ned. Justinian's compilers were adding notliing. But win' the sert ile adherence to (jaius for a hook introducing students to law? Why is there no public law? Because public law was not taught in the first N ear? \\ h\' is there no appearance in it of the religious concerns of the da\ ? Its future success would ha\ e been less if it had more reflected Justinian's age, but that could scarcely ha\e been the prime interest of the compilers. 1 wish to stress that the significance of the Institutes would ha\ e been much less if it had reflected the spirit of earl\' B\ zantium. fhe peculiarities of legal development seem to be infinite. 1 would like to interiect another peculiarity in this area, nor just from lustinian's bistitutcs 1.1.4, from the very similar corresponding re.xt in the Digest 1.1.2 from LIpian's teaching book, the histibook 1. 1 prefer to quote the Digest:'' Buhlic law C()\ers rclijjious affairs, tlie priesthood, and offices of state. Private law is tripartite, being derived from principles of natural law, law common to peoples or the particular law of'a state. fhe te.xt is skewed: public law is also tripartite, deriv ing from the same three sources. Ivven more bizarre is the fact that the compilers of the Institutes, as they worked, seem to have had no research tools in front of them except these classical elementarv' books, fhev seem not to have looked at the first fVv/cor writings on the Digest. When the classical elementary works had nothing apropos, the compilers relied on their memories, sometimes w ith disastrous results, fhus, y. 4.6.7 giv es the to the uetio Sereiunu. Both remedies concern real security, but they are very different. Ciontrary function of the uiterdictumSulviununi 24 23 Incidentally, the Institutes' translation by Peter Birks and Grant McLeod is a mistranslation: Justinian's Institutes (Ithaca, 1987), p. 38. 24 D. 43.33
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=