Manuscripta juridica

[Principal Investigator: G. R. Dolezalek]







Notabilia Codicis Justiniani : fragm.

Incipit:

  • In initio facit videre si [and then:] nomen
  • Numquam redeuntibus g
  • Nichil est quod lumine clarior [and then:] prefulgeat quam recta fides in principe

Explicit:

  • recuperatio\ sit\ omnium\

Notabilia Codicis Justiniani ('Flores legum'): fragm., probably parallel to MS Durham, UL, Cosin V.V.9, fol. 40-48. On the left side of pages, red ink lists the titles of Codex Justinianus considered, and brown ink lists the first words of the leges and/or paragraphs for which an argument or a legal maxim shall be memorised. The text of the argument or maxim to be memorised is then written on the right side of pages. The list contains some mistakes which are obviously due to misreadings. This shows that it was not directly written by some scholar or student but rather copied from some model MS. Some arguments have been earmarked by users, in black ink: 'No(ta)' or 'N(ota)'. On fol. 1r much of the ink is worn off. Residues of characters suggest that the list started with an explanation of the first rubric of Codex Justinianus and then went ahead with C.1.1.8.2.

No. of pages: Fol. 1r-v, 49, 48, 50r (flyleaves)

Incipit:

  • (First rubric entirely worn off. Its three summaries read - for C.1.1.1 or C.1.1.8.7:) In initio(?) facit videre(?) si nomen ... ... iudi...
  • (lemma not identified:) Numquam redeuntibus g...
  • (C. 1.1.8.2:) Nichil est quod lumine clarior prefulgeat quam recta fides in principe ... (= verbatim from Justinianic text).

    (The next rubric is worn off:) ... in princ(?)... Nichil est quod magis homini debetur quam ut supreme uoluntatis ... (= again verbatim from Justinianic text); Constantinopo. ... pre(?)legatam ... ; (C.1.2.21.2?) Absurdum est ...

    Much further ahead one can still read the rubrics C. 1.12 'De his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt' and C.1.17 'De veteri iure enucleando'. Fol. 1v starts with C. 1.22 'De defensoribus civitatum' and jumps from there to C.2.1 'De edendo', and the first lex in this rubric is C. 2.1.4 'Qui accusare'. Thereafter C. 2.2, then immediately C. 2. 6. Then follow unclear references - either back to C.1.48 and C.1.50.1, or to some Authentica, or to some oldfashioned manuscript of Decretum Gratiani which still had rubrics lifted from Roman law: 'De officio diversorum iudicum ยง Restituende', and 'De infantibus. Ea quae pater. The list goes ahead with C.2.12, C.2.14, C.2.18, C.2.34, C.2.40, C.2.42, C.2.44, C.2.52, C.2.58, C.3.1.7, C.3.1.13, C.3.11, 3.27.1: 'telo oporteat ut latroni'.

    Fol. 49r continues in this manner: C.3.28 and C.3.29, etc. Of Book 4 only few rubrics appear in the list:, namely rubrics 1 and 5 and 7 and 11-12 and 14 and 16 and 20 and 32. Books 5 and 6 are treated thereafter, and fol. 49v ends with C.6.36.

    Fol. 48r bounces back to C.6.34, continues with C.6.35, C.6.36, C.6.37, and then hops to C.6.40 - etc. Fol. 48v continues, and ends with C.9.16.

    Fol. 50r starts with C.9.18 and C.9.24 and C.9.27. The list then regards various other rubrics from book 9

Explicit:

  • (last item of Book 9 = C.9.51.13.3, 'de sententiam passis':) Tantum ad restitutionem indulgentia valeat quantum ad correctionem ualuit sententia ... omnium sit recuperatio