vised Code were almost all in Greek, though some few of them were published in Latin also. Hence Justinian's Latin law books required interpretation into Greek. An early paraphrase of the Institutes still exists under the name of Theophilus. For the Code the most celebrated interpreter was Thalelaeus, and his version it is which was chiefly adopted in those passages of the Code which were taken into the Basilica. For the Digest we have substantial remains of four interpreters, Dorotheus', Stephanus, Cyrillus and one generally called Anonymus. Theophilus, a professor at Constantinople, and Dorotheus, a professor at Berytus, assisted Tribonian in compiling the Institutes, and were on the Commission for compiling the Digest. Theophilus was also on the Commission for preparing the first Code, and Dorotheus was on that for revising it. Both along with Thalelaeus are named among those to whom Justinian addressed his Constitution (Omnem) for reforming the course of legal education. Stephanus was a professor of law, according to Heimbach not the same as, but junior to, Stephanus the advocate, who was one of the compilers of the Digest. He appears to have lived and lectured about the middle of the sixth century. Cyrillus appears to have lived about the end of that century, but little is known of him. The nameless interpreter is in all probability identical with one called Enantiophanes, as the author of a book on the contradictory passages in the Digest (πepì évavтiopaveiŵv). His real name was, according to modern scholars, Julian. Julian was author of a Latin Epitome of Justinian's Novels, and lived probably in the middle of the sixth century. Looking to the internal evidence and to the prohibition by Justinian (see above, p. xxv), we may conclude that the comments are reports of lectures: the versions may have been issued by the writers themselves. Our knowledge of these versions and commentaries is chiefly due to the Basilica ('Imperials'). Basil (Baoíλecos) the Macedonian, emperor from A. D. 867 to 886, directed the consolidation of the Justinian law books into a single code of 40 (or 60) books, entitled ̓Ανακάθαρσις τῶν παλαιῶν νόμων, Reformation of the old laws. Whether this was completed or published is uncertain. He published a short institutional treatise called o πpóxeɩpos vóμos, 'Handy Law', which was re-edited in 885 under the name πavaywyn (New 1 Zachariä dates Dorotheus' version 'after 542': the end of Justinian's reign', those of Cyril and Justin' (565-578); the work of Enantiophanes (610-641). See his Gesch. des gr. röm. Rechts, ed. that of Stephanus 'towards Anonymus in the reign of in the reign of Heraclius' 2. 1879, p. 5 sqq. Edition') Toù vóμov. His son, Leo the Philosopher, either completed or revised and published, between 886 and 892 (Heimbach in Z. R. G. VIII. p. 417), the code in 60 books which was commonly called τὰ βασιλικά (from βασιλεύς, not from the emperor Βασίλειος). No one мs. has preserved to us the whole of this, but various MSS. have preserved parts, so that we have more than two-thirds of the whole, viz. Books I.-XVIII. (the last three, however, being mutilated), xx.—xxx. (the last being mutilated), XXXVIII.—XLII., XLV.—LII., and LX. Book XIX. has been partly restored from other works. The Basilica consist of large selections from the Digest, Code and Novels, arranged in this order under titles following in general the order of the Code, the matter, however, of Books VIII., IX., XI., XXXIX. 1—3, XLIII. and XLVII. of the Digest being put mainly in the last three books of the Basilica. In a few titles some passages from Theophilus' paraphrase of the Institutes occur. They usually are placed first. About the middle of the tenth century a number of scholia or notes were added to the Basilica, and are found in the MSS. These contain many extracts from the indices ('short expositions') of the old commentators on Justinian's works, and also a number of more recent notes. The extracts from the old Greek commentators are of great value, both for the text of the Digest itself and for its explanation. In those passages of the Basilica which were taken from the Digest, the Greek text is usually the version made by the anonymous commentator (Julian?), but Greek translations have been made of the Latin technical expressions which Anonymus and the others generally preserved'. Sometimes other versions, chiefly Cyril's, have supplied the text of the Basilica. The compiler appears to have had before him the works of Stephanus and Dorotheus. Stephanus is largely represented in the Scholia, but his version is mixed with his commentary. It is no doubt a report of his lectures, and it is in accordance with this that notes of his are found only on Dig. 1.XXIII., xxvi. and probably xxx. These, with the addition of Book XXVIII., are exactly the books on which, by Justinian's directions, lectures were to be given. Dorotheus' index has been used for the other books. Cyril's version and notes are also partially in the Scholia. All the older Scholia are adapted to Justinian's text, and the references are made to that. The versions differ from one another 1 See, for instance, the passage quoted in the note on p. ccxli. in point of fulness. Thalelaeus' version of the Code was literal (katà Tóda). Dorotheus' version of the Digest approaches the same character, and is therefore the most useful for correcting the Latin text. Stephanus' version is a paraphrase, and hence obtained the name of TÒ TAάTOS, 'breadth". The versions of Anonymus and Cyrillus, the latter especially, were concise (κаT' TITоμnv), and for the text of the Digest are of use chiefly when neither of the fuller versions is preserved. Mommsen has carefully used these sources for correcting the text of the Digest, and has made some useful remarks (Pref. p. lxxiv. sqq.) as to the caution necessary in using, for the ascertainment of the Latin text, Greek versions, and especially Greek versions mixed with comments, and in comparing the evidence of this inferential text with that of the Florentine Ms. The above account of the Greek writers rests on Heimbach's elaborate Prolegomena published in Vol. vI., a supplementary volume, of his edition of the Basilica. (See also an account in German by the same writer in Z. R. G. 11. 318 sqq.) Appended to this is a Manuale in which he assigns, partly by internal evidence, an author to each of the older Scholia which are preserved, and refers them to the appropriate passage of the Institutes, Digest, Code and Novels. Four of the books of the Basilica (XV.-XVIII.) had previously been reedited from fresh Ms. sources by Zachariä von Lingenthal, and these contain the Scholia conveniently arranged and named. (It is published as a kind of appendix to Heimbach.) Our present title, de usufructu, is contained in this, and forms by itself the whole of tit. 1 of the xvith Book of the Basilica. 1 Cf. D. XLVI. 3. 1 13 Sed hoc év Tλáre et cum quodam spatio temporis accipi debet, i.e. must be taken broadly'. CHAPTER XVIII. OF THE MODE OF CITING THE DIGEST. THE Byzantine commentators cited a passage by the number of the book, title and extract, prefixing B. for ßißλíov, T. for title and dy. (i.e. digest) for the extract. The Glossators, finding either no numbers or varying numbers in their мss., cited by the rubric (abridged) of the title and the first words of the extract and of the paragraph. In the 16th century the numbers of the extract and of the paragraph were added, and, later on, the initial words were omitted. Until quite recently the practice continued of denoting the title by the rubric simply, but now the number of the book and title are usually given, and have sometimes superseded the rubric altogether. In Germany the rubric is usually given, except in books intended not so much for jurists as for philologers generally. Editions of the Digest have an index of the rubrics, by which the book and title can readily be found. The older editions, e.g. Godefroi's, have an index of all the extracts by their initial words. The order of arranging the parts of a reference also varies. The Byzantines generally put them in the order-book, title, extract. The Glossators did the like: rubric, extract, paragraph. But after them arose the practice of putting first the extract and paragraph and then the rubric. This is still the most usual way in Germany, though some have returned to what seems the more natural order. The Digest is denoted by Dig. or D; II or π (for Pandectae): or in older books very often by ff, which has arisen by calligraphic development from a d with a line through it. (Transitional forms may be seen in Z. R. G. XII. 300: see also XIII. 399.) An extract in the Digest is usually denoted by lex or L orl: sometimes by fr. (for fragmentum). Sometimes cap. or c. for caput has been used. The paragraphs are usually denoted by §. I have adopted the plan of denoting the book by roman numerals, the title by arabic numerals, and always prefixing / to the number of the law or extract, and § to that of the paragraph. I have omitted the rubric, as probably not of much service to English readers, and as adding much to the length of the reference. It is not uncommon in modern jurists to prefix or affix the name of the author of the extract, e.g. Ulp. or Gai. Some even add the work and book of the author. There are occasions when such an addition is useful, but as a rule it complicates the reference greatly. The following examples will show the principal modes. Further varieties are created by roman or arabic numerals, by addition or omission of brackets, and by different abridgements of the rubrics. βι. ς'. τί α. διγ. κγ'. So Byzantine Commentators. D (or ff) de rei uind. I in rem. § tignum. So the Glossators. I in rem § tignum ff rei uind. (D or ff is often omitted, e.g. by Cujas.) I in rem 23 § tignum 6 D de rei uind. L 23. § 6. D. de rei uind. So Glück. L 23 § 6 de rei uind. (6. 1). So Savigny and Thibaut. fr. 23 § 6 de R. V. 6, 1 (Ulp.). So Bekker. Paul. 21 ad Ed. (D. vI. 1, 23 § 6). So Voigt. Paulus Dig. 6, 1, 23, 6. So Mommsen in Staatsrecht. The three books on Legacies (xxx, xxx1, xxxII) are often quoted as D. de legat. I., D. de legat. II., D. de legat. III. The rubrics are abridged, e.g. XXII. 1. is quoted as de usuris instead of de usuris et fructibus et causis et omnibus accessionibus et mora; xxiv. 3. as sol. matr. instead of soluto matrimonio dos quemadmodum petatur; VII. 1. as de usufr., &c. Many are frequently quoted by initials, e.g. de I. et I. (for 1. 1 de iustitia et iure); de O.I. (for 1. 2 de origine iuris, &c.) ; de D.R. or de R.D. (for 1. 8 de diuisione rerum et qualitate); de N.G. (for III. 5 de negotiis gestis); de H.P. (for v. 3 de hereditatis petitione); de R.V. (for VI. 1 de rei uindicatione); de S.P.U. (for VIII. 2 de seruitutibus praediorum urbanorum); de S.P.R. (for VIII. 3 de seruitutibus praediorum rusticorum); de R. C. (for XII. 1 de rebus creditis, &c.) ; de C.E. (for XVIII. 1 de contrahenda emtione); de A.E.V. (for xix. 1 de actionibus emti uenditi); |