Basilica Online

Purchase Access
Subject: History

Basilica Online is a fully-searchable online edition of the 17 volumes of the Basilica text and its scholia, as edited between 1945 and 1988 by H.J. Scheltema, D. Holwerda, and N. van der Wal. The Basilica is the single-most important source for Byzantine law throughout the period of the Byzantine empire, and is a major source for Byzantine studies more broadly.

Subscriptions: Brill.com

1. Introduction

It is now almost thirty years since the last volume of the ‘Groningen edition’ of the Basilica was published. The edition has been out of print for at least ten years now. It is here published in digital form. The text and scholia have been available in digital form for some time now in the databank Thesaurus Linguae Graecae of Irvine. That format has three defects when compared to the printed edition: it has no critical apparatus, no prefaces, and the length of lines of fragments is not the same, which makes references to longer fragments differ from those that have been and are being made to the printed edition. All this is set to rights here, and those who prefer to consult a digital edition will no longer need to worry about differences.

What was and still is lacking in the printed edition is Prolegomena to the entire work. In 1981 the preparations of the last volume had been completed. Two weeks later Herman Jan Scheltema (1906-1981), the auctor intellectualis and guiding spirit of the enterprise, passed away. His younger colleagues Douwe Holwerda (1920-2011) and Nicolaas van der Wal (1925-2015), who had participated in the editorial work from its early stages, saw the last volume through the press, which then was presented in 1988.[1] With the death of the last surviving member of the editorial equipe, the task of providing them has definitively fallen to the next generation, and the present author cannot but feel humbled and honoured before the task that he faces.[2]

I have preferred to give it the title of Praefatio instead of Prolegomena, to avoid the impression that it pretends to offer the sort of Prolegomena Scheltema would have written himself. Perhaps it should be called an interim report, necessitated by the present occasion. The task of writing has been much lightened by the writings left by Scheltema,[3] Van der Wal[4] and Holwerda, who between them took half a century to finish a work deemed impossible when Scheltema first hinted at his proposed edition. His point of departure was the defects of the 19th-century edition by Heimbach,[5] defects that could only be remedied by doing the work all over again. His plan was received by the scholarly community in some amazement and disbelief, and one of its members correctly diagnosed that ‘[Scheltema] would probably be deaf to advice’. In short, he was going the long and arduous path alone, assisted by two young scholars who were to rise to become distinguished professors in their own right. Fortunately, Scheltema lived to see the last volume finished, though not yet printed.[6]

In one respect Heimbach’s edition still may be consulted with some profit. It contains a facing Latin translation and thus is the only help for those who read Greek with difficulty or not at all. Its user should of course be aware of the fact that the Greek text offered by Scheltema cum suis is not always the same as, and sometimes at considerable variance with, the text given by Heimbach. In the forty years between the first and last volume of the Scheltema edition the spread of knowledge of Greek and Latin has decreased considerably. It is now to be doubted whether a Latin translation in the humanist tradition would have sufficed. The fall in linguistic competence of the potential users of his edition had of course been noticed by Scheltema, who had no use for rear-guard fights; he was in fact one of the first Dutch professors of Roman law to abandon the requisite of Latin for his students. By then, however, it was too late to change the principles of the edition. An English translation of the work is under consideration and, if funding can be found, may yet be supplied in the future.

In 1865 C.G.E. Heimbach died, before his Prolegomena were published. They were found in his desk, written in Latin of course, and published posthumously five years later.[7] Their content covers much more than the usual preliminary material of a critical edition. Indeed, the larger part consists of a history of the sources of Byzantine law. Let it be clearly understood that the present Praefatio is not aiming to offer a similar introduction to the Groningen edition. That is not to say that the subject of Heimbach’s Prolegomena was unimportant or in any sense mistaken. On the contrary, it was much needed at the time and as such a piece of incredible scholarship. Their contents, however, have been largely superseded by the histories of the sources of Graeco-Roman or Byzantine law that have been written in various modern languages,[8] and several of Heimbach’s conclusions have been modified or even refuted by the evidence of the new edition anyway. The Bibliography by Thomas van Bochove accompanying this digital edition offers an update of literature on most of the subjects dealt with by Heimbach. Rather the present Praefatio sets out to introduce this edition in the strict sense, as much as possible avoiding repetition of what is available elsewhere. It will focus on the textual tradition, previous editions and the principles of this one. While the succession of volumes was being published, manuscripts were discovered relating to parts already covered, and a few more emerged or were made accessible after the completion of the edition. Obviously these had not been dealt with in the prefaces to the individual volumes. This additional material will be discussed at the end.

One of the items on that agenda would also be a revision of Heimbach’s Manuale Basilicorum, another admirable achievement of 19th-century scholarship. It continues the pagination of his Prolegomena, with which it is often found bound in the same volume. The Manuale gives for every chapter of the Justinianic Corpus iuris the corresponding fragments of Byzantine scholarship as preserved in the Basilica and other sources, with their alleged authors if transmitted. Here the same caveat applies as for Heimbach’s Latin translation, but at the moment the Manuale is still the best we have, much valued also by Scheltema.[9] Its usefulness deserves to be honoured by a revision.

Heimbach’s Prolegomena and Manuale both witness to the purpose of the edition. Not only was it meant to offer access to the most extensive source of Byzantine law, but it also, indeed above all, set out to make available a splendid tool for textual criticism of the Corpus iuris civilis and for its interpretation in the sixth and later centuries. The same idea had been the inspiration of scholarship since the Humanists. In the late 1930s, Scheltema was as persuaded of its potential as his predecessors had been. He thought their results could be improved upon, and set to work.

The present Praefatio sets out to give a user of the edition, legal historian or no, the usual preliminary material of a critical edition, plus some context. Where possible, I have tried to let Scheltema speak, in a language he would never have used himself. Translations are always between quotation-marks, also in footnotes; if they are lacking in a footnote referring to such a translation, it is not a footnote written by the author of the original text, but by the undersigned. If in references to the Quellengeschichte[10] preference seems to have been given to the Delineatio, this is (also) since, unsurprisingly, it best reflects the views of the editors.

2. Basilica cum scholiis

Byzantine law[11] is dominated by Justinianic law (the Corpus iuris civilis). Soon, the mainly Latin legislation was de facto replaced by Greek translations and summaries, most of them stemming from the class-rooms of the antecessores,[12] although de iure the original texts were binding. The Basilica, promulgated circa 900 by the emperor Leo VI the Wise, contain an official rendering in Greek, and reorganisation of, Justinianic law. The reorganisation of the material facilitates access to its content: under each subject (titulus, as indicated by its rubrica), the relevant titles of Digest and Code were represented by a Greek version, followed by, where apposite, the (pertinent passages from the) Novels. The Basilica were not a codification in the modern sense of the word. Not until 1175, when the emperor Manuel Comnenus in fact gave them that status, did they legally replace the Corpus iuris.[13] Their extremely close relation with the Justinianic texts became even closer when other Greek versions and commentaries originating in the sixth and early seventh centuries were written in the margins of Basilica manuscripts by way of elucidation of the summaries that had been selected for the Basilica text.

Scheltema has defended this opinion, which is also found in the Delineatio of his pupils Van der Wal and Lokin[14] and has been rendered in concise form in the preceding paragraph, in a series of papers which are easily found in his Opera minora. Their titles speak for themselves: ‘Probleme der Basiliken’ (1939), ‘Ueber die Natur der Basiliken’ (1955), ‘Ueber die angebliche Anonymuskatene’ (1957), ‘Über die Scholienapparate der Basiliken’ (1960), to name but four of the most illustrative ones, not to mention the eighteen Subseciva and the Antécesseurs (1970), also reprinted in the Opera minora. The extremely concise Subseciva and the Antécesseurs exploit the Basilica and their scholia to the full for information about Justinian’s legislation. For a full appreciation of a lifetime’s work resulting in the seventeen volumes of text and scholia one has to read the Opera minora. Form and content of the edition reflect Scheltema’s view of the genesis and purpose of the Basilica.

3. The manuscript tradition of the Basilica

Of the sixty books, no less than sixteen[15] have not been preserved in direct transmission. Insofar as they have left traces, it is through testimonia in other texts. Generally speaking, previous editors have been more audacious in their reconstructions of these lost books than Scheltema cum suis. Only when the editors were convinced that a text was a genuine literal quotation of the Basilica did they admit it to their libri restituti. We will return to the problem below.

The transmission of the other 44 books is by no means rich. Most books have been preserved in one or two manuscripts only, and in some cases these manuscripts are palimpsests that in the past have been treated with chemicals, much to the detriment of their conservation. Scheltema, Holwerda and Van der Wal had to make do with the manuscripts known at the time. The following sections give an overview of the manuscripts and other sources they have used for the present edition.

3.1 Manuscripts used for this edition

Although the prefaces of individual volumes contain brief descriptions of the manuscripts, there is not even a full list. Moreover, sometimes these descriptions extend over more than one volume. It had been intended by Scheltema to give extensive descriptions in the Prolegomena.[16] In the individual prefaces the information has been restricted to what was considered necessary. In practice this meant brief notes on those that had been unknown to Heimbach and even briefer ones (res maxime necessarias) on those that had already been dealt with in Heimbach’s Prolegomena.[17] However, we now have not only Heimbach’s Prolegomena, but also the Frankfurt Repertorium of Byzantine legal manuscripts.[18] The latter, however, does not systematically include palimpsests, which play an important part in our knowledge of the transmission of the text. There is no way of knowing what Scheltema cum suis would have deemed useful for their Prolegomena. Against the background of information now available conveniently through the Repertorium, for the present purpose it seemed best to restrict the information to the barest minimum and extend it with references to Heimbach and RHBR, and highlight the findings of the Groningen editors where these diverge from those of Heimbach or concern manuscripts not known to Heimbach.

Ca

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislinianus gr. 152, saec. XIII, contains Bas. XI-XIV. A II, Praef. p. v; Heimbach, Prol. 166; RHBR no. 203.

Cb

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislinianus gr. 151, saec. XIV, contains Bas. I-IX, without scholia. A I, Praef. p. v; Heimbach, Prol. 159-162; RHBR no. 202. Heimbach, following Montfaucon, had dated it to the 11th century, Scheltema attributed it to the 14th, in which he sided with Kroll, who ‘had discovered its real age in his preface to the edition of the Novels (cf. Corpus Iuris Civilis, edd. Mommsen-Krüger-Schoell-Kroll, vol. III, p. v)’ (A I, Praef., p. v, n. 2).

F

Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Laurentianus LXXX,11, saec. XII, contains books XXVIII-XXIX with lacunae. A IV, Praef. p. v; Heimbach, Prol. 168-169; RHBR no. 71.

H

Escorial, Biblioteca, Scorialensis gr. R II 13, copied in 1574 by Andreas Darmarius from an older manuscript of the same library which contained books VII-VIII, now lost due to a fire in 1671. H contains book VIII. A I, Praef. p. v-vii; Heimbach, Prol. 164-166; RHBR no. 50. H (‘Haenelianus’) derives its siglum from the fact that it was in possession of Gustav Haenel for some time, until he, upon discovering that it had been stolen from the Escorial, returned it to that library. H is closely related to V (see below, on V).

P

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. gr. 1352, saec. XIII, contains Bas. I-XVIII,2,16. A I, II and III, Praef.; Heimbach, Prol. 162-164; RHBR no. 166. Various hands. At the beginning the text has been much shortened by the omission or severe summarising of many chapters. From book VII, however, it shows the complete text. At the end a few leaves are lacking.

Pa

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. gr. 1348, saec. XIII, contains Bas. XX-XXX,1,7,5 med. (τῶν μετὰ τοὺς καρποὺς περὶ). A III, Praef. p. v; Heimbach, Prol. 168; RHBR no. 161. Uneven distribution of scholia and insertion of some extraneous matter.

Pb

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. gr. 1345, saec. XII ex./XIII init., contains Bas. XXXVIII-XLII. A V, Praef., p. v; Heimbach, Prol. 169-170; RHBR no. 158.

Pc

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. gr. 1349, saec. XI, contains Bas. XLV-XLVIII and Index Reginae. A VI, Praef., p. v; Heimbach, Prol. 170-172; RHBR no. 162.

Pd

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. gr. 1357, saec. XV ex., contains Index titulorum of Bas. XLVI-LX, and text of Bas. XLVI-LII. A VI, Praef., p. v-vi; Heimbach, Prol. 172-173; RHBR no. 166.

Pe

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. gr. 1350, saec. XII, contains Bas. LX. B VIII, Praef., p. vi-viii; A VIII, Praef., p. v-vi; Heimbach, Prol. 173-174; RHBR no. 163.

V

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Vossianus gr. Fol. 19. A I, Praef. p. v-vii; Heimbach, Prol. 164-166; RHBR no. 96. Heimbach held the view that H and V both had been copied from the same lost original, whereas the Groningen editors established that V had been copied from H and therefore eliminated the Leiden manuscript as a codex descriptus: see A I, Praefatio, p. vi-vii.

Va,

Vb

Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 903 rescr., the lower layer (saec. XI) containing remains of two different manuscripts, one (Va) with fragments of books II, III and IV, and the other (Vb) of books XI, XIII and XIV. A I, Praef. The palimpsest had been discovered by Van der Wal in 1953, and deciphered by the combined efforts of Van der Wal and Holwerda. The upper layer (saec. XIV) contains Homer’s Iliad, Α 62-Ω 587. Its leaves had been assembled from various older codices, two of which turned out to have been manuscripts of the Basilica. These had been palimpsested and folded into two, to the effect that the upper script runs transversely to the lower text.

For details of Va, see A I, Praef. p. vii-ix; for Vb: see A I, Praef. p. vii-viii; A II, Praef. p. v.

ΠΣ

Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Pii Secundi gr. 15 rescr., has preserved palimpsested leaves from an older manuscript of the Basilica (saec. XI), containing books LVIII-LX. A VII, Praef., p. v-vii; B IX, Praef., p. v; in greatest detail A VIII, Praef. vi-xv, with references and a full reconstruction of the composition of the Basilica manuscript from which these leaves stem.

Π

Cracow, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, Krakoviensis 28/266 rescr., olim Berlin, Preußische Staatsbibliothek, Cod.gr. 28, antea Constantinople, S. Sepulchri. The lower layer (Π, saec. XII ex./XIII init.) contains books XV-XVIII with some lacunae. A II, Praef., p. v-xiii and B III, Praef., p. v-x; A III, Praef., p. vi; Zachariä, Reise in den Orient, p. 293; Idem, ANEKDOTON, p. iii-vii; Idem, Supplementum, p. iii-vii; Heimbach, Prol. 166-167; RHBR no. 92.

This manuscript invites a longer explanation. In A II, which was published in 1956, Scheltema has the essential passages from Zachariä’s information in direct quotation. In the same year Pringsheim published his programmatic paper ‘Zum Plan einer neuen Ausgabe der Basiliken’, which was based on a report to the Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften in 1937, when the manuscript was still in Berlin and had been seen by the German scholar. Pringsheim — at the time obviously without knowledge of A II and its Praefatio — had confirmed the damage caused by chemical reagentia and the resulting illegibility of its pages, but stated in as many words that the quality of Zachariä’s efforts made up entirely for the loss. Scheltema had, of course, to answer Pringsheim’s remarks and did so in some detail in 1957 in the Praefatio of B III.

The fata of this manuscript are, in brief, as follows: Zachariä von Lingenthal had discovered this manuscript of the Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre in the Patriarchate in Constantinople in 1838, obtained permission to use it in Heidelberg and published the results in 1846.[19] In 1867 the manuscript was acquired by the Prussian State Library in Berlin, where it remained until it was either hidden by the Germans or perhaps taken as war booty by the Russians at the end of the Second World War. It seemed to have disappeared without trace until it resurfaced in the 1980s in Cracow,[20] where it has remained since then. As far as its use for editions of the Basilica is concerned, it had been unknown to Heimbach and unavailable to Scheltema cum suis. From this point we translate the words of the editors (p. xii-xiii):

‘Zachariä had made an apographum (Π) of the lower script, which became the basis for his edition (Z., Zach.)[21], in which he faithfully and carefully notes what was in Π and where. Thus it happens that we have an accurate knowledge of the apographum Π, although it has itself been lost.

At many places the text shown by Π has to be supplemented or corrected. Not only did the codex Sancti Sepulchri have defects, there were also some words that Zachariä read wrongly or could not read at all. To filling the lacunae and emending the corruptions he has already made a great contribution. Very frequently we have come to the conclusion that we had to incorporate his conjectures into our edition of the scholia.

As far as τὸ κείμενον [the text] is concerned, Z [the edition] does not faithfully render Π, which is most regrettable. Zachariä has in fact occasionally supplied the text of the Basilica, where Π left him, from the Heimbach edition, indeed also silently. This is apparent from the following examples:

  1. As we have already noted, Zachariä had an apographum of a few leaves of the codex rescriptus printed as a facsimile of the original, in his work entitled ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟΝ.[22] If, however, one compares this ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟΝ with the Supplementum, its κείμενον turns out to have been supplemented silently, e.g.:

ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟΝ p. 1: .................. μπο .......ιν π...... εἴτε ἐν ἐργαστηρίῳ εἴτε καὶ μή.

Supplementum: προεστώς ἐστιν ὁ ἐμπορίας χάριν προστάς εἴτε ἐν ἐργαστηρίῳ εἴτε καὶ μή.

  1. Sometimes Fabrot — and followed by Heimbach — has changed or supplemented the text of codex P [Paris. gr. 1352] unsupported by manuscripts. Zachariä often has adopted this “restored” [my quotation marks, BS] text as if taken from Π. E.g.:

BT 780, 7-8: οὐδὲ ..... οὐδὲ P, οὐδὲ ..... οὔτε Fabr. Hb. Z.

BT 807, 12: τὴν χρῆσιν P, χρῆσιν Fabr. Hb. Z.

BT 822, 15: ἅμα τοῦ P, ἅμα τῷ Fabr. Hb. Z.

From this it may be inferred that the Supplementum, as far as τὸ κείμενον is concerned, only has its own [independent] value where it shows a text that differs from that of Heimbach.’

The Praefatio of B III supplies a number of other passages, where in Scheltema’s opinion Zachariä had erred and again sets out how the user of the new edition could see the differences for himself.

Looking back on the edition, Scheltema claimed to have produced, without having been able to see the actual manuscript, a better edition of books XV-XVIII than Zachariä had given with the codex at hand, a feat for which he felt not to have been given the credit it deserved. In theory, we should now be able to check that claim, since we are able to study the manuscript in Cracow. Unfortunately, I have to confirm its extremely poor condition due to the chemicals which have been used by Zachariä and which he describes in the ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟΝ. We can only hope that the advances made by modern multispectral photography one day will enable us to read perhaps even more.[23]

3.2 Testimonia

In the case of the Basilica, testimonia are especially important as the only source from which to try and reconstruct the sixteen[24] lost books. The Roman lawyer is familiar with the example of the Twelve Tables, long lost but in part transmitted indirectly in the form of quotations and edited from testimonia. Testimonia of the Basilica are found in a wide variety of sources, from cross-references in the scholia of the Basilica to quotations in legal judgements, but also in other legal collections derived from the Basilica. Heimbach had divided the manuscripts of the Basilica into two classes: a prima classis of manuscripts which have preserved the text itself, in full or in summary or interpolated, the secunda classis containing just fragments of the text which had been connected with other summaries pertaining to the law.[25] This is in fact a blurred distinction between direct and indirect transmission.

When Scheltema started working, most texts had been edited, but by no means all to contemporary philological standards. In some cases the Groningen editors had to work directly from manuscripts: e.g., the Ecloga Basilicorum had not yet been edited[26] and of the Tipucitus only the first three volumes had appeared.[27] However, even when a text had been edited, they sometimes considered to have good reasons to go back to its manuscripts. In principle this was always done when they felt they could not rely on existing editions.[28]

For the various sources of testimonia the reader is referred to sections 5 and, insofar as discovered after the completion of the edition, 7. Generally speaking, the Groningen editors had more texts at their disposal than earlier editors, but apart from the accessibility of a testimonium, there is also the question of its representativeness for the original text. We shall see that they were more restrictive in that respect than their predecessors had been.

4. Previous editions

Previous editors have had to overcome the rather meagre supply of manuscripts signalled above. Although it seems that one or two manuscripts which scholars in the past had still seen are now no longer extant, they had altogether a vaguer grasp of the transmission of the text and fewer opportunities than is now the case. Fewer manuscripts were known and access to the ones they knew was hindered by the difficulties caused by laborious travelling and lack of photography. The succession of translations and editions — in that order !— up to his own efforts has been described by C.G.E. Heimbach,[29] and, from a different perspective by H.E. Troje.[30] The story begins in the sixteenth century with Viglius, Leunclavius and Cujacius, and this first phase is brought to a provisional conclusion in 1647, when C.A. Fabrot produced the first full Greek edition with Latin translation.[31] Full in the sense that he had aimed at providing the text of all sixty books, either from manuscripts insofar as known to him, or through reconstruction from other sources. The result was a splendid edition in seven volumes, even if Fabrot ‘dealt with the editorial details in a generous, sometimes reprehensibly rash manner’.[32] Prominent among those who followed are Reitz and Rühnken, whose contributions were collected in 1752 in Meerman’s Novus Thesaurus[33] and again in 1765 together as an Operis Basilici Fabrotiani supplementum.[34] This was the status editionis et quaestionis in 1825, when Heimbach, twenty-two years old, published his programme under the title De Basilicorum origine, fontibus, hodierna conditione atque nova editione adornanda. The first volume appeared in 1833, the fifth and final one in 1850. In the meantime another German had entered the stage, Carolus Eduardus Zachariae a Lingenthal (K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal),[35] who was going to dominate scholarship in Byzantine law. In 1842 he wrote a review of Heimbach’s first two volumes[36] and in 1846 published a revised edition of books XV-XIX, which he gave the title of Supplementum editionis Heimbachianae.[37] It was based on a palimpsest manuscript, which he had discovered in Constantinople in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, in the library of the monastery Τοῦ ἁγίου τάφου (S. Sepulchri), and for which he had obtained permission to use it in Heidelberg.[38] In 1842, the same year as the review, he had published a specimen of what would be in store, with an extensive description of the codex.[39] (On the fata of the manuscript, now in Cracow, see above.) If Heimbach resented what others might have considered an interference with his project, he did not show it. Rather he welcomed the improvement on his own edition, in which books XV-XVIII had not yet been able to benefit from this palimpsest.[40] Not only did Zachariä prove to have a better grasp of the nature and the transmission of the Basilica, he single-handedly transformed the entire field, as witnessed by the volumes of his Jus Graecoromanum, his Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts, and the numerous papers and book reviews.

Scheltema greatly admired Zachariä. In the preparation of the edition of the Basilica he followed in his footsteps where he thought Zachariä had been right to deviate from Heimbach, but above all he went his own way, which bring us to the principles of the present edition. 

5. The present edition

5.1 Principles of the edition

As has been said before, the individual prefaces of the successive volumes give brief descriptions of manuscripts, here summed up above in section 3.1. As to the principles of the edition, to a certain extent the same may be said. In the preface to the first volume of text, Scheltema wasted only few words on the principles of his edition.[41] After a short description of the manuscripts used for books I-VIII, he sufficed with a mere two pages in A I (Praef. p. xi-xiii), which follow here in translation:

‘Finally, we wish to say a few words about our method of editing. We have numbered the chapters generally (and where scholia have been added, always) with the same numbers as Heimbach. These cannot be replaced by numbers found in the manuscripts, since they all differ. As to this first volume, this problem is compounded by the fact that in Cb chapter numbers hardly occur, and in P are placed so negligently, that they must be considered worthless. In fact, in this manuscript numbers are often placed before lines that contain no beginning of a sentence, and regularly two chapters in immediate succession have been given the same number. In that part of the Basilica which has been taken from the Digest and the Code, individual chapters of Heimbach’s and our editions correspond to individual fragments and constitutions respectively, but in those titles which have been compiled from the Novels they correspond to their chapters. [xii] To these titles, however, chapter numbers have only been added in order to facilitate referring to a particular passage, as the internal division of the Novels in our modern editions has nothing to do with the Basilica. For this division we are indebted to Contius, who in the sixteenth century first incorporated it into his edition of the Corpus Iuris from the Epitome Iuliani.

For the same purpose of more precise referring, at longer chapters numbers have been added corresponding to Digest and Code. Already in an early stage, fragments of the Basilica were usually divided into θέματα,[42] but in the codices Cb, Va and H no traces, and in P only very few, are found of such a division, which in our opinion may be neglected.

The Latin rubrics of titles taken from the Digest and Code are often translated into Greek in such a bad way that they make no sense. It would be wrong, however, to emend them; in fact, the faulty translation betrays the exhellenist.

We have observed the same rule in showing the Latin technical terms, which, though not as frequently as in the scholia, also occur in the text. We have changed the spelling [scribendi rationem] of the manuscript only in those places, where we thought the reader would be put on the wrong foot. What the form and way of writing of such words was in the reign of Leo the Wise we do not yet sufficiently know,[43] although some studies on this subject have already appeared.[44] Since this is the current state of things, it is better to give to those who wish to delve deeper into this problem new and untouched material, than to smooth anomalies according to a norm established by us in an immature and thoughtless way.

In the apparatus of scholia we have, following insofar as possible the indications of the manuscripts (i.e., the signs and numbers at the spot) indicated the place of the text to which each scholion belongs. Where indications are lacking, something that happens above all often in P, we have allocated them according to our own view; where they had been undoubtedly written at the wrong place, we have silently corrected. In our edition of the scholia [xiii] [i.e., in the two volumes B I and II published earlier, BS], we have occasionally attributed a scholion to a chapter different from the one to which it belongs. These mistakes have been corrected in this volume in the following way: at those places we refer the reader to the numbers of page and line, not to the siglum of the manuscript and the number of the scholion.

The apparatus of testimonia is from that what we have already said and from the table on p. xiv[-xv] sufficiently clear. We also wish to bring to the reader’s attention, that, in the reconstructed books [libri restituti], testimonia that have been placed between round brackets only mention the chapter that is being reconstructed, but do not quote its text literally. They only prove, that a chapter once existed and had taken such and such a place. Testimonia not placed between round brackets refer the text in as many words.

In the critical apparatus we have included all variants[45] from the manuscripts and the Florilegium Ambrosianum (insofar as possible, for in palimpsest manuscripts there is always room for doubt), except those which, according to philological convention, may be neglected, e.g., faults due to iotacism and Byzantine instead of Alexandrine accents. From the Ecloga [Basilicorum] we have not included those variants which must be attributed to the recent (fifteenth-century) source from which this work has reached us. In those testimonia for which we have drawn on edited works, and wherever the manuscripts do not agree, mention has been made of variant readings. At other places we have refrained from recording variants of minor importance, since these works are on everyone’s desk.’

Not a word about the most striking feature of the new edition: the separation of text and scholia and the edition of the latter not only in a separate series of volumes, but, if more than one manucript had transmitted scholia, the scholia of each manuscript separately within the same volume. Vol. A I was published in 1955, preceded by the first two volumes of Series B in 1953 and 1954 respectively. Vol. B I, the very first to appear, had a short Praefatio, in which Scheltema explained that:

‘Although later, in a separate volume, we will both describe the manuscripts in greater detail and set out the method of our edition of the text, we will here already very briefly touch upon a couple of things. From our edition of the scholia from various manuscripts separately it appears in which respects the scholia differ; to give just one example, it is now crystal clear that, if one wishes to become familiar with the jurisprudence of he sixth and seventh century, the scholia of codex Coisl. 152 (C) are greatly to be preferred to the scholia one reads in cod. Par. 1352.’

This was not the first or last time Scheltema spoke about the nature of the the scholia of the Basilica. Of the various papers touching upon that problem, the clearest statement probably is his ‘Ueber die Scholienapparate der Basiliken’ of 1960, when three volumes of text and four of scholia had already appeared.[46] The essence of the arguments may be summed up as 1) the absence of a Glossa ordinaria, and 2) the evidence of the manuscripts, which points to an individual choice of the commentator, who had compiled the scholia of (the exemplar of) a manuscript. In short, unless one manuscript is a codex descriptus of another that we have, its scholia have to be published separately.

Criticism has been levelled at the refusal of the editors to distinguish ‘old’ and ‘new’ scholia. Scheltema’s decision was based on the difficulty of making such a distinction in many cases; to do so would simply add one individual scholar’s opinion to the existing ones. On this problem, see below, section 5.3.

Another important aspect is the reconstruction of lost books, to which attention has already drawn above.[47] In the long passage from A I quoted above there are just a few lines on libri restituti. The method was set out only later, in volume A III, when it was required by the reconstruction of the lost book XIX, which has remained a point of reference for other cases.[48] The restrictive nature of the method has often been misunderstood, which prompted Van der Wal to set it out in some detail with examples at the occasion of the completion of the edition.[49]

No reconstruction without material to reconstruct with, and testimonia are therefore an essential part of the evidence for the text of the Basilica. It is only in the Praefatio vol. A I that we find a brief general treatment of testimonia of the Basilica (pp. ix-x). It simply lists the ‘Works from which we have adopted testimonia (...)’. That list is reproduced here with some annotations. For the nature of these works the reader is referred to the modern histories of the sources of Byzantine law; since the Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio best represents the opinion of the Groningen editors, references have been restricted to that work.[50]

The following testimonia have been considered the most important and therefore systematically taken into account:

Siglum

Opus

References

A

Florilegium Ambrosianum

Del. 92; A I Praef. p. ix-x; A III Praef. p. vi; A VIII, Praef. p. xv-xvii

Bals.

Balsamonis commentarius in Nomocanonem XIV Titulorum

Del. 109-111

BS

Basilicorum scholia

Del. 91-92 and passim

Ecl.

Ecloga Basilicorum

Del. 107; A I Praef. p. xi

Pira

Pira

Del. 101; A III Praef. p. vii

Syn.

Synopsis Maior Basilicorum

Del. 92-93

Tip.

Tipucitus

Del. 102-103; A III Praef. p. vi-vii

Texts which the editors considered to be less important for the constitution of the text:

Synopsis minor (Del. 114), Attaliotes, Ponema nomikon (Del. 102), Chomatianos (Del. 113-114), Harmenopoulos, Hexabiblos (Del. 118), Blastares, Syntagma alphabeticum (Del. 117). See also the full Conspectus operum ex quibus testimonia laudantur with abbreviations in A I p. xiv-xv.

There are scattered testimonia in manuscripts, of which the major ones are:

Siglum

MS

Praef. in edition

RHBR

Par. 1367

Par. gr. 1367

A V p. v-viii; A VI p. vi-vii; A VII p. xix; A VIII p. xvii-xviii

182 nos. 2, 8, 11 and 17: ‘Basilikenexzerpte’

Vat.

Vat. gr. 2075

A VI p. vi-vii; A VII p. xix

249 no. 14: ‘Basiliken, Exzerpte aus den Büchern 50 und 51 (...)’

Par. 1383

Par. gr. 1383

A VI p. vii; VII p. xix

187: Eisagoge aucta[51]

Venturi

Forence, Riccardianus 2118

A VII, p. xiv-xviii

Translation of Bas. LIII

Vind.

Vind. iur. gr. 2

A VII p. xix-xx

309 no. 11 ‘Serie von Exzerpten (...) Basiliken (...)’

Cuiacius

A VII Praef. p. xviii-xix

— (lost books)[52]

It cannot be emphasised enough that only when the editors were convinced that a text was a genuine literal quotation of the Basilica did they admit it to their libri restituti. This may seem obvious, but it should be kept in mind that in previous editions some texts are found that have not even reached our day through indirect transmission, but are the result of a ‘modern’ translation from Latin into Greek.[53] In practical terms this means that, when Heimbach considered a Byzantine source representative of a lost passage of the Basilica and that passage has not been adopted by Scheltema cum suis, from its absence it must be inferred that they did not accept it as a genuine Basilica text.

5.2 How to use the edition[54]

Series A gives the text of the Basilica, Series B contains the scholia. Both series have continuous pagination, referred to as BT and BS with page numbers. In the volumes of Series A, where scholia exist, the first apparatus (‘Scholia’) under the text refers to a manuscript with a siglum (e.g., Ca, P etc.) and a number (1, 2 etc.).[55] If more manuscripts contain scholia (e.g., ‘XI,1,1 5 σύμφωνόν: Ca 1, 2, 5, 6; P 1’), these have been edited in Series B manuscript by manuscript, title by title: scholion Ca 1 pertaining to the word σύμφωνόν in Bas. XI,1,1 (p. BT 625 line 5) is found in vol. B I, at BS p. 177 line 8; Ca 2 ibid. line 13; but P 1 only at BS 339 line 9. In the case of Bas. XI,1 the scholia in Ca (Coislinianus gr. 152) are much more numerous than those in P (Par. gr. 1352). The second apparatus contains Testimonia’, which in the case of a liber restitutus is not just material for comparison, but the very source (or sources) for the reconstruction. Again at Bas. XI,1,1, two testimonia are listed: ‘A’ and ‘Syn. Σ, VIII, 1’, referring respectively to Florilegium Ambrosianum and Synopsis Basilicorum Maior Σ VIII 1. Finally there is a critical apparatus, which accounts for the choices made by the editors. The scholia in Series B, referred to from Series A as described above, are accompanied by a critical apparatus at the bottom of the page. Normally the scholia are written in the margins of a manuscript and are mostly contemporaneous with the text, unless stated otherwise. Two signs indicate a special situation: * means that the scholion has been written in the margin by a more recent hand; § indicates that the scholion has been written between the lines in smaller script.[56]Textus restitutus has been indicated by the symbol > in front of each line of reconstructed text. References to the Corpus iuris civilis and the Heimbach edition have been given throughout. The standard numbering of the Corpus iuris within leges of the Digest and constitutiones of the Codex and the Novels has been duplicated in the Basilica.[57]

In short, the edition aims to present for every fragment the text chosen, the variants of manuscripts and testimonia, the scholion or scholia accompanying the fragment in each manuscript, the variants of their text, and the connection with the Justinianic legislation.

5.3 After the edition: the Basilica and their (‘old’ and ‘new’) scholia?

In the decades that have passed since the completion of the edition not only has new material been found that the editors would have included — and some that they would not, but these decades have also given time for reflection and reactions. I should like to draw attention to three points.

  1. The genesis of the Basilica during the reigns of the emperors Basilius and Leo the Wise is not entirely clear. The sources speak of ἀνακάθαρσις, ἕν τεῦχος, 60 resp. 40 and again 60 books and eventually the usual name of Basilika (τὰ βασιλικὰ νόμιμα).[58] Obviously all this is bound up with the question of the representativeness of the witnesses that have reached our time. For the opinion of the Groningen editors the reader is referred to the Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio, if not in the words of one of them, then at least with his approval.[59] In their view the manuscripts available to them all transmit the same most recent version; differences between them, therefore, are to be attributed to the vicissitudes of manuscript tradition.[60]
  2. Scheltema shouldered the task of editing the Basilica from the traditional, essentially humanist, point of view that an improved edition would be a contribution to our knowledge of Justinianic Roman law. The majority of the legal historians who have consulted it have done so from the same starting-point. This is, of course, especially true of Roman lawyers. Hence the emphasis on the interest of the scholia and especially the so-called ‘old’ scholia, i.e. the scholia that had originally been written as a commentary on the Corpus iuris and later appended to the corresponding passages of the Basilica text, to be distinguished from ‘new’ scholia, which had been written only after the compilation of the Basilica. But what about an ‘old’ scholion that had not just been appended to the text of the Basilica but even rewritten for the occasion? It is well known that a reference to the Digest by its place in the partes is an unmistakable characteristic of an ‘old’ scholion. Inscriptions such as Dorotheou or Stephanou are another, and the use of Latin terminology a strong indication of a sixth-century origin. Omission of the inscription, transposition of a reference to the Digest into one to the Basilica and subsitution of a Greek equivalent for the Latin term would make such an ‘old’ scholion much more difficult to identify, but its substance would remain ‘old’ none the less. Its substance may also have been adapted to later legal developments. When would it cease to be ‘old’? Similar questions arise when a text has been transmitted outside the direct tradition of the Basilica, e.g., as a scholion to the Synopsis Basilicorum Maior, or in the commentary on the Nomocanon of the Fourteen Titles in the Sinaiticus 1117. The chances are that it has been adapted to its new environment, but it may equally have been left untouched and incorporated as found in a Basilica manuscript. However, there is no guarantee that a scholion in a Basilica manuscript has escaped changes in the course of transmission of the text, intentionally or not. Of one thing we may be certain: once a scholion has been modernised, we may exclude the possibility that its ‘old’ characteristics have been put back by a later scribe. At the end of the day, all these scholia are Byzantine reactions to a normative text and have to be interpreted as such. Whether they are pure sixth-century reactions to the Justinianic texts — which constitute the interest of the Roman lawyer —, has to be established in each individual case.

As already said above, in early reviews the Groningen edition has been criticised for not distinguishing between ‘old’ and ‘new’ scholia, especially since, as some scholars held at the time,[61] the distinction was made in the manuscripts by the use of different signs for the two when referring from text to scholion. But the manuscripts did no such thing,[62] and the difficulty of making the distinction has already been mentioned.

  1. Scheltema cum suis have chosen for a separate presentation of the scholia of each individual manuscript, except where two manuscripts are related so closely that this would mean printing virtually the same twice. In their view, there never had been a Glossa ordinaria or other ‘official’ editorial decisions; for that reason it would be mistaken to present an apparatus suggesting such a unitary commentary.[63] In principle, the margins of each manuscript contain the individual reaction of a reader to the text. This is no different in the case of commentaries in the margins of anthologies or other derivatives of the Basilica, although one may reasonably suppose that together with a passage from the Basilica a scholion may have been copied into such a derivative. Such a scholion, however, then has become a scholion of that derivative. In all these cases questions may be asked as to its provenance and possible interventions in the original text. The conclusion may well be that in many cases the scholion has remained the same as when it was first written to the Basilica text. But if it has not been transmitted with the Basilica, scholarly prudence prevents its inclusion in an edition of the Basilica.

This probably was Scheltema’s line of reasoning. The discovery of new scholia — new in the sense of scholia not to be found in the Groningen edition — often is the outcome of reasoning along a different line. If, e.g., a scholion in a manuscript of the Synopsis Basilicorum Maior is not to be found in one of the Basilica manuscripts, and if the wording of that scholion does not point to an origin other than the Basilica, one may of course say that it was originally written to the Basilica, in other words, claim that it is a testimonium of a Basilica scholion.[64] It would then be up to the editors to decide whether they agree, and if so, whether to include it in their edition, and how.[65] 

6. Summing up: the differences

Scheltema had to demonstrate the necessity of a new edition and did so by arguing on the basis of what he saw as defects of the existing edition. One only has to read the first sentence of his 1939 paper ‘Probleme der Basiliken’:

‘Eine Neuausgabe der Basiliken lässt noch auf sich warten, obwohl sie zu den dringendsten Aufgaben der heutigen Romanistik gehören dürfte’.[66]

In that paper and elsewhere the arguments are heaped in abundance. To what extent does the Groningen edition in fact differ from Heimbach’s? It may be useful at least to summarise the differences. Some of them are immediately obvious, others transpire only at a closer look.

Two points which strike the eye are the lack of a translation and the separation of the scholia from the texts to which they refer. The former is the result of a decision taken in a different cultural climate,[67] the latter rests on solid argument and has been discussed above.[68] Other differences may be less immediately visible, but have left numerous traces.

First, the edition is based on more manuscripts of the Basilica, especially palimpsests. Just as Heimbach was able to make a better edition than Fabrot by using the codices Coisliniani,[69] Scheltema cum suis could do so by drawing on the Vatican manuscripts, the codex S. Sepulchri (even though lost at the time) and the Florilegium Ambrosianum (which, strictly speaking, belongs to the testimonia; see the next paragraph). The first steps towards a better edition had already been taken by Zachariä (the Supplementum of 1846) and Mercati-Ferrini (the Supplementum alterum of 1897 with the Florilegium Ambrosianum). In addition to relying on more manuscripts, the Groningen edition is based on fresh and full collations, also of codices where Heimbach, Zachariä, and Mercati and Ferrini had preceded it. The new edition thus gives a fuller and more precise picture of the transmission of text and scholia.

Second, testimonia and the role they have played in the two editions. Heimbach had fewer testimonia at his disposal to draw on and, perhaps for that reason, tried to make more of them than Scheltema considered defensible. Heimbach can, of course, hardly be blamed for the former: some sources of testimonia had not yet been discovered. If, e.g., Heimbach refers to the Syn(opsis Basilicorum Maior), he does so by page-numbers. These refer to the edition by Leunclavius, of Basel 1575, which is in itself an interesting example of Humanist scholarship.[70] It has been superseded by the edition of Zachariä (1869), which Heimbach could not yet use, of course.[71] The Tipucitus was known, but had not yet been edited. Two other major sources used by Scheltema, the Florilegium Ambrosianum and the Peira, were not even known.[72] But not only was Scheltema able to use more testimonia than Heimbach, also the method of using them, especially where the libri deperditi are concerned, was different. Paradoxically, it sometimes led to fewer portions of reconstructed text than Heimbach had printed.

The best description of how Scheltema cum suis have proceeded stems from Van der Wal, who has given a number of examples of an altogether more restrictive method, especially in the use of the Tipucitus.[73] Heimbach had been less reserved in trusting the Tipucitus than Scheltema was. This is not immediately obvious from the Prolegomena, where he writes: ‘Of this repertory of the Basilica I have made much use for the restitution. For the restitution in the proper sense of the word it cannot be used, as it does not contain the words of the Basilica.’[74] Yet, in a note on Bas. XXX,1,7,5, we read: ‘...For the restitution of the remaining part of this book, I have used, in addition to Syn. and Harm., scholia of the Basilica and above all Tipuciti Paratitla [the Tipucitus, BS], from which almost everything that is lacking can be supplemented.’[75] This seems to suggest an almost unlimited trust in the possibilities of the Tipucitus. The continuation of this note, however, proves that Heimbach knew better: ‘The way of restitution has been this, that I placed an stellula (asterisk) before those fragments that can be proved to contain the genuine text of the Basilica, and the rest placed at the apposite numbers with the source from which they have been taken.’ In fact, the stellulae indicate that Heimbach considers only thirteen of the 57 fragments he includes in Basilica XXX,1 to be genuine! The other fragments also go back ultimately to the Corpus iuris, but did not form part of the Basilica. Heimbach full well saw that the Tipucitus was less useful to reconstruct the actual text than to give an impression of the substance of a fragment. It would perhaps be fair to say that he was more interested in providing Greek versions of as many fragments of the Corpus iuris as possible than in establishing the genuine text of the Basilica. The result is that the new edition is a more faithful presentation of the Basilica text than Heimbach’s. But what about the scholia?

Here, too, there are considerable differences, which go much deeper than the separate presentation of scholia of each manuscript in the Groningen edition. The established opinion of scholars working in the Humanist tradition has always been, and still is, that the value of the ‘old’ scholia is greater than of the text of the Basilica, as they contain various sixth-century versions of the Justinianic legislation and occasionally provide a direct insight into debates among the jurists of Justinian’s age, or document variant readings of the first generation of manuscripts of the Corpus iuris. For that very reason a faithful edition of as many scholia as possible and a correct separation between individual scholia in the margins and between the lines of a manuscript is of the highest value. There can be no doubt that this edition contains more scholia, edited to a higher philological standard.

7. After this edition: sources discovered or made accessible since

Despite the efforts to take into account all available material during the preparation of the edition, it was inevitable that new evidence should be discovered after the completion of individual volumes and indeed of the entire edition. The recovery of the famous Berolinensis gr. Fol. 28 as the present Krakoviensis Jagiellonska 28/266 is perhaps the most spectacular example and has already been discussed above.[76] The discovery of two palimpsest manuscripts in Vienna is more promising. A number of leaves of the Vindobonensis hist. gr. 10 preserve, inter alia, fragments from the lost book XIX. The Vindobonensis Suppl. gr. 200 is a new witness of books already known, but its text appears to hand down a stage of the text in which Latin terminology has not yet been exhellenised, i.e., an older stage than the one that we know from the manuscripts used for the edition. Strictly speaking only the latter one is a Basilica manuscript. The former contains only titles B. II, 2 and 3 in full, but the rest is in fact an anthology[77] and should be considered for the greater part an indirect witness, whereas the latter no doubt originally had the complete version of at least books 21-29 and probably more.[78]

With a manuscript such as the lower layer of the Vindobonensis hist. gr. 10 we move to indirect evidence of the Basilica text, which is of course especially important when we are dealing with books that have been lost. Among the libri restituendi is book LIII dealing with maritime law. When the edition was being prepared, one of the most important sources for its reconstruction was the Florilegium Ambrosianum. In addition the editors used a Latin translation of another anthology from this book of which the Greek original was deemed lost, a translation made in 1604 by Francesco Venturi and preserved in the Florentine codex Riccardianus 2118.[79] In 1978, just four years after the pertinent volume A VII had appeared, Dieter Simon published the discovery of its Greek original, which is part of the canonist manuscript Vaticanus Barb. gr. 578.[80] As Simon writes, where the contents of the anthology coincide with the Florilegium Ambrosianum, the conjectures of the editors are almost always confirmed by the Barberinus, but the Vatican manuscript also contains some passages lacking in the palimpsest from Milan and therefore contributes to our knowledge of the transmission of the text. Since then, the Barberinus has been used for a separate edition of book LIII by Rhodolakis.[81]

An important witness of the Basilica, consistently used in the edition, is the commentary on the Nomocanon of the Fourteen Titles by the twelfth-century canonist Theodore Balsamon. Unknown to the editors was the fact that an anonymous canonist had used it for a revision in which a lot of new material was added. This augmented edition, which does not seem to have been noticed at the time and has hardly left any traces in Byzantine literature, has been preserved in the codex Sinaiticus 1117.[82] It has been found to contain 51 passages from the Basilica text which had not been transmitted otherwise, directly or indirectly, and in addition 44 unknown Basilica scholia.[83]

As stated earlier, one of the sources for testimonia was the Eisagoge cum Prochiro composita in manuscript Par. gr. 1367, which transmits a version extended with Basilica excerpts. Scheltema had used these for the edition resp. was to use them in future volumes.[84] In the early 1970s, Wolfgang Waldstein discovered in the Lavra Monastery on Mount Athos, that ten leaves of manuscript A 55 had been palimpsested and recognised a Byzantine legal text in their lower layer. Dieter Simon identified that text as (passages from) the same Eisagoge cum Prochiro composita.[85] In a painstaking analysis he established that the palimpsest (‘codex Waldstein’, W) contained the same version as the Par. 1367 and in part even supplemented it. Basilica fragments occur at four pages; among them are fragments from book XIX, which might contribute to its restitution.[86]

Other indirect witnesses have been found and drawn attention not only by reason of the texts they quote, but also, and especially, of the occurrence of scholia, which, with varying degrees of certainty, are or at least originate in, Basilica scholia.[87] It is a matter of editorial choice whether such scholia should be edited as part of the Basilica or rather as commentaries on the text with which they have been transmitted. The discovery of the odd membrum disiectum[88] and of quotations of fragments of the Basilica text and scholia in manuscripts of other texts will no doubt continue.

Scheltema had rejected the authenticity of the transmitted preface to the Basilica and therefore omitted it from its edition.[89] Andreas Schminck has argued strongly in favour of its genuineness and edited its text.[90] Or, more precisely and to be fair to both Scheltema and Schminck, to quote the latter’s last paragraph in translation,

‘The prooimion dealt with in this chapter does not belong to the Basilica, nor does it belong to the version of codex Coisl. 151, but to the original Sixty Books of Leo VI, to which the version of codex Par. gr. 1352 (which is the basis of Fabrot’s edition) — according to the indirect witnesses — is nearest in the first ἕξ βιβλία.’[91]

In other words, it is an authentic preface, but according to Schminck it belongs to an earlier version of the Basilica. Whether or not his argument stands, the preface should be included, if only as part of the Basilica tradition. Scheltema had reserved it for a volume with Appendices.[92]

Also closely related, and only in part to be found in the edition in the apparatus testimoniorum, are the so-called Indices titulorum, which have been the subject of studies and editions by Thomas van Bochove.[93]

8. Epilogue

What has been said so far, sufficiently demonstrates that scholarship pertinent to the Basilica has not stopped with the publication of the last volume of this edition in 1988.[94] In addition to Prolegomena, there is room for a supplementary volume, as had been envisaged by Scheltema from the beginning. In the Praefatio to vol. A I we read about future Appendices.[95] Scheltema wished to reserve for these appendices the ‘spurious text of book I offered by Cb and P’ — book I is one of the libri restituti —, as well as the ‘prefaces of the Basilica, none of which, not even the one that codex P, and relying on its authority Fabrot and Heimbach in their editions, put in front of the text, in its present form has been promulgated by Leo the Wise’. Scheltema was also planning to include the ‘Indices titulorum, which, as e.g. the well-known Index Coislinianus, present more (or other) things than a mere enumeration of those rubrics that occur in the text of that manuscript’; finally, the tituli spurii 1 and 3 of book VI ‘in the form in which they occur in P. For they differ from the form in which Cb offers them, a form which is demonstrated by the testimonia to be genuine, to such an extent that we cannot give its clear image in the critical apparatus.’[96] In 1957 he had also envisaged to revise Heimbach’s Manuale Basilicorum, about which he was more positive than about the edition.[97] In 1988, at the completion of the edition, the surviving editors Holwerda and Van der Wal concluded their Praefatio with the following words:

‘In the prefaces of the preceding volumes we used to announce the next volume. At this place, however, we gratefully inform the reader that the edition of text and scholia, the preparation of which Scheltema had begun about the year 1945, has been completed. We are even more grateful for the fact that he — as we have already told the readers in the preface of volume B VIII[98] — before his death in December 1981, knew that that he need no longer doubt — as at the time when he had made a beginning with this immense task — that the edition begun by him would be brought to an end.

Even after the completion of the edition some things remain for us to be done. That we would add a volume containing Prolegomena we have already announced more than once. Moreover, we intend to prepare a supplement, in which we publish those texts that pertain to the Basilica, but could not be included in the volumes of the edition. Among these are the unauthentic preface of the Basilica; the text of the first book which diverges from the customary form in cod. Par. Coisl. gr. 151 and is found in a summarised version in cod. Par. gr. 1352; and the indices of all the titles of the Basilica preserved in the same codex Coislinianus as well as in the codex Ath. Pantocr. 234. Perhaps in that supplement should also be inserted a more complete and improved reconstruction of book LIII, which we are now able to accomplish, after our Frankfurt colleagues[99] have found the manuscript, given up by the learned world, from which Francesco Venturi in 1604 has taken the texts of the Basilica that he translated into Latin. That codex is indeed most probably Vat. Barb. 578. The time, however, that these two volumes will appear we do not to dare to announce at the moment.’

The words of Van der Wal and Holwerda are in fact Scheltema’s programme as stated at the beginning, with the addition of book LIII, of which we now have the edition by Rhodolakis.[100] Unfortunately, they did not live to produce the two volumes as intended.

Heimbach had produced an edition and left Prolegomena and a Manuale. Zachariä and others pointed the way towards improvements and in part managed to put their ideas into effect. Scheltema, assisted by Van der Wal and Holwerda, have given us an edition corresponding to twentieth-century philological standards. It is this edition that is published here in digital form. Obviously, however, work has not ended here.

Groningen, August 28th, 2017 Bernard H. Stolte

[1] The proceedings of the 1988 conference celebrating the publication of the last volume (A VIII) were published in Subseciva Groningana III (1989).

[2] I am indebted to all members past and present of the Groningen Department of Legal History, especially those whom I have pestered with questions while writing. The responsibility for the result is the author’s alone.

[3] H.J. Scheltema, Opera minora ad iuris historiam pertinentia. Collegerunt N. van der Wal, J.H.A. Lokin, B.H. Stolte, Roos Meijering, Groningen 2004.

[4] His collected papers are being edited by Th.E. van Bochove.

[5] C.G.E. Heimbach (ed.), Basilicorum libri LX. Post Annibalis Fabroti curas ope codd. mss. edidit ..., 5 vols, Leipzig 1833-1850. Carolus Guilielmus Ernestus Heimbach (1803-1865) is ultimately responsible, but his younger brother Gustavus Ernestus (1810-1851) and others collated manuscripts for the edition.

[6] On the genesis and history of the the project, see J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Habent sua fata Basilica. On the Occasion of the Completion of the Groningen Basilica Edition’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989), 1-10.

[7]Basilicorum libri XL. ... Tom. VI Prolegomena et Manuale Basilicorum continens, Leipzig 1870, with a monitum bibliopolae, the last paragraph beginning with Ita nos hereditario officio satisfecimus ..., without identifying nos.

[8] P.E. Pieler, ‘Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur’, in H. Hunger (ed.), Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, II, München 1978, 341-480; N. van der Wal — J. H. A. Lokin, Delineatio iuris graeco-romani. Les sources du droit byzantin de 300 à 1453. Groningen 1985 [henceforth referred to as ‘Del.’]; Sp.N. Troianos, Oi peges tou buzantinou dikaiou, 3rd augmented ed. Athens-Komotini 2011. Translations into Italian (P. Buongiorno, 2015) and German (D. Simon, 2017), in both cases with additional bibliography.

[9] See H.J. Scheltema, ‘Ueber die angebliche Anonymuskatene’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 25 (1957), 284-301, esp. 296-297 = Opera minora, 323-324.

[10] See the works listed in n. 8.

[11] The following information may be found in numerous text-books, especially the histories of the sources mentioned in n. 8.

[12] Fundamental for Scheltema’s views on the circulation of antecessorial writings is his L’enseignement de droit des antécesseurs, Leiden 1970 = Opera minora 58-109.

[13]Del. 84 cf. 110-11.

[14] Especially in chapters VII and VIII.

[15] Sixteen books (19, 30-37, 43-44, 53-57), plus the first book, which is a special case in that it has been preserved in two versions, none of which, however, Scheltema considered authentic.

[16] A I, Praefatio, p. v.

[17] Heimbach, Prolegomena, 156-176.

[18] L. Burgmann, M.Th. Fögen, A. Schminck, D. Simon, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts. I: Die Handschriften des weltlichen Rechts (Nr. 1-327), Frankfurt 1995, further referred to as RHBR with the number a manuscript has been given there.

[19] C.E. Zachariae von Lingenthal (ed.), Supplementum editionis Heimbachianae, lib. XV-XVIII Basilicorum cum scholiis antiquis integros nec non lib. XIX Basilicorum novis auxiliis restitutum continens, Leipzig 1846.

[20] To my knowledge first mentioned by M.Th. Fögen, ‘Humanistische Adnotationen zur editio princeps der Hexabiblos’, Ius Commune 13 (1985), 213-242, esp. 238 n. 47.

[21] i.e., the supplement to Heimbach of 1846: see above, n. 19.

[22] Ἀνέκδοτον. Lib. XVIII tit. 1 Basilicorum cum scholiis antiquis. Specimen codicis palimpsesti Constantinopolitani bibliothecae S. Sepulchri, qui solus libb. XV-XVIII Basilicorum cum scholiis continet, Heidelberg 1842. See also below, p. 13.

[23] I have not seen the manuscript itself, but have to judge from digital photographs. I would be delighted to eat my words if the contrary would appear to hold good.

[24] See also above, n. 15.

[25] ‘nonnisi fragmenta textus Basilicorum ... cum aliis epitomis ad ius pertinentibus coniuncta’ (Heimbach, Prolegomena, 159).

[26] Now available in the exemplary edition by L. Burgmann (ed.), Ecloga Basilicorum, Frankfurt 1988.

[27] C. Ferrini, G. Mercati, F. Dölger, S. Hörmann, E. Seidl, (eds), ΤΙΠΟΥΚΕΙΤΟΣ sive librorum LX Basilicorum summarium [Studi e testi 25, 51, 107, 179, 193], Rome 1914-1957.

[28] Annotations in the margins of many books in the Groningen University Library show evidence of their critical attitude.

[29] Heimbach, Prolegomena, 176-186.

[30] H.E. Troje, Graeca leguntur. Die Aneignung des byzantinischen rechts und die Entstehung eines humanistischen Corpus iuris civilis in der Jurisprudenz des 16. Jahrhunderts, Köln-Wien 1971. The title explains Troje’s approach.

[31] C.A. Fabrotus (ed.), Τῶν Βασιλικῶν Βιβλία Ξ´, 7 vols, Paris 1647.

[32] Troje, Graeca leguntur, 277.

[33] vols III and V (see R. Feenstra-D.J. Osler, Bibliography of Jurists of the Northern Netherlands Active Outside the Dutch Universities to the Year 1811, Amsterdam 2017 [further referred to as Feenstra-Osler, BGNR Jurists], nos. 651 and 673-674]).

[34]Operis Basilici Fabrotiani supplementum continens libros quatuor Basilicorum IL, L, LI, LII, nunc primum ex Codice manuscripto Regiae Bibliothecae Parisiensis integre editos: Latine vertit, variantes lectiones collegit, notasque criticas ac juridicas, tam aliorum quam suas, addidit Gul. Otto Reitz JCtus. Accedunt Thalelaei, Theodori, Stephans, Cyrilli. aliorumque JCtorum Graecorum commentarii in Tit. D. & Cod. de Postulando sive de Advocatis, nec non de Procuratoribus & Defensoribus, novissime ex Codice MS Bibliothecae Luduni-Batava edidit, Latine vertit & castigavit David Ruhnkenius, Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Wetstenium 1765 [Feenstra-Osler, BNGR Jurists, no. 653].

[35] W. Fischer, ‘Zachariä von Lingenthal (24. Dez.1812-3. Juni 1894). Lebensbeschreibung’, Bursians Jahrbücher über die Fortschritte der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft 99 (1898), 14-48, also in K.E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Kleine Schriften zur römischen und byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte I (Leipzig 1973), 3-37; bibliography by W. Fischer, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung. Rom. Abt. 16 (1895) 320-332 and supplement in ZSSRom 17 (1896) 332-334, both also in Zachariä, Kleine Schriften I, 38-53.

[36]Kritische Jahrbücher für deutsche Rechtswissenschaft 11 (1842), 481-509.

[37] See above, n. 19.

[38] Zachariä, Supplementum, Prolegomena; Heimbach, Prolegomena, 166-167. See also above, p. 8-10; Fischer, ‘Lebensbeschreibung’, 28.

[39] The Ἀνέκδοτον: see above, n. 22.

[40] Heimbach, Prolegomena, 167: ‘de cuius editione pretio et in quo reliquis [i.e., his own edition! BS] antecellat, infra dicetur’. See Zachariä’s Prolegomena to the Supplementum.

[41] In addition to the Praefatio of A I, see also those of A II (on the lost codex S. Sepulchri, already discussed above, section 3.1), p. vi sqq.; A VI (on book LIII, see also below, p. 27).

[42] ‘This transpires from more recent works, where the Basilica are referred to. However, none of the manuscripts of the Basilica, not even those about we will speak only later, shows this division without changes [integram].’

[43] ‘For that reason we have included in the critical apparatus among the variants of these words even those, which seem to have been the result of iotacism or of change between ο and ω.’

[44] ‘E.g., J. Psichari, ‘Les mots latins dans Théophile et les Novelles de Justinien’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 92 (1892), 159 ff.; P. Noailles, Les collections de Novelles de l’empereur Justinien. La collection grecque des 168 Novelles, Paris 1914, 67-73 and 137-140; A. Dain, ‘La transcription des mots latins en grec dans les gloses nomiques’, Revue des Études Latines (1930), 92-113; Ziliacus, Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im oströmischen Reich, thesis Helsinki, 1935.’ [See now N. van der Wal, ‘Die Schreibweise der dem Lateinischen entlehnten Fachworten in der frühbyzantinischen Juristensprache’, Scriptorium 37 (1983) 29-53].

[45] ‘We have written the so-called iota mutum not only in the text, but also in the critical apparatus silently as a iota subscriptum.’

[46] in: Mnemosynon Bizoukides, Thessalonica 1960 = Opera minora 359-364.

[47] See above, section 3.

[48] A III, Praef. p. vi-vii (on the reconstruction of book XIX, and lost parts of books xvii and xviii); A IV, Praef. p. vi (reconstruction of books XXX-XXXIV according to the same method as for book XIX).

[49] N. van der Wal, ‘Probleme bei der Restitution verlorengegangener Basilikenbücher’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) 143-154.

[50] For the others, see above, n. 8. References to the text of the Delineatio are given here by page numbers. The Delineatio has unnumbered end notes, which contain bibliographical references (up to 1985); these are easily found following the chapter numbers given in running headers. The most recent bibliography is found in the Italian and German translations of the Peges of Troianos, and in Van Bochove, Bibliography.

[51]Del. 95.

[52] Bas. LIV-LVII have not reached our day in manuscript, but in the sixteenth century they were still available to Cuiacius, on whose works has been drawn for the reconstruction of these lost books. Scheltema admitted the possibility that Cuiacius even possessed books XLVI-LX.

[53] Van der Wal, ‘Probleme bei der Restitution’, 143.

[54] H. de Jong, ‘Using the Basilica’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Rom. Abt. 133 (2016) 286-321 contains similar instructions at p. 314-317, but has been written from a somewhat different perspective and without knowing of the intention to publish a digital edition other than the one in the TLG.

[55] In order to explain the method of referring to scholia, vol. B I, with scholia, contains after the brief preface an exemplum editionis textus at p. vii, taken from Bas. XI,1.

[56] See, e.g., the table with uncini, signa in B II, p. xi.

[57] Above, p. 14-15.

[58] See also the discussion about the authenticity of the preface (see p. 29).

[59] Van der Wal-Lokin 1985, 82-86, esp. 82: ‘Tout ceci semble indiquer qu’il y a eu trois versions successives des Basiliques, dont seule la dernière nous est connue; toujours est-il que les commentaires du temps de Léon et de ses successeurs ne laissent supposer par aucune allusion que les contemporains aient connu une autre version des Basiliques que celle en soixante livres qui fut conservée en grande partie jusq’à nos jours.’

[60] This is an area of ongoing discussion. It now seems that two versions have been transmitted: in addition to the ‘Basilica’ of Leo VI, also extensive remains of a slightly older version in sixty books of Basil the Macedonian. See most recently, Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica, but how? The final paragraph of the preface to the Prochiron reconsidered’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014), 267-318, with discussion of all the pertinent literature.

[61] E.g., F. Pringsheim, Zum Plan einer neuen Ausgabe der Basiliken. Begründung ihrer Notwendigkeit und Gesichtspunkte für ihre Herstellung (Bericht an die Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften vom Jahre 1937), Berlin 1956, 14 ff., and again Idem, ‘Über die Basiliken-Scholien’, ZSSRom 80 (1963), 287-341, esp. 324 ff.

[62] See H.J. Scheltema, ‘Ueber die angebliche Anonymuskatene’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 25 (1957), 284-301, esp. 295-298 = Opera minora, 323-324.

[63] H.J. Scheltema, ‘Über die Scholienapparate der Basiliken’, Mnemosynon Bizoukidès, Thessalonica 1960, 139-145 = Opera minora 359-364.

[64] See also the discussion in Dittrich 1993, 185-187, who seems to reverse the burden of proof: if a scholion is accompanying a Basilica text wherever it is found, it is a Basilica scholion unless the contrary can be demonstrated (185). That is a quite reasonable assumption insofar as its origin is concerned. What an editor of the Basilica should do is another matter.

[65] See below, section 7.

[66]Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 16 (1939) 320 = Opera minora 170.

[67] Above, p. 2.

[68] Above, p. 16-17.

[69] ‘Ante omnia subsidia critica novae editioni erant paranda. Inter ea primum obtinebant locum Codices Coisliniani 151 et 152’ (Heimbach, Prolegomena, 186). See also Van der Wal, ‘Probleme bei der Restitution’, 143 n. 4.

[70] The SBM is an anthology from the Basilica under key words that had themselves been arranged alphabetically. Leunclavius edited from a manuscript of the SBM, but rearranged the SBM into the order of the sixty books of the Basilica from which it had been compiled; this was not difficult to accomplish, since the Synopsis quotes book, title and chapter of the Basilica with the extracts. See Troje, Graeca leguntur, 264-268; B.H. Stolte, ‘Joannes Leunclavius (1541-1594), Civilian and Byzantinist?’, in: P.J. du Plessis-J.W. Cairns, Reassessing Legal Humanism and its Claims. Petere fontes?, Edinburgh 2016, 194-210, esp. 197-198.

[71] See Jus Graecoromanum, V (1931, repr. Aalen 1962). One example of the superior quality of Zachariä’s edition: Heimbach’s note c ad Bas. XI,1,1,3 says: ‘συναίνεσιν deest in Syn. quae cap. 1. totum habet’. It is true that in Leunclavius’ edition, at p. 138, after πᾶσαν, the word συναίνεσιν is lacking (Leunclavius conjectures in the margin ‘deest αἰτίαν aut simile’), but Zachariä’s edition, based on other manuscripts than Leunclavius’, has συναίνεσιν.

[72] See above, p. 16-18.

[73] Van der Wal, ‘Probleme bei der Restitution’.

[74] Heimbach, Prolegomena, 190.

[75] Heimbach, note p ad Bas. XXX,1,7,5 (III p. 503).

[76] See above, p. 8-10.

[77] B.H. Stolte, ‘Zwei neue Basiliken-Handschriften in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek II: Rechtshistorische Analyse. Mit 30 Tafeln’, in: Chr. Gastgeber (ed.), Quellen zur byzantinischen Rechtspraxis. Aspekte der Textüberlieferung, Paläographie und Diplomatik. Akten des internationalen Symposiums Wien, 5.-7. 2007, Wien 2010, 139-182, esp.140. Part ‘I: Paläographisch-kodikologische Analyse’ is by Jana Grusková, ibidem, 107-138.

[78] Stolte, ‘Zwei neue Basiliken-Handschriften’, 146.

[79] AVII, Praef. xiv-xvi.

[80] D. Simon, ‘Handschriftenstudien zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 71 (1978), 332-348, esp. 340-343.

[81] G.E. Rhodolakis, Από το Νὀμο Ροδίων στο 53ο βιβλίο των Βσσιλικών. Συμβολή στη μελέτη του βυζαντινού δικαίου, Athens 2007.

[82] V. Tiftixoglu, ‘Zur Genese der Kommentare des Theodoros Balsamon. Mit einem Exkurs über die unbekannten Kommentare des Sinaiticus 1117’, in: N. Oikonomides (ed.), Byzantium in the 12th Century. Canon Law, State, Society, Athens 1991, 483-532, and especially V. Tiftixoglu-Sp. Troianos, ‘Unbekannte Kaiserurkunden und Basilikentestimonia aus dem Sinaiticus 1117’, Fontes Minores IX (1993), 137-179.

[83] Tiftixoglu-Troianos, ‘Unbekannte Kaiserurkunden’, 148. The index at the end contains a full list of circa 800 passages where the commentator has referred to the Basilica.

[84] See the detailed description in A V Praef. p. v-viii.

[85] W. Waldstein-D. Simon, ‘Neuentdeckte Bruchstücke der Epanagoge cum Prochiro composita. Eine Palimpsesthandschrift der Klosterbibliothek Lavra’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28 (1974) 145-178.

[86] The Basilica fragments are the following: B. 19,1,84-86.88-90.95-96 (Simon p. 164-165); B. 58,9,4(§ 11).5 ? (Simon 175-176); B. 60,58,1,pr..1-1c.3 (Simon p. 177-178). Fragments B. 19,1,90.95-96 = C. 4,54,1.6-7 were ‘unediert’ in 1974; Simon’s decipherment at p. 164-165. It is worth noting that he identified another fragment as a commentary on C. 2,26,4, probably from the antecessor Theodorus (Simon p. 173).

[87] L. Burgmann-M.Th. Fögen, ‘Florilegium Lesbiacum’, Fontes Minores V (1982), 107- 178; J. Dittrich, ‘Die Scholien des Cod. Taur. B. I. 20 zum Erbrecht der Basiliken’, FM IX (1993), 181-298; D. Getov, ‘Eine Scholiensammlung zur Synopsis Basilicorum Maior’, FM XI (2005), 325-426.

[88] E.g., B.H. Stolte, ‘Of nomoi and kanones. Notes on Codex Vaticanus Graecus 2645’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), 121-126, esp. 122ff..

[89] A I, Praef. xi; H.J. Scheltema, ‘À propos de la prétendue préface des Basiliques’, Mélanges Lévy-Brühl, Paris 1959, 269-271 = Opera minora 356-358.

[90] A. Schminck, Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechtsbüchern, Frankfurt am Main 1986, 17-54.

[91] Schminck, Studien 54.

[92] See A I Praef. p.xi,. See also above, p. 21 with n. 60, and below, p. 30-31.

[93] Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Index Titulorum. Merely a Table of Contents or Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ τῶν Βασιλικῶν?’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), 1-58; Idem, ‘Ἐπιγραφή. Zur Entstehung der Titelrubriken der Basiliken’, ibidem 59-77; Idem, ‘Index Titulorum, II. IPc, the partial index titulorum of the Basilica books 1-9 in cod. Paris. gr. 1349’, Subseciva Groningana VIII (2009), 35-104; Idem, ‘Scholia and Index Titulorum. On the relation between the apparatus of scholia in cod. Par. gr. 1349 and IPc’, ibidem 105-126.

[94] And see the Bibliography by Van Bochove.

[95] In 1955, ‘inter Appendices ... quas separatim edere in animo est’ (A I Praef. p. xi).

[96] ‘One gathers an understanding of the nature of codex P from the edition of Fabrot, who has drawn for his text on P alone.’ All passages quoted in A I Praef. p. xi.

[97] H.J. Scheltema, ‘Ueber die angebliche Anonymuskatene’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 25 (1957), 284-301, esp. 296-297 = Opera minora, 323-324.

[98] At the end of the Praefatio of B VIII, which had been signed by all three editors and dated on 2 December 1981, Holwerda and Van der Wal wrote the following praefationis additamentum: ‘On November 18th, 1981, we have formally offered to our illustrissimus and, to us carissimus, teacher Herman Jan Scheltema the last part of the copy, prepared for the press, of this edition. Two weeks later, on the very day on which this preface has been dated, after he had spent the entire day studying, he suddenly died in the evening. We are glad that he has seen the result of the immense work, but regret, that it has not fallen to him to write the prolegomena to edition. We hope, however, that the notebooks that he left will assist us in the completion of this part of the work.’

[99] ‘Cf. D. Simon, Handschriftenstudien zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Byz. Zeitschr. 71 (1978) pp. 332-348 (and especially pp. 340-343).’ See above, p. 27.

[100] Above, n. 81.

  • by Th.E. van Bochove / University of Groningen
  • Sections:

    I Preliminary works, story, and completion of the Groningen Basilica edition

    II Consulting, reading, and quoting the Basilica cum scholiis

    III. Evaluation and significance of the Basilica cum scholiis

    IV Critical editions of texts relating to the Basilica and recently discovered Basilica testimonies

    V Manuscript tradition of the Basilica cum scholiis

    VI Studies pertaining to the Basilica cum scholiis

    VII. Legal education and antecessores

    I Preliminary works, story, and completion of the Groningen Basilica edition

    Preliminary works:

    1. H.J. Scheltema, Opera minora ad iuris historiam pertinentia, (collegerunt N. van der Wal, J.H.A. Lokin, B.H. Stolte, Roos Meijering), Groningen 2004
      Various studies collected in this volume
      1. ‘Probleme der Basiliken’, pp. 170-188 (original publication: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 16 (1939), pp. 320-346)
      2. Opmerkingen over Grieksche bewerkingen van Latijnsche Juridische bronnen, pp. 189-202 (original publication: Openbare les gehouden bij den aanvang zijner lessen als Privaat Docent in het Byzantijnsche recht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op Dinsdag 16 April 1940, Zwolle 1940)
      3. ‘De antiquae iurisprudentiae reliquiis in libris Byzantinis oblectamentum’, pp. 203-232 (original publication: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 17 (1941), pp. 412-456)
    1. N. van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs du Code de Justinien, ’s-Gravenhage 1953

    Story and completion

    1. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Habent sua fata Basilica. On the Occasion of the Completion of the Groningen Basilica Edition’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 1-10 (= J.H.A. Lokin,  Analecta Groningana ad ius graeco-romanum pertinentia, (edited by Th.E. van Bochove), Groningen 2010, pp. 201-209)

    II Consulting, reading, and quoting the Basilica cum scholiis

    General studies:

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘The Great Codification. The Basilica cum scholiis and their immediate precursor(s)’, in E. Papagianni (ed.), Das byzantinische Recht von der Einweihung Konstantinopels (330) bis zum Ende der makedonischen Epoche (1056), to be published in the series Brill’s Companions tot he Byzantine World (Series editor: Wolfram Brandes), in particular § 3 – § 6
    2. H. de Jong, Video containing a presentation of the Basilica cum scholiis on the site http://www.kaltura.com/tiny/u03zg
    3. H. de Jong, ‘Using the Basilica’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschich-te, romanistische Abteilung 133 (2016), pp. 286-321

    How to distinguish between the older and the younger Basilica scholia:

    1. Van Bochove, ‘The Great Codification’ (No. [7] above), § 13
    2. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘The Basilica between Quellenforschung and Textual Criticism’, in J. Signes Codoñer/I. Pérez Martín (eds.), Textual Transmission in Byzantium: between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung, (Lectio. Studies in the Transmission of Texts & Ideas, 2), Turnhout 2014, pp. 539-575 (543-546)
    3. De Jong, Video (No. [8] above)
    4. De Jong, ‘Using the Basilica’ (No. [9] above), pp. 305-311 (older scholia), and 311-313 (younger scholia)
    5. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. III. Die Verweisungen bei den frühbyzantinischen Rechtsgelehrten’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 30 (1962), pp. 355-357 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 116-118)
    6. B.H. Stolte, ‘Further to understanding the marginal gloss of the corrector ordinarius in the codex Florentinus on fol. 439r’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 73 (2005), pp. 385-389 (386-387)
    7. N. van der Wal, ‘Ἀνάγνωσμα yet again’, Subseciva Groningana VIII (2009), 167-170 (167-168)

    Subsidia

    It goes without saying that the most important subsidia for consulting the Basilica cum scholiis are B.H. Stolte’s Online Praefatio and the respective front matter of each volume of both the Series A (Textus) and the Series B (Scholia) of the edition. It concerns:

    • A I (1955; text of the books I-VIII), pp. v-xviii
    • A II (1956; text of the books IX-XVI), pp. v-xx
    • A III (1960; text of the books XVII-XXV), pp. v-xiv
    • A IV (1962; text of the books XXVI-XXXIV), pp. v-xi
    • A V (1967; text of the books XXXV-XLII), pp. v-xiii
    • A VI (1969; text of the books XLIII-LII), pp. v-xiii
    • A VII (1974; text of the books LIII-LIX), pp. v-xxvi
    • A VIII (1988; text of book LX), pp. v-xxiv.
    • And in the B series:
    • B I (1953; scholia on the books I-XI), pp. v-xiii
    • B II (1954; scholia on the books XII-XIV), pp. v-xii
    • B III (1957; scholia on the books XV-XX), pp. v-xiv
    • B IV (1959; scholia on the books XXI-XXIII), pp. v-viii
    • B V (1961; scholia on the books XXIV-XXX), pp. v-viii
    • B VI (1964; scholia on the books XXXVIII-XLII,1), pp. v-viii
    • B VII (1965; scholia on the books XLII,2-XLVIII), pp. v-viii
    • B VIII (1983; scholia on the books LVIII-LX,16), pp. v-xi
    • B IX (1985; scholia on book LX,17-69), pp. v-viii.

    Equally important are the indices and tables of contents at the end of every volume. All this material is now easily accessible via the Online edition of the Basilica cum scholiis. Further subsidia are:

    1) Heimbach’s Prolegomena and Manuale Basilicorum

    The value of these works is limited, as they are entirely based on Heimbach’s nineteenth-century Basilica edition. Moreover, many of Heimbach’s views have been superseded by modern research. Therefore, the Prolegomena and the Manuale are to be consulted with due caution.

    1. K.W.E. Heimbach (ed.), Basilicorum libri LX. Post Annibalis Fabroti curas ope codicum manuscriptorum a Gustavo Ernesto Heimbachio aliisque collatorum integriores cum scholiis edidit, editos denuo recensuit, deperditos restituit, translationem latinam et adnotationem criticam adiecit...
      Tomus VI: Prolegomena et Manuale Basilicorum continens, Lipsiae 1870 (partial reprint Amsterdam 1962)

    2) Heimbach’s Latin translation of the Basilica

    As this translation accompanies Heimbach’s own nineteenth-century Basilica edition, it must be used with due caution.

    1. K.W.E. Heimbach (ed.), Basilicorum libri LX. Post Annibalis Fabroti curas ope codicum manuscriptorum a Gustavo Ernesto Heimbachio aliisque collatorum integriores cum scholiis edidit, editos denuo recensuit, deperditos restituit, translationem latinam et adnotationem criticam adiecit...
    2. Tomus I: libros I – XII continens, Lipsiae 1833
    3. Tomus II: libros XIII – XXIII continens, Lipsiae 1840
    4. Tomus III: libros XXIV-XXXVIII continens, Lipsiae 1843
    5. Tomus IV: libros XXXIX-XLVIII continens, Lipsiae 1846
    6. Tomus V: libros XLIX-LX continens, Lipsiae 1850

    3) English translation of the Basilica cum scholiis

    Very recently, the Department of Legal History of the Faculty of Law of Groningen University embarked upon a new research project ultimately aiming at legally disclosing the Basilica cum scholiis. The project will eventually also result in a translation of the Basilica cum scholiis into English, and in a lexicon containing legal technical terms occurring in both the Basilica text and the scholia.

    1. Translation of the Basilica cum scholiis into English, and a lexicon of legal technical terms occurring in the Basilica text and scholia (work in progress)

    4) Modern translations of Justinian’s Corpus Iuris Civilis

    It concerns translations of the sources underlying the Basilica text: the Code, the Digest, and the Novels. Only the most recent translations have been taken into account.

    English translation:

    1. B.W. Frier (ed.), The Codex of Justinian. A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a Translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, Cambridge 2016
    2. Volume I: Introductory Matter and Books I-III
    3. Volume II: Books IV-VII
    4. Volume III: Books VIII-XII
    5. A. Watson (ed.), The Digest of Justinian, 4 vols., (University of Pennsylvania Press), Philadelphia 1985 (revised English-language edition in two volumes, Philadelphia 1998)
    6. English translation of the Novels of Justinian, compiled by Justice Fred H. Blume and edited by Timothy Kearly. Both editions of this translation are accessible via the following website: http://www.uwyo.edu/lawlib/justinian-novels/

    Dutch translation:

    1. J.E. Spruit et alii (red.), Corpus iuris civilis. Tekst en Vertaling.
    2. I: Institutiones, Zutphen / ’s-Gravenhage 1993
    3. II: Digesta I – X, Zutphen / ’s-Gravenhage 1994
    4. III: Digesta XI – XXIV, Zutphen / ’s-Gravenhage 1996
    5. IV: Digesta XXV – XXXIV, Zutphen / ’s-Gravenhage 1997
    6. V: Digesta XXXV – XLII, Zutphen / ’s-Gravenhage 2000
    7. VI: Digesta XLIII – L, Zutphen / ’s-Gravenhage 2001
    8. VII: Codex Justinianus I – III, Amsterdam 2005
    9. VIII: Codex Justinianus IV – VIII, Amsterdam 2007
    10. IX: Codex Justinianus IX – XII, Amsterdam 2010
    11. X: Novellae I – L, Amsterdam 2011
    12. XI: Novellae LI – CXIV, Amsterdam 2011
    13. XII: Novellae CXV – CLXVIII, Amsterdam 2011

    German translation (work in progress):

    1. O. Behrends, R. Knütel et alii (Hrsg.), Corpus Iuris Civilis. Text und Übersetzung.
      1. I. Institutionen, Heidelberg 19972 (20134)
      2. II. Digesten 1 – 10, Heidelberg 1995
      3. III. Digesten 11 – 20, Heidelberg 1999
      4. IV. Digesten 21 – 27, Heidelberg 2005
      5. V. Digesten 28 – 34, Heidelberg 2012

    5) Lexica

    There is as yet no special lexicon covering all legal termini technici occurring in the Basilica cum scholiis. However, the following lexica may offer assistance. See also the section Legal language and technical terms below.

    1. I. Avotins, On the Greek of the Code of Justinian. A Supplement to Liddell-Scott-Jones together with Observations on the Influence of Latin on Legal Greek, (Altertums-wissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, Band 17), Hildesheim / Zürich / New York 1989
    2. I. Avotins, On the Greek of the Novels of Justinian. A Supplement to Liddell-Scott-Jones together with Observations on the Influence of Latin on Legal Greek, (Altertums-wissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, Band 21), Hildesheim / Zürich / New York 1992
    3. A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 43/2 (1953), pp. 335-809), Philadelphia 1953 (repr. 1991, 2002, 2014)
    4. H.G. Heumann / E. Seckel, Handlexikon zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts, Graz 1971 (eleventh printing)
    5. G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961 (repr. 1995)
    6. H.G. Liddell / R. Scott / H. Stuart Jones, A Greek – English Lexicon, Oxford 19409 (with a Revised Supplement, edited by P.G.W. Glare, Oxford 1996)[1]
    7. J. Signes Codoñer / J.D. Rodríguez Martín / F.J. Andrés Santos (redacción y coordinación), Diccionario jurídico bizantino Griego-Español. Sobre la base de la Introducción al derecho del patriarca Focio y de las Novelas de León VI el Sabio (forthcoming)
    8. E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100, New York 1887 (repr. Cambridge 1914; Hildesheim 1975, 1992; Kessinger Publishing 2004)
    9. E. Trapp et alii (Hrsg.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.–12. Jahrhunderts[2] (work in progress)
      1. Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen, Wien 2001
      2. 1. Band Α-Κ (Faszikel 1 bis 4), (Österreichische Akademie der Wissen-schaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 238., 250., 276., 293. Band. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, Band VI/1–4), Wien 2001
      3. 5. Faszikel (λ – παλιάνθρωπος), (Österreichische Akademie der Wissen-schaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 326. Band. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, Band VI/5), Wien 2005
      4. 6. Faszikel (παλιγγενεσία – προσπελαγίζω) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 352. Band. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, Band VI/6), Wien 2007
      5. 7. Faszikel (προσπέλασις – ταριχευτικός) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 417. Band. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, Band VI/7), Wien 2011

    6) Byzantinische Zeitschrift

    An important subsidiary is provided by the Byzantinische Zeitschrift which appears every year in two issues. Every issue contains a bibliographical part styled III. Abteilung. Bibliographische Notizen und Mitteilungen, which also covers Byzantine law: 10. Byzantinisches Recht. Within this section, in particular under the heading B. Weltliches Recht, b. Texte und Literatur zu Quellen, literature can be found that has not been incorporated into the present Basilica Online Bibliography.

    1. [64] Byzantinische Zeitschrift (every issue, twice every year), III. Abteilung. Biblio-graphische Notizen und Mitteilungen. 10. Byzantinisches Recht, B. Weltliches Recht

    III. Evaluation and significance of the Basilica cum scholiis:

    1. F.J. Andrés Santos, ‘El valor de las fuentes jurídicas bizantinas para la crítica textual y la Quellenforschung del Corpus Iuris Civilis: una visión panorámica’, in Signes Codoñer / Pérez Martín, Textual Transmission in Byzantium (No. [11] above), pp. 419-453
    2. Van Bochove, ‘The Basilica between Quellenforschung and Textual Criticism’ (No. [11] above), pp. 539-549
    3. F. Brandsma, ‘The Usefulness of the Byzantine Tradition to the interpretation of the Corpus Iuris Civilis’, in J.H.A. Lokin / B.H. Stolte (a cura di), Introduzione al diritto bizantino. Da Giustiniano ai Basilici, (Collegio di Diritto Romano 2009. Pubblicazioni del CEDANT, 8), Pavia 2011, pp. 681-692
    4. H. de Jong, ‘The Benefit to Romanists of Using the Basilica. The example of B. 14,1,26,8 (D. 17,1,26,8)’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 84 (2016), pp. 423-436
    5. B.H. Stolte, ‘The Value of the Byzantine Tradition for Textual Criticism of the Corpus Iuris Civilis. ‘Graeca leguntur’’, in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 667-680

    IV Critical editions of texts relating to the Basilica and recently discovered Basilica testimonies

    It should be observed that the present section lists two categories of Basilica testimonia. The first category consists of testimonia already used by the editors of the Groningen Basilica edition. The testimonies belonging to this category have only been mentioned in sofar a new critical edition saw the light of day: it concerns the Ecloga Basilicorum, the Rhopai, the Tractatus de actionibus and the Tractatus de peculiis. For an overview of all testimonies used by the editors of the Groningen edition, including e.g. the Tipucitus and the Synopsis Basilicorum Maior, see B.H. Stolte, Online Praefatio, passim; and the Conspectus operum ex quibus testimonia laudantur in the front matter of every volume of the Series A of the Groningen Basilica edition. The second category consists of testimonies either unknown to the editors, or not used by them. Some of the testimonies in this category were discovered only recently.

    Basilica preface

    Lacking in the Groningen edition. See also Nos. [167] – [171] below.

    1. A. Schminck, Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechtsbüchern, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 13), Frankfurt/M. 1986, pp. 17-23 (includes a German translation)

    Basilica book 1

    In the Groningen edition, the first book of the Basilica is based on testimonies of the text. See also Nos. [184] – [187] below.

    1. C.A. Fabrotus (ed.), ΤῶνΒασιλικῶνΒιβλίαΞ´. Βασιλικῶν Libri LX, in VII tomos divisi, Parisiis 1647, Tomus I, pp. 1-26 (version of B. 1 as transmitted by codex Parisinus graecus 1352; includes a Latin translation)
    2. C.W.E. Heimbach (ed.), Basilicorum libri LX. Tomus I (No. [19] above), pp. 1-34 (version of B. 1 as transmitted by codex Coislinianus graecus 151; includes a Latin translation)

    Basilica book 53

    New critical edition of this Basilica book.

    1. Γ.Ε. Ροδολάκης, ΑπότοΝόμοΡοδίωνστο 53οβιβλίοτωνΒασιλικών. Συμβολήστημελέτητουβυζαντινούναυτικούδικαίου, (Ἐπετηρίς τοῦ Κέντρου Ἐρεύνης τῆς Ἱστορίας τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Δικαίου, Τόμος 40, Παράρτημα 8), Αθήνα 2007, pp. 175-260

    Indices titulorum of the Basilica

    Lacking in the Groningen edition. See also Nos. [173] – [183] below.

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Index Titulorum. Merely Table of Contents or Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ τῶν Βασιλικῶν?’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), pp. 1-58 (edition of ICb 2, the index titulorum of the Basilica books 1-9 in cod. Coisl. gr. 151 on the pp. 16-58)
    2. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Index Titulorum, II. IPc, the partial index of the Basilica in cod. Paris. gr. 1349’, Subseciva Groningana VIII (2009), pp. 35-104 (edition of IPc, the index titulorum of the Basilica books 45-50)

    Ecloga Basilicorum

    New critical edition of this testimonium of the Basilica text.

    1. L. Burgmann (Hrsg.), Ecloga Basilicorum, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 15), Frankfurt/M. 1988

    Rhopai

    New critical edition of this testimonium of the Basilica text.

    1. F. Sitzia, Le Rhopai, (Università di Cagliari. Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, 30), Napoli 1984

    Tractatus de actionibus

    New critical edition of this testimonium of the Basilica text.

    1. F. Sitzia, De actionibus. Edizione e commento, (Università di Roma. Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano e dei Diritti dell’Oriente Mediterraneo, 46), Milano 1973[3]

    Tractatus de peculiis

    New critical edition of this testimonium of the Basilica text.

    1. M.Th. Fögen / D. Simon, ‘Tractatus de peculiis’, Fontes Minores X (1998), pp. 261-318

    Recently discovered Basilica scholia

    1. J. Dittrich, ‘Die Scholien des Cod. Taur. B.I. 20 zum Erbrecht der Basiliken’, Fontes Minores IX (1993), pp. 181-298
    2. D. Getov, ‘Eine Scholiensammlung zur Synopsis Basilicorum maior’, Fontes Minores XI (2005), pp. 325-413
    3. B.H. Stolte, ‘Of Nomoi and Kanones. Notes on Codex Vaticanus Graecus 2645’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), pp. 121-126 (122-126: new scholia pertaining to B. 3,1,8-9 (BT 83/22-84/22))

    Recently discovered Basilica testimonia

    1. L. Burgmann / M.Th. Fögen, ‘Florilegium Lesbiacum’, Fontes Minores V (1982), pp. 107-178 (= L. Burgmann, Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 33), Frankfurt/M. 2015, pp. 7-83)
    2. V. Tiftixoglu, ‘Zur Genese der Kommentare des Theodoros Balsamon. Mit einem Exkurs über die unbekannten Kommentare des Sinaiticus gr. 1117’, in N. Oikonomides (ed.), Byzantium in the 12th. Century. Canon Law, State and Society, Athens: Kardamitsas (Society of Byzantine and post-Byzantine Studies. Diptycha – Paraphylla, 3), Athens 1991, pp. 483-532 (496ff.)
    3. V. Tiftixoglu & Sp. Troianos, ‘Unbekannte Kaiserurkunden und Basiliken-testimonia aus dem Sinaiticus 1117’, Fontes Minores IX (1993), pp. 137-179 (148-179)
    4. W. Waldstein / D. Simon, ‘Neuentdeckte Bruchstücke der Epanagoge cum Prochiro composita. Eine Palimpsesthandschrift der Klosterbibliothek Lavra’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 23 (1974), pp. 145-178

    V Manuscript tradition of the Basilica cum scholiis

    Listing and descriptions of Basilica manuscripts

    1. L. Burgmann / M.Th. Fögen / A. Schminck / D. Simon, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts. Teil I: Die Handschriften des weltlichen Rechts (Nr. 1 – 327), (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechts-geschichte, Band 20) Frankfurt/M. 1995, pp. 402-404 (Index, s.v. Basiliken)
    2. A. Schminck / D. Getov, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts. Teil II: Die Handschriften des kirchlichen Rechts, I (Nr. 328 – 427), (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 28), Frankfurt/M. 2010, p. 255 (Index, s.v. Basiliken)
    3. A. Schminck / D. Getov, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts. Teil III: Die Handschriften des kirchlichen Rechts, II (Nr. 427 – 527), Frankfurt/M. 2014 (published digitally; a paper edition will be published in the near future)
    4. D. Simon, ‘Handschriftenstudien zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte’, Byzan-tinische Zeitschrift 71 (1978), pp. 332-348 (340-344)

    Codex rescriptus Berolinensis gr. Fol. 28

    The palimpsest manuscript cod. rescr. Berolinensis gr. Fol. 28 olim Constantinopolitanus – transmitting the Basilica books 15-18, accompanied by old scholia – was deemed lost after the second World War, but has resurfaced in Cracow; it is presently known as codex rescriptus Krakoviensis Jagiellońska 28/266 (Burgmann/Fögen/Schminck/Simon, RHBR I (No. [87] above), p. 117 No. 92; see also B.H. Stolte in the Online Praefatio, passim). Zachariä von Lingenthal based his 1846 edition of B. 15-18 on this manuscript; see the reference under No. [96] below.

    1. Van Bochove, ‘The Basilica between Quellenforschung and Textual Criticism’ (No. [11] above), p. 547 with the notes 27-30
    2. M.Th. Fögen, ‘Humanistische Adnotationen zur editio princeps der Hexabiblos’, Ius Commune XIII (1985), pp. 213-242 (238 note 37)
    3. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Bemerkungen zu Zachariaes Supplementum Basilicorum, S. 185, Sch. 47’, Ἀντίδωρονaangeboden aan Professor Doctor Sophia Antoniadis ter gelegenheid van haar afscheid van Nederland door vrienden en leerlingen, Leiden 1957, pp. 67-70) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 327-330)
    4. B.H. Stolte, ‘Balancing Byzantine Law’, Fontes Minores XI (2005), pp. 57-75 (62-63)
    5. B.H. Stolte, ‘The Decline and Fall of Legal Manuscripts: Reflexions on Some Legal Palimpsests’, in Sp. Troianos (ed.), Κατευόδιον. In memoriam Nikos Oikonomides, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Athener Reihe. Band 15), Athen 2008 pp. 173-189 (182-184)
    6. C.E. Zachariae a Lingenthal (ed.), Supplementum editionis Basilicorum Heim-bachianae, libros XV – XVIII Basilicorum cum scholiis antiquis integros nec non librum XIX Basilicorum novis auxiliis restitutum continens, Lipsiae 1846

    Codex rescriptus Ambrosianus F 106 sup. (Florilegium Ambrosianum).

    See also Nos. [139] – [144] below.

    1. M.T. Rodriquez, ‘Un “nuovo” palinsesto dei Basilici’, in S. Lucà / F. D’Aiuto (a cura di), Ἔξεμπλον. Studi in onore di Irmgard Hutter, II, Roma 2010 [2011] = ΝέαῬώμη. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche 7 (2010 [2011]), pp. 73-95
    2. M.T. Rodriquez, ‘Riflessioni sui palinsesti giuridici dell’area dello Stretto’, in A. Rigo / A. Babuin / M. Trizio (a cura di), Vie per Bisanzio. VII Congresso dell’Associa-zione Italiana di Studi Bizantini, Venezia, 25–28 novembre 2009, Bari 2013, pp. 625–645

    Recently discovered palimpsest manuscripts

    Recent discovery of palimpsest manuscripts in the framework of the EU funded international project Rinascimento virtuale – Digitale Palimpsestforschung: codex rescriptus Vindobonensis Supplementum graecum 200, ff. 1-48, handing down parts from the books 21 – 26 and 28 – 29 of the Basilica, and the Florilegium Basilicorum Vindobonense, the scriptura inferior of codex Vindobonensis hist. gr. 10, containing parts of and extracts from the books 2, 3, 5 – 10, 16 and 19 of the Basilica.

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica, but how? The final paragraph of the preface to the Prochiron reconsidered’, Subseciva Groningana IX: Between Groningen and Palermo, (2014), pp. 267-318 (280-287)
    2. J. Grusková, Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Palimpsesten der Öster-reichischen Nationalbibliothek. Codices historici. Codices philosophi et philologici. Codices iuridici, (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 401. Band. Veröffent-lichungen zur Byzanzforschung, Band XX), Wien 2010, pp. 37-41
    3. J. Grusková, ‘Zwei neue Basiliken-Handschriften in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. I: Paläographisch-kodikologische Analyse’, in Ch. Gast-geber (ed.), Quellen zur byzantinischen Rechtspraxis. Aspekte der Text-überlieferung, Paläographie und Diplomatik. Akten des internationalen Symposiums Wien, 5.–7. 11. 2007, (Österreichische Akademie der Wissen-schaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 413. Band. Ver-öffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, Band XXV), Wien 2010, pp. 107-138 and 153-182
    4. B.H. Stolte, ‘Ein Florilegium Vindobonense der Basiliken’, in V. Somers (ed.), Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les texes littéraires. Actes du colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve (septembre 2003), (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 56), Louvain / Paris / Walpole, MA 2009, pp. 111–114
    5. B.H. Stolte, ‘Zwei neue Basiliken-Handschriften in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. II: Rechtshistorische Analyse’, in Gastgeber, Quellen zur byzantinischen Rechtspraxis, (No. [101] above), pp. 139-151 and 153-182

    Codex Vaticanus graecus 2645

    A bifolium containing B. 3,1,8-9 with unknown scholia.

    1. [104] B.H. Stolte, ‘Of Nomoi and Kanones’ (No. [82] above)

    Libri restituti

    The books 19, 30 – 37, 43 – 44, and 53 – 57 of the Basilica lack direct manuscript transmission. In the Groningen edition, these books are restituted on the basis of testimonies of the Basilica text.

    1. M.Th. Fögen, ‘Zur Restitution von B. 37.1 und 2’, Fontes Minores III (1979), pp. 178-193
    2. N. van der Wal, ‘Probleme bei der Restitution verlorengegangener Basiliken-bücher’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 143-154

    VI Studies pertaining to the Basilica cum scholiis

    Introducing the Basilica

    1. J.H.A. Lokin / Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione. Dalla legislazione di Giustiniano ai Basilica cum scholiis’, in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 99-146 (135-146)
    2. P.E. Pieler, ‘Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur’, in H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, II, (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, XII,5,2), München 1978, pp. 341-480 (455-457, 463-464, and 491 (Index))
    3. Revised edition and translation of the preceding study into modern Greek: P.E. Pieler, ‘Νομικὴ Φιλολογία’, in H. Hunger, Βυζαντινὴ λογοτεχνία. Ἡ λόγια κοσμικὴ γραμματεία τῶν Βυζαντινῶν, Τόμος Γ´, Ἀθήνα 1994, pp. 183-379 (340-342, 344-347, 355-357, and 443 (Index))[4]
    4. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 17-54 passim
    5. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές του βυζαντινού δικαίου, Αθήνα/Κομοτηνή 20113, pp. 252-263, 281-284, and 467 (Index) [Italian translation: Sp. Troianos, Le fonti del diritto bizantino, (Traduzione a cura di Pierangelo Buongiorno), Torino 2015, pp. 165-173, 185-188, and 326 (Index)][5]
    6. N. van der Wal / J.H.A. Lokin, Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio. Les sources du droit byzantin de 300 à 1453, Groningen 1985, pp. 81-86, 90-92, 99-100, 133, 134, and 135

    The Basilica in wider context

    Ἀνακάθαρσις τῶν παλαιῶν νόμων and Macedonian Renaissance

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date. On the Date and Status of Byzantine Law Books, Groningen 1996, pp. 173-186 [modern Greek translation: Th.E. van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date. On the Date and Status of Byzantine Law Books – ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας. Ἐπιστημονική ἀπόδοση στήν Ἑλληνικνή Γλώσσα: Ἀρχιμανδρίτης Ἱερώνυμος Νικολόπουλος, (Βιβλιοθήκη Βυζαντινοῦ καὶ Μεταβυζαντινοῦ Δικαίου, 3), Αθνήνα – Θεσσαλονίκη 2007, pp. 247-266]
    2. Z. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal Tradition, 867-1056, Cambridge 2017, pp. 12-13 and 16-44
    3. P.E. Pieler, ‘Ἀνακάθαρσις τῶν παλαιῶν νόμων und makedonische Renaissance’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 61-77
    4. A. Schminck, ‘Leges ou νόμοι? Le choix des princes slaves à l’époque de Photius et les débuts de l’ἀνακάθαρσις τῶν παλαιῶν νόμων’, in Sp. Flogaitis / A. Pantélis (eds.), The Eastern Roman Empire and the Birth of the Idea of State in Europe, (European Public Law Series, Vol. LXXX), London 2005, pp. 309-316
    5. A. Schminck, ‘Minima Byzantina. III: Βασιλειοπάτωρ’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung 132 (2015), pp. 478-483)

    Name of the Basilica

    The name Basilica is derived from the Greek phrase τὰ βασιλικὰ νόμιμα ‘the imperial laws’. The phrase refers to a large compilation of laws which came into existence in the later ninth century, during the reign of emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912). However, according to the German scholar A. Schminck, the Basilica did not originate during the reign of Leo the Wise. Schminck rather differentiated between a large compilation of laws issued in Leo’s day – work on this compilation would have been completed shortly before Christmas of the year 888 – and referred to as the Sixty Books, and the Basilica which came into being some 150 years later.[6] The Basilica would have been compiled at the faculty of law in Constantinople, which was initiated by emperor Constantine IX Monomachos in the middle of the eleventh century – probably in the year 1047 – and headed by the νομοφύλαξ John Xiphilinos. The phrase τὰ βασιλικά, used as a noun, would go back to a personal preference of John Xiphilinus.

    1. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), pp. 108-109 [modern Greek: Van Bochove, ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας, pp. 157-159]
    2. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Some Byzantine Law Books. Introducing the Continuous Debate Concerning Their Status and Their Date’, in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 239-266 (262-266)
    3. Van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica’ (No. [99] above), pp. 272-273, 274-275, and 300-301
    4. Van Bochove, ‘The Great Codification’ (No. [7] above), § 11
    5. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 32-35
    6. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 27-33, especially 29ff., 78-79, and 132
    7. A. Schminck, ‘“Frömmigkeit ziere das Werk”. Zur Datierung der 60 Bücher Leons VI.’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 79-114
    8. A. Schminck, ‘Zur Auslassung des 1. Titels der Institutionen-Paraphrase des Theophilos’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 82 (2014), pp. 323-326

    Prochiron and Eisagoge

    In their resp. preface, these two law books contain information that is of vital importance regarding the genesis of the text of the Basilica in the later ninth century. However, the status, and in particular the date of the law books is heavily disputed. The Prochiron is traditionally dated to the first part of the reign of emperor Basil the Macedonian (867-886), in the years 870-879: it was possibly promulgated on 1 December 872. The Eisagoge is traditionally dated to the second part of Basil’s reign, in the years between 879 and 886, with a further specification in the period between 3 March 880 and the summer of 883 (Van Bochove). It was Schminck, however, who reversed the chronological order of the two law books, partly in order to solve a major problem concerning the genesis of the Basilica as referred to in the two prefaces. With regard to the Eisagoge, Schminck argued in favour of a date in 885, or rather in 886, before 29 August of that year. Most recently, he proposed 15 May 886 as the date of publication. With regard to the Prochiron, Schminck argued in favour of a date in the year 907, thus during the reign of Leo the Wise, the successor of Basil the Macedonian. In his turn, the Spanish scholar J. Signes Codoñer turned the hands of the clock back again, at least partly. For, regarding the Prochiron he opted again for a date in the period between 870-879, and possibly even 1 December 872. However, he also argued in favour of a revision of the Prochiron effectuated some time after the death of Leo the Wise in 912 (possibly during the reign of his brother Alexander), leading to a second edition of the law book. As regards the Eisagoge, Signes Codoñer opted for a date between 880 and 886. The status of the Eisagoge is uncertain: there are good arguments in favour of an official promulgation (Schminck, Van Bochove), but it is also possible that the law book remained draft law (Signes Codoñer).

    1. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), passim, in particular pp. 7-27 (Eisagoge) and 29-56 (Prochiron) [modern Greek: Van Bochove, ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας, pp. 11-39 and 41-83]
    2. Van Bochove, ‘Some Byzantine Law Books’ (No. [119] above), passim
    3. Van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica’ (No. [99] above), pp. 309-317
    4. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Procheiros Nomos and Eisagoge’, in Papagianni, Das byzantinische Recht (No. [7] above)
    5. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 22-32, in particular 25-26 with note 41, and 29 with note 56
    6. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 14-15 (Eisagoge), 62-107 (Prochiron), and 132
    7. A. Schminck, ‘Bemerkungen zum sog. “Nomos Mosaïkos”’, Fontes Minores XI (2005), pp. 249-268 (264 note 91)
    8. J. Signes Codoñer, Estudio, in J. Signes Codoñer / F.J. Andrés Santos, La Introducción al Derecho (Eisagoge) del Patriarca Focio, (Nueva Roma. Bibliotheca Graeca et Latina Aevi Posterioris, 28), Madrid 2007, pp. 3-274 passim, in particular 160-182, 189-212, 240-246, and 270-274

    Sixty – forty – sixty books

    The major problem mentioned in the previous section consists of the following. If the traditional chronology of the Prochiron and the Eisagoge is accepted, then there are reports concerning no less than three extensive compilations of laws. Two of these were compiled during the reign of Basil the Macedonian. The first of these two is a compilation in 60 books, referred to in the preface to the Prochiron, the second a compilation in 40 books, mentioned in the preface to the Eisagoge. The third and final compilation in again 60 books is attributed to Leo the Wise: the Basilica. By modern day standards, three extensive compilations of laws all dating from the later ninth century would seem to be too much of a good thing. Various attempts have been made to shed light on this matter. Schminck’s solution, for instance, consisted of the proposed new dating of the Prochiron to the year 907, thereby implying that the preface to this law book would refer to Leo’s Basilica / Sixty Books. The solution advocated by Signes Codoñer consisted of the assumption that the Prochiron was revised during Leo’s reign, and that in the second edition of the law book (the result of the revision) several additions were made to the Prochiron, including the final paragraph of its preface with its reference to a compilation of laws in 60 books. In this case, too, this compilation would have to be identified as Leo’s Basilica. Both the proposed dating of the Prochiron to 907 and the assumption of the addition of the final paragraph to the Prochiron preface have proven to be susceptible to criticism. Moreover, the most recent development in this whole issue is the discovery and identification of extensive remains of a compilation of laws in 60 books that must have preceded the Basilica of Leo the Wise. The compilation of laws in 40 books remains an enigma, as no trace of it has yet been found. See the study by Van Bochove under No. [135]. It should be added that the Groningen edition of the Basilica does not take into account consecutive versions, the existence of which can be glimpsed quite clearly. What has been edited by H.J. Scheltema, D. Holwerda and N. van der Wal is in their view the most recent version, viz. the text of Leo’s Basilica to which the scholia were added later.

    1. Van Bochove, ‘Some Byzantine Law Books’ (No. [119] above), 245-247, and 248
    2. Van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica’ (No. [99] above), pp. 267-268, 269-272, 272-277, 277-309, and, finally, 309-317
    3. Van Bochove, ‘The Great Codification’ (No. [7] above), § 1 and § 12
    4. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 27-33, 65-66, 78-80, 98-102, and 132
    5. Signes Codoñer, Estudio (No. [133] above), pp. 224-240, 240-246, and 273-274

    Florilegium Ambrosianum and divisions of the Basilica into four and into six τεύχη

    The Florilegium Ambrosianum is an extensive anthology of fragments originating from nearly all 60 books of what is now known as the text of the Basilica, preserved in the tenth-century scriptura inferior of cod. rescr. Ambros. F 106 sup. The Florilegium is one of the testimonies underlying the Groningen edition of the Basilica cum scholiis. See also Nos. [97] and [98] above.

  • There are reports concerning divisions of the text of the Basilica into four and into six τεύχη, a τεῦχος being a volume consisting of more than one book. Both divisions relate to compilations of laws comprising 60 books. The division into four τεύχη has left traces in cod. Paris. gr. 1357 and especially in notes attached to the tables of contents of the Florilegium Ambrosianum. The division into six τεύχη is referred to in the preface to the Basilica, lines 27-28 (ed. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), p. 22), and in the younger scholia to the Basilica. Recent research has established that the division into four τεύχη precedes the division of the Basilica into six volumes: the division into four τεύχη can only relate to the compilation of laws in sixty books mentioned in the final paragraph of the Prochiron preface.
    1. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), pp. 107-121 [modern Greek: Van Bochove, ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας, pp. 155-176]
    2. Van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica’ (No. [99] above), pp. 287-291, 291-297, and 316-317
    3. Van Bochove, ‘The Great Codification’ (No. [7] above), § 12
    4. C. Ferrini / J. Mercati (edd.), Basilicorum libri LX. Volumen VII: Editionis Basilicorum Heimbachianae supplementum alterum. Reliquias librorum ineditorum ex libro rescripto Ambrosiano, Lipsiae 1897, in particular pp. 1, 5, 10, and 13
    5. N. van der Wal, ‘Spuren einer Einteilung in sechs Bände der Basiliken in den jüngeren Scholien’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 25 (1957), pp. 274-283
    6. N. van der Wal, ‘La tradition des Novelles de Léon le Sage dans le manuscrit palimpseste Ambrosianus F 106 sup.’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 43 (1975), pp. 257-269

    Τὸ πλάτος (τῶν νόμων)

    The phrase τὸ πλάτος (τῶν νόμων) frequently occurs in Byzantine legal texts, the prefaces to the Prochiron and the Eisagoge included. Until now, a systematic and comprehensive study dealing with the expression is sadly still missing. The phrase τὸ πλάτος (τῶν νόμων) would sometimes seem to refer to the Basilica, but other, clearly different texts are indicated as well.

    1. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), pp. 134-139 and 141-150 [modern Greek: Van Bochove, ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας, pp. 194-201 and 203-216]
    2. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 27 and 79
    3. A. Schminck, ‘Ein rechtshistorischer “Traktat” im Cod. Mosq. gr. 445’, Fontes Minores IX (1993), pp. 81-96 (91 note 22)
    4. Signes Codoñer, Estudio (No. [133] above), pp. 246-267 and 273-274

    The Basilica and the Novels of Leo VI the Wise

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Codificatie in Byzantium? Enige opmerkingen over de betekenis van de Novellen van keizer Leo de Wijze’, Groninger Opmerkingen en Mededelingen. Magazijn voor Leerstellige Rechtsvergelijking op Historische Grondslag, XII (1995), pp. 22-37
    2. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), pp. 203-221 [modern Greek: Van Bochove, ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας, pp. 291-315]
    3. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 35-42 passim
    4. M.Th. Fögen, ‘Legislation und Kodifikation des Kaisers Leon VI.’ Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 23-35
    5. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘The Significance of Law and Legislation in the Law Books of the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries’, in A.E. Laiou / D. Simon (eds.), Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth – Twelfth Centuries, (Proceedings of the Symposium on Law and Society in Byzantium, 9th – 12th Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks, May 1-3, 1992), Washington, D.C. 1994, pp. 71-91 passim (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 183-199 passim)
    6. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘The Novels of Leo and the Decisions of Justinian’, in Sp. Troianos (ed.), Analecta Atheniensia ad ius Byzantinum spectantia, I, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, 10), Athen – Komotini 1997, pp. 131-140 passim (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 175-182 passim)
    7. Schminck, ‘“Frömmigkeit ziere das Werk”’ (No. [124] above), passim
    8. J. Signes Codoñer, ‘The Corpus of Leo’s Novels. Some suggestions concerning their date and promulgation’, Subseciva Groningana VIII (2009), pp. 1-33
    9. J. Signes Codoñer, ‘Las Novelas de León VI el Sabio’, in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 267-321

    The Basilica text

    Introducing the Basilica text

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 135-142
    2. Pieler, ‘Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur’ (No. [108] above), pp. 455-457
    3. Pieler, ‘Νομικὴ Φιλολογία’, (No. [109] above), pp. 340-342
    4. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 252-263 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 165-173]
    5. Van der Wal / Lokin, Delineatio (No. [112] above), pp. 81-86, and 133

    Sources of the Basilica text

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ. ICb 2 and the Incorporation of Justinian’s Novels into the Text of the Basilica’, Subseciva Groningana VII (2001), pp. 45-89
    2. Van Bochove, ‘The Great Codification’ (No. [7] above), § 7 and § 8
    3. N. van der Wal, ‘La version florentine de la Collection des 168 Novelles’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 49 (1981), 149-158
    4. N. van der Wal, ‘Der Basilikentext und die griechischen Kommentare des sechsten Jahrhunderts’, in A. Guarino / L. Labruna (edd.), Synteleia Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz, (Biblioteca di Labeo, 2), Napoli 1964, pp. 1158-1165

    Basilica See also No. [70] above.

    1. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), pp. 187-202 [modern Greek: Van Bochove, ΧρονολογώνταςκαίἘξακριβώνοντας, pp. 267-290]
    2. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Οὐ κελεύομεν· συνεκεφαλαιώσαμεν καὶ ῥᾳδίαν ἔντευξιν παρέσχομεν. Some remarks with respect to the nature of the preface to the Basilica’, in Troianos, Analecta Atheniensia (No. [154] above), pp. 155-168
    3. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 33-34
    4. H.J. Scheltema, ‘A propos de la prétendue Préface des Basiliques’, Droits de l’antiquité et sociologie juridique. Mélanges Henri Lévy-Bruhl, (Publications de l’Institut de Droit Romain de l’Université de Paris, 17), Paris 1959, pp. 269-271) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 356-358)
    5. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 17-54 passim, and 132

    Basilica title rubrics

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Ἐπιγραφή. Zur Entstehung der Titelrubriken der Basiliken’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), pp. 59-75

    Indices titulorum of the Basilica. See also Nos. [74] and [75] above.

    1. Van Bochove, ‘Index Titulorum’ (No. [74] above)
    2. Van Bochove, ‘Ἐπιγραφή’ (No. [172] above)
    3. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above)
    4. Van Bochove, ‘Index Titulorum, II’ (No. [75] above)
    5. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Scholia and Index Titulorum. On the relation between the apparatus of scholia in cod. Paris. gr. 1349 and IPc’, Subseciva Groningana VIII (2009), pp. 105-126
    6. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Rubrics, Testimonies and Indices. Arguing pro and contra C. 1,13 as constituent part of the text of the Basilica’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 78 (2010), pp. 351-380
    7. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Working with ICb. Some observations on the present state of the Index Coislinianus as a research tool’, in V.A. Leontaritou / K.A. Bourdara / E.Sp. Papagianni (Hrsg.), Antecessor. Festschrift für Spyros N. Troianos zum 80. Geburtstag / Ἀντικήνσωρ. Τιμητικὸς τόμος Σπύρου Ν. Τρωιάνου γιὰ τὰ ὀγδοηκοστὰ γενέθλιά του, Athen / Αθήνα 2013, pp. 197-216
    8. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Terminus technicus. A note on the handling of technical terms in indices titulorum of the Basilica’, in J. Signes Codoñer / J.-D. Rodríguez Martín (edd.), Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina en fuentes de época macedonia (siglos ix-x d. C.), Seminarios Complutenses de Derecho Romano XXVI (2013), pp. 81-352 (219-232)
    9. Van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica’ (No. [99] above), pp. 268-269 and 298-309
    10. Van Bochove, ‘The Basilica between Quellenforschung and Textual Criticism’ (No. [11] above), pp. 549-569
    11. B.H. Stolte, ‘Papinian on the Road?’, Scripta Classica Israelica XXXIII (2014), pp. 269-274 (272-273)

    Basilica book 1

    In the Groningen edition, the first book of the Basilica is based on testimonies of the text, despite the existence of two strongly divergent versions of this book in two manuscripts: the codd. Coisl. gr. 151 and Paris. gr. 1352. In editing the text of B. 1, H.J. Scheltema and N. van der Wal followed the considerations put forward by Zachariä von Lingenthal in the latter’s study cited below. See also Nos. [71] and [72] above.

    1. Van Bochove, ‘Preluding the Basilica’ (No. [99] above), pp. 298-309 passim
    2. Van Bochove, ‘The Basilica between Quellenforschung and Textual Criticism’ (No. [11] above), pp. 549-569
    3. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 52-54
    4. K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, ‘Beiträge zur Kritik und Restitution der Basiliken’, Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 7e série, XXIII, 6, St.-Pétersbourg 1877, pp. 1-39 (= K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Kleine Schriften zur römischen und byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Sammlung der in Zeitschriften und Serienwerken erschienenen selbständigen Abhand-lungen 1840 - 1894. Band I: 1840 – 1879, (Opuscula. Sammelausgabe seltener und bisher nicht selbständig erschienener wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen, Band IV/1), Leipzig 1973, pp. 575-613)

    Studies relating to the Basilica text in general

    1. J. Beaucamp, ‘Byzance et l’héritage latin: le discours juridique du VIe au Xe siècle’, Ktema 23 (1998), pp. 475-484
    2. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), pp. 232-235 (Index, s.v. Basilica)
    3. Van Bochove, ‘Rubrics, Testimonies and Indices’ (No. [178] above), passim
    4. Van Bochove, ‘The Basilica between Quellenforschung and Textual Criticism’ (No. [11] above), passim
    5. C.A. Bourdara, ‘Les crimes contre l’État selon le droit byzantin’, in Ch. Papastathis (ed.), Byzantine Law. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Jurists Thessaloniki, 10 – 13 December 1998, (Bar Association of Thessaloniki), Thessaloniki 2001, pp. 219-227 passim
    6. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), passim
    7. Δ.Σ. Δελής, ‘Η εμβάσανη ανάκριση στο Βυζάντιο’, ἘπετηρὶςτοῦΚέντρουἘρεύνηςτῆςἹστορίαςτοῦἙλληνικοῦΔικαίου 43 (2011), pp. 93-120
    8. G. Diamantopulos, ΤὸδίκαιοτῆςμνηστείαςκαὶτοῦγάμουστὰΒασιλικά, (Νομοκανονικὰ Ανάλεκτα, 2), Αθήνα 2013
    9. Ν. Εμμανουηλίδης, ΤοδίκαιοτηςταφήςστοΒυζάντιο, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, 3), Αθήνα 1989, pp. 563-566 (Index of sources, s.v. Basilica)
    10. M.Th. Fögen, ‘Reanimation of Roman law in the ninth century: remarks on reasons and results’, in L. Brubaker (ed.), Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive? Papers from the Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1996, (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies. Publications, 5), Aldershot 1998, pp. 11-22
    11. Fontes Minores, Vols. I – XII, Quellenverzeichnis (s.v. Basiliken) of every volume: listings of individual chapters and fragments of the Basilica text discussed or occurring in the relevant volume
    12. F. Goria, Tradizione romana e innovazioni bizantine nel diritto privato dell’Ecloga privata aucta. Diritto matrimoniale, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band ), Frankfurt/M. 1980, pp. 140-141 (Index, s.v. Basilicorum libri)
    13. M.T.G. Humphreys, Law, Power, and Imperial Ideology in the Iconoclast Era, c.680–850, (Oxford Studies in Byzantium), Oxford 2015, p. 309 (Index, s.v. Basilika)
    14. H. de Jong, ‘Some remarks on the (non-)appearance of ἑταιρεία in Byzantine law’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 327-341
    15. H. de Jong, ‘Die actio in duplum (ἡ τοῦ διπλοῦ ἀπαίτησις) bei Sachbeschädigung – Ein Mysterium im byzantinischen Recht’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung 132 (2015), pp. 324-361
    16. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Wills in Byzantine Law’, in Acts of Last Will. First Part: Antiquity, (Transactions of the Jean Bodin Society for Comparative Institutional History, 59), Bruxelles 1992, pp. 163-177 passim (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 225-242 passim
    17. J.H.A Lokin, ‘Reading Basilica cum Scholiis: 11.2.4 and 5’, in I. Piro (ed.), Règle et pratique du droit dans les réalités juridiques de l'antiquité. Atti della 51a Sessione della SIHDA, Crotone-Messina, 16-20 settembre 1997, (Centro Romanistico Internazionale Copanello), Rubbettino 1999, pp. 397-406 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 211-218)
    18. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘From the Greek Basilica Tradition’, in L. de Ligt / J. de Ruiter / E. Slob / J.M. Tevel / M. van de Vrugt / L.C. Winkel (eds.), Viva Vox Iuris Romani. Essays in Honour of Johannes Emil Spruit, (Studia Amstelodamensia. Studies in Ancient Law and Society, Vol. XXXVIII), Amsterdam 2002, pp. 251-256 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 219-224)
    19. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Pactum tacitum in favorem tertii: ad C. 2,3,2’, in Leontaritou / Bourdara / Papagianni, Antecessor / Ἀντικήνσωρ (No. [179] above), pp. 881-893
    20. Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 694-696 (Indice delle fonti, s.v. Basilica)
    21. M. Miglietta, ‘Towards a palingenetic study of Bas. 60,3: The contribution of the Byzantine ἴνδικες. Part I’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 59-97
    22. M. Miglietta, ‘Trasmissione del testo e giurisprudenza bizantina: la tutela pretoria da Dig. 9.2 a Bas. 60.3 – Profili dogmatici’, in Signes Codoñer / Pérez Martín, Textual Transmission in Byzantium, (No. [11] above), pp. 477-511
    23. ᾿Ε.Σπ. Παπαγιάννη, ΤάοἰκονομικάτοῦἔγγαμουκλήρουστόΒυζάντιο, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, Band 1), Ἀθήνα 1986, p. 334 (πίνακας πηγῶν, s.v. B. (= Basilica))
    24. Ἐ.Σπ. Παπαγιάννη, Ἡνομολογίατῶνἐκκλησιαστικῶνδικαστηρίωντῆςβυζαντινῆςκαίμεταβυζαντινῆςπεριόδουσέθέματαπεριουσιακοῦδικαίου. I: Ἐνοχικό δίκαιο – Ἐμπράγματο δίκαιο, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, Band 6), Ἀθήνα 1992, pp. 281-283 (πίνακας πηγῶν, s.v. Βασιλικά)
    25. Ἐ.Σπ. Παπαγιάννη, Ἡνομολογίατῶνἐκκλησιαστικῶνδικαστηρίωντῆςβυζαντινῆςκαίμεταβυζαντινῆςπεριόδουσέθέματαπεριουσιακοῦδικαίου. II: Οἰκογενειακό δίκαιο, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, Band 11), Αθήνα / Κομοτηνή 1997, pp. 235-236 (πίνακας πηγῶν, s.v. Βασιλικά)
    26. Ἐ.Σπ. Παπαγιάννη, Ἡνομολογίατῶνἐκκλησιαστικῶνδικαστηρίωντῆςβυζαντινῆςκαίμεταβυζαντινῆςπεριόδουσέθέματαπεριουσιακοῦδικαίου. III: Κληρονομικό δίκαιο, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, Band 18), Αθήνα / Κομοτηνή 2010, pp. 305-306 (πίνακας πηγῶν, s.v. Βασιλικά)
    27. Δ.Κ. Παπαδάτου, Ἡσυμβιβαστικήἐπίλυσηἰδιωτικῶνδιαφορῶνκατάτήμέσηκαιὕστερηβυζαντινήἐποχή, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, Band 9), Αθήνα / Κομοτηνή 1995, pp. 152-155 (πίνακας πηγῶν, s.v. Βασιλικά)
    28. D. Penna, The Byzantine Imperial Acts to Venice, Pisa and Genoa, 10th-12th Centuries. A Comparative Legal Study, Den Haag 2012, p. 327 (Index of legal sources, s.v. Basilica)
    29. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Les sources du droit de Justinien dans l’empire d’Orient’, Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 4e série, 30 (1952), pp. 1-17 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 269-282)
    30. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Über die Natur der Basiliken’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 23 (1955), pp. 287-310 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 290-306)
    31. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 491-492 (Table des textes cités, s.v. Basiliques, Texte)
    32. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), p. 137 (Quellenverzeichnis, s.v. Basiliken)
    33. A. Schminck, ‘Subsiciva Byzantina. III: Καινοτομία’ Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 83 (2015), pp. 140-144
    34. Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 346-348 (Índice de fuentes, s.v. Basilica, Textus et Scholia)
    35. D. Simon, Untersuchungen zum Justinianischen Zivilprozeß, (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgescichte, 54), München 1969, p. 384 (Quellenverzeichnis, s.v. Basiliken (B., BT)
    36. D. Simon, ‘Balsamon zum Gewohnheitsrecht’, in W.J. Aerts / J.H.A. Lokin / S.L. Radt / N. van der Wal (edd.), ΣΧΟΛΙΑ. Studia ad criticam interpretationemque textuum graecorum et ad historiam iuris graeco-romani pertinentia viro doctissimo D. Holwerda oblata, Groningen 1985, pp. 119-133
    37. B.H. Stolte, ‘Balsamon and the Basilica’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 115-125
    38. B.H. Stolte, ‘Not in the Code, nor in the Basilica: C. 1.1.8 and its translation in the Basilica’, Annali del Seminario Giuridico dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo, LIV (2010-2011), pp. 289-300
    39. B.H. Stolte, ‘A heretical hypothesis: on the beginning of the Codex Justinianus’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 81 (2013), pp. 109-128 (119-125)
    40. B.H. Stolte, ‘Graeca Pandectarum in Basilicis’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 429-441
    41. B.H. Stolte, ‘Papinian on the Road?’ (No. [183] above)
    42. B.H. Stolte, ‘Joannes Leunclavius (1541-1594), Civilian and Byzantinist’ in P.J. du Plessis / J.W. Cairns (eds.), Reassessing Legal Humanism and its Claims: Petere Fontes?, (Edinburgh Studies in Law), Edinburgh 2016, pp. 194-210 (197-204)
    43. Σπ. Τρωιάνου, Ὁ “Ποινάλιος” τοῦἘκλογαδίου. Συμβολὴεἰςτὴνἱστορίαντῆςἐξελίξεωςτοῦποινικοῦδικαίουἀπὸτοῦ Corpus Iuris Civilis μέχριτῶνΒασιλικῶν, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 6), Frankfurt/M. 1980, pp. 123-124 (πίναξ πηγῶν, s.v. Βασιλικά)
    44. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, ‘Τα ναυάγια, η Νεαρά 64 Λέοντος του Σοφού και το κείμενο των Βασιλικών’, ΠειραϊκήΝομολογία 14 (1992), pp. 488-495 (= Σπ. Τρωιάνος, ΟιΝεαρέςΛέοντοςϚ´τουΣοφού. Προλεγόμενα, κείμενο, απόδοση στη νεοελληνική, ευρετήρια και επίμετρο, Αθήνα 2007, pp. 515-526)
    45. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, Κεφάλαιαβυζαντινούποινικούδικαίου, Αθήνα / Κομοτηνή 1996
    46. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, ‘Ὑπῆρχε προστασία τοῦ περιβάλλοντος στὸ Βυζάντιο;’, in Σπ. Τρωιάνος / Κ. Γ. Πιτσάκης, Φυσικὸκαὶδομημένοπεριβάλλονστὶςβυζαντινὲςνομικὲςπηγές, (Ὑλικό, φυσικὸ καὶ πνευματικὸ περιβάλλον στὸν Βυζαντινὸ καὶ Μεταβυζαντινὸ κόσμο, 12), Ἀθήνα 1998, pp. 11-61
    47. Sp. Troianos, Historia et Ius. I: 1969 – 1988; II: 1989 – 2004, Athen 2004[7]
    48. Troianos, Κατευόδιον (No. [95] above), pp. 213-214 (πίνακας πηγών, s.v. Β(ασιλικά))
    49. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, ‘Το έμβρυο στο βυζαντινό δίκαιο’, ἘπετηρὶςτοῦΚέντρουἘρεύνηςτῆςἹστορίαςτοῦἙλληνικοῦΔικαίου 44 (2012-2013), 129-172
    50. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, Εισηγήσειςβυζαντινούδικαίου, Αθήνα 2014, passim
    51. H.E. Troje, Graeca leguntur. Die Aneignung des byzantinischen Rechts und die Enstehung eines humanistischen Corpus iuris civilis in der Jurisprudenz des 16. Jahrhunderts, (Forschungen zur neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte, Band 18), Köln / Wien 1971, p. 352 (Register, s.v. Basiliken)
    52. R.D. Vriesendorp, ‘A Note on Bas. XX,1,55: Mommsen Deceived?’, Subseciva Groningana I (1984), pp. 129-131
    53. N. van der Wal, ‘La constitution de Zénon περὶ καινοτομίων et sa place dans le Code de Justinien’, in E. von Caemmerer / J.H. Kaiser / G. Kegel / W. Mueller-Freienfels / H.J. Wolff (edd.), Ξένιον.Festschrift für P.J. Zepos, I, Athen 1973, pp. 725-734 (729ff.)
    54. M.S. Youni, ‘Adultery in Byzantine Law: Development and Survivals’ in Papastathis, Byzantine Law (No. [192] above), pp. 279-298 passim

    The Basilica scholia

    Introducing the Basilica scholia

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 143-146
    2. Pieler, ‘Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur’ (No. [108] above), pp. 463-464
    3. Pieler, ‘Νομικὴ Φιλολογία’, (No. [109] above), pp. 344-347, and 355-357
    4. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 281-284 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 185-188]
    5. Van der Wal / Lokin, Delineatio (No. [112] above), pp. 90-92, 99-100, 133-134, and 135

    The issue of the older and the younger Basilica scholia

    Regarding the Basilica scholia, there are two separate groups to be distinguished. The first group consists of the so-called older scholia. These scholia are essentially nothing more than extracts and text fragments originating from legal works written by the antecessores and σχολαστικοί in the sixth- and early seventh centuries. It concerns text fragments not adopted into the Basilica text. The older scholia pertain to the same passages from the Digest, the Code, and the Novels as those underlying the Basilica text. Thus, the older scholia refer directly to the various parts of the sixth century legislation of Justinian. The second group consists of the younger scholia. These scholia are explanations and notes specifically written for the Basilica text. The younger scholia allude directly to the text of the Basilica which was compiled in the later ninth century. For the question how to distinguish between the older and the younger Basilica scholia, see Nos. [10] – [16] above.

    There has been much debate regarding the questions when, and with what purpose both groups of scholia were added to the text of the Basilica. The answer to the question ‘when’ varied from the tenth – or even late ninth – to the eleventh and twelfth centuries: it tended to depend on the individual scholar’s point of view whether the older and younger scholia were added to the Basilica text in separate groups at different times, or together at the same time. It has been argued that in the latter case, the specific purpose of the addition of the scholia was to form a continuous commentary, sometimes referred to as a catena or glossa ordinaria, on the Basilica text. It was the German scholar Schminck who argued that the older and the younger scholia always occur together in all Basilica manuscripts – thus, that there would be no Basilica manuscript exclusively containing old scholia –, and that there are no traces to be found of a catena commentary on the Basilica text in the legal literature of the tenth- and the first decades of the eleventh centuries. Thus, the theory according to which the older and the younger scholia would have been added to the Basilica text separately at completely different times would not be very plausible. Rather, the older and numerous younger scholia would have been added together, at the same time, viz. towards to mid-eleventh century, in order to form a continuous commentary on the Basilica text. All this would have happened under the direction of the νομοφύλαξ John Xiphilinos at the school of law initiated by emperor Constantine IX Monomachos. However, recent research has shown that there is more than enough reason to hold on to the traditional point of view that the older and the younger scholia were indeed added to the Basilica text separately at completely different times, if only because there is at least one Basilica manuscript exclusively containing old scholia: cod. Paris. gr. 1349.

    1. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Tenth Century Constantinople: Centre of Legal Learning? Second thoughts concerning the addition of the older scholia to the Basilica text’, Fontes Minores XII (2014), pp. 69-96
    2. Burgmann / Fögen, ‘Florilegium Lesbiacum’ (No. [83] above), pp. 126-127 with reference to older literature in note 54 (= Burgmann, Ausgewählte Aufsätze (No. [83] above), pp. 26-27 with note 54)
    3. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 10-11 and 150-183 (passim, in particular 177-178)
    4. A. Salač, Novella constitutio saec. XI medii quae est de schola iuris Constantinopoli con-stituenda et legum custode creando, a Ioanne Mauropode conscripta, a Constantino IX Monomacho promulgata, (Československá Akademie ved. Kabinet pro studia řecká, římská a latinská. Textus breves graeci et latini, 1), Pragae 1954
    5. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 45-52 with full references, and 1

    Studies relating to the Basilica scholia in general

    1. Van Bochove, To Date and Not to Date (No. [113] above), p. 235 (Index, s.v. Basilica-scholia)
    2. Van Bochove, ‘Scholia and Index Titulorum’ (No. [177] above)
    3. F. Brandsma, ‘Some Basilica Scholia on Digest texts that were not interpolated’, in Piro, Règle et pratique du droit  (No. [204] above), pp. 261-271
    4. F. Brandsma, ‘Gab es eine Form der Ehescheidung bei den Römern seit der lex Iulia de aldulteriis? Einige Bemerkungen zu D. 24,2,9’, in U. Manthe / Sh. Nishimura / M. Igimi (Hrgb.), Aus der Werktstatt römischer Juristen. Vorträge der Europäisch-Ostasiatischen Tagung 2013 in Fukuoka, (Freiburger Rechtsgeschichtliche Abhandlungen. Abteilung A: Abhandlungen zum Römischen Recht und zur Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Neue Folge, Band 75), Berlin 2016, pp. 9-22
    5. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), passim
    6. Fontes Minores, Vols. I – XII, Quellenverzeichnis (s.v. Basilikenscholien) of every volume: listings of individual Basilica scholia discussed or occurring in the relevant volume
    7. L. Gagliardi, ‘Querela inofficiosi testamenti con pluralidad de herederos forzosos (derecho romano y bizantino)’, Seminarios Complutenses de Derecho Romano XXVIII (2015), pp. 381–396
    8. Goria, Tradizione romana e innovazioni bizantine (No. [199] above), pp. 141-142 (Index, s.v. Basilicorum scholia)
    9. H. de Jong, ‘The condictio furtiva incerti (ὁ φούρτιβος κονδικτίκιος ἴγκερτος) from D. 13,1,12,2 in Byzantine Law’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechts-geschichte, romanistische Abteilung 128 (2011), pp. 217-238
    10. H. de Jong, ‘A Byzantine interpretation of D. 12,1,32 and similar Digest fragments’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 80 (2012), pp. 47-76
    11. H. de Jong, ‘Some Remarks on “mandatum incertum” in Byzantine Law’, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3e série, 69 (2012), 283-305
    12. H. de Jong, ‘Ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός (vir bonus) – Eine byzantinische Interpretation des Digesten-fragments 17,1,48,2’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsge-schichte, romanistische Abteilung 130 (2013), pp. 348-372
    13. H. de Jong, ‘The application of natura (φύσις) in Byzantine Law’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 106/2 (2013), pp. 683-712
    14. H. de Jong, ‘Byzantine and the Medieval West Roman tradition. A dual exegesis of consumpta pecunia in D. 12,1’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 81 (2013), 561-571
    15. H. de Jong, ‘The actio institoria utilis and its variants in Byzantine law’, Fontes Minores XII ( 2014), pp. 235-278
    16. De Jong, ‘Some remarks on the (non-)appearance of ἑταιρεία’ (No. [201] above)
    17. De Jong, ‘Die actio in duplum’ (No. [202] above)
    18. Lokin, ‘Wills in Byzantine Law’ (No. [203] above), passim
    19. Lokin, ‘Pactum tacitum in favorem tertii’ (No. [206] above)
    20. Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 696-697 (Indice delle fonti, s.v. Scholia ad Basilica)
    21. F. Lombardo, ‘La regola e l’eccezione: il principio alteri stipulari nemo potest e la cautio iudicatum solvi in età tardoantica’, IURA. Rivista internazionale di diritto romano e antico 61 (2013), pp. 87-135
    22. C. Matheeussen, ‘L’interprétation du gratuité du mandat dans les scholies des Basiliques et la réductibilité du “salaire” du mandataire’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 49-59
    23. M. Miglietta, ‘Note a proposito di una citazione espressa del Codice Teodosiano in Sch. 12 ad Bas. 8.1.15’, Seminarios Complutenses de Derecho Romano XXVIII (2015), pp. 711–726
    24. V.M. Minale, ‘Diritto bizantino ed eresia manichea. Alcune riflessioni su sch. 3 ad Bas. 21.1.45’, Iuris Antiqui Historia. An International Journal of Ancient Law 7 (2015), pp. 129–152
    25. L. Müller, Die Scholien zu Buch 21 Titel 1 der Basiliken, (Neue Kölner Rechts-wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Heft 41), Berlin 1966
    26. Penna, The Byzantine Imperial Acts (No. [215] above), pp. 327-328 (Index of legal sources, s.v. Basilica Scholia)
    27. R. Pesaresi, Studi sull’actio de peculio, Bari 2012
    28. F. Pringsheim, ‘Über die Basiliken-Scholien’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung 80 (1963), pp. 287-341
    29. J.-D. Rodríguez Martín, ‘Lost and Found: On Recovery of Forgotten Classical Institutions in Early Byzantine Legal Texts’, in Signes Codoñer / Pérez Martín, Textual Transmission in Byzantium (No. [11] above), pp. 513-538 passim
    30. Scheltema, ‘Les sources du droit de Justinien’ (No. [216] above)
    31. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Über den Ausdruck “Procanon”’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 23 (1955), pp. 83-92 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 283-289)
    32. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Über die Scholienapparate der Basiliken’, ἈριστοτέλειονΠανεπιστήμιονΘεσσαλονίκης. ἘπιστημονικὴἐπετηρὶςἐκδιδομένηὑπὸτῆςΣχολῆςτῶνΝομικῶνκαὶΟἰκονομικῶνἘπιστημῶν 8 (1960-1963) (ΜνημόσυνονΠερικλέουςΒιζουκίδου), pp. 139-145) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 359-364)
    33. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 492-502 (Table des textes cités, s.v. Basiliques, Scolies)
    34. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), p. 137 (Quellenverzeichnis, s.v. Basiliken-Scholien)
    35. A. Schminck, ‘Subsiciva Byzantina. II: Συμβόλαιον’ Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 83 (2015), pp. 133-139
    36. L. Schmitt, ‘Die Scholien zu Buch XII Titel I der Basiliken’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 24 (1956), pp. 158-178
    37. E. Seidl, ‘Die Basilikenscholien im Tipukeitos’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951), pp. 534-540
    38. Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 346-348 (Índice de fuentes, s.v. Basilica, Textus et Scholia)
    39. Simon, Untersuchungen (No. [222] above), pp. 384-386 (Quellenverzeichnis, s.v. Basiliken (BS)
    40. B.H. Stolte jr., ‘Interpretatio schol(i)astica: Dig. 27,1,14,4’, in Aerts / Lokin / Radt / Van der Wal, ΣΧΟΛΙΑ (No. [223] above), pp. 135-141
    41. B.H. Stolte, ‘Legal Practice in Justinian’s Time: the Scholia on the Basilica’, in Piro, Règle et pratique du droit  (No. [204] above), pp. 525-535
    42. Τρωιάνου, Ὁ “Ποινάλιος” τοῦἘκλογαδίου (No. [230] above), pp. 123-124 (πίναξ πηγῶν, s.v. Βασιλικῶν σχόλια)
    43. Troianos, Historia et Ius (No. [234] above)

    Older scholiasts: see Antecessores and σχολαστικοί

    Younger scholiasts

    Doxapatres

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 145
    2. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), p. 41 with note 140
    3. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 282 and 337 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 186 and 224]

    Garidas

    1. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above), pp. 47-48
    2. M.Th. Fögen, ‘Byzantinische Kommentare zu römischen Aktionen’, Fontes Minores VIII (1990) (Lexica Iuridica Byzantina), pp. 215-248 (244-246)
    3. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 42-43
    4. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 290-291 and 296 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 192, and 193]

    Hagiotheodorites

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 145
    2. D. Penna, ‘Hagiotheodorites: the last antecessor? Some remarks on one of the ‘new’ Basilica scholiasts’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 399-427
    3. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 48-50
    4. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 282-283 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 186-187]

    Kalokyros Sextos

    1. L. Burgmann, ‘Kalokyros “Sextos”. Anmerkungen zu einem Basiliken-scholiasten’, Subseciva Groningana III (1989) (Proceedings of the Symposium on the Occasion of the Completion of a New Edition of the Basilica, Groningen, 1 – 4 June, 1988), pp. 11-21
    2. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 145
    3. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 282 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 186]

    Gregorius (Constantinus) Nicaeus

    1. F. Brandsma, ‘Im Westen nichts Neues. Das Abstraktionsprinzip und das byzantinische Recht’, Subseciva Groningana. VIII (2009), pp. 127-133 (in particular 129-131)
    2. L. Burgmann, ‘Eine byzantinische Juristenkontroverse zum kirchlichen Ver-jährungsprivileg’, in Aerts / Lokin / Radt / Van der Wal, ΣΧΟΛΙΑ (No. [223] above), pp. 11-27
    3. D. Penna, ‘The eleventh-century Byzantine jurist Nicaeus. His scholia on the Basilica laws and his connection to the Meditatio de nudis pactis’, forthcoming in Fontes Minores XIII
    4. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 145
    5. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 40-44
    6. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 282 and 293 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 186 and 194]

    Nomophylax: see John Xiphilinus

    John Xiphilinus

    1. Van Bochove, ‘Tenth Century Constantinople’ (No. [247] above), pp. 70 with note 3, and 84-85
    2. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 150-183 passim
    3. P. Lemerle, “Le gouvernement des philosophes”. Notes et remarques sur l’enseignement, les écoles, la culture, in: P. Lemerle, Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin, No. IV, (Le monde byzantine), Paris 1977, 193-248 (in particular 207-212)
    4. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 144-145
    5. Schminck, Studien (No. [70] above), pp. 29-32, 40-45, and 51
    6. A. Schminck, ‘Zur Einzelgesetzgebung der “makedonischen” Kaiser’, Fontes Minores XI (2005), pp. 269-323 (319-320)
    7. W. Wolska-Conus, ‘Les écoles de Psellos et de Xiphilin sous Constantin IX Monomaque’, Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976), pp. 223-243
    8. W. Wolska-Conus, ‘L’école de droit et l’enseignement du droit à Byzance au XIe siècle: Xiphilin et Psellos’, Travaux et Mémoires 7 (1979), pp. 1-107 (13-31)
    9. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 217, 282-284, and 293-294 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 140, 186-187, and 194-195]

    VII. Legal education and antecessores

    Introducing legal education

    1. Chitwood, Byzantine Legal Culture (No. [114] above), pp. 152-162
    2. G. Falcone, ‘Premessa per uno studio sulla produzione didattica degli antecessores’, in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 147-157
    3. J.H.A. Lokin, Rechtenonderwijs en rechtspraktijk in de zesde eeuw na Christus. Rede uitgesproken bij de openlijke aanvaarding van het ambt van gewoon hoogleraar in het romeinse recht aan de rijksuniversiteit van Groningen op 20 juni 1978, Groningen 1978
    4. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), 118-135
    5. Pieler, ‘Byzantinische Rechtsliteratur’ (No. [108] above), pp. 404-407 and 419-426 [Pieler, ‘Νομικὴ Φιλολογία’ (No. [109] above, pp. 268-271 and 289-298]
    6. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Over de tijdsbepaling der vroeg-Byzantijnsche juristen’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 74 (1956), pp. 277-284 (= Historische Avonden. Vierde bundel geschiedkundige opstellen, uitgegeven door het Historisch Genootschap te Groningen ter gelegenheid van zijn vijfenzeventigjarig bestaan, Groningen 1961, pp. 5-12) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 307-314)
    7. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. XIV. Chronologisches’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 32 (1964), pp. 255-257 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 145-147)
    8. H.J. Scheltema, L’enseignement de droit des antécesseurs, (Byzantina neerlandica. Series B: Studia, I), Leiden 1970 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 58-110)
    9. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 99-108 and 134-139 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 54-59 and 77-81]
    10. Van der Wal / Lokin, Delineatio (No. [112] above), pp. 38-46

    Legal language and termini technici

    The studies listed below do not all directly relate to the Basilica cum scholiis, and the technical terms occurring in them. However, the studies in the present section are important in that they elucidate the way in which the Byzantines themselves dealt with legal termini technici. In this respect, special mention should be made of Volume VIII of the Fontes Minores in its entirety, a thematic issue provided with its own title Lexica Iuridica Byzantina, edited by L. Burgmann, M.Th. Fögen, R. Meijering, and B.H. Stolte, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 17), Frankfurt/M. 1990. The volume is also important for its elaborate and extensive indices. The individual studies published in the volume are listed separately below. The studies appearing in the present section also illustrate the history of the technical terms in the lexicography up to the present day, and are indicative of the problems facing the compilers of a new Byzantine lexicon of purely legal terms. See also the section Subsidia. 5) Lexica above.

    1. F.J. Andrés Santos, ‘Algunos problemas de traducción de la terminología jurídica romana en el imperio bizantino’, Minerva. Revista de Filología Clásica 19 (2006), pp. 285-296
    2. F.J. Andrés Santos, ‘La literatura jurídica bizantina: un epigonismo creativo’, in Á. Sánchez-Ostiz / J.B. Torres Guerra / R. Martínez (edd.), De Grecia a Roma y de Roma a Grecia: un camino de ida y vuelta, Pamplona 2007, pp. 393-405
    3. F.J. Andrés Santos, ‘Le langage juridique byzantin comme phenomene d’accul-turation juridique’, in B. Coppein / F. Stevens, Fred / L. Waelkens (eds.), Modernisme, tradition et acculturation juridique. Actes des Journées inter-nationales de la Société d’Histoire du Droit tenues à Louvain, 28 mai – 1 juin 2008, (Iuris scripta historica (KVAB), 27), Leuven 2011, pp. 51–60
    4. F.J. Andrés Santos, ‘El léxico jurídico-administrativo: algunos ejemplos’, in Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 149-189
    5. Van Bochove, ‘Terminus technicus’ (No. [180] above)
    6. L. Burgmann, ‘Byzantinische Rechtslexika’, Fontes Minores II (1977), pp. 87-146
    7. L. Burgmann, ‘Das Lexikon ἄδετ – ein Theophilosglossar’ Fontes Minores VI (1984), pp. 19-61 (= Burgmann, Ausgewählte Aufsätze (No. [83] above), pp. 105-152)
    8. L. Burgmann, ‘Ἀθανάσιος δίγλωσσος. Latina in der Novellenbearbeitung des Athanasios von Emesa’, Subseciva Groningana IV (1990) (Novella Constitutio. Studies in Honour of Nicolaas van der Wal), pp. 57-82
    9. L. Burgmann, ‘Das Lexikon αὐσηθ’, Fontes Minores VIII (1990) (Lexica Iuridica Byzantina), pp. 249-337
    10. L. Burgmann, ‘Λέξεις ῥωμαικαί. Lateinische Wörter in byzantinischen Rechtstexten’, in W. Hörandner / E. Trapp (Hrsg.), Lexicographica byzantina. Beiträge zum Symposion zur byzantinischen Lexikographie (Wien, 1.-4.3.1989), (Byzantina Vindobonensia, Band XX), Wien 1991, pp. 61-79
    11. F. Castejón Luque, ‘El léxico para instrumentos y notarios en las fuentes jurídicas bizantinas de época macedonia’, in Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 233-271
    12. M.Th. Fögen, ‘Das Lexikon zur Hexabiblos aucta’, Fontes Minores VIII (1990) (Lexica Iuridica Byzantina), pp. 153-214
    13. Fögen, ‘Byzantinische Kommentare (No. [299] above), passim
    14. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Decisio as a Terminus Technicus’, Subseciva Groningana V (1992), pp. 21-31 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 163-173)
    15. C.M. Mazzucchi, ‘Il contesto culturale e linguistico. Introduzione al lessico giuridico greco’ in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 71-78
    16. R. Meijering, ‘῾Ρωμαϊκαὶ ἀγωγαί. Two Byzantine Treatises on Legal Actions’, Fontes Minores VIII (1990) (Lexica Iuridica Byzantina), pp. 1-152
    17. M. Miglietta, ‘Trasmissione del testo e giurisprudenza bizantina: la tutela pretoria da Dig. 9.2 a Bas. 60.3 – Profili lessicali’, in Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 273-326
    18. J.-D. Rodríguez Martín, ‘El campo semántico de cvlpa en las fuentes jurídicas bizantinas: cuestiones de lexicografía jurídica’, in Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 191-217
    19. J. Signes Codoñer, ‘El léxico jurídico griego desde Justiniano hasta hoy’, in Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 83-123
    20. J. Signes Codoñer, ‘Problemas metodológicos en la confección de un diccionario jurídico bizantino a partir del Procheiron, la Eisagoge y las Novelas de León VI’, in Signes Codoñer / Rodríguez Martín, Estudios de lexicografía jurídica bizantina (No. [180] above), pp. 125-147
    21. B.H. Stolte, ‘The Lexicon Μαγκίπιουν’, Fontes Minores VIII (1990) (Lexica Iuridica Byzantina), pp. 339-380
    22. Stolte, ‘Further to understanding the marginal gloss’ (No. [15] above)
    23. B.H. Stolte, ‘Ἀγωγή antistricta? Bemerkungen anläßlich eines Fragments eines palimpsestierten Digestenkommentars’, in Leontaritou / Bourdara / Papagianni, Antecessor / Ἀντικήνσωρ (No. [179] above), pp. 1661-1665
    24. Sp. Troianos, ‘Römisches Recht und byzantinisches Recht. Juristische Kuriosa bei den “Exhellenismoi”’, in Papastathis, Byzantine Law (No. [192] above), pp. 15-20
    25. Σπ. Τρωιάνος, Ηελληνικήνομικήγλώσσα. ΓένεσηκαιμορφολογικήεξέλιξητηςνομικήςορολογίαςστηρωμαϊκήΑνατολή, Αθήνα – Κομοτηνή 2000
    26. N. van der Wal, ‘Die Schreibweise der dem Lateinischen entlehnten Fachworte in der frühbyzantinischen Juristensprache’, Scriptorium 37 (1983), pp. 29-53
    27. N. van der Wal, ‘Πράττειν, πραττόμενος und πρᾶξις als Fachworte im frühbyzan-tinischen Rechtsunterricht’, Subseciva Groningana I (1984), pp. 93-127
    28. N. van der Wal, ‘Problèmes linguistiques rencontrés par les juristes byzantins’, in M. Gosman / J. van Os (edd.), Non Nova, Sed Nove. Mélanges de civilisation médiévale dédiés à Willem Noomen, (Mediaevalia Groningana, V), Groningen 1984, pp. 279-283
    29. N. van der Wal. ‘Les termes techniques grecs dans la langue des juristes byzantins’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), pp. 127-141
    30. N. van der Wal, ‘Opuscula varii argumenti. II: Nur im Griechischen verwendete lateinische Fachworte?’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), pp. 147-149
    31. N. van der Wal, ‘Die Unterschiede zwischen der griechischen Gesetzessprache des sechsten Jahrhunderts und der Sprache der Schuljuristen’, Subseciva Groningana VIII (2009), pp. 161-165
    32. Van der Wal, ‘Ἀνάγνωσμα yet again’ (No. [16] above)

    Κατὰ πόδας and Authenticum

    1) The κατὰ πόδας is not exactly a Greek translation of the Latin text of the Justinian Code, but rather some sort of glossary, a verbatim Greek rendering, in the manuscripts originally written between the lines of the Latin text of the Code, in this way that each Latin word corresponded with a Greek equivalent – or sometimes even two – written directly above it. The κατὰ πόδας was used by the antecessor Thalelaeus (see Nos. [] – [] below) as an auxiliary in his lectures on the Code. Extensive fragments of the κατὰ πόδας have been transmitted via the older Basilica scholia.

    2) The Authenticum is the mirror image of the Greek κατὰ πόδας of the Justinian Code. In essence, it is a Latin κατὰ πόδας of the Greek Novels of Justinian. The origin of the Authenticum lies in a bilingual collection of Novels: the Latin κατὰ πόδας was written between the lines of the Greek original, in such a way that every Latin word corresponded exactly with the Greek word right below it. The antecessor Julianus (see Nos. [442] – [451] below) used the Authenticum as an auxiliary in his Latin course on the Justinian Novels. At a moment which can no longer be specified, the Authenticum was detached from its original: scribes started to copy only the Latin text, which was subsequently handed down independently.

    1) Κατὰ πόδας

    1. D. Holwerda, ‘Le Code de Justinien et sa traduction grecque. La mise en page du texte du Code et de sa traduction κατὰ πόδας’, Classica et Mediaevalia 23 (1962), pp. 274-292 (= J.H.A. Lokin / S.L. Radt / B.H. Stolte (Hrsg.), Exempla Philologica. Vier Aufsätze von D. Holwerda, Groningen 2000, pp. 1-15)
    2. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 132
    3. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. IX. Das Kata Podas’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschie-denis 31 (1963), pp. 99-100 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 130-131)
    4. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 32-40 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 81-87)
    5. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Das Kommentarverbot Justinians’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 45 (1977), pp. 307-331(324-325) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 403-428 (422-423))
    6. S. Sciortino, ‘Sul rapporto tra il katà pódas e le traduzioni letterali di Taleleo dei rescritti in latino del Codex’, in C. Cascione / C. Masi Doria / G.D. Merola (a cura di), Modelli di un multiculturalismo giuridico. Il bilinguismo nel mondo antico. Diritto, prassi, insegnamento, Tomo II, ([Pubblicazioni del dipartimento di diritto romano, storia e teoria del diritto “F. De Martino” dell’università degli studi di Napoli “Federico II”, XXXVIII/2], Napoli 2013, pp. 741-758
    7. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), p. 473 (Index, s.v. Κατά πόδα ερμηνεία) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, p. 330 (Index, s.v. Katà póda)]
    8. N. van der Wal, ‘La relation entre le “κατὰ πόδας” et le commentaire du Code Justinien de Thalélée’, Revue historique de droit français et étranger 30 (1952), 546-552
    9. Van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs (No. [5] above), pp. 49-63 and 80-104

    2) Authenticum

    1. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above), pp. 58-59
    2. D. Holwerda, ‘Fouten in het Authenticum’, in R. Feenstra / J.H.A. Lokin / N. van der Wal (edd.), Flores legum H.J. Scheltema antecessori Groningano oblati, Groningen 1971, pp. 115-119 [German translation of this study: ‘Fehler im Authenticum’ in Lokin / Radt / Stolte, Exempla Philologica (No. [366] above), pp. 17-21]
    3. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. XI. Das Authenticum’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 275-279 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 133-137)
    4. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 52-60 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 95-100)
    5. R. Schöll / G. Kroll (edd.), Novellae, (Corpus iuris civilis, editio stereotypa secunda. Volumen III), Berolini 1895 (many reprints, most recently Cambridge 2014, with online publication December 2014)[8]
    6. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 132-133, 138-139, and 196 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 76 and 80]

    Antecessores and σχολαστικοί

    Justinian’s professors of law, and lawyers working directly after his reign, up to and including the early seventh century.

    Anatolius

    The antecessor Anatolius’ commentary on the Justinian Code – fragments of which survive in the Basilica scholia – has mainly been transmitted via the Excerpta Vaticana et Laurentiana.

    1. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Anatolius Antecessor’, in H. Hokwerda / E.R. Smits / M.M. Woesthuis (eds.), Polyphonia Byzantina. Studies in Honour of Willem J. Aerts, (Mediaevalia Groningana, XIII), Groningen 1993, pp. 97-103 (revised version of this article in Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 81-87; revision based on Lokin / Meijering, The Excerpta (No. [384] below), pp. 24-30))
    2. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 133
    3. J.H.A. Lokin / R. Meijering, Anatolius and the Excerpta Vaticana et Laurentiana. Edition and Commentary, Groningen 1999
    4. J.H.A. Lokin / R. Meijering, The Excerpta Vaticana et Laurentiana, in Lokin / Meijering, Anatolius (No. [383] above), pp. 1-85
    5. R. Meijering, The Text Constitution of VL and the Tradition of the Summa Anatolii, in Lokin / Meijering, Anatolius (No. [383] above), pp. 87-122
    6. R. Meijering, Anatolius and the Codex, in Lokin / Meijering, Anatolius (No. [383] above), pp. 123-273
    7. R. Meijering, ‘Anatolius and Peter of Cardona on Sports and Sportulae: C. 3.10.2 and 3.43.1’ Subseciva Groningana. VI (1999), pp. 77-90
    8. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 511 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Anatolius)
    9. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 137 and 466 (Index, s.v. Ανατόλιος (αντικήνσωρ)) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 79 and 325 (Index, s.v. Anatolio)]
    10. Van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs (No. [5] above), pp. 111-113

    Anonymus (older)

    1. L. Burgmann, ‘Neue Zeugnisse der Digestensumme des Anonymos’, Fontes Minores VII (1986), pp. 101-116 (= Burgmann, Ausgewählte Aufsätze (No. [83] above), pp. 187-207)
    2. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 128-129
    3. Scheltema, ‘Kommentarverbot’ (No. [370] above), pp. 308-315) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 404-412)
    4. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 511 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Anonymus I)
    5. J.M. Sontis, Die Digestensumme des Anonymos. I: Zum Dotalrecht. (Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Basilikentextes), (Heidelberger rechtswissen-schaftliche Abhandlungen, 23), Heidelberg 1937
    6. B.H. Stolte, ‘The Digest Summa of the Anonymus and the Collectio Tripartita, or the Case of the Elusive Anonymi’, Subseciva Groningana II (1985), pp. 47-58
    7. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), p. 466 (Index, s.v. Ανώνυμος (παλαιός) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, p. 334 (Index, s.v. Vecchio Anonimo)]
    8. N. van der Wal, ‘Die Juristennamen in der Digestensumma des Anonymos’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 46 (1978), pp. 147-149

    Anonymus (younger) / Enantiophanes

    1. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above), pp. 50-55 and 74-75
    2. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 129-131
    3. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Über die angebliche Anonymuskatene’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 25 (1957), pp. 284-301 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 315-326)
    4. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 511 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Anonymus II-Enantiophanes)
    5. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), p. 466 (Index, s.v. Ανώνυμος-Εναντιοφανής) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, p. 325 (Index, s.v. Anonimo Enantiofane)]
    6. N. van der Wal, ‘Wer war der “Enantiophanes”?’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschie-denis 48 (1980), pp. 125-136
    7. W.J. Zwalve, ‘Περὶ ᾿Εναντιοφανειῶν’, in Aerts / Lokin / Radt / Van der Wal, ΣΧΟΛΙΑ (No. [223] above), pp. 149-155

    Athanasius

    Athanasius σχολαστικός, lawyer from Emesa (Homs) in Syria, is mainly known through his Syntagma of the Novels of Justinian, which has been transmitted independently from the Basilica scholia.

    1. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above), pp. 48-50 and 61-63
    2. Burgmann, ‘Ἀθανάσιος δίγλωσσος’ (No. [341] above)
    3. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 134
    4. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. XVII. La Collectio Novellarum d’Athanase’, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3e série, 13 (1966), pp. 349-352 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 155-157
    5. Scheltema, ‘Kommentarverbot’ (No. [370] above), pp. 315-317) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 412-414)
    6. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 511 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Athanasius Emesenus)
    7. D. Simon, ‘Zitate im Syntagma des Athanasios’, Fontes Minores VI (1984), pp. 1-18
    8. D. Simon, ‘Einführung in die justinianischen Novellen’, Rechtshistorisches Journal 4 (1985), pp. 122-132
    9. D. Simon, ‘Das Novellenexemplar des Athanasios’, Fontes Minores VII (1986), pp. 117-140
    10. D. Simon, ‘Paratitla Athanasii’, Fontes Minores VII (1986), pp. 141-159
    11. D. Simon / Sp. Troianos, ‘Die Epitome zum Novellensyntagma des Athanasios’ Fontes Minores III (1979), pp. 280-315
    12. D. Simon / Sp. Troianos (Hrsg.), Das Novellensyntagma des Athanasios von Emesa, (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 16), Frankfurt/M. 1989
    13. F. Sitzia, ‘Il Syntagma Novellarum di Atanasio ed il Breviarium Novellarum di Teodoro’, in Prin 2004. “L’esperienza giuridica giustinianea dopo la Compila-zione. Novelle e interpreti”. Esiti di una ricerca, (Università del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche ed Economiche), sine loco, sine dato (2008), pp. 15-24
    14. B.H. Stolte, ‘The Collectio Tripartita and the Epitome Athanasii: problems for an editor’, Subseciva Groningana IV (1990) (Novella Constitutio. Studies in Honour of Nicolaas van der Wal), pp. 221-231
    15. Sp. Troianos, ‘Zum Aufbau des Titels Περὶ διαφόρων ἀναγνωσμάτων im Novellensyntagma des Athanasios’, in L. Burgmann / M.Th. Fögen / A. Schminck (Hrsg.), Cupido legum, Frankfurt/M. 1985, pp. 235-244
    16. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 153-157 and 466 (Index, s.v. Αθανάσιος Εμεσηνός) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 91-94 and 327 (Index, s.v. Atanasio Emesino)]

    Cyrillus

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 128
    2. Scheltema, ‘Kommentarverbot’ (No. [370] above), 308-315) (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 404-412)
    3. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 512 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Cyrillus)
    4. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), p. 473 (Index, s.v. Κύριλλος (νομικός)) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, p. 326 (Index, s.v. Cirillo)]

    Dorotheus

    1. F. Brandsma, ‘An inappropriate use of Novels? On the date of the Digest translation of Dorotheus’, Subseciva Groningana IV (1990), (Novella Constitutio. Studies in Honour of Nicolaas van der Wal), pp. 51-55
    2. F. Brandsma, ‘Enige mededelingen over de ‘interpolatieneigingen’ van een der Digestencompilatoren’, Groninger Opmerkingen en Mededelingen XII (1995), pp. 54-6
    3. F. Brandsma, Dorotheus and His Digest Translation, Groningen 1996
    4. F. Brandsma, ‘Could the interdictum unde vi be brought by a tenant? D. 43,16,18pr. and Dorotheus, a Subsecivum Groninganum’, Subseciva Gronin-gana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 319-326
    5. D. Holwerda, ‘Rührt der Text von PSI 1350 von Dorotheos her?’, Subseciva Groningana V (1992), pp. 33-40 (= Lokin / Radt / Stolte, Exempla Philologica (No. [366] above), pp. 23-30)
    6. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 128
    7. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 512 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Dorotheus)
    8. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 136 and 469 (Index, s.v. Δωρόθεος (αντικήνσωρ)) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 79 and 327 (Index, s.v. Doroteo)]

    Isidorus

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 132
    2. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. VI. Der Digestenkommentar Isidors’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 95-96 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 124-125)
    3. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. VIII. Der Kodexunterricht Isidors’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 98-99 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 128-129)
    4. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 29-30 and 40-42 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 79-80 and 87-88)
    5. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 512 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Isidorus)
    6. D. Simon / A. Siphoniu-Karapa, ‘Eine Fragmentesammlung aus dem Baroccianus 173’, Fontes Minores III (1979), pp. 1-23 (3-11)
    7. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 136, 137 and 472 (Index, s.v. Ισίδωρος (αντικήνσωρ)) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 79 and 329 (Index, s.v. Isidoro)]
    8. Van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs (No. [5] above), pp. 105-110

    Julianus

    The antecessor Julianus is the author of a completely preserved Latin index of Justinian’s Greek Novels, known under the title Juliani Epitome Latina Novellarum Justiniani. Julianus also produced two sets of notes. The first of these is known under the name Scholia anonyma in constitutiones aliquot: it is incomplete. The second – complete – set consists of short comments which are known as Paratitla. The relation between the Scholia and the Paratitla is unclear. See also the section on the Authenticum (Nos. [375] – [380]).

    1. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above), pp. 60-61
    2. Th.E. van Bochove, ‘Paratitla, Xenodochia and Constitutio Leoniana. The antecessor Julian on Justinian’s Nov. 7,1’, in De Ligt / De Ruiter / Slob / Tevel / Van de Vrugt / Winkel, Viva Vox Iuris Romani (No. [205] above), pp. 399-409
    3. G. Haenel (ed.), Iuliani Epitome Latina Novellarum Iustiniani, Lipsiae 1873 (repr. Osnabrück 1965) [second repr. in P. Fiorelli / A.M. Bartoletti Colombo, Iuliani Epitome Latina Novellarum Iustiniani. Secondo l’edizione di Gustavo Hänel e col glossario d’Antonio Agustín, (Legum Iustiniani imperatoris vocabularium), Firenze 1996][9]
    4. W. Kaiser, Die Epitome Iuliani. Beiträge zum römischen Recht im frühen Mittelalter und zum byzantinischen Rechtsunterricht, (Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte, Band 175), Frankfurt/M. 2004
    5. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. XIII. Die Epitome Novellarum Iulians’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 282-284 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 142-144)
    6. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 47-60 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 91-100)
    7. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 513 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Julianus antecessor)
    8. D. Simon / Sp. Troianos / G. Weiß, ‘Zum griechischen Novellenindex des Iulian’, Fontes Minores II (1977), pp. 1-29
    9. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 137-139 and 472 (Index, s.v. Ιουλιανός (αντικήνσωρ)) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 80-81 and 329 (Index, s.v. Giuliano (antecessor))]
    10. N. van der Wal, ‘Die Paratitla zur Epitome Juliani’, Subseciva Groningana II (1985), pp. 93-137

    Kobidas

    1. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 127
    2. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. XV. Kobidas’, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3e série, 13 (1966), pp. 341-343 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 148-150)
    3. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 135 and 170 [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 78 and 104]

    Stephanus

    1. H. de Jong, Stephanus en zijn Digestenonderwijs, (CRBS – Dissertatiereeks), Den Haag 2008
    2. H. de Jong, ‘Stephanus en zijn Digestenonderwijs. Ὁ κέρτος γενικὸς κονδικτίκιος’, in D. Heirbaut / X. Rousseaux / A. Wijffels (eds.), Histoire du droit et de la justice: une nouvelle génération de recherches. Actes des dix-neuvième journées belgo-néerlandaises d’histoire du droit et de la justice (10-11-12 décembre 2008, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve) / Justitie- en rechtsgeschie-denis: een nieuwe onderzoeks-generatie. Akten van het negentiende Belgisch-Nederlands Rechtshistorisch Colloquium (10-11-12 december 2008, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve), Louvain 2009, pp. 177-192
    3. H. de Jong, ‘Stephanus on the condictio de bene depensis (ὁ ἀπὸ καλοῦ δαπανήματος κονδικτίκιος)’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 78 (2010), pp. 15-35
    4. H. de Jong, ‘The Development of Enrichment Liability: Byzantine Law in the Teachings of the Digest of Stephanus’, Fundamina 16,1 (2010), pp. 29-39
    5. H. de Jong, ‘Stephanus on the Condictiones in D. 12,1: A Byzantine Classification’, ἘπετηρὶςτοῦΚέντρουἘρεύνηςτῆςἹστορίαςτοῦἙλληνικοῦΔικαίου 44 (2012), pp. 193-207
    6. De Jong, ‘The application of natura’ (No. [264] above)
    7. De Jong, ‘Byzantine and the Medieval West Roman tradition’ (No. [265] above)
    8. A. Laniado, ‘Belisarius in the City of God. Stephanus Antecessor on three ceremonies in Constantinople and Antioch’, in H. Börm/J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Commutatio et contentio. Studies in the Late Roman, Sasanian, and Early Islamic Near East in memory of Zeev Rubin, Düsseldorf 2010, pp. 273-292
    9. A. Laniado, ‘Stephanus Antecessor, Iamblichus and the Natura Contractus: Law and philosophy in 6th century Byzantium’, in Leontaritou / Bourdara / Papagianni, Antecessor / Ἀντικήνσωρ (No. [179] above), pp. 817-825
    10. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), p. 127
    11. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Über die Werke des Stephanus’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 26 (1958), pp. 5-14 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 331-337)
    12. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. V. Der Digestenunterricht des Stephanus’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 94-95 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 122-123)
    13. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 24-29 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 75-79)
    14. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 135-136 and 479 (Index, s.v. Στέφανος (αντικήνσωρ)) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 78 and 333 (Index, s.v. Stefano (antecessor))]
    15. Van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs (No. [5] above), pp. 117-118 (dealing with Stephanus’ commentary on the Justinian Code)
    16. N. van der Wal, ‘Encore une fois le P. Reinach inv. 2173’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 47 (1979), pp. 275-276

    Thalelaeus. See also the section on the κατὰ πόδας (Nos. [366] – [374] above).

    1. G. Falcone, ‘Una traccia di un commentario scritto di Taleleo alle Institutiones (Cod Laurentianus Gr. LXXX.1, fol. 3)’, Seminarios Complutenses de Derecho Romano XXVII (2014 [2015]), pp. 181–196
    2. F. Goria, ‘Die Codexvorlesungen von Thalelaios über die Rechtsanwälte’, Subseciva Groningana VII (2001), pp. 15-23
    3. F. Goria, ‘Thalelaios und die Rechtsregeln’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 37-57
    4. D. Holwerda, ‘Eine Stileigenheit des Thalelaios?’, Subseciva Groningana I (1984), pp. 11-41
    5. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 131-132
    6. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. VII. Der Kodexunterricht des Thalelaeus’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 97-98 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 126-127)
    7. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 32-40 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 81-87)
    8. Sciortino, ‘Sul rapporto tra il katà pódas e le traduzioni letterali di Taleleo (No. [371] above)
    9. S. Sciortino, ‘La relazione tra il κατὰ πόδας e le traduzioni di Taleleo dei rescritti latini del Codex’, AUPA. Annali del Seminario Giuridico della Università degli Studi di Palermo 56 (2013), pp. 113–157
    10. S. Sciortino, ‘Conjectures regarding Thalelaios’ commentary on the Novus Codex’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 157-185
    11. D. Simon, ‘Aus dem Kodexunterricht des Thalelaios. A: Methode’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung 86 (1969), pp. 334-383
    12. D. Simon, ‘Aus dem Kodexunterricht des Thalelaios. B: Die Heroen’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung 87 (1970), pp. 315-394
    13. D. Simon, ‘Aus dem Kodexunterricht des Thalelaios. C. Interpolationsberichte’, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3e série, 16 (1969), pp. 283-308
    14. D. Simon, ‘Aus dem Kodexunterricht des Thalelaios. D. Divergenzen zwischen Thalelaios-kommentar und Codexüberlieferung’, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 3e série, 17 (1970), pp. 273-311
    15. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 137 and 471 (Index, s.v. Θαλελαίος) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 79 and 333 (Index, s.v. Taleleo)]
    16. Van der Wal, ‘La relation’ (No. [373] above)
    17. Van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs (No. [5] above), pp. 64-79

    Theodorus

    Theodorus σχολαστικός, lawyer from Hermopolis in the Thebaid in Upper-Egypt, is the author of a commentary on the Justinian Code. However, he is chiefly known through his Breviarium of the Novels of Justinian, which has reached the present day in its entirety, independently from the Basilica scholia.

    1. Van Bochove, ‘ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ’ (No. [163] above), pp. 63-72
    2. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 133-134
    3. H.R. Lug, ‘Ein Bruchstück des Codex-Kommentars des Theodoros’, Fontes Minores I (1976), pp. 1-15
    4. G. Matino, ‘Teodoro di Ermopoli ed il commento alle Novelle di Giustiniano’, in Rigo / Babuin / Trizio, Vie per Bisanzio (No. [98] above), pp. 441–453
    5. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Fragmenta Breviarii Codicis a Theodoro Hermopolitano confecti e Synopsi Erotematica collecta’, in W.F. Bakker / A.F. van Gemert / W.J. Aerts (edd.), Studia Byzantina et Neohellenica Neerlandica, (Byzantina Neerlandica, fasc. 3), Leiden 1972, pp. 9-35 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 371-394)
    6. Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), p. 514 (Table des personnes et des noms géographiques, s.v. Theodorus Hermopolita)
    7. Simon / Siphoniu-Karapa, ‘Eine Fragmentesammlung’ (No. [439] above), pp. 11-15
    8. Sitzia, ‘Il Syntagma Novellarum di Atanasio ed il Breviarium Novellarum di Teodoro’ (No. [418] above)
    9. F. Sitzia, ‘Theodorus e l’insegnamento degli σχολαστικοί nella storia del diritto bizantino’, in Lokin / Stolte, Introduzione al diritto bizantino (No. [67] above), pp. 189-237
    10. F. Sitzia, ‘Il Breviarium Novellarum di Teodoro di Ermopoli’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014), (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 187-241
    11. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 153-157 and 471 (Index, s.v. Θεόδωρος Ερμοπολίτης) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 91-94 and 333 (Index, s.v. Teodoro Ermopolita)]
    12. Van der Wal, Les commentaires grecs (No. [5] above), pp. 119-121
    13. N. van der Wal, ‘Opuscula varii argumenti. III: Nov. Just. 159 ausgelegt von Theodorus Hermopolites’, Subseciva Groningana VI (1999), pp. 150-153
    14. C.E. Zachariae (ed.), Ἀνέκδοτα. Theodori scholastici breviarium Novellarum, collectio regularum iuris ex Institutionibus, fragmenta breviarii Codicis a Stephano antecessore compositi, appendix Eclogae, fragmenta epitomae Novellarum graecae ab Anonymo sive Iuliano confectae, fragmenta Novellarum ex variorum commentariis, edicta praefectorum praetorio, Lipsiae 1843 (= Aalen 1969), pp. ix-lxi (prolegomena) and 1-165

    Theophilus

    The antecessor Theophilus is the author of a commentary on the Digest, covering only a limited number of books, numerous fragments of which survive via the Basilica scholia. However, Theophilus is better known through his Paraphrasis Institutionum, the Greek Paraphrase of the Institutes of Justinian, which has survived completely, and independently from the Basilica scholia.[10]

    1. P. Costa, ‘Pecunia constituta: ipotesi interpretative’, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 77 (2011), pp. 129–255
    2. G. Falcone, ‘La formazione del testo della Parafrasi di Teofilo’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 68 (2000), pp. 417-432
    3. G. Falcone, ‘“Theophilus noster”. Zur Benutzung der Theophilos-Paraphrase seitens der humanistischen Jurisprudenz’, Iuris Antiqui Historia. An Inter-national Journal of Ancient Law 2 (2010), pp. 15 –21
    4. G. Falcone, ‘Sull’inquadramento sistematico delle obbligazioni nella Parafrasi di Teofilo (e nelle Istituzioni giustinianee)’, in I. Piro (a cura di), Scritti per Alessandro Corbino, Volume 2, Libellula Edizioni, Tricase 2016, 503-522
    5. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Theophilus antecessor. I: The Codex Messanensis, hodie Kilianus. II: Was Theophilus the author of the Paraphrase?’, Tijdschrift voor Rechts-geschiedenis 44 (1976), pp. 337-344 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 89-97))
    6. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Die Karriere des Theophilos Antecessor. Rang und Titel im Zeitalter Justinians’, Subseciva Groningana I (1984), pp. 43-68 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 99-113))
    7. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Scholion in Theophili Paraphrasin 4.6.2’, in Aerts / Lokin / Radt / Van der Wal, ΣΧΟΛΙΑ (No. [223] above), pp. 75-89 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 115-129))
    8. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Sane uno casu’, in J.A. Ankum / J.E. Spruit / F.B.J. Wubbe (eds.), Satura Roberto Feenstra sexagesimum quintum annum aetatis complenti ab alumnis collegis amicis oblata, Fribourg – Freiburg 1985, pp. 251-271 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 131-149))
    9. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Dormitat bonus Homerus in Inst. 2.7.1’, in J.A. Ankum / R. Feenstra / J.E. Spruit / C.A. Cannata / Y. Le Roy/ P. Weimar (eds.), Mélanges Felix Wubbe offerts par ses collègues et ses amis à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, Fribourg – Freiburg 1993, pp. 295-299 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 151-154))
    10. J.H.A. Lokin, ‘Old questions arising from a new unpublished scholion on Institutes 2.20.6’, in Troianos, Κατευόδιον (No. [95] above), pp. 65-74 (= Lokin, Analecta Groningana (No. [6] above), pp. 155-162))
    11. Lokin / Van Bochove, ‘Compilazione – educazione – purificazione’ (No. [107] above), pp. 122-126
    12. J.H.A. Lokin / R. Meijering / B.H. Stolte / N. van der Wal (edd.), Theophili Antecessoris Paraphrasis Institutionum. With a translation by A.F. Murison, Groningen 2010
    13. R. Meijering, ‘Traces of Byzantine legal literature in Theophilus scholia’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 383-398
    14. M. Miglietta, ‘“Il terzo capo della lex Aquilia e, ora, il secondo”. Considerazioni sul testo del plebiscito aquiliano alla luce della tradizione giuridica bizantina’, AUPA. Annali del Seminario Giuridico della Università degli Studi di Palermo 55 (2012), pp. 403–442
    15. C. Russo Ruggeri, ‘Teofilo e la spes generandi’, IURA. Rivista internazionale di diritto romano e antico 58 (2010), pp. 169-195
    16. C. Russo Ruggeri, ‘Gaio, la parafrasi e le ‘tre anime’ di Teofilo’, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 78 (2012), pp. 197-220
    17. C. Russo Ruggeri, ‘Theophilus and the student publisher: a resolved issue?’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 99-119
    18. A.St. Scarcella, ‘The personality of Theophilus and the sources of the Paraphrase: a contribution’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 121-155
    19. H.J. Scheltema, ‘Subseciva. IV. Die Institutionenparaphrase Theophili’, Tijd-schrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 31 (1963), pp. 92-94 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 119-121)
    20. Scheltema, L’enseignement (No. [331] above), pp. 17-23 and 30-31 (= Scheltema, Opera minora (No. [1] above), pp. 71-75 and 80)
    21. Schminck, ‘Zur Auslassung des 1. Titels der Institutionen-Paraphrase (No. [125] above)
    22. A. Schminck, ‘Subsiciva Byzantina. I: Zur ‘constitutio’ Βασιλικῆς’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 83 (2015), pp. 126-132
    23. B.H. Stolte, ‘Theophilus and the ‘Incorporeal’ Heir’, Fundamina 20/2 (2014), pp. 891-897
    24. S. Tarozzi, ‘Il termine ʻpersonaʼ nelle Istituzioni di Giustiniano e la sua traduzione nella Parafrasi di Teofilo’, Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana. XVIII Convegno internazionale, in onore di Remo Martini, Roma 2012, pp. 55-74
    25. F. Terranova, ‘The ὅρος ἤτοι ἐτυμολογία of testamentum and the problem of sources in the Paraphrase of Theophilus’, Subseciva Groningana IX (2014) (Between Groningen and Palermo), pp. 243-265
    26. Τρωιάνος, Οι πηγές (No. [111] above), pp. 134 and 471 (Index, s.v. Θεόφιλος (αντικήνσωρ) [Italian: Troianos, Le fonti, pp. 77 and 333 (Index, s.v. Teofilo (antecessor)]
    27. R.D. Vriesendorp, ‘Die Paradoxe von Inst. 2,1,40 und 41’, Subseciva Groningana II (1985), pp. 59-91
    28. N. van der Wal, ‘Die Prätoren in Konstantinopel und ein Scholion zur Institutionenparaphrase des Theophilos’, in Aerts / Lokin / Radt / Van der Wal, ΣΧΟΛΙΑ  (No. [223] above), pp. 143-148

    Notes:

    • [1] LSJ online: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj
    • [2] LBG online: https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lbg/#eid=1&context=lsj&login=true. On this lexicon see also http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/lex.htm
    • [3] On the Tractatus de actionibus, cf. now J.-D. Rodríguez Martín, El Tratado De Actionibus y sus Apéndices, (Colección ciencia y pensamiento jurídico, 27), Santiago de Compostela 2016.
    • [4] Regarding the Basilica cum scholiis, the revised edition closely follows the views of the German scholar A. Schminck (see below), and as a result strongly deviates from the original German edition.
    • [5] Regarding the Basilica cum scholiis, Troianos, too, closely follows Schminck’s views. It should be noted that in May 2017, a German translation of Troianos’s monograph saw the light of day: Sp. Troianos, Die Quellen des byzantinischen Rechts, (Übersetzt von D. Simon / S. Neye), De Gruyter, Berlin 2017.
    • [6] For different versions of the Basilica, however, see the section Sixty – forty – sixty books below.
    • [7] These two volumes contain a large number of studies in German, several of which are listed separately in the present bibliography. Many of the individual contributions to the volumes contain references to and discussions of passages from the Basilica text and scholia.
    • [8] Edition of the text of the Authenticum, in the right-hand column of every page, directly opposite the Greek text.
    • [9] This volume lacks Haenel’s critical apparatus, etc., but it includes a very detailed index.
    • [10] In their resp. apparatus of footnotes, the studies by Russo Ruggeri, Scarcella, and Terranova cited below contain extensive bibliographical references to Theophilus and his Paraphrasis Institutionum.
    Forthcoming

    Indices

    This index has been especially created for the Basilica Online. Based on the indices originally prepared by H. J. Scheltema, D. Holwerda, and N. van der Wal, this index collects the references previously spread across all 17 volumes of the Basilica into one consolidated index, with double entries removed and corrections made.

    As with the original indices, this index takes the Corpus Iuris Civilis as its basis, and links the text and scholia of the Basilica to the Corpus, the ultimate source of the Basilica. The index has been divided into four parts, following the four parts of the Corpus Iuris Civilis: Institutiones, Digesta, Codex, and Novellae. The index showing the links between the Basilica and the four constituent parts of the Corpus can be browsed by clicking on the titles here displayed. From these pages, it is possible to browse the index as displayed on the webpage, and clicking on the links under the columns ‘Basilica’ and ‘Scholia’ take you to the referenced book and chapter.