« PreviousContinue »
THE COMMENTARIES OF
AND RULES OF ULPIAN London: C. J. CLAY AND SON, .CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
RULES OF ULPIAN
TRANSLATED WITH NOTES BY
J. T. ABDY, LL.D.
JUDGE OF COUNTY COURTS,
AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY HALL;
BRYAN WALKER, M.A., LL.D.
LAW LECTURER OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE;
AND FORMERLY LAW STUDENT OF TRINITY HALL.
Dixi saepius post scripta geometrarum nihil exstare quod vi ac
THIRD EDITION BY BRYAN WALKER.
EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
(All Rights reserved.]
( S. Law 34
In publishing, at the request of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, a third edition of the Commentaries of Gaius and Rules of Ulpian, I must, first of all, express my deep regret that Dr Abdy, my co-editor in the former editions, is prevented by his increasing professional engagements from rendering me his valuable aid and counsel for this reissue of our work. I have, therefore, to undertake alone the recasting of the book into what will probably be its final form; as the Verona MS. of Gaius has all but perished in yielding up its secrets to the chemicals, employed first by Bekker and Göschen, then by Bluhme of still more potent and damaging kind, and lastly by Studemund; and the discovery of another MS. we can only hope for and hardly expect.
The principal feature, of course, in this edition, is the embodiment of the new readings of Studemund in the text; but reference has also been made to the editions and annotations which have appeared since the publication of Studemund's Apograph in 1874: principally to Goudsmit's Kritische Aanteekeningen op Gajus, published at Leyden, 1875, to Krüger and Studemund's edition of Gaius, Berlin, 1877, with Mommsen's introductory Epistula Critica, to Huschke's edition, Leipzig, 1878, and to Polenaar's, Leyden, 1879.
The translation has been corrected to accord with the revised text, and a few notes have been added, but strictly in accordance with the principle laid down in our first edition, and which I am happy to say has met with favour, that the notes should only be such as are necessary to elucidate the meaning of the writer, and that Gaius himself should be pre