Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/685

Rh JUSTINIANUS. b«rg, professor of law at Helmstadt, De Multi- tudine nimia Commentatorum in Instilutiones Juris. The Institutes of Justinian were edited, jointly with those of Gaius, by Klenze and Becking ( 4to. Berol. 1829). The most valuable critical editions anterior to Schrader's are those of Haloander (Nuremb. 1529), Contius (Paris, 1567), Cujas (Paris, 1585 ; re-edited by Kohler, Gdttingen, 1773), Biener (Berlin, 1812), and Bucher (Er- langen, 1826). A complete account of the literature connected with the Institutes would fill a volume. The reader is referred for full and authentic in- formation on the subject to Spangenberg, Einleitung in das Corpus Juris Civilis ; Biicking, Institufionen, pp. 145 — 158; Prodronius Corporis Juris Civilis a Schradero, Clossio^ Tafelio edendi., 8vo. Berol. 1823 ; Beck, Indicis Codicum et Editionum Juris Justiniani Prodronius, 8vo. Lips. 1823; and the editions of the Institutes by Biener and Schrader. The literary history of the Digest has been a subject of hot and still unextinguished controversy. The most celebrated existing manuscript of this work is that called the Florentine, consisting of two large quarto volumes, written by Greek scribes, probably not later than the end of the sixth, or the beginning of the seventh century. It was formerly supposed by some to be one of the authentic copies transmitted to Italy in the lifetime of Justinian, but this opinion is now abandoned. It is, in ge- neral, free from contractions and abbreviations, which were strictly forbidden by the emperor, but letters and parts of letters are sometimes made to do double duty, as necesset for necesse esset {gemi- nationes and ^3 for A B {monogrammata). The Florentine manuscript was for a long time at Pisa, and hence the glossators refer to its text as litera Pisana (P. or Pi.), in contradistinction to the com- mon text {litera vulgata). Its history before it arrived at Pisa, is doubtful. According to the tes- timony of Odofredus, who wrote in the 13th century, it was brought to Pisa from Constantinople, and Bartolus, in the 14th century, relates that it was always at Pisa. We are strongly inclined to put faith in the constant tradition that it was given to the Pisans by Lothario the Second, after the cap- ture of Amalfi, in a. d. 1135 (?), as a memorial of his gratitude to them for their aid against Roger the Norman. The truth or falsehood of this tra- dition would be a matter of little importance, if it were not usually added, among other more apocry- phal embellishments, that Lothario directed the Digest to be taught in the schools, and to be re- garded as law in the courts, and that the Roman law had been completely forgotten, until the atten- tion of the school of Bologna was turned to it by the ordinance of the emperor, consequent upon the finding of the manuscript. (Sigoniiis, de Pegno Ital. xi. in fine.) It is certain that soon after the capture of Amalfi, the Roman law, which had long been comparatively neglected, was brought into remarkable repute by the teaching of Irnerius, but this resuscitation is attributed by Savigny to the growing illumination of men's minds, and to that felt want of legal science which the progress of commerce and civilisation naturally produces. He thinks that civilisation, excited by these causes, not by any sudden discovery, had only to put forth its arm and seize the sources of Roman law, which were previously obvious and ready for its grasp. Pisa was conquered by the Florentine Caponius, in 1406, and the manuscript was brought to Flo- JUSTINIANUS. fi71 rence in 1411 (.^), ever since which time it has been kept there as a valuable treasure, and regarded with the utmost reverence. Where the Florentine manuscript may have been before the siege of Amalfi is of little consequence ; but it is of great consequence that we should be able to decide another much disputed question, namel}% whether the Florentine manuscript be or be not the sole authentic source whence the text of all other existing manuscripts, and of all the printed editions, is derived. In favour of the affirmative opinion there are several facts, which have not, we think, been satisfactorily accounted for. The leaves of the Florentine manuscript are written on both sides,, and the last leaf but one, in binding the volume, has been so placed as to reverse the order of the pages. The fault is copied in all the exist- ing manuscripts. The order of the 8th and 9th titles in the 37th book of the Digest is reversed in the Florentine manuscript, but the error is corrected by the scribe by a G^ree^ note in the margin. There are fragments similarly reversed in lib. 35, tit. 2, and lib. 40, tit. 4, and similarly corrected. In the other existing old manuscripts, written by men who did not understand Greek, the error is reproduced, but not the correction. On the other hand, an interpolation added in Latin in the margin of the Florentine manuscript, is inserted in the text of the other manuscripts. For this reason, the last four fragments of lib. 41, tit. 3, are wrongly con- verted into a separate title, with the rubric de So- hito. In the 20th and 22nd titles of the 48th book, there are blanks in the Florentine manuscript, indicating the omission of several fragments, which were first restored by Cujas from the Basilica. The omissions exist in all the ancient manuscripts. In general, where the text of the Florentine manu- script presents insuperable difficulties, no assistance is to be derived from the other manuscripts, whereas they all, in many passages, retain the eriors of the Florentine. Their variations are nowhere so numerous and arbitrary as where the Florentine is defective or corrupt. Moreover, they appear to be all later than the beginning of the twelfth century ; and, in general, the older they are, the less they depart from the Florentine. In opposition to these facts, the supporters of the conflicting theory adduce many passages of the ordinary text in which the omissions and faults of the Florentine manuscript are corrected and sup- plied. Some of the variations are not improve- ments, some may be ascribed to critical sagacity and happy conjecture, and some may have been drawn from the Basilica or other Eastern sources : yet, in the list which Savigny has given, a few variations remain, which can scarcely be accounted for in any of these ways. Passages from the Digest, containing readings different from those of the Flo- rentine manuscript, occur in canonists and other authors, anterior to the supposed discovery at Amalfi. Four palimpsest leaves of a manuscript of the Digest, nearly as old as the Florentine, were found at Naples by Gaupp, and an account of them was published by him at Breslau, in 1 823. They belong to the tenth book, but are nearly illegible. In most of the manuscripts and early editions, the Digest consists of three nearly equal volumes. The first, comprehending lib. 1 — 24, tit. 2, is called Digestum Vetus ; the second, comprehending lib. 24, tit. 3— lib. 38, is called Infortiatum ; the third, comprehending lib. 39 — lib. 50, is called Digestum