelius Tubero (consul 118) was, in his eyes, nothing of a speaker (ibid. 31. 117). His own teacher, Q. Mucius Scaevola aug., was likewise no orator (oratorum in numero non fuit), though an outstanding jurist (ibid. 26. 102); his speeches in the Senate were brief and unadorned (breviter impolileque—De ar. r.49. 214). The criticisms all come to this, that the jurisconsults spoke tod tersely, too objectively, too juristically, in other words unrhetorically. In De leg. 1. 14. 12 he says accordingly that studying law seriously is dangerous for the. orator.

Note L (p. 67)

Some definitions: tutela (impuberum omitted by the compilers): D. (26. 1) 1 pr. (Servius); dolus in the actio doli: Cic. De off. 3. 14. 60 and De nat. dear. 3. 30. 74 (Aquilius Gallus); also D. (4. 3) 1. 2 (Ulpian quoting Servius), on which cf. Pemice, Labeo, 2. i. 208, and Partsch, Z xlii (1921), 249;penur: Gell. 4.1.17 (Q. Mucius and Servius)·,litus·.Cic. Top.7.32(AquiliusGallus); testamentum·.Gell.7.12.1 (Servius); gentiles·. Cic. Top. 6. 29 (Q. Mucius); ambitus·, ibid.'4. 24 (P. Scaevola); post­liminium: ibid. 8. 37 (Q. Mucius); aqua pluvia: ibid. 9. 38 (Q. Mudus); pars: Paul, D. (50. iff) 25. i (Q. Mudus and Servius); vindicia: Festus, 376 (Servius); religio: Macrob. 3. 3. 8 (Servius); noxia: Festus, 174. 2 (Servius); sacellum: Gell.

7. 12. 5 (Trebatius); argentum factum: Ulp. D. (34. 2) 19. 9; 27 pr. (Q. Mucius); silva caedua: Gaius, D. (50. 16) 30 pr. (Servius); suppellex: Celsus, D. (33. 10) 7 (Tubero and Servius). On the corruption of the last text see Index Interp. In it Servius says: ‘non ex opinionibus singulorum, sed ex communi usu nomina exaudiri debere.’ As Eisele, Jherings Jakrb, xxiii (1885), 39, pointed out, Servius is adopting the Stoic doctrine. Whether the defective definitions of abalienatio and hereditas given by Cic. Top. 5. 28 f. come from juristic works is very doubtful; Varro’s definition of dos, De 1.1. 5.175, certainly does not.

Nare M (p. 69)

Cic. Brut. 41. 152: ‘Hie Brutus: Ain tu? inquit. Etiamne Q. Scaevolae Servium nostrum anteponis? Sic enim, inquam, Brute, existimo, iuris dvilis magnum usum et apud Scaevolam et apud multos fuisse, artem in hoc uno. Quod nunquam effecisset ipsius iuris scientia, nisi eam praeterea didicisset artem, quae doceret rem universam tribuere in partes, latentem explicare definiendo, obscuram explanare interpretando, ambigua primum videre, deinde distinguere, postremo habere regulam, qua vera et falsa radicarentur et quae quibus propositis essent quaeque non essent consequentia. Hic enim adtuEt hanc artem omnium artium maximam quasi lucem ad ea quae confuse ab aliis aut respondebantur aut agebantur.—

Dialecticam mihi videris dicere, inquit.—Recte, inquam, intelligis.’ (A similar description of the dialectical method is given in Orator, 4. 16.) This text, which exactly describes dialectic, deserves a closer examination than we can give here. Cf. J. Marthe, CEuvres de Cicdron. Brutus (1892), 116. That the words adiulit quasi lucem are a reminiscence of the passage of Plato’s PhUebus quoted in the last note appears hitherto to have escaped attention. Cf. Th. B. De Graff, Class. Phil, xxxv (1940), 43 ff·

Note N (p. 69)

Cic. De or. i. 42. 288 f.*. ‘Adhibita est igitur ars quaedam extrinsecus ex alio genere quodam, quod sibi totum philosophi adsumunt, quae rem dissolutam divul- samque conglutinaret et ratione quadam constringeret.... Tum sunt notanda genera et ad certum numerum paucitatemque revocanda. “Genus” autem id est, quod sui similes communione quadam, specie autem differentes, duas aut plures complecti­tur partes. “ Partes ” autem Sunt, quae generibus eis, ex quibus manant, subiciuntur. Omniaque, quae sunt vel generum vel partium nomina, definitionibus, quam vim habeant, est exprimendum; est enim “definitio” rerum earum quae sunt eius rei propriae, quam definire volumus, brevis et circumscripta quaedam explicatio.... nunc complectar quod proposui brevi: si enim aut mihi facere licuerit, quod iam diu cogito, aut alius quispiam aut me impedito occuparit aut mortuo effecerit, ut primum omne ius civile “in genera digerat", quae perpauca sunt; deinde eorum generum quasi “ quaedam membra dispertiat"; tum propriam cuiusque vim “ defini­tione” declaret: perfectam artem iuris civilis habebitis, magis magnam atque uberem quam difficilem et obscuram.*

Note O (p. 72)

. No account of Greek natural law which is satisfactory from the legal point of view exists. Some modem works are: R. Hirzel, Dike, Themis u. Verwandtes (2907); Agraphos Nomos (Abh. Sachs. Ak. xx. 1, 2900); E. Burle, Essai hist, sur le ddveloppe- ment de la notion de droit naturel dans I’aniiquitd grecque (Lyons thesis, 2908); Max Salomon, ‘Der Begriff d. Naturrechts b. d. Sophisten*, Z xxxii (1922), 229ff.; ‘Der Wissenschaftscharakter der Rechtswissenschaft nach Aristoteles’, Rev. intern. ' de la thdorie du droit, i (2939, N.S.), 76 ff.; Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit nach Aristoteles (2937); Karl Reinhardt, Parmenides (2926), 82 ff.; Adolf Menzel, Kallikles. Eine Studie z. Gesch. d. Rechts des Stärkeren (2922); ‘Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Staatslehre’, Wien SB ccx (2930), 236 ff.; ‘Griech. Soziologie’, Wien SB ccxvi (2936); V. Ehren­berg, Die Rechtsidee im frühen Griechentum (2922); ‘Anfänge griech. Naturrechts’, Arch.f. Gesch. d. Philosophie, xxxv, NF xxviii (2923), 229 ff.; W. Eckstein, Das antike Naturrecht in sozialphilosophischer Bedeutung (2926); Sauter, ‘Die philosoph. Grundlagen d. antiken Naturrechts ’, Z.f. äffenü. Recht, x (2932), 28 ff. Hildenbrand’s excellent book (above, p. 70, n. 2) is still serviceable, though naturally rather out of date. So too perhaps, on account of its collection of materials, is Μ. Voigt, Das ius naturale aequum et bonum und iusgentium der Romer (2856 ff.), but the work is unsound and must be read critically. Kamphuisen, RH xi (2932) 389.

Note P (p. zof)

Inscriptions: (2) CIL iii, Suppl. no. 9960 = (ILS 2025), from Nedinum. (2) CIL viii, Suppl. Pars IV, no. 23265, from Thiges. (3) CIL viii, no. 27-854 (ILS 9089), from Theveste. (4) CIL xvi, no. 36, a military diploma of 27 Oct. 90. Literature: Ritterling, Archaeolog.-epigr. Mitteü. aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, xx (2897), 25; Piganiol,

4497.1 _z.

ÌË. d'archlol. et d’hist, (Ecole fran;. de Rome), xxviii (1908), 341 ff. · Steeb, Klio, Beih. x. 30; Ritterling, Fasti d. rdm. DeutsMands unter d. Prinsipat (1932), 25 ff.; A. Betz, Untersuch. s. MiliUbrgesch. d. rdm. Proving Dalmatien (Abb. d. archiol.- epigraph. Seminars Wien, NF, Heft 3, 1938), 47 ff. Berger, PW xii, 1830, is un­satisfying. On the station of legio IV·. Ritterling, PW xvii. 1540 ff., 1542, 1547. On the governorship of Numidia: Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. 467 ff.; Domaszewski, Rangordnung d. rdm. Heeres, xxix. 173; Betz, Untersuch. &c. 48. On the office of provincial iuridicus (governor’s representative): Mommsen, Staatsr.i. 231 ff., ii. 246, 1048ff.; Strafr. 246ff.; Schr. viii. 355; Hesky, Wiener St. raxn. (1904), 72; v. Premerstein, PW xii. 1149; Mason Hammond, Harvard St. in Class. Phil, li (1940), 156. The year of lavolenus’ consulship is very probable, but not quite certain · Groag (in Ritterling’s Fasti, 26), however, writes: ‘since it is in evidence that lavo­lenus Priscus was legatus of legio 111 Augusta in 83, he cannot have reached the consulship only in 87 ’. This overlooks the fact that after 83 and before his consulship he was still iuridicus in Britain. In this state of the evidence the Priscus named in the Acta Arvai, as consul of the year 87 may well be identified with our jurist. On Pliny’s letter of 106 or 107: Mommsen, Schr. iv. 384; Kalb, Roms Juristen (1890), 52.

Note Q (/>. 108)

See the picture in Quint. Inst. or. 12. 3. 1 f. The orator takes his lawyer with him into court, ‘qui velut ad arculas sedent et tela agentibus subministrant’ (above, p. 55). If an unexpected point of law arises, for which the orator had not been instructed, he must lose no time in getting instruction. Naturally Quintilian finds fault with this—‘quid fiat in iis quaestionibus, quae subito nasci solent? non deformiter respectet et inter subsellia minores advocates interroget?’ We find just the same in Libanius, Or. 62. 21 f. (ed. Forster, vol. iv, p. 356 f.): ‘In the good old times an orator did not study law, and a good thing too, since one cannot do both* (exactly the opinion of the orator Antonius: above, p. 45). Again, Libanius, Epist. 1170 (Forster), 1116 (Wolf): ‘in earlier times an orator did not study law, but had a lawyer with him*. Nor did Apuleius of Madaura study law, though like most of the better orators he had the elementary legal knowledge, which no doubt was taught in the schools of rhetoric. Cf. Fritz Norden, Apuleius von Madaura u. d. rdm. Privatrecht (1912), 11 ff., 24. On Greg. Thaumaturg., see above, p. 268.

Note R (p. èç)

Not even in lust. Inst. r. 2. 8, where it was only intended to say the same as Gaius, 1. 7, which, however, could not be copied unaltered, since it would not have been consistent with the Digest, which ex hypothesi contained no contradictions. For the rest the compilers of the Institutes probably drew on some gloss or commen­tary on Gaius, and not, as has been suggested, on Ulpian’s Institutiones. It is impossible that Ulpian should have said that only one who had received the ius respondendi from the Emperor was called ‘iurisconsultus*. The phrase ‘ut est constitutum’ is no proof, since the compilers had read so much of Ulpian that the phrase would come naturally to them. Kiibler, Z xxiii (1902), 512, is wrong; Wieacker, op. cit. 56.

Note S (p. ì3)

Pomp. D. (r. 2) 2. 52: ‘appellatique sunt partim Cassiani, partim Proculiani, quae origo a Capitone et Labeone coeperat.’ The loose Latin (no subject for appellati, quae origo without connexion) shows that this phrase js a later addition. Epit. Ulp.

ii. 28 speaks of Cassiani and Proculiani, but the work is post-classical (above, p. 180) and in this passage is based on Gaius, i. 196, which has been reworded. In F.V. 266 the words ut Proculiani contra Sabinianos putani are a gloss inserted out. of place (above, p. 209). The quotation from Marcellus in Ulp. D. (24.1) 11.3 cannot be authentic, because it distinguishes Julian, a Sabinian, from the Sabinians. In D. (45.1) 138 pr. we read: ‘ Venuleius... petere posse Sabinus ait: Proculus autem et ceteri diversae scholae auctores...’; apparently genuine, but Venuleius was a contemporary of Gaius. Paul, D. (tf. 2) 18, mentions the Cassiani, but the passage is corrupt—see Mommsen’s comment and Index Interp. On D. (39. 6) 35. 3 see Pringsheim, Z xlii (1921), 281; Beseler, Beitr. iii. 135. There are no special signs that ut Sabinianis visum est in D. (4t. 1) 11 is interpolated, but contrast Inst. 2.1. 25 with the classical formulations in Gaius, 2. 79, and D. (41.1) 7. Lastly, see Schon­bauer, Aegyptus, xiii (1933), 638, and (antiquated) Baviera, Scritti, i (1909), in ff.

Note T (/>. 125)

D. (41. 2) 18. i; (47. 2) 68. 2; (28.1) 27. Beseler, Beitr. iv. 220, 230; Z Ivii (1937), 17, pronounces all three passages interpolated. But see D. (3. 5) 9. 1: ‘istam sen­tentiam Celsus eleganter deridet.* In D. (28. 1) 27 the unmannerly words ‘aut valide stulta est consultatio tua ’ may well be gloss. On this passage see Kretschmar, Z Ivii (1937), 52; Erman, Z lix (1939), 560. Nor is it likely that Celsus should have pronounced an opinion of Sabinus to be stupid (slolidus): F.V. 75. 5 is not authentic —Beseler, Beitr. iv. 171; Z 1 (1930), 72. In Pedius, D. (21. 1)44 pr. ridiculum est is also not genuine—Beseler, Beitr. iii. 152; v. 38; T x (1930),206. ‘Labeo: absurdum admodum est dicere... ’ is scarcely a verbal quotation in Gell. 4.2.12. Cf. Beseler, Beitr. iii. 25 ff., 34. See above, p. 259.

Note U (p. 130)

The evidence has not' been collected; see, e.g., D. (12. 6) 65 pr., with Pemice, Labeo, iii. 1, 236. Cf. Pringsheim, ‘Beryt u. Bologna’ (Festschr.f. O. Lend, 1921), 263. D. (21.1) 4. 4, with Schulz, Einführung, 34. Pringsheim collects considerable

■ materials, but examines only the terminology (distinctio, divisio, &c.), which is not very helpful, since legal history is concerned with realities rather than words. He

■ does not deal with the passages in which, though the term distinctio or the like does not occur, there are in fact distinctions. The unlearned are likely to be misled when, for example, he finds (p. 241) it remarkable that triplex divisio (trifariam divider«) is found first in Arcadius Charisius; this is true of the terminology, but of course

’ divisions into three (Gaius, 4. 142, 143; 2. 152), four (Gaius, 3. 89), and more are in fact found in the classics. Goudy, ‘Trichotomy in R. 1’ (St. Fadda, v (1906), 207 ff.; also Oxford, 1910), is insufficiently critical.

. Note V (p. 133)

" If a testator instituted his slave heres, but omitted to declare him free, the classics stuck to it that the institution was void. It was left to Justinian to respect the testator’s intention by allowing the slave to be free and heres. He reports (Inst. 2. 14 pr.), on the testimony of Paul Ad Sabinum and Ad Plautium, that this view had already been taken by Atilicinus; but one may well doubt whether the copies of Paul’s works in which the compilers had unquestionably found this stated, gave what Paul himself really said. However, even if Atilicinus did so hold, it was an : isolated opinion which had no influence on the development of doctrine: Riccobono, Z xxxv (1914), 280, n. 2.

Note W (p. 141)

The pioneer was Thomas Diplovatatius (De daris iuris consuliis, 1 ed. Kantorn»; wicz-Schulz, 1919)· In lectures Cujas studied the surviving fragments of individual' works (Africanus* Quaestiones, Papinian’s Responsa and Quaestiones, and so on). Jacques Labitte, his pupil, was thus inspired to produce an Index Legum (Parisj 1557); this cited the fragments in the Corpus luris, work by work, but did not reproduce the texts. Antonio Agustin (De nominibus propriis, &c., Tarragona; Ã579; cf. Zulueta, Don Ant. Agustin, Glasgow Univ. 1939, p. 30) gave similar liste» but including fragments preserved outside the Corpus Iuris. J. W. Freymon; Symphonia iuris utriusque chronologica (Frankfurt, 1574; cf. Stintzing, Gesch. ¿¿ deutsch. Rechtswissensch. ³. 513 ff.), and Abraham Wieling, lurispr. restituta (Amster» dam, 1727), are derived from Labitte. The texts cited in these lists were first reprinted in Hommel’s Pcdingenesia (Leipzig, Ã768), but still in the order of the Digest, no attempt being made to recover the original order or its underlying plan. Moreover, neither the inscriptions nor the texts were critically handled. Savigny’s school was not interested in this field of research: thus Hugo, Lehrb. eines civüi· stischen Cursus, vi (ed. 3, 1830), 304, speaks of the ‘inconvenient fashion of piecing together this or that writer out of the Digest’. Generally: Stintzing, op. dt. 5145 Stella Maranca, ‘Gli Studi Palingenetid*, Historia, viii (1934), ’7° ff.

Note X (p. 134)

Both epitomes are mentioned in the Index libr. xxv. 10 and 15. The title of the first was: Imperialium sententiarum in cognitionibus prolatarum ex libris sex. That this was the title is proved by the inscriptions of the fragments taken from this book (Pal. i. nix). The title as given in the Index Florentinus ‘sentention (fnx facton βιβλία If ’ is due to the author of the Index, (factum means decretum·. Thes. 6.1389; Coll. i. ii. i; C. Th. 11. 29.6; SHA. Gord. 5. 7; Macrin. 13.1; Heliog. 10. 3. The words ‘ô-ø facton’ were added to distinguish these sententiae from the well-known sententiarum libri quinque.) The true title (ex libris sex) implies that the book was an epitome. The title of the other work was Decretorum libri tres. Here the Index agrees with the inscriptions of the fragments (Pal. i. 959). That this work too was only a post-classical epitome is shown by D. (to. 2) 41 and (37. 14) 24. The same case is here transmitted in both books, and in both passages the original text han been abbreviated by two post-classical but pre-Justinian hands.

Note Y (p. 160)

It denotes unadorned, purely objective work, with no literary pretensions, as does the Greek equivalent υπομνήματα. Its more precise meaning varies with the case. An orator’s commentarii mean more or less elaborate notes for a speech: see Schanz-Hosius, i, s. 146 a, p. 453, s. 198, p. 595, on Cicero’s and Servius Sulpicius’« A law teacher’s (so far as intended for teaching, and not merely private notes) art more or less elaborate sketches for lectures. A student’s are his notes taken at lecture ini φωνής: Quint. Inst. 2. 11. 7; 3. 6. 59. See H. Demburg, ‘Die Inst, de» Gaius ein Collegheft aus d. Jahre 161 n.C.’ (Festschr.f. Wächter, Halle, 1869), 55 ff.; V. Premerstein, PW iv. 726; Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (1882), 346; v. Wilamowitt» Mollendorff, Einl. in d. grieck. Tragodie (1910), 121; G. Zuntz, ‘Die Aristophane»« schollen der Papyri’, Byzantion, xiv (1939/40), 560 ff. Kübler, PW vii. 498 ff. fit inconclusive. ¹

Note Z (p. ι6γ)

Just. Inst, praef. s. 6: commentarii rerum cottidianarum. Index Flor, xx: aurton βιβλία «mi. The compilers of the Digest began by heading their excerpts with the full title, e.g. D. (40.-2) 7 and (7.1) 3 from the first and the beginning of the second book. This became wearisome and in excerpting from the later parts of the second book and from the third they abbreviated: e.g. D. (r 7. r) 2, libro secundo cottidianarum; D. (17. 1) 4, (19.2) 3, and (23.1) 28, libro secundo rerum cottidianarum; D. (17. 2) 73 and (18. 6) 2 and 16,libro secundo cottidianarumrerum; D. (44.7) 1,4, and 5, libro... aureorum. D. (50. 13) 6, from book 3, has the full title by way of exception. Cf. Mommsen, Digesta (fd. mai.), i. 479, n. 2 (not quite accurate).

Note AA (p. 177)

A question remaining to be, answered is whether the so-called Epitome Guelpher· bitana, printed (one cannot say edited) by Haenel in his edition of the Breviarium, made use of the complete Sententiae and consequently is evidence for the recon­struction of the text used by the Visigoths, v. Schwerin’s study (ACI, 1933, Bologna, i. 169 ff.) is in its present state unusable, because he has overlooked the existence of a second and better manuscript of the Epitome G., namely Vat. Lat. Reg. T050, to which Max Conrat, Z {Germ. Abt.) xxix (1908), 245, had already drawn attention. Schwerin (p. 181) raised the question whether the Epitome was not rather in the nature of an index preceding a complete text, but unfortunately he at once abandoned the idea. In the Vatican MS. the Epitome figures as Explanatio titulorum, i.e. as additions to the list of rubrics. But Haenel’s text is so bad that, till the Vatican MS. has been collated, conclusions should be reserved.

Note BB (p. 183)

The following give a picture of the ancient commentary: Asconius on Cicero’s speeches (ed. Clark,*Oxford, 1907), of the time of Nero; Servius on Vergil (fourth century); Aelius Donatus on Vergil (about 350); Ti. Claudius Donatus (about 400) on the Aeneid (ed. Georgii, 1905, 1907); Boethius (sixth century) on Cic. Top. (ed. Migne, PL Ixiv. 1040); Pseudo-Agenius Urbicus on Frontinus (ed. Thulin, Teubner, 1913). Greek commentaries: Didymus on Demosthenes (Berlin Classiker- texte, i. ix ff.; also ed. Teubner); Anon, on Plato’s Theaetet. (Classikertexte, ii, 1905).. Zuntz, 551, collects further lemmatic commentaries. Those on Homer: Schubart, * Einfiihrung, 166; Wilamowitz, Hermes xxiii (1888), 142. P. Haun. (1943), n. 3.

Note CC (p. 216)

In D. (17. x) 32, *et in summa... procul dubio est* can hardly come from the compilers: Schulz, Einf. 30 ff., 34; Beseler, Beitr. v. 48; St. Bonfante, ii. 58; Index Interp. In D. (46. 3) 36 Julian cannot have written ‘aut quartam partem... aut sextam* and left the decision to the reader. The phrase pro qua... nasci is badly formulated, because the event of a postumus being bom is overlooked. Julian must have written substantially * lulianus notat: verius est me perdidisse quartam partem, quia tres nasci potuerunt*, as his school taught and was still held by Paul (D. 5. 1. 28.5). Julian may not yet have known of the famous ‘quintuplets’, or else he rightly disregarded the possibility. In the post-classical school, however, this case was prominent, as D. (5. 4) 3 (above, p. 216) shows. The present fir. 36 is incorrectly handled by Albertario, St. v. 373.

Note DD (p. 333)

In the pseudo-Aristotelian Prdblemata (the collection, of course, goes back to Aristotle) the most disparate problems are discussed. Each is a separate unit; there is no interconnecting text. The problem begins with the question why so and so (δΰ rl...), and this is followed by an answer of the utmost caution and reserve (an example was given above, p. 71). Cf. Christ-Schmid, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. i (ed. 6, 1912), 737; ii (1920), 53. This literary form was kept to in after times; question is regularly introduced by διά rl. See, e.g., Plutarch’s αίτια Ρωμαϊκό, καί 'Ελληνικά, αίτια φυσικά (here the title is modelled on Callimachus’ αίτια) and συμποσιακά ζητήματα, the ΙΤλατωκικά ζητήματα of pseudo-Plutarch, the ’Ομηρικά ζητήματα of Porphyrius, the ’Ομηρικά προβλήματα of Heraclitus (Schmid-Stahlin, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. i (1929), 168). Didymus too likes to begin his disquisitions with: ζητείται άιάτΐ...: cf. Zuntz, Byzaniion, xiii (1938), 647. Incidentally one may remark that the guare-literature of the Bolognese law school is a last offshoot of Apstotle’s Problemata, a point apparently missed by Seckel, and by Genzmer, ‘Quare Glossatorum’, Ged&htnisschr. f. Seckel (1927), 1 if.; ACI, 1933, Bologna,

i. 42a.

Note EE (/>. 330)

A celebrated example is D. (1.3) 32, giving the post-classical theory of customary law: Index Interp., and especially Steinwenter’s exhaustive discussion in St. Bonfante, ■

ii. 431 flf., who is mistaken only in imagining the editor to have been an eastern. Another clear example is in D. (12. 1) 20, where the compilers’ interpolations begin at sed haec, so that anything interpolated in what precedes (cf. Index Interp?) must be due to a pre-Justinian interpolator. Again, D. (35. a) 87. 7, from dicet aliquis is thoroughly in the style of the Autun Commentary·. Beseler, Beitr. iv. 237; v. 58; Z xlvii (1937), 74. Lastly, the obvious interpolation of D. (37. 6) 3. a is not due to the compilers: Beseler, Z Ivii (1937), 12; A. Guarino, Collatio bonorum (Rome, 1937), 72 ff. According to Solazzi additions by a graecizing editor are found in Julian’s work: ‘Tracce di un commento agli scritri di Salvio Giuliano’, St. Beste, i (Milan, 1939)» Π·

Note FF (p. 370)

Nov. Valent. 35. a: ’poena defensoribus negotii, qui in eodem extraordinario iudicio adfuerint atque egerint, huiusmodi constituta, ut causidicum officii amissio, iurisconsultum existimationis et interdictae civitatis damna percellant.’ Note adfuerint and egerint; the jurisconsult is merely present at the proceedings in court (above, p. 338), the advocate (causidicus) agit. In Diocletian’s tariff of prices (Mommsen-Blumner, Edictum de pretiis rer. ven. 1893) the fee to be given advocate sive iuris perito is fixed. The iuris peritus is the jurisconsult in contrast to the advocate; the advocate is not alternatively described as iurisperitus, as Bethmann- Hollweg, 3,162, wrongly assumes. Correct view: Conrat, Mil. Fitting, 18 (offprint).

Note GG (p. 373)

D. (50. 13) 1. 5. This text is naturally not authentic Ulpian, but a post-classical fabrication (from the libri de omnibus tribunalibus, on which above, p. 256). It does not, however, come from the compilers (on this point Kubler, PW i A. 398, is wrong); see the similar expressions in Cassiodorus, Variae, 6.20.5, about the medical students: ’in ipsis quippe arris huius initiis’ (this corresponds to ingressu in the Digest)

‘quaedam sacerdoti! genere’ (res santissima of the Digest) ‘sacramenta vos conse­crant: doctoribus enim vestris promittitis’ rell. In the Digest, sacramenti should be emended to sacramento. See also Collinet, Ecole de Beyrout, 200.

Note HH (p. a₇S)

On what follows, see Pringsheim, ‘Die archaistische Tendenz Justinians’, St. Bonfante, ³ (1930), 551 ff., a valuable and stimulating article, but misconceived: there is no archaizing tendency in Justinian. (1) The classicizer takes as his guide a product of the culture of the past, which he regards as a supreme (an^wf) develop­ment; the archaizer strives consciously after the primitive. Pliny is a classicist when he declares Demosthenes to be the norma oratorie et regula (Epist. 9. 26. 8), Hadrian an archaizer when he ranks the elder Cato before Cicero and Ennius before Vergil (SHA, Hadr. 16). Obviously Justinian and his staff were classicists, not archaizers. (2) Justinian’s claims that in a given enactment he is saying nothing new (e.g. Nov. 78. 5: muAf^Sa 84 f«v8v 0Ù8A: Pringsheim, 558) are not expressions of archaism, but of Roman conservatism; See Schulz, 84. For passages with non est novum see Voc. iv. 232.40 ; cf. iv. 293. 50 f. ; Beseler, Beitr. v. 36. (3) Justinian’s struggle after simplicitas is due not to archaism, but to a native Roman instinct: Schulz, 66 ff. His occasional appeals to the ‘simple law’ of the Twelve Tables show a certain antiquarian interest, but no more. Against Pringsheim’s theses as to ‘Justinian and the Twelve Toiles' (op. cit. 566) see Berger, St. Riccobono, ³ (1933), 587 ff.; AC I, 1933, Roma, ³ (1934), 39 ff. The correct view in all essentials is taken in Riccobono’s admirable contribution: ‘La verità sulle pretese tendenze arcaiche di Giustiniano’, Conferente (1931), 237 ff.

Note II (p. 393)

Many examples in Heumann-Seckel, s.v. ‘subtìlis’. We must consider on the one hand Justinian’s constitutions, in which subtüis, subtüiter, subtilitas, scrupulositas, scrupulosus are found (cf. Longo’s Vocabulary, Bull, x), and on the other hand the Digest passages, in which these words are invariably interpolated. See Voc. v. 291 ; v. 727 and 728. But the evidence is much wider. The expressions of such tendencies cannot be exhaustively assembled with the help of vocabularies alone; they take effect at times without these catchwords occurring. That the bulk of these inter­polations come from the compilers is shown by the absence from Levy’s Ergänzungs­index of subtüis and subtilitas, while scrupulosus is found only once (F.F. 314, Diocletian). C. Th. has subtilitas only once, in the good sense (6. 21.1). In the post- Theodosian Novds we have subtüis only once, not in the bad sense (Nov. Valent.

8. 2), and scrupulositas not at all. In Gaius’ Institutes there is 3. 94 (* quod nimium subtiliter dictum est*), a section which is perhaps entirely post-classical: Beseler, Z Ivii (1937), 44. The only other case is 4. 30: ‘ex nimia subtilitate veterum’, which text also Beseler (p. 45) pronounces post-classical. I admit the grounds for suspicion, but attribute the text to Gaius.

Note JJ (p. 306)

We are following the view taken by Ferrini, r. 15 ff. Nevertheless: (1) Ferrini held that Theophilus wrote a Greek paraphrase of Gaius’ Institutes. This is possible, but unprovable, and Ferrini himself withdrew the view in his edition (Proleg., p. xii) and supposed that this paraphrase was produced in the law school of Berytus. (2) The argument we have appealed to is among the arguments advanced by Ferrini (p. 22), but he does not see that it is the only decisive argument. He urges it along with other arguments which go to show that Theophilus did indeed use Gaius’ Institutes, but leave open the possibility that he used tire original Latin text, and therefore give no support to the theory of an intermediate paraphrase in Greek. The decisive argument is overlooked by Ferrini, Byz. Z. vi (1897), 547 ff. The result was that his thesis was not accepted (cf. Brokate, Strassi/. Diss. 1886; P. Krüger, 410, n. 23; Collinet, Et. 2. 291; Kübler, PW va. 2146—all without noticing the decisive argument), but he was nevertheless right.

Note KK (p. 310)

Ed. princeps by Angelo Mai and Fr. Bluhme, 1823. This and later editions have been out of date since i860. The editions in current use are: (1) Mommsen, * Codicis Vaticani N. 5766, in quo insunt iuris anteiustiniani fragmenta quae dicuntur Vaticana*, Abh. Berlin Ah. 1859 (i860). This alone gives an apograph and thus an exact picture of the MS., but Mommsen made a number of improvements later. (2) Mommsen’s small edition in Collect, libr. iii. (3) Kübler’s edition in Seckel- Kübler, ii. 2 (1927), 191. Huschke’s editions are no longer usable. School editions: Girard-Senn, Textes, 511; FIRA ii (1940), 463. Literature: the best is still to be found in Mommsen’s editions; see also Felgenträger, ‘Z. Entstehungsgesch. d. Fragmenta Vaticana’ {Freiburger RechtsgeschichÜ. Abh. v, 1935, 27-42)· The com­mentary in A. A. Buchholtz’s edition (1828), though out of date and insufficient, is still useful.

Note LL (p. 311)

Editto princeps by Pithou in 1573. This and all later editions were put out of date by Mommsen’s standard edition in Colled, libr. iii (1890). Hyamson’s edition (Oxford, 1913) is valuable, particularly on account of its photographic reproduction of the Berlin MS. Other serviceable editions: Kübler, Seckel-Kübler, ii. 2. 325 (1927); Girard-Senn, Textes, 572; FIRA ii (1940), 541. Literature: Read first Mommsen’s fundamental preface to his edition. Further: Rudorff, ‘Über den Ursprung u. die Bestimmung d. lex Dei oder Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum Collatio’, Abh. Berlin Ah. 1868; Dirksen, Hinterlassene Sehr, ii (1871), 106ff.; Conrat, Gesch. (1891, but written before Mommsen’s edition), 87; ‘Z. Kultur des r. R. im Westen des r. Reiches im 4. u. 5. Jahrh.’, Mel. Fitting, i (1907), 299; Joers, PW iv. 367 ; Triebs, St. z. Lex Dei, i (1905), 2 (1907) ; Volterra, Collatio legum Mos. el Rom., Mem. Ac. Lincei, anno 327, ser. vi. 3, fase. r,1930 ; Levy, Z1 (1930), 698 ff. ; N. Smits, Mos. et Rom. legum Collatio, 1934 (an outstanding dissertation of Groningen); Schulz, Die Anordnung nach Massen als Kompositionsprinzip, ACI, 1933, Roma, ii. 11 ff.; ‘Die biblischen Texte in d. Collatio legum Mos. et Rom.’, SD 1936, 20ff.; Ostersetzer, ‘La Collatio leg. Mos. et Rom.’, Reu'. des et.juives, xcvii (1934), 65-96; K. Hohenlohe, Ursprung u. Zweck der Collatio (Vienna, 1935); SD v (1939), 486; Bossowski, Ada Congr. iurid. internal. 1934, i. 369; Solazzi, ‘Per la data della Collatio Mos. et Rom. legum’, Atli Ac. Napoli, 1936.

Note MM {p. 317)

Only Krüger’s editions should be used at the present day: Ed. maior, 1877; smaller editions 1877-19x5 (ed. 9); details: Schulz, Z xlvii (1927), pp. xxxiii ff. The large edition is not sufficient: there are improvements in that of 1915. Literature: Vocab. Codicis lust, i (Prague, 1923), by R. Mayr; ii (1925, the Greek words), by San Nicolò; corrections by H. Krüger, Z xlvii (1927), 387 ff. For Justinian’s own constitutions Longo, ‘Vocabolario delle costituzioni di Giustiniano’, Bull, x (1897/8)

is more convenient. See also: P. Krüger, Kritik des Just. Codex (1867); Z.f. Rechts- gesch. xi. 2 (1873), 166; Z xiii (1892), 287; xxii (1901), 12, 52; xxxvi (1915), 82; Festg. f. Bekker (1907), 1 ff.; Festg. f. Güterbock (1910), 239; Rotondi, Scritti, i. 146 ff. (admirable); Guameri-Citati, Leggendo i primi libri del Codice Giustinianeo (1926)·

Note NN (p. 318)

Only Mommsen’s larger, two-volume edition (Berlin, 1870) gives a full critical apparatus. His smaller edition first appeared in,1868; it has since the eleventh edition (1908) been re-edited by P. Krüger (last the 13th, 1920). Krüger has intro­duced, in notes and appendix, mention of many interpolations: Schulz, Z xlvii (1927), pp. xxviiiff. This was convenient at the time, but gave Mommsen’s work an unpleasantly ephemeral appearance: such information belongs to the Palingenesia and the Index Interp., not to the edition. Bonfante and others have given a handy pocket-edition: i (1908), ii (1931)· In case of doubt recourse should be had to Codex Florentinus olitn Pisanus phototypice expressus..., 10 fasc., the last Rome, 1910. On the MSS. it suffices to refer to H. Kantorowicz’s masterly ‘Die Entstehung - der Digestenvulgata ’ (Z xxx (1909), 183 ff.; xxxi (1910), 14 ff.; also in book-form), on which Schulz, Einführung, iff.; P. Krüger, Bemerkungen z. Benutzung der Ausgaben von Justinians Digesten, Festg. f. Bergbohm (1919). In general: Joers, PW v. 484 (1905); Schulz, Einführung in das Studium der Digesten (1916); H. Krüger, Die Herstellung der Digesten Justinians u. der Gang der Exzerption (1922). Schulting- Smallenburg, Notae ad Digesta, 8 vols. (1804 ff.); Schimmelpfeng, Hammel Redivivus, vols. i and ii (1858); Index interpolationum quae in lustiniani Digestis inesse dicuntur, i (1929); ii (1931); iii (1935); Suppiementum I (1929); Generalregister der Z zu vols. i-1.

Note 00 (p. 324)

Editions: Bruns-Sachau, Syrisch-romisches Rechtsbuch aus dem 5. Jahr. (1880),. with extensive commentary, now out of date; Sachau, Syrisch-romische Rechtsbücher, i (1907): Latin trs. by Ferrini, Z xxiii (1902), 101 (Oftere, i. 397 ff.) and in FIRA ii (revised by J. Furlani in the second edition, 1940). Literature: Nallino, ‘Sul libro Siro-Romano e sul presunto diritto siriaco’, St. Bonfante, i (1930), 201 ff. This fundamental study gives, pp. 211 ff., a thorough review of the literature. Older studies by Nallino: ‘ Gli studi di E. Carusi sui diritti oriental!’, Riv. di St. Orientali, ix (1921), 69 ff.; ‘Ilappqala e nozze senza scrittura nel Libro siro-romano di diritto’, ibid, x (1923), 76 ff.; ‘Apokeryxis e diseredazione nel Libro s.-r.’, Rend. Lincei, ser. vi. 1 (1925), 709 ff.; ‘Di alcuni passi del Libro s.-r. concementi le succession! ibid. 774 ff. Volterra, Dir. rom. e diritti orient. (1937), 52 ff., 64; A. Baumstark, Gesch. d. syrischen Lit. (1922), 153; Seidl, PW iv A. 1779. Nallino’s early death, in 1938, has unfortunately cut off the hope of having soon a final analysis of the whole work.

Note PP (p. 325)

The MS. was discovered and, unfortunately, very incompletely copied by Bemadakis. Our editions depend on this copy. Gardthausen saw the MS., but unfortunately knew nothing of the edition which had already appeared. He made a reproduction of one page: see Lenel, Z ii (1881), 233. Winstedt revised the MS. and reported his results in ‘ Notes from Sinaitic Papyri ’, Class. Philol. ii (1907), 201 ff. But unluckily he had too little time and was not properly prepared for making the highly needed revision. Thus our present editions are very imperfect. Editio princepst Dareste, Bull, de cm. helldnique, iv (1880), 449 ff.; improvements NRH iv (1880), 643 ff. Krüger, Z iv (1883), 1 ff., gave an apograph based on Bemadakis’s report, and an edition in Collect, libr. iii. 265. Winstedt’s new readings were first incorporated by Girard, in his Textes, and are now in Kübler’s edition, Seckel- Kübler, ii. 2. 461; Girard-Senn, Textes, 609; FIRA ii (1940), 635. See Riccobono, Bull, ix (1896), 217 ff.; AM. Fitting, ii (1907), 490; Scheltema, T xvii (1940), 422.