opinions of a lawyer on particular cases, but a formal treatise on various titles of the law. It seems indeed to be ascertained beyond all doubt that the name of the author, as well as the title of the book, is only to be traced to an error of the copyist and inadvertency of the editor. Of the Breviarium of Anianus, all the complete manuscripts conclude with a minute fragment of an illustrious civilian, " Papiniani lib. 1. Responsorum;" but in this as well as in other passages where the name occurs, it is uniformly written Papianus instead of Papinianus.* As the error is thus repeated in different places, it may have originated from the use of a contraction in writing the name. Cujacius is supposed to have printed from a manuscript in which the fragment now mentioned was immediately succeeded by the Lex Romana, and to have mistaken the rubric of this fragment for that of the succeeding treatise. In the Vatican Library there is a manuscript which exhibits the very same contents and arrangement. In a subsequent edition, printed at Paris in 1586, he varied the title of the book, describing it as "Burgundionis J. C. qui Papiani Responsorum titulum præfert, liber." This description refers us to the true origin of the book, which appears very clearly to have been compiled for the use of the Roman subjects belonging to the ancient kingdom of Burgundy.

In the preamble to the Lex Burgundionum, we meet with the following passage: "Inter Romanos vero interdicto simili conditione venalitatis crimine, sicut a parentibus nostris statutum est, Romanis legibus præcipimus judicari: qui formam et exposi tionem legum conscriptam, qualiter judicent, se noverint accepturos, ut per ignorantiam se nullus excuset." This passage was written in the second year of the reign of Gundebald, that is, in the year 517. His barbarian subjects were to be governed by one code of laws, and his Roman subjects by another. When the first code was completed, the second was promised: the Roman subjects, indulged with the privilege of being governed by their national laws, were to be furnished with such a form and exposition as should regulate the judicial proceedings in which they were solely concerned. Lindenbrog perceived that the work ascribed to Papianus was precisely such a compendium as might be supposed to suit this purpose; and Cujacius had evidently arrived at the same conclusion when he described it as the work of a Burgundian lawyer. Gothofredus and other writers remarked that the order of arrangement was almost the very same in both works; and, as this order is not such as

* Conradi Parerga, p. 101. Savigny, Bd. ii. S. 24.

+ Lindenbrogii Codex Legum Antiquarum, p. 267. edit, Francof. 1613, fol.

obviously presents itself, we naturally infer that, so far as relates to the distribution of the titles, the one book served as a model for the other. A strong presumption likewise arises from the barbarian regulations which this civilian borrows from the laws of the Burgundians. The second title, De Homicidiis, concludes with the subsequent passage: "Et quia de pretiis occisorum nihil evidenter lex Romana constituit, dominus noster statuit observandum, ut, si ingenuus ab ingenuo fuerit interemptus, et homicida ad ecclesiam confugerit, ipse qui homicidium admisit, cum medietate bonorum suorum occisi heredibus serviturus addicatur, reliqua medietas facultatis ejus heredibus relinquatur. Si vero servus cujuscunque occisus fuerit ab ingenuo, et ipse homicida ad ecclesiam convolaverit, secundum servi qualitatem infra scripta domino ejus pretia cogatur exsolvere, hoc est, pro actore c. sol., pro ministeriali Ix., pro aratore, aut porcario, aut virvicario, aut aliis servis xxx., pro aurifice electo c., pro fabro ferrario 1., pro carpentario xl. inferantur. Hoc ex præcepto domini regis convenit observari." The Roman laws had not, like the barbarian codes of the middle ages, regulated the price of blood; but the Roman subjects of this barbarian king were not to be left without a table of fees. The prices for the homicide of different classes of persons generally correspond with the regulations established by the code of the Burgundians.

This anonymous writer appears to have drawn his materials from the Institutes of Caius, the "Sententiæ Recepta" of Paulus, the Gregorian, Hermogenian, and Theodosian Codes, and from the novels of several emperors. What he has derived from these different sources, is distinguished with great care and accuracy by the learned editor. The work, as now published, consists of forty-seven titles, which are generally very short and simple; nor is it to be supposed that all the leading objects of legal cognizance can be comprised within such narrow limits. As little is it to be expected that this civilian of Burgundy, writing during the sixth century, and at a distance from Constantinople and Berytus, can always be found a safe guide in questions of pure Roman law. The incidental value of his work has however been recognized by the most competent judges, and among the rest by Savigny, who remarks that it contains many passages of ancient jurisprudence, of which no other traces are now to be discovered. The author had access to many pure sources, which have long been closed by the mouldering ruins of time. But he did not possess sufficient skill to preserve unsullied the valuable

• Savigny's Geschichte des Römischen Rechts im Mittelalter, Bd. ii. S. 32.

E 2

fragments which he incorporated in his motley fabric; and to render it available for the illustration of ancient jurisprudence, required no inconsiderable effort of learning, ingenuity, and industry. Such was the principal part of the task undertaken by Dr. Barkow; and this task he appears to have executed in a manner highly creditable to his professional character. The work, as appended to several early editions of the Theodosian Code, is without any commentary or notes. Schulting inserted Papianus in his collection entitled "Jurisprudentia vetus Ante-Justinianea," which was first printed at Leyden in the year 1717, and he added some aunotations which are not very elaborate. He was a man of great erudition, and of eminent knowledge of the civil law, but it was not consistent with his general plan to bestow much time and space upon this particular tract. After the lapse of half a century, the task of illustration was more ambitiously attempted than successfully performed by Amaduzzi. The text was next printed in the "Jus Civile Antejustinianeum," which appeared at Berlin in the year 1815. This collection was published by an association of civilians; and the care of the Lex Romana devolved upon F. A. Biener, who has more recently distinguished himself by different works. He has subjoined various readings, but no commentary. Hitherto the book had never been published in a separate form; and this edition of Barkow is therefore recommended by many different circumstances. The volume commences with a preface, which extends to sixty-six pages, and embraces all the preliminary information that any reader could be supposed to require or wish for. A very elaborate commentary is placed under the text; after which follow the various readings, consisting of thirty-seven pages.

*

The work entitled Lex Dei is apparently a production of nearly the same age. The author is supposed by Gothofredus to have been contemporary with Cassiodorus, who flourished about the middle of the sixth century. A conformity has been traced between the sentiments as well as the style of the two writers; and Blume has remarked that quia, instead of quod, and incipit governing an accusative, seem to indicate that the anonymous author could scarcely have written before the year 500. When hiss

Various writers of a more recent age have instituted a formal comparison between the Jewish and Roman laws. One of these is William Wellwood, professor of law in the university of St. Andrews, who published a work bearing the following title: "Juris Divini Judæorum ac Juris Civilis Romanorum Parallela; sive utriusque e suis undequaque sedibus ad verbum transcripti ocularis Collatio: authore Gulielmo Velvod.* Lugd. Bat. 1594, 4to. This work is followed by an appendix, with a regular title-page containing the same date: "Ad expediendos Processus in Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, Appendix Parallelorum Juris divini humanique."

work was first discovered in the sixteenth century, Du Tillet, Charondas, Cujacius, and others, ascribed it to a certain Lucinius Rufinus; but upon what authority, or according to what conjecture, it appears extremely difficult to ascertain. They evidently could not confound him with an eminent lawyer of the same name, who was contemporary with Julius Paulus, and therefore belonged to a much earlier age. Zimmern, a recent and distinguished historian of the Roman law, is inclined to believe that he may have been a Jew; but we perceive no adequate reason for departing from the current opinion, which represents him as a Christian. Freherus and Otto suppose him to have been a monk: Blume replies that before the age of St. Benedict there were very few monks in the western parts of Europe, and still fewer who could have cultivated the study of letters. Cassiodorus, whom we have mentioned as the supposed contemporary of the anonymous writer, was himself the founder of a monastery in a remote part of Calabria, and in this retreat he closed a long life, which had been much devoted to profane as well as sacred literature. It is at least highly probable that the writer in question was an ecclesiastic of some denomination. The knowledge which he displays of the sacred writings renders this an obvious conjecture. From his mode of addressing the lawyers, "scitote jurisconsulti," it has been inferred that he was not himself of their number, for this is not like a man addressing a body to which he himself belonged. Blume, by some inadvertence, has stated that such an argument was first employed by Finestres, in the prolegomena to his edition of Schulting's "Jurisprudentia Ante-Justinianca." Ceruariæ, 1744, 12mo. In two different works, Gothofredus had anticipated this argument by an entire century.*

The chief value of such a work as this obviously lies in its pre serving scattered fragments which might otherwise have been lost. The author had access to many treatises which have utterly perished, or of which we only possess the mutilated remains; and as he collected his materials with a considerable degree of industry, his labours have found due acceptance with the most learned of the modern civilians. Nor are they without some degree of interest to theologians. The editor is inclined to believe that the passages of the Old Testament he must either have quoted by memory, or rendered from some Greek version. "Quamobrem mea quidem sententia eo potissimum inclinat, col

J. Gothofredi Manuale Juris, p. 63. Prolegomena Codicis Theodosiani, cap. iii. + See Bishop Müinter's Fragmenta Versionis antiquæ Latina Antehieronymianæ, in the Miscellanea Hafniensia, tom, ii. p. 89.

lectorem ea loca quæ adfert, vel memoria minus exacte tenuisse, vel ex Græca quadam interpretatione ipsum vertisse." Venema, a learned divine, was of opinion that he must either have employed a version of his own, or quoted from some version now unknown. The supposition of his relying to any extent upon his memory, in digesting so long a series of quotations, seems to fall considerably short of probability.

This relique of ancient jurisprudence has already appeared in about twenty different editions, of which the earliest was published by Pierre Pithou in the year 1573. Another was published by H. Stephanus in a small volume entitled "Juris Civilis Fontes et Rivi," which made its appearance in 1580. The tract was inserted in the collections of Van Leeuwen and Schulting. In the Berlin collection of 1815, it was printed under the superintendence of Biener. Notwithstanding the labours of so many precursors, Dr. Blume has found ample room for the exercise of his learning and industry. He has produced an elaborate and critical edition, which will be found of no inconsiderable value to those who prosecute similar studies with suitable ardour, with such ardour as is now displayed in the universities of Germany. His prolegomena, consisting of forty-four pages, exhibit a copious account of the book, of the manuscript copies which have hitherto been traced, and of the various editions and commentaries. One manuscript he himself discovered in the library of the chapter of Vercelli. His more brief notes, relating to the adjustment of the text, and containing references to the original sources from which it is derived, are placed at the bottom of each page; and, under the title of Excursus critici, he has subjoined some more extended annotations, which however are neither numerous nor diffuse. Several useful indices, prepared with due care and accuracy, close this curious volume.

The Corpus Legum evidently belongs to a more recent age. Senckenberg supposes it to have been written soon after the reign of Justinian, and he concludes that it must have been written by a native of Italy or Africa; but the arguments with which he supports these opinions are so extremely slender, that he appears to have made very few converts. A very different theory was proposed by Saxius; who conjectured that the real author of the work was no other than Apel, by whom he erroneously supposed it to have been originally published. Joannes Apellus, or Johann Apel, was born at Nürnberg in 1486, and died there in 1536. After completing his law studies, he became a canon of Würzburg, and councillor to the bishop; but, having been compelled to leave the diocese in consequence of marrying a nun, he was in 1524 appointed professor of law in the uni